Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal

Methods Used by Hospitals in Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho

Pornwipa Klangsin & Anna K. Harding

To cite this article: Pornwipa Klangsin & Anna K. Harding (1998) Medical Waste
Treatment and Disposal Methods Used by Hospitals in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, Journal of
the Air & Waste Management Association, 48:6, 516-526, DOI: 10.1080/10473289.1998.10463706
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1998.10463706

Published online: 27 Dec 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5319

View related articles

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
KlangsinTECHNICALand PAPERHarding
Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Methods Used
by Hospitals in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho
Pornwipa Klangsin
Department of Public Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Anna K. Harding
Department of Public Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
ABSTRACT
This study investigated medical waste practices used by
hospitals in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, which in-
cludes the majority of hospitals in the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency’s (EPA) Region 10. During the fall
of 1993, 225 hospitals were surveyed with a response rate
of 72.5%. The results reported here focus on infectious
waste segregation practices, medical waste treatment and
disposal practices, and the operating status of hospital
incinerators in these three states. Hospitals were provided
a definition of medical waste in the survey, but were que-
ried about how they define infectious waste. The results
implied that there was no consensus about which agency
or organization’s definition of infectious waste should
be used in their waste management programs. Confu-
sion around the definition of infectious waste may also
have contributed to the finding that almost half of the
IMPLICATIONS
The disposal and treatment of medical waste continues
to be a topic of controversy and concern, particularly
since air pollution standards have forced the closure of
many hospital incinerators. This research provides the
first com-prehensive overview of medical waste
treatment and dis-posal practices being used by the
majority of hospitals in EPA Region 10, and updated
information about the ef-fect clean air regulations have
had in forcing these hos-pitals to consider alternative
medical waste management strategies. As the overall
volume and costs associated with treatment continue to
increase, this information is important to generators of
medical waste, hospitals out-side this region, state
agencies that are involved in the regulatory processes,
and waste management compa-nies that treat medical
waste generated by any type of healthcare facility.
516 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 48:516-526
Copyright 1998 Air & Waste Management Association
hospitals are not segregating infectious waste from other
medical waste. The most frequently used practice of treat-
ing and disposing of medical waste was the use of private
haulers that transport medical waste to treatment facili-
ties (61.5%). The next most frequently reported techniques
were pouring into municipal sewage (46.6%), depositing
in landfills (41.6%), and autoclaving (32.3%). Other meth-
ods adopted by hospitals included Electro-Thermal-Deac-
tivation (ETD), hydropulping, microwaving, and grind-
ing before pouring into the municipal sewer. Hospitals
were asked to identify all methods they used in the treat-
ment and disposal of medical waste. Percentages, there-
fore, add up to greater than 100% because the majority
chose more than one method. Hospitals in Oregon and
Washington used microwaving and ETD methods to treat
medical waste, while those in Idaho did not. No hospitals
in any of the states reported using irradiation as a treat-
ment technique. Most hospitals in Oregon and Washing-
ton no longer operate their incinerators due to more strin-
gent regulations regarding air pollution emissions. Hos-
pitals in Idaho, however, were still operating incinerators
in the absence of state regulations specific to these types
of facilities.
INTRODUCTION
During the 1980s, several incidents involving the dis-
posal of medical waste caused significant public con-
cern in areas of the United States.1–6 The public associ-
ated these incidents with the AIDS and Hepatitis B vi-
rus (HBV) epidemics and responded with fear. This
widespread outcry effectively forced Congress and sev-
eral other federal agencies, including the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and
Volume 48 June 1998

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to develop
regulations and standards for the disposal and treat-
ment of medical waste.7–10 In addition, the majority of
states, including Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, have
passed state-specific laws regarding the management
of medical waste.11–14
Hospitals comprise only 2% of all medical waste gen-
erators, but generate as much as 77% of the total annual
volume of regulated medical waste in the United States—
approximately 8,400 lbs/month/hospital.15 Additional
medical waste is produced by clinics, laboratories, physi-
cians’ offices, dentists’ offices, veterinarians’ offices, long-
term healthcare facilities, freestanding blood banks, fu-
neral homes, residential care facilities, and illegal drug
use.16 The amount of medical waste produced by hospi-
tals may vary due to a number of factors, including
the hospital type and size, occupancy rate, in- and out-
patient ratio, geographic location, state and local waste
handling regulations, and hospital waste disposal poli-cies.16,17
The terminology applied to medical waste and medi-
cal waste management in hospitals is neither universal
nor consistent. The CDC, the EPA, the Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO),
the American Hospital Association (AHA), and the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) all have
different definitions for “hospital,” “medical,” “infec-
tious,” and “regulated medical” wastes. These terms are
often mistakenly interchanged.18,19 In general, hospital
waste refers to all waste, biological and non-biological, that is
discarded and not intended for further use.19,20 It
consists of infectious and non-infectious solid waste, haz-
ardous waste, and low-level radioactive waste.21
In contrast, medical waste, infectious waste, and regu-
lated medical waste are all subsets of hospital waste. Medi-
cal waste is defined in Section 3 of the Medical Waste
Tracking Act of 1988 as “any solid waste that is generated
in the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human
beings or animals, in research pertaining thereto, or in
the production or testing of biologicals.”16 Medical waste
is, therefore, defined more broadly than infectious waste
or regulated medical waste, but less broadly than hospital
waste.20,22
The portion of medical waste capable of producing
an infectious disease is considered to be infectious waste.
In order for waste to be infectious, the four conditions
necessary for infection to occur (a virulent pathogen, suf-
ficiently high dose, portal of entry, and host resistance)
must be present.16,19 CDC considers microbiological waste
(e.g., cultures and stocks), blood and blood products,
pathological waste, and sharps to be infectious waste.16
Regulated medical waste refers specifically to the seven
different classes of medical waste required by the EPA to
Volume 48 June 1998
Klangsin and Harding
be tracked under the demonstration program, which are
similar to that recognized by the CDC as being infectious
waste.16,23 The classes include laboratory cultures and
stocks, pathological wastes, human blood and blood prod-
ucts, used sharps, animal wastes, isolation wastes, and
unused sharps.16
The various definitions yield significant differences
in the amounts of waste identified as infectious, and there-
fore affect the costs of managing infectious wastes. For
example, 3–6% of a hospital’s total waste might qualify
as infectious waste using CDC definitions, whereas 7–15%
of hospital waste would be considered infectious waste using the
broader EPA definitions.18,24 Because the cost of
infectious waste disposal can be as much as 6–20 times
higher than that of solid waste disposal, hospitals are wise
to use as narrow a definition of infectious waste as pos-
sible, taking care to identify the components of the waste
stream that are truly capable of transmitting disease.25
In addition to discrepancies in definitions about medi-
cal and infectious waste, hospitals have also faced ambi-
guities in regulations, guidelines, and standards that ap-
ply to these waste streams, which has led to confusion
among the hospital industry and waste managers about
proper management procedures. Medical waste is not
uniformly regulated at the state level throughout the
United States; in some states, regulations have not yet
been adopted. At the same time, federal regulations (such
as air pollution and solid/hazardous waste laws) have also
limited alternatives to on-site treatment methods of medi-
cal waste. For example, as states enforce the Clean Air Act
of 1990, many uncontrolled on-site hospital incinerators
have been required to be renovated, replaced, or even
closed down, and waste that was once incinerated must
now receive alternative treatment.26 Regulations have also
forced hospitals to change either medical waste or infec-
tious waste management practices. For example, in many
states infectious waste must be treated before being bur-
ied in a landfill, or it is required to be segregated and la-
beled before being hauled to a commercial facility.27 Nev-
ertheless, an estimated 60% of the nation’s medical waste
is still disposed of in small to medium-sized incinerators
located on-site at hospitals and other medical facilities.28
In addition to these facilities are commercial incinerators
that accept medical wastes from a variety of sources. Com-
mercial units, which are much larger than on-site hospi-
tal incinerators, burn an estimated 20% of the nation’s
medical waste.29 The remaining 20% is autoclaved and
either directly placed in a landfill, or fired in a municipal
waste incinerator and then placed in a landfill.28
During the past five years, various aspects of medical
and infectious waste management have been researched.
Studies have included a survey of infectious waste practices
in Washington,30 a biomedical waste survey in Oklahoma,31
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 517
Klangsin and Harding
a review of current legal requirements,32 public health
implications of medical waste,33 occupational exposure
to infectious waste,34 current practices and risks posed by
infectious waste disposal,35 and medical waste practices
in small facilities.18 Although an earlier study on infec-
tious waste disposal was conducted in American Hospital
Association (accredited) hospitals, only 7% of U.S. hospi-
tals were represented in this study.36 Since that time, regu-
lations have expanded and changed. Information is still
lacking about the regulations hospitals follow with regard
to medical waste management, and about specific waste
handling practices and disposal methods that are used to
comply with federal and state mandates. No studies have
comprehensively investigated the medical waste practices
of hospitals in the contiguous states of EPA Region 10,
which comprise the majority of hospitals in this region.
The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate
medical waste treatment and disposal practices in hospi-
tals in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The study also
sought to answer questions about which regulations and
standards these hospitals follow in their medical waste
management plans, as well as gather information about
the operating status of hospital incinerators.
METHODS
Sampling
The study population included all hospitals (N = 225) in
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho listed in the 1992 AHA
Guide to the Healthcare Field.37 This group included 70 hos-
pitals in Oregon, 107 hospitals in Washington, and 48
hospitals in Idaho. Each hospital was sent a letter of invi-
tation to participate in the study, and asked to respond to
the survey. Prior to mailing the surveys, each hospital was
contacted to obtain the name and the title of the person
responsible for medical or infectious waste management
at that facility. The surveys were then mailed specifically
to the person with that responsibility. The majority of
these people occupied positions in infection control, en-
vironmental services, nursing, maintenance, and facility
personnel management. The first set of surveys was mailed
in September 1993. Non-respondents were sent a second
mailing one month later. All responses were collected until
November 1993, one month after the follow-up mailing.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument consisted of a four-page question-
naire divided into sets of questions pertaining to a par-
ticular aspect of medical waste management. The results
of several sets of questions are reported in this paper. The
first set included questions regarding definitions of in-
fectious waste used by hospitals in their waste manage-
ment programs, categories of medical waste considered
infectious, and segregation practices. A second set of
518 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
questions requested information regarding incinera-
tion and other medical waste treatment techniques
currently applied in these facilities.
The survey was revised and critiqued by staff at the
Oregon State University Survey Research Center. Sampling
and consent procedures were approved by the Oregon
State University Institutional Review Board for the Pro-
tection of Human Subjects. The final draft was then
pretested by medical or infectious waste managers in
three different hospitals, and edited according to their
suggestions.
Analysis
To facilitate the data entry process, the completed ques-
tionnaires were separated into groups by states. Data from
the surveys were analyzed using Statgraphics 5.0.38 The level of
significance for analysis was set at  = 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Response Rate
A total of 161 surveys were returned for a response rate of
72.5%. The response rates for hospitals in Oregon, Wash-
ington, and Idaho were similar: 75.7, 71.5, and 70.8%,
respectively. This overall rate is markedly higher than the
46% response rate for a study of U.S. hospitals conducted
in 1987, and a 51% response rate obtained with a 1989
Washington Department of Ecology study.30,36
Definitions Used for Medical and
Infectious Waste
The survey asked that respondents use the standard
medical waste definition, which included solid waste
generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or immuniza-
tion of human beings.27 Respondents were also asked
to consider hazardous solid waste and hospital waste
produced from the laboratory and in testing as medi-
cal waste.39 In addition, the respondents were reminded
that medical waste also included infectious waste. In-
fectious waste was, however, purposefully not defined
for the respondents, as the researchers were interested
in finding out whether or not there is a consensus
among these hospitals about the definition of infec-
tious waste. Table 1 shows the percentages of hospi-
tals that use a particular agency or organization’s defi-
nition of infectious waste in their medical waste man-
agement program. The majority of hospitals adopted
the state’s definition (69.7%) and/or OSHA’s definition
(62.5%) of infectious waste. Slightly fewer than half
used CDC’s definition (48.7%) and JCAHO’s definition
(40.1%). It was also noted that the vast majority of
hospitals (90.1%) indicated they used definitions pro-
vided by more than one agency or organization. These
definitions are dissimilar because they were issued for
Volume 48 June 1998
 Klangsin and Harding

Table 1. Sources of definitions of infectious waste used by hospitals (N = 152).

to be infectious by hospitals than are required by state
b
regulatory agency definitions. For example, more than
Agency/Organization Number of (%) 50% of hospitals choose to designate contaminated
a
Hospitals equipment as infectious waste, even though contami-
nated equipment is not required to be regulated as infec-
State Regulations 106 (69.7%)
tious waste by any agency or organization.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 95 (62.5%) In addition, chemotherapy waste is not categorized
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 74 (48.7%) as infectious waste in either state regulations and other
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare agencies’ standards,12–14 but was nevertheless treated by
Organizations (JCAHO) 61 (40.1%) more than 50% of hospitals in Washington and Idaho as
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 46 (32.3%)
infectious waste. One of the reasons that hospitals con-
sidered this waste to be infectious may be that chemo-
American Medical Association (AMA) therapy waste sometimes contains antineoplastic drugs
or American Practitioner of Infection Control
and cytotoxic agents.40 Although antineoplastic drugs are
Association (APIC) 21 (13.8%)
included in the “U” list of hazardous wastes defined by
a the EPA, antineoplastic drugs used in chemotherapy are
Many hospitals (90.1%) chose more than one source.
b regulated as hazardous waste only when they enter the
Row percentages based on N = 152.
waste stream in unemptied, discarded source contain-
ers.41 The results from this study suggest, therefore, that
different purposes. For example, CDC published uni- hospitals in these states that treat chemotherapy waste
versal precautions to guard against disease transmis- or contaminated equipment as infectious waste may be
sion; EPA’s purpose was to regulate the medical waste inadvertently overly managing these wastes because nei-
stream; and OSHA, with its Bloodborne Pathogens ther are officially classified as infectious waste.
Standards, sought to protect workers from occupational
exposure to bloodborne pathogens. In addition, hos- Waste Segregation Practices
pitals are often members of several accrediting organi- Respondents were asked if their hospital segregated in-
zations (JCAHO or AHA) or professional associations fectious waste from medical waste. The results indicated
(AMA or American Practitioner of Infection Control that 89 hospitals (55.3%) reported segregating infectious
[APIC]), and must meet the standards imposed by each. waste from medical waste, with Idaho reporting the high-
A healthcare institution, therefore, may be required est percentage of hospitals segregating waste (64.7%). Per-
to comply with state regulations regarding medical centages in Washington and Oregon were lower at 54.1
waste management as well as standards that are re- and 51.0%, respectively.
quired for accreditation purposes.
These results support previous research indicating Table 2. Categories of medical waste considered to be infectious.
that the basis for a hospital’s definition of infectious waste
may be extremely variable, based on regulations from Waste Categories Oregon Washington Idaho
different federal agencies, standards of accreditation
groups or professional associations, or local regula-tions,23,30 Waste from Communicable Disease Units
and is confusing at best. One author recom- (Isolation Waste) 71.2 % 78.4 % 84.4 %
mends that the term “potentially infectious waste” be Culture and Stock (Microbiology
Laboratory Waste) 90.4 % 89.2 % 90.0 %
uniformly adopted by all parties as standard terminol-
Pathological Waste 90.4% 90.6 % 87.5 %
ogy, referring to that portion of hospital-generated waste
Blood Specimens and Blood Products 94.2 % 97.3 % 100 %
which, if not contained and managed properly, could
Sharps 94.2 % 93.2 % 93.8 %
result in the transfer of infection.23
Only Contaminated Sharps 3.9 % 0.7 % 6.3 %
Respondents were next asked to select the catego- Body Parts 84.6 % 78.4 % 78.1 %
ries of medical waste that were considered to be infec- Waste from Surgery Rooms 71.2 % 78.4 % 78.1 %
tious waste in their hospitals. Overall in the three states, Animal Carcasses 21 .2 % 25.1 % 18.8 %
blood specimens and blood products (96.9%), all sharps Dialysis Unit Waste 36.5 % 23.0 % 8.1 %
(93.7%), microbiology laboratory waste (89.9%), patho- Contaminated Equipment 69.2 % 52.7 % 59.4 %
logical waste (89.9%), body parts (80.4%), and waste Chemotherapy Waste 3.5 % 59.5 % 53.1 %
from surgery (77.2%) were most commonly considered
Note: Waste categories and numbers in bold indicate infectious waste categories defined
to be infectious waste. Table 2 shows that a greater
by state regulations.
number of categories of medical waste are considered

Volume 48 June 1998 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 519
Klangsin and Harding
Two previous studies reported much higher percent-
ages of hospitals segregating infectious waste from medi-
cal waste. The first, a medical waste study conducted in
1989 by the Washington Department of Ecology, reported
that 85% of hospitals in Washington segregated infectious
waste from medical waste.30 A second survey of 955 hos-
pitals nationwide reported that 95.4% of hospitals segre-
gated out infectious waste.36
The lower rate of waste segregation reported by hos-
pitals in these three states may be partially explained by
the high proportion of non-responses to this question.
Overall, 39 hospitals (24.2%) did not answer the ques-
tion, with hospitals in Oregon having the highest non-
response rate (30.0%). The non-response rate for hospi-
tals in Washington was 22.9%, and the non-response rate
for Idaho hospitals was 17.7%. This is surprising because
most of the hospitals had at least one advisory commit-
tee that was responsible for overseeing medical or infec-
tious waste management, and a third of the hospitals also
had a committee providing advice on the management
of radioactive, chemotherapy, and/or chemical waste. We
would have expected that with these committees in place,
waste segregation would be routinely practiced and in-
formation about the extent to which it is practiced would
be widely known.
Hospitals in Oregon reported a surprisingly low rate
of waste segregation, given that state law requires
healthcare facilities generating infectious waste to segre-
gate this waste from other waste at the point of genera-tion.12,42
One factor contributing to this low rate may be
that approximately 72% of hospitals in Oregon used pri-
vate waste haulers to transport medical waste to off-site
treatment facilities. Because these companies often pro-
vide auxiliary services, such as waste segregation and re-
packaging, hospitals in Oregon may be depending on
waste haulers to segregate the waste rather than actively
practicing in-house segregation.
One of the reasons hospitals should be encouraged
to segregate infectious waste from other waste is that this
practice is likely to lower a hospital’s waste disposal costs.
Segregation methods help hospitals eliminate the higher
costs associated with special handling, treatment, and
disposal of infectious waste.43 In addition, waste segrega-
tion is one of the methods used to reduce the amount of
mixed waste. Mixed waste presents special problems in
waste management, due to the difficulty in finding meth-
ods that are compatible with all hazards.40
Treatment and Disposal Techniques
Two groups of questions were used to collect data related to
waste treatment and disposal techniques. One set pertained to
incineration and a second set inquired about other practices.
520 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Hospital incineration. Incineration has traditionally been a
hospital’s primary method of treating and disposing of medi-
cal waste. A 1994 report stated that approximately 6,700 medi-
cal waste incinerators were still operating in U.S. hospitals,24
and a recent article reported 2,400 on-site hospital medical
waste incinerators in the United States.44 When questioned
about the operating status of their hospital incinerators (cur-
rently in use, no longer in use, never had), 45.7% overall in the
three states reported that they had stopped operating their in-
cinerators, 27.2% indicated they currently use their incinera-
tors, and 27.2% reported they never had incinerators. Infor-
mation about the operating status of incinerators in each of
the states is presented in Figure 1. The greatest number of hos-
pitals reporting that they had discontinued use of their incin-
erators occurred in Washington (60.3%). This information
updates the EPA report that stipulates that 60% of Washing-
ton hospitals operate on-site incinerators.24 Fairly equal num-
bers of hospitals in Oregon (35.3%) and Idaho (31.2%) indi-
cated that they had also discontinued use.
Hospitals were also asked to indicate the primary rea-
son they were no longer operating their incinerators. Those
that had stopped operating their incinerators were most
likely to have taken this action within the past five years,
for one of the following reasons: air pollution control re-
quirements (31.3%), cost of redesigning (26.2%), federal
and state waste disposal regulations (23.1%), and expen-
sive maintenance (15.9%). For example, one reason con-
tributing to the closure of 60.3% of Washington hospital
incinerators may be due to the recent passage of stringent
state regulations, such as the requirement that hospital in-
cinerators may not produce any visible combustible mate-
rials in incineration ash.45 In addition, local authorities in
several areas have enacted biomedical waste incineration
regulations that are stricter than the state’s requirements.
For example, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
requires the use of multiple chamber incinerators to burn
Figure 1. Operating status of hospital incinerators in Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho.
Volume 48 June 1998

biomedical waste.46 A third reason may be that many in-
cinerators in Washington were installed during the 1970s,
and half of these incinerators had no emission control sys-
tems.30 Hospitals in Washington, therefore, have been forced
to install expensive air emission control equipment to meet
local and state regulations.
Similarly, hospital incinerators in Oregon must meet
the specific infectious waste or crematory incinerators’
requirements that were promulgated in 1990 by the Or-
egon Department of Environmental Quality.46 These regu-
lations stipulate that hospitals that operate or plan to op-
erate existing incinerators constructed or modified prior
to March 13, 1990, and new incinerators constructed or
modified on or after March 13, 1990, must comply with
several requirements, such as using Best Available Con-
trol Technology (BACT) to maintain the overall highest
air quality levels. The regulations also regulated air emis-
sions, such as particulate materials, hydrogen chloride, sul-
fur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and opac-
ity. In addition, the regulations put restrictions on the types
of waste that was allowed to be incinerated; for example,
no radioactive and hazardous waste was allowed to be
burned in infectious waste incinerators.46 It appears, there-
fore, that the implementation of regulations may have con-
tributed to a substantial reduction in the number of oper-
ating on-site hospital incinerators in Oregon.
Information about the closure of incinerators in
Washington and Oregon confirms studies by others who
have noted that many of the smaller hospital incinera-
tors built in the last decade (or even earlier) may have no
pollution control devices and were designed solely to de-
stroy medical pathological wastes (body parts and tis-
sues).16 These units rarely meet the new federal and state
air pollution control requirements, and hospitals may be
required to add air pollution control systems, or to use
regional incinerators.15,43 Pollution control devices are
expensive, and the EPA is estimating that its new regula-
tions will more than double the cost of medical waste
disposal.29 For example, costs at existing incinerators will
sharply increase, from $168 to $390/ton.29
In addition, toxic emissions produced by incinera-
tors have generated widespread public health concerns.
The EPA estimates that uncontrolled medical waste in-
cinerators accounted for 45% of dioxin emissions from
all identified sources and approximately 25% of the total
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) or dioxin, and
polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) or furan, flux that
enters the U.S. environment.29 Although these statistics
have been challenged, other dioxin-release inventories
have confirmed the EPA’s finding that uncontrolled medi-
cal waste incinerators have been major dioxin sources.29
Uncontrolled medical waste incinerators have also been
documented to be the largest known source of mercury
Volume 48 June 1998
Klangsin and Harding
emissions in the United States and significant contribu-
tors of lead and cadmium emissions.29 Additional pollut-
ants emitted from these incinerators are respirable par-
ticulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and other products of
incomplete combustion, such as vinyl chloride, polychlo-
rinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorobenzenes, chloroform,
chlorophenols, and carbon tetrachloride.29 Modern medi-
cal waste incinerators are equipped with high-efficiency
Air Pollution Control Equipment (APCE) that has been
demonstrated to capture particulates, neutralize acid gases,
and effectively reduce toxic emissions.28 As a result, re-
sidual ash produced from the combustion system and resi-
dues from APCE generally test below regulatory toxic lev-
els.28 If the ash and residues, however, exceed regulatory
levels, the incineration process can be modified to chemi-
cally and physically stabilize toxic materials in the ash,
thereby rendering the ash suitable for landfill disposal.28
In 1995, the EPA proposed new regulations under the
Clean Air Act to reduce dioxin and heavy metal emis-
sions from medical waste incinerators. The rules require
medical waste incinerators to install pollution control
equipment and to upgrade equipment so that combus-
tion conditions meet minimum requirements for furnace
temperature and residence time.47
Although we neglected to ask hospitals about the
influence of public perception with regard to incin-
eration closures, negative public perception associated
with hospital incinerators has also made it more diffi-
cult for hospitals to operate existing or install new well-
controlled incinerators. Hospitals have faced many
challenges in meeting stringent state (and often local)
regulations and in satisfying public demands for lower
emissions coming from their facilities. Thus, during
the time of this study, many hospitals had switched to
alternative methods. Experts supporting the use of
properly designed and well-maintained, high-effi-
ciency APCE systems have suggested, however, that
waste disposal by alternative methods may incur risks
and additional liability.28 For example, off-site
landfilling may incur more pollution than regulated
incineration facilities when transportation and final
disposal are considered. When worker safety, energy,
and other costs associated with waste transportation
are considered, modern incinerators with APCE may
be a more desirable option in terms of limiting the
negative impacts on human health and improving the
overall process of medical waste disposal.28
Idaho had the largest percentage of operating hospi-
tal incinerators. One reason for this may be that at the
date of this study, specific regulations regarding medical
waste incinerators in Idaho were still being developed.
Although hospitals in Idaho were required to comply
with federal government requirements regarding toxic
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 521
Klangsin and Harding

air emissions and ambient air standards, these were usu-
ally mandated only for municipal solid waste incinerators.
Another factor that might have influenced these results is
that hospitals in Idaho tended to be smaller in terms of
average number of beds/hospital (n = 51) compared with
those in Oregon (n = 72) or Washington (n = 91). It is pos-
sible that less waste is generated in Idaho hospitals, which
means that incinerating waste on-site remains to be a legal
and cost-effective method as long as hospital incinerators
are not required to update their units.48 It was suggested,
however, that the number of operating hospital incinera-
tors would likely decrease when the state or federal govern-
ment promulgates new medical waste incinerator require-
ments.48
Other treatment and disposal techniques. Many medical
waste treatment technologies have emerged since the
beach wash-up events in the late 1980s. No single tech-
nology is suitable for all types of medical waste, and it is
crucial for hospitals to individually select the most suit-
able technologies for treatment and disposal at their fa-
cilities. Important factors to be considered when choos-
ing technologies include state regulatory considerations,
availability of treatment and disposal methods, occupa-
tional hazards, environmental impacts, effectiveness of
the methods, and cost.40 Of these factors, regulatory con-
siderations and choice of methods were the main inter-
ests in this study.
In all three states in this study, regulatory provisions
were in place designating the state agency which had the
responsibility for approval of each alternative technology
for either medical or infectious waste. In Oregon, the
Health Division handles issues pertaining to the storage
and treatment of infectious waste, whereas the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality oversees the disposal of
this waste.42 In Washington, the Department of Health,
in consultation with the Department of Ecology and lo-
cal health departments, is authorized to evaluate the en-
vironmental and public health impacts of medical waste
treatment technologies.14 Hospitals in Idaho must adhere
to regulations issued by the Department of Health and
Welfare pertaining to infectious waste treatment, storage,
and disposal methods, and alternative technologies may
be used with the approval of the licensing agency. 13
Certain alternative technologies are limited in their
capacity to treat medical waste. For example, microwaving
may not be used to treat body parts and animal carcasses. 49
In addition, only liquid or semi-solid waste may be dis-
posed of into the sewage system, under the condition that
the wastewater treatment system provides secondary treat-
ment and is not a combined sanitary-storm sewage sys-
tem.40 The volume of waste reduced may also differ be-
tween treatments. For example, microwaving and Electro-
Thermal-Deactivation (ETD) are as effective as incinera-
tion in reducing the waste volume, whereas autoclaving
decreases only 30% of the weight, and irradiation does not
reduce the volume or weight of waste.21,40,50 In addi-
tion, several alternative technologies (such as microwaving
and hydropulping) involve processes such as shredding,
crushing, and steam-moistening that render the medical
waste unrecognizable.21,40 The appearance of medical waste
when treated with autoclaving and irradiation, however,
remains unchanged.40
Table 3 presents a range of options other than incin-
eration that hospitals might use to treat medical waste,
and the choices made by hospitals in the three states.
Hospitals were asked to identify all methods they used
in the treatment and disposal of medical waste. Per-
centages, therefore, add up to greater than 100% be-
cause the majority chose more than one method. The

Table 3. Medical waste treatment methods, other than incineration, used by hospitals in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

a b
Treatment Methods Number of Hospitals in Each State (%) Total (%)
c c c
Oregon Washington Idaho

Use of Private Medical Waste-Haulers 38(71.7%) 46(62.2%) 15 (44.1%) 99 (61.5%)

Pour into Municipal Sewage System 28(52.8%) 34(46.0%) 13 (38.2%) 75 (46.4%)
Depositing in Landfills 25(47.7%) 26(35.1%) 16 (47.7%) 67 (41.6%)
Autoclaving 15(28.3%) 24(32.4%) 13 (38.2%) 52 (32.3%)
TM
ETD (Macrowaving) 9 (17.0%) 13(17.6%) 0 22 (13.7%)
Chemical Disinfecting or Hydropulping 6 (11.3%) 7(9.5%) 3 (8.8%) 16 (9.9%)
Microwaving 4(7.6%) 5(6.8%) 0 9 (5.6%)
Grind before Pour into Municipal-Sewage System 3(5.7%) 2(2.7%) 1 (2.9%) 6 (3.7%)
Irradiation 0 0 0 0

a b
Hospitals were asked to identify all treatment methods used, and therefore column totals for percentages are greater than 100 %; Row percentages reflect the total number of hospitals
c
using each method (N = 161); Column percentages reflect the total number of hospitals in each state using each method (Oregon, n = 53; Washington, n = 74; Idaho, n = 34).

522 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 48 June 1998

most frequently reported method for all states was the
use of private haulers that transport medical waste to treat-
ment facilities (61.5%). The next most frequently reported
techniques were pouring into municipal sewage (46.6%),
depositing in landfills (41.6%), and autoclaving (32.3%).
This regional information differs dramatically from the
national data presented in a 1994 EPA report stating that
60% of waste was treated with on-site incineration, 20%
with on-site steam sterilization, and 20% off-site treat-
ment.24 Other methods adopted by hospitals included
ETD, hydropulping, microwaving, and grinding before
pouring into the municipal sewer. Hospitals in Oregon
and Washington used microwaving and ETD methods to
treat medical waste, while those in Idaho did not. No
hospitals in either of the states reported using irradiation
as a treatment technique.
As shown in Table 3, almost two-thirds (71.7%) of
hospitals in Oregon indicated they used private haulers,
and nearly half (47.7%) also stated their waste was depos-
ited in landfills. It is not clear from the results if respon-
dents knew how private haulers actually disposed of medi-
cal waste once it was treated, but we assume that hospi-
tals in Oregon were aware that landfills no longer accept
untreated infectious waste.12,13,45 A large quantity of medi-
cal waste, therefore, is hauled to regional municipal solid
waste (MSW) incinerators, and the resultant ash is depos-
ited in a monofill. Respondents who were aware of this
entire process may have (accurately) indicated that both
methods were used.
Landfill disposal, which was also a common choice
for hospitals in all three states, is considered to be a vi-
able option to dispose of general solid waste, such as in-
cineration ash, sharps, pathological waste, red bags, and
hazardous chemical waste.40 Many commercially operated
landfills treat medical waste as “special waste” with han-
dling practices similar to requirements for asbestos.16 Al-
though concerns have arisen about groundwater contami-
nation from medical waste contained in a landfill, be-
cause medical waste is neither a major portion of solid
waste deposited in sanitary landfills, nor does it contain
significantly higher numbers of microorganisms than
municipal solid waste, reports have concluded that addi-
tional microorganism loading to aquifer systems from
properly managed landfills is unlikely if the leachate is
collected and controlled.16 An alternative method that
some hospitals may have used is to first treat medical waste
on-site by autoclaving and then have it transported to a
MSW landfill.
Pouring waste into the municipal sanitary sewer sys-
tem has also been demonstrated to be a convenient and
inexpensive technique for liquid and semi-liquid medical
wastes, and as evidenced in Table 3, was used by 46.4% of
the hospitals. This particular method was more popular
Volume 48 June 1998
Klangsin and Harding
among hospitals in Oregon (52.8%) and Washington
(46.0%), and less frequently used in Idaho (38.2%). Be-
cause hospitals were asked to identify all treatment meth-
ods used, these percentages reflect the total number of
hospitals in each state using this method, and therefore
add up to greater than 100%. Medical waste typically dis-
charged to the sanitary sewer system by hospitals includes
blood and blood products and pathological wastes. These
materials constitute a small portion of the sanitary sewer
discharges, and are diluted by the large amounts of resi-
dential sewage to well below the concentration needed
for bloodborne disease transmission.16 Sewage treatment
facilities accepting medical waste must meet the regula-
tory requirements of local sewer authorities, including
provision of secondary treatment followed by disinfec-
tion.7,12,32, In addition, these plants may not function as
combined sewage systems.7,40
Approximately a third (32.3%) of the hospitals con-
tinue to use “traditional” medical waste treatment tech-
niques, such as steam sterilization (autoclaving) to disin-fect or
dispose of some types of waste.7,21,40 Steam steril-
ization (using an autoclave or a retort) is a process in which
pressurized steam is heated to a high temperature (240–
280 °F) for a period of time sufficient to kill infectious
agents.7 Despite low rates of waste reduction, steam ster-
ilization is commonly used as either a backup treatment,
or as a pretreatment technique prior to transportation to
incineration facilities or disposal in sanitary landfills. A
recent report, however, indicates that autoclaving and
microwaving are fully adequate disinfection technologies,
and that these techniques, if followed by shredding, can
reduce volume by 60–80%.29
ETD (also called macrowaving) is a relatively new
waste treatment technology in which waste is placed in
sealed, insulated containers and then exposed to a high
strength oscillating electrical field generated by low-fre-
quency radiowaves.50,51 Medical waste directly absorbs the
energy and heat at a temperature of 90–100 °C. Even
though the heating process of ETD is similar to that of
microwaving, electrical wave lengths of ETD are longer,
making the preshredding processes unnecessary. After
medical waste is treated with ETD, recyclable plastics and
syringes are separated and transported to plastics recy-
cling companies. Non-recyclable materials are shredded and
disposed of in landfills as regular solid waste.50,51 The
ETD technique offers several advantages in that plastics
from treated sharps can be recycled, and ETD may be ap-
plied to nearly all types of medical waste. ETD is a copy-
righted technology owned by Stericycle Company and is
available in limited geographical areas.50,51
Approximately 10% of the hospitals used
hydropulping as a treatment method. Hydropulping is
an oxidation technique in which solid and liquid waste
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 523
Klangsin and Harding
are first mixed together; the waste is then shredded and
pulverized by a hammer mill, and finally sprayed with
disinfecting agents such as chlorine.16,21 The ground solid
waste is then disposed of in landfills and the chlorine in
the liquid waste is extracted before discharge into the sewer.22
This technique reduces the volume of solid waste by 30%. 22
As seen in Table 3, microwave technology was used
by fewer than 6% of hospitals in Oregon and Washing-
ton, and none in Idaho. This technique has also only re-
cently been introduced into the U.S. medical waste treat-
ment market as a decontamination process for waste con-
taining blood, secretions, bandages, and hypodermic
needles.16 Waste material is crushed, shredded and steam-
moistened so that it is reduced to small wet particles which
are then exposed to microwaves until decontamination
temperatures are achieved. As with hydropulping and
grinding, this treatment must be conducted under nega-
tive pressure to avoid producing aerosols.16 The resulting
materials are disposed of in landfills or used as fuel.
Microwaving usually reduces the volume (by a ratio of
8:1), but not weight, of waste material.21 It has also been
touted to present no air emission problems.21,52
No hospitals reported using irradiation, which is con-
sistent with other reports that suggest that irradiation is
seldom used to treat medical waste and equipment in
hospitals because it is more expensive than other tech-
niques and poses serious disadvantages. For example, ul-
traviolet (UV) light sterilizes the surface area but does not
penetrate most materials.40 On the other hand, irradia-
tion using Cobalt-60 is more penetrative, but also gener-
ates radioactive wastes and is a technology requiring highly
trained operators.7,16,40
In summary, and as others have noted, we found that
hospitals appeared to select the technologies most suit-
able for their particular facilities, considering such fac-
tors as regulatory requirements, operating concerns, ap-
plicability, effects of treatment on the waste, occupational
hazards, environmental impacts, and costs.40
On-site and off-site methods. Figure 2 shows that certain
methods appear as on-site treatments while others were
more apt to be performed at off-site locations. For example,
conventional methods, such as autoclaving, using chemi-
cal disinfectants or hydropulping, and pouring into the
municipal sewage system, were often performed on-site
in hospitals. On the other hand, new treatment techniques
(such as microwaving and ETD) were shipped to off-site
facilities.
These results are similar to other research that has
shown that typical off-site treatment methods include
contracting with waste management companies and the
use of regional facilities.40 A regional facility is another
524 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
type of off-site treatment option for hospitals. With this
option, one hospital owns a medical waste treatment fa-
cility and accepts waste from other generators in the same
area. For example, several hospitals in Oregon and Idaho
commented in the survey that they sent medical waste to
be incinerated at other hospitals. As was demonstrated
by the data in Table 3 and Figure 2, hospitals have in-
creasingly chosen to contract the services of a waste man-
agement company for off-site treatment and disposal of
medical waste. Hospitals may segregate and package the
waste; contracted waste companies then transport, store,
treat, and dispose of the waste.40 Hospitals, however, are
liable for waste generated and the harm from waste when
it is disposed of or treated improperly, so are likely to be
very careful when selecting contracted companies.40
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Numerous federal and state agencies and other organiza-
tions have established regulations and standards pertain-
ing to medical waste, and regulate its treatment and dis-
posal in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The majority
of hospitals used state regulations to define and manage
their infectious waste, and nearly all also adopted infec-
tious waste definitions from other agencies or organizations,
such as the EPA, CDC, OSHA, JCAHO, AMA, and APIC.
Hospitals considered more types of medical waste to
be infectious than is required by state regulatory defini-
tions. Six types of medical waste were generally catego-
rized as infectious waste by hospitals in Oregon, Wash-
ington, and Idaho: blood specimens and blood products,
all sharps, microbiology laboratory waste, pathological
waste, body parts, and waste from surgery rooms. The re-
sults implied that there was no consensus about which
agency or organization’s definition of infectious waste
should be used in waste management programs. As a re-
sult, hospitals may be treating a portion of the hospital-
generated waste as infectious waste, when it might be
treated with less rigor and with less cost. Confusion around
Figure 2. Number of hospitals using on-site and off-site treatment
methods.
Volume 48 June 1998

the definition of infectious waste may also have contrib-
uted to the finding that almost half of the hospitals are
not segregating infectious waste from other medical waste.
The most frequently used practice of treating and dis-
posing of medical waste was the hiring of private medical
waste haulers to treat waste off-site, which usually resulted
in off-site incineration at municipal solid waste incinera-
tors. Another common practice included the use of off-
site landfills. Less frequent off-site treatment techniques
were microwaving and Electro-Thermal-Deactivation
(ETD). Frequently used on-site medical waste treatment
techniques included autoclaving and pouring waste into
the municipal sewage system. Most hospitals in Oregon
and Washington no longer operate their incinerators due
to more stringent regulations regarding air pollution emis-
sions. Hospitals in Idaho, however, are currently operat-
ing incinerators in the absence of state regulations spe-
cific to these types of facilities.
We offer the following recommendations based on
this study:
• Federal or state agencies should draft universal defi-nitions
of infectious waste with input from waste management
companies, hospitals, and accredita-tion organizations. The
adoption of a universal defi-nition will likely make the
process of separating in-fectious waste from other less
regulated medical waste less confusing, and contribute to a
decrease in the volume of waste as well as a reduction in
waste management costs.
• Waste management hierarchy programs (reduce, re-use,
recycle) should be instituted in all hospitals as an overall
policy to reduce both the quantity and toxicity of waste
generated. We agree with others who have suggested that
such programs first con-duct waste audits and then seek to
use techniques that satisfy both criteria.23,29 For example,
adminis-trators may promote reuse, recycling, and the use
of substitute materials or chemicals in their facilities.
Substituting reusable materials for disposable prod-ucts,
such as linens, gowns, draping, bedpans, or food service
equipment, may be done without compro-mising sanitary
concerns, and may result in a con-siderable reduction in
waste and costs of treating the waste.29 For example, an
innovative material called OREX produced by Isolyser
Corporation, is used to make products that perform like
traditional disposables, but can be dissolved in water after
use rather than being deposited in a landfill or inciner-
ated.44 OREX is made from hot-water-soluble poly-vinyl
alcohol (PVA), a nontoxic synthetic polymer. PVA is
biodegradable in sewage treatment facilities and the final
products of degraded PVA are carbon dioxide and water.44
Volume 48 June 1998
Klangsin and Harding
Also, whenever possible and feasible, hospitals
should decrease the amount of disposable items and
plastics that contribute to toxic emissions of diox-
ins, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds
to reduce the volatile organic compounds produced
by incinerators. These waste management strategies,
however, must balance the need to conserve re-
sources with the need to protect against communi-
cable disease transmission.
• A similar study might be conducted in other types of
healthcare facilities, such as long-term care facili-ties,
dentist, and physician offices, which also pro-duce large
volumes of medical and infectious waste. Interesting
results may arise from a study that com-pares medical
waste management and treatment techniques used in
different types of hospitals and in other geographic regions
of the United States. For example, comparisons about
management practices might be made between profit and
nonprofit hospi-tals, between research and non-research
hospitals, and between hospitals located in the Pacific
North-west and those in other geographical areas.
• Finally, it is recommended that the environmental impact
and efficiency of new techniques such as ETD and OREX
be assessed as alternative methods for widespread use.
REFERENCES
1. Council on Scientific Affairs. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1989, 262, 1669-1671.
2. Gellerman, B. What’s New in Handling Infectious Materials: The Sudden
Rise of the Red-Bag Business. The New York Times, March 27, 1988, p 15.
3. Baker, J. Blood in the Water: A Tide of Hospital Waste.” Newsweek, July 18,
1988, p 35.
4. Bussey, J.; Sheet, K.; Gest, T.; Taylor, R.; Sandford, G. Garbage Out,
Garbage In. US News World Rep., July 18, 1988, p 9.
5. Morganthau, T.; Hager, M.; Brown, L.; Kenny, T.; Drew, L. Don’t Go Near
the Water. Newsweek, August 1, 1988, pp 43-47.
6. Hershkowitz, A. Tech. Rev. 1990, 93, 35-40.
7. EPA Guide for Infectious Waste Management; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. Government
Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1986; EPA/ 536-W-86-014.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 1987, 36(suppl. 2), 1s-18s.
9. Bloodborne Pathogens. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Title 29,
Section 1030, 1995.
10. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58, 37778.
11. O’Neale, M. Assoc. of Operating Room Nurses J. 1992, 55(3), 855-860.
12. “Oregon Revised Statute”; Legislative Council Committee: State of Or-egon,
1995; Vol. 8, Title 39 (Public Health and Safety), Chapter 459.386-459.405
(Infectious Waste Disposal); ORS 459.386-459.405 (1995).
13. Rules, Regulations, and Minimum Standards for Hospitals in Idaho; Bu-reau
of Facility Standards; Idaho Department of Health and Welfare: Boise, ID,
1990.
14. “Revised Code of Washington”; Statute Law Committee: State of
Washington, 1992; Title 70, Chapter 95 (Biomedical Waste), Chapter 95.010;
RCW 70.95k.010 (1992).
15. Green, A.E.S. In Medical Waste Incinerators and Pollution Prevention;
Green, A.E.S., Ed.; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, 1992; pp 107-204.
16. The Public Health Implications of Medical Waste: A Report to Congress; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA, 1990.
17. Wagner, W.M. Today’s Operating Room Nurse 1991, 13(4), 24-27.
18. Byrns, G.; Burke, T. J. Environ. Health 1992, 55(3), 12-14.
19. Burke, E.L. J. Environ. Health 1994, 56(9), 11-14.
20. Rutala, W.A. Infection Control Hospital Epidemiology 1992, 13(1), 38-48.
21. Cross, F.L.; Hesketh, H.E.; Rykowski, P.K. Infectious Waste Management;
Technomic Publishing: Lancaster, PA, 1990, pp 1-33.
22. Cross, F.L. Pollut. Eng. 1990, 22, 68-73.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 525
Klangsin and Harding

23. Garvin, M.L. Infectious Waste Management: A Practical Guide; Lewis: Boca 46. Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 25-Department of Environmen-tal
Raton, FL, 1995; pp 11-15. Quality (Incinerator Regulations), 1994; Chapter 340-850 to 340-905; OAR
24. Medical Waste Incinerators-Background Information for Proposed Standards 340-25-850 (1994).
and Guidelines: Industry Profile Report for New and Existing Facilities; U.S. 47. Federal Regist. 1995, 60, 10654-10691.
Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan- 48. Pitman, D. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID. Per-sonal
dards: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1994; EPA-453/R-94-042a. communication, 1994.
25. Hagland, M.M. Hospitals 1993, January, 17-24. 49. Medical Waste Management and Disposal; U.S. Environmental Protec-tion
26. Cruz, L.D. Assoc. Operating Room Nurses J. 1992, 55(3), 855-862. Agency. Office of Solid Waste. Noyes Data: Park Ridge, NJ, 1991.
27. Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988. Public Law 100–582, 1988; Code of 50. Johnson, R. Stericycle Company, Pacific Northwest Facility, Morton, WA.
Federal Regulations, Section 6992 et seq. Personal communication, 1994.
28. Medical Waste Committee, Air & Waste Management Association. J Air & 51. Spurgin, R.A. Plant Technol. & Safety Manage. Ser. 1991, 2, 13-17.
Waste Manage. Assoc. 1994, 44, 1176-1179. 52. Rubin, D.K.; Buckner, M.; Boyle, B. Eng. News Record 1991, 226(1), 26-27.
29. Thornton, J.; McCally, M.; Orris, P.; Weinberg, J. Public Health Rep. 1996,
111, 298-313.
30. Turnberg, W.L. Survey of Infectious Waste Management Practices Con-
ducted by Medical Facilities in Washington State; Washington State In-
fectious Waste Project, Attachment 2; Washington Department of Ecology:
Olympia, WA, 1989.
31. Boatright, D.T.; Edwards, A.J.; Shaver, K.A. J. Environ. Health 1995, 57(8),
15-18.
32. Uzych, L. J. Environ. Health 1990, 52(4), 233-235.
33. Rodenbeck, S.E.; Lichtveld, M.Y. J. Environ. Health 1990, 53(1), 30-31.
34. Turnberg, W.L.; Frost, F. Am. J. Public Health 1990, 80(10), 1262-1264.
35. Turnberg, W.L. J. Environ. Health 1991, 53(6), 21-25.
36. Rutala, W.A.; Odette, R.L.; Samsa, G.P. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1989, 262(12),
1635-1640.
37. 1992 Guide to the Healthcare Field; American Hospital Association: About the Authors
Chicago, IL, 1992. Pornwipa Klangsin obtained her M.S. degree in Environmen-
38. Statgraphics: Statistical Graphics System Version 5.0; Statistical tal Health Management in 1994 from Oregon State Univer-sity,
Graphics Corporation: Rockville, MD, 1985.
39. Seminar Publication, Medical and Institutional Waste Incineration: Regu- Corvallis. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Environ-mental
lations, Management, Technology, Emissions, and Operations, U.S. Envi- Health Sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public
ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. U.S.
Health in Ann Arbor. Anna K. Harding is an Associ-ate
Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1991; EPA/625/ 4-91/030.
Professor in Environmental Health in the Department of Public
40. Reinhardt, P.A.; Gordon, J.G. Infectious and Medical Waste Management; Health, and coordinates the Environmental Health and Safety
Lewis: Ann Arbor, MI, 1991.
41. Definition of Hazardous Waste. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261, Title Program at Oregon State University. Dr. Harding’s re-search is
40 Section 3, 1995. focused on environmental contamination and pub-lic health
42. Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 18-Health Division (Infectious Waste), interventions. Correspondence should be directed to Anna
1995; Chapter 333-050; OAR 333-18-050 (1995).
43. Fay, M.F.; Beck, W.C.; Fay, J.M.; Kessinger, M.K. Assoc. Operating Room Harding, Department of Public Health, Waldo Hall 309,
Nurses J. 1990, 51(6), 1493-1508. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-6406, or e-mail:
44. Fisher, B.E. Environ. Health Perspectives 1996, 104(7), 708-710.
hardinga@ccmail.orst.edu.
45. Summary Packet of Information Prepared to Identify Requirements that Affect
Biomedical Waste Management in Washington State; Washington Department
of Ecology: Olympia, WA, 1993.

526 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 48 June 1998