Doubel Combustion Chamber
All Incinerators are Doubel Combustion Chamber with One Fuel Burner Each. After Burner Technology for Completely Combustion and Cleaner World.
Read MoreHigh Temperature Incineration
Temperature Range 800 Degree to 1200 Degree in Combustion Chamber. Temperature Thermocouple Monitor and Controller. High Quality Fire Brick and Refactory Cement.
Read MoreGet Lastest News
There are latest incinerator news like technical, public news, business tender for medical waste incinerator,animal incineration, pet cremation
Read MoreNanjing Clover Medical Technology Co.,Ltd.
Email: sales@clover-incinerator.com | Tel: +86-25-8461 0201
Regular model incinerator for market with burning rate from 10kgs to 500kgs per hour and we always proposal customer send us their require details, like waste material, local site fuel and power supply, incinerator operation time, etc, so we can proposal right model or custom made with different structure or dimensions.
Incinerator Model YD-100 is a middle scale incineration machine for many different usage: for a middle hospital sickbed below 500 units, for all small or big size family pets (like Alaskan Malamute Dog), for community Municipal Solid Waste Incineration, etc. The primary combustion chamber volume is 1200Liters (1.2m3) and use diesel oil or natural gas fuel burner original from Italy.
Latest Post
HICLOVER Incinerators

HICLOVER, Nanjing Clover Medical Technology Co.,Ltd, supply system solutions for medical environmental protection, animal and pet cremation engineering, other municipal solid waste incineration project.
We supply single combustion chamber, double combustion chambers, three combustion chambers and multi-combustion chambers waste incinerators for laboratory, clinic, hospital, medical center, hygiene clinical waste destruction with medical disposable, biological waste, medical plastic waste, hazardous waste, red bag waste, needle disposal, gauze and bandages, sealed sharp containers, pathological waste, trace-chemotherapeutic wastes, etc.
Our range of incinerators cater for small to large scale animal cremation related businesses, such as poultry farms, cattle farms, sheep farms, pig farms, stables, kennels, testing laboratory, catteries, pet crematoriums.

The incinerator burn waste in primary combustion chamber and burn the smoke from primary combustion chamber again to make sure environmentally friendly with no black smoke, smelless, reduce pathogenic bacteria infection.
System solutions for medical waste environmental, including waste incineration, smoke emission treatment, high-temperature sterilization, ultraviolet sterilization lamp, waste shredder, needle destroyer, medical waste package, sharp containers, etc.
The pet cremation equipment humanized design with movable platform, small space covers for modern pet cremation business owner all over the world.
The containerized mobile incinerator mounted in ISO container before leave factory, pre-installation, no incineration house build construction, movable by truck and ultraviolet lamp sterilization inside.
HICLOVER is growing brand for environmental protection field, and market share with most of Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia countries and part of North America, Europe territory. We are trusted partner for governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, international contractors, logistics organizations, military, pet cremation business owners, etc. We have export experience more than 40 countries, including war zone like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan.

We are china incinerator manufacturer, contractor and exporter. Manufacturer make reasonable price for incinerator customer, supply medical incinerator, hospital incinerator, animal incinerators, hog incinerators, pet cremation equipment, small incinerator, pet incinerator, animal incinerator, portable incinerator, small animal incinerator, infectious waste pyrolysis machine, laboratory incinerator. HICLOVER help customer reduce purchase budget, custom made function, quality products and friendly service.

Tel: +86-25-84610201 Email: [email protected] Website: www.hiclover.com
Key Features:
— Full range incinerator with Economized Small Scale incinerator, Standard Small-Large Scale incinerator, General Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, Pet and Animal Cremation, Containerized Mobile Incinerator, High Efficient Environmental Waste Incinerator.
— Single combustion chamber, double combustion chambers, three combustion chambers and multi-combustion chambers waste incinerators.
— System solutions for medical waste environmental.
— High burn rate, from 5kgs to 1000kgs per hour.
— New Design for pet animal cremation business.
— HICLOVER, trusted partner with years of experience.

Items/Model | TS10(PLC) | TS20(PLC) | TS30(PLC) | TS50(PLC) |
Burn Rate (Average) | 10 kg/hour | 20 kg/hour | 30 kg/hour | 50 kg/hour |
Control Mode | PLC Auto. | PLC Auto. | PLC Auto. | PLC Auto. |
Combustion Chamber | 100L | 210L | 330L | 560L |
Internal Dimensions | 50x50x40cm | 65x65x50cm | 75x75x60cm | 100x80x70cm |
Secondary Chamber | 50L | 110L | 180L | 280L |
Smoke Filter Chamber | Dry Scrubber | Dry Scrubber | Dry Scrubber | Dry Scrubber |
Feed Mode | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual |
Voltage | 220V | 220V | 220V | 220V |
Power | 0.75Kw | 0.83Kw | 0.99Kw | 1.2Kw |
Diesel Oil Consumption (kg/hour) | Ave.8.4 | Ave.10.9 | Ave.13.3 | Ave.16.9 |
Natural Gas Consumption (m3n/hour) | Ave.10.1 | Ave.13 | Ave.16 | Ave.20.2 |
Temperature Monitor | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Temperature Protection | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Oil Tank | 100L | 100L | 100L | 100L |
Feed Door | 30x30cm | 45x40cm | 55x50cm | 70x55cm |
Chimney | 3Meter | 3Meter | 5Meter | 5Meter |
Chimney Type | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel |
1st. Chamber Temperature | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ |
2nd. Chamber Temperature | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ |
Residency Time | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. |
Gross Weight | 1500kg | 2200kg | 3000kg | 4500kg |
External Dimensions | 140x90x120cm | 160x110x130cm | 175x120x140cm | 230x130x155cm |
— Incinerator Medical Waste|WhatsApp:+86-13813931455 (@hiclovercom) February 21, 2021
Items/Model | TS100(PLC) | TS150(PLC) | TS300(PLC) | TS500(PLC) |
Burn Rate (Average) | 100 kg/hour | 150 kg/hour | 300 kg/hour | 500 kg/hour |
Control Mode | PLC Auto. | PLC Auto. | PLC Auto. | PLC Auto. |
Combustion Chamber | 1200L | 1500L | 2000L | 3000L |
Internal Dimensions | 120x100x100cm | 150x100x100cm | 170x120x100cm | 210x120x120cm |
Secondary Chamber | 600L | 750L | 1000L | 1500L |
Smoke Filter Chamber | Dry Scrubber | Dry Scrubber | Dry Scrubber | Dry Scrubber |
Feed Mode | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual |
Voltage | 220V | 220V | 220V | 220V |
Power | 1.38Kw | 1.69Kw | 2.57Kw | 4.88Kw |
Diesel Oil Consumption (kg/hour) | Ave.20.4 | Ave.24.2 | Ave.33 | Ave.44 |
Natural Gas Consumption (m3n/hour) | Ave.24.5 | Ave.29 | Ave.39.6 | Ave.52.8 |
Temperature Monitor | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Temperature Protection | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Oil Tank | 200L | 300L | 500L | 500L |
Feed Door | 80x60cm | 80x60cm | ||
Chimney | 10Meter | 10Meter | 14Meter | 14Meter |
Chimney Type | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel |
1st. Chamber Temperature | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ |
2nd. Chamber Temperature | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ |
Residency Time | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. |
Gross Weight | 6000kg | 8500kg | 11000kg | 16000kg |
External Dimensions | 260x150x180cm | 300x160x190cm | 400x210x300cm | 450x210x300cm |
incinerators for sale

get HICLOVER new incinerators for sale, call us +86-25-8461 0201 and receive free quotation document from us. We supply single combustion chamber, dual glazing chambers, three combustion chambers and multi-combustion chambers waste incinerators for lab, hospital, clinic, medical center, hygiene clinical waste destruction with medical disposable, biological waste, medical plastic waste, toxic waste, red bag waste, needle disposal, gauze and bandages, sealed sharp containers, pathological waste, trace-chemotherapeutic wastes, etc..
Items/Model | TS10(PLC) | TS20(PLC) | TS30(PLC) | TS50(PLC) | TS100(PLC) |
Burn Rate | 10 kg/hour | 20 kg/hour | 30 kg/hour | 50 kg/hour | 100 kg/hour |
Feed Capacity | 20kg | 40kg | 60kg | 100kg | 200 kg |
Control Mode | PLC | PLC | PLC | PLC | PLC |
Combustion Chamber | 100L | 210L | 330L | 560L | 1200L |
Internal Dimensions | 50x50x40cm | 65x65x50cm | 75x75x60cm | 100x80x70cm | 120x100x100cm |
Secondary Chamber | 50L | 110L | 180L | 280L | 600L |
Smoke Filter Chamber | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Feed Mode | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual |
Voltage | 220V | 220V | 220V | 220V | 220V |
Power | 0.5Kw | 0.5Kw | 0.5Kw | 0.7Kw | 0.7Kw |
Oil Consumption (kg/hour) | 5.4–12.6 | 7.8–16.3 | 10.2–20 | 12.1–24 | 14–28 |
Gas Consumption (m3/hour) | 6.2–11.4 | 8–15.7 | 9.8–20 | 9.9–26.1 | 10–32.2 |
Temperature Monitor | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Temperature Protection | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Oil Tank | 100L | 100L | 100L | 100L | 200L |
Feed Door | 30x30cm | 45x40cm | 55x50cm | 70x55cm | 80x60cm |
Chimney | 3Meter | 3Meter | 5Meter | 5Meter | 10Meter |
Chimney Type | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel |
1st. Chamber Temperature | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ |
2nd. Chamber Temperature | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ |
Residency Time | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. |
Gross Weight | 1500kg | 2200kg | 3000kg | 4500kg | 6000kg |
External Dimensions | 140x90x120cm | 160x110x130cm | 175x120x140cm | 230x130x155cm | 260x150x180cm |
Supply, Installation and Commissioning of DIESEL FIRED INCINERATORS

Medical Waste Incinerator, 100 to 120 Kg/hr
Application For incineration, general and pathological
Capacity 100 C 120 kg/h burn rate
Type Two combustion chambers type; primary and Secondary, controlled/forced combustion air type with a flue gas emission scrubbing unit
Operating time Minimum 8 hours daily
Operating temperature From 850 0C to 1200 0C, Automatic controlled
Residual Ash 5 to 10%
Construction Constructed from heavy duty mild or aluminized steel
Or equal and approved equivalent

Insulation material Refractory material lining similar or equal to calcium
Silicate and hot face combination of heavy duty brickwork
Internal Construction Fixed hearth type complete with gratings, concave bottom and charging door, lined with refractory material
Charging Door Suitable for manual loading of wastes and with smooth
Dear seal equivalent of Ceramic seals with hinges.
Door Lock Automatic, Electric type
Ash removal door Provided, for removing resultant bottom ash leftovers from the Primary chamber
Gratings Provided
Loading Manual loading of waste
Primary Burner Fully automatic, with fuel, temperature and speed controls with ignition system flame detector Air fan Complete with safety features, flame failure Diesel fired fuel injector type
Flange mounted
Blower Provided. 3 phase for supplying excess combustion air through the distribution system with speed control system
Temperature Minimum exit 850 0C
Observation port To be provided with protective glass type
3.3 Secondary chamber
Programme on Small Scale Medical Waste Incinerators for Primary Health Care Clinics in South Africa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
- STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
- COLLABORATORS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
- STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
- LABORATORY TRIALS 5
- 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
|
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)
- 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.
- 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
- The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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
- The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.
- 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)
- The operator, supervisor and inspector considered this incinerator easy to operate with minimal danger to the
- Smoke emissions were not excessive and were reported to be minim
B. DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY
- Sharps not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.
- 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 |
Hypocritical Smoke: The Scandal of Medical Waste Incineration
The middle-class Foxboro subdivision in North Salt Lake City, Utah, is, in many ways, an idyllic community for young families – new, modest, similarly sized homes on fairly compact lots, close by neighbors connected by sidewalks and streetlights, tons of playmates for all the kids. And Mormon communities have lots of kids, munchkins if you will. Foxboro has a “Polyanna” feel to it, not unlike a Mormon “Land of Oz.”
But a dark cloud hangs over Foxboro, sometimes literally. On a recent Friday evening in late summer, Foxboro was having a neighborhood 5K run/walk for the hundreds of families that live in the area. Suddenly, it looked like the Wicked Witch of the West had arrived: thick black smoke and flames billowed from a well-known industrial neighbor right next to the subdivision. Children became frightened. Some of them screamed that they couldn’t breathe and ran into other people’s houses to get away from the smoke. Parents panicked. Chaos descended on the race participants. A local resident took this video near the end of the episode.
Watching the video, one really expects to hear the Wicked Witch cackle, “I’ll get you and your little dog, too.”
Within the next half hour, I started getting e-mails from people from as far away as 40 miles complaining about the smoke and a distinct chemical smell, different from the occasional wind-whipped sulfur odor that sweeps in from the west, where the Great Salt Lake lies. In about 20 minutes, the smoke was gone, but the chemical smell lingered much longer. The next day, I got more e-mails from people who were experiencing a variety of respiratory symptoms and wondered what they had been exposed to.
The “Wicked Witch of the West” event was just the latest of many similar episodes involving Foxboro’s nonfictional villain – Stericycle, the medical waste incinerator. Stericycle’s North Salt Lake incinerator, however, is emblematic of a much larger issue: Via the front door, hospitals and clinics are purveyors of healing, well-being and saving lives. But out the back door, they often spread toxins and disease through a waste stream that is conveniently, but dangerously, burned into ashes by incinerators like Stericycle.
The story of North Salt Lake’s Stericycle facility is typical of what has happened in many communities throughout the country. The facility has been controversial for at least two decades. Even back when it was first permitted, there was concern about the health consequences of its emissions. The permit was approved by the Utah Air Quality Board by a one-vote margin. Legislation at the time prohibited such facilities from being within one mile of residences.
Around 2003, the county Planning and Zoning Commission received a proposal from the Foxboro developer to subdivide the land north and east of Stericycle into a large residential community. Part of the commission’s decision to grant Foxboro approval was based on discussions with the Division of Air Quality and the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste. Both divisions were not forthright with information to the commission. They apparently claimed there were no “upset conditions.” Foxboro’s proposal was approved, and homes were built literally up against the wall of the incineration property, resulting in families living just feet from the incinerator smokestack, with some families literally sharing a backyard fence with Stericycle. This satellite photo showing the black soot on Stericycle’s roof and its close proximity to homes provokes the gnawing realization of what these families are breathing in 24/7.
Stericycle operates six incinerators in the US and is the largest medical waste treatment and disposal company in the country. Waste incinerators are serious public health hazards. Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancers and birth defects among people who live around incinerators. Those results are consistent with the associations being causative. For example, a study of 14 million people followed for 13 years revealed an increase in cancer deaths of 11,000 people among those that lived within 7.5 kilometers of an incinerator.1,2 The cancer risk doubled for children living within 5 kilometers of an incinerator.3
This body of medical research is sufficiently robust to have precipitated a nationwide citizen movement to have these facilities closed. In fact, during the past 15 years, 98 percent of the 2,373 medical waste incinerators have closed; only 33 remain in operation. While thousands of communities have become cleaner as a result, in Utah things have gotten worse. Stericycle now accepts waste from eight surrounding states to be incinerated at its North Salt Lake plant. The city is serving as the sacrificial lamb for most of the western United States. In addition to medical waste, including human fluids and tissue, Stericycle is allowed to incinerate animal carcasses (more about that below).
As with most incinerators, the health consequences are not so much the high-volume pollutants, like particulate matter, ozone, NOx or SO2, but the amount of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are designated as such by the EPA because of their high level of toxicity, even at minute concentrations. HAPs include benzene, dioxins, furans, heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and even radioactive elements. Stericycle officially emits a similar volume of HAPs as a full-scale oil refinery or coal-fired power plant. But the emissions are released from a much shorter stack; therefore local deposition is greater. Stericycle’s permit allows it to emit 130 pounds of lead per year, 912 pounds of chlorine, 18 pounds of cadmium and 60 pounds of mercury. The total amount of HAPs allowed in its permit is 9.51 tons per year.
Most toxic heavy metals are not combustible, do not degrade, cannot be destroyed, accumulate in the local environment after leaving Stericycle’s smokestack, and accumulate in the bodies of everyone for miles around. They have been implicated in a range of emotional and behavioral problems in children – including autism, dyslexia, ADHD, learning difficulties and delinquency – and in adults – dementia, depression and Parkinson’s disease. Increased rates of autism and learning disabilities have been found around sites that release mercury into the environment, like coal power plants and incinerators.4 Utah has the highest rates of autism in the nation, double the national average. That fact alone should compel our state leaders to deal with every possible contributor to this public health disaster. Sources of heavy metal pollution should be first on that list.
A study by The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that it was not only the health of workers and local populations that are affected by incinerators. It stated that, “Persistent air pollutants, such as dioxins, furans and mercury can be dispersed over large regions – well beyond local areas and even the countries from which the sources emanate,”5 meaning that Stericycle is far from an issue affecting its immediate neighbors only.
Incinerators do not eliminate hazardous substances; they concentrate them, redistribute them, and even create new ones, such as dioxins. In addition to dioxins, they emit chlorine, mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, ammonia and benzene – spreading miles from the smokestack, eventually inhaled by local residents or swallowed when they eat vegetables from their gardens, or their children play on a backyard swing set. Dioxins are likely the most toxic manmade substance known after plutonium. Many of these chemicals are both toxic and bio-accumulative, building up over time in the body insidiously with the risk of chronic effects from even very low, continuous exposure.
For multiple physiologic and biologic reasons, children and fetuses are at significantly increased risks from many of these incinerator emissions. One example is illustrative of the point. Many of these HAPs concentrate in human fetuses or in human breast milk. A nursing infant may consume 10 to 50 times as much dioxin as the average adult and is much more vulnerable to its toxicity. Six months of breast feeding will transfer 20% of a mother’s lifetime accumulation of organochlorines (like dioxins) to her nursing child.6 No risk assessment about Stericycle has paid any attention to whether or not their dioxin emissions are causing human breast milk of Utah’s mothers to be unsafe.
The combined impact of extensive geographic spread of incinerator emissions and bioaccumulation is starkly revealed by what has been discovered in the Inuit Native Americans in the polar region of Northern Canada. Inuit mothers here have twice the level of dioxins in their breast milk as Canadians living in the South. There is no source of dioxin within 300 miles. A study tracking emissions from 44,000 sources of dioxin in North America, combining data on toxic releases and meteorological records revealed the leading contributors were three municipal incinerators in the USA.7,8
Medical waste incinerators are even more hazardous than other incinerators for two reasons. Radioactive elements like potassium-40, uranium, thorium, cesium and strontium are ubiquitous in low concentration in human bodies and animal carcasses, and when tons of carcasses and body parts are incinerated, all those radioactive elements are concentrated and released up the smokestack.
Just as disturbing is the fact that prions, the highly infective mutated proteins that cause Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs), i.e. Mad Cow disease in cattle, scrapie in sheep, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk and Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (CJD) in humans – all uniformly fatal – are almost undoubtedly present in Stericyle’s waste stream. Prions are so infective that pathologists do not want to touch tissue from a suspected victim, be it human or animal. So the diagnosis is usually never made. And most of the time, there is no way that Stericycle would even know whether prions are in the waste stream headed for the smokestack then distributed throughout North Salt Lake. Prions are frighteningly resistant to destruction, including incineration. I’ll have a more detailed depiction of the issue of prions in a subsequent essay. A detailed report on the health consequences of waste incinerators is available online.
Any incinerator would represent a serious risk to public health in our community. As dramatic and intuitively dangerous as the video seems, it better serves a larger point. Any incinerator has start-ups and shutdowns and other “events” that result in the bypass of pollution-control equipment on a regular basis. In fact “pollution events” this severe may not represent a permit violation – which shows how out of control this situation has become.
Studies at other incinerators show that “bypass events” may be occurring 10 percent of the time. Dioxins produced during start-ups can be twice the annual dioxin emissions under steady state conditions. Spot monitoring, as is done by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ), has been shown to be grossly inadequate and likely underestimates the actual dioxin and heavy metal emissions by 30-50 times. The best managed incinerator would still be a community health hazard.
This facility is anything but “best managed.” In layman’s terms, the DAQ has caught Stericycle falsifying its records, intentionally loading the incinerator with material that does not represent its normal feedstock in order to pass their emissions test – in other words cheating. And the DAQ has found Stericycle emitting hundreds of times more dioxins and furans than Stericycle’s permit allows (public health protection would demand that the company not be allowed to emit any). We were told by the DAQ that this facility is now under criminal investigation at the state and federal level.
An internal DAQ email quotes a subcontractor for Stericycle stating that the company is pressuring its manager to “push the limits of the plant.” Further, the comment is made that the manager recently received a huge raise and promotion and “that as a result, they are now demanding more and more of him.” The manager is complaining that “he is under a lot of pressure from his managers to feed more and more waste through the plant and that the plant can’t handle what they want it to do.” “Bypass events” like the one captured on video are all too predictable from a corporation that prioritizes profit over safety.
Hospitals and clinics are not innocent bystanders. As health care centers, it is ironic and indefensible for them to dispose of their waste in a manner that harms community health. The International Red Cross states, “Hospitals are responsible for the waste they produce. They must ensure that the handling, treatment and disposal of that waste will not have harmful consequences for public health or the environment.”
Neither is the EPA an innocent bystander. An appeal of Stericycle’s permit has been sitting on its desk since 2009. As a result of multiple recent community protests of Stericycle’s operations, the EPA has finally consented to address the appeal by mid-October 2013.
Incineration of medical waste is a business that simply shouldn’t exist. No useful product is produced; no needed service is performed. There are safer technologies, like steam autoclaving and burial. Several countries have committed to eliminating incineration as a destination for medical waste. The United States is not one of them. In fact the list of “enlightened” countries is not what you might expect – Ireland, Slovenia, Portugal and the Philippines.
Although many American communities are breathing cleaner air because of widespread closure of incinerators, North Salt Lake, and Foxboro residents in particular, are needlessly “taking a hit” for the team. Normally Mormon suburbs are bastions of political and cultural conservatism, reservoirs of quiet capitulation and obedience to authority. But in Foxboro, with town hall meetings, protest marches and rallies in the Capitol in front of the governor’s office, they are mounting an unwillingness to remain victims of Stericycle’s profiteering. They even convinced Erin Brockovich to come to Foxboro and lend her fame and legal muscle to the battle.
Foxboro has learned the wisdom of 19th century abolitionist Frederick Douglass. “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.” The residents of Foxboro are no longer quietly submitting to the mistake that is Stericycle, and they are exposing the nationwide scandal that is medical waste incineration.
Information from: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19069-hypocritical-smoke-the-scandal-of-medical-waste-incineration
An Unexpected Ebola Infrastructure Problem: Waste
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