TOXICS RELOADED

Revisiting the Impacts of Lead Battery Waste Trade and Recycling in the Philippines

Greenpeace International June 2003

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, hazardous waste 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, with specific reference to the operations of Philippine Recyclers Incorporated (PRI), the countrys 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 Conventions definitions and categories of hazardous wastes.
Hernandez, V., Lead Overload: Lead Battery Waste Trade and Recycling in the Philippines, Greenpeace International, August 1996.
1

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 governments 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.

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.
Samples taken by Greenpeace in August 1996 from agricultural vegetation in front of the PRI plant, from soil and sediments below the companys effluent waster canals, and from PRIs 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 plants discharge canals (48,000 parts per million or ppm in 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, PRIs effluent water exceeded this standard by more than 3,800 times (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 the lead 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. Rosa dumpsite which PRI was using at that time for waste disposal. Castro , Felicidad , MD , The Biological Levels of Lead in Selected Workers, 2nd National Occupational Safety and Health Congress, Aseptember 1991, Quezon City, Philippines.
3 2

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 remediation to 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 also sought 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 PRIs 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, PRIs 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 myopic economic 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.

Exporting Lead Poisoning to Asia, Greenpeace Background Briefing No. 2, October 1996. Hoffman, Ulrich, Requirements for Environmentally Sound and Economically Viable Management of 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 the Philippines, Trade, Environment and Development Section, Division of International Trade and Commodities, UNCTAD Secretariat, July 1999.
5

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 been importing 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 in developing 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 PRIs 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 companys 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 ppm6). . While lead is not water soluble , the likelihood of lead continuing to leach 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 companys compound poses serious questions concerning the companys 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.

the absence of a safe and final disposal option for these waste materials raises serious doubts about the governments wisdom in allowing the continued importation of toxic materials for recycling in the country. According to an UNCTAD study done in 19997, PRIs lead recovery rate for its operations is 98%. This means that PRI has fugitive lead emissions of approximately 2% 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 PRIs 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 companys 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.

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 least resistance. 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.

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 in this argument: whenever scrap lead batteries leave industrialized countries, they end up damaging peoples 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 everincreasing 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 waste residues. 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.