Treatment and disposal technologies for health care waste


Items/Model

TS75

Picture

 

Principle

Solid Waste Incineration 

Burn Rate

Average 75 kg/hour

Feed Capacity

Average 100kg

Control Mode

PLC(Programmable Logic Controller Incinerator)

Combustion Chamber

600L

Internal Dimensions

100x60x100cm

Secondary Chamber

300L

Smoke Filter Chamber

Yes

Feed Mode

Manual

Voltage

220V

Power

3.0Kw

Oil Consumption (L/Hour)

15-20

Natural Gas Consumption (m3n/hour)

**

Temperature Monitor

Digital Screen

Temperature Protection

Yes

Oil Tank

250L

Feed Door

Dia.55cm

Chimney

6 Meters

Chimney Sort

Stainless Steel

1st.

800℃–1000℃

2nd.

Gross Weight

2500kg

External Dimensions

2080x1100x3840cm(without chimney)

HICLOVER Incinerator/Parts Range

Main Feature


Medical Waste Incinerators

HICLOVER 10-500kgs/Hr.Double Combustion Chambers

Single Combustion Chamber

Small, Cheap,10-20kgs/Hr.

Three Combustion Chambers(Optional)

3 Ranked for high risk waste

Pet Cremation Equipment

For Pet(small/big) Cremation Business

Animal Incineration Equipment

For additional creature incineration

Items/Model

The forecasted feedstock loads, and daily loading rates are generally summarized as:
• Mixed general, clinical and incinerable hazardous wastes with a wide range of calorific values and densities.   The wastes will consist of 100% biomedical wastes.
• Wastes either small enough to fit within a 60 litre waste sack or broken up or shredded to less than 300mm in size.
• Operation on a daytime shift basis, 5 days per week.

TS100(PLC)


TS150(PLC)

TS300(PLC)

TS500(PLC)

Burn Rate (Typical )

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

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


The proposed incinerators shall be able to be completely packed into a series of 20ft export standard sea containers.
“Warranty will be as per the UNOPS ‘contracts for the provision of goods’ under section 4.5 of the ‘general conditions of contract’                                                                                                                                                            4.5 WARRANTIES: Unless otherwise specified in the Contract, in addition to and without limiting any other warranties, remedies or rights of UNOPS stated in or arising under the Contract, the Contractor warrants and represents that:
4.5.1 The goods, including all packaging and packing thereof, conform to the specifications of the Contract, are fit for the purposes for which such goods are ordinarily used and for any purposes expressly made known in writing in the Contract, and shall be of even quality, free from faults and defects in design, material, manufacturer and workmanship;
4.5.2 If the Contractor is not the original manufacturer of the goods, the Contractor shall provide UNOPS with the benefit of all manufacturers’ warranties in addition to any other warranties required to be provided under the Contract;
4.5.3 The goods are of the quality, quantity and description required by the Contract, including when subjected to conditions prevailing in the place of final destination;
The goods are free from any right of claim by any third-party, including claims of infringement of any 4.5.4intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, patents, copyright and trade secrets;
4.5.5 The goods are new and unused;
4.5.6 All warranties will remain fully valid following any delivery of the goods and for a period of not less than one (1) year following acceptance of the goods by UNOPS in accordance with the Contract;
4.5.7 During any period in which the Contractor’s warranties are effective, upon notice by UNOPS that the goods do not conform to the requirements of the Contract, the Contractor shall promptly and at its own expense correct such non-conformities or, in case of its inability to do so, replace the defective goods with goods of the same or better quality or, at its own cost, remove the defective goods and fully reimburse UNOPS for the purchase price paid for the defective goods; and,
4.5.8 The Contractor shall remain responsive to the needs of UNOPS for any services that may be required in connection with any of the Contractor’s warranties under the Contract.

 CE Certification Pass

HICLOVER Solution for Fighting COVID-19 with CE Certification.
 
1. Medical Waste Incinerator(Containerized Mobile Incinerator|Top Loading Incinerator)
 
2. Auto Roll Air Filter for Clean Room

2021-02-21

 

2021-02-21


Envilead 2005 a study on waste incineration


1. The International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP) Fostering Active and Effective Civil Society Participation

in Preparations for Implementation of the Stockholm Convention A Study on Waste Incineration Activities in

Nairobi that Release Dioxin and Furan into the Environment Environmental Liaison, Education and Action for

Development (ENVILEAD) Kenya November 2005 Cannon House Annex Building, Haile Selassie Avenue P.O. Box 45585-

00100, Nairobi, KENYA Tel: +254-20-243914, +254-734-940632 E-mail: [email protected] November 2005
• 2.  About the International POPs Elimination Project On May 1, 2004, the International POPs Elimination

Network (IPEN http://www.ipen.org ) began a global NGO project called the International POPs Elimination Project

(IPEP) in partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provided core funding for the project. IPEP

has three principal objectives: • Encourage and enable NGOs in 40 developing and transitional countries to ii

engage in activities that provide concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for the

implementation of the Stockholm Convention; • Enhance the skills and knowledge of NGOs to help build their

capacity as effective stakeholders in the Convention implementation process; • Help establish regional and

national NGO coordination and capacity in all regions of the world in support of longer-term efforts to achieve

chemical safety. IPEP will support preparation of reports on country situation, hotspots, policy briefs, and

regional activities. Three principal types of activities will be supported by IPEP: participation in the

National Implementation Plan, training and awareness workshops, and public information and awareness campaigns.

For more information, please see http://www.ipen.org IPEN gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the

Global Environment Facility, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Swiss Agency for the Environment

Forests and Landscape, the Canada POPs Fund, the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment

(VROM), Mitchell Kapor Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Trust, New York Community Trust and others. The views

expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the institutions providing

management and/or financial support. This report is available in the following languages: English International

POPs Elimination Project – IPEP Website- www.ipen.org
• 3.  iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF

FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………..V LIST OF TABLES

……………………………………………………………………………V ACRONYMS AND

ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………. VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

…………………………………………………………………. 1

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Background

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……. 2 Burning and POPs

Generation……………………………………………………………………………. 3 Objectives

of Study

…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Significance of

Study…………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………. 5 Scope of

the

Study……………………………………………………………………………………………..

.. 5 Preparation for the Study

…………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Locations of

Interest

…………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 AREA

OF STUDY…………………………………………………………………………… 6 LITERATURE

REVIEW …………………………………………………………………… 7 Health Effects

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…. 8 Environmental and Socio-economic Effects

…………………………………………………………. 8 Other Pollutants from Incineration

…………………………………………………………………….. 9 Public Opposition to

Incineration ……………………………………………………………………… 10 Kenya Eggs

Study

…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
• 4.  STUDY FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………… 11

Basic

Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………..

………. 11 General

Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………..

….. 12 CHALLENGES TO THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION: RESPONSIBLE PARTIES –

KENYA……………………………………………………………………….. 15 POPs and Scientific

Development ……………………………………………………………………… 15 POPs and Less

Organized Countries …………………………………………………………………. 15 The

Environment and Economy………………………………………………………………………… 17

ALTERNATIVE PRACTICES …………………………………………………………. 17 Alternative

Technologies for Hazardous Waste Treatment ………………………………… 17

RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………….. 19 CONCLUSION

……………………………………………………………………………… 21 ANNEX 1: MAPS

………………………………………………………………………….. 24 ANNEX 2: PLATES

………………………………………………………………………. 26 iv
• 5.  v LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1: Comparison of U-POPs emissions from different source categories in Kenya

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…………….. 4 Fig. 2: Mean values (PCDD/Fs) found in Eggs Sampled from Dandora – Kenya, compared with

levels in eggs from other contaminated sites in the world………… 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Worldwide

atmospheric emissions of trace metals from waste incineration

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…… 10 Table 2. Waste disposal methods for various major companies in Nairobi ………. 14 Table 3. Non-

Incineration technologies for hazardous waste treatment…………… 18
• 6.  vi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AFD: Agence Francaise de Développement APCD: Air Pollution Control Devices

BAT: Best Available Techniques BEP: Best Environmental Practices CBO: Community Based Organization CBS: Central

Bureau of Statistics EMCA: Environment Management and Coordination Act EPR: Extended Producer Responsibility

GAIA: Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance/ Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives GoK: Government of Kenya

GPCR: Gas Phase Chemical Reduction HCB: Hexachlorobenzene IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer

IPEN: International POPs Elimination Network IPEP: International POPs Elimination Project ITDG: Intermediate

Technology Group JICA: Japan International Cooperation Agency KAM: Kenya Association of Manufacturers KEBS:

Kenya Bureau of Standards KEPI: Kenya Expanded Programme on Immunization KIPPRA: Kenya Institute for Public

Policy Research and Analysis KNH: Kenyatta National Hospital LOCs: Less Organized Countries NIP: National

Implementation Plan NCT: Non Combustion Technology NGO: Non Governmental Organization PCBs: Polychlorinated

Biphenyls PCDD: Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins PCDF: Polychlorinated dibenzofurans POPs: Persistent Organic

Pollutants PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride SANE: South Africa New Economics (network) SCWO: Super-Critical Water

Oxidation TCDD: 2,3,7,8 – tetrachlorodibenzodioxin TEQ: Toxic Equivalency Quotient TNT: Trinitrotoluene UNEP:

United Nations Environmental Program U-POPs: Unintentional Persistent Organic Pollutants USEPA: United States

Environmental Protection Agency WHO: World Health Organization
• 7.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report outlines the findings of a study carried out in and around the city of

Nairobi, Kenya by ENVILEAD. The study was carried out between the months of January and March 2005, about the

patterns of practice that are likely to release persistent organic pollutants (POPs) into the environment as

part of the International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP’s) initiatives. The focus of the study was the

practice of medical and municipal waste burning, which research has shown to be a potential source of

unintentional POPs (U-POPs). The study’s objective was to investigate the anatomy of this practice, identify

the key issues involved and make recommendations for the way forward. It was established that burning is the

dominant method of waste disposal in the city, and this is done through industrial incinerators and in the open

air. The main reason for this preferred method of disposal is its convenience in the absence of a functioning

system of waste management (by the City Council) and in the absence of adequate legal guidelines on the disposal

of solid waste by the government. This practice is however also associated with several other factors such as

lack of awareness on the part of the public, economic pressures and the general paucity of administrative

capacity in Less Organized Countries (LOCs). The study was able to establish that the area around the Dandora

dumpsite, the city’s biggest waste burning site, is highly contaminated with POPs. This was established from

the results of U-POPs levels in eggs sampled from the site in a different study. There is also a high likelihood

of other sites, such as the Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) incinerator, whose maximum temperatures range

between 600°C and 700°C and has no Air Pollution control Devices (APCD), and open-air burning site and

Kitengela open burning site being U-POPs hotspots. The study came up with the following key recommendations for

the way forward: ¾ Additional research needs to be undertaken in order to gather more detailed information

regarding this pattern of practice. Among the additional research required is in the area of relationship

between the socio-economic dynamics and the practice, quantification of the levels of dioxin (as well as other

organic pollutants and heavy metals) emissions from the identified sites, and establishment of the impacts of

the same on public health; ¾ The legal framework for the safe disposal of solid waste, based on Best Available

Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP), should to be addressed; ¾ The plastics industry, as a

major contributor of difficult-to-manage waste, needs to be fully engaged in the search for solutions in the

city’s waste management programme; ¾ Greater effort should be placed in the development of alternative

technologies 1 for safe waste disposal, which should be affordable and sustainable;
• 8.  ¾ A popular appreciation of the science of ecology needs to be created in the country, as a means of

ensuring sustained grassroots support for environmental conservation efforts. INTRODUCTION Background Just as

the generation of waste involves a complex interplay of social, cultural, economic and technological processes,

the proper management of waste cannot be divorced from the same processes. While it is necessary, for conceptual

purposes, to view waste management as a clear and distinct category of activity in society, in practice any

successful waste management strategy has to address such diverse issues as patterns of consumption, incentive

systems (the economics of waste management), waste handling technology, and legal frameworks. In its broadest

sense, the issue of waste management is an aspect of the search for sustainable development strategies. This

report seeks to provide an overview of the critical issues regarding the management of municipal and medical

waste in Nairobi, especially in respect of the potential danger of generating unintentional POPs (U-POPs) in the

process of burning such waste. The study’s broader objective is to assist in the development of a comprehensive

waste management strategy for the city and other urban areas in the country, in the context of the provisions of

the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Annex C of the Stockholm Convention,

identifies waste incinerators, including co-incinerators of municipal, hazardous or medical waste or of sewage

sludge, as source categories with high potential to release U-POPs into the environment. Municipal and medical

waste was selected for study because of its large quantity as a percentage of the total waste generated1, and

the complex nature of issues involved in the proper management of these two types of waste. Nairobi City Council

(2002) admits that it is unable to manage waste effectively in the city, and of particular concern was the

proliferation of informal medical facilities, some of which are located within residential areas. The

Environmental Management and Coordination Act (1999), is well placed to manage waste, including POPs-

contaminated waste, it gives provisions for setting of standards, licensing of waste disposal sites and control

of hazardous waste. However, lack of enforcement mechanism is the biggest challenge facing waste management in

Kenya (Nairobi City Council, 2002). 2 1 A report by NEMA reveals that Nairobi generates approximately 2000

tonnes of waste per day. Of this, 68% is municipal waste generated from households (East Standard 2004)
• 9.  Kenya as a country is in the process of developing a National Health Care Waste Management Plan. The

National AIDS Control Council has just received funds from the World Bank toward the cost of Kenya’s HIV/AIDS

Disaster Response Project, part of the funds are to be used in the development of a National Health Care Waste

Management Plan (Daily Nation, 2005). The lack of enforcement of the relevant environmental law, among other key

factors, has led to a chaotic situation in which almost anything goes as far as the handling of waste is

concerned. A recent report by KIPPRA on solid waste management in Kenya shows that only 25% of the solid waste

generated daily in the city of Nairobi is currently collected (UNEP 2005). The focus of the study was waste

burning, which any casual observation reveals to be the preferred waste disposal option for the Nairobi

residents, which is a consequence of failure on the part of the City Council, and Government, to institute

organized systems waste handling. The study looked at open air burning types and industrial incinerators.

Burning and POPs Generation Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF),

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are unintentional persistent organic pollutants

(U-POPs), formed and released from thermal processes involving organic matter and chlorine as a result of

incomplete combustion or chemical reactions. These U-POPs are commonly known as dioxins because of their similar

structure and health effects (Tangri 2003). These U-POPs are both of natural and anthropogenic origin. They

resist photolytic, biological and chemical degradation. They are bio-accumulative, widespread geographically and

are toxic to life. The concentration of U-POPs of anthropogenic origin has greatly increased over the years.

Toxics Link Report (2000) identifies several potential sources of these U-POPs, among them being medical waste

incineration and open burning of domestic waste. According to USEPA estimates, municipal solid waste

incineration and medical waste incineration are among the top sources of dioxins released into the air. They

make up for 1,100gm TEQ/year and 477gm TEQ/year respectively (USEPA 1998). Of all source categories, combustion

sources account for nearly 80% of air emissions. 3
• 10.  4 AIR LAND Waste Incineration Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metal Production Production of Chemicals and

Consumer Goods* Waste Incineration Uncontrolled Combustion Processes Source: Kenya POPs Inventory Fig. 1:

Comparison of U-POPs emissions from different source categories in Kenya Luscombe and Costner (2003) show how

incinerators endanger public health and the environment in general. They identify the toxic pollutants in

incinerator gases and residues, and enumerate the human health and environmental damage of the various chemicals

in the incinerator releases. Connett (1998) shows how municipal waste incineration is a poor solution to the

waste management problem. He lists the toxic emissions of incineration and shows how dioxins, furans and other

by-products of combustion impact human health and the environment. Objectives of Study The overall goal of the

study was to understand the (social, economic and technological) dynamics of the practice of waste burning in

the city and to find out how this might contribute to the release of U-POPs into the environment. Other critical

issues, such as the public health impact of the pattern of practice, were left for the next phase of the study.

The specific objectives of the study were: i. to assess the extent of waste burning/incineration within Nairobi

ii. to establish the City Council of Nairobi’s role in the prevalence of open burning and incineration as the

preferred methods of waste disposal iii. to identify the location of waste burning/ incineration sites in the

city iv. to find out how chlorine-containing waste (such as PVC plastics) is disposed v. to assess the level of

awareness of the general public about the adverse consequences of waste incineration
• 11.  vi. to examine Government regulatory mechanisms for disposal of chlorine-containing 5 waste vii. to

explore suitable BAT and BEP for waste management in Kenya. Significance of Study Article 5 of the Stockholm

Convention requires parties, Kenya included2, taking measures to reduce or eliminate releases from unintentional

production of POPs. These measures include: i. reduction of annual total releases derived from anthropogenic

sources of U-POPs, with the goal of their continuing minimization and where feasible, ultimate elimination; ii.

the development of an action plan (NIP) by parties. Kenya’s NIP should be ready by 25th December, 2006; and

iii. to promote BEP and incorporate BAT in the NIP. The study’s findings will be incorporated in Kenya’s NIP

of the Stockholm Convention with a view to assisting in the realization of the above measures. METHODOLOGY To

achieve the objectives of this study, both primary and secondary data was used. Primary data comprised local

views, perceptions and opinions related to the waste disposal sites among local community members. Various

Government and other resource persons also provided valuable primary data for the study. The state of the

incinerators and dumpsites as well as the disposal methods were studied through observation by the researchers.

Additional data was gathered through taking photographs of the sites and interviewing workers (where applicable)

at the different sites visited. Secondary data was obtained from both published and unpublished information on

waste burning in Kenya and elsewhere in the world. Previous studies carried out on medical and municipal waste

disposal at the global, regional, national and local levels were reviewed. Descriptive analysis was used to

summarize the collected data. Scope of the Study The study was a preliminary investigation, intended to open the

way for further detailed investigations of the same sites and other similar sites in the country. 2 The

convention came into force on 17th May 2004. Kenya became a party to the convention on 23rd December 2004
• 12.  Preparation for the Study Staff recruitment and training: Two research assistants were recruited and

trained for fieldwork. Stakeholders’ identification: Various stakeholders were identified and approached for

their views on the issue under investigation. These stakeholders included: i. Members of public within Nairobi

ii. Health care professionals iii. The Occupational Health Officer, Ministry of Health iv. National

Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) v. Kenya Association of Manufacturers vi. Major Supermarkets in town

vii. Private waste handlers viii. City Council of Nairobi Locations of Interest For the study of medical waste

management, researchers chose to visit a few health care institutions based in Nairobi. These were: Kenyatta

National Hospital (KNH), Nairobi Hospital, Mater Hospital and Forces Memorial Hospital. For the study of

municipal waste management, the researchers visited the Nairobi City Council’s dump site at Dandora as well as

several residential estates in Nairobi including: Jericho, Kariobangi, Huruma, Ngomongo, Baba dogo, Muthurwa,

Shauri moyo, Kimathi, Buruburu, Lucky Summer and Korogocho all in Eastlands; Westlands, Kangemi, Uthiru and

Kikuyu along Waiyaki Way in the West side of Nairobi, and Kitengela to the south of the city. AREA OF STUDY

Nairobi is the largest town in Kenya and also the country’s capital city. It covers an area of 696 km² and

currently has a population of 2,143,254 and population density 3,079 per square kilometre (GoK, 2000). At 1.5 0

south of the equator, Nairobi is a tropical city. Its altitude of 5,000 to 6,000 feet means that the climate is

temperate. Rainfall is divided between two rainy seasons: the short rains fall in November and early December,

and the long rains between April and mid-June. Because it is virtually on the equator, Nairobi has a constant

twelve hours of daylight per day all year round. The sun rises at 6.30 – 7.00a.m and sets again at 6.30 – 7.00

p.m. 6
• 13.  The average day-time temperature varies only slightly throughout the year, ranging from 85°F (29°C) in

the dry season to 75°F (24°C) during the rest of the year. At night, however, temperatures can drop to as low

as 48°F (9°C), though rarely lower. Founded as a last halt before the Highlands for railway engineers in the

early 1900s, Nairobi, which was then just a few shacks and tracks, now covers 696 square kilometres. This figure

includes 120 square kilometres of the Nairobi Game Park and all of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. Central

Nairobi barely makes up five square kilometres. LITERATURE REVIEW Tangri (2003), notes that despite intensive

scrutiny over many years, much remains unknown about the releases of pollutants from waste-burning activities.

Waste burning produces hundreds of distinct hazardous by-products of which only a handful of them have been

studied thoroughly. Hundreds remain unidentified. Connett (1998) identifies some of the toxic emissions of

incineration. These include: hydrogen chloride, nitric oxide, heavy metals, dioxins, furans and other U-POPs,

fly ash, bottom ash, stack gas, fugitive emissions plus other residues. Polythene bags and plastics, including

PVC items, make up approximately 225 tonnes out of the 2000 tonnes of solid waste generated daily in Nairobi

(KAM, 2003). This represents about 11% of total waste generated daily, while 75% comprises biodegradable waste

that can be composted. The remaining percentage is made up of other recyclable materials such as textiles, metal

and glass making up 2.7%, 2.6% and 2.3% respectively. Open burning of municipal waste is widely used by the

residents of Nairobi, as a means of disposing solid waste. 7 The following facts regarding plastics were

identified from literature: • According to KAM, consumers and end users are the ones who cause environmental

pollution from plastics; • Not all plastics emanate from the local industry, some is imported; • The plastics

sector currently constitutes approximately 150 industries, and has an annual growth rate of 6%; • Currently,

there are about 70 firms that recycle plastics locally; and • Plastics contribute 28% of all cadmium found in

municipal solid waste and approximately 32% of all lead; substances that are highly toxic to humans and the

environment in general.
• 14.  Health Effects Because of the persistent and bio-accumulative nature of dioxins and furans, these

chemicals exist throughout the environment. Human exposure is mainly through consumption of fatty foods, such as

milk. USEPA (2000) in Tangri (2003) notes that 90-95% of human exposure to dioxins is from food, particularly

meat and dairy products. This is because dioxins accumulate in fats and oils3. Their health effects depend on a

variety of factors, including the level of exposure, duration of exposure and stage of life during exposure.

Some of the probable health effects of dioxins and furans include the development of cancer, immune system

suppression, reproductive and developmental complications, endocrine disruption (GAIA, 2003; Connett, 1998;

Luscombe and Costner, 2003). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified 2,3,7,8 –

TCDD as the most toxic of all dioxin compounds. Environmental and Socio-economic Effects The accumulation of

dioxins and furans in the environment owing to waste incineration activities can reach levels that render

resources unfit for human consumption. Connett (1989), cited in Connett (2003), reports of an incident in

Netherlands where 16 dairy farmers downwind of a huge incinerator in Rotterdam could not sell their milk because

it contained three times higher dioxin levels than anywhere else in Netherlands. Even low doses of dioxins are

very toxic. In 1998, the WHO lowered its recommended Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of dioxins from 10 picograms

TEQ per kilogram of bodyweight per day (pg/kg/day) to a range of 1-4 pg/kg/day (Van Leeuwen and Younes 1998).

According to studies conducted in Netherlands, prenatal exposure to typical daily intake of dioxins and PCBs has

effects on neurodevelopment and thyroid hormones. Deficits of up to four points in IQ and increased

susceptibility to infections in 42 month old children exposed to typical daily intakes of dioxins/PCBs were

observed (Patandin 1999). Incineration produces residues that require treatment and/or disposal, most often in a

landfill. Incinerator ash – either as bottom ash or fly ash – is highly toxic. Tangri (2003) observes that

handling of this ash raises serious concerns because workers are often exposed to the ash, sometimes with little

or no protective gear. In India just like in Kenya, Toxic Link (2000), notes that incineration is rudimentary

and most incinerators are single chambered with a smoke stack. Major reasons for dioxin emissions from such

waste incinerators are: 8 3 WHO (1999) points out that dioxins are highly persistent for they breakdown very

slowly and have a half-life in human body of about 7 years.
• 15.  • almost all of them burn mixed waste; • due to lack of enforcement and monitoring, most of the hospitals

are incinerating their plastic waste and also waste treated with chlorinated disinfectant; • many of the

incinerators still have single chambers, in spite of the fact that the installation of double (secondary)

chambers is needed to eliminate volatile substances by better combustion; and • most of the incinerators do not

operate under stipulated temperature. Under the regulations, primary chambers should operate at 850º C and

secondary chambers should operate at 1000º C or more. Tangri (2003) has enumerated several problems particular

to transferring incineration technology to the developing countries. These problems include: • lack of

monitoring – no ability to regularly monitor stack emissions or 9 incinerator ash toxicity; • lack of technical

capacity to test releases – not able to conduct tests for dioxins and other pollutants; • lack of secure

landfills for ash – toxic incinerator ash dumped in, at best, an unlined pit, where it runs the risk of

contaminating groundwater. Access to the ash land not controlled; • corruption4; • shortage of trained personnel

– necessary number of trained Manpower to manage incinerator operations; • budgetary constraints – hinder

maintenance and replacement of key incinerator functions; and • differing physical conditions and lack of

robustness of technology – where incinerator technology imported from the west is not appropriate to the

Southern conditions. Other Pollutants from Incineration In addition to dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

and Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), incinerators are sources of other halogenated organic compounds, toxic metals and

greenhouse gases to name but a few5. Toxic metals released from incineration activities include: Mercury, Lead,

Cadmium, Arsenic, Chromium, Beryllium, Antimony, and Manganese. Stanners and Bourdeau (1995), cited in Tangri

(2003), give a worldwide atmospheric emissions estimate of trace metals from waste incineration; this is

summarized in the Table 1 below: 4 Where there is corruption the likelihood of installing substandard equipment

for kickbacks is high. 5 [Blumenstock et al (2000) in Tangri, (2003)].
• 16.  10 Table 1. Worldwide atmospheric emissions of trace metals from waste incineration Atmospheric emissions

from waste incineration Metal 1000 tons/year % of total emission Antimony 0.67 19.0 Arsenic 0.31 3.0 Cadmium

0.75 9.0 Chromium 0.84 2.0 Copper 1.58 4.0 Lead 2.37 20.7 Manganese 8.26 21.0 Mercury 1.16 32.0 Nickel 0.35 0.6

Selenium 0.11 11.0 Tin 0.81 15.0 Vanadium 1.15 1.0 Zinc 5.90 4.0 Source: Stanners and Bourdeau (1995), in Tangri

(2003), page 17 Public Opposition to Incineration Waste incineration is unpopular in many countries. In the USA,

for example, since 1985, over 300 trash incinerator proposals have been defeated or put on hold due to public

opposition, and several large engineering firms have pulled out of the incinerator business altogether (Connett

1998). In Michigan, all but one of the 290 medical waste incinerators in the state closed down rather than

attempt to meet federal emissions limits imposed in 1997 (Tangri 2003). Tangri (2003) reports that in 2001

alone, major incinerator proposals were defeated by public opposition in France, Haiti, Ireland, Poland, South

Africa, Thailand, UK, Venezuela. Even in poor countries such as Bangladesh, public opposition to incinerators

has yielded changes. A proposal by an American company to build a power station which would burn trash shipped-

in from New York City to Khulna in Bangladesh was defeated by public opposition (Connett 1998). In 2000, GAIA

was launched. GAIA members work both against incineration and for the implementation of alternatives Tangri

(2003). Kenya Eggs Study A study in early 2005 on egg-sampling by ENVILEAD and Arnika (under the Dioxin, PCBs

and Waste Working Group of IPEN) found eggs collected around the Dandora dumpsite in Nairobi, Kenya, to have

dioxin levels over 6 times higher than the EU dioxins limits for eggs. In addition, the sampled eggs
• 17.  exceeded the proposed WHO limits for PCBs by more than 4-fold (Fig. 2). It is estimated that the Dandora

open dumpsite handles 803,000 tons of waste per year (National inventory of POPs, 2004). Fig. 2: Mean values

(PCDD/Fs) found in Eggs Sampled from Dandora – Kenya, compared with levels in eggs from other contaminated

sites in the world Source: The Egg sampling report by ENVILEAD and ARNIKA (2005) STUDY FINDINGS Basic Findings

The study made several basic findings that will be important in the search for waste management solutions in

Nairobi and elsewhere in the country. Among these are: a. The nature of consumer demand: In the Kenyan market,

where more than half the nation’s population lives below the poverty line, plastic constitutes a very

attractive option as the material of choice for numerous domestic, medical and industrial products. The business

organizations that researchers were able to visit, such as supermarkets and plastics’ manufacturers, confirmed

cost attractiveness of plastic to local consumers. There is therefore a basic market-based challenge to the

problem of waste management, 11
• 18.  comprising rational economic action linking consumers, manufacturers and traders. b. Legal framework and

administrative capacity: Waste is a necessary outcome of any production and consumption process. But in the real

world, the quantity of waste a society produces has implications on the resources the society requires for

managing the same. It is therefore necessary, especially where resources for waste management are very limited,

to institute measures that reduce the overall quantity of waste generated, with a special focus on products such

as plastics that are especially problematic in safe disposal. Proper waste management requires enforcement of

the existing legal provisions. The study established that Kenya has a sound legal framework (EMCA, 1999) for

guiding the utilization of BEP and BAP in waste management. However, the law is not enforced to the letter. It

was established that most health institutions, including KNH, do only rudimentary segregation of waste. Of the

hospitals visited, only Nairobi Hospital and Mater Hospital had a thorough waste segregation system. The

existence of suitable legal guidelines is however only one part of the requirements for a proper system of waste

management. The other part has to do with administrative capacity to enforce such law. The study established

that the City Council, which has the legal responsibility for managing solid waste in the city, has an alarming

lack of administrative capacity for this role. For example, the Dandora dumpsite, which is supposed to be under

the management of the Council, is a veritable health and ecological time-bomb for Nairobi and its environs. 12

General Findings The following were the study’s general findings: I. The level of public awareness on the

adverse effects of waste burning activities and U-POPs among the residents is pathetically low. A majority of

the study’s respondents could not link any ill-health to incineration activities and U-POPs as a major health

threat; II. All the main health institutions in Nairobi such as KNH, Nairobi Hospital, Mater Hospital, and

Forces Memorial Hospital either have their own incinerators or hire the services of one. In addition however

some of the institutions are involved in open air burning. For instance, the biggest hospital in Kenya (KNH)

burns some of its waste mostly consisting paper, plastics, clothing etc – usually considered to be of low risk

– in an open pit in front of the incinerator;
• 19.  III. Open burning of municipal waste is widely used by the residents of Nairobi, as a means of disposing

solid waste. In a survey of two blocks’ area around Pumwani in Eastlands, Nairobi, eight small open air waste

burning sites were counted, all of which had assorted plastics; IV. The incinerator at Kenyatta National

Hospital, which is situated just a few metres upwind from the residential homes of low cadre staff of the

hospital and medical students’ hostels, operates at temperatures between 350°C and 650°C and has no APCD. The

incinerator emits noxious fumes that are carried to the homes and hostels, causing considerable distress to the

residents; 13 Plate: Kenyatta National Hospital open dumpsite: At the background are hospital staff quarters V.

The dioxin-rich bottom ash from incinerators around Nairobi is normally deposited at the Dandora dumpsite; VI.

The Dandora dumpsite constitutes the most prominent, and challenging, manifestation of problems arising out of

the waste-burning pattern of practice in Nairobi; VII. The level of waste recovery, reuse and recycling is

grossly inadequate. For example, only 1% of plastics are recycled (KAM, 2003); VIII. The legal framework

regulating waste burning activities is sound. However, the enforcement of the law is weak; and IX. The Nairobi

City Council lacks the capacity to manage the waste generated in the city effectively; Table 2 below shows a

number of major companies in Nairobi that dump their mixed waste in Dandora dumpsite. It is therefore necessary

for the private sector to be involved in the search for waste management solutions as they are major

contributors of waste.
• 20.  14 Table 2. Waste disposal methods for various major companies in Nairobi Company/organization Contents

of waste Estimated weight in tons/month Method of disposal Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) Mixed

aircraft waste 300 Waste dumped in Dandora dumpsite Kenya Revenue Authority staff quarters Household/domestic

waste 285 Waste dumped in Dandora dumpsite Kenya Shell Company (Shell & B.P. House) Commercial waste 60 Waste

dumped in Dandora dumpsite Kenya breweries Household and commercial 200 Waste dumped in Dandora dumpsite NAS

Airport Services Food & food packaging 350 Waste dumped in Dandora dumpsite Swan Industries Commercial &

industrial waste 350 Waste dumped in Dandora dumpsite Kenya Shell aviation Stations Commercial & food waste 72

Waste dumped in Dandora dumpsite Orbit Chemicals Polythene sheet cuttings & plastic drums – • Plastics recycled

• Paper & drum sold • Other waste dumped near Athi River. Source: Kenya National Inventory of POPs (2004)

Findings on Health Effects and Exposure Pathways The study was not able to carry out a comprehensive

investigation into the health consequences of the incinerators and open air burning sites visited. There were

however complaints about chest complications and serious smoke irritation for those living downwind from the KNH

incinerator, as well as from those living around the Dandora dumpsite. The main exposure pathways for any

contamination from the sites visited in the study are: • Inhalation of the pollutants-infested smoke and fly ash

carried across by the wind; • Consumption of animal products such as meat, milk and eggs from animals feeding

within and around the sites; • River water from a river flowing next to the Dandora dumpsite and serving

numerous people downstream on its way to the Indian ocean; and • Ground water reserves affected by leachate from

the Dandora dumpsite. It is worth noting that some categories of people are at higher risks of exposure to

dioxins than others. These include children, infants, some workers, people
• 21.  who eat fish as a main staple of their diet and people who live near dioxin release sites. CHEJ (1999)

observes that these groups are likely to be exposed to at least 10 times as much dioxin as the general

population. CHALLENGES TO THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION: RESPONSIBLE PARTIES – KENYA POPs and Scientific Development

The existence of POPs worldwide is one of the best illustrations of the Frankenstein nature of scientific and

technological development. While progress in science and technology has greatly increased humanity’s power to

modify its environment for its benefit in ways previously unimagined, the same progress has created threats of

similar magnitude to humanity and the planet as a whole. The last century has been called an “era of chemicals

”, where more than 18 million chemicals were synthesized and about 100,000 of them came into commercial use

(Toxics Link 2000). It was not until the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, “The Silent Spring”, that the

general public’s attention was drawn to the dark side of the chemical revolution. The Stockholm Convention is

in many respects an effort to interpret Carson’s thesis into social action. The broader framework of the

Stockholm Convention’s objectives should be viewed as completing the loop of knowledge in chemistry, through

developing the institutional capacity to control the real and potential danger of chemicals. The realization of

the Stockholm Convention’s mandate would be the coming of age of the chemical revolution. As Isaac Asimov put

it, “The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

” POPs and Less Organized Countries The above-outlined problems are relevant to Kenya and other Less Organized

Countries (LOCs). In addition though, LOCs face several challenges that are unique to their special

circumstances. Among these is the sheer pressure of survival priorities. The immediacy of hunger, debilitating

disease, social and economic dislocation, and other such concerns that affect large sections of society in LOCs

is such that an issue like that of POPs is unlikely to find a place at the fore of the national agenda. The

psychological environment of desperate social and economic circumstances has a tendency to promote fatalism and

other behavioural tendencies that are not conducive to organized long term action based on people’s faith in

their ability to 15
• 22.  influence the course of their destiny. A good illustration of this is the challenge that the behaviour-

change message in the HIV/Aids campaign in Africa has faced, despite the powerful and very public nature of the

AIDS pandemic. Galvanizing community action for the POPs eradication campaign shall require very well thought-

out strategies, and competent leadership. In addition to the problem of priorities, LOCs face a big challenge of

organizational capacity in the campaign against POPs. The low levels of organizational capacity in LOCs

translate to challenges in administrative competence, financial resources, technological resources, monitoring

ability and other such key requirements for an effective POPs eradication campaign. With sufficient support

there are specific organizations within LOCs that can make a real and positive difference in such a campaign. In

the long run, in order for any major campaign such as that of the Stockholm Convention to be truly successful,

the campaign has to be done in the context of an overall sustainable development strategy. Such a campaign would

have implications going beyond specific issue of POPs. For example, a successful POPs elimination campaign may

need to involve fundamental changes in the agricultural sector, waste management approaches and legislation (as

well as enforcement mechanisms) dealing with chemical safety in general. Such an agenda requires very

considerable organizational capacity both within the public sector and civil society, which is the big challenge

for LOCs. 16 The crippling nature of incinerator debt. Capital costs of incinerator projects for instance, drain

the resources of LOCs and increase their indebtedness through the need for foreign financing to build and

maintain such facilities not forgetting continued reliance on manufactured products from other nations. Instead

of allowing nations to develop new industries and reduce foreign imports, incinerators transform these resources

into smoke and ash. Analysis by a local environmental group in Miljoteknik Zychlin, Poland revealed that the

debt for the US$5million proposed incineration facility would have taken the community of 14,000 residents over

100 years to repay! – Brenda Platt (2004)
• 23.  The Environment and Economy While the growth of science and technology has an important bearing on the

dangers to the environment that the Stockholm Convention and similar other Conventions seek to counter, it is

the market economy that provides the framework within which the power of science and technology can be projected

into the world. As is the case with science, measuring economic development in a one-dimensional manner, purely

in terms of (monetary) returns on investment and not the overall impact of the concerned economic activity on

society and the natural environment, is unsatisfactory. In economics, problems arising from the undesirable

consequences of economic activity that are not captured in the pricing structure of products are called negative

externalities. Negative externalities are those situations arising from economic activity that create costs to

the society that are not reflected in the balance sheets of the concerned businesses. For example, in pricing

its products, a given organization may include the cost of labour, energy, marketing, finance and other such

inputs but leave out the cost (borne by the society) of medical and other costs directly attributable to harmful

effects of the organization’s products. POPs ought to be treated as an aspect of the problem of externalities

in economic theory, and solutions sought within the framework of approaches developed in the discipline of

economics to deal with this problem. ALTERNATIVE PRACTICES Other than incineration, landfilling and composting

are alternative methods of waste disposal used in the country, although to a minimal extent. More often than

not, individuals and community-based organizations (CBOs) are the ones involved in composting biodegradable

waste mostly on a commercial basis. Landfilling is commonly practiced in the smaller health facilities such as

District hospitals, health centers and clinics, but most of these landfills are not built to standard. Other

landfills in the country are situated in Mombasa and Nakuru for municipal waste disposal, built through the

assistance of Agence Francaise de Développement (AFD), a French operation that works through the government.

Alternative Technologies for Hazardous Waste Treatment In developed countries, non-incineration technologies for

hazardous waste treatment are available; these include several processes summarized by Crowe and Schade (2002)

in Tangri (2003) in Table 3. 17
• 24.  18 Table 3. Non-Incineration technologies for hazardous waste treatment Technology Process description

Potential Advantages Current Uses Base Catalyzed Dechlorination Wastes reacted with alkali metal hydroxide,

hydrogen and catalyst material. Results in salts, water and carbon. Reportedly high destruction efficiencies. No

dioxin formation. Licensed in the United States, Australia, Mexico, Japan, and Spain. Potential demonstration

for PCBs through United Nations project. Biodegradation (in enclosed vessel) Microorganisms destroy organic

compounds in liquid solutions. Requires high oxygen/nitrogen input. Low temperature, low pressure. No dioxin

formation. Contained process. Chosen for destruction of chemical weapons neutralent in the United States.

Potential use on other military explosive wastes typically used for commercial wastewater treatment. Chemical

Neutralization Waste is mixed with water and caustic solution. Typically requires secondary treatment. Low

temperature, low pressure. Contained and controlled process. No dioxin formation. Chosen for treatment of

chemical agents in the United State. Electrochemical Oxidation (Silver II) Wastes are exposed to nitric acid and

silver nitrate treated in an electrochemical cell. Low temperature, low pressure. High destruction efficiency.

Ability to reuse/ recycle process input materials. Contained process. No dioxin formation. Under consideration

for chemical weapons disposal in the United States. Assessed for treatment of radioactive wastes.

Electrochemical Oxidation (CerOx) Similar to above, but using cerium rather than silver nitrate. Same as above;

cerium is less hazardous than silver nitrate. Demonstration unit at the University of Nevada, USA. Under

consideration for destruction of chemical agent neutralent waste. Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Waste is exposed

to hydrogen and high heat, resulting in methane and hydrogen chloride. Contained, controlled system. Potential

for reprocessing by-products. High destruction efficiency Used commercially in Australia and Japan for PCBs and

other hazardous waste contaminated materials. Currently under consideration for chemical weapons destruction in

the United States. Potential demonstration for PCB destruction through United Nations project. Solvated Electron

Technology Sodium metal and ammonia used to reduce hazardous wastes to salts and hydrocarbon compounds. Reported

high destruction efficiencies. Commercially available in the United States for treatment of PCBs. Supercritical

Water Oxidation Waste is dissolved at high temperature and pressure and treated with oxygen or hydrogen

peroxide. Contained, controlled system. Potential for reprocessing by-products. High destruction efficiencies.

Under consideration for chemical weapons destruction in the United States. Assessed for use on radioactive

wastes in the United States. Wet Air Oxidation Liquid waste is oxidized and hydrolyzed in water at moderate

temperature Contained, controlled system. No dioxin formation. Vendor claims 300 systems worldwide, for

treatment of hazardous sludges and wastewater Source: Crowe and Schade (2002) in Tangri 2003, page 62
• 25.  From the study, we found out that none of the above stated technologies is used in Kenya. RECOMMENDATIONS

The study proposes the following measures: I. Additional studies should be undertaken to acquire additional and

more detailed information about the waste burning and incineration and its consequences in Kenya. This includes

analysis and quantification of U-POPs 19 in biotic and abiotic systems and their impact on public health; II. In

line with Article 10 of the Stockholm Convention, Public information, awareness and education on U-POPs should

be carried out, for a well informed citizenry will make a big contribution on efforts geared towards

elimination/ and reduction of the U-POPs. Proper education and training in waste management must be offered to

all stakeholders in a way best suites their respective circumstances and builds their understanding and changes

their behaviour accordingly; III. Subsidiary legislation addressing waste incineration should be enacted under

the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (1999). This should guard against indiscriminate burning of

waste; IV. A buy-back scheme for used plastics should be instituted. This should not be difficult to do because

the plastics industry is willing to manage waste sites in all major population areas where the manufacturers

will buy plastic waste from the general public. Such collection centres would be set up and fully funded by the

same manufacturers (KAM, 2003); V. A national campaign, financed by the plastics industry should be launched,

giving the public exact details of where to take their plastic waste for recycling. Supermarket chains should

also be encouraged to allocate bins in their branches where customers can bring back plastic carrier bags and

other items for recycling; VI. A zero waste program should be introduced immediately and eventually developed

into policy. It has been tried and tested in other countries and it is rapidly gaining acceptance the world

over. Within the zero waste program, there should be a rigorous national campaign lobbying for an end to open

burning and incineration of waste and in particular waste that contains PVC; VII. Waste segregation at source

should be the standard practice in all households and medical facilities. The current waste management practice

in which waste materials are all mixed together as they are generated, collected, transported and finally

disposed of should be stopped. If proper segregation is achieved through training, clear standards, and tough

enforcement, then resources can be turned to the
• 26.  management of the small portion of the waste stream needing special treatment6; VIII. A policy of

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) should be put in place. The basic concept of EPR is that firms must take

responsibility for their products over their entire life cycles (Tangri 2003). This is in harmony with the

“Polluter Pays” principle of the Stockholm Convention; IX. Statutory regulations to force manufacturers to use

at least 15% recycled plastics in their non-food products should be imposed. In this way demand for plastic

waste will be created therefore leaving little if anything for disposal. Since to install capacity for recycling

is expensive however, the plastics’ industry should be given tax incentives for the exercise; X. Cleaner

production based on a circular vision of the economy should be encouraged. Cleaner production aims at

eliminating toxic wastes and inputs by designing products and manufacturing processes in harmony with natural

ecological cycles (Tangri 2003); XI. Product bans ought to be made for certain categories of manufactures.

Products and packaging that create waste problems (non-recyclable or hazardous- such as polyvinyl chloride –

PVC) for the society should not be allowed to enter into the economy. Bans are appropriate for materials that

are problematic at every stage of their lifecycles (Ryder 2000 in Tangri 2003); XII. Infrastructure for the safe

disposal and recycling of hazardous materials and municipal solid waste should be developed. Approximately 50%

of all waste is organic, and can therefore be composted. Another large segment of the remainder can be recycled,

leaving only a small portion to be disposed. The remaining portion can then be disposed through sanitary

landfills, sewage treatment plants, and other technologies. To ensure continuity and clarity in the proposed

recommendations, clear plans and policies on management and disposal of waste should be developed. This should

be followed by integrating them into routine workers’ training, continuing education and evaluation processes

for systems and personnel. Involvement of all stakeholders including public interest NGOs and other civil

society in developing and implementing a waste management scheme is necessary for successful implementation of

the Stockholm Convention. 20 6 Platt and Seldman (2000), show how comprehensive waste composting, reuse and

recycling programmes generate ten times as many jobs per tonne of municipal waste as do incinerators.
• 27.  CONCLUSION The burning of waste as a method of waste disposal in Nairobi clearly constitutes a pattern of

practice which contributes to the release of U-POPs into the environment. As suggested by the term “pattern”,

this practice is a complex process involving economic factors, people’s attitudes, governance issues and other

such components. It is a matter requiring detailed study and much creative effort to address satisfactorily. In

its broader context, the issue of waste management is an aspect of the challenge of sustainable development.

Inability to deal with waste in such a way as it does not harm people or the environment is an indication of an

ecologically unsustainable system of social organization. The challenge of sustainable development is to design

an economic and technological system that is in harmony with ecological principles. The current dominant system

of economic and technological organization in the world is powerful and in many respects very successful. It is

however not a sustainable system and in fact constitutes a veritable danger to the survival of life in the

planet. There is need to review some of the system’s most basic organizational principles, as a way out of the

dangerous trajectory it has set for humanity. The poorly formed social structures and systems in LOCs,

especially in sub- Saharan Africa, may ironically make the best hope for the development of fresh, ecologically

sustainable development approaches. LOCs have the opportunity to build their houses with the special benefit of

a wealth of knowledge of the successes, and follies, of the past. LOCs should proceed to build their societies

with energy and enthusiasm, but with the clear understanding that humanity cannot stand outside, or above, the

ecological order that sustains all other life in the planet. 21
• 28.  REFERENCES 1. Alcock R., Gemmill R. and Jones K. (1998), “An updated PCDD/F atmospheric emission

inventory based on recent emissions measurement programme” in Organologen compounds, Vol. 36, pp 105 -108 2.

CHEJ (1999) America’s Choice; Children’s Health or Corporate profit. The American People’s Dioxin Report by

Center for Health, Environment and Justice – www.essential.org/cchw 3. Connett Paul (1998) “Municipal Waste

Incineration: A poor solution for the 21st Century” 4th Annual International Management Conference. Waste – to

– Energy, Nov 24 -25, 1998, Amsterdam. 22 4. Crowe Elizabeth and Schade Mike (June 2002) Learning Not to Burn:

a Primer for Citizens on Alternatives to Burning Hazardous Waste. 5. Daiy Nation, July 15 2005” National AIDS

Control Council: Request for Expressions of Interest Consultant Services- the Kenya HIV/AIDS Disaster Response

Project”` 6. East African standard, June 6 2004: ”Filth is choking up Kenya and pushing the country to the

blink of an Environmental catastrophe” Nairobi. 7. Government of Kenya, 1999, Environmental Management and

Coordination Act (EMCA),1999, Nairobi: Government printers. 8. Government of Kenya, 2000, National Human

Population and Housing Census 1999, Nairobi: Government printers. 9. IPEN, Arnika and ENVILEAD, 2005:

Contamination of Eggs from the Sorroundings of Dandora Dumpsite by Dioxins, PCBs and HCBs; ”Keep the Promise,

Eliminate POPs” campaign reports. 10. KAM (Plastic Sector) Position Paper to NEMA, July 2003. 11. Kenya

National Inventory of Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention, final report (Unpublished).

12. Luscombe Darryl and Costner Pat, (1998) Technical Criteria for the Destruction of Stockpiled Persistent

Organic Pollutants; Greenpeace International Science Unit. 13. Nairobi City Council 2002: A Survey on medical

Waste in Nairobi (unpublished report) 14. Patandin S. (1999) Effects of environmental exposure to

polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins on growth and development in young children, A prospective follow-up study

of breast-fed infants from birth until 42 months of age. Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. 15. Stanners D.

and Bourdeau P. (1995) Europe’s Environment, The Dobris Assessment, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

16. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) (www.pops.int) 17. Tangri Neil (2003), Waste

Incineration: A Dying Technology: Essential Action for GAIA: www.no-burn.org 18. Toxics Link (2000) Trojan

Horses: Persistent organic Pollutants in India. Delhi: Toxics Link.
• 29.  19. UNEP (Nairobi): Plastic bag ban in Kenya proposed as part of the New 23 waste strategy” Press

release February 23, 2005. 20. University of Nairobi Enterprises and Services Limited (UNES): National Inventory

of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) under Stockholm Convention. 2004. 21. USEPA (1998) The Inventory of

Sources of Dioxins in the United States, USEPA, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/P-98/002Aa. External

Review Draft, April. 22. USEPA, Dioxin: Summary of the Dioxin Reassessment Science, 2000a. 23. USEPA (2000)

Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds,

Part I: Estimating Exposure to Dioxin Like Compounds, Volume 2: Sources of Dioxin Like compounds in the United

States, Draft Final Report EPA/600/P-00/001Bb, (http://www.epa.gov/ncea ). 24. Van Leeuwen F and Younnes M.

1998, WHO revises the TDI in for dioxins. In organohalogen compounds, Vol. 38, pp 295 -298; 1998.
• 30.  24 ANNEX 1: MAPS 1. Map of Kenya Note Nairobi’s position and the other major towns (the red dots) which

could have similar environmental challenges.
• 31.  25 2. Map of Nairobi The brown patch at the center of White square is the heart of Nairobi. Note the

Nairobi River, which joins the Athi River on the way to the Indian Ocean.
• 32.  26 ANNEX 2: PLATES 1. Dandora dumpsite This is the Western edge of the Dandora dumpsite. The houses in

the foreground are part of the Korogocho slums. In the background is lucky-summer estate. The dumpsite is

surrounded by densely populated residential quarters. 2. Kitengela Town Dump Notice the persons in the way of

the smoke. These are scavengers at the site who work in this environment on a daily basis.
• 33.  27 3. Waste content of the dumpsites Typical contents of dumpsites around Nairobi. Notice the high

proportion of plastics. 4. Medical Waste awaiting incineration (KNH) The maximum temperature of the hospital’s

incinerator on the right is 700ºC
• 34.  28 5. The Nairobi river (foreground) flowing past the Dandora Dumpsite Note the mountain of burnt ashes

in the background

 

by: http://www.slideshare.net/anhtungdx/envilead-2005-a-study-on-waste-incineration


Kenya: How Toxic and Infectious Medical Waste Is Harming Citizens


A visit to the hospital does not usually reveal what happens at the back. It is here where discarded blood and body tissues and parts from surgeries, pharmaceuticals, medicine bottles — tonnes of hospital waste — go through. In the case of the Kenyatta National Hospital, this could be as much as one tonne a day estimated to be half the medical waste generated in the city. Quite understandably, it is not usually open to the public.

Most of these normally end up in incinerators — the most affordable medical waste disposal method for most hospitals. But a lot of it slips through the system to get us worried.

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

But as this writer found out, this is better said than done. Lack of adequate equipment to safely dispose of waste and failure to observe best practices was a common feature in most hospitals visited in this survey.

From releasing dangerous fumes and ash openly to the environment to dumping medical waste together with general waste, the local medical waste management scene still has a long way to go.

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

A recent report on the global status of waste management ranks Nairobi as one of the worst in waste management. Residents living near Dandora reported a high number of respiratory diseases and were found to have unacceptably high levels of heavy metals like lead in their blood. Dandora dumpsite reeks of heavy metals which can hinder brain development as our independent tests confirmed.

“Most health facilities take ash from their waste to municipal dumpsites directly or through collectors,” says Mary Kinoti, a lecturer on environmental and occupational health at the University of Nairobi.

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

From their small quantities, it is easy to conclude that this come from smaller hospitals, clinics and dispensaries not willing to spend on the proper disposal of waste. Level five hospitals, formerly called provincial hospitals like Nakuru, are mostly well equipped with incinerators that can combust pathological waste into water and ashes, says Kinoti.

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

But as dark falls, another set, mostly lone trucks hurriedly enter the dumpsite, quickly offload their contents and make their exit, all within a few minutes — well aware of their wrongdoing. A closer look at the dumped material reveals used needles, bloodied bandages, pharmaceuticals and a host of other waste from hospitals. We even found syphilis and HIV test kits.

Early in the morning, a County Government of Nairobi earth mover turns over the waste mixing it with garbage ready to receive the next batch for the day.

Tens of people descend on the site, sorting the garbage with their bare hands. Their interests are different. While some solely focus on milk packets which they wash in a sewage tunnel, others are interested in salvaging metals from the burnings heaps, fuelled by the excessive gas underneath.

Still others are after the food remains which they collect to feed animals — all determined to make a living. A prick from an infected needle and they could end up with serious infections including HIV.

They all seem too aware of the danger, but they have to feed their children, a man, protected only by a pair of gumboots, says.

The National Environmental Management Authority and the County Government of Nairobi did not respond to our enquiries.

Yet the danger of medical waste in the country does not start or end here. Medical facilities try to safely dispose of their waste to various levels of success. A large number incinerate their waste, but lack the prerequisite air pollution control equipment to guard against materials such as sulphur, known collectively as flue materials, getting into the environment.

In such cases, residents living near such facilities are prone to respiratory infections. Dioxins from plastics are known to cause serious respiratory complications and cancer. A study carried out by a Yale University student recently found that high levels of toxic fumes from incinerators rending the air were responsible for respiratory infections among residents living near such facilities.

A recent report detailed the high levels of heavy metals such as lead in vegetables grown and sold in Nairobi. Lead is a dangerous metal that can cause retardation in children. Some farmers in Kinangop were recently in the spotlight for using sewage to grow their crops largely sold in the city.

Incinerators below standard

Dumping of toxic ash is not the sole problem facing the medical waste management scene. The state of equipment is wanting, some dating several decades ago and ill equipped to minimize pollution.

Most public hospital below level five have de Montfort incinerators where temperatures are not controlled and are likely to pollute as they lack scrubber systems. “Unfortunately this type of incinerators are common in district hospitals and health centres,” Kinoti says.

“A wet scrubber is a compartment where the emissions are sprinkled with water to dissolve air pollutants, and what is released to the environment is clean,” Kinoti explains. Workers are also not well protected in mid-level hospitals. Because of the design of the incinerators, medical waste is loaded manually and workers who mostly do not have protective gear are exposed, she says.

A medium size incinerator costs an average of Sh20 million before installation, clearly a high shot for hospitals. Add the high maintenance costs and the fact that these facilities guzzles several thousands of litres of fuel to run per day and you end up with a very high bill.

“But the high cost of incinerators is no excuse for polluting the environment,” says Kinoti. “Hospital waste contains mercury and can produce furans which are very toxic and can cause cancer and acute respiratory diseases,” she says.

Medical facilities which do not have incinerators are required to have contracts with specialised waste disposal companies to handle their waste. For some, this is just an unnecessary hurdle they have to undergo before acquiring a license to operate a hospital. Little is done to comply. A number do not follow through with these requirements posing a huge health risk to the public and the environment.

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

Highly infectious waste are those expected to be containing highly infectious pathogenic organisms such as bacteria and viruses while general waste may consist of office paper. Usually in red packages, infectious waste require special care throughout the process of waste disposal and are supposed to be treated at source. It is not however unusual to find a worker carrying a yellow or red disposal bag without gloves or any other protective gear.

Tissues that decompose quickly such as amputated limbs are disposed of quickly or put under refrigeration. Most of these highly infectious waste — except radioactive waste — should most appropriately end up at the incinerator, Dr Runyenje says. Most African countries use incineration to dispose of medical waste.

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

A good incinerator should have more than one chamber where waste is burned in the first chamber, so that there is increased temperature in the second chamber and gases can be burned in the third chamber, he says. At the end of the process, most of the waste has been burned to an acceptable level. Clinics and dispensaries often operating in highly populated areas often flout the regulations, openly burning their waste using paraffin and charcoal to avoid the cost of safe disposal. Half burned waste is easy to spot in dumps on roadsides and quite visible in municipal dumpsites.

Incineration however does not get rid of toxic fumes and heavy metals — if anything it can disperse toxic fumes to a wide areas if not done properly. The scrubber system is designed to reduce such pollution but the system is expensive and most hospitals visited do not have it. The gas from the incinerator is passed through fluid to remove any particulate matter — inside a scrubber system. Such gases may include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, dioxins and furans which can cause serious diseases such as cancer.

The minimum height of a chimney should be at least 10 feet above the tallest building around to minimise direct exposure to residents. Anything that comes out of the chimney should be dispersed away from nearby buildings.

“Sometimes it is difficult to know what you are emitting to the environment. If you release it directly to human beings, then you expect to have some health issues, whether it is inhalation of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, dioxins or furans,” Dr Runyenje says. A high chimney should not however be seen as a replacement for a scrubber system, adds Kinoti. A high chimney only disperses fumes further to residents who may not even be aware of them, she observes.

To many, including waste managers interviewed, ash from incinerators, or any ash for that matter is not harmful — a misplaced notion that could be contributing to its dumping. The truth is that they contain harmful metals like mercury, lead and cadmium as our independent tests confirmed.

Incineration reduces the waste to about 10 per cent of the original volume. But the remaining ash usually contains very high content of heavy metals. How hospitals and waste disposal companies handle this will determine the health of our environment. Such should usually be buried in sanitary landfills to prevent it from leaching to the ground, but this practice appears rare in the country.

Whether through sheer negligence, or lack of space and facilities or reluctance to meet the associated costs, medical waste nevertheless ends up in our environment. When disposed in open ground, heavy metals easily leach to the groundwater or make a direct way to our food chain.

Bottom ash under normal circumstances should be buried, but most health facilities do not have disposal grounds. These burial grounds are not present either at Dandora where officials claimed the ash was taken to be buried.

Some companies are licensed to handle hazardous waste. However, Dr Runyenje however notes that not many handle general medical waste.

A number of incinerators in public hospitals were in a state of disrepair leaving tonnes of toxic waste piling up and posing a danger to the public.

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

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

The resulting black slime contains some of the dangerous metals. But the design and structure of the holding area does not meet specifications and some of it seeps to the ground, a source tells us. Its aging incinerators dating back to when the hospital was started are awaiting repair.

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

The location of incinerators in relation to hospitals, offices and other residential is a common problem in many facilities. The one at the Chiromo School of Physical and Biological Sciences for example is not in operation as it sits near an embassy.

One incinerator in Nakuru County is perilously close to the maternity ward, some smoke go directly to patients.

The scenario plays out in many other hospitals around the country who also lack additional air pollution control equipment.

Ash dumped in open ground are an open feature in a number of leading facilities that could potentially poison ground water through leaching.

Ideally, ash from such waste should be buried in landfills, a practice that was long abandoned in the country.

With people living near such facilities, they are inevitably exposed, and risk serious respiratory infections and serious diseases including cancer. The Kenyatta National Hospital incinerators operate at night to minimise exposure to the students at the School of Nursing barely a dozen metres away.

A source told this writer that the soils were so contaminated they will have to be skimmed off and buried. Meanwhile, residents will have to contend with dangerous, possibly carcinogenic, ash emanating from such facilities.

Larger hospitals like Nairobi Women’s Hospital are stepping in to help smaller ones incinerate their waste. “The cost of the incinerator is too high for them to afford,” says Thomas Imboywa, who is in charge of one of these at the Nairobi Women’s Hospital, one of the largest in the region. On a daily basis, he oversees the safe disposal of the days waste.

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

“Medical waste is ideally incinerated within 24 hours,” says Imboywa. But when a clinic or hospital does not turn in any waste for weeks on end, it raises eyebrows, Imboywa says. He is familiar with many such cases and the hospital is quick to repudiate such contracts as per their policy. Some medical facilities may just secure a contract with them to wade through National Environmental Authority (Nema) regulations but have no intention to safely dispose of their waste, Imboywa observes.

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

“But in this case, sharps will remain and the waste can still remain infectious because they cannot reach the required temperature,” Imboywa said. In fact the material can remain infectious because they may not reach the required temperatures.

Devolution could make it worse

As more hospitals come up in tandem with the growing population, a rethinking how medical waste is handled will be inevitable. The devolution of resources has seen more clinics and dispensaries put up in previously unreached areas. But the resources are so limited to put up waste disposal facilities such as incinerators.

Besides being expensive, Dr Runyenje agrees that even if these facilities were to put up their own incinerators, there would be more pollution and authorities will have more difficulty supervising them.

“There is need to pool incineration facilities for medical and hazardous waste,” he says. These centres can serve as emission monitoring points for authorities. “It will then be easier to put controls from such a central facility. “At the Technical Working Group, we are looking at how counties can pool their facilities together and have their medical waste incinerated at a central point. It will be very expensive in the long run to have every facility to have its own incinerator that cannot run at full capacity,” he says.

The best waste disposal method is controlled tipping being practiced in most of Europe and North America where it is buried in layers, Dr Runyenje says. “The advantage with this method is that the land can still be used for other activities. It is the only assurance of disposal of any form of waste,” he says.

Kariobangi, which now hosts light industries, used to be a controlled tipping site before open dumping at Dandora. “Counties should be thinking of controlled tipping instead of investing heavily in incinerators,” he says.

General waste can have many recyclable materials but proper segregation which can make this possible is still lacking in the country.

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

The problem, according to Kinoti, is enforcement of the law. While bigger hospitals are trying to properly dispose of their waste, some smaller clinics may be spoiling it, she says. The fact that generators cannot monitor their waste once it is given to waste collectors is also another problem according to her.

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

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

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

 

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


Medical Waste Incinerator: Essential Medical Waste Disposal Services Provided By Meda Send


Medical Waste Removal Companies Medical Waste Service Suggestions There are different types of wastes that people need to be conscious about in order to avoid exposure to this waste that may cause health illnesses and diseases. One of the most dangerous types of waste that people need to get rid of is hazardous wastes. These are the type of wastes that completely pose potential or substantial threats to people particularly to public health and to the environment. These wastes are also known as special wastes since they cannot be quickly disposed compared to other types of wastes.

Thus, in order to relieve all the worries of the people regarding this matter Meda Send offers hazardous waste disposal that could help medical facilities. They are providing cost-effective as well as safe services that could easily and effective disposed your hazardous waste. They are very consistent in giving safe as well as environmental-friendly services to the people in order to disposed common existing hazardous waste in medical facilities. They are the best company that would lend your medical facility hazardous waste disposal plan that would be effective towards your aim for a healthy and safe environment for the people.
Pathological Waste Definition

Hazardous wastes are those chemicals and medicines that are toxic and infectious that can effectively affect the health of the people upon exposed. These may also be laboratory medicines which are used by doctors in aid for harsh and severe diseases and illnesses of patients. Disposing these hazardous waste would not be a difficult task since Meda Send would be your help in this matter. They are going to provide medical facilities containers in colored red covered by red plastic where they can put their hazardous wastes. They are also giving medical facilities adequate time in collecting all the hazardous wastes that may be found in their place. This is essential before allowing the pickup truck of the company to get your collected hazardous wastes.

They are very much concern on the health of the people inside and outside of their medical facility hence they wanted to make sure that they would not be exposed and be inflicted with the toxins and other harmful chemicals coming from this hazardous waste. Since Meda Send is always available, medical facilities would always have an assurance of a quick disposal of waste particularly when there are already huge quantity of hazardous waste in their place.
medasend.com Sharps

Hazardous waste disposal could be an easy task for all medical facilities particularly if they are going to seek any of the waste management disposal services of Meda Send. Don’t miss the opportunity to avail any of the services offered by Meda Send for a healthy and safe environment. This would always guarantee that you will have a healthy environment that is free elements that pose health risks.

Most people know that there is a large amount of medical wastes that are being produced by most of the medical facilities like hospitals, clinics and many other health facilities each day. These wastes need to be properly collected, transported, segregated, and disposed to its proper places and condition. Although some medical facilities are considered to be proficient and knowledgeable in disposing their wastes, they still need to seek a company that could guide them and help them on how they are going to dispose their waste properly particularly when instances that they can no longer handle proper medical waste in their place.

That is why Meda Send would be an effective answer to what medical facilities are greatly in need of in terms of their wastes and garbage each day. They are one of the highly recognized companies all over the world that is highly specialized when it comes to healthcare and proper medical waste disposal. They are not just aiming to help people in managing their waste sine they also aim to provide a healthy community free from diseases and illnesses that may be due to improper disposal of waste.
medasend.com Posts

Meda Send is very committed and devoted in giving waste services to all the people. They can effectively handle medical disposal needs of medical facilities with their speed as well as accuracy. They are very effective in providing the people waste management services which aims for a healthy environment not only covered by the people who are inside the medical facility but also with all the people in the community. With the help of medical waste disposal services of the company, people are guided with the proper waste management they need to do. This is not only good for nurses and doctors but for all the people as well.

They are given greater chance to be well-equipped with the proper segregation of waste. This is very important to get rid of risk since these wastes are considered to be harmful to people and to the environment. They are taught on the right place where to put their waste. This is through allowing them to segregate their waste in a red plastic. Medical waste disposal of the company is known to be very effective and efficient since they are providing consistent type of truck pickup grid making the people feel at ease in scheduling medical waste pickups. They are also available 24/7 hence they make sure that waste compliance needs of the people are given high importance that the company is not taking for granted.

So, for medical facilities that are rendering services to large or small group of people, Meda Send could be one of the best companies that could give you safe and healthy environment that could cater the needs of the people towards a healthy and safe community to live.

by: http://ourbdspace.com/blog/34552/medical-waste-incinerator-essential-medical-waste-disposal-services-provide/


Burnaby garbage incinerator operator sued over pollution concerns


The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District is suing Maxxam Analytics International Corp. and Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy ULC for allegedly failing to properly test fly ash samples from the district’s waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby.

The district filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on October 16. Covanta, according to the claim, operates the incinerator plant under contract with the district, and the facility generates fly ash which has to be treated before leaving the plant and tested monthly to ensure compliance with hazardous waste regulations.

Non-hazardous fly ash is taken and disposed of at the Cache Creek landfill, the claim says. Samples analyzed by Maxxam in the summer and fall of 2012, however, came back indicating high levels of cadmium that exceeded acceptable levels allowed for disposal at the landfill.

The results, the district claims, “called into question the effectiveness of the treatment of fly ash” at the facility, forcing the plaintiff to incur costs by requiring more sampling and testing, investigating the cause of the high cadmium levels and finding an alternate disposal site for fly ash in Alberta. After the Ministry of Environment hit the district with an advisory letter of non-compliance, the plaintiff hired “consultants, experts and legal counsel” to help investigate.

An audit of Maxxam’s laboratory found that it didn’t follow proper methods, called the “Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure” and the “United States Environmental Protection Agency Method 1311” to test the fly ash, according to the lawsuit. The Ministry of Environment’s assessment found Maxxam’s results unreliable due to improper testing procedures and found that “Covanta’s quality control and quality assurance protocols at the WTEF [Waste-to-Energy Facility] were not sufficiently developed to identify if leachability was occurring or if a problem with the treated fly ash and/or the treatment system was occurring,” the claim states. In addition, the ministry found that Covanta couldn’t easily “provide assurance that the treated fly ash met the hazardous waste requirements under the Hazardous Waste Regulation.”

The district seeks damages for negligence, misrepresentation, negligent performance of a service and breach of contract. The allegations have not been proven in court and the defendants hadn’t filed responses to the claim by press time.

by: http://prod-admin1.glacier.atex.cniweb.net:8080/preview/www/2.2551/2.2759/2.2742/1.1493460#


Texas Ebola waste will not be disposed in Louisiana


On Friday Attorney General Buddy Caldwell announced the State of Louisiana reached an agreement with Texas incinerator Veolia Environmental Services and Louisiana hazardous waste landfill Chemical Waste Management to ensure that incinerator ash associated with the recent Dallas Ebola virus occurrence will not be transported or disposed of in Louisiana, .

On Oct. 13 the Louisiana Attorney General’s office obtained a restraining order in the 19th Judicial District Court to temporarily stop the transport of incinerated Ebola ash into Louisiana.
The temporary retraining order was extended on Oct. 21 at the request of all parties, before ultimately arriving at today’s agreement.

Attorney General Caldwell said, “I am pleased today’s agreement ends this chapter in the controversy of the transportation and disposal of Ebola waste.”


Pyrolysis Deemed a Viable Alternative to Incinceration


Researchers at the University of York have concluded that PyroPure (UK) technology has the potential to transform the way in which hazardous waste is destroyed in clinical environments and say pharmacists, manufacturers and hospitals throughout the UK should consider trialling the system.

The announcement follows a six month Innovate UK-funded Knowledge Transfer Partnership project in which a team of leading scientists from the University’s Environment Department and Centre of Excellence in Mass Spectroscopy confirmed that the system helped to destroy active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) found within pharmaceutical waste on-site.

A total of 17 of the most thermally resistant APIs were selected for the trial, which revealed that PyroPure technology destroys over 99 per cent of APIs in 10 of the 17 tested and an average of 94 per cent of the ‘worst case’ pharmaceuticals.

Professor Alistair Boxall of the University’s Environment Department and former member of the DEFRA Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee headed the study. On the future of PyroPure as an alternative to high temperature incineration, he comments:

“There are big concerns over the negative impacts of pharmaceuticals on the natural environment. Inappropriate disposal of pharmaceuticals and emissions from manufacturing sites are thought to be important contributors to these impacts. Our work demonstrates that PyroPure could help reduce the levels of pharmaceuticals in rivers and streams and have big benefits for ecosystem health. The system also provides a range of other environmental and economic benefits that could radically change how waste of this nature is collected and destroyed going forwards. With PyroPure technology, hazardous waste and controlled substances no longer need to be transported across the country to incineration facilities, thus reducing the associated costs, carbon emissions and risks associated with moving waste from its point of origin to its point of disposal.”

Currently in the UK, pharmaceutical wastes are only disposed of in large-scale, high-temperature incinerators, which can be up to 200 miles away from where the waste is generated. The Environment Agency has previously indicated that PyroPure, which relies on pyrolysis, a thermochemical decomposition process using high temperatures and an absence of oxygen, followed by catalytic conversion to clean and convert the gases, could be the first viable alternative to high-temperature incineration for pharmaceutical wastes.

On the trial’s success, Peter Selkirk, PyroPure Ltd’s Executive Chairman, adds: “This is a huge step forward for PyroPure technology and the healthcare sector. For too long now, we have been overly dependent on incineration as the only viable route in which to dispose of hazardous waste. Not only is it expensive but it’s also open to security breaches, particularly when the waste needs to be transported long distances. Now that PyroPure is a proven technology I’m confident that this breakthrough will pave the way for a new approach to waste disposal and irrevocably change the model for waste collection within clinical environments across the world.”

The trial, which formed a Knowledge Transfer Partnership between PyroPure Ltd and the University, also revealed how on-site energy recovery during the PyroPure process is at least 75 per cent compared with 20 per cent for a high-temperature incinerator.

Each PyroPure unit is the size of a chest freezer. The user simply opens the unit’s lid and places the waste within the chamber before initiating the process of pyrolysis to destroy it.

by: http://www.pollutionsolutions-online.com/news/hazardous-waste/20/pyropure_ltd/pyrolysis_deemed_a_viable_alternative_to_incinceration_according_to_uk_university/32282/


England’s trash generating Danish heat


Power in Denmark is increasingly being generated in plants burning waste imported from England. The practice is being called an economical and environmental boon on both sides of the equation.

The AVØ incinerator in Frederikshavn produces heating and power for the area by burning trash from England.

“It is mainly construction waste like pieces of wood, cardboard and plastic from Manchester,” AVØ operations manager Orla Frederiksen told DR Nyheder. “I guess we have 600 tonnes here that provide a good combustible mixture we can then turn into district heating and power.”

Good for the bottom line
The incinerator in Frederikshavn has doubled its imports of the English waste in the past year.

Incinerators in Aalborg and Hjørring are also burning British trash.

“The heating we produce using the waste is cheaper than what we can generate with natural gas,” said AVØ head Tore Vedelsdal. “And the British are interested because they lack incinerators and pay heavy taxes on landfills.”

Good for the environment
Vedelsdal said that the environmental angle works for both countries.

“They save on having to bury the waste and we save on the consumption of natural gas,” he said.

READ MORE: Denmark pays most for electricity

Environmental protection agency Miljøstyrelsen said that last year up to 200,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste from England was incinerated in Denmark – nearly six percent of the total volume of combustible material used.

by: http://cphpost.dk/news/englands-trash-generating-danish-heat.11398.html