Port Klang Prelims - PEMSEApemsea.org/sites/default/files/pemsea-tr-2005-13.pdf · of East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines, and Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management National

GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme onPartnerships in Environmental Management

for the Seas of East Asia

Port Klang Integrated Coastal ManagementNational Demonstration Project

Selangor Waters Management Authority(Lembaga Urus Air Selangor or LUAS)

Ahah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Por t K langI n i t i a l R i s k A s s e s s m e n t

i

Port KlangInitial Risk Assessment

GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme onBuilding Partnerships in EnvironmentalManagement for the Seas of East Asia

Port Klang Integrated Coastal ManagementNational Demonstration Project

Selangor Waters Management Authority(Lembaga Urus Air Selangor or LUAS)Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

ii

PORT KLANG INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENT

March 2005

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes or toprovide wider dissemination for public response, provided prior written permission is obtained from the RegionalProgramme Director, acknowledgment of the source is made and no commercial usage or sale of the material occurs.PEMSEA would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale, any commercial purpose or any purpose other than those givenabove without a written agreement between PEMSEA and the requesting party.

Published by the GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Building Partnerships in Environmental Management forthe Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) and the Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management National Demonstration Project,Selangor Waters Management Authority (LUAS), Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

Printed in Quezon City, Philippines

PEMSEA and Port Klang ICM National Demonstation Project. 2005. Port Klang Initial Risk Assessment. PEMSEATechnical Report No. 13, 96 p. Global Environment Facility/United Nations Development Programme/InternationalMaritime Organization Regional Programme on Building Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seasof East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines, and Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management NationalDemonstration Project, Selangor Waters Management Authority (LUAS), Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

ISBN 971-812-009-2

A GEF Project Implemented by UNDP and Executed by IMO

The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the other participating organizations.The designation employed and the presentation do not imply expression of opinion,whatsoever on the part of GEF, UNDP, IMO, or the Regional Programme on BuildingPartnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) concerningthe legal status of any country or territory, or its authority or concerning the delimitationof its territory or boundaries.

iii

MISSION STATEMENT

The Global Environment Facility/United Nations Development Programme/International MaritimeOrganization Regional Programme on Building Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seasof East Asia (PEMSEA) aims to promote a shared vision for the Seas of East Asia:

“The resource systems of the Seas of East Asia are a natural heritage, safeguardingsustainable and healthy food supplies, livelihood, properties and investments,and social, cultural and ecological values for the people of the region, whilecontributing to economic prosperity and global markets through safe and efficientmaritime trade, thereby promoting a peaceful and harmonious co-existence forpresent and future generations.”

PEMSEA focuses on building intergovernmental, interagency and intersectoral partnerships tostrengthen environmental management capabilities at the local, national and regional levels, and developthe collective capacity to implement appropriate strategies and environmental action programs on self-reliant basis. Specifically, PEMSEA will carry out the following:

• build national and regional capacity to implement integrated coastal managementprograms;

• promote multi-country initiatives in addressing priority transboundary environmentissues in sub-regional sea areas and pollution hotspots;

• reinforce and establish a range of functional networks to support environmentalmanagement;

• identify environmental investment and financing opportunities and promotemechanisms, such as public-private partnerships, environmental projects for financingand other forms of developmental assistance;

• advance scientific and technical inputs to support decision-making;• develop integrated information management systems linking selected sites into a

regional network for data sharing and technical support;• establish the enabling environment to reinforce delivery capabilities and advance the

concerns of nongovernmental and community-based organizations, environmentaljournalists, religious groups and other stakeholders;

• strengthen national capacities for developing integrated coastal and marine policiesas part of state policies for sustainable socioeconomic development; and

• promote regional commitment for implementing international conventions, andstrengthening regional and sub-regional cooperation and collaboration using asustainable regional mechanism.

The twelve participating countries are: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Democratic People’s Republicof Korea, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, People’s Republic of China, Philippines, Republic of Korea,Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The collective efforts of these countries in implementing the strategiesand activities will result in effective policy and management interventions, and in cumulative globalenvironmental benefits, thereby contributing towards the achievement of the ultimate goal of protectingand sustaining the life-support systems in the coastal and international waters over the long term.

Dr. Chua Thia-EngRegional Programme Director

PEMSEA

iv

v

LIST OF TABLESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSACKNOWLEDGMENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RETROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

PROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

UNCERTAINTIES

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

BACKGROUNDINTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

DEFINITION of KEY TERMS

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREATHE RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACHRETROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

RESOURCES

HABITAT

SUMMARY OF THE RETROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

PROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENTINTRODUCTION

PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT

COASTAL AREAS IN KLANG

KLANG AND LANGAT RIVERS

RISK ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT AIR

COMPARATIVE RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENTINTRODUCTION

RISKS TO THE ECOLOGY OF PORT KLANG FROM WATER-BORNE

SUBSTANCES IN COASTAL AREAS


SUBSTANCES IN KLANG RIVER

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viiixx

xiii1

23

8

Table of Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131313131417192121212324

3536384751

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5353

53

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

35

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

vi


SUBSTANCES IN LANGAT RIVER

RISKS TO THE ECOLOGY OF PORT KLANG FROM

SEDIMENT-BORNE SUBSTANCES

RISKS FOR AIR QUALITY

ASSESSMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVERSINTRODUCTION

LAND-USE CHANGE

DEMOGRAPHY

AGRICULTURE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

HUMAN HEALTH

CONCLUSIONS, DATA GAPS AND UNCERTAINTIESRETROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT


LINK BETWEEN IDENTIFIED RISKS AND SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVERS

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIONSON SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVERS

ON HUMAN HEALTH

ON THE QUALITY OF WATER, SEDIMENT AND AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCTS

ON RESOURCES AND HABITATS

ON AIR QUALITY

OTHER DATA GAPS

RISK MANAGEMENT

REFERENCESGLOSSARYAPPENDICES

Appendix 1. Sources of Data for the Initial Risk Assessmentof Port Klang

Appendix 2. The Water Quality Monitoring Stations inKlang and Kuala Langat

Appendix 3. Environmental Quality Standards for MalaysiaAppendix 4. Environmental Quality Standards from Other LocationsAppendix 5. Decision Criteria for Determining the Likelihood of Harm

55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64656566

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57606161616262

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778185

89

86

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67717171

73. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

9290

72

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Retrospective Analysis for FisheriesTable 2. Retrospective Analysis for AquacultureTable 3. Retrospective Analysis for Mangroves in Klang Islands and KaparTable 4. Details of Retrospective Risk Assessment for Mangroves in Klang IslandTable 5. Details of Retrospective Risk Assessment for Mangroves in KaparTable 6. Retrospective Analysis for Terrestrial Mammals in Three Different HabitatsTable 7. Details of Retrospective Risk Assessment of Terrestrial MammalsTable 8. Retrospective Analysis of Birds in Three Different HabitatsTable 9. Retrospective Analysis of Waterbirds in Kapar Power StationTable 10. Retrospective Analysis of Waterbirds in Paya Indah Wetland SanctuaryTable 11. Detailed Retrospective Risk Assessment of Birds in Three Different HabitatsTable 12. Summary of Information for Aquatic Fauna in Three Different HabitatsTable 13. Detailed Retrospective Risk Assessment of Freshwater FishesTable 14. Prospective Risk Assessment for Water Column ContaminantsTable 15. Prospective Risk Assessment for Oil and Grease in SedimentTable 16. Comparison of the Water Quality Standards of Malaysia

with Other Criteria and StandardsTable 17. PNECs used for the Prospective Risk Assessment for Coastal WatersTable 18. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Pantai MoribTable 19. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Kuala Langat at JugraTable 20. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Kuala KlangTable 21. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Kuala LangatTable 22. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Selat Klang UtaraTable 23. RQs for Oil and Hydrocarbons in Sediment at the Klang–Kuala

Langat Coastal ZoneTable 24. The Average MEC Values for Various Water Quality Parameters

at a Coastal Station near Langat River (1993–1998)Table 25. RQs for Various Water Quality Parameters at a Coastal

Station near Langat River (1993–1998)Table 26. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at Ulu KlangTable 27. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at PetalingTable 28. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at Pelabuhan KlangTable 29. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Langat River at Batu 18Table 30. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Langat River at KajangTable 31. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at Kg. Air TawarTable 32. Prospective Risk Assessment of Air Quality

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

232525262728293030313233333738

3940

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4141424243

43

45

45

. . . . . . . . . . .. . .

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . 48484949505052

viii

Table 33. Prospective Risk Assessment of Air Quality During the Haze Phenomenon in September 1997

Table 34. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Coastal Areas

Table 35. Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne Substances in Coastal AreasTable 36. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of

Water Quality in Klang RiverTable 37. Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne Substances in Klang RiverTable 38. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of

Water Quality in Klang RiverTable 39. Comparative Risk Assessment for Water-Borne Substances in Langat RiverTable 40. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of Sediment-Borne

Substances in the Klang Langat Coastal ZoneTable 41. Comparative Risk Assessment for SedimentTable 42. Prospective Risk Assessment of Air QualityTable 43. Comparative Risk Assessment for Air QualityTable 44. Land-use Changes in Klang and Kuala LangatTable 45. Population of Klang and Kuala LangatTable 46. Areas of Crops in Klang and Kuala Langat

E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5354

55

57

56

58

59596060616263

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

ix

Figure 1. The Administrative (LGUs) and Study Areaof the Port Klang ICM Site

Figure 2. Simplified Risk Pathway for Port Klang (Klang–Kuala Langat)Figure 3. RQAve Values for Selected Water Quality Parameters

(with RQs >1) in the Coastal StationsFigure 4. The Variation of RQs for Some Water Quality Parameters

throughout 1993-1998

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Figures

1720

44

46

x

AN – ammoniacal nitrogenAPI – Air Pollution IndexASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian NationsBOD – biochemical oxygen demandCO – carbon monoxideCOD – chemical oxygen demandCPUE – catch per unit of effortDO – dissolved oxygenDOE – Department of EnvironmentGeomean – geometric meanIRA – initial risk assessmentISQV – interim sediment quality values of Hong KongIWQS Malaysia – Index Water Quality Standard MalaysiaIMWQS Malaysia – Interim Marine Water Quality Standard MalaysiaINWQS Malaysia – Interime National Water Quality Standard MalaysiaLESTARI – Institute Alam Sekitar dan Pembangunan/Institute for

Environment and Development — Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaLC50 – concentration of toxicant that causes death in 50 percent of an

exposed populationLOAEL – lowest observable adverse effect levelLOC – level of concernLUAS/SWMA – Lembaga Urus Air Selangor/Selangor Waters Management

AuthorityMEC – measured environmental concentrationMEL – measured environmental levelsMEY – maximum efficiency yieldMFR – mangrove forest reservesMPP-EAS – GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention and

Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian SeasMPN – most probable numberMSY – maximum sustainable yieldNAHRIM – National Hydraulic Research Institute of MalaysiaNH3 – ammoniaNO2 – nitrogen dioxideNO3 – nitrateO3 – ozonePAH – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

xi

PCB – polychlorobiphenylsPEC – predicted environmental concentrationPEL – predicted environmental levelsPEMSEA – GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Building Partnerships in

Environmental Management for the Seas of East AsiaPM10 – particulate matter having a diameter smaller than 10 micrometerPNEC – predicted no-effects concentrationPNEL – predicted no-effects levelPO4 – phosphateppm – parts per million or mg/lPSP – paralytic shellfish poisoningRQ – risk quotient: MEC (or PEC)/PNEC (or Threshold)RQAve – mean/average risk quotient: MEC (or PEC) Geomean/PNEC (or

Threshold)RQMax – maximum risk quotient: MEC (or PEC) Max/PNEC (or Threshold)SEMP – strategic environmental management planSg – sungai (Malaysian) or riverSO2 – sulfur dioxideTBT – tributyltinTDI – tolerable daily intakeTOC – total organic carbonTSS – total suspended solidsUKM – Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaUPM – Universiti Putra MalaysiaU.S.EPA – United States Environment Protection AgentU.S.FDA – United States Food and Drugs Administration

xii

xiii

Acknowledgments

This report was initially prepared during the Regional Training Course onEnvironmental Risk Assessment held from 23 to 28 July 2001 in Burapha University,Chonburi, Thailand. The training course was organized by the GEF/UNDP/IMO RegionalProgramme on Building Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas ofEast Asia (PEMSEA). The report represents one component of the National IntegratedCoastal Management (ICM) Demonstration Project in Port Klang (Klang – Kuala Langat),Selangor, Malaysia, which is being implemented in collaboration with several governmentdepartments and agencies of Selangor State and the Malaysian government. These effortsare jointly coordinated by the Project Management Office (PMO) of the Port Klang ICMsite located at the Selangor Waters Management Authority (Lembaga Urus Air Selangoror LUAS) in Shah Alam, Selangor, and the PEMSEA Regional Programme Office (RPO)in Manila, Philippines.

The contributions of the following are greatly acknowledged:

Prof. Peter Calow, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, and Dr. Valery Forbes,Roskilde University, Denmark, the resource persons for the course;

The Malaysian participants to the training course: Mr. Mazlan b. Idrus, LUAS; Mr.Ahmad Fariz b. Mohamed, Institute for Environment and Development (Institut AlamSekitar dan Pembangunan or LESTARI) – Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia); and Ms.Norriahan bt. Mohd Nasir, Department of Environment (DOE) – Selangor;

The various stakeholders from different agencies for sharing data and providingcomments and suggestions, which were crucial in refining the paper, including DOE,LESTARI, Klang Municipal Council, Klang District Office, Kuala Langat District Council,Kuala Langat District Office, Department of Town Country and Planning, Departmentof Fisheries, Department of Drainage and Irrigation, Marine Department, Departmentof Forestry, Department of Health, Department of Wildlife Protection, Department ofAgriculture, National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM), WetlandsInternational – Malaysia, and LUAS;

The Port Klang IRA Team composed of Mr. Ir. Hj. Rahmat b. Hj. Mohd. Sharif(Director of LUAS and Adviser), Prof. Madya Dr. Mazlin b. Mokhtar (Team Leader),Ahmad Fariz b. Mohamed, Dr. Lee Yook Heng, Dr. Mohd Hasni b. Jaafar, Dr. Shukor b.Mohd. Nor, Mr. Mohd. Talib b. Latiff, Ms. Siti Khadijah bt. Satari, Ms. Siti Aishah bt.Mohd Ali. (LESTARI), Dr. Mohamad Pauzi b. Zakaria (Universiti Putra Malaysia), Mr.Mazlan b. Idrus (LUAS), Ms. Norriahan bt. Mohd Nasir (DOE – Selangor), Mr. Norizan

xiv

b. Ahmad (Department of Wildlife Protection, Selangor), Mr. Mohd Fauzi b. Mohamad(NAHRIM), and Mr. Murugadas T. Loganathan (Wetlands International – Malaysia);and

PEMSEA Regional Programme Director Dr. Chua Thia-Eng and the RegionalProgramme Office, including Ms. Cristine Ingrid S. Narcise and Mr. Alexander T.Guintu for technical refinements of the draft documents, and Mr. S. Adrian Ross,Senior Programme Officer and Principal Coordinator of the National ICMDemonstration Project in Port Klang for coordination and support throughout thetraining workshop and planning and implementation of project activities.

1

BACKGROUND

Executive Summary

An environmental risk assessment estimatesthe likelihood of harm being done to identifiedtargets as a result of factors emanating fromhuman activity but which reach the targetsthrough the environment. This combinesknowledge about the factors that bring abouthazards, their levels in the environment, and thepathways to the targets.

The potential harm to human andenvironmental targets may arise from exposureto contaminants in the environment. Thesecontaminants come from activities that bringeconomic growth and contribute benefits tosociety. The potential harm to environmentaltargets may also arise from indiscriminateextraction of resources and physical destructionof habitats. The environmental impacts of theseactivities stem from the loss of ecologicalfunctions and the consequent disruption ofecological balance. The impacts may not be asevident as impacts from pollutants but these couldbe irreversible and may lead to greater losses.

There can be two approaches to protectingthe environment and human health. The firstapproach is to eliminate the contaminant or stopthe activities that produce it (hazard-basedapproach). Another approach is to prevent thecontaminant level from exceeding an allowablelevel that presents acceptable risk (risk-basedapproach).

There has been a gradual shift inenvironmental policy and regulation from hazard-based to risk-based approaches, and this waspartly due to the recognition that “zerodischarge” objectives are unobtainable and thatthere are levels of contaminants in the

environment that present “acceptable” risks(Fairman, et al., 2001). Aiming for “zerodischarge” levels or using the best availabletechnology may not be cost-effective and couldresult in excessive economic burdens to society andadversely affect the provision of goods andservices that contribute to human welfare. Riskassessment is a systematic and transparent processthat provides comprehensive and logicalinformation to environmental managers anddecisionmakers for identifying rationalmanagement options. Identifying areas of concernthrough the risk assessment also prevents thepitfalls of wasting effort and resources on minorconcerns.

Various methodologies and techniques forERA have been developed and differentorganizations are presently involved in furtherimproving this management tool (ADB, 1990;UNEP-IE, 1995; UNEP-IETC, 1996; Fairman, et al.,2001).

The approach adopted by PEMSEA attemptsto answer the two questions: “What evidence isthere for harm being done to targets in theenvironment?” (referred to as a retrospective riskassessment) and “What problems might occur as aconsequence of conditions known to exist, or topossibly exist in the future?” (referred to as aprospective risk assessment).

Retrospective risk assessment aims todetermine significant causes of adverse effectsobserved on human and/or ecological targets. Inmany circumstances, however, it is never possibleto identify cause with certainty after an effect isobserved. Retrospective risk assessment does notprovide a definite formula for enabling this to be

2


done but it provides a transparent and logicalseries of steps for collecting and evaluatingevidence that can help increase confidence injudgments about a suspected causal agent.

Prospective risk assessment involvespredicting likely effects on targets fromknowledge of a particular agent. It basicallyinvolves some comparison of exposure and effectconcentrations. Depending on the level of detail,it can be carried out in a variety of sophisticatedways, but the starting point will often be acomparison of measured environmentalconcentrations (MECs) and predicted no-effectconcentrations (PNECs) in order to obtain riskquotients (RQs). The prospective risk assessmentstarts by using worst-case and average scenariosand progresses if the results show the need formore refined assessment and more sophisticatedways of assessing and addressing theuncertainties associated with the RQ technique.

Both the retrospective and prospective riskassessments can be carried out independently.Alternatively, these two approaches can beperformed concurrently and used to strengthenthe individual assessments.


In the retrospective risk assessment,qualitative and quantitative observations on theresources and habitats were assessed, it was notpossible to determine changes in fisheries as aresult of the increased fishing intensity. It was alsoobserved that establishing decline in fisheriesusing fish landing data may be difficult as fishesare caught from neighboring countries,particularly Indonesia, such that high fish landingsare not really reflective of the status of fisheriesin the Port Klang coastal waters. The results ofthe risk assessment show that data on otherindicators of fisheries conditions such as catch per

unit of effort (CPUE) will have to be gathered toenable more appropriate assessments to be carriedout. Estimates of the maximum sustainable yield(MSY) will also be important to determine if thefishing effort is within sustainable levels or if thismay eventually lead to adverse impacts on localfisheries.

For aquaculture, decline in production from1,011.63 to 543.89 metric tons was observed from1990 to 1993 while increase in production to1,579.34 metric tons was noted in 2000. The declinein production in 1990–1993 was attributed tounsuitability of the areas for aquaculture, watercontamination and diseases while the followingincrease in production was attributed toaquaculture technology improvements and controlof water contamination and diseases. Areas of fishand prawn ponds were also reported to haveincreased from 1993 to 2000 although noquantitative information was provided. Thedevelopment of aquaculture, which is recognizedas an alternative way of coping with the increaseddemand for fish and shellfish, came however atthe expense of mangrove and peat swamp areas,which were converted to culture ponds. Themangroves and peat swamps are important forthe survival and reproduction of numerous aquaticorganisms and the loss and degradation of theseareas resulting from aquaculture developmentmay adversely affect their ecological functions. Therisk assessment indicates the need to evaluate theimpacts of existing aquaculture practices on thenatural ecosystem, identify environment-friendlyaquaculture practices, balance the need to meetthe increasing demand for marine food productsand protect the natural environment.

Decline in mangrove cover was established forthe Kapar and Klang Islands mangrove forestreserves (MFR). In the Kapar MFR as of 1998, only410 ha (8 percent) remains of the 4,865 hamangrove cover in 1970. Also in 1998, theremaining mangroves in the Klang Islands MFR

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

was estimated to be 10,871.4 ha (88 percent) ofthe 12,301 ha in 1984. The identified primary causeof decline in mangrove cover in the forest reserveswas the degazettement or removal from legalprotection of certain portions of the forest reservesand subsequent land reclamation to accommodatedevelopments in the vicinity of the Klang coastalarea. The extensive loss of mangroves especiallyin the Kapar area may have had adverse ecologicalimpacts arising from the impairment of ecologicalfunctions and services provided by the mangrovesincluding shoreline protection, habitat for marinelife, and carbon storage. Economic losses may alsohave occurred from reduced fisheries productivityand loss of large areas of the mangrove forest forsustainable forestry activities. The lack of adequatemangrove buffer strip also threatens agriculturalareas near the coast. A better understanding ofthe ecological and economic impacts of the declineof mangrove areas in the Klang District will bevaluable in formulating future development plansthat will integrate ecological as well as economicconsiderations.

The retrospective risk assessment on threemajor groups of wildlife namely mammals, birdsand freshwater fish in primary (dipterocarp),mangrove and peat swamp forests showed declinedue primarily to loss or degradation of habitatsas a result of changes in land use for varioussocioeconomic activities and in some cases,pollution.

The data used in the assessment were,however, very few, not comprehensive and in somecases, non-quantitative. The interrelatednessbetween the suspected agents and targets werenot clearly defined most of the time, and it wasdifficult to correlate between the agents and theresources within the specified habitats. Moreresearch need to be undertaken to verify thereported decline in mammal, bird and fish speciesin the three forests. This research should be morecomprehensive and should allow sufficient time

to detect changes in the number of species andpopulation. Studies to determine exposure,correlation and cause-effect relationships betweenpotentially significant agents should also beundertaken.


In the prospective risk assessment, potentialstressors in the site were identified and the MECsof these stressors were compared with thresholdvalues or PNECs to obtain RQs. An RQ less than1 indicates acceptable risk and suggests littleconcern while an RQ greater than 1 signifies causefor concern. The level of concern increases withthe increase in RQ.

The data for the prospective risk assessmentcame primarily from the Department ofEnvironment – Selangor Monitoring Reports whilethe threshold values came from the InterimNational Water Quality Standards (INWQS) andInterim Marine Water Quality Standards (IMWQS)for Malaysia. Some criteria values from the ASEANMarine Water Quality Criteria (ASEAN, 2003) andother countries in the region were also used.

The risk assessment was carried out forselected coastal stations near the Klang and LangatRivers and within the two rivers. Although therisk assessment was prescribed for marine waters,sediments and biota, the RQ approach wasextended to the assessment of risk from majorcontaminants in ambient air.

Risk Assessment of Coastal Areas in theKlang ICM Area

The risk assessment for coastal waters inselected coastal areas near the Klang and LangatRivers demonstrated cause for concern in all areasfor oil and grease, Escherichia coli and suspendedsolids. For oil and grease, the highest cause for

4


concern was found at Jugra, an importantaquaculture zone, followed by Selat Klang Utaraand Pantai Morib. For E. coli, higher cause forconcern was found at Pantai Morib and KualaKlang. The lowest RQs for E. coli were found atJugra although these RQs still exceeded 1.Acceptable risk was shown for other parameterssuch as heavy metals. The concern for oil andgrease was corroborated by the RQs exceeding 1for sediment polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), which are among the various constituentsof oil and grease and which are found inpetroleum hydrocarbons.

Adverse effects on reproductive anddevelopmental processes have been observed infish exposed to sublethal levels of petroleum (evensimilar to those observed under normal fieldconditions). PAHs in petroleum have also beenlinked to the formation of tumors in fish andmollusks (IMO, 1988). Suspended solids can haveadverse effects on coastal aquaculture, primaryproduction (by reducing light penetration andimpairing photosynthesis), and aesthetics.

Human health risk arises from bathing in E.coli-contaminated waters and consumption ofpotentially contaminated aquaculture products.

The high levels of suspended solids (SS), E.coli and oil and grease in coastal waters wereattributed to various socioeconomic activities suchas industrial, agricultural and domestic activitiesand changes in land use that lead to improperdischarge of wastes and habitat loss/degradationin the areas surrounding the Klang and LangatRivers.

Evaluation of temporal trends of risk for acoastal station close to Langat River showed RQsfor dissolved oxygen (DO), SS, turbidity, chemicaloxygen demand (COD), oil and grease andammonia (NH3) consistently exceeding 1, thusconfirming the preceding results and

strengthening the premise that Langat River is asignificant contributor to the contamination ofcoastal waters. Risk from the levels of organicmatter was indicated by the RQs for COD andDO. No data on E. coli was evaluated.

Risk Assessment of the Klang and LangatRivers

The risk assessment of selected stations alongthe Klang and Langat Rivers showed risk fromorganic contamination as indicated by the averageRQs exceeding 1 for biochemical oxygen demand(BOD), COD, DO and NH3 especially for themiddle stretch and estuary stations; risk fromsedimentation and siltation of rivers as indicatedby the average RQs for SS and turbidity for allexcept the catchment stations; and risk frompathogen contamination as indicated by theenormously high RQs for coliforms especially E.coli. In the catchment areas where water is usedfor drinking, risk from E. coli must be carefullyevaluated and immediately addressed.

The priority concerns identified in the riskassessment of Klang and Langat Rivers areconsistent with the priority concerns for selectedcoastal areas, showing the strong influence of thetwo rivers on the water quality of these coastalareas.

Risk Assessment of Ambient Air

The assessment of human health risk fromexposure to the major contaminants in ambient air,such as suspended particulate matter having adiameter smaller than 10 micrometer (PM10), sulfurdioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbonmonoxide (CO) and ozone (O3), from December1996 – March 2000 showed that except for CO, allworst-case RQs (RQMax) exceeded 1 although allparameters gave RQAve values that were less than1. The average Malaysian Air Pollution Index(API), which is computed using the major

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

contaminants presented here, exceeded the limitof 50 (APIMax = 291 and APIAve = 54), and PM10,which exhibited the highest potential to pose riskto the ecosystem of Klang (RQMax = 5.72 andRQAve = 0.52), may have contributed significantlyto the high API.

During the haze phenomenon which affectedthe Southeast Asian region in 1997, the RQAve forPM10 and the RQMax for O3 exceeded 1 but RQAve

for other gases during this period remainedbelow 1.

Malaysian urban and industrial areas areincreasingly being affected by air pollution dueprimarily to automobiles, industrial activities,domestic combustion and thermal power plantoperation (DOE, 1998). A large portion of thepopulation may also be exposed to hazards inthe atmosphere due to the location of housingareas near industrial parks. Stationary and non-stationary emissions, if not properly managedand controlled, may cause serious air pollutionepisodes like haze and smog phenomena, acidrains, greenhouse effect, and transboundarypollution, and can affect public health (Hashim,2000). In the 1997 haze episode, the main factorfor the high concentration of suspendedparticulate matter in ambient air was forest fireaggravated by contributions from soil dust,motor vehicles and industrial processes.

Link between Identified Risks andSocioeconomic Drivers

In developing and implementing a holisticand integrated environmental managementsystem, it is very important for managers,implementers and stakeholders to understandwhat really drives the adverse changes andcreates the risk to the ecosystem and humanhealth. In Klang and Kuala Langat,socioeconomic activities are the key factors thatinfluence pollution levels and degradation of theecosystem, thus posing risk to flora and fauna

and human health and welfare. Among thesesocioeconomic factors are the development processfor industrialization and urbanization. In order toensure that risk management efforts will effectivelyminimize the risk posed to the coastal zone of Klangand Kuala Langat, these should not be limited toisolated and merely remedial approaches, butshould involve management of the risk from thesource.

In this report, the risk posed by thesocioeconomic development in Klang and KualaLangat was made more clear through aretrospective assessment of the changes that haveoccurred in key socioeconomic factors such as land-use change, demography, agriculture and wastemanagement.

Rapid development growth in both the Klangand Kuala Langat districts was driven by thedevelopment policy and strategy of the state andthe local government. Well-built infrastructure andutilities sped up the development. Availability ofports, highways, rail tracks, business and financecenters, a power plant and manual labor attractedinvestors to Klang and Kuala Langat districts. Thisis in line with the State Government of Selangorand local government development plans, whichaimed to make Selangor a developed state by theyear 2005.

However, rapid changes of land use, especiallythe conversion of mangroves and peat swampforests for other uses, affected important ecosystemfunctions. Reduction of mangrove and peat swampareas reduced the functions and services providedby these habitats, which are important to animalsand humans. There have also been cases of peatswamp fires caused by illegal farmers who practicethe slash and burn method for cash crops. Otherdevelopment and economic activities also createdstress to the coastal ecosystem, which will continueto adversely affect the quality of the environmentand impair ecosystem health if not properlyaddressed.

6


The assessment of agriculture showed that themain problems in the agriculture sector are notassociated with the capabilities in increasing cropyields but the adverse impacts of agriculturalactivities to the ecosystem from pesticide andfertilizer use, as well as waste generated fromprocessing activities. Another threat is illegalclearing of land and forests, which often leads toforest fires and air pollution.

The rapid development in Klang and KualaLangat also attracted more people asindustrialization and economic growth createdemployment and business opportunities. Withwell-equipped infrastructure, such as highways,better roads, rail tracks and public transport, andwide coverage of utilities to the public, businessesand institutions, Klang and Kuala Langat attractedthe migration of people from other districts, statesand countries as well as local and foreign investors.The high population density, which translates tomore energy and resource requirements to caterto the needs of the population, created stress onthe Klang ecosystem. It is estimated that moreinfrastructure, energy and resources will beneeded if the population of Klang continues toincrease at its current rate. For 2005, the Klangpopulation is expected to increase to 816,705,which will then increase the density to 1,303 peopleper km2. On the other hand, the Kuala Langatpopulation growth rate, which is higher than thenational growth rate of 2.8 percent per year, willhave lesser population than Klang. For 2005, theKuala Langat population is expected to increaseto 229,636 people with a density of 261 people perkm2.

Waste generation in Klang and Kuala Langathad also increased significantly. From 1994, wastegeneration in Klang increased from 360 tons/dayto 472.36 tons/day, while in Kuala Langat itincreased from 90 tons/day to 119.1 tons/day. Theavailability of a landfill is one of the problems in

waste management as Klang and Kuala Langat areexperiencing problems in determining areas for anew landfill. The landfill area in Klang hasdecreased from 5.2 ha to 3.66 ha while the KualaLangat landfill area decreased from 6.1 ha to 4.1ha. It is expected that waste generation willincrease by four percent per year. Therefore, it isestimated that by the year 2005 waste generationin Klang will reach 576.9 tons/day, while in KualaLangat it is estimated to increase up to 145.5 tons/day. The state and local governments, therefore,have to develop strategies and plans to minimizewaste generation through an efficient wastemanagement system that involves waste recycling,reduction and reuse.

A retrospective assessment of human healthproblems was also carried out, which showed that,like many developing countries, food and water-borne diseases are among the most common healthproblems in the area. The identified diseasesinclude cholera, dysentery, food poisoning andtyphoid infection. The infections are mostly dueto poor hygienic practices during food preparationin food stalls, restaurants, hotels and even athome. Food poisoning can also be caused bychemical contamination by heavy metals andpesticides. These two groups of contaminants,however, have not been investigated thoroughlyin food products. The elevated levels of coliformin coastal and river waters, as reported in theprospective risk assessment, also indicate potentialhuman health risks from coliform-contaminatedseafood.

Vector-borne diseases such as dengue fever,dengue hemorrhagic fever and malaria are stilltroublesome health problems in this area.Unhealthy environment and poor sanitation willallow the vector to breed, multiply and laterbecome a dangerous vehicle for the dengue virusand malaria protozoa. Comprehensive research tobe carried out in this area is very crucial.

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DATA GAPS

Data that were not available when the riskassessment was undertaken, which could enhancefuture assessments, include:

1. More appropriate indicators to determinethe status of capture fisheries with regardto sustainability of existing fishing practicesand fishing effort such as CPUE, estimatesof the MSY, changes in species compositionand size, presence or absence of endemicspecies, etc.;

2. For aquaculture, data on production per unitarea, which are more useful than productionestimates in establishing changes inaquaculture productivity;

3. For the assessment of biodiversity, morecomprehensive and quantitative informationon flora and fauna, focusing systematicallyon key indicator species and their responsesto habitat loss and various environmentalfactors;

4. Information showing the impacts of habitatloss and degradation and environmentalpollution to living aquatic resourcesparticularly the economically valuablespecies;

5. Data gaps in the prospective risk assessmentsuch as nutrients in coastal water; oil andgrease in river water; coliform in seafoodtissue; heavy metals in sediment and biota;and pesticides and organotins in all media(water, sediment, biota);

6. Data on oil fractions from petrogenic andbiogenic sources. Local standards fordifferent components of total oil and greaseare actually available (e.g., mineral oil;emulsifiable and edible oil) but the onlyavailable data are on total oil and grease.Identification of the oil fractions frompetroleum and biological origins will allowa more precise assessment of risks fromvarious oil components;

7. More suitable standards for marinewater quality. The IMWQS for Malaysiais for limited parameters only and somevalues (e.g., heavy metals) are not veryprotective compared with standardsfrom other jurisdictions;

8. More information to determine thelinkages of some of the most commonfood and water-borne diseases topotential contamination of aquatic foodproducts from pathogens and chemicalcompounds; and

9. More information that wouldspecifically link particularsocioeconomic activities to theidentified priority environmentconcerns, to provide a basis for theformulation of more specificmanagement interventions.

UNCERTAINTIES

Uncertainties in the results of theretrospective and prospective risk assessmentsfor certain parameters are associated primarilywith the data gaps.

The RQ approach was also found unsuitablefor dealing with risks posed by solid waste,poor sanitation and increased population(crowding). These are problems that requireattention and better understanding, particularlywith regard to the sources/causes, distributionand impacts.

In some instances, models may need to bedeveloped to gain better understanding of therisks. This may include modeling shippingaccidents, effluent discharges, changes in theecosystem and disease outbreaks. This modelwill help in identifying the type and level ofrisk, as well as, in developing emergencyresponse procedures.

8


The initial risk assessment (IRA) was basedon worst-case and average scenarios. For someparameters, ecological components orsocioeconomic sectors, it is very important toconduct the assessment in greater detail, whichmight need other perspectives of assessment. Thiswill also enable the distinction between localizedand coastal-wide conditions and correspondingrisk assessment results.

Other possible sources of uncertainty in theresults of the IRA are mostly associated with thequality, comparability and adequacy of themeasured concentrations and the suitability of thethreshold concentrations used. The PNECs usedhave been derived primarily from the nationalstandards for water quality and air quality, andsupplemented by criteria or standards from otherareas in the region. Values derived from othercountries, however, might not be suitable to Klangconditions. Even the suitability of some of themarine water quality standards for Malaysia needsto be evaluated.

Further quantification or clarification of theuncertainties associated with the risk assessmentmay be done through the application ofquantitative uncertainty analyses usingappropriate software packages (e.g., Monte Carlosimulation using the Crystal Ball software).

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Results for both the retrospective andprospective risk assessments point to the need forthe conduct of a refined risk assessment althoughsome results already indicate the need formanagement interventions. The detailedrecommendations are presented in the section onRecommendations and Proposed Actions.

These recommendations, in brief, are asfollows:

On Socioeconomic Drivers

1. Undertake further assessment ofsocioeconomic drivers and their linkagesto the identified environmental concernsin order to allow the development ofsuitable and cost-effective managementplans that are focused on the sources/causes of risk. Recommended focus areasinclude:

• Waste: focus on waste generation,types, source of waste and implicationto coastal ecosystems. The source ofwaste will be identified according toactivity such as urban, industry,shipping, hospital and agriculture.

• Industrial development: focus ondetermining the number, types andlocation of factories in Klang and KualaLangat. Implications of industrialactivities towards the coastalecosystems will be determined.

• Agriculture: to determine theimplications of agricultural activities onwater and sediment quality of thecoastal ecosystem in Klang and KualaLangat as well as on the aquacultureproducts in the area. Main agricultureactivities such as palm oil production,pig farms and aquaculture will beassessed in greater detail.

• Land Use: to evaluate impacts of landconversion with respect to the variousecological functions and services

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

provided by the areas being converted.Evaluation of benefits to be derivedfrom the land conversion anddevelopment activity and the costsincurred including the ecological lossesmay aid in assessing the suitability ofthe selected land use and in theformulation and approval of futuredevelopment plans that will requireland conversion or reclamation.

On Ecological and Human Health Risks

Identified contaminants of concern

2. Prioritize contaminants for riskmanagement, i.e.,

• Coastal waters: E. coli > oil andgrease, SS, turbidity

• Klang River water: E. coli > totalcoliform > BOD, Fe (catchment, middlestretch and estuary) > NH3, COD, DO,SS, turbidity, PO4 (middle stretch andestuary) and As (estuary)

• Langat River water: E. coli (catchment,middle stretch and estuary) > totalcoliform (catchment and middlestretch), SS, turbidity, BOD, COD, NH3

(middle stretch and estuarine areas),Fe, Cr, Pb

• Sediment: Oil and grease in Port Klang> oil and grease in Morib, PAHs inKlang estuary and coast

3. Prioritize the management of sewagedischarges that pose human health risksfrom bathing in E. coli-contaminatedwaters and consumption of potentiallycontaminated aquatic food products.

4. Develop and implement comprehensivecontrol programs for preventing direct andindirect discharges of untreated orpartially treated wastes in the coastal areasand tributaries starting from the catchmentareas.

Potential human health risk from aquatic foodproducts

5. Conduct systematic monitoring andresearch studies concerning human healthrisks from consumption of contaminatedaquatic food products and exposure tocontaminated waters.

Evaluation of risk from persistentcontaminants

6. Undertake systematic data collection forheavy metals, pesticides and tributyltin(TBT) in the water column as well as inthe sediment and aquatic products in theKlang and Langat estuaries and nearbycoastal areas.

Detailed assessment of risk throughout theriver basin

7. Strengthen the use of risk assessment inrisk management by extending itsapplication throughout the whole riverbasin in order to ascertain the riskimplications of particular river systems onthe Klang coastal environment.

8. Identify sources of risk agents by relatingidentified risks for a particular stretch ofthe river to specific land uses or activities.

9. Formulate risk reduction measures that arefocused on managing the identifiedsources of risk agents.

10


Wider application of the RQ approach

10. Apply the RQ approach to carry out a moredetailed risk evaluation of rivers andcoastal waters in Selangor. Although thereare limitations associated with thesimplified RQ approach, this IRA hasyielded meaningful results that may beuseful for river basin and coastalmanagement. Depending on availableinformation, a more detailed assessmentof risks using RQs can be carried out.

Review of the Interim Marine Water QualityCriteria

11. Review the interim standard values andassess their effectiveness as one of theimportant decision factors in managing thecoastal and marine environment. Theevaluation should focus on the standardsfor heavy metals which are regarded as“unprotective” relative to those specifiedby the ASEAN and other countries in theregion. Standards for other parameterssuch as DO, BOD and nutrients should alsobe specified. Specific scientific researchrequired in relation to the review of thestandards needs to be identified.

On Resources and Habitats

Fisheries

12. Collect information on importantindicators for monitoring and assessmentof fisheries conditions, such as CPUE,stock density and demersal biomass, andchanges in catch composition (e.g., declinein economically-important species).

13. Estimate the MSY to determine if thecurrent fishing effort is still withinsustainable levels.

14. Evaluate the fisheries managementframework in the area to determineareas that need to be strengthened forthe sustainable development of thefisheries sector (e.g., inter-agency andinter-sectoral coordination, communityparticipation, conservation efforts, useof responsible fishing methods,enforcement of existing laws andregulations on fisheries, and protectionof fisheries resources from pollutantdischarges).

Aquaculture

15. Evaluate existing aquaculture practicesand their impacts on the naturalecosystem and develop managementguidelines in accordance withenvironmental quality managementplans and land and sea-use plans.

16. Designate coastal aquaculture zones.

17. Minimize adverse environmentalimpacts arising from aquacultureactivities through environment-friendlypractices.

18. Formulate measures to control adverseimpacts of other activities on coastalaquaculture activities.

19. Collect data on indicators that canprovide better assessment of the statusof aquaculture (e.g., production/area).

Mangroves

20. Conduct systematic studies to assess theeconomic value of mangrove forests andthe ecological, economic and socialeffects of the reduction or degradationof mangrove ecosystems.

11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

21. Evaluate the practice of degazettement orremoval from legal protection of someportions of the forest reserves to allowother uses of the area in relation to effectson the overall integrity of the ecosystemand other potential benefits from theexisting mangrove area.

22. Evaluate benefits and costs associated withboth public and private development plans,particularly those that involve reclamationand mangrove conversion, as part of thegovernment approval process.

23. Promote mangrove reforestation in areaswith high potential for mangroverehabilitation and encourage communityparticipation in protection andrehabilitation efforts.

24. Improve and/or strengthen theenforcement of laws, rules, and regulationson utilization and conservation of coastalresources.

Wildlife

25. Carry out more comprehensive andsystematic research to verify the reporteddecline in mammal, bird and fish speciesand the attributed causes of decline,allowing sufficient time to detectsignificant changes in the number of speciesand population and determining exposure,correlation and cause-effect relationshipsbetween targets and potentially significantagents.

On Air Quality

26. Conduct more detailed temporalassessment for all air quality parametersin order to verify the results of the riskassessment. Moreover, although average

RQs for all parameters were < 1, theaverage air pollution index (API) stillexceeded 1, indicating potentiallysignificant contribution of otherparameters not assessed in this report.

Other Data Gaps

27. Verify identified concerns and fill datagaps through primary data collection (i.e.,monitoring or research). Recommendedresearch areas include:

• Sediment load study which will beconducted through a hydrodynamicsstudy;

• Determination of level of impacts inspecific pollution hotspots;

• Toxicology study through market-basket study by using certain types offish and shellfish species;

• Poverty and its implication towardsthe environmental managementstrategy; and

• Industrial development in the Klangarea and the linkage to environmentalpollution.

Risk management

28. The results of the risk assessment showthe need to develop long-term strategiesand action programs to addressenvironmental issues related to resourceexploitation, pollution and various landand coastal uses, including:

• Integrated Land- and Water-Use Zoning,which should be aimed at managingconflicting uses of land and water

12


resources, promoting the mostbeneficial uses of specific areas, andpreventing adverse effects to ecologicaland human targets. Correspondinginstitutional arrangements should alsobe developed to implement the zoningscheme.

• Environmental Investments that willprovide environmental services andfacilities and clean technologies inorder to achieve a balance betweencontinuing economic growth in Klangand environmental protection andmanagement (e.g., facilities to manageindustrial wastes, solid wastes andsewage), and the use of innovativeapproaches to facilitate theparticipation of various sectors inproviding such services and facilities.

• Integrated Environmental MonitoringProgram that will provide scientificbasis for management decisions andactions, which should be systematicand cost-effective, and developed andimplemented through multi-agencyand cross-sectoral coordination.

• Collaboration and InstitutionalArrangements that will support thedevelopment and implementation ofrisk management strategies and actionprograms that require multi-agencyand cross-sectoral approaches, and mayinvolve evaluation and strengtheningof policies, rules and regulations,implementation frameworks andenforcement capabilities on resourceutilization and environmentalprotection.

13

INTRODUCTION

The GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programmeon Building Partnerships in EnvironmentalManagement for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA)identified Port Klang, which includes Klang andKuala Langat districts as one of the six nationaldemonstration sites in the region to develop andimplement integrated coastal management (ICM)as a strategic environmental managementframework in partnership with the nationalgovernment and local stakeholders in the publicand private sectors. This pioneering effort is inline with Agenda 21 of the Selangor StateGovernment. The Memorandum of Agreementbetween the State Government of Selangor andPEMSEA for the implementation of this projectwas signed on 19 July 2001. The Selangor WatersManagement Authority (Lembaga Urus AirSelangor or LUAS) has been designated by theState Government of Selangor to be the ProjectManagement Office (PMO) for the ICM Project.

This report presents the findings and outcomeof the initial risk assessment (IRA) of Port Klang,Malaysia, which is one of the component activitiesof the Port Klang ICM Project. The assessmentwas undertaken by an inter-agency, multi-disciplinary Technical Working Group composedof experts and technical personnel from variousgovernment agencies and institutions involved inthe Port Klang ICM Project. The IRA of Port Klangwas started during the Training Course onEnvironmental Risk Assessment, held from 23–28 July 2001 at Burapha University in Chonburi,Thailand, and subsequently completed at theproject site. Comments from various institutionswere used to refine the initial drafts.

Background

OBJECTIVES

The IRA of the Port Klang ICM project siteaimed to determine the effects of factors derivedfrom human activities on human and ecologicaltargets in the Port Klang area.

Specifically, it aimed to:

1. Evaluate the impacts of various pollutantsin the Port Klang project site on human andecological targets and identify the priorityenvironmental concerns;

2. Identify activities that contribute topollution in the Port Klang project site;

3. Identify gaps and uncertainties that willrequire more effort in a refined riskassessment;

4. Make recommendations for a refined riskassessment that is focused on the identifiedareas of concern;

5. Identify agencies and institutions that canplay significant roles in the refined riskassessment and in the long-termmanagement of the Port Klang area; and

6. Identify priority concerns to be addressedunder risk management.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Data for the risk assessment were taken mostlyfrom the Department of Environment–Selangor,

14


Department of Fisheries–Selangor, KlangMunicipal Council (2000), Majlis PerbandaranKlang (2000) and Universiti Pertanian Malaysia(2000).

Other materials used are also cited in the text.A detailed list of the sources of data for eachparameter/resource is given in Appendix 1, whichalso includes descriptions of the data. Samplingstations are shown in Appendix 2. The criteriaused, which were also taken from various sources,are found in Appendix 3–4.

Most of the data used were presumed to beaccurate and reliable, although preliminaryscreening was done for some data for whichranges of concentrations in differentenvironmental conditions are known. Ideally, thereliability of data should be more systematicallyassessed based on the sampling design andlaboratory techniques used to produce the dataas well as the period when these were obtained.A more thorough assessment of data should bemade in the refined risk assessment.

The choice of criteria was based on what wereavailable (locally and in other locations) with theassumption that these values were suitable for PortKlang.

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

The following are key terms used in riskassessment (a more comprehensive list of terms,as modified from U.S. EPA (1997), U.S. EPA (1998)and IUPAC (1993) is found in the Glossary:

Effects assessment – The component of a riskanalysis concerned with quantifying the mannerin which the frequency and intensity of effectsincrease with increasing exposure to substance.

Exposure assessment – The component of a riskanalysis that estimates the emissions, pathwaysand rates of movement of a chemical in theenvironment, and its transformation ordegradation, in order to estimate theconcentrations/doses to which the system ofinterest may be exposed.

Hazard assessment – Comparison of the intrinsicability of a substance to cause harm (i.e., to haveadverse effects for humans or the environment)with its expected environmental concentration,often a comparison of PEC and PNEC. Sometimesreferred to as risk assessment.

Hazard identification – Identification of theadverse effects that a substance has an inherentcapacity to cause, or in certain cases, the assessmentof a particular effect. It includes the identificationof the target populations and conditions ofexposure.

Risk – The probability of an adverse effect onhumans or the environment resulting from a givenexposure to a substance. It is usually expressedas the probability of an adverse effect occurring,e.g., the expected ratio between the number ofindividuals that would experience an adverseeffect in a given time and the total number ofindividuals exposed to the risk factor.

Risk assessment – A process which entails someor all of the following elements: hazardidentification, effects assessment, exposureassessment, and risk characterization. It is theidentification and quantification of the riskresulting from a specific use of occurrence of achemical including the determination of exposure/dose-response relationships and the identificationof target populations. It may range from largelyqualitative (for situations in which data are

15

BACKGROUND

limited) to fully quantitative (when enoughinformation is available so the probabilities canbe calculated).

Risk characterization – The step in the riskassessment process where the results of theexposure assessment (e.g., PEC, daily intake) andthe effects assessment (e.g., PNEC, NOAEL) arecompared. If possible, an uncertainty analysis is

carried out, which, if it results in a quantifiableoverall uncertainty, produces an estimation of therisk.

Risk classification – The weighting of risks inorder to decide whether risk reduction is required.It includes the study of risk perception and thebalancing of perceived risks and perceivedbenefits.

17

Description of the Study Area

The Port Klang ICM project area (Figure 1)covers 1,484.53 km2, including 626.78 km2 in Klangand 857.75 km2 in Kuala Langat, and has apopulation of 742,837 (Year 2000), and a populationdensity of 500 people per km2. Initially, the projectarea was restricted to Port Klang and the adjacentcoastal area as an “influencing zone.” However,with consideration and realization that ICM isbasically an environment management project, theproject boundary has been broadened to include

pollution sources (basin/catchments areas) thateventually lead to Port Klang. There are two mainriver mouths or sungal, Sg. Klang and Sg. Langat,which drain into the nearby coastal area. Thesetwo rivers cover 1,300 km2 and 2,400 km2 ofcatchment areas, respectively. The sea area withinthree nautical miles (5.5 km) from the shorelineduring spring tide towards the sea is 169.40 km2.The coastlines for both Klang and Kuala Langatare 53.75 km and 48 km, respectively.

Figure 1. The Administrative (LGUs) and Study Area ofthe Port Klang ICM Site.

Source: Unit ICT-GIS, Selangor Waters Management Authority (LUAS).

18


The project area also includes the main islandsof Pulau Klang, Pulau Ketam, and Pulau Carey.Conflicts of use are expected within the projectboundaries particularly in the future, thus thereis a great need to harmonize economicdevelopment and environmental conservationwhile recognizing the social aspects in harmonizingthe two. Control and reduction of pollution fromupstream sources are crucial for the propermanagement of the environment in the projectarea. There are several developments in theupstream areas including industrial and housingprojects which greatly contribute to the pollution

of Sg. Klang and Sg. Langat. Port Klang (NorthPort and South Port) and West Port (Pulau Indah)are busy ports handling millions of metric tons ofcargo which increase every year.

Economic development and environmentalconservation in the area need to be harmonizedin order to ensure sustainable development.Identifying priority environmental concernsthrough the risk assessment will aid informulating management plans that will balancethe environmental, economic and social aspectsof development.

19

The Risk Assessment Approach

Risk is the probability of an adverse effect onhumans or the environment resulting from a givenexposure to a substance. Risk assessment can becarried out either as retrospective or prospective.For the retrospective risk assessment, thefundamental question concerns the extent to whichconditions are likely to have caused adverse effectsobserved in specific targets. A prospective riskassessment considers the extent to which currentconditions, and/or those likely to pertain to thefuture due to new developments, would likelycause harm. Both can be used as a basis forenvironmental management and imply the desireto control activities and conditions to levels thatdo not cause harm and which are likely to benonzero.

In the Klang Environmental ManagementProject, a combination of retrospective andprospective approaches is used. A retrospectiveapproach is applied to explain observeddeterioration in ecological targets and/or theoccurrence of human health problems in terms oflikely levels of exposure and their causes. Aprospective approach is applied to consider andcompare the likely adverse effects emanating fromobserved environmental concentrations ofchemicals. The approaches converge to indicatethe relative importance of different adverse effectsand their causes. This should lead to appropriate,cost-effective management programs.

The fundamental features of bothretrospective and prospective risk assessments arethat they identify problems and their causes basedon systematic and transparent principles that canbe justified in public and can be revisited as more

information and understanding become available.The key concept for risk assessments is thecomparison between environmental conditions(e.g., environmental concentrations of chemicals)and threshold values likely to cause adverseeffects in the targets under consideration. In aprospective risk assessment, this is made explicitas a risk quotient (RQ), which is the ratio of anenvironmental concentration that is eitherpredicted (PEC) or measured (MEC) with apredicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) for thetarget of concern (RQ = P(M)EC/PNEC). An RQ< 1 indicates a low, and thus acceptable risk, andan RQ > 1 indicates a level of concern and possiblythe implementation of appropriate managementprograms.

The basic principles and techniques for bothretrospective and prospective risk assessment aredescribed in Environmental Risk Assessment Manual:A Practical Guide for Tropical Ecosystems (MPP-EAS,1999a).

The simplified risk pathways in the Klangproject area (Figure 2) brings together the possiblesources of hazards to human health and theenvironment and shows the possible effects onthe economy. It also indicates the relationshipsbetween the sources of hazards and variouseconomic and social drivers. This qualitativeillustration draws attention to specific activitiesthat may cause problems to human health and theenvironment and aids in the prioritization ofconcerns for risk assessment and, ultimately, riskmanagement, especially when human health andenvironmental protection will need to be weighedagainst economic realities.

Habit

ats

Mang

rove

s

Spec

ies

Fish

Shell

fish

Mu

dflats

Hu

man

Hea

lth

•

Swim

ming

/ bo

dy co

ntact

• Co

ntami

nated

se

afood

Fishe

ries &

Aq

uacu

lture

Ec

osys

tem &

Bi

odive

rsity

Loss

To

urism

&

Recre

ation

He

alth

Costs

Emplo

ymen

t &

Prod

uctiv

ity

Infra

struc

ture

- Flo

od ga

tes, s

eawa

lls,

sewe

rage

, was

te ma

nage

ment

Raw

mater

ials

Coas

tal (

Marin

e & A

quat

ic)

Peat

Swam

ps

Bird

s Ot

her

spec

ies

Terre

stria

l

Habit

ats

Spec

ies

Rainf

ores

t Fis

h Bi

rds

Mamm

als

Dome

stic

Activ

ities

Agric

ultur

e &

Fore

stry

Fishe

ries &

Aq

uacu

lture

Ma

nufac

turing

/ ind

ustrie

s

Tour

ism

Petro

leum

depo

t De

velop

ment

- ho

using

, co

mmer

cial,

port,

etc.

Mariti

me T

rade

&

Shipp

ing; p

ort

oper

ation

Nutrie

nts

Orga

nic

liquid

wa

stes

Inorg

anic

liquid

wa

stes

Sedim

ents;

TS

S; so

lid

waste

; slu

dge

E. co

li, etc

. W

aste

oil; o

il sp

ills

Dang

erou

s ca

rgoe

s; Inv

ading

sp

ecies

TBT

Land

cle

aring

; re

clama

tion

Minin

g &

Quar

rying

La

nd

trans

porta

tion

Air

pollu

tants

Heav

y Me

tals

Over

-ex

ploita

tion /

co

llecti

on

Pesti

cides

Econ

omic

/So

cial

driv

ers

Agen

ts

Targ

ets

Effe

cts

onth

e Ec

onom

y

Figu

re 2

. Sim

plifi

ed R

isk

Path

way

for P

ort K

lang

(Kla

ng–K

uala

Lan

gat).

Land

clear

ing;

recla

mat

ion

21

INTRODUCTION

Retrospective risk assessment is an evaluationof the causal linkages between observedecological effects and stressor(s) in theenvironment. It addresses risks from actions thatbegan in the past and can therefore be assessedbased on measurements of the state of theenvironment (Suter, 1998). It attempts to answerthe question: “What evidence is there for harmbeing done to targets in the site?” (MPP–EAS,1999b). In retrospective studies, it is important toidentify significant effects (targets and endpoints)and ascribe causation. The approach involvesmaking inferences about the causes of observedeffects (Suter, 1998) and this often requirestemporal and spatial series of data forcomparative purposes. Comparison facilitates theascribing of risks to a particular source.

The retrospective approach employed for PortKlang was of the “effects-driven assessment” typethat addresses apparent ecological effects thathave uncertain magnitudes and causes (Suter,1998). Under this perspective, risk is viewed asthe likelihood that current impacts are occurringand that demonstrating these existing impactsconfirms that a risk exists. It is important to notethat impacts have primary or secondary effects —as these may cause direct or indirect changes inidentified targets. These impacts range from thoseoccurring inland and near the coast to thoseoccurring in the bay itself as consequences ofdevelopments and ecosystem exploitation.

METHODOLOGY

A considerable volume of materials on PortKlang, from various studies, reports, and projects,

were reviewed and relevant data on identifiedtargets (habitats and resources) in the bay wereput together for the retrospective risk assessment.Steps prescribed in the Environmental RiskAssessment Manual: A Practical Guide for TropicalEcosystems (MPP-EAS, 1999a) were likewiseapplied.

Problem Formulation

The problem formulation phase involveddefining the target and the way it is impaired byrecognizing that an undesirable effect on anecological system or human population hasalready occurred, identifying suspected (orknown) agents, and considering the links betweenthe agents and the adverse effects on the targetswith an aim to eventually manage these agents inorder to reduce harm.

It is also important to determine theassessment and measurement endpoints in thetargets. Assessment endpoints are features relatedto the continued existence and functioning of theidentified targets (e.g., production, densitychanges and mortality), which may not be easy orwould take much time to measure. Someasurement endpoints, which are featuresrelated to the assessment endpoints but are easierto measure, are used instead, such as biomass (forproduction), abundance (for density changes) andLC50 or biomarkers (for mortality).

To elaborate on the interrelatedness of agentsand targets, a simplified risk pathway (Figure 2)was used.

The suspected agents for the differentresources and habitats include:a) overexploitation/collection; b) land clearing/

Retrospective Risk Assessment

22


reclamation; c) nutrients; d) organic liquid wastes;e) inorganic liquid wastes; f) pesticides; g) heavymetals; h) sediments; i) total suspended solids(TSS); j) solid wastes; k) coliform; l) waste oil;m) oil spills; n) dangerous cargoes; o) invadingspecies; p) tributyltin (TBT); and q) air pollutants.

The ecological targets assessed include marineresources and habitats such as fisheries;shellfisheries; and mangroves, and associatedfauna (e.g., birds and mammals) in selectedterrestrial habitats (rainforest and peat swamps).


Under the retrospective risk assessment phase,a set of questions, answerable by yes (Y), no (N),maybe (M), unknown (?) or no data (ND) wasformulated in order to establish evidences ofdecline, and the causes and consequences of thedecline. The following questions were adaptedfrom MPP-EAS (1999a).

1. Is the target exposed to any of the agents?2. Was there any loss/es that occurred

following exposure? Was there any loss/es correlated through space?

3. Does the exposure concentration exceedthe threshold where adverse effects startto happen?

4. Do the results from controlled exposurein field experiments lead to the sameeffect? Will removal of the agent lead toamelioration?

5. Is there specific evidence in the target as aresult of exposure to the agent?

6. Does it make sense (logically andscientifically)?

In order to facilitate the assessment, all theabovementioned questions were tabulated in amatrix where each of the targets was subjected tothe series of questions. The answers to the

questions were based on available information onthe targets and agents. The matrices are termedhere as decision tables. Using these tables, agentsthat were likely to have caused adverse effectshave been systematically screened by assigningthe likelihood of these agents to have caused thedecline in resources and habitats.

The different categories of likelihood of harmare as follows:

1. Likely (L) – based on knowledge of exposureto the agent and either established effectconcentrations (i.e., criteria used inprospective analyses) or other evidence (suchas knowledge about intentional harvesting,field observations (e.g., of infestation), theagent is considered to be a likely cause ofdecline in the resource or habitat.

2. Possibly (P) – based on available informationabout exposure and effect levels, this agentcannot be excluded as a cause of decline inthe resource or habitat;

3. Unlikely (U) – based on available informationabout exposure and effect levels, this agentis unlikely to have caused decline in theresource or habitat. However, agents in thiscategory may have indirect effects on theresource. For example, nutrients, themselves,would not have a negative effect on benthos(defined here as unlikely), but by enhancingprimary productivity (algal blooms),increased nutrients could lead to loweredDO, which is likely to have a negative impacton benthos; and

4. Unknown (?) – there is not enoughinformation available on exposure and/oreffect levels to assess whether agents in thiscategory have led to decline in the resource.

Deciding the likelihood of harm based on theanswers to the decision table was aided by thedecision criteria as presented in Appendix 5.

23


After establishing evidences of decline in theresources and habitats, linkages of the observeddecline with various socioeconomic activities/drivers in the area were evaluated.

RESOURCES

Fisheries

The coastal region in the Klang and KualaLangat districts are important areas for fisheriesand aquaculture activities. Fish landing facilitiesand other modern infrastructure contribute to theeconomic growth of the fishing industry.

Evidence of Decline

There was a decline in landing from 164.43metric tons in 1990 to 57.55 metric tons in 1993 (Table1), but fish landing subsequently increased to 141.37tons then 1,579.34 tons between 1993 and 2000.

Attributed Causes

The decline in fish landings at Port Klang from1990 to 1993 was attributed to the use of low-end

technology for fish trawling. However, from 1993to 2000, fish landings have increased mainly dueto an increase in the number of fisherfolks andthe use of more/highly efficient fishingequipment, which both reflect the increasedintensity in fishing effort, and potential adverseimpacts to fishery resources. Establishing declinemay also be quite difficult as fishes are caught fromneighboring countries (usually imported),especially from Indonesia. High fish landings arethus not reflective of fish caught in the Port Klangcoastal waters.

Since decline in fisheries was not adequatelyestablished, there was no point in carrying outthe detailed retrospective risk assessment todetermine significant causes of decline. Otherindicators of fisheries conditions such as CPUEwill have to be gathered to enable moreappropriate assessments to be carried out. MSYestimates will also be important to determine ifthe fishing effort is within sustainable levels or ifthis may eventually lead to adverse impacts onlocal fisheries. Effects of other factors such asmarine water pollution, particularly the incidenceof oil spills, and mangrove exploitation on fisheriesproductivity will also have to be evaluated.

Table 1. Retrospective Analysis for Fisheries. Results Remarks

Decline in fish landing from 164.43 (1990)to 57.55 metric tons (1993)

Likely:– Technology used did not allow high

catch– Number of fishing gears reduced

Possibly:– Marine water pollution and incidence

of oil spills– Exploitation of mangroves for

economic activities

The current condition of thefisheries in Klang could not beadequately assessed using theavailable information

CPUE and MSY can be used toenhance the assessment

Increase in fish landing from 57.55 (1993)to 141.37 to 1,579.34 metric tons from1993–2000

Likely:– Technology used enhanced– Number of fishing gears increased– Number of fishing folks increased

Five species caught from fishing gearfrom 1990–2000

Sources: Fisheries Department of Malaysia, 2000;DOE–Selangor, 2000.

Changes Observed Identified Agents

24


Consequences

The increase in fishing effort is driven by theincreasing demand for marine fishes. Overfishing,however, leads to reduction in fish stocks as wellas ecological stress due to improper fishingpractices. Such unsustainable fishing practicesimperil local fisheries and economy, with theadverse effects to be felt most by the small-scalefisherfolks who primarily depend on fishing forlivelihood.

Aquaculture

Aquaculture has been identified as analternative technique to cope with the increaseddemand for marine fish and shellfish and Klangcoastal zone was identified as an area withpotential for aquaculture activities. In the processof aquaculture development, huge areas ofmangroves and peat swamps were converted tofish and prawn ponds. Production of fish andprawns from the aquaculture ponds increased from1993 to 2000.

Evidence of Decline

For aquaculture, decline in production from1,011.63 to 543.89 metric tons was observed from1990 to 1993 while increase in production to1,579.34 metric tons was noted between 1993 and2000 (Table 2). The number of cultured speciesalso increased from four species in 1990–1996 tosix species in 1997–2000.

Attributed Causes

The decline in production in 1990–1993 wasattributed to unsuitability of the areas foraquaculture, water contamination and diseaseswhile the following increase in production wasattributed to improvements in aquaculturetechnology and control of water contaminationand diseases. Increase in the areas of fish and

prawn ponds may also have contributed to theincreased production. It was thus difficult to assessrisks posed by various factors to aquaculture basedon the information available on production sincethese increased with increase in culture areas.Production per unit area would be a moreappropriate indicator of aquaculture productivity.Since decline in aquaculture was not adequatelyestablished, the detailed retrospective riskassessment to determine significant causes ofdecline was not carried out anymore. The potentialenvironmental consequences of aquaculture wasinstead evaluated.

Consequences of AquacultureDevelopment

The implications of aquaculture developmentin the Port Klang coastal zone towards themangrove and peat swamp forest ecosystems hasbeen found significant. In addition to conversionof mangrove and peat swamp areas into cultureponds, existing practices, which make use of manytypes of chemicals, may lead to pollution of thecoastal ecosystem and impairment of the functionsand services provided by mangroves and peatswamp forests. There is, therefore, a need todetermine best practices which will allowaquaculture to continue and produce high qualityand quantity of fish and prawns while maintainingthe coastal zone ecosystem functions and services.

HABITAT

Mangroves

Evidence of Decline

Table 3 presents the evidences of decline inthe areal cover of mangroves in the Port KlangICM area. Mangrove clearance was largelyconcentrated in the Kapar Mangrove ForestReserve (MFR) and the Klang Islands Mangrove

25


Table 2. Retrospective Analysis for Aquaculture. Results Remarks

Sources: Fisheries Department of Malaysia, 2000; DOE–Selangor, 2000.

Decline in production from 1,011.63 to 543.89 metric tons from 1990–1993

Increase in production from 543.89 metric tonsto 1,579.34 metric tons from 1993-2000

Four species produced from1990 to 1996

Two additional species produced from 1997 to2000

– Soil of areas used were not suitable for aquaculture– Water contamination– Diseases

Current status of aquaculturewas not sufficiently assessedusing the availableinformation; data onproduction/area can be usedto enhance the assessment

Impacts of aquaculturedevelopment:– Loss and degradation of

mangrove and peat swampareas due to conversion intoculture ponds

– Water quality deterioration(self-polluting characteristicof aquaculture activities)

– Technology used enhanced– Water contamination and diseases controlled– Increase in pond areas


Table 3. Retrospective Analysis for Mangroves in Klang Islands and Kapar.

Klang Islands

Decline from 12,301 to 11,799 hafrom 1984 to 1995

Decline from 11,799 ha to 10,871.4ha from 1995–1998

Kapar

Decline from 4,865 to 410 ha from1970 to 1998

Likely:Land reclamation and otherdevelopment activities

Possibly:Suspended solids

Unknown:PollutionSedimentation

Likely:Land reclamation, Other developmentactivities, e.g., construction of bunds

Possibly:Suspended solids

Unlikely:Illegal timber extraction

Unknown:SedimentationPollution

Degradation and/or loss ofhabitat and nursery grounds

Reduced biodiversitytherefore loss ofeconomically viable timber

Loss of natural protection —Coastal erosion and siltation

Loss of carbon storage

Reduced detritus

Results

Changes Observed Identified AgentsImpacts

Sources: Wetlands International–Malaysia Programme, 2000; PERHILITAN, 1987; Majlis Perbandaran Klang, 2000;Klang Municipal Council, 2000; Chan, et al., 1993.

26


Forest Reserves. Kapar MFR is a coastal mangroveforest system, while the Klang Islands consists ofmore than nine mangrove islands associated withlarge mudflat and sandflat areas (information onmudflat areas in the Klang Islands were notavailable).

Continuous developments in the areassurrounding and adjacent to Port Klang have beenextended to the Kapar Forest Reserve and theKlang Islands. By the late ‘90s, both these forestreserves have dwindled by as much as 92 percentand 12 percent, respectively throughdegazettement (removal from legal protection)and subsequent reclamation works. Presently, theKapar MFR stands at only 410 ha from 4,865 ha in1970 while at the Klang Islands, around 10,871.4ha of mangrove area remains intact from the 12,301ha in 1984 (Majlis Perbandaran Klang, 2000). Eightout of the nine islands are mangrove forest

reserves (classified under Class VII – as WildlifeReserves under the Forest Classification Systemimplemented by the Selangor State ForestryDepartment) (Wetlands International – MalaysiaProgramme, 2000).

Attributed Causes

Demand for new land to accommodate newdevelopments in the vicinity of the Klang coastresulted in the degazettement of forest reservesin Kapar and to a smaller extent in the KlangIslands. These degazetted forests were reclaimedand converted to various development projectsand agricultural activities. A bund or artificialembankment was constructed along the coast ofKapar to protect farmland from seawaterintrusion, but instead this resulted to furtherdegradation of the remaining mangroves.Mangroves failed to accrete due to the presence

Other

Develo

pment

Activitie

sMangroves

Pollutio

n

TSS Land Rec

lamati

on

Sedim

entat

ion

M Y M Y Y

M Y M Y Y

M ND M Y Y

M Y M M M

ND ND ND NR NR

Y Y Y Y Y

ND Y ND Y Y

Y Y N Y Y

? P ? L L

Table 4. Details of Retrospective Risk Assessment for Mangroves of Klang Island.

Legend: Y – Yes, N – No, M – Maybe, ND – No Data, NR – Not Relevant, ? – Unknown, L – Likely, P – Possibly

1. Is the target exposed to the agent?

2a. Was there any loss/es that occurred following exposure?

2b. Was there any loss/es correlated through space?

3. Does the exposure concentration exceed thethreshold where adverse effects start to happen?

4a. Do the results from controlled exposure in fieldexperiments lead to the same effect?

4b. Will removal of the agent lead to amelioration?

5. Is there an effect in the target that is known to bespecifically caused by exposure to the agent(e.g., biomarkers)?

6. Does it make sense (logically and scientifically)?

Likelihood

27


of the bund. Other potential causes of decline suchas illegal timber extraction, high sedimentationand water pollution from inland and from the seawere identified but, despite paucity of data, maybe insignificant in this area compared to theimpacts arising from conversion of mangrove areasfor development purposes (Tables 4 and 5).

Consequences

Destruction of mangrove forests in the Klangdistrict has led to the loss of the economic valueof sustainable forestry in a large portion of themangrove forest and to the loss of ecologicalfunctions including shoreline protection;spawning, breeding and nursing grounds formarine life; and carbon storage. The loss ofmangrove forests may also have led to a declinein the biodiversity value of the remainingmangrove forests and associated mudflats.

Consequent adverse effects on fisheriesproductivity may in turn have affected thelivelihood of local fishers. The lack of adequatemangrove buffer strip may also threatenagricultural land beyond the bund.

Wildlife

The wildlife component is divided into threemajor groups namely mammals, birds and aquaticfauna. These groups are also identified as targetsthat are potentially affected by environmental riskagents. For wildlife, the interrelatedness with thesuspected agents is not clearly defined most ofthe time, thus it is quite difficult to correlatebetween the agents and the resources within thespecified habitat.

In this retrospective risk assessment ofwildlife, emphasis is given to three most important

Illegal

Timber

extra

ction

Mangroves

Pollutio

n

TSS Land Rec

lamati

on

Sedim

entat

ion

Other Dev

elopmen

t

M Y ND Y Y Y

M Y M Y Y M

M ND M Y Y N

M Y ND M M N

ND ND ND NR NR ND

Y Y Y Y Y Y

ND Y ND Y Y ND

Y Y N Y Y N

? P ? L L U

Table 5. Details of Retrospective Risk Assessment for Mangroves in Kapar.









Likelihood

Legend: Y – Yes, N – No, M – Maybe, ND – No Data, NR – Not Relevant, ? – Unknown, L – Likely, P – Possibly, U – Unlikely

28


habitats within the specified study sites (Klangand Kuala Langat districts): peat swamp,Dipterocarp forest (primary forest) and mangroveforest. The urbanized habitat can be included herein the risk assessment but this habitat may be seenas an outcome arising from some suspected agentsidentified in the risk assessment.

The retrospective risk assessments of theseresources are as follows:

1. Mammals

In general, mammals in Malaysia are found inthe primary forests. Among the three major forestreserves left in the Klang Project area, the primaryforest is much more exploited compared to themangrove and peat swamp forests.

Evidence of Decline

Data gathered indicate evidences of declinein the number of mammal species in all forest typesfound in the project area (Table 6). Detailedevidence, however, cannot be provided since thedata are very few and not comprehensive. Moreresearch needs to be undertaken to verify thedecline in the number of mammal species in thesethree forests. These researches should be more

comprehensive and may require more time todetect changes in the number of species andpopulation.

Attributed Causes

Decline in mammal population and species inthe Klang project area is suspected, based onevidence that several large mammal species suchas elephants, tigers and rhinos are locally extinct.Based on reports some 20–30 years ago, thesespecies still existed and were found in some areasespecially at the southern part of the project area.The cause of extinction is due to loss of habitats,especially primary forests, as a result of variousfactors which include land clearing for mining;aquaculture, agriculture and other developmentactivities. For mangrove and peat swamp forests,much of the areas were lost due to reclamationprojects either for housing or agriculture activities(Table 7). Hunting is another likely cause for thedecline in mammal species. The contribution ofother factors like pollution, pests and diseasescould not be evaluated due to lack of data.

Consequences

Loss of habitat can result to a decline in thepopulation of mammals in all types of forests in

Sources: Heang and Lim, 1998; Lim, et al, 2003; PERHILITAN, 1998.

Table 6. Retrospective Analysis for Terrestrial Mammals in Three Different Habitats. Results Remarks


Peat Swamp Forest (1998– 2001):Decline in number of species andpopulation of selected species

Land clearing, reclamation, selectivelogging, mining, agriculture,development activities, and hunting

Available informationindicate a decline in thenumber of species andpopulation but noquantitative data wereprovided. More dataneed to be collected fromother studies or fromnew researches.

Primary Forest (1956–2001):Decline in number of species

Land clearing, selective logging andother agriculture and developmentactivities and hunting

Land clearing, reclamation, selectivelogging, acquaculture, agriculture anddevelopment activities, and hunting

Mangrove Forest:Decline in number of species

29


the Klang area. Reduction in forest area willinitially affect large mammals, followed bymedium-sized mammals and finally smallmammals.

2. Birds

In general, birds can be grouped into waterbirds and forest birds. Since this project coversthe three forest types, both groups wereconsidered.

Evidence of Decline

Data gathered indicated evidences of declinein the number of bird species (forest and waterbirds) in all forest types and selected areas foundin the Klang project area (Tables 8–10). Detailedcount is provided only for water birds (Tables 9–

10) since a detailed study was conducted by severalresearchers in the past. For forest birds, detailedevidences cannot be provided since the data arevery scarce and not complete. More researches areneeded to verify the decline in the number of birdspecies in the three forest types. These researchesshould be more comprehensive and may requiremore time to detect changes in the number of birdspecies and population.

Attributed Causes

The decline of bird population and species inthe Klang project area is suspected based onevidences that several large shore and migratorybird species were not seen in the last several years.Although the absence of these species might beassociated with a sampling error, the possibilitiesare high that these species are no longer using the

Terrestrial Mammals

Table 7. Details of Retrospective Risk Assessment of Terrestrial Mammals.

M M M Y Y Y Y

M M M Y Y Y Y

M M M Y Y Y Y

ND ND M Y Y Y Y

M M ND M M M M

ND Y M Y Y Y Y

ND ND M Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

? ? ? VL VL VL VL









Likelihood

Legend: Y – Yes, M – Maybe, ND – No Data, ? – Unknown, VL – Very Likely

Aquacultu

re,

Agric

ulture

a

nd Other

Dev

elopmen

t

A

ctivitie

s

Pests

Diseas

es

Hunting

Pollutio

n

Land cl

earin

g for

m

ining

Selec

tive L

ogging

30


area because of the absence of the requiredhabitats such as mudflats and other forestedareas. Loss and degradation of habitats werebrought mostly by land clearing, reclamationand logging activities (Table 11). Hunting isanother likely agent for the observed decline.

Consequences

The absence of certain bird species isprimarily due to the absence of required habitats.Further loss of habitat will lead to greater decline

in migratory and waterbirds in all types offorests in the Klang area since these sea andmigratory birds may move to more suitablelocations.

3. Aquatic Fauna

Assessment of aquatic fauna is only onfreshwater fishes found in peat swamp andprimary rain forests. No assessment was madeon other aquatic organisms because not much datawas available.

Source: Wetlands International-Asia Pacific, n.d.

Table 9. Retrospective Analysis of Waterbirds in Kapar Power Station. Changes Observed Possible Agents

Number of species increased from 25 to 40(1999-2000)

No. of species decreased from 40 to 26(2000-2001)

Most Likely: Better coverage of survey

Likely: Weather factor, resurgence in migrating species

Unlikely: Habitat conditions improved

Likely: Weather factor, lack of migrating species

Possibly: Disturbance from operational activity within the plant

Unlikely: Poor conditions in the ash ponds

Table 8. Retrospective Analysis of Birds in Three Different Habitats. Changes Observed Identified Agents Remarks

Peat Swamp Forest:Decline in number of species(1998–2001)Primary Forest:Decline in number of species(2001)

Mangrove Forest:

Decline in number of species

Land clearing, reclamation, selectivelogging and other agriculture anddevelopment activities; huntingLand clearing, selective logging andother agriculture and developmentactivities; hunting

Land reclamation and other

development activities

Needs further reports and referencesfor detailed analysis. The dataavailable are sketchy.A decline in the number of species isthe predicted outcome from a changeof land use especially in primaryforest within the study sites.A decline in number of species is thepredicted outcome from a change ofland use especially in mangroveforest within the study sites.

Sources: PERHILITAN, 1998; Shukor, et.al.,2001.

31


Table 10. Retrospective Analysis of Waterbirds in Paya Indah Wetland Sanctuary. Changes Observed Possible Agents Remarks

No. of species decreasedfrom 131 to 15 (1996-1999)

No. of species decreasedfrom 15 to 11 (1999-2000)

No. of species maintainedat 11 (2000-2001)

Most Likely:

Bird observations concentrated primarily onwaterbirds in recent years; diversity of forestbirds outnumber waterbirds; time of countdid not coincide with bird migratory period

Possibly:

Illegal hunting of birds

Unlikely:

Environmental pollution

Most Likely:

Bird observations concentrated primarily onwaterbirds, time of count did not coincidewith bird migratory period

Likely:

New environment needs time to re-establish

Possibly:


Unlikely:


Most Likely:

Bird observations concentrated primarily onwaterbirds; time of count did not coincidewith bird migratory period

Likely:

New environment needs time to re-establish

Possibly:


Unlikely:


• Generally, the diversity ofwaterbirds in inlandfreshwater systems ofPeninsular Malaysia is low ascompared to forest birds.

• Illegal hunting of waterbirdsdo occur occasionally anddiminish certain species.

• Generally, the diversity ofwaterbirds in inlandfreshwater systems ofPeninsular Malaysia is low ascompared to forest birds.


• Paya Indah will attract morebirds as the ecosystem strivesto achieve stability.

• Generally the diversity ofwaterbird in inland freshwatersystems of PeninsularMalaysia is low as comparedto forest birds.


• Paya Indah will attract morebirds as the ecosystem strivesto achieve stability.

Source: Giesen and Sebastian, 1996; Wetlands International-Asia Pacific, n.d.

32


Evidence of Decline

Available data gathered (Table 12) indicatedevidences of decline in the number of fish speciesin the primary rain forest and peat swamp forests.Detailed evidence however cannot be providedsince the data are very scarce and not complete.More research works are needed to verify thedecline in the number of fish species in thesehabitats. These researches should be morecomprehensive and may require more time todetect any change in the number of species andpopulation.

Attributed Causes

Decline in fish population and species in theKlang project area is suspected based on evidence

that several predator species are locally rare andthat several exotic species such as Tilapia areincreasing in the river system. This is a sign of adisturbed or polluted river system. The loss ofspecies is not only due to the loss of habitat suchas the peat swamp areas that are converted intofarmland and housing, but also potentiallypollution of organic and inorganic substances inthe water channels (Table 13).

Consequences

Loss of habitat and pollution of the waterchannels may lead to decrease in the local speciesand increase in invader (exotic) species. Indirectly,the reduction of the fish population wouldinfluence the economic condition of the localpeople.

Land

Rec

lamati

onBirds

Land C

learin

g

Diseas

e

Hunting

Pollutio

n

Table 11. Detailed Retrospective Risk Assessment of Birds in Three Different Habitats.

Selec

tive L

ogging









Likelihood

Legend: Y – Yes, M – Maybe, ND – No Data, ? – Unknown, L – Likely, P – Possibly, U – Unlikely, VL – Very Likely

M M Y Y Y Y

ND M Y Y Y Y

ND M Y Y Y Y

ND ND Y Y Y Y

ND M M M M Y

ND Y Y Y Y Y

ND ND Y Y Y Y

? Y Y Y Y Y

? P VL VL VL VL

33


Develo

pmen

t

A

ctiviti

esFreshwater Fishes

Hea

vy M

etals

Oil & G

reas

e/oil

spill

sPes

ticid

es

Sedim

entat

ion/TSS

Table 13. Detailed Retrospective Risk Assessment of Freshwater Fishes.

Toxic

Algae

Organ

ic M

atter

Nutri

ents

Diseas

e









Likelihood

Y Y Y M M M Y M Y

M Y M M ND ND Y Y Y

M M M M M ND ND ND Y

M M M M M ND ND ND Y

ND Y ND ND ND ND ND ND Y

M Y M M M M M ND Y

ND Y M M ND ND ND ND Y

Y Y Y M M M M M Y

Legend: Y – Yes, M – Maybe, ND – No Data, ? – Unknown, L – Likely, P – Possibly, U – Unlikely, VL – Very Likely

Table 12. Summary of Information for Aquatic Fauna Decline in Three Different Habitats. Changes Observed Agents Remarks

Peat Swamp Forest:Decline in number of species (1998–2001)

Mangrove Forest:Decline in number of species

Inland Streams:

Decline in number of species (2000)

Land clearing, reclamation,selective logging, mining andother development activitiesLand clearing, selectivelogging and aquaculture andother development activities Logging, pollution and otheragriculture and development

activitiesSources: Ng, et al., 1994; Abdullah and Wang, 1996.

Needs more data either fromreports and other referencesor further study for detailedanalysis. At present the data

available are sketchy.

? P ? ? ? ? P P VL

34


SUMMARY OF THE RETROSPECTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

For marine capture fisheries, it was difficultto relate the changes in production toenvironmental factors due to insufficiency of dataand other confounding factors such as fish catchfrom other areas.

Fish and shellfish culture activities, on theother hand, have been shown to have significantimpacts on mangrove ecosystems due to theconversion of mangrove areas to culture ponds,while in the Kapar and Klang MFRs, the observeddecline in mangrove cover was linked to theconversion of mangrove areas to accommodatedevelopments in the vicinity of the Klang coastalarea.

Decline was also established, based on thelimited information available, for mammals,birds and fish in tropical rainforests, peat swampforests and mangrove forests, and the mostimportant factors identified to have contributedto the decline were habitat loss and hunting.For freshwater fishes, water pollution is animportant factor influencing the population anddiversity but land clearing and land reclamationdirectly destroys suitable habitat for aquaticorganisms.

The results of the retrospective risk assessmenthave linked the decline in natural resources andhabitats to various development activities in theKlang ICM area. Specifically, over-exploitation ofnatural resources such as forest products andchanges in land use such as for housing,aquaculture, agriculture, mining and otherdevelopment activities have resulted to habitatloss and degradation and decline in biodiversity.Changes in environmental conditions due topollution have also been implicated in the declinealthough more information is required tosufficiently establish correlation and cause-effectrelationships.

The retrospective risk assessment emphasizesthe need to balance economic development andthe conservation and protection of the naturalenvironment and resources in order to ensure thatecological functions and services will be sustainablyprovided while maintaining economic activitiesthat also provide goods and services that benefitsociety.

The retrospective risk assessment alsoemphasized the need to gather information onappropriate indicators especially for fisheries inorder to allow more quantitative and reliableassessments to be made.

35

Prospective Risk Assessment

INTRODUCTION

A prospective risk assessment aims todetermine if measured or predicted levels ofenvironmental parameters are likely to cause harmto targets of interest. This is accomplished byidentifying the likely targets then comparing themeasured or predicted environmentalconcentrations (MECs or PECs) with appropriatethreshold values (PNECs) to get risk quotients(RQs). For human health, risk through seafoodingestion is estimated by comparing measured orpredicted environmental levels (MELs or PELs)with levels of concern (LOCs) as PNECs.

In an ecological point of view, differentthresholds should be specified for differenttargets, and if these are not available, as is oftenthe case, ecotoxicological endpoints can beextrapolated to ecosystem endpoints usingappropriate application factors (MPP-EAS, 1999a).

For Port Klang, a simplified ecological riskassessment was carried out using standards andcriteria values from the literature as thresholds toestimate the risk to the entire ecosystem. Theprinciples and techniques applied are describedin MPP-EAS (1999a).

For the ecological risk assessment, RQs are theratios of MECs (or PECs) and PNECs. For humanhealth, RQs are the ratios of MELs (or PELs) andLOCs. LOCs are obtained by dividing the tolerabledaily intakes (TDIs) by the consumption rates.When an RQ is less than 1, it is presumed that thelikelihood of adverse effects is low. When an RQis greater than 1, there is a likelihood of adverseeffects the magnitude of which increases withincrease in RQ.

For ecological risk assessment:

For human health:

Where RQ <1 Low risk >1 High risk

The reliability of the assessment dependslargely on the quality of the data used as MECsand on the quality and relevance of the thresholdvalues used as PNECs. Although there may beuncertainties associated with the MECs and PNECsused in the risk assessment, the utility of the RQsin signaling potential areas of concern issignificant. The uncertainties can be minimizedthrough the careful selection of good quality dataand relevant thresholds or these can be describedso that future use of the results of the riskassessment would take the possible effects of theuncertainties into consideration.

Uncertainties can also arise from the variabilityin the RQs obtained. An initial measure ofuncertainty was obtained by taking the averageand worst-case (maximum) RQs. A morequantitative measure of uncertainty can be carriedout using the Monte Carlo simulation, a re-sampling technique which randomly re-samplespairs of MECs and PNECs to come up with thepercentage of the measured values exceeding thethreshold.

PNECCorPEMECRQ )(

=MEC (or PEC)

LOCorPELMELRQ )(

=MEL (or PEL)

36


Data for the IRA of Port Klang came primarilyfrom the DOE–Selangor, 2000 (Appendix 1). Thethreshold values used as PNECs came primarilyfrom the Interim National Water Quality Standardsfor Malaysia (INWQS) and Interim Marine WaterQuality Standards for Malaysia (IMWQS)(Appendix 3). Marine water quality criteria andstandards from other sources were also used tosupplement the local marine water qualitystandards.

In the preliminary risk assessment carried outduring the Regional Training Course onEnvironmental Risk Assessment in Chonburi,Thailand on July 23–28, 2001, data for selectedparameters in the water column from variousstations were combined and the best-case, worst-case and average RQs were estimated. The RQsgenerated using this simplified approach provideda glimpse of ecological and human health risks inthe area, which became the basis for a moredetailed assessment of risk for specific areas alongthe coasts and two major rivers, Klang and Langat.

Assessment of risk in sediments was carriedout only for oil and grease and polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons or PAHs. There were no data oncontaminants or pathogens in seafood tissue thatcould be used to assess direct risk to human healthassociated through consumption of contaminatedseafood, but risk to human health associated withwater contact was assessed.

Although the risk assessment focuses onmarine ecosystems and their components astargets, the RQ approach was extended to theassessment of risk posed by various contaminantsin the air using air quality monitoring data asMECs and air quality standards for Malaysia asPNECs (Appendix 3).

Following are the results of the preliminaryrisk assessment (during the training) and the IRAfor coastal areas, river areas and ambient air inPort Klang, Malaysia.

PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT

The data used for the analysis were taken fromthe reports from DOE–Selangor with monthlymonitoring observations from 24 stations(Appendix 1–2) representing mostly Klang River,Klang River estuary and Straits of Klang (onestation). Sampling was conducted observingDOE–Malaysia guidelines for sampling methodsfor surface water. The PNECs used, as appropriate,were from the INWQS for Malaysia, Class II, andthe IMWQS for Malaysia. For oil and grease, thePNEC used was 1 mg/l, which was therecommended standard for Malaysia as reportedin Abdullah and Wang (1996) and applied in MPP-EAS (1999b). Initial estimates of RQs wereobtained by using the geometric mean and worst-case measurements from the combined data fromvarious sampling stations and sampling periods.This was aimed at screening parameters thatpresent acceptable concern, and hence may notrequire detailed risk analysis, and to identifypriority parameters for which detailed spatial andtemporal analysis will be carried out as the datapermit. Sources of uncertainty and data gaps inthe risk assessment were also identified andrecommendations for filling the data gaps andverifying the uncertainties were provided.

Table 14 shows that except for arsenic, allparameters in the water column gave average RQs(RQAve) that exceeded 1. For biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) and ammonia (NH3), even thebest-case RQs (RQMin) exceeded 1, indicatinggeneral cause for concern for levels of theseparameters in the water column. Only averagevalues were available for the other parameters,thus only average RQs were obtained, whichexceeded 1 for Escherichia coli, Hg, and oil andgrease. Since the PNECs used were specified forthe protection of waters used for recreation andbody contact, RQs that exceed 1 also indicatehuman health risk associated with bathing incontaminated waters. The high RQs for E. coli, inparticular, pose human health risks.

37


It is clear that for BOD, ammoniacal nitrogen(AN), total suspended solids (TSS), E. coli, mercury(Hg) and oil and grease in the water column, thereis a need to conduct a more detailed riskassessment in order to verify and/or update theresults, conduct more detailed spatial and/ortemporal assessment of risks and identify primarysources of these risk agents. Oil and greaserequires closer examination using additional data.Data for heavy metals in the water were alsolimited to Hg and arsenic (As), which were takenfrom the monthly monitoring activities of DOE–Selangor in the year 2000 only, thus Hg, As, andother heavy metals should also be examined moreclosely using additional data. All the PNECs usedwere from the Interim Water Quality Standardsfor Malaysia (IWQS), Class II. The analysisinvolved data for fresh water as well as seawater(e.g., E. coli, As, Hg and oil and grease weremeasured in seawater from the Straits of Klang.

In the sediment (Table 15), only one set of datafor oil and grease from Port Klang, which wastaken from Chua Thia-Eng, et al., (1997) and fromAbdullah (1995), was available at the time of theassessment. The PNEC used (3 mg/kg) was thecritical concentration for both oils andhydrocarbons in sediment, as applied in MPP-EAS(1999b) after consideration of the variability incriteria and standards for oil and grease inMalaysia and other locations.

For oil and hydrocarbons in the areas assessed,both RQMin and RQMax exceeded 1 (Table 20),indicating general cause for concern for theirlevels. The uncertainty associated with the limiteddata (from three stations in 1995) used in theanalysis is well recognized, but given the level ofboth land-based (domestic, industrial andautomotive activities; palm plantations andrefineries) and sea-based (shipping, port

Table 14. Prospective Risk Assessment for Water Column Contaminants.

Agent MECAve MECMin MECMax PECs PNECs RQMax RQMin RQAve Remarks/Notes on Uncertainty

BOD 81.48 46 82 3 27.33 15.33 27.16 RQMin > 1 (general cause forconcern); risk reductionactions needed

AN 13.52 5.4 17 0.3 56.33 18 45.1 RQMin > 1 (general cause forconcern); risk reductionactions needed

TSS 64 39.5 65.29 50 1.31 0.79 1.28 RQAve > 1 but RQMin < 1, needrefined RA to determine areasof concern

E. coli 7300 100 73 RQAve > 1 (area-wide concern);risk reduction actions needed

As 0.007 0.1 0.007 RQAve < 1 but RQMax is notavailable; need refined RAusing more data

Hg 0.002 0.001 2 RQAve > 1 but RQMin andRQMax are not available; needrefined RA

Oil and 1.5 1 1.5 RQ values slightly above 1but RQMin and RQMax are notavailable; need refined RA

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

(MPN/

100 ml)

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

Grease(mg/l)

38


operations and fishing) activities that cancontribute oil and related substances to the marineenvironment, oil and grease is recommended forfurther assessment. It is also recommended thatother available data on oil and grease and otherparameters in the sediment (e.g., heavy metals,pesticides, PAHs) be collected and used for therisk assessment and/or that oil and grease andother parameters be integrated into futureenvironmental monitoring programs in the PortKlang ICM project area.

COASTAL AREAS IN KLANG

Based on the results of the preliminary riskassessment, a more detailed risk assessment wascarried out specifically for various areas along thecoast of Klang and selected rivers. Trends in riskthrough time were also evaluated for some areas.

Major parts of the Selangor coastal areas areunder the influence of two major rivers, i.e.,Langat and Klang. Both of these rivers are pollutedand hence there may be water qualitydeterioration at the estuaries and coastal areaswhere both rivers discharge their water. In viewof the strong influence of these two rivers on thecoastal areas, the risk assessment of the coastalzone focused on areas that are situated near bothof these rivers. And in order to confirm the riskposed by contaminant discharges from the rivers,risk assessment was also carried out for the tworivers.

The coastal zones in Selangor that may beaffected by possible contamination of the Langatand Klang rivers are:

• Pantai Morib• Kuala Langat at Jugra• Kuala Langat• Kuala Klang• Selat Klang Utara

These coastal areas are situated close to bothof the two rivers and are important areas foraquaculture (Jugra) and recreation (Morib). Therisk assessment of marine water in several coastalzones was aimed at evaluating the potentialimpacts of water quality on these economicactivities.

The data used (MECs) in calculating RQs camefrom the DOE–Selangor, while the thresholds(PNECs) came primarily from the IMWQS forMalaysia. RQ > 1 indicate adverse impactsassociated with use of the water for human bodycontact and for aquaculture.

The IMWQS, however, has been specified fora limited number of parameters only and valuesfor dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and turbidity arenot available. For oil and grease, the standardvalue is zero (0), which cannot be used toquantitatively estimate RQs. The values for someparameters are also not stringent and are at leastone order of magnitude higher than the INWQSfor rivers in Malaysia, the ASEAN marine water

Table 15. Prospective Risk Assessment for Oil and Grease in Sediment.

RQMin > 1 but limited data;

needs further assessment

Oil and 83 704 3 234.7 27.7 Grease (mg/l)

Agent MECAve MECMin MECMax PNECs RQMax RQMin RQAve Remarks/Notes on Uncertainty

39


quality criteria (2003), and criteria or standardsfrom other areas within and outside the region(Table 16). Use of these higher standard valueswill underestimate the risk that the agents poseto ecological and human targets.

In view of the limitations of the IMWQS andthe inappropriateness of applying freshwaterstandards for marine areas, PNECs for the riskassessment of coastal waters were chosen, asdeemed appropriate, from the IMWQS, ASEANcriteria, and other areas in the region, in this orderof priority. The protectiveness of the threshold

values was also an important consideration. Table17 presents the standards/criteria applied tospecific parameters and the respective sources.

For oil and grease in water, the PNEC usedwas 1 mg/l, which was the value applied for totaloil and grease in Malaysia in MPP-EAS (1999b)based Abdullah and Wang (1996). This value isthe same as the Philippine criteria and Vietnamesestandard for oil and grease.

For pH, standard values are not available fromthe INWQS and the ASEAN criteria while ranges

Table 16. Comparison of the Water Quality Standards of Malaysia with Other Criteria and Standards.

1ASEAN Marine Water Quality Criteria (ASEAN, 2003), Criteria for protection of aquatic life2Philippine Marine Water Quality Criteria (DAO 34, 1990), Class SA (propagation, growth and harvesting of shellfish for commercial

purposes)3Coastal Water Quality Standard of Thailand (PCD, 1994), Class 4: propagation of marine life4Vietnamese Standards for Seawater Quality (MOSTE, 1995), VNS 5943 –1995, Class B (Aquaculture)5Bali Province Seawater Quality Criteria (2000), Indonesia (for marine biota and fisheries)6U.S.EPA Marine Chronic Criteria for Regulatory Purposes (U.S. EPA, 2000)

Agent IMWQS INWQS ASEAN1 Philippines2 Thailand 3 Vietnam 4 Bali, Indonesia5 U.S. EPA6

DO (mg/l) 5–7 4 5 4 > 5 4

SS (mg/l) 50 50 < 10% increase < 30% increase 50 80 over seasonal

avg. conc.

pH 6.5–9 6.5–8.5 7–8.5 6.5–8.5 6–9

Turbidity

(NTU) 50 30

As (mg/l) 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.036 (III)

Hg (mg/l) 0.001 0.001 0.0016 0.002 0.0001 0.005 0.003 0.000025

Cd (mg/l) 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.0093

Cr (mg/l) 0.5 0.05 0.05 (VI) 0.05 (VI) 0.05 (VI) 0.05 (VI) 0.01 0.05

Cu (mg/l) 0.1 0.01 0.008 – 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.0029

Pb (mg/l) 0.1 0.05 0.0085 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.0056

E. coli 100 100 100 nil nil 1,000

(CFU/100ml)

Oil & Grease 0 1 0.14 1 Not visible 1 5

(mg/l)

BOD – 3 – 3 – 10 45, 10

(mg/l) (for bathing)

COD – 25 – – – – 80, 20

(mg/l) (for bathing)

NH3 (mg/l) – 0.3 0.07 - 0.4 0.5 1

40


of permissible pH values were specified forother countries in the region. Using criteriavalues for Class SA waters in the Philippines(suitable for propagation, survival andharvesting of shellfish for commercial purposes),RQs were assigned either as < 1 or > 1 dependingon whether the value falls within the range ofPNECs.

In calculating RQs for DO, it should be notedthat, unlike with other parameters, a measuredvalue lower than the standard value indicatesdeteriorating conditions (i.e., worst-case MECis the lowest value). Thus, for DO, RQ = PNEC/MEC and the worst-case RQ (RQMax) is equal toPNEC/lowest MEC.

In addition to the data on oil and grease insediments from Port Klang which were used inthe preliminary risk assessment, a range of oiland grease values from three stations in Moribwere also obtained from Chua Thia-Eng, et al.(1997) and Abdullah (1995). The PNEC used was3 mg/kg, as applied in MPP-EAS (1999b).

Results and Discussion

Tables 18-22 present the results of the riskassessment for the five identified coastal areas. Ageneral trend is seen with regard to thecontamination of these five coastal zones, asdemonstrated by the parameters SS, E. coli and oiland grease in the water column, and PAH and oiland grease in the sediment (Table 23), for whichall RQAve exceeded 1, indicating cause for concernfor the levels of these parameters. However, otherparameters such as heavy metals still showedacceptable risk as the RQs were all < 1. The RQvalues for these parameters remain < 1 even forworst-case conditions. There were no data on CODor BOD but the high utilization of DO could bededuced from RQAve values > 1 for DO at KualaKlang and Kuala Langat. RQAve for DO in Selat KlangUtara was also very close to 1.

Obviously, the contamination of the marinewater by pathogenic E. coli, oil and grease and SS,as indicated by RQAve exceeding 1, is a cause forconcern.

Malacca Straits Refined Risk Assessment (MPP-EAS 1999b)

Table 17. PNECs used for the Prospective Risk Assessment for Coastal Waters.

DO (mg/l) 4 ASEAN, 2003

SS (mg/l) 50 IMWQS (Malaysia)

pH 6.5–8.5 Philippines (DAO 34, 1990, Class SA)

Turbidity (NTU) 30 Bali, Indonesia (for marine biota & fisheries) (2000)

As (mg/l) 0.05 Philippines (DAO 34, 1990, Class SA)

Hg (mg/l) 0.001 IMWQS (Malaysia)

Cd (mg/l) 0.01 ASEAN, 2003

Cr (mg/l) 0.05 ASEAN, 2003

Cu (mg/l) 0.008 ASEAN, 2003

Pb (mg/l) 0.0085 ASEAN, 2003

E. coli (CFU/100ml) 100 IMWQS (Malaysia)

Oil and Grease (mg/l) 1 MPP-EAS, 1999b

BOD (mg/l) 3 Philippines (DAO 34, 1990, Class SA)

COD (mg/l) 20 Bali (for bathing) (2000)

NH3 (mg/l) 0.07 ASEAN, 2003

Agent PNECs Sources

41


Risk from Pathogenic Bacteria

RQAve for E. coli exceeded 1 in all stations, withthe highest RQ values obtained from Kuala Klang(RQAve = 23.3) followed by Pantai Morib (RQAve =15.3), and the lowest at Kuala Langat at Jugra(RQAve = 1.8) (Figure 3).

The presence of E. coli poses risk to humanhealth because these bacteria may contaminate theaquaculture products from these coastal areas,especially at Jugra, which is an important

aquaculture area. When consumed, these productsmay lead to public health problems. The use ofthis marine water for recreational purpose withbody contact also poses human health problemsespecially in Pantai Morib, which is a recreationarea.

Risk from Sedimentation and Siltation

RQAve for SS exceeded 1 in all the coastalstations. The magnitude of RQ values show thatthe five areas are almost equally affected by

Table 18. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Pantai Morib.

Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l) 4.70 4 0.85SS (mg/l) 198.8 240 50 4.8 3.98pH 7.5 6.5–8.5 < 1Turbidity (NTU) 44.9 82 302.73 1.5As (mg/l) 0.005 0.007 0.05 0.14 0.1Hg (mg/l) < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 1 < 1Cd (mg/l) < 0.001 < 0.001 0.01 < 0.1 < 0.1Cr (mg/l) 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02Cu (mg/l) 0.002 0.003 0.008 0.38 0.25Pb (mg/l) < 0.001 < 0.001 0.0085 < 0.1 < 0.1E. coli (CFU/100ml) 1,532 2,400 100 24 15.32Oil and Grease (mg/l) 2.17 8 1 8 2.17

Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

Turbidity (NTU)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Cu (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

E. coli (CFU/100ml)

Oil and Grease (mg/l)

Table 19. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Kuala Langat at Jugra.

5.02 4 0.873 108 50 2.16 1.467.7 6.5–8.5 < 1

12.88 82 30 2.73 0.430.006 0.007 0.05 0.14 0.12

< 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 1 < 1 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.01 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02

0.003 0.004 0.008 0.5 0.375 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.0085 < 0.1 < 0.1179.6 542 100 5.42 1.85.5 6 1 6 5.5

42


Table 20. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Kuala Klang. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

Turbidity (NTU)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Cu (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

E. coli (CFU/100ml)


3.20 4 1.25108.3 230 50 4.6 2.17

6.59 6.5–8.5 < 18.9 18 30 0.6 0.3

0.006 0.011 0.05 0.22 0.12< 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 1 < 1< 0.001 < 0.001 0.01 < 0.1 < 0.1< 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02< 0.001 < 0.001 0.008 < 0.125 < 0.125< 0.001 < 0.001 0.0085 < 0.01 < 0.01

2,326 3,428 100 34.28 23.26 1.5 2 1 2 1.5

Table 21. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Kuala Langat. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

Turbidity (NTU)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Cu (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

E. coli (CFU/100ml)


3.66 4 1.09192.6 348 50 6.96 3.852

7.28 6.5–8.5 < 180.6 240 30 8 2.69

< 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 1 < 1 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.01 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.008 < 0.125 < 0.125 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.0085 < 0.118 < 0.118 885.6 3,480 100 34.8 8.86

1.6 2 1 2 1.6

suspended solid particulates in the water column(Figure 3). For turbidity, RQAve exceeded 1 for PantaiMorib, Kuala Langat and Selat Klang Utara whileRQMax exceeded 1 for Kuala Langat at Jugra.

Elevated levels of SS can affect the aquacultureindustry especially the culture of shrimps. It can alsoaffect the aesthetic nature of the water and hencerecreational use. High levels of SS can also reducelight penetration in the water and inhibitphotosynthetic processes with consequent effects onorganisms at higher trophic levels.

Although suspended solids arecontributed by natural biological, physical andchemical processes, various land-use practicesin the watershed areas and along the coastare also significant contributors. Theseactivities include land reclamation projects,aquaculture, agriculture, upland forestry,mining, discharge of wastes from varioussources, dredging, trawling, mangroveconversion and so on. Relative contributionsof these various sources of SS also need to bedetermined.

43


Risk from Oily Wastes

RQAve for oil and grease in the water columnexceeded 1 in all stations, with the highest RQAve

obtained for Jugra followed by Selat Klang Utaraand Pantai Morib (Figure 3).

In the sediments (Table 21), RQMin for oil andgrease in Port Klang and Morib also exceeded 1,indicating general cause for concern in all the areassampled.

Oil and grease pollution can have adverseimpacts on marine flora and fauna. Laboratorystudies, some of which have been supported by

field observations, have shown that fish exposedto sublethal levels of petroleum (even similar tothose observed under normal field conditions)experienced negative effects on reproductiveprocesses and aberrations in development,behavior, subcellular structure and biochemicalprocesses that could lead to premature deaththrough increased susceptibility to predation anddisease. PAHs in petroleum have also been linkedto formation of tumors in fish and mollusks (IMO,1988).

The RQs exceeding 1 for PAHs in sediment(Table 23) in two out of three areas (Klang Estuaryand Kuala Langat) confirm the concern for oil and

Table 22. RQs for Water Quality Parameters at Selat Klang Utara. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

Turbidity (NTU)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Cu (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

E. coli (CFU/100ml)


4.16 4 0.96157.4 234 50 4.68 3.15

7.02 6.5–8.5 < 156.25 150 30 5 1.880.002 0.003 0.05 0.06 0.04

< 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 1 < 1 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.01 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.008 < 0.125 < 0.125 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.0085 < 0.118 < 0.118416.8 542 100 5.42 4.17

3 6 1 6 3

Kuala Langat

Oil and Grease

Total PAHs (ng/g)

Klang Estuary

Port Klang

Morib

Klang Coast

19 431 233. 4 200 0.095 2.155 1.167

9 39 24 200 0.045 0.195 0.12

55 615 232 200 0.275 3.075 1.16

Table 23. RQs for Oil and Hydrocarbons in Sediment at the Klang–Kuala Langat Coastal Zone.

(µg/g dry wt.)

83 704 3 234.7 27.7

5.6 26 3 8.7 1.9

Agent MECMin MECMax MECAve PNECs RQMax RQMin RQAve

44


related substances in the water column since PAHsare constituents of oil and grease which representsa large group of chemicals including biogenic andpetrogenic hydrocarbons as well as biologicallipids. PAHs are found in petrogenichydrocarbons and indicate the contribution ofpetroleum sources to the oil and grease in themarine environment.

The relative contribution of biogenic andpetrogenic sources in the levels of oil and greasein the Klang coastal area therefore need to beevaluated in order to enhance the assessment anddevelop appropriate risk reduction measures.

Conclusions

Among all five coastal zones examined, basedon the RQAve values, Jugra showed the highestRQAve for oil and grease followed by Selat KlangUtara and Pantai Morib, while Pantai Morib andKuala Klang are the priority risk areas for E. coli.For SS, most zones are equally affected. Jugra isan important aquaculture zone while Morib is a

recreation area. Attention must be given to thepresence of pathogenic bacteria and high levels ofoil and grease in the water especially at theseareas, with particular consideration on the sources.

Evaluation of Temporal Trend of Risk forthe Coastal Station in Langat River

Changes in the average level of risk for someparameters throughout a six-year period wasevaluated for the coastal station in Langat River.The MECAve, taken from DOE–Selangor, areshown in Table 24. The RQs which were calculatedusing the MECs and corresponding PNEC values(from Table 17) are presented in Table 25.

As shown in Table 25, the RQ values for DO, SS,turbidity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), oil andgrease and NH3 consistently exceeded 1 while someof the RQs for BOD and NH3 also exceeded 1. Formost parameters, the RQs fluctuated and did notshow clear trends, potentially due to variabilityassociated with sampling areas and periods, althoughthere has been little reduction in risk (Figure 4).

Figure 3. RQAve Values for Selected Water Quality Parameters (with RQ > 1) in the Coastal Stations

45


The RQs for oil and grease exceeded 1,indicating cause for concern for this parameterin the coastal areas. The RQs for COD alsoindicate risk from excessively high organic loads.Very frequently, however, analysis of COD inmarine water is subjected to high chloride ioninterference. Therefore the data obtained heremust be viewed with caution and calls for furtherverification. The RQs exceeding 1 for DO,however, confirm the results for COD since

decline in DO indicates an increased oxygendemand in the bay for the decomposition oforganic loads. The high RQs for NH3 also indicateanoxic conditions thus further confirming theconcern for low DO levels and high organic loads.The RQs for SS and turbidity are alsocomplementary and both indicate risk fromsiltation and sedimentation at the coastal areaclose to the river and at some points along thestretch of the river.

169 120.8 136.67 219 422 277.3

Table 24. The Average MEC Values for Various Water Quality Parameters at a Coastal Stationnear Langat River (1993-1998).

Parameter 1993


DO (mg/l) 2.36 2.02 2.1 2.53 2.65 2.78

Average MECS

3.66 2.38 5.26 5.33 ND 1.08

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(n = 6) (n = 5) (n = 5) (n = 3) (n = 4) (n = 6)

SS (mg/l)

pH

Turbidity

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

NH3 (mg/l)

547.4 416.4 212 192.33 249 216.67

6.11 6.74 6.69 7.18 6.26 6.6

3.36 0.9 1.52 1.9 40.28 4.08

110.11 199.32 249.72 91 151.72 754.5

0.29 2.97 0.53 1.73 ND ND

(n = 2)(n = 3)

4.14 42.43 7.57 24.71 ND ND

Table 25. RQs for Various Water Quality Parameters at a Coastal Station near Langat River(1993-1998).

Parameter1993

Oil and Grease(mg/l)

DO (mg/l) 1.69 1.98 1.90 1.58 1.51 1.44

RQAve

3.66 2.38 5.26 5.33 ND 1.08

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

SS (mg/l)

pH

Turbidity

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

NH3 (mg/l)ND: No Data

10.9 8.32 4.24 3.85 4.98 4.33

> 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 > 1 < 1

5.63 4.03 4.56 7.30 14.07 9.24

1.12 0.3 0.51 0.63 13.4 1.36

PNEC

5.54 9.97 12.49 4.55 7.59 37.73

0.07

1

20

3

30

6.5-8.5

50

4

ND: No Data

46


Sources of Uncertainty

It is noteworthy that RQs have beenestimated separately for the different stationsassessed, thereby providing an indication ofspatial variability of potential risks. In this initialassessment, however, data collected from eachstation at different periods were combined toprovide single estimates of mean and worst-caseRQs, which do not demonstrate temporalvariability. This process, however, allowed theidentification of priority areas and parametersof concern for which more detailed analysis ofseasonal or annual trends could be carried out(such as the one done for the coastal area nearLangat River). Information on seasonal andannual trends in risks will aid in understanding

the sources/causes and distribution of risk agentsand in developing appropriate managementinterventions.

Another potentially significant source ofuncertainty in the risk assessment is the use ofstandards and criteria from other locations (suchas PNECs) since these might not be totallysuitable for Port Klang. These values were,however, applied because of the recognizedlimitations of the Malaysian marine water qualitycriteria. These limitations therefore need to begiven attention in order to improve theeffectiveness of the standards as one of thedecision factors in marine and coastalmanagement and enhance the reliability of futurerisk assessments.

Figure 4. The Variation of the RQs for Some Water Quality Parameters throughout 1993–1998.

47


KLANG AND LANGAT RIVERS

To confirm the risks identified in the riskassessment of coastal areas and the linkage withthe major river systems, risk assessment was alsocarried out for the water column of the Klangand Langat Rivers. The data used in the riskassessment were taken from reports (1990–2000)of DOE–Selangor (Appendix 1) while thestandards used as PNECs came from IWQS forMalaysia. The class of standards selected wasClass II, a minimum standard quality for drinkingpurposes. Class II was chosen to reflect thestringent nature of the standards and hence theseriousness of the risk assessment. RQs > 1 indicateadverse impacts associated with use of the waterfor human body contact and for aquaculture.

For oil and grease in water, the standardvalues in the INWQS are specific for differenttypes of oil such as mineral oil (0.04 mg/l forClass II water) and emulsifiable and edible oil (7mg/l for Class II water). Since the oil and greasedata used in the Klang IRA do not distinguishbetween the different oil types, the standardused was 1 mg/l, which was the standard appliedfor total oil and grease in Malaysia in MPP-EAS(1999b).

For DO and pH, ranges of standard valueswere specified in the INWQs for Malaysia. ForpH, RQs were assigned either as < 1 or > 1depending on whether the value falls within therange of PNECs. For DO, since anoxic conditionsover short periods may have considerable impacton fauna, particularly benthic animals, RQs werecomputed using the lower value in the range (5mg/l), which is comparable with standard valuesfrom other locations (Appendix 4). For DO, unlikewith other parameters, a measured value that islower than the standard value indicatesdeteriorating conditions (i.e., worst-case MEC isthe lowest value) such that RQ = PNEC/MEC.

Tables 26 to 31 present the results of theassessment for three areas in Klang River andanother three areas in Langat River, representingthe catchment (Tables 26 and 29), middle stretch(Tables 27 and 30), and estuarine (Tables 28 and31) areas.

Risk from Organic and Nutrient Contamination

Risk from nutrients and organic materials inthe water column was assessed by using RQAve

values for the parameters NH3, NO3 and P andBOD, COD and DO. For both Klang and LangatRivers, risk of contamination from organics isevident especially for the middle stretch andestuary of these rivers where RQ is very much >1. The risk from organic load in these areas wereconfirmed by the RQs > 1 for DO, indicatingutilization of DO for decomposition of organicmatter. Even the highest or best-case DO valuesgenerated RQs > 1. Among the nutrients evaluated,NH3 poses risk to both rivers for the middlestretch and estuary stations. However, forphosphorus (P), only one out of five stationsexamined indicated average RQ > 1. For NO3, therewas no risk established. Considering the low riskposed by P and NO3 contamination, the risk forriver eutrophication is probably also low.

Risk from Contamination by Metals/ToxicMetals

Assessment for heavy metals involved thefollowing MECs of the seven metals As, Hg,cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn),and iron (Fe). Except for Zn, Cr, and Fe that arenormally considered as trace essential elementsfor humans and most aquatic organisms, othermetals are toxic and can endanger health.Ingeneral, the RQ values for Zn, Cr and all the toxicmetals are < 1, which indicates low or acceptablerisk from levels of toxic metals in the two rivers

48


Table 26. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at Ulu Klang. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

NH3-N (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

NO3 (mg/l)

P (mg/l)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Fe (mg/l)

E. coli (counts/100 ml)

Coliform (counts/100 ml)

6.03 7.55 5.0–7.0 0.66 (best-case) 0.833.00 4 3 1.33 1

22.00 26 25 1.04 0.8818 34 50 0.68 0.366.68 7.11 6.5–9.0 < 1 < 10.24 0.43 0.3 1.43 0.8

27 390 50 7.8 0.540.28 0.38 7 0.05 0.040.01 0.5 0.2 2.5 0.050.011 0.032 0.05 0.64 0.220.0002 0.0005 0.001 0.5 0.20.001 0.003 0.01 0.3 0.10.001 0.009 0.05 0.18 0.020.01 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.20.02 0.04 5 0.008 0.0040.39 0.55 0.3 1.83 1.3

58,000 200,000 100 2,000 580130,000 200,000 5,000 40 26

Table 27. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at Petaling. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

NH3-N (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

NO3 (mg/l)

P (mg/l)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Fe (mg/l)



2.43 4.44 5.0–7.0 1.1 (best-case) 2.110.00 16 3 5.33 3.3348.00 119 25 4.76 1.9249 1,390 50 27.8 0.987.23 7.52 6.5–9.0 < 1 < 16.75 9.79 0.3 32.6 22.5

42.5 1,620.2 50 32.4 0.850.14 0.39 7 0.06 0.020.52 1.05 0.2 5.25 2.60.031 0.93 0.05 18.6 0.620.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.2 0.20.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.10.001 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.020.01 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.20.03 0.04 5 0.008 0.0060.59 0.9 0.3 3 1.97

200,000 200,000 100 2,000 2,000200,000 200,000 5,000 40 40

49


Table 28. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at Pelabuhan Klang. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

NH3-N (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

NO3 (mg/l)

P (mg/l)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Fe (mg/l)



2.97 4.3 5.0–7.0 1.2 (best-case) 1.73.00 7 3 2.33 1

43.00 93 25 3.72 1.72 128 226 50 4.52 2.56

7.36 8.06 6.5–9.0 < 1 < 12.84 4.41 0.3 9.5 1.47

56 153.2 50 3.06 1.120.01 0.11 7 0.02 0.00140.03 1.03 0.3 3.43 0.10.007 0.28 0.05 0.56 0.140.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.2 0.20.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.10.001 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.020.01 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.20.03 0.09 5 0.018 0.0060.02 10.2 0.3 34 0.067

30,000 200,000 100 2,000 300 5,000 200,000 5,000 40 1

Table 29. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Langat River at Batu 18. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

NH3-N (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

NO3 (mg/l)

P (mg/l)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Fe (mg/l)



7.60 7.96 5.0–7.0 0.63 (best-case) 0.661.00 2 3 0.67 0.3

17.00 22 25 0.88 0.6813 92 50 1.84 0.267.05 7.49 6.5–9.0 < 1 < 10.02 0.14 0.3 0.47 0.077.4 14.2 50 0.28 0.1480.35 0.42 7 0.06 0.050.01 0.01 0.2 0.05 0.050.002 0.002 0.05 0.04 0.040.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.2 0.20.01 0.01 0.01 1 10.001 0.001 0.05 0.02 0.020.01 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.20.02 0.02 5 0.004 0.0040.25 1.2 0.3 4 0.83

4,000 21,000 100 210 40 16,000 200,000 5,000 40 3.2

50


Table 30. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Langat River at Kajang. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

NH3-N (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

NO3 (mg/l)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Fe (mg/l)



4.05 5.74 5.0–7.0 0.9 (best-case) 1.28.50 17 3 5.67 2.83

35.50 62 25 2.48 1.42 321.5 496 50 9.92 6.43

6.89 7.11 6.5–9.0 < 1 < 10.92 1.73 0.3 5.77 3.07218.75 853 50 17.06 4.3750.64 0.77 7 0.11 0.0910.006 0.008 0.05 0.16 0.120.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.2 0.20.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.10.001 0.001 0.05 0.02 0.020.01 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.20.035 0.05 5 0.01 0.0070.49 1.19 0.3 3.96 1.63

68,000 113,000 100 1,130 680 91,500 200,000 5,000 40 18.3

Table 31. Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River at Kg. Air Tawar. Agent MECAve MECMax PNECs RQMax RQAve

DO (mg/l)

BOD (mg/l)

COD (mg/l)

SS (mg/l)

pH

NH3-N (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

NO3 (mg/l)

P (mg/l)

As (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Fe (mg/l)



2.21 2.26 5.0–7.0 2.2 (best-case) 2.3 2.00 14 3 4.67 0.6738.00 59 25 2.36 1.52

266.5 1,150 50 23 5.336.54 6.89 6.5–9.0 < 1 < 10.42 0.91 0.3 3.03 1.4

150.2 2,544 50 50.88 3.0040.18 0.36 7 0.05 0.0260.01 0.01 0.2 0.05 0.050.001 0.001 0.05 0.02 0.020.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.2 0.20.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.10.001 0.15 0.05 3 0.020.01 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.20.035 0.09 5 0.018 0.0070.02 0.7 0.3 2.33 0.067

400 1,100 100 11 4 2,350 4,800 5,000 0.96 0.47

51


examined. For Cd, the RQ exceeding 1 in thecatchment area of Langat River needs furtherverification. For Fe, however, RQAve exceeded 1in three out of six stations surveyed includingthe catchment area of Klang River while RQMax

exceeded 1 in all six stations, indicating cause forconcern particularly for the Klang River.

Risk from Sedimentation and Siltation ofRivers

Except for the catchment stations, both Klangand Langat rivers showed risk fromsedimentation and siltation problems. This isdemonstrated by high RQ values (> 1) for the SSand turbidity parameters, which indicate risk onthe flora and fauna in these aquatic habitats.Particularly affected are the sensitive species suchas those that carry out photosynthetic activities,e.g., plankton.

Risk from Pathogen Contamination

The RQs for E. coli and total coliform bacteriashowed serious cause for concern for the level ofthese pathogens in all river stations including thecatchment areas. The RQ values computed wereenormously high and imply severecontamination.

In the catchment areas where water is usedfor drinking, such risk must be carefully evaluated.

Conclusions

The priority concerns identified in the riskassessment of Klang and Langat Rivers areconsistent with the priority concerns for selectedcoastal areas, showing the strong influence of thetwo rivers on the water quality of these coastalareas. Assessment of risk from oil and grease inriver waters was, however, not carried out dueto lack of data.

RISK ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT AIR

Malaysian urban and industrial areas areincreasingly affected by air pollution to aconsiderable extent. This is due primarily toautomobiles, industrial activities, domesticcombustion and thermal power plant operations(DOE, 1998). A large portion of the populationmay be exposed to hazards in the atmosphere dueto the location of housing areas near industrialparks. The large number of automobiles adds tothe amount of suspended particulates and gaseouspollutants. Stationary and non-stationaryemissions, if not properly managed and controlled,may cause serious air pollution episodes like hazeand smog phenomena, acid rain, greenhouse effect,and transboundary pollution, and can affect publichealth and intensify public complaints (Hashim,2000).

There are a number of air pollutants in ambientair but only some parameters were considered forthe assessment, in particular the major air pollutantswhich are also used to determine the MalaysianAir Pollution Index (API), and these includesuspended particulate matter having a diametersmaller than 10 micrometer (PM10), sulfur dioxide(SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide(CO) and ozone (O3) (DOE, 1989).

Data for the assessment of air quality weretaken from the database of Alam Sekitar MalaysiaSdn. Bhd. station located at Sekolah MenengahPerempuan Raja Zarina, Klang. The MEC of eachparameter is an average data collected fromDecember 1996 to March 2000. The PNEC valuesare based on air quality standards recommendedby the DOE of Malaysia.

The results of the initial risk assessment (Table32) show that except for CO, all worst-case RQsexceeded 1 although all parameters gave RQAve

values that were less than 1. RQAve for PM10

52


recorded the highest value among the parametersselected (0.52). The average API was shown tohave exceeded the limit and PM10, which exhibitedthe highest potential to pose risk to the ecosystemof Klang, may have contributed significantly tothe high API.

A more detailed evaluation of data is neededto determine the temporal variability of risk fromvarious contaminants in ambient air.

However, during the haze phenomenon whichaffected the South East Asian region in 1997 (Table33), the RQAve for PM10 exceeded 1 while the RQMax

for O3 also exceeded 1. RQAve for other gasesduring this period were still below 1. The mainfactor for the high concentration of suspendedparticulate matter in ambient air during the hazeepisode was forest fire although soil dust, motorvehicles and industrial processes from local areasaggravated the situation.

0.01 0 0.13 0.13 1 0 0.1

Table 32. Prospective Risk Assessment of Air Quality.Agent MECAve

MECMax PNEC

PM10

NO2 (ppm)

O3 (ppm)

RQMax

SO2 (ppm)

CO (ppm)

API

MECMin RQMin

(µg/m3) 77.81 8 858 150 5.72 0.05 0.52

0.02 0 0.2 0.17 1.18 0 0.1

1.32 0 12.07 30 0.4 0 0.04

0.02 0 0.17 0.1 1.71 0 0.16

54.11 4 291 50 5.82 0.08 1.08

PNECs: Used Interim Standards for Air Quality in Malaysia, Class 1.

0.01 0 0.13 0.13 1 0 0.1

RQAve

Table 33. Prospective Risk Assessment of Air Quality During the Haze Phenomenon inSeptember 1997.

Agent MECAveMECMax PNEC

PM10

NO2 (ppm)

RQMaxMECMin RQMin

(µg/m3) 214 27 624 150 4.16 0.18 1.43

PNECs: Used Interim Standards for Air Quality in Malaysia, Class 1.

0.022 0 0.069 0.17 0.40 0 0.1

2.04 0.12 6.3 30 0.21 0.004 0.07

0.03 0 0.11 0.1 1.1 0 0.3O3 (pm)

SO2 (ppm)

CO (ppm)

0.018 0 0.077 0.13 0.59 0 0.1

RQAve

53

Comparative Risk and Uncertainty Assessment

INTRODUCTION

Comparative risk assessment for the range ofagents considered to be of potential concern inthe Klang project area have been carried outseparately for the water column in the coastal areasand rivers as well as in sediment and ambient air.The results of these analyses are summarized inTables 34–43. An initial indication of uncertaintyin the risk assessment is provided by comparingdifferences between average and worst case (i.e.,MECMax) conditions. In addition, the comparativerisk assessment highlights data gaps, consideringthe lack of MECs and criteria (local standards).

For all targets, average and maximum MECsfor the range of agents are shown (lower andhigher ends of horizontal bars). MECAve werecalculated as geometric mean since data of thisnature most often follow a log-normaldistribution, and in such cases geometric mean will

provide a less biased measure of the average thanthe arithmetic mean.

RISKS TO THE ECOLOGY OF PORT KLANG FROM WATER-BORNE SUBSTANCES IN COASTAL AREAS

Table 34 presents the summary of RQs forwater column parameters for the five coastalstations evaluated in the prospective riskassessment. Table 35 presents the comparativeinformation on risks in the five coastal stations inthe form of horizontal bars representing theaverage and maximum RQs.

The comparative RA table easily shows a trendin risk factors for all sites assessed, highlightingE. coli, oil and grease, SS, turbidity and DO aspriority concerns and heavy metals as lowconcerns (RQMax < 1). Relative degrees of riskamong sites are also shown. Almost comparablerisk was shown for SS for the five areas, with the

DO

SS

Turbidity

pH

As

Hg

Cd

Cr

Cu

Pb

E. coli

Oil and Grease

0.85 0.8 1.25 1.09 0.964.8 3.98 2.16 1.46 4.6 2.17 6.96 3.85 4.68 3.152.73 1.5 2.73 0.43 0.6 0.3 8 2.69 5 1.88 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

0.14 0.1 0.14 0.12 0.22 0.12 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.06 0.04 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

0.38 0.25 0.5 0.38 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.12 24 15.32 5.42 1.8 34.28 23.26 34.8 8.86 5.42 4.17

8 2.17 6 5.5 2 1.5 2 1.6 6 3

Table 34. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Coastal Areas. Agent Pantai Morib Kuala Langat at Jugra Kuala Klang Kuala Langat Selat Klang Utara

RQMax RQAve RQMax RQAve RQMax RQAve RQMax RQAve

RQMax RQAve

PORT KLANG INmAL RISK ASSESSMENT

highest RQs found in the Kuala Langat coastalarea. For E. coli, the piority areas are Kuala Klang

and Pantai Morib (RQAve>10) followed by Langat.The lowest RQs for E. coliwere found at Jugra, an

important aquaculture area, although RQAvestillexceeded 1. The highest RQAvefor oil and greasewas, however, found at Jugra followed by SelatKlang Utara and Pantai Morib while the lowest

RQs (although still> 1) for oil and grease camefrom Kuala Klang and Kuala Langat. There were

no measurements for nutrients and pesticides sothese were not assessed.

RISKS TO THE ECOLOGY OF PORT KLANG FROM W ATER-

BORNE SUBSTANCES IN KLANG RIVER

Table 36 shows the summary of RQs for thethree stations along the Klang River while Table

37 illustrates comparative information. The

comparative table shows that RQMaxwere less than1, indicating acceptable risk, in all sites assessed

for all the heavy metals except Fe and As, and

N03 and pH. General cause for concern (RQAve>1) at the middle stretch (Klang River at Petaling)and estuarine areas (Klang River at Pelabuhan

Table 35. Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne Substances in Coastal Areas.

Legend:Pantai Morib

Kuala Langat at Jugra

Kuala Klang... Kuala Langat

- SelatKlangUtara

*- Single bar for all sampling sites

54

RQ <1 1-10 1 - 100 100- 1,000 > 1,00000 ...SS -- ............ .-pH

Turbidity-

...... .....-As* -Hg

Cd* .Cr* ..Cu*

Pb* ..E.Coli -

..... ....-0 il and Grease -... -

55

COMPARATIVE RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

Klang) are shown for organics as indicated by DO,BOD and COD; and sedimentation and siltationas indicated by SS and turbidity. High cause forconcern (RQAve > 1) is shown for coliformsespecially fecal coliform at all sites including thecatchment area (Klang River at Ulu), signifyingthe need for immediate management interventionsstarting from the catchment area. Cause for concernwas also shown for the nutrient NH3 and metalFe at the middle stretch and estuarine areas andfor the nutrient P and metal As at the middlestretch of Klang River. There was no data on oiland grease so this was not assessed.

RISKS TO THE ECOLOGY OF PORT KLANG FROM WATER-BORNE SUBSTANCES IN LANGAT RIVER

Similar to Klang River, a general cause forconcern (RQAve > 1) was also shown (Tables 38–39) at the middle stretch (Langat River at Kajang)and estuarine areas (Langat River at Kg. AirTawar) in Langat River for organics (indicated byBOD, COD and DO); sedimentation/siltation(indicated by SS and turbidity); and NH3,indicating anoxic (oxygen-deficient) conditionsand confirming the risk from high organic load.Corresponding RQs for these parameters at the

0.66 0.83 1.1 2.1 1.2 1.7

Table 36. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River.

AgentRQMax RQAve RQMax RQAve

RQMax RQAve

Ulu Klang Petaling Pelubuhan Klang

DO

BOD

Turbidity

Hg

Cd

Cr

Zn

Pb

E. Coli

pH

Fe

COD

NH3-N

NO3

P

SS

T. Coliform

(best-case) (best-case) (best-case)

1.33 1 5.33 3.33 2.33 1

1.04 0.88 4.76 1.92 3.72 1.72

1.43 0.8 32.6 22.5 9.5 1.47

0.05 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.0014

2.5 0.05 5.25 2.6 3.43 0.1

0.68 0.36 27.8 0.98 4.52 2.56

7.8 0.54 32.4 0.85 3.06 1.12

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.18 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.008 0.004 0.008 0.006 0.018 0.006

1.83 1.3 3 1.97 34 0.067

2,000 580 2,000 2,000 2,000 300

40 26 40 40 40 1

0.64 0.22 18.6 0.62 0.56 0.14As


Table 37. Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne Substances in Klang River.

Legend:* - Singlebar shows range of RQs for three sites (approximated for pH: RQs<l)

- Range of RQs for Klang River at Ulu

- Range of RQsfor KlangRiver at Petaling

Range of RQs for Klang River at Pelabuhan Klang

56

RQ <1 1-10 1 - 100 100-1,000 > 1,000

00 - -(averageand best-case) ..BOD . -....COD -

.....55 -

.....pH*NH3-N(L)

-- -..............

Turbidity .......N03*

.

P -............... .........

As*-

.......Hg*

Cd*-

Cr* -Pb* .Zn* I

-Fe -

................. .................... .......E. Coli -.............................. ..-0 il and Grease -. .................... .......

57


catchment areas (Langat River at Batu 18) wereall less than 1 except for sedimentation (RQMax >1). However, for coliform, higher cause for concernwas shown for the catchment area than theestuarine area, indicating the need to managecoliform levels starting from the watershed area.Low cause for concern (RQMax < 1) is shown forthe nutrients P and NO3 and almost all heavymetals except Fe.

Between Klang and Langat Rivers, slightlyhigher RQs for sedimentation were obtained forLangat River, but much higher RQs were obtainedfor E. coli in the Klang River.

RISKS TO THE ECOLOGY OF KLANG FROM SEDIMENT-BORNE SUBSTANCES

Only data on oil and grease and total PAHswere available for the sediment compartment. TheRQAve derived from available data (Table 40) showcause for concern for the levels of oil and greasein Port Klang and Morib and PAHs in the KlangEstuary and Kuala Langat, as shown clearly inTable 41.

PAHs indicate the concentration of crude oilsand oil products in the aquatic environment,including PAHs that arise from combustion and

Table 38. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of Water Quality in Klang River.

AgentRQMax RQAve RQMax RQAve

RQMax RQAve

Batu 18 Kajang Kg. Air Tawar

DO

BOD

Turbidity

As

Hg

Cd

Cr

Zn

Pb

E. Coli

pH

Fe

COD

NH3-N

NO3

P

SS

T. Coliform

(best-case) (best-case) (best-case)

0.67 0.3 5.67 2.83 4.67 0.67

0.88 0.68 2.48 1.42 2.36 1.52

0.47 0.07 5.77 3.07 3.03 1.4

0.06 0.05 0.11 0.091 0.05 0.026

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.28 0.148 17.06 4.375 50.88 3.004

1.84 0.26 9.92 6.43 23 5.33

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

0.04 0.04 0.16 0.12 0.02 0.02

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.02 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.004 0.004 0.01 0.007 0.018 0.007

4 0.83 3.96 1.63 2.33 0.067

210 40 1130 680 11 4

40 3.2 40 18.3 0.96 0.47

0.63 0.66 0.9 1.2 2.2 2.3


Table 39. Comparative Risk Assessment for Water-Borne Substances in Langat River.

Legend:- Singlebar shows range of RQs for three sites (approximated for pH; RQ<I)

Range of RQs for Langat River at Batu 18

Range of RQs for Langat River at Kajang

Range of RQs for Langat River at Kg. Air Tawar

58

RQ <1 1-10 1- 100 100 - 1,000 > 1,000

00. - .

(averageandbest-case)

BOD -.... ............

COD - -...55 -.......... ...

pH*

NH3-N(1)-

.....-Turbidity ............. .........N03* ,.

P* ,.

AE,*

Hg* --

Cd* -..Cr* ................ .......Pb* -...Zn* "

Fe -................. .......E. Coli ............ .Oil and Grease .........

59


incomplete oil combustion processes such as ininternal combustion engines and industrialprocesses. Aromatic hydrocarbons are of concernsince these are highly toxic and PAHs in particularare known to be carcinogenic.

The results therefore show that oil and relatedsubstances may be posing direct risk to the benthic

and related ecosystem of Klang. However, dueto the limited data employed, a morecomprehensive risk assessment should beconducted as soon as new data/informationbecomes available. Data on other potentialcontaminants in the sediments such as heavymetals, pesticides and organotins should also beincluded in future assessments.

Table 40. Summary of RQs for the Prospective Risk Assessment of Sediment-BorneSubstances in the Klang Langat Coastal Zone.

Agent MECMin MECMax MECAve PNECS

Total PAHs(ng/g)

Klang Estuary

Port Klang

Morib

Klang Coast

Kuala Langat

Oil and Grease(µg/g dry wt.)

83 704 3 234.7 27.7

5.6 26 3 8.7 1.9

19 431 233.4 200 0.095 2.155 1.167

9 39 24 200 0.045 0.195 0.12

55 615 232 200 0.275 3.075 1.16

RQMin RQMax RQAve

> 1,000

Table 41. Comparative Risk Assessment for Sediment.RQ < 1 1 – 10 10 – 100 100 – 1,000

Total PAHs(ng/g)

Klang Estuary

Port Klang

Morib

Klang Coast

Kuala Langat

Oil and Grease(µg/g dry wt.)

60


RISKS FOR AIR QUALITY

RQAve were less than 1 for all parameters whilemaximum RQs exceeded 1 for all parametersexcept for CO, indicating cause for concern in somespecific areas (Tables 42–43). The mean API,

however, still exceeded 1, signifying otherimportant contributors to the API in addition tothe agents assessed in this report. The RQAve forPM10 exceeded 1 during the haze episode in the1997. Future assessments should identify specificareas or periods for which RQs exceeded 1.

> 1,000

Table 43. Comparative Risk Assessment for Air Quality.RQ < 1 1 – 10 10 – 100 100 – 1,000

Agent

PM10

NO2

SO2

O3

API

CO

RQs during the haze phenomenon in 1997.

Table 42. Prospective Risk Assessment of Air Quality.

O3

CO

214 27 624 150 4.16 0.18 1.43

0.022 0 0.069 0.17 0.40 0 0.1

0.018 0 0.077 0.13 0.59 0 0.1

2.04 0.12 6.3 30 0.21 0.004 0.07

0.03 0 0.11 0.1 1.1 0 0.3

77.81 8 858 150 5.72 0.05 0.52

0.02 0 0.2 0.17 1.18 0 0.1

0.01 0 0.13 0.13 1 0 0.1

1.32 0 12.07 30 0.4 0 0.04

0.02 0 0.17 0.1 1.71 0 0.16

54.11 4 291 50 5.82 0.08 1.08

Agent MECMax PNECS

Data from 1996–2000

PM10

NO2

SO2

O3

API

RQMax RQMin RQ AveMECAve MECMin

CO

NO2

SO2

PM10

Data During the Haze Phenomenon in 1997

61

Assessment of Socioeconomic Drivers

INTRODUCTION

Four sectors were selected for risk assessmentof socioeconomic factors/drivers, namely land-usechange, demography, agriculture and wastemanagement. These sectors are the key factors thatinfluence the development process in Klang and KualaLangat. Assessing the risks posed by these factors tothe existing ecosystem is crucial to determine the levelof impact or effect of each sector on the environmentand how these adverse impacts can be addressed.

LAND-USE CHANGE

The development process in Klang has undergonerapid growth. Historically, Klang has been the centerof economic activities since the 17th century. PortKlang, previously named Port Swettanham, is themajor port for Peninsular Malaysia. Land-use changesinvolved development of more urban and industrialareas. In 2000, 54.98 percent of land area wereagricultural lands while 7.2 percent and 3.5 percentwere urban and industrial areas, respectively. Thedistrict of Kuala Langat is also taking advantage ofthe development in Klang, although land-use changesin Kuala Langat were rather slower in rate compared

with Klang district. Kuala Langat is stilldominated by agriculture land covering 55.3percent of total area, while urban area andindustry cover 1.1 percent and 0.99 percentrespectively. Forest cover in Kuala Langat has,however, decreased from 3,954.14 ha to 2,383ha from 1992 to 2000 (Table 44).

The rapid economic growth in both districtswas driven by the development policy andstrategy of the state and local government.Well-built infrastructure and utilities also spedup the development. Availability of ports,highways, rail tracks, business and financecenter, power plant and labor attractedinvestors to Klang and Kuala Langat. This is inline with the State Government of Selangor andlocal government development plans, which aimto achieve for Selangor the status of adeveloped state in 2005.

Rapid changes of land use have, however,affected the functions of the ecosystem,especially the conversion of mangroves andpeat swamp forests for other uses. There arecases of peat swamp fires caused by illegalfarmers who practice the slash and burn

District (1992) District (2000)

Klang Kuala Langat Klang Kuala Langat

Source: Klang Municipal Council, 2000; Kuala Langat District Council, 1994; Kuala Langat District Council, 2000.

ND 72, 293.9 34, 457.53 48, 465.14ND 450.4 4, 516.70 980.5ND 212.8 2, 184.41 869.68ND 1, 649.9 0 335.25ND 3, 954.19 10, 608.00 2, 383.0ND 9,142.81 10, 911.36 33, 099.24

62, 678.00 87, 704.00 62, 678.00 87, 704.00

AgricultureUrbanIndustryMinesForestOthersTotal

Table 44. Land-use Changes in Klang and Kuala Langat.

Area (hectares)

62


method for cash crops. Other development andeconomic activities have also created ecologicalstress for the coastal ecosystem. Shrinkage ofmangroves and peat swamps reduce the functionand services that they provide, which areimportant to animals and humans. Habitat lossand degradation, loss of shoreline protection,increase in sedimentation rates, and reducedbiodiversity are among the adverse impactsarising from changes in land use and these havebeen identified as among the issues of concern inthe ICM area.

DEMOGRAPHY

The fast economic growth throughindustrialization in Klang and Kuala Langat hascreated jobs and business opportunities and hasattracted more people, leading to an increase inlocal population. With well-equippedinfrastructure such as highways, better roads, railtracks, public transport, wide coverage of utilitiesfor the public, businesses and various institutions,Klang and Kuala Langat have become attractivefor migration of people as well as investors fromother districts, states and countries.

The population in Klang is three times largerthan in Kuala Langat (Table 45). The populationgrowth rate in Klang was 4.6 percent from 1991to 2000 while it was 3.8 percent in Kuala Langatduring the same period. The population densityin Klang is also higher at 1,035 persons/km2

compared to Kuala Langat’s density of 216persons/km2.

High population density, which translates tomore energy and resource requirements to caterto the needs of the population, has created stressto the Klang ecosystem. It is also estimated thatmore infrastructure, energy and resources will beneeded as the population of Klang continues toincrease at the current rate. It is expected that inthe year 2005, Klang population will increase to816,705 people, which will then increase thepopulation density to 1,303 persons/km2. On theother hand, the Kuala Langat population growthrate, which is higher than the national growth rateof 2.8 percent per year, will still have a lesserpopulation number than Klang. By 2005, KualaLangat population is estimated to increase to229,636 people with a density of 261 persons/km2.

AGRICULTURE

Economic activities in Klang and Kuala Langatin the 1960s and 1970s were focused more onagriculture. Agriculture activities were divided tofive types of crops namely plantation, cash crops,fruits, vegetables and herbs. Palm oil dominated,compared to rubber, in plantation crops.Agriculture development was driven bygovernment policies, where under the five-yearMalaysian Plan (MP) for 1971–1975 (MP2) and 1976–1980 (MP3), more land was developed foragriculture. These plans came with strategies toenhance capability of farmers to produce more andbetter crops.

Under MP8 (2001– 2005), land for agriculturewill be reduced, and focus will be on technology

Table 45. Population of Klang and Kuala Langat.

Source: Universiti Teknologi MARA, 2000.

District 1991 2000

Klang 406,900 648,900

Kuala Langat 130,100 189,900

63

ASSESSMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVERS

to use less land for higher yields. As a result ofthis policy, agriculture areas in Klang havedecreased from 20,941 ha to 6,668.5 ha while KualaLangat has maintained its agriculture areas at67,689 ha.

The problems in agriculture activities,however, is not the capabilities in increasing cropsyield But the ecological stress brought by theagricultural activities through the use of pesticidesand fertilizers as well as generation of wastes fromprocessing. Another threat is illegal clearing ofland and forest, which leads to forest fire. Therewere cases where peat swamp forests in KualaLangat were cleared illegally and farmers whoused slash and burn technique inadvertently setup forest fires which also led to air pollution.

Agricultural activities, especially those thatinvolve clearing of forest areas also contribute tohabitat loss and degradation, reducedbiodiversity, and sedimentation and siltation inwater bodies.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

The rapid development in Klang and KualaLangat has increased its population.Industrialization and expansion of urban areashave created more wastes. The wastes generatedin Klang and Kuala Langat can be categorized asdomestic, market, commercial, industrial,

construction, institutional, landscaping and streetwastes. With a population of 648,900 people inKlang and 189,900 in Kuala Langat and with thevariety of industrial and agriculture activities,waste generation in 2001 in Klang was 472.36 tons/day while it in Kuala Langat it was 119.1 tons/day. Waste generation in Klang and Kuala Langathave increased significantly, from 360 tons/dayin 1994 in Klang and 90 tons/day in Kuala Langatto the amounts given for 2001. Landfill availabilityis one of the main problems in waste management.

Klang and Kuala Langat are experiencingproblems in determining areas for a new landfill.Landfill areas in Klang have decreased from 5.2ha to 3.66 ha while in Kuala Langat the decreasewas from 6.1 ha to 4.1 ha. It is expected that wastegeneration will increase by 4 percent per year.

For 2005, the rate of waste generation isestimated to increase to 576.9 tons/day in Klangand 145.5 tons/day in Kuala Langat. The state andlocal governments, therefore, have to determinestrategies and plans to reduce waste generation.An efficient waste management system whichfocuses on waste recycling, reduction and reusemight be able to reduce the rate of wastegeneration.

In addition to solid wastes, management oforganic and inorganic liquid wastes from land-based (i.e., domestic, commercial, industrial,institutional and agricultural) and sea-based

Table 46. Areas of Crops in Klang and Kuala Langat.

Source: Department of Agriculture–Selangor, 2000.

PlantationCash CropsFruits OrchardsVegetables Farms

Herbs Crops

20,941 67,689 6,668.5 67,689 50.4 293.2 45.8 314 683.3 2,221.4 683.2 2,150.9 28.3 111.5 30.3 145.7 18.2 71.5 18.2 87.6

(hectares) Crops 1998 2000

Klang Kuala Langat Klang Kuala Langat

64


activities should also be given attention asindicated by the results of the prospective riskassessment.

HUMAN HEALTH

A retrospective assessment of common healthproblems using information from the Ministry ofHealth showed that food and water-borne diseasesare the most common health problems faced bymany countries especially developing countrieslike Malaysia. The diseases include cholera,dysentery, food poisoning and typhoid infection.Incidence of these infections is still not well

controlled, and cholera and food poisoning inparticular still occur in the Klang ICM area. Theillnesses have mostly been associated with poorhygienic practices during food preparation at foodstalls, restaurants, hostels, and even at home. Foodpoisoning, however, may also be caused bycontamination of food by chemicals (e.g., heavymetals and pesticides) and pathogens (e.g.,coliforms) from production processes and fromexposure in the natural environment. These factors,however, have not been thoroughly investigated,and the results of the prospective risk assessmentshow that aquatic food products are exposed tovarious contaminants, thus consumptionpotentially poses human health risks.

65

Conclusions, Data Gaps and Uncertainties


For capture fisheries, conclusive evidence ofadverse impacts as a result of environmental factorsor fishing effort was not adequately established fromthe available information during the assessment.Based on available data, decline in fish landing from164.43 metric tons to 57.55 metric tons was observedfrom 1990 to 1993, while from 1993 to 2000, fishlanding records showed an increase from 57.55 to141.37 to 1,579.34 metric tons. Using data on fishlanding alone, it was not possible to explicitly relatethe changes in fisheries yield to the level of fishingintensity, and to determine whether this yield issustainable. Fish landings are also not reallyreflective of the status of fisheries in Port Klangcoastal waters since fishes are caught fromneighboring countries, particularly Indonesia. Theresults of the risk assessment show that data on otherindicators of fisheries conditions such as CPUE willhave to be gathered to enable more appropriateassessments to be carried out. Estimates of the MSYwill also be important to determine if the fishingeffort is within sustainable levels or if this mayeventually lead to adverse impacts on local fisheries.

The areas utilized for aquaculture activities haveincreased from 1993 to 2000, with correspondingincrease in fish and prawn production. Thisdevelopment, however, came at the expense ofmangrove and peat swamp areas, which wereconverted to culture ponds. These mangroves andpeat swamps are important for the survival andreproduction of numerous aquatic organisms and theloss and degradation of these areas resulting fromaquaculture development may adversely affect theirecological functions. The risk assessment indicates

the need to evaluate the impacts of existingaquaculture practices on the natural ecosystem,identify environment-friendly aquaculturepractices, and balance the need to meet theincreasing demand for marine food productsand protect the natural environment.

Decline in mangrove cover was adequatelyestablished for the Kapar and Klang Islandmangrove forest reserves (MFR), with 8 percentremaining in Kapar and 88 percent in Klang asof 1998. The identified primary cause of declinein mangrove cover in the forest reserves wasthe degazettement or removal from legalprotection of certain portions of the forestreserves and subsequent land reclamation toaccommodate developments in the vicinity ofthe Klang coastal area. The extensive loss ofmangroves especially in the Kapar area certainlywill have effects on the various ecologicalservices and functions provided by themangroves, with corresponding economic losses.A better understanding of the ecological andeconomic impacts of the decline of mangroveareas in the Klang District will be valuable informulating future development plans that willintegrate ecological as well as economicconsiderations.

The retrospective risk assessment on threemajor groups of wildlife namely mammals, birdsand freshwater fish in the primary (dipterocarp),mangrove and peat swamp forests showeddecline in these species due primarily to loss ordegradation of habitats due to changes in landuse for various socioeconomic activities and insome cases, pollution.

66


The data used in the assessment were,however, very few, not comprehensive and insome cases, not quantitative. The interrelatednessbetween the suspected agents and targets werealso most of the time not clearly defined, and itwas difficult to correlate between the agents andthe resources within the specified habitats. Moreresearches need to be undertaken to verify thereported decline in mammal, bird and fish speciesin the three forests. These researches should bemore comprehensive and should allow sufficienttime to detect changes in the number of speciesand population. Studies to determine exposure,correlation and cause-effect relationships betweenpotentially significant agents should also beundertaken.

A retrospective assessment of common healthproblems also showed that food and water-bornediseases such as cholera and food poisoning stilloccur in the Klang ICM area. These illnesses havemostly been associated with poor hygienicpractices during food preparation althoughcontamination of food by chemicals (e.g., heavymetals and pesticides) and pathogens (e.g.,coliforms) from production processes and fromexposure in the natural environment may also beimportant factors. Thorough investigation of thesefactors, however, has not been carried out, whilethe results of the prospective risk assessment showthat aquatic food products are exposed to variouscontaminants and consumption potentially poseshuman health risks.


Risk Assessment of Coastal Areas and Rivers

The prospective risk assessment of selectedcoastal areas and the Klang and Langat Riversshowed consistent results with regard to priorityconcerns, showing the strong influence of the tworivers on the water quality of the coastal areas.

For coastal waters in selected areas near theKlang and Langat Rivers, human health risk arisesfrom bathing in E. coli-contaminated waters andconsumption of potentially contaminatedaquaculture products. Higher cause for concernwas found at Pantai Morib, a recreation area, andKuala Klang. The lowest RQs for E. coli werefound at Jugra, an important aquaculture zone,although these RQs still exceeded 1.

Ecologically, cause for concern was shown inall the coastal areas assessed for oil and greaseand suspended solids. Greatest cause for concernfor oil and grease was found at Jugra followed bySelat Klang Utara and Pantai Morib. There wereno data on COD or BOD but the high utilization

of DO could be deduced from the RQAve values >1 for DO at Kuala Klang and Kuala Langat whileRQAve for the other three sites were approaching1. Acceptable risk was shown for other parameterssuch as heavy metals, while the concern for oiland grease was corroborated by the RQs exceeding1 for sediment PAHs, which are among the variousconstituents of oil and grease and which are foundin petroleum hydrocarbons.

For the Klang and Langat Rivers, human healthrisk from pathogen contamination was indicatedby the enormously high RQs for coliformsespecially E. coli. In the catchment areas wherewater is used for drinking, risk from E. coli mustbe carefully evaluated and immediatelyaddressed. Ecologically, risk from organiccontamination was indicated by the average RQsexceeding 1 for BOD, COD, DO and NH3

especially for the middle stretch and estuarystations; and risk from sedimentation and siltationof rivers as indicated by RQAve for suspendedsolids and turbidity for all except the catchmentstations. No assessment was carried out for oiland grease in river waters.

The high levels of SS, E. coli, and oil and greasein coastal waters were attributed to various

67

CONCLUSIONS, DATA GAPS AND UNCERTAINTIES

socioeconomic activities such as industrial,agricultural and domestic activities and changesin land use that lead to improper discharge ofwastes and habitat loss/degradation in the areassurrounding the Klang and Langat Rivers.

Evaluation of temporal trends of risk for acoastal station close to Langat River showed RQsfor DO, SS, turbidity, COD, oil and grease andNH3 consistently exceeding 1, thus confirming thepreceding results and strengthening the premisethat Langat River is a significant contributor tocontamination of coastal waters. Risk from thelevels of organic matter was indicated by the RQsfor COD and DO. No data on E. coli wasevaluated.

Risk Assessment of Ambient Air

The extension of the RQ approach to theassessment of human health risk from majorcontaminants in ambient air such as suspendedparticulate matter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2),nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO)and ozone from December 1996–March 2000showed that although the RQAve for all parametersstill indicate acceptable risk (all RQAve < 1), therewere instances when the contaminant levelspresented cause for concern (except for CO, allRQMax exceeded 1). The average Malaysian API,which is computed using the major contaminantspresented here, also exceeded the limit of 50(APIMax = 291 and APIAve = 54). PM10, whichexhibited the highest potential to pose risk to theecosystem of Klang (RQMax = 5.72 and RQAve =0.52), may have contributed significantly to thehigh API.

Assessment of the contaminant levels duringthe haze phenomenon which affected the SouthEast Asian region in 1997 showed that the RQAve

for PM10 and the RQMax for O3 also exceeded 1although RQAve for other gases during this periodwere still below 1.

Factors that contribute to air pollution inMalaysia especially in urban and industrial areasinclude automobiles, industrial activities, domesticcombustion and thermal power plant operation.Further economic development in the ICM area isexpected to further enhance these factors andincrease the level of air pollution. Location ofhousing areas near industrial parks may alsoexpose the population to various atmospherichazards. Proper management and control ofstationary and non-stationary emissions need tobe developed and implemented in order tomitigate air pollution, prevent associated eventslike haze and smog, acid rain, greenhouse effectand transboundary pollution, and protect publichealth.

LINK BETWEEN IDENTIFIED RISKS AND SOCIOECONOMIC

DRIVERS

The retrospective risk assessment of keysocioeconomic drivers related to theindustrialization and urbanization in the ICMproject area shows the linkage between theseactivities and the observed adverse environmentalchanges and resource and habitat degradation/losses.

The rapid economic growth in both the Klangand Kuala Langat districts was driven by thedevelopment policy and strategy of the state andlocal government, which aimed to make Selangora developed state by the year 2005. Well-builtinfrastructure and utilities sped up thedevelopment, and the availability of ports,highways, rail track, business and finance centre,power plant and labor attracted investors to Klangand Kuala Langat districts.

Land and resource requirements to supportindustrialization and urbanization have, however,resulted to rapid changes in land use includingconversion of mangroves and peat swamp forests

68


for other uses; increase in population due tomigration; and increase in waste generation.Efforts to increase agricultural yields through theuse of pesticides and fertilizers also presentedecological and human health risks. Illegal clearingof forests for farming is another damaging practicethat has led to forest fires.

These changes have led to increase in energyand resource requirements and reduction/loss ofthe functions and services provided by the naturalecosystem. Further development and economicactivities could bring additional stress to thecoastal ecosystem unless better understanding isachieved regarding the interactions betweendevelopment activities and the environment andmanagement interventions that aim to balancethese two aspects are put in place.

Data Gaps

Data that were not available when the riskassessment was undertaken, which could enhancefuture assessments, include:

1. More appropriate indicators to determinethe status of capture fisheries with regardto sustainability of existing fishingpractices and fishing effort such as CPUE,MSY estimates, changes in speciescomposition and size, presence or absenceof endemic species, etc.;

2. For aquaculture, data on production perunit area, which are more useful thanproduction estimates in establishingchanges in aquaculture productivity;

3. For the assessment of biodiversity, morecomprehensive and quantitativeinformation on flora and fauna, focusingsystematically on key indicator species andtheir responses to various environmentalfactors;

4. Information showing the impacts of habitatloss and degradation and environmentalpollution to living aquatic resourcesparticularly the economically valuablespecies;

5. Data gaps in the prospective risk assessmentsuch as nutrients in coastal water; oil andgrease in river water; coliform in seafoodtissue; heavy metals in sediment and biota;and pesticides and organotins in all media(water, sediment, biota);

6. Data on oil fractions from petrogenic andbiogenic sources. Local standards fordifferent components of total oil and greaseare actually available (e.g., mineral oil;emulsifiable and edible oil) but the onlyavailable data are on total oil and grease.Identification of the oil fractions frompetroleum and biological origins will allowa more precise assessment of risks fromvarious oil components;

7. More suitable standards for marine waterquality. The IMWQS for Malaysia is forlimited parameters only and some values(e.g., heavy metals) are not very protectivecompared with standards from otherjurisdictions;

8. More information to determine the linkagesof some of the most common food andwater-borne diseases to potentialcontamination of aquatic food productsfrom pathogens and chemical compounds;and

9. More information that would specificallylink particular socioeconomic activities tothe identified priority environmentconcerns, to provide basis for theformulation of more specific managementinterventions.

69

CONCLUSIONS, DATA GAPS AND UNCERTAINTIES

Uncertainties

Uncertainties in the results of the retrospectiveand prospective risk assessments for certainparameters are associated primarily with the datagaps.

The RQ approach was also found unsuitablefor dealing with risks posed by waste, poorsanitation and increased population (crowding).These are problems that require attention andbetter understanding, particularly with regard tothe sources/causes, distribution and impacts.

In some instances, models may need to bedeveloped to gain better understanding of therisks. This may include modeling shippingaccidents, effluents flows, changes in ecosystem,and disease outbreaks. This model will help inidentifying the type and level of risk, as well as,in developing emergency response procedures.

The initial risk assessment was based onworst-case and average scenarios. For someparameters, ecological components orsocioeconomic sectors, it is very important to

conduct the assessment in greater detail, whichmight need other perspectives of assessment. Thiswill also enable the distinction between localizedand coastal-wide conditions and correspondingrisk assessment results.

Other possible sources of uncertainty in theresults of the IRA are mostly associated with thequality, comparability and adequacy of themeasured concentrations and the suitability of thethreshold concentrations used. The PNECs usedhave been derived primarily from the nationalstandards for water quality and air quality, andsupplemented by criteria or standards from otherareas in the region. Values derived from othercountries, however, might not be suitable to Klangconditions. Even the suitability of some of themarine water quality standards for Malaysia needsto be evaluated.

Further quantification or clarification of theuncertainties associated with the risk assessmentmay be done through the application ofquantitative uncertainty analyses usingappropriate software packages (e.g., Monte Carlosimulation using the Crystal Ball software).

71

Recommendations and Proposed Actions

Results for both the retrospective and prospectiverisk assessments point to the need for the conduct ofa refined risk assessment although some resultsalready indicate the need for managementinterventions. Based on the results of the assessment,the following are recommended:

ON SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVERS

Further assessment of the socioeconomic driversassessed in this report and their linkages to theidentified environmental concerns need to beundertaken to allow the development of suitable andcost-effective management plans. Assessment shouldbe carried out on the following:

1. Waste: This will need to focus on wastegeneration, types, source of waste andimplication to coastal ecosystems. The sourceof waste will be identified according to activitysuch as urban, industry, shipping, hospital andagriculture.

2. Industrial development: This will need to focuson determining the number, types and locationof factories in Klang and Kuala Langat.Implications of industrial activities towardsthe coastal ecosystems will be determined.

3. Agriculture: Further evaluation will aim todetermine the implications of agriculturalactivities on water and sediment quality of thecoastal ecosystem in Klang and Kuala Langatas well as on the aquaculture products in thearea. Main agriculture activities such as palmoil production, pig farms and aquaculture willbe assessed in greater detail.

4. Land Use: The impacts of landconversion for other uses need to beevaluated with respect to the variousecological functions and servicesprovided by the areas being converted(e.g., mangroves and peat swamps).Evaluation of the benefits to be derivedfrom the land conversion anddevelopment activity and the costsincurred including the loss/decline in theecological functions and services of thenatural environment may aid inassessing the suitability of the selectedland use and in the formulation andapproval of future development plansthat will require land conversion orreclamation.

ON HUMAN HEALTH

It has been shown that food and water-borne illnesses particularly cholera and foodpoisoning still occur in the Klang ICM area.These illnesses have mostly been associatedwith poor hygienic practices during foodpreparation at food stalls, restaurants, hostels,and even at home, while linkages withcontaminated aquatic food products andexposure to contaminated waters has not beenadequately studied. Based on the results of theprospective risk assessment, aquatic foodproducts are exposed to various contaminantsand consumption potentially poses humanhealth risks. It is recommended therefore thathuman health risks from consumption ofcontaminated aquatic food products andexposure to contaminated coastal waters be

72


determined through systematic research studiesto allow determination of measures to protectpublic health. Hygienic food handling practices atvarious stages from production/collection topreparation should also be promoted.

ON THE QUALITY OF WATER, SEDIMENT AND AQUATIC

FOOD PRODUCTS

On Identified Contaminants of Concern

In the risk assessment for the coastal areas andthe Klang and Langat Rivers, common concernswere highlighted such as pathogens, oil andgrease, organic load and siltation of water bodies.Risk from coliform, in particular, is a cause forconcern even in the catchment areas of both rivers.Temporal trends in risk also showed that thesecontaminants would continue posing risk to thecoastal areas unless risk reduction measures areimplemented These contaminants are introducedto the water bodies through the direct and indirectdischarge of untreated or partially treated liquidwastes as well as solid wastes from land-basedand sea-based sources. A comprehensive controlprogram for preventing direct and indirectdischarges of untreated or partially treated wastesin the coastal areas and tributaries starting fromthe catchment areas should be developed andimplemented.

Evaluation of Risk from PersistentContaminants

Persistent contaminants such as toxic metalsand pesticides/organochlorines pose higher riskthan any other pollutant because of theiraccumulation behavior. Most of thesecontaminants in the water column will bedeposited in the bottom sediment once the riversthat carry them enter the sea. Unfortunately atthe river estuary, particularly the Klang and Langatestuaries, aquaculture activities are important

economically. Aquaculture produce from theseestuaries are likely to accumulate these toxicantsand the subsequent risk to seafood contaminationis high.

The risk associated with pesticides was notassessed at all due to lack of data in the watercolumn, sediment and biological tissue. Therewere also no data on heavy metals in the sedimentand biota. It is recommended that a systematicdata collection be undertaken to determine thelevels of these toxic metals and pesticides in thewater column as well as in the sediment andaquatic products in the Klang and Langat estuariesand nearby coastal areas. There was also noassessment done on tributyltin (TBT) due to lackof data. Given the level of shipping activities inthe area, TBT should be considered for datacollection and monitoring.

Detailed Assessment of Risk throughout theRiver Basin

The information from the risk assessment ofvarious parameters in the water column will beuseful for risk management only when the wholeriver basin is examined and its risk implicationson coastal water is ascertained. Therefore, the nextphase of the risk assessment should be extendedthroughout the whole river basin. This is unlikelyto be a problem because data are available formany water sampling stations along particularrivers, e.g., Klang or Langat. The risk evaluatedfor a particular stretch of the river will be relatedto land use or activities occurring surroundingthat stretch. This will thus enable the source ofrisk factors to be identified and remedial actionscan be taken to reduce the risk.

Wider Application of the RQ Approach

Risk from organics, siltation, oil and greaseand pathogens in the coastal areas and Langat andKlang Rivers were determined through the RQs

73

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS

generated in the prospective risk assessment.Future trends in risk were also deduced basedon the temporal trends in RQs. These resultsshow that although there are limitationsassociated with the simplified RQ approachapplied, this IRA based on RQs (and thecomparative assessment of risks based on orderof magnitude differences in RQs) appeared tobe adequate for providing insights into relativerisks in river and coastal waters. This processhas yielded meaningful results that may be usefulfor river basin and coastal management. Thus,such procedure may be extended to carry out amore detailed risk evaluation of rivers andcoastal waters in Selangor.

Review of the Interim Marine Water QualityCriteria

In this risk assessment, the limitations of theIMWQS for Malaysia were highlightedparticularly with regard to the standard valueswhich were regarded as “unprotective” relativeto those specified by ASEAN and other countriesin the region. This emphasizes the need to takea closer look at the interim standard values andassess their effectiveness as one of the importantdecision factors in managing the coastal andmarine environment. The limited number ofparameters included in the IMWQS also limitsits usefulness for the risk assessment and otherevaluation tools. Specific scientific researchesrequired in relation to the review of thestandards need to be identified.

ON RESOURCES AND HABITATS

Fisheries

The retrospective risk assessment of capturefisheries was not able to conclusively establishadverse changes in fisheries as a consequence ofenvironmental factors much less identify

causative agents for observed changes since theonly available data was on fish landing, whichwas influenced by increase in fishing intensityand use of more efficient fishing methods. It wasalso observed that fish landings are not reallyreflective of the status of fisheries in the PortKlang coastal waters since fishes are caught fromneighboring countries, particularly Indonesia.

The results of the risk assessment for fisheriesshow that indicators for monitoring andassessment of fisheries conditions such as CPUE,stock density and demersal biomass, and changesin catch composition (e.g., decline ineconomically-important species) will have to begathered to enable more appropriate assessmentsto be carried out. Estimates of the MSY will alsobe important to determine if the current fishingeffort is within sustainable levels or if this mayeventually lead to adverse impacts on localfisheries.

Concurrent with data gathering efforts,evaluation of the fisheries managementframework in the area may be carried out todetermine areas that need to be strengthened forthe sustainable development of the fisheriessector such as inter-agency and inter-sectoralcoordination, community participation,conservation efforts, use of responsible fishingmethods, enforcement of existing laws andregulations on fisheries, and protection offisheries resources from pollutant discharges.

Aquaculture

Aquaculture in the Port Klang ICM area isconsidered as an alternative way of coping withthe increased demand for fish and shellfish, butaquaculture development has involvedconversion of mangrove and peat swamp areasto culture ponds, which may lead to adverseecological effects. Pollution may also result fromintensive aquaculture practices.

74


It is recommended that use of indicatorsthat can provide better assessment of the statusof aquaculture such as the production/areashould be collected and used in future riskassessments. Existing aquaculture practices andtheir impacts on the natural ecosystem shouldalso be evaluated and management guidelinesshould be developed in accordance withenvironmental quality management plans andland and sea-use plans. Coastal aquaculturezones should be designated and adverseenvironmental impacts arising from aquacultureactivities should be minimized throughenvironment-friendly practices. Measuresshould also be developed to control adverseimpacts of other activities on coastal aquacultureactivities.

Mangroves

Various development activities haveresulted in the reduction of mangrove forestareas in the Klang ICM area, particularly at theKapar and Klang Island MFRs. The extensiveloss of mangroves may have had adverseecological, economic and social impacts due tothe impairment of ecological functions andservices provided by the mangroves.

Systematic studies should be carried out toassess the ecological, economic and social effectsof the reduction or degradation of mangroveecosystems. A better understanding of theadverse impacts of mangrove decline will bevaluable in formulating future developmentplans that will integrate ecological as well aseconomic considerations. Economic valuation ofmangrove forests will provide valuableinformation for management programs.

The practice of degazettement, in particular,to allow other uses of the protected area shouldbe assessed thoroughly in relation to effects on

the overall integrity of the ecosystem and otherpotential benefits from the existing mangrovearea. Benefit-cost analysis of proposed publicand private development plans, particularlythose that involve reclamation and mangroveconversion, should be conducted as part of thegovernment approval process. Mangrovereforestation in areas with high potential formangrove rehabilitation should be promotedand community participation in protection andrehabilitation efforts should be encouraged.Improvement and /or enforcement of laws,rules and regulations on utilization andconservation of coastal resources should alsobe strengthened.

Wildlife

Using limited data, decline in mammals,birds and aquatic fish were established. It was,however, difficult to clearly establish causes forthe decline due to insufficient information, andin most cases, the assessments were madebased on unpublished observations and certainassumptions. There are very few cause-effectstudies, which try to relate the effects ofprescribed agents on resources within aspecified habitat. For wildlife especiallyterrestrial species (mammals and birds), themost important factors identified for thedecline were habitat loss and hunting. Foraquatic fauna, considering not only the aquaticmammals but also vertebrates andinvertebrates, water pollution may also be animportant factor. More comprehensiveresearches, however, need to be undertakento verify the reported decline in these speciesand the attributed causes, allowing sufficienttime to detect significant changes in the numberof species and population and determiningexposure, correlation and cause-effectrelationships between targets and potentiallysignificant agents.

75

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS

ON AIR QUALITY

Except during the haze phenomenon in 1997when RQAve for PM10 exceeded 1, RQAve for allparameters were all < 1, indicating acceptableconcern in general. The RQMax for all parameters,however, exceeded 1, indicating cause for concernin some specific areas. The average API alsoexceeded 1, indicating potentially significantcontribution of other parameters not assessed inthis report. It is recommended that more detailedtemporal assessment be conducted for allparameters and that other potentially-importantparameters be included in the assessment.

OTHER DATA GAPS

In order to refine the IRA, it is recommendedthat the identified concerns be verified and datagaps be filled through primary data collection (i.e.,monitoring or research).

Following are some recommended studies:• Sediment load study which will be

conducted through hydrodynamics study;• Determination of level of impacts in specific

pollution hotspots;• Toxicology study through market-basket

study by using certain types of fish andshellfish species;

• Poverty and its implication towards theenvironmental management strategy; and

• Industrial development in the Klang areaand the linkage to environmentalpollution.

RISK MANAGEMENT

The results of the risk assessment show theneed to develop long-term strategies and action

programs to address environmental issuesrelated to resource exploitation, pollution andvarious coastal uses, including:

a. Integrated Land and Water-Use Zoning

The existing land and water uses inKlang, which are linked with recent economicdevelopments, have been attributed tocontribute to environmental concerns suchas pollution, increasing resource utilizationand habitat loss and degradation.Considering Klang’s goal for furtherdevelopment and the impending adverseimpacts on its natural coastal resources, it isrecommended that an integrated land- andwater-use zoning scheme with associatedinstitutional arrangements be developed.This should be aimed at managing conflictinguses of land and water resources, promotingthe most beneficial uses of specific areas, andpreventing adverse effects to ecological andhuman targets.

b. Environmental Investments

The risk assessment shows the need forenvironmental services and facilities andclean technologies in order to achieve abalance between continuing economicgrowth in Klang and environmentalprotection and management. This includesfacilities to manage industrial wastes,hazardous wastes, solid wastes and sewage.These present investment opportunities thatare expected to create income, employmentand livelihood. Such facilities will, however,require large financial investments andtechnological resources such that innovativeapproaches that will facilitate theparticipation of various sectors will have tobe employed.

76


c. Integrated Environmental MonitoringProgram

The risk assessment identifies the need fora systematic, cost-effective and coordinatedenvironmental monitoring program that willfocus on identified priority areas of concernand potentially-important data gaps. Anintegrated approach in the monitoring ofpriority pollutants, monitoring of humanhealth impacts of priority pollutants, andmonitoring of resource and habitat conditionsis recommended in order to enhance theassessment of the impacts of human activitieson the environment, impacts of environmentalfactors on human and ecological targets, aswell as the effectiveness of managementmeasures to address these adverse impacts.The integrated environmental monitoringprogram (IEMP) will be developed andimplemented through multi-agency and multi-sectoral coordination and cooperation andcharacterized by sharing of technical, financialand information resources. Capacity-buildingrequirements for implementing the IEMP willalso be identified, and the linkage betweenenvironmental monitoring and environmental

management will be enhanced throughapplication of the risk assessment/riskmanagement framework.

d. Collaboration and InstitutionalArrangements

Sustainable environmental managementcannot be achieved by governments or specificagencies unaided but should be undertakenthrough collaboration between differentagencies, universities, research institutions,local government, communities and the privatesector. Presently, there are limited efforts onsetting up this kind of collaboration, butdevelopment and implementation of strategiesand action programs to address theenvironmental concerns highlighted in the riskassessment require multi-agency and cross-sectoral approaches. To facilitate and ensuresustainable collaboration, appropriateinstitutional arrangements will have to be putin place, which will involve evaluation andstrengthening of policies, rules andregulations, implementation frameworks andenforcement capabilities on resourceutilization and environmental protection.

77

References

Abdullah, A.R. and C.W. Wang (eds). 1996. Oil andGrease Pollution in the Malaysian MarineEnvironment. Institute of Advanced Studies,University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.

Abdullah, M.P. 1995. “Oil related pollution status ofcoastal waters in Peninsular Malaysia.” InWatson, D., K.-S. Ong, and G. Vigers (eds.).Advances in Marine EnvironmentalManagement and Human Health Protection:Proceedings of the ASEAN-Canada MidtermTechnical Review Conference on MarineScience, Singapore. EVS EnvironmentalConsultants Ltd., North Vancouver, Canadaand National Science and Technology Board,Singapore for the ASEAN and CanadianInternational Development Agency. 215-224 p.

Alam Sekitar Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. 2000. Database ofStation Located at Sekolah MenegahPerempuan Raja Zarina, Klang, Malaysia (DataCollected from December 1996– March 2000).

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1990. EnvironmentalRisk Assessment: Dealing with Uncertainty inEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EnvironmentPaper No. 7), Asian Development Bank,Manila, Philippines. 182 p.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations).2003 July. The Marine Water Quality Criteriafor the ASEAN Region. www.aseansec.org/14541.htm.

Bali Province Seawater Quality Criteria. 2000. Decreeof Bali Governor No. 515/2000, ConcerningEnvironmental Standard Quality.

Chan HT, J.E. Ong, W.K. Gong and A.Sasekumar 1993. The socio-economic.Ecological and environmental values ofmangroves ecosystems in Malaysia andtheir present state of conservation. In:Clough G.F. (ed.) The Economic andEnvironmental Values of MangroveForests and their Present State ofConservation in SEA and Pacific Region.ITTO/ISME/JIAM Project PD71/89Rev.1(F) Mangrove Ecosystems.Technical Reports.

Chua T.-E., S.A. Ross and H. Yu (eds.). 1997.Malacca Straits Environmental Profile.MPP-EAS Technical Report 10, 259 p.GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programmefor the Protection and Management ofMarine Pollution in the East Asian Seas,Quezon City, Philippines.

DAO 34 (DENR Administrative Order No. 34).1990. Revised Water Usage andClassification (Water Quality CriteriaAmending Section Nos. 68 and 69,Chapter III of the 1978 NPCC Rules andRegulations). Class SA (propagation,growth and harvesting of shellfish forcommercial purposes). EnvironmentalManagement Bureau, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources,Quezon City, Philippines.

Department of Agriculture–Selangor. 2000.Hectarage of Crops by Districts andTypes of Crops (for 1998 and 2000).

Department of Fisheries–Selangor. n.d.

78


DOE (Department of Environment). n.d. InterimNational Water Quality Standards forMalaysia. Department of EnvironmentMalaysia. www.jas.sains.my/jas/river/interim_2.3.htm

DOE (Department of Environment). n.d. InterimMarine Water Quality Standards forMalaysia. Department of Environment,Malaysia. www.jas.sains.my/jas/marine/interim.htm

DOE (Department of Environment). 1989.Recommended Air Quality Guidelines.Department of Environment, Malaysia.w w w . j a s . s a i n s . m y / j a s /air+Data+Monitoring/Api.htm

DOE (Department of Environment). 1998.Environment Quality Report, 1997. KualaLumpur: Ministry of Science, Technologyand Environment, Malaysia.

DOE (Department of Environment). 2000.Malaysia Environmental Quality Report,2002. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Science,Technology and Environment, Malaysia.

DOE–Selangor (Department of Environment–Selangor). 2000. Environmental QualityReport: Selangor 2000.

Environment Canada. 1995. Interim SedimentQuality Guidelines. Soil and SedimentQuality Section, Guideline Division.Environment Canada. 8 p.

EVS Environment Consultants. 1996. “Classificationof Dredged Material for Marine Disposal.”Report to Civil Engineering Department,Government of Hong Kong, prepared byEVS Environment Consultants, NorthVancouver, British Columbia.

Fairman, R., C.D. Mead and W.P. Williams. 2001.Environmental Risk Assessment – Approaches,Experiences and Information Sources.service.eea.eu.int/envirowindows/chapter1h.shtml. March 2001.

Fisheries Department of Malaysia. 2000.Monitoring Report.

Giesen W. and A. Sebastian. 1996. A PreliminaryEcological Assessment of the MalaysiaWetland Sanctuary, Selangor. WetlandsInternational-Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur.

Hashim, D. 2000. “Malaysian Practice andExperience in Emission Control ofStationary Sources. “Paper Presented atNational Workshop on Air PollutionControl for Mobile and Stationary Sources.2-4 Mei.

Heang, K. B. and B. L. Lim. 1998. To Determinethe Efforts of Logging and Conversion ofPrimary Forest to Tree Crop Plantations,on Herpetofaunal Diversity in PeninsularMalaysia. Proceedings of the Malaysia–United Kingdom Workshop, 21-24 October1996. Forest Research Institute Malaysia.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 1988.Manual on Oil Pollution, Section V –Combating Oil Spills. InternationalMaritime Organization, London, UnitedKingdom.

IUPAC (International Union of Pure and AppliedChemistry). 1993. Glossary for chemists ofterms used in toxicology (IUPACRecommendations 1993). ChemicalChemistry Division Commission onToxicology, International Union of Pure andApplied Chemistry. www.sis.nlm.nih.gov/t.htm 05 April 2001.

79

REFERENCES

Klang Municipal Council. 2000. Klang StructurePlan Study (Kajian Perancangan StrukturKlang) 1998-2000.

Kuala Langat District Council. 1994. Kuala Langatand Sepang District Structure Plan. TownPlanning Department, Kuala LangatDistrict Council, Malaysia.

Kuala Langat District Council. 2000. Structure Planof Kuala Langat, Sepang dan Putrajaya.Town Planning Department, Kuala LangatDistrict Council, Malaysia.

Lim B.L., L. Ratnam and N. A. Hussein. 2003.“Small Mammal Diversity in Pasoh ForestReserve, Negeri Sembilan, PeninsularMalaysia.” In Pasoh: Ecology of a LowlandRain Forest in South East Asia.

Long, E.R., D.D. McDonald, S.L. Smith and F.D.Calder. 1995. Incidence of AdverseBiological Effects within Ranges ofChemical Concentrations in MarineEstuarine Sediments. EnvironmentalManagement 19:81-97.

Majlis Perbandaran Klang. 2000. Plan Report 1990-2000 Klang Municipal Council.

Malaysia Environmental Quality Report. 2002.Environmental Quality Standards(Seawater and Air Quality).

Ministry of Health Malaysia. n.d. Information andDocumentation System Unit.

Mohamad Pauzi Zakaria. 2002. Distribution ofPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)in River and Estuaries in Malaysia: AWidespread Input of Petrogenic PAHs.Faculty of Science and EnvironmentalStudies, University Putra Malaysia.

MOSTE (Ministry of Science, Technology andEnvironment). 1995. Vietnam NationalStandards for Water Quality – CoastalWater Quality Standard (VNS 5943-1995).

MPP-EAS (Marine Pollution Prevention in the EastAsian Seas). 1999a. Environmental RiskAssessment Manual: A Practical Guide forTropical Ecosystems. MPP-EAS TechnicalReport No. 21. Global EnvironmentFacility/United Nations DevelopmentProgramme/International MaritimeOrganization Regional Programme for thePrevention and Management of Pollutionin the East Asian Seas, Quezon City,Philippines. 88 p.

MPP-EAS (Marine Pollution Prevention in the EastAsian Seas). 1999b. Malacca Straits: RefinedRisk Assessment. MPP-EAS Technical ReportNo. 23/PEMSEA Technical Report No. 1.Global Environment Facility/UnitedNations Development Programme/International Maritime OrganizationRegional Programme for the Preventionand Management of Pollution in the EastAsian Seas (MPP-EAS)/Partnerships inEnvironmental Management for the Seasof East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City,Philippines. 89 p.

MTPW (Ministry of Transport and Public Works).1991. Water in the Netherlands: A Timefor Action. MPTW. The Hague, TheNetherlands. 68 p.

Muhamad Bin Awang, Abu Bakar Jaafar, AhmadMakmom Abdullah, Marzuki Bin Ismail,Mohd Nasir Hassan, Ramdzani Abdullah,Shamsuddin Johan and Hamdan Noor.2000 June. “Air Quality in Malaysia:Impacts, Management Issues and FutureChallenges.” Respirology 5(2):183-196.

80


National Standards of P.R. China. 1995. WaterQuality Standards of Seawater. (GB-3097-1997).

Ng, P. K. L., J.B. Tay and K. K. P. Lim. 1994.Diversity and Conservation ofBlackwater Fishes in Peninsular Malaysia,particularly in the North Selangor PeatSwamp Forest. Hydrobiologia 285: 203-218.

PCD (Pollution Control Department). 1995.Water Quality Criteria and Standards inThailand. 2nd Edition (Coastal WaterQuality Standard of Thailand, Class 4:propagation of marine life). PollutionControl Department, Ministry of ScienceTechnology and Environment, Thailand.

PERHILITAN. 1987. Malaysian WetlandDirectory. Department of Wildlife andNational Parks, Peninsular Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur.

PERHILITAN. 1998. Department of Wildlife andNational Parks, Peninsular Malaysia.

Shukor, et al. 2001. pers. comm.

Suter, G.W. 1998. Retrospective assessment,ecoepidemiology an ecological monitoring,Chapter 7, In: Calow, P. (ed.) Handbookof Environmental Risk Assessment andManagement. Blackwell Science, Oxford,UH.

UNEP-IE (United Nations EnvironmentProgramme - Industry and Environment).1995. Environmental Management Tools:Facts and Figures. Industry andEnvironment. 19: 3 -10.

UNEP-IETC (United Nations EnvironmentProgram - International EnvironmentalTerchnology Center). 1996. EnvironmentalRisk Assessment for Sustainable Cities. TechnicalPublication Series No. 3. United NationsEnvironment Programme - InternationalEnvironmental Technology Center, Osaka/Shiga, Japan. 57 p.

Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. 2000. UniversitiPertanian Malaysia (Pauzi).

Universiti Teknologi MARA. 2000. State of SelangorDemography Study. Universiti TeknologiMARA. (UiTM), Selangor, Malaysia.

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental ProtectionAgency). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological RiskAssessment: Final. EPA/630/R-95/002F RiskAssessment Forum US-EPA, Washington,DC., U.S.A.

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental ProtectionAgency). 2000. Summary of U.S. EPA MarineWater Quality Criteria. United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency.www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/sec301tech/table3.gif. July 2000.

Wetlands International–Asia Pacific. n.d. Databaseon the Asian Waterfowl Census. WetlandsInternational–Asia Pacific, Kelana Jaya,Selangor DE.

Wetlands International–Malaysia Programme. 2000.Klang Islands Group: Issues and needs forconservation. A working paper submittedto the Selangor Foresty Department.Wetlands International–MalaysiaProgramme, Petaling Jaya. 19 p.

81

Glossary

Accuracy. The degree to which a measurementreflects the true value of a variable.

Adverse ecological effects. Changes that areconsidered undesirable because they alter valuedstructural or functional characteristics of ecosystemsor their components. An evaluation of adversity mayconsider the type, intensity, and scale of the effect aswell as the potential for recovery.

Agent. Any physical, chemical, or biological entitythat can induce an adverse response (synonymouswith stressor).

Assessment endpoint. An explicit expression of theenvironmental value that is to be protected,operationally defined by an ecological entity and itsattributes.

Attribute. A quality or characteristic of an ecologicalentity. An attribute is one component of anassessment endpoint.

Benthic community. The community of organismsdwelling at the bottom of a pond, river, lake, orocean.

Bioaccumulation. General term describing a processby which chemicals are taken up by an organismeither directly from exposure to a contaminatedmedium or by consumption of food containing thechemical.

Bioconcentration. A process by which there is a netaccumulation of a chemical directly from an exposuremedium into an organism.

Biomagnification. Result of the process ofbioaccumulation and biotransfer by whichtissue concentrations of chemicals in organismsat one trophic level exceed tissue concentrationsin organisms at the next lower trophic level ina food chain.

Bund. A land built along coastal area toprevent sea water intrusion to the land areaduring the high tide.

Community. An assemblage of populations ofdifferent species within a specified location andtime.

Comparative risk assessment. A process thatgenerally uses a professional judgment approachto evaluate the relative magnitude of effectsand set priorities among a wide range ofenvironmental problems.

Concentration. The relative amount of asubstance in an environmental medium,expressed by relative mass (e.g., mg/kg),volume (ml/L), or number of units (e.g., partsper million).

Contaminant of concern. A substance detectedat a hazardous waste site that has the potentialto affect ecological receptors adversely due toits concentration, distribution, and mode oftoxicity.

Correlation. An estimate of the degree to whichtwo sets of variables vary together, with nodistinction between dependent andindependent variables.

82


Degazettement. Annulment or revocation of theproclaimation of gazettement.

Degradation. Conversion of an organic compoundto one containing a smaller number of carbonatoms.

Disturbance. Any event or series of events thatdisrupts ecosystem, community, or populationstructure and changes resources, substrateavailability, or the physical environment.

Ecological component. Any part of an ecosystem,including individuals, populations, communities,and the ecosystem itself.

Ecological entity. A general term that may referto a species, a group of species, an ecosystemfunction or characteristic, or a specific habitat. Anecological entity is one component of anassessment endpoint.

Ecosystem. The biotic community and abioticenvironment within a specified location and time,including the chemical, physical, and biologicalrelationships among the biotic and abioticcomponents.

Ecotoxicology. The study of toxic effects onnonhuman organisms, populations, orcommunities.

Effects assessment. The component of a riskanalysis concerned with quantifying the mannerin which the frequency and intensity of effectsincrease with increasing exposure to substance.

Environmental risk assessment. The likelihood thatan environmental condition caused by humanactivity will cause harm to a target. It involvesestimating the likelihood of harm being done tohuman health and/or ecosystems through factorsemanating from human activities that reach theirnatural targets via the natural environment.

Exposure. Co-occurrence of or contact between astressor and an ecological component. The contactreaction between a chemical and a biologicalsystem or organism.

Exposure assessment. The component of a riskanalysis that estimates the emissions, pathwaysand rates of movement of a chemical in theenvironment, and its transformation ordegradation, in order to estimate theconcentrations/doses to which the system ofinterest may be exposed.

Fate. Disposition of a material in variousenvironmental compartments (e.g., soil orsediment, water, air, biota) as a result oftransport, transformation, and degradation.

Food-chain transfer. A process by whichsubstances in the tissues of lower-trophic-levelorganisms are transferred to the higher-trophic-level organisms that feed on them.

Habitat. Place where a plant or animal lives, oftencharacterized by a dominant plant form andphysical characteristics.

Hazard. The likelihood that a substance will causean injury or adverse effect under specifiedconditions.

Hazard assessment. Comparison of the intrinsicability of a substance to cause harm (i.e., to haveadverse effects for humans or the environment)with its expected environmental concentration,often a comparison of PEC and PNEC. Sometimesreferred to as risk assessment.

Hazard identification. Identification of theadverse effects that a substance has an inherentcapacity to cause, or in certain cases, the assessmentof a particular effect. It includes the identificationof the target populations and conditions ofexposure.

83

GLOSSARY

Ingestion rate. The rate at which an organismconsumes food, water, or other materials (e.g., soil,sediment). Ingestion rate usually is expressed interms of unit of mass or volume per unit of time(e.g., kg/day, l/day).

LC50. A statistically or graphically estimatedconcentration that is expected to be lethal to 50percent of a group of organisms under specifiedconditions.

Lowest-observable-adverse-effect level (LOAEL).The lowest level of a stressor evaluated in a toxicitytest or biological field survey that has a statisticallysignificant adverse effect on the exposed organismscompared with unexposed organisms in a controlor reference site.

Measurement endpoint. A measurable ecologicalcharacteristic that is related to the valuedcharacteristic chosen as the assessment endpoint.Measurement endpoints often are expressed as thestatistical or arithmetic summaries of theobservations that make up the measurement.Measurement endpoints can include measures ofeffect and measures of exposure.

Population. An aggregate of individuals of a specieswithin a specified location in space and time.

Precision. A measure of the closeness of agreementamong individual measurements.

Predicted or estimated environmental concentration(EC). The concentration of a material predicted/estimated as being likely to occur in environmentalmedia to which organisms are exposed.

Primary effect. An effect where the stressor acts onthe ecological component of interest itself, notthrough effects on other components of theecosystem (synonymous with direct effect; comparewith definition for secondary effect).

Prospective risk assessment. An evaluation ofthe future risks of a stressor(s) not yet releasedinto the environment or of future conditionsresulting from an existing stressor(s).

Reference site. A relatively uncontaminated siteused for comparison to contaminated sites inenvironmental monitoring studies, oftenincorrectly referred to as a control.

Representative samples. Serving as a typical orcharacteristic sample; should provide analyticalresults that correspond with actualenvironmental quality or the conditionexperienced by the contaminant receptor.

Retrospective risk assessment. An evaluation ofthe causal linkages between observed ecologicaleffects and stressor(s) in the environment.

Risk. The probability of an adverse effect onhumans or the environment resulting from agiven exposure to a substance. It is usuallyexpressed as the probability of an adverse effectoccurring, e.g., the expected ratio between thenumber of individuals that would experiencean adverse effect in a given time and the totalnumber of individuals exposed to the riskfactor.

Risk assessment. A process which entails someor all of the following elements: hazardidentification, effects assessment, exposureassessment and risk characterization. It is theidentification and quantification of the riskresulting from a specific use of occurrence of achemical including the determination ofexposure/dose-response relationships and theidentification of target populations. It mayrange from largely qualitative (for situationsin which data are limited) to fully quantitative(when enough information is available so theprobabilities can be calculated).

84


Risk characterization. The step in the riskassessment process where the results of theexposure assessment (e.g., PEC, daily intake) andthe effects assessment (e.g., PNEC, NOAEL) arecompared. If possible, an uncertainty analysis iscarried out, which, if it results in a quantifiableoverall uncertainty, produces an estimation of therisk.

Risk classification. The weighting of risks in orderto decide whether risk reduction is required. Itincludes the study of risk perception and thebalancing of perceived risks and perceivedbenefits.

Risk Pathways (Exposure Pathways). Adiagrammatic representation of the course that allagents take from a source to exposed organisms(target) (Modified from U.S. EPA). In the diagram,each exposure pathway includes a source or releasefrom a source, an exposure point, and an exposureroute. If the exposure point differs from thesource, transport/exposure media (i.e., air, water)also are included. For the particular use of thereport, the major categories found in the diagraminclude economic/social drivers (sources),hazards, resources and habitats (targets), and theeffects on the economy. It may also sometimes bereferred to as the conceptual model that describesecosystem or ecosystem components potentiallyat risk, and the relationships betweenmeasurement and assessment endpoints andexposure scenarios.

Sample. Fraction of a material tested or analyzed;a selection or collection from a larger collection.

Secondary effect. An effect where the stressor actson supporting components of the ecosystem,

which in turn have an effect on the ecologicalcomponent of interest (synonymous with indirecteffects; compare with definition for primary effect).

Sediment. Particulate material lying below water.

Source. An entity or action that releases to theenvironment or imposes on the environment achemical, physical, or biological stressor orstressors.

Species. A group of organisms that actually orpotentially interbreed and are reproductivelyisolated from all other such groups; a taxonomicgrouping of morphologically similar individuals; thecategory below genus.

Stressor. Any physical, chemical, or biological entitythat can induce an adverse response (synonymouswith agent).

Threshold concentration. A concentration abovewhich some effect (or response) will be producedand below which it will not.

Trophic level. A functional classification of taxawithin a community that is based on feedingrelationships (e.g., aquatic and terrestrial plantsmake up the first trophic level, and herbivoresmake up the second).

Uncertainty. Imperfect knowledge concerning thepresent or future state of the system underconsideration; a component of risk resulting fromimperfect knowledge of the degree of hazard or ofits spatial and temporal distribution.

Uptake. A process by which materials aretransferred into or onto an organism.

85

APPENDICES

86


Appendix 1. Sources of Data for the Initial Risk Assessment of Port Klang.


Resource/Habitat References

Fisheries

Aquaculture

Mangroves

Land-use, Agriculture, Demography, Waste

Wildlife Wildlife, 1998; Shukor et al., 2001.

Data on Human Health and Sanitation Ministry of Health Malaysia, n.d.

Klang Municipal Council, 2000.

Majilis Perbandaran Klang, 2000.

Kuala Langat District Council, 1994.

Kuala Langat District Council, 2000.

87

APPENDICES

Data Used in the Prospective Risk Assessment (conducted in Chonburi, Thailand)

Stations represent Klang

Riverwater quality. 2

stations located at the Klang

river estuary and 1 station

in Straits of Klang.

DOE–Selangor, 2000

Water Raw data: 1990 - 2000, monthly,

24 stations, sampling methods

follows DOE Malaysia

guidelines (surface water).

Agent Compartment Description of data Location Reference

Water Raw data: 1990 - 2000,

monthly, 24 stations, sampling

methods follows DOE Malaysia



River water quality. 2

stations located at the Klang

river estuary and 1 station in

Straits of Klang.

DOE–Selangor, 2000 AN

(ammonical

nitrogen)

BOD

TSS Water Raw data: 1990 - 2000,

monthly, 24 stations, sampling

methods follows DOE Malaysia



Riverwater quality. 2

stations located at the

Klang river estuary and 1

station in Straits of Klang.


E. coli Water Raw data: year 2000, monthly,

1 station, sampling methods



Straits of Klang DOE–Selangor, 2000

Straits of Klang DOE–Selangor, 2000Raw data: year 2000, monthly,




Raw data: year 2000, monthly,




Raw data: year 2000, monthly,




Straits of Klang

Straits of Klang

Port Klang MPP-EAS, 1999b

As Water

Hg Water

Oil and Grease Water

Oil and Grease Water Data collected for year 1995



88


Data Used in the Initial Risk Assessment

DO data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

BOD data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

COD data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

SS data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

pH data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

NH3-N(L) data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

Turbidity data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

NO3 data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

As data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

Hg data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River anf Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

Cd data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat Tiver estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

Cr data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

Pb data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

Zn data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

Fe data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

E. coli data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

T. Coliform data collected from 1990 to 2000 Klang River and Langat River estuary DOE–Selangor 2000

PM10, NO2,SO2, CO,O3, API

station located at Sekolah MenengahPerempuan Raja Zarina, Klang

Alam Sekitar MalaysiaSdn. Bhd., 2000

December 1996 to March 2000

Parameters Description of Data Location References

89

APPENDICES

Appendix 2. The Water Quality Monitoring Stations in Klang and Kuala Langat.

River Water Monitoring Station

90


Appendix 3. Environmental Quality Standards for Malaysia.

Appendix 3a. Interim National Water Quality Standards for Malaysia.

N 0.05 0.05 0.4(0.05) 0.1 + 0.05 0.05

N 0.01 NR 0.01 # 0.01 + 0.005 0.005

(0.001)

N 0.05 0.05 1.4(0.05) 0.1 + 0.05 0.05

N 1 1 0.01 0.2 + 1 1

(0.012*)

N 5 NR 0.4# 2 + 1.5 5

N 0.05 NR 0.02# 5 + 0.01 0.05

(0.01)

N 0.001 NR 0.004 0.002 + 0.001 0.001

(0.001)

N 0.05 NR 0.9# 0.2 +

N 0.05 0.05 0.0002 - + 0.05

N NR NR 0.004 - +

N 5 NR 0.4# 2 + 1.5 5

N 40;NF NR NL NR + 0.3 0.3

As (mg/l)

Cd (mg/l)

Cr (IV) mg/l

Cu (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Pb (mg/l)

Hg (mg/l)

Ni (mg/l)

Ag (mg/l)

Sn (mg/l)

Zn (mg/l)

Oil and Grease

(Mineral) (mg/l)

Metals

7 5-7 5-7 3-5 3 1

10 25 25 50 100 100 10

1 3 3 6 12 12 6

N 0.4 0.4 0.4 (0.03) 5 + 10 10

7 - 1

N 0.2 0.2 0.1 - +

25 50 50 150 300 300 Total SuspendedSolids ( mg/l )

PARAMETERS I IIA IIB III IV V RAW WATERCRITERIA

DRINKING WATERSTANDARD

Conventional Parameters

DO ( mg/l )

COD ( mg/l )

BOD ( mg/l )

NO2 (mg/l)

NO3 (mg/l)

P (mg/l)

Total Coliform(counts/100 ml)

Fecal Coliform(counts/100 ml)

100 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

10 100 400 5000 5,000 –

(2,000)@ (2,000)@

A 0.02 NR 0.08 NR NR

A NR (0.2) NR NR

(0.13)

A 2 NR (9.9) NR NR

A 0.05 NR 0.06 NR NR

A - NR (0.91) NR NR

Aldrin

Dieldrin (ug/l)

BHC (ug/l)

Heptachlor /

Epoxide (ug/l)

a - PAHs b - Pesticides and others

Organics

91

APPENDICES

Appendix 3c. Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter (PM10), Sulphur Dioxide (S02), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO3), Ozone (O3) and Carbon Monoxide (CO).

Parameter SO2 NO2 O3 CO

gm-3 ppm ppm ppm ppm

150 0.13 0.17 0.10 30.00

(24 hours) (1 hour)(1 hour) (1 hour) (1 hour)

Unit

Concentration

PM10

Appendix 3b. Interim Marine Water Quality.No Parameters Unit Interim Standard

1 E. coli MPN/100 mL 100

2 Oil and Grease mg/L 0

3 TSS mg/L 50

4 As mg/L 0.1

5 Cd mg/L 0.1

6 Cr (total) mg/L 0.5

7 Cu mg/L 0.1

8 Pb mg/L 0.1

9 Hg mg/L 0.001

Source: Malaysia Environmental Quality Report, 2002; DOE, n.d; MOSTE, 1995.

92


Appendix 4. Environmental Quality Standards from Other Locations.

Appendix 4a. Water Quality Criteria

Cadmium 43.0 9.300 10 10 10 - 10.00 1 5 10 10

Copper 2.9 2.900 - 20 50 - 8.00 5 10 50 50

Lead 140.0 5.600 50 50 50 - 8.50 1 5 10 50

Mercury 2.1 0.025 2 2 2 - 0.16 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.5

Nickel 75.0 8.300 5 10 20 50

Chromium 1,100.0 50.000 50 100 100 - (VI) 50.00 (VI) 50 100 200 500

Silver 2.3 -

Zinc 95.0 55.000 50.00 20 50 100 500

Arsenic 69.0 (Tri) 36.000 (Tri) 50 50 50 - 120.00 20 30 50 50

Selenium 410.0 54 10 20 20 50

Heavy Metals

(µg/l)

DO (mg/l) 5 5 5 2 4.000 6 5 4 3

COD (mg/l) 2 3 4 5

BOD 5 (mg/l) 3 5 7 - 1 2 3 4

Nitrate (mg/l) 0.060

Nitrite (mg/l) 0.055

Phosphate (mg/l) 0.015-0.045

(coastal - estuaries)

TSS (mg/l) 50.000 (Malaysia)

Cyanide (ug/l) 1 1 50 50 50 - 7.000 5 5 100 200

Ammonia (ug/l) 70.000 (unionized)

Physico-chemical

parameters

U.S. EPA QualityCriteria for water forregulatory purposes

(U.S. EPA, 2000)

Water Quality Criteria for

coastal and marine waters

in the Philippines

(DAO 34, 1990)

Classes

SB

ASEAN Marine

water quality criteria

(ASEAN, 2003)

Chinese Standards for

Different Classifications

(National Standards of

PR China, 1995)Marinechroniccriteria

Marineacutecriteria

Classes

I II III IVSDSCSA

93

APPENDICES

Appendix 4a. (continued) Water Quality Criteria

TBT (µg/l) 0.01

Oil & grease(mg/l) 0.09 0.004 1 2 3 5 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.3 0.5

(Petroleum ether extract) (Water soluble fraction)

Chlordane 0.090 0.0040 3 - - -

DDT 0.130 0.0010 50 - - - 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1

Malathion - 0.1000 0.5 1 1 1

Endosulfan 0.034 0.0067

Pentachlorophenol 13.000 7.9000

Heptachlor 0.053 0.0035 -

Endrin 0.037 0.0023 -

Aldrin 1.300 - 1 - - -

Dieldrin 0.710 0.0019 1 - - -

Lindane 4 - - -

Toxaphane 5 - - -

Methoxychlor - 0.0300 100 - - -

Benzene 5,100.000 700.0000

Phenol 120

PCBs 10.000 0.0300 1 - - -

PAHs 300.000 -

Benzo[a]pyrene 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

HCHs 1 2 3 5

Trace Organics

(µg/l)

U.S. EPA QualityCriteria for water forregulatory purposes

(U.S. EPA, 2000)Marinechroniccriteria

Marineacutecriteria

ASEAN Marine

water quality criteria

(ASEAN, 2003)

Water Quality Criteria for

coastal and marine

waters in the Philippines

(DAO 34, 1990)

Classes

SA SB SC SD

Chinese Standards for

Different Classifications

(National Standards of

PR China, 1995)

Classes

I II III IV

Organometallics

94


Appendix 4b. Sediment Quality Criteria

Cadmium 1.50 9.60 [0.68] 4.21 1.20 9.60 7.5 30

Copper 65.00 270.00 [18.70] 108.00 34.00 270.00 90.0 400

Lead 75.00 218.00 30.20 112.00 46.70 218.00 530.0 1,000

Mercury 0.28 1.00 0.13 0.70 0.15 0.71 1.6 15

Nickel 40.00 N/A [15.90] 42.80 20.90 51.60 45.0 200

Chromium 80.00 370.00 52.30 160.00 81.00 370.00 480.0 1,000

Silver 1.00 3.70 [0.73] [1.77] 1.00 3.70 - -

Zinc 200.00 410.00 124.00 271.00 150.00 410.00 1,000.0 2,500

Arsenic 8.20 70.00 7.24 [41.60] 8.20 70.00 85.0 150

Heavy Metals HK-ISQVs (µg/kg) CANADA (µg/kg) NOAA (µg/kg) NETHERLANDS (µg/kg)

(EVS, 1996) Environment Canada, Long, et al., 1995) (MTPW, 1991)

1995)

Contamination Threshold/Probable Effects Range Provisional Test/

Classification Effects Level Warning Value

Lower Upper Threshold Probable Low Median Test Warning

limit Limit

95

APPENDICES

Appendix 4b. Sediment Quality Criteria

Acenaphthene 16.00 500 [6.71] [88.90] 16.00 500.0 - -

Acenaphthylene 44.00 640 [5.87] [245.00] 44.00 1,100.0 - 300

Anthracene 85.30 1,100 [46.90] [128.00] 85.30 640.0 80 -

Fluorene 19.00 540 21.20 [144.00] [19.00] 540.0 - -

Naphthalene 160.00 2,100 34.60 [391.00] 160.00 2,100.0 - -

Phenanthrene 240.00 1,500 86.70 544.00 240.00 1,500.0 [80] [300]

Low mol.

wt. PAHs 552.00 3,160 - - 552.00 3,160.0 - -

Benzo[a]

anthracene 261.00 1,600 [74.80] 693.00 261.00 1,600.0 80 [300]

Benzo[a]pyrene 430.00 1,600 88.80 763.00 430.00 1,600.0 80 [300]

Chrysene 384.00 2,800 108.00 846.00 384.00 2,800.0 [80] [300]

Dibenzo[a,h]

anthracene 63.40 260 [6.22] [135.00] 63.40 260.0 80 300

Fluoranthene 600.00 5,100 [113.00] 1,494.00 600.00 5,100.0 200 [700]

Pyrene 665.00 2,600 153.00 1,398.00 665.00 2,600.0 [80] [300]

High mol.

wt. PAHs 1,700.00 9,600 - - 1,700.00 9,600.0 - -

Total PAHs 4,022.00 44,792 - - 4,022.00 44,792.0 [460] [1,700]

Total PCBs 22.70 not stated 21.50 189.00 22.70 180.0 [20] [40]

p,p’-DDE

(4,4’-DDE) 2.20 not stated [2.07] 374.00 2.20 [27.0] - -

Total DDT 1.58 not stated 3.89 51.70 [1.58] [46.1] 2 50

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate 182.00 2,647.00

Chlordane 2.26 4.79

Lindane [0.32] 0.99

Organometallics

TBT in interstitial

water (µg/l)

HK-ISQVs (µg/kg) CANADA (µg/kg) NOAA (µg/kg) NETHERLANDS (µg/kg)

(EVS, 1996) (Environment (Long, et al., 1995) (MTPW, 1991)

Canada, 1995)

Contamination Threshold/Probable Effects Range Provisional Test/

Classification Effects Level Warning Value

Lower limit Upper limit Threshold Probable Low Median Test Warning

Organics (µµµµµg/kg)

0.15 not stated

96


Case Result Decision Tables Conclusion

A No 1 & 2 = unlikely (U) No correlation

B Yes 1 & 2, ND for 3 – 6 = possibly (P) Just correlation

C Yes 1 & 2, but No 3 = unlikely (U) Correlation but negative evidence for cause-effect

D Yes 1 & 2, but No 6 = unlikely (U) Spurious correlation

E Yes 1, 2, & 3 = likely (L) Correlation with some evidence of cause-effect

F Yes 1, 2, & 3, but no 4a = unlikely/possibly (U/P) Correlation but negative evidence for cause-effect;

if good experimental design

(e.g., low Type II error = unlikely), with poor

experimental design (e.g., high Type II error

= possibly).

G Yes 1, 2, & 3, ND for 4a, but no 4b = possibly (P) Correlation but lack of evidence for cause-effect

H Yes, 1, 2, 3, & 4a, but no 4b = likely (L) Correlation with evidence for cause-effect and

recovery does not always occur

I Yes, 1, 2, 3, 4a, & 5 = very likely (VL) Correlation with strong evidence for cause-effect

J Yes, 1, 2, 3, & 4a, but no 5 = likely (L) Correlation with evidence for cause-effect

(a lack of biomarker response is inconclusive

evidence)

K Yes, 1, 2, 3, 4a, 5, & 6 = very likely (VL) Correlation with very strong evidence for

cause-effect

L Yes, 1, 2, 3, but maybe 6 = possibly (P) Correlation but scientific/logical justification

lacking

M Yes 6 but no data for 1 & 2 = unknown (?) Cause – effect relationship known to be possible

in principle, but no evidence in this case

N Yes 1, but no 2 Target is exposed but there is no evidence for

decline; if there is good evidence for no decline

then no need to take risk assessment further;

if evidence for no decline is weak or

questionable seek more evidence.

Appendix 5. Decision Criteria for Determining the Likelihood of Harm.

97

APPENDICES

Documents

Port Klang Prelims - PEMSEApemsea.org/sites/default/files/pemsea-tr-2005-13.pdf · of East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines, and Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management National