Environmental Audit Final Report- complete
33 Pages
English

Environmental Audit Final Report- complete

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Description

Environmental Health and Safety OfficeEnvironmental Audit Final reportAugust 30, 2002Prepared by:Paul HouleHazardous Waste Management CoordinatorUniversity of ManitobaJoey BellinoHazardous Waste TechnologistUniversity of ManitobaKarla SkulmoskiEnvironmental Auditor (Student Position)University of ManitobaTable of Contents1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………… Page 22.0 Methodology…………………………………………………………... Page 23.0 Results…………………………………………………………………. Page 3 3.1 General Information………………………………………………….. 3.1.1 General Information……………………………………………… Page 3 Chart 3.1a – Types of waste generated……………………………… Chart 3.1b – Principal origin of chemical waste…………………….. Page 4 Chart 3.1c – TDG certification……………………………………… 3.1.2 Waste Minimization Practices…………………………………… Page 5 3.1.3 Substitution Practices…………………………………………….. 3.1.4 Recycling Practices………………………………………………. Page 5 Chart 3.1d – Awareness of chemistry free stores…………………… Page 6 3.1.5 Cradle to Grave Waste Management…………………………….. Chart 3.1e – Methods of hazardous waste disposal………………… Page 7 3.1.6 Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS).. Page 7 Chart 3.1f – Spill prevention procedures……………………………. Page 8 3.1.7 Chemical Weapons Convention………………………………….. 3.2 Potentially Unstable Chemicals……………………………………… Page 9 Chart 3.2a – Potentially unstable ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 19
Language English
Environmental Health and Safety Office Environmental Audit Final report August 30, 2002
Prepared by:
Paul Houle Hazardous Waste Management Coordinator University of Manitoba
Joey Bellino Hazardous Waste Technologist University of Manitoba
Karla Skulmoski Environmental Auditor (Student Position) University of Manitoba
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Methodology... 3.0 Results.  3.1 General Information..  3.1.1 General Information  Chart 3.1a  Types of waste generated  Chart 3.1b  Principal origin of chemical waste..  Chart 3.1c  TDG certification  3.1.2 Waste Minimization Practices  3.1.3 Substitution Practices..  3.1.4 Recycling Practices.  Chart 3.1d  Awareness of chemistry free stores  3.1.5 Cradle to Grave Waste Management..  Chart 3.1e  Methods of hazardous waste disposal  3.1.6 Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)..  Chart 3.1f  Spill prevention procedures.  3.1.7 Chemical Weapons Convention..  3.2 Potentially Unstable Chemicals  Chart 3.2a  Potentially unstable chemicals  Chart 3.2b  Awareness of storage time limits  Chart 3.2c  Periodic check of condition and age of chemicals..  Chart 3.2d  Destroying or rendering safe potentially unstable  chemicals.  Chart 3.2e  Expiration of potentially unstable chemicals.. 4.0 Follow-up 5.0 Conclusion..  5.1 Positives  5.2 Negatives...  5.3 Potentially Unstable Chemicals 6.0 Acknowledgements Appendix A  Inventory of collected potentially unstable chemicals... Appendix B  Hazardous Waste Management Program Environmental Audit  Original Copy... Appendix C  Complete summary of environmental audit responses. Appendix D  Additional Comments..
Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 4 Page 5 Page 5 Page 5 Page 6 Page 6 Page 7 Page 7 Page 8 Page 8 Page 9 Page 9 Page 9 Page 10 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 12 Page 12 Page 13 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 23 Page 28
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On July 17, 2000, the University of Manitoba president was issued an order by Manitoba Environment. This order, issued in accordance with the Manitoba Dangerous Goods and Transportation Act, required the university perform a thorough and complete audit of all areas to identify shock sensitive chemicals. To this end the Environmental Health and Safety Office (EHSO) undertook the task of performing an environmental audit of the Fort Garry and Bannatyne campuses. The environmental audit focused primarily on hazardous waste issues and the management of potentially unstable chemicals. The audit also included elements relating to waste minimization, recycling, spill control, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, WHMIS and the chemical weapons convention. It should be noted that the results of this Environmental Audit are self-reported. In addition, the reported results are in most casesnotverified.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
On April 10, 2002 a letter was sent out to all Deans, Directors and Department Heads. The letter requested that all laboratories using controlled products fill out an attached audit survey (Appendix B). The deadline to complete and return the survey was April 30, 2002. In accordance with this deadline, a total of 120 surveys had been returned. On July 2, 2002 a second request was sent out to 121 individual laboratorieso had not yet returned a completed survey. By July 31, 2002 EHSO had received a grand total of 205 completed audit surveys. The audit survey was broken down into two sections. The first was a generalized section dealing with various aspects of hazardous waste management and safety. The second section dealt specifically with the management of potentially unstable chemicals.
2
3.0 RESULTS 3.1 General Information 3.1.1 General Information Overall, the majority of laboratories at the university are utilized for research purposes. Teaching laboratories accounted for the lowest portion of the overall count. The hazardous waste generated by these labs was categorized into chemical waste, biological waste, radioactive waste, and a miscellaneous group. The most abundant waste was chemical followed by biological and radiological (see chart 3.1a). It should be noted that many labs produced a combination of wastes (e.g. chemical and biological waste) however, for statistical purposes they were counted individually. The origin of much of the waste produced is in the spent/used chemicals category. This was followed by outdated chemicals and changes in lab procedures (see chart 3.1b). Approximately half of the respondents indicated that one particular experiment or process accounted for the majority of their waste. Some of these procedures included HPLC work, DNA extractions and tissue/cell cultures.
200
Chart 3.1a - Types of waste generated Number (out of 205 surveys) of labs generating each category of hazardous waste
Chemical 150
100
50
0
Radiological
Biological
Other
None
3
200 150
Chart 3.1b - Principal origin of chemical waste Number (out of 205 surveys) of labs reporting each principal origin of chemical waste
100 Outdated 50 chemicals 0
Spent/used chemicals
Change of proceduresOther
According to Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) regulations, anyone shipping, transporting, or receiving dangerous goods must be certified. As was found in the survey results, a majority of respondents did not have someone TDG certified in their lab (see chart 3.1c). Of those who were certified, road was the most frequent form of certification followed by air (IATA). Chart 3.1c - TDG Certification Number (out of 205 surveys) of surveys indicating having someone in the laboratory TDG certified
200 150 100 50 Road Air (IATA) 0
Not certified
Other
As a general laboratory maintenance question, the audit asked respondents to indicate whether or not they performed a yearly cleaning of their lab to identify and dispose of overlooked chemical waste. Most of the laboratories proactively undertook spring cleanings to keep labs in compliance with proper chemical management concepts.
4
3.1.2 Waste Minimization Practices Measures in labs to reduce hazardous waste volumes or render waste non-hazardous were found to have been implemented in a satisfactory number of laboratories. Some of the practices indicated include reduced volumes of reagents, recycling, and the substitution of substances with those not needed in such large quantities or those that are less hazardous. A number of the labs indicated that microscale techniques are not an option in their lab due to the fact that the majority are research labs. Approximately 40% of the teaching labs did indicate that they could apply microscale techniques and unexpectedly, approximately 50% of the research labs did as well. This indicates that microscale techniques are a feasible option to minimize hazardous waste production at the University of Manitoba. When asked to indicate who in the laboratory is responsible for purchasing chemicals, many of the respondents indicated specific individuals. This is a highly proactive practice in that it reduces the possibility of over-ordering or doubling-up with unnecessary chemicals.
3.1.3 Substitution Practices The use of Chromic Acid (Chromerge) in cleaning glassware is being slowly phased out of laboratories due to its corrosivity and toxicity. Only 9% of respondents indicated that they still used Chromerge while the vast majority reported using other cleaners such as Alconox, Sparkleen, dish detergent, and distilled water. Mercury thermometers are also in the process of slowly being phased out of laboratories at the university. Over half of the respondents reported not having replaced their mercury thermometers with non-mercury ones. This is indicative of the need for an education initiative.
3.1.4 Recycling Practices The use of spent solvents for initial cleaning and fresh solvents for final rinsing minimizes the production of solvent waste through recycling. When asked if this practice was carried out in the laboratories, most indicated that it was not applicable to their lab. However, approximately one quarter of respondents said that they did carry out this procedure, which is indicative of attaining minimization within their labs. Approximately half of the respondents replied to being aware of Chemistry Free Stores at the Fort Garry campus (see chart 3.1d). Accordingly, 73% of respondents from the Bannatyne campus were not aware of this service. This is likely due in part to the complications encountered with TDG regulations for transporting chemicals between campuses.
5
Chart 3.1d-Awareness of chemistry free stores Percent (out of 205 surveys) of respondents aware of chemistry free stores
No 45%
N/A 2%
Yes 53%
Manufacturers of lecture bottle of compressed gases such as Matheson, accept the lecture bottles back once they are empty. Of those labs that do in fact use lecture bottles of compressed gas, 76% said they did purchase them from a manufacturer that would accept the empty containers. A majority of the respondents however, did not find this question applicable to their labs. 3.1.5 Cradle to Grave Waste Management In properly managing chemicals, it is good practice to develop a program for dating chemicals. This ensures that when new chemicals are received, the older ones are used up first. Few respondents answered that they did not have such a program, which is indicative of good laboratory management. It is also beneficial in laboratory safety to designate an area specifically for storing waste. Once again, many respondents answered that they did have such a process indicating good laboratory management. Keeping with good hazardous waste management practices, segregating halogenated solvent wastes from non-halogenated wastes streams ultimately lowers disposal costs. Of those respondents that found this question applicable to their lab, approximately half complied with this practice. Heavy metals being kept from other waste streams is also being complied with by more than half of those respondents that found it applicable. Biologically involved waste from laboratories must be sterilized and packaged in accordance with the University of Manitoba biosafety guidelines prior to disposal. The audit survey found that those labs dealing with biological waste were nearly all in compliance. Those labs dealing with radioactive waste were also found to nearly all be in compliance with proper disposal procedures. This includes properly identifying and tagging all radioactive waste.
6
Transportation of Dangerous Goods regulations (TDG) require that all empty containers of dangerous goods have their labels defaced prior to disposal. Nearly three quarters of the respondents said that they did in fact ensure that all labels are defaced before disposal of the empty containers. Many of the respondents accounting for the rest of the responses to this particular question did not find the question applicable to their laboratory. In addition, the majority (81%) of respondents did indicate that they did store their chemicals in accordance with the Controlled Products standard. In disposing of hazardous waste, 90% of respondents indicated that they use the University of Manitoba hazardous waste program (see chart 3.1e). This is an encouraging response as the remainder answered other and specified that they treated their waste within their lab and disposed of it appropriately.
Chart 3.1e - Methods of hazardous waste disposal Number (out of 205 surveys) of laboratories utilizing each method of hazardous waste disposal
200EHSO 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Recycling initiative
Treatment in lab/other
Off site contractor
3.1.6 Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) Hazardous waste should be collected and stored in proper screw top containers that are constructed of materials compatible with the type of waste they contain. The audit survey found that 97% of the laboratories that responded to this question were storing hazardous waste in appropriate containers. All containers of chemicals should also be clearly identified with durable labels to prevent the future production of unknown chemical waste. Once again, a majority of the respondents were found to be in compliance. When asked about spill prevention, most respondents reported having procedure to prevent or contain spills within their laboratory setting (see chart 3.1f). Some of the specifications included having spill kits readily available as well as absorbent materials and containment trays.
7
Chart 3.1f - Spill prevention procedures Percent of respondents (out of 205 surveys) that answered Yes, No, N/A to the implementation of spill prevention procedures in the laboratory
N/A 6% No 20%
Yes 74%
The audit survey showed that 91 of the laboratories that responded have drying ovens. None of them were reported as being used for storing chemicals. This is encouraging as a hazard alert was issued by the EHSO in regards to the storing of chemicals in drying ovens under fume hoods. 3.1.7 Chemical Weapons Convention Six respondents of 205 indicated that they do possess chemicals listed under the chemical weapons convention. The most common chemical identified here is triethanolamine.
8
3.2 Potentially Unstable chemicals Of the 205 surveys that were returned to EHSO, 50 respondents reported that they currently use or have in their possession chemicals that have the potential to become unstable. The majority of these chemicals were Ethers as shown on Chart 3.2a.
Chart 3.2a - Potentially unstable chemicals Number (out of 50 surveys) of labs indicating posession of potentially unstable chemicals 50 45 40 35Ethers 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Dioxanes
Any other potentially Picric Acid unstable Tetrahydrofuranchemicals
Of the respondents that reported the presence of potentially unstable chemicals in their labs most reported that they were aware of storage time limits and someone periodically verified the age and condition of these containers. See Chart 3.2b and 3.2c. Chart 3.2b: Awareness of storage time limits Percent of respondents (out of 50 surveys) aware of the storage time limits on potentially unstable chemicals
No 16%
Yes 84%
9
Chart 3.2c - Periodic check of condition and age of chemicals Percent of respondents (out of 50 surveys) indicating that someone from their laboratory does a periodic check of the age and condition of potentially unstable chemicals
No 22%
Yes 78%
A total of 44% of respondents reported that they destroyed or rendered safe their potentially unstable wastes. However, many respondents also indicated that they were doing this by simply sending the materials to EHSO for disposal. See Chart 3.2d.
Chart 3.2d - Destroying or rendering safe potentially unstable chemicals Percent of respondents (out of 50 surveys) that destroy or render safe their potentially unstable chemical wastes
No 56%
Yes 44%
10