| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2014 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Nature article on Harran settlement Date: Monday, June 23, 2014 7:57:33 AM Author: "Wawzyniecki Jr, Stefan" <stefan.w**At_Symbol_Here**UCONN.EDU> |
Next by Date: Subject: [DCHAS-L] CHAS Tweets and Chemical Safety headlines (8 articles) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:33:07 -0400 Author: Secretary ACS DCHAS |
Thanks. Interesting. We've had some trouble with U and Th over the years but never Sr. It's usually when the new hazardous waste disposal contract is awarded and the new contractor is interested in making an impression for cautiousness, I suppose.
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:34 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Rainbow Demonstration - New and Improved!
Someone sent me this reminder off list:
Getting rid of strontium waste can be a real hassle. We had Sr, Th, and U in our multi-element ICP-MS standards, and we were required to list every element that was in the waste container, which was a 90 day waste container in our situation. The waste company rejected the load and we had to scramble to work within a closing 90 day window (90 day waste) to find another facility. The problem was the disposal company simply didn't care these were natural isotopes despite all the documentation we sent them; they were on a list of rad waste they were not permitted to treat for and we were stuck out of luck.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post