http://dapmalaysia.org  

Incinerator or Oven: Datuk Poh Ah Tiam must provide clear answers

Media Conference Statement
by Kerk Kim Hock

(Melaka, Monday):  Three days ago, CitirayaTechnology Sdn Bhd (project proponent for the electronic scrap recycling and recovering of precious metals facility at Taman Teknologi Cheng, Melaka) Director Ung Yoke Hooi openly clarified that the company would only use an oven to carry out its operations.

He said that the consultant had made an error in stating that an incinerator would be built.

He also said that he had asked the consultant to rectify the error and the DOE had been informed about it.

He had made the above clarifications during the dialogue session with MCA leaders led by State Exco member Datuk Poh Ah Tiam.

I had yesterday said that in view of the clarifications made by Ung, the State DOE Director has to provide clear answers to the following three questions:

  1. With the clarifications made by the company, are the Terms of Reference(TOR ) being displayed still valid?
  2. In the TOR displayed, it has been clearly stated, " as the recycling facility will include an incinerator, a Detailed Environment Impact Assessment (DEIA) is required for submission and presentation to the Department of Environment for approval prior to project implementation."

As such, if the plant is to use an oven, was there a need for a DEIA in the first place?

  1. If an oven is used, will it be sufficient and effective in handling the types of e wastes that the plant is supposed to handle?


I spoke to the State DOE director Ahmad Kamarulnajuib this morning and put forward to him my views that a new TOR should be displayed if an amendment of plan should take place.

I was told that the present TOR was based on what the DOE had received and the DOE will have meetings to do the necessary review. He also said that any communication of change of plan would be made directly to the Federal DOE.

After having read the TOR being displayed, I found that there are various questions which require clear answers as it is obvious that the so called error claimed by the company is not just a simple question of typing error or just a case of replacing the incinerator as proposed with an oven.

In actual fact, the whole TOR is for a Detailed EIA because an incinerator will be housed.

The State Exco member in charge of environment, Datuk Poh Ah Tiam, who had visited the proposed site and conducted a dialogue with the company three days ago, has the responsibility to provide clear answers to the following questions:

  1. When did the company realise that the consultant has made an error? Why did the company only make a public clarification after the proposed project has become a subject of public objections?
  2. When was the Federal DOE informed about the " error "? Why is it that until today the TOR being displayed have not been amended?
  3. The TOR documents have so clearly shown that the whole proposal has to do with a DEIA and not just an EIA. This is because an incinerator will be housed. How did the consultant make such an error?
  4. If an oven is to be used as claimed, it will appear that no detailed EIA will be required. If DOE was already informed, why no new TOR was issued? When will this be done?

The clarification by the company that there was an error as only an oven will be used has also raised technical questions, which should also be answered by the state government:

  1. What difference does it make for the company to say that an incinerator will not be used but instead only an oven will be used when both will also involve treatment which will result in the production of toxic gases, including dioxin which is feared to be able to cause cancers.

    This is because the company said that the oven temperature will be in the region of 200 to 300 C, and it is a fact that plastic material will burn at such temperature and toxic gases will be released.
  1. What did the company mean when it said it would use an oven, not an incinerator.


    (i) Does it mean that an oven replaces the existing box marked "incinerator" in the Material Process Flow Diagram? If this is the case, it makes no difference to what the company has said in terms of working temperature, as the process description also says that the temperature of the exiting incinerator will be at 250 to 300 C - a temperature range where plastic materials will burn and cause release of toxic gases.

    Why then was the point and need to distinguish between an incinerator and an oven?

    (ii) If it means that the boxes marked " incinerator" and "secondary combustion chamber " should have been replaced by an "oven", (as the incinerator and the secondary combustion chamber are normally seen as one integral part) then how are the thermal gases decomposed? Is this not going to pose greater dangers where there is no process prevent the re synthesis of dioxins (a process which is described in the TOR as the role played by the secondary combustion chamber)?

The Federal government's plan to build the Kg Bohol rubbish incinerator in Puchong (now reported to be relocated to Broga) has created a lot of fears about the health dangers posed by incinerators which are major sources of dioxin, mercury and a host of other toxic pollutants. Like wise, the proposed recycling plant in Cheng, which has an incinerator in the displayed Terms of Reference, has caused great concerns among and strong objections from the Melaka population.

Datuk Poh Ah Tiam must provide more answers and information to the public, including the aspect of emergency response plan of the proposed project.

The public are entitled to know what are the emergency mechanisms if the cooling tower fails or if the bag filter does not function as effective as it should be? The pubic are also entitled to know whether there would be emergency tripping to stop the entire plant operations in the event of emergency failure and whether there will be public alarm system to disperse?

Poh must also explain to the public what are the state government's policies and guidelines on the building of an incinerator and whether it is the state government's policy to allow the building of such a plant at the proposed site.

I find it most puzzling that after his dialogue with the company where the company explained about the error, Poh Ah Tiam did not make any comment at all as to whether he was satisfied with the explanation.

Did he hold the dialogue merely to react to the earlier prominent media coverage given to the visit one day earlier by the DAP leaders comprising Lim Guan Eng and myself who had highlighted the potential dangers of an incinerator plant?

(25/11/2002)

* Kerk Kim Hock, DAP Secretary General and MP for Kota Melaka