CHAPTER3

STUDY METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the method used in this study to review the air quality issues undertaken in the EIA reports of a number of development projects in Malaysia. The chapter covers, the review procedures,the review topicsand the review summary.

3.2 Selection of Study Area

The study focus on reports from the DOE in Penang and the reports from the other states were evaluated to check their reporting trends.The sample was collected randomly regardless the location of the projects, however the law governs the EIA is a Federal law.

The present study focuses on housing, agricultural and resort & recreational projects which could cause a lot of air quality problems, especially due to construction activities and vehicles movement on unpaved roads, gaseous pollutants resulting from vehicular emissions and open burning. These pollutants can cause many health problems to the community surrounding the projects area.

3.3 Data Collection

3.3.1 Data source

The study was carried out at the Department of Environment (DOE) in Putra Jayaand inButterworth (Penang).

3.3.2 Required data

As this study focuses only on air quality issues, only the related sections of the EIA reports were investigated, i.e. monitoring methods, impact prediction and identification and mitigation measures.

3.4Review Procedure

The methodology adopted in this study for reviewing the air quality issues in EIA reports of development projects is shown in Figure 3.1.

3.4.1 Conducting the review

These following steps were undertaken sequentially:

1-Reading the list of review topicsof the air quality section (monitoring methods, impact identification and prediction, the mitigation measures and the communication of the result) to be familiar with them and the data required.

2-Reading the air quality section in the reportrather quickly to note the layout of essential information.As the reports were from different areas in Malaysia it was not possible to visit the sites (Lee & Colley, 1992).

3-Reading the first review category (monitoring methods) and its component (number of monitoring stations, number of samples, the monitored parameters, concentrations value of the parameters and the comparison between the concentrations value and the guidelines).

4-Assessing the monitoring methods category by describing the coverage of this issue in the project reports.

The terms used to describe the coverage are quantitative if, concentration values of the monitored parameters (i.e. TSP, CO) were given, otherwise it is considered to be qualitative description.

5-Deciding which assessment grade (grades shown in Table 3.1) is suitable for each category and recording it.

6-Description of the coverage of impacts prediction and identification should be studied and then the suitable assessment grade should be determined. The terms that were used to describe the addressing of this issue are adequate where explanation of the sources and effect of impacts given, brief when there is lacking in addressing the issue and inadequate when there is no details about the sources of the pollutants and the expected impacts.

7-Description of the coverage of mitigation measures should be studied as well and then the suitable assessment grade should be determined. The terms that were used to describe the addressing of this issue are adequate where reports have sufficient details and descriptive explanation, brief where the reports listing the most common measures (e.g. water spraying, tyres washing and banning of open burning) and inadequate if the reports addressing the issue of mitigation measures were very brief by indicating some mitigation measures that should be taken.

8-While the focus of the study is air quality issues and not the whole EIA report, so the category of results communication (layout, presentation and non technical summary) was given the same assessment grade for all the reports.

9-The air quality section in the report as a whole can be assigned an assessment grade when all review areas have been assessed.

3.4.2The reviewtopics

The following four areas of the EIA reports were reviewed.

3.4.2.1Description of the monitoring methods

The following points of the monitoring methods of air quality were investigated.

1.The number of monitoring stations and number of samples that has been carried out for each project should be detected.

2.The parameters that have been monitored and their concentration should be verified.

3.The instrument that has been used to monitor these parameters should be evaluated, e.g. dust using dustfall sampler.

4.The comparison of the monitored parameter with the standards should be reviewed.

3.4.2.2Prediction and identification of the impacts

1.Impacts definition: All the potential impacts of the projects activities on the environment should be investigated and described and all the potential effects on the environment should be covered by the impact definition and should be determined as the predicted deviation from the baseline state(Lee & Colley, 1992).

The following actions should be performedin order to define the impacts properly:(i) description of direct effects, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium, and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive, and negative effects of the project should be clear, (ii) theimpacts of the project on the human beings, flora and fauna, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets, cultural heritage (including architectural and archeological heritage) and the interaction between these should be identified, (iii) care should be takento the impacts that might arise from non-standard operating condition, due to accidents and (iv)impacts should be determined in case of deviation from baseline conditions, i.e. the difference between the conditions which would have been obtained if the development were not toproceed and those predicted to prevail as a result of it.(Lee & Colley, 1992).

2.Impacts identification: the capability of identifying all significant impacts is the aim of the methods used, where this can be achieved by using, a systematic methodology such as project specific checklists, matrices, panels of experts, consultations, etc. Other methods e.g. cause-effect or network analyses may also be used for the same purpose.The impact identification methods and the rational for using them should be described briefly (Lee & Colley, 1992).

3.Scoping: The studying of the impacts should be according to their importance.Key impacts should be identified and investigated, and the views of interested parties should be taken into account.The general public and the special interest groups should take part to be aware of the project and its implications, the opinion of the general public, relevant public agencies, and special interest groups should be collected; this can be carried out by public meetings, seminars, discussion groups, etc, and intense investigation should be carried out for the key impacts. Impact areas not selected for study should nevertheless be identified and the reason they require less detailed investigation should be given(Lee & Colley, 1992).

4.Prediction of impacts magnitude: Wherever possible, the likely impacts of the development on the environment should be described accurately.The estimation of the magnitude of the main impacts should be described clearly and should be based on sufficient data of the task. Care should be taken with the gaps in the required data and explanation of the means used to deal with them in the assessmentshould be given(Lee & Colley, 1992).

Description of the methods used to predict impact magnitude should be given and the methods should be appropriate to the size and importance of the projected impact.Measurable quantities with ranges and/or confidence limit as appropriate should be used to express impacts prediction, where possible. Full definition should be given when qualitative descriptions are being used(Lee & Colley, 1992).

5.Assessment of impacts significancemeans estimation of the expected significant impacts of the project on the surrounding community. Full description of the source of quality standards, together with the rationale, assumptions and value judgments used in assessing significance should be given.Description of the significance to the affected community and to society in general should be given and should be clearly distinguished from impact magnitude(Lee & Colley, 1992).Description of the proposedmitigating measures, the significance of any impact remaining after mitigation should be given.The appropriate national and international standards should be taken into account when assessing the significance of an impact where available. The magnitude, location and duration of the impact in conjunction with national and local societal values should be taken into account and the using of specific standards, assumptions and value system should be justified and any contrary opinion should be summarized(Lee & Colley, 1992).

3.4.2.3Mitigation measures

1.Mitigation measures scope and effectiveness: measures should be put to mitigate all the significant adverse impacts. The effectiveness of the proposed mitigation after implementation should be proved.All the negative impacts should be mitigated and specific measures should be taken where practicable. Justification should be given on why unmitigated or residual impacts should be like that,mitigation measures may suggest modification of the project, compensation and provision of alternative facilities as well as pollution control. Where the effectiveness is uncertain or depends on assumptions about operating procedures, climatic conditions, and theeffectiveness of the mitigation measures after implementation should be clear (Lee & Colley, 1992).

2. Commitment to mitigation: Commitment, capability of carrying out the mitigation measures and presentations of plans of how they propose to do so, should be done by the proponent.A clear record of the commitment of the developer to the mitigation presented in the report should be clear. It is important that details of how the mitigation measures will be implemented and scheduling of that should also be given and the environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the project and their conformity with the predictions within the report can be checked by the monitoring arrangements. In case of unexpected adverse impacts occur, the mitigation measures should be adjusted (Lee & Colley, 1992).

3.4.2.4Communication of results

The layout of the report should be clear to enable the reader to find the data easily and quickly, the presentation of the information should be done in a way that is accessible and understandable to non specialists, emphasis should be given to the important content of the report and a non technical summary of the main findings of the study and how they were reached should be written in a clear manner(Lee & Colley, 1992).

3.4.3Review summary

To know the overall assessment, the assessment grade of each item, monitoring method, impacts prediction, mitigation measures and communication of results should be multiplied by a weight which is given according to the importance of the item. Thus the weight was given as, 25% for monitoring method, 25% for impact identification, 40% for mitigation measures and 10% for communication of results, the sum of the grade multiplied by the weight is the overall grade as illustrated in the following example.

Example of the calculation of overall assessment

Assumptions: - Monitoring methods assessment grade 4 and the weight 25%

-Impact prediction and identification assessment grade 4 and the weight 25%

-Mitigation measures assessment grade 4 and the weight 40%

-Communication of results assessment grade 4 and the weight 10%

The overall assessment = monitoring methods assessment grade * weight + impact prediction and identification assessment grade* weight + mitigation measures assessment grade * weight + communication of results assessment grade * weight.

The overall assessment = 4 * (25/100) + 4 * (25/100) + 4 * (40/100) + 4 * (10/100)

= 4 “means acceptable”.

Assessment Grades: The following table shows the grades that will be used in the assessment process.

Table 3.1 - Assessment grades and their explanations(Modified from Lee & Colley, 1992)

Grade / Explanation
6-6.9 / Generally well performed, no important tasks left incomplete.
5-5.9 / Adequate and complete, only minor omissions and inadequacies.
4-4.9 / Can be considered acceptable despite omissions and/or inadequacies.
3-3.9 / Can be considered inadequate because of omissions and/or inadequacies.
2-2.9 / Unacceptable, significant omissions or inadequacies.
1-1.9 / Rejectable, important task(s) poorly done or not attempted.
0 / Not applicable to the context of this statement.

3.4.4 The review outcome

After assessing the review areas, an assessment grade was assigned to the air quality section as a whole.

3.4.5 Review checklist

The following checklist shows the points that should be evaluated and the assessment method that should be followed in this study.

Review Topics / Check / Assessment / Assessment * (Weight)
1- Monitoring Methods
No. of monitoring stations
No. of samples
Monitored pollutants
Instrument type
Pollutants concentrations
Compare the concentrations to the DOE guidelines
Assessment grade
2- Impacts Prediction and Identification
Dust due to construction activities
Dust due to vehicles movements on unpaved roads
Emission from vehicles
Emissions due to open burning
Assessment grade
3-Mitigation Measures
/ Pave the access road to the construction works.
Areas frequently used by vehicles to be wetted by spraying with water at least twice a day and more frequently on dry days.
Open burning of any construction waste should be strictly prohibited.
Wastes should be disposed at designated dumping grounds approved by the local authority.
Limitation of vehicles speed to 20km/hr on unpaved roads.
Tyre washing facility, which includes a sump for collection of washings, settling basin, water recycle and sediment disposal to be installed at entrance to public roads.
Heavy machineries and vehicles should be properly maintained to reduce excessive smoke emissions.
Efficient road system to ensure smooth traffic movements.
Valuable wastes such as rubber can be sold to furniture factories and the rubber tree branches can be used as fire wood for brick making; “sell the reusable waste building materials”.
Limit loads on dump trucks and its trips per day within the sites.
Earth materials transported in dump trucks should be completely covered with tarpaulin sheets.

Carry out construction in stages at optimum space so that building materials especially cement and sand are not exposed to wind action, proper storage of raw materials (i.e. sands, stones, cement).
Vegetation within the construction site should be maintained as much as possible to “filter and absorb” excessive gaseous pollutants emitted by construction machineries and vehicles.
During the construction activities the proposed site should have barricades and barriers or walls around the site boundary at a suitable height from 8 to 10 feet to try to contain as much as possible the dust blown up by the wind.
Restrict the working hours from 08:00 to 17:00.
Assessment grade
4-Communication of Results
Overall Assessment

While the study is not focusing on the assessment of the quality of the total EIA reports so for the item of results communication, the assessment grade “4” which its explanation is acceptable despite omissions, is chosen for all the reports to control this parameter.

3.4.6 Statistical analysis

Minitab(Release 13.2, 2000) was used to performanalysis of variance (ANOVA) by using General Linear Model (GLM) and the results (overall assessment grades) were presented by using Stem-and-leaf graph.

3.4.6.1Analysis of variance

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is similar to regression in that it is used to investigate and model the relationship between a response variable and one or more independent variables. However, analysis of variance differs from regression in two ways: firstly the independent variables are qualitative (categorical), and secondly no assumption is made about the nature of the relationship (that is, the model does not include coefficients for variables). The general linear model is a tool to perform analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance, and regression analysis on balanced or unbalanced data. GLM procedure requires the following, (1) a response, or measurement taken from the units sampled and (2) one or more factors (Minitab Manual/Release 13.2, 2000).

3.4.6.2 Stem-and-Leaf

A display similar to a histogram plot but using the digits from the actual data values. The display has three columns:

Left: cumulative count of values from the top of the figure down and from the bottom of the figure up to the middle.

Middle number in parentheses (stem): count of values in the row containing the median. Parentheses around the median row are omitted if the median falls between two lines of the display.

Right (leaves): each value is a single digit to place after the stem digits, representing one data value. The leaf unit tells you where to put the decimal place in each number (Minitab Manual/Release 13.2, 2000).

1