hot medical waste disposing machine, Operation Condition: 8-16 hr/ day


hot medical waste disposing machine, Operation Condition: 8-16 hr/ day 
Control: Built-in data recording
Operating temperature: Incinerator 
/Primary Combustion Chamber
Primary Chamber: 900 – 1200 0C


Type: horizontal/vertical
Temperature:  1200- 1300 oC
Residence time of gases : >2 seconds
Ash Residue: <5% of original waste size
Ash Handling System: Both Automatic and manual removal of Ash. Must ensure removal/treatment of hazardous remnants of ash
Flue gas treatment   system : Capable of treating the flow of flue  gas as the incinerator is operating at its maximum capacity
Auxiliary device: Water level gauge, pressure sensor, PH sensor..etc 
Auxiliary device: Fuel cut-off device
Waste  feeding mechanism: Automatic pneumatic/hydraulic waste loading system or conveyor belt , capacity 650-800 L at a time                                                                                                                                      
Chimney (Stack):
Type: Vertical type
height:>7 meter’
Material: Fireproof cast, stainless steel
OUTPUT: 
GAS- SMOKELESS,ODORLESS 
ASH -Max <5% of original waste size
Reduction of Pollutant gas SO2, HCL, HF and line particulate
Emission standard:
WHO/ European
Test report for emission testing provided?
Heat exchange mode: Automatic

Type: continuous loading, Best LoadingCapacity/Burn Speed per hour: 250 -300 kg/hr Substance:External- 3 layers Internal lining:  a Flame proof Substance of pre-fired refractory bricks with Aluminium lining, resistant to corrosive Gas or Waste and Also to thermal shockSecondary Combustion Chamber:


Council stands by under fire incinerator

HEREFORDSHIRE Council is standing by the incinerator plan pitched as the future for the county’s waste despite double blows against the project this week – as reported by the Hereford Times.

Support for the incinerator for reiterated at a meeting of the council this morning in responses to two questions from councillors.

MPs have already turned the heat on the incinerator, criticising the near  £90 million paid to the PFI project so far  without the facility being built.

The Commons public accounts committee questioned the basis of  government grant funding for the incinerator and its future in a sector where technology is continually evolving.

A report from the council’s external auditors Grant Thornton found that cabinet members did not get the detail  of why officers – rather than consultants – saw an incinerator as the future with a relevant appraisal recommending cabinet support lacking detail and clarity.  .

Grant Thornton has said it cannot now conclude its 2013-14 audit of the council or issue the council with its audit certificate until it has “completed consideration”  of specific issues raised around the incinerator plan.
The energy from waste incinerator at Hartlebury, Worcestershire, is integral to a joint 25 year waste disposal contract with West Mercia Waste signed by Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council.

An initial capital cost for the project is reported to be more than £160 million, but opponents claim ongoing maintenance will at least double this over the 25 years  while the cost using PFI funding could triple.

In February, Herefordshire Council passed a 2014-15 budget committing the council to paying £40m for the  incinerator at Hartlebury, Worcestershire, over three years.

A budget strategy estimated council borrowing as increasing by £50.8 million over 2014/15, pushing the overall debt up to £218.2 million, including £11 million borrowed over the year for the incinerator.

At full council this morning, Cllr Glenda Powell asked for “assurance to members and taxpayers” as to the plant’s future effectiveness.

Cllr Harry Bramer, cabinet member for contracts and assets, stood by a financial and options appraisal put to Cabinet in December last year supporting EfW) as the most “cost effective and viable solution” for the county’s waste over 25 years

Cllr Liz Harvey referenced her questioning “confidence” in capital borrowing for the incinerator at the council’s budget setting meeting in February.

Then, Cllr Bramer said confidence in capital borrowing as a best value option came from analysis and appraisals  in both the joint waste management strategy and a cabinet report completed in accordance with relevant government guidance.

This morning, Cllr Harvey raised the findings of the public accounts committee , specifically the conclusion that the Department for environment, food and rural affairs made decisions on waste projects focused on the need to meet EU targets without regard to the impact on local authorities.

Cllr Bramer said the council “does not disagree” with the findings quoted but cited the findings as focused on DEFRA’s oversight of PFI contracts.

It was, said Cllr Bramer, a matter for DEFRA to respond to the committee’s findings rather than either of the two councils.

The committee found PFI contracts of  25-30 years are “inappropriate” for the waste sector where technology is continually evolving with the amount of waste in  hard to predict.

Funding agreements for early PFI waste deals were “poorly drafted”  by the then Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)  and “too lax” in requiring payments for key assets that had not been built.

As such, the committee found that the funding agreement signed with Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils highlighted the “shortcomings” of early PFI projects, with payments to the council aligned with payment made by the councils to the contractor.

Grant payments started as soon as the councils started to pay the contractor, with the government, through either the DETR or its successor the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),  legally committed to making grant payments ever since.

In December 1998, the DETR signed a funding agreement with Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council for £143 million and the payment of related grants started shortly after.

The terms of the original funding agreements did not allow central government to stop payment or alter the payment terms in the event that key capital assets were not delivered.

Since its creation in 2001, DEFRA  has had responsibility for overseeing these grants and did not review the agreements until 2011.

Terms with Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils were not successfully renegotiated until 2013, resulting in a £30 million cut in total funding.

The process of renegotiation was time-consuming. In the case, of the Herefordshire and Worcestershire DEFRA confirmed to the committee that it took them six months to approve the new funding approach the councils were proposing.

With contractor apparently unwilling to fund the incinerator, the councils were left considering using the rate income generated from the populations of both counties to cover the cost of the contract.

At the end of the 2013-14 financial year, both councils had received nearly £90 million for an incinerator plant that had still to be built

 

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11498537.Council_stands_by_under_fire_incinerator/

Incinerator Model YD-30 for Australia Melbourne”


Incinerator Model YD-30 for Australia Melbourne Client.

Medical Waste Incinerator YD Model is the classic product for market. All series included burning capability 10kgs per hour, 30kgs per hour,50kgs per hour,100kgs per hour,150kgs per hour,300kgs per hour,500kgs per hour. Up to now, all models sale to all around the world and also have good comments from end-customer. The YD Model medical incinerator possess multi-combustion room and basic dry scrubber (smoke filter chamber) with reasonable endeavor budget. For the cleaner require, we take custom made wet scrubber for incinerator and this is going to be also our next functioning by focusing on emission technical.

Model YD-30
Burning Rate 30 kgs/hour
Feed Capacity 60 kgs
Paimary Combustion Chamber 360 Liters
Secondary Combustion Chamber 200 Liters
Mix Combustion Chamber Yes
Smoke Filter Chamber Yes
Feed Mode Manual
Voltage 220V
Power 0.59Kw
Fuel Type Diesel Oil/ Natural Gas/LPG
Burner Italy Original
Oil Consumption (Diesel Oil) 10.2–19.8 kg/hour
Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) 9.8–20 m3/hour
Internal Dimensions 100 x 60 x 60cm (paimary chamber)
External Dimensions 145 x 90 x 260cm (without chimney)
Temperature Monitor Yes
Oil Tank Capacity(if oil fuel) 200 Liters
Door Opening 48 x 60cm
Chimney Length 5.0 Meters
Chimney Type Stainless Steel
Equipment Gross Weight 2300 kgs
Operation Technical Specifications
Paimary Chamber Temperature 800℃–1000℃
Secondary Chamber Temperature 1000℃-1200℃
Residency Time 2.0 Sec.
Burning Efficiency >98%
Waste Lower Calorific Power 3000Kcal

 


waste incinerator manufacturer china


waste incinerator manufacturer china, Waste chamber
Chamber capacity 300 kg
Chamber volume .54m3
Chamber size (outside) Width: 91cm, Height: 86cm Length: 152cm
Door opening 66 x 76 cm
Height to door 84 cm
Height to top of stack 5.4 m
Suggested slab size (L x W x Thickness) 1.8 m x 2.4 m x 10 cm
Burn rate: Approximately 45 kg/hr.
Stack:
2′-14″” dia. (36 cm), 14 gauge (1.90 mm) aluminized steel, refractory lined
8′-12″” dia. (30.5 cm), 16 gauge (1.52″
“Burners Diesel
Operation Manual timer
Electrical service Standard – 115 volt, 60 HZ, 20 amp
General Description:
Primary Chamber: Heavy-duty steel casing
High quality refractory lining and insulation
Large full size top load door and liquid retention sill
1 x diesel oil fired ignition burners operated on/off
Ash removal door
Chimney: Heavy-duty stainless steel casing
1.5m length
0.6m refractory lined stack
Control Panel: Control of 1 burner
Timer control 0-12 hours
Integral fan timer control
Temperature monitoring
Automatic Control
Cycle time set up
Ancillaries: Operating and maintenance manuals
Spares list
Ash Rake
Containerization: 20 foot shipping container with incinerator fitted
500 litre fuel tank


Smokeless Incinerator


Product Description

Principle of the Incinerator Gear is incineration/combustion/burn.

The main body is 1 combustion chamber (at least), Refractory lineup or firebrick, Insulation materials and the outer plate. Ignition element is external oil or gas burner. The burner can be sloutherhouse waste incineration lt, little 20kg incinerator, little a animal crematory equipment prices, little animal crematorium makers, running until waste burnout but for some waste such as plastic, newspaper (sometime, mix irrigation with waste before feeding), they can combustion itself following Ignition. During combustion, burner includes a fan itself for Oxygen supply and additionally protect burner avoid heat damage from combustion room. And, there a external fan blow air into combustion chamber. The Exhaust gas blow off following combustion. 

Contemplating Environmental Protection requirements and rules, virtually all incinerator have secondary combustion chamber (after-burn, post-combustion), even when third combustion room. The secondary burner burn the Exhaust gas from main combustion chamber, this technologies make sure sufficient combustion, few black smoke and odor. 

The upgraded incinerator technology concentrate on Exhaust gas treatment to remove Hazardous substance and other function from incinerator, such as heat recovery (waste to energy), save fuel cost, PLC Automation operation. 

Allentown, PA Kills Controversial Waste Incinerator Proposal

More than two years after the deal’s controversial approval, Allentown has terminated its contract with Delta Thermo Energy, ending speculation about whether the company would ever build a proposed waste-to-energy facility in the city.

In a letter dated Sept. 26, Allentown solicitor Jerry Snyder wrote that Bucks County-based Delta Thermo Energy had “consistently failed to advance” plans for a 48,000-square-foot facility on Kline’s Island that would have burned pulverized municipal waste and sewage sludge to generate electricity.

While Delta Thermo received approval for two permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection in May 2014, the company repeatedly failed to meet extended deadlines to acquire financing for the $49 million project, the letter states. It became clear that Delta Thermo could not meet a deadline of Jan. 1, 2016, to complete construction of the plant, according to the letter.

“Under the circumstances, the city has no reasonable alternative than to declare the agreement terminated,” Snyder wrote.

Asked Tuesday if he had a response to the letter, Robert Van Naarden, president of Delta Thermo, said he would have a formal statement in the next several days. He then said he did not know what a reporter was asking about.

“I don’t need to speak to you,” Van Naarden said.

Mayor Ed Pawlowski said he was disappointed that the contract had to be terminated, but it was a financing issue, not a problem with the company’s technology that killed the deal.

“At this point in time, we need to move on,” he said.

From the time it was first discussed in 2010, the proposed plant was a highly contentious issue for members of Allentown City Council and the public. The project was panned by local environmentalists, and the components used in the proposed waste-to-energy process have never been used in combination in the United States.

Developers initially failed to convince council members of the merits of the project. The plan failed after a 3-3 vote in February 2012. One month later, developers managed to sway Councilwoman Cynthia Mota, who cast the deciding vote in favor of the proposal during a raucous March 2012 council meeting attended by more than 400 people.

Since then, Delta Thermo has had difficulty finding private financing for the experimental plan, fueling rumors that it would never be built. The city’s agreement with the company paid for up to $500,000 in consulting fees to explore the project — to be reimbursed if the plant was built — but put the burden of acquiring financing on the company.

In December 2012, Van Naarden told The Morning Call that there was “zero concern” about not finding a financial backer. The city’s letter states otherwise.

Delta Thermo “consistently failed to satisfy the financing requirement” in the agreement, Snyder states in the letter. An initial financing deadline of Jan. 31, 2013, was not met, and multiple extensions were granted, including the most recent extension that expired April 1 of this year.

Shortly before that date, Delta Thermo requested an additional extension for financing, the letter states, but city officials asked for additional assurances that the project could be completed by Jan. 1, 2016. Letters were exchanged throughout the summer between the city and Delta Thermo. In August, city officials denied a request from Delta Thermo for access to the Kline’s Island site to begin preliminary work.

In September, Delta Thermo officials told the city that they were no longer working with their previous financial backer, and planned to have the financing underwritten by Stern Bros. A letter from Stern Bros. to the city stated its “confidence” in financing the project if the deadline were extended to June 1, 2016, according to Snyder’s letter.

Allentown’s garbage contract will be rebid in 2015, Pawlowski said. There was no way the plant was going to be operational in time for that process.

“We provided every opportunity for them to make the deal; there were a number of extensions,” Pawlowski said. “We got to a point where we couldn’t move any further. I have to have some sort of a commitment in place before I bid out this contract in 2015.”

Pawlowski said he is committed to the idea of finding an alternative place for Allentown’s trash. It may still be possible to find another company that could build a waste-to-energy facility in the city, he said.

“I see this as one of the most critical issues for us, and we’re going to work for it,” Pawlowski said. “We’ve set the groundwork and a platform for us to continue to look for technologies for solve our garbage problem.”

The termination of the contract means Allentown will have to eat the nearly $500,000 it spent on consultants to vet the financial and technological aspects of the waste-to-energy plan. Two consultants provided conflicting reports to city officials about the technology needed, one saying he was confident the plan would work, the other stating there were “a number of technological, performance, operating and environmental risks.”

Pawlowski said he didn’t view the money as wasted. The city now has a “template” that can work for a potential contract moving forward, he said.

“I would have been criticized highly if I didn’t bring in the best professionals,” Pawlowski said.

Council Vice President Ray O’Connell, who cast one of the two no votes on the proposal in 2012, said it became clear in recent months that the company was never going to be able to build the facility on time. The city should try to recoup consulting fees, he said.

“My bottom line, No. 1, is that I’m extremely happy that it’s not going to be built,” he said. “No. 2, let’s go after the $500,000 that was spent.”

In addition to public outcry, Delta Thermo’s controversial proposal prompted a failed ballot question in 2013. The question, which would have asked voters if they wanted real-time monitoring of new air-polluting facilities and live disclosure of emissions data, was thrown out by the Lehigh County Board of Elections for lacking DEP approval. The decision was upheld by Lehigh County Court, and an appeal was later dismissed by Commonwealth Court.

Dan Poresky, one of the activists who opposed the plan and helped organize the ballot question, said a group of activists was working on raising $25,000 to pay two attorneys to take further legal action challenging a previous court ruling and the DEP for issuing permits to Delta Thermo. Despite rumors that financing was not in place, organizers did not want to take a chance that the plant would be built, he said.

“The city has been saved both environmentally and financially from a major mistake,” Poresky said when asked about the termination. “This is not the way to handle trash and sewage sludge.”

Councilwoman Jeanette Eichenwald, who voted against the proposal, said Delta Thermo’s proposed technology was unproven and environmentally unsafe. It was not surprising that investors could not be found, she said.

City officials should treat the experience as a lesson, Eichenwald said, and take a closer look at how the city spends money on consultants.

“I’m gratified that this phase of Allentown city life has come to an end,” she said. “I feel vindicated.”

Small Scale Incinerator (TS100 PLC)


Basic Info.

Model NO.:TS100 PLC
Pullution Sources:Solid Waste Processing
Processing Methods:Combustion
Export Markets:Global

Additional Info.

Trademark:CLOVER
Packing:Full Container
Standard:100kg per hour
Origin:China Nanjing
Production Capacity:1000 Sets Per Year

Product Description

Currently we supply different series for local customer requirements and design upgraded incinerator with our leading technology. The upgraded design characteristic of our range of incinerators make them among the most cost effective in the world. 

Key Features:  * All versions using Dual combustion chamber.  * Stainless Steel chimney/stack, long lifetime.  * High fever, long lifetime of incinerator.  * Free or minimal installation onsite.  * High speed, from 10kgs to 600kgs a hourto 10ton daily.  * PLC Control Plane for Intelligent operation.  * One year warranty on incinerator and parts in stock.

Feed Capacity 200 kg
Control Mode PLC
Combustion Chamber 1200L
Internal Dimensions 120x100x100cm
Secondary Chamber 600L
Smoke Filter Chamber Yes
Feed Mode Manual
Voltage 220V
Power 0.7Kw
Oil Consumption (kg/hour) 14–28
Gas Consumption (m3/hour) 10–32.2
Temperature Monitor Yes
Temperature Protection Yes
Oil Tank 200L
Feed Door 80x60cm
Chimney 10Meter
Chimney Type Stainless Steel
1st. Chamber Temperature 800–1000 degree
2nd. Chamber Temperature 1000-1200 degree
Residency Time 2.0 Sec.
Gross Weight 6000kg
External Dimensions 260x150x180cm

Kenya: How Toxic and Infectious Medical Waste Can Be Harming Citizens


A visit to the hospital does not typically show what happens in the trunk. It’s here where discarded blood and body tissues and components from surgeries, pharmaceuticals, medicine bottles — tonnes of hospital waste — undergo. In the instance of the Kenyatta National Hospital, this might be as far as one tonne a day estimated to be half the medical waste created in town. Quite understandably, it isn’t typically open to the general public.

Many of these normally end up in incinerators — the most economical medical waste disposal method for most hospitals. But lots of it slips through the machine to get us stressed.

Incinerating waste at temperatures between 800-1,100 degrees Celsius kills germs, bacteria and other pathogens however, the ash still contains dangerous heavy metals like mercury and cadmium. Finest practice dictates that these ash be buried.

However, as this author discovered, this is much better said than done. Deficiency of adequate equipment to safely dispose of waste and failure to observe best practices was a frequent feature in many hospitals visited in this survey.

From discharging dangerous fumes and ash openly to the surroundings to dumping medical waste together with general waste, the regional medical waste management landscape still has a long way to go.

Raw medical waste and toxic ash from incinerators ends up in open dumps like Dandora and Eastleigh posing a health risk to thousands of individuals salvaging metal and plastic for recycling and residents living nearby. Major hospitals like Kenyatta National Hospital which have great incinerators have run out of reasons to bury toxic ash. Few hospitals have a scrubber system where fumes are filtered to remove potentially toxic gases such as dioxins from burning plastic — a frequent material discarded by hospitals.

A current report on the worldwide status of waste management ranks Nairobi among the worst in waste management. Residents living near Dandora reported a large number of respiratory diseases and have been found to have unacceptably substantial levels of heavy metals like lead in their blood. Dandora dumpsite reeks of heavy metals that can hinder brain development as our individual tests affirmed.

“Most health facilities take ash in their waste to municipal dumpsites straight or by collectors,” states Mary Kinoti, a lecturer on environmental and occupational health in the University of Nairobi.

Walking throughout the dumpsite opened during the 1970s reveals unlikely materials that end up here. Enrolling in the heap of an unsightly mix of plastic bags and natural waste, one often finds bloodied gloves, dressing bandages, needles, discarded drugs and a host of other metals tucked off.

out of their small amounts, it’s not hard to conclude this come in smaller hospitals, clinics and dispensaries not willing to spend on the appropriate disposal of waste. Level five hospitals, previously called provincial hospitals like Nakuru, are largely well equipped with incinerators that can combust pathological waste to ash and water, states Kinoti.

A peek at the Dandora dumpsite reveals an unsightly mix of food, plastic remains, animal products and all manner of waste the town discards. Every few minutes a truck makes its way through the mountains of garbage town has accumulated over decades. The steady stream of trucks falls silent at dusk.

However, as dark falls, another group, mostly only trucks hurriedly input the dumpsite, immediately offload their contents and make their exit, all in just a few minutes — well conscious of their own wrongdoing. A closer look in the dumped material reveals needles that are used, bloodied bandages, pharmaceuticals and a host of other waste in hospitals. We even found syphilis and HIV test kits.

Early in the morning, a County Authorities of Nairobi ground inspector turns across the waste mixing it with crap prepared to receive the next batch to the day.

Tens of all individuals descend on the website, sorting out the garbage using their bare hands. While some solely concentrate on milk packets that they wash at a sewage tunnel, others are thinking about salvaging metals from the burnings heaps, fuelled from the excessive gas beneath.

Others are after the food stays which they accumulate to feed creatures — all decided to make a living. A prick from an infected needle and they might end up with serious infections including HIV.

They all seem too conscious of the threat, however they have to feed their kids, a man, shielded only by a pair of gumboots, states.

Nevertheless the threat of medical waste in the nation doesn’t begin or finish here. Medical facilities try to securely dispose of the waste to various heights of success. A massive number incinerate their waste, but lack the requirement air pollution control equipment to safeguard against materials such as sulphur, known collectively as flue materials, getting into the surroundings.

In these situations, residents living near such facilities are prone to respiratory ailments. A research carried out by a Yale University student recently found that high levels of toxic fumes from incinerators rending the atmosphere were responsible for respiratory ailments among residents living near these facilities.

A current report detailed that the high levels of heavy metals such as lead to vegetables grown and marketed in Nairobi. Lead is a hazardous metal that can cause retardation in children. Some farmers in Kinangop were recently in the spotlight for using sewage to cultivate their plants largely sold in town.

Incinerators below normal

Dumping of toxic ash isn’t the sole problem confronting the medical waste control landscape. The state of gear is wanting, some dating several decades back and ill equipped to minimize contamination.

Most public hospital under degree five have p Montfort incinerators where temperatures aren’t controlled and are likely to pollute because they lack scrubber systems. “Unfortunately this kind of incinerators are common in district hospitals and health centers,” Kinoti says. Employees are also not well shielded in mid-level hospitals. Because of the design of the incinerators, medical waste is filled manually and employees who largely don’t have protective gear are vulnerable, ” she states.

A medium size incinerator prices an average of Sh20 million before installation, clearly a top shot for bicycles. Add the high maintenance costs and the fact that these facilities guzzles several thousands of litres of fuel to run daily and you end up getting a rather large bill.

“However, the high cost of incinerators isn’t any explanation for polluting the environment,” states Kinoti. “Hospital waste contains mercury and can produce furans that are very toxic and can cause cancer and severe respiratory diseases,” she states.

Medical facilities that don’t have incinerators have to have contracts with specialised waste disposal businesses to take care of their waste. For many, this is merely an unnecessary obstacle they have to undergo before obtaining a license to run a hospital. Some don’t follow through with all these demands posing a huge health risk to the public and the environment.

Hospitals categorize their waste otherwise due to their safe handling during transport, storage, treatment and disposal,” says Bernard Runyenje, assistant chief public health officer, Kenyatta National Hospital.

highly contagious waste are those expected to be containing highly contagious pathogenic organisms such as bacteria and viruses while overall waste may include office paper. Normally in crimson packs, infectious waste require special care during the process of waste disposal and therefore are assumed to be treated at source. It isn’t however unusual to find a worker carrying a yellow or reddish disposal tote without gloves or some other protective gear.

Tissues that decompose quickly such as amputated limbs have been disposed of quickly or placed under refrigeration.

According to Dr Runyenje, incineration should be a controlled process and ought to happen in an enclosure. But he also admits that incinerators in rural areas don’t meet these specifications.

A great incinerator should have more than 1 chamber where waste is burned in the first chamber, so that there’s increased temperatures at the next chamber and gases can be burned in the third chamber, he states. In the conclusion of the process, the majority of the waste was burned to an acceptable degree. Clinics and dispensaries often working in highly populated areas often flout the regulations, openly burning their waste using paraffin and charcoal to prevent the cost of safe disposal. Half burned waste isn’t difficult to see in dumps on roadsides and quite visible in municipal dumpsites.

Incineration nevertheless doesn’t get rid of toxic fumes and heavy metals — if anything it can distribute toxic fumes to some broad areas if not done correctly. The scrubber system is designed to reduce such contamination but the machine is expensive and many hospitals visited don’t have it. Such gases may include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, dioxins and furans which can result in serious diseases such as cancer.

The minimal height of a chimney should be at least 10 feet above the tallest building around to minimise direct exposure to residents. Whatever comes out of the chimney ought to be dispersed away from neighboring buildings.

“Occasionally it’s difficult to understand what you’re devoting to the surroundings. A high chimney only disperses fumes farther to residents who may not even be conscious of them, she observes.

To many, such as waste supervisors interviewed, ash from incinerators, or any ash for that matter isn’t harmful — a lost belief that could be contributing to its ditching. The fact remains they contain harmful metals like mercury, lead and cadmium as our individual tests affirmed.

Incineration reduces the waste to about 10 per cent of the original quantity. However, the residual ash usually contains very large content of heavy metals. How hospitals and waste disposal businesses handle this will determine the health of our surroundings. Such should normally be buried in sanitary landfills to prevent it from leaching to the ground, but this practice appears rare in the nation.

Whether through sheer negligence, or lack of facilities and space or reluctance to meet the related costs, medical waste nonetheless ends up in our surroundings. When disposed in open ground, heavy metals readily leach to the groundwater or create an immediate way to our food chain.

Bottom ash under normal circumstances should be buried, but many health facilities don’t have disposal grounds. These burial grounds aren’t present either at Dandora where officials claimed the ash was taken to be buried.

Some businesses are licensed to handle hazardous waste. However, Dr Runyenje nonetheless notes that not many handle overall medical waste.

quite a few incinerators in public hospitals were in a state of disrepair leaving tonnes of toxic waste piling up and posing a threat to the general public.

Kenyatta National Hospital has a ground where tonnes of waste have been retained awaiting disposal. Two of its three incinerators are anticipating repair causing a backlog estimated at 170 tonnes.

Its newly acquired incinerator from India is the most advanced among the hospitals visited consisting of two chambers for maximum combustion. The broad system of smoke pipes leads to a chamber where the smoke is passed through a fluid to remove fumes and other residue.

The resulting black slime contains a number of the dangerous metals. However, the design and structure of the holding area doesn’t meet specifications and some of it circulates to the ground, a source tells us.

The incinerator cannot be operated during the day because the nursing school is only metres away.

The location of incinerators in relation to hospitals, offices and other residential is a frequent problem in several facilities. The one in the Chiromo School of Physical and Biological Sciences such as is not in operation since it stays close to an embassy.

One incinerator at Nakuru County is perilously close to the maternity ward, a few smoke go straight to patients.

The situation plays out in many other hospitals across the nation who also lack additional air pollution control equipment.

Ash dropped in open ground are still an open feature in a number of top facilities that could potentially poison ground water through leaching.

Ideally, ash from these waste ought to be buried in landfills, a practice that was abandoned in the nation.

With people living close to these facilities, they are necessarily vulnerable, and risk serious respiratory ailments and severe diseases including cancer. The Kenyatta National Hospital incinerators operate at night to minimise exposure to the students in the School of Nursing barely a dozen yards off.

A source told this author that the soils were so polluted that they might need to be skimmed away and buried. Meanwhile, residents might need to contend with hazardous, possibly carcinogenic, ash emanating from these facilities. “The cost of the incinerator is too high for them to manage,” states Thomas Imboywa, who’s in control of one of these at the Nairobi Women’s Hospital, among the largest in the region. On a daily basis, he manages the safe disposal of the days squander.

The incinerator, a huge blue structure sits on about 100 square metres of space slightly off the primary building and sports a top chimney, towering above the nearby building.

“Medical waste is ideally incinerated within 24 hours,” states Imboywa. He is acquainted with many such cases and the hospital is quick to repudiate such contracts according to their policy. Some medical facilities may only secure a contract with them to wade through National Environmental Authority (Nema) regulations but don’t have any intention to securely dispose of the waste, Imboywa observes.

Those who don’t have incinerators are required by Nema to have a contract with hospitals like Nairobi Women’s Hospital to dispose their waste. However, not all medical waste ends up in these specialised facilities. Instead, in areas like Kibera they’re doused with paraffin and burned in the open.

“But in this case, sharps will stay and the waste can nevertheless stay infectious because they cannot reach the necessary temperature,” Imboywa explained. In fact the material can stay infectious because they may not reach the necessary temperatures. The devolution of funds has seen more clinics and dispensaries set in previously unreached areas. However, the resources are so confined to put waste disposal facilities such as incinerators.

Besides being costly, Dr Runyenje considers that even if those facilities were to put their own incinerators, there could be more pollution and authorities will have more difficulty supervising them.

“There is need to pool incineration facilities for hazardous and medical waste,” he states. These centers can serve as emission monitoring points for governments. “It will be much easier to set controls from such a fundamental facility. “In the Technical Working Group, we’re looking at just how counties can pool their facilities together and also have their health care waste incinerated in a central purpose. It’ll be rather costly in the long term to have every facility to possess its own incinerator that cannot run at full capacity,” he states.

The ideal waste disposal method is controlled tipping being practiced in the majority of Europe and North America where it’s buried in layers, Dr Runyenje states. “The advantage with this method is that the property can nevertheless be used for other pursuits. It’s the only pledge of disposal of any form of waste,” he states.

Kariobangi, that currently hosts light industries, used to be a controlled tilting site before start dumping at Dandora. “Counties ought to be thinking of controlled tipping rather than investing heavily in incinerators,” he states.

General waste can have many recyclable materials however proper segregation that can make this possible remains lacking in the nation.

The effectiveness of recycling is determined by the effectiveness of segregation.

The issue, based on Kinoti, is enforcement of the law. While bigger hospitals are trying to correctly dispose of the waste, a few smaller clinics may be spoiling it, ” she states. The simple fact that generators cannot track their waste once it’s given to waste collectors is yet an additional issue based on her.

“There are many quacks doing waste management blending household waste with hazardous waste. This can pose a significant health issue,” states Kinoti. Since they drain waste bins from homes, waste collectors can result in considerable contamination in families. “Waste collectors that are collecting toxic waste ought to be dedicated waste handlers and shouldn’t handle other general waste,” Kinoti says.

Effluent in the scrubber system ought to be taken for treatment to get rid of heavy metals and other pollutants.

“The law on sound medical waste disposal ought to be enforced, district and health care centers should install bigger incinerators to handle waste from smaller fee. We have to have dedicated healthcare waste supervisors,” Kinoti says.

 

by: http://allafrica.com/stories/201411111021.html

“There are many quacks doing waste management mixing household waste with hazardous waste. This can pose a serious health problem,” says Kinoti. Since they empty waste bins from homes, waste collectors can cause serious contamination in households. “Waste collectors who are collecting hazardous waste should be dedicated waste handlers and should not handle other general waste,” Kinoti says.

Effluent from the scrubber system should be taken for treatment to remove heavy metals and other pollutants. But the sewerage system is broken and a lot is discharged on the way. Sewage pipes are sometimes deliberately punctured and effluent used as fertiliser for crops.

“The law on sound medical waste disposal should be enforced, district and healthcare centres should install larger incinerators to handle waste from smaller fee. We should have dedicated healthcare waste managers,” Kinoti says.

 

by: http://allafrica.com/stories/201411111021.html