From: Eddie.Bailey@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04 April 2002 15:47
To: admin@smdsa.com
Subject: TRANSPORT OF CLINICAL WASTE
Martin
1.
Further to my e-mail of 20 March, I write in response to the
list of
points you raised in your e-mail of 18 March on the transport of
clinical
waste. Before I turn to them, you will appreciate that this message
sets
out HSE's views and that ultimately interpretation of any legislation
is a
matter for the courts.
2.
First, it is worth reiterating what current UK law allows,
namely that
those disposing of clinical waste have two options:
to continue to transport packaged clinical waste in UN typeapproved
rigid packagings (as provided by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods
(Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable
Pressure Receptacles Regulations 1996 and the Approved
Requirements); or
to carry clinical waste in bulk, subject to conditions (as set out
in
the certificate of exemption), one of which is to continue to use
UN
type approved sacks for waste that does not contain sharp objects.
3.
Your paragraph three suggests that you may be misunderstanding
the
legal position. The letter we issued on 4 January did not cancel the
use
of rigid packagings. It stated that we were proposing to continue
with the
two alternative means of transporting clinical waste. We sought to
clarify
this point when we met on 22 January.
4.
Turning to your points/questions, in paragraph one, the
certificate of
exemption took effect from the date it was signed (28 February 2002).
Given that clinical waste can continue to be carried in rigid
packagings or
in bulk in accordance with the certificate, we understand that any
modifications or retraining would be minimal.
5.
In your paragraph two, you point to inconsistent advice from HSE
offices. It is difficult to comment on particular unspecified cases
but
you can be assured that we have disseminated the information and that
our
Infoline, usually the first port of call for enquiries, is aware of
the
position. And, as you know, the certificate of exemption and cover
letter
are on our website.
6.
In your paragraph four, you ask about using up stocks of
existing
certificated sacks. These can continue to be used.
7.
In reply to your paragraph five, no new certificates will be
issued.
A minor amendment to existing certificates has been made to make it
clear
that bags can be used as inner packagings of type approved packagings
or
large packagings or as part of a bulk consignment. Bags will already
have
been tested so there is no new testing cost.
8.
Turning to the conditions contained in the certificate of
exemption,
appropriate measures under condition 5(b) could include the use of
liners
or absorbent material. We would not want to constrain the industry in
developing its own solutions to this, the aim being to prevent
leakage from
the vehicle or container.
9.
Similarly condition 5(c) tries to allow for some flexibility,
the aim
here being to seek to avoid a situation where rigid packagings
puncture
bags. Wheeled containers are unlikely to meet this requirement
unless
adequately secured to the vehicle. Where a rigid large packaging,
for
example, is secured to prevent movement, then a cargo net to contain
the
bags should be sufficient, provided it prevented the bags from coming
into
contact with the large packaging. I do not see any need for any
vehicle
modification in the way you describe.
10. I do not believe that condition 5 (d) is contrary to the
provisions of
ADR. Its intention is to avoid contamination, for example arising
from
mixing medicines with waste.
11. I agree that some manual handling will be unavoidable. However,
there
are ways to minimise it (and regulations governing it - the Manual
Handling
Operations Regulations 1992), such as seeking ways to reduce the
handling
of each bag as they are loaded on to vehicles or into containers.
12. Under condition 5 (f) we want to avoid deliberate compression of
bags
into transport units that would be likely to result in bags bursting
(as in
the pictures handed around when we met).
13. I hope the above points help to clarify the position. Looking
back at
the issues you raised at our meeting on 22 January, reflected in your
letter of 25 January, I do not feel that we can usefully add anything
further. The legal position is as set out in HSE's 28 February
letter,
which cross-referred to our 4 January letter and certificate of
exemption
and we have explained the background to the dilemma we faced in
correspondence with you and when we met on the 22 January.
14. The changes we have introduced are necessary to ensure that the
clinical waste industry can continue to operate safely and in line
with
international commitments. On compensation, I do not believe that it
is
appropriate for me to comment. This is a matter for SMDSA and its
constituent members to consider and on which to take their own
advice.
15. If, in the light of the above clarifications, you would still
like to
meet, please let me know and we can consider dates. I am now out of
the
office until Tuesday 9 April.
16. So far as other respondents' comments on the 4 January letter
are
concerned, excluding those you are already aware of, I have so far
received
seven replies confirming that they are content for their views to be
forwarded to you, one negative reply with the remainder outstanding.
I am
arranging for copies to be sent to you of those willing to share
their
comments with you.
Eddie Bailey
Transport of Dangerous Goods Policy Unit
Gas and Transport Safety Division
020 7717 6218
*********************************************************************
****************************************************
Interested in Occupational Health and Safety information?
Please visit the HSE website at the following address to
keep yourself up to date:
www.hse.gov.uk
*********************************************************************
****************************************************