Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Report

The practice and challenges of solid waste management in Singapore

Renbi Bai*, Mardina Sutanto
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119260, Singapore

Received 23 August 2000; accepted 26 November 2001

Abstract
This paper presents an overview of the current solid waste management situation in Singapore and provides a brief discussion of
the future challenges. Singapore is a small island city-state with a large population, warm climate and high humidity. Over the past
two to three decades, rapid industrialization and economic development have caused a tremendous increase in solid waste genera-
tion. The yearly disposed solid waste increased from 0.74 million tonnes in 1972 to 2.80 million tonnes in 2000. Solid waste man-
agement in Singapore has traditionally been undertaken by the Ministry of Environment (ENV), with the participation of some
private sectors in recent years. The hierarchy of solid waste management in Singapore is waste minimization (reduce, reuse and
recycle or so-called 3 Rs), followed by incineration and landll. As land is extremely scarce and only one newly constructed oshore
landll site is available, solid waste incineration has been identied as the most preferred disposal method. Waste minimization, the
utilization of incineration ashes, industrial waste management are regarded to be the major challenges in the future. # 2002
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Waste Management Hierarchy (minimization,
recovery and transformation, and land disposal) has
been adopted by most industrialized nations as the
menu for developing solid waste management strategies.
The extent to which any one option is used within a
given country however varies, largely depending on a
number of factors, such as topography, population
density, transportation infrastructure, socioeconomic
and environmental regulations (Sakai et al., 1996).
Being a small and densely populated country with a
hot and humid climate (land area of 659.9 km2; popu-
lation of 3.89 million; average temperature of 24.7
 31.3  C, daily average humidity at 84.4%, and annual
average rainfall of 2134 mm) (Department of Statistics,
2000a), Singapore is potentially vulnerable to the out-
break of any infectious diseases. At the same time, rapid
economic and population growth continues to con-
tribute to the burden of solid waste disposal.
Solid waste management in Singapore has tradition-
ally been undertaken by the Ministry of Environment
(ENV). The statute dealing with solid waste manage-
ment in Singapore is the Environmental Pollution
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-874-4532; fax: +65-779-1936.
E-mail address: chebairb@nus.edu.sg (R. Bai).
0956-053X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0956-053X(02)00014-4
Control Act (EPCA) which came into force on the rst
of April 1999 and is a consolidation of existing legisla-
tions on the control of air, water and waste, including
the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) and the
regulations passed under EPHA, such as:
 Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing)
Regulations;
 Environmental Public Health (Toxic Industrial
Waste) Regulations;
 Environmental Public Health (General Waste
Collection) Regulations;
 Environmental Public Health (Corrective Work
Order) Regulations.
Under the EPHA, waste is dened as any sub-
stance or article which requires to be disposed of as
being broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise
spoiled, and for the purpose of this Act anything which
is discarded or otherwise dealt with as if it were waste
shall be presumed to be waste unless the contrary is
proved. . . (Ooi, 1995).
Under the Public Cleansing and General Waste Col-
lection Regulations, all generated solid waste has to be
collected in Singapore. The Corrective Work Order also
serves as a preventive measure for littering (under the
Corrective Work Order, people who are caught littering
558 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567
may be ned and/or required to clean a public place, for
example, picking up litter along public roads, in public
parks or housing estates). Because of the very limited
landll capacity for waste disposal and the need to
conserve this limited capacity for the future, landlling
of solid waste in Singapore has been opted as the least
desirable disposal method. In order to achieve the max-
imum reduction of waste volume entering the landll,
solid waste incineration, although much more expen-
sive, has been given top priority over all other waste
transformation options. In addition, waste minimiza-
tion at source in all sectors of the community has been
promoted for years. This paper discusses the various
practices and challenges of solid waste management in
Singapore.
2. Solid waste generation and characteristics
Solid waste in Singapore is broadly classied into
three main categories (Low, 1990):
 Domestic refuse (solid waste generated by
households, markets, food centers and commer-
cial premises such as hotels, restaurants, shops,
etc.);
 Industrial refuse (not including toxic and hazar-
dous waste that requires special handling, treat-
ment and disposal);
 Institutional refuse (solid waste from various
Government and Statutory Board installations,
Fig. 1. The amount of solid waste disposed of from dierent waste categories during the past two decades (Ministry of Environment, 1999a).
hospitals, schools, recreational facilities and
public development projects).
Fig. 1 shows the actual amount of solid waste dis-
posed of over the last two decades (Ministry of Envir-
onment, 1999a). It can be seen that the total solid waste
in 1999 was three times that of 1980. Domestic solid
waste has increased steadily over the years, from 640
thousand tonnes in 1980 to 1360 thousand tonnes in
1999, attributed to an increase in both population as
well as per capita waste generation rate [the population
was 2.41 million in 1980 and 3.89 million in 1999
(Department of Statistics, 2000b), therefore the average
rate of domestic waste being disposed of was 0.73 kg/
day in 1980 and 0.96 kg/day in 1999 per capita, with an
average yearly increasing rate of 1.15%]. With the rapid
industrial and economic growth of Singapore, the out-
put of industrial solid waste has also increased remark-
ably. The output of industrial solid waste was 207
thousand tonnes in 1980, compared to 1538 thousand
tonnes in 1997, and it nally exceeded the output of
domestic solid waste in 1995. There has been a decrease
in the industrial solid waste output of 7.2% since 1997,
due to the waste minimization program established by
ENV. The quantity of institutional solid waste has been
relatively small. From 1980 to 1987, the institutional
solid waste increased from 94 thousand tonnes in 1980
to 292 thousand tonnes in 1987. Then, it decreased
continuously to approximately 6 thousand tonnes in
1999, as a result of waste material recycling, especially
waste papers. In view of about 1.8 million tonnes of
 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567 559

solid waste being recycled annually in the last few years stantially, depending on the source and the period of the
(Ministry of Environment, 1999a, 2000a), the actual year (i.e. wet or dry season). The typical properties of
solid waste generation in Singapore has amounted to the solid waste in Singapore are given in Table 2 (Min-
about 4.5  4.8 million tonnes per year. This represents istry of Environment, 1999a). The moisture content of
a gross per capita waste generation rate between 3.37 48.6% is considerably higher than that of 20% in the
and 3.52 kg/day, similar to that of 3.38 kg/day in US (Tchobanoglous, 1993).
Canada in 1992 (Sawell et al., 1996).
Table 1 shows the compositions and their typical
percentage distribution of solid waste in Singapore from 3. Solid waste collection system
1997 to 2000 (Ministry of Environment, 2000a). Solid
waste compositions have been found to be relatively Prior to 1996, waste collection came under the ambit
stable. Food waste always comprises the highest por- of the Environmental Health Department (EHD) of
tion, followed by paper, wood and plastics. Although ENV and the private waste collectors. EHD provided
the comparison of national waste statistics may not be a daily collection services to domestic households, trade
simple task, due to the dierence in compositional clas- and institutional premises, while the private waste col-
sications and the manner in which the data were col- lectors served mainly industrial premises, commercial
lected, solid waste composition in Singapore has been buildings, shopping centers, construction sites, etc.
found to be quite similar to that in Sapporo, Japan, but Faced with an ageing workforce and the diculties in
very dierent from those in Yokohama and Osaka, the recruitment of collection workers, ENV decided to
Japan (Sakai, 1996) and those in the US (Eighmy and corporatize the waste collection unit. Since 1 April 1996,
Kosson, 1996). In Singapore, food waste accounts for SEMAC Pte Ltd, a private company and a wholly
about 39% of the total waste streams and paper makes owned subsidiary of ENV Corporation, has taken over
up 20.60%. Food and paper waste in Sapporo, Japan the waste collection service from EHD. As a private
accounts for 46.6 and 25.2% of its total solid waste, company, SEMAC had a greater exibility in its
respectively. There are about 40.0, 35.7 and 37.6% of recruitment program. To introduce competition in the
paper waste in Yokohama, Osaka and the US, respec- waste collection services and to improve the service
tively, almost doubled the percentage in Singapore, and, standards, ENV started to liberalize the collection ser-
on the other hand, food waste in Yokohama (9.8%), vices in 1998. Domestic and trade premises were divided
Osaka (6.5%) or the US (6.7%) is just about one fourth into nine geographical sectors, and the services for these
to one sixth of the percentage in Singapore. The dier- sectors were planned to be tendered out progressively,
ences in solid waste composition can therefore have a at a rate of two or three a year. ENV conducted a pre-
great impact on the system of solid waste management qualication exercise to select companies with the
in dierent countries. It was found that about 85% of necessary expertise, experience and nancial capability
the solid waste generated in Singapore is combustible, to tender for the services. At present, there are three
but the caloric values of the solid waste vary sub- licensed domestic and trade waste collectors providing
the service. The rst sector (the Pasir Ris-Tampines
Table 1 sector) was awarded to a German company, Altvater
Solid waste composition in Singaporea Jakob Pte Ltd, which has 50 years of experience in
Composition (%) Year waste collection. They started operations on 1 July
1999. The second sector (the Bedok sector) was awarded
1997 1998 1999 2000
to Colex Holdings Ltd, a local company with consider-
Food waste 38.81 38.80 38.80 38.83 able experience in industrial waste collection. Colex
Paper/cardboard 20.60 20.60 20.60 20.60 started its operations on 1 November 1999. The other
Plastics 5.79 5.80 5.80 5.80
seven sectors continue to be served by SEMAC Pte Ltd.
Construction debris 4.51 4.50 4.50 4.50
Wood/timber 8.91 8.90 8.90 8.90 For institutional solid waste, SEMAC remains to be the
Horticultural waste 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 main collector, while industrial solid waste is still col-
Earth spoils 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 lected by the licensed private waste contractors.
Ferrous metals 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70
Non-ferrous metals 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Table 2
Used slag 4.29 4.30 4.30 4.30
Typical properties of solid waste in Singaporea
Sludge 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
Glass 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Parameter Range Typical value
Textile/leather 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Scrap tyres 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Moisture content (%w/w) 3060 48.60
Others 4.51 4.50 4.50 4.50 Net caloric value (kJ/kg) 500013,000 8000
Total 100 100 100 100 Incombustibles (%w/w) 7.522.5 15
a a
Ministry of Environment (1997, 1998a, 1999a, 2000a). Ministry of Environment (1999a).
560 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567
There are about 350 licensed private waste collectors
in Singapore, and they have their own eet of collection
vehicles and parcels of collection services. ENV as the
regulator sets guidelines on good practices under its
Code of Practice for Licensed General Waste Collec-
tors, a guideline that licensed waste collectors must
adhere to. At the same time, ENV monitors the service
level as well as decides on the fees proposed by the
companies. Table 3 shows the waste collection fees cur-
rently charged in Singapore (Ministry of Environment,
1999a). For residential solid waste, the collection fee is
charged per household, and, for non-residential solid
waste, the collection fee is charged on the basis of waste
volume. It is dicult to make a direct comparison of the
collection fees in Singapore and in other countries (due
to the lack of information), but the liberalization of
waste collection service in Singapore has been found to
promote competition and improve the service.
Several waste collection methods have been adopted
in Singapore. The direct collection method involves
collecting waste directly from individual households and
is primarily conned to private residential estates and
shop houses. This method is very labor intensive and
time consuming. There are two indirect collection
methods in practice as well. The rst is the one used in
older high-rise apartment blocks where waste is stored
in substantial amounts in bulk containers on the base-
ment of the apartments. These containers need to be
transferred manually to the bin compounds and later be
transported to the refuse disposal sites. The second
indirect collection system is a centralized refuse-chute
(CRC) system that has been introduced and imple-
mented in newer ats since 1989 (Ooi, 1995). This sys-
tem allows residential refuse to be discharged directly
from individual ats through a common discharge chute
to the central refuse container, and also allows a small
vehicle to go directly up to the central refuse chute of
each apartment block and transfer the central refuse
container mechanically from the central refuse chute to
Table 3
Solid waste collection fee charged per month in Singaporea
Type
Residential
Flats
Landed Residential
Non-residential
Trade premises with average daily refuse output:
<170 l per day
170<350 l per day
350<700 l per day
700<1000 l per day
Each additional 1000 l or part thereof >1000 l per day
Hawker/market stalls
a
Ministry of Environment (1999a).
the waste collection truck. Thus, the introduction of the
CRC system has greatly improved the eciency of
domestic waste collection, increased the control of smell
and leakage of refuse during collection and transporta-
tion, as well as dramatically reduced the need for waste-
collection workers. To further improve the services, a
pilot project was embarked on in 1998 to test the eec-
tiveness of an alternative solid waste handling system
[i.e. the pneumatic-refuse-collection (PRC) system].
With this system, all the refuse from a cluster of apart-
ment blocks is sucked through underground pipes to a
central station and towed away subsequently by the
waste collector. However, the pilot project indicated
that the capital and operating costs of the PRC system
amounted to $2000 per at and $13 per at per month.
This is much higher than that of the CRC system, which
only has a capital cost of $146 per at and an operating
cost of $3 per at per month. If the PRC system is to be
implemented, the service and conservancy charges paid
by residents will have to be increased substantially. In
view of this, the PRC system is not implemented at the
present time (Swee, 2000).
Most waste collection contractors employ two-shift
operations, with the collections being undertaken mainly
during o-peak trac hours. To improve the eciency
and productivity of waste collection in the eastern part of
Singapore, the collected waste was unloaded at a transfer
station (Kim Chuan Transfer Station built in 1986) and
later transported to the incineration plants in Tuas (in the
western part of Singapore) and the Senoko incineration
plant (in the northern part of Singapore). However,
with improved road network, better accessibility to the
incineration plants, and the use of larger capacity refuse
trucks, waste collectors have found it more cost eective
to transport their wastes directly to the incineration
plants rather than pay for the haulage services at Kim
Chuan Transfer Station. In view of the low demand, the
Government has therefore decided to close Kim Chuan
Transfer Station with eect from 1 July 2001. Contractors
Pasir Ris-Tampines Sector Bedok Sector Rest of Singapore
(Altvater Jakob Pte Ltd) ($) (Colex Holdings Ltd) ($) (SEMAC Pte Ltd) ($)
8.63 6.23 8.70
23.93 22.95 23.45
42.66 40.23 41.06
108.68 101.53 104.17
277.60 253.30 258.57
426.34 370.62 379.10
447.35 378.14 388.01
31.58 41.80 31.58
 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567
are required by ENV to separate the collected waste
into incinerable and non-incinerable components for
disposal by incineration and landlling.
4. Solid waste incineration
Solid waste incineration has been given a top priority
over other waste disposal methods. The Engineering
Services Department (ESD) of ENV is in charge of
planning, developing, managing and operating the
waste incineration facilities in Singapore. Four incin-
eration plants are already in operation (Ulu Pandan,
Tuas, Senoko and Tuas South). The fth incineration
plant will be built adjacent to the Tuas South Incinera-
tion Plant by a private sector on a Design, Build, Own
and Operation (DBOO) basis, and is scheduled for
completion in 2004 and in service by 2006.
The Ulu Pandan Incineration Plant, which has four
incinerators, was commissioned in 1979 with a capacity
of 1200 tonnes/day. The capacity was later expanded to
the present level of 1600 tonnes/day in 1982. The Tuas
Incineration Plant, with ve incineration units and a
total capacity of 2000 tonnes/day, was put into opera-
tion in 1987. The Senoko Incineration Plant was com-
missioned in August 1992 at a capacity of 2400 tonnes/
day. The Tuas South Incineration Plant started its
operation in November 2000, with six incineration units
and a capacity of 3000 tonnes/day. The capacity for the
fth incineration plant is designed at 3000 tonnes/day.
Currently, the daily solid waste disposed of in Singa-
pore is about 8000 tonnes/day and 73% of the waste is
incinerated (5840 tonnes/day). Since 85% of the solid
waste in Singapore is incinerable, this means that an
incineration capacity of 6800 tonnes/day would be
required. The four incineration plants currently in
operation have a total capacity of 9000 tonnes/day. This
capacity is expected to be sucient for waste incinera-
tion in Singapore until 2007 as an average annual
increase of 5% is predicted for future solid waste gen-
eration (Ministry of Environment, 2000b). The fth
incineration plant, run by the private sector, will there-
fore introduce competition into the waste incineration
service in Singapore and would play an important role
in the future. In moving towards the market model,
ENV has also planed to privatize two of the four exist-
ing plants by the time the fth plant commences opera-
tion (Ministry of Environment, 2000b).
ENV believes that incineration is the best option for
waste treatment in Singapore. All the incinerable wastes
that are not recovered are to be incinerated because
incineration can reduce waste volume up to 90% (Min-
istry of Environment, 1999a), which will conserve the
limited capacity of the sanitary landll in Singapore.
This option was rst adopted in the late 1970s, although
it costs six to seven times more than landll.
561
All the waste incineration plants are equipped with
pollution control systems, electricity generation and
scrap metal recovery facilities. The waste incineration
consists of several steps. Firstly, waste from collection
trucks is discharged into the refuse bunker, which stocks
up the waste. There are large forced draught fans to
suck the air from the bunker for use in waste combus-
tion. The sucking action of the fans results in a sub-
atmospheric pressure in the bunker. This helps to pre-
vent the foul smell from escaping to the ambient envir-
onment. The creation of these air drafts also cause
waste moisture to evaporate faster. The mixed, half-dry
waste is then fed into the furnace by overhead grab
cranes. Depending on the waste properties, oil auxiliary
burners may be used to start up the combustion. Once
the waste is ignited and the furnace temperature main-
tained, combustion is sustained without the need for
auxiliary fuel. The burning waste is mixed, agitated and
moved downward by the moving stoker grate. The
superheated steam generated from the incineration is
expanded in a backpressure turbine to generate elec-
tricity. The recovered energy is used to operate the
plant, and extra energy is sold to the public utility net-
work. Revenue from the sale of the electricity con-
stitutes a major source of income to the plants. Food
waste, in spite of its high moisture content, is all incin-
erated in Singapore due to the large quantity and the
diculty in its separation.
Bag lters, gas scrubbers and electrostatic pre-
cipitators are used to control air pollution from waste
incineration. The air emission standards are specied by
the Clean Air (Standards) Regulations which have been
in force since 1978. The standards controls mainly the
emission of solid particles, heavy metals and sulphur,
nitrogen and carbon oxides, etc. The air emission stan-
dards have been revised and specied in the Environ-
mental Pollution Control (Air Impurities) Regulations
2000 and will be in force on 1 January 2001. In addition
to being more stringent for controlling the emission of
solid particles, heavy metals and sulphur, nitrogen and
carbon oxides, etc., the new standards also introduce
control of new substances, such as dioxins and furans.
Existing plants will be given a grace period of 3 years to
ensure the air emission complying with the revised
standards. New plants or new process introduced by
existing plants will be required to comply with the
standard from 1 January 2001 onwards.
There are two generic ash streams discharged from
the incinerators. Bottom ash is generally dened as the
material collected o the incineration grates, whereas y
ash is a collective term for the ner material captured
downstream of the furnace (i.e. in the heat recovery and
air pollution control system). In Japan (Sakai, 1996),
Denmark (Hjelmar, 1996), and the Netherlands (van
der Sloot, 1996), these two streams are managed dier-
ently due to the signicant dierences in their physical,
562 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567

chemical and leaching capacity. In the US (Eighmy and
Kosson, 1996), bottom and y ashes are mixed together
at most incineration facilities and are disposed of in
landlls. In Singapore, the bottom ash is transported to
the ash pit through vibrating conveyors. Ferrous metals
are recovered from the ash by overhead electromagnetic
separators and sold to the National Iron and Steel Mill
(Natsteel). The remaining bottom ash, together with the
y ash and non-incinerable waste, is all sent to the
landll.
The quantities of solid waste incinerated over the
years are shown in Table 4 (Ministry of Environment,
1999a, 2000a). As can be seen, solid waste disposed of
by incineration has increased from about 1.18 million
tonnes in 1990 to about 2.44 million tonnes in 2000, up
to 87% of the total waste disposed of in 2000. This
percentage is even higher than that in Japan (74%)
(Sakai, 1996), and is in contrast with a general incin-
eration rate of 27% in the Netherlands (van der Sloot,
1996), 23% in Denmark (Hjelmar, 1996), 16% in the
US (Sakai et al., 1996) and 5.48% in Canada (Sawell et
al., 1996).
The solid waste to be incinerated was usually dis-
tributed to the three incineration plants (Ulu Pandan,
Tuas and Senoko) at a rate of 21% for Ulu Pandan
Incineration Plant, 33% for Tuas Incineration Plant, and
46% for Senoko Incineration Plant, respectively (Tuas
South Incineration Plant just started its operation.
Information on the distribution of solid waste to the
four incineration plants has not been available yet).
There have been cases that the amount of waste received
at some incineration plants exceeded capacity during
peak hours of waste collection and transportation, due
to the plants being geographically closer to most waste
collection areas. To regulate the demand for waste dis-
posal at these plants, a peak-hour-surcharge of $6 per
tonne is levied between 7.30 am and 2.00 pm to divert
the solid waste streams to other incineration plants.
5. Sanitary landll
Landlling has the lowest priority in the management
of solid waste in Singapore, although it plays the most
important role in many other countries (Eighmy and
Kosson, 1996; Muttamara et al., 1996; Sawell et al.,
1996). Because of the land constraint, landll capacity
in Singapore is principally reserved for waste that can-
not be treated otherwise.
Quantity of solid waste disposed of by landll since
1976 is also given in Table 4. As can be seen from the
Table, landlling once was the sole method for solid
waste disposal in Singapore before the 1970s. Then the
percentage of solid waste for landll continuously
decreased and was down to about 22% in 1993, as more
and more solid waste was incinerated. From 1993 to

Table 4
Solid waste disposed by incineration and landll in Singaporea

Year Waste disposed by landll Waste disposed by incineration Total refuse disposed Percentage of waste
(1000 tonnes) (1000 tonnes) (1000 tonnes) disposed by landll

1976 731.4 8.3 739.7 98.9

1977 732.9 9.6 742.6 98.7
1978 777.1 17.2 794.3 97.8
1979 581.5 360.9 875.7 66.4
1980 656.1 335.9 941.4 69.7
1981 744.8 337.7 1082.5 68.8
1982 807.9 375.7 1183.7 68.3
1983 879.9 494.9 1374.8 64.0
1984 1036.2 473.0 1509.2 68.7
1985 968.3 530.2 1498.5 64.6
1986 770.0 825.7 1595.7 48.3
1987 750.5 1122.4 1872.9 40.1
1988 713.9 1120.9 1834.8 38.9
1989 800.5 1178.9 1979.4 40.4
1990 890.4 1188.7 2079.1 42.8
1991 968.4 1183.3 2151.7 45.0
1992 866.7 1390.8 2257.5 38.4
1993 485.8 1745.7 2231.5 21.8
1994 666.3 1758.6 2424.9 27.5
1995 848.5 1826.7 2675.2 31.7
1996 882.8 1872.8 2755.6 32.0
1997 1051.3 1745.0 2796.3 37.6
1998 958.1 1884.1 2842.2 33.7
1999 756.2 2036.3 2792.5 27.1
2000 357.0 2440.2 2797.2 12.8
a
Ministry of Environment (1998a, 1999a, 2000a).
 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567 563

1997, there was an increase in the percentage of solid Table 5

waste landlled. This was attributed to the increase in
total waste generation, and the existing incineration
plants approaching their incineration capacity. From
1997, the amount of solid waste being landlled
decreased again, as the Government became determined
to incinerate all the incinerable waste; only non-inciner-
able waste and the incineration ashes are allowed to be
disposed of in the landll.
Singapore once had two landll sites on the mainland.
The Lim Chu Kang dumping ground in the north-
western part of Singapore was lled in September 1992
and the Lorong Halus dumping ground in the north-
eastern part of Singapore reached its capacity in March
1999. Since there is no other site on the mainland sui-
table to develop a landll, ENV resorted to the more
costly option of developing an oshore landllPulau
Semakau. It is located 23 km away from the mainland
in the southern part of Singapore. Waste is loaded in
barges at the Tuas Marine Transfer Station for trans-
port to the landll.
The Pulau Semakau Landll covers a total area of
350 hectares. It has a landll capacity of 63 million
cubic meters. Filling of this landll is divided into three
phases. ENV predicts that phase 1 will be lled by 2019,
phase 2 by 2027 and phase 3 by 2045 (Ministry of
Environment, 1998a). However, the lifespan of Pulau
Semakau will largely depend on solid waste generation
and the disposal options.
To create the required landll space, a 7-km perimeter
sand bund was built to enclose a portion of the sea o
Pulau Semakau island. The landll site was made
impermeable to leakage by a clay barrier and geomem-
branes. Leachate generated within landll cells is col-
lected. Before being discharged into the sea, the leachate
is treated at a leachate treatment plant to the Euent
Discharge Standards specied in the Environmental
Pollution Control Act. In order to reduce its potency,
landll gases, especially methane, are captured and
burned by a aring system. The heat from aring is used
to generate electricity for landll consumption, and to
operate on-site equipment. Mangrove replanting pro-
gram was also carried out as a living parameter to
ensure that the water around the oshore landll is not
polluted.
As discussed above, solid waste disposal in Singapore
is either by burning at the incineration plants or by
burying in the landll. Waste disposal fees have been
increased gradually to remove the subsidy on the cost of
waste disposal. Subsidizing the waste disposal fee was
found to inhibit the waste recovery and recycling
industry, as waste generators may nd it cheaper to
send their waste for disposal rather than for recycling.
Table 5 shows the disposal fees charged at each incin-
eration plant and other facilities since 1998 (Ministry of
Environment, 1999a,b). The current waste disposal fee
Disposal fee of solid waste charged in Singapore since 1998a
Disposal facilities Waste disposal fee charged
($ per tonne)
1998 April 1999 May 2000
Ulu Pandan Incineration Plant
7:30 am 2:00 pm 56 50 66
2:00 pm5:00 pm 60 77 71
Tuas Incineration Plant 47 57 67
Tuas South Incineration Plant 67
Senoko Incineration Plant 47 57 71
Tuas Marine Transfer station 67
Kim Chuan Transfer Station 47 57 76
Lorong Halus Dumping Ground 47 57
a
Ministry of Environment (1998a, 1999a).
of $67  77/tonne appears to be higher than the fee of
$47  61/tonne (US$27 35/tonne) charged for incin-
eration and lower than $84/tonne (US$48/tonne)
charged for landll in Denmark (Hjelmar, 1996). In the
US, the average fee charged for landll was reported to
be $52.5/tonne (US$30/tonne) and for incineration to be
$93/tonne (US$53/tonne) (Eighmy and Kosson, 1996).
6. Waste minimization
Waste minimization has been placed at the top of
solid waste management hierarchy. Waste minimization
consists of two basic operations: source reduction and
recycling (Hopper et al., 1993). Source reduction is most
desirable to avoid waste generation, while recycling is
useful to conserve resources and to prevent materials
from entering the waste stream.
In the early stages of Singapores economic develop-
ment (during the 1960s and 1970s), waste was separated
to recover the recyclable and reusable products. It was
done more for economic than for environmental rea-
sons. Along with the rapid industrialization and sus-
tained economic progress was a higher standard of
living for most citizens. This inevitably created a con-
sumer society with its accompanying throwaway men-
tality (Ministry of Environment, 1998b). Products
were made disposable and usually came with over
packaging. Waste recycling became cumbersome and
was mainly conned to industrial waste. High-rise pub-
lic apartments made the waste separation at source
more dicult since waste was thrown down through
common chutes. The use of compaction vehicles and
containers in waste collection also made it more dicult
to retrieve valuable resources from domestic waste.
Waste recycling at source, although diverting a fraction
of waste stream from the ultimate disposal, had very
limited impact on solid waste management in the past.
With the problem of land scarcity and the rising cost
of waste disposal, ENV has continued to encourage
564 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567
waste minimization in all sectors of the community.
Spaces have been provided to the private sector to
operate recycling facilities (Ministry of Environment,
1997). Currently, there is a recycling plant that processes
horticultural waste into soil conditioner and fertilizer.
Another company operates a wastepaper recycling plant
to produce cartons and other packing materials for the
industry. There are also several companies collecting
recyclable material, but mostly for the industrial sector.
ENV also encourages Town Councils to set up systems
for the collection of wastepaper for recycling. However,
many recycling schemes have had diculties sustaining
themselves due to the widely uctuating markets for
waste materials. Moreover, the push to recycle higher
percentages of the waste stream has resulted in pro-
blems with maintaining the quality of the recycled waste
materials and hence the sustainability of subsequent
secondary products manufacturing (Ooi, 1995).
In 1992, ENV established the Waste Minimization
Department (WMD). Its responsibilities are to develop,
promote and direct the implementation of waste mini-
mization programs on a nationwide basis. A free waste
audit program was launched by WMD in August 1992
to help in the waste management of oce buildings
through identifying the type and quantity of waste pro-
duced. WMD also advises on recycling measures to
minimize waste output and works closely with industry,
trade associations and business groups to promote and
co-ordinate eorts on waste minimization. In 1993,
Working Committees were formed with Singapore
Retail Associations (SRA) to promote minimal packa-
ging for consumer products and with the Singapore
Hotel Association (SHA), Singapore Manufacturer
Association (SMA), Jurong Town Corporation (JTC)
and Singapore Fruit Association to initiate waste mini-
mization projects in the respective industry areas. A
successful example is the achievement by the Port
Authority of Singapore, which has diverted 40% of the
total waste generated from its warehouse for recycling
(Ministry of Environment, 1997). However, there has
not been a full assessment of the success or failure of the
various waste minimization programs.
A Green Labeling Scheme was also set up in Singa-
pore in 1992 to promote green consumerism among
consumers. On 15 June 1999, it handed over the
administration of the scheme to the Singapore Envir-
onment Council. Products that use recycled materials or
produce less waste are eligible to apply for the label.
The purpose of the scheme is to inform and encourage
customers to choose environmentally friendly products,
and to help to create market incentives for manu-
facturers to develop environmentally friendly products.
Approximately 661 products were awarded the Green
Label in 1999 (Ministry of Environment, 1999a).
In 1999, 1.88 million tonnes or 40.30% of the total
4.67 million tonnes of waste generated in the country
were recovered from the waste stream for recycling.
Waste paper accounted for 388,800 tonnes of the recy-
cled waste. In addition, 785,500 tonnes of ferrous scraps
were pre-separated at source and collected by waste
traders, and another 25,500 tonnes of ferrous scraps
were recovered at the incineration plants for recycling.
Details of the various categories of waste recycled in
1999 are given in Table 6 (Ministry of Environment,
1999a). A 40% of recycling rate appears to be higher
than that reported in the US (< 21.7%) (Eighmy and
Kosson, 1996) but lower than 50% achieved in Den-
mark (Hjelmar, 1996).
7. Future challenges
Waste minimization will remain to be one of the
major challenges and needs to be implemented more
strictly. Currently, there is no limitation on the amount
of solid waste that may be generated. While industrial
and institutional solid waste may be more easily con-
trolled, minimization of residential solid waste will con-
tinue to be dicult. Residential solid waste is currently
charged at a xed rate of fee per household for the
generation/collection, and has no limitation/control in
the actual quantity or volume of solid waste generated.
Even the regulation is revised and solid waste is to be
charged on the basis of weight/volume (i.e. Pay-As-
You-Throw), the regulation can be dicult to imple-
ment. In Singapore, 80% of the residents live in high
rising apartments, and solid waste generated from each
household is discharged directly at home through a
common discharge chute. The quantity of solid waste
from each individual household is therefore hard to
detect. The convenience of waste discarding, to a certain
extent, is also responsible for more solid waste genera-
tion. People tend to throw out serviceable goods simply
because they are old or outdated and there is no addi-
tional cost for their discard. It is therefore important to
call for discipline and good social norms, and to boost
public awareness and self-consciousness of the problems
in solid waste management. Environmental protection
campaigns should also be frequently launched, with the
media always playing an important role.
Recycling in Singapore has proven to be far more
costly than originally anticipated. The two factors that
interactively raise the costs are the categories of materi-
als collected and their collection and handling. Collec-
tion and handling costs have always formed a large
component for material recycling, and the quality of
waste materials separated for recycling has frequently
been inadequate for direct resale.
As can be seen in Table 6, metal has been the only
material successfully recycled ( > 85% recycle rate) so
far due to its low recycling cost. The paper/cardboard
recycling rate of 40.3% in 1999 was still much lower
 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567 565

Table 6
Types of solid waste recycled in Singapore in 1999a

Waste type Total waste disposed (tonne) Total waste recycled (tonne) Total waste generated (tonne) Recycling rate (%)

Food waste 1,083,500 25,000 1,108,500 2.3

Paper/cardboard 575,300 388,800 964,100 40.3
Plastics 162,000 29,900 191,900 15.6
Construction debris 125,700 288,500 414,200 69.7
Wood/timber 248,500 33,100 281,600 11.8
Horticultural waste 75,400 45,000 120,400 37.4
Earth spoils 75,400 75,400
Ferrous metals 75,400 811,000 886,400 91.5
Non-ferrous metals 14,000 76,200 90,200 84.5
Used slag 120,100 177,000 297,100 59.6
Sludge (industry/PUB) 50,300 50,300
Glass 30,700 3400 34,100 10.0
Textile/leather 25,100 25,100
Scrap tyres 5600 2300 7900 29.1
Others 125,600 1300 126,900 1.0
Total 2,792,600 1,881,500 4,674,100 40.3
a
Ministry of Environment (1999a).

than the 55% of recycling rate achieved in Japan (Sakai,
1996). Plastics, widely used in our daily activities, have
not been recycled to any satisfactory levels (only
15.6%). Plastic bags and bottles have become one of the
major solid waste streams. Disposal of these plastic
products, by either landlling or incineration, has pre-
sented problems due to their slow decay in the natural
environment or the release of toxic chemicals during
combustion. Using waste plastics to manufacture poly-
mer concrete and developing biodegradable plastics
have received much attention in recent years. The
urgency to solve the problem of plastic waste in Singa-
pore therefore needs to be emphasized.
So far, most of the recycling practice takes place in
the industrial sector. There is certainly much scope for
the households and commercial sector to participate
more actively in recycling. To make it easier for every
resident to be part of the recycling movement, all public
waste collectors contracted by the ENV have been
required to introduce recycling schemes by the end of
2001. Alvater Jakob and SEMAC have already started
to distribute Green Bags to residential households for
the recyclable wastes and do the door-to-door collection
of the separated materials. However, there is a lack of
incentives to promote individuals participation in
greater roles in recycling wastes. Also, what to do with
the separated materials is another challenge. To sustain
the waste separation and recycling programs, Singapore
may needs to set up its own waste recycling industry. In
addition, the impact of waste recycling on the operation
of the existing and future waste incineration facilities
needs to be investigated.
Although incineration has been given top priority and
may continue to play a major role in the reduction of
solid waste volume in the foreseeable future, Singapore
still faces a large quantity of solid waste to be landlled
annually. In view of this, alternative ways to utilize the
ashes from incineration plants, rather than landll, need
to be promoted. In the Netherlands, more than 90% of
the annual bottom ash from waste incineration is uti-
lized in embankment and roadbase applications, and y
ash is also utilized as admixture in the preparation of
asphalt ller (van der Sloot, 1996). In Germany, 60% of
the bottom ash from the municipal solid waste incin-
eration is utilized in road construction (Vehlow, 1996).
Incineration bottom ash is also used in the US as an
aggregate substitute in road construction and in asphalt
pavement (Eighmy and Kosson, 1996). In Singapore,
recent research has shown that incineration ashes may
be used as a partial substitute for cement in the manu-
facture of concrete products, such as paving blocks.
However, the release of toxic substances in the air, soil
and groundwater is of public concern. Salts and acids
present in the ashes may also intensify the solubilization
of heavy metals due to the high rainfall, humidity and
temperature in Singapore. Little examination of the
possibility for stabilizing the ashes in useable media has
been taken. Research is needed to provide information
on the long-term eects of these reusing programs as
well as the post-reuse eect. In addition, other waste
transformation techniques, such as pyrolysis and gasi-
cation, should also be investigated, although they are
still expensive now.
Biological treatment of organic solid wastes, such as
composting and anaerobic digesting, has played an
important role in many other countries. The success of
these technologies relies on securing a stable market for
the treated products. Singapore has one recycling park
that produces compost and soil fertilizer. However, this
practice has not been widely adopted in Singapore.
566 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567
Food waste, for example, accounted for about 39% of
the total solid waste in Singapore but only 2.3% of it
was recycled in 1999. Non-toxic contaminated food
waste should therefore be separated for biological treat-
ment. This will reduce the energy consumption and cost
needed for the incineration of food waste which is high in
moisture content. Food waste compost may also be used
in planting and grassing in Singapore or exported.
Toxic or hazardous waste is managed separately and
does not strictly fall into the scope of solid waste manage-
ment in Singapore. Hazardous waste is dened as waste
which by their nature and quality may be potentially
detrimental to human health and/or the environment and
which require special treatment and disposal (Ministry of
Environment, 2000c). This denition, although is general,
does not list clearly all hazardous wastes to be controlled.
In the context of solid waste management, some hazar-
dous waste may still be handled as normal solid waste.
For example, hazardous wastes, such as automotive
batteries, nickel/cadmium batteries, automobile scraps,
etc., are often found with the domestic solid wastes. A
mechanism should therefore be established to prevent
any toxic/hazardous wastes from entering and being
treated as normal solid waste.
Finally, another important fact is that the output of
industrial solid waste has now exceeded municipal solid
waste, and becomes the major solid waste stream in
Singapore. Generally speaking, industrial solid waste
still lacks a systematical management mechanism, as
compared to the domestic solid waste. At the same time,
new problems of industrial solid waste management are
emerging as a result of new products and new processes
introduced by foreign companies arriving to Singapore.
Presently, most of these companies are responsible for
their own solid waste disposal. Solid waste that is toxic
and is buried in special landlls in other countries may
have to nd alternative disposal methods in Singapore.
Some of the newer companies may still have their wastes
temporarily accumulated/buried within the companys
own premises (relatively a small quantity). Waste con-
tainers from pharmaceutical or other chemical indus-
tries, for example, have become a problem. Many of the
containers may be contaminated with toxic chemicals,
but a system for their proper handling, reuse or disposal
has yet to be established.
8. Conclusion
Rapid industrialization and economic development
has caused tremendous increase of solid waste genera-
tion in Singapore. The output of industrial solid waste
has exceeded domestic solid waste and becomes the
major solid waste stream. Because of the very limited
landll capacity for waste disposal and the need to
conserve this limited capacity for future, landlling of
solid waste in Singapore has been opted as the least
desirable disposal method. Solid waste incineration,
although much more expensive, has been given top
priority over all other waste transformation options. It
has been planned to incinerate all incinerable solid
waste, and to allow only non-incinerable solid waste
and incineration ashes for landll. Waste minimization,
including source reduction and recycling, has been pro-
moted, which resulted in a reduction of industrial solid
waste in the past 24 years. A program for domestic
solid waste separation at source will be implemented in
2001 to promote material recycling. The services, such
as waste collection and incineration, are now gradually
privatized to introduce competition and improve service
eciency.
Future challenges are seen to include (1) a full eval-
uation of the success and failure of the existing waste
minimization programs and the implementation of a
more rigorous and eective waste minimization pro-
gram; (2) alternative disposal and utilization of incin-
eration ashes; (3) systematic industrial solid waste
management; and (4) establishment of new regulations
and/or change of existing regulations for a more e-
ciently integrated waste management system.
References
Department of Statistics, 2000a. Singapore in Figures 2000. Depart-
ment of Statistics, Singapore.
Department of Statistics, 2000b. Selected Historical Data. Department
of Statistics, Singapore.
Eighmy, T.T., Kosson, D.S.U.S.A., 1996. National overview of waste
management. Waste Management 16, 361.
Hjelmar, O., 1996. Waste management in Denmark. Waste Manage-
ment 16, 389.
Hopper, J.R., Yaws, C.L., Ho, T.C., Vickhailak, M., 1993. Waste
minimization by process modication. Waste Management 13, 3.
Low, F.L., 1990. Solid Waste Management. Ministry of the Environ-
ment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 1997. Annual Report. Ministry of Environ-
ment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 1998a. Annual Report. Ministry of Envir-
onment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 1998b. Code of Practice for Waste Collec-
tors. Ministry of Environment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 1999a. Annual Report. Ministry of Envir-
onment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 1999b. Revision of Refuse Disposal Fee.
Press Release. Ministry of Environment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 2000a. Annual Report. Ministry of Envir-
onment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 2000b. News Release, No. 163. Ministry of
Environment, Singapore.
Ministry of Environment, 2000c. Management of Hazardous
Wastes in Singapore. Ministry of Environment Singapores Web
Page.
Muttamara, S., Sales, C.L., Phunsiri, S., 1996. Solid waste recycling,
disposal and management in Bangkok. J. Solid Waste Technol.
Manage. 23, 226.
 R. Bai, M. Sutanto / Waste Management 22 (2002) 557567
Ooi, G.L., 1995. Environment and The CitySharing Singapores
Experience and Future Challenges. Times Academic Press, Singa-
pore.
Sakai, S., 1996. Municipal solid waste management in Japan. Waste
Management 16, 395.
Sakai, S., Sawell, S.E., Chandler, A.J., Eighmy, T.T., Kosson, D.S.,
Vehlow, J., van der Sloot, H.A., Hartlen, J., Hjelmar, O., 1996.
World trends in municipal solid waste management. Waste Man-
agement 16, 341.
Sawell, S.E., Hetherington, S.A., Chandler, A.J., 1996. An overview of
567
municiple solid waste management in Canada. Waste Management
16, 351.
Swee, M.K., 2000. High costs deter use of refuse system. The Strait
Times, Singapore, 11 July.
Tchobanoglous, G., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management
Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill.
van der Sloot, H.A., 1996. Present status of waste management in the
Netherlands. Waste Management 16, 375.
Vehlow, J., 1996. Municiple solid waste management in Germany.
Waste Management 16, 367.