6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 6.2.1 Topography

Second Schedule EIA for The Proposed Tin Ore Smelting and Refining Plant on Lot PT 64536, PT 64537 and PT 64538 of 12.049 Acres, Jalan Perigi Nanas 6/1, Pulau Indah Industrial Park, Westport, Port Klang, 42920 Pulau Indah, Selangor Darul Ehsan

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter shall present the physical, biological and socio-economic environment of the Project site and its surrounding environment. The existing environment is documented to form a basis for assessment of potential changes either positive or negative impacts generated from the proposed development to the environment. Meanwhile, socio-economic background is established to represent specific aspects of human environment. The existing environment is determined extends to 5-km radius from the boundary of the Project site.

6.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

6.2.1 Topography

Topography of the Site is obtained from the topography map of Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan Malaysia (JUPEM). The Site is relatively flat. General topography of the Project Site is shown in Figure 6-1.

6.2.2 Land Use

Several areas are undeveloped and covered with relatively grass including areas east of the recycling and recovery plant, south of the office and administration building, and east of the storage building. Located north of the Site is AG Terminal Sdn. Bhd., a warehousing, storage, and liquid bulking handling terminal. The eastern, southern and western sides of the Site are vacant plots of land.

The land use within 5 km radius of the Project site is enclosed in Figure 6-2. The detail information on existing land use profile within 5 km radius of the Project site is summarized in Table 6-1. The photographs of the Project site and its surrounding land use within 5-km radius is shown in Plate 6-1.

Page | 6-1

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-1: Topographical Map of Project Site

Page | 6-2

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Table 6-1: Land Use within 5 km radius from Project Site No. Descriptions Latitude (Y) Longitude (X) Community Facilities 0 to 1 km 1 Rumah Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran (JPS) 2° 57' 19.657" N 101° 19' 4.273" E 1 to 2 km Majlis Perbandaran Klang (Cawangan Pulau 2 2° 57' 5.136" N 101° 18' 39.300" E Indah) 3 Kompleks Kastam 2° 56' 56.700" N 101° 18' 42.800" E 4 Dewan Serbaguna Hj. Jala 2° 57' 4.200" N 101° 20' 5.900" E 2 to 3 km 5 Surau Hj. Omar 2° 57' 13.900" N 101° 20' 17.900" E 6 Balai Raya Kg. Sg. Pinang 2° 57' 12.400" N 101° 20' 15.500" E 7 Surau Jalan Dato’ Harun Al-Mubarak 2° 56' 58.200" N 101° 20' 20.200" E 8 Tanah Perkuburan Islam Kg. Sg. Pinang 2° 56' 47.026" N 101° 20' 31.271" E 9 Balai JKKK Kg. Sg. Pinang 2° 56' 41.200" N 101° 19' 51.300" E 10 Masjid Ar-Rahman 2° 56' 34.600" N 101° 19' 55.800" E 11 Dewan Budaya Tan Srig 2° 56' 51.700" N 101° 18' 27.000" E 12 Klinik Kesihatan Pulau Indah 2° 56' 16.536" N 101° 19' 29.690" E 13 Balai Penghulu & JKKK Kg. Teluk Nipah 2° 56' 14.833" N 101° 19' 34.612" E 14 Perpustakaan Awam 2° 56' 12.855" N 101° 19' 31.568" E 15 Pusat Komuniti Kg. Teluk Nipah 2° 56' 4.700" N 101° 19' 25.800" E 3 to 4 km 16 Masjid Al-Qayyum 2° 58' 45.665" N 101° 20' 40.198" E 17 Balai JKKK Kg. Sg. Kembong 2° 55' 48.152" N 101° 19' 15.236" E 18 Masjid Ar-Raudhah 2° 55' 52.300" N 101° 19' 11.300" E 19 Pusat Pertanian 2° 56' 4.637" N 101° 18' 43.830" E 20 Perumahan Kastam 2° 55' 53.172" N 101° 18' 22.930" E 4 to 5 km 21 Pusat Hidrografik Nasional 2° 59' 12.378" N 101° 21' 0.792" E 22 Laguna Park 2° 56' 41.700" N 101° 21' 26.800" E 23 Taman Permainan Laguna Park 2° 56' 33.391" N 101° 21' 20.190" E 24 Surau As-Syakirin 2° 56' 30.003" N 101° 21' 15.739" E 25 Surau Muhammadiah 2° 55' 39.500" N 101° 20' 6.500" E 26 Tanah Perkuburan Kg. Teluk Nipah 2° 55' 13.608" N 101° 19' 50.750" E 27 Surau Hj. Mokhtar 2° 55' 28.300" N 101° 18' 47.700" E 28 Masjid Sultan Abdul Aziz 2° 55' 26.292" N 101° 18' 21.525" E 29 Tanah Perkuburan Islam Kg. Perigi Nanas 2° 55' 43.910" N 101° 18' 1.468" E

Page | 6-3

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

No. Descriptions Latitude (Y) Longitude (X) Institutional 2 to 3 km 1 Tadika Kemas Baitul Husna 2° 56' 10.300" N 101° 19' 40.600" E 3 to 4 km 2 Sekolah Kebangsaan Pulau Indah 2 2° 58' 40.982" N 101° 20' 41.951" E 3 Sekolah Rendah Agama Pulau Lumut 2° 55' 59.500" N 101° 19' 18.600" E 4 Sekolah Kebangsaan Pulau Indah 1 2° 55' 52.300" N 101° 19' 11.300" E 4 to 5 km 5 Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Pulau Indah 2° 56' 38.396" N 101° 21' 13.570" E Commercial 0 to 1 km 1 Pulau Indah Food Station 2° 57' 20.756" N 101° 19' 8.715" E 1 to 2 km 2 Commercial Area / Shop Lot 2° 57' 20.700" N 101° 19' 42.200" E 3 Tangki Air Taman Perindustrian Pulau Indah 2° 57' 8.400" N 101° 19' 4.700" E 4 Klinik dan Surgery, Bukit Tinggi 2° 57' 48.700" N 101° 19' 55.400" E 5 Petron Station 2° 57' 8.000" N 101° 18' 36.900" E 2 to 3 km 6 Commercial Area Kg. Sg. Pinang / Shop Lot 2° 57' 6.800" N 101° 20' 10.100" E 7 Bousted Cruise Centre, Port Klang 2° 59' 2.575" N 101° 20' 14.268" E 8 Food Court / Shop Lot 2° 57' 32.357" N 101° 20' 33.152" E 9 Pejabat Pos Malaysia 2° 56' 9.260" N 101° 19' 28.462" E 3 to 4 km 10 Pejabat Urusan Hartanah 2° 56' 2.400" N 101° 19' 21.300" E Commercial Area Taman Sg. Chandong, 11 2° 59' 1.728" N 101° 20' 31.423" E Bandar Armada Putera Commercial Area Sg. Chandong 2, Bandar 12 2° 58' 42.242" N 101° 20' 56.077" E Armada Putera 4 to 5 km 13 Jetty Nelayan Kg. Orang Asli Pulau Indah 2° 56' 55.844" N 101° 21' 23.948" E 14 Tangki Air Syabas 2° 56' 25.549" N 101° 21' 3.188" E 15 Pangkalan Nelayan Laguna 2° 55' 49.673" N 101° 20' 37.388" E 16 Pangkalan Nelayan Kg. Teluk Nipah 2° 55' 33.298" N 101° 20' 10.340" E 17 Commercial Area Kg. Perigi Nanas 2° 55' 26.900" N 101° 18' 23.900" E 18 Tangki Air Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) 2° 55' 31.916" N 101° 17' 48.758" E 19 Pangkalan Nelayan Kg. Sg. Kembong 2° 54' 52.294" N 101° 19' 15.263" E

Page | 6-4

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

No. Descriptions Latitude (Y) Longitude (X) Industrial 0 to 1 km 1 West Port Liquid Terminal 2° 58' 1.200" N 101° 19' 8.400" E 2 The Italian Baker (Massimo) 2° 57' 32.400" N 101° 19' 12.000" E 3 FFM Further Processes (A) 2° 57' 25.200" N 101° 19' 8.400" E 4 FFM Further Processes (B) 2° 57' 28.800" N 101° 18' 54.000" E 5 Yale Logistic Holding (Ben Meyer) 2° 57' 49.942" N 101° 19' 27.844" E 6 Panasonic Appliances 2° 57' 46.100" N 101° 19' 30.500" E 7 Capaian Unggul Snd. Bhd. 2° 57' 50.342" N 101° 19' 37.911" E 8 Posco Malaysia 2° 57' 39.900" N 101° 19' 37.300" E 9 Topmark Petroleum 2° 57' 49.900" N 101° 19' 45.300" E 10 Eco Power Synergy 2° 57' 58.608" N 101° 19' 40.105" E 11 Container Farbicator 2° 58' 10.700" N 101° 19' 38.600" E 1 to 2 km 12 West Port Dry Bulk Terminal 2° 58' 38.282" N 101° 19' 47.067" E 13 Bremfield Sdn. Bhd. 2° 58' 25.131" N 101° 19' 48.717" E 14 Yale Industry (Gudang Am 6) 2° 57' 59.300" N 101° 19' 50.200" E 15 Kilang Bahan Pencuci dan Kosmetik 2° 57' 43.000" N 101° 19' 50.900" E 16 Kaizer PVC Additives 2° 57' 38.200" N 101° 19' 49.500" E 17 Torching Nippon Sdn. Bhd. 2° 57' 22.049" N 101° 19' 45.936" E 18 Indah Haulage Sdn. Bhd. 2° 57' 13.400" N 101° 19' 39.400" E 19 Transformer Services 2° 57' 8.784" N 101° 19' 32.560" E 20 World Link Marine Freight 2° 57' 15.300" N 101° 19' 29.500" E 21 KASE 2° 57' 12.600" N 101° 18' 50.100" E 22 West Port Conventional 2° 57' 5.700" N 101° 18' 35.700" E 2 to 3 km 23 STK Hardware 2° 57' 17.200" N 101° 20' 20.400" E 24 MILS Logistic 2° 56' 46.700" N 101° 18' 37.100" E 25 West Port Container Terminal 2° 56' 49.900" N 101° 18' 25.300" E 26 West Port Main Office 2° 56' 32.674" N 101° 18' 24.399" E 27 LKC Logistic 2° 56' 28.000" N 101° 18' 49.400" E 3 to 4 km 28 Kilang Kitar Semula Plastik 2° 58' 55.072" N 101° 21' 1.905" E 4 to 5 km 29 TH Heavy Engineering 2° 59' 21.541" N 101° 21' 11.566" E

Page | 6-5

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

No. Descriptions Latitude (Y) Longitude (X) Settlements (Kampung) 2 to 3 km 1 Kg. Sg. Pinang Kecil 2° 57' 13.857" N 101° 20' 43.434" E 2 Kg. Sg. Pinang 2° 56' 37.454" N 101° 20' 1.678" E 3 Kg. Teluk Nipah 2° 56' 18.826" N 101° 19' 41.827" E 4 Kg. Perigi Nanas 2° 56' 9.597" N 101° 19' 15.302" E 3 to 4 km 5 Kg. Pinang Laut 2° 56' 30.106" N 101° 20' 39.498" E 6 Kg. Sg. Kembong 2° 55' 46.952" N 101° 19' 12.581" E 7 Kg. Sg. Teruntong 2° 55' 42.594" N 101° 18' 47.237" E 4 to 5 km 8 Kg. Sg. Pandan 2° 55' 19.863" N 101° 17' 51.106" E Settlements (Taman) 2 to 3 km 1 Taman Sg. Pinang 2° 57' 17.200" N 101° 20' 20.400" E 2 Taman Kg. Sg. Pinang 1 2° 57' 1.000" N 101° 20' 23.700" E 3 Taman Raya Indah 2° 57' 21.000" N 101° 20' 43.800" E 4 Taman Kg. Sg. Pinang 2 2° 56' 50.000" N 101° 20' 30.200" E 5 Taman Saujana 2° 56' 27.700" N 101° 20' 9.000" E 3 to 4 km 6 Pangsapuri Seri Bayu 2° 58' 49.963" N 101° 20' 49.458" E 7 Taman Ahmad Razali 2° 56' 43.400" N 101° 20' 45.900" E 8 Pangsapuri Samudera 2° 55' 55.700" N 101° 18' 56.100" E 9 Taman Pulau Indah 2° 55' 54.300" N 101° 18' 33.800" E 10 Taman Sg. Kembong 2° 56' 6.700" N 101° 18' 5.800" E 4 to 5 km 11 Taman Sg. Chandang, Bandar Armada Putera 2° 58' 23.000" N 101° 21' 41.100" E

Page | 6-6

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Plate 6-1: Photos of Current Land Use in Vicinity of the Project Site

1 Rumah Kakitangan Jabatan Pengairan dan 3 Kompleks Kastam Saliran

5 Surau Hj. Omar 12 Klinik Kesihatan Pulau Indah

Page | 6-7

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

16 Masjid Al-Qayyum 21 Pusat Hidrografik Nasional

2 Sekolah Kebangsaan Pulau Indah 5 S.M.K. Pulau Indah

4 Klinik dan Surgery 7 Bousted Cruise Centre

Page | 6-8

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

1 West Port Liquid Terminal 2 The Italian Baker (Massimo)

12 West Port Dry Bulk Terminal 13 Bremfield Sdn. Bhd.

21 KASE 25 West Port Container Terminal

Page | 6-9

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

2 Kg. Sg. Pinang 6 Kg. Sg. Kembong

1 Taman Sg. Pinang 6 Pangsapuri Seri Bayu

Page | 6-10

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-2: Land Use within 5 km from the Project Site

Page | 6-11

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.2.3 Geology and Hydrogeology

According to the Geological Map of Peninsular Malaysia, 8th Edition, 2014 and the Hydrogeological Map of Peninsular Malaysia, 1st Edition, 2008, the surrounding geology is consistent with a coastal plain and consists of unconsolidated deposits of quaternary alluvium; overlain by clay, silt, sand, peat with minor gravel. Geological map of the Project site is shown in Figure 6-3.

6.2.4 Soil

Generally, based on the Reconnaissance Soil Map of Peninsular Malaysia (2002) published by the Department of Agriculture, the Project site is area has been identified and mapped as alluvial soil on coastal plains named as Keranji Series (Figure 6-4). The main characteristics of the soil are low inherent soil fertility, low soil pH and low bearing capacity.

Findings from Soil and Groundwater Baseline Study Report dated 30 December 2016 conducted by MSmelt within the Project Site has concluded that the Project Site consists of sand and silty sand which was found from near surface to depth of approximately 2.0 m to 3.5 m underlain by organic clay with traces of decomposed vegetation.

Page | 6-12

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-3: Geology Map

Page | 6-13

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-4: Soil Map of The Proposed Project Site

Page | 6-14

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.2.5 Hydrology

All the surface runoff from project site flows into receiving monsoon drain from the plant site and will be released into main drain nearby Project site. The water from main drain nearby project site will be flows to tributary of Sungai Perigi Nanas and finally discharge to Selat Klang at distance of approximately 0.8 km. All the river that involved in the project site cannot be diverted elsewhere. There is no water intake point at downstream discharge of the proposed site.

There are two (2) catchment involved at the Project site. The area of each catchments is 3.2 ha and 1.74 ha respectively. Figure 6-5 shows hydrology catchment of the Project site.

6.2.6 Climate

The climate of Peninsular Malaysia experiences hot-humid equatorial to humid tropical environment. It also experiences monsoon climate and variation in rainfall dependent on periodic changes in prevailing wind, is the most important seasonal features.

With reference to Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia, the nearest meteorological station to the Project site is Station Subang Airport, Selangor which is located at latitude N 3° 07' 50" and longitude E 101° 33' 09" and 16.64 m above mean sea level (MSL).

The following sub-sections presents all the available meteorological parameters (rainfall, rain days, temperature, relative humidity, and winds ranging from the year 2008-2018) which will give an indication of the major features of present day climate in the vicinity of the proposed project site

Generally, the Project site and surrounding area experiences a typical climate, which can be characterized by warm and humid weather throughout the year. There is no marked dry season, although June seems to be the drier months. There is however occasions of extensive drought such as that experienced during the drier months. The Northeast monsoon from November to March and the Southwest from May to September also influence them. Page | 6-15

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-5: Hydrological Map of the Proposed Site

Page | 6-16

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Temperature

Data obtained from Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia shows that the average 24 hour mean monthly temperature (Figure 6-6) is generally high and ranges from about 27.20C to 28.90C. There were very little variations in temperature. There is no marked hot or cool month throughout the year. Only minor variations exist with a small drop in temperature.

The fluctuations in air temperature are much less pronounced than rainfall. The fluctuations, although small, are related to the rainfall pattern. Low daytime temperature and high night-time temperatures coincide with the rainy season while the cool nights are generally found during the dry season. High daytime temperatures are generally found at the end of the dry season.

Records of Average 24 Hour Mean Temperature Subang Meteorology Station (2008-2018) Source : Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia 29.0 28.9 28.6 28.4 28.4

28.5 28.3 C) ° 28.1 27.9 28.0 27.8 27.8

27.5 27.3 27.3 27.2

27.0 Degree Degree Celcius ( 26.5

26.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 6-6: 24-Hour Mean Temperature at Subang

Page | 6-17

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Rainfall

Malaysia experiences rainfalls throughout the year, with no marked dry period. However, rainfall varies from place to place in terms of timing and amount. Average monthly rainfall data for Subang, Selangor for the years of 2008 to 2018 is shown in Figure 6-7.

Although there is no presence of a distinct dry season, one distinct lowest rainfall periods occur in July (140.6 mm) while the maximum is in November (386.4 mm). The average mean annual rainfall for Subang from 2008 to 2018 is about 2,964.5 mm with an average total annual raindays of 203 days.

Records of Average Monthly Rainfall Subang Meteorology Station (2008-2018) Source : Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia

Dec 294.1 Nov 386.4 Oct 288.3 Sept 239.7 Aug 196.4 July 140.6

June 146.3 Month May 259.1 Apr 294.7 Mar 289.1 Feb 184.3 Jan 245.3

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 mm

Figure 6-7: Average Monthly Rainfall at Subang

Number of Raindays

Rain day is defined as a period of 24 hours, commencing at 0800 MST (MST – Malaysian Standard Time), on which 0.1 mm or more rainfall is recorded. Three distinct lowest number of rain days occur in April and June (11 days), July (12 days) and February (13 days) while the maximum is in November (23 days) (Figure 6-8).

Page | 6-18

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Based on the rainfall data obtained, the wettest month of the year falls on the month of November with recorded average value of about 386.4 mm. The total raindays in the wettest month for Subang station is 23 days. The driest month occurs in July with an average rainfall of about 140.6 mm. The lowest number of average raindays is 11 days (i.e. in February and June). The rainfall and number of rain days correspond with each other when compared (Figure 6-9).

Average Numbers of Raindays Subang Meteorology Station (2008-2018) Source : Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia 25 23

20 20 20 19 18 18 17 17

15 13 14 12 11 10

Numberofraindays 5

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 6-8: Number of Raindays

Page | 6-19

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Average Monthly Rainfall vs Average Numbers of Raindays Subang Meteorology Station (2008-2018) Source : Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia 450.0 25 Monthly Rainfall Raindays 400.0

350.0 20

300.0 15

250.0 mm 200.0 10 150.0

100.0 5 Numbersofraindays 50.0

0.0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 6-9: Average Monthly Rainfall vs. Average Number of Raindays

Relative Humidity

Relative humidity recorded at the Meteorological Station (Figure 6-10) ranges from 75.1% to 82.9%. The 24-hour mean relative humidity remains almost constant throughout the year. The relative humidity is low during the months of June (75.1%) to August (75.4%). It increases to a maximum of 82.9% in the month of November. During the monsoonal periods, the relative humidity remained high throughout the day.

Page | 6-20

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Records of Average 24 Hour Mean Relative Humidity Subang Meteorology Station (2008-2018) Source : Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia 84.0 82.9 82.0 82.3

80.0 78.6 79.0 78.7 78.0 78.3 78.1 77.5

76.0 75.6 75.1 75.2 75.4

74.0 Percentage Percentage (%)

72.0

70.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 6-10: 24 Hour Mean Relative Humidity at Subang

Wind

Generally, over the country, the wind pattern is light and variable with some uniform periodic changes. Four (4) seasons can be distinguished, namely, the southwest monsoon, northeast monsoon and two shorter inter-monsoons. Land and sea breezes also play an important role especially near the coastline of Malaysia.

Wind observations at the station are taken from pressure tube anemograph. Wind direction is analyzed according to 8 compass points. The limits chosen for wind speed correspond with the scale for Beaufort Force. The source data used in the analysis are hourly averages of wind speed and direction.

The annual wind rose for Subang station is as shown in Figures 6-11. It could be observed that the dominant wind direction is from Northwest (NW) which is about 19% of the time and the calm period (wind speed less than 0.3 m/s) is only about 16.7%.

Page | 6-21

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-11: Annual Wind Rose at Subang

6.2.7 Ambient Air Quality

Baseline study for ambient air quality was conducted at the Project site and its surrounding area to assess the existing ambient air quality. This study provides data

for Particulate matters (PM10 and PM2.5), Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen dioxide

(NO2), Carbon monoxide (CO) and heavy metals (Arsenic, Lead, Bismuth, Copper, Antimony, Nickel, Cobalt, Zinc, Silver, Iron and Manganese).

Basically there are three (3) sets of air quality sampling results to consolidate for the baseline data of this Project as per listed below:

i. Conducted on 23rd to 27th October 2017 at four (4) sampling point designated as A1, A2, A3 and A4. ii. Additional sampling was conducted at another three (3) location designated as A5, A6 and A7 from 8th until 10th October 2018. iii. Most recent sampling was conducted on at five (5) location designated as A1, A2, A6, A8 and A9 for on 26th March 2019 and 29th to 31st March 2019. Page | 6-22

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-12 shows the air quality sampling station and description the location is tabulated as in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: Ambient Air Baseline Sampling Location Sampling Latitude/ Longitude Description Station 2° 57' 46.25" N A1 Boundary of the Project Site, at the Guard House 101° 19' 14.57" E 2° 57' 36.73" N A2 Nearby sensitive receptor , Italian Baker Factory 101° 19' 13.80" E 2° 57' 43.56" N A3 Nearby sensitive receptor, KLK Oleomas Sdn Bhd 101° 19' 21.60" E 2° 57' 54.61" N 101° A4 Nearby sensitive receptor, beside Kub Gaz Sdn Bhd 19' 12.57" E 2° 57' 45.86" N Nearby sensitive receptor, Logistik Petikemas Sdn A5 101° 19' 30.37" E Bhd 2° 57' 18.06" N 101° A6 Nearby sensitive receptor, Taman Sungai Pinang 20' 21.79" E 2° 55' 54.51" N A7 Nearby sensitive receptor, Kuaters Kastam 101° 18' 23.30" E 2° 56' 8.09" N A8 101° 19' 7.30" E Kg. Perigi Nenas 2° 56' 14.37" N A9 101° 19' 33.62" E Kg. Teluk Nipah

The summary of the ambient air quality results are tabulated in Table 6-3. These results were compared against the New Malaysian Ambient Air Quality Standards limit.

The particulate matters (PM10 and PM2.5) and Sulphur dioxide were well below the NAAQS limits. Carbon monoxide and Nitrogen dioxide as well as heavy metals were not detected at all recent sampling points being monitored (Station A1, A2, A6, A8 and A9).

It can be concluded that the existing ambient air quality at the Project site and its surrounding area is of good condition.

Page | 6-23

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-12: Ambient Air Quality Baseline Sampling Location

Page | 6-24

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Table 6-3: Ambient Air Quality Baseline Sampling Results

Year 2017 2018 2019 8th -10th October *NAAQS 23rd -27th October 2017 26th, 29th -31st March 2019 2018 Parameters Unit Standard A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A1 A2 A6 A8 A9 IT-2 (2020)

3 PM10 µg/m 28 56 56 56 39 35 44 - - - 78 55 120 100

3 PM2.5 µg/m 28 14 42 56 30 22 29 - - - 21 19 50 35

3 PM2.5 µg/m 28 14 42 56 30 22 29 - - - 21 19 50 35 CO µg/m3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 10 10

3 SO2 µg/m <83 <83 <83 83 <5 <5 <5 - - - <10 <10 90 80

3 NO2 µg/m 83 <42 42 83 <5 <5 <5 - - - 2 1 75 70 Arsenic mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Lead mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Bismuth mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Copper mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Antimony mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Nickel mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Cobalt mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Zinc mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Silver mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Iron mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Manganese mg/m3 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA Notes: NAAQS = New Ambient Air Quality Standards

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.2.8 Point Source Emission Quality

Isokinetic stack and air emission monitoring was conducted to determine the emission level at stack leading from Furnace No. 1. The monitoring was conducted on 5th November 2018.

Parameters analysed were Total Particulate Matters (Total PM), oxides of

Nitrogen (NOx), Hydrogen sulphide (H2S), Hydrofluoric acid (HF), Hydrogen

chloride (HCl), Chlorine gas (Cl2), Sulphuric acid (H2SO4), and heavy metals such as Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Arsenic (As), Antimony (Sb), Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd) and Mercury (Hg).

The isokinetic stack and air emission monitoring results are tabulated in Table 6- 4.

Generally, the results of the isokinetic stack and air emission monitoring showed that all air pollutants level emitted from Furnace No.1 were comply to the Existing

Standards stipulated under Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 2014.

Table 6-4: Isokinetic Stack and Air Emission Monitoring Results (5th November 2018) Parameters Results ^Existing Standards #Limit Values

Total PM 35.4 mg/m3 400 mg/m3 150 mg/m3

3 3 2 3 NOx 62 mg/m 2000 mg/m 400 mg/m

3 3 3 3 H2S <0.1 mg/m 5 ppm (7.0 mg/m ) 5.0 mg/m

3 3 3 3 Cl2 <1 mg/m 200 mg/m 5.0 mg/m

HF <1 mg/m3 100 mg/m3 35.0 mg/m3

HCl <1 mg/m3 400 mg/m3 430 mg/m3

3 3 3 3 H2SO4 <1 mg/m 200 mg/m 5.0 mg/m

Cu <0.01 mg/m3 100 mg/m3 75.0 mg/m3

Zn <0.01 mg/m3 100 mg/m3 75.0 mg/m3

As <0.01 mg/m3 25 mg/m3 50.2 mg/m3

Page | 6-26

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Parameters Results ^Existing Standards #Limit Values

Sb <0.01 mg/m3 25 mg/m3 75.0 mg/m3

Pb <0.01 mg/m3 25 mg/m3 61.0 mg/m3

Cd <0.01 mg/m3 15 mg/m3 50.2 mg/m3

Hg <0.01 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 50.2 mg/m3

Note: ^ means Existing Standard – based on DOE Approval Letter for Existing Premises/ Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 1978 (the revoked Regulations) # means Limit value based on Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 2014 1 means Second Schedule, (I), No.2 2 means Fifth Schedule, Category (4)(b) 3 means Fifth Schedule, Category (4)(a), Class (2) 4 means Fifth Schedule, Category (4)(a), Class (3) 5 means Fifth Schedule, Category (5), Class (1) 6 means Fifth Schedule, Category (5), Class (2) 7 means Fifth Schedule, Category (5), Class (3)

The CO2 reference content is 12%

Page | 6-27

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.2.9 Noise Level

Under Planning Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control issued by the Department of Environment, 2004, the impact of noise level is depends on the receiving land use. Based on the field visit, the Project Site is moderately noisy since the Project site and its surrounding are within industrial park where manufacturing/ production as well as transportation/ logistic activities are conducted throughout the operating hours.

To confirm ambient level on area of interests, ad-hoc noise measurements were carried out during day time and night time on 5th -7th March 2019 to determine baseline level at the Project site and surrounding areas. The monitoring was measured for 15 hours during daytime and 9 hours during night time at six (6) locations as tabulated in Table 6-5. Locations of sampling point is shown in Figure 6-13.

Table 6-5: Noise Level Baseline Monitoring Location Sampling Latitude/ Description Station Longitude 2° 57' 45.69" N N1 Near to Loading Bay area at Southern part of project site 101° 19' 11.40" E 2° 57' 47.87" N N2 Beside process area at Western part of project site 101° 19' 10.29" E 2° 57' 50.86" N Behind Smelter and Refinery building area at Northwest part N3 101° 19' 8.92" E of project site 2° 57' 53.21" N Behind utilities area and near to Lipids Terminal at Northern N4 101° 19' 11.55" E part of project site 2° 57' 50.69" N N5 Near to canteen and main road at Eastern part of project site 101° 19' 14.27" E 2° 57' 47.98" N Near to security and main road at Southeast part of project N6 101° 19' 15.53" E site

Those results are summarized in Table 6-6.

Page | 6-28

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Table 6-6: Ambient Noise Level Baseline Monitoring Results

L10 L90 LMax Total Leq DOE Guideline Point Date dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) Leq, dB(A) Day Time

N1 5/3/2019 52.4 63.0 95.5 55.8 70*

N2 5/3/2019 53.4 59.5 83.0 56.1 70*

N3 5/3/2019 57.5 66.6 92.6 59.8 70*

N4 5/3/2019 58.5 68.3 81.7 61.5 70*

N5 5/3/2019 60.1 69.0 92.1 63.2 70*

N6 5/3/2019 52.5 61.7 80.3 56.7 70*

Night Time

N1 6/3/2019 52.8 57.8 81.9 55.3 60*

N2 6/3/2019 54.2 56.4 79.5 54.1 60*

N3 6/3/2019 56.9 59.0 80.3 57.7 60*

N4 6/3/2019 62.3 64.2 76.5 63.4 60*

N5 6/3/2019 59.6 62.8 88.8 59.8 60*

N6 6/3/2019 52.2 57.6 75.0 53.5 60*

Note: * means Maximum Permissible Sound Level (LAeq) By Receiving Land Use for Planning and New Development, Schedule 1; Annex A: Schedule Of Permissible Sound Levels; The Planning Guidelines For Environmental Noise Limits & Control, Department of Environment. # means Receiving Land Use Category of Designated Industrial Zones.

The results were compared to guidelines and all of them are below permissible limits. During day time, the main source was found to be noise generated by passing vehicles (cars, lorries, and motorcycles) and human activities at the industrial, commercial and residential areas. During night, the main noise contributors were the insects (crickets) and animals (dog). The results were compared to the guidelines and all samples is below the permissible limits except for N4 for night time due to noise from Gas Station Purging near the monitoring point. There are no major activities carried out on the surrounding monitoring station areas during the monitoring period.

Page | 6-29

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6-13: Ambient Noise Level Baseline Monitoring Location

Page | 6-30

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.2.10 Water Quality

Surface water quality sampling was conducted on 23rd to 27th October 2017 at seven (7) sampling stations designated as W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, and W7 with another one (1) sampling station at estuarine designated as W8. A detail description of surface water quality sampling stations is presented in Table 6-7 and shown in Figure 6-14.

The surface water samples were submitted for analyses to an accredited laboratory certified under Skim Akreditasi Makmal Malaysia (SAMM). The parameters analysed for surface water (Stations W1 to W8) include Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Faecal Coliform, E. Coli, Ammonia as N, Free Chlorine, Fluoride, Nitrate, Phosphate, Total Phenols, Total Cyanide, Aluminium, Sulphide, Aluminium, Arsenic, Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium (VI), Chromium (VI), Copper, Iron, Manganese, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Tin, Zinc, Selenium, Silver, Cyanide, Oil & Grease (O&G). In-situ measurement for surface water was taken for pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Turbidity and Temperature. Station W8 also being analysed with similar parameters as Stations W1 to W8, with deduction of Selenium and Silver; and addition of salinity, turbidity, nitrate and phosphate.

Table 6-7: Water Quality Baseline Sampling Location

Sampling Latitude/ Longitude Description Stations

2° 57' 52.92" N 101° In MSC rain water collection and recycling pond at the W1 19' 11.39" E northern part of the Project site

2° 57' 50.73" N 101° In industrial drain outside the MSC boundary at W2 19' 8.53" E northwest of the Project site

2° 57' 54.57" N 101° In industrial drain after main gate of Lipids Terminal / W3 19' 12.60" E Kub Gas at the northern part of the Project site

2° 57' 44.37" N 101° In industrial drain beside MSC warehouse at southwest W4 19' 11.68" E of the Project site

2° 57' 42.95" N 101° In shrub area before Sg. Perigi Nanas at southwest part W5 19' 7.72" E of the Project site

Page | 6-31

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Sampling Latitude/ Longitude Description Stations

2° 57' 41.90" N 101° At Sg. Perigi Nanas before industrial drain at southwest W6 19' 5.12" E part of the Project site

2° 57' 47.36" N 101° At Sg. Perigi Nanas after industrial drain at Western part W7 19' 1.92" E of the Project site

2° 57' 56.62" N 101° Located at Sg. Perigi Nanas estuary at northwest part of W8 18' 52.27" E the Project site

Results for water quality are tabulated in Table 6-8.

The results for Stations W1 to W7 were compared against the National River Water Quality Standard (NWQS) whilst results for Station W8 were compared against the Marine Water Quality Standard and Criteria (MWQSC).

Most of the biological parameter tested exceeded the Class III of NWQS specifically for parameter DO, BOD, COD, ammonia and faecal coliform at most of the W1 to W7 stations. As for heavy metal, Manganese was detected beyond Class III limit at all stations sampled. Similarly, result of Iron was also exceeding the Class III limit at stations W1, W2, W5 and W6. Aluminium level at Stations W1, W3, W6 and W7 also found to be exceeding the Class III limit. Other parameters tested for Stations W1 to W7 were well within the Class III of the NWQS.

All parameters analysed from Station W8 sample were observed to be within Class E (Mangrove & Estuarine) except for Ammonia, Total Cyanide and Phosphate.

Page | 6-32

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-14: Water Quality Baseline Sampling Location

Page | 6-33

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Table 6-8: Water Quality Baseline Sampling Results

Stations Station MWQSC NWQS Limit Parameters Unit Parameter Unit Limit (Class (Class III) W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 E)

Dissolved Dissolved mg/L 0.35 6.48 1.57 1.87 1.20 2.73 6.91 3 -5 mg/L 6.93 4 Oxygen Oxygen

Temperature °C 23.1 21.1 22.9 22.9 23.0 23.0 22.9 Normal + 2°C Temperature °C 22.0 Normal + 2°C pH Unit 6.8 7.1 6.4 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.6 5 - 9 pH Unit 7.4 -

Turbidity NTU 43.0 21.9 16.8 5.7 11.5 17.0 7.6 - Turbidity NTU 7.2 - 100 mg/L or ≤ 30% increase Total Total in seasonal Suspended mg/L 80 35 71 14 33 63 33 150 Suspended mg/L 12 average, Solid Solid whichever is lower Biochemical Biochemical - Oxygen mg/L 112 7 24 15 20 9 3 6 Oxygen mg/L 3 Demand Demand Chemical Chemical - Oxygen mg/L 338 28 85 56 88 32 13 50 Oxygen mg/L 6 Demand Demand

Oil & Grease mg/L <1 <1 11 <1 <1 <1 <1 N Oil & Grease mg/L <1 0.14 Ammonia as N mg/L 4.88 2.10 0.54 2.27 2.47 2.30 0.89 0.9 Ammonia as N µg/L 460 70

Aluminium mg/L 0.864 0.0248 0.186 0.0165 0.0551 0.277 0.0821 0.06 Conductivity µS/cm 42,900 -

Arsenic mg/L 0.006 0.0664 0.0076 0.0051 0.0042 0.0084 0.0101 0.4 Salinity parts/1000 26.9 - Barium mg/L 0.0234 0.0073 0.0089 0.0079 0.0098 0.0177 0.0120 - Arsenic µg/L 15.7 20

Boron mg/L 0.533 0.0480 0.0112 0.195 0.218 0.235 2.28 3.4 Boron µg/L 3,110 -

Cadmium mg/L <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.01* (0.001) Cadmium µg/L <1.0 2 Chromium (VI) mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.4 (0.05) Copper µg/L <1.0 2.9

Chromium (III) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 2.5 Chromium (VI) µg/L <10 10 Copper mg/L 0.0021 <0.0010 0.0056 <0.001 <0.001 0.0032 <0.001 - Chromium (III) µg/L <50 -

Iron mg/L 1.50 1.74 0.49 0.633 1.38 1.32 0.287 1 Iron µg/L 141 -

Lead mg/L 0.0032 <0.0010 0.0396 0.0071 0.0477 0.0088 0.0016 - Lead µg/L <1.0 8.5 Manganese mg/L 1.11 1.41 0.26 3.01 3.28 0.817 0.437 0.1 Manganese µg/L 50.7 -

Mercury mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.004 (0.0001) Mercury µg/L <0.5 -

Page | 6-34

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Stations Station MWQSC NWQS Limit Parameters Unit Parameter Unit Limit (Class (Class III) W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 E) Nickel mg/L 0.004 <0.0010 0.0021 <0.001 <0.001 0.0054 0.0018 0.9 Nickel µg/L <1.0 -

Selenium mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.25 (0.4) Tin µg/L <1.0 - Silver mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 Zinc µg/L 7.0 50

Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.004 Total Cyanide µg/L 50 7

Zinc mg/L 0.0330 0.0079 0.1500 0.0074 0.0205 0.0381 0.0110 0.4* Free Chlorine mg/L <0.1 - Total Cyanide mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 (0.02) Total Phenols µg/L <10 10

Free Chlorine mg/L <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.7 1.4 1.2 0.8 - Sulphide mg/L <0.1 -

Fluoride mg/L 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.7 2.5 10 E.coli MPN/100mL 32 - Total Phenols mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - Nitrate µg/L <10 60

Sulphide mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 3.4 <0.1 <0.1 - Phosphate µg/L 80 75

E.coli CFU/100ml 460000 <1 5600 300 2000 44000 5000 -

Faecal Coliform CFU/100ml 1200000 5200 11700 1000 4400 500000 10400 5000 (20000)

Note: NWQS = National Water Quality Standard N = Free from visible film sheen, discolouration and deposits MWQSC = Marine Water Quality Standard and Criteria

Page | 6-35

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.2.11 Soil and Groundwater Quality

Soil and groundwater sampling was conducted on 26th -30th August 2016. A total of three (3) soil samples and nine (9) groundwater samples were taken for analysis to accredited laboratory certified under Skim Akreditasi Makmal Malaysia (SAMM). The parameters analysed include Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Sodium, Tin, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (C6-C9, C10-C14, C15-C28, C29-C36), Volatile Organic Compounds, Semi-volatile Organic Compounds, pH and Dissolved Oxygen.

List of coordinates and sampling station are tabulated in Table 6-9. The location of groundwater sampling stations and soil sampling locations are shown in Figure 6-15. Four Stations located at the upstream flow of groundwater regime and outside of operational area i.e. MW3, MW4, MW6 and MW7 are selected as control stations.

Table 6-9: Groundwater Quality Baseline Sampling Location Sampling Latitude/ Longitude Description Station 2° 57' 47.5" N MW1 Beside Loading Bay area at southwest part of the Project site 101° 19' 10.3" E 2° 57' 50.3" N Beside Smelter and Refinery at northwest part of the Project MW2 101° 19' 9.1" E site 2° 57' 53.1" N MW3 Behind utilities area at northern part of the Project site 101° 19' 11.5" E 2° 57' 49.4" N Near to canteen and main road at eastern part of the Project MW4 101° 19' 14.9" E site 2° 57' 46.6" N MW5 In front Loading Bay area at southwest part of the Project site 101° 19' 11.8" E 2° 57' 46.0" N In front of MSC parking area at southeast part of the Project MW6 101° 19' 16.1" E site 2° 57' 43.8" N MW7 Beside MSC Office at southeast part of the Project site 101° 19' 16.3" E 2° 57' 44.4" N MW8 Beside of Warehouse at the south of the Project site 101° 19' 11.8" E 2° 57' 48.3" N In between Lead Store and Canteen at the centre of the MW9 101° 19' 12.7" E Project site Note: MW = Monitoring Well

Page | 6-36

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Results for Groundwater analysis are shown in Table 6-10. The results were compared to Groundwater Standards – Industries; Site Screening Levels for Contaminated Land (Tapwater) as well as Typical Range of Natural Occurring Metals Concentrations Under Contaminated Land Management and Control Guidelines, published by DOE, 2009 (Table 6-11). The soil and groundwater results indicated that there has been some impact to the site that is most likely associated with the previous operation (recycling and refining of lead from lead slag, SW104 and spent acid batteries, SW102). Antimony, arsenic and lead were detected at level exceeding the CLMCG SSLs for industrial soil and tapwater:

(i) Antimony has been detected in the groundwater beneath the monitoring well MW-2 located northwest corner of the smelter and refinery plant; (ii) Arsenic has been detected at depths in the soil from near surface to approximately depth 2.5 m bgs at location BH1 and within the smelter and refinery plant (iii) Elevated Arsenic also detected in the groundwater beneath the monitoring wells MW1, MW2, MW3 and MW5 which located surrounding the smelter and refinery plant (iv) Lead has been detected exceeding the CLMCG SSL in the near surface soils at the areas beneath the smelting and refinery plant.

Comparatively high level of manganese and sodium had been detected in the most of groundwater samples from across the site. Based on the widespread distribution of manganese and sodium level at site, it is most likely the source of manganese and sodium are from petrogenic sources (geologic origin).

Figure 6-15 depicts the flow and direction of the groundwater. The groundwater beneath the Site was encountered at depths ranging from 0.80 m bsg at MW-9 to 1.55 m bgs at MW-7. This depth corresponds to an elevation of about 3.07 m above mean sea level (msl) to 2.77 m above msl. The inferred local groundwater flow direction is direction is generally to the southeast with the gradient of approximately 0.002m/m. The regional groundwater gradient is expected to flow westwards toward the Sungai Perigi Nenas. It should be noted that the site is located approximately 500 m from Selat Klang. Tidal fluctuation and the proximity Page | 6-37

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

of the rivers and ocean most likely effected the groundwater elevation and flow direction.

Page | 6-38

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-15: Soil and Groundwater Quality Baseline Sampling Location

Page | 6-39

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Table 6-10: Groundwater Quality Baseline Sampling Results Stations

Parameters Unit Natural Occurring Metal MW1 MW2 MW3 MW4 MW5 MW6 MW7 MW8 MW9 GWS-I* Concentration Antimony mg/L <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - -

Arsenic mg/L 1.80 0.55 1.82 <0.05 1.73 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.004-22 Cadmium mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 0.005-0.011

Chromium mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 0.002-0.100

Copper mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 0.05-0.39 Metals Iron mg/L 0.25 <0.1 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 6.58 0.88 7.64 0.38 0.30 0.01-72.00

Lead mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.01-1.00

Manganese mg/L 1.19 0.91 1.62 1.75 4.19 7.16 7.36 8.39 1.18 0.20 0.01-5.00 Nickel mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 0.01-0.40

Sodium mg/L 536 127 162 115 742 152 29.8 360 55.8 - -

Tin mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - -

C6 - C9 µg/L <50 <50 <50 <50 52 <50 <50 <50 <50 - - Total Petroleum C10 – C14 µg/L <50 <50 <50 <50 220 <50 <50 <50 <50 - - Hydrocarbon C15 – C28 µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 254 <100 <100 <100 <100 - - (TPH) C29 – C36 µg/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - -

Volatile Organic Compounds µg/L

Semi volatile Organic

Dissolved Oxygen µg/L 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.62 0.27 0.00 - -

Control station

Table 6.11: Ground Water Quality Standard for Industry PARAMETER TRESHOLD (mg/L) PARAMETER TRESHOLD (mg/L) Alkalinity 300 pH 6.5-8.0

COD 30 Silica 20

Chloride 100 Sulphate 200 Fe 0.3 TDS/Conductivity (mS/m) 470/70

Mn 0.2 SS 5

Page | 6-40

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-16: Groundwater Elevation and Flow Direction

Page | 6-41

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.3 Biological Environment

6.3.1 Flora

Most of the existing environment within the Project Site and in its vicinity have been developed into industrial activities. Partial of the Site are undeveloped and being covered with grasses (Rumput kerbau (Paspalum conjugatum)). Lots at eastern, southern and western of the Site are vacant plots of land which are being covered with secondary vegetation (such as Akasia Kuning (Acacia auriculiformis), Akasia Mangium (Acacia mangium) and Petai Belalang (Leucaena leucocephala)). As such, conservation value is insignificant.

6.3.2 Fauna

The Project Site is sited on developed industrial plots which have been occupied by previous facilities. The Site and its surrounding is considered a disturbed habitat as such it does not support much of wildlife. The present fauna are small mammals and birds which can co-exist with human or also known as human-associated species. Thus, leaving insignificant conservation value towards the area.

6.4 Human Environment

6.4.1 Socio-Economic

This section examines the existing human environment that covers the existing social environment such as population profile, and socio-economic activities of the study area. It also describes the present facilities, amenities and wellbeing of the local community living toward 5 km from the proposed project site. The aim of study is to describe the human environment so that the potential environmental impacts of the project could be evaluated within the context of the existing environment. The study also investigates and evaluates the public’s awareness and perceptions towards the proposed project and its potential impacts on their existing socio- economic environment.

Page | 6-42

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.4.1.1 Background

Generally, Table 6-12 shows the distribution of respondents within the study area. Overall 200 of samples that inhabit in thirteen selected residential areas have been examined. Five of the residential area traditional villages and another eight are made up of modern residential. The highest number of samples was collected from traditional villages which represents (almost two-third) or 62.5 percent of total samples. Furthermore, based on the largest sampling area is from Kg. Perigi Nenas (20.0 %), followed by Kg. Telok Nipah (15.0 %) and Kg. Sg. Kembong (13.5 %). While other sapling areas are less than 10 percent. Figure 1 shows the study area within 5 km radius from the proposed project. Questionnaire given to respondent during the survey is enclosed in Appendix 5.

Table 6-12: Distribution of Respondent by Area

Area No. of samples Percentage (%)

Kg. Telok Nipah 30 15.0 Kg. Sg. Kembong 27 13.5 Kg. Perigi Nenas 40 20.0 Kg. Sg. Pinang 13 6.5 Kg. Orang Asli 15 7.5 Taman Sg. Pinang 9 4.5 Taman Saujana 5 2.5 Taman Bayu Indah 6 3.0 Taman Dato’ Hormat 11 5.5 Jalan Masjid Sultan 5 2.5 Jalan Dato’ Harun 5 2.5 Jalan Dato Ahmad Razali 19 9.5 Taman Laguna 15 7.5

Total 200 100.0

Source: Field survey, April. 2019

Page | 6-43

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.4.1.2 Methodology

The method of study is very important in the process of collecting information and data. For the purpose of this study, two approaches will be used to gather information on the potential social economic impacts of proposed project. They included: comprehensive social survey, and stakeholder consultations (key respondent). i) Comprehensive Social Survey The questionnaire survey was directed towards a purposive sampling of 200 samples chosen randomly from thirteen residential areas within 5 km radius from the proposed project. The field survey was carried out in April 2019. Plate 6-2 shows the enumerators are conducting surveys among the respondents in residential areas and business operators within 5 km radius.

Plate 6-2: Photos of Social Survey, April 2019

Page | 6-44

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Overall, the questionnaire was designed to solicit the following information, such as:- i. Detailed demographic background of respondents ii. Property ownership i.e, vehicles, household items and others iii. Infrastructure and basic amenities availability iv. Level of Awareness and knowledge v. Perception towards the proposed projects vi. Perception of impacts on health and safety, aesthetics and culture, basic utilities and amenities vii. Assessment of level of acceptability ii) Key Respondent Consultation In additional, interviews with key respondent (community leaders) were held to determine opinions and perceptions of them. Also, series of discussion with Page | 6-45

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

community leaders was conducted during fieldwork on 5-7 April 2019. It was conducted to enable a face-to-face discussion between the key respondent and the socio-economic consultant. The purposed of the discussion is to brief the community leaders to have a clearer perspective with what they were put into and for them to understand any issues that matter to them.

6.4.1.3 Social Profile of the Study Area

This section examines the existing human environment that covers the population profile and socio-economic activities of the study area. It also describes and assesses the present facilities, amenities and wellbeing of the local community living in proximity to the proposed project site. The aim is to describe the human environment so that the potential environmental impacts of the project could be evaluated within the context of the existing environment. The study also investigates and evaluates the public’s awareness and perceptions towards the proposed project and its potential impacts on their existing socio-economic environment. i) Demographic Characteristic

Table 6-13 shows the demographic background among the respondent. The study found that almost two third of the respondents consisting of the husband (67.5%) and another 25.5 and 10.0 percent are represented by the wives and the son/daughter respectively. In term of household member, the analysis showed that almost one-third of the respondents have a number of households in a range of 4 to 6 (60.5 %). Furthermore, household’s member less than 3 members and above 7 are 20.5 and 19.0 percent respectively. Majority of the respondent indicated that they have intended Upper secondary education, with portion of 43.5 percent. In addition to information about households, respondent’s status and education level, age is also important information in the respondents’ profile. Age of the respondents is one of the most important characteristics in understanding their views about the particular problems. Majority of the respondents were generally in the mature age group of 18 years old and above. The highest age among the respondents was 41-

Page | 6-46

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

50 years’ old which was 29.5 percent. This is followed by age 18-30 and 31-40 years, respectively 20.5 and 23.5 percent.

Table 6-13: Respondents’ Demographic Background Type of respondents Percentage Household member’s: Percentage (%) (%) Husband 67.5 Less than 3 20.5 Wife 25.5 4 – 6 60.5 Son/daughter 10.00 More than 7 19.0 100.0 100.0 Education levels: Percentage Age: Percentage (%) (%) No formal educational 6.5 18 – 30 years 20.5 Primary education 10.5 31 – 40 years 23.5 Lower secondary 16.5 41 – 50 years 29.5 Upper Secondary 43.5 51 – 60 years 15.5 College/Institute 19.0 More than 61 years 11.0 University 4.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

Respondents’ occupational profile is an important in socio-economic studies. Employment status of the respondents within the study area is influenced mostly by their educational level, expertise and surrounding employment opportunities. Based on Table 6-14, almost one-third of the respondents are unemployed (28.5%) who are comprised of uneducated, housewives, and the elderly. Majority of respondents in the study area are working in the private sector (35.5 %). Most of them working in the factories around the Pulau Indah. The findings of this study clearly show the existence of factories around the Pulau Indah has provided employment opportunities to the locals.

Table 6-14: Respondents’ Occupational Profile Occupation Percentage (%) Unemployment 28.5 Farmer 10.5 Businessman 4.5 Construction 2.5 Public Sector Employee 11.5 Private Sector Employee 35.5 Page | 6-47

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

100.0 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

ii) Mobility and Migration

Table 6-15 shows the Length of domiciliation and respondent’s origin before moving to study area. Almost two-third of them in the surrounding proposed project have been in the vicinity for more than 15 years. Compared to respondents whom were less than 15 years, only 44.0 percent. Local people contribute the highest sample of the respondents (70.5 %). The state of origin among the respondents showed that majority of them are within the study area were Selangor-born (76.0 %). The rest of the respondents are from the state of Kelantan, Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, Terengganu, Johor, Melaka, Kedah and Pahang. Study also indicates that there had been migration into the study area. This is evidenced by the fact that one-third of them have moved or relocated in the study area whether on the ground of looking for job (8.5 %), accompanying spouse (9.0 %), purchase property (5.0%), following family (2.5%) and transfer (workplace) (4.5%).

Table 6-15: Length of Domiciliation and Respondent’s Origin Before Moving to Study Area Length of stay and reason for migrating Percentage (%) State of Origin Percentage (%) No. of years: Selangor (local) 76.0 < 5 years 16.5 Kelantan 6.5 6-10 years 15.5 Melaka 0.5 11-15 years 12.0 Pahang 2.5 16-20 years 14.0 Perak 3.0 21-25 years 4.0 Pulau Pinang 0.5 26-30 years 9.0 Sabah 0.5 31 years and above 29.0 Kedah 0.5 100.0 Kuala Lumpur 3.5 Reasons: Negeri Sembilan 2.0 Local people 70.5 Terengganu 2.0 Looking for job 8.5 Johor 2.5 Following spouse 9.0 100.0 Following family 2.5 *Klang, Jeram, Meru, Buy property (house) 5.0 Banting, Shah Alam, Transfer (workplace) 4.5 Sabak Bernam, 100.0 Semenyih

Page | 6-48

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Source: Field survey, April. 2019

iii) Ownership

Table 6-16 shows the housing condition, utilities and amenities. The type of housing unit occupied and owned can further reflect the nature of the settlement respondents inhabit. It was found that majority of the respondents quoted that they live in their own house (93.0 %). More than half (57.5 %) of the respondent owned a traditional house. Followed by terrace house (23.0 %), Semi-Detached (14.5 %) and bungalow (5.0 %). Based on observations, the condition of the majority of houses that they live in is deemed to be in a good condition (51.5 %). There are only 15.5 percent of respondents living in old and poor conditions, especially among the Orang Asli and traditional villages.

In terms of electrical and water facilities, the majority of respondents stated that they were provided with the facility. While for the use of telephone facilities, only minorities (6.5 %) are using fixed telephones compared to mobile phones (90.5 %).

Table 6-16: Housing Condition, Utilities and Amenities (%) Items Percentage (%) Household ownership: Own house 93.0 Rented house 4.5 Employer house 2.5 Total 100.0 Type of house: Bungalow 5.0 Semi-detached 14.5 Terrace 23.0 Traditional 57.5

Total 100.0

Housing condition: New/good 51.5 Fair/moderate 33.0

Page | 6-49

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Old/poor 15.5

Total 100.0 With utilities/amenities: Electricity 97.5 Water 97.5 Telephone 6.5 Mobile phone 90.5 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

Figure 6-17 shows the data on ownership of vehicles and other household items. To provide some indication of the respondent’s standard of living, the survey also recorded household ownership of vehicles and modern’s household items. Overall, it is found that the majority of respondents have various facilities for private consumption and family members. Among the facilities owned by the respondents more than two thirds are electrical good (90.5 %), gas stove (94.0 %), lounge set (89.5 %), electrical fan (85.5 %), refrigerator (82.5 %), television (90.5 %), motorcycles (79.5 %) and cars (84.5 %). Hence, only a few numbers of respondents owned heavy vehicles such as lorry and van with the percentage of 9.5 percent and 13.5 percent respectively. Basic requirements which are considered as today’s necessities such as television set (80.6 %), refrigerator (73.4 %), electric fans (74.9 %), gas stove (90.6 %) and electric appliances (82.0 %) are owned by majority of the respondents.

Page | 6-50

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Household items

Electrical good 90.5 Gas stove 94 Aircond 31.5 Lounge set 89.5 Electrical fan 85.5 Refrigerator 82.5 Computer 38.5 Video player 28 Radio 48 Television 90.5 Bicycles 55.5 Motorcycles 79.5 Lorry 9.5 Van 13.5 Car 84.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Source: Field survey, April 2019

Figure 6-17: Ownership of Vehicles and Other Household Items among the Respondents

Table 6-17: Availability of Services and Their Efficiency as Perceived by the Respondents

Perceived level of satisfaction Types of facilities Satisfactory Moderate Unsatisfactory Total

Electricity 90.5 6.0 3.5 100.0

Water 89.5 9.0 1.5 100.0

Public phone 27.5 24.0 48.5 100.0

Post office 54.5 30.5 15.0 100.0

Clinic 65.5 30.5 4.0 100.0

Hospital 65.5 30.5 4.0 100.0

Road network 79.5 16.0 4.5 100.0

Bus services 45.5 44.5 10.0 100.0

Taxi/services 50.5 44.5 5.0 100.0

Markets 60.5 30.5 9.0 100.0 Page | 6-51

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Perceived level of satisfaction Types of facilities Satisfactory Moderate Unsatisfactory Total

Shops 60.5 29.5 10.0 100.0

Place of worship 84.0 11.0 5.0 100.0

Community hall 56.0 33.0 11.0 100.0

Waste collection 54.0 28.0 18.0 100.0

Fire brigade 54.5 30.5 15.0 100.0

Policing 56.0 26.0 18.0 100.0

Entertainment 47.5 26.0 26.5 100.0

Sports and 47.5 28.0 24.5 100.0 recreation

Overall development 64.5 28.5 7.0 100.0 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

The existing facilities in the study area are also important for understanding the socioeconomic status of the local community. Table 6.17 shows the level of satisfaction of respondent towards the efficiency of the basic amenities and services that has been provided to them. Majority of them were aware of the level of the availability of the various utilities, amenities and services in their area and how they rated each and every one of the facilities. Majority of respondents are satisfied with the facilities available at Pulau Indah, except for post office services which only 27.5 percent only satisfied. Overall, the services provided in Pulau Indah are satisfactory for respondents, which is 60 percent of them are very satisfied.

iv) Income Figure 6-18 shows the income distribution among the respondents. Generally, the highest income among the respondents is between ranks of RM1001-RM2000, which is 36.5 percent. Second highest is between RM2001-RM3000 (25.0 %). Others showed 16.0 percent earning less than RM1000 a month. Followed by income more than RM3001 and above is less than 10 percent. Overall, level of household income in study area is considered moderate high where 85.0 percent (16.0 %, 36.5 %, 25.0 %, and 7.5 %) of the families living in the area earn between RM1001 to RM4000 per month.

Page | 6-52

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Income

NA 9.5 > RM5001 2.5 RM4001-RM5001 3 RM3001-RM4000 7.5 RM2001-RM3000 25 RM1001-RM2000 36.5 < RM1000 16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Percent

Source: Field survey, April.2019

Figure 6-18: Respondents’ Income in Study Area

6.4.1.4 Awareness, Perception and Acceptability

Several questions pertaining to awareness and perceptions towards the proposed project for proposed project in the area were asked in the questionnaire survey. Majority of the respondents were aware of the level of the availability of the various utilities, amenities and services in the surrounding of the proposed project. Generally, respondents in the study area are aware of existing developments as well as other developments to be developed in Pulau Indah.

i) Awareness

A variety of questions were asked to the respondents in order to assess their awareness on the project since the perceived impacts of the project on the general wellbeing of the respondents and their community are of great interest to this study. With respect to their knowledge of the proposed project (Table 6-18), only 12.5 percent of the residents were aware of it and the main source is from the ketua kampong (3.5 %), household members (4.5 %) and other villagers (4.5 %). Page | 6-53

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Table 6.18: Awareness and Knowledge about Proposed Tin Ore Smelting and Refining

Awareness and knowledge Percent Awareness:

Knew about the project 12.5 Did not know 52.0 Not sure 35.5 Source of knowledge:

Via media 0.0 Via village head and Penghulu 3.5 Via household member 4.5 Via other villagers 4.5 NA 87.5 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

ii) Perception of Impacts on Socio-Economic

Based on finding shows in Table 6-19, almost one-third of the respondents believe that the proposed projects will employment opportunities to local population (29.0 %) and employment opportunities to household members (23.5 %). Furthermore, 45.5 percent of them agreed that proposed project will attract foreign worker to come and work. As overall, almost half of the respondents believe that the proposed project does not benefit to them. Further perception of project disadvantages shows that almost all of the indicators presented do not benefit to them. For example, almost two-third of them believes that the proposed project does not affect loss of source of income (69.0 %) among them.

Table 6-19: Perception on Socio-Economic Impact

Perception Yes No Not sure Total Advantages Employment opportunities to your household 100 29.0 45.5 25.5 members Employment opportunities to local population 23.5 51.0 25.5 100 Improvement of basic amenities 16.0 60.5 23.5 100 Increased value of land / property 26.5 45.0 28.5 100 Increased standard of living 12.0 55.0 33.0 100 Page | 6-54

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Increased business opportunities 9.5 59.0 31.5 100 Increased opportunity for house ownership 25.0 49.0 26.0 100 Attract workers 45.5 44.0 10.5 100 Disadvantages Loss of employment 17.5 65.0 17.5 100 Loss of source of income 10.5 69.0 20.5 100 Displaced 14.5 60.5 25.5 100 Loss of property 14.0 63.5 22.5 100 Marginalization of existing population 11.5 69.5 19.0 100 Probability of locals being marginalized 11.5 67.5 21.0 100 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

iii) Perception of Impact on Health and Safety

Perception of impact on health and safety shows that most of the indicators does not affect to the respondents (see Table 6.9). The highest percentage would be potential impacts on their health and safety is the possibility of causing air pollution (49.0 %). Overall, the number of percentage of respondents that give bad valuation for all those criteria was approximately low. The least apprehensive are the effect of the proposed project to potentially increased accident and communicable diseases which are 19.0 and 21.5 percent respectively (Table 6-20).

Table 6-20: Perception of Impacts on Health and Safety

Percentage (%) Perception of impact on health and safety Yes No Not sure Total Increased accident 19.0 63.5 17.5 100 Increased noise pollution 30.5 50.5 19.0 100 Increased congestion 32.5 44.5 23.0 100 Increased air pollution 49.0 39.0 12.0 100 Increased water pollution 32.0 39.0 29.0 100 Disturb peace / tranquility 27.5 69.5 3.0 100 Increased communicable diseases 21.5 70.0 8.5 100 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

Page | 6-55

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

iv) Perception of Impacts on Aesthetics and Culture

Table 6-21 shows an analysis of the perception of impacts on aesthetics and culture. As can be seen from the table, some of the respondents were fairly sure about the impacts of the proposed project on the aesthetics and culture of the area. Finding shows the high percentage (more than two-thirds) of them saying the proposed project would affect the air quality (82.5 %) and the water quality (50.0 %) of the area. Also, more than two-third of the respondent’s perception on aesthetics and culture would not be impacted, such as on tranquillity of the area, community integration, local tradition, place of worship and other important buildings.

Table 6-21: Rating of Perception of Impacts on Aesthetics and Culture

Perception of impact an Percentage (%) Aesthetics and Culture Yes No Not sure Total Affect landform of the area 37.5 55.0 7.5 100 Affect beauty of landscape 41.5 49.0 9.5 100 Affect air quality 82.5 10.5 7.0 100 Affect water quality 77.5 15.5 7.0 100 Affect tranquility of the area 15.0 75.0 10.0 100 Affect community integration 12.5 80.0 7.5 100 Affect local tradition 11.5 79.5 9.0 100 Affect place of worship 9.5 83.5 7.0 100 Affect important buildings 7.5 80.0 12.5 100 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

v) Perception of Impact on Basic Utilities and Amenities

The impact on amenities and facilities also one of the indicators of physical changed that can be expected for any proposed project. In this study, overall impacts of increased demand on basic utilities and amenities were affected, whereas almost two-third of the listed perception. Table 6-22 shows the respondents perception of the proposed project impact on basic utilities and amenities. This phenomenon is not surprising as most of the residents were aware that every development on the Pulau Indah will increase the demand of existing utilities and amenities. For example, 70.0

Page | 6-56

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

percent of them agreed that proposed project will increase demand in police services due to the possibility of the presence immigrants.

Table 6-22: Perception of Impacts on Basic Utilities and Amenities

Percentage (%) Perception Yes No Not sure Total Increased demand in housing 60.5 27.5 12.0 100 Increased demand in garbage disposal 67.5 30.0 2.5 100 Increased demand in health services 68.5 30.0 1.5 100 Increased demand in police services 70.0 27.5 2.5 100 Increased demand in fire-fighting services 62.5 28.5 26.3 100 Source: Field survey, April 2019

vi) Assessment of level of Acceptability

Overall, analysis of the perception of respondent assessment of the proposed project showed that majority of the respondent’ view of the project would bring more positive impacts (64.5 %). In terms of level acceptance of the proposed project, the analysis of the survey showed almost half (46.5 %) of the respondents agreed with the proposed project (Table 6-23).

Table 6-23: Level of Assessment and Acceptability of the Proposed Project Level of acceptability Total More Positive impacts 64.5 More Negative impacts 35.5 Total 100.0 Acceptability of project Total Agree 46.5 Disagree 31.0 Not response / no answer 22.5 Total 100 Source: Field survey, April. 2019

Page | 6-57

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

vii) Reason for Agreeing and Disagreeing

Reasons for agreeing and disagreeing with proposed project indicate the variety of reasons given by respondents. Table 6-24 shows the reasons stated by the respondent to the proposed project. Generally, there are four main reasons the respondents agree with this project, which is to increase job opportunities (45.0 %), increased development/facilities surrounding (23.5 %), developing of Pulau Indah (17.5 %) and because of the government's project then they have to agree (13.5 %).

Furthermore, the reasons of the respondents disagree with the proposed project are as follows: project impact during construction phase (20.4 %), air quality problem (36.6 %) and increase of foreign workers (11.8 %). In addition, the existing operations of factory around Pulau Indah are evidence of the negative impact that the respondents disagree with this proposed project (31.2 %).

Table 6-24: Perceived Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Project Reason for agreeing/disagreeing Percentage Reasons for Agreeing: Job opportunity 45.0 Increased development/facilities surrounding 23.0 Developing of Pulau Indah 17.5 Agree due to Government project 13.9 Total 100.0

Reasons for Disagreeing: Impact during construction (lorry in-out) 20.4 Existing factory surrounding not well-maintained 31.2 Air quality problems 36.6 Increased of foreign workers 11.8 Total 100.0 Source: Field survey, April 2019

Page | 6-58

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.4.2 Traffic

The proposed Project site can be accessed through major route i.e South Klang Valley Expressway (SKVE) and via Pulau Indah Highway (Federal Route 181).

Apart from that, other road network to be involved shall be North-South Highway which connects MSC’s current operating smelting plant in Butterworth, Penang to this proposed site in Pulau Indah. MSC planned to cease operation in the Butterworth and relocate to this proposed site. Also shown in the figure is MSC’s operating mine in Kelian Intan, Perak (Rahman Hydraulic Tin) which is one of the site options to dispose of the tin slag. The road network to be involved during all stages of this Project is shown in Figure 6-19 and its description as follows:

▪ Transportation of raw product & final products: Via South Klang Valley Expressway and Pulau Indah Highway (Federal Route 181) ▪ Transportation of equipment (MSC’s ceased plant): Via North-South Highway to Pulau Indah Industrial Park Via South Klang Valley Expressway and Pulau Indah Highway (Federal Route 181) ▪ Disposal of waste (tin slag): Via North-South Highway to Kelian Intan, Perak (Rahman Hydraulic Tin)

Page | 6-59

CHAPTER 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-19: Road Network Involved in this Project

Page | 6-60