View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 1/9
TOXICS RELOADED Revisiting the Impacts of Lead Battery Waste Trade
and Recycling in the Philippines
Greenpeace International
June 2003
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 2/9
IN 1996, Greenpeace investigations showed that the Philippines was becoming a
leading destination of hazardous wastes coming mostly from industrialized countries.
In particular, used lead acid batteries (ULABs), considered as hazardous waste by the
international community, were being imported into the country using the guise of
recycling1. Faced with increasing costs of pollution controls and stringent
environmental and occupational health and safety standards back home, hazardouswaste generators and brokers found a convenient escape hatch to evade these
liabilities by sending their waste materials to countries where labor is cheap and
enforcement of environmental regulations is poor if not altogether absent.
Despite a supposed national ban on the entry of toxic and hazardous wastes into the
country, and despite being an active Party to the Basel Convention which aims to halt
the transboundary movement of hazardous and toxic wastes for dumping and
recycling purposes, the Philippines in the mid-1990s became one of the leading
destinations of scrap lead acid batteries from industrialized nations like Australia,
Canada, United Kingdom, Germany and the United States. Greenpeace research in
1996 documented the impacts of this trade in toxic waste in the Philippines, withspecific reference to the operations of Philippine Recyclers Incorporated (PRI), the
country’s leading scrap lead battery importer and lead smelter.
The Philippines and the Basel Convention
In 1994, parties to the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Wastes agreed by consensus to immediately ban all exports of hazardous
wastes meant for final disposal from member states of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) to non-OECD countries. The ban also
included a commitment to stop all shipments of waste from OECD member states for
recycling in developing countries by January 1, 1998. Known as the Basel Ban, it
was formally incorporated into the Basel Convention in the form of an amendment in
September 1995 during the Third Conference of the Parties in Geneva.
The Philippines is an active party to the Basel Convention and was the Chair of the
Group of 77 countries (G77) when the historic decision to adopt the Basel Ban was
carried out. The Basel Ban has been hailed worldwide as a victory for environment
and justice. For so long, unscrupulous business interests in rich nations have exploited
the less stringent regulations and weak infrastructure in poor countries to avoid their
responsibility of minimizing their wastes at home and creating an incentive for clean production technologies.
More importantly, the ban seeks to plug the “recycling” loophole through which more
than 90% of exported wastes continues to flow. Greenpeace research worldwide has
shown that green connotations of recycling notwithstanding, hazardous waste
recycling constitutes some of the dirtiest industrial operations known.
The ban covers ULABs which fall under the Convention’s definitions and categories
of hazardous wastes.
1
Hernandez, V., “Lead Overload: Lead Battery Waste Trade and Recycling in the Philippines,”Greenpeace International, August 1996.
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 3/9
The Ban is legally binding on all parties to the Basel Convention which now number
more than 150 countries. As of June 2003, the Basel Ban has so far been ratified by
37 countries including China, Brunei, Sri Lanka and Malaysia in Asia. The Philippine
government, however, has yet to ratify the Basel Ban and incorporate its spirit and
intent into national law.
The Philippine government’s position in allowing the continued entry of ULABs and
other hazardous waste materials into the country is an infringement of the meaning
and objectives of the Basel Ban. While the Ban has yet to enter into force, the
Philippine government has an obligation to ensure that the entry and recycling of
hazardous wastes into the country does not result in an ecological and health disaster
for Filipinos.
Legalized Pollution
Instead of protecting the country from the entry of hazardous wastes, the applicable
Philippine law in this case - Republic Act 6969 (An Act to Control Toxic Substances
and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes) - has only served to legalize the deadly and
long-lasting pollution associated with the recycling of imported toxic wastes.
Through its loose and corporate-friendly import permitting system, the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), has in fact become a willing accomplice to the deplorable
poisoning of Filipino workers and communities and the systematic degradation of the
environment it was mandated to protect.
Hazardous waste recycling in developing countries can be characterized as either
sham or dirty recycling. Sham recycling occurs when exports claimed to be for
recycling are actually simply dumped in the receiving country after minimum or zero
processing. This is especially problematic in poor countries like the Philippines.
Even the so-called legitimate or state-of-the-art hazardous waste recycling operations
being supported by the Philippine government are some of the worst polluters
Greenpeace has investigated. These facilities often pollute far more than a disposal
facility would. Not only do these operations pollute the environment with toxic
emissions, they often create residual hazardous waste which is more toxic than the
original waste.
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 4/9
PRI: A Pattern of Routine Abuse
In 1996, samples collected by Greenpeace showed severe lead contamination of soil,
river, sediment and vegetation around the PRI plant in Marilao, Bulacan, and in illegal
dumpsites being used by the company for the disposal of toxic residues from its
recycling operations2
.ULABs are considered hazardous wastes. Lead is an extremely pervasive and toxic
environmental contaminant. Acute or chronic exposure to lead can cause
neurological, neurophysical and metabolic disorders. The international trade in
discarded batteries transfers this hazard from industrialized to developing countries,
causing harm to smelting plant workers, surrounding communities and the
environment.
The importation and recycling of ULABs in the Philippines have also taken a heavy
toll on the health of lead smelting plant workers and people living near the smelter.
Local residents of Barrio Patubig in Marilao, Bulacan, where the plant is situated,
have complained in the past that the pollution from PRI has affected agricultural productivity in their area. They also reported an increase in health problems in their
community ranging from nausea, burning eyes, sore throat and various respiratory
ailments.
Occupational health and safety studies conducted by the Occupational Health and
Safety Center (OHSC) in 1990 also found that workers from a battery storage
company and a lead smelter, which Greenpeace later found to be PRI, had
“significantly higher levels of lead” in their blood compared to workers from other
industries using lead3.
According to this study, the workers complained of problems ranging from fatigue,
irritability, malaise, muscle pain, joint pain, numbness, abdominal discomfort, sleep
disorder, constipation, diarrhea, anorexia and paralysis. Of the 114 workers tested in
the lead smelting plant, 92% were found to have blood lead levels exceeding 50 ug/dl.
Due to growing concern from residents and the high levels of lead reported in soil,
vegetable and effluent samples around PRI, in October 1996 Greenpeace carried out
an investigation of blood lead levels in children from the community around the plant
and from one dumpsite where PRI used to dump its waste residues.
2
Samples taken by Greenpeace in August 1996 from agricultural vegetation in front of the PRI plant,from soil and sediments below the company’s effluent waster canals, and from PRI’s effluent water itself show dangerously high levels of lead contamination. Elevated levels of lead were detected in
almost all the samples taken from one of the plant’s discharge canals (48,000 parts per million or ppmin the sediments; 26,000 ppm in the soil; 190 ppm in the effluent water.) In New York State, the
effluent standard for lead is 0.05 ppm, PRI’s effluent water exceeded this standard by more than 3,800times (or 1,900 times lead levels in effluent allowable by Australian authorities).
In Europe, the typical lead level in soil adjacent to a lead smelter is 140 ppm. This is way below thelead levels found in soil samples gathered around near the PRI plant (26,000 ppm).
Greenpeace also found 39,000 ppm lead in soil samples taken beside the pond at the illegal Sta. Rosadumpsite which PRI was using at that time for waste disposal.
3 Castro , Felicidad , MD , “ The Biological Levels of Lead in Selected Workers,” 2nd NationalOccupational Safety and Health Congress, Aseptember 1991, Quezon City, Philippines.
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 5/9
While the results of this limited sampling activity, done in coordination with the
University of the Philippines College of Public Health, cannot be generalized for the
whole community, they were still alarming4. Most children sampled had blood lead
levels above the acceptable level of 10 ug/dl. The levels of lead found in these
children were high enough to require immediate medical evaluation and remediationto prevent further lead poisoning.
Business as usual
After Greenpeace disclosed its findings on PRI in 1996, the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ordered the company to stop dumping its
hazardous waste residues in illegal dumpsites in Bulacan. Because of the heat
generated by the Greenpeace disclosure, PRI also ceased operations, although only for
a few days in 1996. The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
also conducted committee hearings on the issue, and the affected community alsosought to bring their case to the Department of Health. Concerned residents,
however, lament that for the most part, nothing much has changed since these issues
were brought to the spotlight of public scrutiny.
Perhaps to comply with the spirit and intent of the Basel Ban, PRI tried to source most
of its supplies of lead battery waste from other developing countries, instead of
getting them directly from OECD countries. At the same time, OECD countries like
Australia, the UK and other European countries have stopped exporting their lead
battery waste to the Philippines and other developing countries. PRI also intensified
its Balik Baterya program to maximize the recovery of used car batteries in the
country. Currently, this domestic battery recovery program accounts for 25% of
PRI’s feedstock. Imported scrap batteries still account for the highest portion of their
lead-bearing feedstock at 65%.5
While PRI should be lauded for its efforts to maximize the recovery of its products in
the Philippine market through its Balik Baterya program, its lead recycling operations,
however, cannot continue at the expense of the environment and the health of its
workers and nearby communities. Moreover, PRI’s operations together with similar
hazardous waste recycling ventures in the country, which rely on imported waste
supplies, are undermining genuine attempts to incorporate and reflect the intent and
objectives of the Basel Ban into Philippine environmental laws. The myopiceconomic justification for such operations have kept the Philippine government from
ratifying a key global decision (i.e. the Basel Ban) which it had earlier fought for
with the rest of the developing world.
4 “Exporting Lead Poisoning to Asia”, Greenpeace Background Briefing No. 2, October 1996.5
Hoffman, Ulrich, “Requirements for Environmentally Sound and Economically Viable Managementof Lead as Important Natural Resource and Hazardous Waste in the wake of Trade Restrictions on
Secondary Lead by Decision III/1 of the Basel Convention: The Case of Lead-acid Batteries in thePhilippines,” Trade, Environment and Development Section, Division of International Trade andCommodities, UNCTAD Secretariat, July 1999.
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 6/9
Toxics Reloaded : New evidence
Last March, Greenpeace received information that PRI was once again importing its
supply of ULABs from New Zealand, an OECD country, in blatant disregard of the
intent of the Basel Ban. Inquiries made by the Greens Parliamentary Research Office
to the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment revealed that PRI has beenimporting ULABs from that country in several instances from 2000 to 2002. This
information has since been verified by Greenpeace research on import permits issued
by the EMB to PRI in the last three years.
In 2000, New Zealand exported about 738 metric tons of ULABs to PRI, which was
followed by 2,500 MT of ULABs in 2001 from a New Zealand company called
Resource Recyclers Tech. More recently, in November and December of 2002, PRI
imported ULABs from New Zealand totaling 720 MT and 210 MT respectively.
As a party to the Basel Convention, the New Zealand government is aware of the
problems associated with the recycling of hazardous wastes like ULABs indeveloping countries. Yet, the New Zealand Minister for the Environment justifies its
decision to allow these toxic exports to the Philippines by saying that the wastes are
going to “proper” facility. The New Zealand government also points out that PRI has
acquired ISO 9002 and ISO 14001 certifications in an obvious bid to rationalize its
controversial decision and bolster PRI’s image as an environmentally sound
operation.
However, new evidence of toxics pollution from the PRI plant uncovered by
Greenpeace flies in the face of these ISO certifications and the views propounded by
the New Zealand Minister for the Environment.
Visiting the PRI plant recently, Greenpeace was shocked to find accumulating
mountains of lead waste residues stockpiled openly and without any form of secure
containment inside the company’s facility. These lead waste mountains have in fact
exceeded the height of the concrete fence intended to contain the stockpiled wastes.
Following torrential rains last May, this concrete wall collapsed causing some of the
stockpiled waste to spill into the Marilao river (see figure 1) . Greenpeace sampling
of these waste residues in May showed scary levels of lead at 240,000 parts per
million (Sample 1) . The levels of lead in these mounds of waste are astronomical,
about 8,000 to 24,000 times higher than the typical background lead levels for soil (ie.
10-30 ppm
6
). . While lead is not water soluble , the likelihood of lead continuing toleach from these waste mounds, through the action of rain and wind, poses a serious
threat to the environment, not to mention the health and well-being of communities
around and downstream of the factory.
It is not clear how PRI intends to dispose of these mounds of lead waste residues. It is
possible that the company intends to feed and reprocess these lead containing wastes
and their pollution control residues back into its smelting operations for maximum
recovery purposes. However, the continuing accumulation of these wastes inside the
company’s compound poses serious questions concerning the company’s capacity to
actually perform optimal recovery of lead from its recycling operations. In addition,
6 Alloway, BJ. 1990. Heavy metals in Soils, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, ISBN 0470215984.
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 7/9
the absence of a safe and final disposal option for these waste materials raises serious
doubts about the government’s wisdom in allowing the continued importation of
toxic materials for recycling in the country.
According to an UNCTAD study done in 19997, PRI’s lead recovery rate for its
operations is 98%. This means that PRI has fugitive lead emissions of approximately2% per year. Since the company processes more than 25,000 tons of lead per year,
the fugitive releases of lead to the environment from its operations would amount to a
total of 500 tons of lead per year being released in the vicinity of the plant.
Julius Vidal/ Greenpeace
Figure 1: View of PRI plant in Marilao. Note collapsed wall and accumulating
mounds of lead residues from PRI’s smelting operations.
River Pollution
Greenpeace also took samples of sediments in the Marilao river where PRI regularly
discharges its effluent and near the areas where the company’s waste mounds are
located. All the samples were analyzed at the Philippine Institute for Pure and
Applied Chemistry, and the results again prove that PRI is far from being the
"proper" and environmentally sound facility it has been touted to be by both the
Philippine and New Zealand authorities.
7 Hoffman, Ulrich. 1999.
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 8/9
A river sediment sample (Sample 2) taken upstream showed a much lower lead level
at 37 ppm. On the other hand, sediment samples taken in the river area fronting the
facility showed much higher levels of lead (Sample 3 at 98 ppm; Sample 4 at 105
ppm, and Sample 5 at 1010 ppm).
The typical background lead levels in freshwater sediment are 20-30 ppm8. Note that
sediment samples taken in parts of the river facing the facility exceed these typical
levels - by as much as 33 times, as in the case of Sample 5. One gets a better
appreciation of the lead pollution in the Marilao River when it is compared to a
study of lead levels in the tributary rivers to the Laguna Lake in 1991 which only
showed lead levels in the range of 5.4ppm to 13.7 ppm.9
The Path of Least Resistance
This case once again shows that hazardous waste will tend to follow the path of leastresistance. They move for economic reasons: waste brokers are paid more by lead
smelters in developing countries than by companies operating in industrialized
countries. Lead smelters in the Philippines like PRI can offer more money for
discarded car batteries collected in other countries, because they do not pay the price
of complying with stringent environmental and occupational health regulations that
their counterparts in industrialized countries face. The economics behind waste trade
also explain why a lead smelter in New Zealand, in order to run on full capacity, has
to import ULABs from Australia, while sending domestically collected scrap to the
Philippines. Obviously, unscrupulous waste traders are getting more money from
sending ULABs to the Philippines than keeping them in New Zealand. Unfortunately
and more often than not, the externalities of these transactions (e.g. environmental
clean-up, community and worker health costs) are ultimately borne by developing
countries like the Philippines.
While rich countries find the economic burden of their own toxic clean-up programs
extremely difficult to bear, it will be even harder for countries like the Philippines to
clean up the legacy of pollution left by this form of toxic trade. Factoring in the actual
costs of environmental pollution and damage to health of workers and communities,
there is no question that this type of trade results in significant negative economic
impact on the importing country. For this reason, economies based on the processing
of hazardous wastes generated in rich countries can never be considered to be on the path to sustainable development.
Lead is one of the most strictly regulated toxic substances in the industrialized world.
Most lead battery recycling plants in the United States have shut down over the past
two decades, and many other plants in the richer countries are threatening to close,
because they cannot afford the costs of complying with tough regulations on lead.
8 USPHS , Toxicological profile for lead on CD-Rom, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, US Public Health Service, 2000.9
Vicente-Beckett, V.A, Pascual C.B. (1991), Levels and distribution of trace metals in sediments of Laguna Lake and its tributary rivers, International Journal of Environment and Analytical Chemistry,45, 101-116.
8/3/2019 Toxics Reloaded Green Piece
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toxics-reloaded-green-piece 9/9
In fact, there is growing international consensus that lead, together with other toxic
metals like mercury, cadmium and nickel, should eventually be eliminated, as
alternative materials for the various uses of these toxic materials are found.
In the past, PRI has tried to present its waste importing and recycling operations as a
better alternative to outright disposal. Our investigations demonstrate a major flaw inthis argument: whenever scrap lead batteries leave industrialized countries, they end
up damaging people’s health and the environment in the developing world. By
exporting the poisonous legacy of lead battery wastes, industry and consumers in
richer countries do not bear the true price of their toxic production and consumption.
As long as wastes can be exported to regions of economic, political and regulatory
vulnerability, waste generators will further be encouraged to continue their ever-
increasing production of toxic waste. Allowing the continuation of business-as-usual
practices also discourages the development of clean alternatives to highly toxic
technologies and products such as the old-fashioned lead acid car battery.
What Needs to be Done
The Philippine government needs to act to immediately protect the environment and
the health of its citizens. The Philippine government should:
• Stop importing hazardous wastes particularly from industrialized countries,
especially if it cannot ensure the safety of hazardous waste recycling
operations in the country; and
• Lose no time in ratifying the Basel Ban and implementing it into national law.This means amending Republic Act 6969 and closing the loophole which
allows the continuing use of the country as dumping ground for toxic wastes
from overseas.
The New Zealand government should likewise respect and not undermine the
consensus decision of the international community when it adopted the Basel Ban. It
should stop exporting toxic trash like ULABs to developing countries like the
Philippines and start implementing the Basel Ban on export of waste to non-OECD
countries.
Lastly, PRI must ensure the immediate, safe and secure containment of its lead wasteresidues. It should be held accountable for its contribution to the pollution of the
Marilao river, as well as to damages that its operations have caused to the health of its
workers and the health of the residents in the surrounding communities.
Recommended