01 PDF

No.
SEWERAGE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER, AND
COMMUNICATIONS
MALAYSIA
THE STUDY ON
IMPROVEMENT OF PLANNING CAPABILITY
IN SEWERAGE SECTOR
IN MALAYSIA
FINAL REPORT
MAIN REPORT
MARCH 2009
JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

NJS CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.
and
NIHON SUIDO CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.
GED
JR
09-022
Structure of Report
Main Report
Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of

Sewerage Catchments/Projects
Exchange Rate
US Dollar (US$) 1.00

= Malaysian Ringgit (RM) 3.4575
=
Japanese Yen () 104.30
(As of 30 September 2008)

Source: Representative Exchange Rates for Selected Currencies for September
2008, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
PREFACE
In response to a request from the Government of Malaysia, the Government of Japan decided to
conduct a study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia and
entrusted to the study to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
JICA selected and dispatched a study team headed by Mr. Ikuo Miwa, Senior Chief Engineer of
NJS Consultants Co., LTD. and consists of NJS Consultants Co., LTD. and Nihon Suido
Consultants Co., LTD. between March, 2007 and December, 2008.
The team held discussions with the officials concerned of the Government of Malaysia and
conducted field surveys at the study area. Upon returning to Japan, the team conducted further
studies and prepared this final report.
I hope that this report will contribute to the improvement of planning capability in sewerage
sector in Malaysia and to the enhancement of friendly relationship between our two countries.
Finally, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the officials concerned of the Government
of Malaysia for their close cooperation extended to the study.
March 2009
Ariyuki Matsumoto,
Vice-President
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Mr. Ariyuki Matsumoto

Vice-President
Letter of Transmittal
Dear Sir,
We are pleased to submit to you this Final Report on the Study on Improvement of Planning
Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia. This report incorporates the views and suggestions
of the authorities concerned of the Government of Japan, including your Agency. It also
includes the comments made on the Draft Final Report by the Sewerage Services Department,
the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications and other government agencies concerned
of Malaysia.
This report contains the Study Team's findings, conclusions and recommendations derived from
the three phases of the Study. The main objective of the Phase I was to conduct the sewerage
sector analysis, planning capability assessment of agencies concerned and preparation of the
draft Manual for reviewing/evaluation/prioritizing of catchment strategies and sewerage projects
and the draft revised Guidelines for Developers Volumes 1 and 4 (concerned with sludge
treatment and disposal). That of Phase II was to apply and improve the draft Manual and draft
revised Guidelines, and that of the Phase III was to finalize them and make recommendations
for improvement of planning capability.
We wish to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to your Agency, the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of the
Government of Japan for their valuable advice and suggestions. We would also like to express
our deep appreciation to the relevant officers of the Sewerage Services Department, National
Water Services Commission and Indah Water Konsortium Bhd. Sdn. of the Government of the
Malaysia for their close cooperation and assistance extended to us throughout our Study.
Very truly yours,
March 2009
Ikuo Miwa
Team Leader
Study on Improvement of Planning Capability
in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia
The Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia
Final Report
Kota Kinabalu
Ipoh
MALAYSIA
Kuala Lumpur
Location Map
Final Report
THE STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT OF PLANNING CAPABILITY IN

SEWERAGE SECTOR IN MALAYSIA
FINAL REPORT
MAIN REPORT
Table of Contents
Preface
Letter of Transmittal
Location Map
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures
List of Abbrebiation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1-1
1.1
Background ......................................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Objective of the Study ......................................................................................................1-1
1.3
Scope of the Study ...........................................................................................................1-1
1.4
Formation of the Study .....................................................................................................1-3
1.4.1 General ..........................................................................................................................1-3

1.4.2 Implementation Set-up of Japanese Side ......................................................................1-3
1.4.3 Implementation Set-up of Malaysian Side ....................................................................1-4
CHAPTER 2
2.1
SECTOR ANALYSIS REPORT .........................................................................2-1
Backgrounds of Water Supply and Sewerage Sectors in Malaysia ..................................2-1
2.1.1 Water Supply Sector .....................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Sewerage Sector ............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Water Services Industry Reform ...................................................................................2-2
2.1.4 Water and Sewerage-related Organisation and their Roles and Relationships ..............2-3
2.2
Final Report
Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications (MEWC) ...............................................2-4
2.2.1 Sewerage Services Department (SSD) .........................................................................2-4

2.2.2 Water Sector (WS) ......................................................................................................2-23
2.2.3 National Water Services Commission (SPAN) ...........................................................2-23
2.3
Water Asset Management Company (WAMCO) .............................................................2-29
2.4
Water Supply Services Agencies......................................................................................2-31
2.5
Indah Water Konsortium (Sewerage Services Agency) ...................................................2-37
2.6
Other Sewerage Service Operators in the Peninsula ........................................................2-51
2.6.1 Kelantan State...............................................................................................................2-51

2.6.2 Johor Bahru City and PBT Pasir Gudang .....................................................................2-51
2.7
Water and Sewerage Sector in Sabah State Government ...............................................2-51
2.8
Kota Kinabalu City Hall .................................................................................................2-59
2.9
The Future of the Sewerage Sector ................................................................................2-67
2.10
Recommendations Based on the Sector Analysis Findings............................................2-69
2.10.1 Further Improvement of Sewerage Enterprises Efficiency.........................................2-69

2.10.2 Sewerage Tariff Revision............................................................................................2-70
2.10.3 Increased Public Relations Activities .......................................................................2-71
2.10.4 Government Portion of Sewerage Charge to Cover Lower Tariff
for Low Income Groups .....................................................................................2-72
2.10.5 Setting Rules for Federal Government Subsidisation of IWK ..................................2-73
2.10.6 Sewerage Capital Contribution to Encourage Integration and Rationalisation .........2-74
2.10.7 Measures to Increase Public Sewer Connection .........................................................2-75
CHAPTER 3
MANUAL FOR REVIEWING/EVALUATION/PRIORITISING

OF SEWERAGE CATCHMENTS/PROJECTS ...............................................3-1
3.1
Catchment Strategy Report ..............................................................................................3-1
3.2
Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage Catchments/Projects ..........3-4
3.2.1 Possible Applications of the Manual ..............................................................................3-4

3.2.2 Current Status of Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage
Catchments/Projects .............................................................................................3-6
3.2.3 Consideration for Preparation of the Manual ................................................................3-9
3.2.4 Methodology for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage
Catchments/Projects .............................................................................................3-9
3.3
Possible Evaluation Items and Indicators .......................................................................3-10
3.3.1 Importance of City/Area .............................................................................................3-11
ii
Final Report
3.3.2 Pollution Loads ...........................................................................................................3-16

3.3.3 Incidence of Waterborne Diseases ..............................................................................3-21
3.3.4 Water Pollution Status of Receiving Water Bodies .....................................................3-22
3.3.5 Complaints from the Public ........................................................................................3-26
3.3.6 Beneficial Water Use of Receiving Water Bodies .......................................................3-28
3.3.7 Rationalisation Impact of Existing Sewerage Treatment Plants .................................3-31
3.3.8 Conservation of Local Water Cycle ............................................................................3-36
3.3.9 First-time Permanent CSTP ........................................................................................3-37
3.3.10 Reliability of Project Implementation .......................................................................3-39
3.3.11 Conditions of Existing Sewerage Facilities ..............................................................3-39
3.3.12 Cost ...........................................................................................................................3-43
3.3.13 User Affordability to Pay ..........................................................................................3-47
3.3.14 Promotion of Sludge Treatment ................................................................................3-48
3.3.15 Consideration of Special Conditions ........................................................................3-49
3.3.16 Selected Evaluation Items and Indicators .................................................................3-50
3.4
Trial Application to Sewerage Catchments Proposed in 24 CSRs/SLPs ........................3-51
3.4.1 Problems in Data Collection .......................................................................................3-51

3.4.2 Procedures for Application of the Manual for Prioritising Sewerage
Catchments/Projects ...........................................................................................3-57
3.4.3 Considerations for Scoring .........................................................................................3-59
3.4.4 Design of Scoring Sheet .............................................................................................3-71
3.4.5 Trial Application to 24 Areas ......................................................................................3-72
3.4.6 Catchment/Project Selection for Implementation .......................................................3-80
3.5
Trial Application of the Manual to Upper Langat River Basin ......................................3-81
3.6
Application of the Manual to Actual Project Basis ........................................................3-88
3.7
Manual ...........................................................................................................................3-89
CHAPTER 4
REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL.1 PARTS B & C .....................................4-1
4.1
Discrepancies in the Current Catchment Strategy Reports ................................................4-1
4.2
Revisions Introduced into Guideline Vol.1 ........................................................................4-2
4.3
Examination of Revision Items Based on the Results of Trial Application .....................4-10
CHAPTER 5
REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL.4 CONCERNING SLUDGE

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL .......................................................................5-1
iii
Final Report
5.1
Unit Processes and the Combination of Unit Processes.....................................................5-1
5.2
Unit Processes Included in the Guideline ..........................................................................5-2
5.3
Methods for Determining Quantity and Dimensions of Facilities and Equipment ............5-2
5.4
Emerging Sludge Treatment Technologies.........................................................................5-3
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PLANNING

CAPABILITY IN THE SEWERAGE SECTOR ................................................6-1
APPENDIX
Chapter 3-related
Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage Catchments/Projects
Appendix 3-A Hotel guests by locality (2007)

Appendix 3-B Cumulative frequency curve of sewage effluent by treatment process
Appendix 3-C Incidence of notifiable communicable diseases in Malaysia (1990-2005)
Appendix 3-D Water Quality Index (WQI)
Appendix 3-E Reduction in O&M manpower requirements for STPs
Appendix 3-F Treatment efficiency of existing STPs under IWK O&M by local authority
Appendix 3-G Rainfall and wet days of major cities in Malaysia
Appendix 3-H Reference
Appendix 3-I
Treatment efficiency by existing STPs and ISTs
Chapter 4-related
Appendix. 4
Guidelines for Developers Volume 1 Parts B&C
Chapter 5-related
Appendix. 5
Guidelines for Developers Volume 4 Concerning Sludge Treatment and

Disposal
Chapter 6-related
Appendix. 6
Example of Construction Cost and O&M Cost Curve
IEE
Appendix. 7
Social Consideration and Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)
iv
Final Report
List of Tables and Figures

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.4.1
Implementation Set-up of the Study
1-3
CHAPTER 2 SECTOR ANALYSIS REPORT

Table 2.1.1
Types of Water Supply Organisations in Malaysia before January 2005
Table 2.1.2
Key Roles of the Water and Sewerage-related Organisations
Table 2.2.1
Annual Budget and Expenditures of MEWC
Table 2.2.2
Annual SSD Expenditures
Table 2.2.3
Receipts and Payments of the Trust Account
Table 2.2.4
Appeal Committee at Ministry Level
Table 2.2.5
Appeal Committee at Department Level
Table 2.2.6
SSD Client Charter on Service Quality and Response Time
Table 2.4.1
Revenue and Operating Expenditures of Water Supply Organisations
Table 2.4.2
Domestic and Industrial Water Rate ( 2005)
Table 2.4.3
Characteristics of Water Supply Enterprise in Six States (2005)
Table 2.5.1
Number of Staff of IWK and Major Departments (Last Five Years)
Table 2.5.2
No. of O&M Staff, STPs and Sewerage Facilities
Table 2.5.3
Revenue and Expenditures of Indah Water Konsortium (2002 - 2007)
Table 2.5.4
Financial Assistance by Federal Government to Indah Water Konsortium
Table 2.5.5
Balance Sheet of Indah Water Konsortium (2002 - 2007)
Table 2.5.6
Financial and Managerial Indicators of IWK
Table 2.5.7
Sewerage Tariff for Domestic Premises
2-46
Table 2.5.8
Sewerage Tariff for Industrial Premises
2-46
Table 2.5.9
Sewerage Tariff for Commercial Premises
2-46
Table 2.5.10 Sewerage Tariff for Government Premises
2-47
Table 2.5.11
2-1
2-3
2-17
2-18
2-20
2-21
Collection Efficiency of Sewerage Bills
2-21
2-22
2-33
2-34
2-35
2-39
2-39
2-40
2-41
2-42
2-42
2-48
Table 2.5.12 Number of Customers by Category (Last 10 Years)
2-49
Table 2.5.13
Average Sewerage Tariff Billed by Customer Category
Table 2.5.14
Average Monthly Tariff as a Percentage of Average Monthly
2-49
Household Income 2-50

Table 2.7.1
Typical Sewerage O&M Staffing at JKR District Offices and JKR District
Staff Assigned to Sewerage Facilities O&M
2-55
Final Report
Table 2.7.2
Approved JKR Budget Appropriations (2005)
Table 2.7.3
Appropriations and Actual Sewerage O&M Expenditures, JKR (2005)
Table 2.8.1
Operational Status of Sewage Treatment Plants under DBKK
Table 2.8.2
Revenue and Expenditures of DBKK
Table 2.8.3
DBKK Sewerage Services-related Revenue and Expenditures
Table 2.8.4
Typical Sewerage Capital Contribution Rate in DBKK
Table 2.8.5
Estimated Billed Sewerage Rate per Customer
Table 2.10.1
Average Sewerage Tariff as a Percentage of Average Household Income
Figure 2.2.1
Organisation Structure of Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications

(As of October 2008)
Figure 2.2.2
2-58
2-58
2-63
2-64
2-64
2-65
2-66
2-70
2-4
Proposed Organisation Structure of Sewerage Services Department

(As of November 2008)
2-5
Figure 2.2.3
Jurisdiction of SSD Regional Offices 2-13
Figure 2.2.4
Changes of Development Expenses
Figure 2.2.5
Organisation Structure of SPAN
Figure 2.3.1
Organisation Structure of WAMCO
Figure 2.5.1
Organisation Structure of Indah Water Konsortium Sdn. Bhd
2-18
2-25
2-30
(As of Oct. 2008) 2-38

Figure 2.5.2
Changes of Major Cost Items from FY2002 to FY2007
Figure 2.5.3
Collection Efficiency of Sewerage Bills and Components of Collected Tariffs 2-48
Figure 2.5.4
Public Performance of IWK
Figure 2.7.1
Organisation of the Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development
Figure 2.7.2
Organisation of Public Works Department (JKR)
Figure 2.7.3
Organisation of the Sewerage Branch
Figure 2.8.1
Organisation Structure of DBKK
Figure 2.8.2
Organisation Structure of DBKK Engineering Department
Figure 2.8.3
Current Sewerage System in DBKK
Figure 2.8.4
DBKK Sewerage Rate Collection Trend
Figure 2.9.1
Current Structure of the Sewerage Sector (As of August 2007)
Figure 2.9.2
Structure of the Sewerage Sector after November 2007
2-41
2-50
2-52
2-54
2-54
2-60
2-61
2-62
2-66
2-67
2-68
Figure 2.10.1 Sewerage Tariff as a Percentage of Ave. Household Income in Malaysia

and Affordability Limits according to International Agencies 2-70
vi
Final Report
CHAPTER 3 MANUAL FOR REVIEWING/EVALUATION/PRIORITISING

OF SEWERAGE CATCHMENTS/PROJECTS
Table 3.2.1
Examples Contents of Existing Catchment Strategy Reports
Table 3.2.2
Ninth Malaysia Plan Sewerage Project Selection Criteria
Table 3.3.1
Top 15 Urban Centre Population in 1991 and 2000
Table 3.3.2
Classification of Urban Centres in Malaysia Based on Population Size
3-5
3-7
3-12
in 2000 3-13
Table 3.3.3
Calculation Sheet Used for PE Projection by the Land Use Method
Table 3.3.4
Water Quality of Sewage Effluent from STPs under IWK O&M
Table 3.3.5
Compliance with Currently Proposed Sewage Effluent Standards by DOE 3-21
Table 3.3.6
Water Pollution Classification of Rivers Based on WQI
Table 3.3.7
Water Pollution Status of Rivers Based on WQI
Table 3.3.8
Water Pollution Status of Rivers Based on WQI by Parameter
Table 3.3.9
Water Quality Classification of Rivers Based on WQI
Table 3.3.10
Complaints Received by IWK (2003-2007)
Table 3.3.11
Functional/Operational Complaints regarding Existing STPs under IWK
3-19
3-23
3-23
3-23
3-24
3-27
Table 3.3.12 Description of Sewage Effluent Standard in Existing CSRs

Table 3.3.13 O&M Staff Requirement for IWK
3-14
3-28
3-29
3-31
Table 3.3.14 Man-year Reduction by STPs to Be Rationalised in Jinjang-Kepong

Table 3.3.15 BOD5 Loads Discharged from Existing STPs and ISTs (Peninsula)
3-32
3-33
Table 3.3.16 Existence of Permanent CSTPs Authorized by SSD
3-37
Table 3.3.17 Government-funded Sewerage Provision in the Past
3-38
Table 3.3.18 New Treated Sewage Effluent Discharge Standards under Consideration
by DOE 3-42
Table 3.3.19 Results of Trial Application of NPV/PE to 25 Catchments
3-45
Table 3.3.20 Results of Trial Application of Construction Cost per Unit of

Total Pollution Loads to 32 Projects 3-46
Table 3.3.21 Water and Sewage Expenditures as a Percentage of Total
Table 3.3.22
3-48
Scoring Based on the Scale and Solids Concentration of

Sludge Treatment 3-49
Table 3.4.1
Year of Issue and Target Year for CSRs and SLPs 3-52
Table 3.4.2
Planning Units in CSRs and SLPs
Table 3.4.3
Basic Information Available
Table 3.4.4
Score Frequency Based on Design PE Class
Table 3.4.5
Evaluation Index Intervals for Scoring in Groups A , B & C 3-69
Table 3.4.6
Function of Tables on Scoring Sheet
3-53
3-54
vii
3-68
3-71
Table 3.4.7
Final Report
Example of Construction Cost per Project of Different Design PE

Groups 3-80
Table 3.5.1
Outline of 12 Sewerage Catchments Proposed for the Upper Langat
River Basin 3-82

Table 3.5.2
Water Pollution Satus of the Upper Langat River Basin
Table 3.5.3
WTPs in the Upper Langat River Basin
Table 3.5.4
Water Intake Closure at WTPs in the Upper Langat River Basin 3-85
Table 3.6.1
Relationship between Catchments and Projects in Prioritisation
Figure 3.2.1
Application of the Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of
3-84
3-85
Catchment Strategies/Plans and Sewerage Projects
3-89
3-4
Figure 3.2.2
Location of Study Areas in Table 3.2.1
Figure 3.3.1
Possible Evaluation Items
Figure 3.3.2
Hotel Guests by Locality (Based on Appendix 3-A)
Figure 3.3.3
Definition of Pollution Loads
Figure 3.3.4
Water Quality of Sewage Effluent from STPs under IWK O&M
Figure 3.3.5
Cumulative Frequency Curve of Sewage Effluent BOD5 from STPs
3-20
Figure 3.3.6
Cumulative Frequency Curve of Sewage Effluent NH3-N from STPs
3-20
Figure 3.3.7
Incidence of Waterborne Diseases in Malaysia (1990-2005)
Figure 3.3.8
Correlation between BOD5 Index and NH3-N Index
Figure 3.3.9
Complaints Received by IWK (2003-2007) (except for Desludging)
3-6
3-11
3-15
3-17
3-18
3-22
3-25
3-27
Figure 3.3.10 Estimated O&M Manpower Reduction for Existing STPs and ISTs 3-34
Figure 3.3.11 Correlation between O&M Manpower Requirement for STPs and
Connected PE 3-34
Figure 3.3.12 Conservation of Local Water Cycle
Figure 3.3.13 Existence of permanent CSTP
3-36
3-38
Figure 3.3.14 Simple Example of O&M Cost Comparison
3-43
Figure 3.3.15 Distribution and Range of Indicators for 32 Catchments
3-47
Figure 3.4.1
Design PE Divided by Current PE vs. Design PE
Figure 3.4.2
Flowchart for Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments/Projects
Figure 3.4.3
Weightage Allocation by Prioritisation Type
Figure 3.4.4
Rankings of Design PE and Totally- Balanced Type Prioritisation of

Sewerage Catchments (W15)
3-55
3-58
3-63
3-64
Figure 3.4.5
Change in Ranking by Type in Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments (W30) 3-65
Figure 3.4.6
Change in Ranking by Type in Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments (W50) 3-66
Figure 3.4.7
Change in Ranking in Environmentally-Friendly Type Prioritisation of

Sewerage Catchments (W15,30 & 50)
viii
3-67
Figure 3.4.8
Final Report
Comparison of Classification Intervals for Design Population
3-62
Figure 3.4.9(1)
Scoring Sheet for Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments/Projects
3-73
Figure 3.4.9(2)
Scoring Sheet for Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchment/Projects 3-74
Figure 3.4.10(1)
Example of Point Allocation Criteria Set in Advance 3-75
Figure 3.4.10(2)
Example of Point Allocation Criteria Generated by Calculations 3-75
Figure 3.4.11 Totally-Balanced Type Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments
(for All PE at Full Design PE, W15)
3-76

(for PE100,000 at full design PE, W15)
3-77

(for 100,000>PE50,000 at full design PE, W15)
3-78

(for PE<50,000 at full design PE, W15)
Figure 3.5.1
3-79
Location of DOE Monitoring Stations and Water Intakes

in the Upper Langat River Basin 3-83
Figure 3.5.2
Design PE vs. Construction Cost in the Upper Langat River Basin 3-87
Figure 3.6.1
Concept of Catchments/Projects
3-88
CHAPTER 4 REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL.1 PARTS B & C

Table 4.2.1
Example of Evaluation of Sewerage Alternatives
4-3
Table 4.2.2
Typical Sludge Production for Mechanised Plant
4-6
Table 4.2.3
Expected Revenue and Expenditures
Table 4.2.4
Revenue and Expenditures Stream of Sewerage Catchment Strategy
4-8
Option X 4-9
Table 4.3.1
Comparison of Pollution Load for the Three Options

(Prepared in a Trial Study of Ipoh)
Table 4.3.2
Evaluation Table of Ipoh Sewerage Catchment Strategy Prepared

in a Trial Application
Table 4.3.3
4-20
Modified Evaluation Table of Ipoh Sewerage Catchment Strategy Prepared

Table 4.3.4
4-19
4-21
Comparison of Ipoh and Kota Kinabalu Tables of Contents
ix
4-22
Table 4.3.5
Final Report
Example of Staged Implementation of Sludge Management in Ipoh Trial

Study (Transport of Sludge from Sub-catchment to CSTP in the Immediate
Term)
4-24
Table 4.3.6
Comparison of Sludge Production
Figure 4.2.1
Example of Usage of Pollution Load
Figure 4.2.2
Analytical Approach for Identification of Appropriate Sewerage and

Sludge Management Schemes
4-24
4-3
4-4
Figure 4.2.3
Example of Local Water Conservation
Figure 4.2.4
Example of Sludge Management Alternatives
Figure 4.2.5
Options A and B for Comparison of Current and New Financial Analysis
Figure 4.2.6
Average Sewage Tariff Revenue per PE for the Last Seven Years
Figure 4.3.1
Summary Sheet of Ipoh Sewerage Catchment Strategy Prepared

4-5
4-7
4-9
4-12
Figure 4.3.2
Modified Summary Sheet of Ipoh Sewerage Catchment Strategy
Figure 4.3.3
Analytical Approach for Identification of Appropriate Sewerage

and Sludge Management Schemes
Figure 4.3.4
4-8
Final Disposal Methods
4-16
4-21
4-25
CHAPTER 5 REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL.4 CONCERNING SLUDGE

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Figure 5.1.1
Typical Sludge Treatment Flow Related to Sludge Disposal and Reuse
5-2
CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF

PLANNING CAPABILITY IN SEWERAGE SECTOR
Figure 6.1
Example Map Showing Locations of DOE Monitoring Stations, WIPs for Water
Supply and Discharge Points of Sewage Effluent from Proposed CSTPs
Figure 6.2
Catchment Strategy Reports Prepared
Figure 6.3
Action Plan for Improvement of Planning Capability
6-2
6-3
6-5
Final Report
List of Abbreviations
AL
Aerated Lagoon
AS
Activated Sludge processes
ASMA
Alan Sekitar Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
ATM
Automated teller machine
BD
Bio Drum process
BF
Bio Filter process
BS
Bio Soil process
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOD5
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
B/C
Benefit / Cost (Cost Benefit Ratio)
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
COO
Chief Operation Officer
CSR
Catchment Strategy Report
CS/P
Catchment Strategy Plan
CST
Communal Septic Tank
CSTP
Centralized Sewage Treatment Plant
CSTF
Centralized Sludge Treatment Facilities
DBKK
Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabaru (Kota Kinabaru City Hall)
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DOE
Derartment of Environment, Malaysia
EQA
Environmental Quality Act
FY
Fiscal Year
IBRD
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
IWK
Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd
IT
Imhoff Tank
IST
Individual Septic Tank
JBIC
Japan Bank for International Cooperation
JICA
JKR
Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department)
LTC
License to Contravene
MEWC
Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication
MNRE
Ministry of Natural Resources
MOF
Ministry of Finence
xi
NPV
Net Present Value
NRW
Non-revenue Water
OD
Oxidation Ditch
O&G
Oil and Grease
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OP
Oxidation Pond
Phosphorous
PE
Population Equivalent
PIU
Project Implementation Unit
RBC
Rotating Biological Contactor process
RM
Ringgit Malaysia
SCC
Sewerage Capital Contribution
SDP
Sewerage Development Plan
SI
Sub-index
SPAN
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara

(National Water Services Commission)
SS
Suspended Solids
SSA
Sewerages Services Act
SSD
Sewerage Service Department
STP
Sewage Treatment Plant
TF
Trickling Filter process
TOR
Terms of Reference
UASB
Upward Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket process
WAMCO
Water Asset Management Company
WS
Water Sector
WSIA
Water Services Industry Act
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
WQI
Water Quality Index
m2
Square Metres
Cubic Meters
mg/L
Milligrammes per litre
xii
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In response to the official request of the Government of Malaysia, the Government of Japan has
agreed to conduct the Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in
Malaysia (the Study), in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations of Japan.
Accordingly, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the official agency
responsible for the implementation of the technical cooperation programmes of the Government
of Japan, conducted the Study in close cooperation with the relevant authorities of the
Government of Malaysia during a twenty-four month period from March 2007.
The objective of the Study is to improve planning capability in sewerage sector in Malaysia.
The Study was carried out in accordance with the Scope of Work agreed upon between the
Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications (MEWC) and JICA on the 20th day of
December 2006, as follows:
1) Analysis of the sewerage sector in Malaysia
2) Development of the Manual for reviewing/evaluation/prioritising of catchments
strategies/plans and sewerage projects in the catchment plan
3) Revision of Guidelines for Developers
4) Trial application of the draft Manual and revised Guidelines (Vol. 1) in (2) and (3)
above
5) Recommendations regarding the development of planning capability within in sewerage
sector in Malaysia
The Sewerage Services Department (SSD) on the Malaysian side of the project organised the
steering committee and counterpart team and executed its role in the Study in close cooperation
with the Study Team. The Study Team was in turn supported by the JICA Monitoring
Committee under the general supervision of JICA headquarters.
CHAPTER 2
2.1
SECTOR ANALYSIS REPORT
Background of Water Supply and Sewerage Sector in Malaysia

(1) Water Supply Sector
Prior to the Constitutional Amendments in January 2005, water services were solely a state
S-1
Final Report
matter and the State Governments established different types of water supply organisations.
As of now, some states have fully privatized or corporatized their water supply services
while some states have privatized the operations and maintenance of water treatment plants.
The privatization is executed through concession agreements.
In addition, the water tariffs
differ from state to state, and most states experience high non-revenue water (NRW).
(2) Sewerage Sector
Reliable and efficient sewerage systems contribute greatly to protecting the nations public
health, preserving its water resources, enhancing environmental quality leading to long-term
sustainability of the water supply and sewerage services industry.
Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd (IWK) has been the single concessionaire and has been
given the responsibility to operate and manage all public sewerage systems.
SSD had been
the regulatory body, governed IWK and ensured that IWK fulfill its obligations in
accordance with the concession agreement.
Those responsibilities will be shifted to SPAN.
(3) The Water Services Industry Reform

The Water Service Industry Bill (WSIA) and the National Water Services Commission Bill
were passed by the Malaysian Parliament in May 2006.
The main objectives for
restructuring the industry were:
to enable the Federal Government to assume control and regulation of water supply
and sewerage services from the States;
to ensure that water supply and sewerage services would be jointly regulated;
to set up certifying agencies that would approve plans, certify contractors and
monitor compliance with subsidiary legislation;
to license all water industry players that treat and distribute water, and own
facilities;
to enable current concession holders to migrate to the licensing system through

re-negotiation of their existing agreements with the Commission within a specific
period of time (while concession holders that do not migrate forfeit their
participation rights upon expiration of their concession agreement periods); and
to set targets for service providers with respect to non-revenue water, handling of
consumers, and compliance with water quality requirements, among others.
2.2
Water and Sewerage-Related Organisations and their Roles and Relationships

(1) MEWC
S-2
Final Report
The Sewerage Services Department is responsible for the sewerage sector only while the
Water Sector (WS) is involved in both the sewerage and water sectors. With respect to the
sewerage sector, SSD currently operates in accordance with the Sewerage Services Act 1993
(SSA 1993/Act 508).
The WS, which currently is not actively involved in the sewerage
sector, is expected to have a role on the future development of the sewerage industry,
especially in policy settings.
Though the National Water Services Commission
(Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara in Malay or SPAN) is also under the purview of
the Minister of the MEWC, it is regarded as an independent agency with the enactment of
the SPAN Act and is addressed separately later in this document.
(2) SSD
1) Roles and Organisation
The Sewerage Services Department is one of the major departments in MEWC and is
responsible for planning, constructing and managing sewerage infrastructure.
The
department is headed by a Director General, and is comprised of three divisions, seven

sections, six branch offices and four units.
As of October 2008, this is only a proposed
organisation structure and is still pending approval.

2) Financial Aspects
With respect to the sewerage sector, the total project budget was established in the 5-Year
Malaysia Plan with amounts allocated to SSD and MEWC.
The maximum total amount
allocated to sewerage is RM 3,112.835 million for the term of the 9th Malaysia Plan (2006 2010), which includes approximately RM 1,375.027 million for the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC) project. SSD receives JBIC funds from MEWC without
loan repayments obligations where the Federal Government assumes the burden of loan
repayments.
3) Sewerage Capital Contribution
SSD managed the Sewerage Capital Contribution (SCC) Fund with the approval of
MEWC.
As of October 2008, the Sewerage Capital Contribution is levied on developers
that connect to the existing public STP at the rate of 1% of the developed property value.
After new regulations go into effect, anticipated in January 2009, the SCC will be
administered and controlled by SPAN.
4) Assessment of Sewerage Planning Capabilities
The Planning Division was established in September 2006. There are still several limitations
that need to be addressed for the Division to optimize performance of its functions:
S-3
Final Report
(a) The Division lacks manuals specifically for the purpose of planning. Manuals
provide procedures or processes that guide effective and efficient sewerage
planning.
(b) There are no programmes dedicated to capacity development for planning staff.
(c) No knowledge bank for sewerage system planning exists.
(d) The Planning Division has limited staff.
(3) National Water Services Commission (SPAN)
1) Roles and Staffing
To ensure that water supply and sewerage services are jointly regulated, SPAN will approve
plans, certify contractors, and monitor compliance with subsidiary legislation.
Currently,
the staff strength of SPAN stands at 170 compared with a target level of 190.
To assist SPAN in its payment of staff compensation, office expenses, utility costs, and
other initial start-up costs, the Federal Government approved a seed fund amounting to RM
50 million for a period of five years.
Within the first five-year period, SPAN is expected to
generate enough revenue to allow self-sufficiency without further Government support.

SPAN has been established as a special bureau in the Ministry of Energy, Water and
Communication, and it has been authorized to establish its own fund and to borrow money
outside of the Ministry budget.
License fees are expected to be the largest revenue source for the SPAN Fund.
The license
fee rate is equal to 1% of the previous financial years gross license receipts.
Full
collection of license fees from all existing water and sewerage service entities is anticipated
to sufficiently cover the cost of SPAN operations.
(4) Water Asset Management Company (WAMCO)
With the enactment of the WSIA 2006, WAMCO was established in May 2007.
is to be a facilities licensee under the provisions of the WSIA 2006.
WAMCO
As of November 2008,
the staff strength of WAMCO stands at 41.

Authorized capital of WAMCO is RM 1 billion.
To initiate operations, the Federal
Government provided WAMCO with a seed fund of about RM 100 million as paid-up
capital, which is expected to be increased to RM 500 million by the year 2010.
S-4
As of
Final Report
October 2008, paid-up capital by the Federal Government amounted to RM 410 million.
The bulk of the paid-up capital will be used for asset transfers (ownership) in addition to
other initial establishment costs.
If the agreements for asset transfer are successfully executed, WAMCO would own the
assets and provide all required future capital investments for the assets.
WAMCO will
then lease the assets to service licensees, such as state-owned or private operators.
Service
licensees will be required to pay the asset lease fees in exchange for forgiveness of the
capital investment loans.
WAMCO is expected to raise funds for its future capital
investment needs from government soft loans, local capital markets (bond issuance), and the
private banking sector.
It is expected to obtain loans with lower interest rates and reduce
the heavy burden of loan repayments that current operators face, thereby enabling the
operators to focus on their operations.
(5) Indah Water Konsortium (Sewerage Services Agency)
Indah Water Konsortium (IWK), a wholly-owned company of the Minister of Finance
Incorporated, is Malaysia's national sewerage company and has been entrusted with the task
of developing and maintaining a modern and efficient sewerage system for all Malaysians.
As of December 2007, the total number of staff in the Operations and Maintenance
Department was 2,095, comprising the bulk (79.6%) of IWKs total staff of 2,632.
The
remainder of the staff, other than the three major departments, constitutes less than 10% of
the total staff number.
IWK is a company fully owned by the Ministry of Finance.
sewerage tariffs for its operations.
IWK uses revenues from
IWK has O&M responsibilities that include desludging
septic tanks and repair work within tariff revenue.
However, in the event of large budget
shortfalls, IWK may receive financial support from the Federal Government.
IWKs annual revenue has increased due to ongoing activities focused on expanding its
customer base and improving loan collection. Despite these efforts, net losses have been
mounting for the last six years.
As a result, financial assistance from the Federal
Government to IWK increased to RM 194.2 million for the 2007 fiscal year alone (refer to
Table 1).
S-5
Final Report
Table 1 Financial Assistance from the Federal Government to Indah Water Konsortium
(Unit: Million RM)
2002/52003/4
Year
Assistance from the Federal Government
2003/52004/4
0.0
2004/52005/4
0.0
2005/42005/12
43.2
2006/12006/12
120.0
2007/12007/12
140.0
194.2
Source: JICA Study Team, based on the data provided by IWK
180
160
RM in million
140
120
Electricity cost
100
Staff salary
80
O&M cost
60
Office expense
40
Depreciation cost
Interest expense
20
0
2002/52003/4/1
2003/52004/4/1
2004/52005/4/1
2005/42005/12/1
2006/12006/12/1
2007/12007/12/1
Fiscal Year
Figure 1 Changes in Major Cost Items from FY2002 to FY2007

The causes of the growing net losses are the substantial increases in O&M costs, interest
expense, and electricity costs.
years.
Figure 1 shows trends in major cost items for the last six
O&M costs increased 258% from fiscal year 2002 to 2007.
IWK is trying to provide better operation and maintenance of the facilities by increasing the
number of staff and the size of the O&M expenses to address the increasing number of
sewerage facilities each year.
In order to provide appropriate sewerage service for the long
run, it is necessary for the operator (IWK) to plan for adequate O&M budget.
shall be borne by customers or by the public budget as a last resort.
The costs
Securing an
appropriate O&M budget is vital.

3) Management
IWK bills and collects a sewerage charge from its customers for both septic tank desludging
and connecting to public sewers.
Tariffs for domestic customers are set at a fixed price for
each of three categories based on home values.
Sewerage tariffs for domestic premises
have not been changed for 12 years since January 1997.

Collection efficiency (defined as tariff collections as a percentage of total billed amount
S-6
Final Report
amounts) of the sewerage charge has improved from less than 70% at the end of the 1990s
to around 90% in 2007.
Table 2 shows the sewerage tariff as a percentage of monthly household income.
On
average, for the whole of Malaysia, 0.17% of household income is spent on sewerage tariffs.
The IBRD estimates that 1% of household income is the maximum level for sewerage
service household affordability. The Pan American Health Organisation puts this limit at
1.5%. The current sewerage charge in Malaysia at 0.17% of household income is around
one sixth of this ceiling (1%).
Table 2 Average Monthly Tariff as a Percentage of Average Monthly Household Income
Area
Average Monthly
Household Income 2004
(RM)
Average Monthly Tariff

(Sewerage) 2001-07
(RM)
Ave. Monthly tariff as %

of Ave. Monthly Income
(Sewerage)
Malaysia
3,249
5.5
0.17%
Source: JICA Study Team based on average monthly household income data in the 1999 and 2004 Household Income Surveys
from the Department of Statistics.
2.3
Water and Sewerage Sector in the Sabah State Government
Water and sewerage services in Sabah are administered by the State Ministry of Infrastructure
Development.
There are four departments and one agency under this Ministry: namely, the
Water Department, the Public Works Department, the Railway Department, the Ports and Jetties
Department, and the Sabah Port Authority. The Sabah Water Department is responsible for
water while the Public Works Department is responsible for sewerage services in the State.
The Sabah Water Department is responsible for providing potable water supply throughout the
State from intake, treatment, and distribution to billing and collection.
The Public Works Department (Jabatan Kerja Raya in Malay or JKR) of Sabah is responsible
for planning, design, implementation, and operation and maintenance of Sabah state roads,
bridges, public sewerage facilities and government buildings.
2.4
Kota Kinabalu City Hall
Sewerage management in Kota Kinabalu is undertaken by the Kota Kinabalu City Hall (Dewan
Bandaraya Kota Kinabaru in Malay or DBKK) as one of the engineering services provided for
the city and includes road, drainage, and other public facilities maintenance.
The DBKK
allocates the budget for sewerage services management, and the budget is not independent from
other services.
S-7
Final Report
The Engineering Department in DBKK is responsible for providing engineering support to

DBKK and is in charge of maintenance of drains, sewerage systems, solid waste management,
roads, public facilities and public buildings under its jurisdiction; plan approvals; and
inspections of new structures, buildings, housing and infrastructure developments within Kota
Kinabalu City.
2.5
Recommendations Based on Sector Analysis Findings

(1) Further Improvement of Sewerage Enterprise Efficiency
The new framework created by the SPAN Act and WSIA is expected to improve the
efficiency of water enterprises through corporatization and by allowing comparisons among
water enterprises through the use of performance indicators.
To enhance efficiency in the
sewerage sector, it is recommended that measures such as partial outsourcing, service

contracts, and other elements that promote competition be introduced. For example,
competition can be generated if several private operators reinforce their capabilities by
providing outsourcing services to IWK.
costs for a large number of small STPs.
This, in turn, will contribute to lowering O&M

The above measures notwithstanding, IWK should
maintain critical O&M functions to ensure service quality.

(2) Sewerage Tariff Revision
The sewerage tariff should be changed to reflect the water consumption volume that is
metered by water supply operators.
It is reasonable to charge in accordance with the
effluent volume of each customer, since operational costs become larger as effluent volume
increases.
In addition, the current level of the sewerage tariff is not sufficiently high.
increase in the sewerage tariff is required to improve and maintain service quality.
An
The
tariff increase should not be implemented all at once, but rather, in stages.
(3) Increased Public Relations Activities
One of the major causes behind the resistance to pay sewerage tariffs or to raise tariff rates
is the lack of knowledge among customers concerning the role and importance of sewerage
services.
Therefore, continuous and effective public relations activities are indispensable
to improving customer understanding of sewerage services.

engaged in valuable public relations activities.
IWK and SSD have long been
However, additional public relations
activities are recommend to raise confidence in service providers and to build the
comprehension and acceptance needed to achieve full cost recovery in the future.
(4) Government Portion of Sewerage Charges to Cover Lower Tariffs for Low Income
Groups
S-8
Final Report
Sewerage tariffs should be set to recover necessary costs in order to prevent the degradation
of long-term service quality.
Poverty reduction measures should be implemented by the
federal government or municipal governments, distinct from sewerage services.
When the
tariff reduction is implemented for low income groups, the difference between regular and
discounted tariffs should be covered by the federal government or municipal governments to
avoid deterioration in service caused by budget shortfalls.
(5) Setting Rules for Federal Government Subsidies to IWK

In general, sewerage services do not solely provide benefits to houses connected to public
sewers.
Rather, indirect beneficiaries include patients without sewerage services suffering
from waterborne diseases, users of groundwater, tourism, fisheries, and the agricultural
industry, among others.
Within such a context, it is reasonable to expect the government to
pay part of the necessary costs for sewerage services.

Government are currently provided to IWK.
Subsidies from the Federal
It is recommended that rules governing
subsidies from the Ministry of Finance to IWK be created.
Establishing such rules would
force stricter financial management to enhance cost savings and revenue generation.
(6) Sewerage Capital Contribution to Encourage Integration and Rationalisation
The SCC is currently paid by developers that connect to the existing public STP at the rate
of 1% of the developed property value.
In the interests of greater integration and
rationalisation of STPs in Malaysia, the SCC should be levied on developers that construct
STPs within development sites without connecting to the public sewerage system.
In
addition, it is recommended that the SCC fund be used as an incentive to encourage the
rationalisation of STPs.
(7) Measures to Increase Public Sewer Connection
The WSIA, which established the authority of SPAN to require citizens and developers to
connect to the public sewer, will contribute to increasing the number of customers utilizing
the public sewerage system.
Even though the legislation makes connection to the public
sewer mandatory, large connection costs are a major obstacle.
As a result, a revolving
fund to allow installment payments of initial connection costs when septic tank users
connect to the public sewer line should be established.
Such an installment system will
alleviate the burden of one-time connection costs on customers.
S-9
CHAPTER 3
Final Report
MANUAL FOR REVIEWING/EVALUATION/ PRIORITISATION OF
SEWARAGE CATCHMENTS/PROJECTS
(1) Evaluation Items and Indices for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage
Catchments/Projects.
There are many aspectssocio-economic, environmental, technical, political, and
financialto consider when sewerage projects are evaluated.
From among these, eleven
evaluation items were selected and measured using twenty-five indices under without
project and with project scenarios, as shown in Figure 2 and described below.
Socio-economic
Importance of area
Consideration for special

conditions
Without Project
With Project
WTP
Water pollution
status
Environmental
Technical
Complaints from the public
Local water cycle
Rationalisation impact
Pollution load
Reliability for project impl.

Political
First time provision
STP
Water use cond.
Financial
Financial viability
Figure 2
Evaluation Criteria for Sewerage Projects
By what indices should the respective evaluation items be measured?

1) Importance of the Area
Growth rate of population
(Planned PE per unit of sewered area)
Planned population
(Rate of commercial and industrial PE to total PE)
Annual hotel guests
2) Pollutant Load
Pollution load generated
3) Water Pollution Status of Receiving Water Body

S-10
(Water Quality Index (WQI) )
BOD5 SI
NH3-N SI
Final Report
4) Complaints from the Public
Complaints related to existing STPs
No. of existing STPs
5) Water Use Condition of Receiving Water Body
Total water production at all downstream WTPs
Duration of water intake closure at all downstream WTPs
No. of water intakes for irrigational use
Recreational uses such as swimming (class II)
6) Rationalisation Impact of Existing STPs
Reduction of O&M manpower requirement
Potential connecting PE in the growth area
7) (Conservation of Local Water Cycle)
(Study on local water cycle)
8) First Time Works for Permanent CSTP
Existence of permanent CSTP
9) Reliability of Project Implementation
Prospective of land acquisition for STP site
10) Financial Analysis
NPV divided by planned PE
Construction cost per unit of pollution load discharged
11) Consideration for Special Conditions
Involvement with national projects
Inclusion of sludge treatment in the CSTP site
Extension of a discharge pipe of sewage effluent from a CSTP downstream of an

intake point
(2)
Reserved
Catchment/Project
Catchment (or sub-catchment) refers to the overall plan that has been proposed for a
sewerage system, while project refers to the implementation plan, in which part of the
facility is built as laid out in the overall plan under a staged construction plan.
Therefore,
with the exception of facilities that small enough are to be constructed as laid out in the
overall plan from the first, catchments/projects cannot be compared.
(3) Features of the Draft Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage
S-11
Final Report
Catchments/Projects
The draft Manual has the following features:
1) Two weighting methodsweighting for overall balance or increased weight on special
factors, such as environmental consideration, rationalisation promotion, or investment
efficiencyare presented. The weighting for overall balance method is recommended
as a standard for prioritising sewerage catchments/projects.
2) We propose that projects, such as island resort developments, that would be unlikely to
be selected in the ordinary prioritisation process but that satisfy government policy for
the acquisition of foreign currency, or projects with a high level of urgency intended to
improve the natural or living environment, should be considered separately from the
prioritisation process.
3) To improve the tendency that catchments/projects with higher planned PE have an
advantage in the prioritisation, they are categorized into three groups based on the size
of planned PE to undergo a separate prioritisation process so projects with smaller
planned PE will be given a greater chance of implementation.
4) In the selection of catchments/projects for implementation, rules that require that a
certain number of projects or a certain percentage of budgets be allocated to groups with
low planned PE have been proposed.
5) The software developed for the prioritisation of catchments/projects can be easily
customized since most values are the starting values and can be changed if necessary.
6) Although the draft Manual was developed for the purpose of setting priorities for
sewerage catchments, it can also be applied to projects if the relevant data for sewage
projects is given.
CHAPTER 4
REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL. 1 PARTS B & C
Revision of Parts B and C of Guidelines Vol.1 was conducted to further improve and enhance
the preparation of Sewerage Catchment Strategies.
Revisions in the guideline were determined
by the results of trial applications at Ipoh and Kota Kinabalu upon identification of the
discrepancies within the existing Catchment Study Reports and Strategies.
Improvements or enhancements made to the revised Guidelines include the following:
(1) Summary Sheet
S-12
Final Report
A summary sheet was added to describe the outline of a sewerage catchment report. The
following 18 items were included in a summary sheet to provide not only catchment but
also sub-catchment information.
Title of Sewerage Catchment Strategy
Details of STPs Planned
Number of STPs
Effluent Discharge Standard applied to Planned STPs
Receiving Water Pollution Status
Population
PE Projection
Connected PE
Number of Water Intake Points
First Works for Sewerage Provision
Land Status on STP
Downstream Water Use Situation (Present)
Number of Complaints from Public on Sewerage
BOD5 Pollution Load
Inclusion of Sludge Treatment
Cost
Project Net Present Value
Special Considerations
(2) BOD5 Pollution Load

The BOD5 pollution load was introduced as an evaluation parameter to link the effect of
sewerage development with catchment strategies.
The following evaluation criteria were
proposed.
Total Capital Cost
NPV
Pollution Load Reduction
Rationalisation Benefit
Inclusion of Bio-solid Treatment
Flexibility on Option
Land Status
(3) Analytical Approach

To better analyse catchment strategies and unify the contents of a sewerage catchment
strategy, an analytical approach was modified.
S-13
Based on the trial studies, this analytical
Final Report
approach was effective to maintain and monitor the contents of a sewerage catchment
strategy.
(4) Sludge Management
To conduct quantitative analysis for sludge management, the calculation of sludge
production and examples of sludge management alternatives were introduced.
Trial
studies indicated that sludge management alternatives were effective in quantitative

evaluations and phased sludge management using sludge volume.
For sludge disposal, final disposal methods based on the characteristics of sludge either as
dry bio-solid or wet sludge were introduced.
CHAPTER 5
REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL. 4 CONCERNING SLUDGE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

The current version of Guidelines Vol. 4 was revised with emphasis on the following issues
concerning sludge treatment and disposal:
(1) Considerations in Selection of Sludge Treatment Process
The sludge treatment process is a combination of unit processes; therefore, how to combine
the unit processes, a description lacking in the existing Guidelines, is critical to facility
planning.
For this reason, considerations for the selection of sludge treatment processes
have been added.

(2) Overall Breakdown
Overall breakdown is as follows, with an emphasis on methods to determine the number and
dimensions of facilities:
Sludge conveyance
Sludge thickening
Sludge digestion
Sludge dewatering
Sludge drying
Sludge incineration
Sludge reuse
(3) Introduction of Emerging Technologies
S-14
Final Report
Taking into account future conditions that will be encountered in the field of sludge
treatment and disposal in Malaysia, the following new technologies are introduced:
Sludge pipeline conveyance
Truck-mounted sludge dewatering equipment
Sludge composting
Sludge incineration
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PLANNING
CAPABILITY IN THE SEWERAGE SECTOR

(1) Draft Manual and Revised Guidelines
The draft Manual was prepared and applied on a trial basis to the sewerage catchments
collected from the existing CSRs and LSPs as well as the report for Upper Langat Basin,
while the revised Guidelines were applied in the formulation of the CSRs for Ipoh and Kota
Kinabalu.
In the course of such trial applications, the draft Manual and revised Guidelines
were improved, but various problems were identified in the existing CSRs and LSPs.
It is
recommended that solutions to these problems be implemented by the Malaysian side in

order to contribute to the strengthening of sewerage planning capability and to further
improvements of the draft Manual and revised Guidelines.
1) The catchment strategy report must clarify the outline of each sewerage system
ultimately adopted in the study.
2) DOEs water quality monitoring stations, WIPs, intake points for irrigational use and
sewage effluent discharge points must be indicated on the same map during the study to
allow the catchment strategy to clarify their physical relationships.
3) In most existing catchment strategy reports, the target year is set at 2020 while some
reports do not reflect the results of the 2000 population census.
It is strongly
recommended that existing catchment strategy reports starting with areas anticipated to
experience a rapid increase in population be reviewed.
4) Under the title Population Projection, the planned PE projection only was often made
with no description of planned population in the existing catchment strategy reports.
The basis for the planned population must be clarified at the catchment/sub-catchment
level must be clearly specified.
5) Area data on sites to be sewered is relatively disregarded in Malaysia and currently not
available in many catchment strategy reports.
S-15
Population and area data should always
Final Report
be considered together in sewerage planning, which makes the development of new

indices possible.
6) When a catchment strategy is endorsed by the relevant agencies, it is recommended that
the IWK begin to arrange the existing data corresponding to the sewerage systems
proposed in the study.
7) The reliability of the construction costs estimated in the reports is low since it is not
clear what methods and sources were used by the consultants or planners
Although
the revised Guidelines recommend the collection and arrangement of construction cost
data, it is important to increase the reliability of the planning content.
8) The action plan as shown in Figure 3 has been proposed to solve the problems
mentioned-above.
Action Plan
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Authorities
Making of Database on existingCSRs
IWK
Review of existing CSRs
SSD
Preparation of location map showing DOE

monitoring stns., WIPs for water supply and
discharge points of sewage eff. from CSTPs
SSD
SPAN
Preparation of permanent CSTP list
IWK
Addition of Summary sheet to TOR
SSD
Publication of revised guidelines
Remarks
Addition of map to TOR

Request for cooperation to relevant
authorities
SPAN
Guidance in application of revised guidelines
SSD/SPAN/ Description of CSRs on the sewerage

IWK
system basis
Data arrangement corresponding to

sewerage systems proposed in CSRs
IWK
Census
Census
Publication
Comparative study on population projection in

CSRs and census population in 2000 and 2020
IWK
Development of new evaluation indices
IWK
Data collection
Development of construction cost functions
SSD/SPAN/
IWK
Data collection
Figure 3
Action Plan for the Improvement of Planning Capability
(2) Building Institutional Capacity

A thorough analysis of the relevant organisations, including needs assessments for human
and other resources, activities such as staff development, curriculum design, research and
development (R&D) support, upgrading facilities, educational training, and enhancing
managerial systems and skills, should be implemented.
The above initiative concerns a detailed capacity needs assessment for the sewerage sector.
S-16
Final Report
The initiative should analyse not only technical but also management, legal and
socio-economic knowledge gaps of agencies or institutions in the field of integrated water
management.
This initiative could represent a first step towards a comprehensive capacity
building strategy in the Malaysian water sector.

(3) National
Sewerage
Development
Plan
and
Supplementary
National
Sludge
Management Plan
To facilitate the sewerage industrys future planning direction, it is recommended that a
National Sewerage Development Plan (NSDP) that clearly defines and advocates timely
practical implementation be developed.
This document is expected to define the areas
that should be sewered in the short term and middle and long term plans to meet stipulated
targets and indicators. The plan indicators must be numerical targets and should be
feasible and sustainable.
Similarly, the methodology for final disposal of sludge is a critical issue related to the
NSMP that urgently needs to be addressed.
(4) National Sewerage Information System
The National Sewerage Information System is a vital asset for efficient and effective
sewerage planning and decision making.
Improvement of planning capability can only be
achieved among others if relevant quantitative and qualitative information on the

wastewater situation is available in a timely manner.
It is recommended that this National Sewerage Information System include population
projections, mapped data showing water resource availability, the assimilative capacity of
receiving waters, and problem area inventories, among others.
(5) The Green Approach
Environmental concerns and technological advances will be required in the Malaysian
sewerage industries, and the Green Approachan indication of a promising effort to ensure
procurement of ecological materials and methods to work together for a sustainable
recycling-based societywill also be highlighted in future sewerage system planning.
It is recommended that sewerage system plans with a view to ensuring the effects of
environmental preservation be carried out at the present time to allow the early
establishment of a sustainable recycling-based society. Furthermore it is important to
measure and monitor environmental management efficiency through quantitative
assessment parameters.
(6) Improvement of Planning Capability in Each Organisation
S-17
Final Report
With the current reformation of the water sector, clear definitions of policies and the
sewerage industrys directions are still required. Nevertheless, the enactment of the SPAN
and WSIA Act more clearly distinguishes between the functions of institution involved.
1)
Planning Section, Planning and Development Division, SSD
Appointment of SSD officers and staff to participate in the IWKs internal training
programmes
Temporary transfer of SSD staff to the Planning and Engineering Department of

IWK for at least three years
2) Catchment Planning & Control Division, Sewerage Regulatory Department, SPAN
The current personnel assignments have been carefully thought out and are
appropriate. Henceforth it will be very important to monitor the individual need for
capacity building to match the progress of on-the-job training in the field.
In addition to in-house on-the-job training, external programmes will be required to

meet SPANs detailed responsibilities. These are currently being discussed in the
MEWC. An intra-committee with other SPAN divisions should be established to
discuss ways to evolve programmes for capacity improvement.
3)
IWK
IWK should hold a regular meeting with staff in charge of sewerage planning from
all the regional offices to discuss actual catchment strategy reports and
communicate minimum requirement to the consultants.
S-18
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
1.1
Final Report
INTRODUCTION
Background
In response to the official request of the Government of Malaysia, the Government of Japan has
agreed to conduct the Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in
Malaysia (the Study), in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations of Japan.
Accordingly, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the official agency
responsible for the implementation of the technical cooperation programmes of the Government
of Japan, conducted the Study in close cooperation with the relevant authorities of the
Government of Malaysia for a period of twenty-four months from March 2007.
This document sets forth the Scope of Work with regard to the Study.
1.2
Objective of the Study
The objective of the Study is to improve planning capability in the sewerage sector of Malaysia.
1.3
Scope of the Study

(1) Analysis of Sewerage Sector in Malaysia
1) Legislative/Institutional Frameworks
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara (SPANAct 2006 and Water Services Industry
Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to New acts)
Clarification of the division of the roles between SPAN and SSD, Indah Water
Konsortium Sdn. Bhd. (IWK), local authorities, developers
Issues of SPAN and SSD, other related organisations on new acts
Capacity assessments of SSD, in particular planning capability, and SPAN, IWK,

local authorities
Financial management analysis including operation & maintenance cost
Catchment strategies/plans
Guideline for developers
Other related legislations/organisations
2) Existing Sewerage Systems, Including Networks, Treatment Facilities and Sludge

Management
1-1
Final Report
3) Other Related Data and Information for Sewerage Sector

4) Related Data and Information for Water Pollution
(2) Formulation
of
Manual
for
Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising
of
Catchment
Strategies/Plans and Sewerage Projects in the Catchment Plan

1) Review of existing reviewing/evaluation/prioritising system
2) Formulating
draft
manual
fur
the
use
of
the
authorities
concerned
to
evaluate/review/prioritise catchment strategies/plans and sewerage projects in the

catchment plans including the consideration of prioritisation and centralization and
mechanism/procedure on private and governmental sectors investment in sewerage
development.(after the trial application mentioned in IV, this manual will be finalized.)
(3) Revision of Guidelines for Developers
1) Overall review of Guideline vol.1, including the consideration of prioritisation and
centralization, and mechanism/procedure on private and governmental sectors
investment in sewerage development, and appropriate sludge management.
2) Formulation of draft revised Guideline vol. 1 for trial application (after the trial
application mentioned in IV, it will be finalized)
3) Revision of Guideline vol. 4 to incorporate appropriate sludge processing
(4) Trial Application of the Draft Manual/Revised Guideline (Vol. 1) mentioned in II and III
1) Select/confirm the model areas for trial application
2) Analysis of existing catchment plan/strategy and/or relevant plans in the model areas
3) Analysis of present conditions in model areas
4) Carrying out environmental and social considerations study according to JICA
guidelines for environmental and social considerations (Initial Environmental
Examination (lEE) level)
5) Revision of existing catchment strategy/plan in the model area by using draft revised
Guideline Vol. l.
6) Formulation of new catchment plan in model area by using the draft revised Guideline
Vol. 1.
7) Trial use of the draft manual for reviewing/evaluating/prioritising the new/revised
catchment strategies/plans
8) Finalizing the manual/revised Guideline (Vol. l) based on the trial results
1-2
Final Report
(5) Recommendations on planning capability development of sewerage sector in Malaysia
1.4
Formation of the Study
1.4.1
General
The Study was carried out in accordance with the Scope of Work agreed upon between the
MEWC and JICA on the 20th day of December 2006.
The Sewerage Services Department
SSD organised the steering committee and counterpart team, and carried out the Study in
close cooperation with the Study Team.
The overall set-up for the implementation of the
Study is as shown in Figure 1.1.

JICA Advisory
Committee
JICA
SSD
JICA Study Team
Internal
Committee
Japanese Side
Figure 1.4.1
1.4.2
Steering
Committee
Malaysia Side
Implementation Set-up of the Study
Implementation Set-up of the Japanese Side
The implementation set-up of the Japanese side consisted of the Study Team and the Advisory
Committee under the general supervision of the JICA headquarters.
The composition of the JICA Advisory Committee is shown below.
Ms. Hiroko Kamata
Chairperson
Institute for International

Cooperation, JICA
Mr. Osamu Fujiki
Member
Head, Water Quality Control

Department, National Institute for
Land and Infrastructure
Management (NILIM)
The composition of the Study Team is shown below.
Mr. Ikuo Miwa
Team leader, sewerage policy and legislation NJS
1-3
Final Report
& institutions
Mr. Tadao Funamoto
Sector analysis and capacity development
Mr. Tetsuo Wada
Sewerage
planning,
evaluation
NJS
and NSC
environmental & social considerations
Mr. Daizo Iwata
Financial programmeming, organisation and NSC

business management
1.4.3
Mr. Satoshi Oniki
Project coordination
NJS
Mr. Atsushi Toyama
Project coordination
NJS
NJS:
NJS Consultants Co., Ltd.
NSC:
Nihon Suido Consultants Co., Ltd
Implementation Set-up of the Malaysian Side
The implementation set-up of the Malaysian side consisted of SSD, SPAN and IWK counterpart
personnel and the Steering Committee for the Study composed of representatives from the
relevant authorities.
Overall coordination of the Steering Committee was handled by the SSD.
The Steering Committee was organised by the following representatives of relevant authorities.
Tn Hj. Mohd Akhir Bin Md Director General, Sewerage Services Department
Jiwa
(SSD), MEWC
Dr. Haji Md Nasir Bin Md Noh Director General, Department of Irrigation and
Drainage (DID)
Mr. Lee Choong Min
Director General, Department of Environment

(DOE)
Ir. Md Redzuan b. Husin
Senior Engineer, Economic Planning Unit (EPU)
Mr. Nor hashim Baron
Catchment Planning & Control Division, SPAN
Ir. Dorai Narayana
Head, Planning Services Section, IWK
Mr. Jack Lo
Engineer, Kota Kinabalu City Hall (DBKK)
Ms. Noriko Suzuki
Chief Representative, JICA Malaysia Office
The Internal Committee consisted of the following representatives from relevant authorities:
Tn Hj. Mohd Akhir Bin Md Director General, Sewerage Services Department

Jiwa
(SSD), MEWC
1-4
Final Report
Tn Hj. Ahmad Nazari Bin Hj. Director, Planning Division, SSD

Md. Nor
Mr. Mustafa Kanmal Bin Yed
Assistant Director, Planning Division, SSD
Ir. Mohd Shukri Bin Abdul Director, Catchment Planning & Control Division,
Razik
SPAN
Mr. Nor hashim Baron
Catchment Planning & Control Division, SPAN
Mr. Dorai Narayana
Head, Planning Services Section, IWK
1-5
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2
Final Report
2.1
Background of Water Supply and Sewerage Sectors in Malaysia
2.1.1
Water Supply Sector
Prior to the Constitutional Amendments in January 2005, water services were solely a state
matter, and the state governments established different types of water supply organisations.
The types of water supply organisations are as shown in Table 2.1.1. However, in the Special
sitting of Parliament in January 2005, Parliament approved the amendments to the Ninth
Schedule to transfer water supplies and services (excluding water resources) from the State List
to the Concurrent List (except for Sabah and Sarawak). It also amended the Tenth Schedule
whereby revenue from water supplies and services, which was assigned to the States, would
now be assigned to the Federal Government, again with the exception of Sabah and Sarawak.
These amendments received Royal Assent on February 4, 2005 and were published in the
Gazette on February 10, 2005. The date of enforcement was fixed on March 21, 2005. With the
approved amendments, the Federal Government was seen to regulate the water services industry
in terms of licensing and regulating water operators. The ownership and control of rivers and
canals and water still remain with the States.
As of now, some states have fully privatized or corporatized their water supply services while
some states have privatized the operation and maintenance of water treatment plants. The
privatization is executed through concession agreements. In addition, the water tariffs differ
from state to state, and most states experience high non-revenue water (NRW).
Table 2.1.1 Types of Water Supply Organisations in Malaysia before January 2005
Types
1 State Public Works Department
Water Supply Areas

Kedah, Perlis, Sarawak (excluding Kuching, Sibu and Northern
Sarawak)
2 State Water Supply Department
Negeri Sembilan, Sabah, Pahang, Labuan
3 State Water Supply Board
Melaka, Perak, Kuching, Sibu
4 Corporatized Company
Terengganu, Laku (covering Miri, Bintulu, Limbang in Sarawak
5 Privatized Company
2.1.2
Penang, Kelantan, Johor, Selangor (including Kuala Lumpur and

Putrajaya)
Sewerage Sector
Sewage has been identified by the Malaysian Department of Environment (DOE) as one of the
major pollutants of water bodies. Cities, towns and other urban centres are major polluters of the
aquatic environment with sewage and municipal wastewater, industrial effluent and polluted
surface runoffs. Reliable and efficient sewerage systems contribute greatly to protecting the
2-1
Final Report
nations public health, preserving its water resources, enhancing environmental quality leading
to long-term sustainability of the water supply and sewerage services industry.
The Sewerage Services Department (SSD) was established in March 1994 under the Ministry of
Housing and Local Government after the establishment of the Sewerage Services Act of 1993
and privatization of sewerage services in West Malaysia. The nations sewerage privatization
project involved the transfer of thousands of treatment plants and other facilities from 145 local
authorities (at the time of signing the concession agreement) to the Federal Government.
Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd (IWK) became the single concessionaire and was given the
responsibility to operate and manage all public sewerage systems. SSD as the regulatory body,
governs IWK and ensures that IWK fulfils its obligations in accordance with the concession
agreement.
In 2004, major changes took place with the restructuring of the Malaysian Cabinet. The function
of water services (water and sewerage) was transferred to the newly established Ministry of
Energy, Water and Communications (MEWC). Previously, water services were under the
purview of the Ministry of Public Works while sewerage services were under the Ministry of
Housing and Local Government. Currently, MEWC regulates and supervises all the national
utility sectors, namely energy, water, sewerage and telecommunications.
2.1.3
Water Services Industry Reform
The Water Service Industry Bill and the National Water Services Commission Bill were passed
by the Malaysian Parliament in May 2006. With passage of the bills, the Water Services
Industry Act (WSIA 2006/Act 655) and Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Nasional Act (SPAN
Act/Act 654) were enacted into law, and this signalled the start of the water services industry
reform.
The main purposes for the restructuring of the industry were:
to enable the Federal Government to assume control and regulation of water supply and
sewerage services from the States;
to ensure that water supply and sewerage services would be jointly regulated;
to set up certifying agencies that would approve plans, certify contractors and monitor
compliance with subsidiary legislation;
to license all water industry players that treat and distribute water, and own facilities;
to enable current concession holders to migrate to the licensing system through

re-negotiation of their existing agreements with the Commission within a specific
period of time (while concession holders that do not migrate forfeit their participation
rights upon expiration of their concession agreement periods); and
to set targets for service providers with respect to non-revenue water, handling of
2-2
Final Report
consumers, and compliance with water quality requirements, among others.
The WSIA 2006 also offered possible resolution to certain critical issues for the sewerage
industry such as billing and collection, refusal of individual septic tank desludging service and
the maintenance of private sewage treatment plants. In the foreseeable future, three different
forms of entities may emerge in this sector: (i) the water and sewerage services company, (ii)
water (only) services company and (iii) sewerage (only) services company.
2.1.4
Water and Sewerage-related Organisations and their Roles and Relationships
With the recent restructuring of the industry (after WSIA and SPAN Acts), the roles of the
organisations involved in water and sewerage were further redefined. A summary of the key
roles is shown in Table 2.1.2.
Table 2.1.2 Key Roles of Water and Sewerage-related Organisations
Organisations
Ministry of Energy, Water and
Communication (MEWC)
1. WSS
2. SSD (Sewerage Services Department
- JPP)
3. SPAN
Key roles
1. Policy matters
2. Project
implementation
matters
3. Regulatory
matters
State Governments
Water basin matters
WAMCO (Water Asset Management

Company - PAAB)
Funding and facility

management
matters
IWK
National sewerage
concessionaire
Other agencies (Typically Government

and Non Governmental agencies that are
involved in the water and sewerage
industry within their capacities as facility
managers or service providers, such as
Syabas, Syarikat Air Kelantan, SAJ, and
etc)
Operation and
maintenance of water
and sewerage
facilities
2-3
Role description
1. Develops holistic water policy for the
country. Sets general policy directions.
2. Manages all government-funded capital
projects.
3. Regulates the whole water industry based
on the policy directions set out by the
Federal Government.
Manages existing water basins with the view
to protecting the quality of raw water and
identifying new water basins when and
where required.
Raises funds for the takeover of all existing
assets and implementation of new assets.
Intent to own all the assets but with transfer
to occur in stages and based on viability.
Operations and maintenance of sewerage
facilities within control area. Provision of
technical advisory to Government related
agencies, eg; SSD, SPAN and etc
Operation and maintenance of water and/or
sewerage facilities within respective control
areas and stipulated agreements.
2.2
Final Report
Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications (MEWC)

(1) Roles
The focus on the role of MEWC in this Study is confined solely to the Sewerage Services
Department (SSD) and the Water Sector (WS). SSD is responsible for the sewerage sector
only while WS is involved in both the sewerage and water sectors. With reference to the
sewerage sector, SSD currently operates in accordance with the Sewerage Services Act 1993
(SSA 1993/Act 508). The WS, which currently is not actively involved in the sewerage sector,
is expected to have a role on the future development of the sewerage industry, especially in
policy settings. Though SPAN is also under the purview of the Minister of MEWC, it is
regarded as an independent agency with the enactment of the SPAN Act and is addressed
separately later in this document.
(2) Organisation of MEWC
The organisation chart of MEWC is shown as Figure 2.2.1.
Minister
Deputy Minister
Communications &
Multimedia
Commission
Secretary General
Deputy Secretary
General (Policy)
Communications
Sector
Facilities Division
Postal Services &
Communication
Content Division
National Water
Service Commission
Energy Commission
Deputy Secretary
General (Energy)
Water Sector
International Relation
& Policy Planning
Sector
Electric Supply
Division
International
Relations & Green
Energy Development
Division
Water Services
Policy Division
Water Services
Regulatory Division
Energy Project
Management &
Implementation
Division
Technology &
Applications
Infrastructure
Division
Deputy Secretary
General (Management)
Pahang-Selangor
Raw Water Transfer
Project Team
Sewerage Services
Department
Water Supply
Division
Legal Division
Human Resource
Division
Development
Division
Information
Technology Division
Finance &
Administration
Division
Internal Audit
Division
Corporate
Communications &
Public Relation
Division
Figure 2.2.1 Organisation Structure of the Ministry of Energy, Water and

Communications (As of October 2008)
2.2.1
(1)
Sewerage Services Department (SSD)

Roles
The Sewerage Services Department is one of the major departments in MEWC and is
responsible for planning, constructing and managing sewerage infrastructure. The department
2-4
Final Report
is headed by a Director General, and is comprised of three divisions, seven sections, six
branch offices and four units, as shown in the Figure 2.2.2 (Please note that this is only a
proposed organisation structure and was still pending approval by the Public Services
Department as of November 2008).
As of August 2008, SSD had filled a total of 132 staff positions of the 219 planned positions.
This was due to the current transition of functions between SSD and SPAN and budget
limitations. Thus, SSD relies heavily on IWKs assistance in carrying out the planning and
project implementation tasks, among others. This reliance on IWK is also attributed to the
existence of vast amounts of accumulated information, data, knowledge and experience
within IWK as the national sewerage concessionaire. It is pertinent to note this issue when
considering the improvement of national sewerage planning.
(2) Organisation of SSD
Director General
Deputy Director General

(Planning & Development)
Contract & Quality

Survey Section

(Engineering / Technical)

(Project Management)
Consultancy Services,
Research and Training
Section
Development Section
Mechanical & Electrical

Section
Planning Section
Design Section
Administration and
Financial Section
Head Office (PIU)
Administration
Southern Branch
Financial
Central Branch
Eastern Branch
Plant and
Sludge Unit
Network
Pipeline
Unit
Northern Branch
Sabah / Sarawak Branch
Figure 2.2.2 Proposed Organisation Structure of the Sewerage Services Department (As of
November 2008)
The scope of the responsibilities of SSDs respective divisions and its sections, branch
offices or units is as follows:
1)
Planning and Development Division
The Planning and Development Division is headed by a Deputy Director General and is
responsible for the planning and development of sewerage infrastructure. This division is
also in charge of reviewing the catchment strategies/plans that have been previously carried
out by the Planning Service Section of IWK, in addition to initiating the preparation of new
catchment strategies/plans.
In this context, this division has started to conduct and manage the preparation of the
2-5
following five catchment strategies/plans:
Final Report
(i) Iskandar (Wilayah Penbangunan Iskandar
(WPI), Johor; (ii) Upper Langat, Selangor; (iii) Cameron Highland, Tapah, Pahang; (iv)
Pulau Pinang Barat Dan Selatan, Pulau Pinang; and (v) Lower Kerayong, Kuala Lumpur.
This divisions functions are distributed and carried out by three main sections. They are
the:
(a) Planning Section;
(b) Development Section; and
(c) Contract and Quantity Survey Section
(a)
Planning Section
The Planning Section is comprised of two units with the following responsibilities:
i)
Research and Strategic Units

To verify all the national sewerage catchment studies
To facilitate the appointment of project management consultants, project
consultants and land surveyors
To arrange the implementation of national sewerage projects
To deal with state authorities, town and city planning department and local
authorities within the capacity of a government advisory committee member
To manage and facilitate the preparation of the national sewerage master plan
To prepare the yearly expenditure and creation of the Malaysia Plan for
sewerage projects
To facilitate the preparation of all sewerage projects EIA and approvals from
DOE
To review all short-term and long-term national sewerage systems
ii) Asset, Land and GIS Management Unit

To manage all land acquisition activities under the 1960 Land Acquisition Act
and National Land Ordinances
To manage the reservation of plant site with all
land departments and
municipalities within the nation

To manage the temporary leasing of plant sites that have not been utilized
To update the Departments records of assets, such as plants, pump stations,
networks and sewerage reserves
To establish a computerized sewerage asset database
To manage community awareness programmes with regards to importance of
sewerage systems
To manage all sewerage information system within a database
2-6
Final Report
To review SSDs policy development and asset management procedures

(b)
Development Section
This sections responsibilities are as follows:

To identify needs and importance of new sewerage projects development based
on Sewerage Catchment Studies and request for upgrading of existing sewerage
systems
To prepare, verify and update the appropriations estimates of the Five-Year
Malaysia Plan
To prepare, verify and update yearly appropriations estimates
To prepare, verify and update the appropriations estimates of the Five-Year
Malaysia Plan (midterm review)
To prepare and update financial and physical development reports
To verify cash flow and project costs
To facilitate the review of any alterations to the scope of development projects
To plan and facilitate all studies related to planning and design for the purposes
of seeking and identifying improvements
To facilitate each request for upgrading of plants and networks to ensure
compliance to policies and procedures set by SSD
To streamline coordination meetings and monitoring of new projects at the
stage of construction
To facilitate between relevant contractors, consultants, departments and
divisions for solutions to technical, social and environmental problems
To manage and provide briefings and explanations to SSD staff, government
agencies, and local authorities related to planning and implementation of
sewerage projects under SSDs purview
(c)
Contract and Quantity Survey Section
This section is comprised of two units with the following responsibilities:

i)
Cost and Procurement Unit

To study and analyse the construction and operations and maintenance costs of
sewerage projects
To prepare initial project cost estimates and a feasibility study for a Sewerage
Cost Information Centre for existing cost data to be prepared as a reference
material
To serve as a reference centre for the implementation of sewerage projects
To manage the processes for tender procurement and requests for proposal
2-7
Final Report
To align quantity surveys, work specifications, tender documents, and contract

documents
To appoint consultants
To evaluate requests for proposal and bid books A (20 million RM or more) and
B (less than 20 million RM)
To appoint quantity surveyors, administer contract claims and negotiate
contract costs
ii)
Administration and Contract Monitoring Unit

To carry out cost negotiations and prepare contract terms and evaluation reports
To monitor compliance with terms of contract during project implementation
2)
Engineering Services Division
The division is headed by a Deputy Director General, and its functions are distributed
among and carried out by three main sections. They are the:
(a) Consultancy Services, Research and Training Section;

(b) Mechanical and Electrical Section; and
(c) Design Section
(a) Consultancy Services, Research and Training Section

To provide technical advisory to the Ministry with respect to the creation,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of sewerage services industry
policy.
To advice the Ministry on technical aspects of planning, supervision and
facilitation of policy implementation mechanisms and programmes related to
the sewerage industry
To coordinate and facilitate two way communications between various parties
within the local and international sewerage industry
To advise the Ministry in preparing implementation mechanisms and
monitoring of sewerage development projects
To provide technical advisory to the Ministry in organising the restructuring of
the sewerage services industry through enforcement of WASIA Act and
Methodology & Licensing Rules, SPAN operation strengthening and the
establishment of subsidiary laws
2-8
Final Report
To provide technical input to the Ministry in setting the sewerage industrys

way forward and the takeover of sewerage services management in Kelantan,
Johor Bharu and Pasir Gudang
To advise and provide technical input in the study of sewerage tariff setting
mechanisms by SPAN as requested from time to time by licensees
To assist the Ministry in monitoring development and the level of enforcement
of IPA 2006 Act by SPAN, especially within the sewerage sector
To represent the Department in International Seminars and Symposiums, which
requires specific explanation and expertise regarding the design and
construction of sewage treatment plants and sewerage systems
To identify appropriate courses and trainings for officers and staff to improve
their skill and knowledge
To identify and create technical training modules related to the sewerage
industry and coordination with accreditation agencies
To facilitate and prepare the evaluation panels term of reference for
acknowledgement of courses/trainings for the sewerage industry
To facilitate and create PTK examination questions for SSDs closed jobs
(technical jobs) including technicians, assistant technicians and Engineer Grade
J41
To facilitate PTK courses together with KTAKs Human Resources Division
for Management Officers and SSD Professionals (closed jobs) for J44 and
above
To prepare and implement technical training programmes for all levels of SSD
staff
To plan, facilitate and prepare monthly reports and SSD bulletins
To manage, facilitate and complete departmental annual statistics report and
sewerage sector annual report
To facilitate and prepare concise and accurate answers to questions raised in
Parliament and the National Assembly within the time allocated
To facilitate the timely updating of the SSD website
To facilitate, distribute and monitor departmental IT equipment and
merchandise
To facilitate and monitor complaints received relating to sewerage systems and
SSD development projects
To facilitate and establish networks and communication with all Education
Institutions and Universities in preparation for training modules and expertise in
sewerage
(b)
Mechanical and Electrical Section

2-9
Final Report
To design an M&E services system

To manage tender quotation processes and M&E services procurement
To supervise, facilitate and monitor all construction activities
To manage M&E testing and commissioning services
To facilitate and monitor all operation and maintenance of plants given to
operators
To review technical proposals including changes to design and equipment
forwarded by suppliers, contractors and plant operators
(c)
Design Section
This section comprises of tow units with the following responsibilities:

i)
Network Pipeline Design Unit
Pre-Construction stage for in-house designed sewerage projects

To receive and review project briefs from SSDs Planning Division; prepare
preliminary and detailed designs, detailed calculations and detailed design
confirmations; and prepare of design drawings and specifications for tender
table documents and contract documents
To prepare project cost estimates and manage tender calling and tender
evaluations in cooperation with the Contract and Quantity Survey Division
To prepare design manuals, specifications and standard drawings for SSD
projects
To manage the Resource Centre and provide infrastructure for the Design
Division (Hardware and Software)
To carry out design audits during construction, to ensure that work on site is
carried out in compliance with designs and specifications as highlighted in
contract documents
To prepare as built drawings and ensure that drawings may be completed
within three months upon issuance of the Certificate of Practical Completion
by SSD
Administration of all types of documents, including design reports, design
calculations and technical reports related to national sewerage projects, to
ensure that the documents are recorded, stored, controlled and easily accessible
Pre-Construction stage for sewerage projects designed by consulting engineer/PMC
To prepare Term of Reference (TOR) for appointment of surveyors and
consulting engineers (for projects that require consultancy services for either
design or construction supervision or both).
2-10
Final Report
To verify tender documents, needs statements, and request for proposal

documents
To manage, coordinate and review project design inputs for outsourced national
sewerage projects built via conventional, design and build, or turnkey methods
To prepare reports and comments related designs by Consultants in the
pre-contract stage
To manage technical aspects of projects such as surveys, EIA studies, and SIA,
among others
pre-contract stage
To provide technical assistance related to design for issues that arise during the
construction stage
To carry out design audit during construction to ensure that work on site is
contract documents
ii)
Plant and Sludge Design Unit
Pre-Construction stage for in-house designed sewerage projects

To receive and review project briefs from SSDs Planning Division and manage
all matters related to land acquisition and appointment of surveyors
To prepare preliminary and detailed designs, detailed calculations and detailed
design confirmation and to prepare design drawings and specifications for
tender table documents and contract documents
To prepare project cost estimates and manage tender calling and tender
evaluations in cooperation with the Contract and Quantity Survey Division
To serve as the tender/request for proposal committee member and secretariat
of the Consultant Technology and Cost Evaluation Committee
To prepare design manuals, specifications and standard drawings for SSD
projects
To manage the Resource Centre and provide infrastructure for the Design
Division (Hardware and Software)
To conduct design audits during construction to ensure that work on site is
contract documents
To prepare as built drawings and ensure that drawings may be completed
within three months upon issuance of the Certificate of Practical Completion
by SSD
2-11
Final Report
Administration of all types of documents, including design reports, design

calculations and technical reports related to national sewerage projects, to
ensure that the documents are recorded, stored, controlled and easily accessible
Pre-Construction stage for sewerage projects designed by consulting engineer/PMC
To prepare Term of Reference (TOR) for appointment of surveyors and
consulting engineers (for projects that require consultancy services for either
design or construction supervision or both)
To serve as the secretariat of Consultant Technology and Cost Evaluation
Committee for appointment of consultants and to review terms of agreement for
consultant appointments prior to execution of agreement by senior management
To verify tender documents, needs statements and request for proposal
documents
To manage, coordinate and review project design inputs for outsourced national
sewerage projects built via conventional, design and build, or turnkey methods
pre-contract stage
To provide tender briefings during site visits, conduct technical assessments of
participating contractors, and prepare technical assessment reports for review
by the Tender Procurement Committee
To manage technical aspects of projects such as survey, EIA studies, and SIA,
among others
To manage payments to consultants, surveyors, and others during the pre-tender
stage
To provide technical assistance related to design for issues that arise during the
construction stage
To conduct design audits during construction to ensure that work on site is
contract documents
3)
Project Management Division
This is division is headed by a Deputy Director General and is responsible for all matters
related to project implementation. Division functions are distributed among and conducted
by five other branch offices, as distinct from the Head Office. The branch offices are as
shown in Figure 2.2.3.
2-12
Northern
Final Report
Eastern
Central
Southern
Figure 2.2.3
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Sabah / Sarawak
Jurisdiction of SSD Regional Offices
Head Office
Southern Office
Central Office
Northern Office
Eastern Office
Sabah/Sarawak Office
(a) Head Office

To plan and manage programmes for rationalisation, refurbishment, sewage
treatment plant upgrades and connection to public sewerage networks
To facilitate, manage, monitor and control the sewerage project implementation
programme for territorial development projects and Malaysia Plan projects in
Sabah and Sarawak
The following duties are also common to southern, central, northern, eastern
regional offices:
To establish a quality management system to ensure that construction meets
tender specifications and completion dates
To systematically manage cost, expenditures and cash flow for project
implementation
Obtain authorization for pre-payments interim payments for project
implementation
To conduct technical and quality audits in combination with contract
compliance audits
To prepare documents confirming delays and extensions, completion, and
remediation
To test and commission completed sewerage systems
2-13
Final Report
To facilitate and manage the receipt, takeover and surrender of sewerage system
projects certified and surrendered to asset management company
To monitor and maintain sewerage system asset inventory within the following
categories: under construction, completed construction, planned construction,
planned rationalisation, planned upgrade, refurbishment required, and
connection to public sewerage network via computerized recording system
To handle issues, complaints, and grievances from residents with regards to
sewerage system project implementation
(b) Southern Office

To coordinate with HQ in providing technical input related to requirements for
rationalisation,
refurbishment,
sewage
treatment
plant
upgrades
and
connection to public sewerage networks for the states of Melaka, Negeri

Sembilan and Johor
programme of Malaysia Plan projects in Melaka, Negeri Sembilan and Johor
(c) Central Office

To coordinate with HQ in providing technical input related to requirements for
rationalisation,
refurbishment,
sewage
treatment
plant
upgrades
and
connection to public sewerage networks for the states of Selangor, Federal

Territories Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan
programme of Malaysia Plan projects in Selangor, Federal Territories Kuala
Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan
(d) Northern Office

To coordinate with HQ in providing technical input related to requirements of
rationalisation,
refurbishment,
sewage
treatment
plant
upgrades
and
connection to public sewerage networks for the states of Penang, Perak, Kedah
and Perlis
programme of Malaysia Plan projects in Penang, Perak, Kedah and Perlis
(e) Eastern Office

To coordinate with HQ in providing technical inputs related to requirements of
rationalisation,
refurbishment,
sewage
treatment
plant
upgrades
and
connection to public sewerage networks for the states of Terengganu, Kelantan

and Pahang
2-14
Final Report

programme of Malaysia Plan projects in Terengganu, Kelantan and Pahang
(f) Sabah/Sarawak Office

To verify loan applications for sewerage project implementation as proposed by
Sabah and Sarawak State Governments
To verify loan drawdown applications as proposed by Sabah and Sarawak State
Governments
To prepare, verify and update Five-Year Malaysia Plan appropriations
verification (midterm review)
To prepare, verify and update the annual appropriations verification (midterm
review)
To monitor physical and financial progress of implementation by Sabah and
Sarawak State Governments
To prepare and update physical and financial progress of development
To facilitate verification of any changes to scopes of work of development
projects
To serve as the technical committee member for sewerage projects to be
implemented
4)
Administration and Finance Section
This section is directly under the purview of the Director General and is expected to handle
all matters related to the departments administration and financial needs. Its functions are
distributed between and carried out by two sub-sections. They are the:
(a) Administration Sub-section; and

(b) Finance Sub-section
(a)
Administration Sub-section
This sub-section is comprised of two units with the following responsibilities:
i)
Human Resources Unit

To manage issues related to staffing and services
To manage and enforce the departments rules and regulations
To study, conduct and manage the departments staff training to improve the
Departments performance and capabilities
To study and analise the suitability of officer appointments
To manage and facilitate department personnel involvement in conferences,
seminars and courses conducted by the Ministry or the private sector
To manage induction course and departments job promotion
2-15
Final Report
To implement and manage issues related to the Human Resources Development

panel
To plan and manage training to improve performance and capabilities
To manage issues related to management efficiency and administration, as well
as department counselling services
ii) Management and Administration Unit

To manage departmental records, files, letters and utility bills
To supervise departmental building cleaning, security, maintenance and
logistical services
To manage departmental building and store rental
To manage government loan facilities such as housing, vehicle and computer
loans
To manage departmental purchase and maintenance of vehicles, furniture and
equipment
To plan, supervise and support the departments quality programme
To facilitate responses and report to Cabinet and important meeting memoranda
and notes
To manage and facilitate official functions and official visits of foreign and
local delegates
To manage departmental annual reports, brochures, pamphlets, books,
magazines, journals, CDs, and audio visuals, among others
(b)
Finance Sub-section
This sub-section is comprised of two units with the following responsibilities:
i)
Payment Management Unit

To manage departmental expenditures
To process claims
To manage procurement
To maintain and verify expenditure records and financial reports
To manage departmental payroll
To manage inventory and asset disposal processes
To support budget preparation
ii) Revenue and Development Unit

To manage development expenditure receipts and payments from Government
appropriations sources and concession company
To manage revenue receipts of various income
To manage interim payments of related projects
2-16
Final Report
To monitor performance of development expenditures to ensure achievement of

intended objectives
To support working paper preparation for budget and development projects
(3) Financial Aspects
The fiscal year of the Government of Malaysia starts in January and ends in December.
The budget of the Ministry is closed on the 31st of December every year.
shows the budget of MEWC for the last three years.
Table 2.2.1
This table covers only the figures
from the year 2004 because SSD was under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government
until the year 2003.
The operating budget is used for the general office activities,
including staff salaries, office rental fees, utility costs for office buildings, and office
equipment.
On the other hand, the development budget is used for the implementation of
projects, such as new capital project construction and upgrading and refurbishment of
existing sewage treatment facilities.
Approximately 54% to 58% of the total development budgets (appropriations) from 2004 to
2006 were allocated to the Water Supply Division. Approximately 22% to 34% of this was
allocated to SSD while 11% to 12.5% was allocated to the Sabah Electricity Board.
The
rest of the development budget (7% to 8%) was allocated to the Communications, Energy,
Information Technology, and Water Services divisions.
Table 2.2.1 Annual Budget and Expenditures of MEWC
(Unit: 1,000 RM)
2004
MEWC
Operating expenses
Appropriation
s
Expenditure
Development expenses
Appropriation
s
Expenditure
Source:
Notes:
2005
2006
82,291
68,299
72,401
72,999
65,453
72,457
1,764,286
2,054,925
2,876,785
1,001,467
1,693,374
2,478,200
Annual Report 2005 & 2006, The Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications
On March 2004, water supply and sewerage services were transferred from the Min. of Public Works and Min. of
Housing and Local Government.
With respect to the sewerage sector, the total project budget (development expenses) was set
in the Five-Year Malaysia Plan and the appropriations were made to SSD and MEWC.
The ceiling on total sewerage appropriations is RM 3,112.835 million for the period of the
9th Malaysia Plan (2006-2010), which includes the JBIC project (approximately RM
1,375.027 million).
Part of the development expenses have been secured for the sewerage
project in Sabah and Sarawak states, and the disbursement was initiated in 2008.
With
respect to Sabah and Sarawak, financial support from the Federal government must be
provided in the form of loans, since the state government bears responsibility for sewerage
service.
2-17
Final Report
Table 2.2.2 shows the annual expenditures for the last three years by SSD for operations
and development.
In 2006, operating expenditures were RM 4.5 million for staff salaries,
RM 2.5 million for office rental fees, and RM 0.7 million for office utility charges and
equipment costs.
Table 2.2.2 Annual SSD Expenditures
(Unit: 1,000 RM)
2004
SSD
Operating expenses
Development expenses
Source:
2005
2006
4,043
8,215
9,452
377,328
426,819
991,608
Annual Report 2005 & 2006, Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications.
Figure 2.2.4 shows changes in development expenses for the JBIC fund and the non-JBIC
fund.
With respect to the JBIC fund, SSD receives the budget from MEWC without loan
repayment obligations where the Federal Government bears the burden of loan repayments.
The Project Management Division engages in the implementation of JBIC-funded and
non-JBIC funded projects.
Non-JBIC projects cover four components:
i) the
construction of sewage treatment plants and sewerage pipe networks, ii) the refurbishment
and upgrading of existing sewage treatment plants, iii) the acquisition of land to be used as
sites for sewerage systems, and iv) carrying out other related work such as investigations
and studies.
The reimbursement for JBIC-funded construction projects has been carried out since 2004,
contributing to the expansion of capital expenditures for sewerage infrastructure
improvement in Malaysia.
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
JBIC fund
200,000
Non JBIC fund
100,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Figure 2.2.4
2006
2007
Changes in Development Expenses
2-18
Final Report
(4) Sewerage Capital Contribution

In addition to budget amounts from MEWC, SSD controlled the Sewerage Capital
Contribution (SCC) Fund with the approval of MEWC.
SSD is responsible for receiving,
withdrawing, and monitoring the SCC Fund by the time it is changed by new regulations
concerning the SCC based on WSIA.
As of October 2008, the Sewerage Capital Contribution is levied on developers that connect
to the existing public STP at the rate of 1% of their developed property value (after
September 1999).
Under the present SCC system, the property value to calculate the SCC
is set according to the following three methods:
1) checking the property value described
on the Sales and Purchase Agreement (S&P) between the developer and its customer, 2)
referring to the land and building valuation report for the developed area prepared by the
valuation company (referred to as Valuation Company), or 3) using twice the land value
described on the Sales and Purchase Agreement only for land trades for future building
construction.
Developers pay the SCC to the regional SSD office at the time the
Recommendation of Certificate of Fitness is delivered to the local authority

(municipality) upon successful testing and commissioning of the sewerage system during
the final inspection by SSD.
The SCC Funds are kept in the Trust Account.
As of October 30, 2008, the balance of the
Trust Account was around RM 551.7 million, as shown in Table 2.2.3.
Part of the SCC
Fund is secured in fixed deposit accounts (RM 285.5 million as of October 2008).
The
balance of the Trust Account, at RM 266.2 million, can be used with fewer approval
procedures than those for fixed deposits.
Note that RM 212.6 million of this account has
already been allocated for future projects.
The residual amount, which can be allocated to
other projects, is RM 53.6 million as of the end of October 2008.
The SCC Fund is
intended to be spent mainly to carry out projects or work in areas where the SCC has been
collected.
The SCC Fund is also intended to be utilized for upgrading and rationalisation
work by coordinating with developers who are to construct and deliver their developments
sewerage systems.
However, this amount may be utilized to engage in small projects, such
as refurbishment of STP or construction of sludge facilities, since the annual amount of the
SCC is too small to cover even one construction project.
The SCC Fund is regarded as
quite limited for purposes of rationalisation or sewerage system integration projects.

Before 1999, the SCC would have been paid by a developer that constructed an STP within
its own premises at a rate of 1.65% of the property value, thereby preventing an increase in
the number of small sized STPs.
Nevertheless, the SCC rate was suspended by the Cabinet
and changed to the present rate and system on September 1999.
2-19
Final Report
Table 2.2.3 Receipts and Payments of the Trust Account

(Unit: 1,000 RM)
Year
SCC Receipts
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008 (30/Oct.)
Total
Interest on Fixed
Deposits
94,841
58,678
18,493
24,112
23,274
30,156
37,922
44,378
46,460
72,913
69,144
520,371
SCC Payments
1,777
5,457
4,689
5,268
6,808
6,303
5,938
5,670
8,443
9,624
4,441
64,418
922
3,242
201
453
1,550
142
0
6,556
0
0
20,060
33,126
Balance
95,696
60,893
22,981
28,927
28,532
36,317
43,860
43,492
54,903
82,537
53,525
551,663
Source: SSD
Note: SCC (Sewerage Capital Contribution). A portion of SCC receipts must be placed in Fixed Deposit Accounts. The
total amount of Fixed Deposits as of Oct 30 2008 is RM 285.5 million.
As mentioned in the WSIA, put into force in January 2008, the Sewerage Capital
Contribution Fund is to be administered by SPAN independent of the SPAN Fund.
However, as of October 2008, the Sewerage Capital Contribution is still being collected by
the regional SSD office during a transitional period.
After new regulations go into effect,
scheduled in January 2009, the SCC will be levied and controlled by SPAN.
Furthermore,
several changes to the present SCC system are expected to be introduced as described in the
WSIA.
Anticipated SCC changes indicated in the WSIA are as follows;
(a) The SCC will be charged for sewage treatment work without a sludge processing
facility or standby power generator
(b) The SCC will also be charged for a septic tank or communal septic tank that
requires an off-site sludge processing facility
Even after the migration of the SCC from SSD to SPAN, implementation of projects
utilizing the SCC fund will be handled by SSD, which plays the primary role in project
implementation according to SPAN.
SPAN will assume control of the SCC Fund, for
instance, by checking the balance of the Fund.
The Catchment Planning & Control
Division, Sewerage Regulatory Department, and SPAN will be responsible for controlling
the SCC Fund.
The current SCC system has no remaining incentives for developers to plan and to proceed
with rationalisation or integration of STP.
With the recent restructuring of the sewerage
sector, it is important to systematize and rationalise the SCC for sewerage facilities.
2-20
Final Report
(5) Management and Services

1) Approval and Acquisition Services
In 2005, SSD accepted 25,210 applications for the approval of new sewerage systems and
released 3,782 Certificates of Fitness for Occupation of buildings.
2) Sewerage Appeal Case Management
All sewerage appeal cases to obtain approval for the usage of individual septic tanks or
exemption/reduction of payment or contribution for usage or central sewerage system are to
be ruled on by a special committee at the department level and by MEWC. In 2005, Appeal
Committee meetings at the Ministry level had been held four times, and department level
meetings had been held eight times. The activity summary is shown in Tables 2.2.4 and
2.2.5.
Table 2.2.4 Appeal Committee at Ministry Level
Appeal Cases
Appeal on the use of Individual New case
Septic Tank (IST)
Re-appeal case
Postponed case
Appeal on Exemption of
New case
Sewerage Capital Contribution
Re-appeal case
(SCC)
Postponed case
Total
Approved
1
1
Rejected
5
No. of Cases
6
1
Source: MEWC Annual Report 2005
Table 2.2.5 Appeal Committee at Department Level

Appeal Cases
Appeal on the use of
New case
Individual Septic Tank
Re-appeal case
(IST)
Postponed case
Appeal on Exemption of
New case
Sewerage Capital
Re-appeal case
Contribution (SCC)
Postponed case
Total
Approved
11
1
2
1
1
16
Source: MEWC Annual Report 2005
Rejected
18
7
2
3
1
*1
1
2
30
No. of Cases
30
10
4
3
1
1
49
*1: Taken from main meeting
3) SSD Client Charter

To improve the delivery of sewerage services and projects in terms of response time and
quality, SSD has charted the following commitments in planning, implementation and
regulation. These are shown in Table 2.2.6.
2-21
Table 2.2.6
Final Report
SSD Client Charter on Service Quality and Response Time

Type of service
Processing time
Processing of applications for sewerage licenses

Release of sewerage licenses after payment of license fee
Processing of sewerage proposal plans after payment of license fee
Release of support letter for Certificate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) to the
local authority
Complaints on sewerage charges, services and contractors
Action on complaints on sewerage charges, services and contractors
Checking and certification of all project progress payment claims

Decision on submission of complete appeal applications related to central
sewerage system and capital contribution payment
Decision on submission of complete applications to obtain approval for
utilization of sewerage product not used to treat sewage
Decision on submission of complete applications to obtain approval for
utilization of sewerage product used to treat sewage
Within 30 days
In 14 days
Within 14 days
14 days after complete application
for final inspection is received
Received in one working day
Within 14 days from the date
received
Will be monitored until solved
Within 30 days
Within 60 days (2 months)
Within 30 days (1 month)
Within 90 days (3 months)
(6) Assessment on Sewerage Planning Capabilities

Planning management in SSD is an area that had been neglected before the establishment of
the Planning Division in September 2006. Sewerage planning was previously undertaken by
IWK with the support of SSD Regional Offices.
operate officially.
In 2007 the Planning Division started to
However, there are still several limitations that need to be addressed for
the Division to optimally perform its functions.
The Division lacks manuals specifically for the purpose of planning. Manuals provide
procedures or processes that guide effective and efficient sewerage planning.
Manuals
also take into consideration industry benchmarks and best practices while tailing
practices to suit local conditions.
There are no programmes dedicated to capacity development for planning staff.
As
mentioned, the Planning Division is still quite new. Therefore, a training needs
assessment to identify training gaps should be a priority for the division. Then, a
short-term and long-term training plan can be prepared to address perceived and actual
planning capacity inadequacies related to SSDs mandate.
No knowledge bank for sewerage system planning exists. Actual functions and
responsibilities related to sewerage planning have always been handled by IWK and
SSD regional offices, and experience within the Division is only now being built up.
Since the Division is currently conducting and managing the preparation of five
catchment strategies/plans, it presents a good opportunity to start developing and
retaining expertise along these lines. In the meantime, it would be best to tap or utilize
the existing expertise available in IWK and SSD regional offices.
The Planning Division has limited staff. Of nine planned staff including one director,
only six positions have been filled. It appears that even in the event that the three
2-22
Final Report
remaining staff positions were filled, the Division would still be insufficiently staffed to
deliver satisfactory planning services nationwide.
In considering recruitment,
selection and placement (RSP) of staff, strategic planning skills and technical planning
expertise should be considered.
2.2.2
Water Sector (WS)
The Water Sector within MEWC is comprised of two divisions:

Division and the Water Regulatory Division.
the Water Services Policy
The Water Sector plays an important role as the
advising agency to the minister and as the ministry representative on all matters pertaining to
the water and sewerage industry. Its current staff strength is 25 and the sectors main functions
or responsibilities are as follows:
To study, plan and endorse policies and strategies for the development of national water
supply and sewerage services infrastructure
To study, plan and confirm policies and regulations related to the SPAN Act and Water
Services Act
To manage appropriations for the development of national water supply and sewerage
services
To coordinate, monitor and review the implementation of projects
To report, announce and communicate to the public with respect to water supply and
sewerage projects
To function as the secretariat, coordinator and member of selected committee meetings
(1) Water Services Policy Division

To plan, formulate, review, update, monitor and coordinate all aspects related to policies and
water service programmes and project with the intention of providing effective services to
consumers and in accordance with approved standards.
(2) Water Services Regulatory Division
To plan, coordinate, implement and regulate SPAN together with licensing activity for the
development of effective and efficient water services and the safeguarding of consumer
interests.
2.2.3
National Water Services Commission (SPAN)
(1) Roles
In addition to the functions mandated under the water supply and sewerage services laws,
SPAN has the following important functions:
2-23
Final Report
To advise the Minister on all matters related to the national policy objectives of the
water supply and sewerage service laws and to implement and promote the national
policy objectives
To implement and enforce the water supply and sewerage services laws and to consider
and recommend reforms to water supply and sewerage services laws
To ensure the productivity of the water supply services and sewerage services industry
and the monitoring of operator compliance with stipulated service standards, contractual
obligations and relevant laws and guidelines
To increase concerted efforts towards improving the operational efficiency of the

industry and in particular the reduction of non-revenue water through short-term,
medium term and long term programmes
To advise the Minister on fair and efficient mechanisms for determination of tariffs that
are fair to both consumers and licensees, and to implement tariffs that have been
established through appropriate mechanisms and tools
To ensure that national development goals pertaining to coverage, supply and access to
water supply services and sewerage services are achieved
To ensure long-term sustainability of the quality of water and sewerage services through
continued capital works development
To formulate and implement a plan so that all reasonable demands for sewerage
services are satisfied and in consultation with the relevant authorities, and to prepare a
sewerage catchment plan formulating the policy and general proposal with respect to
the development of any new sewerage system and measures of improvement of any
existing sewerage system
To carry out any function conferred upon it under any other written law
To advise the Minister generally on matters relating to water supply services and
sewerage services
(2) Organisation
The organisation structure for SPAN is shown in Figure 2.2.5.
Ten SPAN Committee Members including the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive
Director of the Water Regulatory Department had been assigned by the beginning of August
2007. Currently, the staff strength of SPAN stands at 170 while its target figure is 190.
2-24

Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara
(National Water Services Commision)
Final Report
Internal Audit
Chief Executive
Officer
Regulatory Reform &

Integration Division
Research,
Development &
Innovation Division
Leagal Secretariat
Services Division
Corporate Affairs
Division
Human Resource
Unit
Northern Regional Office

Central Regional Office
Eastern Regional Office
Water Regulatory Department

(Executive Director)
Technical
Standard &
Compliance
Division
Sewergae Regulatory Department

(Executive Director)
Technical
Standard &
Compliance
Division
Resource Planning
& Engineering
Services Division
Figure 2.2.5
Catchment
Planning &
Control Division
Economic & Social Regulatory

Department (Director)
Licensing & Tariff

Division
Data &
Information
Management
Division
Southern Regional Office
Consumer Affairs,
Monitoring &
Enforcement
Division
Organisation Structure of SPAN
(3) Power of the Commission

The Commission shall have the power to do all things necessary or expedient for or in
connection with the performance of its functions under the water supply and sewerage
services laws, such as the following:
To utilize all the property of the Commission, movable and immovable, in such manner
as the Commission may think expedient, including the raising of loans by mortgaging
such property
To impose fees or charges for services rendered by the Commission
To appoint such agents, experts or consultants as it deems fit to assist the Commission
in the performance of its functions
To grant loans and scholarships to employees of the Commission for such purposes as
may be approved by the Minister
To formulate and implement human resource development and funding and cooperation
programmes for the proper and effective performance of the functions of the
Commission
To cooperate with any corporate body or government agency for the purpose of
performing the Commission's functions

To assist SPAN in its payment of staff compensation, office expenses, utility costs, and
other initial start-up costs, excluding project implementation costs, the Federal Government
approved a seed fund amounting to RM 50 million for a period of five years and to be
drawn down as required.
Within the first five-year period, SPAN is expected to generate
sufficient income/revenue to allow self-sufficiency without further Government support.

In the interim, RM 20 million has been provided to SPAN.
The SPAN Act (Laws of Malaysia Act 654, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act
2006) establishes the financial system of SPAN in Part V Finance.
2-25
The following is a
Final Report
summary of the financial system described in the Act.
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Fund (SPAN Fund) shall be established and
controlled by SPAN.
The SPAN Fund shall consist of the following major revenues:
(i) budget set by
Parliament on an intermittent basis; (ii) license, permits, and other fees and
administrative charges; (iii) income from investment; (iv) revenues from sale, disposal,
lease or hire etc. of assets of SPAN; (v) revenues from consultancy and advisory
services, etc.; and (vi) loans, and others.
If revenue from license fees or any other fees/charges exceed the financial requirements
of SPAN, amounts in excess shall be paid into the Federal Consolidation Fund.
The Water Industry Fund and the Sewerage Capital Contribution Fund are administered
by SPAN independently of and not to be combined with the SPAN Fund.
The SPAN Fund is expected to be used for the following purposes: (i) remuneration,
allowances etc. of committee members and staff of SPAN; (ii) procurement and services,
including engagement of consultants; (iii) purchasing or leasing equipment, machinery,
material, land, buildings etc.; and (iv) repayment of loan and interest, and others.
SPAN must conserve the Fund by securing all revenue required to meet all the
necessary expenses.
Annual expenditures of SPAN authorized by the Minister are withdrawn from the SPAN
Fund.
Before September 1st of every year, SPAN submits expenditures estimates for the next
year to the Minister.
The Minister reports authorized expenditure amounts to SPAN before January 1st, the
first day of the financial year.
SPAN is allowed to submit supplementary estimates of its expenditures to the Minister.
SPAN may borrow money occasionally with the approval of the Minister and with the
agreement of the Minister of Finance.
SPAN must have the approval of the Minister and agreement of the Minister of Finance
before executing contracts with amounts exceeding RM 10 million.
The financial year of SPAN begins on January 1st and ends December 31st.
SPAN reports the statement of accounts (balance sheet, income and expenditure, etc.)
and statement of activities of the year soon after the end of each financial year.
SPAN sends a copy of the statement of accounts certified by the auditors and the
auditors report to the Minister, which the Minister submits to both Houses of
Parliament.
SPAN has been established as a special bureau in the Ministry of Energy, Water and
Communication, and it is authorized to have its own Fund and to borrow money from
outside the budget of the Ministry.
Nevertheless, SPAN is required to obtain the approval
of the Minister for its annual budget estimate, loans, and large contracts, etc.
2-26
Final Report
Based on the WSIA, there are major two types of licenses required to obtain for owners or
operators of water businesses:
the individual license and the class license.
The
individual license targets owners of public water supply system, owners of public sewerage
system, or operators of these systems.
The class license is intended for owners of private
water supply system or private sewerage system, or operators of these systems.
Both of
the licenses are subject to renewal every three years.
Furthermore, individual licenses can
be broken down into service and facility categories.
The facility license grants authority to
owners of public water supply or public sewerage systems.
Service licenses provide
authority to entities that provide any water supply services or sewerage services by utilizing
the public water supply or sewerage system.
License fees are expected to be the largest revenue source for the SPAN Fund.
The license
fee rate is described in the Water Services Industry (Licensing) Regulations 2007 and is
equal to 1% of the previous financial years gross facility and service license receipts.
Full
collection of license fees from all existing water and sewerage service entities is anticipated
to sufficiently cover the cost of SPAN operations.
However, this may generate difficulties
for several water operators experiencing operating losses.
It is important for SPAN to
verify in detail the financing program in the license applicants business plans.
1) Water Industry Fund
The Water Industry Fund, a new concept in Malaysia, is in the process of being established
and, as of October 2008, had not yet been launched.
for establishing the Water Industry Fund.
SPAN will prepare new regulations
The Fund is charged for the individual licensees
as described in the Water Services Industry (Licensing) Regulations 2007.
Purposes of
the Water Industry Fund are described in Part XII, Clause 171, WSIA, as follows:
To protect and preserve watercourses and water catchment areas
To ensure sustainability of water supply from the watercourses
To improve water quality of the watercourses
To provide water and sewerage services in rural developments
To serve other such purposes as may be determined by the Minister
It is anticipated that the Fund shall be used for investigation or coordination related to
inter-state watercourse matters, since, in some areas, several water supply licensees may
exist in a single watercourse.
According to SPAN, the anticipated amount of the Water
Industry Fund is limited and not enough to make capital investments for project
implementation; therefore, it will be utilized for watercourse or river pollution studies, etc.
According to SPAN, amounts to be charged for the Water Industry Fund are computed by
multiplying some percentage by the total revenue of water supply licensees.
will be charged in addition to license fees to SPAN.
The rate for the Water Industry Fund,
that is percentage of total revenue, has not been decided as of October 2008.
2-27
This amount
Final Report
Based on the WSIA, SPAN shall administer the Water Industry Fund by opening the
account for the Fund and reporting activities using the Fund to the Ministry.
SPAN will be
required to send the certified accounting documents of the Fund to the Minister at the end of
financial year.
The Water Industry Fund is regarded as a limited amount in terms of capital investment, but
is one of the important funds to be utilized for watercourse preservation to ensure
sustainable usage and water quality improvement, especially focused on inter-state or
inter-operator matters related to water supply services.
Effective and efficient use of funds
is strongly desired.
2) Business Plan
Individual licensees are required to submit a 30-year business plan and three-year annual
rolling plans to SPAN to obtain approval.
Business plans will be reviewed for viability
when SPAN considers the renewal of the license.
According to the Explanatory Note on
the Enforcement of the Water Service Industry Act 2006 (ACT 655) issued by SPAN, the
business plan is expected to include the following topics:
Roadmap towards full cost recovery
Water demand forecast
Water supply projection with programme for capital investment
Expected tariff increases
Plans to conserve water and the environment
Plans to integrate with sewerage services
Annual rolling plans (three years) will be utilized by SPAN to monitor and regulate the
water supply and sewerage licensees through several performance indicators.
SPAN is
currently preparing the business plan format, which will indicate detailed content to be
included.
The business plan is intended to be submitted by water supply and sewerage
companies when they apply for the individual license.

approved, rejected or require revision.
Proposed business plans will be
After approval, individual licensees have the duty
to carry out activities following business plans from the 1st year or be subject to penalties.
SPAN indicates that management target is full cost recovery, especially for water supply
companies.
Full cost in this context includes O&M and costs of capital.
SPAN also
encourages the sewerage sector to realize full cost recovery in the long term.
To achieve
this purpose, each individual licensee is expected to consider the planned tariff increases.
These basic directions are considered appropriate for sustainable service provision.
3) Tariff Review and Joint Billing of Water Supply and Sewerage Services
According to the Explanatory Note on the Enforcement of the Water Service Industry Act
2006 (ACT 655) by SPAN, the following policies are clearly described regarding tariff
2-28
Final Report
review:
A primary focus to restructure the water services industry is the need to consider full
cost recovery to secure long term sustainability
Tariff reviews from licensees will be based on applications that need to be substantiated
by each licensee
There will be no automatic tariff increase, and licensees will have to meet certain
performance indicators before applications are considered by SPAN
The Ministry, in cooperation with SPAN, will conduct tariff reviews in the future, taking
into consideration the following aspects:
Level of efficiency achieved by the operator
Operating effectiveness of the operator
Progress of continuous improvement programmes of the operator (e.g., NRW, bill
collection)
Level of capital expenditures
Lease rental charges by WAMCO
Full cost recovery is described as one of the major directions of water service management
by SPAN.
It is considered appropriate even though the realization of full cost recovery
takes time, especially for sewerage services.

Joint billing of water supply and sewerage is also expressed in the Explanatory Note by
SPAN. According to the Note, joint billing is expected to be implemented beginning with
Penang, Johor and Labuan.
However, this is still under consideration as of October 2008.
Joint billing is planned only for customers who connect to the public sewerage system and
excludes customers with individual septic tanks.
Raising the collection efficiency of
sewerage tariffs is one of the most important tasks to be tackled and introduction of joint
billing is recognized as a valuable step towards improvement.
Successful introduction of
joint billing in these three areas will have significance as the joint billing would be
introduced into the other states.
In order to plan the tariff increase, licensees must apply with substantial evidence and meet
the specified performance indicators.
This is considered reasonable because operators
must try to improve their management efficiency and service levels to apply for tariff
increases.
This will help to reduce customer dissatisfaction caused by tariff increases
without satisfactory service provision to the customers.
2.3
Water Asset Management Company (WAMCO)

(1) Roles
2-29
Final Report
With the enactment of the WSIA 2006, WAMCO (Water Asset Management Company) was
established in May 2007. WAMCO is to be a facilities licensee under the provisions of the
WSIA 2006. Its main responsibilities are as follows:
To construct, refurbish, improve, upgrade, maintain and repair water supply and
sewerage systems and all other assets in relation to the systems, in accordance with
Section 35 of the Water Services Industry Act 2006 (Act 655).
To source and obtain competitive financing for the development of water supply and
sewerage infrastructures.
To assist SPAN in its efforts to restructure the nation's water industry towards achieving
the Government's vision for efficient and high quality water supply and sewerage
services.
To achieve the above, it is envisaged that WAMCO will raise funds via Government loan
sor private financial instruments.
This is expected to be feasible as WAMCO is 100%
owned by the Ministry of Finance, and this would help to secure long term loans with low
interest.
There is a possibility that government guarantees would be made available to
accommodate funding needs.

To carry out its functions, WAMCO is expected to be awarded a facility license by SPAN,
which can only be obtained upon WAMCO owning at least one asset.
(2) Organisation and Staffing
As of November 2008, the staff strength of WAMCO stands at 41.
Its organisation
structure is as highlighted in Figure 2.3.1.

Chairman's Office
(2 staff)
CEO's Office
(3 staff)
COO's Office
(3 staff)
Technical Services Department
(4 staff)
Finance Department
(6 staff)
Project Management Department

(4 staff)
Corporation Communications
Department (9 staff)
Quality Assurance Section

(3 staff)
Procurement & Corp Services

Department (1 staff)
Contract Database Section

(3 staff)
Human Resource Department

(1 staff)
Figure 2.3.1 Organisation Structure of WAMCO

2-30
Final Report

Authorized capital of WAMCO is RM 1 billion.
To initiate operations, the Federal
Government provided WAMCO with a seed fund of about RM 100 million as paid-up
capital, which is expected to be increased to RM 500 million by the year 2010.
As of
October 2008, paid-up capital by the Federal Government amounted to RM 410 million.
The bulk of the paid-up capital will be used for asset transfers (ownership) in addition to
other initial establishment costs.
Since all water supply assets are state government owned,
if the state government is in debt to the Federal Government or other agencies, WAMCO
may either negotiate to write off the debts in return for transfer of asset ownership or
compensate them for the difference if the debt is not equivalent to present asset value.
In
meeting its objectives, WAMCO works on a full cost recovery model.

WAMCO is engaged in productive discussions with water supply operators and state
governments in almost all of the states in the peninsula of Malaysia to enter into an
agreement to transfer the ownership of their water supply facilities.
Federal government
has not yet decided whether WAMCO holds sewerage assets or not.
As of October 2008,
negotiations to transfer the water supply facilities were still on-going and the contracts were
anticipated to be signed soon for three states:
Negri Sembilan, Melaka, and Johor.
Based
on this progress, WAMCO presented the facility license application with the business plan
to SPAN in October 2008.
If the agreements for asset transfer are successfully executed, WAMCO would own the
assets and will provide all required future capital investments for the assets.
WAMCO will
then lease the assets to service licensees, such as state-owned or private operators.
Service
licensees will be required to pay the asset lease fees in exchange for forgiveness of the
capital investment loans.
The amount of lease fees shall be described in each lease
agreement between WAMCO and the water operator.

WAMCO is expected to raise funds for its future capital investment needs from government
soft loans, local capital markets (bond issuance), and the private banking sector.
It is
expected to obtain loans with lower interest rates and reduce the heavy burden of loan
repayments that current operators face, thereby enabling the operators to focus on their
operations.
Loans will be paid back by WAMCO using the lease fees from service
licensees.
2.4
Water Supply Services Agencies

One of the main objectives of restructuring the water sector is to create a structure that
ensures the long-term sustainability of the water supply and sewerage services industry.
2-31
Final Report
The positive financial outlook of water supply agencies is the key to ensure the
sustainability of the industry.
Table 2.4.1 shows the revenues and expenditures of water supply organisations over five
years (2001 to 2005).
Johor, which privatized its entire utility, recognized large positive
balances of revenue over expenditures.
On the other hand, Selangor, which contracted
three water treatment concessionaires and one distribution concessionaire shows a large
negative balance. Kedah, Perak, Pulau Pinang, Kelantan, had generated relatively large
balances of revenue over expenditures.
In Kedah, the State Public Works Department is
responsible for distribution and regulates the two private operators.
In Perak, the State
Water Supply Board retains distribution of water while controlling two private operators.
In Terengganu, the water supply entity was corporatized in July 1999 and is wholly owned
by the state government.
2-32
Final Report
Table 2.4.1 Revenue and Operating Expenditures of Water Supply Organisations

States
Kedah
Sarawak*1
Labuan
Perlis
Pahang
N.Sembilan
Sabah
Perak
Melaka
Kuching
Sibu
P. Pinang
Terengganu
Selangor*2
Johor
Kelantan
LAKU
TOTAL
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
Revenue
Expense
Balance
2001
133.1
97.7
35.4
19.9
30.3
-10.4
9.7
16.1
-6.4
10.5
12.3
-1.8
96.1
102.8
-6.7
77.3
61.2
16.1
51.7
175.3
-123.6
186.1
167.6
18.5
94.3
68.6
25.7
57.5
53.8
3.7
18.6
18.4
0.2
163.3
104.1
59.2
74.0
38.8
35.2
733.9
1,495.2
-761.3
416.4
251.4
165.0
41.5
30.5
11.0
43.3
40.7
2.6
2,227.2
2,764.8
-537.6
2002
148.5
117.1
31.4
22.0
26.2
-4.2
9.6
16.6
-7.0
12.7
13.7
-1.0
98.7
109.3
-10.6
99.6
72.8
26.8
75.9
200.9
-125.0
207.6
168.3
39.3
105.5
77.8
27.7
62.8
55.7
7.1
19.5
21.2
-1.7
168.0
107.5
60.5
80.7
45.6
35.1
861.4
1,310.5
-449.1
382.4
270.7
111.7
45.7
34.2
11.5
46.7
40.3
6.4
2,447.3
2,688.4
-241.1
2003
157.9
111.8
46.1
26.3
28.5
-2.2
9.7
16.7
-7.0
12.9
13.7
-0.8
105.7
118.9
-13.2
130.0
122.3
7.7
124.4
160.3
-35.9
210.2
170.3
39.9
107.9
79.8
28.1
66.6
60.0
6.6
21.0
22.2
-1.2
163.8
112.9
50.9
77.4
47.0
30.4
1,008.4
1,714.7
-706.3
428.9
293.5
135.4
46.7
35.6
11.1
49.6
41.9
7.7
2,747.4
3,150.1
-402.7
(Unit: Million RM)

2004
2005
166.1
163.1
122.7
129.0
43.4
34.1
25.8
25.4
36.4
36.6
-10.6
-11.1
10.6
11.0
17.2
18.0
-6.6
-7.0
14.9
12.8
13.8
18.6
1.1
-5.8
97.7
103.8
133.7
149.1
-36.0
-45.3
154.4
163.5
127.5
114.4
26.9
49.1
217.8
255.8
195.0
295.3
22.8
-39.5
220.3
231.5
176.0
185.5
44.3
46.0
117.2
115.8
111.7
113.2
5.5
2.6
72.2
75.6
61.6
61.6
10.6
14.0
22.3
23.9
22.7
24.0
-0.4
-0.1
170.4
173.4
120.0
129.8
50.4
43.6
80.1
80.8
49.8
81.8
30.3
-1.0
1,084.0
1,417.6
1,840.3
1,510.9
-756.3
-93.3
497.6
610.1
390.7
460.7
106.9
149.4
52.5
57.6
39.0
42.7
13.5
14.9
51.9
53.2
43.8
44.7
8.1
8.5
3,055.8
3,575.0
3,501.9
3,415.8
-446.1
159.2
Source: Malaysia Water Industry Guide, 2003 and 2005, published by The Malaysian Water Association
Notes: *1. Excluding LAKU, Kuching and Sibu,
*2. Including Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya
2-33
Final Report
Table 2.4.2 depicts important financial and managerial indicators of all water supply
organisations in Malaysia.
The unit production cost is the actual cost to produce one m3 of
treated water.
The average price of water is the actual revenue from selling the one m3 of
treated water.
If the unit production cost is more than the average price of water, it is
almost impossible to generate a profit.
Labuan and Sarawak fell into this condition and
experienced massive negative balances.
Selangor is characterized by a higher unit
production cost (RM 1.11/m ) and a high non-revenue water ratio (38.4%).
have caused massive negative balances every year.
These factors
In Selangor, these factors, in
combination with having the highest number of connections (1.48 million), have caused the
deficit to become remarkably large compared with all of the water supply organisations in
Malaysia.
Table 2.4.2 Domestic and Industrial Water Rates (2005)
States
Kedah
Sarawak*1
Labuan
Perlis
Pahang
N.Sembilan
Sabah
Perak
Melaka
Kuching
Sibu
P. Pinang
Terengganu
Selangor*2
Johor
Kelantan
LAKU*3
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Average water tariff

(2007) (RM/m3)*4
Domestic
0.53
0.56
0.90
0.57
0.57
0.68
0.90
0.73
0.72
0.62
0.62
0.31
0.52
0.77
0.90
0.55
0.65
Total number
of connections
Industrial
1.20
1.19
0.90
1.30
1.45
1.59
0.90
1.60
1.47
1.06
1.06
0.94
1.15
2.27
2.93
1.25
1.32
Non-revenue
water *5
(%)
439,336
121,813
12,436
63,499
303,209
322,130
197,574
595,856
206,687
115,023
46,903
430,659
207,780
1,483,000
811,874
154,445
71,192
5,585,724
-
42.8
10.1
24.0
36.3
49.6
53.0
57.1
30.6
28.8
32.0
27.2
19.4
34.7
38.4
35.5
40.0
18.5
37.7
Unit
production
cost *6
(RM/m3)
0.36
0.57
1.32
0.55
0.58
0.49
1.10
0.53
0.78
0.53
0.74
0.43
0.53
1.11
0.93
0.43
0.65
0.79
Average
price of
water *7
(RM/m3)
0.80
0.44
1.06
0.60
0.80
1.49
2.22
0.96
1.12
0.96
1.01
0.72
0.80
1.69
1.91
0.96
0.95
1.32
Source: Malaysia Water Industry Guide 2006, published by The Malaysian Water Association
Notes: *1. Excluding LAKU, Kuching & Sibu, *2. Including Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur & Putrajaya, *3. LAKU
applied several different rates for distinct coverage areas.
*4. Average water tariff for domestic use applies to the first 35 m3, and industrial use applies to the first 500 m3. Tariff
tables apply to the progressive block rate for all of the states in Malaysia excluding two states, Sabah and Labuan.
Sabah and Labuan utilize the tariff tables of constant volumetric rate.
*5. NRW equals (water production volume billed water volume) divided by water production volume.
*6. Unit production cost is defined as the necessary cost to generate 1m3 of water supply.
*7. Average price of water equals total revenue divided by total billed water volume.
Kedah suffers from a high NRW ratio (42.8%), but unit production cost is very low (RM
0.36/m3).
Therefore, in this case, it is possible to generate large positive balances.
be said that Kelantan is under the same management situation.
It can
Perak, Melaka, Pulau
Pinang, and LAKU, on the other hand, have succeeded to lower NRW ratio and lower unit
2-34
production cost.
Final Report
However, in Johor, the water supply organisation had a relatively higher
unit production cost (RM 0.93/m3), but it was able to contain the NRW ratio (35.5%), and it
charged relatively higher tariffs for domestic customer (RM 0.90/m3) and much higher
tariffs for industrial customers (RM 2.93/m3).
As a result, the water supply organisation in
Johor was able to generate a huge positive balance.
It should be noted that Johor and
Perak have a similar number of connections, but Johor obtained almost three times the
revenue of Perak.
Some reasons for this disparity include the difference in composition
between domestic and non-domestic customers and the differing average water tariffs for
the industrial customers.
Table 2.4.3 shows the states that suffer from continuous losses of water supply management
in terms of annual revenues minus annual operating expenditures based on the data in Table
2.4.1.
Some anticipated solutions for these six states are described below.
based on the data from the Malaysia Water Industry Guide.
Analysis is
Detailed analysis should be
conducted based on precise and sufficient information and data for each responsible water
supply authority.
(1) Sarawak
As shown in the operating ratio (1.45), total O&M costs are much higher than total revenue.
Unit production costs (RM 0.57/m3) were held lower than the national average (RM
0.79/m3).
Water tariffs as a share of household income (0.61%) is considered low at
present.
Therefore, the average price of water (water tariff) should be raised high enough
to cover at least O&M costs.

the applicable level.
Staff per 1,000 connections (8.9) is considered higher than
Labor productivity should be increased to reduce O&M costs.
Table 2.4.3 Characteristics of Water Supply Enterprises in Six States (2005)
States
Sarawak
Labuan
Perlis
Pahang
Sabah
Selangor
National Ave.
Average water
tariff (2007)
(RM/m3)
domestic/
industrial
0.56 / 1.19
0.90 / 0.90
0.57 / 1.30
0.57 / 1.45
0.90 / 0.90
0.77 / 2.27
0.65 / 1.32
NRW
(%)
10.1
24.0
36.3
49.6
57.1
38.4
37.7
Unit
production
cost
(RM/m3)
Average
price of
water
(RM/m3)
0.57
1.32
0.55
0.58
1.10
1.11
0.79
0.44
1.06
0.60
0.80
2.22
1.69
1.32
Ave. price
of water
/ unit
production
cost
0.77
0.80
1.09
1.38
2.02
1.52
1.67
Operating
ratio
(total O&M
cost / total
revenue)
1.45
1.63
1.45
1.44
1.15
1.07
0.96
Staff /
1,000
connections
8.9
13.4
2.0
5.1
6.7
1.5
-
Water
tariff /
household
income
(%) *1
0.61
0.74
0.60
1.56
0.57
0.61
Source: Malaysia Water Industry Guide 2006 published by The Malaysian Water Association
Note: *1. Average tariff data is calculated by utilizing the Malaysia Water Industry Guide 2006. Average household income (2004) is
sourced from Department of Statistics Household Income Surveys.
(2) Labuan
Since the unit production cost (RM 1.32/m3) belongs to the highest group, the average price
2-35
of water is only 80% of the unit production cost.
Final Report
As a result, the operating ratio (1.63)
shows that total O&M costs are much more than total revenue.
Staff per 1,000
connections (13.4) indicates that labor productivity is in the lowest group.
In order to
ensure the sustainability of services, labor productivity must be improved and costs must be
saved before tariff increases can be considered.
(3) Perlis
First, NRW (36.3%) needs be reduced through ongoing efforts.
Second, as shown in the
operating ratio (1.45), total O&M costs are 45% more than total revenue.
Nevertheless,
unit production costs (RM 0.55/m ) are lower than the national average.
Cost saving
On the other hand, the average price of water (RM 0.60/m3) is
seems difficult in this case.
less than half that of the national average (RM 1.32/m3).

0.74% of the household income.
The monthly water tariff is only
The tariff raise needs to be considered in detailed prior to
implementation.
(4) Pahang
The NRW ratio is high (49.6%).
Half of the treated water did not generate any revenue.
Reduction of the NRW is one of the important problems to be tackled first.

3
price of water (RM 0.80/m ) has been kept down to moderate levels.
The average
As a result, the
operating ratio (1.44) indicates that O&M costs are much greater than revenue.
Reduction
of the NRW ratio should be achieved before a tariff revision plan is considered.
The water
tariff as a share of household income (0.60%) shows that the tariff is not high compared to
household income.
(5) Sabah
The NRW ratio (57.1%) is the highest of all the states in Malaysia and remains a serious
problem to be addressed.
Unit production costs (RM 1.10/m3) are higher than the national
average (RM 0.79/m3). Staff per 1,000 connections (6.7) show that labor productivity is not
high.
Cost savings measures in addition to labor productivity improvements need to be
implemented by water supply enterprises at the beginning.
Once this occurs, tariff
increases for industrial, not domestic, customers may be considered.
Water tariffs for
domestic customers are higher than those in other states in Malaysia as a percentage of
household income (1.56%).
(6) Selangor
The NRW (38.4%) must be reduced through ongoing efforts. The operating ratio (1.07)
shows that O&M costs are slightly greater than revenue.
3
1.11/m ) are relatively high.
Unit production costs (RM
Tariff revisions were already conducted in 2006.
reduction and cost saving should be considered and implemented.

of household income are 0.57%.
NRW
Water tariffs as a share
Because of high average household income, the share is

2-36
lower than the national average (0.61%) despite a higher tariff.
Final Report
When the next tariff
revision is conducted, impact to low income groups need to be considered in detail.

Preliminary analyses are only provided here for states showing clear annual losses in recent
years.
By conducting detailed analysis based on precise data even states with annual profits
may need to consider tariff revision.
It is strongly recommended that the water supply
authority of each state shall itself conduct the detailed cost analysis and water tariff planning as
is requested in business plans.
2.5
Indah Water Konsortium (Sewerage Services Agency)

(1) Roles
Indah Water Konsortium (IWK), a wholly-owned company of the Minister of Finance
Incorporated, is Malaysia's national sewerage company and has been entrusted with the task
of developing and maintaining a modern and efficient sewerage system for all Malaysians.
In 1994, the Federal Government awarded the company with a concession for nationwide
sewerage services, previously under the responsibility of local authorities.
Since then,
IWK has taken over the sewerage services from all local authorities except those within the
States of Kelantan, Sabah, Sarawak and Dewan Bandaraya Johor Baru.
The IWK has been currently operating in 86 out of 96 local authorities in Peninsular
Malaysia, including the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan.
The responsibilities of IWK are as follows:
(a) Operate and maintain public sewerage systems
(b) Refurbish and upgrade existing public treatment plants and sewers to ensure
acceptable performance
(c) Provide septic tank desludging services in a scheduled manner for customers
(d) Assist the SSD on sewerage planning and development for which IWK is paid a fee
(e) Assist the SSD in conducting sewerage projects and project management for which
IWK is paid a fee
(f) Operate only within local authority operational areas
(2) Organisation
The organisation structure of IWK is shown in Figure 2.5.1.
There are three major departments within IWK that are of interest with respect to the
sewerage industry:
Operation and maintenance, Capital Works and Refurbishment, and
Planning and Engineering.
Other departments within IWK provide a supporting role to

2-37
Final Report
these three departments.

Board of Directors
Audit
Committee
Management
Committee
Internal
Audit
Operations
Human
Resources
Information
Technology
Communications
Corporate
Planning
Legal
Finance &
Administration
Procurement
Operations &
Maintenance
Capital Works
Refurbishment
Planning &
Engineering
Customer
Relations
Financial
Accounting
Northern
Region *1
Contract
Admin.
Planning
Services
C&B/
Recruitment
Technical
Services
Contracts
Management
Management
Accounting
Central
Region *2
Project
Management
Development
Services
Training &
Development
Application
Support
Procurement
Admini.
Admin.
Southern
Region *3
Project
Costing
Engineering
Services
Employee
Relations
Insurance &
Rsiks
Eastern
Region *4
Health &
Safety
Techincal
Services
Land
Services
Database,
Bill & Field
Survey
Customer
Care
Debt
Recovery
Receipting
Accreditation
Research
Dev.
Lab Services
Notes: *1. Three offices in Pulau Pinang, Perak, & Kedah *2. Offices in Kuala Lumpur & Selangor
*3. Three offices in N. Sembilan, Melaka, & Johor, *4. Two offices in Pahang & Terengganu
Figure 2.5.1 Organisation Structure of Indah Water Konsortium Sdn. Bhd (As of Oct. 2008)
1) Operations and Maintenance Department

The Operations and Maintenance Department is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the public sewerage system and the provision of the septic tank desludging
services in order to ensure compliance of treatment plant performance with environmental
standards.
2) Capital Works and Refurbishment Department
The Capital Works and Refurbishment Department is responsible for the design, tendering,
and construction supervision of capital works projects, sludge management projects,
networks and private connection, and refurbishment projects. As much as they are
responsible for implementation of IWKs internal projects, a vast amount of their resources
are deployed in assisting SSD with their project management of capital works for which
IWK is reimbursed with a project management fee.
3) Planning and Engineering Department
The Planning and Engineering Department is responsible for the development of strategies
2-38
Final Report
and policies for the operations and maintenance of sewerage system to meet standards of
customer service and to comply with regulatory requirements in addition to creating a
reliable database of treatment plants operated by IWK.
IWKs Planning & Engineering
Department also provides supporting services for SSD, which include preparation of
catchment strategies/plans (CS/Ps) and in the form of Developer Services such as
evaluation of CS/Ps and development plans.
(3) Staffing
As of December 2007 and as shown in Table 2.5.1, the total number of staff members in the
Operations and Maintenance Department was 2,095, comprising the bulk (79.6%) of IWKs
total staff of 2,632.
The rest of the staff, other than the three major departments mentioned,
constitutes less than 10% of the total staff number.
Table 2.5.1 Number of Staff of IWK and Major Departments (Last Five Years)
As of December
Operations and Maintenance Dept.
Capital Works and Refurbishment Dept.
Planning and Engineering Dept.
Sub-total
IWK as a whole
2003
1,528
77
174
1,779
1,999
2004
1,674
85
175
1,934
2,163
2005
1,781
85
183
2,049
2,289
2006
2,000
82
194
2,276
2,535
2007
2,095
76
208
2,379
2,632
Source: IWK, 2008
In order to alleviate the lack of operations and maintenance personnel, the staff number of
the Operations and Maintenance Department increased by 37.1% from 2003 to 2007 (refer
to Table 2.5.2).
In other words, for the past five years, Department staffing has been
increased at an average rate of 8.21% per annum.
For the same period, the number of
sewage treatment plant has increased at an average rate of 3.70% per annum.
The annual
percentage increase of O&M staff is thus higher compared to percentage increases in the
number of STPs.
Similarly, this has also exceeded the percentage increases in sewer
network length, at 7.70%, and ISTs desludged by IWK, at 4.02%.
These O&M staff
increases have been necessary to overcome the shortage of O&M staff in IWK compared to
the large number of sewerage facilities being operated and managed.
Table 2.5.2 Number of O&M Staff , STPs, and Sewerage Facilities
As at Dec
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Increase
from 2003
to 2007
(%)
Annual
% of
increase
No. of staff, O&M Department,

IWK
1,528
1,674
1,781
2,000
2,095
37.1
8.21
No. of STPs
7,520
7,904
8,220
8,459
8,697
15.7
3.70
448
510
562
601
640
42.9
9.33
No. of pump stations
2-39
As at Dec
Length of sewerage network
maintained by IWK (km)
No. of individual septic tank
desludged by IWK
Final Report
Increase
from 2003
to 2007
(%)
Annual
% of
increase
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
12,707
14,149
15,060
16,034
17,097
34.5
7.70
135,744
152,339
158,936
150,954
158,922
17.1
4.02
Source: JICA Study Team, based on data provided by IWK

IWK is a company fully owned by the Ministry of Finance.
IWK uses revenues from
sewerage tariffs for both customers connected to public sewerage systems and septic tank
users.
IWK has O&M responsibilities that include desludging septic tanks and repair work
within tariff revenue.
However, in the event of large budget shortfalls, IWK may receive
financial support from the Federal Government.

IWK is externally audited on an annual basis.
IWKs accounting system follows the
Industrial Financial System on an accrual-basis.
The corporate accounting system
implemented by IWK is regarded as appropriate for analyzing the financial situations of the
water supply and/or sewerage companies.
As indicated in Table 2.5.3, IWKs annual revenue has increased due to ongoing activities
focused on expanding its customer base and improving loan collections.
Despite these
efforts, net losses have been mounting for the last six years. As a result, financial assistance
from the Federal Government to IWK increased to RM 194.2 million for the 2007 fiscal
year alone (refer to Table 2.5.4).
Table 2.5.3 Revenue and Expenditures of Indah Water Konsortium (2002 - 2007)
Period *1
Operating revenue
1. Sewerage tariff
2. Other revenue
Total
Operating expenditures
3. Electricity costs
4. Staff salaries
5. Operations & maintenance costs
6. Office expenses
7. Depreciation costs
8. Others
Total
Income from operations
9. Interest expenses
Net profit
2002/52003/4
2003/52004/4
2004/52005/4
2005/42005/12
(Unit: Million RM)

2006/12007/12006/12
2007/12
254.6
14.7
269.3
274.1
17.4
291.5
310.5
14.6
325.1
201.0
11.4
212.4
354.6
33.2
387.8
370.8
45.2
416.0
46.9
57.6
46.5
40.4
21.2
48.9
261.5
7.8
41.2
-33.4
52.5
66.0
69.0
50.5
25.6
0.2
263.8
27.7
59.8
-32.1
66.5
73.7
104.9
34.3
31.5
72.1
383.0
-57.9
76.7
-134.6
51.0
54.8
83.0
30.7
24.1
35.3
278.9
-66.5
55.2
-121.7
88.8
90.0
149.0
51.2
39.8
55.5
474.3
-86.5
86.8
-173.3
100.6
103.3
166.5
65.0
49.8
51.0
536.2
-120.2
96.2
-216.4

Notes: *1. IWK's accounting year end changed from April to December in 2005. Therefore, 2005 results are for an eight-month
period only ending December 31, 2005.
2-40
Final Report
Table 2.5.4 Financial Assistance by Federal Government to Indah Water Konsortium

(Unit: Million RM)
2002/52003/4
Year
Assistance from the Federal Government
2003/52004/4
0.0
2004/52005/4
0.0
2005/42005/12
43.2
120.0
2006/12006/12
2007/12007/12
140.0
194.2
The causes of increasing net losses are the substantial increases in O&M costs, interest
expense, and electricity costs.
six years.
Figure 2.5.2 shows trends in major cost items for the last
Figures for fiscal year 2005 (May 2005 to December 2005) are adjusted from
eight months to 12 months.
O&M costs increased at 258% from fiscal year 2002 to 2007.
Interest expenses and electricity cost increased at an additional 134% and 115%,
respectively during the same period.
180
160
RM in million
140
120
Electricity cost
100
Staff salary
80
O&M cost
60
Office expense
40
Depreciation cost
Interest expense
20
0
2002/52003/4/1
2003/52004/4/1
2004/52005/4/1
2005/42005/12/1
2006/12006/12/1
2007/12007/12/1
Fiscal Year
Figure 2.5.2 Changes of Major Cost Items from FY2002 to FY2007
Table 2.5.5 makes clear the following points:
(i) approximately RM 35 million per annum
on average was uncollected and added to the allowance for doubtful accounts, (ii)
depreciation costs were recorded for future facilities renovations, (iii) as a whole, increasing
net losses generated by annual operations were compensated for by increased federal
government financial assistance and government support loans.
Financial and managerial indicators shown in Table 2.5.6, are based on the income
statement, balance sheet, and other IWK sources of information.
The operating ratio shows the profitability of the company by examining the size of annual
operating expenditures to generate one unit of operating revenue.
IWK generated income
from operations until the fiscal year 2003, but incurred losses after 2004.
The profitability
of IWK is getting worse, judging from performance over the last five years, where profit
2-41
Final Report
margin is also used to indicate profitability.

Table 2.5.5 Balance Sheet of Indah Water Konsortium (2002 - 2007)
(Unit: Million RM)
Year *1
Apr-03
Current Assets
Cash & bank deposits
Accounts receivable
Allowance for doubtful accounts
Other current assets
Fixed Assets
Buildings
Plant and equipment
Construction in progress
Accumulated depreciation
Other fixed assets
Total assets
Liabilities
Accounts payable
Government support loans
Equities
Issued capital
Accumulated losses
Total liabilities & equities
Apr-04
436.2
335.0
366.6
-271.1
5.7
535.1
0.2
473.2
153.8
-116.2
24.1
971.3
1,240.8
153.3
1,087.5
-269.5
100.0
-369.5
971.3
Apr-05
424.9
274.8
415.0
-271.3
6.4
564.2
0.3
544.6
135.1
-139.9
24.1
989.1
1,290.7
140.3
1,150.4
-301.6
100.0
-401.6
989.1
Dec-05
420.8
242.4
511.2
-343.4
10.6
562.5
0.6
613.8
104.4
-170.4
14.1
983.3
1,376.2
145.9
1,230.3
-392.9
100.0
-492.9
983.3
Dec-06
493.1
310.3
552.4
-378.5
8.9
564.9
0.6
631.0
111.3
-192.1
14.1
1,058.0
1,454.8
167.9
1,286.9
-396.8
100.0
-496.8
1,058.0
Dec-07
554.1
357.1
618.1
-433.9
12.8
560.0
0.7
679.5
95.3
-229.6
14.1
1,114.1
1,544.2
167.5
1,376.7
-430.1
100.0
-530.1
1,114.1
631.6
439.9
628.5
-447.8
11.0
533.8
3.9
767.1
40.1
-277.3
0.0
1,165.4
1,622.0
149.2
1,472.8
-456.6
100.0
-556.6
1.165.4

Notes: *1. IWK's accounting year end changed from April to December in 2005. Therefore, 2005 results are for an eight-month
period only ending December 31, 2005.
Table 2.5.6 Financial and Managerial Indicators of IWK

Period *1
Operating ratio *2
Profit margin
*3
Unit
%
2002/52003/4
97.1
2003/52004/4
90.5
2004/52005/4
117.8
2005/42005/12
131.3
2006/12006/12
122.3
2007/12007/12
128.9
2.9
9.5
-17.8
-31.3
-22.3
-28.9
Equity ratio *4
-21.7
-23.4
-28.5
-27.3
-27.9
-28.2
Return on assets *5
-3.4
-3.2
-13.7
-17.3
-15.6
-18.6
144.0
151.4
164.6
183.2
174.3
169.5
84.1
84.7
67.5
60.2
63.2
58.6
106.0
115.1
88.3
78.9
81.6
76.2
10.6
9.5
12.3
12.4
12.9
14.7
13.4
12.9
16.0
16.3
16.7
19.1
8.2
8.7
7.4
7.8
8.5
10.2
Accounts receivable to sales

revenue ratio *6
O&M and capital costs recovery
ratio *7
O&M cost recovery ratio *8
O&M costs per served customer *9
O&M and capital costs per served
customer *10
Collected tariff amounts per
customer *11
RM/
month
RM/
month
RM/
month

Notes:
*1.
*1. IWK's accounting year end changed from April to December in 2005. Therefore, 2005 results are for an eight-month
2-42
*2.
*3.
*4.
*5.
*6.
*7.
*8.
*9.
*10.
*11.
Final Report
period only ending December 31, 2005. If necessary for calculating indicators, data from the Income Statement table has
been adjusted from eight to 12 months.
Operating ratio = total operating expenditures / total operating revenue. Total operating expenditures include depreciation
costs.
Profit margin = operating income before interest / total operating revenues
Equity ratio = equity / total liabilities
Return on assets = net profit / total assets
Accounts receivable to sales revenue ratio = accounts receivable / sales revenue. Sales revenue is operating revenue that
does not reflect the collection rate.
O&M and capital costs recovery ratio = sewerage tariff revenue / (total operating expenditures + interest expenses).
Sewerage tariff revenue is the annual billed amount.
O&M cost recovery ratio = sewerage tariff revenue / (total operating expenditures - depreciation costs). Sewerage tariff
revenue is the annual billed amount.
O&M cost per served customer = (total operating expenditures - depreciation costs) / total number of domestic customers
O&M and capital costs per served customer = (total operating expenditures + interest expenses) / total number of domestic
customers
Collected tariff amount per customer = collected tariff amount / total number of customers
The equity ratio is used to measure the ability to pay off liabilities with equity.
accumulated losses, the equity ratio is negative.
This indicates that IWK is not able to pay
off liabilities without external budget injections.

profitability of company assets.
negative number.
Because of
Return on assets measures the
For sewerage companies, this indicator often shows a
In IWKs case, the indicator has been worsening, reflecting the increase
in net losses during the period under review.

The accounts receivable to sales revenue ratio expresses the relative amount of payments
from sales to be collected the following year against total annual sales. A figure greater than
100% for this indicator suggests that IWK holds more amounts to be collected next year
than actual sales for the year.
This is caused by massive uncollected bills and the practice
of billing domestic customers every six months Shortening of the billing cycle, as well as
an improved collection rate would improve this indicator.
The O&M cost recovery ratio expresses billed sewerage tariffs as a percentage of O&M
costs.
Until fiscal year 2003, billed sewerage tariff amounts covered O&M costs.
However, after May 2004, billed amounts could not cover necessary costs.
The O&M and
capital costs recovery ratio also expresses billed tariff amounts as a percentage of O&M and
capital costs.
Sewerage tariffs were not able to cover both O&M and capital costs.
Furthermore, the indicator worsened after fiscal year 2004.

O&M cost per served customer shows the total O&M costs for each customer when
dividing the total costs by customer.
If every customer bears this amount per month, O&M
costs for the year should be covered by tariff revenue.

customer were RM 14.7 per month.
In 2007, O&M costs per served
It should be noted that, under the present system,
customers were categorized according to domestic, commercial, industrial, and government

premises.
Commercial, industrial, and governmental premises are charged higher rates
than those in the domestic category.
The number reflected is an average for all customers.
The O&M and capital costs per served customer metric represent the appropriations of
2-43
O&M costs and capital costs to each customer.
Final Report
RM 19.1 per month from all customers is
enough to cover both O&M and capital costs for IWK assets.
IWK is trying to provide better operation and maintenance of the facilities by increasing the
number of staff and O&M costs to cater to the increasing number of sewerage facilities each
year.
In order to provide appropriate sewerage service for the long run, it is necessary for
the operator (IWK) to plan an adequate O&M budget.

customers or by the public budget as a last resort.
The costs shall be borne by
Securing an appropriate O&M budget is
vital.
Collected tariff amounts per customer expresses the actual average tariff revenue per
customer.
Types of customers include domestic, commercial, industrial, and governmental.
The collected amount of tariffs per customer is RM 10.2 per month.
The gap between this
amount (RM 10.2/month) and O&M costs per served customer (RM 14.7/month) is the
shortage of revenue per customer to maintain the present level of O&M.
The gap between
this amount (RM 10.2/month) and O&M and capital costs per served customer (RM
19.1/month) is the shortage of revenue per customer to cover the present level of O&M plus
facility renovation by IWK.
(5)
Effluent-Related License Fees
Based on regulations in the Environmental Quality Act, 1974, IWK is charged with an
effluent-related license fee for sewage treatment plants operated by IWK, since they are in
contravention of several water quality standards.
Effluent-related license fees, or the
license-tocontravene (LTC) fee, is charged in accordance with the volume of BOD5

and/or oil and grease (O&G) that exceed limits specified in the Environmental Quality Act,
1974.
BOD5
Calculation formulae of LTC fees for BOD5 and O&G for sewerage are as follows:
Flow 365days Concentration of BOD5
BOD5 (ton)
LTC fee for Std A
BOD5 (ton) RM 100/ton
LTC fee for Std B
BOD5 (ton) RM 10/ton
O&G (kg)
LTC fee for Std A
O&G (kg) RM 100/kg
LTC fee for Std B
O&G (kg) RM 10/kg
106
O&G
Flow 365days Concentration of O&G

103
Note: Flow is calculated based on ultimate PE for the STP.
Data to calculate the LTC fee is taken at the highest recorded concentration of contaminants.
The effluent data is gathered by IWK and samples are analised by IWKs certified
2-44
laboratories.
Final Report
The effluent data were obtained based on the routines/scheduled sampling to
be conducted for the certain plants.
BOD5 and O&G for the effluent samples were taken
over a 12-month period for the each sewage treatment plant.

The total amount of LTC fees on IWK for the period May 1st, 1999 to December 31st, 2006
(seven years) was approximately 2.1 billion RM. Most of the LTC fee was charged for oil
and grease, since the unit LTC fee for O&G, computed by kilogram, was much greater than
that of BOD5.
However, IWK has been exempted from the payment of LTC fees in
accordance with the EQA clause.
Clause 23 (1) of the Environmental Quality (Sewage and
Industrial Effluent) Regulation 1979 specified as follows:

If the Director-General is satisfied that research on effluent disposal or treatment of a kind
or scale is likely to benefit the cause of environmental protection is or is planned to be
carried out at any licensed premises, he may, with the approval of the Minister, wholly or
partly waive any effluent-related amount payable by virtue or regulation 22(3).
IWK has been provided with justification for total exemption of LTC fees because it is
undertaking the research on effluent disposal, research on treatment, and is contributing to
environmental protection.
(6) Management
1) Sewerage Tariff Billing and Collection
The IWK bills and collects a sewerage charge from its customers for both septic tank
desludging and for connecting to public sewers.
The tariff tables for four categories of
customersdomestic, commercial, industrial, and government premisesare shown in

Table 2.5.7, Table 2.5.8, Table 2.5.9, and Table 2.5.10.
With respect to tariff setting,
IWK participated in the preparation of the draft tariff table, and the first draft was changed
based on discussions in MEWC and EPU.
sewerage tariff.
After this, the sewerage tariff table is approved by the Cabinet and
published in the name of MEWC.

revisions.
EPU has the final decision authority on the
There are no fixed or regular periods between tariff
The concepts of tariff setting are as follows:
To maintain a low rate for domestic premises
To establish cross-subsidies for domestic premises by setting higher rates for

commercial, governmental and industrial premises
To provide exemptions for charitable organisations
Tariffs for domestic customers (Table 2.5.7) are set at constant price for three categories
based on home values.
Domestic premises also include government quarters used
exclusively by Government servants with quarters broken into classesA to

Icorresponding to various grades.
The majority of domestic customers are charged RM
6.00/month (septic tank) or RM 8.00/month (connected).

2-45
Bills are prepared by a
Final Report
subsidiary of Post Malaysia and sent through the post office to customers twice a year for
each six-month charge.
Customers can pay for the sewerage bill at the 17 IWK offices
around the country by cash or check.
They can also pay at post offices, and using bank
methods, such as over-the-counter, ATM, internet banking, and credit card, among others.
Table 2.5.7 Sewerage Tariff for Domestic Premises
Type of premises
Houses with annual values more than RM 600.00 and government
quarters in Grades A, B, C, D & E
Low-cost houses with annual values less than RM 600.00 and
government quarters for civil servants in Grades F, G, H & I.
Houses located on land in zones classified as villages, new villages or
estates by the relevant state authority
Septic tank
RM 6.00/month
Payment for six
months
RM 2.00/month
Payment for six
months
RM 3.00/month
Payment for six
months
Connected
RM 8.00/month
Payment for six
months
RM 2.00/month
Payment for six
months
RM 3.00/month
Payment for six
months
Source: IWK
Table 2.5.8 Sewerage Tariff for Industrial Premises

Type of premises
Industrial premises based on head-count/number of users
Septic tank
RM 2.00/person
Monthly bill
Connected
RM 2.50/person
Monthly bill
Source: IWK
Table 2.5.9 Sewerage Tariff for Commercial Premises

Monthly basic charge
Band
Annual value (RM)*1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0 2,000
2,001 5,000
5,001 10,000
10,001 20,000
20,001 30,000
30,001 40,000
40,001 50,000
50,001 60,000
60,001 70,000
70,001 80,000
80,001 90,000
90,001 100,000
100,001 200,000
200,001 400,000
400,001 600,000
600,001 800,000
800,001 1,000,000
1,000,001 3,000,000
3,000,001 5,000,000
5,000,001 7,000,000
More than 7,000,001
Basic charge (RM)

Connected
Septic tank
8.00
7.00
14.00
8.00
20.00
14.00
26.00
19.00
29.00
21.00
32.00
23.00
35.00
25.00
38.00
27.00
41.00
29.00
44.00
31.00
47.00
33.00
50.00
35.00
180.00
120.00
495.00
330.00
522.00
348.00
1,980.00
1,320.00
2,160.00
1,440.00
4,320.00
2,880.00
8,800.00
5,400.00
9,200.00
6,000.00
9,600.00
6,600.00
Monthly excess charge *2

Water usage
Up to 100 m3
More than 100 m3
More than 200 m3
Excess charge
No charge
30 sen / m3
45 sen / m3
Source: IWK
Note: *1. Estimate of yearly rental charges for the premises
*2. Monthly excess charge, which is calculated based on water usage, is an additional charge to the monthly basic charge
2-46
Final Report
In Table 2.5.10, government premises are those owned and occupied by any government
department, local authority, or statutory body established by Federal or State law or by a
court of law.
For Commercial premises, annual values are determined through estimates of
annual rental charges for the premises.

Table 2.5.10 Sewerage Tariff for Government Premises
Monthly basic charge
Sewerage services
Connected
Septic tank
Monthly excess charge
Basic charge (RM)

40.00
25.00
Water usage
Up to 100 m3
More than 100 m3
More than 200 m3
Excess charge
No charge
45 sen / m3
95 sen / m3
Source: IWK
Sewerage tariffs for domestic premises have not been changed for 12 years since January
1997.
For other premises, some tariff revisions have been made.
The latest revision for
commercial and government premises was implemented on August 1st, 2004.
Major
changes are as follows:
Some bands for commercial premises were narrowed, and the number of bands was
increased from 10 to 21.
The number of tiers for the excess water charge for commercial premises was
revised from two to three.
The tier for consumption over 100 m3 was divided
into two tiers: (i) 00 m3 to 200 m3 and (ii) over 200 m3.
Before August 2004, the
charge for the greater than 100 m3 tier was 45 sen/m3.
After August 2004, the
charge for the first tier (100-200 m3) was 30 sen/m3 and that of the second (greater
than 200 m3) was 45 sen/m3.
The excess water charge for government premises was raised.
Collection efficiency (defined as tariff collections as a percentage of total billed amount) of

the sewerage charge has improved over the last eight years, as shown in Figure 2.5.3.
Collection efficiency improved from less than 70% at the end of the 1990s to around 90% in
the 2007.
The right side of Figure 2.5.3 shows the composition of sewerage tariffs
collected in the 2007.
Around 47% of collected tariffs come from domestic customers
and 34%, 16% and 3% come from commercial, governmental, and industrial customers,
respectively.
customers.
Table 2.5.11 delineates the collection efficiency for each category of

Collection efficiency for industrial customers is the best, followed by
governmental and domestic customers.
The commercial customers are lowest among
these categories, which improved at 85.6% in the year 2007.
2-47
Trend of Collection Efficiency of Sewerage Tariff Bills
Final Report
Components of Tariff Collected for each Customer

(2007)
100.0%
Industrial, 3%
90.0%
80.0%
Government,
16%
70.0%
60.0%
Domestic,
47%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
Commercial,
34%
10.0%
0.0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Domestic
Commercial
Government
Industrial
Figure 2.5.3 Collection Efficiency of Sewerage Bills and Components of Collected Tariffs
Table 2.5.11 Collection Efficiency of Sewerage Bills

(Unit: Million RM)
Year
Domestic
Commercial
Government
Industrial*1
TOTAL
Billed
Collected
Ratio (%)
Billed
Collected
Ratio (%)
Billed
Collected
Ratio (%)
Billed
Collected
Ratio (%)
Billed
Collected
Ratio (%)
1999/5
-2000/4
73.9
38.1
51.6
70.2
52.7
75.1
13
10
76.9
6.0
6.9
115.0
163.1
107.7
66.0
2000/5
-2001/4
88.7
43.4
48.9
72.7
48.7
67.0
15.9
15.2
95.6
8.4
7.9
94.0
185.7
115.2
62.0
2001/5
-2002/4
101.8
69.1
67.9
77.5
69
89.0
20.5
16.9
82.4
6.7
8.4
125.4
206.5
163.4
79.1
2002/5
-2003/4
113.6
73.9
65.1
98.7
74.3
75.3
35.9
28.3
78.8
6.4
7.7
120.3
254.6
184.2
72.3
2003/5
-2004/4
128.2
85.2
66.5
96.7
87.1
90.1
41.2
37.6
91.3
8.0
8.2
102.5
274.1
218.1
79.6
2004/5
-2005/4
149.9
79.5
53.0
102.3
83.4
81.5
50.8
40.9
80.5
7.5
8.5
113.3
310.5
212.3
68.4
2005/5
-2005/12
86.8
56.8
65.4
77
61.6
80.0
32.2
36.3
112.7
5.0
5.9
118.0
201.0
160.6
79.9
2006/1
-2006/12
164.9
125.3
76.0
124.1
105.3
84.9
58.6
48.2
82.3
7.0
9.1
130.0
354.6
287.9
81.2
2007/1
-2007/12
174.0
159.4
91.6
135.4
115.9
85.6
53.8
52.9
98.3
7.6
9.3
122.4
370.8
337.5
91.0
Source: IWK
Note: *1. For most of the years, collections exceed billed amounts in the industrial customer category.
This is because some billed
amounts for industrial customers were counted in the commercial category due to data input errors while collected amounts
were correctly classified as industrial.
The number of customers for each category is shown in Table 2.5.12, where the total
number of all customers has increased significantly; nevertheless, distribution of customers
across categories has not changed much.
In 2007, 91.6% of customers belonged to the
domestic category, 7.9% to the commercial category, and government and industrial
customers constituted 0.4% and 0.1%, respectively.
As was shown in Figure 2.5.3,
commercial, governmental, and industrial customers contributed a larger share (53%) in

tariff revenue to IWK, though the number of customers amounts to only 8.4% of the total.
2-48
Final Report
Table 2.5.12 Number of Customers by Category (last 10 years)

(Unit: 1,000 RM)
Type of customer
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Domestic
Number
1,026.057
1,166.497
1,287.499
1,526.263
1,708.380
1,899.113
2,170.818
2,328.669
2,549.449
2,521.573
%
90.2
90.8
91.0
90.8
90.8
90.7
90.8
90.9
90.8
91.6
Commercial
Number
103.656
110.454
118.527
143.651
159.432
180.018
204.241
215.679
240.926
217.191
%
9.1
8.6
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.5
7.9
Government
premises
Number
%
2.931
0.3
4.783
0.4
6.587
0.5
8.508
0.5
9.449
0.5
10.545
0.5
11.111
0.5
11.604
0.5
13.331
0.5
11.009
0.4
Industrial
Number
4.206
2.390
2.179
2.526
3.373
3.840
4.224
4.982
4.596
4.038
Total
%
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Number
1,136.850
1,284.124
1,414.792
1,680.948
1,880.634
2,093.516
2,390.394
2,560.934
2,808.302
2,753.811
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: IWK
The larger tariff revenue from commercial, industrial, and governmental customers was due
to the higher tariffs per customer for these categories.
Table 2.5.13 utilizes data for total
billed sewerage tariff amounts and the number of customers per category over the last seven
fiscal years.
On average, government customers pay the highest tariffs, followed by
industrial customers, commercial customers, and lastly, domestic customer, who pay the
lowest tariffs.
It should be noted that this order does not necessarily correspond with the
order of the sewerage tariff per unit of treated sewage volume, since the three categories
(commercial, government, and industrial) cover entities of various size.
Table 2.5.13 Average Sewerage Tariff Billed by Customer Category
Item
Average tariff billed (RM/month)
Type of customer
Domestic
Commercial
Government
Industrial
5.5
46.1
334.9
158.6
Note: Calculated by JICA Study Team, based on the data provided by IWK
Table 2.5.14 shows sewerage tariffs as a percentage of monthly household income, using
data from Table 2.5.13. In Selangor State, sewerage tariff amounts are the lowest at 0.11%
of household income.
The highest is 0.30% in Kelantan.
On average, for the whole of
Malaysia, 0.17% of household income is spent on sewerage tariffs.
The IBRD Project
Appraisal Manual estimates that 1% of household income is the maximum level for
sewerage service household affordability.
The Pan American Health Organisation also
recommends that total water supply and sewerage charges should be less than 5% of
household income, with 3.5% for water supply and 1.5% for sewerage.
The current
sewerage charge in Peninsular Malaysia at 0.17% of household income is around one sixth
of this ceiling (1%) set by an international organisation.
For reference, total monthly water
supply and sewerage tariffs are 0.78% of the average household income for Malaysia, which
2-49
Final Report
is one sixth of the ceiling (5%).

Table 2.5.14 Average Monthly Tariff as a Percentage of Average Monthly Household
Income
No.
State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Kedah
Perak
Perlis
Pulau Pinang
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Selangor
Johor
Kelantan
Pahang
Terengganu
Sabah
Sarawak
Malaysia
Average
monthly
household
income 2004
(RM)
2,126
2,207
2,046
3,531
2,792
2,886
5,175
3,076
1,829
2,410
1,984
2,487
2,725
3,249
Ave. monthly
tariff
(sewerage)
(RM) average
2001-07
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
Monthly tariff
as % of ave.
monthly
income
(Sewerage)
0.26
0.25
0.27
0.16
0.20
0.19
0.11
0.18
0.30
0.23
0.28
0.17%
Ave. monthly
tariff
(water
supply)
(RM)
Monthly tariff
as % of ave.
monthly
income (water
supply)
0.79
0.74
0.74
0.28
0.65
0.47
0.57
0.77
0.76
0.60
0.75
1.56
0.61
0.61
Source: JICA Study Team, based on average monthly household income data in the 1999 and 2004 Household Income Surveys
from the Department of Statistics and average monthly tariff (water supply) data from the Malaysia Water Industry Guide
2006s.
2)
Public Service Performance
IWK strives to provide efficient and environmentally-sound sewerage services to all

customers.
improvement.
These services are monitored and evaluated to facilitate continuous

The performance of typical activities is shown in Figure 2.5.4.
Source: http://www.iwk.com.my/f-customer-service.htm
Figure 2.5.4 Public Performance of IWK
2-50
2.6
Final Report
Other Sewerage Service Operators in the Peninsula
Sewerage service operators other than IWK in the Peninsula undertake the operation and
maintenance of sewerage facilities in Kelantan State, and Johor Bahru City and PBT Pasir
Gudang in Johor State.
2.6.1
Kelantan State
At present, IWK does not cover any sewerage facilities in the State of Kelantan and has little
information on their present status as well as SSD. The local authorities are reportedly
responsible for the operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities. The sewage tariff differs
from that of IWK but details are unknown.
2.6.2
Johor Bahru City and PBT Pasir Gudang
In the State of Johor, the operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities fall under the services
of IWK.
However, this is not the case for Johor Bahru City (MBJB) and PBT Pasir Gudang
where the sewerage systems have not been taken over by SSD, according to the Draft Final
Report on Sewerage Catchment Study for Wilayah Perbangunan Iskandar (WPI), Johor Darul
TaZim issued in May 2008. The report indicates that there are 82 public STPs with a total
design PE of 537,770, 225 private STPs (387,028 PE), 37,950 ISTs (200,580 PE) and 17,344
substandard systems (87,313 PE) in Johor Bahru City Centre Catchment, and 32 public STPs
(329,014 PE), 42 private STPs (73,245 PE), 6,918 ISTs (81,195 PE) and 4,460 substandard
systems (21,045 PE) in Eastern Gate Catchment, in which PBT Pasir Gudang belongs to Sg.
Kim Kim Sub-catchment.
However, any information on the organisation responsible for operation and maintenance of
sewerage facilities was not included in the Report, and both SSD and IWK have little
information.
The operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities are reportedly undertaken
by private contractors, and the sewage tariff differs from that of IWK, but details are unknown.
2.7
Water and Sewerage Sectors in the Sabah State Government

(1) Overview
Sabah State is the second largest among Malaysias thirteen states after Sarawak. The area
of the state is 76,115 km2 with an official population of 2.5 million (2000) and an estimated
population of 3.4 million in 2007.
The Head of the Sabah State is Yang di-Pertua Negeri
(State Governor) who is a political appointee (by the Federal Government). The Chief
2-51
Final Report
Minister is the head of the State Cabinet and also heads the Chief Ministers Department.
There are ten state Ministries, each headed by State Cabinet Ministers.
The State is comprised of five administrative divisions, which are divided into 24 districts:
(i) West Coast Division (7,588 km2): Kota Belud, Kota Kinabalu, Papar, Penampang, Ranau,
Tuaran; (ii) Interior Division (18,298 km2): Beaufort, Nabawan, Keningau, Kuala Penyu,
sipitang, Tambunan, Tawau; (iii) Kudat Division (4,623 km2): Kota Marudu, Kudat, Pitus;
(iv) Sandakan Division (28,205 km2): Beluran, Kinabatangan, Sandakan, Tongod; and (v)
Tawau Division (14,905 km2): Kunak, Lahad Datu, Semporna, Tawau.
Each of these districts is administered by a local authority. There are 22 local authorities in
Sabah, and they are classified into four types: (i) District Councils covering 18 local
authorities, (ii) City Hall covering Kota Kinabalu, (iii) Municipal Councils covering Tawau
and Sandakan and (iv) Town Board covering Kudat.
(2) Organisation
Water and sewerage services in Sabah are administered by the State Ministry of
Infrastructure Development.
The organisation structure of the Ministry is shown in Figure
2.7.1.
Minister
Deputy Minister
Permanent Secretary
Deputy Permanent
Secretary
Public Works
Department (JKR)
Water Department
Railway Department
Port & Jetty

Department
Sabah Port Authority
Figure 2.7.1 Organisation of the Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development
There are four departments and one agency under this Ministry: namely, the Water
Department, the Public Works Department, the Railway Department, the Ports and Jetties
Department, and the Sabah Port Authority.
The Sabah Water Department is responsible for
water while the Public Works Department is responsible for sewerage services in the State.
1)
Sabah Water Department
2-52
Final Report
The Sabah Water Department was established on January 1st, 1988 after the approval of all
amendments to the Water Supply Ordinance 1961 by the State Assembly in April 1987.
The amendments involved the change of responsibility for water from the Director of Public
Works to the Director of Water Department in Section 2, Water Supply Ordinance 1961, as
well as the nullification of Sabah Water Authority Enactment 1981.
Before January 1st,
1988, the Hydraulic Section of the Public Works Department was responsible for the
handling of water supply in Sabah. The Sabah Water Department functions in accordance to
the Water Supply Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 16 of 1961).
The Sabah Water Department is responsible for providing potable water supply throughout
the State from intake, treatment, and distribution to billing and collection.
Its key
functions include:
Planning, designing and implementation of new water supply development projects

to meet future water demand
Operation and maintenance of existing water supply
Provision of advisory services on technical matters relating to water supply to other

state government departments and agencies, and local authorities
2)
Sabah Public Works Department (JKR Sabah)
JKR Sabah is responsible for planning, design, implementation, and operation and
maintenance of Sabah state roads, bridges, public sewerage facilities and government
buildings.
The District Offices are the executing arms of JKR Sabah. The District Engineers have the
added responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all sewerage systems under their
jurisdiction apart from their core responsibility of construction supervision and the
operation and maintenance of public works and services such as state roads, government
buildings, and bridges, among others.
The Sewerage Branch was recently set up (end of 2005) within JKR for the sole purpose of
providing sewerage services for the State of Sabah.
The organisation chart of the
Sewerage Branch within the JKR headquarters is shown in Figure 2.7.3.
2-53
Final Report
The organisation structure of JKR is shown in Figure 2.7.2.
Director Public Works
Deputy Director
Infrastructure
Development
Deputy Director
Human Resource
Management & Corporate
Human Resource
Development
Headquarters Level
Roads
Deputy Director
Engineering
Specialist
Quality
Surveyor
Structure &
Geotechnical
Road
Maintenance
Corporate
Accountants
Architect
Highways
Information
Store
Mechanical
Bridges
Laboratory
Research
Internal Audit
Electric
Quality
Management
Educational
Works
Slopes
Building Works
District Level
Sewerage
Kudat District
Engineer
Kota District
Engineer
Pitas District
Engineer
Panau District
Engineer
Keningau District
Engineer
Kota Marudu
Engineer
Penampang
District Engineer
Baufort District
Engineer
Sipitang District
Engineer
Tuaran District
Engineer
Papar District
Engineer
Keningau District
Engineer
Sandakan
District Engineer
Tambunan
District Engineer
Tenom District
Engineer
Kual Penyu
District Engineer
Lahad District
Engineer
Tawau District
Engineer
Kunak District
Engineer
Semporna
District Engineer
Figure 2.7.2 Organisation of Public Works Department (JKR)
Director
Headquarters Level
Deputy Director
Infrastructure Development
Assistant Director /
Sewerage
Senior Engineer
District Level
Executive Engineer /
Sewerage Planning
Kudat District
Engineer
Kota District
Engineer
Pitas District
Engineer
Panau District
Engineer
Sewerage Design
Keningau District
Engineer
Kota Marudu
Engineer
Penampang
District Engineer
Baufort District
Engineer
Sipitang District
Engineer
Tuaran District
Engineer
Papar District
Engineer
Sewerage Construction
Keningau District
Engineer
Sandakan
District Engineer
Tambunan
District Engineer
Tenom District
Engineer
Kual Penyu
District Engineer
Lahad District
Engineer
Figure 2.7.3 Organisation of the Sewerage Branch

2-54
Tawau District
Engineer
Kunak District
Engineer
Semporna
District Engineer
Final Report
The responsibilities for planning, construction and maintenance of public sewerage facilities
are split between the Sewerage Branch and JKR District Offices.
Planning and
construction is the responsibility of the Sewerage Branch at the headquarters level while
O&M falls within the responsibility of various JKR District Engineers.
The Sewerage Branch has the following responsibilities for sewerage services in Sabah: (i)
planning, investigation, design and implementation of public sewerage schemes; (ii)
providing technical advice to the district engineers on the operation and maintenance of
public sewerage schemes, and (iii) providing technical advice to district engineers and local
authorities on sewerage proposals submitted by the private developers.
(3) Staffing
The existing staffing within the Sewerage Branch of JKR seems inadequate to undertake the
management of sewerage services in Sabah.
Similarly, at the district level, the number of
staff is also inadequate for proper operations and management of the sewerage facilities.
The focus at the district level is mostly on public roads, bridges and buildings, and, as such,
sewerage is of low priority in terms of manpower and financial resource appropriations.
Generally, most of the routine operation and maintenance and emergency repairs are
outsourced to local contractors.
Table 2.7.1 shows typical staffing at JKR district offices
for sewerage facilities operation and maintenance.

Table 2.7.1
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Typical Sewerage O&M Staffing at JKR District Offices and JKR District
Staff Assigned to Sewerage Facilities O&M
District
Papar
Kudat
Kota Belud
Tawau
Lahad Datu
Sandakan
Kota Marudu
Tuaran
Ranau
Tenom
Keningau
Technical Assistants/
Technicians
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
Specialised
Workers
2
2
2
3
5
3
-
General
Workers
2
6
2
10
4
11
3
2
6
(4) Management and Services

Sewerage services in the towns in Sabah are officially under the responsibility of the various
local authorities in accordance with relevant state legislation, Public Health Ordinance 1960,
and the Local Government Ordinance 1961.
However, in reality, the actual administration
of public sewerage facilities in the local authority areas is undertaken largely by Jabatan
2-55
Final Report
Kerja Raya (JKR) Sabah (Public Works Department Sabah) on behalf of the local
authorities, except for the City of Kota Kinabalu.
Due to limited manpower and technical and financial resources, the local authorities in
Sabah have signed individual agreements with JKR Sabah for JKR to plan, implement,
operate and maintain the sewerage systems in their respective areas and, in turn, JKR is to
be reimbursed by the local authorities for this service yearly at an agreed amount as
specified in these agreements.
JKR is the implementing agency for these sewerage
infrastructure projects.
According to the agreements between JKR and the local authorities, JKR is required to hand
over the sewerage systems to the local authorities for operation and maintenance upon
completion or as and when they are capable of taking it back.
So far, only Kota Kinabalu
City Hall (DBKK) and Penampang District have taken back the operation and maintenance
of the sewerage facilities in their districts.
In most local authority areas, JKR is responsible for the planning, implementation,
operation and maintenance of the centralized sewerage systems that are implemented by
JKR.
All other sewerage systems (mostly constructed by developers) handed over to the
local authorities are under the jurisdiction of the local authorities.
Individual septic tanks
are maintained by the respective owners while private developments with individual
treatment units are maintained by the property management.
There are a number of coordination issues related to the present arrangement in managing
sewerage services especially in municipalities and towns where both JKR and the local
authorities manage sewerage services.
Key issues include:
The problem of who is the appropriate authority to see, or go to, for developers and
the general public for matters related to submitting proposals or presenting
complaints.
The JKR is the technical authority responsible for the vetting and approval of
sewerage proposals in development plan submissions for all districts, but the final
approval of these plans lies with the local authorities.
There are no standard guidelines on sewerage plans and document submission, since
the requirements of the local authorities may differ from those of JKR, an issue that
impacts the approval process.
There is a lack of coordination and integration in planning for new sewerage

developments in municipalities and districts, since both JKR and the local
authorities have overlapping functions related to sewerage, and most local
authorities do not have long term sewerage master plans for their areas.
(5) Status of Sewerage Infrastructure in Sabah
2-56
Final Report
The sewerage infrastructure in Sabah is generally underdeveloped and poorly maintained as

was the case in West Malaysia up to 1995 before the privatization of sewerage services
there.
Sewerage master plans were prepared in the 1980s and 1990s for Kota Kinabalu,
Sandakan, Tawau, Kudat, Kota Belud, Papar, Keningau and Semporna.
The urban areas of
Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan and Tawau are sewered to waste stabilization lagoons built in the
early 1980s and 1990s.
marine outfall.
The southern catchment of Sandakan Town is sewered to a
The central oxidation ponds constructed in the 1980s serving the small
towns of Lahad Datu, Keningau, Tuaran and Kota Marudu Township are still in operation
except for Lahad Datu, which is overloaded, and is due for expansion.
The other sewerage
systems, not mentioned above, under JKR management are mostly septic tanks for
government buildings and quarters.
The other areas in these towns and the other municipalities and districts in Sabah are served
by individual septic tanks, pour flush latrines, and small sewage treatment plants serving
individual developments/buildings.
These facilities are not maintained by JKR.
JKR has implemented the Phase 1 Papar and Semporna Sewerage Schemes and will
implement 18 sewerage development projects and five sewerage refurbishment/upgrading
projects costing RM273 million under the 9th Malaysia Plan.
In this connection, the State
Government has recently (mid-July 2007) awarded a major contract of over RM180 million
to Rastamas-Salcon JV to undertake the Kota Kinabalu Integrated Sewerage Scheme.
This
project will be funded with a grant to the State from the Federal Government and will be
implemented by the Sewerage Branch of JKR under the Ministry of Infrastructure
Development.
As previously mentioned, sewerage services in Sabah State are officially the responsibility
of the local authorities.
But because the local authorities have limited staff as well as
resources, individual agreements were made with JKR to plan, construct, operate and
maintain the sewerage facilities, mainly centralized sewerage systems.
Local authorities
are required to pay the service charges specified in the individual agreement to the state
government.
In addition, the agreement also calls for cost recovery for capital investment
and O&M from payments by the local authorities.
However, the actual payments were
short of the required amounts, thereby increasing the total amount due to the State
Government (from the local authorities) of more than RM 112 million as of 1999.
This prompted the State Cabinet cancel these debts on December 5, 1999 and changed the
charges on local authorities from covering capital costs and O&M costs to covering only the
O&M costs after January 2000.
Government.
These charges are now paid directly to the State
JKR Sabah receives its annual budget appropriations from the State
2-57
government.
Final Report
JKR budget appropriations for 2005 are shown in Table 2.7.2.

Table 2.7.2 Approved JKR Budget Appropriations (2005)
Item
Staff Salary and allowances
Administration cost
Building
Road & port
Engineering
Sewerage (O&M)
General services
TOTAL
Appropriations (RM)
78,700,000
3,869,030
20,350,010
28,957,570
2,700,010
3,700,000
26,358,040
164,634,660
%
24.8
35.3
3.3
4.5
32.1
100.0
Source: Annual Report 2005, JKR
Operation and maintenance costs for sewerage are only 4.5% of the total JKR budget
(minus salaries, allowances, and administrative costs).
The costs are allocated to each JKR
district office, which manages the sewerage operation and maintenance work.
Table 2.7.3
shows appropriations for sewerage O&M costs to each JKR district office and actual
expenditures for 2005.
The O&M costs include electricity costs, equipment costs, repair costs, car rental costs,
temporary staff salaries and overtime salaries of regular staff, among others.
Regular staff
salaries are not included in the above O&M costs, since they are included within JKR staff
salaries.
O&M budget requirements to properly maintain the sewerage facilities are much
higher.
For example, Lahad Datu district in Sabah State, which was allocated RM 120,000
per year as the O&M budget for sewerage, had requested an O&M budget of RM 749,000
per year, six times that of the actual budget appropriations.
Table 2.7.3 Appropriations and Actual Sewerage O&M Expenditures, JKR (2005)
District
Papar
Tuaran
Kota Belud
Ranau
Kudat
Kota Marudu
Sandankan
Beaufort
Keningau
Tambunan
Tenom
Tawau
Lahad Datu
Kunak
Semporna
TOTAL
Appropriations
from State Govt.
3,700,000
Initial appropriations
to district
80,000
80,000
200,000
80,000
200,000
80,000
400,000
200,000
200,000
80,000
80,000
400,000
120,000
80,000
80,000
2,360,000
Source: Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR)
2-58
Additional
appropriations
100,673
0
0
0
47,116
118,835
108,140
162,250
165,000
0
0
126,000
222,081
34,800
0
1,084,895
(Unit: RM)
Actual expenditure
180,673
80,000
200,000
80,000
247,116
198,835
508,140
362,250
365,000
80,000
80,000
526,000
342,081
114,800
80,000
3,444,895
Final Report
Capital costs of sewerage facilities are funded by the state government and loans from the
federal government.
When the State funds for capital expenditures are fully utilized,
federal funds are then used.

Sewerage tariffs, referred to as Sewerage Rates by most local authorities in Sabah State,
are set, billed, and collected by each local authority.
The sewerage rate is calculated by the
following formula:
Sewerage Rate (RM)
Ratable Value (RM)
Sewerage Rate (%)
This formula is common for all the customers, including commercial, industrial, and
governmental customers.
Ratable value is the appraised value of the residence/building
assessed by each local authority.
Sewerage rates are set at 4% to 7% of ratable value
depending on each local authority and as advised by the State Government.

At present, no capital contribution charges for sewerage (for new sewerage facilities built by
developers) are collected except within Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan by the respective local
authorities.
(7) Draft Sewerage Enactment
A draft Sewerage Enactment prepared by the Sabah Ministry of Infrastructure Development
is currently being reviewed by the State Attorney General.
This proposed Sewerage
Enactment will bring sewerage services for all local authority areas in Sabah under a
Sewerage Services Council to be set up within the State JKR under the Ministry of
Infrastructure Development.
It is anticipated that this Sewerage Snactment will soon be
introduced to the Sabah State Assembly.

Under this proposed Sewerage Enactment, a Sewerage Council will be set-up as the
regulatory and policy-making body to oversee the sewerage sector in Sabah.
The Draft
Sewerage Enactment is a confidential document and was not available for review.
It is anticipated that the implementation, operation and maintenance of sewerage services in
Kota Kinabalu City, currently under DBKK authority, may be taken over by the Sewerage
Council in the State JKR if the proposed Sewerage Enactment comes into law.
2.8
Kota Kinabalu City Hall

(1)
Overview
Kota Kinabalu is the capital city of Sabah State and is the seat for the Sabah State
Legislative Assembly and the state government where almost all of their ministries and
2-59
agencies are based.
Final Report
Most of the federal government agencies and departments are also
located in Kota Kinabalu.

The city is administered by Kota Kinabalu City Hall (Dewan Bandaraya Kota
Kinabalu/DBKK). The city obtained city status on February 2, 2000 and, prior to this, was
administered by Majlis Perbandaran Kota Kinabalu (Kota Kinabalu Municipal Council).
The city is defined by the borders of the district and formerly the municipality, of Kota
Kinabalu.
With a total area of 351 square kilometers, it is the smallest but most populous
district in Sabah.
The urban population is approximately 700,000 (2007).
DBKK is responsible for providing urban services as required by Kota Kinabalu City Hall
Enactment 1996.
DBKK also administers the Local Government Ordinance (LGO) 1961.
The provision of sewerage services in Kota Kinabalu by DBKK is governed by the

following legislations: (i) Public Health Ordinance 1960; (ii) Municipal and Urban
Authorities Ordinance (Cap. 162); and (iii) Kota Kinabalu Municipal Council (Sewerage)
By-Laws, 1960.
(2)
Organisation
Kota Kinabalu City is administered by DBKK and is headed by a mayor who is appointed
by the Chief Minister of Sabah. DBKK is a department under the Chief Ministers Office.
The organisation structure of DBKK is depicted in Figure 2.8.1.
Sewerage services for Kota Kinabalu City are provided by the Engineering Department of
DBKK.
The organisation structure of DBKKs engineering department is depicted in
Figure 2.8.2.
Mayor
Internal Audit
Department
Director General
(DG)
Deputy DG (Operations)
IT Department
1. Department of Enforcement
2. Department of Health and Town/City Services
3. Department of Sub Urban Management
4. Department of Landscaping and Garden Art
5. Legal Department
Town Planning
Department
Engineering Department
1. Administration Unit
2. Roads Section
3. Earthworks and Public Utility Section
4. Drainage and Slab Section
5. Electrical Section
6. Building Maintenance Section
7. Workshop Section
8. Drafting Unit
9. Structure Section
10. Sewerage and Sludge Section
Deputy DG (Corporate)
1. Department of Corporate Affaires

2. Department of Finance and Expenses
3. Department of Evaluation
4. Department of Human Resource Management
5. Department of Asset Management and Investment
6. Department of Research and Coordination
7. Department of Contract Procurement Unit
Figure 2.8.1 Organisation Structure of DBKK
2-60
Final Report
Director
Engineer
Engineer
Assistant Technician
Figure 2.8.2 Organisation Structure of DBKK Engineering Department

The Department is headed by a director and assisted by a senior engineer and engineer.
The Sewerage and Solid Waste Section is a section within the Engineering Department, and
a senior technician and four assistant technicians support the sewerage and solid waste
section.
This section is responsible for the citys sewerage and solid waste planning,
engineering, management and operations.
A total of 48 sewage treatment plants in Kota
Kinabalu City (total PE = 300,000) and a sewer network of approximately 180 km are
managed by this section.
(3)
Staffing
The Engineering Department in DBKK is responsible for providing engineering support to

DBKK and is in charge of maintenance of drains, sewerage systems, solid waste
management, roads, public facilities and public buildings under its jurisdiction, plan
approvals, and inspections of new structures, buildings, housing and infrastructure
developments within Kota Kinabalu City. It has 168 staff members across a number of
technical divisions and support units.
(4)
Management
The Sewerage Master Plan for Kota Kinabalu was prepared in 1981, and only the first phase
of the plan was implemented in the mid-1980s. DBKK is developing a draft sewerage
master plan for the northern, central and southern catchments.
This draft master plan
serves only as a guide, since the physical sewerage system has not been fully constructed.
Sewerage planning for Kota Kinabalu is also guided by Majlis Perbandaran Kota Kinabalus
document Directions for the Design of Sewers and Sewage Treatment Plant. DBKK also
uses the Sewerage Guidelines issued by the Sewerage Services Department and
Malaysian Sewerage Standards MS 1228 (Code of
Practice for Design and Installation
of Sewerage Systems) as a standard reference for the detailed planning and design of
sewerage systems.
2-61
Final Report
DBKK requires that all new developments within the City Hall's jurisdiction construct
sewerage systems to connect to the public central sewerage system where a Sewerage
Capital Contribution must be paid.
Where the public central sewerage system is not
available, then small sewage treatment plants serving that development may be accepted.
Developments with a total PE below 150 are allowed to use individual septic tanks.
Developments such as flats and condominiums must operate and maintain sewerage
treatment system through their management corporations.
Figure 2.8.3 shows current sewerage facilities in Kota Kinabalu.
Figure 2.8.3 Current Sewerage System in DBKK

Table 2.8.1 shows the list of sewage treatment plants managed by DBKK, design P.E.,
location and working conditions.
A total of 300,000 PE are sewered to 48 plants through
180 kilometers of public sewers.
Although 33 plants are listed in good working condition,
it has been observed based on random site visits that overall housekeeping and maintenance
is generally poor, and it is unlikely that most plants meet effluent standards.
Most plants
require major refurbishment to raise performance to operational requirements.
The
operation and maintenance of the entire Kota Kinabalu City Sewerage System (network,
pump station and sewage treatment plants) are contracted to two O&M contractors.
2-62
Final Report
However, O&M contracts are limited to emergency clearance of sewer blockages, routine
inspection, maintenance and housekeeping of only working sewage treatment plants and
pumping stations.
Therefore, many facilities are inadequately operated and maintained.
Table 2.8.1 Operational Status of Sewage Treatment Plants under DBK

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
I
II
III
IV
Status of Sewage Treatment Plant

Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Bad condition
Not running
Not running
Not running
Decent working condition
Good working condition
Bad condition
Not running
Unit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
3
8
25
48
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
2-63
Area
42
53
55
62
72
73
74
82
84
90
99
70
40
104
89
80
141
70
114
126
43
52
57
64
71
76
78
86
95
97
111
123
130
131
137
143
144
145
146
151
156
68
71
111
136
Location
Kian Yap Industrial
Taman Nelly
Taman B.D.C
Taman Kolombong
Taman Judy
Seri Kemajuan I & II
Taman Syn Fah
Taman Tobobon
Teluk Likas
Tmn Khidmat No. 3
Taman Keramat, Jalan Tuaran
Austral Ph11,13& 14, K'pyn. Ridge
Putra Jaya
Taman Bunga Raja Ph.IA & IIA
Tmn. View Point
Taman Sepanggar
Kepayan Oxidation pond
Taman Kurnia Jaya Likas
Sinar Light Industrial
Taman Seri Baru Menggatal
Taman Permai Ph.1, Menggatal
Inanam Oxidation pond
Kuala Menggatal Oxidation
Taman Delta 5.5
Kolombong Industrial
Sedco No. 1
Taman Dai Ming Baru
Daita Development
Wijaya Park
Menggatal New Township
Kingfisher Park Ph. I & II
Taman Kemajuan LCH
Taman Ria Ph. 1, Ring Road
Hiong Tiong Industrial Centre
Taman Indah Permai Shophouses
Taman Mensiang Menggatal
Taman Seri Pulutan
Taman King Fisher Phase II
Taman Kingfisher 3
Tmn Seri Indah Kuala Menggatal
Taman Bakti Ikhlas Menggatal
Tmn Seri Borneo Off Jln Lintas
Tmn Harmoni Inanam Laut
Tmn Industry Warisan Inanam
Kepayan Ridge Ph.9
LCH Phase 18 & 19
Kinamount STP
Taman Inanam Laut
STP(PE)
500
4,160
5,000
600
200
400
270
500
270
2,100
3,000
1,420
8,600
2,346
1,000
2,000
11,500
450
384
2,310
3,150
120,000
3,000
600
1,692
5,000
1,800
1,244
1,000
1,500
1,200
1,158
1,342
1,000
8,300
186
1,500
6,590
550
900
3,500
1,260
330
3,700
5,682
6,000
65,000
5000
A: O&M service company for northern catchment

B: O&M service company for central and southern
catchments
(5)
Final Report
Financial Aspects
Sewerage management in Kota Kinabalu is undertaken by the Kota Kinabalu City Hall
(DBKK) as one of the engineering services provided for the city and includes road, drainage,
and other public facilities maintenance. The DBKK allocates the budget for sewerage
services management, and the budget is not independent from other services.
are funded by the State budget and/or the federal budget.
Capital costs
The revenue and expenditures
for DBKK for the six-year period from 2002 to 2007 are shown in Table 2.8.2.
Table 2.8.2 Revenue and Expenditures of DBKK
(Unit: Million RM)
Year
2002
1. Operating revenue
2. Grant for capital investment, etc
3. Other revenue
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
53.6
64.4
62.7
73.1
76.5
74.2
0.0
4.6
5.8
0.0
0.0
8.2
3.8
3.2
1.5
3.5
Total revenue (1. to 3.)
61.8
72.8
71.7
74.6
80.0
78.2
4. Operating expenses
52.8
58.4
60.4
66.8
74.3
74.1
0.0
4.6
5.5
0.3
5. Capital investment by grant, etc.

6. Other expenses
Total expenditures (4. to 6.)
7.7
3.3
2.1
3.4
3.6
4.8
60.5
66.3
68.0
70.2
78.2
78.9
Source: Prepared by JICA Study Team, based on the Audit Report of DBKK, for the year 2002 to 2007.
Property assessment taxes contributed more than 70% of the total revenue while sewerage
revenue contributed 7% of the total revenue. These are the two major revenue sources.
On
the other hand, salary and allowances account for around 45% of total expenditures.
DBKK expends around 20% of total expenditures for operation and maintenance costs for
public utilities including sewerage services.
Table 2.8.3 DBKK Sewerage Services-related Revenue and Expenditures
(Unit: 1,000 RM)
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Revenue
Sewerage
Capital
rate
contribution
4,554.2
1,271.6
4,920.4
393.5
6,027.0
170.7
6,121.7
2,364.0
5,656.9
2,164.7
7,110.0
1,580.1
9,413.5
2,858.9
2,947.2
2,315.0
Total
5,825.8
5,313.9
6,197.7
8,485.7
7,821.6
8,690.1
12,272.4
5,262.2
Salary
157.8
168.5
186.5
201.2
211.1
236.4
252.5
351.9
Electricity
539.4
507.7
495.8
418.7
574.1
448.7
395.1
641.5
Expenditures
Repair &
Water
maintenance
0.0
2,689.1
0.0
2,603.9
0.8
2,491.2
5.7
2,648.4
2.0
2,434.8
56.7
2,455.4
4.8
2,476.9
9.8
2,533.2
Total
3,386.3
3,280.1
3,174.3
3,274.0
3,222.0
3,197.2
3,129.3
3,536.4
Balance
2,439.5
2,033.8
3,023.4
5,211.7
4,599.6
5,492.9
9,143.1
1,725.8
Source: DBKK
Table 2.8.3 summarises the revenue and expenditures of DBKKs sewerage services.
Repair and maintenance costs cover the O&M contract payments to the two sewerage O&M
contractors.
The above table shows that revenue from sewerage is more than the actual
2-64
expenditure for operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities.
Final Report
It should be noted that it
does not indicate the point at which sewerage services generate a profit.
If DBKK
provides sufficient operation and maintenance of sewerage services, expenditures may

exceed sewerage revenue.
At present, revenue received from sewerage fees and capital
contributions are also allocated to other DBKK expenses.
Sewerage capital contributions
are collected from developers of new property/building development.
The capital
contribution system is different from that of Peninsular Malaysia under SSD.
There are 40
categories of sewerage capital contribution rates, including residential and commercial

building categories.
Table 2.8.4 shows representative examples of sewerage capital
contribution rates.
In Kota Kinabalu City, sewerage tariffs, called the sewerage rate in Sabah State, are
calculated by the following formula:
Sewerage Rate (RM)
Ratable Value (RM)
Sewerage Rate (%)
This formula is common for all the customers, including commercial, industrial, and
government customers. Ratable value is the appraised value of the residence or building
assessed by DBKK.
Sewerage rates (%) have been set at 1% since January 1st, 2007 in
response to strong demands from customers to lower sewerage rates.
Until the end of
2006, the sewerage rate was 7%.

Table 2.8.4 Typical Sewerage Capital Contribution Rates in DBKK
No.
(A)
(B)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Type of building
Rate of contribution
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
Restaurant/Caf
Shop/Showroom/Supermarket
Office
Hotel/Motel/Lodging House (excluding restaurant)
General Industry
Primary School including Cafeteria etc.
Hospital including other utilities rooms
Government Building/Courts of Law
RM 2,000 /unit of residential house/flat

Followings are representative examples.
RM 4,000 /1,000 square feet (sq.ft)
RM 3,000 /1,000 sq.ft
RM 2,000 /1,000 sq.ft
RM 1,000 /room
RM 2,000 /1,000 sq.ft
RM
10 /person
RM 1,000 /bed
RM
500 /1,000 sq. ft
Source: DBKK
As shown in Table 2.8.5, the billed amount for private customers (Domestic, Commercial,
and Industry) was RM 18.9/month per customer until the end of 2006.
st
effective January 1 , 2007 to RM 3.5/month.
This was reduced
For comparison, billed sewerage tariffs in
West Malaysia (IWK area of operation) were estimated at RM 8.8/month per customer (for
domestic, commercial, and industrial customers) in 2006.
Figure 2.8.4 shows sewerage rate collection trends by DBKK.
Collection efficiency was
calculated by dividing total annual collections by the total annual billed amount based on
2-65
data provided by DBKK.
Final Report
Average collection efficiency over the last seven years was
65.9% with collection rates improving since 2004.

Table 2.8.5 Estimated Billed Sewerage Rate per Customer
Unit
Number of customers (2007)
No.
Total billed (2006)

Total collections (2007)
Private
State Govt.
Federal Govt.
Total
39,737
169
3,103
43,009
RM
8,998,989.6
1,342,376.0
1,334,878.0
11,676,243.6
RM
1,682,798.9
307,715.4
298,154.5
2,288,668.8
Monthly billed rate (2006)
RM/month
18.9
661.9
35.8
22.6
Monthly billed rate (2007)
RM/month
3.5
151.7
8.0
4.4
Source: JICA Study Team, based on data provided by DBKK

Notes: Number of customers in 2007 was used to calculate monthly billed rate for both 2006 and 2007 based on data availability.
The sewerage bill, which is combined with the property assessment bill, is prepared by
DBKK and sent to each customer every three months.
Customers can pay at the DBKK
office, community centres, post offices, Telecom Malaysia, the Public Works Department,
water supply companies, or private banks.
If customer arrears accumulate to large
amounts, DBKK may resort to resolution by a court.
However, the total arrears for both
sewerage and general rates have accumulated to around RM 30 million (including interest).
90.0
80.6
80.0
70.4
70.0
60.0
60.1
67.8
64.5
59.2
58.6
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Figure 2.8.4 DBKK Sewerage Rate Collection Trends

(6) Current Developments in Sewerage Infrastructure Upgrading in Kota Kinabalu
As mentioned earlier in this report, the Sabah State Government recently (mid-July 2007)
awarded a contract to manage the Kota Kinabalu Integrated Sewerage Scheme.
to Rastamas-Salcon JV.
2-66
2.9
Final Report
The Future of the Sewerage Sector
The National Sewerage Development Policy envisions an industry that is managed in a holistic
and sustainable manner so as to provide adequate and appropriate sewerage facilities and
services that continuously protect public health, preserve national water resources and enhance
that quality of the environment.
The current structure of the industry, as illustrated in Figure 2.9.1, shows that there are three
MinistriesEnergy, Water and Communications, Finance, and Natural Resources and the
Environmentthat have major but distinct roles in promoting and advancing the sewerage
industry of Malaysia.
Figure 2.9.1 Current Structure of the Sewerage Sector (As of August 2007)
The implementation of sector reforms, with the enforcement of WSIA on January 2008, will
provide a new impetus to the sewerage services industry, given the rationalised roles of MEWC
and the MOF, as shown in Figure 2.9.2. MEWC will now have three departments focused on
various sewerage services functions ranging from policy and policy coordination, planning,
design and construction and project implementation, and regulation (tariff setting, engineering
standards, licensing and enforcement of sewerage and sewerage-related laws and codes).
With the integration of water and sewerage planning, WSS is expected to take on a very active
role in advisory services and coordination. This may be the reason it has membership in select
2-67
committees:
Final Report
to ensure that plans and programmes are managed to achieve greatest results.
It is apparent that SSD might need to eventually transfer its project planning role to SPAN and
its project implementation role to WAMCO, especially for new water and sewerage
infrastructures. Nevertheless, this transition may take years considering that this change will
affect not only systems and processes but also the public.
The future hub of activity will be with SPAN, which is anticipated to spur focused development
in the water and sewerage sector. Since it is a new entity, it may take a few years for SPAN to
reach a fully operational level. Therefore, it is imperative that an organisational transition plan
be implemented to put in place human and financial resources and other logistical support,
including structures, systems, and processes. The end in view is that delivery of this basic
service remains smooth and unhampered.
STRUCTURE OF THE SEWERAGE SECTOR
MEWC
SSD
MOF
SPAN
- Only project
implementation of all
sewerage projects
funded via
Government Grant
and Government Aid
WS
- Regulator of the
water and sewerage
industry
- Carries out the
functions of
planning,
engineering,
standardisation,
enforcement, tariff
setting and licensing
Figure 2.9.2
IWK
- Mainly plays an
advisory monitoring
and coordination role
on behalf of MEWC
on policy matters
-Represents the
industry's needs to
cabinet for their
decision (including
budget approval and
tariff review)
- Also has a
representation in all
committees
- Operation and
maintenance of
sewerage
infrastructure
(Concessionnaire)
MNRE
WAMCO
- Acquire all existing

water and sewerage
assets and leases back
to existing operators
or concessionnaires
- Implements new
water and sewerage
infrastructure via
fund raising through
capital markets or
other means
DOE
- With respect to the

sewerage industry,
carries out
enforcement and
monitoring of water
quality functions
Structure of the Sewerage Sector after November 2007
The MOF, through IWK and WAMCO, will operate and maintain the sewerage infrastructure. In
addition, WAMCO will implement new pipeline water and sewerage infrastructure projects
using a variety of financial strategies. This may involve private and public partnerships, loans,
or financing through the capital market, among others. The possibility of raising funds through
tariff increases cannot be ruled out. These measures are aimed at achieving viable operations of
water and sewerage infrastructure facilities in order to improve quality of service over the long
term without the need for government intervention or subsidies.
The MNRE, through the DOE, will continue to enforce and monitor compliance with laws
2-68
Final Report
pertaining to water quality, ensuring the quality of the environment for future generations of
Malaysians.
All of these changes are necessary to coordinate policy implementation at the federal (central),
State, and local authority levels, contributing to the achievement of sector goals and objectives.
2.10
Recommendations Based on Sector Analysis Findings
2.10.1
Further Improvement of Sewerage Enterprise Efficiency
The new framework created by the SPAN Act and WSIA is expected to improve the autonomy
and efficiency of water enterprises through incorporation and by allowing comparisons among
water enterprises through the use of performance indicators measuring costs, efficiency, and
service quality.
IWK is currently responsible for the O&M of sewerage facilities in the majority of the
Malaysian peninsula.
The size of this service area allows the emergence of economies of scale.
On the other hand, monopolies can lead to reductions in efficiency, since there are no
comparable service providers.
Therefore, it is recommended that measure to improve
efficiency in the sewerage sector be introduced:

other elements that promote competition.
partial outsourcing, service contracts, and any

For example, introducing and fostering the
development of several private operators and allowing them to increase their capabilities by
providing outsourcing services to IWK can create competitive conditions.
This will, in turn,
contribute to lowering O&M costs for a large number of small STPs (7,041 out of a total 8,459
STPs were under 5,000 PE in 2006), which comprise the majority of STPs.
Examples of
measure include:
outsourcing or service contracts of O&M for small STPs;
part time contracts for residents to perform the operations of small STPs;
outsourcing the desludging work of CST & ST; and
introducing competition by dividing IWK into several state-wide enterprises, thereby

allowing economies of scale and comparison utilizing performance indicators.
Even in the event that the above outsourcing, service contracts, and part time contracts are
implemented, IWK should identify and maintain critical O&M functions to ensure service
quality.
Accordingly, the tasks such as monitoring of treated water, major repairs, and
replacement of facilities should be conducted by IWK.
Tasks that can be outsourced include:
i) STP site cleaning (sweeping STP sites, trash removal, weeds and algae removal in OP, etc), ii)
minor maintenance, iii) routine operations in small STPs in keeping with the formatted checklist,
and iv) water sampling and transport of samples.
2-69
Final Report
The division of IWK into state-wide entities follows the basic principles of SPAN, which leads
to the holistic management of water and sewerage service.
In order to prevent compromising
economies of scale, a detailed study should be conducted prior to making the decision to
separate IWK.
2.10.2
Sewerage Tariff Revision
The sewerage tariff should be changed to reflect the water consumption volume that is metered
by water supply operators.
It is reasonable to charge in accordance with the effluent volume of
each customer, since operational costs become larger as effluent volume increases.
In keeping
with a cost-based approach and to eliminate tasks associated with initial rating setting, a
sewerage tariff corresponding to water consumption volume should be introduced early, in
particular for industrial premises where the tariff is currently based on number of occupants
With respect to the sewerage sector, it is believed that full costs should be recovered not only
from customers but also from other beneficiaries, such as tourism, fisheries, agriculture, and
other sectors.
There is justification for governments to share the cost of sewerage services, as
is described later in 2.10.4 Government Portion of Sewerage Charges to Cover Lower Tariffs for
Low Income Groups.
Nevertheless, the present level of sewerage tariffs is not high enough for relevant level.
The
average sewerage tariff estimated to be 0.17% of average household income as shown in Table
2.10.1.
The IBRD and Pan American Health Organisation estimate that 1% and 1.5%,
respectively, of household income is the maximum level for sewerage service household
affordability.
In Malaysia, the sewerage tariff as a percentage of household income (0.17%) is
only one sixth of the maximum affordability level indicated by IBRD (1%) (refer to Figure
2.10.1).
Table 2.10.1 Average Sewerage Tariff as a Percentage of Average Household Income
Area
Malaysia
Average monthly household

income 2004 (RM)
Ave. monthly tariff

(sewerage) (RM) 2001-07
Monthly tariff as a % of ave.

monthly income (sewerage)
3,249
5.5
0.17
Source: JICA Study Team, based on average monthly household income data in the 1999 and 2004 Household Income Surveys
from the Department of Statistics
an increase in the sewerage tariff is required to improve and maintain service quality.
On the
other hand, it is critical to avoid a dramatic increase in the sewerage tariff by setting clear cost
recovery targets (rate of recovery by year) and implementing any increases in stages.
2-70
2.00%
Final Report
Pan American Health Organisation
1.50%
IBRD
1.00%
0.50%
0.17%
0.00%
Malaysia
Figure 2.10.1 Sewerage Tariff as a Percentage of Ave. Household Income in Malaysia

and Affordability Limits according to International Agencies
Currently, billing of sewerage charges follows a 6-month cycle..
This is regarded as one of the
causes of large accounts receivables in the IWK balance sheet. Bills for sales of goods and
serviceseven public servicesshould be issued as soon as possible.
There are no good
reasons to delay billing six months after costs for services have been incurred. Moreover, it is
more difficult for customers to make large one-time payments than to pay in smaller amounts
over the period.
A more reasonable practice would be to bill customers every month or every
two months.
2.10.3
Increased Public Relations Activities
One of the major causes behind the resistance to pay sewerage tariffs or to raise tariff rates is the
lack of knowledge among customers concerning the importance of sewerage services and the
present environmental and financial circumstances facing the sector. Most customers are unable
to understand the role and importance of sewerage service.
Generally, service providers tend
to believe that customers have an adequate comprehension of the effects of sewerage service but
this is more often not the case.
Therefore, continuous and effective advertising or public
relations activities are indispensable to improving the understanding of sewerage services by

customers.
IWK and SSD have long been engaged in such advertising and public relation activities.
While these initiatives have contributed positively to recent improvements in the collection
status of sewerage bills, increased public relations activities are needed to raise public
2-71
Final Report
confidence in service providers and to build the comprehension and acceptance needed to
achieve full cost recovery in the future.
It is also recommended that service providers
constantly monitor the performance of public relation activities and utilize more effective
methods.
Major tools of public relation activities are as follows:
(a) Posters, slogans, calendars, etc. to convey a message or image

(b) Brochures, newsletters, and PR videos to introduce the activities of the enterprise
(c) Annual reports to provide detailed data and information
(d) Newspaper articles to present issues or opinions
(e) Advertising in radio, TV, and other media to generate a positive image or provide
notice of emergencies
(f) Allow public access to STPs or other facilities to let citizens (including school
children) understand the sewerage system
(g) Conferences or panel discussions to exchange opinions between citizens and service
providers
(h) Day-to-day responses to customer claims (e.g., using a helpdesk) to provide fast
and polite responses that build confidence in the service provider
Among the above major tools, face-to-face contact between service provider and citizens, such
as (g) conferences or panel discussions, might not have the reach of newspaper or TV, but they
provide deep and long-lasting impressions of service providers.
Implementing such public
relations measures is highly recommended.
2.10.4
Government Portion of Sewerage Charges to Cover Lower Tariffs for Low
Income Groups
Under the current system, sewerage tariffs for domestic premises are set at lower rates for
premises classified as low-cost or village housing. Sewerage tariffs should be set to recover
necessary costs in order to prevent the degradation of long-term service quality with sound
management.
On the other hand, poverty reduction measures should be implemented by the
federal government or municipal governments as distinct from sewerage services.
When the
tariff reduction is implemented for low income groups, the difference between regular and
discounted tariffs should be covered by the by the federal government or municipal
governments to avoid deterioration in service caused by budget shortfalls.
For domestic premises connected to public sewers, RM 8 per month is charged for houses with
annual values greater than RM 600.00 and government quarters in grades A, B, C, D & E.
2 per month and RM 3 per month are charged for low cost or village houses.
RM
Amounts to be
compensated by the government for each customer are equivalent to the gap between the normal
and discounted rates:
RM 6 and RM 5 per month, respectively.

2-72
Final Report
The government portion of sewerage charges to be paid to service providers will be computed
by summing the differences for all connected customers with lower tariff rates.
These
subsidies shall be used to cover the excess O&M costs incurred by the service provider.
2.10.5
Setting Rules for Federal Government Subsidisation of IWK
At present, sewerage tariffs are not sufficient to cover all necessary costs, including O&M and
the cost of capital; therefore, subsidies from the federal government are provided to sewerage
service providers.
The amount of subsidies is increasing year by year as shown in Table
2.2.15 Financial Assistance from the Federal Government to Indah Water Konsortium.
It is
recommended that rules or criteria governing subsidies from the Ministry of Finance to IWK be
created.
In the absence of such subsidy rules, sewerage enterprises may fall into a state of heavy
dependence on subsidies, and, as a result, lose motivation to improve productivity.
If the rules
reflect an enterprises rights and duties with respect to profit appropriation or loss disposition,
financial management responsibility and incentives to increase revenue and reduce costs can be
maintained, leading to continuous improvements in productivity and efficiency.
The following are examples of rules for subsidy from the federal government to IWK:
(a) Subsidies shall cover costs of depreciation, loan repayment, and 50% of other O&M.
IWK must cover other costs using tariff revenues.
(b) Subsidies shall cover costs of depreciation, loan repayment, and 25% of other O&M.
IWK must cover other costs using tariff revenues.
(c) Subsidies shall cover costs of depreciation and loan repayment costs. IWK must
cover other costs using tariff revenues.
The unlimited expansion of subsidies using the governmental budget is regarded as
inappropriate.
By establishing certain rules for providing subsidies, IWK would be compelled
to conduct stricter financial management to enhance cost savings and revenue generation.
On
the other hand, the federal government should expand the right of IWK to set the sewerage tariff
with more flexibility under SPANs regulatory regime.
It is recommended that this kind of
plan will be proposed to SPAN via IWKs business plan, accompanied by a necessary plan to
raise tariffs.
In general, sewerage service provides benefits not only to houses connected to sewerage pipes,
but also to others, by removing dirty water from a certain area and treating sewerage.
Those
indirect beneficiaries include patients without sewerage services suffering from water borne
diseases, users of groundwater, tourism, fisheries, the agricultural industry, and members of the
public who can take walks along a clean riverside, among others.
2-73
Obviously, it is impossible
Final Report
to identify these beneficiaries and persuade them to pay the sewerage charge in proportion to
their benefits.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the government to pay part of the necessary
costs for sewerage services using tax revenue.
In other words, a certain (not unlimited)
amount of subsidisation of sewerage service is recognized as the federal governments share of

the sewerage charge burden and shall account for the total sewerage revenue needed to realize
full cost recovery.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the ideal (long-term objective) proportion of the
governments portion of sewerage charges to customer charges be determined through
discussion among relevant Ministries and by considering the appropriate level of cost sharing by
these two parties.
As a start, subsidy rules should be set based on current circumstances with
the low sewerage tariff (0.17% of average household income).
In the near future, the business
plan of IWK should define the ideal (long-term objective) allocation of cost sharing between
customers and the government as a target and develop a staged implementation plan, including
the target year.
2.10.6
Sewerage Capital Contribution to Encourage Integration and Rationalisation
It is recommended that the criteria of the sewerage capital contribution (SCC) be reviewed.
The SCC is currently paid by developers that connect to the existing public STP at the rate of
1% of the developed property value.
Therefore, the present SCC system encourages the
construction of a developers own STP on the development site rather than connecting to the
public sewerage system.
This causes the problem of a large, and still increasing, number of
STPs in Malaysia that exceeds the maintenance capacity of IWK.
That is why rationalisation
(reducing the number) of STP is strongly desired in Malaysia.
In the interests of greater
integration and rationalisation of STPs in Malaysia, the SCC should be levied on developers that
construct STPs within development sites without connecting to the public sewerage system.
In addition, it is recommended that the SCC fund be used as an incentive to encourage
developers to reduce STPs.
Incentives will be paid to developers that:
(a) connect to the existing public sewerage system if the distance to public systems is
determined to be far;
(b) construct integrated STP to treat sewerage from neighbouring developments by
collaborating with other developers;
(c) incorporate existing sewerage systems into new STP; or
(d) install larger sewers to connect to existing public sewers or construct larger STP for
future developments following the direction of a certifying agency.
The above measures are expected to be a catalyst to encourage developers to connect to the
public sewerage system and construct integrated STP.
2-74
This should, therefore, contribute to
Final Report
promoting the integration or rationalisation of STPs or at least slow down the pace of STP
growth.
After monitoring the progress and effects of rationalisation projects, it is
recommended that the Ministry and SPAN discuss the relevant rate of the SCC charge and
incentives to achieve the purpose.
Annual SCC collections are currently not sufficient for many construction projects in the
Malaysian peninsula.
It is also recommended that the SCC fund be utilized for planning,
preliminary design, and cost estimation only, for integration and consolidation projects, so as to
prepare for construction budget appropriations in the Five-Year Malaysia Plan.
In order to achieve revision of the SCC, it is necessary for the federal government to declare the
strong political intention to utilize the SCC for integration and rationalisation of STP, since the
1.65% SCC levied on developers that construct STP was suspended in September 1999.
2.10.7
Measures to Increase Public Sewer Connection
Clauses 57 and 58 of the WSIA authorized SPAN to require premises and developers to connect
to the public sewerage system.
These clauses will contribute to a helpful increase in the
number of customers utilizing the public sewerage system and the utilization rate of public STP.
Practical regulation shall be prepared based on these Clauses.
On the other hand, a revolving
fund to allow instalment payments of initial connection costs when septic tank users connect to
the public sewer line should be established.
Costs to connect septic tanks to the public sewer are usually the large amount.
While
legislation requires connection to the public sewer, initial investment costs will present the
biggest obstacle.
Instalment payments should, therefore, be provided to customers by
establishing a revolving fund.
If a septic tank user who applies for instalment payment is
qualified to utilize the revolving fund, a contract will be created between the customer and
relevant organisation regarding the loan amount, repayment period, and annual repayment
amount, etc.
Money borrowed from the revolving fund must be paid directly to of sewerage
connection contractor.
basis.
Customers shall make repayments to the fund on a monthly or yearly
This instalment system will alleviate the burden of one-time connection costs on
customers.
The instalment plan should initially be introduced as a trial with a small budget and limited
number of loans.
After monitoring user feedback on loan repayment progress, loan amounts
and conditions should be reviewed upon the next full implementation of the instalment plan.
It
should also be noted that there is a risk that customers would take legal action and default on
their loans.
Loan agreements between responsible organisations and customers must include
terms that prevent this type of default.
2-75
CHAPTER 3
MANUAL FOR
REVIEWING/EVALUATION/PRIORITISING
OF SEWERAGE CATCHMENTS/PROJECTS
Final Report
CHAPTER 3
MANUAL FOR REVIEWING/EVALUATION/PRIORITISING OF
SEWERAGE CATCHMENTS/PROJECTS
3.1 Catchment Strategy Report
The catchment strategy report (CSR) describes a catchment strategy/plan (CS/P) for a study area,
which may comprise a single or a number of catchments depending on the study area. In some
cases, one catchment may be further divided into sub-catchments.
The comparative study of
alternatives, which are usually called options in the report, is conducted considering either of
the following:
On-site treatment by pour-flush latrines or individual septic tanks (though it is not the
norm to consider this as an option in a strategy, some rural, low density and low growth
areas will maintain existing facilities until the need for a change can be justified)
Multi-point treatment system
Regional treatment system
Conveyance to adjoining sewerage catchment or a combination of these
From the above options, the option with the minimum total cost by NPV, which is the
cumulative sum of discounted construction and operation and maintenance costs, is selected as
the preferred option and recommended as the sewerage scheme or sewerage project of the
catchment/sub-catchment.
Besides minimum total cost by NPV, non-cost considerations are
also taken into account.

(1) Catchment Strategy/Plan (CS/P) Formulated by the Government
Since privatization of sewerage facilities in 1993, the formulation of the catchment
strategy/plan (CS/P) was commenced but it has changed with time.
In 1993, IWK concluded the concession agreement with the government of Malaysia and
assumed exclusive responsibility for planning, design, construction, operation and
maintenance, and billing and collection of public sewerage facilities in Malaysia.
The
concession agreement provided the performance goal that the connected population
coverage served by sewerage shall be 70% for 48 major towns and 30% for the other 96
towns at the termination of the concession agreement.
For this reason and overall planning
needs, IWK had actively selected the cities and areas and formulated the CSPs every year
directly or through outsourcing to the local consultants.
The CSPs that were formulated by
IWK would then be approved by SSD (the sewerage regulator) with the consultation of
3-1
Final Report
common stakeholders. However, IWKs progress in achieving and providing sustainable

sewerage services as the national sewerage concessionaire had been hindered by the low
sewage charge collections.
In June 2000, the Ministry of Finance acquired IWK as a wholly owned subsidiary.
Since
then, the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) of SSD has been regulating IWK on the
formulation of CSPs, which IWK either carried out in-house or through outsourcing to the
local consultants.
There was almost no change to the arrangement where IWK had been
responsible for all technical aspects.

In September 2006, the Planning Division was established in SSD, and the consultancy
services for the development of CSPs at five districts were awarded to five local consultants
and were to be conducted under the control of the Planning Division.
IWK will be playing
a role as the internal technical advisor for SSD with respect to the formulation of these five
CSPs, for which, IWK is allowed to charge a professional fee to SSD.
In the course of the formulation of CSRs and SLPs, the best option is usually selected.
Although the Manual is expected to be applied in this step, its use would likely be limited as
many of the indicators would be the same due to the limited study area.
Potential projects
will then be identified based on the preferred option.

(2) CSR Prepared by Private Developers
The developer is first advised to discuss all their developments sewerage requirements with
IWK.
The initial consultation will determine whether the proposed development site can
be connected to an existing public sewerage system or whether the developer will be

required to construct a dedicated treatment plant.
For the permanent sewage treatment plant or schemed development, a CSR is required for
submission.
Since the coverage area of the developers development area is limited and
the investment for a sewerage plan is made privately, the CSRs formulated by developers
are usually simplified in comparison to those funded and prepared by the government.
Although SSD issues an approval for each developer-formulated CSR under the name of the
director of the regional office, the technical aspects are fully assisted by IWK.
Application of the Manual is would also be limited in this case.
IWK is now registered as the certifying agency by SPAN and will review and approve the
sewerage plans of the developers and a monthly report is submitted to SPAN.
Only when
there is a dispute or an appeal is made will the sewerage plan will be sent to SPAN for a
3-2
Final Report
decision at its own discretion.

The distinct expected outcome of a sewerage catchment strategy is that it advocates the
most feasible option to provide satisfactory and sustainable sewerage infrastructure, services
to the public, and conservation of the surrounding environment within a planned area.
It
should also provide sufficient information for planners to plan the immediate, middle term
and long term needs of a planned area by addressing the present situation together with the
needs and highlighting future scenarios and requirements.
To achieve the above, the CSRP should be able to provide comprehensive data for
prioritisation of catchments/projects that need to be implemented and highlight the
importance of its study area.
To substantiate the prioritisation of planned sewerage
catchments/projects and to ensure that it meets the required expectations, a standard manual
for prioritisation is developed.
To ensure the effectiveness of the Manual and its utilization, the CSRP is expected to
provide the data required for its application, which is based on a number of criteria as
follows:
1) Importance of city or area
2) Pollution load
3) Incidence of waterborne diseases
4) Water pollution status of receiving water body
5) Complaints from the public
6) Beneficial water uses of receiving water body
7) Rationalisation impact to existing sewerage facilities
8) Conservation of local water cycle
9) First time provision of public sewerage
10) Reliability of project implementation
11) Condition of existing sewerage facilities
12) Cost
13) User affordability to pay
14) Improvement of sludge treatment
15) Consideration of special conditions
Note: The above highlighted criteria are explained in detail in the later part of this report.
3-3
Final Report
3.2 Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage Catchments /Projects

3.2.1 Possible Applications of the Manual
The objective of the Manual is to review, evaluate and prioritise the sewerage
catchments/catchments/projects.
In actual practice, the Manual would be used to review/
evaluate/prioritise catchments/sub-catchments as well as to prioritise projects located in

different catchments, as described below.
The relationship among these applications is
depicted in Figure 3.2.1.

Case 1: for reviewing/evaluating/prioritising of sewerage catchments/sub-catchments
Case 2: for reviewing/evaluating/prioritising of sewerage projects in the different
catchments
Selection of Preferred
Option in formulating CS/P
On-site
Treat.ment Option
Catchment strategy
Regional
Treat.ment Option
Multi-point Treat.
Option
Disposal to
Adjoining SC Op.
Preferred Option
Reviewing /Evaluating /Prioritising of

Catchments /Projects
Case 1
Case 2
Comparison of Catchments /
Subcatchments
Comparison of Projects
Prioritisation of Catchments /
Subcatchments
Prioritisation of Projects
END
Figure 3.2.1 Application of the Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of

Catchments Strategies/Plans and Sewerage Projects
The catchment or sub-catchment is the planning unit set for the purpose of sewerage
planning and refers to the specified area, but, when used in prioritisation, it means the overall
3-4
Final Report
plan of a sewerage system proposed for such catchments/sub-catchments. When a catchment /

sub-catchment have an independent sewerage system, respectively, they are treated equally in
the prioritisation. It should be noted that there are some cases where the multiple sewerage
systems are proposed for one catchment/sub-catchment, or one catchment/sub-catchment is
finally integrated with another catchment/sub-catchment and covered by one centralized sewage
treatment plant
Project refers to implementation of one-third or one-fourth of the overall plan for the
catchment/sub-catchment under a phased construction plan.
catchments/sub-catchments
cannot
be
compared,
Therefore, projects and
with
the
exception
of
catchments/sub-catchments that are small enough to be fully implemented.

Although this Manual is applicable to the prioritisation of projects as well as catchments/
sub-catchment, the data at the project implementation level is required for projects, which is
described last as considerations for the prioritisation of projects.
Table 3.2.1 summarises some examples of existing catchment strategy reports, of which the
location of the study areas is shown in Figure 3.2.2.
As shown in Table 3.2.1, the number of catchments is different in the catchment strategy reports,
such as one catchment in Jinjang-Kepong and eleven catchments in Daerah Kuala Langat.
basic
comparative
study
for
the
selection
of
options
is
conducted
in
each
catchment/sub-catchment.
Table 3.2.1 Example Content of Existing Catchment Strategy Reports
Study Area
Hulu Langat District
Daerah Kuala Langat
Year
1998
1999
Contents
Sewerage Catchment St.
Consultants
BW Perunding Sdn. Bhd.
Cities Involved
Kajang, Bangi
Jinjang-Kepong
1998
Sewerage Catchment St.

Symonds Travers Morgan
Sdn. Bhd.
District Council + 7 mukims
Sewerage Catchment St. &

Sludge Mgt St.
Minconsult Sdn. Bhd.
Part of Kuala Lumpur city
and Majlis Perbandaran
Selayang
*1
Area
1,319 ha
82,067 ha
6,860 ha
Population (2015)
1,928,798
734,674
806,750
No. of STPs
18 STPs for 6 CAs
8 STPs for 7 CAs
1 STP for 1 CA
Note: CA: catchment area, S-CA: sub-catchment area

*1
The study area is large but there are no major urban areas in the study area where there is an immediate need for a sewerage
scheme.
3-5
Final Report
Location map of examples
Jinjang-Kepong
Hulu Langat
Kuala
Langat
Figure 3.2.2 Location of Study Areas in Table 3.2.1

Note: The river system in Figure 3.2.2 shows the Sg. Langat River Basin. A part of Hulu Langat District
adjoining Kuala Lumpur is called Upper Langat or the model area for application of the Manual.
3.2.2
Current Status of Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage Catchments
/Projects
The criteria for reviewing/evaluation/prioritising of sewerage projects adopted for the Ninth
Five-Year Malaysia Plan for the period of 2006-2010 by the Sewerage Services Department
(SSD), the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication (MEWC) are shown in Table
3.2.2.
IWK, which assists the SSD on this matter, has drawn up the following seven evaluation items
for Sewerage Development Plan (SDP) implementation, although the weighting method is
unknown:
1) Mitigation of public health risks
2) Protecting drinking water resources
3) Strategic interest of river system
4) Operational improvement
5) Priority for high density areas, commercial and industrial areas, areas of tourist
importance
6) First-time provision of sewerage services
3-6
Final Report
7) Political and strategic importance
Table 3.2.2 Ninth Malaysia Plan Sewerage Project Selection Criteria

No.
Benefit
Meaxure
Weightage
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC ISSUES
1
Qualitative
Assessment
on
Authority basis, refer Table A
Local
10.0
Socio-economic, e.g. tourism, industry
Strategic Importance
Promotion of Commercial and Industry Related

Projects
Quantitative
measures
based
on
population equivalent ratios, refer Table B
10.0
Score 10.0 or 0 depending on whether

Ministry of Health has reported incidence
of diseases or illness which are potentially
waterborne and sewage related.
10.0
Bias to projects with higher level of commercial

and industrial consumers
SANITATION ISSUES
3
Mitigation of Known Public Health Problems
Also, where water quality problems and

improvements are possible, which may
affect health, refer Table C
4
Improvement of Drinking Water Quality
Measure of distance of protection

upstream from intake for drinking water
treatment plants identified in the Fourth
Schedule of the Environmental Quality
[Sewerage and Industrial Effluents)
Regulations 1978, refer Table D
18.0
High Density Areas First
Quantitative measure based on population

equivalent and catchment area, refer
Table E
10.0

equivalent ratios, refer Table F
10.0
Bias to provision of services to higher density

areas where sewage problems are more acute
6
First Time Provision of Sewerage Services

Bias to projects services to consumers to be
served by connected service
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Alleviation of River and Coastal Pollution
Measure according to quality of river or

adjoining coastal water to b protected as
defined in the Environment Quality Report
1990, refer Table G
17.0
Operational Improvement

equivalent ratios, refer Table H
15.0
Alleviation of operational nuisance/visual

problems and efficiency savings
3-7
Final Report
Table 3.2.2 Ninth Malaysia Plan Sewerage Project Selection Criteria (contd)
Scoring of Project Selection Criteria
Table A Strategic Importance of Local Authorities
(Abbreviated)
Table B Commercial and Industrial Projects
PE(C)
SCORE
>70%
10.0
50-70%
8.0
30-49%
5.0
10-29%
3.0
<10%
Where PE (C) = Population Equivalent of commercial and industrial consumers
Table C Mitigation of Known Public Health Problems

HEALTH FACTOR
SCORE
Reported incidents of illness and disease by Ministry of Health
10.0
Improvement of water quality will improve public health
5.0
Table D Improvement of Drinking Water Quality

NEAREST POINT OF PROJECT TO WATER SUPPLY INTAKE
SCORE
0 - 2 km
18.0
2 - l0 km
9.0
> 10 km
Table E High Concentration of Pollution

PERSON (PE) PER HECTARE
SCORE
>160 (High)
10.0
120 - 160
8.0
80 - 119 (Medium)
5.0
40 - 79
3.0
< 40 (Low)
Table F First-time Provision of Connected Sewerage

PE(NC)
SCORE
>70%
10.0
30-70%
5.0
<30%
Where PE (NC) = Population Equivalent of customers not provided with a connected service.
3-8
Final Report
Table G Alleviation of River and Coastal Pollution

CLASSIFICATION
SCORE
Projects adjacent to polluted rivers(Environmental Quality Report, 2001)
17.0
Projects adjacent to any coastal areas or estuaries
10.0
Projects adjacent to any rivers (< 2 km)
5.0
None of the above
Table H Operational Improvement

ASPECT
SCORE
Efficiency Saving
4.0
Operational Improvement
2.0
Nuisance Removal
2.0
Visual Improvement
2.0
Note: Obtain a total score by adding the scores for each aspect
3.2.3
Considerations for Preparation of the Manual
In preparing the Manual for the purpose of reviewing/evaluation/prioritising of sewerage

catchments/projects, consideration was given to the following:
1) To minimize additional surveys for prioritisation of sewerage catchments/projects
2) To consider how to update the data used in the catchment strategy report
3) To make scoring clear and systematic so that the results will not vary, depending on
the appraisers
4) To systematize the arrangement of the necessary data for prioritisation of sewerage
catchments/projects, with the use of the summary sheet of each catchment strategy
report
3.2.4
Methodology for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage Catchments/
Projects
The reviewing/evaluation/prioritising of sewerage catchments/projects were studied in
accordance with the following steps:
1) To study the content of existing sewerage catchment strategy reports
2) To investigate possible application cases of the Manual
3-9
Final Report
3) To list possible evaluation items

4) To identify indicators representing respective evaluation items
5) To investigate the availability of indicators
6) To review the importance of each evaluation item
7) To select evaluation items and indicators
8) To develop a scoring system
9) To consider weighting among evaluation items
3.3
Possible Evaluation Items and Indicators
It is necessary to consider various items for evaluation, from the need to the benefits derived
from sewerage provision, in order to make a reasonable judgment based on a comprehensive
consideration of each relevant factor.
Duncan Mara, for example suggests consideration of (i) projected total population, (ii)
population density, (iii) failure of on-site sanitation systems, (iv) industrial pollution, (v) cost,
(vi) tourist impact, (vii) environment impact, (viii) affordability, (ix) economies of scale, (x)
institutional capacity, and (xi) health benefits as evaluation items for catchment/project
selection.
Source: Duncan Mara, Low-cost Sewerage, John Wily & Sons, pp.20-25, 1996
In addition, taking into account the current situation of the sewerage sector in Malaysia,
attention should be paid to the rationalisation of existing sewerage facilities and improvement of
sludge treatment.
Possible evaluation items are as follows (see Figure 3.3.1):
1) Importance of city or area
2) Pollution load
3) Incidence of waterborne diseases
6) Beneficial water uses of receiving water body
7) Rationalisation impact of existing sewerage facilities
9) First-time provision of public sewerage
3-10
Final Report

11) Conditions of existing sewerage facilities
12) Cost
13) User affordability to pay
14) Improvement of sludge treatment
Socio-economic
Importance of area
Consideration for special

conditions
Without Project
WTP
Water pollution
status
Environmental
Technical
Local water cycle
Pollution load
STP
With Project
Reliability for project impl.
Water use cond.
Political
First time provision
Financial
Financial viability
Figure 3.3.1 Possible Evaluation Items
The first problem is the type of data that represents the evaluation items.
If existing statistical
data is available for evaluation purposes, and if such data is easily obtainable and quantifiable,
the later stages of prioritising sewerage catchments/projects become more transparent.
second problem is to what level of detail such data is available.
The
If the statistical data is
available at a national level, such data is basically accumulated in steps from the municipal, to
the state, and finally to the national level.
Typically, however, national level publications
provide state level data, but not municipal level data, with the exception of area and population.
In such cases, the data must be collected directly from the city/town offices involved.
3.3.1
Importance of City/Area
(1) Development Potential of City/ Area
3-11
Final Report
According to the census of Malaysia conducted in 2000, the total population increased to
22.198 million from 17.563 million in 1991 with an annual growth rate of approximately
2.6%, which was almost equal to that of the period from 1980 to 1991.
significant differences in the growth rate of state populations.
However, there are
For example, Selangor
registers the highest at 6.2%, followed by Sabah at 4.0%, the Federal Territory of Labuan at
3.0%, Johor at 2.5%, Perlis at 0.8%, Kelantan at 1.0%, and Perak, with the lowest, at 0.6%.
Source: Department of Statistics, Malaysia, Yearbook of Statistics 1998, pp.23-27
Also, at a city level, there are significant differences in urban population growth. Table
3.3.1, Top 15 Urban Centre Population in 1991 and 2000, shows trends in urban population
growth over ten years. Subang Jaya (with a growth rate of 21.2%), Shah Alam (7.8%) and
Kota Kinabalu (7.5%) were among the top 11 growth centres in 2000, while Kota Bahru
(0.8%), Kuala Trengganu (1.3%), Georgetown (-2.1%) and Kuantan (4.0%) dropped out of
the top 11 in 2000.
It should be noted that Kuala Lumpur (1.5%) and Petaling Jaya (2.4%),
which are fairly well developed, exhibit slow growth while Klang (6.1%), Subang Jaya,
Ampang Jaya (5.7%), and Shah Alam surrounding KL and PJ show a sharp growth as these
townships have land still available for development.
Table 3.3.1 Top 15 Urban Centre Population in 1991 and 2000
2000
Urban Areas
1991
Total
1,305,792
Urban Areas
D. B. Kuala Lumpur
Total
D. B. Kuala Lumpur
M. B. Johor Bahru
642,944
M. B. Ipoh
1,145,342
M. P. Klang
626,699
M. B. Johor Bahru
441,703
M. B. Ipoh
536,832
M. P. Klang
368,379
M. P. Ampang Jaya (d)
478,613
M. P. Petaling Jaya
350,995
M. P. Subang Jaya (e)(g)
447,183
M. P. Ampang Jaya (d)
290,452
M. P. Petaling Jaya
432,619
Kuching
277,905
Kuching
422,240
M. P. Kota Bharu
234,581
468,841
M. P. Shah Alam (f)
314,440
M. P. Kuala Terengganu
228,119
10
D. B. Kota Kinabalu
306,920
Georgetown
219,603
11
M. P. Seremban
290,709
M. P. Kuantan
202,445
12
M. P. Kuantan
288,727
M.P.Taiping
200,324
13
Sandakan
276,791
M. P. Seremban
193,237
14
M. P. Kuala Terengganu
255,518
Alor Setar
164,444
15
M. P. Kota Bharu
251,801
D. B. Kota Kinabalu
160,184
Such growth rates of urban centre population are identified as one of the indicators showing
the importance of city or area.
3-12
Final Report
There is another possible index showing the importance of city or area, which is the number
of houses in residential development projects.
Such data, however, have been thoroughly
checked and used for population projections, tabulating development status (existing, under
construction and under application), expected commissioning time and land use (residential,
commercial, industrial, etc.).
Therefore, it is believed that this data has already been
reflected in the growth of populations in the existing catchment strategy reports.

(2) Urban Population Size
The cities are categorized into the national capital, state capitals and others, which are
further classified based on the urban population size.
The capital or state capital is the
centre of administration and represents each state, which again, requires special
considerations in addition to urban population size.
The urban centres in Malaysia are classified based on population size as shown in Table
3.3.2.
Table 3.3.2 Classification of Urban Centres in Malaysia Based on Population Size in 2000
Urban Areas (1000)
State
500
500>150
150>75
75>50
50>25
25>10
<10
Total
Johor
23
Kedah
Kelantan
10
Melaka
13
N. Sembilan
Pahang
10
Perak
18
Perlis
Pulau Pinang
14
Sabah
15
Sarawak
10
Selangor
14
31
Terengganu
W. P. Kuala Lumpur
W. P. Labuan
Malaysia
23
12
14
36
79
169
(3) Commercial and Industrial City/Area

The indicators representative of a commercial and industrial city or area are industrial
3-13
product value, commercial sales value and population by industry.
Final Report
Since such data will be
difficult if not impossible to secure for all cities or areas, the percentage of the commercial
and industrial design PE (population equivalent) to the total design PE as shown in
Catchment Strategy Reports is adopted as an index for this purpose.
In general, the following methods are used for the projection of population equivalent (PE):
1) Census Population Growth Rate Method
In this method, the annual average population growth rate between the latest and
previous census is calculated and applied to the current population in the census area to
be included within the study area.
The projected population is then converted to the
design PE using a conversion factor of 1.10 to 1.25. It should be noted that the design
PE by use cannot be obtained using this method.
2) Land Use Method
The design PE is projected at five-year intervals with the calculation sheet using the
form in Table 3.3.3 by predicting future land use patterns by block and multiplying the
per ha design PE to each block.
Table 3.3.3 Calculation Sheet Used for PE Projection by Land Use Method
Block
Dominant
Name
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Industrial
E: Existing
Total PE
UC: Under Construction
Development Status
E
UC
PA
PA: Pending Approval
UDV
Planning Period
2000
2005
-----
Ultimate
2020
PE
UDV: Undeveloped
In the CSR for Taiping and Kuala Kangsar, comparisons of design PEs projected by both
census population growth rate and land use methods have been made.
The latter method
results in 1.1 to 3.3 times the design PE than the former in all cases in Larut and Matang,
Kerian and Kuala Kangsar with the exception of one sub-catchment.
The design PE is
fixed by using the intermediate value closest to the value resulting from the land use method.
Comparing results from different methods can reduce the incidence of population projection
overestimation to some extent.
The residential PE equals the population and, by clarifying the design PE by land use, it is
possible to compare it with the design population of the structure plan at five-year intervals,
as well as to verify the reasonableness of population projection through the comparison of
residential and non-residential design PEs.
3-14
Final Report
However, fewer than half of the existing 24 CSR and SLPs provide population by land use,
and, for this reason, commercial and industrial design PE ratio could not be used as an index
in this study. Design PE by land use should be indicated in future CSRs and SLPs.
(4) Tourism City/Area
The tourism sector has maintained its position as the second largest foreign exchange earner
in Malaysia since 2000 when international arrivals totaled 10.2 million and tourism receipts
RM 17.3 billion. By 2006, the number of international tourists had increased to 17.55
million while receipts grew to RM 36.27 billion.
Source: The Ministry of Tourism
The number of hotel guests by locality in 2005 is indicated in Appendix 3-A.
3.3.2 shows localities with annual hotel guests of 100,000 or more.
Figure
(It should be noted
that Kuala Lumpur, with 7.24 million domestic hotel guests and 7.89 million from overseas
for a total of 15.13 million, is excluded from Figure 3.3.2.).
4,500
Hotel Guests by Locality (thousand)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Fer
in g
gh
aT
i
ere
ng
ga
nu
Ko
ta B
ha
Pa
ru
n gk
or
Isl
an
d
Al
Ca
or
me
Se t
r on
ar
H ig
hla
nd
s
Se
pa
ng
Sha
hA
lam
Su
ba
ng
Sun
ga
iP
eta
ni
Tg
Bu
ng a
h
San
dak
an
Lu
mu
Ay
t
er
Ke
ro h
La
b ua
nF
.T
Se
rem
ba
Ko
n
ta T
ing
gi
Me
r sin
g
Pu
tr a
Jay
a
Ku
al
Mi
ri
Ip o
h
Ba
tu
Ko
ta K
Ge
in a
n ti
ba
ng
lu
Hi
gh
lan
ds
La
ng
ka
Ge
wi
o rg
eT
ow
Ba
n
nd
ar
Me
lak
a
Joh
or B
ah r
u
Ku
ant
an
Ku
chi
ng
Pet
ali
ng
Ja y
Por
a
tD
ic k
s on
DOMESTIC
FOREIGNER
Figure 3.3.2 Hotel Guests by Locality (Based on Appendix 3-A)
Tourism should be analised according to distribution of domestic and overseas guests and
attributes like beach resort, highland resort or administrative core city, and so on.
3-15
3.3.2
Final Report
Pollution Loads
(1) Pollution Loads

Pollution load signify the quantity of sewage entering a river or water body.
There are two
possible indicators: (1) total domestic pollution load generated and (2) total pollution load
removed.
Total pollution load dischargedcalculated by deducting total pollution load
removed from total domestic pollution load generatedhas been significantly reduced
through the adoption of conventional activated sludge processes and recent moves to high
treatment efficiency in Malaysia. As a result, total domestic pollution load generated and
total pollution load removed are highly correlated and total domestic pollution load
generated can represent pollution load.
Some portion of pollution load generated is currently removed by the existing STPs and
ISTs (shown in C in Figure 3.3.3).
In relation to this, two ideas on total domestic
pollution load generated emerge: (1) the concept excluding the pollution load that is
currently deducted from the pollution load generated (shown in B in Figure 3.3.3) and (2)
the concept including pollution load that is currently deducted (shown in A in Figure
3.3.3).
In the case of the latter, it is observed that B becomes negative, or the currently
connected PE to existing STPs exceeds the design PE, especially in the rapidly-developed
areas in the metropolitan region.
Therefore, Type A pollution load generated is
recommended for adoption.
3-16
Removed by ISTs
Removed bySTPs
Removed by STPs
Discharged by ISTs
Removed by CSTP
Load removed
Discharged by STPs
Removed by CSTP
(Net) Load generated "B"
Removed by CSTP
(Gross) Load generated "A"
Removed by ISTs
Final Report
Load removed by
existing STPs/ISTs "C"
Load discharged
Growth
(IST portion)
(STP portion)
(Growth portion)
Without project
With Project
Figure 3.3.3 Definition of Pollution Loads
(2) Water Quality of Sewage Effluent from STPs by Treatment Process

In Malaysia, developers of private housing with more than 30 units have been required to
provide a sewerage system with an STP since 1980, though in practice this may not be
mandatory. The communal septic tanks (CST) and Imhoff tanks (IT) were popular in
earlier days, but, recently, a variety of treatment processes with high treatment efficiency
have been adopted
The water quality of sewage effluent from STPs under IWKs O&M is summarised by
treatment process as shown in Figure 3.3.4 and Table 3.3.4.
AS is the general term of
eight activated sludge processes such as active extended aeration (AB), activated sludge
(AS), extended aeration (EA), Hi Kleen (HK), intermittently decanted extended aeration
3-17
Final Report
(IDEA), oxidation ditch (OD), sewage aerated treatment system (SATS), and sequential
batch reactor (SBR).
The sewage treatment by the processes of activated sludge, trickling
filter, aerated lagoon and bio drum are stable with high removal efficiency while communal
septic tank, bio solids and upward anaerobic sludge blanket processes are not stable with
low removal efficiency.
180.0
160.0
Concentration (mg/L)
140.0
120.0
100.0
Std.dev. (upper)
80.0
Simple average
Std. dev. (lower)
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
AS
TF
AL
BD
OP
RBC
IT
BF
CST
BS
UASB
Treatment Process
Figure 3.3.4 Water Quality of Sewage Effluent from STPs under IWKs O&M
Figure 3.3.5 and Figure 3.3.6 show the cumulative frequency curve of sewage effluent
BOD5 and NH3-N from STPs under IWKs O&M, which were prepared based on the
histogram of all the data by treatment process.
For example, for BOD5, which has an average of 16.2 mg/L, 78% of the data comply with
the sewage effluent Standard A (20 mg/L) and 95 % of the data with Standard B (50 mg/L).
The only other treatment processes where more than 50% of the data exceed Standard A are
the trickling filter and rotating biological contactor (see Figure 3.3.5).
3-18
Final Report
Table 3.3.4 Water Quality of Sewage Effluent from STPs under IWK O&M
Treatment Process
Aerated Lagoon (AL)
Activated Sludge (AS)
BOD5
Bio Soil (BS)
O&G
SS
24.6
90.1
17.7
6.0
43.4
Std. dev.
16.7
47.7
10.5
4.9
28.8
Data points
1934
1,934
1,933
537
1,933
Average
16.2
65.0
16.2
4.8
27.3
Std. dev.
Bio Filter (BF)
NH3-N
Average
20.1
53.4
12.9
4.9
29.5
44,191
44,177
43,988
9,433
44,184
Average
26.7
81.1
21.8
2.5
32.7
Std. dev.
15.1
43.2
6.7
1.4
18.5
Data points
204
204
204
112
204
Average
43.5
120.5
25.9
10.5
46.6
Std. dev.
44.2
86.7
13.6
9.9
43.9
Data points
933
932
913
292
936
Data points
Bio Drum (BD)
COD
Average
72.9
183.5
32.5
13.2
63.8
Std. dev.
58.0
112.0
16.7
12.9
51.9
Data points
197
197
19
77
197
Communal Septic
Average
66.5
158.9
28.3
7.9
54.5
Tank (CST)
Std. dev.
71.9
133.3
37.8
30.6
66.8
Data points
1,419
1,404
1,164
890
1,419
Average
36.1
99.2
26.2
6.2
34.0
Std. dev.
37.3
82.1
16.1
6.5
35.1
Data points
4,658
4,650
4,404
1,828
4,642
Average
29.3
105.7
16.5
5.5
50.4
Std. dev.
22.2
59.1
10.0
4.3
33.0
Data points
4,503
4,502
4,502
1,224
4,501
Rotating Biological
Average
33.3
100.1
17.8
5.9
37.3
Contactor (RBC)
Std. dev.
38.7
87.8
14.1
5.7
38.4
Data points
258
258
259
76
257
Average
22.0
68.0
15.0
3.0
29.0
Imhoff Tank (IT)
Oxidation Pond (OP)
Trickling Filter (TF)
Std. dev.
22.1
55.7
11.9
3.7
31.6
Data points
268
267
265
137
268
Upward Flow
Average
91.5
228.8
31.9
10.9
82.5
Anaerobic Sludge
Std. dev.
73.4
157.6
16.8
7.0
64.5
Blanket (UASB)
Data points
54
58
57
14
60
Source: Calculated by the JICA Study Team based on water quality data provided by IWK
But, with respect to NH3-N, there is no treatment process in which the compliance ratio with
Standard A (10 mg/L) exceeds 50%.
The trickling filter, oxidation pond, activated sludge,
aerated lagoon and rotating biological contactor processes meet Standard B (20 mg/L) with
compliance ratios of 57% to 73% (see Figure 3.3.6).
3-19
Final Report
The average concentration of BOD5 in each treatment process is rounded up to the nearest
unit of ten and used for the calculation of BOD5 load discharged from existing STPs.
Cumulative Frequency Curve of Sewage Effluent BOD5 by Treatment Process
100
90
80
AL
Cumulative Frequency (%)
70
AS
BD
60
BF
50
BS
CST
40
IT
OP
30
RBC
TF
20
UASB
10
Standard A
Standard B
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Concentration Range (mg/ L)
Figure 3.3.5 Cumulative Frequency Curve of Sewage Effluent BOD5 from STPs
Cumulative Frequency Curve of Sewage Effluent NH3-N by Treatment Process

100
Standard A
90
Standard B
80
70
AL
AS
Cumulative Frequency (%)
60
BD
BF
50
CST
IT
40
OP
RBC
30
TF
UASB
20
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Concentration Range (mg/ L)
Figure 3.3.6 Cumulative Frequency Curve of Sewage Effluent NH3-N from STPs
3-20
Final Report
The cumulative frequency curve for other parameters such as COD, oil and grease (O&G),
and suspended solids (SS) of sewage effluent from STPs is provided in Appendix 3-B.
Table 3.3.5 indicates the currently proposed sewage effluent standards by DOE and their
achievement status by treatment process, which shows that AS complies with the new
Standard A for Categories 1 and 2 except for the NH3-N parameter.
Table 3.3.5 Compliance with Currently Proposed Sewage Effluent Standards by DOE
Category
Standard
Category 1
20.0
120.0
10.0
5.0
50.0
50.0
200.0
20.0
10.0
100.0
20.0
120.0
N/A
20.0
50.0
50.0
200.0
N/A
20.0
100.0
Category 3
60.0
180.0
N/A
20.0
100.0
(Mech.)
80.0
240.0
N/A
20.0
120.0
AS
16.2
65.0
16.2
4.8
27.3
TF
21.5
67.6
15.2
2.9
29.0
AL
24.6
90.1
17.7
6.0
43.4
BD
26.7
81.1
21.8
2.5
32.7
Treatment
OP
29.3
105.7
16.5
5.5
50.4
process
RBC
33.3
100.1
17.8
5.9
37.3
IT
36.1
99.2
26.2
6.2
34.0
Category 2
BOD5
COD
NH3-N
O&G
SS
BF
43.5
120.5
25.9
10.5
46.6
CST
66.5
158.9
28.3
7.9
54.5
BS
72.9
183.5
32.5
13.2
63.8
16.2
Compliance with std. A
16.2
Compliance with std. B
Note: For categories, see Table 3.3.17.
3.3.3
Incidence of Waterborne Diseases
The number of reported cases of communicable diseases is indicated in Appendix 3-C. Among
these, cholera, dysentery, typhoid and paratyphoid and hepatitis B are classified as waterborne
diseases, and their incidences are shown in Figure 3.3.7.
Although a sudden increase of
incidences is sometimes observed, it can be concluded that the incidences of waterborne

diseases have declined gradually in Malaysia.
The number of reported cases of waterborne
diseases in Japan in 1999 was 12 for cholera, 260 for dysentery, 26 for typhoid and 12 for
3-21
paratyphoid.
Final Report
Although the figures are higher in Malaysia than in Japan, it is generally viewed
that the incidence levels in Malaysia are low when compared with that of other developing
countries.
The role of incidence of waterborne diseases as an index to evaluate the need for
sewerage infrastructure is now deemed irrelevant in Malaysia.
Incidence of Waterborne Diseaes
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
19
90
Cholera
Dysentery
Typhoid
Hepatitis A
Figure 3.3.7 Incidence of Waterborne Diseases in Malaysia (1990-2005)
3.3.4
Water Pollution Status of Receiving Water Bodies
(1) Water Quality Index (WQI)

The Department of Environment (DOE) has been monitoring water quality of rivers since
1978. The Annual River Water Quality Monitoring Programme, which covered 1,085
stations in 146 river basins in 2005, monitors six parameters, such as biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), suspended
solids (SS), pH value and dissolved oxygen (DO) every two months.
DOE evaluates river water quality using the Water Quality Index (WQI) as shown in Table
3.3.6 (refer to Appendix 3-D).
Rivers are classified into three classes:
slightly polluted (SP), and (3) polluted (P) based on the WQI.
(1) clean (C), (2)
As shown in Table 3.3.7,
out of 146 river basins, 80 rivers are classified as clean, 51 rivers as slightly polluted
and 15 rivers as polluted.
DOE also monitors WQI (Table 3.3.6) of rivers based on each
parameter (BOD5, NH3-N and SS).
The water pollution status of rivers based on such
3-22
Final Report
WQIs is shown in Table 3.3.8.

Table 3.3.6 Water Pollution Classification of Rivers Based on WQI
Indicators
Parameters
Clean (C)
Slightly polluted (SP)
Polluted (SP)
WQI
81 100
60 - 80
0 59
BOD5
91 100
80 - 90
0 79
NH3-N
92 - 100
71 - 91
0 70
SS
76 - 100
70 - 75
0 69
Table 3.3.7 Water Pollution Status of Rivers Based on WQI

2001
Nos.
2002
%
Nos.
2003
%
Nos.
2004
%
Nos.
2005
%
Nos.
Category
Clean (C)
60
50.0
63
52.0
59
49.2
58
48.3
80
55.0
Slightly polluted
47
39.2
43
36.0
52
43.3
53
44.2
51
35.0
13
10.8
14
12.0
7.5
7.5
15
10.0
rivers
120
100.0
120
100.0
120
100.0
120
100.0
146
100.0
No. of stations
monitored
931
(SP)
Polluted (P)
No.
of
monitored
927
926
926
1,085
Table 3.3.8 Water Pollution Status of Rivers Based on WQI by Parameter

Year
No. of
rivers
monitored
NH3-N
BOD5
SS
SP
SP
SP
2001
120
53
43
24
58
41
21
57
25
38
2002
120
51
40
29
69
29
22
78
14
28
2003
120
54
37
29
76
29
15
75
17
28
2004
120
43
47
30
65
37
18
78
11
31
2005
146
49
54
43
77
41
28
90
22
34
DOE uses the values from Table 3.3.9 to classify the current water quality of rivers.
3-23
Final Report
Table 3.3.9 Water Quality Classification of Rivers Based on WQI

Parameters
Unit
Class
I
II
III
IV
Ammonia Nitrogen
mg/l
< 0.1
0.1 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.9
0.9 - 2.7
> 2.7
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
mg/l
<1
1-3
3-6
6 12
> 12
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
mg/l
< 10
10 - 25
25 - 50
50 100
> 100
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/l
>7
5-7
3-5
13
<1
pH
mg/l
> 7.0
6.0 - 7.0
5.0 - 6.0
< 5.0
> 5.0
Suspended Solids
mg/l
< 25
25 - 50
50 - 150
150 300
> 300
> 92. 7
76.5 - 92.7
51.9 - 76.5
31.0 - 51.9
< 31.0
Water Quality Index

(WQI)
WQI is calculated based on six parametersBOD5, COD, NH3-N, SS, pH and DObut
this combined parameters index is not a good indicator of water pollution attributed to
domestic sewage because parameters such as COD and pH are easily influenced by
industrial wastewater.
indicators.
Therefore, WQIs using BOD5 and NH3-N are adopted as evaluation
The water quality data shall be taken at the monitoring station located
immediately downstream of a discharge point of sewage effluent for a period of at least one
year.
If WQIs using BOD5 and NH3-N are not obtained from the DOE reports, these can be
calculated using the data from the water quality monitoring station immediately downstream
of the sewage discharge point for the most recent year obtained from the ASMA website as
described below.
(2) Water Quality of Receiving Water Body
1) DOE Reports
Regarding the BOD5 SI (sub-index) and the NH3-N SI, the following DOE information is
available.
River Quality 1996-2000
Malaysia Environmental Quality Report 2006
The former compiles the water quality of main rivers in Malaysia for five years from 1996
to 2000 in terms of WQI, SS, NH3-N, BOD5, and heavy metals (As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn, Fe,
3-24
Final Report
Mg); however, subsequent editions of the report have not been published. The advantage of
this report is that the data on WQI, BOD5 SI and NH3-N SI can be gathered at on,, but, on
the other hand, the report covers only a limited number of the main rivers.
The latter report, which can be downloaded from the DOE website, evaluates the water
pollution status of main rivers and their tributaries according to five classes.
It covers
more rivers than those of the former but the status is based on the WQI.
The locations of the monitoring points are not clearly identified for both; however, it is
assumed that, in the cases with a single monitoring station, the location is immediately
upstream of the confluence of a tributary and at the estuary for a mainstream.
But in cases
with multiple monitoring stations in one river, the average is used for examination of water
pollution status.
For example, if the study area is located near the estuary of a big river
like the Kuantan, the river is often classified as clean, which does not reflect the actual
status of the study area. In such cases, attention should be paid to the water pollution status
of tributaries running through the study area.
Figure 3.3.8 shows the distribution of BOD5 SI and NH3-N SI based on the data in River
Quality 1996-2000.
As the correlation between those two indicators is not clear, both
indicators have been kept.

BOD5 SI and NH3-N SI are used for prioritising individual sewerage projects while the
information from the Malaysia Environmental Quality Report 2006 is used for reference.
BOD5 SI vs. NH3-N SI
100
Clean
90
Slightly
Polluted
80
70
BOD5 SI
60
y = 0.3649x + 56.013
R = 0.6579
50
40
Polluted
30
20
Slightly Polluted
Polluted
Clean
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
NH3-N SI
Figure 3.3.8 Correlation between BOD5 Index and NH3-N Index
3-25
100
Final Report
2) ASMA Data
In 1995, the government signed a concessionaire agreement with Alam Sekitar Malaysia
Sdn. Bhd. (ASMA) for 20 years, allowing ASMA to conduct air and water quality
monitoring and reporting for DOE.
ASMA provides an online system on its web site where a registered customer with
membership status can select a river basin and its monitoring stations to acquire water
quality data for various periods.
(3) Reports on Water Pollution Incidences in the Media
There are news articles on water pollution issued by the media, which suggest serious water
pollution of a particular river.
Recently, it was reported that the Batu 11 Cheras Water
Treatment Plant was shutdown temporarily due to high levels of domestic sewage pollution
from the Upper Langat District. However, quantitative evaluation of such incidences is
difficult.
3.3.5
Complaints from the Public
Table 3.3.10 shows complaints from the public to IWK for the five-year period 2003 to
2007. Responses to the complaints are categorized into 33 types, and the response time for
each is internally defined as level of service (within 24, 48 and 72 hours). The number of
annual complaints differs from year to year; complaints fell from approximately 110,000 in
2003 to 37,000 in 2007.
Broken down, the complaints on demand desludging (DCA), demand desludging,
responsive desludging (IST) and pour flush concerned with desludging represented 61.5 %
of the total while complaints of blockages in public sewers (SD01) and blockages in private
sewers (SD03) represented 28.1%.
Matters related to desludging and blockage accounted
for approximately 90% of complaints.
Trends in annual complaints, except those
concerned with desludging, are shown in Figure 3.3.9.

The level of service for complaints on STPs including pumping stations is within 24 hours
except for outlet submerged, which had a service level of within 72 hours.
regarding STPs included:
Complaints
(1) pump not working, (2) overflow, (3) odour, (4) hole in fence,
(5) re-fencing, (6) noise, (7) rubbish/pests, (8) overgrowth, (9) damage, (10) damage
(utility), (11) outlet submerged and (12) trespassing.
3-26
Final Report
Table 3.3.10 Complaints Received by IWK (2003-2007

Code
Enquiry Type Description
DC02
Demand Desludging (DCA)
12,034
3,155
9,830
109
SA02
Demand Desludging
36,067
17,963
23,154
33,621
SA03
Responsive Desludging (IST)
SB06
Pour flush
SC01
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
25,128
6.8
14,043
124,848
33.8
4,234
2,386
2,129
3,255
1,239
13,243
3.6
19,259
8,637
9,160
20,809
6,027
63,892
17.3
Pump not working
7,130
1,305
1,359
3,751
1,124
14,669
4.0
SC03
STP : odour
1,310
523
1,001
1,643
329
4,806
1.3
SD01
Blockage (public)
20,619
16,634
14,889
17,661
7,142
76,945
20.8
SD02
Sewer collapse
473
516
588
1,278
393
3,248
0.9
SD03
Blockage (private)
5,513
6,008
7,092
5,339
2,855
26,807
7.3
SE02
Manhole cover missing
564
1,237
978
516
253
3,548
1.0
Others
Total
2,703
1,270
1,989
4,127
1,900
11,989
3.2
109,906
59,634
72,169
92,109
35,305
369,123
100.0
35000
30000
No. of complaints
25000
Others
Manhole cover missing
20000
Blockage : Private
Sewer collapse
15000
Blockage : public
ST P : odor
10000
5000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Figure 3.3.9 Complaints Received by IWK (2003-2007) (except for Desludging)
Complaints regarding STPs amounted to 4,809, or only 1.3% of the total over five years.
In 2007, the figure was 329, of which Seberang Prai, Ipoh, and Pulau Pinang accounted for
83, 64, and 36, respectively, or 55.6% of the total for these three local authorities.
DB
Kuala Lumpur, MP Kajang, MP Melaka Bandaraya Bersejarah, MP Nilai, and MP

Seremban accounted for more than ten complaints each, or 23.7% for the five local
authorities.
Therefore, local authorities with a high number of STP complaints are few,
and, taking into account the number of existing STPs in those local authorities, the number
of complaints is not necessarily that high.
3-27
Final Report
The existing STP complaints shall be limited to functional and operational issues as shown
in Table 3.3.11, which indicates 1,616 out of a total of 1,685 cases in 2007.
Complaints
regarding fence holes, re-fencing, overgrowth, rubbish/pests and trespassing have been
excluded.
Table 3.3.11 Functional/Operational Complaints regarding Existing STPs under IWK
O&M
Category
No. of cases
Percentage (%)
1,124
69.5
23
1.4
Odour
329
20.4
Noise
50
3.1
Damage
51
3.2
Damage (utility)
12
0.7
Outlet submerged
27
1.7
1,616
100.0
Pump not working

Overflow
Total
3.3.6
Beneficial Water Use of Receiving Water Bodies
(1) Distance from a Downstream Water Supply Intake Point

Water supply is the most important beneficial downstream water use.
For this reason, the
applicable effluent standards are categorized as Standard A and Standard B for discharge of
effluent upstream or downstream of a water intake point.
For BOD5, a limit of 20 mg/L is
applied, if there is a water intake downstream, while 50 mg/L is the limit in other cases.
This index, which considers distance from a downstream intake point for water supply,
gives a low score if a discharge point is far away from an intake as some river
self-purification/dilution action is expected.
On the contrary, it gets a high score if it is
near an intake.
(2) Use for Water Supply
This is to evaluate project importance by the size of beneficiary population, or the total
served population by downstream water treatment plants, when there are water intakes
within the section sewage currently discharged from the study area and 10 kilometers
downstream of a discharge point of effluent from a sewage treatment plant.
obtained from a water supply service provider.
3-28
This data is
Final Report
Table 3.3.12 shows the water use condition of receiving water bodies in existing CSRs
investigated.
Out of 24 CSRs reviewed, there are about 20 reports that provide some form of description
on the physical relationship between the study area and water intake points, or whether the
study area is located upstream or downstream of water intake points.
Among them, one
report provides general description on the desirable physical relationship between the study
area and water intake points, but no concrete description on the particular area.
In total, 10 catchments are located upstream of water intakes, among which some of the
sub-catchments in Tampin and Sg. Skudai are located upstream of water intake points.
Table 3.3.12 Description of Sewage Effluent Standard in Existing CSRs
20
Study Area
Kerian
Larut & Matang
Kuala Kangsar
Ipoh
Jinjang Kepong
Gompak
PetalingJaya, Shah Alam,
Subang Jaya
Upper Langat
Kuala Langat
Sg. Kepayang
Sg. Simpo
Sg. Simin
Tampin
Alor Gajah
Melaka Tengah
Jasin
Muar
Batu Pahat
Sg. Sukudai
Kuala Terengganu
Pulau Redang & Lang
Tengah
Kemaman District
21
Kuantan
22
23
Temerloh
Bentong
24
Pulau Tioman
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
River Name
Application of Sewage Effluent Standard

Standard B
Sg. Kinta
Sg. Klang
Sg. Klang
Sg. Klang
Standard B (no description)

Standard B
Standard B
Sg. Langat
Sg. Langat
Sg. Linggit
Sg. Linggit
Standard A
Standard B
Standard A, 19.5 km upstream of WIP
Standard B
Standard A/B, 24 km upstream of WIP
Standard A, 10 km upstream of WIP
Standard A, Upstream of WIP, 374,000m3/day at 3 WTPs
Standard A, 7 km upstream of WIP, 1,700 m3/day
Standard B
Standard B
Standard A/B
Standard B
Standard B, water supply under water pipe from the
Peninsula
Standard B
Sg. Melaka
Sg. Melaka
Sg. Melaka
Sg. Chin-Chin
Sg. Batu Pahat
Sg. Sukudai
Sg. Terengganu
Tributaries of Sg.
Kemaman
and
others
Sg. Kuantan and
others
Tributaries of Sg.
Pahang
Standard A
Standard A
Standard A
Standard B
Three reports mention average daily water production flow.
3-29
Final Report
In this analysis average daily water production flow was adopted as an evaluation index.
No reports describe irrigation.
The Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) provides
locations of water intakes for irrigation.

(3) Water Intake Closure Duration
Closure of water intake from rivers due to saline water intrusion, inflow of toxic wastewater,
inflow of high turbid water, deterioration due to water pollution, etc. are considered.
For
example, Batu 11 Cheras Water Treatment Plant suspended water intake on February 12,
2007 due to a high concentration of ammonia nitrogen, and a similar situation occurred in
the previous years that had an impact on the supply of water to 350,000 people.
Such
water intake closure days shows the serious effect of water pollution.
The evaluation is based on water intake closure duration time in the most recent year at
water treatment plants within the section sewage currently discharged from the study area
and 10 kilometers downstream of a discharge point.
Only closure of water intakes due to
pollution from sewage sources should be used.

(4) Irrigation Use
The downstream irrigational use of river water is an effective indicator, which measures the
potential impact of water pollution on agricultural activities.
For this purpose, use of river
water for irrigation is investigated within the section that sewage is currently discharged
from the study area and 10 km downstream of the discharge point of sewage effluent, and is
measured by the number of water intake points.
There are no descriptions of irrigational use downstream in 24 CSRs and SLPs.
According
to the result of inquiries to the agencies concerned in those areas, the information of water
intakes for irrigational use include the place-name, area and/or water used, cultivated crops
depending on the agency, etc. but no coordinates of intake points.
Therefore, their exact
locations cannot be identified in relation to the discharge points of sewage effluent from the
proposed STPs.
It is advised that this kind of survey should be done during the study for
catchment strategy planning and included in the report.

(5) Recreational Use for Swimming
The suitability for recreational use of the river for activities such as swimming is considered
within the section that sewage is currently discharged from the study area and 10 kilometers
downstream of a discharge point.
According to the National Water Quality Standards for
Malaysia, a water use of Class IIB is defined as recreational use with body contact.
3-30
The
Final Report
present classification Class II of rivers is used for evaluation purposes.
3.3.7
Rationalisation Impact of Existing Sewage Treatment Plants
The number of sewerage facilities that IWK operates has increased with the number of sewage
treatment plants reaching more than 9,000 units. For this reason, the rationalisation of existing
sewage treatment plants is one of the key issues in formulating and reviewing sewerage
catchment strategies.
The following are regarded as indicators to measure the rationalisation impact of existing
sewage treatment plants:
(1) Number of STPs to be Rationalised and Number of ISTs to be Connected
The existing catchment strategy report generally provides a list of STPs to be rationalised,
including private STPs and the number of ISTs to be connected.
The rationalisation of
existing STPs and connection of ISTs to a public sewerage system contribute to a reduction
in operation and maintenance work, and this needs to be quantified in terms of reduction in
operational man-months.
O&M staff requirement of IWK is shown in Table 3.3.13 by
treatment process and size.

Table 3.3.13 O&M Staff Requirement for IWK
PE
3 staff / 80
CST
CST
IT, OP, STP
NPS
0 500
500 - 2,000
2,000 -
10,000 -
20,000 -
10,000
20,000
50,000
3 staff / 40 CST
3 staff / 20
3 staff / 10
3 staff / 4
STP
STP
STP
(1 check/wk)
(21 heck/wk)
(51 heck/wk)
3 staff / 20
NPS
3 staff / 10 NPS
50,000 -
3 staff / 20
CST
3 staff
9 staff *1
17 staff *2
(daytime nly)
(24 hours)
(24 hours)
3 staff / 3.34 NPS
3 staff / 2
NPS
This table was developed by the JICA study team, taking into account the actual practice of IWK O&M, but the
O&M staff requirements have been set with some allowance.
CST: Communal Septic Tank, IT: Imhoff Tank, OP: Oxidation Pond, STP: Mechanized Sewerage Treatment Plant,
NPS: Network Pumping Station
Notes: *1. Staff is composed of one manager, two engineers and six technicians
*2. Staff is composed of one manager, four engineers and 12 technicians
Also, for individual septic tanks, one team is comprised of two members (one driver and
3-31
Final Report
operator) and conducts desludging work at 8 to 10 ISTs daily for six days per week,
although they may work Sundays in response to urgent demand. Current IWK desludging
work is performed based on demand from the IST owners, and collected sludge is treated at
the oxidation ponds with a margin in capacity under IWK O&M.
From these figures, it is possible to calculate the man-year reduction with the following
equation.
Man-year reduction = (Reduction by STPs to be rationalised) + (No. of ISTs to be
connected) / (10 312) 2
In the catchment strategy report for Jinjang-Kepong (prepared in 1998), only one STP was
proposed for a design population of 806,750.
The existing 101 STPs and network pump
stations shall be rationalised, and 19,112 ISTs shall be connected to a public sewerage
system.
When these values shown in Table 3.3.13 are substituted in the above equation,
then the following result is obtained.

man-year reduction = 45.2 + 1.5 + 19,112 / (10 312) 2
= 46.7 + 12.3 = 59 man-year
The result suggests that STP rationalisation contributes to a substantial reduction in O&M
workforce.
Approximately 59 operators can be reduced in this catchment, which is
considered to result in the maximum O&M reduction by rationalisation, taking into account
design population size.
Table 3.3.14
Man-year Reduction by STPs to Be Rationalised in Jinjang-Kepong
PE
0 500
500 - 2,000
2,000 - 10,000
IT
17( 1)
18
OP
2( 1)
15
22( 1)
STP
13(12)
11
13
38(12)
Total
32(14)
32
29
96(14)
Deployment
3 staff / 20 STPs
3 staff / 10 STPs
3 staff /4 STPs
3 staff
(1 check/wk)
(2 check/wk)
(5 check/wk)
(Daytime only)
4.8 staff
9.6 staff
21.8 staff
9.0 staff
Man-year
10,000 - 20,000
Total
36( 1)
45.2 staff
reduction
NPS
Deployment
3 staff / 10 NPS
Man-year
1.5 staff
reduction
Note: Figures in parentheses shows the numbers of STPs of which design PEs are unknown.
3-32
1.5 staff
Final Report
Appendix 3-E shows the reduction of O&M manpower requirement for existing pumping
stations and STPs by local authority using the values in Table 3.3.13, and Appendix 3-F
indicates the BOD5 removal efficiency using the average BOD5 of sewage effluent from
existing STPs in Table 3.3.4.
As shown in Table 3.3.15, the O&M manpower reduction in the IST area through the
connection to a public sewerage system is only 11.7% of the whole, but the current BOD5
load discharged from there is 46.0% or almost half of the entire load. Therefore, it cannot be
deducted from the amount of BOD5 load discharged.
Table 3.3.15 BOD5 Loads Discharged from Existing STPs and ISTs (Peninsula)
STP
Total number of units
(nos.)
Design PE
(PE)
Influent BOD5 load
(ton/day)
Effluent BOD5 load
(%)
O&M manpower
(capitaday)
989,983
15,159,824
4,949,915
20,109,739
833.8
272.2
1106.0
(75.4%)
(24.6%)
(100%)
requirement reduction
Note:
Total
8,282
(ton/day)
Removal efficiency
IST
91.4
78.0
169.3
(54.0%)
(46.0%)
(100%)
89.0
71.4
84.7
3,423.8
453.3
3,877.4
(88.3%)
(11.7%)
(100%)
1) The BOD5 load discharged is calculated using the average sewage effluent BOD5 concentration by treatment process
for STPs while the effluent BOD5 concentration from ISTs is assumed to be the same as that of CST.
2)
For details, refer to Appendix 3-I.
Figure 3.3.10 shows the estimated reduction in O&M manpower requirements through
rationalisation of existing STPs and connection of existing IST areas to a public sewerage
system in each town. From this, the classification for scoring is established as indicated in
Figure 3.3.10.
Figure 3.3.11 shows that O&M manpower requirements for STPs have a high correlation
with the connected PE and especially when excluding the data of Kuala Lumpur and Shah
Alam where the correlation coefficient is 0.990.
3-33
Final Report
O&M Manpower Reduction for STPs & ISTs

30.0
O&M Manpower Reduction for ISTs (capitaday)
DBKL
25.0
Sg. Petani
20.0
Kuantan
Ipoh
Klang
Melaka B.
Alor Star
15.0
Johor Bahru T.
10.0
Seremban
Selayang
Kajang
Ampang Jaya
5.0
Petaling Jaya
Subang Jaya
Seberang Perai
0.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
O&M Manpower Reduction for STPs (capitaday)
Figure 3.3.10 Estimated O&M Manpower Reduction for Existing STPs and ISTs
Correlation between Conn. PE and O&M Manpower Reqmt Reduction
300.0
250.0
O&M Manpower Reqmt Reduction
y = 0.000x + 2.860
R = 0.990
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Connected PE (Million PE)
Figure 3.3.11 Correlation between O&M Manpower Requirement for STPs and
Connected PE
Note: The data of Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam are excluded from this figure.
3-34
Final Report
(2) Potential Economic Benefits

When STPs are rationalised, some will be converted to pumping stations while the
remainder will be decommissioned.
value in major urban areas.
These decommissioned sites have high commercial
The land sale value is used as an index showing a potential
benefit of rationalisation of existing STPs.

Through the discussion with the Malaysia side or SSD, SPAN and IWK, it is been found
that land issues are in a somewhat complicated situation in Malaysia and that it is difficult to
apply the idea of potential economic benefits to the unused STP sites at present.
Accordingly this idea is deleted from the evaluation indicators.
(3) Pollution Load Reduction through Rationalisation
The existing catchment strategy reports give a list of existing sewage treatment plants to be
rationalised with the type of treatment process and design PE.
sewage effluent from existing STPs is given in Table 3.3.5.
Also, the average BOD5 of

Since one PE indicates a per
capita daily flow rate of 225 liters, it is possible to calculate a pollution load reduction
through rationalisation by using this data.
But this index is excluded from further study,
since such reductions are already included in a pollution load reduction in Sub-section
3.3.2.
(4) Connection Potential

When a sewerage system is provided in a new area, the public is required to connect their
houses to the public sewerage system.
However, this is a financial burden to the public
and most are reluctant to connect.

=================================================================
Power to require premises to be connected to public sewerage system
57. (1) The Commission may direct the owner or management corporation, or if the owner
or management corporation cannot with reasonable diligence be traced, the occupier if any
premises not connected to public sewerage system, to construct or install for the premises,
within the period specified m the direction, a private connection pipe of material or size and
at such level as to enable the premises to be properly and effectively connected to any
public sewer or public sewerage system located within thirty meters from the boundary of
the premises.
(2) If the owner, management corporation or occupier to whom a direction under
subsection (1) has been issued fails to comply with direction within the period specified in
the direction, the Commission or any person authorized by the Commission may construct
3-35
Final Report
or install the private connection pipe or cause the pipe to be constructed or installed and
recover the expenses incurred in the construction and installation of such pipes from the
owner, management corporation or occupier.
=================================================================
The connection potential is measured by deducting the design PE by the connected PE to be
rationalised.
3.3.8
Conservation of Local Water Cycle
When water is removed at the upstream sections of a river, used as city water and discharged
into a river as sewage, the river flow decreases between the intake and discharge point. It is
preferred to minimize this to improve the rivers self-purification mechanism and in the interests
of ecological preservation.
This is the principle behind conservation of the local water cycle
(see Figure 3.3.12).
Maintain the minimum flow of a river

for ecological preservation
WTP
Water Supply
Sewerage
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
River
Figure 3.3.12 Conservation of Local Water Cycle
According to the meteorological data for monthly rainfall and wet days at several cities in
Malaysia as shown in Appendix 3-G, every city receives rainfall every month and, in most
cases, has at least 15 wet days even in the dry months.
Therefore, the country is in a favorable
environment from the perspective of maintaining the minimum required flow of a river.
3-36
Final Report
However, the river flow is influenced by water intake amount upstream, thus, it is important to
check with the local authorities whether the river in the study area maintains flow throughout
the year and if there were periods with no flow in the past.
This matter should be considered
in the planning stage, but in the prioritisation of sewerage catchments/projects, it is better to use
the report to confirm that this verification was performed, although this does not apply to
existing reports, which do not take this issue into consideration.
3.3.9
First-time Permanent CSTP
The public sewerage projects are categorized into two types:
(1) projects based on the SSD
budget and (2) projects based on the funds of the Ministry of Finance or IWK.
The former is
accompanied with the construction of the STP or centralized sludge treatment facilities (CSTF)
and represented by the JBIC projects.
The latter is mostly composed of minor works such as
rehabilitation, refurbishment, rationalisation, upgrading, replacement and repair work.
If the
definition of public sewerage project is extended to the contents of the latter, many areas will
lose an opportunity for the construction of full-dress sewerage facilities by minor work.
Even though no CSTP have been constructed by the government fund, some STPs constructed
by private developers and transferred to SSD play a key role in catchments/sub-catchments.
Therefore, the first-time provision shall be evaluated based on whether the permanent CSTP
authorized by SSD is being operated or constructed at that time, regardless of whether it is
constructed by the government or with private funds.
This verification is conducted at three levels: (1) state, (2) local authority and (3) catchment.
There are four cases as shown in Table 3.3.16. If there is another permanent CSTP in the
particular sub-catchment (case 4) as shown in Figure 3.3.13, Yes is entered at all levels while,
if there is no permanent CSTP at all levels (Case 1), all entries are No. The priority is given to
Case 4.
Table 3.3.16 Existence of Permanent CSTPs Authorized by SSD
State
Local authority
Catchment
Case 1
No
No
No
Case 2
Yes
No
No
Case 3
Yes
Yes
No
Case 4
Yes
Yes
Yes
3-37
CASE 2
Final Report
CASE 4
STATE
STATE
LA
LA
Catchment
Catchment
Figure 3.3.13 Existence of Permanent CSTP
Table 3.3.17 shows the sewerage projects currently reported to have been constructed with the
Government-fund.
Table 3.3.17
Government-funded Sewerage Provisions in the Past
No
1
2
State
W.P. K. Lumpur
Kedah
Project Name
Pantai Tengah STP
Padang Matsirat STP
3
4
5
6
7
8
N. Sembilan
P. Pinang
P. Pinang
P. Pinang
W.P. K. Lumpur
W.P. K. Lumpur
Port Dickson Town STP

Bayan Baru STP
Jelutong Land Reclamation
Jelutong STP
Bunus STP
Pantai STP
9
10
11
W.P. K. Lumpur
W.P. K. Lumpur
Selangor
Bandar Tun Razak STP

Puchong STP
Southern Kelang Valley CSTF
12
13
P. Pinang
P. Pinang
Sg. Nyior STP

Juru STP
14
Perlis
Kangar STP
15
16
17
Kedah
W.P. K. Lumpur
N. Sembilan
Kota Setar CSTF

Damansara STP
Sunggala STP
18
19
N. Sembilan
Melaka
Kuala Sawah STP

Sg. Udang CSTF
3-38
Design Capacity (PE)

10,000
STP - 25,000
CSTF - 100,000
30,000
200,000
n/a
STP 800,000
STP - 352,000
STP - 377,000
CSTF- 320,000
STP - 100,000
STP - 150,000
STP-22,000
CSTF- 400,000
STP-150,000
STP 150,000
CSTF 300,000
STP 30,000
CSTF 150,000
CSTF 300,000
STP - 100,000
STP 60,000
CSTF 50,000
STP - 240,000
CSTF - 300,000
3.3.10
Final Report
Reliability of Project Implementation
The biggest hurdle in implementing sewerage projects is acquiring land for the proposed STP.
To assess the likelihood of acquiring the land, the proposed STP site can be categorized as
follows:
1) Existing STP site
2) Already gazetted as the STP site
3) Public land
4) Private land but no resettlement issue
5) Private land with resettlement issue
3.3.11
Conditions of Existing Sewerage Facilities
(1) Risk Management

In Malaysia, the useful life of sewerage facilities is 80 years for civil structures and 25 years
for mechanical and electrical facilities.
However, some facilities transferred from the
private sector are in a very poor state due to the poor quality of construction and material, in
addition to the effect of the tropical climate. This problem must be addressed.
The aging index of existing sewerage facilities means the average age of all sewerage
facilities after commissioning.
As the simple average age of sewerage facilities does not
reflect the treatment plant size, the following equation to calculate average useful years after
commissioning is proposed:
n
( PEi Yi)
Aging Index =
i =1
PEi
i =1
PEi
Design PE of STPi
Yi
useful years of STPi after commissioning

(= present year commissioning year
When an STP is located along the river and discharges sewage effluent directly into the river,
equipment malfunction may lead to the discharge of untreated sewage effluent and cause
water intake closure of a water treatment plant immediately downstream of such a discharge
3-39
Final Report
point.
Risk quantification is, in general, calculated by the following equation:
Magnitude of a risk = (probability of undesirable event) (impact of the event)
In this case, an aging index corresponds to the occurrence rate of unwanted event while the
service population for water supply from such a water treatment plant corresponds to the
impact of the event.
The higher an aging index, the larger the risk, especially in the case of
mechanical and electrical equipment.

It should be noted that this index is not applied to any water catchment areas, which means
that priority is given to the water catchment areas with water intakes for water supply.
(2) Condition of Existing STPs
IWK is exclusively responsible for the operation and maintenance of existing sewerage
facilities in West Malaysia except for Johor Bahru city and Kelantan State.
types of defects in STPs.
There are two
One is non-compliance to the Effluent Standard established by
DOE, and the other is physical defects, including the damaged structures and breakdown of
mechanical and electrical equipment.
1) Compliance to Effluent Standards
The revised Treated Sewage Effluent Discharge Standards is now under consideration by
DOE.
Under the revised Standards, as shown in Table 3.3.17, the STPs are classified into
three categories based on the year of commissioning.

The limits proposed for all STPs in Category 3 are only applicable for 10 and 15 years in
Catchment A and Catchment B areas respectively except for communal septic tanks and
Imhoff tanks.
Therefore, the STPs in Category 3, after the stated period, will be required
to be upgraded or rationalised to meet the proposed new standard for development as shown
in Table 3.3.18.
Likewise, the limits set for all STPs in Category 2 are only applicable for 10 and 15 years in
Catchment A and Catchment B areas, respectively.
Therefore, the STPs in Category 2,
after the stated period, will be required to be upgraded or rationalised to meet the proposed
new Standard A shown in Table 3.3.18.
Upgrading of the existing STPs is considered to be costly. Rationalisation of existing STPs
is a strategy to address cost concerns related to investments leading to compliance to the
revised standards.
3-40
Final Report
2) Physical Condition of Existing STPs

IWK does not have a system to rate existing STPs based on physical condition.
The STPs
are classified as refurbished or not refurbished, in which case the former is considered
to be in a better condition than the latter.
When considering the requirement under the new effluent standards mentioned above, it is
obvious that refurbishing of existing STPs will not be effective, hence, it is recommended
that priority be given to rationalisation, which will ensure compliance to the new effluent
standards.
As shown in Table 3.3.18, STPs that do not meet the new effluent standards are
identified with a special focus on treatment processes and with reference to Table 3.3.5,
there is a need for additional qualification, since a single sample or parameter failure should
not cause the plant to be classified as not meeting effluent standards.
The rationalisation rate is evaluated according to the following procedure:
Preparation of the list of existing STPs in the study area (including the year of
commissioning)
Based on the list, identifying STPs that do not meet the new effluent standards
Calculation of total design PE of non-compliant STPs
Calculation of total design PE of non-compliant STPs (3) to be rationalised
Calculation of the rationalisation rate of non-compliant STPs by dividing (4) by (3)
(3) No Application to Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments/Projects

However, according to the survey of 24 CSRs and SLPs, a CSTP system is proposed for 144
(72.7%) sub-catchments out of 198 sewerage catchments proposed with the balance
classified as existing STP connection, multipoint system, and not yet fixed due to low or
non-priority, accounting for 9 (4.5%), 27 (13.6%) and 18 (9.1%) sub-catchments,
respectively.
Accordingly, the risk associated with the continuation of STP operations and
issues of non-compliance to sewage effluent standards is expected to be addressed through

the promotion of existing STP rationalisation.
The impact of the discharge of untreated sewage attributed to the breakdown of existing
STPs is measured by another evaluation itemthe average amount treated at the treatment
plans located downstream. Also the rationalisation effect of existing STPs is confirmed in
terms of reductions in O&M manpower requirements.
To avoid the redundant evaluation,
these evaluation items shall not be applied to prioritising sewerage catchments/projects.
3-41
3-42
Table 3.3.18 New Treated Sewage Effluent Discharge Standards under Consideration by DOE
Final Report
3.3.12
Final Report
Cost
(1)
NPV of Revenue less Costs per PE
At present, for the financial evaluation of the selection of the priority option in CSR, NPV is
calculated only for capital and O&M expenditures.
Furthermore, O&M costs are
sometimes set as a certain percentage of capital costs in CSP.
Therefore, in the event the
priority option is determined by NPV, the option with the lowest capital investment tends to
be given higher priority.
This NPV evaluation seems to be preferred by developers who
may seek to reduce the initial capital investment and avoid constructing larger STP tailored
for centralization.
It is better to introduce tariff revenue for each option into the NPV calculation of the
financial analysis.
The reasons for introducing the revenue are that lifetime profit or loss
for the option can be calculated and the option most profitable or with the least financial
losses can be selected as first priority.
On the other hand, by properly estimating O&M costs, options with larger capacity STP,
which is consistent with centralization/rationalisation, may have the potential of being
selected as the priority option.
costs in the sample case.
Figure 3.3.14 shows the effects of properly setting O&M
In this example, Project A involves construction of two STPs.
Under Project B, it is assumed that one large STP will be constructed with a capacity equal
to the two STPs in Project A.
With the proper setting of O&M costs in accordance with
the capacity of each STP, Project B, is shown to have lower O&M costs as shown on the
right side of the chart.
Project A
O&M cost and size of STP, SAMPLE

STP
160.0
22times
this level
of this =
O&M cost, Option 1
10,000
140.0
STP
10,000
Project B
JPY in million
120.0
A Catchment Area
100.0
80.0
= O&M cost,
Option 2
60.0
40.0
20.0
STP
20,000
0.0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
m 3/year
B Catchment Area
Figure 3.3.14 Simple Example of O&M Cost Comparison
3-43
50000
Final Report
Proper estimation of O&M costs and consideration of revenue contributes to minimizing the
lifecycle net loss of the sewerage project.
Therefore, in the financial analysis, the following are considered in calculating NPV:
1) Tariff revenue is included in addition to costs
2) O&M costs are properly set for each treatment system
Through the trial application of the Manual to 25 catchments in CSRs as described in the
next section, it is understood that projects with smaller PE have an advantage in the
evaluation of NPV.
In order to compare the variously-sized projects in an equitable
manner, NPV of revenue minus costs was divided by the total design PE of the project.
(2) Trial Application of NPV/PE
Table 3.3.19 shows the result of trial application of the NPV/PE indicator to 25 catchments
in several CSRs.
NPV and B/C of each project were computed using the Manuals
supporting programme by inputting the construction cost and design PE of the project.
Catchments are ranked from the best (highest NPV/PE) to worst (lowest NPV/PE) in the
table.
It should be noted that the B/C ratio is automatically sorted from best to worst
following the ranking of NPV/PE.
In other words, NPV/PE and B/C ratio are highly
correlated.
This ranking is considered reasonable for the following reasons.
Small catchments with
smaller PE result in lower rankings, while medium to large projects have a higher ranking.
If construction cost divided by PE, which is construction cost per 1 PE unit, is smaller for a
certain catchment, the project results in a higher ranking.
Among the catchments with
almost the same construction cost per PE, centralized or single STP catchment results in a
higher ranking.
These evaluation results are considered favorable, since the evaluation
will contribute to the rationalisation and integration of STPs and will help to select
cost-effective catchments.
(3) Construction Cost per Total Pollution Load Discharged
It is also relevant to include other indicators that express the efficiency or effect of capital
investments in the project in reducing pollution from the project (how much capital
investment is necessary to treat a certain amount of pollution load).
First, the proposed
indicator was the construction cost per unit of volume of reduced pollution load.
However,
through trial application, this was changed to construction cost per total pollution load
3-44
discharged due to data availability in the present CSR.
Final Report
Here, total pollution load
discharged indicates the volume of pollution load discharged into the area after deducting
pollution load reduction by existing STPs, CSTs and ISTs.
In the trial, total pollution load
discharged was calculated by total pollution load estimated by design PE minus estimated
pollution load reduction by existing facilities.
The calculation formula of the indicator, construction cost divided by total pollution load
discharged, is construction cost of the project (unit: million RM) divided by total pollution
load discharged (unit: ton/day).
Table 3.3.19 Results of Trial Application of NPV/PE to 25 Catchments
No.
Carchments
NPV
(Mil. RM)
B/C
NPV/PE
(RM/PE)
Notes
Ranking
PE
Centralized/
Construction
multi-point
cost/PE
MB Shah Alam
-122.98
0.24
-299.16
411,077
1 STP
288.98
PJD 3, MB Petaling Jaya
-77.39
0.23
-306.72
252,302
2 STPs
261.47
Tamping Tengah
-87.74
0.21
-387.50
226,436
Centralized
349.10
Yong Peng Catchment
-67.84
0.20
-399.00
170,024
Centralized
345.82
Taiping Catchment
-187.90
0.18
-423.62
443,562
2 STPs
383.41
Batu Pahat Catchment
-168.23
0.17
-436.11
385,746
Centralized
418.18
Bandar Melaka East
-279.75
0.17
-439.74
636,176
Centralized
438.58
Bdr Kuantan & Bdr Indera Mahkota
-176.21
0.17
-440.53
400,002
2 STPS
395.28
-74.97
0.16
-468.56
160,003
10
Jinjang-Kepong
SJSK 2, MB Subang Jaya
-599.83
0.15
-512.05
10
1,171,422
1 STP
409.37
Centralized
11
Temerloh District
-187.40
0.15
-541.29
11
524.37
346,205
4 STPs
12
Sg. Siput Catchment
-74.79
0.14
-544.03
445.82
12
137,472
2 STPs
13
Kuala Terengganu Selatan
-172.62
0.13
442.24
-589.92
13
292,615
4 STPs
14
Cukai Catchment, Kemaman
-38.69
492.02
0.13
-596.62
14
64,844
Centralized
15
Sg. Selangor, Gombak
472.38
-61.76
0.13
-640.38
15
96,001
Centralized
16
546.22
Sg. Gombak, Gombak
-50.60
0.13
-657.15
16
77,000
2 STPs
497.27
17
Bentong Town, Bentong
-90.34
0.11
-730.05
17
123,752
2 STPs
616.02
18
Sg. Simpo Catchment
-92.54
0.11
-731.29
18
126,547
1 STP
648.27
19
Sg. Simin
-117.35
0.11
-764.44
19
153,504
1 STP
691.31
20
Parit Buntar Catchment
-45.00
0.11
-772.74
20
58,233
1 STP
632.65
21
Ipoh Catchment
-885.06
0.10
-798.55
21
1,108,341
multi-point
771.69
22
Alor Gajah
-32.72
0.10
-863.32
22
37,898
1 STP
680.04
23
Kuala Terengganu Utara
-148.36
0.10
-885.22
23
167,594
2 STPs
780.82
24
K. Kangsar, Taiping & K.Kangsar
-151.01
0.07
-1,196.56
24
126,201
3 STPs
1,031.91
25
Bagan Serai, Taiping & K.Kangsar
-62.91
0.06
-1,347.10
25
46,702
2 STPs
1,108.56
If the pollution load reduced by the project is calculated precisely and mentioned in the CSR,
it is more suitable to use pollution load reduced by the project than to use pollution load
discharged for the purpose of observing efficiency or effect of the investment.
Therefore,
when the data of total pollution load reduced by the project is available in the future, this
indicator should be replaced by construction cost (million RM) divided by total pollution
load reduced (ton/day).
3-45
(4)
Final Report
Trial Application of the Construction Cost per Unit of Total Pollution Load Discharged
Table 3.3.20 shows the results of trial application of the indicator construction cost per total
pollution load discharged, to 32 catchments in several CSRs.

Table 3.3.20 Results of Trial Application of Construction Cost
per Unit of Total Pollution Load for 32 Projects
Ranking
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Name of Catchment / Sub-Catchment

Kuantan, Kuantan
Yong Peng, Bandar Penggaram, Batu Pahat
MB Shah Alam
Tampin Tengah, Tampin Dist. & Pulau Sebang
PJD3, MB Petaling Jaya, Petaling Dist.
Cukai, Kemaman District
SG1, Sg. Gombak, Gombak
Sg. Siput, Kuala Kangasar, Taiping & Kangsar
Bandar Kuantan & BIM, Kuantan
Bandar Penggaram, Batu Pahat
Sg. Duyung, Melaka Tengah
Jinjang Kepong
Rawang, Sg. Selangor, Gombak
Bandar Melaka East, Melaka Tengah
Larut & Matang, Taiping & Kangsar
Bandar Melaka West, Melaka Tengah
Temerloh South 2, Temerloh
K. Terengganu Selatan, K. Terengganu
Parit Buntar, Kerian, Taiping & Kangsar
Sg. Udang, Melaka Tengah
Sg. Simpo
Bentong, Bentong
Kota Laksamana, Melaka Tengah
SJSK2 MB Subang Jaya, Petaling Dist.
Sg. Lereh, Melaka Tengah
Bertam, Melaka Tengah
Alor Gajah,
K. Terengganu Utara, K. Terengganu
Bagan Serai, Kerian, Taiping & Kangsar
Ipoh catchment
Kuala Kangsar, Taiping & Kangsar
Sg. Simin
Construction cost (Mil. RM) / Total

pollution discharged (ton/day)
6.723
6.850
7.196
7.306
7.540
8.181
8.342
8.387
8.900
8.945
10.481
11.341
11.576
11.576
11.891
12.058
12.793
13.462
13.976
14.286
15.668
16.226
16.638
16.929
18.360
18.388
20.902
22.500
22.847
23.701
24.005
26.477
Figure 3.3.15 shows the range and distribution of the calculated indicators of 32 catchments
in trial application.
Since the calculated indicators in the trial are within a certain range
and scattered moderately, this indicator is regarded as usable as one of the indicators of the
Manual.
3-46
Final Report
30.000
Construction cost (mil. RM) /

Total pollution loads discharged (ton/day)
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
Sg. Simin
Kuala Kangsar
Ipoh catchment
Bagan Serai, T&KK
Alor Gajah,
K. Terengganu Utara
Bertam, MT
Sg. Lereh, MT
Kota Laksamana, MT
SJSK2 MB Subang Jaya
Sg. Simpo
Bentong, Bentong
Sg. Udang, MT
Parit Buntar, T&KK
Temerloh South 2
K. Terengganu Selatan
Bandar Melaka West
Bandar Melaka East
Larut & Matang, T&KK
Jinjang - Kepong
Sg. Selangor, Gombak
Sg. Duyung, MT
Bandar Penggaram, BP
Bandar Kuantan & BIM
Sg. Siput, Kuala Kangasar
Cukai, Kemaman
SG1, Sg. Gombak
PJD3, MB Petaling Jaya
MB Shah Alam
Tampin Tengah
Kuantan, Kuantan
0.000
Yong Peng, Batu Pahat
5.000
Figure 3.3.15 Distribution and Range of Indicators for 32 Catchments

3.3.13
User Affordability to Pay
The user affordability to pay is the basis for estimating the collection percentage of sewerage
charges after sewerage provision and analised using the income bracket distribution.
The
Household Expenditure Survey (based on 14,084 nationwide respondents) conducted in 2004

and 2005 was analised. The survey provides no information on income differences at the
municipal level.
According to the above Household Expenditure Survey, the average monthly household
expenditure was MR1,953 nationwide, MR2,285 in urban areas, and MR1,301 in rural areas as
shown in Table 3.3.21.
Based on a current monthly sewage charge of MR8 per household and
average household expenditures, sewerage charge as a percentage of household expenditures

was 0.41% nationally, 0.35% in urban areas, and 0.61% in rural areas, all of which were below
the maximum limit of 1% for affordability to pay set by the World Bank.
3-47
Therefore, the
Final Report
current sewerage charge is not considered to be an undue burden on the people and, thus, the
user affordability to pay was eliminated from the evaluation indicators.
Table 3.3.21 Water and Sewage Expenditures as a Percentage of Total
Nationwide
Urban
Rural
Total
MR1,953
MR 2,285
MR 1,301
Water
MR 28.78
MR 34.16
MR 18.21
(1.47%)
(1.49%)
(1.40%)
MR 0.82
MR 1.16
MR 0.16
(0.41%)
(0.35%)
(0.61%)
Sewage
Upper limit by
IBRD
4%
1%
Source: Report on Household Expenditure Survey 2004 and 2005, Department of Statistics, Malaysia, pp.43 & 181.
3.3.14
Promotion of Sludge Treatment
In Malaysia, the amount of domestic sewage sludge generated from septic tanks and STPs now
amounts to 4.3 million cubic meters per year.
dewatering facilities.
IWK has plans to provide mechanized sludge
For this reason, it is recommended that high priority be given to
sewerage catchments/projects that include sludge treatment.
Since, in general, most sludge is
conveyed to the municipal solids dumping sites for disposal, the sludge disposal volume or
sludge disposal cost reduction should be evaluated.
Wet sludge volume (m3/day) varies depending on the scale of sludge treatment and solids
concentration (%).
As shown in Table 3.3.22, in addition to consideration of the scale of
sludge treatment scale as the basis of 50,000 PE, scoring is set so that the higher the solids
concentration, the higher the score.
However, digested sludge is afforded with one additional
ranking increment in the evaluation, since it has the advantage of stabilizing sludge quality.
Cost reduction in sludge treatment is regarded as an alternative to sludge disposal volume. The
cost for sludge disposal will be a larger burden to IWK in the future, since conveyance of sludge
to remote dumping sites and traffic jams, especially in urban areas, will deteriorate efficiency,
making the extent to which sewage sludge should be treated at a sewage treatment plant a
significant issue.
However, this evaluation item is excluded from prioritisation of sewerage catchments/projects
for the following reasons:
1) Sludge treatment management plans are formulated as separate plans independent of
that for sewage treatment in almost all catchment strategy reports.
3-48
Final Report
2) Centralized sludge treatment facilities (CSTF) are not necessarily located at the STP
site.
3) CSTFs receive sludge generated from existing STPs and desludged from ISTs and pour
flush latrines.
4) Therefore, it is difficult to include sludge treatment in the evaluation items.
Table 3.3.22 Scoring Based on the Scale and Solids Concentration of Sludge Treatment
Type of sludge
Typical solids
concentration (%)
Digested
Thickened
Dewatered
sludge
sludge
sludge
Mixed sludge
Dried sludge
2.5
20
40
50,000 PE
>50,000 PE
10
2.228
2.228
Score
Reference: Dried and wet sludge volumes at 50,000 PE under the following conditions
Dried sludge volume

(ton/day)
Wet sludge volume
(m3/day)
2.228
222.8
1.448
57.9
2.228
44.6
11.1
222.8
Conditions:
Design population
: 50,000 PE
Unit sewage flow rate
: 225 L/capita per day
Design sewage flow rate
: 11,250 m3/day
Influent SS
: 220 mg/L
SS removal
: 90%
Design sludge volume
: 2.228 ton/day
Organic content
: 70%
Digestion rate
: 50%
Digested sludge volume
: 1.448 ton/day
3.3.15
= 50,000 (225/1,000)
= 11,250 (220/1,000,000) (90/100)
= 2.228 (1 - (70/100) (50/100)
Consideration of Special Conditions
There are a various kinds of national projects not governed by sewerage provisions, such as
industrial park development, tourism development, and comprehensive regional development.
The involvement with national projects in some specified areas or cities shows to what extent
the government has focused on the development of such areas, and it is reasonable to pay a
certain level of attention to these areas in terms of sewerage provision.
The national projects considered here are as follows:
3-49
Final Report
1) Iskandar regional development

2) Northern corridor economic region
3) Eastern economic corridor
When the planned CSTP becomes the primary facility in the area, the sludge treatment should
be conducted in the same premises.
Tanker transfer of sewage sludge from, in all likelihood,
the largest sludge generation source to other sites is uneconomical and is associated with
potential problems like traffic congestion and decentralized O&M.
The inclusion of sludge
treatment in the CSTP construction is a high priority from this viewpoint.
3.3.16
Selected Evaluation Items and Indicators
Through the study described in Sub-sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.15, the following evaluation items and
indicators were finally selected for the Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of
Sewerage Catchments/Projects
1) Importance of city/area
Design population size
Rate of commercial and industrial PE
Annual hotel guests by locality
2) Pollution load
Total domestic pollution load generated
Water Quality Index (BOD5)
Water Quality Index (NH3-N)
Complaints related to STP odour
5) Beneficial water use of receiving water bodies
Total average water production by downstream WTPs
Annual water intake closure duration at downstream WTPs
Intake points for irrigational use
Recreational use for swimming
3-50
Final Report
6) Rationalisation impact of existing sewage treatment plants
Reduction in O&M manpower requirement by rationalisation of existing STPs

and connection of IST area to public sewerage systems
Population of the new service area connected to sewerage
Study on local water cycle
8) First-time permanent CSTP
Existence of a permanent CSTP
Land acquisition status of a proposed STP site
10) Financial analysis
NPV divided by PE
Construction cost per pollution load generated
Involvement with national projects
Inclusion of sludge treatment within the STP site
Extension of sewage effluent discharge pipes from an STP to waters

downstream of an intake point
3.4
Trial Application to Sewerage Catchments Proposed in 24 CSRs and SLPs
3.4.1
Problems in Data Collection
(1) Existing CSTRs and SLPs Used for Trial Application

25 existing CSRs and five sewerage local plans (hereinafter referred as SLPs) have been
investigated (see Appendix 3-I for details).
Although the reports investigated include those
prepared in the past, relatively new reports are preferable and were selected in principle.
Table 3.4.1 shows the relationship between the target year and the year that reports were
prepared, which suggests that most of the plans were formulated with a target years ranging
from 2015 to 2035.
A target year of 2015 was generally found in old reports and, in the
case of Gombak, the report was prepared with a target year of 2015 in 2004 when a target
year of 2020 was the norm.
The preparation of SLPs is a relatively new practice, and
small scale SLPs, such as those of Sg. Simpo, Sg. Simin, and Sg. Skudai, contained a target
3-51
Final Report
year of 2020 while larger SLPs, such as those of Kuantan and Kuala Terengganu, used a
target year of 2035.
Table 3.4.1 Year of Issue and Target Year for CSRs and SLPs
SRC
prepared in
1998
2010
1999
2000
2015
Jinjang-Kepong
(Hulu Langat)
Kuala Langat
(Kuantan)
2001
2002
(Dungun)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Target Year
2020
2025
(Ipoh)
2030
2035
Larut&Matang
Kerian
Kuala Kangsar
Tampin
Muar
(K.Terengganu)
Kemaman Dist.
Alor Gajah
Batu Pahat
Pulau Tioman
Sg. Keyayong
LP Sg. Simin
Melaka Tengah
Jasin
Gombak
Temerloh
Bentong
LP Sg. Sukudai
LP Sg. Simpo
P. Redang
Petaling Dist.
LP Kuantan
LP
K.
Tereng.
Iskandar
Upper
Langat
Ipoh
Kota
Kinabalu
2008
Note: The CSRs in parenthesis were not used in this study as a result.
Both CSRs and SLPs have been prepared for Kuantan and Kuala Terengganu. As the basic
data used in SLPs were updated using previous CSRs, the information in SLPs was utilized
in this analysis.
SLPs for Sg. Simpo, Sg. Siminboth Negeri Sembilanand Sg. Skudai
(Johor), have been updated using part of the catchment of previous CSRs.
Dungun is excluded due to its proximate target year of 2010.
Consequently, in this analysis 19 CSRs and five SLPs were reviewed.
Table 3.4.2 shows
24 areas divided into 116 catchments and further divided into 196 sub-catchments.
The CSRs have a variety of content from Jinjang-Kepong, in which only one centralized
STP has been proposed to cover the entire study area to Petaling district, which is composed
of three major local authority jurisdictions and divided into 38 planning units.
The study
area of CSRs was defined based on the catchment or river basin in most cases but
3-52
sometimes on the administrative jurisdiction.
Final Report
There are no clear definitions for secondary
classes of areas, such as sub-catchments, sewerage zones, and planning blocks, among
others, but in the interest of convenience it is often used as single unit for planning purposes.
In one sub-catchment, single or multiple centralized STPs or a multi-point system may be
proposed.
(2) Limitations on Informative Value of Existing CSRs
Table 3.4.2 Planning Units in CSRs and SLPs
Catchment Strategy Report
Taiping & Kuala Kangsar
Larut & Matang

Kerian
Kuala Kangsar
Ipoh
Jingjang-Kepong
Petaling District
DB Shah Alam
DB Petaling Jaya
MP Subang Jaya
Gombak
Kuala Langat
Sg. Kepayang
LP Sg. Simpo
LP Sg. Simin
Tampin
Alor Gajah
Melaka Tengah
Jasin
Muar
Batu Pahat
LP Sg. Skudai
LP Kuala Terengganu
P. Redang & P. Lang Tengah
Kemaman District
LP Kuantan
Temerloh
Bentong
Pulau Tioman
Upper Langat
Catchment
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
4
7
1
1
1
5
1
7
6
14
14
1
2
5
4
8
4
3
7
7
116
24
Sub-catchment
2
7
5
4
1
16
11
11
13
7
1
1
1
8
1
9
8
16
15
10
5
5
9
8
4
6
7
17
196
Remarks
2001 CSR
Island tourism
Island tourism
On-going
Aside from information that is not clearly required by the existing Guidelines, it is no
exaggeration to say that almost no CSRs surveyed contained all required information, as
indicated below.
1) Lack of Basic Information
3-53
Final Report
Table 3.4.3 summarises the basic information (design population, design PE by use, water
intake, IST and STPs by sub-catchment) provided by the existing CSRs. Only six reports
provided a complete set of information.
For reports with a lack of data, the person in
charge of prioritising sewerage catchments/projects is forced to either exclude the report

from further consideration or the omitted evaluation items themselves, or to supplement the
data using justifiable means so as to avoid removal from further study.
The following
measures were taken in this study.

Table 3.4.3 Basic Information Available
District/City(Town)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kerian *1
Larut & Matang *1
Kuala Kangsar *1
Ipoh
Jinjang Kepong
Gombak
Shah Alam *2
Petaling Jaya *2
Subang Jaya *2
Upper Langat
Kuala Langat
Sg. Kepayang
(L/P) Sg. Simpo
(L/P) Sg. Simin
Tampin
Alor Gajah
Melaka Tengah
Jasin
Muar 5)
Batu Pahat
(L/P) Sg. Sukudai 5)
(L/P) Kuala Terengganu
Pulau Redang 6)
Kemaman District
(L/P) Kuantan
Temerloh
Bentong
Pulau Tioman 6)
Data points available
Design
Design PE
population
1)
by land use
3)
3)
3)
IST
6)
6)
6)
1)
WIPs
2)
2)
22
16
25
4)
STPs by
sub-catchment
4)
4)
16
23
*1 The CSR for Larut & Matang and Kuala Kangsar covers the jurisdiction of three local authorities, Taiping, Kerian and Kuala
Kangsar.
*2 The CSR for Petaling District covers the jurisdiction of three local authorities, Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya.
Note 1-6:
Corresponds to the description in (1).
3-54
Final Report
(a)The design population itself is used as an index to represent planning scale and is also
concerned with the population growth rate, so its absence has a critical impact on the
evaluation of sewerage catchments/projects.
The design PEs are clarified in all CSRs
and the residential design PE equals the population.
If the design PE is less than two
times the current PE, the design and current populations are calculated by dividing the
design and current PEs by 1.25, respectively (see Figure 3.4.1 for reference). The
design and current population is presented in this way for Gombak (design PE/current
PE = 1.08) and Sg. Simin (1.08), but the method is not applied to Sg. Kepayang (6.38)
and Tampin (5.55).
Sg. Kepayang
Design PE / Present PE
7.0
Tampin
Design PE/Present PE
6.0
5.0
Batu Pahat
4.0
Melaka T.
Muar
3.0
Kuantan
Subang J.
Jinjang K.
2.0
1.0
Gombak
Petaling J
0.0
Ipoh
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Design PE (million)
Figure 3.4.1 Design PE Divided by Current PE vs. Design PE
(b) In Termerloh and Bentong, the total population is given in the report but no
breakdown in terms of priority and non-priority areas, which are determined based
on the proportion of the design PE to the respective areas.
(c) In Taipin and Kuala Kangsar, the design population is fixed as an intermediate value
of the population projected by both the census population growth rate method and
the land uses method.
The proportion using the population projected by the land
uses method is applied to the calculation of the commercial and industrial design PE
ratio.
In spite of such efforts, the adoption of this commercial and industrial
design PE ratio as an index was abandoned because the data collected was
insufficient.
(d) In Ipoh, Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya, there is no information on ISTs
3-55
Final Report
in the report, which is supplemented with the IWK data.

(e) Due to the lack of detailed information on Muar, Sg. Sukudai, and Kuala Langat,
those areas were excluded from this analysis.
(f) Paulau Redeang and Pulau Timon were excluded from the analysis due to their
island resort tourism economies.
2) Discrepancies between the Text and Appendix
In many reports, design PE, and information of existing STPs and ISTs are shown in the
appendices with no indication of relevance to the text.
In those cases the information is
available only for the entire area but not at the sub-catchment level.
3) Lack of Summary Sheets
In the text, the design PEs by sub-catchment for five year periods have been indicated, but,
notwithstanding the population projection by the land use method, it is rare to show the
design PE by use.
To gather such information, vast energy is required in the course of
scanning, data checking and data processing since data sources are in hardcopy format.
4) Lack of Design Population Projections
Although there is Population Projection section in every report, the actual content refers to
the population equivalent (PE) projection in some reports.
Omission of the population
projection may lead to overestimation of design PE due to an absence of comparison

between the two calculations.
5) Difference in Approach to the Study Area
There are two approaches to address study area: one is to categorize the study area into
priority and non-priority areas and exclude the latter from sewerage planning, and the other
is to formulate catchment plans for all communities even in rural areas.
This difference in
approach makes the evaluation of the entire area difficult.

6) Ambiguity in the Definition of Planning Unit
All the information is not necessary presented on a planning unit basis. Sometimes a few
sub-catchments are described together without respective breakdown data.
Some
sub-catchments, in which a centralized STP system is proposed, are combined to estimate

costs.
Sewerage projects reported with different sizes in different reports may distort the
prioritisation of sewerage catchments/projects.
3-56
Even if the sub-catchment will ultimately
Final Report
have a few centralized STPs, it is recommended that the sewerage system be described
according to a CSTP basis including the cost estimation.
3.4.2
Procedures
for Application
of
the
Manual
for Prioritising
Sewerage
Catchments/Projects
The following procedure for application of the Manual for prioritising sewerage
catchments/projects is proposed in this Study (see Figure 3.4.2):
Step 1: Data collection from existing CSRs/SLPs
Step 2: Supplementation of data
Step 3: Identification of special projects
Step 4: Grouping of catchments/projects based on design PE
Step 5: Scoring
Step 6: Prioritisation of catchments/projects
Step 7: Selection of catchments/projects
(1) Step 1: Data Collection from Existing CSRs/SLPs
Data is collected from existing CSRs and SLPs in order to complete the data sheet showing
the necessary data, which includes not only direct data but also indirect data concerned,
such as the year the report was published, final selected option (CSTP, multipoint or on-site
systems), structure of catchments/sub-catchments, etc.
Some indicators require data
processing from the raw data.

(2) Step 2: Supplementation of Data
Some data may need to be reviewed before the Manual is applied.
The data sheet is
scrutinized for data missing, numerically abnormal values, discrepancies among relevant
data, etc. and, as necessary, consideration of ways to reasonably supplement or correct such
data. Even in the event that data cannot be successfully supplemented, such projects are not
excluded from the prioritisation of sewerage catchments/projects, but the will have a
disadvantage in scoring in accordance with the principle no data, no score.
(3) Step 3: Identification of Special Projects
Special consideration may be afforded to sewerage projects with special features. An
example of such projects may, for example, include (but not be limited to) an island tourism
resort development that is unlikely to be selected under normal prioritisation procedures, but
meets the national policy, or a sewerage project that, in the absence of urgent measures, may
otherwise cause a serious impact to the environment.
3-57
Final Report
START
Step 1:
Data Collection
Step 2:
Supplement of Data
Special
Projects
Yes
Step 3: Special
Consideration
No
Tourism Development
Critical O&M Issues
( PE 100,000 )
Step 4:
Design PE ?
Group A
Step 5: Evaluation of
Catchments/Projects
Step 6: Prioritisation of
Catchments/Projects
( 100,000 PE >
50,000 )
( PE < 50,000 )
Group B
Group C
Step 5: Evaluation of
Catchments/Projects
Rule for Selection
Step 6: Prioritisation of
Catchments/Projects
Step 7: Selection of
Catchments/Projects
List of Selected
Catchments/Projects
END
(1) Figure
Step 1 3.4.2 Flowchart for Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments/Projects
(4) Step 4: Grouping of Catchments/Projects Based on Design PE

The catchments/projects are categorized into three groups with a design PE, namely
PE100,000 (Group A: high PE), 100,000>PE50,000 (Group B: middle PE) and
PE<50,000 (Group C: low PE).
(5) Step 5: Scoring
Scoring is calculated for the three groups, indicating classification criteria for each
evaluation items, as follows: "Group A" for high PE, "Group B for middle PE and "Group
C for low PE.
As the default values are embedded in the cells on the EXCEL worksheet,
3-58
Final Report
the scoring before and after weighting application is calculated automatically.
The default
values are changeable, if necessary.

(6) Step 6: Prioritisation of Catchments/Projects
Sewerage catchments/projects are prioritised based on the scores.
Three project lists are
prepared for high, middle and low design PE groups.

(7) Step 7: Selection of Catchments/Projects
A special project list and three prioritised project lists by design PE size are now targeted.
Selection of catchments/projects is performed in accordance with the rules.
3.4.3
Considerations for Scoring
(1) Setting of Weighting Methods

The following three weighting methods were used for the study.
1) Overall balance weighting (see Tot-W15 in Figure 3.4.3and Figure 3.4.4)
The maximum weighting is three times the minimum and the intermediate weighting is
1.5 times the minimum.
2) Weighting for priority issues (30%) (see Env-W30, Rat-W30 and Inv-W30 in
Figure 3.4.3)
Special attributes that receive increased weighting are environmentally-friendly (water

pollution status), rationalisation promotion, and investment-efficiency.
The maximum
weighting is six times the minimum and the intermediate weighting is three times the
minimum.
3) Increased weighting (50%) (see Env-W50, Rat-W50 and Inv-W50 in Figure
3.4.3)
Similar to weighting for priority issues (30%) type, there are three types:
environmentally-friendly (water pollution status), consolidation promotion and
investment-efficient types.
The maximum weighting is 10 times the minimum and the
intermediate weighting is five times the minimum.

The differences among the above weightings were assessed using the following three
methods:
3-59
Final Report
1) Comparison between overall balance weighting and increased weighting (30%)

2) Comparison between overall balance weighting and increased weighting (50%)
3) Comparison among all levels of increased weighting (15, 30, and 50%) on
environmentally-friendly aspects
The findings were as follows:
1) Comparison between the overall balance weighting and increased weighting (30%) (see
Figure 3.4.5)
Compared with the overall balance weighting, there are some, though not
significant, changes in ranking using increased weighting (30%).
Using increased weighting (30%), investment-efficiency had a stronger impact on

rankings than environment-friendly and consolidation promotion aspects.
Some rural towns showed large declines in rankings based on the design PE (see the
straight dotted line in Figure 3.4.4), presumably attributed to the fact that water
pollution status is classified as clean and there are few existing STPS to be
rationalised.
2) Comparison between the overall balance weighting and increased weighting (50%) (see
Figure 3.4.6)
Among important items, the consolidation promotion type tends to rank after the
overall balance, followed by environmentally-friendly and efficient investment
types.
The ranking of the efficient investment type changes drastically in some
catchments/projects.
Even when the increased weighting (50%) is applied, no sewerage projects moved
from the lower ranked groups into the top ranks, although the reverse situation is
possible.
3) Comparison among all levels of increased weighting (15, 30, and 50%) on
environmentally-friendly aspects (see Figure 3.4.7)
Increased weighting (30%) had no significant impact compared to increased

weighting (15%), which is equivalent to the overall balance weighting. Increased
weighting (50%) magnifies any changes resulting from application of its 30%
counterpart, but its actual impact on ranking would be less than 15.
3-60
Final Report
(2) Necessity for Grouping Based on Design PE Size

Based on the size of the design PE, the study area or towns for trial application were
categorized
into
four
groups:
(1)
Group
A (PE200,000),
(2)
Group
(200,000>PE100,000), (3) Group C (100,000>PE50,000) and Group D (PE<50,000).

As shown in Figure 3.4.4, some catchments/projects in Group B are competitive with those
in Group A, but there is no such project in Groups C and D.
Furthermore, there is almost
no change in ranking, despite changing the weighting of special aspects from 15% to 30%.
This is due to the fact that, since the design PE of the study areas or towns is distributed
across a wide PE range of 48,000 to 1,170,000, the classification ranges for scoring become
less precise, and the low design PE group has a tendency to gather in the low scoring range.
Table 3.4.4 summarises the frequency that each score appears in the overall balance
weighting, which reveals that Groups C and D share only 15.7% in the 1st class, and 20.8%,
33.1%, 47.4% and 79.1% in the 5th class.
It suggests that no matter what, Groups C and D
cannot enter into the top group.

Since SPAN is responsible for monitoring the social obligation of providing sewerage
services in rural areas, it is recommended that study areas or towns be categorized into
high and low design PE groups to improve the chances of sewerage project implementation
for the low design PE group. The manuals that apply to the high and low design PE groups
are hereinafter called Manual A and Manual B, respectively.
The basic difference
between Manuals A and B is not weighting, but classification intervals.
Since the
classification intervals are ideally set so that score frequency will be almost even, they are
set so as to distribute evenly on the Excel sheet when calculating the ranking and percentage
from the top of each data set.
The classification intervals shown in Table 3.4.5 are established for the study areas or towns
used for trial application of the Manual and should be regarded as approximate figures.
It
is advisable to check the actual distribution of each score and adjust the classification
intervals accordingly.
Figure 3.4.8 shows an example of the classification intervals for design population with and
without design PE classification. Depending on the evaluation index, some classification

intervals cannot be changed in the way that WQI, which is based on the DOE standard, can,
and some indicators are simple yes/no questions, as in the first sewerage provision using
government funds.
It should be noted that the score frequency is not necessary for every
classification, since the classification intervals are set at regular intervals.
3-61
10
20
Ist
All PE
40
50
60
2nd
1 2nd 3
80
90
100
110
120
2nd
3rd
4th
130
140
150
160
4th
2nd
1st
100,000>PE50,000
70
3rd
1st
PE100,000
PE<50,000
30
Final Report
3rd
170
180
5th
4th
5th
5th
Figure 3.4.8 Comparison of Classification Intervals for Design Population
3-62
190
5th
200
100
90
80
Weightage (%)
70
60
50
40
3-63
30
20
10
0
Importance of area
Pollution load
Water pollution status
Complaints of existing STPs
Tot-W15
Env-W30
Rat-W30
INV-W30
Env-W50
Rat-W50
INV-W50
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
30
10
10
50
Beneficial water use
10
10
10
10
Rationalisation impact on existing STP/IST
15
10
30
10
50
10
10
10
10
Financial viability
15
10
10
30
50
Consideration for special conditions
Final Report
Reliability of project implementation
Figure 3.4.3 Weightage Allocation by Prioritisation Type
3-64
Ranking
10
20
Ranking (Design PE)
30
40
50
80
PE=200,000
PE-100,000
PE=50,000
Final Report
90
Ranking (Score)
Ipoh
Jinjang-Kepong
Kulai
Shah Alam SAS 2
Pantai
Melaka T. B. Melaka E.
Shah Alam SAN 4-2
Batu Pahat B. Penggaram
Melaka T. Sg. Duyung
B. Kuantan + BIM
JB-Mount Austin
JB-Tasik Utara
JB-Kota Puteri
Temerloh South 2
Petaling Jaya PJP 1-1
Semenyih
Larut & Matang 1
Melaka T. B.Melaka W.
Gombak SK1-SK5
JB-Pelangi
Petaling Jaya PJD 3
Melaka T. Bertam
Kota Setar
Batu Pahat Tongkang Pecah
Larut & Matang 2
KK-KKIP
JB-Pletong
Shah Alam SAN 2
Batu Pahat Yong Peng
Subang Jaya SJSK 2
Sg. Simin
Melaka T. Sg. Lereh
Kuala Kangsar 1+2
Petaling Jaya PJP 2
KK-Inanan
Kajang 3
Shah Alam SAN 6
Cheras Batu 11
K. Terengganu Utara
Sg. Simpo
Kemaman Cukai 1
Bentong B. Bentong
K. Kangsar Sg. Siput 1
Shah Alam SAS 1
Cheras Jaya
Gombak Rawang
Gombak SG1
Gombak SG2+SG3
Kajang 1
Melaka T. Sg. Udang
Batu Pahat Ayer Hitam
Kuantan Bukit Goh
Kemaman Chukai 2
Kerian Parit Buntar
KK-Kuala Menggatal
Kemaman Kertif 2
Melaka T. Kota Laksamana
Kajang 2
Kemaman T. Kalung 1&2
Jasin
Kerian Bagan Serai 1
Alor Gajah
Kerian Lembah Beriah 3
Batu Ferringgi
Kemaman Kertif 1
Batu Pahat Rengit
Kemaman Kertif 3
Kuala Kangsar 3
Figure 3.4.4 Rankings of Design PE and Totally-Balanced Type Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments (W15)
60
70
3-65
Ranking
10
20
30
40
Env-30
Rat-30
80
Fin-30
Final Report
70
Tot-15
Shah Alam SAS 2

Jinjang-Kepong
B. Kuantan + BIM
Petaling Jaya PJD 3
JB-Kota Puteri
Shah Alam SAN 4-2
Larut & Matang 1
Pantai
Ipoh
Subang Jaya SJSK 2
Kota Setar
Cheras Batu 11
JB-Mount Austin
Kulai
Shah Alam SAS 1
JB-Pelangi
Larut & Matang 2
Semenyih
Kajang 3
Gombak SK1-SK5
K. Terengganu Utara
JB-Tasik Utara
Melaka T. Bertam
Shah Alam SAN 6
Petaling Jaya PJP 2
KK-KKIP
Temerloh South 2
Kajang 2
Gombak SG1
Cheras Jaya
Sg. Simin
KK-Inanan
Shah Alam SAN 2
Melaka T. Sg. Lereh
Kuala Kangsar 1+2
Melaka T. Sg. Udang
Batu Ferringgi
JB-Pletong
Kajang 1
Gombak SG2+SG3
Gombak Rawang
KK-Kuala Menggatal
Sg. Simpo
Kuantan Bukit Goh
Bentong B. Bentong
Kemaman Cukai 1
Kerian Parit Buntar
Kemaman Chukai 2
Kemaman Kertif 2
Alor Gajah
Kemaman Kertif 3
Kuala Kangsar 3
Kemaman Kertif 1
Jasin
Batu Pahat Rengit
Figure 3.4.5 Change in Ranking by Type in Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments (W30)
50
60
3-66
Ranking
0
Tot-15
10
20
30
40
Rat-50
Fin-50
80
Final Report
70
Env-50
Shah Alam SAS 2

Jinjang-Kepong
B. Kuantan + BIM
Petaling Jaya PJD 3
JB-Kota Puteri
Shah Alam SAN 4-2
Larut & Matang 1
Pantai
Ipoh
Subang Jaya SJSK 2
Kota Setar
Cheras Batu 11
JB-Mount Austin
Kulai
Shah Alam SAS 1
JB-Pelangi
Larut & Matang 2
Semenyih
Kajang 3
Gombak SK1-SK5
K. Terengganu Utara
JB-Tasik Utara
Melaka T. Bertam
Shah Alam SAN 6
Petaling Jaya PJP 2
KK-KKIP
Temerloh South 2
Kajang 2
Gombak SG1
Cheras Jaya
Sg. Simin
KK-Inanan
Shah Alam SAN 2
Melaka T. Sg. Lereh
Kuala Kangsar 1+2
Melaka T. Sg. Udang
Batu Ferringgi
JB-Pletong
Kajang 1
Gombak SG2+SG3
Gombak Rawang
KK-Kuala Menggatal
Sg. Simpo
Kuantan Bukit Goh
Bentong B. Bentong
Kemaman Cukai 1
Kerian Parit Buntar
Kemaman Chukai 2
Kemaman Kertif 2
Alor Gajah
Kemaman Kertif 3
Kuala Kangsar 3
Kemaman Kertif 1
Jasin
Batu Pahat Rengit
Figure 3.4.6 Change in Ranking by Type in Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments (W50)
50
60
3-67
Ranking
0
Tot-15
10
20
30
40
Env-50
80
Final Report
70
Env-30
Shah Alam SAS 2

Jinjang-Kepong
B. Kuantan + BIM
Petaling Jaya PJD 3
JB-Kota Puteri
Shah Alam SAN 4-2
Larut & Matang 1
Pantai
Ipoh
Subang Jaya SJSK 2
Kota Setar
Cheras Batu 11
JB-Mount Austin
Kulai
Shah Alam SAS 1
JB-Pelangi
Larut & Matang 2
Semenyih
Kajang 3
Gombak SK1-SK5
K. Terengganu Utara
JB-Tasik Utara
Melaka T. Bertam
Shah Alam SAN 6
Petaling Jaya PJP 2
KK-KKIP
Temerloh South 2
Kajang 2
Gombak SG1
Cheras Jaya
Sg. Simin
KK-Inanan
Shah Alam SAN 2
Melaka T. Sg. Lereh
Kuala Kangsar 1+2
Melaka T. Sg. Udang
Batu Ferringgi
JB-Pletong
Kajang 1
Gombak SG2+SG3
Gombak Rawang
KK-Kuala Menggatal
Sg. Simpo
Kuantan Bukit Goh
Bentong B. Bentong
Kemaman Cukai 1
Kerian Parit Buntar
Kemaman Chukai 2
Kemaman Kertif 2
Alor Gajah
Kemaman Kertif 3
Kuala Kangsar 3
Kemaman Kertif 1
Jasin
Batu Pahat Rengit
Figure 3.4.7 Change in Ranking in Environmentally-Friendly Type Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments

(W15, 30 & 50)
50
60
Design PE Class & Score
All
10
3-68
Total
10
6
14
9
5
13
13
2
14
15
6
9
13
6
15
15
6
65
65
25
12
15
15
14
34
52
23
7
6
6
10
9
13
10
13
12
26
12
1
1
0
19
2
5
0
46
5
0
0
9
12
10
12
13
13
67
8
3
Total
0
1
0
1
6
0
8
0
13
5
27
27
7
65
13
14
27
65
65
8
19
16
3
3
5
0
12
62
55
4
0
3
1
1
3
4
3
14
10
26
17
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
6
0
65
0
0
0
9
1
2
0
18
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
2
0
27
13
13
13
15
58
65
0
0
0
0
4
7
6
9
12
11
22
27
27
27
69
16
12
31
65
17
27
13
10
14
14
13
14
14
14
11
13
65
65
1
4
5
9
6
7
10
6
5
1
27
27
0
102
0
120
0
133
0
135
0
115
0
605
0
16
15.7
0
25
20.8
0
44
33.1
0
64
47.4
0
91
79.1
0
240
39.7
Final Report
Importance of Area
Design Population
Annual Hotel guests
Pollution load
Total pollution load generated
Water pollution status at the downstream
BOD5 SI
NH3-N SI
Complaints on existing STPs
Water use condition at the downstream
Total water production by WTPs
Water intake closure duration time at WTPs
No. of intakes for irrigational use
Classification by WQI
Rationalisation of existing STPs
Total O&M man-power requirement reduction
Connecting potential in the new service area
Financial analysis
NPV / Design PE
Construction cost / Pollution load discharged
Consideration for national projects
Necessity for consideration
Total
Design PE / All (%)
PE < 100,000
6
4
Table 3.4.4 Score Frequency Based on Design PE Class
Manual A (PE 100,000)

8
6
4
4.0
180000
3400
2.8
130000
2600
1.9
100000
900
1.2
60000
300
Less
Less
Less
20.4
13.5
9.9
7.6
Less
79
70
90
91
More
More
91
105
36
89
6
46
1
26
660000
327
4
II
370000
327
3
III
55000
313
2
-
NNN
YNN
47
257000
Exist.
STP
Unit
10
3-69
Importance of Area
Design Population
Annual Hotel guests
Pollution load
BOD5 SI
NH3-N SI
Financial analysis
NPV / Design PE
ton/day
nos.
nos.
m3/day
hrs
nos.
man-year
PE
NPV/PE
Mil.
RM/ton/day
10
4.8
93000
4900
2.7
74000
4900
2.2
56000
1600
1.7
35000
90
Less
Less
Less
5.0
4.1
3.2
Less
79
70
90
91
More
More
Less
Less
154
66
15
36
6
27
0
10
0
Less
28000
313
1
-
28000
313
0
-
26000
313
4
II
26000
313
3
III
26000
313
2
-
26000
313
1
-
26000
313
0
-
YYN
NNN
YNN
YYN
28
146000
20
114000
11
56000
0
Less
11.1
98000
6.7
64000
3.7
58000
1.3
31000
Gazetted
Public
No
resettle
.
Resettle.
Exist.
STP
Gazetted
Public
No
resettle.
5.4
Less
Less
Resettle.
-33
-45
-63
-140
Less
-46
-57
-64
-78
Less
29
12
Less
29
12
12
Less
Yes
No
Yes
No
Final Report

Involvement in national project
%
person
Mil. person
Manual B (100,000>PE50,000)
8
6
4
Table 3.4.5 Evaluation Index Intervals for Scoring in Groups A, B and C (1/2)
Unit
Manual C (PE <50,000)

8
6
4
10.4
26,000
800
3.6
21,000
800
2.0
17,000
90
1.8
8,000
90
Less
Less
Less
2.1
2.0
1.6
1.3
Less
79
70
90
91
More
More
28
14
3
4
0
3
0
0
Less
Less
370000
313
4
II
370000
313
3
III
37000
313
2
-
28000
313
1
-
28000
313
0
-
NNN
YNN
YYN
4.9
36,000
0.6
27,000
0.5
19,000
0
12,000
0
Less
Public
No
resettle
.
Resettle.
10
3-70
Importance of Area
Design Population
Annual Hotel guests
Pollution load
BOD5 SI
NH3-N SI
Financial analysis
NPV / Design PE
ton/day
nos.
nos.
m3/day
hrs
nos.
man-year
PE
Exist.
STP
NPV/PE
Mil.
RM/ton/day
Gazetted
-25
-82
-95
-115
Less
25
17
13
12
Less
Yes
No
Final Report

Involvement in national project
%
person
Tho. person
Table 3.4.5 Evaluation Index Intervals for Scoring in Groups A, B and C (2/2)
3.4.4
Final Report
Design of Scoring Sheet
The scoring sheet is composed of seven tables A through G in the EXCEL worksheet shown in
Figure 3.4.9, of which each function is described in Table 3.4.6.
Table 3.4.6 Function of Tables on Scoring Sheet
Description
Contains data collected from existing catchment strategy reports (CSRs) or sewerage local plans
(SLPs), which is composed of raw data and automated calculations using equations embedded in the
cells, and transferred after separate calculation.
The input data field is contained in the column range R through CZ, and one set of
Table A
catchment/sub-catchment data is in a single column.
Therefore, the maximum number of
catchments/projects that can be ranked at one time is eighty-seven (87).
In other words, the tables
on the EXCEL worksheet in Figure 3.4.9 are designed with 87 sets of data as a constraint. When
increasing the maximum number of data sets, it will be necessary to redesign tables and equations
embedded in the cells
Table B
Table C
Contains data related to scoring and scoring conditions, such as two-step weighting, point allocation
criteria and scores corresponding to criteria is kept by evaluation index.
Contains scoring results before weighting application.
scoring classification criteria, and scores are made based on such classification results
Contains scoring results after weighting application.
Table D
The data in Table A is classified using the
The scores in Table C are converted to scores
using the weighting in Table B. There are two kinds of weighting data, namely one for evaluation
indicators composing respective evaluation items and the other for evaluation items.
The calculation
of this two-step weighting is done at once.

Table E
This table summarises the frequency of scores.
Except for sub-indicators for BOD5 and NH3-N,
WQI, existence of a permanent CSTP, prospect of land acquisition for a proposed CSTP and
consideration of special conditions, the desired result is that score frequencies are about the same.
However, this may not always be the case due to bias in data distribution.
Table F
Results in Table D are summarised by evaluation item.
Table G
When scores are automatically calculated by equations by categorizing the data into five classes based
on the percentage of the ranking from the top using the number of data and ranking for each data, this
table is the calculation sheet used to get the point allocation criteria from the results by calculating in
reverse.
In this case, point allocation criteria in Table B show the results of Table G.
The table is large due to the use of Excel functions (VLOOKUP and MATCH), but it can be prepared
instantly by selecting cell A1 and initiating the macro with the key operation Ctrl + Shift + Z.
Correct function of the macro also assumes a maximum number of data sets of eighty-seven (87).
There are two options for the point allocation criteria included in Table B as shown in Figure
3.4.10. In Figure 3.4.10(1), the point allocation criteria to determine a score are set in advance
3-71
so as to make the frequency of each score equal.
Final Report
For this reason, it is necessary to adjust the
table for the point allocation criteria whenever there is a change in the number of data sets.
To
prevent this situation, in Figure 3.4.10(2) an equation is embedded in each cell on the Excel
worksheet to calculate the number of data points and rank data and identify the ranking in
percentage terms such as 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%and 80-100% from the top, thus
deciding a score.
The frequency of each score may not always be equal due to joint data for
catchments/sub-catchments or a bias in data distribution.

In the flow of Figure 3.4.10(2), the point allocation criteria in Table B of Figure 3.4.9 are
provided as the results of automatic scoring calculation.
3.4.5
Trial Application to 24 Areas
The results of trial application of the Manual to 24 areas or towns are shown in Figures 3.4.11
to 3.4.14.
3-72
Table A Base Data
Figure 3.4.9(1) Scoring Sheet for Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments/Projects

225
55
Per PE sewage flow (Lpcd)

Per PE BOD5 pollution load (gpcd)
70
20
Effluent BOD5 of IST (mg/L)

Effluent BOD5 after sewerage provision (mg/L)
10
312
2
Number of ISTs desludged per day

Annual working days
No. of workers per crue for IST desludging
123,456.7
Data manually input
123,456.7
Data supplemented
123,456.7
Data automatically calculated but sometimes manually input
123,456.7
[1]
[2]
15
40
40
20
%
person
person
5
0
100
0
ton/day
ton/day
15
60
40
100
15
3rd class
2
40000
400000
4 th class
1
20000
200000
5th class
Less
Less
Less
1st class
10
10
10
2nd class
8
8
8
3rd class
6
6
6
4 th class
4
4
4
5th class
2
2
2
10
7.5
2.5
Less
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
79
70
P
90
91
SP
More
More
C
10
10
10
6
6
6
3
3
3
50
50
cases
nos.
40
75
20
50
10
25
1
5
Less
Less
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
10
40
20
20
20
person
days
nos.
240000
10
4
II
120000
7
3
III
60000
5
2
30000
3
1
Less
Less
0
10
10
10
5
8
8
8
0
6
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
15
60
0
0
40
man-year
ha
%
PE
25
60
15
40
5
20
1
10
Less
More
200000
100000
50000
25000
Less
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
100
Yes
No
10
10
10
10
2
8
4
6
6
4
8
2
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
100
NNN
YNN
YYN
100
Existing STP
Gazetted
Public
15
60
40
-40
20
-60
14
-80
10
100
0
0
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
100
800
RM/PE
mil RM/ton/da
Gombak
Gombak
Gombak
Sg. Gombak
Sg. Gombak
Sg. Kelang
Sg. Selangor
Sub-catchment
Jinjang-Kepong
Gombak SG1
1 CSTP
2 CSTPs
(ha)
(nos.)
(PE)
(nos.)
(PE)
1998/10
6,860
1997
441,997
730,873
2015
806,750
1,171,422
Gombak
SG2+SG3
To Bunus
Gombak SK1-SK5 Gombak Rawang

To Bunus
1 CSTP
2004/12
2004/12
2004/12
2000
50,594
66,401
2015
74,199
96,204
2000
72,045
72,045
2015
93,148
93,148
2000
178,598
189,987
2015
217,887
231,740
2004/12
2000
59,394
69,976
2015
82,437
98,239
74,199
6,620
93,148
0
211,294
13,853
82,437
13,857
(nos.)
(PE)
(PE)
(times)
(times)
(m3/day)
(m3/day)
(m3/day)
724,157
270,376
1.45
1.60
263,570
317,000
569,423
21,646
20,958
52,142
22,104
61,563
59,820
134,627
62,721
38.3
1.6
398
16
128.4
4.0
1,379
43
142.7
4.3
616
19
52.4
1.3
534
14
87.8
942
94.9
409
48.8
496
(m3/day)
(ton/day)
(m3/day)
(ton/day)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM/yr)
(RM/PE)
(RM/yr/PE)
(yr)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(RM/PE)
(%)
(PE/ha)
(%)
(nos.)
(%)
(%)
(nos.)
1997-2000
2001-2005
82.4
260.9
81.6
664.8
14.6
568
12
3.4
2.6
1.7
1.3
2.2
2.7
806,750
61.8
23.1
15,012,021
2.5
74,199
77.1
6.9
1.7
93,148
100.0
0.0
1.3
217,887
91.2
6.0
2.3
82,437
83.9
14.1
64.428
12.524
46.633
5.271
3.278
1.505
5.291
0.000
4.858
0.433
5.123
0.000
4.704
0.419
12.746
0.000
11.703
1.043
5.403
0.000
4.961
0.442
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
1 K22
B
1K18
B
1K18
B
71
0
Batu
P
(nos.)
(nos.)
1K18
B
76
36
Gombak
SP
Gombak
SP
83
96
1K18
B
76
36
76
36
Gombak
SP
15
76
36
Gombak
SP
15
15
15
(m3/day)
(hrs)
(nos.)
III
(PE)
(nos.)
(PE)
(nos.)
(man-day)
(man-day)
(man-day)
(PE)
(ha)
(%)
(Mil RM)
(RM/PE)
(Mil RM/ton/d
III
219,118
96
95,560
19,112
47.1
12.3
59.4
952,304
21.59
18.7
III
0.0
96,204
III
0.0
93,148
III
0.0
231,740
0.0
98,239
YNN
NNN
NNN
NNN
NNN
Existing STP
Existing STP
Existing STP
Existing STP
No resettlement
-652.9
0.13
-55.7
10.3
-44.3
0.16
-46.0
7.2
-130.6
0.06
-140.2
25.1
-142.3
0.12
-61.4
11.2
-56.7
0.13
-57.7
9.7
8.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
10.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Table C Score before Weightage Application
2nd class
3
80000
800000
Gombak
Jinjang-Kepong
Score
1st class
4
120000
1600000
10
Jinjang-Kepong
Catchment
Recommended sytem
Planning Fundamentals
Year of report completed
Area to be sewered
Base year
Present population
Present PE
Target year
Design Population
Design PE for sewage treatment
Target year
Design population
Design PE for sewage treatment
Design residential PE
Design commercial & industrial PE
Design PE / Design population
Design PE / Present PE
Dry weather average flow
Wet weather average flow
Wet weather peak flow
Sewage treatment process
Design PE for sludge treatment
Design sludge volume for CSTF
Design dry solids for STP
Design sludge volume for IST
Design dry solids for IST
Sludge treatment process
Final sludge condition
Costruction period Phase 1
Costruction period Phase 2
Construction cost Phase 1
Construction cost Phase 2
Land cost
Sewer system
Pumping station
Sewage treatment Plant
Construction cost
Annual O&M cost
Per PE construction cost
Per PE annual O&M cost
Period for NPV calculation
NPV of construction cost (at 8.0%)
NPV of annual O&M cost (at 8.0%)
Total NPV (at 8.0%)
Per PE NPV
Importance of the /area
Per PE density
Growth rate of design PE
Design population
Rate of residential PE
Rate of commercial & industrial PE
Annual hotel guests
Pollution loads
Total pollution load removed by existing STPs & ISTs
Total pollution load reduced
BOD5 load after sewerage provision
BOD5 load dischrged from existing STPs
BOD load dischrged from existing ISTs
DOE water quality monitoring station
Standard A/B
Sub-index for BOD5
Sub-index for NH3-N
River basin
River status
Complaints on STPs
No. of STPs
Water use condition
Duration time of water intake closure at WTPs
DOE class
Rationalisation of existing sewerage facilities
Design PE of STPs to be rationalised
No. of STPs to be rationalised
Design PE of ISTs to be connected
No. of ISTs to be connected
Existing STP O&M man-power requirement
Existing IST O&M man-power requirement
Total O&M man-power requirement
Design PE of growth
Redundant land area after rationalisation
PE rationalisation rate
Conservation of local water cycle
Financial analysis
NPV
B/C ratio
NPV / Design PE
Involvement in national projects
Inclusion of sludge treatment in CSTP site
Extension of sewage effluent discharge pipe
Data transferred from separate calculation sheets
Table B Weightage and Scoring Conditions

Default Value (2)
Weightage
Unit
Scoring Criteria
Catchment Strategy Report (CSR)
No resettlemenResettlement
-400
8
Less
Less
Table E Appearance Frequency of Score

Design population
Annual hotel guests
Pollution loads
Total pollution loads reduced
Sub-index for BOD5
Sub-index for NH3-N
WQI
Complaints on STPs
No. of STPs
Water use condition
Water intake suspension days at WTPs
First time works of permanent CSTP
Financial analysis
NPV / Design PE
(%)
(nos.)
(nos.)
(nos.)
(nos.)
(m3/day)
(hrs)
(ha)
(man-year)
(ha)
(%)
(nos.)
(RM/PE)
(mil RM/ton/d
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
Table D Score after Weightage Application
Total
72
1st class
15
2nd class
13
3rd class
18
4 th class
13
5th class
13
72
14
14
15
14
15
33
74
14
15
15
15
15
74
74
42
61
24
7
8
6
65
64
12
12
13
13
13
13
27
13
0
13
9
6
0
74
1
1
0
19
2
5
0
55
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
68
47
0
74
13
47
0
14
14
0
0
15
13
0
0
15
14
0
0
15
14
0
0
15
76
69
74
20
13
31
74
74
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Design PE density
Design population
Rate of Commercial & industrial PE
Annual hotel guests
Pollution loads
Total pollution loads reduced
Sub-index for BOD5
Sub-index for NH3-N
WQI
Complaints on STPs
No. of STPs
Water use condition
Water intake suspension days at WTPs
Financial analysis
NPV / Design PE
TOTAL
Ranking
(%)
(%)
(nos.)
(%)
(nos.)
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
(nos.)
(nos.)
13.8
4.8
7.2
3.6
6.0
2.4
8.4
2.4
7.2
3.6
6.0
0.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
3.6
0.0
3.6
0.0
6.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
15.0
9.0
6.0
15.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
15.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
1.5
1.5
15.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
1.5
1.5
15.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
1.5
1.5
15.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
1.8
0.0
5.4
1.8
0.0
7.8
1.8
0.0
5.4
1.8
6.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
3.6
0.0
6.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
7.2
4.8
0.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
13.2
7.2
6.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
3.6
2.4
0.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
5.4
3.6
0.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
7.2
4.8
0.0
78.8
2
59.3
31
50.9
49
60.7
27
52.1
46
(m3/day)
(hrs)
(ha)
(man-year)
(ha)
(%)
(nos.)
(RM/PE)
(mil RM/ton/d
Table F Summary of Scoring

Jinjang-Kepong
Gombak
Gombak
Gombak
Gombak
Jinjang-Kepong
Sg. Gombak
Sg. Gombak
Sg. Kelang
Sg. Selangor
Figure 3.4.9(2) Scoring Sheet for Prioritisation of Sewerage Catchments/Projects

Table G Scoring Criteria (As Computational Results)
Design population
No. of Data
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
16
16
18
18
18
21
21
23
24
25
26
27
27
29
30
31
31
31
34
34
36
37
37
39
40
40
42
42
42
42
42
47
47
49
49
49
52
52
54
55
55
57
57
57
60
61
61
63
63
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
72
Growth rate of populat
(%)
21.3
12.9
11.9
10.4
9.6
9.5
7.5
7.2
5.8
5.5
5.2
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.4
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
-0.1
-0.7
-1.0
-1.8
-3.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
-3.0
-1.8
-1.0
-0.7
-0.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.8
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.8
7.2
7.5
9.5
9.6
10.4
11.9
12.9
21.3
Value
4.4
3.0
1.9
1.2
-3.0
Ranking
14
27
42
57
72
One rank down

4.0
2.9
1.8
1.1
-3.0
One rank down
57
44
26
13
1
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
3,428
3,805
6,123
6,218
6,492
8,189
8,960
9,730
11,594
14,770
17,041
19,108
20,219
21,112
21,160
21,458
21,756
22,205
23,176
26,272
26,966
30,585
35,809
35,986
40,136
41,050
43,365
49,406
51,411
56,386
60,133
67,316
69,066
74,199
82,437
82,792
87,767
92,767
93,148
95,278
99,682
100,789
102,203
104,453
106,180
110,812
112,742
115,339
117,285
121,763
123,474
127,075
130,730
131,967
133,016
136,955
139,113
139,619
146,792
152,660
165,815
169,908
172,998
175,073
183,058
187,171
191,870
217,887
259,092
476,056
744,804
806,750
Design population
Average
4.2
3.0
1.9
1.2
-3.0
Value
146,792
106,180
56,386
21,458
3,428
Ranking
14
28
43
57
72
Ranking
33
Annual hotel guests
(nos.)
15,012,021
15,012,021
4,917,513
4,917,513
4,917,513
3,468,063
2,645,518
2,645,518
2,645,518
2,645,518
2,645,518
1,668,743
1,668,743
1,100,656
1,100,656
1,100,656
925,725
803,615
781,369
781,369
567,457
333,088
329,667
329,667
329,667
329,667
329,667
90,991
90,991
90,991
90,991
90,991
90,991
1
1
3
3
3
6
7
7
7
7
7
12
12
14
14
14
17
18
19
19
21
22
23
23
23
23
23
28
28
28
28
28
28
72
Design population
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Total pollution loads generated
No. of Data
Annual hotel guests
No. of Data

From the top
20
40
60
80
100
From the top
20
40
60
80
100
Design population
(nos.)
806,750
744,804
476,056
259,092
217,887
191,870
187,171
183,058
175,073
172,998
169,908
165,815
152,660
146,792
139,619
139,113
136,955
133,016
131,967
130,730
127,075
123,474
121,763
117,285
115,339
112,742
110,812
106,180
104,453
102,203
100,789
99,682
95,278
93,148
92,767
87,767
82,792
82,437
74,199
69,066
67,316
60,133
56,386
51,411
49,406
43,365
41,050
40,136
35,986
35,809
30,585
26,966
26,272
23,176
22,205
21,756
21,458
21,160
21,112
20,219
19,108
17,041
14,770
11,594
9,730
8,960
8,189
6,492
6,218
6,123
3,805
3,428
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
Growth rate of populat
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
63
63
61
61
60
57
57
57
55
55
54
52
52
49
49
49
47
47
42
42
42
42
42
40
40
39
37
37
36
34
34
31
31
31
30
29
27
27
26
25
24
23
21
21
18
18
18
16
16
14
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Ranking
72
Design population
No. of Data
Ranking
Annual hotel guests
No. of Data
One rank down

139,619
104,453
51,411
21,160
3,428
One rank down
58
44
29
15
1
Ranking
Annual hotel guests

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
90,991
90,991
90,991
90,991
90,991
90,991
329,667
329,667
329,667
329,667
329,667
333,088
567,457
781,369
781,369
803,615
925,725
1,100,656
1,100,656
1,100,656
1,668,743
1,668,743
2,645,518
2,645,518
2,645,518
2,645,518
2,645,518
3,468,063
4,917,513
4,917,513
4,917,513
15,012,021
15,012,021
Value
3,468,063
1,668,743
781,369
329,667
90,991
Ranking
6
12
19
23
28
One rank down

2,645,518
1,100,656
567,457
90,991
90,991
One rank down
23
20
13
6
1
No. of Data
Ranking
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Value
19.0
9.7
6.4
2.2
0.5
Ranking
14
29
44
59
74
One rank down

16.7
9.4
6.4
2.2
0.5
One rank down
60
45
30
15
1
65
No. of Data
Complaints on STPs
(nos.)
178
154
154
154
154
154
154
154
145
91
83
83
39
36
36
36
36
36
36
29
29
29
28
28
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
10
11
11
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
20
20
20
23
23
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
32
32
34
34
34
34
34
39
39
39
39
43
43
43
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
Complaints on STPs
0.481
0.532
0.705
0.993
1.335
1.343
1.393
1.589
1.650
1.843
2.001
2.084
2.087
2.110
2.209
2.244
2.952
2.989
3.063
3.203
3.566
4.029
4.074
4.289
4.960
5.123
5.291
5.403
5.845
6.409
6.422
6.568
6.796
6.897
6.960
7.086
7.116
7.362
7.592
7.827
7.867
8.021
8.396
8.548
9.351
9.715
9.797
9.862
10.413
10.840
11.177
12.018
12.095
12.386
12.746
13.002
13.454
13.983
15.129
16.721
19.036
19.333
19.767
20.263
20.302
20.426
21.216
27.878
34.990
39.100
43.502
50.276
64.428
70.580
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Value
39
15
3
0
0
Ranking
13
26
39
46
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
19
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
29
29
32
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
41
43
44
45
45
47
48
49
49
51
52
53
53
55
56
56
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
No. of Data
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
28
28
29
29
29
36
36
36
36
36
36
39
83
83
91
145
154
154
154
154
154
154
154
178
Complaints on STPs
Average
17.9
9.5
6.4
2.2
0.5
64
No. of STPs
(nos.)
330
248
193
168
145
117
113
105
98
96
88
87
82
77
76
71
69
67
66
66
66
55
51
49
47
46
44
38
36
36
36
35
35
33
31
29
27
26
24
21
20
20
14
11
10
10
9
8
7
7
6
4
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
Complaints on STPs
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
43
43
43
39
39
39
39
34
34
34
34
34
32
32
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
23
23
20
20
20
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
11
11
10
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Ranking
No. of STPs
No. of Data

Average
3,056,791
1,384,700
674,413
210,329
90,991
Ranking
74
Total pollution loads gene

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
No. of STPs
No. of Data
Total pollution loads gene

(ton/day)
70.580
64.428
50.276
43.502
39.100
34.990
27.878
21.216
20.426
20.302
20.263
19.767
19.333
19.036
16.721
15.129
13.983
13.454
13.002
12.746
12.386
12.095
12.018
11.177
10.840
10.413
9.862
9.797
9.715
9.351
8.548
8.396
8.021
7.867
7.827
7.592
7.362
7.116
7.086
6.960
6.897
6.796
6.568
6.422
6.409
5.845
5.403
5.291
5.123
4.960
4.289
4.074
4.029
3.566
3.203
3.063
2.989
2.952
2.244
2.209
2.110
2.087
2.084
2.001
1.843
1.650
1.589
1.393
1.343
1.335
0.993
0.705
0.532
0.481
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
33
Annual hotel guests

Average
143,206
105,317
53,899
21,309
3,428
Ranking
Complaints on STPs
74
No. of Data
28
28
28
28
28
28
23
23
23
23
23
22
21
19
19
18
17
14
14
14
12
12
7
7
7
7
7
6
3
3
3
1
1
No. of Data
One rank down

36
6
1
#N/A
0
One rank down
47
34
23
#N/A
1
Ranking
64
No. of STPs
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
56
56
55
53
53
52
51
49
49
48
47
45
45
44
43
41
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
32
32
29
29
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
19
19
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
3
4
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
11
14
20
20
21
24
26
27
29
31
33
35
35
36
36
36
38
44
46
47
49
51
55
66
66
66
67
69
71
76
77
82
87
88
96
98
105
113
117
145
168
193
248
330
No. of STPs
Average
Value
38
11
2
#N/A
0
87
47
26
6
0
Ranking
12
25
38
51
58
One rank down

82
46
24
4
0
One rank down
52
39
26
13
1
Average
85
47
25
5
0
Final Report
Base Data
Weightage
Scoring
Criteria
Total Score
Score
before Weightage Application
Total Score
after Weightage Application
Figure 3.4.10(1) Example of Point Allocation Criteria Set in Advance
Base Data
Weightage
Total Score
Score
before Weightage Application
Total Score
after Weightage Application
Frequency Appearance
of Score
Scoring Criteria as
Computational Result
Figure 3.4.10(2) Example of Point Allocation Criteria Generated by Calculation
3-75
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
3-76
Consideration for spec.
cond.
Financial analysis
Relia bility of project impl.
First time works for perm.

CSTP
Rationalisation of ex. STPs
Water use condition
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Final Report
Shah Alam SAS 2

Jinjang-Kepong
B. Kuantan + BIM
Petaling Jaya PJD 3
JB-Kota Puteri
Shah Alam SAN 4-2
Larut & Matang 1
Pantai
Ipoh
Subang Jaya SJSK 2
Kota Setar
Cheras Batu 11
JB-Mount Austin
Kulai
Shah Alam SAS 1
JB-Pelangi
Larut & Matang 2
Semenyih
Kajang 3
Gombak SK1-SK5
K. Terengganu Utara
JB-Tasik Utara
Melaka T. Bertam
Shah Alam SAN 6
Petaling Jaya PJP 2
KK-KKIP
Temerloh South 2
Kajang 2
Gombak SG1
Cheras Jaya
Sg. Simin
KK-Inanan
Shah Alam SAN 2
Melaka T. Sg. Lereh
Kuala Kangsar 1+2
Melaka T. Sg. Udang
Batu Ferringgi
JB-Pletong
Kajang 1
Gombak SG2+SG3
Gombak Rawang
KK-Kuala Menggatal
Sg. Simpo
Kuantan Bukit Goh
Bentong B. Bentong
Kemaman Cukai 1
Kerian Parit Buntar
Kemaman Chukai 2
Kemaman Kertif 2
Alor Gajah
Kemaman Kertif 3
Kuala Kangsar 3
Kemaman Kertif 1
Jasin
Batu Pahat Rengit
Score
100.0

(for All PE at Full Design PE, W15)
10.0
0.0
Consideration for spec. cond.

Financial analysis
80
Reliability of project impl.
70

CSTP
60
Water use condition
Score

50
3-77
40
30
20

(For PE100,000 at Full Design PE, W15)
10
Final Report

Financial analysis
70

First time works for perm. CSTP
60
Water use condition
Score
50

Pollution loads
3-78
40
Importance of city/area
30
20
10

(For 100,000>PE50,000 at Full Design PE, W15)
0
Gombak SG1 Kuala Kangsar
1+2
Gombak
Rawang
Gombak
SG2+SG3
Kajang 1
Melaka T. Sg. Kuantan Bukit Melaka T.

Udang
Goh
Kota
Laksamana
KK-Kuala
Menggatal
Kerian Parit
Buntar
Batu Pahat
Ayer Hitam
Kemaman
Chukai 2
Kemaman
Kertif 2
Final Report

Financial analysis
70
60

CSTP
Water use condition
50
Score
3-79
40
Pollution loads
30
20
10

(For PE<50,000 at Full Design PE, W15)
Final Report
3.4.6
Final Report
Catchment/Project Selection for Implementation
As shown in Figure 3.1, there are two routes to the final catchment/project selection stage. One
is to skip the prioritisation process due to the existence of special considerations, like an island
tourism development project, and the other is to pass the prioritisation process.
As a result,
there are special projects and three lists of prioritised sewerage catchments/projects for final
selection.
At first, the reasonableness of special projects shall be checked with background information,
and if the special projects are accepted by the agencies concerned, the first budget installment
shall be distributed.
In catchment/project selection from three lists, it is recommended that following two approaches
be studied:
Option 1:
A certain number of projects are selected from the middle and low design
PE groups.
Option 2:
A certain percentage of the budget is allotted to the middle and low design
PE groups
A certain number of projects or a certain percentage of budgets shall be set, taking into account,
the nationwide status of sewerage provision, local conditions, and emergencies, among others.
In general, the construction cost per project in the lower design PE group is less than that in the
higher design PE group as shown in Table 3.4.7.
Table 3.4.7 Example of Construction Cost per Project of Different Design PE Groups
High design PE group
Low design PE group
(PE100,000)
(PE<100,000)
No. of catchments
31 catchments
26 catchments
Average design PE
310,000
48,000
RM 159.0 mil.
RM 41.0 mil.
Verification 1
Average construction cost
The following principle shall be always considered in catchment/project selection:

One project from one area
1) Given the importance that sewerage service be spread throughout the country, this
principle should be adhered to as much as possible.
3-80
Final Report
2) But in some areas, the implementation of only one project may not be sufficient to
address a problem of a certain scale and urgency, and more than one project may be
allowed in the same area.
3.5
Trial Application of the Manual to Upper Langat River Basin
In the report for Upper Langat River Basin Sewerage Catchment Strategy, the study area is
divided into the following seven catchments and 12 sewerage catchments are proposed.
The
catchments of Semenyih and Bangi Selatan are further divided into four and two
sub-catchments to establish an independent sewerage schemes for each.
However, since the
data for such sub-catchments except for design PE are not given in the report, an individual
sewerage scheme is not targeted in this report.
CSTP systems.
Also, the catchment of BBB South has two
Therefore, it should be noted that the catchments of Semenyih, Bangi Selatan
and BBB South are composed of multiple projects, which mean that the size of the catchment
represented by design PE increases.
Langat
Cheras (Cheras Batu 11, Cheras East, Cheras Jaya)
Kajang Kajang 1, Kajang 2, Kajang 3
Bandar Baru Bangi (BBB North, BBB South)
Semenyih
Beranang
Bangi Selatan
The outline of those sewerage catchments is summarised in Table 3.5.1 with the location map of
Upper Langat shown in Figure 3.5.1.
(1) Water Pollution Status
As an index to show the water pollution status of the public water bodies, there are two
indicators:
(1) Water Quality Index (WQI) based on the six parameters and (2) the
combination of BOD5 and NH3-N sub-indicators.
Theoretically, there are two patterns for
the former and nine patterns for the latter, which is useful in discriminating the scoring for
sewerage catchments.
In the actual data for the Upper Langat River Basin, four patterns
(P-P, SP-P, C-P and C-C) appeared in the latter against two patterns of slightly polluted and
clean as shown in Table 3.5.2.
The combination of BOD5 and NH3-N sub-indicators is
then used to prioritise sewerage projects in the Upper Langat River Basin.
3-81
Catchment
Langat
Cheras
Cheras
Cheras
Kajang
Kajang
Kajang
Bandar Baru
Bangi
Bandar Baru
Bangi
Semenyih
Beranang
Bangi Lama
Sub-catchment
Langat
Cheras Batu 11
Cheras East
Cheras Jaya
Kajang 1
Kajang 2
Kajang 3
BBB North
BBB South
Sub-total
Beranang
Sub-total
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
MP Kajang
1 CSTP
1 CSTP
1 CSTP
1 CSTP
1 CSTP
1 CSTP
1 CSTP
1 CSTP
2 CSTPs
4 CSTPs
MP
1 CSTP
Major mununicipalities involved

Proposed sewerage system
3-82
(nos.)
(PE)
(nos.)
(PE)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM)
(Mil. RM/yr)
2005
58,100
69,720
2020
82,350
149,734
6.290
21.644
0.812
1L15
A
(%)
(nos.)
(nos.)
2.4
82,350
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
(ton/day)
(m3/day)
(hrs)
(ha)
2005
69,461
83,353
2020
121,533
179,033
12.000
5.747
0.107
1L05
A
2005
57,605
64,517
2020
100,789
106,264
0.000
300.380
2.261
1L05
A
2005
62,775
70,308
2020
82,792
90,177
25.900
210.710
2.310
1L05
A
2005
31,125
34,860
2020
41,050
40,800
0.000
42.555
0.460
1L04
A
2005
79,199
88,703
2020
104,453
138,038
22.100
271.213
1.158
1L05
A
2005
92,677
103,799
2020
111,940
130,124
0.000
6.973
0.321
1L04
A
2005
126,307
151,569
2020
152,560
346,523
0.000
12.416
0.187
1L03
A
2005
66,400
79,680
2020
127,075
275,069
46.750
230.206
2.007
1L09
A
2005
15,800
18,960
2020
17,265
136,092
0.000
3.169
0.067
1L09
A
2005
46,527
55,833
2020
56,198
82,344
3.430
36.975
0.783
1L09
A
3.8
121,533
3.8
100,789
1.9
82,792
1.9
41,050
1.9
104,453
1.3
111,940
1.3
152,560
4.4
127,075
0.6
17,265
1.3
56,198
9.847
4.304
5.543
5.845
5.272
0.573
4.960
4.549
0.411
2.244
2.024
0.220
7.592
6.065
1.527
7.157
2.836
4.321
19.059
7.855
11.204
15.129
5.881
9.248
7.485
1.216
6.269
4.529
1.860
2.669
7.116
11.399
(4.283)
78
37
78
37
69
38
69
38
69
38
67
29
69
38
67
29
81
46
96
70
96
70
96
70
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
36
288
55000
327.75
55000
327.75
28000
313.35
28000
313.35
28000
313.35
28000
313.35
28000
313.35
28000
313.35
28000
313.35
664000
313.35
664000
313.35
664000
313.35
III
(mil RM)
3.8
133,016
8.235
1.407
6.828
(nos.)
(nos.)
(PE)
(nos.)
(PE)
(nos.)
(PE)
(man-year)
(man-year)
(man-year)
2005
76,024
85,147
2020
133,016
129,377
21.000
339.581
3.232
1L15
A
III
18,471
7
12,070
2,414
119,193
3.4
1.1
4.5
III
221,991
67
12,775
2,500
(105,389)
50.3
1.1
51.4
III
85,234
14
0
0
93,799
30.0
0.0
30.0
III
97,760
29
12,770
2,500
(4,266)
19.0
1.1
20.1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Existing STP
Gazetted
Existing STP
Gazetted
-31828
0.36
-356291
0.05
-21502
0.46
-326309
0.04
III
79,279
36
15,595
1,500
(4,697)
14.9
0.7
15.6
Yes
flood retention pond
No resettlement
-233653
0.05
III
36,250
9
5,200
500
(650)
11.6
0.2
11.8
Yes
Existing STP
-47477
0.22
III
105,996
47
20,790
2,000
11,252
25.9
0.9
26.8
Yes
Malay reserve
Public
-270129
0.04
III
54,336
6
2,500
500
73,288
18.4
0.2
18.6
II
162,479
5
0
0
184,044
20.6
0.0
20.6
II
105,102
31
14,675
2,935
155,292
19.8
1.3
21.1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Existing STP
Existing STP
No resettlement
-13243
0.45
-18522
0.37
-271426
0.04
II
23,391
3
1,000
200
111,701
5.2
0.1
5.3
Yes
36,491
8
1,270
254
44,583
15.1
0.1
15.2
Yes
No resettlement
-9554
0.53
-45399
0.19
Final Report
Planning Fundamentals
** Base year
** Present population
** Present PE
** Target year
** Design Population
** Design PE for sewage treatment
** Land cost
** Construction cost
** Annual O&M cost
** DOE water quality monitoring station
** Standard A/B
Design population
** Annual hotel guests
Pollution loads
Total pollution load removed by existing STPs & ISTs
Total pollution load discharged
** WQI(BOD5)
** WQI(NH3-N)
** Complaints on STPs
** No. of STPs
Water use condition
** Total water production of WTPs
** Water intake suspension days at WTPs
** Irrigational area
** Classification by WQI
** Design PE of STPs to be rationalised
** No. of STPs to be rationalised
** Design PE of ISTs to be connected
** No. of ISTs to be connected
Design PE of growth
** Existing STP O&M man-power reduction
Existing IST O&M man-power reduction
Total O&M man-power reduction
First works for sewerage provision
** Government-funded sewerage provision
** Prospective of land acquisition for STP site
Financial analysis
** NPV
** B/C Ratio
Consideration for national projects
** Necessity for consideration
Table 3.5.1 Outline of 12 Sewerage Catchments Proposed for the Upper Langat River Basin
Final Report
Figure 3.5.1 Location of DOE Monitoring Stations and Water Intakes in the Upper
Langat River Basin
3-83
Final Report
Table 3.5.2 Water Pollution Status of the Upper Langat River Basin
DO%
pH
COD
(Sat)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Ave.
70.2
27
165
6.39
0.57
No.
18
18
18
18
Ave.
63.7
No.
36
1L03
Ave.
80.2
No.
36
1L04
Ave.
73.4
No.
56
1L05
Ave
75.3
No.
36
Ave
89.0
No.
36
1L16
Ave
101.0
No.
18
18
18
18
1L07
Ave
102.1
21
12
No.
18
18
18
16
1L01
1L02
1L15
SS
NH3-N
BOD5
Station
31
137
36
36
36
34
217
36
36
36
37
248
56
56
56
38
415
36
36
36
38
564
36
36
36
25
64
P: Polluted SP: Slightly polluted
18
NH3-N
SI
SI
74
91
69
WQ Status
Class
WQI
61
III
SP
82
50
III
71
81
46
63
67
63
BOD5
NH3-N
SI
SI
SP
SP
III
SP
SP
29
III
SP
69
38
III
SP
66
78
37
III
SP
84
93
70
II
92
94
95
18
6.65
36
0.92
36
7.10
36
1.07
36
7.20
56
2.02
56
7.06
36
1.48
36
7.17
36
1.49
36
7.33
18
0.31
18
7.50
18
BOD5
WQI
0.05
18
C: Clean
Note: The values below the determination limit of NH3-N or less than 0.01 are treated as 0.01 to average calculation.
Source: Prepared by the JICA Study Team based on ASMA data from the period 2005 to 2007.
(2) Beneficial Water Use Conditions

The Upper Langat River Basin is regarded as one of the valuable water sources for urban
water supply in the Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Area.
The nominal capacities of the
Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) located in the Upper Langat River Basin are listed in Table
3.5.3, which is composed of two big WTPs, namely the Langat WTP in the Langat River
and the Semenyih WTP in the Semenyih River, a tributary of the Langat River, and five
small WTPs.
In 2007, water intake closures occurred at two WTPs. Once at the Cheras
Batu 11 WTP, and three times at the old module and two times at the new module of the
Bukit Tampoi WTP, although the incidents at the new module overlapped with those of the
old module, as shown in Table 3.5.4.
The direct cause was identified as high NH3-N
concentrations in river water, which were reportedly attributed to domestic wastewater,

including sewage effluent from the existing sewage treatment plants in the basin.
Although the damage was minimized since water intake closure had not occurred at large
WTPs, it is now regarded as an urgent matter to preserve the water quality of water sources
in the metropolitan area.
3-84
Final Report
Table 3.5.3 WTPs in the Upper Langat River Basin

Nominal capacity (m3/day)
WTP
1
Pangsoon
River
182,000
Langat River
Lolo
41,000
Langat River
Serai
90,000
Langat River
Langat
454,000
Langat River
Cheras
27,000
Langat River
Semenyih
Bukit Tampoi
636,000
Semenyih River
28,000
Langat River
Source: Antara Jurutera Perunding Sdn Bhd, Sewerage Catchment Planning and Sludge Management Strategy Study for Upper
Langat River Basin, Department of Sewerage Services, MEWC, July 2008
Table 3.5.4 Water Intake Closures at WTPs in the Upper Langat River Basin
WTP
Date
Cheras Batu 11
Duration of intake closure
Cause
14.5 hrs
High concentration of NH3-N
February 12
Bukit Tampoi
Old module
February 5
7.6 hrs
February 6
267.0 hrs
March 13
38.75 hrs
New module
Ditto
Ditto
252.0 hrs
39.75 hrs
Ditto
Ditto
The results of the trial application of the Manual to the proposed 12 sewerage catchments in the
Upper Langat CSR are summarised below.
In the application, the overall balance weighting
was used, and the extra factor and divisions based on design PE were not applied as the study
area was aggregated as a whole.
Rank
Catchment
Score
Cheras East
63.6
Cheras Batu 11
57.6
Langat
56.0
BBB South
54.6 (composed of two projects)
BBB North
53.0
Cheras Jaya
51.6
Semenyih
50.9 (composed of four projects)
Kajang 3
47.8
Kajang 2
46.2
3-85
10
Kajang 1
42.2
11
Bangi Selatan
46.9 (composed of two projects)
12
Beranang
39.3
Final Report
The Manual was applied to the prioritisation of sewerage catchments in Upper Langat, but
the results as stated earlier differed from the feeling on the Malaysian side that Cheras Batu
11, Cheras Jaya, Kajan 1, Kajan 2 and Kajan 3 would be highly ranked.
For this reason,
the verification was performed jointly with the Malaysian side to clarify the nature of this
gap in expectation.
1) It was found that, in well developed areas, the growth rate of population and design PE
was relatively low depending on the demarcation of the area while in less developed
areas, it was set high due to the high potential for development and capacity for
population acceptance.
This led to the result that the well developed area was rated
lower than the less developed area in importance of the area based on three indicators:
the growth rate of population, design population and tourism guests by locality.
To
reduce this tendency, a new index with considering density, such as design PE / sewered
area, should be introduced.
This is a proposed are of improvement for the Guidelines,
since area data is not provided in most existing reports.

2) In Upper Langat, the design PE of growth, which is calculated by subtracting design PE
of existing STPs and ISTs from design PE, is negative in four sub-catchments out of
twelve.
This means that the STPs have already been sufficiently provided with such
sub-catchments. If actual status differs, there is the possibility that the design PE will be
underestimated.
Although the Upper Langat Report used for trial application was not
the Final Report, this is a is a future issue of the report that should be addressed.
3) With respect to complaints from the public, the data on complaints related to existing
STPs and the number of existing STPs are common to all sub-catchments in Upper
Langat due to the use of data at the LA level, which make comparison impossible.
From the recognition of the need to improve this situation, it has been acknowledged
that the complaints must be broken down to the sub-catchment level as well as in
accordance with the number of existing STPs. The complaints related to existing STPs
shall be limited to operational and functional issues.
4) As construction costs differed significantly by sub-catchment in Upper Langat, costs
were broken down to show that the construction costs for Langat, Cheras East, BBB
North, BBB South, Bangi South and Beranang are composed of sewer trunk, manhole
3-86
Final Report
and connection primarily to rationalise the existing STPs, but do not include the cost for
STP construction to meet design PE by 2035.
Only in Sub-catchment 2 of Bangi
South to which a MP system is recommended, the cost for upgrading the STP is
estimated for NPV analysis.
Therefore, it is not proper to compare such
sub-catchments with Cheras Batu 11, Cheras Jaya, Kajan 1, Kajang 2 and Kajang 3 with
which a CSTP system will be provided.
In addition, to avoid this kind of confusion, the construction cost must be given with a
breakdown of land, sewer, network pumping station and STP at a minimum for
improvement.
Construction cost (Mil. RM)
400
Cheras Bt. 11
350
Cheras Jaya
Kajang 3
300
Semenyih
Kajang 1
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Design PE (1,000)
Figure 3.5.2 Design PE vs. Construction Cost in the Upper Langat River Basin
5) Simply failing to address problems and doubts concerning data compiled from the
report and instead to adjust weighting is sloppy, resulting in the distortion of results.
In this case, the review of report is the first priority.
The results of prioritisation among Cheras Batu 11, Cheras Jaya, Kajan 1, Kajang 2 and Kajang
3 are as follows:
Cheras Batu 11
57.6
Cheras Jaya
53.6
Kajang 3
53.4
Kajang 2
53.2
Kajang 1
45.4
3-87
Final Report
Except for Cheras Batu 11 and Kajan 1, there is no substantial difference among the remaining
three sub-catchments, Cheras Jaya, Kajan 3 and Kajang 2.
3.6
Application of the Manual on an Actual Project Basis
This Manual has been developed to prioritise sewerage catchments with full design PE at the
target year.
But in the project implementation, the project size is reduced to actual design PE,
namely one third or one fourth depending on the full design PE, under the concept of phased
construction.
Is this Manual applicable to such actual projects?
The concept of catchments/projects is shown in Figure 3.6.1.
Area
Catchment A
Catchment B
Project A
Project B
Figure 3.6.1 Concept of Catchments/Projects
When the design PE is reduced from full design PE to actual PE for implementation, it means
that the service area is also reduced, which results in a change in the growth rate of population,
design population, complaints on existing STPs, rationalisation impact and financial viability.
If this data is obtainable, the Manual is applicable to the prioritisation of sewerage projects by
substituting such data for those at the full design PE.
In the case of a catchment strategy proposing more than one sewerage catchment in general, the
steps of project brief, project specification, design brief, detailed design and construction are
followed.
The project specification step is required for large-scale projects, but it may be
3-88
shortened for small-scale projects.
Final Report
Steps for the project brief, project specification and design
brief are regarded as part of the planning stage, and the design PE is determined in the design
brief step. It is suggested that the design PE for implementation be decided in the project brief
step and to start collecting data on the design PE for implementation.
It should be noted that the comparison of projects in the design PE for implementation is
effective only among projects and comparison should not be made among catchments/projects
except where the full design PE is small and used as the design PE for implementation.
Table 3.6.1 Relationship between Catchment and Project in Prioritisation
Evaluation Item
Catchment
Project
Importance of city or area
BOD5 pollution load generated
(BOD5, NH3-N)
Water use condition
Financial viability
Consideration of special conditions
Scoring
Scoring
First public sewerage works
* data at the actual PE for implementation
3.7
Manual
The Manual for Reviewing, Evaluating, and Prioritising Sewerage Catchments/Projects, including
instruction on usage, is described in detail in the separate Volume.
3-89

01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

SEWERAGE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of

US Dollar (US$) 1.00

Japanese Yen () 104.30

(As of 30 September 2008)

Mr. Ariyuki Matsumoto

The Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia

The Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia

THE STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT OF PLANNING CAPABILITY IN

Objective of the Study ......................................................................................................1-1

Scope of the Study ...........................................................................................................1-1

Formation of the Study .....................................................................................................1-3

1.4.1 General ..........................................................................................................................1-3

SECTOR ANALYSIS REPORT .........................................................................2-1

Backgrounds of Water Supply and Sewerage Sectors in Malaysia ..................................2-1

2.1.1 Water Supply Sector .....................................................................................................2-1

The Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia

Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications (MEWC) ...............................................2-4

2.2.1 Sewerage Services Department (SSD) .........................................................................2-4

Water Asset Management Company (WAMCO) .............................................................2-29

Water Supply Services Agencies......................................................................................2-31

Indah Water Konsortium (Sewerage Services Agency) ...................................................2-37

Other Sewerage Service Operators in the Peninsula ........................................................2-51

2.6.1 Kelantan State...............................................................................................................2-51

Water and Sewerage Sector in Sabah State Government ...............................................2-51

Kota Kinabalu City Hall .................................................................................................2-59

The Future of the Sewerage Sector ................................................................................2-67

Recommendations Based on the Sector Analysis Findings............................................2-69

2.10.1 Further Improvement of Sewerage Enterprises Efficiency.........................................2-69

MANUAL FOR REVIEWING/EVALUATION/PRIORITISING

Catchment Strategy Report ..............................................................................................3-1

Manual for Reviewing/Evaluation/Prioritising of Sewerage Catchments/Projects ..........3-4

3.2.1 Possible Applications of the Manual ..............................................................................3-4

Possible Evaluation Items and Indicators .......................................................................3-10

3.3.1 Importance of City/Area .............................................................................................3-11

The Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia

3.3.2 Pollution Loads ...........................................................................................................3-16

Trial Application to Sewerage Catchments Proposed in 24 CSRs/SLPs ........................3-51

3.4.1 Problems in Data Collection .......................................................................................3-51

Trial Application of the Manual to Upper Langat River Basin ......................................3-81

Application of the Manual to Actual Project Basis ........................................................3-88

REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL.1 PARTS B & C .....................................4-1

Discrepancies in the Current Catchment Strategy Reports ................................................4-1

Revisions Introduced into Guideline Vol.1 ........................................................................4-2

Examination of Revision Items Based on the Results of Trial Application .....................4-10

REVISION OF GUIDELINES VOL.4 CONCERNING SLUDGE

The Study on Improvement of Planning Capability in Sewerage Sector in Malaysia

Unit Processes and the Combination of Unit Processes.....................................................5-1

Unit Processes Included in the Guideline ..........................................................................5-2

Emerging Sludge Treatment Technologies.........................................................................5-3

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PLANNING

Appendix 3-A Hotel guests by locality (2007)

Treatment efficiency by existing STPs and ISTs

Guidelines for Developers Volume 1 Parts B&C

Guidelines for Developers Volume 4 Concerning Sludge Treatment and

Example of Construction Cost and O&M Cost Curve

Social Consideration and Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)