Ban on incineration in Clean Air Act ill-

conceived
25
SHARES
Share it!
Published June 24, 2017, 10:00 PM

By Dr. Emil Q. Javier

Dr. Emil Q. Javier

‘There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask
why not?’ – Robert Kennedy

The previous column dwelt on the incoherence and contradiction of some of our laws on the environment, in
particular the mess in the legislation and implementing rules and regulations on the cutting of trees.

The ill-conceived legislation for clean air with the complete ban of incineration of municipal solid wastes (MSW)
in the Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749) is another example.

The ban on incineration was premised on the need to reduce the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxide (NO2) which bring about global warming and induce
climate change. It was also meant to reduce the release of carcinogenic organic air pollutants, principally the
highly toxic dioxins and furans.

Perversely the ban on incineration achieves the opposite result. After the municipal wastes are sorted and the
non-biodegradable wastes like plastics, metals and glass recovered and recycled, the remaining organic
biodegradable wastes are finally disposed properly in industrial scale in three ways: 1) sanitary landfills with or
without methane gas recovery, 2) incineration for steam and electricity generation, or 3) converted into some
form of powdered solid fuel and also into gasoline and fuel-oil like products.

The first two are mature technologies while the third option is still under varying stages of technological
development and commercialization.

Hence, the realistic choice for now for most countries/cities is between sanitary landfills versus incineration.
However, studies have shown that sanitary landfills with methane recovery systems produce 2–3 times more
carbon dioxide equivalent, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide than incineration electricity systems per kilowatt
hour of power generated.

The less capital-intensive, easier to manage landfills without methane capture are much worse because the
escaping methane has 34 times more global warming potential compared with carbon dioxide.

Thus for the purposes of mitigating global warming and cleaner air, incineration is the far better technological
option than sanitary landfill.

Additionally, both options can generate electricity. Sanitary landfills with methane recovery, generate power in
the order of 44–84 kilowatt per hour per ton of waste. Modern incinerators on the other hand generate 450–930
kilowatt per hour per ton of waste, or an efficiency factor of 10, in favor of incineration.

Modern incinerators are miniscule contributors of dioxins and furans

One of the major issues raised against burning of wastes is the release into the atmosphere of the dreaded
carcinogens dioxins and furans. The objection directed to incinerators is mis-informed because dioxins and
furans are the products of incomplete burning of organic wastes at 400o–700oC. This problem is largely
eliminated in incinerators because the burning temperatures in modern incinerators are above 1000oC.

The real culprits are the burning of agriculture and backyard wastes or the traditional “siga” which ironically are
expressly allowed by the Clean Air Act. Worse the Clean Air Act is silent on the domestic burning of fuelwood
for cooking which generate these carcinogens right in confined environments in homes.

Germany with 58 incinerators is next only to France with 123, as the countries in Europe with the most number
of incinerators. In 2000, the German Ministry of Environment reported that the dioxin discharge from their many
incineration plants was only less than one percent of the total dioxin generated. On the other hand “the chimneys
and tiled stoves in private households discharge approximately 20 times more dioxin into the environment than
incineration plants.”

Discrimination of incineration versus other industry stationary emission sources

Another glaring contradiction in the Clean Air Act is the artificial distinction and discrimination against
incineration versus many other stationary sources of emissions such as coal and oil-fired power plants, petroleum
refinery, primary copper smelter, steel plants, cement plants and geothermal plants.

All these industry stationary sources emit air pollutants to varying degrees. And yet, the law allows their
operations provided the concentration of their pollutant discharges at the point of emission shall not exceed the
limits set in the law.

Why can’t the same principle be applied on incinerators which are likewise stationary industrial sources of
emissions?

For the same amount of produced energy, incineration plants emit fewer particulates, hydrocarbons and less
sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide than coal-fired power plants (Delaware,
USA Solid Waste Authority 1997). Thus if the twenty or so new coal-fired power plants in the pipeline
prospectively are deemed compliant with the Clean Air Act, all the more with modern incinerators.

Better incineration than landfills

Our Clean Air Act got its priorities mixed up. Incineration, especially with the modern plants, are more benign
to people and the environment than sanitary landfills.
Many progressive and environmentally conscious countries have adopted incineration as the preferred waste-to-
energy option in handling municipal solid wastes. Denmark, Sweden Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany,
France and Italy are leading the way in Europe. Sweden even imports 700,000 tons of solid wastes each year to
keep its incinerators running efficiently.

Japan which is land-poor like us in fact has the most number of incinerators, (1,243 plants constituting 70 percent
of global total). Many of these incinerators are sited in high population density districts in Tokyo.

Closer to home, the tiny island city state of Singapore which generates close to 9,000 tons waste per day similar
to Metro Manila has five operating incinerators.

Metro Manila is running out of dumpsites for the 9,000 tons of garbage it generates every day. The problem can
only get worse. But suitable landfill sites are more and more difficult to find as the surrounding communities
rise up in protest to the stench, sanitation and public order problems landfill sites bring with them.

The Clean Air Act RA (8749) shortsightedly closed the option to safely and neatly dispose municipal solid
wastes by incineration which generate much needed electricity without unduly contributing to global warming
and spoiling the air.

On the contrary, the residual biodegradable organic wastes burned in incinerators are really carbon-neutral and
are treated by some countries as renewable sources, much like bioethanol and biodiesel, meriting tax incentives
rather than being banned.

****

Dr. Emil Q. Javier is a Member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and also Chair of
the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP). For any feedback, email
eqjavier@yahoo.com.

Tags: Dr. Emil Q. Javier, ERC, imports, modernization, petroleum, power plants, regulations

City Council approves 10-year city solid waste

management plan
 +
AA
-
CITY-COUNCIL-APPROVES-10-YEAR-CITY-SOLID-WASTE-MANAGEMENT-PLAN-451350
January 12, 2016

THE Iloilo City Council has unanimously approved the 10-year solid waste management plan to
cover the period from 2015 to 2024 to be submitted to the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and other government agencies and instrumentalities in compliance
to requirements stipulated under Republic Act 9003.

Proponent City Councilor RLeone Gerochi, chairman of the City Council committee on the
environment, said a City Council resolution was passed on Tuesday, January 12, calling for the
plan to serve as a guide and framework for future Iloilo City Government administrations so that
their efforts and measures taken in solving the waste problem in the city be consistent with the
past administrations.

Engineer Raul Gallo of the Department of Public Services said that Section 16 of RA 9003 stated
that “the province, city or municipality, through its local solid waste management boards, shall
prepare its respective 10-year solid waste management plans consistent with the National Solid
Waste Management Framework: provide, that the Solid Waste Management Plan shall be for the
reuse, recycling and composting of wastes generated in their respective jurisdictions: provide
further, that the Solid Waste Management Plan of the LGU shall assure the efficient management
of waste generated within its jurisdiction. The plan shall place primary emphasis on
implementation of all feasible reuse, recycling and composting programs while identifying the
amount of landfill and transformation capacity that will be needed for solid waste which cannot
be reused, recycled and composed.”

Gallo said the city is currently working out for a sanitary landfill at the Calajunan dumpsite in
Barangay Calajunan, Mandurriao district to help accommodate some 300 metric tons of collected
solid garbage everyday in the city including the garbage of nearby towns of Oton and Pavia.

The solid wastes are already recycled at source and only 50 percent are recyclable at the
Calajunan dumpsite. The solid garbage is expected increase every year as Iloilo City is fast
developing with my commercial buildings and housing subdivisions that incur solid wastes.

The barangays have its own material recovery facility (MRF) for the collection and recycling of
garbage at sources and only three barangays non operational MRFs. These are in Barangay Sta.
Felomina in Arevalo, Bakhaw in Mandurriao and Buntatala in Jaro. (LCP)
Reduce, reuse, recycle! Iloilo City’s waste management program
touted
On Aug 28, 2017

0 307

Share

The Iloilo City has touted its waste management program which employs the use of composting and
recycling.

The City’s solid waste has been significantly reduced with use of composting machine at markets
decreased the volume of garbage dumped at Calajunan Engineered Sanitary Landfill in Mandurriao
district.

Under the leadership of Mayor Jed Patrick E. Mabilog, Illonggos are encouraged to practice
segregation and recycling at homes and establishments in the barangays.

According to landfill facility manager Engr. Neil Ravena, the city’s total volume of garbage collected
was reduced to 273 tons daily from the previous 305 tons daily.

He added that developments in the city brought a significant increase in waste volume, which was at
160 tons daily in 2009.
Materials Recovery Facilities and junk shops also promote recycling which reduces residual wastes
collected by garbage trucks, said Ravena.