Tag: more

An Unusual Ebola Infrastructure Problem: Waste

Patients for this debilitating virus create 440 gallons of medical waste daily, such as instruments, gowns, gloves, body fluids, linens, sheets and more. That is a considerable amount of medical waste in any circumstance, but it is particularly daunting in this situation because it ought to be disposed extremely carefully, to avoid the chance of spreading disease. What should you do with a problem such as Ebola waste? Because you don’t need to toss it in the garbage.

Somewhat astonishingly, says Bausch, the United States actually faces bigger problems in regards to safely disposing of Ebola waste, which is simply burned in large pits in Africa:”In the United States, naturally, we’re somewhat beholden to greater tech solutions, which in some ways are a tiny bit more problematic concerning treating all that waste, and we need autoclaves or incinerators that could handle that sort of thing. It’s not the actual inactivation that is particularly difficult; it is only the process of finding the waste from, of course, the frontline of care and interaction with the patients safely to the place where it could be incinerated or autoclaved.”

The difficulty in the United States is ironically compounded by the increased accessibility to medical care, and the high quality of healthcare services, available. In the United States, patients have been treated with medical teams with access to a massive volume of supplies they use for protection, such as masks, gowns, booties, and gloves, together with sanitizers and other tools. Moreover, patients receive extensive medical interventions which create waste such as needles, tubing, medical tape, empty IV bags, and more. The very care which has helped the majority of the handful of Ebola patients in the United States conquer the disorder has contributed to the huge amount of waste created, highlighting a critical hole in U.S. medical infrastructure — while African American hospitals may have lacked the supplies and personnel required to provide aid to Ebola patients, they are at least prepared to handle the waste.

The CDC only issued guidelines to assist clinicians and administrators decide upon how to handle Ebola waste, but The New York Times notes that many facilities do not have the autoclave, and incinerator, ability to take care of medical waste with this scale. Some countries prohibit the burning of medical waste altogether, or have barred incineration of Ebola waste, resulting in the transport of waste across state boundaries to facilities which could handle it, which introduces its own risks; with each mile added to transportation, there is a greater risk of spreading disease to previously unexposed communities.

Astonishingly, defenders of burning the garbage come from surprising corners. Environmentals such as Allen Hershkowitz, National Resources Defense Council senior scientist, point out :”There is no pollutant that is going to come out of a waste incinerator that is more dangerous than the Ebola virus. When you are dealing with pathogenic and biological hazards, occasionally the safest thing to do is combustion.” Fears about Ebola, rather than genuine ecological or public health issues, are forcing the decision to push against incineration of ebola waste in several regions, but eventually, the United States is going to need to face facts: The mounting waste which accumulates in facilities where Ebola patients receive treatments needs to be disposed of safely, as well as instantly.

The argument in defense of incineration can be bolstered by the fact that medical waste companies specialize in high-efficiency incineration with equipment designed to minimize and trap byproducts of combustion, reducing overall pollution considerably. Fears about Ebola, rather than genuine environmental or public health concerns, are driving the decision to push against incineration of ebola waste in many regions, but eventually, the United States is going to have to face facts: The mounting waste that accumulates in facilities where Ebola patients receive treatments needs to be disposed of safely, and promptly.

 

by: http://www.care2.com/causes/an-unexpected-ebola-infrastructure-problem-waste.html

Bid to burn waste from out of City in Newhaven Incinerator

Veolia is looking to supply non-recyclable commercial and industrial waste for its Newhaven Incinerator from regions neighbouring East Sussex and Brighton and Hove.

It asserts this will permit the incinerator to create sufficient energy to power 25,000 homes always.

However, cllr Rod Main from Newhaven said this could lead to more pollution and trucks.

Veolia applied for planning permission to East Sussex County Council to raise a planning condition to permit the scheme to proceed.

General manager for Veolia in South Downs Allan Key said the firm wanted to expand the catchment area outside East Sussex and Brighton and Hove.

He explained it wouldn’t result in physical changes at the incinerator or boost to the 242,000tpa capacity. Facilities like the one we’ve got here in Newhaven recovers energy from waste that could otherwise be lost by moving out of county landfill”

Cllr Main stated:”They want more waste to assist ESCC’s carbon footprint by pumping more carbon dioxide into the air (and it’s about 100,000 tonnes pa now) to not mention how many more trucks will be coming directly across Sussex from who knows where adding to the pollution.

“It’s helping to power 25,000 homes. There is a proposed wind farm just off the shore which might power 20 times that also it will not be pumping 100,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the next 20 or more years.”

“It’s helping to power 25,000 homes. There’s a proposed wind farm just off the coast which might power 20 times that and it won’t be pumping 100,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the next 20 or more years.”

by: http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/county-news/bid-to-burn-waste-from-out-of-town-in-newhaven-incinerator-1-6388465

New Metro incinerator Could cost $1.3 billion more than planned: study

Metro Vancouver is taking more heat over its strategy to build another garbage incinerator, with a new study commissioned by waste firm Belkorp Environmental Services suggesting the move could cost up to $1.3 billion more than expected.

The analysis, conducted by ICF International on behalf of Belkorp, comes as Metro Vancouver attempts to take care of the province’s rejection of its proposed Bylaw 280, which was integral to the solid waste management program since it could have ensured garbage generated in Metro was retained in the area.

Belkorp, which runs the Cache Creek dump, has been engaged in a high-profile lobbying effort against Bylaw 280 also as Metro Vancouver’s plans to burn the area’s waste rather than landfill it. Metro is slated to shut the Cache Creek dump in 2016.

“We are still battling for alternatives that are better than the incinerator,” said Russ Black, Belkorp’s vice-president of corporate growth. “Irrespective of Bylaw 280, we still wanted to show the true expenses of the incinerator.”

The analysis, by ICF’s lead author Seth Hulkower, suggests Metro Vancouver significantly outperforming the earnings it would make by selling electricity from the new incinerator to BC Hydro within a span of 35 decades.

Metro had proposed it would seek to negotiate a price of $100 per kilowatt hour from BC Hydro, but Hulkower noted the waste-to-energy small business plan does not take into account the BC Hydro may correct the price it pays for electricity following Metro recovers it capital outlay on the undertaking.

Metro Vancouver chairman Greg Moore said he’s not surprised with the study’s findings, stating it’s a point that has long been argued by Belkorp.

But he said the analysis is premature thinking that Metro has at least 10 proponents offering distinct forms of waste-to-energy, including district heat and gasification, and there are several potential scenarios.

“They don’t understand anything about what we’re doing in our (request-for-proposals) procedure… all of them are not based on selling to Hydro,” Moore stated.

He added Metro has experience conducting a waste-to-energy plant, having done so in Burnaby since 1988, while Belkorp is considering establishing multi-material recovery centers and ensuring the dump continues to operate.

“They are persistent in pursuit of the schedule to continue to have garbage going for their landfill,” Moore stated. “Until this decision is made I don’t believe that they’ll stop.”

Belkorp already has a Coquitlam website where it suggests to build a facility to take a”last pass” at waste to remove recyclables such as organics, plastics, paper and alloys, a movement that would finally rob the area of sufficient substance to fuel another waste-to-energy facility.

Black acknowledged multi-material recovery centers directly compete with incinerators however say they make sense. “When you look at the selection of prices, there is some critical questions that have to be addressed,” he said.

by: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Metro+incinerator+would+cost+billion+more+than+planned+study/10329525/story.html