Selangor Menteri Besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo ( photo ) today said Broga was not the 'dumping ground' for the controversial RM1.5 billion mega-incinerator which was initially proposed to be built in Kampung Bohol, Puchong.

Speaking after chairing the weekly state exco meeting in Sepang, he said this was because the Broga site had originally been earmarked, complete with preliminary Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) studies, some time ago.

"The plan to build an incinerator in Broga is not new because we had also planned two more in Rawang and Sabak Bernam, and the capacity would depend on the need for solid waste treatment in those areas," he told a news conference.

He added that the one in Rawang "would probably be as big as the one in Broga".

"We have almost completed the detailed EIA report and will proceed with the project (in Broga) soon."

The menteri besar was, however, unable to specify when the EIA was initiated or provide further details of the Broga incinerator.

Last November, the cabinet caved in to mounting pressure from Puchong residents and relocated the world's largest thermal incinerator project to Broga, a small town near Semenyih, about 40km south of Kuala Lumpur.

However, the project, to be financed through a RM2 billion Japanese soft loan, then fell foul of Broga residents when it landed on their backyard. About 2,000 of them, including residents from surrounding areas, through a pro tem committee, held a peaceful demonstration in Taman Tasik Semenyih on Dec 29 to protest against the project.

Real reason

Speaking to reporters today, Mohd Khir, laying particular emphasis on the cabinet decision to relocate the proposed incinerator, claimed that the actual reason for re-siting was insufficient land in Puchong.

"We needed a landfill nearby in which to bury the ash produced in the burning process," he said.

"So, the actual reason behind the relocation is not due to public pressure in Puchong or claims of inherent dangers such as hazardous pollutants."

Yet on Nov 21, national news agency Bernama quoted Housing and Local Government Minister Ong Ka Ting as saying that the relocation was due to protest from residents.

Several highly-placed ministry sources have also told malaysiakini that the decision was made after negotiations between the authorities and Puchong residents on a compromise failed.

On how the EIA report, approved by the Department of Environment, had made favourable recommendations, Mohd Khir only said that the department had given the green light to relocate upon the state government's request later.

Asked if the state government was planning to hold a dialogue with Broga/Semenyih residents, he said: "We want to first see the reactions of the opposition politicians who are misleading the people by spreading wrong information about incinerators."

More incinerators

A project brief prepared by the state government explains the reason for relocation as being due to the doubts and safety concerns raised by Puchong residents, conceding that the plant would be the first of its kind in the country.

"Broga also was not solely identified for the construction of solid waste treatment plants in Malaysia because the government has plans to build similar facilities in Penang and Cameron Highlands," stated the brief.

Estimating the incinerator to start operations in 2007, the brief states that hundreds of jobs available during the construction period would not only benefit the locals but all Malaysians.

"The existence of a modern and advanced thermal waste treatment plant such as the one we are building will boost Broga's reputation as the centre for research and hi-tech expertise," the document added.

It also addresses general environmental concerns such as noise and air pollution, total suspended particles, traffic congestion due to rubbish transportation, risks of explosion and emergency procedures.

However, details of the project as stated in the brief also raise more questions. For instance, it mentions that the buffer zone proposed for Broga is bigger than the one for Puchong, yet states somewhere else that both proposals had set aside 500m for the buffer zone.