Administration & Finance

UMass Boston 4th Year Status Report

EPI #5: Laboratory Waste Generation Rates

Lessons learned:

EPI #5 concerns the amount of laboratory waste generated. The data are presented in Table 1 on the next page. UMB's hazardous waste generation decreased by roughly 16% from the previous year. In total, we have experienced a 25% reduction of hazardous waste since the beginning of the XL Pilot Program. We have also seen the reduction of certain highly hazardous wastes (e.g., organic peroxides, pyrophorics, oxidizers). It is impossible to determine whether these reductions are attributable to a better managed program or these reductions simply reflect changes in research activities.

Table 1: UMass Boston Laboratory Waste Generation (in lbs)          
Waste Stream 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Labpack with poisons 192.83 335.57 1083.36 335.28 374.10
Labpack with corrosives 1161.46 959.94 2165.53 1497.22 919.95
Labpack with acutely hazardous wastes 31.48 2.00 16.78 8.39 18.78
Labpack with misc. hazardous waste 739.57 819.62 31.00 6.00 151.96
Labpack with organic peroxides 19.87 0.00 8.39 0.00 0.00
Labpack with spontaneously combustible material 11.68 0.00 1.00 14.00 2.00
Labpack with pyrophorics 21.34 10.00 28.39 9.00 2.00
Labpack with flammable liquids 2470.02 1168.39 1543.44 2010.64 1750.24
Labpack with flammable solids 11.70 33.39 15.39 65.57 29.00
Labpack with oxidizers 148.48 121.75 225.10 303.42 52.39
Compressed gases and aerosols 264.27 20.00 156.39 15.57 40.39
Non-hazardous/non-regulated waste 512.07 240.00 310.00 690.00 830.00
TOTAL 5584.76 3710.66 5584.77 4955.09 4170.81
Difference   1873.81 -1874.11 629.68 784.28
% Difference   -33.55 +50.51 -11.27 -15.83

Lessons learned

Despite five years of tracking hazardous waste generation at UMass Boston, it is still difficult to gain insight into any trends. While yearly totals continue to vary according to many factors including type and amount of research, number of researchers and other factors, we have experienced a 25% reduction in the annual generation of hazardous wastes from laboratories. The collected data also points to another important issue for colleges and universities - the generation of acute hazardous wastes. -UMass Boston would clearly be a small quantity generator if EPA p-listed materials were 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:

Summary results for five years of Environmental Awareness Survey data are shown in Table 2. We have made some modifications to the survey this year, based on lessons learned from previous surveys. The new questions were designed to elicit more feedback regarding pollution prevention and other attitudes/behaviors associated with a more mature management program. Many of the questions remain the same as in previous years to ensure year to year comparisons. A copy of the new survey can be found in the Appendix. Only selected questions that were the same each year are included below in Table 2. The correct answer(s) is italicized.

Table 2: Environmental Awareness Survey Results          
  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Number of Respondents 87 54 60 45 38
2. Ultimately, most chemical wastes generated in laboratories are:          
a. incinerated 32% 17% 23% 18% 34%
b. sent to a landfill 15% 6% 10% 9% 18%
c. released to a sewer 23% 28% 12% 11% 16%
d. treated 30% 49% 55% 53% 26%
4. Which costs more, purchase or disposal of laboratory chemicals?          
a. disposal costs more 51% 78% 77% 51% 71%
b. purchase costs more 24% 4% 5% 17% 8%
c. costs are roughly the same 25% 18% 18% 15% 13%
6. What is the proper way to dispose of strong mineral acids?          
a. Dilution with water 26% 13% 17% 9% 0%
b. Neutralization with lime 33% 24% 24% 24% 13%
c. Collection for pick-up by hazardous waste personnel 8% 56% 53% 42% 76%
d. Mixing with organic chemicals 8% 0% 3% 2% 0%
e. Other 25% 7% 3% 0% 6%
10. In general, how are fume hood emissions controlled in your laboratory?          
a. Filtration to remove particles 21% 17% 40% 13% 34%
b. Carbon filtration to remove gases 30% 20% 35% 40% 29%
c. Dilution with laboratory room air 24% 63% 13% 20% 32%
d. No hoods in lab    0% 7% 4% 0%
Unknown   0% 5% 22% 3%
12. Typically, what is the largest environmental impact of laboratory work?          
a. release of toxic chemicals through the fume hood 15% 6% 2% 2% 23%
b. disposal of toxic chemicals with a hazardous waste disposal company 25% 19% 25% 22% 63%*
c. release of chemicals to the sewer system 32% 48% 47% 29% 0%
d. energy use to cool or heat laboratory space 15% 13% 23% 40% 23%*
Unknown 13% 14% 3% 7% 3%
  *most gave more than one answer        
15. What is your current role in your laboratory?          
Faculty 22% 28% 18% 18% 35%
Staff - Administrator 6% 2% 2% 0% 2%
Staff - Lab Tech 11% 17% 17% 20% 8%
Graduate Student 15% 30% 40% 45% 50%
Undergraduate Student 46% 23% 23% 18% 5%
16. How many years have you been working in college or university laboratories?          
less than 1 year 40% 22% 16% 13% 13%
1-2 years 22% 30% 39% 18% 21%
3-5 years 10% 17% 20% 16% 18%
more than 5 years 28% 41% 25% 38% 47%
Respondents Trained in CH/EM Plan 0% 68% 47% 53% 71%

Lessons learned:

Respondents generally continue to score at levels recorded during the past two years, or slightly higher. The audience for the surveys has differed over time. This year's respondents were primarily faculty and graduate students. The environmental awareness survey continues to provide important feedback with respect to the effectiveness of the EMP at UMB. 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 at UMB because they: (a) are less likely to turnover on a year-to-year basis; and (b) offer an opportunity to extend training and instruction to temporary lab workers, such as undergraduates.

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. The number of laboratory workers trained in the CH/EM Program has dropped from 89% in 2002 to 60% in 2003. This change is due to two factors: (a) a more accurate database of laboratory workers; and (b) EH&S Department cutbacks that curtailed certain training initiatives.

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 summarizes progress toward the goals of the XL Program as set for in the Project XL FPA. The Project XL goals have acted as the de facto environmental "objectives" for the EH&S Department with respect to the management of laboratories

  •     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 bar-coding system.   All HCOCs have been identified and flagged on the inventories.
  •     EPI#3.  P2 continues to be an area that we would like to improve on.  At this point, because of our staffing problems, we are not sure exactly how to proceed.  We anticipate trying to get more involvement from the Chemical Hygiene Committee and potentially the Dean of Sciences.
  •     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%.
  •     Updated EPI #5.  The amount of laboratory waste disposed of decreased in total for 2003 by 15.83% from 2002 and approximately 25% from baseline.
  •     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 has dropped to 60% from last years’ 89%.  EH&S believes that there are two reasons for the decrease in number of individuals trained.  First, our training database is more accurate now than it has been in the past giving us better data.  In addition, it appears as though more PIs are listing a greater number of students that should be trained on the plan than in past years.  Second, with the decrease in staff in the EH&S Office, fewer training sessions were conducted.  We anticipate that the majority of those currently needing training will be targeted in the Fall 2004 semester.  See Appendix 2, Figure 2 for more data.
  •     EPI#8 Some EPIs are on-track (decrease in laboratory waste disposal, outdated chemicals, internal and external audits); while others like pollution prevention continue to need more attention.
  •     EPI#9.  Audits show significant compliance with the Minimum Performance Criteria of the XL Regulation.  Overall results were similar to last year.  It appears as though the only way that scores can increase in the future is to implement a large-scale P2 program for all laboratories.  It is not clear to us that such a large-scale effort is feasible (e.g., EH&S budget cuts) or effective (e.g., see comments in P2 section regarding informal, small university efforts).

EPI #9: Environmental Management Plan Conformance

Results to date:

Normally, UMB EH&S staff conduct annual laboratory inspections beginning in June to measure conformance with the Environmental Management Plan. This year however, inspections began in April in an effort to complete the inspections by the current XL progress report due date. For 2004, 96 inspections were completed, and the results continue to show progress. See Figure 1. 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

This grading system was applied to UMB laboratory inspections previously conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002. 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 in a laboratory was trained or not, since some labs were unoccupied at the time of inspection and our training database was incomplete. 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 and 2004 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 3: 2000 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 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 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           5.13

 

                            Table 5: 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 6: 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 96 96 96 96 96
Average Score            9.22

 

                             Table 7: 2004 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 0 0 0 22 4  
1 0 24 96 1 1  
2 6 72 0 74 91  
3 90          
4            
5           1
6           4
7           10
8           11
9           11
10           59
Total           96
Average Score           9.11

Figure 1 is a graph of all audit scores for the five years of the pilot program.  Year 1 represents 2000, while Year 5 represents audits completed in Spring 2004.

 

Figure 1: XL Audit Scores over Time

APPENDIX 1

                   Table 8: UMB Lab Worker Environmental Awareness Survey Spring 2004
                                                                 (38 responses)
Question Response chosen (%)        
1. When I need health/safety information about a chemical I consult (indicate the two most common sources): MSDS
24 %		 Merck Manual
13%		 Hazardous Chemical Desk Reference 10% Supervisor
11%		 A Lab Colleague
13%
  Use of toxic chemicals Utility use (energy and water) Hazardous waste production Biomedical/sharps waste production Animal waste production
2. Which of these factors do you think is the largest overall environmental impact of laboratory work: 9% 9% 21% 2% 1%
3. Which of these factors do you think is the largest overall environmental impact of laboratory work: 9% 17% 24% 7% 2%
4. The purpose of a fume hood is to protect (pick the best answer as it applies to your work): The laboratory worker
38 %		 Equipment in the laboratory 11% The laboratory building and its occupants 6 % The outside environment
4%		  
  1
Strongly agree		 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree
5. It is the responsibility of every lab worker to minimize the environmental impact of their work. 36% 2% 0% 0% 0%
6. With careful planning , I would be able to produce 10% less laboratory waste without affecting my research. 8% 7% 9% 4% 3%
Question Response chosen (%)        
7. Hazardous waste is a necessary byproduct of chemical research. 8% 5% 13% 4% 4%
8. It is important for scientists to find safer chemicals to use in their experiments. 26% 8% 3% 0% 1%
9. It is not my responsibility to make changes in the way my research is done in order to produce less hazardous waste. 1% 4% 3% 8% 17%
10. I have seen articles about pollution prevention in research in my discipline's journals. 12% 7%  5% 3% 4%
11. What is the proper way to dispose of strong mineral acids? Dilution with water 0% Neutralization with lime
5%		 Collection for pick-up by hazardous waste personnel 29% Mixing with organic chemicals 0%  
12. Ultimately , most chemical wastes generated in laboratories are: Incinerated 13% Sent to a landfill
7 %		 Released to a sewer 6% Treated
10%		  
13. In general , the cost of disposal of a chemical is ___ the cost of buying that chemical. Less than
3%		 Equal to
5%		 A little more (less than twice as much) 6% A lot more (more than twice as much)
21%		  
14. In general , how are fume hood emissions treated before being released to the environment? Filtration to remove particles
13 %		 Carbon filtration to remove gases 11% Dilution with laboratory room air 12 % Scrubbing to remove particulates , gases and toxics
6%		  
15. Please check the types of laboratory worker training you have received at UVM. CH/EM Plan
27%		 Radiation Safety
15 %		 Biosafety 15% Laser safety
1%		  
16. What is your current role in your laboratory? Faculty
13%		 Staff
4%		 Grad student
19%		 Undergrad student 2%  
17. How long have you been working in a university lab? less than 1 year
5%		 1-2 years
8%		 3-5 years 7% more than 5 years 18%                                          
18. Have you completed an XL Environmental Awareness Survey in the past? Yes
20%		 No
18%