Rwanda-Incinerator.com

on incinerator burner, there is one oil pump and have two tube for Suction Line and Return Line.

The Bangor Borough Authority will not sell the former incinerator property. Not right now, at least.

The board voted Thursday evening to support authority Chairman Donald Butz’s Oct. 2 letter to borough council President James Kresge that stated the authority need to not sell the incinerator and the surrounding home now identified collectively as the Bangor Company Park.

“Too lots of individuals had challenges with the sale,” Butz mentioned.

Negotiations were underway in the summer season that would have had the authority sell the lengthy-dormant 79-acre lot for $1.075 million to Valley Industrial Properties.

Officials discussed plans with V.I.P. who wanted to fill the deep valleys and level the steep slopes of the Ridge Road house to make it suitable for development, stated authority Administrator Marino Saveri in June.

Even so, some residents and borough officials expressed concern that dirt and landfill possibly hauled in from out of state by V.I.P. could have a potentially adverse environmental effect.

Butz decided to create a letter to the borough asking for a meeting concerning the property shortly after the authority’s September meeting when far more than a dozen residents spoke out against the sale to V.I.P.

“I will be recommending at the next authority meeting that the authority cease all activities in regard to the sale of the properties of the Bangor Company Park, and to meet with representatives of the borough council in regard to the properties,” Butz’s letter study in part.

David Houser who serves on each the borough council and the authority was the only vote on the board not in support of Butz’s letter. Houser has expressed sympathy in the previous with these who have been against the sale to V.I.P. and he did not really feel the letter had enough teeth to be meaningful.

“The letter is open-ended,” Houser said. “It doesn’t specify any dates.”

As long as the authority is in possession of the incinerator home, a sale to a landfill hauler is still achievable, mentioned Anna Maria Caldara, a Bangor resident who has been a vocal opponent of the property’s sale.

“We need to have assurances from the authority that their perspective has changed,” Caldara stated right after the meeting, “and from this point forward we need to have to know they take sustainability seriously.”

Authority and borough officials met to discuss the Bangor Company Park on Oct. 23. Any eventual plans or discussions of sale will be done in coordination with the borough council, according to Saveri.

“If we do something in the future, we will do it in conjunction with the borough,” Saveri mentioned.

The authority also voted without objection to reimburse $14,000 to Nimaris Building, which had spent dollars on various engineering permits at the incinerator website in recent years. Authority officials told Nimaris that they would get their income back if a sale did not go by means of, according to Saveri.

The house will stay dormant and closed for now. Hunters and neighbors of the property frequently make their way past the fences and really should be aware that police will be patrolling the home and trespassers will be prosecuted, Saveri said.

Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.

THE SMOKELESS INCINERATOR FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE, IN LAGOS NIGERIA
WE WANT TO KNOW THE CAPACITY OF THE EQUIPMENT, HOW MUCH LOAD OF WASTE CAN IT BURN AT A PARTICULAR TIME AND FOR HOW LONG, AND THE TYPE OF ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION. PRICE INCLUDING SHIPMENT
for the destruction of the followings:
Polyester, polypropylene, polystyrene, vinyl acetate plastic, synthetic plastics,
natural rubber, synthetic rubber, polyurethane sheet, and bulky films, solids and
– particles that can be easily sorted
– Items that easily degenerate such as paper, wood, leather and garbage
– Chemical waste solids and liquids, waste oil and other difficult-to-handle items

THREE options are on the table for disposing off Tinian solid waste: incineration, Fukuoka method or off-island disposal.

The Marine Forces Pacific recently held an ad hoc committee meeting with the Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, Tinian Mayor’s Office, Department of Public Works and Administration representatives at the BECQ office on Middle Road to map out the directions to take relating to the potential solid waste solutions beneficial for both the military and the civilian population.

In light of the ongoing National Environmental Policy Act process on the construction of ranges and training areas on Tinian, the Marine Forces Pacific examined these options and discussed these with the CNMI.

In analyzing these options, the U.S. military held the assumption that the current dumpsite located at Puntan Diablo on Tinian — the area where the Chinese group of investors is planning to develop into an integrated resort — will be closed and that a transfer station is being considered.

MARFORPAC environmental specialist Sherri Eng said the dumpsite is not something that the military will be able to use.

Just by looking at the requirements and the benefits of the options explored, Eng said that the easiest would be the off-island disposal.”

In choosing the off-island disposal option, the parties will have to look into the capacity of the Marpi landfill to accommodate the waste coming from Tinian — both military and civilian waste.

Eng, in a meeting with the local regulatory agencies and officials walked them through the three systems being considered.

Option 1: Incineration

Eng said the system that calls for the use of incinerator or waste-to-energy system requires a “properly sized incinerator,” fenced site, ash landfill, wastewater disposal, trained operators and secondary disposal site for C&D or construction and demolition waste, green waste, recyclables and white goods.

She said that this system could lead to significant waste reduction and energy production.

However, there are challenges to be met: siting and permitting, maintaining consistent operations, the need for sorting and waste monitoring, high initial cost, high maintenance cost and long timeline for construction.

“Construction timeline is long. It is not something that we can set up tomorrow,” said Eng.

Department of Public Works Secretary Martin C. Sablan mentioned about the CNMI getting an incinerator which it never used owing to the difficulty of permitting through the regulatory agencies.

“Permitting was a problem,” said Sablan.

Option 2: Fukuoka Landfill

The Fukuoka landfill is a new approach to handling solid waste. It is a semi-aerobic landfill with a leachate collecting pipe set up at the landfill floor that drains the leachate to a treatment facility.

This method does not require a synthetic liner.

But if this were to be pursued, Tinian will need an additional 15 hectares and the use of specific construction material.

The MARFORPAC representatives said they have conducted research on this method.

It was done in Palau, Yap and American Samoa but nowhere else in the continental United States due to permitting.

“We have to get some kind of waiver,” said Eng citing that it is not a permitted system in the U.S.

But with Fukuoka method, there is a potential to convert the existing dumpsite on Tinian.

As for leachate, the military is considering to upsize its waste water treatment facility to accommodate this if this were the option to consider.

As the Fukuoka landfill will need clay, Eng said their research showed the lack of this material on Tinian; however, it was suggested there’s a source in Papago.

Option 3: Off-island disposal

This option proposes to utilize the existing Marpi landfill.

With this option, Eng said there will be no additional land requirements.

She said this centralizes waste management system on Saipan.

But Eng was quick to point out that among the challenges will be how to deal with the perception that Saipan becomes a dumping ground.

The military also sees the need to upgrade shipping infrastructure.

“We’re willing to accept military waste,” said DPW Secretary Martin C. Sablan.

He said they had excavated the ground to construct the third cell of the landfill facility.

With this option, Eng assured that “whatever we do, we are going to take the Tinian waste with us.”

Asked by DPW if the military were to foot the bill for shipping and transfer of the waste, Eng said, “We agree to find the solution and hope to find the solution.” She said she could not commit to anything.

Sablan said it will cost less for the military to bring their waste to Saipan but the municipality will be needing assistance.

Feasibility study for three options?

Eng pointed out that the options has to be brought down to two.

“I don’t think we have the time and money to do all three,” she said.

Transfer station is key

As they mulled the potential solutions to Tinian’s solid waste issues, Eng said it is assumed that there will be a transfer station.

“Transfer station is important in all these sytems,” she said.

Closure of the dumpsite

Tinian Mayor Ramon M. Dela Cruz pointed out that it is not the responsibility of the developer to close the existing dumpsite at Puntan Diablo.

He, however, said that Alter City has committed to providing up to $5 million in assistance.

Asked by CIP’s Elizabeth Balajadia if they could continue to use the dumpsite for five more years, Tinian Mayor’s Office chief of staff Don Farrell said “five years is too long.”

Mayor Dela Cruz said three years would be reasonable.

“That will allow the developer to work on the adjacent property,” he said.

Alter City Group is proposing to build a golf course at the current site of the dumpsite.

Alter City committed to assist

At a hearing before the CNMI legislature last week, Alter City’s legal counsel Rober Torres said, “Investor is motivated to assist in its removal.”
But he said the government too has to pitch in.
by: http://www.mvariety.com/special-features/business-edge/70491-tinian-solid-waste-where-to-go

A single Ebola patient treated in a U.S. hospital will generate eight 208-litre barrels of medical waste each day.

Protective gloves, gowns, masks and booties are donned and doffed by all who approach the patient’s bedside and then discarded. Disposable medical instruments, packaging, bed linens, cups, plates, tissues, towels, pillowcases and anything that is used to clean up after the patient must be thrown away.

Even curtains, privacy screens and mattresses eventually must be treated as contaminated medical waste and disposed of.

Dealing with this collection of pathogen-filled debris without triggering new infections is a legal and logistical challenge for every U.S. hospital now preparing for a potential visit by the virus.

In California and other states, it is an even worse waste-management nightmare.

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend autoclaving (a form of sterilizing) or incinerating the waste as a surefire means of destroying the microbes, burning infected waste is effectively prohibited in California, and banned in several other states.

“Storage, transportation and disposal of this waste will be a major problem,” California Hospital Association President C. Duane Dauner warned Sen. Barbara Boxer in a letter last week.

Even some states that normally permit incineration are throwing up barriers to Ebola waste.

In Missouri, the state attorney general has sought to bar Ebola-contaminated debris from a St. Louis incinerator operated by Stericycle Inc., the nation’s largest medical waste disposal company.

Due to restrictions on burning, California hospital representatives say their only option appears to be trucking the waste over public highways and incinerating it in another state — a prospect that makes some environmental advocates uneasy.

Under federal transportation guidelines, the material would be designated a Class A infectious substance, or one that is capable of causing death or permanent disability, and would require special approval from the Department of Transportation, hospital representatives say.

“These are some pretty big issues and they need some quick attention,” said Jennifer Bayer, spokesperson for the Hospital Association of Southern California.

“We fully expect that it’s coming our way,” Bayer said of the virus. “Not to create any sort of scare, but just given the makeup of our population and the hub that we are. It’s very likely.”

The Ebola virus is essentially a string of genetic material wrapped in a protein jacket. It cannot survive a 1,500-degree scorching within an incinerator, or the prolonged, pressurized steam of an autoclave.

“The Ebola virus itself is not particularly hardy,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Thomas Frieden said under questioning on Capitol Hill recently. “It’s killed by bleach, by autoclaving, by a variety of chemicals.”

However, the agency’s guidelines note that “chemical inactivation” has yet to be standardized and could trigger worker safety regulations.

California health officials recently tried to reassure residents that the state’s private and public hospitals were up to the task and were actively training for the possible arrival of Ebola.

“Ebola does not pose a significant public health risk to California communities at the present time,” said Dr. Gil Chavez, an epidemiologist and deputy director at the California Department of Public Health. “Let me tell you why: Current scientific evidence specifies that people cannot get Ebola through the air, food or water. … The Ebola virus does not survive more than a few hours on impervious surfaces.”

It was unclear whether California officials viewed the waste issue as a potential problem.

Although a third of the state’s private hospitals and “a few” of its public hospitals reported to Boxer’s office that there would be problems complying with the CDC’s incineration recommendation, and others, a state public health official told reporters he was not aware of any conflicts.

Dr. David Perrott, chief medical officer for the California Hospital Association, said there was also confusion about whether infected human waste could be flushed down the toilet.

“Here’s what we’ve heard from the CDC: It’s OK,” Perrott said. “But then we’ve heard from some sources, that maybe we need to sterilize it somehow and then flush it down the toilet or you have to check with local authorities. It sounds maybe a little gross, but there is a real question about what to do with that waste.”

Dr. Thomas Ksiazek, a professor of microbiology and immunology of the University of Texas Medical Branch, has said he believes there’s been a lot of overreaction on the topic of Ebola medical waste.

“There are other ways to deal with the waste; autoclaving would be chief among them,” Ksiazek said. “The problem is, most hospitals don’t use it for most disposable items. They’re quite happy to bag them up and send them to a regular medical disposal company.”

But Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said incineration is simple and effective, and should be available to hospitals to help dispose of the mountain of waste.

Hershkowitz said states began to crack down on medical waste incineration years ago because many materials that did not need to be burned were being sent to combustors and were emitting dangerous pollutants.

In this case of Ebola medical waste, he said California should reconsider its restrictions.

“There’s no pollutant that’s going to come out of a waste incinerator that’s more dangerous than the Ebola virus,” Hershkowitz said. “When you’re dealing with pathogenic and biological hazards, sometimes the safest thing to do is combustion.”

Los Angeles Times

by: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4926626-another-ebola-challenge-disposing-of-medical-waste/

A single Ebola patient treated in a U.S. hospital will generate eight 55-gallon barrels of medical waste each day.

Protective gloves, gowns, masks and booties are donned and doffed by all who approach the patient’s bedside and then discarded. Disposable medical instruments, packaging, bed linens, cups, plates, tissues, towels, pillowcases and anything that is used to clean up after the patient must be thrown away.

Even curtains, privacy screens and mattresses eventually must be treated as contaminated medical waste and disposed of.

Dealing with this collection of pathogen-filled debris without triggering new infections is a legal and logistical challenge for every U.S. hospital now preparing for a potential visit by the virus.

In California and other states, it is an even worse waste-management nightmare.

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends autoclaving (a form of sterilizing) or incinerating the waste as a surefire means of destroying the microbes, burning infected waste is effectively prohibited in California, and banned in several other states.

“Storage, transportation and disposal of this waste will be a major problem,” California Hospital Association President C. Duane Dauner warned Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in a letter last week.

Even some states that normally permit incineration are throwing up barriers to Ebola waste.

In Missouri, the state attorney general has sought to bar Ebola-contaminated debris from a St. Louis incinerator operated by Stericycle Inc., the nation’s largest medical waste disposal company.

Due to restrictions on burning, California hospital representatives say their only option appears to be trucking the waste over public highways and incinerating it in another state — a prospect that makes some environmental advocates uneasy.

Rules for transport

Under federal transportation guidelines, the material would be designated a Class A infectious substance, or one that is capable of causing death or permanent disability, and would require special approval from the Department of Transportation, hospital representatives say.

“These are some pretty big issues and they need some quick attention,” said Jennifer Bayer, spokeswoman for the Hospital Association of Southern California.

“We fully expect that it’s coming our way,” Bayer said of the virus. “Not to create any sort of scare, but just given the makeup of our population and the hub that we are. It’s very likely.”

The Ebola virus is essentially a string of genetic material wrapped in a protein jacket. It cannot survive a 1,500-degree scorching within an incinerator, or the prolonged, pressurized steam of an autoclave.

“The Ebola virus itself is not particularly hardy,” CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden said under questioning on Capitol Hill recently. “It’s killed by bleach, by autoclaving, by a variety of chemicals.”

However, CDC guidelines note that “chemical inactivation” has yet to be standardized and could trigger worker safety regulations.

Getting ready

California health officials recently tried to reassure residents that the state’s private and public hospitals were up to the task and were actively training for the possible arrival of Ebola.

“Ebola does not pose a significant public health risk to California communities at the present time,” said Dr. Gil Chavez, an epidemiologist and deputy director at the California Department of Public Health. “Let me tell you why: Current scientific evidence specifies that people cannot get Ebola through the air, food or water. … The Ebola virus does not survive more than a few hours on impervious surfaces.”

It was unclear whether California officials viewed the waste issue as a potential problem.

Although one-third of the state’s private hospitals and “a few” of its public hospitals reported to Boxer’s office that there would be problems complying with the CDC’s incineration recommendation, and others, a state public health official told reporters he was not aware of any conflicts.

Dr. David Perrott, chief medical officer for the California Hospital Association, said there was also confusion about whether infected human waste could be flushed down the toilet.

“Here’s what we’ve heard from the CDC: It’s OK,” Perrott said. “But then we’ve heard from some sources, that maybe we need to sterilize it somehow and then flush it down the toilet or you have to check with local authorities. It sounds maybe a little gross, but there is a real question about what to do with that waste.”

Overreaction?

Dr. Thomas Ksiazek, a professor of microbiology and immunology of the University of Texas Medical Branch, has said he believes there’s been a lot of overreaction about Ebola medical waste.

“There are other ways to deal with the waste; autoclaving would be chief among them,” Ksiazek said. “The problem is, most hospitals don’t use it for most disposable items. They’re quite happy to bag them up and send them to a regular medical disposal company.”

But Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said incineration is simple and effective, and should be available to hospitals to help dispose of the mountain of waste.

Hershkowitz said states began to crack down on medical waste incineration years ago because materials that didn’t need to be burned were being sent to combustors and were emitting dangerous pollutants.

In this case of Ebola medical waste, he said California should reconsider its restrictions.

“There’s no pollutant that’s going to come out of a waste incinerator that’s more dangerous than the Ebola virus,” Hershkowitz said. “When you’re dealing with pathogenic and biological hazards, sometimes the safest thing to do is combustion.”

by: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Another-challenge-disposing-of-waste-5909413.php