Rujukan kami: CAP/RS/J/Pagoh L-fill/DEIA/11/Mgs
Faks: 03-8889 1045
Ketua Pengarah
Jabatan Alam Sekitar
Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar
Aras 2, Podium 3, Wisma Sumber Asli
No 25, Persiaran Perdana
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62574 PUTRAJAYA
(u.p: Bahagian Penilaian – Urusetia DEIA)
16 Mac 2011
Tuan/Puan,
DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (DEIA) REPORT
FOR PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL
AT PAGOH, MUKIM JORAK, MUAR, JOHOR
Salam sejahtera daripada kami di Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang dan Sahabat Alam
Malaysia. Dengan hormatnya bersama-sama ini kami melampirkan ulasan daripada Dr
Mark Chernaik, saintis dari Amerika Syarikat yang telah kami hubungi untuk memberi
ulasan ke atas DEIA bagi cadangan projek tersebut di atas.
Sehubungan dengan ini kami berharap bahawa ulasan ini dipertimbangkan oleh pihak
tuan.
Sekian, terima kasih.
Yang benar,
S.M. MOHAMED IDRIS
Yang di Pertua
DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (DEIA) REPORT
FOR PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL
AT PAGOH, MUKIM JORAK, MUAR, JOHOR
Comments Submitted By
Dr Mark Chernaik
Staff Scientist, USA
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide
Following is a brief evaluation of the Executive Summary of the Detailed Environmental
Impact Assessment (DEIA) for the proposed Sanitary Landfill at Pagoh, Mukim Jorak,
Daerah Muar, Johor Darul Ta’zim.
My personal view of urban waste management is that efforts should focus first on waste
reuse and reduction options, followed by waste disposal options. Of the various waste
disposal options (e.g. incineration, open dumping), my personal view is that a carefully
located and well-designed sanitary landfill is usually the best waste disposal option.
With regard to waste reuse and reduction options, I wish that the DEIA placed greater
emphasis on waste reuse and reduction options. Some assumptions in the DEIA
regarding feasibility of composting and recovery of inert materials (metals, glass, etc.)
seem unreasonably pessimistic.
With regard to the selected location of the proposed landfill, I have some serious
concerns about whether the landfill is within a floodplain and the proximity of the
proposed landfill to the groundwater table. However, I only have the Executive
Summary of the DEIA and these concerns may be adequately addressed in other
sections of the full DEIA report.
With regard to the design of the proposed landfill, I am pleased with some aspects of the
proposed design, such as the inclusion of a landfill leachate recovery and treatment
system, a landfill gas management, and a pledge to use local soils as a daily cover on
top of areas actively receiving waste. However, some aspects of the design of the
proposed landfill may be inadequate as necessary details are omitted. However, I only
have the Executive Summary of the DEIA and these concerns may be adequately
addressed in other sections of the full DEIA report.
What follows are more details of my evaluation:
1.
Landfill location concerns
There are many places one should not locate a landfill. These include:
i) in close proximity to residences;
ii) in close proximity to groundwater wells;
iii) too closely above the groundwater table;
iv) within wetlands;
v) within a floodplain;
vi) in close proximity to sensitive ecological areas;
vii) in close proximity to incompatible land uses (e.g. airports, hospitals and schools).
These concerns are often incorporated into location restrictions that apply to the siting of
new sanitary landfills in the environmental legislation of countries.
See: U.S. EPA - TITLE 40 Code of Federal Regulations PART 258--CRITERIA FOR
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS Subpart B—Location Restrictions
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title40/40-24.0.1.4.38.2.html
Implementing rules and regulations of RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act of 2000) Rule XIV (OPERATIONS OF SANITARY LANDFILLS) at Section 1.
Minimum Considerations for Siting and Designing Sanitary Landfills
http://www.elaw.org/node/2376
India - Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 at Schedule III,
Specifications for Landfill Sites
http://www.moef.nic.in/legis/hsm/mswmhr.html.
The location of the proposed sanitary landfill at Pagoh seems to address some of these
concerns (proximity to residences and incompatible land uses) but may not be able to
address other of these concerns. The trouble arises because of the low-lying area of the
proposed landfill location. Page 10 of the Executive Summary of the DEIA explains:
“Generally, most of the Project area is low-lying with ground elevation below 20 m. The
only exceptions are to the eastern and northeastern regions which rise to more than 100
m above mean sea level. Most of the lowlands are connected to swampy and waterlogged areas, especially to the west, north-west and south-west. The main drainage of
the area is Sg. Pagoh, which flows northwesterly into Sg. Muar.”
“The Project site is situated in the undulating areas with an average ground level of +9.7
reference level (RL). The highest level is at the north of the site, 35.838 m RL and the
lowest level is at the bottom of the existing pond with -26.116 m RL. Most of the site is
situated on the old iron ore mine. There are seven existing ex-mining ponds within the
boundary of the site where the levels at the bottom varies from -26.116 m RL to 14.107
m RL.”
This is very low-lying land. Therefore, my first serious concern is whether the proposed
location of the sanitary landfill is within a floodplain and, therefore, is vulnerable to being
flooded. It is of utmost importance that a sanitary landfill never floods, since a flood
would cause the washout of solid waste into adjacent surface waters and lands. The
U.S. EPA regulation explains:
*****
40 CFR Section 258.11
(a) Owners or operators of new [Municipal Solid Waste Landfill] MSWLF units, existing
MSWLF units, and lateral expansions located in 100-year floodplains must demonstrate
that the unit will not restrict the flow f the 100-year flood, reduce the temporary water
storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste so as to pose a
hazard to human health and the environment. The owner or operator must place the
demonstration in the operating record and notify the State Director that it has been
placed in the operating record.
(b) For purposes of this section: (1) Floodplain means the lowland and relatively flat
areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including floodprone areas of offshore islands,
that are inundated by the 100-year flood. (2) 100-year flood means a flood that has a 1percent or greater chance of recurring in any given year or a flood of a magnitude
equalled or exceeded once in 100 years on the average over a significantly long period.
(3) Washout means the carrying away of solid waste by waters of the base flood.
*****
The Executive Summary of the DEIA report does not answer the question of whether the
location of the proposed sanitary landfill at Pagoh is within a 100-year floodplain. I
recommend examining whether the full DEIA report addresses this question by providing
a map of the 100-year floodplain of the project area and whether any sections of the
proposed sanitary landfill at Pagoh is within this floodplain. If so, then the proponents
must demonstrate how location of the landfill within a 100-year floodplain would not
result in the washout of solid waste. If the proponents are unable to make this
demonstration, then this landfill, which is necessary to address urban waste generation
within the Muar District, should be located elsewhere, on higher ground.
My second serious concern is that the proposed landfill is located too closely above the
groundwater table. It is necessary to maintain an adequate separation between the
base, or liner, of the landfill and the groundwater table in order to prevent the migration
of toxic contaminants into groundwater and (via hydrological connections) into adjacent
surface waters.
In the Philippines, a separation of at least two (2.0) meters shall be maintained between
the top of the liner system and underlying groundwater. Implementing rules and
regulations of RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000) Rule XIV
(OPERATIONS OF SANITARY LANDFILLS) at Section 1. Minimum Considerations for
Siting and Designing Sanitary Landfills at paragraph o. In the State of Texas, the
BOTTOM of a liner system cannot be any less than five feet above permeable soil. See:
§335.584 of Chapter 335 of Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p
_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=30&pt=1&ch=335&rl=584
The Executive Summary of the DEIA report for the proposed sanitary landfill at Pagoh
suggests that no separation would be maintained between the base, or liner of the
landfill and the groundwater table. Page 17 of the Executive Summary of the DEIA
explains:
“Cell preparation involving excavation work will cause some contaminated groundwater.
The excavation work with average of approximately 5 m deep will invariably puncture
through the unconfined layer of the groundwater table. Hence, there is a need to drain
and contain the surface and groundwater that is pumped out to a retention pond prior to
lining of cells.”
The fact that “excavation work with average of approximately 5 m deep will invariably
puncture through the unconfined layer of the groundwater table” begs the question of
where, exactly, the top of the groundwater table lies beneath the proposed landfill. The
Executive Summary of the DEIA report does not answer this question.
The Executive Summary of the DEIA report also does not answer the question of the
thickness of the geosynthetic clay liner that would comprise the bottom portion of the
proposed double-line system. It is good that the proponents are proposing a double liner
system in which the bottom liner consists of geosynthetic clay, however, if the
geosynthetic clay is directly on top of, or within, the groundwater table, then this will risk
undermining the structural integrity of the entire double-liner. It may be that the height of
groundwater table in this area would preclude selection of this site for a sanitary landfill.
However, I only have the Executive Summary of the DEIA and these concerns may be
adequately addressed in other sections of the full DEIA report.
Finally, with regard to the ecology of the area, Page 28 of the Executive Summary of the
DEIA states:
“It should be noted that the Project site is indeed an already disturbed land. The
proposed Project will likely cause the loss of plant cover which is permanent and further
cause the loss of surface soil due to erosion. However, since most of the species
identified are common weeds and plants that are not rare or threatened, the losses are
not significant. The loss of habitat for fauna will also occur due to the proposed Project.
Since the Project site is not a major habitat and resident animals are few in species and
number, the impacts are considered not significant.”
I am attaching a Google Earth image of the possible project area that shows a good deal
of continuous, mostly intact forest in project area, north of Jalan Bakri (J24) and south
and west of Jalan Pagoh (J23). I might request that the proponent demonstrate how the
proposed project would not result in impacts to these continuous, intact, forested areas.
II.
Landfill design concerns
I am pleased that the proponents are including a landfill liner and leachate collection
system as part of this project. This is a necessary component of a sanitary landfill for
protection of the environment. However, the Executive Summary of the DEIA lacks
necessary design details that make me concerned that the landfill liner and leachate
collection system will still fail to prevent contamination of adjacent surface water. These
two concerns are:
A.
Does the leachate treatment system have an adequate capacity to prevent
discharge of untreated leachate during periods of heavy rainfall?
The project area is in a tropical location that receives heavy rainfall. Page 11 of the
Executive Summary explains: “Muar River Basin receives an annual rainfall average of
approximately 1900 mm.” It is likely that torrential rains fall frequently on the project
area. The capacity of the leachate treatment system must be designed with sufficient
capacity to handle possible peak flows during torrential rains or otherwise untreated
leachate may be discharged into surface waters, causing unacceptable surface water
contamination. The Executive Summary of the DEIA lacks information about the
capacity of the leachate treatment system, stating only (on pages 7-8):
“The leachate collected from landfill will be drained by gravity to an Inlet Pump Station.
The inlet pump station will be equipped with a coarse mechanical screen with a 25 mm
gap. The pumps will deliver the leachate to a Balancing Tank with capacity of 7 days.
“Some of the leachate collected in the Balancing Tank will be recirculated to landfill. The
benefits of leachate recirculation are reduction of organic content in leachate and
increase in recovery of landfill gas and waste stabilization rate. In addition, recirculation
reduces the pH of leachate and also reduces release of heavy metals.
“Leachate in Balancing Tank will be channeled to leachate treatment plant.”
This lacks necessary information. The project proponent needs to calculate what the
maximum rate of leachate might be if torrential rain falls on the landfill and then
demonstrate that the treatment system has adequate capacity to treat this rate of
leachate.
B.
What is the nature of the leachate treatment system?
The Executive Summary of the DEIA lacks information about the nature of the leachate
treatment system. Page 8 of the Executive Summary states:
“One potential treatment system is sequencing batch reactor (SBR) followed by
activated carbon. Subsequently, the effluent is channeled to retention pond before
discharge into wetland which further flows to Sg. Pagoh. It has been identified that
wetland plants like Typha angustifolia, Scirpus juncoides and Eleocharis dulcis, among
many others, are good water purifier. For instance, Bukit Tagar Sanitary Landfill
purposely constructs wetland (i.e. reed bed) as final polishing step in its leachate
treatment system. Records of existing flora show that Eleocharis dulcis grows at the
wetland of the Project site.”
At the EIA stage, a project proponent should not be discussing the ‘potential treatment
system’ but the actual, proposed treatment system. Furthermore, at the EIA stage the
project proponent should provide design details of the proposed treatment system, such
as its projected location within the project area, its dimensions, the manufacturers and
vendors of the equipment, and typical treated wastewater characteristics.
However, I only have the Executive Summary of the DEIA and these concerns may be
adequately addressed in other sections of the full DEIA report.