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: 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.

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: 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.

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 TypeQuantityGrams Microscope Bulbs173-- Manometers13-- Metallic Mercury--163,177 Thermometers466116,698 Ophthalmoscopes14-- Sphygmomanometer5-- Air Conditioning Switches161600 X-Ray Tube648 Stains/Fixatives--16,516.10 Barometer5--

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.