Basic Facts
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
MSW—more commonly known as trash or garbage—consists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. To learn more about MSW, view our interactive presentation about Milestones in Garbage: 1990–Present.
In 2005, U.S. residents, businesses, and institutions produced more than 245 million tonsof MSW, which is approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day.
Several MSW management practices, such as source reduction, recycling, and composting, prevent or divert materials from the wastestream. Source reduction involves altering the design, manufacture, or use of products and materials to reduce the amount and toxicity of what gets thrown away. Recycling diverts items, such as paper, glass, plastic, and metals, from the wastestream. These materials are sorted, collected, and processed and then manufactured, sold, and bought as new products. Composting decomposes organic waste, such as food scraps and yard trimmings, with microorganisms (mainly bacteria and fungi), producing a humus-like substance.
Other practices address those materials that require disposal. Landfills are engineered areas where waste is placed into the land. Landfills usually have liner systems and other safeguards to prevent groundwater contamination. Combustion is another MSW practice that has helped reduce the amount of landfill space needed. Combustion facilities burn MSW at a high temperature, reducing waste volume and generating electricity.
Solid Waste Hierarchy
EPA has ranked the most environmentally sound strategies for MSW. Source reduction (including reuse) is the most preferred method, followed by recycling and composting, and, lastly, disposal in combustion facilities and landfills.
Currently, in the United States, 32 percent is recovered and recycled or composted, 14 percent is burned at combustion facilities, and the remaining 54 percent is disposed of in landfills.
Source Reduction (Waste Prevention)
Source reduction can be a successful method of reducing waste generation. Practices such as grasscycling, backyard composting, two-sided copying of paper, and transport packaging reduction by industry have yielded substantial benefits through source reduction.
Source reduction has many environmental benefits. It prevents emissions of many greenhouse gases, reduces pollutants, saves energy, conserves resources, and reduces the need for new landfills and combustors.
Recycling
Recycling, including composting, diverted 79 million tons of material away from disposal in 2005, up from 15 million tons in 1980, when the recycle rate was just 10% and 90% of MSW was being combusted with energy recovery or disposed of by landfilling.
Typical materials that are recycled include batteries, recycled at a rate of 99%, paper and paperboard at 50%, and yard trimmings at 62%. These materials and others may be recycled through curbside programs, drop-off centers, buy-back programs, and deposit systems.
Recycling prevents the emission of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants, saves energy, supplies valuable raw materials to industry, creates jobs, stimulates the development of greener technologies, conserves resources for our children's future, and reduces the need for new landfills and combustors.
Recycling also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions that affect global climate. In 1996, recycling of solid waste in the United States prevented the release of 33 million tons of carbon into the air-roughly the amount emitted annually by 25 million cars.
Combustion/Incineration
Burning MSW can generate energy while reducing the amount of waste by up to 90 percent in volume and 75 percent in weight.
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is primarily responsible for regulating combustors because air emissions from combustion pose the greatest environmental concern.
Recycling also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions that affect global climate. In 2005, the national recycling rate of 32 percent prevented the release of approximately 49 million metric tons of carbon into the air--roughly the amount emitted annually by 39 million cars, or 1400 trillion BTUs, saving energy equivalent to 11 billion gallons of gasoline.
Landfills
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), landfills that accept MSW are primarily regulated by state, tribal, and local governments. EPA, however, has established national standards these landfills must meet in order to stay open. Municipal landfills can, however, accept household hazardous waste.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted by Congress in 1976 and amended in 1984. The act's primary goal is to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal. In addition, RCRA calls for conservation of energy and natural resources, reduction in waste generated, and environmentally sound waste management practices.
The number of landfills in the United States is steadily decreasing—from 8,000 in 1988 to 1,654 in 2005. The capacity, however, has remained relatively constant. New landfills are much larger than in the past.
Household Hazardous Waste
Households often discard many common items such as paint, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides, that contain hazardous components. Leftover portions of these products are called household hazardous waste (HHW). These products, if mishandled, can be dangerous to your health and the environment.
Environmental Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms
EPA provides a glossary that defines in non-technical language commonly used environmental terms appearing in EPA publications and materials. It also explains abbreviations and acronyms used throughout EPA.
posted by Lim Shun Li
Friday, November 2, 2007
MSW management : reduce and recycle
Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle
Produce Less Waste by Practicing the 3 Rs:
Reduce the amount and toxicity of trash you discard.
Reuse containers and products; repair what is broken or give it to someone who can repair it.
Recycle as much as possible, which includes buying products with recycled content.
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)
EPA's national effort to conserve natural resources and energy by managing materials more efficiently
Reduce
Waste prevention, or "source reduction," means consuming and throwing away less. It includes:
purchasing durable, long-lasting goods;
seeking products and packaging that are as free of toxics as possible;
redesigning products to use less raw material in production, have a longer life, or be used again after its original use.
Source reduction actually prevents the generation of waste in the first place, so it is the most preferred method of waste management and goes a long way toward protecting the environment.
More About Source Reduction
Source Reduction Publications and Software
Ways to Reuse
Using durable coffee mugs.
Using cloth napkins or towels.
Refilling bottles.
Donating old magazines or surplus equipment.
Reusing boxes.
Turning empty jars into containers for leftover food.
Purchasing refillable pens and pencils.
Participating in a paint collection and reuse program.
Reuse
Reusing items -- by repairing them, donating them to charity and community groups, or selling them -- also reduces waste. Reusing products, when possible, is even better than recycling because the item does not need to be reprocessed before it can be used again.
More About Reuse
Recycle
Benefits of Recycling
Conserves resources for our children's future.
Prevents emissions of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants.
Saves energy.
Supplies valuable raw materials to industry.
Creates jobs.
Stimulates the development of greener technologies.
Reduces the need for new landfills and incinerators.
Recycling turns materials that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. In addition, it generates a host of environmental, financial, and social benefits. Materials like glass, metal, plastics, and paper are collected, separated and sent to facilities that can process them into new materials or products.
Recycling is one of the best environmental success stories of the late 20th century. Recycling, including composting, diverted 79 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2005, up from 34 million tons in 1990. By 2002, almost 9,000 curbside collection programs served roughly half of the American population. Curbside programs, along with drop-off and buy-back centers, resulted in a diversion of about 32 percent of the nation's solid waste in 2005.
More About Recycling
Recycle on the Go – EPA's campaign to put recycling places in public spaces
Recycling Publications
Buying Recycled Products
There's more to recycling than setting out your recyclables at the curb. In order to make recycling economically feasible, we must buy recycled products and packaging. When we buy recycled products, we create an economic incentive for recyclable materials to be collected, manufactured, and marketed as new products. Buying recycled has both economic and environmental benefits. Purchasing products made from or packaged in recycled materials saves resources for future generations.
More About Buying Recycled Products
Benefits of Composting
Keeps organic wastes out of landfills.
Provides nutrients to the soil.
Increases beneficial soil organisms (e.g., worms and centipedes).
Suppresses certain plant diseases.
Reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides.
Protects soils from erosion.
Assists pollution remediation.
Composting
Another form of recycling is composting. Composting is the controlled biological decomposition of organic matter, such as food and yard wastes, into humus, a soil-like material. Composting is nature's way of recycling organic waste into new soil, which can be used in vegetable and flower gardens, landscaping, and many other applications.
More About Composting
Household Hazardous Waste
Common household items such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides contain hazardous components. One way to help determine if your household waste has hazardous components is to read the labels on products. Labels that read "danger," "warning," "caution," "toxic," "corrosive," "flammable," or "poison" identify products that might contain hazardous materials. Leftover portions of these products are called household hazardous waste (HHW). These products, if mishandled, can be dangerous to your health and the environment.
Although we cannot completely stop using hazardous products, we can make sure that leftovers are managed properly. The best way to handle HHW is to reduce the amount initially generated by giving leftover products to someone else to use. Although federal laws allow the disposal of HHW in the trash, many communities have collection programs for HHW to reduce the potential harm posed by these chemicals. These programs ensure the safe disposal of HHW in facilities designed to treat or dispose of hazardous waste. More than 3,000 HHW collection programs exist in the United States.
posted by Lim Shun Li
Produce Less Waste by Practicing the 3 Rs:
Reduce the amount and toxicity of trash you discard.
Reuse containers and products; repair what is broken or give it to someone who can repair it.
Recycle as much as possible, which includes buying products with recycled content.
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)
EPA's national effort to conserve natural resources and energy by managing materials more efficiently
Reduce
Waste prevention, or "source reduction," means consuming and throwing away less. It includes:
purchasing durable, long-lasting goods;
seeking products and packaging that are as free of toxics as possible;
redesigning products to use less raw material in production, have a longer life, or be used again after its original use.
Source reduction actually prevents the generation of waste in the first place, so it is the most preferred method of waste management and goes a long way toward protecting the environment.
More About Source Reduction
Source Reduction Publications and Software
Ways to Reuse
Using durable coffee mugs.
Using cloth napkins or towels.
Refilling bottles.
Donating old magazines or surplus equipment.
Reusing boxes.
Turning empty jars into containers for leftover food.
Purchasing refillable pens and pencils.
Participating in a paint collection and reuse program.
Reuse
Reusing items -- by repairing them, donating them to charity and community groups, or selling them -- also reduces waste. Reusing products, when possible, is even better than recycling because the item does not need to be reprocessed before it can be used again.
More About Reuse
Recycle
Benefits of Recycling
Conserves resources for our children's future.
Prevents emissions of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants.
Saves energy.
Supplies valuable raw materials to industry.
Creates jobs.
Stimulates the development of greener technologies.
Reduces the need for new landfills and incinerators.
Recycling turns materials that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. In addition, it generates a host of environmental, financial, and social benefits. Materials like glass, metal, plastics, and paper are collected, separated and sent to facilities that can process them into new materials or products.
Recycling is one of the best environmental success stories of the late 20th century. Recycling, including composting, diverted 79 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2005, up from 34 million tons in 1990. By 2002, almost 9,000 curbside collection programs served roughly half of the American population. Curbside programs, along with drop-off and buy-back centers, resulted in a diversion of about 32 percent of the nation's solid waste in 2005.
More About Recycling
Recycle on the Go – EPA's campaign to put recycling places in public spaces
Recycling Publications
Buying Recycled Products
There's more to recycling than setting out your recyclables at the curb. In order to make recycling economically feasible, we must buy recycled products and packaging. When we buy recycled products, we create an economic incentive for recyclable materials to be collected, manufactured, and marketed as new products. Buying recycled has both economic and environmental benefits. Purchasing products made from or packaged in recycled materials saves resources for future generations.
More About Buying Recycled Products
Benefits of Composting
Keeps organic wastes out of landfills.
Provides nutrients to the soil.
Increases beneficial soil organisms (e.g., worms and centipedes).
Suppresses certain plant diseases.
Reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides.
Protects soils from erosion.
Assists pollution remediation.
Composting
Another form of recycling is composting. Composting is the controlled biological decomposition of organic matter, such as food and yard wastes, into humus, a soil-like material. Composting is nature's way of recycling organic waste into new soil, which can be used in vegetable and flower gardens, landscaping, and many other applications.
More About Composting
Household Hazardous Waste
Common household items such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides contain hazardous components. One way to help determine if your household waste has hazardous components is to read the labels on products. Labels that read "danger," "warning," "caution," "toxic," "corrosive," "flammable," or "poison" identify products that might contain hazardous materials. Leftover portions of these products are called household hazardous waste (HHW). These products, if mishandled, can be dangerous to your health and the environment.
Although we cannot completely stop using hazardous products, we can make sure that leftovers are managed properly. The best way to handle HHW is to reduce the amount initially generated by giving leftover products to someone else to use. Although federal laws allow the disposal of HHW in the trash, many communities have collection programs for HHW to reduce the potential harm posed by these chemicals. These programs ensure the safe disposal of HHW in facilities designed to treat or dispose of hazardous waste. More than 3,000 HHW collection programs exist in the United States.
posted by Lim Shun Li
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Safe options in managing waste
By R B Bhattacharjee
Thanks to our current lifestyle, disposing of trash has become a billion-ringgit problem. An average Malaysian household produces 0.8kg of waste a day,
while Klang Valley residents weigh in with 1.5kg daily. That doesn’t seem like much until it is multiplied across a population of 25 million. Last year, Malaysians generated in excess of 7.3 million tonnes of garbage, enough to fill 42 Petronas Twin Towers, as one famous example has it. Local authorities spend about RM854 million —
or 60% — of their annual budget on waste-disposal services.
For decades, this by-product of urbanisation was tipped into 246 dumpsites around the peninsula. Most of these facilities are anything but sanitary,
receiving all kinds of hazardous discards that make them environmental disasters. The problem is due to the copious leachate that seeps into the
ground or flows into nearby rivers, contaminating the water supply in many places.
But time is running out for local governments. Waste management experts forecast that over 80% of dumpsites in the country will be filled to the brim in less than two years. Already, scores of sites that have reached their capacity have been closed.
“We have to adopt waste reduction soon,” says the environmental crusader Gurmit Singh. “Basically, the people who generate waste must be prepared
to pay for it.” The situation has become so grave that a Cabinet committee on solid waste management had to be set up earlier this year. At the end of April, Deputy
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who heads the panel, ordered 16 of the dumpsites that posed a threat to public health to be closed immediately. Another 33 that were situated close to water sources would have to be shut down as soon as possible.
Alternatives at our disposal
What then do we do with our urban waste? Three approaches are on the table: incinerators, sanitary landfills and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) plants.
Waste incineration has been tried with mixed results, including in Langkawi, Pangkor, Tioman and Labuan islands, where small 15-ton thermal plants
have been built. But the incinerator planned for Broga, about 50km south of Kuala Lumpur, is the grand-daddy of them all. Touted to be the largest in Asia, it will cost RM1.5 billion to build and have a capacity of 1,500 tons per day. However, the project, to be developed by Ebara Corp of Japan, has run smack into
protests from day one.
The primary objection against burning solid waste is its high cost. Ton for ton, incineration is twice as costly as tipping waste into a sanitary landfill. When capital costs are included, the ratio jumps dramatically. And that’s just the tip of the dump heap, say opponents of incineration. A by-product of incineration is dioxin, which has been billed as the most dangerous substance made by man.
Critics of the proposed incinerator say the plant is projected to have a lifespan of just 20 to 25 years. That provides too small a window for waste
management at a high cost, they argue. A major problem with waste incineration in the tropics, says the Philippines-based anti-incinerator group Gaia, is that the trash is extremely wet, typically with over 40% moisture content. In Malaysia, this can rise to 60%, says an industry expert. In theory, the waste could be dried, but this means
providing holding facilities, and therefore poses logistical problems, given the quantity and constant generation of waste.
A second option is to spray the waste with fuel to promote burning, but that would push up the costs of waste treatment further. Then there is the question of what is to be done with the incinerator ash. For every three tons of garbage burnt, one ton of toxic ash will be produced, according to a Sahabat Alam Malaysia statement on the project’s environmental impact assessment report.
The Broga project proponents propose to dump the ash in the vicinity of Sungai Saringgit, upstream of a water intake point on the Semenyih river. The
water from the river supplies some two million people in the Klang Valley, Putrajaya and Negri Sembilan. The project’s advocates, on their part, have proposed a further treatment of the waste by vitrification, or combining the toxic waste with glass, which is inert, before it is buried. This raises the question of further costs, but may be necessary to address safety concerns.
“The problem with incineration is maintenance, for which our country has a bad track record,” says Gurmit. “So, it won’t be a surprise if there is a problem one or two years down the road.”
“We are not like Japan or Singapore, which have a good maintenance culture.
“The central question in the incinerator issue concerns dioxin. Who will monitor the dioxin level, and will the monitoring be continuous? These details are
not known,” he points out.
“That is why we have been asking for information about the project to be made public, so that people can identify the potential problems.
“For example, in the case of Bukit Nanas [toxic waste facility], it was only required to monitor the dioxin level once in six months because there were no
testing facilities available then,” says Gurmit.
Given the potential for things to go wrong, it is not suprising that residents in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator have tried to stop it. A first suit was filed by residents of Kampung Broga in November 2003 to get the full details of the project.
On Feb 14 last year, residents of a neighbouring housing estate, Taman Tasik Semenyih, who filed a second suit to stop the project altogether, obtained an interim stop work order.
Dr Zulkefly Mohd Omar, the chairman of the Broga residents sub-committee against the incinerator project is optimistic that the residents will win their
court battle. An encouraging sign, he says, is that the Department of Environment (DoE) has rejected the proposal for a landfill at Broga because it will be located in
the water catchment area.
“Over two million people receive water from the Semenyih river, exposing them to high risk if toxic chemicals leach into the water supply.
“The incinerator is not suitable because all kinds of plastic and metals like aluminium will be burnt, posing a grave danger to the people,” Zulkefly says.
“The RDF plant [in Semenyih] is a better proposal because it has a lesser impact on the environment.”
But these are partial solutions at best, says Zulkefly. “The recycling campaign must be reactivated. Zero waste should become part of our lives.”
For Zulkefly, the track record for incinerators in the country speaks for itself. “The Langkawi incinerator, which is based on Swiss technology, has been
closed down because the waste was too wet. That should be a lesson for us,” he says.
Landfill cheaper, safer
In comparison, disposing waste in a sanitary landfill is a much cheaper and safer option, provided leachate is properly handled.
“Landfill management is all about leachate, leachate and leachate,” says KUB-Berjaya Enviro (KBE) managing director Chock Eng Tah, who is in charge
of the Bukit Tagar sanitary landfill.
Situated 25km from Rawang, the landfill occupies over 687ha nestled in a tranquil oil palm estate. “We could receive more than the 1,500 tonnes that we currently take, but the capacity of the leachate treatment plant must be upgraded first,” says Chock.
To ensure that the leachate does not contaminate water sources, the sanitary landfill’s waste disposal cells are protected by a high-density polyurethane (HDP) liner. Leachate that collects at the bottom is pumped into a holding pond, and then to the treatment plant, where aerobic bacteria get to work on it.
At the current rate of waste production in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, says Chock, the Bukit Tagar landfill will take 40 years to fill.
From an environmental point of view, it is important that no leachate leaks into the ground water. While surface leachate can be treated, the experience of other countries with ground water contamination has proved costly. Ground water monitoring is needed to avoid problems later. The quality of the lining must also be sufficient to ensure that there is no breach in the insulation. The Bukit Tagar facility came under the spotlight in March and April when various quarters sought to trace the source of pollution that led to the shutdown of water supply to parts of the Klang Valley.
Chock maintains that the facility is built to international standards and complies with the DoE’s strict guidelines on solid waste management.
KBE was asked by the federal government at the end of 2003 to prepare an advance cell at Bukit Tagar to receive solid waste from Kuala Lumpur City
Hall (DBKL) when the Selangor government landfill at Air Hitam, Puchong, was closed to DBKL, says Chock.
While Phase 1 of the landfill and the leachate treatment plant was being prepared, leachate from the advance cell was held at a secured holding pond to prevent contamination of water sources. The advance cell will need to be closed in two months, says Chock, unless permission is granted for a six-month extension. By that time, Phase 1 would be ready, he says.
In the face of a growing waste management problem, a 4R strategy — reduce, reuse, recycle and recover — has become increasingly necessary, especially as a consumerist culture takes hold in society. With some 40% of municipal solid waste consisting of organic matter, the potential for turning this into valuable fertiliser is an attractive proposal. Past efforts to jumpstart a comprehensive recycling programme, in which consumers separate recyclables including paper, aluminium and glass, were
doomed by poor maintenance and the lack of financial incentives.
Gurmit points out that the negative aspects of incinerators on the one hand are their high cost and toxic residues, while landfills on the other hand are land-intensive.
“Incinerators have to deal with the disposal of residues. Some people have mixed it with tar, but the question is how long it remains sealed in roadworks,” he says. “It should be cast into cement blocks or vitirified before being buried in a sanitary landfill.”
A third option being pursued is to burn the waste to generate energy in an RDF plant. A project in Semenyih based on this concept is scheduled to come onstream this month.
Gurmit expresses some reservations about its viability. “About 40% of our waste is organic, and wet, so it requires a two-stage burner. That may require fuel to be used, which raises the question of whether there is any net energy gain,” says Gurmit. “The better method is to go for waste reduction.”
“Ideally, all organic matter should be composted, and all recyclable items removed. Then the rest should be buried. Incinerators can be an option when
you run out of land,” he adds. “Zero waste targets have to be set at some time.”
posted by Lim Sze Ghee
Thanks to our current lifestyle, disposing of trash has become a billion-ringgit problem. An average Malaysian household produces 0.8kg of waste a day,
while Klang Valley residents weigh in with 1.5kg daily. That doesn’t seem like much until it is multiplied across a population of 25 million. Last year, Malaysians generated in excess of 7.3 million tonnes of garbage, enough to fill 42 Petronas Twin Towers, as one famous example has it. Local authorities spend about RM854 million —
or 60% — of their annual budget on waste-disposal services.
For decades, this by-product of urbanisation was tipped into 246 dumpsites around the peninsula. Most of these facilities are anything but sanitary,
receiving all kinds of hazardous discards that make them environmental disasters. The problem is due to the copious leachate that seeps into the
ground or flows into nearby rivers, contaminating the water supply in many places.
But time is running out for local governments. Waste management experts forecast that over 80% of dumpsites in the country will be filled to the brim in less than two years. Already, scores of sites that have reached their capacity have been closed.
“We have to adopt waste reduction soon,” says the environmental crusader Gurmit Singh. “Basically, the people who generate waste must be prepared
to pay for it.” The situation has become so grave that a Cabinet committee on solid waste management had to be set up earlier this year. At the end of April, Deputy
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who heads the panel, ordered 16 of the dumpsites that posed a threat to public health to be closed immediately. Another 33 that were situated close to water sources would have to be shut down as soon as possible.
Alternatives at our disposal
What then do we do with our urban waste? Three approaches are on the table: incinerators, sanitary landfills and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) plants.
Waste incineration has been tried with mixed results, including in Langkawi, Pangkor, Tioman and Labuan islands, where small 15-ton thermal plants
have been built. But the incinerator planned for Broga, about 50km south of Kuala Lumpur, is the grand-daddy of them all. Touted to be the largest in Asia, it will cost RM1.5 billion to build and have a capacity of 1,500 tons per day. However, the project, to be developed by Ebara Corp of Japan, has run smack into
protests from day one.
The primary objection against burning solid waste is its high cost. Ton for ton, incineration is twice as costly as tipping waste into a sanitary landfill. When capital costs are included, the ratio jumps dramatically. And that’s just the tip of the dump heap, say opponents of incineration. A by-product of incineration is dioxin, which has been billed as the most dangerous substance made by man.
Critics of the proposed incinerator say the plant is projected to have a lifespan of just 20 to 25 years. That provides too small a window for waste
management at a high cost, they argue. A major problem with waste incineration in the tropics, says the Philippines-based anti-incinerator group Gaia, is that the trash is extremely wet, typically with over 40% moisture content. In Malaysia, this can rise to 60%, says an industry expert. In theory, the waste could be dried, but this means
providing holding facilities, and therefore poses logistical problems, given the quantity and constant generation of waste.
A second option is to spray the waste with fuel to promote burning, but that would push up the costs of waste treatment further. Then there is the question of what is to be done with the incinerator ash. For every three tons of garbage burnt, one ton of toxic ash will be produced, according to a Sahabat Alam Malaysia statement on the project’s environmental impact assessment report.
The Broga project proponents propose to dump the ash in the vicinity of Sungai Saringgit, upstream of a water intake point on the Semenyih river. The
water from the river supplies some two million people in the Klang Valley, Putrajaya and Negri Sembilan. The project’s advocates, on their part, have proposed a further treatment of the waste by vitrification, or combining the toxic waste with glass, which is inert, before it is buried. This raises the question of further costs, but may be necessary to address safety concerns.
“The problem with incineration is maintenance, for which our country has a bad track record,” says Gurmit. “So, it won’t be a surprise if there is a problem one or two years down the road.”
“We are not like Japan or Singapore, which have a good maintenance culture.
“The central question in the incinerator issue concerns dioxin. Who will monitor the dioxin level, and will the monitoring be continuous? These details are
not known,” he points out.
“That is why we have been asking for information about the project to be made public, so that people can identify the potential problems.
“For example, in the case of Bukit Nanas [toxic waste facility], it was only required to monitor the dioxin level once in six months because there were no
testing facilities available then,” says Gurmit.
Given the potential for things to go wrong, it is not suprising that residents in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator have tried to stop it. A first suit was filed by residents of Kampung Broga in November 2003 to get the full details of the project.
On Feb 14 last year, residents of a neighbouring housing estate, Taman Tasik Semenyih, who filed a second suit to stop the project altogether, obtained an interim stop work order.
Dr Zulkefly Mohd Omar, the chairman of the Broga residents sub-committee against the incinerator project is optimistic that the residents will win their
court battle. An encouraging sign, he says, is that the Department of Environment (DoE) has rejected the proposal for a landfill at Broga because it will be located in
the water catchment area.
“Over two million people receive water from the Semenyih river, exposing them to high risk if toxic chemicals leach into the water supply.
“The incinerator is not suitable because all kinds of plastic and metals like aluminium will be burnt, posing a grave danger to the people,” Zulkefly says.
“The RDF plant [in Semenyih] is a better proposal because it has a lesser impact on the environment.”
But these are partial solutions at best, says Zulkefly. “The recycling campaign must be reactivated. Zero waste should become part of our lives.”
For Zulkefly, the track record for incinerators in the country speaks for itself. “The Langkawi incinerator, which is based on Swiss technology, has been
closed down because the waste was too wet. That should be a lesson for us,” he says.
Landfill cheaper, safer
In comparison, disposing waste in a sanitary landfill is a much cheaper and safer option, provided leachate is properly handled.
“Landfill management is all about leachate, leachate and leachate,” says KUB-Berjaya Enviro (KBE) managing director Chock Eng Tah, who is in charge
of the Bukit Tagar sanitary landfill.
Situated 25km from Rawang, the landfill occupies over 687ha nestled in a tranquil oil palm estate. “We could receive more than the 1,500 tonnes that we currently take, but the capacity of the leachate treatment plant must be upgraded first,” says Chock.
To ensure that the leachate does not contaminate water sources, the sanitary landfill’s waste disposal cells are protected by a high-density polyurethane (HDP) liner. Leachate that collects at the bottom is pumped into a holding pond, and then to the treatment plant, where aerobic bacteria get to work on it.
At the current rate of waste production in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, says Chock, the Bukit Tagar landfill will take 40 years to fill.
From an environmental point of view, it is important that no leachate leaks into the ground water. While surface leachate can be treated, the experience of other countries with ground water contamination has proved costly. Ground water monitoring is needed to avoid problems later. The quality of the lining must also be sufficient to ensure that there is no breach in the insulation. The Bukit Tagar facility came under the spotlight in March and April when various quarters sought to trace the source of pollution that led to the shutdown of water supply to parts of the Klang Valley.
Chock maintains that the facility is built to international standards and complies with the DoE’s strict guidelines on solid waste management.
KBE was asked by the federal government at the end of 2003 to prepare an advance cell at Bukit Tagar to receive solid waste from Kuala Lumpur City
Hall (DBKL) when the Selangor government landfill at Air Hitam, Puchong, was closed to DBKL, says Chock.
While Phase 1 of the landfill and the leachate treatment plant was being prepared, leachate from the advance cell was held at a secured holding pond to prevent contamination of water sources. The advance cell will need to be closed in two months, says Chock, unless permission is granted for a six-month extension. By that time, Phase 1 would be ready, he says.
In the face of a growing waste management problem, a 4R strategy — reduce, reuse, recycle and recover — has become increasingly necessary, especially as a consumerist culture takes hold in society. With some 40% of municipal solid waste consisting of organic matter, the potential for turning this into valuable fertiliser is an attractive proposal. Past efforts to jumpstart a comprehensive recycling programme, in which consumers separate recyclables including paper, aluminium and glass, were
doomed by poor maintenance and the lack of financial incentives.
Gurmit points out that the negative aspects of incinerators on the one hand are their high cost and toxic residues, while landfills on the other hand are land-intensive.
“Incinerators have to deal with the disposal of residues. Some people have mixed it with tar, but the question is how long it remains sealed in roadworks,” he says. “It should be cast into cement blocks or vitirified before being buried in a sanitary landfill.”
A third option being pursued is to burn the waste to generate energy in an RDF plant. A project in Semenyih based on this concept is scheduled to come onstream this month.
Gurmit expresses some reservations about its viability. “About 40% of our waste is organic, and wet, so it requires a two-stage burner. That may require fuel to be used, which raises the question of whether there is any net energy gain,” says Gurmit. “The better method is to go for waste reduction.”
“Ideally, all organic matter should be composted, and all recyclable items removed. Then the rest should be buried. Incinerators can be an option when
you run out of land,” he adds. “Zero waste targets have to be set at some time.”
posted by Lim Sze Ghee
Looking For The Best Option In Waste Management
A Special Report By Siti Hawa Othman And Rosyatimah Tukimin
KUALA LUMPUR, April 26 (Bernama) -- Come Friday, the nation will know how its solid waste, a lingering issue with no solution in sight, is going to be managed, albeit, correctly.
While the so-called "best technology" for waste management is yet to be decided, the public, on the other hand, should be made aware of the options available and for the government to exercise caution when choosing the methods to be used, that is by also evaluating advanced technologies already in use by developed countries.
Malaysians generally have been quite familiar with open dumping and landfills, the sites where most of the solid wastes they generated had gone to.
In addressing the waste management problem, the government has resorted to landfills, incinerators and now the focus seems to be on recycling and conversion of waste to refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
Others have suggested that a holistic, community-driven approach that focuses on waste prevention, reduction, segregation, recycling and composting would be a better solution.
CHOOSING THE BEST METHOD
Which is the best way to manage wastes?
The Cabinet Committee on Environmental Issues headed by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, will meet this Friday to decide on a final proposal for the country's solid waste management.
The meeting, it was reported, would take recommendations in previously approved projects as well as new views on managing wastes properly, including that of the RDF.
The RDF technology is being used in the United States, Europe and Japan.
Open dumping and landfill are not good options, industry sources told Bernama, and the recent leachate problem at Bukit Tagar landfill is testimony to that.
In fact Australia, a country with a population of 22 million and ample open space is not looking at landfill or incineration but at alternative waste-disposal technologies.
To address the landfill problem, many countries have turned to incinerators but these too are considered taboos as they pollute the air and emit toxic chemicals such as the cancer-causing dioxin and furan.
INCINERATORS POLLUTE THE AIR
The RM1.5 billion Broga gasification plant project did not take off the ground due to protests from local residents as they claimed this project poses risks to the environment.
The incinerator could burn 1,500 tonnes of rubbish via the fluidised bed gasification technology but the normal incineration temperature of 1,200 degrees Celcius would not get rid of dioxins and furans.
A Greenpeace report -- "Incineration and Human Health", reveals, among others, a 670 per cent increase risk of death from lung cancer among residents living near a municipal solid waste incinerator in Italy, as well as a 126 per cent increase in birth defects in newborn babies living near two municipal waste incinerators in Belgium based on studies conducted in the country in 1998.
Now the talk is about recycling and RDF which many consider a good alternative to incineration. But are these still the right choices?
Questions arise as to what happens to the RDF in order to convert it into energy. Does it involve burning which leads us back to square one?
FIRST WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT
It has been reported that the RDF project is set to take off when the first waste-to-energy plant in Hulu Semenyih begins operations in June.
This plant could process up to 1,000 tonnes of municipal wastes by reducing the moisture content to 20 per cent and increasing the energy content to 3,000-4,000 kilocalories (kcal) as compared to 850-900 kcal for raw wastes.
However, in order to generate electricity from the wastes, it will still involve combustion, which is more dangerous than the now-defunct gasification project in Broga.
In its haste to solve the problem where leachate seeps into underground water, the government has been focusing on the RDF.
The RDF technology is a step-by-step segregation of combustible and non-combustible materials, with the former converted into free-burning pellets to produce energy.
SEPARATION OF MATERIALS
Non-combustible materials are further separated to recover metals, paper, plastics, glass and other materials of economic value which can be recycled.
Apparently only 10 to 15 per cent of the original amount of solid waste remains after the separation, drying, shredding and pelletisation.
The non-recyclable residue can be safely disposed at landfills as they do not generate odour, leachate, greenhouse gases or volatile organic compounds.
However, burning of the RDF for energy conversion would become an air problem and this is worse than the water problem.
Will the choice of this technology to manage waste, solve bigger problems or will it create others?
-- BERNAMA
posted by Lim Sze Ghee
KUALA LUMPUR, April 26 (Bernama) -- Come Friday, the nation will know how its solid waste, a lingering issue with no solution in sight, is going to be managed, albeit, correctly.
While the so-called "best technology" for waste management is yet to be decided, the public, on the other hand, should be made aware of the options available and for the government to exercise caution when choosing the methods to be used, that is by also evaluating advanced technologies already in use by developed countries.
Malaysians generally have been quite familiar with open dumping and landfills, the sites where most of the solid wastes they generated had gone to.
In addressing the waste management problem, the government has resorted to landfills, incinerators and now the focus seems to be on recycling and conversion of waste to refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
Others have suggested that a holistic, community-driven approach that focuses on waste prevention, reduction, segregation, recycling and composting would be a better solution.
CHOOSING THE BEST METHOD
Which is the best way to manage wastes?
The Cabinet Committee on Environmental Issues headed by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, will meet this Friday to decide on a final proposal for the country's solid waste management.
The meeting, it was reported, would take recommendations in previously approved projects as well as new views on managing wastes properly, including that of the RDF.
The RDF technology is being used in the United States, Europe and Japan.
Open dumping and landfill are not good options, industry sources told Bernama, and the recent leachate problem at Bukit Tagar landfill is testimony to that.
In fact Australia, a country with a population of 22 million and ample open space is not looking at landfill or incineration but at alternative waste-disposal technologies.
To address the landfill problem, many countries have turned to incinerators but these too are considered taboos as they pollute the air and emit toxic chemicals such as the cancer-causing dioxin and furan.
INCINERATORS POLLUTE THE AIR
The RM1.5 billion Broga gasification plant project did not take off the ground due to protests from local residents as they claimed this project poses risks to the environment.
The incinerator could burn 1,500 tonnes of rubbish via the fluidised bed gasification technology but the normal incineration temperature of 1,200 degrees Celcius would not get rid of dioxins and furans.
A Greenpeace report -- "Incineration and Human Health", reveals, among others, a 670 per cent increase risk of death from lung cancer among residents living near a municipal solid waste incinerator in Italy, as well as a 126 per cent increase in birth defects in newborn babies living near two municipal waste incinerators in Belgium based on studies conducted in the country in 1998.
Now the talk is about recycling and RDF which many consider a good alternative to incineration. But are these still the right choices?
Questions arise as to what happens to the RDF in order to convert it into energy. Does it involve burning which leads us back to square one?
FIRST WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT
It has been reported that the RDF project is set to take off when the first waste-to-energy plant in Hulu Semenyih begins operations in June.
This plant could process up to 1,000 tonnes of municipal wastes by reducing the moisture content to 20 per cent and increasing the energy content to 3,000-4,000 kilocalories (kcal) as compared to 850-900 kcal for raw wastes.
However, in order to generate electricity from the wastes, it will still involve combustion, which is more dangerous than the now-defunct gasification project in Broga.
In its haste to solve the problem where leachate seeps into underground water, the government has been focusing on the RDF.
The RDF technology is a step-by-step segregation of combustible and non-combustible materials, with the former converted into free-burning pellets to produce energy.
SEPARATION OF MATERIALS
Non-combustible materials are further separated to recover metals, paper, plastics, glass and other materials of economic value which can be recycled.
Apparently only 10 to 15 per cent of the original amount of solid waste remains after the separation, drying, shredding and pelletisation.
The non-recyclable residue can be safely disposed at landfills as they do not generate odour, leachate, greenhouse gases or volatile organic compounds.
However, burning of the RDF for energy conversion would become an air problem and this is worse than the water problem.
Will the choice of this technology to manage waste, solve bigger problems or will it create others?
-- BERNAMA
posted by Lim Sze Ghee
Friday, September 28, 2007
solid waste management(hohhot municiple government
129
City Paper
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
HOHHOT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Hohhot is the capital and political, economic, and cultural center
of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. It is also a national
historical and cultural city and an important transportation
hub of the northern border of the People’s Republic of China.
Hohhot covers four districts and five counties with a total
population of 2.044 million and a total area of 17,224 km2. The
urban area is 85 km2 (including
Ruyi Development Zone,
Jinchuan Development Zone,
and the Petrochemical Zone) and
home to about 710,000 people of
35 nationalities, including Mongolian,
Han, Hui, and Manchu.
Hohhot’s major industries
are electric power, textiles, petrochemicals,
machinery, food
processing, transportation, communications,
and tourism. Its
gross domestic product (GDP) was Y14.3 billion in 1998. It generated
Y1.73 billion in municipal revenue. Its GDP per capita is Y6,875.
Its links with the international community are expanding; it hosts
714 small and medium-sized foreign and joint ventures and foreign
investments worth $102 million. Hohhot is also strengthening its
links with inland developed areas, with 2,071 cooperation projects
and Y2,530 million in investments.
MAKING CITIES WORK
130
Continuous economic progress and reform have restructured
the job market. At end-1998, 559,000 people were employed in the
urban area, 351,000 of them in State-owned enterprises. In that
year, 68,000 employees in the State-owned enterprises were laid
off, but 43,000 (63.2 percent) were re-employed.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
After the City Planning Act was passed in 1990, Hohhot issued its
own City Planning Regulations in 1993 and prepared its city and
township system plans, district plans, and detailed structure plans.
The State Council approved Hohhot’s revised master plan (1996-
2010) in 1999.
The administrative departments for planning, environment,
landscape, sanitation, drainage, utilities, civil engineering, and urban
management coordinate with each other under the municipal
government.
At end-1998, urban land area was 86.2 km2, including 23.6
km2 for residences, 16.6 km2 for industries, 16.3 km2 for public facilities,
6.3 km2 for squares and roads, 5.9 km2 for warehouses, 3.7
km2 for external transport, 3.7 km2 for utilities, 4.6 km2 for parks,
and 5.6 km2 for special use.
Hohhot suffers from severe air pollution, especially from December
to February, when buildings have to be heated. The daily
average amount of general suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide
was 423/461 gamma/m3 and 102/63 gamma/m3, making the
municipality a major sulfur dioxide control area. Air pollution is
caused mainly by the burning of coal, which is the major source of
energy. Within the 80-km2 built-up area, there are more than 2,000
boilers that consume more than 40,000 tons of coal per km2.
The Dahei, Xiaohei, and Xi rivers are the main bodies of surface
water in Hohhot. Because Hohhot is located in a semi-arid
mid-temperate zone, precipitation and surface run-off are too low
to dilute, purify, and conduct pollutants. Along with urban socioeconomic
development, the volume of domestic and industrial sew131
Solid Waste Management
age has been increasing year after year. The lack of treatment facilities,
however, has resulted in surface water pollution, which urgently
needs to be controlled. Although the deep groundwater is still pure,
it risks contamination from polluted wells and shallow groundwater.
Urban infrastructure has made notable progress. By end-1998,
seven water supply plants and 372 km of service pipes had been
constructed, with a daily supply capacity of 242,000 tons and serving
about 90 percent of the population; 402 km of drainpipes and
a sewage treatment plant with a capacity of 100,000 tons/day had
been built, bringing the treatment rate up to 27.7 percent. Housing
floor space had reached 14.33 million m2, with 7.63 million m2 of
actual living space (8.46 m2 per capita); 114.4 km of heating pipelines
had been built to combine centralized and associated heating
systems, raising the centralized-heating rate to 44.12 percent. Daily
coal gas productivity reached 164,000 m3 and daily gas storage capacity
grew to 150,000 m3, with 308 km of pipelines and 250,000
consumers. LPG supply reached 6,006 tons, with 149,000 consumers;
total gas consumption rate was 58.31 percent.
Hohhot sits on the edge of the alluvial area at the southern
foot of the Daqing Mountains. Flooding due to surface runoff from
the mountains is a serious problem. Flood control is guided by three
principles: store floodwater when possible, and, when necessary,
let it flow or discharge it. The municipal government therefore combines
engineering and non-engineering measures to integrate
antiflood planning, dredging the watercourses, building embankments
and reservoirs, preparing flooding emergency schemes, organizing
emergency squads, and reserving emergency materials.
Hohhot is fairly well linked up with highways, railroads, and
airlines. It has 389 km of urban roads and 3,114 km of highways.
By end-1998, it had 68,000 motor vehicles, including 301 public
buses with 288 km of service lines. Jingbao Railroad, a national
railroad crossing the urban area, carried 2.79 million passengers and
2.23 million tons of cargo. The Baita airport has 11 airlines flying
to 12 cities, and its annual throughput is 351,804 person-hours.
MAKING CITIES WORK
132
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Hohhot’s solid waste is mainly made up of industrial solid waste,
urban domestic waste, excrement, and medical waste.
Industrial Solid Waste
Hohhot has more than 800 factories. A 1993 survey of 149
enterprises shows the following:
• The major solid waste polluters are the electric power and
metallurgy industries. They generate 50.3 percent of total
solid waste, which takes up 99.1 percent of storage space.
• The major pollutants are coal ash, smelter residue, and slag,
mainly from the boilers used in manufacturing and heating.
Slag is produced mainly by the Hohhot Ironworks, while
coal ash comes mainly from the Hohhot Thermoelectricity
Plant. Both are extremely expensive to control. Coal ash
does not undergo integrated utilization, resulting in the problem
of long-term stacking, made worse by the fact that it
occupies a great deal of space and is a possible source of
water and air pollution. Most (95 percent) of the smelter
residue, however, undergoes integrated utilization, and is
therefore less of a threat to the environment.
• Most industrial solid waste in Hohhot is nontoxic and nonradioactive,
but the problem is how to reduce the amount
so that it occupies less space. Accumulated industrial solid
waste is now 700,000 tons, occupying 690,000 m2 of land.
The integrated utilization rate is 46.88 percent. Agencies
managing industrial solid waste are guided by the principle
that polluting enterprises are responsible for controlling their
own pollution.
133
Solid Waste Management
Domestic Waste
Along with urban population growth, the amount of domestic
waste has been increasing continuously. In 1998, 477,000 tons
of domestic waste were generated (1,300-1,400 tons/day). Waste
construction materials accounted for an additional 800-1,000 tons/
day. Night soil production was 62,000 tons for the year. A 200,000-
m2 integrated waste disposal plant located 7.5 km away from the
urban area performs six tasks: hygienic stacking and filling; hightemperature
composting; night soil anaerobic fermenting; incineration;
integrated utilization; and logistics. It has a stacking and filling
capacity of 750 tons/day, a night soil anaerobic fermenting capacity
of 200 tons/day, and an incineration capacity of 6 tons/day.
However, composting, anaerobic fermenting of night soil, and incineration
are insufficient due to a shortage of funds. A large amount
of urban refuse is still simply stacked in suburban low-lying ground,
severely threatening air and water quality.
Facilities for urban waste collection and transportation are inadequate.
Waste is collected through containers, ground collection
stations, and clearing stations. There are 967 collection stations, 96
containers, 400 garbage boxes, 28 obturated clearing stations, and
142 sanitation vehicles in the city. But classified collection is not yet
well developed and the technology for collecting and transporting
waste is relatively primitive.
Medical Waste
Hohhot has over 500 medical facilities, of which 32 are at or
above the district level. Each year, approximately 11,000 tons of
hazardous hospital waste must be disposed of. However, only a few
large hospitals have normal or simple incinerators, and of limited
capacity. Most medical waste is discharged along with domestic
waste, contaminating the environment and seriously threatening
people’s health.
The major problems of solid waste management are the
following:
MAKING CITIES WORK
134
• Due to lack of funds, urban infrastructure is weak, resulting
in more solid waste accumulation year after year.
• Industrial solid waste and medical waste have not been integrated
into urban management.
STRATEGIES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Development Strategy
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
By 2010, Hohhot is expected to become a modern, economically
vibrant city, with a rational industrial structure, advanced technology
and education, a complete social security system, much improved
infrastructure, a well-thought-out layout, convenient and
safe transportation, a pleasant environment, and a culture and tradition
that the people treasure.
ECONOMIC TARGETS
By 2010, it is expected that Hohhot will have a modern, open
economy with a strong agricultural base, high technology, and flourishing
industry. It should have an improved market system supported
by the pillar industries of commerce and trade, finance, insurance,
real estate, transportation, communications, and tourism.
The leading industries—electricity, wool spinning, electronics, machinery,
petrochemicals, and food—will be reformed. The production
of grain and crops will be stabilized. Vegetable, marine, and
animal production will be increased.
DEVELOPMENT TARGETS
By 2010, living standards will be much higher, with a greatly
improved environment and quality of life. Urban land use will be
rationalized to enable coordinated development. Better services will
foster a pleasant and much more open investment atmosphere. A
135
Solid Waste Management
modern and multilayered public facility system will serve Hohhot’s
residents.
Solid Waste Management Development Plan
The international trend is toward urban solid waste disposal
that is environment friendly and resource oriented. Research methods
and disposal technology are improving constantly. Solid waste
control and a reorientation toward resource management have become
the key objectives of urban pollution control. However,
Hohhot is plagued by problems related to finance, technology, and
control measures. The annual rate of increase in urban solid waste
is 5 percent. The municipal government has prepared a plan to
control and solve the problems of solid waste contamination, and
has installed or approved some pollution control facilities.
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE
Industrial solid waste management is still guided by the principle
that the polluting enterprises are responsible for controlling
their own pollution under government supervision. Although some
waste undergoes integrated utilization, most of it is disposed of by
stacking. It has been found that coal ash and smelter residue can be
used for building and road construction; slag can be used as an
insulation material. The municipal government should issue regulations
and lay down policies that will promote the integrated utilization
of these materials, which make up most of industrial solid
waste.
URBAN REFUSE
Waste disposal in the PRC focuses on hygienic stacking and
filling, high-temperature composting, incineration, and integrated
utilization. The municipal government should focus on promoting
integrated utilization technology. Classified collection, transportation,
and disposal will be gradually adopted.
MAKING CITIES WORK
136
W ASTE FROM COAL BURNING
The amount of solid waste generated may be reduced by 30
to 50 percent by shifting to centralized or electric heating and gas
for home use. The second phase of the urban centralized heating
project, gas project, and electric network reform project is underway.
The natural gas project is awaiting approval. The Hohhot Thermoelectricity
Plant is expanding its 2 x 200,000-kilowatt electric
generator set. The associated urban pipeline project is also listed in
the municipality’s plan.
CLASSIFIED COLLECTION
Classified collection is a common waste management method
in developed countries, allowing a recycling rate of 80-90 percent.
However, environment consciousness among Hohhot residents is
relatively low. The municipal government has issued regulations such
as the Citizens’ Pact and uses the mass media to raise citizens’ consciousness
and to promote the garbage-in-bag policy in some residential
areas.
CLEAN VEGETABLES AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Waste vegetable matter accounts for 10 percent of the total
amount of urban refuse; 20-30 percent of vegetables are thrown
out during the harvest season. Selling only clean vegetables in the
cities and developing the processing industry will reduce vegetable
waste by 50 percent.
FUNDING OF WASTE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL
Allotting more money to waste management will permanently
solve the problem of urban waste, as it will expedite infrastructure
development. Funds can be raised from the municipal budget, the
central Government, autonomous region agencies, and foreign
investment.
137
Solid Waste Management
An integrated waste disposal plant in the western suburbs
funded jointly by the central Government, autonomous region authorities,
and the municipal government has been operating successfully
since 1995. In the eastern suburbs, another integrated
waste disposal plant costing Y94 million has passed the feasibilitystudy
stage. It is designed to handle 750 tons of domestic waste per
day, 1,000 tons of building waste material, and 40 tons of medical
waste. Funding comes from the central Government, local finance,
a development bank, and the Asian Development Bank. When the
plant starts operating, all the urban domestic waste and medical
waste in Hohhot will be rendered harmless.
Hohhot lags far behind developed cities in terms of integrated
disposal technologies and control measures. We welcome any expert
criticism and instruction. We also welcome investors to participate
in infrastructure development.
page 138, blank
City Paper
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
HOHHOT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Hohhot is the capital and political, economic, and cultural center
of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. It is also a national
historical and cultural city and an important transportation
hub of the northern border of the People’s Republic of China.
Hohhot covers four districts and five counties with a total
population of 2.044 million and a total area of 17,224 km2. The
urban area is 85 km2 (including
Ruyi Development Zone,
Jinchuan Development Zone,
and the Petrochemical Zone) and
home to about 710,000 people of
35 nationalities, including Mongolian,
Han, Hui, and Manchu.
Hohhot’s major industries
are electric power, textiles, petrochemicals,
machinery, food
processing, transportation, communications,
and tourism. Its
gross domestic product (GDP) was Y14.3 billion in 1998. It generated
Y1.73 billion in municipal revenue. Its GDP per capita is Y6,875.
Its links with the international community are expanding; it hosts
714 small and medium-sized foreign and joint ventures and foreign
investments worth $102 million. Hohhot is also strengthening its
links with inland developed areas, with 2,071 cooperation projects
and Y2,530 million in investments.
MAKING CITIES WORK
130
Continuous economic progress and reform have restructured
the job market. At end-1998, 559,000 people were employed in the
urban area, 351,000 of them in State-owned enterprises. In that
year, 68,000 employees in the State-owned enterprises were laid
off, but 43,000 (63.2 percent) were re-employed.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
After the City Planning Act was passed in 1990, Hohhot issued its
own City Planning Regulations in 1993 and prepared its city and
township system plans, district plans, and detailed structure plans.
The State Council approved Hohhot’s revised master plan (1996-
2010) in 1999.
The administrative departments for planning, environment,
landscape, sanitation, drainage, utilities, civil engineering, and urban
management coordinate with each other under the municipal
government.
At end-1998, urban land area was 86.2 km2, including 23.6
km2 for residences, 16.6 km2 for industries, 16.3 km2 for public facilities,
6.3 km2 for squares and roads, 5.9 km2 for warehouses, 3.7
km2 for external transport, 3.7 km2 for utilities, 4.6 km2 for parks,
and 5.6 km2 for special use.
Hohhot suffers from severe air pollution, especially from December
to February, when buildings have to be heated. The daily
average amount of general suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide
was 423/461 gamma/m3 and 102/63 gamma/m3, making the
municipality a major sulfur dioxide control area. Air pollution is
caused mainly by the burning of coal, which is the major source of
energy. Within the 80-km2 built-up area, there are more than 2,000
boilers that consume more than 40,000 tons of coal per km2.
The Dahei, Xiaohei, and Xi rivers are the main bodies of surface
water in Hohhot. Because Hohhot is located in a semi-arid
mid-temperate zone, precipitation and surface run-off are too low
to dilute, purify, and conduct pollutants. Along with urban socioeconomic
development, the volume of domestic and industrial sew131
Solid Waste Management
age has been increasing year after year. The lack of treatment facilities,
however, has resulted in surface water pollution, which urgently
needs to be controlled. Although the deep groundwater is still pure,
it risks contamination from polluted wells and shallow groundwater.
Urban infrastructure has made notable progress. By end-1998,
seven water supply plants and 372 km of service pipes had been
constructed, with a daily supply capacity of 242,000 tons and serving
about 90 percent of the population; 402 km of drainpipes and
a sewage treatment plant with a capacity of 100,000 tons/day had
been built, bringing the treatment rate up to 27.7 percent. Housing
floor space had reached 14.33 million m2, with 7.63 million m2 of
actual living space (8.46 m2 per capita); 114.4 km of heating pipelines
had been built to combine centralized and associated heating
systems, raising the centralized-heating rate to 44.12 percent. Daily
coal gas productivity reached 164,000 m3 and daily gas storage capacity
grew to 150,000 m3, with 308 km of pipelines and 250,000
consumers. LPG supply reached 6,006 tons, with 149,000 consumers;
total gas consumption rate was 58.31 percent.
Hohhot sits on the edge of the alluvial area at the southern
foot of the Daqing Mountains. Flooding due to surface runoff from
the mountains is a serious problem. Flood control is guided by three
principles: store floodwater when possible, and, when necessary,
let it flow or discharge it. The municipal government therefore combines
engineering and non-engineering measures to integrate
antiflood planning, dredging the watercourses, building embankments
and reservoirs, preparing flooding emergency schemes, organizing
emergency squads, and reserving emergency materials.
Hohhot is fairly well linked up with highways, railroads, and
airlines. It has 389 km of urban roads and 3,114 km of highways.
By end-1998, it had 68,000 motor vehicles, including 301 public
buses with 288 km of service lines. Jingbao Railroad, a national
railroad crossing the urban area, carried 2.79 million passengers and
2.23 million tons of cargo. The Baita airport has 11 airlines flying
to 12 cities, and its annual throughput is 351,804 person-hours.
MAKING CITIES WORK
132
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Hohhot’s solid waste is mainly made up of industrial solid waste,
urban domestic waste, excrement, and medical waste.
Industrial Solid Waste
Hohhot has more than 800 factories. A 1993 survey of 149
enterprises shows the following:
• The major solid waste polluters are the electric power and
metallurgy industries. They generate 50.3 percent of total
solid waste, which takes up 99.1 percent of storage space.
• The major pollutants are coal ash, smelter residue, and slag,
mainly from the boilers used in manufacturing and heating.
Slag is produced mainly by the Hohhot Ironworks, while
coal ash comes mainly from the Hohhot Thermoelectricity
Plant. Both are extremely expensive to control. Coal ash
does not undergo integrated utilization, resulting in the problem
of long-term stacking, made worse by the fact that it
occupies a great deal of space and is a possible source of
water and air pollution. Most (95 percent) of the smelter
residue, however, undergoes integrated utilization, and is
therefore less of a threat to the environment.
• Most industrial solid waste in Hohhot is nontoxic and nonradioactive,
but the problem is how to reduce the amount
so that it occupies less space. Accumulated industrial solid
waste is now 700,000 tons, occupying 690,000 m2 of land.
The integrated utilization rate is 46.88 percent. Agencies
managing industrial solid waste are guided by the principle
that polluting enterprises are responsible for controlling their
own pollution.
133
Solid Waste Management
Domestic Waste
Along with urban population growth, the amount of domestic
waste has been increasing continuously. In 1998, 477,000 tons
of domestic waste were generated (1,300-1,400 tons/day). Waste
construction materials accounted for an additional 800-1,000 tons/
day. Night soil production was 62,000 tons for the year. A 200,000-
m2 integrated waste disposal plant located 7.5 km away from the
urban area performs six tasks: hygienic stacking and filling; hightemperature
composting; night soil anaerobic fermenting; incineration;
integrated utilization; and logistics. It has a stacking and filling
capacity of 750 tons/day, a night soil anaerobic fermenting capacity
of 200 tons/day, and an incineration capacity of 6 tons/day.
However, composting, anaerobic fermenting of night soil, and incineration
are insufficient due to a shortage of funds. A large amount
of urban refuse is still simply stacked in suburban low-lying ground,
severely threatening air and water quality.
Facilities for urban waste collection and transportation are inadequate.
Waste is collected through containers, ground collection
stations, and clearing stations. There are 967 collection stations, 96
containers, 400 garbage boxes, 28 obturated clearing stations, and
142 sanitation vehicles in the city. But classified collection is not yet
well developed and the technology for collecting and transporting
waste is relatively primitive.
Medical Waste
Hohhot has over 500 medical facilities, of which 32 are at or
above the district level. Each year, approximately 11,000 tons of
hazardous hospital waste must be disposed of. However, only a few
large hospitals have normal or simple incinerators, and of limited
capacity. Most medical waste is discharged along with domestic
waste, contaminating the environment and seriously threatening
people’s health.
The major problems of solid waste management are the
following:
MAKING CITIES WORK
134
• Due to lack of funds, urban infrastructure is weak, resulting
in more solid waste accumulation year after year.
• Industrial solid waste and medical waste have not been integrated
into urban management.
STRATEGIES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Development Strategy
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
By 2010, Hohhot is expected to become a modern, economically
vibrant city, with a rational industrial structure, advanced technology
and education, a complete social security system, much improved
infrastructure, a well-thought-out layout, convenient and
safe transportation, a pleasant environment, and a culture and tradition
that the people treasure.
ECONOMIC TARGETS
By 2010, it is expected that Hohhot will have a modern, open
economy with a strong agricultural base, high technology, and flourishing
industry. It should have an improved market system supported
by the pillar industries of commerce and trade, finance, insurance,
real estate, transportation, communications, and tourism.
The leading industries—electricity, wool spinning, electronics, machinery,
petrochemicals, and food—will be reformed. The production
of grain and crops will be stabilized. Vegetable, marine, and
animal production will be increased.
DEVELOPMENT TARGETS
By 2010, living standards will be much higher, with a greatly
improved environment and quality of life. Urban land use will be
rationalized to enable coordinated development. Better services will
foster a pleasant and much more open investment atmosphere. A
135
Solid Waste Management
modern and multilayered public facility system will serve Hohhot’s
residents.
Solid Waste Management Development Plan
The international trend is toward urban solid waste disposal
that is environment friendly and resource oriented. Research methods
and disposal technology are improving constantly. Solid waste
control and a reorientation toward resource management have become
the key objectives of urban pollution control. However,
Hohhot is plagued by problems related to finance, technology, and
control measures. The annual rate of increase in urban solid waste
is 5 percent. The municipal government has prepared a plan to
control and solve the problems of solid waste contamination, and
has installed or approved some pollution control facilities.
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE
Industrial solid waste management is still guided by the principle
that the polluting enterprises are responsible for controlling
their own pollution under government supervision. Although some
waste undergoes integrated utilization, most of it is disposed of by
stacking. It has been found that coal ash and smelter residue can be
used for building and road construction; slag can be used as an
insulation material. The municipal government should issue regulations
and lay down policies that will promote the integrated utilization
of these materials, which make up most of industrial solid
waste.
URBAN REFUSE
Waste disposal in the PRC focuses on hygienic stacking and
filling, high-temperature composting, incineration, and integrated
utilization. The municipal government should focus on promoting
integrated utilization technology. Classified collection, transportation,
and disposal will be gradually adopted.
MAKING CITIES WORK
136
W ASTE FROM COAL BURNING
The amount of solid waste generated may be reduced by 30
to 50 percent by shifting to centralized or electric heating and gas
for home use. The second phase of the urban centralized heating
project, gas project, and electric network reform project is underway.
The natural gas project is awaiting approval. The Hohhot Thermoelectricity
Plant is expanding its 2 x 200,000-kilowatt electric
generator set. The associated urban pipeline project is also listed in
the municipality’s plan.
CLASSIFIED COLLECTION
Classified collection is a common waste management method
in developed countries, allowing a recycling rate of 80-90 percent.
However, environment consciousness among Hohhot residents is
relatively low. The municipal government has issued regulations such
as the Citizens’ Pact and uses the mass media to raise citizens’ consciousness
and to promote the garbage-in-bag policy in some residential
areas.
CLEAN VEGETABLES AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Waste vegetable matter accounts for 10 percent of the total
amount of urban refuse; 20-30 percent of vegetables are thrown
out during the harvest season. Selling only clean vegetables in the
cities and developing the processing industry will reduce vegetable
waste by 50 percent.
FUNDING OF WASTE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL
Allotting more money to waste management will permanently
solve the problem of urban waste, as it will expedite infrastructure
development. Funds can be raised from the municipal budget, the
central Government, autonomous region agencies, and foreign
investment.
137
Solid Waste Management
An integrated waste disposal plant in the western suburbs
funded jointly by the central Government, autonomous region authorities,
and the municipal government has been operating successfully
since 1995. In the eastern suburbs, another integrated
waste disposal plant costing Y94 million has passed the feasibilitystudy
stage. It is designed to handle 750 tons of domestic waste per
day, 1,000 tons of building waste material, and 40 tons of medical
waste. Funding comes from the central Government, local finance,
a development bank, and the Asian Development Bank. When the
plant starts operating, all the urban domestic waste and medical
waste in Hohhot will be rendered harmless.
Hohhot lags far behind developed cities in terms of integrated
disposal technologies and control measures. We welcome any expert
criticism and instruction. We also welcome investors to participate
in infrastructure development.
page 138, blank
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Conference : WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION 2007
The Waste Management Conference and Exhibition, 2007 was organised by ENSEARCH and was successfully held on 7 th and 8 th of August 2007 at Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre, Selangor. The conference was endorsed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. The Conference was officiated by YB Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting, Minister of Housing and Local Government and YB Dato' S. Sothinathan, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environment delivered the special address on the second day of deliberations.
The conference succeeded in providing an excellent opportunity for both the public and private sectors to exchange ideas and issues and draw on the past experiences on how waste can be managed efficiently. In addition, 24 exhibition booths were set up to display appropriate services and technologies related to sustainable waste management during the conference. These exhibitors included Alam Flora Sdn Bhd, Worldwide Landfills Sdn Bhd, Tex Cycle Sdn Bhd, Pollution Engineering Sdn Bhd, Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd and many other key players from the waste industry. More than 200 participants from diverse backgrounds attended this conference that proved to be useful in educating and exchanging ideas on the current policies and updates on waste management.
The main topics covered during the 2-day conference were on Recycling, Technologies and Successful Practices for Waste Management and Capacity Building . Experts from all over Malaysia- from Government agencies, NGOs, industry players and academics, presented papers on these key topics along with some foreign experts who shared their experiences and ideas with the participants. Presenters and speakers included personnel from Ministry of Health, Kualiti Alam, Lafarge Malayan Cement, Malaysian Plastics Forum, DANIDA Solid Waste Management Component and many other relevant organisations. These 14 speakers made up the distinguished panels of speakers for the Q & A sessions as well.
Among topics discussed for each sessions were the Plastics Wastes Management And Recycling In Malaysia- Issues And Challenges , Precious Metal & Copper Recovery From Electronic Scrap– Efficient And Effective Recycling Of Complex Materials, Legal And Institutional Challenges In Establishing Comprehensive And Integrated Solid Waste Management, The Role Of Technology In Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Scheduled Waste Recycling : Issues And Challenges and many more.
To assist in explaining the current waste management conditions in Malaysia, the Deputy Director General of National Solid Waste Management Corporation, Dr. Nazri Yahaya as well as the Director General of Department of Environment, Dato' Hajjah Rosnani bt Ibarahim presented the keynote addresses for both days respectively.
WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION, 2007 PRESENTATIONS CAN BE DOWNLOAD AT www.ensearch.org
The conference succeeded in providing an excellent opportunity for both the public and private sectors to exchange ideas and issues and draw on the past experiences on how waste can be managed efficiently. In addition, 24 exhibition booths were set up to display appropriate services and technologies related to sustainable waste management during the conference. These exhibitors included Alam Flora Sdn Bhd, Worldwide Landfills Sdn Bhd, Tex Cycle Sdn Bhd, Pollution Engineering Sdn Bhd, Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd and many other key players from the waste industry. More than 200 participants from diverse backgrounds attended this conference that proved to be useful in educating and exchanging ideas on the current policies and updates on waste management.
The main topics covered during the 2-day conference were on Recycling, Technologies and Successful Practices for Waste Management and Capacity Building . Experts from all over Malaysia- from Government agencies, NGOs, industry players and academics, presented papers on these key topics along with some foreign experts who shared their experiences and ideas with the participants. Presenters and speakers included personnel from Ministry of Health, Kualiti Alam, Lafarge Malayan Cement, Malaysian Plastics Forum, DANIDA Solid Waste Management Component and many other relevant organisations. These 14 speakers made up the distinguished panels of speakers for the Q & A sessions as well.
Among topics discussed for each sessions were the Plastics Wastes Management And Recycling In Malaysia- Issues And Challenges , Precious Metal & Copper Recovery From Electronic Scrap– Efficient And Effective Recycling Of Complex Materials, Legal And Institutional Challenges In Establishing Comprehensive And Integrated Solid Waste Management, The Role Of Technology In Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Scheduled Waste Recycling : Issues And Challenges and many more.
To assist in explaining the current waste management conditions in Malaysia, the Deputy Director General of National Solid Waste Management Corporation, Dr. Nazri Yahaya as well as the Director General of Department of Environment, Dato' Hajjah Rosnani bt Ibarahim presented the keynote addresses for both days respectively.
WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION, 2007 PRESENTATIONS CAN BE DOWNLOAD AT www.ensearch.org
Sampah jadi sumber tenaga baru
SETIAP orang pada setiap hari, membuang sebarang jenis sampah di antara 0.8 hingga 1.2 kilogram. Itu adalah profil pembuangan sampah di negara ini yang direkodkan oleh ENSEARCH iaitu sebuah badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) alam sekitar Malaysia yang berusaha untuk menerapkan sikap cintakan alam sekitar di segenap lapisan masyarakat Malaysia.
Kalau trend itu diambil kira, secara matematiknya pula, bayangkan bagi setiap rumah minimum kapasiti hanya tiga orang dan didarab pula dengan kira-kira 27 juta penduduk di negara ini.
Tidakkah angka ‘sampah’ itu menakutkan kita?
Dikatakan juga, jumlah sampah yang dibuang di kawasan bandar dan pinggir bandar di seluruh negara setiap tahun boleh memenuhi ruang dalam bangunan Menara Berkembar Petronas setinggi 452 meter itu dalam masa tidak sampai seminggu.
Adalah tidak mustahil jika kita diliputi sampah atau hidup di celah-celah sampah satu hari nanti jika tiada langkah pencegahan dan kesedaran mengenai cara pelupusan sisa yang teratur lagi berkesan?
Daripada kajian yang dibuat, sebanyak 19,000 tan metrik sampah dibuang pada tahun 2005. Ia tidak mustahil meningkat pada tahun lepas memandangkan trend kitar semula semakin sepi dan tidak diamalkan oleh sebahagian besar daripada masyarakat kita.
Daripada jumlah 19,000 tan metrik itu, 45 peratus daripadanya ialah sisa makanan, 24 peratus adalah plastik, kertas (7 peratus), besi (6 peratus) dan kaca (3 peratus).
Apa maknanya peratusan itu semua? Itulah yang membawa pula kepada tabiat kitaran semula. Kalau kita mengamalkan kitar semula, kita boleh menjimatkan kira-kira 55 peratus sampah itu – selain sisa makanan.
Sikap tidak ingin kitar semula inilah antara sebab utama mengapa kita dilanda masalah pembuangan sampah dan pencemaran. Dan mahu diterima atau tidak, sikap inilah yang hendak kita kikis dari hati rakyat Malaysia.
Secara mudahnya, semakin banyak sampah dibuang, semakin banyak ruang yang diperlukan. Ini adalah akibat dari pembuangan sampah yang berlebihan oleh kita sendiri, dari rumah kita juga.
Bayangkan 0.8 hingga 1.2 kilogram itu, yang paling banyak ialah lebihan nasi, lauk-pauk dan sayur-sayuran.
Kita barangkali tidak mungkin dapat menghalang pembuangan sampah, tetapi kita boleh mengurangkan jumlahnya. Itu hakikat.
Caranya tidak lain tidak bukan, dengan kitar semula. Kita akui juga bahawa kempen kitar semula boleh sahaja dianggap gagal kerana ia tidak berjaya dilakukan secara meluas. Benar, ada yang mengamalkan kitar semula, tetapi tidak cukup untuk membantu mengurangkan jumlah sisa sampah. Kalau ada yang mendakwa kempen kitar semula sebelum ini gagal, pernahkah yang mendakwa itu duduk berfikir sejenak tanpa mempersalahkan sesiapa apa yang mengagalkannya?
Dalam hal ini, ada yang menyatakan tiada tindakan susulan selepas setiap kempen yang digerakkan menyumbang kepada kecundangnya kempen, tanpa mengecualikan kempen kitar semula.
Masing-masing mengharapkan ada orang lain yang memikul tugas menyedarkan masyarakat tentang perlunya sampah dikitar semula. Itulah masalahnya.
Yang jelas, ini mengakibatkan orang ramai tidak dapat menghargai kepentingan dan faedah mengitar semula. Masyarakat tidak boleh dipersalahkan kalau mereka tidak mahu bekerjasama menjayakan kempen kitar semula. Kalau tidak ada kemahuan, tidak akan ada jalan. Begitulah.
‘‘Meminta orang menukar gaya hidup yang sudah sebati dalam diri mereka turun-temurun, apa yang boleh diharapkan setakat menjual air liur mengajak orang mengitar semula,’’ kata seorang rakan, seorang pengamal kitar semula yang jelas amat kesal dengan kegagalan kempen kitar semula.
Menukar
Seperti yang diketahui, Kempen Kitar Semula pertama kali dilaksanakan pada tahun 1993, ia digerakkan semula pada tahun 2000 dengan menukar sedikit pendekatan iaitu memberi sentuhan ‘warna’ untuk setiap benda yang harus dikitar – jingga untuk aluminium dan plastik, coklat untuk kaca dan botol, biru untuk kertas.
Entah di mana silap, ia juga tidak ke mana, selepas acara potong reben dan gelak ketawa dalam majlis meriah, orang masih lagi tidak kitar semula. Dalam hal ini, berbuih mulut NGO alam sekitar mempromosikan kebaikannya dan tidak sedikit laporan mengenai kitar semula disiarkan dalam media cetak dan elektronik. Sedihnya, masyarakat kita belum biasa dengan kitar semula, yang biasa ialah membuang sampah di dalam sungai.
Memandangkan pentingnya kitar semula dan dapat dilihat rendahnya tahap kesedaran tentang amalan yang satu itu, ENSEARCH tampil mengadakan satu persidangan dan pameran mengenai pengurusan sisa yang membawa tema sisa sebagai sumber.
Persidangan dan Pameran Sisa ENSEARCH 2007 akan menjadi medan pembentangan kertas-kertas kerja yang menumpukan kepada kitar semula, teknologi serta amalan-amalan berkesan dalam pengurusan sisa dan pembangunan kapasiti.
Suka diingatkan bahawa ia adalah persidangan tahunan kali ketujuh dianjurkan oleh ENSEARCH.
‘‘Ia yang akan berlangsung pada 7 hingga 8 Ogos ini adalah platform yang tepat bagi membincangkan senario tentang sisa dan sampah ini.
‘‘Sebanyak 22 lot pameran juga cuba membuat sorotan dengan tidak lari daripada hal-hal kitar semula dan kesedaran tentang kepentingannya,’’ kata pegawai projeknya, Suganya Sudanathan dalam satu pertemuan dengan Utusan Malaysia di pejabat ENSEARCH di Kota Damansara baru-baru ini.
Dalam pertemuan itu, beliau tidak boleh lari daripada bercakap dan berbual mengenai kitar semula serta apa yang dipanggil 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle).
Kitar semula bermakna menggunakan semula barangan tersebut atau memproses barangan tersebut untuk dijadikan bahan seperti yang asal atau sebaliknya, dengan erti lain tidak membuangnya begitu sahaja.
Proses ini boleh mengurangkan sampah kita sebanyak dua juta tan metrik.
Sampah kita terdiri dari pelbagai bahan antaranya sisa buangan dari kawasan kediaman, komersial, perindustrian dan pertanian.
Kebanyakan daripada sisa pembuangan ini akan berakhir di kawasan pelupusan sampah, yang kemudian dilupuskan dengan dua cara utama iaitu pembakaran atau penimbunan. Pembakaran, jika dilakukan secara terbuka dan tidak terkawal boleh menyebabkan pencemaran udara.
Sementara penimbunan pula perlu dilakukan secara terkawal untuk mengelakkan masalah seperti haiwan perosak, penyakit, pencemaran bekalan air dan pencemaran bau.
Secara individu kita boleh membantu dalam mengatasi masalah peningkatan pembuangan sampah. Kita perlu membuka minda untuk menerima pengetahuan ini dan menjadikan ia satu amalan hidup yang sihat untuk diri, keluarga dan alam sekitar.
‘‘Kita boleh mengurangkan pembuangan sampah dengan memahami konsep 3R,’’ kata Suganya lagi.
Pengurangan atau reduce bermakna boleh mengelakkan barangan yang mempunyai banyak pembalut. Alternatifnya, boleh membeli barangan di mana bekasnya boleh diguna semula. Di sini pentingnya kita mengurangkan penggunaan beg plastik. Begitu juga dengan kertas tisu, sebaliknya boleh menggunakan tuala yang boleh dibasuh dan dipakai balik, berbanding tisu, dibuang menjadi sampah.
Paling mudah penggunaan semula atau reuse ialah kita lakukan di rumah dengan cuba mengelak daripada membuang beg plastik sebaliknya guna semula untuk mengisi barangan lain manakala proses kitar semula penting untuk mengurangkan tekanan terhadap bahan mentah semula jadi seperti penebangan pokok untuk menghasilkan kertas.
Selain itu, ia dapat mengurangkan penggunaan tenaga, air serta pencemaran air dan udara.
Sebagai contoh, kaca yang dikitar semula berulang kali boleh mengurangkan 50 peratus penggunaan air manakala kitar semula kertas dapat menjimatkan 70 peratus tenaga.
Kitar semula aluminium, kertas dan kaca, masing-masing dapat mengurangkan pencemaran sebanyak 95 peratus, 50 peratus dan 14 peratus.
Perkara-perkara tersebut akan dibincangkan pada persidangan satu setengah hari itu nanti.
Dalam pada itu, Suganya melihat, program pendidikan adalah kunci kejayaan kempen kitar semula.
‘‘Kita tidak boleh harap sediakan tong berwarna-warni untuk asingkan sampah dan harap orang akan guna. Kita perlu usaha lebih daripada itu,’’ katanya.
Beliau turut mengingatkan supaya penguatkuasaan terhadap kegiatan membuang sampah di tempat terbuka dan kawasan larangan diberi perhatian yang lebih serius. Sambil menyebut Singapura sebagai contoh, katanya, penguatkuasaan yang tegas berjaya menanam tabiat yang baik.
‘‘You pollute, you pay,’’ katanya sebelum menambah barangkali itulah yang boleh membantu memberi kesedaran kepada rakyat Malaysia tentang tabiat tidak baik membuang sampah ini.
Ditanya perlu atau tidak mata pelajaran alam sekitar itu diajar di sekolah beliau berkata: ‘‘Berdasarkan pengalaman, kempen pendidikan tidak harus ditumpukan kepada kanak-kanak sahaja.
‘‘Memang betul mereka mudah dibentuk tetapi apa maknanya kalau mereka melihat amalan yang tidak baik daripada keluarga sendiri. Ia mesti dua-dua, kanak-kanak dan orang dewasa.’’
Jelas beliau, mengubah sikap manusia adalah kerja yang paling sukar. ‘‘Tetapi kalau sekali mereka mula (kitar semula), ia menjadi satu tabiat. Kalau mereka berhenti, mereka akan rasa bersalah.”
Mahu tidak mahu, kempen ini harus digerakkan sekarang kerana keadaan yang sudah semakin mendesak.
Kejayaan kempen ini banyak bergantung kepada kerjasama semua pihak – kerajaan, swasta dan anggota masyarakat.
Laman web untuk persidangan dan ENSEARCH boleh dilayari di alamat www.ensearch.org.
Kalau trend itu diambil kira, secara matematiknya pula, bayangkan bagi setiap rumah minimum kapasiti hanya tiga orang dan didarab pula dengan kira-kira 27 juta penduduk di negara ini.
Tidakkah angka ‘sampah’ itu menakutkan kita?
Dikatakan juga, jumlah sampah yang dibuang di kawasan bandar dan pinggir bandar di seluruh negara setiap tahun boleh memenuhi ruang dalam bangunan Menara Berkembar Petronas setinggi 452 meter itu dalam masa tidak sampai seminggu.
Adalah tidak mustahil jika kita diliputi sampah atau hidup di celah-celah sampah satu hari nanti jika tiada langkah pencegahan dan kesedaran mengenai cara pelupusan sisa yang teratur lagi berkesan?
Daripada kajian yang dibuat, sebanyak 19,000 tan metrik sampah dibuang pada tahun 2005. Ia tidak mustahil meningkat pada tahun lepas memandangkan trend kitar semula semakin sepi dan tidak diamalkan oleh sebahagian besar daripada masyarakat kita.
Daripada jumlah 19,000 tan metrik itu, 45 peratus daripadanya ialah sisa makanan, 24 peratus adalah plastik, kertas (7 peratus), besi (6 peratus) dan kaca (3 peratus).
Apa maknanya peratusan itu semua? Itulah yang membawa pula kepada tabiat kitaran semula. Kalau kita mengamalkan kitar semula, kita boleh menjimatkan kira-kira 55 peratus sampah itu – selain sisa makanan.
Sikap tidak ingin kitar semula inilah antara sebab utama mengapa kita dilanda masalah pembuangan sampah dan pencemaran. Dan mahu diterima atau tidak, sikap inilah yang hendak kita kikis dari hati rakyat Malaysia.
Secara mudahnya, semakin banyak sampah dibuang, semakin banyak ruang yang diperlukan. Ini adalah akibat dari pembuangan sampah yang berlebihan oleh kita sendiri, dari rumah kita juga.
Bayangkan 0.8 hingga 1.2 kilogram itu, yang paling banyak ialah lebihan nasi, lauk-pauk dan sayur-sayuran.
Kita barangkali tidak mungkin dapat menghalang pembuangan sampah, tetapi kita boleh mengurangkan jumlahnya. Itu hakikat.
Caranya tidak lain tidak bukan, dengan kitar semula. Kita akui juga bahawa kempen kitar semula boleh sahaja dianggap gagal kerana ia tidak berjaya dilakukan secara meluas. Benar, ada yang mengamalkan kitar semula, tetapi tidak cukup untuk membantu mengurangkan jumlah sisa sampah. Kalau ada yang mendakwa kempen kitar semula sebelum ini gagal, pernahkah yang mendakwa itu duduk berfikir sejenak tanpa mempersalahkan sesiapa apa yang mengagalkannya?
Dalam hal ini, ada yang menyatakan tiada tindakan susulan selepas setiap kempen yang digerakkan menyumbang kepada kecundangnya kempen, tanpa mengecualikan kempen kitar semula.
Masing-masing mengharapkan ada orang lain yang memikul tugas menyedarkan masyarakat tentang perlunya sampah dikitar semula. Itulah masalahnya.
Yang jelas, ini mengakibatkan orang ramai tidak dapat menghargai kepentingan dan faedah mengitar semula. Masyarakat tidak boleh dipersalahkan kalau mereka tidak mahu bekerjasama menjayakan kempen kitar semula. Kalau tidak ada kemahuan, tidak akan ada jalan. Begitulah.
‘‘Meminta orang menukar gaya hidup yang sudah sebati dalam diri mereka turun-temurun, apa yang boleh diharapkan setakat menjual air liur mengajak orang mengitar semula,’’ kata seorang rakan, seorang pengamal kitar semula yang jelas amat kesal dengan kegagalan kempen kitar semula.
Menukar
Seperti yang diketahui, Kempen Kitar Semula pertama kali dilaksanakan pada tahun 1993, ia digerakkan semula pada tahun 2000 dengan menukar sedikit pendekatan iaitu memberi sentuhan ‘warna’ untuk setiap benda yang harus dikitar – jingga untuk aluminium dan plastik, coklat untuk kaca dan botol, biru untuk kertas.
Entah di mana silap, ia juga tidak ke mana, selepas acara potong reben dan gelak ketawa dalam majlis meriah, orang masih lagi tidak kitar semula. Dalam hal ini, berbuih mulut NGO alam sekitar mempromosikan kebaikannya dan tidak sedikit laporan mengenai kitar semula disiarkan dalam media cetak dan elektronik. Sedihnya, masyarakat kita belum biasa dengan kitar semula, yang biasa ialah membuang sampah di dalam sungai.
Memandangkan pentingnya kitar semula dan dapat dilihat rendahnya tahap kesedaran tentang amalan yang satu itu, ENSEARCH tampil mengadakan satu persidangan dan pameran mengenai pengurusan sisa yang membawa tema sisa sebagai sumber.
Persidangan dan Pameran Sisa ENSEARCH 2007 akan menjadi medan pembentangan kertas-kertas kerja yang menumpukan kepada kitar semula, teknologi serta amalan-amalan berkesan dalam pengurusan sisa dan pembangunan kapasiti.
Suka diingatkan bahawa ia adalah persidangan tahunan kali ketujuh dianjurkan oleh ENSEARCH.
‘‘Ia yang akan berlangsung pada 7 hingga 8 Ogos ini adalah platform yang tepat bagi membincangkan senario tentang sisa dan sampah ini.
‘‘Sebanyak 22 lot pameran juga cuba membuat sorotan dengan tidak lari daripada hal-hal kitar semula dan kesedaran tentang kepentingannya,’’ kata pegawai projeknya, Suganya Sudanathan dalam satu pertemuan dengan Utusan Malaysia di pejabat ENSEARCH di Kota Damansara baru-baru ini.
Dalam pertemuan itu, beliau tidak boleh lari daripada bercakap dan berbual mengenai kitar semula serta apa yang dipanggil 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle).
Kitar semula bermakna menggunakan semula barangan tersebut atau memproses barangan tersebut untuk dijadikan bahan seperti yang asal atau sebaliknya, dengan erti lain tidak membuangnya begitu sahaja.
Proses ini boleh mengurangkan sampah kita sebanyak dua juta tan metrik.
Sampah kita terdiri dari pelbagai bahan antaranya sisa buangan dari kawasan kediaman, komersial, perindustrian dan pertanian.
Kebanyakan daripada sisa pembuangan ini akan berakhir di kawasan pelupusan sampah, yang kemudian dilupuskan dengan dua cara utama iaitu pembakaran atau penimbunan. Pembakaran, jika dilakukan secara terbuka dan tidak terkawal boleh menyebabkan pencemaran udara.
Sementara penimbunan pula perlu dilakukan secara terkawal untuk mengelakkan masalah seperti haiwan perosak, penyakit, pencemaran bekalan air dan pencemaran bau.
Secara individu kita boleh membantu dalam mengatasi masalah peningkatan pembuangan sampah. Kita perlu membuka minda untuk menerima pengetahuan ini dan menjadikan ia satu amalan hidup yang sihat untuk diri, keluarga dan alam sekitar.
‘‘Kita boleh mengurangkan pembuangan sampah dengan memahami konsep 3R,’’ kata Suganya lagi.
Pengurangan atau reduce bermakna boleh mengelakkan barangan yang mempunyai banyak pembalut. Alternatifnya, boleh membeli barangan di mana bekasnya boleh diguna semula. Di sini pentingnya kita mengurangkan penggunaan beg plastik. Begitu juga dengan kertas tisu, sebaliknya boleh menggunakan tuala yang boleh dibasuh dan dipakai balik, berbanding tisu, dibuang menjadi sampah.
Paling mudah penggunaan semula atau reuse ialah kita lakukan di rumah dengan cuba mengelak daripada membuang beg plastik sebaliknya guna semula untuk mengisi barangan lain manakala proses kitar semula penting untuk mengurangkan tekanan terhadap bahan mentah semula jadi seperti penebangan pokok untuk menghasilkan kertas.
Selain itu, ia dapat mengurangkan penggunaan tenaga, air serta pencemaran air dan udara.
Sebagai contoh, kaca yang dikitar semula berulang kali boleh mengurangkan 50 peratus penggunaan air manakala kitar semula kertas dapat menjimatkan 70 peratus tenaga.
Kitar semula aluminium, kertas dan kaca, masing-masing dapat mengurangkan pencemaran sebanyak 95 peratus, 50 peratus dan 14 peratus.
Perkara-perkara tersebut akan dibincangkan pada persidangan satu setengah hari itu nanti.
Dalam pada itu, Suganya melihat, program pendidikan adalah kunci kejayaan kempen kitar semula.
‘‘Kita tidak boleh harap sediakan tong berwarna-warni untuk asingkan sampah dan harap orang akan guna. Kita perlu usaha lebih daripada itu,’’ katanya.
Beliau turut mengingatkan supaya penguatkuasaan terhadap kegiatan membuang sampah di tempat terbuka dan kawasan larangan diberi perhatian yang lebih serius. Sambil menyebut Singapura sebagai contoh, katanya, penguatkuasaan yang tegas berjaya menanam tabiat yang baik.
‘‘You pollute, you pay,’’ katanya sebelum menambah barangkali itulah yang boleh membantu memberi kesedaran kepada rakyat Malaysia tentang tabiat tidak baik membuang sampah ini.
Ditanya perlu atau tidak mata pelajaran alam sekitar itu diajar di sekolah beliau berkata: ‘‘Berdasarkan pengalaman, kempen pendidikan tidak harus ditumpukan kepada kanak-kanak sahaja.
‘‘Memang betul mereka mudah dibentuk tetapi apa maknanya kalau mereka melihat amalan yang tidak baik daripada keluarga sendiri. Ia mesti dua-dua, kanak-kanak dan orang dewasa.’’
Jelas beliau, mengubah sikap manusia adalah kerja yang paling sukar. ‘‘Tetapi kalau sekali mereka mula (kitar semula), ia menjadi satu tabiat. Kalau mereka berhenti, mereka akan rasa bersalah.”
Mahu tidak mahu, kempen ini harus digerakkan sekarang kerana keadaan yang sudah semakin mendesak.
Kejayaan kempen ini banyak bergantung kepada kerjasama semua pihak – kerajaan, swasta dan anggota masyarakat.
Laman web untuk persidangan dan ENSEARCH boleh dilayari di alamat www.ensearch.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)