Marc Lopez A10881171

Analysis of Biohazardous Waste Disposal in the Biotechnology

Research Setting Abstract The biotechnology industry is a major driver of the economy in the San Diego Region and is only continuing to grow. With over eighty independent and university related research institutes including San Diego State and the University of California San Diego, the greater San Diego area provides companies with the necessary workforce to support the continued growth of the biotechnology sector. Currently the industry is responsible for a 38.1 billion dollar impact on the San Diego region (SD Buisness Org). As the industry continues to grow the amount of waste produced, both hazardous and biohazardous, continues to become and increasing concern. Over the past thirty years concern about blood borne pathogen and diseases (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B) and public exposures due to increased regulation, has led to increased regulation and costs of disposal (Garcia). Waste output is important for both start-up and established companies for legal and financial reasons. Financially, companies pay to have their hazardous and biohazardous waste treated and disposed of so proper disposal of waste is important. If excess waste entering these biohazardous waste containers adds to the amount of weight companies will have to pay for disposal. This paper presents a study conducted by in accordance with Kasai Consulting, an environmental health and safety consulting firm based out of Carlsbad, California, to show how much non-biohazardous waste companies are potentially disposing of as biohazardous and to show the monetary value that could be saved by improving disposal methods. Introduction The majority of Kasai Consulting’s day to day operation are involved with environmental health and safety (EHS) aspects of companies. They are contracted on to perform tasks necessary to help companies comply with laws and regulations necessary for operation.

The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division is the local agency responsible for implementation and regulation of the Medical Waste Management Act. The county has created its own protocol for generation, handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of biohazardous medical waste to protect the public and the environment from potential infectious exposure to disease causing agents (Medical Waste Mang Act). While also meeting state and federal law companies are also required to meet county imposed laws and regulations.

In my project I was specifically looking at biohazardous waste output and disposal. Biohazardous waste is described as regulated medical waste or clinical waste, or biomedical waste that is suspected of containing a highly communicable disease. This includes laboratory waste such as human specimen cultures or animal specimen

Lopez 2

cultures that are infected with pathogens that are also infectious to humans, as well as infectious agents from research that include waste from the production of bacteria, viruses, spores, discarded live and attenuated vaccines used in human healthcare of research (medical waste management act). Proper treatment and disposal of biohazardous waste for the county of San Diego can be found in the Medical Waste Management Act. All of the companies in this study pay to have an off-site waste hauler to pick up and incinerate their waste. According to a study about sixty percent of waste is treated by means of incineration (Lee). The goal of this project was to analyze the biohazardous waste output for three local biotechnology companies. Specifically, this study is attempting to identify the amount of waste in biohazardous waste that could have been thrown out as regular trash designated for the landfill. By identifying how much excess waste was being thrown out over a two month period I would be able to show how much money could be saving in waste disposal by improving waste segregation. This study was also aimed to discover if there was a correlation between waste output and employee size. Methods The three companies in the study were chosen based off of employee size and location. The three companies are all located within a one-mile radius of each other which made daily collecting of data more convienent and plausible . Company size also played a part in company selection. It allowed for the study of three companies with varying different employee size, this allowed for a correlation between waste output and company size was to be identified. When collecting the weights only the weight of what was disposed of improperly (what could have been thrown away in a regular trash container) was collected. In order to collect the values for the weights a standard was created by using various items that were seen in biohazardous waste bins that were not deemed to be biohazardous. The waste estimate was based off a 1 pound, 2.5 pound, 5 pound, 7.5 pounds and 10 pound delineation. The weight estimate was based off weights that I took of various waste such as pipettes, gloves, boxes, and other glassware that was thrown into the bins. Due to safety concerns it was not plausible to take the waste out of the bins and weight it directly. The data was collected over two month period and the actual weights for the 2015 year were obtained from the waste treatment facility that is contracted to dispose of the waste. Estimated actual values were available on-site but actual weight values were provided through the waste hauler. Results The yearly biohazardous waste outputs were obtained each of the three companies

from the waste carrier that is used by each of the three companies chosen, the

company contracted on by Kasai consulting to dispose of the waste properly. Figure (1),

shows how the data was received from the waste hauling company. Each company’s

waste totals for the 2015 year were receive in this format.

Lopez 3

Figure(1) Shows format of the data received from the waste hauler. It is broken down by types of waste as well as monthly

totals. The yearly totals were used to create monthly averages for total biohazardous waste that was used to compare to

the monthly averages for excess waste collected.

When examining weights the sharp or pathogenic waste was not analyzed, only strictly

biohazardous waste red bag waste was being identified. I used the yearly total to create

monthly averages for each of the companies. The excess waste data was collected over

a two month period and a monthly average was created to compare to the actual

monthly average as well. The percentage of excess waste was calculated by dividing

the monthly average total of excess waste by the monthly average of actual waste from

2015 calendar year. The percentage of excess waste was multiplied by the total weight

collected for 2015 to predict an estimate for yearly excess waste produced. On average

companies pay anywhere between $1.25 and $2.00 per pound of waste. Calculating a

monetary amount for waste that could be averted is information that could be valuable

to companies. In order to get find the amount of money that could be saved I consulted

with my internship advisor for information on the average costs for waste disposal. The

per pound price estimation that I received from m internship advisor was multiplied by

the total amount of waste that could be saved over a year to give total amount of

currency that could be saved over the same time period.

Figure(2) Shows the processes that were used to obtain the values for my data. Monthly averages were used because the

excess waste data was collected over a two month period.

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗$1.50

𝑙𝑏= 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒

Lopez 4

Total Waste Output

Company A Company B Company C

Total Weight/Year (lbs) 1630.0 12,360.0 3776.6

Percent of Excess Weight (lbs) 17.4757282 14.4898843 39.4904459

Yearly Excess Weight (lbs) 284.8543689 1,790.9497 1,491.396178

Potential Savings in Dollars 427.2815534 2,686.42455 2,237.094268

Number of Employees 27 65 33 Figure (3) shows the total weights, percent of excess weight, yearly excess weight, and potential savings. This data was

used to show the out puts for each of the three companies in comparison with each other.

The data showed that on average about twenty three percent of the biohazardous waste

was not considered by hazardous. Companies A & B both had relatively the same

amount of excess waste. While company C had twice the amount of excess waste as

both of the companies. Figures (4-6) show a visual of each of the three company’s

excess waste vs total waste. After checking the waste it was discovered that a majority

of the excess waste was glassware, specifically large pipettes and flasks found in the

tissue culture areas of the lavatories. The large 150mL and 250mL and flasks pipettes

that were found in the waste were not used to transfer biohazardous materials, rather

they were used to transfer stock solution and buffers used to create the plates. In these

rooms the micropipette tips were used to transfer anything that was considered

biohazardous. Company C most likely had the greatest percentage of excess waste

because a majority of their lab production comes from the tissue culture labs, there was

not much biohazardous waste produced outside of these areas and if there was the

waste was properly disposed of.

Lopez 5

Figure(4) shows the excess waste (blue) and actual waste percentages for Company A

Figure(5) shows the excess waste(blue) and actual waste percentages for Company B

17%

83%

Company A

Excess Waste

14%

86%

Company B

Excess Waste

Lopez 6

Figure(6) shows the excess waste(blue) and actual waste percentages for Company C

I was also interested in seeing if there was a correlation between employee size

and the amount of waste. Using the data provided to me by Kasai Consulting I was able

to see that there was a correlation between total waste output and employee size. I

compared this with the data that I collected for excess waste to see the correlation.

There was no direct correlation. Figure(7) shows that Company C excess waste was

almost as much as that produces nearly 10,000 lbs of total more than them a year. This

shows that the amount of excess waste is correlated to the type of production occurring

in at a specific biotechnology company.

39%

61%

Company C

Excess Waste

Lopez 7

Figure(7) A graph that shows the correlation between employee size and total biohazardous waste output. There is a

correlation between total waste output and employee size.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Wei

ght

(lb

s)

Employee Size

Total Biohazardous Waste

Linear (Total BiohazardousWaste )

Total Biohazardous Waste by Employee Size

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 20 40 60 80

Exce

ss W

eigh

t To

tal

Employee Size

Excess Waste

Linear (Excess Waste )

Total Excess Biohazardous Waste by Employee Size

Lopez 8

Figure(8) A graph that shows the correlation between employee size and the amount of excess biohazardous waste

produced. It was determined that there is no correlation between the amount of excess waste and employee size. This

could be because of the type or amount of operations of each company.

Discussion

There are many ways to improve the proper disposal of waste to ensure not only

more economic costs but for safety purposes. On average companies pay $1.25 to

$2.00 per pound of biohazardous medical waste as opposed to paying for normal landfill

disposal which is substantially less. When dealing with tens of thousands of pounds this

can have a significant impact when dealing with private research companies as was

done in this study. One reason it can be hard for companies to change is for privacy

reasons. Figure (9) shows the amount of money that could be saved versus the total

amount of money paid for waste disposal. Companies would prefer to pay the extra

rather dispose of something improperly and be held accountable for it (Lausten). This

could also result in fines, penalties, or even lawsuits. The second reason is for privacy

concerns. Companies want all of their waste to be incinerated so it cannot be traced

back to them this ensures that their research is kept to only them. The third reason is for

conveyance. It is much easier for scientist to dispose of everything as biohazardous

waste rather than be concerned with what is and what is not.

Figure(9) shows the amount of savings vs total amount of waste paid for by each company. The amount of

money saved is the percentage of excess waste produced.

Changing a company’s medical waste management plan would require the

updating of the companies medical waste management plan. This would require the

submittal a new medical waste management plan as well as updating the employee

training policies which can also be costly as well as an inconvenience to the companies

Kasai Consulting ensures that companies are in compliance with federal and state laws.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Company A Company B Company C

$427.28$2686.43 $2237.09

$4075

$18,450

$5664.9

Po

ten

tial

Sav

ings

(d

olla

rs)

Axis Title

Potential Savings vs Actual Money Spent

Savings Actual

Lopez 9

They use their insight and knowledge to help companies deal with their waste in the

safest and most cost effective manner. Although more efficient practices could be

established it may not be as cost effective and as plausible for the company to do so.

There are several ways to improve a company’s waste disposal efficiency. Kasai

currently has in place a training programs in place to educate employees on proper

waste disposal along with the required signage for safety. Currently trainings occur

upon hiring and employees are updated annually, as required by the state law.

Additionally more signage could be developed over areas to ensure that employees are

reminded of the proper practices. There are however research methods that have

shown to lower waste costs.

Research studies have shown that projects involving reduction of biohazardous waste

streams have been able to lower excess waste by up to 85 percent (Garcia). A study

was completed because the cost of hauling waste was deemed to be a severe final

strain on particular institutions. From the study, nine step process was implemented

which I believe can be implemented into the biohazardous waste setting to help save

lower the costs that companies are allocation for waste disposal.

Step1: The first step that should be implemented is to conduct as comprehensive

assessment of all areas. This was related to what was done in this project. An

assessment was taken of all the biohazardous waste disposed of for a two month period

and the 2015 calendar year. (Garcia)

Step 2: Getting the administration to acknowledge the problem as a significant problem

was the main argument in step 2. From here the company would empower an

experienced person to help implement a plan. By showing the money that could be

saved would be the necessary step to persuade administration to take action in

reducing output.

Step 3: Reviewing applicable regulations to draft a new site-specific policy. This would

include taking into account the federal and state laws regarding biohazardous waste

disposal. This could also include revising the medical waste management plan that has

already been put in place. The EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

contain applications that are applicable when revising medical waste management

plans (Garcia).

Step 4: Involved choosing the correct waste hauler. “The types of service should

complement the resources and needs of the institution” (Garcia). The current waste

hauler on-site for Kasai meets all of the necessary needs for the companies selected.

The company also uses green practice by recycling all of the waste during incineration

by capturing heat and turning it into electricity.

Step 5: This step highlights efficient waste container layout as a means of lowering

waste. This would be extremely viable to the companies overseen by Kasai. Container

layout has been seen as an issue by the Kasai employees. Currently only biohazardous

Lopez 10

waste bins are in the bench areas. The plan states that “efficient waste container layout”

as a means of lowering biohazardous waste (Garcia). The lack of lab space does not

allow for multiple waste bins ( recycling, actual waste, etc.). More segregated waste

would allow for better segregating of the waste, which would result in a lower amount of

hazardous waste disposed of. More recycling bins would also be a more

environmentally stable work process and help the amount of waste entering landfills.

Step 6: Addresses an improved education strategy for employees. Currently the state

only requires for employees to be trained once upon employment and annually after

concerning biohazardous waste. Multiple trainings would be a viable option. A valuable

education strategy would be site-specific. The analysis of each company in step one

would help to identify the necessary areas for improvement.

Step 7: Is the monitoring processes. This includes “implementing physical change”,

implementing a new waste management policy, and providing education does not

guarantee a successful outcome. Monitoring the daily activities allows for “fine tuning” of

the system and results in further cost reductions (Garcia).

Step 8: Is an analyzation of the outcomes of the study. The same steps that were

completed in the analysis of the excess biohazardous waste would be concluded to

determine and “gauge the success of the program” (Garcia).

Step 9: Reporting results would be conducted on a quarterly basis to identify areas of

improvement and to identify necessary revisions that need to take place. The results of

the reduction of waste costs should be provided to the information.

Figure(10) shows the effectiveness of a potential site specific plan aimed at lowering the amount of wastes that was

performed over a four year period. A plan of this type could be implemented to help lower the amount of excess waste

(Garcia)

Lopez 11

This nine step process would be a viable option for lowering waste costs and ensuring

proper waste disposal. This method would be sufficient because nothing is truly being

changed that would affect employee efficiency rather than the extra training periods.

Looking to improve the waste outputs for each of the biotechnology companies would

help to lower costs for each company.

Conclusion

The biohazardous waste output is on the rise and is continuing to only grow

larger for the San Diego area as the industry expands. This study discovered that

companies can save anywhere from 15-40 percent on their biohazardous waste costs.

This could be done by implementing programs that will help the scientists in the lab

areas be more educated on the waste disposal process and by improving work areas to

promote waste segregation. The 9-step process described above could be a viable

mechanism to help biotechnology companies lower their waste costs because it is not a

method that would decrease the amount of production or research that could be

completed. The additional training needed could be added on to the already mandated

state training requirements and would not hinder the research or production much more.

The biggest improvement that can be made in the lab areas after analysis is increased

waste segregation. By placing a variety of waste bins (recycling and regular trash bins)

in the waste areas could potentially save companies thousands of dollars.

Lopez 12

Works Cited

D Business Org. "Life Sciences." San Diego Regional EDC. N.p., 1 Jan. 2016. Web. 2 May

2016. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sandiegobusiness.org%2Findustry%2Flifescience>.

Garcia, Robert. "Effective Cost-reduction Strategies in the Management of Regulated

Medical Waste." American Journal for Infection 27.2 (2009): 165-

75.Http://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(99)70093-3/abstract. American Journal for Infection

Control. Web. 2 May 2016.

Lausten, Gary. "Reduce-Recycle-Use: Guidelines for Promoting Perioperative Waste

Management." Http://www.aornjournal.org/article/S0001-2092(07)60146-X/abstract. Aorn Journal, 1

Apr. 2007. Web. 2 May 2016.

Lee, Byeong-Kyu. "Alternatives for Treatment and Disposal Cost Reduction of Regulated

Medical Wastes." Alternatives for Treatment and Disposal Cost Reduction of Regulated Medical

Wastes. Waste Management, 23 Oct. 2003. Web. 2 May 2016.

"Medical/Biomedical/ Infectious Waste Management." Basic Hazardous Waste Management,

Third Edition (2016): n. pag. Medical Waste Management Act. California Health and Safety, 1 Jan.

2016. Web. May-June 2016.

<https://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/medicalwaste/Documents/MedicalWaste/2013/MWMAfinalJan2016.

pdf>