(This paper was prepared in response to a mandate given during the last National AGM in Penang. However it is felt that it reflects our stand only and will not be to be presented to the Government as we do not have enough scientific data to make a strong stand for or against Incinaration )

2.1. Introduction

Malaysia is a newly industrialized nation. From a producer of primary commodities like tin and agricultural, and agro-based industries in the early sixties, we are now producing manufactured products. The manufacturing sector contributed 10% of the GDP in the 1960's to 20 % in 1988, and is currently 30 % in 2000.

This is reflected in the changing nature of our pollution discharges: for industrial water borne sources, the composition for 1990 is 41% from the food and beverage industry, crude palm-oil and natural rubber 21%, followed by rubber products industry 15%, che-mical products 15%, textile and leather 8%, and paper products 3% (DOE, 1990).In 1995, the contribution from food and beverage industry declined to 31% while chemical industries increased to 14%, and textiles and leather, 10% (DOE,1995). The DOE (1990) estimates an annual generation rate of 380,000 cu. m. of toxic wastes annually.

Another indicator of modernization and industrialization is the number of vehicles registered. As a nation modernizes and prospers, more citizens can afford vehicles, and the transportation industry improves. Likewise, this will be reflected in the increasing contribution of air-pollution from mobile sources, which increased from 59% in 1987 to about 80 % from 1992 to 1997 (DOE, 1997).

The rapid development of economic activities, especially in the industrial sector, means that firstly, there is an improvement in the medical and health care system, which leads to high population growth. Secondly, there is a net migration from rural to urban areas, as the population shifts to take advantage of better employment and income opportunities in urban centers vis-à-vis rural areas. Urban centers provide opportunities more compatible with their modern education, training, and skills.

2.2. Population, Urbanization, and Solid Waste Generation

The change from an agro-based to an industrial nation, coupled with good medical, health, education and better employment opportunities has reduced our mortality rate and lead to an increase in the population growth rate. Our population has increased rapidly, from 6,278,800 in 1957, to a forecasted 23,236,000 in 2000 (DOS, 1957,1998). Details are as in Table 1.

Table 1: Population of Malaysia, 1957, 1991, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 (Thousands).
 

Year	1957	1991	1996	1997	1998	2000
Population	6,278.7	18,379.7	21,169.0	21,665.6	22,179.6	23,263.6

Note: The figures for 2000 are estimates.Source: DOS 1957, 1998.

Better education, entertainment, and employment opportunities have also stimulated migration into urban areas, stressing the existing infrastructural and municipal services provided by urban areas. Services provided include housing, water, electricity, sewage disposal, and solid waste collection. In view of further imbalances of rural and urban communities, there is a need for the municipalities to be pro-active and take stock of the impending strain on the facilities provided, especially some 63 % of Malaysians are expected to be urban-dwellers by 2000 (DOS, 2000). Table 2 below provides the ratio of urban and rural dwellers for the years 1991, 1997, and 2000.

Table 2: Population by Urban and Rural Distribution (in percentages)
 

Year	Urban	Rural	Total
1991	55	45	100
1997	61	39	100
2000	63	37	100
2020	77	23	100

Note: figures for 2020 are estimates.

Source: DOS, as quoted in Dasar Perancangan Negara, 2000.

The problem of environmental pollution and disposal of solid and liquid wastes are not new, and was even highlighted during the Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations (Kirov, 1975). Problems associated with solid wastes usually arise with the growth of communi-ties, and with the growth of technology and modernization, solid waste management takes on a very significant priority, as generally, the modern man likes to stay in large, urbanized communities, and while doing so, generates rubbish disposal problems that have to be handled by the municipalities.

Unlike solid wastes generated during the pre-industrial age, today's solid wastes are more complex, consisting of more sophisticated, non-biodegradable materials. This is due to modern affluence and trends in prepared and packaged foods, disposable cartons, non-returnable bottles, plastics, and styrofoam. Like all cities elsewhere, solid waste manage-ment in Kuala Lumpur is a major problem, with an estimated annual increase of 2 to 3 % from the present 2,500 tons (Alam Flora, as quoted in STAR, 2000).

2.3 Solid Wastes in Malaysia

There are few documented reports and studies on waste generation rates from urban and rural areas, as the studies are more on waste collection rates rather than waste generation (Wahid et al., 1996). Studies conducted by Alam Flora forecasted an average annual increase of 2-3 % from the present 2,500 kg per day, and it has also been estimated that, on average, a Malaysian generates a daily waste of 0.95 kg/day.

Generally, greater consumerism and urbanization in the modern age generates the need or more packaging materials higher in plastics and paper content, and this is reflected in the waste composition. Typically, wastes generated from rural areas are lower in plastics, paper, and cardboard, and may have higher content of organics (biodegradable) compared to urban areas. This is illustrated in Table 3.

The composition of organics collected in a rural area like Muar is 63.7 %, whereas for Kuala Lumpur, it is 48.4 %, and for Seremban, 35 %. Likewise, urbanized Kuala Lumpur has a higher proportion of plastics and paper (30 % and 9.8 %) compared to Seremban (10 % and 2.5 %) and Muar (11.7 % and 7.0 %) respectively. Plastics, the so-called "wonder material", have increased two-fold since the last decade when it constitutes only 5 % of the total volume of garbage produced (The Star, 1996). The moisture content of Malaysian rubbish ranges from 60-65 % by weight.

Table 3: Waste Composition of Selected Cities/Towns in Malaysia (in percentages).
 

Area	Organics	Paper	Plastics	Metals	Others
Kuala Lumpur (Urbanized)	48.4	30.0	9.8	4.6	7.2
Seremban (Semi-urbanized)	35.0	10.0	2.5	5.0	25.0
Muar (Rural)	63.7	11.7	7.0	6.4	11.2

Source: THT/UPM survey on local government 1994, as quoted in LESTARI, 1998.

Composition of solid wastes differ between country to country, and even within the same country, differs in different areas, and can also differ seasonally. For example, the waste generation rate for Selangor and Kuala Lumpur is 0.93 kg/cap/day, for Melaka, 0.71 kg/cap/day, Negri Sembilan, 0.63 kg/cap/day, and 0.72 kg/cap/day for Johor. The national waste generation rate is 1987 is 0.7111 kg/day (Malaysia 1988). The biggest sources of waste are from households (36.3 % for Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, 40.2 % for Negri Sembilan, 36.12 % for Melaka, and 38.99 % for Johor. The second largest contributor are industries and construction activities, followed by shops and markets. (Details are as shown in Table 4 in Appendix 1).

It has been forecasted that at an average annual generation rate of 4 % (2.5 % attributed to population increase, 1.5 % due to increase of waste production per capita), Kuala Lumpur and Selangor is expected to produce 7,922 tons/day by 2000, and 11,728 tons/day by 2010. For the states of Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor, waste expected to be generated for 2000 is 2,633 tons/day and 3,539 tons/day by 2015 (Lestari, 1998).

The generation of solid wastes present fresh challenges to solid waste managers and town and country planners, due to lack of available landfill space, and also because solid waste management represents very significant increases in collection and disposal facilities and functions, and this may impact on the number of manpower needed to manage them. As to date, there are approximately 230 official dumping sites in Malaysia (Malaysia 1988), with the majority having no leachate or gas management facilities, and no daily earth covering of the piles. To compound the problem, most of the dumpsites are almost full, with only a few years remaining life, while, at the same time, leaching chemicals to the groundwater, poisoning the air with toxic gases, and generally being health hazards.

2.4. Solid Waste Management in Malaysia

(i) Waste Collection

Waste collection involves the gathering and picking up of waste to collection trucks which are transported to intermediate processing plants, transfer stations, or, direct to landfills. Collection is the most expensive activity (Glenn, 1992), and is both capital and labor intensive, accounting for some 60-75 % of the cost of waste management (Nasir et al, 1988). It is capital intensive due to the investments in compactor collection trucks, and labor intensive due to the manual collection of rubbish bins required.

In Malaysia, the most widely practiced collection methods are the door-to-door front curbside method, for accessible households, while for the relatively inaccessible commu-nal areas, collection is from communal medium or large bins. Collection activities in municipalities are privatized out to contractors by the local authority, while in industrial areas and institutions, collection is handled through private contracts. The wastes collected are transferred to landfills, incinerators, or recycled back to industries.

(ii) Landfill

After collection, the wastes are transported to landfills. There are 230 official dumping sites in Malaysia, the majority of which are crude landfills, with no earth covering and no management of gas or leachate, and with most landfills nearing the end of their useful life. In fact, only 10 % of landfills provide leachate treatment ponds and gas ventilation systems, with most having no control mechanisms and supervision (Zaman, 1992). Steps are being taken to upgrade the landfills, and this includes the fence installation, weigh-bridge, site- office, wheel washing troughs, and gas disposal pipes.

In almost all landfills, there will be sorting activities by scavengers, for cardboard, plastics, bottles and metals, with the remaining pile leveled by bulldozers. At the end of the day, the pile will be covered by a layer of soil and compacted again. This is to reduce infestation by varmints (flies, rats, birds), fire, and odor problems.

(iii) Incineration

There are 7 small incinerators, 4 operating in the islands of Langkawi, Pangkor, Tioman, and Labuan, Malaysia, costing some RM17 million, being used for waste disposal. More capital intensive than the conventional landfill system, incinerators are becoming more attractive due to limited landfill sites, and improved technology. However, incineration is not without problems: extremely high temperatures within incinerators produce toxic gases like dioxins and furans which have been found to be carcinogenic, among other effects. However, its ability to drastically reduce volume of solid wastes makes it more attractive to planners.

(iv) Recycling and Composting

About 50 % of garbage generated from household are recyclable, of which 30 % are from newspapers and waste paper (The Sun, 18/06/00). Nationally, we produce 43,000 tons of plastics, 57,000 tons of paper, and 8000 tons of glass are discarded every month, all of which are recyclable. Recycling in Malaysia have not been extensively explored, and is practiced mostly by collection staff and private parties, where recyclable items are sorted, baled and send to collecting centers. However, recycling activities hardly made a dent in the reduction of total volume of wastes generated: a THT/UPM (1994) survey indicated that most of the items recycled ranged from 0.0063 % to 3.74 % of the total recyclable potential in solid wastes.

Composting activities, meanwhile, are too miniscule to be mentioned, and is limited to a few organic farming practices in Sg. Buloh, and the production of organic fertilizer. Which is ironic, as organics ranged from 35-64 % of the total volume of wastes generated.

Solid waste management is a major challenge for municipal and local authorities, constituting some 40-70 % of their operating budgets (The Sun, 18/06/00). For example, in 1998, the PJ Municipal Council spent RM1.8 million a month for waste management, 40 % of its operating budget. With the increasing volumes of solid wastes generated (Please refer to Table 5), solid waste management merits urgent attention.

As indicated in Table 5, it is projected that waste generation rate per capita will increase from 0.7 kg/day in 1991, to 0.9 kg/day in 2000, with the total amount of wastes being managed to increase from 2.5 million tons in 1991 to 3.9 million ton sin 2000. It has been estimated that Klang Valley residents produce 1.56 kg of garbage very day in 1998. (The Star, 24/10/00). The solid waste problem should not be underplayed: Alam Flora has estimated that at the current generation rate, the whole 88 floors of the Twin Towers will be filled with rubbish in every 9 days (The NST, 21/7/00).

Table 5: Estimated Amount of Municipal Solid Waste in Peninsular Malaysia, from 1991-2000.
 

Year	Population in Local Council areas (mil.) (+3 % annually)	Waste Generation Rate (kg/day/person)	Total Amount Solid Waste Managed by Local Council (mil. tons)
1991	13,727	0.7	2.5
1992	14,139	0.7	2.6
1993	14,563	0.7	2.8
1994	15,000	0.8	2.9
1995	15.450	0.8	3.0
1996	15,913	0.8	3.2
1997	16,391	0.8	3.4
1998	16,882	0.8	3.5
1999	17,389	0.8	3.7
2000	17,911	0.9	3.9

Source: The Sun, 18/6/00

2.5 Incineration

Incineration technology is becoming an attractive alternative in solid-waste manage-ment, due to its ability to reduce waste by converting them, under very high temperatures, into ash. By incineration, the volume of solid wastes could be reduced by 80-90 % (DOE, 1987), and the remaining 10 %, which is mostly ash, is transferred to the landfills, thus eliminating the problem of odors and leachate. Incineration is basically burning of solid-wastes in furnaces at high temperatures. Some of the incineration technologies are described in Table 6 (Click here for Table 6)

Incineration is not without problems, though, with principal issues related to (i) siting, (ii) air emissions, (iii) residue disposal, (iv) liquid emissions, and (v) economics. These issues must be satisfactorily resolved before incinerators become more acceptable to the public.

The issues are as discussed below:

• (i) Siting

Ideally, incinerators should be sited in more remote locations, though not too far away from landfills, to minimize transportation and logistics problems. There must be adequate buffer zones, and they must be environmentally and aesthetically acceptable to the locality.
 
• (ii) Air emissions

The emission of toxic gases and particulates which are suspected to be hazardous to biological systems, is a major drawback of incinerators. Proper design and control systems is a must. In some cases, it has been found that the cost and complexity of the environmental control systems are greater than the cost of the facilities.
 
• (iii) Disposal of Residues

Solid residues produced are bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber products. Bottom ash is typically disposed off in landfills, but they may leach into the groundwater. Ash is now disposed off in lined landfills, or double-lined monofills designed for ash disposal.
 
• (iv) Liquid Emissions

Derived from ash removal facilities, effluent from wet scrubbers, wastewater from pump seals, cleaning, flushing, and general housecleaning, treatment systems in the production of high-quality boiler water, and cooling tower blow-down.
 
• (v) Economics

Evaluation of alternative systems, preferably by the life-cycle costing, which accounts for operating and maintenance costs over the life-time of the system.

The combustion of carbon and chlorine based materials, produce a wide range of pollutants, from acid gases, organics, and heavy metals. One of the most persistent and insidious is dioxin, derived from plastics and pesticides. Dioxin enters the body through a number of routes, primarily through the food chain, and is believed to be carcinogenic, genotoxic, and are also suspected to be responsible for major androgenic deficiencies in man. Pollutants produced from incinerators include the following, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Pollutants from Incinerators
 

Pollutant	Health and Environmental Effects
Acid Gases
Sulfur dioxide	Aggravates symptons of heat and lung diseases, including coughs and cold asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Toxic to plants, it can erode metals, and a precursor to acid rain.
Nitrogen oxides	Fatal at high concentrations; at lower levels, increases susceptibility to viral infections such as influenza, and irritate the lungs leading to bronchitis and pneumonia. Also toxic to plants, and is a precursor to acid-rain.
Organics
Dioxin and furans	Carcinogenic and proven to be disruptive to the endocrine system, causing reproductive and developmental disorders. High level exposures from industrial accidents have been linked to chloracne disease, and breeding failures in herring gulls.
PCB	At high exposures, cause chloracne, liver disorders, and jaundice. May also be responsible for birth defects.
Heavy Metals
Lead	In chronic acute exposures, may cause children to suffer neurological disorders and degenerative kidney problems. May give rise to reproductive problems in women.
Inorganic mercury	Causes serious neurological disorders in children
Methyl  Mercury	Reproductive toxin. Has been shown to cause tumors in mice at high doses. Also functions as an endocrine disrupting chemical, impairing normal thyroid functions
Cadmium	Linked to lung cancer, liver, and kidney disorders
Chromium	May be responsible for liver, kidney damage, and respiratory disorders
Arsenic	May cause liver and kidney damage

Source: Adapted from the SUN, 24/9/00.