Every day, about 2,000 tonnes per day of municipal solid waste (MSW) arising in Kuala Lumpur is compacted at the Taman Beringin Transfer Station before being sent to the Tagar Sanitary Landfill, the largest sanitary landfill in Malaysia located at Batang Berjuntai, 70km away from the KL city centre for final disposal.
It has a built-up area of 1,700 acres with operating capacity of 2,000 tonnes/day and lifespan of 40 years. It was commenced in 2005 with capital costs of about RM200 million, and the tipping fees range from RM28 to RM49 per tonne.
Early this year, the National Solid Waste Management Department had announced the plan to develop an incinerator with capacity of 1,000 tonnes/day at the existing Taman Beringin transfer station. An international open tender was opened and they are in the process of bidder selection.
The project has caused several oppositions especially from the local residents who formed various NGOs to protest against the incinerator project. Their primary concern is the adverse health effect caused by the flue gas of incineration (such as dioxin and furan) because of the short distance of the project site to nearest residential area (below 500m) and the lack of confident with the government capability to handle the risks of the incinerator.
Incineration or “mass burning” is the common MSW disposal method globally after landfill. It is one of the most expensive waste treatment facilities especially when equipped with energy recovery and advanced emission control technology.
Besides incineration, other thermal treatment technology such as pyrolysis and gasification are typically operated in small scale plants. Incineration can reduce the mass of MSW to less than 20 percent and thus increase the lifespan of landfills.
In comparison to landfill, the advantages of incinerator (with energy recovery) are typically the environmental benefits such as lower carbon emission, avoidance of land contamination, lower dis-amenity cost, higher energy recovery potential, the outputs (ashes) have potential to be reused and it only requires a minimum footprint compared to other disposal alternative.
Carbon emission can be reduced significantly
With incineration, the carbon emission per tonne of MSW disposed can be reduced significantly because of the minimisation of methane gas emission from landfill and shorter travelling distance from waste generation sources to disposal sites (incinerator often located nearer to city compared to landfill).
When an incinerator is de-commissioned, the cost of after-care is much lower compared to landfill as it doesn’t cause any disturbance to the land beneath, thus the land used for incinerators will not be a brownfield unlike landfill.
For a sanitary landfill, post-closure of at least 50 years is required after the de-commissioned. Furthermore, the energy recovery per ton of MSW incinerated is higher than landfill with landfill gas recovery. Besides, incinerator is famous for its very small footprint which reduces the need to degrade urban land which has high development value.
Sustainability concerns, economic viability and social tolerance level with respect to the environment are fundamental. For sanitary landfill, the socio-economic elements are acceptable with the current country’s financial status and social acceptability. However, the environmental impacts of sanitary landfill are chronic and with long-term implications.
Incinerators definitely have a positive net environmental impact relative to sanitary landfill, but come with the cost of high financial implication especially operational cost and are usually not acceptable by local communities.
The high costs incur for incineration project are largely attributed to the advanced air pollution control technologies employed. In European nations, about two-thirds of the capital cost of an advanced incinerator is spent on air pollution control devices. For operational costs, high fuels consumption and more professional employments required are the main contributors.
The fuels consumption can be reduced if the organic fraction of MSW is removed. Professional employment creation is a positive spillover effect of incinerator project.
More expensive options
Nevertheless, the high costs referred to are mostly the tangible financial present costs. If we include the future environmental and economic benefits, incinerator project has more benefits than disadvantages. Thus, comprehensive cost benefit analysis is essential to determine the overall project viability.
Moreover, with the operation of advanced waste disposal technology like incinerator, disposal cost will be increased and therefore enable the development of alternative waste treatment and recovery projects such as mechanical biological treatment, composting, anaerobic digestion, material recovery facility and refuse derived fuel, which are all more expensive options than landfill but have much higher positive environmental impacts.
On the proposed incinerator project at Taman Beringin transfer station, the issue is not the incinerator technology itself but the more on the citizen concern on the governance of the project; especially the location is too near to residential area.
As the first large scale incinerator project in Malaysia, it is recommendable to develop the project at an industrial area instead of residential area. With the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome, incinerator project will results in protest of by local residents of any residential area, for instance the Broga case. However, if incinerator is built in industrial areas like in Taiwan, the public acceptability will be much higher.
It is obvious that the NGOs formed recently to protest the Taman Beringin incinerator project are based in nearby areas such as Kepong and Jinjang.
The argument by the protesters that there are absolute alternatives to incinerators is not true, as thermal treatment forms part of an integrated waste management system; similarly for material recycling and biological treatment for organic waste. In another words, material recycling, biological treatment or thermal treatment alone can’t solve the existing problems caused by waste disposal to landfill.
In Singapore, more than 80 percent of MSW is incinerated, while in most advanced Europe countries, incinerations forms 30-60 percent of the total waste treatment/disposal options. Thus to move away from landfill disposal as the least preferred option in waste management hierarchy, incinerator is one of the pre-requisite waste treatment option.
In a nutshell, the incinerator project although very expensive, but is worth to be implemented as the vast potential of positive environmental and social impacts and economic benefits with high multiplier effects.
With incentives such as feed-in tariff and carbon credits (CDM), the project viability is greatly enhanced with positive financial cash flow. Thermal treatment for MSW such as incinerator is a pre-requisite to strive toward achieving integrated waste management model for Malaysia, a country that is entering the domain of high income nation sooner or later.
DR WONG RUEN YUAN is president of the Malaysia Green & Blue Environmental Protection Society.
