UMass Boston 2nd Year Status Report
Lab XL Midway Progress Report
University of Massachusetts Boston
May 30, 2002
EPI #1: Annual Surveys of Hazardous Chemicals of Concern
The goal of the first EPI is assure that outdated hazardous chemicals of concern are appropriately removed from laboratory shelves and disposed of. This EPI is a result of the observation that good housekeeping (particularly with respect to outdated chemicals) is an important hazardous waste minimization strategy for laboratories in general. A laboratory that tracks its chemical inventory carefully enough to prevent accumulation of outdated chemicals is very likely to avoid purchasing excess chemicals.
UMass Boston is required by the Boston Fire Department to have complete chemical inventories for all labs. For this reason, over the last year we have been implementing a new chemical bar code based tracking system on a lab-by-lab basis. EH&S completed barcoding of current chemical inventories in March 2002 for each laboratory. We believe that the bar code system will speed up collection of our inventories and provide us with more accurate and reliable data. This tracking system will also likely enhance the ability EH&S to identify potential pollution prevention and redistribution opportunities. The new system will also be much quicker, more efficient, and will allow EH&S to track chemicals from lab to lab. The next step for the inventory system is to network the program so that individual departments will have access to the inventories which will allow them to update the system with new materials and search for chemicals when needed.
For specific Principal investigators, the EH&S Office will by the end of July, take the inventory from each laboratory and generate Operational Material Safety Data Sheets for each laboratory. In addition, the inventory list will have HCOC’s marked and an explanation of what HCOCs are will be included with each information package.
EPI #2: Verification of HCOC Surveys
The second EPI measures the participation rate in the HCOC inventory effort. As stated above, with the barcoding system in place, all HCOCs have been identified.
EPI #3: Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments
EH&S continues during training, to emphasize pollution prevention and researchers are encouraged to incorporate pollution prevention ideas such as product substitution, limited purchasing and waste minimization into their everyday work. Fundamentally, when researchers design their experiments we encourage them to examine the materials they are working with to determine if there are better alternatives. If not, we remind them to purchase only what they need. Finally, we suggest that they determine whether or not a treatment method that can be incorporated at the end of the experiment.
The Chemical Hygiene Committee continues to search for new pollution prevention ideas. Additionally, a new campus sub-committee has been formed tasked with “greening research.” This sub-committee is part of a larger campus-wide Sustainability Committee. The sub-committee will be examining pollution prevention opportunities in the research community on campus. Additionally, we hope to build on the pollution prevention surveys (described below) and encourage PIs to come up with new pollution prevention ideas to investigate.
EPI #4: Hazardous Materials Reuse and Redistribution
To start the program, EH&S sent out pamphlets requesting that Principal Investigators (PIs) look through their chemicals and determine if there materials that they are no longer using. Additonally, during routine laboratory waste collections, once material is removed from the laboratory, EH&S evaluates these materials for reuse. EH&S has compiled a list of excess chemicals and published them to the EH&S website in May 2002. EH&S notified all PIs about the list via email. PIs or laboratory workers may request excess re-usable chemicals on the list and EH&S will deliver the material to their laboratory. If an excess chemical remains in the EH&S inventory for more than 2 years, the material will be disposed of. We expect tho have use data available for the next report.
In addition to the materials available for reuse, EH&S sent out a Pollution Prevention Survey to approximately 65 PIs. The survey is included below:
Principal Investigator:_____________________________Phone:__________________________
Building/Floor/Room: ____________________________ Department:_____________________
Laboratory P2 Questionnaire
As part of the New England Universities Project XL, the EPA and EH&S staff at participating schools are interested in identifying ways to reduce chemical waste production from laboratories. Ideas to do this include reducing the quantity of waste or removing certain hazardous chemicals (like elemental mercury) from the waste streams. The ultimate goal is to lessen the impact of wastes from the research community on the environment
Your answers to the questions below will help us to document current efforts at waste minimization, and identify areas where further reductions might be possible.
Give a brief description of the types of wastes and/or the processes that generate laboratory waste.
Wastes:___ Acids: Processes: ___ Analysis (HPLC, instrumentation, etc.)
___ Solvents___ Synthesis
___ Reactives___ Biomedical (Cell culture. Recombinant DNA)
___ Corrosives
___ Toxics
Other: Other:
What steps have you taken to reduce the quantity or toxicity of your research waste?
Substitutiony Down sizingy Change process
How often do the processes that generate waste in your laboratory change?
Daily Weekly Monthly Annually Never
How do you expect the amount of laboratory waste you generate to change over the next year?
Increase Decrease Stay the Same
What assistance or resources would help you to reduce your laboratory wastes?
Are there any pollution prevention opportunities that you have heard of that you would like investigated?
For example, substitutes for chromerge cleaning of glassware
How often do you run out of a chemical and have to wait for it to be resupplied?
Never Once a year Once a month Once a week
If you ran out of a chemical that you needed for an experiment would you:
____order more through rush overnight service
____order more and wait until it arrives
____see if another laboratory on campus could supply you
____search for a substitute
How often do you use unneeded chemicals from another laboratory instead of buying new ones?
Daily Weekly Monthly Annually Never
Version 1.0, March, 2002
To date, EH&S has received 27 completed surveys back(about 40% return rate). Results are as follows:
Give a brief description of the types of wastes and/or the processes that generate laboratory waste.
Wastes:19 Acids Processes: 9 Analysis (HPLC, instrumentation, etc.)
20 Solvents 7 Synthesis
8 Reactives 7 Biomedical (Cell culture. Recombinant DNA)
10 Corrosives
Toxics
Other:1 BasesOther:1 Vacuume equip.
1 Pump Oil 1 Speciman Preservation
1 Batteries
1 Speciman Wastes
1 Radioisotopes
What steps have you taken to reduce the quantity or toxicity of your research waste?
Substitution 9 Down sizing 16 Change process 7 Nothing 3 NA 3
How often do the processes that generate waste in your laboratory change?
Daily 1 Weekly 8 Monthly 11 Annually 7 Never 4 Semester 1
How do you expect the amount of laboratory waste you generate to change over the next year?
Increase Decrease 7 Stay the Same 19 NA 1
What assistance or resources would help you to reduce your laboratory wastes?
None 19
Better hot water (to avoid acid cleaning of culture glassware) 1
Better Instruments 2
Training 3
Chemical Recycling 2
Are there any pollution prevention opportunities that you have heard of that you would like investigated?
For example, substitutes for chromerge cleaning of glassware
None 22
Enviro-freindly glass cleaners 2
How often do you run out of a chemical and have to wait for it to be resupplied?
Never 8 Once a year 10 Once a month 9 Once a week
If you ran out of a chemical that you needed for an experiment would you:
___order more through rush overnight service
4 order more and wait until it arrives
6 see if another laboratory on campus could supply you
___search for a substitute
17 Depends
How often do you use unneeded chemicals from another laboratory instead of buying new ones?
Daily Weekly Monthly 8 Annually 14Never 4 NA 1
EPI #5: Laboratory Waste Generation Rates
EPI #5 concerns the amount of laboratory waste generated. The data is presented below in Table 1.
| Table 1: UMass Boston Laboratory Waste Generation (in lbs) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste Stream | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |
| Labpack with poisons | 192.83 | 335.57 | 1083.36 | |
| Labpack with corrosives | 1161.46 | 959.94 | 2165.53 | |
| Labpack with acutely hazardous wastes | 31.48 | 2.00 | 16.78 | |
| Labpack with misc. hazardous waste | 739.57 | 819.62 | 31.00 | |
| Labpack with organic peroxides | 19.87 | 0.00 | 8.39 | |
| Labpack with spontaneously combustible material | 11.68 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
| Labpack with pyrophorics | 21.34 | 10.00 | 28.39 | |
| Labpack with flammable liquids | 2470.02 | 1168.39 | 1543.44 | |
| Labpack with flammable solids | 11.70 | 33.39 | 15.39 | |
| Labpack with oxidizers | 148.48 | 121.75 | 225.10 | |
| Compressed gases and aerosols | 264.27 | 20.00 | 156.39 | |
| Non-hazardous/non-regulated waste | 512.07 | 240.00 | 310.00 | |
| TOTAL | 5584.76 | 3710.66 | 5584.77 | |
| Difference | 1873.81 | -1874.11 | ||
| % Difference | -33.55 | +50.51 | ||
| LBS/LAB | 45.77 | 30.42 | 40.76 | |
| #LABS | 122 | 122 | 137 | |
| 1999-2000 | 2000-2001 | 1999-2001 | ||
| Difference | -33.55 | 34.03 | -10.94 |
While overall 2001 totals have increased ~50% from the previous year, we do have documentation that there are 15 more laboratories in 2001 than 1999 or 2000. If the numbers are normalized simply on a per lab basis, that represents a 10% decrease.
EPI #6: Environmental Awareness Survey
Preliminary results (60 respondents), shown in Table 2, indicate little to no change in answers. There are, however, some signs of hope on specific questions related to general environmental awareness. Correct answers on three questions--waste generation, fume hood emissions, environmental impacts of laboratory work—rose 6%, 15%, and 10%, respectively, from the corresponding 2001 scores. In addition, while the percentage of respondents trained in the EMP fell by more than 20%, the percentage of those respondents who could identify the document the University’s set of laboratory waste regulations rose by 3%. This indicates that those who have been trained in the EMP are more environmentally aware than those that have not.
| Table 2: Environmental Awareness Survey Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | |
| Number of Respondents | 87 | 54 | 60 |
| 1. Which federal agency regulates the disposal of chemical wastes: | |||
| a. Occupational Safety and Health Administration | 29% | 15% | 23% |
| b. Environmental Protection Agency | 48% | 80% | 72% |
| c. Department of Transportation | 10% | 5% | 3% |
| d. National Institutes of Health | 13% | 0% | 2% |
| 2. Ultimately, most chemical wastes generated in laboratories are: | |||
| a. incinerated | 32% | 17% | 23% |
| b. sent to a landfill | 15% | 6% | 10% |
| c. released to a sewer | 23% | 28% | 12% |
| d. treated | 30% | 49% | 55% |
| 3. What are the four main reasons researchers should keep containers of laboratory waste securely closed except when adding chemicals? | |||
| 0 reason | 0% | 0% | 3% |
| 1 reason | 62% | 13% | 17% |
| 2 reasons | 14% | 22% | 35% |
| 3 reasons | 24% | 31% | 27% |
| 4 reasons | 0% | 24% | 18% |
| 4. Which costs more, purchase or disposal of laboratory chemicals? | |||
| a. disposal costs more | 51% | 78% | 77% |
| b. purchase costs more | 24% | 4% | 5% |
| c. costs are roughly the same | 25% | 18% | 18% |
| 5. In the book, "Prudent Practices in the Laboratory", what is the preferred waste management hierarchy for pollution prevention? Use a scale of 1-4 with 1 being the preferred management method. | |||
| Source Reduction | 37% | 47% | |
| 6. What is the proper way to dispose of strong mineral acids? | |||
| a. Dilution with water | 26% | 13% | 17% |
| b. Neutralization with lime | 33% | 24% | 24% |
| c. Collection for pick-up by hazardous waste personnel | 8% | 56% | 53% |
| d. Mixing with organic chemicals | 8% | 0% | 3% |
| e. Other | 25% | 7% | 3% |
| 7. What is the maximum amount of acutely hazardous laboratory waste that your laboratory is allowed to accumulate? | 36% correct | 41% correct | 36% correct |
| 8. What emergency response equipment is available in your laboratory to respond to a hazardous chemical spill? | |||
| 0 | 14% | 19% | 12% |
| 1-3 items | 78% | 70% | 65% |
| 4-6 items | 8% | 11% | 23% |
| 7 items | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 9. How is waste water from your laboratory buildings treated? | |||
| a. Purification before release to the sewer | 24% | 7% | 10% |
| b. pH is controlled by acid neutralization, then released to the sewer | 37% | 37% | 27% |
| c. Diluted with the rest of the building's water, then goes to the sewer for municipal treatment by aerobic digestion | 25% | 56% | 50% |
| d. other | 0% | 7% | |
| unknown | 0% | 6% | |
| 10. In general, how are fume hood emissions controlled in your laboratory? | |||
| a. Filtration to remove particles | 21% | 17% | 40% |
| b. Carbon filtration to remove gases | 30% | 20% | 35% |
| c. Dilution with laboratory room air | 24% | 63% | 13% |
| d. No hoods in lab | 0% | 7% | |
| Unknown | 0% | 5% | |
| 11. The last time you needed health and safety information about a particular chemical, what resource(s) did you use? | |||
| 0 responses | 17% | 22% | 13% |
| 1 response | 47% | 41% | 55% |
| 2 responses | 17% | 24% | 19% |
| 3 responses | 5% | 13% | 3% |
| 4 responses | 0% | 5% | |
| N/A | 0% | 5% | |
| 12. Typically, what is the largest environmental impact of laboratory work? | |||
| a. release of toxic chemicals through the fume hood | 15% | 6% | 2% |
| b. disposal of toxic chemicals with a hazardous waste disposal company | 25% | 19% | 25% |
| c. release of chemicals to the sewer system | 32% | 48% | 47% |
| d. energy use to cool or heat laboratory space | 15% | 13% | 23% |
| Unknown | 13% | 14% | 3% |
| 13. The last time you disposed of laboratory hazardous waste, what four pieces of information did you put on the label? | |||
| 0 | 22% | 24% | 17% |
| 1-3 | 26% | 59% | 22% |
| 4-6 | 33% | 2% |
50% |
| N/A | 19% | 15% | 11% |
| 14. What document(s) describes how to dispose of laboratory hazardous waste at your institution? | 0% correct responses (EMP not yet distributed) | 50% correct | 53% correct |
| 15. What is your current role in your laboratory? | |||
| Faculty | 22% | 28% | 18% |
| Staff - Administrator | 6% | 2% | 2% |
| Staff - Lab Tech | 11% | 17% | 17% |
| Graduate Student | 15% | 30% | 40% |
| Undergraduate Student | 46% | 23% | 23% |
| 16. How many years have you been working in college or university laboratories? | |||
| less than 1 year | 40% | 22% | 16% |
| 1-2 years | 22% | 30% | 39% |
| 3-5 years | 10% | 17% | 20% |
| more than 5 years | 28% | 41% | 25% |
| Respondents Trained in CH/EM Plan | 0% | 68% | 47% |
EPI #7: Environmental Awareness Training
EPI #7 measures the amount of training conducted for laboratory workers with regard to environmental compliance and awareness. Since the first progress report, EH&S has built an accurate training database. Annually, we send out forms to the PIs asking them to identify all laboratory personnel under their supervision that require training. EH&S has entered the information into a database and is able to generate the information on a semester-by-semester basis for the PI to update thus insuring that our training records are accurate and up-to-date. To date, we have trained 89% of those that have been identified by Pis as people covered by the CH/EM Plan.
EPI #8: Environmental Management Program Effectiveness
The following list represents a review of the goals of the XL Program as set for in the Project XL FPA:
- EPI#1 It appears as though there is a sharp decline in outdated chemicals in laboratory--however, it has not been directly measured to date.
- EPI#2 The EH&S Office has a complete chemical inventory from the new barcoding system. All HCOCs have been identified and flagged on the inventories.
- EPI#3 The Chemical Hygiene Committee and the “Greening Research” Committee are searching for ideas to ivestigate.
- EPI#4 The amount of laboratory waste collected for reuse has increased substantially, however the amount of laboratory waste reused or redistributed has not yet increased by 20%.
- EPI#5 The amount of laboratory waste disposed of increased in total for 2001 however, there was a 10% decline on a simple per lab basis.
- EPI#6 The Environmental Awareness Survey was completed and the results demonstrate that those that have been trained in the CH/EM Plan are generally more aware.
- EPI#7 The number of laboratory workers trained increased significantly from previous years and currently approximately 89% of the total number of laboratory workers have been trained in the CH/EM Plan.
- EPI#8 Some EPIs are on-track (decrease in laboratory waste disposal, outdated chemicals, internal and external audits); others continue to need more attention (pollution prevention, environmental awareness surveys).
- EPI#9 Both external and internal audits show significant compliance with the Minimum Performance Criteria of the XL Regulation.
EPI #9: Environmental Management Plan Conformance
EPI #9 assesses laboratory conformance with the Environmental Management Plan. The basis for this EPI is the assumption that the EMP will be more effective at producing the desired behavior, pollution prevention, because it is written with the specific institution in mind. In order for this to be true, an effective oversight process that assesses laboratory conformance with the program is necessary.
During 2000 and 2001 at UMB, EH&S staff conducted annual laboratory inspections to measure conformance with the Environmental Management Plan. The challenge in interpreting the results of this work is the limitations of applying the same set of inspection criteria in a diverse array of settings. In order to meet this challenge, the C2E2 has developed an “audit grading” system that converts the results of the laboratory audit checklist used by the pilot schools into grades on the issues most important to the Lab-XL project:
- Chemical container management
- Laboratory housekeeping
- Pollution prevention
- Laboratory self inspections
- Training and awareness
In the case of UMB, this grading system applies to laboratory inspections for 2000 and 2001. In both years, only the total completed lab inspection forms were used. In the case of 2001, some of the forms were missing, so only 104 labs were analyzed. The results of the scale are given in Table 3.
In applying scores to each laboratory for the categories listed above, certain assumptions were made. Since training in the Environmental Management Plan was not initiated until 2001, each laboratory was assigned a score of ‘0’ for the ‘Training and Awareness’ category. In addition, the UMB pollution prevention program was not initiated until 2001, so each laboratory received a score of ‘0’ for the Pollution Prevention’ category.
Certain assumptions were made for the 2001 scores as well. In conducting laboratory inspections, it was often impossible to ascertain whether or not everyone who worked in them regularly was trained or not, since many were unoccupied at the time of inspection. EH&S personnel relied instead upon the presence of the EMP in a laboratory to determine training status. If the EMP was present in a laboratory, it was assumed that some of its regular occupants had been trained in the new regulations, since the Plan was distributed only at training sessions. Thus, a laboratory was assigned a score of ‘1’ for the ‘Training and Awareness’ category if the plan was present, and ‘0’ if it was not. In both cases, self-inspection grades were soley based in the one page checklist that laboratories send to EH&S monthly, not on the container self inspection checklists posted in each laboratory. In many cases, the posted checklists were filled out even if the monthly self inspection sheets had not been sent to EH&S.
|
Table 3: 2000 Audit Grading Results at UMass Boston |
| Score | Container Management | House-keeping | Pollution Prevention | Self inspection | Training | Total Grade |
| NA | 12 | |||||
| 0 | 6 | 12 | 120 | 103 | 120 | 1 |
| 1 | 39 | 86 | 16 | 20 | ||
| 2 | 63 | 22 | 1 | 31 | ||
| 3 | 42 | |||||
| 4 | 25 | |||||
| 5 | 1 | |||||
| 6 | ||||||
| 7 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| Total | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 |
| Average Score | 0.68 | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 2.57 |
| Table 4: 2001 Audit Grading Results at UMass Boston Number of Labs Getting Each Grade |
| Score | Container Management | House-keeping | Pollution Prevention | Self inspection | Training | Total Grade |
| NA | 9 | |||||
| 0 | 3 | 83 | 50 | |||
| 1 | 7 | 33 | 104 | 18 | 54 | |
| 2 | 88 | 68 | 3 | 1 | ||
| 3 | 7 | |||||
| 4 | 20 | |||||
| 5 | 34 | |||||
| 6 | 33 | |||||
| 7 | 7 | |||||
| 8 | 2 | |||||
| Total | 104 | 104 | 104 | 104 | 104 | 104 |
| Average Score | 0.63 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.38 | 0.26 | 5.02 |
Overall, between 2000 and 2001 there was a 51% increase in total grades for laboratories. For the next round of inspections, audit grading forms will be included during the actual inspection.
