Upload
ilene-mathews
View
215
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Martin Wiles
Energy and
Environmental Manager
University of BristolEnergy & Environmental
Management Unit (EEMU)
Martin Wiles
Energy and
Environmental Manager
The University of Bristol’s Approach to Hazardous Waste
Format of case study
• Finding out about HWR.
• Identifying what we needed to do.
• Auditing.
• First steps to compliance.
• Developing specific systems.
• Our main management system.
• Future developments.
• Conclusions.
The starting point
• Early 2005 – Aware of new Hazardous Waste
Regulations (HWR) coming into force.
• Very unclear what impact HWR will have.
• Starting talking to departmental supervisors to find out
how ‘special waste’ is managed.
• Felt the need to pull together people with a vested
interest in HWR to develop an overall approach.
• Set up Hazardous Waste Working Group (HWWG)
April 2005. Chaired by Deputy Director Building
Services.
Finding out more
• First meeting of HWWG agreed approach to HWR. The
aim was to start by reviewing current practices, leading
to auditing and then any new procedures.
• Invite Environment Agency to a HWWG meeting to
discuss specific issues and help direct us in an
approach to HWR.
• It became clear that the EA was not set-up to help us in
this way, but did identify lots of potential areas for non
compliance – thanks!
• Departmental representatives very worried by EA
meeting.
Finding out even more!
• Unclear where responsibility for meeting HWR lies
within the University. Departments? Estates Office?
Safety Office?
• Opened up a more general debate on meeting the
requirements of Environmental Legislation.
• Clear that depts had a key responsibility, but they
needed help in complying.
• Also concern that a mixture of approaches would be
adopted by departments and lead to problems in
terms of reporting, returns to EA and so on.
Auditing and Responsibility
• On the back of another project (incineration),
funding is made available to carry out a general
compliance audit for the University (£5-10K).
• Responsibility for addressing HWR placed with the
Energy and Environmental Management Unit
(EEMU). EEMU to set up procedures to assist with
compliance.
The Audit
• Explain regulations and role of regulator.
• Identified actions including;– Appoint responsible person– Register sites/premises– Codify waste (EWC codes)– Introduce or revise paperwork for consigning and storing
waste– Prohibit mixing of non-HW and HW– Audit HW procedures, facilities & personnel– Records and returns– Recommended a management structure
• Lots of other specific issues for departments
relating to these actions
The Audits General Conclusions
• Many hazardous waste streams already have
procedures in place, e.g. fridges, fluorescent tubes.
• New collection systems set up for batteries, paints,
oily rags etc. Safety Office managed systems for
chemical and radioactive waste.
• Some refinement of existing systems was required.
• Major stream for HW identified as ‘clinical’ waste.
• Vet school, Medical school, Hospital.
• Much confusion over definitions, clinical, infectious,
non infectious, haz. and non-hazardous.
First steps to a compliant system
• Prior to audit we had identified the need to register
sites with the Environment Agency.
• Debate over what was a site, how different sites were
linked. Debate over registering buildings.
• EA defined in the end, enabled UoB to register 8
sites. There are likely to be more possible sites, we
are evaluating if more fall into scope.
• Consignment notes were required.
• Modified template from regulations to do this.
Consignment notes
• Set up a system to provide consignment notes with
a site specific reference.
• Used this for internal transfer/consignment notes,
but using for third party carriers hasn’t been so
easy.
• Third party contractors have issued their own notes
and codes and refuse to use ours even though the
regulations put the onus on us!
Developing Management Procedures
• Environmental unit to set up management procedures.
Already set up systems for fridges etc.
• Identified ‘clinical waste’ as a major HW issue.
• Much of the clinical type waste fed into an incinerator,
therefore needed a collection system compliant with
HWR.
• Initial thoughts focused on bins externally placed to
departments, which departmental technicians could
place bags of coded waste into for collection by a third
party or our staff.
Developing a Hazardous Waste Collection System
• Reviewed this approach with our compliance
consultant, identifying potential points of failure for
such a system.
• For this system, no control on what is put in the bins or
for that matter what is left by the bins!
• Call this a critical control point.
• Decided to review a range of options with the aim of
setting out the critical control points and the costs
associated with reducing our exposure in these areas.
Developing a Hazardous Waste Collection System
• As part of the compliance audit work, our
consultants reviewed all the options and carried out
a risk analysis.
• Based the analysis on five consolidated potential
contravention risks.
• Duty of care, waste segregation, consignment
documentation, records and returns and accidents
and emergencies.
The five options considered
1. HW is bagged by departmental staff and collected by a
third part contractor or UOB staff to incinerator.
Basically no change.
2. As 1, but EWC coded, bagged and stored by the
department ready for collection.
3. As 2, dept staff move to a storage area within or by
their building ready for collection, ie external bins.
4. As 2, but departmental staff move to a central
University store and are received by store personnel.
5. Waste technicians collect waste directly from labs, lab
staff sign for waste transfer, labelling and bagging.
Results of risk assessment
• Option 1 – Failed all five critical control paths
• Option 2 – Failed two
• Option 3 – Failed four
• Option 4 – Failed three
• Option 5 – All five critical control points effective
• Costs, option one the most expensive, followed by
Option 5, closely followed by 4 and 2.
Which system to use
• Agreed best option was to employ staff to collect
waste directly from labs/source.
• Estimated costs of setting up and running this
procedure, £30K set up and £50K running costs.
• Funding – would have been borne by estates office
(added to our resource allocation system), but
closure of existing incinerator offered about
£50,000 a year to cover these costs.
Implementing the new ‘clinical’ HW system
• Employed two waste management technicians in April
2006.
• They cover the new system, also assist with wider
waste issues and meter reading.
• Setting up training for these technicians, including a
‘train the trainer’ session. To be carried out in July.
• The technicians to carry out detailed audits within
departments to identify exactly what waste they are
producing and how the logistics of collecting it will
work. August and September.
Implementing the new ‘clinical’ HW system
• Departmental ‘responsible’ people are being
recruited and will act as the initial contact for the
audits, further ‘responsible’ people will be recruited if
needed following the audits. Recruitment has started
and we have about 50% coverage.
• Training for these ‘responsible’ people will start in
September.
• By then the types of waste, locations for collection,
bags, labels and so on will be identified and in
place. The system will be rolled out department by
department.
Implementing the new ‘clinical’ HW system
• In the meantime, using a compliant system of collection, bagging and labelling, collecting for disposal at our incinerator via a designated incinerator operator, or via a third party contractor.
• Compliant but open to risk.
• Carrying out returns to EA for consignment.
• Setting up web site with all regs, procedures and FAQ’s on.
Future developments
• Tackling our hospital sites. Dealing with two hospital
trusts who deal with our waste and have very
different approaches.
• Variations to scheme, due to amounts of waste at
our vet school site, bins are being used currently,
rather than direct collection from labs. Reviewing this
as part of auditing.
• Reducing the amount of HW, education of users, tie
up with purchasing.
Conclusions
• Steep learning curve.
• Tried to reduce risks within system.
• Favoured service based system.
• Do need to be pragmatic and practical.
• Costs of system possibly higher, but more time
required to evaluate.
• Benefit from use of incinerator.
• Invaluable help from compliance consultant.
• Regional variation of EA approach.