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 ------- |