ES2007S
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
PROPOSAL
GROUP MEMBERS:
CALEB RAJ MAHENDRAN U083840L
LAU JIE XIAN JACINTH U075865B
LIM CHIA YONG JOHNNY U080405J
GOH CHIA HUEY BERNADETTE U083857M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. 3
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 4
DESCRIPTION OF MAIN ISSUE ............................................................................................................... 4
HEARTLAND .......................................................................................................................................... 4
SCHOOLS (EDUCATION) ...................................................................................................................... 5
PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 7
PURPOSE STATEMENT............................................................................................................................. 7
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 7
PLAN OF ACTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7
BENEFITS .................................................................................................................................................. 10
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 11
FEASIBILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 12
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 13
CASE STUDY ON JAPAN .................................................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................. 14
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO WASTE-MINIMIZATION & RECYCLING TEAM ........................ 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Page | 2
ABSTRACT
(Address the request for proposal specifically in: ensuring sustainable growth)
Page | 3
BACKGROUND
The amount of waste generated in Singapore in the past 30 years has increased six folds. In 2009, about
6.1 million tonnes of waste was generated in Singapore, and each person generated around 1,230 kg of
waste. (NEA Annual Report, 2009) Although recycling rate has increased to 57% in 2009, 43% of the 6
million tonnes of waste is still being disposed yearly. 41% is incinerated at Four Waste-to-Energy plants
and 2% disposed at Semakau Landfill. The recycling rate of the 3 common types of waste disposed (i.e.
plastics, food waste, paper/cardboard) is still low. Only 9% of disposed plastics are recycled even though
there are a total of 3,800 recycling bins in public areas within Singapore. This shows that Singapore’s 3R
(Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) efforts are not effective. Thus, more efforts are required to increase
recycling rates. (Eugene, 2010) This is especially important in land scarce Singapore. We foresee
environmental and sustainable issues in the near future. In view of this, we propose revamping current
recycling efforts which would supplement and enhance our waste management, specifically in the
heartlands.
DESCRIPTION OF MAIN ISSUE
HEARTLAND
The National Environment Agency (NEA) collaborates with public waste collectors and constituencies to
organize community events like ‘Clean & Green Singapore’ and ‘Recycling Week’ to educate the
residents in the heartlands about minimizing waste as well as inculcating good recycling habits. Public
waste collectors like Altvater Jakob often provide feedback about average household recycling rates, and
together with NEA’s surveys conducted, there have been an increase in heartland recycling from 14% in
2001 to 63% in 2009 (Ong, 2010). This collaboration also made it more convenient for residents to
recycle by placing 1 large communal recycling bin at every 5 block of flats in 2007 under the National
Recycling Program, on top of manual door-to-door recyclables collection once every fortnight (Teng &
Ong, 2008). Altvater also organized their own Recycling Exchange Initiative (Reit) in 154 Resident
Committees (RC) in their serviced areas, offering prized incentives such as microwave ovens and digital
cameras to the RCs as well as small rewards to individuals who recycle a weighted amount (Meng, 2006).
Also, pilot programs such as the Recyclable Intermediate Chute Holding (RICH) system developed by
SembEnviro, are carried out at selected blocks of flats in the heartlands to find out if the additional costs
incurred in bringing greater recycling convenience to residents outweighs the benefits of recycling like
Page | 4
lowered waste removal fees to the residents. For the RICH system, it has shown encouraging results as the
household recycling participation rates has increased from 67% in 2006 to 93% in 2007 (Tan & Seow,
2008).
Within constituencies themselves, recycling initiatives and outreach programs like recyclables in
exchange for food and other rewards encourage household participation. From Changi-Simei constituency
itself, more than 200 tonnes of recyclables were collected from 2009 to 2010. These constituencies also
compete against each other in terms of having the most number of initiatives per district (Ee, 2010). With
these initiatives, recycling rates have increased in the heartlands over the years.
SCHOOLS (EDUCATION)
Currently, there are recycling programmes in schools (preschools, primary, secondary and tertiary levels)
initiated by the National Environment Agency (NEA) or by school administration.
Recycling at Pre-schools
NEA has developed a set of Preschool 3R Awareness Kit to assist the preschool teachers to reinforce the
children’s 3R awareness. Children at childcare centres and kindergartens are encouraged to deposit their
recyclables in centralised recycling bins or in recycling bags. Fig. 1 is an example taken from the
Awareness Kit.
Recycling at Primary & Secondary Schools
There is usually a Recycling Corner in each primary and secondary school where students can use the
recycling bins and learn more about recycling through the educational materials placed there, example in
Fig. 2.
Page | 5
(Fig. 1)
(Fig. 2)
Recycling at Junior Colleges, ITEs, Polytechnics and Universities
For tertiary schools, there are usually several sets of recycling bins placed at strategic locations
throughout the school or campus. For example, there are about 39 sets of recycling bins placed at different
locations in the National University of Singapore. (Eugene, 2008)
Public Awareness Programmes
Besides educating our young, there are also public awareness programmes and activities to reinforce the
3R messages. One such event is Recycling Day which was first held on 21 Nov 2004. (Ong) There are
games and exhibitions on 3R. Shopping vouchers were given as incentives to people who brought the
most recyclables. This event evolved into Recycling Week in 2010.
Besides educating children through schools, recycling messages were also conveyed through public
transport, displaying on buses and inside the MRT stations. This tie in with Singapore’s commitment to
encourage public to recycle, and at the same time, also encourage taking of public transport to reduce
carbon footprint of individuals.
Page | 6
PROBLEM STATEMENT
There are various campaigns done by the relevant authority in promoting and increasing the awareness of
recycling for different groups of people in the society however, their effectiveness have been mixed so
far. This can be shown by the fact that in the year 2009, only 6% of household wastes were recycled
(Cheam, Chua, & Yong, 2010). Furthermore, the growth in the participation rate of households has been
relatively stagnant for the past few years. This proves that our current efforts in encouraging recycling
among households have not achieved much success over the years.
PURPOSE STATEMENT
This proposal aims to highlight the fact that Singapore’s current approach in promoting and increasing the
rate of household waste being recycled is not effective. Hence, there is a need to rethink and revamp the
way which Singapore can do to improve her efforts in recycling household waste.
METHODOLOGY
We employed various methods of gathering information and assessing the viability of our proposal.
Secondary research methods were used to gather information on the current stand of recycling efforts in
Singapore, particularly in the heartlands. We also investigated any plans to improve those efforts.
Research was also conducted on recycling practices in Japan, as a case study for our project.
Primary methods of research employed were surveys and interviews.
A survey was conducted as a preliminary factual study on mainly 2 points – the current practices of
recycling and how easy/difficult it is to do so, and, the views and suggestions on our main proposal i.e. the
Pneumatic Waste System. Ultimately, we wanted to see if this proposal would see an increase in recycling
amongst the residents.
An interview was conducted with Kok Shui Hong and Peh Shu Hui of the National Environment Agency,
to gather their views and suggestions on the feasibility of our project proposal. This interview was
conducted on 15th of March 2011, at 10am at the Environment Building.
Page | 7
The first part of the interview consisted of questions about the current National Recycling Programme
(NRP) and its statistics, and, the response from the currently ongoing pilot project involving the use of a
Pneumatic Refuse Collection System at HDB Blocks in Choa Chu Kang.
In the second part of the interview, we asked the interviewees about our project proposal, and received
valuable feedback regarding cost, implementation and feasibility.
PLAN OF ACTION
Our group suggests the following:
1.
Enact laws which require households, retailers and local town councils to share the
responsibility of segregating their waste and collecting them. There no laws or regulations in
Singapore which mandates the recycling of household waste. This results in the lack of obligation
among people to sort their rubbish and recycle them. The shared responsibility between the
different parties in waste management reduces the pressure on the households if such laws are
passed in the future.
2.
Reeducate the public about the importance of recycling and waste reduction as the current
efforts are not paying off.
3.
Install pneumatic waste collection systems in new housing estates and revamp the
existing ones so that they can also make use of such system to sort their waste into different types
of recyclables. The current problem with recycling household waste lies with the lack of
convenience for people to bring the recyclables to the collection point. This is further worsen by
the fact that many people (from the survey) find that sorting their rubbish is quite troublesome.
The Pneumatic Refuse Conveyance System (PRCS), a modern method to the current
mode of refuse collection, is under trial in some HDB blocks. Under the conventional method,
cleaners manually clear out rubbish chutes and this process creates some noise and smell
nuisance, especially for residents on the lower floors. The PRCS helps to mitigate such problems
as it conveys refuse by air suction from individual blocks through a network of pipes to a central
location for collection, where it is compacted in closed containers. PRCS uses air to transport the
waste. The air flow is generated by exhausters creating a negative pressure in the pipe system.
The air enters the pipes at atmospheric pressure, entraps the solid waste and conveys it to the
collection station.
Page | 8
HDB has installed the PRCS in 11 blocks in the Choa Chu Kang Estate. The PRCS
operates automatically six times a day to convey the refuse from the individual blocks to the
centralised collection centre. Feedback from residents has been positive so far as there is no
nuisance odour and noise when the refuse is being cleared out. (MEWR )
The PRCS can handle multiple waste types concurrently. One refuse chute is used for
each separate waste stream. Therefore, it is most suitable for collecting recyclables. In order to
make it more convenient for residents to recycle, we propose to install 2 separate waste hoppers
per level of the HDB flat. One for general refuse and another for recyclables such as glass, paper,
plastic and aluminium cans.
Typically, two to four separate waste streams are handled in a pneumatic refuse system
using the same transport pipe network. In the collection station each waste stream is directed to a
designated container. By collecting each waste type separately the system safeguards that waste
and recyclables are not mixed in the system. Fig. 3 below is a graphic explanation of the PRCS.
(Envac AB, 2009)
(Fig. 3)
However, as the public waste collectors do sort the recyclables manually, we suggest one
chute for all recyclables in order to cut cost.
4.
As this is a new system that is still in its pilot stages, we foresee that there would be a
major problem in the fact that there are two chutes side by side, and there could be a high number
of cases where the wrong items are placed into the wrong chute. As such, we propose to
distinguish the chute covers using large stickers with images of common refuse (e.g. banana skin,
fish bones, etc) on one and of common recyclables (e.g. aluminum cans, glass bottles, paper bag,
etc) and the recycling logo (see Fig.4) on the other.
Page | 9
(Fig. 4)
5.
As this is a relatively new system, we also propose that domestic helpers be educated
with the use of this new system, so as to prevent misuse of the new chute system.
BENEFITS
1.
Less waste are being disposed and can help to reduce the strain on the capacities of our
incinerators and landfills which are limited by the amount of land available in Singapore. Thus
allowing more land to be use in other areas of development beside waste disposal.
2.
More materials from the recycles are recovered for further use. The materials extracted
from recycling allows the Industries here to reduce their reliance on imported materials
particularly in countries like Singapore which is import dominant.
3.
Help to sustain and promote the growth of recycling and related industries. The
prevalence of recycling activities opens business opportunities for the treatment of recyclables
and the collection of them from households.
4.
The Pneumatic Refuse Conveyance System (PRCS) has the following advantages:
a. It is fully automated and reliable.
b. It improves hygiene; occupational safety and health as odour, leaks and dust are
eliminated.
c. It minimises manual handling
d. It minimises environmental impact such as energy consumption, gaseous emissions
littering etc
Page | 10
e. It reduces waste volume by encouraging recycling.
f.
It allows source separation to facilitate recycling.
g. It produces little or no noise pollution.
h. It is low in energy cost.
LIMITATIONS
1.
The initial cost for implementing and enforcement this program can be quite
considerable. There might be a problem in splitting the cost of recycling between the various
parties. The time for the cost of recycling to be recovered might be too long for it to become
economically feasible.
2.
The demand for recyclables might not be enough to make such an initiative feasible.
Furthermore, there is a problem of more valuable recyclables being taken away by scavengers and
the karanguni men from the recycling bins. This will make the recycling efforts even less
economical feasible as the money earned from selling the recyclables do not get to offset the cost.
3.
A stationary pneumatic refuse collection system can handle most types of waste and
recyclables with the exception of: (Envac AB, 2009)
Bulky waste: Furniture’s, refrigerators etc. should be collected separately
Articles likely to cause fire or explosions
Hard articles: Stones, lumps of metal scraps such as scrap iron, etc.
Spongy articles: Sponges, cushions, etc., which tend to expand and block the chute and/or
the transport pipe.
Articles emitting an offensive odour: Animal faeces and urine, bodies of house pets and
rats, etc
Chemicals: Acidic and alkaline solution, paint, adhesives, etc
4.
The fact that there are two chutes side by side can cause confusion even with colour
coding and the stickers being pasted on. Young children might not be able to distinguish between
Page | 11
the two and simply mix up their functions. Elderly folk might not be able to distinguish clearly
even with the measures put in place; as they could have poor eyesight.
5.
Maintenance of these systems could be costly due to the mechanization of the chute
systems. It would be difficult to carry out as well due to the fact that the chutes would be built-in
to newer HDB blocks, and not retrofitted.
FEASIBILITY
Judging from the success rate of the pilot programme of the Recyclable Intermediate Chute Holding
(Rich) system in 11 HDB blocks in Choa Chu Kang, we foresee our proposed idea to be feasible. The
Rich system increased participation rate of households in recycling from 67% in Year 2006 to 93% in
2007. (Tan & Seow, 2008) This shows that convenience for residents is a major push factor in promoting
recycling. This result is also reflected in our survey.
In addition, City Development Limited has implemented dual pneumatic chutes for recyclables and nonrecyclables in several of their projects, e.g. City Square Residences, St. Regis Hotel & Residences, The
Sail @ Marina Bay. (BCA , 2006) This confirms that the system is feasible, reliable and stable. However,
majority of the Singapore population resides in HDB flats, therefore this system should be implemented in
HDB blocks in order to increase recycling rate tremendously. Due to the increasing population, waste
generated is also increasing at an increasing rate. Thus, in order to increase the lifespan of our landfill at
Pulau Semakau, it is best to reduce amount of waste generated by recycling as much as waste as we can.
This would then ensure sustainable growth in Singapore.
The cost-benefit ratio in the long-term might be optimistic because with the pneumatic system, the ragand-bone man would not be able to steal/snatch the “valuable” recyclables. “Valuable” recyclables are
heavier materials such as paper, glass and aluminium cans which can be sold for more money and it may
outweigh the cost, making retrofitting of new chutes to existing HDB flats feasible.
Page | 12
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDY ON JAPAN
Japan has realized the need to recycle their waste as the amount of available landfill is getting lesser
throughout the years and incineration produces a large amount of pollution. The Container and Packaging
recycling law was enacted in 1997 by the Japanese government to increase the amount of recyclable
containers and packaging. This act would decrease the amount of waste being generated, thereby turning
them into available resources for future use (Law for the Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of
Containers and Packaging, 2005). This is further enhanced by the Home Appliances Recycling law
enacted in April, 2001 which splits the responsibility of recycling those used home appliances between
the consumers, retailers, municipalities and manufacturers (METI, 2006). This program allows Japanese
manufacturers to recover rare minerals for their usage instead of having to import them from overseas (H,
Tabuchi. 2010)
Page | 13
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO WASTE-MINIMIZATION & RECYCLING TEAM
About NEA’s Current Work:
Recently, we understand that NEA is collaborating with the public waste collectors in view of the recontract to increase the frequency of mixed recycling bins from 5 blocks is to 1 bin to 1:1. This increases
the convenience for the residents to recycle, and also make the bins more prominent.
1. What is the cost-benefit of this?
Cost: Since more bins will have to be used, more labour will have to be employed while collecting
these recyclables every day. More bins also might mean a greater eyesore if residents do not
dump their recyclables correctly. Possible increase in waste removal fees to the residents.
Benefit: Increased convenience to the heartlanders means more recycling will be done. If more
valuable recyclables like newspapers and aluminum cans are recycled, the cost of recycling
plastics can be offset and lesser costs might be imposed. Landfill space will also be conserved
with increased recycling.
2. Why are mixed recyclable bins provided instead of separate bins?
The contract signed with the public waste collector companies does include a section about
recycling; most collection centers do sorting of the recyclables; except in Jurong where minimal
sorting is done (due to the usage of separate bins).
3. How does NEA ensure that the public waste collectors separate the recyclables?
By signing these public waste collectors on contract bases (7 year term), NEA binds them to
separate recyclables.
Page | 14
4. What happens to recyclables that are too huge for the bins?
These get cleared once a fortnight/weekly depending on the public waste collector’s contract.
5. What measures does NEA take to ensure that the residents take the effort to go all the way to the
void decks to dispose of their recyclables?
Public waste collectors do have their own initiatives like ‘trash for cash’, and NEA has the
National Recycling Programme (NRP) to educate and encourage the public to participate in
recycling.
About Recycling in General:
Currently, we can see a lot of recycling bins dotted all over Singapore.
1. Is this considered wastage? (Cost of these bins, unsightly environment, management issues with
regards to the bins)
Not really, apart from some that may be an eyesore, if these bins are in excess, the public waste
collectors will know how to reuse or recycle these bins.
2. What is the current statistic of recycling in the heartlands?
56% is the current recycling statistic, as of 2009. Additionally, current participation in NRP as of
2009 is 63%.
3. How about in condominiums and other private estates?
They have their own developer’s waste collection center, for example City Development Limited
has their own recycling pneumatic chutes, and these are out of NEA’s scope.
4. What happens to the plastic bags used to contain the waste?
They are removed (torn apart from the recyclables), and sorted out to the plastic recyclables for
recycling.
Past Pilot Programs:
Chua Chu Kang Recyclable Intermediate Chute Holding (RICH) system & Pneumatic Refuse
Conveyance System (PRCS):
1. Is it still ongoing? What are the outcomes?
Yes, it will go on and NEA and upper management will continue to observe the cost vs benefit of
the separate chute to discern if new HDB blocks should have this as an implementation.
Page | 15
Additionally, if costs are reasonable with respect to benefits, these chutes may be retrofitted to the
older HDB estates.
2. How were the chutes built and designed?
For the Chua Chu Kang (CCK) Pilot, a group of 11 blocks had the pneumatic waste system
implemented while it was a new estate. As such, they had an extra chute as a backup in case the
pneumatic system was to breakdown. So, no additional costs was incurred when one block out of
the 11 was selected to be the pilot test bed for the single mixed recyclable chute.
For the other 2 new estates that were built with the separate RICH system, they are still new
(about 1 year) and this pilot may take a few years worth of observation before any conclusion can
be made. So far, there is a 93% participation rate in recycling at the CCK pilot.
3. What is the cost of implementing such a system? Does it outweigh the benefits of an increased
recycling rate among households?
Exact costs unknown but it is definitely cheaper to design and implement the separate chute
before the block is constructed. It will be more costly to retrofit a separate chute into old estates.
As for cost benefit; still need a long time for the pilots to prove themselves.
As for the pneumatic system, it makes it easier for the cleaners/labourers to remove the refuse
because a cluster of blocks share a common refuse collection point. Additionally, the negative
pressure makes it odourless, and also pest free.
4. Are these systems implementable in old HDB estates?
Yes but it is costly.
5. What is the rationale of collecting the waste at every intermediate floor? How about a central
collection at the ground floor like normal chutes?
It is not ‘collection at every intermediate floor’, but a holding area at every intermediate floor to
increase the holding volume of recyclables. When the cleaner/labourer comes to collect the
recyclables, all he has to do is to press a button and all the recyclables will fall into the collection
area and removed all at once.
6. If this is successful and is implemented in the new estates, what will be the fate of the excess
current mixed recyclable bins?
As mentioned before, the public waste collectors will find their own ways such that their
investments in these bins will not go to waste, ie recycle or reuse.
Feasibility of Separate Pneumatic Recycling Chutes:
Page | 16
Our group intends to explore the feasibility of implementing individual chutes for each type of recyclable
waste.
1. What are the possible problems that may arise? Do they include excessive costs of building the
chutes, residents unsure of how to sort the materials, and/or public waste collectors not sorting the
materials?
Excessive costs can be tested out based on results from the pilot tests. Also, since the public waste
collectors sort the recyclables any way, it will bring even more convenience to the residents in a
way that they do not need to sort their own recyclables. All they need to do will be to ensure that
these recyclables are clean and dry.
2. How similar/different will it be as compared to 1 bin to 1 flat?
Even more convenient, can expect recycling participation rates to be much higher.
Other issues:
Karang Guni Men:
Only collect valuable recyclables (by weight) like aluminum cans, newspapers, electronics and clothing,
leaving the light weight plastic bottles to the NEA and public waste collectors. Since recycling plastic
actually costs more and NEA does not have enough valuable recyclables to sell, the high costs of
recycling plastic cannot be offset. If the public waste collectors did not factor this excess cost into their
budget proposals, they may suffer a loss and it will be for them to bear the costs.
Contamination of recyclables:
Recyclables should be clean and dry (at least emptied of its contents), so that it will not contaminate the
other recyclables.
Inculcating 3R habits through education:
Singaporeans are still being educated in the 3Rs, target segment is the young children from pre-school
onwards so that they will also help remind and educate their parents and other family members about the
3Rs. We hope to be able to make 3Rs as part of our lives in such a way that even though the recycling bin
is far away, they will not mind and still go all the way there just to recycle their waste.
Page | 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ee, W.W. (Sept, 2010). Food-for-recycled items swop goes down a treat. The Straits Times.
Envac AB. (Aug, 2009). Retrieved 21 February 2011 from http://www.envacgroup.com/web/Start.aspx
Eugene. (Dec 8, 2008). Start Recycling at School. Retrieved 25 February 2011 from
http://www.zerowastesg.com/2008/12/08/start-recycling-at-school/
Eugene. (May 4, 2010). Singapore 2009 Waste Statistics. Retrieved 28 February 2011 from
http://www.zerowastesg.com/2010/05/04/singapore-2009-waste-statistics/
H, Tabuchi. (Oct 4, 2010). Japan Recycles Minerals From Used Electronics. The New York Times.
Retrieved 20 February 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/global/05recycle.html
Law for the Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging. Retrieved 3
March 2011 from http://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/recycle/07.pdf
Meng, Y.C. (Sept, 2006). NEA steps up recycling drive in heartland. The Straits Times.
BCA . (2006, March). BCA Green Mark. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from
http://www.bca.gov.sg/greenmark/others/gm2006.pdf
Cheam, J., Chua, G., & Yong, N. (2010). Recycling in Singapore: 10 years on - Chute, we got it wrong.
Singapore: Strait Times.
Envac AB. (2009, August). Retrieved September 2010, from
http://www.envacgroup.com/web/Start.aspx
MEWR . (n.d.). Retrieved Semptember, 2010, from Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources:
http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Common/homepage.aspx
Ministry of Economy, Trade, Industry. (May 22, 2006) Home appliance recycling law. Retrieved 1 March
2011 from http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/recycle/main/english/law/home.html
NEA Annual Report. (2009). Retrieved 10 March 2011 from
http://web1.env.gov.sg/cms/ar2009/content/nea-annual_report.pdf
Ong, S. E. 3R Portfolio. (n.d.). Retrieved 27 February 2011 from
http://www.env.go.jp/recycle/3r/en/info/05_13.pdf
Ong, S. E. (Nov, 2010). 60% of Singaporeans recycle now. The Straits Times.
Recycling Week. (n.d.). Retrieved 9 March 2011 from http://app2.nea.gov.sg/RecyclingWeek2010.aspx
Page | 18
Tan, J. & Seow, K.L. (Oct 2008). Convenient chutes promote recycling. The Straits Times.
Teng, A. B. & Ong, S. E. (Feb 2008). Town councils active in recycling campaign. The Straits Times.
Page | 19