-------
CHAPTER 4
                      PERFORMANCE
                  Figure 4.6 Average Density for OPP — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
                    2-1
                   1.5-
                 
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                 Table 4.14 Dimensional Stability Results — Solvent-based and Water-based
                                                   Inks
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product
Line
#S2
#S2
#S1
#S2
#W3
#W3,
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
5
7
9B
10
2
3
2
3
4
1
9A
Average Percent
Change (Width)
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.7%
0.7%
Average Percent
Change (Length)
2.0%
0.4%
2.4%
1.6%
1.1%
2.5%
1.0%
0.9%
2.3%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.5%
       Gloss — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

              Samples from sites 1,4,9, and 10 were not subjected to this test because the OPP substrate
              printed at these sites was laminated. The ink was trapped between the two substrate layers,
              making it unnecessary to test for gloss.  Limited data were available from Site 7 due to the
              shortened run on PE/EVA. Because the laboratory runs were shorter in duration than the
              performance demonstration runs, samples for testing were only cut from three locations.

              Figure 4.7 shows the average gloss for samples on LDPE and PE/EVA. Overall, inks
              showed higher gloss on PE/EVA than on LDPE, and solvent-based inks on PE/EVA had the
              highest gloss.
                                            4-28
-------
CHAPTER 4
             PERFORMANCE
                    Figure 4.7 Average Gloss for LDPE and PE/EVA — Solvent-based and
                           -                 Water-based Inks
                                                   VVW
                                                   xxxxx
                                                   xxxxx
                                                   vv/v
                                                   xxxxx
                                                   vv/v
                                                   xxxxx
                                                    v/v
                                     LDPE: Solvent-based ink
                                     LDPE: Water-based ink
                                     PE/EVA: Solvent-based ink
                                     PE/EVA: Water-based ink
              LDPE: Solvent-based ink
50.4
LDPE: Water-based ink
PE/EVA: Solvent-based ink
PE/EVA: Water-based ink
42.19
59.08
54.09
       Heat Resistance/Heat Seal — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

              Only samples printed on OPP and then laminated were tested. Heat resistance/heat seal was
              measured on blue, green, and/or white printed areas. Table 4.15 presents a summary of the
              heat seal data. A range of 12 to 24 measurements were taken from each site.  The number
              of measurements depended on where they were taken (e.g., beginning, middle, or end of the
              run), what ink color was tested, and whether ink transferred to a printed or imprinted
              substrate.

              The solvent-based and water-based inks exhibited mixed results for heat resistance/heat seal.
              For instance, Solvent-based ink #S2 experienced 100% failure at Site 10 but 100% success
              at Site L4. These results suggest that other factors, such as the lamination process, might
              have affected the results.
                                           4-29
-------
CHAPTER 4
           PERFORMANCE
                      Table 4.15 Heat Resistance/Heat Seal Results •
                                              Water-based Inks
• Solvent-based and
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
OPP
OPP
Product
Line
#S1 .
#S2
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
9B
10
L4
4
1
L3
9A
L2
Number of
Passes
9
0
12
9
0
1
6
0
Number
of
Failures
9
18
0
15
24
11
12
12
Average Percent of
Ink Transfer Per
Failure
10%
39%
—
21%
26%
10%
9%
22%
                "L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
                Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
       Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

              Printed samples from Sites 1,4,9, and 10 were not tested because the OPP substrate printed
              at these sites was laminated. This trapped the ink between the two substrate layers, making
              it unnecessary to test the ink on the OPP substrate.

              Ink adhesion was measured for each color on each substrate. Table 4.16 summarizes the
              results of this test. The solvent-based ink performed successfully on both the LDPE and
              PE/EVA substrates. Water-based ink #W3 was evaluated at two sites.  At Site 2, the ink
              performed successfully on both substrates, but at Site 3 the ink failed on both substrates.
              These results suggest that facility-specific factors other than ink might have affected the
              results.
                                             4-30
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                               PERFORMANCE
                      Table 4.16 Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion Results — Solvent-based and
                                               Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
Product
Line
#S2
#S2
#W3
#W3
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
Any Ink Removal?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes, less than 5%
no
no
no; less than 5%a
yes, about 30% of the green ink .
and less than 1 5% of the blue ink
               "L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
               Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
               ajhree of the four samples had complete ink adhesion. The fourth sample had less than 5%
               removed.
       Image Analysis — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

              Due to the shortened run using the PE/EVA substrate at Site 7, samples were taken only
              from the beginning and 30 minutes into the ran. Because Sites 8 and 9 also had shorter runs,
              samples were taken only from the beginning, 30 minutes into run, and the end of the run.

              Table 4.17 presents the image analysis results.  Because the purpose of this test was to
              evaluate screened dot detail as used in process color reproduction, only the magenta and
              cyan process inks were analyzed. Table 4.17 presents the average dot area and perimeter
              for these two colors at each performance demonstration site.  No statistically significant
              differences were evident between the two ink systems.
                                             4-31
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                              PERFORMANCE
                   Table 4.17 Image Analysis Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product
Line
#S2

#S2
#S1
#S2
#W3
#W3
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5

7
5
7
9B
10
2
3
2
3
4
1
9A
Color
maqenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
maqenta
cyan
maqenta
cyan
maqenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
maqenta
cyan
maqenta
cyan
maqenta
cyan
Average
Dot Area
(micron2)
953.28
725.86
1049.71
556.95
912.18
721 .00
753.80
323.88
620.58
499.75
568.41
967.98
608.53
925.17
887.76
608.71
705.83
911.05
649.76
840.34
837.88
781.21
371.59
338.71
715.59
748.80
Dot
Perimeter
(microns)
125.06
104.26
130.64
107.29
118.81
104.70
123.13
103.58
102.60
84.20
122.39
263.90
93.30
120.86
127.30
97.16
107.11
118.63
96.93
114.19
116.53
112.03
97.63
81.61
108.58
95.80
        Jar Odor — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

                Jar odor was evaluated for both printed and imprinted substrates. Table 4.18 presents the
                results of the jar odor test, listing the strength of the odor present and a description of the
                odor.

                Most of the water-based ink samples had a relatively strong ammonia odor (2 to 3 on a scale
                of 5).   Water-based ink #W1 had a strong, unpleasant odor that was not specifically
                identified as ammonia. The solvent-based inks had a waxy odor of varying strength (1 to
                3 on a scale of 5) on all substrates. The one exception was the sample printed with solvent-
                based ink #S2 on PE/EVA film at Site 7; this sample had no odor for the control or the
                printed sample.
                                               4-32
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                       Table 4.18  Jar Odor Results — Solvent-based and Water-based inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product
Line
#S2
#S2
#S1
#S2
#W3
#W3
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
9B
10
L4
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
4
1
L3
9A
L2
Relative
Score'
3
1
2
1
0

3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
2
2
0
2
Description of
Printed Area
unpleasant
waxy, not a big
difference from
control
mild waxy
not very
different from
control; slightly
like ethyl acetate
no odor
mild waxy
ethyl acetate
waxy, no
difference from
control
mild waxy
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
mild waxy
unpleasant,
strong
ammonia odor
ammonia odor
no difference
from control
ammonia odor
Description of
Unprinted Area
(control)
very slightly waxy
waxy,
hydrocarbons
very mild waxy
mild waxy
no odor
very mild waxy
mild waxy
waxy
very mild waxy
very slight waxy
no odor
very mild waxy
very slight waxy
very mild waxy
mild waxy
mild
mild
very mild waxy
mild waxy
very mild waxy
               "L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
               Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
                "Printed samples were scored on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 signifying no odor, and 5 signifying
               an unpleasant, offensive odor.


       Mottle/Lay -— Solvent-based and Water-based Inks


              Mottle was measured on green and blue printed areas. Figures 4.8-4.10 show much higher
              mottle on the samples printed with water-based inks, especially on LDPE and PE/EVA.
              Wettability of the substrate plays a role in mottle, and polyethylene substrate surfaces
                                              4-33
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                             PERFORMANCE
              generally do not wet as well as OPP. Corona treatment was employed, however, on all of
              the LDPE and PE/EVA substrates where water-based inks were used.

              Mottle also was significantly higher on the blue printed areas of all samples tested. None of
              the variables in this study are thought to account for the differences between the green and
              blue printed sample results for mottle/lay. Ink formulation and pigment type are most likely
              the cause for the variations; these variations were evident both ink systems.
               Figure 4.8  Average Mottle Index for LDPE — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
                               Solvent-based ink

                                 •  Blue ink
     Water-based ink

Green ink

Blue ink
Green ink
Solvent-based ink
298.7
69.8
Water-based ink
793.75
101
                                             4-34
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                         PERFORMANCE
               Figure 4.9 Average Mottle Index for PE/EVA — Solvent-based and Water-based
                                              Inks
                 1000-1
                  800


                  600


                  400


                  200


                     0
                            Solvent-based ink

                            KS  Blue ink
                          Water-based ink

                      Green ink

Blue ink
Green ink
Solvent-based ink
343.25
87.5
Water-based ink
812.25
85
              Figure 4.10 Average Mottle Index for OPP — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
                  600-1

                  500-

                W400-
                
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                              PERFORMANCE
       Opacity — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

               Opacity was measured for samples of white ink on LDPE and OPP.  White samples were
               not printed on PE/EVA because it is a white substrate. The laboratory runs, as well as the
               runs at Site 9, were shorter in duration than the other demonstration runs; samples were
               therefore available only from three locations on these runs.

               Results for both ink systems were considered  acceptable by industry standards (opacity
               greater than 48%). Results were virtually identical for both ink systems on both substrates.

       Rub Resistance — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

               Samples from sites 1, 4, 9, and 10 were not tested in the laboratory, because the OPP
               substrate printed at these sites was laminated to another substrate. This lamination trapped
               the ink between the two substrate layers, making it unnecessary to test for rub resistance.
               Due to the shortened run using the PE/EVA substrate at Site 7, samples were taken only
               from the beginning and end of the run.  Because Site 8 also had a shorter run for the
               PE/EVA substrate, samples were taken only from the beginning, 30 minutes into the run,
               and the end of the run.

               The blue  sample was used for rub testing of  the samples taken  from the performance
               demonstration sites. Because blue was not printed during the laboratory runs, the green
               samples were tested instead.

               All inks retained close to 95% of their density after the dry rub test. Table 4.19 presents a
               summary of the wet rub test results. During the wet rub testing, the water-based ink printed
               on LDPE performed the best, with "no failure at ten strokes" being reported on the samples
               from both Sites 3 and LI. The other ink-substrate combinations had mixed results.
                                             4-36
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                Table 4.19 Wet Rub Resistance Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
Product Line
#S2 .
#S2
#W3
#W3
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
Failure at Number of Strokes
(average)9
4.2
5.0
no failure at 1 0 strokes
2.2
5.0
5.7
8.0
no failure at 10 strokes
no failure at 10 strokes
2.5
3.2
two samples had failures at 6
and 7 strokes; one sample had
no failure at 10 strokes
                "L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
                Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
                aA failure represents ink color transferred from the printed substrate to the unprinted substrate.
                A maximum of 10 strokes were used for the wet rub resistance test. Measurements were taken
                at four locations and averaged.
        Tape Adhesiveness — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

               Tape adhesiveness was measured on LDPE, PE/EVA, and when appropriate, on OPP. The
               OPP substrates run at the demonstration sites were not tested in the laboratory because these
               substrates were laminated.  Thus, only OPP substrates printed in the laboratory runs were
               tested for tape adhesiveness. Only the colored inks were tested on the PE/EVA substrate
               because it is a white substrate.

               Table 4.20 presents the results of the tape adhesiveness test. Both inks adhered completely
               to LDPE. Solvent-based and water-based inks showed good adhesion when printed on OPP
               during the laboratory runs.
                                              4-37
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                Table 4.20 Tape Adhesiveness Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product Line
#S2
#S2
' #S2
#W3
#W3
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
L4
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
L3
L2
Number
of
Passes
4
4
3
2
0
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
0
3
3
Number
of
Failures
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
0
Comments



outline of cyan
and magenta
was removed
cyan and
magenta were
slightly removed





blue was
removed
green was
removed
all colors were
removed


                "L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
                Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
       Trap — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks

               Each site selected its own color sequence for first-down and second-down colors. Trap was
               measured for both 100% tone (solid) and 80% tone samples printed with magenta and cyan.
               Figure 4.11-4.12 show the average percent trap for these two ink colors on each substrate.
               The solvent-based inks demonstrated better trap than the water-based inks on the PE/EVA
               and OPP films. The water-based inks showed slightly better performance than the solvent-
               based on the LDPE substrate.
                                             4-38
-------
CHAPTER 4
                    PERFORMANCE
                   Figure 4.11  Average Trap for LDPE and PE/EVA— Solvent-based and
                                         Water-based Inks
                                  LDPE: Solvent-based ink
                                  LDPE: Water-based ink
                                  PE/EVA: Solvent-based ink
                                  PE/EVA: Water-based ink
              LDPE: Solvent-based ink
       98.4
LDPE: Water-based ink
PE/EVA: Solvent-based ink
PE/EVA: Water-based ink
104.8
98.7
86.9
                  100
                ex
                S
                         Figure 4.12 Average Trap for OPP— Solvent-based and
                                         Water-based Inks
                           Solvent-based ink
Water-based ink
                Solvent-based ink
       98
                Water-based ink
      87.8
                                         4-39
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
       Highlights of Performance Results for Solvent-Based and Water-Based Inks

              No clear evidence emerged from these tests that either the solvent-based or the water-based
              system performed better overall. The results of the tests varied widely. On some tests, both
              ink systems performed comparably well on one substrate and poorly on another. COF, and
              in most cases density, dimensional stability, image analysis, opacity, and rub resistance, all
              displayed results that were fairly consistent from substrate to substrate for both ink systems.

              On the other  hand,  other tests showed wide internal variability. Solvent-based inks
              performed an average of 16% better than water-based inks on the adhesive lamination test.
              Water-based inks had much better ratings than solvent-based inks on both  LDPE and
              PE/EVA. Gloss was highest for solvent-based inks on PE/EVA. On OPP, heat resistance
              varied from 9% for one water-based ink to 39% for a solvent-based ink. Odors varied in both
              strength and type across both ink and substrate type. Mottle was significantly higher for blue
              inks and water-based inks. Tape adhesiveness and trap varied by substrate and ink system.

              These variances point out the importance of a number of factors in the performance of these
              inks.  Substrate type clearly emerged as a critical  component of quality. The type and
              amount of the vehicle (solvent in solvent-based ink and water in water-based ink), as well
              as press-side solvents and additives, affected the physical properties of ink and substrate.
              In turn, functional ink-substrate interactions such as wetting and adhesion affected several
              of the performance results.

              The variability of the results indicates that there may not be one best overall choice of an
              ink system for all performance conditions and applications. One clear conclusion is that a
              flexographic printer cannot make a simple assumption that any of these ink systems or ink-
              substrate combinations will be best-suited to the firm's  overall needs. Careful testing of a
              potential ink system on the various substrates that a printer will be using most  often is
              critical to obtaining desired quality on a consistent basis.
4.3  RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY RUN
TESTS — UV-CURED INKS

               This section focuses separately on the ultraviolet-cured ink system, because flexographic
               printing technology using this UV inks on  wide-web presses, particularly using film
               substrates, was still in a developmental phase at the time this research was performed
               (November 1996—March 1997).  Therefore, the results using UV-cured inks should be
               viewed as a snapshot of the technology under field conditions during that time period rather
               than as representative of the capabilities of UV inks now or in general.  Since that time,
               improvements in UV-cured inks have been made that are described in more detail at the end
               of this  section  (Technological Developments in UV-cured Inks).  Due to technical
               limitations, no laboratory runs were performed for UV inks.

               For the methodology or for more specific information regarding the performance
               demonstration tests, please see Section 4.1 of this chapter and Appendix 4-E. Table 4.2, near
               the start of this chapter, describes the purpose, procedure, and interpretation for each test
               that was performed.

               Substrate type played a major role in the performance of UV-cured inks during the tests,
               showing that the ink-substrate relationship is very important to the performance of printed
                                             4-40
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
               products.  As is true for the solvent-based and water-based ink systems, the UV-cured ink
               results also varied widely among tests. Printers need to consider the needs of their clients,
               the type of substrates and products that they most often print, and the desired aspects of-
               quality that are most critical overall, when determining which type of ink system will be
               most appropriate for the facility.

       Block Resistance—: UV-cured Inks

               Table 4.21 shows the results of this test. On LDPE the ink showed slight blocking. Due to
               the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no block resistance
               data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
                             Table 4.21  Block Resistance Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
uv
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Average Rating of Blocking
Resistance8
2.5
1.4
1.0
                aThe following scale was used to assign a numerical score to the test results: 0 = no blocking. 1
                = slight cling. 2 = cling. 3 = slight blocking. 4 = considerable blocking.  5 = complete blocking.
                Table 4-E.1 in Appendix 4-E provides a detailed description of this scale.
                                              4-41
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
       CIE L*a*b* — UV-cured Inks

              Results for LDPE and PE/EVA are shown in Table 4.22. Due to the absence of successful
              runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no GEE L*a*b* data were available for this ink-
              substrate combination.
                              Table 4.22 CIE L*a*b* Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV-cured
(no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
•#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Color
magenta
cyan
green
blue
magenta
cyan
green
blue
magenta
cyan
qreen
blue
magenta
cyan
qreen
blue
Average
L*
43.80
61.17
65.54
40.57
47.60
60.78
64.47
38.81
53.21
62.38
70.93
48.64
52.71
59.88
63.86
34.60
Average
a*
49.03
-37.58
-50.76
2.25
53.85
-30.65
-57.91
11.30
53.50
-27.22
-53.83
8.45
48.81
-33.27
-56.90
15.39
Average
b*
10.90
-23.76
32.96
-44.73
4.01
-38.58
31.73
-50.42
-2.41
-36.98
6.50
-46.77
-4.70
-24.42
10.70
-51.63
                                           4-42
-------
CHAPTER 4
                PERFORMANCE
       Coating Weight — UV-cured Inks

              On LDPE, coating weight was lowest for blue and highest for white inks. Figures 4.13 and
              4.14 show the results. There were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP, so no coating
              weight data were available for this ink-substrate combination.

                       Figure 4.13 Average Coating Weight for LDPE — UV-cured Inks
                                  UV ink
                          Blue ink
Green ink
UV ink (no slip)

    White ink

Blue ink
Green ink
White ink
UV ink
1.92
2.77
3.51
UV ink (no slip)
1.94
2.98
3.71
                                           4-43
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                              PERFORMANCE
                       Figure 4.14 Average Coating Weight for PE/EVA •
                   3.5 -i
                                                       • UV-cured Inks
                     3-
                 $2.5 H
o
*5
                     2-
                 CO
                 *  1-1
                 TO  1 -
                 CO
                 80.5-
                                                   UVink
                                      Blue ink
                   Blue ink
                                        Green ink
                                          UVink
                                           3.07
                   Green ink
       Coefficient of Friction — UV-cured Inks
                                            2.1
               Results are shown in Table 4.23. UV ink #U3 at Site 11 had the highest COF, as was
               expected since a no-slip film was used. The COF for UV ink #U2 on LDPE (Site 6) was
               higher than the other ink-substrate combinations, particularly for two layers of printed
               substrate.  Otherwise, no significant differences between inks tested on the LDPE and
               PE/EVA substrates existed.  Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the
               OPP substrate, no COF data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
                           Table 4.23 Coefficient of Friction Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Average Angle of Inclination
(degrees)
Ink-tin"
31.2
20.8
25.9
36.9
Ink-Ink"
53.8
21.3
24.7
60+d
Control"
23.3
16.7
16.7
45.0
                a"lnk-Un" represents the coefficient of friction for printed substrate on unprinted substrate.
                b"lnk-lnk" represents the coefficient of friction for printed substrate on printed substrate.
                ""Control" represents the coefficient of friction for unprinted substrate on unprinted substrate.
                "The angle of inclination was higher,than 60 degrees.
                                              4-44
-------
CHAPTER 4
                     PERFORMANCE
       Density—- UV^-cured Inks              -

              Results are shown in Figures 4.15 and 4.16. On LDPE, the density score for blue ink was
              substantially higher than that for any other color. Density on LDPE was much lower on the
              high-slip substrate. Due to a shortened run at site 8, samples were taken only at three of the
              four planned locations on the runs. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink
              on the OPP substrate, no density data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
                           Figure 4.15 Average Density for LDPE — UV-cured Inks
                   2.5 -|
                                   UVink

                                  Magenta ink
                                  Green ink
    UV ink (high slip)
Cyan ink
Blue ink

Magenta ink
Cyan ink
Green ink
Blue ink
UV ink
1.68
- 1 .34
1.17
1 .88
UV ink (high slip)
1.09
1.25
1.46
2.17
                                            4-45
-------
CHAPTER 4
                     PERFORMANCE
                          Figure 4.16 Average Density for PE/EVA — UV-cured Inks
                                                 UVink
                                  Magenta ink
                                  Green ink
Cyan ink
Blue ink

Magenta ink
Cyan ink
Green ink
Blue ink
UVink
1.43
1.25
1.15
1.51
UV ink (high slip)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
       Dimensional Stability — UV-cured Inks

              Results are shown in Table 4.24. All three substrates showed similar measurements. Because
              the run at site 8 was shortened, samples were not taken from all scheduled locations. Due
              to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no dimensional
              stability data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
                          Table 4.24 Dimensional Stability Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Average
Width (mm)
54.34
54.24
54.08
54.25
Average Length
(mm)
77.24
77.92
75.83
77.86
        Gloss — UV-cured Inks

              Figure 4.17 shows the results for UV and UV no slip on LDPE. All readings were below
              50%, with UV on LDPE performing the best (46.83%). UV on PE/EVA averaged 42.41%.
              Limited data were available from Site 8, due to the shortened runs on PE/EVA.  Due to the
                                            4-46
-------
CHAPTER 4
                     PERFORMANCE
              absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no gloss data were
              available for this ink-substrate combination.

                            Figure 4.17 Average Gloss for LDPE — UV-cured Inks
                   50-i
               UVink
                               UVink
UV ink (no slip)
       46.83
               UV ink (no slip)                     |               32.31

       Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — UV-cured Inks

               Table 4.25 shows that two of the three UV-cured product lines (UV ink #U1 and UV ink
               #U3) stayed flexible on both substrates, but UV ink #U2 failed on both substrates.
                        Table 4.25 Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV
(no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Any Ink Removal?
yes, less than 1 5%
yes, less than 1 5%
no
no
        Image Analysis — UV-cured Inks

               Table 4.26 shows the results of the test.  Both average dot area and average dot perimeter
               varied, but not consistently with each other. Dot area showed a range from 384 square
               microns (cyan on PE/EVA) to 966 square microns (cyan on LDPE). Dot perimeter varied
               from a low of 80 square microns (cyan and magenta) to a high of almost 139 square microns
                                            4-47
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
              (cyan). Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no
              image analysis data were available for this ink-substrate combination.

                             Table 4.26 Image Analysis Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
uv
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Color
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
Average
Dot
Area
(micron2)
716.28
966.98
672.38
892.23
480.28
384.78
456.52
571.66
Average
^Dot
Perimeter
(microns)
113.05
134.64
101.13
138.79
91.78
80.60
80.80
93.08
                                           4-48
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
       Jar Odor — UV-cured Inks

               Table 4.27 lists the results of this test. The UV-cured inks showed more of a range in scores
               than did the other ink types. UV ink #U3 had the mildest odor, both in strength (1) and
               description (mild waxy).  The odor from UV ink #U1 was rated 3 in strength and was
               described as "mild acetic acid." UV ink #U2 had the strongest odors (4 to 5 on a scale of
               5) and was described as "very strong bitter almond" on the LDPE substrate, and as "very
               strong, decayed fish" on the PE/EVA. It should be noted that the controls for these samples
               were, respectively, "slightly like bitter almond" and "fish."  This implies that either the
               unprinted substrate's odor affected the odor of the ink sample, or that the odor of the ink
               sample affected the entire roll (both printed and unprinted areas). Due to the absence of
               successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no jar odor data were available for
               this ink-substrate combination.

                                 Table 4.27 Jar Odor Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV
(no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Relative
Score'
4
5
1
3
Description of
Printed Area
very strong bitter
almond
very strong,
decayed fish
very slight odor
acetic acid, mild
Description of
Unprinted Area
(control)
slightly like bitter
almond
fish
mild waxy
waxy
              "Printed samples were scored on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 signifying no odor, and 5 signifying an
              unpleasant, offensive odor.
                                             4-49
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                            PERFORMANCE
       Mottle/Lay — UV-cured Inks

              Figures 4.18 and 4.19 display the results of the mottle/lay test. Green ink showed little
              mottle on either substrate. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the
              OPP substrate, no mottle data were available for this ink-substrate combination.

                         Figure 4.18 Average Mottle Index for LDPE — UV-cured Inks
                                    UVink
UV ink (no slip)
1
Blue ink
Green ink
| Blue ink |22 (
UVink
281
73
Breen ink
UV ink (no slip)
382.5
47
                                             4-50
-------
CHAPTER 4
                          PERFORMANCE
                        Figure 4.19  Average Mottle Index for PE/EVA — UV-cured Inks
                   500-i
                                    Blue ink
UVink

     Green ink

Blue ink
Green ink
UVink
491
53.45
UV ink (no slip)
n/a
n/a
       Opacity — UV-cured Inks

              The readings averaged around 55% but showed high standard deviation values, which may
              indicate poor uniformity of substrate coverage. Only LDPE data were collected for this test.
              The opacity test was not run on PE/EVA because it is a white substrate, and there were no
              successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP.
                                           4-51
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
       Rub Resistance — UV-cured Inks
                                                                                            1
              Table 4.28 shows the results of wet rub resistance tests. UV on LDPE performed the best,
              with failure at an average of 5.2 strokes. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured
              ink on the OPP substrate, no rub resistance data were available for this ink-substrate
              combination. For dry rub resistance, the ink used on no-slip LDPE (Site 11) received the
              only score below 90%.

                           Table 4.28  Wet Rub Resistance Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Failure at Number of Strokes
(average)3
5.2
4.2
2.3
2.2
                aA failure represents ink color transferred from the printed substrate to the unprinted substrate.
                A maximum of 10 strokes were used for the wet rub resistance test. Measurements were taken
                at four locations and averaged.  See Appendix 4-E for specifics.

       Tape Adhesiveness — UV-cured Inks

               Table 4.29 shows the results of the test. Results were mixed. UV no slip on LDPE had no
               failures and 4 passes, whereas UV on PE/EVA had the reverse showing. Due to the absence
               of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no tape adhesiveness data were
               available for this ink-substrate combination.
                           Table 4.29 Tape Adhesiveness Results — UV-cured Inks

Ink

UV
UV
(no slip)

Film

LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE


Product Line

#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1


Site

6
6
8
11

Number
of
Passes
2
0
1
4

Number
of
Failures
2
4
2
0


Comments

white and magenta
were removed
blue, green, and
magenta were
removed
cyan was slightly
removed


        Trap — UV-cured Inks

               This system averaged approximately 90% for trapping. UV inks on PE/EVA scored an
               average of 93%, whereas on LDPE the inks scored an average of 87%. Due to the absence
               of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no trap data were available for this
               ink-substrate combination.
                                             4-52
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
       Uncured Residue — UV-cured Inks

               The uncured residue test was performed only for UV-cured inks. The uncured residue test
               was measured in the laboratory with samples collected from Sites 6,8 and 11. UV ink was
               not run at any other sites.

               Uncured residue was measured only for green, blue, and white ink, since these colors had
               the largest areas of coverage.  Results are presented in Table 4.30 as average percent (by
               weight) of ink removed. The averages are based on four measurements taken at different
               locations from each site, sample. Uncured residue was found only on the blue ink samples.
               Due to the absence of successful runs of UV ink on the OPP substrate, no uncured residue
               data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
                         Table 4.30  Average Uncured Residue Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Average
Percent of Ink
Removed
(bv weight)3
0.00
0.00
6.97
10.42
               aUncured residue was found on the blue ink samples only.
       Summary of Performance Test Results for UV-Cured Inks

              These performance demonstrations were completed in 1997, since which time flexographic
              printing technology for UV-cured inks has made significant advances.  The test results
              recorded in this CTSA provide a snapshot of UV technology early in its technical
              development but do not necessarily lead to any conclusions about current or potential
              abilities of UV inks. In fact, just as for solvent-based and water-based inks, no one test can
              provide a reliable or accurate indicator of overall quality for any printer. Printers need to
              consider a variety of different factors in determining acceptable quality. These factors —
              among them cost, health and environmental risks, energy use, and pollution prevention
              opportunities — are discussed in other chapters of this CTSA.

              UV-cured inks performed well on some tests.   The inks  displayed good resistance to
              blocking, particularly on PE/EVA and no-slip LDPE. The inks displayed relatively good
              trapping. Mottle was better than that of the water-based inks and comparable to that of the
              solvent-based inks. For the ice water crinkle test, only one UV-cured ink (#U2) displayed
              evidence of removal. Also, the coating weight was greater than that for solvent- and water-
              based inks, despite lower ink consumption as measured hi Chapter 6.

              The test results on these particular UV product lines also showed a need for improvement,
              particularly some physical adherence tests. The rub resistance and tape adhesiveness results
              were unimpressive for inks #U1  and #U3; these results may have been caused by the
              incomplete curing observed with these two product lines. The opacity level (measured for
                                             4-53
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
               white inks only) showed a high standard deviation, which indicated a lack of uniformity.
               In addition, gloss was low, despite the fact that high gloss is considered to be a strength of
               UV finishes.

       Technological Development in UV-cured Inks

               With any new technology, changes can occur rapidly, and UV-cured inks are no exception.
               Recent formulation and equipment improvements are addressing some of the limitations for
               UV-cured inks seen in the performance demonstrations for this  CTSA.  For example,
               cationic inks (as opposed to the free-radical UV inks in the CTSA) may have lower
               shrinkage rates and improved  flexibility, which may help with adherence.  Other
               adjustments in chemistry are being made to reduce viscosity and improve the curing rate of
               UV inks. Furthermore, improvements in equipment may lead to overall better coatings. This
               section describes significant developments and the improvements they could yield, and
               discusses aspects of the technology that continue to pose difficulties.

               Many advances have been made in the past few years that improve the quality of UV inks
               for wide-web flexography. New cationic inks might offer an alternative for printers who use
               porous substrates, need a more thoroughly cured ink, or print items for which odor must be
               minimized.  Improvements have been made with free-radical UV-cured inks; some inks can
               be used on several substrates, the viscosity has been reduced, and the ink is more durable
               when applied. Equipment improvements have led to better heat management, which in turn
               has provided printers with better energy efficiency, improved equipment durability, and
               high-quality products. Furthermore, technologies such as improved UV bulbs are improving
               curing rates while at the same time requiring that less photoinitiator be included in the ink.

               Although UV  wide-web flexography still faces obstacles, technological  developments
               indicate that UV will continue to improve and grow in the future.

               Cationic Inks
               Currently, most UV-cured ink is based on free radical curing, which involves acrylate
               monomers that, when exposed to high-energy ultraviolet light, undergo a chain reaction to
               bind together hi a large polymer.  (For more information on the free-radical curing process,
               see Chapter 2.) This free radical reaction is beneficial in several ways, most prominently
               that the reaction (or "drying") is almost instantaneous when the polymer is  exposed to the
               UV light. Early concerns with cationic inks included 1) that the reaction process causes the
               ink to shrink, which can affect the ability of the ink to bind to the substrate,  2) the reaction
               can be inhibited by the presence of oxygen for some applications, and 3) unreacted epoxide
               molecules can have an unpleasant odor.1  These concerns have  largely been addressed
               through formulation and equipment improvements.2

               The evolution of cationic inks is one of the most significant recent developments in UV-
               cured ink technology. Cationic inks work in a similar fashion to free-radical inks, in that
               small monomers react to form a cohesive polymer in the presence of UV rays. This process
               differs from free radical curing in that the monomer in the ink is usually an epoxide rather
               than an acrylate, and that the reaction occurs due to the reaction of electron-deficient ions,
               rather than the binding of electronically-neutral but unstable radicals.
                                              4-54
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
               One benefit of the cationic system over the free radical system is that the reaction is not
               inhibited by oxygen; therefore, the curing is usually more complete. However, the reaction
               can be limited if bases, such as amines, are present in the ink or substrate.3

               Cationic inks have several other advantages. The epoxide shrinks less than acrylate when
               it polymerizes, and therefore adheres to the substrate better. Cationic inks have less odor,
               because the material dries more thoroughly and because epoxides are inherently less
               odorous than  acrylics. Furthermore, cationic inks are less viscous. As a result, they flow
               well without heating, they require corona treatment less frequently, and the applied layer is
               more evenly spread for solid colors. Ink densities are also stronger for cationic inks than
               they might be for free radical inks.4 In addition, cationic inks can produce a high gloss and
               good adhesiveness, and thus can prevent the need for costly lamination on certain products.5

               Several disadvantages, however, currently make cationic inks a less popular option than the
               more established free radical system. Even though cationic inks may dry more thoroughly,
               the drying process takes longer. This has implications for press speed, because additional
               colors cannot be added until the first color cures.6  The final product printed with cationic
               inks does not have as much solvent resistance as free radical inks.7 The drying of cationic
               inks are can be affected by moisture and high humidity, so that until the problem is resolved,
               cationic inks cannot be used universally in all geographic locations.8 Finally, cationic inks
               might not cure effectively on high-pH substrates, such as paper.

               Other Ink Developments
               Significant advances have been made in adjusting the properties of both free radical and
               cationic inks.  One such property is the ability to be printed on more than one substrate.
               Early UV-cured inks were specially formulated for a given substrate, and several sets of UV
               ink chemistries had to be stored on-site if a printer worked  with multiple substrates.  This
               practice was inconvenient and increased inventory costs. Newer UV-cured inks are more
               universal and perform consistently on most substrates. However, these inks may damage
               the photopolymer plates, which then require more frequent changing.9

               Ink suppliers are now developing UV-cured inks that have less odor, either by reducing the
               amount of photoinitiator and monomer needed, or modifying the chemical structure of the
               monomer so that it is less pungent.10 Skin irritation sometimes caused by UV-cured inks has
               been mitigated by using water to reduce the viscosity of the inks rather than traditional
               diluents.11  Also, the resistance of inks to water damage has been improved by developing
               additives that  make the ink more durable.12

               Temperature  Control
               Temperature management with central impression drum presses (which include most wide-
               web presses) equipped with UV curing equipment has been a challenge.  If the conditions
               are not managed properly by the press manufacturer, some UV rays reflect off of the drum
               and heat it in the process.  When the press temperature is raised above the standard 32°C, the
               drum is vulnerable to warping.  In addition, heat can damage some substrates, including
               films.                    "

               Adjusting the energy input to the curing lamps has been one approach to reducing press
               temperatures.  One study found that with most UV-cured inks, smaller diameter bulbs cured
               the inks at the same rate but used significantly less energy and thus generated less heat.  In
               addition, specialized bulbs (e.g., D bulbs containing iron for pigmented inks and V bulbs
               containing gallium for white inks) can reduce the required energy.13
                                              4-55
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                              PERFORMANCE
              Lowering ink viscosity also helps lower temperatures.  Viscous inks often require heating
              in order to make the ink flow well. Cationic inks, which generally are less viscous and do
              not require heating, are a possible solution for printers faced with difficulties in heat
              management.

              Equipment suppliers are also improving power supply and ventilation systems used in curing
              UV inks.  Devices can be installed that allow for variable power supply; the press operator
              can adjust the power so that only the minimum amount of energy is used to cure the ink.
              Heat can be removed more efficiently from the bulb and substrate surface by making
              improvements in ventilation, such as improved lamp housing aerodynamics and variable-
              speed blowers.14 Another recent improvement has been the development of special dichroic
              reflectors, which absorb infrared energy while directing UV rays to the desired coating.15

               Ultraviolet/Electron Beam (UV/EB) Hybrid Press
              A combination of a UV press with a final electron beam (EB) curing  station is still
              considered experimental, but might improve drying and reduce energy demands. An EB
              curing station emits a higher energy wave than UV lamps, and therefore penetrates thicker
               layers better. Because EB lamps cure so much more thoroughly at the end, the intermediate
              UV lamps do not have to be as powerful,  and fewer photoinitiator are needed in the inks.16
               It has been estimated that a UV/EB hybrid press consumes 35 percent less energy and
              produces less heat.17 In addition, the UV/EB technology can be used with porous substrates,
               which standard UV technology cannot  since it does not thoroughly cure ink on such
               substrates.  Currently, the major limitation for UV/EB  technology is  the large capital
               expenditure required for equipment. In addition, performance properties of the ink might
               be altered.18

               Remaining Technical Challenges
               Despite the advances made during the past few years, several difficulties still remain with
               UV technology. One that is particularly evident in film applications is inadequate adhesion.
               Much of the difficulty stems from the shrinkage that free radical UV-cured inks undergo as
               they cure. Because shrinkage is less of an issue with cationic inks, further development of
               cationic inks may help solve this problem. Ink suppliers are also developing free radical
               UV-cured inks with improved adhesion.

               Another issue is the application of even ink layers.  Historically, the thick viscosity of UV-
               cured inks has created discontinuous ink layers and pinholing. The reduced viscosity of
               current UV inks reduces pinholing but could affect dot gain.19-20> 21
 4.4 SITE PROFILES
               The site profiles provide background information for each of the volunteer printing facilities
               that participated in the performance demonstrations. This section provides information about
               each facility, as well as technical information about each press.

               Table 4.31 summarizes the press speed, run time, and run length for each of the performance
               demonstration sites.
                                              4-56
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                 Table 4.31 Summary Information about the Performance Demonstration Sites
Site
1
2

3

4
5

6


7

8


9A
9B
10
11
Ink
Water-based
Water-based

Water-based

Water-based
Solvent-based

0V


Solvent-based

UV


Water-based
Solvent-based
Solvent-based
UV
Substrate
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
OPP
OPP
OPP
LDPE
Average
press speed
ffi/minV
430
403
403
218
430
450
400
400
344
354
344
450
—
262
262
262
425
415
600
400
Run time
(minutes)3
129
93
102
126
131
123
57
56
92
95
38
148
—
65
63
15
66
80
90
153
Run length (feet
51,000
37,053
37,868
26,927
- 47,884
13,160
21,924
20,858
32,431
27,691
6,853
42,000
8,069
2,559
15,912
4,265
34,434
33,641
56,700
38,400
              a Run time included changing of substrate rolls and getting the press back up to speed.
              b Based on the maximum speed attained during the run.
              Site 1: Water-based Ink #W2 on OPP
                           Table 4.32 Facility Background Information for Site 1
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description .
100% water-based
None
1 .5 million pounds of clear and metallized polypropylene,
polyethylene, and polyester; cellophane and paper
flexographic-printed products
24 hours per day, 363 days per year
Four hours
                                           4-57
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                  Table 4.33 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 1
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater (yes / no)
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Descrlotion
Amber Press, Central Impression
55 inches wide, eight-color
Reverse
500 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 0.020 hard stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 0.020 hard stick back
Pillar, Model DB5673-1 6
Chambered
Steel
Peristaltic air pump, pumping from semi-covered five-
gallon buckets
                       Table 4.34 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 1
Sequence
Deckl
Deck 2 — Not Used
Decks
Deck 4
Deck 5 — Not Used
Deck6
Deck 7 — Not Used
DeckS
Color
Blue
—
Cyan
Green
—
Magenta
—
White
Anilox ID!"
280
—
800
280
—
800
—
280
Anilox BCMb
7.0
—
1.7
6.4
—
1.7
—
7.5
               alines per inch
               "billion cubic microns per square inch
                Table 4.35 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 1
Substrate
OPP
I Press speed
I 430ft/min
I Run time
I 129 minutes
i Run lenath I
I 51 .000 feet I
                                           4-58
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
               Observations and Comments
               Due to site-specific circumstances, a surface ink was used for the blue in place of a reverse
               ink at the start of the run. The correct reverse ink was added to the surface ink in the ink pan
               after approximately 38,000 impressions. While a press speed of 500 ft/min might have been
               possible with this press and ink, bounce on the white plate limited the maximum obtainable
               speed to 430 ft/min. The bounce on the white plate occurred due to mounting.

               Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were completed  with no uncontrollable
               Complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press
               operators were easily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired quality
               result and achieve production printing speeds and conditions.

               Site 2:  Water-based Ink #W3 on LDPE and PE/EVA
                             Table 4.36 Facility Background Information for Site 2
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Ava. production run
Description
100% water-based
None
10,465,000 pounds of polyethylene flexographic-printed
products
24 hours per day, 363 days per year
Five hours, includina makereadv
                   Table 4.37  Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 2
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
UTECO,Quarz140
54 inches wide, six-color
Surface ,
500 feet/minute
0.107" Dupont EXL phptopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and
using Tessa hard stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and
using Tessa hard stick back
cyan) mounted
white) mounted
Enercon
Chamber
Daetwyler 0.006
Peristaltic pump with air monitors in each five-gallon
bucket
                                            4-59
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                       Table 4.38 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 2"
Seauence
Deck 1
Deck 2
Deck 3 — Not Used
Deck 4
DeckS
Deck 6
Color
White
Green
—
Magenta
Blue
Cyan
Anilox loib
360
300
—
360
280
360
Anilox BCM°
5.05
6.90
—
5.13
6.00
4.90
                'Deck 1 (white ink) not used for the PE/EVA substrate
                blines per inch
                cbillion cubic microns per square inch
                 Table 4.39 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 2
IS u b st rsto
LDPE
PE/EVA
Press soeed
403ft/min
403 ft/min
Run time
93 minutes
102 minutes
Run lenath
37,053 feet
37,868 feet
               Observations and Comments
               LDPE
               Pinholing occurred in all colors, and the trap was poor. No blocking or apparent problems
               with dimensional stability occurred.  The pinholing and poor trap were considered
               acceptable and typical for this site. The press operator made minor impression adjustments
               in an effort to compensate for the pinholing.

               PE/EVA
               The green and blue samples taken at the beginning of the run failed the adhesiveness test,
               while the magenta and cyan passed. The printing quality of all colors was poor, and the
               printing appeared duty, but the lay was acceptable with no blocking. The trap was variable
               depending on position across the web and impression.  There appeared to be no dimensional
               stability concerns.

               At the end of the run, the green and blue samples continued to fail the adhesiveness test, but
               the magenta and cyan samples passed with no failure or ink removed. The printing still
               appeared to look dirty. Trap was acceptable and lay was improved.

               Overall, the makeready and run were completed with no serious complications. The printing
               problems encountered were considered normal for this site.
                                              4-60
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
             Site 3: Water-based Ink #W3 on LDPE and PE/EVA
                          Table 4.40 Facility Background Information for Site 3
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description
100% water-based
None
10 million pounds of flexographic-printed flexible packaging
products
24 hours per day, seven days per week
Eight hours including makeready
                 Table 4.41  Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 3
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Faustel
50 inches wide, six-color
Surface
Not given
0.067" Polyfibron photopolymer plates:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using hard stick back
Enercon
Chambered doctor blade, except for white, which is a
two-roll without doctor blade
Not given
Peristaltic air pump in five-gallon bucket
                                        4-61
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                       Table 4.42 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 3"
Seciuence
Deck 1
Deck 2
Deck 3
Deck 4
DeckS
Deck 6 — Not Used
Color
White
Magenta
Cyan
Green
Blue
—
Anilox lpib
300
500
500
240
240
—
Anilox BCM°
5.2
3.2
3.2
7.8
7.8
—
                "Deck 1 (white ink) not used for the PE/EVA substrate
                "lines per inch
                cbillion cubic microns per square inch
                 Table 4.43 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 3
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
Press soeed
218ft/min
430 ft/min
Run time
126 minutes
131 minutes
Run lenath
I
26,927 feet I
47.884 feet {]
               Observations and Comments
               LDPE
               Toward the end of the run, pinholing was evident in the blue and the green samples. Also,
               there was indication of ink drying on the edge of the magenta plate. The pinholing was
               considered minimal and typical. The press operator made minor impression adjustments to
               compensate. Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be a factor in overall
               quality.

               PE/EVA
               The samples taken at the beginning of the run passed the adhesiveness test, although some
               light dusting occurred in the green and blue.  No trap or dimensional problems occurred.
               Poor wetting of the green on white, and pinholing of the blue on white, were: evident.

               At the end of the run, the cyan and magenta samples passed the adhesiveness test with no
               ink removed, but the green and blue failed. The demonstration team noted that these two
               colors should be tested again later after they had more time to dry. When tested again, the
               blue passed the adhesiveness test, but the green still failed. Increased pinholing was noted
               for both the green and the blue. Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be
               a factor in overall quality.

               Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable
               complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal for this site.
                                              4-62
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
              Site 4: Water-based Ink #W1 on OPP
                           Table 4.44 Facility Background Information for Site 4
Item
Ink type
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Ava. production run
Description
1 00% water-based
None
3 million pounds of polyethylene and polypropylene
flexographic-printed products
24 hours per day, five days per week
One week
                  Table 4.45 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 4
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Kidder Stacey
46 inches wide, six-color
Reverse
400 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont EXL photopolymer plates:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using Foam NY20 stick back with foam lining
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using Foam NY20 stick back with foam lining
Enercon
Chambered
Unknown
Air powered pump from five-gallon buckets covered
with cardboard
                      Table 4.46 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 4
Seauence
Deck 1
Deck 2
Decks
Deck 4
Deck 5 — Not Used
Deck 6
Color
Blue
Cyan
Green
Magenta
—
White
Anilox loia
250
800
250
600
—
250
Anilox BCMb
6.1
2.2
6.8
2.7
— -
6.3
               alines per inch
               "billion cubic microns per square inch
                                          4-63
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                            PERFORMANCE
                Table 4.47  Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 4
Subst 1*3^6
OPP
Press soeed
450 ft/mina
Run time
123 minutes
Run lenath I
13,1 60 feet |
                    press speed varied between 400 ft/min and 450 ft/min.
              Observations and Comments
              The press was initially ramped to 400 ft/min for the demonstration run. The speed was then
              increased to 450 ft/min, after 7,500 feet of film had been consumed. Press speed was later
              slowed to 435 ft/min, and then to 415 ft/min for the last roll of substrate due to drying
              concerns.
              During the run, the pinholing became worse for the green sample, and was also appearing
              in all the other colors. Both pinholing and plugging occurred in the blue. The pinholing and
              contamination were considered minimal and typical for this site. The press operator made
              minor impression adjustments to compensate during the run. Trap and dimensional stability
              were not considered to be factors in overall quality.

              Site 5: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA

                             Table 4.48 Facility Background Information for Site 5
ItGITI
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description
100% solvent-based
Four catalytic oxidizers for nine presses
14 million pounds of polyethylene and polypropylene
flexographic-printed products
24 hours per day, six days per week
Two hours
                                             4-64
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                           PERFORMANCE
                  Table 4.49  Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 5
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Windmoller & Holscher, Central Impression
24 inches wide, six-color
Surface
400 feet/minute
0.1 07" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1 ) Two process plates (magenta and cyan)
using compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white)
using hard stick back
mounted
mounted
None
Enclosed doctor blade
Stainless steel
Closed-loop, air-powered
                      Table 4.50 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 5a
Seauence
Deckl
Deck 2 — Not Used
Deck 3
Deck4
Decks
Decks
Color
White
• . —
Green
Blue
Magenta
Cyan
Anilox ID!"
300
—
240"
240
550
550
Anilox BCMC
6.2
—
4.2
4.2
2.0
2.0
              aDeck 1 (white ink) was not used for the PE/EVA substrate.
              blines per inch
              °billion cubic microns per square inch
               Table 4.51 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 5
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
Press speed
400 ft/min
400 ft/min
Run time
57 minutes
56 minutes
Run lenath
21 ,924 feet
20,858 feet
             Observations and Comments
             LDPE
             Some slight plate contamination was evident in the blue sample. Minor pinholing was
             apparent in the green sample.  The pinholing and contamination were considered minimal
                                          4-65
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                                                             PERFORMANCE
              and typical.  The press operator made minor impression adjustments to compensate^ Trap
              and dimensional stability were not considered to be a factor in overall quality.

              PE/EVA
              The samples taken at the beginning of the run passed the adhesiveness test, with no trap or
              dimensional problems.  The lay was acceptable and tones appeared clean and open in the
              light end highlights. At the end of the run, the samples passed the adhesiveness test with no
              failure of ink removed.  There were, however, some slight problems with solid formation,
              which may have been related to impression. The tones were beginning to plug in the light
              end highlights. The press team suggested that the ink drying speed was  fast. Trap and
              dimensional stability were not considered to be a factor in overall quality.

              Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were  completed with no uncontrollable
              complications.  The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press
              operators were easily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired quality
              result.

              Site 6:  UV Ink #U2 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP

                             Table 4.52  Facility Background Information for Site 6
Itorn
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description
60% solvent-based inks, 35% water-based inks,
5% UV inks
and
-\_
Charcoal adsorption
8 million pounds of polyethylene, polypropylene,
flexographic-printed products
and paper
24 hours per day, 4.5 days per week
Six to eight hours
                    Table 4.53  Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 6
                 Item
                                             Description
                 Press
                                             Cobden Chadwick
                 Size of press
32 inches wide, six-color
                 Printing type
Surface and reverse
                 Production speed
250 to 350 feet/minute
                 Plates
0.107" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
  using 0.020 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
  using 0.020 hard stick back	
                 Corona treater
Q.C. Electronics
                 Ink metering system
Chambered
                 Type of doctor blade
Unknown
                 Ink pumping and mixing
ARO. model 65736-003. air-powered, with diaphragm
                                              4-66
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                        Table 4.54 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 6a
Seauence
Deck 1 -
Deck 2
Deck 3
Deck 4
Decks
Deck 6 — Not Used
Color
White
Magenta
Cyan
Green
Blue
—
Anilox loib
250
600
600
360
360
—
Anilox BCMC
7.5
2.8
2.8
4.7
4.7
—
                aDeck 1 (white ink) not used for the PE/EVA substrate
                "lines per inch
                cbillion cubic microns per square inch
                Table 4,55 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 6
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPPb
Press soeed
344 ft/mina
354ft/min
344 ft/min
Run time
92 minutes
95 minutes
38 minutes
Run lenath
32,431 feet
27,691 feet
6.853 feet
                "Press speed was averaged between the two rolls (337 ft/min and 351 ft/min).
                The run was aborted due to sample failure of the adhesiveness test and overheating of the chill
                roller.
               Observations and Comments
               LDPE
               Some slight  plate contamination and minor pinholing were evident in the white.  The
               pinholing and contamination were considered minimal and typical. The press operator made
               minor impression adjustments to compensate. Although there was still some wrinkling of
               the substrate noted, trap was not considered to be a factor in overall quality.

               PE/EVA
               The samples taken at the beginning of the run revealed that the ink lay was good, but the
               print quality  appeared dirty. These problems were also noted on the samples taken at the
               end of the run. It was also noted that the density of the magenta had increased during the
               run, and the attempts to reduce it were unsuccessful. Trap and dimensional stability were
               not considered to be a factor in overall quality.

               Samples taken at the  beginning of the run failed the adhesiveness test in all colors.
               Adhesiveness tests were performed on samples taken mid-run, at which time the green and
               blue both passed, but the other colors failed. By the end of the run,  all colors again failed
               the adhesiveness test except cyan.
                                              4-67
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
              OPP
              The samples taken at the beginning of the run failed the adhesiveness test.  The white
              appeared to have low opacity, evidence of pinholing, and the print quality appeared dirty.
              The other colors appeared to have good printability with fair trap. No major problems with
              dimensional stability or blocking were noted; however, heat from the lamps caused wrinkles
              to form.

              The main (final) UV lamp was overheating the chill roller during the run, and  the
              demonstration team decided that the chill roller was not functioning properly.  The
              temperature of the chill roller was 155°F, and the chill roller was smoking. The decision
              was made to abort the run, and no samples were taken for measurement or analysis.

              Site 7: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA

                            Table 4.56 Facility Background Information for Site 7
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
AVQ production run
Description
100% solvent-based
Two-unit catalytic oxidation
10 million pounds of oriented polypropylene flexographic-
printed products
24 hours per day, five days
weekend
per week plus every other
60 to 60.000 pounds
                   Table 4.57 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 7
item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
svstem
Descriotion
Kidder
45.5 inches wide, six-color "
Surface
500 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont FAH photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 0.20 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 0.20 compressible stick back
None
Chamber
Unknown
Greymill, electric
                                            4-68
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                       Table 4.58 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site T
Seauence
Deck 1
Deck 2 — Not Used
Decks
Deck 4
Deck 5
Deck 6
Color
White
—
Cyan
Magenta
Green
Blue
Anilox loib
200
—
700
700
500
500
Anilox BCMC
8.5
—
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
                aDeck 1 (white ink) was not used for the PE/EVA substrate
                "lines per inch
                cbillion cubic microns per square inch
                Table 4.59 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 7
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVAa
Press speed
450 ft/min
—
Run time
148 minutes
—
Run lenath
42,000 feet
8.069 feet
                aThe run was aborted due to problems with the substrate.
               Observations and Comments     '           .
               LDPE
               The printing quality of the tones and the lay of the inks were acceptable. The trap was very
               good, and no blocking occurred. No problems with dimensional stability were noted.

               PE/EVA
               It was intended that the PE/EVA substrate also be run at this location.  The substrate was
               mounted on the press, and the "makeready check" was begun. After only 8,069 feet of film
               were consumed, the run was aborted. The demonstration team decided that the roll of
               substrate they were running was not the correct project control film, due to a supplier mix-
               up.  In addition, the substrate had wrinkles from poor extrusion, the cores were not the
               correct size, and the cores were crushed.

               No samples were taken from the PE/EVA run, and no measurements were made.
                                             4-69
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                         PERFORMANCE
              Site 8: UV Ink #U3 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP


                            Table 4.60 Facility Background Information for Site 8
               Item
I Description
               Ink type used
               Control equipment
               Annual production
               Operating hours
               Ava. production run
 This facility is a press manufacturing facility in Germany; it is
 not a commercial printing facility.  Therefore, no production
 data are available.
               Table 4.61 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 8
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
svstem
Description
Windmoller & Holscher, Soloflex
2
25 inches wide, four-color
Surface and reverse
450 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont photopolymer:
1 ) Two process plates (magenta
unknown
2) Three line plates (green, blue,
unknown
and cyan), mounting
and white), mounting
Kalwar
Chambered
Steel
Air-powered
                       Table 4.62  Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 8a
Sequence
Deck 1 — PE/EVA
Deck 1 — LDPE, OPP
Deck 2
DeckS
Deck 4
Color
Magenta
White
Green
Blue
Cvan
Anilox lDib
724
200
724
724
724
Anilox BCM°
4.5
8.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
               aDeck 1 changed between PE/EVA and LDPE because this site used only a four-color press.
               blines per inch •
               cbillion cubic microns per square inch
                                            4-70
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                 Table 4.63 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 8
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPPa
Press speed
262 ft/min
262ft/min
262 ft/min
Run time
65 minutes
63 minutes
15 minutes
Run lenath
16,643 feet
15,908 feet
4.264 feet
                aThe run was aborted due to sample failure of the adhesiveness test and the discoloration of
                the OPP to a greenish tint.
Observations and Comments
               The performance demonstration at Site 8 was conducted on a press manufacturer's pilot line,
               which was not a commercial printing press.

               LDPE
               The samples taken at the end of the run failed the adhesiveness test. The printing appeared
               dirty in the solid areas of the blue ink, but the other colors had good printability. The trap
               was good. No problems with dimensional stability were noted, and there was no evidence
               of blocking.

               PE/EVA
               Dirty printing was more evident in the blue solid area on the end of run samples, and the
               green was also starting to appear dirty. The tones were inspected for cleanliness and
               transfer. Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be a factor in overall quality.

               OPP
               At the end of the run, the samples failed the adhesiveness test. The printing appeared dirty
               in the blue solid area, and was beginning to appear dirty in the green as well. The visual
               quality of the other colors was good. Trap was acceptable, there was no blocking, and there
               were no problems with dimensional stability.  During this run, the OPP substrate turned a
               greenish tint.  It is believed that the UV lamps caused a photo-reaction in the substrate.

               Site9A:  Water-based Ink #W4 on OPP
                             Table 4.64 Facility Background Information for Site 9A
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
AVQ, production run
Description
100% water-based
None
300 million linear feet
Two 1 2-hour shifts per day
8 to 12 hours
                                              4-71
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                 Table 4.65 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 9A
item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
svstem
Description
Kidder Stacey
45.5 inches wide, eight-color
Reverse
500 feet/min
0.067" Dupont PQS photopolymer:
1 ) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 3M 1 020, 0.020 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 3M 1020, 0.020 compressible stick back
Enercon
Chamber *
White steel
Powerwise, air-powered
                      Table 4.66 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 9A
Sequence
Deck 1 — Not Used
Deck 2
DeckS
Deck 4 — Not Used
DeckS
Deck 6
Deck 7 — Not Used
Deck 8
Color
—
Blue
Cyan
—
Magenta
Green
—
White
Anilox loia •
—
400
550
—
550
400
—
300
Anilox BCM"
—
4.0
2.7
—
2.7
4.0
—
5.5
               "lines per inch
               'trillion cubic microns per square inch
                   Table 4.67 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration
                                               at Site 9A
I Substrate
LOPP
I Press speed
I 425ft/min
I Run time
I 66 minutes
I Run lenqth I
I 34.434 feet I
                                           4-72
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
              Observations and Comments
              The samples taken at the end of the run revealed good printability, good trap, no problems
              with dimensional stability, and no blocking. Overall, the makeready and demonstration run
              were completed with no uncontrollable complications.

              Site9B: Solvent-based Ink #S1 on OPP
                           Table 4.68 Facility Background Information for Site 9B
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description
1 00% water-based
None
300 million linear feet
Two 1 2-hour shifts per day
8 to 12 hours
               Table 4.69 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 9B
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Kidder Stacey
45.5 inches wide, eight-color
Reverse
500feet/min
0.067" Dupont PQS photopolymer:
1 ) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 3M 1020, 0.020 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 3M 1020, 0.020 compressible stick back
None
Chamber
White steel
Powerwise, air-powered
                                           4-73
-------
CHAPTER 4
                                             PERFORMANCE
                      Table 4.70 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 9B
Sequence
Deck 1 — Not Used
Deck 2
Decks
Deck 4 — Not Used
Deck 5
Deck6
Deck? — Not Used
Decks
Color
—
Blue
Cyan
—
Magenta
Green
—
White
Anilox loia
—
400
550
—
550
400
—
300
Anilox BCMb
—
4.0
2.7
—
2.7
4.0

5.5
               alines per inch
               bbillion cubic microns per square inch
                   Table 4.71 Summary information from the Performance Demonstration
                                                at Site 9B
              I Substrate
Press speed
Run time
Run length
OPP
415ft/min
I 80 minutes
33.641 feet
              Observations and Comments
              Site 9B is -normally a 100% water-based  ink facility.  Facility  staff agreed to do a
              demonstration run with solvent-based inks on OPP for this project. Overall, the makeready
              and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable complications. The samples
              taken at the end of the run revealed  good printability, good trap, no problems with
              dimensional stability, and no blocking.

              Site 10: Solvent-based Ink  #S2 on OPP
                            Table 4.72 Facility Background Information for Site 10
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Ava. production run
Description
100% solvent-based
One thermal oxidizer for three presses
1 0.5 million pounds — 95% medium-density polyethylene
(MDPE), 5% low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
24 hours per day, 5 days per week, plus 25 Saturdays
24 hours
                                            4-74
-------
CHAPTER 4
                         PERFORMANCE
                  Table 4.73 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 10
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink purnping and mixing
svstem
Descriotion
Paper Converting Machine Company, model 7067
61 inches wide, eight-color
Reverse
750 to 850 feet/minute
0.107" BASF photopolymer:
1 ) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 3M 1 120 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 3M 939 hard stick back
None
Chambered — two-blade
Unknown
Powerwise, Underwriters Laboratory, electric, 5 hp,
3450 rom . 1 1 5 to 230 volts
                      Table 4.74 Color Sequence and Aniiox Configurations for Site 10
Sequence
Deck 1 — Not Used
Deck 2
Decks
Deck 4
Deck 5 — Not Used
Deck 6
Deck 7 — Not Used
Decks
Color
—
Green
Blue
Cyan
- —
Magenta
—
White
Aniiox toia
—
250
250
800
—
800
—
250
Aniiox BCMb
—
9.8
10.1
1.75
—
1.6
—
9.0
               a!ines per inch
               "billion cubic microns per square inch
                   Table 4.75 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration
                                                at Site 10
               I Substrate	I  Press speed
I Run time
I Run length
IOPP
600 ft/min
I 90 minutes
I 56.700 feet I
              Observations and Comments
              This site normally prints LDPE, but agreed to print the OPP with a reverse ink system. The
              samples taken at the end of the run showed poor solid formation in the magenta, with all
              other colors having good printability. The magenta also appeared weak, attributed to high
                                           4-75
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
              anilox line count and low volume.  Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to
              be factors in overall quality.

              Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable
              complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press
              operators were ea'sily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired quality
              result.

              Site 11: UVInk#UlonLDPE(noslip)

                            Table 4.76 Facility Background Information for Site 11
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Ava. production run
Description
80 to 85% water-based, 1 5 to 20% U V
None
50 million pounds of polyethylene flexographic-printed
products
24 hours per day, five days per week
Three hours to two weeks
                  Table 4.77  Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 11
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
svstem
Descriotion
UTECO, Amber 808
61 inches wide, ten-color
Surface
820 feet/minute
0.107"DupontEXLphotopolymer: '
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using hard stick back
None
Chambered
Unknown
Arrow, air-powered, diaphragm
                                            4-76
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
                       Table 4.78 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 11
Seauence
Deck 1
Deck 2
Deck3— Not Used
Deck 4 — Not Used
DeckS
Deck6
Deck 7 — Not Used
DeckS
Deck 9 — Not Used
Deck 10 — Not Used
Color
White
Magenta
—
—
Cyan
Green
—
Blue
—
—
Anilox lpia
300
500
—
— •
500
360
—
360
• —
— •
Anilox BCM"
6.0
2.7
— .
—
2.7
5.6
—
5.6
—
—
                alines per inch
                bbillion cubic microns per square inch
                Table 4.79  Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration
                                                  at Site 11
I Substrate
I LDPEa
Press speed
400 ft/min
Run time
153 minutes
Run lenath I
38.400 feet I
                aThe LQPE was extruded with no-slip additives.
              Observations and Comments
              This site chose to print its normal production LDPE substrate instead of the DfE-control
              LDPE. This site-standard LDPE substrate was extruded with no slip additives. Overall, the
              makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable complications.
              The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press operators were
              easily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired quality result.

              The samples taken at the end of the run continued to show good printability hi all colors,
              with continued blade streaking in the cyan.  Dry ink was continually evident on the blue
              anilox roll.  Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be factors in  overall
              quality.
                                             4-77
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
REFERENCES

1.     Schilstra, Durk. "UV Flexo: The European Situation." American Ink Maker, March 1997: 52-55.

2.     RadTech International, N.A.  Written comments to EPA, September 12, 2001.

3.     Podhajny, Richard M. "UV Flexo - Still Growing, Still Facing Challenges." Paper Film Foil
       Converter, June 1998: 64, 66-67.

4.     Schilstra, 1997, op. cit.

5.     Atkinson, David. "Cationic UV Flexo, An Alternative for Wide-web Film Printing?" Proc. of
       RadTech Europe 97. 16-18 June 1997, Lyon, France: 373-377.

6.     Schilstra, 1997, op. cit.

7.     Midlik, Elinor R. 'TQC UV Wide Web Committee Prepares for the Year 2002." Flexo May
       1997: 150-153.

8.     RadTech International, N.A., 2001, op. cit.

9.     Otton, Dan. "Advancements in UV Ink Technology." Flexo April 1997: 58-59.

10.    Scheraga, Dan. "Energy Curing Shows Promise in Productivity, Lower Emissions." Chemical
       Market Reporter April27, 1998: 32^

11.    Lawson, Kenneth. "Status of the North American UV/EB Market." Industrial Paint & Powder
       Nov. 1996: 22-25.

12.    Scheraga, 1998, op. cit.

13.    Zinnbauer, Fred E. "Basking in the Sun With Cool UV." Flexo Aug. 1998: 64-67.

14.    Ibid.

15.    RadTech International, N.A., 2001, op.cit.

16.    Gentile, Deanna. "Ink Outlook: Steady Growth and Evolving Technologies." Paint and Coatings
       86(1996): 40-42.

17.    Teng, Andy. "Flexo Report." Ink World May/June 1996: 70.

18.    Ibid.

19.    Otton, 1997, op. cit.

20.    Lawson, 1996, op. cit.

21.    Atkinson, 1997, op. cit.
                                            4-78
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
                                 Chapter 5: Cost
                                CHAPTER CONTENTS


5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS	5-3
       Material Costs	•.	5-3
       Labor Costs		5-7
       Capital Costs for New Presses	5-10
       Capital Costs for Retrofitting a Press	5-13
       Energy Costs	;	5-15
       Uncertainties	5-15


5.2 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS	.7.	 5-17
       Summary of Cost Analysis Results	5-17
       Discussion of Cost Analysis Results	5-20


5.3 DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS ...		5-24
       Regulatory Costs	 5-24
       Insurance and Storage Requirements				5-25
       Other Environmental Costs and Benefits	 5-25


REFERENCES	5-26


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES	5-27


                                 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

This chapter presents a comparative cost analysis of  solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured ink
systems. The costs evaluated include material, labor, capital, and energy costs. These elements were
chosen because of their importance to facility profitability, their potential to highlight differences among ink
systems, and the availability of data. Because this analysis averages industry information, it may not reflect
the actual experience of any given printing facility.

Printers who are considering switching ink systems also should evaluate other hidden costs such as
regulatory compliance, insurance, storage, clean-up, waste disposal, and permitting.  Although estimating
these cost factors is beyond the scope of this analysis, this chapter provides a qualitative discussion of these
costs.

DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS: Section 5.1 discusses the data sources and methodology used to determine
the costs of the four expense categories studied: material, labor, capital, and energy. Because each of
these costs were derived quite differently, they are discussed separately. In general, data were collected
from three types of sources: performance demonstration observations, industry surveys, and estimates by
industry contacts. Some of the costs are highly sensitive to press speed; as a result, some of the figures
are calculated based on both the press speeds observed during the performance demonstrations and the
speed specified in the project's methodology.  Uncertainties of the cost analysis are also presented. A
detailed methodology of the cost analysis is located in Appendix 5-A.
                                            5-1
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
COST ANALYSIS RESULTS: Section 5.2 summarizes the overall costs based on the expense categories.
Costs are presented by ink system and by ink-substrate combination. The analysis shows the relative costs
of each ink system, and also indicates the cost drivers within each system. Detailed results of the cost
analysis are provided in Appendix 5-B.

DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS: Section 5.3 discusses costs that often are often hidden from
typical accounting analyses but that can affect company profits. These include regulatory costs, insurance
and storage costs, and costs related to worker health and natural resource use.


                               HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS

     Material costs (Ink and additives) and capital costs were the two most significant expense
     categories. Each accounted for approximately 40% of the costs considered in this analysis.
     Water-based inks had the lowest material costs. Water-based inks were consumed at a lower rate
     than solvent-based ink and had a lower per-pound cost than UV-cured inks.
     Labor costs were lowest for solvent-based inks at the observed press speeds, primarily because
     solvent-based inks were printed at the fastest speeds.  When labor costs were calculated for the
     methodology speed, labor costs were equal across the three ink systems.
     Water-based inks had the lowest per-hour capital costs, because the presses did not require
     pollution control equipment or UV curing lamps.  However, solvent-based inks had the lowest per-
     image capital costs because of the higher observed press speeds.
     Water-based inks had the lowest energy costs. The primary reason for these lower costs is that
     water-based inks did not require pollution control equipment or UV curing lamps.
     Overall, water-based Inks were the least expensive to use. Solvent-based inks were the next least
     expensive, followed by UV-cured inks.


                                        CAVEATS

     Costs were calculated based on both the observed press speeds and the methodology press speed
     of 500 feet per minute. Press speed is crucial to cost estimates because if more product can be printed
     in a given time, then fixed costs  (e.g., capital and labor) are distributed across more salable product.
     If customary press speeds at a facility are significantly different from those used for this analysis, actual
     costs may be different.
     The costs presented in this analysis do not represent all expenses encountered at a flexographic
     printing facility. One significant factor that was excluded was substrate (the material, such as film, that
     is printed). Substrates are a major expense, but because their costs are independent of the ink system,
     they were not included  in the  analysis.   Other costs, such  as  those  discussed qualitatively in
     Environmental and Regulatory Costs, also are not included in the quantitative results.
     Assumptions in this analysis may not apply to all facilities. For example, it was assumed that pollution
     control equipment is not necessary with water-based ink systems. In some locations, oxidizers in fact
     may be required if inks exceed regulatory minimum VOC content thresholds.
                                            5-2
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
               This section discusses the categories of costs that were analyzed for the different ink
               systems, formulas that were used in calculations, and assumptions that were made. This
               information will allow the reader to understand the basis for the results that are described
               in the next section.

               The primary sources of data were the performance demonstrations and estimates provided
               by flexographic printers and suppliers. The model facility used in the risk assessment
               section was also used for the cost analysis.  Model facility assumptions were based on
               averages of the information reported in the questionnaire completed by each performance
               demonstration site. A detailed methodology of the cost analysis is in Appendix 5-A.
       Material Costs
              The material costs estimated in this analysis are inks and additives. Representative substrate
              costs are also presented in this section to give a fuller picture of printing costs, but substrate
              is not included in the rest of the analysis because during production, its costs do not vary
              among ink systems. The specific prices that any given printer pays for materials are
              expected to vary with the volume purchased and the relationship between printer and
              supplier.

              Ink Costs
              Ink prices vary with the type of ink (solvent-based, water-based, or UV-cured) and color.
              Generally speaking, white inks are least expensive, primary colors are slightly  more
              expensive, and other colors or custom colors are most expensive.

              For this analysis, one price was estimated for white ink and one for the other four colors.
              These ink prices are listed in Table 5.1. It is important to note that these are average prices,
              and the price that a printer pays may be either higher or  lower than those presented here.
                                        Table 5.1  Average Ink Prices*

White
Other colors
Solvent-based ($/lb)
$1.40
$2.80
Water-based
($flb)
$1.60
$3.00
UV-cured
($/lb)
$7.25
$10.00
              a Based on November 1998 prices.
              Source: References 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9,10,11,12,13.
              To determine ink consumption costs, the ink prices were multiplied by the amount of ink
              used for each performance demonstration run.  In addition, the test image dimensions and
              repeat length were used in the calculations. Information about the test image is presented
              below. The repeat length indicates the distance from the beginning of an image to the
              beginning of the first repetition of the image.
                                              5-3
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                         COST
              Test Image Information
              Line colors: blue, green, and white
              Process colors: cyan and magenta
              Image dimensions: 16 inches x 20 inches (320 sq. inches or 2.22 sq. feet)
              Repeat length: 16 inches (1.33 feet)	
               The ink costs per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image were calculated using the
               following formulas:

                  Ink cost per 6,000 images          = I x 2.22 ft2/image x 6,000 images
                  Ink cost per 6,000 ft2 of image      = I x 6,000 ft2
               where
                  I   =   ink price ($/lb) x amount of ink used (Ib) / amount of substrate used (ft2)
                      =   ink cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
               Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present the average ink costs for each, ink-substrate combination per
               6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image, respectively.  The site-specific ink costs and a
               sample calculation are provided in Appendix 5-B. Both ink and ink additives are included
               in the average costs, and a detailed table providing site-specific consumption data is
               provided in Appendix 6-A.

               Additive Costs
               In most of the performance demonstration runs, additives were mixed with the inks to
               achieve and maintain desired viscosity and performance. Specifically, extenders, solvents,
               and/or water were added to the  solvent-based and water-based inks.  Also, ammonia,
               reducers, cross-linkers, and/or defoamers were added to the water-based inks, and acetate
               was added to one solvent-based ink (Site 10). No additives were used in the UV-cured ink
               performance demonstrations, with the exception of a low-viscosity monomer added to the
               green ink at one site (Site 11).

               The methodology for estimating ink additive costs was similar to that for inks.  Based on
               input from  printers and suppliers, the Dffi  team determined average prices  for each
               additive.1-3-13'14 Extender was $2.00/lb, solvent was $ 1.00/lb, water was given no charge, and
               other solvent- and water-based ink additives were $0.45/lb. A price for the UV additive
               (monomer) was not determined, because ink manufacturers state that extra monomer is not
               typically added to UV ink at press side.

               The additive costs per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image were calculated using the
               same formulas as for the normalized ink costs.

               The  estimated average ink additive costs for each ink-subbtrate combination also are
               presented in Tables 5.2 and  5.3.  The site-specific ink  additive costs are provided  in
               Appendix 5-B.
                                               5-4
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                            COST
       (0

       §>
       CO
       0)
       a.
       I
       O

       i
       Q
       a>
       i

       (0
       .1
•o

(0


c

0)
D)
       I
       in
        (0
                 r
                < o
                83
                £1
                gs
                 8S
                 ?«
                 8|
                 £§
                 O)
                         s
                                 UJ
                                   5-5
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                              COST
                     0)
                        0)1
                        82*

                        Eg
                        II
                        gs
                        II
                      • •
                        §••85
                        5 o
                        < o
                        E§
                                CD
                                 S

                        f 8
                        < o
                              £
                                    fe-
                                    m
                                       CO
S
                                       O)
                                             CM
      •60-
                                             CM
                                              O)
                                                 CM
                                                 8
                                                 CO
          a
S
                                                          CO
                                                           §
                                                              00
                                                              Q_
                                                                             .£
                                                                           .1 »  2

                                             5-6
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                   COST
               Substrate Costs
               Substrate costs are a function of the price of the substrate and the amount of substrate used.
               Based on input from printers and suppliers, an average price was determined for the three
               types of substrate used in the performance demonstrations — LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP.
               Table 5.4 presents the substrate prices, the conversion factors used to convert square feet
               of substrate to pounds, and the substrate costs. The substrate costs per 6,000 images and per
               6,000 ft2 of image were calculated using the following formulas:
                  Substrate cost per 6,000 images
                  Substrate cost per 6,000 ft2 of image
=   S x 2.22 ftYimage x 6,000 images
=   Sx 6,000ft2
               where
                      = substrate price ($/lb) x conversion rate (lb/ft2)
                      = substrate cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
                      Table 5.4 Average Substrate Costs and Conversion Rates (ft2 to Ibs)
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Price
($/lb)
$0.77
$0.82
$1.50
Conversion
rate (lb/ft2)
0.0134
0.0258
0.0072
Substrate
cost per ft2
($/ft2)
$0.01
$0.02
$0.01
Average cost
per 6,000
images
$138
$282
$144
Average cost
per 6,000 ft2 of
image
$62
$127
$65
               Sources: References 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 15, 16.
               Substrate costs are not included in the cost analysis.  The price of substrate can be quite
               variable and therefore would introduce additional uncertainty to the analysis. Also, because
               substrate-consumption does not vary by ink system, it does not need to be included in
               comparisons between systems.  Average substrate costs are supplied above, however, to
               provide a more complete tally of total costs a printer might encounter.
        Labor Costs
               For this cost analysis, labor costs are primarily a function of printers' compensation rates
               and the time it takes to print the product. Labor rates include the wage rate of a press
               operator and one assistant, the fringe rate, and the overhead rate. This cost analysis assumes
               that labor rates do not vary with the ink system or the substrate.

               Wage Rate                   ,
               Industry sector-specific wage rates are typically available from the U.S. Department of
               Labor; however, obtaining an average flexographic industry labor rate was complicated by
               the fact that the flexographic industry sector is combined with other printing sectors in SIC
               2759. To obtain a wage rate indicative of the industry sector, an average hourly wage rate
               for the industry of $11.4917 was used as a baseline and confirmed by performance
               demonstration site contacts in 1997.2,4,5,7,11,12,15.18
                                              5-7
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                      COST
              Fringe Rate
              The average press operator or assistant received fringe benefits of holidays, vacations, sick
              leave, supplemental pay (premium pay for overtime work on weekends and holidays, shift
              differentials, and non-production bonuses such as lump-sum payments provided in lieu of
              wage increases), insurance benefits (life, health, sickness, and accident),  and legally
              required benefits (Social Security).  In private industry, blue-collar workers had an average
              fringe rate of 26.5% of total compensation.19 Total compensation  of $15.63 per hour
              includes a fringe rate of $4.14 per hour.

              Overhead Rate
              The overhead factor for the flexographic industry was calculated using the following
              formula:

                  Overhead factor =  (overhead costs) / (direct labor)

                  Overhead costs  =  Rent and heat + fire and sprinkler insurance + indirect labor +
                                     direct supplies  + repair to equipment +  general factory  +
                                     administrative and selling overhead
               Using data from the flexographic industry and the above formula, the average industry
               overhead factor was 0.41, or an overhead rate of $6.41/hour. For a detailed look at how the
               overhead rate was calculated, see Appendix 5-A.

               Based on the wage, fringe, and overhead rates listed in Table 5.5, the overall labor rate for
               each worker was $22.04 per hour, or $44.08 per hour for both a press operator and assistant.
                                Table 5.5 Summary of Labor Rate Calculations
Labor cost component
Wage rate
Fringe rate
Overhead rate
Calculation
from industry estimates
26.5% of total compensation*
0.41 times total compensation3
Total per-worker labor rate
Rate ($/hr)
$1 1 .49
$4.14
$6.41
$22.04
                •Total compensation equals wage plus fringe.
               Total Labor Cost
               To calculate the total labor cost, the labor rate was multiplied by the average amount of time
               generally needed to print 6,000 images and 6,000 ft2 of image (based on press speed). This
               simplified calculation omits makeready and clean-up costs. The labor cost estimates were
               calculated using the following formulas:
                   Labor cost per 6,000 images
                   Labor cost per 6,000 ft2 of image
=   L x 2.22 ft2/image x 6,000 images
=   L x 6,000 ft2
                                               5-8
-------
CHAPTERS
                                                                                          COST
               where

                  L  =   labor rate ($/hour)x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft2)/press speed (ft/hour)
                      =   labor cost per ft2 ($/ft2)

               Assuming an average press speed for a flexographic  press  was extremely difficult.
               Variables such as the test image, the age of the press, the desired quality of the product, and
               the skill of the press operator affect the  press speed considerably.  The performance
               demonstration methodology dictated a press speed of 300 to 500 feet per minute (fpm).
               Therefore, the site demonstrations were not illustrative of the potential of a press for a
               specific ink system. Presses may have been held back from or pushed beyond their optimal
               running speeds.  Using the typical production speed of the press reported by the facility was
               not realistic because of the variety of product quality. For example, one site ran at 700 fpm
               and produced a low quality product whereas another site ran at 350 fpm and produced a very
               high quality product.  Finally, few data exist that support an industry average press speed
               for each ink system.                                           ,

               The cost analysis used the average press speed from the performance demonstrations (Table
               5.6) for each ink type to determine labor and capital costs. The parenthetical numbers in the
               first row indicate the number of demonstration runs on which the data are based.
                  Table 5.6  Average Press Speed Data from the Performance Demonstrations

Average feet per minute
Averaae feet oer hour
Solvent-based | Water-based
453 (6)
27.200
394 (7)
23,600
UV-cured
340 (4)
20.400
              Table 5.7 presents average labor costs for each ink system using the average observed press
              speed and the methodology press speed (500 feet per minute). When the methodology press
              speed is used, the labor costs were neutralized for the three ink systems.  When the average
              observed press speeds are used, the labor cost is lowest for solvent-based inks (i.e., these ran
              at the fastest press speeds during the demonstrations). Compared to solvent-based inks, the
              labor cost for water-based inks was 15% higher, and the labor rate for UV-curable inks was
              33% higher.  The site-specific labor costs and a sample calculation are provided in
              Appendix 5-B.
                                              5-9
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                          COST
                                Table 5.7 Labor Costs Based on Press Speeds
Ink
Labor
rate
($/hr)
Press
speed
(ftVhr)
Labor cost
per ft2 ft/ft2)
Average cost
per 6,000
images
Average cost
per 6,000 ft2 of
image
Based oh Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
$44.08
$44.08
$44.08
45,300
39,400
34,000
$0.000973
$0.00112
$0.00130
$12.96
$14.90
$17.27
$5.84
$6.71
$7.78
Based on Methodology Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV cured
$44.08
$44.08
$4408
50,000
50,000
50 000
$0.000882
$0.000882
$0 000882
$11.74
$11.74
$1 1 .74
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
        Capital Costs for New Presses

               Capital costs are those costs associated with purchasing or modifying the equipment. Two
               scenarios were examined:  buying a new press outfitted for a specific ink technology and
               retrofitting an existing press from one ink technology to another.

               The data used for capital  costs were acquired from press manufacturers, suppliers, and
               flexographic printers. The capital costs were not gathered at the performance demonstration
               sites due to the variances in the ages of the presses and, therefore, in the representativeness
               of the costs.

               The capital cost of a new press included the cost of a base press plus any modifications
               required for each ink system.  The base press was assumed to be an eight-color, 48-inch
               press. The cost for a base press also included installation.  The cost of a new base press
               ranged from $600,000 to $5 million, with an average cost of about $2.5 million.9'10'13'14'16'17'20
               The base press cost included the cost of the following:

                    •   chambered doctor blades
                    •   peristaltic ink pumps
                    •   chill rollers
                    •   covered ink/water rollers
                    •   forced hot air dryers (between-color and overhead final)
                    •   electrical drive
                    •   in-feed devices
                    •   ink agitators
                    •   rewind unit
                    •   roll stands/reels
                    •   water union
                    •   web break detectors
                    •   press installation
                    •    one-week training
                                                5-10
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
               The exception to the above list is that a UV press will not require hot air dryers; the base
               price for a UV press therefore would be reduced to reflect the absence of this approximately
               $100,000 equipment.21 All other equipment modifications specific to the ink systems were
               added to the base press cost.  These costs included the cost of pollution control devices
               which might have been required if solvent-based inks were used, the cost of UV lamps, etc.
               A summary of the capital costs is presented in Table 5.8, followed by a more detailed
               discussion of each ink system.

                             Table 5.8 Summary of Capital Costs for New Presses
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Base press
cost ($)
$2.5 million
$2.5 million
$2.4 million
Additional Components
pollution control
corona treater
corona treater, UV lamps,
power supplies, and
cooling units
Additional
cost ($)
$128,000
$25,000
$200,000
Total capital
cost($)
$2.6 million
$2.5 million
$2.6 million
               Solvent-based Ink Presses
               The primary additional equipment expense in running solvent-based ink is an oxidizer
               needed for pollution control. The analysis assumed that an "average" wide web facility has
               four 48" presses and two catalytic oxidizers, with an air flow of 5,800 cubic feet per minute
               (cfm) to each oxidizer. The cost estimates, based on these characteristics, are shown in
               Table 5.9.

                                      Table 5.9 Catalytic Oxidizer Costs*
Component
Oxidizer
Installation
Testing
Total
Cost
$200,000
$50,000
$5,000,$6,000
$255,000
                       These costs represent an oxidizer serving two presses. The per-press costs
                       used in the analysis are half of these amounts.
                       Source: References 22 and 23.

               Because each oxidizer is assumed hi this analysis to control the emissions from two presses,
               this cost is spread over two presses.  Therefore, the cost of a pollution control system per
               press is expected to be $128,000.  This cost may vary depending on facility-specific
               variables, such as the location of the oxidizer, 'duct runs, location in the country, and
               whether the duct is insulated.14

               An  alternative type of oxidizer is the regenerative thermal oxidizer (see  Chapter 7 for
               details). The cost of purchasing, installing, and testing this system is similar to that of a
               catalytic oxidizer. During operation, it may result in lower costs because the catalyst does
               not need to be replaced. Including the cost of either type of oxidizer, a press using a solvent-
               based ink system was estimated to cost $2.6 million.
                                              5-11
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
               Water-based Ink Presses
               A new water-based press will come equipped with all  necessary equipment, with the
               exception of a corona treater. A corona treater costs approximately $25,000,24 resulting in
               a total cost estimate of $2.5 million for a press using a water-based ink system.

               UV-cured Ink Presses
               The primary cost for UV-cured  ink presses is the UV curing system.  The equipment
               consists of lamps, power supplies, cooling units, and a corona treater. According to a press
               manufacturer, this equipment costs approximately $200,000 for a wide web flexographic
               printing press.20 This resulted in  an estimate of $2.6 million for a press using a UV-cured
               ink system.

               Total Capital Costs for New Presses
               To incorporate capital costs into this cost analysis, the capital costs were annualized (and
               calculated on an hourly basis) per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image. The annual
               expense can be translated into an hourly expense by dividing by the annual operating hours.

               The annual cost was determined by a present-worth-to-annuity calculation, as follows:
                                          = T*-
                   A   =  annual capital cost
                   T   =  total cost (price of press)
                   i   =  interest or depreciation rate
                   n   =  lifetime of equipment

               The average annual industry depreciation rate was 15% per year,25 and the estimated lifetime
               of a press not subject to a substantial modification or upgrade is 20 years.21 The hourly
               capital cost estimates were based on the following calculation:

                   Capital cost per 6,000 images      =  C x 2.22 fWimage x 6,000 images
                   Capital cost per 6,000 ft2 of image  =  C x 6,000 ft2

               where

                   C   =  capital  cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
                       =  hourly capital cost ($/hr) x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft2) / average
                          press speed (ft/hr)

                   and

                   Depreciation rate          =   15%
                   Annual operating hours    =   4,200 hours per year
                   Hourly capital cost ($/hr)   =   A ($/yr) / annual operating hours (hr/yr)
                                             =   A ($/yr) / 4,200 hours per year

               Table 5.10 presents the hourly capital costs of each ink system.
                                               5-12
-------
CHAPTERS
COST
                           Table 5.10 Capital Costs for New Presses

Capital cost
($)
Hourly
capital cost
f$)
Cost per ft2
of image
Cost per
6,000
imaaes
Cost per
6,000 ft2 of
imaae
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
$2.6 million
$2.5 million
$2.6 million
$98.90
$95.10
$98.90
$0.00218
$0.00241
$0.00291
$29.08
$32.15
$38.75
$13.10
$14.18
$17.45
Based on Methodology Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
$2.6 million
$2.5 million
$2.6 million
$98.90
$95.10
$98.90
$0.00198
$0.00190
$0.00198
$26.35
$25.33
$26.35
$11.87
$11.41
$11.87
        Capital Costs for Retrofitting a Press

               Alternatively a printer may retrofit an existing press for a new technology rather than
               purchase a new press. The feasibility and costs of a retrofit need to be addressed on a case-
               by-case basis, because retrofitting costs can vary considerably depending on the age and
               type of press. The newer the press, the fewer and easier the changes. For example, most
               newer  presses come equipped with diaphragm or peristaltic ink pumping systems and
               chambered doctor blades. This analysis presents possible capital costs that may be incurred
               for a retrofit; if newer equipment such as that mentioned above were present, the retrofit
               process would be less expensive.

               In this  analysis, retrofit costs included only the additional costs of equipment. The labor,
               training, and downtime costs associated with a retrofit were not included because these costs
               are highly variable and situation-specific. This analysis assumed a retrofit on an older, six-
               color, 48-inch press. The following cost estimate of the equipment necessary for the change
               to a new ink system was developed from discussions with printers who have changed ink
               systems and from discussions with manufacturers and suppliers who are familiar with the
               changes.

               Solvent-based to Water-based Ink System
               A retrofit from an older solvent-based ink system to a water-based ink system may require
               some of the following equipment changes depending on the age of the press:16

                   •   reconfiguring anilox rolls
                   •   adding chambered doctor blades
                   •   adding diaphragm or peristaltic ink pumping systems
                   •   adding a corona treater and auxiliary corona treating material
                   •   adding or retrofitting existing blowers to increase the blowing capacity
                   •   changing plate materials and mounting

               Estimates to retrofit from a solvent-based to water-based ink system on a 48-inch press are
               in the range of $60,000 to $ 100.000.9 While a solvent-based ink system press can run water-
                                              5-13
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
               based ink on well-treated film and at much lower speeds without a retrofit, retrofitting
               improves substrate wettability and/or increases drying capability.3

               Solvent-based to UV-cured Ink System
               A retrofit i"rom a solvent-based to a UV-cured ink system requires similar equipment
               changes to those required for a retrofit from a solvent-based ink system to a water-based ink
               system. The changes required for this retrofit may include the following:16

                  •   buying and installing UV-cured lamps and the power units to support the lamps
                  •   purchasing and installing chillers to cool the equipment
                  •   reconfiguring anilox rolls
                  •   adding chambered doctor blades
                  •   adding diaphragm or peristaltic ink pumping systems
                  •   adding a corona treater and auxiliary corona treating material
                  •   changing plate materials and mounting

               Retrofits from a solvent-based to UV-cured ink system are estimated to be in the range of
               $400,000 to $500,000.9 Given this cost, most printers would probably purchase a new press
               rather than retrofit an existing one. In addition, many older flexographic printing presses
               cannot be retrofitted for UV production.9'14 While the major equipment requirements are
               listed above, additional engineering or "tinkering" may be necessary to obtain the product
               quality required. Many flexographic printers, manufacturers, and suppliers do not believe
               this kind of retrofit can produce a saleable product.1'3'10'13'26

               Water-based to UV-cured Ink System
               Li retrofitting a press from a water-based to UV-cured ink system, the following equipment
               changes are necessary:16

                  •   adding UV lamps and power units
                  •   removing blowers
                  •   adding chillers
                  •   possibly adding plate materials

               On a six-deck press, retrofit costs  are expected to be roughly $30,000  per  deck, or
               $180,000.s Water-based ink systems cannot always be retrofitted for UV production. Many
               flexographic printers, manufacturers, and suppliers do not believe this kind of retrofit can
               produce a saleable product with an  older press, although many new presses are being
               manufactured with retrofits in mind.1'3'10'13'26

               UV-cured to Water-based Ink System
               Although retrofitting from a UV-cured to a water-based ink system is not common, one site
               using UV decided to return  to a water-based system. The equipment changes included
               removing the UV lamps, power equipment, and chillers, and adding blowers. If the press
               had originally been a solvent- or water-based press, then the blowers would simply need to
               be re-installed, at a cost of approximately $32,000.5 If the press had been purchased for a
               UV-cured ink system, it would be necessary to purchase and install a dryer system, which
               is estimated to cost approximately $100,000.21
                                              5-14
-------
CHAPTERS
                                                                COST
        Energy Costs
               The energy use for four types of flexographic printing equipment—hot air drying systems,
               catalytic oxidizers, corona treaters, and UV curing systems—was estimated for the three ink
               systems (see Chapter 6: Energy and Resource Consumption). Energy costs were calculated
               using the energy consumption rates for this equipment and national averages of electricity
               and natural gas costs. Given the typical size and total sales of a flexographic printing
               facility, an average electricity cost of $0.0448/kWh27 and an average  gas cost of
               $3.14/million Btu28 were used; however, these figures can vary substantially depending on
               the location and size of the facility.

               To calculate energy costs, electricity and natural gas consumption figures were taken from
               Chapter 6.  Energy costs per 6,000 images and 6,000 ft2 were then calculated with the
               following equations:
                   Energy cost per 6,000 images
                   Energy cost per 6,000 ft2 of image
                          =  (E + G) x 2.22 ft2/image x 6,000 images
                          =  (E + G) x 6,000 ft2
               where
                   E  =
                   G  =
electricity cost ($/kWh) x [electricity consumption (kWh/hour) / press speed
(ft/hour)] x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft^)
electricity cost per ft2 ($/ft2)

natural gas cost ($/Btu) x [natural gas consumption (Btu/hour) / press speed
(ft/hour)] x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft2)
natural gas cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
        Uncertainties
               Efforts were made to obtain data as representative of the industry as possible. However,
               differences in the ink systems may have had further cost implications that were not captured
               in the data.  Some of the differences may have been difficult to capture in the time span of
               a two-hour run, may not have been easily quantifiable, or may have  been too minute to
               identify given the methodology and testing. When interpreting the results of this analysis
               and applying them to  a  particular  operation,  the following uncertainties should be
               considered.

               Ink Maintenance
               The print run conditions may affect the level of ink maintenance more significantly than was
               demonstrated at the volunteer sites. UV inks do not dry on anilox rolls or other rolls and
               hence the color strength remains constant; in addition, during multi-day runs the number of
               cleanups can be reduced. Using solvent-based inks and water-based inks can increase the
               amount of labor, run time, clean-up, and waste because of the need to add or remove ink
               multiple times during a run. These differences, which make UV more competitive, are not
               reflected in  the cost figures due to difficulties in their quantification.  Also, industry
               feedback suggests that UV-cured inks can operate with smaller-volume anilox rolls than
               were used in the study, the use of smaller-volume rolls would reduce ink consumption for
               this system relative to the other ink systems.
                                              5-15
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
              Productivity
              Productivity was  another, area that was not effectively captured in the  performance
              demonstrations. The performance demonstration ^ethodolbgy specified a printing run at
              the rate of 300 to 500 fpm. Some sites, however, had to slow down their runs to increase
              drying times, whereas other sites increased their press speeds for some runs. For example,
              at Site 10, the press speed was 600 fpm due to the facility's standard operating procedures.
              The data do not shed light on the controversial issue of whether one ink can be run faster
              than the others while producing a product quality that is better or comparable to that of the
              other inks.

              Makeready Variables
              The experience of the press operators and the type and age of the press have a greater
              influence on the makeready time than does the type of ink.  This is because the main
              concerns in makeready are registration and the print impression. The amount of substrate
              used in makeready and.the time required for makeready are based on the ability of the press
              operator to adjust color and viscosity. However, industry experience indicates that proper
              color strength can be achieved fastest with UV inks.

              Clean-up and Waste Disposal Costs
              Clean-up and disposal practices were observed qualitatively for the three ink systems at the
              performance demonstration sites.  During the performance demonstrations, the following
              cleaning agents were used for each ink type:

                   •   Solvent-based ink: alcohol or alcohol/acetate blend
                   •   Water-based ink: water, or water/ammonia/alcohol blend
                   •   UV-cured ink: alcohol, alcohol/acetate blend, or alcohol/water/soap blend

              Appendix 6-A presents more detailed information for each site, and Section 6.5, Clean-up
              and Waste Disposal Procedures, provides more information on these procedures.

              Differences in the clean-up components among the three ink systems include the following:

                   •    The materials are least expensive for water-based inks.
                   •    The type of press is a major factor in how long it takes to clean.
                   •    UV presses can be shut down overnight or for extended periods of time without
                       clean-up procedures. If covered, the inks will not cure in the wells, so the press can
                       be started up with minimal ink preparation.
                   •    Solvent-based ink waste is the most expensive to dispose of because it is often
                       characterized as hazardous waste. Water may  or may not require the same costs,
                       depending on the solvent content of the ink and location of the facility. UV waste
                       disposal costs may be substantially lower for two reasons: the wastes often are not
                       designated as hazardous under RCRA, and less waste is generated by UV.

               Clean-up and waste disposal costs were not included in the quantitative analysis, however,
               because it was not possible to calculate reliably the costs associated with these procedures.

               Site-Specific Limitations
               Each printing site  was unique,  which created some challenges for the  performance
               demonstration. For some of the sites, specific questions or data points were not applicable
               because of the ink system, the type of site, insufficient data, or the failure of a test run. For
                                              5-16
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                         COST
               these situations, inconsistencies were identified, the data were omitted, or reliable follow-up
               information was substituted from phone interviews with printers.

               Although most of the sites were actual printing facilities,  one UV site was a press
               manufacturer in Germany. The press used at this site was a demonstration version and was
               not used to print saleable product. As a result, the data from this site did not contain annual
               or plant-wide costs. Information on clean-up, waste disposal,  and ink and substrate costs
               also was not available. In addition, the makeready at this site was completed before the
               observation team arrived at the site. Therefore, the makeready data for the time and feet run
               were not observed by the team.

               Another performance demonstration site (Site 11) used a different substrate than specified
               in the methodology. Demonstrations run at this site used LDPE that was extruded with no
               slip additives, in accordance with the facility's standard procedure.


5.2 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS

               This section presents the results of the cost analysis for each ink-substrate combination. This
               analysis can help the reader to compare costs among solvent-based, water-based, and UV-
               cured ink systems. Site-specific cost information is shown in Appendix 5-B.

       Summary of Cost Analysis Results

               Table 5.11 presents an overall summary of the costs per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of
               image, broken  out by  substrate and .ink type.  Table 5.12  provides an average cost
               breakdown of four major cost elements (materials, excluding substrate; labor; capital for a
               new press; and  energy costs). Table 5.13 presents cost summaries for each performance
               demonstration site. These costs do not include substrate, makeready or clean-up.

               For each substrate, water-based inks were the least expensive. Solvent-based inks were
               slightly more expensive than water-based inks (1% more for LDPE, 36% more for PE/EVA,
               and 9% for OPP), and UV-cured inks were the most expensive (29% more than water-based
               inks on LDPE,  46% more for PE/EVA). When the figures are  calculated based on the
               methodology press speed, water would again be the least expensive. Solvent-based inks
               would  cost 24% more, and UV 38% more  than water-based  inks.  The numbers in
              parentheses in Table 5.11 indicates the number of performance demonstration runs on which
              the data are based.
                                            5-17
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                       COST
                          Table 5.11  Cost Summary for Ink-Substrate Combinations


Solvent-based
Cost per
6,000
Cost per
6,000 ft2
Water-based
Cost per
6,000
Cost per
6,000 ft2
of image
UV-cured
Cost per
6,000
images
Cost per
6,000 ft2
of image
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
$92 (2)
$80(1)
$72 (2)
$42(2)
$36 (1)
$32 (2)
$91 (2)
$59 (2)
$66(3)
p««jprf on Methodoloav Press Speed - 500 Feet /
LDPE
PE/EVA

$85
$72

$38
$33

$62
$52
$59
$41 (2)
$26 (2)
$30(3)
$117(2)
$86 (2)
$53 (2)
$39 (2)
n/aa
yer Minute
$28
$24
$27
$103
$57

$46
$26
n/aa
               demonstrations.


               As shown in Table 5.12, material and capital costs (excluding substrate) accounted for the
               majority of costs. Averaged across the eight ink-substrate combinations, materials (ink and
               additives) represented 38% of the costs, and capital costs were 41% of the total.  Labor
               accounted for 14% to 24% of the total cost, and energy accounted for 1% to 4%.

               Several factors affect press speed, including labor, equipment, and handling.  However,
               because the differing press speeds observed during the performance demonstrations may
               cause amisrepresentation of the comparative costs associated with the different ink systems,
               the costs were also calculated based on the methodology speed of 500 fpm. If all three ink
               systems had been run at the methodology speed, the labor cost differences and some capital
               cost differences would have been neutralized. Water-based inks would still have been the
               least expensive. Solvent-based inks would have been more expensive than water-based inks
               (39% more for LDPE, 38% more for PE/EVA, and 22% for OPP). UV-cured inks would
               have been the most expensive on LDPE (66% more than water-based inks on LDPE), but
               would no longer have been the most expensive on PE/EVA (10% more than water-based
               inks, but 21% less than solvent-based inks).

               Table 5.13 presents a cost summary for each performance demonstration site.  A detailed
               breakdown of costs for each site is provided in Appendix 5-B.
                                              5-18
-------
CHAPTERS
COST
                        Table 5.12 Cost Breakdown for Ink-Substrate Combinations
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Ink
Solvent-based
(2 sites)
Water-based
(2 sites)
UV-cured
(2 sites)
Solvent-based
(1 site)
Water-based
(2 sites)
UV-cured
(2 sites)
Solvent-based
(2 sites)
Water-based
(3 sites)
UV-cured
Component
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capita)
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
Average cost
per 6,000
images
$46
$14
$31
$1
$93
$24
$21
$45
$1
$91
$63
$16
$36
$3
$117
$34
$14
$31
$1
$81
$13
$14
$30
. $1
$59
$19
$20
$44
$4
$86
$32
$12
$27
$1
$73
$22
$14
$29
$1
$66
Average cost
per 6,000 ft2 of
image
$21
$6
$14
$1
$42
$11
$9
$20
$1
$41
$28
$7
$16
$1
$53
$15
$6
$14
$1
$37
$6
$6
$14
<$1
$26
$8
$9
$20
$2
$39
$14
$5
$12
$1
$33
$10
$6
$13
<$1
$30
Percent
of total
49%
15%
34%
2%
100%
26%
23%
49%
2%
100%
53%
14%
.30%
3%
100%
42%
17%
. 39%
2%
100%
22%
24%
52%
2%
100%
22%
23%
51%
4%
100%
44%
17%
37%
2%
100%
34%
21%
44%
1%
100%
n/aa
              a n/a = not applicable; there were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
              demonstrations.
                                           5-19
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                        COST
                     Table 5.13 Cost Summary for Each Performance Demonstration Site
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Product
Line
#S2
#W3
#U1
#U2
#S2
#W3
« #U2
#U3
#S1
#S2
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
2
3
11
6
5
7
2
3
6
8
9B
10
4
1
9A
Cost per
6.000 images
$102
$82
$73
$109
$123
$111
$89
$106
$64
$53
$83
$89
$76
$67
$71
$66
$61
Cost per 6,000
ft2 of Image
$46
$37
$33
$49
$56
$50
$40
$26
$29
$24
$37
$40
$36
$31
$32
$30
$27
r\/ar
                n/a = not applicable; there were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
               demonstrations.
        Discussion of Cost Analysis Results

               Material Costs
               Material costs comprised ink and additive costs. Table 5.14 presents these costs. Because
               no white ink was used on PE/EVA (a white substrate), ink costs for PE/EVA were the
               lowest.

               A significant difference among the three ink systems was the cost of ink. For example, for
               the performance demonstration runs on LDPE, water-based inks cost an average of $19.19
               per 6,000 images, whereas solvent-based inks cost an average of $32.16 (68% more than
               water-based inks) and UV-cured inks cost an average of $40.82 (113% more than water-
               based inks).  The high price per pound of UV inks contributed to their higher cost, in spite
               of their lower rate of use per unit of substrate.

               Differing ink consumption rates also affected costs. Several factors could have affected
               consumption rates.   Solvent-based ink  evaporates more readily, thereby requiring the
               periodic addition of press-side solvent.  (An average of 4.61 pounds ($4.61) of press-side
               solvent were required per 6,000 images during the performance demonstrations). Solvent-
               based inks also have a lower solids content; therefore, to deliver an equivalent amount of
               pigment to the substrate, a greater volume of ink is required. The surface tension of solvent-
               based inks is lower, and therefore more ink is transferred from the anilox roll given similar
               anilox roll volumes. Finally, the anilox rolls can dictate the amount of ink consumed; rolls
               with more volume than necessary may lead to artificially high ink consumption rates.
                                              5-20
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                         COST
     Table 5.14  Summary of Average Material Costs from the Performance Demonstrations
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Average ink costs
per
6,000
linages
$40.15
$23.22
$62.79
$29.83
$12.78
$18.85
$26.51
$21.58
per
6,000ft2
of Image
$18.08
$10.41
$28.24
$13.44
$5.72
$8.50
$11.92
$9.70
%of
total
88%
96%
100%
89%
98%
100%
84%
97%
Average additive costs
per
6,000
images
$5.61
$0.86
a
$3.78
$0.23
$0.00
$5.11
$0.58
per
6,000 ft2
of image
$2.53
$0.39
a
$1.70
$0.10
$0.00
$2.31
$0.27
%of
total
12%
4%
0%
1%
2%
0%
2%
3%
Total
per
6,000
Images
$45.76
$24.09
$62.80
$33.61
$13.01
$18.85
$31.62
$22.16
per
6,000 ft2
of image
$20.61
$10.80
$28.24
$15.14
$5.82
$8.50
$14.23
$9.97
There were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
demonstrations.
aUV ink manufacturers state that extra monomer is typically not added to UV ink; the printer for this demonstration run
did add monomer. The cost of this monomer is not known.
              Labor Costs                   '    •    •
              The differences in labor costs among the three ink systems were inversely proportional to
              press speed (i.e., the higher the press speed, the lower the cost). Table 5.15 presents a
              summary of average labor costs from the performance demonstrations. Site-specific labor
              costs and press speeds can be found in Appendix 5-B. Because most of the demonstrations
              were run between 340 and 450  fpm, the labor costs do not vary much among the
              demonstration sites. The sites that ran at slower press speeds (Site 3 at 218 fpm and Site 8
              at 262 fpm) had higher labor costs for their respective ink-substrate combinations (water-
              based ink on LDPE and UV-cured on PE/EVA). Conversely, solvent-based ink on OPP had
              the lowest average labor cost, because Site 10 ran at 600 fpm. These data do not reflect
              qualitative issues, such as the fact that UV typically requires less press-side adjustment and
              monitoring. These issues may also affect press availability.
                                             5-21
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                         COST
                              Table 5.15 Summary of Average Labor Costs from
                                      the Performance Demonstrations
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Solvent-based
per 6,000
images
$13.88
$13.88
$1 1 .98
per 6,000
ft2 of
image
$6.25
$6.25
$5.39
Water-based
per 6,000
Images
$20.77
$14.13
$13.52
per 6,000
ft2 of
Image
$9.35
$6.36
$6.08
UV-cured
per 6,000
images
$15.89
$19.52
per 6,000
ft2 of
image
$7.15
$8.78
n/aa
               an/a = not applicable; there were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
               demonstrations.                                            .
               Capital Costs
               Table 5.16 presents  capital costs for each ink system.  Capital cost data  from the
               performance demonstrations were not used, due to the variety and ages of the presses.
               Instead, the capital costs used in this analysis were based on estimates from suppliers and
               printers, and also based on average press speeds from the performance demonstrations. A
               sample calculation is provided in Appendix 5-A.

               The differences in capital costs were primarily due to the press speeds (i.e., the higher the
               press speed, the lower the cost). As a result, the solvent-based press was the least expensive
               ($29.08 per 6,000 images).  The water-based and UV presses were 11% and 33% more
               expensive, respectively, than the solvent-based press. At the methodology speed, capital
               costs for a water-based press would be the least expensive.  A UV press would be
               approximately 4% more expensive and a solvent press would be approximately 8% more
               expensive.

               While both new press and retrofit scenarios are presented in this chapter, only the new press
               scenario was used in the aggregate cost analysis. However, capital costs would be reduced
               if existing equipment were retrofitted.  If a water-based ink press were retrofitted from a
               solvent-based ink press, instead of purchasing a new press, the total cost for using water-
               based inks (per 6,000 images or per 6,000 sq. feet of image) could be reduced approximately
               12%. If a UV press were retrofitted from a solvent-based or water-based press, the total cost
               for using UV-cured inks could be reduced approximately 10%.
                                               5-22
-------
CHAPTERS
COST
                             Table 5.16 Estimated Capital Costs for New Presses
Ink
Cost per 6,000 images
Cost per 6,000 ft2 of image
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
Solvent-based (5 sites)
Water-based (7 sites)
UV-cured (4 sites)
$29.08
$32.15
$38.75.
$13.10
$14.48
$17.45
Based on Methodology Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute
Solvent-based (5 sites)
Water-based (7 sites)
UV-cured (4 sites)
$26.35
$25.33
$26.35
$11.87
$11.41
$11.87
              Energy Costs
              Table 5.17 presents energy costs for each ink system. Energy data from the performance
              demonstrations were not used due to the lack of data. The energy costs used in this analysis
              were based on estimates from suppliers and printers, as well as average press speeds from
              the performance demonstrations. A sample calculation is provided in Appendix 5-B, and
              details about  energy consumption are included  in Chapter 6,  Resource and Energy
              Conservation.  Energy costs were a minor factor in overall costs, averaging 4.7% of the total
              cost across the eight ink-substrate combinations. Water-based inks were the least expensive;
              energy costs were 24% and 220% higher for  solvent and  UV, respectively.  At the
              methodology speed, water-based inks again would have the lowest energy costs. Solvent-
              based inks would be 52% higher, and UV-cured inks would be 190% higher than water-
              based inks. Energy costs for UV are particularly high both because the curing lamps require
              substantial levels of energy, and because all energy is required in the form of electricity. For
              water- and solvent-based inks, the dryers can be fueled by natural gas, which is considerably
              less expensive on a per energy unit basis.
                                             5-23
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                        COST
                    Table 5.17 Estimated Energy Costs for Each Ink System



Average electricity costs
per
6,000
per
6,000 ft2
of image
%of
total
Average
natural gas costs
per
6,000
images
per
6,000 ft2
of image
%of
total
Total
per
6,000
Images
per 6,000
ft2 of
image
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
.DPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
$0.77
$0.67
$3.09
$0.77
$0.45
$3.80
$0.67
$0.43
$0.35
$0.30
$1.39
$0.35
$0.20
$1.71
$0.30
$0.19
55%
47%
100%
55%
47%
100%
55%
47%
$0.64
$0.74
$0.00
$0.64
$0.50
$0.00
$0.55
$0.48
$0.29
$0.33
$0.00
$0.29
$0.23
$0.00
$0.25
$0.22
45%
53%
0%
45%
53%
0%
45%
53%
$1.41
$1.40
$3.09
$1.41
$0.95
$3.80
$1.22
$0.91
$0.64
$0.63
$1.39
$0.64
$0.43
$1.71
$0.55
$0.41
There were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
demonstrations.
Based on Methodoloav Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute

Solvent-based
Water-based

$0.66
$0.38
$2.29
$0.30
$0.17
$1.03
55%
48%
100%
$0.53
$0.41
$0.00
$0.24
$0.18
$0.00
45%
52%
0%
$1.19
$0.78
$2.29
$0.53
$0.35
$1.03
 5.3 DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS

               This section discusses major categories of financial costs and benefits that are associated
               with environmental regulations, pollution prevention opportunities,  and environmental
               practices -  items that  are often not projected or tracked in conventional accounting
               measures. It is intended to help the reader focus on additional types of costs that could be
               useful in an  environmental analysis of a flexographic printing operation.

               Many environmental costs are obvious, such as purchasing an oxidizer to reduce VOC
               emissions to levels dictated by air regulations.  There are also less obvious costs; for
               example, an inefficient process that creates waste means that a company is paying for excess
               raw materials.

        Regulatory Costs

               As indicated in Chapter 2, several regulations may impact costs for flexographic printers.
               Compliant-- may require a capital investment in equipment, such as treatment and control
               systems, monitoring devices, laboratory facilities, safety equipment, or ongoing monitoring
               of a system. Regulated wastes may require additional expenditures  for on-site storage,
               hauling, and off-site treatment and disposal. New systems may require additional personnel
               and may increase energy use.  Additional personnel may be needed to run the equipment,
               analyze wastes, label and handle the wastes, and maintain the paperwork for permitting and
               reporting. Some of the relevant federal laws and requirements are discussed in Chapter 2.
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
              Also, various state and local regulations may increase flexographic printing costs.  For
              example, printing facilities using water-based inks may be required to install an oxidizer in
              some states, whereas in other states they may not be required to do so.  Also, wastes from
              water-based inks may or may not be regulated as hazardous material, depending on the
              formulation.

              Non-compliance with environmental regulations may lead to additional costs. Companies
              that are not in compliance may face the following direct and indirect costs.

                  •   fines levied by regulatory agencies
                  •   legal costs                                             .
                  •   property damage and remediation costs
                  •   increased workers' health insurance and compensation
                  •   decreased sales due to negative publicity

       Insurance and Storage Requirements

              Concrete insurance costs could not be quantified in the performance demonstration runs.
              However, solvent-based inks, in general, require additional insurance due to their explosive
              potential and additional storage requirements.

              Anecdotally, in a project to reduce ink and cleaning waste for flexographic printers, one
              facility reported savings in insurance premiums from switching to water-based inks and an
              aqueous cleaner. The project compared the volume and toxicity of air emissions and liquid
              wastes produced by the printing processes before and after switching to water-based inks
              and an aqueous cleaner, and then determined the economics of such processing changes.
              The facility saved about $500 per year due to  lowered insurance premiums based on
              improved working conditions.29

       Other Environmental Costs and Benefits

              Benefits from sound environmental practices can often impact areas other than production
              and the environment.  Sick days taken by  employees may be decreased (and morale
              improved)  by reducing or eliminating hazardous compounds in the workplace.   The
              company's relationships with customers, insurers, investors, and the community can be
              improved by gaining a reputation as a firm that is dedicated to environmental commitment
              beyond minimal regulatory compliance.

              Many environmentafcosts and benefits are not solely environmental; utility costs may be
              categorized as overhead or production costs, and greater profits may result from increased
              efficiency and improved morale.  More efficient use of raw materials will also lead to
              greater profits.  An analysis of  the environmental costs  may yield a more  accurate
              accounting of a company's expenses and reveal opportunities for cost reduction.
                                             5-25
-------
CHAPTER 5
                                                                                COST
REFERENCES

1.     Argent, Dave. Progressive Inks. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. June 1997.

2.     Bateman, Robert. Roplast Industries.  Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. May 27,1997.

3.     Daigle, Maurice.  Schuster Flexible Packaging. Written comments to Laura Rubin,
       Industrial Technology Institute. June 1997.

4.     Figueria, Lou. FlexPak. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology
       Institute. May 23,1997.

5.     Neal, Robert. Maine Poly. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. May 26,1997.

6.     Nigam, Brijesh. Sun Chemical Ink. Written comments to Dennis Chang, Abt Associates,
       Inc. November 20,1998.

7.     Root, Dave.  Georgia Pacific. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. May 22,1997.

8.     Ross, Alexander. Radtech. Written comments to Karen Doerschug, US EPA. November
       12,1998.

9.     Shapiro, Fred. P-F Technical Services, Inc. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. June 18,1998.

10.    Siciliano, Mike. Bema Film Systems. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. July 1997.

11.    Steckbauer, Steve. Deluxe Packaging. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin,
       Industrial Technology Institute.  May 26,1997.

12.    Timmerman, Mark. Trinity Packaging.  Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin,
       Industrial Technology Institute.  May 20,1997.

13.    Zembrycki, Jerry. Strout Plastics. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. June 1997.

14.    Ellison, Dave. American National Can Company. Written comments to Laura Rubin,
       Industrial Technology Institute. June 1997.

15.    Serafano, John. Western Michigan University.  Personal Communication with Laura
       Rubin, Industrial Technology Institute. "March 26,1997.

16.    Rizzo.Tony. Lawson Marden Label. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. May 22,1997.
                                          5-26
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
17.    Darney, Arsen J., editor. Manufacturing USA; Industry Analysis, Statistics, and Leading
       Companies. 4th   Edition, Volume 1.  Gale Research, Inc., Detroit; pp.733., 1994.

18.    Yeganah, John. Bryce Corporation. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute.  May 23,1997.

19.    Jacobs, Eva. Handbook of U.S. Labor Statistics Employment, Earnings, Prices,
       Productivity, and other Labor Data: 1996 Edition., 1996

20.    Steemer, Hans. Windmoeller and Hoelscher. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin,
       Industrial Technology Institute. May 6,1997.

21.    Heiden, Corey. Kidder Press.  Telephone discussion with Trey Kellett, Abt Associates
       Inc. July 1,1999.

22.    Bemi, Dan and Steve Rach. MEGTEC Systems. Telephone discussion with Trey Kellett,
       Abt Associates Inc. July 14,2000.

23.    Kottke, Lee. Anguil Environmental Systems, Inc. Telephone discussion with Trey Kellett,
       Abt Associates Inc. August 2,2000.

24.    Markgraft, Dave. Enercon. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute.  February 1998.

25.    National Association of Printers and Lithographers. NAPL Heatset and Non-Heatset Web
       Press Operations Cost Study; 1989-1990. Teaneck, NJ, 1990.

26.    Bateman, Robert. Roplast Industries. DfE Flexography Project Steering Committee
       Conference call.  March 1999.

27.    U.S. Department of Energy. Electric Power Monthly. Energy Information Administration,
       February 2000.

28.    U.S. Department of Energy. Natural Gas Monthly. Energy Information Administration,
       February 2000.

29.    Miller, Gary, et al. "Ink Cleaner Waste Reduction Evaluation for Flexographic Printers."
       EPA/600/R-93/086,1993.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Tamm,Rex. Daw Ink Company. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology Institute. June
1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce.  7957 Census of Manufacturers. Bureau of the Census, MC87-1-27B.

Windmoeller and Hoelscher.  Personal communication with sales representative of Windmoeller and
Hoelscher (401-333-2770). May 1997.
                                        .  5-27
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
                             This page is intentionally blank.
                                         5-28
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
          Chapter 6: Resource and Energy Conservation
                              CHAPTER CONTENTS
6.1  INK AND PRESS-SIDE SOLVENT AND ADDITIVE CONSUMPTION	6-3
       Methodology	6-3
       Limitations and Uncertainties	6-5
       Ink and Press-side Solvent and Additive Consumption Estimates		6-6


6.2  ENERGY CONSUMPTION	6-10
       Methodology				;	6-10
       Limitations and Uncertainties			6-16
       Energy Consumption Estimates	.6-17


6.3  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS			 6-23
       Emissions from Energy Production	 6-24
       Environmental Impacts of Energy Production 	,			6-26
       Limitations and Uncertainties	6-26


6.4  CLEAN-UP AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES	6-29
       Press Clean-Up and Waste Reduction in the CTSA Performance Demonstrations	6-30


REFERENCES	-	• 6-32
                              CHAPTER OVERVIEW

This chapter discusses resource and energy use in flexographic printing and identifies opportunities for
conservation. By minimizing resource and energy use, companies can improve the environment as well as
their bottom line.  Data presented in this chapter are based on information collected during the on-site
performance demonstration runs and information from equipment vendors.  Ink and energy consumption
data presented in this chapter are used in the cost analysis (Chapter 5) to calculate ink and energy costs.
Inkconsumption data are also used to estimate environmental releasesforthe risk characterization (Chapter
3).                                                    .

INK AND PRESS-SIDE SOLVENT AND ADDITIVE CONSUMPTION: Section 6.1 presents the comparative
ink and press-side solvent and additive consumption rates for solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured
ink systems. This analysis is based on the weights of inks, solvents, and additives, and on the substrate
usage recorded by an on-site observer from Western Michigan University (WMU) at each demonstration
site.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Section 6.2 discusses the energy requirements of the drying systems, corona
treaters, and pollution control equipment (catalytic oxidizers) typically used with the different ink systems.
Electrical power and/or gas consumption data were collected by WMU and supplemented by energy
estimates from equipment vendors. Due to the variability among equipment and  operating procedures at
                                         6-1
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
the different test sites, equipment vendor estimates, rather than site-specific data, are used in the cost
analysis to calculate energy costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:  Section 6.3 presents the environmental
impacts of electricity generation and natural gas combustion, using software that quantifies emissions. The
results are calculated for each ink system based on the rate of energy consumption at the methodology
press speed (500 feet  per  minute) and the average press  speeds  observed at the performance
demonstrations.

CLEAN-UP AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES: Section 6.4 discusses the clean-up procedures
used at the performance demonstration sites, as well as some of the broader life-cycle issues associated
with energy and natural resource use.


                             HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS

   »   UV-cured inks had the lowest ink consumption rates. In addition, UV inks required almost no
       press-side additions.  Solvent-based inks had the highest consumption rates for ink and materials
       added at press-side.
   •   Water-based inks consumed the least amount of energy (assuming pollution control equipment
       is not needed).  At a press speed of 500 feet per minute, UV-cured inks were the next lowest
       consumer, but at the press speeds observed during the performance demonstration, solvent-based
       inks were the second-lowest energy consumer per unit of image.
   •   For solvent- and water-based inks, air recirculation In dryer units can significantly reduce
       energy requirements by increasing the temperature of the incoming air.
   •   The environmental impacts due to energy production were lowest for water-based inks. This
       ink system consumed the least amount of energy, and much of the energy it did use was derived
       from natural gas. Based on a national average of energy emissions by source, the CTSA found that
       natural gas released less emissions per unit of energy than  electricity.  Depending  on the
       geographical location of a flexographic printing facility (and thus the specific electricity source),
       emissions could be very different.
   •   Most solvent-based and some water-based ink wastes are classified as hazardous waste. Non-
       hazardous waste (e.g., waste substrate and some cleaning solutions) can be recycled or reused.


                                       CAVEATS

   •   Ink consumption was calculated during the performance demonstrations by recording the amount
       of ink added to the press and subtracting the amount removed during cleanup. Several site-specific
       factors could have affected the calculated ink consumption figures: type of cleaning equipment,
       anilox roll size, and the level of surface tension of the substrate.
   •   The energy consumption section only considers equipmentthat would differ among the ink systems
       Therefore, drying/curing equipment is included, but substrate winding equipment and ink pumps are
       not.
   •   Except for corona treaters, information was  not available about the  difference  in  energy
       requirements when equipment is run at different press speeds. UV lamps also will have different
       energy demands at different energy speeds, but it is assumed in this analysis that their energy
       consumption is constant. Therefore, the energy consumption of UV lamps may be overestimated
       at lower press speeds.
   •   The clean-up and waste disposal procedures section presents the methods observed at the
       performance demonstration sites.  These procedures  were  developed  independently by the
       individual sites, and do not represent recommended practices  by EPA.	
                                            6-2
-------
CHAPTER 6
                           RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
6.1 INK AND PRESS-SIDE SOLVENT AND ADDITIVE CONSUMPTION

              By reducing resource consumption, businesses can increase process efficiency, decrease
              operating costs, and decrease demand for natural resources. Ink is one of the main resources
              consumed by the flexographic printing process. The amount of ink required to print an
              image not only affects printing costs, but also influences the potential risk to workers and
              the environment from exposure to ink constituents. This section of the CTSA presents
              average consumption of inks and press-side additions from the performance demonstrations .
              The data are in units of pounds of ink consumed per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of
              image, as printers commonly use these terms in estimating and comparing costs.

       Methodology

              The amounts of ink, press-side materials, and substrate consumed during the performance
              demonstrations are shown in Appendix 6-A.

              The on-site observer weighed the pre-mixed ink components (extender, water, solvent, etc.)
              that were put in the ink sump at the beginning of makeready and whenever ink components
              were added to the sump.  During clean-up, the observer weighed the ink remaining in the
              sump, the ink scraped or wiped out of the press, the cleaning solution (water, detergent, or
              solvent) added to the press, and the ink and cleaning solution removed from the press. The
              total ink consumed during makeready and  the demonstration run for each color was
              calculated from the following equation.
                                       iHadd-pr ~ *r " ^s "*" On "
              where
                 Ipre =
                 IT

                 Is
 total amount of ink plus press-side solvents and additives consumed (printed or
 evaporated) during makeready and the demonstration run
 amount of pre-mixed ink put in the ink sump at the beginning of makeready
k =  the sum of additional ink components put in the ink sump during
     makeready
. =  the sum of the ink components added to the system during the press run
 =  amount of ink remaining in the sump at the end of the run
 =  amount of ink scraped or wiped out of the press at the end of the run
 =  amount of cleaning solution added to the press during clean-up
     amount of cleaning solution and ink mixture removed from the press during
     clean-up
              Ink Consumption
              Ink consumption was  calculated for  each demonstration  site  using  the  following
              information:

                 •   total amount of ink consumed during makeready and the press run (Itotai)
                 •   amount of substrate printed (S)
                 •   total area of the image (16 by 20 inches with a 16-inch repeat)

              Substrate consumption was recorded from the press meter at the beginning of makeready,
              at the end of makeready, and at the end of the press run for each substrate. The consumption
              numbers are listed in Appendix 6-A.
                                            6-3
-------
CHAPTER 6
        RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              Sample calculations for white, water-based ink at Site 1 follow, to help readers understand
              the methodology and to allow reproducibility of results. The complete data are provided in
              Appendix 6-A.
                  Total white ink consumed (1^) = 56.4 pounds (Ibs)
                  Total substrate consumed including makeready (S) = 62,892 linear feet (ft)
                  Total area of image = 2.22 square feet (ft2)
                  Repeat length of image = 1 .33 ft
                  Number of images (N)
                  Ink per 6,000 images
= 8/1.33 feet per image
= 62,892 feet / 1.33 feet per image
= 47,200 images

= (WN) x 6'000 images
= (56.4 lbs/47,200 images) x 6,000 images
= 7.17 Ibs per 6,000 images
                  Ink per 6,000 ft2 of image  = (WN) x 6,000 ft2 of image / Area of image
                                           = (56.4 lbs/47,200 images) x 6,000 ft2 / 2.22 ft2 per image
                                           = 3.23 Ibs per 6,000 ft2 of image

               White ink was not printed on the PE/EVA substrate. Thus, PE/EVA substrate is excluded
               from ink consumption calculations for white ink.

               Table 6.1 presents the percent area of coverage for each ink.  White dominates the ink
               coverage of the image (60.8%), blue and green (line colors) account for 24.1% coverage,
               and cyan and magenta (process colors) account for 5.2% coverage.
                                        Table 6.1 Image Area by Color
Color
Blue
Green
White
Cyan
M3.G6ntcL
Area (in2)
43.5
33.5
194.7
8.2
8.2
Area (ft2)
0.30
0.23
1.35
0.06
0.06
Percent coverage (%)"
13.6
10.5
60.8
2.6
2.6
               The total percent coverage does not equal 100% because ot overlapping colors ana unprmu
               Facilities running more than one substrate did not clean the press between substrates. Thus,
               only total weights, not the weight of ink applied to each substrate, are available. For the
               purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the weight of ink consumed per unit area is not
               a function of the film type.

               Press-side Solvent and Additive Consumption
               During the course of a print run, printers may add solvent or water to correct the viscosity
               of the ink, or other components, such as extenders or cross-linkers,  to improve the
               performance of the ink. Solvent and additive weights were calculated assuming the weight
               of each component consumed is directly proportional to the component weight added to the
                                              6-4
-------
CHAPTERS
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              system.  The solvent and additive consumption rates were then calculated in a manner
              similar to the ink consumption rates.   •

              The method for calculating ink weights assumes  equal volatilization rates for each
              component.  It does not account for solvent emissions from the ink sump or ink pan.
              Because solvents are expected to volatilize at a more rapid rate than other components, this
              method slightly underestimates solvent consumption rates and slightly overestimates rates
              for the other components.  Sample calculations for solvent and additive weights using
              solvent-based, blue ink data from Site 5 follow, with numbers taken from Table 6-A.12 in
              Appendix 6-A:
    = 20.90 Ibs
    ^J = 4.81 Ibs
                  Weight of blue ink added to system
                  Weight of solvent added to the blue ink
                  Total ink used (IT) = 18.16 Ibs
                  Total components added (T) = Iadded+	
                                            = 20.90 lbs"+4.81 Ibs
                                            = 25.71 Ibs
                                            = 20.90 Ibs / 25.71 Ibs
                                            = 0.81
                  RatioofSaddedtoT(Rs)      = 4.81 Ibs 725.71 Ibs
                                            = 0.19

                  Weight of ink consumed = IT x Rj
                                            = 18.16 Ibs x 0.81
                                            = 14.8 Ibs

                  Weight of solvent consumed = IT x Rs
                                            = 18.16 Ibs x 0.19
                                            = 3.4 Ibs

       Limitations and Uncertainties

              The limitations of and uncertainties in the data are related to the limited number of
              demonstration sites, variability among the equipment and operating procedures at the test
              sites, and uncertainties in the measured ink component weights. Each of these are discussed
              below.  •

              Limitations Due to the Number of Demonstration Sites
              Ink consumption data were collected during twelve performance demonstrations at ten
              flexographic printing facilities across the United States and one press manufacturer's pilot
              line in Germany. As such, the data represent a "snapshot" of how the inks performed at the
              time of the performance demonstrations (November 1996 — March 1997) under actual
              operating conditions at a limited number of facilities. Because no two printing plants are
              identical, the sample may not be representative of all flexographic printing plants (although
              there is no specific reason to believe they are not representative).

              Variability among Equipment and Operating Procedures
              Several operating parameters were specified in the performance demonstration methodology
              (see Appendix 6-B) in an attempt to ensure consistent conditions across demonstration sites.
                                             6-5
-------
CHAPTER 6
                                                    RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
               These included target specifications for anilox rolls (screen count and anilox volume) which
               directly affect the amount of ink applied to print an image.

               The specified target ranges for the anilox rolls were hot always met.  Because of the
               production needs of the volunteer facilities, changing anilox rolls or acquiring new anilox
               rolls to meet the  specified targets  was impractical.  Table 6.2 lists the target anilox
               specifications and the average configurations by ink type for the anilox rolls actually used
               at the demonstration sites.  The Site Profiles section of the Performance chapter (Chapter
               4) lists the particular anilox configurations used at each of the test sites. Facilities using
               anilox volumes and,screen counts greater than the specifications would be expected to
               consume more ink to print the test image. Similarly, facilities using anilox volumes and
               screen counts less than the specifications would be expected to consume less ink to print the
               test image. Also, these specifications do not address the fact that the anilox roll volume
               would differ depending on the color printed; for example, the volumes for light colors would
               be larger than those for dark colors.
                   Table 6.2 Average Anilox Configurations and Target Anilox Specifications
Ink
Target
Solvent-
based
Water-based

Screen count (lpi)a
Line
(color)
440
350
290

Line
(white)
150
260
300
250
Process
600 to
700
650
580
610

Line
(color)
4to6
5.5
6.3
4.9
Line
(white)
6 to 8
6.8
5.9
7.3
Process
1.5
2.1
3.0
3.3 -
                alines per inch
                bbillion cubic microns per square inch
                Uncertainties in Ink Component Weights
                As discussed previously, the on-site observer collected information on the amounts of ink,
                solvents, additives, and cleaning solution added to or removed from the system during
                makeready, the press run, and clean-up. In some cases, however, site operating procedures,
                such as the type of. cleaning system being used, prevented measurement of some of these
                parameters. In these cases, the weights were estimated based on other site data.

         Ink and Press-side Solvent and Additive Consumption Estimates

                Tables 6.3 and 6.4 present the average ink and and press-side solvent and additive
                consumption rates for the performance demonstration sites by ink type, substrate, and color.
                Site-specific consumption rates can be found in Tables 6-A.3 and 6-A.4 in Appendix 6-A.

                In general, the UV-cured ink formulations used substantially less ink than the solvent-based
                or water-based formulations. On LDPE, the UV-cured ink systems used 57% less ink than
                the solvent-based ink systems and 28% less than the water-based ink systems. On PE/EVA,
                the UV-cured ink systems used 82% less ink than the solvent-based ink systems and 56%
                less  than  the water-based ink systems. These results are consistent with  the general
                                                6-6
-------
CHAPTERS
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              expectation that less UV-cured ink is needed because nearly all of the ingredients are
              incorporated into the dried coating, unlike with solvent- and water-based inks.

              Components added to the water-based ink formulations included water, extender, solvent,
              ammonia, cross-linker, slow reducer, and defoamer. Components added to the solvent-based
              formulations were primarily solvents, but one company also added extender to the ink,
              whereas another added acetate. Water-based ink solvents and additives tended to comprise
              a smaller percentage of the overall total weight than did solvent-based ink  solvents and
              additives. In the solvent-based systems, these additions accounted for about 25% of total
              consumption. No additives were used at the UV-eured ink demonstration sites, except for
              a low-viscosity monomer added to the green ink at Site 11.
                                            6-7
-------
I
cc
m

§
o

1
g
            CD
 CD

 CC
 UJ


 |


 3

n
o
•D
— *• CO
£3 to g
1 ll
w "3 <
..
!•*
3
co


CO
£
1

CO
«
§>
o
CO









J£
c










CO
>
~
5
^l*1
~
CD
"3
CO
CD
•o
W
UJ
S
fe
ca

CO
o

"o>
™


^

c
p
6

CD
m















































^
c
•D
CD
cn
co
X]
.*.
1
CC
CM
CO
CO
CM

CO
in


o
co


o
o
o



CO
in


8
o


fc
CM


cn
CM


CO
r-



ro
CO
CM

cS
CM







111
CL
a
5.
5:

CO


in
co
o


8
o



°3
CO


8
o


£
CM


S
CM"


8
0



CO
co
CM

co"
CM







UJ
D.
CO
0

d


CO
O


CO
o
o



£
0


o>
o


o
CD
O


in
d


S
CO



O)
o
••-

o
CO
T—







CL
CL
o










































^
C

o
CD
1
£
t^-

0
d


i—
1^*1
f»«*


o
o



8
o


8
o


9
o


CO
d


CO
in



CO
r**
o

o>
o







111
CL
C
a
••"

8
d


cn
co
T~


8
o



8
0


8
d


CO
••s-
0


d


8
o



^j-
^j'
o

CO
co
o






^c
D]
a.
^


f


"is



C




-p



•S



-S



c


•S




_co
c


40
i_







CL
D










u>
c
•o
s
o
•8
ft
g
o
•c
o
s
a.
o_
O
c
o
_c
T3
2
1
•s
«

3
to
tn
co
o
< In
LU g
al g
o p
o o
a. o
•g xi
c J
^j Q.
S S*
V
ci o
IS
ll
                                                                                                                                                     CO

                                                                                                                                                     CD
-------
 z


 <

 cc
 uj
 tf
 2




 c
 DC
 UJ
 UJ
 o
 cc


 G
 (/]
 UJ
 DC
 (0
I
 (0

 o

 o
Q
I
s.
             to

            a^
             <0  ffl
            CC  D)


             §1
            O  


            $S
            .2;  o-
            A± CO
            T3 
            (0  O
            in

            co
            to
            0)
            •o

            CO
            O)

            2


           I
           CO

           £
           JO
to

CC
UJ
o

I
ill
o £ £
*f e si
.Q 0> XJ
3 j> 2
W 0 <

*- c
(O


0)
>
X
3

10
§1
o
(0











1
£








g
>
S
•o
<
•g
§•
5
0)
•o
0)


0)
O)
(0
IS

c
«»
>1
o
5,
£
c
s
o

3
m












































•~£
—
CD
w
ca
o
IJSolvent-
co
o
T-
CM
in
CM



CM
oo

8
o



CM
m
CM

o
o
d


CM
T—




CO
1—


CO
CO
oo
T"

8
•*"






UJ
Q-
Q
m
co
'^^
^^



00
"*"

8
o



^3
f^p
•"-

o
o
CD


CM-
T—




CO
T—


o
o
o
oo
f—
T-

0
•*"






PE/EVA
CO
co
CM'



8
CO

8
o



o
o
CM

co
O
d


co
in
o




CO
o


s
CO
g
o

co
o






Q.
Q_
O







































c
•a
0)
CO
m
1
CM
CO
in
CD



in
co
•«*

co
CM
O



CM
T—
O

^^
^^
d


3
o




3
o


s
CM
in
CO
o

oo
in
o






UJ
a.
a
CM
T—
CM
cvi
d



T—
o>
'*"

00
o



§
o

8
d


3
o




s
o


8
0
s
o

s
o






PE/EVA
8
in
d



O5
f^
"*"

S
o



00
o
o

8
d


^^
^^
0




5
o


8
CO
9
0

OO
in
o






a.
Q_
o








































c

T)
1
o
T)
9
CO
8
d



CO.
CO

o




8
o

o
o
d


CM
CM
o




CO
0


CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
o

$
o






UJ
a.
Q
co
oo
o
8
d



CO
00
o

8
o



8
o

8
d


o
CM
o




in
o


o
o
0
o
CM
o

CO
o






PE/EVA


-£5
c



c


-5




£


-S
c


£





-£S



c

£


.0
JO
c






a.
a.
o









£
.2
^0
•5
c
o
-s
s

•i
q>
Q.
£
a.
O
c
0
^
c
TJ

V
>

•s
s
1
< 1
> o
g£
IP

= •*
a. to
•g XI
c S


El
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
6.2 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
              Energy conservation is an important goal for flexographic printers who strive to cut costs
              and seek to improve environmental performance. This section of the CTS A discusses the
              electricity and natural gas consumption rates of the flexographic printing equipment listed
              in Table 6.5, including background information and assumptions. Energy consumption rates
              are used in the cost analysis (Chapter 5) to calculate energy costs. They are also used in
              Section 6.3 to evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of energy consumption.
                            Table 6.5 Equipment Evaluated in the Energy Analysis
Equipment
Hot air drying
system
Catalytic
oxidizer"
Corona treater
UV curing
system
Function
Dries the ink between stations and in
the overhead tunnel (main) dryer.
Converts VOCs to carbon dioxide and
water.
Increases the surface tension of the
substrate to improve ink adhesion.
Cures UV-cured ink applied to
substrate.
Ink system
Solvent-
based
•
•


Water-
based
•

•

UV-
cured


•
•
                In some states, oxidizers may be required for water-based inns witn nign vuo comeni
               Energy estimates were to be prepared from the individual site data for each of the
               performance demonstration sites, similar to the site-specific ink consumption estimates
               presented in Section 6.1. However, limited or no energy data were available for one or more
               pieces of equipment at several of the sites, particularly for catalytic  oxidizers used at
               solvent-based sites. In addition, press size, age, and condition of presses varied significantly
               across sites, as did equipment operating conditions, such as dryer temperature. For these
               reasons, equipment vendor estimates, rather than site-specific data, are used in the cost
               analysis to calculate energy costs.
        Methodology
               This section presents the methodology used to estimate energy requirements and provides
               background information and key assumptions on the types of equipment evaluated: hot air
               drying systems, catalytic oxidizers, corona treaters, and UV curing systems.

               Energy Consumption
               Equipment vendors estimated equipment energy requirements in kilowatts (kW) for
               electrical power and British thermal units (Btu) per hour for natural gas. This information
               was then converted into energy consumption rates for each ink type in Btus per 6,000
               images and per 6,000 ft2 of printed substrate. Table 6.6 lists the press, substrate, and image
               characteristics used in the energy estimates.  These characteristics are consistent with
               assumptions used in the cost analysis and with the substrates and image printed during the
               on-site performance demonstrations. Where applicable, two sets of estimates were made:
               one using the project methodology press speed of 500 feet per minute (fpm) for all three ink
                                              6-10
-------
CHAPTERS
     RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              types, and one using the average press speed achieved for each ink type at the performance
              demonstration facilities. Additional assumptions for each type of equipment and energy rate
              calculations are listed in the sections below.
                 Table 6.6 Press, Substrate, and Image Information for Estimating Energy Use
Parameter
Press
Press
speed
Substrates
Web width
Image size
Description
48-inch, 6-color, Cl press; new, average
quality
Solvent-based ink: 500 fpm and 453 fpm
Water-based ink: 500 fpm and 394 fpm
UV-cured ink: 500 fpm and 340 fpm
LDPE, PE/EVA, OPP
20 inches
1 6 in x 20 in (2.22 ft2)
Comments '
Press costs are presented in
Chapter 5.
Two scenarios for each ink
system are used in the
corona treatment energy
estimates.

A second case assuming a
40-inch web was used in
oxidizer and corona treater
energy estimates.

              Sample calculations based on the average press speed at water-based sites follow. Estimates
              were provided by equipment vendors.

                  Drying oven natural gas consumption = 500,000 Btu/hour
                  Blower electricity = 30 kW
                  Corona treater electricity = 1.6 kW
                  Total electricity = 31.6 kW
                  Average press speed (P) = 394 feet per minute
                  Image size = 2.22 ft2
                  Image repeat (R) = 1.33 feet

                  Images printed per minute      = P/R
                                              = 394 feet per minute / 1.33 feet per image
                                              = 296 images/minute
                                              = 17,800 images/hour
                  Time to print 6,000 images = 6,000 images / 17,800 images/hour
                                              = 0.34 hours
                  Natural gas per 6,000 images   = 500,000 Btu/hour x 0.34 hours
                                              = 170,000 Btu
                  Electricity per 6,000 images    =31.6 kW x 0.34 hours
                                              = llkW-hr
                  Images per 6,000 ft2

                  Time to print 6,000 ft2

                  Natural gas per 6,000 ft2
= 6,000 ft2 / 2.22 ft2 per image
= 2,700 images
= 2,700 images / 17,800 images/hour
= 0.15 hours
= 500,000 Btu/hour x 0.15 hours   "
                                            6-11
-------
CHAPTER 6
     RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                  Electricity per 6,000 ft2
= 76,000 Btu
= 31.6 kWx 0.15 hours
= 4.7 kW-hr
              Hot Air Drying Systems
              Most solvent-based and water-based presses are equipped with between-color (interstation)
              dryers (BCDs) and an overhead (main) dryer. Supply and exhaust blowers are used to
              provide air flow through the dryers and maintain negative pressure within the dryer. The
              supply blowers draw air into the drying system to be heated by the burners.  Most printers
              draw the dryer make-up air from the ambient environment outside the plant.1 T3-1-""-*
              blowers are used to draw the heated air though the dryers to the exhaust outlet.
                                        Exhaust
               The BCDs are positioned after each print station. They dry each color as it is applied to the
               web to prevent pick-up or tracking when the next color is applied.  The overhead dryer
               consists of a tunnel located above the print stations, through which the web passes to further
               dry the ink before the web is rewound.

               The energy consumed by hot air drying systems includes electrical power for the supply and
               exhaust blowers and natural gas for the drying oven. Typically, the gas energy required to
               heat the process air is greater than the energy needed to dry the ink.2

               Kidder, Inc., a press manufacturer, provided energy estimates for hot air drying systems
               based on  the press,  substrate, and image details  listed in Table 6.6, the average ink
               consumption rates listed in Table 6.3, and the hot air drying system assumptions listed in
               Table 6.7. Dryer energy estimates for both solvent- and water-based inks are based on the
               same air flow rates but different dryer temperatures. New presses are now designed to work
               with either water-based or solvent-based inks.  Usually, a press operator will reduce the
               amount of heat instead of the air flow when using solvent-based inks.3 Air flow rates are
               given in units of cubic feet per minute (cfm).
                                 Table 6.7 Hot Air Drying System Assumptions
PdrdiviQt&r
BCD air flow rate
Main dryer air flow rate
Dryer temperature
(solvent-based Inks)
Dryer temperature
(water-based inks)
Make-up (outdoor) air
temperature
Percent recirculatibn of
diver air
Assumption 1 Comments
2800 cfm
3000 cfm
150°F
200°F
0°F, 50°F, 70°F
0%, 50%
Four dryer boxes at 700 cfm/box, based on
average BCD flow rate of 15 cfm/inch of
width/dryer box8
Typical value for 48-inch press3
Typical temperature for Project substrates8
Typical temperature for Project substrates8
Three scenarios
Two scenarios
                cfm = cubic feet per minute.
                a Reference 4.
                                               6-12
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
               The  assumed  dryer temperature for water-based inks is  higher than the maximum
               temperature to which some film substrates can be subjected without potentially damaging
               the film.  However, in practice, the film temperature would be less than the dryer
               temperature due to impression cylinder cooling and evaporative cooling.5

               The hot air drying  system energy estimates were prepared for six different operating
               scenarios, assuming three different outside air temperatures for the make-up air and two
               dryer air recirculation scenarios (no recirculatiori and 50% recirculation). All six scenarios
               were analyzed to illustrate the influence make-up air temperature and air recirculation on
               dryer costs. The different air temperatures represent the range of air temperatures that might
               be encountered in different seasons. If make-up air is taken from the outdoor environment
               (as is typically done), dryer costs will be significantly higher in winter than in summer.  The
               50°F temperature was used in the cost analysis to represent an annual average. Most  new
               presses are designed to recirculate dryer air, either to save on dryer air heating costs or to
               reduce the air flow to the pollution control device.6 However, many older presses do not
               have dryer air recirculation, and retrofitting may be ineffective with smaller, low air flow
               presses.  A recirculation rate of 50% was used in the cost analysis since this is more
               representative of a new press, the subject of the cost analysis.

               Catalytic Oxidizers
               A catalytic oxidizer is a type of add-on emissions control equipment used to convert VOC
               emissions to carbon dioxide and water by high temperature oxidation. Catalytic incinerators
               employ a catalyst bed to facilitate the overall combustion reaction by increasing the reaction
               rate.  This enables conversion at lower reaction temperatures than in thermal oxidizers.
               Oxidizers are used primarily with solvent-based inks, but may be required with water-based
               inks in some states.

               A basic catalytic oxidizer assembly consists of a heat exchanger, a burner, and a catalyst.
               First, the dryer exhaust stream is preheated by heat exchange with the oxidizer effluent and,
               where necessary, further heated to the desired catalyst inlet temperature by a natural  gas-
               fired burner. The heated stream then passes through the catalyst where VOCs are converted
               to  carbon dioxide and water.  The combustion reaction between oxygen  and  gaseous
               pollutants in the waste stream occurs at the catalyst surface. The oxidizer effluent is then
               recirculated back to  the heat exchanger and may also be recirculated to the dryer to save
               drying fuel.

               Two oxidizer  suppliers, Anguil  Environmental Systems, Inc.  and MEGTEC Systems
               [formerly Wolverine (Massachusetts) Corporation], provided energy estimates based on the
               press, substrate,  and  image details  listed in Table  6.6 and the additional oxidizer
               assumptions presented in Table 6.8.7  As with the other equipment, the oxidizer energy
               estimates represent energy requirements for a particular set of circumstances (e.g., solvent
               loading, dryer exhaust temperature, flow rate), and they are not necessarily representative
               of other operating conditions.
                                              6-13
-------
CHAPTER 6
                                                     RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                                   Table 6.8 Catalytic Oxidizer Assumptions
Parameter
Number of
presses vented
io oxidizer
Solvent content
Heat exchanger
efficiency
Air flow to
oxidizer
Dryer exhaust
temperature
Catalyst inlet
temperature „
Solvent loading
(two cases)
Assumption
Two
1 3,000 Btu/lb
70%
5800 cf m
150°F
600°F
70 Ib/hr
140lb/hr
Comments

Average of typical values provided by two oxidizer
suppliers
Typical efficiency value based on vendor input.
Equipment vendors also provided oxidizer energy
estimates for 65%, 75%, and 80% efficiencies.
Combined air flow after recirculation for two 48-inch
presses; same as air flow used in dryer energy
estimates
Dryer temperature assumed for drying oven energy
calculations
Depending on solvent type, catalyst inlet
temperatures can vary from 475°F to 650°F8A10-11'a
Solvent loading for two presses; solvent loading at
performance demonstration sites averaged 35 Ib/hr
for one press.
Solvent loading assuming each 48-inch press is
running two 20-inch images, side by side (i.e., solvent
loading for a 40-inch web width).
               The catalytic oxidizer energy estimates were prepared assuming two different solvent
               loadings (70 and 140 Ib/hr). The solvent loadings were based on two web widths (20-inch
               and 40-inch). A solvent loading of 70 Ib/hr was used in the cost analysis.

               Two scenarios for solvent loading are provided because it would be very unusual for a
               facility with a 48-inch press to run a 20-inch image, which reduces solvent loading to the
               oxidizer. Oxidizer energy costs decrease with increased solvent loading until the oxidation
               reaction becomes self-sustaining (e.g., requires no make-up fuel). Using a 20-inch image
               on a 48-inch press and the associated lower solvent loading would tend to overestimate
               energy costs. Solvent loading of 140 Ib/hr portrays a more realistic situation, in which two
               20-inch images are run side by side on a 48-inch press.

               A heat exchanger efficiency of 70%, a typical efficiency, was used in the cost analysis. The
               other values (65%, 75%, and 80%) were submitted by oxidizer vendors to illustrate the
               effect of heat exchanger efficiency on oxidizer energy costs.
        a Technology developments are allowing for decreased catalyst inlet temperatures.  A published estimate
          notes that a typical catalyst inlet temperature is 550-700°F. Another industry estimate notes that with
          solvent loading, the typical temperature can rise to 650°F. However, some new oxidizers are capable of
          operating at 500°F.
                                               6-14
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              Corona Treaters
              Corona treatment is a process that increases the surface energy of a substrate to improve ink
              adhesion. It can be performed three ways: by the substrate supplier, when the substrate is
              on the printing press, or both by the substrate supplier and on press. On-press corona
              treatment systems may be used with all three ink types, but are  mainly used with water-
              based and UV-cured inks, which typically have lower surface energy than solvent inks.
              None of the performance demonstration sites  running solvent-based inks used corona
              treatment on the press.

              A corona treatment assembly consists of a power supply and treater station. The power
              supply accepts standard utility electrical power and converts it into a single-phase, higher-
              frequency power that is supplied to the treater station. The treater station applies the higher
              frequency power to the surface of the material via a pair of electrodes.12

              The energy consumed by a corona treatment system can depend on a number of factors,
              including web width, production speed, type of substrate (e.g., material, slip additives), and
              watt density (watts per unit area per unit time)  required to treat  the substrate. Table 6.6
              presents press, substrate, and image details. Enercon Industries Corporation, a corona
              treater supplier, provided corona treatment energy estimates, including the power supply
              size and input power. Input power represents the actual power drawn from the utility grid.
              Watt density was not specified, so the equipment suppliers determined the appropriate watt
              density.
                                                            /
              UV Curing Systems                                                            !
              UV presses employ UV lamps, which emit UV radiation to polymerize or cross-link the UV-
              cured ink monomers.  In addition to the lamps, a UV curing system has supplemental
              cooling capacity to counter the infrared heat produced by the UV lamps. The curing system
              may also include a blower to extract ozone generated during the UV curing process, and an
              anilox heater to pre-heat the ink. Only one of the three UV performance demonstration sites
              had a separate ozone blower and anilox heater.

              Energy estimates for UV curing systems were developed based on operating data collected
              during the performance demonstrations; supplemental information from Windmoller &
              Holscher, an equipment supplier; and information from another equipment supplier, Fischer
              & Krecke, Inc.  Table 6.9 presents the UV curing system assumptions.  Lamp output is
              assumed to be constant at both press speeds evaluated (i.e., at  500 fpm and 340 fpm).
              However, in most UV systems lamp power increases with press speed up to some maximum
              power output level, depending on the press.  For example, lamp output provided by one
              press manufacturer ranged from 48 watts per centimeter of press width (W/cm) at a press
              speed of 100 fpm to 160 W/cm at 820 fpm.13 In another example, manufacturer data for
              lamp output at a performance demonstration site ranged from 80 w/cm at standby to 200
              w/cm at 200 fpm. No data were available to accurately account for the differences in lamp
              output at the two project press speeds. Lamp energy in watts was calculated by multiplying
              the lamp output in watts per inch by the press width (48 inches) and by the total number of
              lamps (six).,
                                            6-15
-------
CHAPTER 6
                                                    RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                                  Table 6.9 UV Curing System Assumptions
Dora motor
Lamp output
Number of
lamps
Lamp cooling
Assumption
175 watts per cm of
press width
Six
60 kW
Comments
Average value based on site and vendor data
Four lamps between colors and two main
lamps
Average value based on site data and vendor
data
        Limitations and Uncertainties

               The limitations of and uncertainties in the energy analysis stem from the lack of energy data
               at many of the demonstration sites, the limitations in the number of operating scenarios
               evaluated, limitations in the data for different press speeds, and uncertainties inherent in
               using estimated data rather than measured data.  Each of these limitations is  discussed
               below.

               Lack of Energy Data at Performance Demonstration Sites
               The performance demonstration methodology called for energy data collection at the 11
               performance demonstration sites in order to develop a "snapshot" of energy requirements
               under actual operating conditions at a limited number of facilities. As discussed previously,
               little or no energy data were available for one or more pieces of equipment at several of the
               sites, particularly for catalytic oxidizers used at solvent-based sites. In addition, press size,
               age, and condition varied significantly across sites, as did equipment operating conditions,
               such as dryer temperature.  For these reasons, equipment vendor estimates, rather than site-
               specific data, are the focus of the energy analysis. As a result, the data are estimated based
               on hypothetical operating conditions and do not necessarily represent energy demand
               experienced at the performance demonstration sites.

               Limitations in the Number of Operating Scenarios
               The operating conditions and assumptions used in the energy analysis were developed based
               on the test image, substrates, and operating conditions at the performance demonstration
               sites, as well as using typical operating conditions provided by equipment vendors.  As
               such, the energy estimates represent a "snapshot" of equipment energy requirements under
               a particular set of conditions. They are not necessarily indicative of the range of energy
               requirements that might be experienced for different images, substrates and operating
               conditions, nor are they intended to represent this range.

               Limitations in the Data for Different Press Speeds
               The energy consumed by printing equipment is often a direct or indirect function of press
                speed.  For example, the power outputs of UV lamps and corona treaters usually vary
                directly with the press speed. The amount of make-up fuel required for a catalytic oxidizer
                depends on the solvent loading, which varies with the ink,  image, and press speed, among
                other facto-s. However, except for corona treaters, no quantitative data were available to
                determine the differences in equipment energy draw at the different project press speeds
                (e.g., the average  press  speeds observed at performance demonstration sites and the
                methodology press speed of 500 fpm). This can result in either an overestimation of energy
                                               6-16
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
               requirements at the lower press speeds or an underestimation of energy requirements at the
               higher press speeds.

               Uncertainties in Estimated Data
               Equipment energy requirements were estimated by equipment vendors for use in the cost
               analysis. Attempts were made to get estimates from at least two vendors for each type of
               equipment, but in some cases only one estimate was available.  Vendor energy estimates
               were compared to each other, to performance demonstration data, and to other data sources
               as available, to check for reasonableness and completeness. Either averages or the most
               complete and representative data are presented in the results below and used in the cost
               analysis.

       Energy Consumption Estimates

               Table  6.10 presents the equipment vendor energy  estimates  used to  develop energy
               consumption rates. Table 6.11 presents gas and electrical energy consumption rates in Btus.
               Results from the latter table were used in the cost analysis (Chapter 5).  The energy
               consumption results for each type of equipment across the three ink systems are discussed
               in more detail in the following sections. For the estimated energy costs for each ink system
               and substrate combination, see Table 5.17 in the Cost chapter.

               Under the particular operating parameters and assumptions used in this analysis, the water-
               based system consumed the least energy at both press speeds. UV energy consumption rates
               were most influenced by the press speed, due to the lower average press speed achieved at
               UV performance demonstration sites. However, as noted previously, no data were available
               to account tor the lower lamp energy draw that can occur at lower press speeds. Solvent-
               based systems have lower drying energy requirements than water-based, but  have higher
               overall energy requirements when the oxidizer energy requirements are taken into account.
               These results would be reversed (e.g., water-based inks would require more  energy than
               solvent-based inks) if the solvent-loading to the oxidizer was sufficient to make the oxidizer
               self-sustaining and/or recirculation of dryer air was not taken into account for  water-based
               systems.                         ,                     -

               The results of the energy analysis in Table 6.11 can be compared to a similar analysis of
               energy consumption undertaken by a press manufacturer that supplies both hot air and UV
               cured systems.14 That study evaluated the relative energy consumption of a 55-inch press
               running the different ink systems.  Table 6.12 shows the results of that analysis, which
               suggest  that  solvent-based  and water-based  systems have roughly the same energy
               requirements if pollution control equipment is required for both ink types, while UV-cured
               inks have slightly greater energy requirements.
                                             6-17
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                       Table 6.10 Equipment Vendor Energy Estimates Used to
                                  Develop Consumption Rates
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
UV-
cured
Equipment
Drying
oven
Dryer
blowers
Oxidizer
Oxidizer
blower
Drying
oven
Dryer
blowers
Corona
treater
UV lamps
Lamp
cooling
Corona
treater
Natural gas
{Btu/hr)
360,000
n/a
290,000
n/a
500,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Electricity
(kW)
n/aa
30
n/a
25
n/a
30
2.1,1.6
130
60
2.1,1.6
Comments
Based on an outdoor air
temperature of 50°F and 50%
recirculation of dryer air
Average of values
recommended in dryer energy
audits from some performance
demonstration sites and by
equipment vendor
Average of values from two
equipment vendors; based on
70 Ib/hr solvent loading
Average of values from two
equipment vendors
Based on an outdoor air
temperature of 50°F and 50%
recirculation of dryer air
Average of values
recommended by two
performance demonstration
sites and by equipment vendor
Based on worst case substrate
(PE/EVA) running at 500 and
394 fpm, respectively
See Table 6.9 for basis
See Table 6.9 for basis
Based on worst case substrate
(PE/EVA) running at 500 and
394 fpm, respectively
             n/a: not applicable
                                      6-18
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                      Table 6.11  Average Energy Consumption Rates for Each Ink System
ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Press speed
(fpm)
500
453b
500
394b
500
340"
Energy per 6,000
images (Btu)a
220,000
240,000
160,000
220,000
174,000
260,000
Energy per 6,000 ft2 of
image (Btu)a
100,000
110,000
73,000
96,000
78,000
120,000
               Electrical energy was converted to Btus using the factor of 3,413 Btu per kW-hr.
               bAverage press speed for the performance demonstration sites.
                             Table 6.12  Energy Consumption per Job by Ink Type8
Equipment
Dryer"
Pollution control"
Corona treatment
UV lamps
Temperature conditioning
Driving motors/pumps
Total
Energy consumption by Ink type (Btu/hr)
Solvent-based
=310,000
=200,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
=200,000
=710,000
Water-based
=310,000
(200,000)d
17,000
n/a
n/a
=200,000
530,000-730,000
UV-cured
n/a°
n/a
=17,000
=550,000
=85,000
=200,000
=850,000
               "Source: Reference 15. Source did not specify the type or length of job evaluated.
               "Heater plus blower
               °n/a: not applicable
               "Pollution control may or may not be required with water-based inks.
              Hot Air Drying Systems
              As discussed previously, six scenarios were evaluated for the natural gas requirements of
              a hot air drying system, based on three different ambient air temperatures and the presence
              or absence of dryer air recirculation. Table 6.13 presents the results of these analyses. The
              energy requirements for hot air drying systems were calculated using a proprietary formula
              that considers make-up air temperature, dryer temperature, and air flow.16 As shown in the
              table, recirculation can greatly reduce energy load. There are many factors involved, but in
              this scenario dryer energy with recirculation can be calculated assuming a relationship of
              40% fuel savings for 60% recirculation.17 Whenever recirculating air is used with solvent-
              based inks, however, it is imperative that the lower explosive limit (LEL) be monitored and
              controlled to safe limits.18
                                              6-19
-------
CHAPTER 6
                                                    RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                     Table 6.13  Natural Gas Energy Estimates for Hot Air Drying Systems
Ambient air
temperature (°F)
0
0
50
50
70
70
Percent air
recirculation (%)
0
50
0
50
0
50
Natural gas energy (Biu/hr)
Solvent-based
720,000
480,000
530,000
360,000
440,000
290.000
Water-based
890,000
600,000
740,000
500,000
670,000
450.000
               Source: Reference 19.

               Dryer gas energy data collected during the performance demonstrations were largely
               incomplete. Data that were collected varied widely due to differences in press sizes and
               operating conditions. For example, gas energy data were only available from four of eight
               sites (one of which ran both solvent- and water-based ink systems) and ranged from gas
               burner capacity data to energy estimates from dryer energy audits.  The average gas
               consumption rates reported by solvent-based and water-based sites were 2.4 million Btus/hr
               and 1.5 million Btus/hr, respectively. These values are significantly higher than the values
               estimated hi Tables 6.10 and 6.13. Differences may be attributed in part to the larger press
               sizes at these sites (average 54 inches), press age, dryer temperatures and flow rates, and the
               amount of dryer air recirculation.

               Catalytic Oxidizers
               Oxidizer vendors were asked to estimate oxidizer energy requirements for two scenarios
               using the assumptions in Table 6.8: The first scenario is two 48-inch presses running the
               performance demonstration image vented to the same oxidizer (70 Ib/hr solvent loading).
               The second scenario is two presses fully loaded with two performance demonstration
               images (140 Ib/hr solvent loading). The first scenario is consistent with assumptions used
               in the cost analysis (Chapter 5) and was used to generate the energy consumption rates in
               Tables 6.10 and 6.11. The second scenario illustrates the effect of solvent loading on energy
               requirements. In general, as solvent loading increases, natural gas energy decreases until
               the solvent loading is sufficient to make the reaction self-sustaining.

               In addition to the two scenarios described .above, the oxidizer  vendors prepared energy
               estimates based on heat exchanger efficiencies of 65%, 70%, 75%, and  80%. Table 6.14
               presents the catalytic oxidizer energy estimates for the various solvent loadings and heat
               exchanger efficiencies and the.specific.assumptions in Table  6.8.   Other operating
               parameters that can significantly affect the overall energy requirements of an oxidizer
               include the solvent heat content, the ah- flow to the oxidizer, and the inlet air temperature.
                                               6-20
-------
CHAPTERS
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                               Table 6.14  Catalytic Oxidizer Energy Estimates8
Solvent
loading
70 Ib/hr
140lb/hr
Equipment
Burner (Btu/hr)
Damper/blower
(kW)d
Burner (Btu/hr)
Damper/blower
(kW)d
Energy estimates by heat exchanger efficiency
65%b
560,000
17e
16,000
17e
70%b
260,000
17e
16,000
" 17"
70%c
320,000
32*
70,000
32f
75%°
130,000
32f
n/a3
n/a
80%c
70,000
32'
n/a
n/a
               "Energy estimates are based on the assumptions in Table 6.8 plus additional assumptions made by
               equipment vendors. Values do not necessarily represent the relative energy efficiency of the vendor's
               equipment.
               "Source: Reference 20.
               "Source: Reference 21.
               dOnekW-hr = 3,413Btu
               "Based on 22 hp blower
               'Based on 40 hp motor with volume blower
               9n/a: not applicable, unit is at minimum Btu/hr usage with another heat exchanger.
               Corona Treaters
               Corona treatment energy requirements were estimated for two press speeds (500 fpm and
               the performance demonstration site averages) and two web widths (20 inch and 40 inch).
               One corona treater supplier provided power supply and input power estimates for the worst
               case substrate (2,5 mil PE/EVA, high slip) only, while the other provided watt density and
               power  supply data for all of the substrates, but did not provide input power estimates.
               Because the remainder of the energy analysis is based on input power rather than power
               supply, estimates provided by the first supplier were used to generate the results in Tables
               6.10 and 6,11. Table 6.15 lists corona treater energy estimates for a 500 fpm press speed.
               Table  6.16 lists corona treater energy estimates for  the average press speed at the
               performance demonstration sites.
                                              6-21
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              Table 6.15 Corona Treater Energy Estimates (Press Speed of 500 Feet per Minute)
Ink
Water-
based
UV-
cured
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
LDPE (no slip)
PE/EVA
OPP
Watt density
(watts/mVmln)
20"
web"
3,100
3,100
3,100
3,100
2,300
3,100
3,100
40"
web"
6,200
6,200
6,200
6,200
4,600
6,200
6,200
Power supply
(kW)
20"
web"
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
40"
web"
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
5.0
7.5
7.5
20"
web"
ND°
2.0
ND
ND
ND
2.0
ND
40"
web"
ND
3.5
ND
ND
ND
3.5
ND
Input power
(kW)
20"
webb
ND
2.1
ND
ND
ND
2.1
ND
40"
webb
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
3.6
ND
              "Source: Reference 22.
              "Source: Reference 23.
              CND = no data
                  Table 6.16 Corona Treater Energy Estimates (Average Press Speeds at the
                                     Performance Demonstration Sites)
Ink
Water-
based
UV-
cured
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
LDPE (no slip)
PE/EVA
OPP
Watt density
(watts/mVmin)
20"
weba
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,100
1,600
2,100
2 100
40"
web*
4,700
4,700
4,700
4,200
3,100
4,200
4,200
Power supply
(kW)
20"
web"
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
40"
web'
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
20"
webb
NDC
1.5
ND
ND
ND
1.5
ND
40"
webb
ND
3.0
ND
ND
ND
2.5
ND
Input power
(kW)
20"
web"
ND
1.6
ND
ND
ND
1.6
ND
40"
webb
ND
3.1
ND
ND
ND
2.6
ND
               "Source: Reference 24.
               •"Source: Reference 25.
               CND = no data
               Table 6.17 presents power output data (e.g., power applied to the web) read by WMU
               representatives from the corona treater power supply box  during the performance
               demonstration runs. In some cases, WMU representatives also measured power input in
               volts and amps during the print run.  However, these data are not reported because corona
               treater suppliers have indicated they cannot be used to calculate power input in kilowatts
               without knowing site-specific power efficiency factors.26
                                             6-22
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                Table 6.17 Corona Treater Power Output at Performance Demonstration Sites
Ink
Water-based
UV-cured
Substrate
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA
LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP
OPP
OPP, LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP, LDPE, PE/EVA
LDPE (no slip)
Site
1
2
3
4
9A
6
8
11
Power output (kW)
Makereadv
6.4
1.9
4.0
3.0
ND
L_ 11-°
2.2
n/ab
Print run
NDa
ND
4.0
3.0
ND
ND
ND
n/a
               ND: no data
              bn/a: not applicable; Site 11 did not have a corona treater.
              UV Curing Systems
              Lamp energy estimates for either press speed were obtained at 160 watts/cm of press width,
              174 watts/cm, and 185 watts/cm. Larger differences were seen in the supplemental lamp
              cooling estimates, which ranged from 25 kW to 90 kW.  The smaller value is for a water-
              cooled system; reportedly, most UV lamp systems are air-cooled.27
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

              The energy requirements of the solvent-based, water-based and UV ink systems presented
              in Section 6.3 result in energy costs to printers (see Chapter 5, Cost). Environmental releases
              from energy production also result in indirect costs to society. Examples of the types of air
              emissions released during energy production include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur oxides
              (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and particulate matter. The potential
              environmental and human health impacts of these releases include health effects to humans
              and wildlife, global warming, acid rain, and photochemical smog. For more information on
              the potential impacts of printing on  society, see Chapter 8, Choosing Among Ink
              Technologies.

              This section quantifies the types and amounts of emissions released into the environment
              from energy production and discusses the potential environmental impacts of the releases.
              For electrical energy, emissions are typically released at electrical power plants outside the
              printing facility. Releases from natural gas combustion may occur at the print shop where
              the combustion process occurs.
                                            6-23
-------
CHAPTER 6
                                                    RESOURCE AND bNERGY CONSERVATION
       Emissions from Energy Production

               Energy-related emissions — both at and away from the facility — can be a significant part
               of the total life-cycle environmental impact of printing. Emissions are released fromnatural
               gas-burning dryers and oxidizers as well as from the electricity generation process at offsite
               power plants. The level of emissions can vary considerably among printing technologies,
               depending on the fuel type and process efficiency.

               The  emissions from energy production during the performance demonstrations  were
               evaluated using a computer program developed by the EPA National Risk Management
               Research Laboratory.28 This program, which is called P2P-version 1.50214, can estimate
               the type and quantity of releases resulting from,the production of energy, as long as the
               differences in energy consumption and the source of the energy used (e.g., hydro-electric,
               coal, natural gas, etc.) are known.  The program compares the pollution generated by
               different processes (e.g., extraction and processing of coal or natural gas for fuel).

               Electrical power derived from the average national power grid was selected as the source
               of electrical energy, and natural gas was used, as the source of thermal energy  for this
               evaluation.  Energy consumption rates per 6,000 ft2 from Table 6.11 were used as the basis
               for the analysis. It should be noted that the location of the environmental impacts will vary
               by energy type; natural gas releases will occur onsite, while electricity-related releases will
               occur at offsite power plants.                '

               Results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.18. Appendix 6-C contains printouts from
               the P2P program. Water-based systems generally had the lowest levels of emissions from
               energy production at either press speed, followed by solvent-based systems. The releases
               associated with the production of energy for the UV ink system exceeded those from water-
               based  or solvent-based  systems for every pollutant  category  except hydrocarbons.
               Hydrocarbon emissions were greater for the water-based and solvent-based systems, because
               of .the natural gas consumed by the hot-air dryers used with these systems.  Greater
               emissions from energy production were seen at lower press speeds for all of the systems, due
               to the longer run times needed to print a given quantity of substrate. However, as noted in
               Section 6.2, data were not available for all equipment to estimate the differences in energy
               draw at different press speeds.  Emissions from energy production would be reduced if
               equipment powers down at decreased press speeds.
                                               6-24
-------
 UJ
 CO
a
cc
UJ

w

Q
UI
O
CC

O

£8
cc
            S»
            a>  •

           UJ

           B
            0)
            W
            a>
            w
           ao
           t—

           (£>
           I
(O

DC
o
















Cj
*J
§
JO
^
•o
0)
«
CD
0)
0)
DC
t^f
c
o
E











_o --5

3 •— 9
"^ ^r <
W "- £


2s 12 O
OT O


If
3
•3
(0
3: -
O
;g
8.

c ,„
s>ls
sii

•jy ^J


CO


§""
•
•o
=
•o
|s
CO O
.2 CO
Q
0)
J-o
go
s|a
s
OQ —

CO "O *~.
CO O E
£§.1
0. (/) 5=-


JJ

o
8
cT

CO


^
P
co ja


o
CM'



CO
CM



o
3


CO
^f




CO







5




00
o


in

8

o
o
in



in
CM



CO
CO



0


o>
in




0







CM
in




q


CO
CD

O
O
0
oo"

o>
CO


I


CM




|



O
o
o
CM"


^
OJ
j



^3
^^







o
CM




0
CO


CO
CM

1

O
s



fs*.
yw



O
CM



O
8
CM"


0
.^J-




8






f
0)
CM




in


CO
CO

8
o
S"

§


*1
£
E ;
2

S
c§
o
&
~a.
c
.2
1 "
Q)
c
llectricityge
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              The higher overall emissions for UV systems were due primarily to the differences in fuel
              mixes used by the three systems (both electrical and natural gas energy for water-based and
              solvent-based systems, as compared to electrical energy alone for UV).  The U.S. electric
              grid is mainly comprised of coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, gas and petroleum-fired power
              plants.  In 1997 the majority of U.S. electrical energy (57%) was produced from coal-fired
              generators,29 which tend to release greater quantities of emissions .than gas-fired energy
              systems. For example, at a 500 fpm press speed, the UV system consumed an estimated 23
              kW-hr/6,OOOft2 of electricity, which is equivalent to 78,000 Btu/6,000ft2.  At the same press
              speed, the solvent-based system consumed an estimated 6.6 kW-hr/6,OOOft2 of electricity
              plus 78,000 Btu/6,000ft2 of natural gas, for a total of 100,000 Btu/6,000ft2 .However,
              although the UV system consumed less overall energy than the solvent-based system, it still
              had higher emissions from energy production  for the  pollutants, evaluated, except
              hydrocarbons.

       Environmental Impacts of Energy Production

              Table 6.19 lists the pollution categories, pollutant classes, and media of release assigned by
              the P2P software. Table 6.20 lists total pollution generated by pollutant category and class,
              and Table 6.21 provides totals for each pollution category.

              Based on the release rates shown in Tables 6.21 and 6.22, the water-based systems showed
              thelowestpotentialenvkonmentalimpactsfromenergyproduction,includinghumanhealth,
              use impairment, or disposal capacity impacts, followed by solvent-based systems. The UV
              systems had the greatest potential environmental impacts from energy production in each
              of the pollution categories and classes.

       Limitations and Uncertainties
                                                                                          j
              These release rates can only be used as indicators of relative potential impacts, not as an
              assessment of risk. Assessing risk from energy production also would require knowledge
              of the location and concentration of release, and proximity to surrounding populations.  It
              would also require more information on the specific chemicals emitted, for example the
              exact identity of the hydrocarbons emitted during natural gas combustion as compared to
              the hydrocarbons emitted during coal combustion.

              The potential environmental impacts of energy requirements for the three ink systems are
              based on the energy estimates described  in Section 6.2 and are subject to the same
               limitations and uncertainties.
                                              6-26
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                         Table 6.19 Pollution Categories, Classes and Media of Release
Pollution Category
Human Health Impacts
Use Impairment Impacts
Disposal Capacity Impacts
Pollutant Class
Toxic Inorganics8
Toxic Organics3
Acid Rain
Precursors
Corrosives
Dissolved Solids'3
Global Warmers
Odorants
Particulates0
Smog formers
Solid Wastes
Chemicals
Nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides
Sulfuric acid
Dissolved solids,
sulfuric acid
Carbon dioxide,
nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbons
Particulates
Carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons,
nitrogen oxides
Solid Wastes
Affected
Resource
Air
Air
Air
Air
Water
Water
Air
Air
Air
Air
Soil,
groundwater
                ' Dissolved solids are a measure of water purity and can negatively affect aquatic life as well as the
               future use of the water.
               b Toxic organic and inorganic pollutants can cause adverse health effects in humans and wildlife.
               c Particulate releases can promote respiratory illness in humans.
               The program uses data reflecting the national average pollution releases per kilowatt-hour
               derived from particular sources.  It does not account for differences in emission rates at
               different power plants, nor does it necessarily account for the latest in pollution control
               technologies applied to power plant emissions.

               The P2P program primarily accounts for emissions of pollutant categories and not emissions
               of the individual  chemicals or materials known to occur from energy production, such as
               mercury.  Nor does it provide information on the spatial or  temporal characteristics of
               releases. Thus, the P2P software provides emissions estimates in grams per functional unit
               (grams per 6,000ft2 of printed surface, in this case) and assigns them to pollution (impact)
               categories and classes to develop release rates by impact category. As discussed previously,
               these release rates can be used as an indicator of relative potential environmental impacts,
               but are not an assessment of risk.
                                               6-27
-------
§

I
EC
III
O
o
EC
Ui
I

O
07
IU
CC
CD

CC
ui
o





"to
to
m
0
I
CD
Jx
1
Q
** $>*
ll
O CD
-Q "S'
.2 ^
2
CD
g
Q)
a
CO
1
CO
co
E
UI







^^
£
>£•
2.
-
> °~
:Di
to.


^x
S £•
5 O)
oo.
*."§
& &
s2 o
> o
*•**

** "E"
™» *«
o S
CO •§


if
° 0
co S,


utant Class
o
o.





12 CO
jg CD
"o to
CLO



0
T—
co


o
CM




CO



5





fc




^^
^^





jxic Inorganics
H

CO
CO



CO
CM




co
co



m
in





co
o>




f-
co





foxic Organics
1



. .c
"co
CD
r™ U)
co ^3
E &
fj £

O

CO


o
CM




CO
in



5





^^
f^




^^
^^





ain Precursors
cc
TJ
"Q
o
CO
CO


§




co



3





co




S





Corrosives


^i
CM



T-




m
CO



CO
cvi





CM
in




$





ssolved Solids
o


^^
O
•s

§
CD"



§
co"


8
CD




o"
T"



8
0>"




lobal Warmers
CD


CVI



^3




^1



5





o
CO




S





Odorants



^^



Si




CD
in



CO





co
co




o
co





Particulates


O
i*.



O




en
r-



CO.
co





CO
CD




o
en





£2
CD
D)
O
CO



*i
0)
c
'CO
CL (/}
_ ^3
CD Q.
CO c*
^ _fc

O

en
CM"

o
o
o
CM"



o



CO





o
CO
CO




^^
^"^
in





CO
&
1
TJ


3,
'o
s.
CO
o
CO CO
o ^
.§-§.






























CO
3
.O)
'co
s
•a
c
J3
CD
1
£
0
ja
E
3
C
^

                                                                                                                                                 00

                                                                                                                                                 •v
                                                                                                                                                 CO
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                           Table 6.21 Summary of Pollution Generated by Category
Pollution
Category
Human
Health
Impacts
Use
Impairment
Impacts
Disposal
Capacity
Impacts
'I
Pollution Generated *
(g/per 6,000ft2)
Solvent
(500
fpm)
79
9,500
570
^_
Solvent
(453
fpm}
87
10,000
630
Water
(500
fpm}
48
6,500
340
^-^*™»
Water
(394
fpm)
60
8,100
410
	
uv
(500
fpm)
230
16,000
2,000
_«»«»
UV
(340
fpm}
350
24,000
2,900
               * All numbers have been rounded to two significant figures.
 6.4  CLEAN-UP AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES

               This section of Chapter 6 discusses the types of cleaning solutions and clean-up methods
               used for the three different flexographic ink technologies studied in the CTSA performance
               demonstrations,  and describes the disposal procedures for the various types of wastes
               generated in each case.

               All flexographic printing operations result in waste ink and substrate, soiled shop towels,
               and cleaning solutions that need to be disposed. However, the volume of waste ink and the
               specific chemical makeup of wastes differ, depending on the type of ink system that a printer
               uses. Therefore, the clean-up methods, waste disposal procedures, and overall environmental
               impacts of a printing process also differ for each ink system.

               Most printers employ the same basic procedures to clean solvent-based or water-based ink
               from a press. Excess ink may be wiped or scraped down and drained from the press. The
               system is then flushed with a cleaning solution to remove additional ink and prepare the
               press for a fresh run.  Shop towels, usually wetted with a cleaner, are used to wipe down the
               anilpx rolls, doctor blades, or other press parts. UV ink cleaning procedures are similar,
               except that different cleaners or dry shop towels may be used to wipe down the press.

               Most  solvent-based  ink wastes are  classified as hazardous waste  and are disposed of
               accordingly. Water-based ink wastes, however, may or may not be classified as hazardous
               waste. Although solvent-based waste disposal costs may be reduced because it can be
               burned and used for heat production, this is not always possible with water-based wastes.
               Regulations prohibit hazardous waste from being mixed with fuel and burned if it has an
               energy value of less than 5,000 Btu/lb.30  Therefore, some printers using low-solvent
               water-based inks use an "ink splitter" to separate the solids from fluids in their waste ink and
                                             6-29
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
              cleaning solutions. This substantially reduces the amount of hazardous waste that needs to
              be disposed. The waste water usually can be reused in-house or discharged to the public
              water system, but if the original waste qualified as hazardous, the solids also will need to
              be treated as hazardous waste. (See the Control Options section of Chapter 7 for more
              information on ink splitters.)

              Multi-day runs of UV-cured printing  may generate less ink waste than solvent-based or
              water-based printing for printers who shut down overnight, such as some smaller printers.
              In this case, the ink can remain indefinitely on the press or in the reservoirs without curing
              on press parts or the sump.31  The press is shut down, the ink reservoirs should be covered
              to prevent dust from getting in, and the press is turned on to resume printing the next day.
              Also, because correct color adjustment is achieved more quickly at the beginning of a UV
              run using process colors on dedicated stations, under these conditions UV may generate
              somewhat less waste of ink and substrate. However, because UV inks are too thick to be
              modified easily,  correct color adjustment may not be achieved more quickly  when using
              matched/Pantone colors that require toning.32

       Press Clean-Up and Waste Reduction in the CTSA Performance Demonstrations

              Table  6.22 summarizes  the types  of  cleaning solutions  used at the performance
              demonstration sites. For solvent-based systems, three sites utilized a blend of alcohol and
              acetate solutions, and one site reported using alcohol alone. The cleaning solutions used for
              UV-systems were the same as those for solvent-based systems, except for one site that used
              an alcohol/water/soap blend. Water, at times mixed with a little alcohol and/or ammonia,
              was used for clean-up  of the water-based ink systems.
                   Table 6.22 Cleaning Solutions Used at Performance Demonstration Sites
Ink System
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Cleaning Solution
Alcohol/acetate blend ( 3 sites)
Alcohol (1 site)
Water only (2 sites)
Water/alcohol blend (1 site)
Water/ammonia blend (1 site)
Water/ammonia/alcohol blend (1 site)
Alcohol (1 site)
Alcohol/acetate blend (1 site)
Alcohol/water/soap blend (1 site)
               The clean-up and waste disposal procedures employed at the performance demonstration
               sites are summarized in Table 6.23.  Appendix 6-B describes these procedures in more
               detail. All but one site employed reusable shop towels to clean the press. All sites recycled
               some or all of their waste substrate.
                                             6-30
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                  Table 6.23 Clean-up and Waste Disposal Procedures at Performance
                                     Demonstration Sites
Ink System
Solvent-
based
Water-based
UV-cured .
Shop Towels
Sent to industrial
laundry (3 sites)
Landfilied ( 1
site)
Sent to industrial
laundry (5 sites)
Sent to industrial
laundry (2 sites)
No data (1 site)
Ink and Cleaning Solution
Disposition
Solvent mix to cement kiln (1
site)
On-site distillation; still bottoms
to cement kiln (1 site)
Reused 3 times then disposed
as hazardous waste (1 site)
No data (1 site)
Mixture incinerated (2 sites)
Separated water and solids;
incinerated solids (2 sites)
Diluted mixture and discharged
to POTW (1 site)
Reused once before sending to
cement kiln (1 site)
On-site distillation; still bottoms
disposed (1 site)
No data (1 site)
Waste
Substrate
Disposition
Partially or all
recycled
(4 sites)
Partially or all
recycled
(5 sites)
Partially or all
recycled
(3 sites)
                                     6-31
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
REFERENCES
1.     Barnard, Harris. In98a. Kidder, Inc.  Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University of
       Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies.  April 24, 1998.

2.     Barnard, Harris. 1998b. Kidder, Inc.  Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University of
       Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies.  April 30,1998.

3.     Ibid.

4.     Ibid.

5.     Ibid.

6.     Barnard, Harris. 1998d. Kidder, Inc.  Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University of
       Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 12, 1998.

7.     Reschke, Darren. 1998. MEGTEC Systems [formerly Wolverine (Massachusetts) Corporation].
       Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products
       and Clean Technologies. May 18,1998.

8.     Ibid.

9.     Foundation of Flexographic Technical Association. 1999. Flexography: Principles and
       Practices, 5th ed. Volume 3. Ronkonkoma, NY: Foundation of Flexographic Technical
       Association.

10.    Kottke, Lee. Anguil Environmental Systems, Inc. Personal communication with Trey Kellett,
       Abt Associates. August 2,2000.

11.    Bemi, Dan and Steve Rach. MEGTEC Systems. Personal communication with Trey Kellett, Abt
       Associates. July 14,2000.

12.    Enercon Industries Incorporated. Not dated. "Corona Treatment,"
       http://www.enerconind.com/surface/papers/overview.

13,    Flathmann, Kurt. 1998a. Fischer & Krecke, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid,
       University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. June 1, 1998.

14.    Flathmann, Kurt. 1998a. Op. cit. June 1, 1998.

15.    Ibid.

16.    Barnard, Harris. 1998c. Kidder, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University of
       Tennessee Center J'CT Clean Products and Clean Technologies.  May 1, 1998.

17.    Ibid.

18.    Ibid.
                                             6-32
-------
CHAPTERS
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
19.    Ibid.

20.    Kottke, Lee. 1998. Anguil Environmental, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid,
       University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 8,1998.

21.    Reschke, Darren. 1998. Op. cit. May 18,1998.

22.    Smith, Alan. 1998. SOA International, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid,
       University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. June 3,1998.

23.    Gilbertson, Tom. 1998. Enercon Industries, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid,
       University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 18,1998.

24.    Smith, Alan. 1998. Op. cit. June 3, 1998.

25.    Gilbertson, Tom. 1998. Op. cit. May 18,1998.

26.    Markgraf, David. 1998. Enercon Industries, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid,
       University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 11,1998.

27.    Flathmann, Kurt. 1998b.  Op cit. June 3, 1998.

28.    U.S. EPA.  1994. P2P-Version 1.50214 computer software program.  Office of Research and
       Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.

29.    Energy Information Administration. 1999. Electric Power Monthly, February 1999 (with data for
       November 1998), DOE/EIA-0223(99/02).

30.    Ellison, David. 2001. Pechlney Plastic Packaging. Personal communication with Trey
       Kellett,  Abt Associates Inc. September 26, 2001.

31.    Ross, Alexander. 1999. RadTech.  Personal communication with Trey Kellett, Abt Associates.
       June 9, 1999.

32.    Shapiro, Fred. 2000. P-F Technical Services/Personal communication with Lori Kincaid,
       University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. February 22, 2000.
                                           6-33
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
                          This page is intentionally blank.
                                      6-34
-------
 CHAPTER 7
                                               ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
            Chapter 7: Additional Improvement Opportunities
                                CHAPTER CONTENTS
 7.1  POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES	.7.3

 7.2 RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY	7-6
        Silver Recovery	_               '  7.6
        Sofvent Recovery	7.7
        Solid Waste Recycling	[                    7.7

 7.3  CONTROL OPTIONS	7.8
        Sources of Flexographic Ink Pollutants Amenable to Treatment or Control Options  	7-8
        Control Options and Capture Devices for Air Releases	7-8
        Control Options for Liquid Releases	    7_10
 REFERENCES
                                                                                    7-12
                                CHAPTER OVERVIEW

This chapter discusses some techniques beyond alternative ink systems and printing processes that
flexographic printers can use to prevent pollution, reduce chemical consumption, and minimize waste. This
chapter includes sections on pollution prevention, recycling and resource recovery, and control options.


 'Dilution prevention, also known as source reduction, involves reducing or eliminating environmental
discharges at their source (that is, before they are generated). Pollution prevention requires taking active
steps to implement changes in workplace practices, technology, and materials, such as the type of ink
used. By reducing the amount of waste produced in the first place, disposal and compliance issues are
minimized.  Each step in the printing process offers opportunities for pollution prevention. Flexographic
printers may be able to receive several benefits from following pollution prevention practices, including cost
savings, improved productivity, better product quality, reduced health risks to workers, reduced pressures
of regulatory compliance, and of course reduced environmental impacts. Pollution prevention is discussed
n Section 7.1.


Recycling, which is also sometimes called resource recovery, is the focus of Section 7.2. Although recycling
s not pollution prevention, since it does not reduce the amount of pollution being generated, it too has
benefits for flexographers, including reductions in the need for new materials and for solid waste disposal.
Thus, recycling can help printers reduce the costs of doing business. Silver, solvents, and many solid
vastes can all be recycled.                                              ~
                                           7-1
-------
                                               ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
                                   	     ____——.,—————————•==^^=^ga^=^^=
In additiorTseveral pollution control options are possible for both liquid and gaseous forms of f lexographic
ink chemicals. Section 7.3 discusses several common control options.  These technologies car. be very
successfuIinreducingwasteandemissionsintheflexographicindustry.Controloptionsthatared.scussed
in Section 7.3 include oxidizers, adsorption systems, permanent total enclosures (capture dev.ces hat work
wifhcontroloptionsbutdonotdestroyharmfulemis^
however,  often require a major capital investment, and must receive  regular mamtenance to function
efficiently  Also, even control options that destroy virtually all harmful emissions have no effect on he types
andamounVsof chemicals being purchased and used by flexographic printers. That is, they do not prevent
pollution from being generated.
-------
CHAPTER 7
   ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
7.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES

              Pollution prevention, also known as source reduction, reduces or eliminates environmental
              discharges at their source — that is, by avoiding their creation. Pollution prevention can
              be achieved by changing workplace practices, substituting safer alternatives for harmful
              chemicals,  and modifying  equipment  to  reduce waste,  m  addition to reduced
              environmental impacts, pollution prevention may yield the following benefits:

                  •   cost savings
                  •   improved productivity and product quality
                  •   minimized risks to worker health
                  •   reduced pressures of regulatory compliance

              A strategy to prevent pollution should be customized to fit each printer's objectives and
              production process. The first step is to construct a process flow diagram that identifies
              each stage of the production process. The next step is to consider the inputs and outputs
              of each process stage.  Once the inputs and outputs are identified, waste streams can be
              prioritized, and the source of those waste streams can be targeted.  Pollution prevention
              options that target these inputs can then be implemented to reduce or eliminate the
              corresponding waste stream.

              Pollution prevention requires commitment from both management and employees. While
              management action is required for process changes, employees — who are closest to the
              process — often are best placed to identify pollution prevention alternatives. Pollution
              prevention involves taking a proactive stance and frequently reviewing the production
              processes to find new and better ways of doing business. Figure 7.1 lists the specific
              process steps in the three major stages of the flexographic printing process where pollution
              prevention opportunities exist.

              Table  7.1 expands upon Figure 7.1 by identifying and describing specific  pollution
              prevention opportunities. Each of the major stages of the printing process provides many
              opportunities to increase efficiency and potentially save money while improving and
              maintaining performance standards. Facility-wide  opportunities to practice  pollution
              prevention are included at the end of the table. Also, two case studies and a video that
              further describe pollution prevention activities in the flexography industry are available
              from the U.S. EPA. Complete ordering information is provided at the end of this chapter.
                    Figure 7.1 Traditional Process Steps in Flexographic Printing
               Pre-Press
Printing
Post-Press
1 . Artwork and Product Design
2. Negatives and Color Proofs
3. Platemaking
4. Mounting and Proofing
5. Makeready
6. Printing
7. Cleaning
8. Laminating and Coating
9. Converting
                                            7-3
-------
CHAPTER 7
                                                 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
               Decision-makers throughout the flexo industry also have many other opportunities to
               encourage environmental improvements and cleaner, more "sustainable" operations.
               Pollution prevention involves reducing or eliminating environmental discharges before
               they are generated. Pollution prevention requires taking active steps to implement
               changes in workplace practices, technology, and materials, such as the type of ink used.
               By reducing the amount of waste produced in the first place, disposal and compliance
               issues are minimized. Each step in the printing process offers opportunities for
               pollution prevention. Flexographic printers may be able to obtain a number of benefits
               from following pollution prevention practices, including cost savings, improved
               productivity, better product quality, reduced health risks to workers, reduced pressures
               of regulatory compliance, and of course reduced environmental impacts. Control
               options are less desirable than pollution prevention because they manage pollutants that
               have already been created. Control technology also can break down, and require
               expensive capital and maintenance costs.

               Some opportunities for pollution prevention in flexo printing follow.

               Pre-Press
                   •   Use Computers for Proofs.and Plates:  By using computers to generate all
                       proofs and plates, printers can skip photographic development and eliminate the
                       use of darkroom chemicals.
                   •   Switch from Rubber to Photopolymer Plates: Use of traditional nitric acid baths
                       to etch designs into metal plates may generate wastewater that is low in pH and
                       high in metal content, requiring regulation under the Clean Water Act.
                       Photopolymer plates eliminate this waste stream as well as the metal engravings
                       and wastes generated from the production of conventional molded rubber
                       plates.
                Printing
                   •   Cover Volatile Materials: By keeping all cans, drums, and open ink fountains
                       covered, printers can reduce odors and worker health risks by minimizing
                       fugitive VOC emissions.
                    •   Install Enclosed Doctor Blade Chambers: Enclosed doctor blade chambers
                       reduce ink evaporation, which results in better control of ink usage, more
                       consistent color, and improved performance of the inks on press. Making this
                       change to an older press may greatly reduce ink evaporation, thus minimizing
                        worker exposure to hazardous chemicals.
                    •    Use Higher Linecount Anilox Rolls: This enables printers to apply smaller ink
                        droplets closer together, to achieve much finer ink distribution, easier drying,
                        and potentially faster press  speeds.
                    •   Rework Press Return Ink: Reworking press return ink can increase efficiency,
                        reduce ink purchases, and reduce hazardous waste if contamination  issues can
                        be addressed.  Ink can be reworked by blending press return ink with virgin ink
                        or other press return inks.                                 ,
                    •   Use Computerized Ink Blending: Software and specialized equipment help
                        printers blend ink, reduce surplus ink, and reuse press return ink.
                    •   Print with Four-Color Process: The limited number of inks in four-color process
                        printing can minimize the amount of mixed colored inks used and eliminate
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
                      residues of unusual colors at the end of each job.  With chambered doctor blade
                      systems, the increased use of process printing to produce a broad spectrum of
                      colors has become more easily attainable.
                  •   Co-Extrude Colored Film: Films can be co-extruded to have panels of color in a
                      clear field, which eliminates the need for heavy coverage with colored ink.
                  •   Run Light Colors First: By running lighter jobs before darker jobs, printers can
                      reduce the number of clean-ups.
                  •   Standardize Repeat Print Jobs: Make-ready times and wate materials can be
                      greatly reduced if the press operators knows the anilox roll linecount and cell
                      volume, the sequence of colors, applied, ink parameters such as pH and
                      viscosity, and other set-up information.
                  •   Standardize Anilox Roll Inventory: This saves time during makeready and
                      reduces waste.
                  •   Use Multi-Stage Cleaning: Solvent use can be reduced by using a multi-stage
                      cleaning procedure for the printing decks. This procedure reduces solvent use
                      by reusing solvents that are otherwise discarded. Pre-used solvent is used in the
                      first stage to remove the majority of the ink.  In the second stage, a cleaner but
                      still pre-used solvent is employed to remove more ink. In the third stage, clean
                      solvent removes any remaining ink.
                  •   Install Automatic On-Press Cleaning: When paired with solvent recovery, on-
                      press cleaning systems use much less cleaning solution than hand cleaning,
                      while also having a very short cycle time.
                  •   Clean Anilox Rolls Promptly: Prompt attention will prevent the inks from
                      setting, thereby reducing the need for harsh chemicals. Clean rolls also produce
                      more predictable ink densities, potentially reducing on-press waste and
                      improving quality.
                  •    Use Alternative Methods to Clean Anilox Rolls: Printers can choose among
                      many alternatives for cleaning anilox rolls to reduce or eliminate the need for
                      traditional cleaning solvents.  These alternatives use sonic cleaning, dry ice,
                      lasers, polyethylene beads, and sodium bicarbonate.
                  •    Recirculate warm press air: Both solvent-and water-based printers can
                      significantly reduce their energy requirements by recirculating warm air from
                      dryers.
              Throughout the Printing Process
                  •    Use Safer Chemicals: Switching to inks, cleaning agents, and adhesives that
                     contain a lower percentage of VOCs and fewer HAPs may reduce risks to
                     worker health and the environment.
                  •   Segregate Hazardous Waste: Segregating hazardous wastes allows disposal of
                     pure instead of mixed wastes.  Because pure wastes are much easier to treat
                     than mixed ones, they are not only less expensive to dispose of, but also require
                     less energy.
                  •   Return Containers: Using returnable containers prevents unnecessary waste
                     generation and results in additional cost savings.
                  •   Track Inventory: Tracking chemical purchases and disposal can help to
                     maintain a minimum inventory on the shelf, thus reducing the amount of
                     materials wasted. For example, hazardous waste can be minimized by labeling
                     inks with the date and having a "first-in, first-out" rale, i.e., rotating the inks so
                                             7-5
-------
CHAPTER 7
                                                ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
                     that the oldest inks are used first.  This avoids disposing of expired ink as
                     hazardous waste.  Tracking systems using bar codes take inventory control to an
                     even higher level.
                     Make a Management Commitment: Management should establish,
                     co.nmunicate, and demonstrate their commitment to the concept of pollution
                     prevention, to encourage company-wide source reduction in everyday practice.
                     Management can assemble pollution prevention teams of employees,
                     incorporate pollution prevention into job responsibilities, and provide
                     incentives for employees to prevent pollution.
                     Train Employees: Pollution prevention training for company personnel may
                     facilitate process changes by educating workers on the need for such change.
                     Training also helps to encourage general source reduction and stimulate
                      pollution prevention ideas by personnel.
                      Monitor Employee Practices: Periodic monitoring helps ensure that source
                      reduction practices are followed.
                      Seek Out and Encourage Employee Initiatives: Supporting, encouraging, and
                      actively acknowledging pollution prevention initiatives by company personnel
                      can stimulate innovative ideas for source reduction.  This may  be especially
                      beneficial because employees who are closest to the process are often in the
                      best position to recommend change.
                      Develop an Environmental Management System (EMS): An EMS is a set of
                      management tools and principles designed to guide a company to integrate
                      environmental concerns into its daily business practices.
 7.2 RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY

               Recycling (also known as resource recovery) helps reduce the need for virgin (never
               previously used) materials and lowers demand for solid waste disposal. Municipal and loc*u
               governments often sponsor recycling programs and waste exchanges. By incorporating
               recycling, flexographic printers may be able to avoid or reduce the costs of handling,
               permitting, shipping, and disposing of wastes, as well as the regulatory and legal liabilities
               and costs.

         Silver Recovery

                Silver in wastewater is toxic, and its disposal is regulated locally by publicly owned
                treatment works (POTWs). Silver is used for film development in pre-press operations.
                Printers can recover silver from the wastewater coming out of their imaging operations.
                There are three main methods for recovering silver: metallic replacement, electrolytic silver
                recovery, and ion exchange.

                Metallic Replacement                                      	      .
                Wastewater is passed through one or more steel wool filters ir which silver is chemically
                replaced by iron. The silver is collected in the form of sludge, which is then treated off-site
                to extract the usable metal. This method is used in many pre-press and print shops, and is
                relatively inexpensive.
                                               7-6
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
               Electrolytic Silver Recovery
               An electric current passes between two electrodes in silver-laden wastewater, plating the
               silver on the cathode in a virtually pure form.  The  silver is easily removed from the
               cathode for reuse.  This system is more expensive to purchase and maintain than the
               metallic replacement system. This is often used in conjunction with a steel wool filter.

               Ion Exchange
               Ion exchange can remove an extremely high percentage of silver, but is only suitable for
               dilute solutions. In addition, this method requires a greater capital investment and handling
               time than the other two methods.

       Solvent Recovery

               Flexographic printers who use solvent-based inks and cleaners can recover much of the
               solvent for reuse in the facility. A solvent recovery system captures VOC emissions, and
               uses a separation/distillation unit to  separate and collect the solvent. Recycled solvent
               sometimes needs further treatment before it can be reused. Recycled solvent is often used
               in cleaning operations and saves the printer the cost of buying virgin solvent.

       Solid Waste Recycling

               Rexographic printing operations generate solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills
               or incinerated. Printers have found that recycling solid waste can reduce shipping and
               disposal costs, and that items can be reused in the shop or by the supplier. Flexographic
               printers can reduce solid waste in any of the following ways:

                  •   Require suppliers to take back all containers and packaging.

                  •   Work with local government to establish recycling practices.

                  •   Choose materials (e.g., substrates) that can be recycled.

                  •   Minimize coatings that hinder recycling.

               Some specific examples of solid waste recycling include the following ideas:

                  •   Bale paper waste, corrugated cartons, and pallet tote boxes for recycling.

                  •   Return cores that are used to wind rolls of films, papers, and paperboard to the
                      supplier for reuse.

                  •   Collect and return shrinkwrap films for recycling. Segregate plastics by type  to
                      enable efficient reuse of the materials.

                  •   Clean and reuse cans, bottles, plastic jugs, drums and other containers.

                  •   Recycle photographic chemicals and platemaking chemicals.  Negatives and
                      photographic papers can be treated to recover silver.
                                              7-7
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
                      Peiletize unusable rubber, photopolymer plates, and mixed substrate wastes (e.g.,
                      laminations and pressure-sensitive materials) to use as alternative fuel at cement
                      kilns and power generation plants.

                      In some states, printers can recycle components of fluorescent lamps, including
                      hazardous wastes like mercury.
7.3 CONTROL OPTIONS

               Control technologies minimize the toxicity and volume of flexographic pollutants by
               destroying them or capturing them for reuse, recycling, or disposal. Specific control option
               choices need to be based on many considerations, such as regulations, the facility's printing
               equipment, the ink systems and chemicals that the facility uses, cost and performance
               needs, and risks to the safety and health of workers and the environment.

               Control systems can be costly, must be maintained, and have the potential to fail. Using
               chemicals that contain or generate pollutants carries risks for workers and the environment,
               and may present a public relations problem. Disposal of regulated wastes may require a
               printer to  obtain status as a hazardous waste generator. The potential disadvantages of
               control systems make it important for printers to consider pollution prevention, which can
               reduce the need for control systems in flexographic facilities.

        Sources of Flexographic Ink Pollutants Amenable to Treatment or Control Options

               Pollutants that are related to flexographic printing inks and that can be mitigated using
               treatment  or control options fall into several categories:

                   •   Air emissions
                   •   Hazardous liquid wastes, especially solvents
                   •   Non-hazardous liquid wastes, including many waste inks, additives, and colored
                       wash-water        .

        Control Options  and Capture Devices for Air Releases

               All solvent-based and some water-based flexographic inks contain significant amounts of
               volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Some flexographic inks also contain one or more
               hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as defined by the Clean Air Act.a

               Several types of control options" for  handling air emissions related  to working  with
               flexographic inks are currently available and will be discussed in this section.  In addition,
               1 Smaller amounts of ozone also may be generated by the use of corona treaters and UV lamps, but
               ozone can be easily destroyed at the source by relatively inexpensive devices supplied (Often with
               the primary equipment) by the manufacturer/distributor. Ozone that is destroyed immediately
               upon creation does not present an environmental concern.

               b Biofiltration, also known as bioremediation, is a currently experimental method of destroying
               VOCs. This technology uses microbes that eat and digest VOCs, breaking them down into more
               environmentally benign chemicals. Biofiltration may hold promise for flexographic printing in the
               future, if the technology can be improved to enable reliable destruction of virtually all VOCs.

                                                7-8
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
               a capture device such as a permanent total enclosure (PTE) may be installed in conjunction
               with control options and are part of the overall control efficiency. Three types of devices
               associated with emission control are discussed in this section.

                   •   permanent total enclosures
                   •   oxidizers (thermal, catalytic, and regenerative)
                   •   adsorption systems

               Capture Devices
               A permanent total enclosure (PTE) is a structure that captures all fugitive emissions from
               a source  (e.g.,  a single press  or an  entire press  room)  and  sends  them to a
               destruction/recovery device. A PTE alone only captures emissions; it neither destroys them
               nor reduces their use, but  is part of the overall control efficiency or capture efficiency.
               Because of this, a PTE is used in combination with an oxidizer,  adsorption system, or
               biofiltration device, which separates or destroys VOCs.

               Regulations controlling air emissions are expected to continue to be strict across  the
               country for the foreseeable future. A PTE is currently the only capture tool that effectively
               captures 100% of fugitive  emissions.1 Because a PTE is a permanent structure, only one
               demonstration inspection  is required for a new PTE. Thereafter, as long as the facility
               continues to use the PTE  in the same way without significant structural modifications,
               additional air inspections are not necessary.

               A specific method and criteria have been set forth by EPA for constructing a PTE that will
               pass inspection.  Depending  upon the scope and size of the work  that  is needed,
               construction of a PTE can be fairly modest, or it can involve a  substantial capital
               investment ranging up to tens of thousands of dollars.2 The installation of a PTE also may
               involve compliance with local fire codes that designate the enclosed area as a hazardous
               area (H  occupancy) and require steps  or devices such as emergency  ventilation, fire
               containment (fire walls and doors), an emergency egress route, and spill containment.3
               However, since most of the cost relates to capital and construction rather than operation
               and maintenance, in the long run some printers may find a PTE to be quite economical.

               A well-designed PTE captures all fugitive emissions and eliminates fugitive air emissions
               to the local community. In addition, some printers may be able to benefit economically
               from PTEs, as more areas  introduce the use of transfer credits for air emissions. Because
               a PTE guarantees 100% capture efficiency, printers in areas that require a lower percentage
               of capture efficiency may  be allowed to sell or trade their credits.4 For all these reasons,
               PTEs are expected to  continue to be an important method of controlling fugitive  air
               emissions for flexographic printers.

               Oxidizers
               Oxidizers burn air that contains VOCs and  sometimes other pollutants  generated in
               flexography. An oxidizer breaks down VOCs into water, carbon dioxide, and other gases.
               Oxidation works by mixing the emissions from the press exhaust with oxygen and heat.
               There are several types of oxidizers, including catalytic, thermal, thermal recuperative, and
               regenerative oxidizers. All types of oxidizers have the potential to achieve virtually
               complete destruction  of  VOCs.  Straight  thermal oxidizers  require   high  operating
               temperatures (typically at  least 1600°F), whereas thermal recuperative oxidizers recover
               much of the waste heat from exhaust gases  and thus are more economical. Catalytic
                                              7-9
-------
CHAPTER 7         .       	ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
                                                                                              5
       oxidizers can operate at lower temperatures than thermal types (up to about 1250°F) and
       use less fuel. Regenerative oxidizers may be either thermal or catalytic, as defined above.'

       Catalytic oxidizers are more common in the flexographic printing industry than are thermal
       oxidizers;  however, recent technical advances  in  thermal systems may make these
       appropriate for some printers.6  Because of their lower operating temperatures, catalytic
       oxidizers create a very low percentage of NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions0 compared to
       thermal oxidizers. However, catalytic oxidizers may not be effective in treating gases from
       certain silicone ink additives, because silicone masks or poisons the catalyst.7

       Oxidizers  usually involve a  significant capital and installation investment, as well as
       substantial operating expenses.  The total capital cost of an oxidizer can range from
       $150,000 to $400,000 or more, depending upon the  size and needs of the facility.8'9'10'11
       Energy consumption considerations for catalytic oxidizers are discussed in Chapter 6.

       Adsorption Systems
       These devices contain a bed of activated carbon, zeolite (an aluminum-silicate crystal), or
       polymers.  This substance attracts VOCs, which adsorb (concentrate) on the surface of the
       medium. Adsorption separates but does not destroy VOCs. The air that no longer contains
       VOCs then can be released, and the VOCs can be reused or recycled. A typical adsorption
       system alone has the potential to remove 95% or more of VOCs,6 and is normally used in
       conjunction with aPTE to ensure virtually complete removal of VOCs.

       Carbon adsorption systems work most efficiently in capturing a single solvent or a very
       dilute stream of VOCs, and they are not necessarily compatible with all inks. Because
       flexography typically uses a large number of  solvents, carbon adsorption was  not
       appropriate for most printers at the time of publication of this CTSA.6

       The costs of adsorbent systems ranges widely depending on a number of factors, including
       the type and size of the facility, the type of absorbent system, state regulatory requirements,
       and permitting issues. Systems can cost from several thousand to several hundred thousand
       dollars. Also, since an adsorption system is normally used in conjunction with a PTE, that
       cost must be considered as  well. For these reasons, a meaningful cost range  for this
       technology is beyond the scope of this document.4

Control Options  for Liquid Releases

       Flexographic facilities  need to pay attention to three characteristics of liquid ink wastes:
       percentage of  solvents,  turbidity (discoloration),  suspended  solids,  and  hazardous
       substances.

       The maximum solvent  content allowed in wastewater is site-specific. For facilities using
       only water-based inks, if the percentage of petroleum-based solvents is below the level
       allowed by the facility' s municipal wastewater facility (Publicly Owned Treatment Works,
                0 Nitrogen oxides are ozone precursors.

                d The U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards "EXPOS Control Cost Manual"
                (5th Ed., February 1996, document EPA 453/B-96-001), provides detailed procedures, data, and
                equations for sizing and estimating capital and operating costs of thermal regenerative carbon
                adsorption systems.
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
               or POTW) or permit (if applicable), the liquid waste might not be regulated as hazardous
               waste. Facilities using only UV inks typically will not have solvent-containing liquid
               wastes.

               For all types of inks, EPA considers discoloration of water to constitute "turbidity," which
               is a pollutant category. Pigments and other discoloring substances may have to be removed
               before the water can be discharged to a POTW. Also, ink wastes may have other substances
               that are regulated as hazardous  (e.g.,  metals) and must be removed before discharge.
               Please see Chapter 2, Federal Regulations, for more information on chemicals in this CTSA
               that may be regulated as hazardous wastes.

               Ink splitters are used  to separate out the solids in wastewater. The water then can be
               released to a POTW and the pigment-containing sludge sent to a landfill. The capital cost
               of an ink splitter can range from several thousand dollars to more than $30,000, which can
               be offset by lower disposal costs and POTWS fees. The relatively low cost of ink splitters
               and their benefits in helping printers to comply with water emissions standards can make
               this technology useful to many flexographers.               .
                                             7-11
-------
CHAPTER 7
                                               ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
REFERENCES
1.     Bemi, Dan, MEGTEC Systems. Personal communication, September 23, 1999.

2.     Mike Lukey, Pacific Environmental Science, cited in Bemi, Dan: Permanent Total Enclosure
       Technology Part 2. Flexo, April 1998, p 69.

3.     Mostafaei, Anoosheh. "Environmental Corner." Die-Line. California Film Extruders &
       Converters Association. January 2000.

4.     Bemi, Dan, MEGTEC Systems. Personal communication, September 23,1999.

5.     EPA-CICA: Air Pollution Technology Fact Sheets: Catalytic, thermal, recuperative, and
       regenerative incinerators.

6.     Rach, Steve, and Bemi, Dan: Emission controls. In The Flexo Environment (prepublication
       draft), June 11,1999.

7     Green, David A, and Northeim, Coleen M: Alternate VOC control technique options for small
       rotogravure and flexography facilities. EPA Publication 600-R-92-201, October 1992.

8.     Ellison, Dave. American National Can Company. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. June 1997.-

9.     Rizzo, Tony. Lawson Marden Label. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. May 22,1997.

 10.    Steemer, Hans. Windm6ller and Holscher. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
       Technology Institute. May 6,1997.

 11.    National Association of Printers and Lithographers. NAPL Heatset and Non-Heatset Web Press
       Operations Cost Study; 1989-1990. Teaneck, NJ,  1990.
                                             7-12
-------
 CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
           Chapter 8: Choosing Among Ink Technologies
                               CHAPTER CONTENTS
8.1 SUMMARY BY INKSYSTEM AND PRODUCT LINE	8-2
       Introduction	s-2
       Solvent-based Inks	8-13
       Water-based Inks	-..;.-.	8-16
       UV-cured Inks	8-19

8.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIAL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT	 8-23
       Introduction to Social Benefit-Cost Assessment	8-23
       Benefit-Cost Methodology and Data Availability	8-25
       Potential Private and Public Costs			8-25
       Potential Private and Public Benefits ,	8-30
       Summary of Social Benefit-Cost Assessment	8-33

8.3 DECISION INFORMATION SUMMARY	8-35
       Introduction	8-35
       Ink System Comparison	 8-36
       Highlights of Chemical Category Information	8-39
       Hazard, Risk and Regulation of Individual CTSA Chemicals	8-45
       Suggestions for Evaluating and Improving Flexographic Inks	 8-62

REFERENCES				8-64
                                CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Earlier chapters of this CTSA presented the findings of the research regarding risk,'performance, cost, and
resource requirements. This chapter takes a different look at some of that information.  Section 8.1
summarizes the individual ink systems and product lines, using the solvent-based ink system as the baseline
and providing comparisons to water-based and UV-cured inks.  Performance tests, environmental and
health impacts, and resource conservation are discussed.

Section 8.2 provides a qualitative social benefit-cost assessment of the different ink system, analyzing the
private (printer) and social implications of the CTSA findings.  Social costs and benefits are those that do
not affect the flexographic facility directly, but that do affect the larger population and the environment. This
viewpoint is one that is rarely considered within an industry setting.

Section 8.3 compares  the three ink systems broadly.  This section describes the chemical categories
analyzed in the CTSA, and identifies the hazards and risks of each chemical.  Flexographic professionals
 an use this information to identify chemicals that they either may wish to avoid or may use as safer
alternatives.
                                          8-1
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
8.1 SUMMARY BY INK SYSTEM AND PRODUCT LINE

       Introduction

              The results of the DfE Flexography Project, as shown in this CTSA, present information
              about several important factors that contribute to the selection of a flexographic ink. The
              performance, human and environmental risk, and operational costs associated with an ink
              are issues that a printer must consider when choosing among ink technologies. Though this
              research is not an exhaustive analysis of all flexographic inks, it provides an indication of
              how nine product lines of solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured inks compare on wide-
              web film substrates. Individual printers will have conditions (and results) that vary from
              those encountered in this analysis, but the results in this report will be a starting point for
              determining how changes might affect the circumstances of a particular facility.  Ink
              formulators also may gain from  this  analysis by learning how the hazards  posed  by
              chemicals in isolation translate into health and environmental risks when the chemicals are
              placed in the context an ink mixture used in a printing facility.

              The DfE Flexography Project studied solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured inks on
              three wide-web films: low-density polyethylene (LDPE), co-extruded polyethylene/ethyl
              vinyl acetate (PE/EVA), and oriented polypropylene (OPP). For each type of ink, between
              two and four specific product lines were tested.  Table 8.1 indicates which substrates were
              used with each product line.

                                  Table 8.1  Ink and Substrate Combinations
Product Line
Solvent-based #1
Solvent-based #2
Water-based #1
Water-based #2
Water-based #3
Water-based #4
UV-cured #1
UV-cured #2
UV-cured #3
Substrate
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA, OPP ~ -
OPP
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
LDPE, PE/EVA
PE/EVA
                The performance chapter (Chapter 4) discussed the results of 18 tests on the nine product
                lines that were studied in the CTSA. Five of these tests were selected to highlight in this
                summary (Table 8.2).1 These performance tests were selected because they were measured
                for all three systems; they display a range of important ink properties; and they were
                minimally dependent on external factors such as press equipment and operator expertise.
                Please see Chapter 4 for the results of the other performance tests.
                                               8-2
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                        Table 8.2 Selected Key Performance Indicators
Indicator
Blocking
Gloss
Ice Water
Crinkle
Mottle
Trap
Description
Measures the bond between ink and substrate
when heat and pressure are applied. Ink transfer
from a printed substrate to-a surface in contact with
the print indicates that blocking has occurred.
Measures the reflected light directed at the surface
from an angle. The test was only performed on
LDPE and PE/EVA substrates, because gloss is
irrelevant on laminated substrates (such as the
OPP product in this project).
Measures the integrity and flexibility of the ink on
the substrate when exposed to refrigerator and
freezer conditions. The sample was submerged in
a container of ice water for 30 minutes, then
removed and twisted rapidly 10 times.
Measures the spottiness or non-uniformity of an ink
film layer.
Measures the ability of an ink to adhere to an
underlying ink. This trait is important where inks
are printed on top of one another in order to
generate precise color hues.
Scale
0-5
0-100
0-100
Open-
ended
0-100%
Interpretation
0 = no blocking and
a good ink-substrate
bond.
5 = complete blocking
or removal
Higher numbers
indicate higher
reflectivity
0 = intact ink finish
100 = complete
removal of finish
Lower values indicate
a more consistent
finish. Higher values
indicate a more
variable finish.
100% = ideal
              The operating cost information developed in this CTSA includes costs for materials, labor,
              capital, and energy, calculated per 6,000 square feet of image based on the methodology
              press speed of 500 feet per minute.

              The energy consumption of each ink system is calculated per 6,000 square feet of image.
              Equipment included in this calculation includes hot air dryers, blowers, oxidizers, UV
              curing lamps, and corona treaters.

              The results of the selected performance tests and the operating cost and energy consumption
              analyses are summarized in Table 8.3. Data for these three categories are presented for each
              product line (e.g., solvent-based ink #1), and also are averaged across the whole ink system.
              The solvent-based ink system is considered the baseline for this analysis; each water-based
              and UV-cured product line is compared with the baseline results in Table 8.3 through the
              use of &• (better than the baseline) or X (worse than the baseline).

              Table 8.4 summarizes the human health risks of each product line. Three categories of
              information are included in this table.
                                             8-3
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                      CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                  •   Range of chemicals with clear concern for risk: This column shows the total
                      number of compounds with a clear health risk" to pressroom workers for each
                      formulation in a product line. For example, if two chemicals with a clear concern
                      for risk were found in one formulation of solvent-based #1, four were found in
                      another formulation, and the other three formulations had numbers between these,
                      the range would be 2-4. This range incorporates compounds that are expected to
                      pose a  clear concern for occupational  risk to  flexographers based on either
                      lexicological studies or EPA's Structure Activity Team (SAT) assessments.
                  •   Categories with chemicals of clear concern for risk: Lists the chemical categories
                      that contained at least one chemical with a clear concern for inhalation risk to
                      pressroom workers or dermal risk to press- and prep-room workers. Superscripts
                      next to each category name indicate whether the compounds presented a clear
                      concern for risk through inhalation (inhal) or dermal (derm) exposure. Categories
                      are denoted with "(SAT)" if the compound with  a clear concern for risk was
                      analyzed by the SAT.  An SAT evaluation is considered to be a less  accurate
                      measurement method than toxicological information. (See Chapter 3: Risk.)
                   •   Toxicological endpoints: In toxicological tests, researchers record observed effects
                      of the  given chemical.   These qualitative observations, called toxicological
                      endpoints,  indicate  effects that have  been associated with  compounds in
                      formulations in each of the respective product lines. The information is separated
                      based on the exposure route, because effects may be different depending on whether
                      a compound is absorbed dermally or by inhalation. Toxicological endpoints can be
                      useful for highlighting the scope of potential human health effects of the ink
                      systems. The user of flexographic inks should  be aware that the risk of health
                      effects may be present with any ink. Toxicological endpoints provide an indication
                      of such potential effects, but only offer a broad perspective. "Liver effects," for
                      example, may range in significance from liver enlargement to cirrhosis or changes
                      in liver cells that may lead to the growth of tumors.  The first effect may have little
                      practical importance, but the latter may jeopardize survival. The table does not
                      indicate the severity of effects, nor does it imply that all of the effects would be
                      observed at the exposure levels in typical flexographic prep or press rooms.

               Table 8.5 presents indicators of safety and environmental concerns associated with each
               product line.
                   •  Safety information: Three categories of safety hazards are included: reactivity,
                      flammability, and ignitability. Reactivity and flammability are based on scales of
                       0-4; 0 indicates that a compound is stable and will not burn, respectively, and 4
                       indicates that it is readily explosive or flammable.  Ignitability is characterized as
                       yes or no; a compound is ignitable if it has a flashpoint below 140°F.
                   •   Smog-related emissions: The flexographic printing process emits pollutants that
                       cause  smog in two ways.  First, VOCs are  released directly from the ink
                       formulations as ink is applied to the substrate. Second, VOCs, nitrogen oxides, and
                       carbon monoxide are produced during the production of the electricity and heat
                       used in printing.
                   •   Ink content: Two important indicators of possible air impacts are the concentration
                       of VOCs and HAPs. The concentrations of both were taken from the ink MSDSs
                       and averaged across each formulation within each product line.
                "Clear concu n for risk indicates that for the chemical in question under the assumed exposure
                conditions, adverse effects are predicted to occur. Section 3.7 of the CTSA has more information
                about risk rankings.
               —.                      -       —                        -            -      -
-------
CHAPTER 8
                     CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
 I
 <
 e
 I

 i
 CO
 CO
          s^.
          O 18
          62
        go;
        c>
        •n
        I
                      •14
                     ST*
                     .*%
\

«'>•> y
  >;|
                             o
                                «)
                                      V
                                                  . >£»*j ^,s?
                                                  ^.>-*^ :
                                                    ,
                                                  S«o
                                                                    "X;**


                                                                     %*

                                                                    ^ *
                                            ^f

                                            **~

                                            Lf
                                      8-5
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                             CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
|



1
to
0}
O




I

"o


|




07

CO
CO

^»
of
Ul




13
o
O








S
c
Performa
















§0)
O)
<0 |
ii
jh*

fe
Q."S
0 «b "§>
ti CJ W
SM
5"
4!
S o J
~~^ o
... o 'S'
g E2

O *- J;
2^ ® "w
1*
^^
5T ^
IceWatf
Crinkle
(0%=inta
« ^
M o |
IE'>
£
o c
•5 M
CD &






Product Line




























!
^
^
s
3
9
:£
0)
o
w Developing Techno,
0>
S;



0
8
CO





8
I


w




s


g


CO



p
T-1





-cured #1
>





\~
"^




X


X




X


I
1.



X



"v^





baseline comparison





o
8
CO
f-




cb
in


1




g
(M
1
0
E . -
£ co to
"5 *o 7=;
••£ co g
CB C «
u. o co


p



T- -.
cj





-cured #2
^>
Z)




j^
13




X


X


^^.^
C'"
§
•2.


X



X



: *v?





baseline comparison





o
co"
i-




I


U)
O)




•R
CM


«


O)
in


p
• •>-





-cured #3
^>
^




J*t
"





*


x




X


•I
-2.



X


J>»
"v^





baseline comparison





1
co
N"




1


1
CO




s
CM


CO


!^.:
$.


•
<
•



j^
>*




X


. x




X'


"x



X


.
>»





baseline comparison





o
O
o
8?
h>
o
p
T—
LO

§
i

lb
9
s.

co
IV
C\J
§
CJ


I 0-100%

p
c?
8
T—
cv
p
T-



co
.*:
nge across UV-cured Ir
CO
DC
                                                          0)


                                                          w
                                                          co
                                                          o
                                                          o
                                                         §-2
                                                       j- CO «  . *=
                                                       g 0 g -a j-
                                                       O »- > m 0)
                                                       T) CO O •« K

                                                       $£=i 85

                                                       5 S 1 | 8

                                                       £ S-5 c "5
                                       8-6
-------
CHAPTERS
                                           CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
•S

T3
2
Q.
•o
CO
E
(O
•s
£
 (0
          s
          £
        J2

        J

        o
        O
               O
               1
               o
              ,6
               S>*-
               CO
               
                      o
                     CO
                                       !»5&fS
                                       iIfl||§
                                       „.  iz m C Q> *s
                                        ^"50 & ~ J3 CO
                                               .S £'"§
                                            .s
                                                 .
                                          g §•,§••§ 1-
                                          l'S^ §-0
                                          a *- g w c
                                             1  "
                                      -o .r
                                      o ~
                                                _
                                          tflff
                                              8-
                                     to £ w

                                     I if
                                          &

                                         II
 "5>p  '



75 "=> =•
2 O CD
•Q® E
S o o>
(0 C Q.
                                            o
                                     ct
S!
T3
O)

1
1
O
CO
  ^
co —
  S-a
- S
D) c
CO 0>
CD .5
> O
< CO
                                                          CVI
                                                           8*
                                                           2 S
                                                           82
                                                           CO =
                                                           CO O
                                                          EC CO
                                    8-7
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                            CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
 •ss
 I
  o
  S,
  tn
  •g
  ro
  1U
  u.

  5
  8.


  1
  0)

  5
                                       8-8
-------
CHAPTERS
                                         CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
 •o
 o>

 t>

 I
 T3
 I
 O
S

i
 o
 I
 i
 o


'8

 5

          .
         *
         0.2
         Off

         1575
         a) c
         I
         u
              ra
             O
              §»!M
              B O
              co 2;
              DC «•
         a>
                      5S 2?

                   "O  " f\ ^^

                   lllll'
                   fill!
                    o g- S S g,
                    £ 1 .=-•§ o
                   
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                         CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                                    8-10
-------
  CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
f
-r
3
c





(0

V,
E
UJ
I

E







"2
1
•2
a
(0
i





«5 o ^
5 O £.
X
°-o-
>^-

||
§ 8
< °
co
He
|1|
- "®
•o -
S» *• --'-'
 m "3)
iS
o
in
2 S o
fl* *"• fjM
*£ UJ S
je
.« 3"
if
if
E
a
u-
•'15? •

CC


Product Line





























i
c
•§
«
2
1 Baseline: Solven
0




CM
«O



I
ie

f


o
a>



i
o
f"*"*
CO
"

co
CO



o




*
•a
o>
1
o
CO
o




w?



.25"
o
S3-
1
r



o
o>



25"
S
-SS-
C^
o>


CO
CO



o




•o
o
"o
CO
o
'
> ,<•


8.'
'.
.

2t
, -
_

^ -
o '
o>
"

-
1
SL
•*
S


CO
CO



o



CO
Average across
Solvent-based Ink
o

- -


3f



§*0
2 "?
h- t\j
- ".
V

^
o .



SF
QQ: O>
S'1
CO O>
CD ^


1
CO







CO
Range across
Solvent-based Ink




























§
I
•Q
1
i
£
Alternative 1: Wa
•^
CO




o>



co
co




8



o
<3

-,


8
„



o




Water-based #1
X
_ '

,

&



-




-*


-
•
"v^"




*
*



1


c
"8
baseline compa
o
f



*-



B




s



o

1



6
6



o




I Water-based #2
X

-


.*



*


~

#




"^




*
*



I
•2.

^

baseline compa
o




r
*


00
CO




'CO
CO
'








o
c




o




1 Water-based #3
X




*



-




*
-



^3


-

•£
«



I
•2.

S

baseline compa
o'




"2
— I


^
:.:
s >-,
J

CO
CD

=

CO



%

o
c
§



o




1 Water-based #4
I


-

£
'
'

'*


*• "

«

,


^t

'


*
*



1


$

baseline compa
T- '
-



-------
 CHAPTER 8
                          CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
,0,
CO

I
W
I
1
u.
CO
•o
1
0)
Ul
<

g

3
JJ

I
     t
         ?l€
        sJ*
        H- «<—
                  O
o
                       >
                     .ri
                     "5 9-
                     31
                     •SS O
                          At'
        O
            .1
            is
cTis
is.
                         i
%2
§,-£

11
< O
                              «v *


                              "'5
                            >'  ,
                             1
                                  ^"/
                                                    ,

                                                   •*"•
                                                    o
                                                                    i!
                                                                    •ci
                                                                    g
                                                                     ! ffl
                                                                     i tn i
                                                ilK
                                                S c Si ?!
                                                (/) .£5 TO C 4
                                                3>»^ fiij *C
                                                w $ CD E
                                                * s s s:
                                                                     ! a:
                                                                              VJ
                                                                              a
81*
I
                                      8-12
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
       Solvent-based Inks
               Solvent-based inks were considered the baseline for this analysis because they traditionally
               are used by the most printers in the wide-web film industry segment. There were two
               solvent-based product lines. Solvent-based ink #1 was used with OPP at one facility, and
               solvent-based ink #2 was used with all three substrates (LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP) at three
               facilities.

               Performance
               Solvent-based inks performed relatively well on each performance test.  The blocking
               resistance test produced results that were not ideal, but were acceptable in most cases.
               Solvent-based ink #1, printed in OPP, displayed a result of 1.8 (between slight cling and
               cling).  Solvent-based ink #2 displayed an average result of 2.7 (between cling and slight
               blocking). For Solvent-based ink #2, the results may have been affected by facility-specific
               conditions. The eight samples taken at Facility 5 (four each on LDPE and PE/EVA) yielded
               an average score of 2.1.  In contrast, the results at Facility 7 (also four samples each on
               LDPE and PE/EVA) had an average score of 3.6 (between slight blocking and considerable
               blocking).

               Gloss was measured for solvent-based ink #2, which Was printed on LDPE and PE/EVA.
               For this product line, the average gloss was 53. Within these results, the values appear to
               have been affected by both substrate and facility conditions. The ink appeared to produce
               a glossier finish on PE/EVA; the average value on this substrate was 59 in comparison to
               the average 51 on LDPE. Also, higher gloss was found at Facility 7 than Facility 5; the
               average values were 57 and 51, respectively.

               The ice water crinkle test was performed with solvent-based ink #2.  All samples of this
               ink resisted removal during this test, resulting in a 0% removal rate. These results indicated
               that this solvent-based ink would be appropriate for use in cold, wet conditions.

               Mottle was measured for both solvent-based inks. Solvent-based inks #1 and #2 had values
               of 192 and 217, respectively, on the mottle scale.  Though mottle does not have an industry
               standard, these values were lower than those for the other two ink systems.  It should be
               noted, however, that although the average mottle rating for the two product lines were
               similar, there was significant variation between the two measured formulations within each
               product line.  Blue inks were much more mottled than green inks. This difference was
               consistent across all substrates and facilities.

               Trap measurements for both solvent-based product lines were consistently near 100%. The
               two solvent-based inks attained near-complete trapping; i.e., the top ink adhered to the
               underlying ink as well as  it did to exposed substrate.

               Overall, the solvent-based inks performed quite well in these tests.  They exhibited good
               physical characteristics through the blocking, ice water crinkle, and trap tests, and displayed
               comparatively good visual results in the gloss and mottle tests.  For more detail  on these
               tests or others, please see Chapter 4: Performance.

               Environmental and Health Impacts
               Table 8.4 shows the number of chemicals with a clear concern for worker risk  for each
               formulation within the solvent-based product lines (presented as a range). In addition, the
                                              8-13
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               table lists the categories with chemicals that present a clear risk concern for pressroom
               workers, and identifies the exposure route of concern for each category.

               In the occupational risk assessment, solvent-based ink #1 contained between two and four
               chemicals with clear concern for occupational risk in each formulation. All chemicals of
               concern presented a concern for dermal risk, and two categories (alcohols and alkyl acetates)
               also preseuied a clear concern for occupational risk via inhalation. Solvent-based ink #2
               also had between two and four chemicals with a clear concern for risk in each formulation.
               Three chemical categories contained chemicals that presented a clear concern for risk:
               alcohols presented clear concern for risk via both dermal and inhalation exposure, low
               molecular weight hydrocarbons presented a clear concern for risk via inhalation exposure,
               and organometallic pigments presented a clear concern for risk via dermal exposure.

               Across both product lines, the concern for inhalation risk stems from chemicals that are
               solvents and multiple-function compounds. The compounds presenting a clear concern for
               dermal risk are solvents, colorants, additives, and compounds listed as multiple-function.

               The toxicological endpoints column of Table 8.4 presents possible health impacts of these
               chemicals with a clear concern for risk. For solvent-based inks, health effects are possible
               via both dermal and inhalation exposure.

               The safety hazards of the solvent-based inks, as presented in Table 8.5, included significant
               rankings for both flammability and ignitability. The flammability score of 3 indicated that
               the ink could be easily ignited under almost all normal temperature conditions and that water
               may be ineffective in controlling or extinguishing such a fire. Both product lines also were
               ignitable, indicating that they had a flashpoint (the lowest temperature at which vapor is
               sufficiently concentrated that it can ignite in air) below 140 °F.

               Table 8.5 shows estimated air emissions of smog-related air releases resulting from inks
               and energy use. Although the estimates for the solvent-based product lines assumed that an
               oxidizer would be used to control emissions from the inks, the assumed capture efficiency
               was only 70%.  This resulted in a relatively high amount of uncaptured emissions, so that
               overall, the two product lines were estimated to release 757 and 1,070 grams of smog-related
               emissions per 6,000 ft2 of image, respectively. Emissions from solvent-based presses with
               an oxidizer may vary; they can be lower if the capture efficiency is better (presses equipped
               with enclosed doctor blades can have a capture efficiency of approximately 85%), but
               emissions may be higher if the oxidizer is not operated optimally and consistently.

               Table 8.5 indicates that, as expected, both solvent-based inks have a relatively high VOC
               content, at an average of 58% by weight.  Neither product line contained any chemicals
               designated as HAPs.

               Operating Costs
               The operating costs associated with using these solvent-based inks are shown in Table 8.3.
               The costs of ink,  labor, capital, and energy per 6,000 square feet of substrate (at a press
                speed of 500 feet per minute) were expected to be $31.89 for solvent-based ink #1 and
                $34.06 for solvent-based ink #2.  •

                For both of these product lines, the ink costs were the highest expense (between $ 14 and $24
                per 6,000  ft2,  depending  on  the consumption  rate  at  the  individual performance
                demonstration sites). Capital costs were the second-largest component of the operating
                                               8-14
-------
CHAPTER S
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               costs, at $11.87 per 6,000 ft2, and labor and energy the least significant part of overall cost,
               at $5.29 and $0.53 per 6,000 ft2, respectively.

               Two factors drove the operating costs of solvent-based ink relative to the other two ink
               systems.  First, this  system required the use of an oxidizer.  This component added
               approximately $128,000 to the capital cost of the press, which in turn increased the per-hour
               capital cost by $3.80, assuming a 15% annual depreciation rate over 20 years. Second, the
               high evaporation rate of solvent from solvent-based inks required the press-side addition of
               additional solvent. This led to a high rate of press-side solvent consumption.

               Some factors were not considered in this analysis that may affect the cost of solvent-based
               inks, as well as water-based and UV-cured inks. These include the ability of an ink to print
               at higher press speeds, ink monitoring requirements, and cleaning difficulties. Factors such
               as these may vary among ink systems and alter their relative costs.

               Resource Conservation
               Energy use was the highest for solvent-based ink, at 100,000 Btu per 6,000 ft2 of image.
               The dryers and associated blowers were the  most significant consumers  of energy,
               consuming approximately 460,000 Btu/hour, or 55,000 Btu/6,000 ft2.  The oxidizer
               accounted for much of the remaining energy demand. It should be noted, however, that it
               has become more common to recirculate exhaust from the oxidizer into the dryers. This
               practice lowers energy requirements for the dryers so that the net effect on energy use by
               adding an oxidizer is minimal.

               Ink consumption, as discussed in the operating cost summary above, also was relatively
               high. Based on performance demonstrations excluding those on PE/EVA (for which white
               ink was not used), an average of 7.07 lbs/6,000 ft2 of solvent-based ink was consumed, and
               an average of 2.48 lbs/6,000 ft2 of additives were used.  This high consumption rate is due
               to the relatively low solids content of solvent-based inks, which in turn necessitates anilox
               rolls with larger volumes.

               Summary of Solvent-based Inks
               The solvent-based inks performed well on the performance tests, but they had liabilities with
               respect to worker health risks, safety hazards, operating costs, and the consumption of ink
               and energy.

                  •   This system produced ideal results on the ice water crinkle and trap tests, and
                      produced comparatively good results on the blocking, gloss, and mottle tests (for
                      which no industry standards are available).
                  •   The formulations in both product lines contained chemicals with a clear concern for
                      worker risk for  both  inhalation and dermal  exposure  routes, presented both
                      flammability and ignitability characteristics, and had high VOC emissions despite
                      the use of oxidizers.
                  •   Operating costs were relatively high, due to the required use of oxidizers and higher
                      ink consumption rates.
                  •   Ink and press-side additive consumption rate was high, due to the high evaporation
                      rates of solvents.
                  •   Energy consumption was high, because of the added energy demands of oxidizers.
                                              8-15
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                      CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
       Water-based Inks
               Four water-based inks were tested in this analysis. Water-based inks #1 and #2 were tested
               on OPP at one facility each. Water-based #3 was tested on LDPE and PE/EVA at two sites.
               Water based ink #4 was tested on OPP at one site.

               Performance
               The results varied considerably among water-based product lines. Blocking was one of the
               tests in which the results were inconsistent across the product lines. Water-based ink #1
               displayed the worst results, with an average score of 4,0 (considerable blocking). Water-
               based inks #2 and #4 performed slightly better, with scores of 3.0 and 2.5 (slight blocking
               and between cling and slight-blocking), respectively. Water-based ink #3 performed quite
               well, with an average score of 1.3 (between slight cling and cling). Unlike for the solvent-
               based inks, the results did not appear to be facility-specific. Water-based ink was used at
               both Facility 2 and Facility 3; at each, the average value was  1.3.  The system as a whole
               compared unfavorably to the results for the solvent-based inks for blocking resistance.

               Gloss was measured for water-based ink  #3, the one product line tested on LDPE and
               PE/EVA.  The average measurement  was 46.5, which was somewhat lower (i.e.,  less
               desirable) than the average  for solvent-based inks.  Like for the  solvent-based inks, the
               results seemed to be influenced by the substrate; on LDPE, the average gloss was 42.3, and
               on PE/EVA, the average gloss was 54.1.  Overall,  this water-based product line did not
               provide quite as glossy a finish as the solvent-based inks that were tested.

               Ice water crinkle was also  only tested for water-based ink #3. Of the 16 samples tested,
               part of the coating was partially removed on five of them. In each case, only a small fraction
               (about 5%) of the coating was removed; most of this removal was associated with the  blue
               and green formulations.  The results  appeared to  be facility-specific; no removal was
               observed at Facility 2. At Facility 3,  however, five of the eight samples had some removal
               (including all four samples on LDPE).  These results were worse than the solvent  baseline,
               with which no removal was observed.

               The mottle results also showed a wide range among the product lines. Water-based inks #1
               and #3 had scores of 592 and 478, respectively, which were much higher (worse) than those
               for solvent-based inks.  In contrast, the  scores for water-based inks #2 and #4 were 186 and
               115, respectively — comparable or much lower than  those for the solvent-based  inks.
               Overall,  the mottle scores  for  water-based inks were higher (worse) than the solvent
               baseline. Like for the solvent-based inks, the blue water-based inks overall were much more
               mottled than the green inks.

               The water-based inks had fairly consistent scores for trapping - between 87 and 93%. The
               results may have been facility-specific; at Facility 2 (using water-based ink #3 on LDPE and
               PE/EVA), the average was 84% and at Facility 3 (also using ink #3 on LDPE and PE/EVA),
               the average score was 101.5%.

               Overall, the performance of the  water-based inks was marked by inconsistency. In several
               cases, such as blocking resistance with water-based ink #3 and mottle with inks #2 and #4,
               the inks produced results  better than those seen for either of the solvent-based  inks.
               However, several tests of the water-based inks produced results worse than the baseline. In
               addition, there was variation between facilities using the same product line and substrates
               for the ice water crinkle and trap tests.  The results may indicate that it is possible for water-
                                               8-16
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              based inks to obtain or exceed the level of performance of solvent-based inks for some
              parameters, but that it may be necessary to match the ink closely to the substrate being
              printed and to control other operating conditions carefully.

              Environmental and Health Impacts
              In the occupational risk assessment, the water-based product lines, as indicated in Table
              8.4, had between one and four chemicals with a clear concern for worker health risk in each
              formulation. Water-based inks #1 and #2 both had the same range of chemicals with a clear
              concern for risk as the solvent-based inks — between two and four. The range for water-
              based ink #3  was between one and four, and that for ink #4 was between three and four
              chemicals with a clear risk concern per formulation.
                                        v

              In each product line, alcohols and amides or nitrogenous compounds produced a clear
              concern for worker risk via dermal exposure and in most cases via inhalation as well.  Other
              chemical categories chemicals, that presented a clear concern for risk included ethylene
              glycol ethers, organic pigments, and organometallic pigments. The concern for risk in these
              water-based  inks, therefore, arose from solvents, pigments,   and multiple-function
              compounds.

              Table 8.4 presents lexicological endpoints associated with compounds in.the water-based
              inks.  As with the solvent-based inks, effects may occur both via dermal and inhalation
              exposure.                                       •

              The safety hazard characteristics of the water-based inks in this analysis were variable, as
              indicated in Table 8.5. None were reactive or ignitable. Likewise, for flammability, water-
              based inks #2 and #3 both had ratings of 0 or 1. In contrast, however, water-based inks #1
              and #4 had flammability ratings of 3 for some formulations. This difference illustrates that
              despite the common classification as "water-based," the content of flammable solvents can
              vary considerably.

              The VOC content data also demonstrate the differences among product lines. In Table 8.5,
              inks #1 and #4 were comprised of 9 and 14% VOCs by weight, respectively. Printers who
              use water-based ink to comply with the Clean Air Act generally use inks with less than 4%
              VOC  content and minimize their use of VOC press-side solvents and additives. It should
              be noted, however, that although product lines #2 and #3 contain only small levels of VOCs
              (1 % in each), they also contain small concentrations of HAPs.

              Table 8.5 presents the estimated smog-related air emissions associated with the use of
              water-based inks.  Despite the  lack of an oxidizer, emissions  were calculated  to be
              considerably lower than those for the baseline. Inks and press-side materials were expected
              to release between 110 and 250 grams per 6,000 ft2, with another 63 grams released due to
              energy consumption.

              Overall, the concern for risk associated with water-based inks is quite variable. Water-based
              inks #2 and #3 had an equal or lower number of chemicals with a clear concern for worker
              health risk compared to the baseline, had flammability ratings of 1, and had among the
              lowest releases of smog-related compounds of the three systems. In contrast, water-based
              inks #1 and #4 had an equal or higher number of chemicals with a clear concern for risk
              compared to the baseline, had flammability ratings that for several formulations were equal
              to that of the baseline, and produced high levels of smog-related compounds. It is clear,
                                            8-17
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              then, that the concern for risk associated with these water-based inks was very much
              formulation-specific.

              Operating Costs
              For all product lines, water-based ink was less expensive than the baseline. The costs for
              materials, labor, capital and energy ranged between $24 and $30 per 6,000 ft2 of image, but
              on average the water-based inks were $6.40 less expensive to use than the solvent-based
              inks. Two effects were responsible for this difference: the lack of an oxidizer and the lower
              consumption of ink and press-side fluids.

              The oxidizer generates a strain both on capital and energy costs. As discussed in the
              solvent-based ink summary, an oxidizer used on two presses may cost approximately
              $250,000 to purchase and install. In addition, depending on the amount of solvent loading,
              energy costs for the oxidizer can be approximately $2.11 per hour, or $0.25 per 6,000 ft2 of
              image.

              In addition, the ink and additive costs were lower for water-based inks. The per-pound price
              of water-based inks was actually higher: $1.60 and $3.00 per pound for white and colored
              water-based inks, respectively, compared to $ 1.40 and $2.80 per pound for the solvent-based
              inks. However, the consumption rate was considerably lower for water-based inks, which
              led to the overall lower costs.

              Resource Consumption
              As indicated in Table 8.3, energy consumption was the lowest for water-based inks. Among
               the gas-heated air dryer and electric blower and corona treater, the water-based inks were
               expected to demand 610,000 Btu/hour, or 73,000 Btu/6,000 ft2 of substrate. The dryers were
               expected to consume considerably more energy than those for solvent-based ink (500,000
               Btu/hour for the water-based inks compared to 360,000 Btu/hour for solvent-based ink),
               because water is more difficult to dry than organic solvents; however, the lack of an oxidizer
               more than offset the difference.

               Ink consumption also was lower for water-based ink compared to the baseline. On average
               (excluding ink usage on PE/EVA, the white substrate), 4.73 Ibs of ink and 0.31 Ibs of press-
               side solvents and additives were consumed per 6,000 ft2 for the water-based system. This
               represents a 33% decrease in ink consumption and an 88% decrease in press-side solvent
               and additive consumption compared to the baseline.

               Summary of Water-based Inks
               The water-based inks studied in this CTSA were very diverse in their performance and risk
               results and chemical composition, but had better operating cost and resource consumption
               characteristics.

                   •   Individual product lines performed equal to or better than the baseline in blocking
                       and mottle. However, many of the results for these and other tests were worse than
                       the baseline, highlighting the importance of carefully choosing the specific product
                       when using a water-based ink.
                    •   With respect to the chemical composition and concern for worker health risks of the
                       formulations, as indicated in Table 8.5, these inks contained from 1% to 14% VOCs
                       and from 0% to 3.4% HAPs by weight. The relatively high VOC content in two of
                       the product lines had significant impacts on the safety  hazard ratings, and the
                       presence of HAPs may have increased the number of chemicals with clear concern
                                               8-18
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                      for worker risk. Though water-based inks are often considered to be safer than
                      solvent-based inks, the results indicate that water-based inks are not always "clean."
                      It should be noted that the health concerns associated with cross-linkers were not
                      addressed by this study. These chemicals, which can 1.3 added to water-based inks
                      to improve adhesion, are thought to cause worker health concerns but were not used
                      in the performance demonstrations.
                      The operating costs and energy consumption of water-based inks were substantially
                      better than the baseline. Much of the difference was due to the lack of an oxidizer;
                      for water-based inks with VOC contents above state-mandated control levels, this
                      cost and energy advantage may be reduced substantially.
       UV-cured Inks
               UV-cured  inks were considered  a "new  developing technology" for wide-web film
               applications when the performance demonstrations were planned and conducted in 1996.
               Significant changes and improvements have been made to the system and equipment since
               then.

               Three UV-cured inks were used in this analysis:. UV-cured ink#l was tested on LDPE, UV
               ink #2 was tested on LDPE and PE/EVA, and UV-cured ink #3 was tested on PE/EVA; each
               ink was tested at one location.

               Performance
               As with water-based inks, some performance results were better than those of the baseline,
               but many were not. Blocking was one test in which UV-cured inks performed very well.
               UV-cured inks #1 and #3 both scored an average of 1.0, indicating only slight cling. UV-
               cured ink #2 had an average score of 2.1, which indicates more substantial cling but very
               little actual blocking.  In contrast, the average score for the solvent baseline was 2.3. This
               indicates that these UV-cured inks performed well in conditions of heat and pressure.

               The ratings for gloss were substantially lower (worse) than those for the baseline. The
               average score for the three coatings was 38.4, compared to the baseline value of 53.0. This
               is an unexpected result, since high gloss is generally thought of as a feature of UV-cured
               inks. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown, but it may indicate that if a high-gloss
               UV-cured ink is needed for a given application, the specific formulations should be chosen
               carefully.

               The ice  water crinkle test results were perfect on UV-cured inks #1 and #3 - no ink
               removal was observed. However, ink #2 was partially removed on each of the eight samples
               tested. This removal was observed on both  LDPE and PE/EVA substrates, indicating that
               the effect may not be simply substrate-dependent. It may be possible that the removal is due
               to the formulation itself or to variables at the performance demonstration site.

               Mottling associated with UV-cured inks was slightly worse than the solvent baseline, but
               better than that of the water-based inks. UV-cured ink #2 was equal to the baseline, with
               a mottle ii-Jex of 205, but inks #1 and #3 were higher at 2711 fid 273, respectively.  As for
               solvent- and water-based inks, the blue inks in each product line displayed more mottling.

               The formulations showed a range of trapping values, but ultimately the average was close
               to that of the water-based inks.  The trapping value of UV-cured ink #3 was 95%, which
                                             8-19
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              approached the value of the baseline.  However, ink #1 had a score of only 82%.  The
              average among the three product lines was 89%.

              As for water-based inks, UV ink performance results varied considerably. Even within a
              product line, the performance could vary from test to test. For example, UV-cured ink #3
              performed very well on the physical tests (a blocking score of 1.0, no removal with the ice
              water crinkle test, and a trap value of 95%). However, it received relatively poor gloss and
              mottle scores.  The converse was true for ink #2;  it had the best gloss and mottle scores  of
              the UV inks, but had the worst blocking and ice water crinkle results.

              Environmental and Health Impacts
              Overall, the concern for risk associated with UV-cured inks is marked by uncertainty. In the
              occupational risk assessment, few of the chemicals have been subjected to lexicological
              testing. Though the EPA Structure Activity Team (SAT) analyzed the chemicals based on
              their molecular structure and similarity to chemicals that have been tested, the information
              is considered to be less certain than that based on direct toxicological research. Testing is
              necessary to better understand the risks associated with this ink system.  The results are
              based on the risks of the uncured inks, such that risk results may be overestimated if the
              harmful components chemically react and are integrated into the finished coating.

              For UV-cured inks #1 and #3,  one or two chemicals per formulation presented  a clear
              concern for occupational risk. This range was lower than that of the baseline. However,
              UV-cured ink #2 had four or five chemicals with a clear concern for risk per formulation,
              which was higher than the baseline range. Across the three product lines, the chemicals
              with a clear concern for worker risk were monomers, oligomers, colorants, and multiple
              function compounds. In their uncured form, some of these chemicals were reported to
              present a clear concern for risk through both dermal and inhalation exposure routes.

              The toxicological endpoints associated with compounds in UV-cured inks are presented in
              Table 8.4. In contrast to the solvent-based and water-based inks, fewer types of possible
              human health effects associated with inhalation of the UV-cured inks were reported. It is
              not known, however, whether there were fewer observed effects because UV-cured inks are
              safer or simply because less research has been undertaken on the compounds used in this ink
               system.

              The safety hazard information provided in Table 8.5 is not fully available for UV-cured
               chemicals, because the MSDSs for two of the product lines were generated according to
               guidelines other than those of the U.S. The one product line for which information was
               available showed a reactivity level of 1, a flammability level of 1, and it was not ignitable.
               These levels represent a  lesser flammability and ignitability concern compared to the
               baseline, but the (minimal) reactivity score indicates that the ink should be stored  in  a dry
               location that is not subject to high temperatures or pressures.

               As shown in the Smog-Related Emissions columns of Table 8.5, the exclusive dependence
               of UV-cured inks on electricity causes the energy-related emissions to be the highest of any
               ink system. When combined with the potential emissions from the inks themselves, the UV-
               cured ink system has the second-highest emissions rate, behind the solvent-based  system.

               Overall, the UV-cured inks appeared to have fewer chemicals of concern compared to  the
               solvent baseline, and these concerns may decrease further for cured ink.  However,  more
               research is needed into the potential health effects of the chemicals for which no direct data
                                              8-20
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              were available. Furthermore, though UV-cured inks #1 and #3 had fewer chemicals with
              a clear concern for worker risk and lower emissions than the baseline, the opposite was true
              for UV-cured ink #2.  The concern for risk associated with UV-cured ink formulations,
              therefore, may vary significantly.

              Operating Costs
              The cost of operating a UV-cured system was calculated to be higher than for the other two
              systems. The average cost was $3.80 higher than the baseline per 6,000 ft2. One ink, UV-
              cured ink #3, had lower operating costs than the baseline, but much of this is due to the fact
              that it was only printed on PE/EVA, and therefore white ink was not necessary.

              Several  factors contributed to these higher operating costs. First, the prices of UV-cured
              inks are approximately $6 more for white ink and $7 more for colored inks, per pound. Ink
              consumption per square inch of substrate is lower for UV inks, but if anilox rolls are not
              optimized for these inks, the lower consumption would not be fully realized. Another factor
              is that UV-cured systems also run exclusively on electricity. In contrast, solvent- and water-
              based inks typically fuel dryers and oxidizers with natural gas, which is less expensive.
              Finally,  the capital cost of a UV-cured press is higher than that of a water-based ink press.
              Though  a UV-cured press does not require hot-air dryers, the UV curing lamps are more
              expensive than these dryers. (The cost of a UV-cured press is expected to be similar to that
              of a solvent-based press, however, which also has an oxidizer system.)

              Resource Conservation
              UV-cured inks had both lower energy and ink consumption rates compared to the baseline.
              The UV-cured process consumed approximately 650,000 Btu/hour, or78,000 Btu/6,000 ft2
              at a press speed of 500 feet per minute. Both the energy costs and air releases are higher for
              UV than for the other two systems, though; this is because all of the energy is obtained from
              electricity, which is both more expensive and is produced inefficiently in comparison to on-
              site natural gas combustion.

              The consumption rate of UV-cured inks was the lowest among the three systems. On non-
              PE/EVA substrates, an average of 3.47 Ibs (and almost no additives) were consumed per
              6,000 ft2. When comparing this figure to the amount of ink and additives consumed by the
              baseline, UV-cured inks consumed six pounds less material per 6,000 ft2.

              Summary of UV-cured Inks
              Like water-based inks, UV-cured inks displayed variability among the product lines.

                  • .  The performance tests had mixed results-improving upon the baseline for blocking
                    but mostly trailing the baseline for the other tests.
                  •  For worker risk, the UV-cured inks on average contained fewer chemicals with a
                    clear concern for risk per formulation than the baseline.  However, one ink (#2) had
                    relatively high VOC air emission rates and more chemicals with a clear concern for
                    risk,  indicating a potential variability among the  UV-cured product lines.  The
                    comparatively high number of chemicals with a clear concern for worker health risk
                                            8-21
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                      CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                      that only were analyzed by the SAT signals two issues.  Specifically for this
                      analysis, it indicates that there is considerable uncertainty associated with the UV
                      risk analysis. More generally, it may indicate that compounds used in UV-cured
                      inks are of concern but that their risks are poorly understood. These results indicate
                      that research on these chemicals should be a priority.
                      Operating costs of the UV-cured inks were higher compared to the solvent baseline,
                      primarily because of the price of ink.
                      The  UV-cured inks  produced better results than the  baseline for resource
                      conservation; they required less energy and considerably less ink.
                                               8-22
-------
CHAPTER S
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
8.2  QUALITATIVE SOCIAL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT

        Introduction to Social Benefit-Cost Assessment

               Social benefit-cost analysis'" is a tool used by policy makers to systematically evaluate the
               impacts to all of society resulting from individual decisions. A social benefit-cost analysis
               seeks to compare the benefits and costs of a given action, considering both the internal and
               external costs and benefits.0 Such an approach is unlike business decision making, which
               generally only considers the internal (or private) costs and benefits of an action without
               taking into account any accompanying externalities.

               The decision evaluated in this assessment is the choice of a flexographic ink system for
               wide-web film applications. Flexographic printers have a number of criteria they may use
               to assess which ink system technology or product line they will use. For example, a printer
               might consider what impact their choice of an ink system might have on operating costs,
               liability  costs, insurance premiums, or the  cost of compliance with  environmental
               regulations. These criteria are all part of the internal decision making process; they do not
               include considerations that may be of importance to society as a whole.

               This benefit-cost assessment considers both the impact of choosing between various ink
               systems and product lines on the printer (internal costs and benefits) and on other members
               of society (external costs and benefits), such as reductions in environmental damage and
               reductions in the risk of illness for the general public. Table 8.6 defines a number of terms
               used in this benefit-cost assessment, including externality, and public (external) costs and
               benefits.
               "The term "analysis" is used here to refer to a more quantitative analysis of social benefits and
               costs, where a monetary value is placed on the benefits and costs to society of individual
               decisions.  Examples of quantitative benefit-cost analyses are the regulatory impact analyses done
               by EPA when developing federal environmental regulations. The term "assessment" is used here
               to refer to a more qualitative examination of social benefits and costs. The evaluation performed
               in the CTSA process is more correctly termed an assessment because many of the social benefits
               and costs of flexographic ink technologies  are identified, but not monetized.

               "Private costs typically include any direct costs incurred by the decision maker and are generally
               reflected in the manufacturer's balance sheet. In contrast, public costs are incurred by parties
               other than the primary participants to the transaction. Economists distinguish between private and
               public costs because each will affect the decision maker differently. Although public costs are
               real costs to some members of society, they are not incurred by the decision maker, and firms do
               not normally take them into account when making decisions. A  common example of these
               "externalities" is an electric utility whose emissions are reducing crop yields for the farmer
               operating downwind. The external costs experienced by the fanner in die form of reduced crop
               yields are not considered by the utility when making decisions regarding electricity production.
               The farmer's losses do not appear on the utility's balance sheet.
                                               __
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                            CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                         Table 8.6 Glossary of Benefit-Cost Analysis Terms
    Term
                                                      Definition
 Cost of
 Illness
              ^ financial term referring to the liability and health care insurance costs a company must pay to
               rotect itself against injury or disability to its workers or other affected individuals. These costs are
               nown as illness benefits to the affected individual.
 Exposed
 Population
             The estimated number of people from the general public or a specific population group who are
             exposed to a chemical through wide dispersion of a chemical in the environment (e.g., DDT). A
              pecific population group could be exposed to a chemical due to its physical proximity to a
             manufacturing facility (e.g., residents who live near a facility using a chemical), use of the chemical
              ir a product containing a chemical, or through other means.
 Exposed
[Worker
1 Population
 Externality
             The estimated number of employees in an industry exposed to the chemical, process, and/or
              echnology under consideration. This number may be based on market share data as well as
              astimations of the number of facilities and the number of employees in each facility associated with
              tie chemical, process, and/or technology under consideration.
             A cost or benefit that involves a third party who is not part of a market transaction;  a direct effect on
             another's profit or welfare arising as an incidental by-product of some other person s or firm s
              egitimate activity."2 The term "externality" is a general term which can refer to either external
              aenefits or external costs,
               deduced health risks to workers in an industry or business as well as to the general public as a
               esult of switching to less toxic or less hazardous chemicals, processes, and/or technologies. An
              example would be switching to a less volatile organic compound, lessening worker inhalation
              exposures as well as decreasing the formation of photochemical smog in the ambient air.
1 Human
 I Health
 [Benefits
 I Human
 Health
 Costs
              The cost of adverse human health effects associated with production, consumption, and disposal of
              a firm's product. An example is respiratory effects from stack emissions, which can be quantified by
              analyzing the resulting costs of health care and the reduction in life expectancy, as well as the lost
              wages as a result of being unable to work.
 Indirect
 || Medical
 Costs
              ndirect medical costs associated with a disease or medical condition resulting from exposure to a
              chemical or product. Examples would be the decreased productivity of patients suffering a disability
              or death and the value of pain and suffering borne by the afflicted individual and/or family and
              riends.
  Private
  (Internal)
  Benefits
              The direct gain received by industry or consumers from their actions in the marketplace. One
              example includes the revenue a firm obtains in the sale of a good or service. Another example is
              he satisfaction a consumer receives from consuming a good or service.
  Private
  (Internal)
 I Costs
              The direct costs incurred by industry or consumers in the marketplace. Examples include a firm1!
              cost of raw materials and labor, a firm's costs of complying with environmental i
              cost to a consumer of purchasing a product.
I regulations, or the
  Public
  (External)
  Benefits
              A positive effect on a third party who is not a part of a market transaction.  For example, if an
              educational program results in behavioral changes which reduce the exposure of a population group
              to a disease, then an external benefit is experienced by those members of the group who did not
              participate in the educational program. For the example of nonsmokers exposed to second-hand
              smoke, an external benefit can be said to result when smokers are removed from situations in which
              they expose nonsmokers to tobacco smoke.
  Public
  (External)
  Costs
 [Social
  Costs
              A negative effect on a third party who is not part of a market transaction. For example, if a steel mill
              emits waste into a river which poisons the fish in a nearby fishery, the fishery experiences an
              external cost as a consequence of the steel production. Another example of an external cost is the
              effect of second-hand smoke on nonsmokers.
              The total cost of an activity that is imposed on society. Social costs are the sum of the private costs
              and the public costs. Therefore, in the example of the steel mill, social costs of steel production are
              the sum of all private costs (e.g., raw material and labor costs) and the sum of all public costs (e.g.,
              the costs associated with the poisoned fish).
 1 Social
 I Benefits
              The total benefit of an activity that society receives, i.e., the sum of the private benefits and the
              public benefits. For example, if a new product yields pollution prevention opportunities (e.g.,
              reduced waste in production or consumption of the product), then the total benefit to society of the
              new product is the sum of the private benefit (value of the product that is reflected in the
              marketplace) and the public benefit (benefit society receives from reduced waste).
  Willingness'
  to-pay
               Estimates used in benefits valuation are intended to encompass the full value of avoiding a health or
               environmental effect.  For human health effects, the components of willingness-to-pay include the  .
               value of avoiding pain and suffering, impacts on the quality of life, costs of medical treatment, loss of
               income, and, in the case of mortality, the value of life.

                                                    8-24
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                       CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               Internal benefits of selecting an alternative ink system may include increased profits
               resulting from improved worker productivity and company image, a reduction in energy use,
               or reduced property and health insurance costs due to the use of less hazardous chemicals'
               External benefits may include improved public health from a reduction in pollutants emitted
               to the environment or reduced use of natural resources. Costs of the alternative ink systems
               may include private costs such as changes in operating expenses and public costs such as
               change in the price of the product charged to the consumer. Some benefits and cost are both
               internal and external. For example, use of an alternative ink system may result in natural
               resource savings. This may benefit the printer in the form of reduced water  usage and a
               reduction in payments for water, and society as a whole in the form of reduced consumption
               of shared resources.
       Benefit-Cost Methodology and Data Availability

              The methodology for conducting a social benefit-costs assessment can be broken down into
              four general steps: 1) obtain information on the relative human and environmental risk,
              performance, cost, process safety hazards, and energy and natural resource requirements of
              the baseline and the alternatives; 2) construct matrices of the data collected; 3) when
              possible, monetize the values presented within the matrices; and 4)  compare the data
              generated for the alternative and the baseline in order to produce an estimate of net social
              benefits.  Section 8.1 presented the results  of  the  first two tasks by summarizing
              performance, cost, energy use, risk, and safety hazard information for the baseline and
              alternative ink system technologies. The remainder of Section 8.2 interprets the presented
              data in the context of social benefit-cost assessment: the first part presents an analysis of the
              potential private and public costs, the second part discusses the potential private and public
              benefits.

              Ideally, this benefit-cost chapter would quantify all of the social benefits and costs of using
              the different ink systems and identify the technology whose use results in the largest net
              social benefit.  However, because of resource and data limitations and because some of the
              observations in the demonstrations were very site-specific, the analysis presents a qualitative
              description of the economic implications of the risks and other external effects associated
              with each technology. Benefits derived from a reduction in risk are described and discussed,
              but not quantified. Nonetheless, the information presented can provide useful insights when
              deciding between different ink systems or product lines.

              The following discussions  provide examples that qualitatively illustrate some  of the
              important benefit and cost considerations. However, no overall recommendation is given.
              Rather, personnel in each individual facility will need to examine the information presented
              and identify, based on their own concerns and priorities, the best choice of ink system and
              product line for their facility.
      Potential Private and Public Costs

             It not possible to obtain comprehensive estimates of all private costs of the alternative ink
             systems. However, some cost components were quantifiable. For example, the cost analysis
             estimated the average operating costs associated with each ink system, including the
             material costs (ink and additive costs), labor costs for a press operator and assistant,
             overhead costs  (rent and heat, fire and sprinkler insurance, indirect labor, repair to
             equipment, and administrative and sales overhead), average capital costs (base equipment,
             required add-ons, and installation), and energy costs (electricity and natural gas). Other cost
             components may contribute significantly to overall operating costs, but were not quantified
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                       CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               because they could not be reliably estimated. These cost components include press cleaning
               costs, wastewater costs, sludge recycling and disposal costs, and other solid waste disposal
               costs.

               External costs are those costs that are not included in the printer's pricing and printing
               decisions  These costs are commonly referred to as "externalities" and are costs that are
               borne by society and not by the individuals who are part of a market transaction.  These
               costs occur in a variety of ways in the printing process. For example, if a printer uses large
               quantities of a non-renewable resource during the printing process, society will eventually
               bear the cost of depletion of this natural resource. Another example of an external cost are
               health effects on the population living in the communities surrounding the facility which
               may result from the emission of chemicals from a printing facility. The printer does not pay
               for any illnesses that occur outside the facility even if they are caused by the facility's air
               emissions.  Society must  bear these costs in the  form of medical payments or higher
               insurance premiums.

               Differences in the operating costs estimated in the cost analysis are summarized below.

               Private Costs
               Operating costs are arguably the most obvious  and measurable factor influencing a
               business's choice of ink technologies. Lower operating costs are a direct and immediate
               benefit to the printer because  they will directly influence the facility's bottom line, to
               addition, lower operating costs may allow the printer to reduce the cost per image to the
               consumer, thus placing the printer into a more competitive position in the market.

               Table 8 7 presents the overall operating costs for all ink systems studied.in the performance
               demonstrations, as well as a comparison between the average costs for the alternatives and
               the baseline. All cost data are presented for 6,000 square feet of image created at a press
               speed of 500 feet per minute. The data in Table 8.7 show that water-based inks (Alternative
                1) had a lower average operating cost than the baseline (solvent-based inks) during the
               demonstrations. Water-based inks averaged a operating cost of $26.60 per 6,000 square feet
                of image, while solvent-based inks averaged $33.43. to addition, the range for water-based
                inks ($24 23 to $30.04) fell well below the range for the baseline ($31.89 to $34.06). U V-
                curedinks (anew developing technology for wide-web film applications) showed an average
                cost of $36.82, higher than both the baseline and Alternative 1. However, the lower bound
                of the range for this technology ($23.69) fell below the average costs for both the baseline
                and Alternative 1. The large range in costs for this technology ($23.69 to $51.00) is not
                surprising given that UV-cured inks are a new  developing technology.  With further
                technological developments, this technology is likely to become more^cost competitive with
                the more established ink technologies.
                                                                   ,'i
                Table 8 7 also presents a breakdown of costs used to calculate the operating cost number.
                Labor costs were constant across all ink systems at $5.29. Capital and energy costs changed
                across the systems but did not change at the product line  level, with the lowest costs
                occurring in the water-based system at $11.41 and $0.35 respectively.  Material costs were
                the only costs that differed by product line within an ink system. Material costs are the sum
                of the costs for color  inks, white inks, and additives  used during the performance
                demonstrations.  With the  exception of one UV  product line, water-based inks had the
                lowest material costs.

                It should be noted that these calculations are based on the costs of printing on three different
                substrates used during the performance demonstrations.  One of the substrates, PE/EVA,
                does not require white ink and therefore has a lower material cost than substrates that do
                require white ink.  Since all three systems were  tested on all three substrates during the
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              performance demonstrations, and a similar image can be created on all three substrates, the
              cost estimates presented in Table 8.7 are based on all results. However, actual material
              costs for specific systems or product lines may be higher than  in the performance
              demonstrations if a substrate other than PE/EVA were used. F'
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               is necessarily site-specific and should be made based on all costs relevant to the facility and
               the ink system under consideration.

               Public Costs
               In addition to profitability considerations, there are potential cost savings to the consumer
               associated with the operating cost differentials  among the ink system technologies.  A
               switch to a cheaper technology by large parts of the flexographic ink market might enable.
               the printers to reduce the price charged to consumers .d However, this would only be the
               case if overall costs, including potential capital costs and training costs associated with
               switching to a different ink system, were lower than the baseline costs.  Alternatively, a
               switch to a more expensive technology may lead to an increase in the cost to the consumer.
                dln a competitive market, each individual firm is assumed to be a price-taker. Therefore, a benefit
                in terms of reduced prices to the consumer would only be possible if the number of printers
                switching to a cheaper technology is large enough to exert an influence on prices.
-------
CHAPTERS
                                  CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
 J
  o



 I


  £
 a.
  D>
  o

  •5
  o

  &
  a.

  8
  to
  CO
          !»
          fi-

          ll
          II
£ E

In
•g S-
IT to
"SS


if
U CO
ffi

"5.

3


11
1=0
S
5

% w
•o o
 «•
          01 w
            So
            U
           a>

           5,-
          CO
                 E

                 CD
       .S


       1

       in

       evi
                   S.
                   CO
                   T3
                   a>
       .11

       I
       m
                   co
o
8

S
                      o
                      o
                      o
.2


E

in
•£
in

si
                        CO
                      t:"§

                           f

                           8
S
     8
     o
     O c
     o o
                           ,
                          i:
                          o>
                                    £

                                    CD
               i
                                    &
               en
               e
               "c
                                     CD
             T3 C

             § |



             If

             &-s

             3£
                         !!


                        Ji
                      -•§1 °
                      §££•§.;
                      C WJ (fl ~Q "(

                      11111
                      •g O S
                      S. co to
                                      c

                                      -2
                                    ;£?
                                     , CO
                                     8-29
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
       Potential Private and Public Benefits

              To provide the necessary information for the overall private benefit-cost comparison, a
              qualitative discussion of private benefits, including occupational health risks and safety
              hazard considerations, is presented. While these benefits could not be monetized or even
              quantified, they have the potential to directly affect a facility's costs and profits, and should
              therefore be carefully considered in the decision-making process.

              Public, or external, benefits are those that do not benefit the printer directly. For example,
              an alternative that produces less air pollution results in both private and public benefits: the
              printer pays for fewer raw materials and society in general benefits from better air.  The
              potential external benefits associated with the use of an alternative ink system include
              reduced health risk for the general public, reduced ecological risk, and reduced use of
              energy and natural resources.

              Private Benefits
              Performance Related Benefits
              In addition to costs, performance is generally of greatest importance to any business
              operating in a competitive market.   Performance is closely linked to the quality and
              appearance of the delivered product.  In general, performance improvements lead to
              increased product revenues, and performance shortcomings lead to decreased customer
              satisfaction and revenues.

              The CTSA assessed performance with 18 standard tests (see Chapter 4: Performance). Five
              of these tests were.selected as summary performance tests based on their importance and
              quantifiability (see Section 8.1, Table 8.3). Average performance demonstration results of
              Alternative #1 (water-based inks) in the five summary tests were close to, but lower than,
              those of the  baseline (solvent-based inks).   The average  performance results of the
              developing technology (UV-cured inks) were also close to, but lower than, the baseline in
              four of five tests. However, it is important to note that performance results of individual
              product lines and formulations varied considerably, so that there is substantial overlap in the
              performance range of the three systems.  This indicates that flexographers may be able to
              achieve many of the performance parameters needed for their products from any of the three
              systems. The variation in performance by demonstration site also underscores the need to
              optimize ink performance  (via formulation and equipment selection as well as the use of
              press side solvents and additives) with all systems.

              Ideally, flexographers would always choose the best-performing ink system with the lowest
              cost. However, this CTSA indicates that there may be some cost-performance tradeoffs.
              Lower-cost systems  and formulations may yield lower performance.  Alternatively, the
              CTSA indicates that printers may want to consider using systems and formulations with
              equal or better performance and higher costs if those  higher costs are accompanied by
              environmental benefits. Three examples of private environmental benefits in the CTSA are
              discussed below—reduced occupational health risk, reduced safety hazards and regulatory
              costs, and  reduced energy use.

              Occupational Health Risk
              Occupational health risk refers to any health impairments that may result from the workers'
              exposure to hazardous chemicals. Improved occupational health may have several tangible
              benefits to the facility: it may lead  to fewer sick days, improved worker satisfaction,
              improved worker productivity, and reduced insurance or compensation costs. In the context
              of this CTSA, occupational health risk refers  to press room workers subject to dermal and
              inhalation exposure and prep room workers subject to dermal exposure of  hazardous
              chemicals  contained in the various ink formulations.
                                              8-30
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               Table 8.4 in Section 8.1 presents a range of chemicals of concern for each product line used
               in the performance demonstrations. The average number of chemicals assessed by the SAT
               with a clear concern for occupational risk associated with both Alternative  1 (1 to 4
               chemicals) and the new developing technology (1 to 5 chemicals) was slightly lower than
               that of the baseline (2 to 4 chemicals).  This CTSA uses the number of chemicals with
               occupational concern as an indication of the potential risk to press room workers. However,
               other factors, such as the concentration of chemicals of concern, also play an important role
               in assessing occupational health risks.                  --   '

               Lower risk to workers may have a number of monetary benefits for the printer: Reduced
               health risk  may lead to reduced illnesses by the facility's workers, which positively
               influences the facility's productivity. In addition, better worker health is also likely to
               increase worker satisfaction (or decrease worker dissatisfaction), which can also influence
               worker productivity. A les,s hazardous working environment may also lead to lower health
               insurance premiums, part of which the facility may pay, and reduced workers compensation
               expenditures.             .

               Safety Hazard and Regulatory Costs
               Additional private benefits of reducing the number of chemicals of concern may be realized
               from reduced safety hazards at the facility and reduced regulatory compliance requirements.
               Safety hazards associated with flexographic  inks  include  reactivity, flammability,  and
               ignitability. Improved chemical characteristics with respect to these hazards may lead to a
               reduction in the insurance premiums paid by the printer, as well as a potential reduction in
               waste disposal and storage costs. In addition, by switching away from hazardous chemicals,
               a facility may be able to avoid certain regulatory and reporting requirements associated with
               hazardous materials. Similarly, a reduction in reporting and regulatory requirements would
               also produce public benefits for government, and therefore taxpayers.  These benefits may
               stem from permit writers having to issue permits to fewer facilities or for a reduced number
               of chemicals, or less enforcement actions being required.

               Table 8.5 i/> Section 8.1 summarizes safety hazard results  for the three ink systems. Of the
               three ink systems, only solvent-based inks pose ignitability concerns, resulting in a greater
               safety hazard. Data were incomplete for reactivity and flammability characteristics of UV
               inks. The water-based ink technology compared favorably to the solvent-based technology
               in terms of flammability (a range of 0 to 3 compared to 3 for solvent based inks), while no
               difference in reactivity  was observed between  the two  systems  (both showed zero
               reactivity).

               Energy Use
               Energy use is another direct cost of production to the printing facility. Employing more
               energy efficient technologies may benefit a printer by reducing production costs as well as
               improving the facility's public image. With increasing environmental consciousness by the
               public, facilities using environmentally friendly production technologies may be able to
               create considerable  goodwill in their communities and take advantage of advertising
               opportunities in addition to providing benefits to the environment and society as a whole.

               The energy used by each ink system is expressed in terms of the number of British thermal
               units (Btu) used to produce 6,000 square feet of image. Table 8.3 in Section 8.1 shows that
               water-based inks and UV inks use less energy than solvent-based inks, with averages of
               73,000 and 78,000 Btu, respectively, compared to 100,000  Btu used by the solvent-based
               ink technology.  This reduced energy use may result in private and social benefits, as
               discussed above.
                                              8-31
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               All things equal, choosing an ink technology that uses less energy during the printing
               process will have public benefits as well as private benefits. A reduction in energy use
               conserves natural resources, a benefit to society as a whole  and future generations.
               However, it is interesting to note that the environmental impacts of energy use (and
               therefore public benefits) differ by energy source.  For example, natural gas is relatively
               clean-burning compared to some sources of electricity, such as high-sulfur coal. Thus the
               public benefit of switching to a more energy-efficient process may be decreased if that
               switch entails a fuel source change from gas to coal-derived electricity.

               Public Benefits
               Public Health Risk
               A reduction in the number of chemicals of concern not only presents private benefits to the
               printer but may also produce several public benefits. Society may benefit from reductions
               in air releases from the printing facility, which can lead to such health effects as asthma, red
               eyes, nausea, or headaches.' When present, these health effects can lead to sick days among
               the general public and  workers living near the facility, and cause absenteeism at those
               workers' place of employment. A reduction in air emissions may also lead to a reduction
               in private and public health care costs.

               Table 8.5 in Section 8.1 summarizes smog-related emissions associated with the different
               product lines. The table shows that at the assumed capture efficiency of 70%, solvent-based
               emissions of smog-related compounds from ink and energy sources are considerably higher
               than those from the other two systems.  Solvent-based emissions ranged from 757 to 1070
               g/6,000 ft2. In contrast, water-based inks ranged from 173 to 313 g/6,000 ft2, and UV-cured
               inks ranged from 187 to 523 g/6,000 ft2. Table 8.5 also compares the product lines tested
               for the three ink systems in terms of VOC and HAP content. No HAP content was measured
               for solvent-based and UV-cured inks, whereas the HAP content for water-based inks ranged
               from 0 to 3.4% by weight. UV-cured inks have the lowest calculated VOC content, with 1 %
               reported for each of the three tested product lines. The VOC content for water-based inks
               ranges from 1 to 14% by weight, while solvent-based inks record a range of 54 to 67%.

               In addition to air emissions, there is a potential for chronic general population exposure via
               other pathways (e.g., drinking water, fish ingestion, etc.), or acute short-term exposures to
               high levels of hazardous chemicals when there is a spill, fire, or other one-time release.
               Again, these potential risks are reduced when the number of chemicals of concern used at
               a facility is lowered.

               Partially because of the chemical diversity of ink formulations within each system, potential
               public health benefits from a switch in ink technologies could not be quantified for this
               CTSA. However, some general examples can illustrate the potential economic impacts that
               less exposure to hazardous chemicals may have.  Table 8.9 presents estimates of the
               economic costs of some of the illnesses or symptoms associated with exposure  to
               flexographic printing chemicals. To the extent that flexographic printing chemicals are not
               the only factor contributing to the illnesses described, individual costs may overestimate the
               potential benefits to society from substituting alternative ink technologies for the baseline
               ink system. In addition, if an alternative ink system contains some of the same chemicals,
               the full economic benefit may not be realized.
               6 Asthma, red eyes, and headaches have been associated with ozone, a product of VOCs released
               from inks and from energy production. Lung and neurotoxic effects, which may include asthma
               and headaches, respectively, have been associated with compounds with a potential concern for
               general population risk.
                                               8-32
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               Eye irritation, headaches, nausea,  and aggravation  of previously existing respiratory
               problems are effects associated with ozone (derived from VOCs in inks or released during
               energy production) or with individual compounds with a possible concern for general
               population risk. The economic literature provides estimates of the costs associated with eye
               irritation, headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks.  An analysis by Unsworth and Neumann
               summarizes the existing literature on the cost of illness based on estimates of how much an
               individual would be willing to pay to avoid certain acute effects for one symptom day.3
               These estimates are based upon a survey approach designed to elicit estimates of individual
               willingness-to-pay to avoid a single-day incidence of the illness.  They do not reflect the
               lifetime costs of treating the disease.

               Table 8.9 presents  a summary of the low,  mid-range, and high estimates of individual
               willingness-to-pay to avoid eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks. These
               estimates provide an indication of the benefit per affected individual that would accrue to
               society if switching to a substitute ink technology reduced the incidence of these health
               endpoints.

                     Table 8.9  Estimated Willingness-to-Pay to Avoid Morbidity Effects for
                                       One Symptom Day (1995 dollars)
Health Endpoint
Eye Irritation4
Headache5
vlausea6
Asthma Attack7
Low
$21
$2
$29
$16
Mid-Range
$21
$13
$29
$43
High
$46
$67
$84
$71
              Ecological Risk
              A potential ecological benefit of using ink formulations with fewer hazardous chemicals is
              reduced aquatic toxicity and less hazardous waste that needs to be disposed of in the
              community.  Aquatic toxicity can negatively affect fish populations near the points of
              discharge and lead to a reduction in the variety offish species (particularly species intolerant
              of environmental stressors) or a reduction in the size of fish populations. Such impacts on
              fish populations can impair recreational and commercial fishing opportunities.  An ink
              system that results in the discharge of fewer chemicals of concern to aquatic populations
              could therefore lead to direct economic benefits in the communities surrounding the facility.

       Summary of Social Benefit-Cost Assessment

              The following sections present a summary of each  of the three ink system technologies
              across the benefit and cost categories discussed in this chapter.

              Solvent-based Inks

                  •  The solvent-based ink system, on average, had lower total operating costs than UV-
                     cured inks, but  higher than  water-based ink systems.  This higher cost can be
                     aiii jbuted mostly to higher material and capital costs OA solvent-based technologies.
                     In particular, average material costs for solvent-based systems (per 6,000 square feet
                     of image) were approximately $5.00 higher than those for water-based  systems.
                  •  In the performance area, the solvent-based system on average outperformed both
                     water-based and UV-cured systems. This system was the best with respect to gloss
                     and trap and among the best on the other three summary performance tests.
                                             8-33
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                      CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                  •   On average, solvent-based inks contained two to four chemicals with a clear
                      concern for occupational risk, slightly higher than the ranges for water-based and
                      UV-cured inks.  This may indicate a higher occupational, risk.
                  •   Public health risk was evaluated through releases of smog-related compounds, VOC
                      and HAP content, and  the systemic and developmental risks to the general
                      population.  Despite the fact that this  system used oxidizers, emissions were
                      calculated to be considerably higher than the emissions of the other systems. VOC
                      content was, as expected, much higher than either of the two other systems. This
                      system did not contain any HAPs.  For general population risks, two  chemical
                      categories in Solvent #2 contained chemicals that presented a potential concern for
                      risk.
                  •   In terms of process safety, solvent-based inks had more concerns than  the other
                      systems, although the results for UV-cured inks were incomplete. Only solvent-
                      based  inks presented an  ignitability  concern and also presented  a  higher
                      flammability concern than water-based inks.
                  •   Solvent-based inks were shown to use more energy  to produce the same square
                      footage of image.                     .

               Water-based Inks

                  •   Operating costs were lowest for the water-based ink product lines. In fact, in all
                      cost categories, water-based ink systems had the lowest average cost. Cost savings
                      were particularly pronounced for material costs.
                  •   Though water-based ink formulations #2 and #4 had the best mottle scores of all
                      product lines, overall the water-based inks did not perform as well as the solvent-
                      based inks in the five summary performance  categories.  The system also was
                      outperformed by the UV-cured inks in three categories. While this may indicate a
                      lower quality product, it is important to note that in many cases the differences were
                      small and may be insignificant.
                   •   Li the occupational health area, water-based inks presented a lower average number
                      of chemicals with a clear  concern for risk_per product line, indicating a better
                      chance of reducing occupational health risks compared to the baseline.
                   •   The amount of smog-related emissions that resulted from ink releases and energy
                      production with the water-based system was considerably lower than  that from
                      solvent-based system, and was comparable to that  from the UV-cured system.
                      Water-based inks had a much lower VOC content than solvent-based inks, but were
                      the only inks that contained HAPs.
                   •   Like with solvent-based inks, printers often add VOC solvents and additives at press
                      side to water-based inks. In substantial amounts, these materials compromise the
                      low-VOC content of the ink and can pose clear pressroom worker risks. Atone site
                      using water-based inks (Site 3), over half of the emissions resulted from materials
                      added at press-side.
                   •  The safety of water-based inks was better than that of solvent-based inks. There
                      was no indication of ignitability or reactivity.  However, water-based inks had a
                      higher flammability risk than  UV-cured inks.
                   •  As for energy expenditures, water-based inks had the lowest average energy use.

                UV-cured Inks

                   •   The UV-cured inks had the highest average  operating costs. However, since it is
                       a new developing technology  for wide-web film, these costs are likely to fall as the
                       technology develops. The biggest cost  differential was the material costs, falling
                       approximately $8.00 per 6,000 ft2 of image above the average costs for water-based
                       inks. It is also worth noting that energy costs of the UV systems were considerably

              ~          ~~~~8-34
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                      higher—nearly two times the cost for solvent-based inks and nearly three times the
                      cost for water-based inks.
                      The performance of the UV-cured inks was generally worse than the solvent-based
                      baseline, though this system had better blocking resistance, and individual product
                      lines had ice water crinkle and mottle results that were equal to the solvent-based
                      results. The performance results were slightly better than those of.the water-based
                      inks.
                      The UV-cured inks presented the lowest chance of occupational health risk, and
                      with respect to public health, had the lowest HAP content (none) and VOC content.
                      A couple of SAT-analyzed compounds present a potential concern for general
                      population risk, however, indicating that research on some compounds is needed.
                      Safety hazard data were incomplete for UV inks. However, UV inks were the only
                      inks that present the potential for reactivity.
                      Finally, the energy used  by UV-cured systems was approximately 22% less than
                      that of the baseline, and was only slightly higher than that of the water-based inks.
                      The ah- releases associated with the energy production were higher than the
                      baseline, however, because all energy required by the UV system was derived from
                      electricity—a more pollution-intensive energy source in comparison to natural gas.
               The intent of this benefit-cost assessment is to illustrate the possible benefits and costs of
               switching ink systems and to give individual printers insight into the potential social benefits
               and costs of their current ink system. When drawing conclusions from the above discussion
               in this chapter, it is important to note that many of the results are based on the performance
               demonstrations conducted for this report.  Printers may therefore find that an individual
               facility will not experience similar results in some or all of the benefit-cost categories. If
               a printer chooses to make a change in ink systems, it is important to consider the specific
               needs and requirements of the facility and the printer's customers.
 8.3  DECISION INFORMATION SUMMARY

        Introduction

               This GTSA presents comparative information on the relative risk, performance, costs, and
               resource conservation of the three flexographic ink systems. However, it does not provide
               recommendations or judgments about whether or not to implement an alternative.  This
               section may assist decision makers in choosing the most appropriate ink technology for
               individual circumstances. There are three parts in this section:

               The ink system comparison summarizes the findings of Sections 8.1 and 8.2 with respect
               to solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured inks.  By integrating the findings of the first
               section  and the practical benefits and costs described in the second, this comparison
               describes the anticipated impacts of each system based on the findings of the research in this
               CTSA.

               After an ink system is selected, it is necessary to select specific formulations. The chemical
               categories section presents the hazard, risk, and regulatory characteristics of the groups of
               chemicals in this CTSA. This section may be useful for printers and ink formulators alike
               who wish to identify chemicals that  should be avoided or that are potentially safer
               substitutes for harmful ingredients.
                                              8-35
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               The final section, suggestions for improvements, summarizes the steps that can be taken
               by printers and ink companies to minimize the health and environmental risks of inks and
               considerations for selecting the best ink formulations for a facility.

       Ink System Comparison

               As indicated in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, the results did not identify any one ink system as a best
               choice for all situations. This section discusses the relative benefits and drawbacks that
               were found with each system.

               Baseline: Solvent-based inks
               The solvent-based inks  were the baseline for this analysis, and they displayed solid
               performance characteristics and reasonable costs—two factors of primary concern to many
               decision makers. However, the analysis indicated that they fared poorly on other factors,
               such as health risks, safety hazards, regulatory costs, and energy use.

               The strength of the solvent-based inks in this CTSA was performance. On average, this
               system produced the best performance results on four of the five tests discussed, in this
               chapter. The results indicated that these particular inks may be the most appropriate for
               particularly challenging printing tasks, such when process colors must be matched precisely
               or when the product is intended for use in cold, wet. conditions.

               Health risks,  safety hazards, regulatory costs, and  energy use generally were negative
               aspects of the solvent-based inks.  As indicated in Table 8.4, solvent-based inks had the
               highest average number of chemicals with a clear concern for worker risk per formulation
               (3.2). Most of the chemicals with a clear concern for risk were solvents, with some of those
               added at press side. The solvent-based inks had the highest VOC content— an average of
               58% by weight. This directly affected the emissions rate of smog-related compounds—the
               average rate (914 g/6,000 ft2) was more than three times the average rate for water-based and
               UV-cured systems (221 and 300 g/6,000 ft2, respectively) at the assumed capture efficiency
               rate. The solvent-based inks  were the only formulations that were classified as ignitable,
               and they also had a relatively high flammability rating of 3 (on a scale of 0-4).

               Under the operating parameters assumed for this analysis, the high health risk and safety
               hazard indicators suggest that these solvent-based inks may result in costs to the firm in the
               form of more  worker  sick days,  decreased worker satisfaction, decreased worker
               productivity, and increased insurance premiums. These costs would result in lower profits.
               Possible social impacts of solvent-based inks include increased sick days among the general
               public and an increase in health  care costs.  The  flammability and ignitability of the
               formulations may require more effort to comply with environmental and fire regulations,
               thereby increasing waste disposal and storage costs. (Note, however, that many types of ink
               wastes can be blended with fuel for energy recovery or distilled for reuse.  Either of these
               practices may reduce waste disposal costs.) Finally, because oxidizers are required when
               using solvent-based inks, energy use  was the highest for this system.   The emissions
               associated with this energy consumption, however, were comparable to those of the other
               two systems, because much of the energy was derived from relatively clean-burning natural
               gas.

               As shown in Table 8.6, the average operating cost of the solvent-based inks ($32.98 per
               6,000 ft2) was higher than that of the water-based inks ($26.60 per 6,000 ft2), but lower than
               that of the UV-cured inks ($36.82 per 6,000 ft2). Costs were increased by the use of an
                                              8-36
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               oxidizer and the high ink consumption rate but were moderated by the relatively low per-
               pound price of ink.

               Alternative #1: Water-based inks
               The water-based inks that were evaluated had both private advantages and disadvantages;
               however, the social impacts of water-based inks appear to be of less concern in comparison
               to the solvent baseline.

               This ink system had inconsistent performance test results.  Though some individual test
               results were better than the baseline, the average outcome of the water-based inks for each
               test was poorer than that of the solvent-based inks. Such a decrease in quality may either
               prevent printers from switching technologies or may require them to take steps to improve
               the quality. Two water-based product lines had better mottle results than the baseline, and
               in general the gloss and blocking were comparable to the solvent-based inks.  Under
               conditions where  the product is subjected  to  minimal physical demands, the  visual
               characteristics of water-based inks may be similar to those of solvent-based inks. However,
               if the ink were to be exposed to cold or wet conditions — like those measured by the ice
               water crinkle test — these product lines may compare unfavorably to solvent-based inks or
               may require modifications.

               By some measures, a switch to  water-based inks may yield both private and social benefits
               with respect to health risks and safety hazards.  In terms of safety hazards, none of the inks
               were ignitable or reactive.  The flammability of the water-based inks ranged from 0-3, in
               contrast to solvent-based inks which were all rated 3. The VOC content was an average of
               6% by weight, compared to the concentration of nearly 60% in solvent-based inks. For inks
               with low flammability and VOC content, improvements may be seen in lower insurance
               premiums, worker's compensation expenditures, and regulatory costs compared to those for
               the baseline. From a social perspective, a reduction of VOC emissions may have impacts
               beyond the printing facility, possibly including a reduction in cases of asthma, red eyes, and
               headaches. The economic benefit of avoiding additional cases of these ailments potentially
               could include reduced medical  expenditures, increased productivity, and reduced pain and
               suffering.

               Other health risk and safety measures indicated that the water-based inks may have been
               comparable to or worse than the baseline. There was an average of 3.1 compounds with a
               clear or potential concern for worker health risk in the water-based inks, which was close
               to the 3.2 found in the solvent-based inks. Some of this risk — one compound of clear
               concern per formulation on average — resulted from the press-side addition of solvent and
               additives. Three of the four water-based ink product lines contained HAPs, while none were
               found in the other two systems. The variability of health risks and safety hazards of these
               water-based inks relative to the baseline highlights the importance of carefully scrutinizing
               information about particular formulations.

               Benefits associated with a switch to the water-based inks in this analysis also  include a
               decrease in energy use and costs. The system used approximately 73,000 Btu  per ft2 of
               image — the lowest among the ink systems and 27% less than the solvent-based inks.
               Private benefits of reduced energy use include reductions in the cost of energy.  Social
               benefits include lower emissions at the sources of energy generation (i.e., electric power
               plants and the exhaust stack of natural gas furnaces), reduced demand for fossil fuels, and
               decreased strain on the capacity of the power grid.
                                              8-37
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               The cost of using the water-based inks also was lower. This system was, on average, $6.40
               less expensive than the baseline per 6,000 ft2 of image.  The lower cost resulting from a
               switch to these water-based inks has obvious benefits for a printer's profitability, and also
               may result in benefits to the public in the form of lower prices for printed products. When
               considering a switch from the baseline to a water-based ink system, additional costs for the
               retraining of workers would be incurred. These costs should be taken into account in the
               overall decision.

               New Emerging Technology: UV-cured Inks
               Research in this CTSA indicated that a switch to the tested UV-cured inks may present
               higher private costs in comparison to the baseline, because of lower performance and higher
               operating costs. It is worth noting that developing technologies often have higher operating
               costs. However, performance shortcomings indicate there is room to improve UV-cured
               formulations and to optimize UV equipment for wide-web film applications.

               The performance results for the UV-cured inks were mixed. They performed better than the
               baseline on one test (blocking resistance), but produced mostly poorer results on the other
               tests. These results indicate that UV-cured inks may be  an appropriate choice for certain
               film applications that require pressure and heat resistance, but that a UV system may require
               modifications,  such as  different-sized anilox rolls,  to  improve  other performance
               characteristics.  The performance of these inks may represent  a cost to printers who are
               switching  in that either a lower quality product is produced or that significant effort is
               required to improve the quality.  Lower quality products affect consumers in that printed
               products, such as packaging, may have less realistic colors and  lower durability.

               These inks showed potential for greater social benefits arising from reduced health risks and
               safety hazards.   An average of 2.4 compounds with a clear or potential concern for
               occupational risk were found in the UV formulations, which was lower than the average for
               the baseline. There were no HAPs in the formulations, and based on post-curing estimates,
               the system had a VOC content below 1%. Safety hazard information was incomplete, but
               the formulations for which information was  available had a reactivity  level of 1, a
               flammability of 1 (both on 0-4 scales of increasing severity), and no ignitability. UV-cured
               product lines #1 and #3  were calculated to have smog-related  emissions of 187 and 191
               g/6,000 ft2 of product, respectively (based on the uncured formulations). These were the
               lowest emission rates of all product lines in the three systems. In contrast to these relatively
               low figures, however, UV-cured ink #2 had VOC emissions expected to be 523 g/6,000 ft2.
               The benefits of switching to a UV-cured ink, therefore, may be formulation-specific. It
               should be  noted that many compounds used in UV-cured inks have not been subjected to
               toxicological studies. As a result, conclusions about the risks associated with these inks can
               not be as certain as conclusions based primarily on toxicological information.

               The UV-cured inks consumed less energy (78,000 Btu per 6,000  ft2) than the solvent
               baseline (100,000 Btu per 6,000 ft2), but more than the water-based inks (73,000 Btu per
               6,000 ft2). As indicated in Table 8.5, the releases of smog-related compounds associated
               with UV-cu.-ed energy consumption were the greatest among those of the three ink systems,
               because electricity — the sole form of energy used by the UV system — is more pollution-
               intensive than natural gas. This pollution is not evident at the facility, however, because the
               emissions are released at the site of the power plant.

               The UV-cured inks had the lowest ink consumption rate of the  three systems. An average
               of 2.78 pounds  of UV-cured ink and additives were consumed per 6,000 ft2 of image; in
                                              8-38
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              contrast, the water-based system consumed 4.57 pounds of ink and additives per 6,000 ft2,
              and solvent-based inks consumed 8.11 pounds per 6,000 ft2.

              With regard to. costs, the UV ink system was the most expensive of the three, costing
              approximately $3.80 per 6,000 ft2 of image more than the solvent baseline and $10 more
              than the water based system. Two factors drove this high cost. The per-pound ink price was
              the highest of the three ink systems. One reason for this is that higher-grade pigments are
              required in order to minimize product performance issues.8   Another factor is that the
              system exclusively uses electricity, which is more expensive than natural gas.  A switch to
              these UV-cured inks could result in a private cost to printers, and  may negatively affect
              consumers, because the cost might be translated into higher prices for materials printed with
              UV-cured inks.

              Summary
              No ink system is inherently free of human health risks and safety hazards. There are many
              tradeoffs in every system. Many solvent-based inks have undergone technical reformulating
              in recent years to reduce the use of some of the more hazardous substances. Also, printers
              using solvent systems are required to use oxidizers, which can substantially reduce VOC air
              emissions from these inks. (Oxidizers do not, however, protect pressroom workers from the
              effects of solvents.) UV inks, because they are much newer, contain many more untested
              chemicals, and the risks of exposure to many of them are largely unknown. Water-based
              inks gained popularity initially hi part because they were thought to be safer than solvent
              inks.

              However, as shown by this CTSA, the relative occupational risk reductions are formulation-
              specific. Some water-based inks do potentially pose a lower risk than some solvent-based
              inks. There were fewer chemicals with a clear concern for  worker health risk in some
              formulations, and water-based ink #2 did not contain compounds with a clear concern for
              developmental risks. This was not true for water-based ink #4, however; the range in the
              number of chemicals with a clear concern for occupational risk was slightly higher than the
              baseline, and this product line had a VOC content of 14% by weight.  For a water-based ink,
              it is imporunt to keep the VOC content as low as possible since no emission controls are
              used with these inks in most locations.

              Another issue that emerged from the results are that press side solvents and additives can
              increase the risk to workers using ink. In both solvent-based and water-based inks, some
              solvents and additives added at press side presented a clear concern for occupational risk.
              In water-based inks in particular, a third of the chemicals of clear concern were added at
              press side.  This point highlights both the risks associated with working with press  side
              solvents and additives and the worker health improvements that can be made by minimizing
              their use.                                                                .

       Highlights of Chemical Category Information

              As noted in earlier sections of this chapter, there can be significant variation in the risks of
              different ink product lines, even .within  one  ink  system.  The risk associated with a
              formulation often can be driven by just a few individual compounds. This section includes
              information about the hazard, risk, and regulatory information for each compound used in
              this CTSA, grouped by chemical category. This information may be helpful for printers
              who  wish  to identify compounds that may present issues  for human health and the
              environment.   Ink fbrmulators  may use this information  to help identify chemical
                                             8-39
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                      CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               compounds that contribute to the overall risk of a formulation, as well as compounds that
               are worth considering as possible safer alternatives.

               This section presents an overview and  interpretation of the hazard, risk, and regulatory
               information.  The following section — Hazard, Risk, and Regulation of CTSA Chemicals
               — consists of a more detailed description of each chemical category.

               Hazard and risk
               Hazard represents a compound's inherent ability to cause harm to health, that is, regardless
               of its concentration in an ink. Risk describes the relationship between a compound's hazard
               level and its potential for exposure. Because  potential for exposure is a factor of the
               compound's concentration hi the ink as well as its chemical properties, the concentration of
               a chemical hi a formulation affects its risk. As shown in Table 8.13 in the next section, a
               chemical can have a low hazard score and a high risk score if the chemical is used in fairly
               high concentrations in an ink formulation. Thus, it is not necessarily true that pressroom
               workers can be safely exposed to inks even if they  do not contain any highly hazardous
               chemicals.

               The reverse may also be true. A chemical with  a high hazard score can receive a low risk
               score because it has a very small concentration in the ink that was tested for the CTSA.
               That does not indicate, however, that the chemical is safe in all ink formulations.  If the
               same chemical had been present in a high concentration hi another formulation, it might
               have received a high risk score as well.  Thus, it is important to pay close attention to both
               hazard and risk when this information is available.

               It is also important to consider aquatic risk.  Though it was assumed in this CTSA that ink
               would not be released to the aquatic environment, accidental releases are possible. As noted
               in Chapter 3 (Risk),  18 of the compounds were  of high hazard concern for aquatic effects,
               and another 35 were of medium hazard  concern. The aquatic hazard of ingredients should
               considered in order to minimize  the impacts associated with potential discharges of ink.

               Toxicological and SAT data
               Ideally, a chemical's ability to cause harm  in animals  and humans  is measured by
               lexicological studies.  However, less than half of the compounds used in this CTSA have
               been subject to toxicological testing. (This situation is generally true beyond the inks that
               were used in this CTSA. Many hundreds of new chemicals enter the market each year,, and
               testing has not kept up with these advances.) For CTSA chemicals with no toxicological
               data, EPA's Structure Activity Team (SAT) estimated toxicity based on the compound's
               molecular structure and its similarity to compounds that have been studied. SAT findings,
               although developed by experts and far better than no information, are inherently less reliable
               than toxicological studies, because they are not based upon actual tests of the chemical in
               question.

               It is important, therefore, to know more about chemicals for which no toxicological data are
               available. As discussed in the hazard and risk section, a chemical with a low SAT risk
               concern may in fact be present in a particular formulation in a high enough concentration
               to be a worker health issue.

               Exposure via dermal and inhalation routes
               Flexographic  workers can come  into contact with all chemical compounds  in  ink
                formulations through dermal (skin) exposure, particularly if they do not consistently wear
                contact-barrier gloves while working with or in the immediate vicinity of inks. In contrast,

                                               8-40            '.   ~~~
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
               workers are only subject to inhalation exposure from compounds that are volatile (have a
               vapor pressure at ambient temperatures). For compounds in this CTSA that did not have a
               significant vapor pressure (0.001 mm Hg or greater), their inhalation risk is noted as "no
               exposure."

               Fifteen chemicals that were tested in the CTSA presented a clear concern for dermal risk,
               and eleven -others had a potential concern for dermal risk, documented with toxicological
               data. These chemicals spanned all ink systems, and a number of them are not explicitly
               regulated under any federal acts included in the table. SAT findings indicate that many
               other chemicals may also be of concern for dermal exposure. This finding indicates that
               flexographic  workers can come into skin contact with multiple chemicals that carry
               significant health  and safety risks.  The compounds that presented a clear concern for risk
               as determined by toxicological data or the SAT are presented in Table 8.10.

               Dermal exposure can be avoided mostly thorough implementation of a policy that requires
               workers to wear contact-barrier gloves while working with ink (and other chemicals),,
               whether or not they expect to contact the ink directly. Butyl (preferred) and nitrile gloves
               are considered appropriate for inks. Latex gloves offer little or no protection because they
               degrade rapidly after being exposed to many ink chemicals.
                                             8-41
-------
CHAPTER 8
                                                     CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                        Table 8.10 Compounds with a Clear Concern for Dermal Risk
Chemical Category
Acrylated polyols



Acrylated polymers
Alcohols

Alkyl acetates
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Ethylene glycol ethers
Inorganics
Organophosphorous compounds
Organotitanium compounds
Pigments — organic
Pigments — organometallic

Chemical
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
1 ,6-Hexanediol diacrylate
Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Glycerol propoxylate triacrylate
Ethanol
Isopropanol
Butyl acetate
Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Ethanolamine
Hydroxylamine derivative
Alcohols, CH-15-secondary,
ethoxylated
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Barium
Phosphine oxide, bis(2,6-
dimethoxybenzoyl) (2,4,4-
trimethylpentyl)-
Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis
(acetylacetonate)
Titanium diisopropoxide bis(2,4-
pentanedionate)
Titanium isopropoxide
C.I. Pigment Red 23
D&C Red No. 7
Propvlene qlvcol methvl ether
Data Source
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
               For inhalation risk, thirteen chemicals  showed a clear concern for inhalation risk to
               pressroom workers based on lexicological data.  SAT findings indicate that three more
               chemicals present a clear, concern for inhalation risk. These chemicals are listed in Table
               8.11.

               It is much more difficult to protect pressroom workers from inhalation exposure to ink
               chemicals than from dermal exposure. This is of particular concern for chemicals that have
               a clear or potential concern for inhalation risk from toxicological studies, as well as those
               with a moderate to high concern for inhalation risk via SAT findings. Inhalation exposure
               can be minimized, however, by  using enclosed doctor blades and providing sufficient
               ventilation.
                                              8-42
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                       Table 8.11 Compounds with a Clear Concern for Inhalation Risk
Chemical Category
Acrylated polyols
Alcohols
Alkyl acetates
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons — low molecular
weight
Propylene glycol ethers -
Chemical
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
1 ,6-Hexanediol diacrylate
Hydroxypropyi acrylate
Ethanol
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Butyl acetate
Ethyl acetate
Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Ethanolamine
Hydroxylamine derivative
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
n-Heptane
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Data Source
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
              Regulatory status
              Some of the compounds in this CTS A are regulated under major federal environment, health
              and safety acts. The following federal regulations were considered:

                  •   Clean Air Act (CAA)
                  •   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                  •   Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
                  •   Clean Water Act (CWA)
                  •   Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
                  •   Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and  Liability  Act
                     (CERCLA)
                  •   Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA)
                  •   Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)

              Table 8.13 shows the regulation (last column) for each explicitly regulated compound. In
              addition, chemicals that appear to be "unregulated" in fact may be regulated due to their
              properties; for example, many compounds are regulated as VOCs because .they match the
              definition (all organic compounds except those that are determined by EPA to be negligibly
              photochemically reactive).

              Of the more than 100 chemicals studied in this CTSA, only 25% are explicitly regulated by
              any of the major federal environmental and health acts. Of the roughly 75 other compounds,
              11 presented a clear concern for occupational risk and another 36 presented a potential
              concern for occupational risk.  Table 8.12 presents the compounds that posed a clear or
              potential  concern  for occupational  risk based  on  either  lexicological data  or  SAT
                                            8-43
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              evaluations that are not explicitly listed in regulations. The large number of compounds not
              explicitly regulated that posed a clear or potential concern for risk indicates that at least for
              the flexographic inks studied in this  analysis, significant risk may  be present in a
              formulation despite a lack of regulatory requirements.

                Table 8.12 Compounds with a Clear or Potential Concern for Occupational Risk
                                          Not Explicitly Regulated3
Chemical
C.I. Pigment Red 23
D&C Red No. 7
Glycerol propoxylate triacrylate
'hosphine oxide, bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)
2,4,4-trimethylpentyl)-
Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary, ethoxylated
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
Hydroxylamine derivative
Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis (acetylacetonate)
Titanium diisopropoxide bis(2,4-
pentanedionate)
Titanium isopropoxide
C.I. Pigment Green 7
Diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine
oxide
Distillates (petroleum), solvent-refined light
paraffinic
2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone
2-Methyl-4'-(methylthio)-2-
morpholinopropiophenone
Propylene glycol propyl ether
Acrylated epoxy polymer
Acrylated oligoamine polymer
Acrylated polyester polymer (#s 1 and 2)
Acrylic acid polymer, insoluble
Butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-methyl
methacrylate polymer
C.I. Basic Violet 1 , molybdatephosphate
C.I. Basic Violet 1,
molybdatetungstatephosphate
C.I. Pigment Red 48, barium salt (1:1)
C.I. Pigment Red 48, calcium salt (1:1)
C.I. Pigment Red 52, calcium salt (1:1)
C.I. Pigment Violet 27
C.I. Pigment White 7 .
Data
Source
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
Dermal Risk
Concern Level
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Inhalation Risk
Concern Level
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Clear
Clear
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Potential
Potential
n.e.
Potential
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
                                             8-44 .
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                Table 8.12  Compounds with a Clear or Potential Concern for Occupational Risk
                                     Not Explicitly Regulated (continued)
Chemical
C.I. Pigment Yellow 14
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
Ethoxylated tetramethyldecyndiol
Methylenedisalicylic acid
Nitrocellulose
Paraffin wax
Polyethylene glycol
Propyl acetate
Rosin, polymerized
Siloxanes and silicones, di-Me, 3-hydroxypropyl
Me, ethers with polyethylene glycol acetate
Silanamine, 1,1,1 -trimethyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)-,
hydrolysis products with silica
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic
Styrene acrylic acid polymer (#s 1 and 2)
Styrene acrylic acid resin
Thioxanthone derivative
Trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate
Trimethylolpropane propoxylate triacrylate
Data
Source
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
Dermal Risk
Concern Level
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Inhalation Risk
Concern Level
n.e.
Potential
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Potential
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Potential
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
                n.e.: No exposure via indicated exposure route
                a This list contains chemicals that are not explicitly listed under federal laws and regulations.
                Chemicals in this list may be subject to general requirements, such as those that address VOCs.
        Hazard, Risk and Regulation of Individual CTSA Chemicals

               This section contains hazard, risk, and regulatory information for each compound used in
               this CTSA. The intent of this section is to summarize the hazard and risk findings of the
               CTSA for the decision maker. It is intended to be a starting point in the evaluation of a
               chemical for use in new formulations. The data are presented hi Table 8.13.

               The hazard and risk information is presented separately for inhalation and dermal exposure.
               For both exposure routes, hazard effects can be either systemic (affecting an organ system
               of the body, such as the lungs) or developmental (associated with the growth and maturation
               of an organism). The notation used in Table 8.13 allows presentation of both systemic and
               developmental effects for each chemical category. The first letter that appears in each
               human health hazard column of the table represents the concern for systemic effects; the
               second  represents the concern  for developmental effects.   For example, the second
               compound in the table, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, has "M/L" under Dermal Hazard. This
               indicates a moderate hazard of systemic effects, and a low hazard of developmental effects.

               Table 8.13 also includes the results of the risk analysis performed in this CTSA.  Risk
               incorporates a compound's hazard level and its potential for exposure to produce an overall
                                              8-45
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              risk concern ranking.  Dermal risk concern levels were determined based on model
              assumptions of routine two-hand contact by workers in both the preparation room and the
              press room, and are considered high-end estimates. Inhalation risks were expected only for
              press room workers.  Because  potential for exposure depends  on the compound's
              concentration in  the ink as well as its chemical properties, the risk concern rating of a
              chemical can vary among ink formulations if its concentration is different.  Table 8.13 lists
              the highest observed risk concern rating.

              The final column of Table 8.13, Regulatory Concern, lists the regulations under which each
              compound is explicitly regulated. It should be noted that this is not an exhaustive list of
              regulatory requirements associated with each compound.

              The following paragraphs summarize the hazards and risks of the  chemicals in each
              chemical category.  Though hazards and risks can vary among chemicals within a category,
              there are trends in exposure pathways and the magnitudes of concern that can be useful to
              printers and formulators who use chemicals in these categories.

              Acrylated polyols
              Compounds in this category were  used in UV-cured inks as monomers.  Of  the  four
              compounds, two (hydroxypropyl acrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate) have been
              subjected to lexicological testing. Both had a medium hazard concern for systemic effects
              via dermal exposure, and both were found in the inks in sufficient quantities to present a
              clear concern for risk via dermal exposure. Hydroxypropyl acrylate also posed a medium
              systemic hazard concern and clear concern for risk via inhalation.  Trimethylolpropane
              triacrylate did not have an appreciable vapor pressure and therefore did not pose a hazard
              or risk concern via inhalation. Both of these compounds had a medium aquatic hazard level,
              but neither had a cancer hazard rating.

              The two compounds analyzed  by the Structure Activity Team (SAT),  dipropylene glycol
              diacrylate and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, presented medium hazard and clear risk concern
              by both dermal and inhalation exposure routes. The two compounds presented moderate and
              high hazard levels, respectively, for aquatic effects, and both were expected to have a low-
              moderate hazard level for carcinogenic effects.

              Two compounds in this category, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate and hydroxypropyl acrylate, are
              regulated under TSCA.  In general,  these compounds presented a clear occupational risk
              concern but have not been well studied.

              Acrylated polymers
              These six compounds were used in UV-cured inks as  monomers and polymers.  One
              compound, glycerol propoxylate triacrylate, was determined based on lexicological data to
              have a medium systemic dermal hazard level, and because of its concentration in the
              formulations, presented a clear concern for dermal occupational risk. It also had a high
              aquatic hazard level.

              For each of Ihe olher five compounds, Ihe SAT found that they had a low-moderate dermal
              hazard level and a potential concern for dermal  occupational risk.   No  exposure via
              inhalation was expected. Of these compounds, trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate had
              a high aquatic hazard level, trimethylolpropane propoxylate triacrylate had a medium
              aquatic hazard level, and the other three — acrylated epoxy polymer, acrylated ologoamine
              polymer, and acrylated polyester polymer—had a low aquatic hazard level. All five of the
              SAT-evaluated compounds had a low-moderate cancer hazard level.
                                             __       ,      ,            ,
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              Aside from those that qualify as VOCs, none of the compounds are regulated under the
              federal regulations discussed in this report.

              Acrylic acid polymers
              Compounds in this category were used as additives in water-based inks. Four compounds,
              acrylic acid-butyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate styrene polymer, butyl acrylate-methacrylic
              acid-methyl methacrylate polymer, and acidic  acrylic acid polymers #1 and #2 were
              assigned low dermal hazard levels by the SAT and potential risk concern ratings. The other
              four compounds were assigned ratings of low-moderate hazard and potential concern for
              occupational risk via dermal exposure by the SAT. Five of the compounds — acidic acrylic
              acid polymers #1 and #2, styrene acrylic acid polymers #1 and #2, and styrene acrylic resin
              — were assigned medium aquatic hazard ratings and the other three compounds were
              assigned low ratings.  None of the compounds were known to present a cancer hazard, nor
              are they explicitly regulated under the federal regulations discussed in this report.

              Alcohols
              Alcohols were used in all three ink systems as solvents. All except tetramethyldecyndiol
              have received toxicological testing and had human health hazard and occupational risk
              concern via both dermal and inhalation exposure. Most compounds presented only low or
              medium hazard concern, but because of  their typically  high concentrations, their
              occupational risk ratings were higher. Three had a clear concern for inhalation risk (ethanol,
              isobutanol, and isopropanol), and two had a clear concern for dermal risk (ethanol and
              isopropanol).  Tetramethyldecyndiol, as determined by the SAT, had a medium aquatic
              hazard level; the other compounds had a low aquatic hazard level.

              Ethanol has been assigned by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as
              a Group 1 compound, indicating that it is carcinogenic to humans.  Propanol has been
              assigned as an EPA Group C compound, indicating that it is a possible human carcinogen.
              Isopropanol has been assigned as an IARC Group 3. compound, indicating that  its
              characteristics  with  respect to cancer  are not classifiable.   The evidence of the
              carcinogenicity of isopropanol in humans is inadequate, and in experimental animals it is
              inadequate or limited.

              Four compounds in this category have OSHA Personal Exposure Limits (PELs); for ethanol,
              it is 1,000 ppm; for  isobutanol, it is  100 ppm;  for isopropanol, it is 400 ppm; and for
              propanol it is 200 ppm. Three compounds are regulated by TSCA, and RCRA, CERCLA,
              and EPCRA regulations apply to one compound.

              Alkyl acetates
              The three compounds in this category were used as  solvents in solvent-based inks.  Butyl
              acetate and ethyl acetate have been subjected to toxicological testing. Like alcohols, they
              had fairly low human health hazard levels, but their relatively high concentrations in these
              inks caused both compounds to have a clear occupational risk concern Via inhalation
              exposure.  Butyl acetate also presented a clear concern for occupational risk via dermal
              exposure. Propyl acetate, which was studied by the SAT, was given low-moderate hazard
              and  potential  risk  concern levels  via both  exposure pathways.  All three compounds
              presented a medium aquatic hazard, and none were known to pose a cancer hazard.

              Butyl and ethyl acetate are regulated under CERCLA, TSCA, and have OSHA PELs of 150
              ppm and 400 ppm, respectively. In addition, butyl acetate is regulated under CWA and ethyl
              acetate is regulated under RCRA. Propyl acetate has an OSHA PEL of 200 ppm.
                                             8-47
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              Amides or nitrogenous compounds
              This is a broad category, incorporating compounds serving a variety of functions in all ink
              systems.   Four compounds — ammonia, ammonium  hydroxide, ethanolamine, and
              hydroxylamine derivative—presented a clear concern for occupational risk via both dermal
              and inhalation exposure routes. Ethanolamine also presented a high human health hazard
              for developmental effects by both exposure routes. In contrast, the other three compounds
              presented  low hazard and occupational risk  concern  levels.   Two compounds ^~
              hydrogenated tallow amides and ammonia — presented a high aquatic hazard, and three
              others—ammonium hydroxide, ethanolamine, and hydroxylamine derivative—presented
              a medium aquatic hazard concern. None of the compounds were known to present a cancer
              hazard.

              Ammonia  and ammonium hydroxide are subject to CWA, CERCLA, and EPCRA
              requirements, and ammonia is also subject to CAA, SARA, TSCA and has an OSHA PEL
              of 50 ppm. Ethanolamine has an OSHA PEL of 3 ppm, and urea is regulated under TSCA.
              Aromatic esters
              This category was comprised of two compounds found in UV-cured inks. Dicyclohexyl
              phthalate was an additive (a plasticizer)  and ethyl  4-dimethylaminobenzoate was  a
              photoinitiator. Dicyclohexyl phthalate has been subjected to lexicological testing and
              presented a low concern for both human health hazard and occupational risk, but a high
              concern for aquatic hazard. The other, ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate, was analyzed by the
              SAT and was given a low-moderate human health hazard level and a potential concern for
              risk via both dermal and inhalation pathways, a medium aquatic hazard level, and a low-
              moderate cancer hazard level.  Dicyclohexyl phthalate is regulated under CWA, CERCLA,
              and TSCA.

              Aromatic ketones
              The seven compounds in this category were used as photoinitators in the UV-cured inks of
              this CTSA.  One compound, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, presented a moderate
              hazard and a potential concern for risk via both inhalation and dermal exposure based on
              lexicological data. For the other compounds, the concern was limited to dermal exposure.
              2-methyl-4'-(melhyllhio)-2-morpholinopropiophenone presented moderate hazard concern
              and potential risk concern via dermal exposure based  on lexicological  dala. The olher
              compounds had  low human health hazard and low  or potential concern for dermal
              occupational risk.  2-Isopropyllhioxanlhone,  4-isopropylthioxanthone and Ihioxanlhone
              derivative were found by Ihe SAT to have a high aquatic hazard concern; Ihree olhers had
              a medium aquatic hazard concern. None of the compounds were known to present a cancer
              hazard or are explicilly regulated under Ihe federal regulations discussed in ihis document.

              Ethylene glycol ethers
              These compounds were used as solvents in water-based inks. Two compounds — butyl
              carbitol and elhyl carbilol — presenl a clear concern for occupational risk via bolh dermal
              and inhalation exposure based on lexicological data.  The three olher compounds  were
              analyzed by Ihe SAT. Elhoxylaled C11-C15 secondary alcohols was assigned a moderate
              hazard level and a clear concern for occupational risk via dermal exposure, and no inhalation
              exposure was expected. The olher Iwo compounds, elhyoxylaled tetramelhyldecyndiol and
              polyethylene glycol, were given ratings of moderate hazard and potential concern for dermal
              occupational risk. Elhoxylaled C11-C15 secondary alcohols presented a medium aquatic
              hazard; all others had a low aquatic hazard level. None of Ihe compounds were known to
              present a cancer hazard.
                              !      '•   !      8-48
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              Both butyl and ethyl carbitol are regulated under CAA, CERCLA? EPCRA, and TSCA.

              Hydrocarbons — high molecular weight
              The four compounds included in this category were used as additives in solvent- and water-
              based inks.  Based on toxicological data, solvent-refined light paraffinic distillates and
              paraffin wax were found to pose  a potential concern for  occupational risk by dermal
              exposure, and solvent-refined light paraffinic distillates also posed a potential concern for
              occupational risk by inhalation exposure. Hydrotreated light distillates were found by the
              SAT to present a potential concern for occupational risk by both' dermal and inhalation
              exposure.  Hydrotreated light distillates and mineral oil both presented high aquatic hazard,
              and hydrotreated light distillates and solvent-refined light paraffinic distillates have shown
              evidence of carcinogenicity in animals (but have not been evaluated formally by IARC or
              EPA).

              Mineral oil has been assigned an OSHA PEL of 5 mg/m3.

              Hydrocarbons —- low molecular weight
              The three compounds included in this category were found in solvent- and water-based inks
              and performed different functions. Heptane, though it posed only a low hazard concern for
              both dermal and inhalation exposure based on toxicological data, presented a clear concern
              for occupational risk via inhalation, in part because of its greater concentration in some
              formulations.  In contrast, styrene posed a high concern for developmental effects via
              inhalation  based on toxicological data, but its relatively low concentration resulted in just
              a rating of potential concern for risk via inhalation effects. Light aliphatic solvent naphtha
              was found to be a low-moderate hazard and a potential concern for occupational risk for
              both dermal  and inhalation exposure by the SAT. Heptane and styrene presented a high
              aquatic hazard concern, and light aliphatic solvent naphtha presented a medium aquatic
              hazard. There is evidence in animals that styrene may be carcinogenic, but it has not been
              evaluated by IARC or EPA.

              Two compounds are regulated under multiple federal acts.  Heptane is regulated under
              TSCA and has an OSHA PEL of 500 ppm. Styrene is regulated under CAA, CWA, SDWA,
              CERCLA, SARA, EPCRA, TSCA, and has an OSHA PEL of 100 ppm.

              Inorganics                       .
              The compounds in this category perform a diverse set of functions in solvent- and water-
              based inks and have all been subjected to toxicological testing.  One of the compounds,
              barium, is of particular concern. It had a high hazard concern for developmental effects via
              dermal exposure, and had a clear concern for occupational dermal risk. The other two
              compounds, kaolin and silica, had low human health hazard and occupational risk concern
              ratings, and all three compounds had low aquatic hazard ratings.  Two of the compounds
              may present a cancer hazard: amorphous silica is classified as an IARC Group 3 compound
              (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans), and kaolin has been reported to cause
              cancer in animals but has not been evaluated formally.

              Barium am' kaolin have OSHA PELs of 0.5 mg/m3 and 15 mg'.n3 (total dust), respectively.
              Barium is also regulated under RCRA, SDWA, SARA, and EPCRA.

              Olefin polymers
              The two compounds in this category, polyethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene, were used
              as additives (waxes) in solvent-based and UV-cured inks. Polytetrafluoroethylene presented
              low dermal hazard and risk concern based on toxicological information. Polyethylene was
                                            __
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              determined through SAT evaluation to have a low hazard and a low concern for dermal risk.
              Both have been studied by IARC for cancer hazards and found to be Group 3 compounds
              (not classifiable).  No inhalation exposure was expected from these compounds, both
              presented a low aquatic hazard, and neither is explicitly regulated under the federal acts
              discussed in this report.

              Organic acids or salts
              These compounds performed a variety of functions as additives in solvent- and water-based
              inks. Citric acid, the only compound for which lexicological data were available, presented
              low concern for human health hazard and occupational risk via dermal exposure. The other
              two compounds, dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt and methylenedisalicylic acid, were
              analyzed by the SAT and found to present low-moderate hazard and potential risk concern
              via dermal exposure.  All three presented  a moderate  aquatic hazard.   None of the
              compounds were expected to result in inhalation exposure, and none are explicitly regulated
              under the federal acts discussed in the CTSA.

              Organophosphorous compounds
              The three compounds included in this category were used  in solvent-based and UV-cured
              inks as either plasticizers or initiators and have been subjected to toxicological testing. One
              compound, bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphine  oxide, had  a
              moderate dermal hazard and a clear concern for occupational dermal risk. The other two,
              diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide and 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate,
              presented low and low-moderate dermal hazard, respectively, and a potential concern for
              occupational risk by dermal exposure. 2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate presented a high
              aquatic hazard and the other two presented a medium  aquatic hazard.   None of the
              compounds were expected to result in inhalation exposure.  One compound, 2-ethylhexyl
              diphenyl phosphate, is regulated under TSCA.

              Organotitanium compounds
              These three compounds were used in solvent-based inks as  additives (adhesion promoters).
              Each was studied by the SAT and found to have medium human health hazard and clear
              occupational risk concern levels for dermal exposure.  Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis
              (acetylacetonate) and titanium diisopropoxide bis (2,4-pentanedionate) presented a medium
              aquatic hazard concern.  Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis (acetylacetonate) also presented a
              low-moderate cancer hazard concern. Inhalation exposure was not expected from any of the
              compounds. None of the compounds are explicitly regulated under the federal regulations
              discussed in this document.

              Pigments — inorganic
              This category was comprised of two chemicals and was seen in all three ink systems.  C.I.
              Pigment White 6 had a low dermal hazard rating but a potential dermal risk concern rating
              based on toxicological data. C.I. Pigment White 7 was analyzed by the SAT and found to
              have a low-moderate hazard and a potential concern for risk via dermal exposure.  Both
              compounds had a low aquatic hazard rating, but C.I. Pigment White 6  has displayed
              evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Inhalation exposure was not expected from either
              of the compounds. C.I. Pigment White 6 has an OSHA PEL of 15 mg/m3 (total dust).

              Pigments — organic
              This  category was comprised of six compounds and were seen in all three ink systems.
              Toxicological data were available for only one compound, C.I. Pigment Red 23, which was
              found to have clear dermal concern. The other compounds in this category were analyzed
              by the SAT and found to have low or low-moderate human health hazard and low or
                                             __
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              potential concern for occupational risk. C.I. Pigment Blue 61 presented a medium aquatic
              hazard; the others had a low aquatic hazard concern. C.I. Pigment Yellow 14 was found to
              present a low-moderate cancer hazard concern. Inhalation exposure was not expected for
              any of these compounds, and none of the compounds are explicitly regulated under the
              federal regulations discussed in this document.

              Pigments — organometallic
              Nine organometallic pigments were used in all three ink systems. One compound, D&C Red
              No. 7, presented medium dermal systemic hazard and a clear concern for dermal risk based
              on lexicological data. One other compound subjected to lexicological testing, C.I. Pigment
              Green 7, presented a potential concern for dermal risk. Most of the other compounds, as
             ' determined by the SAT, presented low-moderate  dermal hazard and potential dermal
              occupational risk concern.  Most of the compounds had a medium or high aquatic hazard
              level, and all of the SAT-analyzed compounds presented a low-moderate cancer hazard.
              Inhalation exposure was not expected for any  of these  compounds, and none of the
              compounds are explicitly regulated under the federal regulations discussed in this document.

              Polyol derivatives
              These  compounds were used  in  solvent-based and UV-cured inks  as  resins.   For
              nitrocellulose, the SAT assigned a  low-moderate human health hazard  and a  potential
              concern for occupational risk by dermal exposure, and a low  aquatic hazard level. Polypi
              derivative A had low human health hazard and occupational risk concern ratings via dermal
              exposure and a low aquatic hazard rating. Inhalation exposure was not expected for either
              compound, and  neither of the  compounds  is  explicitly regulated under the federal
              regulations discussed in this document.              •                     _

              Propylene glycol ethers
              These compounds were used as solvents in solvent- and water-based inks, and have all been
              subjected to lexicological testing. Propylene glycol propyl elher, based on lexicological
              data, presented a moderate systemic human health hazard concern via both dermal and
              inhalation exposure  routes,  and had a  potential concern for dermal and inhalation
              occupational risk. Propylene glycol melhyl elher presented a low hazard co'ncern bul a clear
              concern for risk for bolh exposure palhways based on  lexicological dala.  Dipropylene
              glycol melhyl ether and propylene glycol methyl ether, presented a low hazard concern and
              a low  concern for occupational risk for bolh exposure palhways al Ihe concenlralions
              observed in the inks used in this CTSA. All Ihree compounds had a low aquatic hazard, and
              none were known to presenl a cancer hazard.

              Two compounds, dipropylene glycol melhyl elher and propylene glycol melhyl ether, are
              regulated under TSCA.  In addition, dipropylene glycol melhyl ether has an OSHA PEL of
               100 ppm.

              Resins
               Resins were found in solvenl- and water-based inks.  One compound, polymerized rosin,
               presented a low-moderate human health hazard and a potential risk concern as determined
               by Ihe SAT. All olher compounds in this category presented  low human health hazard and
               a low  concern for occupational risk for dermal exposure. One chemical — resin acids,
               hydrogenated, melhyl esters — had a high aquatic hazard rating, and acrylic resin had a
               medium aquatic hazard rating.  Acrylic resin also may pose a cancer hazard  based on
               evidence  of carcinogenicily in animals. Inhalation exposure v/as nol expected for any of
               Ihese compounds, and none of Ihe compounds are explicitly regulated under Ihe federal
               regulations discussed in this document
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
              Siloxanes
              These compounds are used in all three systems as additives (defoamers and wetting agents).
              Silicone oil, as determined through lexicological data, was anticipated to have moderate
              developmental hazard concern via dermal exposure, and a potential concern for dermal risk.
              Theothertwocompounds, l,l,l-trimethyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)-silanaminehydrolysis products
              with silica and dimethyl 3-hydroxypropyl methyl siloxanes and  silicones, ethers with
              polyethylene glycol acetate, were analyzed by the SAT and determined to have a low-
              moderate human health hazard  and a potential concern for dermal  risk.  All of the
              compounds had a low aquatic hazard rating, and none were known to present a cancer
              hazard.  No inhalation exposure is anticipated for any of these compounds. Silicone oil is
              regulated under TSCA.
                                             8-52
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES

w
11
ra E
3 S
g>'5
DC §f
oc


«
£
rv
U
U
O



P
S
TO





Inhalation
_
i
_o
"re
c
(g
S



0)
u

U
i
0)

Q 0
CO

Chemicals

i
w
>.
CO
Je:































S.
8.

h
•§

CO


o
1 —


Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
15625-89-5






^





























£2
o
>,
8.
73
£
(0
£^
^










0)
c
15
i


2
3


•§ E
(5 §
"O K
P s
1^
_J
1-
<
CO

^
Acrylated epoxy polymer8 CAS:










0)
c
15
!


s
^


4B £
m §
•Q cE
§ 8
j i<


*^
CO


Acrylated oligoamine polymer8
CAS: NA










d
15
1
Q.


5
3


•§ 'E
S S
-S c
g o
m
-

^
CO


Acrylated polyester polymer (#'s '
and2)e CAS: NA










d>
d

(0
0)
u


<
^







X
X
,°
H


Glycerol propoxylate triacrylate
52408-84-1










CD
C
18
1
Q.


<
3


"§ ^
m 8
u ^
p 8
iH
-

^
CO


Trimethylolpropane ethoxylate
triacrylate 28961-43-5










o>
c
18
c
"5
Q.


2
'5


S E


e §
h
^

^
CO


Trimethylolpropane propoxylate
triacrylate 53879-54-2






3
                                                   i .52 •§

                                                   Lit
                                                     .2
                                                     •
                                                   Lll
                                 8-53
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES









**">
tj
3
|
U
*?
rt
~?
u
*m
O
E
fi
O

m
Q
"w
CC

•g
X
O
i
E
3
(0
CO
1






T3
£g
||
CC

^
.2
CC
rn
c
2
CO
1
a









•s
3
»j*






O
la
(O



i
•8
tt
0
ro
?
c

!m
g
S

o
^
O

tS
a
m
II
Q O
CO



CO
s
O

g
CO
^^
J




































i
a
•o
crt
j.
I







CD
C



1








^









CO




Acrylic acid-butyl acrylate-methyl
methacrylate styrene polymer
27306-39-4








CD
C



1








^









CO


^>
CO
Acrylic acid polymer, acidic "(ffs 1
2)e CAS:NA








CD
C



1
5
a







i

ji








ci




Acrylic acid polymer, insoluble"
CAS: NA







o
c



1








^









OT


2*
•g CM
Butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-m
methacrylate polymer 25035-69-







CD
C



.2
c
CD
0
Q.







S
_j
_j








«




Styrene acrylic acid polymer (#'s
and2)e CAS:NA







O
C



1
S
8.







2
^
-1








1


^
z
Styrene acrylic acid resin0 CAS:




%
1







































CO
r
.c



111
CL
T
CO
O

CO
(11
O



CO



_l




^

Q.
Q
CD
&
<



I




in
"c
c
cc
X
u.
o
CO
1-
o
§g
rf^
O CO
cc O

CO
CD
u



"CO
1
a



2



<
g
_!i








2




Isobutanol 78-83-1
<
i
CO
O
g
p.
o:
O -J
a. uu
UJ O.

S
13



i
•5


_i
i



x
2
~*-
CO
Q
C3
O
S



2




Isopropanol 67-63-0


HI
Q.
1

i
§
_j


i
^
_j








%




|propyl acetate 109-60-4


^^
c
J
s>























,-


















8-54
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES

•o
^» *2

O 0)
*3 p
a £
If
cc

v
(0
£
1
'%.
3
u
O







•2







g
*•*
"co
1
Q
•g
_o
75

^
(Q


Q

en
o
n
O

o
S
a>
CO 0
15 3
Q 0
U)

Chemicals
E

tn


c

































)genous compounds
e
'c

o
CO
CD
T3
g
<











CD
C
5






H








1
cl


Amides, tallow, hydrogenated
61790-31-6

rf O
f]o

GC H

^ 0
0&iS
~ 
CO 5 3

































CD
•»)
CD
Q
05
c^
g
<

f^
CO
|


^
                                        !-«•
                                            iS
                                          c c» «
                                          ' =
ic
Hi
ot
isk c
fede
atio
ated
repr
M =
inf
                                 8-55
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES













v*
§
1
.0,
1
73
1
E
n>
JS
O
$



a*—
TJ
i

v-
£
0
Jj1
i
E
en
CO
Table 8.'







*B
^fc <^
u1 C
s |

y *3
iS or*
^


0
CO
E
"m
n

I





•o
X









§
1
jl
•H

i
i
i
a-
••£
C
Q
S
0
c
en
O

.Si
S
a
o)
3 E
Q O
CO



Chemicals
E
OJ
To
>>

c






































c/>
CD
o
Jb£
.P
ra














o
c:


1



^^
^








2


g
I—




2-Benzy[-2-(dimethylamino)-4'
morpholinobutyrophenone
119313-12-1













q
c


1



r--l
^1








5


b
CO


r?
to
1-Hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl k
947-19-3











CO
I
o
Q.

_
I
S.
<
^
^










_l


X
h-


CD
C
O
c
2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophe
7473-98-5












CD
C


1



	 |
"""I








I


b
CO


V
?
2-lsopropylthioxanthone 549












CD
C


1



	 1
**"1








X


fcF
CO


§
<9
4-lsopropyIthioxanthone 838^












CD
c:

M
1
t













2


g
h-




2-Methyl-4'-(methylthio)-2-
morpholinopropiophenone
71868-10-5












CD
d

"co
1


<


Jj







X


£
CO


<
CO
Thioxanthone derivative* CA





3






































2
a
f
£
CT
CD
(1

i












CD
d


CO
CD
O
^


^z
^








2


!^
CO




Alcohols, CH-15-secondary,
ethoxylated 68131-40-8
cc
o
Q.
UJ

c\
cv
cr
if
CM
~c
£
JC
I
£



,_

1






































- high molecular weight
(O
c
o
•p
CO
8

*











•S
s
a.

A
1
a.






_8
E o


-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES


w
O 0)
4-* p
— Q)
HI "~"
a g"

oy
CO
£
n
1
3
O
O
O







•s
IS
CO
X






o
1
_e
_
g
k.
Q
t
0
o
(0
£
C
"5
c
1


s
c
c5
o
M

O1
„ S
° w.






(0
Chemica

E
S
in










































- low molecular weight
CO
o
II Hydrocarb



H 1
O.
^
T
O
<
O

CO
CD
"o


%
o


<£
"Z.
_J


<
^







X

x
^







in
CNl
op
CD
c
CO
n
CD
C









CO
 CO
Q O
CC Q
0 DL
CC LU

CD
C


CO
CD
O






x
^







_J

x
H







o
2
1
CO
m







LU
D.
CO
O

CD
C


^
Q








21


« §
•— -2
«8


_i

x
H







CO
in
CO
c










CD
c











^
1

m
i-
p
C1)
i


_J

x
*~







o>
CO
CO
1
CO
f2
1
55


Is
si










































CO
CD
P
"5
a.
c
"S3
0










CD
C


^
Q








13

m
t
CD
i


_j

H
CO






'f
Polyethylene 9002-88










CD
c


^
Q







<
^

CO
i-
p
C1)
i


_1

X
H
o
••s-
°?
CM
O
O
0>

Polytetrafluoroethylene


"o >
CO =)










































&
CO
CO
o
CO
•a
|| Organic ac










CD
d


^
Q








^







2

x
H







cn
CNl
S
1
o
O










CD
d

To
c
CD
0
Q.






2
Ji







2

H
CO


CO
E

=5
CO
Dioctyl sulfosuccinate,
577-11-7










CD
d

"Jo
c
CD
Q.






5
Ji







2

H .
W






•a
Methylenedisalicylic ac
27496-82-8


o S
co 5
                                                *.'
                                              IS!
                                                        
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES













T?
3
S3
O
fe
&
8
la
1
2
u

13
Q
C/}

1
CO
•s
"o
E
1
n
CO
1







^"
m
•3
p>
CE



•v
CO
cc
"ca
c
m
n.
?,







E
i




































.9
cc
y
o

CO
1
c
CL












CD
C


1






^







•s.
§


Ic.l. Pigment Blue 61 1 324-76-1



Solvent












co
c


CO
CD
U





z







~*
1


Ic.l. Pigment Red 23 6471-49-4



1-












o
c


1






^







~*
'Sc
CO

9
Ic.l. Pigment Red 269 67990-05



>
D












CO
c


1






^







~*
i


Ic.l. Pigment Violet 23 6358-30-
















o
c

«
1
Q.




S
!j
-^
& s
4. 2 C
S CD O
5 TJ o
~~ o H-
E <
CO

"*
CO

^^
1
T—
1
o>
b-
<3















i
co
c


|






^







^
§

CM
|c.l. Pigment Yellow 74 6358-31













































-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
To
frS
O CD
tS E
3 £
0-5
cc g"
cc

•V
.2
cc
'm
=
f






p

CO
X





i
o
m
£

15
a
•s
o
1
s_
m
§
CD
Q


&
u
d
o
3
D
1
0
CO
Chemicals
E
1o -































- organometallic
II Pigments










CD
c

"co
§
o
Q.



2

j,

1 E

's i
IS

X

§

C.I. Basic Violet
1 .molybdatephosphate 67989-22-4










CD
C

«
0
8.



2
^
Ji

•2 E
o 8
'S §
Is.

X

S

C.I. Basic Violet 1, molybdate-
tungstatephosphate 1325-82-2










CD
C


J



<
£







_J

g

00
4
T-*
in
s
OQ
CD
O
h.
d










CD
C

ffl
Q.



<
^







_|

,8

C.I. Pigment Green 7 1328-53-6










CD
C

«
!



z

-J

f£
to 8
1 i
Is

5

S

1
|
00~
TO
CD
CC
_: to
d£










CD
C

T5
§
8.



z

-ll

i E

o I
is

5

CO

C.I. Pigment Red 48, calcium salt
(1:1) 7023-61-2










CD
C

•a
0
8.



i
^
ji

S E
2 g
i§ 8
Is

5

CO

C.I. Pigment Red 52, calcium salt
(1:1) 17852-99-2










0
c

•5
1



1
^
1

f s

"8 |
Is

i

i

C.I. Pigment Violet 27 12237-62-6










CD
C


CO
*




5







s

§

I
CO
CM
10
d
TJ
a
cc
c

1*5
S'l5































ivatives
0?










V
c

15
Q.



<
5
Z






_l

g

Nitrocellulose 9004-70-0










0)
c


*




^)







_1

CO

Polyol derivative A1 CAS: NA

•5 >
to :s































x:
Hi
"o
£
o>
_a
iL

_i
HI
Q_
*C
?n
0
<"
h

5 -
— •


1

-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES








•a
%
1
o
,0,
§>
6)
C3
O
s
0
ft

Q
0
rc
n
1
X
•5

E
E
3
w
CO






O 03
o E
3 S
S1"5
Iff
DC
%
1C
•8
§
I
o
S






•g
X





_o
en
£
—

"5
S
1=
£
'S
ra
c

£
a
t.
£
1

1
o
2 1
(0 3
Q 0
CO



Chemicals
E
S
ta
ft
4jj



































u
03
DC






03
C



I







^





_,

$




Fatty acid, dimer-based polyamide6
CAS: NA






CD
C



1







^





_J

CO


o
c
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with ethylenediamine,
hexamethylenediamine, and propio
acid 67989-30-4






03
C



1







^







•5




Resin acids, hydrogenated, methyl
esters 8050-15-5






03
c



1







^

8
i i
sl

•s.

£




i
1
•i
V
DC






03
C

















Z






Resin, miscellaneous8 CAS: NA






03
C



|







3





_,
~
§



—
Rosin, fumarated, polymer with
diethylene glycol and pentaerythritc
68152-50-1






03
C



1







1





_,

§



-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
•o
o o>
1 «

a §f
oc


(0
£
1
I
u
u
0







I
(0
zc





S
lalation
j=
"3
§
s
\
I
75
e
75
g

c
n
O
3
a
S
(0 Z3
O O
CO


Chemicals
E
5J
0)
>>
CO
j«;
JC



'
































i

CO
g
CO








d

!s
£
o>
ts
Q.





^









H
^^
CO

*2
ts
3
T3
^ 2
2: Q.
Silanamine, 1,1,1-trimethyl-
(trimethylsilyl) -, hydrolysis
with silica 68909-20-6





^
o
h
0)
c

«
V
ts
Q.





«|
^^








X
o
H"



Siliconeoil 63148-62-9








c:

73
1
tS
Q.




<
^
.i








I-
^^
CO

A
!•-
f *
e e
Siloxanes and silicones, di-
hydroxypropyl methyl, ethe
polyethylene glycol acetate
70914-12-4


"f™
CD Jn
>. -3
al?-
                               §.
                               fl
                               Q)
                               f
                           « 2
                           lti
                          £ V
only lists
ral infor
are estim
irst lett
L=
tion h
                                   ioll
                                  8-61
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
       Suggestions for Evaluating and Improving Flexographic Inks

               As this CTSA shows, several factors are involved in the selection of a flexographic ink.
               Because flexographic printing facilities are different, the criteria for identifying the best ink
               for each facility inevitably will vary. Therefore, the ultimate decision will have to be made
               based on considerations as they apply to the specific facility.

               Likewise, ink formulators will have different considerations.  In the process of improving
               the  performance of inks, formulators will encounter the opportunity to substitute ink
               components that pose health concerns with those that are safer for press workers and the
               environment.

               The following sections describe some of the steps that can help printers in identifying, and
               formulators in creating, safer flexographic inks. They range from steps that relate directly
               to information and ideas contained in the CTSA to those that will require processes outside
               of those considered in this analysis.

               Printers
               The selection of a specific ink is a complex process that is highly dependent on facility-
               specific factors. Some general considerations are presented below.

                   •   Know your inks: Evaluate your current ink system by considering all aspects of its
                      use, including performance, worker and environmental risk, and costs. You can use
                      this CTSA to determine whether chemicals present in your inks may present hazards
                      and risks to your workers and the environment. Consider that choices of an ink
                      system, and within that, the specific product lines and formulations, have many
                      implications, some of which you may not have considered in the past.  Another
                      important source that can help provide this information is your ink supplier, who
                      may be able to provide safety information specific to your inks.

                   • -  Consider alternatives: Use this CTSA to identify possibly safer ink alternatives and
                      to help you determine whether you are using the best, safest, and most cost effective
                      ink system for your facility's situation. You may also wish to discuss your options
                      with ink suppliers, trade associations, technical assistance providers, other printers,
                      and your customers.

                   •   Evaluate your current practices: Even if you are using the safest ink possible, you
                      may be increasing the risk to workers by using it  inefficiently.  As seen with the
                      solvent- and water-based inks in this CTSA, solvent and additives added at press
                      side increased the number of chemicals of clear worker risk. By minimizing or
                      eliminating the need for these materials — using enclosed doctor blades and ink
                      fountains, minimizing ink film thickness, and closely  monitoring ink pH and
                      viscosity — the risk to  workers can be reduced.  For presses with an oxidizer
                      system, it is important  to clean the catalyst when  necessary and  to keep the
                      equipment operating at the optimum temperature so that it destroys as much VOC
                      material as possible.

                   •   Protect workers:  Experienced and responsible employees are essential to a
                      successful printing operation. Maintain their health and motivation by maximizing
                      air quality and reducing the presence of hazardous materials. These steps may also
                      yield  savings with respect to regulatory and storage costs.  You can also protect
                      workers by ensuring that people who handle ink use gloves. Butyl and nitrile gloves
                                              __        ,
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
                      are considered best for inks, and will minimize exposure to chemicals that may pose
                      a health risk.

                  •   Look at all aspects of your printing operation: Though this CTSA focuses on ink,
                      several other steps in the flexographic printing process are sources of waste and
                      candidates for process improvement. Read Chapter 7: Additional Improvement
                      Opportunities for pollution prevention ideas that range from measures for particular
                      process steps to  facility-wide concepts.  Systematic approaches, such as an
                      Environmental Management System (EMS) or full-cost accounting, can help
                      flexographers identify areas for improvement in their management of resources.

               Ink Formulators and Suppliers
               Ink companies have several important resources at  their disposal: knowledgeable
               researchers, financial resources, and a communication network of sales representatives. Ink
               formulators have the ability to evaluate the feasibility of the substitution of different and
               safer chemicals, and can thoroughly test new formulations for performance characteristics.
               Supplier representatives have the ability to articulate the benefits of safer, better performing
               or less costly inks to printers.

                  •   Support environmental and health risk research: Research is needed on several
                      categories of chemicals:
                      <>   those that are not regulated and pose risks
                      <>   new chemicals (usually not regulated and not tested)
                         chemicals that have not undergone lexicological testing and have clear or
                          potential risk concerns
                      0   high production volume chemicals1

                      The point of such research is to ensure that the flexographic industry has access to
                      as much information as possible about the chemicals they work with. Information
                      is the most important key to improving inks.

                  •   Make improved ink safety a top  goal of research and development: The
                      flexographic  printing industry constantly  demands  new  inks that can  meet
                      increasing performance needs. In addition to performance research, ink formulators
                      can meet the needs of printers by looking for substitute ingredients that are less
                      harmful to workers and the environment.

                  •   Communicate the safety aspects of inks with printers: When sales representatives
                      discuss different ink options with printers, inform the printers of any improvements
                      in the environmental and worker risks associated  with each product line.  Because
                      inks with minimized environmental  and worker risk concerns can result in cost
                      savings as well as improved working conditions and less liability, printers may be
                      interested in this information.   Research has  indicated  that for  printers,
                      environmental and health risk issues are an important criteria when selecting an ink
                      —- second only to performance.9
               fHigh production volume (HPV) chemicals are manufactured in or imported into the United States in
               amounts greater than one million pounds per year. EPA has initiated a HPV Challenge Program to gather
               test data for all these organic chemicals (about 2,800). The CTSA includes 39 chemicals that appear on the
               HPV Challenge Program Chemical List.
                                       ,       ___       ,
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
REFERENCES

1.     Lodewyck, Paul. Progressive Ink Company. 2000. Personal Communication with Trey Kellett,
       Abt Associates Inc. March 26,2000.

2.     Mishan, EJ. Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Praeger, 1976.

3.     Unsworth, Robert E. and James E. Neumann.  1993. Industrial Economics, Inc. Memorandum to
       JimDeMocker, Office of Policy Analysis and Review. Review of Existing Value of Morbidity
       Avoidance Estimates:  Draft Valuation Document.  September 30, 1993.

4.     Tolley, G.S., et al. January 1986.  Valuation of Reductions in Human Health Symptoms and
       Risks. University of Chicago. Final Report for the U.S. EPA. As cited in Unsworth, Robert E.
       and James E. Neumann, Industrial Economics, Incorporated. Memorandum to Jim DeMocker,
       Office of Policy Analysis and Review. Review of Existing Value of Morbidity Avoidance
       Estimates: Draft Valuation Document. September 30, 1993.

5.     Dickie, M., et al.  September 1987. Improving Accuracy and Reducing Costs of Environmental
       Benefit Assessments. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.  Tolley, G.S., et al. Valuation of Reductions
       in Human Health Symptoms and Risks. January 1986. University of Chicago. Final Report for
       the U.S. EPA. As cited in Unsworth, Robert E. and James E. Neumann, Industrial Economics,
       Incorporated. Memorandum to JimDeMocker, Office of Policy Analysis and Review. Review of
       Existing Value of Morbidity Avoidance Estimates:  Draft Valuation Document. September 30,
       1993.

6.     Tolley, etal.

7.     Rowe, R.D. and L.G. Chestnut.  Oxidants and Asthmatics in Los Angeles: A Benefit Analysis.
       Energy and Resource Consultants, Inc. report to U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, EPA-230-
       07-85-010. Washington, DC March 1985. Addendum March 1986.  As cited in Unsworth,
       Robert E. and James E. Neumann, Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Memorandum to Jim
       DeMocker, Office of Policy Analysis  and Review, Review of Existing Value of Morbidity
       Avoidance Estimates: Draft Valuation Document. September 30,1993.

8.     Chris Patterson, Flint Ink. Written comments to Karen Doerschug, U.S. EPA, July 6,2000.

9.     ICF Consulting. 2000. Internal document for the EPA Design for the Environment Project.
       January 18,2000.
                                            8-64
-------