The following are excerpts from the Environmental Protection Act

1.    “Contaminant” means any noise, heat, vibration or substance and includes such other substance as the Minister may

prescribe that, where discharged into the environment,
(a)    endangers the health, safety or welfare of persons,
(b)    interferes or is likely to interfere with normal enjoyment of life or property,
(c)    endangers the health of animal life, or
(d)    causes or is likely to cause damage to plant life or to property;

“Discharge” includes, but not so as to limit the meaning, any pumping, pouring, throwing, dumping, emitting, burning,

spraying, spreading, leaking, spilling, or escaping;

“Environment” means the components of the Earth and includes
(a)    air, land and water,
(b)    all layers of the atmosphere,
(c)    all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and
(d)    the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c).

“Inspector” means a person appointed under subsection 3(2) and includes the Chief Environmental Protection Officer.

2.2    The Minister may
(a)    establish, operate and maintain stations to monitor the quality of the environment in the Territories;
(b)    conduct research studies, conferences and training programs relating to contaminants and to the
preservation, protection or enhancement of the environment;
(c)    develop, co-ordinate and administer policies, standards, guidelines and codes of practice relating to the

preservation, protection or enhancement of the environment;
(d)    collect, publish and distribute information relating to contaminants and to the preservation, protection or

enhancement of the environment:

3.    (1) The Minister shall appoint a Chief Environmental Protection Officer who shall administer and enforce this Act and

the regulations.

(2)    The Chief Environmental Protection Officer may appoint inspectors and shall specify in the appointment the powers

that may be exercised and the duties that may be performed by the inspector under this Act and regulations.

5.    (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall discharge or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the

environment.

(3)    Subsection (1) does not apply where the person who discharged the contaminant or permitted the discharge of the

contaminant establishes that
(a)    the discharge is authorized by this Act or the regulations or by an order issued under this Act or the regulations;
(b)    the contaminant has been used solely for domestic purposes and was discharged from within a dwelling house;
(c)    the contaminant was discharged from the exhaust system of a vehicle;

(d)    the discharge of the contaminant resulted from the burning of leaves, foliage, wood, crops or stubble for domestic or

agricultural purposes;
(e)    the discharge of the contaminant resulted from burning for land clearing or land grading;
(f)    the discharge of the contaminant resulted from a fire set by a public official for habitat management of silviculture

purposes;
(g)    the contaminant was discharged for the purposes of combating a forest fire;
(h)    the contaminant is a soil particle or grit discharged in the course of agriculture or horticulture; or
(i)    the contaminant is a pesticide classified and labelled as “domestic” under the Pest Control Products Regulations

(Canada).

(4)    The exceptions set out in subsection (3) do not apply where a person discharges a contaminant that the inspector has

reasonable grounds to believe is not usually associated with a discharge from the excepted activity.

5.1.    Where a discharge of a contaminant into the environment in contravention of this Act or the  regulations or the

provisions of a permit or license issued under this Act or the regulations occurs or a reasonable likelihood of such a

discharge exists, every person causing or contributing to the discharge or increasing the likelihood of such a discharge, and

the owner or the person in charge, management or control of the contaminant before its discharge or likely discharge, shall

immediately:
(a)    subject to any regulations, report the discharge or likely discharge to the person or office designated by the

regulations;
(b)    take all reasonable measures consistent with public safety to stop the discharge, repair any damage
caused by the discharge and prevent or eliminate any danger to life, health, property or the environment that results or may

be reasonably expected to result from the discharge or likely discharge; and
(c)    make a reasonable effort to notify every member of the public who may be adversely affected by the discharge or

likely discharge.

6.    (1)  Where an inspector believes on reasonable grounds that a discharge of a contaminant in contravention of this Act

or the regulations or a provision of a permit or license issued under this Act or the regulations has occurred or is

occurring, the inspector may issue an order requiring any person causing or contributing to the discharge or the owner or the

person in charge, management or control of the contaminant to stop the discharge by the date named in the order.

7.    (1)  Notwithstanding section 6, where a person discharges or permits the discharge of a contaminant into the

environment, an inspector may order that person to repair or remedy any injury or damage to the environment that results from

the discharge.

(2) Where a person fails or neglects to repair or remedy any injury or damage to the environment in accordance with an order

made under subsection (1) or where immediate remedial measures are required to protect the environment, the Chief

Environmental Protection Officer may cause to be carried out the measures that he or she considers necessary to repair or

remedy an injury or damage to the environment that results from any discharge.

APPENDIX 2 – MODIFIED BURN BARREL DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS

A modified burn barrel is typically constructed from a 45 gallon metal fuel or oil drum. The modifications result in greater

heat generation and retention, better mixing of the waste with incoming air and longer holding time inside the barrel.

Together, these modifications result in more complete combustion of the solid waste than does open burning on the ground or

in a pit.

Norfolk County Council voted by 48 votes to 30 to terminate the contract for the proposed incinerator at Saddlebow at an extraordinary meeting in April.

Council officers had said that, due to delays in securing planning permission, the controversial project no longer offered good value for money, and councillors agreed to ditch it.

In May, the estimated cost of cancelling the contract was put at just over £33.7m. That included £20.3m to Cory Wheelabrator – the company which would have built and run the burner; public inquiry costs of £1.6m and estimated interest rate related costs of £11.8m.

The first £11.8m of that bill was paid in July, but council bosses have been locked in months of arguments about the fine details of the contract and how much that means the council must pay Cory Wheelabrator.
In September, it was announced the compensation would be “considerably lower” than the £20.3m originally estimated.

But at a meeting this week, Tom McCabe, interim director of environment, transport and development at Norfolk County Council, told councillors the final figure had yet to be agreed.

He said: “The discussion with Cory Wheelabrator is ongoing and we would hope to have it resolved by Christmas.

“It’s premature to say it will be done by then, though. It could be done before that or it could drag on for longer.”
Norfolk County Council is still trying to come up with a long-term solution for how to deal with the county’s waste.

But, in the short-term, a deal has been struck with their counterparts in Suffolk for rubbish to be burned at a newly-built incinerator in Great Blakenham.

Over the next year, about 40,000 tonnes of Norfolk’s residual household waste will be hauled down the A140 to be burned at the plant.

• What do you think of the incinerator saga? Write, giving full contact details, to Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.
by: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/norfolk_incinerator_bill_wrangle_could_continue_until_after_christmas_1_3823390

Up to 100 people are expected to arrive at the Dáil this evening to express their anger at the building of the Poolbeg Incinerator.

Work on the €600m project in Dublin has started, seven years since planning permission was granted.

Frances Corr from Combined Residents Against Incineration says they are getting support from the whole city.

Ms Corr said: “We have huge support from the whole of Dublin city, but in particular from Clonfarf, Marino and the coastal areas, as they can actually see it as they look across the bay.

“They are just waking up to how large this is. Also, they’ve been looking at the whole issue of the traffic in and out and the hours that will be worked.”

Made-in-Vietnam waste incinerator shows its power

VietNamNet Bridge – The waste incinerator of Vietnamese inventor Trinh Dinh Nang has been used in Bac Kan, Tuyen Quang and Thanh Hoa. But if it is used in other provinces as well, and therefore, can be produced on a large scale, the production costs will be much lower.

Nang’s waste incinerator was displayed at the Vietnam 2015 International Equipment and Technology Trade Fair, which caught the attention from many visitors.

He began working on such an incinerator some years ago, encouraged by the idea that his incinerator may help reduce the negative impact caused by hundreds of tons of medical waste.

In 2009, after successfully creating an incinerator, he filed a patent registration for his ‘hazardous waste incinerator’ to the Ministry of Science and Technology and got the patent in 2012.

Nang’s incinerator is a system which comprises a comprehensive combustion chamber which can burn waste in an uninterrupted process. The incinerator utilizes nano technology which disintegrates hazardous smoke, dust and frog.

The product is believed to have outstanding features which allow it to operate more effectively than products of the same kind.

Nang said that his waste incineration system is movable. The system can work properly if users have a small water tank and can treat the water.

He also said that all the incinerators available in Vietnam don’t have the pressure balance like his. The incinerator can burn waste, eject fire and not oil into burning materials. In the center of the combustion chamber, the temperature can reach 1,800oC.

With Nang’s incinerator, it doesn’t take much time to burn waste. The oil is durable, and there is no technical trouble with oil tubes.

The Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) has certified that Nang’s incinerator is the first medical waste incinerator in Vietnam which can satisfy the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment’s standards and it consumes the volume of fuel 80 percent lower than import products.

If the incinerator runs with diesel, it will need VND5,000 only to burn one kilo or waste. Meanwhile, the incinerators from US, Japan and UK would consume VND70,000-80,000 worth of fuel to burn a kilo of waste.

The outstanding feature of the made-in-Vietnam incinerator is that it can treat many kinds of waste, including domestic garbage and medical waste.

Director of the Bac Kan Science and Technology Department Do Tuan Khiem said the incinerator is a suitable choice for localities with moderate waste capacity. The machine is highly efficient and fuel-saving, which is big advantage in Vietnam’s conditions.

From: http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/science-it/145663/made-in-vietnam-waste-incinerator-shows-its-power.html

A single Ebola patient treated in a U.S. hospital will generate eight 208-litre barrels of medical waste each day.

Protective gloves, gowns, masks and booties are donned and doffed by all who approach the patient’s bedside and then discarded. Disposable medical instruments, packaging, bed linens, cups, plates, tissues, towels, pillowcases and anything that is used to clean up after the patient must be thrown away.

Even curtains, privacy screens and mattresses eventually must be treated as contaminated medical waste and disposed of.

Dealing with this collection of pathogen-filled debris without triggering new infections is a legal and logistical challenge for every U.S. hospital now preparing for a potential visit by the virus.

In California and other states, it is an even worse waste-management nightmare.

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend autoclaving (a form of sterilizing) or incinerating the waste as a surefire means of destroying the microbes, burning infected waste is effectively prohibited in California, and banned in several other states.

“Storage, transportation and disposal of this waste will be a major problem,” California Hospital Association President C. Duane Dauner warned Sen. Barbara Boxer in a letter last week.

Even some states that normally permit incineration are throwing up barriers to Ebola waste.

In Missouri, the state attorney general has sought to bar Ebola-contaminated debris from a St. Louis incinerator operated by Stericycle Inc., the nation’s largest medical waste disposal company.

Due to restrictions on burning, California hospital representatives say their only option appears to be trucking the waste over public highways and incinerating it in another state — a prospect that makes some environmental advocates uneasy.

Under federal transportation guidelines, the material would be designated a Class A infectious substance, or one that is capable of causing death or permanent disability, and would require special approval from the Department of Transportation, hospital representatives say.

“These are some pretty big issues and they need some quick attention,” said Jennifer Bayer, spokesperson for the Hospital Association of Southern California.

“We fully expect that it’s coming our way,” Bayer said of the virus. “Not to create any sort of scare, but just given the makeup of our population and the hub that we are. It’s very likely.”

The Ebola virus is essentially a string of genetic material wrapped in a protein jacket. It cannot survive a 1,500-degree scorching within an incinerator, or the prolonged, pressurized steam of an autoclave.

“The Ebola virus itself is not particularly hardy,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Thomas Frieden said under questioning on Capitol Hill recently. “It’s killed by bleach, by autoclaving, by a variety of chemicals.”

However, the agency’s guidelines note that “chemical inactivation” has yet to be standardized and could trigger worker safety regulations.

California health officials recently tried to reassure residents that the state’s private and public hospitals were up to the task and were actively training for the possible arrival of Ebola.

“Ebola does not pose a significant public health risk to California communities at the present time,” said Dr. Gil Chavez, an epidemiologist and deputy director at the California Department of Public Health. “Let me tell you why: Current scientific evidence specifies that people cannot get Ebola through the air, food or water. … The Ebola virus does not survive more than a few hours on impervious surfaces.”

It was unclear whether California officials viewed the waste issue as a potential problem.

Although a third of the state’s private hospitals and “a few” of its public hospitals reported to Boxer’s office that there would be problems complying with the CDC’s incineration recommendation, and others, a state public health official told reporters he was not aware of any conflicts.

Dr. David Perrott, chief medical officer for the California Hospital Association, said there was also confusion about whether infected human waste could be flushed down the toilet.

“Here’s what we’ve heard from the CDC: It’s OK,” Perrott said. “But then we’ve heard from some sources, that maybe we need to sterilize it somehow and then flush it down the toilet or you have to check with local authorities. It sounds maybe a little gross, but there is a real question about what to do with that waste.”

Dr. Thomas Ksiazek, a professor of microbiology and immunology of the University of Texas Medical Branch, has said he believes there’s been a lot of overreaction on the topic of Ebola medical waste.

“There are other ways to deal with the waste; autoclaving would be chief among them,” Ksiazek said. “The problem is, most hospitals don’t use it for most disposable items. They’re quite happy to bag them up and send them to a regular medical disposal company.”

But Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said incineration is simple and effective, and should be available to hospitals to help dispose of the mountain of waste.

Hershkowitz said states began to crack down on medical waste incineration years ago because many materials that did not need to be burned were being sent to combustors and were emitting dangerous pollutants.

In this case of Ebola medical waste, he said California should reconsider its restrictions.

“There’s no pollutant that’s going to come out of a waste incinerator that’s more dangerous than the Ebola virus,” Hershkowitz said. “When you’re dealing with pathogenic and biological hazards, sometimes the safest thing to do is combustion.”

Los Angeles Times

by: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4926626-another-ebola-challenge-disposing-of-medical-waste/

Nanjing Clover Medical Technology Co., Ltd. is a leading waste incinerator manufacturer in China. We are local  manufacturer and one of the largest exporter of China. Pyrolytic incinerator equipment technical is main waste treatment all of the world, for Medical Waste, Animal Incineration, Pet cremation and other Solid wste. The capacity from 10kgs/Hr. to 500kgs/Hr., up to 6ton per day. Presently, we supply different series for local customer requirements and design updated incinerator with our leading technology. The updated design feature of our range of incinerators make them one of the most cost effective in the world.

Application Scope

1. Hospital& clinic: Iatric Waste, Infectious Waste, Dressing, Bio-Waste, Medicine.
2. Slaughter House &Pet Hospital &Farm: Dead Animal, Bio-Waste.
3. Community & Sea Port & Station: Municipal Solid Waste, etc.
4. Laboratories, Remote Locations, Disaster Relief Operations, Animal Cremation