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

-------