Treatment of hazardous waste used to be monopolised by Kualiti Alam, the company which runs the Bukit Nanas Waste Management Centre in Negri Sembilan.

But the Department of Environment (DOE) caved in to pressure to open up the market and began licensing scheduled waste recyclers, especially in the last two years. There are now over 50 licensed firms dealing in recycling and recovery of waste.

These firms do have a place in waste management for by recovering oils and heavy metals from the waste for reuse, they reduce the final volume requiring landfilling. But the spate of dumping shows that the sector requires scrutiny. More so since recyclers now handle almost 60% of all scheduled waste generated annually.

Following the recent cases of illegal dumping, DOE will place equal enforcement emphasis between generators and recyclers, says director-general Datuk Rosnani Ibarahim.

“The incidents are frustrating for us. We thought the recyclers would do a good job. They get paid by generators to accept the waste and again from the recovery of useful materials. Why should they still dump illegally?”

The answer to that lies within DOE.

The growing number of licensed recyclers has triggered a price war, observes Kualiti Alam managing director Azmanuddin Haq Ahmad. “They are undercutting each other by lowering prices. Some waste generators have also gotten smarter. They no longer pay recyclers to take the waste but pay them only for waste recovery.”

The reduced profits will drop further once waste residues go to Bukit Nanas. And so, they dump.

That waste is being siphoned off to illegal sites would have been detected earlier on if DOE had diligently vetted its records. It is supposed to have comprehensive data on hazardous waste.

Data discrepancy

The Environmental Quality (Scheduled Waste) Regulations 2005 (as well as its 1989 predecessor that was repealed in August) requires every waste generator to keep a waste inventory and to notify DOE on what waste it produces, how much, how it will be treated and disposed of, and where.

They do this through a reporting system involving several copies of consignment notes. The waste transporter and recycler must also hand similar notes to DOE for every waste consignment.

The system leaves a paper trail which theoretically, enables DOE to track the movement of every gramme of waste, from cradle to grave.

THE WRONG WAY: Hazardous waste dumps are turning up in oil palm estates, jungles, remote villages, and even in tin mines such as this one in Tronoh, Perak. – Photo by KAMARUL ARIFFIN

The reality is that waste generators, transporters and recyclers can collaborate and tinker with the figures. And they get away with it because DOE is not checking the consignment notes thoroughly.

In fact, a quick comparison between waste amounts handled by recyclers and the residues they delivered to Bukit Nanas for final disposal is enough to trigger warning bells. The figures just do not add up.

In 2004, the recyclers handled 272,420 tonnes of waste. But only 10,000 tonnes of residues reached Bukit Nanas, where the country’s sole hazardous waste landfill is located.

“This works out to a recovery rate of over 95%, which is highly impossible. Some claim to have no residues because they recycle 99% of the waste. That is ridiculous. If true, it will be the model recovery plant for the world,” says Azmanuddin.

Almost all licensed recyclers have signed up with Kualiti Alam but Azmanuddin discloses that the majority have either not sent any residues to Bukit Nanas or only “insignificant” amounts.

The latter appear to be “token” deliveries made merely to show customers (waste generators) that they have sent the residues to Kualiti Alam.

Last year, Kualiti Alam received 12,000 tonnes of residues, half of which came from two companies alone. It has in the past, alerted DOE about the suspicious waste figures.

Rosnani admits to the shortcomings of the reporting system and says the tonnes of papers submitted made screening tricky. “We do get good information on waste but lately we realise that it can be abused. By the time we discover a discrepancy in the figures, it is difficult to investigate because of the time lapse.”

DOE recently started an electronic reporting system called E-consignment which involves less paperwork and quicker tracking of waste movements. But being new, its effectiveness is unproven.

Lax enforcement

Poor policing is also to blame for the spate of illegal dumping. In the last three years, only eight companies have landed in court. DOE appears to prefer issuing compounds – there were 408 in 2004. But one environment consultant argues that the maximum fine of RM2,000 for compounded cases is a mere slap on the wrist.

“Compounds should only be for the less serious offences such as labelling. Those related to waste inventory, waste notification, illegal storage, licensing and illegal transportation should go to court since they lead to illegal dumping.”

The consultant adds that staff shortage can no longer be an excuse for lax enforcement since the DOE workforce has been beefed up threefold. In fact, keeping an eye on recyclers should not be too difficult since there are only over 50 licensed ones.

Rosnani says, however, that enforcement will never be enough to stop illegal dumping. “We cannot be there 24 hours. One firm was taking waste at 4am in an attempt to elude us.” She says undercover policing work is being done and they have succeeded in catching workers of a Malaccan facility red-handed, dumping aluminium dross.

Tougher policing is but only one way to curb illegal dumping. To promote a healthy scheduled waste recycling industry, Azmanuddin says environmental accreditation, audits and monitoring programmes should be made mandatory requirements for licensing recyclers.

DANGER LOOMING: Irresponsible dumping of hazardous waste exposes children to risks. – Photo by R.S.N. MURALI

Waste generators have a role to play too. They should not just wash their hands off the waste the minute it is trucked away by a recycler, which is often the case.

“They should track the movement of the waste as they are still liable under the law,” says S. Perry, managing director of Texcycle which treats contaminated rags, fabrics and containers.

The president of the Association of Scheduled Waste Recyclers urges generators to be discerning in their choice of recycling contractors. “Choose companies with the technology and not those offering the cheapest price. There is no such thing as cheap waste management. If the cost is low, then they are cutting corners.”

In cases of illegal dumping, Perry disagrees on penalising only the director or head of a company as this leaves the person directly responsible for managing the waste (usually the environment manager or safety manager), off the hook. “By punishing this person, it will make sure that they do not cut corners.”

But more importantly, the judiciary should be educated about the dangers of environmental contamination that can be caused by illegal waste disposal.

The highest fine imposed to date is RM100,000; that is only 20% of the maximum provided by the Environmental Quality Act 1974.

And no one has been sent to jail although the Act provides for a sentence of up to five years. To deter wanton dumping, only a harsh penalty will do.