Mercury – Source Identification, Collection, and Management at Duke University

Managing Mercury at Duke

• Current Practices• Mercury and mercury containing compounds from

laboratories and departments are collected by OESO EP as a waste.

• Mercury spills are handled by Duke’s internal spill team or if necessary an outside contractor.

Managing Mercury at Duke

• Spill Team - Members comprised of personnel from the Environmental Programs and Industrial Hygiene Divisions

• Provides 24 hours response to hazardous material spills– 8 day-time responders– 6 after-hours responders

• Spill team is activated through Duke 911

Managing Mercury at Duke

• Majority of mercury spill calls are broken thermometer calls.

• Spill clean-up equipment• Jerome 431-X Mercury Vapor Analyzer• Mercury Vacuum• PPE

• On average, we are spending approximately $300-$350 on each broken thermometer call.

Managing Mercury at Duke

• In late 2000, Duke University Medical Center joined the Hospitals for a Healthy Environment’s (h2e) voluntary program to virtually eliminate mercury in waste by the end of Year 2005.

Phase 1 - Mercury Exchange Program

• In 2001, Duke began a voluntary mercury thermometer exchange program:

1. Interested parties could exchange mercury containing laboratory thermometers for non-mercury replacements.

2. OESO EP assisted the Private Diagnostic Clinics in replacing their mercury containing sphygmomanometers with non-mercury aneroid sphygmomanometers.

Mercury Exchange Program

3. In 2003, a mercury survey was e-mailed to all departments at the University to identify any mercury and mercury containing devices that had not been removed or exchanged under the existing program.

Mercury Exchange Program - Results:

• To date, over 834 mercury containing thermometers have been replaced.

• Over 150 mercury containing sphygmomanometers have been replaced with aneroids.

• Mercury related spill calls have dropped from 50% at the onset of the program to less than 15% by 2004.

• By late 2004, the exchange program had reached asymptotic levels and new strategies were needed to reach the h2e goal.

Mercury Reduction in Waste

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Q4-02 Q1-03 Q2-03 Q3-03 Q4-03 Q1-04 Q2-04 Q3-04 Q4-04 Q1-05 Q2-05

Time in Quarters

Lb

s m

ercu

ry in

was

te

Baseline

Actual

% meddevices

Phase 2 – Source Identification &

Management

In 2005, Duke received a ESI Pollution Prevention grant to evaluate management strategies to further reduce mercury in the waste stream.

Goals:

1. Conduct on in-depth inventory of mercury containing devices and other mercury sources in the University, Medical Center, and Hospital departments.

2. Identify potential management strategies for each source.

3. Evaluate each strategy using a number of attributes and

4. Develop a plan for the future management of mercury at Duke.

1.Mercury Survey

• EP personnel • Developed a survey following California’s Guide to

Mercury Assessment and Elimination in Healthcare Facilities.

• Surveyed over 200 research and clinical laboratories, Duke Hospital, and the Duke Clinics.

• Developed database to track information generated from the surveys.

Location: Date:

Source Class Hg Item Number of Items Hg Item

Number of Items

1. Medical Devices Gastroenterology

Feeding Tube Esophageal Dialators

Cantor Tube Miller Abbott Tube Sphygmomanometer

Trimline Empire

Baum or Baxter Desktop Sphyg. Repair Kit

Bulk Hg, Lb (30ml*) Bulk Hg, ml

Bulk Hg, fl.oz. Ophthalmology

Intraocular Pressure Reducer

Comments: Willing to Use Alternatives? (1- strongly unwilling – 5 strongly willing)

2. Research Laboratories Barometers

Barometer - 20 inch Barometer - 30 inch

Thermometers 4 or 6 inch 18 inch

7 inch Calibrating or Reference

10 or 12 inch Min-Max/Refrigerator

15 inch Boiler Manometer Instrument Electron Microscope Sequential Multiple Analyzer AU 2000

Comments: Willing to Use Alternatives? (1- strongly unwilling – 5 strongly willing)

3. Clinical Laboratories Stains (gm/liter)

Gram Iodine Gomori’s

Carbol Fuchin Cajal’s

Mercury Chloride Alum Hematoxylin (Sol. A)

Carbol Gentian Violet Golgi’s Fixatives

B-5 Ohlamacher

Zenker’s solutions Carnoy-Lebrun

Helly Shardin

Comments: Willing to Use Alternatives? (1- strongly unwilling – 5 strongly willing) Other stains or fixatives? 4. Operations/Facilities

Switching Devices

X-ray tubes (PBL - 4 per tube) Boiler Barostats

Vacuum system Barostats Heating pad tilt switches Thermostats

Comments: Willing to Use Alternatives? (1- strongly unwilling – 5 strongly willing)

Mercury Survey ResultsType Quantity Grams

Microscope Bulbs 173 --

Manometers 13 --

Metallic Mercury -- 163,177

Thermometers 466 116,698

Ophthalmoscopes 14 --

Sphygmomanometer 5 --

Air Conditioning Switches 16 1600

X-Ray Tube 6 48

Stains/Fixatives -- 16,516.10

Barometer 5 --

Management Options

• Identified sources/devices will be evaluated for a number of alternative management options, including, but no limited to:

• Source Elimination• Source Substitution• Implementation of Best Practices• Administrative Controls • Mercury Recycling

Alternatives Evaluation

• Each alternative will then be evaluated on the basis of attributes that will include:

• Risk reduction• Cost/Cost benefits• Effectiveness – likelihood to reduce chances of

entering a waste stream• Availability• Performance

Outcome of Study

• A comprehensive mercury management plan with measurable performance goals to eliminate mercury in waste streams.