Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Presented by: Felix CHOI Fuk Sing (1988221513) Terence CHING Chun Ying (2005920188) David HO Ka Yan (2000264979) Amanda NG Yu Yan (2005920243) Picture.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Presented by: Felix CHOI Fuk Sing (1988221513) Terence CHING Chun Ying (2005920188) David HO Ka Yan (2000264979) Amanda NG Yu Yan (2005920243) Picture."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Presented by: Felix CHOI Fuk Sing ( ) Terence CHING Chun Ying ( ) David HO Ka Yan ( ) Amanda NG Yu Yan ( ) Picture source:

2 2 Flow of presentation Background The risk assessment approaches –Retrospective risk assessment –Prospective risk assessment –Comparative risk and uncertainty assessment Assessment of socioeconomic drivers Recommendations and proposed actions

3 Background

4 4 Introduction Initial risk assessment – one of the component activities of the Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) Project Inter-agency, multi-disciplinary Technical Working Group Picture Source: Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management National Demonstration Project, 2005

5 5 Objectives Evaluate the impacts of various pollutants Identify activities that contribute to pollution Identify gaps and uncertainties for a refined risk assessment

6 6 Make recommendations Identify significant agencies and institutions which can contribute to refined risk assessment and long- term management Identify priority concerns

7 7 Study area Project area: 1, km 2 Population: 742,837 (Year 2000) Population density: 500 people/km 2 Two main rivers –Sg. Klang –Sg. Langat Picture Source: Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management National Demonstration Project, 2005

8 8 Huge land use conflicts Pollution from upstream sources Industrial and housing projects in the upstream areas

9 9 The risk assessment approach A combination of retrospective and prospective approaches –To indicate the relative importance of different adverse effects and their causes –Lead to appropriate, cost-effective management programmes

10 10 Principles –Identify problems and causes based on systematic and transparent way –Can be justified by community and can be revisited when more information available

11 11 Key concept –Comparison between environmental conditions and threshold values likely to cause adverse effects in the targets under consideration

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

13 13 Retrospective Risk Assessment ? Ecological effects   Stressor (s) Extinction Land clearing for agriculture Significant effect Ascribe causation Picture source:

14 14 Aim Human activities (Suspected agents) Overexploitation Land clearing/reclamation Oil spillage Discharge organic wastes Discharge inorganic wastes Use of pesticides Discharge of heavy metals Use of tributyltin (TBT) Damage (Observed effects) Decline in number of species Decline in population of selected species Extinction of specific species Increase in invader species Degradation & decline in biodiversity  

15 15 Methodology Review various studies, reports & projects to collect relevant data on identified targets Problem formulation Conduct retrospective risk assessment

16 16 Problem Formulation Define targets Identify suspected (or known) agents that cause adverse effects on targets Evaluate linkage between agents and targets

17 17 Agents   Targets 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 exceed the threshold where adverse effects start to happen? 4.Do the results from controlled exposure in field experiments lead to the same effect? Will removal of the agent lead to amelioration? 5.Is there specific evidence in the target as a result of exposure to the agent? 6.Does it make sense (logically and scientifically)?

18 18 Possible Answers Yes (Y) No (N) Maybe (M) Unknown (?) No Data (ND) Not Relevant (NR)

19 19 Likelihood of Harm Based on knowledge of exposure to the agent; available information about exposure and effect levels Likely (L) – agent is likely a cause of the decline Possibly (P) – agent cannot be excluded as a cause of the decline Unlikely (U) – agent is unlikely to have caused the decline Unknown (?) – Not enough information available

20 20 Decision Criteria Table Source: Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment – Appendix 5

21 21 Decision Table Source: Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment – Table 4

22 22 Scope & Findings Resources – fisheries (?) & aquaculture (technology, water contamination and diseases) Habitat – mangroves (removal of forest reserve & land reclamation) Wildlife – mammals, birds, aquatic fauna (change in land use  loss/degradation of habitats)

23 23 Limitations Insufficient quantitative data Agents   Targets – not clearly defined Difficult to correlate between the agents and resources

24 24 Recommendations Conduct more comprehensive researches Allow sufficient time to detect changes in number of species/population Determine exposure, correlation & cause-effect relationships between potentially significant agents

25 25 Retrospective Risk Assessment PRESENTPASTFUTURE Observe ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS HARMFUL ACTIVITIES Manage HARMFUL ACTIVITIES Reduce harm to ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM Identify

26 Prospective Risk Assessment

27 27 Prospective risk assessment Involves predicting likely effects on targets from knowledge of a particular agent. Involves comparison of exposure and effect concentrations Aims to determine if measured or predicted levels of environmental parameters are likely to cause harm to targets of interest.

28 28 Start Point a comparison of measured environmental concentrations (MECs) and predicted no- effect concentrations (PNECs) in order to obtain risk quotients (RQs).

29 29 Risk Quotient For ERA: RQ = MEC (or PEC) / PNEC For human health RQ = MEL (or PEL) / LOC Where RQ < 1 Low risk RQ >= 1High risk

30 30 Study area –Water column contaminations –Air quality 3 types of RQs are constructed –RQ max –RQ min –RQ ave

31 31 Preliminary Study – Water Column –Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), –Ammoniacal nitrogen (AN), –Total suspended solid (TSS), –E. coli., –Arsenic (As), –Mercury (Hg), –Oil and grease.

32 32 Preliminary Study – Water Quality –Data analysis from the reports of DOE-Selangor with monthly monitoring observations from 24 stations from 1990 – 2000 (Klang River, Klang River estuary and Straits of Klang). –PNECs from Malaysia standards. –Result: RQ ave > 1 (except As) –Further investigation on 5 coastal zones.

33 33 Further Investigation 5 coastal zones are identified –Pantai Morib (recreation), –Kuala Langat at Jugra (aquaculture), –Kuala Langat, –Kuala Klang, –Selat Klang Utara. Data: DOE-Selangor PNECs: Malaysia / ASEAN standards

34 34 Agents Studied –Dissolved oxygen (DO), –Suspended solid (SS), –pH, –Turbidity (NTU), –As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, –E. Coli, –Oil and grease

35 35 Findings –RQ ave of E. Coli., suspended solid and oil and grease of 5 coastal zones are all over 1. –RQ ave of pH, As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu and Pb of 5 coastal zones are all below 1. –RQ ave of NTU varied between –RQ ave of DO varied between

36 36 Risk from E. Coli –Contamination to aquaculture products and risk to human health. –Recreation in marine water poses human health risk.

37 37 Risk from Suspended Solid –Affect aquaculture industry, especially shrimps –Affect aesthetic nature and recreational use. –Reduce light penetration and inhibit photosynthetic process –Identified causes: land reclamation projects, aquaculture, agriculture, upland forestry, mining, discharge of wastes from various sources, dredging, trawling and mangrove conversion.

38 38 Risk from Oil & Grease Wastes –Adverse impacts on marine flora and fauna. –Lab. study shows that fish exposed to sublethal levels of petroleum experienced negative effects on reproductive, development, behaviour, subcellular structure, premature death.

39 39 Sources of Uncertainties –Data collected from each station at different periods were combined to provided single estimates of means and worse-case RQs. –Use of standards and criteria from other locations might not be totally suitable for Port Klang.

40 40 Further Investigation Further investigation was carried out for the water column of the Klang and Langat Rivers to confirm the risks identified in the risk assessment of coastal areas and the linkage with the major river systems.

41 41 Priority Concerns The priority concerns identified in the risk assessment of Klang and Langat Rivers are consistent with the priority concerns for selected coastal areas, showing the strong influence of the two rivers on the water quality of these coastal areas.

42 42 Air Pollution –Risk assessment: suspended particulate (PM 10 ), sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3 ). –Primarily due to automobiles, industrial activities, domestic combustion and thermal power plant operations.

43 43 Data Sources Data collected from database of Sekolah Menengah Perempuan Raja Zarina station. PEC data are average data collected from Dec – Mar PNECs are based on air quality standards recommended by DOE Malaysia.

44 44 Result The result of the initial risk assessment show that except for CO, all worse-case RQs exceed 1

45 45 Comparative Risk Assessment

46 46 Comparative Risk Assessment Objective: Compare RQs in Prospective Risk Assessment Identify agents with highest risks Decide management priority Picture source:

47 47 Assessed areas: 1. Coastal water 2. Klang River & Langat River 3. Sediment 4. Ambient air Methodology: - Compare between RQ Ave (average) & RQ Max (worst case) -List all RQs in a summary table -Make a bar chart to compare the RQ Ave & RQ Max

48 48 RQ Agents DO SS Turbidity Heavy Metals E. Coli Oil Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne Substance in Coastal Areas Average Worst case

49 49 Comparative Risk Assessment of E. Coli in Coastal Areas RQ Site Pantai Morib Kuala Langat at Jugra Kuala Klang Kuala Langat Selat Klang Utara

50 50 Findings 1.Coastal water - high risk agents: E. coli, oil, SS, turbidity & DO - high risk sites: SS – Kuala Langat E.coli – Kuala Klang, Pantai Morib, Langat Oil – Jugra, Selat Klang Utara, Pantai Morib

51 51 2a. Klang River - Higher organics (BO, BOD, COD), nutrient (NH 3 ) & iron at middle stretch & estuarine of the river. - Higher nutrient P & metal As at the middle stretch. - E. Coli extremely high (RQ = ,000) along the river including catchment area - Immediate management is needed starting from catchment area.

52 52 2b. Langat River - Higher organics (BO, BOD, COD), SS, turbidity, NH3 at middle stretch & estuarine of the river. - E. Coli higher at the catchment area than the estuarine area - Immediate management is needed starting from catchment area.

53 53 3. Sediment - Port Klang: Highest RQ (28-235) in Oil & grease. 4. Air Quality - RQ Ave are all lower than 1 - But mean API = Forest fire in 1997, leads to haze phenomenon & high PM 10

54 54 Uncertainty Differences between average & worst case Data gaps (e.g. lacks of MECs & local standards)

55 Socioeconomic Drivers

56 56 Socioeconomic Drivers for the changes Change of land-use policy Population increase Agricultural development Increased waste generation rate Picture source:

57 57 Change of land-use policy State Government policy to develop as a developed state Rapid changes of land use Mangroves & peat swamp forests  other land uses Picture source:

58 58 Illegal forest clearing leads to forest fires - Slash (cut) & burn! Picture source:

59 59 Impacts of land use change Shrinkage of mangroves & peat swamps Habitat loss Loss of shoreline protection Increase sedimentation rates Reduced biodiversity Picture source:

60 60 Population increase = More energy & resources needed!

61 61 Agricultural development Mangrove in 1998 Klang: 12,301 ha  10,871 ha = 88% left Kapar: 4,865 ha  410 ha = only 8% left! Picture source:

62 62 Agricultural activities bring ecological stress by… Use of pesticides & fertilizers Generation of wastes Illegal clearing of forest (forest fire!) …which lead to: Air pollution Habitat loss Reduced biodiversity Picture source: nce-du-sud.htm

63 63 Increased waste generation rate (tons/day) Problem in landfill availability!

64 Recommendations & proposed actions

65 65 Socioeconomic drivers –Wastes; industrial activities; agriculture; land use –Further assessment is needed, especially their linkage to the environment Human health –Determine risks from consumption of contaminated aquatic food products and exposure to contaminated coastal waters

66 66 Quality of water, sediment and aquatic food products –A comprehensive control programme to prevent wastes discharges –Collecting data on heavy metals and tributyltin (TBT) –Extend risk assessment throughout the whole river basin –Wider application of the RQ approach –Review of the interim marine water quality standard

67 67 Resources and habitats –Fisheries Get the data for the indicators of fisheries conditions –E.g. Catch per unit of effort (CPUE), stock density, demersal biomass, changes in catch composition, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) Evaluation of the fisheries management framework –Aquaculture Deliberately use of indicators Evaluate existing aquaculture practices Develop management guidelines Designate coastal aquaculture zones

68 68 –Mangroves Assess the ecological, economic and social effects of the degradation of mangrove ecosystems by using a systematic studies Benefit-cost analysis of proposed development plan Mangrove reforestation –Wildlife Comprehensive researches and cause-effect studies are needed

69 69 Air quality –More detailed assessment for all existing parameters –Include other potentially-important parameters Data gaps –Verify identified concerns –Fill the data gaps by primary data collection E.g. sediment load study; toxicology study

70 70 Risk management –Develop long-term strategies and action programmes Integrated land and water-use zoning Large financial investments and technological resources are needed for environmental services, facilities, and clean technologies Integrated environmental monitoring programme (IEMP) Collaboration of stakeholders Institutional arrangement


Download ppt "1 Presented by: Felix CHOI Fuk Sing (1988221513) Terence CHING Chun Ying (2005920188) David HO Ka Yan (2000264979) Amanda NG Yu Yan (2005920243) Picture."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google