eia pulau tioman group presentation

Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT)

PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE THERMAL TREATMENT PLANTS AT

PULAU TIOMAN , PAHANG DARUL MAKMURTerms of References for

Detailed Environmental Impact Assesment

27 MEI 2012

Project Proponent and EIA Consultant

Project ProponentJabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara,Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan,Paras 2&4, blok B (utara),Pusat Bandar Damansara, Peti surat 12579,50782 Kuala Lumpur

SMART Consulting Group Sdn Bhd9-2 & 9-3 Jalan USJ 21/647630 Subang Jaya, MALAYSIATel: 603-80242287Fax: 603-80242320

DEIA Study TeamArea of study Name

•Soil control• Sedimentation control

Dr. Muhamad Hafiz b Mat Kasa

•Air quality assesment Dr. Zaifah bt Che Wil

•Noise impacts assesment Ir. Asyanatul Awin Bt Ahmad Termizi

•Water quality &Wastewater

Dr. Nurul Hanna Attiya Bt Baharuddin

DEIA Study TeamArea of study Name

•Social and Economic ImpactAssessment

Prof. Dr. Nur Hafiza Bt Ahmad

•Health ImpactAssessment

Dr. Mohd Afdhal Bt Abd Razak

•Land use•Traffic

Norhaliza Bt Hashim

•Occupational Safety and Health

Asilah Bt Mohamad Ali

•Ecological Assessment Dr. Nazhirah Bt Mohd Mera Shoib

Overview Objective Project BackgroundStatement of NeedProject Description Existing Environment Potential & Magnitude Impacts Conclusion

Project Background• Proposed thermal treatment

plant• Replaced Incinerator which

no longger operate for disposal of Municipal Solid Waste

• Overal capacity = 15MT/day• Located at Lot 145 , Kg

tekek, • Less than 2 Acres

Project Location ( Pulau Tioman )

Statement of Need

• Need of replacing the existing incinerators• Current incinerator are under capacity and

stopped since 2007- breakdown• Wastes transported back to mainland for final

disposal- potential pollute• Current incinerator site- used for temporary

storage- improper

Statement of Need

• Has impacts- reducing the adverse impacts

Surface and groundwater pollutionHealth riskAir polutionOdouraesthetic

Existing condition of waste stored/ disposed at the Project Site (southwest)

Existing condition of waste stored/ disposed at the Project Site (west)

Statement of Need

Aerial Image of Project Site

Project Location

Existing Environment

Marine Park

Centre

Road to the existing waste

disposalground

Houses at 220m

from project

Site (west)

Sg. Hantu during low

tide

Existing EnvironmentBamboo

tree (Phyllosachys)

on the Sg. Batang Siput river

bank

One of the coras species

found off the river mouth of

Sg. Air Hantu

Flying fox (Pteropus sp.)

hanging on the tree

near airport

Monitor lizards

(Varanus sp.)

at the project

site

Project Description Project component

Waste reception facility •Waste receiving bay, waste storing area•:: receive MSW prior sending for seperation and treatment

Waste seperation faciity •Mechanical seperation and sorting •:: seperates combustible and non combustible

Thermal Treatment Plant •Made up primary chamber (>650 C)•Primary chamber ( >800 C)•Continous operation

Gas cooling facility •Cool down flue gas temperature to 200 C

Air pollution control facility •Consist Neutralization tower , cyclone and baghouse fliter

Waste water treatment pant •Mechanical and biological treatment system•Treating leachate

Project Description Proposed Layout Plan

Scope & Methodology5 km around

project option

Potential & Magnitude ImpactsEnvironmental Aspects Magnitude of Impacts

High Medium LowAir quality

Water quality

Noise

Socio-economics

Soil and sedimentation

Ecology

Land use and traffic

Safety Occupational and health

Safety and Health

ECOLOGY

WATER QUALITY

AIR QUALITY

HUMAN HEALTH

SOCIOECONOMIC

TRAFFIC

NOISE QUALITY

OSHA

SOIL AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

CONCLUSION

SCOPE OF STUDY

ECOLOGY: FLORA &FAUNA

• The Project site is generally surrounded by– overgrown grass and shrubs except at the north of the

Project site where the area was bordered by trees.• Pulau Tioman is a hilly island surrounded by

– the South China Sea.• There are 3 forest types within 5 km of the Project site

– primary, secondary and beach forest.• Over 50% of Pulau Tioman (about 7,160 ha) has been

gazetted as Wildlife Reserve– to protect the flora and fauna on the island.

• Pulau Tioman Development Guidelines and Carrying Capacity Report, JPBD, 2008.– 33 species mammalian– 48 species reptilian– 17 species amphibian– 67 species birds

• Species protected:– Binturong (Artictic

binturong)– Long-tailed Macaque

(Macaca fascicularis)– Slow Loris (Nycticebus

coucang) – Black Giant Squirrel (Ratufa

bicolor)– Brush-tailed Porcupine

(Atherurus macrourus)– Red-giant Flying Squirrel

(Petaurista petaurista)– Common Palm Civet

(Paradoxurus hermaphroditus)

– Larger Mouse Deer (Tragulus napu)

Mammals

Reptilian and amphibian

– toad species Ansonia tiomanica– lizard Gonicocephalus chamaelinotus

Birds White – bellied Sea Eagle

(Haliaeetus leucogaster), White-belied Fish Eagle

(Haliatur Indus) Crested Serpent Eagle

(Spilornis cheela) Black-winged Kite (Elanus

caeruleus). Hill Myna (Gracula

religiosa) is the common bird species found on the island.

Marine• The marine ecology in

general consist of diversity of marine organisms including– penyu hijau (Chelonia

mydas)– Blacktip Reef Sharks

(Carcharhinus melanopterus),

– Coral Trout (Plectropomus sp.),

– Golden Trevally (Gnathanodon speciosus)

– Blue Spotted Sting Ray (Taeniura lymma)

Coral • Terdapat 111 spesies

karang di Pulau Tioman.– hard coral species

recorded

• Porites rus, Porites cylindrical• Stylophora

pistillata, • Pachyseris

speciosa

Coverage of Coral Life FormsLife forms Coverage (%)

Life coral 50.2

Dead 7.6

Algae 0.8

Abiotic coral 24.8

Other 2.2

Source : Coral Monitoring Quarterly Report No.3 at Teluk Tekek, Pulau Tioman, August-October 2008

BACK

IMPAK DAN MITIGASI

Sebelum operasi1. Debu larian – hoarding (3m) dan jalan diturap

Semasa operasi1. Gas serombong hasil daripada pembakaran

- model ISCST3 -Operasi normal -Keadaan paling teruk

persampelan kualiti udara• 4 lokasi - tapak insinerator - 3 di kawasan berdekatan

OPERASI NORMAL

KEADAAN PALING TERUK

Di bawah keadaan paling teruk, pembebasan tidak terkawal dalam tempoh 1 jam boleh menyebabkan pencemaran udara yang teruk.- operasi TTP dijalankan oleh kakitangan yang cekap dan terlatih- KPIs- Good Housekeeping

2. teknologi ACT3. Sistem ACP

- siklon- neutralization reactor- baghouse

With the implementation of these measures, no residual impacts are anticipated.

BACK

26-28 2008

Location N1 N2

Day time

LAeq (dBA) range 49.9 – 68.1 50.4 – 65.3

*Average LA90 (dBA) 50.8 47.8

Maximum Permissble Sound Level 60.8 57.8

% Exceeded Maximum Permissible Sound Level

35 %( 21 Reading )

25 %( 15 Reading )

Night time

LAeq (dBA) range 53.2 - 62.9 44.0 – 57.2




8 %( 3 Reading )

86 %(31 Reading )

Inference 7- 9 oct 2008Location N1 N2

Day time

LAeq (dBA) range 44.1 - 60.8 47.7 - 63.2




0 %( none of the Reading )

13 %( 8 Reading )

Night time

LAeq (dBA) range 51.1 – 54.5 39.1 – 53.4




0 %( none of the Reading )

17 %( 6 Reading )

BACK

QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

• The risk assessment conducted for this Project is to identify the potential hazards associated with the TTP operation.

• The main risk during the operation of the TTP is identified related to fire hazards within the facility.

• In case of the TTP, the main hazard are:1. the on-site diesel storage 2. Spontaneous Combustion of Solid Waste

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (OSH)

• The safety and health aspects for on-site workers for the proposed TTP is review for both construction and operation phases of the plant.

• In Malaysia, the safety and health of workers is governed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1994 (OSHA 1994) and the Factories and Machinery Act, 1967 (FMA 1967)

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Possible hazards may occur

Safety Hazards

Traffic accident

Overturned crane

Fall from heights

Machine/toolusage injuries

Health Hazards

Exposed to noise levels that exceed the action level of

85 dBA

Dengue fever and recently chikungunya epidemics

OPERATIONAL PHASE

Common Hazards expected

Physical injuries

Manual handling Heat stress

exposed to potential

hazardous or toxic

materials

BACK

IMPACTS

Construction phase•Sewage discharge•Oil & grease pollution•Soil contaminated•Effect marine water (coral)•Construction waste

Operational phase•Increase nutrients•Increase coliform bacteria•Increase in suspended solids•Depletion of O₂•Noxious odours (H₂S)•Limit light penetration•Oil contaminate – degrade aesthetic value

Residual Impact•Not Significant

Assumption for Assessment• Effluent and river water are completely mixed at the point of discharge• The BOD of the effluent does not change along the Sg. Air Hantu• Other pollution sources along Sg. Air Hantu were not considered• The present BOD of Sg. Air Hantu is taken as 3 mg/l under normal

conditions. • The following formula has been used:-

BOD Prediction

Scenario 1 – Normal Condition

• Accordance to the design parameters.• The low flow of Sg. Air Hantu for the 1.1 year return period and 30 day low flow is 3.33 x 10-2 MLD.• The BOD concentration for Sg. Air Hantu assumed at 3 mg/L.• The effluent discharge from the WWTP is 0.004 MLD.• The BOD concentration of the effluent is 20 mg/L based on design parameter/ based on Standard A• Therefore,

Scenario 2 – Abnormal Condition

• failure of the WWTP and raw wastewater is discharged into the river• BOD concentration in the raw wastewater is 7,731 mg/l• Therefore, when cw = 7,731 mg/l

Qr = 3.33 x 10-2 MLDCr = 3 mg/lqw = 0.004 MLDcw = 20 mg/lC₀ = 4.8 mg/l

C₀ = 832 mg/l

MITIGATIONS – Construction PhaseOil & Grease Containment•Store in large bin/tank/drums•Soak with sand•Construct concrete/brick containment wall•Bund wall (Appendix I)

Sewage Discharge•Treat in septic tank•Desludging once /2 years•Leachate management

Construction Waste•On-site storage area•Stockpiled at temporary storage (Figure 6-

1)•Construct drain flow into silt trap

MITIGATIONS – Operational Phase

Control•WWTP•Leachate management•Engineering control

Maintenance•Inspection•Testing •Cleaning•Lubrication•Adjusting•Repairing

Adequate Training•Personnel•Execute duties properly

Leachate Management and Wastewater Treatment

Refer FIGURE 3-53 type wastewater:• leachate from the stored solid waste• plant washings• incoming truck washings Leachate management• leachate drained into collection sumps before being channelled to an

onsite WWTP• require washing to ensure that the area is clean at all times• collection sumps drained by gravitation/pump to the WWTP• Leachate from garbage trucks drained into a designated sump/pit at

the waste receiving area

Figure 3-5 Proposed Layout of Wastewater Drainage Plan

Figure 3-8 WWTP Equipment Layout Plan

Figure 6-1 Location of Stockpile & Temporary Waste Storage Area

BACK

Human Health Impact

The steps of health risk assessments are:

Step 1: Hazard Identification

Step 2: Dose-response relationships

Step 3: Exposure Assessment

Step 4: Risk Characterization

Human Health Impact

Step 1 : Hazard Identification

Type of emmision Pollutants

Criteria air pollutants Particulate less than 10 μg(PM10), SO2, NO2

Toxic air pollutants Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, HCL, lead, elemental mercury, dioxin

Human Health Impact Step 2 : Dose-response relationships

Health Reference Values for Criteria Air Pollutants

Criteria pollutants Averaging time Reference values μg/m3

PM10

24 hrs 150 1

Annual 50 1

SO2

1hr 350 1

24 hrs 105 1

NO2

1hr 320 1

Annual 40 2

•Notes: 1 US National Ambient Air Quality Standard 2 Recommended Malaysian Ambient Air Quality Guidelines.

Human Health Impact

Step 2 : Dose-response relationshipsSummary of Health Outcome, Relative Risk (RR) Associated with a 10

μg/m3 in PM10 for Short Term Effects

Source: WHO, Regional Office for Europe. Health Impact of Air Pollution in the Eight Major Italian Cities, 2002

Health Outcome RR per 10 μg/m3

Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes 1.009

Hospital admission for respiratory disease 1.016

Occurrence of respiratory symptoms 1.070

Acute bronchitis (aged <15) 1.306

Asthma exacerbation(aged <15) 1.051

Asthma exacerbation(aged >15) 1.004

Human Health ImpactStep 2 : Dose-response relationships Table 3 Non-cancer toxicity Information of criteria air pollutants

Chemical of concernChronic RfC

(mg/m3)Primary Target

Organ

Type of critical effect for

development of threshold dose

Source of Toxicity data (date*)

SO2 ND* URT URT Irritation

NO2 ND* URT URT Irritation

HCl 2x10-2 URT URT Irritation IRIS (20/11/08)

Dioxin/Furan ITEQ (as 2,3,7,8-TCDD)

4x10-5 Development Systemic effect OEHHA, 2005

Arsenic 0.03 Skin Systemic effect OEHHA, 2005

Cadmium 0.02 (μg/m3) Kidney Systemic effect OEHHA, 2005

Lead NA NA NA NA

Chromium IV 1x10-4Respiratory

toxicitySystemic effect IRIS (20/11/08)

Mercury, elemental 3x10-4 Nervous system Systemic effect IRIS (20/11/08)

Human Health Impact

Chemical ofconcern

URF(Hg/m3)-1

Type of cancer

EPA Weight ofEvidence/Route

Source of Toxicitydata (date*)

Arsenic 4.3E-03 Lung A/Inhalation IRIS (20/11/08)

Cadmium 1.8E-03 Lung B1/inhalation IRIS (20/11/08)

Chromium 1.2E-02 Lung A/Inhalation IRIS (20/11/08)

Lead 1.20E-05

Not reported

B2 OEHHA

Dioxin/Furan (TEQ)

1.3 Lung B2/inhalation IRIS (20/11/08)

Mercury NA NA D (Not classified asHuman carcinogen)

IRIS (20/11/08)

Toxicity Information of the Carcinogenic Hazards

Step 2 : Dose-response relationships

Human Health Impact

Step 3 : Exposure Assessment

Sensitive receptors• The sensitive receptors for all three criteria

pollutants emitted from the proposed TTP are clearly identified as the asthmatics, people suffering from respiratory diseases and heart disease and the elderly and very young people.

Human Health Impact


Exposure route• Direct exposure through the inhalation route

is the most important route of exposure for the health risk assessment on the identified hazards emitted from the proposed plant.

Human Health Impact


Exposure level• The health risk was calculated based on the

exposure data derived from the air quality modelling and the baseline data submitted by the air quality consultants.

Human Health Impact


• The Risk Characterization integrates all information from the earlier steps.

• The health risk is calculated using the results of the air quality modelling. For this assessment, the health risk to the residents was estimated based on the actual or normal operation of the TTP.

Human Health ImpactPercentage Of Health Outcomes Increment Due To Maximum 24 Hours Average

Incremental Level of PM10 (Normal Operation)


BACK

EXISTING ENVIROMENT•POPULATION

ETHNICITY

AGE GROUP

EDUCATION

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Socio-economic

The objectives of the SIA study are:1. To identify potential adverse impacts of the

proposed development on socioeconomic aspects of the local population in Pulau Tioman.

2. To determine opportunities for enhancing the socio-economic well-being of the local population.

3. To address social issues associated with the impacts of the proposed development through the design of mitigation measures.

COMMENTS RESPONDENTS

AWARE OF PROJECT 56.6%

NOT INTERESTED 29.4%

PERCEPTION BEFORE PROJECT

Awareness of the location

Perceived positive impactsThere were altogether 16 positive impacts.

Perceived negative impactsThere were altogether 17 negative impacts.

Tourists’ perception

Potential socio-economic impacts

(i) During construction• Discomfort due to increased level of noise and traffic• Concerns for safety due to increased traffic and boat activity• Decrease in monthly incomes due to environmental

implications

(ii) During operation• Concerns for health in view of potential environmental

pollution• Concerns for safety in the event of failure or improper

operationof the TTP

Mitigation measures and recommendations

There are a few recommended to enhance the solid waste management in Pulau Tioman:Improvement of solid waste collectionCommunity Education and Awareness

ProgrammesFollow-up SIA

BACK

TRAFFIC AND MATERIAL CONVEYANCE

• Traffic volume is expected to increase during the construction phase.

• The impact due to traffic is minimal:Transportation route less than 2kmNo public amenities located along transportation route.

• Traffic impact is not significant during operational phase.No. of rubbish trucks and trucks which transport bottom

ash and sludge is small.

• Impact due to marine traffic are follow:-

Spillage of bottom ash, sludge and fuelDamage to corals by barge movementCollision with other boats

BACK

Soil and sedimentation control

Phases Impacts because of

Constructions Site clearing •Phasing •Sediment trap•Temporary drains

Operational No impacts because of whole area are covered

Soil and sedimentation control

BACK

Conclusion

Proposed TTP will not impose significant adverse environmental impacts during both the construction and operational stage if the required environmental management measures are implemented.

eia pulau tioman group presentation

Documents