incineration and its implications: the need for a ... · paper argues that incineration is not the...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume 4, No 3, 2013

© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research article ISSN 0976 – 4402

Received on September 2013 Published on November 2013 367

Incineration and its implications: The need for a sustainable waste

management system in Malaysia Innocent A. Jereme, Chamhuri Siwar, Md. Anowar Hossain Bhuiyan

1-Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI)

National University of Malaysia (UKM), Bangi 43600, Selangor D.E, Malaysia

[email protected]

doi: 10.6088/ijes.2013040300013

ABSTRACT

This study examines the current global situations of incineration as a waste management

method. The objectives are to reiterate that incineration is not a sustainable waste

management system in this 21st century in Malaysia. Though, the proponents of incineration

are trying to convince us to accept it is the best solution to reduce the large quantities of

waste generated in Malaysia. However, studies around the world has shown strong

oppositions of incineration even though it is been touted as another source of energy

generation. This is because its environmental externalities overwhelms its advantages as there

is no economic sense in building a waste management system that has a limited time of

existence in this age of sustainable development. Recycling and composting of waste has

proven that of all waste management methods to be generally accepted as only options which

we could use to turn waste into wealth. The argument that incineration is waste to energy

does not hold water as the end justifies the means. It is being myopic and not making a right

decision in this contemporary world sustainable development has become a buzz word.

Keywords: Incineration, Waste management, sustainability. Recycling, composting

1. Introduction

Industrialisation and urbanisation has brought about population increase in most countries of

the world. As many developing countries attained independent status from their colonial

masters, there have been constant migrations from rural areas into urban cities in search for

greener pastures since then. The social effect of this migration has become serious that if no

quick action is taken it could result to health disaster.

Malaysia cities like Kuala Lumpur for example, been vibrant and dynamic are not spared of

these social problems associated with rapid development and urbanisations. Refuse disposal

has become synonymous with industrialisation and urbanisation in Malaysia. In Kuala

Lumpur for example, despite efforts of the authorities concerned, the management has not

been quite easy. This is partly as a result of continues growing of the population and the

peoples indifferent attitude towards waste. With large influx of migrant workers, local and

tourist alike some of who has no culture of a clean environment, littering of refuse in and

around many parts of Kuala Lumpur has become a reason for concern. In some places,

shoulder-high rounds of rotten and-rat infected garbage have accumulated in and around

many parts of the town taking long time to dispose. Hundreds of garbage piles by frustrated

residents prompting fear of high level cancer-causing toxin emission mostly at high density

areas of the city.

Incineration and its implications: The need for a sustainable waste management system in Malaysia

Innocent A. Jereme, Chamhuri Siwar, Md. Anowar Hossain Bhuiyan

International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4 No.3, 2013 368

An average Malaysian household generates 0.8kg of waste daily, while Klang Valley

residents weigh in 1.5kg daily. That doesn’t mean much until it is multiplied across a

population of about 28 million people. It is on record that in 2006 Malaysia generated in

access of 7.3 million tons of waste garbage. Some local authorities spend as much as RM874

million or about 60-70% of their annual budget on waste disposal. For many years now this

by-product of urbanisation and industrialisation was disposed into 246 dump sites around

peninsular Malaysia. But most of these dumping sites are not sanitary landfills receiving all

kinds of waste municipal and hazardous waste that could easily cause environmental

problems (Nurhidayati Abd Aziz, 2006).

But time is running out for local authorises due to paucity of funds. Waste management

experts have forecast that about 80% dumpsites in Malaysia will be filled to brim in less than

two years. Malaysia has to adopt waste reduction strategies. The good run in the Malaysia

economy for about two decades has improved standard of living and consumption pattern;

therefore it is no surprise of the high generation of waste. However, those who generate waste

should be ready to pay for it. Though this might need some kind of political will on policy

makers to implement, there is no other choice if we have to succeed in defeating this demon

of indiscriminate dumping of waste (Nurhidayati Abd Aziz, 2006).

When waste is not properly managed it could endanger the lives of the people living in the

cities as these wastes come from humans, animals and industries and rivers and polluting the

environment. It has come to notice that it is not just the quantity of waste that has become a

reason for concern in this regard but the composition of waste in different places. It is found

that compositions of waste seem to change with economic growth situations within cities like

the case in Malaysia. Lardinois and Klundert (1993) found that as the economy grows so also

is the amount of waste generated per person increases too. But increased wealth does not

always translate into adequate waste management system. A waste minimizations study by

the Local Government Authority indicates that food waste and other organic waste constitutes

47 percent of waste generated, followed by paper 15 percent and plastics 14 percent and

others made of rest (Yassin, 2006). This makes the issue of combusting waste through

incineration not attractive and again not economical because of the large quantities of

moisture contents of domestic waste (Ko Chi Wai , 2007).

It is very clear that many cities in Malaysia are always encountering waste management crisis.

Obviously urban waste management problems differ in many ways and in different places.

The current waste generation rates and its treatments method are not sustainable and it will be

wise it is changed. With population growth and urbanisation, uncontrolled production and

consumption pattern and the resultant increase in the volume of waste, lack of adequate

resources to manage waste that is generated has made it necessary to adopt more proactive

methods. Understanding of waste problem and the issues related to it continues to arise as

questions about the conventional methods and treatment need a rethink on it implementation.

Most municipal councils in Malaysia have been dealing with the waste generated by the

society conventionally by dumping it at unsanitary landfills and some of the landfills have

almost reached their life span. But as the society changes with changes in lifestyle, this

traditional method of management calls for a different approach but with appropriate

technology. There are a lot of environmental problems that are associated with mismanaged

landfills and dumpsites such as odours, and diseases spreading. Mismanaged landfills are

very common in developing countries as there is no strong policy on recycling of waste

Janeen (2004), where it exist implementation is done haphazard.




These problems associated in management waste for some decades has prompted the calls

from some quarters to consider building Incineration plant to help reduce the bulk of waste

generated, hence land is running out to build more landfills. The proponents of incineration

plant argued that with the rapid development going on in every part of Malaysia, time is

coming that land filling will not be any more the appropriate solutions to disposed waste. As

many has already been closed, such as the ones in Subang Jaya and Kelayang Jaya which has

now been covered and used to build high rising residential buildings (Ko Chi Wai, 2007).This

paper argues that incineration is not the solution for a sustainable waste management system

in Malaysia with these objectives of this study as ;

1. To understand the global situations of incineration in this 21st century

2. To highlight the disadvantages of incineration as a waste reduction method

3. To reiterate the benefits of recycling as the only sustainable method to reduce and

manage solid waste in Malaysia.

This paper is divided into four sections; the first section started with the introduction, and

secondly is on what is incineration? The third section is the brief history of incineration and

the global situations of incineration in many developed countries and in Malaysia as well.

The fourth section is the problems with incinerations and the fifth section is the need for

aggressive campaign on recycling and its economic benefits to the communities. The last

session is the conclusion from the study.

2. What is incineration?

Incineration means the act of burning something until there is nothing left but only the ashes.

An incinerator is a unit or facility that is used in other to burn used trash and some other

different kind of waste until it is finally reduced to only ashes (Hickmann and Lanier Jr.

2003). An incinerator is built with strong and well-insulated material so that during

combusting the extreme heat is not lost but contained. The heat is left inside the furnace so

that all the waste inside the Incinerator plant could be burn very quickly and as well efficient.

But when the heat is not well contained the waste will not be completely burn with level of

efficiency expected of it.

2.1Case study on incineration situations in United States and European countries and

Malaysia

The history of incineration date back as far as in 1885 on Governor’s Island in New York.

Then Robert C. Ross in 1949 founded one of the first hazardous waste management firms in

the U.S. which was then called Robert Ross Industrial Disposal because from her

understanding she could see that there was an opportunity that could help meet the needs of

northern companies in Ohio on hazardous waste management demands. From then on this

technology began to spread to Europe and other parts of the world as a waste management

options and lately an energy generating source (Hickmann and Lanier Jr, 2003). The first

MSW incinerator in England was built at Nottingham in 1874 (Hering and greatly, 1921). By

the year 1912, there were about 300 incinerators plants in the UK, 76 of them are generating

power (Van Santen, 1993). Similar development took place in Germany, Sweden and Japan.

In 1991 there were about 230 licensed incinerating facilities in the UK (DOE London, 1993).

But as at 1993 less than 30 MSW incinerators are operating, five where recovering energy

facilities. Incineration is only providing 7% MSW. Many of the plant have shot down




because of not meeting up with the standard set up by British law on emission control under

Part 1 of Environmental Protection Act, 1990 (EPA London, 1990). Today the proponents of

incineration plant in the UK is saying that almost every European country, with the

exception of the UK, has long realised that one good way to cut down the burning of fossil

fuels is to burn waste instead. Waste is free they say, in that we have to collect it anyway. But

a critical observation from the experiences of Germany and Netherlands experience are of the

view that UK could make the mistake made by both countries because there is no waste to

fuel their plant but relied on imported waste due to increased in waste recycling and

composting (Saul, 2011). In fact eight member states of EU do not have incineration plants.

They are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and

Romania (Jofra, 2013).

In Austral, the government recently set new mitigation rules before any new incineration

plant could be built because of increased concern on emission control. According to the new

law without purification technologies, no waste incinerator can set into operation (Gerd,

2010). Also in United States, during 1980’s and 1990’s there were many incinerators built but

this has drastically reduced in the last decades. Since 1985, over 300 have been put on hold.

In 1985, California had plans to build about 35 Incinerator plants, only 5 were allowed to

build the rest was cancelled. In the year 1985, New Jersey had plans to build 22 trash

incinerators only 5 have been built. The sixth plant meant for Mercer County was finally

disallowed to go ahead because of persistent rejection by the local people in 1996. Since 1994

till date, the numbers of Incinerator plants closed are far more than those that have been built

due to the public awareness of the environmental effect of an incineration despite the

justification that it could be used to generate energy (Connet, 2007). The slogan ‘Ban the

Burn” movements sprang out in the United States and other parts Europe at the early 1990s,

the Green peaces global movement campaign for a strict control and total ban on incineration

(Sharon and Michael, 1992).

The Australian Federal government in 1987 joined with the New South Wales and Victoria

states government to form a joint taskforce on Intractable Wastes. The purpose of the

taskforce then was to work and convince these states governments to co-operative with the

federal government to site a waste incinerator in South-Eastern Australia after several

attempts by individual states to site such an incinerator had failed because of the strength of

opposition from the local community. The outcome was still failure as the communities

where it was proposed to be built objected because of it environmental implications (Sharon

and Micheal, 1992). As at today in the US only about 87 incinerators exist. Most of which are

at least 15 years old as the US does not buy the idea that incineration is a safe method to

dispose solid waste because of the concern of dioxin emissions which has multiple

implications on the young and old (Rosenthal, 2010).

In Japan about 4,600 or 17% of 27,000 garbage incinerators have permanently or temporarily

closed due to Japan’s strict controls on dioxin emissions. The reason for this strict in Japan on

incineration is because of the national concern on her citizen due to toxins contamination.

Japan generated about 5,300grams of dioxin in 1998 according to the Ministry of

International Trade and Industry emission inventory. The reports states that municipal

incinerator generated about 4,300 grams of Japan’s 1998 dioxin emissions. The report went

future that based on that Japan produces almost 40% of all airborne dioxins from indentified

sources worldwide (CAP and Alam Sabahat, 2000).

In Malaysia the issue of building incinerator plants always becomes a national front pages

news as many Non Profit Organisation (NGO) will always oppose the idea because of its




environmental effect to the people and not economical as well. The incineration plant

proposed to be built at Kampong Bohol; Mukin in Sungai Besi Kuala Lumpur sometimes ago

was strongly rejected by the people (CAP and Alam Sabahat, 2000).

A little brief on existing small incinerators plants in Malaysia, as at today Malaysia has

incinerators built at Pulau Pangkor which begun operation on 19th March 2002. The capacity

of the incinerator is for 20 ton waste generation but the island generates only 6-7 ton per day

which means it is underutilized and became a white elephant project. Another incinerator

built by Kuantan Municipal Council for research and development (R and D) purpose in the

year 2004 consumed about 120 litres (L) of diesel to incinerate only 1 ton of MSW. Other 5

units of small-scale incinerators of rotary kiln type were built in five tourism spots, which are

Pulau Langkawi (100 ton/day), Pulau Pangkor (20 ton/day), Pulau Tioman (10 ton/day).

Pulau Labuan,(60 ton/day) and Cameron Highlands (40 ton/day). All these incinerators have

no energy recovery except in Pulau Langkawi, capable of generating even one MW of

electricity (Keng Zi Xiang, 2012). The primary purpose of building all these incinerators

were to reduce waste going to landfill which has been the traditional disposing method for

long time. All these small incinerators had failed due to faulty design, improper operation,

poor maintenance and high diesel usage and waste characteristics, due to high moisture

content of 60% to 70%. They were all designed for western characteristic of waste which is

quite different from Malaysia environment.

Yet despite these failures in smaller incinerators built to reduce waste, it was recently

announced by Minister of Housing and Local Government (MHLG), Dato’ Wira Chor Chee

Heung that the Malaysia Federal Government, through the National Solid Waste

Management Department (NSWMD) is planning to introduce the first ever mass-scale

incinerator facility with capacity of 800-1000 ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day in

Kuala Lumpur (Keng Zi Xiang, 2012). This means the ministry is losing faith to intensify its

effort through the integrated waste management of the 3R reduce, reused, recycle which has

drastically helped in reducing waste in developed countries. Recent studies have shown that

incineration is not the most favourable waste management option in this 21st century. The

interesting thing these days in incineration is the peoples perceive fear about the pollutants

released and those captured in the residues, as well as incinerator’s high economic costs,

when made visible, have dramatically slowed down the building of these facilities in both

northern and southern alike. If one avoids the beguiling but inaccurate label “waste-to-

energy” one could see that these facilities do not belong to the future in which sustainability

has become the key issue in environmental matters (Connet, 2002). The table 1 below is the

incineration situations in developed countries.

Table 1: Total percentage of incinerated waste per countries in developed countries and

Japan

Countries Percentage of incinerated

waste

Percentage of cultivated

land

Italy

Portugal

Sweden

Japan

Greece

UK

Germany

Finland

13

0

56

75

0

5

72

5

53

43

8

13

68

71

50

9




Netherlands

Spain

USA

Austria

Denmark

Belgium

Luxembourg

Ireland

Austria

113

9

16

20

100

55

47

0

33

58

62

47

43

63

45

Na

64

43

Sources; World Resources Institute (1998), Ministry of Finance (2002), EPA (2002)

World Bank (2002)

Out of the 32 developed countries in table 1, 12 countries incinerate less than 50% of their

waste generated, which are Italy, UK, Finland, Spain, USA, Australia, Luxembourg and

Ireland. In fact of all these countries Portugal, Greece, and Ireland do not incinerate their

waste at all. It is either disposed at landfill or recycled. Netherland is a high densely and

populated country with small land space which could justify the high use of incineration and

Sweden. However, from table 2 you could see that these same countries that have high waste

incineration still have higher percentage of recycled and composed waste than other

developed countries with fewer incinerators. The argument that incineration has become

more accepted due to energy recovery is not true because considering the environmental

externalities that come along with it which has long term impact on the social and economic

well being of the communities (Keeler and Renkow, 1994). Though, some of these countries

such as Ireland, Spain, Greece, Italy and UK have 45% or even more available cultivated land

which means they have abundant land to build landfills to disposed waste, yet recycling rate

is still high in their countries. This is because of their understanding of the environmental and

economic value of recycling and composting waste. Table 2 shows the current rate of each

the European country’s incinerations, recycling, composting and land filling rate. This will

help get clearer pictures of the true situations of waste incineration today. There is need to

intensify the campaign on recycling and composting which are the most sustainable methods

to manage waste in Malaysia.

Table 2: European Union Municipal waste statistics 2011

EU

countries

Waste

generated

(kg

person)

Landfill % Recycling % Incineration % Composting %

EU

Average 503 36% 24% 22% 15%

Denmark 718 3% 31% 54% 12%

Luxembourg 687 15% 27% 38% 20%

Cyprus 658 80% 11% 0% 9%

Ireland 623 49% 33% 4% 3%

Germany 597 1% 45% 37% 17%

Netherlands 596 1% 27% 32% 24%

Malta 583 84% 6% 1% 0%

Austria 552 3% 27% 33% 32%




Italy 535 46% 20% 16% 12%

Spain 531 58% 15% 9% 18%

France 527 28% 19% 35% 18%

United

Kingdom 518 49% 25% 12% 14%

Finland 505 40% 22% 25% 13%

Greece 496 82% 15% 0% 3%

Portugal 487 59% 11% 21% 8%

Belgium 464 1% 36% 42% 20%

Sweden 460 1% 33% 52% 15%

Lithuania 442 77% 18% 0% 2%

Slovenia 411 50% 29% 1% 5%

Hungary 382 67% 17% 11% 5%

Bulgaria 375 93% 3% 0% 3%

Romania 365 79% 1% 0% 0%

Latvia 350 74% 9% 0% 1%

Slovakia 327 75% 4% 10% 6%

Czech

Republic 320 64% 15% 18% 2%

Poland 315 57% 9% 1% 14%

Estonia 298 60% 17% 0% 9%

Source: Eurostat, 2012

From table 2, seven EU countries Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus

incinerate 0% of all their waste generated but have more than 30% of waste recycled and

composed all together and the rest land filled. Countries in EU like Sweden incinerated 52%

of their waste and yet recycled and composed 48% of their waste and only 1% is land filled.

But Sweden is a small country and has scarcity of land yet recorded a high recycling and

composting rate. Netherland on the hand incinerated 32% but still recorded 50% recycling

and composting rate which is high density country. Belgium recycled and composed 56%

while Germany has 52% recycled and composed all together. Quite a good number of

countries in the EU membership has seen the environmental benefits of recycling and

composting and are working towards these directions. In fact EU has a target for its members

to increase their recycling rate to 50% of all the waste generated at the end of 2020 (Eurostat,

2013). This shows there is no rational for Malaysia to even considering building a larger

incinerator plants as those who are using it currently are gradually trying to phase it out even

though it is claimed that energy could be taped from it. Malaysia could not maintain the

smaller incinerators built in some of the Islands due to poor maintenance, high consumption

of fuel and smaller quantities of waste generated. How then could this bigger incinerator be

maintained? We should always learn from past experiences and this is one. Malaysia could

find herself in the position of spending Millions of Ringgit of the Rakyan for a white elephant

project that will not stand the test of time. There is need to have a re think on the part of

policy makers as incinerator has no business in this century that sustainable development has

become like a popular song in every issue regarding environment and economic development.

3. The problems of incineration as a waste management method




The proponents of incinerators plants are of the view that it has multiple uses. The argument

is that it could be used to generate energy, but how many developing countries could

maintain incinerator plant for it to generate the so called required energy to boast power?

How could it be sustainable when it has limited number of years for operation? What about

the social, health and environmental effects of incinerator which are all environmental

externalise? The issue of Not-in-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) always surfaces whenever the

sitting of any incinerator plant in any location in Malaysia are raised. Studies in Andover,

Massachusetts in US are strongly correlated with 10% property devaluations of any property

built close to incinerator plants (Shi-Ling Hsu, 1999). This shows the economic and social

effects of waste incineration and this awareness from the people has always make sitting

incinerators where there is strong opposition impossible except where “environmental

racism” has it strong hold.

Environmental racism refers to any policy, practice or directive that differentially affects or

disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups or communities based on

race or colour (Bullard, 2004). A situation where the community has no strong economic

power and have no strong personality figure that could stand for them. This situation is very

common in minority races and poor communities. Such areas are where this so called waste-

to-energy plants are commonly built but are grave diggers in disguise. According to (CAP,

2013) research has shown that in communities where incinerators plants are built its long

term effects comes in the form of Cancer, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction,

neurological damage and other health effects are known to occur at very low exposures to

many of the metals, and other pollutants released by incineration facilities. Increased cancer

rates, respiratory ailments, reproductive abnormalities and other health effects are common in

area where incinerator plants are built.

Incinerator plants are expensive and require long term contract periods which make it not

economically feasible. The usual long life span of incinerator is from 25-30 years depending

on the maintenance of the plant. Incineration is not waste to energy but a “waste of energy”.

Again it requires fewer numbers of workers which if the money invested in building it is

invested in recycling and composting could benefit the communities and as well help to

reduce the unemployment of the communities and improve their economic well being. It is

senseless and does not make any meaning destroying resources that we could turn into wealth.

Incineration makes us lose focus on reduce, reuse and recycle (3R) and then just making sure

it has large quantities of waste to sustain operation (Connet, 2007).

4. The benefits of recycling and composting

The benefits of recycling and composting of waste are multidimensional. Recycling of waste

from the municipal solid waste rather than burning it in an incinerator can result in

significantly less resources used in manufacturing. Less energy is expended in creating

finished products, less water and air pollution from manufacturing and less land allocated for

landfills. Waste recycling can reduce waste disposal cost for local authorities, as many local

authorities in Malaysia spent 60-70% of their annual budget on waste disposal, thereby

extending the life span of landfills (Ko chi Wai 2007). This will help the local authorities in

reducing the need to invest in transport vehicles and equipment, reducing vehicle operation

and maintenance cost, reducing fuel consumption for transporting waste (Habitat, 1998). The




organic waste could be composed and used to enhance the fertility of soil, thereby boasting

high agriculture yields for the local communities. The life cycle analysis of recycling versus

incineration or land filling was summed up in this way;

“Recycling has substantial benefits compared with disposal in terms of reducing energy

consumption and environmental burdens imposed by methods used for managing solid wastes.

…

The main reason … is that the pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of

manufacturing products out of recycled materials tend to be an order of magnitude larger

than the environmental burdens imposed by recycling collection, processing and shipping

systems. These upstream benefits of recycling also are much larger than the energy

production offsets from whatever method is used to generate energy directly from waste”

(Morris, 2010).

The use of recycled materials will also reduces the need to import raw materials, meaning

that less money is spent in foreign currency which will be then invested in other sectors of the

economy, thereby achieving sustainable economic development. In this 21st century, burning

waste resources that could be turn into wealth means we are not wise. Recycling is an

important part of waste reduction and diversion, and could be use as entry point for

participants in environmental education. Recycling, though is a labour-intensive activity but

with relatively low start-up cost providing opportunity for employing and income generation

for a great number of people as waste pickers, itinerant waste buyers, waste dealers ,workers

in recycling business, managers and entrepreneurs (Lardinois and Van de Klundert, 1993).

Waste recycling also serves as an entry point into the urban economy, providing participants

with economic benefits, higher social status, on-the-job training and business opportunities

(Janeen, 2004). There could be many reasons why people recycle but the bottom line is the

need for a sustainable environment. Recycling is the better method to dispose waste

generated at individual level than incineration which helps pollutes the environment,

depreciate property values. Though, it involves a complex chain of behaviours, from

individuals, communities’ states legislation and funding, local government support through

the making of policy decisions (McCooker, 2006). However, this is only when sustainable

environment which will enhance quality of life could be attained now and in future.

5. Conclusion

Sustainable waste management has become the buzz word in the last one decade or there

about. If that is true then waste incineration has no business in this age of sustainable

development because of its enormous disadvantages in this 21st century and its limited life

span. There is need for strong policy implementation that will make recycling become a daily

life activity, and the communities should be carrying along in any policy formation that deals

on recycling. It is then they will participate in collective efforts when they are involved in

policy initiation and program design right from the start. It is very necessary to understand

from the communities their viewpoints on what could influence them to adopt recycling and

composting lifestyle hence current policies has not increase the rate of recycling in Malaysia.

Previous researches have shown that perceive barriers such as lack of waste reparation for

organic waste and non organic waste are lacking. At present this could only be seen at some

designated areas in the cities and some institutions. This should be extended to other areas of




the cities as well. Such as shopping malls, bus stop, recreation parks, residential areas. In

doing this could Malaysia attain the green state status which it so much desires and also

environment that enhances quality of life the people.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Institute for Environment and Development, (Lestari)

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for the financial support provided for this work under the

research university grant code: XX-05-2012.

6. References

1. Bullard, D., (2004), Environment and morality: Confronting environmental racism in

the United States. http://www.google.com.my/#output=search&sclient=psy>

Accessed 12 February 2012.

2. Consumers Association of Penang and Alam Sabahat, (2000),’ Press release on

detailed EIA of the proposed thermal waste treatment plant for solid waste in Kg

Bohol. Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur htt://www.surforever.com/sam/pressrelease/

kgohol. Html Accessed 2 July 2012.

3. Consumers Association of Penang (2013), Malaysia must say no to waste

incineration.http://www.consumer.org.my/index.phd/development/environment/548.

Malaysia-must say no-to waste incineration. Accessed 13 January 2013

4. Connet Paul 2002, Municipal waste Incinerator is a poor solution for the 21st century

.4th Annual International Management Conference Waste-To-Energy Nov. 24 & 25,

1998 http://www.google.com.my/#sclient=psyab&q=Connet+Paul.+2002%3B+

Municipal+waste+Incinerator+is+a+poor+solution+for+the+21st+century&oq=Co

Accessed 30 July, 2013

5. Connet Paul 2007, Global alliance for incinerator alternative; Global anti incineration

alliance. http://www.no-burn.org/article.php?id=739. Accessed; 14 April 2013

6. Department of Environment London (1993), Digestion of environmental protection

and waste statistics No. 15 HMSO p77

7. Environmental Protection Act, (1990), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of pollutions; Chief

Inspectors Guardians for protections. Waste Disposal and Recycling .Process

Guidance note IPR/3 Municipal Waste Incinerator HMSO London1993.

http://www.google....v.49967636,dmb.> Accessed 30 July 2013

8. EPA, 2002., Waste Factbook (2001), Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

DC. www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon. Accessed 30 July, 2013

9. Eurostat, (2012), Managing municipal solid waste— A review of achievements in 32

European Countries Municipal waste', http://epp. eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/

portal/statistics/ search database. Accessed 11 January 2013.

10. Eurostat, (2013), Highest recycling rates in Austria and Germany–but UK and Ireland

show fastest increase Municipal waste', http://epp. eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/

portal/statistics/ search database. Accessed 2 May 2013




11. Gerd. M., (2010), New Construction of Waste Incineration Plants in Austria

Redevelopment Zones “Creation of University – Enterprise Cooperation Networks for

Education on Sustainable Technologies” TEMPUS – Meeting November 15th (2010),

Vienna

12. Habitat International, (1998), Appraisal of solid waste collection and private sector

involvement in Dar re Salaam City, Tanzania. Habitat International, 29 (2), pp 353 -

366.

13. Hickmann, H.and Lanier.Jr. (2003), American alchemy: the history of solid waste

management In the United States. Forester Press. ISBN 978-0-9707687-2-8. Accessed

12 February 2013

14. Hering, R. and Greetly, S. A., (1921), Collection and disposal of municipal refuse;

McGraw Hill New York

15. Janeen,T. (2004)., A case study of a hotel solid waste management in Bali,

Indonesia’s thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada.

16. Jofra, S., (2013)., Incineration overcapacity and waste shipping in Europe: the end of

the proximity principle? http://www.google.com/url. Accessed 10 February 2013

17. Keeler, A.G. and M. Renkow, (1994), Hash trash or haul ash: Energy recovery as a

company of Local Solid waste management Journal of environmental economics and

management, 27(3) pp 205-217

18. Ko-chi Wai (2007), Being Unreasonable; Reduce, Reuse and Recycle Http-

www_lancashire_gov_uk-environment-waste-reduction. pp 1-9. Accessed 3 January

2013

19. Keng Zi Xiang (2012), Incinerator for Municipal Solid Waste in Kuala Lumpur

http://greenbluegroup.com /2012/04/incinerator. Accessed 11 April 2013

20. Lardinois, I. and A.v.d Klundert (1993), Organic waste- options for small scale

resource recovery, Urban west series 4.

21. M cCooker, A., (2006), Barriers to recycling in Athens, Ohio. Msc thesis. College of

Arts and Science of Ohio University.

22. Ministerie van Financien, (2002), Afvalverwijdering. IBO-rapport nr. 7, Den Haag (in

Dutch Incineration overcapacity and waste shipping in Europe: the end of the

proximity principle?

23. Morris, J., (2005), Comparative LCAs for curbside recycling versus either land filling

or incineration with energy recovery. International journal of life cycle assessment

10.4, pp 273-284.Web. 21 June 2010

24. Nurhidayati Abd Aziz (2006), Safe options in managing waste, The Sun online June

01, http://www.academia.edu/1469754/The_Governance_of_Municipal_Solid_Waste

_in_Malaysia Accessed 10 June 2012.




25. Rosenthal, E., (2010), New York Times Europe finds clean energy in trash, but

U.S.Lags http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?pagewa

nted=all&_r=0. Accessed 1st April 2013

26. Sharon, B. and Michael. S, (1992), Sitting a hazardous waste facility: The tangled

web of risk communication, Public understanding of science, 1(2), pp 139-160

27. Shi-Ling Hsu., (1999), "Brownfield’s and Property Values" (PDF). Economic

Analysis and Land Use Policy. United States Environmental Protection Agency

http/epa.gov/ncer/publications/workshop/pdf/EE-0428-1.pdf Accessed 30 July 2013

28. Saul, H., (2011), UK incinerator plans? They're just rubbish. The Independent,

London 2011http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/uk-incinerator

Accessed 5 June.2013

29. Van Santen A. (1993), Waste Management Proceedings July 1993.18

30. WRI World Resources Institute (1998), World Resources 1998–99. Oxford University

Press, New York

31. WB World Bank, (2002), World Development Indicators. CD-ROM 2002,

Washington, DC.

32. Yassin, S.M., (2006), Waste Management Conference, Ministry of local government

and housing Kuala Lumpur 16 May 2006

incineration and its implications: the need for a ... · paper argues that incineration is not the...

Documents