Annual Report on Project XL Activities at Boston College
Prepared by N. Gail Hall, Environmental Health and Safety Officer
August 15, 2005
Introduction
This report contains the findings and observations of the most recent year of Boston College’s participation in the New England College and University Laboratories Project XL. The report includes waste data for the calendar year 2004, and survey, training and other data for the academic year 2004-2005.
Management of Hazardous Chemicals of Concern (EPIs 1 & 2)
Laboratories are required to submit complete chemical inventories to the Office of Environmental Health and Safety annually. These inventories are used by us to meet regulatory requirements, including emergency planning, Tier II and emission source registration reporting. We compare the HCOC list to the main inventory in order to identify HCOCs in various locations in labs. The HCOC list is also used to identify particular chemicals for targeted clean-out or maintenance (e.g. ethers, picric acid). In the past year we have used the HCOC list in developing a protocol for limiting lab activities when there is a significant event on campus[1] (e.g. football game, commencement, Boston Marathon). By sorting the HCOC list based on certain parameters (e.g. Class 1A flammables [Table 1] and reactive chemicals [Table 2]), we have been able to provide labs with a discrete list of chemicals whose use is prohibited during significant events when there are large numbers of people on campus and emergency response to campus is difficult. In addition, the HCOC table is used to provide information on chemical storage of unstable chemicals.
Table 1: HCOCs sorted by NFPA Diamond Flammable Level 4 (Lab workers are prohibited from using these chemicals during significant events.)
|
CHEMICAL: |
HCOC Reactive [R]/ Toxic [T] |
NFPA Flammability Rating*** |
Oxidant [S/L/G] |
Explosive |
Peroxide Former Class** |
Acute Toxicity: DOT Poison* |
Waste Code*** |
Special Handling Requirements |
|
Acetaldehyde |
R |
4 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
|
Butadiene |
R |
4 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 month storage limit |
|
Chloroethane |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diethyl Ether |
R |
4 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
|
Ethylamine |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethylmercaptan |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hydrocyanic Acid |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
B |
|
|
|
Hydrogen |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hydrogen Cyanide |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
A/B |
|
|
|
Isobutane |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isopropylamine |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Methyl Mercaptan |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Methylamine |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pentane |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propylene Oxide |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trimethylamine |
T |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vinyl Bromide |
R |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vinylidene Chloride |
R |
4 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 month storage limit |
|
Diazomethane |
T |
Flam Gas |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Diborane [G] |
T |
Flam Gas |
|
|
|
A |
|
|
|
Acetylene |
T |
Flammable Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2: Excerpt from HCOC Reactive Chemicals (Lab workers are prohibited from using these chemicals during significant events.)
|
HCOC Reactive [R]/ Toxic [T] |
NFPA Flammability Rating*** |
Oxidant [S/L/G] |
Explosive |
Peroxide Former Class** |
Acute Toxicity: DOT Poison* |
Waste Code*** |
Special Handling Requirements |
|
|
Acetal |
R |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
|
Acetaldehyde |
R |
4 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
|
Acetylenic Compound |
R |
|
|
X |
|
|
P |
|
|
Acrylic Acid |
R |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 month storage limit |
|
Acrylonitrile |
R |
3 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 month storage limit |
|
Acyl or Alkyl Nitrates |
R |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Acyl or Alkyl Nitrites |
R |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Alkyl Hydroperoxides |
R |
|
|
X |
|
|
P |
|
|
Alkyl or Acyl Peroxides |
R |
|
|
X |
|
|
P |
|
|
Butadiene |
R |
4 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 month storage limit |
|
Chlorobutadiene [chloroprene] |
R |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 month storage limit |
|
Chlorotrifluoroethylene |
R |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 month storage limit |
|
Cumene |
R |
3 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
|
Cyclohexene |
R |
3 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
|
Cyclooctene |
R |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
|
Cyclopentene |
R |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
12 month storage limit if inhibited, 3 month if not inhibited |
Boston College is in the process of choosing a chemical inventory management software package. This tool will allow us to manage a single, consistent, electronic inventory, and to flag HCOCs automatically.
Pollution Prevention and Chemical Redistribution (EPIs 3&4)
As stated in the previous Project XL reports, an on-going chemical redistribution program (EPI 4) is not cost effective. We continue to have lab clean-outs due to personnel changes or changing space needs, and these activities generate some unused chemicals. However, for the reasons mentioned in previous years (concerns for quality), only ~5% of the containers of unused chemicals may be taken by other labs. When we have a clean-out we make an effort to redistribute chemicals.
Other opportunities for Pollution Prevention continue to be elusive, especially in light of the current growth in research with a corresponding increase in waste production. In the ‘05-‘06 academic year we will be undertaking a new mercury elimination effort, with the primary goal of protecting our wastewater. We also expect that the electronic chemical inventory will be useful in managing purchasing, as people will see what is available in other labs. (As was shown in previous years, chemical borrowing from a known source is much more acceptable to researchers than taking an unused chemical from an unknown source.)
Hazardous Waste Generation (EPA #5)
Waste totals are presented in Table 3[2] and Figure 1. The 14% increase in waste from 2003 – 2004 has been noted anecdotally in our waste management operations in the past year. The Chemistry Department continues to grow, particularly in the area of organic synthesis. The incoming graduate class in September 2004 was roughly twice the size of previous incoming classes, and we have anecdotal reports that these students are interested in the organic synthesis labs. The impact of these students on waste production will not be seen until Spring/Summer ‘05 .
Another sign of expansion is redistribution of space in the Merkert Chemistry Center – the amount of laboratory space for the people in the organic synthesis group is growing, while space for some of the other laboratories is contracting. There is also discussion of adding one or more new researchers in this field, which is consistent with BC’s commitment to expand the research science capacity by 25%[3]. I predict that waste volumes from the Chemistry Department will continue to increase due to department growth.
Table 3. Hazardous waste totals based on manifests (in lbs.)
|
|
|
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
|
Chemistry Department |
Halogenated solvents |
21,435 |
15,100 |
22,415 |
|
|
Non-halogenated solvents |
12,260 |
12,405 |
8,830 |
|
|
Silica gel |
2,575 |
750 |
2,380 |
|
|
Lab Packs |
7,102 |
9,274 |
6,930 |
|
Chemistry Total |
|
43,372 |
37,529 |
41,297 |
|
All other labs |
Lab Packs |
2,094 |
1,515 |
3,101 |
|
Lab Waste Total |
45,466 |
39,044 |
44,398 |
|
|
% inc/dec per year |
|
-15% |
14% |
|
|
% inc/dec 02 - 04 |
|
|
-2% |
|
|
Chemistry waste as % total |
|
95% |
96% |
93% |
Figure 1. Change in waste totals over time.
There was also significant growth in the non-chemistry labs. The near doubling seen from 2003-2004 can be explained by addition of new faculty in Biology, Psychology and Physics, an increase in the number of graduate students, and an increase in the activity of the Physics Department. The Physics Department is gaining prominence in the field of nanotechnology, and while the results of their work are very small (and nanotechnology may eventually be a significant pollution prevention tool), the activity required to achieve those results has increased the amount of hazardous waste they produce.
The Campus Consortium on Environmental Excellence (www.c2e2.org) continues to be interested in understanding how it might be possible to normalize hazardous waste data in order to detect trends and understand the changes in waste production from year to year. Boston College and C2E2 are planning a symposium on normalization for the academic year ’05-‘06.
Environmental Awareness (EPI 6)
The Environmental Awareness Survey for 2005 was completed by 128 people in the Chemistry Department (Table 6). The survey was divided into four sections. Questions 1-8 were knowledge questions that have been asked in previous years. There were no significant differences seen in knowledge about lab procedures, except that undergraduates (understandably) have lower scores because they have had more limited training. These questions continue to point out where we need to provide better training. The addition of web-based training may be the difference that we need to get people to understand certain principles like how a fume hood works.
Questions 9-15 were questions about workers’ attitudes concerning their responsibilities in environmental issues and waste generation. It is pleasing to see that 76% of those surveyed agree or strongly agree that they do have responsibility to “minimize the environmental impact of their work (Q. 9).” However, only 48% agree that they could reduce their waste production by 10% (Q. 11). The responses to Question 13 suggest that researchers don’t have information on how to reduce waste production. Combined with the lack of readily accessible information about less toxic replacements in the scientists’ own literature, it suggests that there is a significant opportunity here for EPA to work with the American Chemical Society and other chemical manufacturing resources to encourage the development of new technologies that would allow for toxic use reduction.
Questions 16 and 17 were demographic questions.
Questions 18 -20 were new questions, and provided excellent program feedback for us in terms of improving our health and safety and waste management program. Question 18 is especially gratifying: of those who had grounds for comparison, 52% believe the BC program is better than other waste programs and a total of 93% believe that the BC program is better than or the same as other waste programs. The New England University Project XL has certainly had a positive impact on our lab waste management program at Boston College.
Specific information comes from the comments (Q. 19 and 20). We see that certain simple operational improvements, like better management of labels and waste bottles, training of safety contacts, and communication with our waste contractor, should positively impact the program with a very small amount of effort. It is also gratifying to know what our successes are. The data contained in the survey may provide additional insights upon further analysis, and I expect to continue to use customer surveys in the future to ensure the improvement of our program in the right direction.
Training (EPI 7)
There have been no significant changes in our training program over the last year. We continue to train nearly 100% of the lab workers, either with face-to-face initial training at the start of a semester, or with written training for interim arrivals who still have to complete face-to-face initial training at the next scheduled time. We also provide refresher training on request. The average Chemistry lab worker has a 3 hr. initial training and annual refresher training (1 hr.). The lab workers in other departments generally have 2 hours of initial training.
Training attendance is managed by departmental personnel, and is tracked by the departments and EH&S.
The Chemistry Department and EH&S are piloting a new training vehicle for the current academic year (’05-’06). WebCT is a web-based online learning software package supported at Boston College. Any classes that have online learning activities use WebCT, and there are an increasing number of students who are familiar with it. WebCT supports a number of formats and provides tracking for those who use it.
The first training program being introduced through WebCT in Chemistry is the emergency evacuation plan. This will be followed by DOT shipping training, chemical hygiene, and waste management. WebCT is not intended to replace face-to-face training, but will allow people to review materials at a slower pace, to have make-up training or initial training immediately on arrival at BC.
Objectives and Targets (EPI 8)
Objectives and targets are presented in the format of the Environmental Scorecard (Appendix III).
Audit Scores (EPI 9)
The trend in audit scores (Figure 2) suggests that our increased efforts in training and communication in the Biology Department are having a positive effect, as compliance is reaching the same level as the Chemistry Department. The two labs in Geology are under the control of one person, so compliance management in that department is very easy. Physics is the next frontier as far as targeting training to improve compliance. The Physics Department is undergoing a period of growth and change. It will be necessary in the current year to identify waste generation points and provide training targeted to Physics’ activities.
Table 4: Average Audit Scores by Department from 2003-2005.
|
Report year /Department |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
|
Biology |
5.1 |
7.2 |
8.1 |
|
Chemistry |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.5 |
|
Geology/Geophysics |
9 |
10 |
10 |
|
Physics |
4 |
N/A |
5 |
Figure 2. Change in Audit Scores
Conclusion
Boston College’s participation in the Lab XL Project continues to provide us with opportunities to learn and inform about the challenges of waste management in laboratories at universities throughout the country and the world. Ultimately I believe this work will provide answers that support waste minimization and Green Chemistry, and will lead to a change in the culture of science such that we will take into account chemicals’ health, safety and environmental impacts as well as their utility chemical dependent processes.
Appendix: Supporting Data
Table 5. Hazardous waste totals based on lab pick-up forms
|
Data collected from waste pick-up forms |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Weight (lbs.) |
|
|
|||
|
Department |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
|
Biology |
1199 |
952 |
808 |
1287 |
data not available from waste pick-up forms |
882 |
|
Chemistry |
21598 |
35642 |
33363 |
33391 |
38742 |
|
|
Geology |
23 |
24 |
85 |
(a) |
55 |
|
|
Physics |
N/A |
46 |
25 |
46 |
82 |
|
|
Psychology |
391 |
100 |
54 |
11 |
42 |
|
|
Total |
23211 |
36764 |
34335 |
34735 |
39803 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) Data not recorded, but estimated at ~ 80 lb. |
|
|
||||
Table 6. Environmental Awareness Survey 2005
|
Question |
Grad |
Undergrad |
Non-Stu |
Totals |
% Respondents |
|
1. When I need health/safety information about a chemical I consult (check the two most common sources) |
|
||||
|
a. paper MSDS |
32 |
9 |
7 |
48 |
21 |
|
b. online MSDS |
67 |
20 |
14 |
101 |
44 |
|
c. Merck |
23 |
4 |
3 |
32 |
14 |
|
d. book |
21 |
12 |
4 |
39 |
17 |
|
e. other |
2 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
3 |
|
N |
|
|
|
227 |
|
|
2. Before I begin to work with a hazardous chemical I’ve never used before, I consult |
|
||||
|
a. MSDS |
39 |
8 |
13 |
61 |
31 |
|
b. chemical label |
41 |
8 |
3 |
54 |
27 |
|
c. PI |
5 |
5 |
4 |
14 |
7 |
|
d. colleague |
40 |
15 |
4 |
60 |
30 |
|
e. other |
6 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
4 |
|
f. no one |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
N |
|
|
|
198 |
|
|
3. Which of these factors do you think is the largest overall environmental impact of laboratory work: |
|
||||
|
a. toxic chemicals |
26 |
16 |
3 |
47 |
32 |
|
b. utility use |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
7 |
|
c. hazardous waste |
61 |
9 |
15 |
87 |
58 |
|
d. biomedical waste |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
|
e. animal waste |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
N |
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
4. Which of these factors do you think is the largest overall environmental impact of YOUR laboratory work: |
|
||||
|
a. toxic chemicals |
28 |
7 |
4 |
40 |
27 |
|
b. utility use |
6 |
6 |
3 |
16 |
11 |
|
c. hazardous waste |
50 |
13 |
11 |
77 |
52 |
|
d. biomedical waste |
9 |
4 |
1 |
14 |
10 |
|
e. animal waste |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
N |
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
5. A chemical fume hood works by |
|
||||
|
a. air curtain |
4 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
5 |
|
b. filtering chemicals |
4 |
5 |
1 |
10 |
7 |
|
c. diluting chemicals |
7 |
2 |
4 |
13 |
9 |
|
d. laminar flow |
7 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
8 |
|
e. all |
61 |
21 |
11 |
96 |
70 |
|
N |
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
6. What is the proper way to dispose of 1 liter of strong mineral acids? |
|
||||
|
a. dilute |
3 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
6 |
|
b. neutralization |
37 |
14 |
4 |
57 |
42 |
|
c. collection and pick-up |
46 |
12 |
11 |
70 |
52 |
|
d. mixing |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
N |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
7. Ultimately, most chemical wastes generated in laboratories are: |
|
||||
|
a. incinerated |
50 |
6 |
10 |
66 |
50 |
|
b. landfill |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
c. sewer |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
|
d. treated |
30 |
21 |
7 |
61 |
46 |
|
N |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
8. In general, the cost of disposal of a chemical is ______ the cost of buying that chemical. |
|
||||
|
a. less than |
5 |
6 |
2 |
13 |
10 |
|
b. equal to |
13 |
3 |
4 |
21 |
16 |
|
c. a little more |
13 |
12 |
3 |
28 |
21 |
|
d. a lot more |
51 |
7 |
9 |
69 |
53 |
|
N |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
9. It is the responsibility of every lab worker to minimize the environmental impact of their work |
|
||||
|
1. strongly agree |
50 |
16 |
13 |
79 |
62 |
|
2 |
11 |
6 |
1 |
18 |
14 |
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
5 |
|
5. strongly disagree |
16 |
1 |
1 |
19 |
15 |
|
N |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
10. With careful planning, I would be able to produce 10% less laboratory waste without affecting my research output. |
|
||||
|
1. strongly agree |
14 |
7 |
5 |
26 |
22 |
|
2 |
18 |
10 |
3 |
31 |
26 |
|
3 |
25 |
7 |
4 |
36 |
31 |
|
4 |
13 |
0 |
2 |
15 |
13 |
|
5. strongly disagree |
8 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
8 |
|
N |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
11. Hazardous waste is a necessary byproduct of chemical research. |
|
||||
|
1. strongly agree |
15 |
2 |
3 |
20 |
17 |
|
2 |
31 |
14 |
10 |
45 |
38 |
|
3 |
13 |
11 |
4 |
28 |
24 |
|
4 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
10 |
|
5. strongly disagree |
11 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
11 |
|
N |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
12. It is important for scientists to find safer chemicals to use in their experiments. |
|
||||
|
1. strongly agree |
26 |
4 |
5 |
35 |
27 |
|
2 |
25 |
14 |
8 |
47 |
36 |
|
3 |
12 |
6 |
3 |
21 |
16 |
|
4 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
12 |
9 |
|
5. strongly disagree |
11 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
11 |
|
N |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
Question |
Grad |
Undergrad |
Non-Stu |
Totals |
% Respondents |
|
13. I would be willing to make changes in my experiments in order to produce less hazardous waste, but I don’t know how. |
|
||||
|
1. strongly agree |
17 |
2 |
1 |
20 |
16 |
|
2 |
21 |
15 |
5 |
41 |
33 |
|
3 |
24 |
6 |
7 |
37 |
30 |
|
4 |
9 |
4 |
2 |
16 |
13 |
|
5. strongly disagree |
10 |
0 |
1 |
11 |
9 |
|
N |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
14. I have seen articles about pollution prevention in research in my discipline’s journals. |
|
||||
|
1. strongly agree |
12 |
0 |
2 |
15 |
13 |
|
2 |
16 |
6 |
3 |
25 |
22 |
|
3 |
18 |
3 |
6 |
27 |
24 |
|
4 |
14 |
7 |
3 |
24 |
21 |
|
5. strongly disagree |
13 |
4 |
4 |
21 |
19 |
|
N |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
15. It is important to routinely review the health and safety information on the chemicals I use. |
|
||||
|
1. strongly agree |
29 |
4 |
5 |
38 |
30 |
|
2 |
25 |
15 |
6 |
46 |
36 |
|
3 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
20 |
16 |
|
4 |
10 |
4 |
3 |
18 |
14 |
|
5. strongly disagree |
5 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
4 |
|
N |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
16. Current Role |
|
||||
|
Faculty |
|
|
|
6 |
5 |
|
Staff / Admin |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
Staff / Lab Tech |
|
|
|
11 |
9 |
|
Graduate Student |
|
|
|
82 |
64 |
|
Undergraduate |
|
|
|
28 |
22 |
|
N |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
17. Years in research at BC |
|
||||
|
<1 |
|
|
|
35 |
27 |
|
1-2 |
|
|
|
44 |
34 |
|
3-5 |
|
|
|
44 |
34 |
|
>5 |
|
|
|
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
18. I believe that the Laboratory Waste Management Program at BC is _________ the waste management programs at other universities. |
|
||||
|
better than |
|
|
|
42 |
32 |
|
the same as |
|
|
|
33 |
25 |
|
worse than |
|
|
|
6 |
7 |
|
I have no grounds for comparison. |
|
|
|
45 |
34 |
|
No response |
|
|
|
5 |
4 |
N 131
19. The best/worst things about BC’s Lab Waste Management Program
|
The Best |
|
The Worst |
|
|
|
|
|
every lab has specific person for safety issue |
|
lack of training for that person |
|
safety officers constant evaluation and checking in lab |
|
inconsistently enforced |
|
review of incidents |
|
waste bottles not kept in hoods |
|
training |
|
some waste I'm not sure what to do with |
|
informative |
|
frequent lack of empty waste jugs |
|
detailed training |
|
not enough info on what happens to waste, what goes in containers |
|
the education |
|
Clean Harbors refuses to ask for entry to locked labs. |
|
alert people all the time |
|
qualified people not in charge of the program |
|
they stress safety and caution |
|
not separating chlorinated waste (it used to be separated) |
|
EH&S good staff |
|
pickup frequency. Sometimes too many waste bottles under fume hood |
|
good waste bottles |
|
controlling waste water |
|
well organized |
|
should have easier access to the waste labels |
|
staff are available for help and advice |
|
methylene chloride in the drains |
|
reduces toxic chemicals in environment |
|
rigorous continued effort to pay attention to waste |
|
prizes |
|
could do with more communication (how to dispose of waste/separation) |
|
frequent pickup of lab waste |
|
occasional lack of empty waste bottles |
|
fairly simple procedure for requesting pickup |
|
the waste water nazi's |
|
scheduled pickup, those guys rock! |
|
inconsistency |
|
getting picked up frequently |
|
too stringent rules, no room for waste tubs |
|
scheduled pickup |
|
having to close the lid on waste jugs |
|
rigorous attention paid by those in charge |
|
saying that we would decrease overall emission w/o considering growth of dept. |
|
informing how to get rid of chemicals |
|
sometimes waste bins aren't collected regularly |
|
lab pickup of waste containers |
|
waiting for pickup |
|
emphasis placed on it |
|
the fact that they commonly don't pick up materials they have sheets for |
|
well organized |
|
not enough room and bottles |
|
rigorous continued effort to pay attention to waste |
|
its long |
|
collecting waste |
|
running out of empty waste bottles on Monday night |
|
nice guys, very efficient |
|
no separate collection of primarily solvent waste |
|
yearly safety sessions |
|
no carbonyls(?) in lab |
|
the multi colored tie wraps |
|
enforcement of vacuum aspiration |
|
lab safety officers |
|
none |
|
the seminars |
|
|
|
weekly waste pickup |
|
|
|
how easy it is to get rid of waste |
|
|
|
waste company disposes of large bottles of reactives |
|
|
|
it is easy to get info helpful for proper disposal |
|
|
|
ease of use |
|
|
|
bottles and labels are readily available |
|
|
|
they actually have one and take it seriously |
|
|
|
its very informative |
|
|
|
It’s easy, safe, and fun for everyone! |
|
|
|
ease of waste pickup on weekly schedule |
|
|
|
waste tech entering labs |
|
|
|
close relation of safety people |
|
|
|
Easy access to waste management tools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit results 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Container mngment (a) |
SOP (b) |
Self Inspection (c) |
Grade |
|
|
/4 |
/4 |
/2 |
/10 |
|
Biology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
0 |
8.0 |
|
|
3 |
3 |
0 |
6.0 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
9.0 |
|
|
4 |
3 |
0 |
7.0 |
|
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
8.0 |
|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
9.0 |
|
|
3 |
3 |
0 |
6.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Score |
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
2 |
0 |
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geology/Geophysics |
|
|
||
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Score |
|
|
10.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chemistry Research Labs |
|
|
||
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
9.0 |
|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
9.0 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
3 |
3 |
1 |
7.0 |
|
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
9.0 |
|
|
3 |
3 |
0 |
6.0 |
|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
9.0 |
|
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
9.0 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
0 |
8.0 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
5.0 |
|
Chemistry Teaching Labs |
|
|
||
|
|
4 |
4 |
2 |
10.0 |
|
|
3 |
3 |
0 |
6.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Score |
|
|
8.5 |
|
(a) Containers closed, in good condition, segregated, in secondary containment
(b) Labels legible, no abbreviations, completely filled out
(c) Inspections done all the time