ID: 102

CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION FROM NON INDUSTRIAL PREMISES

Zulkifli A.R 1, Roshadah, H. 2 and Tunku Khalkausar T.F. 3

1 Deputy Director General (Operation), Department of Environment (DOE), E-mail: 1 ([email protected]) 2 Director, Enforcement Division, Department of Environment, Malaysia E-mail: 2([email protected]) 3 Enforcement Division, Department of Environment, Malaysia E-mail: 3 ([email protected])

The number of clean rivers has declined in the year 2010 compared to the previous year. Often, industries are blamed for the river water pollution while many have failed to see the huge contribution from the non-industrial premises. Apart from sewage and domestic household sullage, wastewater from non-industrial sources such as food services establishments and wet markets, pose significant impact on river water quality due to the accumulated adverse effects in terms of the level of pollutants in the discharge. This paper will highlight and discuss the pollution issues from the identified non-industrial sources and measures proposed to control and prevent river water quality deterioration arising from such sources of pollution.

Keywords: pollution control; discharges; non-industrial sources of pollution; food services establishment; restaurant; sullage, wet market;

Introduction Based on the Environmental Quality Report 2010, the number of clean rivers was found to have been reduced from 306 rivers in 2009 to 293 in 2010 while the number of polluted rivers increased from 54 to 74 over the same period. The same trend was observed for Ammoniacal Nitrogen trend where the number of rivers affected by the pollutant have increased from 183 in 2009 to 218 in 2010. In terms of Fecal coliform, only 17 rivers (4%) out of 463 rivers were found to be within Class I and Class II of the National Water Quality Standard. The Class I is prescribed for water supply (practically with no treatment necessary) whilst the Class II is for recreational activity with body contact. Only 41 out of 808 stations were within Class I and II while the remaining were within Class III, IV and V . Analysis showed that the deterioration of river water quality in the country was mainly due to discharges of sewage and domestic wastewater (sullage); animal farming, land clearing and earthwork, agricultural activities and manufacturing industries (Rosnani, I & Lee, C.M.). However, domestic wastewater, surface runoff

1

ID: 102 from urban areas; discharges from restaurants, wet markets and food courts; pollution from agricultural and land clearing activities, suspended solids and silt from earthworks and sand mining which are considered as the non-point sources (NPS) and comprised the major contribution to river pollution are currently not subjected to the Environmental Quality Act (EQA) 1974. These analyses were strengthened by the findings from various river rehabilitation studies conducted by the Department of Environment under the River Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Improvement Programmes. It was estimated that about 38.8% - 88.1% of BOD loads were contributed by NPS for Sg.Sepetang, Sg.Merbok and Sg. basins. As for the Sg. Langat, Sg. Segget, Sg. Tebrau, Sg. Linggi, Sg. Sepetang and Sg. Merbok, the contribution from industries, which are regarded as point sources, made up only about 10 - 26% out of the total number of pollution sources and contributed around 2 - 56% of the total BOD loads in the river basin. This means that the pollution sources currently regulated by DOE, i.e. industries, are NOT the major contributor to the river pollution in most of the river basins. Thus, some means of control need to be instituted in order to control pollution from the major sources currently not subjected to the Environmental Quality Act, 1974 (EQA).

River Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Improvement Programmes The Sg. Linggi study has shown that food services establishments (FSEs) and wet markets posed significant contribution towards river pollution due to its highly concentrated organics in their discharges besides sewage. Such sources used to be categorised as NPS. In fact, these sources are point sources and can be controlled at source through installation and maintenance at least with an efficient fats, oil and grease (FOG) trap. In developed countries, discharges from such sources are pre-treated before being discharged into the municipal sewage treatment work. Apparently in Malaysia, most of such discharges may not have pre-treatment using FOG traps for FSEs and effluent treatment plants for the wet markets, instead, their discharges are directed into drains and watercourses. It has become a common phenomenon even in locations that are well-served by the centralised sewage treatment plants. The lack of proper connections is one of the reasons contributing to the direct discharges to the water courses. Many of the sewerage systems were inherited or handed over from the Local Authorities or Sewerage Services Department to Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) with insufficient treatment unit processes, under-designed or without proper treatment unit for oil and grease.

2

ID: 102

Even with the existing connections to the IWK’s sewage treatment plants from the commercial areas including hypermarkets and food courts or restaurants, the operator is having problems with the solidified oil and grease clogging the connecting pipes or interceptors which in turn need high cost for maintenance as well as time consuming.

Wastewater characteristics of discharges from restaurants and food courts Based on the study conducted for Sg. Linggi, sullage from commercial areas primarily from restaurants, food courts and food stalls were far more polluting than sullage from the residential areas owing to the discharge of highly concentrated organic wastes. The average BOD from restaurants and food courts is178 mg/l consisting of the organics from food preparation and washing, and it is shown that 78% of the total BOD is in the form of soluble BOD. It means substantial portion of the BOD loading is contained in the aqueous phase of the sullage, and therefore, will pass through the FOG traps since they are only designed to capture only the non-aqueous liquids (Sg. Linggi Study, 2007). The characteristics of wastewater from both restaurants and food courts are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. E.coli were also found to be high in the discharges from restaurants and food courts, ranging from 17 CFU/100 ml to 1,600,000 CFU/100 ml. It is probably due to the proliferation of microorganisms in the wastewater and drains as a result of high nutrient loadings from the food waste particularly the Oil &Grease (O&G). Thus, although the discharges were pre-treated using FOG trap, it still needs to be further treated in the sewage treatment plant to further reduce the organic load.

Table 1: Characteristics of Sullage from Restaurants Pollutant Unit Restoran RMK PSMA Restoran Restoran Restoran Seri Kasih Restaurants Garden Pool Wee Kee Seri Tasik & Catering

pH mg/l 5.3 4.5 4.4 5.1 6.0 5.3

COD mg/l 1,272 908 1,330 2,322 722 2,573

BOD5 mg/l 401 165 260 720 240 899

BOD5 soluble mg/l 126 140 210 602 178 638

TSS mg/l 404 232 458 536 196 680

O&G mg/l 766 53 892 1,198 643 548

NH3-N mg/l 1.64 1.14 1.14 0.6 0.5 0.5

3

ID: 102

CFU/100 E.coli 17 170,000 900,000 900,000 1,600,0000 23,000 ml (Source: Sg. Linggi Study, 2007)

Table 2: Characteristics of Sullage from Food Courts

Parameter of Bazaar MPK Medan Selera OK Tuck Food Medan Selera Pollutants Unit Court 1

pH mg/l 5.1 5 5.1 4.6

COD mg/l 354 588 195 747

BOD5 mg/l 45 144 35 195

BOD5 soluble mg/l NA NA 26 190

TSS mg/l 136 210 30 232

O&G mg/l 6 88 136 36

NH3-N mg/l 0.22 3.96 0.42 10.60 CFU/100 E.coli 9,000 1,600 26,000 350 ml (Source: Sg. Linggi Study, 2007)

DOE has also conducted a survey, with the cooperation from Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh and Chemistry Department in January 2012, to assess the effectiveness of the FOG traps. It was observed from the inspected restaurants that most of the premises used a simple three-compartment designed FOG trap of various sizes but often undersized (Figure 1). The maintenance of the FOG traps was more often than not considered neglected by the restaurant owners (Figure 2). Maintenance of the FOG traps were most of the time left to the workers who have little knowledge on the purpose of the FOG trap, if there were such installation in placed. As an example, the communal FOG traps at two very popular fast food restaurants, had never been opened or maintained since they started operation in the area a month before the inspection was made (Figure 3). As expected, the wastewater discharged from the premises’ perimeter drain had shown accumulation of O&G. The survey also found that restaurants and food courts located at bigger complexes inspected in Ipoh were however, installed with individual FOG traps and supplemented by a number of communal grease traps which were maintained by the private contractor and supervised by the staff of the shopping complexes. 4

ID: 102

It can be concluded from the survey that the FOG could be reduced by using the FOG trap but only with a proper frequency of maintenance. By using effective microorganism (EM) coupled with regular maintenance, it has proven that the measures were more effective compared to that without any proper maintenance. The highest O&G removal achieved from the survey was up to 98% removal (i.e from 6706.3 mg/l to 137.5 mg/l).

Figure 1: Sudden surge of washing into unmaintained FOG Trap would result in flushing out of O&G into the public drain especially in undersized trap

Figure 2: Excessive accumulation of O&G due to infrequent inspection and maintenance

5

ID: 102

Figure 3: Condition of an existing communal FOG Trap installed outside a fast food restaurant

Wastewater characteristics of discharges from wet markets Information obtained from the Local Government Department of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) shows that about 50% of the total number of 865 wet markets no longer carried out slaughtering activities at their premises. However, 21% of the wet markets still conduct slaughtering activities while no information is obtained for the remaining 29% of wet markets. Generally, wet markets will generate large quantities of sullage from poultry slaughtering (if still in operation), fish cleaning and general washing of the floors and stalls. Poor segregation, handling and collection of solid wastes especially in chicken slaughtering, de-feathering and fish scaling sections further worsen the problem especially with the spillage from garbage bins apart from the routine washing activities discharging directly into drains carrying with them huge amount of solids. The characteristics of the wet market sullage wastewater compared to the sewage discharges are generally similar in terms of their organic contents except the COD:BOD ratio is typically about 5:1 for the wet market sullage as compared to about 2-2.5: 1 for domestic sewage. The higher COD:BOD ratio for wet market sullage can be attributed to the high content of raw protein matter which is less readily biodegradable, whereas, in the case of human sewage, the consumed protein matter has already been digested (Sg. Linggi Study, 2007). Bloods contributed to high level of BOD, while detergents used for floor cleaning increase the levels of COD. Based on the statistic given by MHLG, only 11% of wet markets in Malaysia are equipped with treatment system while 61% are not and the remaining number of wet markets remained questionable.

6

ID: 102

Table 3: Characteristics of Sullage from Wet Markets Parameter of Pasar Pasar Pasar Pasar Pollutants Unit Jaya Seremban Jaya pH mg/l 4.7 – 6.3 5.6 – 5.8 5.8 4.4 COD mg/l 656 – 1440 381 – 560 763 397 BOD mg/l 137 – 295 71 – 122 153 68 TSS mg/l 192 – 544 60 – 122 900 250 O&G mg/l 40 – 72 13 – 43 10 28

NH3-N mg/l 26.4 – 57.7 2.6 – 14.6 43.8 7.3 CFU/100 280 – 1600 50 – 170 900 220 E.coli ml

Nitrite NO2 mg/l 0.115 – 0.167 0.094 – 0.291 0.152 0.112

Nitrate NO3 mg/l 2.44 – 6.49 1.98 – 2.24 4.92 6.53 Phosphate mg/l 2.2 – 39.6 ND – 22.2 44.5 27.7 PO4 Total mg/l 55.2 – 72.9 30.3 – 37.3 61.1 41.6 Nitrogen

Figure 4: Red-coloured sullage from wet market discharged into river Animal Farming Activities

Animal farming activities has also been identified as one of the contributors to river water pollution. Based on DOE’s EQR 2010, pig farming was found to contribute about 15% of the total pollution loading of point sources after sewage (77%) and followed by agro-based and manufacturing industries (8%). In 2011, about 86 complaints received by DOE were due to animal farming i.e. odour (40 complaints), nuisance (35 complaints), water pollution (6 complaints) and noise (5 complaints).

7

ID: 102

Currently, based on the statistics given by the Department of Veterinary Services, there are about 19,914 cattle farms (468,200 animals), 1,329 cow farms (21,432 animals) and 567 pig farms (1,403,669 SPP) currently operating. However, the number is expected to increase drastically with the Government efforts to secure our food supply particularly for meat through the implementation of the Agro Food Policy 2011-2020. Thus, it is very pertinent to take necessary steps to avoid further deterioration of our river water due to the mushrooming of the animal farming activities in the country. Though there are state enactments in place for some, most of them focused on the rearing of livestock rather than pollution control.

Water Pollution Sources Contributions to BOD Loadings A rough estimation was made on the BOD loadings from restaurants, food courts, and wet markets based on the Sg. Merbok Study, and the percentage of contribution from these sources were estimated for the whole of Malaysia, and compared with the current pollution loadings published by the DOE in the EQR 2010. It was estimated the number of food services establishments (FSEs) is about 275,700 which made up of 18% of the total BOD load discharged; domestic treated and partially treated sewage, 63%; pig farms, 12%; and industries, 7% (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Estimation of BOD Loading by Water Pollution Sources, 2011

Therefore, apart from the existing sources already being controlled under the Environmental Quality Act 1974, other discharges also need to be properly addressed in our effort to prevent further deterioration of river water quality contributed especially from the non-industrial sources. This is to ensure the sustainability of the rivers as our main water sources. Such control may either be in the form of legislative

8

ID: 102 control or other efforts in providing useful guidance to the operator or owner of such premises.

Control of Non Industrial Pollution Sources Action plans formulated to improve the water quality of the rivers that were studied, strongly recommended that proper handling of sullage from the FSEs including installation and maintenance of FOG traps shall be given priority and made mandatory while effluent from the wet markets shall be treated using proper treatment facility. Most Local Authorities in the country have issued directives to restaurant owners for the installation of FOG traps before renewing their business license. It is recommended that these initiatives be extended to cover regular inspections and enforcement. Currently, there is no legal instrument to govern the discharges from the FSEs apart from the requirement on the FOG trap through the licensing procedures. With the objectives of enhancing the environmental quality and in fulfilling the government Vision 2020 in achieving a status of developed nation, it is pertinent that effort towards improving the river water quality to Class II to be considered seriously. In line with the objective, DOE is considering taking measures to control pollution from the discharges FSEs, wet markets and animal farming using the provision provided in Section 51 of the Environmental Quality Act (EQA) 1974. The proposed measures are through the formulation of specific regulations under Section 21 of the EQA that will enable DOE to set discharges standards for these non-industrial sources. Such regulations will require the owner of premise to put up on-site pre-treatment facility to pre-treat their discharges in order to meet the prescribed standards. The way forward in handling the impact from the non-industrial sources is through a legal instrument which will help to reduce their pollution load entering the water courses. Monitoring of the performance wastewater treatment plant, regular monitoring of discharges from the FOG traps or the treatment plant and submission of the analysis of the discharges by the owners themselves to DOE shall be some of the new elements in controlling such non-industrial pollution sources. Other requirements will include record keeping of maintenance work conducted for inspection by the regulatory agencies. The shift toward self-regulatory would not only enhance the feeling of ownership of the treatment system but also the responsibility of the owners of the FSEs, wet markets and the animal farms towards protecting the environment.

Conclusion The non-industrial sources have been recognised as point sources that need to be

9

ID: 102 given emphasis in overcoming the problem of water quality deterioration of our rivers. Towards realising the Vision 2020 in enhancing environmental quality, thereby improving the river water quality in the country, it is urgent to prepare a plan of action that will adequately address the legal aspect in controlling such sources. In this respect, DOE welcomes advice or technical assistance that would help in realising the mission towards controlling pollution from the non-industrial sources.

References Department of Environment (2010). Environmental Quality Report Department of Environment (2008). Pollution prevention and river water quality improvement study for Sungai Merbok, Kedah. Department of Environment (2008). The study on pollution prevention and river water quality improvement for Sungai Sepetang, Perak. Department of Environment (2007). The study on pollution prevention and river water quality improvement for Sungai Linggi, . Department of Environment (2003). The study on pollution prevention and river water quality improvement for Sungai Segget/Tebrau, Johor. Department of Environment (2003). The study on pollution prevention and river water quality improvement for Sungai Langat, Selangor. Rosnani, I and Lee C.M. (2004). Integrated water resources management in Malaysia: Experience and Practices; River Pollution Prevention and water Quality Improvement Programmes. Proceedings of the 1st Malaysian Water Forum, 8-10 Jun 2004, Kuala Lumpur.

10