United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-93/015 March 1993
i&EPA Project Summary
Pollution Prevention
Opportunity Assessment for Two
Laboratories at Sandia National
Laboratories
Science Applications International Corporation
The reports summarized here con-
cern work conducted at the Geochem-
istry Laboratory (GL) and the Manufac-
turing and Fabrication Repair Labora-
tory (MFRL) at the Department of
Energy's (DOE's) Sandia National Labo-
ratories (SNL) facility in Albuquerque,
NM, as part of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Waste Re-
duction Evaluations at Federal Sites
(WREAFS) Program. This project was
funded by EPA and conducted in coop-
eration with DOE officials.
A pollution prevention opportunity
assessment (PPOA) done in July 1992
identified areas for waste reduction at
the GL. The assessment also examined
opportunities for site-wide pollution pre-
vention at SNL that were related to the
GL. Preliminary evaluation of the GL
revealed the greatest opportunity for
pollution prevention is associated with
research project design and implemen-
tation. The full report presents poten-
tial research project design and materi-
als management initiatives, as well as
recycling/reuse options to enhance cur-
rent pollution prevention progress. Con-
currently, a PPOA was performed that
identified areas for waste reduction at
the MFRL. The results of that study are
published in a separate document. Al-
though the MFRL has made substantial
progress to date, opportunities were
Identified for further action. Potential
personnel/procedural initiatives and re-
cycling/reuse options to achieve fur-
ther pollution prevention progress are
presented in the full report.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, OH, to
announce key findings of the research
project that are fully documented In
two separate reports (see Project Re-
port ordering Information at back).
Introduction
The WREAFS program was developed
to identify new technologies and tech-
niques for reducing wastes from industrial
processes at federal sites and to enhance
the implementation of pollution prevention
through technology transfer. New tech-
niques and technologies for reducing waste
generation are identified through PPOAs
and may be further evaluated through joint
research, development, and demonstra-
tion projects.
The United States Government, through
legislative and executive actions, has man-
dated waste minimization as a national
environmental policy. Federal statutes,
such as the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Amendments of 1984 and
the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, have
emphasized the need for generators to
reduce the volume and toxicity of their
waste. These laws affect all waste gen-
erators, including federal facilities. To sup-
port pollution prevention activities at fed-
eral facilities, EPA has established the
WREAFS program. WREAFS, adminis-
tered by EPA-RREL, provides funding and
technical assistance for pollution preven-
tion efforts at a wide variety of federal
facilities.
SNL is a federally owned DOE facility
located in Albuquerque, NM. Under the
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
purview of the WREAFS program, SNL
and EPA conducted PPOAs for two labo-
ratories within the SNL complex. The
PPOAs followed the general format of the
Facility Pollution Prevention Guide (EPA/
600/R-92/088). Portions of the PPOAs also
used the Guides to Pollution Prevention
and The Fabricated Metal Products Indus-
try (EPA/625/7-90/006); additional guid-
ance was obtained from the Guides to
Pollution Prevention, Research and Edu-
cational Institutions (EPA/625/7-90/010).
SNL is owned by the U.S. Government
and is operated by Sandia Corporation, a
subsidiary of AT&T, under a prime operat-
ing contract with the DOE. Sandia, Albu-
querque is located south of Albuquerque,
NM, within the boundaries of Kirtland Air
Force Base (KAFB), in Bernalillo County.
Sandia, Albuquerque consists of five tech-
nical areas and several remote test areas.
Sandia's primary mission is national secu-
rity, with principle emphasis on nuclear
weapons development and engineering.
In the process of carrying out this mission,
Sandia has evolved into a multiprogram
laboratory pursuing broad aspects of na-
tional security issues. As by-products of
production, research and development,
and environmental restoration activities,
Sandia generates a variety of waste ma-
terials that are carefully controlled during
operations and regulated by the federal
government and state and local agencies.
SNL has developed a written waste mini-
mization plan in compliance with DOE Or-
der 5400.1. As part of this plan, the Waste
Minimization Network (MinNet) has been
created to carry out the Waste Minimiza-
tion and Pollution Prevention Awareness
Program. MinNet representatives assist the
line organizations in planning, organizing,
and directing those activities related to
pollution prevention (e.g., conducting Pro-
cess Waste Assessments as described in
the Pollution Prevention Awareness Plan).
Procedure
Geochemistry Laboratory
The GL, located in Building 823, was
chosen for one of the two WREAFS
PPOAs. The lab performs analysis of earth
materials (primarily physical and composi-
tion analysis) and simulates earth condi-
tions (e.g. subjecting rock samples to ex-
treme temperatures and pressures). The
types of research performed by the GL
fall into three major categories differing in
researcher control over project design. For
the purposes of this PPOA, these project
types are considered the three types of
processes performed by the lab.
Type 1 projects are those where the GL
prepares an unsolicited proposal and sub-
mits it to one of several DOE sponsors for
approval and funding. The DOE sponsors
include Basic Energy Sciences, Energy
Services, and DOE groups funding mili-
tary/intelligence projects. The proposals
are developed from the researcher's inter-
ests in areas of geochemistry that could
further DOE's research objectives. The
general approach for these projects is
preparation and submission of proposal,
acceptance by a sponsor, implementation
of the project, and shutdown/closeout.
Type 1 projects are the largest in scope
and budget, typically generating funding
for 1 or 2 people for several years
($100,000 to $300,000/yr). Although fund-
ing is renewable, the funding is approved
on a 1-yr basis. Typically less than 10%
of these projects are terminated before
the anticipated project end; this would only
happen if there were major changes in
DOE policy/funding. This type of project
accounts for approximately 40% of the
lab's workload.
Type 2 projects are those where a pro-
posal is being implemented by another
group and the GL is asked to assist be-
cause of their capabilities and expertise.
These projects are the most likely to be
prematurely terminated and, consequently,
are the largest producers of waste. Bench
top wet chemistry research in this type of
project also contributes to GL waste pro-
duction. Type 2 projects are usually of
medium duration and funding. This type
of project typically does not have a formal
statement of work (SOW) or similar in-
structions. An example of this type of
project is the examination of brine inclu-
sions in salt formations at DOE's Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site. Funding
for this project was withdrawn before
completion, leaving the GL with 50 Ib of
rock salt that reportedly must be disposed
of as chemical waste. The project did not
generate any unique chemicals that could
not be used in ongoing or future projects.
These projects account for approximately
50% of the GL workload.
Type 3 projects are those where the GL
is requested by other SNL researchers to
do a specific task. An example of this type
of project is where the GL is asked to
determine the types of chromium com-
pounds in a soil sample. For these projects
neither a formal SOW, nor a work request
is generated. These projects are commonly
done as "freebies" that, if successful, can
turn into type 2 projects. They are of short
duration, usually requiring one to three
days of laboratory work. These projects
account for approximately 10% of the GL
workload.
The GL has established at least two
"libraries" where materials accumulate. The
sample library is where rock and soil
samples are archived. Samples are usu-
ally archived to allow retesting, should the
validity of previous results be questioned.
Other samples are archived because of
their uniqueness of origin or composition.
Samples continue to accumulate until there
is no more space. They are then disposed
of, usually as chemical waste. Unique
samples are either retained indefinitely or
archived at sites where they were col-
lected. The chemical library, the second
collection, consists of chemicals that were
not consumed during projects.
The GL uses a variety of analytical in-
struments in performing research: an
atomic emission spectrophotometer; scan-
ning electron microscope (SEM); x-ray dif-
fraction analyzer; a scintillation counter;
and an ion chromatograph. Various wet
chemistry techniques are also used.
Sample preparation employs grinding, siev-
ing, and polishing equipment. Addition-
ally, a drill press, lathe and grinder, com-
prise a small machine shop in the lab.
The largest waste stream, by volume,
generated by the GL is Polaroid1 film backs
from SEM photography. The estimated
annual production of this waste is 14 kg.
The largest waste stream, by weight, is
discarded, unused samples (e.g. cement
cores, rocks, soils). As discussed above,
this waste stream is generated on an in-
frequent basis; consequently, annual gen-
eration data is not available. The remain-
ing wastes are mostly spent solutions and
solids from various analytical techniques
employed in the GL. The estimated an-
nual production of these wastes is 77 kg.
Because of the varied nature of research
performed in the GL, waste generation is
not consistent between projects and/or
years. The use of prior waste generation
data, therefore, is not an optimal indicator
of future waste generation or a sufficient
•yardstick" for measuring the success of
pollution prevention projects.
Manufacturing and Fabrication
Repair Laboratory
The MFRL typically repairs printed cir-
cuit board assemblies, wiring, and box
assemblies (mother boards) for use in sat-
ellite systems. Repairs usually involve
changing and modifying design by adding
or replacing electrical components. Occa-
sionally, repairs involve replacing faulty
electrical components. Of approximately
1100 repair requests processed from Oc-
* Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
tober 1990 to September 1991, 80% in-
volved boards; the remainder was roughly
divided between boxes and cables. These
repairs usually involve soldering of new
resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc. MFRL
also repairs similar assemblies for ground
equipment.
A work repair request is submitted for
each electronic assembly needing repair.
MFRL staff log in the board and give it an
initial inspection. The part is given to the
technicians for repair. After the repair, the
board is again inspected to assure that all
work was adequately completed. Currently,
about 70% of the electronic boards are
destined for satellite applications, and the
remainder are used in miscellaneous
ground equipment. Satellite systems can-
not be repaired once deployed (except by
an expensive space shuttle mission); the
final product must be of superior quality.
Approximately 683 Ib/yr of waste are
generated from the MFRL. Bulk solvent
accounts for approximately 88% (603 Ib)
of the waste generated. Other waste
streams include solvent contaminated lab
trash, rinse water, conformal coating waste,
isopropanol, solder and lead scraps, pot-
ting compound waste, isopropanol con-
taminated lab trash, adhesive contami-
nated lab trash, and flux contaminated lab
trash. These other wastes are generated
at an annual combined rate of approxi-
mately 80 Ib/yr. Wastes and input materi-
als are primarily related to board repair,
but a portion of these result from repair of
box assemblies and cables. The total
waste generation on a per unit basis is
approximately 0.62 Ib (0.07 Ib excluding
bulk solvent). Waste generation can vary
significantly from one repair to another.
Results and Discussion
Geochemistry Laboratory
The nature of waste generation at SNL
presents certain obstacles to pollution pre-
vention initiatives. The number of labora-
tories at SNL and the nature of laboratory
work result in a large number of small
quantity waste streams being generated.
Conducting quantitative analysis of the fea-
sibility of pollution prevention opportuni-
ties may not be cost effective, given the
small amounts of waste generated by in-
dividual labs.
The need for generating reproducible
lab results and the strong reliance on stan-
dard methods hinder implementation of
pollution prevention initiatives that could
call into question a researcher's findings.
The complexity of federal and state haz-
ardous waste regulations also makes sci-
entists reluctant to carry out many pollu-
tion prevention activities. The feasibility of
pollution prevention opportunities dis-
cussed in this report, therefore, is largely
dependent on the attitude and confidence
of SNL's researchers. If, through educa-
tion and training, the importance of pollu-
tion prevention is elevated to the level of
other crucial scientific principles, signifi-
cant reductions in waste generation within
SNL's labs can be achieved.
Many of the pollution prevention oppor-
tunities discussed in this report are fea-
sible and readily implementable through
researcher and administration initiatives.
Tables 1 and 2 present qualitative ratings
of pollution prevention options for GL
projects and site-wide, respectively. Each
option was subjected to the same eight
criteria and rated. Options affording the
greatest benefit or least detrimental effect
for a criterion were assigned a "5" for that
criterion. Options affording the least ben-
efit, or most detrimental effect were as-
signed a "1". The ratings were summed
and a total score given for each option.
While the totals indicate that implementa-
tion of certain options would be more fea-
sible than others, the range of totals is
sufficiently narrow to require SNL discre-
tion in prioritizing the options.
Given DOE's stated commitment to pol-
lution prevention, proposals that include
waste minimization components should be
favored over similar research that does
not address waste generation. Submis-
sion of these types of proposals would
require researchers to invest additional
time in proposal preparation. The in-
creased chances of DOE funding the pro-
posal (because of its pollution prevention
aspects) and the potential savings in dis-
posal cost, however, justify the increased
effort. Building pollution prevention into
research proposals, consequently, is one
of the most feasible initiatives.
Site-wide pollution prevention opportu-
nities offer the greatest potential for waste
reduction. The site-wide options identified
in this report are technically feasible. Many
of the options are already being devel-
oped and implemented at SNL. With the
recommended modifications, implementa-
tion of these options will be even more
effective. Although increased costs would
be incurred, the increase would be offset
by savings in disposal costs. Although re-
searchers would have to modify procure-
ment habits and may have to spend in-
creased time in tracking materials, the pro-
gram may assist researchers in preparing
for future projects by being aware of intra-
and inter-laboratory resources.
Manufacturing and Fabrication
Repair Laboratory
The assessment team visited the two
rooms (repair room and vapor degreasing
room) and the storage room for the MFRL.
During the assessment phase of the
PPOA, several options were identified for
each waste stream. The pollution preven-
tion options evaluated in detail during the
feasibility analysis are summarized in Table
3.
Test/Reuse Rinse Water-
Testing of the rinse water would prob-
ably reveal that it is not an actual D008
waste. Once this waste stream is deter-
mined to be non-hazardous, it could be
used for other non-potable purposes.
The cost of testing is estimated to be
$50 assuming purchase of two test kits.
MFRL personnel would send samples to
a certified laboratory that employed an
appropriate analytical method such as SW-
846 Method 6010, 7420, or 7421. This
price may be reduced if analysis can be
performed onsrte by another organization
within SNL. The change in disposal and
transportation costs results in a net an-
nual savings of $139.50. The payback pe-
riod for this option is 0.36 years.
Eliminate Ziplock Bags—
Nonflammable contaminated laboratory
trash is placed in Ziplock bags so it can
be carried to a 30-gal container in the
storage room. Each Ziplock bag is la-
belled with a bar code for tracking pur-
poses. The 30-gal waste container is lined
with a plastic bag, which is removed when
full and transported to the waste disposal
area. At this point the bag is combined in
special containers with other wastes. The
Ziplock bags contain mostly air. By keep-
ing a lined 20-gal polyethylene container
in the vapor degreasing room, the use of
Ziplock bags could be eliminated. The dis-
posal people already pick up similar 20-
gal containers at SNL.
The cost of the 20-gal container was
priced at $31.20. The change in disposal
and transportation costs is estimated to
be $28.40. The raw material costs sav-
ings from not having to purchase Ziplock
bags for this purpose is estimated at $100.
With a net annual savings of $128.40, the
payback period for this option is 0.24 years.
These savings do not include reductions
in waste management costs produced by
no longer bar coding and tracking each
individual Ziplock bag. When considering
these savings, the payback period will be
much shorter.
-------
Table 1. Rating of Pollution Prevention Options for GL Projects'
Pollution Prevention Option
Pollution
Prevention Potential Increased
Media Hierarchy Economic Ease of Crossfeed Mission Material Staff
Impact Factor Recovery Implementing Potential Impact Control Required Total
Type 1 Projects
Design pollution prevention into 555 45
proposals for research activities
Build in funding for proper waste
management 435 4 1
Return unused, contaminated samples 534 31
to point of collection or SNL grounds
Type 2 Projects
Escrow a portion of available funds to 424 21
cover the cost of project closeout
Contact other labs within SNL before 555 33
ordering chemicals to determine their
local availability
Encourage chemical suppliers to accept 544 33
returned, unopened chemicals and issue
refund or credit
Exert tighter controls on sample sizes 553 33
sent to GL
Type 3 Projects
Determine sample quantities needed and 554 43
alternatives to sample analyses
Expand use of microanalytical techniques 454 33
Retain or return to requester unused 534 21
portions of samples
* Pollution prevention options rated with 5 signify most favorable effect and 1, least favorable effect.
39
32
30
26
35
32
32
35
31
30
Break Off Swabs—
By breaking off the contaminated ends
of swab sticks, the amount of hazardous
waste generated can be reduced. As long
as the uncontaminated end is long enough,
it could be reused by the technician. It is
estimated that the amount of laboratory
waste resulting from swab use could be
reduced by 80%. In addition, approximately
100 swabs/yr could be eliminated by re-
using the clean ends of broken swab
sticks.
No capital costs are associated with
this option. The estimated disposal and
transportation cost savings are estimated
at $20.55. The change in raw material
cost from purchasing less swabs is $1.73.
The net annual savings would be $22.28.
Since there are no capital costs, the sav-
ings would be realized immediately.
Eliminate Bench Cleaning—
Lab trash is generated when bench
cleaning is performed to deflux soldered
connections. After the boards are repaired
they are cleaned in the vapor degreaser,
regardless of whether they were bench
cleaned or not. Elimination of the bench
cleaning step would reduce the amount of
solvent- and flux-contaminated lab trash
generated. In addition the number of wipes
and swabs expended would be less.
There are no capital costs associated
with this option. The disposal and trans-
portation cost savings from this option are
estimated to be $63.11. Raw material cost
savings are $26.15. The expected net an-
nual savings is $89.26 with a payback
period of zero years.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Geochemistry Laboratory
SNL continues to expand its pollution
prevention efforts. Implementation of con-
cepts identified during this WREAFS
project would further enhance SNL's pol-
lution prevention program. To that end,
EPA recommends that DOE and SNL in-
vestigate the following topics:
• Research Proposals—Build pollution
prevention into research projects from
the start. Researchers should share
their ideas in this area, possibly
through the MinNet. An onsite
compendium of pollution prevention
ideas could be generated to assist
researchers in this area.
-------
Table 2. Rating of Pollution Prevention Options: Site-Wide Projects'
Site-Wide Options
Pollution
Prevention Potential Increased
Media Hierarchy Economic Ease of Crossfeed Mission Material Staff
Impact Factor Recovery Implementing Potential Impact Control Required Total
Chemical Material Management System
Provide a life cycling and control 433 34
mechanism for chemical materials
Central Purchasing
Educate procurement personnel to spot 554 35
material substitution opportunities
Central Distribution
Determine usage patterns of operations 544 34
that commonly use and dispose of
certain chemicals
Order specialty chemicals through the 5 4 4 3 4
site-wide stockroom
Identify other potential users 535 31
Checkout System
Require employees retiring or leaving 444 44
the lab to report the status of
chemicals and samples present in their labs
Chemical Exchange
Require supplying researcher to certify 534 31
contents of an opened container
have not been altered by the addition
of contaminants or improper storage
Explore ways to use expired chemicals 554 35
for other applications
Chargeback System
Use chargeback money for site-wide 554 45
pollution prevention options
* Pollution prevention options rated with 5 signify most favorable effect and 1, least favorable effect.
31
35
34
34
31
35
30
36
37
Central Purchasing/Central
Distribution—Implementation and
refinement of these systems could
reduce waste generation. When
combined with an expanded chemical
exchange system, disposal of expired
chemicals could be virtually
eliminated.
Escrowed Closeout Money—By
setting aside this money at the
beginning of a project, potential reuse,
proper characterization, and
appropriate management of chemicals
can be maximized.
Checkout System—As with the
escrowed closeout money, potential
reuse, proper characterization, and
appropriate management of chemicals
can be built into the procedures for
researchers leaving SNL employment.
• Chargeback System—Modifications to
the system that promote funding of
site-wide projects would make the
system more effective.
The recommendation with the largest
potential for pollution prevention gains is
to continue SNL's education and training
efforts. Through these efforts, pollution pre-
vention can become an integral part of
research design, implementation, and con-
clusion. As researchers modify their per-
ceptions toward waste generation, new
concepts and approaches that extend be-
yond individual labs will emerge and be
assimilated into site-wide pollution preven-
tion efforts.
Manufacturing and Fabrication
Repair Laboratory
Of the four options evaluated in detail,
eliminating Ziptock bags appears to be
the most promising. All of the optbns had
payback periods of less than 6 months.
The waste reduction achieved from any of
the optbns evaluated is small, but they
are easy to implement and savings could
be realized quickly.
These optbns are for extremely small
waste streams, and they are presented
here only as examples of the types of
activities that could be identified using
EPA's systematb approach to pollution
preventbn for the individual organizations
within SNL. The cost effectiveness of con-
-------
Table 3. Summary of MFRL Pollution Prevention Options
Pollution Prevention
Options
Test/Reuse rinse water
Eliminate Zfp/oc/c bags
Waste Streams
Affected
Rinse water
Solvent lab trash,
Nature of
Pollution
Prevention Option
Recycling/Reuse
Personnel/Procedure-
Capital
Investment
$
50.00
31.20
Net
Operating
Cost Savings
tyr
139.50
128.40
Payback
Period
(yr)
0.36
0.24
Rank
Low to
High
(1-4)
3
4
Break off swabs
Eliminate Bench Cleaning
adhesive lab trash,
conforms! coating waste,
potting compound waste,
solder and lead scraps
Solvent lab trash,
adhesive lab trash,
conformal coating waste,
potting compound waste,
and isopropanol lab trash
Solvent contaminated
lab trash
Related
Personnel/Procedure-
Related
Recycling/Reuse
Personnel/Procedure-
Related
22.28
89.26
ducting PPOAs for other SNL organiza-
tions should be examined. An ongoing
effort at SNL is to prioritize waste genera-
tors based on quantity and/or type of waste
generated. Implementation of options at
SNL should be done according to a
prioritization ranking; those with the great-
est potential for pollution prevention should
be done first.
The full reports were submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract 68-C8-0062, WA 3-51,
by Science Applications International Cor-
poration under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
•U.S. Qovcrnnrwnt Printing Office: 1093 — 750-071/60214
-------
-------
This project summary was prepared by the staff of Science Applications
International Corporation, Cincinnati, OH 45203.
James S. Bridges is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report consists of two volumes, entitled "Pollution Prevention
Opportunity Assessment for Two Laboratories at Sandia National Labora-
tories:"
Volume 1. "Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment: Geochemistry
Laboratory at Sandia National Laboratories," (Order No. PB93-146868;
Cost: $17.50, subject to change)
Volume 2. "Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment: Manufacturing and
Fabrication Repair Laboratory at Sandia National Laboratories," (Order No.
PB93-146900; Cost: $17.50, subject to change)
The above reports will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/SR-93/015
------- |