incinerators for sale


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


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

  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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. 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


Animal Carcass Incinerators


Basic Info.

Pullution Sources:Solid Waste Processing
Processing Methods:Combustion
Export Markets:Global

Additional Info.

Trademark:clover

Product Description

2011 year is an important foundation for us. We reach to developed country market and stabilize our old customers. Our incinerator use in Southeast Asia, incineration burner, incineration chamber, incineration chien de 50 kilos, incineration disposal of solid waste, incineration equipment manufacturer, Central Asia, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Australia, etc. Clover Incinerator has grown to be one of the famous and biggest incinerator supplier all over the world. 

Key Features: 
* All models with Dual combustion chamber. 
* Stainless Steel chimney/stack, long lifetime. *according to order 
* High temperature, long lifetime of incinerator. 
* Free or minimum installation on site. 
* High burn rate, from 10kgs to 500kgs per hour, up to 6ton per day. 
* PLC Control Plane. *according to order 
* New Design for pet animal cremation business. 
* One year warranty on incinerator and parts in stock.

Item Customer Request Example
Application Scope  
 
 
 
Hospital, Pet Crematory, Slaughter House, Laboratories, School, Community, etc. if for animal/pet, indicate animal size like: cat, dog, cattle, etc
What kind of waste?  
____, _____%
____, _____%
____, _____%
 
 
Medical waste, dead animal, Municipal Waste, etc(detail name) or nature percent
if for animal/pet, indicate animal size like: cat, dog, cattle, etc
Quantity Request    
01.02.03^…unit
 
Budget    
$US Dollar.
 
 
Operating Time    
The staff work Hours per day.
Our incinerator can work up to around 18 hours per day.
Realization Date of project In ___ year  
Waste Output Capacity per Day?  
 
1000kgs Per Day^
Request waste burn rate   Capacity: 100kgs Per hour^
Request waste feed capacity   Capacity: 100kgs per feed^
Whether Natural Gas Supply Local?   Yes or No.
Local Power   If 380V and 220V valid?
Product Installation Destination  
 
Country or City name
DestinationSeaport name?   To check sea freight charge.
 
Customer    
End-Customer, Agent, Government.
 
Method of contract   Tender or Negotiation
Date of Tender limit    
How did you know our company?    
Other request or information  
 
 
 

Incinerator Requirements

The requirements for a unit are as follows:
1. chemical agents to be utilized:
• 10% heptyl (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) water solution,
• heptyl (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) vapour with 0.8 to 1.0 kg/m³ concentration,
• 10% azotic (nitric) acid water solution,
• azotic (nitric) acid vapour with concentration up to 1.1 kg/m³;
2. neutralization method: thermal decomposition;
3. neutralization temperature: +800˚C to +1200˚C;
4. performance:
• vapour capacity: 70 to 200 m³/h,
• water solution capacity: 50 to 500 l/h;
5. inlet pressure: up to 2 bars;
6. automatic control system;
7. overall dimensions shall allow for mounting the unit on a vehicle chassis.
We have viewed through your product range and, perhaps, YD15C- YD30model or YD50- YD500 model will suit our application best. If so, please confirm this. If not, what model, in your opinion, can meet our requirements better? 

U.S. needs to rethink Ebola infection controls, says CDC chief

A member of the CG Environmental HazMat team disinfects the entrance to the residence of a health worker at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital who has contracted Ebola in Dallas
Medical experts need to rethink how highly infectious diseases are handled in the United States, a U.S. health official said on Monday, after a Dallas nurse contracted Ebola despite wearing protective gear while caring for a dying Liberian patient.

As an outbreak of the deadly virus spread beyond West Africa, hospitals and nursing associations across the United States were taking a closer look at how prepared they were to handle such infections.

“We have to rethink the way we address Ebola infection control. Even a single infection is unacceptable,” Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters. “The care of Ebola is hard. We’re working to make it safer and easier.”

Frieden said health authorities are still investigating how the nurse became infected while caring for Thomas Eric Duncan in an isolation ward at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital.

Duncan died last week and the nurse is the first person to contract the virus on U.S. soil, taking concerns about containing its spread to new heights.

The infected nurse is Nina Pham, 26, according to a Sunday school teacher at the church where her family worships and through a public records check of her address. Attempts to reach her family were not immediately successful.

The family was in shock when it learned the young woman had contracted Ebola, said Tom Ha, a close friend of the Pham family who is also a Bible studies teacher at the Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church in Fort Worth.

“The mother was crying, very upset,” he told Reuters.

The Dallas nurse is “clinically stable,” Frieden said, and the CDC is monitoring others involved in Duncan’s care in case they show symptoms of the virus.

Frieden also apologized for remarks on Sunday, when the nurse’s infection was first disclosed, that suggested she was responsible for a breach in protocols that exposed her to the virus. Some healthcare experts said the comments failed to address deep gaps in training hospital staff to deal with Ebola. [ID:nL2N0S8014]

“I’m sorry if that was the impression given,” Frieden said. He said the agency would take steps to increase the awareness of Ebola at the nation’s hospitals and training for staff.

The Texas Nurses Association defended Pham in a statement, saying it was wrong to assume the nurse was to blame.

“The facts are not known about how the nurse in Dallas was exposed,” the association stated. “It is incorrect to assume that the nurse failed to follow protocols.”

At his news conference, Frieden said some changes in procedures had already been put into effect, including having staff monitor those putting on and taking off protective gear, and retraining staff on how to do so safely.

He said other steps were being considered including new types of protective clothing and possibly spraying down staff with solutions that could kill the virus if someone were to become contaminated.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview with ABC that officials should consider sending Ebola patients only to a few “containment” hospitals.

President Barack Obama was briefed by Frieden and senior members of the administration about the second Dallas case and stressed that “lessons learned” from the CDC’s investigation should be shared with hospitals and healthcare workers across the country, the White House said.

Obama also spoke separately with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and with French President Francois Hollande about international efforts to contain the outbreak and to provide treatment centers in affected African nations.

A brief scare at Boston’s Logan International Airport caused emergency crews in protective gear to remove five passengers with flu-like symptoms from Emirates flight 237 from Dubai, but the CDC later said there was no Ebola threat.

EBOLA WASTE A CONCERN

Meanwhile, Louisiana’s top law enforcement official said he was granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the personal items of Duncan, who died on Wednesday, from being buried in a local landfill after being incinerated.

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said material collected from Duncan and the Dallas apartment where he was staying was taken to Port Arthur, Texas, on Friday to be incinerated. From there the incinerated material was to have gone to a hazardous waste landfill in Louisiana.

“There are too many unknowns at this point, and it is absurd to transport potentially hazardous Ebola waste across state lines,” Caldwell said in a statement after the restraining order was granted.

According to CDC guidelines, the Ebola virus does not survive on materials that have been incinerated.

The current Ebola outbreak is the worst on record and has killed more than 4,000 people, mostly in West Africa’s Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Duncan, a Liberian, was exposed to Ebola in his home country and developed the disease while visiting the United States.

Ebola, which can cause fever, vomiting and diarrhea, spreads through contact with bodily fluids such as blood or saliva.

The infection of the Dallas nurse is the second known to have occurred outside West Africa since the outbreak that began in March. It follows that of a nurse’s aide in Spain who helped treat a missionary from Sierra Leone, who died of the virus.

Officials said Pham’s pet dog, a 1-year-old King Charles Spaniel, would be kept safe while its owner was in the hospital. That contrasts with the dog of the health worker in Spain that was euthanized out of fear the animal could spread the disease, prompting protests from animal rights activists.

(Additional reporting by Julie Steenhuysen in Chicago, Jonathan Kaminsky in New Orleans, Marice Richter in Dallas and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Writing by Jon Herskovitz and Ken Wills; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Lisa Shumaker; Editing by Andrew Hay and Tom Brown)

FILED UNDER:

U.S.

Health