ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING IN A SUSTAINABLE SETTING IN MALAYSIA.

By

Subramaniam Karuppannan,(MCIEH), PJK 1 1 Environmental Health and Safety Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiTM Puncak Alam.

Abstract

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING IN A SUSTAINABLE SETTING IN MALAYSIA.

By

Subramaniam Karuppannan,(MCIEH),
1

Environmental Health and Safety Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiTM Puncak Alam.

Introduction: Environmental impact assessment is a mandatory assessment for any planned activity using environmental protection requirements with sustainable development, while determining optimum solutions. Environmental audit is the assessment of the compliance of environmental management and mandatory performance of operating business with environmental protection requirements. The concept of environmental auditing is closely related to monitoring, norms and standards (GDRC, 2010). Methodology: Environmental audits were done at selected sites to test the effectiveness of environmental management efforts at local levels. Environmental audits are 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, while focusing on methods used and reviewing EIA documents to see whether there are any deviations between targets (legal requirements) and results. Environmental sampling and testing was done in a selected EIA project site including interviewing local residents. Results and discussion: Air sampling results complied the environmental standards with 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) had results 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 have been encouraged by the presence of organic waste. The noise sampling (n=4) for day time showed results for all points were exceeding the maximum permissible sound levels (PSL) and night time sampling (n=3) that exceeded standards showed some violation and mostly due to non point sources probably due to vehicles. Traffic impact assessment showed that the majority of vehicles were cars followed by motorcycles, lorry and buses. The public survey (n=100) among respondents revealed that the residents were not so concerned about the health effects related to projects, but expressed dissatisfaction on air pollution issues (dust problem). Conclusion: The environmental audit showed that traffic problem is a serious issue with risk evaluation for traffic as extremely high. The residents were encouraged to use public transport and construction of motorbike lanes with adequate signage. Water quality needs to be maintained and waste management must be improved to avoid pest problems. Noise needs to be monitored with controls. Extended monitoring is required before and after project development is finish to minimize environmental and health impact. Key words: Environment Impact Assessment (EIA); Environmental Quality Act 1974

(EQA).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

2. Background
TriPlc in May 2010 was granted a 23-year 23concession 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.

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).

3. Study Location

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.

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.

3. The Study Sites

3. The Study Sites

4. Measurements

Dry Pond

Construction of prison near FSK 6 building

Wet pond

Effluent sampling

In-situ water sampling

Air monitoring

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.

Air Quality
SAMPLING HUMIDITY POINT (n=4) TEMPERATURE PM10 CO2 CO SO2 NO2

1.

73.30%

26.6oC

0.016 mg/m3 275 ppm 15 ppm

0 ppm

0.5 ppm

2.

71.10%

27.7oC

0.042 mg/m3 259 ppm

0 ppm

0 ppm

0.5 ppm

3.

70.60%

27.1oC

0.076 mg/m3 243 ppm

5 ppm

0 ppm

0.5 ppm

4.

71.10%

26.6oC

0.014 mg/m3 264 ppm

9 ppm

0 ppm

0.5 ppm

Table 1: Air Monitoring Result

PARAMETER
Ph Temp Turbidity Dissolve oxygen BOD COD Suspended Solid Ammonia Mercury Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent Arsenic Cyanide Lead Chromium Trivalent Copper Manganese Nickel Tin Zinc Boron Iron Phenol Free Chlorine Sulphide Oil and Grease (N=4)

1. POND
6.8 32.6 0C 28.3 NTU 7.91 mg/L 11.44 mg/L 9.3 mg/L 28 mg/L NA NA -0.076 mg/L 0.020 mg/L 2.420 mg/L* NA 1.044 mg/L* NA 0.004 mg/L 0.008 mg/L 0.414 mg/L* NA 0.020 mg/L 0.2 mg/L 0.023 mg/L NA 0.03 mg/L NA NA

2. UPSTREAM 3. EFFLUENT 4. DOWN STREAM STANDARD (A) EQ(IE) 2009

7.7 33.9 0C 25.82 NTU 8.67 mg/L 6.51 mg/L 46 mg/L 17.3 mg/L NA NA -0.091 mg/L 0.024 mg/L 0.004 mg/L NA 1.097mg/L* NA 0.120 mg/L 0.107 mg/L 0.450 mg/L* NA 0.051 mg/L 0.86 mg/L 0.006 mg/L NA 0.08 mg/L NA NA 6.7 30.9 0C 8.08 NTU 14.4 mg/L 10.2 mg/L 24.5 mg/L 5.6 mg/L NA NA -0.089 mg/L 0.012 mg/L 2.374 mg/L* NA 1.132mg/L* NA 0.027 mg/L 0.031 mg/L 0.419 mg/L* NA 0.149 mg/L 0.27 mg/L 0.098 mg/L NA 0.05 mg/L NA NA 7.6 33.3 0C 23.9 NTU 8.49 mg/L 7.11 mg/L 41.4 mg/L 16 mg/L NA NA -0.0113 mg/L 0.02 mg/L 0.006 mg/L* NA 1.16mg/L* NA 0.109 mg/L 0.114 mg/L 0.462 mg/L* NA 0.062 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 0.204 mg/L NA 0.06 mg/L NA NA 6.0-9.0 40 NA NA 20 50 50 NA 0.005 0.01 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.10 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 2.0 mg/L 1.0 m/L 1.0 m/L 0.001 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 0.50 mg/L Non-detectable

Table 2: Water Bodies Monitoring Result

TAP WATER
PARAMETER

DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARD (MINISTRY OF HEALTH, 2009)

RAW WATER MINIMUM 5.50 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAXIMUM 9.00 N/A 1000.00 6.00 10.00 1.50 0.001 0.003 TREATED WATER MINIMUM 6.50 N/A 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAXIMUM 9.00 N/A 5.00 N/A N/A 1.50 0.001 0.003

(n=1)
Ph Temp Turbidity BOD COD Ammonia Mercury Cadmium 7.5 32.1 0C 5 NTU 5.3 mg/L 5 mg/L N/A N/A -0.084 mg/L

Arsenic
Cyanide

0.024 mg/L
N/A

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.07

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.07

Lead
Copper Manganese Zinc Iron Phenol Free Chlorine Sulphide

1.084mg/L*
0.002mg/L 0.007 mg/L 0.014 mg/L 0.005 mg/L N/A 0.02 mg/L

0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A

0.05
1.00 0.20 3.00 1.00 0.002 N/A

0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00

0.05
1.00 0.10 3.00 0.30 0.002 5.00 250.00

Table N/A

3 : Drinking Water Monitoring Result 0.00 250.00

4. Results and discussion

Waste characteristics study by gravimetric method Characteristics (n=5) plastics paper organic (food waste) aluminum
SAMPLING POINTS 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Standard Deviation PAPER (Kg) 0.24 0.36 0.42 0.2 0.5 0.344 0.124 PLASTIC (Kg) 0.44 0.6 0.2 0.42 0.4 0.412 0.143

% 38 32 29 1
ALUMINIUM (Kg) 0 0.02 0 0 0.04 0.012 0.0179 ORGANIC (Kg) 0.42 0.22 0.42 0.36 0.18 0.32 0.113

Table 4 : Waste Characteristics Result (n=5)

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.

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.

Table 5: Noise Monitoring Result

SAMPLE (n=4) 1. 2. 3. 4. DAY TIME (*PSL: 50 dBA) dBA) 61.8 52.3 44.2 58.8 NIGHT TIME (*PSL: 40 dBA) dBA) 67.0 53.4 45.4 61.4

*PSL: Permissible Sound Levels (Violation in Bold RED & Italics)

Traffic impact assessment

Morning (8.00-9.00 am)
Evening (4.30-5.30 pm)
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
State Road (UiTM Traffic Light T-junction Main Entrance Keris Roundabout Labu Sayong Roundabout

600

Car 337 278 Bus

400

Car 500 486 Motorcycle Lorry Bus

Motorcycle Lorry

176 127 93 76 74 1 52 38

182

300 223 221 195

114

200 107 100 105

91

103 73 55 26
Labu Sayong Roundabout

39
3 0
State Road (UiTM Traffic Light Tjunction Main Entrance Keris Roundabout

73

Figure 6 A: Number of vehicles in the morning

Figure 6B : Number of vehicles in the evening

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).

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 (TE)

Effect of Top Event (ETE) Physical Injury Accident Death

Consequence I EP EA

Risk Score

Traffic

Physical

Vehicle accidents

16

32

16

16

13,072

Risk > 1)

Table 7A: Risk Score Table

Hazard Identification and Risk Scores

Activity
Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence I EP EA

Risk Score

Natural Drinking deposits Water Water earth, Arsenic Contaminati 16 8 16 16 Consum(Chemical) industrial and on ption agricultural pollution Lead Industrial and Water (Chemical) agricultural Contaminati 16 16 16 16 pollution on

32,768

65,536

Risk > 1)

Table 7B: Risk Score Table

Hazard Identification and Risk Scores

Activity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence I Industrial Activity & Wastewater Treatment Plant Arsenic (Chemical) Lead (Chemical) Nickel (Chemical) Industrial Effluent water Spillage contamination 16 2 8 EP 16 EA 1 Risk Score 4, 096

Industrial Effluent water Spillage contamination

16

2,048

Industrial Effluent water Spillage contamination

12

2,048
Risk > 1)

Table 7B: Risk Score Table

Hazard Identification and Risk Scores

Activity Transpor tation & Human activity
Hazards Noise Exposure (Physical) TE Noise exposure ETE F L Consequence I EP EA Risk Score Stress, Hypertensio n, sleep 16 32 disturbance & annoyance Food poisoning & Nuisance 16 32

16

8, 192

Pest - Flies Poor or Food handling (Biological) Improper waste & management Serving

16

32,768

Risk > 1)

Table 7B: Risk Score Table

NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACT

1. Dust*fever Dust* fatigue Dust*cough 2. 3. 4. Odour*headache Drinking*fever Drinking*fatigue Open burning*fever Open burning*fatigue Open burning*headache Open burning*cough

In Situ (%)
23 22 3 3 2 0 20 15 8 2

Ex Situ (%)
2 4 1 0 2 0 2 4 1 1

Table 8A : Result for Health Impact Assessment

NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACT INFORMATION ABOUT PROJECT EIA report*internet EIA report*others

In=situ (%)

Ex-Situ (%)

5. 5.a 5.b.

3 2

0 0

Table 8B: Result for Social Impact Assessment

Table 1 : A Basic Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix For Risk Ranking.

LIKELIHOOD / CONSEQUENCE SEVERITY OF EVENTS FREQUENCY HIGH (3) MEDIUM (2) LOW (1) OF EVENTS HIGH (3) MEDIUM (2) LOW (1) HIGH (9) HIGH (6) MEDIUM (3)

HIGH (6)
MEDIUM (4) LOW (2)

MEDIUM (3) LOW (2) LOW (1)

Before Controls are managed

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

TABLE 2 : A Simple Risk Matrix Table Relating Consequence and Likelihood to Estimate Risk Levels.

CONSEQUENCE
CATASCATASTROPHIC(5) VERY LIKELY(4) EXTREMELY HIGH (16) MAJOR (4) EXTREMELY HIGH (16) EXTREMELY HIGH (16) HIGH (8) MEDIUM (4) MODERATE (3) MINOR (2) INSIGNIFIINSIGNIFICANT (1) MEDIUM (4)

EXTREMELY HIGH (8) HIGH (16)

HIGH (8) MEDIUM (6)

LIKELIHOOD

LIKELY (3)

EXTREMELY HIGH (16) HIGH (8) MEDIUM (5)

MEDIUM (6)

UNLIKELY(2) HIGHLY UNLIKELY(1)

MEDIUM (6) LOW (3)

MEDIUM (4) LOW (2)

LOW (2) LOW (1)

IF not controlled

Conclusion
If all recommendations are accepted and risk management were carried out than the projects risks would be appropriately reduced.

Table 3: Risk Matrix Table

CONSEQUENCE Catastrophic(4) Major(3) Minor (2) Insignificant (1)

LIKELIHOOD

Very Likely (4) Likely (3) Unlikely (2) Highly Unlikely (1)

High High Medium Medium

High High Medium Medium

High Medium Low Low

Medium Medium Low Low (1)

After RISKS are managed well

References
Air 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 Jersey Department 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.html International 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.php Toll, 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)