A Cooperative Project
between the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
and the
Printing Trade
Associations
Nationwide
FOR
THE
LITHOGRAPHY CASE STUDY 1
EPA
MANAGING
SOLVENTS
AND WIPES
CASE STUDY 1
LITHOGRAPHY
Being responsive to the environment
means learning new procedures and
using new tools to do the same job
with less hazard. Decisions about the pur-
chase of equipment and chemicals for press
rooms or other production processes depend
not only on cost, availability, and perfor-
mance, but also on whether environmental
requirements can be met. Meeting environ-
mental requirements means understanding the
comparative human and ecological risks of
the alternatives being considered.
This case study is brought to you by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Design for the Environment (DfE) Pro-
gram. Through the DfE Program, government
and industry are working together to identify
alternative products and processes that are safer
for the environment.
This is the first in a series of case stud-
ies that EPA is developing to illustrate how the
DfE theme can be applied to lithographic
printing operations. This study describes a suc-
cessful pollution reduction program at the
John Roberts Company in Minneapolis, Min-
nesota. Although the company did not have
access to risk and impact information, the way
in which it searched out safer alternatives illus-
trates how printers can achieve significant
environmental results.
In particular, this case study illustrates:
• How a self-audit of solvents used in print-
ing operations led to the substitution of
more environmentally appropriate solvents.
• How the use of a centrifuge to extract sol-
vents from industrial wipers prior to laun-
dering resulted in reduced solvent in the
laundry's wastewater.
• How this company saved money through
its efforts to use safer solvents and reduce
waste.
The story of this company's experience
and the steps it followed show how problems
can become opportunities and how environ-
mental planning can be good for business.
Background
The John Roberts Company is a com-
mercial printer of annual reports, brochures,
catalogs, forms, limited edition fine art prints,
and direct mail pieces using both sheet-fed
offset and web offset printing processes. The
company began to really understand its sol-
vent use practices as a result of a problem
encountered by the industrial laundry that
washes the company's press wipers. The efflu-
ent from the laundry had become a concern to
the local regulatory agency that oversees the
sanitary sewer system in the Minneapolis met-
ropolitan area.
OCTOBER 1995
-------
Understand the
Problem
The John Roberts Company uses
leased towels as wipers for press
cleanup. The company was sending its
leased towels to an industrial laundry
for cleaning, and with them went a
great deal of ink and "spent" solvents.
The presence of these solvents in the
wipers was creating a problem for the
laundry and for the local sanitary sewer
system that handles the effluent from
the laundry. The two major concerns
were volatility and flammability.
I The local regulatory agency
I approached the industrial laundry
1 because too much solvent was being
washed out of the towels, causing the
I vapors from the laundry's effluent to
\ exceed the lower explosive limit (LEL).
The laundry, in turn, asked its
major printer customers and a trade
association, the Printing Industry of
Minnesota, Inc. (PIM), to work out a
solution. There were incentives for
both parties: the laundry would be able
to retain its business, and the printers
would be able to continue using leased
towels.
Consider Possible
Solutions
The John Roberts Company
decided to concentrate on two main
objectives: (1) to change the nature of
the solvent that was left in the towels
from cleaning presses, and (2) to reduce
the volume of solvent left in the towels.
Change
The Nature
Of The Solvents
Finding An Alternative
The first step was to examine
the nature of the solvents used to clean
the presses to see if a less volatile sub-
stitute could be used. More information
was needed about the tasks solvents
must accomplish and the conditions
under which these solvents perform.
As a result of thorough discus-
sion with everyone involved in the
process, the company prepared a list of
necessary solvent criteria:
• For washing press blankets, a sol-
vent must work quickly to cut ink,
require minimal wiping to remove
any oily residue, and dry quickly.
Time and the ability to get back up
to color quickly is critical during a
press run.
• For cleaning the metal parts of a
press, a slower-working solvent
would be suitable as a general press
wash.
• For cleaning the chain of ink rollers,
a solvent that is slow to evaporate is
needed. This solvent must not flash
off before it has gone through the
entire sequence of rollers or it will
fail to clean them adequately.
• On a limited basis, a very aggressive
solvent is needed for removing
hardened ink that sometimes col-
lects on the press.
In light of these criteria, the com-
pany's first task was to find a blanket
wash that balanced these production
needs with the environmental needs of
less volatility and flammability.
Press operators prefer solvents
that do not require a lot of wiping or
leave behind an oily film. Unfortunate-
ly, most solvents with these desirable
properties also create problems for
industrial laundries by exceeding the
LEL level. When the John Roberts Com-
pany audited its operations, it discov-
ered that press operators had been
using a highly volatile solvent called
type wash as a general, all-purpose sol-
vent, including for blanket cleaning.
This product was a blend of acetone,
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK),
and isopropyl alcohol and contributes
not only to in-plant volatile organic
compounds (VOC's) in the air, but also
to problems with the laundry's effluent.
This solvent was never intended
for all-purpose use, but using the sol-
vent had become a habit that was hard
to break. Because it flashed off so readi-
ly, no time was lost by press personnel.
It was easy to see why the solvent was
so popular.
As the company analyzed the
product's properties further, however, it
found that almost one half the total vol-
-------
ume of the solvent was wasted. It sim-
ply evaporated before the work could
be performed! The goal was to find a
solvent that was better matched to the
tasks it was to perform and that did not
substantially affect work procedures or
productivity.
Work Together
To Implement Changes
It is important to recognize that
it was not sufficient to simply look for a
technical solution to the problem. For
success to be possible, the support of
upper management was vital, as well
as the cooperation and understanding
of press personnel. Management gave
its support by assuring plant personnel
that learning to work with new sol-
vents might involve some procedural
changes that could affect productivity
slightly, but that small losses would not
reflect negatively on overall perfor-
mance evaluations. Input was sought
from each press person and floor helper.
The reasons why it was necessary to
change solvents and how the change
was to be accomplished were
explained to them.
The raising of awareness in the
effort to find a substitute resulted in a
reduction in the misuse of the type
wash solvent. Type wash usage was
reduced from 152 to 5 fifty-five gallon
drums in the first year. The company
still uses type wash, but only where its
use can be justified. A new replace-
ment solvent, an ultra-fast blanket
wash, was blended especially for the
company and performed well with
respect to speed and lack of an oily
film. Only 38 fifty-five gallon drums of
this new blanket wash were purchased
in the first year. Even after including
the purchase of the replacement sol-
vent, the John Roberts Company real-
ized a savings of more than
$18,000 in the first
year by changing sol-
vents and using them
more prudently. More
importantly, by selecting
a replacement solvent with a
lower evaporation rate and by strictly
limiting the use of type wash, the con-
tribution of vapors from the John
Roberts Company to the laundry's
effluent no longer exceeded the LEL
and was no longer a concern.
depleters.
The company therefore contin-
ued its investigation of alternatives, this
time with an emphasis on reduction of
fugitive VOC emissions. It reformulated
its blanket wash to a less volatile press
wash that contains no TCA. The compa-
ny approached its search for a substi-
tute with reduced VOC emissions with
the realization that vapor pressure plays
an important role. A solvent with a
lower vapor pressure will evaporate
less readily will release less VOC emis-
sions to the air. Therefore, when the
goal is reduction of fugitive VOC emis-
sions, volatility should be considered.
Early results from this change
show that because considerably less
solvent is lost to the air through evapo-
ration, the company is purchasing four
fewer drums of solvent each month.
However, four more drums of spent
solvent are removed from the rags and
sent off-site for fuel blending. In spite
of the costs to manifest and ship this
solvent, the company still saves $100
per month. In addition, the John
Roberts Company has lower fugitive
emissions and a healthier workplace.
During trials for new solvent
blends, the company's management
came to a critical realization: the way in
which a product is used is key to its
performance. The company found that
testing the same product on different
presses using different crews produced
widely varying results. The success of
the solvent changes the company made
was due largely to the development of
a very specific procedure for solvent
use, which was developed by the press
operators themselves.
Make Additional
Improvements
There were, however, some lin-
gering concerns with the new solvent.
One ingredient in the new blanket
wash was 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA),
which gave the blend some of its per-
formance characteristics, but is being
phased out because it is an ozone
depleter and a suspected health hazard.
TCA will soon be banned by the Mon-
treal Protocol, an international treaty to
eliminate the manufacture of ozone
Reduce
The Volume
Of Solvent
The second objective was to
reduce the volume of solvents left in
the towels. With the help of its trade
association, the Printing Industry of
Minnesota, Inc. (PIM), the company
began to explore ways to "wring out"
the wipers.
The first step was to make sure
efforts to train employees not to dump
excess solvent in the pile of used
-------
wipers had not eroded. Confident that
training had assured that the rags put
in the used rag container retained the
"minimum" amount of solvent,
the company explored the use of a com-
mercial grade laundry centrifuge to sepa-
rate out any remaining solvent. The
company was surprised to learn that
the "minimum" amount of solvent was
much more than originally thought.
Now, before wipers are sent to
the laundry, they are spun in a safe,
explosion-proof centrifuge, which
extracts between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 gal-
lons of "spent" solvent for every load
of approximately 220 wipers. This
amounts to quite a lot of solvent over
time. The recovered
solvent is now reused
throughout the plant
in a series of parts
washers to clean
press ink trays, instead
of going out with the laun-
dry, and the spent solvent is then sent
to a fuel blender. Reuse of this solvent
eliminated the purchase of more than
one drum a week of virgin solvent for
use in parts washers throughout the
plant. The centrifuge recovery program
has saved the company more than
$34,000 in the first year alone, resulting
in a quick payback on the $15,000 cen-
trifuge. The centrifuge has also resulted
in a sizeable reduction in the volume
of solvent sent to the sewer system.
Using a centrifuge for this purpose
might not be allowed in all states, but
other options could be available.
The Design for
the Environment
Approach
This case study described how a com-
pany systematically assessed a problem,
applied knowledge acquired through
that assessment (along with the assis-
tance of its trade association), and
dealt with the problem in its context.
The result is a methodology that
is affordable, effective, readily adapt-
able, and can be transferred to other
printers. Environmental benefits
demonstrated in this case study include
reduced fugitive air emissions, less sol-
vent discharged to the water system,
and decreased toxic chemical purchas-
es. Waste solvent is being used for
energy recovery. In addition, the com-
pany has completely eliminated its use
of TCA, and the safety of its work envi-
ronment was greatly improved.
The methodical evaluation of a
problem, leading to solutions aimed at
reducing the creation of pollutants at
their source, is what EPA's Design for
the Environment Program is seeking to
encourage. While this story illustrates a
method for evaluating alternatives, the
company did not have access to impor-
tant risk information. The DfE Printing
Project seeks to provide information to
industries and companies (often
through their trade associations) on the
comparative risk and performance of
alternative chemicals, processes, and
technologies, so that printers are able
to make more informed decisions. EPA
will make this information available in
the form of a "Substitutes Assessment"
later in 1996.
The search for alternative chem-
icals and new technologies begins
with today's success. Assisting in the
search for and evaluation of alterna-
tives is the goal of EPA's DfE program.
With this case study and others like it,
we hope to illustrate the application of
this goal and the pursuit of continuous
improvement.
If you would like more informa-
tion about John Roberts Company's
experience, contact:
Jeff Adrian
John Roberts Company
9687 East River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55433
Telephone: 612-755-5500
Fax: 612-755-0394
For more information about EPA's
Design for the Environment Program
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
OCTOBER 1995
------- |