POPULATION AND LANDUSE BASED MODEL
IN SEWERAGE CATCHMENT STRATEGY FOR
SUNGAI SIPUT (N)
SUBRAMANIAM A/L SOKALINGAM
UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this project to my parents, Mr and Mrs Sokalingam and
my family members for their constant encouragement, Love and prayer that
has given me the inner strength to make this project a success.
The author would like to extend his most sincere appreciation and gratitude to
Professor Madya Dr Razman Salim and Dr Azmi Aris for their guidance and
encouragement throughout the course.
Special gratitude also goes to Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd for without its
financial sponsorship and the releasing of its professional staff as lecturers my
colleagues and myself would not have completed this post-graduate course in
Wastewater Engineering.
Last but not least, I would like to record my most sincere gratitude to my wife,
who had taken most of her own time to type and proof read this project report
for me.
ABSTRACT
Growing volume of wastewater is being discharged to surface water but the
treatment provided frequently is inadequate to protect the desired uses of the
receiving water. With limited resources in terms of both institutional capacity and
finance, government face difficult choices in optimizing their investment in
wastewater system and establishing practical requirement for wastewater treatment.
There is serious shortfall of adequate facilities in both rural and urban areas. This
situation has a significant impact on health such as the incidence of infectious disease
associated with water and sewage. Deficiencies is rapidly on the raising trend with a
limited availability of resources problem associated with a small population base,
low tax revenue and a sluggish economy.
In urban situation the sewerage system and the extent of industrial wastewater
treatment are inadequate. There may be sewerage network in place but the coverage
is usually incomplete. Even where reasonable treatment facilities exist, poor
maintenance and operation often result in failure to meet design effluent level.
In such circumstance, management of wastewater discharge is also frequently poor,
with uncontrolled discharges of untreated effluent to surface water. As a result there
is high level of water pollution and it is not uncommon to have stream or water
bodies, which are almost or completely anaerobic and heavily polluted with
pathogens, organic and heavy metal.
ABSTRAK
Peningkatan Air Kumbahan yang disalurkan ke permukaan air dan rawatan yang
dibuat pada masa sekarang tidak cukup untuk melindungi kegunaan Air Penerimaan.
Dengan sumber yang tehad dari segi Institusi dan kewangan, pihak kerajaan
menghadapi masalah pemilihan dari segi optimasi pelaburan untuk memperkukuhkan
keperluan praktikal untuk rawatan Air Kumbahan.
Kawasan Bandar dan luar Bandar menghadapi masalah yang serius
kerana
kekurangan permudahan dan permodalan untuk merawat air kumbahan. Situasi ini
mempunyai implikasi yang ketera terhadap kesihatan seperti jangkitan yang
dikaitkan dengan dengan air dan kumbahan. Defenshi yang semakin menaik dengan
kekurangan sumber pendapatan penduduk serta hasil punggutan cukai yang rendah
serta peningkatan ekonomi yang lembap.
Di Kawasan luar Bandar kemudahan rawatan kumbahan yang sedia ada, adalah tidak
mencukupi dan kerumitan ini ditambah lagi dengan sisa kumbahan industri.
Walaupun kemudahan rawatan sedia ada tetapi disebabkan penyelenggaran dan
operasi yang kurang memuaskan mengakibatkan ketidak pencapaian kualiti yang
ditetapkan.
Pengurusan pembuangan air kumbahan yang tidak memuaskan beserta dengan
pembuangan air kumbahan yang tiada terkawal serta ketiadaan kemudahan
perawatan mengakibatkan pencemaran airyang tinggi.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
CHAPTER 1
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
i
DEDICATION
ii
APPRECIATION
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
ABSTRAK
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF APPENDIX
x
LIST OF DRAWING
x
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xii
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Introduction
1
1.1
Aim of Study
4
1.2
Objective
4
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
2.0
Background
5
2.1
Study Area Description
8
2.1.1
2.1.2
CHAPTER 3
Previous Studies and
related report
9
Study area boundaries
9
2..3
Topography
10
2.4
Drainage
10
METHODOLOGY
3.0
Methodology
12
3.1
Methodology Adapted
13
3.2
Landuse and development
14
3.2.1
Present Landuse Profile
15
3.2.2
Future Land use Profile
16
Sewerage Zone and Catchment
18
3.3.1
18
3.3
3.4
Sewerage Provision
Population and Population
Equivalent projection
3.4.1
3.4.2
19
PE Projection Based on
Land Use Method
21
PE Projection Based on
23
1991 Census
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.0
4.2
CHAPTER 5
Result and Discussion
25
4.1a
Option 1
27
4.1b
Option 2
28
Comparison of Alternative
29
CONCLUSION AND PROPOSAL
5.0
Conclusion & Proposal
32
5.1
Staging of sewage treatment plant
34
5.2
Phasing of network development
36
5.3
5.2.1
Phase I
37
5.2.2
Phase 2
37
5.2.3
Phase 3
38
5.2.4
Phase 4
39
Summary of capital cost
40
Reference
42
Appendices
44
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES NO
TITLE
PAGE
1.0
Existing and Future Landuse
17
2.0
Distribution of Current PE in
the Catchment
3.0
Population equivalent growth
based on Landuse projection
4.0
20
22
Population equivalent growth
according to catchment
23
5.0
Adopted PE figure to be used
24
6.0
Comparative analysis for
alternative sewerage
30
7.0
Summary of recommended strategy
33
8.0
Total PE, STP capacity and PE
9.0
Connected
34
Network implementation
36
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
1.0
Existing Assets
44
2.0
Existing PE Estimation
46
3.0
Population Equivalent Growth
47
4.0
Population Growth
49
5.0
Present and Future System
50
6.0
STP Costing Tables
51
7.0
Hydraulic Design
58
8.0
Costing Graph
59
LIST OF DRAWING
DRAWING NO
TITLE
PKSS / SCS/1001/00
Location and Key Plan
1
PKSS / SCS/1002/00
Study Area coverage
2
PKSS / SCS/1003/00
Topography / drainage pattern
and water intake point
PKSS / SCS/1004/00
PAGE
3
Existing and Future land
Use pattern
4
PKSS / SCS/1005/00
Existing sewerage system
5
PKSS / SCS/1006/00
Propose sewerage system
( option 1 )
PKSS / SCS/1007/00
Proposed Sewerage system
( option 2 )
PKSS / SCS/1008/00
6
7
Network implementation by
Phases
8
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO
TITLE
PAGE
1.0
Proposed CSTP
72
1.1
Existing IST Area
73
1.2
Existing Town Center
73
1.3
Existing Housing Scheme
74
1.4
Existing Housing Scheme
74
1.5
Existing Industrial Area
75
1.6
Existing Industrial Area
75
1.7
New Development Scheme
76
1.8
Existing Housing Scheme
76
LIST OF SYMBOLS
STP
Sewerage Treatment Plant
IST
Individual Septic Tank
DOE
Department of Environment
SSD
Sewerage Services Department
IT
Imhoff Tank
IWK
Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd
MS
Malaysian Standard
DGSS
Director General of Sewerage Services
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
PE
Population Equivalent.
CSTP
Centralize Sewerage Treatment Plant
LAP
Lembaga Air Perak
JPBD
Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa
TNB
Tenaga Nasional Berhad.
CHAPTER 1
1.0 Introduction
This project is to formulate the appropriate sewerage and sewage treatment,
effluent strategy and a Sewage Infrastructure Implementation Strategy for the district
of Sungai Siput (N), which will include but not necessarily, are limited to the
following items.
•
Review of the existing sewerage catchments strategy with respect to area and
cumulative catchments, development and population densities, per capita
contribution, ultimate flow generation and system capacities
•
Providing long term and environmentally acceptable sewage disposal
facilities
•
Flow growth projection and capacity criticalities
•
Sewage treatment capacities and treated sewage effluent disposal
infrastructure capabilities and requirement
•
Natural drainage catchments identification beyond established catchments
planning and evaluation of alternative main forwarding sewerage system
options for their servicing to existing STP’s and appropriate additional sites
•
Review all known operational problem and deficiencies within the sewerage
system
•
Conceptual development of a deep interceptor sewerage network for
minimizing the number of existing and planned area and forwarding sewage
pumping station
•
To develop a model suitable for further future development and use as a
planning tool
•
Evaluate potential option and solution to overcome the problem whilst
increasing the capacity of the system to cater for future growth and expansion
•
To establish cost estimate and outline program for the development and
implementation of solution
The engineering discipline of the project comprises sewerage catchments
analysis and planning progressing to conceptual strategy recommendation and the
associated sewage treatment requirement. It is envisaged that these will be developed
in a progressive logical manner to formulate the Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
Master Plan appropriate for the urban future development of Sungai Siput N. ( Indah
Water Konsortium : July 2001 )
Improving wastewater Infrastructure and related services facilitates the
transition process in order to reduce cost and increasing the reliability of services
helps stimulate the emergence and development of residential, commercial and
industrial enterprises. Improvement in resident living condition increases public
confidence in democratic local government and in the ongoing reform efforts. The
institutional and regulatory reforms that accompany the decentralization and
commercialization of wastewater Infrastructure and private sector involvement are
additional crucial element for strengthening local utility service delivery. Moreover
the positive environmental benefits of this project frequently extend beyond the
locality into the region. ( ACTEW : AGL )
Therefore, activities and investment in the wastewater sector make an
important contribution to the transition process towards stable market orientated
democracies while also addressing pressing environmental problems, many of which
have a regional impact. Operation to support wastewater service provision should
therefore incorporate the element listed below. ( Indah Water Konsortium : July
2001 )
•
Decentralization of wastewater and infrastructure provision to strengthen
local democracy
•
Environmental protection and clean up
•
Commercialization and corporatization of service provision to underpin
sustainable service provision in the medium and long term
•
Application of the polluter pays principle through cost recoverable tariff
setting
•
Development of adequate regulatory structure
•
Promotion and optimization of private sector involvement, where feasible
1.1
Aim of Study
Proper sewerage services are essential, and to formulate the most economical
long-term sewerage strategy to guide development in this area. The constraint in
formulating a catchments strategy for this area is that development that has already
taken place, which has provided ad-hoc sewerage system, and the need for
incorporating the facility already constructed, under construction or being planned
into the recommended strategy. Investment in sewerage reticulation and treatment
facilities is relatively high but the long-term costs of avoiding such investment are
much higher. ( Indah Water Konsortium : July 2001 )
1.2
Objective
There are several objectives, which must be addressed as follows:
•
Rationalize an optimize existing and proposal sewerage asset with a view to
maximizing their efficient usage and ultimately reduce the number of STPs’
in Sungai Siput ( N )
•
Develop broad strategies for the development of the sewerage system in line
with the objective of the National Sewerage Privatization Program.
•
Achievement of all of these in an efficient and cost effective manner within
the relevant administrative, social and political constrain.
While the above objective benefits in their own right, improvement in the
quality of the environment may also positively influence the transition process, for
example by increasing labour productivity through improved public health and
facilitating the development of industry and tourism. ( Indah Water Konsortium :
July 2001)
CHAPTER 2
2.0
Background
Within the last twenty years, sewerage Master Plan and feasibility studies for
most of the major town in the country has been drawn up by the government. Only a
handful of them had been implemented and most of the towns still do not have any
form of sewerage system complete with sewage treatment facilities. This is a far cry
when compared with drinking water, which is estimated to have already reached
about 98% of the urban Malaysian public by 1995.
( Department of Environment – DOE Publication )
The Sungai Siput (N) mukim is located in the district of Kuala Kangsar. It is
located in between Ipoh and Kuala Kangsar town. Due to huge development taking
place at Ipoh area, especially the transformation of rubber plantation to Industrial
area at Klebang, Tasek and Kanthan, there is huge migration to the Sungai Siput (N)
town
Even though Sungai Siput (N) town exist way back during colonial time with
a outdated system, which still exist in other part of the country, we still need to
revive the existing condition of it and at the same time, must look into ways to
improve the system to common Sewerage Treatment Plant ( STP ).
There are about fifteen (15) STP’s in the Sungai Siput (N) area, which have
been taken over by IWK for operation. These STP’s are sized to treat a population
equivalent (PE) in the range of 300 PE to 1000 PE. ( Indah Water Konsortium, July
2001)
Some of the problem with the localized STP’s includes:
•
Poor performance of the plants
•
High operational cost
•
Problem with treating and disposing of sludge
•
Over loading of some plants
•
The proximity of some plants to housing
There is urgent need to rationalize the increasing number of STPs resulting
from the various piecemeal developments in the study area. Therefore it is
appropriate to have an efficient sewerage system, which could result/framework for
the centralized sewerage system for Sungai Siput (N).
According to a survey conducted in 1988 only 4.9% of the population (in
local authority) was served by sewerage system, while 34% of the population was
served by septic tank or communal system. A hefty 52.9% of the population uses
pour flush, pit latrines and other less satisfactory system, while 8.2% has no facilities
at all.
Statistic released by the Department of Environment, domestic sewage
contributed 45% of the total BOD load that was discharged into inland water in the
country. In fact the figure has risen to 65% recently. It is beyond doubt that domestic
sewage has become the number one pollutant in this country and is expected to
remain so, in view of the rapid development in the urban areas.( Department of
Environment : DOE Publication )
The relevant agencies accelerated their effort to reduce environmental
pollution in the mid 70s with the enactment of the Environmental Quality Act
(1974). This was followed by supplementary regulation spelling out permissible
discharge standard for wastewater from industrial and agro-based activities (rubber
and palm oil in particular) and later by further standard governing control of all other
wastewater discharging to various classification of river throughout the nation. (
Department of Environment : DOE Publication )
The current situation is regrettably not much improved, that most of
Malaysia’s major river remain polluted and water quality does not meet permissible
standard. The situation is worst in downstream from major urban areas, particularly
the Klang Valley. Poor water quality poses a direct threat to portable water supplies,
especially during the drier season.
Wastewater system is generally combined waste and surface water system. In
many cases this are undersized, the network collection are in serious state of
disrepair with little maintenance, blocked and overflowing sewer lines and missing
manholes covers. ( ACTEW : AGL )
There is no treatment of wastewater and as a result raw sewage is discharged
untreated to adjacent surface watercourses, rivers and seas. As a result of the
inadequate and deteriorating condition of wastewater system, sanitary condition are
poor and infiltration of polluted surface water into the portable water supply poses a
serious risk for public health. ( Water Strateg : October 2001 )
2.1
Study Area Description
Sungai Siput (N)is a mukim of Kuala Kangsar district. It covers an area of
30.72sqkm. It is still largely undeveloped and is administered by the Majlis
Perbandaran Kuala Kangsar. Sungai Siput (N) is the largest mukim among the Kuala
Kangsar’s district, which is largely being developed compare to other mukim’s due
to the migration and existence of small medium industry. A large part of the
catchments area to the west of the existing Sungai Siput (N) town on both sides of
the Federal Road has been earmarked for development in the Local Plan, which is
being under preparation. The southern boundary of the eastern half of the catchments
is confined by the KTM railway line. ( Draft Rancangan Structure : Ogos 1997 )
Sungai Siput (N) town owes is rise and rapid development due the
transformation of Kanthan and Klebang Industries. There are now many newly
completed residential scheme while few more are under construction, which can be
seen all over the catchments.
Even though there are not many large scale developments taking place at
Sungai Siput (N), but a study needs to be undertaken to identify the sewerage needs
for the area.
As the existing basic Infrastructure has been installed long time ago, there
would be lot of improvement and upgrading of existing Infrastructure required to
realize the target set in Structure Plan. Industrial complex is earmarked for
development which will further enhance the growth of business activity.
Drawing PKSS/SCS/001/00 shows the location and key plan of Sungai Siput (N).
2.1.1
Previous Studies and Related Reports
There is no individual detailed sewerage report for this study area. The only
report available is sewerage catchment and sludge strategy study for Kerian, Taiping
and Kuala Kangsar which was prepared in 2001. The other planning report available
are the Kuala Kangsar structure plan and local plan which was prepared in 1991.
The structure plan and local plan make little reference to sewerage needs for
Sungai Siput (N). This land use plan represents the best available information on the
planning of the Sungai Siput (N) town.
2.2
Study Area Boundaries
The study area is located within the Sungai Siput (N) mukim itself, with a
5km radius of area earmarked for future development. In view of the large area in the
mukim occupied by agriculture and forests, the sewerage needs is only confined the
town centre and its surrounding. The area studied is centered on Sungai Siput (N)
town, and extend from Kinta district boundary at the south and agriculture land in the
north and east and hills in the west.
The study area has been divided into four (4) catchments, as follow
•
CATCHMENT 1
SOUTH-EAST CATCHMENT
•
CATCHMENT 2
SOUTH-WEST CATCHMENT
•
CATCHMENT 3
TOWN CENTRE CATCHMENT
•
CATCHMENT 4
NORTH-WEST CATCHMENT
Drawing PKSS/SCS/002/00 shows the study area coverage and the catchments area.
2.3
Topography
Sungai Siput (N) sits on the Main Range on its eastern boundary with
Kelantan, North-East of Hulu Perak and Southern by Kinta district. Generally the
whole area is hilly and undulating, and is characterized by steep forest slopes along
northern and western boundary, except the area around Sungai Siput (N) town, which
is in a more flat lower ground. ( Indah Water Konsortium : July 2001 )
2.4
Drainage
The study area is drained by number of rivers such as Sg Kerbu, Sg Sintang,
Sg Bemban, Sg Plang and their tributaries.
At the moment, there is no area that face serious flooding problem within the
district, except for pocket of low lying riverine land that got waterlogged during the
wet season. Such area had been identified along the Sungai Kerbu and Sungai
Sintang right up to the Sungai Pelus. ( Draft Rancangan Structure : Ogos 1997 )
In the choice of the STP site, care was taken to ensure that no treatment plant
are located upstream of the Water Intake Point, which is the main water supply
sources for Sungai Siput (N) town. The preferred option is to locate the discharge
point from the STP downstream of the Water Intake Point. If this is not possible, than
the Water Intake Point should be at least 10km downstream of the STP discharge
point. This will allow for sufficient dilution in the river and to allow for recovery in
the river to take place in the event the STP breakdown or similar disastrous incident.
In this study area, all the Water Intake Point used by the water authority had
been identified and presented.
1.
Sungai Kerbu
E101’04’33’
N4’49’21’
2
Sungai Bemban
E101’04’10’
N4’47’42’
Drawing PKSS/SCS/003/00 shows the Topography, Drainage pattern and the Water
Intake Point of the overall study area.
CHAPTER 3
3.0
Methodology
The whole study area is studied in detail with regard to its drainage pattern
and basins to identify the broad drainage catchments contained within its limit. Those
lands that have been earmarked as potential development areas in the various
Structure Plan formulated by the local authorities are than marked into the various
drainage basins. This would generally exclude the tracts of forest reserve land and
mountainous area. Gazetted agricultural area would normally also retained the
original function except where is already a heavy development pressure.
The boundaries for the sewerage catchments in the whole study area are then
determined within the confines of the drainage catchments. The sewerage catchments
drawn in this exercise can be divided into two categories. There is one category that
has already seen substantial development and is likely to see more development in
the near future and will be called priority catchments. The other categories called
non-priority catchments are those that have potential/earmarked for development but
would most likely take off on a large scale. ( Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd : July
2001)
In order to meet the project objective there were a number of significant
challenges to face.
•
Digitizing of the network: Prior to the study there were no digital sewer
records available for the sewerage network. In order to define what data to
collect and to the extent of the model digitization, the foul sewers on
engineering plans were marked up to cover the primary network. ( Water
Strategy : October 2001)
3.1
Methodology Adopted
The study area is strategically located between Kuala Kangsar and Ipoh town.
Federal Route 1 runs in the centre of the study area. The study area has been
identified in the Kuala Kangsar Structure Plan, as being a semi industrial growth
area.
In terms of area coverage the predominant land use within the study area is
agriculture followed by foresting. This area would not contribute significantly to the
population of the catchments study area. The main indicators of population growth in
these catchments are the residential area, which are currently undergoing a rapid
growth.
The following consideration have been considered in demarcating the
catchments boundaries
•
Topography of the study area
•
Drainage basin/natural boundaries
•
Size of the study area
•
Present and future land use development
The topography of the study area is generally flat but sloping upwards at the
eastern part of town area. At the western part railway track is dividing part of the
study area.
Drainage basin play some important role when the catchments is sub-divided
because three of the river/stream running in the middle of the catchments.
Finally the present and future land use pattern, play an important role in subdividing the catchments because of the ad-hoc development type. ( Indah Water
Konsortium Sdn Bhd : July 2001 )
Once the study area been sub-divided into four (4) catchments, the existing
services was determine and a population equivalent projection was made /
evaluated. An interval of 5 years duration been rationalized. The ultimate population
equivalent based on the land use method and census figure been used as a criteria
for the distribution of catchments service type.
3.2
Landuse And Development
The land use element is the central component of the comprehensive plan for
any studies. It serves as the synthesis of all other element of the plan and as a
mechanism to guide and control future growth in the community. Its overarching
intent is to guide the intensity, location and timing of new development and
redevelopment and to ensure compatibility with existing development, future
population and economic development trend, community infrastructure and natural
and cultural resources.
The Structure of the land use element is designed to meet the requirement of
the minimum planning standard and procedures for local planning of the Sungai
Siput (N) Catchment Strategy. The following provides an inventory and analysis of
land use pattern in Sungai Siput (N) and their relationship to environmentally
sensitive land, community facilities and services and market demand. Various spatial
land use and projection for future land use are also presented, compiled from the
integration of the existing land sue inventory, future land use and constraint.
Potential application of growth management and implementation strategies for future
development is also provided. ( Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd : July 2001 )
3.2.1
Present Land Use Profiles
The present land use plan for Sungai Siput (N) has been compiled from the
review of the Structure/Local Plan as well as result of site reconnaissance.
In the more developed area, the principal land use has been, and will continue
to be dominated by residential development, urged by Government policy of an
individual house ownership. As a result the residential development is still normally
of the terrace and semi-detached type.( Population & Housing Census: August 1992 )
Commercial land use within the catchments study area is not as extensive.
These are generally retail / sundry and service oriented establishment. The existence
of two and three storey shop-houses within the core of housing estate to service the
surrounding residential population is common.
Residential properties are dispersed throughout the study area. Residential
combined account, approximately 70% of the total land area. The next largest land
use category is vacant land, accounting for 25% of the total. Vacant land is evenly
disbursed thru out the study area.
3.2.2
Future Land Use Profiles
In order to ensure more orderly and regulated approach towards sustainable
development within the study area, the Local Authority had commissioned the
formulation of the Structural/Local Plan within their respective administrative zones.
Population housing and employment forecast are helpful in determining the
amount of land necessary to accommodate both residential and non-residential future
land-use needs.
This Structure/Local Plan identify the area with development potential and
came complete with the various areas clearly demarcated for the various
development activities like housing, commercial, industries, institutional and
recreational project. The Structure/Local Plan will also confirm the area to remain
under agricultural/forest reserve.
Generally such land confirmed to remain under agricultural (be it rubber,
palm oil) or forest reserve will have very low development potential.
In ascertaining the future land use patterns within the study area, a number of
factors have been used which provide information on new development area and
potential area where spin of project are expected
•
Approved development from files submitted to MPKK
•
On going project
•
Discussion with town planning official with regard to future land use zoning,
reclassification and future government project within the area
•
The MPKK Structure Plan which provide accurate indication of growth areas
and future land use within the study area
•
Road proposal from Sungai Siput (N) to Lenggong and Bendariang (Grik)
•
Road proposal from Sungai Siput (N) to Gua Musang
•
Township development from Ipoh-Kanthan-Sungai Siput (N)
Table 1.0 shows the existing land been utilized till 2005 and land required for the
future development until 2020.
Table 1.0 Existing and Future land use
Type of Land use Present
use (Ha)
land- Land
required
from
Catchment
area Land
required for each
2005- 5
year
2020 (Ha)
(Ha)
Housing
850
600
150
Commercial
103
73
18
Industry
10
120
30
/ 43
130
32.5
18
4.5
Institutional
area
period
Adv
Public
2
Source: Kuala Kangsar Structural Plan
Drawing PKSS/SCS/004/00 shows the existing and future land use pattern proposed
under draft local plan.
3.3
Sewerage Zones And Catchment
The study area covers a very wide expanse of land with varying topography,
land use and population density. For the efficient and effective management of a
sewerage system to be proposed, it would be necessary to divide the whole district
into smaller and more manageable catchments, according to its natural topography,
development pattern which is already been exist and projected ultimate population.
Only than can effective sewerage system be proposed complete with the
identification of suitable STP sites
3.3.1
Sewerage Provision
Basically this section describes briefly on the existing and type of sewage
treatment facilities within the study area, location in order to provide an overview
within the study area. The sewage treatment facilities in the developed parts within
the study area, including residential, commercial and institutional area were
identified and located.
An inventory of the exiting facilities has been conducted to determine the
type, capacity, and status and service area. The survey indicates that most of the
treatment facilities are small with five numbers of CST, fifteen numbers of STP’S
and Pump Station.
Figure 1.1 and 1.2 in Appendix 1.0 shows the detail of the existing sewerage
system in the study area, including the list of Taman’s served by STP’s, CST’s and
IST’s.
( Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd : July 2001 )
Drawing PKSS/SCS/005/00 shows the existing sewerage system with the STP’s and
CST’s location.
3.4
Population And Population Equivalent Projection
It is always not easy to project a reasonable projection of population
equivalent for any type of studies. This section reviews the present population and
projected future population equivalent within the catchments in line with land use
and development pattern. It will also describe the rationale for projecting population
equivalent to be used in the estimation of sewage flow from the study area from
present situation and projected population till 2020. This is based on data and
information collected from various departments, such as Local Authority, Statistics
record, Census data as well as IWK Certification Department. ( Draft Randangan
Structure : Ogos 1997, Population and Housing Census : August 1992 , Indah Water
Konsortium Sdn Bhd : July 2001 )
The population equivalent of residential, commercial and others has been
projected on the basis of general count carried out in selected areas. Information was
also obtained from Majlis Perbandaran Kual Kangsar, Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan
Desa (JPBD), Lembaga Air Perak (LAP), Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB),
Dvelopers as well as Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) own records. The population
equivalent has been computed using the criteria of 5 PE/ residential and 3 PE/100M2
gross area for commercial. Assumptions were made in interpreting data from other
authorities, as the area covered did not always coincide with the study area.
( Guideline for Developers : August 1991 )
For the computation of population equivalent, we have utilized known or
typical ratios of residential versus commercial / institutional / industrial development.
The existing population equivalent was derived based on three different
sources and also compared with the projected population in the Structure Plan and
Local Plan.
The three methods were used to identify the existing PE because currently
there is no reliable data / record shows the present PE. The detail of the current
population equivalent in the study area derived based on the IWK, TNB and LAP are
tabulated in Figure 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 in Appendix 2.0.
After consideration of all the available information, it is concluded that the
current PE distribution in the four catchments is as shown in Table 2.0 below
Table 2.0: Distribution of current PE in the catchments
CATCHMENT
CATCHMENT 1
TYPE
PE
IST
4950
CST
800
STP
12020
OTHERS
165
IST
18100
CST
CATCHMENT 2
STP
125
OTHERS
3000
IST
12250
CST
CATCHMENT 3
CATCHMENT 4
STP
2970
OTHERS
500
IST
4965
CST
130
STP
3960
OTHERS
1065
3.4.1
PE Projection Based On Land Use Method
For the estimation of population equivalent figures, the following format was
adopted
•
Collecting and reviewing relevant development scheme data from MPKK
•
Projecting and assessing the extent of development from the Structure Plan
•
Allotting Population Equivalent densities for such presently undeveloped
land based on their proposed land use
•
Road proposal and township development : refer to future land use profile
The proposed new roads will speed up the development of residential and
commercial at the catchments area. ( Draft Rancangan Structure : Ogos 1997 )
Table 3.0 below shows the population equivalent growth based on land use
projection
TABLE 3.0 : Population Equivalent
Growth based on Land Use Projection
Present
Future
PE
PE
2005
2010
2015
2020
46800
Increase
12000
12000
12000
12000
Cum.PE
58800
70800
82800
94800
Increase
3640
3640
3640
3640
Cum.PE
20090
23730
27370
31010
Increase
1560
1560
1560
1560
Cum.PE
2010
3570
5130
6690
Increase
780
780
780
780
Administration
Cum.PE
2080
2860
3640
4420
Public
Increase
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
Amenities
Cum.PE
65
130
195
260
83045
101090
119135
137180
Domestic
Commercial
Industry
Institutional
16450
450
1300
&
TOTAL PE
65000
Detail of the projected PE based on the Land use method is tabulated in Figure 3.1,
3.2 and 3.3 in Appendix 3.0.
3.4.2
PE Projection Based on 1991 Census
The Population Equivalent figure derived above are counter checked and
reviewed against figure projected from the 1991 Population Census by the Statistic
Department. The census has the population figure for the Sungai Siput (N) mukim,
but the catchments identified in this study do not fall exactly within the boundaries of
the mukim. Hence it is necessary to apportion the population figure in the mukim to
cover the exact limit of the study catchments, ( Population & Housing Census :
August 1992 ). Then using declared growth suggested in the Structure Plan, the
future populations for the catchments are projected at 5 yearly intervals up to 2020.
These projected population figures are then converted to Population Equivalent
figure by using factor varying from 1.10 to 1.25.
Table below shows the population equivalent growth based on census
projection.
Table 4.0 : Population Equivalent Growth According To Catchment
Region
Catchment
2005
2010
2015
2020
1
17935
20935
23985
27065
TOWN
2
21225
22355
23355
24225
CENTRE
3
15720
25650
37600
48720
4
10120
20060
32060
42990
TOTAL
65000
89000
117000
143000
Detail of the projected PE based on population growth (sources from Census and
Statistic Department) is tabulated in Figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 in Appendix 4.0.
After reviewing the projected PE by land use method and Population census
projection it is noticed that the ultimate PE for the year 2020 is not various. It is
therefore recommended that the second method, which shows slightly higher figure
be used for the purpose of this studies. An ultimate catchments PE of 145,000 will be
used for the STP sizing.
Table 5.0 below shows the Population equivalent adopted from various
sources .
Table 5.0 : Adopted PE figure to be used
Year
2000
By
Census
Projection
By Land use Method
2005
2015
2020
55350
70,239
89,134
115,340
149,250
55390
65,646
89,681
117,917
137,447
89,000
117,000
143,000
IWK Record
58,945
TNB Record
67,490
LAP Record
62,850
Adopted Figure
2010
55000
65,000
Breakdown of the projected PE were distributed according to the catchments
based on land availability, existing system using different sewerage system for the
five year intervals. The breakdown itself will explain the rationalization of the
existing system; such as IST’s, Pour Flush to a better system along the development
growth. The present IST system and others will be eliminated, maybe 90% after the
whole sewerage network system in order.
Figure 5.1 in appendix 5.0 shows the distribution of present and projected PE
among the catchments.
CHAPTER 4
4.0
Results And Discussion
Generally this section describes the proposed sewerage management strategy.
Various factors have been considered in identifying the appropriate sewerage option
for the study area. When we’re recommending any option, a detail studies, such as
cost factor, accountability, environmental impact and so on has to be taking into
consideration.
Question raised why should such a small town must have ( STP ) when there
is no tourist attraction and additional revenue collection, and why need to spend so
much of money on Sewerage infrastructure and the consequence on implementing
the project.
Though there is not much activity at any of the small town such as Sungai
Siput (N) and no cost benefit on revenue, we should look into the social obligation,
which lies on the government head to provide the basic need of utility requirement
for the betterment of living condition, improvement in quality of the environment.
Question being raised, why a small town should have a (CSTP) when there is
no tourist attraction or any additional revenue collection? Why we need to spend so
much of public/tax payee money on Sewerage infrastructure and the consequence on
implementing the project?
Though there is not much activity and no cost benefit on revenue, we should
look into the social obligation, which lies on the government head to provide the
basic needs of utility requirement for the betterment of living condition,
improvement in quality of the environment.
The first part of the studies was to determine the existing sewerage
catchments strategy, topography of the study area, present development pattern an
existing STP condition of the catchments. Secondly is to identify the present
population equivalent and a future projection being derived for the growth.
Evaluation was determined by the existing and future land use pattern and at the
same time the population growth was been determine based on present customer
which
was
derived/concluded
after
analyzing
the
total
customer
from
TNB/LAP/IWK and censor figure. Even though the figures is varies, conclusion
being made to prorate the population equivalent. Refer to figure 1.0 of the population
growth.
After finalizing the existing population of equivalent comparison/projection
being made for the future growth based on the future land use method and it were
compare with the population growth from census projection.
Based on the topography, existing condition of the site and the development
pattern, natural boundaries, railway track, federal road and size of the study area the
catchments was divided into 4 catchments.
Once the study area been sub-divided into four (4) catchments, the existing
services was determine and a population equivalent projection was made / evaluated.
An interval of 5 years duration been rationalized. The ultimate population equivalent
based on the land use method and census figure been used as a criteria for the
distribution of catchments service type.
At present catchment 1 is the most well planned/developed area with a
individual STP system for the housing scheme following up with the catchment 2,
which is in line in the future development potential. Catchment 3 is the heart of the
town which is currently the highest area served by IST system. Catchment 4 which is
practically separated by railway track has mixed development.
After finalized the catchments area and the existing services, a recommended
sewerage management strategy were proposed. Various factors were considered in
identifying the appropriate sewerage option. Two options was look into.
4.1a
Option 1 (1 Regional Cstp)
This concept requires the sewage flow from each of the four sewerage
catchments to be conveyed by gravitational (and pumped if necessary) to a single
regional sewage treatment plant located in the vicinity of Simpang Jalong, south-east
of the study area. It is located at catchment 1, which is having most of the STP’s.
This site is downstream of the entire catchments, where Sungai Sintang running next
to the proposed site.
The regional central sewage treatment plant (CSTP) will have a ultimate
capacity of 140,000 PE which is the ultimate PE for the Sungai Siput (N) study area.
The major disadvantage of this concept is the land acquisition for CSTP. The
proposed CSTP is a private land. Operation and maintenance costs (pump station),
gravity trunk sewers and force-main reserve is very high.
The major advantage of this concept is that only one large CSTP has to be
operated and maintained resulting in lower operating cost for the STP, and greater
efficiency on effluent quality. The Implementation works will be easier. Less pump
station and slightly shorter length of sewer network. The total length of main trunk
sewer sizes range from 375mm to 900mm is approximately 26 km.
Drawing PKSS/SCS/006/00 shows the concept of a regional sewerage system
with a regional sewage treatment plant serving the entire study area. It also shows the
conceptual network arrangement.
4.1b
Option 2 (1 Regional Stp)
This concept requires the sewage flow from each of the four sewerage
catchments to be conveyed by gravitational (and pumped if necessary) to a single
regional sewage treatment plant located in the vicinity of Kamuning Estate and Salak
boundary. It is located 2.5 km away from present development area.
The regional central sewage treatment plant (CSTP) will have a ultimate
capacity of 140,000 PE which is the ultimate PE for the Sungai Siput (N) study area.
The major disadvantage of this concept is the high capital cost (lengthy and
larger diameter trunk sewers and force mains and more numbers of high capacity
pump stations), high operation and maintenance costs (pump station) and difficulty
in implementation especially on the construction of the main trunk of sewer network
which will be running right at the centre of Sungai Siput town. In terms of flexibility,
it is not so efficient, and would involve high upfront capital expenditure.
The major advantage of this concept is that only one large CSTP has to be
operated and maintained resulting in lower operating cost for the STP, and greater
efficiency. The other advantage it is a state land.
Drawing IWK/PKSS/SCS/007/00 shows the concept of this option.
4.2
Comparison of Alternative
The two option/alternative discussed in the previous chapter were evaluated
based on the following criteria. ( Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd : July 2001 )
•
Benefit to public health and environment:
Early implementation of the sewerage network with regional plant and early
disconnection of individual septic tank, imhoff tank and others will bring
indirect benefit to public.
•
Land acquisition for CSTP and Pump Station
The land area required for each CSTP and PS, the status of land and number
of sites required. Usually the land requisition will take time. In order to
smoothern the proposal, land acquisition has to be carried out as early as
possible.
•
Environmental and social Impacts
By having the CSTP and PS at the proposed site whether there is any social
implication towards public.
•
Capital, O & M and NPV
Capital cost for the construction of gravity sewers, manhole, forcemain, pump
station and CSTP for the various phases and the operation & maintenance for
the two alternative were estimated. An NPV analysis using a discount factor
of 8% from year 2009 to the year 2025 was carried out.
•
Ease of Implementation
The ease of implementation of the option was studied, especially during the
construction of public sewer network, lateral connection from individual
houses to the public network systems.
Detail of costing for land, capital cost for STPs and network and O& M cost are
shown in appendix 6.0 and tables 6.0 – 6.8.
Table 6.0 : Comparative Analysis for Alternative Sewerage
Item
Option 1
Option 2
Capital Cost
Moderate ( 50.1 Mil)
Moderate ( 50.1 Mil )
15 years cumulative O & M
Moderate( 28.147 Mil)
Moderate( 28.203 Mil)
Environmental Impact
Low
Low
Land Required ( acre )
12 Acre ( private land)
12 Acre ( State land )
( 0.526 Mil )
( 1.316 Mil )
Overall NPV
Ease
&
Moderate(134.215Mil )
Flexibility
implementation
of
Moderate
High ( 138.653 Mil )
High
Detail of the capital cost for STPs’ Network and O & M costing are referred
from graph in appendix 7.0.
Overall option 1 shows the low capital cost, lower O & M cost and overall
lower NPV cost. On this note option 1 is more favourabel. At the same the 15 years
cumulative O & M cost and overall NPV are not much varies compare to option 2.
Another factor is equitability and cost of land. The option 1 land is a private
land compare to option 2 which is a state land, which at present already been utilized
for IWK trenching.
Overall option 1 is most favorable based on the comparative analysis for
alternative sewerage factor.
CHAPTER 5
5.0
Conclusion and Proposal
Based on the overall evaluation, it can be seen that having one central CSTP
for the whole catchments result in the most desirable option. It is therefore concluded
that option I is the most favourable among the two options.
The recommendation option will consider the entire study area as a single
catchment. The sewage flows from catchments 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be collected by a
network of sewers and pump stations and conveyed to an CSTP at site “OPTION 1”.
The CSTP will be built in stages, and will serve an ultimate PE of 140,000.
Table 8.1 in Appendix 8.0 shows the Hydraulic design calculation of gravity
sewer pipe. Detail of the sewage flow from each and every main manhole being
indicated. This is to check whether the proposal pipe size is sufficient to cater the
flow.
Option 1 shows the lower capital cost and at the same time by considering
operation and maintenance cost and overall NPV, this option is still the most
favourable. These comparative costs should not be considered as the sole criteria for
the recommendation of the most suitable option. The nature of the study area needs
to be taken into account, whereby the majority of the study area is of low growth
areas.
The recommendation of a strategy involving multiple regional treatment
plants, although more flexible in implementation, do not offer a high degree of
centralization. On the other hand, Options with single regional CSTP, where high
upfront capital costs for large trunk sewers will be required in the early stages of the
strategy, are likely to be less beneficial. Another factor is availability, acquirability
and cost of land.
The only disadvantage for the CSTP in Option I is that the site is located at
private land. Consideration of Comparative Analysis for Alternative Sewage Concept
indicate a preference for a centralized strategy, Option I as the most favourable.
The main features of the recommended strategy are summarized in the table
7.0 below:
Table 7.0 : Summary of the Recommended Strategy
Recommended
Total PE served
Option
One regional STP, at site
“OPTION1”
140,000
Total Capital Cost
N.P.V
RM(Mill)
RM(Mill)
58.451
134.215
5.1
Staging of Sewage Treatment Plant
Due to the small PE at present (about 89,000) and moreover because it is not
a high priority area compared to other catchments, it is advisable to implement
staging of CSTP in smaller phases.
Table 8.0 below shows the total PE until the year 2020. The STP capacity that
will be constructed at the interval of 5 years period and the expected PE that will be
connected during those stage.
Table 8.0 : Total PE , STP Capacity and PE Connected.
Year
2005
2010
2015
2020
ULTIMATE
65000
89000
117000
143000
-
35000
70000
105000
140000
18000
30000
42000
60000
STP
SUNGAI
Total PE
SIPUT
SEWERAGE
STP
Capacity
STRATEGY
PE
Connected
The construction of CSTP and PE connection would be based on the
development growth. It is not cost effective to construct the STP in advance due to
low connected flow. At phase 1, it is expected that PE of 27,000 will be connected to
the CSTP, Most of the PE comes from catchment 1. We can’t achieve the PE of
35000 as proposed for the CSTP because at initial stage there will be a lot of
unexpected problem might occur during the sewer network construction.
During phase two, most of the main trunk sewer will be completed. It will be
easy to construct the smaller sewer network. At this stage PE of 34,000 will be
expected to be connected to the CSTP.
Phase three which covers the town area, will be connected to the CSTP with
an estimated PE of 36,000. The balance of PE around 43000 will be connected at
phase four.
Bar Chart in Appendix 9 shows the PE growth as well as the STP capacity
and PE connected. It is not realistic to expect the whole catchments PE to be
connected to the centralized system even at the end of planning period. It is expected
that the connected PE will grow in accordance with network development pattern,
reaching about 80% to 85% PE will be connected by 2020. Refer to Appendix 7.0 of
the Bar Chart.
A Lot of consequence will come during the Implementation works of sewer
connection, especially from Individual house owner, as to who should bare the cost
of connection and other factors like squatters area facilities
5.2.
Phasing of Network Development
Based on the cost evaluation discussed in earlier chapter, option 1 is the
recommended alternative. The proposed strategy sewerage system is expected to
bring several advantages. The following section describes the stages of
implementation and some of the benefits expected from each stage of
implementation of the recommended option.
Table 9.0 below shows the network implementation for the whole project.
Table 9.0 : Network Implementation
PHASES
NETWORK
Main Sewer
Collector Sewer
Sizes(mm)
Length(m)
Length(m)
Phase 1
900
2000
Only calculated the cost
2010-2014
600
2000
based on 30% of main
375
7000
trunk sewer.
Phase 2
600
1000
Only calculated the cost
2015-2019
450
4000
based on 30% of main
trunk sewer.
Phase 3
750
2000
Only calculated the cost
2020-2024
375
4000
based on 30% of main
trunk sewer.
Phase 4
600
2000
Only calculated the cost
2025-Ultimate
450
2000
based on 30% of main
trunk sewer.
5.2.1
Phase 1 (Year 2010 – 2014)
The works to be carried out in Phase 1 include a sewage treatment plant of
35000 PE capacity in STP OPTION 1.
Reticulation works consists of one pumping station which will convey
sewage flows from part of catchment 1 and 3. The capacity of the pump station will
be 11,000. The existing STP site (KRR 125 : Taman Lintang Makmur) will be
converted as a pumping station.
There will be environmental and public health benefits from these works.
Some of the existing IST’s Taman and STP’s Taman could be rationalized.
With this implementation it is estimated there will be a reduction of 8 STP’s
and individual septic tanks.
5.2.2
Phase 2 (Year 2015 – 2019)
Phase 2 of the treatment plant is expected to cater for a population equivalent
of 70,000 Reticulation works consist of laying main and secondary sewers in the
unsewered area Rimba Panjang village, Taman Muhibbah other adjacent areas.
Reticulation works consists of one pumping station which will convey
sewage flows, mainly from catchment 2. The capacity of the pump station will be
20,000. The existing STP site (KRR 089 : Perumahan Awam Rimba Panjang) will be
converted as a pumping station.
With this implementation it is estimated there will be a reduction of 3 STP’s
and individual septic tanks.
5.2.3
Phase 3 (Year 2020 – 2024)
It is anticipated that by the year 2020, more than half of study area town will
be served by the centralized sewerage system. The stage three treatment plant
capacity will cater for a population equivalent of 105,000.
Additional main and secondary sewer will be laid and an additional pumping
station will be constructed to convey the sewage flows to the treatment plant. It is
expected that another two STP will be eliminated by the year 2024.
Reticulation works consists of one pumping station which will convey
sewage flows, mainly from catchment 3 and catchment 2. The capacity of the pump
station will be 15,000. The existing STP site (KRR : New Asset Not Taken Over)
will be converted as a pumping station.
With this implementation it is estimated there will be a reduction of 3 STP’s
and individual septic tanks. The reduction in numbers of individual septic tanks and
pour flush units will bring new customers for Indah Water and subsequently bringing
extra revenue from monthly service charges.
5.2.4
Phase 4(Year 2025 – Ultimate)
In this Phase, the centralized sewerage system is expected to cover the whole
of catchment 1,2,3 & 4 with an ultimate population equivalent of 143,000 PE .
The main sewers will cover catchment 3 & 4 with secondary sewers covering
most of the IST areas. With the implementation the quality of environment is
expected to improve once the IST & pour flush systems are reduced.
Works to be under take in this phase is mainly connecting all the IST areas to
the main sewers. The treatment plant is expected to cater for a 2020 population
equivalent of 143,000, while the ultimate connected PE is estimated to reach
120,000.
5.3
Summary of capital costs
The capital costs involved in the implementation of the recommended
strategy are summarized in the table below.
Phase
I
Item
Cost (mil)
Land for STP / CSTF
1.316
Land for P / Station
0.000
STP (PE: 35,000)
14.000
Main Sewers
7.390
PS
0.500
Force Mains
0.060
Reticulation
2.217
Admin, General & Others
4.900
Sub total
II
STP (PE: 35,000)
13.000
Main Sewers
4.130
PS
0.750
Force Mains
0.170
Reticulation
1.239
Admin, General & Others
4.550
Sub total
III
30.383
23.839
STP (PE: 35,000)
11.900
Main Sewers
4.690
PS
0.500
Force Mains
0.090
Reticulation
1.407
4.165
Admin, General & Others
Sub total
IV
22.752
STP (PE: 35,000)
11.200
Main Sewers
3.810
PS
1.750
Force Mains
0.140
Reticulation
1.143
Admin, General & Others
3.920
Sub total
21.963
Total
98,937
Note : 1.) Reticulation cost is 30% of Main Sewer Cost.
2.) Admin, General & Others cost is 35% of the Total STP Construction
cost exclude land.
References
Draft Rancangan Structure Daerah, Kuala Kangsar by Majlis Daerah
Kuala Kangsar, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar & Desa, Semanjung Malaysia,
Jabatan Perancangan Bandar & Desa Negeri Perak : Ogos 1997
Population & Housing Census of Malaysia 1991: Preliminary Count Report for
Local Authority Areas by Department of Statistics Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
August 1992.
Guideline for Developers : Sewerage Policy For New Development Second Edition
Volume 1. Ministry Of Housing And Local Government, Sewerage Services
Department August 1999.
Department of Environment – DOE Publication.
Environmental Quality Report ( EQR ) EQR 1997, EQR 1998, EQR 2004
.Government and the Department of Environment of Malaysia
Optimizing Wastewater Treatment ( PDF )
Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, World Bank Group .
Optimizing wastewater Treatment. Munincipal treatment system and with
Implementation
Water Strategy. Regional Approach For South Eastern
EUROPE. October 2001 – The water and waste water sector is one of the
major investment priorities for :-
Sewerage & Sewage Treatment Master Planning Pre-Qualification package
Qatar Sewerage And Sewage Treatment Master Plan a Sewerage & Sewage
Treatment Master Plan. ( S & STMP ) for the State of Qatar.
ACTEW AGL : Water : Standards : Water Supply and Sewerage Standards
Infringe ACTEW catchment shall be accompanied by the completed standard
form water.
www.actewagl.com.au/water/standards/default.aspx
Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd : Sewerage catchment and Sludge Management
Strategy Study for Kerian , Taiping and Kuala Kangsar . July 2001
APPENDIX 1.0 : EXISTING ASSETS
Appendix 1.1 : Existing Assets Operated by Indah Water
NO. ASSET NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KRR008
KRR067
KRR068
KRR070
KRR075
KRR076
KRR087
KRR088
KRR089
KRR091
KRR092
KRR093
KRR094
KRR095
KRR099
KRR123
KRR125
KRR126
KRR128
KRR130
KRR132
KRR133
KRR091
TYPE
MUKIM
ITPS
CST
CST
CST
OPPS
ASPS
HK
EA
LEA
EA
CST
CST
CST
CST
EA
EA
EA
NPS
EA
HK
EA
NPS
EA
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
LOCATION
TAMAN LINTANG, SG SIPUT (U)
PA SG SIPUT (SK II)
PA SG SIPUT(SK II)
PA SG SIPUT(SKI) I
TMN. KEMIRI
KG MUHIBBAH (FASA 2B)
TAMAN LINTANG JAYA
TAMAN DOVENBY FASA 2
PERUMAHAN AWAM RIMBA PANJANG
TAMAN MUHIBBAH AMAN
TAMAN LIM GARDEN
TAMAN LIM GARDEN
TAMAN LIM GARDEN
TAMAN LIM GARDEN
TAMAN MUHIBBAH JAYA
TAMAN BUNGA TANJUNG II.
TAMAN LINTANG MAKMUR
TAMAN LINTANG MAKMUR
TAMAN YAKIN MESRA
SUNGAI SIPUT PARADE
TAMAN MAKMUR
TAMAN MUHIBBAH JAYA II
TAMAN MUHIBBAH AMAN
Total
cPE
2,532
200
100
500
1,855
1,618
350
1,050
1,510
1,175
35
35
30
30
2,400
181
1,170
1,700
1,700
82
2,319
658
1,175
22,405
dPE
RIVERBRANCH
EFF
STD
1,893
2,053
375
1,050
1,600
1,240
35
35
30
30
2,800
200
3,132
2,532
2,700
125
2,834
1,025
1,240
SG KEPAYANG
SG KEPAYANG
SG KEPAYANG
SG KEPAYANG
SG KEPAYANG
SG KEPAYANG
SG BEMBAN
SG PELANG
SG PELANG
SG KEPAYANG
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SINTANG
SG KEPAYANG
SG BEMBAN
SG BEMBAN
SG BEMBAN
SG BEMBAN
SG BEMBAN
SG SINTANG
SG KEPAYANG
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Appendix 1.2 : Existing IST Assets Operated by Indah Water
NO.
Land Use
TYPE
1
Res
IST
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Res
Comm
Res
Res
Res
Comm
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Res
Comm
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
IST
MUKIM
LOCATION
cPE
SG SIPUT
Taman Kemiri
1,945
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG. SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
SG SIPUT
Kampung Muhibah
Pekan Sungai Siput
Jalan Sungai Jalan Sekolah
Kampung Veerasamy
Simpang Jalong
Jalan Lintang
Belakang Kilang Papan
Jalan Padang
Taman Jalong
Taman Wam Sam Yueh
Taman Veerasamy
Taman Simpang Tiga
Taman Tai Chong
Taman Heawood
Sri Taman
Taman Aik Moh
Taman Happy
Taman Suppiah Pillai
Taman Pertama
Taman Bunga Tanjong
Taman Pertama Jalan Lintang
Taman Orkid
Taman Lim
Taman Bukit Medan
Taman Tun Sambanthan
Kg Tersusun Kledang Utama
Kg Tersusun Kemuning
Kg Bahagia
Kg Baru Rimba Panjang
Kg Baru Simpang Jalong
Kg Baru Sg Buloh
Kg Tersusun Simpang Jalong
Pejabat Kerajaan
Taman Ramasamy
Desa Kledang Utama
Kg Bengali
Jalan Ipoh
1790
2760
285
425
380
2100
885
1,525
700
120
260
385
65
3,000
315
260
310
300
470
195
170
1,600
145
230
5520
1,075
1180
1,150
4100
3,300
2600
105
100
540
1250
800
1200
43,540
Total
APPENDIX 2.0 : EXISTING PE ESTIMATION BASED ON VARIOUS SOURCES
Appendix 2.1
IWK RECORDS
TYPE OF PREMISES NO OF UNITS
TOTAL PE
REMARKS
Domestic
9105
45525
5PE / UNIT
Commercial
1132
11320
8 - 15PE / UNIT (average 2-3 sty)
Government Department
20
1000
50PE / UNIT
G'ment Quarters/Inst
30
600
5PE / UNIT
Industry
15
1350
90PE / UNIT
TOTAL
Appendix 2.2
59795
LAP CUSTOMERS RECORD
TYPE OF PREMISES
NO OF UNITS
TOTAL PE
REMARKS
Domestic
9700
48500
5PE / UNIT
Commercial
1705
17050
8 – 15PE / UNIT (average 2-3 sty)
Government Department
20
1000
50PE / UNIT
G’ment Quarters/Inst
30
600
5PE / UNIT
Industry
15
1350
90PE / UNIT
TOTAL
68500
Appendix 2.3
TNB CUSTOMERS RECORD
TYPE OF PREMISES
NO OF UNITS
TOTAL PE
REMARKS
Domestic
9650
48250
5PE / UNIT
Commercial
1260
12600
8 - 15PE / UNIT (average 2-3 sty)
Government Department
20
1000
50PE / UNIT
G'ment Quarters/Inst
30
600
5PE / UNIT
Industry
15
1350
90PE / UNIT
TOTAL
63800
APPENDIX 3.0 : POPULATION EQUIVALENT GROWTH
Appendix 3.1 : Land requirement for various landuse types
Total land area
Adjusted total
Land area required
required (1990 2005)
land area required (2005 2020)
for each 5 year
period
(Ha)
(Ha)
(Ha)
Housing
850
600
150
Commercial
103
73
18
Industry
10
120
30
& Administration
43
130
33
Public Amenities
2
18
5
Type of land use
TOWN
CENTRE
Institutional
NOTE : 1. Based on structure plan projection for 1990 - 2010.
Appendix 3.2 : Land Use Projection
2005
2010
2015
2020
(Ha)
(Ha)
(Ha)
(Ha)
Housing
150
150
150
150
Commercial
18
18
18
18
Industry
30
30
30
30
& Administration
33
33
33
33
Public Amenities
5
5
5
5
TOWN
CENTRE
Institutional
Appendix 3.3 : Population Equivalent Growth based on Land Use
Projection
Domestic
Commercial
Industry
Institutinal
Present PE
Future PE
2005
2010
2015
2020
46800
Increase
12000
12000
12000
12000
Cum.PE
58800
70800
82800
94800
Increase
3640
3640
3640
3640
Cum.PE
20090
23730
27370
31010
Increase
1560
1560
1560
1560
Cum.PE
2010
3570
5130
6690
Increase
780
780
780
780
Cum.PE
2080
2860
3640
4420
Increase
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
Cum.PE
65
83045
130
101090
195
119135
260
137180
16450
450
1300
& Administration
Public Amenities
TOTAL PE
65000
Notes : 1.) Assume 80% of housing land is built up and the density is 20 its/Ha.
2.) Assume 80% of commercial land is built up to 3 storey, with density of 20unit/Ha
with 3 PE/100sq.m.
3.) Assume 80% of industry land is built up and the density is 65
PE/Ha.
4.) Assume 80% of institutional/administration land is built up and the
density is 30 PE/Ha.
5.) Assume 50% of public amenities land is built up and the density is
6 PE/Ha.
APPENDIX 4.0 : POPULATION GROWTH
Appendix 4.1 : Population Growth forSungai Siput
Region
SG SIPUT
TOWN
CENTRE
Population / Year
2005
2010
2015
2020
61,100
77,500
100,300
129,800
Note : 1.) Population growth is abstracted from Structure Plan till the year 2010.
2.) Growth for 2015 & 2020 is assumed at 5.0%-5.5%.
Appendix 4.2 : Population Equivalent Growth for Sungai Siput
Region
2005
SG SIPUT
TOWN
CENTRE
65,000
Note : The PE / population ratio is assumed at 1.06%, 1.15% 1.17% & 1.10%
for year 2005,2010,2015 and 2020 respectively.
Population / Year
2010
2015
89,000
117,000
2020
143,000
Appendix 4.3 : Population Equivalent Growth According To Catchment
Region
TOWN
CENTRE
Catchment
1
2
3
4
TOTAL
Note : PE growth rate for Catchment 1 is 1.17%,1.15%,1.13.
PE growth rate for Catchment 2 is 1.05%,1.04%,1.04.
PE growth rate for Catchment 3 is 1.63%,1.47%,1.30.
PE growth rate for Catchment 4 is 17.9%,1.60%,1.34.
2005
17935
21225
15720
10120
65000
2010
20935
22355
25650
20060
89000
2015
23985
23355
37600
32060
117000
2020
27065
24225
48720
42990
143000
APPENDIX 5.0 : PRESENT AND FUTURE
SYSTEM
Appendix 5.1 : PE Served by IST, Connected & Other
System
Type of
Service
2005
PE
2010
%
PE
2015
%
2020
PE
%
PE
%
6,520
5.6
4,935
3.5
CATCHMENT 1
4,950
7.6
5,985
6.72
CST
800
1.2
800
0.90
STP
12,020
IST
OTHERS
165
18.5 14,020
0.3
130
15.75
17,370
14.8
22,065
15.4
0.15
95
0.1
65
0.0
17,935
27.6 20,935
23.52
23,985
21
18,100
27.8 19,520
21.93
20,650
17.6
130
0.15
130
0.1
1.1
27,065
19
15,180
10.6
8,630
6.0
0.3
CATCHMENT 2
IST
CST
125
0.2
625
0.70
1,325
3,000
4.6
2,080
2.34
1,250
1.1
415
21,225
32.7 22,355
25.12
23,355
20
24,225
17
IST
12,250
18.8 14,335
16.11
15,900
13.6
17,505
12.2
STP
2970
4.6 10,900
12.25
21,370
18.3
30,970
21.7
STP
OTHERS
CATCHMENT 3
-
CST
OTHERS
500
15,720
0.8
-
-
415
0.47
330
0.3
245
0.2
24.2 25,650
28.82
37,600
32
48,720
34
CATCHMENT 4
IST
4,965
7.6
7,230
8.12
9,030
7.7
10,830
7.6
STP
3,960
6.1 11,900
13.37
22,400
19.1
31,960
22.3
CST
130
0.2
130
0.15
130
0.1
-
-
1,065
1.6
800
0.90
500
0.4
200
0.1
15.6 20,060
22.54
32,060
27
42,990
30
100
143,000
100
OTHERS
10,120
65,000
100.0 89,000 100.00
TOTAL
Note : CS : Centralised System and Others : Pour Flush and Other
Systems
117,000
APPENDIX 6.0 :STP COSTING TABLES
Appendix 6.1 : STP Land requirement and Cost
Option
STP 1
1
PE
Total STP area (ha)
Land cost RM(mil)
2
PE
Total STP area (ha)
Land cost RM(mil)
STP 2
140,000
12.08
1.316
TOTAL
140,000
12.08
1.316
140,000
12.08
0.526
140,000
12.08
0.526
Note :
1STP land area based on JPP guidelines, including estimated buffer requirement.
2Land cost based on RM 2.00 to RM 3 per sq. ft. depending on location.
3For the study purpose we assumed RM 2.50 for private land and RM 1.OO for state land
Appendix 6.2a : Summary of Capital Cost Estimate for STP OPTION 1
Cost RM(mil)
STP
TOTAL
PE
1
35000
2010
Cap Cost
(RM mil)
14.0
2015
TOTAL
PE
Cap Cost
(RM mil)
TOTAL
PE
70000
13.0
105000
Note : The cost of stp is refered from std. cost curves
Appendix 6.2b : Summary of Capital Cost Estimate for STP OPTION 2
2020
Cap Co
(RM m
11.9
Cost RM(mil)
STP
1
2010
TOTAL
Cap Cost
PE
(RM mil)
2015
TOTAL
PE
Cap Cost
(RM mil)
35000
70000
13.0
14
2020
Cap Co
TOTAL PE
(RM m
105000
11.9
Note : The cost of stp is refered from
standard cost
Appendix 6.3a : Pump Station & Force Main Capital Cost - Option 1
PS
4PS
PS 1
PS 2
PS 3
PS 4
PE
11,000
20,000
15,000
43,000
Land (ha)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Pumping Station Cost
For
Land (mil) Const (mil) Total (mil) Length (m)
0.00
0.5
0.50
200
0.00
0.75
0.75
450
0.00
0.5
0.50
300
0.00
1.75
1.75
300
SUB TOTAL
0.00
3.50
SUB TO
Note : No Land cost for pumping station because of Existing STP site.
Appendix 6.3b : Pump Station & Force Main Capital Cost - Option 2
PS
5 PS
PS 1
PS 2
PS 3
PS 4
PS 5
PE
11,000
14,000
20,000
15,000
43,000
Land (ha)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Pumping Station Cost
For
Land (mil) Const (mil) Total (mil) Length (m)
0.00
0.50
0.50
200
0.00
0.50
0.50
500
0.00
0.75
0.75
450
0.00
0.50
0.50
300
0.00
1.75
1.75
300
0.00
TOTA
4.00
Note : Land cost for pumping station is based on RM 2.50 /sq.ft.
APPENDIX 6.0
Appendix 6.4a : Gravity Sewer / Manhole Capital Cost - Option 1
STP
Dia (mm)
2010
2014
7.0
375
450
600
750
900
1
2.0
Length (km)
201520202019
2024
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
2025
2.0
2.0
2.0
20102014
2.1
1.6
Cost (million)
2015- 20202019
2024 U
1.2
2.0
0.8
2.2
2.4
Collecter sewer
(20% of
sewer cost)
Sub - total
1.12
1.12
1.12
Manhole cost (20% of
sewer cost)
0.17
0.21
0.17
TOTAL COST
7.39
4.13
4.69
Note : The cost of stp is refered from standard. cost curves
The cost of Collecter sewer assume 30% of network cost
The cost of M/Hole assume RM 1500per m/hole at intersect of 70m one m/hole
Appendix 6.4b : Gravity Sewer / Manhole Capital Cost - Option 2
STP
Dia (mm)
2010
2014
375
450
600
1
750
900
Collecter sewer
(20% of
sewer cost)
Sub - total
2.0
1.0
5.0
Length (km)
2015
2020
20102019
2024
2025
2014
7.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
1
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.1
6.0
Cost
20152019
2.1
3.3
1.50
1.50
Manhole cost (20% of
sewer cost)
0.17
0.21
TOTAL COST
9.77
7.11
Note : The cost of stp is refered from standard. cost curves
The cost of Collecter sewer assume 30% of network cost
The cost of M/Hole assume RM 1500per m/hole at intersect of 70m one m/hole
APPENDIX 6.0
Appendix 6.5a : Cost breakdown by Zone - Option 1
Zone
1
Catchment
1,2,3
&4
No Costing Item
1 Land (STP)
2 STP (4 stage)
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
3 Gravity Sewer/Manhole
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
4 Land (Pumping station)
5 Pumping station
6 Force Main
Sub-total
TOTAL
Year Required
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2025
1.316
14.00
12.95
11.9
7.391
4.134
4.69
0.000
0.50
0.06
23.267
0.75
0.17
18.003
0.5
0.0
17.18
Appendix 6.5b : Cost breakdown by Zone - Option 2
Zone
1
Catchment
1,2,3
&4
No Costing Item
1 Land (STP)
2 STP (4 stage)
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
3 Gravity Sewer/Manhole
Stage 1
Stage 2
Year Required
2010-2014
2015-2019 2020-202
0.526
14.000
12.950
11.9
9.771
7.114
Stage 3
Stage 4
4 Land (Pumping station)
5 Pumping station
6 Force Main
Sub-total
TOTAL
5.5
0.000
0.500
0.060
24.858
0.500
0.150
20.714
1.2
0.2
18.9
APPENDIX 6.0
Appendix 6.6a : Annual Pumping Station Operation & Maintenance - OPTION 1
4 PS
PS
PS 1
PS 2
PS 3
PS 4
PE
11000
20000
15000
43000
Flowrate(l/s)
28.65
52.08
39.06
111.98
TOTAL
Cost(RM)
0.094
0.190
0.083
0.237
0.603
Appendix 6.6b : Annual Pumping Station Operation & Maintenance - OPTION 2
5PS
PS
PS 1
PS 5
PS 4
PS 3
PS 2
PE
11000
14000
20000
15000
43000
Flowrate(l/s)
28.65
36.46
52.08
39.06
111.98
TOTAL
APPENDIX 6.0
Appendix 6.7a : Annual STW Operation And Maintenance - OPTION 1
Cost(RM)
0.094
0.119
0.160
0.128
0.215
0.715
STP
Year Required RM (Million)
2010
1
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
PE
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
STW
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
1.575
1.575
1.575
1.575
1.575
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.875
0.901
0.901
0.901
1.601
1.654
1.654
1.654
1.654
0.875
1.776
2.678
3.579
5.180
6.834
8.488
10.141
11.795
Replacement cost
Sub-total
Cummulative Total
Appendix 6.7b : Annual STW Operation And Maintenance - OPTION 2
STP
Year Required RM (Million)
2000
1
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
PE
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
STW
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
1.575
1.575
1.575
1.575
1.575
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.875
0.901
0.901
0.901
1.601
1.654
1.654
1.654
1.654
0.875
1.776
2.678
3.579
5.180
6.834
8.488
10.141
11.795
Replacement cost
Total
Cummulative Total
APPENDIX 6.0 : HYDRAULIC DESIGN
CALCULATION.
PROJECT TITLE :
SEWER NETWORK PROPOSAL FOR THE SUNGAI SIPUT (N
SEWERAGE CATCHMENT
STRATEGY
HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATION
FOR
GRAVITY SEWER
OPTION 2
(VETRIFIED CLAY PIPES)
NUMBER
MANHOLE
(MH)
1
M/H D5 - M/H A1
M/H A1 - M/H A2
M/H D1 - M/H D2
M/H D3 - M/H D2
M/H(F/M) D2 - M/H D4
M/H C7 - M/H D4
M/H D4 - M/H C6
M/H C5 - M/H C6
M/H C6 - M/H C8
M/H C3 - M/H C4
PREMISES
TYPE
NO OF
UNIT &
2
PE
CUMUL
PE
FACTOR CUMULATIVE
PEAK FLOW PEAK FLOW
(cu.sec)
PIPE
DIAMETER
(m)
GRADIENT AREA OF
1:X
(X)
VELOCITY
PIPE
(m.sq)
(FULL BORE
(m/sec)
10
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6000
5000
26000
17000
43000
10000
53000
3000
56000
3000
6000
11000
26000
17000
43000
10000
53000
3000
56000
3000
3.86
3.61
3.28
3.44
3.11
3.65
3.04
0.0603
0.1034
0.2224
0.1524
0.3480
0.0950
0.4192
0.375
0.375
0.600
0.450
0.600
0.375
0.600
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0.1104
0.1104
0.2827
0.1590
0.2827
0.1104
0.2827
1.199
1.199
1.617
1.347
1.617
1.199
1.617
3.02
4.16
0.4402
0.0325
0.600
0.375
200
200
0.2827
0.1104
1.617
1.199
M/H C8 - M/H C4
M/H C4 - M/H A6
NUMBER
MANHOLE
(MH)
1
M/H B1 - M/H B2
M/H B2 - B3
M/H B5 - M/H B6
M/H B7 - M/H B6
M/H(F/M) B6 - M/H B3
M/H B3 - M/H B4(A5)
M/H C1 - M/H C2
M/H A3 - M/H A4
M/H A4 - M/H A6
M/H A6 - M/H A8
M/H A7 - M/H A8
M/H A8 - M/H STP
PREMISES
TYPE
NO OF
UNIT &
2
70000
72000
70000
72000
PE
CUMUL
PE
2.95
2.94
0.5369
0.5505
FACTOR CUMULATIVE
PEAK FLOW PEAK FLOW
(cu.sec)
0.750
0.750
PIPE
200
200
0.4418
0.4418
GRADIENT AREA OF
1.862
1.862
VELOCITY
DIAMETER
(m)
1:X
(X)
PIPE
(m.sq)
(FULL BORE
(m/sec)
10
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20000
20000
3.38
0.1761
0.450
200
0.1590
1.347
14000 34000
10000 10000
5000
5000
15000 15000
49000 49000
5000
5000
6000
6000
60000 60000
132000 132000
8000
8000
143000 143000
3.19
3.65
3.94
3.49
3.06
3.94
3.86
3.00
2.75
3.74
2.72
0.2823
0.0950
0.0513
0.1363
0.3909
0.0513
0.0603
0.4681
0.9442
0.0779
1.0139
0.600
0.375
0.375
0.450
0.600
0.375
0.375
0.750
0.900
0.375
0.900
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0.2827
0.1104
0.1104
0.1590
0.2827
0.1104
0.1104
0.4418
0.6362
0.1104
0.6362
1.617
1.199
1.199
1.347
1.617
1.199
1.199
1.862
2.087
1.199
2.087
Upgrading costs for mechanised STPs
120
Cost (RM / PE)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
5000
6000
250000
300000
PE
Capital cost for construction of sewage pumping stations
10
Total Cost (RM mill)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Peak Flow pum ped (litres/sec)
Capital cost for construction of Std A sewage treatment plants
700
600
Cost (RM / PE)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50000
100000
150000
PE
200000
Capital cost for construction of Std B sewage treatment plants
600
Cost (RM / PE)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
PE
Capital cost for construction of mechanised sludge treatment facility
160
140
Cost (RM / PE)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
PE
Annual O&M cost for Oxidation Ponds
Annual O&M Cost (RM / PE)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
PE
25000
30000
35000
40000
Annual O&M cost for Aerated Lagoons
Annual O&M Cost (RM / PE)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
300000
350000
400000
300000
350000
400000
PE
Annual O&M cost for Std A Regional STPs
Annual O&M Cost (RM / PE)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
PE
Annual O&M cost for Std B Regional STPs
Annual O&M Cost (RM / PE)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
PE
250000
Annual O&M cost for Std A multipoint STPs
40
Annual O&M Cost (RM / PE)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
PE
Annual O&M cost for Std B multipoint STPs
Annual O&M Cost (RM / PE)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
PE
Annual O&M cost for Sludge treatment
8
Annual O&M Cost (RM / PE)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
PE
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
SUNGAI SIPUT SEWERAGE STRATEGY
160000
140000
POP EQUIVALENT
120000
100000
PRESENT PE
STP CAPACITY
80000
CONNECT PE
60000
40000
20000
0
2010
PRESENT PE
65000
89000
117000
143000
STP CAPACITY
35000
70000
105000
140000
CONNECT PE
30000
60000
90000
120000
YEAR
Figure 1.0 : Proposed CSTP : Option 2 Site
( Present IWK Trenching Site )
Figure 1.0 : Proposed CSTP : Option 1 Site
( Present is Oil Palm Plantation Land )
Figure 1.1 Existing IST Area Community Facilities.
Figure 1.2 : Existing Town Center with IST System .
Figure 1.3 : Existing Housing Scheme with IST System.
Figure 1.4 : Existing Housing Scheme with IST System.
Figure 1.5 : Existing Industrial Area with IST System
Figure 1.6 : Existing Industrial Area with IST System
Figure 1.7 : New Development Scheme with STP systems.
Figure 1.8 : Existing Housing Scheme with STP Systems.