1) minimum with a burning area (kiln) of at least 2.8 m3   (KG/Hour is not the driving factor)

2) Large – Must reach 1300 degree temperature or higher and approved for medical waste burning and be capable of burning > 4 m3 of materials at one time (the Hurikan 500 incinerator model or equivalent).
– fully EU legislation ABPR 1069/2009 compliant and for efficiency and clean emissions

Construction:
Mild steel welded fabrication consisting of sheet steel and structural section supports and bracings. Articulated trailer supplied in compliance with the country of destination.

Lining:
Primary chamber – Consists of a monolithic high grade refractory concrete with high grade insulation backing, . Utilising a refractory hearth or equivalent for continuous ash removal.

Secondary Chamber – Consists of high density, low thermal mass refractory ceramic fibre with an innovative low emissivity protective coating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our normal activities generates 2-5 tons of assorted waste materials per day which range from condemned carcasses, and medical incinerator primary combustion price

other wastes all which need to be incinerated at above 800Centigrade measured flue exhaust gas.To be used by small

hospitals and clinics to safely dispose of infectious and pathological wastes.

Load Capacity in the range of up to 200 kg
– Burning Rate approx. 50kg/Hour –

Incinerators to be very effective, fuel efficient with high / low capacity burn rates
and to be designed to meet the Norms of Pollution Control / DEFRA, etc. Technology:

Temperature Controlled Burner. Heavy-duty casing, to be a quality, rugged, reliable, economical Medical Waste

Incinerator with relevant control, easy to operate and self-contained. Type of Fuel: Diesel / Oil or Petrol.
Units to be pre-assembled, pre-piped, pre-wired & tested before Transport / Export.

Within the framework of an environmental and medical equipment & technology consultation and joint purchasing, this

Procurement Bureau invites applicants for pre-qualification in the aim of primarily selecting capable companies to bid

for the above tender.
The supply will comprise the special equipment for effective waste management as mentioned above for a new private

environment contract management company with planned operations 2013 in Indonesia and Thailand, and 2014 in West & East

Malaysia to carry out those professional services in order to comply with the governments safety disposal requirements

for medical and hospital, clinical waste in the region and to meet the higher technical standard in this particular

field.small incinerators with filter (with least minimum pollution) for burning/combusting 5kg/hr, 10kg/hr, 15 kg/hr,

20kg/hr, 25kg/hr to 50kg/hr and 300kg/hr of SOLID ORGANIC DRY AND WET NON-HAZARDUOUS of any kind (including hospital

wastes) per day or per hour. Should it be with no smoke, no fumes, no odour (smell), no dust, no emission of solid

particles and with least minimum pollution (within national and international standards). Must be environmentally

healthy and acceptable with international standards. Should not be with water scrubbers. Ash contents after burning

should be 3-4%.

Residents have less than a week left to file formal comments with a state agency overseeing plans for a controversial rail development project at a local waste incineration facility.

The timeframe offered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the agency’s handling of the announcement have angered several opponents of the project which would allow Covanta Niagara to ship hundreds of thousands of tons of waste, via rail, to Niagara Falls from New York City each year.

“I’m very disappointed with the DEC’s relationship with the public,” said Shirley Hamilton, a Falls resident who was part of a group that protested plans for the rail expansion last year. “I thought the DEC was created to ensure that people, residents, us, were going to be protected.”

Covanta Niagara has been converting waste into clean renewable energy since 1980. The waste-to-energy facility incinerates municipal garbage. The electricity and steam produced at the facility supplies surrounding businesses and the regional electrical grid.

The company’s current permit application proposes the renovation of an inactive, 15-acre rail yard adjacent to the existing facility’s property. According to the DEC’s website listing for the application, the expansion will “more efficiently deliver up to 500,000 tons per year of waste by train in place of delivering the waste by truck.”

The DEC outlined procedures for public comment on the project in an Environmental Notice Bulletin on Sept. 24 and in the Niagara Gazette’s classified section a day later. The deadline to submit comments is Oct. 10.

DEC spokesman Peter Constantakes noted that copies of the application documents are available for review in two repositories in Niagara Falls, including the Doris Jones Family Resource Center on 9th Street and the Earl Brydges Library on Main Street. The documents are also available at the DEC Region 9 office on Michigan Avenue in Buffalo and on the region’s website.

Hamilton and other project critics aren’t pleased with what they have described as a lack of adequate, advanced public notice about the start of the comment period. They argue that 15 days is not enough for residents to digest voluminous materials tied to the proposed expansion plan.

“DEC ought to respond officially as to why they think it’s appropriate to give the community 15 days notice to start shipping New York City garbage to Niagara Falls for 30 years,” said Amy Witryol, a Lewiston resident who has questioned several aspects of the Covanta proposal and raised concerns about its potential impact on the surrounding community. “Why is that a question that deserves 15 days of comment, no hearing, and not even a press release?”

Primary chamber – Consists of a monolithic high grade refractory concrete with high grade insulation backing, . Utilising a refractory hearth or equivalent for continuous ash removal.

Secondary Chamber – Consists of high density, low thermal mass refractory ceramic fibre with an innovative low emissivity protective coating. bio medical waste treatment plant ( Incineration )with panel.

SOLID WASTE INCINERATOR    Feeding Capacity:    200 to 220 Kg.
Burn Rate *    60 Kg / hr
Ingredients to be burned    Cotton, Rubber, PVC Sheets, PE Gloves, Oil, Plastic Bottles, Paper etc.
Chambers *    Dual Chamber.
1: Primary Controlled Air
2: Secondary Excess Air
Temperature Monitoring    Required
Temperature Control to Primary & Secondary Chambers    Required
System Status & Alarms    Required for all necessary parameters.
Fittings & Accessories    Complete Package is required ( Including Nozzles & Flanges etc.)
Installation Requirements.    As low as possible . Almost Plug & Play type.
Dimensional Sketch, Operation & Installation Manuals.    Required
Off – Gas System    Required
Heat Insulation    Required for indoor installation
Delivery    Karachi Sea Port – Pakistan

The details of Components of incinerator is as follows:
Component Name        Features                 Range.
Primary Chamber    Temperature Required*    800 – 1000 deg C.
Heating Source    Natural Gas

Secondary Chamber    Temperature *    1100 – 1300 deg. C
Heating Source    Natural Gas + Propane or Fuel Oil as an additional source
Off – Gas Residence Time     2 Seconds.
Refractory Material    Material *    Alumina ( 56 – 80 % Pure )
Lining *    SS 316L
Life Span *    10 – 15 years.
Rating Temperature    1600 – 1800 deg. C
Media    Slightly acidic
Insulation    Material    Ceramic Fiber
Thickness    25 “ minimum
Feeding & Ash Removing     System    Air Tight ventilating locked doors ( Feeding from Top will be preferred)
Spares    Required for 5 Years trouble free operation