HAI PHONG (VNS) — A seminar to evaluate a medical waste incinerator project built with Japanese technology was held this morning in the northern city of Hai Phong.

The project has been operational since January. The initial test results, collected by the Hai Phong Urban Environment One Member Limited Company, indicated that the incinerator meets all Vietnamese environmental protection standards.

The incinerator has been designed with the latest Japanese technology to process medical waste and harmful industrial waste.

The project is part of the co-operation programme between the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Japan International Co-operation Agency. — VNS

by: http://en.baomoi.com/Info/Medical-waste-incinerator-completes-trial-phase/6/496772.epi

Metro Vancouver is taking more heat over its plan to build a second garbage incinerator, with a new study commissioned by waste company Belkorp Environmental Services suggesting the move could cost up to $1.3 billion more than originally estimated.

The analysis, conducted by ICF International on behalf of Belkorp, comes as Metro Vancouver attempts to deal with the province’s rejection of its proposed Bylaw 280, which was integral to its solid waste management plan because it would have ensured garbage generated in Metro was kept in the region.

Belkorp, which runs the Cache Creek dump, has been involved in a high-profile lobbying campaign against Bylaw 280 as well as Metro Vancouver’s plans to burn the region’s waste rather than landfill it. Metro is slated to close the Cache Creek dump in 2016.

“We’re still fighting for options that are better than the incinerator,” said Russ Black, Belkorp’s vice-president of corporate development. “Irrespective of Bylaw 280, we still wanted to show the true costs of the incinerator.”

The report, by ICF’s lead author Seth Hulkower, suggests Metro Vancouver significantly overestimated the revenue it would earn by selling electricity from the new incinerator to BC Hydro over a period of 35 years.

Metro had suggested it would seek to negotiate a price of $100 per kilowatt hour from BC Hydro, but Hulkower noted the waste-to-energy business plan doesn’t take into account that BC Hydro may adjust the price it pays for electricity after Metro recovers it capital outlay on the project.

Metro Vancouver chairman Greg Moore said he’s not surprised with the study’s findings, saying it’s a point that has long been argued by Belkorp.

But he said the analysis is premature considering that Metro has at least 10 proponents offering different forms of waste-to-energy, including district heat and gasification, and there are several potential scenarios.

“They don’t know anything about what we’re doing in our (request-for-proposals) process … all of them are not based on selling to Hydro,” Moore said.

He added Metro has experience running a waste-to-energy plant, having done so in Burnaby since 1988, while Belkorp is interested in setting up multi-material recovery facilities and ensuring the dump continues to operate.

“They are relentless in pursuit of their agenda to continue to have garbage going to their landfill,” Moore said. “Until that decision is made I don’t think they’ll stop.”

Belkorp already has a Coquitlam site where it proposes to build a facility to take a “last pass” at waste to remove recyclables such as organics, paper, plastics and metals, a move that would ultimately rob the region of enough material to fuel another waste-to-energy facility.

Black acknowledged multi-material recovery facilities directly compete with incinerators but say they make sense. “When you look at the range of costs, there’s some serious questions that have to be addressed,” he said.

by: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Metro+incinerator+would+cost+billion+more+than+planned+study/10329525/story.html

incinerators to install on the island of Aruba.
the island does not have medical waste & other waste incinerators.
we are in the process of exploring the feasabilty and setting up an incinerator facility
on the island of Aruba.
this is an island of 120.000 habitants.
we have 2 hospitals,more then 20 dentist offices,and over 50 doctor offices.
would it be possible to give us info on the capacity of incinerator we need
on this island.

Sales and marketing manager Paul Niklas said they had more than a hundred orders from global organisations and aid agencies, including the United Nations and the Red Cross.

He also said most of their workforce was dedicated to manufacturing the incinerators.
The larger ones can burn up to 1,000kg of waste an hour, smaller ones up to 400kg per hour.

Mr Niklas said: “We feel very proud of the fact that they have come to us and that we have a product that is part of the solution.

“Because this has to be contained at the source.

“As soon as you start trying to move waste, it can spread further and further.

“Our incinerators burn at 850 degrees Celsius which burns the toxins, then in the second chamber they burn the gases from that at 1,200 degrees so what is coming out of the chimney is clean.

“And our incinerators are mobile, too, so they can be taken to the source.”
Calls for the incinerators started a few months back when the Ebola crisis was just emerging. Since then they have manufactured and sold more than 120 incinerators to be shipped out to West Africa.

“Their engineers usually go out to help with installation but because of the Ebola threat, engineers employed by aid agencies and organisations are being sent to be trained up at the plant in Canning Road Industrial Estate instead.

Mr Niklas added: “They first contacted us when the outbreak began a couple of months ago. But we are geared up for these things, anyway. The last time demand was like this was the Iraq War. We’ve set up a separate plant so when it does happen we can manage it.”

British Army medics were sent to Sierra Leone yesterday as global leaders promised to step up the international community’s efforts to halt the spread of the disease which has so far taken more than 4,000 lives.

The following are excerpts from the Environmental Protection Act

1.    “Contaminant” means any noise, heat, vibration or substance and includes such other substance as the Minister may

prescribe that, where discharged into the environment,
(a)    endangers the health, safety or welfare of persons,
(b)    interferes or is likely to interfere with normal enjoyment of life or property,
(c)    endangers the health of animal life, or
(d)    causes or is likely to cause damage to plant life or to property;

“Discharge” includes, but not so as to limit the meaning, any pumping, pouring, throwing, dumping, emitting, burning,

spraying, spreading, leaking, spilling, or escaping;

“Environment” means the components of the Earth and includes
(a)    air, land and water,
(b)    all layers of the atmosphere,
(c)    all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and
(d)    the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c).

“Inspector” means a person appointed under subsection 3(2) and includes the Chief Environmental Protection Officer.

2.2    The Minister may
(a)    establish, operate and maintain stations to monitor the quality of the environment in the Territories;
(b)    conduct research studies, conferences and training programs relating to contaminants and to the
preservation, protection or enhancement of the environment;
(c)    develop, co-ordinate and administer policies, standards, guidelines and codes of practice relating to the

preservation, protection or enhancement of the environment;
(d)    collect, publish and distribute information relating to contaminants and to the preservation, protection or

enhancement of the environment:

3.    (1) The Minister shall appoint a Chief Environmental Protection Officer who shall administer and enforce this Act and

the regulations.

(2)    The Chief Environmental Protection Officer may appoint inspectors and shall specify in the appointment the powers

that may be exercised and the duties that may be performed by the inspector under this Act and regulations.

5.    (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall discharge or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the

environment.

(3)    Subsection (1) does not apply where the person who discharged the contaminant or permitted the discharge of the

contaminant establishes that
(a)    the discharge is authorized by this Act or the regulations or by an order issued under this Act or the regulations;
(b)    the contaminant has been used solely for domestic purposes and was discharged from within a dwelling house;
(c)    the contaminant was discharged from the exhaust system of a vehicle;

(d)    the discharge of the contaminant resulted from the burning of leaves, foliage, wood, crops or stubble for domestic or

agricultural purposes;
(e)    the discharge of the contaminant resulted from burning for land clearing or land grading;
(f)    the discharge of the contaminant resulted from a fire set by a public official for habitat management of silviculture

purposes;
(g)    the contaminant was discharged for the purposes of combating a forest fire;
(h)    the contaminant is a soil particle or grit discharged in the course of agriculture or horticulture; or
(i)    the contaminant is a pesticide classified and labelled as “domestic” under the Pest Control Products Regulations

(Canada).

(4)    The exceptions set out in subsection (3) do not apply where a person discharges a contaminant that the inspector has

reasonable grounds to believe is not usually associated with a discharge from the excepted activity.

5.1.    Where a discharge of a contaminant into the environment in contravention of this Act or the  regulations or the

provisions of a permit or license issued under this Act or the regulations occurs or a reasonable likelihood of such a

discharge exists, every person causing or contributing to the discharge or increasing the likelihood of such a discharge, and

the owner or the person in charge, management or control of the contaminant before its discharge or likely discharge, shall

immediately:
(a)    subject to any regulations, report the discharge or likely discharge to the person or office designated by the

regulations;
(b)    take all reasonable measures consistent with public safety to stop the discharge, repair any damage
caused by the discharge and prevent or eliminate any danger to life, health, property or the environment that results or may

be reasonably expected to result from the discharge or likely discharge; and
(c)    make a reasonable effort to notify every member of the public who may be adversely affected by the discharge or

likely discharge.

6.    (1)  Where an inspector believes on reasonable grounds that a discharge of a contaminant in contravention of this Act

or the regulations or a provision of a permit or license issued under this Act or the regulations has occurred or is

occurring, the inspector may issue an order requiring any person causing or contributing to the discharge or the owner or the

person in charge, management or control of the contaminant to stop the discharge by the date named in the order.

7.    (1)  Notwithstanding section 6, where a person discharges or permits the discharge of a contaminant into the

environment, an inspector may order that person to repair or remedy any injury or damage to the environment that results from

the discharge.

(2) Where a person fails or neglects to repair or remedy any injury or damage to the environment in accordance with an order

made under subsection (1) or where immediate remedial measures are required to protect the environment, the Chief

Environmental Protection Officer may cause to be carried out the measures that he or she considers necessary to repair or

remedy an injury or damage to the environment that results from any discharge.

APPENDIX 2 – MODIFIED BURN BARREL DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS

A modified burn barrel is typically constructed from a 45 gallon metal fuel or oil drum. The modifications result in greater

heat generation and retention, better mixing of the waste with incoming air and longer holding time inside the barrel.

Together, these modifications result in more complete combustion of the solid waste than does open burning on the ground or

in a pit.

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District is suing Maxxam Analytics International Corp. and Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy ULC for allegedly failing to properly test fly ash samples from the district’s waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby.

The district filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on October 16. Covanta, according to the claim, operates the incinerator plant under contract with the district, and the facility generates fly ash which has to be treated before leaving the plant and tested monthly to ensure compliance with hazardous waste regulations.

Non-hazardous fly ash is taken and disposed of at the Cache Creek landfill, the claim says. Samples analyzed by Maxxam in the summer and fall of 2012, however, came back indicating high levels of cadmium that exceeded acceptable levels allowed for disposal at the landfill.

The results, the district claims, “called into question the effectiveness of the treatment of fly ash” at the facility, forcing the plaintiff to incur costs by requiring more sampling and testing, investigating the cause of the high cadmium levels and finding an alternate disposal site for fly ash in Alberta. After the Ministry of Environment hit the district with an advisory letter of non-compliance, the plaintiff hired “consultants, experts and legal counsel” to help investigate.

An audit of Maxxam’s laboratory found that it didn’t follow proper methods, called the “Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure” and the “United States Environmental Protection Agency Method 1311” to test the fly ash, according to the lawsuit. The Ministry of Environment’s assessment found Maxxam’s results unreliable due to improper testing procedures and found that “Covanta’s quality control and quality assurance protocols at the WTEF [Waste-to-Energy Facility] were not sufficiently developed to identify if leachability was occurring or if a problem with the treated fly ash and/or the treatment system was occurring,” the claim states. In addition, the ministry found that Covanta couldn’t easily “provide assurance that the treated fly ash met the hazardous waste requirements under the Hazardous Waste Regulation.”

The district seeks damages for negligence, misrepresentation, negligent performance of a service and breach of contract. The allegations have not been proven in court and the defendants hadn’t filed responses to the claim by press time.

by: http://prod-admin1.glacier.atex.cniweb.net:8080/preview/www/2.2551/2.2759/2.2742/1.1493460#

Pet Animal After Cremation