Reading your article on the Broga incinerator, I was somewhat astonished by the audacious lie by Perunding Utama Sdn Bhd manager Mr Peter Ho Yueh Chen, in which he denied his company's involvement with Envitech Sdn Bhd and Motherwell Bridge Group.

Maybe he is not familiar with his own company's website . On the page where its promotes association and collaboration with other companies, Envitech which is located in Subang Jaya, Selangor, and MB Technology Sdn Bhd (of Motherwell Bridge Group) is mentioned.

Both companies are active in several kinds of waste management business. Coincidentally, the Malaysian office of Motherwell Bridge Engineering is located on the ninth floor of Menara GSM (14, Jalan Semangat, 46100 Petaling Jaya), the same building as Perunding Utama located on the sixth floor.

The question is, what is Peter Ho Yueh Chen trying to hide? Is he involved in promoting the Ebara project that he cannot confess the truth?

He further said that most of scientific studies used to argue against incinerators "are based on studies of old technology from 20 or 30 years ago." Perhaps Mr Ho does not know of any recent studies, isn't up-to-date on the latest research or is simply in denial. But as an incinerator EIA expert, this would throw a bad light on his knowledge.

His claim of "new technology" as justification to implement the Ebara incinerator cannot be a good argument. Replace the word 'new' with the word 'unproven', and then you will approach the truth, Mr Ho.

The first small-scale municipal solid waste incinerator with a system like the one promoted by Perunding Utama was completed at the end of 2001 in Japan - just over one year in operation. Such a short operating time for a 'new' technology can only be called 'unproven'. Every other incinerator system has required several years before being approved.

Mr Ho denies this against better knowledge. In Germany we say 'lies have short legs', meaning that these denials will strike back soon. When Mr Ho says that "we also need to review the technological changes that has taken place over the years before concluding one way or the other," he should also mention that a lot of similar approaches have failed already.

In Aalen, Germany, the PKA pyrolysis ash-melting facility was finally shut down after exceeding emission regulations and improper functioning which would have led to excessive waste tax fees.

In Germany, the Aluminium Rheinfelden plastics-aluminium co-pyrolysis gasification plant was finally shut down after a fire accident and increasing costs of necessary exhaust gas cleaning facility.

In Frth, Germany, the Siemens KWU pyrolysis ash-melting facility in was closed after an accident resulting in dozen of injured people who had breathed in the pyrolysis gas. Mitsui Corp, a partner of Ebara in the joint venture company Environmental Engineering Corporation, had tried to implement this failed system.

In Germany, Ebara's tie up with ABB Switzerland to build an incinerator plant involved one of the biggest corruption and bribery scandals. Between five and 10 per cent of the final incinerator plant price was bribery money. Mention of Ebara Corp in bribery contexts have also been made.

In Wollongong, Australia, the EDL pyrolsis ash-melting plant has malfunctions that demand system changes; its char gasification unit was cancelled because it did not work.

In Karlsruhe, Germany, the thermoselect gasification ash-melting plant had a number of disasters. In 1999 an explosion happened at the plant, and in December 1999 high temperatures in the reactor's heavy inner concrete caused the plant to shut down for three-months. Until today we have not found any proof of proper functioning, as only less then 50 per cent of scheduled waste could be treated in 2002, with emission exceeding acceptable standards in October 2002. This occurred despite this technology having been in development for 12 years. In 1999 environmental laws violations and two court penalties forced the closure of a pilot plant in Italy. Another approach, the Lurgi system, disappeared in Germany as tests did not prove to be successful.

In Japan, the Kawatetsu Thermoselect plant, which treated six months of house-waste only manage to take 27 per cent of the original designed capacity and bad fuel gas emission. Since then only preselected industrial waste is burnt, and even then with quite bad performance.

These are some examples of the 'new' waste incineration technology similar to Ebara's gasification approach, which is not necessarily good or successful.

I address to Mr Ho to look on to these examples and then review technical changes without saying several times a day: "Broga needs an Ebara incinerator".

But I am sure the results of his EIA will be that the Ebara incinerator will cause no problems. It seems to be the duty of Mr Ho and Perunding Utama to do so.

The EIA terms of reference for example, only mentions some subchapters for comparision with non-incineration options. If Mr Ho is an actual expert and would do an objective and fact-based EIA, the result could only be for reusing, recycling, composting and mechanical-biological treatment options.

This would meet the Malaysian waste management plan which includes recycling, reuse and waste prevention. It would cause less harm to the environment and would be much less expensive.

But I think the soft loan from Japan, as mentioned several times, was only given for the Ebara incinerator, and not for any other non-incineration and non-Ebara treatment options. I am afraid that a positive surprise in the EIA result will not happen.

Ingo Gdeke

Retired chemist

Karlsruhe, Germany