A Brief History of Waste Management in the United States, 1950-2000

By H. Lanier Hickman Jr. and Richard W. Eldredge

The evolution of refuse collection and disposal (now solid waste management) in the United States is tied to two important movements: the protection of public health and the protection of the environment. Although they are inextricably intertwined, the public-health movement came long before the environmental movement. Many environmentalists think that the environmental movement began on the first Earth Day in 1970. They could not be more wrong. Many who work in the field think that solid waste management began with the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. They couldn’t be more wrong either.

The environmental movement began in the 1800s when the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) was charged with eradicating from the US a number of communicable diseases - notably typhoid, diphtheria, and yellow fever. With that effort was born a campaign that still goes on today to eliminate those agents that, through communicable means, affect human health. This campaign was appropriately named public health. As our knowledge grew, a second campaign to control the release of chemicals into our environment was joined with the communicable-disease campaign. The result was the creation of a comprehensive effort to protect human health and the environment.

The change from refuse collection and disposal to solid waste management, as we know it today, began before World War II and accelerated rapidly after the end of the war. It was not through US federal regulatory action or large infusions of federal moneys that a movement to change the way refuse was managed began. Rather, it was the personal commitment of individual sanitation professionals and two organizations that recognized that the then-existing refuse collection and disposal practices represented both actual and potential threats to the health of the citizens of the US. From the late 1930s through the early 1970s, this group of pioneers and their organizations laid the foundation for what is now the field of solid waste management (see Note 1).

The Pioneers

Pioneers, in the purest sense, are individuals who are first, or among the first, in any field of inquiry. The pioneers discussed here set out to establish and document a process of refuse collection and disposal which would give those working in the field the tools to improve refuse collection and disposal services. To those pioneers, improvement meant the protection of the public health as well as the provision of efficient and economic services. The most notable pioneering organizations during the formative years of solid waste management (beginning in the late 1930s through 1970) were the American Public Works Associations (APWA) and the USPHS’s Division of Sanitation and Communicable Disease Center (CDC).

The American Public Works Association

APWA was formed in 1937 with the merger of the American Society of Municipal Engineers and the International Association of Public Works Officials. Within these two organizations and their newly merged association, a program to develop manuals of practice in the field of public works began. One of the first manuals developed was devoted to the practice of refuse collection.¹ Published in 1941, Refuse Collection Practice represented the first serious effort in the US to consider both the basic collection requirements and the economic considerations in establishing a foundation of best practice in the refuse field.

Developed under the leadership of APWA's Committee on Refuse Collection and Disposal, a two-year development effort encompassed correspondence and field studies of 190 cities in the US and Canada. The book describes what was considered to be the range of practices at the time of its writing and is clearly an excellent snapshot of that era in the history of refuse collection. The pioneering members of this committee included Stuart Weaver of Montclair, NJ; William Galligan, Chicago, IL; David Godat, New Orleans, LA; John Lewis, Rochester, NY; Carl Schneider, New Orleans, LA; Ralph Taylor, Cincinnati, OH; and Jean Vincenz, Fresno, CA. (All but Schneider, a consulting engineer, held prominent public works and sanitation positions in local governments. See Note 2.)

A review of this 650-page groundbreaking publication reveals the foresight of this group and its views of refuse collection. The subjects addressed in the book are much the same ones that we address today in collection, including the composition of refuse, storage, and collection methods; collection equipment; transfer; replacement of horses with trucks (not a problem of today); public and private collection approaches; financing; organization; personnel; budgeting; and public relations.

The war years and postwar demobilization obviously caused the committee to delay the planned companion document on refuse disposal. During this interval, the Committee on Refuse Collection and Disposal was divided into two committees - one each for collection and disposal. In 1961, after five years of effort, APWA's Committee on Refuse Disposal, with the assistance of the USPHS, published the manual of practice, Municipal Refuse Disposal.² The foreword of that publication noted "the growing importance of solid waste disposal and the increasing demand for an authoritative manual on the subject" and reflected the increased investment in improving refuse management practices by both pioneer organizations. The date of the emergence of the term solid waste is lost in the mists of the past, but by this document’s publication date (1961), the term solid waste had entered our terminology.

In 1961 the term disposal was used much more broadly than now. The book clearly indicates that and offers another snapshot of our history. Subjects included refuse composition, disposal methods such as sanitary landfills (the term had crept into our terminology by that time), onsite and central incineration, grinding foodwastes, composting, swine feeding, salvage and reclamation, and management practices.

The Committee on Refuse Disposal consisted of Casimir Rogus of New York City; Abraham Michaels, Philadelphia, PA; Ed Williams, USPHS; Bernard Geisheker, Milwaukee, WI; Carl Schneider, New Orleans, LA; John Snell (consulting engineer) Lansing, MI; Jean Vincenz, now moved to San Diego County, CA; Leo Weaver, USPHS; Theodore Winkler, Detroit, MI; and William Xanten, Washington, DC.

It was immediately after WWII that a partnership began between APWA and the USPHS. The reasons for this are not clearly defined, but for the USPHS, it offered an opportunity to leverage its limited financial resources to the maximum by having the ability to reach public works people through the membership of APWA. From an APWA viewpoint, partnering with the USPHS offered access to some of its limited funds to help carry out APWA programs, and the reputation of the USPHS as a provider of scientific and technical resources surely added credence to the endeavor. This partnership can be credited with the development of many publications and conferences over the years. A number of those publications will be reviewed in other parts of this series. The importance of the contributions of APWA during these early years cannot be overstated. APWA provided the initial energies to establish a national movement in solid waste management.

The US Public Health Service

In 1798, the USPHS was formed as the Marine Hospital Service. Its mission was to provide health care for the sailors of the US merchant marine fleets. The Marine Hospital Service was organized along military lines to allow the mobility necessary to quickly move personnel to areas requiring immediate health services. Its technical personnel were commissioned officers in their own commissioned corps. When the surgeon general tells you that smoking is harmful to your health, it is the surgeon general of the USPHS speaking.

National epidemics of diphtheria and yellow and typhoid fevers during the 1800s, notably along the Mississippi and Ohio river basins, resulted in the mission of the USPHS being broadened to fight these epidemics. The medical practitioners who responded to these events became concerned that their patients were exposed to diseases that were spread by water, insects, rodents, and other sources of unsanitary conditions. This expansion of their mission called for talent beyond the existing corps of medical practitioners. Sanitary engineers and sanitarians, with design, construction, operation, and management skills to deal with community needs (not unlike environmental issues of today), were added to the USPHS Commissioned Corps to address sanitation issues.

Unlike its descendent, USEPA, the USPHS was not a federal enforcement organization. Rather, the USPHS delivered health care (to the merchant marines and later the federal prison system, immigration service, and Native Americans reservations), provided assistance to state and local governments on public-health practices, promoted training, and supported research and development. Sanitation efforts in the USPHS were initiated with this same approach. In time, the cadre of USPHS sanitary engineering officers in particular assumed major responsibilities over a number of communicable disease and sanitation activities within the USPHS. From this group and their activities began the environmental movement of today.

The Beginnings of the Federal Environmental Effort

Two groups of sanitary engineers and sanitarians in the USPHS can be credited with the creation of the federal environmental effort including solid waste management: the Division of Sanitation and the Communicable Disease Center, known today as the Centers for Disease Control. In 1948, the USPHS Division of Sanitation, under the command of C.H. "Slim" Atkins, contained a number of programs, including air quality, water supply, sewage/wastewater, and radiation. These programs were the mothers of the air pollution, water pollution, water supply, and radiation programs that were moved from the USPHS in 1970 to form USEPA.

Early efforts by the Division of Sanitation, particularly in the areas of sewage and air pollution, led to the establishment of separate divisions in the USPHS: one for air pollution and one for water pollution. These programs were ultimately strengthened by specific legislation in the two areas: the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.^3,4 Well into the 1970s, the sanitary engineers of the USPHS provided the leadership for the growth of these two significant environmental movements. It was assumed that a program for solid waste disposal/management would follow this same development pattern. The Division of Sanitation was eventually reorganized to form a number of divisions, including the divisions of Air Pollution, Water Pollution Control, Radiological Health, and Environmental Engineering and Food Protection. Solid waste was included in this latter division.

When Leo Weaver, straight out of New York University in 1948, entered the USPHS as a sanitary engineering officer, there was no USPHS refuse program (see Note 3).⁵ While Weaver became the first full-time individual whose service was dedicated to refuse-related projects, a specific refused-focused entity did not emerge in the USPHS until 1957.

The open-burning dump was considered a major potential agent for communicable diseases. In 1948, national concern about the spread of poliomyelitis (polio) prompted the USPHS to try to stem the spread of this disease. Under the authorities of the USPHS, efforts were begun both in the Division of Sanitation and the CDC to eliminate potential communicable agents - including open-burning dumps - that might cause polio. Weaver’s first assignment was to find alternative approaches to the open-burning dumps of that time; a rather awesome task for one person.⁵ Building on Weaver’s early work, the USPHS eventually initiated a national drive to close open dumps and establish sanitary landfills as the disposal method of choice. At the same time, the CDC implemented a program to improve operational practices at open dumps through direct assistance with state agencies, usually departments of health/vector-control programs. The combined efforts of the Division of Sanitation and the CDC eventually lead to a national investment in closing open dumps and the birth of the federal solid waste program.

Notes

1. In this series, the term "field of solid waste management" rather than "solid waste management industry" is used. This is based on the difference in the definitions of "field" and "industry." "Field" is defined as a branch of activity or interest, and "industry" is defined as any general business activity. The term "field" seems more appropriate to describe the broad areas of activities necessary to provide solid waste management services to a nation.

2. In the years after 1941, these pioneers’ careers are unknown. However, Carl Schneider appears as a member of the Committee on Refuse Disposal in 1961. In addition, Jean Vincenz, commissioner of public works and engineering from Fresno, CA, was also active on the Committee on Refuse Disposal. There is more history about Vincenz, who will be discussed in future parts of this series.

3. Leo Weaver was interviewed in February 1999 by the author. Weaver entered the USPHS in 1948 and worked on a number of refuse management issues. He later became the director of the Office of Solid Waste, USPHS, shortly after the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. His work during the years 1948-1967 within the USPHS and then on the staff of APWA directly led to the establishment of the sanitary landfill and the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1965.

References

1. ¹ American Public Works Association, Refuse Collection Practice, APWA, Chicago, IL, 1941.
2. ² American Public Works Association, Municipal Refuse Disposal, APWA, Chicago, IL, 1961.
3. ³ Congress, The Clean Air Act (PL 80-159), Washington, DC, 1955.
4. ⁴ Congress, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 95-976), Washington, DC, 1952. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was eventually amended to become the Clean Water Act.
5. ⁵ Interview of Leo Weaver by H. Lanier Hickman Jr., February 18, 1999.

H. Lanier Hickman Jr., P.E., is a member of MSW Management’s Editorial Advisory Board, and Richard W. Eldredge, P.E., has worked for USEPA, for the USPHS, and as a consulting engineer.

Issues (Malaysia): Is solid waste polluting our drinking water??

Tourists enjoying the cool environment of Cameron Highlands are unaware that the rubbish they leave behind end up in open dumps such as this.

Were landfills the culprits behind the recent contamination of Sungai Selangor? Maybe yes, maybe no. The results of investigation are still under wraps but for those familiar with the management of solid waste, the findings do not matter. They know that landfills all over the country have, for years, been fouling our streams and will continue doing so.

Let’s face it – we know for a fact that almost all of the “official” dumpsites that we have, some 144, are open dumps with no pollution control whatsoever. And many are sited close to streams and rivers. Only three can claim to be engineered landfills with facilities to treat leachate, the highly contaminated waste water leaking from waste tips – the Ayer Hitam and Bukit Tagar landfills in Selangor and Seelong landfill in Johor.

The sad thing is, we throw out stuff by the tonnes each day and yet in almost the whole country, there is no proper dumpsite to take in the discards safely.

Dr P. Agamuthu, professor of solid and hazardous waste management at Universiti Malaya, traces the sad state of affairs to the absence of a national policy and legislation on municipal waste. “Because there is no policy, there is no proper system on how rubbish should be handled and disposed of.”

The Solid Waste Management Bill, drafted in the 1990s, is still nowhere in sight despite annual assurances from the government that it would be tabled “this year.” Agamuthu says the Bill will pave the way for improved waste handling and disposal as well as waste minimisation.

In its absence, some local governments are still establishing open dumps, blatantly ignoring the Housing and Local Government Ministry’s 1990 Technical Guidelines on Sanitary Landfills, Design Operations which proposed that all new landfills be at Levels 3 and 4 (with anti-pollution features).

Under the proposed privatisation of solid waste management, waste concessionaires have inherited some of the polluting sites since 1997. They have closed some of the foulest ones while upgrading others. But with the privatisation plan still interim, the concessionaires are unwilling to spend more. Thus improvements on the old landfills have been slight, such as using daily soil cover and containing leachate in oxidation ponds.

“That is the most we can do with the budget that we have,” says D.L. Ho, group general manager of Southern Waste Management (SWM) which operates in Malacca, Negri Sembilan and Johor. Moreover, he adds, old dumps were not built with liners and leachate-collection pipes and installing these is impossible now.

His firm closed down 20 dumps after taking over waste collection services in 1997. It retained another 20, but not before first determining that they are downstream of water intake points.

Many landfills remain in the hands of local authorities who cannot afford upgrading works. So the pollution persists. Agamuthu has found high levels of heavy metals such as lead, chromium, iron, arsenic and cadmium in effluents of some landfills.

The pollution has seeped into the land. The Department of Environment (DOE) found over half of the groundwater samples taken in 2004 from 27 wells near several landfills with arsenic, iron, manganese, sulphates and sewage pollution above acceptable values. Levels of cadmium, lead and chromium were over the benchmark in less than 5% of the samples.

Licence to pollute

While sanitary landfills are regularly inspected – they must undergo Environmental Impact Assessments and operators submit monthly monitoring reports on discharges and river water quality as well as quarterly environment audits – hundreds of other dumps, despite their known threats, escape scrutiny.

It seems DOE and other related agencies, keeping in mind the history behind our dumps, have kept one eye closed. DOE even issues contravention licences (which allow industries to legally contravene the Environmental Quality Act 1974) to waste concessionaires such as Alam Flora.

“We have to have contravention licence as the discharges cannot comply with requirements,” says Mohamed Siraj Abdul Razack, chief executive officer of Alam Flora. “You cannot blame us because the waste is already buried, there is no way to put in liners and the landfill is already next to the river. DOE has been helpful and flexible. If it shuts down the landfills, there will be a rubbish crisis.”

Siraj maintains that upgrading work has prevented pollution from the bigger landfills. He says the smaller landfills do not present high risks as leachate discharges, being small and gradual, would be diluted in streams.

But is DOE being too lenient and generous with its contravention licence? Worldwide Landfills which operates the Ayer Hitam landfill, has held the licence since Day One.

One can understand why licences were given for old dumps, but for one that is supposed to be an engineered landfill?

The company general manager Zamri Abdul Rahman says the biological treatment which channels leachate through several aerated ponds and rely on bacteria for decomposition, could not reduce the level of COD to within Standard B requirements. (COD or chemical oxygen demand is the amount of oxygen taken up by organic matter in water and is used to measure organic waste in water or effluent.)

“DOE has very stringent standards on COD but aware that landfill leachate is expensive and difficult to treat, it has been flexible and gave us the contravention licence,” says Zamri.

And is DOE’s generosity with polluters being exploited? It seems so in the case of the Taman Beringin landfill in Kepong. City Hall built a RM4mil leachate treatment plant there three years ago but the facility was hardly used after the initial six-month trial period. Fortunately, the landfill was finally closed last week after many postponements over the years; otherwise it would have continued contaminating streams which feed into Sungai Klang.

There is also concern over the Bukit Tagar landfill in Batang Berjuntai, said to be the source of the Sungai Selangor contamination. Because its leachate treatment plant is still under construction – the opening of the landfill was hastened because of pressure to close the Ayer Hitam and Taman Beringin landfills – wastewater is treated conventionally in oxidation ponds. Many in the industry doubt that the treatment method could bring the pollution levels low enough to meet Standard A requirements, which landfills sited upstream of water intake points must comply with.

In fact, requiring landfill discharges to meet either Standard A or B (for landfills downstream of water intake points) is pointless if contravention licences are still issued and nobody keeps watch. Which is why waste experts say it is crucial to site landfills away from water catchment areas; more so since accidents do happen such as at Bukit Tagar where a pipe valve was left open, resulting in leachate spillage but which the landfill operator insists did not enter Sungai Selangor.

Agamuthu believes the government should seriously consider the Solid Waste Management Bill and incorporate within it, an integrated approach which stresses on a variety of treatment and disposal options such as composting, biological treatment, biogasification and incineration and, of course, waste minimisation such as through environment design and recycling.

With landfills being polluting, and making them non-polluting costly, it makes sense to reduce our waste heaps. So the next time you chuck that old battery or plastic bag into the trash bin, stop – the waste might well cause a stink in your tap water.

Spotlight: What a waste of wealth

Malaysians are throwing millions into their bins. ELIZABETH JOHN rummages through five bins to unearth just what contributes to the 19,000 tonnes of waste we put out every day.

ALMOST all the solid waste we throw needn’t go to a landfill — if we do things right.

Close to 95 per cent of the waste can be recovered in some way, earning us millions and freeing up much needed space in choked landfills, says Universiti Malaya’s Professor Dr P. Agamuthu.

Composting, waste-eating bacteria and turning materials that burn into fuel pellets could take care of half Malaysia’s daily solid waste output.Add recycling and the bulk of waste can be kept out of landfills, says Agamuthu.

When the lecturer from UM’s Institute of Biological Sciences did these calculations two years ago, Malaysians were throwing away about 18,000 tonnes of solid waste daily. Today, it’s closer to 20,000 tonnes.

Turning just 20 per cent of waste into organic compost can earn us a cool RM3.6 million, says the expert who’s studied waste issues for over 20 years.

There’s even more to be made from recycling. By Agamuthu’s calculations, about 40 per cent of the daily waste received at landfills consists of things that can be recycled — paper, plastic, metals and glass.

At the top of that list is plastic at 15 per cent, followed closely by paper, metal and glass.

With proper recycling, the recovered items could yield as much as RM55,260 every day.

Combining all the methods and treating waste in an integrated manner could, at the end of the day, save us a whopping RM909 million in management costs — that’s nine times the amount recently allocated to reduce flash floods in Kuala Lumpur.

"The figures tell the story. They tell you that the alternative to dumping is so much better," says Agamuthu.

What they threw in the bin

...From a rising star to homely retirees, the New Sunday Times asked five Malaysians to surrender the day’s discards. They gave us...

The retirees:Rohani Abdullah and Mohd Damis Yusof
- Four bags
1. Many pieces of tissue paper
2. Inner cardboard of toilet paper roll
3. A stack of envelopes and old bills
4. Several empty plastic medicine packets
5. Plastic packaging from stationery, biscuits, eggs, salt, mosquito mats
6. Small plastic bag
7. Paper/cardboard packaging from food, hair dye
8. Empty milk carton
9. One soft drink can
10. One used newspaper (for wrapping)
11. Empty tissue box
12. Food waste (some vegetable, rice, grated coconut, two strips of banana leaf and a few
rambutan skins)
13. Four kitchen paper towels
14. Two mosquito mats
15. Cat litter

The story: This loving couple shares their Damansara Heights home with their daughter, maid and a dozen roly-poly cats.

They collected this waste on Sunday — big cookout day — when Rohani slaves over a hot stove preparing vats full of a killer sambal tempoyak and other delicacies for the week.

Some of the food waste fertilises the flowers but they leave the recyclable items like cans and plastic bottles for garbage collectors as they’ve noticed them picking the items out and setting it aside, presumably to be sold off later.

"A lot of the rubbish is actually kitty litter. We clear it twice a day. But I’d like to know if there’s another way to dispose of it." This is the average daily amount for this household, says Rohani, although on other days, there might be more soft drink cans or bottles in the bin.

The Idol:Daniel Lee

Half a bag
1. One large plastic mineral water bottle
2. Two envelopes
3. Three pieces of clear plastic wrappers
4. One small plastic food packaging
5. Six tissues
6. Six pieces cotton wool pad
7. Eight clothes and goods tags (paper)
8. Two clothes and goods tags (plastic)
9. One piece of twist and tie
10. One shaving stick
11. One rubber band

The story: This baby-faced Malaysian Idol who regularly sends teenaged girls into a screaming frenzy was most concerned about what wasn’t in his garbage bin that day — the many cans of hair spray he goes through in a year.

The one currently freeze-framing his hair at its fashionable best is yanked out of a bright red backpack as he asks, "What’s the best way to deal with this? I want to safely dispose of this but I don’t know how.

"He tries his best, says Daniel, refusing plastic bags when he indulges in another passion — shopping. Everything he buys goes into his backpack.

This is something he learned from his years in Taiwan where shoppers pay for their plastic bags.And though his fast selling album’s called Unavoidable, he’s managed to avoid putting a plastic CD tray in the pack. In the 25,000 copies sold in the first week of release, the disc is tucked into a glossy paper envelope, instead.

The singer, who quickly goes through tissue and cotton wool pads removing inches of make-up after performances, also wishes there was more he could do about empty cosmetic containers."If you bring back empty containers, some cosmetic companies give you a discount or a gift in exchange."I wish more companies would do that," says Daniel.

The aunts he shares a home with in Damansara send their waste paper for recycling but Daniel doesn’t know of any recycling bins near his home.Sometimes, he lugs a recyclabe item or two all the way to a supermarket."It’s mostly a lot of tissue and clothes tags that I throw but there are lots of stuff that I’m not sure can be recycled."In all, the 25-year-old empties the bin in his room once in two weeks.

Yes, it’s not just writing his own songs, signing autographs or going on tour for this rising star — he also takes out the trash himself

The green-mindedKhaw Siok Kim

- A very small corner of one bag

1. Peel from one quarter slice of papaya
2. A small stalk and leaves of a green vegetable
3. A piece of string
4. A small piece of soiled cardboard
5. Two strips of plastic wrapping
6. One foil medicine packet/strip

The story: She put out the least and it’s no surprise why — she’s a volunteer of the Environmental Protection Society of Malaysia.

From the absence of a car to the spotlessly clean house bereft of a single unnecessary piece of furniture or decoration, Kim leads the ecologically friendly lifestyle others talk about. She buries the kitty litter and recycles every possible item, throwing away things she isn’t quite sure about, like the empty medicine strip.

Kim’s tried composting in a corner of her tiny garden but gave it up when the pit attracted rats."So I only buy and cook exactly what I need. This leaves me with a small bag of rubbish at the end of the week. Sometimes, it takes longer to fill up.

The homemaker Philomin Sennyah

- Two bags

1. Several broken plastic toys (lego blocks, action figures, cars and a bus)
2. Six pieces of jigsaw puzzle (cardboard)
3. 10 playing cards (paper)
4. Food packaging — two plastic and six drink cartons
5. Two toy packaging — paper/cardboard
6. Food waste – rice, fruit peels, vegetables, egg shells, bits of fish
7. One old sock
8. Several pieces of paper
9. Several plastic bags

The story: This soft spoken, gentle grandmother has her hands full, caring for her two grandsons and two daughters she shares her Subang Jaya home with.

Mornings are spent cooking and most of this waste is what ends up in the bin.The drink cartons, a favourite with her grandsons, are a common feature in the rubbish they put out.

What was unusual in that Tuesday’s pile was the broken toys that were thrown out.

The family doesn’t really recycle and hardly takes canned drinks, but they do sell old newspapers off, says Philomin. "I don’t think we throw out that much waste.

Single in the cityAngelina Ng Sook Mun

- Half a bag

1. Three plastic food wrappers
2. One plastic cup
3. One plastic yoghurt bottle
4. One plastic soft drink bottle4. Five foil food wrappers/packages (various sizes)
5. Several tissues
6. Several pieces of paper

The story: Working in the heart of the glamourous capital, in a swanky hotel, Angel doesn’t spend much time in her rented room in Jalan Imbi. At the beck and call of a host of demanding international guests, most of her meals are eaten out and then there’s the occasional bowl of maggi (instant noodles). "I know there’s a lot of things in my bag that I can recycle," she says."But it’s so hard to find those bins and I don’t see anyone coming around to collect this stuff."The place we rent is not so big lah, so there’s not much place to keep all our recycling."

The expert says ...

FROM plastic to papaya skin, so much could have been composted or recycled, says Professor Dr P. Agamuthu.

Scanning the long list of items from the five volunteers, he says almost all the paper packaging, cardboard and clothes tags could have been set aside for recycling.

When the package is part paper, part plastic, just separate the two and put them in the respective recycling bins.

Packaging that looks like foil or has a metallic looking coating inside should be put together with metals for recycling.

If you’re afraid of others getting a hold of personal details that often appear on bills, just tear them up before adding them to the paper recycling pile.

Even tissues and paper towels can be put into the paper recycling bin, if it’s just been used to wipe off water or a bit of make-up.

Just dry it before adding to the pile.But if the tissue has been used on a wound, it should be binned.The only packaging material that’s almost impossible to recycle is the brown wax paper often used to wrap chicken rice — where one side is covered in water-proof material.

Because it’s almost impossible to separate the plastic-like film from the paper, it goes straight into the bin.

The volunteers could have composted the food waste, says Agamuthu.Sure, it’s difficult but if done properly, it could reduce most of the waste that makes the rubbish bag end up stinky and soggy.

Food waste should be placed in a suitable container, air should be able to pass through and each layer of food waste covered with a bit of soil.

He does not recommend composting meat and bones as these are the items that attract most of the vermin and flies.What about the curry?Well, that should go down the kitchen sink, if it’s connected to the sewer, says Agamuthu.

Otherwise, that, too, goes into the bin. And then the kitty litter. Ideally, if there is space in the compound, the litter can be buried or composted. If that’s not possible, then the only alternative is to dispose of it the conventional way.

As for plastic mineral water bottles, do separate the caps and bottles. Though both are plastic, they’re different kinds.

Your recycler will be ever grateful.The greatest problem, says Agamuthu, is household items which are hazardous waste.

Among the five bins, there is only one — the mosquito mat.Such items include certain paints, cleaners and varnishes that now account for two per cent of all our household waste.

Even the handphone battery, the last few pills in the pack, that can of hair spray and the much loved bottle of perfume should be disposed off as hazardous waste.

"There’s no proper method of collection at the moment, so people have little choice but to throw it out with the rest of the rubbish."But you can contribute by reducing the amount you use, or finding non-hazardous alternatives."In the case of paint, donate any balance to someone who needs it or can finish it up instead of throwing it out," says Agamuthu.

Issues (Malaysia) : Free garbage collection stays

MALACCA: Garbage collection will remain free under the federal takeover of solid waste management next year.

Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said charges would only be levied after parties involved in the exercise were fully-equipped for the task entrusted to them.

They would need good garbage collection vehicles, effective recycling facilities and enough manpower to run the service.

"When all these are available, the government will introduce a polluters pay concept. This is a concept where charges are imposed on excessive garbage disposal," he said.

Ong said it was too early to discuss the issue of charges as the project was still on the drawing board.
Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had announced on Friday that the government had decided to streamline solid waste management services nationwide under a single entity.

"I would like to clarify that there will be no extra charges for solid waste management next year," Ong said after closing the World Chinese Debate Tournament at Multimedia University, Bukit Beruang, yesterday.

Ong said consumers were currently paying for solid waste management through assessment rates.In Ipoh, State Housing, Local Government and Public Transport Committee chairman Datuk Chang Ko Youn said the takeover will allow local authorities to concentrate on other issues affecting the people.

He said garbage collection had so far involved a lot of workers and resources.

"With the takeover, local authorities can concentrate on other issues," Chang said after opening a cleanliness campaign in conjunction with Visit Malaysia Year.

"The councils will, however, still be required to monitor the collection of solid wastes.

"He said the takeover would be on an interim basis for a year after which an agreement would be signed between the federal government and concessionaires.

For the northern region of the country, E-idaman would take over solid waste management.

Chang said local authorities would have to pay a certain sum to a fund to be set up by the federal government for garbage collection.The cost has to be worked out as local authorities have to deduct the administrative expenditure.

Citing the Ipoh City Council as an example, he said it had to spend RM47,300 on collecting between 550 and 600 metric tonnes of garbage daily.

On the RM100 million garbage disposal site in Lahat to replace the existing Bercham dump, he hoped the federal government will speed up construction activities.The 200ha dumpsite will serve Ipoh City, Kinta Barat, Kinta Selatan and Perak Tengah local councils.

Issues (Nepal) : Solid waste management crisis in Kathmandu Valley

Sunday, 21 January 2007

The problem of solid waste management in Kathmandu is caused not only by the inadequate systems for the collection, transfer and final disposal of solid waste but also by an abysmal level of public awareness. The Kathmandu municipal cooperation has for long been adopting various strategies for the safe disposal of solid waste.

The efforts in this regard got a boost with the His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMG/N) and the Government of Japan jointly launching a study, titled ‘The study on the Solid Waste Management for the Kathmandu Valley’, with technical assistance from Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

The 2001 national census put the total population of Kathmandu at about 700,000. The present population status of the city is, however, rather changed. The socio-political conflict that is presently plaguing the country has resulted in people from all over Nepal migrating into the capital, thereby drastically changing the city’s demographics. With such population figures and an estimated per capita waste generation of 1 litre per day, Kathmandu’s total generation of waste was found (according to Nippon Koel Co. Ltd. and Yachiyo Engineering Co. Ltd.’s Study of Solid waste management for Kathmandu Valley) to be a whopping 910 m3 per day, including commercial waste, street waste and waste from outskirts of the Kathmandu valley.

According to Rajesh Manandhar, head, solid waste management, Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC), of the total waste generated, no more than 93 per cent is being collected. The rest escapes collection because people throw their garbage here and there, often at the banks of the nearby river.

The final disposal of the collected waste is also an issue of major concern. Due to various conflicts between the Solid Waste Management and Resources Mobilisation Centre (SWMRMC) and the KMC, the disposal site has been shifting from one place to another. Manandhar says that at present, around 700-900 m3 of waste is dumped along and in the Bagmati River, in addition to some dumping in open spaces.

Dumping the waste so gives rise to a number of problems, including the threat of waste washout, the residents in the immediate surroundings getting affected by waste odour and the absence of mechanisms to control lechate and landfill gas.To minimise such problems, the SWMRMC, in close collaboration with the private sector organisation Luna Nepal Chemicals and Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd., has proposed a fresh site at Okharpauwa, 16 kms. west of Kathmandu, for the final disposal of solid waste. This decision has received two types of reactions: one response, primarily from those associated with the SWMRMC, has been to welcome the move, while the other (mostly representing KMC) has labelled it totally worthless due to the high transportation costs involved. The latter also questions the ethics of handing over the city’s waste to areas in the vicinity. The future of final disposal site, thus, is still rather uncertain.

To minimise waste, some have proposed the construction of a compost plant near the city. The plan to do so is still being worked out, and the final decision is yet to be announced.

As a big city, Kathmandu does not generate a huge amount of waste but the lack of a management system is fast giving the problem disastrous proportions. Simple solutions such as composting, recycling and private sector participation have been talked about but decision making has been slow and implementation weak. Recently, a taskforce was set up and private sector was being promoted to participate in the collection and dumping of waste. A door-to-door collection system was adopted. In context of solid waste, the implementation of the principle “polluter pays” seems more or less fruitful.People’s attitude has much to do with the worsening waste management situation in Nepal. “Out of sight, out of mind” and “not in my backyard” are the most common responses to the problem. This attitude, coupled with the habit of dumping garbage in areas where no one complains, is doing much damage. Otherwise, waste can actually be treated as a resource, since the waste generated by one can serve as the input for another process. If this theory was to be put into practice, no industry in the country would have to depend on another country for raw material, thus not only minimising waste, but also generating wealth.

So far as the legal provisions are concerned, though the Environmental Protection Act, 1997, has no direct provisions relating to solid waste management, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act have some provisions to conduct Environment Impact Assessment/Initial Environmental Examination. This Act needs to be strictly followed while selecting landfill site/s. Similarly, Section 7 of the Act bars anybody from creating pollution in a manner that can cause nuisance; have significant adverse impact on the environment; or be hazardous to public life and health. However, to achieve these ends, public awareness is the most crucial factor.
Prashanna Man Pradhan

Issues (Nepal) : Is solid waste really a waste?

Tuesday, 27 January 2004
We generally find people talking about solid waste problem in Kathmandu.Yes, it is definitely a problem, if it is not properly dealt with and scientifically managed. Solid waste can never be a problem by itself but it becomes a problem only when it is not managed properly. However, is solid waste really a waste? If properly recognized, it is a resource, rather than a waste. Waste by definition is something, which does not have any use and should be abandoned. But if we carefully look at the objects that we throw considering them as waste, we will find that the objects have many other uses and need not be thrown away just like that. It is just due to our ignorance that we do not recognize their value and, thus, throw them away. I, therefore, feel afraid to call it as solid waste, rather I would call it as solid material having a specific economic value.In the early days, our ancestors hardly threw away their wastes. Rather, they collected and transformed them into compost and used them in their agricultural fields. One can well argue that there is a big difference between then and now, as most of the things they used were of organic nature and, thus, could be converted into compost but now we use many synthetic objects, which cannot be decomposed.This is a valid argument, but to what extent? To exactly answer this question, one should know the composition of material that we throw everyday. Considering the composition of materials that are abandoned in the city, almost 70 percent is of organic nature, which can very well be decomposed as our ancestors did. This is a significant percentage and, unlike in the early days, there are technologies available now to transform them into usable products such as compost (either through aerobic composting or vermi-composting) or generation of biogas through digestion. Similarly, almost 9 percent of such materials consist of paper, mainly newspapers, which we should not throw away. Rather, we should collect them separately and sell them to the scrap dealers for recycling.Another most commonly used item is plastic, which constitutes almost 10 percent of the total materials. Plastics can also be collected separately and sold to scrap dealers for recycling as we do to paper. Likewise, glass constitutes almost 3 percent of the total material, including the bottles of beer, liquor, medicines etc. Of these, the bottles of beer and liquor are generally segregated and sold to scrap dealers for reuse. The remaining fraction of materials constitutes metal, rubber, wood, leather etc. Some of them could still be reused if segregated. This shows that only a small fraction of the waste needs to be disposed off, if properly managed. And we can make money out of them, as whatever we throw has an economic value attached to it. This can be accomplished even at the level of an individual household. There are examples already available in Kathmandu as to how we can produce rich organic manure at our own homes through vermi-composting. The manure can be used to grow vegetables in our kitchen garden or to grow flowers. But in reality, we throw away such valuable resources as waste. On top of that we want to invest a huge amount of money to dispose it off. In that sense, we want to invest money to throw our money. It is definitely not a sustainable way of managing solid waste. If the waste has an economic value, then why are we throwing it? It is mainly due to the lack of awareness. Most of us do not understand it’s value and those who know about it seldom try to tell others. We, as an individual or as an institution, hardly consider them as resources and focus only on how to get it rid.For recovery of resources from wastes, they should be segregated at source and mixing should be avoided. But in reality, the general principles of waste management are not practiced. As a result, waste is never separated at source; whatever comes in is mixed together and is finally thrown away. The scavengers do whatever segregation is possible during the collection of wastes, before they are brought to the dump-yard along the Bagmati river, near Sundarighat.Proper awareness campaign, formal/informal education and training on waste reduction, segregation and resource recovery are necessary. What would be more effective is demonstration of some of the existing systems such as vermi-composting, aerobic composting, plastic separation, etc. Some organizations and individuals have definitely made some efforts in this area, but they are far from adequate. The problem of solid waste management lies primarily with our perception. Nepal, being a poor country, should pay more attention on maximum utilization of the resources available in the form of waste, rather than on investing a huge amount of money to get rid of such wastes. Our objective should be to generate money from wastes rather than investing money to dispose the valuable resources.Deepak Raj AdhikariThe Kathmandu Post, January 27, 2004

California, America : An Overview of Solid Waste Issues

California is known for its landscapes, both natural and created. The expansive yards and "Sunset" gardens of the state’s urban and suburban communities are nearly as famous as the coastline, oak-dotted rolling hills, and the grand Sierra. But while the natural beauty of the Golden State has been gifted to its fortunate residents by Nature, the created beauty comes at a price.
To develop and maintain the cherished landscapes that frame our homes and buildings requires significant inputs. Water, soil amendments, fertilizer, hard-scaping, and other natural and manufactured resources come together to give us the greenery with which we surround ourselves. And out of these landscapes come the trimmings—grass, leaves, branches, and weeds—that need to be managed. Conventionally this has meant disposal: stuffing yard waste into garbage cans, piling it in the street, or hauling it to the dump. For many reasons this convention needs to change.
California generated over 40 million tons of municipal solid waste in 1990. At over eight pounds per person per day, Californians produce more waste than any other population. Official numbers derived from mandated studies put yard waste at about 15 percent of the total, or close to six million tons each year. Many believe that these numbers may be artificially low because the waste studies were performed during drought years when plant and weed growth was slowed by water restrictions.
Compounding concerns about the burden on California’s disposal systems were studies performed in the late 1980s, which indicated that the state was running out of landfill capacity. While some communities did have access to landfills that would, at current rates of filling, last for decades, 70 percent of the state’s population lived in counties that would face a capacity shortage within only 15 years. More frightening, the studies indicated 40 percent of the state’s population lived in ten counties with less than five years of remaining permitted landfill capacity. Without a decrease in filling rates or the development of new capacity, it was feared that many communities would soon have no place to put their waste.
Recognizing the urgency of this situation, the California Legislature passed the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Often referred to by its Assembly Bill (AB) number, 939, this Act created programs and modified existing laws to better manage the state’s residues. One of the most notable components of AB 939, and certainly that which gets the most public attention, is the waste reduction goals it sets. California cities and counties are required to plan for and implement programs to reduce the amount of generated waste that goes to landfills, or other disposal, 25 percent by the year 1995, and 50 percent by the turn of the century.
Additionally, AB 939 set out a preferred approach, or management hierarchy, for dealing with this waste. In order of preference this is: source reduction (also known as waste prevention), recycling and composting, transformation (which includes incineration), and lastly landfilling. The plans and programs developed by communities should follow this hierarchy in addressing waste issues. Finally, AB 939 created the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to coordinate the development and implementation of programs.
Other states in the U.S. have recognized similar waste management concerns within their borders and have reacted in a variety of ways. Many states have set waste reduction goals, though few are as aggressive as California’s 50 percent. On the other hand, some states have gone much further and simply banned the disposal of selected materials, most commonly yard waste. In 1994, nearly half the states had some form of yard waste disposal restriction in place, either at the state or local levels.
So far, legislative measures to restrict the disposal of any non-hazardous waste have not gone far in California. Preferring to leave the decision to local governments who best know what programs are feasible in their communities, the State has simply set goals to achieve. However, these goals should not be taken lightly. To achieve them will require the participation of every waste generator, public and private, and communities will be looking to those that produce the larger portions of the waste stream to help the most.
Practicing waste prevention doesn’t just make landscapers good citizens, it also can reduce their costs. Landscapers can save money by not paying to dispose of yard waste and by making their own mulch or compost

General : What is solid waste?

The sight of a dustbin overflowing and the stench rising from it, the all too familiar sights and smells of a crowded city. You look away from it and hold your nose as you cross it. Have you ever thought that you also have a role to play in the creation of this stench? That you can also play a role in the lessening of this smell and making this waste bin look a little more attractive if you follow proper methods of disposal of the waste generated in the house?

Since the beginning, humankind has been generating waste, be it the bones and other parts of animals they slaughter for their food or the wood they cut to make their carts. With the progress of civilization, the waste generated became of a more complex nature. At the end of the 19th century the industrial revolution saw the rise of the world of consumers. Not only did the air get more and more polluted but the earth itself became more polluted with the generation of nonbiodegradable solid waste. The increase in population and urbanization was also largely responsible for the increase in solid waste.

Each household generates garbage or waste day in and day out. Items that we no longer need or do not have any further use for fall in the category of waste, and we tend to throw them away. There are different types of solid waste depending on their source. In today’s polluted world, learning the correct methods of handling the waste generated has become essential. Segregation is an important method of handling municipal solid waste. Segregation at source can be understood clearly by schematic representation.One of the important methods of managing and treating wastes is composting.

As the cities are growing in size and in problems such as the generation of plastic waste, various municipal waste treatment and disposal methods are now being used to try and resolve these problems. One common sight in all cities is the rag picker who plays an important role in the segregation of this waste.

Garbage generated in households can be recycled and reused to prevent creation of waste at source and reducing amount of waste thrown into the community dustbins.

Four Rs (Refuse, Reuse, Recycle, Reduce) to be followed for waste management

1. Refuse. Instead of buying new containers from the market, use the ones that are in the house. Refuse to buy new items though you may think they are prettier than the ones you already have.

2. Reuse. Do not throw away the soft drink cans or the bottles; cover them with homemade paper or paint on them and use them as pencil stands or small vases.

3. Recycle. Use shopping bags made of cloth or jute, which can be used over and over again [will this come under recycle or reduce?].Segregate your waste to make sure that it is collected and taken for recycling.

4. Reduce. Reduce the generation of unnecessary waste, e.g. carry your own shopping bag when you go to the market and put all your purchases directly into it.

Issues (Thailand) : Workshop advocates better solid waste management

Chennai: The solution to the problem of municipal solid waste management begins at home— source segregation.
This was the substance of deliberations at a policy workshop and training programme on Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) organised by the Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency in association with the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand on Monday.
T. Sekar, Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) said the solution for solid waste management lay in four words— reduce, reuse, recover and recycle— a process that can reduce generation of waste at source. He said that the issue should be approached at the household, street and colony levels and called for an integrated solid waste management.
A.D. Bhide, Director Grade Scientist, formerly with the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, said a centrally sponsored scheme for infrastructure development in mega cities, including Chennai, was initiated during 1993-94 . The total cost of the project was to be shared by the Central and State Governments. It was now subsumed in the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, which encouraged fast track development of identified cities.
Almitra H. Patel, Member of the Supreme Court Committee for solid waste management said that the city waste first needs to be sanitised (free of smell, flies, smoke or fires, and producing minimum leachate that can pollute ground water). This obligatory duty should be done immediately, without waiting for fancy solutions or expecting an income from waste treatment.
"In small towns, this can be done by sprinkling each day's heaps of fresh waste with a five per cent solution of fresh cow dung in water plus five kg per tonne of rock phosphate powder," she said.
The second step was to stabilise the waste that can be sold as compost after sieving to remove plastics and unwanted items. Sieving was currently the major cost in compost production and will remain so until cities improved their collection of biodegradable waste free of recyclables, debris and road dust.
Minimising waste
Finally, the solution will minimise waste at source. This could be achieved by requiring users of above-average open spaces such as golf courses, race courses and clubs, large hotels or halls, colleges, housing estates to become zero garbage campuses or alternatively to pay, polluter-pays fees for trade wastes and wastes generated in the course of their activities. In the four-day training programme, a policy workshop will be held in which 40 engineers and officers from municipalities across the country will be exposed to the latest developments in solid waste management. The outcome of this workshop will help the Government in making policies towards ensuring effective solid waste management in the State, Anna University officials said.
C. Viswanathan, Professor of Environmental Engineering at the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand said that in most Asian countries, the most common practice of disposing solid waste was open dumping. This predicament made an enormous impact on the society, culture health and environment. Inadequate waste management and disposal practices combined with the tropical climatic influence results in increasing environmental problems in the Asian region, he said in a paper.
Among those who spoke were K. Jayaraman, Registrar, Anna University, R. Nagendran, Professor, Centre for Environmental Studies (CES), K. Thanasekaran, Director, CES, and Kurian Joseph, Assistant Professor, CES.

Better solid waste services once bills passed

PUTRAJAYA: Draft legislation that promises better solid waste management will be tabled at the next parliament session, the deputy prime minister said.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak said two new bills — the Solid Waste Management and Public Clean-up Bill and Solid Waste Management Corporation Bill — would provide for more systematic and effective waste disposal.

"The country’s solid waste management is an important matter and needs to be managed in the best possible way.

"It is a matter of public concern, and services rendered at the local authority level need to be improved," he said after chairing the Cabinet Committee on Solid Waste Management and Environment meeting.

Along with the bills, the interim agreements between concessionaires of solid waste management facilities, which were arranged under the national privatisation of solid waste management programme, would be turned into concession agreements.
However, once this was done, the concessionaires would be subjected to strict key performance index and have to meet standards set by the government.

The concessionaires include Southern Waste Management Sdn Bhd, which manages the storage, collection, transfer, hauling, intermediate processing and disposal of rubbish in the southern region of the peninsula (Johor, Malacca and Negri Sembilan) and Alam Flora Sdn Bhd, which provides solid waste management services for Selangor, Pahang, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.

The change in status was to enable the concessionaires to improve their services.

"They find it almost impossible to improve their services because they cannot upgrade their lorries or even employ more workers as they cannot get bank loans.

"Their services have been unsatisfactory but they cannot be entirely blamed as they were not operating under a formal agreement," he said.

A meeting among the local councils on the bills would be held on June 22. Local authorities spend about RM854 million, or 60 per cent, of their annual budget on waste disposal services.

Najib also said the proposed Solid Waste Management Corporation would be placed under the purview of the Housing and Local Government Ministry.

The committee agreed that issues surrounding the 680ha Bukit Tagar landfill, situated 50km from Kuala Lumpur, should be addressed speedily.

The landfill, he said, would ease the solid waste problem in the Federal Territory and Selangor.

ENVIRONMENT: Cleaning up a dirty business

Through years of towering waste heaps and leaky, bloated landfills, there have been far too many complaints and no universally acceptable options. Things are about to change, writes ELIZABETH JOHN

THE solid waste problem is one that’s been waiting a long time for a fix. Finally, this week, a part of the solution arrived with the passing of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Bill.

It promises a little order to the chaos, a clampdown on Malaysia’s throwmania and crucial changes to the way the industry operates.

Authority over solid waste and public cleansing moves from states and local authorities to the federal government.

They now have the power to make agreements with service providers, setting terms, standards and determining the charges and fees for services.
Service providers will be governed by Key Performance Index which will be part of the concession agreements.

With this bill comes the setting up of a specialised government department headed by its very own director-general of Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management — not one that is forced to look into everything from housing to local government.

A second bill — the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation — will see the creation of a body to enforce the new law.

Service providers, and owners and operators of facilities like landfills, move from being contractors to licensees. Their licences are renewable and revocable.

Failure to keep to the terms of their licence — which includes even the frequency of service — will result in some of the stiffest penalties in the bill.

The corporation can even take over when a licensed service provider becomes insolvent.

It also has responsibilities to consumers. The corporation must ensure that service providers do a proper job and must make efforts to improve operational efficiency.

The new laws do not provide consumers with a direct avenue of complaint like the National Water Forum does.

But it is learnt that the department and corporation will put in place a mechanism to deal with public complaints.

It provides for the Tribunal for Solid Waste Management Services. The tribunal will deal with claims, especially those of fees and charges owed to service providers. It can also deal with customers who are not happy with the charges imposed on them.

The new law gives the government power to deal with problems like scavengers, unregistered collectors of recyclable items and illegal dumping.

The construction of landfills must meet tough requirements and something can be done about those built without proper approval before the law came into force.

There will also be the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Fund to cover the government’s expenses in ensuring continued solid waste management services.

The government can now make rules on recycling.

It can make manufacturers take back and safely dispose off or recycle products.

---

Waste managers seeking clearer picture



OF the many who’ve been waiting a decade for the new bill on the block, waste industry players and professionals are probably the most worried and excited.

For this group, the first chance to dissect and discuss the recently passed Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Bill comes as quickly as next month.

Although the annual Waste Management Conference and Exhibition is about a myriad issues the industry grapples with, this year, most will be asking all about the bill.

They’ll be hearing from Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting and the ministry’s secretary-general, Datuk Ahmad Fuad Ismail, who are scheduled to speak.

This year, they want to move away from problems and focus on solutions, says K.N. Gobinathan, the vice-president of the co-organisers Ensearch.

"How will the system of private concessionaires work? Will it be a monopoly or is there room for many to participate?

"Hopefully, we’ll get some answers and a chance to express our opinions," he says.

The conference and exhibition is aptly focused on solid waste which the Environmental Management and Research Association of Malaysia considers one of the top environmental problems in the country.

Poor management has led to many problems and public attitude towards waste is not all it should be, says Gobinathan.

Making the bill happen has also been a very slow process, says Ensearch president Peter Ho Yueh Chuen.

And in the many years of the bill’s drafting, tweaking and fine-tuning, the industry has been left in a limbo.

In order for industry to play its role, it needs to know the parameters and downstream industries like recycling must also know where they stand in the larger scheme of things.

"Something must be done after a wait of 10 years and it must be done soon."

Groups like Ensearch will be asking what role they can play as professional organisations.

The association feels that there is much professionals can help the ministry with, especially building capacity.

It is now working towards setting up the Institute of Environmental Professionals to help deal with issues of solid and scheduled waste and environment impact assessments.

The group expects the conference to be of interest to the public and would like to see discussion on public participation and a bigger role for non-governmental organisations.

There will also be a special session on scheduled waste during the two-day conference.

Much of the discussions will revolve around regulations introduced in 2005 and its impact on the industry in the past one-and-a half years, said Ensearch honorary secretary-general Geetha Kumaran.

Hot topics include the prohibition on the trading of scheduled wastes, and the lack of technology and finance to recycle scheduled waste in the country.

The WM 2007 is organised by Ensearch and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It will be held at Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre, Petaling Jaya on Aug 7-8.

Issues (Malaysia) : Study on managing solid waste

THE Cabinet committee on solid waste management is studying the impact of incinerators, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said.


He said the committee was looking into various ways to manage solid waste, besides using incinerators.



“The Cabinet committee, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, will decide on the ways and technology to manage solid waste,” he said.
He was winding up the debate on Budget 2007 for his ministry.


Ong said the committee would look into the pros and cons of incinerators before submitting a report to the Cabinet.


“The Cabinet had approved the Solid Waste Management Bill and we hope to table it in Parliament this session,” he added.

Issues (other countries): Solid-waste Pollution In Lusaka

Contributed by Henry Kyambalesa
ZAMBIA, Nov. 10 -
1. INTRODUCTION.--Solid waste, like air and water pollution, is a form of environmental pollution that is mainly a by-product of human activities. As such, it is an inescapable problem in every human society. It is, by and large, a culmination of discarded products or parts of products--including broken and non-reusable bottles, metal cans, plastic sacks and containers, newspapers, and automobile parts and bodies.

Lusaka city, like many other cities in modern Zambia, is currently experiencing serious problems at all stages of solid-waste management--that is, the collection, sorting, transportation, and disposal of garbage. The seriousness of this problem is summed up by the UN Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) in an article dated May 20, 2004 entitled "Zambia: Failure to Manage Urban Waste" found at http://www.queensu.ca/ as follows:

"Heaped garbage, a choking smell and pools of stagnant water sum up the state of Soweto market, the largest open-air trading area in Zambia's capital ... [and] are a sign of how urban waste management has failed in what was once called the `garden city' but is now cynically referred to as `garbage city'".

2. A HEALTH HAZARD.--The accumulation of solid waste in the capital city can be attributed to many factors, including the following: (a) public attitudes that are alleged to be generally characterized by lack of concern for the quality of surroundings; (b) failure by local authorities to prioritize garbage collection and disposal; (c) lax enforcement of by-laws relating to littering and other forms of contamination in public surroundings; (d) rampant and uncontrolled street vending; and (e) lack of financial and material resources resulting from irregular support in the form of grants from the central government.

But regardless of the reasons for the unprecedented accumulation of solid wastes in Lusaka city--and in other urban and sub-urban centers of Zambia, as a matter of fact--it is perhaps important to underscore the fact that such wastes are a serious health hazard. For instance, piles of uncollected solid-wastes facilitate the formation of pools of stagnant water and create breeding grounds for mosquitoes and, as such, dispose residents to the deadly malaria parasite.

Besides, outbreaks of cholera, meningitis and other contagious diseases in the country have been directly linked to the absence of effective solid-waste disposal systems, together with the lack of potable water in some communities and unhygienic street-vending of foodstuff.

The congestion of people in the city's urban and sub-urban areas occasioned by rural-to-urban migration has perhaps exacerbated the potential for outbreaks of communicable diseases in such areas. Inevitably, the potential health risks have become more profound and mind-boggling given the city's lack of adequate resources to provide for decent social services, public amenities and improved sanitary conditions to unprecedented numbers of residents.

Members of the MANGOKA Secretariat--who represent the residents of Marapodi, N'gombe and Kamanga residential areas in matters of refuse collection and disposal, and public health and sanitation--would perhaps provide us with a more precise and down-to-earth account of the potential health hazards associated with high levels of solid wastes in the capital city, whose sources include households and both commercial and industrial undertakings.

3. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.--A viable and long-term solution to the problem of solid-waste pollution is regular collection and recycling of all forms of solid waste. For example, plastics, discarded metals, and paper wastes can be collected and recycled into usable raw materials. Another feasible solution to the problem of solid wastes is the production of biodegradable products--that is, any products that are made in such a way that they can be naturally broken down into elements that are less harmful to the physical environment upon being disposed of.

Moreover, making reusable products and parts of products can greatly contribute to the mitigation of solid wastes. For example, containers can be designed in such a way that they can be used for other purposes once their original contents are exhausted. Junk yards are certainly not a viable solution to the problem of solid-waste pollution because they, among other reasons, take up areas that need to be reserved for commercial, residential, recreational, and/or other worthwhile purposes.

Besides, it is essential for the Zambian government to require locally based organizations to include environmental impact statements in their business plans or corporate charters. Suggestively, such statements need to incorporate the following, among other things: (a) identification of potential impacts of their operations on the environment; and (b) a description of measures they are geared to take in managing these impacts to tolerable levels.

It is also important for the government to provide adequately for the material and financial needs of the Environmental Council of Zambia, which was created under the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act of 1990 to protect the environment and control pollution so as to provide for the health and welfare of persons, and the environment as follows: coordination of environmental management; promotion of awareness about the need to protect the fragile natural environment; and enforcement of regulations pertaining to the control and prevention of air, water and solid-waste pollution.

Further, inclusion of subjects or courses of study aimed at sensitizing citizens to environmental issues and problems in the curricula of all educational and vocational training institutions can lead to conduct among citizens that is environmentally benign. To be effective, such education needs to be interdisciplinary in nature; in other words, it needs to be aimed at preparing citizens to be: (a) knowledgeable about the interrelatedness of biophysical and socio-cultural environments of which humans are a constituent part; (b) aware of environmental issues and problems and of viable alternatives in resolving the issues and problems; and (c) motivated to work voluntarily toward the protection and improvement of the fragile natural environment.

Sources of Pollution

Solid-waste Pollution:

Types of Solid Wastes

Components of Solid Wastes

The Problem of Solid Wastes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Managing Solid Wastes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Solid Wastes in the West Bank

Solid Wastes in Gaza Strip

Types of Solid Wastes

1. Household wastes: the wastes of houses, hotels and restaurants.

2. Wastes of agricultural activities including both plant and organic wastes.

3. Wastes of mining and industries

4. Wastes of construction activities and various installations.

Other Types of Wastes:

1. Hazardous Wastes, such as the chemical compounds, water and mineral solutions, mercury compounds which result from the chemical industries, electronic industries, paper industry, insecticides and medical wastes as well as the plastic materials and biological pesticides. Until now there is no any administration responsible for handling the hazardous solid wastes; however, one can impose compliance with the required environmental conditions and obtain a special authorization from the Ministry of Environment to undertake collecting or transferring these matters.

2. Medical Wastes: these are the garbage of medical laboratories, hospitals, private clinics, and veterinary health centers. The refuse contains used syringes, tubes, and containers. These are dumped into the garbage containers which belong to the Municipality. Such wastes can transmit diseases to people; however, they can be controlled by putting them into sterilized bags and then dumping them in special garbage containers.

3. Biological Pesticides: these are used to protect humans, animals and plants from the harmful effects brought about by some insects, rodents, noxious herbs, fungi, and bacteria. The biological pesticides are very important as they largely contribute to the increase of agricultural production.

Gaza Strip alone uses 100 tons of these pesticides, consisting of 36 insecticides, 20 herbicides, and 19 fungicides, whilst the West Bank uses 30 types of pesticides in Tulkarem, 30 pesticides in Ramallah and Hebron, and 10 pesticides in Jerusalem.

The risks of using such pesticides are associated with:

1. The disturbance of the ecological balance.

2. The harm caused to the public health, especially to the users of pesticides.

3. The contamination of surface water and groundwater.

All these types of wastes can be disposed of without causing any environmental harm by handling or recycling them. These wastes can also be exploited depending on the availability of the appropriate environmental management and the technical experiences.

Some of the major problems that result from the solid wastes in the Palestinian Territories are:

1. The decrease of the surface area of lands owing to their use as dumps for solid waste disposal. As a result, these lands are considered closed areas because they emit toxic gases that are detrimental to health.

2. The inconvenience caused to people due to the unpleasant smells and the spread of insects that gather on these solid wastes as well as the emitted smoke from the burning of such wastes.

3. The contamination of surface water and groundwater due to the decomposition of the solid wastes.

4. Disfiguring landscapes.

- Components of Solid Wastes

The components of solid wastes in Palestine are the same as the ones in the neighboring countries. Most of the solid wastes in the cities consist of plastic and paper used for wrapping and packing purposes, in addition to the solid wastes of hospitals known as medical wastes. Also, the solid wastes which are noticeable in the cities include other substances such as aluminum, glass and construction wastes. Meanwhile, the solid wastes in the rural and agricultural areas are marked by being organic wastes of plants and animals.

- The Problem of Solid Wastes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

The estimated weight of solid wastes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1994 is 1000 tons a day. Thus the solid wastes in a year will equal 365,000 tons. It is expected that the weight of solid wastes in the year 2010 will reach 3900 tons a day and in a year the weight will be 1423.5 thousand tons.

The following chart shows the expected amount of solid wastes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the year 2010 in comparison with 1994:

Area	Weight of Solid Wastes Ton/Day		Weight of Solid Waste1000 Ton/Year		Amount of Solid Wastes 1000 M3
	1994	2010	1994	2010	1994	2010
Gaza Strip	400	1500	146	547.5	438	1643.5
West Bank	600	2400	219	876	657	2628
Total	1000	3900	365	1423.5	--	4271.5

Managing Solid Wastes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

The solid wastes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are transferred outside the borders of municipalities to randomly chosen areas that contradict with the conditions of environment protection. These solid wastes are not totally burned up; as a result the bottom layers of these wastes become a place for insects, rodents, and unpleasant smells.

The regulations in the big cities regarding the solid wastes dumps include the following:

1. Collecting garbage placed outside homes, by sanitation workers of the municipalities and UNRWA, and transferring it to small garbage bins or even the citizens can do such work by putting the garbage in plastic bags.

2. The small garbage bins are taken away outside the areas to refuse dumps by the municipality trucks. However, 70 percent of the Palestinian residential areas lack the necessary regulations for collecting wastes.

- Solid Wastes in the West Bank

The offered service of collecting solid wastes covers 67 percent of the West Bank population. However, the collection of these wastes is carried out randomly as these wastes are thrown on the ground outside the allocated dumps, the sides of streets, and around the garbage containers. Therefore, these wastes cause harmful effects to the public health particularly after burning them inside the refuse containers, causing smoke emission.

There are 100 sites in the West Bank for collecting plant wastes. The largest site, refuse dump, is located nearby Abu Dees Village on an area that measures 3000 donums. This area is under the Israeli control and it is allocated for serving the adjacent Israeli settlements.

- Solid Wastes in Gaza Strip

The solid wastes in Gaza Strip cannot be compared with the ones in the West Bank. However, the service of collecting solid wastes offered in Gaza Strip covers a larger percentage of population than the one in the West Bank due to the densely populated areas.

The solid wastes in Gaza Strip are disposed of in scattered and small refuse dumps. Currently there are two dumps for solid wastes; the first is in Gaza City and the second is in Deir Al-Balah. Also, there is a refuse dump eastern Rafah City and a project proposal for another one eastern Gaza City. The problems of solid wastes still exist in the north and south of Gaza Strip.