ZERO WASTE RECYCLING MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC (ZWRMPFI) POSITION PAPER IN VEHEMENT OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL NO. 3161 INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE EDGAR R. ERICE. ZERO WASTE RECYCLING MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC (ZWRMPFI) THEREFORE CALLS FOR CONTINUED BAN ON INCINERATION. A. Legal Points of ZWRMPFI why House Bill #3161 is premature for discussion: 1. What is the basis for the call to reverse the ban on incineration? Is it the result of a legal process, where the ban on garbage incineration was seen as a stumbling block to the solution to the solid waste problem? 2. Section 16 of R.A. 9003 requires that all relevant studies (technical, financial and environmental) related to the presentation of a solution to the local solid waste problems of every LGU be contained in a 10-year Solid Waste Management Plan. This 10-year SWM Plan should be submitted to the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) for approval. 3. To date, no such plan has been submitted by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) to the NSWMC, and only one of the seventeen LGUs of Metro Manila has submitted such a plan. (Metro Manila is the focus because it has the biggest solid waste volume in the country and presumed to be in need of an immediate program.) 4. Does the House Committee have any minutes or written petitions emanating from the public hearings of the LGUs, to reverse the ban on incineration, because it is the chosen technology? 5. The mention of “alternative technologies” other than sanitary landfills in any 10-year SWM Plan, does not presuppose “incineration,” unless it is mentioned directly. There are many alternative technologies that do not burn “garbage” (mixed municipal solid waste). 6. The mere fact that other countries use incinerators, as part of their solid waste programs, does not mean that the Philippines need them too. 7. The ZWRMPFI therefore raises a “point of order” in the committee hearings. Before any further technical discussions are made for or against the ban on incineration, there should be clear basis that lifting the ban is in the interest of the public, not just of a few. B. Reasons of ZWRMPFI position calling for continued ban on incineration: A. The capital and maintenance costs, plus wastage of resources for Incineration systems is not justifiable. The burning of garbage (mixed municipal solid wastes) is not feasible when all costs are considered. B. Incineration defeats all efforts at waste reduction, consumption reduction and resource conservation and perpetuates the “throw-away” culture, thus negating the objectives of RA 9003. C. Incineration merely transforms waste resources into more toxic substances which are harder to manage, entail expensive treatments, and which pose as threats to health and environment. D. Incineration destroys waste resources and terrestrial and aquatic resources. E. Incineration produces more carbon dioxide emissions and waste more energy than they produce. F. Incineration creates less jobs. G. Incineration defeats global efforts toward sustainable Waste Resource Management. H. Incineration raises more questions as to cost, operation, monitoring, risks to health and environment. C. Comparison of Incineration Systems and Zero Waste Technologies: 1. Incineration Systems Entail Millions In Costs of Installation, Maintenance and Operation, While Zero Waste Techniques At Household or At Source Level Are Guaranteed Low-Cost, Local Technology Solutions to the Waste Management, Global Warming and Climate Change Problems • As to the Cost of Installation, Maintenance and Operation, incineration requires incineration systems that cost millions of funds. A 3,000 ton capacity incinerator alone for a medium-sized city would cost around $100M, while maintenance cost for the same (in Ames, Iowa), is $6.75M annually. • In Detroit, lifetime cost of a unit exceeds $1Billion. In 1985, an incineration plant in New York, already needed repair during the first year of operations. • In the past, the first incinerator in Quezon City (worth (P150,000,000.00), lasted only a few months due to the incorporation of stones to put it out of commission and done by a sulking, deprived waste picker. • On the other hand, simple low-cost, local technology Zero Waste methods guided by the simple Segregate, Compost, Recycle at Home or At Source mantra radiating to the community, institutional or barangay level, ensure a sustainable approach to addressing the solid waste management problem which, in the words of Luz Sabas “is not actually an environmental problem but a matter of housekeeping.” • Simple implements such as composting pits, pots, drums or used tires and hollow block assemblies, compost accelerators, earthworms, gloves, spades, garden plots for urban and rural gardening and farming for the management of biodegradables, and used laundry soap and water, sponge scissors, packing, binding, labeling materials, and even more sophisticated composting systems and warehouse operation and maintenance for the management of non-biodegradables, all cost much less but prove very effective when used for sustainable waste resource management. 2. Incineration Defeats All Efforts At Waste Reduction, Consumption Reduction and Resource Conservation and Perpetuates the Throw-Away Culture, While Adopting the Zero Waste Lifestyle at Home or At Source Encourages ‘Total Ecosystem Conservation’ Through The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Mantra and Educates People To Make Informed Choices • The 24-hour operation need of incinerators in order to avoid refractory lining damage caused by temperature fluctuations when operated at intervals, also create the need to increase waste demand to continually feed the incinerators. • People do not have to alter consumption and waste disposal (supposedly, management) patterns at all and to continue its throw-away culture and to putting a premium, maintaining (not reducing) the amount of trash produced and for trash to be continued to be discarded and hauled in the same manner, thereby defeating all efforts at waste reduction, consumption reduction and resource conservation. 3. Incineration Merely Transforms Waste Resources Into More Toxic Substances Which Are Harder to Manage, Entail Expensive Treatments, and Which Pose As Threats to Health and Environment, While Zero Waste Techniques Transform Waste Resources Into Materials Vital To Sustainable Living and Environment • As to Impact on Health By Pollution Generated, since matter cannot be destroyed, incineration merely transforms waste resources into more toxic wastes that are more difficult to manage and which leach from the acidic environment of landfills into the soil and water supply. • Some of these toxic wastes are furans and dioxins, component of Agent Orange, which is carcinogenic. (A case in point is a $130Million unit in Hampstead, Long Island which has to be closed. According to Madeline Haffron of SIN Stop Incineration Now); o hydrochloric acid, o nitrous oxide which lead to ozone layer depletion; o sulfur oxide which cause acid rain formation; o arsenic, o chromium, o cadmium, o lead, o mercury and o other heavy metals linked to: neurological disorders, cancer, hypertension, kidney failure, problems in the mental development of children, and lung and respiratory diseases; o ash (10% fly ash, 90% bottom ash) which is more toxic than unburned waste and which operators dispose of through vitrification, pyrolysis, plasma arc and other expensive treatments which are also dangerous owing to difficulty in monitoring. The better the air pollution controls are, the more toxic the bottom ash ends up because the stuff has to go somewhere and that could lead to more destruction of terrestrial and aquatic resources. • In Halyoke, Massachusetts, a proposed trash incinerator was burned down by the State Department of Environmental Quality in part because local populace was over-exposed to lead. • Moreover, for every three (3) tons of trash burned, one ton of very toxic ash is produced. • According to Ken Erano of Greenpeace, Philadelphia had problems in looking for dumping areas for ash produced by incineration as its local dumping sites refused it that it had to be exported to the Caribbean. One tanker traveled over two years to Cayman Island, to Columbia, to Panama, finally dumping 3 tons on a Haitian beach on the guise that it was fertilizer. • Sweden and Denmark halted building of incinerators because these produced dioxin which showed increased levels in mother’s milk. • As to air pollution, air pollution levels in the area in Metro Manila, according to the WHO is 300% beyond tolerable levels. 4. Incineration Destroys Waste Resources and Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources, While Zero Waste Techniques Ensconced In RA9003 Transform Waste Resources Into Materials Integral to Sustainable Living And Environment • According to Dr. Metodio Palaypay (member of the ZWRMPFI Presidential Advisory Council), incineration destroys resources that are supposed to be utilized in the production of fertilizer, feeds, foods, factory-returnables, fillers for construction materials and fine-crafts, as according to Luz Sabas “ibalik sa lupa ang galing sa lupa, ibalik sa pabrika ang galing sa pabrika.” • Waste resources can also be utilized in: o brick/tile/hollow block production, o object d’arts, o methane capture and o other fuel extraction, o vinegar and wine-making, o rural and urban gardening and farming, o seed banking and more which reinforce o organic agriculture, o livelihood creation, o cooperative efforts, o hunger and poverty alleviation, o restoration of natural resources through reversion of biodegradable agents Into vital elements • and as integral to addressing the waste resource management, global warming and climate change problems. • Incineration would lead to farmers resorting to increasing use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides which lead to: o mutation of pests into strains that are harder to eliminate or manage; o lesser crop yields, o diseases in tree plantations, o destruction of beneficial bacteria, and o further annihilation of terrestrial and aquatic life, o leading to plankton bloom, o ocean acidification, o decrease in food supply, o oxygen generators and o carbon sinks and other resources, o increase in prices of basic needs and in hunger and poverty, o unemployment and social restlessness, o displacement of human resources, among others. 5. Incineration Produces More Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Waste More Energy Than They Produce, While Zero Waste Techniques As Ensconced In RA9003 Is Aimed At Curbing Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions • As to power generation, incinerators, although generating useful steam energy, however, waste far more energy that they produce. • Waste-to-energy incinerators generate only 500-700kwh per ton of burned waste paper. • While it takes, and uses twenty times more energy to manufacture aluminum cans from its raw material bauxite than to make the same out of recycled aluminum, and • using recycled paper than wood pulp to make paper saves over 10,000kwh per ton. • Heat recovery is done in some incinerator projects but normal steam recovery methods applicable to solid fuel and oil-fired boilers are not applicable due to the corrosive nature of fuel gases generated by incineration of wastes. • The most modern incineration technology captures only 989 Btus of the 5250 Btus in a pound of municipal solid waste. • While recycling saves 3-5 times that much. • Waste to Energy (WTE) Incinerators produce more CO2 per megawatt hour than coal-fired, natural gas-fired or oil-fired power plants. Manufacturing and transportation of the products discarded represent 38% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. • The Zero Waste strategies (starting at the household or at source level) to slash this percentage had already been developed, and all that is needed is to implement (and enforce) them through the 5Es (Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Entrepreneurship, Eco-Valuation. Zero Waste is the cheapest and fastest way to combat climate change, much simpler than solving the problem of transportation, for example. 6. Incineration Creates Less Jobs, While Zero Waste Recycling Techniques Create More Jobs and Promotes Sustainable Best Practices In Ecological, Economic Activities • As to Job Generation, a 1986 study by the NY State Recycling Forum estimated that recycling ten thousand tons of material would produce 36 jobs while landfilling produces only 6 jobs. An incinerator would create only 0.9 jobs per 10 thousand tons of burned trash. • Incinerators don’t employ as many workers would be employed in environmentally sound options, e.g. o retrieval, o sorting, o cleaning, o drying, o resorting, o reusing, o recycling, o composting, o vermi-composting, o handicrafts-making, o bio-intensive urban and rural gardening and farming, o seed banking, o bio-gas generation, o plastics pelletizing, vinegar and o wine-making, o clipboard making, o board-making, o floor wax making, o “green charcoal” making, o soap making, o tile/ brick/ hollow block making, etc. • Haulers in the U.S. are losing to recycling while planned incineration projects have been shelved in LA, Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, Austin. Because people do not want incinerators or dumps near them they were appealing to elected officials to start Recycling Programs, according to Cynthia Pollock of WWI. 7. Incineration Defeats Global Efforts Toward Sustainable Waste Resource Management, While Low-Cost and of Local Technology Zero Waste Techniques Reinforces The Global Movement Toward A Sustainable Environment As to Global Action Towards Sustainable Waste Resource Management, since 1986, at least 50 counties in the U.S. have reconsidered and stopped incinerator building projects due to health reasons, and in favor of a Comprehensive Recycling Program. 8. Incineration Raises More Questions As To Cost, Operation, Monitoring, Risks To Health And Environment While Zero Waste Techniques Answer The Waste Resource Management Problem In An Ecological And Economical Way • Despite E. Malone Stevenson’s statement that much more is known now about Incineration Technology than in previous years and the researches of the Environment Protection Agency had produced results to show that o ‘a properly designed incinerator is an effective treatment devise that can be operated safely and with negligible apparent (note apparent) environment impact or health risk, and o that incineration practices have improved over the past decade, • THE PUBLIC IS STILL CONCERNED ABOUT: o THE ABILITY TO SAFELY OPERATE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES; o ABOUT THE ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE ON THESE FACILITIES with the key words: A WELL-OPERATED INCINERATOR; HIGH COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY; CONTINUOUS MONITORING; STRINGENT REGULATIONS LEADING TO TIGHTER CONTROLS ON OPERATING CONDITIONS; BETTER TRAINING OF OPERATORS; CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS TO IMPROVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT. • The solution to the Waste Resource Management Problem is AGGRESSIVE RECYCLING THROUGH ZERO WASTE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE LOW-COST OF LOCAL TECHNOLOGY, SAFE FOR HUMANS AND TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC RESOURCES, EASY FOR PEOPLE TO ADOPT AND CONTINUOUSLY PURSUE AT THE HOUSEHOLD OR AT SOURCE LEVEL, CLOSER TO SOLVING THE SAID DILEMMA, IN AN ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMICAL WAY. • In Suffolk County, the group which originally promoted incineration, having been given its County Official Mika La Rosa the hand to take another look at the situation given one year of unlimited funds to look at all the alternatives, eventually was the same group that unanimously voted against it. Suffolk County became the first county in the state to repudiate the incineration approach. I. CONCLUSION As per the above-stated comparative analysis between incineration and Zero Waste techniques, it is evident that the waste resource management, global warming and climate change problems are best addressed through low-cost and of local technology Zero Waste techniques, and through the implementation and enforcement of RA9003 (The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000) and of RA8749 (The Clean Air Act), RA9275 (The Clean Water Act) and RA10068 (The Organic Agriculture Act); and the regimentation starting at the household or at source level with regards to the sustainable management of waste resources and its direction to proper destinations. The Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. (ZWRMPFI) thus opposes House Bill 3161 which was introduced by Rep. Edgar R. Erice to the 16th Congress of the House of Representatives of the Republic of the Philippines. The Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. (ZWRMPFI) upholds the ban on incineration that is ensconced in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 8749 and calls for the immediate implementation and enforcement of RA9003, RA8749, RA9275 and RA10068, and of the No Littering Laws and Ordinances for a vibrant Zero Waste country that truly ensure a clean, healthful, verdantly abundant and sustainable environment for all. References: • Sabas, Luz, INCENSED AT/BY INCINERATORS Find Out Why Not? Zero Waste Resource Management Series, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1993 • GMA News Report by Kim Luces on EcoWaste tells environmentalists to avoid waste-to-energy incineration technology March 4, 2014 1:50pm • Martires, Gloria A. SFIC, Ph.D., Nature and Mankind’s Dilemma (A Sequel to the History of Mankind), Published by Rex Bookstore, 1982 Signed this 31st day of July, 2014, during its Regular Monthly Meeting held at the Environmental Management Bureau Conference Room (3rd Floor), Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City. Signed. ZERO WASTE RECYCLING MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC. (ZWRMPFI) FOUNDER AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:59:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015