UMass Boston 3rd Year Status Report
EPI #5: Laboratory Waste Generation Rates
Results to date:
EPI #5 concerns the amount of laboratory waste generated. The data are presented below in Table 2.
| Table 2: UMass Boston Laboratory Waste Generation (in lbs) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste Stream | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Labpack with poisons | 192.83 | 335.57 | 1083.36 | 335.28 |
| Labpack with corrosives | 1161.46 | 959.94 | 2165.53 | 1497.22 |
| Labpack with acutely hazardous wastes | 31.48 | 2.00 | 16.78 | 8.39 |
| Labpack with misc. hazardous waste | 739.57 | 819.62 | 31.00 | 6.00 |
| Labpack with organic peroxides | 19.87 | 0.00 | 8.39 | 0.00 |
| Labpack with spontaneously combustible material | 11.68 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 14.00 |
| Labpack with pyrophorics | 21.34 | 10.00 | 28.39 | 9.00 |
| Labpack with flammable liquids | 2470.02 | 1168.39 | 1543.44 | 2010.64 |
| Labpack with flammable solids | 11.70 | 33.39 | 15.39 | 65.57 |
| Labpack with oxidizers | 148.48 | 121.75 | 225.10 | 303.42 |
| Compressed gases and aerosols | 264.27 | 20.00 | 156.39 | 15.57 |
| Non-hazardous/non-regulated waste | 512.07 | 240.00 | 310.00 | 690.00 |
| TOTAL | 5584.76 | 3710.66 | 5584.77 | 4955.09 |
| Difference | 1873.81 | -1874.11 | 629.68 | |
| % Difference | -33.55 | +50.51 | -11.27 |
Lessons learned
Four years of tracking hazardous waste generation at UMass Boston has given us little insight into any trends. Yearly totals vary according to many factors including type and amount of research, number of researchers and other factors. What the table does reiterate is that overall, UMass Boston is a small quantity generator if EPA p-listed materials are not considered. Even in 2000, when the smallest amount of waste was generated, one disposal event put us into the large quantity generator category because of the disposal of certain acute hazardous wastes.
EPI #6: Environmental Awareness Survey
Results to date:
Results (45 respondents), shown in Table 3, indicate little to no change in answers. There are, however, some signs of increased awareness on specific questions related to general environmental awareness. Correct answers on two questions--fume hood emissions and environmental impacts of laboratory work—rose 5% each from the corresponding 2002 scores. In addition, the percentage of respondents trained in the EMP grew by 6%.
| Table 3: Environmental Awareness Survey Results | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |
| Number of Respondents | 87 | 54 | 60 | 45 |
| 1. Which federal agency regulates the disposal of chemical wastes: | ||||
| a. Occupational Safety and Health Administration | 29% | 15% | 23% | 27% |
| b. Environmental Protection Agency | 48% | 80% | 72% | 67% |
| c. Department of Transportation | 10% | 5% | 3% | 2% |
| d. National Institutes of Health | 13% | 0% | 2% | 0% |
| 2. Ultimately, most chemical wastes generated in laboratories are: | ||||
| a. incinerated | 32% | 17% | 23% | 18% |
| b. sent to a landfill | 15% | 6% | 10% | 9% |
| c. released to a sewer | 23% | 28% | 12% | 11% |
| d. treated | 30% | 49% | 55% | 53% |
| 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% | 4% |
| 1 reason | 62% | 13% | 17% | 9% |
| 2 reasons | 14% | 22% | 35% | 33% |
| 3 reasons | 24% | 31% | 27% | 18% |
| 4 reasons | 0% | 24% | 18% | 16% |
| 4. Which costs more, purchase or disposal of laboratory chemicals? | ||||
| a. disposal costs more | 51% | 78% | 77% | 51% |
| b. purchase costs more | 24% | 4% | 5% | 17% |
| c. costs are roughly the same | 25% | 18% | 18% | 15% |
| 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% | 44% | |
| 6. What is the proper way to dispose of strong mineral acids? | ||||
| a. Dilution with water | 26% | 13% | 17% | 9% |
| b. Neutralization with lime | 33% | 24% | 24% | 24% |
| c. Collection for pick-up by hazardous waste personnel | 8% | 56% | 53% | 42% |
| d. Mixing with organic chemicals | 8% | 0% | 3% | 2% |
| e. Other | 25% | 7% | 3% | 0% |
| 7. What is the maximum amount of acutely hazardous laboratory waste that your laboratory is allowed to accumulate? | 36% correct | 41% correct | 36% correct | 29% correct |
| 8. What emergency response equipment is available in your laboratory to respond to a hazardous chemical spill? | ||||
| 0 | 14% | 19% | 12% | 11% |
| 1-3 items | 78% | 70% | 65% | 47% |
| 4-6 items | 8% | 11% | 23% | 22% |
| 7 items | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 9. How is waste water from your laboratory buildings treated? | ||||
| a. Purification before release to the sewer | 24% | 7% | 10% | 11% |
| b. pH is controlled by acid neutralization, then released to the sewer | 37% | 37% | 27% | 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% | 38% |
| d. other | 0% | 7% | 2% | |
| unknown | 0% | 6% | 22% | |
| 10. In general, how are fume hood emissions controlled in your laboratory? | ||||
| a. Filtration to remove particles | 21% | 17% | 40% | 13% |
| b. Carbon filtration to remove gases | 30% | 20% | 35% | 40% |
| c. Dilution with laboratory room air | 24% | 63% | 13% | 20% |
| d. No hoods in lab | 0% | 7% | 4% | |
| Unknown | 0% | 5% | 22% | |
| 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% | 20% |
| 1 response | 47% | 41% | 55% | 38% |
| 2 responses | 17% | 24% | 19% | 13% |
| 3 responses | 5% | 13% | 3% | 2% |
| 4 responses | 0% | 5% | 2% | |
| N/A | 0% | 5% | 5% | |
| 12. Typically, what is the largest environmental impact of laboratory work? | ||||
| a. release of toxic chemicals through the fume hood | 15% | 6% | 2% | 2% |
| b. disposal of toxic chemicals with a hazardous waste disposal company | 25% | 19% | 25% | 22% |
| c. release of chemicals to the sewer system | 32% | 48% | 47% | 29% |
| d. energy use to cool or heat laboratory space | 15% | 13% | 23% | 40% |
| Unknown | 13% | 14% | 3% | 7% |
| 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% | 11% |
| 1-3 | 26% | 59% | 22% | 25% |
| 4-6 | 33% | 2% |
50% |
33% |
| N/A | 19% | 15% | 11% | 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 | 42% correct |
| 15. What is your current role in your laboratory? | ||||
| Faculty | 22% | 28% | 18% | 18% |
| Staff - Administrator | 6% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| Staff - Lab Tech | 11% | 17% | 17% | 20% |
| Graduate Student | 15% | 30% | 40% | 45% |
| Undergraduate Student | 46% | 23% | 23% | 18% |
| 16. How many years have you been working in college or university laboratories? | ||||
| less than 1 year | 40% | 22% | 16% | 13% |
| 1-2 years | 22% | 30% | 39% | 18% |
| 3-5 years | 10% | 17% | 20% | 16% |
| more than 5 years | 28% | 41% | 25% | 38% |
| Respondents Trained in CH/EM Plan | 0% | 68% | 47% | 53% |
Lessons learned:
The environmental awareness survey continues to provide important feedback of the effectiveness of the EMP at UMass Boston. The results of the survey continue to give us valuable information about the issues that require greater explanation during outreach efforts. Additionally, it gives us an objective measure of how effective our training efforts have been in reaching the laboratory population of interest and generating ideas about how to improve our training.
It is important to train graduate students because they (a) are less likely to turnover on a year to year basis, and they offer an opportunity to provide further training and instruction to temporal lab workers.
EPI #7: Environmental Awareness Training
Results to date:
EPI #7 measures the amount of training conducted for laboratory workers with regard to environmental compliance and awareness. EH&S has built an accurate training database. Each semester, 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 continue to have 89% training rate for those that have been identified by PIs as people covered by the CH/EM Plan.
Lessons learned:
As long as we are flexible and available to provide training in a variety of settings, we should continue to have a high training rate. Additionally, the use of an accurate database, based on information from the PIs, is critical to insure that we are training the correct population.
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 investigate.
- 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 decreased in total for 2002 by 11.27% from baseline and 2001.
- EPI#6 The Environmental Awareness Survey was completed and the results are similar to survey results from 2002.
- EPI#7 The number of laboratory workers trained in the CH/EM Plan remains steady at approximately 89% of the total number of laboratory workers that have been identified by PIs as being covered by 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
Results to date:
Normally, UMass Boston EH&S staff conduct annual laboratory inspections beginning in June to measure conformance with the Environmental Management Plan. This year however, inspections began in May in an effort to complete the inspections by the current XL progress report due date. To date, 96 inspections have been completed
Again, we utilized the C2E2 “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 was applied to laboratory inspections previously conducted in 2000 and 200. 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 prior to 2001. 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 prior to 2001.
Certain assumptions were made for the 2002 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 some labs 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 solely 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.
For 2003 inspections, audit forms were completed during the inspection and the scores are based on actual observations for container management, housekeeping and self-inspection. For training, EH&S records were examined. Again for pollution prevention, all laboratories were given a score of 1.
| Table 4: 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 | 2.67 |
|
Table 5: 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 | 5.13 |
|
Table 6: 2002 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 | ||||||
| 0 | 1 | 29 | 33 | |||
| 1 | 20 | 36 | 98 | 24 | 26 | |
| 2 | 70 | 61 | 45 | 39 | ||
| 3 | 8 | 1 | ||||
| 4 | 8 | |||||
| 5 | 19 | |||||
| 6 | 16 | |||||
| 7 | 18 | |||||
| 8 | 24 | |||||
| 9 | 7 | |||||
| 10 | 5 | |||||
| Total | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 |
| Average Score | 6.73 |
|
Table 7: 2003 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 | ||||||
| 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0 | 14 | 96 | 20 | 15 | |
| 2 | 6 | 80 | 0 | 70 | 81 | |
| 3 | 89 | |||||
| 4 | ||||||
| 5 | 1 | |||||
| 6 | 0 | |||||
| 7 | 4 | |||||
| 8 | 18 | |||||
| 9 | 25 | |||||
| 10 | 49 | |||||
| Total | 96 | |||||
| Average Score | 9.22 |
Figure 1, on the next page, is a composite graph of all audit scores for four years of the pilot program. Annually, UMass Boston has shown an increasing trend in compliance scores. Increases this year are attributed primarily to better container management. In 2002, EH&S changed the laboratory waste tags to be more descriptive about dating containers when full and listed possible hazard classes instead of leaving a blank space. Researchers have improved greatly and there are consequently fewer violations for container management.
