Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 January 2014
Case Study
Safety, Health,
and Environmental
Improvement Programs
in a Rapidly Growing Port:
Laem Chabang
By Mr. Buncha Apai, Administrator 13, Office of the Director General,
Laem Chabang Port; and Mr. Thongchai Thammapredee, Director,
Port Operations Division, Laem Chabang Port
Global Environment
Facility
UN
D P
United Nations
Development Programme
UNOPS
United Nations Office for
Project Services
Partnerships in
Environmental Management
for the Seas of East Asia
Korea International
Cooperation Agency
Wharf
length
Capacity/year
Container
2,800 m
Ro/Ro
1,315 m
450 m
1,250 m
365 m
70,000 DWT
passenger ship
Dry bulk
General cargo
Passenger
2009
2010
2011
Unloaded
2.573
2.304
2.422
2.761
Loaded
2.646
2.308
2.623
2.875
Transshipment
0.021
0.009
0.023
0.047
Total
5.240
4.621
5.068
5.658
Percent Growth
12.91
-11.80
9.66
11.64
2013
2014
2015
5.992
6.483
6.991
7.519
1.005
1.070
1.140
1.214
2.901
2.956
3.002
3.040
0.551
0.561
0.570
0.577
Total
(kg/year)
Average
(kg/day)
Hazardous
waste
Total
(kg/year)
Average
(kg/day)
2007
552,000
1,430
2007
53,840
148
2008
558,540
1,530
2008
62,787
172
2009
569,000
1,559
2009
n/a
123
1,507
2010
81,520
223
2010
One of the most important roles of LCP is to serve as a hub of
Thailand manufactured cars for exports. The Thai government relies
on LCPs role to realize its vision of becoming a Detroit of Asia and
become the largest carmaker and exporting base in the region.
With LCPs stable performance, the anticipated volume for each type
of cargo throughput in LCP in the next four years is shown in Table 3.
550,000
standards, LCP is still considered at high risk due to the sheer volume
of inbound and outbound dangerous goods cargo it is handling
every year (more than one million tons). In November 2009, for
instance, a fire incident on a container filled with 9,142 kg of bleach
powder was reported when it was stacked in a container terminal.
The incident caused damages to the ports immediate environment
and portrayed a negative image of the port.
With the high volume of dangerous cargo that LCP cannot just
avoid or refuse to handle, it is imperative for the port to find more
appropriate ways in managing dangerous cargo. This can also
bring about more success in safety, health and environmental
management in the port.
Port Security
The volume of dangerous cargo (by IMO Class) LCP has handled from
2008 to 2011 is shown in Table 6 and 7.
2009
2010
2011
Class 1
0.004
0.009
0.015
0.014
Class 2
0.041
0.031
0.040
0.047
2008
2009
2010
2011
Class 1
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.002
Class 2
0.045
0.036
0.036
0.050
Class 3
0.151
0.119
0.149
0.170
Class 3
0.127
0.113
0.123
0.121
2007
2008
2009
2010
Class 4
0.062
0.025
0.033
0.046
Class 4
0.016
0.014
0.033
0.033
48.647
57.951
59.687
65.183
Class 5
0.051
0.042
0.068
0.072
Class 5
0.045
0.053
0.062
0.072
Class 6
0.052
0.037
0.050
0.064
Class 6
0.015
0.011
0.009
0.016
Class 7
Class 7
Class 8
0.111
0.088
0.115
0.140
Class 8
0.092
0.075
0.090
0.109
Class 9
0.161
0.141
0.191
0.208
Class 9
0.137
0.092
0.155
0.164
Total
0.637
0.497
0.665
0.765
Total
0.481
0.398
0.512
0.571
2008
2.78
19.13
3.00
9.21
156.76
186.27
195.39
2.71
3.12
3.00
2/51
1/52
2/52
1/53
2/53
0.035-0.053
0.050-0.078
0.053-0.100
0.068-0.112
0.057-0.127
0.210-0.239
0.118-0.157
0.044-0.115
0.031-0.041
0.039-0.069
0.026-0.072
0.036-0.062
0.129-0.160
0.078-0.152
0.025-0.039
0.045-0.063
0.028-0.064
0.219-0.245
0.035-0.053
0.013-0.047
0.016-0.022
0.044-0.062
0.021-0.032
0.022-0.031
0.057-0.073
0.014-0.089
0.011-0.043
0.056-0.076
0.271-0.392
0.029-0.086
0.020-0.042
0.013-0.037
0.029-0.033
0.021-0.056
0.019-0.030
0.032-0.041
Terminal A4
0.033-0.052
0.028-0.067
0.015-0.035
0.015-0.039
0.013-0.018
0.038-0.042
Terminal B4
0.020-0.042
0.177-0.323
0.037-0.069
0.058-0.207
0.075-0.133
0.091-0.226
College of Community
Development
0.017-0.022
0.009-0.033
0.013-0.035
0.013-0.022
0.006-0.041
0.025-0.043
Terminal C3
0.025-0.029
0.020-0.029
0.025-0.049
0.016-0.027
0.014-0.034
0.042-0.098
Terminal C0
0.019-0.036
0.033-0.054
0.014-0.020
0.013-0.050
0.006-0.042
0.033-0.052
Standard
0.033
1/51
2/51
1/52
2/52
1/53
2/53
Checking Gate
(Station 1)
0.048-0.066
0.16-0.20
0.23-0.052
3.53-3.73
0.23-0.35
0.20-0.60
Checking Gate
(Station 2)
0.18-0.21
0.47-0.69
0.26-0.73
3.04-3.23
0.12-0.41
0.19-0.49
Entrance of Leam
Chabang Port
0.49-0.58
0.65-0.89
0.25-0.40
3.24-0.48
0.17-0.48
0.16-0.47
Laem Chabang
Port Fire Protection
Training Center
0.48-0.66
0.43-0.87
0.22-0.52
2.12-3.02
0.19-0.43
0.16-0.46
Technology Sriracha
School
0.43-0.61
0.39-0.51
0.23-0.52
3.50-3.89
0.23-0.35
0.18-0.59
Tanaporn Witthaya
School
0.36-0.44
0.74-0.82
0.27-0.44
2.21-3.32
0.16-0.36
0.18-0.52
Terminal A4
0.31-0.33
0.44-0.85
0.25-0.51
2.64-3.16
0.21-0.43
0.15-0.44
Terminal B4
0.36-0.44
0.52-0.80
0.28-0.35
3.17-5.77
0.18-0.46
0.17-0.57
Standard
Table 10. Seawater quality analysis results from 2008-2011 (Laem Chabang Port Phase 2).
Sea Water Quality Analysis Results from 2008 - 2011
Parameters
Temperature (0C)
Transparency (m.)
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Standard
28.4 - 32.6
28.6 - 33.2
26.9 - 33.4
27.0 - 33.4
29.6 - 33.7
27.1 - 33.0
1.2 - 3.0
1.5 - 2.8
1.0 - 2.2
0.4 - 2.5
1.0 - 2.5
2.0 - 3.5
39,670 - 51,600
39,130 - 52,400
39,430 - 52,200
38,950 - 51,400
39,280 - 52,100
31,450 - 51,000
pH
7.88 - 8.19
7.96 - 8.20
7.89 - 8.24
7.88 - 8.23
7.97 - 8.31
7.94 - 8.31
7.0 - 8.5
Salinity (ppt)
27.8 - 35.2
27.3 - 35.1
28.3 - 35.4
28.0 - 34.1
26.3 - 35.0
28.5 - 34.0
SS (mg/L)
1.32 - 3.67
1.49 - 4.8
1.24 - 3.86
2.03 - 5.1
4.1 - 10.42
2.0 - 5.37
DO (mg/L)
6.6 - 9.0
6.4 - 8.3
7.0 - 8.0
6.4 - 8.0
6.4 - 8.0
6.7 - 8.0
Conductivity (mhos/cm)
BOD5 (mg/L)
Grease and Oil (mg/L)
0.9 - 2.0
1.0 - 2.0
<1.0 - 2.0
<1.0 - 2.0
1.0 - 2.0
0.5 - 2.0
None to 0.7
None to 0.8
None to 0.6
None to 0.8
None to 0.8
None to 0.7
2 - 2,400
<1.8 to 4,900
<1.8 to 15
<1.8 to 15
<1.8 to 4,900
<1.8 to 9
1,000
Pb (g/L)
<0.5 to 4.0
<0.5 to 3.0
<0.5 to 4.0
<0.5 to 3.0
<0.5 to 7.0
<0.5 to 5.0
8.5
Hg (g/L)
<0.05 to <0.1
<0.05 to <0.1
<0.05 to <0.1
<0.05 to <0.1
<0.05 to <0.1
<0.05 to <0.1
0.1
Lessons Learned
In the course of developing and implementing the PSHEMS,
LCP has learned the following valuable lessons:
Conclusion
Since the adoption of PSHEMS as a part of the integrated
management system of LCP, positive results have been
generated. The ports safety and health conditions have
been improved by regularly implementing and doing
internal audits in order to better conform to the PSHEM
Code. Moreover, environmental quality has been within the
acceptable standards of related government agencies.