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

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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Phase 1 - Mercury Exchange Program • In 2001, Duke began a voluntary mercury thermometer exchange program: • Interested parties could exchange mercury containing laboratory thermometers for non-mercury replacements. • OESO EP assisted the Private Diagnostic Clinics in replacing their mercury containing sphygmomanometers with non-mercury aneroid sphygmomanometers.

7. 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.

8. 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.

10. 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.

11. Goals: • Conduct on in-depth inventory of mercury containing devices and other mercury sources in the University, Medical Center, and Hospital departments. • Identify potential management strategies for each source. • Evaluate each strategy using a number of attributes and • Develop a plan for the future management of mercury at Duke.

12. 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.

14. Mercury Survey Results

15. 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

16. 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

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