APRIL 14 — I thank Datuk Ramli Mohd Tahir, managing director of KDEB Waste Management Sdn Bhd for his response to my article — “Batu Arang incineration dangers”.
I wish to set out my rejoinder to his response with regard to the issues set out below:
Comparison between Putra Heights gas pipeline fire and the risk of fire posed by the Batu Arang incinerator
KDEB seeks to distinguish the recent gas pipeline explosion in Putra Heights as an incident involving an uncontrolled release of highly pressurised gas in a non-engineered environment while their proposed WtE plant will operate within a well-regulated and engineered combustion environment.
The question I asked in my article, is why with all the land in Selangor, the proponent of this project chose to build the incinerator on a site with the additional risk and greater potential of damage from a fire breaking out over a former coal mine?
It is an irrefutable fact that there is always a risk of fire breaking out. According to a study of fires in waste facilities in Norway and Sweden, common ignition causes of these fires include self-heating, thermal runaway in batteries, friction, human activities, technical or electrical errors, natural occurrences such as heatwaves and unfavourable storage conditions.
The study reported that there were 141 fires relating to waste facilities reported by the Norwegian fire and rescue service between 2016 to 2018.
For Sweden, there were approximately 60 fires per year at waste facilities. Previous investigations into the number and source of fires in waste facilities in Sweden, Taiwan and Australia confirmed that numerous fires occur in waste storage annually .
Contrary to KDEB’s claim, fires in waste facilities do occur. They can be very difficult to extinguish and can have severe environmental effects .
The residents of Batu Arang, Bandar Tasik Puteri and surrounding areas would like to know what is the level of risk that KDEB has determined to be acceptable risk in choosing this Batu Arang site for the incinerator. This is because they are the persons exposed to these risks.
Evidence of coal seams and combustible gases
KDEB’s response is that the claim there is remaining coal seams is speculative at best and “the very history of mining in the area has depleted the easy-access coal, making spontaneous combustion scenarios even more far-fetched”.
As the proponent of the project, it is incumbent upon KDEB to carry out the due diligence survey.
The burden of proof must be on the proponent that there is no danger or risk from the fact that the site is a former coal mine.
The residents have made repeated requests for sight of the relevant reports that the necessary investigation has been carried out.
It would provide great relief to the residents if KDEB can provide solid evidence that there is zero risk of this or any other hazard occurring due to the fact that the site is a former coal mine.
According to a study of fires in waste facilities in Norway and Sweden, common ignition causes of these fires include self-heating, thermal runaway in batteries, friction, human activities, technical or electrical errors, natural occurrences such as heatwaves and unfavourable storage conditions. — Unsplash pic
The precautionary principle
KDEB claims in its response that true precaution means waiting for rigorous studies on the Detailed Environment Assessment.
KDEB states that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is currently being prepared by certified environmental experts and will be publicly released upon submission to the Department of Environment (DoE).
There are two broad categories of the Precautionary Principle — strong and weak.
The Precautionary Principle in its “strong form” obligates decision-makers to take precautionary actions, even in the absence of full scientific certainty, prioritising prevention and potential harm.
In 1982, the United Nations World Charter for Nature gave the first international recognition to the strong version of the principle suggesting that when “potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed.”
In contrast, a “weak form” of the principle suggests considering precautionary measures but does not require them.
To satisfy the threshold of harm, there must be some evidence relating to both the likelihood of occurrence and severity of consequences.
Some, require consideration of the costs of precautionary measures.
Weak formulations do not preclude weighing benefits against costs.
Factors other than scientific uncertainty, including economic considerations, may provide grounds for postponing action.
Under weak formulations, the burden of proof generally falls on those advocating precautionary action .
Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Act 127) requiring the EIA to be carried out is adopted from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, which is the least restrictive of the weak form of the Precautionary Principle.
In my article, I was appealing to KDEB and the authorities to consider the strong form of the Precautionary Principle as a matter of public interest.
From KDEB’s response, it is clear that they are happy to proceed with the weak form of the principle.
One other reason I wrote the article is to remind the proponent of the project and the authorities on the need for public participation in environment impact assessment studies under Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration.
According to Principle 10, the public shall have a right to access to information, participate in decision making process and their voice shall be heard.
Malaysia has implemented environmental impact assessment under Section 34A (2) of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Act 127).
Public participation has been mentioned in the legislation.
However, there is no guideline as to the level of participation by the public in the decision-making process, and how the information shall be delivered to the public and the method to enhance public awareness.
Direct public participation in the decision-making process on EIAs is crucial.
Notable among them are: infusing the basic idea of environmental democracy by bringing all stakeholders, the proponents, the government authorities and the public together; linking environmental rights and human rights; ensuring environmental justice.
It also provides opportunity to large groups of people to think about the possible adverse impact of proposed projects on the environment and society, which will invariably bring in a sense of confidence about development projects and will suggest certain measures to be taken that were not anticipated by the proponents and the experts.
It is hoped that KDEB shall act with transparency and provide the public, especially the residents, the opportunity to have access to the information, for them to participate in the decision-making, and for their opinions and voices to be heard.
Conclusion
Sound management of uncertainties in environmental risk management is a part of quality assurance.
If the issue of uncertainties is not well handled, the problem turns into a combination of confusion regarding the nature of uncertainties, risks and health effects.
What is most critical is that risks are real.
The reality is that, human lives may be lost, health impacts and actual harm suffered and property damage sustained.
Are those exposed to these harms not entitled to be heard and their fears assured?
* William Leong Jee Keen is the Member of Parliament for Selayang
** This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
