1. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING IN A SUSTAINABLE SETTING IN MALAYSIA. BySubramaniam Karuppannan,(MCIEH), PJK 11 Environmental Health and Safety Department,Faculty of Health Sciences, UiTM Puncak Alam.
2. Abstract ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING IN A SUSTAINABLE SETTING IN MALAYSIA. By Subramaniam Karuppannan,(MCIEH), 1 1 Environmental Health and Safety Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiTM Puncak Alam.Introduction: Environmental impact assessment is a mandatory assessment for anyplanned activity using environmental protection requirements with sustainabledevelopment, while determining optimum solutions. Environmental audit is themandatory assessment of the compliance of environmental management andperformance of operating business with environmental protection requirements. Theconcept of environmental auditing is closely related to monitoring, norms and standards(GDRC, 2010).Methodology: Environmental audits were done at selected sites to test theeffectiveness of environmental management efforts at local levels. Environmental auditsare systematic and independent reviews to check the results of environmentalmeasurements on air, water, effluents, noise and waste (including pests) to meetproposed set targets, while focusing on methods used and reviewing EIA documents tosee whether there are any deviations between targets (legal requirements) and results.Environmental sampling and testing was done in a selected EIA project site includinginterviewing local residents.Results and discussion: Air sampling results complied the environmental standardswith no violations of the EQ (Clean Air) Regulations, 1978. The water samples (n=5)showed that violations were for Arsenic (n=3), Lead and Nickel (n=5) for the EQ (SIE)Regulations, 2009. Study on waste characteristics by gravimetric method (n=5) hadresults for plastics=38%, paper=32%, organic (food waste) =29% and aluminum =1%.Pest data identified common house flies (musca domestica) (n=111). The pest may havebeen encouraged by the presence of organic waste. The noise sampling (n=4) for daytime showed results for all points were exceeding the maximum permissible sound levels(PSL) and night time sampling (n=3) that exceeded standards showed some violationand mostly due to non point sources probably due to vehicles. Traffic impactassessment showed that the majority of vehicles were cars followed by motorcycles,lorry and buses. The public survey (n=100) among respondents revealed that theresidents were not so concerned about the health effects related to projects, butexpressed dissatisfaction on air pollution issues (dust problem).Conclusion: The environmental audit showed that traffic problem is a serious issue withrisk evaluation for traffic as extremely high. The residents were encouraged to use publictransport and construction of motorbike lanes with adequate signage. Water qualityneeds to be maintained and waste management must be improved to avoid pestproblems. Noise needs to be monitored with controls. Extended monitoring is requiredbefore and after project development is finish to minimize environmental and healthimpact.Key words: Environment Impact Assessment (EIA); Environmental Quality Act 1974(EQA).
3. 1. Introduction• Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a mandatory assessment (Section 34A of EQA 1974 for any planned activity using environmental protection requirements within sustainable development, while determining optimum solutions (DOE, 2011).
4. 1. Introduction• Environmental audit (EA) is the mandatory assessment (Sec.33A of EQA 1974) of the compliance of environmental management and performance of operating business with environmental protection requirements (DOE, 2011).• The concept of environmental auditing is closely related to monitoring, norms and standards (GDRC, 2010).
5. 1. Introduction• Risk assessment is used to assess hazards from a project.• HIRARC is a common tool used in Safety and Health assessments in the workplace (DOSH, 2008).• QRA is used to assess a potential residual risk from hazards in a project with environmental impacts and need strict monitoring and surveillance (DOE, 2004).
6. 1. Introduction• Hazard identification: • Physical - air / water / accidents / etc • Chemical - heavy metals / aerosols / etc • Biological hazards – Viruses / Bacteria / Parasites / Fungi / etc• Risk assessments: • Assess residual risks after hazard controls • Qualitative RA versus Quantitative RA (Quan RA) (Quan• Risk controls: • Risk management / Risk Communication (DOE, 2004).
7. 2. Background• The new campus of UiTM Puncak Alam is located in Bandar Puncak Alam, about 50 kilometres drive Alam, from Kuala Lumpur.• An approved EIA project in 2008 located on Lot 1620 (PT 1657) and Lot 1621 (PT1658) Mukim Jeram, Jeram, Kuala Selangor.• Expected to accommodate about 20,000 students, and 5,000 staff.• Water use = 2 million gallon per day• Electricity expected at 42.56 MW per day.
8. 2. Background• Topography is hilly where the slope steepness ranged from 0° to 45°. 0° 45°• Most of the project consisted of forest, with the eastern side of the project situated next to Bukit Cherakah Reserve Forest.• The developer is TriPlc (a joint venture company) that ventured into construction business in 2003.• It began with construction of academic blocks and students accommodations for UiTM Puncak Perdana, Perdana, Section U10, Shah Alam Selangor and later UiTM Puncak Alam. Alam.
9. 2. Background• TriPlc secured a new contract valued at RM1.0 billion for construction of UiTM Puncak Alam Campus for Faculty of Health Science, Faculty of Pharmacy and Student Plaza consisting of: a) infrastructure work, b) hostels for students complete with recreational and sports facilities, c) academic buildings and facilities.• TriPlc is also developing the balance 600 acres mixed development project in Section U10, Shah Alam, Alam, Selangor.
10. 2. Background• TriPlc in May 2010 was granted a 23-year 23- concession to undertake the construction and maintenance of Phase 2 works of UiTM Puncak Alam Campus consisting of: a) 3 faculties to accommodate not less than 5,000 students, hostel accommodation for 2,500 students b) 10 units of fellow accommodation, multipurpose hall, maintenance centre, prayer hall, library, student centre, cafeteria and health centre.
11. 3. Methodology• Environmental audits were done for Post EIA monitoring at selected sites to test effectiveness of environmental management efforts at local levels.• Quantitative RA (DOE, 2004) and referred to HIRARC (DOSH, 2008).
12. 3. Study Location
13. 3. Methodology• Environmental audits - systematic and independent reviews to check the results of environmental measurements on: – air, water, effluents, noise and waste (including pests) to meet proposed set targets, – Measurements : direct and indirect• Focus on methods used and reviewing EIA documents to see whether there are any deviations between targets (legal requirements) and results.
14. 3. Methodology• Environmental sampling and testing was done in a selected EIA project site including interviewing local residents.• Sampling and analyses were done for drinking water, river water, air, noise, pests and waste.
15. 3. The Study Sites
16. 3. The Study Sites
17. 4. Measurements Dry Pond Construction of prison near FSK 6 buildingWet pond Effluent samplingIn-situ water sampling Air monitoring
18. 4. Results and discussion• Air sampling results complied the environmental standards with no violations of the EQ (Clean Air) Regulations, 1978.• Drinking water samples : Drinking water (n=1) with 2 violations (As & Pb). Pb).• Water bodies (n=4) had violations for: • Arsenic (n=3), Lead and Nickel (n=5) for the EQ (SIE) Regulations, 2009.
23. 4. Results and discussion • Pest identified: common house flies (musca domestica) (n=111). domestica) • Flies may be encouraged by presence of organic waste and improper collection and disposal.• Numbers of flies were counted every 5 minute.• Total number of flies landing was 111 (n=111) on the Scudder Grid.• This is high fly infestation. infestation.• Cockroaches & rodents were NOT detected in this study.• This project site is still a new places and the area is generally kept clean.
24. 4. Results and discussion• Noise sampling (n=4) for day time showed results for all points were exceeding the maximum permissible sound levels (PSL) at >50dB(A).• Night time sampling (n=3) exceeded standards at >40dB(A)• Some violations mostly due to non point sources - vehicles.
25. Table 5: Noise Monitoring ResultSAMPLE DAY TIME NIGHT TIME (n=4) (*PSL: 50 dBA) dBA) (*PSL: 40 dBA) dBA) 1. 61.8 67.0 2. 52.3 53.4 3. 44.2 45.4 4. 58.8 61.4 *PSL: Permissible Sound Levels (Violation in Bold RED & Italics)
26. Traffic impact assessment Morning (8.00-9.00 am) Evening (4.30-5.30 pm) 400 600 Car Car 350 337 Motorcycle Motorcycle 500 486 Lorry Lorry 300 278 Bus Bus 400 250 200 176 182 300 150 127 223 221 114 195 93 200 100 76 107 105 103 50 74 91 100 73 1 52 38 39 0 3 73 55 26 State Road Main “Keris” “Labu 0 (UiTM Entrance Roundabout Sayong” State Road Main “Keris” “Labu Traffic Light Roundabout (UiTM Traffic Entrance Roundabout Sayong” T-junction Light T- Roundabout junctionFigure 6 A: Number of vehicles in the morning Figure 6B : Number of vehicles in the evening
27. 4. Results and discussion• Traffic impact assessment - majority of vehicles were cars followed by motorcycles, lorry and buses.• Unexpected rise in traffic due to students population use of vehicles and poor public transport from those staying outside.• Public survey (n=100) revealed: residents were not so concerned about health effects related to projects, but expressed dissatisfaction on rising air pollution issues (dust problem).
28. Hazard Identification and Risk Scores Formula of Risk Score = F X L X I X EP X EA (Frequency x Likelihood x Intensivity x Extensivity Person x Extensivity Area) (DOE, 2004)Activity Hazards Top Event Effect of Top F L Consequence Risk (TE) Event (ETE) Score I EP EA Physical Physical Vehicle InjuryTraffic 16 32 16 16 1 13,072 accidents Accident Death Risk > 1) Table 7A: Risk Score Table
29. Hazard Identification and Risk ScoresActivity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence Risk I EP EA ScoreDrinking NaturalWater deposits - Water Arsenic earth,Consum- Contaminati 16 8 16 16 1 32,768 (Chemical) industrial andption on agricultural pollution Lead Industrial and Water (Chemical) agricultural Contaminati 16 16 16 16 1 65,536 pollution on Risk > 1) Table 7B: Risk Score Table
30. Hazard Identification and Risk ScoresActivity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence Risk I EP EA ScoreIndustrial Arsenic Industrial Effluent water 16 2 8 16 1 4, 096Activity & (Chemical) Spillage contaminationWastewater Lead Industrial Effluent water 8 2 8 16 1 2,048Treatment (Chemical) Spillage contaminationPlant Nickel Industrial Effluent water 8 2 8 12 1 2,048 (Chemical) Spillage contamination Risk > 1) Table 7B: Risk Score Table
31. Hazard Identification and Risk ScoresActivity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence Risk I EP EA ScoreTranspor Noise Noise Stress,tation & Exposure exposure Hypertensio (Physical) n, sleepHuman 16 32 1 16 1 8, 192 disturbanceactivity & annoyanceFood Pest - Flies Poor or Foodhandling (Biological) Improper poisoning & waste Nuisance 16 32 4 16 1 32,768& managementServing Risk > 1) Table 7B: Risk Score Table
32. NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH In Situ Ex Situ IMPACT (%) (%)1. Dust*fever 23 2 Dust* fatigue 22 4 Dust*cough 3 12. Odour*headache 3 03. Drinking*fever 2 2 Drinking*fatigue 0 04. Open burning*fever 20 2 Open burning*fatigue 15 4 Open burning*headache 8 1 Open burning*cough 2 1 Table 8A : Result for Health Impact Assessment
33. NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH In=situ Ex-Situ IMPACT (%) (%) INFORMATION ABOUT PROJECT 5. EIA report*internet 3 05.a EIA report*others 2 05.b. Table 8B: Result for Social Impact Assessment
34. Table 1 : A Basic Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix For Risk Ranking.LIKELIHOOD / CONSEQUENCE SEVERITY OF EVENTSFREQUENCYOF EVENTS HIGH (3) MEDIUM (2) LOW (1)HIGH (3) HIGH (9) HIGH (6) MEDIUM (3)MEDIUM (2) HIGH (6) MEDIUM (4) LOW (2)LOW (1) MEDIUM (3) LOW (2) LOW (1) Before Controls are managed
35. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT 1. Drinking Water Quality 2. Effluent 3. Noise issues 4. Air quality issues 5. Waste management issues 6. Pest management 7. Traffic impacts 8. Soil erosion problems 9. Health/Social impact issues
36. TABLE 2 : A Simple Risk Matrix Table Relating Consequence and Likelihood to Estimate Risk Levels. CONSEQUENCE CATAS- CATAS- MAJOR MODERATE MINOR (2) INSIGNIFI- INSIGNIFI- TROPHIC(5) (4) (3) CANT (1) VERY LIKELY(4) EXTREMELY EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HIGH (8) MEDIUM (4) HIGH (16) HIGH (16) HIGH (16)LIKELIHOOD LIKELY (3) EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HIGH (8) MEDIUM (6) MEDIUM (6) HIGH (16) HIGH (16) UNLIKELY(2) HIGH (8) HIGH (8) MEDIUM (6) MEDIUM (4) LOW (2) HIGHLY MEDIUM (5) MEDIUM (4) LOW (3) LOW (2) LOW (1) UNLIKELY(1) IF not controlled
37. Conclusion• If all recommendations are accepted and risk management were carried out than the projects risks would be appropriately reduced.
38. Table 3: Risk Matrix Table CONSEQUENCE Catastrophic(4) Major(3) Minor (2) Insignificant (1) Very Likely (4) High High High MediumLIKELIHOOD Likely (3) High High Medium Medium Unlikely (2) Medium Medium Low Low Highly Unlikely (1) Medium Medium Low Low (1) After RISKS are managed well
39. ReferencesAir Division. (2007). The Planning Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control. Putrajaya: Department of Environment.Brauer, RL, (2006). Safety and Health for Engineers, second edition, Wiley Interscience, New JerseyDepartment of Environment . (2006). WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY: FINAL REPORT. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco.Department of Environment. (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines – Risk Assessment. Putrajaya: Department of Environment.Department of Environment. (2007). Recommended Malaysian Air Quality Guidelines. In Environmental Requirements: A Guide to Investors (p. 53). Putrajaya: Department of Environment.Engineering Services Division. (2008). Drinking Water Quality Standard. Retrieved November 16th, 2009, from Ministry of Health: http://kmam.moh.gov.my/standard.htmlInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2009, January 16th). Overall Classification of Carcinogenicity to Humans. Retrieved November 16th, 2009, from International Agency for Research on Cancer: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/crthgr01.phpToll, D. G. (1997). Traffic Analysis. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from Durham University: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/roads/traffic/traffic.html (Durham University)