NASIONAL 16 pusat lupus sampah ditutup 2008

KUALA LUMPUR: Kerajaan sudah memperuntukkan RM160 juta bagi menutup 16 pusat pelupusan sampah kritikal di seluruh negara dan akan dilaksanakan mengikut kaedah mesra alam menggunakan teknologi terkini yang terbukti selamat selewat-lewatnya tahun depan.

Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, berkata Jawatankuasa Teknikal di bawah Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan akan mengenal pasti kaedah serta teknologi terbaik bagi melakukan kerja terbabit, termasuk kemampuan syarikat tempatan melaksanakannya.

"Kerajaan turut melantik pakar perunding melakukan kajian sebelum melantik syarikat yang memiliki kepakaran bersesuaian bagi mengendalikan penutupan pusat pelupusan sampah. Saya percaya menjelang tahun depan kita sudah bersedia untuk mengeluarkan kontrak berkaitan.


"Selepas ini kerajaan hanya akan membenarkan pembukaan pusat pelupusan sampah secara sanitari atau yang menggunakan insinerator. Kita akan kaji kaedah dan teknologi lain yang bersesuaian mengikut kawasan kerana sudah ada syarikat tempatan yang berupaya melakukannya.

"Kita mahu tutup 16 pusat pelupusan ini pada masa terdekat, tetapi tertakluk apabila kontrak dianugerahkan dan tempoh masa diperlukan," katanya pada sidang media selepas majlis penyempurnaan Projek Pemuliharaan Mesra Alam Tapak Pelupusan Sisa Pepejal Taman Beringin, di sini, semalam.

Hadir sama Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Abdul Hakim Borhan; Pengerusi Kumpulan Cypark (Cypark), Tan Sri Razali Ismail dan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Cypark, Daud Ahmad.

Majlis sama turut menyaksikan Najib merasmikan pelancaran Loji Air Resapan Taman Beringin. Kedua-dua projek membabitkan kawasan seluas 14 hektar itu disempurnakan anak syarikat Cypark, CyEn Resources Sdn Bhd dengan kos RM33 juta.

Apabila kerja penutupan dimulakan pada Ogos 2004, pusat pelupusan yang beroperasi sejak 1994 itu dipenuhi timbunan sampah setinggi 88 meter dari paras laut dan sudah mencapai tahap maksimum pada 1999 serta diarah ditutup oleh Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS) pada tahun sama.

Bagaimanapun, ketiadaan pusat pelupusan lain memaksa ia terus digunakan bagi melupuskan lebih 1,800 tan sampah dihasilkan penduduk sekitar Lembah Klang setiap hari.

Pusat pelupusan yang ditutup itu memerlukan kira-kira 10 tahun lagi sebelum dipulihkan sepenuhnya dan selamat untuk kegunaan lain. Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) bercadang membina pusat rekreasi di tapak berkenaan.

Terdahulu dalam ucapannya, Najib berkata, kejayaan Cypark memulihkan pusat pelupusan sampah Taman Beringin membuktikan kawasan yang hodoh, busuk dan memualkan boleh diubah menjadi indah, cantik dan menawan jika ada kesungguhan.

Sehubungan itu, katanya, kerajaan komited dalam pemuliharaan alam sekitar sehingga mencapai tahap piawaian antarabangsa kerana amalan melindungi alam semula jadi memberi nilai tambah kepada ekonomi negara.

Selain itu, tindakan memulihara lebih banyak kawasan hijau, khususnya di sekitar Lembah Klang membolehkan masyarakat setempat menikmati mutu hidup lebih baik.

Najib berkata, sampah sebelum ini dilupuskan di Taman Beringin akan dihantar ke pusat pelupusan sampah sanitari di Bukit Tagar, Kuala Selangor yang belum mencapai tahap maksimum sementara pusat pelupusan baru menggunakan kaedah mesra alam dapat dibuka.

Beliau juga menyuarakan keyakinan terhadap kaedah penutupan pusat pelupusan sampah diguna pakai Cypark dan percaya syarikat tempatan mempunyai kemahiran bersesuaian bagi melaksanakan tugas itu.

sumber : Berita Harian, 18 September 2007

Broga Incinerator Project

Broga Incinerator Project Off

July 06, 2007 17:16 PM

Broga Incinerator Project Off

KUALA LUMPUR, July 6 (Bernama) -- The controversial RM1.5 billion incinerator project in Broga, Semenyih, Selangor has been finally called off by the government.

The cancellation was notified through a letter issued by the Attorney-General's Chambers to the lawyer representing Broga residents who had sued the government over the project, at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya Friday.

It was signed by Senior Federal Counsel Suzanna Atan and addressed to Uma Parvaphy Thokhathri of the law firm Messrs Uma and Associates.

The letter read : "Untuk makluman pihak tuan, Kamar ini telah dimaklumkan oleh kementerian berkenaan bahawa projek yang menjadi subjek perkara kepada tindakan seperti di atas telah ditamatkan".

Translation: For your information, this Chambers has been informed by the ministry concerned that the project your party is disputing has been cancelled.

Uma said the letter dated July 5 (yesterday) was produced in Appeals Court 4, Palace of Justice in Putrajaya today just before the residents' suit was to be heard before it.

"This (letter) is confirmation that the government has called off the project," Uma said when contacted by Bernama.

"Therefore, my clients have instructed me to file a discontinuation notice within seven days," she added.

The Housing and Local Government Ministry also confirmed that the government had called off the project, However, the minister concerned, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting did not have immediate plans to give any statement on the matter.

"Yes, there is a letter that has been issued on the matter. However, the Minister (Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting) will not make any statement today as he is busy with a few meetings. You can publish the details in the letter," said Ong's press secretary Ng Kian Nam when contacted by Bernama.

The decision to call off the project was only known to the media today after the letter was produced in the court.

The hearing was originally scheduled to be heard at the Shah Alam High Court but as Judge Suriadi Halim Omar has been elevated to an Appeals Court judge, it was to continue to be heard by him.

Judge Suriadi later awarded costs to the residents.

Had the project materialised, the 1,500-tonne thermal incinerator would have been the biggest in the country. It was designed to reduce Kuala Lumpur's dependence on landfills for waste management.

The residents first filed a lawsuit against it in 2005 and obtained a temporary injunction to prevent work done on it from continuing further. However, when the injunction expired, work resumed causing the residents to file a second lawsuit.

The residents complained that they were not consulted about the project and that it also did not undergo Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

They said they feared for their health and environmental effects if it was to be built in their town.

-- BERNAMA

Pembatalan Projek Incinerator di Broga

Sistem urus sisa pepejal Print E-mail
Tuesday, 24 July 2007, 06:46am

©Utusan Malaysia (Digunakan dengan kebenaran)
Oleh Latifah Abd. Manaf

Berita pembatalan projek insinerator di Broga baru-baru ini mengejutkan masyarakat. Projek insinerator berteknologi gasifikasi dan peleburan abu yang berharga RM1.5 bilion di tapak seluas 265 hektar itu sepatutnya beroperasi bagi menangani 1,500 tan sisa pepejal perbandaran dari kawasan Lembah Klang.

Walau bagaimanapun belum sempat beroperasi, projek tersebut telah ditamatkan dan kerajaan terpaksa menanggung kos pembiayaannya.

Projek insinerator di Broga bukan kali pertama kita melakukan kesilapan dalam memilih teknologi pengurusan sisa pepejal yang efektif untuk Malaysia. Sebelum ini pun, beberapa projek insinerator telah cuba dilaksanakan di negara ini tetapi gagal berfungsi sepenuhnya. Sebagai contoh, tujuh loji insinerator telah dibangunkan dengan kos RM17 juta di beberapa pulau peranginan seperti Langkawi, Pangkor, Tioman dan Labuan tetapi gagal berfungsi kerana kapasitinya yang kecil tidak dapat menampung amaun sisa yang banyak.

Selain insinerator, kerajaan juga telah cuba mempromosikan teknologi kitar semula bagi menguruskan sisa pepejal yang kian meningkat kadar penjanaannya. Kempen kitar semula buat pertama kalinya telah dilancarkan pada 1993 di 23 buah kerajaan tempatan tetapi kurang mendapat sambutan daripada orang ramai dan pengilang. Bagaimanapun ada beberapa kerajaan tempatan yang berjaya melaksanakan kempen tersebut seperti Majlis Perbandaran Petaling Jaya, Majlis Perbandaran Melaka dan Dewan Bandaraya Kuching Utara.

Pada 2 Disember 2000, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan telah melancarkan semula kempen kitar semula fasa kedua. Tarikh 11 November, setiap tahun telah diisytiharkan sebagai Hari Kitar Semula Kebangsaan. Namun setelah hampir tujuh tahun fasa kedua kempen dilancarkan, hasilnya masih belum dapat dibanggakan.

Peratus perolehan semula bahan kitar masih rendah, jauh daripada angka yang disasarkan. Masih banyak tong kitar semula yang disediakan belum berfungsi secara sepenuhnya. Masyarakat pula masih belum terdidik sepenuhnya betapa kitar semula dapat menyumbang kepada pemeliharaan sumber semula jadi serta menjamin alam sekitar yang bersih dan selamat untuk dihuni.

Pada masa ini operasi pengurusan sisa pepejal hanya menekankan kepada proses pungutan dari tapak penjanaan termasuk kawasan perumahan, institusi, perdagangan dan industri dan seterusnya dihantar ke tapak pelupusan. Terdapat 155 buah tapak pelupusan di seluruh negara yang dikendalikan oleh kerajaan tempatan dengan keluasan di antara 8 hingga 60 hektar, bergantung kepada lokasi dan amaun sisa yang dilupuskan. Kebanyakan tapak pelupusan ini beroperasi secara pembuangan terbuka.

Pelupusan

Rancangan Tindakan 1988 telah dibangunkan bagi meningkatkan tahap keberkesanan tapak pelupusan. Oleh kerana faktor kewangan dan kepakaran teknikal yang terhad, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan merancang untuk meningkatkan tahap keberkesanan tapak pelupusan daripada operasi secara pembuangan terbuka kepada kambusan sanitari secara berperingkat.

Empat tahap pembaikan yang disasarkan adalah Tahap 1: Pembuangan terkawal. Tahap 2: Kambusan sanitari dengan ban dan lapisan penutup harian. Tahap 3: Kambusan sanitari dengan peredaran cecair kurasan, dan Tahap 4: Kambusan sanitari dengan rawatan cecair kurasan.

Bagaimanapun tahap pembaikan tapak pelupusan masih belum mencapai objektif yang disasarkan yang mana pembuangan terbuka masih lagi berleluasa.

Jabatan Kerajaan Tempatan, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT) serta, Jabatan Perkhidmatan Kejuruteraan, Kementerian Kesihatan merupakan dua badan yang bertanggungjawab menguruskan sisa pepejal pada peringkat persekutuan.

KPKT bertanggungjawab dalam merangka dan melaksanakan polisi kerajaan tempatan yang seragam dan moden untuk seluruh Malaysia, manakala Kementerian Kesihatan bertanggungjawab dalam melaksanakan dan memantau Program Kebersihan Sekitaran Kebangsaan.

Terdapat 145 buah kerajaan tempatan di Malaysia dengan pelbagai tahap keupayaan dalam menyediakan perkhidmatan perbandaran kepada orang awam. Daripada peruntukan yang diterima saban tahun, kerajaan tempatan telah membelanjakan 40-70 peratus untuk menguruskan sisa pepejal perbandaran, namun perkhidmatannya masih kurang berkesan untuk kebanyakan kawasan terutamanya dari segi aktiviti pungutan sisa pepejal.

Pada tahun 1996, pengurusan sisa pepejal telah diswastakan. Walaupun kerajaan tempatan mempunyai tenaga kerja dan peralatan yang banyak, tetapi faktor kewangan menjadi penghalang utama.

Di bawah program penswastaan yang dirancangkan, empat konsortium telah dilantik dan dibahagikan zon masing-masing: Alam Flora Sdn. Bhd. (meliputi Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Pahang, Terengganu dan Kelantan), Nothern Waste Sdn. Bhd. telah diambil alih oleh Idaman Bersih Sdn. Bhd. (meliputi Perak, Kedah, Pulau Pinang dan Perlis), Southern Waste Management Sdn. Bhd. (meliputi Johor, Negeri Sembilan dan Melaka), dan Eastern Waste Management (meliputi Sabah, Sarawak dan Labuan).

Bagaimanapun dasar penswastaan ini masih belum menampakkan hasil yang positif di mana sistem pengurusan sisa pepejal di Malaysia masih lagi tidak cekap dan tidak diuruskan dengan sempurna.

Membangunkan dan melaksanakan sistem pengurusan sisa pepejal perlu melibatkan gabungan teknologi yang sesuai dengan keadaan dan undang-undang tempatan. Oleh kerana pengurusan sisa pepejal merupakan suatu masalah yang kompleks, pendekatan bersepadu perlu diguna pakai.

Pendekatan bersepadu yang dimaksudkan adalah kita perlu mengambil kira kesemua elemen pengurusan sisa pepejal bermula dari tapak penjanaan sehinggalah ia dilupuskan. Ciri dan komposisi sisa perlu difahami dalam proses pemilihan teknologi pengurusan bagi mencapai objektif yang disasarkan.

Kekurangan maklumat sisa pepejal, kelemahan penguatkuasaan, kekurangan kesedaran awam dan kakitangan terlatih boleh menjadi punca kegagalan.

Pemilihan teknologi pengurusan sisa pepejal merupakan masalah membuat keputusan pelbagai kriteria yang melibatkan penilaian subjektif. Proses pemilihan sukar dilakukan kerana ia berada dalam lingkungan sumber yang terhad. Kerumitan proses ini semakin bertambah apabila melibatkan isu sosial dan sekitaran serta masalah pembiayaan projek.

Kesesuaian teknologi menentukan kejayaan program pengurusan sisa pepejal dan ia perlu dipertimbangkan pada peringkat awal perancangan. Kesesuaian teknologi tidak hanya merujuk kepada operasi dan kos mesin yang diimport dari negara maju, tetapi juga merujuk kepada kesesuaian gabungan teknologi. Teknologi yang diterima pakai dari negara maju tidak semestinya efektif untuk negara kita tetapi perlu diubah suai mengikut keadaan tempatan.

* DR. LATIFAH ABD MANAF ialah Pensyarah Jabatan Sains Alam Sekitar, Fakulti Pengajian Alam Sekitar, Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Municiple solid waste management

The Sierra Club has long been committed to conserving natural resources and reducing waste. Excessive consumption of resources contributes to high levels of waste generation. In the interests of resource conservation and improved waste management, the problem of overconsumption should be vigorously addressed, with the goal of reducing the production and consumption of unnecessary goods, packaging and throwaways.

By analyzing the processes of converting resources into products that are eventually discarded and the consumption habits which create demand, methods may be developed to curtail the generation of waste at all states. These should involve industrial, commercial, and governmental planning; substituting appropriate materials; changing product standards and work practices; and increasing the efficiency as well as the environmental sensitivity of producers and consumers. Lifecycle analyses of the environmental impact of specific products would enhance public awareness of the effects of materials usage.

State, provincial, and federal laws should be promoted that will create new incentives for waste reduction, reuse, recycling, materials recovery and composting. Governments should eliminate subsidies for using virgin resources, promote the sale of recovered materials, and encourage, by subsidy if necessary, the repair and reuse of discards. Toxic materials used in products and packaging and produced as byproducts in production processes should be minimized. Waste management programs with these goals decrease the environmental costs of natural resource extraction, minimize pollution, conserve energy, and provide an framework for continued wise resource use.

Waste should be managed as close to the point of generation as possible. Export of wastes or incinerator ash to other countries is not acceptable because it poses significant health and environmental threats, and is unnecessary and unethical. Separated portions of the solid waste stream processed for recycling and reuse and organic materials made into compost are no longer considered solid waste, and are therefore not included in this transport restriction.

Effective waste management should be based on communities, industries, and individuals taking responsibility for their own wastes. Local governments should be empowered to develop their own solid waste management programs, subject to criteria established and administered by the state or province. Management plans should include, in priority order: waste reduction, reuse, recycling, materials recovery, composting and landfilling. Municipal incineration is not considered acceptable because of its adverse environmental and health effects and the destruction of materials that could be conserved while saving energy through other management methods.

The full range of waste management options should be considered, based on a comprehensive study of the total waste stream. These should be incorporated into the community's waste management plan and financed as integral components of the program. Quantities and types of waste to be managed through various methods in the hierarchy should be chosen to serve the objective of attaining the highest and best use of the discarded/recovered material. A complete assessment of environmental and health effects should be made for all waste-management processes considered.

Sierra Club members and the public are encouraged to participate in the development of state, provincial, and local solid waste management plans, planning and siting for solid waste facilities, and monitoring of projects in operation and following closure. Citizen advisory committees should be involved, and all information and documents should be easily accessible and available to the public well in advance of meetings.

As an organization, the Sierra Club should continually monitor its own waste generation and strengthen existing programs to maximize waste reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and the use of recycled products. The Club should set an example for others to follow in the materials and products it uses, produces or offers for sale. More effort should be made to implement the Club's policy of avoiding the use of throwaway items at meetings and on outings.

Adopted by the Board of Directors March 14-15, 1992 [Replaced Municipal Solid Waste Management Policies of May and November 1986]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guidelines for Implementing this Policy

The Sierra Club policy on municipal solid waste management has established the following priorities for management for wastes: waste reduction, reuse, recycling, materials recovery, composting, and landfilling. Incineration is considered unacceptable. These guidelines provide further details for implementing the policy.

Source Reduction and Reuse


All solid waste management programs should be based on targeted goals for reductions in the region's waste streams and should provide incentives for decreased generation of wastes. Variable garbage collection rates, based on volume or weight, should be used to reward those who generate less waste and separate their recyclables at the source. The use of throwaway goods should be discouraged, regulated, or banned.


Products or packaging that are unsafe in production, use, post-consumer use, or that produce or release harmful products when disposed should be phased out. Excess packaging and packaging that is difficult to recycle should be eliminated. Manufactures of new products and packaging should be required to minimize waste and toxicity in production and to demonstrate environmentally sound post-consumer use and disposal.


Products should be made to last as long as possible by the use of durable designs and materials, and the availability of repair services and replacement parts. Consumers should repair, resell, exchange, or donate unwanted product as much as possible to avoid disposal. Sharing and rental of tools and equipment is encouraged.


The Sierra Club supports a national beverage container deposit law which includes a provision that unclaimed deposits be returned to each state to fund reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. Highest priority should be given to establishing standardized and refillable containers for beverages and other products. New beverage containers without the mechanism or market for reuse or recycling should be prohibited. Deposits should be required on products and packaging that are not practical to collect in curbside or other recycling programs to facilitate collection, reuse, recycling, or proper disposal.


Waste management programs should include strong public education campaigns in source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting.

Recycling


Community solid waste management planning should be based on an analysis of the quantity and composition of the area's municipal and commercial waste streams to determine what can feasibly be managed by source reduction and recycling.


Curbside or other convenient recycling opportunities and sufficient incentives to recycle should be provided to all residents. Collection routes, schedules, and fees should be designed to promote efficient and economical collection of recyclable materials. Joint planning by labor/environmental groups to minimize contractual problems and other issues involving municipal personnel and to maximize environmental benefits is encouraged. Contracts and requests for bids should be structured to encourage fair competition by independent haulers and community and non-profit recyclers.


Economic considerations of recycling should include avoided disposal fees, the avoidance of future clean-up costs, the costs of future land acquisition, transportation, and facility development. Disposal cost savings of recycling programs should be publicized. Disposal surcharges may be used as means of financing recycling programs.


Legislation should require that recyclable materials will be recycled and should ban disposal of these materials by incineration and landfilling.


The establishment of stable markets for recycled materials is essential. Legislation should promote procurement of products containing a high content of recycled and recyclable materials, and require that government contracts specify products with the highest practical percentage of recycled content. Federal guidelines on the procurement of recycled materials should be prepared in a timely manner and followed by government agencies and their contractors and subcontractors. Government activities that could have an impact on recycling should be identified and modified to promote it.


Governmental regulations and policies that encourage the use of virgin materials through taxes, incentives, hauling rates, etc. should be revised to discourage the use of virgin materials and promote the use of recycled ones.


Products and packaging materials should be conspicuously labeled to indicate recycled content, including post-consumer content, recyclability, toxicity and appropriate disposal. Uniform governmentally approved standards should be applied to terms commonly used for product labeling and promotion, such as, "biodegradable," "recycled," "recyclable," "post-consumer waste," and others. Use of the term "recyclable" should be limited to items that are accepted for recycling in the region where sold.


Household and small quantity commercial toxic and hazardous wastes should be segregated, labeled and collected separately in community-level programs that recycle, treat, or otherwise safely manage those wastes. Product and disposal charges should be considered as means of funding these programs.


Land-use planning should provide for siting for recycling and other waste management facilities. Regulations should assure compatibility with surrounding land uses, minimal negative impacts on residential neighborhoods, and construction to minimize litter.
Building codes should be revised to provide properly designed and accessible storage space for materials to be recycled in both residential and commercial buildings.

Materials Recovery from the Water Stream


A comprehensive waste management program should aim to recover all useful materials, with zero trash the ultimate goal. After source separation of recyclables, remaining salvageable materials should be recovered from the waste stream. Materials recovery from mixed wastes should not be substituted for source separation programs.


Discarded tired should be recapped, reused as rubber, or reclaimed by processing into material for road surfacing or other uses. Burning of tires is strongly discouraged. However, if, despite strong objections, tires are burned for fuel, stringent measures should be taken to prevent emission of toxic or harmful substances and to dispose of all residues in a safe manner.


Components of the waste stream such as wood waste, construction and demolition debris, and white goods (e.g., stoves and refrigerators) should be removed and processed to recover the material. Refrigerants should be recovered and recycled.


Items which can be repaired such as furniture, tools and small appliances should be recovered and made available to the public through second-hand shops, charitable organizations or waste exchanges.

Composting


Composting of kitchen and yard wastes at the household and community level should be encouraged through public education and dissemination of information on composting. Grass clippings should be left on the lawn to provide fertilizer and help conserve moisture. Incineration and landfilling of yard wastes should be prohibited.


Organic materials such as kitchen waste, yard waste, and wet or soiled paper that cannot be recycled should be composted to produce a useful product. Curbside pickup of separated compostable materials should be encouraged as part of the waste management program. Community drop-off centers should be provided if curbside pickup is unavailable. If source separation is not used, appropriate materials should be separated from mixed waste for composting. Composting should serve to complement programs for recycling and reuse rather than substituting for these programs. Composting of mixed waste including recyclables and inorganics should not be used.


Standards should be established to set levels of inorganic materials, heavy metals, and organic chemicals in compost appropriate for the use of the compost. Strict control of the incoming waste and periodic testing should be used to insure that these levels are not exceeded.


Wastewater pre-treatment and treatment should be sufficient to make sewage sludge safe as a soil conditioner or for composting with food and plant wastes. Application of compost or sludge to the land should follow guidelines that will protect the environment and public health.

Landfills


Landfilling should be limited to materials that cannot be managed through preferable options. Materials entering landfills should be regulated and monitored to prevent the introduction of any harmful substances.


Existing land-disposal facilities should be upgraded to make use of improved technology in order to protect public health and the environment from toxic leachates, methane migration, and air emissions. New facilities should be built to meet these objectives. Facilities should be managed to extend their life as long as possible.


Siting criteria should be established well in advance of choosing a specific site. Landfills should not be located in undeveloped natural areas. Proposed sites should be buffered from residential neighborhoods, provide adequate access, and be geologically secure. There should be adequate time and process for the public to be involved meaningfully in siting decisions.


Siting and design should minimize groundwater, surface water, soil, and air contamination. Leachate should be collected, tested, and treated, if necessary. Methane should be collected and used as a fuel, if possible. On-site salvaging of materials from the incoming waste should be considered.


Landfill permits should be reviewed and upgraded periodically to allow for adoption of new technologies.


A portion of the disposal fee should be set aside for monitoring after closure and for future corrective actions. When completed, sites should be landscaped to approximate native conditions.

Solid Waste Incineration


The incineration of municipal solid wastes can cause adverse environmental and health effects through air emissions, toxic ash residue, and the destruction of materials that could be recycled. Thus, incineration is not an acceptable option for management of solid waste. As the infrastructure for management of wastes by environmentally acceptable methods is developed, existing incinerators should be phased out. Conditions stated below (6b-k) should be met within five years by any existing incinerators. If, despite strong objections, new incinerators are constructed or existing ones expanded, these conditions should be met at the outset.


The area to be served by the incinerator should manage at least 60% of its waste through waste reduction, reuse, recycling, material recovery, and composting; maximum possible recycling of each component of the waste should be achieved. Contracts should specify that these programs be continued aggressively after an incinerator is built.


The service area for the incinerator should be established and the size of the incinerator should be consistent with 6 b. Ordinances should not be enacted that allow wastes to be diverted to an incinerator that can be managed through preferable methods (see 6 b). "Put-or-pay" contracts that require delivery of a specified quantity of waste to an incinerator should not be allowed.


Toxic materials such as household and small business hazardous wastes, batteries, and wastes which produce or release toxic materials when incinerated should be removed from the waste stream at the source and then managed properly. The production of refuse-derived fuel from segregated combustible, non-recoverable portions of the waste stream may be preferred over mixed-waste incineration.


In reviewing proposed facilities, there should be a thorough analysis of local weather, topographic features, water quality and availability, air quality, and health impacts encompassing the area surrounding and affected by the proposed facilities. Both short-and long-term health effects should be assessed and communicated promptly to the public. Local governments should establish additional standards for siting appropriate to the area.


There should be full public participation in making decisions to use incineration and siting the incinerator. Technical assistance grants should be provided by the governmental agency or industry proposing the incinerator to enable citizens groups to evaluate plans adequately. Prior to contracting for construction of an incinerator, accurate assessment of full costs, including costs to electricity ratepayers and taxpayer subsidies, of construction, operation, closure, and post-closure monitoring should be provided by the manufacturer, consulting engineers, and responsible governmental agency.


The permit for an incinerator should require that optimum operating conditions be maintained. Parameters needed to assure optimum conditions should be monitored continuously. Operator training and certification in the necessary skills and knowledge should be required.


The pollution control equipment used should meet lowest achievable emissions rates (LAER) to minimize toxic emissions, heavy metals, organics, and acid gases. Standards to assure that public health will not be adversely affected should be in place. Pollution control equipment should be maintained and periodically upgraded to current LAER standards. The responsible agency should conduct unannounced inspections to check the accuracy of monitoring equipment and data. During the life of the facility, monitoring for toxics, heavy metals, organics, and acid gases should be continuous, with the data telemetered to the responsible agency. In addition, frequent periodic summaries should be furnished to the responsible agency or agencies.


Estimated amounts of bottom ash, fly ash, sludges, and waste waters that the facility will produce and their toxicity and costs of disposal should be considered in determining whether to site a facility. These materials should be tested regularly using adequate testing procedures, and managed as hazardous wastes if hazardous. Fly ash and bottom ash should be tested separately. Land disposal of toxic ash should be in secure monofills, with consideration given to methods to immobilize metals. Ash to be used for road building or other purposes should be required to meet stringent standards to assure that it is non-toxic. Management plans for ash disposal within the service area of the incinerator should be required.


Permits and contracts for incinerators should require shutting down those that fail to meet operating conditions, emission standards, or ash testing and management procedures. The public should have full access to all operating, monitoring, and testing results. Operation, monitoring, and closure of the incinerator should be subject to oversight by a citizens panel.


The federal government should establish and enforce strict specific national standards for all emissions from solid waste incinerators and for ash testing and management. States, provinces, and other jurisdictions should be allowed to establish stricter standards.

The Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Bill 2007

In JUly 2007,
Malaysia Solid Waste new bill was passed by the parliament,
The Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Bill 2007.
for more information, you can log on to WMAM's website-WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF MALAYSIA [WMAM]:

http://www.wmam.org

Spotlight: What a waste of wealth

Saturday, 21 July 2007

New Straits Times
by Elizabeth John

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

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

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

Composting, waste-eating bacteria and turning materials that burn into fuel pellets could take care of half Malaysia’s daily solid waste output.

Add recycling and the bulk of waste can be kept out of landfills, says Agamuthu.

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

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

There’s even more to be made from recycling.

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

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

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

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

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

What they threw in the bin...

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

Rohani Abdullah and Mohd Damis YusofThe retirees:

Rohani Abdullah and Mohd Damis Yusof

- Four bags

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

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

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

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

"A lot of the rubbish is actually kitty litter. We clear it twice a day. But I’d like to know if there’s another way to dispose of it."

This is the average daily amount for this household, says Rohani, although on other days, there might be more soft drink cans or bottles in the bin.

Daniel LeeThe Idol:
Daniel Lee

- Half a bag

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

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

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

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

This is something he learned from his years in Taiwan where shoppers pay for their plastic bags.

And though his fast selling album’s called Unavoidable, he’s managed to avoid putting a plastic CD tray in the pack.

In the 25,000 copies sold in the first week of release, the disc is tucked into a glossy paper envelope, instead.

The singer, who quickly goes through tissue and cotton wool pads removing inches of make-up after performances, also wishes there was more he could do about empty cosmetic containers.

"If you bring back empty containers, some cosmetic companies give you a discount or a gift in exchange.

"I wish more companies would do that," says Daniel.

The aunts he shares a home with in Damansara send their waste paper for recycling but Daniel doesn’t know of any recycling bins near his home.

Sometimes, he lugs a recyclabe item or two all the way to a supermarket.

"It’s mostly a lot of tissue and clothes tags that I throw but there are lots of stuff that I’m not sure can be recycled."

In all, the 25-year-old empties the bin in his room once in two weeks.

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

Khaw Siok KimThe green-minded
Khaw Siok Kim

- A very small corner of one bag

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

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

From the absence of a car to the spotlessly clean house bereft of a single unnecessary piece of furniture or decoration, Kim leads the ecologically friendly lifestyle others talk about.

She buries the kitty litter and recycles every possible item, throwing away things she isn’t quite sure about, like the empty medicine strip.

Kim’s tried composting in a corner of her tiny garden but gave it up when the pit attracted rats.

"So I only buy and cook exactly what I need. This leaves me with a small bag of rubbish at the end of the week. Sometimes, it takes longer to fill up."

Philomin SennyahThe homemaker
Philomin Sennyah

- Two bags

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

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

Mornings are spent cooking and most of this waste is what ends up in the bin.

The drink cartons, a favourite with her grandsons, are a common feature in the rubbish they put out.

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

The family doesn’t really recycle and hardly takes canned drinks, but they do sell old newspapers off, says Philomin.

"I don’t think we throw out that much waste."

What a waste of wealthSingle in the city
Angelina Ng Sook Mun

- Half a bag

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

The story: Working in the heart of the glamourous capital, in a swanky hotel, Angel doesn’t spend much time in her rented room in Jalan Imbi.

At the beck and call of a host of demanding international guests, most of her meals are eaten out and then there’s the occasional bowl of maggi (instant noodles).

"I know there’s a lot of things in my bag that I can recycle," she says.

"But it’s so hard to find those bins and I don’t see anyone coming around to collect this stuff.

"The place we rent is not so big lah, so there’s not much place to keep all our recycling."

The expert says ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

But if the tissue has been used on a wound, it should be binned.

The only packaging material that’s almost impossible to recycle is the brown wax paper often used to wrap chicken rice — where one side is covered in water-proof material.

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

The volunteers could have composted the food waste, says Agamuthu.

Sure, it’s difficult but if done properly, it could reduce most of the waste that makes the rubbish bag end up stinky and soggy.

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

He does not recommend composting meat and bones as these are the items that attract most of the vermin and flies.

What about the curry?

Well, that should go down the kitchen sink, if it’s connected to the sewer, says Agamuthu. Otherwise, that, too, goes into the bin.

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

As for plastic mineral water bottles, do separate the caps and bottles. Though both are plastic, they’re different kinds. Your recycler will be ever grateful.

The greatest problem, says Agamuthu, is household items which are hazardous waste. Among the five bins, there is only one — the mosquito mat.

Such items include certain paints, cleaners and varnishes that now account for two per cent of all our household waste.

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

"There’s no proper method of collection at the moment, so people have little choice but to throw it out with the rest of the rubbish.

"But you can contribute by reducing the amount you use, or finding non-hazardous alternatives.

"In the case of paint, donate any balance to someone who needs it or can finish it up instead of throwing it out," says Agamuthu.

By
NoRliyaNa SaiLiLa