Operators of Alternative Technologies hit by new Agency Permit guidelines.

Brian Latham reports for SMDSA

With the ink still not dry on the new ‘Safe Management of Healthcare wastes’ and the Environment Agency introducing new (not consulted) sections and concepts and re-writing existing sections of the document, the Agency have also been busy introducing more new hurdles for Producers and Disposers of clinical waste through further guidance documents.

In early 2006 the Environment Agency (EA) issued a consultation document Sector Guidance Note IPPC S5.06 – APPENDIX 5 Supplementary Guidance for Clinical Wastes. Appendix 5 deals with the subject of alternative treatment of clinical waste. It supports IPPC S5.06 (title) and has been produced to help Operators when preparing their PPC (in full) applications. This guidance in combination with IPPC S5.06 lays down the Agency’s indicative standards for waste pre-acceptance, waste receipt and acceptance procedures. In their response to the consultation comments the EA made some revisions to the guidance. The following paragraphs identify the main requirements of the guidance.

Waste Pre-Acceptance

As the examination of healthcare waste is limited by health and safety concerns the Environment Agency is calling for robust pre-acceptance procedures which require the waste Operator to:

Obtain information in writing covering:

The details of the healthcare waste producer

The specific process from which the waste derives – veterinary, primary care, dental, acute, laboratory etc.

The quantity of each waste type

Compositional audit analysis of the waste (individual constituents of each waste stream and their percentage compositions and chemical/pharmaceutical contaminants)

The form the waste takes and the types of containers used (colour, form and size of container and sub-containers)

Hazards associated with the waste and its components.

Date of production of the waste and waste storage and preservation techniques used since production (for example cold storage, or freezing, that may impede treatment.)

Unless an audit analysis has already been completed and the Operator has sufficient written information to support this, the Operator should in every case obtain representative audit analysis of the waste from the premises of production / current holder and compare it with the written description to ensure that it is consistent. The audit data should be less than 18 months old.

The type of information that would demonstrate the reliability of the audit includes:

A diagram of the producer premises indicating the location, numbers, types and capacities of waste containers in use.

A list of the different wards, departments, or functional areas that exist within the premises.

A list of those areas that were included within the audit, and the containers within those areas that were examined.

A date and description of the audit and the procedures employed.

A confirmation of the number of containers of each type audited and a detailed list of the contents and labelling of each.

Compositional audit analysis of the waste (individual constituents of each waste stream and their percentage composition and chemical/pharmaceutical contaminants).

The waste classification and disposal options for the constituents of each stream.

Where relevant, the audit should include examination of the segregation of waste containers placed in on-site bulk containers (e.g. 770 litre carts).

A summary report indicating the findings for each area in the producer premises and each waste stream produced there.

Following characterisation of the waste, a technical assessment should be made of its suitability for treatment or storage to ensure Permit conditions are being met.

Wastes should not be accepted at the installation without a clear method or defined treatment and disposal route being determined in advance.

All records relating to pre-acceptance should be maintained at the installation for cross-reference and verification at the waste acceptance stage. These records should be kept for a minimum of 3 years.

In its consultation response the SMDSA raised concerns that the pre-acceptance criteria would increase the commercial burden upon Operators leading to a significant increase in operational and hence disposal costs stating that detailed chemical analysis would be prohibitively expensive. On the latter point the EA have responded that they did not expect chemical analysis would be required to support waste acceptance and the guidance will reflect this. The EA view is that pre-acceptance checks compliment 'Duty of Care' as the waste treatment site will only then be accepting waste that it is allowed to accept and is accompanied by the appropriate transfer or consignment note.

Waste Receipt and Acceptance

The guidance identifies two levels of waste acceptance, the first being acceptance checking and the second higher level being that of audit. The first level includes visual checks of carts for obvious non-conforming wastes.

If the absence of non-conforming wastes cannot be identified then procedures must be put in place to unload the cart having regard for health and safety issues. If it is not possible to unload the cart to achieve this then the waste must be sent for incineration.

The SMDSA expressed its concerns that the proposal that ‘carts are visually inspected upon receipt’ will only allow bags and containers on top to be seen unless the whole cart is emptied. Even so, the nature of the wastes and their containment does not allow for any form of identification of non-conforming materials since they would most probably be contained within the packaging, and only unpackaged items could ever be identified. Under these conditions, unloading will be necessary in every case, increasing manual handling, health and safety and spillage risk.

In response to the consultation comments the EA stated that they do not expect every cart to be unloaded, however if obvious non-compliant waste has been identified, the operator may unload the cart where they have the appropriate infrastructure in place to safely do so. Otherwise, where obvious non-compliant waste is identified, the whole cart should be rejected.

In addition the EA recognises the need to balance the Health & Safety concerns of the Operators and their staff with a need to prevent a risk to the environment or health with the inappropriate treatment of prohibited waste.

The guidance document provides an indicative list of requirements for acceptance procedures, see below.

On arrival loads should:

Be weighed unless alternative reliable volumetric systems are available

Not be accepted into site unless sufficient storage capacity exists and the site is adequately manned

Have all documents checked and approved, and any discrepancies resolved before the waste is accepted

Where possible confirmatory checks should be undertaken before offloading where safety is not compromised. Visual inspection of the waste within the ‘carts’ must in any event be carried out immediately upon offloading at the installation.

Every container should be checked to confirm quantities against accompanying paperwork. All containers should be clearly labelled and should be equipped with well fitting lids.

The Operator should ensure that waste delivered to the installation is accompanied by a written description of the waste describing its composition, hazard characteristics and handling precautions, compatibility issues, and information specifying the original waste producer and process.

The Operator should have clear and unambiguous criteria for the rejection of wastes, together with a written procedure for tracking and reporting such non-conformance. This should include notification to the customer/waste producer and Regulator. Written/computerised records should form part of the waste tracking system information. The operator should also have a clear and unambiguous policy for the subsequent storage and disposal of such rejected wastes. This policy should achieve the following:

Identifies the hazards posed by the rejected wastes

Label rejected wastes with all information necessary to allow proper storage and segregation arrangements to be put in place

Segregate and store rejected wastes safely pending removal

The waste tracking system should hold all the information generated during pre-acceptance, acceptance, storage, treatment and/or removal off-site. Records should be made and kept up to date on an ongoing basis to reflect deliveries, on-site treatment and despatches. The tracking system should operate as a waste inventory/stock control system and include as a minimum:

Date of arrival on-site

Producer’s details

All previous holders

A unique reference number

Pre-acceptance and acceptance analysis results

Package type and size

Intended treatment/disposal route

Accurate records of the nature and quantity of wastes held on site, including all hazards and identification of primary hazards

Where the waste is physically located in relation to a site plan

Where the waste is in the designated disposal route

Identification of operators staff who have taken any decisions re acceptance or rejection of waste streams and decided upon recovery/disposal options

In addition, the system adopted should be capable of reporting on all of the following:

Total quantity of waste present on site at any one time

Breakdown of waste quantities being stored pending treatment

Indication of where the waste is located on site relative to a site plan

Comparison of quantity on site against total permitted

Comparison of time the waste has been on site against permitted limit

What does this mean for operators and waste producers.

The proposed guidance identifies requirements for pre-acceptance and acceptance procedures which will impact on both waste producers and alternative treatment plant operators. Producers of waste will have to put in place robust audit procedures. The robustness of the producer audit procedures and positive audit results are likely to inform the operator's approach to and extent of pre-acceptance testing. Operators will be seeking assurances from producers that the waste they are being asked to treat is appropriate for their plant. Unless the healthcare facility producing the waste is able to provide this assurance, the contractor may be obliged to refuse to collect or receive the waste for fear of breaching their operating permit.