The medical waste incineration industry was given birth to in the late 1980s by the confluence of two high profile media circuses: one – the HIV hysteria – and two – multiple media accounts of bags of syringes, needles, plasma bags, IV tubing, bottles of pills and even body parts washing up on the shores of some of the most popular resort beaches on the East Coast stretching from Maine to Florida. In 1987, in Indianapolis, Indiana, 12 children were found playing with HIV-infected vials of blood that came from an unsecured dumpster used by a medical clinic.

In a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease, the knee-jerk response was a widespread call to burn hospital waste so that the various avenues of incompetence, corruption and profiteering that led to dirty needles washing up on exclusive beaches could be closed down through a back door. Little thought was applied to the consequences of incineration, until plumes of black clouds began billowing from hospital complexes. Neighbors complained, air pollution research showed that those emissions were indeed dangerous and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became involved.

Eventually the number of incinerators contracted dramatically, but in part because “centralized” incinerators became an easy solution. Hospitals washed their hands of the matter by allowing their waste to be burned in someone else’s backyard.

As a result, Stericycle, headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois, became the king of the medical waste incineration industry, operating six large incinerators throughout the country, including one of the largest medical incinerators west of the Mississippi in the heart of the most heavily populated part of Utah, the North Salt Lake subdivision of Foxboro, a few miles from my house. Stericycle now receives the medical waste of eight surrounding states there.

The relationship between Stericycle and Foxboro has always been tense. Efforts to shutter Stericycle were launched as long as 10 years ago by a handful of citizens concerned about the toxic brew that billows out of Stericycle’s short smokestack. It’s no surprise that burning medical waste, just like burning fossil fuels or just about anything else, creates a pollution potpourri of hazardous chemicals and gases, heavy metals and particulate matter.

Indeed, citizens’ concerns are validated by hundreds of studies showing multiple adverse health outcomes among people exposed, including higher rates of cancers like childhood leukemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes that I have written about in a previous essay.

The repercussions of the toxic incinerator emissions are made even more disturbing when adding the realization that the medical waste incineration industry was born on a false premise – that hospital pathogens must be incinerated. An EPA report dating back 25 years cites numerous studies showing hospital waste presents no more risk of spreading infection than household waste – which harbors virtually all the same viruses and bacteria. In fact, according to the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America, “Household waste contains more microorganisms with pathogenic potential for humans on average than medical waste.” So why single out medical waste? Scalpels and needles can be shredded without incineration.

Many of the toxic chemicals and heavy metals in hospital waste are not destroyed by incineration. In fact, burning medical waste is the worst possible way to manage it.

While merely landfilling is a less than perfect solution, the possibility of contamination of usable groundwater is theoretical, not a certainty. Whereas with incineration, the emissions enter the air shed we all breathe from, guaranteeing public exposure, especially for those closest to the incinerator. The ash left over from incineration may be a smaller volume than the original waste, but it is much more toxic, and eventually has to be landfilled anyway.

Incineration does not prevent disease; it actually spreads disease. Incineration not only does not remove toxins; it actually creates new ones and concentrates, mobilizes and redistributes existing ones. Emissions from incinerators are probably the most toxic type of air pollution there is, contaminated with the deadliest compounds known to science, designated by the EPA as “HAPs” (hazardous air pollutants), which includes dioxins, benzene, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), furans, heavy metals and radioactive elements. Medical incinerators have even more deadly compounds not found in any other source, like residuals from chemotherapy drugs and even prions, the highly infective proteins that cause the 100 percent fatal human “Mad Cow” disease (which are much more common in human tissue than previously realized, and not reliably deactivated by incineration).

State health departments and environmental agencies are fond of claiming that toxicology assessments of the concentrations of many of these toxins are small enough to be written off as “safe.” The Utah State Health Department measured dioxin levels in the soil around Stericycle and declared the levels to be below any threshold of concern. If the devil is often in the details, in this case, the devil lies in the ignorance of the details.

Those toxicology assessments ignore the biologic complexity of the exposure. Many of these toxins are bioaccumulative, meaning they build up in the human body insidiously over time, and in even higher concentrations in certain critical organs and tissues.

Lipophilic (fat-like) toxins like dioxins highly concentrate in human breast milk. Nursing infants consume 10 to 20 times as much dioxin as the average adult. No toxicology assessments are ever based on the amount of dioxins in the human breast milk of people who live near incinerators, yet that undoubtedly is where dioxins wreak their greatest havoc on public health. Nor do those assessments consider the consequences of lipophilic toxins crossing the placenta that will primarily end up in the developing fetal brain because fat comprises about 60 percent of brain structural matter, and is the primary fat reservoir in the fetus.
Recently a new documentary was released that significantly raises the stakes in the long and sorry saga of this dying industry whose flagship corporate villain is Stericycle. The film features an undercover interview with an anonymous former Stericycle employee giving a credible, extraordinarily detailed account of fraudulent, illegal management practices far beyond what prompted the criminal investigation by state and federal law enforcement. The whistle-blower alleges shocking disregard for public and employee safety by Stericycle management – including directing employees to ignore the Geiger counter giving radioactive readings of the waste and to burn it anyway. Furthermore, he stated, the Geiger counter didn’t work much of the time.

While radioactivity is an inherent part of hospital waste, one of the few appropriate provisions in Stericycle’s permit is a prohibition of burning anything radioactive, and with good reason. No amount of radiation exposure is safe. Quoting from an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Mutagenic effects theoretically can result from a single molecular DNA alteration . . . every molecule of a carcinogen is presumed to pose a risk.”
In fact, the medical community is now much more cautious about the radioactive burden of many of our common diagnostic tools, like CAT scans, because of this growing recognition. Even low dose radiation exposure can damage chromosomes, alter gene expression and lead to cancer, brain diseases, immune disorders, birth defects and miscarriages – all of which North Salt Lake residents believe they have experienced in excess in their neighborhoods.

The ex-employee described management deliberately rigging the company scales and ignoring their permitted weight limit, a likely reason the state caught them exceeding their dioxin limit by 400 percent. Add to this the revelation that Erin Brockovich’s investigative team found dioxin concentrations in Foxboro homes to be inversely proportional to the distance from the incinerator. The home closest to Stericycle had 17 times the level of dioxins in its attic that would be considered average for an industrial area.
Incineration is widely recognized by international health organizations as an unnecessary, dangerous means of handling waste. Over 98 percent of medical incinerators have closed in the last 15 years – leaving a handful of communities like Foxboro to take most of the “hits for the team.” Utah’s governor, Gary Herbert, could close Stericycle on the basis of necessary public health protection, but he is loath to do so because he functions under the fog of the conservative mindset, that protection of business inherently has priority.

The whole medical incineration industry was a huge mistake right from the start, but Stericycle seems to have achieved immortality simply because someone is making money from it. The gnawing outrage of Stericycle is just a microcosm of the endemic failure of countless public policies held hostage to capitalism. Science, common sense, proportion, justice and human decency get thrown under the bus initially by fear and ignorance, and held there in perpetuity by ideology, exploitation and greed. We watch the same play over and over again with a different cast, be it gun control, the wealth gap, ISIS, our war addiction, GMO labeling, chemical and pesticide dysregulation, factory farming – and of course, the climate crisis. It makes me wonder whether we are not already living on the planet of the apes.

medical waste diesel incinerator Burning Rate:47.5–50kg/hour
Minimum Operating Temperature:850o C(primary combustion)
Maximum Operating Temperature:1450 oC(Afterburner chamber)
Secondary Burning Capacity:Compulsory
Density Insulation:20mm High
Refractory Casting:Minimum 65mm
Heavy duty refracting lining to withstand:1500 oC
Average burn out time :maximum:3 hrs
Fuel type:Diesel
Fuel Consumption in L/hr:7.5 to 9
Residence time in secondary chamber:2sec
Residue ash post 100kg:Max 3.8kg
Device for preventing infectious spatter and/or cross-contamination by safely sterilizing needles, rings, etc. by infrared heat.
Electrical characteristics
1) A 120V, 60Hz mono-phase electrical source with line connection plug NEMA 5-15 type.
2) Protections against over-voltage and over-current line conditions.
3) Compliance with applicable Haitian standards and regulations.

Operational characteristics
4) Fast complete sterilization in around 5-7 s.
5) Fully isolated quartz/ceramic tube, to grant safety for the user (no open flame).
6) Working temperature around 820°C.
7) Mounted on a stable base, as per example below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
2. STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
3. COLLABORATORS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
4. STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
5. LABORATORY TRIALS 5
6. FIELD TRIALS 13

 

 

 

1.     OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME

 

The objective of the programme is to select technical criteria suitable for tender specification purposes that will enable the South African Department of Health to obtain the services and equipment necessary for the primary health care clinics to carry out small-scale incineration for the disposal of medical waste.

 

2.     STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME

 

The test programme is being carried out in phases, as follows:

Phase 1         A scoping study to decide the responsibility of the different parties and

consensus on the test criteria and boundaries of the laboratory tests. The criteria for accepting an incinerator on trial was approved by all parties involved.

Phase 2         Laboratory tests with a ranking of each incinerator and the selection of the incinerators to be used in the field trials.

Phase 3         Completion of field trials, to assess the effectiveness of each incinerator under field conditions.

Phase 4         Preparation of a tender specification and recommendations to the DoH for the implementation of an ongoing incineration programme.

 

This document provides feedback on phases 2 and 3 of the work.

 

 

 

3.     COLLABORATORS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME

 

SA Collaborative Centre for Cold Chain Management SA National Department of Health

CSIR

Pharmaceutical Society of SA World Health Organisation UNICEF

 

 

 

4.     STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME

 

The following stakeholders participated in the steering committee:

 

• Dept of Health (National & provincial levels) (DoH)
• Dept of Occupational Health & Safety (National & provincial levels)
• Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (National & provincial levels) (DEAT)
• Dept of Water Affairs & Forestry (National & provincial levels) (DWAF)
• Dept of Labour (National & provincial levels) (DoL)
• National Waste Management Strategy Group
• SA Local Government Association (SALGA)
• SA National Civics Organisation (SANCO)
• National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU)

 

 

• Democratic Nurses Organisation of SA (DENOSA)
• Medecins Sans Frontieres
• SA Association of Community Pharmacists
• Mamelodi Community Health Committee
• Pharmaceutical Society of SA
• CSIR
• UNICEF
• WHO
• SA Federation of Hospital Engineers

 

 

International visitors:

• Dr Luiz Diaz – WHO Geneva and International Waste Management , USA
• Mr Joost van den Noortgate – Medecins Sans Frontieres, Belgium

 

 

 

 

5.     LABORATORY TRIALS

 

5.1.   Objective of the laboratory trials

 

• Rank the performance of submitted units to the following criteria:

y Occupational safety

y Impact on public health from emissions

y The destruction efficiency

y The usability for the available staff

 

• The panel of experts for the ranking consisted of a:

y Professional nurse; Mrs Dorette Kotze from the SA National Department of Health

y Emission specialist; Dr Dave Rogers from the CSIR

y Combustion Engineer; Mr Brian North from the CSIR

 

5.2.   Incinerators received for evaluation

 

Name used in report	Model no.	Description	Manufacturer
C&S Marketing incinerator	SafeWaste Model Turbo 2000Vi	Electrically operated fan supplies combustion air – no auxiliary fuel	C&S Marketing cc.
Molope Gas incinerator	Medcin 400 Medical Waste Incinerator	Gas-fired incinerator	Molope Integrated Waste Management
Molope Auto incinerator	Molope Auto Medical Waste Incinerator	Auto-combust incinerator – uses wood or coal as additional fuel to facilitate incineration	Molope Integrated Waste Management

 

Name used in report	Model no.	Description	Manufacturer
PaHuOy incinerator	Turbo Stove	Auto-combust unit, using no additional fuel or forced air supply	Pa-Hu Oy

 

 

5.3.   Emission testing: laboratory method

 

Sampling of emissions followed the US-EPA Method 5G dilution tunnel method for stove emissions. Adjustments to the design were made to account for flames extending up to 0.5 m above the tip of the incinerator and the drop out of large pieces of ash. Emissions were extracted into a duct for isokinetic sampling of particulate emissions. The sampling arrangement is shown by a schematic in Figure 1. A photograph of the operation over the Molope gas fired incinerator unit is shown in Figure 2.

 

All tests were performed according to specified operating procedures. The instructions provided by the supplier of the equipment were followed in the case of the C&S Marketing Unit. No operating procedures were supplied with the Molope Gas, Molope auto-combustion and PaHuOy units. These procedures were established by the CSIR personnel using their previous experience together with information provided by the supplier.

 

Test facilities were set up at the CSIR and measurements were carried out under an ISO9001 system using standard EPA test procedures or modifications made at the CSIR.

 

 

 

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the laboratory set-up

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2:Photograph of air intake sampling hood over Molope gas incinerator

 

 

 

5.4.   RANKING RESULTS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

Using the criteria listed under section 4.1 above, the incinerators were ranked as followed:

 

	Molope gas-fired unit	Molope wood-fired unit	C&S electric unit	PaHuOy wood-fired unit
Safety	6.8	4.8	5.5	3.3
Health	5.5	3.5	4.3	2.3
Destruction	9	2	6	1
Usability	2	3	3	5
Average	5.8	3.3	4.7	2.9

 

 

5.5.   EMISSION RESULTS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

Quantitative measurements were used to rank the units in terms of destruction efficiency and the potential to produce hazardous emissions.

 

Conformance to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s (DEAT) recommended guidelines on emissions from Large Scale Medical Waste Incinerators is summarized in Table 1. The measurements are listed1 in Table 2.

 

 

 

Table 1: Summary qualitative results

 

Parameter Measured	Units	Molope   Gas-fired	Molope   Wood-fired	C&S   Electric	PaHuOy   Wood-fired	SA DEAT Guidelines
Stack height	m	×	×	×	×	3 m above nearest building
Gas velocity	m/s	×	×	×	×	10
Residence time	s	×	×	×	×	2
Minimum combustion temperature	ºC	4	×	×	×	> 850
Gas combustion efficiency	%	×	×	×	×	99.99
Particulate emissions	mg/Nm3	4	×	4	×	180
Cl as HCl	mg/Nm3	×	4	4	×	< 30
F as HF	mg/Nm3	4	4	4	4	< 30
Metals	mg/Nm3	4	×	×	4	< 0.5 and < 0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Emission concentrations are reported in accordance with the South African reporting requirements, ie, normalized to Normal Temperature (0

oC) and Pressure (101.3 kPa) and corrected to a nominal concentration of

8 % of CO2 on a dry gas basis. If a measurement fell below the detection limit for the method is it either reported as the detection limit or as N.D., ie, not detectable.

 

 

Table 2: Detailed quantitative results

 

Parameter Measured *	Units	Molope gas	Molope auto	C&S	PaHuOy	SA Process Guide1	Comments
Stack height	m	1.8	1.8	1.9	0.3	3 m above nearest building	None of these unite has a stack. The height of the exhaust vent is taken as the stack height. If it is above the respiration zone of the operator it provides some protection from exposure to smoke.
Gas velocity	m/s	0.8	0.5	1.1	0.5	10	Gas velocities vary across the stack for the Molope gas, Molope auto-combustion, and the PaHuOy units.
Residence time	s	0.4	0.7	0.6	0.4	2	Residence time is taken to be the total combustion time, and the maximum achievable
Minimum combustion zone temperature	oC	800 -900	400 – 650	600 – 800	500 – 700	> 850	Molope auto-combustion temperatures are expected to be higher as the centre of the combustion zone is not expected to be at the measurement location.
CO2 at the stack tip	% vol	2.64	3.75	4.9	3.25	8.0	Actual emission concentrations are less than the values reported here, which are normalized to 8 % CO2 and Normal temperature and pressure for reporting purposes. They are lower between 4 to 8 times.
Gas	%	99.91-	98.8 -98.4	99.69-	98.9	99.99	Most accurate measurement in
Combustion		99.70		99.03			the duct where mixing of exhaust
efficiency							gases is complete. Results of two trials.
Particulate emissions entrained in exhaust gas	mg/Nm3	102	197	130	338	180	The total emissions are the sum of the both entrained and un- entrained particulates. Emissions are lower than expected for such units and this is attributed to the absence of raking which is the major source of particulate emissions from incinerators without an emission control system.
Particulate fall- out	mg/Nm3	42	105	n.d.	n.d.	–	Large pieces of paper and cardboard ash rained out of the emissions. Totalling 0.8 to 2 g over a +/- 2 minute period.
Soot in particulates	%	42.2	58.1	48.7	84.8	–	Correlates directly with gas combustion efficiency

 

1 Emission concentrations are reported in accordance with the South African reporting requirements, ie, Normalized to Normal Temperature (0

oC) and Pressure (101.3 kPa) and corrected to a nominal concentration of

8 % of CO2 on a dry gas basis. If a measurement fell below the detection limit for the method is it either reported as the detection limit or as N.D., ie, not detectable.

 

Parameter Measured *	Units	Molope gas	Molope auto	C&S	PaHuOy	SA Process Guide1	Comments
% ash residual from medical waste	%	14.8	12.9	15.6	21.7	–	Measurement of destruction efficiency of the incinerator. Typical commercial units operate at 85-90 % mass reduction. PaHuOy is lower due to the melting and unburnt plastic.
Cl as HCl	mg/Nm3	46	13	25	35 & 542	< 30	PaHuOy chloride concentrations varied considerably. This is expected due to the variability of the feed composition.
F as HF	mg/Nm3	< 6	< 1	<2	< 1	< 30	Fluoride not found in this waste.
Arsenic (As)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Arsenic is not expected as a solid.
Lead (Pb)	mg/Nm3	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	0.5	Lead not expected in waste
Cadmium (Cd)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.05	Sensitivity of the x-ray method is adequate for ranking. Higher sensitivity not sought for this trial.
Chromium (Cr)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	0.7	0.7	< 0.1.	0.5	Chromium relative to iron ranges between 12 and 25% which is consistent with stainless steel needles
Manganese (Mn)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	0.3	0.3	< 0.1	0.5	Manganese may be a component in the stainless steel needle.
Nickel (Ni)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	0.3	< 0.1	< 0.1	0.5	Nickel may be a component in the needle.
Antimony (Sb)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Not expected in this waste.
Barium (Ba)	mg/Nm3	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	0.5	Lower sensitivity due to presence in the filter material
Silver (Ag)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Not expected in this waste.
Cobalt (Co)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	< 0.1	< 0.1	< 0.1	0.5	Cobalt might be present in stainless steel.
Copper (Cu)	mg/Nm3	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	0.5	Lower sensitivity due to copper in the sample blanks. May be background in the analytical equipment.
Tin (Sn)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Tin not expected in this waste.
Vanadium (V)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	< 0.1	0.4	< 0.1	0.5	Vanadium might be present in stainless steel.
Thallium (Tl)	mg/Nm3	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	0.05	Not expected in this waste. Sensitivity of the x-ray method is adequate for ranking. Higher sensitivity not sought for this trial.

 

 

 

5.6.   MAIN FINDINGS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

The main conclusions drawn from the trials are as follows:

 

:::          All four units can be used to render medical waste non-infectious, and to destroy syringes or render needles unsuitable for reuse.

:::                           The largest potential health hazard arises from the emissions of smoke and soot.              (the combustion efficiency of all units lies outside the

regulatory standards). The risk to health can be reduced by training operators to avoid the smoke or by installation of a chimney at the site.

:::          The emissions from small scale incinerators are expected to be lower than those from a wood fire, but higher than a conventional fire-brick-

lined multi-chambered incinerator.

:::          Incomplete combustion, and the substantial formation of smoke at low height rendered the PaHuOy unit unacceptable for field trials. Figure 3

below shows this unit during a trial burn. Molten plastic flowed out of

the incinerator, blocked the primary combustion air feed vents, and burnt outside of the unit.

 

 

 

Figure 3: Photo of PaHuOy incinerator during trial burn

 

 

5.7.   COMPARISON OF THE FIELDS TRIALS WITH THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

The CSIR performed a quantitative trial in the field for gas combustion efficiency, temperature profiles and mass destruction rate on the Molope Auto wood-fired unit at the Mogale Clinic.

 

The results of this trial are compared to the laboratory trial results below:

 

• Waste loading: Disposable rubber gloves were observed in addition to needles syringes, glass vials, bandages, dressings, and paper w
• Temperatures and combustion efficiency: The same performance in gas combustion        efficiency   was    obtained    for    wood    .

Temperatures were higher but for a shorter time and this was

correlated with the type of wood available to the clinic. The fuel was burnt out before the medical waste was destroyed completely and this resulted in lower temperatures, lower combustion efficiency and higher emissions while burning the waste.

• Emissions: Large amounts of black smoke were observed and this was correlated directly to cooling of the unit as the wood fuel was exhausted

prior to full ignition of the waste.

• Destruction efficiency: The destruction efficiency was similar to that in the laboratory measurem
• Usability: The unit is difficult to control as the result of the variability of the quality of wood
• Acceptability: the smoke was not acceptable to the clinic, the community, or the local

 

It was concluded that:

• The performance with fuel alone indicates that laboratory trial data can be used to predict emissions in the
• The Molope Auto unit is too difficult to control for the available staff and fuel at the

 

 

 

5.8.   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

The following recommendations are made as the result of the laboratory trials:

:::     A comprehensive operating manual must be supplied with each unit.

Adequate training in the operation of the units must be provided, especially focussed on safety issues.

:::     It is recommended that the height of the exhaust vent on all units be

addressed.     In order to facilitate the dispersion of emissions and reduce the exposure risk of the operators.

:::     The suppliers of the incinerators must provide instructions for the safe handling and disposal of ash.

 

 

 

5.9.   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STEERING COMMITTEE

 

 

 

After completion of the laboratory trials, the project steering committee recommended that the Molope Gas and C&S Marketing units be submitted for field testing. The Molope Auto was recommended for field testing on the condition that the manufacturer modified the ash grate so as to prevent the spillage of partially burnt needles and syringes.

 

 

 

6.     FIELD TRIALS

 

6.1.   OBJECTIVE OF THE FIELD TRIALS

 

The objective of the field trials was to obtain information in the field and assess the strengths and weaknesses of each of the incinerators during use at primary health care clinics.

 

A participative decision making process was used for the trials. It was based on expert technical evaluation by the CSIR and the National Department of Health as well as participation in the trials by experienced end users and participating advisors. All decisions were made by the Steering Committee, which consisted of representatives of stakeholders in the clinical and medical waste disposal process. These included representatives from the National, Provincial, and Local Government departments of Health, Safety and the Environment, as well as Professional Associations, Unions, NGOs, UNICEF, the WHO and local community representatives.

 

6.2.   CLINIC SELECTION

 

The Provinces in which the trials were done selected clinics for the field trials. The criteria set by the Steering Committee for the selection of the clinics were the following:

 

• Location must be rural or under-serviced with

y No medical waste removal

y No existing incineration

y No transport

• It must be in a high-density population area
• Acceptable environmental conditions must prevail
• Community acceptance must be obtained
• Operator skill level to be used must be at a level of illiteracy

 

The clinics that were selected were as follows:

 

• Steinkopf Clinic – Northern Cape Province – Gas incinerator

 

 

• Marydale Clinic – Northern Cape Province – Gas incinerator
• Mogale Clinic – Gauteng Province             – Auto combustion

incinerator, wood-fired.

• Chwezi Clinic – KwaZulu-Natal Province – Gas incinerator
• Ethembeni Clinic- KwaZulu-Natal Province – Auto-combustion electrical

incinerator

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAP OF SOUTH AFRICA INDICATING WHERE THE CLINICS ARE SITUATED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NORTHERN PROVINCE

 

GAUTENG PROVINCE

 

 

 

 

 

NORTH WEST PROVINCE

MPUMALANGA PROVINCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREE STATE PROVINCE

 

 

NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE

 

 

KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE

 

I:\UnitPublic\Valerie\Technet 99\Working papers\Session 3\rogers.doc

 

 

 

EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE

 

 

WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

 

 

6.3.   COORDINATION OF THE TRIALS

 

The criteria for the ranking of the incinerators in accordance with performance in the field were:

 

• Safety (occupational and public health)
• Destruction capability
• Usability
• Community acceptability

 

The South African National Department of Health coordinated the field trials.

 

Information regarding the field trials as well as questionnaires were supplied to the coordinators in the participating provinces.

 

The team in the field consisted of the operator, supervisor and inspector (coordinator). The manufacturer of the incinerators did the training of the operators.

 

The questionnaires used during the trials were set so as to obtain information with regard to the criteria set for the ranking of the incinerators in accordance with performance in the field. The questionnaires were received from the clinics at two-weekly intervals.

 

Questions with regard to the criteria were the following:

 

A.  SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

• Smoke Emission

y Volume and thickness

y Colour

y Odour

• Ash Content
• Are the filled sharps boxes and soiled dressings stored in a locked location while waiting to be incinerated?

 

 

 

B.  DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

• Destruction Rate

y Complete

y Partial

y Minimal

y Residue content

 

C.  USABILITY (for the available staff)

• Can the incinerator be used easily?

 

 

• Is the process of incineration safe?
• Has training been successful?
• Is protective clothing such as gloves, goggles, dust masks and safety boots available?

 

D.  COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

• What is the opinion of the following persons on the use of the incinerator?

y Operator

y Nurse

y Head of the clinic

y Local Authority representative

y Community leader

 

During the trials the clinics were visited and the incinerators evaluated by members of the Steering Committee and the CSIR as well as Dr L Diaz from WHO, Mr M Lainejoki from UNICEF and the coordinator from the National Department of Health.

 

6.4.   QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

 

6.4.1.      MOGALE CLINIC

 

Type of incinerator at the clinic: Molope Auto-Combustion (Fired with wood)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 & 5: Molope Auto wood-fired incinerator during field trials at Mogale clinic

 

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The process of incineration with this unit was considered by the operator, supervisor and the inspector as unsafe because there is no protective cage around the During the process the incinerator becomes very hot and this could result in injury to the operator.

 

2. The smoke emission of this incinerator had a volume and thickness which was heavy and black, with a distinct unpleasant odour, and was considered This could cause a pollution problem.

 

 

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.

 

2. The soft medical waste was completely destroy

 

 

 

C.               USABILITY

 

Difficulty in controlling the operating temperature and avoiding smoke emissions made this incinerator user unfriendly.

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

As a result of the heavy, black smoke emission the unit was not acceptable to the community.

 

 

6.4.2.      ETHEMBENI CLINIC:

 

 

Figure 6: C&S Marketing Auto Combust Electrical Incinerator At Ethembeni Clinic

 

 

 

Type Of Incinerator: C&S Auto-Combustion (Uses an electrically actuated fan)

 

 

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The operator, supervisor and inspector considered this incinerator easy to operate with no danger to the Removal of the ash from the drum for disposal in a pit is, however, considered difficult, as the drum is heavy. Removal of the incinerator lid before it has been allowed to cool has been identified as a potential danger to the operator.

 

2. Emission of smoke from this incinerator was not considered ex The volume and thickness was evaluated as moderate with no pollution experienced.

 

 

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.
2. The soft medical waste was completely destroy

 

 

 

C.               USABILITY

 

Considered user friendly by operator, supervisor and inspector.

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

The incinerator was accepted by the community and was not considered to be harmful.

 

 

 

6.4.3.      CHWEZI CLINIC, MARYDALE CLINIC AND STEINKOPF CLINIC:

 

Type of incinerator: Molope Gas incinerator

 

Figure 7:       Molope Gas incinerator during field trials at Marydale clinic

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The operator, supervisor and inspector considered this incinerator easy to operate with minimal danger to the
2. Smoke emissions were not excessive and were reported to be minim

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. Sharps not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.

 

 

2. Soft medical waste completely destroy

 

C.               USABILITY

 

This incinerator was considered user friendly.

 

 

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

 

 

The incinerator was accepted by the community and was not considered to be harmful.

 

 

 

6.5.   RANKING

 

 

INCINERATOR	RANKING
Molope Gas	1
C&S Auto-Combustion (Uses electrical fan)	2
Molope Auto- Combustion (Fired with wood, coal also an option)	3

 

 

 

 

6.6.   OUTCOME OF THE FIELD TRIALS

 

Incinerator	Safety	Destruction Capability	Usability	Community Acceptability
Molope Gas	Good	Good	Good	Good
C&S Auto- Combustion (Uses Electricity)	Good	Good	Good	Good
Molope Auto- Combust Incinerator	Un-Acceptable	Good	Un-Acceptable	Un-Acceptable

 

Capacity    Not less than 500Kg/hr.
Operation    24hr-7days/week continuous operation.
Combustion chamber    2 combustion chamber.
Temp.    First combustion chamber 800-1000 C.
Secandry combustion chamber 1000-1200 C, with the possibility to be upgraded to 1400 C.
Combustion Efficiency    99.99%
Retention time    Of the flow gases not less than 2 Sec in the hot portion.
Excess Oxygen concentration    Of primary combustion chamber 3-6% max.
Refractory    The chambers should be lined with high thermal insulating refractory bricks with suitable thickness and with highly temp. resistance. Not less than 1400 C for the first combustion chamber, and not less than 1600 C for the secandry combustion chamber, and at the same time prevent the Temp. of the outside body of the chamber not higher than 70 C.
Doors    Should be lined with the same bricks, and the edges lined with special suitable insulating material to prevent any gas escaping, and the doors should be kept under negative pressure during the operation.
Air Emission Control System    With high destruction and removal efficiency (DRE). Not less than 99.9999 as per KEPA.
Wet System    If the system equiped with a CEMS washing the flow gas with water, then it should be manufactured from suitable anti corrossion materials, and equiped with pH meter to measure and neutralize the water. It should be able to use the water in closed recycled circuit many times before treating/ discharging into the sewage system in compliance with KEPARS.
Chemical dosing    It should be equiped with suitable autochemical dosing system to control the pH for the water of the wet scrubber system including sensors.
Chimney    It should be suitable with the capacity and the technical specifications, with height not less than 12m from ground level. With easy opennable sampling point equal about 3 inch, and the optimum sampling locations is at least 8D downstream direction and 2D upstream from any flow disturbancies.
Sampling point    Should be equiped with a platform located down the sampling point by a distance not less than 1 m, and equiped with suitable stairs from ground to the port with comfortable slope.
Ash Removal    It should be auto ash removal system.
Fuel    It should be dual system, such as diesel and natural gas.
Feeding System    Should be auto feeding system into primary chamber.
Control Room    Should be equiped with a control panel shows Temp. of the combustion burners, gas monitoring, digital Temp. indecation for the primary/secondary chambers, digital Temp. indication for the gases…etc. it should be also Auto operation, burnures on/off auto lamps switch, auto start/stop for air emission control system, auto gas continuous monitoring system reading and print out of gas emission parameters…etc.
Cooling System    The primary chamber should be provided with auto cooling systemthrough nozzles to permit direct cooling if the Temp. will be heigher than 1100 C.
Inter-lock system    The incinerator should be equiped with inter-lock system to prevent feeding the waste to the primary chamber if the combustion Temp. less than 500 C.
Flue treatment and cleaning    To consist a combined system (wet/dry), using water, lime, active carbon and ceramic filters.
Quenching system/Heat exchanger    Should be made and manufactured from anti corrosion and acid attack materials such as stainless steel 316 or equivalent.
Noise Level    Not more than 85 dBA during normal operation.
Inaddition    The desigh should insure that responsive fail-safe control systems are used.
The incinerator should be installed inside closed suitable building with good aeration and ventilation system. The building has facilities for off-loading of wastes from transport vehicles. Auto cleaning system for trucks and waste containers, and cool storage area…etc.
The quotation should included list of original spare parts for 7 years.
The quotation should include supervising, starting up and training of the operators and ministry of health engineers inside/outside Kuwait.
Detailed drawings, catalogs should be included.