Felix CHOI Fuk Sing (1988221513)

1
Environmental Risk Assessment Case Study
Port Klang
Presented by Felix CHOI Fuk Sing
(1988221513) Terence CHING Chun Ying
(2005920188) David HO Ka Yan (2000264979)
Amanda NG Yu Yan (2005920243)
Picture source http//www.pka.gov.my/Intro.htm
2
Flow of presentation

• Background
• The risk assessment approaches
• Retrospective risk assessment
• Prospective risk assessment
• Comparative risk and uncertainty assessment
• Assessment of socioeconomic drivers
• Recommendations and proposed actions

3
Background
4
Introduction

• Initial risk assessment one of the component
  activities of the Port Klang Integrated Coastal
  Management (ICM) Project
• Inter-agency,
• multi-disciplinary
• Technical Working
• Group

Picture Source Port Klang Integrated Coastal
Management National Demonstration Project, 2005
5
Objectives

• Evaluate the impacts of various pollutants
• Identify activities that contribute to pollution
• Identify gaps and uncertainties for a refined
  risk assessment

6

• Make recommendations
• Identify significant agencies and institutions
  which can contribute to refined risk assessment
  and long-term management
• Identify priority concerns

7
Study area

• Project area 1,484.53 km2
• Population 742,837 (Year 2000)
• Population density 500 people/km2
• Two main rivers
• Sg. Klang
• Sg. Langat

Picture Source Port Klang Integrated Coastal
Management National Demonstration Project, 2005
8

• Huge land use conflicts
• Pollution from upstream sources
• Industrial and housing projects in the upstream
  areas

9
The risk assessment approach

• A combination of retrospective and prospective
  approaches
• To indicate the relative importance of different
  adverse effects and their causes
• Lead to appropriate, cost-effective management
  programmes

10

• Principles
• Identify problems and causes based on systematic
  and transparent way
• Can be justified by community and can be
  revisited when more information available

11

• Key concept
• Comparison between environmental conditions and
  threshold values likely to cause adverse effects
  in the targets under consideration

12
Retrospective Risk Assessment
What evidence is there for harm being done to
targets in the Port Klang
13
Retrospective Risk Assessment ?

• Ecological effects ? ? Stressor (s)

Significant effect
Ascribe causation
Land clearing for agriculture
Extinction
Picture source http//www.css.cornell.edu/ecf3/We
b/new/AF/ASB_01.html http//www.rictus.com
/viz/photos/nature/elephant.jpg
14
Aim

• Human activities
• (Suspected agents)
• Overexploitation
• Land clearing/reclamation
• Oil spillage
• Discharge organic wastes
• Discharge inorganic wastes
• Use of pesticides
• Discharge of heavy metals
• Use of tributyltin (TBT)

• Damage
• (Observed effects)
• Decline in number of species
• Decline in population of selected species
• Extinction of specific species
• Increase in invader species
• Degradation decline in biodiversity

?
?
?
?
?
15
Methodology

• Review various studies, reports projects to
  collect relevant data on identified targets
• Problem formulation
• Conduct retrospective risk assessment

16
Problem Formulation

• Define targets
• Identify suspected (or known) agents that cause
  adverse effects on targets
• Evaluate linkage between agents and targets

17
Agents ? ? Targets

• Is the target exposed to any of the agents?
• Was there any loss/es that occurred following
  exposure? Was there any loss/es correlated
  through space?
• Does the exposure concentration exceed the
  threshold where adverse effects start to happen?
• Do the results from controlled exposure in field
  experiments lead to the same effect? Will
  removal of the agent lead to amelioration?
• Is there specific evidence in the target as a
  result of exposure to the agent?
• Does it make sense (logically and
  scientifically)?

18
Possible Answers

• Yes (Y)
• No (N)
• Maybe (M)
• Unknown (?)
• No Data (ND)
• Not Relevant (NR)

19
Likelihood of Harm

• Based on knowledge of exposure to the agent
  available information about exposure and effect
  levels
• Likely (L) agent is likely a cause of the
  decline
• Possibly (P) agent cannot be excluded as a
  cause of the decline
• Unlikely (U) agent is unlikely to have caused
  the decline
• Unknown (?) Not enough information available

20
Decision Criteria Table
Source Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment
Appendix 5
21
Decision Table
Source Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment
Table 4
22
Scope Findings

• Resources fisheries (?) aquaculture
  (technology, water contamination and diseases)
• Habitat mangroves (removal of forest reserve
  land reclamation)
• Wildlife mammals, birds, aquatic fauna (change
  in land use ? loss/degradation of habitats)

23
Limitations

• Insufficient quantitative data
• Agents ? ? Targets not clearly defined
• Difficult to correlate between the agents and
  resources

24
Recommendations

• Conduct more comprehensive researches
• Allow sufficient time to detect changes in number
  of species/population
• Determine exposure, correlation cause-effect
  relationships between potentially significant
  agents

25
Retrospective Risk Assessment
Manage HARMFUL ACTIVITIES
Reduce harm to ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM
HARMFUL ACTIVITIES
Observe ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Identify
PRESENT
PAST
FUTURE
26
Prospective Risk Assessment
27
Prospective risk assessment

• Involves predicting likely effects on targets
  from knowledge of a particular agent.
• Involves comparison of exposure and effect
  concentrations
• Aims to determine if measured or predicted levels
  of environmental parameters are likely to cause
  harm to targets of interest.

28
Start Point

• a comparison of measured environmental
  concentrations (MECs) and predicted no-effect
  concentrations (PNECs) in order to obtain risk
  quotients (RQs).

29
Risk Quotient

• For ERA
• RQ MEC (or PEC) / PNEC
• For human health
• RQ MEL (or PEL) / LOC
• Where RQ lt 1 Low risk
• RQ gt 1 High risk

30

• Study area
• Water column contaminations
• Air quality
• 3 types of RQs are constructed
• RQmax
• RQmin
• RQave

31
Preliminary Study Water Column

• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
• Ammoniacal nitrogen (AN),
• Total suspended solid (TSS),
• E. coli.,
• Arsenic (As),
• Mercury (Hg),
• Oil and grease.

32
Preliminary Study Water Quality

• Data analysis from the reports of DOE-Selangor
  with monthly monitoring observations from 24
  stations from 1990 2000 (Klang River, Klang
  River estuary and Straits of Klang).
• PNECs from Malaysia standards.
• Result RQave gt 1 (except As)
• Further investigation on 5 coastal zones.

33
Further Investigation

• 5 coastal zones are identified
• Pantai Morib (recreation),
• Kuala Langat at Jugra (aquaculture),
• Kuala Langat,
• Kuala Klang,
• Selat Klang Utara.
• Data DOE-Selangor
• PNECs Malaysia / ASEAN standards

34
Agents Studied

• Dissolved oxygen (DO),
• Suspended solid (SS),
• pH,
• Turbidity (NTU),
• As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb,
• E. Coli,
• Oil and grease

35
Findings

• RQave of E. Coli., suspended solid and oil and
  grease of 5 coastal zones are all over 1.
• RQave of pH, As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu and Pb of 5
  coastal zones are all below 1.
• RQave of NTU varied between 0.3-2.69
• RQave of DO varied between 0.8-1.25

36
Risk from E. Coli

• Contamination to aquaculture products and risk to
  human health.
• Recreation in marine water poses human health
  risk.

37
Risk from Suspended Solid

• Affect aquaculture industry, especially shrimps
• Affect aesthetic nature and recreational use.
• Reduce light penetration and inhibit
  photosynthetic process
• Identified causes land reclamation projects,
  aquaculture, agriculture, upland forestry,
  mining, discharge of wastes from various sources,
  dredging, trawling and mangrove conversion.

38
Risk from Oil Grease Wastes

• Adverse impacts on marine flora and fauna.
• Lab. study shows that fish exposed to sublethal
  levels of petroleum experienced negative effects
  on reproductive, development, behaviour,
  subcellular structure, premature death.

39
Sources of Uncertainties

• Data collected from each station at different
  periods were combined to provided single
  estimates of means and worse-case RQs.
• Use of standards and criteria from other
  locations might not be totally suitable for Port
  Klang.

40
Further Investigation

• Further investigation was carried out for the
  water column of the Klang and Langat Rivers to
  confirm the risks identified in the risk
  assessment of coastal areas and the linkage with
  the major river systems.

41
Priority Concerns

• The priority concerns identified in the risk
  assessment of Klang and Langat Rivers are
  consistent with the priority concerns for
  selected coastal areas, showing the strong
  influence of the two rivers on the water quality
  of these coastal areas.

42
Air Pollution

• Risk assessment suspended particulate (PM10),
  sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
  carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3).
• Primarily due to automobiles, industrial
  activities, domestic combustion and thermal power
  plant operations.

43
Data Sources

• Data collected from database of Sekolah Menengah
  Perempuan Raja Zarina station.
• PEC data are average data collected from Dec.
  1996 Mar. 2000.
• PNECs are based on air quality standards
  recommended by DOE Malaysia.

44
Result

• The result of the initial risk assessment show
  that except for CO, all worse-case RQs exceed 1

45
Comparative Risk Assessment
46
Comparative Risk Assessment

• Objective
• Compare RQs in Prospective Risk Assessment
• Identify agents with highest risks

• Decide management priority

Picture source http//www.entershanghai.info/coun
try/Ci_20_set.htm
47

• Assessed areas
• 1. Coastal water
• 2. Klang River Langat River
• 3. Sediment
• 4. Ambient air
• Methodology
• - Compare between RQAve (average) RQMax (worst
  case)
• List all RQs in a summary table
• Make a bar chart to compare the RQAve RQMax

48
Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne
Substance in Coastal Areas
Worst case
Average
0.8
1.3
1.4
7
0.3
8
0.5
0.02
1.8
34
1.6
5.5
49
Comparative Risk Assessment of E. Coli in Coastal
Areas
50
Findings

• Coastal water
• - high risk agents E. coli, oil, SS, turbidity
  DO
• - high risk sites
• SS Kuala Langat
• E.coli Kuala Klang, Pantai Morib, Langat
• Oil Jugra, Selat Klang Utara, Pantai Morib

51

• 2a. Klang River
• - Higher organics (BO, BOD, COD), nutrient (NH3)
  iron at middle stretch estuarine of the
  river.
• - Higher nutrient P metal As at the middle
  stretch.
• - E. Coli extremely high (RQ 300 -2,000) along
  the river including catchment area
• - Immediate management is needed starting from
  catchment area.

52

• 2b. Langat River
• - Higher organics (BO, BOD, COD), SS, turbidity,
  NH3 at middle stretch estuarine of the river.
• - E. Coli higher at the catchment area than the
  estuarine area
• - Immediate management is needed starting from
  catchment area.

53

• 3. Sediment
• - Port Klang Highest RQ (28-235) in Oil
  grease.
• 4. Air Quality
• - RQAve are all lower than 1
• - But mean API 1.08
• - Forest fire in 1997, leads to haze phenomenon
  high PM10

54
Uncertainty

• Differences between average worst case
• Data gaps (e.g. lacks of MECs local standards)

55
Socioeconomic Drivers
56
Socioeconomic Drivers for the changes

• Change of land-use policy
• Population increase
• Agricultural development
• Increased waste generation rate

Picture source http//www.foudroyan.com/fonds_ecr
an/port_01.html
57
Change of land-use policy

• State Government policy to develop as a
  developed state
• Rapid changes of land use
• Mangroves peat swamp forests ? other land uses

Picture source http//www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiot
ech/ag
58
Illegal forest clearing leads to forest fires -
Slash (cut) burn!
Picture source http//www.css.cornell.edu/ecf3/We
b/new/AF/ASB_01.html http//www.the-human-race.com
/pages/toc.htm http//www.biology.duke.edu/bio217/
2005/tnb/anthropogenic.html http//www.hibdonhardw
ood.com/Ecology/BlzEco02.html
59
Impacts of land use change

• Shrinkage of mangroves peat swamps
• Habitat loss
• Loss of shoreline protection
• Increase sedimentation rates
• Reduced biodiversity

Picture source http//www.nri.org/InTheField/boli
via_s_b.htm
60
Population increase
More energy resources needed!
61
Agricultural development

• Mangrove in 1998
• Klang 12,301 ha ? 10,871 ha 88 left
• Kapar 4,865 ha ?410 ha only 8 left!

Picture source http//veganimal.info/article_impr
ime.php3?id_article18 http//www.peninsulaflyfish
ers.org/Fishing_Tales/castingEyeBahamas02
62
Agricultural activities bring ecological stress
by

• Use of pesticides fertilizers
• Generation of wastes
• Illegal clearing of forest (forest fire!)

which lead to

• Air pollution
• Habitat loss
• Reduced biodiversity

Picture source http//cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/en/b
ackground/bi_FM3_Intro_e.php http//www.inapg.inra
.fr/ens_rech/bio/biotech/textes/societe/economie/o
gm/mefiance-du-sud.htm
63
Increased waste generation rate
(tons/day)
Problem in landfill availability!
64
Recommendations proposed actions
65

• Socioeconomic drivers
• Wastes industrial activities agriculture land
  use
• Further assessment is needed, especially their
  linkage to the environment
• Human health
• Determine risks from consumption of contaminated
  aquatic food products and exposure to
  contaminated coastal waters

66

• Quality of water, sediment and aquatic food
  products
• A comprehensive control programme to prevent
  wastes discharges
• Collecting data on heavy metals and tributyltin
  (TBT)
• Extend risk assessment throughout the whole river
  basin
• Wider application of the RQ approach
• Review of the interim marine water quality
  standard

67

• Resources and habitats
• Fisheries
• Get the data for the indicators of fisheries
  conditions
• E.g. Catch per unit of effort (CPUE), stock
  density, demersal biomass, changes in catch
  composition, maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
• Evaluation of the fisheries management framework
• Aquaculture
• Deliberately use of indicators
• Evaluate existing aquaculture practices
• Develop management guidelines
• Designate coastal aquaculture zones

68

• Mangroves
• Assess the ecological, economic and social
  effects of the degradation of mangrove ecosystems
  by using a systematic studies
• Benefit-cost analysis of proposed development
  plan
• Mangrove reforestation
• Wildlife
• Comprehensive researches and cause-effect studies
  are needed

69

• Air quality
• More detailed assessment for all existing
  parameters
• Include other potentially-important parameters
• Data gaps
• Verify identified concerns
• Fill the data gaps by primary data collection
• E.g. sediment load study toxicology study

70

• Risk management
• Develop long-term strategies and action
  programmes
• Integrated land and water-use zoning
• Large financial investments and technological
  resources are needed for environmental services,
  facilities, and clean technologies
• Integrated environmental monitoring programme
  (IEMP)
• Collaboration of stakeholders
• Institutional arrangement