Pest data identified common house flies (musca domestica) (n=111). The pest may have been encouraged by the presence of organic waste.

1. 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.

2. Abstract
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING IN A SUSTAINABLE SETTING IN MALAYSIA.
By
Subramaniam Karuppannan,(MCIEH), 1
1 Environmental Health and Safety Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiTM Puncak Alam.
Introduction: Environmental impact assessment is a mandatory assessment for any
planned activity using environmental protection requirements with sustainable
development, while determining optimum solutions. Environmental audit is the
mandatory assessment of the compliance of environmental management and
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).

3. 1. Introduction
• Environmental impact assessment
(EIA) is a mandatory assessment
(Section 34A of EQA 1974 for any
planned activity using
environmental protection
requirements within sustainable
development, while determining
optimum solutions (DOE, 2011).

4. 1. Introduction
• Environmental audit (EA) is the mandatory
assessment (Sec.33A of EQA 1974) of the
compliance of environmental management
and performance of operating business
with environmental protection
requirements (DOE, 2011).
• The concept of environmental auditing is
closely related to monitoring, norms and
standards (GDRC, 2010).

5. 1. Introduction
• Risk assessment is used to assess hazards
from a project.
• HIRARC is a common tool used in Safety
and Health assessments in the workplace
(DOSH, 2008).
• QRA is used to assess a potential residual
risk from hazards in a project with
environmental impacts and need strict
monitoring and surveillance (DOE, 2004).

6. 1. Introduction
• Hazard identification:
• Physical - air / water / accidents / etc
• Chemical - heavy metals / aerosols / etc
• Biological hazards – Viruses / Bacteria /
Parasites / Fungi / etc
• Risk assessments:
• Assess residual risks after hazard controls
• Qualitative RA versus Quantitative RA (Quan RA)
(Quan
• Risk controls:
• Risk management / Risk Communication (DOE, 2004).

7. 2. Background
• The new campus of UiTM Puncak Alam is located
in Bandar Puncak Alam, about 50 kilometres drive
Alam,
from Kuala Lumpur.
• An approved EIA project in 2008 located on Lot
1620 (PT 1657) and Lot 1621 (PT1658) Mukim
Jeram,
Jeram, Kuala Selangor.
• Expected to accommodate about 20,000
students, and 5,000 staff.
• Water use = 2 million gallon per day
• Electricity expected at 42.56 MW per day.

8. 2. Background
• Topography is hilly where the slope steepness ranged
from 0° to 45°.
0° 45°
• Most of the project consisted of forest, with the
eastern side of the project situated next to Bukit
Cherakah Reserve Forest.
• The developer is TriPlc (a joint venture company) that
ventured into construction business in 2003.
• It began with construction of academic blocks and
students' accommodations for UiTM Puncak
Perdana,
Perdana, Section U10, Shah Alam Selangor and later
UiTM Puncak Alam.
Alam.

9. 2. Background
• TriPlc secured a new contract valued at RM1.0
billion for construction of UiTM Puncak Alam
Campus for Faculty of Health Science, Faculty of
Pharmacy and Student Plaza consisting of:
a) infrastructure work,
b) hostels for students complete with recreational
and sports facilities,
c) academic buildings and facilities.
• TriPlc is also developing the balance 600 acres
mixed development project in Section U10, Shah
Alam,
Alam, Selangor.

10. 2. Background
• TriPlc in May 2010 was granted a 23-year
23-
concession to undertake the construction and
maintenance of Phase 2 works of UiTM Puncak
Alam Campus consisting of:
a) 3 faculties to accommodate not less than 5,000
students, hostel accommodation for 2,500
students
b) 10 units of fellow accommodation,
multipurpose hall, maintenance centre, prayer
hall, library, student centre, cafeteria and
health centre.

11. 3. Methodology
• Environmental audits were done for
Post EIA monitoring at selected sites
to test effectiveness of
environmental management efforts
at local levels.
• Quantitative RA (DOE, 2004) and
referred to HIRARC (DOSH, 2008).

12. 3. Study Location

13. 3. Methodology
• Environmental audits - systematic and
independent reviews to check the results of
environmental measurements on:
– air, water, effluents, noise and waste
(including pests) to meet proposed set
targets,
– Measurements : direct and indirect
• Focus on methods used and reviewing EIA
documents to see whether there are any
deviations between targets (legal
requirements) and results.

14. 3. Methodology
• Environmental sampling and
testing was done in a selected EIA
project site including interviewing
local residents.
• Sampling and analyses were done
for drinking water, river
water, air, noise, pests and waste.

15. 3. The Study Sites

16. 3. The Study Sites

17. 4. Measurements
Dry Pond Construction of prison near FSK 6 building
Wet pond Effluent sampling
In-situ water sampling Air monitoring

18. 4. Results and discussion
• Air sampling results complied the
environmental standards with no
violations of the EQ (Clean Air)
Regulations, 1978.
• Drinking water samples : Drinking water
(n=1) with 2 violations (As & Pb).
Pb).
• Water bodies (n=4) had violations for:
• Arsenic (n=3), Lead and Nickel (n=5)
for the EQ (SIE) Regulations, 2009.

19. Air Quality
SAMPLING HUMIDITY TEMP- PM10 CO2 CO SO2 NO2
POINT (n=4) ERATURE
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

20. PARAMETER 1. POND 2. UPSTREAM 3. EFFLUENT 4. DOWN STREAM STANDARD (A) EQ(IE) 2009
Ph 6.8 7.7 6.7 7.6 6.0-9.0
Temp 32.6 0C 33.9 0C 30.9 0C 33.3 0C 40
Turbidity 28.3 NTU 25.82 NTU 8.08 NTU 23.9 NTU NA
Dissolve oxygen 7.91 mg/L 8.67 mg/L 14.4 mg/L 8.49 mg/L NA
BOD 11.44 mg/L 6.51 mg/L 10.2 mg/L 7.11 mg/L 20
COD 9.3 mg/L 46 mg/L 24.5 mg/L 41.4 mg/L 50
Suspended Solid 28 mg/L 17.3 mg/L 5.6 mg/L 16 mg/L 50
Ammonia NA NA NA NA NA
Mercury NA NA NA NA 0.005
Cadmium -0.076 mg/L -0.091 mg/L -0.089 mg/L -0.0113 mg/L 0.01 mg/L
Chromium Hexavalent 0.020 mg/L 0.024 mg/L 0.012 mg/L 0.02 mg/L 0.05 mg/L
Arsenic 2.420 mg/L* 0.004 mg/L 2.374 mg/L* 0.006 mg/L* 0.05 mg/L
Cyanide NA NA NA NA 0.05 mg/L
Lead 1.044 mg/L* 1.097mg/L* 1.132mg/L* 1.16mg/L* 0.10 mg/L
Chromium Trivalent NA NA NA NA 0.20 mg/L
Copper 0.004 mg/L 0.120 mg/L 0.027 mg/L 0.109 mg/L 0.20 mg/L
Manganese 0.008 mg/L 0.107 mg/L 0.031 mg/L 0.114 mg/L 0.20 mg/L
Nickel 0.414 mg/L* 0.450 mg/L* 0.419 mg/L* 0.462 mg/L* 0.20 mg/L
Tin NA NA NA NA 0.20 mg/L
Zinc 0.020 mg/L 0.051 mg/L 0.149 mg/L 0.062 mg/L 2.0 mg/L
Boron 0.2 mg/L 0.86 mg/L 0.27 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 1.0 m/L
Iron 0.023 mg/L 0.006 mg/L 0.098 mg/L 0.204 mg/L 1.0 m/L
Phenol NA NA NA NA 0.001 mg/L
Free Chlorine 0.03 mg/L 0.08 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.06 mg/L 1.0 mg/L
Sulphide NA NA NA NA 0.50 mg/L
Oil and Grease NA NA NA NA Non-detectable
(N=4) Table 2: Water Bodies Monitoring Result

21. DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARD (MINISTRY OF HEALTH, 2009)
TAP WATER
PARAMETER RAW WATER TREATED WATER
(n=1)
MINIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Ph 7.5 5.50 9.00 6.50 9.00
Temp 32.1 0C N/A N/A N/A N/A
Turbidity 5 NTU 0.00 1000.00 0.00 5.00
BOD 5.3 mg/L 0.00 6.00 N/A N/A
COD 5 mg/L 0.00 10.00 N/A N/A
Ammonia N/A 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.50
Mercury N/A 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.001
Cadmium -0.084 mg/L 0.00 0.003 0.00 0.003
Arsenic 0.024 mg/L 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Cyanide N/A 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07
Lead 1.084mg/L* 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05
Copper 0.002mg/L 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Manganese 0.007 mg/L 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.10
Zinc 0.014 mg/L 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00
Iron 0.005 mg/L 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.30
Phenol N/A 0.00 0.002 0.00 0.002
Free Chlorine 0.02 mg/L N/A N/A 0.20 5.00
Sulphide Table
N/A 3 : Drinking Water Monitoring Result
0.00 250.00 0.00 250.00

22. 4. Results and discussion
Waste characteristics study by gravimetric method
Characteristics (n=5) %
plastics 38
paper 32
organic (food waste) 29
aluminum 1
SAMPLING POINTS PAPER (Kg) PLASTIC (Kg) ALUMINIUM (Kg) ORGANIC (Kg)
1 0.24 0.44 0 0.42
2 0.36 0.6 0.02 0.22
3 0.42 0.2 0 0.42
4 0.2 0.42 0 0.36
5 0.5 0.4 0.04 0.18
Mean 0.344 0.412 0.012 0.32
Standard Deviation 0.124 0.143 0.0179 0.113
Table 4 : Waste Characteristics Result (n=5)

23. 4. Results and discussion
• Pest identified: common house flies
(musca domestica) (n=111).
domestica)
• Flies may be encouraged by presence of
organic waste and improper collection and
disposal.
• Numbers of flies were counted every 5 minute.
• Total number of flies landing was 111 (n=111) on the Scudder Grid.
• This is high fly infestation.
infestation.
• Cockroaches & rodents were NOT detected in this study.
• This project site is still a new places and the area is generally kept clean.

24. 4. Results and discussion
• Noise sampling (n=4) for day time
showed results for all points were
exceeding the maximum permissible
sound levels (PSL) at >50dB(A).
• Night time sampling (n=3) exceeded
standards at >40dB(A)
• Some violations mostly due to non point
sources - vehicles.

25. Table 5: Noise Monitoring Result
SAMPLE DAY TIME NIGHT TIME
(n=4) (*PSL: 50 dBA)
dBA) (*PSL: 40 dBA)
dBA)
1. 61.8 67.0
2. 52.3 53.4
3. 44.2 45.4
4. 58.8 61.4
*PSL: Permissible Sound Levels (Violation in Bold RED & Italics)

26. Traffic impact assessment
Morning (8.00-9.00 am) Evening (4.30-5.30 pm)
400 600
Car Car
350 337 Motorcycle Motorcycle
500 486
Lorry Lorry
300 278 Bus
Bus
400
250
200 176 182
300
150 127 223 221
114 195
93 200
100 76
107 105 103
50 74 91
100 73
1 52 38 39
0 3 73 55 26
State Road Main “Keris” “Labu 0
(UiTM Entrance Roundabout Sayong” State Road Main “Keris” “Labu
Traffic Light Roundabout (UiTM Traffic Entrance Roundabout Sayong”
T-junction Light T- Roundabout
junction
Figure 6 A: Number of vehicles in the morning Figure 6B : Number of vehicles in the evening

27. 4. Results and discussion
• Traffic impact assessment - majority of vehicles
were cars followed by motorcycles, lorry and
buses.
• Unexpected rise in traffic due to students
population use of vehicles and poor public
transport from those staying outside.
• Public survey (n=100) revealed: residents were
not so concerned about health effects related
to projects, but expressed dissatisfaction on
rising air pollution issues (dust problem).

28. Hazard Identification and Risk Scores
Formula of Risk Score = F X L X I X EP X EA
(Frequency x Likelihood x Intensivity x Extensivity Person x Extensivity Area)
(DOE, 2004)
Activity Hazards Top Event Effect of Top F L Consequence Risk
(TE) Event (ETE) Score
I EP EA
Physical
Physical Vehicle Injury
Traffic 16 32 16 16 1 13,072
accidents Accident
Death
Risk > 1)
Table 7A: Risk Score Table

29. Hazard Identification and Risk Scores
Activity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence Risk
I EP EA Score
Drinking Natural
Water deposits -
Water
Arsenic earth,
Consum- Contaminati 16 8 16 16 1 32,768
(Chemical) industrial and
ption on
agricultural
pollution
Lead Industrial and Water
(Chemical) agricultural Contaminati 16 16 16 16 1 65,536
pollution on
Risk > 1)
Table 7B: Risk Score Table

30. Hazard Identification and Risk Scores
Activity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence Risk
I EP EA Score
Industrial Arsenic Industrial Effluent water
16 2 8 16 1 4, 096
Activity & (Chemical) Spillage contamination
Wastewater Lead Industrial Effluent water
8 2 8 16 1 2,048
Treatment (Chemical) Spillage contamination
Plant Nickel Industrial Effluent water
8 2 8 12 1 2,048
(Chemical) Spillage contamination
Risk > 1)
Table 7B: Risk Score Table

31. Hazard Identification and Risk Scores
Activity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence Risk
I EP EA Score
Transpor Noise Noise Stress,
tation & Exposure exposure Hypertensio
(Physical) n, sleep
Human 16 32 1 16 1 8, 192
disturbance
activity &
annoyance
Food Pest - Flies Poor or Food
handling (Biological) Improper poisoning &
waste Nuisance 16 32 4 16 1 32,768
&
management
Serving
Risk > 1)
Table 7B: Risk Score Table

32. NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH In Situ Ex Situ
IMPACT (%) (%)
1. Dust*fever 23 2
Dust* fatigue 22 4
Dust*cough 3 1
2. Odour*headache 3 0
3. Drinking*fever 2 2
Drinking*fatigue 0 0
4. Open burning*fever 20 2
Open burning*fatigue 15 4
Open burning*headache 8 1
Open burning*cough 2 1
Table 8A : Result for Health Impact Assessment

33. NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH In=situ Ex-Situ
IMPACT (%) (%)
INFORMATION ABOUT PROJECT
5.
EIA report*internet 3 0
5.a
EIA report*others 2 0
5.b.
Table 8B: Result for Social Impact Assessment

34. Table 1 : A Basic Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix
For Risk Ranking.
LIKELIHOOD / CONSEQUENCE SEVERITY OF EVENTS
FREQUENCY
OF EVENTS HIGH (3) MEDIUM (2) LOW (1)
HIGH (3) HIGH (9) HIGH (6) MEDIUM (3)
MEDIUM (2) HIGH (6) MEDIUM (4) LOW (2)
LOW (1) MEDIUM (3) LOW (2) LOW (1)
Before Controls are managed

35. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT
1. Drinking Water Quality
2. Effluent
3. Noise issues
4. Air quality issues
5. Waste management issues
6. Pest management
7. Traffic impacts
8. Soil erosion problems
9. Health/Social impact issues

36. TABLE 2 : A Simple Risk Matrix Table Relating
Consequence and Likelihood to Estimate Risk
Levels.
CONSEQUENCE
CATAS-
CATAS- MAJOR MODERATE MINOR (2) INSIGNIFI-
INSIGNIFI-
TROPHIC(5) (4) (3) CANT (1)
VERY LIKELY(4) EXTREMELY EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HIGH (8) MEDIUM (4)
HIGH (16) HIGH (16) HIGH (16)
LIKELIHOOD
LIKELY (3) EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HIGH (8) MEDIUM (6) MEDIUM (6)
HIGH (16) HIGH (16)
UNLIKELY(2) HIGH (8) HIGH (8) MEDIUM (6) MEDIUM (4) LOW (2)
HIGHLY MEDIUM (5) MEDIUM (4) LOW (3) LOW (2) LOW (1)
UNLIKELY(1)
IF not controlled

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

38. Table 3: Risk Matrix Table
CONSEQUENCE
Catastrophic(4) Major(3) Minor (2) Insignificant (1)
Very Likely (4) High High High Medium
LIKELIHOOD
Likely (3) High High Medium Medium
Unlikely (2) Medium Medium Low Low
Highly Unlikely (1) Medium Medium Low Low (1)
After RISKS are managed well

39. 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)