University of Mindanao

Matina, Davao City

Incineration:
Impacts and Banning
ChE Elective 2

Submitted by:
Christian Jay B. Sablada
BS ChE

Submitted to:
Engr. Jay Carlo Aguilar
Instructor

July, 2018
IMPACTS OF SOLID WASTE INCINERATION

Despite being an attractive technological option for waste management, combustion-

based processes for municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment are a subject of intense debate
around the world. With innovative management and advance researches, it poses an impact
beneficial to human and environment. However, in the absence of effective controls, harmful
pollutants may be emitted into the air, land and water which may influence human health and
environment.

Negative Impacts of Incineration

Incineration-based technologies have been a subject of intense debate in the

environmental, social and political circles (Sciencing, 2018). This report evaluates incineration
based on three parameters – environmental, human health and economic impact.

1. Environmental Issues

The incineration process produces two types of ash. Bottom ash comes from the furnace
and is mixed with slag, while fly ash comes from the stack and contains components that are
more hazardous. In municipal waste incinerators, bottom ash is approximately 10% by volume
and approximately 20 to 35% by weight of the solid waste input. Fly ash quantities are much
lower, generally only a few percent of input. Emissions from incinerators can include heavy
metals, dioxins and furans, which may be present in the waste gases, water or ash. Plastic and
metals are the major source of the calorific value of the waste. The combustion of plastics, like
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) gives rise to these highly toxic pollutants.

Toxics are created at various stages of such thermal technologies, and not only at the
end of the stack. These can be created during the process, in the stack pipes, as residues in ash,
scrubber water and filters, and in fact even in air plumes which leave the stack. There are no
safe ways of avoiding their production or destroying them, and at best they can be trapped at
extreme cost in sophisticated filters or in the ash (Krohn, 2006). The ultimate release is
unavoidable, and if trapped in ashes or filters, these become hazardous wastes themselves.

The pollutants which are created, even if trapped, reside in filters and ash, which need
special landfills for disposal. In case energy recovery is attempted, it requires heat exchangers
which operate at temperatures which maximize dioxin production. If the gases are quenched,
it goes against energy recovery. Such projects disperse incinerator ash throughout the
environment which subsequently enter our food chain.
 Alternative Energy (2008) argued that incinerator technological intervention in the
waste stream distorts waste management. Such systems rely on minimum guaranteed waste
flows. It indirectly promotes continued waste generation while hindering waste prevention,
reuse, composting, recycling, and recycling-based community economic development. It costs
cities and municipalities more and provides fewer jobs than comprehensive recycling and
composting and hinders the development of local recycling-based businesses.

2. Human Health Concerns

Waste incineration systems produce a wide variety of pollutants which are detrimental
to human health. Such systems are expensive and does not eliminate or adequately control the
toxic emissions from chemically complex MSW. Even new incinerators release toxic metals,
dioxins, and acid gases. Far from eliminating the need for a landfill, waste incinerator systems
produce toxic ash and other residues.

Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, environmental and public health expert, believes that waste-to-
energy program to maximize energy recovery is technologically incompatible with reducing
dioxins emissions. Dioxins are the most lethal Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) which have
irreparable environmental health consequences. The affected populace includes those living
near the incinerator as well as those living in the broader region. People are exposed to toxics
compounds in several ways:

* By breathing the air which affects both workers in the plant and people who live nearby;
* By eating locally produced foods or water that have been contaminated by air pollutants
from the incinerator; and
* By eating fish or wildlife that have been contaminated by the air emissions.

Dioxin is a highly toxic compound which may cause cancer and neurological damage,
and disrupt reproductive systems, thyroid systems, respiratory systems etc.

3. Financial Impacts

All over the developed world, almost half the investment is put in control systems to
reduce toxic emissions such as mercury, cadmium, lead, dioxins, furans, volatile organic
compounds etc. (AENews, 2006). For example, a 2000 MT per day incinerator can cost
upwards of $500 million in Europe, half of the cost being put into emission control. Another
problem arises in the case of developing countries because the average calorific value garbage
in such countries is about 800 cal / kg. For combustion technologies to succeed they would
need about 2000 to 3000 cal / kg, otherwise auxiliary fuel must be added. This makes the
process more uneconomical and polluting than it already is.

Most of the size and expense of the incinerator is dedicated to the pollution control
equipment. The first component of the pollution control equipment is the stage at which
ammonia is injected into the gases produced from the burning process which assists in the
removal of NOx. The removal of mercury is achieved by the injection of activated carbon.
Lime is then injected in the dry scrubber stage whereby the acid gases are removed. Further,
most incinerators have a bag-house or electrostatic precipitator to facilitate the capture of
particulate and toxics. Thus, it can be realized that the cost of the pollution control system over-
rides the cost of the incinerator by a huge margin.

Incineration experts generally state that to have an economically viable operation, it is

required to have an incinerator that burns at least 1000 tons of garbage each day. The cost to
build such a facility is approximately $100 million. Operating costs to maintain the equipment,
especially the pollution control equipment is also high.

It is dangerous to bury fly ash in a regular municipal landfill. A special hazardous waste
landfill is required which is almost ten times costlier than a municipal landfill. Therefore, the
cost of municipal waste incineration shoots up due to the requirement of a special landfill for
fly ash disposal.

Positive Impacts of Incineration

Solid waste incinerators are used to combust organic substances contained in waste.
Incineration converts solid waste into ash, flue gas and heat. Incineration is the main alternative
to landfills, which hold solid waste in a contained area. Modern solid waste incinerators
separate most dangerous gases and particulates from the flue gas produced during incineration.

1. Reduces Volume of Solid Waste

Incinerators reduce waste volume by approximately 90 percent and reduce the solid
mass of the original waste by 75 percent. (The exact percentage depends on the constituent
materials of the solid waste). Therefore, while incineration does not eliminate the need for
dumping ground completely, it certainly reduces the amount of land needed. For small
countries, this is significant as landfills take up large amounts of space that could be used more
productively (Sciencing, 2018).

2. Power and Heat Generation

As energy costs went up in the 1950s, numerous countries sought to incorporate the
energy and heat generated from garbage incinerators for the production of electricity through
steam turbines. Furthermore, Europe and Japan have incorporated incinerators into urban
central heating systems. Sweden, for instance, produces 8 percent of its heating needs from 50
percent of the waste incinerated.

When producing electric power only it is possible to convert an output up to 35 % of

the available energy in the waste to power. When producing a combination of heat and power
so called co-generation, it is possible to utilise more then 90 % of the energy in the waste (27
% electricity output, 60 - 65 % heat output). According to Dr. Emil Javier, member of the
National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), modern incinerators generate 450–
930 kilowatt per hour per ton of waste.

3. Lesser Pollution

Studies have shown that solid waste incinerators produce less pollution than landfills.
One study in particular, conducted during a 1994 lawsuit in the United States, showed that a
waste incinerator site was more environmentally friendly than an equivalent landfill. (Both
were 1,500-ton-per-day facilities.) The study found that the landfill released higher amounts of
greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, nonmethane organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants,
nitrogen oxides and dioxin than an incinerator. Landfills further leach dangerous chemical into
the underlying groundwater, which can contaminate underground water systems.

Another concern associated with incinerating solid waste was the release of dangerous
compounds, dioxin in particular. Nevertheless, modern incineration plants use filters to trap
dangerous gases and particulate matter like dioxin. The release of dioxin by most modern
incineration plants is well within the recommended limits prescribed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and international protocols.

Emmissions from Waste Incinerator and Technologies for their Removal

 Particulates – electrostatic precipitators, fabric filter (general efficiency more than

99%)
  Acidic gases – neutralisation with Ca(OH)2 or NaOH in scrubers (wet, semi-dry, dry)
 Oxides of nitrogen – catalytic or non-catalytic reduction with ammonia or urea resulting
in the transformation of NOx to N2.
 Dioxins and furans – sorption on activated carbon or decomposition by special catalysts
simultaneously with NOx removal.

BAN ON INCINERATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

In June 1999, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the
Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 which seeks to recognize and guarantee the enjoyment of the
right to breathe clean air by the people and the right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources
according to the principles of sustainable development. Section 20 of the said law totally
prohibits incineration, defined as the burning of municipal, biomedical and hazardous waste
which emits poisonous and toxic fumes, but excludes from the ban traditional small-scale
method of community/ neighborhood sanitation ‘siga’, traditional, agricultural, cultural, health
and food preparation and crematoria. 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.

Dr. Emil Javier has a different perspective in mind. He believed that 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.

Davao City’s Take on Incineration

Davao City, like many other cities in the Philippines, is facing a garbage crisis. Last
November, leachate, or “garbage juice,” from the sanitary landfill in Barangay New Carmen
was discovered to be seeping into the Matina Pangi River. “This is a cause of concern for all
Dabawenyos,” said then city councilor, now Vice Mayor Bernard Al-ag, pointing out the very
real risk that the polluted water could reach the sea and contaminate the marine environment
(Sun Star Davao, November 15, 2017).

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Environmental Management

Bureau confirmed that the leachate was indeed overflowing from the landfill and polluting the
river. Officials of the Davao City Environment and Natural Resources Office explained to the
city council that the landfill, opened in 2006, was already filled up. The daily volume of
garbage dumped in the landfill is 600 to 700 tons, up from the 300 to 400 tons when the landfill
was opened. Rehabilitation is going on to extend its lifespan while a P100 million budget has
been approved for the site of a new sanitary landfill.

According to environmental and public health expert Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, who joined
Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio on a waste management study trip to Kitakyushi City,
Japan, last December, Davao City’s residual waste could go as low as 130 to 190 tons a day if
the garbage was properly segregated, compared to the 600 to 700 tons currently being disposed
at New Carmen (Report and Recommendations by Dr. Emmanuel, December 7, 2017).
Segregation equals less volume dumped in the landfill equals longer life span of the landfill.

Peddlers of incinerators—reportedly mostly Korean and Japanese— incinerators are

busy approaching local government officials to convince them that incineration is the solution
to the garbage problem. Particularly popular these days are the so-called waste-to-energy
incinerators. Aside from burning the garbage, they generate electricity.
 The abovementioned trip to Kitakyushi City of the Davao City mayor involved visits
to various Japanese waste management facilities, including waste-to-energy incineration
plants. The purpose was to show the Davao City delegation that burning garbage is easy and
clean. As a result, Davao City has officially requested the national government to facilitate for
Davao City the acquisition of such an incinerator. On its own, the city government cannot
afford the facility.

In Dr. Emmanuel’s opinion – which has often been sought by international

organizations such as the World Bank – Japan is passing on to Davao City old technology that
does not live up to the environmental and health standards of, for instance, Europe. A catalytic
reactor which captures the highly toxic chemical compound dioxin (produced when burning
plastics) is included in the Japanese incinerators sold to Europe and within Japan, but not in
the incinerator that will be sold to Davao City – because it would make the incinerator too
costly. Dioxins and heavy metals emitted through the incinerator smokestack will pollute
people and environment, especially in the host community.

As for the electricity that the facility would generate, the Japanese manufacturer
provided no details as to how much—or little—electricity is expected to be generated by the
incineration process. Municipal waste is not exactly the most efficient fuel for energy
generation.

Every product, before it becomes garbage, is made from valuable materials in a

production process that requires energy. In short, waste management is resource management.
Unfortunately, the reality is that most of us look at garbage as simply — garbage. The easiest
ways to get rid of garbage is to dump it or to burn it. The Philippines has had a ban on
incineration since 1999 but Congress is in the process of lifting this ban. The House committee
on ecology has already given the go-signal for the lifting of the ban.
References

Cabugon, M. (2018, March 12). Incineration is still a bad idea. The Manila Times. Retrieved
July 21, 2018 from http://www.manilatimes.net

Calayag, K. (2017, October 30). Lawmaker urges Congress to lift ban on incinerators. Sunstar
Philippines. Retrieved July 22, 2018 from https://www.sunstar.com.ph

Geronimo J, (2017, January 26). Waste-to-energy technologies in PH? 'Go zero waste instead'.
Rappler. Retrieved July 22, 2018 from https://www.rappler.com

Javier, E. (2017, June 24). Ban on incineration in Clean Air Act ill-conceived. Manila Bulletin.
Retrieved July 21, 2018 from https://business.mb.com.ph

Krohn, D. (n.d.). What are the pros and cons of landfills and incinerators. Retrieved from
http://www.davidkrohn.net

Kwak, P. (2018, March 13). The advantages of a solid waste incinerator. Retrieved from
https://sciencing.com

Revita, J. (2017, November 10). Dumpsite juice in Pangi River. Sunstar Philippines. Retrieved
July 20, 2018 from https://www.sunstar.com.ph

Revita, J. (2018, January 8). Watershed exec: Don't bathe in Pangi River. Sunstar Philippines.
Retrieved July 20, 2018 from https://www.sunstar.com.ph

Zafar, S. (2008, September 8). Negative impacts of incineration-based waste-to-energy-

technology. Retrieved from http://www.alternative-energy-news.info