HAI PHONG (VNS)— A medical waste incinerator in Hai Phong built by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) and the Japan International Co-operation Agency in Viet Nam (JICA) completed its trial phase on Thursday.
Constructed in January, the US$600,000 incinerator has been operational since March with initial test results collected by the Hai Phong Urban Environment One Member Limited Company (URENCO) indicating that the incinerator satisfied most of the requirements set out in the 2012 Viet Nam Environmental Standards by MONRE.

“The incinerator is going to be of great assistance to the city’s effort to manage and process medical waste,” said Le Ngoc Tru, director of URENCO.

The Hai Phong Department of Health estimated the city’s hospitals created around 7,500 kg of medical waste per day, of which 800kg was solid toxic waste.

The city’s old incinerator built in 2002 is now outdated and not designed to process such a large amount of medical waste.

Tru said the incinerator built with the latest Japanese technology offered more than three times the capacity at 200kg per hour for 50 per cent less fuel consumption compared to the old incinerator.

It is also safer for workers to operate due to its automatic waste handling system that allows workers to process waste from a safe distance.

However, test results from water used for the incinerator did not meet Vietnamese standards and needed to be collected and processed separately in the nearby Trang Cat industrial waste treatment compound.

Air and water from neighbouring areas were also tested and came back with satisfactory results.

Kimura Mitsumasa, director of the Industrial Waste Association from Fukushima, said medical waste had to be labelled and transported using specific vehicles and trained workers.

Phung Chi Sy from VITTEP, a HCM City-based environment institute, said workers should be trained and able to categorise medical waste to maximise the incinerator’s efficiency by creating optimal mixtures of waste for the burning process.

Masuda Chikahio, senior representative of JICA Viet Nam, said the project, funded with Japanese Official Development Assistance, was part of a larger programme to encourage small-to-medium-size Japanese companies to transfer technology to Viet Nam.

At a seminar to evaluate the project’s trial phase on Thursday, representatives from other provinces’ health and environment sectors showed interest in the application of the incinerator. — VNS

by: http://vietnamnews.vn/environment/261890/hai-phong-trials-waste-incinerator.html

Medical Waste Incinerator

Manual load twin chamber incinerator for medical waste to burn 50kg/hr on continuous operation, with Primary temperature in the region of 800degC minimum and 1200degC or more in the Secondary chamber, complete with charging door, Ash door, Air and view ports, auxiliary air system with adjustable dampers, burners and burner control system and ignition unit, the whole to meet NEMA requirements and other international standards.

Youth battle a waste incinerator.

Researchers at the University of York have concluded that PyroPure (UK) technology has the potential to transform the way in which hazardous waste is destroyed in clinical environments and say pharmacists, manufacturers and hospitals throughout the UK should consider trialling the system.

The announcement follows a six month Innovate UK-funded Knowledge Transfer Partnership project in which a team of leading scientists from the University’s Environment Department and Centre of Excellence in Mass Spectroscopy confirmed that the system helped to destroy active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) found within pharmaceutical waste on-site.

A total of 17 of the most thermally resistant APIs were selected for the trial, which revealed that PyroPure technology destroys over 99 per cent of APIs in 10 of the 17 tested and an average of 94 per cent of the ‘worst case’ pharmaceuticals.

Professor Alistair Boxall of the University’s Environment Department and former member of the DEFRA Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee headed the study. On the future of PyroPure as an alternative to high temperature incineration, he comments:

“There are big concerns over the negative impacts of pharmaceuticals on the natural environment. Inappropriate disposal of pharmaceuticals and emissions from manufacturing sites are thought to be important contributors to these impacts. Our work demonstrates that PyroPure could help reduce the levels of pharmaceuticals in rivers and streams and have big benefits for ecosystem health. The system also provides a range of other environmental and economic benefits that could radically change how waste of this nature is collected and destroyed going forwards. With PyroPure technology, hazardous waste and controlled substances no longer need to be transported across the country to incineration facilities, thus reducing the associated costs, carbon emissions and risks associated with moving waste from its point of origin to its point of disposal.”

Currently in the UK, pharmaceutical wastes are only disposed of in large-scale, high-temperature incinerators, which can be up to 200 miles away from where the waste is generated. The Environment Agency has previously indicated that PyroPure, which relies on pyrolysis, a thermochemical decomposition process using high temperatures and an absence of oxygen, followed by catalytic conversion to clean and convert the gases, could be the first viable alternative to high-temperature incineration for pharmaceutical wastes.

On the trial’s success, Peter Selkirk, PyroPure Ltd’s Executive Chairman, adds: “This is a huge step forward for PyroPure technology and the healthcare sector. For too long now, we have been overly dependent on incineration as the only viable route in which to dispose of hazardous waste. Not only is it expensive but it’s also open to security breaches, particularly when the waste needs to be transported long distances. Now that PyroPure is a proven technology I’m confident that this breakthrough will pave the way for a new approach to waste disposal and irrevocably change the model for waste collection within clinical environments across the world.”

The trial, which formed a Knowledge Transfer Partnership between PyroPure Ltd and the University, also revealed how on-site energy recovery during the PyroPure process is at least 75 per cent compared with 20 per cent for a high-temperature incinerator.

Each PyroPure unit is the size of a chest freezer. The user simply opens the unit’s lid and places the waste within the chamber before initiating the process of pyrolysis to destroy it.

by: http://www.pollutionsolutions-online.com/news/hazardous-waste/20/pyropure_ltd/pyrolysis_deemed_a_viable_alternative_to_incinceration_according_to_uk_university/32282/

The Board of County Commissioners struck down plans Thursday for a regional waste-to-energy incinerator, opting to haul the county’s waste to a landfill with a short-term contract instead.

In a 3-2 vote, Commissioners President Blaine Young and commissioners Kirby Delauter and David Gray voted to kill the $471 million incinerator project by canceling the contract and related permits. Commissioners Paul Smith and Billy Shreve cast the dissenting votes to keep the project on the table while the county explores its options.

“It is absolutely no cost to the county to keep these options open,” Smith said. “To do away with these options is crazy.”

Terminating the project will not cost the county any money as the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, a quasi-governmental agency that helps the county meet its trash disposal needs, will pay the $500,000 termination fee. Any remaining funds after this payment will be divided between Frederick County and Carroll County, which was once a partner in the project. These funds are from payments the authority has received from Wheelabrator after the service contract was executed in 2010.

However, Young said he saw no point in voting to keep plans for an incinerator, which would burn trash into energy, open since County Executive-elect Jan Gardner planned to scrap the facility after taking office Dec. 1.

“If the county executive-elect says terminate the project, what are you going to do within the next 30 to 60 days to convince her not to?” Young said.

County Attorney John Mathias said Gardner held the power to determine the fate of the incinerator project, not the County Council, if a decision was not made Thursday.

“I think you should terminate the whole thing,” Gardner testified in front of the board and roughly 100 people gathered at Winchester Hall, garnering some applause.

The board unanimously voted in favor of hauling the county’s trash to an out-of-state landfill for $50.95 per ton with a maximum five-year contract.

After considering five proposals, including three out-of-state landfills and two waste-to-energy facilities outside of Maryland, the commissioners narrowed down their options between two landfills with varying contracts.

Commissioners previously leaned toward the first option, which offered contracts extending 25 years at an average of $54.97 per ton, although that cost could escalate annually with the consumer price index and fuel prices. However, the board unanimously chose the second option, which Gardner also favored.

About 30 people testified in front of the board regarding the incinerator project, with a little more than half in favor of scrapping it and the rest advocating for keeping the project on the table to consider it more deeply.

“The incinerator is a waste of energy, a waste of resources (and) a waste of money,” Brunswick resident Ellis Burruss testified. “It would be good to not waste any more time on it.”

Other residents noted the proposed location of the incinerator, near Monocacy National Battlefield, would ruin the park’s beauty and tourism.

However, resident Greg Brown voiced his support for a regional incinerator, noting it was more environmentally friendly than the other options commissioners were considering.

“Even the best landfills … are at least three times more pollutant than a waste-to-energy facility,” Brown said.

Another resident said Europe has been building waste-to-energy facilities for years without the negative consequences that many have brought up.

Jim Warner, CEO of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority in Pennsylvania, pitched a proposal for hauling the county’s trash, but the commissioners decided to go with an undisclosed out-of-state landfill with a short contract.

“I was actually for this (incinerator project), but with the energy prices and Carroll County dropping out … I’m not,” Delauter said, echoing the sentiments of Young and Gray.

by: http://besttopics.net/link/214519_county-scraps-plans-for-waste-to-energy-incinerator-politics-and-government-frederick-news-post

FARGO, N.D. — California health officials have given notice that North Dakota is one of six states that could receive Ebola medical waste in the event the state has any material to incinerate.

In a notice posted last week, the California Department of Public Health listed North Dakota as one of six states where California sends medical waste to be incinerated when onsite disposal is not available at medical centers.

Healthcare Environmental Services Inc., located at an industrial park at 1420 40th St. N. in Fargo, operates a medical waste incinerator that also accepts waste from other locations.

Calls to Healthcare Environmental Services on Tuesday afternoon were not returned.

The company is owned by Sanford Health. A Sanford spokeswoman said it could not immediately comment on the possible incineration of Ebola waste from California at the Fargo facility.

So far, California has no known Ebola cases, according to the state health department, which spelled out its interim guidelines for safe handling of medical waste in an alert to providers and others.

In another development, public health officials are monitoring two North Dakota residents who recently returned from countries in West Africa that are battling the Ebola epidemic.

Neither of the two residents is running a temperature or showing any symptoms of an Ebola infection, which can include diarrhea, joint and muscle aches and abnormal bleeding.

“They’ve just recently traveled to the area,” said epidemiologist Michelle Feist of the North Dakota Health Department. “They pose no risk to the community.”

Health officials are not releasing information about where the two people reside.

Public health officials in Minnesota and South Dakota also are monitoring residents in those states who have recently visited Guinea, Liberia or Sierra Leone in West Africa, where an outbreak of Ebola has killed about 5,000.

State health officials are contacted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when someone is entering the United States from those countries through five major international airports.

“We are doing monitoring,” said Sam Brungardt, a public information officer for the Minnesota Health Department.

On Monday, Minnesota health officials announced that they were monitoring one resident who had traveled to West Africa, but the list of people to monitor is growing.

“It has grown, and it will continue to grow as we get reports from the CDC,” Brungardt said. “There’s people who are returning from these three West African countries every day.”

So far, none of those being monitored for signs of fever with twice-daily temperature checks show any sign of infection, he said.

As a precaution, however, they will continue to be checked during the 21-day observation period, generally regarded as the incubation period for the Ebola virus.

South Dakota health officials also are monitoring someone who recently returned from West Africa, but is not showing symptoms.

by: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/n-d-could-receive-ebola-waste-from-calif/article_10e0e242-5f2c-11e4-8ff8-8ba8bab48ce3.html

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 U.S. hospitals now preparing for a potential visit by the virus.

For 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.

Because of 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 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. Tom 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.

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.

“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.”

Patients with this debilitating virus produce 440 gallons of medical waste daily, including instruments, gowns, gloves, body fluids, sheets, mattresses and more. That’s a substantial amount of medical waste in any situation, but it’s especially daunting in this case because it needs to be disposed of extremely cautiously, to avoid the risk of spreading infection. What do you do with a problem like Ebola waste? Because you don’t want to toss it in the garbage.

Somewhat surprisingly, says Bausch, the United States actually faces bigger problems when it comes to safely disposing of Ebola waste, which is simply burned in large pits in Africa: “In the United States, of course, we are somewhat beholden to higher tech solutions, which in some ways are a little bit more problematic in terms of treating all that waste, and we need autoclaves or incinerators that can handle that sort of thing. It’s not the actual inactivation that’s particularly difficult; it’s just the process of getting the waste from, of course, the frontline of care and interaction with the patients safely to the place where it can be incinerated or autoclaved.”

The problem in the United States is ironically compounded by the increased access to medical care, and the higher quality of medical services, available. In the United States, patients are treated by medical teams with access to a huge volume of supplies they use for protection, including masks, gowns, booties, and gloves, along with sanitizers and other tools. Moreover, patients receive extensive medical interventions that generate waste like needles, tubing, medical tape, empty IV bags, and more. The very care that has helped most of the handful of Ebola patients in the United States conquer the disease has contributed to the huge amount of waste generated, highlighting a critical hole in U.S. medical infrastructure — while African hospitals may have lacked the supplies and personnel needed to supply aid to Ebola patients, they’re at least prepared to handle the waste.

The CDC just issued guidelines to help clinicians and administrators decide upon how to handle Ebola waste, but The New York Times notes that many facilities don’t have the autoclave, and incinerator, capacity to handle medical waste on this scale. Some states prohibit the burning of medical waste altogether, or have barred incineration of Ebola waste, leading to the transport of waste across state borders to facilities that can handle it, which poses its own risks; with every mile added to transport, there’s a greater risk of spreading disease to previously unexposed communities.

Surprisingly, defenders of burning the waste come from surprising corners. Environmentals like Allen Hershkowitz, National Resources Defense Council senior scientist, point out that: “There’s no pollutant that’s going to come out of a waste incinerator that’s more dangerous than the Ebola virus. When you’re dealing with pathogenic and biological hazards, sometimes the safest thing to do is combustion.”

The argument in defense of incineration can be bolstered by the fact that medical waste companies specialize in high-efficiency incineration with equipment designed to minimize and trap byproducts of combustion, reducing overall pollution considerably. Fears about Ebola, rather than genuine environmental or public health concerns, are driving the decision to push against incineration of ebola waste in many regions, but eventually, the United States is going to have to face facts: The mounting waste that accumulates in facilities where Ebola patients receive treatments needs to be disposed of safely, and promptly.

by: http://www.care2.com/causes/an-unexpected-ebola-infrastructure-problem-waste.html