World Bank Document€¦World Bank Document

GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANK

* L W GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT

DESIGN REVIEW AND ADVISORY SERVICES

OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

El 399VOL. 3

APPENDICES

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 1

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized


* v GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF EA PREPARERS



GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



This Overall Environmental Assessment for the GPRDUEP2 Foshan Subproject has beenprepared by the Institute of Environmental Science of Zhongshan University (IESZS) with theassistance of SOGREAH Consultants.

The following persons participated to its preparation:

From the IESZS:

* Wen Yanmao - Professor

* Li Shiyu- Professor

* Wu Renhai- Associate Professor

* Chen Binlu- Associate Professor

* Zheng Xinzhou- Associate Professor

* Wei Xiange - Assistant Professor

* Guang Dongsheng -Professor

* Sun Lianpeng-Vice Professor

* Chen Yujian-Senior Engineer

* Mai Zhiqun- Engineer

* Tang Huijian- Assistant Professor

* Wu Jingyin- Associate Professor

* Li Feng- PhD Candidate

* Qiu Yuan- PhD Candidate

* Yu Guanghui- PhD Candidate

* Xu Caimei- Graduate Student

* Wei Xiaozhe- Graduate Student

* Long Wei-Graduate Student

* Huang Yanyun- Graduate Student

* Ren Lulu- Graduate Student

* Luo Haiping- Graduate Student

* He Shuyou- PhD Candidate

* Zhuang Lei- PhD Candidate

* Liu Heng- Graduate Student

* Zhuang Chuiping- Graduate Student

From SOGREAH Consultants

* Liu Wen, Environmental Specialist

* Bernard Yon, Environmental Expert

* Zhong Yingjun, Research Assistant

* Lao Yanfen, Research Assistant

* Chen Haohui, GIS Specialist

SOGREAH - LWN - NO-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 2





No TITLE AUTHOR DATE

1 Pearl River Delta Regional Environmental Mott MacDonald April 2000Management Project

2 Pearl River Delta Urban Environment Project CHREOD December 2001Technical Assistance on Project FrameworkDevelopment - Inception Report

3 Pearl River Delta Urban Environment Project CHREOD May 2002Technical Assistance on Project FrameworkDevelopment - Situational Analysis Report

4 Pearl River Estuary Pollution Project, Summary Hong Kong University of December 2001Report Science and Technology

5 2001-2006 Cleaning and Protection Plan of Foshan Environmental November 2001Water-body in Foshan (In Chinese) Protection Bureau

6 Pearl River Delta Urban Environment Project, Chreod Ltd. September 2002Strategic Options Report

7 Combination of Strategic Plans of Guangdong Provincial Sept. 2002Environmental Protection in Guangdong Environmental ProtectionProvince (In Chinese) Bureau

8 Measuring Economic Benefits for Water R.A. Young, World Bank Tech. Sept 1996Investments and Policies Paper No. 338

9 Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard(UDC628.39:628.54/GB 8978-88)

10 Chinese Drinking Water Standards GB5749 1985

11 Clear Water Blue Skies World Bank Sept 1997

12 The State of the Environment in China 1998 SEPA (on UNDP Web site)

13 Environment Assessment Source Book The World Bank 1991

14 The Pearl River Delta Megalopolis: CHREOD November 2002Development Trends and Key Priorities.Summary Final Report

15 Water Law of P.R.C. Xinhua News Agency August 29, 2002

16 FoShan Yearbook Guangdong People Published 2001edition

17 Private Participation in infrastructure in China IFC October 2001

18 Technical Guidance manual for Developing United State EPA March 1997Total maximum Daily Loads

19 Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Metcaff & Eddy 1991Reuse, 3rd Edition

20 Industrial Water Pollution Control, 3rd Edition W.Wesley Eckenfelder, Jr. July, 2001

21 New Wastewater Treatment Technology: Sun Liping, etc. 2001samples for calculation and design (In Chinese)

22 Engineering Appraisal (in Chinese) Liu Zhongyin August 2002

SOGREAH - LWN - ND-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 4






23 Engineering Project Management, 2nd Edition N.J. Smith 2002

24 Water treatment handbook, sixth edition Degremont 1991

25 Control standards for pollutants in sludge fromagricultural use, P.R. China, GB 4284 - 84

26 GD Pearl River Delta Urban Environment Sogreah Oct. 2002Project - Design Review & Advisory Services -Inception Report

27 Mathematical Problems in Environmental Alexandre Em / Liu Weiping July 2002Science and Engineering

28 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Erc Guibelin - OTV Feb. 2003

29 Introduction to Urban Geological Investigation In Duan Weiwu, Guangzhou 2002Coastal Area of East China Marine Geological Survey,

MGMR

30 Bridging the Water Divide SUEZ 2003

31 Country Report of the P.R.C. Chinese Ministry of Water March 2003Resources

32 Report of the World Panel on Financing Water Report written by James March 2003Infrastructure Winpenny

33 Disbursement Handbook World Bank, Washington, D.C. 2001

34 Private Participation in infrastructure in China The World Bank December 2002

35 Analysis of the Cost Difference of Bank-Loaned The World Bank July 2002Urban Projects in China

36 GD DRA - Institutional Reform Report SOGREAH August 2003

37 Environmental Assessment forTai Basin Urban Environmental Hydraulic Nov. 2003Environment Project (Final Report) Institute of Hohai University

38 Tianjin Second WB Financed Urban Urban Ti anj in Academy of July 2002Environment and Development Project Environmental ScienceDrainage Component Environmental ImpactReport

39 Guangdong Pearl River Delta Urban SOGREAH Nov. 2003Environmental Project- EnvironmentalAssessment Report - overall EA for wastewatercomponents

40 A Plain English Guide to EPA Part 503 Biosolids U.S. Environmental Protection Sep. 1994

Rule Agency

41 EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management U.S. Environmental Protection Apr. 1998

Strategy Agency

Pearl River Delta Environmental Protection Guangdong Provincial September, 200442 Strategic Plan (2004-2020) Govemment43 Guangdong Pearl River Clean-Up Action Plan Guangdong Provincial December 2002

Environmental ProtectionBureau

Guangdong Surface Water Functioning Zone Guangdong Provincial November, 1999Planning (Trial Version) [1 999]No.553 Govemment

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 5 .






Guangzhou-Foshan Inter-municipal Water Guangdong Provincial June, 200345 Pollution Control Action Plan [2003] No.132 Environmental Protection

BureauFoshan City Development Concept Plan Foshan Municipal Planning March 2003

46 Bureau

47 Foshan City Overall Plan ( 2005 - 2020 ) Foshan Municipal Planning April 2005(Draft Version) Bureau

Foshan Sustainable Development Ecological Foshan Environmental November 200348 Environmental Plan Protection Bureau

Foshan Waterway Shining Project- Land Use Foshan Environmental December 2004and Landscape Plan Protection Bureau

50 Research Report of Fenjiang River Banks Foshan Environmental June 2000Improvement Planning Protection Bureau

Foshan Urban PlanningDesign and SurveyingResearch Institute

Guangdong Foshan River systems planning Foshan Hydraulic Bureau August 200051 report

2 Foshan Pearl River Clean-up Action Plan Foshan Municipal Government April2003[2003] No. 39 eEnvironmental Assessment Technical SEPA 1993

53 Guidelines-General Guidelines, Surface water,air quality (HJ/T2.1-2.3-93)Environmental Assessment Technical SEPA 1995Guidelines -acoustic Environment (HJ/T2.4-1995)Environmental Assessment Technical SEPA 1997Guidelines-non-pollution ecological impact(HJ/T19-1997)

Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Inner SEPA 200156 city navigational project (JT227-2001)57 Water and Soil Conservation regulation SEPA 1996

(GB/T16453.1-16453.6-1996)Water and Soil Conservation technical SEPA 1998

58 standards for development project (SL204-98)Environmental Assessment Guidelines for SEPA 1988

59 hydraulics and hydro-power projects (trialversion) (SDJ302-88)Foshan Waterway Sediment Dredging and China Northwest Municipal January 2005

60 Disposal Project-Project Proposal Engineering Design andResearch Institute

Foshan Waterway Sediment Dredging and China Northwest Municipal August 200561 Disposal Project-Feasibility Study Report Engineering Design and

Research InstituteFoshan Waterway Sediment Dredging and Institute of Environmental May 2005

62 Disposal Project-TOR of Environmental Science of ZhongshanAssessment UniversityReport of Pollution Sources Survey along Foshan University February 2005

63 Foshan Waterway Foshan EnvironmentalProtection Bureau

Foshan Fenjiang River Bank Improvements China Northwest Municipal February 200564 Project-Project Proposal Engineering Design and

Research InstituteFoshan Hydraulic andHydropower Structure DesignLTD.Co

65 Foshan Fenjiang River Bank Improvements China Northwest Municipal December 2005Project-Feasibility Study Report Engineering Design and

Research InstituteFoshan Hydraulic andHydropower Structure DesignLTD.Co



, .0 . GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



APPENDIX 3

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & EMISSION STANDARDS IN PRC

SOGREAH - LWN - NO-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 8 ,* , k





1. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS

1.1. ENVIRONMENTAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Environmental Air Quality Standard (GB3095-1996) with regulation GB3095-96 for Fluoride andstandard for maximum concentration of Chlorine from Industry Designing Sanitary Standards(TJ36-1979).

ENVIRONMENTAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Concentration limitsPollutants 1 hourly Daily Yearly Source of standards and units

average average average

SO2 0.50 0.15 0.06(GB3095-1996)

Nox 0.15 0.10 0.05(mg/Nm

3)TSP 0.30 0.20

F- 7 20 (GB3095-1996) (pg/m3)

Cl2 0.10* 0.03 (TJ36-79)(mg/Nm3 )

1.2. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CROPS

Standards for the Protection of Crops (GB9173-88) set the maximum concentration of some airpollutants in order to preserve the safe consumption of crops..

AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR PROTECTING CROPS

Average Daily

Pollutants Sensibility concentration veraver Any time Cropsin growing cocnratio m rpseason n

Winter wheat, spring wheat, barley,Sensitive crop 0.05 0.15 0.50 soybean, ginger, spinach, cabbage,

S02 and so on

(mg/m3) Medium 0.08 0.25 0.70 Rice, corn, cotton, tobacco, tomato,sensitive crop broomcorn, etc.

Insensitive crop 0.12 0.30 0.80 Horsebean, , taro, strawberry, etc.

Sensitive crop 1.0 5.0 Winter wheat, earthnut, sugarcane, apple, peach, pear, etc.

NO, Middling 2.0 10.0 Barley, rice, corn, soybean,

(mg/dm2d) sensitive crop broomcorn, cabbage, etc.

Insensitive crop 4.5 15.0 Cotton, tea, helianthus, eggplant,capsicum, potato, etc.

1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATER

Surface Water Quality Standards (GB3838-88) are presented in the following table. Someparameters not covered by this standard adopt the Class I of the Fishery Water Quality Standards(GB1 1607-89) and of the Waste Water Comprehensive Emission Standards (GB8978-1996).






ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS OF SURFACE WATER (GB3838-2002) UNIT: MG/L (EXCLUDING PH)

Ref Pollutants Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V

1 pH 6to9 6to9 6to9 6to9 6to9

2 DO> 7.5 6 5 3 2(or 90% sat)

3 COD Mfl• 2 4 6 10 15

4 CODc,!s 15 15 20 30 40

5 BOD5s 3 3 4 6 10

6 N-NH3< 0.015 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

7 Total phosphorus (P) S 0.02 (0.01)' 0.1 (0.025)' 0.2 (0.05) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2)*

8 Total Nitrogen (N) s 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

9 Copper (Cu)•s 0.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

10 Zinc (Zn):S 0.05 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.011 Fluoride (F)!S 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5

12 Selenium (Se) S 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

13 Arsenic (As) S 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1

14 Mercury (Hg) S 0.00005 0.00005 0.0001 0.001 0.001

15 Cadmium (Cd) S 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.01

16 Chromium (Cr6t) S 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1

17 Total lead (Pb) S 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.1

18 Total cyanide (CN-) s 0.005 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2

19 Volatile phenol s 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.01 0.1

20 Oil < 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.5 1.0

21 Anionic detergent S 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

22 Sulphide S 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 1.0

23 Coli forms (number/L) s 200 2000 10,000 20,000 40,000

*Value within bracket for lakes and reservoirs*Fishery water quality standards, ** Class 1 of Waster water comprehensive emission standards

1.4. DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Drinking Water Quality Standards GJ3020-1993 is presented in the following table.

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OF DRINKING WATER

Ref Parameters Limits for Class 2

1 Colour no obvious colour

2 Turbidity

3 Smell and taste No obvious smell and taste

4 pH value 6.5 to 8.5

5 Total hardness (by CaCO3) (mg/L) <=450

6 Dissolved Fe" (mg/L) <=0.5

7 Manganese (mg/L) <-0.1

8 Copper (mg/L) <=1.0

9 Zinc (mg/L) <=1.0

10 Volatile hydroxybenzene (by phenol) (mg/L) <=0.004

11 Anion synthetic detergent (mg/L) <=0.3

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL2006 PAGE10 ,





Ref Parameters Limits for Class 2

12 Sulfate (mg/L) <250

13 Chloride (mg/L) <250

14 DTS (mg/L) <1000

15 Fluoride (mg/L) <=1.0

16 Cyanide (mg/L) <=0.05

17 Arsenic (mg/L) <=0.05

18 Selenium (mg/L) <=0.01

19 Hg (mg/L) <=0.001

20 cadmium (mg/L) <=0.01

21 chrome (+6) (mg/L) <=0.05

22 Pb (mg/L) <=0.07

23 Ag (mg/L) <=0.05

24 Beryllium (mg/L) <=0.0002

25 N-NH3 (mg/L) <=1.0

26 Nitrate (by Nitrogen) (mg/L) <=20

27 COD (KMnO4) (mg/L) <=6

28 Benzene (pg/L) <=0.01

29 DDT (pg/L) <=1

30 BHC (pg/L) <=5

31 BaiJunqing (mg/L) <=0.01

32 Total coli form group (no./L) <=10000

33 Total a radioactivity (Bq/L) <=0.1

34 Total i radioactivity (Bq/L) <=1

1.5. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR GROUND WATER

Ground Water Quality Standards GB/T14848-1993 is presented in following table.

QUALITY STANDARDS FOR GROUND WATER

Rf |Parameter Standvalre Class Is Class II Class IlIl Class IV Class V

Color <=5 <=5 <=15 <=25 >25

2 Smell and taste non non non non yes

3 turbidity <3 <=3 <=3 <=10 >10

Material can be seen by non non non non yeseyes

5.5 to 6.55 pH 6.5 to 8.5 <5.5,>9

6.5 to 9

Total6 hardness(byCaCO3)(mg/L <=150 <=300 <=450 <=550 >550






Ref Parameter | Standard Class I Class II Class IlIl Class IV Class V

7 TDS (mg/L) <=300 <=500 <=1000 <=2000 >2000

8 Sulfate(mg/L) <=50 <=150 <=250 <=350 >350

9 Chloride(mg/L) <=50 <=150 <=250 <=350 >350

10 Fe (mg/L) <=0.1 <=0.2 <=0.3 <=1.5 >1.5

11 Mn (mg/L) <=0.05 <=0.05 <=0.1 <=1.0 >1.0

12 Cu(mg/L) <=0.01 <=0.05 <=1.0 <=1.5 >1.5

13 Zn (mg/L) <=0.05 <=0.5 <=1.0 <=5.0 >5.0

14 Mo (mg/L) <=0.001 <=0.01 <=0.1 <=0.5 >0.5

15 Co (mg/L) <=0.005 <=0.05 <=0.05 <=1.0 >1.0

16 Volatile hydroxybenzene <=0.001 <=0.001 <=0.002 <=0.01 >0.01(by phenol) (mg/L) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

17 Anion synthetic detergen Can not be <=0.1 <=0.3 <=0.3 >0.3(mg/L) inspected

18 Permanganate index <=1.0 <=2.0 <=3.0 <=10 >10(m gIL)__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

19 Nitrate (by N) (mg/L) <=2.0 <=5.0 <=20 <=30 >30

20 nitrite (by N)(mg/L) <=0.001 <=0.01 <=0.02 <=0.1 >0.1

21 N-NH3 (mg/L) <=0.02 <=0.02 <=0.2 <=0.5 >0.5

22 Fluoride (mg/L) <=1.0 <=1.0 <=1.0 <=2.0 >2.0

23 Iodide (mg/L) <=0.1 <=0.1 <=0.2 <=1.0 >1.0

24 Cyanide (mg/L) <=0.001 <=0.01 <=0.05 <=0.1 >0.1

25 Hg (mg/L) <=0.00005 <=0.0005 <=0.001 <=0.001 >0.001

26 As (mg/L) <=0.005 <=0.01 <=0.05 <=0.05 >0.05

27 Se (mg/L) <=0.01 <=0.01 <=0.01 <=0.1 >0.1

28 Cd (mg/L) <=0.0001 <=0.001 <=0.01 <=0.01 >0.01

29 Cr(+6) (mg/L) <=0.005 <=0.01 <=0.05 <=0.1 >0.1

30 Pb (mg/L) <=0.005 <=0.01 <=0.05 <=0.1 >0.1

31 Be (mg/L) <=0.00002 <=0.0001 <=0.0002 <=0.001 >0.001

32 Ba (mg/L) <=0.01 <=0.1 <=1.0 <-4.0 >4.0

33 Ni (mg/L) <=0.005 <=0.05 <=0.05 <=0.1 >0.1

34 DDT(pg/L) No inspected <=0.005 <=1.0 <=1.0 >1.0

35 BHC(pg/L) <=0.005 <=0.05 <=5.0 <=5.0 >5.0

36 Total coliform group -3.0 <3.0 <3.0 -100 >100(no./L) <30=. <30=0__37 Total number of bacteri <=100 <=100 <=100 <=1000 >1000

(no.IL) _ _ _ _ _ _

38 Total a radioactivit <=0.1 <=0.1 <=0.1 >0.1 >0.1(BqIL)

39 Total 0 radioactivi -O.1 <=1.0 <=1.0 >1.0 >1.0

SOGREAH - LWN - N-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE12





1.6. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR NOISE

Class Two standard of Urban Area Environmental Noise Standards GB3096-1995, applies toresidential, commercial and industrial mixed area.

NOISE STANDARDS OF URBAN AREA

Types Day Unit; [Leq[dB(A)] Night [Unit; Leq[dB(A)]

0 50 45

1 55 45

2 60 50

3 65 55

4 70 55

1.7. ENVIRONMENTAL VIBRATION STANDARDS

Environmental vibration adopts Urban Area Environmental Vibration Standards (GB10070-88),which applies to mixed area and commercial center area: day 75dB(A), night 72dB(A).






2. EMISSION STANDARDS

2.1. WASTE WATER

Waste water treatment plant effluents must conform to the Comprehensive Emission Standards ofWaste Water (GB8978-1996), as presented below.

COMPREHENSIVE EMISSION STANDARDS OF WASTE WATER (UNIT MGIL EXCEPT PH)

Ref. Pollutant Class One Class Three

1 PH 6to9 6to9

2 SS 70 400

3 CODCr 100 500

4 BOD5 20 300

5 Oil 5 20

6 P 0.1 0.3

7 N-NH3 15

8 Volatile hydroxybenzene 0.5 2.0

9 Sulfide 1.0 1.0

10 Fluoride 10 20

11 Total Cu 0.5 2.0

12 Total Zn 2.0 5.0

13 Total Mn 2.0 5.0

14 Total Hg^ 0.05 0.05

15 Total Cd^ 0.1 0.1

16 Total Cr* 1.5 1.5

17 Cr6S* 0.5 0.5

18 Total As* 0.5 0.5

Adopts maximum acceptable emission concentration






2.2. EXHAUST GAS

Exhaust gas adopts Comprehensive Emission Standards of Air Pollutant (GB16297-1996)

Limited Values of Air Pollutant from New Source (Unit; mg/m3 )

Ref Pollutant Maximum acceptable Controlling value to in-organizedemission concentration emission

1 So2 Beyond boundary; 0.40

2 TSP 120 (others) Beyond boundary; 1.0

3 NO, 240 (others) Beyond boundary; 0.12

4 Cl2 65 Beyond boundary; 0.40

5 F- 9.0 (others) Beyond boundary; 20(pg/m3)

2.3. NOISE

Construction noise adopts Limiting Values in Construction Area (GB12523-90) standards.

NOISE LIMITING VALUES IN CONSTRUCTION AREA UNIT: LEQ(DB(A))

Limiting valuesConstruction period Main noise sources

Day Night

Cubic meter of earth Bulldozer, grab, loading truck 75 55and stone

Piling Various pile driver 85 Ban

Construction Concrete mixer, vibrating tamper, 70 55electrical saw, etc.

Fitting Crane, elevator, etc 65 55

oOo

SOGREAH - LWN - ND-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 15


, i GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



APPENDIX 4

WATER QUALITY DATA

IOGREAH - LWN - N~-235OO67 APRIL 2006 PAGE 16

SOGREAH -LWN- N=-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 16 , i I fI





Routine Water Quality Monitoring Results of Foshan Waterway (2002)

Section Statistical indexes TC) pH DO CODmn CODCr BOO NH,N TP Cu Zn Fluoride Se As Hg Cd Cr Pb Cyanide Phenol Oil LAS Sulfide FeralLo

Number of sample 24 24 24 24 / 24 24 I _ / I 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 I

Maximum 28.2 7.86 0.65 4.7 I 4.88 5.82 I I / / 0.0130 Y 0.0003 0.037 0.092 Y 0.004 2.30 _

Luosha Minimum 14.1 6.87 8.62 1.5 I 0.40 0.02 I Y Y Y 0.005 Y Y Y Y

Average 21.1 7.18 6.68 2.7 I 1.49 1.1 _ _ / I 0.0048 Y 0.0001 0.019 0.014 0.002 0.002 0.33 _

Over-limit rate% -- 0.0 16.7 0.0 I 0.0 25.0 I I I I I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 16.7 / I I

Number of sample 24 24 24 24 I 24 24 I I / / 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 _

Maximum 29.1 7.88 0.48 11.6 I 24.43 23.04 I I / / 0.0075 Y 0.0007 0.062 0.073 Y 0.012 3.40 _

Juebian Minimum 15.4 6.82 6.30 3.0 / 1.80 0.32 / I I I I 0.0007 Y Y 0.004 0.002 Y Y 0.10 I I /

Average 21.8 7.11 2.49 6.7 I 7.32 6.12 / I I I 0.0035 Y 0.0002 0.021 0.020 0.002 0.005 0.70 _

Over-limit rate% - 0.0 58.3 16.7 I 41.7 83.3 / I I / I 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 16.7 0.0 8.3 25.0 I

Number of sample 24 24 24 24 I 24 24 I I I I 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 /

Maximum 29.5 7.76 0.46 12.3 I 16.80 8.53 / I I / I 0.0109 Y 0.0004 0.075 0.080 Y 0.015 4.40 I /

HengjiaC Minimum 16.0 6.85 1.33 5.8 / 4.53 2.62 I I I I I Y Y Y 0.006 Y Y 0.003 0.20 I /

Average 22.2 7.15 0.78 8.0 I 8.83 5.23 I I I I I 0.0038 Y 0.0002 0.030 0.015 0.002 0.007 0.95 I /

Over-limit rate% 0.0 100 20.8 I 58.3 100 I I I / 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 8.3 0.0 16.7 54.2 _

Class IV Standard _ 6-9 3 10 30 6 1.5 0.3 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.02 0.1 0.001 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.01 0.5 0.3 0.5 20000

Note "Y" represents "undetectable", .I" represents 'not detected". The unit is mgIL except special mark







Section RStatistical indexes T pH DO CODM COD, BOD NH,-N TP Cu Zn Fluoride Se As Hg Cd C' Pb Cyanide Phenol Oil LAS Sulfide Fecalcolform

Number of sample 24 24 24 24 16 24 24 16 16 16 16 16 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 16 16 16

Maximum 30.2 8.13 5.6 4.7 78 7.0 3.19 0.10 0.046 0.150 2.54 0.0090 0.0114 0.0006 0.0046 0.015 0.026 0.004 0.03 0.18 0.10 0.030 240000

Luosha Minimum 9.6 7.18 10.5 1.9 10 0.7 Y 0.03 Y 0.002 0.47 Y Y Y Y Y 0.001 Y Y Y Y 0.002 54000

Average 22.5 7.50 7.6 2.6 21 2.4 0.94 0.06 0.016 0.029 0.91 0.0026 0.0040 0.0001 0.0004 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.003 0.06 0.06 0.005 109250

Over-limit rate% - 0 0 0 12.5 12.5 20.8 0 0 0 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.17 0 0 0 100

Number of sample 24 24 24 24 16 24 24 16 16 16 16 16 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 16 16 12

Maximum 30.2 8.13 0.1 10.5 81 23.8 12.26 0.41 0.118 0.090 4.40 0.0097 0.0445 0.0003 0.0018 0.027 0.04 0.004 0.018 1.00 0.26 0.255 240000

Juebian Minimum 10.0 7.06 7.4 2.7 15 3.9 0.88 0.06 Y 0.007 1.35 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.10 Y Y 240000

Average 23.0 7.42 2.8 6.7 48 10.9 5.81 0.21 0.041 0.034 2.29 0.0021 0.0063 0.0001 0.0004 0.006 0.014 0.002 0.0072 0.42 0.13 0.039 240000

Over-limit rate% - 0 58.3 16.7 75.0 75 87.5 6.25 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.7 20.8 0 0 100

Number of sample 24 24 24 24 16 24 24 16 16 16 16 16 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 16 16 16

Maximum 30.3 8.10 0.04 12.0 84 15.7 40.5 2.44 0.060 0.130 4.40 0.0059 0.0253 0.0013 0.0011 0.015 0.03 0.004 0.05 0.50 0.33 0.226 240000

HengjiaC Minimum 10.3 7.12 4.9 4.2 30 3.5 1.87 0.11 Y 0.002 1.39 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.20 0.08 Y 240000

Average 23.2 7.45 1.7 8.2 60 11.0 11.67 0.35 0.018 0.031 1.91 0.0011 0.0054 0.0001 0.0003 0.005 0.0085 0.002 0.007 0.36 0.17 0.055 240000

Over-limit rate% - 0 83.3 20.8 100 83.3 100 50 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.17 0 0 0 100

Class IV Standard - 6-9 3 10 30 6 1.5 0.3 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.02 0.1 0.001 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.01 0.5 0.3 0.5 20000

Note "Y" represents "undetectable",./" represents 'not detected". The unit is mg/L except special mark

SOGREAH - LWN - N"-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 2






Statistical indexes T pH DO CODMf COOD, BOD NH,-N TP Cu Zn Fluoride Se As Hg Crd Pb Cyanide Phenol Oil LAS Sulfide Fecal coliform (unitL)Section (C) Cd

Number of sample 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

Maximum 29.9 8.09 0.3 6.9 86 33.1 6.800 1.650 0.138 0.131 1.980 0.0075 0.0120 0.00078 0.0020 0.0480 0.100 0.0070 0.0170 1.14 0.30 0.599 240000

Luosha Minimum 13.5 7.11 7.5 1.6 9 1 0.102 0.040 Y Y 0.080 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.05 0.06 Y 9200

Average 22.9 7.55 5.0 4.1 25 5.2 2.453 0.380 0.018 0.031 0.835 0.0010 0.0039 0.00007 0.0007 0.0104 0.026 0.0024 0.0024 0.29 0.17 0.056 141163

Over-limit rate% - 0.0 20.8 0.0 20.8 22.9 52.1 37.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 2.1 8.3 0.0 4.2 83.3

Number of sample 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

Maximum 32.4 8.41 0.1 11.3 86 39.0 23.170 1.740 0.087 0.290 5.350 0.0140 0.0180 0.00147 0.0020 0.0240 0.0900 0.0170 0.0930 0.91 1.74 1.148 240000

Hengjia Minimum 16.0 6.85 2.9 3.1 17 4.3 3.200 0.050 Y Y 0.370 y Y y Y Y Y Y Y 0.04 Y 0.011 24000

Average 23.7 7.33 1.1 6.5 42 12.3 8.487 0.484 0.020 0.055 1.942 0.0035 0.0060 0.00026 0.0005 0.0045 0.010 0.0029 0.0082 0.29 0.62 0.150 176500

Over-limit rate% - 0.0 100.0 4.2 85.4 64.6 100.0 47.9 0.0 0.0 83.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 14.6 16.7 70.8 4.2 100.0

Class IV Standard - 6-9 3 10 30 6 1.5 0.3 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.02 0.1 0.001 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.01 0.5 0.3 0.5 20000

Note: =Y" represents 'undetectable",."/ represents 'not detected". The unit is mg/L except special mark

- SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 3




OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-APPENDIX

Routine Water Quality Monitoring Results of Pingzhou Waterway (2002-2004)

T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FecalYear Statistical indexes CC ) pH DO CODM, CODC, BOD NH3-N TP Cu Zn Fluoride Se As Hg Cd Cr6+ Pb Cyanide Phenol Oil LAS Sulfide coliform

(C) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(unitlL)

Numberofsample 36 36 36 36 _ 36 36 / / _ / / 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 /

Maximum 29.0 7.99 6.03 2.80 / 2.83 1.75 I I 0.004 0.00003 0.0002 Y 0.008 0.009 0.002 0.044 /

2002 Minimum 15.0 7.59 8.66 0.84 / 0.44 0.10 / / / / / Y Y 0.0001 Y 0.005 Y Y 0.008 I

Average 22.9 7.81 7.05 1.92 _ 1.67 0.45 I I I _ _ 0.002 0.00001 0.0002 0.0 0.0063 0.002 0.001 0.020 / /

Over-limit rate% -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 8.3 / I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 /

Number of sample 36 36 36 36 18 36 36 30 36 36 36 18 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 24 24 24

Maximum 29.8 7.97 4.2 2.8 5 3.9 2.36 0.210 0.146 0.031 0.668 0.0021 0.003 0.00004 0.0013 Y 0.008 0.005 Y 0.05 0.11 0.070 35000

2003 Minimum 13.0 7.24 9.3 1.4 2 0.6 0.17 0.055 0.002 0.018 0.187 0.0002 Y Y 0.0001 Y 0.001 Y Y 0.02 0.05 Y 9200

Average 23.9 7.75 6.3 2.0 3 1.4 0.53 0.081 0.027 0.023 0.333 0.0009 0.0015 0.000016 0.0002 Y 0.007 0.001 Y 0.03 0.08 0.032 24342

Over-limit rate% - 0 8.3 0 0 0 8.3 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.8

Number of sample 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Maximum 31.1 8.01 0.8 5.4 30 20 6.960 0.900 0.0357 0.230 1.670 0.0081 0.0110 0.00014 0.0031 Y 0.0090 0.0040 0.003 0.29 0.21 0.040 240000

2004 Minimum 14.3 6.51 8.1 1.6 3 Y Y Y Y Y 0.210 0.0002 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2200

Average 22.8 7.45 5.3 2.6 13 4.6 1.691 0.158 0.0079 0.019 0.615 0.0030 0.0044 0.00002 0.0002 0.002 0.0015 0.0022 0.001 0.06 0.10 0.013 28865

Over-limit rate% - 0.0 22.2 0.0 8.3 19.4 33.3 22.2 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 5.5 0.0 22.2

- 6-9 5 6 20 4 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.01 0.05 0.0001 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.005 0.05 0.2 0.2 20000

Note: 'Y" represents "undetectable",.'T' represents "not detected". The unit is mg/L except special mark

SOGREAH - LWN - N'-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 4





The Over-limit Rate of Pollution Factors in Foshan Waterway and Pingzhou Waterway (%)

Monitoring Year pH DO CODM, COD,, BOD NH3-N TP Cu Zn Fluoride Se As Hg Cd Cr6e Pb Cyanide Phenol Oil LAS Sulfide Fecal coliformSections (UnitIL)

2002 0 16.7 0 I 0 25 / I I I I 0 0 0 0 8.3 0 0 16.7 I I

Luosha 2003 0 0 0 12.5 12.5 20.8 0 0 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.17 0 0 0 100

2004 0 20.8 0 20.8 22.9 52.1 37.5 0 0 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 0 2.1 8.3 0 4.2 83.3

2002 0 58.3 16.7 / 41.7 83.3 I I I I I 0 0 0 8.3 16.7 0 8.3 25 I / I

Jiebian 2003 0 58.3 16.7 75 75 87.5 6.25 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.7 20.8 0 0 100

2004 I/ I I I / I I / I / / / / " I

2002 0 100 20.8 I 58.3 100 I I / I I 0 0 0 20.8 8.3 0 16.7 54.2 I . I

Hengjiao 2003 0 83.3 20.8 100 83.3 100 50 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.17 0 0 0 100

2004 0 100 4.2 85.4 64.6 100 47.9 0 0 83.3 0 0 4.2 0 0 8.3 0 14.6 16.7 70.8 4.2 100

2002 0 0 0 I 0 8.3 I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I

Pingzhou 2003 0 8.3 0 0 0 8.3 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.8

2004 0 22.2 0 8.3 19.4 33.3 22.2 0 0 16.7 0 0 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 30.6 5.5 0 22.2

Note "Y" represents "undetectable",."'/ represents 'not detected". The unit is mg/L except special mark. The assessment standard of luosha, Jiebian, Hengjiao is class IV, and that of Pingzhou is class Ill.






Water Quality Monitoring Results of Foshan Waterway (Jul.2005)

Section Tide _ Stvaalue T pH DO CODMn BOD5 CODcr NH3-N F | TP PetroleumPhenol Hg As Cd Cr Cr6 Pb Cu Zn Ni

Minimum 27.8 7.69 6.5 2.1 2.4 44 0.576 0.180 0.140 0.06 Y Y 0.0023 Y - 0.0100 Y Y Y -

Ebb Maximum 27.8 7.71 6.5 2.7 2.4 49 0.613 0.200 0.150 0.06 Y Y 0.0028 Y - 0.0110 Y Y Y -

Luosha _ Average 27.8 7.70 6.5 2.4 2.4 45 0.595 0.190 0.145 0.06 Y Y 0.0026 Y - 0.0105 Y Y Y -

Minimum 27.8 7.73 6.7 1.6 2.4 18 0.585 0.170 0.100 0.05 Y Y 0.0017 Y - 0.0120 Y Y Y -

Flood Maximum 28.1 7.78 6.8 1.8 2.5 25 0.640 0.170 0.110 0.05 Y Y 0.0020 Y - 0.0130 Y Y Y -

Average 27.8 7.76 6.75 1.7 2.45 21.5 0.613 0.170 0.105 0.05 Y Y 0.0018 Y - 0.0125 Y Y Y -

Minimum 27.6 7.54 6.0 3.4 2.2 19 0.712 0.340 0.170 0.22 Y Y 0.0030 Y - 0.0110 Y Y Y -

Ebb Maximum 27.6 7.72 6.1 3.6 2.7 30 0.735 0.360 0.210 0.26 Y Y 0.0034 Y - 0.0120 Y Y Y -

Jiebian Average 27.6 7.63 6.05 3.5 2.45 24.5 0.724 0.350 0.190 0.24 Y Y 0.0032 Y - 0.0115 Y Y Y -

Minimum 28.1 7.75 6.5 2.0 2.6 22 0.735 0.220 0.170 0.20 Y Y 0.0023 Y - 0.0130 Y Y Y -

Flood Maximum 28.1 7.78 6.6 2.6 2.7 45 0.786 0.220 0.200 0.22 0.002 Y 0.0032 Y - 0.0150 Y Y Y -

Average 28.1 7.76 6.55 2.3 2.65 33.5 0.760 0.220 0.185 0.21 0.001 Y 0.0028 Y - 0.0140 Y Y Y -

Waterway Minimum 27.8 7.34 Y 6.1 6.7 33 4.283 1.070 0.400 0.46 0.0020 Y 0.0024 Y - 0.0160 Y Y Y -

Ebb Maximum 27.8 7.35 Y 6.3 7.0 49 4.880 1.110 0.430 0.49 0.0040 Y 0.0024 Y - 0.0170 Y Y Y -

Hengjiao Average 27.8 7.34 Y 6.2 6.85 41 4.582 1.140 0.415 0.475 0.0030 Y 0.0024 Y - 0.0165 Y Y Y -

Minimum 28.0 7.16 Y 5.5 2.2 56 1.136 1.320 0.140 0.47 0.0030 Y 0.0021 Y - 0.0150 Y Y Y -

Flood Maximum 28.0 7.23 Y 6.3 8.4 66 1.229 1.410 0.420 0.49 0.0040 Y 0.0033 Y - 0.0160 Y Y Y -

Average 28.0 7.20 Y 5.9 5.3 61 1.182 1.365 0.280 0.48 0.0035 Y 0.0028 Y - 0.0155 Y Y y _

Minimum 30.7 7.59 1.6 1.6 2.4 - 0.711 - 0.17 0.05 Y Y Y Y Y 0.001 0.0073 0.02 Y

Ebb Maximum 31.1 8.23 4.4 2.9 5.3 - 4.790 - 0.27 0.25 Y Y Y 0.0005 - Y 0.026 0.0115 0.17 Y

Shawei Average 30.8 7.93 3.1 2.3 4.1 _ 2.260 - 0.22 0.14 Y Y Y 0.0002 - Y 0.012 0.0085 0.08 Yqiao Minimum 30.9 7.89 4.3 1.5 1.7 = 0.567 - 0.19 0.10 Y Y Y Y - Y 0.002 0.0029 Y Y

Flood Maximum 31.1 8.43 5.1 2.0 4.2 _ 1.490 - 0.20 0.25 Y Y Y 0.0018 - Y 0.021 0.0117 0.07 Y

I Average 31.0 8.14 4.6 1.8 2.6 = 1.098 - 0.20 0.20 Y Y Y 0.0005 - Y 0.009 0.0153 0.03 Y

Class V Standard - 6-9 2 15 10 40 2.0 1.5 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.001 0.1 0.01 - 0.1 0.1 1.0 2.0

Note: "Y" represents "undetectable',."/" represents "not detected". The unit is mg/L except T (C ) and pH.






Water Quality Monitoring Results of Foshan Creek (Jul.2005)

Section Tide Statistical T pH DO CODMn BOD5 SS NH3-N CODCr TP Petroleum Phenol Hg As Cd Cr Cr6 Pb Cu Zn Nivalue

Minimum - 7.50 Y 6.1 15.5 20 7.43 - 1.02 0.20 0.004 Y Y Y Y Y 0.002 0.0050 Y Y

Ebb Maximum - 7.81 Y 24.0 42.6 92 7.94 - 1.15 0.52 0.005 Y Y Y Y Y 0.004 0.0121 0.03 Y

Renming Average - 7.68 Y 11.1 29.6 54 7.61 - 1.08 0.37 0.004 Y Y Y Y Y 0.003 0.0085 0.01 YQiao Minimum - 7.67 Y 7.1 19.6 8 7.68 - 0.82 0.35 0.004 Y Y Y Y Y 0.002 0.0040 Y Y

Flood Maximum - 7.80 Y 12.1 22.0 62 8.35 - 0.98 0.35 0.005 Y Y Y Y Y 0.010 0.0076 Y Y

Average - 7.72 Y 8.7 20.5 34 8.00 - 0.91 0.35 0.004 Y Y Y Y Y 0.005 0.0052 Y Y

Minimum - 7.64 Y 5.39 6.22 17 7.61 - 0.33 0.05 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.003 0.0030 Y Y

Ebb Maximum - 7.68 Y 6.53 20.98 24 8.97 - 0.39 0.15 Y Y Y 0.0004 Y Y 0.061 0.0128 0.02 Y

Foshan Zhen'an Average - 7.66 Y 5.96 11.60 20 8.17 - 0.37 0.10 Y Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.020 0.0067 0.01 Ycreek Minimum - 7.63 Y 6.86 19.58 28 8.58 - 0.73 0.20 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.003 0.0031 Y Y

Flood Maximum - 7.77 Y 12.57 21.83 33 8.97 - 0.93 0.50 Y Y Y 0.0005 Y Y 0.011 0.0078 0.03 Y

Average - 7.70 Y 10.29 20.36 31 8.83 - 0.81 0.35 Y Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.007 0.0050 0.03 Y

Minimum 30.5 7.52 0.1 4.4 12.6 10 2.37 - 0.41 0.20 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.002 0.0052 Y Y

Ebb Maximum 31.6 7.86 0.6 10.8 25.3 60 7.56 - 0.46 0.30 0.004 Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.004 0.0102 0.04 Y

Shiken Average 31.1 7.73 0.4 6.6 20.2 43 5.70 - 0.44 0.20 0.003 Y Y 0.0001 Y Y 0.003 0.0070 0.03 Y

Minimum 31.6 7.76 0.9 1.6 4.0 28 0.86 - 0.43 0.20 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.001 0.0041 0.03 Y

Flood Maximum 33.5 7.93 3.6 5.6 20.2 33 5.40 - 0.49 0.25 0.004 Y Y 0.0006 Y Y 0.005 0.0099 0.13 Y

Average 32.3 7.82 2.6 3.1 10.3 31 2.41 - 0.46 0.22 0.001 Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.002 0.0073 0.07 Y

Class V Standard - 6-9 2 15 10 - 2.0 40 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.001 0.1 0.01 - 0.005 0.1 1.0 2.0 -

Note: 'Y" represents "undetectable",.T' represents "not detected". The unit is mg/L except T (*C) and pH.






WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULT OF PINGZHOU WATERWAY AND XILIN RIVER (JUL.2005)

Section Tide Statistical T pH DO CODMr BOD5 SS NH3-N CODcr TP Petroleum Phenol Hg As Cd Cr Cr6+ Pb Cu Zn Ni

Minimum 30.7 7.95 4.6 1.3 0.7 8 0.066 - 0.08 0.15 Y Y Y 0.0001 Y Y 0.002 0.0054 Y Y

Ebb Maximum 30.8 8.15 5.1 1.5 1.2 53 0.211 - 0.10 0.20 Y Y Y 0.0006 Y Y 0.006 0.0114 0.04 Y

Zhongqu Average 30.7 8.06 4.9 1.4 0.9 30 0.153 - 0.09 0.16 Y Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.003 0.0075 0.03 Y

Minimum 30.7 7.91 4.6 1.5 0.7 8 0.250 - 0.07 0.05 Y Y Y 0.0001 Y Y Y 0.0019 Y Y

Flood Maximumr 31.1 7.96 5.2 1.9 2.0 24 0.781 - 0.11 0.12 Y Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.002 0.0063 0.02 Y

Average 30.9 7.94 4.9 1.6 1.2 17 0.425 - 0.09 0.08 Y Y Y 0.0001 Y Y 0.002 0.0042 0.005 Y

Waterway Minimum 27.1 7.74 6.1 1.6 Y - 0.170 7 0.04 0.04 Y Y 0.0003 Y Y 0.021 0.004 0.0062 Y YEbb Maximum 27.1 7.78 6.1 1.9 Y - 0.254 8 0.04 0.04 Y Y 0.0004 Y Y 0.023 0.007 0.0092 Y Y

Pingzhou Average 27.1 7.77 6.1 1.7 Y - 0.216 7 0.04 0.04 Y Y 0.0004 Y Y 0.022 0.006 0.0076 Y Y

Minimum 27.3 7.78 6.1 1.6 Y - 0.122 7 0.04 0.04 Y Y 0.0015 Y Y 0.022 Y 0.0037 Y Y

Flood Maximum 27.3 7.78 6.2 1.7 Y - 0.175 9 0.04 0.04 Y Y 0.0017 Y Y 0.023 0.007 0.0081 Y Y

Average 27.3 7.78 6.1 1.6 Y - 0.140 8 0.04 0.04 Y Y 0.0016 Y Y 0.022 0.005 0.0055 Y Y

Class IIIStandard 6-9 5 6 4 - 1.0 20 0.2 0.05 0.005 0.0001 0.05 0.005 - 0.05 0.05 1.0 1.0 -

Minimum 30.6 7.9 2.7 2.5 3.5 20 0.623 - 0.27 0.05 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.003 0.0054 0.03 Y

Ebb Maximum 31.2 7.9 3.9 3.7 5.5 32 1.11 - 0.26 0.10 y y y y Y Y 0.004 0.0056 0.04 Y

Xilin Xilin Average 30.9 7.9 3.3 3.1 4.5 26 0.866 - 0.26 0.07 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.003 0.0055 0.03 YStream Minimum 31.6 7.82 3.8 2.7 3.6 9 1.18 - 0.26 0.05 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.002 0.0050 0.02 Y

Flood Maximum 31.8 7.94 3.9 4.2 6.5 31 1.97 - 0.24 0.10 Y Y Y 0.0001 Y Y 0.014 0.0064 Y Y

Average 31.7 7.88 3.8 3.5 5.0 20 1.58 = 0.25 0.07 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0.008 0.0057 0.01 Y

Class V Standard - 6-9 2 15 10 - 2.0 40 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.005 0.1 1.0 2.0 -

Note: "Y" represents "undetectable",.'"' represents "not detected". The unit is mg/L except T ( C) and pH.






Water Quality Monitoring Results of Shunde Waterway

Section Tide T(TC) pH DO CODcr BOD5 SS Phenol Petroleum NH3- TP Hg As Cd Cr Cr6' PbN

Ebb 30.18 7.83 5.92 1.62 0.83 29.75 Y 0.11 0.43 0.04 Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.0021 #

Flood 30.83 8.01 6.18 1.57 1.07 17.75 Y 0.14 0.21 0.07 Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.001

Ebb 30.45 7.90 5.82 1.59 1.08 26.50 Y 0.15 0.22 0.07 Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.002

Flood 31.10 7.98 6.14 1.51 1.05 10.50 Y 0.11 0.21 0.09 Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.002

Water Quality Monitonng Results of Jili Creek

Section Tide T(-C) pH DO CODcr BOD5 SS Phenol Petroleum |H | TP Hg As Cd Cr Cr6 Pb

Ebb 30.63 7.79 4.85 1.74 3.10 34.25 Y 0.14 0.58 0.12 Y Y 0.0008 Y Y 0.004

Flood 30.88 8.00 6.05 1.43 1.27 30.00 Y 0.13 0.28 0.0 Y Y 0.0001 Y Y 0.0008

Ebb 29.63 7.80 6.38 1.65 0.92 29.25 Y 0.11 0.26 0.07 Y Y 0.0002 Y Y 0.001

Flood 30.70 7.97 6.04 1.51 1.01 16.50 Y 0.19 0.20 0.09 Y Y 0.0001 Y Y 0.0008






APPENDIX 5

AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA

IOGREAH - LWN - N~-235QO87 APRIL 2006 PAGE 1 ~ I

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 1 , _ I





Meteorological Condition during Monitoring

TimeMeteorological

Date parameter 7:00 10:00 14:00 19:00

temperature (°C) 29.1 32.1 35 31.6

air pressure (hPa) 1041 1047 1053 1046July/14/2005

wind speed (m/s) 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4

wind direction 35 39 34 26

temperature (C) 29.2 32.3 35.6 31.8

air pressure (hPa) 1041 1048 1054 1047July/i 5/2005

wind speed (m/s) 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4

Wind direction 33 36 35 28

temperature (°C) 30.4 33 35.3 32.5


wind speed (m/s) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5


temperature (DC) 30 33.3 36.2 34.3


wind speed (m/s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5


temperature (°C) 30.7 34.6 38.4 35.9

air pressure (hPa) 1044 1052 1060 1055July/i 8/2005

wind speed (m/s) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4


SOGREAH - LWN - N-2350087 APRIL2006 PAGE 1





(Continued) Meteorological Condition during Monitoring

TimeDate Meteorological parameter

7:00 10:00 14:00 19:00

temperature ( C) 29.0 34.7 37.3 32.2

air pressure (hPa) 998 999 996 996

July/27/2005 Wind direction 194 171 153 167

wind speed (m/s) 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.5

relative humidity (%) 79.0 60.0 50.2 60.9

temperature (°C) 28.6 37.6 38.5 32.4



wind speed (m/s) 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5


temperature (°C) 29.4 33.0 29.6 27.5



wind speed (m/s) 1.7 2.7 1.8 0.7


temperature (C ) 26.5 27.1 28.7 26.1



wind speed (m/s) 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.6


temperature (C) 25.9 26.4 25.2 26.6

air pressure (hPa) 999 1001 1001 1001


wind speed (m/s) 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5




GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECTDESIGN REVIEW AND ADVISORY SERVICES


Monitoring Result of H2S along Foshan Waterway (mg/Nm3 )

Al A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

07:00 0.025 0.018 0.015 0.016 0.016 Not detected 0.019

10:00 0.032 0.016 Not Not detected 0.018 0.026 0.020

0.021 0.023 Not 0.018 0.016 0.018 0.015July/27/2005 14:00 0.021 0.023 detected 018.6 008.1

19:00 0.013 0.017 0.027 0.014 0.017 0.014 0.017

Minimum 0.013 0.017 odeteted Not detected 0.016 Not detected 0.015

Maximum 0.032 0.023 0.027 0.018 0.018 0.026 0.020

07:00 0.022 0.015 0.019 Not detected 0.019 Not detected 0.024

10:00 0.015 0.017 detected Not detected Not detected Not detected 0.018

July/28/2005 14:00 0.014 0.014 0.016 0.014 0.014 0.017 0.014

19:00 0.017 0.021 0.029 Not detected Not detected 0.022 0.016

Minimum 0.014 0.014 Not Not detected Not detected Not detected 0.014

Maximum 0.022 0.021 0.029 0.014 0.019 0.022 0.024

07:00 0.017 Not 0.032 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.017detected

10:00 0.021 0.015 0.017 0.018 Not detected 0.021 0.014

July/29/2005 14:00 0.016 0.017 0.036 0.015 Not detected 0.019 0.019

19:00 0.014 0.014 0.023 0.016 0.013 0.016 0.021

Minimum 0.014 Not 0.017 0.014 Not detected 0.014 0.014detected _____

Maximum 0.021 0.017 0.036 0.018 0.014 0.021 0.021

07:00 lNot 0.013 0.022 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.016detected

10:00 0.019 Not 0.018 0.017 0.016 Not detected 0.015detected

July/30/2005 14:00 0.013 detected detected 0.014 Not detected 0.016 0.019

19:00 Not 0.016 0.019 0.019 Not detected Not detected detected

Mnmm Not Not Not 004 NtdtceNodtced NotMinimum detected detected detected detected

Maximum 0.019 0.016 0.022 0.019 0.016 0.016 0.019

July/31/2005 07:00 Not 0.026 0.024 Not detected Not detected 0.014 0.021detected

10:00 0.013 0.014 0.021 Not detected 0.017 0.017 0.018

14:00 0.014 Not Not 0.015 Not detected 0.018 0.017detected detected

19:00 0.016 Not 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.019 0.015detected



GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECTDESIGN REVIEW AND ADVISORY SERVICES


Mnimum detected detected detected Not detected Not detected 0.014 0.015

Maximum 0.016 0.026 0.024 0.018 0.017 0.019 0.021

July/27/2005 Oneimu detected detected detected Not detected Not detected Not detected detected

July/31/2005 One time 0.032 0.026 0.036 0.019 0.019 0.026 0.024minimum

Monitoring result of NH3 along Foshan waterway (mg/Nm3 )

siteAl A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

time

07:00 0.311 0.532 0.153 0.149 0.218 0.049 No sample

10:00 0.270 0.180 0.050 0.070 0.118 0.124 0.136

July/27/2005 14:00 0.739 0.230 0.85 0.094 0.103 0.160 0.135

19:00 0.348 0.214 0.112 0.212 0.136 0.162 0.268

minimum 0.270 0.180 0.050 0.07 0.103 0.049 0.135

maximum 0.739 0.532 0.153 0.149 0.218 0.162 0.268

07:00 0.320 0.261 0.095 detNected 0.093 0.040 0.124

10:00 0.222 0.184 0.053 0.044 0.067 0.089 0.060

July/28/2005 14:00 0.215 0.129 0.083 0.191 0.099 0.046 0.244

19:00 0.380 0.208 0.128 0.043 0.059 0.115 0.113

minimum 0.215 0.129 0.053 Not 0.059 0.046 0.060detected

maximum 0.380 0.261 0.128 0.191 0.099 0.115 0.244

07:00 0.294 0.083 0.326 0.074 0.280 0.170 0.156

10:00 0.152 0.125 0.104 0.278 0.023 0.068 0.165

July/29/2005 14:00 0.088 0.110 0.143 0.058 0.061 0.224 0.394

19:00 0.203 0.109 0.067 0.313 0.269 0.158 0.550

minimum 0.088 0.083 0.067 0.058 0.023 0.068 0.156

maximum 0.294 0.196 0.326 0.313 0.269 0.224 0.550

07:00 0.075 0.103 0.132 0.234 0.131 0.088 0.186

10:00 0.109 0.073 0.099 0.139 0.098 0.042 0.102

July/30/2005 14:00 0.060 0.125 0.073 0.098 0.062 0.149 0.080

19:00 0.075 0.129 0.211 0.121 0.104 0.077 0.053

minimum 0.060 0.073 0.073 0.098 0.062 0.042 0.053

maximum 0.109 0.129 0.211 0.234 0.131 0.149 0.186

July/31/2005 07:00 0.047 0.101 0.119 0.033 0.040 0.134 0.251

10:00 0.064 0.071 0.156 0.073 0.099 0.086 0.108

14:00 0.084 0.076 0.055 1 0.181 0.059 0098 .144






19:00 0.077 0.121 0.157 0.110 0.110 0.057 0.084

minimum 0.047 0.071 0.055 0.033 0.040 0.057 0.084

maximum 0.084 0.121 0.157 0.181 0.110 0.134 0.251

One time NotJuly/27/2005 minimum 0.047 0.071 0.053 detected 0.04 0.042 0.06

July/31/2005 One time 0.739 0.532 0.326 0.313 0.269 0.224 0.268maximum

Monitoring result of H2S around Zhen'an WWTP (mg/Nm 3)

Al A2 A3 A4 A5Time

07:00 0.016 0.018 0.015 0.035 0.03610:00 Not detected 0.015 Not detected 0.042 0.02114:00 0.018 0.028 Not detected 0.031 0.019

July/27/2005 19:00 0.014 Not detected 0.027 0.022 0.015Minimum Not detected Not detected Not detected 0.022 0.015

Maximum 0.018 0.028 0.027 0.042 0.036Daily average value 0.013 0.017 0.013 0.033 0.02307:00 Not Not 0.019 0.027 0.022

detected detected10:00 Not Not Not detected 0.018 Not detected

July/28/2005 detected detected14:00 0.014 0.014 0.016 Not detected 0.03219:00 Not Not 0.029 0.016 Not detected

detected detectedMinimum Not Not Not detected Not detected Not detected

detected detectedMaximum 0.014 0.014 0.029 0.027 0.032Daily average value 0.007 0.007 0.017 0.017 0.01607:00 0.014 0.015 0.032 0.037 0.02610:00 0.018 0.019 0.017 0.025 0.04514:00 0.015 Not 0.036 0.031 0.022

July/29/2005 detected19:00 0.016 0.017 0.023 0.016 0.048Minimum 0.014 Not 0.017 0.016 0.022

detectedMaximum 0.018 0.019 0.036 0.037 0.048Daily average value 0.016 0.014 0.027 0.027 0.03507:00 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.056 0.03510:00 0.017 Not 0.018 0.042 0.016

detectedJuly/30/2005 14:00 0.014 0.014 Not detected 0.040 0.018

19:00 0.019 Not 0.019 0.023 Not detecteddetected

Minimum 0.014 Not Not detected 0.023 Not detecteddetected

Maximum 0.019 0.016 0.022 0.056 0.035Daily average value 0.017 0.010 0.016 0.040 0.01907:00 Not Not 0.024 0.054 0.016

detected detected10:00 Not 0.015 0.021 0.022 0.021

July/31/2005 detected14:00 0.015 0.019 Not detected Not detected 0.01719:00 0.018 0.026 0.018 0.031 Not detectedMinimum Not Not Not detected Not detected Not detected

detected detectedMaximum 0.018 0.026 0.024 0.054 0.021Daily average value 0.011 0.016 0.017 0.028 0.015






Minimum of hourly Not Not Not detected Not detected Not detectedJuly/27/2005 average value detected detected-July/31/2005 Maximum of hourly 0.019 0.028 0.036 0.056 0.048

average valueMinimum of daily 0.007 0.007 0.013 0.017 0.015average valueMinimum of daily 0.017 0.027 0.027 0.040 0.035

_ average value I I I I I

Monitoring result of NH3 around Zhen'an WWTP (mg/Nm3)

Al A2 A3 A4 A5Time

07:00 -0.149 0.125 0.153 0.089 0.08910:00 0.070 0.175 0.050 0.107 0.13114:00 0.094 0.457 0.0.85 0.126 0.078

July/27/2005 19:00 0.212 0.020 0.112 0.052 0.236Minimum 0.07 0.020 0.050 0.052 0.078Maximum 0.149 0.457 0.153 0.126 0.236Daily average value 0.131 0.194 0.105 0.094 0.13407:00 Not detected 0.040 0.095 0.100 0.12610:00 0.044 0.048 0.053 0.062 0.05014:00 0.191 0.039 0.083 0.018 0.099

July/28/2005 19:00 0.043 0.034 0.128 0.090 0.025025

Minimum Not detected 0.034 0.053 0.018 0.025Maximum 0.191 0.048 0.128 0.100 0.126Daily average value 0.070 0.040 0.090 0.068 0.07507:00 0.074 0.280 0.326 0.128 0.08910:00 0.278 0.202 0.104 0.152 0.44914:00 0.058 0.099 0.143 0.112 0.107

July/29/2005 19:00 0.313 0.198 0.067 0.071 0.565Minimum 0.058 0.099 0.067 0.071 0.089maximum 0.313 0.280 0.326 0.152 0.565Daily average value 0.181 0.195 0.160 0.116 0.30307:00 0.234 0.091 0.132 0.232 0.08610:00 0.139 0.062 0.099 0.075 0.00614:00 0.098 0.051 0.073 0.116 0.122

July/30/2005 19:00 0.121 0.013 0.211 0.084 0.046Minimum 0.098 0.013 0.073 0.075 0.006Maximum 0.234 0.091 0.211 0.232 0.122Daily average value 0.148 0.054 0.129 0.127 0.06507:00 0.033 0.026 0.119 0.225 0.20410:00 0.073 0.101 0.156 0.075 0.04414:00 0.181 0.156 0.055 0.055 0.118

July/31/2005 19:00 0.110 0.082 0.157 0.117 0.018Minimum 0.033 0.026 0.055 0.055 0.018Maximum 0.181 0.156 0.157 0.225 0.204Daily average value 0.099 0.091 0.122 0.118 0.096Minimum of hourly Not detected 0.020 0.053 0.053 0.002

July/27/2005 average value-July/31/2005 Maximum of hourly 0.313 0.457 0.326 0.232 0.565

average value IMaximum of daily 0.070 0.040 0.090 0.068 0.065average value






Monitoring data of air quality at Fuxi monitoring point

value (mg/m3)

Monitoring point Date TimeS02 N02 H2S NH3 TSP PM10

07:00 - 0.051 -

10:00 - 0.081 -

7.14 0.433 0.303

14:00 - 0.032 -

19:00 - 0.044 -

07:00 - 0.054 -

10:00 - 0.071 -

7.15 0.254 0.094

14:00 - 0.048 -

19:00 - 0.033 -

07:00 - 0.112 -

1# 7.16 10:00 - 0.112 -

Fuxi ~7.16 0.664 0.246Fuxi14:00 - 0.094 -

19:00 - 0.113 -

7.17 07:00 - 0.062 - 0.357 0.161

10:00 - 0.085 -

14:00 - 0.054 -

19:00 - 0.026 -

07:00 - 0.081 -

10:00 - 0.083 -7.18 0.465 0.220

14:00 - 0.025 -

19:00 0.033





OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AsSESSMENT-APPENDIX

Monitoring data of air quality at Zhongshan park monitoring point

Monitorig .value (mg/mr3 )Date Time

point SO2 NO2 H2S NH3 TSP PM10

07:00 - 0.059 0.158 0.532

10:00 - 0.108 0.126 0.180

July/14 0.387 0.271

14:00 - 0.059 0.283 0.230

19:00 - 0.080 0.137 0.214

07:00 - 0.034 0.185 0.261

10:00 - 0.037 0.272 0.184

July/15 _ 0.305 0.10014:00 - 0.024 0.245 0.129

19:00 - 0.057 0.070 0.208

07:00 - 0.065 0.225 0.083

2# 10:00 0.132 0.055 0.125

Zhongshan July/16 0.497 0.151

park 14:00 - 0.037 0.207 0.110

19:00 - 0.061 0.101 0.109

07:00 - 0.091 0.112 0.103

10:00 - 0.101 0.170 0.073July/17 0.470 0.142

14:00 - 0.081 0.115 0.125

19:00 - 0.091 0.195 0.129

07:00 - 0.114 0.336 0.101

10:00 - 0.138 0.184 0.071

July/18 0.412 0.16714:00 - 0.021 0.221 0.076

19:00 - 0.044 0.023 0.121

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 8 ,





Monitoring data of air quality at Fenjiang North bank monitoring point

value (mg/m3)

Monitoring point date time

SO2 NO2 H2S NH3 TSP PM10

07:00 0.068

10:00 0.136

July/14 0.469 0.328

14:00 0.090

19:00 0.083

07:00 0.089

10:00 0.086

July/15 0.239 0.085

14:00 0.112

19:00 0.053

07:00 0.067

10:00 0.122

July/16 0.515 0.174Fenjiang north bank 140..5

14:00 - 0.057 .

19:00 0.082

07:00 0.086

10:00 0.122

July/17 0.520 0.177

14:00 0.126

19:00 0.101

07:00 0.100

10:00 0.098

July/18 0.413 0.192

14:00 0.068

19:00 0.075






Monitoring result of NO2 concentration for monitoring points along Fenjiang river

Sampling Per hour Daily average concentration (unit: mg/m3 ) Over-

point Concentration 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 concentration range limit

range rate

Fuxi 0.025-0.113 0.052 0.0515 0.10775 0.05675 0.0555 0.0515-0.10775 0

Zhongshan 0.021-0.138 0.0765 0.038 0.07375 0.091 0.07925 0.038-0.091 0

park

Fenjiang 0.057-0.136 0.09425 0.085 0.082 0.10875 0.08525 0.082-0.10875 0

north bank

Monitoring result of TSP concentration for monitoring points along Fenjiang river (unit: mg/m3)

Monitoring Daily average concentration Concentration Average Over-limit

point 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 range value rate

Fuxi 0.433 0.254 0.664 0.357 0.465 0.254-0.664 0.4346 44.87

Zhongshan 0.387 0.305 0.497 0.470 0.412 0.305-0.497 0.4142 38.07

park

Fenjiang north 0.469 0.239 0.515 0.520 0.413 0.239-0.520 0.4312 43.73

bank

Monitoring result of PM10 concentration for monitoring points along Fenjiang river (unit: mglm3)

Monitoring Daily average concentration Concentration Average Over-limit

point 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 range value rate

Fuxi 0.303 0.094 0.246 0.161 0.220 0.094-0.303 0.2048 36.53

Zhongshan 0.271 0.100 0.151 0.142 0.167 0.100-0.271 0.1662 10.8

park

Fenjiang north 0.328 0.085 0.174 0.177 0.192 0.085-0.328 0.1912 27.47

bank






Monitoring result of NO2 around Nanzhuang sludge treatment centre (mg/m 3)

DDate July/14/2005 July/15/2005 JuIy/16/2005 July/17/2005 July/18/2005 Five-day

Point Average

Range of Average 0.012-0.188 0.010-0.068 0.010-0.046 0.016-0.068 0.014-0.036

14# hourly 0.036

concentration

Daily average 0.060 0.034 0.024 0.035 0.025

value

Range of Average 0.017-0.036 0.011-0.146 0.024-0.076 0.018-0.045 0.009-0.025

24# hourly 0.034

concentration

Daily average 0.027 0.052 0.044 0.029 0.017

value

Range of Average 0.012-0.015 0.022-0.037 0.008-0.057 0.012-0.035 0.009-0.026

3# hourly

concentration 0.022

Daily average 0.014 0.030 0.026 0.023 0.018

value

Monitoring result of SO2 around Nanzhuang sludge treatment centre (mg/mr3)

July/14/2005 July/15/2005 July/16/2005 July/17/2005 July/18/2005 Five-day Average

Point

14# Range of Average 0.027 - 0.083-0.118 0.073-0.280 0.037-0.080 0.052-0.159

hourly 0.105 0.093

concentration

Daily average 0.061 0.097 0.158 0.053 0.097

value

24# Range of Average 0.037 - 0.075-0.157 0.093-0.339 0.032-0.140 0.052-0.127

hourly 0.126 0.110

concentration

Daily average 0.093 0.112 0.172 0.093 0.078

value

3# Range of Average 0.028 - 0.052-0.099 0.054-0.183 0.030-0.171 0.056-0.097 0.078

hourly 0.082

concentration

Daily average 0.052 0.075 0.094 0.094 0.074

value

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 11 ,.





APPENDIX 6

ECOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS


I I I ~~~~~~~~~I





Biomass and net production of main vegetation communities in Fenjiang River bank improvement project

Height Coverage biomass Net production

(m) (%) (tVha) (tVha a)

Broussonetia papyrifera 4 50 50 8

Ficus microcarpa champion trees 20 60 140 13

MdenudataDesr. 12 55 50 10

Bombax malabaricum 10 55 45 8

Ficus microcarpa 7 45 45 7

Lagerstroemia speciosa 8 45 45 8

Ficus virens 8 50 50 8.5

Ficus altissima 8 55 55 9

Structure of main plant community in Fenjiang River bank improvement project

Arbor layer Shrub layer Field layer

CoverCommunity height Coverage height der height Coverage

degree(in) (%) (mn) (mn) (%)

Broussonetia papyrifera 4 50 0.8 25 0.5 35

Ficus microcarpa champion trees 20 60 - - - -

MdenudataDesr. 12 55 - - - -

Bombax malabaricum 10 45 0.5 35 0.25 20

Ficus microcarpa 7 45 - - - -

Lagerstroemia speciosa 8 45 - - - -

Ficus virens 8 50 - - - -

Ficus altissima 8 55 - - - -

Number of species of main vegetation community in Fenjiang River bank improvement project

Species numberCommunity

Arborlayer Shrub layer Field layer Liane Community

Broussonetia papyrifera 1 2 7 2 12

Ficus microcarpa champion 1 0 0 0 1

trees

Mdenudata Desr. 1 0 0 0 1

Bombax malabaricum 1 3 3 0 7

Ficus microcarpa 1 0 0 0 1

Lagerstroemia speciosa 1 0 0 0 1

Ficus virens 1 0 0 0 1






Ficus altissima 1 0 0 0 1

Biomass and net production of vegetation communities on the land for sediment dewatering and drying site

community height Coverage biomass Net production

(m) (%) (tUha) (tVha-a)

Digitaria. sanguinalis 0.6 75 10 8

Sesbania cannabina 1.6 80 30 15

Structure of main vegetation communities on the land for sediment dewatering and drying site


CommunityHeight coverage coverage coverage

(m) M Height (m)) Height (m)

Digitaria. sanguinalis - - - 0.2 85

Sesbania cannabina - 1.6 80 -

Number of species of main vegetation communities on the land for sediment dewatering and drying site

Species numberCommunity

Arbor layer Shrub layer Field layer liane Sum

Digitania. sanguinalis 0 0 9 0 9

Sesbania cannabina 0 1 7 1 9

Biomass and net production of main vegetation communities on the land for sludge treatment centre

community height Coverage biomass Net production

(m) (%) (tVha) (tVha a)

Pennisetum purpureum 0.6 85 15 12

Aquatic algae - 75 0.20 2.50

Vegetable 0.3 60 6.5 11

Banana Lauraceae 4 60 25 15

Structure of main vegetation communities on the land for sludge treatment centre


CommunityHeight coverage coverage coverage

(m) ( Height (m) M Height (m)

Pennisetum purpureum - - - - 0.6 85

Aquatic algae - - 75

Vegetable - - - - 0.3 60Banana Lauraceae 4 60 1.5 20 0.6 50


!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Number of species of main vegetation communities on the land for sludge treatment centre

Species number*Community

Arbor layer Shrub layer Field layer Liane Sum

Pennisetum purpureum 0 0 8 0 8

Aquatic algae - - 4 - 4

Vegetable 0 0 9 1 10

Banana Lauraceae 2 1 7 0 10

Integrated assessment index and its distribution of eco-environment quality

Ratio of biomass Assessment Index of eco-class Ratio of net production Ratio of Species environment quality

(2) number (3) (1) + (2) + (3)

1 21.00 21.00 21.00 23.00

if 1.00-0.75 1.00-0.80 1.00-0.75 3.00-2.30

III 0.75-0.50 0.80-0.60 0.75-0.50 2.30-1.60

IV 0.50-0.25 0.60-0.40 0.50-0.25 1.60-0.90

Va 0.25-0.10 0.40-0.20 0.25-0.10 0.90-0.40

Vb <0.10 <0.20 <0.10 <0.40

Ratio of biomass of main vegetation communities in Fenjiang River Bank improvement project

biomasscommunity Ratio of biomass class

(Vlha)

Broussonetia papyrifera 50 0.13 Va

Ficus microcarpa champion trees 140 0.35 IV

MdenudataDesr. 50 0.13 Va

Bombax malabaricum 45 0.11 Va

Ficus microcarpa 45 0.11 V a

Lagerstroemia speciosa 45 0.11 V a

Ficus virens 50 0.13 V a

Ficus altissima 55 0.14 Va

Ratio of net production of vegetation communities in Fenjiang River Bank improvement project

Net productionCommunity (Vha a) Ratio of net production class


Ficus microcarpa champion trees 13 0.52 IV

Mdenudata Desr. 10 0.40 IV

Bombax malabaricum 8 0.32 Va

Ficus microcarpa 7 0.28 V a

Lagerstroemia speciosa 8 0.32 V a

Ficus virens 8.5 0.34 Va

Ficus altissima 9 0.36 V a











Ratio of species number of vegetation communities in Fenjiang River Bank improvement project

Species number Ratio of speciescommunity (species /1000m2) number class


Ficus microcarpa champion trees 1 0.01 V b

MdenudataDesr. 1 0.01 V b

Bombax malabaricum 7 0.07 Vb

Ficus microcarpa 1 0.01 V b

Lagerstroemia speciosa 1 0.01 V b

Ficus virens 1 0.01 Vb

community 1 0.01 V b

Ratio of biomass of vegetation communities on the land for sediment dewatering and drying site

Community biomass (t/hm') Ratio of biomass class

Digitaria. sanguinalis 10 0.025 Vb

Sesbania cannabina 30 0.075 Vb

Ratio of net production of vegetation communities on the land for sediment dewatering and drying site

Community Net production (t/hm2 ) Ratio of net production class

Digitaria. sanguinalis 8 0.32 Va

Sesbania cannabina 15 0.6 III

Ratio of species number of vegetation communities on the land for dewatering and drying site

Species numberCommunity t2) Ratio of species number class

Digitaria. sanguinalis 9 0.09 Vb

Sesbania cannabina 9 0.09 Vb

Ratio of biomass of vegetation communities on the land for sludge treatment centre

Community biomass (hhm2) Ratio of biomass class

Pennisetum purpureum 15 0.0375 Vb

Aquatic algae 0.2 0.0005 Vb

Vegetable 6.5 0.0163 Vb

Banana Lauraceae 25 0.0625 Vb

Ratio of net production of vegetation communities on the land for sludge treatment centre

Community Net production (hhm2) Ratio of net production Class

Pennisetum purpureum 12 0.48 IV

Aquatic algae 2.5 0.1 Vb

Vegetable 11 0.44 IV

Banana Lauraceae 15 0.6 III


I I .





Ratio of species number of vegetation communities on the land for sludge treatment centre

Species numberCommunity (t/hm2) Ratio of species number class

Pennisetum purpureum 8 0.08 Vb

Aquatic algae 4 0.04 Vb

Vegetable 10 0.1 Va

Banana Lauraceae 10 0.1 Va

Species distribution and composition of zoobenthos at sampling points of the main waterways in Foshan

Species section

Si S3 S5 S7 S9 S1l Rate of occurrence

(%)

NemathelminthesNematoda (species not + + + + + + 100%determined)

Annelida + + + + + + 100%Tubifex sp. + + + + + + 100%Limnodrilus sp. + + + 50%Branchiura sp. + 16.7%Earthworms (species notdetermined) + + + 50%Mollusca + + 33.3%Corbicula fluminea + + 33.3%Cipangopaludina + 16.7%OncomelaniaLimnopema lacustris

9 species 8 3 4 5 7 3

Species composition and density of zoobenthos at each sampling point of the main waterways in Foshan

Species point Rate in total

Si S3 S5 S7 S9 S1l average density (%)

NemathelminthesNematoda (species not 1802 328 655 737 2744 1474 1290 6.5determined)Annelida 7043 737 2948 2211 71540 2539 14503 73.2Tubifox sp. 819 491 901 1065 12695 819 2798 14.1Limnodrilus sp. 246 410 2334 498 2.5Branchiura sp. 860 143 0. 7

Earthworms (species notdetermined) 737 164 328 778 335 1.7Mollusca 164 491 109 0.6Corbicula fluminea 82 369 75 0.4Cipangopaludina 82 246 55 0.3OncomelaniaLimnoperna lacustris

sum 10975 1556 5159 4751 91566 4832 19806 100


* I I





Species composition and biomass of zoobenthos at each sampling point of the main waterways in Foshan

Species point Rate in total

S1 S3 S5 S7 S9 Si1 average biomass (%)

NemathelminthesNematod a(species not 1.73 0.29 0.62 0.65 2.68 1.16 1.19 0.6determined)Annelida 8.80 1.78 4.19 5.31 84.70 4.22 18.12 9.6Tubifex 0.71 0.58 0.83 1.25 11.74 0.76 2.65 1.4

Limnodrilus sp. 2.27 0.58 26.82 4.95 2.6Branchiura sp. 4.53 0.76 0.4Eathworm (species notdetermined) 462.08 22.78 69.25 207.12 126.87 67.2Mollusca 36.87 70.52 17.90 9.5Corbicula fluminea 27.60 66.82 15.74 8.3Cipangopaludina 2.62 1.42 0.67 0.4OncomelaniaLimnoperna lacustris

Sum 542.69 2.65 98.94 77.04 405.83 6.14 188.85 100

Density, biomass and percentage of zoobenthos at each sampling point of the main waterways in Fushan

Item Mollusk Oligochaeta Aschelminthes Sum

Density (indlm2) 4015 107658 7740 119413

Rate in total density (%) 3.36 90.16 6.48

Biomass (g/m2) 967.08 159.07 7.13 1133.28

Rate in total biomass (%) 85.33 14.04 0.63

Species composition of phytoplankton in each sampling point

qxrl: bacillariophytait )t oJT Oh; g Cyclotella meneghiniana

[M Ia A 11 X gCosinodiscus lacustris

Melosira granulate

W I r t It A1 M. granulate var. angustissima

;110 i'4 MRt Cymbella perpussilla

M'41Bg,x Navicula simplex

PI4g ffl A)rl aN. Protracta

2J>R b /j A aN. exigua

*Ml ql&m Gomphonemaceae parvulum

qffxJ x Synedra spp.

M M-M C Pinnularia molaris

ASIFGzx Surirella capronii

NFg if-, aCocconeis spp.

chlorophyta

Oocystis lacustris

Chlamydomonas globosa

81 t Jr-, A aC. ovalis

. *Ak ICarteria sp.


I a .. I





c* 1110a m Treubaria crassispina

H*IJ Eq g x Tetrastrum heterocanthum

9tf*m Pandorina sp

VI VI 4 Actinastrum hantzschii

A)98* Scenedesmus qudracauda

M t WR .? S. bijuba

r0r;ldm S. dimorphus

t48J1« S. obliquus

Pediastrum

VTh+ ±i Crucigenia tetrapedia

ft ftj+lr-x C. rectangularisbt@& fo +-, AC. quadrata

ifiHa/04 t 'J'Chlorella pyrenoidosaDE F§4 ;t- a a Ankistrodesmus angustus~t~zfftfx A. arcicularis

Coelastrum sp.

,J>t, f g Selenastrum minitum

Pandorina sp

Dictyosphaerium ehrenbergianum

Chodatella cilliata

Quadrigula chodatii

Penium sp.

Closterium sp.

ffldl% Pyrobotry sp

_X.EISbG Staurastrum sp

al+ vli x Westella

Iffir-Ig Nephrocytium

worl: cryptophyta

111 ii m P't Kk Crypotmonas erosa

OXF18 A C. ovata

) t 't -4 Chroomonas acutaeuglenophyta

Euglena acus

Phacus longicauda

Trachelomas volvocina

T. oblongsa

rEa N 9Strombomonas sp

SiPLR-A Lepocinclis sp.

tErl: cyanophyta

1Sif*ok Chroococcus sp.

18i*x Aphanocapsa sp

Synechocystis sp.

Raphidiopsis sp.






| 't*!vM Spirulina maxiima

| id-794 Merismopedia tenussium

|9MMA SSjOscillatoria tenuis

| E4ffi0! O. princes

|L ei,/fti Dactylococcopsis sp

Micracystis sp

Algae with bad odour

genus Latin name odormx w JAnabeana fishy smell, moldy smell

Q**£J;A Microcystis moldy smellAphanizomenon moldy smell

grf MN Oscillatoria moldy smell, bitter smelltS*AN Eudorina fishy smell+J*3JMN Chlorella moldy smellV-ff AN Asteronella fishy smellAtAANl Melosira fishy smell, moldy smelltti3K);A Synura grassy smell, fishy smell

MfiM . Cryptomonas vegetable smell!_____________________________ Coelosphaerium grassy smell

Abundance of Algae

Number/L

Abundance180

150

120

410 90

60

30I

S3 S5 S7 S9 Sll

Sampling points

Pollution index of algae

Genus Pollution index Genus Pollution indext1lt Anacystis 1 M Micractinium 1

4 A Ankistrodesmus 2 )T Navicula 3A Chlamydomonas 4 A Nitzschia 3/JN4* Chlorella 3 f A Oscillatoria 5

9/f a Closterium 1 T3 Pandorina 1'J'3 Cyclotella 1 rg M Phormidium 1N A Euglena 5 A WM Phacus 2

U& Gomphonemaceae 1 t A Scenedesmus 4#4LA Lepocinclis 1 -: Stigeoclonium 2t§ Melosira 1 ~tf* Synedra 2






Species composition of Zooplankton at each sampling point

b04:fb4tl(:!;btt) Protozoa

~t9tl4t(N) Acanthocystis

-t(N, A) Actinophryssp

'Jt>F,(S) Astatia parvulaf% Pm 1tt ik (N) Chromulina pseudonebulosa

H H A L(B) Glaucoma scintillans

* AL R 4 (B) G.. macrostoma

w 2 (P) Gonyostomum semen

wLp(B) Halteria grandinella

PrJi3&*F I (B) Hartmanella canbrigiensis

~Z -M:R LX A (B) Heteronema acus

V41RNI(B) Heterophrys radiata

aki jM$:- [> (B) Pelomyxa palusris

fE t # ; (B) Poteriodendron petiolatum

P410RV(A) Stentor sp

MJAOA-r4 (A) Difflugia acuminata

90*'s (A) D. urceolata

a ffi m (A) Strombilidium viride

-1 PR 11U lU, MA !rR (A) Tintinnopsis wangi

'f f- A (B) Colpidium colpoda

I r7 -ql (B) Vorticella vestita

*1 Rotifera

Rotateria sp.

Asplanchna sp.

Brachionus angularis

B. calyciflorus amphiceros

Rg%;esA Trichocera sp.

Filinia sp.

Polyarthra dolichoptera

Cladocera

Bosmina sp.

*gS!§i Podon polyphemoides

4NA Moina micrura

AMA iffiChydorus sp.

flhifi Sida sp.

V09-A Copepoda

fq*7Ak)N Calanus sp.

Cyclopoida

Nauplii

Harpacticoida






Note: The letter P is for photosynthesis plant, A for algophagous aminal, S for scavengers, B for bacteria

decomposer, N for omnivorous animal.

Abundance of Protozoan

ProtozoanNumber/L

2

1. 5

1

0. 5

0

SI s3 s5 s7 S9 sil

Sampling points


GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



APPENDIX 7

MODELS USED IN EIA






* Soil Erosion Equation (USLE)0 Foshan Waterway Sediment Dredging and Disposal Component

The vegetation communities for the project site are mainly shrub and herb with higher

greenery coverage, and the land is flat, which results in low soil erosion. But during

construction and sludge airing, the vegetation will be destroyed and cleared; the topsoil will be

disturbed, soil erosion will occur under south sub-tropical rainy climate.

The equation to evaluate the water and soil loss is as following according to the United States

Department of Agriculture. The formula is:

A=R*K*LS*C*P

here:

A the average annual soil loss in tons per acre, that is soil erosion modulus (tVha.a),

R the rainfall factor (JIha.mmla),

K the soil erodibility factor;

LS -the terrain factor (slope length and slope ratio),

C the cropping and management factor;

P -the factor for supporting conservation practices.

The value of the parameters depends on the characteristic of the construction and locus's

geology and terrain.

According to the annual rainfall in Foshan, the rainfall factor R is equal to 387.71. Because

the organic matter in sediment is more than 4%, then K is valued 0.42. And the project land is

almost flat with low slope, so LS is 0.22. C is 0.04 for the 80% to 85% greening coverage with

shrub and herb. Moreover the land will be bare by felling plants during the construction and

sludge airing, C is 1. If there is not any water and soil conservation during the construction

and sludge airing, P is 1. If any measures are taken such as barrel-drain, catch drain,

retaining wall, the soil erosion will be reduced by at least 50 percent. On average, P value is

0.65 when taking some measures. The results are shown in following tables.

Comparison of soil erosion modulus before construction and during construction and airing

Time R K Ls C P A2

Before construction 381.71 0.42 0.59 0.04 1 2.162During construction andairing (without water and 381.71 0.42 0.59 1 1 94.588

soil conservation)During construction and

aiiing (with water and soil 381.71 0.42 0.59 1 0.65 61.482conservation)


GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



here:

AL - the decrement of the noise change with the distance (dB),

rl r2 -the distance from a noise source,

L1-the noise value at a distance of rl from the source (dB)

L2-the noise value at a distance of r2 from the source (dB)

The construction noise mainly comes from the operating equipment and the traffic noise,which includes the operating of machines in every stage, the loading and unloading ofmateriel, and the builders' activities. The table followed shows the main noise sources andtheir noise value on different construction stages.

The sound level of main source on different construction stages Unit: dB(A)

Construction Sound Building Soundphase ~ Sound source level? dB phadie Sound source level/ dBphase (A) phase (A)

Rooter 78-96 Electric Drill 100-115

Earthwork phase Impact machine 95 E Hammer 100-105Air compressor 75.-85 Electri Hammer 100-105Pile Driver 95-105 Imperforate Saw 105

Concrete Delivery 90-100 Fitment MultifunctionalBase plate and Pump and Fixing CapnesPne 9 10Orgaseiateiand EIVibrator 100-105 phase ConcreterWhisk 100-110

O hase Electric Saw 100-110 Marble Machine 100-110phase Arc Welder 90-95 Angle Grinder 100-115

Air Compressor 75-85

The decrement of noise at different distance

Distance r2 /rl (im) 1 10 50 100 150 200 250 400 600

AL (dBl) 0 20 34 40 43 46 48 52 57

The noise impact of machines at different distance Unit: dB(A)

Distance(m) 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100Machine

Pile Driver 105 99 93 89 87.0 85.0 83.4 82.1 81.9 80.0Electric Saw 95 89 83 79.5 77.0 75.1 73.5 72.2 71.0 69.0and Plane

Concrete Whisk 95 89 83 79.5 77.0 75.1 73.5 72.2 71.0 69.0Vibrator 95 89 83 79.5 77.0 75.1 73.5 72.2 71.0 69.0Oscillator 95 89 83 79.5 77.0 75.1 73.5 72.2 71.0 69.0Pile Drill 100 94 88 84.5 82.0 80.1 78.5 77.2 76.0 74.0

Drill 100 94 88 84.5 82.0 80.1 78.5 77.2 76.0 74.0Loader 90 84 78 74.5 72.0 70.1 68.5 67.2 66.0 64.0

Bulldozer 90 84 78 74.5 72.0 70.1 68.5 67.2 66.0 64.0Grab 90 84 78 74.5 72.0 70.1 68.5 67.2 66.0 64.0

Air Operated 95 89 83 79.5 77.0 75.1 73.5 72.2 71.0 69.0Machine





C(x, y,O) = Q(2)rua aj-2)' exp[-y 2 /(2a 2 )] . F

4-A (Z*th - Hf)" (2va,+IId')= -h {exp(- bn.F_-1

here:

h-the thickness of the mixing layer;

k-reflecting times;

(yy 'y~ -the diffusion parameter;

The value of aY and az can be calculated according to HJ/T2.2-93. And the revision should

be done according to different situation of the pollution source.

For the area source, the value of ay and a z can be revised by the following equation:

ay = cyI'+ ay /4.3

a- = ca'+ H/2.15

o- = ca-'+ a. /4.3

here:

Y. az the values directly calculated by use of the HJ/T2.2-93;

ay, az-the length of the pollution source follows the y and z direction respectively;

H-the mean height of the area source, unit: meter;

0 Wind velocity at the height of 10 meters UIO <1.5m/s:In the conditions of light air and calm wind, the integral puff model has been used which isrecommended in the national environmental impact assessment (HJIT 2.2- 93). And the basicequations are presented below:

C 1J 2Q2aexp(X _ expU 22 2f20(z)f -a~o exp- expT2 2- ) exp{ ejdT

The values of Cx ,y and 'z are fixed according to HJIT2.2-93, which is suitable for the

conditions of light air and calm wind. And the revision should be done according to differentsituation of the pollution source.






Diffusion parametersThe diffusion parameters adopt the values recommended in HJ / T2.2-93. The B/C/E class

stands for the condition of instability, mid-stability and stability respectively, and the class will

be elevated in industrial park, for example, D class is elevated to C class and so on.

Air diffusion parameters (half an hour) in conditions of windy Unit: m

Diffusion Conditions of Diffusion equation The distance leewardparameter Stability

Instability 0.281846XO.914370 0-1000Instabiity 0.396353XO.865014 >1000

0f .Mid-stability 0.177154XO.924279 0-1000Y Mid-stabiity 0.232123XO.885157 >1000

Stabiliy .0.1 10726XO.929418 0-1000Stabiity 0.146669XO.888723 >1000

Instabiliy .0.127190X0.964435 0-500Instabiity 0.0570251X1.09356 >500

az Mid-stability 0.106803XO.917595 >0Z ~~~~~~~~~~0.104634XO.826212 0-1000

Stability 0.400167XO.632023 1000-100000.810763XO.555360 >10000

NOTE: THE MEAN CONCENTRATION IN AN HOUR SHOULD BE CALCULATED BY THE Y,

Air diffusion parameters (half an hour) in conditions of light air and calm wind Unit: m

Conditions of Stability aaC

Instability 0.76T 0.47TMid-stability 0.47T 0.12T

Stability 0.44T 0.07T

NOTE: ax = Y O

The value of rY and az can be calculated according to HJ/T2.2-93. And the sample interval

revision should be done according to different situation of the pollution source.

For the area source, the value of 'Y and az can be revised by the following equation:

aty =ayI+ a, /4.3

cz = z '+ H/2. 15

cz = c,z'+ az /4.3

here:

ay. Cz the values directly calculated by use of HJ/T2.2-93;


I I I .





ay, a2-the length of the pollution source follows the y and z direction respectively;

H the mean height of the area source, unit: meter.

Index number of speed profile

Index number of speed profile

Conditions of stability Instability Mid-stability StabilityValue of P 0.15 0.25 0.30

* Water Environmental Impact Prediction and Assessment ModelAccording to the "Project of Multi-city Water Pollution Comprehensive Regulation in

Guangzhou-Foshan"(GFP, 2001), an aquatic environmental mathematic model has been

developed by School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Sun-Yat-Sen University for

the hydrodynamic feature and water quality of the network area from Foshan to Guangzhou

(including the river network of Beijiang Delta, the Pearl River main channel in Guangzhou and

its tributary headwaters), and has been validated with the observed data. The simulative

result is quite in agreement with the observed data, so the model can be applied to the

predictive calculation.

* 1-D Hydrodynamic Model for River Network and the ValidationThe principle to select the calculation area is: (a) covering the whole planning area; (b) having

closed boundaries; (c) the uncertain factors outside the downstream boundary have little

effect on the calculation result of the main channels. The calculation area for GFP including

the river network area that is on the east of the Sanshui section (located at the Beijiang Main

Channel), the north of the Dengzhou section (located at the border between Dongping

Channel and Tanzhou Channel) and the Lezhu section (located at the Chenchun Channel),

the west of the Duntouji section (located at the Pearl River Channel) and the south of the

Xiashi section (located at the Baini River). There are 44 nodes in the calculation area; the

total channel length is 384.5km.

Since 1-D network model is applied to calculation, a simplification of the natural open

channels is necessary. In order to develop the discrete simultaneous equations for the

network, the unknowns and the equations must be set in order firstly. The straight reaches,

nodes, boundaries are numbered and a flow direction is specified to each reaches, which can

be specified at random. The straight reaches are numbered as (1), (2)... the channel nodes

are numbered as 1, 2.... The number of sections in a straight reach is determined by the

number of the reach and the given flow direction: from the first straight reach to the last one

according to the number of the straight reaches, and in each reach from upstream to

downstream (following the given direction). Then the order of the calculation sections in the

network area is set in an order with the numbers 1, 2, 3... Hence, the river network in the

calculation area is simplified to 71 straight reaches, 44 nodes and 361 calculation sections.


I I

Xiashi GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANK

6\ GUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


Sanshui (2) ( ) OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AsSESSMENT-APPENDIX/ / yfl \ (63) (7) /Renheba

fl ~~ ~ ~ Heshun (2\t

X1 5) 64)

LA ~~~~~~Li hu (65(68) West Channel

| \n _{ (9 38

(16) \(1S) (2j73_

l adu uShazhuanchang(20# /32)idong (112) 'A 20 Pn ) Fubiaochang (26 PA(G 3

l~ ~~~~~Fsa Chant ac Channel4\ / \ \ (1~~~(i0) \ (25) ( ,(4 Duntouji

> D \~~~~(21 ) \(23 (28 Dashi (227) (48)

W ~~~~~on L Lasi(88) J

(17)Xl~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~2 ) Wudouqiao (136) 30)

(2 (13) (14~~~~() Huangjing (30#) 4

(2 Sanduo Lezhu



DESIGN REVIEW AND ADVISORY SERVICESOVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX

Hydrodynamic ModelContinuity Equation:

1 aQ aHI a+ aH = qLB ax at

Momentum Equation:

a +U au + aH +9 2u °at ax a9x C

2R

Here:

H - water level of the section,

Q - the discharge,

u=QS -the mean velocity at cross-section,

S -the flow section area,

g -the acceleration of gravity,B -the channel width with different water level,

qL -the lateral inflow,

R -the hydraulic radius,

C -the Chezy coefficient,

x, t the coordinate in space and time respectively.

* Junction Equations for Nodes1) Discharge Junction:

The total discharge of inflows and outflows at a node must be equal to the increasing ordecreasing rate of the storage at the node:

aw Zj+ -ZjE- ' at At

here:

Q, -the inflow to a node through cross-section i,

W -the storage volume,

A -the storage area,

Z'j+, Zj -water level at the time j + 1 and j respectively at the node.

If the storage area is small enough, then:

Y'Q, =0

2) Momentum Junction:




OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIXIf both the cross-section areas and velocities of different sections are quite different, and the localloss at nodes is ignored, Bernoulli Equation is:

2 2

H,I+" =H2 + U22g 2g

If the node can be simplified as a geometrical point and the levels of inflow and outflow are evenwithout acute change, then the levels of each branch should be equal to the mean level at thenode:

HI =H2 = ...... = Ho

* Model Solution MethodPreissmann is applied as the difference method, and the obtained simultaneous equations aresolved by use of three stage calculation, which means the calculation is divided into three stages:segment, reach and node.

* Initial and Boundary ConditionsThere are three types of boundary conditions: discharge boundary condition, water levelboundary condition and the relationship between discharge and water level.

The observed data and the monitoring data from hydrology department are used to calculate thehydrodynamic status of the Guangzhou-Foshan river network area in GFP.

In order to learn more about the hydrodynamic conditions of the area and provide boundary

conditions and validation data for the model, two hydrologic investigation were carried out byEnvironmental School at Sun-Yat-Sen University, one on Mon. 4-11th in 2001 during dry season,and the other on Jun. 7-14th in 2001 during wet season, 17 investigation sections were set,including 7 tidal current sections and 10 water level sections, the locations and names are shownin the following table. The tidal current investigation was taken during neap, moderate and springtide in dry and wet season, each observation was held continuously for 26 hours which includingthe measurement of velocity, flow direction and depth. The water level investigation alsocollected the hourly level observed data for 1 month from 10 gauging stations.

Investigation Sections

Section Name Stream Item PeriodHeshun Xinan Creek velocity, flow direction, depthXiashi Baini River velocity, flow direction, depth Jan. 4th- 11th , 2001

Huangqi Shuikou Channel velocity, flow direction, depthShazhuanchuang Foshan Waterway velocity, flow direction, depth

Yanbu Yanbu River velocity, flow direction, depth Jun. 7th-14th, 2001Huangjing Dashi Channel velocity, flow direction, depthPingzhou Dongping Channel velocity, flow direction, depthSanshui Beijiang Main Channel Water levelSanduo Nansha Creek Water level Jan. 1st-31th, 2001Zidong Shunde Channel Water levelLanshi Dongping River Water level

Wudouqiao Pingzhou Waterway Water level Jun. lst-30th, 2001Lezhu Chencun Channel Water level

Fubiaochang Back Channel Water levelDashi Sanzhixiang Channel Water level Apr. 15th-May 5th,

Zhongda Front Channel Water level 1995Huangpu Huangpu Channel Water level




Three periods (Jun. 23-30th in 2001, Apr. 15-23th in 1995 and Jan. 4-11th in 2001) are

selected to simulate continuously for 8 days, which represent the wet season, average seasonand dry season and include spring, moderate and neap tide periods.

The initial water level and discharge are set to be zero.

. Roughness Coefficient of River BedAccording to the existing research data, the river bed roughness of Pearl River Delta varies from0.016 to 0.0278, which is adopted by the model and the roughness coefficient is set afterdebugging.

. Hydrodynamic Model Validation

In GFP, 6 sections are selected for water level validation, 5 for velocity and flow direction.

Sections for water Level Validation

Section No. 112 88 136 273 215 227

Section Zidong Lanshi Wudouqiao Zhongda Fubiaochang DashiName

Stream Dongping Channel, Dongping River Front Back SanzhixiangStream D pnCannl, npinRier Channel Channel Channel

Sections for Velocity and Flow Direction Validation

Section No. 75 342 149 172 165Section Heshun Huangqi Shazhuanchang Huangjing PingzhouName

Stream Xinan Creek Channel Foshan Waterway Dashi Channel Doping

* Validation ResultThe data of June, 2001 is selected to calibrate the model parameters, and then the parametersare applied to calculate the flow field of January, 2001.

Water Level Validation of Dry Season:(a) Observed and simulative water level at Zidong in Jan., 2001

1. 5

1 A~~~~~~

0. -A -Simulated

( ) 24 48 72 6 120 4 V 8 12 216B 0. 5

Time (h)




OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX(b) Observed and simulative water level at Lanshi in Jan., 2001

1 . 5~_r~~~~~~~~~ --

I. 5> fAOb* OIserved-Simulated

2 48 2 6 12 4 ~~~ ~~~~~1~2 216

-1.5LTime (h)

(c) Observed and simulative water level at Wudouqiao in Jan., 2001

2

0.5

0--0. 56

-1. 5

Time (h)

(d) Observed and simulative water level at Zhongda in Jan. 2001

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a 10.5 [Observed0 -Smltd

a 24 44 72 96 120 ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~44 68 2 216-0.5

-1. 5

Time (h)




OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX(e) Observed and simulative water level at Fubiaochang in Jan., 2001

2 -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ __________ _ =__ _ _ _

2

' A t i 0.5 *Observed

2 4 Simulated

'. 5

Time (h)

(fl Observed and simulative water level at Dashi in Jan., 2001

> E5 Observed

Velocity and Flow Direction Validation of Dry Season:(g) Observed and simulative velocity and flow direction at Heshun in Jan., 2001

.6_

0. 4 +*tli

24 44 9 0 4 4 2 1

| 0.6 ffi 1' \s, o 3° it:iit~~~~-0.

Time (h)

(h) Observed and simulative velocity and flow direction at Huangqi in Jan., 2001

0.

0.20

''D 0 Observed

22 15 is 20 25\ 30 - iu a e

o 20.-

-O 40__ _ _ -

-O. 50 ____ _

Time (h)




(i) Observed and simulative velocity and flow direction at Shazhuanchang in Jan., 2001

0.60

0.240

0. 20 Observed

° -e 2 ts 20 25 30 35 - Simulated-0.20

0. 40 _ __ _

-0. 60

Time (h)

() Observed and simulative velocity and flow direction at Huangjing in Jan., 2001

0.60

0.40 * *0.20E ;. 20 /* Observed>° -O 40._ 10 +\;, ,>/ 20 25t 30 -Simulated

-0-0.20 10. 15 20 25 30

-0.40

-0.60

Time (h)

(k) Observed and simulative velocity and flow direction at Pingzhou in Jan.

| 0.60 -Tm h

0. 40

S 0.20

0.00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ _ __ *ObservedC) -~~~~ .5I 5~ ' 5 3 Simulated

-~-0.20

Time (h)






Water Level Validation of Wet Season:(a) Observed and simulative water level at Zidong in June, 2001

6

5

* Observed3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Simulated

t312

O 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216

Time (h)

(b) Observed and simulative water level at Lanshi in June, 2001

4

3. 5E 3 -_2. 5

2 N Observed

-Simulated

0. 5

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216

Time (h)

(c) Observed and simulative water level at Zhongda in June, 2001

1. 5 6

Time(h)




(d) Observed and simulative water level at Fubiaochang in June, 2001

2

- 1.

>0 Observed0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~Simulated

a

-0.5 9 1 14 6_12 16

Time (h)

(e) Observed and simulative water level at Dashi in June, 2001

2

1. 5_ _ _

> 1 A* Observed

0.

- 5 9- 1i l 16Y 192 216

Time (h)

Velocity and Flow Direction Validation of Wet Season:(flObserved and simulative velocity and flow direction at Heshun in June, 2001

1.00

0. 50 - --------E .02 5 30 * Observedr ( ) it 5 10 20 30 Simulated, 0.50 *

-1.00

Time (h)

SOGREAH - LWN - N-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 40



OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX(g) Observed and simulative velocity and flow direction at Huangqi in June, 2001

0. 60

0.40 ____E 0. 20 - - * -0. 00 * Observed

°-0.20 0 L10 20 2 1 30 Simulated

-0.40

-0.60Time (h)

(h) Observed and simulative velocity and flow direction at Shazhuanchang in June, 2001

1.00 _~~~~ _-,0.80 -- ** _>, 0.60 d * * * * - * Observed

0.40 iS____ Simulated

> 0.20 _ __

0.000 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (h)

The validation demonstrates that the simulation of the tide current and tide level in the study areais fairly successful. The velocity and flow direction at all the validation sections in dry seasonchanges nearly the same as the observed data. The simulations of water level changing atZidong and Lanshi in summer can successfully show a part of a flood event. No matter insummer or in dry season, the water level simulations at Zhongda, Fubiaochang and Dashi are in

good agreement with the observed process. However, there are differences between thesimulative and the observed velocity at all the sections in summer. The hydrodynamic simulationis quite successful on the whole, and provides an accurate flow field for the simulation of waterquality.

1-D Water Quality Model for Network and the ValidationCalculation Area of the water quality model is the same as the hydrodynamic model.

Based on the investigation and prediction of the existing water pollution sources, 59 control units

are set in GFP. Part of the discharge amount of different control units are combined according tothe location of the outlets, and finally 55 outlets are left for calculation. The annual discharges ofthe control units after combination are shown as follow.

Discharge Intensity of Control Units after Combination

Control Unit Name Discharge intensity in 2000(tla)NH3-N CODCr





Gl Shenshan Creek 1984 14842

G2 Jianggao River 1254 8106

G3 Liuxi River 9761 57494

G4 Shijing River 2065.3 10386

G5 Aokou Creek 210.8 1294

G6 Liwan Creek 52 324.5

G7 Xihao Creek 650.4 4059

G8 Donghao Creek 2281.5 14008.4

G9 Shahe Creek 811 4785.3

G10 Liede Creek 493.7 4224.6

Gll Tangxia Creek 194 1097

G12 Chebei Creek 815 4885

G13 Xin Creek 355 2097

G14 Wen Creek 1717 8974G15 Saiba Creek 538.6 5337.5

G16 Huadi Creek 560 3362

G17 Dacongkou 23 161

G18 Sha Creek 68 466

G19 Donglang Creek 256 1543

G25 Fenjiang 836 4004

G20 Haizhu Creek 886 5873

G21 Yadun Creek 751 4980

G22 Huangpu Creek 476 2992

G23 Shixi Creek 572 3795

G24 Xinjiao 740 4620

Fl Biaobiandou 53 457

F2+N14 Guabu Creek 488 3594

F3 Xin Creek 28 243

F4 Shijiao Creek 454 2256

F5 Jiujiangji 120 585

F6 Nanbei Creek 1678 10919

F7 Haikou Creek 329 2141

F8 Qicha Creek 622 4061

N1+S2+S3 Shihu Creek, Farmland, Xinan Town 2817 21330

N2 Shishan Creek 662 4024

N3 Dalan Creek 381 2578

N4 Lubao Creek 59 415

N5 Gong Creek 111 805

N6 Nei Creek 30 247

N7 Lugang 68 494

N8 Heshunnan 175 1271

N9 Lishui Creek 518 3625

N10 Yayaoshui 765 5987

N1l Mi Creek 250 2135

N12 Huangqi Town 99 806



DESIGN REVIEW AND ADVISORY SERVICESOVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AsSESSMENT--APPENDIX

N13 Yanbu Creek 426 3182

N15 Luocun Creek 772 4513

N16 Xiaotang 156 1278

N17 Jinsha Town 525 3565

N18 Nanzhuang 905 6344

N19 Jili 661 4272

N20 Foshan Creek 376 1770

N21 Pingzhou Town 494 3891

N22+N23 Linyue Creek, Sanshuigang 337 3080Si Leping Town 823 4723

Total 43533.4 281347.2

0 Water Quality ModelThe advection, transport and degradation for pollutants in 1-D channel can be formulated as:

a(AC) a(QC) a (AE jC )At + ax =ax + ax +SI-S =0 (A5.4.7)

(QC), = (CQ) j(-)jIdt (A5.4.8)

here:

Q, Z -discharge and water level,

Ex -the longitudinal dispersion coefficient,

C -the concentration of pollutant,

Q -the surface area of node,

- the node number,

-the number of the channel connected with node i,

S -the decay term of pollutant,

S -the external source sink term.

* Difference SchemeThe numerical solution of the water quality equations is carried out by implicit upwind differencescheme. Considering the direction of the flow is uncertain in the river network, the flow directionregulation factor is introduced in the discrete equations.





Boundary Conditions and Initial ConditionsThe boundary conditions in the model are the given boundary concentrations. A boundarycondition is not needed when the flow at the boundary is outflow, but necessary when inflow.During model calculation, first should judge the flow direction of the channels with externalboundaries and then apply the boundary concentrations to the corresponding channel recurrenceequation.

The initial concentrations are set to be zero.

. Key Parameters of Water QualityIn the tidal rivers and networks, the value of 1-D longitudinal dispersion coefficient is relative tothe timescale of simulation, as well as the location in tidal river. The equation proposed byFishcer in 1975 is applied in the study:

K = 0.01 1-hu, (A5.4.9)

here:

h -the mean depth,

u. - the friction velocity,

J -the hydraulic gradient,

V -the mean velocity at across-section,

A -the cross-section area,B -the width of water surface.

The degradation coefficient of C°Dcr i5 specified to be 0.2 per day.

The degradation coefficient of NH3-N ranges from 0.02 to 0.1 per day referring to the "TheSeventh Five-Year Plan Science and Technological Key Project: Research on the Water QualityModel of the Guangzhou Reach of Pearl River", which is set by model calibration.

* Validation of Water Quality ModelThree sections are selected as the validation sections in the study:

Water Quality Validation Sections

Section No. 75 149 165

Name Heshun Shazhuanchang Pingzhou

Stream Xinan Creek Foshan Waterway Dongping River

The simulation result of the 8-day flow field on Jan. 4-11th in 2001 including spring, moderateand neap tide is calculated by the validated hydrodynamic model, and is applied to simulate thetemporal and spatial distribution of COD and NH3 -N. The results are shown below.





(a)Observed and simulative COD concentration at Heshun in Jan., 2001

45 -

30 * Observed

25 s x _ Simulated

os - _ _ _ _ _ ___ - .. ___ _

04 5 -3 1 t __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _

Time (day)

(b) Observed and simulative COD concentration at Shazhuanchang in Jan., 2001

r-65---.D-

5550-

E 45 a z + R\ 7 X r . Observed

3 ,5 \ggi tt , * Simulatedi 30

2520 - -------- --15 C - _ _ _ _ _

10

4- 1 Time(day)

(c) Observed and simulative COD concentration at Pingzhou in Jan., 2001

30

25

2 20

1510

5

0

SOGREAH - LWN - Nr-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 45



(d)Observed and simulative NH3-N concentration at Heshun in Jan., 2001

7,6

E 4 _N/ ~_ _ * ObservedZ 3 * ..~ < -Simulated

n~ ~ .2 _ -*Time (day)

(e) Observed and simulative NH3-N concentration at Shazhuanchang in Jan., 2001

12 - _ _--

r h \ Bc<;i __-- +Observed3 __ _ __ __ _ _ _S i muIat ed

0

Time (day)

(f) Observed and simulative NH3-N concentration at Pingzhou in Jan., 2001

6

2 | - 6 Observed2 * SimulatedZ 1

Time (day)


GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


As can be seen from the comparison between the simulation and the observation, the simulationof COD at Heshun on Jan. 7-8th and 10-11th, and the simulation of COD and NH3-N at

Shazhuanchang on Jan. 4-5th, 7-8th and 10-11th are successful and reflect the trend of thepollutant concentration. However the result of NH3-N at Heshun on Jan. 4-5th is not so good withthe relative error above 50%, which may be caused by simple disposal of the pollutant at thepollution source and the uncontrollable boundary conditions. First, the hydrodynamic simulationis fairly successful as shown above, so it would not be the cause. Second, the type andconcentration of pollutant discharging vary from time to time actually, but the investigation ofpollution source is based on statistical data and what it shows is the annual mean load capacity.As a result, the presumption of continuous discharging has to be applied to the model calculation,which means the annual discharge amount is shared evenly by each time step. In other words,the source intensity adopted in the calculation is not the actual one at the calculation time, whichwill lead to errors between the result and the observation. Moreover, the setting of boundaryconditions has a direct effect on the modeled result. Since the study area is quite large withmultiple boundaries, it is unable to control all the boundaries with observed concentration.Instead, the mean monitoring data of water quality in dry season is applied. Thus, the changingof the concentration of external pollutant input can't be reflected during the simulation. Moreover,the data at the boundary sections with observed concentration process can not include thesimulation period with spring, moderate and neap tide process (8 day in total). So it is the error ofthe setting of boundary conditions in the water quality simulation that leads to the error ofcomputed results. However, the water quality model is reliable and feasible for practicalprediction calculation on the whole.

* 1-D Sediment Transport Model in Unsteady Flow for River Network* Continuity Equation for Suspended Sediment:

a(ASK) a(QSK)+ _-aBWk(SK - Sk)±+SQ(Kt ax (A5.4. 10)

here:

Q-the river discharge,

A, B - the flow section area and the channel width,

SK - the mean concentration at a cross-section of particle class K,

a - the recovery saturation coefficient for suspended sediment,

K the sinking rate of particle class K,

SK -the transport capacity of particle class K,

Q -the concentration of suspended substance during dredging

The Zhangruijin Formula is applied to calculate the sinking rate for the particle class K:




v ~ Rs-R co, / 1 3.95d-) +1.09- gdk - 13.95 d (A.4 R dk ~~~~(A5.4.11)

here:

v -the coefficient of kinematic viscosity,

dk -median particle diameter of particle class K,

Rs dry volume weight,

R -volume weight of water;

g -the acceleration of gravity.The Formula for Graded Sediment Carrying Capacity

SK = PKS (Graded sediment carrying capacity) (A5.4.12)

S* =Ks( (-)gho (Total sediment carrying capacity) (A5.4.13)

PK =P(K )a NS PI (

WK k o SK (percentage of graded sediment carrying capacity) (A5.4.14)

NS

CO= Y PK Kk=1 (mean sinking rate) (A5.4.15)

Here:

Ks, m - empirical values, referring to 'The Ninth Five-Year Plan' Science and Technological

Key Project of Department of Transport: Research on Water and Sediment and theMathematic Model of the River Network of Pearl River Delta. For the river network of

Pearl River Delta, they are: m =0.92, Ks =0.0012-0.0016,

g -the acceleration of gravity,

h - depth,

U -average flow velocity at cross-section,

PK -the percentage of particle class K,

NS -the number of particle class,

a -the recovery saturation coefficient, which is 1.0 in the case of scouring and 0.25 fordeposition.




Boundary and Initial ConditionsWhether Shakou water gate and Shiken water gate are open depends on the inner and outerwater level difference. Hence, in a respect of pollutant transportation, Fenjiang and FoshanCreek are actually in the half closed state, that is pollutants can only be transported to thedownstream of Foshan Creek. For the lack of water level data of Shiken water gate and otherboundaries on the calculation area, first open Shiken gate, make Foshan Creek a branch which

connects Foshan Waterway and Dongping River, and get the discharge in Shiken water gate andwater level of other boundaries from the calculation of a larger area, then take Foshan Waterwayand Foshan Creek to be the calculation area, Shakou water gate and Shiken water gate as thedischarge boundary, fix 0 discharge during flood tide and full discharge during ebb tide.

Water level, discharge and pollutant concentration at each cross-section of the wholeGuangzhou-Foshan river network during dry season calculated from 1 D river net hydrodynamicmodel in GFP are adopted as boundary values in this assessment. Water level of all theboundary cross-sections is shown in the following figure.

While predicting the water quality after each Project, the concentration of pollutants at eachboundary cross-section are adopted from the average value calculated by 1D water qualitymodel from the whole Guangzhou-Foshan river network during dry season; during the process ofsediment dredging and river bank improvements, only the impacts produced by the constructionof the project are considered, so the concentration of all the different pollution including SS ateach boundary cross-section is set to be zero.

In order to simplify the calculation, the initial values of water level, discharge and pollutantsconcentration are all set to be zero.

The Concentration of Different Pollutions at Each Boundary section (mg/L)

Boundary section NO. 1 20 35 37 39 41 43

The average concentration of 9.992 10.001 21.485 23.087 29.132 27.919 43.955CODcr

The average concentration of 2.58 2.58 5.54 5.95 7.51 7.20 11.33BOD5,The average concentration of 0.32 0.32 1.87 1.95 2.04 2.04 4.23

NH3-N

(a) Discharge of Shakou water gate (1 #section)

35

30

25t

20

15

CC 10

5

0~~ _J I __ , ___0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200_____ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~tim e (h) __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

SOGREAH - LWN - NC_R23500n7 APRIL 2006 PAGE 50



(b) Discharge of Shiken water gate (20# section)

1012

I _

CCC)~ ~ ~ ~~~~~d Wae ee f 7 eto

.~ 4

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

t ime (h)

(c) Water level of 359 section

1. 5

t ime (h)i

S 0.5 -A

0~t20 2 0 6 0 2

m-0.5 --

____ ~~~~~~~~~~time (h)

(e) Water level of 394 section

1. 5

0

-1.

time (h)

SOGREAH LWN -N-235 e)8 WAteR level oPAGE secio



OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX(f Water level of 41 # section

1. 5

E~~0.5

0. 4~~~~120 X4 V !q I 0 ,T'-0.5

t ime (h)

(g) Water level of 43# section

1.5

E

t lime (h)

. Modl PaetThis assessment adopted the model parameters which are verified if GFP.

. Pollution Source generated during Sediment DredgingDuring sediment dredging, the pollutants such as suspended substance (SS), COD and NH3-Nare generated from the disturbance on sediment. And the leaching amount of heavy metal fromthe sediment of Foshan Waterway is small. Thus, the assessment will mainly concentrate on theprediction of the impact of SS, COD and NH3-N on the water environment.

The suspended sediment amount is set to be 5 kg/iM3, and the total SS generated from dredging

is 277.8g/s when the working intensity of the cutter suction dredger is set to be 200m3 /h.

Particle Size Distribution of Suspension and Pollution Source Intensity at each Dredging Point

>0.25 0.03-0.25 0.0075-0.03 0.0025-0.0075

Mechanical Pollution Mechanical Pollution Mechanical Pollution Mechanical Pollutioncomposition source composition source composition source composition source

(%) (g/s) (%) (g/s) (%) (gls) (%) (gls)LuoshaSl 21.1 58.70 11 30.60 52.2 145.21 15.7 43.67

FuxiS5 17 47.29 17.25 47.99 25.55 71.07 40.2 111.83

LubianzhaS7 16.433 45.71 17.367 48.31 31.667 88.09 34.53 96.06

ShixiS8 14.55 40.48 15.95 44.37 32.1 89.30 37.4 104.04

ShaweiqiaoS9 13.8 38.39 19.35 53.83 34.95 97.22 31.9 88.74




RenminqiaoSlo 13.95 38.81 18.65 51.88 36.85 102.51 30.55 84.98

Pollution Source of CODCr and NH3-N at Different Dredging Points (g/s)

Dredging Point Luosha Fuxi Luobianzha Shixi Shaweiqiao RenminqiaoDredging Point Si S5 S7 S8 59 510

CODcr 31.47 27.79 13.29 5.07 2.51 32.46

NH3-N 4.17 3.89 1.63 2.15 0.54 2.06

Wastewater generated during sediment dewatering is 6250m3 /d (446.43m3 /h, when assumingthe construction lasts 450d and 14h/d). The water can reach Guangdong provincial localstandard- class 2 after treatment. According to the sediment dewatering process, after sandremoving, flocculation and residue removing, the pollutants in the wastewater before furthertreatment and the up-to-standard discharge are shown in the following table.

Wastewater Amount and Pollutant Generation during Sediment Dewatering

Wastewater CODcr NH3-N SSItems Amount Concentration Amount Concentration Amount Concentration Amount

(m3Ih) (mg/L) (kg/h) (mg/L) (kg/h) (mg/L) (kg/h)

Generation 446.43 181.3 80.9 27.52 12.3 200 89.3

Discharge 446.43 110 49.1 15 6.7 100 44.6

* Pollution Source Generated during River Bank ImprovementsThe main pollutant is SS.

Referencing to 'Environmental Impact Assessment of Development Project at the West Shoal ofJitimen Estuary, Zhuhai', the pollution source intensity of SS adopted in this assessment is set tobe 3.72kg/s which is generated by construction of bank. Since the particle size of the suspensionmentioned above is quite large, the median diameter is set to be 0.1 mm.

* Pollution Source before the Construction* External Source

According to the investigation and assessment of the water pollution source in Foshan, andreferencing to 'The Investigation Report of the Industrial Pollution Sources along FoshanWaterway' written by Research Institute of Recourse and Environmental Science, FoshanUniversity and Foshan Environmental Protection Bureau in February, 2005, the location anddischarge amount of each outlet in the calculation area are obtained. Several discharge sourcesare combined to simplify the calculation, and the major outlets are emphasized. Thus, 23 majoroutlets are obtained on the calculation area.

* Internal SourceAccording to the experiment result and analogism about the pollutant release mechanism ofcontaminated sediment, and the investigation of sediment, the release rate (g.m-2%S-1 ) ofsediment at 13 points in Foshan Waterway are obtained, and the value of each section is gainedby linear interpolation, which means that each section is assumed as a pollution source. Hence,there are 86 calculation outlets except the boundary sections.






Total Source Intensity

Discharge Amount of Pollutants at each Outlet in Foshan Waterway (g/s)

Outlet Section Section CODcr BOD5 NH3-NNumber Number

1 4 AoDou 0.67 0.17 0.092 6 MaLangdou 4.27 1.10 0.183 8 LuoCun Creek Front 25.76 6.64 2.884 10 Beizha 108.92 28.07 8.195 13 Direct and centralized discharging point at the 2.06 0.53 0.04

north and south bank of Fenjiang River6 15 Jiujiang JiDou 17.16 4.42 0.257 16 FoShan Bridge 82.80 36.72 17.618 18 Outlet of the city sewer 245.06 63.16 28.939 25 Texitle wastewater treatment east station 6.74 1.74 0.0010 28 Zhen'an WWTP 137.71 35.49 16.2511 31 ZhenJi wastewater treatment plant 27.62 7.12 0.0012 33 Centralized discharging point at FoShan Creek 26.08 6.72 1.48

Front13 40 Eastern district 387.32 99.82 24.3514 46 Outlet of waste water of Dunhou District 17.72 4.57 1.1515 48 Huaqiao paper mill 12.47 3.21 0.0016 50 NanHai outfall 16.89 4.35 0.0017 51 HengJiao 73.15 18.85 15.7518 55 YueLisha Creek Front 71.09 18.32 18.4319 59 YanBu Creek 58.12 14.98 16.9620 66 WuSheng estuary 3.17 1.21 0.0921 67 Shi'an Creek Front 3.2 1.52 0.0922 73 SanZhou Creek Front 100.43 28.67 22.9023 75 ShaWei Bridge 61.59 21.61 15.43

Pollution Source after the Construction

The Removal Effect of Different Pollutants in each Plant (tld)

Plant Pollutant Before After Removal Cutting rate(%)treatment treatment quantity

Chengbei WWTP 20.8 6.5 14.3 69CODcr

12.5 3 9.5 76

Zhen'an WWTP BODs 6.5 1.5 5 77

NH3-N 1.25 0.75 0.5 40

Discharge Amount of Pollutants at each Outlet after each Component and the whole Project (g/s)

Discharge DischargeDischarge of CODcr of BOD5 of NH3-N

Outlet Section After Atr After Afternumber number Section After After Zhen'an Ater Zhen'an Zhen'an

sediment riverbank WANTPl the WWTP WWTPdredging improvements Phase III pwroject Phase III Phase III

Expansion Expansion Expansion1 4 AoDou 0.51 0.67 0.67 0.51 0.17 0.092 6 MaLangdou 4.11 4.27 4.27 4.11 1.10 0.183 8 LuoCun Creek Front 25.59 15.76 25.76 15.59 6.64 2.884 10 North gate 107.87 48.92 108.92 47.87 28.07 8.19

Direct and centralized5 13 discharging point at the 1.43 1.81 2.06 1.18 0.53 0.04

north and south bank ofFenjiang River

6 15 Jiujiang JiDou 11.00 17.16 6.32 0.16 3.22 0.197 16 FoShan Bridge 77.26 75.69 82.80 70.15 36.72 17.61




OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX8 18 Outlet of the city sewer 240.56 137.06 112.62 0.12 6.85 14.529 25 Textile wastewater 5.49 6.74 6.74 5.49 1.74 0.00

treatment east station

10 28 Zhen'an WWTP 136.54 137.71 282.39 281.21 110.72 2349732

11 31 ZhenJi WWTP 17.89 27.62 27.62 17.89 7.12 0.00Centralized discharging

12 33 point at FoShan Creek 16.35 26.08 26.08 16.35 6.72 1.48Front

13 40 Eastern district 387.32 387.32 387.32 387.32 99.82 24.35Outlet of waste water of 75.42/

14 46 Dunhou Districttreatment 14.25 78.89/244.4 17.72 240693 4.57 1.15plant

15 48 Huaqiao paper mill 8.26 4.44 12.47 0.23 3.21 0.0016 50 NanHai outlet 1.36 16.89 16.89 1.36 4.35 0.0017 51 HengJiao 55.90 39.71 73.15 22.46 18.85 15.7518 55 YueLisha Creek Front 58.27 71.09 71.09 58.27 18.32 18.4319 59 YanBu Creek 58.12 58.12 58.12 58.12 14.98 16.9620 66 WuSheng Estuary 3.25 4.68 4.68 3.25 1.21 0.0921 67 Shi'an Creek Front 3.34 5.91 5.91 3.34 1.52 0.0922 73 SanZhou Creek Front 100.61 111.23 111.23 100.61 28.67 22.9023 75 ShaWei Bridge 61.96 83.86 83.86 61.96 21.61 15.43

Cakulation Result of Water Quality

Distribution of average tidal concentration of CODcr before project

_ , )

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10,.L ... ...- ------ ----~~~-

It can be seen from the figure that except the water quality of the reach from Shaokou water gate

in upstream of Fenjiang River to Zhangchu and that from Shiken water gate in upstream of

Foshan Creek to Zhen'an section meet the requirement, water quality in other reaches of Foshan

Waterway is worse than class V.

. Monitoring section

MONITORING SECTIONS FOR PREDICTION OF WATER ENVIRONMENT

No. Section No. Section1 8 Luocun Creek Front2 16 Foshan Bridge3 28 Zhen'an WWTP




OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX4 33 Renmin Bridge5 45 Xiedie Bridge6 46 North-City WWTP7 51 Hengjiao8 57 Lubian Water Gate9 67 Shixi10 75 Shawei Bridge

Location of monitoring sections for predictions of water environment

5I

2;

3

(a)The discharge in a tidal cycle of Luocun Greek Front

Luocun Creek Front

30

202

10

0

21 40 60 80 10 1I 140 160 180 2 0-m-10 8

-20 l l_ -30

time (h)

(b) The discharge in a tidal cycle of Foshan Bridge

Foshan Bridge50

4030

320 -t

_ 10

0

-20 -

-30 _ _ _ _ _ _

-40 --- ____ _

-50

______________ ~~~time (h)




(c) The discharge in a tidal cycle of Zhen'an WWTP

Zhen' an Sewage Treatment Plant

12 _-

e 6-

4

2

0 S0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

time(h)

(d) The discharge in a tidal cycle of Renmin Bridge

Renmin Bridge

8

-4

3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200time(h)

(e) The discharge in a tidal cycle of Chengbei WWTP

Northern City Sewage Treatment Plant

60

40

20

-6040SR 60 80 100 2 180 2020

-40

-40

time (h)




(f) The discharge in a tidal cycle of Hengjiao

llengjiao

60

40

E 20 --

0

-20__ ___ 0 6 0 10140 160 10 2

-40 0

-60

time (h)

(g) The discharge in a tidal cycle of Lubian Water Gate

Lubian water gate

80

40

.20

time (h)

(h)The discharge in a tidal cycle of Shixi

Shix i

160

100 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

50

0

CC 4 0 80 100 0 14 0 ~~~ ~~18 20a 50 _ _ _

-100

-150

time (h)




(i) The discharge in a tidal cycle of Shawei Bridge

Shawei Bridge

150

100 ~ ~ ~ 0 8 10 1 1 8 2

er -5o-50

200r-ioo

time(h)

Impacts on the Water Environment during Sediment DredgingThe impact on water environment during Foshan Waterway sediment dredging is mainly caused

by pollutants discharged from the dredging and dewatering process. The impact projection is

described as below:

> The concentration increment of SS, NH3-N and CODCr at each monitoring section

caused during dredging process;> The concentration increment caused at each monitoring section when the wastewater

of sediment dewatering plant discharges in compliance with the standard;> The concentration increment caused at each monitoring section when the wastewater

of sediment dewatering plant discharges in accident condition.> In the assessment, projection of the integrated impact of dredging and discharge from

the dewatering plant on the water quality of Foshan waterway during construction at 6dredging points will be carried out respectively. The 6 dredging points are Luosha (Si),Fuxi (S5), Lubian Water Gate (S7), Shixi (S8), Shawei Bridge (S9) and Renmin Bridge

(S10). The monitoring sections of water quality are Luocun Creek, Foshan Bridge,Zhen'an WWPT, Renmin Bridge, Hengjiao, Chengbei WWTP, Xiedie Bridge, LubianWater Gate, Shixi and Shawei Bridge.

CONCENTRATION INCREMENT OF SS, CODCR AND NH3-N CAUSED BY DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT DEWATERING WASTEWATER(MG/L)

SS CODCr NH3-NCompliance Accidental Compliance Accidental Compliance Accidentaldischarge discharge discharge discharge discharge discharge

Monitoringsection

Aveag verg Aerag Avrg vrag M Ax. raMax. Max. Averag Max Averag Max Ave M Averag Max.e e e e e e

Luocun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Creek Front

Foshan 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.02 0 0 0 0Bridge

Zhen'an 0 0.07 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WWTPRenmin 0 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


C *



Bridge

North-City 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.09 0 0.01 0 0.01WWTPHengjiao 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.19 0.05 0.31 0 0.03 0.01 0.05

Water Gate 0 0.03 0 0.03 0.12 0.3 0.19 0.5 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.08Shixi 0 0 0 0.01 0.19 0.4 0.31 0.65 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.1

Shawei 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.32 0.72 0.53 1.18 0.04 0.1 0.08 0.18Bridge

CONCENTRATION INCREMENT OF SS CAUSED BY DREDGING AT DIFFERENT DREDGING POINTS (MGIL)

Luocun Fhn Zena Rnmn Chengb Lubian SaeCreek Brihan eZ hjeanR ng Water Shixi ShaweFront Brdge WWTP Bridge WWTPV jiao Gate Bridge

Luosha Average 10.59 3.99 0 0.01 2.38 1.56 0.73 0.64 0.27Si Max. 15.76 5.55 0.09 0.13 3.78 2.53 1.52 1.35 0.99

Fuxi Average 0.02 2.48 0 0.02 9.86 9.97 5.35 4.74 2.12S5 Max. 0.39 13.64 0.09 1.04 38.01 58° 9.48 8.6 6.38

Lubian Average 0 0.05 0 0.01 0.23 1.68 5.84 5.21 2.55Water

Gate S7 Max 0 0.88 0.09 0.1 2.62 6.35 10.04 9.34 7.31

Shixi Average 0 0.02 0 0.01 0.11 0.93 5.32 6.87 3.36S8 Max. 0 0.44 0.09 0.08 1.52 4.33 14.68 14.65 9.92

Shawei Average 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.23 1.35 1.59 4.46Bridge

S9 Max. 0 0.09 0.1 0.08 0.39 1.7 3.69 4.1 9.6

Renmin Average 0.08 5.49 0 60.69 16.51 11 5.63 4.95 2.17Bridge 17.7sio Max. 1.42 25.36 0.1 161.95 32.6 2 11.11 9.6 7.17

CONCENTRATION INCREMENT OF CODCR CAUSED BY DREDGING AT DIFFERENT DREDGING POINTS (MGIL)

Luocun Foshan Zhen'an Renmin bheig Hn Watern ShhieiCreek Bridge WWTP Bridge bei; jiao Gater Sh;xi Bridge

Luosha Average 3.95 2.36 0 0 1.52 1.16 0.77 0.56 0.26Si Max. 5.47 3.08 0 0.13 2.12 1.51 1.11 0.82 0.65

Fuxi Average 0.01 0.48 0 0.01 1.66 2.11 1.65 1.3 0.61S5 Max. 0.08 2.53 0 0.29 5.35 2.61 2.15 1.86 1.51

Lubian Average 0 0.01 0 0 0.03 0.19 0.69 0.58 0.31Water

Gate S7 Max. 0 0.12 0 0.02 0.3 0.61 0.92 0.71 0.65

Shixi Average 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.21 0.12S8 Max. 0 0.03 0 0.01 0.06 0.15 0.23 0.25 0.17

Shawei Average 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06Bridge

S9 Max. 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.12




Renmin Average 0 1.45 0 9.65 3.9 3.47 2.71 2.13 1Bridgesio Max. 0.37 5.89 0 27.68 7.09 4.81 4.05 3.46 3.02

CONCENTRATION INCREMENT OF NH3-N CAUSED BY DREDGING AT DIFFERENT DREDGING POINTS (MGIL)

Luocn k Foshan Zhen'an Renmin Cheigb Heng Lubian Shi ShaweiCreek ei j9 Water xi BdgFront Bridge WWTP Bridge WWTP jiao Gate xi Brdge

Luosha Average 0.55 0.35 0 0 0.23 0.19 0.12 0.0 0.05Si Max. 0.76 0.46 0 0.02 0.31 0.23 0.18 i 0.12

Fuxi Average 0 0.07 0 0 0.24 0.31 0.25 0.2 0.1S5 Max. 0.01 0.37 0 0.04 0.75 0.37 0.32 0.2 0.24

8Lubian Average 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.09 0.0 0.05Water 7

Gate S7 Max. 0 0.02 0 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.0 0.089

Shixi Average 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.05 0 0.06S8 Max. 0 0.01 0 0 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.1 0.12

6Shawei Average 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.02Bridge 0.0S9 Max. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.03

Renmin Average 0 0.1 0 0.62 0.26 0.24 0.19 0.1 0.08Bridge 0S1o Max. 0.02 0.39 0 1.78 0.45 0.31 0.26 0.2 0.21

(a) Distribution of projection concentration increment of SS at Luosha section

_ ..

K 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

SOG EAH LWN - 2350087 A 2006 PGE 61



(b) Distribution of projection concentration increment of SS at Fuxi section

I'~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1' ' 0'

'A 0t 1-.s

- 06a ~~~~~~~~~~~>50

Cc) Distribution of projection concentration increment of SSat Lubian water gate section

., + i~~~~~~~~~~~'lltlt,-. . , - 5a 10

xv o < = ~~~~~~~30-50

>, 0

SOGREAH'-:LWN - N'-2350087 APRIL 2006 I 62

-C~~~~~~~ -- 30-5-- _ 050


* 4



(d) Distribution of projection concentration increment of SS at Shixi section

d~~~~

O- A . C

. c ! il 9 X - / \

&; ' "I .1 $ .iF iiv a ,

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<1! . . ;. Gl<

- "-.- S~IO-2l.- ._ 10-20

- 1 - 1[ p +- U _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 20-3o

A _ 3&-50

- , _ >50

(e) Distribution of projection concentration increment of SS at Shawei Bridge section

. -JC, CIe P , J}

{, +) .; C, -

1-5

-2

A ~~~~~~~~~~~30-50- >50

(f) Distribution of projection concentration increment ofSS5at Renmin Bridge section

'-.13 -C..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~111-3

Sc ' C 1 1', ~ :

J~ ~~~ ~~ ' , .. / C £ De

3. ". O ' I

v .. _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10'--20

,' b; 11 20-30

>50



DESIGN REVIEW AND ADVISORY SERVICESOVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AsSESSMENT--APPENDIX

(a) Distribution of projection concentration increment of NH3-N at Luosha section

-,, ,

SOGEA -LW -N'23008 ARI 206PAE - 64- !

,~ ~ ~~~~~'n _-rU-U :I l.; aD'

C) 10(14} 2(44)4) '100I 0, ..

_____, __ _m_~''"'

(b) Distribution of projection concentration increment of NH3-N at Fuosh section

4'E W D S 5



(c) Distribution of projection concentration increment of NH3-N at Lubian water gate section

1(( .!(k 40

SORA: W -N,> .. ,, D , - , _-

.4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ - s31.. t A11 0; .4,

0 j 1)()() 2(()() |lit)O ^- ,, A.....

-~~~~

, a

m

SOG.A .LW '' NA;58 'PI 206PAE6



OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX(e) Distribution of projection concentration increment of NH3-N at Shawei Bridge section

- _ - - Vt ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , 'ria

I,l C:O J~) ((X

m

(f) Distribution of projection concentration increment of NH3-N at Renmin Bridge section

4 . .

_ a

v R '.*. V,,

ICC('CJ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ih.,) b ,* C )O 6

1SGA 2LW0 N(0 ( 20AI0PE

SOGEA - LW -.. N_,508 APRI 2006.. PAGE 66_,, ........ ______ ____



(b) Distribution of projection concentration increment of CODcr at Fuxi section

.; \~(

N,

_- -c

O I t((l '(101} 4(00 __

(c) Distribution of projection concentration increment of CODcr at Renmin Bridge section

N

_ -- ' '" -

* *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t6-IAk U. 1l1

0l I ((3)00 2(M() -tOt)100_)

SOGREAH_-_LWN_-_N__ 2350087_APRIL_200_ Pi 67

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 _PAGE 67




IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENT DREDGING AND DEWATERING DISCHARGE ON WATER ENVIRONMENT

SS CODcr NH 3 -N

The maximal average The maximal The maximal average The maximal The maximal average The maximalconcentration concentration concentration concentration concentration concentration

Monitoring section increment increment increment increment increment incrementConcentr Proportio Concentr Proportio Concentr Proportio Concentr Proportio Concentr Proportio Concentr Proportio

ation n to the ation n to the ation n to the ation n to the ation n to the ation n to theincremen standard incremen standard incremen standard incremen standard incremen standard incremen standard

t value t value t value t value t value t value(mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (%)

Sediment dredging

Renmin Bridge dredging point 60.69 43.3 161.95 107.5 9.65 24.1 27.68 69.2 0.62 31 1.78 89

Other dredging points 4.46- 3.0-7.1 9.6-38.01 6.4-25.3 0.06-3.95 0.15.4.9. 0.12-5.47 3.0-13.7 0.02-0.55 1.0-2.7 0.03-0.76 1.5.4.3810.599

Impact on Shawei Bridge section 2.12-4.46 1.4-3.0 6.3-9.92 4.2-6.6 0.06-1.0 0.15.4.2. 0.12-3.02 0.3-7.6 0.02-0.10 1.0-5.0 0.03-0.24 1.5.4.125

Dehydration

Compliance discharge (Shawei Bridge 0.04 0.03 0.72 1.8 0.10 5.0section)

Accidental discharge (Shawei Bridge 0.06 0.04 1.18 3.0 0.18 9.0section)

Sediment dredging anddewatering dischargeCompliance discharge (Shawei Bridge 9.96 6.6 3.72 9.3 0.34 17.0section)

Accidental discharge (Shawei Bridge 9.98 6.7 4.20 10.5 0.42 21.0section)

> In a short time and distance, the concentration of SS, CODCr and NH3-N caused by dredging at Renmin Bridge dredging point is 100mg/L, 20mg/L and lmg/L over the standard,respectively. The affected area with SS, CODcr and NH3-N concentration higher than 50mg/L, 20mg/L and 1 mg/L respectively includes the reach from Foshan Bridge to Hengjiao (FoshanWaterway) and the reach from Renmin Bridge to Wenqing Bridge (Foshan Creek)




OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--APPENDIX> Standard value: SS adopts the strictest value (15Omg/L) of <Standards for irrigation water quality> (GB5084-92), CODcr and NH3-N adopt the Class V standard of < Environmental

quality standard for surface water > (GB3838-2002) , which are 40mg/L and 2mg/L, respectively.> The worst situation and the sum of maximal concentration increment caused by the most significant dredging point and concentration increment caused by dewatering

discharge under accident condition should be considered in the integrated impact of dredging and dewatering discharge on Shawei Bridge section.

SOGREAH - LWN - NC-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 69



Impact of dewatering discharge on the water environment* Compliance discharge

The sediment dewatering plant locates in Pingzhou WWPT and the discharge outlet is about 2000mupstream of Shawei Bridge. The dewatering wastewater discharges in compliance with the Class IIofGuangdong discharge standard after treatment, the influenced area of which includes the reach fromHengjiao to Shawei Bridge. The maximal concentration increment of SS, CODCr and NH3-N is 0.04mg/L,0.72mg/L and 0.10mg/L respectively, which account for 0.03%, 1.8% and 5% of the standard value,respectively. The concentration increment of SS, CODcr and NH3-N will not change the current water qualityof Foshan Waterway, and the impact on water environment is acceptable.

* Accidental dischargeWhen malfunction happens to the wastewater treatment facilities, all the wastewater discharges directlywithout treatment, the influenced area of Foshan Waterway will include the reach from Fuxi to Shawei Bridge.The maximal concentration incremental of SS, CODC, and NH3-N is 0.06mg/L, 1.18mg/L and 0.18mg/Lrespectively, which account for 0.04%, 3% and 9% of the standard value, respectively. The concentrationincrement of SS and CODCr will not change the current water quality of Foshan Waterway, while of NH3 -N,the change is somewhat non-negligible. The NH3-N concentration in Foshan Waterway & PingzhouWaterway exceeds the standard, and the discharge quantity of dewatering plant is 6250 m3/d, so accidentsmust be stringently prevented.

* Integrated impact of sediment dredging and dewatering wastewater dischargeOwning to the simultaneity of sediment dredging and dewatering wastewater discharge, it is necessaryassess the impact of both situation..

When discharged in compliance with the standard, the integrated concentration increment of SS, CODcr andNH3-N on Shawei Bridge section is 9.96mg/L, 3.72mg/L and 0.34mg/L, which account for 6.6%, 9.3% and17% of the standard value, respectively.

In accidental discharge, the integrated concentration increment on of SS, CODCr and NH3 -N Shawei Bridgesection is 9.98mg/L, 4.2mg/L and 0.42mg/L, which account for 6.7%, 10.5% and 21 % of the standard value,respectively.

From the projection results, it is indicated that the impact on water quality around the dredging points ismainly caused by sediment dredging, while dewatering wastewater discharge has less impact on the waterenvironment than sediment dredging. Both operations have little contribution on SS increment in downstreamreaches, the SS increment on Shawei Bridge section is mainly caused by sediment dredging, while thecontribution on CODcr accounts for 9.3% (compliance discharge) and 10.5% (accidental discharge) of thestandard value, and the contribution on NH3-N accounts for 17% (compliance discharge) and 21%(accidental discharge) of the standard value. The impact of dewatering wastewater accounts for 29.4%(compliance discharge) and 42.8% (accidental discharge) of the integrated impact. Therefore, accidentaldischarge should be stringently prevented.

* Impact of Bank Improvement on Water Environment

(a) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at Jiujiangjidou section (section 15#)

jiujiangji(15# section)25

= 20 _ _ _ _

15 - _

100_8KL -0 20 40 60 80 10 10 140 160 180 200




(b) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at Foshan Bridge (sectionl6#)

Foshan Bridge(16# section)40

3.5

30

25

15

0 20 40 60 80 1R90

(h) 120 140 160 180 200

(c) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at section 17#

3.5 ~~~~~~~~~170 section3. 5

0.

2. 5

0 0.5 5 1

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

time (h)

(d) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at sewer outlet section (section 18#)

Ert of the city sewr (18# section)0. 90. 8

0. 7 -- - - -0. 6

0. 5

0. 4

0. 3

0. 2

0. 1

00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

time (h)

(a) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at Fenjiang Bridge section (section 19#)

4E FenHiang B- dge198 section)

25 _ _ _ _ _ _

20

*- 15

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

00 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200


* , GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



(b) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at Xidie Bridge section (section 45#)

Xiedie Bridge (45# section)45

40

~C 35e ~30

25C 25 ___ i ___

15

o 10

50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

TIME (h)

(c) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at Chengbei WWTP section (section 46#)

Norther city plant(46# section)

14 _ _ _ _

5- 12108

6 I

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

time (h)

(d) Variation of SS concentration increment in tidal cycle at Fuxi section (section 47#)

Fuxi (47# section)

1.

C 1. 6

1. 4

0.8

0.6-

0.4

0.2

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200time (h)


.S * .GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



Impact of dredging on water level and hydrodynamics of Foshan WaterwayAssume the depth of sediment dredging is 1 m. The variation of flow, water level and flow velocity in FoshanWaterway and Foshan Creek after dredging is shown as following.

Variation of flow(a) Difference of average flood-tide flow in tide cycle

40

-10

-30

-40

° 2U |- '° 30 U 40 ~~~~~each sction 8 90 0

(b) Difference of average ebb-tike flow in tide cycle

lo r._,

n 0 -- -- ---~~~~~~ 30 0 070g

D200

- 0--- -- -

-30each section

(c) Difference of average tidal flow in tide cycle

40

30

' 20

00I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90 1 1)

each section

Variation of water level(a) Comparison of water level before and after dredging in Luocun section

20

1.

0

time (h)


Variation of water level~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



(b) Comparison of water level before and after dredging in Zhen'an section

1.5 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O U

-. 7 d1.3g-0.5

( 0. 3 bfterdredgiX g-0.1 50I 10 1520

-0. 3

-0. 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(c) Comparison of water level before and after dredging in Hangeiao section

2

r -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~before1 f p/tMA dredginga 0. 5

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -after

v V v ~~~~~~~~~dredging-0. 5 _ _ _ _

time (h)

(d) Comparison of water level before and after dredging in Shawei Bridge section

-before> 0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dredging

0.2-

-0. 5 v ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dredging

time (h)

Variation of velocity(a) Comparison of flow velocity before and after dredging in Luocun section

0. 2

0. 15 before

0. 05

0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~afterdredging

-0, ~ ~~~~~~time (h)




(b) Comparison of flow velocity before and after dredging in Zhen'an section

0. 6

' 0. 40. 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~before

0. 2 dredgingo0.1

0 - - after

-0. 1I -0 150 *- 0 0 dredging-0. 2

time (h)

(c) Comparison of flow velocity before and after dredging in Hengjiao section

0. 4

0. 3

0.2

0 1 u -before_0. I 0 dredging-0. 2 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~after

__ _ _ __ _ _ _dredging

X _~_L time (h)

(d) Comparison of flow velocity before and after dredging in Shawei Bridge section

0. 8

0. 6Aa -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~before

M 0.2 dredging1Luc-0. 216.85afos-0. 4 dre ging

-1 ----- - ~~~time (h)

Improvement on Water Quality after Sediment Dredging

AVERAGE TIDAL CONCENTRATION OF CODCR AT EACH MONITORING SECTION BEFORE AND AFTER SEDIMENT DREDGING (mG/L)

Monitoring section Before sediment dredging After sediment dredging

Luocun 16.85 29.33Foshan Bridge 55.65 51.75

Zhen'an Plant 60.16 58.44

Renmin Bndge 72.14 55.79

Chengbei WWTP 72.72 54.65Hengjiao 70.16 51.18

Lubian Water Gate 62.31 42.32

Shixi 56.34 38.64Shawei Bridge 42.88 33.59



DESIGN REVIEW AND ADVISORY SERVICESOVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-APPENDIX

Distribution of average tidal concentration of CODcr at each section after dredging

N

.W [-E, -. T-.M

,~~~~ ~vrg tia cocnrto of CDc at each sectio

91 1 -b 14

0 90

'o80t~~~~~~~~ W 0 ' J Q <~ ~ 2 0_ _ _ -m7|Ir.

0 0

Vrainaverage tidal concentration of CODcr at each mntrn section

6 0

, n

50

o 80c f 60 -7- l d

2c0 nlI- ._ -_

> 50

=-30 '- , [I'_

,, O S-- -. 20 4 0 60 80 100

sect ion

Variation average tidal concentration of CODcr at each monitoring section

80 - - - A 2006 PAGE -

70

o60 ------ before

4 0

030

20 -dredgi

I0

Luocun Foshan Zhen' an Rettmin Northerni lerngjiao Lubian Shixi Shaweia ~~~~~Bridge Plant Bridge City Plant Water Gate Bridge

SOGREAH - LWN - N0-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 76





It is indicated that water quality at each section improves significantly after dredging, and the improvement isespecially significant in the reaches where sediment is seriously polluted and the release rate is very high.The average tidal concentration of CODCr at each section from Foshan Bridge to Shawei Bridge in FoshanWaterway and Foshan Creek decreases by 10-20mg/L. The average tidal concentration of CODCr fromFenjiang Bridge to Lubian water gate downstream Foshan Waterway decreases more than 20mg/L and thedecreasing rate reaches more than 30%.

The flow and velocity of the water entering Foshan Waterway increase after dredging, and pollutantstransport to upstream, consequently, pollutant concentration of upstream of Fen River in Foshan Waterwaypresents a trend of increase instead of decrease. The average tidal concentration of CODCr at Luocun Creeksection increases from 16.85mg/L before dredging to 29.33mg/L and the increasing rate reaches more than74%. At each time, CODCr concentration in a tidal cycle at Luocun section after dredging is higher than thatbefore dredging no matter in ebb-tide or flood-tide period. However, CODCr concentration after dredging atFoshan Bridge section in flood-tide period exceeds that before dredging. Although average tidalconcentration of CODCr at Zhen'an WWPT section decreases from 60.16mg/L to 58.44mg/L, CODcrconcentration after dredging still exceeds that before dredging in a tidal cycle.

Although sediment dredging decreases CODcr concentration in the river to a certain extent, because theamount of pollutants discharged into water body greatly exceeds the water environmental capacity of FoshanWaterway, it still remains rather high in the water body and water quality of many sections remains worsethan Class V after sediment dredging. Therefore, bank improvement and Zhen'an WWTP phase IIIexpansion should be carried out.

a Impact on Foshan Waterway after Bank Improvement

AVERAGE TIDAL CONCENTRATION OF CODCR AT EACH MONrTORING SECTION BEFORE AND AFTER BANK IMPROVEMENT (MGIL)

Monitoring section Before improvement After improvement Accidental discharge

Luocun 16.60 13.54 13.58

Foshan Bridge 55.31 43.39 46.42

Zhen'an WWTP 58.32 58.32 58.32

Renmin Bridge 70.40 70.38 70.42

Chengbei WWTP 72.03 62.38 74.38

Hengjiao 69.49 59.58 69.43

Lubian Water Gate 61.57 54.54 61.85

Shixi 55.50 50.18 55.73

Shawei Bridge 41.75 39.31 41.84


11



Average tidal concentration of CODcr at each section

80

70A_ _ _ _ _ __._ _

60

E 11 ! ,, ,. .! .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tion~ 50

°40 I - -_ < ) _ .; | ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tion

20 I /lntato 1 I _ J 4 . 1s,rge

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

section

Variation of average tidal concentration of CODcr at each monitoring section80 … - --- - - --

o 70

0 After

o 30

20 U ccdent.ldischarge

Luocun Foshan Zhen' an Renmin Northern Hengjiao Lubian Shixi ShaweiBridge Plant Bridge City Plant Water Gate Bridge

Impact of the Accidental Discharge of Chengbei WWTP on Foshan Waterwayand Foshan Creek

Accidental discharge hardly influences the sections in the upstream of Fenjiang River because pollutants willnormally transport to upstream. Only in flood-tide period when pollutants are transported downstream bytidewater, such sections as Fenjiang Bridge and Foshan Bridge will be affected. Accidental discharge has amore significant impact on Foshan Waterway from the FuXi section to ShiXi section than compliancedischarge, with average tidal concentration of COD,r increasing 10-15mg/L. Bank improvements decreasethe average tidal concentration of COD, in the upstream of Fenjiang Bridge, while concentration changeslittle in the downstream of HengJiao section. This is because the absolute quantities of pollutants underaccidental discharge and before bank improvement are the same, and the removal of the pollutants is mostlycarried out by transport of the flow, not the decomposition of the organism itself. Therefore, the average tidalconcentration of CODcr under accidental discharge and before the regulation from ShiXi to ShaWei Bridgehas a little change, except for the section of Chengbei WWTP where concentration slightly increases.

* Impact on the Water Environment after Phase HIexpansion of Zhen'an WWTP

AVERAGE TIDAL CONCENTRATION OF CODCR, BOD5 AND NH3-N AT EACH MONITORING SECTION BEFORE AND AFTER THE EXPANSION

CODcr BOD 5 NH3 -N

Monitoringsection Before After Accidental Before After Accidental Before After Accidental

interception interception discharge interception interception discharge interception interception discharge


, 1 , GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


Luocun 16.85 16.11 16.21 4.02 3.97 4.02 1.08 1.08 1.08Foshan 55.65 47.12 52.63 15.30 12.81 15.56 5.93 5.72 6.03Bridge

Zhen'an 60.16 67.65 105.57 14.25 20.22 40.11 5.83 8.84 10.84WWTPRenmidn 72.14 72.91 104.41 15.98 20.87 37.21 5.40 7.93 9.62Bridge

Chengbei 72.72 59.66 72.65 18.72 15.01 21.54 7.31 7.21 7.94WWTP

Hengjiao 70.16 56.70 67.62 16.73 13.71 18.97 7.75 7.66 8.31LubianWater 62.31 49.72 57.70 13.73 11.63 15.31 7.55 7.48 7.98GateShixi 56.34 45.62 51.70 12.13 10.59 13.34 7.15 7.11 7.50

Shawei 42.88 36.24 39.01 9.25 8.57 9.80 5.15 5.13 5.31Bridge

Distribution of average tidal concentration of CODcr in each reach of Foshan Waterway after expansion

I- >Ng~~~~" a -u ;mi 1% vt aE t ,

4.. . -

* ~~~~~~~~Ar

1:, g/I I.- L m/I. 20 x1I.0 1000 2000 100(1 m

SOGREAH - LWN -. N-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 80

. , . GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



Distribution of average tidal concentration of CODcr of Foshan Waterway under accidental discharge of Zhen'an WWTP

N

p,.n,~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

- ~ ~ t A$ t ~ g N l

I

Average tidal concentration of CODcr at each section of Foshan Waterway

120 efore

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~o et1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~argemient100 _

a .-. i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~afterX w 800- { ~ enlargement

0 40 acc<1,,taidental7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~discharge

aa.O 20 -<, 1 qualityd

<, 0 . . | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~standard0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

section

Variation of average tidal concentration of CODcr at each monitoring section

100

a 110 - .eme t~

m ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 c _____ _ _ _ r

80 _ _..__ ___ _______ ________ ..

SOGREAH_ -LW -_N-23008_APIL_006PAG_8 F~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ I' , -

60

503

10

0 _ _ _ _ _

Lusc- F-shan Zlhes as Reeni Norther Hesngjsa Lulbian Shit Sh-aeBridge Plant Bridge Cite Pleat Water tote Bridgt

SOGREAH - LWN - N5 2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 81

, , , GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


Average tidal concentration of BOD5 at each section of Foshan Waterway

50

40 1_

,I~~~~~~~~~~~~~j

O ~ ~~~~~ ~ I n ea_t35 ~ ~ T -I|bfr

25 30 t.

10 1 2 rd0 10 20 ~~~~30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

section

Variation of average tidal concentration of BOD5 at each monitoring section

45

40

35 E before

30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - _ _ _ _ _ enlargement

25 ____________ - - D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0after

20 f-s.l - enlargement

10l V * mS X - WE - g- accidentalI I I I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~discharge

,a Bdg Bdg C P G Bridge

Average tidal concentration of NH3-N at each section of Foshan Waterway

12

SOGEA - W- °2507ARL 20 AE8

r t

q,aliter

SOGRAH LW -- N-23007 ARIe206 AGE8

* , , , GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


Variation of average tidal concentration of NH3-N at each monitoring section

312

, 8 ' ----- �------- ------ U befo°retln

I 0~~~I

LCU Fsha H m H enWr

r LuQcn Foshan Zheo an R.n.i. North-r Hi,ngjiao Lubian Water shixi s h-wiB,,dg P B GdCi P1-t B gP g

Impact of Phase 1fExpansion on Dongping RiverShakou Water Gate and Shiken Water Gate only open in ebb-tide period, so the pollutants from FoshanWaterway can only transport into Pingzhou Waterway through Shawei Bridge during ebb-tide period, but notthrough Shakou Water Gate or Shiken Water Gate. As a result, the Phase III Expansion of Zhen'an WWTPhas hardly any impact on Dongping River.

* Improvement on Water Quality of Foshan Waterway after Phase Li7ExpansionOwning to the expansion of Zhen'an WWTP, the total amount of pollutants discharged into FoshanWaterway is reduced after the industrial wastewater and domestic sewage from Chancheng District iscollected and treated in Zhen'an WWTP, which may improve the water quality of downstream FoshanWaterway to a certain extent.

The average tidal concentration of CODc, of some sections is reduced by 10-15mg/L, for example, CODcrconcentration of Chengbei WWTP section is reduced by 18%, from 72.72mg/L to 59.66mg/L afterwastewater interception, of HengJiao section, it is reduced by 19%, from 70.16mg/L to 56.70mg/L, and ofLubian water gate section, it is reduced by 20%, from 56.34mg/L to 49.72mg/L.

The average tidal concentration of BOD5 of some sections is reduced by 3-6mg/L, for example, CODcrconcentration of Chengbei WWTP section is reduced by 20%, from 18.72mg/L to 15.01 mg/L afterwastewater interception, of HengJiao section, it is reduced by 18%, from 16.73mg/L to 13.71mg/L, and ofLubian water gate section, it is reduced by 15%, from 13.73mg/L to 11.63mg/L.

The Phase III Expansion of Zhen'an WWTP has a notable impact on the water quality of the reach fromFoshan Bridge to Lubian Gate, but not so notable on the upstream reach of Foshan Bridge. The averagetidal concentration of CODCr before and after the expansion is 16.85mg/L and 16.11mg/L respectively, theaverage tidal concentration of BOD5 is 4.02mg/L and 3.97mg/L respectively, which demonstrates that thevariation of concentration is not notable.

Due to wastewater interception, discharge quantity of NH3-N is up to 5.13tVd, while the amount reduced byphase III expansion is only 0.5Vtd, therefore, the expansion has no notable improvement on NH3-N discharge.The variation of NH3-N concentration before and after wastewater interception is small in all the reachesexcept the one from Foshan Bridge to Fenjiang Bridge where the NH3-N concentration has a small reduction.

* Impact of Phase 1lfExpansion on Foshan CreekDue to the large discharge quantity of pollutants in the former phase of Zhen'an WWTP, flow of FoshanCreek is only several m /s, consequently, though the increment of average tidal concentration of eachpollutant is small after the Phase III expansion, the concentration in water body is still quite high.

SOGREAH - LWN - N°-2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 83C

, , . , GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT



Discharge quantity of CODcr in the former phase of Zhen'an WWTP is up to 11.79Vd, and will be up to14.79t/d after Phase III expansion. Though the average tidal concentration of CODC, in the reach fromZhen'an WWTP to Renmin Bridge only increases by 6-7mg/L, it is already close to 70mg/L.

Discharge quantity of BOD5 in the former phase of Zhen'an WWTP is up to 3.06t/d, and will be up to 4.56t/dafter Phase III expansion. The average tidal concentration of BOD5 in the reach from Zhen'an WWTP toRenmin Bridge increases only 5-6mg/L, but is already up to 20mg/L.

The increment of NH3-N concentration after the expansion is quite large, for example, the average tidalconcentration of NH3 -N before and after the expansion is 5.83mg/L and 8.84mg/L respectively, the incrementis up to 3mg/L.

Impact of the Accidental discharge of Zhen'an WWTP on Foshan Waterway andFoshan Creek

Accidental discharge of Zhen'an WWTP has great impact on Foshan Creek. During accidental discharge, theaverage tidal concentration of CODCr, BOD5 and NH3-N at Zhen'an WWTP section is 105.57mg/L,40.11mg/L and 10.84mg/L respectively, with the increment of 45.41mglL, 25.86mg/L and 5.01mg/Lcompared with the concentration before the expansion, which is 3-5 times higher than the water qualitystandard.

Accidental discharge also has significant impact on the reach from Foshan Bridge to Shawei Bridge atFoshan Waterway. After the wastewater interception, the average tidal concentration of CODcr at FoshanWaterway reduces a little, while that of BOD5 and NH3-N make some increment.

The accidental discharge of Zhen'an WWTP has little impact on the upstream reach of Foshan Bridgesection. The average tidal concentration of CODcr at Luocun Creek Front before expansion, after expansionand under accidental discharge is 16.85mg/L, 16.11mg/L and 16.21 mg/L respectively, while that of BOD5 is4.02mg/L, 3.97mg/L and 4.02mg/L respectively, which demonstrates a small change in concentration.

Though the impact on Foshan Creek during accidental discharge of Zhen'an WWTP is quite significant, theconcentration increment during normal discharge is much less, so it's feasible to take Foshan Creek as thereceiving water body for Zhen'an WWTP phase III expansion.

The calculation result shows that Foshan Waterway is seriously polluted and the water quality can notcomply with standard. Zhen'an WWTP phase III expansion can make some improvement on the waterquality, however, water quality of most reaches is still not compliant with the standard, and other measures tocontrol the water pollution are still in need.

. Impact on the Water Environment after the whole Project

AVERAGE TIDAL CONCENTRATION OF CODCR BEFORE AND AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WHOLE PROJECT ( MGIL)

Monitoring section Before project After project Accidentaldischarge

Luocun 16.85 20.93 24.00

Foshan Bridge 55.65 34.46 46.69

Zhen'an WWTP 60.16 70.63 110.46

Renmin Bridge 72.14 56.39 83.35

Chengbei WWTP 72.72 38.85 56.02

Hengjiao 70.16 36.56 50.38

Lubian Water Gate 62.31 33.45 42.70

Shixi 56.34 32.16 38.99

Shawei Bridge 42.88 29.99 33.86


* t GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


Distribution of average tidal concentrations of CODcr at each section after the whole project

0 -__ M

~~~~~~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I~~ ~ ~ ,, -2o ,,I -' -- 1'I I ~~~~~0 100(1 2000 1000

~~'3O " IO .,/I .11 .,f 'zO"!SOGrEAH - L fWN - N'2350087 APRIL 2006 PAGE 84-qX~~~ 04 100 I0( _ 1000 X_ , <

10 r(It IM e W e Z - _______________

; ,,r. . ___ __ __a_ _

J,, ;,; ,* , ° IS ' *#/ \~~~~~~~~

' _,,a.


!, # GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT- THE WORLD BANKGUANGDONG PEARL RIVER DELTA URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROJECT2 - FOSHAN SUBPROJECT


Average tidal concentration of CODcr at each section

c 120 - before the

U 100 '____________________ -________I_______-________-- -______ _ project

O 80 -' - after theCOO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~project

acc den ta l40,._ 40 . j.I| < dischorge

P' I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ctwater

o taodard, 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

section

Variation of average tidal concentrations of CODcr at each monitoring section

120

- o 1 before theproject

I after the6 80 , ' ^> E t _ * project

20 * discharge

Luocun Foshan Zhen' an Reomin Northern Hengjiao Lubian Water Shixi ShoweiBridge Plant Bridge City Plant Gate Bridge

Improvement on water quality of Foshan Waterway by the whole projectAs shown in the tables and figures, the concentration of CODcr of each section is reduced significantly afterthe whole project. In Foshan Waterway it is cut by 20-40mg/L at each section from Foshan Bridge to ShaWeiBridge and Foshan Creek Front. The maximal decrement is in Fenjiang Bridge, where the concentration ischanged from 76mg/L to 36mg/L after the project, with the reduction rate of 53%. Generally the reductionrates of the average tidal concentration of CODcr are above 40% at each cross-section from Foshan Bridgeto ShiXi Bridge. Water in most cross-sections of Foshan Waterway has reached class V water qualitystandard, except for the cross-section from Zhen'an WWTP of JunQiao Creek to People's Bridge with theconcentration over 40mg/L.

The average tidal concentration of CODcr from Shakou Gate to LuoCun Creek increases slightly with theeffect of project because the flow runoff and velocity increase in Foshan Waterway after the dredging, whichmakes the pollutant transfer upstream. Meanwhile, the concentration at HuaDi Creek section increases asthe flow decreases, but the increment is not very significant.

The water environment of Foshan Waterway improves rather significantly with the effect of the threecomponents. The sediment dredging not only makes the average tidal concentration of CODcr decrease ateach cross-section, but also changes the hydrodynamic condition of Foshan Waterway and increase thewater runoff and velocity, which will dilute pollutants and decrease the residence time of pollutants. Riverbank improvements and Zhen'an WWTP Phase III Expansion Components are crucial for the improvementbecause they make the absolute quantity of pollutants decrease. The average tidal concentration of CODcris less than 40mg/L after the whole project and can meet the water quality requirement of Foshan Waterway.


0, *~~~~~~~~~~~




Impact of the accidental discharge of the Chengbei WWTP and Zhen'an WWTPon Foshan Waterway and Foshan Creek

The accidental discharge of Zhen'an WWTP and Chenbei WWTP has great impact on Foshan Creek. Duringaccidental discharge, the average tidal concentration of CODCr at Zhen'an WWTP section is 110.46mg/L,50.8mg/L more than the concentration before the whole project, and 39.8mg/L more than that during normaldischarge, which is 2.7 times higher than the water quality standard. The CODcr concentration increment atthe reach from Zhen'an WWTP section to Renmin Bridge section at Foshan Creek is 25mg/L-40mg/Lcompared with the normal discharge, but CODcr concentration increment in the upstream of Zhen'an WWTPsection is very little.

Accidental discharge of the two plants also has some impact on Foshan Waterway. The CODcrconcentration increment at the reach from Foshan Bridge section to Lubian Water Gate section is 10mg/L-15mg/L, and that from Lubian Water Gate section to Shawei Bridge section and the at reach from LuocunCreek Front section to Foshan Bridge section is 5mg/L'1Omg/L

Sediment dredging greatly reduces CODCr concentration of water body and increases the flow runoff andvelocity, so the concentration increment of CODcr is generated only in the downstream of Zhen'an WWTPsection at Foshan Creek and the upstream reach of Luocun Creek Front section.


Documents

World Bank Document€¦World Bank Document