!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&01,#)2"#34#5)6'0+"0)%&)+7")87%(%//%&"0

Ban Toxics!
26 Matalino St., Suite 329 Eagle Court
Diliman, Quezon City 1100, Philippines
TeleFax: + 63 2 929 1635

www.bantoxics.org

Acknowledgments
The author is very grateful to the following individuals for the
information they shared and their insights on the issue: Michael
Bender of Mercury Policy Project, Peter Maxson of Concorde East/
West Sprl, Elena Lymberidi-Settimo of the European Environment
Bureau, Alexander Baart of K+S Entsorgung GmbH, Dennis Lynchof the US Defense National Stockpile Center, Thomas Baart of GRS,
Manny Calonzo of EcoWaste Coalition, and Faye Ferrer of Health Care
Without Harm Southeast Asia.
The author would also like to extend his gratitude to the Philippine
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, particularly to
Beng Pausing, Geri Sañez, Angie Bravante, and Leah Becina for theirtime and assistance.
Lastly, for their support in various capacities, the author would liketo thank Tanya Conlu, Jun Salaveria, Charlie the Van Driver, Joseph
Manalo, and Raven Gutierrez.

Financial Support
The study was made possible through the generous support by theFederal Office for the Environment of the Government of Switzerland(FOEN) and by the Takagi Fund for Citizen Science (TFCS)

Photo Credits
Many thanks to Gigie Cruz, K+S Entsorgung GmbH, and the US
Defense National Stockpiles Center for the images that theygraciously allowed the study to use. Their respective photos are
credited individually throughout the report.

Disclaimer
The study has been researched and prepared by Richard Gutierrez, JD,
Ll.M., Executive Director of Ban Toxics!, with all reasonable care anddue diligence. Copyright rights are owned by Ban Toxics! The study
does not necessarily reflect the views of FOEN and TFCS, and theauthor is entirely responsible for its accuracy. Any third party who rely
on information contained in this report, or their own interpretation
thereof, do so at their own risk.

!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&01,#)2"#34#5)6'0+"0)%&)+7")87%(%//%&"0by
Ban Toxics!
23 April 2009

9:"34+%;")*4$$'#5
Mercury is one of the most dangerous environmental pollutants, bothin its elemental form and in chemical combinations. It is a known
neurotoxin and attacks the nervous system. When released into theenvironment mercury is transformed to its most pernicious form,
methyl mercury, which bioconcentrates and bioaccumulates in fish andenters the human body when eaten. The fetus, young children, andpregnant women are most sensitive to the adverse impacts of mercury.
The United Nations Environment Programme has determined that
global mercury uses, emissions and releases need to be significantly
reduced in order to minimize health and environmental impacts.
Armed with this knowledge, countries have begun to take action by
setting up standards for maximum content of mercury in food, by
restricting the use of mercury and curtailing mercury releases.

Mercury Sources in the Philippines
In 2008 the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural
Resources conducted an inventory of mercury sources and releases
in the Philippines. The inventory revealed that one major source of
mercury emissions, approximately 20% of total, in the Philippines comein the form of wastes from products and processes, e.g. discarded
thermometers, batteries, and other mercury-containing devices.
This finding raises additional problems for the Philippines, as
it continues to grapple with improper waste disposal. Whileapproximately 5,250 metric tons of waste generated daily in Metro
Manila are collected, the remaining 27% of the daily waste or about
1,420 metric tons are dumped illegally on private land, in rivers, creeks,
Manila Bay, or openly burned. Although there are laws requiring waste
segregation at source, very little segregation happens on the ground.
Assuming that the Philippines is able to sequester some of its mercury
contaminated waste; it then faces the challenge of managing the
mercury so that it does not cycle back into the environment. This
study looks into terminal storage, the emerging practice in this field,by placing the captured mercury in a secure and stable facility for
perpetuity.

Photo: Gigie Cruziv

Terminal Storage Options
There are various terminal storage options for mercury around theworld, and these options can be viewed in two broad categories: aboveand below ground. Each broad category has illustrative models, which
the study examined: above ground storage – United States Defense
National Stockpile Center (DNSC); below ground storage – Germany,
landfilling in disused salt mines; below ground storage - Sweden, deeprock injection.
All three options present high technical and financial costs. Site location,
geographical stability, hydrology, occurrence of natural disasters, suchas hurricanes, are just some of the factors that influenced how thesefacilities were chosen. Equally, the financial costs are steep for the mostpart. For deep rock injection, Sweden is expected to incur SEK 200 – 300
million (approximately US$ 25 to 37 million) for 1,000 – 20,000 tonnesof high-level mercury waste and the DNSC shelled out US$ 17,450,000
for start-up costs of their facility and is expected to incur at least US$
547,904 of recurring costs per year to manage 4,436 tons of commodity
grade elemental mercury. What appears to be the least expensive is theGerman salt mines, where the company running the facility is charging€270 per tonne of surplus mercury, mainly from closed chlor-alkali
plants.

Gaps in Policy and Law
At the fundamental level, this study examines existing Philippine laws
and policy on mercury – whether these are robust and comprehensive
enough to support an ambitious project such as terminal storage.
The study concludes that at present a comprehensive national policy
on mercury that includes and recognizes terminal storage as a key
facet in addressing the mercury problem is lacking in the Philippines.
Moreover, existing laws, though possessing a range of measures for theestablishment of disposal facilities, are inadequate for terminal storageof mercury. The study finds inconsistencies in waste management
priorities established by law with respect to mercury wastes,
inappropriate exemptions, and weaknesses in the liability regime.

Photo: Gigie Cruzv

Recommendations
Mercury poses a multi-faceted challenge to many nations, more so to adeveloping country such as the Philippines. The idea of sequestering thistoxin and storing it permanently is simply revolutionary and demands
a full life-cycle approach. In order to achieve this, the Philippine
government needs to abandon certain biases on regulation and viewterminal storage, its implications and demands, as one facet of acomprehensive approach and not an end in and of itself.
The study identified the following gaps that need to be addressed:
A. Creation of a comprehensive national policy on mercury with aprovision for terminal storage with the following elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Terminal storage as part of waste management policy.
Controlling the supply of mercury.
Controlling the demand for mercury by phasing out uses as
substitutes become available.
Trade restrictions on mercury-containing products andtechnologies/processes that use mercury.
Fiscal incentives to mercury-free industries and for the productionof mercury-free products.
Promotion of alternatives/substitution.
Multi-stakeholder process.
Provide current and relevant information on mercury; ensure
access to such information; and proper risk communication.

B. Creation of a cohesive legal infrastructure to support a national policy
on mercury, addressing the following areas:
1. Comprehensive measures needed to address the intentional use
sources of mercury in the Philippines.
2. Designate terminal storage as an environmentally sound solution
for surplus mercury and mercury wastes.
3. Modify existing exemptions enjoyed by end-users of mercury.
4. Full prohibition on the discharge of mercury-containing wastes
into the environment.
5. Expand the responsibility of generators/distributors of wastes into
an extended-producer responsibility model.
6. Clarify roles and jurisdictions of the Departments involved in thenational policy on mercury.
C. Address existing gaps in Philippine waste management.
D. Creation of a multi-stakeholder process to review options and makerecommendations.
E. Factor social and political considerations into criteria for establishing aterminal storage facility.
Photo: Gigie Cruzvi

!'<("),1)=,&+"&+0
1. Background9

1.1 Project Objectives

9

1.2 Context

9

1.3 Scope

9

2. Mercury

10

2.1 A New Approach10

2.1 Properties and Uses of Mercury

11

2.2 Mercury in the Environment

11

2.2.1 The Role of Atmospheric Releases and Processes

12

2.3 Mercury Toxicology

13

2.3.1 Impacts on Plant and Wildlife

13

2.3.2 Impacts on Humans

13

2.4 Mercury Methylation and Bioaccumulation,
Exposure Pathways

14

2.4.1 Methylmercury – Human Exposure Pathways

14

2.4.2 Methylmercury - Human Health Effects

14

3. Mercury Sources

15

3.1 In the Philippines

15

3.1.1 Waste Disposal in the Philippines

18

3.1.2 Management of mercury-containing
wastes in the Philippines
3.2 Southeast Asian Region

18
19

Photo: Gigie Cruzvii

4. Terminal Storage Options for Mercury
and Wastes Containing Mercury

21

4.1 Defining Terminal Storage

21

4.1.1 Issues for Consideration

21

4.2 Terminal Storage Options

23

4.2.1 Above Ground Storage – United States Defense
National Stockpile Center (DNSC)

23

4.2.2 Below Ground Storage – European Union, Germany,and Sweden

25

4.3 Disposal and Other Methods

28

4.3.1 Landfilling28

4.3.2 Stabilization

29

4.3.4 Export

29

4.4 Cost Considerations30

4.4.1. Above-Ground Storage Cost

30

4.4.2 Deep Rock Injection Cost

30

4.4.3 German Salt Mine Cost

30

4.4.4 Cost of Disposal and Other Methods

31

5. Philippines Laws

32

5.1 Law on Mercury

32

5.2 Related Laws

33

6. Discussions and Recommendations

34

6.1 Trends

34

6.1.1 Philippines

34

6.1.2 Asian Region34

6.1.3 Global Trends

35

6.2 Recommendations

36

References

41

Photo: Gigie Cruzviii>?)@'3A-#,4&B
1.1 Project Objectives
The concept of terminal storage of surplus mercury
and mercury waste is not well understood. In thisregard the objectives of the study are as follows:

Environment Programme Governing Council (GC)
Decisions:t

Decision 23/9, adopted by the twenty-third
session of the GC on 25 February 2005,
requested Governments to “consider curbing
primary production and the introduction into
commerce of excess mercury supply”.

t

Decision 24/3 adopted by the twentyfourth session of the GC/Global Ministerial
Environment Forum on 9 February 2007, theGC established mercury supply reduction
as a global priority, and urged governments“to gather information on the options
and solutions for the long-term storage of
mercury”.

t

Decision 25/5, last 16 February 2009 calls
for moving forward with an elaboration of alegally binding instrument on mercury, anddirecting the Executive Director of UNEP
to convene an international negotiating
committee (INC) by 2010. Part of the INC
mandate is to develop a comprehensive
and suitable approach to mercury including
provisions on the reduction of supply andthe enhancement of environmentally soundstorage.

A. Investigate the various options for theterminal storage of mercury.
B. Provide Philippine decision makers
information and insight on theenvironmentally sound options for theterminal storage of mercury ensuringpermanent retirement of mercury from use
and commerce.
C. Empower Philippine communities by
providing them with the necessary
information to aid in understanding theconsequences of improper mercury waste
disposal and the need for environmentallysound management of mercury waste.
D. Enhance awareness at the regional/
international level of the challenges faced
by a developing country, such as thePhilippines, in the disposal of mercury
waste.
E.

Provide a roadmap for other countries withsimilar challenges.

1.2 Context
As confirmed in virtually every major international
meeting on mercury, reducing the global supply
and demand of mercury is one of the best ways
to address the severity of the mercury crisis (i.e.
contamination/exposure) the world is facing. A
critical component of this approach, which is widely
seen as a priority, is the storage of excess mercury.
The rationale is that once mercury is captured andcontained, it must not to be re-circulated or resoldin the global marketplace which only increases theprobability of its eventual release.
The importance and urgency of terminal storage
has been reflected in several United Nations
Ban Toxics!

1.3 Scope
Mercury has various sources. The focus of thisstudy will be on mercury wastes from productsthat are discarded into the waste stream, and fromsurplus mercury from byproduct mercury, chloralkali plants, dental offices or any other storageof surplus mercury such as in labs, etc. For the
purposes of this study the above sources will
be called waste mercury or mercury-containing
wastes.
The study does not focus on the mercury releases
from coal-fired power plants nor from artisanal
small-scale gold mining. Further, the study’s scopeis presently limited to reviewing terminal storage
options, and does not address means or methodsof collecting and transporting mercury wastes to aterminal storage facility.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

9C?)2"#34#5
2.1 A New Approach
Since ancient times,
man has been awareof the toxic nature ofelemental mercury(Hg). In fact, Hgpoisoning’s mostenduring imageis that of the Mad
Hatter, a fictional
character under the
famous children’s
story, Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. The
character’s name was undoubtedly inspired by thephrase “as mad as a hatter,” describing the eventual
condition which workers curing felt hats suffer fromafter much usage and inhalation of mercuric nitrite.
Until a few decades ago the health concern on
Hg was focused on occupational exposure, e.g. inmines. However, there were several documented
incidents of local Hg poisoning within the past
50 years and evidence of wildlife mortality in the
1960s, notably the Hg poisoning incident that
occurred in Minamata, Japan.
In February 2001, the 21st Governing Council of
the United Nation’s Environment Programme(UNEP) decided to undertake a global assessmentof mercury and mercury compounds with otherstakeholders, the results of which were to besubmitted in 2003 for the 22nd Governing Council
meeting of UNEP. The evidence that was gatheredin this process has caused a sea-change in how
mercury pollution is viewed and has in fact usheredan immediate and more coordinated global
response.
The information presented below is culled mainly
from the information submitted to UNEP forming
part of the 2002 Global Mercury Assessment.

MINAMATA MERCURY POISONING

Photo: William Eugene Smith-1973

It started out quite simply, with the strangeness of cats
“dancing” in the street--and sometimes collapsingand dying. Who would have known that this curious
spectacle would be the precursor to one of the mosthorrific mercury pollution cases in the world.
Minamata is a city on the island of Kyushu in southern
Japan. Between 1932 and 1956, an acetaldehyde plant
owned by the Chisso Corporation released effluents into
the Minamata Bay containing methylmercury, one of themost toxic forms of mercury.
In the early 1950s people in the modest Japanese fishingvillage of Minamata began noticing a mysterious
illness invading their community. Like the “dancing”
cats, similar behavior began to appear--sporadicallyand without much notice--in humans. People would
stumble while walking, not be able to write or tremble
uncontrollably.
The mysterious epidemic turned out to be
methylmercury poisoning that bioaccumulated in theshellfish and fish that make up an important part of thelocal diet. More than 200,000 people were exposed,
including residents of adjoining coastal areas andvillages.
900 people died and 2,265 people were certified
as having directly suffered from mercury
poisoning - now known as Minamata
disease. Since then many others havebeen diagnosed with varying degrees of
mercury poisonings.

J A PA N

Minamata

10

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

C?)2"#34#5
2.1 Properties and Uses of Mercury
Mercury can exist in three oxidation states: in pureform, Hg0 (metallic), monovalent or Hg1+ (mercurous)and divalent or Hg2+ (mercuric). The properties andbehavior of mercury depend on the oxidation state.
Most of the mercury in water, soil, sediments, or biota(i.e., all environmental media except the atmosphere)
is in the form of inorganic mercury salts and organic
forms of mercury.

Mercury plays an important role as a process or
product ingredient in several industrial sectors. In theelectrical industry, mercury is used in components
such as fluorescent lamps (including CFLs), wiring
devices and switches (e.g., thermostats) and mercuricoxide batteries. Mercury is also used in navigational
devices, the health care sector, in instrumentsthat measure temperature and pressure and otherrelated applications. It is also a component of dental
amalgams used in repairing dental caries (cavities).
In addition to specific products, mercury is used innumerous industrial processes. The largest quantity of
mercury used in manufacturing internationally is the
production of chlorine and caustic soda by mercury
cell chlor-alkali plants. Apart from amalgamation
mentioned earlier, other processes utilizing
mercury include: use in nuclear reactors, woodprocessing (as an anti-fungal agent), as a solvent
for reactive and precious metals, and as a catalyst.
Mercury compounds are also frequently added as apreservative to many pharmaceutical products.

2.2 Mercury in the Environment

Photos: Gigie Cruz

Mercury is widely used because of its uniqueproperties. In its elemental form, it is silver-white
metal and is liquid at room temperature, and it
expands and contracts very precisely in responseto temperature changes. Thus, mercury has been
traditionally used in thermometers. Mercury is also
very volatile, at room temperature it will evaporate
and form mercury vapors and the higher thetemperature the faster rate of evaporation. Thesevapors are odorless and colorless.
Mercury is very dense, and it maintains its volume
in response to atmospheric pressures, making it
an ideal material for devices designed to measurepressure. As a metal, mercury conducts electricity
very well, making it a suitable material for someelectrical switches. Mercury forms alloys with almost
all other metals, such as gold. This process called
amalgamation has made mercury-use in gold-mining,particularly in small-scale and artisanal mining
prevalent.
Ban Toxics!

Mercury is an element. The earth contains the sameamount of mercury since the planet was formed.
As an element, mercury has been present in theenvironment from natural sources, such as, volcanic
eruptions and forest fires. And like other elements,
mercury cannot be created or destroyed throughchemical processes.
Mercury, however, can cycle in the environment as
part of both natural and anthropogenic (man-made)activities and therefore while the total amount on theplanet remains constant, certain portions of planetary
space can acquire enhanced amounts of mercury.
Measured data and modeling results indicate thathuman activities have substantially contributed to theamount of mercury mobilized and released into theenvironment and in the food chain.1
Mercury has been used in a wide range of products
and industrial processes, and most of theseanthropogenic uses are presently in:tIndustrial processes that produce chlorine(mercury cell chlor-alkali plants) and/or vinyl
chloride monomer (for polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
production);

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

11C?)2"#34#5t

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining;tProducts such as electrical switches, thermostats,measuring and control devices, fluorescent lightbulbs (e.g. CFLs), batteries, dental amalgam andpolyurethane elastomers containing an organic
mercury catalyst;t

Laboratories, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, paints,
and jewelry.

In addition to these releases, some industrial
processes contribute to what are sometimes called“incidental” releases, mainly coal-fired power
generation, cement production, mining and othermetallurgic activities.
Coal-fired power plants are deemed the single largest
global source of atmospheric mercury emissions. It
is also acknowledged that wastes from products andindustrial processes containing mercury can be asignificant source of mercury to the environment as
well.

2.2.1 The Role of Atmospheric Releases and Processes
Once in the atmosphere, mercury is widely
disseminated and can circulate for years,
accounting for its widespread distribution.
Atmospheric mercury can be widely dispersed andtransported thousands of kilometers from emission
sources. The distance of this transport and eventual
deposition depends on the chemical and physicalform of the mercury emitted.

A basic diagram of the global mercury cycle
is presented in Figure 1 below. As indicated,
mercury is emitted to the atmosphere by a variety
of sources, dispersed and transported in the air,deposited to the earth, and stored in or transferred
between the land, water, and air.

Figure 1: The Global Mercury Cycle
Anthropogenic

Hg(p)

Hg(0)

Deposition

Re-emitted
Athropogenic& Natural
Local & Regional
Deposition

Air

Hg(II)

Global Terrestrial
Deposition

Evasion(Re-emitted
Athropogenic& Natural)

Global Marine
Deposition

Hg(0)CH, HgMixed Layer
Hg(II)!"#$%&'()*&+,-&.$(/0(1&2#0%1&3$4)(#&#)&!)56($778&
9):0*$&;;;<&=>#$&>5%&?(>574)(#&)'&.$(/0(1&"5&#@$&+5A"()5*$5#B&C$/$*D$(&EFFG8

12

Hg(p)

Particulate
RemovalBan Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

C?)2"#34#5
2.3 Mercury Toxicology
Mercury and mercury-containing compounds
are highly toxic and have a variety of significant
adverse effects on human health, wildlife and theenvironment.

2.3.1 Impacts on Plant and Wildlife
Concentrations of mercury in the tissues of wildlife
species have been reported at levels associatedwith adverse effects.
On fish adverse effects include death, reduced
reproductive success, impaired growth anddevelopment and behavioral abnormalities. Effectsof mercury on birds and mammals include death,
reduced reproductive success, impaired growthand development and behavioral abnormalities.
Sub-lethal effects of mercury on birds andmammals include liver damage, kidney damage,and neurobehavioral effects. Effects of mercury
on plants include death, plant senescence, growth
inhibition and decreased chlorophyll content, leaf
injury, root damage, and inhibited root growth andfunction.

2.3.2 Impacts on Humans
There are several factors which can determine
whether humans will suffer adverse effects from
mercury and the severity of the effects. These are:the chemical form of mercury; the dose or amountof exposure; the age or developmental stage of theperson exposed (i.e. the fetus is the most sensitiveand susceptible to ill-effects of mercury); the routeof exposure – inhalation, ingestion, or dermal
contact.
Elemental mercury primarily causes health effects
when it is breathed as a vapor where it can beabsorbed into the bloodstream directly throughthe lungs. Exposure can give rise to the following
symptoms: tremors; emotional changes (e.g.,mood swings, irritability, nervousness, excessive
shyness); insomnia; neuromuscular changes(such as weakness, muscle atrophy, twitching);
headaches; disturbances in sensations; changes innerve responses; performance deficits on tests of
Ban Toxics!

cognitive function. At higher exposures there may
be kidney effects, respiratory failure and death.
High exposures to inorganic mercury may result indamage to the gastrointestinal tract, the nervous
system, and the kidneys. Symptoms of highexposures to inorganic mercury include: skin rashes
and dermatitis; mood swings; memory loss; mental
disturbances; and muscle weakness. Both inorganicand organic mercury compounds are absorbed
through the gastrointestinal tract and affectother systems via this route. However, organic
mercury compounds are more readily absorbed via
ingestion than inorganic mercury compounds.
Of the different forms of organic mercury,
methylated mercury is the most toxic and it
bioaccumulates in organisms and biomagnifies
up the food chain. Its effect on humans is thatof a potent neurotoxin causing a wide array ofneurological disorders and can easily be fatal athigher concentrations.

2.3.2.1 At Risk Populations
All humans are exposed to some form of lowlevel of mercury. In particular, individuals andcommunities who are directly exposed to mercury
through their occupation or local industry may
be at risk. However, certain populations are moresensitive or susceptible to the adverse effects ofmercury than others. Of particular concern are:t

The fetus, the newborn and young children. They
are especially sensitive to mercury exposure
because of the sensitivity of the developing
nervous system. New mothers, pregnant women,
and women who might become pregnant areoften included in this category, in utero exposure
to mercury could occur if the mother is exposed aswell. Also, newborns could be exposed to mercury
through breast milk.

t

Individuals with diseases of the liver, kidneys,
nerves, and lungs are at higher risk from suffering
the toxic effects of mercury.

tOther sub-populations may be at greater risk
because they are exposed to higher levels of
methyl mercury such as subsistence fishers, andcultures that tend to regularly eat fish and otherseafood.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

13C?)2"#34#5
2.4 Mercury Methylation andBioaccumulation, Exposure
Pathways

2.4.1 Methylmercury – Human Exposure
Pathways
Humans are most likely to be exposed to methyl
mercury through fish consumption. Exposure
may occur through other pathways as well (e.g.,
the ingestion of methyl mercury-contaminateddrinking water and food sources other than fish,
and uptake from soil and water through the skin).
However, for humans and other animals that eat fish,
methyl mercury uptake through fish consumption
dominates these other routes.

The methylation of mercury is a key step in theentrance of mercury into food chains. The biotransformation of inorganic mercury forms tomethylated organic forms in water bodies canoccur in sediments and the water columns. Not
all mercury compounds entering an aquatic
ecosystem, however, are methylated.
It has been found that, very often, almost 100%of the mercury that bioaccumulates in fishtissue is methylated. Generally, mercury tends
to accumulate up in aquatic food chains so thatorganisms at higher trophic levels have higher
mercury concentrations (biomagnification). Thus,
most individuals are exposed to mercury throughdiet, especially from consumption of fish and othermarine species contaminated with mercury.
Mercury accumulates in an organism when therate of uptake exceeds the rate of elimination.
Elimination of methyl mercury takes place very
slowly resulting in tissue half-lives (i.e., the timein which half of the mercury in the tissue iseliminated) that range from months to years,
depending on the nature of the organism(bioaccumulation).

When methyl mercury is ingested it is rapidly andextensively absorbed through the gastrointestinal
tract. Methyl mercury is distributed throughout
the body and easily penetrates the blood-brain andplacental barriers in humans and animals. This formof mercury has a relatively long biological half-life
in humans; estimates range from 44 to 80 days.
Excretion occurs via the feces, breast milk, andurine.

2.4.2 Methylmercury - Human Health Effects
Methyl mercury-induced neurotoxicity is theeffect of greatest concern when exposure occurs
to the developing fetus, for methyl mercury easily
penetrates the placental as well as the blood-brain
barrier. In a study of about 900 Faroese children
who have been exposed to methyl mercury
pre-natally, the researchers noted the children
exhibiting neurophysical deficits at 7 years of age.
The brain functions most vulnerable seem to beattention span, memory, and language.
It has also been shown that even at low
concentrations there appears to be subtle,
persistent effects on the children’s mental
development as observed at about the start of theschool age.
Aside from these impacts, once it enters into
humans, methyl mercury can cause nervous
disorders, cancer, brain damage, difficulty in vision,
hearing, walking, tremors, coma and even death.

Photo: Gigie Cruz

14

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

D?)2"#34#5)*,4#3"0
3.1 In the Philippines
The releases of mercury to the biosphere can begrouped in four categories:a) Natural sources - releases due to natural
mobilization of naturally occurring mercury
from the Earth’s crust, such as volcanic
activity and weathering of rocks;b) Current anthropogenic (associatedwith human activity) releases from themobilization of mercury impurities in raw
materials such as fossil fuels – mainly coal,and to a lesser extent gas and oil. The releaseof mercury through the burning of coal incoal-fired power production is deemed thesingle largest global source of atmosphericmercury emissions;2c) Current anthropogenic releases resulting
from mercury used intentionally in products
and processes, due to releases during
manufacturing, disposal or incineration of
spent products or other releases. Mercury inthermometers, batteries, and other productsthat have become waste and discarded
into the waste stream or segregated, areexamples of these sources; andd) Re-mobilization of historic anthropogenic
mercury releases previously deposited insoils, sediments, water bodies, landfills andwaste/tailings piles.
Of the four categories, (a) releases due to natural
mobilization of mercury and (d) re-mobilizationof anthropogenic mercury previously deposited
in soils, sediments and water bodies are not wellunderstood and largely beyond human control
hence there are no immediate solutions for their
reductions.3

Photo: Orbital Joe via Flickr/ Creative Commonspurchasers, and monitor all the end-uses of
mercury or mercury-containing products, thequantity of products supplied, and the quantity of
wastes produced as a result of manufacturing andindustrial uses.4
The required chemicals database which the DENR is
tasked to implement has not been fully realized todate5, which makes the task of understanding andformulating controls on mercury more difficult.
In early 2008, with the support of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), a
Philippine inventory of mercury and mercury
compounds was undertaken as part of the UNEP
mercury inventory assessment.
The Philippine assessment was a multi-stakeholder
effort: government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academe
contributed to the assessment. Consultations
were held, and surveys were distributed to theparticipants. The process also used secondary
data and reputable sources to estimate mercury
emissions.

The section looks into the anthropogenic sourcesof mercury in the Philippines.

The inventory looked at mercury consumptions
and emissions. Due to data limitations as well as
drawbacks in the UNEP toolkit, as identified by thestudy author, the assessment does not provide
an exact inventory of total mercury consumption,use, disposal, or emissions which the unrealizedchemicals database should be providing.

Under Philippine law the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR) is
mandated to have a database or records of all
the importers, manufacturers, distributors andWhat the assessment clearly provides, although
not definitive, is a preliminary picture of the major
categories of mercury sources and emissions in the
country, see Table 1 (next page).

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

15D?)2"#34#5)*,4#3"0
Table 1: Summary of Mercury Emissions in the Philippines6
Emissions or Hg output, kg Hg/year
Main Source
Category

Generalwaste

Sectorspecifictreatment
disposal

Total

Air

Water

Land

Impurity inproducts

Extraction and use of fuels/
energy sources

31,886

0

0

0

53.90

0

31,940Primary (virgin) metal
production

39,507

13,171

13,197

2,610

0

2,610

71,095

Production of other minerals
and materials with mercury
impurities

241

0

0

241

0

0

482

Intentional use of mercury inindustrial processes

105

11

200

53

0

158

527

Consumer products withintentional use of mercury

943

20

1,120

0

1,082

0

3,165

Other intentional product/
process use

7,064

1,331

1,326

266

17,179532

27,698

Production of recycled
metals (secondary) metal
production)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Waste incineration

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Waste deposition/landfilling
and waste water treatment

48

1,1612

595

0

0

0

1,804

Crematoria and cemeteries

38

0

344

0

0

0

382

78,62815,694

16,782

3,170

18,3143,300

137,093

TOTAL

Source: DENR, Mercury Assessment for the Philippines: Using UNEP Inventory Toolkit, September 2008.

Immediately evident from the data above is the category on Primary Virgin Metal Production, which largely
involves small-scale gold mining, Extraction and Use of Fuels/Energy Resources, referring primarily to coalfired power generation, and Other Intentional Product/Process Use, which covers an array of industries,
such as cement, lime, and pulp and paper production, and interestingly enough, products, thermometers,other measuring devices, switches, etc.
Table 1 could be summarized into three main categories with their percentages of releases as follows:

Table 2: Major Category of Mercury Emissions in the Philippines
Sub-categories

Total output

Percent of releases

1. Primary Virgin Metal Production

74,769 kg Hg/year

32

2. Extraction and Use of Fuel andEnergy Resources

47,862 kg Hg/year20

3. Other intentional use-thermometer etc

46,653 kg Hg/year20

Source: DENR, Mercury Assessment for the Philippines: Using UNEP Inventory Toolkit, September 2008.

16

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

D?)2"#34#5)*,4#3"0
What jumps out with the broad categories in Table 2, is that it is logical to look at products and waste in thesame category. Other than process wastes such as from minerals processing, wastes are products before
they were discarded. Thus, for the purposes of managing wastes, it makes sense to include products with
wastes when considering emission sources of mercury. Note that the 38% of emissions that is not includedin Table 2 can be attributed to the other sub-categories.
A sampling of the amount of mercury-containing wastes can be found in the DENR inventory. For instancethere is:Table 3: Estimated Lamp Waste of Establishments Based on Study Survey
Business Type

Flourescent Lamps (pieces/year)

Micro

4,901,412

Small

1,929,240

Medium

1,357,240

Large

2,857,520

Total

11,045,412

Source: DENR, Mercury Assessment for the Philippines: Using UNEP Inventory Toolkit, September 2008.

The emission pathways from other intentional products/process use was also quantified as Table 4 illustrates:

Table 4: Emission Pathways
Other intentional
product/
process use

Calc Hg
input
kg Hg/yAir
kg Hg/yWater
kg Hg/yLand
kg Hg/yProducts
kg Hg/yGeneralWaste
kg Hg/ySectorSpecific
Disposalkg Hg/yDental mercury amalgam
fillings

4,435

0

1,331

0

266

532

532

Manometers and gauges
with mercury

52

5

16

31

0

62

532

Laboratory chemicals andequipment with mercury

2,184

218

0

1,310

0

655

0

Miscellaneous product uses,
mercury metal uses, andother sources

22,800

6,840

0

0

0

15,9600

TOTAL

29,471

7,063

1,347

1,341

266

17,209

1,064

Source: DENR, Mercury Assessment for the Philippines: Using UNEP Inventory Toolkit, September 2008.

As Tables 2, 3 and 4 highlight, mercury-containing
waste can be a significant source of mercury
releases to the environment. Waste generation
in society is determined by the consumptionof goods. Changing consumer preference andintroduction of mercury-free alternatives could
Ban Toxics!

have a considerable impact in lowering mercury
emissions from wastes. It also shows that controlof mercury releases from these sources is literally at
the tip of our fingers. Proper waste management
will be key in stemming uncontrolled mercury
releases from the waste stream.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

17D?)2"#34#5)*,4#3"0
3.1.1 Waste Disposal in the Philippines
It is estimated that the seventeen municipalities
comprising the greater Manila area or Metro Manila,
generate as much as 1.95 million metric tons ofwaste per year7. Based on government data, only
73% of the 5,250 metric tons of waste generated
daily are collected, the remaining 27% of the daily
waste or about 1,420 metric tons end up in canals,
vacant spaces, street corners, market places, andrivers.
In order to address the waste crisis of the late 1990s,
the Philippine government enacted the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 or Republic
Act 9003 in 2001. Among the salient features of thelaw is the mandatory segregation of solid waste
at source, e.g. household, institutional, industrial,commercial and agricultural sources.
In spite of the law, and the estimated Php3.54
billion (approx. US$ 73 million) spent annually on
mixed waste collection and disposal8, both regularmunicipal waste and toxic wastes, such as wastes
containing mercury, are often mixed together andend up being burned or discarded in open pits,
water bodies, or simply anywhere garbage can bethrown.
The number of open and controlled dumps
continues to increase, from an estimated 996 in thelast quarter of 2006 to 1,185 in the last quarter of
2007.9 These dumpsites should have been closed
since February 2004,10 and their increase affirms
the Philippines’ continuing problem with volume
and non-segregation of waste.
Another challenge with the existing waste disposal
system in the Philippines is the absence of accurate
engineering and technical data, and assessments
are often made by cursory site observations andverbal site reports.11
Many of the dumps are located in or very nearenvironmentally critical areas such as watersheds,
national parks, ground water reserves, creeks,rivers, lakes, foreshore lands, irrigation canals,
agricultural fields and communities.12
Among other dangers raised by dumpsites, surface
18

Ban Toxics!

and sub-surface leachate pose considerable risksseeing that the dumps take in mixed wastes,
including mercury-containing wastes. For
instance, based on leachate sampling in two major
dumpsites, an estimated 26 kg of lead and 76 kg ofarsenic is released annually into the groundwater,rivers, lakes and bay of Metro Manila.13

3.1.2 Management of mercury-containing
wastes in the Philippines
Under Republic Act 6969, the Toxic Substances,
Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act,the import, manufacture, process, distribution,use, transport, treatment, and disposal of toxic
substances and hazardous and nuclear wastes in
the country are to be strictly controlled. Any entity
seeking to engage in the treatment, storage, or
disposal (TSD) of toxic wastes must be accreditedby the DENR.
Based on the DENR’s current list of registered TSD
facilities for hazardous wastes, there are nine (9)accredited facilities in the Philippines.14
All of the accredited facilities are located in themain island of Luzon. There are no accredited
TSD facilities for managing mercury-containing
wastes in the other major islands of the Philippines.
Further, the extent of the accreditation given to
the nine (9) facilities with reference to mercury
only extends to discarded fluorescent lamps/bulbs.
None of the facilities are accredited to handle
other types of mercury-containing wastes, e.g.
thermometers, electrical switches, etc.
Of the nine (9) accredited TSD facilities, only two(2) are licensed disposal facilities.15 To ensure that
mercury wastes brought to landfills do not enter
the biosphere, the sequestered mercury is first
encapsulated in a non-porous, non-permeable
material, and then placed in an engineered doublelined landfill accredited by the DENR.16
There is no appreciable infrastructure to collectand transport mercury-containing wastes fromgenerators to their facilities. However, in interviews
conducted with some of the accredited TSD
facilities, they have the capacity to bring their bulb
crushing equipment to the generator.17
Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

D?)2"#34#5)*,4#3"0
It is noticeable from the list of clients of theaccredited TSD facilities that all of the generators
they are servicing are large businesses. Thereappears to be no facility that is directly managing
wastes generated at the household level.
There are efforts underway in the Philippines
to phase-out mercury use, particularly in thehealthcare sector. This is due in part to a recent
Department of Health regulation mandating thephase-out of mercury containing devices andequipment from healthcare facilities (see Section
6.1.1 for details). Due to the lack of TSD facilities
that can manage mercury thermometers and other
healthcare devices containing mercury, hospitals
are temporarily storing their discarded mercury
equipment within their premises.

3.2 Southeast Asian Region
Noticeable in Table 1 is the row of zeroes undermercury emissions from waste incineration. The
reason given by the DENR for this is that Philippine
law prohibits open burning or incineration.
However, legal stipulation does not necessarily
imply physical reality.
The study proponents visited several dumpsites18
and witnessed firsthand cases of open-burning,particularly of wires and electrical equipment,
including fluorescent and compact fluorescentbulbs. These wastes figure prominently as waste

pickers try to liberate copper and other metals fromthe wastes.
Mercury-containing waste incineration or burning
is overlooked in the DENR assessment, and should
be re-evaluated. Existing data show the continued
increase in dumpsites affirming the rise in thevolume of wastes, and the lack of segregation leads
to the practice of regularly mixing toxic and regularmunicipal waste. The mixed waste eventually end
up in the open pits where burning often occurs toretrieve valuable materials and also to minimize thevolume of the waste.
The concern over the underestimation of mercury
waste emissions from incineration or open burning
was reflected in a global study released last
February 2009 by environmental groups, entitled“Mercury Rising: Reducing Global Emissions from
Burning Mercury-Added Products”. The study
revealed that the burning of products containing
mercury contributes 10 percent of global releasesof mercury to the atmosphere, or upwards of 200
tons of mercury to the atmosphere every year.19
The report looked at several burning processes:
medical waste incineration, municipal andhazardous waste incineration, municipal
wastewater sludge incineration, and landfill fires
and open burning. The emissions from theseprocesses are shown below by region, see Figure 2
on p20.

Photos: Gigie Cruz

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

19D?)2"#34#5)*,4#3"0
Figure 2: Global Air Emissions by Region

Atmospheric mercury emissions (metric tonnes)

Global air emissions from the burning of mercury-added products (2005)

Source: Mercury Rising: Reducing Global Emissions from Burning Mercury-Added Products, 2009.

The level of emissions in the East and Southeast
Asia region is noticeable as it far outpaces thosein the other regions. The magnitude of emissions,according to the report, are due to landfill fires
and open burning of domestic waste which isreflective of a combination of significant open
burning, especially in rural areas, a large amountof mercury consumed in products in the region,and very low recycling rates. The study also notesthat “even though formal incineration of municipal
waste is not common in most countries in Asia, thegeneration of large volumes of waste, the relatively
high use and disposal of mercury-added products,
and the fact that Japan, in particular, incinerates avery high percentage of its waste, help to explain
the magnitude of regional atmospheric mercury
emissions from incineration.”20

20

Ban Toxics!

The study data acknowledges the contributionof incineration to the total emissions of mercury
to the atmosphere. The Philippine situation may
not be too far behind the regional data, based on
the overall context of waste management in the
country seen so far.
The Philippines faces an uphill battle with theproper management of the almost 47 tons of
mercury waste from products and processes it
generates per year. The following section examines
the options available to the Philippines that arepresently being observed around the world tomanage surplus mercury and mercury-containing
wastes.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
4.1 Defining Terminal Storage

4.1.1 Issues for Consideration
In determining which terminal storage options topursue, governments considered a myriad of issues
and these may be grouped into several categories,
as follows:
A. Scope of Storage

Photo: US Defense National Stockpiles Center (DNSC)

A loose definition of terminal storage can be madebased on its goal - a facility created and maintained
indefinitely to store sequestered mercury toensure that mercury is not reintroduced into theenvironment.
The rationale for this type of facility is based on theunique challenges that mercury poses. Like any
substance or waste, it may be possible to recycle
mercury waste, particularly elemental mercury, in
special facilities which have the advanced recycling
technology especially for mercury waste. However,
mercury would be released during the recycling
process because of its ability to easily volatilize atroom temperature. Recycled mercury could further
escape once sold on the international commodities
market, where it re-enters the environment, mostly
in developing countries. In order to stop the cycleof mercury in society, countries have initiatedand developed environmentally sound terminal
storage of mercury wastes, such as above ground,monitored and retrievable secure storage.
The move towards terminal storage of mercury
has been acknowledged and has been promoted
under the United Nations Environment Programme
Governing Council (GC) decisions. In decision
24/3 adopted by the twenty-fourth session of
the GC/Global Ministerial Environment Forumon 9 February 2007, the GC established mercury
supply reduction as a global priority, and urged
governments “to gather information on theoptions and solutions for the long-term storage of
mercury”.
Ban Toxics!

The first issue that needs to be resolved is “whatkind of surplus mercury or mercury wastes should
be subject to storage?” Each country faces various
sources of mercury of varying severity, e.g. mercury
from wastes and used products, by-productmercury from industrial processes, mercury fromindustrial processes, etc. Determining the scope ofwhat needs to be stored immediately defines andhelps narrow the scope.
Under this category the issue of the species of
mercury to be stored is considered, e.g. elemental,
ionic, as well as volume and concentration.
Some countries have also taken into account thechemical-physical characteristic of the mercury to
be stored, e.g. encapsulated, stabilized, inert, etc.
B. Facility Infrastructure
Under this category there are two main issues toconsider: site and facility infrastructure.
Where to put the facility is as crucial a question
to answer as what facility to build. Questions ofgeology, hydrology, occurrence of natural disasters(e.g. earthquakes, floods, hurricanes), accessibility,transport to the facility via road or rail, among
others, need to be factored in.
Some countries have looked into the issue of
whether a centralized or multiple storage facilities
are needed. For countries with mercury mine sites
or mercury-contaminated sites, the questions haveconsistently focused on the comparative advantage
between selecting existing contaminated-sites (e.g.
abandoned mercury mines) or a mercury-free site.
Facility infrastructure issues generally touch on
infrastructure capacity including building materials,
leachate prevention, monitoring systems, longterm documentation, etc.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

21E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5

Photo: Ban Toxics!

C. LegalThis category gets into the question of whether anexisting legal infrastructure is able to support theoperationalization of a terminal storage facility.
Issues involving attribution of ownership of thewaste and responsibility, licensing procedures, waste
acceptance and documentation need to be clearly
defined and delineated under law. Transition ortransfer of responsibility, if any, has also been a matterof consideration, particularly at what point do themercury generators remove themselves from any
liability for the mercury they store.
Some corollary points related to this issue are who
fixes the standards that must be met, and who
ensures the facility or facilities are operated consistent
with such standards?
D. Public Health/Environmental Concerns
At the root of the endeavor are the twin concernsof public health and the environment. Is there
existing capacity to accurately map out possible
environmental impacts? The evaluation of risk posed
to human health needs to be fully understood as well.
E. Social/Political
The issue of terminal storage is not simply an issue
22

Ban Toxics!

of technology. There are salient and pressing social
issues that accompany facilities of this nature: public
acceptance, site situation near environmentallysensitive areas or indigenous people’s lands, accessto courts for legal redress by facility workers andaffected communities, role of non-governmentorganizations and other stakeholders, impact on
minorities and gender, etc. Countries that will embark
on establishing terminal storage facilities need toembrace these issues together with the technological.
F. Financial
Capitalization of the facility and the long-termmonitoring of the facility are two important financial
aspects. The latter is as equally crucial as the first,
and the countries who have implemented terminal
storage facilities have considered the latter issue
closely. Who pays for the storage and who operates
the storage facility are related to long-term financing
costs. This needs to be understood and planned forwell in advance.
Also at the core of these is where to source the funds
for the facility. Is this is a shared enterprise or simply
borne by the facility operator? Could this be subjectof international aid or investments? Therefore, it’s
important to identify the long-term sustainability
options needed by the facility.
Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
4.2 Terminal Storage Options
There are various terminal storage and disposal
options for mercury around the world. These
options can be viewed in two broad categories:
above ground (e.g. warehouse) and below ground(e.g. deep rock injection). Each broad category has
illustrative models. Below the study looks at what
prompted the respective governments/entities tomove towards terminal storage and the structure of
the facility.

4.2.1

Above Ground Storage –United States Defense National
Stockpile Center (DNSC)

4.2.1.1 Background
The DNSC is responsible for the managementof stockpiled materials declared in excess of US
defense needs. The DNSC is currently managing
an inventory of mercury consisting of 4,436 metrictons stockpiled in four existing sites in the UnitedStates and has been safely storing the mercury
stockpile for 50 years.21
Concerns over mercury accumulation in theenvironment have been slowly gaining groundin the US prompting changes in the DNSC’s
policies on the stockpiled mercury, resulting in thesuspension of sales of elemental mercury in the
open market in 1994. Not long thereafter, the U.S.
Congress determined that the U.S. Department of
Defense no longer needed to maintain a stockpile
of commodity-grade mercury (elemental) becauseof the increased use of mercury substitutes andbecause of increases in the recovery and recyclingof mercury domestically. This prompted the needfor the DNSC to come up with a strategy for longterm management of excess mercury.
In 2001, the DNSC initiated an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process that evaluatedalternatives for long-term management of mercury.
The DNSC had three alternatives: (1) No action,i.e., maintaining storage at the four existing sites;(2) consolidation and storage at one of the threecurrent DNSC mercury storage sites or at one of

Ban Toxics!

Photo: US Defense National Stockpiles Center (DNSC)

three other candidate locations; and (3) sale of themercury inventory.
The EIS also contained an evaluation of thepotential environmental, human health, andsocioeconomic impacts of these alternatives,
together with cost considerations. Other treatment
technologies were considered as alternatives inplace of mercury management and the DNSC
concluded that “Based on the immaturity of bulk
mercury treatment technologies…bulk
treatment and disposal of elemental mercury is notconsidered viable at this time.”22
The result of the EIS process was announced three
years after, in 2004, where the DNSC made public
the decision to consolidate the mercury at one
location. Their decision was based on the following
reasons:t

Safe long-term management. The EIS looked
into the viability of the facility for 40-years andconcluded that the risk of neglect or futuredamage is negligible.23t

Environmental/health risks are “negligible” to“low”. For instance in calculating the risk of an
accident such as a fire during a rainstorm, there
was a low probability of the event. If it would
happen it can occur once in 10,000 to 1 million
years.24t

Economies of scale, minimizing costs instead of
spreading cost over several facilities;tConsistent with policies and objectives of
the DNSC. Removing DNSC’s excess mercury
inventory is consistent with the national
security mission.25

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

23E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
Figure 3: Mercury Overpacking DNSC Facility

Photos: US Defense National Stockpiles Center (DNSC)

4.2.1.1.2 Facility
In 2006, the DNSC announced that the chosen
consolidation facility will be located at the
Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada.

the-art Lumex and Tekran mercury air-monitoring
equipment which are able to detect mercury inparts per billion.27

The DNSC stockpiled mercury will be placed in a
200,000 square foot warehouse equipped with thefollowing, among others:

The DNSC facility is a closed facility, as it only caters
to the Department of Defense stockpile and is notopen to accept mercury from outside sources.

t
t
t
t
t
t
t

Static ventilation
Heat, smoke, and fire detection system.
Intrusion detection
Active fire suppression systems
Buildings constructed of materials resistantto fire such as concrete and steel
All doors fitted with 3 inch containment dikes
Installation of Terra Nap flooring and ramps26

Routine inspections play a key to the safety andsecurity of the facility. The DNSC utilizes state-of24

Ban Toxics!

From the foregoing, for long-term storage of
mercury in above ground facility, it is importantto build the warehouse at which there is almost
no effect of natural disasters, e.g. earthquake,
typhoon, hurricane, flood, etc. or on groundstrong enough to withstand natural disasters.
Also, the facility needs to be located far away fromresidential areas as a safeguard against accidental
mercury spillage or mercury spillage by natural
disasters.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
4.2.2 Below Ground Storage – European Union, Germany, and Sweden
Figure 4: Salt Rock Formation for Hg Storage!"#$%&'%()#*$)+,-)#$&+)./%0%1(2"+,3&4"2$&5)1%!"#$%&'()*+(,$-..&$/(01!

BackgroundOn 5 September 2008, the European Union(EU) passed Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (EURegulation) pertaining to the banning of exports
and safe storage of metallic mercury (Regulation).
In enacting the Regulation, the EU recognized thethreat posed by the export of mercury and theneed to reduce risk of mercury for humans and theenvironment. Reducing global mercury supply
was identified by the EU as a goal and banning
exports of mercury from the EU was identified as animportant step towards this goal. In pursuing thisstrategy the EU anticipated the increase of mercury
supply in the EU as a result of its export ban. To
address this, the EU spelled out the need for safe
storage of the surplus mercury.28

Ban Toxics!

The EU Regulation clearly defines what it considers
permanent storage when it provides that:a) with the proper containment, mercury waste
can be temporarily stored for more than one
year or permanently stored in salt mines
adapted for the disposal of metallic mercury, orb) in deep underground, hard rock formations
providing a level of safety and confinement
equivalent to that of those salt mines.29
The EU Regulation considers above ground storageas temporary.30

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

25E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
4.2.2.2 German Salt Mines
The concept of this method is toplace mercury waste in the cavities of
disused, excavated area of a salt mine,
remote from the mineral extraction
part. According to K+S EntsorgungGmbH - the German company
running the salt mine facility, thestable cavities of salt mines offer thesafest, as well as the environmentally
most responsible solution for the
disposal of hazardous wastes, suchas mercury waste. The surroundingrock salt mass provides a seal against
liquids and gasses because the layers
surrounding the rock salt mass andthe covering layers reliably seal therock salt layer against any intruding
moisture.
Further, the company points to thegeological conditions in which themines are situated in, which have
Figure 5: Underground Disposal System Scenario
remained stable at each site for morethan 200 million years, guaranteeing an intact rocksalt layer.

Source: Th. Brasser, GRS

The storage areas of an underground waste
disposal plant are positioned lower than any
ground water reservoirs, and typically have nohumidity. In addition to natural barriers, artificial
barriers are used. For example, the entrances tothe separate storage chambers are closed by dry
brick walls or by rock salt fillings. Wastes, which are
stored underground in this way, are not subjectedto the sometimes significant dissolution andtransport processes, such as are often the case inabove-ground storage.
Aside from the advantage of a natural barrier, theother advantage of an underground waste disposal
plant is the fact that above-ground space is left toother, more fitting uses. This is especially useful forcountries with small landmasses.
All wastes intended for storage in K+S EntsorgungGmbH facility need to undergo an individual
approval procedure. There are no across-the-board
clearances, so each waste has to be inspected26

Ban Toxics!

Photos: K+S Entsorgung GmbH

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
before the facility accepts it. Within the scopeof these approval procedures for a specific typeof waste the chemical composition, as well as all
physical, chemical and toxicological characteristicsof the waste need to be examined.
The facility does not accept the following wastes:
explosive, self inflammable, infectious, radioactive,
capable of releasing hazardous gases, liquid, andbearing risk of increasing their volume.31 The
facility is open to outside sources for a one-timefee. The cost considerations will be discussed
separately in the section on Cost.

4.2.2.3 Deep Rock Injection – Sweden

Since this is an underground facility, the mostimportant criterion for work safety is themonitoring of the ventilation and aeration system,
particularly in reference to hazardous particles
in the air. This monitoring is effected by gas
detection instruments, by internal measurements
at the separate work stations, and also by external
auditing agencies.
The underground waste disposal plants are
certified as “Entsorgungsfachbetriebe”, whichmeans that they are approved disposal facilities
according to German regulations. The capacity ofthe salt mines, according to the firm is sufficient for
many decades to come.

Figure 6: Deep Rock Injection- Sweden!"#$%&'()''*&&+',-./'012&.3"-1'45&6&1

Like the other governments previously mentioned,
the Swedish government acknowledges thedangers of mercury and have adhered to the policyof ultimately removing mercury from the ecocycle
instead of recycling, in its approach to managing
mercury.32
Other key policy considerations taken into account
were:t Storage will reduce the stress placed bymercury on the environment and keep it in
the minimum level in the long term.
t The storage facility should not be a burden
on future generations.33
In 1994, the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency was tasked with formulating proposals forthe terminal storage of waste containing mercury.
The Agency concluded that it was reasonable
to store waste containing at least one per centmercury in a deep bedrock repository. This would
cover most mercury waste, but not low level
mining waste for instance.
Based on the Agency’s report, the Government
subsequently appointed a committee to further
look into, in consultation with the waste owners,
how to proceed in bringing about a permanentstorage for mercury waste. An official report was
released in June 2001.
Ban Toxics!

Source:Björn Södermark, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency!"#$%&'()*+$,(!+-&$./$01(!2&-345(6,73$",.&,8/9(:$"8&%83",(;<&,%=The Swedish conclusion is that a terminal storage
deep down in bedrock is the best solution to deal
with mercury waste. The Swedish solution tookfrom their experience and more than twenty yearsof research regarding a terminal storage in bedrockfor nuclear waste.
According to the Report, storage underground indeep bedrock relies on the capability of nature
itself, in the form of the surrounding bedrock, toprovide protection of the waste. The concept isvery similar to the German Salt Mines, the main

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines27E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
difference being the German facility relies onunused and excavated cavities. The Swedish model
includes the possibility of placing their repository ina new site.

it for them. The role of government is to guidethe process in the right direction and set up theframework of the activities. This also follows
Sweden’s approach to nuclear wastes.

Another difference is in the setup of the operating
facility. The Swedish solution follows the polluter
pays principle, thus it must be stressed thatthe responsibility for building and operating astorage facility, including the necessary surveys
and technical development, should rest on thewaste owner or operating facility, e.g. a waste
management company, who is prepared to do

Financing for the facility will be derived from theowners with partial help from the government. The
Swedish Report recognizes the ambitious natureof the project, however, and concedes that due tocost consideration it may not be necessary to store
all mercury waste in deep bedrock, and that some
could be kept in above ground storage.

4.3 Disposal and Other Methods
Aside from terminal storage there are prevailing practices on the management of waste mercury andupcoming technologies which are being considered.

Fig. 7: Specially Engineered Landfill

4.3.1 Landfilling
As mentioned earlier, several TSD facilities in thePhilippines are putting the collected mercury
wastes into landfill. The study does not have accessto the technical data of the landfills in which themercury wastes are disposed into.
In this regard, the study refers to the Basel
Convention Technical Guidelines on SpeciallyEngineered Landfill (Technical Guidelines).
According to the Technical Guidelines, a specially28

Ban Toxics!

Source: Basel Convention Technical Guidelines

engineered landfill should be used when disposing
mercury-containing waste to the landfill site.34
Landfill sites should be completely shut off fromthe outside natural world. The entire landfill is
enclosed in watertight and reinforced concrete, andcovered with the sort of equipment which prevents
rainwater inflow such as a roof and a rainwaterdrainage system, see figure below.35
For further information about specially engineered
landfills please refer the Basel Convention Technical
Guidelines on Specially Engineered Landfill.
Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5

Photos: DELA GmbH, www.delagmbh.de

4.3.2 Stabilization

4.3.4 Export

The Swedish waste management company SAKAB
AB, together with the German company DELA
GmbH, have the goal to develop a technology
for stabilization of liquid mercury in accordancewith the timetable set for final disposal of mercury
within the European Union. DELA GmbH has
previous experience with a well proven technology
for the treatment of mercury sludge, by using
specialized equipment including a vacuum mixer.
This technology has been adjusted by DELA to besuitable for the stabilization of liquid mercury withsulfur, to produce the natural mineral cinnabar.
The process is a stoichiometric conversion by good
mixing and adjustment of the optimal conditions
for the reaction between sulfur and mercury,
resulting in a sparingly soluble solid mercury
product. The process generates approximately
1.4 tons of end products from one ton of metallic
mercury. The end product of the stabilization is
cinnabar, which is the original, natural mineralform, sparingly soluble, solid and therefore suitablefor final disposal. A pilot plant with a capacity of
500kg/day has been operated by DELA. A full-scale
plant with a treatment of 4 tons per day is planned,
however, due to market concern the development
has been put on hold until circumstances change.36

Mercury wastes are covered under the Basel
Convention on the Transboundary Movement ofHazardous Wastes and their Disposal. 37 Any exportof mercury wastes must comply with the Basel
Convention requirements, including but not limited
to the prior-informed consent of the importing
country, and in cases of toxic waste exports fromdeveloped to developing country, the Basel Ban
Amendment.

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

29E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
4.4 Cost Considerations
The cost considerations discussed below are of little
use for comparative purposes, since the assumptions
and qualifications are so varied from one method
to the next. Taken as an informational guide,
however, the data presented could provide a generalframework for the costs that can be expected from a
range of mercury waste management options.
Further, it is worth noting that the costs below
have relatively little connection with the volume of
mercury to be stored or disposed of. Most of the costis related to the capitalization phase which is incurred
during the development of the site and facility. If
there are pre-disposal mercury treatment costs, which
are directly related to the volume of waste treated,the costs could be higher.

4.4.1. Above-Ground Storage Cost
Regarding relevant, storage, and consolidationof storing 4, 436 metric tons of commercial grade
elemental mercury, the DNSC incurred:
One-Time Costs at
Hawthorne Terminal Storage Facility (US$)38
Construction

3,875,000

Process Hazard Analysis

383,000

Material Receipt/Stock Positioning

692,000

Install Fire Suppression

4,200,000

Mercury Flask Inspection

7,000,000

Transportation

1,300,000

Total One-Time Cost

17,450,000

4.4.2 Deep Rock Injection Cost
The Swedish EPA report estimated the cost of adeep bedrock repository, with a capacity of about
1,000 – 20,000 tonnes of high-level mercury waste
to be about SEK 200 – 300 million (approximately
US$ 25 to 37 million). This represents a cost of
approximately SEK 250,000 – 650,000 (US$ 31,000
to 81,000) per tonne.
In addition to the cost of the repository itself, there
will be the cost of any processing and stabilization.
Since prior stabilization is required before
storage of the mercury waste, this intermediate
cost is incurred and will typically be around SEK
10 – 20 (US$ 1-3) per kilo. The Swedish Reportacknowledges that this may involve SEK 250
million (US$ 31 million), almost the same cost of
the repository itself. Thus, bearing in mind thecosts involved in deep bedrock injection, there
are compelling reasons to keep costs down whilestill meeting safety requirements. In Sweden, theresponsibility for finding optimal solutions of thiskind rests with the waste owners.40

4.4.3 German Salt Mine Cost

Recurring Costs at
Hawthorne Terminal Storage Facility (US$)39
Storage – Includes inspections and normal facility maintenance
Restoration – Major repairs, minor construction for buildings
Maintenance – For the equipment DNSC installed in thewarehouses including the fire detection and suppression systems,
flooring, ramps, testing equipment and material handling

Inspection – periodic for leakage
Total Recurring Cost
$547,904/yr + inspection X acceleration at 3.5%/yr

30

Ban Toxics!

Photo: K+S Entsorgung GmbH

There are two components to the cost of storage in
the German salt mine facility: one time storage fee
and transportation costs. According to According
to K+S Entsorgung GmbH, a one time fee of €270 /tonne will be charged. The transportation cost to
the facility will vary greatly depending on locationand volume of waste (including permitting costs).

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

E?)!"#$%&'()*+,#'-")./+%,&0)1,#
2"#34#5)'&B)6'0+"0)=,&+'%&%&-)2"#34#5
4.4.4 Cost of Disposal and Other Methods
Table 5: Cost Reference
Facility

Capacity

AcceptanceCriteria

Start-up Cost

Recurring Costs

US DNSC

4,436 metric tons

Accepts only US
DOD mercury

US$ 17.5 Million

US$547,904/yr

German Salt Mines“sufficient for many
decades to come” *No blanket criteria;
Each waste
inspected€270 / tonne + costof transport

None

Sweden Deep RockInjection

1,000 – 20,000
tonnes

Accepts only
Swedish waste;
Mercury limit

US$25-37 million

None* As per information from K+S Entsorgung GmbH4.3.4.1 Landfilling
Specially engineered landfills are generally costlier
than regular landfills and the cost is dependent on
many variables, such as capacity, location, types
of wastes, etc. In calculating the cost, however,the following should be included: general landarea needs, locations, design, operation, closure,
aftercare, financial guarantees for potential
damages to third parties, and remediation.

4.3.4.2 Stabilization
No cost has yet been established for the SAKAB AB
and DELA facilities. However, the Swedish Report
estimates that stabilization cost will typically be
SEK 10 – 20 per kilo, acknowledging that this may
involve SEK 250 million for 1,000-20,000 tonnes of
mercury waste.

4.3.4.3 Export

Photo: Gigie Cruz

Ban Toxics!

The export cost would be determined by the costcharged by the facility taking in the waste andthe transportation cost. A specific amount will
be difficult to estimate given the many variables
to arriving at this cost, e.g. type of waste, volume,
location, permitting costs, etc.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

31

F?)87%(%//%&")G'H0
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
outlines the State’s policies on public healthand environment that forms the basis forenvironmental regulations in the Philippines. The
Constitution calls for the government to protect
and preserve the right to health of Filipinos andmandates the government to protect and advancethe right of the people to a balanced and healthfulecology.41 These policies gave rise to various
environmental enactments.

5.1 Law on Mercury

Photo: Gigie Cruz

Republic Act 6969 or otherwise known as the Toxic
Substances, Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control
Act (RA 6969) and its ensuing regulations is thecornerstone of the current mercury legislation in
the Philippines.
RA 6969 was designed to respond to theheightened problems associated with the
dumping of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes
by developed nations on poorer countries in the
80’s. To address these concerns the law covereda wide range of activities, namely: importation,
manufacture, processing, handling, storage,transportation, sale, distribution, use, anddisposal.42
In 1992, the Department of Environment andNatural Resources (DENR) who is tasked to enforce
RA 6969, released Administrative Order 1992-29,
known as the Implementing Rules and Regulationsof Republic Act 6969 (IRR). The IRR expands on theprovisions of the law and clarified certain processes
and responsibilities on chemicals, hazardousand nuclear wastes. The IRR clarified the scopeof the law by creating a list of wastes classified
as hazardous under RA 6969 and subject to its
control. Mercury and Mercuric Compounds (D407)
were identified in the list and clearly placing thesesubstances under the ambit of RA 6969.
The IRR also elaborated on several policy points on
hazardous wastes, three of which are of relevanceto terminal storage of mercury waste:

32

Ban Toxics!

1. In the management hierarchy of
hazardous wastes priority should be on theminimization of its generation, followed by
its recycling, treatment to render it harmless,and landfilling of hazardous wastes;
2. Waste generators are responsible for theproper management and disposal of theirhazardous wastes;
3. Waste generators shall bear the cost for theproper treatment, storage, and disposal of
their hazardous wastes; and4. Ownership of the hazardous waste remains
with the generator until the hazardous
waste is certified to have been treated,recycled, reprocessed, or disposed of by thedesignated waste treater.
The IRR exempted garbage from domestic premises
and households from its coverage.
In 1997, the DENR further issued rules on thecontrol of mercury, particularly Administrative
Order No. 97-38, Chemical Control Order for
Mercury and Mercury Compounds (CCO).
The CCO created additional requirements forentities dealing with mercury or mercurycontaining compounds, such as importers,
manufacturer, distributors, treaters, transporters.
One of the new requirements coming out of the
CCO is the imposition on limits on who can use
mercury in the Philippines.43 Under the CCO,
only the following industries are allowed to bringmercury into the country:

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

F?)87%(%//%&")G'H0a) Chlor-alkali plants;b) Mining and metallurgical industriesc) Electrical apparatus (lamps, arc rectifiers,
battery cells, and others)d) Industrial and control instrumentse) Pharmaceuticalf ) Paint Manufacturingg) Pulp and Paper Manufacturingh) Dental Amalgami) Industrial Catalystj) Pesticides (fungicide) production or
formulation
The CCO also made it explicit that no mercurybearing wastes will be discharged to theenvironment without prior DENR approval. Lastly,
the CCO linked the liability of the importer anddistributor of mercury and mercury-containing
compounds with the end-user in cases of injury,
damage to public health and environment.
RA 6969, its IRR and CCO have shown
farsightedness on the part of the DENR in
attempting to responsibly address the issue of
mercury. Notably control mercury from its import/
manufacture to disposal shows a degree ofunderstanding and appreciation of the dangers of

mercury. With new research and practices arisingout of the global effort to combat mercury, it would
be an opportune time to evaluate RA 6969 and its
regulations, particularly as to how it measures up in
operationalizing terminal storage of mercury in thePhilippines.

5.2 Related Laws
There are other laws that directly or indirectly
regulate mercury use and emissions in thePhilippines:a) Presidential Decree No. 984 (Pollution
Control Law of 1976)b) Presidential Decree No. 1586
(Environmental Impact Assessment System
Law of 1978)c) Republic Act 8749 (Clean Air Act of 1998)d) Republic Act 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2001)e) Republic Act 9275 (Clean Water Act of
2004)

Photo: Gigie Cruz

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

33I?)J%03400%,&0)'&B)K"3,$$"&B'+%,&0
6.1 Trends
6.1.1 Philippines

6.1.2 Asian Region

The Philippines is becoming a leader in theSoutheast Asian region on the issue of mercury.
It is the first country in the region to phase out
mercury-containing devices and equipment
in all healthcare facilities in the country. The
Department of Health issued Administrative Order
21 (AO 21) last August 11, 2008 mandated that all
hospitals follow guidelines for the gradual phaseout of mercury in two years. The first mercurycontaining equipment targeted under AO 21
are mercury thermometers. All hospitals are
required to discontinue the distribution of mercury
thermometers in the patient’s admission/dischargekits.

Last March 4-5, 2009, the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) together with theinternational NGO coalition, Zero Mercury Working
Group, organized a multi-stakeholder workshop
entitled Asia Mercury Storage Project Inception
Workshop (Workshop) that saw the participationof seventeen Asian governments, eight United
Nations bodies, and six international and local
NGOs.

Another salient provision of AO 21 is therequirement to all new health care facilities
applying for an operational license to submit aninventory of all mercury-containing devices thatwill be used in their facilities and a corresponding
mercury elimination program.
Waiting on the wings of AO 21 are pending
legislative bills calling for the phase out of mercury
in schools.44
Philippine non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
have also been very active on this issue. Foremostof them is Health Care Without Harm Southeast
Asia who pioneered the issue on the removal of
mercury in hospitals, and has done and continues
to do groundbreaking work on this issue.
The pro-active stance taken by the Department
of Health and the vibrancy of the Philippine NGOs
assure that mercury phase outs will not diminish in
the immediate future.

34

Ban Toxics!

The Workshop was aimed at reducing the eventual
supply of mercury to the biosphere by initiating a
regional process that will support the sequestrationof excess mercury in the Asian Region. During
the workshop a study on mercury supply andconsumption in 2005 and projections for 2050 inAsia was delivered. 45
The study demonstrated that the Asian region is asignificant net importer of mercury and at present
the vast majority of the imported mercury is used
for artisanal and small-scale gold mining. The
study concluded that substantial excess mercury
can be expected in Asia starting after 2017 andsignificantly increasing thereafter to approximately
just over 5,500 – 7,500 tonnes in 2030 after phaseouts and other control measures are applied.
As a result of the discussion at the Workshop, a
regional advisory body represented by an Executive
Committee (Execom) was created and tasked withcatalyzing regional action in the sequestration ofexcess mercury in Asia, communicating issues, andrecommending appropriate legislation. With thecreation of the Execom, work towards an Asian
regional facility on the terminal storage of surplus
mercury is underway.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

I?)J%03400%,&0)'&B)K"3,$$"&B'+%,&0
6.1.3 Global Trends
6.1.3.1 EU and US Export Ban
and Terminal Storage
2008 was a banner year for action to ban the exportof mercury. First of these are the announcements
coming from the European Union (EU) and theUnited States of their intent to address the supply
of mercury by enacting an export ban against
mercury. The EU ban covers elemental mercury
and will take effect in 2011 and also requires thatthe remaining surplus of mercury needs to be put
into safe storage as of the same date.46
The US ban also covers elemental mercury and is
to take effect in 2013. Notably, the United States
also linked up the establishment of terminal
storage facility for domestically generated mercury,requiring the Department of Energy to designate afacility by 2010.
It’s estimated that 40 to 50% of the annual global
trade in mercury passes through the US and EU.47

6.1.3.2 UNEP Governing Council Decision on
Mercury
Last February 16-20, 2009, during the 25th
Governing Council of UNEP (GC 25) a landmark
decision on mercury was issued where the world
governments agreed to move forward with
developing a legally binding treaty on mercury,and directing the Executive Director of UNEP toconvene an international negotiating committee(INC) by 2010.48
Part of the INC mandate is to develop acomprehensive and suitable approach to mercury
including provisions on the reduction of supply
and the enhancement of environmentally soundstorage. The GC decision further called on the needfor coordinating approaches in the international
action against mercury that includes the area ofenhancing capacity for mercury storage.
GC25 above sets a strong tone on increased andconcrete international action on mercury.

Ban Toxics!

6.1.3.3 UNEP Global Mercury Partnership(GMP)
The UNEP GMP is considered the vehicle
for delivering interim actions to fulfill UNEPGC Decision 25/5. Partnership activities are
currently underway in the following partnershipareas (with the respective partnership leads):
artisanal/small-scale gold mining (UNIDO); coal
combustion (International Energy Agency Coal
Centre); chlor-alkali sector (USEPA); reduction in
products (USEPA); fate and transport (Italy); waste
combustion (Japan).
The partnership areas establish specific goals
and actions to address needs and contribute tothe overall goal of the UNEP GMP. Membershipvaries according to interest. A Partner supports
the overall goal of the Partnership, commits tocontribute resources or expertise towards thedevelopment and implementation of partnership
activities, and networks with other organizations/
agencies/ individuals.
Mercury storage was identified as a newpartnership area at the most recent UNEP Global
Mercury Partnership in April 2009. A draft businessplan was proposed by UNEP in 2008 and this plan
will be revised to reflect new developments andinput into the plan.

6.1.3.4 EU Chlor Alkali Sector Terminal
Storage
The European Commission welcomed a voluntaryagreement announced last December 22, 2008
to ensure the safe storage of surplus mercury
from the European chlor-alkali industry, once aban on exports of the highly toxic metal from theEuropean Union takes effect.
Euro Chlor, the European business association
representing chlor-alkali producers in the EU andthe European Free Trade Association regions – thechemical industry sector responsible for chlorineand caustic soda production – has pledged toensure safe underground storage of mercury
surpluses from the industry once this ban takes
effect in 2011.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

35I?)J%03400%,&0)'&B)K"3,$$"&B'+%,&0Euro Chlor has voluntarily agreed to remove
surplus mercury from decommissioned chlorine
plants, and to transport these quantities to its finaldestination in approved sealed steel containers andstored, preferably in deep underground salt mines.
Approximately 9,000 tonnes of liquid mercury
remaining in European chlorine plants will beaffected by this voluntary agreement.

6.2 Recommendations

Photo: Gigie Cruz

Mercury poses a complex challenge to manynations, more so to a developing country such as
the Philippines. As discussed in previous sections,mercury from human sources are varied, fromits release through coal combustion to the very
products that society has grown to rely on thateventually become wastes. Developing nations
are forced to grapple with the environmental andhealth problems caused by mercury, a toxin thatcannot be destroyed, whose toxicity has no halflife, and whose use and application is unnecessary
for the most part because of safer mercury-freealternatives.
The idea of sequestering the releases of thistoxin and storing it permanently is simply
revolutionary and demands a multi-faceted andfull life-cycle approach. In order to achieve this,the Philippine government needs to abandoncertain biases on regulation and view terminal
storage, its implications and demands, as a facet ofa comprehensive approach and not an end in andof itself.
A. Creation of a comprehensive national policy
on mercury with a provision for terminal storage
A comprehensive national policy on mercury isneeded in order to thread together the disparate
areas of environment, public health, and trade thatthe mercury issue straddles. A national policy also
serves as a guide post for the development of alegal infrastructure to support the policy and forgovernment enforcement.

of waste is identified as a priority while terminal
storage is not even acknowledged. For regularwastes this may be apt, but in the case of mercury,
recycling or re-using only increases the probabilityof its eventual release once it is placed incommerce.
There are also gaps in addressing mercury atsource. Under the CCO, there is still a favorable
presumption given to certain industries by allowing
them to import mercury into the country, e.g.
mining and metallurgical industries. In the recent
DENR inventory, it has been shown that major
mercury emissions in the Philippines come fromgold-mining operations. Knowing that the major
source emission comes from the mining industry,outreach efforts to reduce demand through nonmercury alternatives should be considered alongwith an eventual restriction on imports by thesesources.
The demands of such comprehensive national
policy would necessitate the inclusion of thefollowing elements:
1. Terminal Storage as Part of Waste
Management Policy

For instance, in the waste management hierarchy
under the IRR of RA 6969, recycling and reuse

The government needs to reopen its policy on
waste management with respect to terminal
storage of mercury. Presently, the IRR andCCO do not recognize terminal storage as
an option in the environmentally soundmanagement of mercury wastes. Specifically,
the government needs to look at prevention
and minimization, storage, types of treatment
or stabilization of mercury, and investigate

36

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

Ban Toxics!

I?)J%03400%,&0)'&B)K"3,$$"&B'+%,&0
disposal methods. Recovery or recycling
mercury waste operations should be guided by
the policy-makers such that the process does
not undermine policies set to protect humanhealth or cause harm to the environment.
2. Controlling the supply of mercury
At the products end-of-life or if the imported
mercury is no longer needed, the Philippines
must ensure that Filipinos are not being
burdened by foreign mercury coming into
the Philippines, resulting in the Philippines
becoming a waste disposal site for imported
mercury. Thus, the task is not simply tomonitor the amount of mercury coming in, but
to phase out sources and prohibit elemental
mercury and mercury contained in othersources, (e.g. those contained in products, thatare not necessary or which have mercury-freealternatives.)
The government cannot simply focus on
end-of-pipe solutions. However, it mustclearly close the tap supplying mercury into
the country. This policy would benefit endof-pipe solutions such as terminal storage,
as it indirectly sets up limits to the amountof mercury that needs to be dealt with at thedisposal stage. As discussed below, a clear
priority is reducing the demand for mercury
through promoting mercury-free alternative
products and processes wherever feasible.
3. Controlling the demand of mercury
Control on the supply side of mercury will bevery difficult to achieve without the necessarycontrol on demand. There are many examples
throughout the world where the use of mercury
has been phased out of products and processes.
Outside of the use of fluorescent light bulbs,
almost all products can be made without theuse of mercury. This includes mercury used in
the health care sector, in measuring devices,
thermostats and thermometers. Viable mercuryfree technologies also exist for most industrial
applications. For example, conversion of mercury
cell chlor-alkali plants is occurring in many
countries.

Ban Toxics!

4. Trade Restrictions on Products andTechnologies/Processes Promoting Mercury
After promoting voluntary measures to phasemercury out in products and processes,
utilizing trade restrictions is another tool thatcan eventually be used to contain the mercury
problem. Twenty percent of the estimatedreleases of mercury in the Philippines comesfrom intentional releases from products andwastes. After voluntary measures have been
employed, trade restrictions on products andprocesses/technologies that rely on mercury
is an appropriate and necessary measure toprotect public health and the environment.
5. Fiscal Incentives to Hg-Free Industries/
Products
Much like the interplay of the Supply-Demand
control mechanism, the trade restriction
measure should be accompanied first by
fiscal incentives for companies or industries.
The government should adopt a policy thatcultivates investments and provides incentives
to entities that engage in the manufacture or
distribution of mercury-free alternatives.
6. Promotion of Alternatives/Substitution
In the course of this study, the proponents
have come to realize that there is still a
tremendous lack of awareness among the
population concerning the dangers of mercury
and the existence of mercury-free alternatives.
The Philippine government increase it efforts
towards promoting awareness raising on
mercury, but must include promotion ofalternatives or substitutes as well.
7. Multi-Stakeholder Process
An integral part to the success of the various
efforts on terminal storage is the inclusion of
all affected parties in the discussion of a path
towards terminal storage. Part of this effort
should include identifying and encouraging
stakeholders to come to the table to discuss
the issues and steps forward.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

37I?)J%03400%,&0)'&B)K"3,$$"&B'+%,&08. Provide current and relevant information on
mercury; Ensure access to such information;and proper risk communication

2. Designate terminal storage as anenvironmentally sound solution for mercury
wastesThe government needs to re-affirm theimportance of the public’s access to relevant
and current information on mercury andits obligation to develop and furnish that
information to the public. This should be acollaborative effort between the health andenvironmental agencies. It is also crucial forgovernment to provide advisories on mercury
levels in fish, especially to populations sensitive
to mercury.

Surplus mercury and mercury wastes should
ultimately be taken to a permanent repository
or terminal storage facility. The law must
place terminal storage in the right hierarchyof waste management and the need to takemercury wastes for terminal storage must be a
mandatory responsibility.

B. Creation of a cohesive legal infrastructure to
support the national policy on mercury
Existing laws possess a range of measures forthe establishment of disposal facilities thatis applicable to mercury wastes, for instancePresidential Decree 1586 which requires anEnvironmental Impact Assessment System beundertaken before any disposal facility is set up.
However, these laws are inadequate to thread thepieces of a national policy together that includes
terminal storage. In this regard, there are legal gapsthat need to be filled:
1. Comprehensive measures to address theintentional anthropogenic sources of
mercury in the Philippines
The CCO was enacted in 1997, a full decade
before the present understanding of mercury
came about. Therefore, it is understandable
that the legal tools employed under the CCO
are insufficient and lacks the breadth needed
to complement the envisioned national
policy on mercury. A new law or regulationmust contain measures that would help
operationalize the policy on mercury, suchas, banning imports of mercury-containing
products or processes / technologies thatuses mercury, providing fiscal incentives
for companies that convert to mercury freetechnologies or manufactures or distributes
mercury-free alternatives, etc.

38

Ban Toxics!

3. Modify existing exemptions on end-users of
mercury
Allowing major users of mercury such as chloralkali plants and metallurgical and mining
industries runs counter to the very needfor controlling releases. This also creates aperverse incentive for these users to continue
using mercury. This exemption clearly needs
to be phased out as voluntary measures,
including financial incentives, are employed
to convert these operations to mercury freetechnologies.
4. Full prohibition on the discharge of
mercury-containing wastes into theenvironment
The present wording of the CCO prohibiting“the discharge of mercury-containing wastes
into the environment unless permitted by the
DENR” implies that there are justifiable causes
to release mercury into the environment.49
Given the wealth of data pointing to theimpact of mercury on wildlife, the environment
and public health, there appears to be nosalient reason to allow releases of mercury
to the environment. Modifying the existinglanguage will also remove any possible
interpretation that there is an opening to thedischarge of mercury-containing wastes.
Since mercury-containing wastes are also
found in household wastes, it would also be
prudent to include household wastes in theremit of any new law that will cover mercury.

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

I?)J%03400%,&0)'&B)K"3,$$"&B'+%,&0
5. Expanding the responsibility of generators/
distributors of wastes
The CCO rightfully contains provisions that
hold importers, distributors, and end-users
liable for injury or damages caused by the
improper disposal of mercury-containing
wastes. Instead of relying on monetary
indemnification, any proposed law on mercury,must include the responsibility of the importer,
distributor, manufacturer to take-back theirproducts containing mercury and hold them
responsible for the storage of such wastes. Thisis known as extended-producer responsibility
or EPR.
EPR has two distinct features. First, it creates adisincentive for manufacturers or distributors
to sell mercury-containing equipment, andthus cultivate the use of alternatives. Second,
it rightfully includes the manufacturers
or distributors in addressing the resultant
problems caused by their products.
6. Clarifying roles and jurisdictions of the
Departments involved in the national policy
on mercury
A national policy that extends into the areasof trade, environment, and health requires
proper coordination among different agencies.
Currently, the CCO is ill-equipped to delineate
the roles and jurisdictions of the respective
agencies. Therefore, coordination amongst theagencies should be enhanced: it is crucial that
this be done especially in addressing products
and waste issues to avoid any conflict between
departments, especially, if one department
wields more influence than the other.
C. Address existing gaps in Philippine waste
management
As discussed earlier, the Philippines isstruggling with various problems related to theenvironmentally sound management of wastes,
particularly the increasing waste generationand co-mingling of regular municipal waste andmercury wastes, the open-burning of wastes, andinefficient collection and disposal management
Ban Toxics!

options. Addressing these gaps is paramount andshould be done in parallel with efforts to establish
a comprehensive mercury policy for the country.
In this regard the following recommendations areoffered:1. Strictly implement the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act, RA 9003, to ensure
maximum mandatory separation of waste atsource and the ban on dumping of toxic wastes
on land is observed.
2. Stringent monitoring of environmental
compliance of specially engineered landfills
considering that some TSD facilities arelicensed to operate such facilities.
3. Strongly implement Republic Act 8749, theClean Air Act of 1998, to stem the incineration
or open-burning of mercury wastes.
4. The Departments of Labor and Employment,
Health, and Environment should carefully
monitor and ensure the protection of thehealth of workers exposed to mercury wastes,such as national and local waste and sanitation
workers, and most importantly the waste
pickers in the informal sector who are the ones
immediately exposed to the mercury waste
pollution.
5. The Department of the Environment andNatural Resources (DENR) should create
mechanism for the immediate collection of
mercury wastes and other toxic wastes in the
country to ensure that once these wastes
are segregated that they are handled in anenvironmentally sound manner.
6. The DENR should develop an interim facility,with a view towards terminal storage that canmanage in an environmentally sound mannercollected mercury wastes. The interim facility
to manage mercury wastes must follow strict
environmental and health standards andwould also necessitate a transparent and multistakeholder approach.
The stop-gap measure taken by the hospitals
is a stinging example of the current problem

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines

39I?)J%03400%,&0)'&B)K"3,$$"&B'+%,&0
faced by local generators in trying to do theright thing when government action is lagging
behind. The in-situ storage is unsustainable
in the long-run due to security and safetyconcerns. The mercury waste management
problem can be exacerbated further once
other sectors undertake their own phase-outs
voluntarily or through new regulations.
More importantly, the lack of proper
mercury waste management also becomes adisincentive for undertaking a more vigoroustransition to mercury-free alternatives, since
the generators or users of mercury will have noproper facility to direct their wastes to.
D. Choosing an appropriate terminal storage
optionThe options presented in this Study serves asa preliminary step. A comparison of all thealternative options should be considered,including the social, economic and environmental
implications of such project. In choosing a terminal
storage option, aside from the criteria mentioned
in Section 4.1.1, the following should be taken into
account:
1. Creation of a multi-stakeholder process toreview options and recommend an option
At the end of the day, the government needs
to make a determination on which terminal
storage option is suitable for the country. In
order to do this, a multi-stakeholder bodyneeds to be created to review existing
options based on specific criteria. The needto involve the various sectors in this process
acknowledges that wide impact mercury
has. These interests need to be properly
represented and heard to validate the optionthat will be chosen.
2. Social Dimension of the problem
The issue of mercury pollution and releases is
not merely a technological issue. There is a social
dimension to the mercury pollution that needs tobe addressed, and in choosing a terminal storage
facility these dimensions have to be dealt with:40

Ban Toxics!

Photo: Ban Toxics!

i. Lax Implementation of Laws
The CCO’s initiative on record keeping andmonitoring provided an excellent opportunity
to track mercury-containing wastes as far backas 1997. Unfortunately, implementation of thelaw has been lax, and only some information
has been gathered in the ten years since the
CCO was passed. The same mistake must notrecur on any new comprehensive initiative on
mercury.
ii. Poverty and Corruption
The illegal sale of mercury in the Philippines
and its heavy use in the artisanal and smallscale gold mining sector are critical issues
that underpin the need for terminal storage
options.
With the confluence of factors, such as highpoverty rate in the country that could drive
more people into the mining sector, availabilityof mercury through illegal channels, and theensuing surplus mercury through government
plans to phase out mercury from use andexisting stocks, could very well end up in the
ASM sector if oversight is not immediately
applied to phase out efforts.
--END-Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the PhilippinesK"1"#"&3"0
1

UNEP Mercury Global Assessment, 2002 [hereinafter UNEP Global

Assessment].
2

UNEP Global Assessment.

3

UNEP Global Assessment.

4

DENR Administrative Order No. 38, Environmental Management Bureau,

Quezon City, Philippines [hereinafter DENR Assessment].
5

DENR Assessment.

6

The table derived from the DENR Assessment contained what appears

to be incorrect sums - in each row and down each column. The table inthis Report reflects the correct sums based on the data from the DENR
Assessment.
7

National Solid Waste Management Commission, “Managing our Solid

Waste: An Overview of the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act”
available at: http://www.emb.gov.ph/eeid/ESWM.htm.
8Asian Development Bank, The Garbage Book: Solid Waste Managementin Metro Manila, 2004, p. 54. [hereinafter ADB Garbage Book]
9

Data released by the National Solid Waste Management Commission(NSWMC).
10

Sec. 15, Republic Act 9003,

11

ADB Garbage Book, 36.

12

Findings of the EcoWaste Coalition - Metro Manila’s garbage is dumped

in either in Rodriguez Waste Disposal Facility (located inside Proclamation
1636, a protected area in Rizal), Payatas Disposal Facility (a kilometer awayfrom the La Mesa Watershed) and Pier 18 and Tanza Waste Disposal Facility(foreshore areas of Manila Bay). Outside Metro Manila, the Talisay City
“Sanitary” Landfill is located inside the Central Cebu Protected Landscape.
The so-called Norzagaray Sanitary Landfill in Barangay San Isidro (which ispart of the City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan) is a kilometer away fromthe Ipo Dam watershed.
13

ADB Garbage Book, 46.

14

List of Registered Treatment/Storage/Disposal (TSD) Facilities for

Hazardous Wastes, 29 February 2009, available at: http://www.emb.gov.
ph/hazardous/Treater.PDF.
15

Interview with Mr. Geri Sañez, Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, February 10, 2009.
16

Interview Mr. Sañez, 2009.

17

Interview with Maritrans Recycler, Inc. 19 March 2009.

18

Rosario, Cavite; Payatas and Smokey Mountain Dumpsites.

19“Mercury Rising: Reducing Global Emissions from Burning Mercury-

Added Products” released by the Mercury Policy Project; Zero Mercury
Working Group; Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives / Global AntiIncinerator Alliance (GAIA) www.no-burn.org; and Ban Toxics!, February
2009 [hereinafter Hg Incineration Report]
20

Hg Incineration Report, 48.

21

Defense National Stockpile Center, “Mercury Consolidation Fact Sheet”, 2

February 2006.
Photo: Gigie Cruz

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines41

K"1"#"&3"022

United States Federal Register, Notice of Availability of a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement; Mercury Management, 11 April 2003,
Volume 68, Number 70 [hereinafter Notice EIS].
23

Notice EIS.

24

Notice EIS.

25

Notice EIS.

26

David Lynch, Defense National Stockpile Center, “Asia Mercury Storage

Project Inception Workshop” Presentation, 4 March 2009 [hereinafter
Lynch DNSC].
27

Lynch DNSC.

28

EU Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 [hereinafter EU Regulation.]

29

Art. 3 (a), EU Regulation.

30

Art. 3 (b), EU Regulation, states that mercury waste can be temporarily

stored for more than one year in above-ground facilities dedicated to andequipped for the temporary storage of metallic mercury.
31

Alexander Baart, K+S Entsorgung GmbH, Underground Waste Disposal,

4 March 2009.
32

Swedish EPA, “A Safe Mercury Repository”, January 2003. [hereinafter

Swedish Report]
33

Swedish Report34

SBC (1995a): Basel Convention Technical Guidelines on SpeciallyEngineered Landfill (D5), http://www.basel.int/meetings/sbc/workdoc/
old%20docs/tech-d5.pdf [hereinafter Basel TG].
35

Basel TG36

SAKAB AB, Fact Sheet: Stabilization of Metallic Mercury, May 2008.

37

Basel Convention at http://www.basel.int/

38

Dennis Lynch, Defense National Stockpile Center, Presentation “AsiaMercury Storage Project Inception Workshop”, 4 March 2009.
39

Lynch DNSC.

40

Swedish Report

41

Article II, Sec. 15 and 16, Philippine Constitution.

42

Sec. 3, Toxic Substances, Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act,

Republic Act 6969.
43

Sec. VII, 3, DENR Administrative Order No. 97-38.

44

Senate Bill No. 2278 sponsored by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,

Housbe Bill No. 05482 sponsored by Rep. Eduardo Zialcita.
45

Peter Maxson, Assessment of Excess Mercury in Asia 2010-2050, Nov.

2008.
46

EU Regulation.

47

Peter Maxson, MERCURY FLOWS AND SAFE STORAGE OF SURPLUS

MERCURY, August 2006.
48

Draft Decision Approved by the Chemicals Contact Group, Including

Mercury.
49

Section III (3)(b), Administrative Order No. 97-38, Chemical Control Orderfor Mercury and Mercury Compounds.

42

Photo: Gigie Cruz

Ban Toxics!

Terminal Storage Options of Mercury Wastes in the Philippines