KEJORA_EIA_TRC_-_May_2021_Rev3.pptx

Copyright © Minconsult Sdn. Bhd. 2019 • All rights reserved • No part of this presentation may be produced without Minconsult Sdn. Bhd. express consent.
CADANGAN MENJALANKAN LAPORAN EIA JADUAL 2 UNTUK
PEMBANGUNAN TAPAK PELUPUSAN SISA PEPEJAL SANITARI
DAN TAPAK PELUPUSAN SISA PEPEJAL LENGAI DI
SEBAHAGIAN PTD 1699 SELUAS 48 EKAR, MUKIM SEDILI KECIL,
DAERAH KOTA TINGGI, JOHOR DARUL TA’ZIM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (EIATRC)
6TH May 2021
MINCONSULT ENVIRONMENTAL SDN BHD
LEMBAGA BANDARAN JOHOR TENGGARA (KEJORA)

Establishing Engineering Excellence
Agenda
1) Introduction
2) Statement of Need
3) Project Options
4) Project Description
5) Existing Environment
6) Evaluation of Impacts and Mitigating Measures
7) Environmental Management Plan
8) Conclusion

Agenda
1) Introduction
• Project Background
• EIA Study Chronology
• Project Benefits
• Conformance to State and Federal Plans
• EIA Study Consultants
• Project Timeline

Project Background
 Compliance with Second Schedule, Prescribed Activities under the Environmental Quality
(Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 2015, under item:
14. (b) (ii) Construction of Sanitary Landfill Facility
 EIA Report prepared based on Terms of Reference (TOR) endorsed on 10th October 2020
EIA Requirement
Overall Project Governance Structure
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT
PROJECT OWNER
LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN JOHOR TENGGARA
CIVIL & STRUCTURE ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT
PERUNDING RZA SDN BHD
MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
JURUTERA PERUNDING BZ
QUANTITY SURVEYOR CONSULTANT
KMA ASSOCIATES
LANDSURVEYOR CONSULTANT
JURUKUR DR. ABD. MAJID
EIA CONSULTANT
MINCONSULT ENVIRONMENTAL SDN BHD

EIA Study Chronology
Activity Date
Submission of TOR & ESI and revised TOR & ESI for 180 acre site 14 January 2017
Endorsement of TOR & ESI for 180 acre site by DOE 24 February 2017
Application of extension for TOR validity 23 April 2018
Project Proponent (PP) decided that detailed engineering design and submission
of EIA are only for 48 acres.
September 2018
Appointed Contractor to start works at site 18 of November 2018
DOE Johor issued Stop Work Order (SWO) 1 March 2019
Appointed contractor completed works to safeguard cleared land with ESCP
measures
1 June 2019
New detailed engineering design and New TOR and ESI for 48 acres resubmitted
to DOE Putrajaya
14 of November 2019
Terms of Reference Adequacy Check Meeting (TORAC) 16 December 2019
Revised TOR was submitted to DOE Putrajaya 10 September 2020
Endorsement for revised TOR & ESI for 48 acre site by DOE 6 October 2020
Submission of EIA Report to DOE March 2021

Conformance to State and Federal Plans
National Physical Plan 3
National Solid Waste Management Policy (2006)
Draft Johor State Structure Plan 2030
Draft Kota Tinggi District Local Plan 2030 (Replacement)
Regional Plan on Solid Waste Management
for the Short-term (2016 – 2020)
The Project is in line with:
National Cleanliness Policy (2019)

Conformance to State and Federal Plans
 In September 2010, Pejabat Tanah & Galian
Johor has agreed to gazette the required
project area to KEJORA

EIA Study Consultants

Project Timeline

Agenda
2) Statement of Need
• Disposal Requirements
• Environmental Considerations
• Social and Economic Considerations

Disposal Requirements
 Active development surrounding the existing landfill site at Bukit Tuatau coupled with growth
of industrial developments and population surrounding areas near to the Petronas Refinery and
Petrochemical Integrated Development (RAPID) Project is expected to cause growth of Service
Area for both Majlis Daerah Kota Tinggi (MDKT) and Majlis Perbandaran Pengerang (MPP)
 Within the Service Area, there are:
 Category 1 (dumpsite) landfill in Kota Tinggi vicinity. However, the Batu 4, Kota Tinggi
Landfill has recently been fully closed and undergone safe closure
 Bukit Tuatau Landfill that is soon to be closed and Seelong Sanitary Landfill; located some
75km away from Bandar Penawar (town center of MPP) and around 40km from Kota
Tinggi town center
 KEJORA, MDKT and MPP has identified a site, with considerable land acreage and fulfilling the
development guidelines under PLANMalaysia, DOE as well as SWMPC on the distance from
waste generation areas as well as areas requirement.

Location of Bandar Penawar, Bandar Kota Tinggi and Bandar Pasir
Gudang from Proposed Landfill
Felda Lok Heng
(8 km)
Kota Tinggi
(49 km)
RAPID Pengerang
(55 km)
Bandar Penawar
(25 km)
Pasir Gudang
(60 km)
Proposed Landfill
Bukit Tuatau Landfill
(27 km)
Ulu Tiram
(62 km)
Seelong Sanitary
Landfill
(80 km)

Environmental Considerations
 To avoid illegal dumping practices that creates odour pollution and water pollution
 To increase the level of service to the local communities through the provision of a more
systematic waste collection service within the proposed Service Area (SA)
 To avoid foul odour that may emanate in the course of transporting waste from the SA to the
nearest landfill (e.g. Seelong Sanitary Landfill) is required.
Social & Economic Considerations
 The main areas of economic and social benefits for the proposed project to the planned service
areas are as follows:
 The landfill is vital in for supporting RAPID; it will contribute to the growth and development of
Kota Tinggi, will enhance the living environment or conditions in Kota Tinggi and the surrounding
communities; and also help to protect public health and safety
 The proposed SLF is expected to be able to accommodate current and future waste disposal
requirements as it has a larger area and located further away from the main population centers.
 Provide opportunities for local Bumiputera consultants, service providers and contractors to
undertake studies, surveys and conduct the construction, and partake in the operation and
maintenance activities whether directly or indirectly

Agenda
3) Project Options
• Site Options
• Technology Options

Site Options
Siting Criteria
 Main categories on the Criteria and Parameters of Site Selection
 Size, physical and land use constraints
- Avoid populated areas & aquaculture areas, away from flood prone areas; etc.
 Environmental constraints
- Away from upstream (at least 3000m from potables water intake points);
- Avoiding areas with high water table & flood prone areas; etc.
 Engineering requirements
- Preferred geology of clayey soils and avoidance of excessively sandy soils.
Low seismic risk, avoid unstable soils, areas with soil movement
 Economic constraints
- Access within 1.5km of main roads, highway and utilities
- Site should be able to sustain a 20-year lifespan
 Social constraints
- Distance from major settlements, preferably 3 – 5 km.
- Land of limited landuse value

Technology Options
Summary of Technology Options Considered

Design Options of the Sanitary Landfill
1. Levels of Sanitary Landfill
a) There are four (4) levels in the hierarchy of landfill systems in Malaysia. For this
Project, a Level 4 system with high level treatments will be provided
2. Landfill Types
The ‘Technical Guideline on Sanitary Landfill Design and Operations’ by MHLG
further categorizes landfills in ascending order of environmental performance:
a) Anaerobic landfills;
b) Anaerobic sanitary landfills with daily cover;
c) Improved anaerobic sanitary landfill with leachate collection pipes;
d) Semi-aerobic landfill with natural ventilation and leachate collection facilities;
e) Aerobic landfill with forced oxidation.
3. Types of Landfilling
a) The process options will refer to the principle methods of waste treatment and
landfilling, based on Level 4, incorporating area and trench methods

Design Options of the Sanitary Landfill
4. Types of Cell Construction Method
a) To ensure effective and systematic manner of landfilling, there are 2 common
methods for cell construction
i. Cell with daily cover Method
ii. Open Dumping Method
5. Selection of Landfill Liner Systems for Ground and Surface Water Management
a) The sanitary cells will be lined with an impervious layer to prevent
contamination of groundwater and surface water and facilitate collection of
leachates. Available options for landfill liner include:
i. Compacted clay or soil;
ii. Soil cement;
iii. Asphalt;
iv. Synthetic rubber; or
v. Synthetic polymers such as HDPE
6. Selection of Leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) System
a) Proposed LTP systems, designs and costs of operation will be evaluated. For
this project, on-site treatment option will be used

Agenda
4) Project Description
• Project Background
• Project History
• Proposed Site Location
• Design Basis
• Waste Projection According To Population
• Cell Design
• Landfill Cell
• Landfill Schematic
• Landfill Layout
• Cell Liner Installation
• Leachate Collection Pipe Details
• Landfill Cell – Ready To Start Operation
• Landfill Cell Cross Section – Closure Phase
• Leachate Treatment Plant
• Weighbridge Station
• Other Associated Works

Project Background
• Existing 3 nos of landfill will be closed
• New sanitary landfill - for Lembaga Bandaran Johor Tenggara, LBJT
(Now taken by Majlis Perbandaran Pengerang, MPP)
• Type of Waste - Municipal Solid Waste
• Landfill development area – 48 acre
• Cell lifespan - 3 years

Project History
Date Major Event
24 Jun 2019
Approval of landfill design from Jabatan
Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal (JPSPN) / Solid Waste
Corporation (SWCorp)
18 November 2018 Physical work commencement on site
11 Mac 2019 Stop work order by DOE

Proposed Site Location

Landfill Design And Closure Guideline & Reference :
1. Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution From Solid Waste Transfer Station And
Landfill) Regulations, 2009 (P.U.(A) 433/2009).
2. Solid Waste And Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) (Prescribed Solid
Waste Management Facilities And Approval For The Construction, Alteration And
Closure Of Facilities) Regulations 2011
3. Technical Guidelines for Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation issued by the Ministry
of Housing and Local Government
4. Landfill Manual for Design / Standards and specifications prescribed by the United
States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA)
5. MS 2547 : 2014 – Malaysian Standard For Landfill Safe Closure – Requirements and
Guideline For Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Of MSW Landfill Sites by Department
of Local Government, Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia (August
2006)
DESIGN BASIS

WASTE PROJECTION ACCORDING TO POPULATION

CELL DESIGN

LANDFILL CELL
- Project Reference

LANDFILL SCHEMATIC

LANDFILL LAYOUT

CELL LINER INSTALLATION

LEACHATE COLLECTION PIPE DETAILS
GAS VENT PIPE - VERTICAL

LANDFILL CELL – READY TO START OPERATION

LANDFILL CELL CROSS SECTION – Closure Phase
GASS VENT PIPE
DURING CELL CLOSER

LEACHATE TREATMENT PLANT
- LEACHATE CHARACTERISTIC

- LEACHATE GENERATION

Treatment Process
1. Biological treatment
• Equalization pond
• Aerated lagoon
• Maturation Pond
2. Chemical treatment
• Coagulation & Flocculation
• Dissolved air floatation (DAF)
3. Polishing process
• Sand and Carbon Filter
4. Sludge dewatering
• Drying bed

- LAYOUT

LANDFILL CELL- WASTE FILLING
Compaction & Daily cover
Waste Dumping
Daily cover done
Spraying Enzyme

- PROCESS SCHEMATIC
EQUALIZATION
POND
AERATED
LAGOON
MATURATION
POND
DAF FEED
POND

- PROJECT REFERENCE

– MECHANICAL AERATION

WEIGHBRIDGE STATION
• Weighbridge House
• Inspection Platform
• Two weighbridge shall be provided (1 inbound and 1 outbound)

FINAL DISCHARGE POINT FOR LTP
ALL DISCHARGES IN THE SURFACE DRAINS INCLUDING
WASH THROUGH WILL BE CHANNELED TO THE INLET
WORKS (EQ POND)
RETENTION POND
WEIGHBRIDGE

OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS
1. Laying of cable from TNB sources
2. TNB substation
3. Lighting facilities
4. Standby generator Security guard office
5. Surface drainage and culverts
6. Fencing & hoarding
7. Vehicle washing bays
8. Sewerage line & septic tank
9. Ground water sampling well

Agenda
5) Existing Environment
• Zone of Impact (ZOI)
• Topography and Landuse
• Geology
• Hydrogeology
• Water Quality
• Air, Odour and Noise Quality
• Terrestrial Ecology – Flora
• Terrestrial Ecology - Fauna
• Marine ecology
• Social Impact
• Public Health
• Traffic

Zone of Impact (ZOI)
Significant
Environmental
Impacts
Zone of Impact
Land Use
500 m radius of the
project site.
Water Quality
Surface Water: 5 km
downstream of project
site.
Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation
100 m from project site
boundary.
Air Quality
3 km radius of the
project site
Waste
1 km radius of the
project site.
Social Impact
5 km radius of the
project site.
Public Health
5 km radius of the
project site.
The Zone of Impact is based on the TOR that was endorsed on 6 October 2020
5 km
3 km
2 km
1 km
0.5 km
4 km
Felda Lok
Heng Timur
Felda Papan
Timur
Felda Sg Mas
Felda Lok Heng
Selatan
Felda Lok
Heng Barat
Felda Ayer Tawar 4

Topography
 The Project site, comprises flat to undulating terrain with
elevations ranging from 8 – 31 m above mean sea level
(MSL)
 A total of 43.34% of the Project site is flat with elevations
of 8 – 12 m MSL, mostly at the centre of the site; whilst
undulating terrain representing about 56.66% of the site
Landfill Area

Landuse
 The project site is currently agricultural land (oil palm plantation). Pejabat Tanah & Galian Johor has
agreed to gazette the required project area to KEJORA. The Local Authority (MPP) has already confirmed
that the site location is being proposed as a landfill location in the latest draft local plan for Kota Tinggi
District 2030 (Replacement).

Hydrology
 The proposed development of landfill
project is located at coordinate
1.6769688N, 104.1449088E and it falls
under Sg. Sedili Kechil catchment area.
 All the drainage stormwater for the
project shall be flowed toward northern
swampy area and its discharge through Sg
Lukah before it is connected to Sg. Sedili
Kechil.
 There are no water intake located
downstream of Sg Lukah, however the
nearest water intake is upstream of Sg
Sedili and the confluence between Sg
Sedili and Sg Lukah.
 Based on engagement with JPS Johor, the
project site is not within flood prone area
Sg Sedili
Kechil
Sg Lukah

Geology
 The proposed Project site is
underlain by the sedimentary/
meta-sedimentary rocks of
Mersing Formation.
 It composes of mainly schist,
phyllite and quarzite, with
some interbedding of slate
and metaquarzite.
 Based on the Site Investigation
conducted, the overall
soil/sediment formation in the
Project site essentially consists
of:
 Sand
 Silt
 Clay layers with minor
occurrences of gravel.
 The formation is stable and
suitable for stability required
for a landfill.

Methodology
• Five groundwater monitoring wells have been constructed for this groundwater study.
• KBH1, KBH2 and KBH3 are located inside the swampy area and surrounded by swamp water (black, high organic
content and stink).
• KBH4 is located inside the palm oil plantation.
• KBH5 was constructed outside the plantation area and located on residual granitic soil
Hydrogeology

HYDROGEOLOGY
Groundwater flow
• Figure shows the flow vectors
showing trend of groundwater flow
in Layer 1 of the model area.
• The groundwater flows from high
hills on the southwest and south in
particular towards the north and
northeast corresponding to local
groundwater discharge features
such as rivers, valleys and low
lands. Sg. Sedili Kecil on the
northern boundary is the main
groundwater discharge domain for
the area.

HYDROGEOLOGY
Groundwater flow

Sg. Sedili Kecil Existing Conditions
The proposed sanitary landfill is to be located in an
isolated area of east Johor, an area not far off the coast,
south of Mersing, in Sg. Sedili Kecil catchment area.
Mangroves along the banks of Sg Sedili Kecil at
about 1 km from rivermouth
Water Quality

Water Quality
Fishermen’s villages and
jetties along Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Sedili Kecil Existing Water Usage
Large aquaculture farm
Pipes pumping river water up
to aquaculture farm
Rivermouth of Sg. Sedili Kecil
showing aquaculture farms in its
waters

Water Quality
Water Quality Sampling Stations
ID Station Description GPS Location
W1 Upstream from Sg. Lukah
N 1o 40’13.7316
E 104o 8’3.8508
W2
Upstream from the tributaries
with the project site
N 1o 40’17.9796
E 104o 8’6.6192
W3 Middle of the project site
N 1o 40’17.0508
E 104o 8’13.0884
W4
After confluence , within the
project site (Historical)
N 1o 40’14.9808
E 104o 8’21.8184
W5 Downstream from Sg. Lukah
N 1o 40’32.9484
E 104o 8’39.75
W6
50 meter before the Water
Intake Point
N 1o 44’39.51
E 104o 8’8.91
W7
80 meter after the Water Intake
point
N 1o 44’44.47
E 104o 8’8.86
W8
At CPF Johor Farm
River Water Quality Station –
Maintained by Pakar Scenio TW
N 1°50'1.75“
E 104° 8'39.83”

Water Quality
Existing Water Appearance at the Water Sampling Points

Water Quality
Parameters Units
Water Quality Results Water quality Discussions
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7
DO mg/L 5.22 3.30 5.12 4.24 5.34 5.11 5.24
Moderate due to passive
flow
Turbidity NTU 7 3 6 5 12 5 5 Very clear water
Total SS mg/L 5 4 4 4 2 <2 <2 Very clear water
BOD @ 5d,
20⁰C
mg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Very low organics content
Ammonia- N mg/L 0.8 0.4 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Moderate at W1 and W2,
low at other points. W1 &
W2 in oil palm plantation,
runoffs with fertilizers.
E.Coli
N/100
ml
<1 <1 <1 <1 30 10 10
Very low
Lead as Pb mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Inorganics all very low.
Chromium as Cr mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Cadmium as Cd mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Mercury as Hg mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Arsenic as As Mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Flowrate m3/hr 206.00 77.83 964.63 2656.92 3905.53 9772.62 48,092

Water Quality (cont’d)
Parameter Unit
Sampling Date
07-08-
17
08-02-
18
23-08-
19
pH value - 7.96 7.25 7.86
DO mg/l 5.53 7.15 6.677
BOD5, at 20˚C mg/l 5 4 4
COD mg/l 22 13 13
Total SS mg/l 8 52 9
Ammonia-N mg/l 0.09 0.28 0.19
WQI 83.23 84.17 87.43
Cleanness Clean Clean Clean
WQ Class Class II Class II Class II
NOTE:
Range Class
Usefulness of
Water
Category
> 92.7 Class I
No Treatment
required
WQI Cleanne
ss
76.5 -
92.7 Class II
Secondary
Treatment
required
81-100 Clean
51.9 -
76.5
Class
III
Tertiary
Treatment
required
60-80 Slightly
polluted
31.0 -
51.9
Class
IV
Suitable for
Irrigation
0-59 Polluted
< 31 Class V Not Useful
Water Quality Index (WQI)
WQI was calculated for a point on Jambatan Sungai Sedili Kecil at:
• DOE Station No: 3JSKE001, located at Longitude 104.148755 and Latitude 1.840093 where data from DOE
was available for three years. The WQI values obtained are shown below, which show water as clean, in
fact with increasing cleanness since 2017 to 2019.

Air, Odour and Noise Quality
 5 sampling stations
for air, odour and noise
quality.
Felda Lok
Hing Timur
Felda Lok
Hing Selatan
Felda Lok
Hing Barat

 Air Quality:
Overall, concentrations of the criteria air
pollutants from PM10, PM2.5 to SO2 and NO2
are within the current Malaysian Ambient
Air Quality Guideline (MAAQG) limits.
SO2 and NO2 - below detection limit.
H2S - below detection limit.
CH4 - insignificant.
 Odour:
Based on odour measurements carried
out, the baseline odour levels at the
project site and at sensitive receptors
were found to be neutral and without
any offensive odour. The most common
type of odour is greenery and oil palm
based smell with traces of fertilizer
smell as well.
Air Quality Parameters and Range of Recorded Value at
Sampling Stations
Air, Odour and Noise Quality (cont’d)
Parameter Unit
Recorded
Value
2013 MAAQG
PM10 ug/m3 32 - 56
100 ug/m3
(24-hr average)
PM2.5 ug/m3 10 - 29
35 ug/m3
(24-hr average)
SO2 ug/m3 <5
80 ug/m3
(24-hr average)
NO2 ug/m3 <5
70 ug/m3
(24-hr average)
H2S ug/m3 <10 -
CH4 ppm 3 - 4 -
Point Location
Hedonic
Tone
Character Odour Level
O1 Northern Boundary 2 Neutral 2
O2 Southeast Boundary 3 Neutral 2 to 4
O3 Southwest Boundary 2 Neutral <2 - 2
O4 FELDA Lok Heng East 3 Neutral <2 to 4
O5 FELDA Lok Heng West 2 Neutral 2
Odour Measurement Results

 Noise Quality:
The area is still quiet and from the measurements made, the highest recorded average LAeq values during day
time and night time were 57.5 dBA and 57.0 dBA respectively, as measured at N3 (at road junction to the
landfill) and the lowest were 46.8 dBA during daytime and 47.4 dBA during night time at station at N4.
Air, Odour and Noise Quality (cont’d)
Monitoring
Location
Range of noise levels as LAeq, dBA
Average Noise Level as LAeq,
dBA
Daytime Night time Daytime Night time
N1 46.9 - 79.7 52.4 - 58.2 54.6 55.0
N2 43.6 - 57.7 48.3 - 52.8 49.1 49.7
N3 51.7 - 80.6 50.5 - 68.6 57.5 57.0
N4 40.2 - 57.6 44.7 - 49.5 46.8 47.4
N5 49.1 - 61.9 48.5 - 54.9 52.8 49.9
Baseline Noise Quality Results

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY – FLORA

• Biomass Estimation
• The volume of trees (D2xH) was used to calculate the biomass (dry matter weight of above-ground organs).
To estimate the biomass, the following coefficients of allometric equations of Kato et. al. (1978) was used.
Y = 0.2544*DBH23684
DBH= Diameter Breast Height
The carbon content was calculated based upon Chave et al. (2005; 2008).
• Classification for Flora Conservation Status and Habit
• Conservation status for flora composition is based on conservation status listed by the IUCN Red List and
Malaysia Plant Red List (by Malaysia Biodiversity Information System - MyBIS)
.
STATUS CODE DESCRIPTION
EX Extinct
CR Critically Endangered
EN Endangered
VU Vulnerable
NT Near Threatened
LC Least Concern
DD Data Deficient
NE Not Evaluated
CODE HABIT DESCRIPTION
T Tree Woody plant, more than >5m tall
S Shrubs Woody plant, usually small, less than 5m tall
L Liana Woody or herbaceous plants with stems that
are climbing or straggling on other plant
C Climber Woody or herbaceous plants with stems that
are not self-supporting, but are climbing or
straggling on some support
H Herbaceous Non woody plant, usually in small size
P Palmae Family of flowering plants having a single
cotyledon (embryonic leaf) in the seed
F/FA Fern/Fern
allies
Nonflowering vascular plant and produce
spore

RESULTS

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY – FAUNA

Methodology
Primary Data Collection
Aquatic Biological Resources
(23rd - 24th May 2017)
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macrobenthos
Fish fauna
Marine Habitat
(23rd - 24th May 2017)
Mangroves
Fisheries & Aquaculture
(25th May 2017 & 21st
January 2020)
Capture Fisheries
Aquaculture
Recreational Fisheries
MARINE ECOLOGY

Location of Sampling Stations (S1 – S8)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S8
S7
S6
S5
Project Site
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Lukah
Sg. Bahan

PHYTOPLANKTON
Brackishwater Stations
Freshwater Stations
• Dominant: Bacillariophyta (62.6%)
• No of species: 13 taxa
• Mean Density: 10.97 cells/mL (3.52 – 17.09 cells/mL)
• Diversity Index: Moderate diversity (0.86 – 1.81)
• Phylum Euglenophyta (Euglena) are known to highly tolerant
to organically polluted water.
1.36
0.86
1.81
1.55 1.48
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Diversity
Index
(H')
Station
62.6%
15.5%
11.9%
5.3%2.4% 2.2%
Bacillariophyta Euglenophyta Cryptophyta
• Dominant: Bacillariophyta (98.75%)
• Mean Density: 82.58 cells/mL (21.72 – 147.16 cells/mL)
• Diversity Index: High diversity (2.02 – 2.38)
2.38 2.33
2.02
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
S6 S7 S8
Diversity
Index
(H')
Station
98.75%
0.64%0.61%
Bacillariophyta Cyanophyta Dinoflagellata

ZOOPLANKTON
Brackishwater Stations
Freshwater Stations
• Dominant: Arthropoda (Crustacea) (77.3%)
• Mean Density: 0.18 ind./L (0.02 – 0.64 ind./L)
• Diversity Index: Low - moderate diversity (0.00 – 1.79)
• Dominant: Arthropoda (Crustacea) (82.3%)
• Mean Density: 26.99 ind./L (7.46 – 39.50 ind./L)
77.3%
15.9%
6.8%
Arthropoda (Crustacea) Rotifera Protozoa
0
1.10
0
1.00
1.79
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Diversity
Index
(H')
Station
82.3%
5.9%
5.6%
5.4%
0.9%
Arthropoda (Crustacea) Mollusca
Chaetognatha Annelida
Chordata
1.55
2.15
1.94
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
S6 S7 S8
Diversity
Index
(H')
Station

MACROBENTHOS
Brackishwater
Stations
Freshwater
Stations
• Dominant: Annelida and Arthropoda (Crustacea) (50% each)
• Both phylum represented by species that has high tolerance
to organically polluted water
• Mean Density: 60 ind./m2 (30 – 130 ind./m2 )
• Diversity Index: Low diversity (0.56 – 1.03)
• Dominant: Annelida (43.3%)
• Polychaetas known as indicator species due to high
diversity and tolerant level
• Mean Density: 100 ind./m2 (80 – 120 ind./m2 )
50%
50%
Annelida Arthropoda (Crustacea)
0.67
1.03 0.95
0.56 0.64
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Diversity
Index
(H')
Station
43.3%
30.0%
23.3%
3.3%
Annelida Arthropoda (Crustacea) Mollusca Sipuncula
0.90
1.47 1.51
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
S6 S7 S8
Diversity
Index
(H')
Station

FISH FAUNA
• A total of 23 individuals of fish and 1
crustacean (crab)
• Freshwater stations:
 Dominant: Sepat (Trichopodus
trichopterus) (14 individuals)
 Most species were adult
 Biomass (CPUE): 0.028 – 0.461
g/m2 /hour
• Brackishwater stations:
 2 species caught: Seriding
(Ambassis miops) and crab
(Varuna yui)
• Most species was considered as
Least Concern (ver. 3.1, 2019 &
2020) and native in Malaysian waters
(MyBis)
0.376
0.028
0.167
0.461
0.370
0.019 0.024
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
A.
testudineus
D.
hexazona
P.
fasciata
T.
trichopterus
Rasbora
sp.
A.
miops
V.
yui
Freshwater Brackishwater
CPUE
(g/m
2
/hour)
Trichopodus
trichopterus
Pristolepis
fasciata
Rasbora sp.
Desmopuntius
hexazona
Anabas testudineus Ambassis miops
Varuna yui

MANGROVE AND RIVERINE VEGETATION
Mangrove Zone
• Estuarine area
• 8 true mangroves species and 2 associate
mangroves
• Common species: Bakau Minyak (Rhizophora
apiculata)
• Most species consider as Least Concern under
IUCN
Nypa Zone
• Main species: Nipah (Nypa fruticans)
• Location: after the confluence of Sg. Bahan up to
12km upstream
• True mangrove was less than mangrove zone
and observed at Sg. Dahan confluence up to
2km upstream
Barringtonia Zone
• After the nypa zone and salinity is lower
• Dominant: Putat Air (B. conoidea)
Mangrove Zone
Nypa Zone
Barringtonia Zone
DOWNSTREAM
Fanwort (Cabomba furcate)
• Presence in high nutrient level
and slow-moving water
• Invasive species
Water thyme (Hydrilla ventricillata)
• Abundance in slow-moving
water
UPSTREAM
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Bahan
Sg. Sedili Kecil

MARINE CAPTURE FISHERIES
• 48 fishermen with outboard engine (15 – 90
h.p)
• Gear: Artisanal gear (drift net, trammel net,
portable trap and hook and lines)
• Fishing ground: 2 – 4 km from the shoreline
• Fish landing: 5 – 10kg/boat/day
• Monthly net income: RM1,000 –
2,000/fishermen
• Common species caught: Senangin
(Polynemus spp.), Bawal (Pampus spp.) and
Kembong (Rastrelliger brachysoma), Pari
(Himantura spp.), Jenahak (Lutjanus
malabaricus), Siakap (Lates calcarifer),
Gelama (Pennahia spp., Johnius spp.)
Project Site
Sg. Sedili Fish Landing Point
Pengkalan Nelayan Sedili Kecil
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Lukah
Sg. Bahan

AQUACULTURE
• Species: Udang Putih (Whiteleg Shrimp or Litopenaeus
vannamei).
 Azhar, Lau, QQ Aquamarine and Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn.
Bhd. – lease from Rajaudang Sdn. Bhd
 Highest production in 2019: Asia Aquaculture Sdn. Bhd
2,000 tonnes valued at RM70 million
• Horseshoe Crab farm located downstream of Sg. Sedili Kecil
 Production: 40,000 horseshoe crab exported with value
range from RM18-30.ind.
• Rajaudang Sdn. Bhd
• Species: Siakap (Seabass or Lates calcarifer) and Kerapu
Hybrid (Hybrid’s Grouper or Epinephelus spp.).
• Production in 2019: 9 tonnes valued RM0.28 million
• Located at Kg. Belukar Durian
• Species: Keli (Catfish or Clarias spp.), Udang Galah
(Freshwater Giant Prawn or Macrobrachium rosenbergii),
Siakap (Seabass or Lates calcarifer) and Kerapu (Grouper
or Epinephelus spp.)
• Wholesale value in 2019: RM0.754 million
BRACKISHWATER POND CULTURE
BRACKISHWATER CAGE
CULTURE
HATCHERY
Project Site
Asia Aquaculture (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Raja Udang Aquaculture
Azhar, Lau and QQ
Aquamarine
Hatchery Kg. Belukar Durian
Horseshoe Crab Farm
Sg. Sedili Kecil
Sg. Sedili Kecil

RECREATIONAL FISHING
Shore-based
Angling
Boat-based
Angling
• Location: Coastal area to the Sg. Sedili Kecil Bridge
• Main species caught: Siakap (Lates calcarifer),
Semilang Gemang (Plotosus lineatus), Pari
(Himantura spp., Gymnura spp.), Tetanda (Lutjanus
russelli), Siakap Merah (Lutjanus argentimaculatus)
and Gelama (Chrysochir spp., Dasciaena spp.,
Pennahia spp., Denrophysa spp., Johnius spp.)
• Fishing effort : 2,407 person-days
• Economic value of recreational fisheries:
RM120,344
• Staging point: Pengkalan Nelayan Sedili Kecil
• Angling location: Lubuk Batu Mereng, Karang Yu,
Karang Hanyut, Karang Pak Ya, Karang Kapal Ghani,
Batu Tinggi, Kapal Karam Deris, Karang Hantu, Karang
Lintang dan Karang Lubang
• Main species caught: Siakap (Lates calcarifer), Duri
(Arius spp.), Jenahak (Lutjanus johnii), Ikan Merah
(Lutjanus spp.), Kerapu (Epinephelus spp.), Ibu Kerisi
(Prostipomoides spp.), Kaci (Pomadasys spp.), Bayan
(Scarus spp.), Aruan Tasik (Rachycentron canadum),
Ebek (Alectis ciliaris), Tenggiri (Scomberomorus spp.)
and Talang (Scomberoides spp.).
• Fishing effort : 2,160 person-days
• Economic value of recreational fisheries: RM324,000

SOCIOECONOMIC
• Socioeconomic Profile
81
The socioeconomic profile of respondents and their family
members:
1. People here own their own homes; they have been staying
here very long-25 years or more.
2. Household size is small at 3.5 pp/hh compared to mukim
average of 4.3pp/hh and district average of 4.2 pp/hh
3. Aging population where 42% are 50 years & above.
4. Young people aged 15 to 30 years made up about a quarter of
population, indicating out-migration is taking place, likely for
education and jobs as indicated from FGD.
5. 37% of population have completed secondary education,
implying that education level here is generally not very high
6. 43% of employed population are engaged in agriculture sector;
41% work either as farmers. Most are engaged in mono-
cultivation of oil palm cultivation.
7. Nearly a third of population are housewives.
8. Mean monthly household income: RM3400. Median monthly
household income: RM3,000. These are below state &
national average for rural areas (2019). Johor - Mean:
RM6,613; Median: RM 5,359. National -Mean: RM 5,004;
Median: RM3,828.
9. They are in B40 group (based on national threshold of
RM4,850 & RM5,400 for Johor)
10. Monthly farm income per farmer is RM1,700 which is
relatively low and likely supplemented by income from another
family member as number of workers/ hh is 1.7.
11. Support and acceptance for the proposed project is strong in
the community although 13% is undecided on its acceptability
due to poor knowledge on such project. Those who support
find it will be beneficial- creating a healthier and cleaner
environment for them.
Source: Various FELDA Offices, Kota Tinggi, Johor
No. of settlers
FELDA Lok Heng Timur 469
FELDA Lok Heng Selatan 371
FELDA Lok Heng Barat 392
FELDA Sungai Mas 697
FELDA Papan Timur 429
FELDA Ayer Tawar 5 n.a.
Total 2,358
• 2,358 FELDA settlers in Impact Zone.
IMPACT ANALYSIS IS BASED ON STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENTS:
1. Perception survey (400 respondents)
2. Focus Group Discussions (5 FGDs)
PERCEPTION SURVEY:
1. 240 in FELDA Lok Heng ( Barat, Selatan &
Timur)
2. 160 in FELDA Air Tawar 5, FELDA Papan
Timur & FELDA Sungai Mas
FGDs with:
• Community leaders from FELDA Lok Heng,
FELDA Papan Timur, Sg Mas, Air Tawar 5
• Local FELDA Management
• Representatives from SMK Lokman Hakim,
SK LH Selatan, Kompleks Sukan FELDA,
Klinik Kesihatan Lok Heng & Bandar
Penawar, Wakil Koperasi Peneroka Lok
Heng, SMK Bandar Mas, Koperasi Teachers,
PIBG, residents of FELDA Air Tawar 5, Papan
Timur & Sg Mas (Sources: Tables 7-17;7-19)

Public Health
• Based on the health data obtained from Pejabat
Kesihatan Daerah Kota Tinggi:
- Klinik Kesihatan Lok Heng
- Klinik Kesihatan Bandar Mas
• 400 respondents surveyed at 6 Settlements:
• Overall, the majority of respondents were
reported in good health status.

TRAFFIC
 Based on RTVM2019, the composition of vehicles at JR 401 - Jalan Lok Heng is as follows:
Vehicle composition at JR 401; Jalan Lok Heng
 Based on the recent Highway Planning Unit (HPU) Road Traffic Volume Malaysia Study, Jalan Lok Heng has
a peak hour traffic of 1,449 pcu/hr and capacity of 2,020 pcu/hr which gives it a Level of Services (LOS) C.
This indicates that the road traffic is in the moderately congested during peak traffic hours with nearly
additional 300 pcu/hr traffic can still be accommodated before LOS D is reached.
Road Name
Percentage (%)
Car Motorcycle Light Vans
Medium
Lorries
Heavy
Lorries
Bus
Federal Road 99
JR 401;
Jalan Lok Heng
46.6 12.8 5.1 4.0 0.4 31.0
Source: RTVM2019
The existing view of Federal Route (FR99)

Agenda
6) Evaluation of Impacts and Mitigating Measures
• Evaluation of Potential Impacts
• Recommended Mitigating Measures

Evaluation of Potential Impacts
Hydrogeology
• Potential of direct connection to groundwater.
• This would be justified as far as no significant
ground excavation that punches groundwater
levels (water table) take place in the Project
site.
Particle Path lines

Progressive concentration of
chloride at landfill site after 5 years
of landfill operation
chloride at landfill site after 10
years of landfill operation
chloride at landfill site after 15
years of landfill operation
Progressive concentration of chloride
at landfill site after 20 years of landfill
operation.
Potential Contaminants Movement

Water Quality - Qual2k Modelling
Modelling Channel

Water Quality - Qual2k Modelling
Modelling Scenario
 Normal case scenario – Compliance to Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid
Waste Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations, 2009 at 150 m3/day with estimated E.coli
discharge of 100 count/100 mg/L
 Low flow scenario - Leachate generated is treated by the proposed Leachate Treatment Plant
before being discharged into Sg. Sedili Kecil’s tributary during low flow condition.
 Worst case scenario- Raw leachate being discharged into Sg. Sedili Kecil’s tributary directly
without any treatment during the low flow conditions.
 Raw leachate quality adapted for the simulation are BOD = 46,000 mg/L, TSS= 2,300 mg/L, AN =
881 mg/L, Pb = 0.25 mg/L, As = 0.10 mg/L, Cd = 0.08 mg/L, Hg = 0.005 mg/L and E.coli = 1,500
count/ 100 mL

Operational
Phase
Water Quality - Qual2k Modelling (cont’d)

 For most parameters, major disturbance to Sungai Sedili Kecil’s tributary will happen if failure of
treatment system occur during the low flow condition.
 Water Intake Point is located at the upstream of the Confluence Point of of Sg. Sedili Kecil and its
tributary at the downstream of the Project site.

Water Quality
 The leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) design is as given in Section 5.3.5
 Any failure in any part of the leachate treatment plant (LTP) could result in discharge of partially treated
leachate, which would pollute the downstream receiving river(s); this may increase the river water’s
contents of ammonia, COD and colour. Among common causes of deficient performance are:
 Inefficient or failed blowers leading to lack of oxidation of organics and ammonia, resulting in high COD,
BOD and ammonia-N in treated effluent
 Inefficient mixers in the EQ/Anoxic tanks leading to settling and lack of treatment at those tanks, leading
to high nitrates in effluent
 Washout of biomass from the aeration tanks, notably of Nitrifiers, leading to lack of oxidation of organics
and ammonia, resulting in high COD, BOD and ammonia-N in treated effluent.
 Blockage of pumps leading to potential overflow of leachates, polluting water bodies with raw leachate.

Recommended Mitigating Measures
Water Quality
 Ensure that the LTP is in good working conditions at all times, via:
• Scheduled preventive maintenance of LTP components. The audit schedule for each critical equipment should be clearly
displayed on a wall.
• Scheduled audit to be carried out by a mechanical engineer for equipment and a process engineer familiar with effluent
treatment for the LTP process performance.
• Findings from the audit should be discussed in the next management meeting.
• Any equipment requiring maintenance should be immediately attended to.
• Audited process parameters should be checked to ensure process stability, among most critical parameters are: MLSS,
SVI, ammonia removal and COD removal. Employ MBBR media that is self-cleaning in aeration tank, such as EMM
media, to increase Nitrifiers.
• Close monitoring of treated effluent and LTP process has to be carried out, proposed monitoring program is given
below:

Water Quality
Monitoring Parameters of concern Frequency
1) Sump pH
ORP (Oxidation Reduction Potential) 1/week
BOD 1/month
1) EQ/Anoxic Tank ORP
BOD
MLSS
MLVSS
SVI (Sludge Volume Index)
NO3 (Nitrate)
1/month
1) After Chemical
Treatment
pH
BOD
COD
1/ month
1) Aeration tank DO (Dissolved Oxygen)
Ammonia-N
BOD
COD
Biomass Concentration
MLVSS
SVI
1/ month
1) Final Effluent Ammonia-N
BOD
COD
1/month
Full parameters as per EQ(CoP SWTS &LF) 2009 # to be carried out by
accredited Laboratory.
1/3 months or as per EIA
Approval Conditions

Erosion & Sediment Yield
 Impacts: Land clearing and earthworks increase soil erosion and sedimentation.
Soil Loss Analysis
• Using USLE formula:
 Assessed for four scenarios:
 Results:
Annual Soil Loss (A) = R*K*LS*C*P
R = Rain erosivity index (MJ.mm/ha.hr.yr).
K = Soil erodibility index (ton.hr/MJ.mm).
LS = Slope factor, a combination of slope steepness (S, in %) and length (L, in m).
C = Land cover management factor.
P = Conservation practice factor. If no conservation measures, P = 1.0.
(i) Pre-construction phase
(ii) Construction phase (without mitigation measures)
(iii) Construction phase (with mitigation measures)
(iv) Operational phase
No Scenario Erosion Rates
1. Construction Phase (without BMPs) 90.61% of the site, <600 t/ha/yr
2. Construction Phase (with BMPs) 90.51% of the site, <40 t/ha/yr

Erosion & Sediment Yield (cont’d)
• Soil erosion map during construction phase without mitigation measures:
• Soil erosion map during construction phase with mitigation measures:
N
N

Erosion & Sediment Yield (cont’d)
Sediment Yield Analysis
• Using MUSLE formula:
• Result: Significant reduction in sediment yield when ESC measures & BMPs are implemented.
Y = 89.6 (VQp)0.56 (K.LS.C.P)
V = Runoff Volume, m3
Qp = Peak Discharge, m3/s
K = Soil Erodibility Factor, ton.hr/MJ.mm
LS = Topographic Factor
C = Cover Factor
P = Management Practice Factor
Scenario Sediment Yield
Pre-construction Phase 99.66 tonnes/storm
Construction Phase (without Mitigation Measures) 523.18 tonnes/storm
Construction Phase (with Mitigation Measures) 26.17 tonnes/storm
Operational Phase 2.04 tonnes/storm

• Design principles and corresponding BMP’s
Principle
LD-P2M2 BMP’s
Sediment
Basin
Wash
Trough
Drainage
Proper
land cover
Integrate project design with site constraints  
Provide access and general construction controls    
Minimize the extent and duration of disturbances
Control runoff flows onto, through, and from the site
in stable drainage structures
 
Install perimeter control  
Preserve and stabilize drainage ways 
Protect inlets, storm drain outfalls, and culverts 
Stabilize disturbed areas promptly in a timely manner 
Protect steep slopes 
Use sediment controls to prevent off-site damage  
Recommended Mitigating Measures - LD-P2M2 Plan

• Site condition (January 2020) upon stop work order in March 2019.

• Based on the site condition, upon resuming construction works, the Project should be carried out
based on the following phasing:
i. Phase 1: Remediation work along the access road, connecting from the completed permanent
access road to the entrance of the landfill area.
ii. Phase 2: Maintenance of the existing erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures and
construction of additional ESC measures (where necessary).
iii. Phase 3: Earthwork within the landfill cell, inert cell, infrastructure areas and detention ponds.
iv. Phase 4: Building works and infrastructure works, including internal road, drainage and utilities.
Site condition as per the observation in January 2020

• Remediation/ maintenance work should be carried out prior to the resuming of construction work:
i. Stabilisation of site entrance.
ii. Reconstruction of waterway crossing, with inlet and outlet protection/stabilisation.
iii. Desilt of silt trap and provide inlet and outlet protection.
iv. Re-construct the collapsed earth drain.
v. Remove all accumulated silt in drainage system.
vi. Maintain the river bank of diverted stream.
vii. Maintain all turfed area.
viii. Ensure all drainage system are connected to the silt trap.
Site condition as per the observation in January 2020

• LD-P2M2 Plan for Permanent Access Road:

• LD-P2M2 Plan for Landfill area:

Air Quality
 Assessment consist of two Parts
 Landfill gas emissions - USEPA Landfill Gas Emission Model
 Dispersion modelling of the emissions- AERMOD
 Landfill Gas Emissions;
 CO2, CH4, NMOC, H2S. Benzene and toluene
 Amount of landfill gases over the lifespan of the landfill and beyond
 Greenhouse gas inventory
 Dispersion Modelling of Landfill Gas Emissions
 Pollutants of concern : PM10, CH4, NMOC, H2S, Toluene and Benzene
 Modelling scenario: Based on peak emission of the landfill and average emission over
lifespan of landfill

Air Quality
 Greenhouse Gas Inventory of the Landfill
 Peak GHG emission in the year 2024 with a total of 34,069 tons tons of CO2-eq
greenhouse gas.
 Annual average basis over the life span of the landfill, the amount of GHG released from
the landfill annually is 11,024 CO2-eq tons.
 As comparison: Landfill GHG emissions in Malaysia is 21.94 million tons CO2-eq.

Air Quality – Dispersion Modelling
PM10 Concentration – Construction Phase –No control measures
Receptor Existing
Incremental
Concentration
Ambient Air
Concentration
24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual
Entrance of landfill, A1 42 1,725.4 208.7 1767.4 250.7
Landfill southwestern
boundary, A2
56 39.4 1.5 95.4 57.5
Road junction of landfill, A3 37 504.3 2.9 541.3 39.9
FELDA Lok Heng, A4 32 176.9 1.5 208.9 33.5
FELDA Lok Heng Quarters, A5 39 50.0 0.4 89.0 39.4
MAAQS 100 - - 100 40

PM10 Concentration – Operation Phase
Receptor Existing
Incremental Concentration Ambient Air Concentration
24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual
Entrance of landfill, A1 42 47.3 5.7 89.3 47.7
boundary, A2
56 1.1 0.1 57.1 56.1
Road junction of landfill, A3 37 13.8 0.1 50.8 37.1
FELDA Lok Heng, A4 32 4.9 0.1 36.9 32.1
FELDA Lok Heng Quarters, A5 39 1.4 0.1 40.4 39.1
MAAQS 100 - - 100 40

Annual Average Methane Annual Concentration (ug/m3)
Receptor Existing Landfill emission
Peak Average
Entrance of landfill, A1 2.0 2,977 1,056
boundary, A2
2.0 22.6 8.0
Road junction of landfill, A3 2.6 148.4 52.7
FELDA Lok Heng, A4 2.0 47.6 16.9
FELDA Lok Heng Quarters,
A5
2.0 13.6 4.8
Maximum 24-hour Average NMOC Concentration (ug/m3)
Receptor Landfill emission
Peak Average
Entrance of landfill, A1 134.4 47.5
Landfill southwestern boundary, A2 2.6 0.9
Road junction of landfill, A3 27.6 9.7
FELDA Lok Heng, A4 5.0 1.8
FELDA Lok Heng Quarters, A5 3.0 1.1

Maximum 24-hour Average H2S Concentration (ug/m3)
Maximum 24-hour Average Toluene Concentration (ug/m3)
Receptor Existing Landfill emission
Peak Average
Entrance of landfill, A1 <10 3.23 1.08
boundary, A2
<10
0.06 0.02
Road junction of landfill, A3 <10 0.66 0.22
FELDA Lok Heng, A4 <10 0.12 0.04
FELDA Lok Heng Quarters, A5 <10 0.07 0.02
AAAQG 110
Receptor Landfill emission
Peak Average
Entrance of landfill, A1 9.72 3.2
Landfill southwestern boundary, A2 0.19 0.06
Road junction of landfill, A3 1.99 0.66
FELDA Lok Heng, A4 0.36 0.12
FELDA Lok Heng Quarters, A5 0.22 0.07
AAAQG 300

Odour Impact Assessment
 Two emission scenarios, normal and worst case
 Worst case; Emissions based on measurements of an open dump site
 Normal case: Recommended allowable emission of 6,000 OU for landfills
 Model set up: same as in air quality dispersion modelling
 Sensitive and Discrete Receptors
Receptor
Existing
baseline
over a day
(10 mins
level)
With proper management Without proper management
1-hour
average
24-hour
average
1-hour
average
24-hour
average
Northern boundary of
landfill, O1
2.0 0.5 0.1 578 131.2
Landfill southeast
boundary, O2
4.0 0.6 <0.1 10 1.0
Landfill southwest, O3 2.0 0.3 <0.1 237 17.5
FELDA Lok Heng, O4 4.0 0.3 <0.1 52 2.9
FELDA Lok Heng Quarters,
O5
2.0 0.3 <0.1 20 1.8

Noise Assessment
• Basis of assessment: 55 dBA for daytime and 45 dBA for night time
• Impacts are within 177m radius and sensitive receptors are more than 500m away.
• Impacts are negligible
Conclusion
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emission at its peak is 34,069 tons and 11,024 ton annual average
compared to 21.9 millions tons from landfills nationally.
• Predicted ambient air PM10 concentrations are within the MAAQS limits and for H2S
and Toluene, concentrations of these gases are within the AAAQG limits
• CH4 and NMOC impacts are not significant
• Odour Impacts
• Significant only when there’s no proper odour management practices
• Noise Impacts
• Negligible

Air Quality, Noise and Odour
 Construction Phase
1) Ensure construction and excavation/fill material being transported into and out of
site are covered to prevent dust dispersion.
2) Ensure project site is kept damp.
3) Topsoil stockpiles will be kept covered or have a suitable dust palliative applied
 Operational Phase
1) To control landfill gas by flaring of the landfill gas.
2) Proper operations and regular maintenance of the project’s processes.
3) To hard-surface roadways and any other areas where there is regular movement of
vehicles
4) Access and exit routes for heavy transport vehicles should be planned to minimise
dust impacts
5) Odour-emanating activities / processes and material to be covered and removal of
waste spillage to be done as quickly as possible and its accompanying residues to be
washed out by using environmentally friendly detergent

Terrestrial Flora
The key impacts to terrestrial ecological and biodiversity values are considered to include:
 Habitat degradation by vegetation clearing and extraction, resulting in habitat transformation of
complete losses.
 The edge effect which include microclimation changes that can cause significant changes to the
ecology of an ecosystem patch.
 The removal of soil cover will in turn could destruct the adjacent vegetation cover and destroy
the inhabitants. The important factors to consider will be the siltation and quality of water
discharged into nearby streams.

Recommended Mitigation Measures
Flora Study
Mitigation measures to reduce those impacts mentioned in Section 7 must
include:
i. Minimising habitat removal, modification and fragmentation
ii.
Minimising indirect impacts from operation activities
iii.
Retaining selected area of natural vegetation and habitat areas as biodiversity
refuges and ecological corridors.

Terrestrial Fauna

Marine Ecology
During Construction Phase
Impact Mitigation
Water Quality
- Degradation of water quality related to the leachate
produced from the landfill area
- Provide detention ponds or sediment
basins as well as employ appropriate
traps and other infrastructure to prevent
sediments and other debris from being
washed into the adjacent river
- Provide appropriate waste and sewage
collection as well as disposal procedures
and facilities (rubbish bins and toilet
facilities) during construction stage
Aquatic Productivity
- Construction activities could affect water quality and
increase sedimentation rate.
- Increased TSS and turbidity may reduce sunlight
penetration and therefore, retard primary
production and by extension, rest of the aquatic
food web.
- Excess sediment in the water may reduce species
richness and diversity of benthic communities
Mangrove and Riverine Vegetation
- No significant impact on the mangrove and riverine
vegetation along Sg. Sedili Kecil is expected.

Marine Ecology
During Construction Phase
Impact Mitigation
Capture Fisheries
- No significant impact on the marine capture
fisheries is expected, since fishing activities are
undertaken within 2-4 km from the shoreline (about
30 km from the proposed project site).
-
Aquaculture
- No significant impact on the aquaculture is
expected, since aquaculture activities are
undertaken at downstream of project site,
approximately 18 km from the proposed project
site.
-

Marine Ecology
During Operational Phase
Impact Mitigation
Water Quality
- Degradation of water quality related to the leachate
produced from the landfill areas.
- Equip landfill with leachate collection pipe,
collection pond and leachate treatment plant
facility (LTP). LTP should consist of biological
treatment plant, chemical treatment plant and
final polishing system. Biological treatment
plant can act as additional layer of protection in
the event of treatment system failure.
- Quality work procedures / quality inspection
checks should be implemented to ensure
leachate lining (High-Density Polyethylene;
HDPE or Geosynthetic Clay Liner; GCL),
collection systems and groundwater
management system is installed.
- Continual monitoring of groundwater must be
implemented to ensure no leakage of the liners.
Provision should be made to route any
contaminated groundwater to the LTP.
- Biological monitoring of aquatic productivity
(plankton, macrobenthos and fish fauna)
monthly during construction and quarterly
during operational phase.
Aquatic Productivity
- Water quality modelling: Most parameter showed no
significant changes as compared to baseline data. Slight
increase were recorded for Cd (0.1 – 0.3% from the
baseline), Hg (0.3 -1.1%), Pb and AS (0.6 – 2.4%) and Cr (2.7
– 10.4%). Most levels still well within recommended safe
limit for aquatic fauna, except for Cd (< 1µg/L).
- Worst Case Scenario:
• BOD: 2 mg/L (baseline) to 34.40 - 124.79 mg/L
• AN: 91.59 - 438.52 µg/L (baseline) to 262.96 –
2,405.48 µg/L
• Heavy metals: only slight increase as compared to
baseline data i.e. 10 µg/L (baseline) to 10.17 – 10.64
µg/L (worst case) for Pb, 5 µg/L (baseline) to 5.14 –
5.52 µg/L (worst case) for Cr, 1 µg/L (baseline) to 1 –
1.01 µg/L (worst case) for Hg, 5 µg/L (baseline) to 5.05
– 5.20 µg/L (worst case) for Cd and 5 µg/L (baseline)
to 5.07 – 5.25 µg/L (worst case) for As.

Proposed Biological
Monitoring Sampling
Stations (S1 – S4)

Marine Ecology
During Operational Phase
Impact Mitigation
Mangrove and Riverine Vegetation
- Downstream of Sg. Sedili Kecil: No significant impact on
mangroves is expected.
- Upstream: Aquatic macrophytes could be affected by
excess nutrients from leachate, which could prompt bloom
of aquatic macrophytes.
-
Capture Fisheries
- No significant impact on the marine capture fisheries is
expected, since the fishing activities are undertaken within
2-4 km from the shoreline (about 30 km from the proposed
project site).
-
Aquaculture
- No significant impact on the aquaculture is expected, since
the aquaculture activities are undertaken at downstream of
project site, approximately 18 km from the proposed
project site.
-

Public Health
The predicted environmental noise levels and air pollution emission are within the
safe limits in surrounding settlements.
The estimated increase in traffic during the construction and operation phase was
found to be insignificant.
In conclusion, the Project does not pose an impact to the health of the surrounding
communities within ZOI; thus no additional mitigation measures required as long as
noise pollution, air pollution and traffic management are putting in place.
Mitigation Measure
Public Health

Risks Assessment

Waste Management
1) Clearing of land of vegetation and
trees.
2) Temporary stockpiles.
3) Excavated materials.
4) Generation of scheduled wastes.
5) Generation of municipal wastes
from temporary workers’ camp.
1) Scheduled wastes generated from
maintenance activities.
2) Municipal wastes generated at site
office.

Waste Management
1) Construction material to be collected, stored, and recycled (where appropriate) / disposed at
designated areas.
2) No open burning of stockpiles and cleared vegetation.
3) Proper storage and covering of stockpiles.
4) Proper storage, collection and disposal of scheduled wastes.
5) Collection of municipal wastes generated at workers’ camps to be collected by licensed
providers.
1) Proper storage, collection and
disposal of scheduled wastes.
2) Collection of municipal wastes
generated at workers’ camps to be
collected by licensed providers.
3) Provision of recycling bins.
Recycling Bins
Scheduled Wastes Storage

Social Impact
IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
25.0 36.3 37.5
20.4 28.3 18.9
75.0 63.8 62.5
79.6 71.7 81.1
FELDA Lok
Heng Barat
FELDA Lok
Heng
Selatan
FELDA Lok
Heng Timur
FELDA Air
Tawar 5
FELDA
Papan
Timur
FELDA
Sungai
Mas
Negative Impact % No Negative Impact %
131
IMPACTS DURING PRE-CONSTRUCTION
Negative impacts are not expected during Pre-
construction as:
• No land acquisition in settlements
• No loss of cultural & social amenities/sites
They are expected during
• Construction stage
• Operations stage
Note that many people met at FGDs indicate:
• they do not know enough of what a sanitary
landfill entails;
• There are gaps in their knowledge and
understanding of its operations and
potential impacts on them
• During CONSTRUCTION, most respondents do
not expect Negative Impacts except for 38%.
• This proportion varies across settlements from
a low of 20.4% to a high to 37.5%.
5 NEGATIVE IMPACTS during Construction (in rank
order of importance based on weighted scores):
1. Foreign construction workers (64.5%)
2. Disturbance to residential neighbourhood
(63.4%)
3. Traffic hazard from construction vehicles (61.3%)
4. Environmental disturbance/degradation (56.8%)
5. Air Pollution (53.9%) (Source: Table 7.24)
(Source: Table 7.22)

IMPACTS DURING OPERATIONS
40.0 46.3 55.0
25.9 34.0 24.5
60.0 53.8 45.0
74.1 66.0 75.5
FELDA Lok
Heng Barat
FELDA Lok
Heng
Selatan
FELDA Lok
Heng
Timur
FELDA Air
Tawar 5
FELDA
Papan
Timur
FELDA
Sungai
Mas
Negative Impacts % No Negative Impacts
Nearly 40% of residents believe they would be
impacted during OPERATIONS, slightly higher than
during construction.
Negative perceptions vary across settlements but
are higher in FELDA Lok Heng which is nearer to
proposed site. The proportion rose as high as 55%
in FELDA Lok Heng Timur
PERCEIVED IMPACTS FROM FGDs
5 Key Negative Impacts during Operations (in rank
order of importance based on weighted scores)
are:
1. Pollution to nearby rivers (62.6%)
2. Public health risk(61.4%)
3. Smell/odour from landfill activities (60.9%)
4. Health risk to elderly and children(57.1%)
5. Foreign workers engaged in operations (truck
drivers) (56.1%)
1. No strong objections to proposed project. They
know this project is needed and are aware the
existing one at Bandar Penawar has or will reach full
capacity soon.
2. Although awareness is high, many admitted they do
now know what a sanitary landfill entails. As a
result, there are concerns over operational aspects
and fears over risks to communities.
3. High expectations of improved cleanliness in their
neighbourhood as a result of proposed project.
4. They expect benefits such as potential jobs and
business opportunities for locals.
5. No concerns over negative impacts during Pre-
Construction.
6. Anticipated concerns during Construction are few
notably on Public Health (from presence of foreign
workers and workers’ housing e.g. transmission of
diseases not native to the area).
7. Anticipated positive economic impacts during
construction from job opportunities.
8. Majority is concerned over potential NEGATIVE
IMPACTS during OPERATIONS.

Negative Impact (Operations) Level of
Perceived
Severity of
Impact
1. Management of sanitary
landfill - Fear that if may be
poorly managed and this
could adversely impact
nearby settlements
Serious
2. Fear that it could lead to
problems with pests
especially rats which are a
risk to oil palm plantations,
highlighted by FELDA
management
Serious
3. Concern over Odour Serious
4. Fear over river
contamination from
leachate that would affect
fishing and water intake
Serious
5. Poor knowledge &
understanding of operations
of sanitary landfill
Serious
6. Fear over public health risks Moderate
Stage Impacts
Potential
Significance
Actions
Pre-
construction
• Inadequate knowledge &
understanding of of sanitary landfill
operations
High 
• Land acquisition Low -
• Relocation Low -
• Loss of private property Low -
• Loss of cultural/religious sites Low -
Construction • Noise Moderate 
• Public safety –foreign workers Moderate 
• Public safety – road safety Moderate 
• Disturbance to environment Low -
• Air quality Low -
• Public health Moderate 
• Flash floods Low -
Operations • Public health (flies & diseases) High 
• Pests- rats High 
• Odour/smell High 
• Water pollution from leachate High 
• Poor management of sanitary
landfill
Very High 
• Air pollution & dust Low
• Noise Low
• Public safety & security-road
safety/gas leaks & fire
Moderate 
• Public safety – foreign workers Low
SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE SOCIAL IMPACTS
OVERVIEW OF NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS FROM
FGDs DURING OPERATIONS & LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
NB: Significant impacts are assessed based on scores computed from perceived severity and probability of
occurrence. Range of scores are High/Very High (> 6); Moderate (4-6); Low (< 4)

PROPOSED MITIGATION ACTIONS
Stage Significant Negative Impact Proposed Mitigation Measures
Pre-
construction
Inadequate knowledge &
understanding of sanitary
landfill operations
1. Engagement Programme. Engage local stakeholders & brief them on
technical & operations of the sanitary landfill (local FELDA management
team & community leaders).
Construction Noise 1. Avoid construction activity at night.
2. Place hoardings around site.
Public safety –foreign workers 1. Manage foreign workers’ housing.
2. Provide training on safety procedures for construction workers & ensure
they adhere to such procedures
Public safety – road safety 1. Schedule heavy vehicles movements to avoid certain times – opening &
closure of schools; Friday prayers and at night
Public health 1. Maintain construction site and keep clean from debris & waste materials.
2. Have regular health checks for foreign construction workers.
Operations Operational management of
sanitary landfill
1. Maintain engagement programme from Pre-construction stage.
2. Conduct a site visit and briefing for local community during site opening.
Public health (Pests- rats;
Diseases; Odour/smell)
1. Maintain Engagement programme to keep communities aware.
2. Set up a hotline process to receive complaints & provide feedback
Public safety - water
pollution; gas leaks & fire
1. Comply to DOE guidelines and local planning & building by-laws &
regulations & other relevant regulations
Public safety & security-road
safety
1. Set up a traffic monitoring programme along main roads (local authority &
police).
2. Manage the flow of heavy trucks in and out of the landfill and ensure these
are regularly maintained to avoid breakdowns.
NB: Mitigation measures are extracted from FGDs and Survey Responses

Agenda
7) Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
• Environmental Management Structure
• Environmental Monitoring

Environmental Management Structure

Environmental Monitoring
Item Construction Phase Operational Phase
Proposed Frequency Once every 3 months Once a month
Proposed
Parameters
pH, TSS, Turbidity, DO, BOD5,
COD, Oil & Grease, E.coli
and NH3N
Flowrate, pH, TSS, DO, BOD5,
COD, Oil & Grease, E.Coli and
NH3N
Proposed Sampling
Locations
7 Locations
Discharge of effluent of from
landfill, 7 selected locations
Submission of
Documentation
and Reports to DOE
Once every 3 months
Monitoring results: Once every
6 months;
Compliance report: Once every
3 month
Water Quality – River and Discharge

Proposed Maintenance and Monitoring Programme for Proposed P2M2
Component P2M2 Monitoring/Maintenance Guideline
Runoff
Management
Control
Earth drain  Inspect weekly and after rainfall event or rainfall
reading ≥ 12.5 mm.
 Debris and sediment to be removed and any
damaged lining repaired.
 Accumulated silt to be removed once drain is 2/3
filled.
Check dam  Inspect weekly and after rainfall event or rainfall
reading ≥ 12.5 mm.
 Desilt when sediment reaches 1/3 height of dam.
Repair dams as necessary to maintain their height
and configuration.
Erosion Control Turfing  Water daily during the first week of establishment,
unless there is adequate rainfall.
 Do not mow the area until the turf is firmly rooted.
 Apply appropriate fertilisers regularly for ongoing
successful establishment.
Surface roughening  Periodically check the slopes of rills, gullies and
washes.
 Reseed and/or rework the area as necessary.
Plastic Sheeting  Inspect weekly and after every significant rainfall.
 Re-anchor loosened plastic sheet and replace
missing/damage sheet as required.

Sediment
Control
Wash trough  Inspect weekly and after rainfall event or rainfall reading ≥ 12.5 mm.
 Ensure sediment is removed periodically.
 Replace water in trough with clean water daily or more frequently if there is a
need.
Silt fence  Inspect weekly and after rainfall even or rainfall reading ≥ 12.5 mm.
 Make any necessary repairs when bulges occur or when sediment
accumulation reaches 1/3 of the fabric height.
 Remove sediment deposits as necessary to continue to allow for adequate
sediment storage and reduce pressure on the silt fence.
Check dam  Desilt when sediment reaches 1/3 height of dam.
 Repair dams as necessary to maintain their height and configuration.
Silt trap  Inlets, outlets and spillways of silt traps to be inspected weekly and after
rainfall event or rainfall reading ≥ 12.5 mm.
 Sediment in the silt traps to be removed after every heavy rain or when the
volume reaches 1/2 of the basin storage capacity.
 Water to be sampled monthly at outlets of silt traps for total suspended solids
(TSS) and turbidity. The quality standard shall be <50 mg/L TSS and <250 NTU
turbidity.
 Additional flocculating agents (e.g. gypsum) can be added in the silt trap to
improve the water quality, if necessary.

Tracking
Control
Stabilized construction
entrance
 Maintain stabilised construction entrance in a condition to prevent
sediment from leaving the construction site.
 After each rainfall, inspect any structure used to trap sediment
from the stabilised construction entrance and clean our as
necessary.
 Wheel washing facilities (wash trough) have to be maintained as
mentioned above for wash troughs.

Item Construction Phase Operational Phase
Proposed
Frequency
Once every 3 months Once every 6 months
Proposed
Parameters
PM2.5, PM10, NOx, SO2
and CO
H2S, CH4, SO2, NO2 and Odour
Proposed
Sampling
Locations
5 Locations for Air and
Noise
1) Air – 5 Locations
2) Odour – 5 Locations
3) Noise – 5 Locations
Submission of
Documentation
and Reports to
DOE
Once every 3 months
Monitoring results: Once every
6 months;
Compliance report: Once
every 3 month*
Air Quality

Agenda
8) Conclusions
• It is expected that the proposed project will induce minimal, some short-term
impacts during construction phase and potentially significant impact to the
environment during the operations phase.
• It is our conclusion that the proposed project will induce greater benefit to
the residents of Kota Tinggi and Pengerang in providing a controlled facility for
municipal waste disposal where all potential impacts identified are able to be
mitigated with the implementation of all mitigation measures proposed
within this report.

Thank you

KEJORA_EIA_TRC_-_May_2021_Rev3.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to KEJORA_EIA_TRC_-_May_2021_Rev3.pptx

Similar to KEJORA_EIA_TRC_-_May_2021_Rev3.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

KEJORA_EIA_TRC_-_May_2021_Rev3.pptx