mr am karuppanan - uitm puncak alam

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING IN A ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING IN A

SUSTAINABLE SETTING IN MALAYSIA.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

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 themandatory 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 auditsare 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 standardsResults and discussion: Air sampling results complied the environmental standardswith no violations of the EQ (Clean Air) Regulations, 1978. The water samples (n=5) showed that violations were for Arsenic (n=3), Lead and Nickel (n=5) for the EQ (SIE) Regulations, 2009. Study on waste characteristics by gravimetric method (n=5) 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 daytime showed results for all points were exceeding the maximum permissible sound levels (PSL) and night time sampling (n=3) that exceeded standards showed some 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 withrisk 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. Introduction1. Introduction

•• Environmental impact assessment Environmental impact assessment

(EIA) is a mandatory assessment (EIA) is a mandatory assessment

(Section 34A of EQA 1974 for any (Section 34A of EQA 1974 for any

planned activity using planned activity using planned activity using planned activity using

environmental protection environmental protection

requirements within sustainable requirements within sustainable

development, while determining development, while determining

optimum solutions (DOE, 2011). optimum solutions (DOE, 2011).


•• Environmental audit (EA) is the mandatory Environmental audit (EA) is the mandatory

assessment (Sec.33A of EQA 1974) of the assessment (Sec.33A of EQA 1974) of the

compliance of environmental management compliance of environmental management

and performance of operating business and performance of operating business

with environmental protection with environmental protection with environmental protection with environmental protection

requirements (DOE, 2011). requirements (DOE, 2011).

•• The concept of environmental auditing is The concept of environmental auditing is

closely related to monitoring, norms and closely related to monitoring, norms and

standards (GDRC, 2010). standards (GDRC, 2010).


•• Risk assessment is used to assess hazards Risk assessment is used to assess hazards

from a project. from a project.

•• HIRARC is a common tool used in Safety HIRARC is a common tool used in Safety

and Health assessments in the workplace and Health assessments in the workplace and Health assessments in the workplace and Health assessments in the workplace

(DOSH, 2008). (DOSH, 2008).

•• QRA is used to assess a potential residual QRA is used to assess a potential residual

risk from hazards in a project with risk from hazards in a project with

environmental impacts and need strict environmental impacts and need strict

monitoring and surveillance (DOE, 2004). monitoring and surveillance (DOE, 2004).


•• Hazard identification:Hazard identification:

•• PhysicalPhysical -- air / water / accidents / etcair / water / accidents / etc

•• ChemicalChemical -- heavy metals / aerosols / etcheavy metals / aerosols / etc

•• Biological hazards Biological hazards –– Viruses / Bacteria / Viruses / Bacteria / •• Biological hazards Biological hazards –– Viruses / Bacteria / Viruses / Bacteria /

Parasites / Fungi / etcParasites / Fungi / etc

•• Risk assessments:Risk assessments:

•• Assess residual risks after hazard controlsAssess residual risks after hazard controls

•• Qualitative RA Qualitative RA versusversus Quantitative RA (Quantitative RA (QuanQuan RA)RA)

•• Risk controls:Risk controls:

•• Risk management / Risk Communication Risk management / Risk Communication (DOE, 2004). (DOE, 2004).

2. Background2. Background

•• The new campus of The new campus of UiTMUiTM PuncakPuncak AlamAlam is located is located

in Bandar in Bandar PuncakPuncak AlamAlam, about 50 , about 50 kilometreskilometres drive drive

from Kuala Lumpur.from Kuala Lumpur.

•• An approved EIA project in 2008 located on Lot An approved EIA project in 2008 located on Lot

1620 (PT 1657) and Lot 1621 (PT1658) 1620 (PT 1657) and Lot 1621 (PT1658) MukimMukim1620 (PT 1657) and Lot 1621 (PT1658) 1620 (PT 1657) and Lot 1621 (PT1658) MukimMukim

JeramJeram, Kuala Selangor., Kuala Selangor.

•• Expected to accommodate about 20,000 Expected to accommodate about 20,000

students, and 5,000 staff.students, and 5,000 staff.

•• Water use = 2 million gallon per dayWater use = 2 million gallon per day

•• Electricity expected at 42.56 MW per day. Electricity expected at 42.56 MW per day.


•• Topography is hilly where the slope steepness ranged Topography is hilly where the slope steepness ranged

from 0from 0°° to 45to 45°°. .

•• Most of the project consisted of forest, with the Most of the project consisted of forest, with the

eastern side of the project situated next to Bukit eastern side of the project situated next to Bukit

CherakahCherakah Reserve Forest.Reserve Forest.CherakahCherakah Reserve Forest.Reserve Forest.

•• The developer is The developer is TriPlcTriPlc (a joint venture company) that (a joint venture company) that

ventured into construction business in 2003. ventured into construction business in 2003.

•• It began with construction of academic blocks and It began with construction of academic blocks and

students' accommodations for students' accommodations for UiTMUiTM PuncakPuncak

PerdanaPerdana, Section U10, Shah , Section U10, Shah AlamAlam Selangor and later Selangor and later

UiTMUiTM PuncakPuncak AlamAlam..


•• TriPlcTriPlc secured a new contract valued at RM1.0 secured a new contract valued at RM1.0

billionbillion for construction of for construction of UiTMUiTM PuncakPuncak AlamAlam

Campus for Faculty of Health Science, Faculty of Campus for Faculty of Health Science, Faculty of

Pharmacy and Student Plaza consisting of:Pharmacy and Student Plaza consisting of:

a)a) infrastructure work, infrastructure work, a)a) infrastructure work, infrastructure work,

b)b) hostels for students complete with recreational hostels for students complete with recreational

and sports facilities, and sports facilities,

c)c) academic buildings and facilities.academic buildings and facilities.

•• TriPlcTriPlc is also developing the balance 600 acres is also developing the balance 600 acres

mixed development project in Section U10, Shah mixed development project in Section U10, Shah

AlamAlam, Selangor., Selangor.


•• TriPlcTriPlc in May 2010 was granted a 23in May 2010 was granted a 23--year year

concession to undertake the construction and concession to undertake the construction and

maintenance of Phase 2 works of maintenance of Phase 2 works of UiTMUiTM PuncakPuncak

AlamAlam Campus consisting of: Campus consisting of:

a)a) 3 faculties to accommodate not less than 5,000 3 faculties to accommodate not less than 5,000 a)a) 3 faculties to accommodate not less than 5,000 3 faculties to accommodate not less than 5,000

students, hostel accommodation for 2,500 students, hostel accommodation for 2,500

studentsstudents

b)b) 10 units of fellow accommodation, 10 units of fellow accommodation,

multipurpose hall, maintenance centre, prayer multipurpose hall, maintenance centre, prayer

hall, library, student centre, cafeteria and hall, library, student centre, cafeteria and

health centre.health centre.

3. Methodology3. Methodology

•• Environmental audits were done for Environmental audits were done for

Post EIA monitoring at selected sites Post EIA monitoring at selected sites

to test effectiveness of to test effectiveness of

environmental management efforts environmental management efforts environmental management efforts environmental management efforts

at local levels. at local levels.

•• Quantitative RA (DOE, 2004) and Quantitative RA (DOE, 2004) and

referred to HIRARC (DOSH, 2008).referred to HIRARC (DOSH, 2008).

3. Study Location3. Study Location


•• Environmental audits Environmental audits -- systematic and systematic and

independent reviews to check the results of independent reviews to check the results of

environmental measurements on:environmental measurements on:

––air, water, effluents, noise and waste air, water, effluents, noise and waste

(including pests) to meet proposed set (including pests) to meet proposed set (including pests) to meet proposed set (including pests) to meet proposed set

targets, targets,

–– MeasurementsMeasurements : direct and indirect: direct and indirect

•• Focus on methods used and reviewing EIA Focus on methods used and reviewing EIA

documents to see whether there are any documents to see whether there are any

deviations between targets (legal deviations between targets (legal

requirements) and results. requirements) and results.


•• Environmental sampling and Environmental sampling and

testing was done in a selected EIA testing was done in a selected EIA

project site including interviewing project site including interviewing

local residents.local residents.local residents.local residents.

•• Sampling and analyses were done Sampling and analyses were done

for drinking water, river for drinking water, river

water, air, noise, pests and waste.water, air, noise, pests and waste.

3. The Study Sites3. The Study Sites

4. Measurements4. Measurements

Dry Pond Construction of prison near FSK 6 building

Wet pond Effluent sampling

In-situ water sampling Air monitoring

4. Results and discussion4. Results and discussion

•• Air sampling results complied the Air sampling results complied the

environmental standards with environmental standards with no no

violationsviolations of the EQ (Clean Air) of the EQ (Clean Air)

Regulations, 1978. Regulations, 1978.

•• Drinking water samples : Drinking water Drinking water samples : Drinking water

(n=1) with 2 violations (As & (n=1) with 2 violations (As & PbPb).).

•• Water bodies (n=4) had violations for:Water bodies (n=4) had violations for:

•• Arsenic (n=3), Lead and Nickel (n=5) Arsenic (n=3), Lead and Nickel (n=5)

for the EQ (SIE) Regulations, 2009. for the EQ (SIE) Regulations, 2009.

Air Quality

SAMPLING

POINT (n=4)

HUMIDITY TEMP-

ERATURE

PM10 CO2 CO SO2 NO2

1. 73.30% 26.6oC 0.016 mg/m3 275 ppm 15 ppm 0 ppm 0.5 ppm




Table 1: Air Monitoring Result

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)(N=4) Table 2: Water Bodies Monitoring Result

PARAMETERTAP WATER

(n=1)

DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARD (MINISTRY OF HEALTH, 2009)

RAW WATER TREATED WATER

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 0.003Cadmium -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 N/A 0.00 250.00 0.00 250.00Table 3 : Drinking Water Monitoring Result

Waste characteristics study by gravimetric method Waste characteristics study by gravimetric method


Characteristics (n=5)Characteristics (n=5) %%

plasticsplastics 3838

paperpaper 3232

organic (food waste) organic (food waste) 2929

aluminumaluminum 11SAMPLING 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)

•• Pest identified: common house flies Pest identified: common house flies

((muscamusca domesticadomestica) (n=111). ) (n=111).

•• Flies may be encouraged by presence of Flies may be encouraged by presence of

organic waste and improper collection and organic waste and improper collection and

disposal. disposal.


disposal. disposal.

•• Numbers of flies were counted every 5 minute. Numbers of flies were counted every 5 minute.

•• Total number of flies landing was 111 (n=111) on the Scudder Grid. Total number of flies landing was 111 (n=111) on the Scudder Grid.

•• This is This is high fly infestationhigh fly infestation. .

•• Cockroaches & rodents were NOT detected in this study.Cockroaches & rodents were NOT detected in this study.

•• This project site is still a new places and the area is generally kept clean. This project site is still a new places and the area is generally kept clean.

•• Noise sampling (n=4) for day time Noise sampling (n=4) for day time

showed results for showed results for all points were all points were

exceedingexceeding the maximum permissible the maximum permissible

sound levels (PSL) at >50dB(A).sound levels (PSL) at >50dB(A).


sound levels (PSL) at >50dB(A).sound levels (PSL) at >50dB(A).

•• Night timeNight time sampling (n=3) sampling (n=3) exceeded exceeded

standards standards at >40dB(A)at >40dB(A)

•• Some violations mostly due to non point Some violations mostly due to non point

sources sources -- vehicles. vehicles.

SAMPLE SAMPLE

(n=4)(n=4)

DAY TIMEDAY TIME

(*PSL: 50 (*PSL: 50 dBAdBA))

NIGHT TIMENIGHT TIME

(*PSL: 40 (*PSL: 40 dBAdBA))

1.1. 61.861.8 67.067.0

2.2. 52.352.3 53.453.4

Table 5: Noise Monitoring ResultTable 5: Noise Monitoring Result

2.2. 52.352.3 53.453.4

3.3. 44.244.2 45.445.4

4.4. 58.858.8 61.461.4

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

337

278

176 182

150

200

250

300

350

400

Morning (8.00-9.00 am)

Car

Motorcycle

Lorry

Bus

486

221223

300

400

500

600

Evening (4.30-5.30 pm)

Car

Motorcycle

Lorry

Bus

Traffic impact assessment Traffic impact assessment

127

9376

114

74

5 3 31 2 8 9

0

50

100

150

State Road

(UiTM

Traffic Light

T-junction

Main

Entrance

“Keris”

Roundabout

“Labu

Sayong”

Roundabout

221195

103

223

10591

73

107

7 5 23 3 5 60

100

200

State Road

(UiTM Traffic

Light T-

junction

Main

Entrance

“Keris”

Roundabout

“Labu

Sayong”

Roundabout

Figure 6 A: Number of vehicles in the morning Figure 6 A: Number of vehicles in the morning Figure 6B : Number of vehicles in the eveningFigure 6B : Number of vehicles in the evening

•• Traffic impact assessment Traffic impact assessment -- majority of vehicles majority of vehicles

were cars followed by motorcycles, lorry and were cars followed by motorcycles, lorry and

buses.buses.

•• Unexpected rise in traffic due to students Unexpected rise in traffic due to students

population use of vehicles and poor public population use of vehicles and poor public


population use of vehicles and poor public population use of vehicles and poor public

transport from those staying outside. transport from those staying outside.

•• Public survey Public survey (n=100) revealed: residents were (n=100) revealed: residents were

not so concerned about health effects related not so concerned about health effects related

to projects, but expressed dissatisfaction on to projects, but expressed dissatisfaction on

rising air pollution issues (dust problem).rising air pollution issues (dust problem).

Hazard Identification and Risk ScoresHazard Identification and Risk Scores

Activity Hazards Top Event

(TE)

Effect of Top

Event (ETE)

F L Consequence Risk

Score

Formula of Risk Score = F X L X I X EP X EA 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)

Table 7A: Risk Score Table

Risk > 1)

(TE) Event (ETE) ScoreI EP EA

TrafficPhysical Vehicle

accidents

Physical

Injury

Accident

Death

16 32 16 16 1 13,072


Activity Hazards TE ETE F L Consequence Risk

ScoreI EP EA

Drinking

Water

Consum-

ption

Arsenic

(Chemical)

Natural

deposits -

earth,

industrial and

Water

Contaminati

on

16 8 16 16 1 32,768

ption(Chemical) industrial and

agricultural

pollution

on

Lead

(Chemical)

Industrial and

agricultural

pollution

Water

Contaminati

on

16 16 16 16 1 65,536

Table 7B: Risk Score Table

Risk > 1)



ScoreI EP EA

Industrial

Activity &

Wastewater

Arsenic

(Chemical)

Industrial

Spillage

Effluent water

contamination16 2 8 16 1 4, 096

Lead Industrial Effluent water Wastewater

Treatment

Plant

Lead

(Chemical)

Industrial

Spillage

Effluent water

contamination8 2 8 16 1 2,048

Nickel

(Chemical)

Industrial

Spillage

Effluent water

contamination8 2 8 12 1 2,048


Risk > 1)



ScoreI EP EA

Transpor

tation &

Human

activity

Noise

Exposure

(Physical)

Noise

exposure

Stress,

Hypertensio

n, sleep

disturbance

&

16 32 1 16 1 8, 192

activity &

annoyance

Food

handling

&

Serving

Pest - Flies

(Biological)

Poor or

Improper

waste

management

Food

poisoning &

Nuisance 16 32 4 16 1 32,768


Risk > 1)

NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH

IMPACT

In Situ

(%)

Ex Situ

(%)

1. Dust*fever

Dust* fatigue

Dust*cough

23

22

3

2

4

1

2. Odour*headache 3 0

3. Drinking*fever 2 23. Drinking*fever

Drinking*fatigue

2

0

2

0

4. Open burning*fever

Open burning*fatigue

Open burning*headache

Open burning*cough

20

15

8

2

2

4

1

1

Table 8A : Result for Health Impact Assessment

NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH

IMPACT

In=situ

(%)

Ex-Situ

(%)

5.INFORMATION ABOUT PROJECT

5.a EIA report*internet 3 0

5.a EIA report*internet 3 0

5.b.EIA report*others 2 0

Table 8B: Result for Social Impact Assessment

Table 1 : A Basic Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix Table 1 : A Basic Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix

For Risk RankingFor Risk Ranking..

LIKELIHOOD /

FREQUENCY

OF EVENTS

CONSEQUENCE SEVERITY 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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT

1.1. Drinking Water Quality Drinking Water Quality

2.2. EffluentEffluent

3.3. Noise issuesNoise issues

4.4. Air quality issuesAir quality issues

5.5. Waste management issuesWaste management issues

6.6. Pest managementPest management

7.7. Traffic impacts Traffic impacts

8.8. Soil erosion problems Soil erosion problems

9.9. Health/Social impact issuesHealth/Social impact issues

TABLE 2 : A Simple Risk Matrix Table Relating TABLE 2 : A Simple Risk Matrix Table Relating

Consequence and Likelihood to Estimate Risk Consequence and Likelihood to Estimate Risk

Levels.Levels.

CONSEQUENCECONSEQUENCE

CATASCATAS--

TROPHIC(5)TROPHIC(5)

MAJORMAJOR

(4)(4)

MODERATE MODERATE

(3)(3)

MINOR (2)MINOR (2) INSIGNIFIINSIGNIFI--

CANT (1)CANT (1)

VERY LIKELY(4)VERY LIKELY(4) EXTREMELY EXTREMELY

HIGH (16)HIGH (16)

EXTREMELY EXTREMELY

HIGH (16)HIGH (16)EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HIGH (8)HIGH (8) MEDIUM (4)MEDIUM (4)

LIKELIHOOD

LIKELIHOOD

HIGH (16)HIGH (16) HIGH (16)HIGH (16)EXTREMELY EXTREMELY

HIGH (16)HIGH (16)

LIKELY (3)LIKELY (3) EXTREMELY EXTREMELY

HIGH (16)HIGH (16)

EXTREMELY EXTREMELY

HIGH (16)HIGH (16)

HIGH (8)HIGH (8) MEDIUM (6)MEDIUM (6) MEDIUM (6)MEDIUM (6)

UNLIKELY(2)UNLIKELY(2) HIGH (8)HIGH (8) HIGH (8)HIGH (8) MEDIUM (6)MEDIUM (6) MEDIUM (4)MEDIUM (4) LOW (2)LOW (2)

HIGHLY HIGHLY

UNLIKELY(1)UNLIKELY(1)

MEDIUM (5)MEDIUM (5) MEDIUM (4)MEDIUM (4) LOW (3)LOW (3) LOW (2)LOW (2) LOW (1)LOW (1)

IF not controlled

Conclusion

•• If all recommendations are accepted If all recommendations are accepted

and risk management were carried out and risk management were carried out

than the projects risks would be than the projects risks would be

appropriately reduced.appropriately reduced.appropriately reduced.appropriately reduced.

C O N S E Q U E N C E

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

L I

K E

L I

H O

O D

Very Likely (4) High High High Medium

Likely (3) High High Medium Medium

Table 3: Risk Matrix TableTable 3: Risk Matrix TableL

I K

E L

I H

O O

D

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

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). 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)

mr am karuppanan - uitm puncak alam

Documents