10 reasons not to trust the mnii ster of r urban well ... · reason 1. minister has not even...
TRANSCRIPT
10 reasons not to trust the Minister for Urban Well-Being, Housing and Local Government on the proposed incinerator in Taman Beringin, Kepong
Contents
Proposed site for the Taman BeringinIncinerator
General info about the Taman Beringinincinerator
10 reasons not to trust the Minister
2
Figure 1: Proposed site for Taman Beringin Incinerator
MRR2
3
General Info about Taman BeringinIncinerator (I) An 1,000 ton per day incinerator capacity has been
proposed at Taman Beringin, Kepong. The estimated cost is between RM600 million to
RM1 billion. The reason given is the Bukit TagarSanitary Landfill (BTSL) with a total capacity of 120 million tons is unable to cope with the expected increase in municipal waste in Kuala Lumpur.
Four consortiums have been selected to take part in the tender process. The tender documents have not been revealed publicly despite the initial promise by the Minister of Urban-Well Being, Housing and Local Government to do so.
4
General Info about Taman BeringinIncinerator (II) Estimated Timeline:◦ 28th April 2014: Deadline for pre-qualification
submissions for interested bidders◦ June 2014: Call for RfP (Request for Proposal) by
selected bidders◦ October – November 2014: RfP Evaluation
Dec 2014 to Feb 2015: Best and Final Offer (BaFO) dialogue with shortlisted bidders
March to April 2015: Award Recommendation May 2015: Contract signing Sometime in 2018: Incinerator expected to be
completed
5
Reason 1. Minister has not even visited the Bukit Tagar Sanitary Landfill (BTSL) The National Solid Waste Management Department
(NSWMD) stated that the BTSL cannot cope with the projected increase in municipal waste in Kuala Lumpur which is why an incinerator has to be built in Kepong
Truth – The boss of BTSL, Vincent Tan, denied this statement and explained that the BTSL can last up to 130 years if it caters only to municipal waste from KL. He also confirmed that the Minister has not met or spoken to him nor with the management of the BTSL.
Reason 1
6
Reason 1
7
Currently, BTSL only takes in municipal waste waste from KL and a small amount of waste from the Selayang municipal council which totals 3,000 tons per day. Even if the amount of municipal waste which BTSL takes in increases to 4,000 tons per day, its capacity can last for 80 years. (1,000 tons of waste per day as proposed for Taman Beringin incinerator)
Awards won by BTSL :DFS Singapore Environmental Achievement Award (REGIONAL), the ASEAN Energy Award 2012 (Renewable Energy On-Grid Category) from the ASEAN CENTRE FOR ENERGY and the ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organizations Award 2008
Reason 1
8
Reason 2: Cost of the incinerator project and who will be paying for it yet to be revealed
The estimated cost for the construction of the incinerator is between RM600 million to RM1 billion. However, the Minister has clarified that government will not pay a single sen for this project but that it would be built via Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
The government will only paid the tipping fee when the municipal waste is sent to the incinerator. The projected tipping fee will most certainly higher than RM48 per ton (current tipping fee which BTSL charges DBKL).
Reason 2
9
The operational costs per ton for the small scale incinerators in Pangkor, Langkawi and Cameron Highlands ranges from RM207 to RM363 per ton. The incinerator in Kepong will have an operational cost of at least RM100 per ton. If the costs of construction also have to be recouped, then this amount will certainly increase.
Moreover, there is an additional cost of RM3,000 per ton to dispose of the fly ash (classified as toxic) from the incineration process at Kualiti Alam’s facility in Bukit Nenas, Negeri Sembilan.
The Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) documents also showed that DBKL will provide the incinerator a guarantee waste which means that compensation will be paid by DBKL if it fails to provide the operator with at least 1,000 tons of municipal waste a day.
Reason 2
10
Reason 3: The Minister lied on disclosing the details of tender process The Minister did not fulfilled his promise to disclose the
tender documents and information for the Taman Beringinincinerator project in his reply to parliament during the budget debate on the 26th of November 2013.
To repeat, this is what was said by the Minister during his Ministry’s response to the budget debate:
“So, once we – tender ini adalah tender antarabangsa, tender terbuka antarabangsa yang akan diiklankan dan akan pamerkansegala data Yang Berhomar hendakkan. You know Yang Berhomat, kita tidak mahu seperti mana yang saya katakana, kita mahu yang terbaik untuk rakyat dan penduduk Kuala Lumpur.”
Reason 3
11
Not only did the Minister fail to disclose the details of the tender, he did not even name the companies that were shortlisted for the bidding.
However, only four consortiums were quoted in The Edge Financial Daily – UEM Environment-Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Puncak Niaga-Hitachi Zosen, DRB-Malakoff-Sumitomo and MRCB-Hyundai Rotem
Reason 3
12
Reason 4: Current separation of waste in KL is not fully implemented At least 50% of municipal waste in Malaysia is
food waste and is not suitable to be burnt because it increases the amount of fuel that needs to be inserted into the incinerator. Hence, it is necessary for separation of waste at source to be fully implemented before an incinerator can even be considered.
In addition, separation of source is necessary to prevent the burning of potentially hazardous material such as batteries and lamps which contains mercury which may be released into the atmosphere if it is incinerated.
Reason 4
13
Reason 5: No assurance that the DEIA report for the incinerator will be enforced
A DEIA will be conducted and completed in June 2015 and the approval will only be given once the conditions of DEIA have been met.
However, the same DEIA process did not prevent the company –XCN Technology – from badly operating and maintaining the incinerator in Pulau Pangkor as highlighted in the National Audit Report 2012.
Reason 5
14
Noteworthy, the DEIA report for the Taman Beringin incinerator has been given to UTM, the same university which prepared DEIA for PulauPangkor incinerator.
Even though with the presence of a DEIA report, it does not give any assurance that the construction and subsequent operation of the incinerator plant will be safe.
Reason 5
15
Reason 6: Buffer zone of the proposed incinerator failed to meet DOE guidelines
According to the Site Suitability Report prepared by UTM for the propose incinerator, it shows that the proposed site B does not fulfil the 500m buffer zone which is a requirement under the guidelines established by the Department of Environment (DOE). (Figure 2A & 2B)
Option B1 Option B2
Distance from JinjangUtara residential area
91.78m 56.93m
Distance from petrol stations
76.72m 112.4m
Reason 6
16
The lack of this buffer zone would potentially: i) put at risk the residents in nearby Jinjang Utara ii) be hazardous to those who frequent the two nearby petrol stations.
November 2013: A fire broke out at the Tuas incinerator plant in Singapore.
In addition, according to the KL Draft City Plan 2020, the propose Waste to Energy (WtE) site also overlaps with future planned residential areas in the vicinity (Figure 3 below).
Reason 6
17
Figure 2A: Option B1 on Proposed Location Site
Reason 6
18
Figure 2B: Option B2 on Proposed Location Site
Reason 6
19
Figure 4: Overlap between Site Option B and Future Residential Planning
Reason 6
20
Reason 7: Environmental pollution in Taman Beringin and Taman Wahyu has not even solved
On the 30th of June, 2014, 4 water samples from around the Taman Beringin waste transfer station and the former landfill site at Taman Nanyang were taken for
testing by an independent lab.
The leachate treatment plant at both sites were found out not working. The water that was being discharged at the discharge point at Taman Beringin and Taman Nanyang was black in colour and foul smelling.
Reason 7
21
The COD measurement for sample W2 outside the Taman Beringin WTS was 800, four times more than the DOE limit. The level of Arsenic for sample W3 outside Taman Nanyang was at 0.7, seven times the DOE limit. The Colour (ADMI) value for sample W2 was 448, more than twice the DOE limit. The measurement for W3 was 7500, which is 37 times the DOE limit. The Ammoniacal Nitrogen (or ammonia level) measurement for sample W2 was 37.1, almost twice the DOE limit of 20. The same measurement for W3 was 412.7, more than 20 times the DOE limit.
Reason 7
22
Table 2: Water Quality Measurements that are not compliant with DOE standards
Parameter Sample W1 Sample W2 (1) Sample W3 (2) Standard B
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), mg/L
48 800 740 200
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), mg/L
5 90 80 50
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/L
9 171 8 100
Arsenic, mg/L 0.05 0.06 0.70 0.10
Fluoride 1.2 8.0 5.0 5.0
Colour (ADMI) 26 448 7500 200
Ammoniacal Nitrogen, mg/L
6.7 37.1 412.7 20
(Measurements in BOLD are over DOE Standard B)Note: (1) Taman Beringin leachate treatment plant discharge point (2) Taman Nanyang former unsanitary landfill discharge point
Reason 7
23
Pictures from the Taman Nanyang and Taman Beringindischarge points
Water Sampling at Taman Nanyang discharge point (30 June 2014)
Bad smells and black water at the Taman Beringin discharge point (10 August 2014)
Reason 7
24
Photos from Taman Nanyang and Taman Beringin taken on the 1st of November 2014
3 months later
Discharge from the Taman Nanyang former unsanitary landfill
Discharge from the Taman Beringin Waste Transfer Station
Reason 7
25
Reason 8: Problems of Pangkor incinerator has not been solved The Pulau Pangkor incinerator was found out to be
poorly managed in a visit on 15th of September 2014.Photos taken from the Pangkor Incinerator visit on the
15th of September 2014
Mountains of trash piling up at the incinerator site
Reason 8
26
Unsorted rubbish inside the incinerator compound
Reason 8
27
Reason 9: No assurance that the gases from the incinerator will be strictly monitored
Given the current and past operating conditions of the Pangkor incinerator, it is hard to imagine that the dioxin and furan emissions were strictly monitored and measured especially since the other more obvious environmental issues such as the management of rubbish within and without the incinerator facility was atrocious and definitely not complaint with DOE standards.
Reason 9
28
In addition, the dioxin and furan measurements for the Kualiti Alam toxic or scheduled waste incinerator in Bukit Nenas, Negeri Sembilan, was not even reported in its yearly Environmental Sustainability even though the Deputy Minister said that the level of dixoins and furans are supposed to be monitored and measured on a monthly basis.
Reason 9
29
Figure 9: Stack Emissions Monitoring Results from UEM-Enviro’s 2012 Environmental Sustainability Report - No measurement of dioxins and furans listed
Reason 9
30
Reason 10: The Minister has failed to make any progress on the recycling facility in KL
Under the KL Draft Plan 2020, two sites – Taman Lindungan Melati and Chan Sow Lin – were identified as sites for recycling center facilities while Taman Beringinwas identified as a site for an incinerator
Reason 10
31
Why not priotise in building recycling center to see how much waste can be reduced before deciding whether it is necessary to build an incinerator?
Reason 10
32
Q&A Session
34