SUSTAINABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MALAYSIA Wan Md Syukri Wan Mohamad Ali1 , Zaipul Anwar Zainu2, Nooh Abu Bakar3, Ahmad Rahman Songip4 Management of Technology, Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 1
[email protected], 2
[email protected] 3
[email protected] 4
[email protected]
ABSTRACT Hazardous waste is extremely dangerous and critical to manage, since the process for treatment will involve heavy metals and dioxin among others. The effects constituents are the most critical components to health and environment. In Malaysia, for the last three decades, the waste management has been a main priority to the government. Policies are made to minimize and manage hazardous waste. This paper will discuss the present status of sustainable hazardous waste management in Malaysia from the perspective of legislations frameworks, applied technology and the volumes produced. Keywords - Malaysia, hazardous waste, management, legislation, technology, sustainable. 1. INTRODUCTION Waste can be defined as any substance that is discarded after primary use, worthless, defective and of no use. It can be classified as household waste, clinical waste and industrial waste. Alternatively, it can be categorise as hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste according to their functions of its toxicity, corrosiveness, explosiveness and radioactiveness characteristics. [1] The Malaysian Department of Environment (DOE) define Hazardous waste as any waste falling within the categories listed in the First Scheduled of Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations 2005. [2] Hazardous Wastes are potentially harmful, therefore normal handling (storage, packaging, and transport) and the subsequent disposal methods, that usually being used for non-hazardous industrial wastes (land filling), are not appropriate. Due to scheduled wastes present potential risks to the human health and environment. Four basic characteristics for hazardous wastes which are listed below : • Ignitable (flash point of ≤ 60˚c) • Corrosive (dissolves metals, burns the skin or has a pH ≤ 2 or pH ≥ 12.5) • Reactive (unstable or undergoes rapid or violent chemical reaction with water, air or other materials) • Toxic (poisonous or can cause cancer, mutations or death)
Thermal disposable techniques especially incinerations with energy recovery as an option often used in industrialised countries concerning waste management. Although, there is no comprehensive control in the emission reductions of Zn, As, Hg, Cd, Se, Pb, Cu and of other substances such as heavy metal and dioxin. These emission reductions control are mandatory by industries to fulfill the International Standard Organisation (ISO 9000) norms. This leads to the promotion of the use and investment in other conversion technologies such as combustion or gasification that can be combined with environmental improvements as well as enhanced efficiencies. In Malaysia, for the last thirty years, the waste management has been a major concern and policies are made in order to minimize or manage them by changing the legislations frameworks, applying new technologies, developing new infrastructures and complex management networks. In this paper, a comprehensive evaluation of hazardous waste management in Malaysia will be made in from the perspectives of legislations frameworks, hazardous waste cycles, available waste treatments technologies as well as hazardous waste generation and prevention actions towards sustainable hazardous waste management. 2. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION IN MALAYSIA As of 13th March 1974, The Act 127 Environmental Quality Act 1974 has been gazzeted. Which mentioned the scheduled waste stipulated under Act 127 Section 34B in which the provision against placing, deposit, etc., of schedule waste. Any person who contravenes this section shall liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both [3]. As of October 1993, Malaysia has been a part of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal, being obliged to carry out the regulation no P.U.(A) 294/2005 of the parliment and council.[4] The Department of Environment (DOE) is authorised by the Malaysian government mandate to prevent, control and abate pollution, from the trade and industrial sources. [2] In 7th Malaysian Plan (1990-1995) [5], the environmental policy focused on balance and sustainable development
–1–
integrated with the development planning for the economic growth and environmental. In order to further substantiate efforts to promote sustainable development, innovative economic mechanism was instituted to supplement legislative and enforcement means to encourage the private sector to adopt and develop environmentally sound technology. In 8th Malaysian Plan (1996-200) [6], the ambition on efficient waste management system, the privatisation of solid waste management has been initiated. As a result, two out of four consortia involved in collection of solid waste in 26 out of 145 local authorities. Eventually 23 municipal waste disposal sites have been upgraded to ensure proper wastes disposal. Additionally the campaigns to for reduce, reuse and recycling were promoted. During the time period of 1995-1999, the government of Malaysia has been aware of the increasing generation of toxic and hazardous wastes. The comprehensive legislation has been announced and enforced for use, storage, handling, transport and labelling of hazardous substances as well as for the safe disposal and treatment. At the same period of time a fully integrated toxic waste treatment and disposal facility was also established at Bukit Nanas, Negeri Sembilan. As a result by the end of the year 2000, the same facility received waste for treatment from 1,002 Malaysians companies totalled to 216,500 tonnes of toxic and hazardous waste. The 9th Malaysian Plan (2006-2010) [7], saw a new Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment formed which consolidated 10 environment and natural resources agencies under one administration in order to facilitate a coordinated and comprehensive approach in managing environment and natural resources. By the 10th Malaysia Plan (2011-2015) [8], the Malaysian government completed the restructuring for federalising the solid waste management and public cleansing and full enforcement of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007. With these efforts the responsibility of solid waste management and public cleansing has been shifted from local authorities to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The main result of the above efforts are providing support to local authorities in delivering comprehensive and sanitary landfill while ensuring the wastes are managed sustainably. With the Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations 2005 prescribing 77 categories of hazardous wastes. That control hazardous wastes basing on the ‘cradle-to-grave’ / cradle to cradle concept whereby the generation, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal are regulated. Some of the key provisions under the regulations are: i. Control of the waste generated by notification system ; ii. Licensing of hazardous waste recovery facilities; iii. Treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes at prescribed premises; and
iv.
Implementation of the manifest system for tracking and controlling movement of wastes (ECN).[9] 3. HAZARDOUS WASTE IN MALAYSIA
As a developing country, Malaysia has a population of 30.5 millions in 2015. [10] It is interesting to note that there is a rapid growth in the urban population which is due to the rural-urban migration and natural growth which resulted in changing consumption patterns. This phenomenon has contributed to an increase in the generation and composition of waste. However, 5% to 7% of the municipal solid waste is also considered to be hazardous. The fundamental rule in managing waste is given by the following hierarchy: prevention, reducing its production, reuse, recycles valuation and deposition The above objective is to reduce the amount and the level of hazardous of the industrial wastes. However its main concern is managing the waste produced instead of management of waste production. In this paper, the focus will be on the hazardous waste comes from industrial wastes. 3.1 Schedule Waste Trend in Malaysia The trend for total scheduled waste generated from 2007 to 2013 as shown in Figure 1. 3,500,000︎ 3,281,569.21 3,087,496.84
3,000,000︎
2,965,611.65
2,854,516.78
2,500,000︎ 2,000,000︎
1,659,537.67 1,705,308.14
1,500,000︎
1,138,839.49
1,145,808.05
1,304,898.77 1,206,568.31
1,000,000︎
939,730.83 877,489.38
630,081.12 688,844.92
500,000︎
600,672.99
362,579.00
293,782.21 165,451.88
0︎
154,889.99
141,532.65
2007︎
2008︎
139,084.42
162,616.25
2009︎
131,190.20
151,979.50
2010︎
2011︎
2012︎
2013︎
Total of Schedule Waste Generated︎ Quantity of Schedule Wastes Recovered Locally and Internationally︎ Quantity of Wastes Managed Under Special Management︎ Quantity of Wastes Disposed at (KA+Trienekens+Clinical Incinirators)︎
Figure 1 : The Trends of Scheduled Waste in Malaysia (2007 – 2013) Figure 1 explained the increment of scheduled waste generated by 260%. In 2013, the total number of scheduled wastes produced were 2,965,611.65 metric tonnes, which shows an overall increase of 3.89% as compared to 2012, where is only 2,854,516.78 metric tonnes of scheduled
–2–
wastes was reported. Gypsum, dross/slag/ clinker/ash, spent lubricating oil, heavy metal sludge and contaminated containers, were the main categories of the total number of wastes generated. In 2013, a total of 570,214.58 metric tonnes (19.23%) of wastes were being recovered locally and abroad. This showed a decrease of 5.07% as compared to 600,672.99 metric tonnes in 2012. Overall, 566,506.51 metric tonnes (19.10%) of scheduled wastes were recovered at local off-site facilities and 3,708.07 metric tonnes (0.13%) were exported for recovery at foreign facilities. A total of 131,190.20 metric tonnes (4.42%) of wastes were treated and placed for final disposal at Kualiti Alam Sdn. Bhd. (111,860.20 MT) and Trienekens (Sarawak) Sdn. Bhd. (19,330.00 MT) and 18,201.05 metric tonnes (0.61%) of clinical wastes were incinerated at domestic licensed offsite facilities. This amount indicated a decrease of 5.66% from a total of 139,084.41 metric tonnes of scheduled wastes disposed in 2012. The total of scheduled wastes treated on-site were 630,221.40 metric tonnes; (21.25%) while 41,742.48 metric tonnes (1.41%) were stored on-site at wastes generator’s premises.
incinerators respectively. Of the total wastes produced in 2013, 1,574,041.95 metric tonnes (53.08%) were granted conditional approval to be managed under special management as stipulated under Regulation 7, Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations, 2005. Table 1 : Schedule Waste Handling in Malaysia No
3.2 Schedule Waste Produced by states in Malaysia
413,272.93
250,000.00 ︎
- ︎
50,279.23
32,406.07
31,765.95
22,732.35
8,524.88
8,315.27
5,071.17
1,910.43
50,000.00 ︎
249,568.79
PERLIS︎ KELANTAN︎ K.LUMPUR︎ SABAH︎ LABUAN︎ PAHANG︎ SARAWAK︎ KEDAH︎ N.SEMBILAN︎ MELAKA︎ P.PINANG︎ JOHOR︎ SELANGOR︎ PERAK︎ TERENGGANU︎
100,000.00 ︎
1,432.63
150,000.00 ︎
21,923.71
200,000.00 ︎
138,689.71
300,000.00 ︎
170,406.87
350,000.00 ︎
231,561.64
400,000.00 ︎
Figure 2 : Distribution of Schedule Waste Generated by State 2013 As per report, the state of Terengganu produced the largest volume of scheduled wastes (29.78%), followed by Perak (17.98%), Selangor (16.68%), Johor (12.28%) and Pulau Pinang (9.99%), while the other remaining 10 states generated a total of 13.28%. 3.3 Schedule Waste Handling in Malaysia To allow for on-site treatment and incineration, the DOE have licensed two (2) land farms and 15 on-site wastes
Tonnes
(%)
1,574,041.95
53.08
1
Special Waste Management
2
On-Site Treatment
630,221.40
21.25
3
Local Off-site Recovery Facilities
566,506.51
19.10
4
Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd
111,860.20
3.77
5
On-Site Storage
41,742.48
1.41
6
Trienekens ( Sarawak ) Sdn Bhd
19,330.00
0.65
7
Off-site Clinical Waste Incinerators
18,201.05
0.61
8
Foreign Facilities ( Export )
3,708.07
0.13
2,965,611.65
100
TOTAL
Figure 2 explained scheduled waste produced by states in Malaysia.
450,000.00 ︎
Facility
Table 1 explained on the amount represented by an increase of 37.37% as compared to only 1,145,808.05 metric tonnes in 2012. These waste streams were mostly generated from coal-fired power plant (55.10%), sludges from drinking water treatment facilities (31.25%) and others (13.65%). Comprehensive legislation was promulgated to regulate the use, storage, handling, transport and labeling of hazardous substances as well as for the safe disposal and treatment of toxic and hazardous wastes. A National Contingency Plan was developed to deal with accidental spillage of toxic and hazardous waste. In 1999, the government also launched the Malaysian Agenda for Waste Reduction (MAWAR) Programme to encourage industries to formulate strategies to reduce waste. The privately managed facility started operation in 1998. As a result, it relieved the industries of the need to store to some extend- hazardous waste within their compounds. 3.4 Schedule Waste Recovery Facilities A total of 445 off-site recovery facilities have been licensed by the Malaysian Department of Environment (DOE) to recover various categories of scheduled wastes. The most licensed facilities according to categories of waste are electronic and electrical wastes (150 facilities) followed by oil/ mineral sludge/spent coolant (56 facilities), dross/ ash/ slag/ catalyst (62 facilities), heavy metal sludge/ rubber (47 facilities), used container/ contaminated waste/ ink/ paint/
–3–
lacquer (34 facilities), solvent (31 facilities) and acid/ alkaline (17 facilities), whilst four (4) other wastes categories totaling of 48 facilities as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 : Waste Category & Recovery Facility Waste Category
Recovery Facility
Electronic and Electrical Wastes
150
Oil / Mineral Sludge / Spent Coolant
56
Dross / Ash / Slag / Catalyst
62
Heavy Metal Sludge / Rubber
47
Used Container / Contaminated Waste / Ink / Paint / Lacquer
34
Solvent
31
Acid / Alkaline
17
Phenol / Adhesive / Resin
23
Photographic
12
Battery
6
Gypsum
7 TOTAL
445
The categories of wastes sent to the licensed premises (Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd and Trinekens (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd) for final disposal are sludge containing one or several heavy metals, mixed wastes, dust/slag/ dross or ash containing arsenic/ mercury and spent inorganic acid. Such wastes were either incinerated, treated physically and chemically, solidified or disposed off in secured landfill depending on their characteristics. As shown in Figure 3, wastes sent to Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd and Trienekens Sdn Bhd were incinerated (45%), followed by landfilled (43%), several heavy metals, mixed wastes, dust/slag/dross or ash containing arsenic solidified (9%) and treated physically and chemically (3%).
Land3ill 43%
Treated physically and chemically 3%
Solidi3ication 9% Solidification
environmentally effective, economically affordable and socially acceptable. [12] In the Malaysian current practice context, the Incineration system and secured landfills have to be reevaluated since Ruj & Ghosh (2014) conceded the conventional techniques such as combustion/incineration have been the conventionally preferred method of waste management for several countries in lieu of land-filling, releasing toxic emissions onto an already over polluted environment. [13] It has been supported by Wu, Lin & Zeng (2014) admitted the heavy-metal content in the fly ash increases with the bed-material particle size after the incineration process. [14] Reinhardt, Richers, & Suchomel (2008) commended on the incineration effect of CO2 emission based on the constant optimization of plant operation due to the consumption of fossil fuel. [15] Beylot & Villeneuve (2013) highlighted the impact of incineration to environment based on the 110 French incinerators in particular, the climate change impact potential of the incineration of 1 tonne of waste ranges from a benefit of 58 kg CO2-eq to a relatively large burden of 408 kg CO2-eq, with 294 kg CO2-eq as the average impact. [16] Therefore, in my opionion the best sustainable hazardous management system with proven trends from the wave of innovation waste management system recommended the Plasma Technology as the most effective way of treating the hazardous waste. This has been supported by the research done by Galeno, Minutillo, & Perna (2011) which justify the effectiveness of the Plasma as compared to the conventional Incinerator being used. [17] (Figure 4) Futhermore, Wilson, Velis and Rodic (2013) lensed their focus currently on “Integrated Sustainable Waste Management” (ISWM) to examine how cities in the developing countries have been tackling their solid waste problems. To explain further, ISWM is a combination of physical components (collection, disposal and recycling) and the governance aspects (inclusivity of users and service providers; financial sustainability; coherent, sound institutions underpinned by proactive policies). [18]
Incinerated 45% Treated physically and chemically
Landfill
Incinerated
Figure 3 : Types of Treatment and Disposal of Waste 4. SUSTAINABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM With reference to Morrissey & Browne (2004) for a waste management to be sustainable, it needs to be
–4–
Figure 4 : Comparison of conventional and advanced technologies for Waste-to-Energy (W2E)
REFERENCES LaDou (1987) shared the American's experience with hazardous waste management by using Plasma technology. It is proven to detoxify almost any toxic chemical. Japan, Canada and the UK are also experimenting with advanced thermal technologies such as Plasma Arc Gasification [20]. Additionally Kim, Park, & Kim (2003) agreed the steam plasma torch and process for hazardous waste-to- energy (or fuel) is more effective than the air plasma process and the conventional incineration process. [21] Based on proven research findings, made on hazardous waste treatment using plasma technology - the author highly recommend the plasma technology to be used on treatment for scheduled waste in Malaysia. This technology has been supported by Zaman & Lehmann (2011) on their studies entitled “Challenges and Opportunities in Transforming a City into a Zero Waste City”. The plasma technology has been identified as part of the 5th wave of innovation of waste management system. (Figure 5)
[1] [2]
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
[12]
[13] [14]
Figure 5 : Wave of Innovation in Waste management System
[15] [16]
5. CONCLUSION In order to achieve sustainable objective, hazardous wastes must be managed the best treatment process. As a result, the legislations frameworks have to be modified, network infrastructures such as the Integrated Centers of Recovery Valuation and Elimination of Hazardous Industrial Waste must be created and developed. Malaysia need to be more efficient in managing hazardous wastes. However, more efficient and environmental friendly energy conversion methods are also needed.
[17]
[18]
[19] [20] [21]
[22]
–5–
N. Couto, V. Silva, E. Monteiro, and a. Rouboa, “Hazardous waste management in Portugal: An overview,” Energy Procedia, vol. 36, pp. 607–611, 2013. T. A. Zuraini, “Current Status on Scheduled Waste Management in Malaysia,” in Waste Management Association of Malaysia Conference 2014, 2014, no. April, p. 21. Laws of Malaysia, Act 127 Environmental Quality Act 1974. Kuala Lumpur, 2001, p. ACT 127. UNEP, “Basel Convention On The Control Of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal,” 2011. EPU, “7th Malaysia Plan.pdf,” 1995. EPU, “8th Malaysia Plan,” 1999. EPU, “9th Malaysia Plan,” 2005. EPU, “10th Malaysia Plan,” 2010. Federal Subsidiary Legislation, Act 127 Enviromental Quality Regulation 2005. Putrajaya, 2007. EPU, “11th Malaysia Plan,” 2015. M. J. Bongkik, “CLINICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES ( CWMS ) Engineering service Department, Ministry of Health,” in Waste Management Association of Malaysia Conference 2014, 2014, pp. 1–26. A. . Morrissey and J. Browne, “Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management,” Waste Management, vol. 24, no. 3. pp. 297–308, 2004. B. Ruj and S. Ghosh, “Technological aspects for thermal plasma treatment of municipal solid waste—A review,” Fuel Process. Technol., vol. 126, pp. 298–308, Oct. 2014. M.-H. Wu, C.-L. Lin, and W.-Y. Zeng, “Effect of waste incineration and gasification processes on heavy metal distribution,” Fuel Process. Technol., vol. 125, pp. 67– 72, Sep. 2014. T. Reinhardt, U. Richers, and H. Suchomel, “Hazardous waste incineration in context with carbon dioxide,” Waste Manag. Res., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 88–95, Feb. 2008. A. Beylot and J. Villeneuve, “Environmental impacts of residual municipal solid waste incineration: a comparison of 110 French incinerators using a life cycle approach.,” Waste Manag., vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 2781–8, Dec. 2013. G. Galeno, M. Minutillo, and A. Perna, “From waste to electricity through integrated plasma gasification/fuel cell (IPGFC) system,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1692–1701, Jan. 2011. D. C. Wilson, C. a. Velis, and L. Rodic, “Integrated sustainable waste management in developing countries,” Proc. ICE - Waste Resour. Manag., vol. 166, no. 2, pp. 52–68, May 2013. J. LaDou, “The American Experience with Hazardous Waste Management,” Asia-Pacific J. Public Heal., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 41–45, Oct. 1987. UNEP, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, vol. www.unep.o. 2011. S.-W. Kim, H.-S. Park, and H.-J. Kim, “100kW steam plasma process for treatment of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) waste,” Vacuum, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 59–66, Feb. 2003. A. U. Zaman and S. Lehmann, “Challenges and Opportunities in Transforming a City into a ‘Zero Waste City,’” J. Challenges, vol. 2, pp. 73–93, 2011.
