The government has been pillaring the 3Rs concept (reduce, reuse, recycle) for many years now.

Transcription

1 1. Why is Zero Waste Management neglected while it has proven successfully in reducing huge amount of waste in Naples, Italy and Nova Scotia, Canada? For your information, the campaigner Rossano Ercolini was awarded the 2013 Goldman Prize for his efforts in successfully implementing Zero Waste Management at Naples. KPKT has never dismissed Zero waste management concept. It has always been the government policy to promote the reduction of the solid waste generation. The government has been pillaring the 3Rs concept (reduce, reuse, recycle) for many years now. For instance, in 2006, KPKT with the support of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), carried out a Waste Minimization Study in Malaysia. Based on the findings of this study, the government has embarked on action plans that focus on three primary areas: i. separation at source; ii. iii. strengthening of partnership for 3R s activities; and enhancing awareness and institutionalisation. At this juncture, it must be understood that the concept of Zero Waste is more of an ideal rather than a practical solution to the waste issue. 1

2 From a practical standpoint, nowhere in the world even in the most advanced countries can the ideal of Zero Waste be applied dogmatically in its entirety. While it is may be possible that all waste can be reduced, reused or recycled, there are practical limitations (i.e. economic and technological) on implementing Zero Waste in total. As such, the Government is of the opinion that waste minimization is the more pragmatic solution given the country s existing circumstances. It will continue to embark on the current initiatives on 3Rs. Nonetheless, we have no intention of nor are we abandoning the idea of Zero Waste. 2. We had read a lot of KPKT s explanation on the advantages of incinerator; can KPKT produce more evidence on its advantages against Zero Waste Management? KPKT supports both the concepts of Zero Waste Management and Waste Minimization. However for a nation to have a good waste management, those concepts must co-exist with a good waste disposal system and recovery facility such as incinerator, MRF etc. 2

3 From the Waste Hierarchy Pyramid diagram as above, the ultimate aim in waste management is to reduce the amount of waste to be disposed. This can be done through the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle), and the recovery of resources including energy from the waste (treatment). These are the matrix of waste treatment, giving us the choices to fit our needs before our waste is disposed at the landfills. Besides the 3Rs, which is always the most desirable and needs to be promoted the most, other treatments to reduce the amount of the disposed waste such as incineration, Anaerobic Digestion (AD), Material Recovery Facility (MRF), Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) also need to be implemented by the Government to address the issue of solid waste according to its need in the country. 3. KTI learned that KPKT had commissioned UTM to conduct study on suitability of site of building incinerator at Taman Beringin in Feb Why no similar studies are being carried out on Anaerobic Digestion, Mechanical Biology Treatment and Zero Waste Management to curb the alarming waste management issue? 3

4 The Taman Beringin Project has been tendered out through an open international tender bidding. The technology requirement does not limit itself to incineration but is open to all pertinent technologies. However this project has its own limitations when comes to its implementation. One of these is the land and space constraint of the project site. Since the government can foresee that incineration is the most contentious technology among the other technologies due to the misplaced perception of the public, the Government has conducted the study by UTM in It is specifically to study whether incineration will give negative impact to the environment in the area. The government has also conducted similar studies to determine the most suitable types of technology according to various locations in the country. 4. Last year the Japan Visit had shown that 10 out of 21 Tokyo s incinerators were polluted by mercury. It was mainly due to improper collection of thermometers and bulbs. Given the fact that KL doesn t even have separation of waste policy, KTI expects Taman Beringin incinerator will suffer more serious mercury pollution. Do you agree? Separation at source has been implemented voluntarily since the year 2011, and starting from September 2015, the implementation of 4

5 separation at source in all states, including KL, (adopting the Act 672) will be made mandatory. The waste-to-energy plant in Taman Beringin will start its operation by the year 2019 and by then, with the implementation of mandatory separation at source, the issue of household waste mixed with hazardous material (including mercury) will be reduced, and in time eliminated. However, the comingling of domestic waste and hazardous waste will always be an issue regardless of which technology is being used. Currently, the Ministry is in discussion with the Department of Environment on how this matter can be resolved. Separation at source will be the first step towards managing this issue. As for the Taman Beringin Project, it will be the responsibility of the successful tenderer to produce waste acceptance protocol for the types of waste that can be accepted and the methods on how to segregate those wastes. The Department of Environment also has an air emission limit for mercury (hg) and this will be a major requirement for compliance the plant operation. 5

6 5. A scientific research shows that dioxin pollution in Tokyo was getting worse after Do you aware of this? (please refer to appendix 1) From the given document, it can be concluded that the results were not taken from any specific point source (such as the emission point from an incinerator) but rather the ambient surrounding. As such the pollution cannot be blamed solely on incineration. Other factors may have contributed to this. Also, we have checked with experts from Clean Association of TOKYO 23 (CAT23) and they were of the opinion that the documents were obtained from unreliable sources. Therefore, we need to get more reputable reports from reliable sources before any conclusion can be drawn. 6. The operator of waste transfer station, Umpan Jaya Sdn. Bhd., ran away from its duty without being charged to court by KPKT. Why? The service of the previous operator of Taman Beringin Transfer Station, Umpan Jaya Sdn. Bhd. was terminated because they failed to meet the standards stipulated in the contract. The Government is also holding on to their performance bond of RM5 million to compensate for the shortfall in their service. 7. The Taman Beringin waste transfer station discharges highly toxic leachate into Sungai Batu directly. Why does KPKT not take any action? 6

7 KTI believes an accountable government will be held for responsible for this, isn t it? The Government is in the process of appointing Alam Flora Sdn. Bhd. (AFSB) as the new operator for the Taman Beringin Transfer Station. The Leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) and the drainage system of the facility will be upgraded by AFSB as part of their contract agreement. This is to ensure that there is no possibility of untreated leachate flowing into any water bodies nearby. 8. Parliament Public Account Committee Report on incinerator pinned point KSU Kementerian dan Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara, kontraktor XCNT, Prof Rozainee Taib dan Dr.Sivapalan Katsiravale should be held for responsible for mismanagement. Why are they not being taken actions until today? All the previous decisions for the implementation of the mini incinerators were made by a committee and not by the individuals mentioned in the report alone. The responsibility for the decisions was upheld collectively by the committee. There is also no element of mismanagement by the committee in their decision. 7

8 9. Do you agree that rubbish is a misplaced treasure? Rubbish is indeed a resource that should be exploited and not to be disposed of into the landfills. Waste to Wealth is now the catchword that must be impressed upon on all the stakeholders in this sector. Waste to Wealth also includes the concept of Waste to Energy where solid waste is utilized to generate electricity whether through incineration, anaerobic digestion or gas harvesting. 10. KPKT has not made public the measurements of dioxin, mercury and furan at Pangkor, Langkawi, Cameron Highlands incinerators until today. Who will carry out the test? When will it be carried out, during the startup, operation or shut down time? The outcomes of the annual reports for dioxin and furan are available in our webpage at: Can KPKT produce health survey report with using pg I-TEQ/g as measurement to determine the level of dioxin accumulated in local people who live nearby incinerators? The various tests conducted on the emission of the incinerators show that it is in compliance with all of the Department of Environment DoE s requirements. 8

9 12. Can KPKT produce PM2.5 and leachate monitoring report for Pangkor, Langkawi, Cameron Highlands and Tioman incinerators? The monitoring of the emission for the incinerators follows strictly the Environmental Quality Act and conditions set by the Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA). The measurement stipulated for the particulates is 50 mg/m3. The leachate in the facilities is also being monitored and in compliance with all the existing laws in the country. 13. 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 Beringin was identified as a site for an incinerator (See Figure 10 below). Why is it that the government is so keen to move so fast to build the incinerator plant but seems to be moving at a snail s pace in building the proposed recycling center facilities at the two locations identified in the KL Draft Plan 2020? Why not build the recycling center facilities first to see how much waste can be reduced before deciding whether there is a need for an incinerator? KL Draft Plan 2020 was a plan proposed by the DBKL, not by KPKT. Thus, the implementation of the recycling facilities mentioned will be undertaken by DBKL. 9

10 The decision to have a waste treatment facility in KL was made in the year 2005 as outlined in the National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management. These are separate issues and are not tied to matters of policy. 14. Japanese experience has shown that without proper and successful separation of waste, incinerating all the rubbish will create tremendous environmental pollution. Do you agree? Incineration technology has been in existence for many decades. It has evolved from the rudimentary technology of the 60s to the state-of-the art that it is right now. A lot of research and improvement efforts have been put in place to address the environmental pollution that was associated with it in its early years. The high international standard imposed on its emission ensures that incinerating technology is safe for the environment. Thus, even with comingled waste, it will not be an issue since the facility is obliged to comply with the standard and limits set by DoE. However, the Government is embarking on making the separation at source compulsory in September By the time the incinerator is 10

11 fully operationalize in 2019, the system should be fully in place to ensure that only the relevant waste is incinerated. 15. Separation of waste policy will only be in force in September 2015, and the construction of Taman Beringin is expected to begin in the end of Do you agree that the moment incinerator begins its operation the separation of waste will be still at nascent situation? The incinerator in Taman Beringin is expected to be fully operationalize in 2019, four years after the Government implements the separation at source regulation. Just as the plant cannot possibly be completed overnight, separation at source, too, will need a gestation period. By the time the plant is completed, the public would have fully embraced the idea of separation at source. 16. Malaysian waste is relatively wetter than Japanese waste. Do you agree? Will this physical difference incur extra incineration cost? If yes, how much is your estimation? While it is true that Malaysian waste generally contains more moisture as compared to the Japanese waste, however, current incineration technology will be able to handle it. Waste from countries like Singapore and China are also comparable to Malaysia in their moisture content and their numerous incinerators have had no problems whatsoever in dealing with this issue. 11

12 17. What is the estimate tipping fee per one ton for incineration technology compared with current Taman Beringin waste management tipping fee? How does the KPKT handle the higher waste management fee? The tipping fee will be reviewed in the tender process. 18. Shanghai incinerator exploded in 2013 and Singapore Tuas incinerator caught in fire in the same year too. Can you guarantee or give written promise that explosion and fire accident will not happen at the proposed Taman Beringin Incinerator? Incinerators have existed for decades and it is generally accepted that they do not pose more safety risk than any other thermal process facilities. Currently, there are adequate safety procedures and mechanism that have become international standards for incinerators. These standards will be enforced on the incinerator s operator through the concession agreement and they will risk being terminated in the event of noncompliance. 19. Waste to energy is only profitable when output is greater than input. Can you provide the estimate input vs output in terms of energy and money for the proposed incinerator? 12

13 In regards to the technology selection for this project, the Government has considered all aspects to ensure that this project is viable and cost effective. The various aspects considered include economic viability, environmental acceptability, suitability of the technology to Malaysian condition and suitability to the site conditions. The government, too, has weighed in all the considerations and while the incinerators may be slightly more costly as compared to landfilling, the overall impact and benefits far outweigh the additional financial cost. 20. In terms of energy and money, Anaerobic Digestion or Mechanical Biological Treatment provide better input vs output ratio, do you agree? The Ministry believes that any technologies need to be reviewed on the case by case basis. It is not possible to arrive at a conclusion based on some sweeping statements that a particular technology is better than others. The merit of any technology is always dependent on the circumstances of its actual implementation. There are many local conditions that need to be evaluated e.g. availability and cost of land, waste characteristics and others. 13

14 21. Where and when is the public engagement being held as required by the DEIA? Public engagement requirements are specified in the DEIA and will be implemented as soon as a successful bidder had been identified. All the residents of the surrounding areas will be engaged in this exercise to keep them informed on the project development. 22. There are a lot of community movement to provide recycling works by using local recyclers, and eventually going into the industry supply chain to reuse back the waste. However, some items, that are recyclable, such as light bulb, has not been able to gain its economic value to be recycled as easy as other items like papers and metal. Any policy or plan for the government to help the community to achieve this? We are working with the Department of Environment on how to address the collection of hazardous waste from the households. When the expected mandatory separation at source is implemented in September 2015, light bulbs, fluorescent lamps and other hazardous waste will also be separated at source and collected by the concessionaires. We are discussing with DoE on how they can manage the disposal/recycling of these wastes after the collection by the concessionaires. 14

15 23. We received some recyclers feedback to us that the support from the government about their business is very minimal. This including getting licenses and premises and channel of industry information. This is bad for the business and lowering down the efficiency of the recycling effort, isn t? Any policy or plans for government to help them, eventually to improve the efficiency of recycling, enhance the business chain, and collecting more tax for the government? Currently, the licensing requirement for carrying out recycling activities such as storage for recyclable is not yet enforced by the Department. The recyclers only need to register with the Department through Business Licensing Electronic Support System (BLESS) until such time as the non-prescribed Regulation is gazetted by the Ministry 24. According to analysis, the emission of incinerator is normally heavier than the air. Looking at the Klang Valley terrestrial condition as a bow to all peat fire haze (just from sepang area), it will trap all form of emission including an incinerator who emit in the Klang Valley. How government is going to face the reality if we all suffer from Haze since last year, plus Toxic Emission in the coming years? First of all, flue gas from the incinerator will be treated with air pollution control system to comply with Clean Air Regulation 2014 before being released into the atmosphere. Therefore, there is no issue on any toxic emission from the incinerator. 15

16 Also, the emission from the incinerator is released at the temperature of 161 degree Centigrade - very much higher than the surrounding temperature of 30 degree Centigrade. Therefore, the emission is less dense and rises. Meanwhile, the chimney is also designed to a sufficient height by taking into account the topography and meteorology factors to ensure that the ground level parameters are well below the ambient air limit. During the modelling stage, the effect of building downwash (pattern of airflow as impacted by the surrounding buildings) will also be taken into account. The height of the chimney must be factored with the height of the surrounding buildings to avoid the downwash effect. The normal good engineering practice is to design the chimney height to be 2.5 times higher than the nearby tallest building. 16