Chairman of the South West Regional Health Authority (SWRHA) Dr Lackram Bodoe said a back-up of medical waste at the San Fernando General Hospital had to do with a delay in payment to a contractor and not the malfunctioning of the incinerator.

Responding to complaints about the dangers posed by the accumulated medical waste, which included amputated limbs, needles, and bloodstained items, Bodoe assured that the $9 million incinerator installed last year was functioning well.

He said it was allowed to accumulate because daily paid workers refused to work on Tuesday.

Speaking with members of the media at SWRHA’s symposium on leadership at the Southern Academy of Performing Arts on Wednesday, Bodoe said:

“I want to give the assurance that the incinerator itself is working well.

“It is a new incinerator that was installed last year and the issue had to do with a contractor who was supposed to remove the garbage and there was a delay of funding and that is what created a temporary situation yesterday.”

Asked how soon the situation will be rectified, he said: “I have just been given the assurance by the CEO that the matter is being dealt with as we speak, so I expect by the end of the day it will be sorted out.”

In addition, Bodoe said the SWRHA was also considering introducing a new type of technology, called the radio wave technology for incineration, which was much more atmosphere friendly.

However, a Public Service Association representative, who wished to remain anonymous, said the incinerator had been breaking down on a regular basis since it was installed last year and was not working at this time.

“They even had to revert to the old incinerator and that is unsafe and unhealthy to people operating that incinerator. Since last week Thursday the incinerator (new one) is down,” he added.

He said workers took the action on Tuesday because since last week they were assured that the garbage problem would have been sorted out.

from: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2015-06-19/swrha-chairman-delay-payment-causes-medical-waste-back

Snap Lake Mine, 220 kilometres northeast of Yellowknife, where elevated levels of dioxins and furans were pumped into the air. | Photo Fire Prevention Services

Last July, two incinerators at De Beers’ Snap Lake Mine were belching out clouds of black smoke, one sending an average of 65 times the accepted national limit of cancer-causing toxins into the air.

The hugely elevated levels of dioxins and furans — released when plastic is burned or garbage is not fully incinerated — were recorded during a four-day “stack test.” According to the World Health Organization, “dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.” The Canada-Wide Standards recommends emission levels for dioxins and furans not exceed 80 picograms per cubic metre. The company contracted to do the testing at Snap Lake found that one of the mine’s incinerators was emitting 6.5 times the acceptable limit, while the other incinerator was emitting a whopping 65 times the acceptable limit (5,220 picograms per cubic metre on average, as

 

It’s unclear how long this was going on for, though the report noted the problem was clearly visible: “Black opaque smoke was noted for all tests early in the incineration cycle.”

De Beers did not respond to EDGE’s request for an interview by the time of publication. However, according to a letter from De Beers’ Environment and Permitting Superintendent, Alexandra Hood, sent to the GNWT and Environment Canada in January, the root cause of the problem was “not following standardized work practices,” and running the incinerators, which were only installed in 2013, at too low a temperature.

Since flunking the test, De Beers has retrained staff, rewritten operating procedures and brought in new policy to shut down the incinerators if they’re not meeting the correct temperatures (if it’s safe to do so), according to Hood’s letter. An inspection of the Snap Lake incinerators by a GNWT Lands Officer in March suggests De Beers has ameliorated the problem, at least in part: “No concerns were noted during this inspection,” it states, and “the west incinerator which was burning waste at the time of inspection was emitting clear exhaust gas with no black smoke coming from the stack.”

Whether or not sufficient steps have been taken, however, won’t be known for years: the next stack test is not scheduled until 2019, according to a source close to the issue wishing to remain anonymous.

No GNWT regulation

The fact that, for an undetermined period of time around July 2014, the Snap Lake incinerators were pumping out unacceptable levels of toxic emissions is troublesome in itself. But it points to a much larger problem in the territory; the GNWT does not regulate emissions, require companies to meet the CWS, or mandate stack testing. (The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, likewise, does not regulate air emissions.)

At several points in her letter, Hood notes the lack of regulation, claiming De Beers “will conform with any regulatory requirements regarding incinerator stack testing once enabling legislation is developed and approved in the NWT.”

Without legislation in place, there is nothing to force De Beers or other groups using incinerators (i.e. every single mine in the territory), to keep their emissions at a safe level or undertake stack testing on a regular basis. Each mine has an Air Quality and Emissions Management Plan as part of its environmental agreement, but these plans only dictate reporting requirements, not actual emission targets. And while Hood claims “deficiencies, as measured against the Canada Wide Standards, will be managed through adaptive management and continuous improvement by De Beers,” there’s little government oversight of this “continuous improvement” and no fines or other mechanisms to force polluting companies to remedy their ways.

This problem has been going on for years. According to a Canadian Press report from 2011, the scientific journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management found sediments in a lake near the Ekati Mine that had levels of dioxins and furans 10 times higher than those collected from an uncontaminated lake. The same report cited a 2007 study commissioned by Environment Canada which suggested “extensive, uncontrolled burning of wastes could result in substantial accumulations of dioxins and furans in the local ecosystem, some of which will persist for some 8½ years at levels approaching those considered to be of toxicological concern.”

“In most cases we’re below the level that health agencies would (watch) for…” the study continues, “but we’re getting there. And if you have more incinerators and more burning, you may well exceed those levels.”

The GNWT’s Department of Environment and Natural resources did not return EDGE’s request for comment on the lack of regulation.

Why no regulation?

Back in 2001, the GNWT did sign on to the Canada-Wide Standards of dioxins and furans with all other provinces and territories (except Quebec) as part of a national Accord on Environmental Harmonization.

The document says: “Parties are required to take measures to reduce total releases from anthropogenic sources of dioxins, furans… with the goal of their continuing minimization and where feasible (technically and socio-economically), ultimate elimination.” However, it adds, “each jurisdiction will determine the exact means of ensuring compliance” – basically defanging the document by letting provinces and territories renege on their commitment with no repercussions.

Other jurisdictions have taken proactive steps, bringing in legislation to regulate emissions in line with the CWS. The GNWT has not. They did bring in guidelines for managing biomedical waste in 2005, but they have been unwilling to regulate incinerators at mine sites. Their reason? The “waste incinerators operating at remote industrial sites within the NWT… are located on federal crown land and are not regulated by the Government of the Northwest Territories,” says a report from 2009.

This may have been true in 2009, but post-devolution it’s no longer the case. Since April of last year, the mines are on land managed by the GNWT, yet there have been no moves from legislators to start regulating toxic emissions from mine or other industrial incinerators. The last time the issue was discussed in the legislative assembly in 2011, Weledeh MLA Bob Bromley said a “loophole in environmental rules is allowing a growing number of unregulated waste incinerators to release extremely toxic chemicals into the land and water.” He suggested, “when we take on new powers, we must be ready to move with new law.”

Devolution has come, and incinerators are still operating in an unregulated environment. With all the talk of fracking and opening up new mining projects in the territory, it’s now time, more than ever, for the GNWT to get its act together.

 

from: https://edgeyk.com/article/mine-spews-toxic-fumes-nwt-air-regulations-not-in-place/

 

CLARINGTON — Clarington’s new energy-from-waste facility will be delayed a second time because the boilers aren’t operating properly and the ongoing startup period could cost Durham Region an extra $1 million.

“I’d rather see it delayed and done right than rushed,” said Clarington Mayor Adrian Foster.

The Durham York Energy Centre facility, located in Courtice, was scheduled to be fully operational on Dec. 14, 2014. Now the Durham York Energy Centre is not expected to be in full working order until the last quarter of 2015.

The major systems of the EFW facility have been tested. The boiler temperature is high enough for the combustion process but the steam temperature isn’t high enough, and officials aren’t sure what the problem is, says Durham’s works commissioner, Cliff Curtis.

The steam temperature has to be high enough to drive the turbine-generator. If the steam is too cool it can damage the turbine.

“It’s like running a car without oil,” said Mr. Curtis.

Covanta, the company building and operating the facility for Durham and York regions, has taken the boilers down for modifications, according to Mr. Curtis. It’s expected to take three weeks for the repairs and modifications. Then there will be a four-week demonstration period, followed by a 30-day acceptance test.

“We’re not getting the temperature we expected out of the boiler. Once we get the temperature up, I think everything will fall into place,” said Mr. Curtis. “It’s Covanta’s problem to deliver us the product that performs the way they said, so they’re going to take the time they need.”

The delay means added consultant costs for construction management, legal advice and baseline ambient air monitoring. A Durham Region works report said Durham’s share of the additional costs is $1 million, which can be provided from a temporary draw on the solid waste management reserve fund.

“What’s the final cost going to look like?” said Clarington Regional Councillor Joe Neal, who added he still has concerns about the emissions meeting the Ministry of Environment rules. “There are clearly issues with getting it started out.”

Since Jan. 16, Durham has been charging Covanta a $10,000-a-day late fee for every day the EFW facility is not fully operational. The invoice has been sent to Covanta, but it hasn’t been paid yet, according to Mr. Curtis.

In mid-February, the incinerator began burning its first haul of curbside garbage. It was part of a testing phase before the facility opens fully.

Durham cancelled landfill contracts and began sending garbage to the Courtice facility. Some garbage was burned at the EFW plant during the test phase, without producing power to the grid. Covanta has also been sending the trash to its incinerator in New York state, or landfills in the Niagara region.

Until the EFW facility is up and running, the Region only pays Covanta half price of the agreed upon per-tonne fee. However, Durham isn’t making any money until the plant is fully operational and selling power back onto the grid.

“We’re still on budget. I’d rather be getting electricity sales on the grid,” said Mr. Curtis.

The plant construction is coming in slightly under budget, according to the works commissioner.

There are a few loose ends that could end up costing Durham Region more money. There is still disagreement with former property owners on the value of the land expropriated for the facility, and a ruling is not expected until fall of next year. The final cost for the utility construction and connection costs is expected in coming months. The baseline ambient air monitoring runs until the EFW facility is operational, so the delay in opening means an ongoing monitoring cost.

“There’s some minor cost over-runs on some of the smaller items but generally we’re financially on track to bring this in on budget and we look forward to having it online by the end of the year,” said Mr. Curtis.

HOW THIS IMPACTS YOU

The Durham York Energy Centre is designed to process up to 140,000 tonnes of waste each year, and generate 17.5 gross megawatts of renewable energy — enough to power between 10,000 and 12,000 homes. A key part of the economic case for the energy-from-waste facility depends on it generating electrical power revenue.

from: http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/5682601-new-courtice-incinerator-hits-further-delays/

on incinerator burner, there is one oil pump and have two tube for Suction Line and Return Line.

Pet Animal After Cremation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
2. STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
3. COLLABORATORS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
4. STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
5. LABORATORY TRIALS 5
6. FIELD TRIALS 13

 

 

 

1.     OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME

 

The objective of the programme is to select technical criteria suitable for tender specification purposes that will enable the South African Department of Health to obtain the services and equipment necessary for the primary health care clinics to carry out small-scale incineration for the disposal of medical waste.

 

2.     STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME

 

The test programme is being carried out in phases, as follows:

Phase 1         A scoping study to decide the responsibility of the different parties and

consensus on the test criteria and boundaries of the laboratory tests. The criteria for accepting an incinerator on trial was approved by all parties involved.

Phase 2         Laboratory tests with a ranking of each incinerator and the selection of the incinerators to be used in the field trials.

Phase 3         Completion of field trials, to assess the effectiveness of each incinerator under field conditions.

Phase 4         Preparation of a tender specification and recommendations to the DoH for the implementation of an ongoing incineration programme.

 

This document provides feedback on phases 2 and 3 of the work.

 

 

 

3.     COLLABORATORS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME

 

SA Collaborative Centre for Cold Chain Management SA National Department of Health

CSIR

Pharmaceutical Society of SA World Health Organisation UNICEF

 

 

 

4.     STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME

 

The following stakeholders participated in the steering committee:

 

• Dept of Health (National & provincial levels) (DoH)
• Dept of Occupational Health & Safety (National & provincial levels)
• Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (National & provincial levels) (DEAT)
• Dept of Water Affairs & Forestry (National & provincial levels) (DWAF)
• Dept of Labour (National & provincial levels) (DoL)
• National Waste Management Strategy Group
• SA Local Government Association (SALGA)
• SA National Civics Organisation (SANCO)
• National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU)

 

 

• Democratic Nurses Organisation of SA (DENOSA)
• Medecins Sans Frontieres
• SA Association of Community Pharmacists
• Mamelodi Community Health Committee
• Pharmaceutical Society of SA
• CSIR
• UNICEF
• WHO
• SA Federation of Hospital Engineers

 

 

International visitors:

• Dr Luiz Diaz – WHO Geneva and International Waste Management , USA
• Mr Joost van den Noortgate – Medecins Sans Frontieres, Belgium

 

 

 

 

5.     LABORATORY TRIALS

 

5.1.   Objective of the laboratory trials

 

• Rank the performance of submitted units to the following criteria:

y Occupational safety

y Impact on public health from emissions

y The destruction efficiency

y The usability for the available staff

 

• The panel of experts for the ranking consisted of a:

y Professional nurse; Mrs Dorette Kotze from the SA National Department of Health

y Emission specialist; Dr Dave Rogers from the CSIR

y Combustion Engineer; Mr Brian North from the CSIR

 

5.2.   Incinerators received for evaluation

 

Name used in report	Model no.	Description	Manufacturer
C&S Marketing incinerator	SafeWaste Model Turbo 2000Vi	Electrically operated fan supplies combustion air – no auxiliary fuel	C&S Marketing cc.
Molope Gas incinerator	Medcin 400 Medical Waste Incinerator	Gas-fired incinerator	Molope Integrated Waste Management
Molope Auto incinerator	Molope Auto Medical Waste Incinerator	Auto-combust incinerator – uses wood or coal as additional fuel to facilitate incineration	Molope Integrated Waste Management

 

Name used in report	Model no.	Description	Manufacturer
PaHuOy incinerator	Turbo Stove	Auto-combust unit, using no additional fuel or forced air supply	Pa-Hu Oy

 

 

5.3.   Emission testing: laboratory method

 

Sampling of emissions followed the US-EPA Method 5G dilution tunnel method for stove emissions. Adjustments to the design were made to account for flames extending up to 0.5 m above the tip of the incinerator and the drop out of large pieces of ash. Emissions were extracted into a duct for isokinetic sampling of particulate emissions. The sampling arrangement is shown by a schematic in Figure 1. A photograph of the operation over the Molope gas fired incinerator unit is shown in Figure 2.

 

All tests were performed according to specified operating procedures. The instructions provided by the supplier of the equipment were followed in the case of the C&S Marketing Unit. No operating procedures were supplied with the Molope Gas, Molope auto-combustion and PaHuOy units. These procedures were established by the CSIR personnel using their previous experience together with information provided by the supplier.

 

Test facilities were set up at the CSIR and measurements were carried out under an ISO9001 system using standard EPA test procedures or modifications made at the CSIR.

 

 

 

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the laboratory set-up

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2:Photograph of air intake sampling hood over Molope gas incinerator

 

 

 

5.4.   RANKING RESULTS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

Using the criteria listed under section 4.1 above, the incinerators were ranked as followed:

 

	Molope gas-fired unit	Molope wood-fired unit	C&S electric unit	PaHuOy wood-fired unit
Safety	6.8	4.8	5.5	3.3
Health	5.5	3.5	4.3	2.3
Destruction	9	2	6	1
Usability	2	3	3	5
Average	5.8	3.3	4.7	2.9

 

 

5.5.   EMISSION RESULTS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

Quantitative measurements were used to rank the units in terms of destruction efficiency and the potential to produce hazardous emissions.

 

Conformance to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s (DEAT) recommended guidelines on emissions from Large Scale Medical Waste Incinerators is summarized in Table 1. The measurements are listed1 in Table 2.

 

 

 

Table 1: Summary qualitative results

 

Parameter Measured	Units	Molope   Gas-fired	Molope   Wood-fired	C&S   Electric	PaHuOy   Wood-fired	SA DEAT Guidelines
Stack height	m	×	×	×	×	3 m above nearest building
Gas velocity	m/s	×	×	×	×	10
Residence time	s	×	×	×	×	2
Minimum combustion temperature	ºC	4	×	×	×	> 850
Gas combustion efficiency	%	×	×	×	×	99.99
Particulate emissions	mg/Nm3	4	×	4	×	180
Cl as HCl	mg/Nm3	×	4	4	×	< 30
F as HF	mg/Nm3	4	4	4	4	< 30
Metals	mg/Nm3	4	×	×	4	< 0.5 and < 0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Emission concentrations are reported in accordance with the South African reporting requirements, ie, normalized to Normal Temperature (0

oC) and Pressure (101.3 kPa) and corrected to a nominal concentration of

8 % of CO2 on a dry gas basis. If a measurement fell below the detection limit for the method is it either reported as the detection limit or as N.D., ie, not detectable.

 

 

Table 2: Detailed quantitative results

 

Parameter Measured *	Units	Molope gas	Molope auto	C&S	PaHuOy	SA Process Guide1	Comments
Stack height	m	1.8	1.8	1.9	0.3	3 m above nearest building	None of these unite has a stack. The height of the exhaust vent is taken as the stack height. If it is above the respiration zone of the operator it provides some protection from exposure to smoke.
Gas velocity	m/s	0.8	0.5	1.1	0.5	10	Gas velocities vary across the stack for the Molope gas, Molope auto-combustion, and the PaHuOy units.
Residence time	s	0.4	0.7	0.6	0.4	2	Residence time is taken to be the total combustion time, and the maximum achievable
Minimum combustion zone temperature	oC	800 -900	400 – 650	600 – 800	500 – 700	> 850	Molope auto-combustion temperatures are expected to be higher as the centre of the combustion zone is not expected to be at the measurement location.
CO2 at the stack tip	% vol	2.64	3.75	4.9	3.25	8.0	Actual emission concentrations are less than the values reported here, which are normalized to 8 % CO2 and Normal temperature and pressure for reporting purposes. They are lower between 4 to 8 times.
Gas	%	99.91-	98.8 -98.4	99.69-	98.9	99.99	Most accurate measurement in
Combustion		99.70		99.03			the duct where mixing of exhaust
efficiency							gases is complete. Results of two trials.
Particulate emissions entrained in exhaust gas	mg/Nm3	102	197	130	338	180	The total emissions are the sum of the both entrained and un- entrained particulates. Emissions are lower than expected for such units and this is attributed to the absence of raking which is the major source of particulate emissions from incinerators without an emission control system.
Particulate fall- out	mg/Nm3	42	105	n.d.	n.d.	–	Large pieces of paper and cardboard ash rained out of the emissions. Totalling 0.8 to 2 g over a +/- 2 minute period.
Soot in particulates	%	42.2	58.1	48.7	84.8	–	Correlates directly with gas combustion efficiency

 

1 Emission concentrations are reported in accordance with the South African reporting requirements, ie, Normalized to Normal Temperature (0

oC) and Pressure (101.3 kPa) and corrected to a nominal concentration of

8 % of CO2 on a dry gas basis. If a measurement fell below the detection limit for the method is it either reported as the detection limit or as N.D., ie, not detectable.

 

Parameter Measured *	Units	Molope gas	Molope auto	C&S	PaHuOy	SA Process Guide1	Comments
% ash residual from medical waste	%	14.8	12.9	15.6	21.7	–	Measurement of destruction efficiency of the incinerator. Typical commercial units operate at 85-90 % mass reduction. PaHuOy is lower due to the melting and unburnt plastic.
Cl as HCl	mg/Nm3	46	13	25	35 & 542	< 30	PaHuOy chloride concentrations varied considerably. This is expected due to the variability of the feed composition.
F as HF	mg/Nm3	< 6	< 1	<2	< 1	< 30	Fluoride not found in this waste.
Arsenic (As)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Arsenic is not expected as a solid.
Lead (Pb)	mg/Nm3	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	0.5	Lead not expected in waste
Cadmium (Cd)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.05	Sensitivity of the x-ray method is adequate for ranking. Higher sensitivity not sought for this trial.
Chromium (Cr)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	0.7	0.7	< 0.1.	0.5	Chromium relative to iron ranges between 12 and 25% which is consistent with stainless steel needles
Manganese (Mn)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	0.3	0.3	< 0.1	0.5	Manganese may be a component in the stainless steel needle.
Nickel (Ni)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	0.3	< 0.1	< 0.1	0.5	Nickel may be a component in the needle.
Antimony (Sb)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Not expected in this waste.
Barium (Ba)	mg/Nm3	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	0.5	Lower sensitivity due to presence in the filter material
Silver (Ag)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Not expected in this waste.
Cobalt (Co)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	< 0.1	< 0.1	< 0.1	0.5	Cobalt might be present in stainless steel.
Copper (Cu)	mg/Nm3	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	0.5	Lower sensitivity due to copper in the sample blanks. May be background in the analytical equipment.
Tin (Sn)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Tin not expected in this waste.
Vanadium (V)	mg/Nm3	< 0.1	< 0.1	0.4	< 0.1	0.5	Vanadium might be present in stainless steel.
Thallium (Tl)	mg/Nm3	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	0.05	Not expected in this waste. Sensitivity of the x-ray method is adequate for ranking. Higher sensitivity not sought for this trial.

 

 

 

5.6.   MAIN FINDINGS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

The main conclusions drawn from the trials are as follows:

 

:::          All four units can be used to render medical waste non-infectious, and to destroy syringes or render needles unsuitable for reuse.

:::                           The largest potential health hazard arises from the emissions of smoke and soot.              (the combustion efficiency of all units lies outside the

regulatory standards). The risk to health can be reduced by training operators to avoid the smoke or by installation of a chimney at the site.

:::          The emissions from small scale incinerators are expected to be lower than those from a wood fire, but higher than a conventional fire-brick-

lined multi-chambered incinerator.

:::          Incomplete combustion, and the substantial formation of smoke at low height rendered the PaHuOy unit unacceptable for field trials. Figure 3

below shows this unit during a trial burn. Molten plastic flowed out of

the incinerator, blocked the primary combustion air feed vents, and burnt outside of the unit.

 

 

 

Figure 3: Photo of PaHuOy incinerator during trial burn

 

 

5.7.   COMPARISON OF THE FIELDS TRIALS WITH THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

The CSIR performed a quantitative trial in the field for gas combustion efficiency, temperature profiles and mass destruction rate on the Molope Auto wood-fired unit at the Mogale Clinic.

 

The results of this trial are compared to the laboratory trial results below:

 

• Waste loading: Disposable rubber gloves were observed in addition to needles syringes, glass vials, bandages, dressings, and paper w
• Temperatures and combustion efficiency: The same performance in gas combustion        efficiency   was    obtained    for    wood    .

Temperatures were higher but for a shorter time and this was

correlated with the type of wood available to the clinic. The fuel was burnt out before the medical waste was destroyed completely and this resulted in lower temperatures, lower combustion efficiency and higher emissions while burning the waste.

• Emissions: Large amounts of black smoke were observed and this was correlated directly to cooling of the unit as the wood fuel was exhausted

prior to full ignition of the waste.

• Destruction efficiency: The destruction efficiency was similar to that in the laboratory measurem
• Usability: The unit is difficult to control as the result of the variability of the quality of wood
• Acceptability: the smoke was not acceptable to the clinic, the community, or the local

 

It was concluded that:

• The performance with fuel alone indicates that laboratory trial data can be used to predict emissions in the
• The Molope Auto unit is too difficult to control for the available staff and fuel at the

 

 

 

5.8.   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

The following recommendations are made as the result of the laboratory trials:

:::     A comprehensive operating manual must be supplied with each unit.

Adequate training in the operation of the units must be provided, especially focussed on safety issues.

:::     It is recommended that the height of the exhaust vent on all units be

addressed.     In order to facilitate the dispersion of emissions and reduce the exposure risk of the operators.

:::     The suppliers of the incinerators must provide instructions for the safe handling and disposal of ash.

 

 

 

5.9.   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STEERING COMMITTEE

 

 

 

After completion of the laboratory trials, the project steering committee recommended that the Molope Gas and C&S Marketing units be submitted for field testing. The Molope Auto was recommended for field testing on the condition that the manufacturer modified the ash grate so as to prevent the spillage of partially burnt needles and syringes.

 

 

 

6.     FIELD TRIALS

 

6.1.   OBJECTIVE OF THE FIELD TRIALS

 

The objective of the field trials was to obtain information in the field and assess the strengths and weaknesses of each of the incinerators during use at primary health care clinics.

 

A participative decision making process was used for the trials. It was based on expert technical evaluation by the CSIR and the National Department of Health as well as participation in the trials by experienced end users and participating advisors. All decisions were made by the Steering Committee, which consisted of representatives of stakeholders in the clinical and medical waste disposal process. These included representatives from the National, Provincial, and Local Government departments of Health, Safety and the Environment, as well as Professional Associations, Unions, NGOs, UNICEF, the WHO and local community representatives.

 

6.2.   CLINIC SELECTION

 

The Provinces in which the trials were done selected clinics for the field trials. The criteria set by the Steering Committee for the selection of the clinics were the following:

 

• Location must be rural or under-serviced with

y No medical waste removal

y No existing incineration

y No transport

• It must be in a high-density population area
• Acceptable environmental conditions must prevail
• Community acceptance must be obtained
• Operator skill level to be used must be at a level of illiteracy

 

The clinics that were selected were as follows:

 

• Steinkopf Clinic – Northern Cape Province – Gas incinerator

 

 

• Marydale Clinic – Northern Cape Province – Gas incinerator
• Mogale Clinic – Gauteng Province             – Auto combustion

incinerator, wood-fired.

• Chwezi Clinic – KwaZulu-Natal Province – Gas incinerator
• Ethembeni Clinic- KwaZulu-Natal Province – Auto-combustion electrical

incinerator

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAP OF SOUTH AFRICA INDICATING WHERE THE CLINICS ARE SITUATED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NORTHERN PROVINCE

 

GAUTENG PROVINCE

 

 

 

 

 

NORTH WEST PROVINCE

MPUMALANGA PROVINCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREE STATE PROVINCE

 

 

NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE

 

 

KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE

 

I:\UnitPublic\Valerie\Technet 99\Working papers\Session 3\rogers.doc

 

 

 

EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE

 

 

WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

 

 

6.3.   COORDINATION OF THE TRIALS

 

The criteria for the ranking of the incinerators in accordance with performance in the field were:

 

• Safety (occupational and public health)
• Destruction capability
• Usability
• Community acceptability

 

The South African National Department of Health coordinated the field trials.

 

Information regarding the field trials as well as questionnaires were supplied to the coordinators in the participating provinces.

 

The team in the field consisted of the operator, supervisor and inspector (coordinator). The manufacturer of the incinerators did the training of the operators.

 

The questionnaires used during the trials were set so as to obtain information with regard to the criteria set for the ranking of the incinerators in accordance with performance in the field. The questionnaires were received from the clinics at two-weekly intervals.

 

Questions with regard to the criteria were the following:

 

A.  SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

• Smoke Emission

y Volume and thickness

y Colour

y Odour

• Ash Content
• Are the filled sharps boxes and soiled dressings stored in a locked location while waiting to be incinerated?

 

 

 

B.  DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

• Destruction Rate

y Complete

y Partial

y Minimal

y Residue content

 

C.  USABILITY (for the available staff)

• Can the incinerator be used easily?

 

 

• Is the process of incineration safe?
• Has training been successful?
• Is protective clothing such as gloves, goggles, dust masks and safety boots available?

 

D.  COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

• What is the opinion of the following persons on the use of the incinerator?

y Operator

y Nurse

y Head of the clinic

y Local Authority representative

y Community leader

 

During the trials the clinics were visited and the incinerators evaluated by members of the Steering Committee and the CSIR as well as Dr L Diaz from WHO, Mr M Lainejoki from UNICEF and the coordinator from the National Department of Health.

 

6.4.   QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

 

6.4.1.      MOGALE CLINIC

 

Type of incinerator at the clinic: Molope Auto-Combustion (Fired with wood)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 & 5: Molope Auto wood-fired incinerator during field trials at Mogale clinic

 

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The process of incineration with this unit was considered by the operator, supervisor and the inspector as unsafe because there is no protective cage around the During the process the incinerator becomes very hot and this could result in injury to the operator.

 

2. The smoke emission of this incinerator had a volume and thickness which was heavy and black, with a distinct unpleasant odour, and was considered This could cause a pollution problem.

 

 

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.

 

2. The soft medical waste was completely destroy

 

 

 

C.               USABILITY

 

Difficulty in controlling the operating temperature and avoiding smoke emissions made this incinerator user unfriendly.

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

As a result of the heavy, black smoke emission the unit was not acceptable to the community.

 

 

6.4.2.      ETHEMBENI CLINIC:

 

 

Figure 6: C&S Marketing Auto Combust Electrical Incinerator At Ethembeni Clinic

 

 

 

Type Of Incinerator: C&S Auto-Combustion (Uses an electrically actuated fan)

 

 

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The operator, supervisor and inspector considered this incinerator easy to operate with no danger to the Removal of the ash from the drum for disposal in a pit is, however, considered difficult, as the drum is heavy. Removal of the incinerator lid before it has been allowed to cool has been identified as a potential danger to the operator.

 

2. Emission of smoke from this incinerator was not considered ex The volume and thickness was evaluated as moderate with no pollution experienced.

 

 

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.
2. The soft medical waste was completely destroy

 

 

 

C.               USABILITY

 

Considered user friendly by operator, supervisor and inspector.

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

The incinerator was accepted by the community and was not considered to be harmful.

 

 

 

6.4.3.      CHWEZI CLINIC, MARYDALE CLINIC AND STEINKOPF CLINIC:

 

Type of incinerator: Molope Gas incinerator

 

Figure 7:       Molope Gas incinerator during field trials at Marydale clinic

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The operator, supervisor and inspector considered this incinerator easy to operate with minimal danger to the
2. Smoke emissions were not excessive and were reported to be minim

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. Sharps not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.

 

 

2. Soft medical waste completely destroy

 

C.               USABILITY

 

This incinerator was considered user friendly.

 

 

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

 

 

The incinerator was accepted by the community and was not considered to be harmful.

 

 

 

6.5.   RANKING

 

 

INCINERATOR	RANKING
Molope Gas	1
C&S Auto-Combustion (Uses electrical fan)	2
Molope Auto- Combustion (Fired with wood, coal also an option)	3

 

 

 

 

6.6.   OUTCOME OF THE FIELD TRIALS

 

Incinerator	Safety	Destruction Capability	Usability	Community Acceptability
Molope Gas	Good	Good	Good	Good
C&S Auto- Combustion (Uses Electricity)	Good	Good	Good	Good
Molope Auto- Combust Incinerator	Un-Acceptable	Good	Un-Acceptable	Un-Acceptable

 

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: envilead@excite.com 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

Youth battle a waste incinerator.

Product Specifications : Medical Waste Incinerator
Medical Waste Incinerator, Incinerator
Specifications-type Pyrolytic combustion
Construction requirements of the incinerator-Incinérateur Gas or electric and designed to
Minimize noise during operation
Prevent the release of black smoke and fine dust during loading and operation of waste
Allow for regular and complete combustion of the waste
Allow automatic operation requiring little, if any monitoring and ensuring optimal and safe operation
Provide limited consumption of gas or electricity
Provide fire safety for the entire installation
Install a protective shelter of the incinerator.rated
Capacity-Incinérateurs Capacity of at least 5 to 7 kg / h
Temperature combustion and post-combustion
Combustion temperature: at least 900 ° C- After burner temperature: at least 1100 ° C.Range and operating time-Operation Optimal and uninterrupted for at least 06 hours in a row.
Quality of treatment-Fumée Emitted less harmful and whitish
General Design-Ensure Maximum protection and operator safety.-provide A fume extraction device
Combustion-Set The combustion chamber between 900 and 1000 ° C-Non Combustion with a thermometer probe and numerically displaying its inner temperature.atmospheric emissionsAtmospheric emissions will be done according to the rules and standards:Concentrations in mg / Nm3 of flue gas reported at 11% oxygen
Substances:Daily averages:- Total Dust: 10-30- Organic in the state of gas or vapor, expressed as total organic carbon (TOC) substances:: 10 – 15- Hydrogen chloride (HCl): 10-15- Hydrogen fluoride (HF): 1-3- Sulphur dioxide (SO2): 50-60- Carbon monoxide (CO): 50-90-Speed Injection of greater than 8 m / sec air emissions.
Related SERVICES-the Delivery of the incinerator must be accompanied by the provision of a number of services.Installation of the incineratorFlush and startup of the incinerator on the site in accordance with requirements prescribed by it.formation- Trained in the use and preventive maintenance of the incinerator of the manipulator (operator incinerators.Toolbox and wear parts-Provide Toolkits for maintenance-Provide A toolkit for each incineratorwarranty-At Least one (01) year from the date of delivery.-Take Into account the replacement of defective parts or any other book accompanying the delivery of the incinerator