Chap 7 R7

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 7 : EVALUATION OF IMPACTS....................................................................7-7
7.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................7-7
7.2 BASIS OF ASSESMENT......................................................................................7-7
7.3 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION............................................................7-10
7.3.1 Methodology Employed................................................................................7-10
7.3.2 Quantification of Soil Loss and Sediment Yield............................................7-11
7.3.3 Design Requirements of Sediment Basins (SB) and Other Best Management
Practices (BMP).........................................................................................................7-16
7.4 WATER QUALITY...............................................................................................7-16
7.4.1 Construction Phase......................................................................................7-16
7.4.2 Operation Phase..........................................................................................7-17
7.4.3 Water Quality Modeling................................................................................7-20
7.5 HYDOLOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT...........................................7-44
7.5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................7-44
7.5.2 Data Preparation..........................................................................................7-46
7.5.3 Elevation Data..............................................................................................7-46
7.5.4 Soil Data......................................................................................................7-46
7.5.5 Catchment Delineation.................................................................................7-46
7.5.6 Model Setup.................................................................................................7-47
7.5.7 Hydrological Analysis...................................................................................7-53
7.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY...............................................................................7-58
7.6.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................7-58
7.6.2 Anaerobic Digestion Pond............................................................................7-58
7.7 AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................7-61
7.7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................7-61
7.7.2 Model Selection Criteria and Modelling Factors...........................................7-61
7.7.3 Approved Regulatory Dispersion Model.......................................................7-62

7.7.4 Meteorological Data.....................................................................................7-63
7.7.5 Building Wake Effects..................................................................................7-63
7.7.6 Dispersion Environment...............................................................................7-63
7.7.7 Local Terrain................................................................................................7-64
7.7.8 Dispersion Options.......................................................................................7-64
7.7.9 Receptor Grid and Discrete Receptors........................................................7-64
7.7.10 Model Output...............................................................................................7-65
7.7.11 Source Information.......................................................................................7-66
7.7.12 Emissions....................................................................................................7-66
7.7.13 Results and Assessment..............................................................................7-67
7.7.14 Conclusions.................................................................................................7-92
7.8 ODOUR QUALITY..............................................................................................7-93
7.8.1 Odorous Gases............................................................................................7-93
7.8.2 Sensitive and Discrete Receptors................................................................7-93
7.8.3 Odour Assessment......................................................................................7-93
7.8.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................7-98
7.9 NOISE QUALITY................................................................................................7-99
7.9.1 Noise from Construction Equipment and Traffic Movement.........................7-99
7.9.2 Operational Phase.....................................................................................7-102
7.9.3 Operational Noise Sources........................................................................7-106
7.9.4 Noise Modelling.........................................................................................7-108
7.9.5 Evaluation of Impact..................................................................................7-109
7.9.6 Operational Phase.....................................................................................7-113
7.10 TRAFFIC IMPACT............................................................................................7-113
7.11 HAZARD STUDY..............................................................................................7-115
7.11.1 Hazards During Operation.........................................................................7-115
7.11.2 Handling Hazard........................................................................................7-116
7.11.3 Transport Hazard.......................................................................................7-116
7.11.4 Fire Hazard................................................................................................7-117

7.11.5 Health and Safety Hazard..........................................................................7-117
7.11.6 Sludge Hazard...........................................................................................7-117
7.12 RISK ASSESSMENT........................................................................................7-117
7.12.1 Purpose of the Quantitative Risk Assessment...........................................7-117
7.12.2 Site Sensitive Receptors............................................................................7-117
7.12.3 QRA Methodology......................................................................................7-118
7.12.4 Consequence Analysis...............................................................................7-118
7.12.5 Risk Summation.........................................................................................7-121
7.12.6 Conclusion.................................................................................................7-124
7.13 LANDUSE ASSESMENT..................................................................................7-127
7.14 SOCIAL IMPACT..............................................................................................7-127
7.14.1 Respondents Opinions and Perceptions....................................................7-127
7.14.2 Project Evaluation and Local Community Acceptance...............................7-133
List of Figures
Figure 7.1: Rainfall Erosivity Map for Penang...............................................................7-13
Figure 7.2: Soil Map for Project Site..............................................................................7-14
Figure 7.3: Mass Balance Diagram for LTP...................................................................7-19
Figure 7.4: QUAL2K Stream Reach System.....................................................................7-22
Figure 7.5: QUAL2K Sg. Perai Stream Reach Layout.......................................................7-26
Figure 7.6: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Tributary 1; Interim Phase)..................7-29
Figure 7.7: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Sg. Perai; Interim Phase)....................7-30
Figure 7.8: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Tributary 1; Interim Phase)..................................7-31
Figure 7.9: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Sg. Perai; Interim Phase)....................................7-32
Figure 7.10: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase)...........7-35
Figure 7.11: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Sg. Perai; Operation Phase)..............7-36
Figure 7.12: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase)...........................7-37
Figure 7.13: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Sg. Perai; Operation Phase).............................7-38
Figure 7.14: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase)...............7-39
Figure 7.15: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (Sg. Perai; Operation Phase)..................7-40
Figure 7.16: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase).....................7-41
Figure 7.17: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Sg. Perai; Operational Phase).....................7-42
Figure 7.18: Catchment Boundary for Project Area and Catchment Area Ampang Jajar
ISWMC.............................................................................................................................. 7-45
Figure 7.19: Modeling Process using XP-SWMM (Toriman et al., 2009).....................7-48
Figure 7.20: Rainfall Stations Locations near Project area..........................................7-50
Figure 7.21: Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency Curve for.....................................7-50
Figure 7.22: Rainfall Hyetograph for Region 2: Southern............................................7-52
Figure 7.23: Overall Layout Plan of the Proposed Development Project....................7-54
Figure 7.24: Design Flood Hydrographs for Condition 1: Pre Development (ISWMC). .7-
55
Figure 7.25: Design Flood Hydrographs for Condition 2: During Development (ISWMC)
.......................................................................................................................................... 7-56
.......................................................................................................................................... 7-56
Figure 7.27: Sectional Layout of Biogas Reactor.........................................................7-60
Figure 7.28: Maximum 1-Hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m3) With
Control Measures............................................................................................................ 7-70
Figure 7.29: Maximum 24-hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3) With
Control Measures.............................................................................................................. 7-71
Figure 7.30: Maximum 1-hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3) Without
Figure 7.31: Maximum 24-hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3) Without
Figure 7.32: Maximum 1-hour Average H2S Incremental Concentration (ug/m3)..............7-76
Figure 7.33: Maximum 24-hour Average H2S Incremental Concentration (ug/m3)............7-77
Figure 7.34: Maximum 1–Hour Average H2S Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3) without
Figure 7.35: Maximum 24-hour Average H2S Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3) without
Figure 7.36: Maximum 1-hour Average Trimethylamine Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3)
With Control Measures......................................................................................................7-82
Figure 7.38: Maximum 1–Hour Average Trimethylamine Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3)
without Control Measures..................................................................................................7-84
without Control Measures..................................................................................................7-85
Figure 7.40: Maximum 1-hour Average Methyl Mercaptan Incremental Concentration (ug/m 3)
Figure 7.41: Maximum 24-hour Average Methyl Mercaptan Incremental Concentration
(ug/m3) With Control Measures.........................................................................................7-89
Figure 7.42: Maximum 1–Hour Average Methyl Mercaptan Incremental Concentration
(ug/m3) without Control Measures.....................................................................................7-90
(ug/m3) without Control Measures.....................................................................................7-91
Figure 7.44: Project Boundary Noise for the Worst Case Scenario.................................7-111
Figure 7.45: Project Noise to Regional Receptors for Worst Case Scenario...................7-112
Figure 7.46: Annual Traffic Growth Rate for Year 2018..............................................7-114
Figure 7.47: Traffic Volume & 16-Hour Traffic Composition and LOS......................7-115
Figure 7.48: Individual Risk (IR) Contour.........................................................................7-123
Figure 7.49: Worst Case Scenario..................................................................................7-126
Figure 7.50: Evaluation of socio-economic advantages resulting from the proposed
project............................................................................................................................ 7-128
Figure 7.51: Bar chart of evaluation of socio-economic advantages resulting from the
proposed project............................................................................................................. 7-129
Figure 7.52: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Aesthetics and Culture brought
by the Proposed Project...............................................................................................7-132
Figure 7.53: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Basic Facilities and Utilities
brought by the proposed project.................................................................................7-133
Figure 7.54: The overall impact felt by respondents..................................................7-134
Figure 7.55: Acceptance level of the respondents...........................................................7-135
List of Tables
Table 7.1: Mitigation Measures to be incorporated in the Design (P2M2)...........................7-8
Table 7.2: K Factor for Project Site...................................................................................7-14
Table 7.3: USLE and Sediment Yield Table......................................................................7-15
Table 7.4: Design of Sediment Basin................................................................................7-16
Table 7.5: Design Basis for LTP........................................................................................7-18
Table 7.6: Raw and Treated Effluent Quality (Interim Phase)............................................7-20
Table 7.7: Raw and Treated Effluent Quality (Operation Phase).......................................7-20
Table 7.8: Delineated Catchment Information for Project Area..........................................7-46
Table 7.9: Selected Manning’s Roughness for Various Conduit Types (DID, 2011). .7-49
Table 7.10: Selected Manning’s Roughness for Various Conduit Types (DID, 2011) 7-51
Table 7.11: Rainfall Depth (mm) for Station No. 5503031 – Permatang Bendahari....7-51
Table 7.12: Rainfall Temporal Distributions for Region 4: Northern...........................7-51
Table 7.13: Flow Discharge at Project Area (Outlet to ISWMC) Based on Different
Conditions (180-minutes Duration)................................................................................7-55
Table 7.14: Comparison of Peak Discharge for Catchment of Project Area (Outlet to
ISWMC)............................................................................................................................ 7-57
Table 7.15: Typical Noise Level from Construction Equipment..................................7-99
Table 7.16: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (Percentile L N and LMAX) of
Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work by Receiving Land Use..............7-101
Table 7.17: Hazard Zones Criteria..................................................................................7-119
Table 7.18: Hazard Zones Criteria..................................................................................7-122
Table 7.19: Risk Contour Findings Summary..................................................................7-124
Table 7.20: Awareness and Knowledge of Proposals.....................................................7-127
Table 7.21: Evaluation of Socio-Economic Advantages and Disadvantages resulting from the
proposed project............................................................................................................. 7-128
Table 7.22: Assessment pf Perception of Impact on Health and Safety brought about by the
Proposed Project............................................................................................................. 7-129
Table 7.23: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Aesthetics and Culture brought by the
Proposed Project............................................................................................................. 7-132
Table 7.24: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Basic Facilities and Utilities brought by
the proposed project........................................................................................................7-133
Table 7.25: Overall Perception of Project Proposal Impact and Acceptance Level.........7-134
Table 7.26: Reason for Agreeing and Disagreeing..........................................................7-135
Table 7.27: Other Opinions on the Project Proposal.......................................................7-136
Table 7.28: Socio Economy Interview.............................................................................7-137
EIA FOR GREENVIRO SOLUTIONS SDN BHD CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 7 : EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter shall examine the potential impacts that the Projects could impose on the
surrounding environment, during site preparation, construction and abandonment stages. It
will attempt to identify and assess the equilibrium displacements that could be experienced
by specific environmental receptors as a result of the activities that will be carried out during
all stages of the Project.
The potential environmental impacts from the Project, by and large may be categorized into
and discussed separately under the following phases of development:
(i) Construction Phase; and

(ii) Operation Phase.
7.2 BASIS OF ASSESMENT
The assessment of potential impacts is based on the project activities that will be executed
during the Project implementation and later during its operation. The principal findings
generated from an assessment of each activity's potential to impact on a multi-faceted
environment, encompassing physical, chemical, biological and human elements are
summarized in the form of impact matrix. The matrix is used to identify potential
environmental impacts that may occur during various stages of development.
In this study, the nature of environmental impacts is registered according to types of

activities involved. The findings are summarized in Table 7.1 which also includes the
potential key activities and the critical issues identified. These will be discussed further in the
subsequent paragraphs.
Environmental impacts which are considered to be "significant" will be discussed in detail in

the following sections are as follows:
 Soil erosion
 Air quality
 Water quality
7
 Waste management
 Traffic impact
 Socio-economics
Table 7.1: Mitigation Measures to be incorporated in the Design (P2M2)

Potential Significant Mitigation Measures to be
Main Activity Sub-activities Environmental Impacts to be incorporated in the Design
Studied (P2M2)
Construction Phase
Earthworks  Biomass removal  Dust emissions  Install perimeter controls
 Excavation (soil and  Noise emission from such as drainage
potentially rock) construction activity  Install silt fences
 Cut and fill  Erosion and sediment  Install silt traps / sediment
 Consolidating the fill transport basin
 Mobilization of  Biomass generation and  Identify and allocate
machineries management stockpile & processing
 Fly rocks (if involve rock area for biomass
excavation)  Allocate stockpile &
processing area for
biomass
 Implement the WMP
 Directional site clearing
 Proper collection and
temporary storage of
garbage
Temporary  Temporary access road  Dust emissions  Laying or permanent
access road construction drainage works and
 Erosion and sediment
 Perimeter drain transport roadworks
construction  Bowser trucks
 Onsite surface detention  Wash trough
Stockpile area  Site preparation for  Noise from vehicle  Allocate stockpile
stockpile (temporary movements locations
storage) containment  Dusts from wind erosion  Runoff protection
area
 Surface run-off flow  Drainage area
 Drainage for channeling movement
runoff
Site  Sub-structure foundation  Dust emissions  Install perimeter controls
preparation such as drainage
 Temporary storage area  Noise from machinery
 Erosion and sediment  Install silt fences
transport  Install silt traps / sediment
basin
 Identify and allocate
stockpile & processing
area for biomass
 Allocate stockpile &
processing area for
biomass
Building  Super structure  Noise emissions  Housekeeping
construction construction  Dust emissions  Waste storage to be
 Construction materials  Precipitation channeling prepared
supply  Water bowser to be used
 Spillage of scheduled
 Scheduled waste storage waste
area
8
Landscaping  Hydroseed of slope areas  Erosion and sediment  Close turfing

and and open spaces transport
vegetation
 Landscaping along  Aesthetic value
access road to the
Project site
 Landscaping
surrounding Project site
Operation Phase
Waste  Air emissions from  Air quality deterioration  Air pollution control
processing chimneys installed due to potential system (APCS)
systems with emissions e.g. complying with
air emissions particulate matters Environmental Quality
(PM10, PM2.5), SO2, (Clean Air) Regulations
NO2, CO, and other 2014
hazardous gases
Waste  Noise emissions from  Noise quality  Maintenance of noise
processing noise emitting deterioration due to emitting plants and
operations with machinery e.g. crushers, noises from noise equipment
noise emitting grinders, compactors, emitting machinery
machinery motors, air compressors,
pumps, fans, etc.
Waste  Leachate treatment  Water quality  Leachate treatment
processing system with treated deterioration of the system (LTP) complying
operations with effluent discharges receiving river/stream with Second Schedule
leachate (potential) due to potential (Regulation 13) of
generation pollutants loading e.g. Environmental Quality
COD, BOD, total (Control of Pollution from
suspended solids (TSS), Solid Waste Transfer
oil & grease, inorganic Station and Landfill)
pollutants, organic Regulations 2009.
pollutants, ionic metals
etc.
Transportation  Incoming raw waste and  Traffic increases along  Utilise approved
of materials supplies (including the main access road transportation route to
unloading) reduce impacts to local
and internal access road
 Outgoing finished goods residents in Ampang
and other semi-finished system Jajar settlement area
products for other  Noise emissions due to
factories (including
movement of trucks,
loading)
lorries, forklifts, cranes
etc.
 Dust emissions due to
vehicular movement, and
unloading and loading
activities
Scheduled  Disposal and  Contamination of  Appropriate waste bin
waste containment of ground, groundwater and
management scheduled wastes surface runoff due to
generated improper handling
Solid waste  Disposal and  Contamination of  Appropriate waste bin
management containment of domestic ground, groundwater and
waste surface runoff due to
improper handling
 Odour impact
Hydrological  Water quantity impact to  Installation of stormwater
and surface
 Drainage system
constructed has the receiving drainage system and
runoff system river/stream body onsite detention (OSD)
changed the surface
runoff pattern of the site pond(s)
9
7.3 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION

7.3.1 Methodology Employed
The erosion potential for a given area is dependent on several factors or characteristics, and
can be grouped as those pertaining to soil, topography, climate and landuse management,
especially soil cover. Soil cover is the most important factor in controlling the erosion
process.
It is therefore crucial to determine the methodology and approach to produce an Erosion
Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to arrest the issue of soil loss by conducting an erosion risk
analysis and quantified the generated sediment yield and stormwater flow. The methodology
of this exercise is shown in below figure.
As outlined in the methodology, the information gathering stage shall involve gathering of the
following information:
i) Topographical survey including site terrain, drainage, roads, stream crossings
10
ii) Toposheet for the area within the zone of impact of erosion & sediment transport
including stream and river system
iii) Drainage layout (existing and proposed design)
iv) Project layout plan
v) Temporary access road, drainage and other construction facilities (laydown
areas)
vi) Soil reconnaissance map
vii) Rainfall erosivity map
viii) Soil test on erodibility and soil hydrologic group
Based on the above information, zoning of runoff catchments and slope terrain analysis to
be conducted by using 2 approaches:
i) Preparation of watershed map or similar, to study the runoff flow paths from the Project
sites into the drainage, streams and river system.
ii) Demarcation of runoff catchment to suit the terrain and development shape of the Project
sites. The project site shall be zoned in different phases to allow proper planning and
implementation of erosion and sediment control plans. The zoning shall be done in
concurrent with construction sequence planning and phasing of works.
After determining the runoff catchment and preparation of slope terrain analysis completed, RUSLE
and MUSLE formula shall be used to perform calculations to quantify soil loss and sediment yield for
each of the scenarios to be assessed, as described in the following section.
7.3.2 Quantification of Soil Loss and Sediment Yield
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
The science of predicting soil erosion and sediment delivery has continued to be refined to
reflect the importance of different factors on soil erosion and runoff. The semi empirical
equation known as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) was developed for
long term assessment of soil losses under different cropping system and land management
practices. In short, the RUSLE is an erosion model designed to predict the longtime average
annual soil loss carried out by runoff from specific slopes in specified management
conditions. The RUSLE brings in a mixture of empirical and process-based erosion
technology to provide a better measure of the effect of land management on erosion rates.
The RUSLE equation is shown below:
11
A = R.K.LS.C.P
where,
A = Average annual Soil Loss in (t/ha/yr)
R = Rainfall Erosivity Factor (MJ.mm/(ha.hr.yr))
K = Soil Erodibility Factor (t.ha.hr/(ha.MJ.mm))
LS = Slope Factor, which is the combination of the Slope Length (L) and Slope
Steepness (S)
C = Cover and Management Factor
P = Conservation Practice Factor
The Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R) can be derived from probability statistic by analysing
additional rainfall records of individual storm and the data is obtained from rainfall station
nearest to the project site based on the average ten-year record. The Rainfall Erosivity Map
is shown in figure below. From the figure, it may be noted the Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R) for
the project site is between 16,000 – 17,000 MJ.mm/ha.yr. For the soil loss calculation
conducted in this assessment, highest R value is adopted, i.e. 17,000 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
12
Figure 7.1: Rainfall Erosivity Map for Penang
13
The Soil Erodibility Factor (K) for the proposed project site can be taken from Table 3.4 (pg.
43) in the “Guideline for Erosion and Sediment Control in Malaysia” or calculated using
equation 12.3 in the MSMA manual. The soil series specific to the Project site as depicted in
Soil Reconnaissance Map of Peninsula Malaysia is Keranji (see below caption).
Figure 7.2: Soil Map for Project Site
K values for Keranji soil types are provided in the Table 3.4 (pg. 43) in the “Guideline for
Erosion and Sediment Control in Malaysia”. The K values employed for these soil types are
0.05 (for Layer B) and the HSG (hydrologic group) is D with clay texture.
Table 7.2: K Factor for Project Site

K Factor
Location Soil Series Layer (ton/ha)*(hr/ Texture HSG
MJ.mm)
Project Site Keranji B 0.05 Clay d
Slope Factor (LS) is the combination of the Slope Length (L) and Slope Steepness (S),
which is calculated from the height and length of the slope and the equation has been
developed to reflect rangeland, row crop, and grading sites. Cover Management Factor (C)
and Conservation Practice Factor (P) are determined based on the density and continuity of
14
the vegetation cover. Protection offered by crops cultivated on slopes against erosion should
be supported by soil conservation practices that aim at slowing down the runoff water.
From the revised MSMA 2nd Edition, the RUSLE will be used to assess the erosion risk of
the site under three (3) conditions:
i. Existing (undisturbed) condition

ii. Disturbed but uncontrolled condition (no ESCP)
iii. Disturbed but controlled condition (with ESCP)
Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE)
The Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) is perhaps the most frequently used
equation for sediment yield estimation. It is developed by Williams (1975) to calculate
sediment yields of a catchment as a result of a specific storm event. This empirical
relationship is expressed by the following equation for individual storm events:
Y = 89.6 (VQp) 0.56 K.LS.CP
The approach has seen widespread application but should be used with caution as it was
developed empirically based on limited data for Texas and the southwestern United States.
The procedures are best used on small catchments, and considerable judgement is required
in selecting appropriate slope length when determining the LS factor.
The Soil Loss and Sediment Yield Estimation is summarized in Table 7.3 and the detail
calculation is attached in Appendix 7.1. The calculation for the sediment traps is
summarized in Table 7.4 and the detail calculation is attached in Appendix 7.2. The
appendix has included design calculations for the pre-development and development phases
of the construction project.
Table 7.3: USLE and Sediment Yield Table

Compartment Compartment 1
Sediment Basin/Trap No. ST1
Catchment Area (ha) 0.33
Existing USLE, A(ton/ha/yr) 0.37
Earthwork Uncontrolled USLE, A(ton/ha/yr) 103.85
Earthwork Controlled USLE, A(ton/ha/yr) 1.04
Existing Sediment Yield (ton) 0.003
Earthwork Uncontrolled Sediment Yield (ton) 1.18
Earthwork Controlled Sediment Yield (ton) 0.023
15
Table 7.4: Design of Sediment Basin

Compartment 1
Sediment Basin (SB) No. ST1
Total Basin Volume (m3) 149.44
Depth of Settling Zone (m) 0.60
Depth of Storage Zone (m) 0.40
Freeboard (m) 0.30
Minimum Depth of Basin (m) 1.70
Top Length of Basin (m) 21.60
Top Width of Basin (m) 13.60
Basin Outlet Base Width (m) 0.50
Basin Outlet Effective Head (m) 0.40
7.3.3 Design Requirements of Sediment Basins (SB) and Other Best Management
Practices (BMP)
As described earlier, the zoning of the runoff catchment shall be pre-determined to enable
proper implementation of erosion and sediment control plans. Design of sediment basin shall
be performed for each of the demarcated land disturbing zones, according to MSMA 2nd
Edition. The sediment basins shall have an efficiency of 70%.
Apart from that, other relevant Best Management Practices shall be prescribed and specified
for adequate control of soil erosion and sediment transport during rainstorm events.
7.4 WATER QUALITY

7.4.1 Construction Phase
In this Project, there will be minimal earthwork as the land is basically flat. Therefore, there
will be minimal cut and fill, and no excess soil is anticipated to be generated which required
to be carted away for disposal
The Project is unlikely to have significant increase rate soil erosion and sedimentation
outputs throughout the construction phase. However, erosion is anticipated during
construction due to exposed area during site clearing and platform preparation activities.
Hence, sedimentation of eroded materials (as a result of sediment transport) is expected
especially during raining events. Therefore, it is important to have mitigation measures in
place to ensure no detrimental impact to the water quality.
16
Water quality will also be affected if used hydraulic oils, lubricants are discharged into the
nearby streams/ rivers. The water quality of the streams that flow near the Project site also
could be polluted by accidental spill of oil & grease (O&G) from these sources. Proper
mitigation measures need to be enforced to ensure waste oils will not be discharged directly
into the rivers or water bodies as well as reducing all potential impacts to tolerable and
acceptable levels.
7.4.2 Operation Phase
There is an existing LTP system there with a capacity of 40 m 3/day which serves to treat the
leachate generated from the transfer station activities. This system will be upgraded to 350
m3/day to meet the additional demand due to installation of MRF and AD plant facilities. LTP
system to be operational at the Project site shall focus on treatment of leachate to
acceptable quality and will comply with Second Schedule (Regulation 13) of the
Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill)
Regulations 2009. As a summary, the leachate treatment system shall include the following
components:
1) EQ Pond
2) Primary Coagulation and Flocculation Tank
3) Dissolved Air Flotation – Stage 1
4) Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
5) Secondary Coagulation and Flocculation Tank
6) Dissolved Air Flotation – Stage 2
7) Retention Tank
8) Sand Filter
9) Carbon Filter
10) Filter Press
11) Sludge Day Tank
It must be noted sludge generated from the leachate treatment system shall be disposed off
according to the requirements of the Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations
2005. The sludge shall be sent to Kualiti Alam (KA) for final disposal, or other DOE approved
recovery facilities of the sludge (SW204). Design basis for the system is shown in the table
below and the mass balance diagram is shown below. Full detailed calculations for the
system is attached in Appendix 7.3.
17
Table 7.5: Design Basis for LTP

Parameter Value Unit *EQA Load Unit
Flowrate 350 m3/d - 150 m3
pH 6-9 - 6-9 - -
BOD 3,000 mg/l 20 1,050 kg
COD 8,500 mg/l 400 2,975 kg
TSS 1,500 mg/l 50 525 kg
AN 1,000 mg/l 5 350 kg
O&G 500 mg/l 5 175 kg
Color 800 ADMI 100 - -
*Second Schedule (Regulation 13) of Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste
Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations 2009.
18
Figure 7.3: Mass Balance Diagram for LTP
19
7.4.3 Water Quality Modeling
7.4.3.1 Impact During Interim Phase
The discharge of industrial effluent during interim phase, where the anaerobic digestion plant
is in the process of being built, is 0.0005 m 3/s. The quality of treated and untreated effluent is
shown in Table 7 .6. The treated effluent quality complies with Second Schedule
(Regulation 13) of Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer
Station and Landfill) Regulations 2009.
Table 7.6: Raw and Treated Effluent Quality (Interim Phase)
BOD5 NH3-N
Item
（mg/L）（mg/L）
Raw Effluent
≤ 6,000 ≤ 2,000
Quality
Treated
≤ 20 ≤5
Effluent Quality
7.4.3.2 Impact During Operation Phase
The discharge of industrial effluent during operation phase, where the anaerobic digestion
tank is operational, is 0.0041 m3/s. The quality of treated and untreated effluent is shown in
Table 7 .7. The treated effluent quality complies with Second Schedule (Regulation 13) of
Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill)
Regulations 2009.
Table 7.7: Raw and Treated Effluent Quality (Operation Phase)
COD BOD5 SS NH3-N

Item
（mg/L）（mg/L）（mg/L）（mg/L）
Raw Effluent
≤ 8,500 ≤ 3,000 ≤ 1,500 ≤ 1,000
Quality
Treated
≤ 400 ≤ 20 ≤ 50 ≤5
Effluent Quality
20
7.4.3.3 QUAL2K Model
The QUAL2K model is used for wasteload allocations, discharge-permit allocations, and
other pollution evaluations. QUAL2K is applicable to well-mixed dendritic streams where the
major transport mechanisms of advection and dispersion are only significant along the
longitudinal axis of flow for a stream. Streamflow and input of waste loads are considered to
be constant
i.e. in steady state during the simulation period. The model can also be used to study the
assimilative capacities of receiving streams and to identify non-point waste loads.
A river is represented in the QUAL2K model as a linked group of streams and tributary
reaches (Figure 7 .4) that consist of headwaters (the beginning of a stream reach) and
sequential strings of completely mixed reactors, which are referred to as computational
elements. Within each reach, all the computational elements have the same average depth,
stream slope, channel cross-section, and biological/chemical rate constants. The QUAL2K
model calculates a flow and mass balance for each computational element.
The forcing function used for estimating transport is the stream discharge, which is assumed
to be constant. Stream velocity, cross-sectional area, and depth are computed from
streamflow. The QUAL2K model performs dissolved oxygen balance by including major
source and sink terms in the mass balance equation. The nitrogen cycle is composed of four
compartments: organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen. The
phosphorus cycle consists of dissolved phosphorus and organic phosphorus. Ultimate
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD) is modelled as a first order degradation
process. The major source of dissolved oxygen is algal photosynthesis and atmospheric
reaeration.
21
Figure 7.4: QUAL2K Stream Reach System
The QUAL2K framework includes the following new elements:

a) Software Environment and Interface. QUAL2K is implemented within the Microsoft
Windows environment. It is programmed in the Windows macro language: Visual Basic
for Applications (VBA). Excel is used as the graphical user interface;
b) Model segmentation. QUAL2E segments the system into river reaches comprised of
equally spaced elements. In contrast, QUAL2K uses unequally-spaced reaches. In
addition, multiple loadings and abstractions can be input to any reach;
c) Carbonaceous BOD speciation. QUAL2K uses two forms of carbonaceous BOD to
represent organic carbon. These forms are a slowly oxidizing form (slow cBOD) and a
rapidly oxidizing form (fast CBOD). In addition, non-living particulate organic matter
(detritus) is simulated. This detritus materials are composed of particulate carbon,
nitrogen and phosphorus in a fixed stoichiometry;
d) Anoxia. QUAL2K accommodates anoxia by reducing oxidation reactions to zero at low
oxygen levels. In addition, denitrification is modelled as a first-order reaction that
becomes pronounced at low oxygen concentrations;
e) Sediment-water interactions. Sediment-water fluxes of dissolved oxygen and nutrients
are simulated internally rather than being prescribed. Oxygen (SOD) and nutrient fluxes
are simulated as a function of settling particulate organic matter, reactions within the
sediments, and the concentrations of soluble forms in the overlying waters;
22
f) Bottom algae. The model explicitly simulates attached bottom algae;

g) Light extinction. Light extinction is calculated as a function of algae, detritus and
inorganic solids;
h) pH. Both alkalinity and total inorganic carbon are simulated. The river’s pH is then
simulated based on these two quantities;
i) Pathogens. A generic pathogen is simulated. Pathogen removal is determined as a
function of temperature, light, and settling.
7.4.3.4 Methodology
Prior to the model development, water quality sampling at three (3) locations were
conducted on the main-stem of Sg. Perai, and another two (2) locations were conducted on
the tributary of Sg. Perai. In-situ measurements, including dissolved oxygen (DO),
temperature, and pH were done. Samples were sent to an SAMM accredited laboratory for
analysis for parameters, such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD), Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This
exercise was necessary to ensure the model was calibrated using actual field measurements
(Chapra, 1997).
7.4.3.5 Modeling Assumptions and Limitations
Several key factors were considered prior to model development, including; modelling
assumptions, limitations, scenarios, delineation and data requirements. These factors were
even more relevant for dynamic 1-dimensional modelling using QUAL2K. The general
QUAL2K model assumptions and limitations that apply to this study include (Ujang and
Zainudin, 2010);
i. Streams are well mixed and generally homogenous with an evenly distributed
concentration pattern, vertically and laterally. This is coherent to 1-dimensional water
quality modelling (Chapra et al., 2005).
ii. Water quality parameters that were simulated include biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5, uBOD represented), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammoniacal nitrogen
(NH3-N), and solids (total suspended solids).
iii. The model is based on ultimate cBOD, so the 5-day measurement was extrapolated
to acquire this value. It should be noted that, besides practical considerations of time
and expense, there may be other benefits from using the 5-day measurement with
extrapolation, rather that performing a longer-term cBOD. Although extrapolation
23
does introduce some error, the 5-day value has the advantage that it would tend to
minimize possible nitrification effects, which, even when inhibited, can begin to be
exerted on longer time frames (Chapra et al., 2005).
iv. COD modelling was done with the assumption only the readily biodegradable organic
fraction (cBOD) undergoes decay; whereas residual remains persistent.
7.4.3.6 Modeling Scenarios
Impact assessment/WLA determination proceedings are typically done during normal and
7Q10 low flows, and High flows. The 7Q10 flow is a conservative dry weather flow intended
to assess impacts when the river is very sensitive to pollution. High flow is weather flow to
assess impacts on the river during the wet season.
7.4.3.6.1 Interim Phase
The prescribed scenarios that were modelled using QUAL2K for interim phase are as
follows:
Baseline: No discharge during normal flow.
Scenario 1: Compliance to Second Schedule (Regulation 13) of Environmental Quality

(Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations 2009 at
0.0005 m3/s discharge during 7Q10 flow.

(Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations 2009at
0.0005 m3/s discharge during normal flow.

0.0005 m3/s discharge during high flow.
Scenario 4 (Treatment System Failure, 7Q10 Flow): Raw sewage effluent as stated in
Table 7 .6 at 0.0005 m3/s discharge during 7Q10 flow.
Scenario 5 (Treatment System Failure, Normal Flow): Raw sewage effluent as stated in
24
Scenario 6 (Treatment System Failure, High Flow): Raw sewage effluent as stated in
7.4.3.6.2 Operation Phase
The prescribed scenarios that were modelled using QUAL2K for operation phase are as
follows:
Baseline: No discharge during normal flow.

0.0041 m3/s discharge during 7Q10 flow.

(Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations 2009at
0.0041 m3/s discharge during normal flow.

0.0041 m3/s discharge during high flow.
Scenario 4 (Treatment System Failure, 7Q10 Flow): Raw sewage effluent as stated in
Scenario 5 (Treatment System Failure, Normal Flow): Raw sewage effluent as stated in
Scenario 6 (Treatment System Failure, High Flow): Raw sewage effluent as stated in
The QUAL2K stream reach layout system developed for the model is shown in Figure 7 .5.
25
Figure 7.5: QUAL2K Sg. Perai Stream Reach Layout
26
7.4.3.7 Baseline Water Quality
The BOD value at the stations in Sg. Perai and Tributary 1 is Class V of the National Water
Quality Standards of Malaysia, except W4 which is Class IV. W1 station shows
The COD value of the stations in Tributary 1, that is W1 and W2, is Class V of NWQS;
whereas Sg. Perai, that is W3, W4, and W5, is within Class IV.
The Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) values in Tributary 1 stations is within Class V; whereas Sg.
Perai is Class IV.
The extraordinary high values in Tributary 1 station, that is W1 and W2 for BOD, COD, and
AN could be due to existing landfill and agricultural activities nearby the area.
The TSS value of all stations in Tributary 1 and Sg. Perai is within Class III. The TSS value
of the Sg. Perai at the upstream (W3) shows better quality (54 mg/L) compared to
downstream stations W4 and W5, which has values of 130 and 147 mg/L respectively. This
could be due to discharge from Tributary 1 and activities, such as agricultural and
construction activities.
7.4.3.8 Modeling Results and Discussion
7.4.3.8.1 Interim Phase
Figure 7 .6 shows the BOD graph for Tributary 1. When the treatment system is
operational, the simulated BOD value at the downstream for Tributary 1 remains either the
same as baseline for Scenario 2 and 3 (101.60 mg/L) or slightly lower than baseline for
Scenario 1 (98.849 mg/L). On the other hand, when the treatment system fails, the simulated
BOD value at the downstream is slightly higher compared to baseline. The simulated BOD
value at the downstream for Scenario 4, 5, and 6 is 105.31 mg/L, 102.59 mg/L, and 102.25
mg/L respectively. Nonetheless, the BOD value for all scenarios remains in Class V of
NWQS.
The simulated BOD value for Sg. Perai, as observed in Figure 7 .7, changes very little for
all scenarios. The simulated BOD at the downstream ranges from 13.683 to 13.82 mg/L. The
simulated BOD at downstream of Sg. Perai for all scenarios remains within Class V of
27
NWQS.
Figure 7 .8 shows the simulated AN graph for Tributary 1. When the treatment system is
operational, the simulated AN value at the downstream for Tributary 1 remains similar to
baseline (Scenario 2 and 3, where the simulated AN is 27.155 and 27.164 mg/L), or less
than baseline (Scenario 1, where the simulated AN is 26.316 mg/L). It is observed when the
treatment system fails, the simulated AN is higher compared to baseline, with the Scenario 4
having the highest value at the downstream (28.458 mg/L), followed by Scenario 5 (27.486
mg/L) and 6 (27.38 mg/L). The simulated AN at downstream of Tributary 1 for all scenarios
is within Class V.
From Figure 7 .9, we can observe that the simulated AN at the downstream of Sg. Perai is
less than baseline during low flow conditions (Scenario 1 and 4), similar to baseline during
normal flow conditions (Scenario 2 and 5), and higher than the baseline during high flow
conditions (Scenario 3 and 6). Nevertheless, the simulated AN at downstream of Sg. Perai
remains Class III for all scenarios.
28
Discharge
280
230
BOD5 (mg/L)
180
130
Class V
80
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
Distance from Downstream, x (km)
Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
Figure 7.6: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Tributary 1; Interim Phase)
29
15
Tributary 1
14.5
14
13.5
13
BOD5 (mg/L)
12.5
Class V
12
11.5
11
10.5
Class IV
10
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Figure 7.7: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Sg. Perai; Interim Phase)
30
90
Discharge
80
70
60
AN (mg/L)
50
40
30
Class V
20
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Figure 7.8: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Tributary 1; Interim Phase)
31
1.2
Tributary 1
1.1
Class IV
0.9
0.8
AN (mg/L)
0.7
0.6
Class III
0.5
0.4
0.3
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Figure 7.9: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Sg. Perai; Interim Phase)
32
7.4.3.8.2 Operation Phase
Figure 7 .10 shows the BOD graph for Tributary 1. When the treatment system is
operational, the simulated BOD value at the downstream for Tributary 1 for Scenario 1, 2,
and 3 is 99.091 mg/L, 102.87 mg/L, and 101.54 mg/L respectively, which is less than the
baseline. On the other hand, when the treatment system fails, the simulated BOD value at
the downstream is higher compared to baseline, where the highest is Scenario 4 (125.1
mg/L), followed by Scenario 5 (106.99 mg/L) and 6 (104.18 mg/L). Nonetheless, the BOD
value for all scenarios remains in Class V of NWQS.
The simulated BOD value for Sg. Perai, as observed in Figure 7 .11, in all scenarios is
slightly higher compared to baseline, except Scenario 1 (13.684 mg/L). The simulated BOD
at the downstream ranges from 13.684 to 13.837 mg/L. The simulated BOD at downstream
of Sg. Perai for all scenarios remains within Class V of NWQS.
Figure 7 .12 shows the simulated AN graph for Tributary 1. When the treatment system is
operational, the simulated AN value at the downstream for Tributary 1 is less than the
baseline. When the treatment system fails, the simulated AN is higher compared to baseline,
with the Scenario 4 having the highest value at the downstream (35.149 mg/L), followed by
Scenario 5 (28.865 mg/L) and 6 (28.031 mg/L). The simulated AN at downstream of
Tributary 1 for all scenarios is within Class V.
From Figure 7 .13, we can observe that the simulated AN at the downstream of Sg. Perai
is less than baseline during low flow conditions (Scenario 1 (0.3358 mg/L) and 4 (0.377
mg/L)), similar to baseline during normal flow conditions for Scenario 2 (0.4456 mg/L) and
slightly higher than baseline for Scenario 5 (0.4538 mg/L), and higher than the baseline
during high flow conditions (Scenario 3 (0.4666 mg/L) and 6 (0.4722 mg/L)). Nevertheless,
the simulated AN at downstream of Sg. Perai remains Class III for all scenarios.
Figure 7 .14 shows the simulated COD graph for Tributary 1. When the treatment system
is operational, the simulated AN value at the downstream for Tributary 1 is less than the
baseline for Scenario 1 (367.1 mg/L) and 3 (373.95 mg/L); slightly higher compared to
baseline for Scenario 2 (378.92 mg/L). When the treatment system fails, the simulated COD
is higher compared to baseline, with the Scenario 4 having the highest value at the
downstream (438.64 mg/L), followed by Scenario 5 (390.09 mg/L) and 6 (381.12 mg/L). The
simulated COD at downstream of Tributary 1 for all scenarios is within Class V.
33
From Figure 7 .15, we can observe that the simulated COD at the downstream of Sg. Perai
is less than baseline during low flow conditions (Scenario 1 (53.096 mg/L) and 4 (53.673
mg/L)), slightly higher compared to baseline during normal flow conditions for Scenario 2
(54.713 mg/L) and Scenario 5 (54.804 mg/L), and higher than the baseline during high flow
conditions (Scenario 3 (54.933 mg/L) and 6 (54.993 mg/L)). Nevertheless, the simulated
COD at downstream of Sg. Perai remains Class IV for all scenarios.
When the treatment system is operational (Scenario 1, 2, and 3), the simulated TSS value is
less than baseline as observed in Figure 7 .16. When the treatment system fails, the
simulated TSS is higher compared to baseline, with the Scenario 4 having the highest value
at the downstream (101.69 mg/L), followed by Scenario 5 (91.411 mg/L) and 6 (90.584
mg/L). Nevertheless, the simulated TSS at downstream of Tributary 1 remains Class III for
all scenarios.
The simulated TSS at the downstream in Sg. Perai for all scenarios remains similar to
baseline as shown in Figure 7 .17.
34
Discharge
280
230
BOD5 (mg/L)
180
130
Class V
80
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Figure 7.10: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase)
35
15
Discharge
14.5
14
13.5
13
BOD5 (mg/L)
12.5
Class V
12
11.5
11
10.5
Class IV
10
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Figure 7.11: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Sg. Perai; Operation Phase)
36
90
Discharge
80
70
60
AN (mg/L)
50
40
30
Class V
20
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Figure 7.12: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase)
37
1.2
Tributary 1
1.1
1
Class IV
0.9
0.8
Class III
AN (mg/L)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Figure 7.13: Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AN) (Sg. Perai; Operation Phase)
38
1200
Discharge
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
COD (mg/L)
500
400
Class V
300
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Figure 7.14: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase)
39
60
Tributary 1
58
56
54
COD (mg/L)
52
Class IV
50
Class III
48
46
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Figure 7.15: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (Sg. Perai; Operation Phase)
40
120
Discharge
115
110
105
TSS (mg/L)
100
95
90
85
Class III
80
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Figure 7.16: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Tributary 1; Operation Phase)
41
150
Tributary 1
140
130
120
110
TSS (mg/L)
100
90
80
70
60
Class III
50
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Figure 7.17: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Sg. Perai; Operational Phase)
42
7.4.3.9 Conclusion
For interim phase, the simulated BOD and AN value is within Class V and III of NWQS
respectively at downstream of Sg. Perai, which is the same as baseline.
For operation phase, on the other hand, the simulated BOD, AN, COD, and TSS is within
Class V, III, IV, III of NWQS respectively at downstream of Sg. Perai, which is the same as
baseline.
43
7.5 HYDOLOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT
7.5.1 Introduction
Hydrological and hydraulic analysis is one of the most vital components in determining the
hydraulic capacity of a drain / river system. In this Report, the estimation of design inputs
and parameters, model setup, development and simulation results are described.
Hydrological modeling was carried out to determine pre-development discharge (Qpre),
during development discharge (Qduring) and post development discharge (Qpost) of the
catchment that contributes to the Project area.
The modeling part is carried out using XP-SWMM as this software is capable to carry out
modeling of the flood discharges within the drainage network of each catchment giving the
flood event details and the inflows. The XPSWMM comprehensively models the hydrologic
and hydraulic components of most storm water management systems (Philip et al., 2008). It
includes modeling capabilities for continuous simulation, numerous hydrograph generation
methods, mixtures of open channel and closed conduits, looped networks, storage nodes
such as ponds and multiple outfalls. The model solves the complete St. Venant
(Hydrodynamic Flow) equations for gradually varied, one dimensional, unsteady flow
throughout the drainage network.
Figure 7.4 shows the catchment of the which that contributes to the Project area – Ampang
Jajar ISWMC. The project area (blue line boundary) is situated inside the ISWMC
catchment.
44
Figure 7.18: Catchment Boundary for Project Area and Catchment Area Ampang Jajar ISWMC
45
7.5.2 Data Preparation
Physical parameters of the catchment area are very significant for the hydrological analysis.
Boundaries of catchments are delineated based on the topographic maps. Main drainage
systems are also traced as well as the maximum and minimum elevations along them. The
area of each catchments as well as the difference in elevation within the catchment are used
for computing runoff quantities. The runoff coefficient for every catchment is generally
estimated from the groundcover, the topography, and the shape of the catchment area.
These are discussed in the following sections.
7.5.3 Elevation Data
The catchment boundary area has been delineated based on digital terrain model (DTM)
generated by SRTM data, satellite imagery, detailed engineering survey provided by the
Client and on-ground verification of actual drainage lines. These features are then utilized to
establish nodes and links in the XP-SWMM model of stormwater / river systems.
The terrain, or DTM, is utilized to process additional information, such as sub-catchment

areas, surface slopes, and longest flow paths, required for the computation of parameters
depending on the selected method for hydrological analysis (unit hydrograph, SWMM, etc).
7.5.4 Soil Data
The soil properties adopted from MSMA 2nd Edition (DID, 2012) was adopted for the soil
properties analysis.
7.5.5 Catchment Delineation
Catchment delineation was developed based on the DTM elevation information, detailed
engineering survey and on-ground verification. Table 7.6 summarizes the general
information for the ISWMC main catchment.
Table 7.8: Delineated Catchment Information for Project Area

Imperviousness
Catchment Area (ha) Width (m) Slope (m/m)
(%)
46
ISWMC 35.438 366 34 0.011
7.5.6 Model Setup

7.5.6.1 Catchment Inputs
To build a model using XP-SWMM modeling software, catchment inputs are required to run
the simulation. Design flows were estimated using the XP-SWMM software, which uses
rainfall information and percent impervious information, along with sub catchment-specific
parameters, to determine the hydrology and hydraulics of a modeled drainage area. Each
catchment is subdivided into sub catchments that are hydrologically similar. The model
requires the following parameters for each sub catchment to define the flow:
 Sub catchment area

 Percent impervious
 Pervious curve number (a rating of soil permeability)
 Time of concentration
The study area is sufficiently small that the design rainfall is the same for the whole study
area. The study area was divided into areas with similar infiltration characteristics. Infiltration
for each sub catchment was calculated based on the following characteristics:
 Depression storage for impervious and pervious areas
 Roughness coefficients for impervious and pervious areas
 Infiltration rate information (maximum, minimum and decay rate)
Hydrographs (estimates of expected flow for the duration of a storm) are developed for each
channel and the program checks the flow in each channel, as well as the combined flow
through the entire system. This includes drainage hydraulic information such as drainage
cross-section, drainage depth and width. The drainage was modeled as conduits. Additional
feature data including virtual or dummy features were also added directly into XP-SWMM
(Toriman et al., 2009). Overall, this modeling process can be simplified in Figure 7.5.
47
Figure 7.19: Modeling Process using XP-SWMM (Toriman et al., 2009)
Catchment inputs are required to provide information for rainfall-runoff module such as
Laurenson Method. The catchment roughness applied in the calculation of storage delay
parameter “B” is taken from the previous Manning "n" value for the sub-catchment with the
infiltration information.
The default procedure (without the XP-SWMM configuration parameter active) only applies
either the Horton or Green Ampt loss to the pervious percentage of the subarea, as defined
by the % impervious data item. There is currently no loss applied to the impervious
component as the depression storage defined for the impervious area in the infiltration dialog
is not active with either the Laurenson or time/area runoff procedures. Routing for a
particular sub catchment is carried out using the Muskingum procedure.
7.5.6.2 Node Inputs
Node inputs required the determination of node size and ground level. Under common
circumstances, node size is automatically computed by the model (assumed to be same with
largest cross-sectional size of incoming or outgoing conduits). In cases where additional
storage volume is required to be assessed (e.g., pond), the physical geometry of these
48
facilities is required by the model. Geometry input for pond includes the stage surface area
relationship which the model uses to compute stage-storage relationship.
Ground level is the elevation level where flooding condition is triggered in the model. It is a
normal practice to set ground level as the lower of the left and right bank level provided by
SRTM/IFSAR/LiDAR or engineering survey.
7.5.6.3 Conduit Inputs
Conduit refers to any conveyance components that carry water. In the Project area, two (2)
types of conduits were commonly used, i.e., drain and river. For rigid boundary conduits,
such as drains or culverts, drain conduit was used. For loose boundary conduits, i.e.,
waterways, river conduit was used. Input requirements for both conduits were basically the
same. All the conduit details; invert levels, conduit shape and size were referred to the
engineering survey works and site verification. Manning’s roughness values were fixed for
conduits as shown in Table 7.7. Once all the inputs were completed for conduit, the model
will automatically compute the gradient (based on the inserted invert levels and length) and
full conduit capacity based on the Manning’s Equation.
Table 7.9: Selected Manning’s Roughness for Various Conduit Types (DID, 2011)
No. Conduit Condition Selected Manning’s n
1. Concrete channel 0.011
2. Main channel for waterway 0.03
3. Floodplain for waterway 0.05
4. Gabion / Riprap Drop 0.05
In this Project area, one (1) type of conduits was used, which is Main Channel for
waterway with Manning’s value of 0.03.
7.5.6.4 Rainfall Inputs
Based on the location of rainfall station available as shown in Figure 7.6, Station No.
5503031 – Permatang Bendahari that is considered as the best stations located very
near the Project area and chosen for the derivation of Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve
(RIDF). The rainfall intensities and temporal pattern will be used as input parameters in
the model. The IDF curve for Station No. 5503031 – Permatang Bendahari is given in
Figure 7.7.
49
Figure 7.20: Rainfall Stations Locations near Project area

Station No. 5503031 – Permatang Bendahari
1000
2-yr
100
Intensity (mm/hr)
5-yr
10-yr
20-yr
25-yr
50-yr
10
100-
yr
1
0.1 1 10 100
Duration (hr)
Figure 7.21: Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency Curve for

(Station No. 5503031 – Permatang Bendahari)
50
Table 7.10: Selected Manning’s Roughness for Various Conduit Types (DID, 2011)
Intensity
Return Period, T (yr)
(mm/hr)
Duration (hr) 2 5 10 20 25 50 100
0.25 113.41 133.51 151.04 170.88 177.80 201.16 227.57
0.5 82.47 97.08 109.83 124.25 129.29 146.27 165.47
1 54.86 64.58 73.07 82.66 86.01 97.31 110.09
3 25.34 29.82 33.74 38.17 39.72 44.94 50.84
6 14.87 17.51 19.81 22.41 23.32 26.38 29.84
12 8.58 10.10 11.43 12.93 13.46 15.22 17.22
24 4.91 5.78 6.54 7.40 7.70 8.71 9.85
Table 7.11: Rainfall Depth (mm) for Station No. 5503031 – Permatang Bendahari
Rain
Return Period, T (yr)
Depth (mm)
Duration (hr) 2 5 10 20 25 50 100
0.25 28.35 33.38 37.76 42.72 44.45 50.29 56.89
0.5 41.23 48.54 54.91 62.13 64.64 73.13 82.74
1 54.86 64.58 73.07 82.66 86.01 97.31 110.09
3 76.01 89.47 101.22 114.52 119.16 134.81 152.51
6 89.23 105.04 118.84 134.45 139.89 158.27 179.05
12 102.99 121.24 137.16 155.18 161.46 182.67 206.66
24 117.81 138.68 156.90 177.50 184.70 208.95 236.39
Table 7.12: Rainfall Temporal Distributions for Region 4: Northern

Region 4 - Northern
No of
0.25 0.5 1 3 6 12 24 48 72
Block
1 2.070 1.129 0.432 0.372 0.405 0.361 0.179 0.181 0.152
2 2.824 1.211 0.504 0.455 0.465 0.454 0.207 0.206 0.209
3 2.306 1.233 0.531 0.546 0.544 0.573 0.219 0.231 0.224
4 1.238 0.629 0.655 0.594 0.605 0.223 0.242 0.249
5 1.221 0.667 0.710 0.681 0.662 0.224 0.261 0.250
6 1.168 0.719 0.765 0.795 0.753 0.237 0.269 0.260
7 0.738 0.805 0.796 0.940 0.292 0.274 0.289
51
8 0.701 0.724 0.721 0.723 0.300 0.275 0.307

9 0.658 0.704 0.659 0.644 0.317 0.296 0.312
10 0.621 0.573 0.576 0.580 0.366 0.357 0.377
11 0.515 0.501 0.503 0.482 0.456 0.409 0.391
12 0.484 0.392 0.461 0.424 0.476 0.493 0.467
13 0.518 0.530 0.593
14 0.463 0.465 0.430
15 0.432 0.372 0.378
16 0.338 0.322 0.315
17 0.307 0.281 0.310
18 0.298 0.274 0.299
19 0.266 0.270 0.281
20 0.226 0.269 0.256
21 0.224 0.259 0.249
22 0.220 0.240 0.227
23 0.218 0.227 0.210
24 0.192 0.196 0.165
Figure 7.22: Rainfall Hyetograph for Region 2: Southern
52
7.5.7 Hydrological Analysis

7.5.7.1 Introduction
Several methods, each with its own assumptions and constraints, may be used to estimate
catchment runoff. The application of each method depends on the availability and type of
rainfall data, flow records, and the catchment size. The objective of hydrological modeling is
to estimate tributary sub-catchment flood hydrographs at various recurrence intervals as an
input to the hydraulic model for each catchment area. The model simulates natural rainfall-
runoff processes and the hydraulic performance of drainage systems used to manage the
water resources. It allows integrated analysis of flow and pollutant transport in engineered
and natural systems including ponds, rivers, lakes, overland floodplains, and the interaction
with groundwater.
7.5.7.2 Simulated Design Discharge
The model was run for three (3) conditions: pre - the study area with its current level of
Development, during - the study area during construction and post - the study area after the
completion of project (operation). Simulations were carried out using different model input
(catchment, stormwater system and rainfall). By combining different inputs, the model allows
assessment of the stormwater system to identify issues and provide solutions. In this report,
all three (3) input parameters were examined.
i. Catchment – to determine the flood hydrograph of the Project area.

ii. River Network – to determine the performance of existing system.
iii. Design Storm – to examine how catchment and system respond to storm event of
different duration and magnitude.
Results for simulated flow discharge for 10, 50, and 100-years ARI based on three (3)
different conditions: pre-development, during development and post development flow
discharge are summarized in Table 7.11 for the Project area. The resulted simulated
discharge showing the maximum critical duration falls under 180 minutes duration. The post
development does consider the storage allocated in the Project development as shown in
Figure 7.9 below.
53
Figure 7.23: Overall Layout Plan of the Proposed Development Project
54
Table 7.13: Flow Discharge at Project Area (Outlet to ISWMC) Based on Different
Conditions (180-minutes Duration)
Critical Max Flow (m3/s)
Condition Duration
10 ARI 50 ARI 100 ARI
(mins)
Pre Development 2.616 3.541 4.028
During Development 180 2.779 3.705 4.193
Post Development 2.709 3.635 4.123
7.5.7.3 Design Flood Hydrograph
The simulated Flood Hydrograph was produced for different ARI focusing more on the
maximum critical duration which is 180 minutes for the Project sub-catchment. Figure 7.10
until Figure 7.12 shows the design flood hydrograph for catchment area discharging into
ISWMC Outlet Discharge.
Figure 7.24: Design Flood Hydrographs for Condition 1: Pre Development (ISWMC)
55
7.5.7.4 Model Calibration
In order to check the validity of the model, comparison of peak discharge has been made
using HP 16: Flood Estimation for Urban Areas in Peninsular Malaysia. The catchment
comparison is shown for 180 minutes duration as tabulated in Table 7.11 for comparisons of
peak discharge for Project area (ISWMC outlet discharge).
56
Table 7.14: Comparison of Peak Discharge for Catchment of Project Area (Outlet to
ISWMC)
Max Flow (m3/s)
Critical
10 ARI 50 ARI 100 ARI
Condition Duration
XP- XP- XP-
(mins) HP16 HP16 HP16
SWMM SWMM SWMM
Pre Development 2.616 1.83 3.541 2.98 4.028 3.10
During
180 2.779 2.14 3.705 3.11 4.193 3.96
Development
Post Development 2.709 2.10 3.635 3.06 4.123 3.88
57
7.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
7.6.1 Existing Conditions
Referring to Table 6.18, we may observe that there is no noticeable heavy metals
contamination in the groundwater samples taken from GW1 and GW2. The location of GW1
is at the eastern side of the Project site, adjacent to the existing leachate treatment plant,
while GW2 is located on the western side of the Project site, near to the existing Ampang
Jajar cycle track and nearer to Sungai Perai.
However, GW1 has recorded relatively high concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen at

43.12mg/L. This may be related to previous operation of leachate treatment at the location.
As compared to GW2, where ammoniacal nitrogen was not detected.
Apart from that, both groundwater samples have registered considerably high concentration
of total suspended solids (TSS) respectively at 73mg/L and 119 mg/L. The contributing
factor for this may be due to groundwater movement in the tube wells, as the groundwater
samples were taken during wet days.
As for groundwater level, borehole BH8, which is near to GW1 location, has registered
groundwater depth of 1.42m below ground level, while BH9, coincides with GW2 location,
has recorded groundwater depth of 3.40m below ground level. The difference in
groundwater depth is as expected as the groundwater static head is from east to west
direction (towards delineation area where Sungai Perai is flowing). This is a sign that the
groundwater flownet at the Project site is not hindered by any subsoil features, and the
subsoil conditions of the Project site is not expected to have any risk of instability during the
construction of establishment new structures, infrastructures and the anaerobic pond
system.
7.6.2 Anaerobic Digestion Pond
As elaborated in the Chapter 5, one of the Project components for the Project is constructing
an anaerobic digestion pond (or AD pond), which shall be engineered with water proof liner,
geotechnically treated basal layer, as well as mechanically operated system to allow mixing
and circulation of the organic waste substrate to undergo biological breaking down and
reduction.
58
From the engineering information provided as below figure, the invert level of the basal layer
is well above the groundwater level, as the AD pond is to be constructed at a location with
higher elevation within the Project site of approximately 10 acres.
The original ground levels where the AD pond to be built is between 6.5m to 10.2m (mean
sea level). This is compared to GW1 and GW2 ground level at 2.2m and 2.6m. For GW1,
groundwater level shall be about 0.78m, while groundwater level for GW2 shall be at -0.8m.
The designed AD pond has a depth of 7.0m from finished platform level of about 8.0m, i.e.
the invert level of pond bottom layer is 1.0m. This level is higher than 0.78m (at the far
eastern side) and -0.8m (at the far western side) of both boundaries of the Project site. The
risk of liner breakage due to buoyancy impact from the groundwater is very low. Other
impacts from capillary force from groundwater is not an issue as the underlying ground
(more than 7.0m deep) is basically soft to firm silty clay or sandy silt.
Therefore, there is no significant impact from the AD pond operation to groundwater quality.
However, monitoring of the AD pond system shall be done to avoid any tearing of liner due
to unforeseen ground movement due to subsidence or loss of soil mass from other
unexpected causes.
59
Figure 7.27: Sectional Layout of Biogas Reactor
60
7.7 AIR QUALITY
Air quality will be assessed according to the operational phase of the Project.
7.7.1 Introduction
The modelling analysis is conducted to assess ambient air quality impacts which
demonstrates compliance with applicable ambient air quality regulations. The analyses are
conducted in accordance with USEPA Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM; as
incorporated in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51).
As this assessment involves impacts cause by multiple gaseous pollutants, refined analysis
is conducted. It should be noted that the USEPA promulgated a revision to the Guideline on
Air Quality Models (GAQM) on November 9, 2005 and the revised version of GAQM adopts
AERMOD as the preferred dispersion model.
Dispersion modelling is conducted with the USEPA’s AERMOD model (Version 19191, April
2020) and one year of meteorological data generated by the Mesoscale Meteorological
Model (MM5). This one-year data set is processed with AERMET, the meteorological
processor for AERMOD, in accordance with guidance provided by USEPA in the recently
revised AERMOD Implementation Guide (AIG; USEPA, March 19, 2009).
7.7.2 Model Selection Criteria and Modelling Factors
The suitability of an air quality dispersion model for a particular application is dependent
upon several factors. For this study, several selection criteria and factors are evaluated.
These criteria and factors are:
 Approved regulatory dispersion model;
 Meteorological data;
 Building Wake Effects;
 Dispersion environment;
 Local terrain;
 Dispersion options;
 Receptor grid and discrete receptors and
 Model output
61
These criteria and factors, which formulate the basis for choosing one or more of the models
recommended in the USEPA modelling guidelines, are discussed in the following sections.
7.7.3 Approved Regulatory Dispersion Model
AERMOD is a refined dispersion model for simple and complex terrain for receptors within
50 km of a modelled source. AERMOD is a steady-state plume model. In the stable
boundary layer (SBL), it assumes the concentration distribution to be Gaussian in both the
vertical and horizontal. In the convective boundary layer (CBL), the horizontal distribution is
also assumed to be Gaussian, but the vertical distribution is described with a bi-Gaussian
probability density function (pdf). Additionally, in the CBL, AERMOD treats “plume lofting,”
whereby a portion of plume mass, released from a buoyant source, rises to and remains
near the top of the boundary layer before becoming mixed into the CBL. AERMOD also
tracks any plume mass that penetrates into the elevated stable layer, and then allows it to
re-enter the boundary layer when and if appropriate. For sources in both the CBL and the
SBL, AERMOD treats the enhancement of lateral dispersion resulting from plume meander.
AERMOD incorporates current concepts about flow and dispersion in complex terrain.
Where appropriate the plume is modelled as either impacting and/or following the terrain,
thus AERMOD removes the need for defining complex terrain regimes. All terrain is handled
in a consistent and continuous manner while considering the dividing streamline concept in
stably stratified conditions.
One of the major improvements that AERMOD brings to applied dispersion modelling is its
ability to characterise the planetary boundary layer (PBL) through both surface and mixed
layer scaling. AERMOD constructs vertical profiles of required meteorological variables
based on measurements and extrapolations of those measurements using similarity
(scaling) relationships. Vertical profiles of wind speed, wind direction, turbulence,
temperature, and temperature gradient are estimated using all available meteorological
observations. AERMOD is designed to run with a minimum of observed meteorological
parameters. As a replacement for the ISC3 model, AERMOD can operate using data of a
type that is readily available from most national weather service (NWS) stations. AERMOD
requires only a single surface measurement of wind speed measured at between 10 and 100
meters, wind direction and ambient temperature. Like the ISC3 model, AERMOD also
needs observed cloud cover. However, if cloud cover is not available two vertical
measurements of temperature, typically at 2 and 10 meters and a measurement of solar
radiation can be substituted. A full morning upper air sounding is required in order to
62
calculate the convective mixing height throughout the day. Surface characteristics (surface
roughness, Bowen ratio, and albedo) are also needed in order to construct similarity profiles
of the relevant PBL parameters.
Unlike existing regulatory models, AERMOD accounts for the vertical in homogeneity of the
PBL in its dispersion calculations. This is accomplished by "averaging" the parameters of
the actual PBL into "effective" parameters of an equivalent homogeneous PBL.
7.7.4 Meteorological Data
AERMOD is a refined dispersion model for simple and complex terrain for receptors within
50 km of a modelled source. AERMOD is a steady-state plume model. In the stable
boundary layer (SBL), it assumes the concentration distribution to be Gaussian in both the
vertical and horizontal. In the convective boundary layer (CBL), the horizontal distribution is
also assumed to be Gaussian, but the vertical distribution is described with a bi-Gaussian
probability density function (pdf). Additionally, in the CBL, AERMOD treats “plume lofting,”
whereby a portion of plume mass, released from a buoyant source, rises to and remains
near the top of the boundary layer before becoming mixed into the CBL. AERMOD also
tracks any plume mass that penetrates into the elevated stable layer, and then allows it to
re-enter the boundary layer when and if appropriate. For sources in both the CBL and the
SBL, AERMOD treats the enhancement of lateral dispersion resulting from plume meander.
AERMOD incorporates current concepts about flow and dispersion in complex terrain.
Where appropriate the plume is modelled as either impacting and/or following the terrain,
thus AERMOD removes the need for defining complex terrain regimes. All terrain is handled
in a consistent and continuous manner while considering the dividing streamline concept in
stably stratified conditions.
7.7.5 Building Wake Effects
Building wake effects due to structures which may influence pollutant dispersion is evaluated
in the modelling assessment. Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height analysis is
performed to determine the potential for building-induced aerodynamic downwash. The
analysis procedures described in USEPA's Guidelines for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height (USEPA 1985), Stack Height Regulations (40 CFR 51),
and current Model Clearinghouse guidance is used.
63
7.7.6 Dispersion Environment
The application of the model requires characterization of the local (within 3km) dispersion
environment as either urban or rural, based on a USEPA recommended procedure that
characterises an area by prevalent land use. This land use approach classifies an area
according to 12 land use types. In this scheme, areas of industrial, commercial, and compact
residential land use are designated urban. According to USEPA modelling guidelines, if
more than 50 percent of an area within a 3km radius of the proposed facility is classified as
rural, then rural dispersion coefficients are to be used in the dispersion modelling analysis.
Conversely, if more than 50% of the area is urban, urban dispersion coefficients are used.
For this analysis, more than 3 km radius area surrounding the proposed Integrated Waste
Management Centre is mostly developed. Therefore, the urban source application is chosen
for this dispersion modelling analysis.
7.7.7 Local Terrain
Local topography plays an important role in the selection of the appropriate dispersion
model. Available dispersion models are formerly divided into two general categories: those
applicable to terrain that is below stack top (simple terrain) and those applicable where the
terrain is above stack top (complex terrain). However, AERMOD, which has been
extensively evaluated on many terrain types, removes this distinction and allows a seamless
treatment of project impacts on terrain both above and below stack top elevation.
As the project site is located near the coast and the surrounding area is relatively flat, the
effect of terrain on dispersion is not accounted for in this assessment.
7.7.8 Dispersion Options
The AERMOD is designed to support the regulatory modelling assessments. The regulatory
modelling options are selected for the mode of operation for the model. These include the
use of stack-tip downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, final plume rise, routine for
processing averages when calm winds occur, values for wind profile exponents and for the
vertical potential temperature gradients.
64
7.7.9 Receptor Grid and Discrete Receptors
A comprehensive receptor grid is used for the modelling. For this assessment study, a
comprehensive Cartesian receptor grid extending to 3 km from the site is used in the
AERMOD modelling to assess maximum ground-level pollutant concentrations. This
receptor grid is sufficient to resolve the maximum impacts and any potential significant
impact areas. The Cartesian receptor grid used consist of 100 m grid intervals.
As the centre is located in an industrial but surrounded by residential areas, there are nearby
sensitive receptors. Among the sensitive receptors identified and selected are i) nearby
Cycling Park, ii). Kampung Sama Gagah, iii). Pangsa PPR Ampang Jejar and iv). Taman
Cermai. These sensitive receptors are also baseline monitoring sites A2, A3, A4 and A5
respectively. In addition to these sensitive receptors, a discrete receptor which is baseline
monitoring site A1 at the project boundary is selected. Tabulated below are the UTM
coordinates of the receptors;
Receptor X-coordinate Y-coordinate Direction

(m) (m)
Project boundary, A1 655768.56 598623.23 -
Cycling Park, A2 655629.74 598754.98 W
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 655840.82 599320.62 N
Pangsa PPR Ampang Jejar, A4 655707.27 598506.37 S
Taman Cermai, A5 656187.22 598614.98 E
7.7.10 Model Output
The following statistics are generated:
Summaries of highest values by receptor including the list of discrete receptors for each
pollutant and averaging period for all emission sources combined.
In this assessment, the maximum incremental concentration for the period is computed. This
means that for the 1-hour or 24-hour average concentration, the maximum 1-hour or 24-hour
average concentration is the highest computed 1-hour or 24-hour average concentration
over the entire meteorological data period.
65
In the case of the long-term average or the seasonal average concentration, the computed
average concentration is the average of all the hourly concentration over the entire
meteorological data period.
7.7.11 Source Information
Air emission from activities of the integrated waste management centre are treated by a
scrubber system before being released into the atmosphere. Source information of the
scrubber system is provided by the project proponent. Listed below are the source
information and parameters used in the modelling exercise;
i). Stack height : 15.0 m

ii). Stack diameter : 1.2 m
iii). Exit velocity : 14.6 m/s
iv). Exit temperature : 303 K
v). Flow volume : 16.52 m3/s
vi). X UTM-coordinate : 655799
vii). Y UTM-coordinate : 598786
7.7.12 Emissions
Potential gaseous pollutants emitted and its emission data are provided by the project
proponent. Potential air pollutants form this waste treatment centre are ammonia, hydrogen
sulphide, trimethylamine and methyl mercaptan. Two emission rate scenarios are assessed.
The first is Without control measures scenario is based on the emission concentration of the
air pollutant of the flue gas at the inlet of the scrubber system and flow volume of the flue gas
in Nm3/s and the second scenario, with control measures scenario is based on the removal
efficiency of the scrubber system which is estimated to be 90%.
The potential air pollutants emitted from activities and treatment processes of this waste
processing centre and its emission concentration at the inlet of the scrubber system as
provided by the proponent are tabulated below;
Air Pollutant Emission Concentration

ppm (mg/m3)
Ammonia 100 69.5
66
Hydrogen sulphide 100 139.1

Trimethylamine 5 12.1
Methyl mercaptan 10 19.63
i). Emission rate of air pollutants without control measures is computed as shown
below;
Air Pollutant Flow Volume Emission Emission Rate

(mg/m30 concentration (g/s)
(mg/m3)
Ammonia 16.52 69.5 1.148
Hydrogen sulphide 16.52 139.1 2.298
Trimethylamine 16.52 12.1 0.200
Methyl mercaptan 16.32 19.63 0.324
ii). Emission rate of air pollutants with control measures is computed as shown below;
Air Pollutant Emission Rate Removal Efficiency Emission Rate

Without Control (%) (g/s)
Measures (g/s)
Ammonia 1.148 90 0.115
Hydrogen sulphide 2.298 90 0.230
Trimethylamine 0.200 90 0.020
Methyl mercaptan 0.324 90 0.032
7.7.13 Results and Assessment
As mentioned above, potential air pollutants emitted by the Proposed Integrated Solid Waste
Management Centre are ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), trimethylamine and
methyl mercaptan. Two emission rate scenarios i) when there are control measures and ii) a
worst case scenario when air pollution control measures fail are modelled and assessed
against the Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guideline (AAAQG) limits as there no standards for
these gases in the Malaysian Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS). The AAAQG limits
for NH3, H2S, trimethylamine and methyl mercaptan are tabulated below;
67
Pollutant Unit 1-hour average 24-hour average

Ammonia ug/m3 230 140
Hydrogen sulphide ug/m3 180 110
Trimethylamine ug/m3 NA NA
Methyl mercaptan ug/m3 30 7.9
NA : Not available and no exposure limit.
7.7.13.1 Ammonia
For the with control measures scenario, predicted maximum 1-hour average NH3 incremental
concentrations as shown in Figure 7 .28 are between 1 ug/m3 at approximately 3 km in all
direction and 6 ug/m3 near the project centre. This is below the AAAQG limit of 230 ug/m3. In
the case of the maximum 24-hour average, predicted incremental concentrations as shown in
Figure 7 .29 are between 0,2 ug/m3 and 2.0 ug/m3. This is also below the AAAQG limit of
140 ug/m3.
For the without control measures scenario, predicted maximum 1-hour and 24-hour average
NH3 incremental concentrations although higher remain below the AAAQG limits of 230 ug/m3
for the 1-hour average and 140 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average. The contours of the predicted
maximum 1-hour and 24-hour average NH3 incremental concentration are shown in Figure 7
.30 and Figure 7 .31 respectively.
Tabulated below are the NH3 concentrations in ug/m3 at the selected sensitive and discrete
receptors with the AAAQG limits for comparison for the with and without control measures
scenario;
i) With Control Measures
Sensitive/discrete Existing Incremental conc. Ambient air conc.

receptor baseline 1-hr 24-hr 1-hr 24-hr
conc. average average average average
Project boundary, N.D. (<1.0) 6.7 2.5 7.7 3.5
A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 6.3 1.6 7.3 2.6
68
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 5.3 0.9 6.3 1.9

Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 6.8 1.1 7.8 2.1
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 6.3 1.4 7.3 2.4
AAAQG for NH3 230 140
ii) Without Control Measures

A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 63.2 16.1 64.2 17.1
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 53.2 9.4 54.2 10.4
Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 68.1 11.4 69.1 12.4
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 62.6 13.9 63.6 14.9
AAAQG for NH3 230 140
69
Figure 7.28: Maximum 1-Hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m3) With
Control Measures
70
Figure 7.29: Maximum 24-hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m3) With
Control Measures
71
Figure 7.30: Maximum 1-hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m3) Without
Control Measures
72
Figure 7.31: Maximum 24-hour Average NH3 Incremental Concentration (ug/m3)

Without Control Measures
73
7.7.13.2 Hydrogen Sulfide
In municipal solid or liquid wastes, H2S is expected to be generated and emitted in moderate
amounts as fugitive emissions. However, in this waste management centre, H2S is collected
and treated by a scrubber system before being released. Under this condition, predicted
maximum 1-hour average and 24-hour average H2S incremental concentrations as shown in
Figure 7 .32 and Figure 7 .33 respectively are between 2 ug/m3 and 12 ug/m3 for the 1-
hour average and between 0.3 ug/m3 and 4.0 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average. These
predicted concentrations when compared with the AAAQG limits of 180 ug/m3 and 110
ug/m3 for the 1-hour and.24-hour average respectively are below the stipulated AAAQG
limits.
When control measures fail, predicted maximum 1-hour average and 24-hour average H2S
incremental concentrations as shown in Figure 7 .34 and Figure 7 .35 respectively are
between 20 ug/m3 at approximately 3 km in all directions and 120 ug/m3 near the project
site for the 1-hour average and between 3 ug/m3 and 40 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average.
These predicted concentrations although higher remain below the stipulated AAAQG limits.
H2S concentration in ug/m3 at the sensitive and discrete receptors with the AAAQG limits for
comparison are tabulated below for the with and without control measures scenarios;

A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 12.7 3.2 13.7 4.2
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 10.7 1.9 11.7 2.9
Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 13.7 2.3 14.7 3.3
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 12.5 2.8 13.5 3.8
AAAQG for H2S 180 110
74

A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 126.5 32.2 127.5 33.2
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 106.6 18.8 107.6 19.8
Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 136.4 22.9 137.4 23.9
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 125.3 27.8 126.3 28.8
AAAQG for H2S 180 110
75
Figure 7.32: Maximum 1-hour Average H2S Incremental Concentration (ug/m3)
With Control Measures
76
With Control Measures
77
Figure 7.34: Maximum 1–Hour Average H2S Incremental Concentration (ug/m3)

without Control Measures
78

without Control Measures
79
7.7.13.3 Trimethylamine
Only trace amounts of trimethylamine is expected in the gases that’s being emitted from
waste treatment. As expected when there are control measures to remove this gas,
predicted maximum 1-hour average and 24-hour average methylamine incremental
concentrations as shown in Figure 7 .36 and Figure 7 .37 respectively are mainly below
1.5 ug/m3 for the 1-hour average and below 0.5 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average.
For the case of without control measures, predicted maximum 1-hour average and 24-hour
average methylamine incremental concentrations as shown in Figure 7 .38 and Figure
7 .39 respectively are obviously higher and between 2 ug/m3 and 12 ug/m3 for the 1-hour
average and between 0.3 ug/m3 and 3.0 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average.
Trimethylamine except being is a highly flammable gas and a fire hazard is not stipulated in
neither the MAAQS nor AAAQG limits and it is assumed that this pollutant which is released
in trace amounts is considered harmless.
.
Trimethylamine concentration in ug/m3 at the sensitive and discrete are tabulated below for
the with and without control measures scenarios;

A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 1.1 0.3 2.1 1.3
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 0.9 0.2 1.9 1.2
Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 1.2 0.2 2.2 1.2
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 1.1 0.2 2.1 1.2
80

A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 11.0 2.8 12.0 3.8
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 9.3 1.6 10.3 2.6
Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 11.9 2.0 12.9 3.0
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 10.9 2.4 11.9 3.4
81
Figure 7.36: Maximum 1-hour Average Trimethylamine Incremental Concentration

(ug/m3) With Control Measures
82

83
Figure 7.38: Maximum 1–Hour Average Trimethylamine Incremental Concentration

(ug/m3) without Control Measures
84

85
7.7.13.4 Methyl Mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan is among the various volatile organic compounds (VOC) released when
municipal solid waste (MSW) is disposed especially in landfills and in this case, when MSW
is decomposed before disposal. Modelling of emissions of this VOC was conducted for two
scenarios, with and without control measures. When there are control measures, predicted
maximum 1-hour average and 24-hour average methylamine incremental concentrations as
shown in Figure 7 .40 and Figure 7 .41 respectively are between 0.2 ug/m3 and 1.5
ug/m3 for the 1-hour average and less than 1.0 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average. Assessing
these predicted concentrations with the stipulated AAAQG limits of 30 ug/m3 and 7.9 ug/m3
for the 1-hour and 24-hour average respectively, predicted 1-hour and 24-hour average
concentrations are below the AAAQG limits.
In instances when there are no control measures, predicted maximum 1-hour average and
24-hour average methylamine incremental concentrations as shown in Figure 7 .42 and
Figure 7 .43 respectively are obviously higher and are between 3 ug/m3 and 20 ug/m3 for
the 1-hour average and between 0.3 ug/m3 and 6.0 ug/m3 for the 24-hour average. These
predicted methyl mercaptan concentrations although higher are just below the AAAQG
limits.
Methyl mercaptan concentration in ug/m3 at the sensitive and discrete receptors with the
AAAQG limits for comparison are tabulated below for the with and without control measures
scenarios;

receptor baseline conc. 1-hr 24-hr 1-hr 24-hr
average average average average
A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 1.8 0.4 2.8 1.4
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 1.5 0.3 2.5 1.3
Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 1.9 0.3 2.9 1.3
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 1.7 0.4 2.7 1.4
86
AAAQG for Methyl Mercaptan 30 7.9

receptor baseline conc. 1-hr 24-hr 1-hr 24-hr
A1
Cycling Park, A2 N.D. (<1.0) 17.8 4.5 18.8 5.5
Kg Sama Gagah, A3 N.D. (<1.0) 15.0 2.7 16.0 3.7
Pangsa PPR N.D. (<1.0) 19.2 3.2 20.2 4.2
Ampang Jejar, A4
Taman Cermai, A5 N.D. (<1.0) 17.7 3.9 18.7 4.9
AAAQG for Methyl Mercaptan 30 7.9
87

88

89
Figure 7.42: Maximum 1–Hour Average Methyl Mercaptan Incremental Concentration

90

91
7.7.13.5 Methane
Methane (CH4) is produced when organic waste decomposes in an oxygen-free (anaerobic)

environment, such as a landfill. Methane is also emitted when natural gas is released to the
atmosphere during production of coal or oil, during production or use of natural gas, and
from agricultural activities.
At this Integrate Waste Management Centre, the amount of methane emitted is not expected
to be large or significant as the methane is captured and combusted for energy recovery.
(i.e., electricity production). Most of the captured methane is converted to carbon dioxide
(CO2), which is not counted as a greenhouse gas (GHG) because it is biogenic. With
combustion of methane for energy recovery, credit is given for the electric utility GHG
emissions avoided.
Other than the negative impact of being a GHG and its explosive nature, methane is a
relatively non-reactive gas, it is the least reactive hydrocarbon (Butler, 1979). As regards its
impact on health, there are no threshold limits. Methane under the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygiensts (ACGIH, 1996) classification is a simple asphyxiant. A
simple asphyxiant is a gas when present in high concentrations, act primarily as simple
asphyxiant without significant physiological effects. A threshold limit value (TLV) is not
recommended because the limiting factor is the available oxygen in air.
7.7.14 Conclusions
Potential air pollutants emitted from this proposed Integrated Waste Management Centre
and assessed are ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), trimethylamine and methyl
mercaptan. Assessment was based on two emission scenarios, with control measures and
without control measures scenario. When there are control measures, predicted ambient air
concentrations of these air pollutants are within the Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guidelines
(AAAQG) limits. In instances when there are no control measures, predicted ambient air
concentrations of these air pollutants although higher, remain below their respective AAAQG
limits. However, control measures are recommended as these air pollutants such as H2S
and methyl mercaptans have low odour threshold.
92
7.8 ODOUR QUALITY

7.8.1 Odorous Gases
In this Integrated Waste Treatment Centre, emitted gases are Ammonia (NH3),
Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), Trimethylamine and Methyl Mercaptan which are also
potentially odorous gases. This section uses the predicted concentrations of these
four gases to estimate odour impacts in the surrounding areas.
7.8.2 Sensitive and Discrete Receptors
The same set of sensitive and discrete receptors as in the air quality modelling
assessment is selected. UTM coordinates of these sensitive and discrete receptors
are listed in the table shown below;
Receptor X-coordinate Y-coordinate Direction

(m) (m)
Project boundary, O1 655768.56 598623.23 -
Cycling Park, O2 655629.74 598754.98 W
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 655840.82 599320.62 N
Pangsa PPR Ampang Jejar, O4 655707.27 598506.37 S
Taman Cermai, O5 656187.22 598614.98 E
7.8.3 Odour Assessment
In this EIA, odour assessment is based on the predicted concentrations of odorous gases at
the sensitive receptors and the odour threshold of the gas. The odour threshold of NH3,
H2S, trimethylamine and methyl mercaptan is shown below;
Gas Odour Threshold Reference

(ug/m3)
NH3 28 US Occupational Safety and Health Association

(OSHA)
(0.04 ppm)
93
H2S 2.0 World Health Organization (WHO, 2002)
Trimethylamine 4.9 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/

trimethylamine
Methyl mersaptan 2.5 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/

methyl mercaptan
With predicted concentrations of NH3, H2S, trimethylamine and methyl mercaptan above
these threshold levels, odour from these gases will be detected at the sensitive receptors.
Tabulated below are the predicted concentrations of NH3, H2S, trimethylamine and methyl
mercaptan at the sensitive and discrete receptors with the potential odour levels due to
these gases based on the odour threshold level of these gases.
7.8.3.1 Ammonia
Odour from NH3 with odour threshold of 28 ug/m3 = 1.0 odour unit (OU)
Sensitive/discrete Incremental conc. Odour (OU)

receptor (u/m3)
1-hr 24-hr Existing 1-hr 24-hr
Project boundary, O1 6.7 2.5 15.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cycling Park, O2 6.3 1.6 11.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 5.3 0.9 3.9 <1.0 <1.0
Pangsa PPR Ampang Jejar, O4 6.8 1.1 6.4 <1.0 <1.0
Taman Cermai, O5 6.3 1.4 3.9 <1.0 <1.0
2013 DOE Odour Guideline 7 7 7

receptor (u/m3)
94

Project boundary, O1 67.3 25.3 15.0 2.4 0.9
Cycling Park, O2 63.2 16.1 11.0 2.3 0.6
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 53.2 9.4 3.9 1.9 0.3
Pangsa PPR Ampang Jejar, O4 68.1 11.4 6.4 2.4 0.4
Taman Cermai, O5 62.6 13.9 3.9 2.2 0.5
When there are control measures for NH3, odour due to NH3 is not detectable as the
odour level is below 1 OU. However, when there are no control measures for NH3,
odour due to NH3 is detectable but deemed not a nuisance as the level is below the
DOE acceptable level of 7 OU.
7.8.3.2 Hydrogen Sulphide
Odour from H2S with odour threshold of 2.0 ug/m3 = 1.0 OU

receptor (u/m3)
Cycling Park, O2 12.7 3.2 11.0 6.4 1.6
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 10.7 1.9 3.9 5.4 1.0
Taman Cermai, O5 12.5 2.8 3.9 6.3 1.4
95

receptor 1-hr 24-hr Existing 1-hr 24-hr
Cycling Park, O2 126.5 32.2 11.0 63.3 16.1
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 106.6 18.8 3.9 53.3 9.4
Taman Cermai, O5 125.3 27.8 3.9 62.7 13.9
When there are control measures for H2S, odour due to H2S is detectable but
deemed not a nuisance as the level is below the DOE acceptable level of 7 OU.
However, when there are no control measures for H2S, odour due to H2S is
detectable and is a nuisance and offensive as the level is well above the DOE
acceptable level of 7 OU.
7.8.3.3 Trimethylamine
Odour from trimethylamine with odour threshold of 4.9 ug/m3 = 1.0 OU

receptor (u/m3)
Cycling Park, O2 1.1 0.3 11.0 <1.0 <1.0
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 0.9 0.2 3.9 <1.0 <1.0
96
Taman Cermai, O5 1.1 0.2 3.9 <1.0 <1.0


receptor (u/m3)
Cycling Park, O2 11.0 2.8 11.0 2.2 0.6
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 9.3 1.6 3.9 1.9 0.3
Taman Cermai, O5 10.9 2.4 3.9 2.2 0.5
When there are control measures for trimethylamine, odour due to this gas is not
detectable as the odour level is below 1 OU. However, when there are no control
measures for trimethylamine, odour due to this gas is detectable but deemed not a
nuisance as the level is below the DOE acceptable level of 7 OU.
7.8.3.4 Methyl Mercaptan
Odour from methyl mercaptan with odour threshold of 2.5 ug/m3 = 1.0 OU

receptor (u/m3)
97
Cycling Park, O2 1.8 0.4 11.0 <1.0 <1.0

Kg Sama Gagah, O3 1.5 0.3 3.9 <1.0 <1.0
Taman Cermai, O5 1.7 0.4 3.9 <1.0 <1.0

receptor (u/m3)
Cycling Park, O2 17.8 4.5 11.0 7.1 1.8
Kg Sama Gagah, O3 15.0 2.7 3.9 6.0 1.1
Taman Cermai, O5 17.7 3.9 3.9 7.1 1.6
When there are control measures for methyl mercaptan, odour due to this gas is not
detectable as the odour level is below 1 OU. However, when there are no control
measures for methyl mercaptan, odour due to this gas is detectable and a nuisance
as the level is slightly above the DOE acceptable level of 7 OU.
7.8.4 Conclusion
NH3, H2S, trimethylamine and methyl mercaptan which are emitted by this integrated waste
management centre are odorous gases. When there are control measures for these gases,
odour due to NH3, trimethylamine and methyl mercaptan is not detectable and although
odour due to H2S is detectable, it is deemed not a nuisance. However, when there are no
control measures, odour due to NH3 and trimethylamine is detectable but considered not a
nuisance except for H2S and methyl mercaptan. Odour due to H2S and methyl mercaptan
when there are no control measures is a nuisance especially with regard to H2S.
98
7.9 NOISE QUALITY
Noise is generated during the machinery setting up (construction) and operational phases.
The magnitude, duration and frequency of noise will vary according to the type of activities
that will be carried out, equipment used and background noise levels.
7.9.1 Noise from Construction Equipment and Traffic Movement
During the construction phase, the actual noise level is expected to be much lower than the
predicted typical level as not all equipment will operate simultaneously. The equipment will
not remain stationary as well, more likely dispersed over a distance. The noise level may be
lower depending on the equipment location. Incorporation of mitigations such as Project site
boundary and maintenance of natural vegetation buffer will result in lowering of noise level to
the sensitive receptors.
During the construction stage of the proposed Project infrastructures, the impact on ambient
noise level is anticipated to be insignificant. Noise pollution is only anticipated during the
construction stage from the operation of construction equipment and machinery.
At the time of the EIA study, mobilisation details on the construction equipment and
machinery that are to be employed on site was not made available. Assessment is therefore
to be conducted based on typical construction machinery and vehicular trucks, and their
respective noise levels are summarised in Table 7.15.
Table 7.15: Typical Noise Level from Construction Equipment

Typical Noise Level, LAeq, at 15 m
Equipment
in dB(A)
Dump truck 88
Portable air compressors 81
Concrete mixer (truck) 85
Jackhammer 88
Dozer 87
Paver 89
Generator 76
Pile driver 101
Pneumatic tools 85
Backhoe 85
Mobile crane 77
Tractors 73
99
Typical Noise Level, LAeq, at 15 m

Equipment
in dB(A)
Pump 76
Source: May, D.N., 1978; Noise and Vibration, 2006.
Note: The noise levels presented are without noise reduction mechanisms.
Table 7.16 provides the DOE Maximum Permissible Noise Level (Percentile LN and LMAX)
for construction, maintenance and demolition work by receiving landuse.
The existing land use of the area are mainly residential, institutional and commercial, with
the nearest significant receptor within the 250 m radius being existing residential area which
are Rumah Pangsa Ampang and Taman Bandar Ampang Jajar Seri Zamrud. The future
receiving land use for the development will also be residential and commercial. Noise levels
within this impact zone are expected to be more than 60 dB(A).
Within a 3-km radius, barriers and obstacles will definitely attenuate noise to accepted level
as distance increases.
100
Table 7.16: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (Percentile LN and LMAX) of

Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work by Receiving Land Use
It may be noted from Table 7.15 throughout the construction period, the estimated highest
noise level is expected during the earthworks and macadam pavement paving activities,
where noise sources from trucks, dozers, backhoes, tractors, and pavers, with paver noise
at highest noise level of 89 dBA. Hence, the worst case scenario for the construction
machinery noise is when paver is used to pave the road (binding course and wearing
course) along the entire road surface.
Projected noise levels at the ambient environment at ground level during construction phase
shall be computed based on Annex A of the Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and
Control, 2021 Reprint (3rd Edition) for sound level reduction with distance under idealized
condition for computing sound propagation and calculation for noise attenuation (reduction)
for a receptor for different distances for a point source, referring to examples in Figure A-1
101
for point source of single vehicle/plant (during construction phase), and Figure A-2 for line
source (during road operation) for moving vehicle.
The results of the noise levels for construction phase (using paver as single source) and
operation phase (using truck as line source) are depicted to be less than 60 dBA at the
boundary of the Project, and unlikely to cause any significant impact to the surrounding
establishments respectively Rumah Pangsa Ampang Jajar (on the south) and Taman
Bandar Ampang Jajar (on the west).
7.9.2 Operational Phase
The major noise sources from the operation of the project are mainly contributed by long
term steady continuous noise emission principally from the air pollution control system
(APCS) proposed for the project. Among the major noise sources (21 locations) identified
with sound pressure levels above 80dBA from the plant are as below:-
 Material recovery facilities (MRF) trommel screens for sorting lines (4 locations)
 Fan system at odour pollution control system (1 location)
 Sludge pumping station (1 location)
 AD pond pumping station (1 location)
 Leachate transfer pump (1 location)
 C&D waste crusher (1 location)
 Green waste crusher (1 location)
While the operation of the crusher(s) will be on intermittent basis as and when wastes are
tipped at the receiving stock pile areas, and will not operate when no delivery of incoming
wastes. Crushing activities will be conducted during day time only.
In terms of the wastes sorting and biogas production activities, operation will be on full
designed capacity during day while at night, the plant will operate at lower capacity mainly
with aims to prevent accumulation of wastes stored at receiving storage areas.
7.9.2.1 Review of Operational Noise Permissible Level
102
The permissible noise levels for the operation of the project was referred to Schedule 1 of
Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control, 2021 (Reprint). Schedule 1
prescribes the maximum permissible sound level (LAeq) by receiving land use for planning
purposes and new development. These are deemed desirable limits to be used for new
development in the undeveloped areas. In reference to Schedule 1 limits, the permissible
noise level at the boundary of the Project site is of 70dBA during day and 65 dBA during
night.
While for the receptor since, Schedule 2 which recommended permissible sound level
(LAeq) at receptor location in the context of existing developed area will be referred. The
permissible reference level at the suburban residential area is proposed at 65dBA during day
and 60dBA during night.
Review of existing baseline ambient noise level against the respective Schedule 1 and
Schedule 2 of Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control 2019 recommended
that a reference limits of 70dBA and 65dBA to be maintained within the project boundary.
While the reference limits at the receptor site is 65dBA for day and 60dBA for night as
proposed in Schedule 2 for suburban residential area. Refer table below.
Monitoring point Baseline Level, LAeq Permissible level, dBA

Day Night
Project site boundary 63.4 61.4 Schedule 2 ~ utilities
LAeq day = 75 dBA
Laeq night = 75 dBA
Cycling Park, Ampang 57.9 54.8 Schedule 2 ~ urban
Jajar residential
LAeq day = 70 dBA
Laeq night = 65 dBA
Nearest house to the 57.7 54.3 Schedule 2 ~ suburban
north (Kg Sama residential
Gagah) LAeq day = 65 dBA
Laeq night = 60 dBA
south (Pangsa PPR, residential
Ampang Jaya) LAeq day = 65 dBA
Laeq night = 60 dBA
east (Taman Cermai) residential
LAeq day = 65 dBA
Laeq night = 60 dBA
103
7.9.2.2 Methodology of Assessment
In the assessment of noise, a common statistical descriptor is LAeq. LAeq is the constant,
average noise level, which over a period of time, contains the same amount of energy as the
varying levels of the background or machinery noise.
Assessment of noise is conducted in reference to standard inverse square law which rules
that every doubling of the distance from the sound source in a free field condition, the sound
intensity will diminish by 6dB. The intensity of the sound is inversely proportional to the
square of the distance of the wavefront from the signal source. Based on this law, given the
sound power level of the equipment source, at a distance of ‘r’ meters, the sound pressure
level could be calculated based on the following basic sound propagation equation:
Equation 1
SPL = SWLpoint – 20 Log (r) – 11 dB + DI

Where
SPL = Sound Pressure Level, dB

SWL = Sound Power Level of the source, dB
r = Distance between source and receiver in meter

DI = Directivity Index (DI) = 10Log10Q
Q = Directivity Factor (refer DI vs Q table below)
Directivity Directivity
Source Location
Factor, Q Index, DI
No surface near sound source; able to
radiate acoustic energy in all directions; full 1 0
sphere
Sound source close to a flat surface; able to
radiate acoustical energy to half of a sphere 2 3
(hemispherical)
Close to two adjacent flat surfaces
perpendicular to each other, able to radiate 4 6
to one fourth of a sphere
At a corner; able to radiate acoustical energy
8 9
to one eight of a sphere
104
Equation 2
To combine multiple sources (equipment mix) into a total equivalent sound level, the
following algorithms is adopted:
Ltotal = 10 x log10 ∑[ 10(LN / 10)] (dB)
Where,
Ltotal = the total equivalent noise level for combination of several
noise sources;
N = the number of different types of equipment; and
LN = the equivalent noise level for equipment type.
Equation 3
For outdoor sound propagation, given the equivalent sound pressure level from at a point,
noise at specific distances from the point is calculated using the formula for distance
attenuation taken into consideration of additional loss as below:
Lp2 = Lp1 – 20 Log r2 / r1 – Ae
Where
Lp1 = the measured sound pressure level at r1 from the source (dB).
Lp2 = the calculated sound pressure level at r2, m distance from the source.
r1, r2 = distance from source to measurement Lp1 and Lp2, respectively
Ae = attenuation for the distance r1 - r2, dB
Ae is additional losses due to additional attenuation factor including atmospheric absorption,

ground effects and other miscellaneous loss as well as barrier shielding effects.
Noise assessment for this study is conducted using noise model MASdBMap Version 0.5.
The basis of the model is linear sound propagation equation to simulate point emission
sources from industries or stationary sources to a specific distance. The model uses
numerical algorithms of inverse square law to estimate dispersion of noise. Given the sound
power of a point source or the total equivalent sound level from multiple sources, noise at
specific distance from the sources are calculated using mathematical algorithms as
presented in Equation 1, Equation 2 and Equation 3 above. The model adopts ISO 9613-2
standards for attenuation and absorption effects. The model calculates the noise level in
each point of space considering each source. The simulated noise could be presented in
grid format and noise contour.
105
Based on the noise contour simulated for the Project, cumulative ambient noise level taken
into consideration of background/ baseline noise and the Project incremental noise will be
computed using the same algorithms as presented in Equation 2 above.
7.9.3 Operational Noise Sources
A review on the equipment list for the proposed project indicated that noise is mainly
contributed by the power driving and rotating parts fitted to the MRF sorting lines, fan and
motor of the odour pollution control system, pumping systems and crushers of waste
materials for proposed for the project. The most significant noise sources from the
production process is from crushing activities of C&D waste and green waste.
Noise emission sources and the corresponding sound pressure level from the proposed solid
wastes recovery plant is listed in Table 7.1 below.
106
Table 7.1: Sound Data of the Main Noise Significant Parts from the Proposed Wastes Management Plant
No Project Component Noise sources Source Marking in Model
SPL SWL Noise
Point
1 Material Recovery Facilities Primary Trommel Screen 1 82 93 NP1
2 Material Recovery Facilities Primary Trommel Screen 2 82 93 NP2
3 Material Recovery Facilities Secondary Trommel Screen 1 82 93 NP3
4 Material Recovery Facilities Secondary Trommel Screen 2 82 93 NP4
5 Odour Pollution Control System Centrifugal Air Pump at Air Flow Transfer System 88 99 NP5
6 Sludge Pumping Station Pump and Motor 88 99 NP6
7 Anaerobic Digestion Pond Pumping Pump and Motor 88 99 NP7
Station
8 Leachate Transfer Pump Pump and Motor 88 99 NP8
9 C&D Waste Crusher Crushing Activity 102 113 NP9
10 Green Waste Crusher Crushing Activity 102 113 NP10
Source: Sound pressure level provided by the Project Proponent
107
7.9.4 Noise Modelling
(i) Model Input Data and Assumption
For the assessment of operation noise from the project, noise sources with sound power
level (SWL) as presented in Table 7.1 are adopted for modeling input. Noise contour
simulation was conducted for project boundary and to the regional level at the receptor sites.
The following assumptions were made in this modelling exercise:
 All the sources are predicted to be in full operation simultaneously thus the
simulation will be based on the worst-case scenario
 Sound attenuation taken into meteorological consideration of average 28ºC with
80% humidity and hard ground surface
 The model considers noise dispersion in free path without consideration of
diffraction and reflection interference between the source and receptor
 With control measures, a noise reduction of 15dB is will be achieved for the
centrifugal fan pump upon acoustic treatment with steel jacket and rubber
insulation
 The height of the receptor is defined at 1.5m from the ground level
(ii) Modelling Scenario
Two models were performed, one to assess the operational noise propagation to the Project
boundary while the other is to assess the operational noise propagation to the nearest
receptor. Both of the models were simulated for scenario for without control measure (worst
case scenario).
iii) Modelling Result
Operational noise for the project was simulated for worst case scenario considering all the
noise emission sources are in operation simultaneously during day and night. Boundary
noise are predicted in range of 60.5dBA to 70.5dBA as presented in Error: Reference
source not found.
On the regional setting, project noise propagated to the nearest identified receptor at N1, N2,
N3, N4 and N5 are predicted at 62.5dBA, 61.2dBA, 50.5dBA, 56.2dBA and 56.7dBA for
worst case scenario. Project noise propagation to regional scale for worst case scenario is
108
presented in Error: Reference source not found.
The predicted project noise levels at the receptor sites N1, N2, N3 and N4 with cumulative
noise level and incremental for the worst case scenario are presented in Table 7.2 below.
Table 7.2: Predicted Project Noise Dispersed to the Identified Receptor (dBA)
Location Baseline Description Worst Case Ref
Level Limit*
Predicted Cumm’ Incre’
Day Time Scenario
N1 63.4 Project site boundary 62.5 64.8 1.4 75
N2 57.9 Cycling Park, Ampang Jajar 61.2 62.1 4.2 70
N3 57.7 Nearest house to the north (Kg 50.5 57.9 0.2 65
Sama Gagah)
N4 56.7 Nearest house to the south 56.2 57.7 1.0 65
(Pangsa PPR, Ampang Jaya)
N5 59.7 Nearest house to the east (Taman 56.7 60.0 0.3 65
Cermai)
Night Time Scenario
N1 61.4 Project site boundary 62.5 63.3 1.9 75
N2 54.8 Cycling Park, Ampang Jajar 61.2 61.5 6.7 70
N3 54.3 Nearest house to the north (Kg 50.5 54.9 0.6 65
Sama Gagah)
N4 54.5 Nearest house to the south 56.2 57.8 3.3 65
(Pangsa PPR, Ampang Jaya)
N5 48.5 Nearest house to the east (Taman 56.7 57.5 9.0 65
Cermai)
7.9.5 Evaluation of Impact
The finding of the assessments indicated that with the operation of the project, cumulative
noise at the project boundary is far less than 75dBA for day time and 75dBA for night time,
and cumulative noise at identified nearest receptors (N2, N3, N4 and N5) are well within the
proposed day and night noise reference limits for worst case scenario.
For the worst case scenario, the project is expected to cause an incremental noise of less
than 1.0dB during day and 3.3 during night at nearest sensitive receptor (N3). The predicted
incremental are considerably low and is anticipated with minimum noise impact at the project
boundary.
At N2 receptor site, daytime and night time incremental is predicted at less than 4.2dB for
109
worst case scenario. However, night time incremental is estimated at 6.7dB for worst case
scenario.
Overall, the operation of the proposed project is anticipated with minor increase of localised
noise at the boundary of project site and negligible impact is predicted at the nearest
receptors.
110
Figure 7.44: Project Boundary Noise for the Worst Case Scenario
111
Figure 7.45: Project Noise to Regional Receptors for Worst Case Scenario
112
7.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT

7.9.6 Operational Phase
Generally, the source of potential solid waste generation from operation of the Project will be
domestic waste generation from the admin building and workers on-site. The domestic waste
will be collected by the local authority and disposal at the designated dumpsite.
Other types of waste potentially from the operation of facility will be the residual waste
results from the sorting and recovery processes in the form of rejects such as SW 104 and
SW 422 will be sent to schedule waste recovery facilities licensed by DOE, while plastics
and papers will be sent to recycling facilities operated by other operators.
The Project is expected to generate some amount of residual waste during operational
stage. These residues when not adequately stored and barely contact with rainwater will
cause severe environmental pollution. Thus, having a proper residue storage area to prevent
any spillage is of paramount importance. These wastes will be stored on-site at the
designated area prior to sending to Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd (KA) or any other prescribed
recovery premise for disposal.
The facility machinery and equipment also will be subjected to on-site maintenance. The
waste oil will be collected, stored in proper containers, sealed and labeled before disposal off
by DOE licensed contractors.
By implementation of a proper solid waste management plan, the impact from solid waste
will be greatly reduced. The collection of solid wastes shall be done by local authority
(DBKL) licensed solid waste collector. Meanwhile, other wastes generated (SW 409, SW
410, SW 305, SW 306) from the screening process of raw materials will be sent to other
prescribed recovery premise for recovery and/or reuse.
7.10 TRAFFIC IMPACT
It is expected that traffic along the entrance of the Project site will slightly increase during
operation phase of the integrated solid waste recovery plant, mainly due to increase of
population, with a growth rate of 1.1% (based on 2018 statistics by Department of Statistics
Malaysia).
113
The road system that utilized by the trucks and fleet during the interim operation phase, and
full operation phase is via Jalan Butterworth – Permatang Pauh (P188), where the wastes
collected by trucks either from Seberang Perai Utara, Seberang Perai Tengah and Seberang
Perai Selatan will use this road to deliver wastes to the Project site. There is one traffic flow
monitoring station along the road, i.e. station PR107. The traffic growth rate at this road was
about 15.96% in year 2018, which is higher as compared to other locations within Seberang
Perai.
The traffic record for PR107 is shown in the figure below, where the traffic counting
registered 34,675 in 2018.
Figure 7.46: Annual Traffic Growth Rate for Year 2018
Further to this, the traffic volume, traffic composition and LOS (level of service) are
tabulated below based on traffic data overseen by Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR). It may be
noted the peak hour traffic volume was at 4,322 vehicles per hour (veh/hr), which 16-hour
traffic volume is at 34,675 numbers, with the LOS during peak hour at category F.
114
Figure 7.47: Traffic Volume & 16-Hour Traffic Composition and LOS
However, the traffic volume increase due to operation of the proposed solid wastes recovery
project is relatively small as compared to the existing vehicle volume. From Section 5.8, the
traffic volume during interim phase for ingress and egress traffic is estimated at 93 trucks per
day, which is very small as compared to 16-hour traffic volume, about 0.27% increase. While
during full operation phase, the estimated trucks entering and exiting the Project site are
estimated at 230 trucks, and shall increase the traffic volume by 0.66%. These impacts are
considered minimal. The impacts will be even less due to positive traffic growth at Jalan
Butterworth – Permatang Pauh, which shall further reduce the percentage of increase from
the Project site.
7.11 HAZARD STUDY
7.11.1 Hazards During Operation
The proposed waste sorting and recovery processes are inherently safe and should not pose
any serious threat to the environment and to the health and safety of workers and the
surrounding public.
Included in the sorting and recovery process are ways and means to deal with possible
process danger points and waste materials produced such as residues and solid particles.
Despite efforts to minimize and remove every possible source of negative impacts by
introducing and including in the Project mitigation measures, there is always an element of
risk due to hazard episodes caused by human carelessness and accidents. The hazards
115
envisaged from this Project are in:
(a) Handling;
(b) Transport;
(c) Fire;
(d) Health and Safety; and
(e) Sludge.
7.11.2 Handling Hazard
Handling of metal scraps within the Plant are includes all activities involved with loading and
unloading and transferring of metal scraps from storage areas to processing areas within the
Plant. Scheduled wastes are generally stored in skips, drums or jumbo bags. Their
movements will be facilitated by forklift. Due to careless handling of folklifts, accidents may
happen to cause drums, boxes (skips) or jumbo bags to be dropped and spillage of wastes
to occur.
The potential adverse impact is spillage due to handling accidents. A spillage episode, if not
quickly and effectively attended to, may cause health and safety hazards to workers in the
Plant. An accident may incur injury and even fatality to workers.
The metal scraps received by the Plant comprises only the solid form wastes. The metal
scarps will be harmful only when accidentally dropped or run into. However, this event is
unlikely to happen.
All equipment used in the sorting and recovery processes such as cutting machines, splitter
machines, crushers, conveyor belts, baling machine are low risk machines. In addition, all
controllers, electrical motors, pumps and switches in them are industrial usage quality and
hence safe.
7.11.3 Transport Hazard
Metal scraps will be collected and transported to the Plant for processing by experienced
logistic transporters. Finished products will be similarly delivered to customers. Scheduled
wastes and solid wastes generated will be transported to KA and municipal landfill site for
disposal, respectively by licensed contractor (DOE or DBKL).
Heavy vehicle transportation, therefore, forms an integral component of the Project's
116
activities. During this activity, there is a possibility of spillage of metal scraps at the collection
and destination points due to careless handling. In between, on the road, the possibility of
accidents caused by dangerous driving may discharge metals scraps onto the road. This is
eliminated by using containers trucks or lorries mounted with properly secured skip.
7.11.4 Fire Hazard
Smoking in the Plant should be prohibited and strictly enforced. These areas should be
adequately ventilated.
7.11.5 Health and Safety Hazard
The metal scraps in the Plant are potential sources of health and safety concern. Care
should be taken when handling this material is necessary. Although this material is not
poisonous or harmful, when brought into contact with soft tissues and organs, they may
cause serious injury and harm to humans.
7.11.6 Sludge Hazard
Since there is no effluent discharge from the processes, there will be no sludge produced
during the operation.
7.12 RISK ASSESSMENT

7.12.1 Purpose of the Quantitative Risk Assessment
The objectives of the QRA study are to identify and quantify the probability and
consequences of the possible accidents that may escalate from the proposed project to the
surrounding offsite areas; to calculate the level of risk; and to suggest measures to reduce
the level of risk if higher than the allowable level in compliance with DOE’s risk criteria
stipulated in the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Risk Assessment,
December 2004, EG 1/04. Complete QRA Report is included as Appendix 7.4.
7.12.2 Site Sensitive Receptors
As QRA focuses on the individual risk due to possible outcome of loss of containment, the
sensitive receptors of interest are existing sensitive settlements near the Project site is
located within 5km distance from the proposed project.
117
Below list shows the sensitive receptors surrounding the Project site:
 Rumah Pangsa Ampang Jajar

• Taman Bandar Ampang Jajar
• Pangsapuri Ampang Jajar
• Taman Ampang Jajar 2
• Taman Seri Arowana
• Taman Cermai
• Kg Sama Gagah
• SMK Sama Gagah
• Guang De Gong Temple
• Maha Sri Sangadahara Ganapathi Temple
• Masjid Jamek Sama Gagah
7.12.3 QRA Methodology
The main stages of the QRA study are as follows:

 Stage 1- Hazard Identification: Identification of initiating release events and major
hazards that require further evaluation;
 Stage 2- Frequency Analysis: Determination of the frequency of initiating events and
the frequency of hazardous event outcomes;
 Stage 3- Consequence Analysis: Determination of the consequences of hazardous
events;
 Stage 4- Event Tree Analysis: Representation of how the initiating event may
develop and the resulting likelihood of the hazardous outcome;
 Stage 5- Risk Summation: Calculation and evaluation of individual risk level and as
well as comparison against the risk criteria established for the study; and
 Stage 6- Risk Mitigation: Recommendation of risk mitigation measures, as required.
7.12.4 Consequence Analysis

7.12.4.1 Hazard Zones
The following hazard zones have been analyzed via consequence modeling. The criteria for
each hazard zone are as follows:
118
Table 7.17: Hazard Zones Criteria
Hazard Criteria
37.5 kW/m2 – This radiation level may result in up to 100%

fatalities in the total population exposed and cause significant
damage to process equipment.
12.5 kW/m2 – This radiation level may cause serious injuries to

the total population exposed and cause damage to process
Thermal
equipment. For the purpose of conservatism, this QRA model
radiation (Fire)
assumed this radiation level may result up to 50% fatalities in
[5]
the total population exposed.
4 kW/m2 – This radiation level does not result if fatalities.

However, for the purpose of conservatism, this QRA model has
assumed that this radiation level may result in up to 3%
fatalities in the total population exposed, but below which no
injuries or damage would be expected.
0.21 bar – Heavy machines (3000 lb) in industrial building
suffered little damage, steel frame building distorted and pulled
away from foundations
0.14 bar – Partial collapse of walls and roofs of houses
Overpressure (Explosion) [6] 0.021 bar – Safe distance (probability 0.95 no serious damage
beyond this value); projectile limits, some damage to house
ceilings; 10% window glass broken
7.12.4.2 Models Used
Software package EFFECTS by Gexcon has been used for the calculation of consequence
effects for all events. Consequence analysis was carried out for identified outcome events,
including release rates, characterizing flames and thermal radiation ranges and estimate
dispersion distances.
Events
The consequence modelling is performed on a conservative basis to ensure risk are not
119
underestimated. For example, the maximum inventories of hazardous substances in

vessels, are used together with worst case process conditions, and releases are modelled
based on initial maximum (rather than average) release rates; no account taken of site
drainage/ emergency spill containment systems to limit the spread of liquid releases etc,
using published computer models that are inherently conservative.
Jet Fire
In the event of a continuous pressurized release of either gas or liquid or two-phase fluid, a
jet of fluid will form. A jet or spray fire is a turbulent diffusion flame resulting from the
combustion of a fuel continuously released with some significant momentum in a particular
direction or directions. Jet fires can arise from releases of gaseous, flashing liquid (two
phase) and pure liquid inventories.
The primary concern for jet fires is that of engulfment and high thermal radiation flux.
Normally jet fires should be distinguished as being either horizontal or vertical jets.
Horizontal jets have the possibility of impacting upon other structures and being deflected.
This process gives rise to a loss of momentum and substantial entrainment which
enhances the formation of a flammable cloud and hence the potential for an unconfined
explosion.
The properties of jet fires depend on the fuel composition, release conditions, release rate,
release geometry, direction and ambient wind conditions. Low velocity two-phase releases
of condensate material can produce ‘lazy’, wind affected buoyant, sooty and highly
radiative flames similar to pool fires.
Flash Fire
Following a vapour, a gas cloud (which is heavier than air) will form, initially located around
the release point. If this cloud is not ignited immediately, it will move with the wind and be
diluted as a result of air entrainment.
The principal hazard arising from a cloud of dispersing flammable material is its subsequent
(delayed) ignition, resulting in a Flash Fire or Vapour Cloud Explosion. Large scale
experiments on the dispersion and ignition of flammable gas clouds show that ignition is
unlikely when the average concentration is below the Lower Flammability Limit (LFL).
Therefore, the following critical hazard distances were calculated to determine the
120
hazardous extent of the clouds:
 Maximum distance to the LFL of the cloud;
 Maximum crosswind LFL distance of the cloud; and
 Maximum upwind LFL distance of the cloud.
It is considered that there is no probability for escape within the flammable limits of a Flash
Fire. Therefore, a fatality probability of 100% of persons present within the flammable cloud
(as defined by the distances above) is assumed for Flash Fires.
Explosion
Explosion occurs when a sufficient amount of flammable material in gas or vapour phase
within the explosive limit (LEL, UEL) is ignited. Ignition of vapour cloud with flammable
mass less than the threshold value may result in a flash fire and subsequently jet fire for
continuous source. The most damaging effects of an explosion come from its blast
overpressure. An explosion is the sudden release of tremendous energy. The intensity of
explosion depends on the rate of energy release.
7.12.4.3 Tabulation of Consequences and Frequency of All Possible Accident

Scenarios
This section presents the results of the consequence modelling performed for the failure
cases identified in the hazard identification. These results can be found in Appendix 7.4.
7.12.5 Risk Summation
The results of risk summation are presented in terms of IR which, in the context of the DOE
Risk Guidelines, is defined as the risk of fatality to a person in the vicinity of a hazard. This
includes the nature of the fatality to the individual, the likelihood of the fatality occurring,
and the period of time over which the fatality might occur. The individual is assumed to be
unprotected and to be present during the total time of exposure (i.e. 24 hours a day, every
day of the year). The individual risk value, Ri, at a particular distance, i, due to the
occurrence of a particular event outcome, j, is calculated by the following equation:
121
Ri = ∑ feo,j .Pfat,i,j .Pweather,j , where:
feo,j is the frequency of event outcome j obtained from event tree analysis and historical data;
Pfat,i,j is the probability of fatality at distance i produced by event outcome j from consequence
analysis; and
Pweather,j is the probability of the weather conditions required to produce the event outcome
at j (from meteorological data, 1 for weather independent event outcomes).
The IR profile for the site under study is calculated with the Consultant's in-house
spreadsheet based on the above equation. It is represented as a function of distance from
the source of potential risk upon the surrounding environment. Risk summation involves
combining the frequency of a given event outcome j with its associated consequences to
determine the IR levels associated with the site.
The worst-case findings can be summarized as follows:
Table 7.18: Hazard Zones Criteria
IR Contours Max Distance to Contour

(m)
1x10-5 per 0
year
1x10-6 per 80.7
year
The representation of IR contours of various iso-sections for the proposed project is

attached in . Based on the IR contours it can be seen the 1x10 -6 risk contour is slightly
beyond the proposed project boundary.
122
Figure 7.48: Individual Risk (IR) Contour
123
7.12.6 Conclusion
Individual Risk (IR) Contour
The Individual Risk (IR) Contours are in compliance of the requirements stipulated by the
DOE risk criteria
[1]:
 The 1 x 10-5 per year IR contour for the proposed project goes beyond the project
boundary but does not impact any surrounding sensitive receptors; and
 The 1 x 10-6 per year IR contour of the proposed project is slightly beyond the
proposed Project site but does not encompass involuntary recipients of industrial risks
such as residential areas, schools, hospitals, and places of continuous occupancy, etc.
Table 7.19: Risk Contour Findings Summary
Max Distance
IR Contours Confirmation
to Contour
(m)
1 × 10-5 30 The contour does not encompass any sensitive receptor

per area
year
1 × 10-6 45 The contour does not encompass any sensitive receptor

per area.
year
It is noted that the risks have been assessed on a conservative basis, both in terms of
consequences (e.g. use of the maximum inventories of hazardous substances in vessels,
worst case process conditions, releases are modelled based on initial maximum (rather
than average) release rates, no account taken of site drainage/ emergency spill
containment systems to limit the spread of liquid releases etc. using published computer
models that are inherently conservative), and frequency – i.e. no account has been taken of
project site safety systems (e.g. isolation valves), operator intervention to prevent or
minimise releases and no credit has been taken to account for the site Safety Management
System.
124
Worst Case Scenario (WCS)
 A worst case scenario (WCS) is a scenario with furthest consequence distance.
 The WCS for fire event is envisaged to be the jet fire arising from the catastrophic failure of
the Coalescer resulting from an ignited release at 45 oC and 24 barg pressure at
weather condition 2F. This resulted in a hazard zone of 37.5 kW/m 2 thermal radiation
level of up to 137 m. Meanwhile for hazard zone of 4kW/m2, the distance extends a
maximum of 176 m. The contours are beyond the proposed project site boundary.
Refer to for the WCS contour.
125
Figure 7.49: Worst Case Scenario
126
7.13 LANDUSE ASSESMENT
As shown in Chapter 6, the surrounding landuse of the project site is surrounded by other
industrial factories. As such, the waste recovery center is indeed in a suitable area for
development.
7.14 SOCIAL IMPACT

7.14.1 Respondents Opinions and Perceptions
Project Awareness Level

Respondents' level of knowledge about the Management Center Proposal The Rest Solid
Integrated In Part Of Lot 2036, Mk 2, Permatang Pauh, Penang, 100% of respondents did
not know about it as shown in Table 7 .20. This situation is not surprising as no
announcements and alerts have been made.
Table 7.20: Awareness and Knowledge of Proposals

Awareness and knowledge Percent (%)
Awareness
Know about the project -
Dont know 100.0
Not sure -
Total 100.0
Source: Field Data, April 2022
Perception on the Socio-Economic Impact of the Proposed Project

This study was conducted to measure local residents ’perceptions of the impact of the
project, particularly in relation to various environmental components. One of the perceptions
seen is the advantages and disadvantages of the socio -economic impact of the project
proposal as listed in Table 7 .21. If the total percentage of 60% and above is considered
significant (representing the majority), the feedback analysis shows a strong agreement
among the respondents that the project will not bring much benefit to them except the
improvement of living standards and improvement of basic amenities in this area as shown
in Table 7 .21. However, this project is not given a good value because it is not beneficial
to the nearby residents.
127
Table 7.21: Evaluation of Socio-Economic Advantages and Disadvantages resulting

from the proposed project
Perception Percentage (%)
saying Yes
Advantage:
Job opportunities for your family members 0.0
Employment opportunities for locals 15.1
Improvement of basic facilities 63.8
Increase in the value of land / property 15.8
Improving living standards 73.0
Business opportunities are increasing 23.7
Increased opportunities for home ownership 2.4
Disadvantages:
Job loss 0.0
Loss of source of income 0.0
Displacement 65.7
Loss of property 0.0
Marginalization of the existing population 48.0
The probability of locals being marginalized 53.4
Evaluation of Socio-Economic Advantages resulting

from the proposed project
100 97.6
100
84.9 84.2
No. of Repondents (%)
80 73 76.3
63.8
60
40 36.2
27 23.7
20 15.1 15.8
0 2.4
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Job oppor- Employment Improve- Increase in Improving Business Increased

tunities for opportuni- ment of the value of living opportuni- opportuni-
your family ties for lo- basic facili- land / standards ties are ties for
members cals ties property increasing home
ownership
Figure 7.50: Evaluation of socio-economic advantages resulting from the proposed

project
128
Evaluation of Socio-Economic Disadvantages result-

ing from the proposed project
100 100 100
100
80
65.7
60 52 53.4
48 46.8
40 34.3
20
0 0 0
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Job loss Loss of In- Displacement Loss of Marginaliza- The probabil-
come Source Property tion of the ex- ity of locals
isting popula- being
tion marginalized
Figure 7.51: Bar chart of evaluation of socio-economic advantages resulting from the
proposed project
Perceptive on Health and Safety Impacts

Table 7 .22 shows how the community sees the impact of the project on their health and
safety. As can be seen, the respondents were very confident that almost all of the potential
health and safety impacts listed would happen to them except for road accidents and threats
to the public and disturbances to the atmosphere of tranquility. Traffic congestion received
the highest rating (76.7%) followed by increased air pollution (74.6%), noise pollution
(66.2%), increased water pollution (65.8%) and disturbing peace or tranquility (62.4%). In
addition, there were family members of respondents with high blood pressure (35.08%),
diabetes (5.23%), COVID 19 (2.77%), fever (25.23%), cough / bloody sputum (10.46%) and
family members of respondents have entered to the hospital on account of COVID 19 for
seven days.
Table 7.22: Assessment pf Perception of Impact on Health and Safety brought about
by the Proposed Project
Perceptions of impact on health and safety Percentage (%) saying Yes
129
Road accidents are on the rise 59.4

Increased noise pollution 66.2
Traffic jam 76.7
Increased air pollution 74.6
Increased water pollution 65.8
Dangerous to people 57.2
Disturbing security / tranquility 62.4
In period 1 year ago (from _ day this), how many Bil Percent (%)
experts house This is what has been diagnosed /
detected by doctor as suffer from disease following?
Asthma (tired) - -
Duct infections breathing above - -
Emphysema - -
Chronic bronchitis - -
Pneumonia (inflammation lungs) - -
Tuberculosis (cough dry) - -
Cancer of the nasopharynx (nose and throat) - -
Lung cancer - -
Esophageal cancer (duct food) - -
Rhinitis (sinus) - -
respiratory diseases, - -
blood pressure - -
Stroke (wind Ahmar) 114 35.08
Diabetes (urination sweet) - -
Dengue 17 5.23
Malaria - -
Leptospirosis (urination rat) - -
Cholera (years) - -
Typhoid (fever typhoid) - -
Hepatitis (specify type A, B, or C - -
Fruit diseases waist - -
Liver disease _ _ _ - -
HIV/AIDS - -
COVID-19 - -
Spontaneous miscarriage - -
Stillbirth _ 9 2.77
130
Cancer other than from cancer system breathing - -

Skin diseases, specify kind of - -
Other diseases, specify - -
- -
In period 3 months ago ( from _ day this ), how many Bil Percent (%)
experts house This is what has been to visit clinic
/hospital for get treatment for disease / problem health
following ?
Attack asthma - -
Fever hot 82 25.23
Cold / cough - -
Cough / phlegm bleeding 34 10.46
Breath reads - -
Crowded breath - -
It hurts chest - -
Attack heart - -
Diarrhea - -
Vomiting - -
Skin diseases - -
Eye disease - -
Ear disease - -
Seizures - -
Accident / injury, specify because an accident - -
Other diseases, specify - -
- -
In period 1 year ago ( from _ day this ), is be found Bil
member house This is what has been included in the
hospital?
Yes 9
No. 316
If Yes , specify disease each member and period will Bil

be in the hospital
Covid19 7 days 9
131
Perception of Impact on Aesthetics and Culture

Analysis of the perception of the impact on aesthetics and culture showed that some
respondents were quite confident of the impact of development on the aesthetic and cultural
quality in the area. It can be concluded when more than 60% think that the project will affect
the topography and beauty of the landscape and 74.6% think that air quality will also be
affected as shown in Table 7 .23.
Table 7.23: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Aesthetics and Culture brought by

the Proposed Project
Perception Percentage (%) saying Yes

Affects the shape of the earth's surface in this 77.3
area 74.4
Affect the beauty of the landscape 74.6
Affects air quality 0.0
Affects water quality 62.4
Affects the tranquility of the area 0.0
Affecting places of worship 0.0
Affects important buildings
Assessment of Perception of Impact on Aesthetics and

Culture brought by the Proposed Project
100 100 100
100
77.3 74.4 74.6
No. of respondents (%)
80
62.4
60
37.6
40
22.7 25.6 25.4
20
0 0 0
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Affects the Affect the Affects air Affects wa- Affects the Affecting Affects
shape of the beauty of quality ter quality tranquility of places of important
earth's sur- the land- the area worship buildings
face in this scape
area
Figure 7.52: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Aesthetics and Culture brought

by the Proposed Project
132
Perception of Impact on Basix Facilities and Utilities
Respondents ’perceptions on the impact of the project on basic facilities and utilities are
shown in Table 7 .24. The impact of the high demand increase for all basic facilities and
utilities was assessed by the respondents. Based on the increase in high demand assessed
by the respondents it may reflect their low state of satisfaction with the basic amenities and
utilities they can enjoy. Except with ease of access in the future will result in less demand for
this residence because it is close to the project.
Table 7.24: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Basic Facilities and Utilities

brought by the proposed project
Perception Percentage
(%) saying Yes
Increased demand for housing 36.5
Increased demand for waste disposal 82.2
Increased demand for sewer cleaning 77.5
Increased demand for public transport services 87.7
Increased demand for health services 92.4
Increased demand for police services 100.0
Increased demand for postal services 87.6
Increased demand for firefighting services 92.4
Assessment of Perception of Impact on Basic Facilities

and Utilities brought by the proposed project
100
100 92.4 92.4
87.7 87.6
82.2
77.5
80
63.5
60
40 36.5
22.5
17.8
20 12.3 12.4
7.6 7.6
0
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased

demand for demand for demand for demand for demand for demand for demand for demand for
housing waste dis- sewer public health ser- police ser- postal ser- firefighting
posal cleaning transport vices vices vices services
services
Figure 7.53: Assessment of Perception of Impact on Basic Facilities and Utilities

brought by the proposed project
133
7.14.2 Project Evaluation and Local Community Acceptance
Respondents were also asked how they viewed and evaluated the project proposal by
assessing the overall perception of whether it would have a more positive or negative
impact. The results of the analysis showed that the respondents felt it would have a positive
impact as opposed to a negative impact. A total of 60.92% of respondents felt more benefits
would be gained compared to 39.08% saying more disadvantages would occur as shown in
Table 7 .25.
However, when respondents were asked whether they agreed or not with the
implementation of the project, 60.92% agreed while 39.08% expressed disagreement. As
initially expected, there will be a comprehensive agreement, i.e. all of the 60.92% who rated
the project as would agree.
Table 7.25: Overall Perception of Project Proposal Impact and Acceptance Level
The overall impact felt Percent (%)
More positive impact 60.92
More negative impacts 39.08
Total 100.0
Acceptance level
Agree 60.92
Do not agree 39.08
Not sure -
Total 100.0
134
The Overall Impact Felt
39.08%
60.92%
More positive impact More negative impact

Figu
re 7.54: The overall impact felt by respondents
Acceptance Level
39.08%
60.92%
More positive impact More negative impact
Figure 7.55: Acceptance level of the respondents
Among the reasons agreed upon is the center management the rest solid integrated can
treat and accommodate and minimize environmental problems related to solid waste, can
accommodate more residential / commercial units related to solid waste management is
increasing and can improve the existing infrastructure facilities because the area is a solid
waste management area.
135
Those who disagreed felt the decline in quality of life due to air pollution and odor
disturbances as a major factor and the deterioration of property values around the project
site and polluting the environment. In addition, the respondents stated that the landfill had
previously moved to the Pulau Burung landfill as shown in Table 7 .26.
Table 7.26: Reason for Agreeing and Disagreeing

Reason for agreeing % Reasons to disagree %
Can be treated and accommodate and 60.0 Air pollution and odors. 50.2
minimize environmental problems
related to solid waste
Able to accommodate more residential / 37.3 Deterioration of property values around 15.0
commercial units related to solid waste the project site and polluting the
management is increasing environment
And be able to improve the existing 2.7 The landfill had previously moved to 34.8
infrastructure facilities as the area is a the Pulau Burung landfill
solid waste management area.
Respondents were finally asked if they had other opinions about the proposed project.
Various responses received as shown in Table 7 .27.
Table 7.27: Other Opinions on the Project Proposal

Percent
(%)
Using the latest technology so that there is no bad smell and does not disturb the 16.31
residents
Make the area like a garden and eco -friendly 20.43
Monitoring by the authorities to ensure there are no environmental problems 12.8
Just do it at the landfill on Pulau Burung 2.15
No other opinion 48.31
136
137
Table 7.28: Socio Economy Interview

Plates are snapshots of the interview conducted during the questionnaire survey.
138
139
140
7.14.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
In addition to the questionnaire survey, a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was

conducted at the Dewan MBSP PPR Ampangan. A total of 18 people attended the
programme. The attendees comprised of representatives from Landscape Department
of MBSP and Department of Environment (DOE), head of committee from PPR
Ampangan and its residents. Local residents and representatives are important in this
public dialogue as they have knowledge of the local environment and community that
can be tapped and incorporated into baseline data.
Table 7.29 Details of Focus Group Discussions Conducted in the Study Area
Location Date/Time Venue
22 Disember 2022 Dewan MBSP PPR

PPR Ampangan
10:00 pagi Ampangan
Source: Field Data, December 2022
The FGD was conducted by providing preliminary information to the participants about
the objectives of the FGD and followed by a briefing on the project proposal and also
filling in a questionnaire. The discussion started with a presentation about the project
and the impacts related to the project. The environmental issues that might occur from
the proposed Project, the pollution control system undertaken have been carefully
addressed and clearly explained in order to ensure the acceptability of the respondent
toward this Project.
141
The consultant asking the repondents about their expectations and opinions on the
impact of the project. It is to obtain the views and perceptions of the
residents/community based on the current level of knowledge about the proposed
project. Discussions like this can complement the research results gathered from the
questionnaire survey. Further questions on various issues or questions about the
impact of the project are also discussed. Through this platform, the issues and matters
that are the main questions of the participants, their concerns and suggestions can be
evaluated.
142
Figure 7.29 shows that the FGD is being conducted at Dewan MBSP PPR Ampangan
Focus Group Discussion Assessment
The feedback received as a result of the discussion held at the FGD session can be
classified as accepting a project proposal.
There were various responses received and issues raised, at the FGD session
(Table 7.30). These can be categorized into three main issues:
143
a. Concerns about the project itself such as road safety, flies, noise and odour
problem.
b. Concerns about the project's impact on the environment, both physical and social,
c. Concerns about the extent of the project's functionality to the community.
Table 7.30: Various Concerns Voiced by the Respondents During the FGD
Session
No. Category of Concern Type of Concern
1. Kebaikan projek a) Memberi peluang pekerjaan kepada penduduk
setempat
b) Membuka peluang perniagaan kepada peniaga
kecil
c) Dapat meningkatkan taraf hidup penduduk
2. Kesihatan dan keselamatan a) Menyebabkan kesibukan lalu lintas
b) Meningkatkan kemalangan
c) Menambah bunyi bising
d) Menyebabkan pencemaran air
3. Estetika dan Budaya a) Landskap
b) Kualiti udara
c) Kualiti air
d) Ketenangan kawasan
4. Kemudahan Asas a) Perkhidmatan kutipan sampah
b) Perkhidmatan mencuci saliran
Similar issues were raised such as environmental impact and social impact. There
are also specific issues raised for certain areas in the location such as problem of
getting to Taman Bandar due to the unavailability of pedestrian and motorcycle
overhead bridge or traffic lights for pedestrians. In addition, they also stated that the
main entrance, which is located opposite the main gate to the project site, is making
it difficult to get in and out and often causes accidents.
This project is also will cause traffic congestion become worse than before. Apart
from that, the noise from the project site will be more significant. They also hope
that the proposed project can prioritize the safety of local residents before the
project begins.
From the survey, majority of the respondents expressed no issues if the Project
will be implemented.
144
145

Chap 7 R7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chap 7 R7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap 7 R7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 7 : EVALUATION OF IMPACTS....................................................................7-7

7.2 BASIS OF ASSESMENT......................................................................................7-7

7.3 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION............................................................7-10

7.3.1 Methodology Employed................................................................................7-10

7.3.2 Quantification of Soil Loss and Sediment Yield............................................7-11

7.4 WATER QUALITY...............................................................................................7-16

7.4.1 Construction Phase......................................................................................7-16

7.4.2 Operation Phase..........................................................................................7-17

7.4.3 Water Quality Modeling................................................................................7-20

7.5 HYDOLOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT...........................................7-44

7.5.2 Data Preparation..........................................................................................7-46

7.5.3 Elevation Data..............................................................................................7-46

7.5.4 Soil Data......................................................................................................7-46

7.5.5 Catchment Delineation.................................................................................7-46

7.5.6 Model Setup.................................................................................................7-47

7.5.7 Hydrological Analysis...................................................................................7-53

7.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY...............................................................................7-58

7.6.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................7-58

7.6.2 Anaerobic Digestion Pond............................................................................7-58

7.7 AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................7-61

7.7.2 Model Selection Criteria and Modelling Factors...........................................7-61

7.7.3 Approved Regulatory Dispersion Model.......................................................7-62

7.7.5 Building Wake Effects..................................................................................7-63

7.7.6 Dispersion Environment...............................................................................7-63

7.7.7 Local Terrain................................................................................................7-64

7.7.8 Dispersion Options.......................................................................................7-64

7.7.9 Receptor Grid and Discrete Receptors........................................................7-64

7.7.10 Model Output...............................................................................................7-65

7.7.11 Source Information.......................................................................................7-66

7.7.13 Results and Assessment..............................................................................7-67

7.8 ODOUR QUALITY..............................................................................................7-93

7.8.1 Odorous Gases............................................................................................7-93

7.8.2 Sensitive and Discrete Receptors................................................................7-93

7.8.3 Odour Assessment......................................................................................7-93

7.9 NOISE QUALITY................................................................................................7-99

7.9.1 Noise from Construction Equipment and Traffic Movement.........................7-99

7.9.2 Operational Phase.....................................................................................7-102

7.9.3 Operational Noise Sources........................................................................7-106

7.9.4 Noise Modelling.........................................................................................7-108

7.9.5 Evaluation of Impact..................................................................................7-109

7.9.6 Operational Phase.....................................................................................7-113

7.10 TRAFFIC IMPACT............................................................................................7-113

7.11 HAZARD STUDY..............................................................................................7-115

7.11.1 Hazards During Operation.........................................................................7-115

7.11.2 Handling Hazard........................................................................................7-116

7.11.3 Transport Hazard.......................................................................................7-116

7.11.4 Fire Hazard................................................................................................7-117

7.11.6 Sludge Hazard...........................................................................................7-117

7.12 RISK ASSESSMENT........................................................................................7-117

7.12.1 Purpose of the Quantitative Risk Assessment...........................................7-117

7.12.2 Site Sensitive Receptors............................................................................7-117

7.12.3 QRA Methodology......................................................................................7-118

7.12.4 Consequence Analysis...............................................................................7-118

7.12.5 Risk Summation.........................................................................................7-121

7.13 LANDUSE ASSESMENT..................................................................................7-127

7.14 SOCIAL IMPACT..............................................................................................7-127

7.14.1 Respondents Opinions and Perceptions....................................................7-127