Summary of Focus Group Discussions with Screen Printers
and Lithographers for the Design for the Environment
Printing Project
Prepared/or:
Julie Lynch
Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by:
Abt Associates
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
For More Information:
For more information on the Design for the Environment Printing Projects in screen printing,
lithography, and flexography, visit the DfE Web Site at http://es.inel.gov/dfe or contact:
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW (7409)
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-1023
fax: 202-260-4659
email: ppic@epamail.epa.gov
PPIC Web Site:http://es.inel.gov/p2pubs/ppic/ppic.html
-------
-------
1. Introduction
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Project is a unique, cooperative effort
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the printing industry aimed specifically
at developing pollution prevention information for printers. The project was initiated when
printing industry associations came to EPA and requested assistance in evaluating products that
claim to be environmentally friendly. EPA and several trade associations responded by
establishing the DfE Printing Project. As one of the first steps in this project, industry
representatives were asked to prioritize areas of environmental concern in printing. Blanket
washes in lithography and screen reclamation products in screen printing were identified by
printers as the two areas of greatest concern and have been the primary focus of the project to
date. The DfE printing project is now gathering information on the performance, cost and the
health and environmental risks of alternative blanket wash and screen reclamation products.
Information on the performance of alternative products will be collected through product
performance demonstrations conducted at volunteer printing facilities. The health and
environmental risks associated with these alternative products will be estimated by the EPA DfE
staff. In gathering this data, the DfE project hopes that this information will assist printers by:
providing printers with information on a variety of alternatives to the products they
currently use,
encouraging printing suppliers to compete on the basis of the environmental and
health characteristics of their products, and by
giving printers guidelines so that when they consider new products, they will know
what type of information concerning environmental effects their suppliers should
be providing.
The information collected in the DfE printing project represents a significant effort by both
the printing industry and the EPA. The EPA will prepare a full report, known as the Cleaner
Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA), documenting this research. Prior to the completion
of this project, however, the Agency wants to make sure that this information reaches as many
printers as possible and that it is summarized in a format that is most useful to printers. To
determine the needs and preferences of printers regarding the format and content of information
products developed by the project, Abt Associates was contracted by EPA to conduct a series of
focus groups nationwide with lithographers and screen printers.
These focus groups were designed to answer to following questions:
What type of information do printers need in order to evaluate environmentally
friendly alternative products?
In what format would printers like to see this information presented?
What is the best way to distribute this information to as many printers as
possible?
-------
Abt Associates conducted eight focus groups; four with screen printers and four with
lithographers. These focus groups were held in the northeast, midwest, northwest, and southwest
sections of the country. A total of 88 people attended the eight meetings including 48 printers,
14 printing supplies manufacturers or distributors, 6 printing industry consultants, 13 state and
local government agency representatives and 7 trade association representatives.
This report first presents the methodology used to conduct the focus groups, provides an
overview of findings, and then summarizes the findings of screen printing focus groups and
lithography focus groups separately. Individual summaries of each focus group, the facilitator's
guides and the "mockups" presented at the focus groups are attached as appendices to this report.
2. Methodology
To determine the most appropriate content and format for the final information products
generated by the DfE printing project, focus groups were held separately with screen printers and
lithographers. These focus groups were conducted in five cities to capture the .variety of printers'
perspectives nationwide. Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles were identified by
the Screen Printers Association International (SPAT) and the Printing Industries of America (PIA)
as 1) having active local screen printing or lithography trade groups and 2) being cities where
similar focus groups have not already been conducted. It was felt that printers hi these locations
would be likely to use the information coming out of the DfE printing project and could provide
important input into the development of the content and format of the final information products.
Each focus group is described in the table below:
Location
Boston
Cambridge, MA
Natick, MA
Chicago
Seattle
Portland
Los Angeles
Date
November 16, 1993
October 21, 1993
December 6, 1993
December 7, 1993
January 19, 1994
January 20, 1994
April 21, 1994
April 21, 1994
Industry Group
Screen Printers
Lithographers
Screen Printers
Lithographers
Screen Printers
Lithographers
Screen Printers
Lithographers
Number of
Participants
6
10
11
10
23
12
8
8
-------
Because the DfE printing project affects several groups involved in the printing industry,
attendance at the focus groups was not limited to printers. Manufacturers and suppliers of blanket
washes and screen reclamation products, printing equipment manufacturers, trade association
representatives, printing industry consultants, and state and local government representatives were
also present. Two-thirds of the participants, however, were printers or represented printers
interests (consultants, trade association representatives). To encourage printers to speak freely
about the DfE project, EPA did not attend any of the focus groups.
To recruit participants, several approaches were employed. For screen printers, Abt
Associates contacted both SPAI members and non-members in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles
following a written invitation from SPAI. In Seattle, the Seattle Metro Hazardous Waste
Management Program (contacted by EPA's DfE outreach staff) requested the attendance of screen
printers from their on-site consultations with screen printers and their Screen Print Advisory
Team.1 For lithographers, the Printing Industries of New England (an affiliate of Printing
Industries of America (PIA)) coordinated a focus group with their regular environmental
committee meeting in Boston. In Chicago, lithographers were contacted from the general DfE
mailing list. In Portland, the Pacific Printing and Imaging Association (also contacted by EPA's
DfE outreach staff) invited members (lithographers) interested in environmental issues. The local
PIA affiliate, PIA - Southern California, invited members to the Los Angeles lithography focus
group. As shown in the table, actual participation ranged from 6 participants to 23 participants.
High participation in the latter case was due to the attendance of 10 state and local government
representatives.
It should be noted that since most focus group participants are either involved in
environmental committees or are active trade association members, their responses may not be
representative of the experiences or opinions of screen printers or lithographers as a whole. In
fact, many participants pointed out that small printers and quick print shops were not well
represented at the focus groups and may view the DfE information products somewhat differently.
Participants, however, were asked for their recommendations on what information and format
would be most appropriate for small facilities.
In the focus groups, participants were asked a series of questions about the usefulness of
information rekted to alternative blanket washes or screen reclamation products. An initial matrix
was passed out to participants that presented the type of information that will be gathered by the
DfE project and disseminated to printers. After reviewing and commenting on the type of
information included in the initial matrix, participants were given four additional format mockups
to review. The initial matrix was presented as an option as well. Mockup formats ranged from
descriptive text to detailed technical information. See Appendix C for examples of the mockups.
Seattle Metro is charged with assisting small quantity generators as part of the State's Hazardous Waste
Reduction Plan. Through the Plan, Seattle Metro has conducted on-site visits and has formed the Screen Print
Advisory Team. This team is made up of screen printers and vendors.
-------
These mockups presented risk, performance, and cost information in a variety of formats and
varying levels of detail. Participants were asked to comment specifically on each mockup as well
as on other informational needs they have that might be addressed by the DfE project.
Discussions centered around the following topics:
Content Mockups included descriptive or numeric information about the
chemical constituents, chemical characteristics, performance, cost, risk, and
disposal of the alternative product. In addition, the test conditions present during
performance demonstrations were also included to facilitate the interpretation of the
information presented in the mockups. Participants were asked whether the type
of information presented was adequate for them to make comparisons between
alternative products. Suggestions were requested for possible additions or deletions
to the mockups.
Format Mockups were presented in a variety of formats including: a matrix,
a table, and a fact sheet. Two versions of the matrix were displayed; mockup #1
included detailed, technical descriptions of product characteristics (e.g., cancer risk
of 10 ~4) while mockup #2 used more descriptive language to describe the product
attributes (e.g., carcinogen, skin irritant). The table format of mockup #3 is very
similar to mockup #2, except that headings appear on opposite axes and cells of
information are not outlined. Three versions of a fact sheet were offered. The
first two stand alone while the third functions as an attachment to the matrices or
table. In mockup #4, all products are listed on one fact sheet. Descriptions of the
attributes of alternative products are grouped by category (i.e. performance, risk).
In mockup #5, a separate fact sheet is provided for each product. Each fact sheet
covers all categories for an individual product. As an attachment, the fact sheet
serves as a reference for each category in the matrix or table by providing details
on how to interpret the information contained therein. Participants were asked to
select the format they felt would be most appropriate for receiving this
information. Suggestions were also solicited on alternative formats.
Vehicle- There are several options for delivering the DfE information to printers.
To determine the most appropriate vehicle, participants were asked where they
currently get such information. More importantly, they were asked which source
they considered to be most credible to themselves and to smaller printers.
Suggestions were requested for additional methods of delivering this information.
3. Overview of Findings
Overall, screen printers and lithographers were enthusiastic about DfE and felt it was an
important first step in encouraging pollution prevention practices in the industry. To make the
information more user-friendly, however, there was general agreement in all focus groups that,
whatever the final format, the information should be presented simply and in the most descriptive
-------
terms possible. A simple format was thought to be the most useful to the widest audience. In
addition, most printers asked for more information than is currently included in the mockups.
Most printers emphasized that variations among print shops and work practices could make the
results of the demonstrations hard to interpret, unless detailed information about the
demonstrations is made available.
Another common concern among focus group participants was that the trade names of the
products demonstrated will not be disclosed. Both screen printers and lithographers agreed that
this omission could make it much more difficult for them to use the information from the DfE
project in their shops. Specifically, printers felt that if product names are not disclosed, a supplier
could claim to be selling them the requested alternative product. Printers, however, would have
no way of verifying that they were actually receiving the product they had requested. Many
printers asked that a list of the names and phone numbers of participating manufacturers should
be added as an appendix to the final information product. This list would allow printers to contact
a limited number of manufacturers directly for more information on their product lines.
Focus group participants were also concerned that the demonstrations would not be
conducted in a controlled setting such as a laboratory. They felt that through laboratory tests,
products could be evaluated under consistent conditions instead of being subject to the highly
variable conditions that exist across printing facilities.
Finally, all focus group participants agreed that it will be necessary to distribute the DfE
information through several different sources in order to reach the greatest number of printers.
Sources suggested by printers included: trade publications, direct mailing and state technical
assistance personnel.
4. Screen Printers Focus Group Findings
As mentioned in Section 2, participants were asked a series of questions on the content,
format and vehicles for distributing information products generated by DfE. The most frequently
reported comments and concerns for each of these questions are summarized below.
4.1 Content
An initial mockup in matrix format was presented to participants that listed the categories
of information that could be included in the final product (see screen reclamation system mockup
#1 in Appendix C). Attendees had many suggestions for additional information they would like
to see incorporated into the matrix. They suggested expanding on the information currently
presented as well as adding new information to the matrix. In general, they want as much
information as is practical to present in a matrix format. Additionally, they want the information
-------
presented in descriptive language; not in technical terms. The participants' specific
recommendations are presented below.
4.1.1 Product System Names and Chemical Constituents
A common concern in all four focus groups was that it would be extremely useful if the
trade names were given for the products demonstrated. Without product names, printers felt it
would be difficult to be sure they were purchasing products with the same characteristics as the
products presented in the matrix. In addition, printers would have to invest their time in
researching products and contacting suppliers to identify a supplier for the product they wanted
to try. It was mentioned that smaller shops probably would not make this effort. Printers voiced
a general distrust of their suppliers, and felt a supplier could claim to be selling them the requested
alternative product, however, printers had no way of verifying they were actually getting the
product they had requested.
There was also concern regarding the reporting of chemical constituents in ranges, instead
of specific percentages. Participants felt this exacerbated the difficulty in obtaining the requested
products from suppliers.
4.1.2 Performance
Under the Performance category, participants suggested some changes to the existing
subcategories. Three of the focus groups recommended that "Quantity" should be reported as
"Quantity per area of screen cleaned" instead of an absolute volume. One group suggested the
"Cleaning time" category should note if the haze remover required overnight drying time.
Another group indicated that if the product is recycled or reused, the number of times it is
recycled or reused prior to disposal or addition of fresh product should be listed.
Several printers suggested expanding the "Printing limitations" column to include
information on the incompatibilities and restrictions for product use. Several participants
suggested adding a category to include information on the effects of the ink remover on the stencil
and the effects of the haze remover on the screen mesh.
4.1.3 Cost
In the initial matrix, cost is presented as "$/gallon." Participants felt that this was the best
way to present cost information because they could easily calculate their own total cost by
combining the volume of product used and cleaning time with their wage rate. For ease of
comparison, cost should be presented as a standard quantity for all products. A quantity of "$/5-
gallon container" was suggested as the standard. Participants hi Los Angeles pointed out,
however, that due to regional differences hi prices, comparisons may not be very accurate.
-------
4.1.4 Risk/Hazard
Risk information was presented in both descriptive and technical terms. All focus groups
agreed that the descriptive language would be most understandable for the largest number of
readers. In general, printers' greatest concern was with the human health and safety risks of their
screen reclamation products.2 Some of their suggestions for additional information on risk include:
Divide information into short-term risks and long-term risks;
Report exposure route(s) of concern;
Document the Personal Protective Equipment requirements and recommendations
of the manufacturer; and
Report any other recommended precautions.
4.1.5 Disposal Issues
Waste disposal was one of the most complicated issues in the focus group discussions.
Participants recognized the difficulty in reporting specific disposal requirements due to variability
among state and local regulations and the site specific nature of what wastes are generated. This
difficulty was particularly evident in the Los Angeles focus group. Participants there expressed
that information on disposal requirements would only be useful to them if it was specific to
Southern California air quality requirements. Some of the suggestions they made include:
Clearly state that the disposal information in the matrix applies only to products
that have not been mixed with other products, chemicals or materials. Disposal
requirements may change significantly after the product is used and mixed with
waste ink or other printing materials.
Provide guidance on how to get disposal information. For example, describe what
lab tests are required prior to making a decision on disposal methods and the
approximate costs of these tests.
List federal reporting requirements associated with the products (e.g., EPCRA).
Do not just note to "...dispose of hi accordance with federal, state and local
regulations..." as is stated on MSDSs. A local government official pointed out the
importance of noting that printers should contact their state and local environmental
agencies for regulatory information, since small printers may not be aware of all
the regulations that may apply to them.
Add a description of the disposal requirements of the strictest state or local
regulations in the country. Printers felt that since all regions may eventually adopt
2 Due to strict air quality requirements in Southern California, printers in Los Angeles were somewhat more
concerned with whether or not use of an alternative product would allow them to meet air quality regulations than with
the risks associated with the product.
-------
these regulations, printers could use this information to plan ahead for future
compliance.
4.1.6 Test Conditions
Test conditions presented in the initial matrix included ink type, emulsion type and ink
color. Since the variability of conditions from one screen printer to another is so great,
participants stressed the need for more information on test conditions in order to adequately
interpret the performance and risk information presented hi the matrix. It was suggested that the
following test conditions be added:
Screen Mesh (threads per inch) and Tension -- Mesh count and tension level can
influence screen reclamation products' performance.
Application Method ~ Due to differences in shop equipment and procedures,
printers want specific information on the type of equipment (brush, rag, pressure
wash, etc.) used in the demonstrations.
Ink and Emulsion type - Screen reclamation products will perform differently
depending on the ink and emulsion used. Solvent based ink was felt to be too
broad a category. It would be more appropriate to use specific ink types such as
acrylic-based lacquer ink.
Temperature, Humidity, Ventilation - These conditions are important since
product performance will vary depending on ambient conditions.
Screen Drying Time - How long a screen has dried prior to reclamation can affect
the performance and cost of the reclamation products.
Screen History - Factors such as total number of impressions, number of screens
times screen had been reclaimed previously, and general screen condition will
influence performance of the reclamation products.
4.1.7 Suggestions for Additional Information to be Included in the Final Information
Product
Participants identified additional details that they felt should be included somewhere in the
final information product. Several of their suggestions could be included in the notes column of
the matrix. For example, it was recommended that effects of the products on the mesh, product
incompatibilities, and any printing limitations be listed. Other product characteristics such as
VOC content and pH were suggested as separate columns. Finally, many printers asked that a list
of the names and phone numbers of participating manufacturers should be added as an appendix
to the final information product. This list would allow printers to contact a limited number of
manufacturers (i.e., the participating manufacturers) directly for more information on their
product lines.
-------
4.2 Format
After reviewing and commenting on the type of information to be included in the final
information product, as presented in the initial matrix, participants were given four additional
format mockups to review. The initial matrix was presented as an option as well. Mockup
formats ranged from descriptive text to detailed technical information. Reaction to the level of
detail offered in the mockups was mixed. Members of the Boston focus group felt that the format
should be as scientific and quantitative as possible. They, therefore, chose mockup #1 (the initial
matrix - includes very detailed information in technical terms) as the superior choice. In contrast,
Chicago attendees preferred simplified explanations using descriptive text as in mockup #2
(descriptive, easy to read matrix). Descriptive text was thought to be more accessible to the
largest audience. In Seattle and Los Angeles, participants recommended a combination of the
descriptive text in mockup #2 and detailed information presented in mockup #1. In all cases,
participants felt that an explanatory fact sheet should accompany the mockup. This fact sheet
would help users interpret the information presented in each category by defining the terms used
in the matrix and describing how the information was obtained.
One participant proposed that mockup #1 be combined with mockup #5 (a collection of one
page fact sheets on each product). In this format, mockup #1 would serve as a table of contents
that would allow a printer to look through the matrix of information and select the products that
appeared most suitable for his/her operations. For more information, the printer could then turn
directly to the fact sheets on the products of interest. Other printers agreed that this option would
probably be the most useful format.
Two suggestions were made to simplify the final information product format. First, many
participants expressed an interest in seeing products ranked hi a "consumer reports" format where
each attribute is rated as poor, fair or good. This ranking would allow for easy comparison
between products. Second, some participants felt that screen printers do not typically use more
than one type of ink (i.e., solvent, aqueous, UV) in the same facility. As a result, they suggested
that the results be separated into different matrices: one for solvent-based inks, one for aqueous-
based inks and one for UV-based inks.
While the discussion centered on the mockups, several other formats were presented to
participants for their consideration. For example, the information generated by the DfE printing
project could be relayed through videotapes, posters, brochures, or on diskette. Videotapes were
a popular option since printers felt this would be an excellent way to present the information to
all shop employees at the same time. Some printers indicated, however, that they did not have
the tune to preview videotapes and would prefer to receive a hard copy of the information.
4.3 Vehicles
Focus group participants had numerous ideas for disseminating this information to printers,
including hard to reach printers such as small shops that are not involved in a trade association.
-------
Li addition, some attendees stressed the importance of receiving the final information product from
several sources at once. Dissemination through multiple sources would serve two purposes. First,
distribution through a variety of sources would increase the number of printers receiving the
information. Second, receiving the information through many channels would help to emphasize
its importance and improve its credibility.
To distribute the information to as many printers as possible, participants suggested the
following:
Trade Associations Make the information available at trade shows and seek the
endorsement of trade associations. With endorsement of several trade associations,
the information would reach a wider audience and would also increase it's
credibility.
Trade Journals It was suggested that articles announcing their release and
describing the DfE results should be published in trade journals such as Screen
Print Magazine. A tear-out card could be added to the journal that would allow
printers to mail in a request for a copy of the final information product.
Additionally, the final products could be mailed out with or included in the
journals. Some participants, however, noted that trade journal articles can appear
biased.
Suppliers - Since printers receive a great deal of information from suppliers
already, suppliers were thought to be a good vehicle for conveying this material.
Some printers, however, felt that suppliers would not be a credible source for
interpreting the DfE information since suppliers may not want to pass on
information that could be beneficial to their competitors. Others noted that since
suppliers are the only source of information for some printers, distribution of this
material through suppliers may be required.
Direct Mail - Participants felt that direct mailings of the final products could come
from a variety of organizations including: EPA, state and local government
agencies (offices of technical assistance), and trade associations. It would also be
useful to stamp mailings as "EPA Official" and to indicate that the information is
the result of joint research with EPA and "printers just like you."
4.4 Participants' Comments on the DfE Performance Demonstrations for Screen Printers
Throughout the focus groups, participants had many questions and comments regarding
the performance demonstration methodology. In general, most printers viewed the demonstrations
as a good starting point for implementing pollution prevention concepts in their industry. They
expressed concerns, however, in three areas. First, some printers felt the information collected
during performance demonstrations would not provide them with the type of information they
need to select between alternative products (i.e., specifications or guidance on product attributes).
They suggested DfE provide a list of questions for them to ask their suppliers regarding alternative
products. Alternatively, a participant recommended that DfE provide a list of the chemical
10
-------
constituents that printers might want to avoid and a list of those that are acceptable for use.
Second, some printers said they would prefer to see laboratory testing of alternative products
instead of demonstrations in printing facilities. They felt that through laboratory tests, products
could be evaluated under consistent conditions instead of being subjected to the highly variable
conditions that exist across printing facilities in the U.S. Under consistent test conditions, printers
thought it would be easier to compare products. Moreover, in the absence of "hard data"
collected under controlled conditions, it would be very easy for suppliers to discredit the results.
For example, they could attribute poor performance of their product or their lack of participation
to inconsistent test conditions. Third, some participants thought the information generated from
the demonstrations would become obsolete quickly. It is, therefore, important to make the final
information product available to printers as soon as possible. In addition, they noted that without
annual demonstrations, the utility of the information would be limited.
5. Lithographers Focus Groups
As in the screen printers' focus groups, lithographers were asked a series of questions on
the content, format and vehicles for distributing information products generated by DfE. The most
common comments and concerns raised by participants hi the course of the focus groups are
summarized below.
5.1 Content
An initial mockup in matrix format was presented to participants that illustrated a number
of categories of information that could be included in the final product (see blanket wash mockup
#1 in Appendix C). As hi the screen printer focus groups, lithographers had many suggestions
for additional information they would like to see included. Regarding additional information, they
suggested expanding on the information currently presented as well as adding new information to
the matrix. They would like to see as much information about the performance demonstration
conditions and associated risks/hazards as possible. The participants specific recommendations
are presented below.
5.1.1 Product names and chemical constituents
Most participants felt that it was important to include the trade names of the products
demonstrated. Similar to screen printers' concerns, lithographers felt that it would be difficult to
be sure they were purchasing products from their suppliers with the same characteristics as the
products listed in the matrix. Furthermore, some printers voiced a mistrust of their suppliers.
They felt a supplier could claim to be selling them the requested alternative product, however,
printers had no way of verifying they were actually getting the product or attributes they had
requested. One participant offered a suggestion to avoid such problems. He suggested that a
11
-------
"reader service card" be included with the final information product. This would allow printers
to circle a number corresponding to a blanket wash demonstrated and mail it back to EPA. EPA
would then forward the card to the appropriate manufacturer so the manufacturer could contact
the printer with more information on the product.
There was also a request that as much information as possible be provided on the chemical
content of the products. Without trade names, requesting particular chemical compositions is the
only way that printers can communicate to their suppliers the types of products they would like
to try. One focus group preferred to see the chemical constituents given as an upper limit instead
of as a range (e.g., "Product A contains < 10% Chemical 1" instead of "Product A contains 5 % -
15% Chemical 1"). Because suppliers may use different synonyms for the same chemical,
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers should be included. Information on the non-hazardous
but active components of the products would be helpful as well.
5.1.2 Performance
In the initial matrix, performance of the alternative blanket wash refers to, its: ability to cut
ink, the quantity of the product required to clean the blanket, the time required to clean the
blanket, and the ease with which the product dries. Focus group participants suggested revisions
to existing columns of information hi the matrix and proposed that supplementary columns be
added. Specifically, it was suggested that quantity of blanket wash required should be reported in
comparison to the quantity of the baseline product used hi order to reduce the subjectivity of the
measurement. To obtain a more accurate estimate of the total tune requirements associated with
the alternative product, the time required to clean the blanket should be expanded to include the
time and number of cleanings needed to get the press back up to color when changing from a dark
color to a light color. In addition, the "ease of drying" category should be changed to "speed of
drying." Information on the side effects of the blanket wash on the blanket (e.g., swelling and
glazing) is another component of the product's performance that printers requested be included
in the matrix.
Several printers suggested adding three more columns under the Performance category;
product odor, ease of use, and necessity of a drying step (e.g., additional rag wiping). Product
odor would indicate whether or not the alternative blanket wash had an unpleasant odor. Printers
reported that some press operators would refuse to use a product with a particularly unpleasant
odor. "Ease of use" would report information such as whether or not the blanket wash was
slippery or greasy, whether or not there was any drag on the blanket when using the alternative,
and the physical effort required to clean the blanket. The "drying step" column would indicate
whether or not a product had to be dried off the blanket with wipes.
12
-------
5.1.3 Cost
In the initial matrix, the cost of using an alternative blanket wash is presented as
"$/gallon." Participants felt that this was the most appropriate way to present product costs
because it would easily allow them to calculate their own total cost by combining the volume of
the product used and cleaning tune with their wage rate.
5.1.4 Risk/Hazard and Federal Regulations
Risk/hazard information was presented in the matrix in both technical and descriptive
terms. Most participants agreed that this information should be presented in the most descriptive
terms possible. It was also suggested that the risk/hazard and federal regulations columns might
be more useful if they were renamed "health and safety" and "environmental burden" respectively.
The health and safety column could include the permissible exposure limit (PEL), the hazardous
materials information system (HMIS) codes for the health risks of each chemical, and
recommendations for personal protective equipment. One printer pointed out that when selecting
products he reviews the risk/hazard information on products' MSDS first. He felt, and other
participants agreed, that it would be very important to include this information in the DfE final
product.
In the environmental burden column, information could be presented on both waste
disposal requirements and other regulatory issues such as reporting and permitting requirements.
Regarding waste disposal, participants would like to have information about their state and local
requirements. They suggested a cooperative effort between state and local agencies that would
provide regulatory information about the alternative blanket washes listed in the matrix to local
printers. At a minimum, a warning indicating that state and local requirements may be more
stringent than federal requirements should be included. Phone numbers of state and local
regulatory contacts should also be provided. The Los Angeles group felt very strongly that it was
more important to list the local regulations than the federal regulations, for their situation. These
printers feel that if they are in compliance with the strict emissions limits set by the Southern
California Air Quality Management District, they will also be meeting the federal requirements.
Regardless of the information given on local regulations, federal regulatory information
affecting the product should be listed. Information such as whether the chemical is a TRI chemical
or a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under the Clean Air Act was thought to be particularly useful
for printers in determining whether, when eliminating a problem in one medium, they will create
a problem in other media. Participants in Los Angeles thought it would be a good idea to include
information on the strictest regulations in the country for each medium on the final information
product.
13
-------
5.1.5 Chemical Characteristics
The chemical characteristics of alternative blanket washes such as VOC content, vapor
pressure, and flash point are presented in the initial matrix. Participants' comments on this
information were limited to requesting that the vapor pressure column be replaced by a column
on evaporation rate and that the matrix contain more specific information on VOC content (i.e.
reporting actual VOC content instead of giving a range). VOC content should also be reported
in "pounds/gallon" and "grams/liter" instead of as a percent of total volume.
5.1.6 Suggestions for Additional Information to be Included in the Final Information
Product
Participants proposed additional details that they felt should be included somewhere in the
final information product. Several participants commented that the conditions under which the
demonstrations were performed would affect the results. As such, they felt that to accurately
interpret the matrix they would need as much information as possible on demonstration conditions.
They, therefore, suggested that a separate column be added on test conditions. This column could
present information on: ink coverage, press manufacturer and model, age of press, length of run,
blanket condition, and dampening system. Finally, a list of the names and phone numbers of
participating manufacturers should be added as an appendix to the final information product. This
list would allow printers to contact a limited number of manufacturers (i.e., the participating
manufacturers) directly for more information on their product lines.
5.2 Format
After reviewing and commenting on the type of information to be included in the final
information product, as presented in the initial matrix, participants were given four additional
format mockups to review. The initial matrix was presented as an option as well. Mockup
formats ranged from descriptive text to detailed technical information. Similar to the screen
printers focus group, reaction to the level of detail offered hi the mockups was mixed. It was
pointed out that just as there are significant variations from one printing facility to another, the
target audience for the DfE results will also be disparate. As a result, many participants suggested
that there should be more than one final product. In Boston, Portland, and Los Angeles, the
preferred format was a version of mockup #1 (the initial matrix - includes very detailed
information in technical terms), with some variations. Boston attendees preferred mockup #1 for
their own use, but felt that it would be too detailed for printers at quick print shops and other
small operations, and suggested that mockup #3 (a descriptive, easy to read table) would be better
for less informed printers. Los Angeles participants wanted to include the one page fact sheets
on each product (as hi mockup #5) as supplemental information to mockup #1. In Chicago,
printers felt that mockup #2 (descriptive, easy to read matrix) would be the best format for the
press operators since they are typically most interested in health and safety hazards. They
14
-------
preferred a more detailed mockup such as mockup #1, however, for themselves (management or
supervisors, as opposed to operators). All of the focus groups agreed that, whatever the format,
an explanatory factsheet should always be included. This fact sheet would help all users interpret
the information presented in each category by defining the terms used in the matrix and explaining
how the information was obtained.
To make cross-product comparisons easier, participants in Boston and Chicago proposed
ordering the products by VOC content, listed in ascending order. In Portland, one printer
suggested that the DfB information would be more accessible if it were on disk in a spreadsheet
format. This format would allow management to reformat and tailor the information to their
facility's needs.
Whatever format is used for the final information product, participants thought it was
important to make it eye catching and of high quality. For example, they particularly liked the
DfE printing industry case study.
While the discussion concentrated on the formats presented in the mockups, several other
formats were presented to attendees for their consideration. As was suggested to screen printers,
the information coming out of the DfE project could be relayed via videotape, brochures, and
posters. The most popular alternative format was a poster. Participants liked the idea of putting
the final information product on a poster so that they could review all the products at once,
without turning pages. The poster would be enhanced by providing a supplemental booklet of fact
sheets (one for each alternative blanket wash). The booklet would allow users to locate detailed
information for any alternative blanket wash they were interested in.
Reaction to videotape was mixed. Some printers felt that a video would be a useful
addition to the printed material and would make it easier to educate many of their workers at the
same time. In contrast, others felt that they would never take the time in a business day to look
at the tape. In Portland, a fold-out brochure was proposed that would consist of a slightly
enlarged version of the final information product.
5.3 Vehicles
Focus group participants had numerous ideas for disseminating the DfE information to
printers, including hard to reach printers such as small shops that may not be involved in a trade
association. Among the most commonly heard recommendations was enlisting the support of
trade associations and suppliers. Specific ideas include:
Disseminate the information through trade association presentations, conferences,
and trade journals. Articles and announcements in trade journals would be useful
in notifying printers that the information was coming. The final information
product itself could also be published in trade publications.
15
-------
Provide the final information product to suppliers for distribution. Participants
explained that printers rely on their suppliers to inform them of new developments
in the industry.
Conduct a general mailing of the DfE final information product to printers. If
possible, the mailing should be addressed to the production manager, purchasing
agent, and/or the pressman. The mailing should also be labeled with an "EPA
official stamp." This label would tend to make the piece stand out from all the
other mail printers receive each day. This approach might be the only way to
reach small printers that do not belong to a trade association.
Contact franchise headquarters. Franchise headquarters could pass on the
information to their franchises in newsletters or separate mailings.
Have state and local environmental regulatory staff, especially technical assistance
program personnel, publicize the final product in their outreach efforts such as
bringing the final information product to print shops during their visits.
5.4 Participants' Comments on the DfE Performance Demonstrations for Lithographers
Each focus group voiced a unique set of questions and concerns about the performance
demonstration methodology. In general, however, printers reacted positively to the DfE printing
project and felt that it would serve as a good first step in encouraging printers to implement
pollution prevention concepts in their shops. In Boston, concern centered on the details of how
the demonstrations would be performed. For example, participants felt that it was important to
consider the characteristics of the rags used in performance demonstrations. Because the age and
type of rag can greatly affect the volume of blanket wash used, variations in rags used during the
demonstrations could skew the results. It was suggested, therefore, that new rags be used
consistently during the demonstrations, otherwise the volume of blanket wash used might vary for
reasons other that differences in the alternative products. Concern was also voiced about the
variability among pressmen applying the blanket wash. Due to variations in quantities used by
different pressmen, participants felt that it was important for the same person to use the product
for the duration of the demonstration.
In Chicago, printers using automatic blanket washers pointed out that they are limited to
the blanket washes recommended by their equipment supplier. As such, the DfE information may
be of limited usefulness to them, particularly if the alternative products included in the
performance demonstrations have not yet been tested for compatibility by automatic blanket
washer suppliers.
Focus group attendees in Portland had more general concerns about the performance
demonstrations. They felt that the demonstrations would be much more useful (i.e., credible and
16
-------
less subjective) if conducted in a controlled setting. They felt there was too much variability from
one print shop to another to make meaningful comparisons among alternative products. They
added, however, that it would be best to confirm the results of a laboratory test with in-field
product demonstrations. One suggestion was to conduct such in-field tests on a multi-unit press
where the baseline product and alternative product are used on the same press at the same time.
This group also expressed concern over the number of alternative products to be demonstrated.
They felt that data on 30 - 35 products would be too much information to digest. It was suggested
that products either be grouped by similar chemical formulations or limited to less than 10
alternative products in total.
Los Angeles participants also suggested some changes to the demonstration methodology.
First, they would like to see the in-field demonstrations limited to printers who have similar
operations, such as only 24" sheet-fed presses, to provide more consistent results. Second, they
suggested the scope of the in-field demonstrations should be expanded to record information on
the ability of the product to remove ink from rollers and printing tools (where ink may be thicker)
in addition to it's performance in cleaning the blanket. Their last recommendation was to include
a run where the press is changed from a dark color to a light color and a run from a light to a dark
color. This will give an indication of the additional time, effort, and quantity of product needed
to come up to color hi two distinct scenarios.
17
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Screen Printer and Lithographer Focus Group Summaries
A-l
-------
-------
Lithography DfE Focus Group
Natick, MA
October 21,1993
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.
1. Logistics
The focus group was held at the Printing Industries of New England (PINE) office
in Natick, MA as part of their Environmental Committee meeting. There were 10
people there including 5 printers, 3 consultants, and 2 PINE environmental staff
members. Being members of a trade association. Environmental Committee, the
attendees were probably more knowledgeable about environmental issues in the
printing industry than the average printer.
2. Reaction to DfE
After a brief introduction to the DfE Printing Project, there were several comments
and questions centered around the issue of masking the product names in the results.
From the discussions at the start of the meeting, participants seemed to feel the
information would be useless without the product names because they wouldn't know
how to get the same products from suppliers. However, by the end of the meeting,
there was a change in attitude and it appeared that everyone was enthusiastic about
receiving the results and they felt that the information would be very useful, even
without the supplier names.
3. Content
There were several parameters that were not included in the matrix that would be
useful. These were:
- Effort required to clean the blanket (this is a function of the lubricity of the
product).
- Physical characteristics of the product including the odor and the "feel" (i.e., is
it oily).
- CAS#. Different suppliers use different synonyms for the same chemical, making
it difficult to identify a chemical if the CAS # is not included.
The "Risk/Hazard" category would be more useful if it was divided into two
categories: "Health and Safety Risk" and "Environmental Burden". The
"Environmental Burden" category could tie into waste disposal and regulatory issues,
such as reporting, disposal and permitting requirements.
A list of participating suppliers should be included as part of the final information
product with the company name, phone number and a contact name for all
participating suppliers.
A-3
-------
4. Format
Group the products in the matrix by VOC content, listed in ascending order.
Just as there are great variations from one printing facility to another, the target
audience for the DfE results will also be disparate. Printers suggested there should
be more than one final product. The people attending this focus group preferred
Mock Up #1; the most detailed format. However, when they thought about the
people in quick print shops and other small operations, they felt that Mock up #1
would be too detailed. Mock up #3 was suggested as a product for less informed
printers.
A Fact Sheet explaining the matrix should always be included with each of the matrix
formats.
They liked the idea of putting the matrix on a poster so they could glance over all the
products at once, without turning pages.
5. Vehicles
Trade publications, trade associations, industry conferences and ECB were suggested
as vehicles for distributing this information.
It was also suggested that federal, state and trade association environmental
regulatory staff, especially technical assistance program personnel, bring this
information to the facilities.
Another suggestion was to send a general mailing. For a mailing, labelling it with
some sort of "EPA Official" header would tend to make the piece stand out from all
the other mail they get in a day.
Many small printers do not belong to a trade organization. They can be reached
through a general mailing. Franchise operations can be reached through their
corporate headquarters. The corporate offices often publish newsletters or send
mailings out to their franchises and they also make recommendations about the types
of supplies their franchises use.
6. Other issues related to DfE
Testing Protocol
Consider the rags used in performance testing. The age and type of rag could greatly
affect the volume of cleaning solution used and therefore skew the test results. It was
suggested that new rags always be used for the test, otherwise the volume of cleaning
solution used could be extremely inconsistent.
Some printers expressed concerns regarding the long term effects of the alternative
A-4
-------
Other
blanket wash solution on the blanket and rollers. These effects would not surface in
a one week test.
The same person should be testing the product all week. There are great variations
in volume from one operator to the next.
The atmospheric conditions (including temperature and ventilation) and the
equipment (press, rollers, blanket, ink) used in testing should be recorded as part of
the testing.
Printers are suspicious of the information they get from suppliers. They feel they can
not trust the information on the MSDS. Also, the suppliers' literature they get does
not provide much information on alternative products besides the VOC content.
A-5
-------
-------
Screen Printing DfE Focus Group
Cambridge, MA
November 16,1993
8:30 - 10:30 a.m.
1. Logistics
The focus group was held at Abt Associates offices in Cambridge MA. Six people
attended including 5 printers and 1 distributor.
2. Reaction to DfE
The participants were concerned that without the product names, the results would
be difficult to use. They voiced their preference for naming the products and
manufacturers, but, unlike the lithography focus group, there was not much
discussion on this topic.
They also preferred to see the products ranked somehow and suggested a
"Consumer Reports" format.
3. Content
The group suggested several characteristics that should be added to the final
information product. In general, they wanted to get as much information as
possible in the greatest detail possible. They recommended the following additions
and changes:
Include information on the Side Effects of the products on the mesh (e.g.,
corrosive damage).
Report "Quantity" as quantity per area of screen cleaned.
In the "Reclamation time" category, note if the haze remover required
overnight drying time or not.
For "Risk", include detailed, descriptive information. It was suggested that risk
information be divided into "Short Term Risks" and "Long Term Risks". Also,
they would like information on the exposure route of concern and recommended
personal protection equipment.
Regarding "Disposal Issues", they do not want anything that says "...dispose in
accordance with federal, state and local regulations," similar to many MSDSs.
One printer suggested adding a description of the disposal method required to
comply with the strictest local regulations in the country (usually California). He
felt that eventually all areas would have to comply with such strict requirements
and he would like to plan ahead for regulatory changes.
They felt that it was important to have an objective evaluation of the disposal
requirements for the product. Most printers felt they could not trust the
information on the MSDS. One printer commented that there was a crowd of
"snake oil" salesmen at the New Orleans conference, making such questionable
environmental claims that one would expect a "baby Jesus in every gallon" of the
A-7
-------
4. Format
product that will change it into water.
Since the variability of operations from one screen printer to another is so great,
they want as much information as possible on the "Test Conditions." Such factors
as temperature, humidity, ventilation and screen drying time are critical.
Add information on the "Application Method" used in testing and list
alternative application methods since printing facilities have all different kinds of
equipment.
In general, they want as much information as possible to collect. The more
scientific and quantitative, the better. One participant suggested that the matrix
(mockup #1) be provided along with a fact sheet (similar to mockup #5) on each
product. The matrix would serve as a table of contents, where a printer could
look through the list and screen the products down to the few that looked most
suitable for his operation. Then, he would read the fact sheets (or a case study
format was also suggested) that give detailed information on just those products
that interested him. Those fact sheets would need to include much more
information regarding the test conditions. The other participants agreed that this
suggestion would probably be the most useful format.
This group of printers said that no screen printer uses both solvent-based inks and
UV-based inks in the same facility. They suggested breaking the results into
different matrices: one for solvent-based inks, one for UV-based inks and one for
aqueous-based inks.
5. Vehicles
To distribute this information to as many screen printers as possible, they
suggested:
Send out a direct mailing. Place announcements in the trade publications' "In
the News" column that this information will be coming in a mailing. That is,
advertise the mailing before sending it.
Enlist the four major trade publications to send out the final information product
with a copy of the magazine (or a tear-out card to mail back for the report).
Some printers may only get information through their suppliers. Printers who
are more concerned with issues of worker health and safety and environmental
effects, do not trust the information coming from suppliers. These printers, will
get this information from a trade publication or from a direct mailing. However,
the printers who are less concerned with risk issues, only get their information
from their suppliers and this route should definately be used.
6. Testing Protocol
Participants expressed several concerns with the Testing Protocol. They wanted
these comments passed on to EPA in hopes of influencing the final Testing
Protocol. These comments are summarized in a separate memo.
A-8
-------
Screen Printing DfE Focus Group
Chicago, IL
December 6,1993
8:30 - 10:30 a.m.
1. Logistics
The focus group was held at the Holiday Inn at O'Hare airport in Chicago. Eleven
people attended including 6 printers, 1 consultant, 1 equipment manufacturer, 3
product suppliers/manufacturers.
2. Reaction to DfE
The participants, mainly the suppliers, felt that it would be difficult to provide
enough information about the performance demonstrations to make the results
useful. They noted that there are so many variables involved in testing that it
would be hard to include them all in the final information product.
Printers felt that the final information coming out of DfE would be limited in it's
usefulness in selecting an alternative product. The lack of product names and the
variability between printing shops were the primary limitations. However, they
did feel that it would help them to determine what kinds of information and
questions they should get from their suppliers.
Some participants were concerned that by the tune this information is published, it
will be obsolete as new products come to market.
3. Content
The group suggested several characteristics that should be added to the final
information product. They recommended:
Add information on the "Application Method" used in testing. How is the
product applied? What procedures and equipment were used in applying the
product during the demonstration.
Report "Quantity" as quantity per area of screen cleaned.
For "Risk", include detailed, descriptive information. They also requested
specific information on what Personal Protective Equipment was required and any
other recommended precautions.
Report "Cost" in terms of a standard quantity. They suggested $/5 gallon
container as a standard.
Regarding "Disposal Issues", they wanted information on both regulatory issues
and on exactly how to dispose of the product. Since it may be difficult to provide
detailed disposal information (because of local variations in regulations and
because the product will most likely be mixed with ink and other chemicals when
disposing it), one participant suggested providing information on how to go about
getting the disposal information. For example, describe what lab tests are required
prior to disposal and the price you can expect to pay for the testing. They also
A-9
-------
4. Format
wanted to know the federal reporting requirements associated with the product.
Since the variability of operations from one screen printer to another is so great,
they want as much information as possible on the "Test Conditions." Such factors
as temperature, screen drying time, more information on ink type, the resin
system, the history of the screen, screen mesh and screen tension are critical.
Add a column that lists the incompatibilities and restrictions for product use.
The equipment supplier recommended that the term "System" be replaced with
"Test" or "Product". He felt that "System" suggested that the cleaning process
depended only on the chemicals you use without regard for how they are applied.
Printers felt, and suppliers agreed, that the information should be in the most
simple terms possible. They mentioned that the information must be in a format
that the average printer can quickly understand. Within the discussion of "simple
formats", there were two different suggestions: Several printers suggested very
simple, basic information on the performance and risks of the product be
provided. Mock Up #2, with a fact sheet, was proposed as an appropriate format
for providing this simple information. Alternatively, other participants proposed
the final information product should be a list of questions/information that printers
should ask of their suppliers. Such a proposal eliminates the need for performance
demonstrations. The reasoning was that it would be impossible to get all the
information needed to evaluate the products, so instead give printers guidance or a
"grocery list" of the information they should be receiving from suppliers on
alternative products. Other printers at the focus group disagreed with this proposal
and noted that the performance information is needed.
5. Vehicles
Participants like the idea of supplying this information on videotape because they
could present the information to several people in the shop at the same time. The
suppliers mentioned that "nobody reads anymore". They said the majority of
questions they receive by phone are already answered in their printed material, but
no one reads it.
To distribute this information to as many screen printers as possible:
Distribution through SPAI, trade publications (but don't allow them to edit it)
and suppliers. They said that it would be most credible if the got the same
information from several of these sources.
One participant recommended that printers would find the information most
credible if it indicated that it was a result of discussions from industry focus
groups, of "printers just like you".
A-10
-------
6. Testing Protocol
Suppliers expressed several concerns with the Testing Protocol. The focus of their
comments was that they did not want to give away their chemical formulations.
After spending a lot of money on research, they would not allow their
formulations to be published so that someone else could go mix the same product.
A-ll
-------
-------
Lithography DfE Focus Group
Chicago, IL
December 7, 1993,
8:30 -10:00 a.m.
1. Logistics
The focus group was held at the Abt Associates office in Chicago. Ten people
attended including 8 printers, 1 PIA affiliate representative, 1 equipment
manufacturer.
2. Reaction to DfE
The group felt that the information coming out of the project would be useful, but
limited because product names were not given. They would like to see a list with
the name of the manufacturers who participated in the performance demonstration,
including a contact name and phone number for each participating company.
Some participants were concerned that this information could become obsolete
quickly as new products come to market. One printer suggested that a
performance demonstration occur annually.
3. Content
The group suggested several characteristics that should be added to the final
information product. They recommended:
In the "Performance" category, add a column for "Odor", "Lubricity" (a.k.a.,
"rag drag"), and whether or not a drying step was required.
Supply as much information as possible on "Chemical Content". Chemical
composition is the only means the printer has available to communicate to their
suppliers the products they would like to try. Include information on the non-
hazardous components of the product also.
Report "Quantity" as compared to the baseline product quantity to reduce
subjectivity.
Record how long it takes to get the press back up to color.
Note if a residue of the previous job is still on the blanket after the wash.
For "Risk", include descriptive information. They mentioned that eye and skin
effects were very important.
Report "Cost" in terms of $/gallon.
Regarding the "Disposal Issues" category, they want information on both
disposal and regulatory issues. The printers were interested in a list of the
applicable federal regulations for the product, and they also recommended
including a warning saying local regulations may be more stringent than the
federal regulations. They requested that phone numbers of state level regulatory
contacts be provided.
Be more specific about the VOC content. Report the percent VOC content (not
the range) and also report in "pounds/gallon".
A-13
-------
4. Format
Printers felt that Mock Up #2 would be the best format for the press operators
since they are typically most interested in the health and safety hazards. They
preferred Mock Up #3 for themselves (management or supervisors, as opposed to
operators). Although Mock Ups #2 and #3 contain the same information, the
presentation is different and it may have appeared to the participants that Mock
Up #3 contains more numerical information. They felt a "Fact Sheet" explaining
the columns of the matrix would be helpful with any of the formats.
Some printers felt a video would be useful in addition to the printed material.
Others felt they would never take the time to view a tape.
They agreed the products should be sorted by VOC content.
5. Vehicles
To get this information to as many printers as possible, they suggested:
Mail it to printers with an "EPA OFFICIAL" stamp on it. They would not
ignore a mailing with "EPA" on it.
Provide this information to the suppliers for distribution. They use their
suppliers as consultants and they trust suppliers to inform them of what's coming
down the pike.
Publish the information in as many trade publications as possible.
6. Other Comments
Printers using automatic blanket washers mentioned that they had to use blanket
washes that were on the equipment suppliers recommended blanket wash list; they
would only consider washes that are on this approved list.
The equipment supplier noted that their automatic blanket washer used
significantly less blanket wash solution when they switched from high VOC to the
low VOC blanket washes. This observation contradicted what other printers have
said about switching to low VOC solutions in manual applications where
significantly more wash is reportedly required.
A-14
-------
Screen Printing DfE Focus Group
Seattle, WA
January 19, 1994,
8:30 - 10:30 a.m.
1. Logistics
The focus group was held at the offices of Metro Hazardous Waste Management in
Seattle. Twenty-three people attended, including 7 printers, 3 printing supply
manufacturers, 2 printing suppliers, 10 representatives from local and state technical
assistance groups and the county health department, and 1 consultant.
2. Reaction to DfE
The printers and suppliers felt the information would be much more useful if trade
names were provided. One participant felt the information would be useless without
trade names of products. Others were concerned that they would have to do a lot of
work (i.e., contacting suppliers, researching products) to identify the manufacturer
of the product they wanted to try. They felt that smaller shops might not make this
effort. Participants were all concerned that if they had to request a formulation from
their suppliers, the supplier may not give them what they had asked for. Printers felt
that suppliers would try to claim that the product that looked the best was theirs.
By the end of the meeting, participants agreed that while DfE does not address all
their concerns, it is a good staring point for the industry.
Also, a representative from the state Department of Ecology mentioned that state
agencies may be able to help address printers' concern regarding trade names. The
state may be able to assist printers by providing more information that could help to
identify manufacturers. Also, the state may be able to provide additional information
on disposal requirements tailored to state regulations.
3. Content
The group suggested several additions to the information in the matrix. They
recommended:
Add a column for VOC content.
Include the pH of the product, where applicable.
The disposal procedures on this document refer only to the disposal of screen
reclamation products before use. Add a disclaimer noting that once the
demonstration products are combined with ink or other printing products, the disposal
procedures may vary.
Add "screen mesh" under Test Conditions.
Be more specific on the "ink type" and "emulsion type." For example, list "acrylic
based lacquers" instead of just "solvent based" inks.
For Risk, include detailed descriptive information.
Add information on the application procedure(s) used for each alternative system
demonstrated.
A-15
-------
4. Format
The local technical assistance representative suggested that a note to say "state and
local regulations may be more stringent. Check with your state and local offices
before disposal."
They want to see Cost reported as $/gallon.
One supplier felt that the type of information printers need is a list of the chemical
constituents to avoid in products and a list of those that are acceptable for use.
All participants agreed that it would be very helpful to include a list of the
manufacturers who participated, including a contact name and phone number.
Most participants agreed that a combination of mockup #1 and #2 would be the
most useful. They liked the descriptive text of mockup #2, combined with the
detailed information and tabular format of mockup #1.
All participants felt that a fact sheet describing the columns of the matrix would be
helpful.
One printer mentioned he would like to see products ranked in a Consumer Reports
format.
5. Vehicles
They liked the idea of a videotape so they could show it to all their employees at
once. One printer suggested that footage of a printer reclaiming a screen would be
a useful part of the videotape.
To distribute the information to as many screen printers as possible, they
suggested:
Distribution through SPAI trade shows.
They noted that it would be less credible if published in trade journals,
which sometimes appear biased.
Direct distribution from EPA with trade association endorsements. The
best way would be with endorsements from several trade associations.
To reach printers that don't belong to a trade association, it may be best to
have states do direct mailings.
Most printers agreed that they would not view this information as credible
if it came only from their suppliers.
6. Demonstration Protocol
Some of the printers would prefer to see the performance of alternative products
evaluated under consistent, comparable, laboratory test conditions. The current
methodology of demonstrations at a variety of printing facilities will not allow them
to compare results.
Another printer disagreed with laboratory testing because he felt that it would turn
into a product "approval" procedure. Such a procedure would not allow emerging
technologies to enter the market easily.
A-16
-------
Lithography DfE Focus Group
Portland, OR
January 20,1994
2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
1. Logistics
The focus group was held at the Pacific Printing and Imaging Association (PPIA)
office in Portland, Oregon. Twelve people attended: 5 printers, 2 trade association
representatives, 3 state agency officials, 1 supplier, and 1 consultant.
2. Reaction to DfE
The group's reaction to the DfE project centered mainly on the demonstration
methodology. These comments are summarized in Section 6. Unlike the previous
two focus groups, discussions regarding the omission of product trade names was
minimal.
3. Content
The group suggested the following changes to the final information product:
Under the Performance category a column should be added for "Odor."
An additional column should be added to the Performance category for "Ease of
Use." This column would report information such as whether or not the blanket
wash was slippery or greasy, and whether or not there was any drag when using the
alternative blanket wash.
It was suggested that "Ease of Drying" be changed to "Speed of Drying."
Report Cost in terms of $/gallon.
Include Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS) codes for health risks of
each chemical.
Risk information should be presented in descriptive terms.
Participants would like to see personal protective equipment recommendations
included in the matrix.
Participants would hike information presented on specific human health and safety
concerns. They would also like information specific to environmental concerns,
including: waste disposal, federal regulations, and environmental burden.
Include the PEL for each chemical hi the human health and safety column.
Regarding disposal issues, participants would like to have information about their
state and local requirements. They suggested a cooperative effort with state and local
agencies that would provide regulatory information tailored to local printers.
Eliminate "Vapor pressure" column, but add "Evaporation rate."
Participants would also like to have detailed information on test conditions such as:
ink coverage, press manufacturer and model, age of press, length of run, blanket
condition, dampening system.
A-17
-------
4. Format
Mock-up #1 was the preferred format for presenting the DfE information. There was
also interest in mock-up #3. They felt that the fact sheets explaining the columns of
the matrix would be useful with any of the formats. It was also suggested that a
spreadsheet on disk would be very useful. A spreadsheet format would allow
management to reformat and tailor the information to their facility's needs. Other
suggestions included: a poster and a fold-out brochure. All participants agreed that
several formats would ultimately be necessary.
5. Vehicles
To get this information to as many printers as possible, they suggested:
Direct mailing to printers. If possible, address to production manager, purchasing
agents, and/or pressman. Labeling it with the official EPA logo would get their
attention.
Disseminate the information through trade association presentations and trade
journals. Articles and announcements in trade journals would be useful in notifying
printers that the information was coming.
Provide information to suppliers for distribution.
It was also suggested that state and local environmental agency staff, especially
technical assistance program personnel, bring this information to the facilities during
their visits.
6. Testing Protocol Issues
Participants had several comments about the testing protocol. These comments are
as follows:
There was general agreement that performance demonstrations would be much
more useful (i.e., credible and less subjective) if conducted in a controlled setting.
They felt there was too much variability from one print shop to another to make any
comparisons among products. They added, however, that it would be best to confirm
the results of a laboratory test with in-field product demonstrations. One suggestion
was to conduct such in-field tests on a multi-unit press where the baseline product
and alternative product are used on the same press at the same time.
Concern was expressed over the number of alternative products to be
demonstrated. They felt that it would be too much information to digest. It was
suggested that products either be grouped by similar chemical formulations or limited
to less than 10 total.
A-18
-------
1. Logistics
Lithography DfE Focus Group
Los Angeles, CA
April 21, 1994
9:00 - 11:00 am
The focus group was held at the Printing Industries of America - Southern
California office hi Los Angeles. Eight people attended including 6 printers and
2 trade association representatives.
2. Reaction to DfE
The group expressed concern that product names would not be supplied. Without
product names, printers felt it would be difficult to be sure they were purchasing
products with the same characteristics as the products presented in the matrix. In
addition, ranges of chemical constituents were thought to be a problem.
Specifically, they were concerned that products requested might not be the same
formulation as products included hi the demonstrations. Furthermore, printers
would have to invest their time in researching products and contacting suppliers to
identify a supplier for the product they wanted to try. One participant suggested,
however, that it might be useful to include a "reader service card" with the final
information product that would allow printers to circle a number corresponding to
a blanket wash and mail it back to EPA. EPA would then forward the card to the
appropriate manufacturer. The manufacturer could then contact the printer with
more information on the product.
3. Content
This group's primary concern was whether or not the product would comply with
local air regulations. With the strict air regulations in Southern California, they felt
that if they used products that were in compliance, their environmental and worker
health risks would be low. The group suggested several changes to the final
information product. They recommend:
In the Chemical Constituents column, report percentages as "percent less than",
rather than in a range. Use 5 percent increments for reporting. For example, the
product contains: Chemical 1 at < 5 percent, Chemical 2 at < 40 percent,
Chemical 3 at < 45 percent.
In the Performance category, add a column indicating the effect of the
alternative product on the blanket. For example, did the product glaze the blanket
or cause swelling?
Also in the Performance category, indicate how many cleanings were required
to bring the press back up to color, and how many shop towels were required to
clean the blanket.
In the Cost category, report cost in terms of a standard quantity. They suggested
reporting it in 2 quantities - $/5 gallon container and $/55 gallon drum.
A-19
-------
4. Format
For Risk, include personal protective equipment recommended for use with
product by California OSHA.
Regarding Federal Regulations, add an indication of whether the product is
subject to reporting requirements such as SARA 311, 312, and 313.
This group felt very strongly that it was important to list the local regulations
that apply to the product. They are most concerned with the emission limits set by
the Southern California Air Quality Management District. As was suggested in
other focus groups, they thought it would be a good idea to include information on
the strictest regulations in the country for each medium on the final information
product.
For Chemical Characteristics, printers agreed that it would be useful to present
VOC content as Ibs/gallon and grams/liter instead of as a percent of total volume.
In addition, vapor pressure should be listed as partial vapor pressure rather than
total vapor pressure.
Add a Test Conditions category to the matrix. This category should include
information on ambient air temperature, ambient humidity, type of press, size of
press, type of ink, and the type of blanket and roller, and the length of the run.
Initially, reaction was mixed to the various formats discussed in the focus group.
Some printers felt that it was important to provide information in the most
descriptive terms possible. Others felt that numeric information would be more
useful to them. After some discussion, however, all agreed that mockup #1
accompanied by a fact sheet on each product was the preferred format. One printer
commented that a "chart-like" format would make products easier to compare.
Whatever format is used for the final information product, it should be eye
catching and of high quality. For example, they particularly liked the DfE printing
industry case study. Other formats discussed but not well received included;
posters, brochures, and videotapes. One participant recommended using an
electronic format for the final information product such as CD ROM. The rest of
the group felt that an electronic format is not readily portable and accessible and
would be of limited use.
5. Vehicle
To distribute this information to as many lithographers as possible, they suggested:
Publish the results of the performance demonstrations as an article in a trade
journal.
Distribute the final information product at trade shows and through regional
printing newsletters.
Have PIA and EPA distribute the final information product directly to printers.
Use as many sources as possible to disseminate the information. Multiple
sources would lend credibility to the final product.
A-20
-------
6. Other DfE Issues
Demonstrations Methodology
The printers had several suggestions regarding the Demonstration Methodology, such
as:
They would like to see the in-field demonstrations limited to printers who have
similar operations, such as only 24" sheet-fed presses. Such a limitation would
provide more consistent results.
Demonstrations should also record information on the ability of the product to
remove ink from rollers and printing tools (where ink may be thicker) as well as it's
performance in cleaning the blanket.
The demonstrations should include a run where the press is changed from a dark
color to a light color and a run from a light to a dark color. This will give an
indication of the time, effort, and quantity of product needed to come up to color in
the worst case and best case scenarios.
This information should be updated annually (at least) due to the rapid introduction
of new products to the market.
MSDSs
Printers do not rely on the information from MSDSs. They describe receiving out-
dated MSDSs and MSDSs that are generic to a product line, but offer no specific
information on the product they purchased. They also complained that the formats
are not consistent, making them even more difficult to interpret.
A-21
-------
-------
1. Logistics
Screen Printing DfE Focus Group
Los Angeles, CA
April 21, 1994
1:00 - 2:30 pm
The focus group was held at the Printing Industries of America - Southern
California office in Los Angeles. Eight people attended including 6 printers and
2 suppliers.
2. Reaction to DfE
The group expressed concern that product names would not be supplied. Without
product names, printers felt it would be difficult to be sure they were purchasing
products with the same characteristics as the products presented in the matrix.
3. Content
This group was concerned about whether or not alternative products would comply
with local air regulations and whether or not they cleaned the screen as well as the
products they were currently using. Other issues such as disposal requirements and
product risks were secondary considerations. The group suggested several changes
to the final information product. They recommend:
In the performance column, clarify the information on quantity of product used
and time required to reclaim by including the screen size used in the
demonstration. Also, if the product is reused or recycled, indicate how many times
it is reused before disposal or addition of fresh product.
Add information about the effects of the ink remover on the stencil and the
effects of the haze remover on the screen mesh.
Information on drying time of the ink remover was considered important, but
only for on-press application of the product.
Include information on the application method of the product as it was used in
the demonstration.
In the cost category, report cost in terms of a standard quantity. They noted that
it was useful for comparison of products, but that prices differ regionally, so such
a comparison may not be very accurate.
For risk, include personal protective equipment.
Report risk information in descriptive terms and "plain language". Currently, air
regulations are such a large concern, that product risk is not often a consideration.
They recognize that disposal issues are very localized, so they thought it would
be difficult to include any information that was really useful to them. Disposal
issues are further complicated because products are mixed with inks and emulsion
before disposal.
A-23
-------
4. Format
5. Vehicle
Under Test Conditions, include more specific information on the ink type used.
For example, list epoxy ink instead of just solvent-based ink. Also include the
number of impressions of the last run. They did not think it was very useful to
include the ink color.
The participants felt that it was important to provide information in the most
descriptive terms possible. Generally, they liked mockup #2, but suggested adding
more specific information on the performance such as is presented in mockup #1
(i.e., quantity applied and cleaning time). The printers preferred the simple,
understandable terms of mockup #2 used to describe the Risks and the Disposal
Issues. After some discussion, all agreed that mockup #2 accompanied by a fact
sheet on each product was their preferred choice of formats. Other formats
discussed but not well received included posters, brochures, and videotapes.
To distribute this information to as many lithographers as possible, they suggested:
Publish the results of the performance demonstrations in a trade journal. Screen
Printing Magazine was suggested as a publication that most print shops receive.
Distribute the final information product at trade shows.
SPAI was the most credible source to some printers. One printer noted that he
feels SPAI is "on my side".
Use as many sources as possible to disseminate the information. Multiple
sources would lend credibility to the final product.
6. Other DfE Issues
They agreed that it was important to get this information out to printers as soon as
possible.
A-24
-------
APPENDIX B
Screen Printer and Lithographer Focus Group Facilitator's Guides
B-l
-------
-------
Facilitator's Guide
Final Products Focus Group - Lithography
DfE Printing Project
1. Introduction
I'd like thank you all for participating in this focus group. We appreciate the time you're
taking to be here today. It looks like everyone is here so let's get started.
My name is
and I will be serving as the facilitator of the
focus group. I am from Abt Associates, a consulting firm in Cambridge. We
have been contracted by the EPA to help determine the best format for
presenting the information collected in the Design for the Environment
Printing Project. Abt is also involved in several other aspects of the Design
for the Environment Project such as the Performance Testing of alternative
products. Also from Abt is who will be taking notes and
helping me to summarize your comments.
a. Self introductions
I'd like to begin today by having each of you introduce yourself, including
your name, your company and your position.
b. Logistics
The point of this focus group is to have an open discussion. Please speak
openly and candidly as we go through the Design for Environment
information; our goal here is to get your opinions. In addition to this focus
group, similar focus groups with lithographers will be held in 2 or 3 other
locations. We will also hold a series of focus groups with Screen Printers.
Following these meetings, Abt will put together a report summarizing the
discussions and findings. The report will not attribute specific comments to
particular individuals and it will be available to anyone who would like a
copy. Unless anyone objects, we would like to record this meeting as a back
up to the note taking.
Is it OK if we tape the meeting?
2. Goals/Purpose of Meeting
a. Intro to DfE
For those of you who have not heard much about the EPA's Design for the Environment
Printing Project, I'll briefly describe what it's all about and where this focus group fits
in.
B-3
-------
The Design for Environment Printing Project, referred to as DfE, is a unique
project in that it is a cooperative effort by the EPA and printing trade
associations liJke PIA, SPAI (the screen printers association), and others. The
project is aimed specifically at developing pollution prevention information
for printers. This project was initiated when printing industry association
groups came to the EPA and asked for help in evaluating products that claim
to be environmentally friendly. The EPA and several trade associations
responded by setting up the DfE Printing Project. As one of the first steps in
this project, industry representatives prioritized the areas of environmental
concern in printing. Blanket washes in lithography and screen reclamation in
screen printing were identified by printers as the two areas of greatest
concern, so these two areas have been the primary focus of the project to
date. For lithography, the project is gathering information on the
performance, cost and the health and environemntal risks of alternative
blanket wash products.
A lot of information will be collected and the DfE project hopes that this
information will assist printers by:
Providing information on a variety of alternative blanket wash products
Encouraging your suppliers to compete on the basis of the health and environmental
characteristics of their products
and by Giving you a guide so when you consider other new products, you'll know
what type of information on environmental effects you should be getting from your
supplier.
The information collected from the testing and research represents a
significant effort by both the printing industry and the EPA. The EPA will
prepare a fairly lengthy document summarizing this research. However, one
of the final steps in this project is to make sure that this information gets to
the people who can use it, printers, and that it is summarized in a format that
is most useful to you.
b. Purpose of this focus group
That is where this focus group comes in. Through a series of meetings like
this one, we are talking with lithographers to determine what the final
product or products should look like.
This is an opportunity for you to influence the final product you receive.
Even if you have an idea that you think only applies to your specific
operation, let us know about it. It might be an idea that we end up hearing
from other focus groups.
B-4
-------
Today, we want to get your ideas and opinions on:
What information is most useful to you? (CONTENT)
What format is most useful to you? (FORMAT) and
What is the best way to get this information to printers? (VEHICLE)
Within the printing facility, who can (or who should) use this information?
This is a lot to cover. I'll first go over the specifics of what information is
being collected in the DfE project, so we can discuss what information is
most useful to you.
Second, we'll look at some mock ups of different formats for presenting the
performance, cost and risk information so we can discuss which format
works best for you.
Are there any questions about the DfE project as I've explained it so far?
3. Content of CTSA Information
There are 2 ways that DfE is gathering information:
First, the EPA is testing alternative blanket wash products to determine how
effectively they clean the blanket. All testing will be done at actual printers
facilities where they will use the product hi production for a week. These
printers are interested hi finding substitute products and they have
volunteered their facility to help the DfE project collect the most useful
information possible. The products being tested are voluntarily submitted by
suppliers who want their products included in the testing.
Second, the EPA will calculate the risks associated with the products tested
based on the chemical content and estimates of the occupational exposure.
Pass out copies of mock ups
I'm passing out copies of some ideas of how all this information may be
compiled. We'll go through the content and format of each of these
individually, but you can see on the first page the type of information that
will come out of the testing and the risk analysis work. What we will end up
with is a mix of objective and subjective information. The information will
include a subjective evaluation of how effective the product was, an estimate
of the cost of the product, risk information, and chemical characteristics of
the product.
I'd like to go through each of these categories and talk about what kind of
information you would like to see coming out of this project in the future,
but before we do that I'd like to get some background and talk about what
information you get now.
B-5
-------
If you wanted to try a different blanket wash, how do you go about getting the
information you need to evaluate the new product?
Has anyone tried a different blanket wash recently?
Where did you get the information about the product? (Did the supplier approach
you? Did you get the information through a trade journal or trade association?)
Did you have sufficient information to make a decision about the product?
Is there any information that you would like to have that you DID NOT get?
For those of you who haven't made a change recently, if you wanted to try a new
blanket wash, how would you go about getting information to make a change?
Who would use this type of information within the facility?
Turn to Mock Up #1
OK, that gives us some good background on the kind of information you're getting now.
So next let's go through the matrix and talk about what kind of information you would
like to get in the future. The first page of your handouts is MOCK UP #1. Each mock up
is labelled in the upper right hand comer. Using this matrix as a starting point, let's go
through the types of information that you would like to have when selecting a blanket
wash.
There are a few things to note here:
Products are not referred to by their trade names, instead they are
referred to as Product A, B, C etc. This was the agreement made with
suppliers in order to get their full cooperation.
The chemical constituents of the products are reported in ranges hi order
to protect trade secrets.
Also, as we go through the different format options, you will notice that there are no
rankings of products. No product is listed as "Best" or "Worst". The intention of this
project is not to promote or endorse any product. The goal is to gather all the necessary
information on alternative blanket washes, present it to the printers, and then let the
printer make their own decision on which products are best for their operation.
I'd like to go through each of these categories and get your ideas on what kind of
information should be included in each.
Starting with the first category, PERFORMANCE:
The evaluation of performance will be subjective, determined by the printer who is
doing the testing. To reduce the subjectivity, the printer will first clean the blanket using
a baseline product. Then, the performance of the test product will be compared to the
baseline. This should reduce the subjectivity between different people in different
facilities. As we go through the performance categories listed here, think about what
other performance factors you would need to know about a new product. The parameters
in this matrix include:
B-6
-------
- Ability to cut ink
This category would list the types of ink that the solution was able to remove
during the testing.
- The quantity of solution required per application
The data for the other 3 performance categories compares the test product to the
baseline product. Each printer testing a product, will first clean the blanket
using the baseline. "Quantity" column indicates how much test product was
required compared to the volume of baseline product used.
- The tune required to clean the blanket
- and the Effort Required
Are there any other performance characteristics that you would like to see in this chart?
What other information about the specific test conditions is useful (length of time ink
was allowed to dry before cleaning, type of press etc.)?
Now for COST:
Cost is presented here in $/gallon. What is the best way to present cost information?
Is there some way to present it in $/cleaning? What would constitute a cleaning?
The next category on this matrix is RISK:
The risk information is based on the chemical composition of the blanket wash. The
EPA will look at the chemical constituents and identify the toxic properties associated
with each one. They put the toxicity information together with information of
exposures that they have estimated from a number of work place surveys, and estimate
the risk of the product. What information do printers need regarding the risk of the
product? is 10"4 too complicated? Would simple terms such as "eye and skin irritant" be
preferred?
The last category on this matrix lists the CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS of the product.
VOC content and flash point are being measured as part of the testing. Are there any
other chemical properties that you would find useful in selecting a blanket wash?
Vapor pressure will not be measured, but the value as reported by the supplier could be
included.
B-7
-------
4. Format of Performance Testing Information
OK, now let's talk about HOW you would like to see this information
presented? What format is most useful? The rest of the information packet I
handed out has some other formats for presenting this information. These are
only drafts at this point. These will be revised based on the comments we get
from the focus groups. I want to get your suggestions on what type of format
best suits your needs.
Refer to MOCK UP $1
Mock Up #1, the detailed format we have been discussing so far, is the most detailed
format and contains the most numerical information.
^ Turn to the Fact Sheet
Another option would be to include a "Fact Sheet" with this matrix. Such a
Fact Sheet would serve as a reference for each column in the table. For
example, everyone reading this chart may not be familiar with what a flash
point of 100ฐF means. The Fact Sheet would explain this column by
describing that the flash point is the temperature at which the liquid gives off
a vapor sufficient to form an ignitable mixture. A flash point of less than
100ฐF is considered LOW, meaning that it may be a safety hazard. To avoid
a fire hazard, precautions must be taken in storing and handling products
with low flash points. A flash point greater than 200ฐF is generally not
considered to be a hazard, but the safety of the product is dependent on the
specific conditions in the facility. The Fact Sheet describes how to interpret
the information in each column, but it does not describe the specific results
associated with each product. In the case of performance, the Fact Sheet
would describe how the performance ratings were obtained. For cost, the
Fact Sheet would describe the factors that were used in the cost calculation
including what wage rate was used. The Risk/Hazard column would describe
what a risk of 10"* means and what range is considered an acceptable risk.
Would the Fact Sheet make this format easier to understand?
Would you be likely to read the Fact Sheet?
Do you think the length of the Fact Sheet should be limited? To 1 page?
i
Now, I'd like to flip through each of the other 4 mockups I handed out, and then we can talk about
which one best suits your needs or what changes need to be made to these formats or any other
formats that you think would be useful that aren't included in this set of mockups.
B-8
-------
Turn to MOCK UP #2:
This format is similar to the previous one, however, it uses more descriptive
text where the first matrix used numbers to describe the results. For
example, in the RISK column, the first example reported carcinogenic risk as
10"4, and this format describes how the product can be a health risk. There
are differences in the other categories as well.
Turn to MOCK UP #3
The third mock up gives the same type of information as the first matrix, but uses a
different format. The products are listed across the top of the page, the content is also
slightly different in that it is a combination of the descriptive and numeric information.
The risk information is given descriptively.
Turn to MOCK UP #4
This mockup is a Fact Sheet only; no matrix is included. In format, it is
similar to the Fact Sheet we talked about earlier. But, since it is not
accompanied by a matrix, it will contain information on the test results
instead of just explanations of what the different testing categories mean. For
example, the performance category will describe how the product performed
under the given test conditions and will include any limitations of the
product.
Turn to MOCK UP #5
The final mockup is a series of Fact Sheets. It's similar to the fact sheet we
just looked at, but it has only one product on each page. With an expected 35
or more products involved in the testing, this format would result in a 35 or
more page document.
In which format is the risk information most useful to the printers?
Which format is easiest to understand?
Do you have any suggestions to improve any of these formats?
Are there any other formats that would be better?
5. Vehicles
Several other ways of presenting this information were considered such as
Brochures, posters, video conference, videotape, ...
Would a different vehicle for presenting this information be more useful?
Would another format in addition to the matrix be useful?
Who would you like to get this information from?
What source do you consider as the MOST CRFJMBLE in reaching you with this
kind of information? Why?
B-9
-------
6. Closing
I hope you have a better idea of what information will be coming out of the
Design for Environment Printing Project.
Does anyone have any further comments on content or format of this information or
on the DfE project in general?
Once again, I want to thank you again for participating.
B-10
-------
Facilitator's Guide
Final Products Focus Group - Screen Printing
DfE Printing Project
1. Introduction
I'd like to welcome you all and thank you for participating in this focus group. We
appreciate the time you're taking to be here today. It looks like everyone is here so let's
get started.
My name is and I will be facilitating today's meeting. I am from Abt
Associates, we're a private consulting firm. We've been contracted by the EPA to help
determine the best format for presenting the information collected in the Design for the
Environment Printing Project. Abt is also involved in several other aspects of the Design
for the Environment Project such as the Performance Testing of alternative products.
Also from Abt is who will be taking notes and helping me to summarize
your comments.
a. Self introductions
I'd like to begin this morning by having each of you introduce yourself, including your
name, your company, and approximately what percentage of your business is in screen
printing.
b. Logistics
The point of this focus group is to have an open discussion. Please speak openly and
candidly; feel free to ask questions anytime; our goal here is to get your opinions. Abt
will be putting together a report summarizing the discussions and findings. The report
will not attribute specific comments to particular individuals and it will be available to
anyone who would like a copy. Unless anyone objects, we would like to record this
meeting as a back up to the note taking.
Is it OK if we tape the meeting?
2. Goals/Purpose of Meeting
a. Intro to DfE
For those of you who have not heard much about the EPA's Design for the Environment
Printing Project, I'll briefly describe what it's all about and where this focus group fits
in.
The Design for Environment Printing Project, referred to as DfE, is a unique
project in that it is a cooperative effort by the EPA and printing trade
associations like SPAI, PIA (the lithographers association), NAQP and
others. The project is aimed specifically at developing pollution prevention
information for printers. This project was initiated when printing industry
B-ll
-------
association groups came to the EPA and asked for help in evaluating
products that claim to be environmentally friendly. The EPA and several
trade associations responded by setting up the DfE Printing Project. As one
of the first steps in this project, industry representatives prioritized the
areas of environmental concern in printing. Screen reclamation in screen
printing and blanket washes in lithography and were identified by printers as
the two areas of greatest concern, so these two areas have been the primary
focus of the project to date. For screen printing, this will include
performance testing alternative screen reclamation systems. In addition to the
performance and cost data generated during these tests, the EPA is
researching the associated environmental, health and safety risks of these
products.
The information collected from the testing and research represents the
cumulative effort of both the printing industry and the EPA as they work
together to gather concrete information on substitute products. The EPA will
prepare a fairly lengthy document summarizing this research. However, one
of the final steps in this project is to make sure that this information gets
to the people who can use it, printers, and that it is summarized in a
format that is most useful to you.
b. Purpose of this focus group
That is where this focus group comes in. Through a series of meetings like
this one, we are talking with screen printers to determine what the final
information should look like.
Today, we want to get your ideas and opinions on:
What information is most useful to you? (CONTENT)
What format is most useful to you? (FORMAT) and
What is the best way to get this information to printers? (VEHICLE)
Within the printing facility, who can (or who should) use this information? Who is
the TARGET audience?
This is a lot of information to cover, so I'll first go over the specifics of
what information is being collected in the DfE project, so we can discuss
what information is most useful to you.
Second, we'll look at some mock ups of different formats for presenting the
performance, cost and risk information so we can hear your ideas on what
format works best for you.
B-12
-------
Are there any questions about the DfE project as I've explained it so far? Irealize this is pretty
much all new information for some of you.
OK, I'd like to start by explaining the types of information being collected in
the DfE project.
3. Content of CTSA Information
There are 2 ways that DfE is gathering information:
The first way is through performance testing. The EPA is testing alternative
screen reclamation systems to determine how effectively they clean the
screen. All testing will be done at actual printers facilities where they will
use the product hi production for one month. These printers are interested in
finding substitute products and they have volunteered their facility to help the
DfE project collect the most useful information possible. The products being
tested are voluntarily submitted by suppliers who want their products
included in the testing.
Second, the EPA will calculate the risks associated with the products tested
based on the chemical content and estimates of the occupational exposure.
^ฎ Pass out copies of mock ups
I'm passing out copies of some ideas of how all this information may be
compiled. These mockups are a way to start the discussion, but the point of
this meeting is to hear your thoughts on what format works best for you. It
may not be one I've thought of here. We'll be looking at the content and
format of each one of these, let's start by looking at the chart on the first
page. This chart shows the type of information that will come out of the
testing and the risk analysis work. What we will end up with is a mix of
objective and subjective information. The information will include a
subjective evaluation of how effective the product was, an estimate of the
cost of the product, risk information, and chemical characteristics of the
product.
There are a few things to note here:
Products are not referred to by their trade names, instead they are
referred to as System A, B, C etc. This was the agreement made with
suppliers in order to get their full cooperation.
(This was the agreement because:
- EPA does not want to give the impression that they are endorsing or promoting any
products.
- Suppliers can advertise which products are theirs.
- Some suppliers DO want to publicize which product is theirs and ideally someone will
crack the code and advertise which products are which, but the EPA can't do that.
B-13
-------
- Hopefully, the results will spark the interest of printers and you will go to your
suppliers and say, "I want this type of system. What do you have?"
The chemical constituents of the products are reported in ranges in order to protect
trade secrets.
Also, as we go through the different format options, you will notice that there are no
rankings of products. No product is listed as "Best" or "Worst". Again, the intention of
this project is not to promote or endorse any product. The goal is to gather all the
necessary information on alternative screen reclamation systems, present it to the
printers, and then let the printer make their own decision on which products are best
for their operation.
The Dffl project hopes that this information will assist printers by:
Providing information on a variety of alternative screen reclamation products
Encouraging your suppliers to compete on the basis of the health and environmental
characteristics of their products
and by Giving you a guide so when you consider other new products, you'll know
what type of information on environmental effects you should be getting from your
supplier.
Are there any questions?
Before we go over the type of information you'll get from the DfE project in
the (near) future, I'd like to talk about what information you get now.
When you want to try a different screen reclamation system now, how do you go about
getting the information to make a change?
Why -would you consider trying a new screen reclamation system? How would you go
about getting information to make a change?
Has anyone tried a different screen reclamation system recently?
Where did you get the information about the product? (Supplier, trade journal, trade
association, MSDS?) DfE advantage overMSDS be. all products are evaluated in the
same -way, using the same method and the same sources.
Did you have sufficient information to make a decision about the product?
Is there any information that you would like to have that you DID NOT get?
Who -would use this type of information within the facility?
OK, that's some good background information on where you are now. SUMMARIZE.
"^ Turn to Mock Up #1
OK, now let's move on to the first chart in the handouts and talk about what kind of
information you would like to get. The first page of your handouts is labelled MOCK UP
#1. Each mock up is labelled hi the upper right hand comer. Using this matrix as a
starting point, let's go through the types of information that you would like to have when
selecting a screen reclamation system.
B-14
-------
Each column lists a characteristic for each of the products listed down the left hand side
of the page. The column headings include the performance of the product, the cost, it
gives a numerical risk for carcinogens and a descriptive risk for non-carcinogens, it
describes the federal regulations that apply to the specific chemical and then lists some of
the test conditions.
I'd like to go through each of these categories and get your ideas on what kind of
information should be included in each.
Starting with the first category, PERFORMANCE:
The evaluation of performance will be subjective, determined by the printer who is
doing the testing. How a product performs is very subjective and it is judged by the
operator doing the test. As we go through the performance categories listed here, think
about what other performance factors you would need to know about a new product. The
parameters included in this matrix include:
- Quantity applied
How much product was used. This can be reported as an average amount per
square inch of screen.
(calibrated squeeze bottle? TBD. Observer will be present for 1st day).
- Cleaning time
How long did it take to clean the screen.
- Was the screen reusable?
Yes or No. This category could also include subjective information on the
quality of the screen.
- and Were there any printing limitations on the screen after it was cleaned?
Are there any other performance characteristics that you -would like to see in this
chart?
Now for COST:
On this chart, cost is presented in $/gallon.
What is the best -way to present cost information? Is there some way to present it in
$/'cleaning? What would constitute a cleaning?
The next category on this matrix is RISK:
The risk information is based on the chemical composition of the product. The EPA
will look at the chemical constituents and identify the toxic properties associated with
each one. They put the toxicity information together with information of exposures that
they have estimated from a number of work place surveys, and estimate the risk of the
product.
What type of information on risk is most useful to you?
What information do you need in order to evaluate the risk associated with a
particular product?
What about the format of the risk information?
B-15
-------
Would printers prefer to see risk listed in this scientific format, like Iff5, or is a
description of risk preferred, such as "the ink remover is a skin irritant".
WASTE DISPOSAL
The last category deals with the waste disposal issues associated with using this
product.
What type of information on waste disposal do you need? Should federal regulatory
requirements for the test product be listed? For example, "Hazardous Air Pollutant" or
"RCRA waste 005/U220" or "SARA listed chemical", etc.
TEST CONDITIONS
Test conditions include the Ink type used during testing, the type of emulsion that was
on the screen and the ink color used during the test. These may list several different
types if the cleaning results were fairly consistent throughout the testing period using
different types of screens and inks.
Is there any other information concerning the test conditions that you would need to
know?
4. Format of Performance Testing Information
OK, now let's talk about HOW you would like to see this information
presented? What format is most useful? Let's go through each mockup in
this packet, briefly, and then talk about which one of these best suits your
needs. If you have any ideas for different formats, we want to hear those
too. As we go through these think about...
ปIs there any information that you would need in selecting a screen reclamation system
that is not on this chart? (What's missing?)
What information is essential? Why?
Is this format easy to understand?
Do you have any suggestions to improve this format?
^ Refer to MOCK UP #1
Mock Up #1, the detailed format we have been discussing so far, is the most detailed
format and contains the most numerical information.
Turn to the Fact Sheet
Another option would be to include a "Fact Sheet" with this matrix. Such a
Fact Sheet would serve as a reference for each column in the table. For
example, it would explain all the factors that were used to calculate the
COST listed in the matrix. It would list the product cost/gallon, the labor
time required/area of screen cleaned, standard screen cleaning wage and the
labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet federal
regulations
B-16
-------
The Fact Sheet describes how to interpret the information in each column, but it does not
describe the specific results associated with each product. In the case of performance, the
Fact Sheet would describe how the performance ratings were obtained. For cost, the Fact
Sheet would describe the factors that were used in the cost calculation including what
wage rate was used. The Risk/Hazard column would describe what a risk of 10"4 means.
Would the Fact Sheet make this format easier to understand?
Would you be likely to read the Fact Sheet?
Do you think the length of the Fact Sheet should be limited? To 1 page?
Turn to MOCK UP #2:
This format is similar to the previous one, however, it uses more descriptive
text where the first matrix used numbers to describe the results. For
example, in the RISK column, the first example reported carcinogenic risk as
10"4, and this format describes how the product can be a health risk.
Like the first MOCK UP, this matrix could also be accompanied by a Fact Sheet. The
Fact Sheet would be very similar to the Fact Sheet discussed with MOCK UP #1.
Turn to MOCK UP #3
The third mock up gives the same type of information as the first matrix, but uses a
different format. The products are listed across the top of the page. The content is also
slightly different in that it is a combination of the descriptive and numeric information.
The risk information is given descriptively.
Turn to MOCK UP #4
This mockup is a Fact Sheet only; no matrix is included. In format, it is
similar to the Fact Sheet we talked about earlier. But, since it is not
accompanied by a matrix, it will contain information on the test results
instead of just explanations of what the different testing categories mean. For
example, the performance category will describe how the product performed
under the given test conditions and will include any limitations of the
product.
Turn to MOCK UP #5
The final mockup is a series of Fact Sheets. It's similar to the fact sheet we
just looked at, but it has only one product on each page. With an expected 15
products involved in the testing, this format would result in a booklet of fact
sheets.
B-17
-------
Now, looking at the different formats in this packet, I want to ask some questions about which format
you as a printer find most useful in selecting an alternative screen reclamation system...
Wfiich format is easiest to understand?
Do they all give enough information to make a decision about which product (a) to try?
Js any information missing?
Do you have any suggestions to improve these formats ?
Do you prefer the matrix over the fact sheet format?
5. Vehicles
6. Closing
Several other ways of presenting this information were considered such as
Brochures, posters, video conference, videotape, ...
Would a different vehicle for presenting this information be more useful?
Would another format in addition to the matrix be useful?
What source do you consider as the MOST CREDIBLE in reaching you with this kind
of information? Why?
I hope you have a better idea of what information will be coming out of the
Design for Environment Printing Project.
Does anyone have any further comments on content or format of this information or on
the DfE project in general?
Once again, I want to thank you again for participating.
B-18
-------
APPENDIX C
Screen Printer and Lithographer Focus Group Final Information Product Mockups
c-i
-------
-------
Mockups for Blanket Washes
-------
-------
u
i
H
.1
s
a
E
a
ฃi
5
fa
v w
II
S
o
II
Si
gg
ซ> o
I I
I IS
1 i?
w a*
r A ^ 2
0) n>
w n
'-3
VI
cl
ง
P
cs
&
ID
6
9
6
8
1.1
1
FT*
5
G
S N
o
s
s
o
s
s
o
I
-------
-------
FACT SHEET FOR
BLAKI02T WASH PRODUCTS MATRIX
Product Name
Products are referred to as "Product A", "Product B", etc.. The product name and
the supplier name are not given.
Chemical Constituents
The chemical composition of each blanket wash tested is reported within a range.
Exact chemical percentages are not reported in order to protect trade secrets of the
suppliers.
All chemicals that make up greater than 1 % of the product are listed. Both
hazardous and non-hazardous constituents are included in this list.
Performance
Ability to cut ink:...
Quantity required:...
Time required:...
Effort required:...
Cost
Cost includes:
1. the product cost/gallon x quantity of product required per area of
blanket cleaned +
2. the labor time required/area of blanket cleaned x standard blanket
cleaning wage +
3. labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet
federal regulations
Risk/Hazard
The risk and hazard information in the matrix is based on the chemical composition
of the product. The toxic properties of each chemical constituent of the product was
identified as part of the risk analysis done by the EPA. The toxicity information was
combined with estimates of work place exposures to calculate an estimate for risk.
The exposures were estimated from a number of work place surveys completed by
printers; the risk is not based on measurements of work place exposure.
Chemical Characteristics
VOCcontent:...
Vapor pressure:...
Flash point: The temperature at which the liquid gives off a vapor sufficient to
C-7
-------
form an ignitable mixture. A flash point of less than 100ฐF is considered LOW,
meaning that it may be a safety hazard. To avoid a fire hazard, precautions must be
taken in storing and handling products with low flash points. A flash point greater
than 200ฐF is generally not considered to be a hazard, but the safety of the product
is dependent on the specific conditions in the facility. For each product tested, the
flash point was measured in triplicate at the GATF laboratory.
C-8
-------
s ซ
g
i
y
I
i
i
o
<
|III
<ฃ o u ^
u
ซ
-------
-------
o
i
H
U
I
03
H
I
o o o o
^r >
* to
O o
tn o
i
000
oง
N
I
e
a
3
1
a
8
A
-------
-------
MOCK UP #4
RESULTS OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT (CTSA) FOR
BLANKET WASH PRODUCTS
Background .
Through the Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Project, blanket wash products were
evaluated through performance testing and through an evaluation of the risks and hazards associated
with the product. This fact sheet presents the results of the product evaluations.
Description of Products
Product A is solvent-based, containing solvent x, solvent y and solvent z.
Product B is an aqueous-based product containing chemical x and chemical y.
Product C...
Performance
Product A: Effectively removed all ink (both X and Y types) without any noticeable damage to the
blanket.
Product B: Effectively removed ink X. Removed ink Y, however it took 4 minutes and required
more effort.
Product C:...
Relative Risks
Product A: Classified as a possible carcinogen meaning there is evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals in the absence of human data. Irritation and rash may result from dermal exposure. For
long-term exposures via inhalation, there is evidence of nervous system and respiratory disorders.
Product B: No evidence of carcinogenic effects. Skin irritation and rash may result from dermal
exposure. Animal studies indicate some evidence of developmental toxicity.
Product C:...
Safety Issues
Product A: With a flashpoint of 160ฐF, flammability may be of moderate concern. Standard
handling precautions apply.
Product B: With a flashpoint of 97ฐF, flammability may be a significant concern. Fire prevention
measures and proper ventilation are required for safe use.
Product C:...
Waste Disposal Issues
Product A: Must be filtered before disposal to comply with federal regulations.
Product B: Contains no RCRA regulated materials
Product C:...
Costs
Cost includes:
1. the product cost/gallon x quantity of product required per area (?) of blanket cleaned +
2. the labor time required per area of blanket cleaned x standard blanket cleaning wage +
3. labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet federal regulations
Product A:...
Product B:...
Product C:...
C-13
-------
-------
MOCK UP #5
RESULTS OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT (CTSA) FOR
BLANKET WASH PRODUCTS
PROBUCT A
Performance
Effectively removed inks X and Y.
Average cleaning time was 2 minutes longer man the baseline product, Naphtha.
Quantity of product required ranged from 1.0 - 2.0 oz. more than the baseline product.
The press operator characterized the effort required to clean the blanket as approximately the
same as the effort required using the baseline product.
The supplier does not recommend using this product with ink Z.
A rubber blanket, approximately 2 months old, was used in the testing.
The press used was a Heidleberg model 1234.
Relative Risks
Classified as a possible carcinogen meaning there is evidence of carcinogenicity
in animals in the absence of human data.
Irritation and rash may result from dermal exposure.
Chemical Characteristics
VOC content = 30 - 50%
Vapor pressure = <5mm
Flashpoint = 97ฐF
Safety Issues
Costs
Notes
With a low flashpoint, combustibility and flammability may be a significant
concern. Fire prevention measures and proper ventilation are required for safe use.
Cost includes:
1. the product cost/gallon x quantity of product required per area of blanket cleaned
+
2. the labor time required/area of blanket cleaned x standard blanket cleaning wage
+
3. labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet federal
regulations
Product must be filtered before disposal to comply with federal regulations.
C-15
-------
-------
Mockups for Screen Reclamation Systems
-------
-------
i
#
g
^J
ffi
H
U
r,
i cc
n ^H
& &
cซ W
a tj
5ป t~l
^^
g K
11
CD ^^
^^ ^^^^
cc ง
O ^
Q ^
rf CJ
O ^
n S
|^J ^^^
[33 hy
SB
i ง
w U
ri tป
s^
fa
0
1
g
1
^o
s
*J
ฃ
r^
8
i
y
PM
z
o
3
tซ3
fl
11
M
a
1
ฃ
w
Hฃ
1
i
i
u
a
3 ง
4 3
il
* i
f
'1 J
u
ฃ.
Il
ซ)
"B S
g .^
ซ "S
O e
ฐ
s
This system is
recommended for
use with UV-inks
o
ฃ
I
u E
S
ฐo ซ
CO A
ซ(ฃ
j C?
u S *
ง ฃ" 2
o ง ^
03 3
III
a
G ป
ง22
i
1
S
e
J
g
o
S& g? ^
g CJS ^ cr!
g -H tn m
C ~* r4 m
i| 1 1 1
sss
ซ
1"
3
screen x times w/
tears or damage t
the mesh.
g
c
a,
Adjust pi
to POTW
discharge
rrosive liquid;
cause burns
<3 s
c
^
8
oo
V ^ ^
1?^
i O Q
(^ CO ซ
g ci Th
"5 S S
^ o> 5
|S6
"2 ซ
ซ 0
o ^
ฐ t, "
C oi !
all
ligible risk;
ligible hazard
f f
to
e
J
g
c^
.. ssซs
1 ฐ ^
^s in ปo
8 S S
*66
M ฐ
In future printir
a ghost image
appeared in "50%
3
S
2
t
ง1
5 ta
i
1 S -a
111
3
C o ^
S, & ^ *
il!i
i
2 'g, o
2 o fe
U 3 a
g
^
09
|
S
8
0
00
SS^*S
^ ^ 5 m
|^SJ5
^ 4^ o m
=งgg
I;
0
A
-V
U
1
K
s
1
8
J?
1
^
^
S
as
o\
><
6
-------
-------
FACT SHEET
SCREEN RECLAMATION SYSTEMS MATRIX
Product Name
Products are referred to as "System A", "System B", etc.. The product name and the supplier name
are not given.
Chemical Constituents
The chemical composition of each screen reclamation system tested is reported within a range.
Exact chemical percentages are not reported in order to protect trade secrets of the suppliers.
All chemicals that make up greater than 1% of the product are listed. Both hazardous and non-
hazardous constituents are included in this list.
Performance
Quantity applied:
Cleaning time:
Screen reusable:
Printing limitations:
Cost
Cost includes:
1. the product cost/gallon x quantity of product required per area of screen cleaned +
2. the labor time required/area of screen cleaned x standard screen cleaning wage +
3. labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet federal regulations
Risk/Hazard
The risk and hazard information in the matrix is based on the chemical composition of the product. The
toxic properties of each chemical constituent of the product was identified as part of the risk analysis done
by the EPA. The toxicity information was combined with estimates of work place exposures to calculate
an estimate for risk. The exposures were estimated from a number of work place surveys completed by
printers; the risk is not based on measurements of work place exposure.
Test Conditions
Ink type:
Emulsion type:
Ink color.
Disposal Issues
C-21
-------
-------
o
o
I
Product
ฃ .3
111
II!
O T!
.X W
**-< X 5
ill
gu ง .ฃ,
11
"4
I
o
1
ง
"C 8
ง<8
>>
JD
8
ฃ e
*"* 4-ป O
tS c? _t
1 if
QJ r( a
S
1 j S
(ft ^
11 .a 1
a| a" H
tl i i i
^i gฃ-3
O O 5; O O
>T) >A ง00 i;
a 1 1| -1 .11 ^ | J -1
en
3
1
o
S
-------
-------
I
o o
(
g ^ CN
I 1.1
g S 6
.ซ J3 .S
B U U
a
1
1
x *ฃ
st i
fc
i
a
.2
I
fes
CO
O O O
cs to c*M *FH
ง ง
J3 43
O
I
-------
-------
MOCK UP #4
RESULTS OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT (CTSA) FOR
SCREEN RECLAMATION SYSTEMS
Background
Through the Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Project, screen reclamation systems were
evaluated through performance testing and through an evaluation of the risks and hazards associated
with the system. This fact sheet presents the results of the system evaluations.
Description of Systems
System A is solvent-based, containing solvent x, solvent y and solvent z.
System B is a citrus-based system containing chemical x and chemical y.
System C...
Performance
System A: Effectively removed all ink (both UV-based and solvent-based) and stencil without any
tears in the mesh.
System B: Effectively removed solvent-based inks and stencils. Not able to remove all of the UV-
based ink from the screen: a ghost image appeared in some ("50%) of the UV-based ink screens
in future printing.
System C:...
Relative Risks
System A: Classified as a possible carcinogen meaning there is evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals in the absence of human data. Irritation and rash may result from dermal exposure. For
long-term exposures via inhalation, there is evidence of nervous system and respiratory disorders.
System B: No evidence of carcinogenic effects. Skin irritation and rash may result from dermal
exposure. Animal studies indicate some evidence of developmental toxicity.
System C:...
System A: Moderate flashpoint. Flammability is of moderate concern. Standard handling
precautions apply.
System B: With a flashpoint of 97ฐF, combustibility and flammability are a significant concern.
Fire prevention measures and proper ventilation are required for safe use.
System C:...
Waste Disposal Issues
System A: Must be filtered before disposal to comply with federal regulations.
System B: Contains no RCRA regulated materials
System C:...
Safety Issues
Costs
Cost includes:
1. the system cost/gallon x quantity of product required per area of screen cleaned +
2. the labor time required per area of screen cleaned x standard screen cleaning wage +
3. labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet federal regulations
System A:...
System B:...
System C:...
C-27
-------
-------
MOCK UP #5
RESULTS OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT (CTSA) FOR
SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS
Chemical Characteristics
Ink Remover
Chemical 1: 15-25%
Chemical 2: 30-40%
Chemical 3: 20-30%
Chemical 4: 20-30%
SYSTEM A
Emulsion Remover
Chemical 1: 30-40%
Chemical 2: 10-20%
Chemical 3: 40-50%
Haze Remover
Chemical 1: 40-50%
Chemical 2: 40-50%
Performance
Effectively removed solvent-based ink and light-sensitive emulsion stencil
from screen.
Average cleaning time was 10 minutes.
Quantity of product required ranged from 3.0 - 5.0 oz. per x sq. inch of screen cleaned.
The screen was reusable after each cleaning, x cleanings were done without any tears or
damage to the screen.
The supplier does not recommend using this product with UV-based inks.
Relative Risks
Classified as a possible carcinogen meaning there is evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals in the absence of human data.
Irritation and rash may result from dermal exposure.
Safety Issues
With a flashpoint of 97ฐF, combustibility and flammability are a significant
concern. Fine prevention measures and proper ventilation are required for use.
Waste Disposal Issues
Product must be filtered before disposal to comply with federal regulations.
Costs
Cost includes:
1. the product cost/gallon x quantity of product required per area of screen
cleaned +
2. the labor time required per area of screen cleaned x standard screen cleaning
wage +
3. labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet federal regulations
C-29
-------
MOCK UP #5
RESULTS OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT (CTSA) FOR
SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS
SYSTEMS
Chemical Characteristics
Ink Remover
Chemical 1: 15-25%
Chemical 2: 30-40%
Chemical 3: 20-30%
Emulsion Remover
Chemical 1: 30-40%
Chemical 2: 10-20%
ChemicalS: 40-50%
Chemical 4: 20-30%
Haze Remover
Chemical 1: 40-50%
Chemical 2: 30-40%
Chemical 3: 10-20%
Performance
Effectively removed UV-based ink and direct photo stencil from screen.
Average cleaning time was 8 minutes.
Quantity of product required ranged from 6.0 - 8.0 oz. per x sq. inch of screen cleaned.
The screen was reusable after each cleaning, x cleanings were done without any tears or
damage to the screen.
Relative Risks
No evidence of carcinogenic effects.
For long-term exposure via inhalation, there is evidence of nervous system and respiratory
disorders.
Safety Issues
With a flashpoint of 137ฐF, combustibility and flammability, are a moderate
concern. Recommended ventilation and handling procedures should be
followed.
Waste Disposal Issues
Contains no RCRA regulated materials.
Costs
Cost includes:
1. the product cost/gallon x quantity of product required per area of screen
cleaned +
2. the labor time required per area of screen cleaned x standard screen cleaning
wage +
3. labor and costs associated with waste disposal requirements to meet federal
regulations
C-30
------- |