The federal government agency, National Solid Waste Management
Department (JPSPN) has recently promotes the notion of waste separation at source by
distributing free 120 L Mobile Garbage Bin (MGB) to household in Kuala Lumpur.
Since the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) fully
enforced in September 2011, JPSPN is adamant on implementing waste segregation
at source system. A new waste collection system of “2+1” was proposed and is in
trial in about 400 households in Putrajaya. The “2+1” collection system has two
times collection of residual waste (general waste) and one time collection of
recyclable materials in a single week. In Putrajaya, two 120 L MGBs were
provided to the participating households to facilitate the segregation of
residual waste and recyclable materials. According to the CEO of Alam Flora Sdn
Bhd (the waste concessionaire for KL, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan), Mohd
Zain Hassan, the two-bin system is working well at Putrajaya. The two MGBs have
different color on the cover lid and are labeled with guidelines on the body of
the bin.
The justification behind the distribution of free MGB to households in Kuala Lumpur is the need to provide necessary infrastructure to enable the separation of waste. According to the Director-General of JPSPN, Dato’ Nadzri Yahaya, the awareness on waste segregation is there but there is no infrastructure in term of collection which has to be addressed first and provision of free MGB is the first step. Besides, he clarified that the MGB is allocated for premises and not for house owner as many had misunderstood. Another purpose of the distribution of 120L MGB is to enable to operation of the new refuse collection vehicle (RCV) of Alam Flora which is equipped with a bin lifter for MGB (mechanized waste collection method), according to Dato’ Nadzri in a waste seminar in UM in January 2012. With the rise in labor and insurance premium costs, mechanized collection system has become a popular option for most municipalities in some developed countries especially in Europe. In this system, standardized container (MGB) is required and it is designed specifically to work with the container-unloading mechanism using a lifter attached to the RCV.
The intention of government to promote waste segregation at source is applauded but the implementation method is not pragmatic as it is predominantly a “top-down” approach. The lack of public consultation always results in creating implementation constraints and fails to achieve the initial objectives. The similar phenomenon might happen in this case of MGB distribution, in the author’s opinion. So far, 72,796 out of the 254,220 MGB allocated for Kuala Lumpur had been distributed, and it costs about RM 9.5 million as one 120L MGB cost about RM130. Total of 254,220 MGB for Kuala Lumpur would costs a staggering RM 33 million! The cost and benefit of this purchase of MGB has to be carefully analyzed as it consumes a significant cost, which is equivalent to the capex (Capital Expenditure) of a mass scale anaerobic digester (100 ton/day) and for composting facility, the capacity can be up to 200 ton/day. If waste separation at source is practiced by the significant percentage of households (assume more than 50%), the distribution of MGB may be justified. Three arguments are discussed to justify the rather exorbitant action of distributing the 120L MGB to households to facilitate program in relation to waste separation at source.
Secondly, there is a lack of public consultation in this program.
The distribution of MGB is to the surprise of many households as there is no
prior information before the move. JPSPN should consult the communities in
Kuala Lumpur, at least by engaging the representatives of residential
associations (RA) about the objectives of the distribution and seek their
opinion in this regard as they know better of the existing waste collection
system in their respective communities and would be able to provide good
suggestions on waste separation at source. Some of the households may not like
the concept of having a MGB as there is a small waste storage room beside the
gate to store the rubbish bags, while others may have
their own bins. Some may keep the MGB in their house in worry of their MGB
being stolen. Some may even misunderstand the function of the MGB and ends up
abusing its function. Even if most of the households may accept the MGB, at
least, public hearing sessions should have been carried out to inform the
public, as the main stakeholders of the collection system about the roles and
functions of the MGB.
The third argument is the technical logistic of mechanized waste
collection. In Malaysia, most of the housing area is terrace houses, with some
semi-detached and detached houses. The distance between one house to another
for terrace house is barely 5-10 meters, depended on the size of house. The short
distance between the points of collection will lengthen the pick-up time;
besides require more energy for lifting the MGB. The longer pick-up time will
in turn reduce the overall operation efficiency. Mechanized collection system
is more suitable detached dwellings which distance between houses is longer and
for “Alley” collection or communal bin such as a MGB 660L or 1100L which
contain more waste and not ergonomically effective to load manually. Besides, the reduction of waste crews is not significant with
mechanized system, with the most is one worker reduction, as in Malaysia
set-out of bin is not practiced as the short distance between bin locations to
the road. Normally, waste crews transfer the rubbish bags directly from the
waste bins to the RCV manually, or transfer the MGB manually to the RCV for
unloading. The mechanized system with lifter can only save the work of tilting
of MGB to unload the waste into the compactor chamber of RCV. Therefore, it is
actually a “semi-mechanized” waste collection system. Besides, the maintenance
cost of RCV will be increased with mechanized collection system. With longer
pick-up time, higher maintenance cost and more energy intensive, it is not
feasible to use mechanized collection method for terrace houses.
The benefits of mechanized collection are reduction of spillage
incidences and reduction of one waste crew for each RCV. However, almost 99% of
leachate comes from the compaction of waste in the RCV based on observation at
numerous housing areas. The transfer of rubbish bags has very minimal leachate
or spillage incidence. As for reduction of waste crew, theoretically it is
supposed to be, but for the real case scenario in Malaysia, it is yet to be
seen. Nonetheless, reduction of crews means loss of job opportunity. The cost
of hiring a crew for manual collection and the cost of lifter installation,
extra energy consumption and maintenance cost of lifter has to be carefully
analyzed for decision making. Besides, the other dominant factor is the types
of service areas or types of premises/houses has to be accounted in the
analysis, which mechanized system may be suitable and efficient for detached
dwellings and communal bin (660L MGB, bulk bin, leach bin, etc) but not the
others. For example, if MGBs are set-out by residents in a specific area for
high rise premises such as condo/apartment, the collection with mechanized
system may be more efficient than manual. At the end of
the day, optimization of collection operation doesn’t correlate with mechanized
or manual system, but more on the management by service areas.
Nevertheless, there are still some positive sides of the
distribution of 120L MGB. Firstly, the standardization of waste receptacle
serves as a foundation to improve the entire waste collection services. It
includes the mechanized collection (if found feasible to be implemented), waste
generation audit purposes, better waste handling method (the wheel of MGB
enable its movement without have to carry the bin), reduce disturbance by
rodents and stray animal with cover on the MGB and the MGB is more durable and
better quality performance compared to normal waste bin. Therefore, even
without the implementation of mechanized collection system, the use of MGB can
actually improve the collection services. However, the prior argument here is
the objectives, roles and functions of the single 120L MGB for each household
is not clearly stated or delivered to the households. At the moment, JPSPN has
to begin disseminate the information about the comprehensive intentions of the
MGB distribution to the involved households, either by mass media, brochure or
if best to have public consultation session to each involved RA. At the same
time, a program or scheme on waste separation at source has to be introduced
and enforced with new rules and regulations which JPSPN can be the implementing
agency. The public engagement is imperative to inform the public of the need to
segregate their waste, what kind of program or scheme will be introduced, what
kind of facility (e.g. 120L MGB) will be provided to facilitate the program,
how is the modus operandi of the program/scheme and what kind of regulations
will be imposed pertaining to the separation at source policy. Otherwise, once
after a period of one or two years have passed without any program, most the
MGB will definitely be abused or disappeared, implying another case of waste of
taxpayers’ money.
In a nutshell, the distribution of MGB for separation at source
shows the government urgency to improve the waste management system in the
country. However, the lack of proper planning, inadequate implementation
strategy and insufficient expertise in public engagement will impede the
implementation and ends up not achieving its original objectives. Thus, we urgesthe federal government, represented BY JPSPN to take the necessary
action to ensure the objectives of the distribution of MGB are met.
Prepared by,
Jaron Keng
Secretary
Malaysian Green and Blue Environmental Protection Society
Tel: 016 530 6610
