xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
(7046)
EPA 744-R-95-008
July 1996
Cleaner Technologies
Substitutes Assessment:
Lithographic Blanket Washes
DRAFT
Developed by the Design for the Environment Program
in Cooperation with:
The University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean
Technologies,
Printing industries of America,
Environment Conservation Board of the Graphic Communications
Industry, and
The Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
IIBil
sr
U.S.EPA
-------
For More Information
To learn more about the Lithography Project of EPA's Design for the Environment Program
or to obtain this document or additional information on other related materials, please contact:
EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (3404)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-1023
Fax: (202) 260-0178
Or visit the Design for the Environment Program World Wide Web Homepage at:
HTTP://es.inel.gov/dfe ,
DRAFT
-------
Disclaimer
i :ซ '.:.-.. \ .', ' ; ' . ' -.'.. . :
-,!Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Lithographic Blanket Washes is in draft
form, should not be quoted or cited, and has not been subjected to required EPA policy or
technical reviews. The final .version of this document is expected to be released in late 1996.
Information on cost and product usage in this document was provided by individual product
vendors and has not been independently corroborated by EPA. The use of specific trade names
or the identification of specific products or processes in this document are not intended to
represent an endorsement by the EPA or the U.S. Government. Discussion of federal
environmental statutes is intended for information purposes only; this is not an official guidance
document and should not be relied on by companies in the printing industry to determine
applicable regulatory requirements.
in
DRAFT
-------
Preface
This draft Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment; Lithographic Blanket Washes is
being released for public comment. Comments are welcome on all aspects of the assessment and
should be received no later than September 23, 1996. Mail all comments to :
Jed Meline
Design for the Environment Program (Mail Code 7406)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
iv
DRAFT
-------
Acknowledgements
A special thanks is extended to Thomas Purcell, Printing Industries of America (PIA), Mark
Nuzzaco of the Environmental Conservation Board of the Graphics Communications Industry
(ECB), Stu McMichael of Custom Print in Arlington, VA, and Bob Peters of the Sun Chemical
Company, for their extensive efforts in the Design for the Environment Lithography Project.
This document was also developed in cooperation with the University of Tennessee Center
for Clean Products and Clean Technologies; much gratitude to Lori Kihcaid and Dean Menke for
their active participation and useful advice.
We appreciate the efforts of the Technical Review Team for their helpful comments and
reviews of individual segments of this document as well as the completed draft.
-- Technical Review Team -
Mr. Buck Burgess
Former Plant Supervisor
Colortone Press
Mr. James G. Crawford
Environmental Engineer, Air Management
State of Wisconsin,
Dept. of Natural Resources
Mr. Francis Del Bianco
Former Superintendent of Offset Printing
Government Printing Office
Mr. C.R. Gasparrini
Baldwin Graphic Products
Mr. Carl Gierke
Rock-Tenn Co.
Ms. Debbie Hoppe
Chemist
Printex Products Corporation
Mr. Paul Jadrich
Director of Research & Development
Siebert Inc.
Mr. Gary Jones
Manager, Office of Environmental
Information
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Ms. Lori Kincaid
University of Tennessee/
Center for Clean Products
Technologies
and Clean
Mr. Barry Kronman
Executive Vice President
Printers Service
Mr. Gary F. Legrand
Regulatory Affairs Manager
3M Printing & Publishing, Systems Division
Mr. John MacPhee
Vice President, Research & Development
Baldwin Graphic Products
Mr. Rick Principato
Manufacturer Pressroom Products
Tower Products
Mr. Richard P. Rodgers
Research Manager
Polyfibron Technologies, Inc.
Mr. Dennis Ryan
Marketing Manager
Varn Products Company, Inc.
Mr. Karl Shoettle
V.P. of Sales, Specialty Group
Quebecor Printing, Inc.
Mr. Rudy Valenta
National Product Manager
Sheetfed Press Systems
MAN Roland Inc., Sheetfed Press Division
Ms. Catherine Zeman
Program Manager
Iowa Waste Reduction Institute
University of Northern Iowa
DRAFT
-------
Participating Suppliers
We would like to thank the suppliers for their participation in the Design for the
Environment Lithography Project. .These companies donated the products and the necessary
information to make this assessment possible. These suppliers can be contacted through the
information given below. , . , .
AM Multigraphics
Mr. William Murphy
1800 W. Central Rd.
Mt Prospect, IL 60056
Phone: (847)375-1700
Anchor/Lithkemko
Mr. Ray Brady
50 Industrial Loop North
Orange Park, FL 32073
Phone: (904) 264-3500
Ashland Chemical, Inc.
Mr. Kevin Callaway
1817 1/2 West Indiana Ave.
South Bend, IN 46613
Phone: (219) 233-0033
Dupont Printing and Publishing
Mr. Bob Marinelli
1515 South Garnet Mine Rd.
Boothwyn, PA 19061
Phone: (610) 388-5369
Environmental Scientific, Inc.
Mr. William H. Wadlin
P.O. Box 13486
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: (919) 941-0847
Environmental Solvents Corp.
Mr. Steven T. McLane
1840 Southside Blvd.
Jacksonville, FL 32216
Phone: (904) 354-1990
Fine Organics Corporation
Mr. Lew Goldberg
205 Main Street
P.O. Box 687
Lodi, NJ 07644
Phone: (312) 568-8000
HMI Environmental Products
Mr. Gerry Kuts-Cheraux
1609 Landquist Dr.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Phone: (619) 476-7560
Hurst Graphics, Inc.
Mr. Arpie Korkin
2500 San Fernando Rd.
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Phone: (213) 223-4121
Inland Technology, Inc.
Mr. Eric Lethe
401 E. 27th Street
Tacoma, WA 98421
Phone: (206)383-1177
Phone: (800) 552-3100
Mac Dermid, Inc.
Mr. Brad Miller
245 Freight Street
Waterbury, CT 06702
Phone: (202) 575-5629
Printex Products Corporation
Ms. Debbie Hoppe
Chemist
333 Hollenbeck St.
Rochester, NY 14603
Phone: (716) 336-2305
Prisco/Printers' Service, Inc.
Mr. Barry Kronman
26 Blanchard Street
Newark, NJ 07105
Phone: (201) 589-7800
RBP Chemical Corporation
Mr. Michael A. Mohs
150 South 118th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53214
Phone: (414) 258-0911
vi
DRAFT
-------
Participating Suppliers (continued)
Rycoline Products
Mr. James K. Whitehead
5540 Northwest Highway
Chicago, IL 60630
Phone: (312) 775-6755
Siebert, Inc.
Mr. Paul Jadrich
8134 West 47th Street
Lyons, IL 60534
Phone: (708) 442-2010
Tower Products, Inc.
Mr. Rick Principato
P.O. Box 3070
Palmer, PA 18043
Phone: (800) 527-8626
Unichema International, N.A.
Mr. David Wolff
Ms. Debbie Dempsey
Mr. Marco Karman (The Netherlands)
4650 South Racine Ave.
Chicago, IL 60609
Phone: (312) 376-9000
Witco
Mr. Patrick Kilbain
1 American Lane
Greenwich, CT 06831
Phone: (203) 552-3426
vii
DRAFT
-------
Participating Printing Companies
The performance demonstration was successful due to the voluntary participation and
cooperation of lithographic printing facilities. Thanks to the following PIA affiliates for helping
identify participating printing companies.
Stig Bolgen, Printing Industries of New England
John Harkins, Printing and Graphic Communication Association
Art Stowe, Printing Industries of Maryland
Alden-Hauk, Inc.
Mr. Tony Impemba
68 Vine Street
Everett, MA 02149
Arthur Blank & Co.
Mr. Larry Grant
225 Rivermoor Street
West Roxbury, MA 02149
Blue Hill Press
Mr. Paul Lauenstein
540-A Turnpike Street
Canton, MA 02021
Cavanaugh Press, Inc.
Mr. Joe Lynch
8960 Yellow Brick Road
Baltimore, MD 21237
Chesapeake Photo Engraving
Mr. Bruce lannatuono
1107 E. Fayette Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Colortone Press, Centre Point II
Mr. Bob Simpson
1017 Brightseat Road
Landover, MD 20785
D.S. Graphics, Inc.
Mr. Jay Pallis
120 Stedman Street
Lovell, MA 01851-2797
Economy Printing Company
Mr. Larry Smith
7837 Ocean Gateway
Easton, MD 21601
Finch Engraving Co., Inc.
Mr. David Finch
368 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
Hamilton Printing
Mr. Robert Hamilton
549 Park Avenue
Portsmouth, RI 02871
Lavingne Press, Inc.
Mr. Ken LaFleche
10 Coppage Drive
Worcester, MA 01603
Lettercomm, Inc.
Mr. Al Harris
310 Swann Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22301
Printing by Yazge
Mr. Ken Yazge
3407 8th Street, NE
P.O. Box 29048
Washington, DC 20017
PS Graphics Inc.
Mr. Paul Stotler
21 Fontana Lane
P.O. Box 70001
Baltimore, MD 21237
Queen City Printers, Inc.
Mr. Alan Schillhammer
7O1 Pine Street, P.O. Box 756
Burlington, VT 05402-0756
Trutone Press
Mr. Bill Beall
1015 Brightseat Road
Landover, MD 20785
W.E. Andrews Company
Mr. Steve Wellenbach
140 South Road
Bedford, MA 01730
viii
DRAFT
-------
The following members of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Staff and EPA
Workgroup are primarily responsible for the information collected in this document.
DfE Staff:
Stephanie Bergman Jed Meline
EPA Workgroup:
David Fuhs
Robert Boethling
Richard Clements
James Darr
Susan Dillman
Gail Froiman
Sondra Hollister
Susan Krueger
Fred Metz
Paul Quillen
Monica Sweet
Hank Topper
Pauline Wagner
This document was prepared under EPA Contract 68-D2-0064, Work Assignment 4-07,
by ICF Incorporated of Fairfax, VA, under the direction of Roberta Wedge. The EPA Work
Assignment Manager was Jed Meline.
The Performance Demonstration was conducted by Abt Associates of Cambridge, MA,
under the direction of Cheryl Keenan.
IX
DRAFT
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i..... i ............... ES-1
Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1-1
1.1.1 Design for the Environment Lithography Project . 1-1
1.1.2 Document Overview ; 1-2
1.1.3 DfE Lithography Project Methodology :. . 1-3
1.2 OVERVIEW OF LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING . 1-7
1.2.1 Products Printed ........ . . .' '..:.' 1-7
1.2.2 Printing Mechanism ...v 1-7
1.2.3 Types of Lithography ,...,...;...... 1-8
1.2.4 Blanket Washing -;.;-.. 1-8
1.3 PROFILE OF THE BLANKET WASH USE CLUSTER > 1-9
1.3.1 Traditional Blanket Washes ...... 1-9
1.3.2 Alternative Blanket Washes 1-9
1.4 MARKET PROFILE 1-10
1.4.1 Blanket Wash Market .........:.. 1-10
1.4.2 Blanket Wash Manufacturers 1-11
1.4.3 Blanket Wash Components ... b 1-12
1.4.4 Market Conditions ....:. I '.'..' '.. . . .'......... 1-14
1.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY - AUTOMATIC BLANKET WASHERS 1-14
Chapter 2 Data Collection 2-1
2.1 CATEGORIZATION OF BLANKET WASH CHEMICALS FOR GENERICIZING
FORMULATIONS 2-1
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION 2-3
2.2.1 Chemical Properties and Information 2-3
2.2.2 Safety Hazard Factors 2-6
2.2.3 Chemical Properties and Information Summaries 2-8
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION . . 2-39
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION . . 2-52
2.4.1 Methodology 2-52
2.4.2 Results . . ; . 2-53
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS ..,.,....:... 2-59
2.6 SAFETY HAZARD BY FORMULATION ; 2-64
Chapter 3 Risk ;. .-... . . 3-1
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES . 3-1
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 3-8
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES . 3-19
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 3-37
3.4.1 Background 3-37
3.4.2 Ecological Risk ..:.....-... 3-40
3.4.3 Occupational Risks 3-44
3.4.4 General Population Risks :....................... 3-62
3.5 PROCESS SAFETY CONCERNS , : :, . . 3-66
DRAFT
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Chapter 4 Competitiveness 4-1
. 4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA . . . 4-1
4.1.1 Background 4-1
4.1.2 Methodology . 4-2
4.1.3 Data Collection, Summary and Analysis ..'.:. ..-.- 4-4
4.1.4 Limitations 4-5
. 4.1.5 Blanket Wash Summaries 4-8
4.2 BLANKET WASH COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 4-81
4.2.1 General Description of Costing Methodology 4-81
4.2.2 Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach . 4-87
4.2.3 Example Calculation 4-92
4.2.4 Blanket Wash Cost Analysis Results 4-93
4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES . 4-122
4.3.1 International Trade of Petroleum-based Blanket Washes ............. 4-122
4.3.2 International Trade of "Low VOC" Blanket Washes 4-123
.4.3.3 Joint Ventures Impacting the International Trade of Blanket Washes 4-123
Chapter 5 Conservation 5-1
5.1 ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DURING THE BLANKET WASHING
PROCESS . . 5-1
5.2 ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION BASED ON CHEMICAL
COMPOSITION, FORMULATIONS AND PACKAGING . 5-3
5.3 COMPARISON OF LIFE-CYCLE TRADE-OFF ISSUES 5-4
Chapter 6 Additional Improvement Opportunities 6-1
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES 6-1
6.1.1 Summary of Responses to Workplace Practices Questionnaire 6-1
6.1.2 Workplace Practices 6-3
6.1.3 Conclusions 6-8
6.2 RECYCLE OPPORTUNITIES .-. 6-9
6.2.1 Solvent Recovery from Press Wipes 6-9
6.2.2 Methods of Solvent Recycling 6-11
Chapter 7 Evaluating Trade-off Issues 7-1
7.1 FINDINGS ....:. . 7-1
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS .......; 7-10
7.2.1 Introduction 7-10
7.2.2 Benefit/Cost Methodology . 7-15
7.2.3 Potential Benefits . . 7-19
7.2.4 Associated Costs .'. 7-22
7.2.5 Costs and Benefits by Formulation . 7-22
7.2.6 Potential Benefit of Avoiding Illness Linked to Exposure to Chemicals
Commonly Used in Blanket Washing -..-. 7-23
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE 7-26
APPENDIX A. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY . . . : A-1
APPENDIX B. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS . B-1
APPENDIX C. LITHOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION METHODLOGY C-1
APPENDIX D. PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION OBSERVER SHEETS D-1
APPENDIX E. CATEGORIZATION FOR LITHOGRAPHIC BLANKET WASHES E-1
APPENDIX F. COST OF ILLNESS VALUATION METHODS F-1
XI
DRAFT
-------
List of Tables
Page
1-1. Lithographic Blanket Wash Manufacturers 1-12
1-2. Blanket Wash and Roller Wash Components 1-13
2-1. Categorization of Blanket Wash Chemicals ....:... 2-2
2-2. Glossary of Chemical Properties Terms ; 2-4
2-3. Chemicals in Blanket Wash Formulations ..;..... 2-8
2-4. Human Health Hazard Summary 2-41
2-5. Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values of Blanket Wash Chemicals Based on SAR Analysis
(mg/L) . . , 2-54
2-6. Environmental Hazard Ranking of Blanket Wash Chemicals ........................ 2-56
2-7. Blanket Wash Use Cluster Chemicals Which Trigger Federal Environmental Regulations . . . 2-59
2-8. Safety Hazard Factors for Blanket Wash Formulations 2-66
3-1. Environmental Releases: Lithographic Blanket Washes . . . 3-5
3-2. Inhalation and Dermal Exposures: Lithographic Blanket Washes 3-8
3-3. Single Facility 100 Meter Air Concentrations and Residential Population Potential Dose
Rates 3-22
3-4. Denver Average Air Concentrations and Residential Population Potential Dose Rates 3-25
3-5. Stream Concentrations and Residential Population Potential Doses from Single Facility
Blanket Wash Releases ... 3-30
3-6. Stream Concentrations and Residential Population Potential Dose Rates from Denver
Lithography Blanket Wash Releases ,, 3-34
3-7. Risks to Aquatic Species from Blanket Wash Chemicals 3-41
3-8. Worker Occupational Risk Estimates 3-45
3-9. Occupational Risks Summarized by Formulation 3-51
3-10. General Population Risk Estimates for Drinking Water, Fish Ingestion, and
Inhalation ; 3-62
4-1 Blanket Wash Laboratory Test Results 4-6
4-2. Summary of Blanket Wash Performance Demonstrations 4-9
4-3. Substitute Blanket Washes, Manufacturer Pricing 4-83
4-4. Summary of Cost Analysis for Blanket Wash Performance Demonstrations 4-84
4-5. Calculation of Average Hourly Rate 4-89
5-1. Summary of Trade-Offs When Considering Energy Consumption and Natural Resources
Use 5-5
6-1. Blanket Washing Activities to Prevent Pollution 6-2
6-2. Effects of Pollution Prevention Activities 6-2
6-3. Alternative Blanket Washing Products Implemented or Tested by Printers 6-3
6-4. Benefits of Raising Employee Awareness 6-5
6-5. Materials Management and Inventory Practices and Their Benefits 6-5
6-6. Process Improvements and Their Benefits 6-6
6-7. Waste Management Workplace Practices and Benefits . 6-7
6-8. Waste Management Practices for Waste Blanket Wash 6-8
6-9. Waste Management Practices for Reusable Shop Towels 6-9
xii
DRAFT
-------
List of Tables (continued)
7-1. Summary of Risk Conclusions of Substitute and Baseline Blanket Wash Cleaners ........
7-2. Relative Flammability Risk of Substitute and Baseline Blanket Washes
7-3. VOC Content of the Substitute and Baseline Blanket Washes ,....:
7-4. Blanket Wash Laboratory Test Results
7-5. Summary of Cost Analysis for Blanket Wash Performance Demonstrations .
7-6. Glossary of Benefit/Cost Analysis Terms . . .
7-7. Costs and Benefits of Baseline and Substitute Blanket Washes
7-8. Relative Benefits and Costs of Substitute versus Baseline Blanket Wash
7-9. Estimated Willingness-to-Pay to Avoid Morbidity Effects for One Symptom Day (1995 dollars)
Page
7-2
. 7-5
7-7
7-8
7-11
7-14
7-16
7-24
7-26
List of Figures
3.1 Material Balance
Page
. 3-2
4.1 Blanket Wash Costs Changes Arranged by Lowest to Highest VOC Content of Formulation . 4-87
4.2 Cost Difference Between Alternative and Baseline Blanket Washes 4-88
XIII
DRAFT
-------
-------
Executive Summary
I. INTRODUCTION
The Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA): Lithographic Blanket
Washes is a technical report that presents the performance, cost and risk information developed
by the EPA Design for the Environment (DfE) Lithography Project on 37 blanket washes solutions
(36 substitute washes and a baseline wash) that are used to remove ink and debris from the
printing press rollers. The assessment focuses on small print shops that use sheetfed, non-heat
set lithographic presses less than 26 inches wide and that clean their presses manually. It
includes all the technical information gathered during the Project, including the methodologies
used to develop the performance, cost, and environmental information.
The goal of the DfE Lithography Project is to work with the printing industry to develop a
comparative assessment of blanket washes used by lithographers. The assessment is intended
to provide lithographers with information that can assist them in making decisions that
incorporate environmental concerns along with cost and performance information when
purchasing blanket washes. Although the Lithography Project was designed to assist small
printers who may have limited time or resources to compare blanket washes, the primary
audience for the CTSA is environmental health and safety personnel, chemical and equipment
manufacturers and suppliers in the lithographic printing industry, and other technically informed
decision makers. The information contained in the CTSA will form the basis of a variety of user-
friendly information products designed specifically for small business printers who are interested
in choosing a new blanket wash. These products will include case studies, bulletins, and
brochures.
The information in the CTSA was developed from a variety of sources. Data on
performance and cost were derived from real world performance demonstrations conducted both
in the laboratory and in actual printing facilities. The laboratory tests provided information on
the chemical characteristics of the blanket washes such as blanket swell and wipability.
Demonstrations at print shops provided field data for the performance and cost assessments.
Exposure, hazard, and risk assessments for the chemical components of the blanket washes were
made by the EPA based on available data and modeling where data were not available. All
assumptions used in developing the information in the CTSA, such as number of blankets per
press, size of each blanket, or amount of wash used, were reviewed by representatives of the
printing industry.
II. DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT LITHOGRAPHY PROJECT
The DfE Lithography Project is a joint effort of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) and The University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, in a
voluntary and cooperative partnership with the Printing Industries of America (PIA), the
Environmental Conservation Board of the Graphic Communications Industry (ECB), and the
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF). The DfE Program began working with the printing
industry in 1992, when the PIA requested EPA's assistance in evaluating environmental claims
for products.
The DfE Lithography Project partners chose to compare the environmental and human
health risks of manual blanket washing because traditionally these products are petroleum-based
solvents with a high volatile organic compound (VOC) content. For example, a commonly used
ES-1
*DRAFT**
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What is the Design for the Environment Program ?
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program
harnesses EPA's expertise and leadership to facilitate
information exchange and research on risk reduction and
pollution prevention efforts. DfE works with businesses on a
voluntary basis, and its wide-ranging projects include:
Assisting businesses in incorporating environmental
concerns into decision-making processes.
Working with specific industries to evaluate the, risks,
performance, and costs of alternative chemicals, processes,
and technologies.
Helping individual businesses undertake environmental
design efforts through the application of specific tools and
methods.
DfE partners include:
Industry
Professional Institutions
Academia
Environmental Groups
Public Interest Groups
Other Government Agencies
solvent is VM&P naphtha, which is
100 percent volatile. The high
VOC-content blanket washes
currently used by many printers
may pose a potential risk to
workers' health and to the
environment. In addition, VOCs
have been implicated in the
formation of ground level ozone.
As a result of the potential adverse
effects that may result from the
release of VOCs from blanket
washes and from other
applications, the EPA and some
states are considering regulations
that may impose restrictions on
the use and emissions of products
containing VOCs and Hazardous
Air Pollutants (HAPs). Many states
have already implemented
regulations aimed at reducing VOC
emissions even from small
printers. The DfE Lithography
Project partners hope that helping
printers, large and small, identify
effective and competitively-priced
blanket washes with lower VOC
content will result in improved air
quality in both printing facilities
and in the ambient air.
The project partners decided that the DfE Lithography Project would focus on the concerns
of small printers. Unlike many large printers who may have staff that are familiar with, or have
access to, current information about new and developing products and technologies, most smaller
printers are unlikely to have the staff, time, or resources to investigate the latest innovations. To
respond to the concerns of these smaller printers, the DfE Lithography Project partners agreed
that the primary goal of the project would be the assessment of manual blanket washes as they
are typically used in smaller print shops.
In order to be evaluated by the Project, the blanket washes had to meet several criteria:
(1) they needed to be commercially available, (2) they had to be voluntarily donated by the
supplier, and (3) the complete formulations had to be disclosed to EPA for risk assessment
purposes (although the exact composition was treated as confidential by EPA and not disclosed
to printers or other outside parties). In all, 36 blanket washes and VM&P naphtha (baseline),
donated by 19 suppliers, were included in the Project.
To provide a basis for comparison among the blanket washes, a baseline blanket wash was
selected. VM&P naphtha, which is composed of 100 percent light aliphatic solvent naphtha, was
chosen as the baseline because the Project partners believed that most printers would already be
familiar with how VM&P naphtha performs and that it would be a useful point of reference for the
evaluation of the substitute washes. VM&P naphtha is highly effective in cleaning blankets and
relatively inexpensive and, therefore, provides an excellent standard against which to compare the
cost and performance of the substitute blanket washes.
'DRAFT*
ES-2
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
III. CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT
Summary of Results
Based on the hazard and exposure information collected and analyzed for the blanket washes, risk
estimates were determined for both the general population, i.e., people living near a printing facility who
may be exposed to contaminated air or water, as well as for workers at the printing facilities. Risk
estimates associated with the chemicals in the blanket washes were negligible for the general population.
Twenty-seven of the 37 blanket washes had some occupational risks associated with them, primarily from
dermal exposure. Possible adverse effects from dermal exposure (and some inhalation exposure) included
blood abnormalities, reproductive/developmental problems, or the presence of carcinogens. Proper
protective equipment would substantially reduce or eliminate these risks to workers.
Prior to demonstration of the blanket washes in a print shop, the 36 substitute blanket washes were
tested in the laboratory for blanket swell potential and wipability. Of the 36 washes, 22 were deemed to
be satisfactory for demonstrations at volunteer printing shops (two shops demonstrated each blanket wash).
The results of the performance demonstrations were highly variable between the two print shops using a
particular blanket wash and among the many blanket washes themselves. Performance varied to a great
extent based on the amount of ink coverage. Excluding trials with heavy ink coverage, eleven washes gave
good or fair performances at both facilities, seven washes gave good or fair performance at one facility but
not the other, and the remaining four washes performed poorly at both facilities.
The costs of using the substitute blanket washes were also highly variable even when normalized
for costs such as wages, number of blankets cleaned, etc. Compared with the use of the baseline, VM&P
naphtha, most of the substitute blanket washes resulted in increased costs; however, five blanket washes
did result in lower costs for at least one pf the demonstration facilities, and one resulted in lower costs at
both facilities. The cost of using the blanket wash was most dependent on the amount of time required
to clean the blanket. This cost was likely higher due to the press operators' lack of familiarity with the new
products.
Data Collection
Determining the risks of. the substitute blanket washes required information on the
chemicals in each blanket wash formulation (a blanket wash is usually a mixture of several
chemicals including solvents, the exact chemicals and their proportions define the formulation).
Specifically, each blanket wash formulation was broken down, into its chemical components, and
data were gathered on each individual chemical. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the
formulations, EPA genericized the specific chemicals in the formulations into chemical categories
(Chapter 2, Section 1). For example, if a formulation contained dodecyl benzenesulfonic acid or
sodium xylene sulfonate, both of these chemicals were designated by the chemical category alkyl
benzene sulfonates. Similarly, if one formulation contained solvent naphtha and another
formulation contained xylene, both of these chemicals would be categorized as aromatic
hydrocarbons. Although the actual percentage of each component in the mixture was used in the
assessment, this information was not provided in the CTSA to maintain the confidentiality of the
proprietary formulations. The actual composition of the formulations was thus kept confidential
while still providing an indication of the type of chemical that could pose a hazard.
Chemical Information
For each of the 56 chemicals included in the 37 blanket wash formulations, the chemical
properties and selected environmental fate properties were determined and are presented in
Chapter 2, Section 2. Properties that were measured or estimated (using a variety of standard
EPA methods) included melting point, solubility, vapor pressure, soil sorption coefficient, octanol
ES-3
"DRAFT"
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Considerations
There are limitations associated with the analysis that was conducted in the project.
Some of the global limitations are listed below, other limitations, specific to a particular portion of
the assessment, are given in the applicable sections.
This assessment focuses on the use of manual blanket washes in small lithographic
printing facilities using only one press with four color units. Exposure estimates related
to blanket wash use in larger facilities may be higher.
The exposure and risk estimates reflect a small portion of the potential exposures within
a lithographic printing facility. Many of the chemicals found in these formulations may
also be present in the inks or other cleaning solvents used in a shop. Incremental
reduction of exposures from blanket wash use will reduce cumulative exposures from all
sources in a printing facility.
The risks associated with volatile organic compound (VOC) releases were not examined
in this assessment. Because VOC releases are a driving factor behind current regulations
affecting printers, VOC content for the formulations are given at the request of industry
participants. The concerns associated with VOC releases are addressed by federal, state,
and local regulations and were not re-evaluated here.
The regulatory information contained in the CTSA may be useful in moving away from
chemicals that trigger compliance issues, however this document is not intended to
provide compliance assistance. If the reader has questions regarding compliance
concerns they should contact their federal, state, or local regulatory authorities.
" The 37 blanket wash formulations assessed in this report were voluntarily submitted by
participating suppliers and are not fntended to be representative of the entire blanket
wash market.
The performance and cost data are not based on rigorous scientific studies. This
information is subjective and is based on limited data points.
Screening-level risk characterization techniques were used. The risk characterization
results, therefore, contain limitations regarding confidence.
water partition coefficient, boiling point, and flash point. Presentation of these properties allows
for the determination of the environmental fate of these chemicals when they are released to the
various media such as landfills, publicly-owned treatment works, surface waters, and soil.
Health Hazard Assessments
Inherent in determining any risk associated with these chemicals is a determination of the
hazard or toxicity of the chemical as presented in Section 2.3. Many of the chemicals in the
blanket wash formulations have been studied to determine their health effects. In order to
determine those chemicals for which testing data were available, literature searches were
conducted of on-line databases including the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the
National Library of Medicine's Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), TOXLINE, TOXLIT,
GENETOX, and the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS).
'DRAFT*
ES-4
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For many of the chemicals, EPA has identified chemical concentrations that are known to
be hazardous (e.g., no- or lowest-observed adverse effect level {NOAEL or LOAEL]) or levels that
are protective of human health (reference concentration or reference dose). These values were
taken from published literature. For those chemicals lacking toxicity data, EPA's Structure-
Activity Team estimated human health concerns based on analogous chemicals. The adverse
effects associated with these chemicals include cancer, chronic effects on various organs such as
the liver or kidney, effects on developing fetuses, genetic mutations or aberrations, gastrointestinal
effects, effects on blood, nervous system, and respiratory system, and effects on the reproductive
capabilities of males or females. The toxicity values, route of exposure, and adverse effects for
each chemical are listed in Table 2-3. This information is combined with estimated exposure
levels to develop an estimate of the risk associated with each chemical.
Ecological Hazard Assessments
Similar information was gathered on the ecological effects that may be expected if these
chemicals are released to water. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity values were estimated by EPA
using structure-activity relationship software developed for that purpose and verified by
comparison with data in the available literature. For discrete organic chemicals such as xylene,
a structure-activity relationship was used to predict the acute and chronic toxicity to fish, aquatic
invertebrates, and algae. For petroleum products such as mineral spirits, which are mixtures and
have undefined compositions, toxicity values were determined by estimating the toxicity of each
individual constituent and then evaluating the hazard of the product based on the constituents.
Aquatic toxicity values were identified from on-line database searches (TOXLINE and AQUIRE) for
comparison. Based on the tpxicity values, the 56 chemicals were ranked according to their hazard
concern as high (8 chemicals), moderate (29 chemicals), or low (19 chemicals). Aquatic toxicity
data for the one inorganic chemical in the formulations, sodium hydroxide, indicated that the
lowest chronic aquatic toxicity value was 100 mg/L, and therefore, of low aquatic toxicity concern.
Federal Regulatory Status
Several regulatory lists were searched for blanket wash chemicals that might trigger federal
regulatory requirements. The presence of federally-regulated chemicals in a blanket wash
formulation may influence a printer's decision to use that formulation. Thirteen of the 56
chemicals in the blanket wash formulations are subject to various federal environmental
regulations. These chemicals are 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene, cumene, diethanolamine, four glycol
ethers (diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene'glycol
methyl ether, and propylene glycol monobutyl ether), dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, N-
methylpyrrolidone, sodium bis(ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate, sodium hydroxide, Stoddard solvent,
and xylene. Among the regulations that apply to one or more of these chemicals are the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, CERCLA, SARA, and RCRA. Reporting and other requirements may
affect the use, storage, and disposal of these chemicals under these or other statutes.
Safety Hazards
Because of the many volatile, or otherwise hazardous chemicals in the blanket wash
formulations, four safety factors are provided for each formulation. Safety data on the reactivity,
flammability, ignitability, and corrosivity of the actual blanket wash formulations containing these
chemicals are included in Section 2.6. This information was obtained from Material Safety Data
Sheets provided by the suppliers. Factors are based on the National Fire Protection Association's
ranking for reactivity and flammability.
ES-5
*DRAFT*
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Results
In order to characterize the general population and occupational risks associated with the
blanket wash chemicals, exposure information was estimated and then combined with the hazard
information identified in Chapter 2. Exposure levels used in the risk assessment were based on
estimated environmental release data. Releases from a model printing facility were estimated
based on models and the resulting exposures to the general population were then developed.
Occupational exposure to the blanket washes were also determined. The specific methods and
results of the exposure and risk assessments are described below.
Exposure Assessment
In order to assess the risks, it is important to understand not only the hazards posed by
the chemicals or blanket wash formulations, but also to know how people or the environment may
be exposed to the chemicals from their use as blanket washes. EPA used a materials balance
approach for calculating releases of lithographic blanket washes from printing facilities (Chapter
3, Section 1). This approach assumes that: (1) 160 gallons of blanket wash are purchased per
year by a facility, (2) all of the blanket wash is either released to air in the shop (and eventually
to the outdoors) or is left on the cleaning wipes which are laundered with subsequent releases to
water, and (3) release of the blanket wash to air is dependent on the vapor pressure of the
chemicals in the formulation. Depending on the composition of the blanket wash (i.e., VOC
content and density of the components), potential environmental releases to air and water were
calculated for each of the chemicals in the formulations. Releases to air ranged from non-existent
to 0.07 g/sec for terpenes in Formulation 25. Releases to water ranged from non-existent to as
much as 604 kg/year for fatty acid derivatives in Formulation 26.
Potential worker exposures were evaluated (Chapter 3, Section 2). As with the
environmental release estimates, certain assumptions must be made such as the number of times
a worker cleans the blankets per shift, the length of time required to clean a blanket and the
amount of wash used. To assure that these assumptions were indicative of "real world" print
shops, they were reviewed by lithographic industry representatives and adjusted as necessary.
Chemicals with vapor pressures of less than 10"3 mm mercury were assumed to have no
inhalation potential because they would not volatilize. Inhalation exposures were negligible for
most of the formulations; however, some formulations that contained chemicals such as
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and terpenes did have significant
Inhalation potential (up to 240 mg/day). Dermal exposures from contact with the blanket wash
solution during cleaning activities were estimated based on the type of operation and the
concentration of the wash (some washes were diluted prior to use). Dermal exposure tended to
be high for all formulations, with levels exceeding 3,000 mg/day for certain chemicals in 12
formulations. All dermal exposures would be negligible if proper protective clothing was worn.
General population exposure based on the environmental releases described above were
examined. Such exposure may occur by a variety of routes including breathing vapors of the
formulations in air near the printing facilities or drinking contaminated water (Chapter 3, Section
3). Exposures for the general population were determined based on atmospheric modeling and
surface water modeling and were used to develop the risk characterizations.
Two atmospheric exposure scenarios were used: local and regional. In the local scenario,
releases from only a single "model" printing facility in normal operations were considered. Based
on the atmospheric dispersion model, the lifetime average daily dose for an adult ranged from
IxlO'4 mg/kg/day to 4.6xlO"3 mg/kg/day. Denver, Colorado was chosen to evaluate the
cumulative effects from several facilities in a community. Assumptions used in this exposure
included: (1) 235 lithographers in Denver, (2) the 1990 population was approximately 470,000,
"DRAFT"
ES-6
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(3) the area of Denver is 277 square kilometers. The resulting average daily doses for the
population of Denver ranged from IxlO"5 to l.SxlO"3 mg/kg/day.
In addition to exposure from atmospheric releases, doses to people as a result of surface
water releases from one printing facility (local) and all printers in the City of Denver (regional) were
also estimated. These estimates were based on laundry cleaning of print shop towels containing
blanket washes. All water releases were assumed to go to the local publicly owned treatment
works before release to a water body. Assumptions regarding human intake included: (1) people
drink an average of two liters of water a day, (2) some chemicals bioaccumulate in fish, and (3)
people eat an average of 16.9 grams of fish per day. For a population around a single facility,
daily human doses based on fish ingestion were generally 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than
for ingestion of contaminated drinking water (0 to 0.1 mg/year for water compared with 0 to 500
mg/year for fish). Daily doses for residents of Denver fluctuated greatly, although the doses were
consistently greater for fish ingestion compared with drinking water ingestion.
Risk Characterization
By combining the hazard information presented in Chapter 2 with the exposure data for
the blanket wash formulations from Section 1 of Chapter 3, the risks posed by these mixtures was
characterized. The risks determined for the formulations (or the chemicals that compose them)
may then be compared with established risk values for the various chemicals such as Reference
Doses, Reference Concentrations, NOAELs, and LOAELs. A ratio of the estimated risk to the
known risk provides a margin of exposure. General population risks were found to be non-
existent whether exposure resulted from drinking water, fish ingestion, or inhalation of ambient
air. Worker risks were generally associated with one or two chemicals in a given blanket wash
formulation. Twenty-seven of the 37 blanket washes posed some risk from dermal exposures.
The concern for risks tended to be for blood effects, some reproductive or developmental effects,
and the possible presence of carcinogens. In some cases, the margin of exposure was less than
1O suggesting that adverse health effects were of concern under realistic exposure situations.
Worker inhalation risks were very low as a result of the relatively low exposure levels; only
formulation 3 posed any inhalation concerns.
Risks in the workplace associated with dermal exposure to the blanket washes may be
substantially reduced by the use of proper protective equipment and clothing such as gloves,
goggles, and aprons. Inhalation risks may be reduced by proper ventilation of the facility and the
use of blanket washes with low VOC content.
Two chemicals contained in seven of the blanket wash formulations may present risks to
aquatic organisms. The two chemicals were alkylbenzene sulfonates, present in Formulations
3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 18, and 20, and ethoxylated nonylphenols, present in Formulation 8. Risks to
plants (other than aquatic algae) and wildlife were not examined.
Performance Demonstrations
In order to be a viable substitute for existing blanket wash formulations, the alternative
formulations must effectively clean the press blankets. To determine how effective the 36 blanket
washes were compared to the baseline wash, the Project partners decided that both laboratory
testing and field demonstration were necessary. The laboratory tests, conducted by the Graphic
Arts Technical Foundation, focused on the physical properties of the blanket wash formulations
such as flash point, VOC content, and pH (as distinct from the individual chemicals components
of the mixtures discussed in Chapters'2 and 3). Also to ensure that presses at the volunteer
facilities would not be damaged, blanket swell potential and wipability tests were also conducted.
Any wash where the blanket swell exceeded 3 percent or where more than 100 strokes were
required to clean the test blanket were eliminated for consideration for field testing. Based on the
ES-7
"DRAFT*
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
results of the laboratory testing, 22 formulations went on to be demonstrated by volunteer printing
shops. -
In the laboratory tests, the flash points of the blanket washes ranged from 50ฐF to greater
than 230ฐF; the VOC content ranged from 0.05 Ibs/gallon to 7.2 Ibs/gallon (0.6 to 99% VOC,
respectively); and the pH ranged from 3.4 to 9.9. There was no correlation between the three
properties in the formulations. Blanket swell was measured at 1 and 5 hours with 13
formulations having greater than 3 percent swelling at 5 hours. Wipability was tested using both
wet ink and dry ink films. Two formulations required more than 100 strokes to clean dry ink.
Field demonstrations were conducted at 17 printing facilities in the Boston, Baltimore, and
Washington, DC areas. Each formulation was used by pressmen in two facilities for 1 week. DfE
"observers" provided background information to the printers and collected information during the
first day's use of the blanket wash. The trade names were removed and each formulation was
assigned a number. Neither the pressman nor the observer knew the company supplying the
formulation or its components. Each pressman used the baseline wash, VM&P naphtha, for 2-4
cleanings and then began use of the substitute for the remainder of the week. The printers
recorded amount of effort and a qualitative assessment of performance as compared to the
baseline. They also collected volume used per wash, ink coverage, amount of effort, time required,
and a qualitative assessment of performance during the one-week trial. At the end of the week,
the observer conducted a follow-up interview with the printer. Results of these performance
demonstrations in the laboratory and in the field are detailed in Chapter 4, Section 1.
The circumstances under which the blanket wash formulations were demonstrated at
printing facilities were highly variable (i.e., operating conditions, types of print jobs, staff attitudes
and aptitude, application method) and the short time during which the formulations were used
preclude making generalizations regarding the long-term performance of the blanket washes. In
Chapter 4, the performance evaluations for each of the blanket washes are summarized with an
indication of how the product performed at each printing facility. Some printers used a particular
substitute blanket wash on only four blankets before indicating that the product gave
unacceptable results. However, some print shops cleaned more than 30 blankets (one shop tested
61 blankets). In several cases, there was considerable variation between the results obtained for
the two facilities testing a single formulation. For example, Blanket Wash 3 gave good results
compared with the baseline wash at one facility which used it on ten blankets and found that it
gave good performance with light or medium ink coverage, whereas the second facility which
tested it on four blankets thought that it gave poor performance compared with the baseline wash
without indicating the level of ink coverage.
Of the blanket washes demonstrated, nine were found to give good or fair performance at
both facilities with light to moderate ink cover when compared with the baseline wash, although
poor results were frequently seen with heavy ink cover. Five of the formulations gave poor results
at both testing facilities regardless of the ink cover and eight were found to give good or fair results
at one facility and poor results at the second facility. Performance was not correlated with VOC
content; however the baseline wash which has a very high VOC content generally gave good
results. An in-depth description of the performance of each blanket wash at each test facility is
described and compared with the baseline wash (VM&P naphtha) in Chapter 4, Section 1.
Cost Analyses
Data collected during the performance demonstrations and from the suppliers were used
to estimate the relative costs of using the blanket wash substitutes and the baseline in a
lithographic printing facility. Data was collected on both the baseline wash and the substitute
washes in terms of volume of wash used and the time required for cleaning the blanket. Several
"DRAFT"
ES-8
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
assumptions, similar to the estimates in Chapter 3, had to be made in order to develop cost
information. These assumptions included:
\ > v (1) there were four blankets per press;
O (2) each blanket was washed ten times per shift;
.:.' (3) there were five 8-hours shifts per week for 50 weeks per year;
Based on these assumptions, itwaspossible to estimate the total cost/wash; total cost/press; and
total cost/press/shift/year for each formulation. ,
., :. The cost calculations were comprised of several factors: , ,
-., .. (1) labor costs (i.e., time spent to clean blankets) as a function of average wage rate;
... (2) cost of the amount of wash used per blanket; and , .
(3) cost of the leased cloth wipes (cost of disposable wipes were not included).
Suppliers provided information on the purchase cost per gallon of the baseline and substitute
blanket washes if purchased in a 55-gallon quantity. These costs ranged for $2.85/gallon for
Formulation 32 to $2Q.OO/gallon for Formulation 11 (the baseline formulation cost was
$5.88/gallon). , . .
When the cost of using the substitute blanket washes was compared with the cost of the
baseline wash, most of the substitute blanket washes resulted in increased costs to at least one
of the two printing facilities. The increased costs ranged from relatively insubstantial (4%) to more
.than twice the cost of the baseline (maximum increase 179%). Only five blanket washes resulted
in lower costs at one facility, and of these, only one (Formulation 37) showed lower costs at both
demonstration facilities. These costs, however, must be used with caution as in many, cases the
number of demonstrations on which the costs were based were, extremely limited.. In addition,
conditions vary at each facility; what works in one may not work in another.
The driving factor for the cost estimates was the time needed to clean the blanket. No
considered in this analysis is that the time required to clean the blanket potentially may decrease
as the press operators become.more familiar with using an alternative product.
111. OTHER ISSUES
Many factors influence a printer's decision to use a particular blanket wash. These
i considerations include performance, cost, and risk, but other factors may also play a role in
individual situations. Some of these other factors, such as resource and energy conservation,
were examined in the CTSA. In Chapter 5, situations where, opportunities for reducing energy and
resources consumption in the manufacturing, use and disposal of blanket washes are discussed
in terms of product life cycle. For some factors, such as whether the use of reusable or disposable
wipes is more likely to conserve resources, definite answers cannot be given. For other aspects
of the blanket washes, such as chemical composition (petroleum versus vegetable-derived) and
packaging (diluted versus concentrated formulation), it is more clear how resource conservation
can be achieved. Many printers are concerned with waste disposal, and recycling appears to be
a viable solution to reducing waste, in some circumstances.
In a recent survey, over 75 percent of responding printers indicated that they had tried one
or more substitute blanket washes and almost half of them had altered their workplace practices
to prevent pollution. Some of the techniques that these printers found useful are described in
Chapter 6. Many of these practices had the added benefit of saving time, reducing costs, or both.
Among the workplace practices and potential benefits described in Chapter 6 are raising employee
ES-9
"DRAFT*
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
awareness of the need for and use of protective equipment and pollution prevention practices,
better management of materials (e.g., reducing amount of blanket wash used), improving
processes (e.g., minimizing the amount of ink used or the length of a run), and management of
waste (e.g., storing rags appropriately).
Techniques for recycling used solvent are the focus of Section 6.2. Extraction methods
consisting of hand-operated wringers or explosion-proof centrifuges can be used to recover the
solvent from wipes used during blanket washing. Once the solvent is extracted, it may be reused
for less exacting cleaning needs. If a better quality solvent is desired, then the distillation or
ultrafiltration techniques described here may be used to yield near virgin-quality solvent.
Chapter 7 provides summaries of the information developed in this CTSA, examines that
information in a qualitative benefit/cost discussion, and presents the information on a
formulation-by-formulation basis.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
When the DfE Lithography Project was initiated, it was hoped that the Project partners
would be able to provide guidance to lithographers, particularly small printing facilities, on the
trade-offs among risk, performance, cost, and other factors associated with blanket washes. The
Project partners realized that each print shop is different and that judgments on whether one
blanket wash is better than another need to be made by individual printers; therefore, no rankings
of the blanket wash formulations were made. Instead, the CTSA is a repository of all of the
technical information on the blanket washes developed by the Project. It forms the basis for
outreach products designed to convey these results to lithographic printers in simple, easy-to-use
formats. The CTSA will, therefore, be a resource for those seeking in-depth information on blanket
washes and their chemical components, as well as on other issues surrounding the use of manual
blanket washes for lithographic printers.
"DRAFT*
ES-10
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter introduces the
Design for the Environment (DflE)
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
Assessment (CTSA) for the
lithographic printing industry.
Section 1.1 contains background
materials on the project, partners
involved in the project, and the
methodologies and assumptions
used to create this CTSA. Section
1.2 discusses general aspects of
the lithographic printing industry,
such as what types of products are
printed, how they are printed, and
how the printing presses ,are
washed. Section 1.3 discusses
both traditional blanket washes
and alternative blanket washes,
and includes details on prices of
the washes. Section 1.4 reviews
the blanket wash market. Lists of
blanket wash manufacturers and
typical blanket wash components
are presented. Section 1.5
describes the automatic blanket
washing technology. The potential
safety issues associated with using
Chapter Contents
1.1
Project Background
1.1.1 Design for the Environment Lithography
Project
1.1.2 Document Overview
1.1.3 DfE Lithography Project Methodology
1.2 Overview of Lithographic Printing
1.2.1 Products Printed
1.2.2 Printing Mechanism
1.2.3 Types of Lithography
1.2.4 Blanket Washing
Profile of the Blanket Wash Use Cluster
1.3.1 Traditional Blanket Washes
1.3.2 Alternative Blanket Washes
Market Profile
1.4.1 Blanket Wash Market
1.4.2 Blanket Wash Manufacturers
1.4.3 Blanket Wash Components
1.4.4 Market Conditions
1.5 Alternative Technology - Automatic Blanket Washers
1.3
1.4
performance, cost, environmental impacts, and health and
an automatic blanket washer are described.
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1.1 Design for the Environment Lithography Project
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Lithography Project is a unique voluntary
partnership between the lithographic printing industry and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) dedicated to helping printers improve their efforts to protect the environment.
Because the printing industry is characterized by small companies that rarely have the time or
resources to gather information on alternatives to their current products and processes, few
printers have access to sufficient information to choose safer or lower risk chemicals, work
practices, and technologies. The DfE Lithography Project aims to help fill this information gap.
The goal of the project is to provide printers with pollution prevention and chemical risk
information on product and technology substitutes, so that printers are better equipped to
incorporate environmental concerns into their day-to-day business decisions. Specifically, the
efforts of the DfE Lithography Project have focused on the risks, costs, and performance of
alternatives to the traditional, highly volatile cleaners typically used for washing the press
blankets.
1-1
DRAFT
-------
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
What is Design for the Environment?
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program harnesses EPA's expertise and leadership to
facilitate information exchange and research on risk reduction and pollution prevention efforts.
DfE works with businesses on a voluntary basis, and its wide-ranging projects include:
ป Encouraging business to change their general business practices to incorporate environmental
concerns into decision-making processes.
Working with specific industries to evaluate the risks, performance, and costs of alternative
chemicals, processes, and technologies.
ป Helping individual businesses undertake environmental design efforts through the application
of specific tools and methods.
Industry
Environmental Groups i
DfE partners include:
i Professional Institutions Academia
Public Interest Groups Other Government Agencies
1.1.2 Document Overview
Chapter 1 of the CTSA of Lithographic Blanket Washes provides background information
on the DfE Lithography Project and the blanket wash industry. Chapter 2 describes the chemicals
used in blanket washes and the human health and environmental hazards associated with these
chemicals. Chapter 3 presents the environmental and occupational risks of the traditional and
alternative blanket washes that were evaluated in the DfE Lithography Project. Chapter 4
describes the results of the performance demonstrations of the alternative blanket washes, a cost
analysis for each product, and information on international trade issues. Chapter 5 looks at the
energy and natural resource issues associated with each of the alternatives evaluated. Chapter
6 provides information on pollution prevention opportunities in blanket washing. Finally, Chapter
7 summarizes the evaluation of the trade-offs and presents a cost and benefits analysis.
This document is the result of a collaborative effort between EPA staff and printing industry
representatives and experts. Each segment of this document was reviewed by the Technical
Review Team (members are listed in the acknowledgment section) as it was developed. A complete
draft, incorporating the earlier comments, was reviewed by the team and then the second round
of comments were also incorporated prior to the printing of the final draft. Where significant
disagreement among commentators occurred, the differing opinions are presented in the text.
\\lbat\saCleanerTechnologiesSubstitutesAssessment?
This technical document, referred to as a Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment
(CTSA), is intended to provide industry with the information needed to systematically
compare the trade-offs associated with traditional and alternative products, processes, and
technologies. Specifically, these trade-offs include the cost, performance, and
environmental concerns such as risk, environmental releases, energy impacts, and
resource conservation associated with a product or technology. This CTSA addresses
blanket washes used in lithography and serves as the repository for all technical
information developed by the DfE Lithography Project.
DRAFT
1-2
-------
CHAPTER V. \NTRODVJCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Considerations
The focus of this assessment was specifically defined by the project partners and has
many limitations. Some of the global limitations are listed below, other limitations, specific to
a particular portion of the project, are given in the applicable sections.
This assessment focuses on the use of manual blanket washes in small lithographic
printing facilities using only one press with four color units. Exposure estimates related to
blanket wash use in larger facilities may be higher.
The exposure and risk estimates reflect a small portion of the potential exposures within
a lithographic printing facility. Many of the chemicals found in these formulations may also
be present in the inks or other cleaning solvents used in a shop. Incremental reduction of
exposures from blanket wash use will reduce cumulative exposures from all sources in a
printing facility.
ป The risks associated with volatile organic compound (VOC) releases were not examined
in this assessment. Because VOC releases are a driving factor behind current regulations
affecting printers, VOC content for the formulations are given at the request of industry
participants. The concerns associated with VOC releases are addressed by federal, state, and
local regulations and were not re-evaluated here.
The regulatory information contained in the CTSA may be useful in moving away from
chemicals that trigger compliance issues, however this document is not intended to provide
compliance assistance. If the reader has questions regarding compliance concerns they
should contact their federal, state, or local regulatory authorities.
ซ The 37 blanket wash formulations assessed in this report were voluntarily submitted by
participating suppliers and are not intended to be representative of the entire blanket wash
market.
The performance and cost data are not based on rigorous scientific studies. Some of this
information is subjective and is based on limited data points.
Screening-level risk characterization techniques were used. The risk characterization
results, therefore, contain limitations regarding confidence. ,
1.1.3 DfE Lithography Project Methodology
The DfE Program began working with the printing industry when the Printing Industries
of America .(PIA) requested the EPA's assistance in evaluating some of the environmental claims
of products used by printers. This effort ultimately grew into three projects, each aimed at
preventing pollution in a different sector of the printing industry: Screen Printing, Lithography,
and Flexography. Each project addresses a specific area of environmental concern in the printing
process. The screen printing project focuses on screen reclamation, the flexpgraphy project
concentrates on the various ink systems used, and the lithography project examines the blanket
washing process.
To thoroughly evaluate alternative blanket washes, the DfE Lithography Project sought to
form partnerships with industry representatives. The DfE Lithography partners include PIA and
its regional affiliates, the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF), the Environmental
Conservation Board of the Graphic Communications Industry, the University of Tennessee's
Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, and individual printers and suppliers.
1-3
DRAFT
-------
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
How To Use This Document
For Printers:
While this document does present all of the technical information collected on blanket washes,
through this project, it is not intended as a guidance document for a small business person to
use to make decisions. For the small printer, more concise, user-friendly information products
will be developed that present the specific information needed to help the printer in the decision-
making process. These information products may include summary brochures, case studies,
data matrices, guidance manuals, and training videos. After reviewing these more targeted
information products, a printer may choose to return to the CTSA to obtain more technical details
on a specific alternative that is of interest to their printing operation.
The methods used to evaluate the blanket washes in this project, particularly the performance
methodology, may also be of interest to printers. Although the CTSA focuses on blanket
washes, printers can use the methodologies described in this document to conduct their own
evaluations of other alternative products or processes.
For Suppliers:
Suppliers may be interested in using the comparative risk, performance, and cost analyses
presented in this document as a tool in identifying which blanket wash formulations are best
suited for the current market where printers' environmental concerns are continually increasing.
ป The environmental and human health data on the chemicals used in blanket wash formulations
may be useful input to suppliers who are developing new blanket washes specifically designed
to reduce environmental and human health risks.
ป Suppliers may be interested in all of the methodologies used to evaluate the alternative
blanket washes, particularly the risk methodology.
For Other Readers:
For technical assistance programs, the CTSA can provide background information on
lithography, blanket washes, and the DfE Lithography Project.
The comparative information on cost, risk, and performance of alternative blanket washes can
be useful when working with printers to reduce VOC emissions and hazardous wastes and guide
printers toward products that might reduce risks or pollution.
Focus on Blanket Washes
The decision to focus on blanket washes was made by the DfE Lithography Proj ect partners
based, on the input from printers. To make sound purchasing choices, printers expressed a need
for more consistent information on the performance, costs, and environmental and human health
risks associated with different blanket washes. To
address these concerns, the project partners decided
that a complete evaluation of commercially available
blanket washes' was needed. All blanket washes
submitted were evaluated using the same criteria. This
consistency allows printers to compare the trade-offs of
one alternative with another to determine which
products may be best suited for their particular printing
operation.
For the first time, printers can access
performance, risk, and cost analyses
of a variety of alternative blanket
washes, all evaluated using the same
methodology.
DRAFT
1-4
-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project partners were particularly concerned about the environmental and human
health risks of blanket washes because traditionally these products are petroleum-based solvents
with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content of greater than 60%. While these high VOC
washes leave the blanket dry after cleaning, the quick-drying properties come from the VOCs that
evaporate into the air where they may pose a potential risk to workers' health and to the
environment. VOCs can have an adverse impact on ambient air quality because of their
contribution to the formation of ground level ozone. Using the expertise of EPA, the DfE
Lithography Project examined the risks of the alternative blanket washes by collecting health
hazard and environmental release information (e.g., releases to air, water, land) associated with
the use of the potential substitute blanket washes.
Concentrate on the Needs of Smaller Printers
The project partners were aware that although many large printers already have access to
information about new and developing systems and technologies, smaller printers may not have
the time or resources to investigate the latest technology and products. To respond to the needs
of smaller printers, the DfE Lithography Project partners agreed that the primary efforts of the
project should focus on the manual blanket washes as they are typically used in smaller print
shops; i.e., on sheetfed, non-heatset presses that are less than 26" wide. Much of the information
presented here is applicable or translatable to larger facilities.
Identify Alternative Blanket Washes
All blanket washes evaluated in this project were commercially available products,
voluntarily donated by suppliers. Nineteen suppliers participated in the proj ect, submitting a total
of 36 substitute formulations to be compared with a baseline formulation.
Choice of VM&P Naphtha as the Baseline Formulation
In the initial stages of the Lithography Project, the Project partners chose VM&P naphtha
as the baseline against which to compare the 36 substitute washes. Varnish Makers & Painters
(VM&P) Naphtha, composed of 100% solvent naphtha, light aliphatic and referred to as
Formulation 28 in certain sections of the text, was chosen primarily because it is well known
among lithographers as an effective blanket wash. Many lithographers have used VM&P naphtha
in their shops and know how well it works in their applications and what it costs. VM&P naphtha
is known to be highly effective at very low cost, however, because of its high VOC content (100%),
printers are searching for formulations to replace it.
Conduct Performance Demonstrations
The performance demonstrations were conducted in two phases: laboratory testing and
field demonstrations. Laboratory testing of each blanket wash was conducted by GATF in
Pittsburgh to ascertain certain chemical characteristics, including flash point, VOC content, and
pH. Additional laboratory tests (described in Chapter 4 of this document) were conducted to
determine the effectiveness of each wash and the potential for adverse effects on the blanket. Only
those washes meeting minimum performance standards were used in the field demonstrations.
Once the Performance Demonstration was underway, certain suppliers who originally
submitted blanket washes, later chose to withdraw from the demonstration. Their reasons
included not wishing to reveal to EPA their complete formulations or concern over the potential
results of the performance tests. The formulations that were withdrawn after work had already
begun were numbers 2, 13, and 15. For this reason, those numbers are missing from all of the
tables in the CTSA.
1-5
DRAFT
-------
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
To respond to the needs of smaller printers, the
Df E Lithography Project partners agreed that the
primary efforts of the project should focus on the
manual blanket washes as they are typically used
in smaller print shops: on sheetfed, non-heatset
presses that are less than 26" wide.
While the laboratory test was being
conducted, DfE project partners identified
lithographic printers who would volunteer
their time and their shops to test blanket
washes. In order to best demonstrate the
performance of all the blanket washes under
actual printing conditions, printers and
project partners requested that field
demonstrations be conducted. Seventeen
printers agreed to participate in the performance demonstrations conducted between November
of 1994 and February of 1995. Each substitute wash was assigned to a facility. Then, to get
baseline information, every participating facility first cleaned the press with the baseline wash.
Then the substitute wash was used for one week. During the week, press operators were asked
to record the amount of product used, the length of time needed to clean .the press, and their
opinion of how well the product worked each time they'used it, as compared to the baseline
blanket wash, VM&P Naphtha.
Analyze the Costs of Using Alternative Blanket Washes
After the performance demonstrations, a cost analysis for each alternative product was
developed using supplier data, industry statistics, and information collected during the
performance demonstration. For each product, the cost of using the alternative product was
compared to the cost of using the baseline product. Blanket washing costs were estimated based
on the costs of labor, the blanket wash product, and cloth wipes. Each of these cost factors
included:
Labor Costs: The time spent to clean the blanket was recorded for each product during the
performance demonstrations. Labor costs were calculated by multiplying the time to clean the
blanket by industry reported statistics for lithographic press operators' wages, including fringe
rate, and overhead.
Blanket Wash Product Costs: The quantity of blanket wash used per blanket cleaning was
recorded during the performance demonstration. To calculate the blanket wash product cost, the
average quantity used per blanket was multiplied by the unit cost of each product. Product costs
were provided by each participating manufacturer.
Cloth. Wipes Costs: The wipes used for blanket washing are typically cloth wipes that are
leased through a contract with an industrial laundry, which picks up dirty wipes for laundering
and drops off clean wipes for blanket cleaning. Materials costs were calculated by multiplying the
number of wipes used per blanket washing, as recorded in the performance demonstrations, by
the lease price per wipe.
Evaluate the Health and Environmental Risks
Technical evaluation of the human health and environmental concerns associated with
each blanket wash began while the demonstrations were still in progress. Suppliers submitted
chemical formulation information to PIA for each of their products demonstrated. PIA removed
all trade names and each formulation was assigned a number to mask its identify before being
passed on to EPA. The EPA used the actual
formulations (in their masked format) as the
basis for the evaluation of health and
environmental concerns, though the data
appearing in this document have been
reported by chemical family to conceal
The health and environmental concerns
associated with each blanket wash were
evaluated based on the actual chemical
formulations of each product.
DRAFT
1-6
-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
proprietary formulation data. While specific methods were developed by the DfE Lithography
Project team for conducting the performance demonstration arid the cost analysis, the standard
methodologies of the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Existing Chemicals
Program were used for the Human Health Hazards, Environmental Hazards, Environmental
Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment, General Population Exposure Assessment, and
Risk Assessment sections of the CTSA. , ;
Identify Conservation and Additional Improvement Opportunities
The proj ect partners were interested in identifying energy and natural resource issues and
improvement opportunities associated with using the various substitute blanket washes.
Although the blanket washing process is not particularly energy- or resource-intensive, a printer
can still help conserve energy and resources through his or her choice of blanket washing
products and the manner in which the products are used. .--.-
There are a variety of techniques which may be employed at lithographic print-shops to
prevent pollution, to reduce chemical consumption, and to minimize waste. Results of a pollution
prevention survey which asked lithographers to identify what activities they currently employ to
achieve a more environmentally friendly workplace are presented. In addition, options for
recycling solvents and for extracting solvents from press wipes are addressed, as are methods for
treating spent solvents so that they may be reused. Solvent recycling systems used in conj unction
with brush-based automatic blanket wash systems are also discussed.
Evaluate Trade-Off Issues . :
The trade-off issues associated with the environmental and human health risk, cost,
performance, and other analyses undertaken by the project partners are evaluated. This includes
a social benefit and cost discussion and a summarization of the project's findings.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
1.2.1 Products Printed
Lithography is currently the most prevalent printing technology in the United States.
According to an estimate by A.F. Lewis & Co., Inc., a market research firm specializing in the
graphic arts industry, there are over 53,000 establishments employing printing presses, and
approximately 49,000 of these use lithographic presses. Lithographic printers are primarily small
businesses, with roughly 85% of the plants employing fewer than 20 people.. The success,of
lithographic printing is due to the ability of the process to produce high quality text and
illustrations cheaply and effectively in short, medium, and high volume production runs.
Consequently, lithography dominates the printing of books and newspapers, as well as magazines
and other periodical publications. Some other applications of the lithographic printing process
include advertising, envelopes, labels and tags, stationery, greeting cards, arid packaging.
Lithography accounts for almost 50% of the commercial printing market; however, the ascendancy
of the lithographic process may soon be challenged by both improvements in flexography and
relatively new plateless technologies which make up the fastest growing sector of the printing
industry. , . ,
1.2.2 Printing Mechanism
The lithographic printing process involves a plate on which the image and non^image areas
are on the same plane, as opposed to being either raised or indented. In this type of single plane,
or planographic, printing, the image is maintained by taking advantage of the mutual repulsion
1-7
DRAFT
-------
1.2 OVERVIEW OF LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
of oil and water. Plates are treated so that the non-image area attracts water, while the image
area becomes receptive to oil (ink). Water applied to the hydrophilic (water-loving) portion of the
plate confines the ink within the oleophilic (oil-loving) image area. The water is applied in the form
of a fountain solution which consists primarily of water with chemical additives that lower the
surface tension of the water and control the pH. Ink is applied to the plate cylinder from the ink
fountain. The image is transferred from the plate to a rubber or plastic blanket cylinder, and
subsequently transferred to the substrate in a process known as offset printing. Lithography is
the only major printing sector to use offset printing rather than direct printing, a process in which
the image is transferred from the plate to the print medium without the use of an intermediate
cylinder.
1.2.3 Types of Lithography
The lithographic printing process is divided into three separate sub-processes: sheetfed
offset, heatset web offset, and non-heatset web offset. Sheetfed offset is a basic offset lithographic
process in which paper is fed into the machine in individual sheets and the ink dries in an
oxidative polymerization process. Sheetfed presses, used primarily for short term printing runs
of commercial products, constitute the large majority (92%) of plants with lithographic presses and
are the focus of the DfE Lithography Project. The web offset processes are so named because of
their use of rolls of paper which are continuously fed into the press. The web is cut into individual
sheets in post-press operations. Only 11% of lithographers use the web offset process, and,
despite the tendency of lithographic shops to be small, almost 60% of those plants which utilize
web-fed presses employ over 20 people.
In heatset web offset printing, inks are dried using a recirculating hot air system. This type
of printing is very useful for high-volume, high-speed production runs (up to 40,000 impressions
per hour); however, the ink drying process involved may result in VOC emissions that must be
controlled. In contrast, the non-heatset web offset process often uses inks that do not require
assisted drying. This type of lithographic printing is commonly employed in high speed production
of newspapers, magazines, and journals. Each of these sub-processes has some distinct
environmental and human health impacts; however, the chemicals used to clean the presses are
very similar regardless of which process is used.
1.2.4 Blanket Washing
For job changes and to maintain image quality in the offset printing process, the
intermediate blanket cylinder must be cleaned. Blanket wash is used to remove ink, paper dust,
and other debris from the blanket cylinder. If the blanket is not cleaned regularly, built up debris
will damage the blanket and/or impact print quality adversely. The severity of ink and paper
build up will vary depending on the product printed, the length of the printing run, the coverage
of the image, and the colors printed. For color changes, the series of rollers that transfer the ink
from the ink tray to the printing plate must also be cleaned. Some printers use the blanket wash
product to clean the rollers, while others find that using two separate cleaners, a blanket wash
and a roller wash, is more effective.
Blanket cleaning can be accomplished manually or automatically. Manual cleaning
involves wiping down the blanket cylinder with a cloth wipe or a disposable wipe, dampened with
blanket wash solution. Automatic blanket cleaners are mechanical devices that clear the blanket
of debris by applying blanket wash and/or scrubbing the blanket mechanically. Excess wash is
either wiped off automatically, or some systems simply allow paper to run through the press to
absorb excess inks, and solvents. The focus of the DfE Lithography Project effort is on evaluating
manually applied blanket washes.
DRAFT
1-8
-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.2 OVERVIEW OF LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Blanket washes consist of varying types of solvent, some of which can pose risks to human
health and the environment. New, potentially less harmful blanket washes are appearing on the
market, giving printers the opportunity to reduce impacts on the environment and minimize risk
to workers. As these alternatives to the traditional solvents become more widespread, printers
have had more questions about where to find comparative risk, performance and cost information.
The DfE Lithography Project addresses these concerns by providing this comparative information
on a wide variety of blanket wash formulations.
1.3 PROFILE OF THE BLANKET WASH USE CLUSTER
1.3.1 Traditional Blanket Washes
Traditional lithographic blanket washes are petroleum-based solvents, often mixed with
detergent and/or water. Petroleum-based cleaners typically remove ink quickly and evaporate
rapidly, requiring minimal down time for the press. The advantages of these conventional
cleaners, however, come at a price. Petroleum-based cleaners often contain greater than 60%
VOCs. VOCs, defined as any volatile compound containing the element carbon, have health and
safety concerns associated with their use, and have been implicated in the formation of ground
level ozone. Still, conventional cleaners continue to dominate the market because of their
effectiveness as well as their low cost.
The price of a petroleum-based blanket wash will vary according to the quantity purchased
as well as the prevailing price of crude oil. Anchor/Lithkemko and Yarn International are both
U.S. manufacturers of blanket cleaners in the United States with product lines dominated by
petroleum-based, water-miscible solvents. Prices for these blanket washes range from $8/gallon
to $10/gallon and average $9/gallon when purchasing a 55-gallon drum. Although Anchor is
considered to be one of the largest producers of blanket cleaner in the United States, it is
estimated that they control less than 10% of the total U.S. market. The market share attained by
the largest blanket wash manufacturers is limited by competition from the many small blanket
wash producers serving local markets. Anchor's market share can, therefore, be considered
significant within an industry sector dominated by small manufacturers.1-2
Large printing operations will often benefit from bulk pricing, storing large quantities of
wash in on-site storage tanks. Medium-sized printers tend to purchase blanket wash by the drum
(55-gallons), while small operations typically pay the highest per unit costs by purchasing cases
of single gallon containers. Per gallon prices can decrease by as much as 30% when purchasing
a 55-gallon drum versus a single gallon container.
1.3.2 Alternative Blanket Washes
Petroleum-based blanket washes currently dominate the market; however, as concerns
regarding the release of VOCs and potential health impacts mount, increasing pressure will be
placed on blanket wash manufacturers to develop alternatives. Current evidence suggests that
industry has responded to concerns regarding VOC releases, with some blanket wash
manufacturers devoting 100% of product development time to the production of products that are
lower in hazardous materials and VOCs.3 Alternative blanket cleaners have not been fully-
accepted, however, and printers have voiced several concerns regarding their performance. In
addition, low VOC washes typically cost more than "traditional," petroleum-based cleaners due
to higher ingredient costs. EPA's Control Techniques Guideline for Offset Lithographic Printing
(CTG) estimates that lower VOC cleaners (low VOCs cleaners are defined in the CTG as products
with a VOC content of less than 30% by weight as measured by EPA's test method 24) that do not
contain hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) cost $0.91 per pound versus $0.69 per pound for a
1-9
DRAFT
-------
1.3 PROFILE OF THE BLANKET WASH USE CLUSTER
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
"traditional" cleaner.4 Alternative washes discussed below include: water miscible solvents,
vegetable oil-based cleaners, and terpene-based cleaners.
Water Miscible Solvents ..- :
One approach to reducing VOCs in blanket washes has been to use water miscible
solvents, thereby allowing a certain degree of water dilution. Reductions in VOC content are
accomplished by substituting volatile solvents with water. It is important to note that not all
water miscible cleaners contain less than 30% VOCs, however, many water miscible cleaners have
a vapor pressure of less than 10 mm of mercury (Hg) at 20ฐC, which in some cases is considered
to be as acceptable as a low VOC formulation.
Vegetable Oil-Based Blanket Washes
Some manufacturers are marketing vegetable oil-based cleaners that do not contain any
petrochemical solvents, and that have VOC contents as low as five percent. While the list price
for this type of cleaner can be significantly higher than for many of the petroleum-based cleaners
on the market, printers calculating a cost-per-wash-up must consider that the product is sold in
a highly concentrated form. The advantages of vegetable oil-based cleaners over "traditional"
cleaners include: lower VOC levels, lack of odor, no special storage requirements, unprocessed
wipes may be non-hazardous waste, and the blankets are conditioned by the cleaner. There may
also be benefits to worker health and safety. Unlike highly volatile, petroleum-based cleaners,
however, vegetable oil-based cleaners do not rapidly flash off from the blanket cylinder, and
therefore a greater effort may be required to wipe off the blanket.
Terpene Cleaners
Terpenes are derived primarily from wood and citrus products and have long been used
as solvents for a variety of organic compounds. The Montreal Protocol recommends the use of
terpene solvents as an alternative to chlorinated solvents because they are not an upper
atmosphere (stratospheric) ozone depleting substance and have zero global warming potential.
Several terpene-based products are available on the market that provide an alternative to
traditional, petroleum-based cleaners. According to an industry representative, terpene cleaners
based on citrus tend to be very volatile in price; in 1995, the price per pound ranged from $1.26
to over $2.60. In addition, the odor of these solvents can be irritating or nauseating to press
operators.5
Water-washable Ink System
Another type of vegetable oil-based blanket cleaning system has been developed recently
which differs from the vegetable oil-based blanket washes described above in that the blanket
wash is one part of an "ink system." The ink is vegetable oil-based and can be converted into a
water-soluble form after printing is complete. Once the conversion has occurred, the water-
soluble ink can be removed with a water-based blanket solution, thereby eliminating the need for
traditional cleaning solvents containing VOCs.
1.4 MARKET PROFILE ,
1.4.1 Blanket Wash Market
Currently, lithographic printing is the dominant printing technology in the United States,
accounting for 79% of printing industry shipments.6 According to Bruno's Status of Printing,
lithography's share of the total U.S. market is expected to decline in the future. He estimates that
DRAFT
1-10
-------
CHAPTER 1.* INTRODUCTION
1.3 PROFILE OF THE BLANKET WASH USE CLUSTER
lithography will Control only 35% of the U.S. market by the year 2025, due to competition from
'flexography and plateless printing technologies.7 Industry contacts indicated, however, that
plateless printing will find its market "niche" and will not result in a market decline for the
lithographic blanket wash industry.8
The lithographic blanket wash industry is extremely fragmented, made up of many small
firms producing a host of blanket wash products, and is highly price competitive. In general,
'blanket wash manufacturers are chemical formulators that market a variety of pressroom
products including type wash, press wash, alcohol replacers, and fountain solutions.
In response to concerns regarding the release of VOCs, blanket wash manufacturers have
developed and are currently marketing low VOC alternatives to traditional, petroleum-based
cleaners. For example, low VOC cleaners currently constitute a very small percentage of company
sales for one of the leading producers of blanket cleaners in the United States. Their research
efforts, however, are focused almost exclusively on the development of low VOC cleaners.9 Small
to medium size companies have had greater success in providing low VOC cleaners to the
marketplace.10'11
A.F. Lewis & Company, Inc., a market research firm specializing in the graphics arts
industry, has estimated the number of plants operating offset lithographic presses, and therefore
the number of facilities requiring blanket wash solvents, to be 49,218 as of June 1995. A.F. Lewis
also reports the total number of plants with presses (whether offset lithographic, gravure,
flexographic, or letterpress) to be 53,205 plants as of June 1995.a Plants with offset lithographic
presses, therefore, account for roughly 92% of printing facilities, providing some indication of the
demand for blanket wash. The states with the greatest number of plants containing offset
presses are: California (6,075 plants, 12.5% of the U.S. total), New York (3,617 plants, 7.4%),
Illinois (3,027, 6.2%), Texas (2,947, 6.0%), Pennsylvania (2,452, 5.0%), Ohio (2,436, 5.0%), Florida
(2,318, 4.8%), New Jersey (1,876, 3.9%), Michigan (1,691, 3.5%), and Massachusetts (1,388
2.9%).12 ,
1.4.2 Blanket Wash Manufacturers
Minimal documentation exists that specifically characterizes the lithographic blanket wash
industry. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system, established by the Bureau of the
Census to track the flow of goods and services within the economy, has not assigned a specific
code to the blanket wash industry, nor does the Department of Commerce specifically track the
industry.13 In addition, firms that produce blanket wash solvents are often involved in other
activities such as the manufacture of printing equipment, making it difficult to identify them
specifically as blanket wash manufacturers. With multiple product lines for the industry, it is
currently not possible to identify the portion of revenues attributable solely to blanket wash
production. , , ,
The companies listed in Table 1-1 are known to be producers of blanket wash solvents or
products based upon the input of several printing industry trade organizations. This list is not
exhaustive of the total number of companies producing blanket washes. The relative market share
held by each of the companies listed below is not known. Petroleum distillate producers, such as
Ashland, Exxon, and Shell, also sell directly to larger printers.14
Plants with presses are firms that possess any printing press or duplicator/photocopier and engage in printing as
their primary business.
1-11
DRAFT
-------
1.4 MARKET PROFILE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.4.3 Blanket Wash Components
Blanket wash manufacturers combine a wide range of ingredients to produce their final
product. Some of the leading ingredients of high VOC washes include: solvent 140, aromatic 100,
aromatic 150, and naphthal spirits. Low VOC washes include ingredients such as fatty acid
derivatives or terpenes. A survey of three blanket wash manufacturing companies, estimated to
represent 70% of the blanket wash market, was conducted in 1992. Table 1-2 presents the
estimated annual quantity of 24 chemicals used in the manufacture of blanket wash and roller
wash. While not comprehensive, these volumes provide an idea of the size of the industry and the
range of chemicals currently utilized in the production of blanket wash.
Table 1-1. Lithographic Blanket Wash Manufacturers*
Company
AM Muttigraphics*
Anchor/Lithkemko*
Ashland Chemical*
Bingham Company
BLI Manufacturing
Dupont Printing and Publishing*
Electro Sprayer Systems, Inc.
Environmental Scientific, Inc.*
Environmental Solvents, Inc.*
Fine Organics Corporation*
Flint Ink
HMI Environmental Products*
Hurst Graphics, Inc.*
Inland Technology Inc.*
Litho Research Inc.
MacDermid, Inc.*
Printex Products Corporation*
Prisco/Printers' Service, Inc.*
RBP Chemical Corporation*
Rycoline Products, Inc.*
Siebert, Inc.*
Tower Products Inc.*
Unichema Corporation*
Varn International
Wrtco*
Location of Headquarters
Mount Prospect, IL
Orange Park, FL
Columbus, OH
Wood Dale, IL
Winston Salem, NC
Wilmington, DE
Elk Grove Village, IL
Research Triangle Park, NC
Jacksonville, FL
Chicago, IL
Detroit, Ml
Encinitas, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Tacoma, WA
Chicago, IL
Waterbury, CT
Rochester, NY
Newark, NJ
Milwaukee, Wl
Chicago, IL
Lyons, IL
Palmer, PA
Chicago, IL
Oakland, NJ
New York, NY
* Indicates those manufacturers that participated in this Project; this is not an exhaustive list of manufacturers.
DRAFT
1-12
-------
. INTRODUCTION
1.4 MARKET PROFILE
Table 1-2. Blanket Wash and Roller Wash Components
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Chemical
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), medium aliphatic*
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic*
Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy*
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic*
2-Butoxyethanol
Mineral Spirits (straight run naphtha)*
Comsolv 1 00
Methylene Chloride
Xylene*
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Isopropyl Alcohol
Acetone
Mineral Spirits (light hydrotreated)*
Toluene
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic*
Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate
2-Propoxyethanol
d-Limonene*
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), heavy aliphatic
Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether*
Kerosene
Ethyl Acetate
Perchloroethylene
Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether*
CAS Number
64742-88-7
64742-95-6
64742-48-9
64742-89-8
111-76-2
64741-41-9
64742-96-6
75-9-2
1330-20-7
71-55-6
67-63-0
67-64-1
64742-47-8
1 08-88-3
64742-94-5
108-65-6
2807-30-9
5989-27-5
64742-96-7
3459-94-8
8008-20-6
141-78-6
127-18-4
112-34-5
Annual Quantity
655,722
633,000
606,125
468,508
288,000
140,000
131,497
125,003
76,503
66,000
60,000
55,000
51 ,943
51,000
49,815
38,000
27,932
22,000
15,000
12,000
10,000
2,000
2,000
1,879
* Indicates those chemicals found in the formulations assessed in this project.
Note: Information is based upon a 1992 survey of three blanket wash producers and is estimated to represent 70% of
the industry.
1-13
DRAFT
-------
1.4 MARKET PROFILE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.4.4 Market Conditions
Based on discussions with industry representatives, the lithographic blanket wash industry-
is characterized by thin profit margins and extreme price competition. Blanket wash
manufacturers, seeking to maximize the efficiency of their operations, will often subcontract with
off-site blending companies to combine the raw material inputs of their formulations in large
mixing tanks. Blanket wash manufacturers with the largest market areas are most likely to blend
off-site to avoid the transportation costs associated with hauling their product to distant markets.
Because freight costs tend to consume profits, foreign competition of products produced outside
the U.S. has been limited in the United States market.15-16
The Association for Suppliers of Printing and Publishing Technologies (NPES) tracks an
estimated 90% of the total U.S. market for graphic art supplies; this information is reported in the
NPES Monthly Statistics Report and Quarterly Economic Forecast Shipments data include
information on various papers, films, plates, chemicals, and other graphic arts supplies. The
chemicals category includes three subcategories: photographic chemicals, plate chemicals, and
press chemicals. Blanket cleaners are included within the press chemicals subcategory; however,
financial data are not made available for the chemicals category in order to avoid disclosure of
individual company figures. The report does indicate that 1994 chemical shipments are estimated
to rise 2.2% compared to 1993 and are projected to increase 4% in 1995 and 1996.17 No basis
is available to estimate what percentage blanket washes may represent within the broader
chemical category. Industry contacts, however, estimate that blanket wash sales generate $60-70
million annually in the United States.18 .
1.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY - AUTOMATIC BLANKET WASHERS
Technology Description
An alternative to washing blankets manually is to use automatic or mechanized blanket
washers. Automatic blanket washing is a technology that uses a spray, brush, and/or cloth
system to clean the rubber blankets with little or no human assistance while the press is running.
Automatic blanket washers are becoming increasingly available .as standard equipment on new
web and sheet fed presses, and as a retrofit on older presses.
Although usually marketed as cost and labor saving devices, automatic blanket washers
may also provide environmental benefits by reducing VOC solvent use and the need for wipe rags.
Some systems also have solvent reclamation systems, and are designed to minimize fugitive
emissions in the workplace. In addition, automatic blanket washers may mitigate some health
and safely concerns for press operators because they reduce a press operator's contact with
solvent, rags, and the moving press cylinders. It is important to note, however, that even presses
equipped with automatic blanket washers still require occasional manual blanket washing,
particularly for end-of-run applications.
Depending on the blanket washing system, all automatic washers use a certain amount
of the paper running through the press to help remove ink from the blanket during the wash
cycle. Three basic forms of automatic blanket wash systems are currently available including;
spray systems, brush roller systems, and cloth-based systems. Each system is discussed below.
Spray application systems are available for web presses, and operate by applying cleaning
solvent directly to the blanket. The web continues to feed through the press, carrying away
excess ink and debris dissolved by the solvent. Spray systems typically involve a relatively
small capital investment relative to other blanket wash systems.
DRAFT
1-14
-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY-AUTOMATIC'BLANKET WASHERS
Brush roller systems, unlike spray systems, actively scrub blanket surfaces with a rotating
and oscillating brush. Two types of brush systems are available: dry-type and wet-type.
Wet-type brush systems dispense a controlled quantity of solvent onto the brush. Solvent
is not applied directly to the blanket. Dry-type brush systems mechanically clean the
blanket surface but are not wetted with cleaning solution. Dry-type systems are used only
on coldset presses.
Cloth-based systems operate by applying a web of cloth to the rotating blanket, depositing
excess ink and debris onto the cloth. After completing the cycle, the spent cloth advances
and a fresh section of cloth is left in its place. Cleaning solvents are applied to the cloth
and not directly to the blanket.
Performance Issues
Reports on the performance of automatic blanket washers run the gamut from printers who
say that their automatic washers work faster and better than manual washing, to those who have
given up and actually removed the blanket washers from their presses. Clearly, the type of
blanket washer and the type" of printing being done play large roles in determining the
effectiveness of the blanket washer/
Automatic blanket washers appear to be more prevalent on web presses, where they can
be used for blanket washing during a press run. Some printers report that automatic blanket
washers do not clean the blankets thoroughly enough to use them for end of run washing.
Blanket washers seem to be less popular for sheet-fed presses, where relatively shorter run
lengths allow printers to coordinate manual blanket washing with the end of production runs.
Economics
The potential savings associated with using an automatic blanket washer instead of
manually cleaning blankets include the following:
In most cases, wash for wash, automatic blanket washers reportedly use less
solvent than manual washing, which translates into lower solvent costs for the
printer.
Because the automatic blanket washer allows the press operator to perform other
tasks during the wash cycle, there may be significant labor savings associated with
automatic blanket washing.
Make-ready time is shortened because the press does not stop during the blanket
washing process.
Wipe rag use is reduced, which confers savings in the area of rag purchasing or in
rag leasing contracts. For cloth based systems, disposal or laundering of the spent
cloth may be a concern.
Some printers claim that blanket life is prolonged through the use of automatic
blanket washers. :
1-15
DRAFT
-------
1.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY-AUTOMATIC BLANKET WASHERS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The potential costs of automatic blanket washers include the following:
The blanket washing system itself is a significant added cost, particularly when a
retrofit is under consideration. On many new presses, however, automatic blanket
washers are standard equipment.
Maintenance costs may also be a factor. This would include routine maintenance
as well as brush and other parts replacement.
Based on information collected from two of the major firms manufacturing automatic
blanket wash systems, it appears that blanket washers are in widespread use on the larger, newly
purchased presses. One or two unit presses, measuring less than 20 inches, are unlikely to be
purchased with an automatic blanket washer. The cost of a brush roller system or cloth-based
system ranges from $7,000 to $22,000 per unit, depending upon press size and the number of
press units. These prices do not include the cost of installation, which varies according to the
type of system required and location of the printing facility. Per unit costs decrease as the
number of press units increases. A spray system, which involves the smallest capital investment,
has been estimated to cost roughly half the price of a brush roller or cloth-based system, ranging
from $3,500 to $11,000 per unit depending upon press size.19'20 Currently, automatic blanket
wash systems are typically not affordable for small presses (32" or less), although some
manufacturers indicate they intend to market a cloth-based blanket wash system specifically
designed for smaller presses, making it possible for small press operators to invest in automatic
blanket cleaning technology.21
The retrofit market is more difficult to characterize and industry contacts could not provide
a clear sense of how widespread the use of automatic blanket wash systems may be on existing
presses. This said, the retrofit market does constitute a significant portion of automatic blanket
wash system sales.22'23 When considering a retrofit purchase, printers must weigh the benefits
of increased productivity and worker safety against the significant capital investment required to
purchase a cleaning system. In some cases, printers are operating older, outdated presses that
do not justify the significant capital investment required to purchase an automatic blanket
cleaner. The price of a retrofit blanket wash system is the same as that of a system purchased
with a new press. In either case the procedure would be the same, that is the manufacturer of
the blanket wash system would install the unit at the printing facility.24'25
Environmental Impacts
Environmental benefits and costs associated with automatic blanket washers may include:
On a per wash basis, automatic blanket washing conserves solvent as compared
to manual blanket washing. Because automatic blanket washing is more
convenient than manual washing, however, press operators may clean blankets
more frequently. Currently, there are insufficient data to assess whether total
solvent use increases or decreases in practice.
VOC-soaked rag waste is reduced. For cloth based systems, disposal or laundering
of the spent cloth may be a concern.
Because a large amount of paper is wasted in manual blanket washing due to press
start up and shut down, automatic blanket washing may conserve paper.
Low VOC solvents may be used with some systems.
DRAFT
1-16
-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY-AUTOMATIC BLANKET WASHERS
Health/Safety Issues
Worker safety issues associated with automatic blanket washers may include:
Direct worker dermal exposure to solvent is reduced.
With some systems, much of the solvent can be reclaimed for re-use.
Diminished fugitive VOC emissions in the workplace.
Workers can lessen exposure to potentially dangerous moving press cylinders
associated with manual blanket cleaning.
Automatic Blanket Wash System Manufacturers
Manufacturers of automatic blanket washers include: AM Multigraphics; Baldwin
Technology; Oxy-Dry Corporation; Printex Products Corporation; Heidelberg Harris, Inc.; and Web
Printing Controls Company Inc. This list was compiled based upon discussions with industry
contacts as well as the NPES Directory of International Suppliers of Printing & Publishing
Technologies. This list is not exhaustive.
References
1. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Ray Brady,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Orange Park, FL. May 3, 1995.
2. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Denny Ryan,
Varn International, Oakland, NJ. May 12, 1995.
3. Cross, Lisa. "Suppliers Expand their Eco-roles." Graphic Arts Monthly. December 1994.
4. U.S. EPA. Control Techniques Guideline for Offset Lithographic Printing - Draft. July 12,
1993.
5. Hoppe, Debbie. Printex Products Corporation. "Comments on the Draft CTSA Review,"
memorandum to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA. April 19, 1996.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook 1994. January 1994.
7. Bruno, Michael H. Michael H. Bruno's Status of Printing, 1991 Update: A State-of-the-Art
Report Salem, NH: GAMA Communications, 1991.
8. Kannenberg, Mark. RBP Chemical Corporation. Fax received April 19, 1995.
9. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Ray Brady,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Orange Park, FL. May 3, 1995.
10. Jadrich, Paul. Siebert, Inc., comments on draft submitted to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA on Nov
7, 1995.
11. Crawford, James. State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources comments on draft
to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA. Nov 1995.
1-17
DRAFT
-------
1.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY-AUTOMATIC BLANKET WASHERS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
12. Lewis, A.F., Blue Book Marketing Information Reports. June 1994.
13. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Bill Lofquist,
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.'May 3, 1995.
14. Jadrich, Paul. Siebert, Inc. Comments on draft provided to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA. Nov 7,
1995.
15. Sheppard, William J. Litho Research. Fax received April 21; 1995.
16. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Ray Brady,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Orange Park, FL. May 3, 1995. ' ,
17. NPES. The Association for Suppliers of Printing and Publishing Technologies, Monthly
Statistics Report and Quarterly Economic Forecast 1994.
18. Kannenberg, Mark. RBP Chemical Corporation. Fax received April 19, 1995.
19. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with C.K. Berthold,
Oxy-Dry Corporation, Itasca, IL. April 20, 1995.
20. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Jerry Hubbard,
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Stamford, CT. April 27, 1995.
21. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Jerry Hubbard,
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Stamford; CT. April 27, 1995.
22. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Jerry Hubbard,
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Stamford, CT. April 27, 1995.
23. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with C.K. Berthold,
Oxy-Dry Corporation, Itasca, IL. April 20, 1995.
24. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with C.K. Berthold,
Oxy-Dry Corporation, Itasca, IL. April 20, 1995.
25. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc.', Cambridge, MA;'with Jerry Hubbard,
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Stamford, CT. April 27, 1995.
DRAFT
1-18
-------
Chapter 2
Data Collection
2.1
2.2
This chapter contains information
used to evaluate the health, environmental
and regulatory concerns associated with
the individual chemicals found in the
lithographic blanket washes, and
discusses how this information was
obtained. Section 2.1 addresses the
organization of the 56 specific chemicals
that compose the blanket washes into
generic chemical categories. Section 2.2
includes information on the physical and
chemical properties of each specific
chemical. Melting point, vapor pressure
and the bioconcentration factor are among
the many properties detailed in this
section. Section ,2.3 presents known
human health toxicological data for each
chemical. Information on the exposure
routes, toxjciry endpoints (such as
carcinogeniciry, developmental toxicity and neurologic effects), and exposure levels of concern for
the chemicals are included in this section. Section 2.4 contains environmental effects data for
each of the 56 chemicals. Included here is information on the chemical's acute and chronic
aquatic toxicity levels for fish, invertebrates and algae, and an environmental hazard ranking for
each chemical. Section 2.5 identifies which of the specific chemicals are subject to federal
environmental regulations and describes each of the regulations that apply. The focus in Section
2.6 shifts from specific chemicals to the actual blanket wash formulations submitted by suppliers.
In this section, safety hazard classifications for reactivity, flammabiliry, ignitability and corrosivity
have been assigned to each of the blanket washes.
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Chapter Contents
Categorization/Formulations
Chemical Information
2.2.1 Chemical Properties and Information
2.2.2 Safety Hazard Factors
2.2.3 Chemical Properties and Information
Summaries
Human Health Hazard Information
Environmental Hazard Information
2.4.1 Methodology
2.4.2 Results
Federal Regulatory Status
Safety Hazard by Formulation
2.1 CATEGORIZATION OF BLANKET WASH CHEMICALS FOR GENERICIZING FORMULATIONS
The chemical formulations of commercial products containing distinct chemical mixtures
are frequently considered proprietary. Manufacturers of these products typically prefer not to
reveal their chemical formulations because a competitor can potentially use the disclosed
formulation to sell the product, often at a lower price, since the competitor did not have to invest
in research and development. In addition, the performance of products may vary depending on
use and shop conditions, and suppliers were concerned about the characterization of the
performance of their products. The EPA was concerned about appearing to endorse brand name
products that fared well in the CTSA evaluation. Due to these concerns, the Lithography Project
partners developed a system to genericize the blanket wash formulations discussed in the CTSA.
In order to participate in the Project, each supplier was required to submit their product
and its exact formulation to Printing Industries of America (PIA), who replaced the product brand
name with a blanket wash number. The EPA completed the risk characterization using the exact
formulations but without knowledge of the supplier or the brand name. The numbering system
assigned by PIA is used throughout the CTSA. In addition, to maintain the confidentiality of the
formulations, the CTSA reports the results using the categorization system shown below in Table
2-1
DRAFT
-------
2.1 CATEGORIZATION/FORMULATIONS
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2-1. Each chemical in the blanket wash formulations was grouped into a category and the
categories are used to report the results (i.e., estimated environmental release) for each
formulation. The percentages of each component in a given formulation are not listed. If a printer
wishes to determine the manufacturer who produces a given formulation, a list of participating
manufacturers appears in the front of the document. Each participating manufacturer is aware
of his or her assigned product number as well as their genericized formulation.
Table 2-1. Categorization of Blanket Wash Chemicals
Category
Alkali/salts
Alkanolamines
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Dibasic esters
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Glycols
Chemicals from Blanket Wash
Use Cluster in Category
Sodium Hydroxide;
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate;
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, tetrasodium salt
Diethanolamine
Alcohols, C12-C15 , ethoxylated;
Oxirane, methyl, polymer with oxirane, monodecyl ether;
Polyethoxylated isodecyloxypropylamine;
Poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl), a-hexyl-oo-hydroxy-;
Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl) derivatives
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-;
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compounds with
2-aminoethanol;
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compounds with
2-propanamine;
Benzenesulfonic acid, (tetrapropenyl)-, compounds with 2-
propanamine;
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16-alkyl derivatives, compounds with 2-
propanamine;
Sodium xylene sulfonate
Dimethyl adipate;
Dimethyl glutarate;
Dimethyl succinate;
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acids, C16-C18, methyl esters;
Fatty acids, C16-C18 and C18-unsatd, compounds with diethanolamine;
Sorbitan, mono-9-octadecanoate;
Sorbitan, monolaurate;
Soybean oil, methyl ester;
Soybean oil, polymerized, oxidized;
Tall oil, special;
Fatty acids, tall oil, compounds with diethanolamine
Propylene glycol
DRAFT
2-2
-------
CHAPTER 2.' DATA COLLECTION
2.1 CATEGORIZATION/FORMULATIONS
Category
Chemicals from Blanket Wash
Use Cluster in Category
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Benzene, 1, 2, 4-trimethyl-;
Cumene;
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic;
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic;
Xylene
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
distillates
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated middle;
Mineral spirits (light hydrotreated);
Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy;
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic (VM&P Naphtha);
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), medium aliphatic;
Stoddard solvent
Esters/lactones
Butyrolactone;
Propanoic acid, 3-ethoxy-, ethyl ester;
Sodium bis(ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate;
Sorbitan tri-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivatives
Nitrogen heterocyclics
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Propylene glycol ethers
Dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether;
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether;
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether;
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, terpene processing by-products;
d-Limonene;
Linalool;
Nerol;
2-Pinanol;
Plinols;
a-Terpineol;
Terpinolene;
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
This section discusses the physical nature of the 56 specific chemicals used in blanket
wash formulations. First, there is a description of the types of information that are provided for
each chemical, including a glossary of chemical properties terms presented in Table 2-2. This
includes their chemical and physical properties, safety hazard factors, and environmental fate.
Following these descriptions, Table 2-3 lists the name, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry
Number, and common synonyms for each of the chemicals. The chemical and physical properties
and safety hazard factors are then listed in the Chemical Properties and Information summary for
each chemical.
2.2.1 Chemical Properties and Information
For each blanket wash chemical, there is a corresponding Chemical Properties and
Information summary. All of the information in these summaries, except for the Safety Hazard
Factors, was obtained by searching standard references, listed at the end of this chapter. This
summary contains information on the following chemical and physical properties:
2-3
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Table 2-2. Glossary of Chemical Properties Terms
Term
Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Number (CAS #)
Synonyms
Molecular weight
Melting point
Water solubility
Vapor pressure
Octanol-water partition coefficient
(Log10Kow)
Soil sorption coefficient
(Log10K00)
Bioconcentration factor (Log10
BCF)
Henry's Law Constant
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW) overall removal rate
Chemistry of use
Definition
A unique identification code, up to ten digits long, assigned to each
chemical registered by the Chemical Abstract Service. The CAS #
is useful when searching for information on a chemical with more
than one name.
Alternative names commonly used for the chemical.
A summation of the individual atomic weights based on the
numbers and kinds of atoms present in a molecule of a chemical
substance. For polymers, this may include molecular weight
distributions, ranges, and averages. Typical unit is g/mole.
The temperature at which a substance changes from the solid to
the liquid state. It indicates at what temperature solid substances
liquify. Typical unit is ฐC.
The maximum amount of a chemical that can be dissolved in a
given amount of pure water at standard conditions of temperature
and pressure. Typical unit is g/Li ' ' '
The pressure exerted by a chemical in the vapor phase in
equilibrium with its solid or liquid forms. It provides an indication of
the relative tendency of a substance to volatilize. Typical unit is
mm Hg. .
Provides a measure of the extent of a chemical partitioning between
water and octanol (as a surrogate for'lipids or other orgahics) at
equilibrium. It is an important parameter because it provides an
indication of a chemical's water solubility and its propensity to
bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms or sorb to soil and sediment.
Provides a measure of the extent of chemical partitioning between
the solid and solution phases of a two-phase system, especially
soil, sediment or activated sludge. Usually expressed on an
organic carbon basis, as the equilibrium ratio of the amount of"
chemical sorbed per unit weight of organic carbon in the soil,
sediment or sludge to the concentration of the chemical in solution.
The higher the Koc, the more likely a chemical is to bind to soil or
sediment than to remain in water.
Provides a measure of the extent of chemical partitioning at
equilibrium between a biological medium such as fish tissue or plant
tissue and an external medium such as water. The higher the BCF,
the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be.
Provides a measure of the extent of chemical partitioning between
air and water at equilibrium; estimated by dividing the vapor
pressure of a sparingly water soluble chemical substance by its
water solubility. The higher the Henry's Law constant, the more
likely a chemical is to volatilize than to remain in water.
The extent to which a chemical substance is removed from influent
wastewater by typical POTWs employing activated sludge
secondary treatment. Expressed as 100 minus that percentage of
the material originally present that remains in the liquid effluent after
treatment.
The primary use of the chemical in the lithographic printing industry.
DRAFT
2-4
-------
CHAPTER 2f DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Molecular formula and physical
structure of the chemical
Boiling point
Density
Flash point ,
Safety hazard factors
A description of the number and type of each atom in the chemical
and a description of how the atoms are arranged and the types of
bonds between atoms.
The temperature at which a liquid under standard atmospheric
pressure (or other specified pressure) changes from a liquid to a
gaseous state. It is an indication of the volatility of a substance.
The distillation range in a separation process, the temperature at
which the more volatile liquid of a mixture forms a vapor, is used for
mixtures in the absence of a boiling point. Typical unit is ฐC.
The mass of a liquid, solid, or gas per unit volume of that
substance, i.e., the mass in grams contained in 1 cubic centimeter
of a substance at 20ฐC and 1 atmosphere pressure. Typical unit is
g/cm3.
The minimum temperature at which a liquid gives off sufficient
vapor to form an ignitible mixture with air near the surface of the
liquid or within the test vessel used.
Discussed in detail below.
Any of the property values acquired from the standard references have been designated as
measured (M), since the data in these sources have been experimentally determined for the
specific chemical in question. (Please note that synonyms, molecular weight, chemistry of use,
and structure have no such designation since these are not values that can be measured, but
rather are attributes intrinsic to the chemical in question.)
For some chemicals there was little or no information in the standard references and
significant data gaps existed. Therefore, the values for the physical and chemical properties of
these chemicals needed to be estimated. These estimations were obtained using several programs
accessed through the Estimation Programs Interface (EPI), available from Syracuse Research
Corporation. EPI uses the structure of the chemical for input to eight chemical property
estimation programs. The programs used to complete the individual Chemical Properties and
Information summaries are as follows:
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient Program (LOGKOW). (Meylan WM and PH
Howard. 1995. Atom/fragment contribution method for estimating octanol-water
partition coefficients. J. Pharm. Sci. 84: 83-92.) ;
Henry's Law Constant Program (HENRY). (Meylan WM and PH Howard. 1991.
Bond contribution method for estimating Henry's Law constants. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem, 10:1283-1293.) ,
Soil Sorption Coefficient Program (PCKOC). (Meylan WM, PH Howard and RS
Boethling. 1992. Molecular topology/fragment contribution method for predicting
soil sorption coefficients. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:1560-1567.)
Melting Point, Boiling Point, Vapor Pressure Estimation Program (MPBPVP).
Water Solubility Estimation Program (WSKOW). (Meylan WM, PH Howard and RS
Boethling. 1996. Improved method for estimating water solubility from
pctanol/water coefficient. Environ Toxicol. Chem. 15(2): 100-106.)
2-5
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Sewage Treatment Plant Model (STP), a fugacity model for estimating the efficiency
of pollutant removal. (Clark B, JG Henry and D Mackay. 1995. Fugacity analysis
and model of organic chemical fate in a sewage treatment plant. Environ. Set.
.Technol. 29:1488-1494.)
The accuracy of these programs has not been established in all cases, but the listed
programs are considered to be the best methods currently available. In addition to the journal
articles discussing the development and use of these programs found at the end of this section
(with the exception of the MPBPVP program), a user's guide also is available for the EPI and each
program. Any property values determined using these programs have been designated as
estimated (E). It should be noted that the water solubility estimation program has an anticipated
margin of error of plus or minus one order of magnitude. The LOGKOW is expected to be accurate
to 0.1 log units for most compounds, although the PCKOC is likely to be somewhat less accurate
due to the complex nature of the soil/sediment sorption phenomena.
For several.chemicals, no data were available in any of the primary sources, and EPI
estimation methods were not performed because the complex nature of the chemical (e.g.,
chemicals with ranges of carbon atoms) skewed the estimation results. For these chemicals,
chemical and physical data had to be estimated based on structure-activity relationships (i.e.,
comparison with analogous chemicals with known properties). In addition, some properties were
estimated from best chemical judgment based on the class of compounds to which the chemical
in question belongs. For example, chemical and physical property values for benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl-, compounds with 2-aminoethanol have been estimated based on similarities with the
other benzenesulfonic dodecyl- blanket wash chemicals. Any property values determined by this
comparison method have been designated by an (E), estimated. Any chemical and physical
property values that still could not be estimated have been designated as not available.
2.2.2 Safety Hazard Factors
In addition to the physical and chemical properties of a chemical discussed above, there
are other chemical attributes that are important for the handling, use and storage of a chemical
in the workplace. These attributes have been designated as Safety Hazard Factors and they
include chemical reactivity, flammability, ignitability and corrosivity. Information used to
determine the Safety Hazard Factors was taken from the following sources (if information was not
available for particular factor it was not included in the Chemical Properties and Information
summary):
National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous
Materials (10th edition), Quincy, Massachusetts.
40 CFR ง261.20 (Protection of Environment, RCRA Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste), Characteristic of Ignitability.
Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Table 49 CFR ง 172.101.
The reactivity and flammability values are taken from the National Fire Protection
Association's (NFPA) Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials (10th edition). For reactivity,
materials are ranked on a scale of 0 through 4:
0 - materials that are normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and that
do not react with water; normal fire fighting procedures may be used.
1 - materials that are normally stable, but may become unstable at elevated
temperatures and pressures and materials that will react with water with some
DRAFT
2-6
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
2-
release of energy, but not violently; fires involving these materials should be
approached with caution.
materials that are normally unstable and readily undergo violent chemical change,
but are not capable of detonation; this includes materials that can rapidly release
energy, materials that can undergo violent chemical changes at high temperatures
and pressures, and materials that react violently with water. In advanced or
massive fires involving these materials, fire fighting should be done from a safe
distance of from a protected location.
materials that, in themselves, are capable of detonation, explosive decomposition,
or explosive reaction, but require a strong initiating source or heating under
confinement; fires involving these materials should be fought from a protected
location.
materials that, in themselves, are readily capable of detonation, explosive
decomposition, or explosive reaction at normal temperatures and pressures. If a
material having this Reactivity Hazard Rating is involved in a fire, the area should
be immediately evacuated.
For flammability, materials are ranked on a scale of 0 through 4:
3-
4-
0-
1. -
2-
3-
any material that will not burn.
materials that must be preheated before ignition will occur and whose flash point
exceeds 200ฐF (93.4ฐC), as well as most ordinary combustible materials.
materials that must be moderately heated before ignition will occur and that readily
give off ignitlble vapors.
flammable liquids and materials that can be easily ignited under almost all normal
temperature conditions. Water may be ineffective in controlling or extinguishing
fires in such materials.
4 - includes flammable gases, pyrophoric liquids, and flammable liquids. The preferred
method of fire attack is to stop the flow of material or to protect exposures while
allowing the fire to bum itself out.
Chemicals hot ranked by NFPA were not assigned a reactivity or a flammability value.
For ignitability, the blanket wash chemicals have been classified as either ignitable "Y", or
not ignitable "N". The determination of ignitability is based upon the standard outlined in 40 CFR
ง261.20 (Protection of Environment, RCRA; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste),
Characteristic of Ignitability. Under this standard, a chemical is considered ignitable if It "is a
liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24 percent alcohol by volume and has
a flash point less than 6OฐC (140ฐF) as determined by a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester...a
Setaflash Closed Cup Tester. ..or an equivalent test method." The flash points for these chemicals
were taken from the NFPA Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, and if no flash point
existed for a chemical, no ignitability designation was assigned.
For corrpsivity, the blanket wash chemicals have been categorized as either corrosive or
not corrosive. Any chemical with a designation in the corrosivity column is listed in the
Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Table in 49 CFR ง172.101. This table lists
all required labels a chemical must have affixed to its container prior to shipping. Chemicals
2-7
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
which require a corrosive shipping label have been designated by "Y", while chemicals which do
not require this label have been designated by "N". Chemicals not listed in the DOT Hazardous
Materials Table have not been assigned a corrosMty designation.
2.2.3 Chemical Properties and Information Summaries
In Table 2-3, each of the 56 blanket wash chemicals are listed along with their common
synonyms and the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. Immediately following the table
are the individual Chemical Properties and Information summaries for each chemical.
Table 2-3. Chemicals in Blanket Wash Formulations
Chemical Name
Alcohols, C12-C15, ethoxylated0
Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl-
Benzeriesulfonic acid, dodecyl-0
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-,
compounds with 2-aminoethanol
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-,
compounds with 2-propanaminec
Benzenesulfonic acid,
(tetrapropenyl)-, compounds with 2-
propanamine
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16- alkyl
derivatives, compounds with 2-
propanamine0
Butyrolactone
Cumenea
Diethanolaminea
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Dimethyl adipate '
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated
middle0
CAS Number
68131-39-5
95-63-6
27176-87-0
26836-07-7
26264-05-1
157966-96-6
68584-24-7
96-48-0
98-82-8
111-42-2
112-34-5
627-93-0
1119-40-0
106-65-0
29911-28-2
34590-94-8
64742-46-7
Synonym
EMUL/Mixb
Pseudocumene
Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acidb "
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid,
ethanolamine salt
Isopropylamine salt of
dodecylbenzenesulfonid acidb
Isopropylamine salt of (tetrapropenyl)
benzenesulfonic acid
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16- alkyl
derivatives, compounds with
isopropylamine
2(3H)-Furanone, dihydrob
Benzene, (1-methylethyl)-b
Ethanol, 2,2'-iminobis-b
Ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-b
Dimethyl hexanedioate; methyl adipate;
dimethyl ester adipic acid
Glutaric acid, dimethyl ester;
pentanedioic acid, dimethyl ester
Succinic acid, dimethyl ester;
butanedioic acid, dimethyl ester; methyl
succinate
2-Propanol, 1-(2-butpxy-1-
methylethoxy)- . . .
DGMBE
DPGME
Hydrotreated middle distillate"3
DRAFT
2-8
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Chemical Name
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid,
tetrasodium salt
Fatty acids, C16-C18, methyl esters0
Fatty acids, C16-C18 and C18-
unsatd, compounds with
diethanolaminea
Fatty acids, tall oil, compounds with
diethanolamine
Hydrocarbons, terpene processing
by-products0
cMJmonene3
Linalool3
Mineral spirits (light hydrotreated)
N-Methylpyrrolidone ,.
Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated
heavy0 . ,
Nerola
Oxirane, methyl, polymer with
oxirane, monodecyl ether0
2-Pinanola
Plinolsb
Polyethoxylated
isodecyloxypropylamineb
Poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl), a-hexyl-co-
hydroxy-0
Propanoic acid, 3-ethoxy-, ethyl
ester3
Propylene glycol
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Sodium bis(ethylhexyl)
sulfosuccinateb :
Sodium hydroxide
CAS Number
9016-45-9 .
26027-38-3
68412-54-4
64-02-8
67762-38-3
68002-82-4
61790-69-0
68956-56-9
5989-27-5
78-70-6
64742-47-8
872-50-4 .
64742-48-9
106-25-2
37251-67-5
473-54-1
72402-00-7
68478-95-5
31726-34-8
763-69-9
57-55-6
5131-66.-8
577-11-7
1310-73-2
Synonym
Ethoxylated nonylphenolb, Poly(oxy-1 ,2-
ethanediyl), a-(nonylphenyl)-
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Chemical Name
Sodium xylene sulfonateb
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy
aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light
aliphatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light
aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum),
medium aliphatic0
Sorbitan, mono-9-octadecenoateฐ
Sorbitan, monododecanoate,
poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl) derivatives0
Sorbitan, monolaurate
Sorbitan, tri-9-octadecenoate,
poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl) derivatives0
Soybean oil, methyl ester0
Soybean oil, polymerized, oxidized0
Stoddard solvent8
Tall oil, special
a-Terpineola
Terpinolene8
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphateb
Xylene
CAS Number
1300-72-7
64742-94-5
64742-89-8
64742-95-6
64742-88-7
1338-43-8
9005-64-5
5959-89-7
9005-70-3
67784-80-9
68152-81-8
8052-41-3
68937-81-5
98-55-5
586-62-9
7320-34-5
1330-20-7
Synonym
Benzenesulfonic acid, dimethyl-, sodium
salt0
Aromatic 150b
VM&P naphtha5
Aromatic petroleum distillate Cg-C^5
Solvent 140b
Sorbitan mono-oleate (crillet 4)b
Laurate of polyoxyethylenic sorbitanb
D-Glucitol, 1 ,4-anhydro-, 6-
dodecanoateb
Ethoxylated sorbitan tri-oleate (crillet
45)b
Soybean based methyl estersb
Oxidized soybean oilb
Mineral spirits
Special tall oilb
methyl stearate, methyl oleate
3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, a,a, 4-
trimethyl-b
Cyclohexene, 1-methyl-4-(1-
methylethylidene)-b
Diphosphoric acid, tetrapotassium salt3
Dimethyl benzene
a Indicates that the name was chosen from
Indicates name supplied by industry.
0 Indicates that the name was chosen from
the CHEMID Files.
the TSCA Inventory.
DRAFT
2-10
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Alcohols, C12-C15, Ethoxylated
CAS#68131-39-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: ethoxylated fatty alcohols; EMUL/Mix
Molecular weight: >200
Melting Point: <50ฐC(E)
Water Solubility: Dispersable (n=3 to 10) (E)
Vapor Pressure: <0.01 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 3.40 (E)
Log10K00: 3.97 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.35 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
Molecular formula varies
Structure:
R(OCH
2CH2)nOH
R = C12+o C15
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: 0.95g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint: ,>100ฐC(E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Benzene, 1,2,4-Trimethyl
CAS# 95-63-6
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene; pseudocumene;
trimethyl benzene; asymmetrical trimethyl benzene
Molecular weight: 120.19
Melting Point: -43.78ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 0.02g/L(E)
Vapor Pressure: 10.34 torr (at 54.4ฐC) (M)
Log10Kow: 3.78 (M)
Log10K00: 2.86 (M)
Log10BCF: 2.53 (E)
Henry's Law: 6.58X10"3 atm-m3/mole (M)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 97-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C9H12
Structure:
Boiling Point: 169-171ฐC(M)
Density: 0.876 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point: 54.4ฐC (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-11
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Benzenesulfonic Acid, Dodecyl-
CAS# 27176-87-0
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: DDBSA
Molecular weight: 326
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Miscible(E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"4 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow:4.78(E)
Log10K00:4.23(E)
Log10BCF: 3.41 (E)
Henry's Law: 6.27X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99.82-99.98 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Surfactant
C18H30S03
Structure:
C12H25
Boiling Point: 204.5ฐC (M)
Density: 1.00g/cm3(M)
Flash Point: 149ฐ C (open cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Corrosivity: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Benzenesulfonic Acid, Dodecyl-, Compounds with 2-Aminoethanol
CAS# 26836-07-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: Dodecylbenzensulfonic acid, ethanolamine salt
Molecular weight: 387.59
Melting Point Not available
Water Solubility: Dispersible (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6mmHg(E)
Log10 K^: Not available
LogjgK^: Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 50-90 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C20H37N04S
Structure:
HNH2(CH2CH2OH)
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: 1 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-12
-------
CHAPTER* DATA COLLECTION
2.2 .GHEMICALINFORMATION
Benzenesulfonic Acid, Dodecyl-, Compounds with 2-Propanamine
CAS# 26264-05-1
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: isopropylamine salt of dodecylbenzenesulfonic
acid
Molecular weight: 385.5
Melting Point: -Not available
Water Solubility: Dispersible (E) (surfactant)
Vapor Pressure: <10"5mm Hg (E)
Npt available
Not available
Log10Kow:
Lฐ9ioKoo-
Log10BCF: Not available
Henn/sLaw: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C21H39N03S
Structure:
HNHZCH(CH3)J
Boiling Point: Decomposes (M)
Density: 1.03g/cm3(M)
Flashpoint: Not available.
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Benzenesulfonic Acid, C10-C16-Alkyl Derivatives, Compounds with 2-
Propanamine
, CAS# 68584-24-7 -
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: benzenesulfonic acid, C10.16-alkyl derivatives,
compounds with isopropylamine
Molecular weight: 357-441
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Dispersible (surfactant) (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"5 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 4.78 (E) ;
Log10K00: 4.23 (E) '
Log10BCF: 3.41 (E)
Henry's Law: 6.27X10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
Structure:
HNH2CH(CH3)2
n = 10 to 16
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: 1.05g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-13
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Benzenesulfonic Acid, (Tetrapropenyl)-, Compound with 2-Propanamine
CAS# 157966-96-6
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: Isopropylamine salt of (tetrapropenyl)
benzenesulfonic acid
Molecular weight: 383.5
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Dispersible (E) (surfactant)
Vapor Pressure: <10"5 mm Hg (E)
'-ฐ9io^ow: Not available
Log^K^: Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henn/sLaw: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C21H37N03S
Structure:
HNH2CH(CH3)2
R =3 C12^23~ branched, unaaturated
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: 1.0g/cm3(E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Butyrolactone
CAS# 96-48-0
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: y-butyrolactone;dihydro-2(3H)-furanone; 1,2-
butanolide; 1,4-butanolide; yhydroxybutyric acid lactone; 3-
hydroxybutyric acid lactone; 4-hydroxybutanoic acid lactone
Molecular weight: 86
Melting Point: -44ฐC(M)
Water Solubility: miscible (M)
Vapor Pressure: 3.2 mm Hg (25ฐ C)(M) .
Log10Kmv:.0.640 (M)
Log10Koc:0.85(E)
Log10BCF: -0.72 (E)
Henr/s Law: 1.81 x 10'5 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C4H602
Structure:
Boiling Point: 204ฐC(M)
Density: 1.125g/mL(M)
Flash Point: Open cup: 98ฐC (M)
Koc: 53 (E)
Physical state: Liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 1
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-14
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Cumene
CAS# 98-82-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: benzene, (1 -methylethyl)-; Isopropylbenzene
Molecular weight: 120.19
Melting Point: -96ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Insoluble (M)
Vapor Pressure: 3.53 mm Hg (M)
Log10Kow: 3.66 (M)
Log10Koc: 2.91 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.39 (E)
Henry's Law: 1.23X10'2 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 97-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C9H12
Structure:
CH(CH3)2
Boiling Point: 152-153ฐC(M) .
Density: 0.862 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point: 39ฐC (closed cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 1
Flammability: 3
Ignitability: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Diethanolamine
CAS# 111-42-2
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: ethanol, 2,2'-iminobis-; Iminodiethanol; 2,2'-
dihydroxyethylamine;
Molecular weight: 105.14
Melting Point: 28ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Very soluble
Vapor Pressure: Not available
Log10Kow: -1.43(M)
Log10K00: -0.85 (E)
Log10BCF: -1.53(E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83.36-96.61 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Structure: HOCH2CH2NHCH2CH2OH
Boiling Point: 270ฐC'(M)
Density: 1.088149g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 137ฐC(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 1
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-15
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
.CAS# 112-34-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol; butyl ethyl
Cellosolve; diethylene glycol butyl ether; butyl Carbitol;
Dowanol DB; Poly-Solv DB; butoxydiglycol, butyl digol,
butyl diicinol
Molecular weight: 162.2
Melting Point: -68ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Miscible(E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.02 mm Hg (E) (20ฐ C)
Log10Kmv: 0.56 (M)
Log^: -0.55 (E)
Log10BCF: 0.46 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C8H18ฐ3
Structure: C4H9OCH2CH2OCH2CH2OH
Boiling Point: 231ฐC(M)
Density: 0.954 g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: Open cup: 110ฐC (M)
Closed cup: 78ฐC(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 1
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Dimethyl Adipate
CAS# 627-93-0
.Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: dimethyl hexanedioate; methyl adipate;
dimethyl ester adipic acid
Molecular weight: 174.25
Melting Point: 8ฐC(M)
Water Solubility: 0.1 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.06 mm Hg (25ฐC)(E)
1.39(E)
1.04(E)
Log^BCF: 0.82 (E)
Henry's Law: 1.28 x 10'7 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 85-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Lubricant, plasticizer
Log10Kw.
Lฐ9ioKoc:
Structure: (CH30)CO(CH2)4CO(OCH3)
Boiling Point: 193.7ฐC (at 760 mm Hg)(E)
Density: 1.063g/mL(M) '
FlashPoint: 107ฐC(M)
Physical state: Colorless, odorless liquid'
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-16
-------
CHAPTER*. DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Dimethyl Glutarate
CAS# 1119-40-0
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: glutaric acid, dimethyl ester; pentanedioic acid,
dimethyl ester .
Molecular weight: 160.17
Melting Point: -42.5ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 1g/L(E) ,
Vapor Pressure: 0.1 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 0.90 (E)
Log10K00:0.77(E)
Log10BCF: -0.14 (E)
Henry's Law: 9.09X10'8atm-m3/mole(E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C7H1204
Structure: CH302C(CH2)3C02CH3
Boiling Point: 214ฐC(M)
Density: 1.088g/cm3(M)
FlashPoint: 100ฐC(E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Dimethyl Succinate
CAS# 106-65-0
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: succinic acid, dimethyl ester; butanedipic acid,
dimethyl ester; methyl succinate
Molecular weight: 146.14
Melting Point: 19ฐC(M)
Water Solubility: 8.3 g/L (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.1 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 0.19 (M)
Log10Koc: 0.48 (E) . ;
Log10BCF: Not available
Henr/sLaw: 5.8X10"6 atrn-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Structure: CH302C(CH2)2C02CH3
Boiling Point: 196.4ฐC(M)
Density: 1.12g/cm3(M)
FlashPoint: 100ฐC(E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-17
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Dipropylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
CAS# 29911-28-2
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 2-propanol, 1-{2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-;
DGMBE
Molecular weight: 190.3
Melting Point: -73ฐC(M)
Water Solubility: Miscible (E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.044 mm Hg (M)
Log10Kow: 1.13(E)
LogloK00:-0.15(E)
Log10BCF: 0.63 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
H(OCHCH2)2OC4Hg
C10H22ฐ3
Structure:
CH3
Boiling Point: 229ฐC (M)
Density: 0.913 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point: 118ฐ C (open cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether
CAS# 34590-94-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: glycol ether DPM; Dowanol DPM
Molecular weight 148.2
Melting Point: -80ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Miscible (E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.4 mm Hg (M) (25ฐC)
Log^: -0.35 (E)
Log^: 1.00 (E)
Log10BCF: -0.49 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10"8atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C7H16ฐ3
Structure: CH3CHOHCH2OCH2CH(OCH3)CH3
Boiling Point: 188.3ฐC (M)
Density: 0.951 g/mL (M)
Flash Point: 75ฐC (M)
Physical state: Liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-18
-------
CHAPTER 2-. DM A COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Distillates (Petroleum), Hydrotreated Middle
CAS# 64742-46-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: hydrotreated middle distillate
Molecular weight: Varies
Melting Point: -70ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: 0.003 g/L(E)
Vapor Pressure: 2 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 5.25 (E)
Log10Koc: 3.24 (E)
Log10BCF: 3.76 (E)
Henry's Law: 5.3 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): neariy 100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
CnH2tH2 and CnH?n (cycloparaffin)
Structure: No definite structure. Mixture of
normal-, branched-, and cyclo-paraffins.
Boiling Point: 180-210ฐC(E)
Density: 0.78g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint: 50ฐC(E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Ethoxyiated Nonylphenol
CAS# 9016-45-9, 26027-38-3, 68412-54-4
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-(nonylphenyl)-Q-
hydroxy-; Antarox; polyethylene glycol mono (nonylphenyl)
ether
Molecular weight: 630 (for n=9.5) (typical range 500 - 800)
Melting Point: -20 to+10ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: Soluble (M)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 3.93 (E) (np = 7)
Log10Koc: -0.19(E)(np = 7)
Log10BCF: Not available
Henr/sLaw: 1.81X10'22atm-m3/mole(E) (np = 7)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Nonionic surfactant
C34H62ฐio(forn=9-5)
Structure:
gH^&, A 0(CH2CH20)nH
n = 9.5 (for scrซซn printing formulaffon product)
Boiling Point: >300ฐC (E) (decomposes)
Density: 0.8g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint: 200-260ฐC(E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-19
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, tetrasodium salt
CAS# 64-02-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: Glycine, N,N'-1,2-ethanediylbis[N-
(carboxymethyl)-; tetrasodium salt; Tetrasodium EDTA
Molecular weight: 380.20
Melting Point: >300ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 1030g/L(M)
Vapor Pressure: <10~7 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: Not available
Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83.3-96.6 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Chelating agent
C10H12NaN2Oa
Structure:
o
Na+~OCCH2
CH2CO~Na+
Na OCCH,NCH9CH,NCH,CO Ne?
2 2 2 2
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: 0.83g/cm3(E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Fatty Acids, C16-C18, Methyl Esters
S#
CAS# 67762-38-3
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: fatty acid methyl esters
Molecular weight: 270-298
Melting Point: 27-36ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: <0.1 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"3 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow:7.74(E)
LogwK^: 453 (E)
Log10BCF: 5.65 (E)
Henr/s Law: 2.00X10"2 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 94-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Cn+2H2n+402(n=15to17)and
Cn+2H2n+2ฐ2(n=17)
Structure:
RCOCH
R = C.jg_j7, and unsaturated
Boiling Point: 325ฐC(E)
Density: 0.88g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint: 200ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-20
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Fatty Acids, C16*Q18 and C18-unsatd., Compounds with Diethanolamine
CAS# 68002-82-4
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: diethanolamine tallate
Molecular weight: 361 -390
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Dispersible (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 7.45 (E) .
Log10Koc: 3.80 (E)
Log10BCF: 5.43 (E)
Henr/s Law: 5.23X10'5 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
Cn+5H2n+i3N04(n=15 to 17) and
Structure:
0
11
RCO
NH2(CH2CH2OH)J
R = C15_<7> and unsaturatad
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: >1 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Fatty acids, tall oil, Compounds with Diethanolamine
CAS# 61790-66-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms:
Molecular weight: 387 - 389
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Dispersible (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: Not available
Log10Koc: Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant . '
C22H45N04and.C22H47N04
Structure:
NH2(CH2CH2OH)2
R ~ C17H33 or C17H35
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: >1 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-21
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Hydrocarbons, Terpene Processing By-Products
CAS# 68956-56-9
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms:
Molecular weight: >136
Melting Point: -40 to -60ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: 0.02 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg (E)
Log^K^: 4.83 (E)
Log^: 3.12 (E)
Log10BCF:3.44(E)
Henry's Law: 3.80X10'1 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 98-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C10H16 and larger
Structure: Mixture of C10 and larger terpenes.
Boiling Point: 165 - 180ฐC (E)
Density: 0.84 - 0.87 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: 30 - 50ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Corrosivity: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
tf-Limonene
CAS# 5989-27-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl) cyclohexene; (+)-
carvene; citrene; 1,8-p-menthadiene; 4-isopropenyl-1-
methylcyclohexene cinene; cajeputene; kautschin
Molecular weight: 136
Melting Point: -74ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 0.014 g/L (M)
Vapor Pressure: 5 mm Hg (E) (25ฐC)
Log10Kow:4.83(E)
Log^a^E)
Log10BCF:3.44(E)
Henry's Law: 3.80X10'1 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): >99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Wetting and Dispersing Agent
C10H16
Structure:
Boiling Point: 176ฐC(M)
Density: 0.84g/mL(M)
Flash Point: 48ฐC (M)
Koc: 1,000-4,800 (E)
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-22
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Linalool
CAS# 78-70-6
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 1,6-octadien-3-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-
Molecular weight: 154.24
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Practically insoluble (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.29 mm Hg (M)
Log10Kow: 3.38 (E)
Log10K00: 1.75 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.34 (E)
Henry's Law: 4.23X10'5 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 93-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Structure:
Boiling Point: 198-200ฐC(M)
Density: 0.8622 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point: 74ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Mineral Spirits (Light Hydrotreated)
CAS# 64742-47-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: many trade names by companies including
Amsco, Apco, Epesol, Exxon, Phillips, Shell, etc., most of
which include "mineral spirits" in the name
Molecular weight: 86 for n-hexane; 112 for
ethycyclohexane, for example
Melting Point: -60ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: 0.001 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.5-1 mm Hg (E) (25ฐC)
Log10Kow: 3.90 (M)
Log10K00: 2.17 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.73 (E)
Henry's Law: 1.71 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): >99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Molecular formula: CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n
(cycloparaffin) .
Structure: Typical structures include normal paraffins,
CH3(CH2)nCH3, branched paraffins, and cycloparaffins
Boiling Point: 140-180ฐC(M)
Density: 0.78g/mL(M)
Flash Point: <43ฐC(M)
Physical State: Liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-23
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Naphtha (Petroleum), Hydrotreated Heavy
CAS# 64742-48-9
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: aliphatic petroleum distillate Cg-C^; naphthol
spirits (aliphatic); hydrated lightstream cracked naphtha
residuum (petroleum)
Molecular weight: 86 for n-hexane; 112 for
ethylcyclohexane, for example
Melting Point: -80ฐC(E)
Water Solubility: 0.001 g/L(E)
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg at 25ฐC (E)
Log10Kow: 4.27 (E)
Log^: 2.70 (E)
Log10BCF: 3.01 (E)
Henr/s Law: 3.01 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n (cycloparaffin)
Structure: No definite structure.. Mixture of
normal-, branched-, and cyclo-paraffins
Boiling Point: 66-230ฐC (M)
Density: 0.8 g/ml (E)
Flash Point: 60ฐC (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 4
Ignitability: Y
Corrosivity: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Nerol
CAS# 106-25-2
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 2,6-octadiene-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-,
Molecular weight: 154.24
Melting Point: <-15.4ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Insoluble (E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.06 mm Hg (M)
Log^: 1.85 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.41 (E)
Henry's Law: 5.89X1 0'5 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 94-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Structure:
Boiling Point: 224-225ฐC (M)
Density: 0.8756 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point: 77ฐC (M)
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-24
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL 1NFORMATJON
N-Methylpyrroiidone
CAS# 872-50-4
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: N-methylpyrrolidone [1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone; 1-
methylazacyclopenta-2-one; N-methyl-y-butyrolactam];
NMP
Molecular weight: 99.13
Melting Point: <-17 to -23ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Miscible (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.334 mm Hg (E) (25ฐC)
Log10Kow: -0.38 (M)
Log10K00: 1.32(E)
Log10BCF: -0.31 (E)
Henry's Law: 3.16X10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C5H9NO
Structure:
Boiling Point: 202ฐC (M)
Density: 1.03g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 96ฐC(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 1
Flammability: 3
Ignitability: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Oxirane, Methyl-, Polymer with Oxirane, Monodecyl Ether
CAS# 37251-67-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: ethoxylated propoxylated decyl alcohol
Molecular weight: Varies
Melting Point: <-50ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: Dispersible (n=3 to 10) (E)
Miscible (n>10) (E)
Vapor Pressure: <104mmHg(E)
Log10Kow: 3.26 (E)
Log10K00: 6.67 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.25 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 1-95 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
Molecular formula varies
Structure:
C10H21(OCH2CH)m(OCH2CH2)nOH
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: <1 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-25
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2-Pinanol
CAS# 473-54-1
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: bicyclo[3.1.1]heptan-2-ol, 2,6,6-
trimethyl-
Molecular weight: 154.24
Melting Point: 60 - 80ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: <0.1g/L(E)
Vapor Pressure: 1.9x10"2 mm Hg (E)
Log^K^: 2.85 (E)
Log10Koc: 1.73 (E)
Log10BCF: 1.94 (E)
Henry's Law: 1.90X10'6 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW OveraU Removal Rate (%): 88-98 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C10H18ฐ
Structure:
OH
Boiling Point: 220ฐC (M)
Density: 1.01 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: 65ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Plinols
CAS# 72402-00-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: cyclopentanol, 1,2-dimethyl-3-
(1-methy!ethenyl)-
Molecular weight 154.24
Melting Point 93ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Very slightly soluble (E)
Vapor Pressure: <0.01 mm Hg (E)
Log^K^: 3.34 (E)
Log10K00:1.74(E)
Log10BCF: 2.31 (E)
Henn/s Law: 1.34X10'5 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 11-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Structure:
Boiling Point: 220ฐG(E)
Density: 0.92 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-26
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Polyethoxylated Isodecyloxypropylamine
CAS# 68478-95-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a,a'-(iminodi-2,1
ethanediyl) bis[oo-hydroxy]-, N-[3-(branched
decyloxy)propyl] derivatives
Molecular weight: >400
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Dispersible or soluble
(depending on degree of ethoxylation) (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 0.92 (E)
Log10K00: -1.43(E)
Log10BCF: 0.47 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10~8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 85-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
Molecular formula varies '
Structure:
HO(CH2CH20)nCH2CH2NCH2CH2(OCH2CH2)nOH
CH2CH2CH2OR
R =
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: Not available
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Poly (Oxy-1,2-Ethanediyl), cc-Hexyl-co-Hydroxy-
CAS# 31726-34-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: ethoxylated hexyl alcohol
Molecular weight: >278
Melting Point: -10ฐC(E)
Water Solubility: Dispersible (n=3 to 10),
Miscible (n>10) (E)
Vapor Pressure: <0.005 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 0.73 (E)
Log10Koc: 1.58(E)
Log10BCF: 0.32 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8atm-m3/mole(E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C2n+6H4n+14ฐn+1 (n>3)
Structure: C6H130(CH2CH20)nH (n>3)
Boiling Point: >270ฐC(E)
Density: >0.95 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: >150ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-27
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Propanoic Acid, 3-Ethoxy-, Ethyl Ester
CAS# 763-69-9
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: ethyl-3-elhoxy propionate; ethyl-p-ethoxy
propionate
Molecular weight: 146.1
Melting Point -100ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Slightly soluble (1 g/L) (E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.9 mm Hg (at 20ฐC) (M)
Log10Kow: 1.08(E)
Log^: 0.61 (E)
Log10BCF: 0.59 (E)
Henry's Law: 4.77X10'7 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 84-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C7H14ฐ3 '
Structure: CH3CH2OOCCH2CH2OCH2CH3
Boiling Point: 170ฐC(M)
Density: 0.9496 g/cnf (M)
Flash Point: 82ฐC (open cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Propylene Glycol
CAS# 57-55-6
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 1,2-propanediol; methyl glycol; 1,2-
dihydroxypropane; methylethylene glycol; trimethyl glycol
Molecular weight: 76.10
Melting Point: -60ฐC(M)
Water Solubility: Miscible
Vapor Pressure: 0.2 mm Hg at 20ฐC (M)
Log10Kow: -0.92 (M)
Log^: 0.00 (E)
Log10BCF: -0.82 (E)
Henry's Law: 1.74x10'7atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C3Hg02
Structure: HOCH(CH3)CH2OH
Boiling Point: 187.3ฐC (M)
Density: 1.038g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 101ฐC(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 1
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-28
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Propylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
CAS#5131-66-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 2-propanol, 1-butoxy-
Molecular weight: 132
Melting Point: -100ฐC(M)
Water Solubility: 64 g/L (M)
Vapor Pressure: <0.98 mm Hg at 20ฐC (M)
Log10Kow: 0.98 (E)
Log^: 0.11 (E)
Log10BCF: 0.52 (E)
Henry's Law: 4.88X10'8 atm-nf/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C7H16ฐ2
Structure: C4H9OCH2CH(CH3)OH
Boiling Point: 170ฐC (M)
Density: 0.89g/cm3(E)
Flash Point: 59 (closed cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E) .
Sodium bis(Ethylhexyl) Sulfosuccinate
CAS# 577-11-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: butanedioic acid, sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl)
ester, sodium salt; sodium sulfosuccinate; Docusate
sodium
Molecular weight: 444.37
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: 15g/L(at25ฐC) (M)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 6.10 (E)
Log10Koc: 5.02 (E)
Log10BCF: 4.40 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Surfactant
C20H37Na07S
Structure:
CH
CH2COCH2CH(CH2)3CH3
Na+~03SCH2COCH2CH(CH2)3CH3
0 C2H5
Boiling Point: Not available
Density: Not available
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-29
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Sodium Hydroxide
CAS# 1310-73-2
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: caustic soda; lye; sodium hydrate; soda lye
Molecular weight: 39.9
Melting Point: 323ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 1,180g/L(E)
Vapor Pressure: Negligible (E); 1 mm Hg (M) (739ฐC)
bxjior\ow" Not available
Log^K^: Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): Not available
Chemistry of Use: Caustic
NaOH
Structure: NaOH
Boiling Point: 1390ฐC(M)
Density: 2.13 g/mL(M)
Flash Point: Not applicable
Physical State: Deliquescent orthomombic white powder
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 1
Flammability: 0
Ignitability: N
Corrosivity: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Sodium Xylene Sulfonate
CAS# 1300-72-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: benzenesulfonic acid, dimethyl-, sodium salt
Molecular weight: 208.09
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Very soluble (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
'-ฐ9io^ow: Not available
Log^K^,: Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Surfactant
C8H9NaS03
Structure:
and other laomens
Boiling Point: Not available
Density: Not available
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-30
-------
CHAPTER 2-. DMA. COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Solvent Naphtha (Petroleum), Heavy Aromatic
CAS# 64742-94-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: Aromatic 150; Comsolv 150
Molecular weight: 128 for naphthalene
Melting Point: -80ฐC(E)
Water Solubility: 0.03 g/L (M) for naphthalene
Vapor Pressure: 0.5 mm Hg (E) (25ฐC)
Log10Kow: 4.45 (M)
Log10K00: 4.31 (E)
Log10BCF: 3.15 (E)
Henry's Law: 2.56X10'5 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 96 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C10H8 for naphthalene
Structure: Consist chiefly of aromatic hydrocarbons,
including small fused-ring compounds such as naphthalene
Boiling Point: 150-290ฐC (E)
Density: 0.87g/mL(E)
FlashPoint: 38ฐC(E)
Physical State: Liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: Y
Corrosivity: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Solvent Naphtha (Petroleum), Light Aliphatic
CAS# 64742-89-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: VM&P #66; lacolene; rubber solvent; petroleum
ether; naphtha; varnish makers' and painters'
solvent; VM&P Naphtha
Molecular weight: 86 for n-hexane; 112 for
ethycyclohexane, for example
Melting Point: <-80ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 0.001 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure: 20 mm Hg (E) (25ฐC)
Log10Kow: 3.44 (M)
Log10Koc: 2.22 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.18 (E)
Henry's Law: 2.55X10'1 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): >94 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Molecular Formula: CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n
(cycloparaffin)
Structure: Typical structures include normal paraffins,
CH3(CH2)nCH3, branched paraffins, and cycloparaffins
Boiling Point: 35-160ฐC (M)
Density: 0.7 g/mL (E)
Flash Point: 0ฐC (E)
Physical State: Liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 3
Ignitability: Y
Corrosivity: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-31
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Solvent Naphtha (Petroleum), Light Aromatic
CAS# 64742-95-6
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: Comsolv 100
Molecular weight: 128 for naphthalene
Melting Point: -80ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: 0.03 g/L (M) for naphthalene
Vapor Pressure: 0.5 mm Hg (E) (25ฐC)
3.30 (M)
3.26 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.28 (E)
Henry's Law: 3.70X10'4 atm-ms/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): >92 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C10H8 for naphthalene
Structure: Consist chiefly of aromatic
hydrocarbons, including small fused-ring
compounds such as naphthalene
Boiling Point: 135-210ฐC (E)
Density: 0.87 g/mL (E)
Flash Point: 38ฐC (E)
Physical State: Liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: Y
CorrosMty: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Solvent Naphtha (Petroleum), Medium Aliphatic
CAS# 64742-88-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: Solvent 140
Molecular weight: 86 for n-hexane; 112 for
eUiycyclohexane, for example
Melting Point: -60ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 0.001 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg at 25ฐC (E)
Log10Kow: 5.64 (M)
Log^: 3.77 (E)
Log10BCF: 4.51 (E)
Henr/s Law: 9.35 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99.98-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n (cycloparaffin)
Structure: No definite structure. Mixture of
normal-, branched-, and cyclo-paraffins.
Boiling Point: 176-210ฐC (M)
Density: 0.787 g/mL (M)
Flash Point: 60ฐC (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: Y
Corrosivity: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-32
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Sorbitan, Mono-9-Octadecenoate,
CAS# 1338-43-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: sorbitan mono-oleate, (crillet 4)
Molecular weight: 428.44
Melting Point: <20ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: Dispersible (M)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 5.89 (E)
Log10K00: 2.75 (E)
Log10BCF:4.24(E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99.98-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
HC>
OH
Structure:
CHOH
CH2R
R = OC(CHZ)7CH=CH(CH2)7CH3
0
Boiling Point: Not available
Density: 1.0g/cm3(E)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Sorbitan, Monododecanoate, Poly(Oxy-1,2-Ethanediyl) Derivatives
CAS# 9005-64-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: polysorbate - 20; polyoxy ethylene (20)
sorbitan monolaurate; Tween 20; Laurate of
pqlyoxyethylenic sorbitan
Molecular weight: 1,180
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Completely soluble (M); 1000,g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: Not available
Log10Koc: Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C54H114ฐ26
Structure:
k OCC,,HM
Boiling Point: Not available
Density: 1.1 g/cm3 (M)
FlashPoint: 148ฐC (closed cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-33
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Sorbitan, Monolaurate
CAS# 5959-89-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: D-g!ucitol; 1,4-anhydro-, 6-dodecanoate
Molecular weight: 358.34
Melting Point: <20ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: Insoluble (M)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow:3.15(E)
Log^: 1.16 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.17 (E)
Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 90-98 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C18H34ฐ6
Structure:
HO
OH
HOH
CH2OCC1lH23
0
Boiling Point: 393ฐC(M)
Density: 1.0g/cm3(E)
Flashpoint: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Sorbitan, Tri-9-Octadecenoate, Poly(0xy-1,2-Ethanediyl) Derivatives
CAS# 9005-70-3
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: sorbitan tri-o!eate (crillet 45)
Molecular weight: 1,836(n=20)
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Completely soluble (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"S mm Hg (E)
Log10Kw: Not available
Log^K^,: Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99.98-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C100H188ฐ28 (n=2ฐ)
Structure:
R(c2H4o;
w+x+y+z = 20
,(OC2H4)XR
CH(OC2H4)yOH
H2C(OC2H4)ZR
R = OC(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)7CH3
O
Boiling Point: Not available
Density: 1.1 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: 160ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-34
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
Soybean Oil, Methyl Ester
CAS# 67784-80-9
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: soybean based methyl esters
Molecular weight: 295
Melting Point: -30ฐC(E)
Water Solubility: Insoluble (E)
Vapor Pressure: 0.01 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 7.80 (E)
Log10K00: 4.79 (E)
Log10BCF: 5.70 (E)
Henry's Law: 2.03X10'3 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 94-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C19H3602and C19H3402
Structure: RCOOCH3 (R = C17H33 or C17H31)
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: 0.883 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point: 160-180ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 1
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Soybean Oil, Polymerized, Oxidized
CAS#68152-81-8
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: oxidized soybean oil
Molecular weight: Varies
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Insoluble (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"5 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 15.33 (E)
Log10K00: 13.73 (E)
Log10BCF: 11.42(E)
Henry's Law: 1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99.98-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use:
Molecular formula varies
Structure: No definite structure
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: Not available
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 1
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-35
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Stoddard Solvent
CAS# 8052-41-3
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: Rule 66 mineral spirits; quick-dry mineral
spirits; 140 solvent; VM&P naphtha; dry cleaners' solvent.
Molecular weight: 86 for n-hexane; 112 for
ethylcyclohexane, for example
Melting Point: -70ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Miscible (M)
Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg at 25ฐC (E)
Log^: 5.25 (E)
Log^S^tE)
Log10BCF: 3.58 (E)
Henr/s Law: 5.3 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): nearly 100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
CnH2n+2 (paraffins), CnH2n (cycloparaffins)
Structure: No definite structure. Mixture of
normal-, branched-, and cyclo-paraffins
Boiling Point: 157-196ฐC(M) '
Density: 0.787 (M)
FlashPoint: 60ฐC (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: Y
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Tall Oil, Special
CAS# 68937-81 -5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: fatty acids, O18 and C18-unsatd., methyl
esters, methyl stearate, methyl oleate
Molecular weight: 296-298
Melting Point: 36-39ฐC (E)
Water Solubility: Insoluble (M) (<0.1 g/L) (E)
Vapor Pressure: <10"3 mm Hg (E)
: 7.74 (E)
: 4.53 (E)
Log10BCF: 5.65 (E)
Henry's Law: 2.00X10'2 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C19H3602 and C19H3802
Structure: CH3(CH2)16COOCH3
and CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)7COOCH3
Boiling Point: 325ฐC(E)
Density: 0.88g/cm3(E)
Flash Point: 200ฐC (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-36
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
cc-TerpineoI
CAS# 98-55-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: 3-cyclohexene-1-methanol, a,a,4-trimethyl-;
p-menth-1-en-8-ol
Molecular weight: 154.24
Melting Point: 2ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: Slightly soluble (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.12 mm Hg (M)
Log10Kow: 3.33 (E)
Log10K00: 1.76(E)
Log10BCF: 2.30 (E)
Henry1 s Law: 3.15X10"6 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 86-98 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Structure:
Boiling Point: 214-224ฐC (M)
Density: 0.9338 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point: 90ฐC (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 2
Ignitability: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Terpinolene
CAS# 586-62-9
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: cyclohexene, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethylidene)-;
p-mentha-1,4(8)-diene
Molecular weight: 136.16
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Insoluble (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.49 mm Hg (M)
Log10Kow:4.88(E)
Log10Koc: 3.12 (E)
Log10BCF: 3.48 (E)
Henry's Law: 6.00X10'2 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 90.06-99.95 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C10H16
Structure:
Boiling Point: 183-185ฐC (M)
Density: 0.864 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point: 37.2ฐC (closed cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:.
Ignitability: Y
Corrosivity: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
2-37
DRAFT
-------
2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate
CAS# 7320-34-5
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: diphosphoric acid, tetrapotassium salt; TKPP
Molecular weight: 330.34
Melting Point: 1090ฐC (M)
Water Solubility: 1 ,870 g/L (M)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10K: Not available
Not available
Log10BCF: Not available
Henry's Law: Not available
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 0-25 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Sequestering agent
Structure:
K+0~P0P0 K+
K-0-
K+0
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density: 2.33g/cm3(M)
Flash Point: Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
Xylene
CAS# 1330-20-7
Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: dimethylbenzene; methyltoluene; xylol
Molecular weight: 106.2
Vapor Pressure: 10 mm Hg (E) (25ฐC)
Water Solubility: 0.1 g/L (E)
Melting Point: o: -25ฐC(M)
m: -48ฐC(M)
p: 13ฐC(M)
Log10Kow: 3.15 (M) '
Log^: -0.69 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.16 (E)
Henry's Law: 1.81X10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 94 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C8H10
Structure: o-xylene m-xylene p-xylene
Boiling PoffSf 137-140ฐ
Density: 0.864 g/mL(M)
Flash Point: o: 17ฐC(M)
m: 29ฐC(M)
p: 27ฐC (M)
Physical State: Colorless liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
Reactivity: 0
Flammability: 3
Ignitability: Y
Corrosivity: N
Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT
2-38
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
Table 2-4 summarizes human health effects information obtained to date on chemicals
used in lithographic blanket washes. Initial literature searches were limited to secondary sources
such as EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the National Library of Medicine's
Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), TOXLINE, TOXLIT, GENETOX, and the Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). The results of these literature searches are in the
Administrative Record. These databases are established by other organizations as well as EPA,
and are available by computerized online searching. They contain numeric and textual
information that was used in developing the human health hazard summaries. These sources are
considered secondary and no attempt has been made to verify the information contained in these
sources. References typically are made to the database Itself except for information taken from
abstracts in TOXLINE and TOXLIT; in these cases, the author is cited with a notation to the
database included in the text. Additionally, toxicologic data developed under the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics' Chemical Testing Program are incorporated in the human health
hazard summary. Unpublished data submitted under TSCA งง 8(d) and 8(e) are being reviewed
and will be incorporated as appropriate in the final version of this document.
The "TOX ENDPOINT" column in Table 2-4 lists adverse toxicological effects that have been
reported in the literature for animal or human studies. This is simply a qualitative listing of
reported effects and does not imply anything about the severity of the effects nor the doses at
which the effects occur. Furthermore, an entry in this column does not necessarily imply that
EPA has reviewed the reported studies or that EPA concurs with the authors' conclusions.
Toxicological effects are abbreviated as follows:
car = carclnogenicity
chron = chronic effects not otherwise listed. Target organ toxicity such as liver and kidney
effects may be manifested by changes in size, structure, or function of the organ. For
example, organ weight changes, changes in cell size or shape, or changes In enzyme
activity associated with a particular organ are commonly reported endpoints in chronic
toxicity studies.
dev = developmental toxicity, i.e., adverse effects on the developing embryo, fetus, or
newborn
gene = genetic toxicity, such as point mutations or chromosomal aberrations
g.i. = gastrointestinal effects
hema = hematological effects, i.e., adverse effects on blood cells. Blood effects may involve
changes in the number of blood cells as well as effects on their structure or function.
neuro = adverse neurological effects; includes a wide range of effects from serious
neuropathology to transient CNS depression commonly seen with high exposures to
solvents
repro = reproductive toxicity, i.e., adverse effects on the ability of either males or females
to reproduce
resp = respiratory effects
LD50 = the dose (usually from a single dosing or short-term exposure) lethal to 50% of a
test population
The "RfD/RfC" is the EPA Reference Dose (RfD) or Reference Concentration (RfC). The RfD
is an estimate of a daily exposure to the human population that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime. The RfD is usually expressed
as an oral dose in mg/kg/day. The RfC is an analogous value for continuous inhalation exposure,
usually expressed in mg/m3. The RfD/RfC values listed in Table 2-4 are used in the Hazard
Quotient calculations shown in Section 3.4.
2-39
DRAFT
-------
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
The "NOAEL/LOAEL" is the no-observed-adverse-effect level or the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect level, respectively. The NOAEL is an exposure level at which there are no
statistically or biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effects in
the exposed population. The LOAEL is the lowest exposure level at which adverse effects have
been shown to occur. The NOAEL/LOAEL values listed in Table 2-4 are used in the Margin of
Exposure calculations shown in Section 3.4.
DRAFT
2-40
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
Commen
^
3
^, J_
_l HI
UJ <
<0
O -i
O
r
3
ป*
1!
UJ
m 3 fl)
s s s
IM
UJ
d
"Z
CO
o
"S* '
ccz
1
cs
I Chemical N
CO
CD
-D
in
OT
CO
co
CD
CO
CO
IT
cj
'cv
cj"
co"
o
o
_0
i ^
15 ง
o E 3
CD
ซ c CD co >>
co ฃ S ฎ
CD i _ป
o co ^? -| _.
8*-""* ^^ .!_!
CD "13 ^ ~"~
*- ^ CD CO \
Q> 7ป ; "ฃj CO
o co "o co i-
g 15 CL 15 ^
ฐ co eo co 5
en
g
CD
c
o
'5
CO
ethoxylated
S
CO
co"
5 o
G-e
CD CO
CO"
0^
CO -C CD
E^
-D "o "fO
g i>ง
111
S"oซ
3 c5 "co"
ml
z *J
1 >ป ^
1^ CO g^
in -ง N
"CO
CD
-a
co
CO
in
a>
CM
>,
'S3
CM"
CD"
CD
N
CD
m
a ^~,
0 c ป
""I*
-XI
II
c o
to
CO
c:
CO
CD
9
XI
X)
^1
CM
T3
"8
Benzenesulfonic ;
dodecvl-
ro
E
o
in
CO
o
LO
Q
"2
o
f
o
to
CO
.c
~*
o
c ฐ>
II
) CO
s^
N CO
dodecylber
lanolamine
4*
I-I
co -D"
co "o
-o co
o"
T3
If
? l_
~
10 .s
- ^=
J ซ
0 g
: " c:
0 C
- d=;
3 -
ii
; _C.
5 jj
"- a
S*
S J
11
15
CD
-a
CD
en
CD
CO
3>
.n
CM
CO
^
Benzenesulfonic
>
~
1
D
- Is
i m
c
o
to
CO
CO
3
13
O
a.
E CD
O ฃ
ป(tetrapropenyi)-, <
with 2-propanami
? D)
ฃZ
i C
0 ^
3 co
ll
j="ซ
3 O
5 _Jฃ
t ^ .1
ง*i
CD
,ฑฑ
CO
CD
CO
15
CD
4-
CM
CO
in
oo
CD
CM
CO
'o
d~
~o co"
"o CD ,
CO .> CM
Benzenesulfonic
C16 -alky I derival
compounds with
c
0
15
propanamine
n
ฃ
3
(0
c
n
CM
_
fl
2-41
DRAFT
-------
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
DRAFT
2-42
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2,3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
, Comment
0 ^
_l 01
UJ <
< 0
O -i
Z
o
H
3
DC
,,
It
1-5
ซ>
S = a>
o 2 o
^ x ^
in
o
z
to
M-* .
CCz
CO
Chemical Na
TSCA ง4 review available
f
^^ (0
ฃ w
LO
-1
"S
ฃ
CD
53)
E
CO
"I
H 2
o to
73
CD O
co '55
CO CO
CO 73
CD O
S =
11
"X
co
CD
O
f
CVI
1
Q_
(O
CD
c
O
to
CO
-C
O
LO
CD
CD
O
methyl succinate
Q
o
^_
o
CO
00
LO
8
Q
"cO
CD
73
neuro
m
F
m
T->
O5
O5
o
CM
CO
T
's
Q
2
o
^
o
to
CO
-E
~
CM
co
CM
T
C3>
CM
CM
"o
O i_
>< CD
0)^
CD 0>
CD ^
^1
g ง
Q. o
Q ฃ
73
CD
E
ฃZ
CO
Q.
J3)
to
CD
"ca
CD
73
un
o
iฃ, E
(
Z
75
e
CD
73
n 73
J7J >ฃ?
^ CO JZ
-=- CD D)
^ o "CD
8 J|
O) "^
-j E
Q.
CO
o ฃ
Pi
o
E
O
to
CO
.E
co
4
o>
cb
o>
CO
0
05 CO
t5
"o
o
^>
C3)
CD
c
CD
><
lซ
Q-JC
Q 0)
CD
.<= <2
equivocal skin tumor response
mice through dermal exposure,
positive Ames assay in multiple
strains, with and without
activation. No increased
frequency of micronuclei in moi
bone marrow cells
co
ฃ
CD
73
E
0
to
CO
-E
^
co
CM
CO
CM
CM
~
If
sl
co to
"1 -o
Q .E
possible endocrine
disrupter
500 mg/kg/da
(dev/repro)
I
z
C 0)
o -
^ a.
o w
*- .
ca
ฃ
CD
73
30 mg/kg/day'
i
^
o
.c
o
>
CD
73
c
O
to
CO
-E
CO ""3"
i CO 4
LO CO "?
f r-L CM
CO CM ^
O CD ฐฐ
a> CM to
CO LO
T- CM
"o
CD
Q.
>.
E
O
E
73
CD
to
><
|
LLJ
SAT report - low to moderate
concern; poor skin absorption
CO
E
en
73
r
o
to
CO
E
co
CM
5
co
CM
CO
O
t5
2 Is
thylenediaminetet
:id, tetrasodium s
UJ CO
>,
CO ,ฃ
CO 5 E
|.o|
PI
ฃ. co ^
CO "o co
CO
E
CD
73
E
O
to
CO
* CO 0
CM CO O)
CO CO CD
CM CM O
O CO O)
O C- l~~
CO h- T-
CD CD CO
CM
CO
ซ-.ฃ
73 CO
0 0
ซ> >,
>,.E
u. ฃ
E
CD
O
O
0
|
1ฑ
O
Q.
S.
CO
CO
E
CD
73
r
o
to
CO
(3)
CO
CD
LO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CD <2
E o
CD 3
ydrocarbons, terp
recessing by-prod
X CL
2-43
DRAFT
-------
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Comment
Lป
o ^^
5^
J UJ
UJ <
<0
O -i
Z
o
o
ir
ft
O i-
HUJ
ป. ฃ
fc = ซ
5 ฐ 1
UJ
d
z
$
O
**~*
d) d
tu
1
__
CB
1
u
>, .- c
"l>-o 1ง -^ฐ
O 0 o ^ CD
J3 ;ง.1o o - .- c
5 f ^a
I|S|s
ฃ2ฃงE
O O ,o tf CD
IO .ฃ *g o "to
1 CD c~
Z = CO
2 .
Q. o c
CO
TO
CO
I
CD
C
CD
C
J
Tb
>,
^ CD
oil
0 0
1
-1
"CO
a5
o
-ฃ3
*-^
to
"re
o
c
o
TJ
CD
18
ja
1
o
|
>,
O CD
"S>ln ฃ
E to .o>
o 2 |
S g
, .
-^
o" c
n 8
5000mg/kgc
(rabbits) limited evidence for
carcinogenicity (IARC);
appearance of papillomas at
mg for 80 weeks, no control i
CO
E
CD
T3
I
ฃ
CM
s
co
8
Q
To
o
c:
o
'Jo
CO
.c
00
|s^
Y
^
!^
co
0
CM
O)
^",
co
"5. &
CO co
_ CD
CO ฃ:
CD 2
C "D
2^
CD
_Q
CO
!
CD
CD
>.
5
^ฃ ex
TOO,
CM 2,
i
Z
O
1
CD
"eg
E
i
LO
0 'E'
* o
^ ^ 1_
1 C
^
CO
c ฉ
!=_
CD
C
O
1'
^:
~
^"
o
CM
co
^_ o
CD
O
g
"5
_Q-
S
Z
SAT report - low moderate
concern
CO
E
o
SAT report - low moderate
concern; lung irritation
2
3
0
C
d.
ta
CD
ฃ1
O
15
CO
ฃ1
0>
co
^
^
CO
CM
03
*r
ฉ
O f
"o ~o
CO 0)
Q--O
2-^
DRAFT
2-44
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD JNFOBJWATJON
Comment
_] LU
01 <
< O
0-J
0
ฃ
Q
4*1
!i E.
ฃ5
<5 5 a>
2 w =
O Q_ O
^a"
d
z
-2
o
**
Q=z
(U
CO
z
"(5
O
a>
O
o
o
o
in
A
o
Q5
1"
CD
if
o
15
CD
0
O
in
o
Q5
"2
o
o
Q.
CD o
co E
>
CD
C
_g
Jo
CO
c
CM
m
CM
CD
o
CM
CM
"o
CD
t:
o
Q.
CD
CO
15
CD
T3
c
o
to
CO
c
J9
CD
in
ff
CO
CM
CO
1 5*
^-8
2 o
LJ_ f
_r O
xirane, met!
ith oxirane,
:her
O 5 o>
o
Q.
CD
15
CD
_o
CO
CO
c
1
in
CO
CM
CO
"o
c
CO
51
CM
no information available
CO
E
CD
TJ
no information available
o
"to
CO
c
CD
CM
O
ฃ!
CM
CO
CO
O
QL
o
Q.
CO
15
ฃ
CD
a
g
to
15
^
in
in
co
co
CD
CM
CO
CD
c
CO
>>
-a Q-
CD P
olyethoxylat
odecyloxypr
D- .52
c
o
Q.
*
CO
15
E
CD
c.
o
'to
CO
c
CO
4-
co
CM
t
CO
CM
CO
^
(D
c
-2 ^
to o
1 ป
CM "O ,
1}
Q. ,
0
1
o
o
's
Q
15
CD
15
E
CD
~ฐ
O
o
o
in
i
o
in
Q
15
o
c
g
ts
CO
^z
c
9
C3)
CO
CO
CM
CM
CO x-
. CD
5 to
ropanoic aci
thoxyethyl e
CL 0)
CO CO
-5 .ฃ .ฃ
no evidence of carcinogenic
effects by dermal exposure;
questionably positive Salmon
test (host-mediated) with Stra
G46 and TA1530; positive foi
chromosome aberrations in
hamster fibroblasts, negative
other mammalian cells
1'i '
C3>
<- CM CM
"o
CD
c
CD
S:
s.
O.
2-45
DRAFT
-------
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
c
CD
E
E
<ง
_J LJJ
UJ <
<0
O -1
z
0
g
oc
*ป
i!
H-UJ
0
0) 3 0)
| 8|
^S*
d
Z
I
*Jซ .
&--Z.
cu
(0
z.
"co
_,)
V
o
li
il
*~ CD
*~ -C_
Z
"5
E
CD
T3
CO
CO
CO
1
T
rt
LO
n~"
;>.
monobi
o
"5)
CD
C
_CD
>* l_
CL. OJ
to
CD
TJ
.2
co
CO
o
c
o
a
CD
CO
CO
co
CD
3=
CD
O
'x
o
- 400 mg/kg/day0'1
z
,_j
ch
tฃ
g
o
c
o
to
CO
c
CD
N
S
to
CD
CO
- 50 mg/kg/day0
(repro/dev)
z
"co
E
CD
T3
J-
i
ฃ>
CM
'
I
>,
H &
Si- co
CO E
-Q 'o
E S
3 CO
"O ซ*
o "5
CO lo
CO
.CD
'~a
p?
CO
CO
o
c
o
^
CD
CO
CO
CO
5
CD
CD
O
X
2
- 50 mg/kg/day0
(repro/dev)
z
o"
CD ._:
"r. ^
CD
-o
c
.0
to
CO
ฃ
CD
>
'to
o
o
o
~eo
CD
C\l
n
o
CO
CM
CO
CD
T3
|
|
O
CO
Q.
CO
ฃ
c
0
to
CO
JC
c
t:
0
Q.
H
co
"cO
ฃ
CD
tJ
^
CM
O
O
CO
CM
CO
CD
to
CO
CD
C
jฃ
X
E
3
TJ
O
CO
c
o
to
co
_c
c:
c:
CD
O
c
o
0
CD
?
CD
O
'
c
0
CL
ฃ
H-
CO
"CO
E
CD
T3
LO
CJ>
CM
"it
^t-
CD
CM
CO
CO
.g
CL,
2
*-
CD
1:
c
CD
O
O
0
CD
s!
CD
O
1
c
0
Q.
ฃ
h-
co
c.
o
to
to
_c
o
3
E
D
3
0
(D
C
3
0)
D
D
1
c
0
Q.
h-
co
. CO D) CO
g>E ฃ E
E 0 to
^ co
Z
CD
C
CO '
E to
CD ^Jg
Op
d>
op
CM
J
CD
CM
CO
0
1
o.
"CO
co ฃ
If
"c
CD O
li
t,
|l
0 S
^- Q.
^ ฃ
I
-1
"to
E
CD
~ฐ
CD
LO
O
41
,j
CD
CD
CM
O
aromat
co ฃ
ft
CD O
11
5>
Z 2
7" E
-1
o
Q.
CD
>"
CD
c
_O
to
CO
^
- 481 mg/kg/day
(increased
leucocytes)3'11
-1
Q.
CO
CD
|
CD
"CO
CD
T3
^
ob
ฐP
^f
CD
^>
E
Jg|
^ ^
If
g CD -^
CD O CO
> i: -^
CO -S:1^
S-D
CD
El
Q.l^-'to"
*0) S
ro" ><
CM ฃ o
i C3) o
-i Eg
CO
g" C CD
CD ฃ jฃ
c ฐ to
ฃ
C
o
to
CO
_c
DRAFT
2-46
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
4-1
c
(U
E
E
S
0 ^.
^ IT
_| LLJ
LU <
< O
0 -J
Z
O
Q
f!
i-uJ
L. ฃ
IP
.
o
f>
O
li
Chemical Name
CO
~O) CD^
"5)"ฐ "ป"
EH 8
in o5 5=
CM > CD
t *
"to
CD
-a
to
,0
f
15
0
c
o
73
0
CO
CO
.2
0
M
0
O
I
t
la'JjlF
in Jjf 3=
CM > 0
^
il
-C
0
J-
inhalatio
op
CO
ob
CO
:o
00
Sorbitan, mono-9-
octadecanoate
0
sT 2
1>ฃ
~5>^
82
m 0
1 to
"5
2
o
o
0.
T3
CO
5
CO
CD
M_
0 CO
.2 73
II
^"o"
ง>ฃ
i5> c?
li
iO 0
' to
D> CO
ll
-C
o
c
inhalatio
in
CD
in
o
o
o
?
Sorbitan,
monododecanoate,
poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl)
derivatives
t:
0
Q.
CD
f
CO
"co
0
-a
d> to
il
-C
o
c
inhalatio
^^
(35
OO
n
n
CM
CO
Sorbitan, monolaurate
t:
o
Q-
CD
|
CO
"cS
CD
D5 CO
ll
JZ
o
c
inhalatio
CO
i
1
in
o
D
CM
CO
CO
Sorbitan, tri-9-
octadecanoate, poly(oxy-
1 ,2-ethanediyl) derivative
"t^
0
Q.
0
|
CO
"to
CD
73
inhalatio
C35
0
Op
O
O
CM
CO
JD
to
0
c
0
O
c
CO
0
XI
0
CO
t;
O
CL
- _.
0 J^
c:
"S .2
c~* CO
-ง -c
CO
CM
in
o
co
CM
0
"o
CO
B
O
CO
t;
o
Q.
CD
,
<
CO
"5
0
73
in
IT
inhalatiol
OO
o
O5
oo
CD
CM
CO
15
o
0
g-
o
5
2-47
DRAFT
-------
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
4~*
c
ฃ
0
O
o ^.^
_1 LU
uu <
< O
O-i
z
o
1
ป*
cc
ฃ.ฃ
11
01
IN
o 2 o
;ฃ x
LU
o
z
CO
g
j|*c>
flj
ป
(3
z
"5
^0
(!)
.C
O
CD
Is
CD
TJ
Q
_O
i
c
o
Q. c
CD t
* CD
CO 8
"co
CD
o
TJ
งg
* ^ป QJ
"5? 1
2.E
D) g
-id .ซ
"^>-ง.
"CD"
? P
m S-in'
Mo=|?
Q E J="
' co ^
งง g
0 T- C/3
C
to
CO
c
in
in
cb
CO
c\I
"o
CD
c
'o.
1
o
CD
*
i
s
Q
1
ฐ"_
o to
ง"S
<^ D)
co E
"co
CD
TJ
c:
o
to
CO
JZ
CM
CO
CO
co
in
CM
CD
c
CD
0
c
'o.
3
>.
co
TJ
|t
i
^_
"Ja
CD
CO
0
ZJ
(0
o
o
CD
CO
CO
to
8
JJ^
^2 o
c
_l "~"
>^
a-a
if
e> CD
Eฃ
CM
"ca
E
CD
o
>,
"O
io
"to
1_
o
o
T3
CD
^
Q
CC
^
CD
I
O
in
1
>^
1 "s"^
~S> E CD
E r^ -B
CM
O ปJ^
3 CD
CD ^
8"!
a o
o
to
CO
ง
^
CD
CM
0
CO
CO
m "* ฐ>
m i- CM
CD
c:
CD
o
1
CO
. "o
CO CO
0 >?
to c5
CD U",
"to c
o
O (jj
fl
i= J5
O i C
0) (D CO
>> 1 =i
r" '^* f
1_ **>
S ?| co
ง 1 ll
S . s . 5 |
> -p to g-
"S T E
CO m O
CO CD ^0
-C 73 > to "
O r- *~ C ^-5
S => -2 co to
2 o c "
.to) 'CD O -3
.y 5 O -O 'on
X > P in CD T-
S = E ^ So o
c .2 x * Ja -o
E> p E .& ซ
O E . . Q .Si 03
ซง'ง ปf |cJ
E5 'ป ซ c ง ^ 'to
ซt I ^ |ง -8ซr
If 1 I li" a-8
. | S ซ,, g S ซ o o
S^^'i 11 it
งg"io"o "g).2>l-u-
' 2 E jz ฐ "^ "g | > jo
-งE.Scฃ *V-.ฃCD
co"0Q.cn . ro"ง S^
i^^-il si ei-
1 ^ ^ |"E | 1 i 1 1
.ฃ 55ป
g-l|?s 8งงง-t9^
-of S ฐ7 e S S|'o:,r
ฎ-8
-^^.Oc co-rj^-lp-^.H
LJ O O ~7 O /ซ -ป-r T5 "i^ CJ UJ
ฃltง8. illl^l^l
&cD-cLUE o^Eงซg-g^g
O O ^ป Q_ bi; . , -Q +-* to -rr
^HcqQ- งSo2ฐ2LJ-g
LLJ o ta3
O-* *~ ~ CO f- * ซ Uป *^- rt) CD -i^* *"*
o OJ c . o O *^ ni ^
Lu ซ g-S ra -Sf Sl>~ II ฃ
^l.gปQ.
QO^ฃO งS22tฃwLLo
'
DRAFT
2-48
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
el
onducted betwee
es were not revie
database searches c
the primary referenc
references (with the exception of Nos. 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 32) were developed from online
lay 1 995. The toxicity data from these references are reported in Table 2-3 and in most cases
C T3
*> c
ซ CO
o
"CD" E
f- -ฐ
1 CD
* LL
i
CD
Z5
CO
Q.
CO
5
_o
to
_0
"a.
Q_
CO
"CO
CD
*CO
CD
c:
o
Becci PJ, Knickerbocker MJ, Reagan El, et al. 1 982. Teratogenicity study of N-methylpyrroli
Dawley rats. Fund Appi Toxicol 2:73-76.
T"
"o
co
o
Q.
CO
in responses to v
^U
ZI
JZ
"0
CO
To
.E
<
Carpenter CP, Kinkead ER, Geary DL, et al. 1975. Petroleum hydrocarbon toxicity studies.
Stoddard solvent. Toxicol Appi Pharmacol 32:282-297.
CM
i
CM
CO
"o
.0
H
CD
6
en
Q
co
CD
^
CD
.x
E
c .
CO
CD
O
CO
CD
^)
X
JZ
CO
CD
'a
to
"o
'x
o
2
O
co'
oo
a>
"cS
tฃ
_co
o
0
CO
CO
to
CD
0 ฃ
8?
^s
T3 sz
2 -o
"ง ง
CO >,
o en
8-^
jction study in rats e;
.aboratory for Toxico
to. 88-920001533.
E.I. DuPpnt de Nemours and Company. 1985. FYI-OTS-0885-0433 INIT. Inhalation reprodl
(DBE) (final Report) with attachments and cover letter dated 032792. Performed by Haskell I
Medicine. Washington DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. EPA. EPA Doc. P
*
CD
0 >,
i_ O
co c:
Q. CD
o en
_co <
CD O
CM -.ฃ:
S $
A ฐ
gฃ
i Toxicity Study of Ml
, U.S. Environmental
Exxon. 1980. TSCA sec 8(e) submission 8EHQ-1 079-031 2 follow up. A 12 Week Inhalatior
Rat. Bio/dynamics Inc. Project No. 78-7092B. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances
u>
c.
CO
CO
to
CO
JZ
co
I
o
o
CD
El
_CD
2
Q.
b
CO
0>
|S
P|
jj S
o>
E:
o
to
CO
x:
c
CO
>
o
T3
C
Dgenic, subchronic, a
CD
a?
2
CD
C
o
"o
1
CM
in
-coSI
21
oฃ
oT w
\S^
CD
CM
m
C)
z.
e
o
a.
CD
CC
r^
Litton Bionetics, Inc. 1974! Mutagenic Evaluation of Compound FDA 71-56, Propylene Glyct
294. Kensington, MD: Bionetics, Inc. NTIS PB245450/2.
*
CO
o
E:
LL
uccinate in rats.
co
_o
~5
co
E
3
T3
O
CO
t
O
T3
MacKenzie K, Henwood S, Foster G, et al. 1990. Three-generation reproduction study with
Appi Toxicol 15(1 ):53-62.
CM
O
P)
nonoxynol-9 and
tagenicity studies on
Meyer O, Haubro Anderson P, Hansen EV, Larsen JC. 1988. Teratogenicity and in vitro mu
Pharmacol Toxicol 62:235-238.
co'
s?
CO
CO
CM
c
3
ฃ
ฃ
o
E
CD
I
CD'
c
_CD
X
"o
'o
"x
o
15
to
E:
CD
(X
co'
oo
o>
13
'o
LU
CO
|
^J-
T
2-49
DRAFT
-------
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
uding hemolytic activity, of
82pp.
ฃd~
~ Q
:J|
!ง
0 ซ
(D >
ฐUJ
0 CO
co r
CD CO
CO _<3
s'ii
CvJ fe
o c
o o
il
ซ) CD
CD CD
00 CL
> C
otox. 1987. Toxicology Research and Consultancy C.
owanol-PnB in the rat: 14-day study. Office of Pollutio
z o
in
to
CC
Z
in"
en
co
o>
in
d
Z
s of d-Limonene (
347.
if
wฃ:
CD
C Q.
<-"
|o
ซ ~
o ^
"O CO
S"1-
TP. 1 990. National Toxicology Program. Toxicology ;
id B6C3F1 Mice (gavage Studies). Research Triangle
Z co
CO
"o
CD
^J *^
^j (0
i (D
^ w
co o
^- d
CD Z
.S
O- T
"ง "ง)
l|
ฃ co
c: co
o >>
O-"cO
CD c
CC .0
"co *
c co
LL CD
O)
CD co
^ -
"CD Q^
o" >.
ll
. ฎ
if
o"S
Sg
*C o
Q. ro
C35
"o
ฃซ
2
XI
LJ
"cO
c
0
to
z
E"
CD
to
CO
"CO
I
"55
line Information R
. MEDLARS Onl
CO
CD
O
c
ฃ.
CO
XI
3
CO
"CO
o
CD
6
"o
*2
ts
t
S
o
g
"o
&>
to
"en
CD
CC
co'
O)
en
. CD
co .E
0 .2
til -o
1- CD
CC 2
o
CM
"o
2
.Q
"CO
O
to
Z
E"
CD
to
"5
1
to
line Information R
..MEDLARS On!
CO
CD
O
c
CO
to
CO
"co
_o
CD
6
CD
ฃ
o
1
"o
.22
CD
CC
en
T
. CD"
CO .ฃ
o .a
LU T3
h- ซ|
CC S
c\i
ฃ-
2
^
"cfl
c
o
to
z
E"
CD
%
"CO
1
'S
cc
c
o
to
o
1
CD
_c
. MEDLARS On
CD
O
c
CO
to
XJ
Z3
CO
"TO
.a
CD
x:
O
"o
ฃ
o
CD
ฃ
0
g
"o
ฃ>
to
"o>
CD
rr
in
o>
en
T
. CD"
CO .c.
0 .0
LU -0
I- 0>
CC ^
CM
CM
long term carcinogenic
o
1~.
0
*J_
a.
&
;ium pyrophospha
CO
CO
c5
Q.
B
ฃ
o
I
"2
o
.ซ
1.1
himoji N, Matsushima Y, Imaida K, et al. 1988. Subcl
:udies in F344 rats. Eisei Shikensho Hokoku 106:66-7;
CO co
CO
CM
IDS Initial Assessment Profile.
CO
^
CM
>pl Pharmacol 1 4:31 5-334.
S-l.
<
"o
o
g
lene surfactants.
enol polyoxyethy
_Q-
"cO
"o
CO
CD
to
.0
"O3
O
O
O
jg
cri
CD
ro
O
2
c
CO
CO
O
3
LL
I
CO
in
CM
Office of Pollution Prevention
.
o
t3
2
LL
atic Hydrocarbon
E
o
<
en
O
c:
o
t:
o
Q.
(D
cc
CC
.S. EPA. 1991. U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
nd Toxics. Washington, DC.
=3 CO
CO
C\J
|
to
ฐo
'1
"5
0)
D
cb
O
Z3
CO
CO
t-
^
CM
saland White rabbits following
ffects Assessment for Glycol
N LU
Z CD
o I
10
-------
CHAPTER 2-. DMA. COLLECTION
2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
c
m
o
LO
i_
CD
LLJ
1-
ft
I
O
CD
_CD
^^
Q,
2
a.
Q
a
fZ
ca
^
m
CO
CO .
IT03
je cu
-1
*p CO
5 ฎ
^ oo
o o
>, 0
0 Q
c ,UJ
a. .
o CO
D- Z>
"5 en"
Absorption
Substance
.c -g
15
O CD
o
fg
"en c-
CO (0
Q co
5
<
D. to
LU xi
. J2
n' ir
E
3
T3
O
CO
CD
ns
o
2=:
co
CD
CD
N
CD
O
CD
-o
O
TJ
LU
CD
CO
C
o
"3
to
CD
CD
N
C
CD
ฃ
J}"
CD
-o
O
T3
|
TJ
O
CO
ฃ
CD
CO 2
eo 2
CD 9
18 CM
SMN
ป 8
| g
0 "o
tฑ 0
CD <
3
CO
LL -^
C
CO O
O) ^
2 ป
CD
. C
2 CD
1 2
0.0
11-'
O CD
N TJ
T3
CD
2
CO
CD
CO
to
CD
o
21
3
o
CO
"^
j>
ฃZ
_o
13
x_
_o
]c
o
Z
CM
CJ>
O
OO
O
a
CD
a
CD
ts
CD
CD
ง
0
.g
5
co
"co
c
i
"co
^^
H^
0
1
CO
o
&
ZJ
o
<
in
C\l
O
"o
"o
o
CO
TJ
CD
ft
^ .
o oo
+= s
if 1
0 o
'to CM
a> en
.n oo
|1
ฃ CO
gjQ
^ ^
^ uu
y^-
co
8 -
"c ??
II
Q o
ffi \-
O
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
2-51
DRAFT
-------
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
The chemicals in lithography are divided into three groups: (1) discrete organic chemicals,
(2) petroleum products, and (3) inorganic chemicals. While the assessment process is the same
for all three groups, the methodology used to provide estimates of the aquatic toxicity of the
chemicals varies.
2.4.1 Methodology
The EPA Environmental Effects Branch uses a standard assessment process (see Appendix
A) for assessing the hazards of chemicals to the aquatic environment. The process has been
described in several publications, both inside and outside the Agency. A summary of the hazard
assessment process and references are in Appendix A. The methodology involves the development
of a standard hazard profile for each chemical consisting of three acute toxicity values and three
chronic values for aquatic species. The standard hazard profile consists of the following toxicity
values:
Fish acute value (usually a fish 96-hour LC50 value)
Aquatic invertebrate acute value (usually a daphnid 48-hour LC50 value)
Green algal toxicity value (usually an algal 96-hour EC50 value)
Fish chronic value (usually a fish 28-day early life stage no effect concentration (NEC))
Aquatic invertebrate chronic value (usually a daphnid 21-day NEC)
Algal chronic value (usually an algal 96 hour NEC value for biomass)
For the acute values, the LC50 (mortality) (EC50) (effects) refers to the concentration that
results in 50 percent of the test organisms affected at the end of the specified exposure period.
The chronic values represent the concentration of the chemical that results in no statistically
significant effects on the test organism following a chronic exposure.
The toxicity values may be obtained from the results of standard toxicity tests reported to
the Agency, published in the literature, or estimated using predictive techniques. For this study,
discrete organic chemicals were assessed using predictive equations called Structure Activity
Relationships (SARs) to estimate the inherent toxicity of these chemicals to aquatic organisms.
The literature sources that were searched to confirm these estimates are located in the
Administrative Record. No data were found to conflict with these estimates. The toxicity values
are for the discreet chemical only; interactions between chemicals within a formulation are not
considered.
Although measured values are preferred, in the absence of test data, SAR estimates, if
available for the chemical class, can be used. The predictive equations, i.e., quantitative
structure-activity relationships, are used in lieu of test data to estimate toxicity values for aquatic
organisms within a specific chemical class. The equations are derived from correlation and linear
regression analysis based on measured data, however, the confidence interval associated with the
equation is not used to provide a range of toxicity values. Thus, the hazard profile may consist
of only measured data, only predicted values, or a combination of both. Also, the amount of data
in the hazard profile may range from a minimum of one acute or chronic value to the full
compliment of three acute values and three chronic values.
DRAFT
2-52
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
Some petroleum products such as mineral spirits and solvent naphtha are mixtures and do
not lend themselves readily to the standard hazard assessment process using SARs. The chemical
constituents and the percentage of each in the mixture varies. The constituents in these products
include linear and branched paraffins, and cyclic paraffins with the total number of carbons
varying between 5 and 16. The toxicity of the petroleum products were determined by estimating
the toxicity of each individual constituent. Absent adequate description and characterization, the
assumption is made that each component is present as an equal percentage in the product and
the geometric mean of the range of estimates provides the best estimate of the toxicity. These
assumptions many not be representative of the mixture currently on the market, but can be used
for screening level hazard assessments. The toxicity of the individual components of the
petroleum products is based on tests using pure samples. The potential by-products or impurities
of petroleum distillation that are typically found in these mixtures were not incorporated in this
hazard assessment.
The concentration of concern was also derived for each chemical. This value is derived by
dividing the lowest of the three chronic values by a factor of 10. If the discharge of a chemical to
the aquatic environment results in a concentration equal to or greater than the concern
concentration set, then the chemical would be hazardous to aquatic organisms.
Assessment factors were used to incorporate the concept of uncertainty into the concern
concentrations. Assessment factors account for laboratory tests versus field data and measured
versus estimated data, as well as species sensitivity. In general, if only one toxicity value is
available, there is a large uncertainty about the applicability of this value to other organisms in
the environment and a large assessment factor, i.e., 1000, is applied to cover the breadth of
sensitivity known to exist among and between organisms in the environment. Conversely, the
more information that is available results in more certainty about the toxicity values, and requires
the use of a smaller assessment factor. For example, if toxicity values are derived from field tests,
then an assessment factor of 1 is used. Assessment factors of 1, 10, 100 and 1000 are generally
applied for chronic risk depending on the amount and type of toxicity data in the hazard profile.
2.4.2 Results
The results of the estimated aquatic toxicity determinations are summarized in Table 2-5.
The chemicals are listed alphabetically. No valid published literature were found to conflict with
the estimated values. The full literature searches conducted are available in the Administrative
Record. For each chemical, the estimated toxicity values in mg/L (pprri) for acute and chronic
effects offish, daphnid and algae are given. The last column shows the concern concentration set
for the chemical in the water. Based on the methodology described in the previous section, the
hazard potential of the various products are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Mineral Spirits
Mineral spirits consist of linear and branched paraffins and cyclic paraffins. Based on the
information provided, the assessment was based on the estimated toxicity for n-hexane and
ethylcyclohexane. The linear form of n-hexane is approximately two times more toxic than cyclic
hexane. The lowest chronic value for n-hexane is 0.004 mg/L for fish and the lowest chronic
value for ethylcyclohexane is 0.09 mg/L for fish.
Naphtha Solvents
The monomers associated with the various naphtha mixtures include linear and branched
paraffins, cyclic paraffins and aromatics such as naphthalene. The carbon chain lengths vary
from product to product and span the range from 5 to 16.
2-53
DRAFT
-------
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Table 2-5. Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values of Blanket Wash Chemicals
Based on SAR Analysis (mg/L)
Chemical
Alcohols, C12-C15, ethoxylated
Benzene, 1 ,2,4-trimethyl
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl
Benzenasulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compounds with
2-aminoethanol
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-.oompounds with
2-propanamine
Benzenesulfonic acid, (tetrapropenyl)-,
compounds with 2-propanamine
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16-alkyl derivatives,
compounds with 2-propanamine
Butyrolactone
Cumene
Diethanolamine
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated, middle
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, tetrasodium salt
Fatty acids, C16-C18 methyl
esters
Fatty acids, C16-C18 and C18-unsatd,
compounds with diethanolamine
Fatty acids, tall oil, compounds with
diethanolamine
Hydrocarbons, terpene processing by-products
d-LJmonene
Linalool
Mineral spirits (light hydrotreated)
N-Methylpyrrolidone
Naptha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy
Nerol
Oxirane, methyl, polymer with oxirane,
monodecyl ether
2-Pinanol
Pinols
Polyethoxylated isodecyloxypropylamine
Poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl), cc-hexyl-co-hydroxy
Acute Toxicity
Fish
1.0,
0.97
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.75
140
2.1
>1000
>1000
140
245
165
400
>1000
1.8
2.0
430
*2
140
160
0.86
0.81
45
1.8
1000
it
28
16
31
170
13
320
Invert
1.0
1.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.75
>1000
2.6
220
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
410
>1000
2.2
2.0
100
*
120
200
1.1
1.0
50
2.2
1000
*
31
16
35
180
13
320
Algal
1.0
0.84
0.007
30.0
0.007
0.007
0.002
>1000
1.8
130
860
11
18
12.5
250
>1000
1.5
2.0
3.0
*
70
100
0.76
0.72
32
1.5
1000
*
20
20
22
112
13
300
Chronic Toxicity
Fish
0.1
0.17
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.12
14
0.37
>100
140
14
24
16
50
184
0.31
0.2
10.0
*
20
20
0.16
0.15
6.1
0.31
100
0.006
4.0
1.6
4.4
21
1.3
32
Invert
0.1
0.15
0.4
0.3
0.4
Q.4
0.12
>100
0.28
22
40
>100
>100
>100
17
149
0.23
0.2
23.0
*
20
30
0.14
0.14
3.0
0.23
370
0.013
2.1
1.6
2.3
8.5
1.3
32
Algal
0.1
0.28
0.005
10.0
0.005
0.005
0.001
>100
0.48
12.8
40
8.4
13.6
9.3
19
877
0.38
0.2
0.88
* i
40
20
0.27
0.27
4.1
0.38
260
0.03
3.0
5.0
3.2
10.0
1.3
40
Concern
Concen-
tration
0.01
0.02
0.001
0.03
0.001
0.001
0.001
1.4
0.03
1.3
4.0
0.84
1.4
0.9
1.7
14.9
0.02
0.001 1
0.09
2.0
2.0
0.01
0.01
0.3
0.02
30
0.001
0.21
0.16
0.23
0.85
0.13
3.2
DRAFT
2-54
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
Chemical
Propanoic acid, 3-ethoxy-, ethyl ester
Propylene glycol
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Sodium bis(ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium xylene sulfonate
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), medium aliphatic
Sorbitan, mono-9-octadecenoate
Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1 ,2-
ethanediyl) derivatives
Sorbitan, monolaurate
Sorbitan, tri-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1 ,2-
ethanediyl) derivatives
Soybean oil, methyl ester
Soybean oil, polymerized, oxidized
Stoddard solvent
Tall oil, special
a-Terpineol
Terpinolene
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Xylene
Acute Toxicity
Fish
60
>1000
>1000
3
>1000
>1000
0.6
3.3
5.5
*
20
20
11
20
*
*
1.8
*
33
0.81
>100
3.5
Invert
650
>1000
>1000
3
>1000
>1000
0.77
3.9
6.5
*
20
20
20
20
*
*
2.2
*
37
1.0
>100
4.1
Alga!
4.7
>1000
>1000
3
>1000
>1000
0.55
2.6
4.4
*
20
20
0.93
20
*
*
1.5
*
24
0.72
<1.0
2.8
Chronic Toxicity
Fish
6.0
>100
>100
5
>100
>100
0.12
0.53
0.88
0.001
3
3
2
3
*
*
0.31
*
4.7
0.15
>10
0.57
Invert
70
>100
>100
5
>100
>100
0.12
0.36
0.59
0.002
3
3
3
3
*
*
0.23
*
2.4
0.14
>10
0.40
Algal
3.5
>100
>100
3
>100
>100
0.23
0.58
0.93
0.005
5
3
0.69
3
*
*
0.38
*
3.3
0.26
0.06
0.64
Concern
Concen-
tration
0.35
>10
>100
0.05
>10
>10
0.012
0.036
0.059
0.001
0.3
0.3
0.07
0.3
*
*
0.02
*
0.24
0.014
0.006
0.04
1 There is a concern that this chemical may degrade to nonylphenol. Evidence suggests that nonylphenol may be an
endocrine disrupter. Until such time as conclusive evidence resolves this issue, the concern concentration is set at
0.001 mg/L.
2 * = No effects expected in a saturated solution during prescribed exposure period.
2-55
DRAFT
-------
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
For the purpose of an overall assessment, the listed chemicals can be ranked according to
the estimated chronic value. This hazard ranking, developed by the EPA Environmental Effects
Branch, is based on scoring the chemicals as High, Moderate or Low concern for chronic effects
according to the following criteria:
< 0.1 mg/L ; . High
> 0.1 to < 10 mg/L Moderate
> 10 mg/L Low
See Appendix A for the basis and citations supporting these criteria and hazard rankings.
The results of this ranking are summarized in Table 2-6. The chemicals are ranked from
the highest hazard potential to the lowest, based on lowest of the three estimated chronic values
for each chemical. The petroleum products are rated as high hazard to aquatic organisms and
the concern is for chronic effects. This relative ranking of toxicity provides guidance to the
selection and use of chemicals that are less hazardous to aquatic organisms. In addition to this
ranking system used by OPPT, other aquatic hazard ranking systems exist that could be applied.
Table 2-6. Environmental Hazard Ranking of Blanket Wash Chemicals1
Chemical
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16-alkyI
derivatives, compounds with 2-propanamine
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), medium aliphatic
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl,(tetrapropenyl)-,
compounds with 2-propanamine
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compounds
with 2-propanamine
Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy
Alcohols, C12-C15, ethoxylated
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Hydrocarbons, terpene processing by-products
d-Limonene
Terpinolene
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Benzene, 1 ,2,4-trimethyl
Stoddard solvent
Mineral spirits, light, hydrotreated
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated. middle
CAS Number
various given
68584-24-7
64742-88-7
27176-87-0
157966-96-6
26264-05-1
64742-48-9
68131-39-5
64742-94-5
68956-56-0
5989-27-55
586-62-95
7320-34-57
95-63-69
8052-41-38
64742-47-8
64742-46-7
Lowest Chronic
Value (mg/L)
0.001
0.001
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.150
0.230
0.23
0.23
Hazard
Rank
H2
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
DRAFT
2-56
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
Chemical
Cumene
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compounds
with 2-aminoethanoI
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic
Xylene
Sodium bis(ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic
Sorbitan, monolaurate
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, tetrasodium
salt '
Polyethoxylated isodecyloxypropylamine
Oxirane, methyl, polymer with oxirane,
monodecyl ether
Nerol
2-Pinanbl
a-Terpineol
Sorbitan, mono-9-octadecenoate
Linalool
Sorbitan, tri-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1 ,2- :
ethanediyl) derivatives
Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poly(oxy-1 ,2-
ethanediyl) derivatives
Propanoic acid, 3-ethoxy-, ethyl ester
Dimethyl adipate
Pinols
Dimethyl succinate
Diethanolamine
Dimethyl glutarate
Butyrolactone
Dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Fatty acids, C16-C18, compounds with
diethanolamine
Fatty acids, tall oil, compounds with
diethanolamine
Poly(oxy-,1,2-ethanediyl), a-hexyl- -hydroxy
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
CAS Number
98-82-8
26836-07-7
64742-89-8
1330-20-7
577-11-7
64742-95-6
5959-89-7
64-02-8
68478-95-5
37251-67-5
106-25-2
473-54-1
98-55-5
1338-43-8
78-70-6
9005-70-3
9005-64-5
763-69-9
627-93-0
72402-00-7
106-65-0
111-42-2
1119-40-0
96-48-0
29911-28-2
5131-66-8
68002-82-4
61790-69-0
31726-34-8
112-34-5
Lowest Chronic
Value (mg/L)
0.28
0.30
0.36
0.4
0.5
0.59
0.69
0.88
1.3
1.6
2.1
2.3
2,4
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
8.4
8.5
9.3
13
13
14
17
20
20
20
32
40
Hazard
Rank
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
.- M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L -.
L
L
L
L
2-57
DRAFT
-------
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Chemical
Propylene glycol
Sodium xylene sulfonate
Sodium hydroxide
N-Methylpyrrolidone
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Tall oil, special
Fatty acids, C16-C18, methyl esters
Soybean oil, methyl esters
Soybean oil, polymerized, oxidized
CAS Number
57-55-6
1300-72-7
1310-73-2
872-50-4
34590-94-8
68937-81-5
67762-38-3
67784-80-9
68152-81-8
Lowest Chronic
Value (mg/L)
100
100
100
100
149
*3
*
*
*
Hazard
Rank
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1 Ranking based on the lowest estimated chronic value; H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low.
ป There is a concern that this chemical may degrade to nonylphenol. Evidence suggests that nonylphenol may be
an endocrine disrupter. Until such time as conclusive evidence resolves this issue, a "high" aquatic hazard ranking
is automatically assigned whenever a compound contains nonylphenol.
3 * = No effects in a saturated solution during the prescribed test duration.
DRAFT
2-58
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
This section describes the federal environmental regulations that may affect the use of
blanket wash chemicals. Information on the OSHA PELs is provided for informational purposes
only. Discharges of blanket wash chemicals may be restricted by air, water and solid waste
regulations; in addition, facilities may be required to report releases of some blanket wash
products subject to the federal Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program. Table 2-7 identifies federal
regulations that govern releases of specific blanket wash chemicals; in addition, emissions or
disposal of some chemicals may be regulated under general provisions. This discussion of
environmental statutes potentially affecting blanket wash chemicals is intended for
information purposes only. Therefore, it should not be relied on by companies in the
printing industry to determine applicable regulatory requirements.
Table 2-7. Blanket Wash Use Cluster Chemicals Which Trigger Federal
Environmental Regulations3
Chemical
Benzene, 1,2,4-
trimethyl
Cumene
Diethanolamine
Glycol ethers0
Dodecylbenzene
sulfonic acid
N-Methylpyrrolidone
Sodium
bis(ethylhexyl)
sulfosuccinate
Sodium hydroxide
Stoddard solvent
Xylene
CAS#
95-63-6
98-82-8
111-42-2
see below
271 76-87-0
872-50-4
577-11-7
1310-73-2
8052-41 -3
1330-20-7
CWA
311 RQ
(Ibs)
1,000
1,000
1,000
CAA112B
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
X
X
X
X
CERCLA
RQ (Ibs)
5,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
SARA
313
(TRI)
X
X
X
X
X
X
OSHA
PEL
(ppm)b
50
100d
2e
2e
100
100
RCRA
U055
U239
a See following pages for a description of each acronym and regulation.
b Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as an eight-hour Time Weighted Average concentration (ppm).
0 The generic chemical category Glycol ethers is listed as a CAA 112B Hazardous Air Pollutant and on SARA 313
TRI. The blanket wash chemicals included in this category are diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (CAS No. 112-34-
5), dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether (CAS No. 29911-28-2), dipropylene glycol methyl ether (CAS No. 34590-94-
8), and propylene glycol monobutyl ether (CAS NO. 5131-66-8).
d Dipropylene glycol methyl ether has a PEL of 100 ppm.
e OSHA ceiling value.
2-59
DRAFT
-------
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
The applicability of many federal regulations is determined in part by the chemicals being
used at a facility. This section covers chemicals that the printing industry has identified as being
used in the lithographic blanket wash process. However, individual facilities have their own
chemical use patterns, which means that a particular facility may use chemicals that are not
listed on Table 2-7, or may use some but not all of them. As a result, each facility must identify
the universe of rules that apply to it by examining the regulations themselves.
This section only discusses federal environmental statutes. However, implementation of
many federal programs is delegated to states that have programs at least as stringent as the
applicable federal program. Thus, even where federal regulations apply, state laws may impose
additional requirements that are not addressed here. There may also be state or local
requirements where no federal regulations exist. This section provides an overview of federal
regulations affecting the lithography sector of the commercial printing industry and of the specific
chemicals used in the blanket wash use cluster that may trigger particular regulatory
requirements.
Clean Water Act . -
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the basic Federal law governing water pollution control in the
United States today.
Part 116 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) designates hazardous
substances under Section 3ll(b)(2)(a) of the Clean Water Act, and Part 117 of the FWPCA
establishes the Reportable Quantity (RQ) for each substance listed in Part 116. When an amount
equal to or in excess of the RQ is discharged, the facility must provide notice to the Federal
government of the discharge, following Department of Transportation requirements set forth in 33
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 153.203. This requirement does not apply to facilities that
discharge the substance under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
or a Part 404 Wetlands (dredge and fill) permit, or to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW),
as long as any applicable effluent limitations or pretreatment standards have been met.
The NPDES permit program contains regulations governing the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States. The NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of "pollutants"
from any "point source" into "navigable waters". The Clean Water Act defines all of these terms
broadly, and a source will be required to obtain an NPDES permit if it discharges almost anything
directly to surface waters. A source that sends its wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) will not be required to obtain an NPDES permit, but may be required to obtain an
industrial user permit from the POTW to cover its discharge.
In addition to other permit application requirements, facilities in the industrial category of
Printing and Publishing, and/or in Photographic Equipment and Supplies, will need to test for all
126 priority pollutants listed in 40 CFR 122 Appendix D. Each applicant also must indicate
whether it knows or has reason to believe it discharges any of the other hazardous substances,
or non-conventional pollutants located at 40 CFR 122 Appendix D. Quantitative testing is not
required for the other hazardous pollutants; however, the applicant must describe why it expects
the pollutant to be discharged and provide the results of any quantitative data about its discharge
for that pollutant. Quantitative testing is required for the non-conventional pollutants if the
applicant expects them to be present in its discharge.
For the purpose of reporting on effluent characteristics in permit applications, there exists
a small business exemption (40 CFR 122.21 (g)(8)) for all applicants for NPDES permits with gross
DRAFT
2-60
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
total annual sales averaging less than $100,000 per year (in second quarter 1980 dollars). This
exempts the small business from submitting quantitative data on certain organic toxic pollutants
(see 40 CFR 122.21 Table II, Appendix D). However, the small business must still provide
quantitative data for other toxic pollutants (metals and cyanides) and total phenols, as listed in
40 CFR 122.21 Table III, Appendix D. The same regulations apply to the small business
concerning the other hazardous pollutants and non-conventional pollutants as for the larger
facilities (see previous paragraph).
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA), with its 1990 amendments, sets the framework for air pollution
control. Part 112 of the Clean Air Act establishes requirements that directly restrict the emission
of 189 hazardous air pollutants. The EPA is authorized to establish Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards for source categories that emit at least one of the pollutants on the
list.
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (also known
as CERCLA, or more commonly as Superfund) is the Act that created the Superfund and set up
a variety of mechanisms to address risks to public health, welfare, and the environment caused
by hazardous substance releases.
Substances deemed hazardous by CERCLA are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 302.4. Based on criteria that relate to the possibility of harm associated with the release of
each substance, CERCLA assigns a substance-specific reportable quantity (RQ); RQs are either
1, 10, 100, 1000, or 5000 pounds (except for radionuclides). Any person in charge of a facility (or
a'vessel) must immediately notify the National Response Center as soon as a person has
knowledge of a release (within a 24-hour period) of an amount of a hazardous substance that is
equal to or greater than its RQ.a There are some exceptions to this requirement, including
exceptions for certain continuous releases and for Federally permitted releases.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Section 313
CERCLA was enacted in 1980 and, among other amendments, was amended in 1986 by
Title I of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Under SARA Section 313,
a facility that has more than 10 employees and that manufactures, processes or otherwise uses
more than 10,000 or 25,000 pounds per year of any toxic chemical listed in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 372.65 must file a toxic chemical release inventory (TRI) reporting form (EPA
Form R) covering releases of these toxic chemicals (including those releases specifically allowed
by EPA or State permits) with the EPA and a State agency. The threshold for reporting releases
is 10,000 or 25,000 pounds, depending on how the chemical is used (40 CFR 372.25). Form Ris
filed annually, covers all toxic releases for the calendar year, and must be filed on or before the
first of July of the following year. Table 2-7 lists chemicals used by facilities in lithographic
blanket washes that are listed in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Individual facilities may use
other chemicals which are listed in the TRI, but are not in Table 2-7.
a The national toll-free number for the National Response Center is (800)-424-8802; in Washington, D.C., call (202)-
426-2675.
2-61
DRAFT
-------
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Section 110
SARA Section 110 addresses Superfund site priority contaminants. This list contains the
275 highest ranking substances of the approximately 700 prioritized substances. These chemical
substances, found at Superfund sites, are prioritized based on their frequency of occurrence,
toxicity rating, and potential human exposure. Once a substance has been listed, the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is mandated to develop a toxicological profile that contains
general health/hazard assessments with effect levels, potential exposures, uses, regulatory-
actions, and further research needs.
Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1970 under
the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act to reduce the occurrence of occupational health
hazards, and to develop health and safety standards and training programs.
As authorized by Sections 6(a) of the OSH Act, which enables OSHA to promulgate existing
Federal standards and national consensus standards as OSHA standards, the Health Standards
program of OSHA established permissible exposure limits (PELs) for general industry Air
Contaminants (29 CFR 1910.1000). A PEL is a total weighted average (TWA) concentration that
is not to be exceeded in an 8 hour workday of a 40 hour work week, assuming a 50 week work
year and 40 years of work. The majority of PELs were adopted from the Walsh-Healey Public
Contracts Act which adopted standards from the 1968 Threshold Limit Values (TLV) of the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
On June 7, 1988, in an effort to increase the protection of the American workers, OSHA
proposed to revise the PELs by adding 164 substances to the list and lowering the PEL for 212 of
the 600 substances currently listed. OSHA also wanted to establish skin designations, short term
exposure limits (STELs) and ceiling limits for these substances. Before the proposed changes went
into effect, the ruling in the case of AFL-CIO v. OSHA in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
rendered the revised PELs, STELs and ceiling limits invalid, reasoning that the PELs were generic
health standards, not individual standards. Therefore, the 212 currently listed substances are
enforced at the 1971 PELs and the 164 newly proposed PELs are not enforceable by OSHA.
However, the "general duty clause" in Section 5(a)(l) of the OSH Act may be considered when the
"unofficial" PELs of the 164 added substances are exceeded. The ruling prompted OSHA to begin
developing individual PELs, STELs and ceiling limits for the substances included in the Health
Standards program.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
One purpose of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (as amended
in 1984) is to set up a cradle-to-grave system for tracking and regulating hazardous waste. The
EPAhas issued regulations, found in 40 CFRParts 260-299, which implement the Federal statute.
These regulations are Federal requirements. As of March 1994, 46 states have been authorized
to implement the RCRA program and may include more stringent requirements in their authorized
RCRA programs. In addition, non-RCRA-authorized states (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa and Wyoming)
may have state laws that set out hazardous waste management requirements. A facility should
always check with the state when analyzing which requirements apply to their activities.
Assuming the material is a solid waste, the first evaluation to be made is whether it is also
considered a hazardous waste. Part 261 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) addresses the
DRAFT
2-62
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
identification and listing of hazardous waste. The waste generator has the responsibility for
determining whether a waste is hazardous, and what classification, if any, may apply to the waste.
The generator must examine the regulations and undertake any tests necessary to determine if
the wastes generated are hazardous. Waste generators may also use their own knowledge and
familiarity with the waste to determine whether it is hazardous. Generators may be subject to
enforcement penalties for improperly determining that a waste is not hazardous.
Wastes can be classified as hazardous either because they are listed by EPA through
regulation and appear in the 40 CFR Part 261 or because they exhibit certain characteristics.
Listed wastes are specifically named, e.g., discarded commercial toluene, spent non-halogenated
solvents. Characteristic wastes are defined as hazardous if they "fail" a characteristic test, such
as the RCRA test for ignitability.
There are four separate lists of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261. If any of the wastes from
a printing facility is on any of these lists, the facility is subject to regulation under RCRA. The
listing is often defined by industrial processes, but all wastes are listed because they contain
particular chemical constituents (these constituents are listed in Appendix VII to Part 261).
Section 261.31 lists wastes from non-specific sources and includes wastes generated by industrial
processes that may occur in several different industries; the codes for such wastes always begin
with the letter "F." The second category of listed wastes (40 CFR 261.32) includes hazardous
wastes from specific sources; these wastes have codes that begin with the letter "K." The
remaining lists (40 CFR 261.33) cover commercial chemical products that have been or are
intended to be discarded; these have two letter designations, "P" and "U." Waste codes beginning
with "P" are considered acutely hazardous, while those beginning with "U" are simply considered
hazardous. Listed wastes from chemicals that are commonly used in the lithographic blanket
washes are shown in Table 2-7. While these exhibits are intended to be as comprehensive as
possible, individual facilities may use other chemicals and generate other listed hazardous wastes
that are not included in Table 2-7. Facilities may wish to consult the lists at 40 CFR 261.31-
261.33.b
Generator status defines how to dispose of a listed or characteristic waste. The hazardous
waste generator is defined as any person, by site, who creates a hazardous waste or makes a
waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C. Generators are divided into three categories:
Large Quantity Generators - These facilities generate at least 1000 kg (approximately
2200 Ibs.) of hazardous waste per month, or greater than 1 kg (2.2 Ibs) of acutely
hazardous waste0 per month.
Small Quantity Generators (SQG) These facilities generate greater than 100 kg
(approx. 220 Ibs.) but less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste per month, and up to 1
kg (2.2 Ibs) per month of acutely hazardous waste.
b Lists of the "F, P, K and U" hazardous wastes can also be obtained by calling the EPA RCRA/Superfund/EPCRA
Hotline at (800) 424-9346.
0 The provisions regarding acutely hazardous waste are not likely to affect printers. Acutely hazardous waste includes
certain "F" listed wastes that do not apply to printers, and "P" listed wastes, none of which were identified as in use in the
commercial lithographic industry. (See 40 CFR 261.31-33 for more information).
2-63
DRAFT
-------
2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) These facilities generate
no more than 100 kg (approx. 220 Ibs) per month of hazardous waste and up to 1 kg
(2.2 Ibs) per month of acutely hazardous waste.
Large and small quantity generators must meet many similar requirements. 40 CFR 262
provides that SQGs may accumulate up to 6000 kg of hazardous waste on-site at any .one time
for up to 180 days without being regulated as a treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facility and
thereby having to apply for a TSD permit. The provisions of 40 CFR 262.34 (fj allow SQGs to store
waste on-site for 270 days without having to apply for TSD status provided the waste must be
transported over 200 miles. Large quantity generators have only a 90-day window to ship wastes
off-site without needing a RCRA TSD permit. Keep in mind that most provisions of 40 CFR 264
and 265 (for hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities) do not apply to generators
who send their wastes off-site within the 90- or 180-day window, whichever is applicable.
Hazardous waste generators that do not meet the conditions for conditionally exempt small
quantity generators must (among other requirements such as record keeping and reporting):
Obtain a generator identification number;
Store an,d ship hazardous waste in suitable containers or tanks (for storage only);
Manifest the waste properly;
Maintain copies of the manifest, a shipment log covering all hazardous waste
shipments, and test records;
Comply with applicable land disposal restriction requirements; and
Report releases or threats of releases of hazardous waste.
2.6 SAFETY HAZARD BY FORMULATION
Table 2-8 contains Safety Hazard Factors for the 36 blanket wash formulations and the
baseline used in the lithography industry. There are four Safety Hazard Factors addressed in this
table: reactivity, flammability, ignitability, and corrosivity. As was described in Section 2.2
Chemical Information for the individual chemicals used in the blanket wash formulations, they
were derived as follows.
Where applicable, the reactivity and flammability values were extracted directly from section
one of the blanket wash formulation's Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). This section contains
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) values on both reactivity and flammability. For
reactivity, NFPA ranks materials on a scale of 0 through 4:
0 - materials that are normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and that do
not react with water; normal fire fighting procedures may be used.
1 - materials that are normally stable, but may become unstable at elevated temperatures
and pressures and materials that will react with water with some release of energy,
but not violently; fires involving these materials should be approached with caution.
DRAFT
2-64
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.6 SAFETY HAZARD BY FORMULATION
2 - materials that are normally unstable and readily undergo violent chemical change, but
are not capable of detonation; this includes materials that can rapidly release energy,
materials that can undergo violent chemical changes at high temperatures and
pressures, and materials that react violently with water. In advanced or massive fires
involving these materials, fire fighting should be done from a safe distance of from a
protected location.
3 - materials that, in themselves, are capable of detonation, explosive decomposition, or
.explosive reaction, but require a strong initiating source or heating under
confinement; fires involving these materials should be fought from a protected
location.
4 - materials that, in themselves, are readily capable of detonation, explosive
decomposition, or explosive reaction at normal temperatures and pressures. If a
material having this Reactivity Hazard Rating is involved in a fire, the area should be
immediately evacuated.
For flammability, NFPA ranks materials also on a scale of 0 through 4:
0 - any material that will not bum.
1 - materials that must be preheated before ignition will occur and whose flash point
exceeds 200ฐF (93.4ฐC), as well as most ordinary combustible materials.
2 - materials that must be moderately heated before ignition will occur and that readily
give off ignitible vapors.
3 - Flammable liquids and materials that can be easily ignited under almost all normal
temperature conditions. Water may be ineffective in controlling or extinguishing fires
in such materials.
4 - includes flammable gases, pyrophoric liquids, and flammable liquids. The preferred
method of fire attack is to stop the flow of material or to protect exposures while
allowing the fire to burn itself out.
For formulations whose MSDs did not contain NFPA rankings, no reactivity or flammability
values were assigned. However, please note the following exceptions. For Blanket Wash
Formulation #19, NFPA reactivity and ftammability values for a major chemical constituent,
dipropylene glycol butyl ether, have been included in the table. In addition, for Blanket Wash
Formulations #32, #36, and #37, a reactivity designation of "Y" has been given. Based on product
composition, it has been determined that these blanket wash formulations are reactive, though
no NFPA value has been listed in their MSDSs.
For ignitability, the formulations have been classified as either ignitable, "Y" or not ignitable,
"N". Ignitability has been determined based on the flash point of the formulation, as outlined in
40 CFR (Protection of Environment, RCRA), Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste, ง261.21, Characteristic of Ignitability. Under this standard, a chemical is considered
ignitable if it "is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24 percent alcohol
by volume and has a flash point less than 60ฐC (140ฐF) as determined by a Pensky-Martens
Closed Cup Tester...a Setaflash Closed Cup Tester...or an equivalent test method." The flash
points for these formulations have been determined by the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation,
an independent testing laboratory.
2-65
DRAFT
-------
2.6 SAFETY HAZARD BY FORMULATION
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
For corrosivKy, the formulations have been classified as either corrosive, "Y" or not corrosive,
"N". Corrosivity for these product formulations has been determined based on the pH of the
product as outlined in 40 CFR (Protection of Environment, RCRA), Part 261, Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste, ง261.22, Characteristic of Corrosivity. According to this standard,
a chemical is corrosive if it "is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or
equal to 12.5." As with the flash points, the pH of the various blanket wash formulations have
been determined by the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation.
Table 2-8. Safety Hazard Factors for Blanket Wash Formulations1
Formulation Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Reactivity
0
0
0
o2
0
0
Y
Flam inability
0
2
2
22
2
2
Ignitability
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Corrosivity
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DRAFT
2-66
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
2.6 SAFETY HAZARD BY FORMULATION
Formulation Number
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Reactivity
Y
Y
Flammability
Ignitability
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Corrosivity
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
1A blank space in this table indicates that there was not enough information available to develop a Safety Hazard Factor
ranking.
2Reactivity and flammability data values are for dipropylene glycol butoxy ether.
References
1. The Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), developed and maintained by: The National
Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C.
2. The Physical/Chemical Property Database (PHYSPROP) and the Environmental Fate Data Base
(EFDB), both of which were developed and maintained by: Syracuse Research Corp. (SRC),
Environmental Science Center, Merrill Lane, Syracuse, New York.
3. Budavari, S., ed. 1989. The Merck Index, llth ed. Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ.
4. Lewis, R.J., ed. 1993. Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 12th ed. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York.
5. Lyman, W.J., et al. 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
6. Beilstein on-line data base. Undated.
7. Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc. 1990. Catalog Handbook of Fine Chemicals.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. 1985. CHEMLINE. Chemical Dictionary
Online.
9. Chemical Abstracts Systems. 1994.
10. Buckingham, J. 1982. Dictionary of Organic Compounds.
11. CRC. 1993. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
12. Sax, N.I., and R.J. Lewis. 1987. Hazardous Chemicals Desk Reference.
13. U.S. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1995.
14. Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook. 1984.
2-67
DRAFT
-------
2.7 PROCESS SAFETY
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
15. Ullman, F. 1985. Ullman's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
16. Verschueren, K. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals.
DRAFT
2-68
-------
Chapter 3
Risk
Chapter Contents
3.1 Environmental Release Estimates
3.2 Occupational Exposure Estimates
3.3 General Population Exposure Estimates
3.4 Risk Characterization
3.4.1 Background
3.4.2 Ecological Risk
3.4.3 Occupational Risks
3.4.4 General Population Risks
3.5 Process Safety Concerns
This chapter addresses the
exposures and associated risks that may
result from using the substitute blanket
washes. Section 3.1 contains information
on environmental releases. Potential
releases to air, and land and water are
discussed for each blanket wash. Section
3.2 examines potential occupational
exposures. The dermal and inhalation
exposures that can occur as a result of
working with a blanket wash are presented.
Section 3.3 addresses exposures for the
general population (i.e., people not working
in the print shop), and includes information
on human exposures to blanket wash
chemicals released to both air and surface
water. In. all three sections, the methodologies and models used for estimating releases and
exposures are described along with the associated assumptions and uncertainties. Section 3.4
moves from exposures to the risks and concerns associated with such exposures. Descriptions
of how risk characterizations are made and the types of risks examined (such as carcinogenic,
chronic and developmental), are followed by discussions of the risks assigned to the
environmental, occupational and general population exposures discussed earlier in the chapter.
In Section 3.5, methods of reducing worker risk are discussed. Topics such as employee training,
proper handling of chemicals, and use of personal safety equipment and equipment safeguards
are reviewed.
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
Estimated environmental releases associated with lithography blanket wash chemicals and
the methodology, assumptions and uncertainties associated with the release calculations are
discussed below. Releases to air result from volatilization of volatile blanket wash constituents
during fluid (blanket wash) transfers and from waste rags used to wipe blanket wash liquid off of
the blankets. ' Releases to water result primarily from the laundering of dirty reusable rags.
Releases to land result from the disposal of non-reusable rags.
Methodology - Environmental Releases
The material balance approach was used to calculate releases from lithography blanket
washes. The following schematic describes the overall material balance:
3-1
DRAFT
-------
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Blanket
wash
Purchased
(160gal/yr)
Blanket wash
activity
Blanket Wash
to air and rags
Oieogai/yr)
-> Air release
Rags (Water or
Land)
Figure 3-1. Material Balance
General facility assumptions were developed specifically for the scenarios of this
assessment. These assumptions were developed by EPA in conjunction with Gary Jones of the
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) and were released for review during the ECB/GATF
Environmental Affairs Conference held in Oakbrook, Illinois in March 1994. Those assumptions
were as follows:
Assumption
Value
Number of presses per facility
Number of units per press
Number of times each blanket is washed per
day
Number of hours per operating day
Number of operating days per year
Average amount of wash used per blanket
Area of 1 blanket
Amount of blanket wash used per year
1-19"x26"
4
10 (40 total for the
press)1
8
250
2oz.
3.4ft2'
160 gallons
11ndustry commentators noted during a later review of draft results that washing the blanket 10 times
per day may be high for this type of facility. If this assumption is high, using 10 blanket washes per
day may overestimate exposures.
An average of 160 gallons of blanket wash is assumed to be used per year per facility
(rounded to two significant figures). The 160 gallons is either released to air or is left on the rag
for disposal or laundering.
A typical shop may either use reusable rags, which are laundered, or dispose of rags as
municipal solid waste. Volatile chemicals (>10~3 mm Hg vapor pressure) were assumed to be
released to air whether reusable or disposable rags are used. Non-volatile chemicals (< 10"3 mm
DRAFT
3-2
-------
CHAPTER 3: RISK
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
Hg vapor pressure51) were assumed to remain on the rags. Chemicals remaining on reusable rags
were released to water and chemicals remaining on disposal rags were released to land. The
model does not take into account the releases of ink constituents that are being removed
in the blanket wash.
The material balance calculations are conducted as follows for each formulation:
Calculate the average density of the formulation using the normalized weight
percent; (see sample calculation)
Multiply the average density by the volume released (160 gallons) to get the total
mass of blanket wash released;
Multiply the total mass by the weight percentage of each chemical in the
formulation to determine individual chemical masses;
If the vapor pressure of a chemical constituent is > 10"3 mm Hg, then the chemical
is assumed to be released to air; and
If the vapor pressure is < 10"3 mm Hg, then the chemical will not volatilize and is
assumed to be released to water or land. Releases to water occur when the rags are
laundered, and to land when they are disposed of.
Sample Calculation
Example Formulation
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Solvent naphtha, heavy
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Density
(g/cm3)
0.8
0.87
0.89
2.33
Weight Percent
42.9%
33.3%
19.0%
4.8%
Vapor Pressure
(mmHg)
<10'6
0.5
<0.98
-------
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
.CHAPTERS: RISK
In this example:
The average density of the blanket wash is 0.867 g/cm
n weight fractionj
2
1=1 density^
n Sformulation
i=l __gi__
" i
n
cm
of
ormulation
cnf
formulation
^formulation
The reciprocal of this value is the average density
of the blanket wash in g/cm3'
In this example, we have
[ 0.429 +
0.8
0.333
0.87
0.19
0.89
0.481
2.33
= 0.867 g/cm3
Using the average density, the total mass of blanket wash per year is calculated to be
525,196g/yr.
The mass of each chemical component is calculated, the vapor pressure is evaluated to
determine the release route and the following release rates are calculated:
Example Formulation
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Solvent Naphtha, heavy
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Total:
Release to Air*
(g/site/sec)
0
0.024
0.014
0
0.038
Release to
Water or Land
(kg/site/yr)
225.3
0
0
25.2
251
The time units for releases to air are calculated using 250 days per year and 8 hours per day. The environmental
releases for each blanket wash formulation are provided in Table 3-1.
Assumptions - Environmental Releases
The material balance used in this report assumes that releases to air equal the total air
release of chemicals from the following:
Volatilization of blanket wash formulation constituents from blankets during cleaning;
DRAFT
3-4
-------
CHAPTER 3: RISK.
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
Emissions from transfer operations; and
Volatilization of blanket wash constituents from dirty rags.
As described on page 3-2, the following assumptions and sources of information were used
in the material balance model:
Chemicals with a vapor pressure < 10"3 mm Hg will not volatilize;
Chemicals that do not volatilize will remain on the cleaning rags.
The general facility assumptions listed above.
Uncertainties - Environmental Releases
Determining environmental releases associated with lithography blanket washes requires
making assumptions about the cleaning process, the workplace environment and waste
management practices. Uncertainties about the amounts of releases to the environment stem
from the estimated total released per year (160 gallons). This total will vary in actual printing
facilities based on:
type of blanket wash used;
amount of blanket wash applied;
amount of unused blanket wash disposed;
compliance with waste management procedures;
equipment operating time;
temperature conditions (ambient and solvent);
chemical properties.
Table 3-1. Environmental Releases: Lithographic Blanket Washes
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
Formulation**
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons; petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
. Water,
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Environmental Releases
Air
(g/sec)
0.062
0.014
0.021
0
0.025
0
0.059
0
N/A
0.021
0.010
0
0
0
0
0
0.018
0.006
0
Water or Land
(kg/yr)
0
0
0
152
0
38
0
77
N/A
0
0
50
30
15
5
329
0
0 ..
25
3-5
DRAFT
-------
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
Formulation**
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Glycols
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
AJkyl benzene sulfonates
Environmental Releases
Air
(g/sec)
0.071
0
0
N/A
0.018
0.012
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
0
0.028
0.005
0
0.033
N/A
0
0.008
N/A
0.075
0
0.002
0
0
N/A
0
0.022
0.005
0.009
0.003
0
0
0.051
N/A
N/A
0.010
0.007
0
Water or Land
(kg/yr)
0
15
15
N/A
0
0
91
43
13
4
405
N/A
15
140
N/A
249
0
0
23
0
N/A
54
0
N/A
0
11
0
5
3
N/A
225
0
0
0
0
23
182
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
25
DRAFT
3-6
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
Form.
Number
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Formulation**
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Water
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Water
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Environmental Releases
Air
(g/sec)
0.014
0.021
0
0
0.017
N/A
0.034
0.021
0.021
N/A
0.013
0.003
0
0 .
0
N/A
0.072
0.003
0
0
0.12
0.059
0
0.049
0.008
N/A
0.010
0.058
0.066
0.018
0.018
0.004
N/A
N/A
0.015
0.012
0
0
0.010
0.058
0
0.013
0.007
0.003
Water or Land
(kg/yr)
0
0
257
288
0
N/A
0
0
0
N/A
0
0
23
35
23
N/A
0
0
604
256
0
0
533
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
42
42
0
0
376
0
0
0
3-7
DRAFT
-------
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
37
38
39
40
Formulation**
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamine
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Environmental Releases
Air
(g/sec)
N/A
0.034
0.003
0.048
0.012
0
N/A
0.015
0.008
0
0.004
0.009
0.012
0
0
Water or Land
(kg/yr)
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
0
0
17
0
0
0
346
22
"Formulation compositions were adjusted to equal 100 percent.
N/A - Not applicable
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Inhalation and dermal exposure associated with lithography blanket wash chemicals and
the methodology, assumptions and uncertainties associated with the estimates are discussed
below. The scenario described below was modelled to assess inhalation and dermal exposures for
workers at these shops. Table 3-2 presents the inhalation and dermal exposures for lithographic
blanket washes.
Table 3-2. Inhalation and Dermal Exposures: Lithographic Blanket Washes
Form.
Number
1
3
4
Formulation1
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Inhalation
Exposure2
(mg/day)
0.23
0.026
7.2
negligible
14.8
negligible
74
negligible
Dermal Exposure3
(mg/day)
1,100-3,300
200-590
730-2,200
390-1,200
121-360
61-180
1,100-3,400
159-480
DRAFT
3-8
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Form.
Number
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
Formulation1
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/ salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/ salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Water
Fatty acids derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Propylene glycol
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/ salts
Water
Inhalation
Exposure2
(mg/day)
N/A
0.54
0.010
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
5.4
0.82
negligible
2.42
negligible
negligible
N/A
0.52
0.67
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
N/A
negligible
negligible
N/A
negligible
7.5
0.63
negligible
1.68
N/A
. negligible
0.009
N/A
2.55
negligible
0.008
negligible
negligible
N/A
Dermal Exposure3
(mg/day)
N/A
340-1,000
170-510
100-300
54-162
27-81
7-20
910-2,700
290-880
58-180
37-110
1 ,225-3,750
37-110
37-110
N/A
290-870
180-530
196-580
87-260
23-70
6-17 , ,
990-3,000
N/A
25-76
270-820
N/A
670-2,000
540-1 ,600
54-160
34-100
650-1,960
N/A
98-290
98-290
N/A
1300-4000
23-68
23-68
11-34
6-17
N/A
3-9
DRAFT
-------
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Formulation1
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alky! benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Water
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Water
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Inhalation
Exposure2
(mg/day)
negligible
5.8
0.62
0.194
0.68
negligible
negligible
0.021
N/A
N/A
0.36
0.12
negligible
2.2
7.1
negligible
negligible
0.73
N/A
0.83
0.037
0.001
N/A
2.3
0.002
negligible
negligible
negligible
N/A
2.11
2.4
negligible
negligible
4.69
240
negligible
1.9
0.026
N/A
0.88
11
24
Dermal Exposure3
(mg/day)
640-1 ,900
430-1,300
57-170
108-330
36-110
36-110
100-290
260-780
N/A
N/A
130-400
100-300
33-100
260-780
390-1,200
650-2,000
720-2,100
260-780
N/A
92-280
57-170
57-170
N/A
210-620
52-160
52-160
78-230
52-160
N/A
1 ,248-3,840
52-160
1,219-3,758
45-135
1 ,300-3,900
1 ,300-3,900
1,300-3,900
910-2,700
130-390
N/A
200-590
1,100-3,300
1 ,300-3,900
DRAFT
3-10
-------
CHAPTERS: RfSK
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Form.
Number
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Formulation1
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Inhalation
Exposure2
(mg/day)
0.93
0.44
0.068
N/A
N/A
3.3
0.56
negligible
negligible
, 11
0.88
negligible
4.1
1.0
0.37
N/A
1.67
0.064
10
0.022
negligible
N/A
0.60
0.31
negligible
0.003
1.4
4.0
negligible
negligible
Dermal Exposure3
(mg/day)
310-920
310-920
34-100
N/A
N/A
230-680
170-510
85-250
85-250
200-590
1,100-3,300
900-2,700
230-680
110-340
57-170
N/A
625-1 ,840
32-97
980-2,900
200-590
130-390
N/A
220-670
1 1 0-330
30-89
52-160
130-380
190-570
950-2,800
38-110
Formulation compositions were adjusted to equaM 00 percent.
2 The inhalation exposures are based on a "what if" scenario.
3 The dermal exposures are bounding estimates and assume that no gloves or barrier creams are used by the workers.
In situations where the chemical is corrosive (e.g., sodium hydroxide), dermal exposure to workers using the
appropriate gloves is zero.
Negligible - Inhalation exposures to chemicals with vapor pressures <10"3 mmHg were assumed negligible.
N/A - Not applicable
3-11
DRAFT
-------
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Scenario
Based on the general facility assumptions listed in Section 3.1, a press operator is assumed
to wash 40 blankets per shift. Each wash lasts two minutes. The worker squirts 2 ounces of
wash solution onto a rag using a squirt bottle. The blanket is wiped with the wet rag and then
wiped again with a dry rag. All rags are disposed of in closed storage containers.
Inhalation exposures result from the volatilization of chemicals from the blanket during
washing and from the rags used to wash the blanket. Unvolatilized materials that remain on the
rags are assumed to be disposed of as solid waste or to be removed at a laundry facility.
Inhalation exposures to vapors from opening the containers storing the disposed rags are assumed
to be negligible. Inhalation exposures to chemicals with a vapor pressure < 10"3 mm Hg are also
assumed to be negligible.
Dermal exposures result from contact with the blanket wash solution during blanket
washing activities. Dermal exposures are estimated based on type of operations and wash
formulation concentrations.
Methodology - Inhalation Exposures
Inhalation exposures were estimated from the scenario described above using a material
balance inhalation exposure modelb. The inhalation exposure assessment falls under the "what
if category {see uncertainties section).
The material balance model assumes that the amount of a chemical in a room equals the
amount of chemical generated in the room minus the amount of chemical leaving the room. The
model is valid for estimating the displacement of vapors from containers and for estimating the
volatilization of liquids from open surfaces. The assumptions used in this model include:
Incoming room air is contaminant-free;
Vapor generation and ventilation rates are constant over time;
Room air and ventilation air mix ideally;
Raoult's Law is valid (i.e., regarding the volatilization and interaction of vapors);
Ideal gas law applies (i.e., regarding the interaction of vapors); and
"Typical case" ventilation parameters are.valid (actual ventilation conditions are
unknown).
The inhalation exposure model1 estimates the evaporation of chemicals from open surfaces,
such as the surface of a blanket, using the following equations:
* Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical Engineering Branch (CEB) Manual for the Preparation of
Engineering Assessments, (February 28, 1991), p. 4-1 through 4-39.
DRAFT
3-12
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
0.02MXiPi
RT
(1)
7UZ
where:
M
p.*
R
T
D
ab
Volatilization rate of subsurface i, g/m2-sec
Molecular weight, g/mol
Vapor pressure of pure substance i, mm Hg
Mole fraction of substance i in solution, dimensionless
Gas constant, 0.0624 mm Hg-m3/mol-K
Temperature, K
Diffusivity, cm2/sec
Air velocity, m/sec
Distance along contaminated surface, m
The air velocity vz is assumed to be 100 feet per minute (ft/min). Since the diffusivity (Dab)
is not available for many of the chemicals used in blanket washing formulations, the following
equation is used to estimate diffusivity:
_ 4.09
(l/29+l/M)ฐ-5M-ฐ-33
(2)
D
T
M
ab
Diffusivity, cm2/sec
Temperature, K
Molecular weight, g/mol
Total pressure, atm
Equation 2 is based on kinetic theory and generally gives values of Dab that agree closely
with experimental data. The volatilization rate (Gj), calculated in Equations 1 and 2 above, is used
in the following mass balance equation to calculate the airborne concentration of a substance in
the breathing zone:
where:
M
A
9
k
= 1.7. xlO5 TGiA
MQk
Airborne concentration, ppm
Ambient temperature, K
Volatilization rate of substance i, g/m2-sec
Molecular weight, g/mol
Area of surface, m
Ventilation rate, ft3/min
Mixing factor, dimensionless
(3)
The mixing factor (k) accounts for slow and incomplete mixing of ventilation air with room
air. The CEB Manual sets this factor at 0.5 for a typical case and at 0.1 for a worst case.
3-13
DRAFT
-------
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
The CEB Manual commonly uses ventilation rates (Q) of 500 to 3,500 ft3/min. An effective
ventilation rate of 1,500 ft3/min was used in the model. This rate is equal to the mixing factor
of 0.5 multiplied by the "typical case" ventilation rate (3,000 ft3/min). The value of Cv from
Equation 3 is converted to mass/volume units using the following equation:
C = C -
m v
(4)
where:
M
Airborne concentration, mg/m3
Airborne concentration, ppm
Molecular weight, g/mol
Molar volume of an ideal gas, L/mol
At 25ฐC, Vm has a value of 24.45 L/mol. Since a worker can be assumed to breathe about
1.25 m3 of air per hour, an inhalation exposure can be computed once Cm has been determined.
Equations 3 and 4 can be combined to yield the following equation, given the "typical case" choice
of ventilation parameters:
where:
I
G
A
t
.= 0.48GAt
Total amount of substance inhaled, mg/day
Vapor generation rate, g/m2ซec
Area of surface, m2
Duration of exposure, sec/day
(5)
The following variables for the lithography model shop are based on the Chemical
Engineering Branch Manual (EPA, 1991)11
vz = 100 ft/min
T = 298 K
Q = 3,000 ft3/min
k=0.5
(air velocity)
(temperature)
(ventilation rate)
(mixing factor, dimensionless)
(Raoult's Law)
The following variables are based on the assumptions presented on page 3-2. These
assumptions were reviewed during the ECB/GATF Environmental Affairs Conference held in
Oakbrook, Illinois in March, 1994.
z = 26 in (distance along contaminated surface)
A = 494 in2 (area of surface)
The average time to wash one blanket is 2 minutes.
DRAFT
3-14
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
The average number of blankets washed per shift is 40.
The average worker is exposed to wash vapors 80 minutes per day
(t = 4,800 seconds per day).
Dilutions with water are accounted for in formulation compositions.
Adjusted values were used for the formula compositions because they did not
always sum to 100%.
Sample Calculation - Inhalation Exposures
Example Formulation (compositions are percent by weight):
Range
35-45%
25-35%
15-20%
0-5%
75-105%
Adjusted*
42.9%
33.3%
19.0%
4.8%
100%
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Total
In cases where the maximum range values of the chemical compositions did not add up to 100%, the values were
adjusted to 100%.
The diffusivity is calculated using Equation 2, as follows:
_ 4.09 xlCT5 T1-9(l/29+l/M)ฐ-5 M"ฐ-33
-
The following values are obtained from the Basic Chemical Data Report for solvent naphtha
(petroleum), heavy aromatic:
T
M
298 K
128 g/mol
1 atm
Dab = 0.085 cm2/sec
3-15
DRAFT
-------
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Using the above value for diffusMty, the volatilization rate can be calculated using Equation 1,
as follows:
Gฑ =
0 . 02MXi
RT
TCZ
where:
M
R
T
Dab
128 g/mol
0.5 mm Hg
0.5346 (mole fraction)
0.0624 mm Hg-m3/mol-K
298 K
0.0852 cm2/sec
100 ft/min = 0.508 m/sec
26 in = 0.6604 m
= 0.0053 g/m2-sec
Using this value for Git the exposure may be. calculated using Equation 5, as follows:
I = 0.48GAt
where:
G
A
t
I = 3.9 mg/day
0.0053 g/m2-sec
494 in2 = 0.3187m2
80 min = 4,800 sec/day
Using the same method for each chemical in the Example Formulation, the following results are
obtained:
Chemical
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Inhalation Rate
Negligible
3.9 mg/day
4.3 mg/day
Negligible
DRAFT
3-16
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Methodology - Dermal Exposures
Dermal exposure is caused by contact with a material. For the blanket press operators,
contact with the material includes touching the damp rags and manually applying the rags to the
blanket to remove ink. Routine contact with two hands was modeled for the dermal exposure
assessment.
The dermal contact model1 was used to calculate dermal exposure estimates for blanket
washing activities by adjusting the concentration of the chemical in the mixture. This model
provides bounding estimates and assumes that no gloves or barrier creams are used by the
workers. In situations where the chemical is corrosive (e.g., sodium hydroxide), dermal exposure
to workers using the appropriate gloves is negligible. Also, for other chemicals, if the appropriate
gloves are worn exposure to workers will'be negligible.
Assumptions used in the dermal model1 include:
The concentrations of the chemicals in the mixture are constant (i.e., no
evaporation) throughout the time of absorption;
No dermal protection, administrative, work practice, or other controls are used to
limit dermal exposure;
The surface area of two hands is 1300 cm2;
The amount that is actually absorbed is not determined;
The quantity remaining on the hand is 1-3 mg/cm2; and
A single contact with the chemical results in exposure for a complete work day.
That is, the duration of exposure is estimated at 1-4 hours or longer, but it is
assumed the worker washes up at meal time, and if the duration is reported for a
full day, the potential dose should total only the estimate for a single contact.
Sample Calculation - Dermal Exposures
Using the Example Formulation:
Ethoxylated nonylphenol = 42.9% (Adjusted weight %)
The dermal exposure to blanket washes for routine dermal contact (2 hands) is
1,300 to 3,900 mg/day1, (e.g., 1-3 mg/cm2 x 1300 cm2/day)
The dermal exposure to ethoxylated nonylphenol is 42.9% of the total blanket wash
exposure, or 560 to 1,700 mg/day.
3-17
DRAFT
-------
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Using the same method for each chemical in the Example Formulation, the following
results are obtained:
Chemical
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Dermal Exposure
560 to 1 ,700 mg/day
430 to 1 ,300 mg/day
250 to 740 mg/day
62 to 1 90 mg/day
Uncertainties - Occupational Exposures
Any determination of the occupational exposure levels associated with blanket washing
activities requires making assumptions about the washing processes, workplace environment,
health and safety practices, and waste management practices.
EPA has published Guidelines for Exposure Assessment in the Federal Register. These
guidelines provide the basic terminology and principles by which the Agency conducts exposure
assessments. If the exposure assessment methodology allows an assessor to in some way quantify
the spectrum of exposure, the assessor should assess typical exposures, as well as high-end
exposures or bounding exposures. Typical exposures refer to exposures of a typical person to a
particular substance. High-end exposures refer to exposures of a person exposed to amounts of
a substance higher than exposures received by 90 percent of the people (or ecological species of
interest) exposed to the substance. Bounding exposures are judgments assuming that no one will
be exposed to amounts of substance higher than the calculated amount. However, in many cases,
only a picture of what the exposure would be under a given set of circumstances* without a
characterization of the probability of these circumstances, can be calculated. These pictures are
called "What if1 scenarios,0 and they do not try to judge where on the exposure scale the estimate
actually falls. The inhalation exposure assessments calculated for the blanket press operators fall
under the "what if' category and the dermal exposure assessments are bounding exposures.
Although the blanket washing process is relatively straightforward, occupational exposure
levels will differ in shop environments because of many variables, including:
Volatility of blanket wash used;
Amount of blanket wash applied;
Application of chemicals to blanket and rags;
Use of personal protective equipment and safety procedures;
Blanket washing time;
Ventilation conditions and shop layout;
Number of blankets cleaned;
Temperature conditions (ambient and solvent);
Average size of blankets; and
Number of presses per facility.
c A "\vhat-ifscenario" is a scenario developed to 'assess potential exposure under a set of hypothetical conditions or under
a set of conditions for which actual exposure parameter data are incomplete or nonexistent. The calculated exposures are not
intended to provide information about how likely the combination of exposure parameter values might be in the actual population
or approximately how many, if any, persons might actually be subjected to the calculated exposure.
DRAFT
3-18
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
The purpose of this general population exposure assessment is to determine non-
occupational exposures to lithography blanket wash chemicals. This determination addresses
contact by people who are not directly involved in the lithography process. People who live near
a printing facility may breathe air containing small amounts of vapors from evaporation of
products at the printing facility. Residues from the blanket wash products enter the environment
when facilities, either printer facilities or laundries washing the rags, discharge the products down
the drain, either to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) or through a septic system. Once
the chemicals enter surface water, they may travel downstream and enter a drinking water facility.
People could then be exposed by drinking this water. People may also drink well water that
contains contaminants that have migrated from a landfill where wastes, especially rags and empty
containers, are disposed. For each of these contact routes, the amount of exposure depends on
several factors: distance from the facility, the actual routes of contact (such as drinking,
breathing, touching), the length of time the chemical has been in the environment, and the way
that the chemical moves through the environment. The potential exposures also depend on
environmental conditions, including the weather and the volume of water in the stream or river
which receives the facility's discharges.
The general population exposure assessment should not be compared to the occupational
health standards to determine if an exposure is reasonable or not. Many occupational standards
are based on technological feasibility, rather than ideal risk reduction. Furthermore, measuring
internal facility contaminant levels may not be sufficient to determine significant general
population exposure. Certain types of controls simply move the chemical from inside the plant
to the outdoors, creating higher concentrations outside the facility than inside the facility. Some
pathways of exposure, such as the drinking water path, do not exist for workers. It is also
important to note that some chemicals may have a more significant impact on a specific segment
of the general population, such as children, than on a typical worker.
Chapter 2 contains summaries for the fate of all of the chemicals identified as being used
in blanket wash products. The fate of the chemical in the environment is how we refer to the
breakdown (transformation) and mobility of the chemical through air, water, and land. Chemical
fate differs for release through a waste water treatment facility as opposed to an air release or a
landfill release. Definitions of the terms used to describe the fate are also included in Chapter 2.
For this assessment, the percent removal during wastewater treatment and the half-life of the
chemical in air are the primary elements taken from the fate assessment. The other properties
and processes listed were used to derive or estimate these_ values.
This assessment addresses two perspectives: local and regional. The local point of view
considers a single facility in normal operation. It will have certain releases that affect a specific
area and specific local population. Since information is not available for each lithography facility,
a "model facility" approach is used to calculate typical releases and environmental concentrations.
This approach will not allow us to specify the number of people around the facility because the
population varies considerably depending on the location of the printing facility. The regional
perspective provides insight into the overall impact of releases from all of the printing facilities for
the general population. While one facility may not be releasing very much of any given chemical,
the cumulative effect of all of the printers in an area could be serious. The regional perspective
was modeled using facilities located in a single city, Denver, Colorado, to provide an example of
cumulative exposures.
This exposure assessment should be used in conjunction with the health assessment to
provide a balanced picture of risk. The specific effects of a chemical, such as acute (short-term)
effects or chronic (long-term) effects, determine what period(s) of exposure to consider. For long-
3-19
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTER 3: RISK
term (chronic) effects, such as carcinogenicity, it is most helpful to have average, or typical,
exposures, since the effect depends on the cumulative exposure. For acute effects, which can
include things such as eye irritation, a peak exposure estimate would be more helpful. This can
then be compared with levels at which the chemical is known to cause immediate health
problems. Since the information which would allow peak exposures to be calculated is not
available, average concentrations are calculated in this assessment.
Uncertainty
Estimating exposures is a science where many pieces are approximated, leading to some
uncertainly in the results of the estimates. In this assessment we used a model facility approach,
where the model facility was not an actual printing facility which exists. In our modeling, we
have fixed certain data points to specific values. Although we have previously used weather data
specifically for San Bernardino, this does not mean that the concentration results have no
meaning for a different location. Many locations would have roughly the same concentration
results as San Bernardino, and no locations would have concentrations of less than one tenth of
the results for San Bernardino. Often, data parameters are fixed because we know what selecting
this combination of values does to the relative value of the risk. The building height, temperature
and the exit velocity in air modeling are examples of these types of parameters. We have set them
to maximize the average concentrations close to the facility. Some people would call this a worst
case, or a bounding estimate. In actuality, since we have presented a scenario for modeling, but
do not know how often those exposure levels (or, potential doses) actually exist, the exposure
estimates should be labeled a "What if." These What if estimates answer a question similar to
"What happens if the building is always three meters tall, the air escaping has little exit velocity,
and is ambient temperature?" It is a very good basis for comparing risk between formulations.
Overviexv by Media
The following sections provide an overview of general population exposures that may occur
via air, surface water, septic systems, and landfills.
Air
Local Exposure: Releases to air result from evaporation of chemicals during the blanket
wash process. Activities include allowing blankets to dry, using shop towels during blanket
cleaning, or opening the containers that hold the blanket wash. These vapors are then carried
by and mixed with outside air. The resulting air concentration will depend on weather conditions.
Stagnant conditions will not move vapors away quickly, so local concentrations of the chemical
will be higher than the concentrations farther from the plant. Under windy conditions, the vapors
will be carried away faster, reducing the local concentrations. The number of people may increase
or decrease with distance from the facility. The location of the printing facility will also influence
the exposure. If the location is known, the exposure assessor will use a computer program to
determine weather patterns. The number of people around a known facility will be determined
by using census data.
For our model facility, we assume a building height of three meters, and a width of 10
meters. This is a building approximately the size of a one-car garage. We then pick sample
weather conditions to determine what the air concentration of a chemical will be at a set distance
from the printing facility. San Bernardino is used because the weather conditions there will result
in the highest average concentrations around the facility of any of the approximately 500 weather
stations in the United States. The average concentrations around San Bernardino are within an
order of magnitude (power often) of concentrations expected anywhere else in the country. If the
San Bernardino average concentration, were estimated as 10 ug/m3, then the average
concentration anywhere in the country would be greater than 1 ug/m .
DRAFT
3-20
-------
CHAPTER 3: RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
The model used is called Industrial Source Complex Long Term (ISCLT). It was developed
as a regulatory model by the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. The Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics uses an implementation of ISCLT in the Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS).
Appendix B contains an example of an input file for this model. Except for items identified, the
parameters entered are the regulatory defaults. The model will calculate more than one chemical
at a time and is run in urban 3 mode. Also entered into the model is the decay rate of the
chemical. To convert from the half-life of the chemical (given in the fate summaries in Chapter
2) to the decay rate in inverse seconds, divide 0.693 (the natural log of 2) by the half-life in
seconds.
The amount released, given in this document in units of grams per second, is calculated
in grams per second per meter squared. Since our model facility is 10 meters per side, or 100
meters square, the release is divided by 100.
In order to obtain the concentration at 100 meters, a special polar grid was entered. The
ring distances specified were 100 meters, 200 meters, 300 meters, 400 meters, 500 meters, 600
meters, 700 meters, 800 meters, 900 meters and a kilometer. The air dispersion model calculates
the average air concentrations of the chemical vapors in the specified sectors. The sectors are
defined by the rings and the compass points, forming an arc-shaped area. There were three
calculations per sector. The compass point with the highest concentration at 100 meters was
then used to determine exposure. The location was at 90ฐ, that is, east.
From the concentration in the air, the amount with which an individual may actually .come
in contact can be calculated by knowing the breathing rate. A moderately active adult breathes
20 rn3 per day. The formula for an annual dose is:
Annual Dose = Concentration x Daily Inhalation Rate x Days per year
where the concentration is in p.g/m3, and the breathing rate is in cubic meters per day. The
potential dose normalized for body mass calculated per day for the entire lifetime, is called the
Lifetime Average Dally Dose or LADD (Table 3-3). The formula for this dose rate is:
LADD
Concentration x Dally Inhalation Rate x 0.001 mg/ug
Average Body Weight
The average body weight used in this assessment is 70 kg (an average adult). Since there is no
ratio for the percentage of days spent breathing air containing evaporated blanket wash chemicals,
this calculation assumes that a person will be breathing this concentration every day of their life.
(
Uncertainty
Within our scenario, there are specific parameters which affect final concentrations and
therefore final exposures more than others. Since we are using the estimates for comparison, the
single most important factor is the amount of the substance released per formulation. This is true
for both air and water.
Air releases have many factors which fold into the behavior of the chemical. A stronger fan
will increase the number of people outside the facility who come in contact the chemical, because
the chemical will stay concentrated farther. A higher temperature will cause the chemical to rise
in the air. The relative differences between these things is not as significant to the final
concentration as is the amount released.
3-21
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Table 3-3. Single Facility 100 Meter Air Concentrations and Residential
Population Potential Dose Rates1
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
100 Meter
Concentration
(ug/m3)
10
3
4
4.2
10
4
2
3
1
12
3
2
5
9x 10'1
5.9
1
12.5
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
80
20
30
28.7
70
30
10
20
7
95
20
20
40
7
47
9
100
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
3x 10'3
8x 10"4
1 X 10"3
1.29X 10"3
3x 10"3
1 x 10"3
5x 10"4
9x10"4
3x 10"4
4.5 x 1 0"3
9x 10"4
6x 10"4
1 X 10"3
3x 10"4
1.3X 10'3
4x10'4
4.6 X 10"3
DRAFT
3-22
-------
CHAPTERS: R/SK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Form.
Number
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 .
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chemical Components
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Glycols
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
100 Meter
Concentration
(ug/m3)
5x 10'1
4
9x 10"1
1.8
6x 10~1
9
2
1
3
4
3
6
4
4
2
6x 10"1
12.3
6x 10~1
21
10
9
1
2
10
10
3
3
6x 10'1
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
4
30
7
12
4
70
10
9
20
30
20
40
30
30
20
4
93
4
140
70
60
10
10
70
90
20
20
4
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
1 x 1Q-4
1x10'3
3x10'4
6x 10'4
2x10'4
3x 10'3
5x10'4
3x 10~4
7x 10'4
1 x10'3
9x 10"4
2x 10"3
1 x 10"3
1 x 10'3
7x10'4
2x 10'4
4.4 X1Q-3
2x 10"4
6.3 x 1 0"3
3x 10^
2x 10'6
4x10'4
5x10'4
3x1Q-3
3x 10'15
9x 10"4
9x 10'4
2x10"4
3-23
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chemical Components
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
100 Meter
Concentration
(ug/m3)
3
2
2
10
2
1
6 X 1 0'1
12
5
8
2
3
1
7x 10"1
2
2
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
20
20
10
70
20
8
- 4
80
40
60
20
20
10
5
10
20
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
7x10'4
' 6x 10"4
5x10'4
3x 10"3
7x10'4
, 3x 10'4
2x 10"4
4x 10'3
1 x 10"3
2x 10'3
6X10"4
7x10"4
4X 10"4
2x 10"4
5x10'4
6x 10"4
1 A blank space in the table indicates that there were no air releases for the chemical because the chemical would not
evaporate readily.
Regional Exposure: For the second approach, the overall general population exposure
picture resulting from multiple printing facilities was sought. The total residential population
exposed to blanket wash chemicals was not available, since the locations of all the lithography
facilities across the country are not known. Instead, a single city was used and all known
facilities within that city were modeled to provide a general idea of exposures that might result
from cumulative releases. Denver was chosen as an example city (Table 3-4). Within the city
limits of Denver, Dun and Bradstreet report 235 lithographers. The example assumes that all of
the lithographers in Denver use each blanket wash formulation at the same time. The average
concentration for the city of Denver is then calculated, using local weather data. The 1990
population for the city of Denver is approximately 470,000.
In this case, the model used is BOXMOD, also implemented in the Graphical Exposure
Modeling System. It uses a parameter called the Time Constant to account for chemical
degradation. The time constant is the inverse of the rate of decay used for the ISCLT model. This
is also the half-life in air divided by 0.693. The other parameter needed to run the model is the
size of the area being modeled. Denver is 277.13 square kilometers, or 16.65 kilometers on a side.
An example of a BOXMOD run is located in Appendix B.
DRAFT
3-24
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Table 3-4. Denver Average Air Concentrations and Residential Population Potential Dose Rates1
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
100 Meter
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1
4x 10 '1
6X10"1
6.5 x10'1
1
6x 10"1
2x10'1
5x 10"1
2x 10'1
1.72
5x10'1
3x 10~1
8x 10'1
1 x 10"1
9X10'1
2x 10"1
1.89
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
9
3
4
5 ,
8
4
1
4
1
12.6
4
2
6
7x10'1
6.7
1
13.3
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
3x10'4
1 x 10-4
2x10'4
1.45 x10'4
3x10-4
2x10"4
6x 10'5
1 x1Q-4
6x 10'5
4.56 x 10"4
1 x 10'4
9x10"5
2x10'4
3x10'5
2.3 X 10"4
6x 10'5
5.2 X10'4
3-25
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chemical Components
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Glycols
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
AlkyI benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyi benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxyiated nonylphenol
Alkyi benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
100 Meter
Concentration
(ug/m3)
4x10'2
6x 10'1
1 X 10"1
2.6 x 10'1
8x 10"2
1
3x 10"1
2x10'1
4x 10':
6x10"1
5x 10'1
8x 10~1
5x 10'1
6x 10"1
3X10'1
8x 10"2
1.63
8x10"2
3
2
1
2x10'1
3X10'1
2
2
5X10'1
5x10"1
8x 10'2
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
3 X 10'1
4
7x 10"1
2
6x 10"1
9
2
1
3
4
4
6
4
4
2
6x 10'1
12.4
6x 10'1
23
10
9
1
2
10
10
4
4
6x 10'1
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
1 x 10'5
2x10"4
3x10'5
8x 10'5
2x 10"5
4x10'4
9x 10'5
6x 10"5
1 X10'4
2x 10"4
1 x1Q-4
2x 10'4
1 x 10'4
2x1Q-4
9x 10"b
2x 10'5
4.59 x 10"4
2x1Q-5
7.9 x 10'4
5x1Q-4
4x10'4
6x 10"5
9x 10"b
6x 10"4
5x 10"4
1 X10'4
1 x 10'4
2x 10"5
DRAFT
3-26
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Form.
Number
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chemical Components
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
100 Meter
Concentration
(ug/m3)
3x 10'1
3x 10~1
3x 10"1
2
4x 10'1
2x 10'1
8x10'2
1.8
8x 10"1
1
3x 10~1
4x1(T1
2x10"1
9x 10"2
3x 10"n
3x 10"1
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
2
2
2
10
3
1
6x 10"1
14
6
9
2
3
1
7x 10'1
2
2
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
9x 10'5
9x 10"5
9x10"5
5x10'4
1 x ID'4
6x 10"5
2 X 1Q-5
6x10"4
2 x 1Q-4
4x10'4
9x 10"5
1 x10'4
6x10"5
3x10"5
9x10"b
9x 10"5
1 A blank space in the table indicates that there were no releases to air because the chemical would not evaporate
readily.
Surface Water
Releases to surface water are those releases discharged through a drain at a printing
facility, or at a laundry facility laundering rags from the printing facility that end up going to
public sewers or Publicly. Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). This discharge is treated before being
released. The effectiveness of the treatment determined so that the amount actually getting
through to the receiving water body can be calculated. The receiving water will dilute the
discharge from the POTW, and a stream concentration can be calculated using stream flow
information. Stream in this context means the receiving body of water, and are creeks and rivers
as well as streams.
Average stream concentrations are used to calculate average drinking water consumption.
Many public water supplies are drawn from the local streams and rivers; the concentration in the
stream is the concentration which people will ingest. People on average drink two liters of water
a day. Remember that many commercially-prepared beverages are still made with local water at
the bottling plant.
3-27
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Since there are many chemicals which accumulate in living organisms (bioaccurnulation),
the amount of the chemical from eating fish living in the same streams and rivers is calculated.
The ability of a chemical to bioaccumulate may be measured or estimated, and that property is
called the bioaccurnulation factor. For certain kinds of chemicals, food consumption may deliver
very high doses because of the cumulative nature. We use the bioconcentration factor and the
average amount of fish eaten per person per day to calculate an average amount of chemical
ingested by people on a daily basis (Table 3-5).
The other issue for surface water is the effect that a chemical may have on aquatic
organisms, from algae to fish. If the food chain is broken in a stream, the consequences are dire.
No algae, no fish. A healthy stream with many organisms will have a better ability to handle
chemical releases than one whose quality is already compromised. The organisms lower on the
food chain, such as algae, tend to have shorter lives, making shorter exposure time periods more
critical. Since concentrations will vary with the stream flow, there may be periods of lower flow
conditions where the same amount released as on a regular flow situation will cause problems.
We use historical stream data to try to predict how often this will happen. For lithographers, since
most do not need to have their own wastewater permit and more typically send their water to the
local treatment plant, we use the information for the wastewater treatment plants to calculate the
concentrations.
Local Exposure: For the single facility impact to be calculated for a real facility, the stream
to which the local POTW discharges should be known. Just as there are variations in facility
sizes, there are variations in stream flows, and stream flows vary with time. The impact of this
on this assessment is that more than one concentration needs to be calculated. Chronic effects,
such as cancer, require average concentrations to be used. Since the average (mean) stream flows
depends on what stream is-being used, we select two averages to calculate - the average
concentration for an mid-sized stream (50th percentile mean flow), and the average concentration
for a small stream (10th percentile mean flow). For acute concerns and for ecological concerns,
we calculated high concentrations which occur under low flow conditions. Specifically, low flow
is the lowest flow that continues for seven consecutive days in ten years. However, we only
calculate the low for small streams (10th percentile low flow).
The actual flows used in this assessment are 499 million liters per day for the 50th
percentile harmonic mean flow, 66 million liters per day for 10th percentile mean flow, and 1
million liters per day for 10th percentile low flow.
Since an individual may ingest both drinking water and fish, there are multiple potential
doses to evaluate.
To calculate stream concentration in ug/L, use the following formula:
Stream Concentration =
Release in kg/site/day x (1-Removal) x 1000
Streamflow in million liters per day
or,
Stream Concentration=
Release after treatment in kg/site/day x 1000
Streamflow in million liters per day
DRAFT
3-28
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Because the flow data we use are measured by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) below
any discharger on that segment of the stream (technically at the bottom of the reach), it already
includes water from any POTW on that segment. For large streams this is not an important
consideration, but for POTWs on small streams, it becomes contentious. A POTW with an internal
plant flow of 10 million liters per day releasing to a stream which has a low flow of 10 million liters
per day is not insignificant; it is all of the receiving stream's water. Based on the data, there are
a significant number of POTWs for which this appears to be the case.
To calculate how much a person will ingest through drinking water in mg per year, use the
formula:
Yearly Potential Dose Rate = Stream concentration in ug per liter x 2 liters of water per day
x Days of release per year x 0.001
To calculate the potential amount taken through eating seafood in mg per year, use the
following formula:
Yearly Potential Dose Rate = Stream concentration in ug per liter x Bioconcentration factor
x 16.9 grams of fish per day x Days of release per year x 10"6
The formula above does not consider removal during drinking water treatment. Public
drinking water treatment is designed primarily to prevent biological contamination of drinking
water and does not necessarily remove chemicals from the water. For most chemicals, drinking
water treatment is not an effective mechanism. An exception to this is where an activated
charcoal filter is used, such as on a private residential tap, which will remove a significant portion
of the organic chemicals in the water.
The bioconcentration factor is a chemical-specific property. It is calculated with the
environmental fate properties. The chemicals are assumed to be released 250 days per year.
Cumulative releases to the same POTW may be estimated by counting the number of
lithographers in an area and distributing the releases across all the POTWs in the area. We have
to assume that the releases are for the same products, or very similar products. As for air, this
cumulative number is expected to be far more significant than the amount for any single
lithographer. Again, Denver is the city used as an example (Table 3-6). Releases from all of the
235 lithographers in the city of Denver are assumed to go from the Denver Metro Wastewater
Reclamation District into the South Platte River. The concentrations are calculated for harmonic
mean flow of 875 million liters per day - which is the average or typical flow for the river, and for
the low flow of 590 million liters per day - the lowest flow for seven consecutive days in ten years.
Downstream from the discharge are drinking water intakes for the City of Broomfield and the City
of Thornton.
Uncertainty
Within our scenario, there are specific parameters which affect final concentrations and
therefore final exposures more than others. Since we are using the estimates for comparison, the
single most important factor is the amount of the substance released per formulation. For water
releases, the second most uncertain factor is the volume of water in the receiving stream, followed
by the amount of substance removed in waste water treatment. In actuality, river flows vary
continuously, so even a constant and steady flow of a specific chemical into the water will have
variations in concentration. Some waste water treatment plants will remove more of a chemical
than others, and even vary within the same plant at different times. The difference that this
3-29
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
O
o ^-~
C Q c5
O CD
~s <2 ><
111
ฐ^
js Q- i
~ C O
c 2 o
"* o
Q 3
"
*~w
c
o
1
o 2"
ง1
O O
E
ฃ>
? **-
_ r;
ฃ ro
O CO
w s
ป 0) ^ ^v
ง5^^
r- ^ H
^ 0 S*
"*^ "ffc
Q ^ y
cc =
(0
j-
o
r*
Chemical Compor
. ฃ
E -o
ฐ 1
atty acid derivatives
Ikoxylated alcohols
u. <
CO
0
T ซ!^-
X
T
CM Y
X X
v- CO
^_ ^_
b b
x x
CO CM
CM CM
o b
T" T
x x
* CO
'b 'b
f f
X X
Tf CO
^
b b
X X
CD =!
CM CM
b b
f~ ~r~
x x
h- LO
CM CM
O O
f-~ T~
X X
CD CD
TO CM
b b
X X
i- LO
CD' -^
CO
ฃ
to
n=
to
73
ydrocarbons, petroleum
atty acid derivatives
ydrocarbons, aromatic
IkyI benzene sulfonates
X LL. X <
CO
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
CD
LO
"*"'
erpenes
thoxylated nonylphenol
h- LLJ
CM t-
b b
o *" T~ o
X X
T- r--
CM CM
b b
o *~ " o
X X
i- O)
CM
0 ^ 'ฐ 0
^ s^
3ป
"b^
ฐ b
x
CD
CM
'b
o T~ o
CM X
CD
CM
? b
o x ^ o
s-
co
CO T-
b b
o " *" o
X X
LO i-
CO CM
b b
T" T
0 x x ฐ
* a>
c\i LO'
<- -i- CM CM
b b b b
X X X X
O CM O O
CM i^ co' c\i
*
fater
ydrocarbons, aromatic
thylene glycol ethers
thoxylated nonylphenol
IkyI benzene sulfonates
Ikoxylated alcohols
Ikali/salts
ฃ. X LU LU < < <
LO
;o
0
T" o
X
CM
^
O
X
CO
r- CM
b b
X X
CD CM
M CO
b b
ป~ T-
x x
00 CO
^3
T .
X
00
CM
b
x
LO
r- CO
b b
"*"" "*~
x x
CM CD
M CO
b b
T~ T~
X X
O) O
r^ co
b
CO
T^ X
o
T
CO
to
:^
to
73
atty acid derivatives
ydrocarbons, petroleum
ydrocarbons, aromatic
IkyI benzene sulfonates
LL. X X <
CD
O O
O 0
CM
b
o ""
x
CO
b
o 'r~
X
o>
o o>
,_
b
o "
x
CM
b
O 'r~
x
CM
b
o """
x
o>
CM CM
b b
x x
o o
CD CD
erpenes
thoxylated nonylphenol
Ikoxylated alcohols
H LU <
c\i Y
O O
o *~ ^ o
X X
o co
CM CM
b b
o " " o
x x
i- 00
i- 'o -i-
2x. ฐ0
X j* X
CM
CM b W
b ^ b
^ x - o
X LO X
CO ฐ> LO
*
'b LO^
^ o> ^~ o
x ^ x
CO LO
'o-
b ^- b
- x *- o
X oo X
* ฐ 00
00
CM bv
b ^ o
" x - o
X ,- X
CD^i-
CM
b T- b
^~ X "^ Q
CM
C3> CO i-;
CM^.LO
T^ V c\j c\i
C3 ~^ C^ C^
X X X X
h-. 5 "N 'D
^ co "> ^
O en O QJ
J3 ti C "*"*
CO 0>
to
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
If-
j= ฐ- W
" ฃ IT
3
I
M
0 CM
* S o *^
ฐ i? ff
O> Q_ CC >.
2 c * e
C e O
"E ฃ Q S"^
a 3
X
"I
s
a
| _
o _i
C "53*
o H1
o 5
E
nj
ฃ
co
CD
55
-
0)
iฃ
0
ฃ S j*
ซ<ฃ~
*"ซ ">;
>. ซ CO
ซ co "o
Q "w !ง*
CC ==
E
0)
0
Q.
O
O
"5
u
E
Jj
o
k.
M
"o
X ฐ
co
:\J
O
X ฐ
^
b
'r~ o
x
[*^
^
b
*" o
x
o
X ฐ
1
T- O
r.
b
^ o
x
CM
N
b
^< ฐ ,
!>.
C3>
Cvj
b
CD "
i^ X
o
CD
derivatives
d nonylphenol
TJ 3
"5 J5
TO ,_ &
ฃ ฃ o
U_ 5 lUJ
"o
X
'T~
'o
X
"^
b
**""
X
CO
M
b
T"
X
co
^
X
CO
^
b
^~
X
LO
M
b
"T"
X
-^J
b
x
*)
CO'
b
x
CD
LO'
derivatives
-J3
'S
II
O
T~
-o
? ฐ
CM
CMQ
X
Cvl
b b
T"~ T~
X X
LO 1-
CM Cvl
b b
T- 1
X X
CO CM
"b 'b
X X
CD CM
^ T_
b b
T~ ^~
x x
0> Cvl
r- CM
b b
-i~ -i~
x x
i- CO
V CM
b b
x x
O CD
CD T^
CM
b
p ^
^~ CM
0>
CO
!ro
'co
T3
derivatives
ons, petroleum
ons, aromatic
ene sulfonates
-,-, .g ^ N
'o TO TO Q)
LL X%X<<
i
_TO
^
CO
^j
ons, petroleum
.g
TO
o
g
73
ฃ
CM
ฐ
X
"*
"b
x
LO
b
T"
x
T
CM
b
'T
x
ซ-
"b
x
-
,_
b
I1"" .
x
CM
N
b
-r~
x
CO
N
b
x
co
"
b
x
CM
CM
derivatives
glycol ethers
73 .SL co jo ^
Hill
N-
"o
X
CM
"o
X
CM
b b
~~ T~
X X
T^- T-
CM CM
b b
*"" 'i~
x x
LO CM
'b 'b
1~ T
x x
LO' CM
,_ ^
b b
T~ T
x x
CO CM
t- CM
b . b
*" i
x x
T- CO
M CM
b b
x x
* CD
LO' t-1
r- CM
b b
t T
X X
p Cvj
o> o>
CO
CD
H
CO
^
E *- o ^-
03 Q. CO ^
g v> eo" ซ <1> <1>
"O O O -*^ O ,
^ >, >,^ t? &
LL X X Q 01 <
CO
t
CO
O
X
T
-o
X
CM
b
1
X
CO
CM
b
r-
X
"*
'b
x
=!
b
x
f^
NJ
b
T~
x
o>
^J
b
x
^
"*
b
x
co
K
derivatives
glycol ethers
73 <1>
> ni
3-5 O
Cu *
U_ Q.
0
0
o
b
v~
x
CO
CM
b
IT
x
*
'b
x
*
^_
b
"""
x
CD
CM
b
^~
x
CO
Cvl
b
T
X
0>
CO
b
T
X
p
^
CO
ฃ
11
'w
^
ons, petroleum
ons, aromatic
ene sulfonates
2 -2 N
TO TO < >.:5
X X <
0
CM
'o
X
CO
'b
, x
"*
CM
b
*
x
00
CM
b
'1~
x
>~
'b
x
*~
T-
b
*
x
CM
CM
b
T~
x
CM
CM
b
x
p
p
^
CO
Q)
3
.Is
^j
ons, aromatic
ons, petroleum
derivatives
2 -B 73
TO TO 'o
8 8 ซ
73 -(5 iS*
> > TO
X X LL
CM
3-31
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
a
O .-S
cQ fe
o o
5= J2 >
III
ฃ 'o "^
s: ฐ-ci *~*.
I .2 .2 ra
^ 'o ro CD
D1Q.CC>,
ซ g o S)
C c O
"S Q
Q .5
W
c
i:
c
o 2"
ง1
o 5
S
tn
to
^
5
o
T~
_o
t3
o^
ฃ
o
in
JD
t^
*
ฃ
o
T"
^
^
ฐ
ฃ
o
in
||
O ป*-
1!'
^
" O
vp jj-
1 1
= 1
^? *
c
ฃ co
o o
in |g
s ^ .? ^.
ro I ? *^
ฎ O - m
^ o. ฃ 5
cB co 2*
s
CO
CM
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
CO
CO
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
co
CM
o o o
o o o
CM i-
b b
o "^ T~
X X
CO T-
m CM
b b
o *f~ ""^
X X
* CM
'b
o ^ T~
X
CM
CM T-
b b
o ""''"
X X
CD CM
CO CM
b b
o ^ '-
X X
CO CO
CT CM
b o
0 x x
co co
* T^
CM 1 CM
bob
XXX
CM * CM
o> T^ cn
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
^f.
CO
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
U3
CO
"o
x
0
co'
N
O
0 ฐ
o
LO
V w
? b
^~
X
co
i_
b"
CO X
0 CO
CM
"b1?
>- o
X T~
5 v-
^ "*'
T-
b
CD' x
o
-^
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
CO
CO
1 Terpenes
|S^
CM
CO
0)
IS
*CO
73
| Hydrocarbons, petroleum
co
CO
7)
0
X
^1"
o
X
in
^_
r^
b
T
X
'1~
^
ป~
X
T
CM
,_
b
"*"
x
CO
b
x
co
c
CO
| Fatty acid derivatives
0)
CO
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
o
co
CO
0)
JI
]co
TJ
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
,_
CO
CO
3i
[w
-rj
| Hydrocarbons, petroleum
CO
CO
CO
CD
21
"co
73
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
CO
CO
b
o T
x
CM
CM
b
o r~
x
CN
,_ T_
b b
T~ T~
X X
CO i-
CM CM
b b
i -r
X X
co CM
'b'o
T- T-
X X
co co
T- T
b b
x x
< co
CM CM
b b
-f~ |-~
CO i^
b b
X X
!"ซ rฐ*"
I t
CO
ฃ
CO
T!
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
<*
co
DRAFT
3-32
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
8
C O m
O O
3= .2 >
O ^)
o) ฉ E
-|ซT
.12 c &
17" W (g
E cc
3
X
- T5
J2 S=CM
5 ง o =
S 4-* * (0
^^ o ซ o
c a ffi ฃ;
.= C <1> o)
"c w o ^
"i- ฃ O
O M
La
I*
_O
ซ
is
^"
J2
5
in
^
o ซ^
IJ
T~ J
a) 5
^
o v
i- S
il
_ c
ฃ B
O CD
in jg
w fe i-
lift
>* o o .2*
"5 **" i *'
Q < i-
^
M ^*
STJ
"59*
Q "3 jy
cc ;=-
in
'c
0
Chemical Compor
fe
C ซ^
o g
I
=
to
T3
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
m
co
n
O
T
X
co
'o
T~
X
CO
b
T~
X
1--.
\l
"r~~
X
O)
rb
^~
X
o>
'
^
b
T~
x
CM
M
b
x
p
o>
in
^j
CO
2
=
to
T3
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
co
CO
CO
.2
=
to
73
D. 1. Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic "
P^
co
ฃ
JO
'co
T!
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
CO
co
o
o
CM
b
i~~
x
o>
CM
b
if~
x
'o
T~
x
T
T
O ,
X
CM
CM
b
T
x
04
CM
b
x
CM
1
CM
b
T~
x
CO
CD
I
JO
'w
TI
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
o>
co
o o
o o
o o
0 0
o o
o o
o o
o o
CM
b
^J- T"
t X
CO
CO
CO
JO
to
T3
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
( j
"
>- O CD
CO ซ- -=
.52 -5 'S
h- Q. ซ
ฐ. (0
CD "-
d Q- co ฃ
g 2 ~ 3
-2 2 a? co
<2 ฃ i- co
Id 0) 0) -C
ฃ2 CD ง
Jฐ ^: to 0)
liiE
-2o>|
o:5-i I
|'8
tl _
X O 0) -g
B ฎ g-'i
ง g II
8 s
_CD i=
ฃ to
m ^
co c
o o
ฃ
03 jg
tS *"
ฃ -ฃ2
CD -i
O CO
-5 P
8 g
'i
ซ 0.
2 ฃ
03 ฃ
CO **~
cS o
co ฃ
to .;= o co 75
^i <^ ' " (0
c: c; QJ
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTERS: RISK
Table 3-6. Stream Concentrations and Residential Population Potential Dose
Rates from Denver Lithography Blanket Wash Releases
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
Expected
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)
1 .4x1 02
36
73
47
28
14
4.7
3.1x102
24
14
14
85
40
12
3.8
3.8x1 02
14
1 .3x1 02
2.3x1 02
22
51
After
Treatment
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)
8.6
6.1
0.0
0.0
5.6x1 0'1
14
0.0
19
7.1x10"1
0.0
2.1
12.22
6.9
12
0.0
23
0.0
7.9
14
3.7
3.0
Stream
Concentration
South Platte
River (ug/L)
Mean
Flow
10
7
0
0
7x1 0'1
20
0
20
8x1 0"1
0
2
12.1
8
10
0
30
0
9
20
4
3
Low
Flow
10
10
0
0
9x1 0'1
20
0
30
1
0
4
24.2
10
20
0
40
0
10
20
6
5
Human Potential
Dose Rates
(mg/year)
From
Water
5
3
0
0
2.8x1 0'1
8
0
10
4x1 0'1
0
1
7.07
4
7
0
10
0
5
8
2
2
From Fish
Ingestion
2x1 04
80
2
10
4x1 04
2
10
5x1 04
2x1 04
3x1 04
7x1 03
DRAFT
3-34
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Form.
Number
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chemical Components
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Glycols
:atty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
ratty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
:atty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Expected
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)
10
4.7
2.1x102
22
1 .7x1 02
24
2.4x1 02
2.7x1 02
22
33
22
5.66x1 02
2.36x1 02
5.0x1 02
After
Treatment
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)
0.0
2.8x1 0'1
13
3.7
10
9.2
2.4
16
0.0
9.9x1 0"1
3.7
2.896x1 01
9.6x10"1
30
Stream
Concentration
South Platte
River (ug/L)
Mean
Flow
0
3x1 0'1
10
4
10
10
3
20
0
1
4
31
1
30
Low
Flow
0
5x1 0'1
20
6
20
20
4
30
0
2
6
52
2
50
Human Potential
Dose Rates
(mg/year)
From
Water
0
2x1 0"1
7
2
6
5
1
9
0
6x1 0"1
2
20.5
5x1 0'1
20
From Fish
Ingestion
6x1 02
3x1 04
2x1 04
6x1 03
4x1 04
6.008x1 04
0
6x1 04
3-35
DRAFT
-------
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
CHAPTER 3: RISK
Form.
Number
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chemical Components
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propyiene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
-atty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Expected
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)
39
39
3.5x1 02
16
3.3x1 O2
21
After
Treatment
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)
6.7
3.9
21
2.7
0.0
0.0
Stream
Concentration
South Platte
River (ug/L)
Mean
Flow
8
5
20
3
0
0
Low
Flow
10
7
40
5
0
0
Human Potential
Dose Rates
(mg/year)
From
Water
4
2
10
2
0
0
From Fish
Ingestion
3
5x1 04
0
makes in the final concentration is not as significant as the volume of the chemical released, i.e.
the difference between fifty percent and sixty percent removal of a chemical.
Septic Systems
When examining the business census data for lithographers and the EPA's data for waste
water treatment facilities, it was noted that there are counties which do not have any POTWs.
While some of the Agency's data is probably in error, there are still a significant minority of
lithographers who do not appear to release water to a waste water treatment plant. These printers
are assumed to release to septic systems or have no water releases at all. The releases of this type
are not modeled in this assessment. Some general guidelines may be used to determine if there
will be exposure to any of the blanket wash chemicals from septic system seepage. Each chemical
will have an estimated potential migration to ground water, usually used for landfill assessments.
This can be directly applied to septic systems, because the potential to migrate to ground water
will be the same. Of course the individual characteristics of the system will determine the actual
speed that each chemical travels into the ground water. If the septic system is relatively leaky,
and the ground water table is relatively high, the time that a chemical takes to get into the ground
water will be shorter than for a septic system which is well sealed and where the ground water
table is low.
DRAFT
3-36
-------
-. RISK
3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Landfill
Our usual techniques for estimating cumulative exposures from landfill releases are not
applicable to printing. For large-scale industrial processes, we assume that one facility sends
waste to a landfill via a waste handler. For the printing industry, it is not reasonable to simplify
the situation to that extent. A lack of data limits the determination of exposures. For instance,
we do not know how many printers are sending what types of wastes to any given landfill. Some
printers send part of their wastes to a hazardous waste handler, and another portion to the county
landfill. For these reasons, although the exposures from landfill releases may be significant, we
cannot calculate exposures from landfill seepage and migration into ground water. However, we
can give the expected fate for the chemical in the landfill - will the chemical migrate to ground
water rapidly, moderately or negligibly.
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
3.4.1 Background
Assessment of the human health risks presented by chemical substances includes the
following components of analysis:
1) Hazard Identification is the process of determining whether exposure to a chemical can
cause an adverse health effect and whether the adverse health effect is likely to occur in
humans.
2) Dose-response Assessment is the process of defining the relationship between the dose
of a chemical received and the incidence of adverse health effects in the exposed
population. From the quantitative dose-response relationship, toxicity values are derived
that are used in the risk characterization step to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects
occurring in humans at different exposure levels.
3) Exposure Assessment identifies populations exposed to a chemical, describes their
composition and size, and presents the types, magnitudes, frequencies, and durations of
exposure to the chemical.
4) Risk Characterization integrates hazard and exposure information into quantitative and
qualitative expressions of risk. A risk characterization includes a description of the
assumptions, scientific judgments, and uncertainties embodied in the assessment.
Quantitative Expressions of Hazard and Risk
The manner in which estimates of hazard and risk are expressed depends on the nature
of the hazard and the types of data upon which the assessment is based. For example, cancer
risks are most often expressed as the probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime
of exposure to the chemical in question. Risk estimates for adverse effects other than cancer are
usually expressed as the ratio of a toxicologic potency value to an estimated dose or exposure
level. A key distinction between cancer and other toxicologic effects is that most carcinogens are
assumed to have no dose threshold, i.e., no dose or exposure level can be presumed to be without
some risk. Other toxicologic effects are generally assumed to have a dose threshold, i.e., a dose
or exposure level below which a significant adverse effect is not expected.
3-37
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Cancer Hazard and Risk
EPA employs a "weight-of-evidence" approach to determine the likelihood that a chemical
is a human carcinogen. Each chemical evaluated is placed into one of the five weight-of-evidence
categories listed below.
Group A human carcinogen
Group B ~ probable human carcinogen. Bl indicates limited human evidence; B2
indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in
humans.
Group C ~ possible human carcinogen
Group D not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
Group E ~ evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans
When the available data are sufficient for quantitation, EPA develops an estimate of the
chemical's carcinogenic potency. EPA "slope factors" express carcinogenic potency in terms of the
estimated upper-bound incremental lifetime risk per mg/kg average daily dose. "Unit risk" is a
similar measure of potency for air or drinking water concentrations and is expressed as risk per
ug/m3 in air or as risk per ug/L in water for continuous lifetime exposures.
Cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the estimated dose or exposure level by the
appropriate measure of carcinogenic potency. For example an individual with a lifetime average
daily dose of 0.3 mg/kg of a carcinogen with a potency of 0.02 mg/kg/day would experience a
lifetime cancer risk of 0.006 from exposure to that chemical. In general, risks from exposures to
more than one carcinogen are assumed to be additive, unless other information points toward a
different interpretation.
Chronic Health Risks
Because adverse effects other than cancer and gene mutations are generally assumed to
have a dose or exposure threshold, a different approach is needed to evaluate toxicologic potency
and risk for these "systemic effects." "Systemic toxicity" means an adverse effect on any organ
system following absorption and distribution of a toxicant to a site in the body distant from the
toxicant's entry point. EPA uses the "Reference Dose" approach to evaluate chronic (long-term)
exposures to systemic toxicants. The Reference Dose (RfD) is defined as "an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime" and is expressed as a mg/kg/day dose. The RfD is usually based on the most
sensitive known effect, i.e., the effect that occurs at the lowest dose. EPA calculates a comparable
measure of potency for continuous inhalation exposures called a Reference Concentration or RfC,
expressed as a mg/m3 air concentration. Although some RfDs and RfCs are based on actual
human data, they are most often calculated from results obtained in chronic or subchronic animal
studies. The basic approach for deriving an RfD or RfC involves determining a "no-observed-
adverse-effect level (NOAEL)" or "lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL)" from an appropriate
toxicologic or epidemiologic study and then applying various uncertainty factors and modifying
factors to arrive at the RfD/RfC. Each factor represents a specific area of uncertainty. For
example, an RfD based on a NOAEL from a long-term animal study may incorporate a factor of
10 to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating from the test species to humans and another
factor of 10 to account for the variation in sensitivity within the human population. An RfD based
on a LOAEL typically contains another factor of 10 to account for the extrapolation from LOAEL
to NOAEL. An additional modifying factor (between 1 and 10) is sometimes applied to account for
uncertainties in data quality.
DRAFT
3-38
-------
CHAPTER 3: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
RfDs and RfCs can be used to evaluate risks from chronic exposures to systemic toxicants.
EPA defines an expression of risk called a "Hazard Quotient" which is the ratio of the estimated
chronic dose/exposure level to the RfD/RfC. Hazard Quotient values below unity imply that
adverse effects are very unlikely to occur. The more the Hazard Quotient exceeds unity, the
greater is the level of concern. However, it is important to remember that the Hazard Quotient is
not a probabilistic statement of risk. A quotient of 0.001 does not mean that there is a one-in-a-
thousand chance of the effect occurring. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the level
of concern does not necessarily increase linearly as the quotient approaches or exceeds unity
because the RfD/RfC does not provide any information about the shape of the dose-response
curve.
An expression of risk that can be used when an RfD/RfC is not available is the "Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE)." The MOE is the ratio of a NOAEL or LOAEL (preferably from a chronic study)
to an estimated dose or exposure level. Interpretation of an MOE employs the same approach to
uncertainty as the RfD does. An MOE value high enough to account for the uncertainties in
extrapolating from the experimental data to a likely no-effect level in humans implies a low level
of concern. For example, MOE values such as values greater than 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE
(to account for interspecies and intraspecies variability) or 1000 for a LOAEL-based MOE (to
account for interspecies and intraspecies variability and LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation) indicate
low concern. As the MOE decreases, the level of concern increases. As with the Hazard Quotient,
it is important to remember that the MOE is not a probabilistic statement of risk.
Developmental Toxicitv Risks
Because of the many unique elements associated with both the hazard and exposure
components of developmental toxicity risk assessment, these risks are treated separately from
other systemic toxicity risks.
EPA defines developmental toxicity as adverse effects on the developing organism that may
result from exposure prior to conception, during prenatal development, or postnatally to the time
of sexual maturation. Adverse developmental effects may be detected at any point in the life span
of the organism. The major manifestations of developmental toxicity include: (1) death of the
developing organism, (2) structural abnormality, (3) altered growth, and (4) functional deficiency.
There is a possibility that a single exposure may be sufficient to produce adverse
developmental effects. Therefore, it is assumed that, in most cases, a single exposure at any of
several developmental stages may be sufficient to produce an adverse developmental effect. In the
case of intermittent exposures, examination of the peak exposure(s) as well as the average
exposure over the time period of exposure is important.
EPA has derived RfDs and RfCs for developmental toxicants in a similar manner to the
RfDs and RfCs for other systemic toxicants. The RfDDT or RfCDT is an estimate of a daily exposure
to the human population that is assumed to be without appreciable risk of deleterious
developmental effects. The use of the subscript DT is intended to distinguish these terms from
the more common RfDs and RfCs that refer to chronic exposure situations for other systemic
effects.
Developmental toxicity risk can be expressed as a Hazard Quotient (dose or exposure level
divided by the RfDDT or RfCDT) or Margin-of-Exposure (NOAEL or LOAEL divided by the dose or
exposure level), with careful attention paid to the exposure term, as described above.
NOTE: The closely related area of reproductive toxicity is also an important aspect of systemic
toxicity. For purposes of'this report, toxicity information on adult male and female reproductive
systems will be assessed as part of the chronic toxicity risk.
3:39
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Decision Criteria
"Concerns" are cases in which the estimated hazard quotient is ten or greater or in which the
estimated margin-of-exposure (MOE) is much less than 100 (based on a no-observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL)) or much less than 1000 (based on a lowest-observed adverse effect level (LOAEL)).
"Possible concerns" are cases in which the estimated hazard quotient is between one and ten or
in which the estimated margin-of-exposure is slightly less than 100 (based on a no-observed
adverse effect level) or slightly less than 1000 (based on a lowest-observed adverse effect level) or
cases in which the concern is mitigated by other considerations such as absorption rates.
"Low or negligible concerns" are cases in which the estimated hazard quotient is less than one or
in which the MOENOAEL is greater than 100 or the MORLOAEL is greater than 1000.
Assumptions and Uncertainties
Estimated doses assume 100 percent absorption. The actual absorption rate may be
significantly lower, especially for dermal exposures to relatively polar compounds. The assessment
used the most relevant toxicological potency factor available for the exposure under consideration.
In some cases the only potency factor available was derived from a study employing a different
route of exposure than the exposure being evaluated, e.g., oral RfD values were sometimes used
to calculate Hazard Quotients for inhalation and dermal exposures. Most of the Margin-of-
Exposure calculations presented in the assessment are based on toxicity data that have not been
formally evaluated by the Agency. Because of the small contribution of inhalation exposure to the
total dose (<1% for most chemicals), combined dose MOEs were not calculated.
Worker dermal exposure values should be regarded as "bounding estimates," i.e.,
calculated exposures are expected to be higher than any actual exposure levels. Exposure
estimates for all other pathways (worker inhalation, general population exposure via ambient air,
drinking water and fish) should be regarded as "what if estimates. The "what if scenarios are
based on information on product usage and work practices obtained from industry surveys. No
actual measures of chemical release or exposure were available. The scenarios are intended to
represent a plausible set of circumstances under which exposures could occur. However, not
enough information is available to estimate the probability of these circumstances actually
occurring. Thus, it is not possible to predict where the calculated values fall in the exposure
distribution, i.e., the resulting exposure and risk estimates cannot be characterized as "central
tendency," "high end," etc.
A number of the chemicals of concern have only a limited toxicologic data base. The
calculated risks for trimethylbenzene, light aromatic naphtha, linalool, butyrolactone, Stoddard
solvent, and diethanolamine are based on LOAEL values from studies that did not reach a NOAEL.
The available studies on these chemicals are generally limited in scope and do not address all
major toxicologic endpoints.
3.4.2 Ecological Risk
The basic elements of ecological risk assessment are similar to those employed in human
health risk assessment. Because of the limited toxicological data available for the lithographic
blanket wash chemicals, this rep9rt will only address ecological risks to aquatic species. Risks
to terrestrial species will not be assessed. Quantitative evaluation of aquatic risks involves
comparing a predicted ambient water concentration to a "concern concentration" for chronic
exposures to aquatic species. The concern concentration may be based either on actual
toxicologic test data on the subject chemical or on quantitative structure-activity relationship
analysis of test data on similar chemicals. The concern concentration is typically expressed as
DRAFT
3-40
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
a mg/L water concentration. Exposure concentrations below the concern concentration are
assumed to present low risk to aquatic species. Exposures that exceed the concern concentration
indicate a potential for adverse impact on aquatic species. The level of concern increases as the
ratio of exposure concentration to concern concentration increases.
Several formulations present concerns with respect to potential impacts on aquatic species
resulting from water releases. All but one of the chemicals presenting aquatic concerns are amine
salts of an alkylbenzene sulfonate. Only two chemical classes had estimated concentrations in
a hypothetical receiving stream (a relatively small stream at low flow conditions) that exceeded the
"concern concentration" for that chemical class. Predictions based on actual streamflow data for
the South Platte River support these conclusions. Most of the excesses in the hypothetical stream
are also excesses in the South Platte River, in some cases at mean flow as -well as low flow
conditions.
The following two chemicals exceeded the aquatic concern concentrations: alkyl benzene
sulfonates and ethoxylated nonylphenols, which are present in Formulations 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 18,
and 20, and in Formulation 8, respectively.
A- table of the concern concentration estimates for aquatic species follows (Table 3-7):
Assumptions and Uncertainties
All estimated water concentrations are based on release estimates developed from "what
if scenarios constructed from industry surveys on product usage and work practices. No actual
measures of chemical release or exposure levels were available.
Table 3-7. Risks to Aquatic Species from Blanket Wash Chemicals
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Stream concentrations (ug/L)
50th %ile
Mean flow
7x1 0"2
5x1 O'2
0
0
5x1 0'3
ixicr1
0
2x10ฐ
6x1 0"3
10th%ile
Mean flow
6x1 0'1
4x1 CT1
0
0
3.9x10'2
9x1 fJ1
0
1
5x1 0"2
10th %ile
Low flow
4x1 01
3x1 01
0
0
2.6
6x1 0+1
0
8x1 0+1
3
Concern
cone "cc"
(mg/L)
*
1
2
2x1 0+2
'*
1
Low1
flow
cone/
"cc"
3x1 01
2.6
4x1 fj1
3
_
3-41
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chemical Components
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylpheno!
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Terpenes
ratty acid derivatives
Ethylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Dropylene glycol ethers
ratty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
ratty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
ratty acid derivatives
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
ratty acid derivatives
:atty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Stream concentrations (pg/L)
50th %ile
Mean flow
0
2x1 Q-2
1.11X10'1
6x1 0'2
1x10'1
0
2x1 0'1
0
7x1 0'2
1x10'1
3x1 0'2
3x1 0'2
0
2x1 0"3
1X10'1
3x1 0'2
9x1 0'2
8x1 0'2
2x1 0'2
1x10'1
10th %ile
Mean flow
0
1x10"1
8.08x1 0"1
4x1 0'1
8x1 0'1
0
1
0
5x10ฐ
9x1 0'1
2x1 0'1
2x1.0ฐ
0
2x1 O'2
8x1 0'1
2x1 0"1
7x1 0'1
6x1 0"1
2x1 0'1
1
10th %ile
Low flow
0
9
4.95x1 0+1
3x1 0+1
5x1 0+1
0
1x10+i;
0
3x1 0+1
6x1 0+1
2x1 0+1
1x1 0+1
0
1
5x1 0+1
2x1 0+1
4x1 0+1
4x1 0+1
1x1 0+1
7x1 0+1
Concern
cone "cc"
(mg/L)
1x1 0+2
1 .00x1 0+4
1
2x1 0+2
*
*
*
1
*
2x1 0+3
*
1
*
1
*
*
Low1
flow
cone/
"cc"
7x1 0'2
9.504
3x1 0+1
3x1 0"1
2x1 0+1
5x1 0-4
2x1 0+1
4x1 0+1
DRAFT
3-42
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Form.
Number
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Chemical Components
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
Stream concentrations (M9/L)
50th %ile
Mean flow
0
8x1 0"3
3x1 0"2
2.08x1 0"1
8x1 0'3
3X10'1
6x10-2
3x1 O'2
2x1 0'1
2x1 0'2
10th %ile
Mean flow
0
6x1 0'2
2x1 O'1
2.06
6x1 0'2
2.0
4x1 0-1
3x10ฐ
1
2x1 0"1
10th %ile
Low flow
0
4
2x1 0+1
1.04x10+2
4
1x1 0+2
3x1 0+1
2x1 0+1
9x1 0+1
1x1 0+1
Concern
cone "cc"
(mg/L)
3x1 0+1
9x1 0+1
3x1 0+2
3x1 0+2
*
3x1 O*2
7x1 0+1
*
1x1 0+3
Low1
flow
cone/
"cc"
1x10'1
2x1 0'1
1x10'2
1x10'1
3x1 0'1
8X1 Q-3
3-43
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
40
Chemical Components
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Stream concentrations (ug/L)
50th %ile
Mean flow
0
0
10th %ile
Mean flow
0
0
10th %ile
Low flow
0
0
Concern
cone "cc"
(mg/L)
Low1
flow
cone/
"cc"
1 Low flow concentration/concern concentration; reported as mg/L
* No effects expected at saturation.
3.4.3 Occupational Risks
Most of the formulations (27/37) present at least some concern for dermal exposures to
workers. A wide variety of chemicals trigger these concerns, which appear to be driven primarily
by relatively high potential exposure levels. The calculated risks overestimate the actual risks
because of the use of bounding estimates of exposure and the assumption of 100% dermal
absorption. However, the margins of exposure are so low (below 10 for a number of chemicals)
for most of the chemicals of concern that it is very likely that most of the identified concerns
would remain if more realistic exposure estimates were available. Also, most of the chemicals of
concern, e.g., various petroleum hydrocarbons, glycol ethers, diethanolamine, are probably well-
absorbed dermally.
Worker inhalation risks are very low for almost all of the formulations, reflective of the
generally low exposure levels as seen in Table 3-8. Only one formulation (formulation number 3)
triggered inhalation concerns.
A Margin-of-Exposure (MOE) or a Hazard Quotient (HQ) gives an estimate of the "margin
of safety" between an estimated exposure level and the level at which adverse effects may occur.
Hazard Quotient values below unity imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur. The
more the Hazard Quotient exceeds unity, the greater is the level of concern. High MOE values
such as values greater that 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or 100 for a LOAEL-based MOE imply
a low level of concern. As the MOE decreases, the level of concern increases. The hazard values
used in the HQ or MOE calculations were taken from Table 2-3. The exposure values used in the
calculations were taken from Table 3-2. The absence of HQ or MOE values in this table indicates
that insufficient hazard data were available to calculate a HQ or MOE for that chemical.
The calculated risk numbers should be viewed as low-confidence estimates because of the
many uncertainties associated with both the hazard and exposure components of the calculation.
However, most of the risk conclusions that follow can be regarded with moderate to high
confidence because most of the conclusions are based on risk estimates that fall far above or far
below standard risk benchmarks. Thus, the "true" risk value could vary substantially from the
estimated value without changing the conclusion. In particular, conclusions of low concern
generally can be regarded with high confidence because of the conservative approach (i. e. one that
overestimates the risk) taken in the assessment. Conclusions based on small excesses of risk
benchmarks should be viewed with low confidence, as should any conclusions based primarily
on structure-activity predictions.
DRAFT
3-44
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK.
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Table 3-8. Worker Occupational Risk Estimates
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal
10
1
0.36 (HQ)
1(HQ)
5
135
159
10
26 '
117
38
22
318
Inhalation
4464
33
0.02 (HQ)
0.02 (HQ)
236
,1.8x104
3.3x1 05
6233
1.8x104
3-45
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
Chemical Components
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethylene glycol ethers
Water
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Propylene glycol ethers
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal
2
135
455
21
73
22
515
0.05 (HQ)
5208
Inhalation
4.1x104
4429
7.0x1 04
1
1.8x104
6x1 0"b (HQ)
DRAFT
3-46
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Form.
Number
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons; petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Dibasic esters
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethylene glycol ethers
Water
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Water
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Water
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal
26
4
4
4
84
13
8
63
98
28
83
218
2
22
218
Inhalation
5803
5405
9091
5263
9.4x1 04
4464
1336
2.1x1 04
2.1 x104
7292
1.4x106
1.8x104
1.5x 104
3-47
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal
45
151
455
7
4
17
10
11
3322
26
140
3
50
1979
100
Inhalation
3.6x1 Ob
110
5168
1.1x104
1.0x104
2.2x1 04
3.6x1 Ob
5147
1.1x104
8014
6.4x1 04
1.5x10b
DRAFT
3-48
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Form.
Number
38
39
40
Chemical Components
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal
50
2
25
83
59 .
318
Inhalation
5.6x1 04
8.8x1 04
8.0x1 05
8415
1 A Margin-of-Exposure (MOE) or a Hazard Quotient (HQ) gives an estimate of the "margin of safety" between an
estimated exposure level and the level at which adverse effects may occur. Hazard Quotient values below unity imply
that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur. The more the Hazard Quotient exceeds unity, the greater is the level
of concern. High MOE values such as values greater that 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or 100 for a LOAEL-based
MOE imply a low level of concern. As the MOE decreases, the level of concern increases. The hazard values used
in the HQ or MOE calculations were taken from Table 2-3. The exposure values used in the calculations were taken
from Table 3-2. . .. '
2 The absence of HQ or MOE values in this table indicates that insufficient hazard data were available to calculate a
HQ or MOE for that chemical.
Below is a summary of risks found for each formulation. This summary is intended to
convey the risks that these formulations may present under typical conditions of use. A summary
of the toxicological endpoints associated with chemicals of concern is shown in Table 3-9.
Blanket Wash 1
Worker Risk .
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard
valuesd. However, overall concern is low because of low inhalation exposure levels, poor dermal
absorption, and low to moderate toxicologic concern based on structure-activity analysis.
Blanket Wash 3
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Hazard quotient calculations indicate a concern for exposure to some aromatic
hydrocarbons and very low concern for exposure to other aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the
hazard values are based upon oral or inhalation studies. Margin of exposure calculations indicate
^Hazard values refer to NOAELs, LOAELs, RfDs, orRfCs used in calculating hazard quotients .or margins of exposure
or slope factor used in calculating carcinogenic risk. The specific toxicologic endpoints associated with the chemicals of concern
are shown in Table 2-3 "Human Health Hazard Summary"
3-49
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
concern for exposures to aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the hazard values are based upon
inhalation studies. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to
the unavailability of hazard values.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Hazard quotient calculations indicate very low concern for exposure to aromatic
hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value for one of these aromatic hydrocarbons is based upon
an oral study. The RfD used to calculate the risk estimate is classified as "low confidence" by IRIS
(Integrated Risk Information System). Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for
exposure to certain aromatic hydrocarbons, but very low concern for exposure to others. Due to
negligible inhalation exposure, the alkyl benzene sulfonates and fatty acid derivatives used in this
formulation present no concern. Risks for other chemicals in the formulation could not be
quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values.
Blanket Wash 4
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to terpenes and low concern
for exposure to the ethoxylated nonylphenols. However, the hazard value for terpenes is based
upon an oral study.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate a very low concern for exposure to terpenes.
However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Due to negligible exposure, no concern
exists for exposure to the ethoxylated nonylphenols.
Blanket Wash 5
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposures to aromatic hydrocarbons
and ethylene glycol ethers, and very low concern for exposure to ethoxylated nonylphenols.
However, the hazard value for aromatic hydrocarbons is based upon an inhalation study. Risks
for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard.
values.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate a very low concern for exposure to aromatic
hydrocarbons and ethylene glycol ethers. Due to negligible exposure, no concern exists for the
other chemicals in this formulation.
DRAFT
3-50
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Table 3-9. Occupational Risks Summarized by Formulation
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Chemicals of Concern*
None
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
(inhalation and dermal exposures)
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Terpenes
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
None
None
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
None
Terpenes
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Dibasic esters
None
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Esters/lactones
Toxicologic Concern**
kidney effects, urinary tract and enzyme effects,
reproductive and developmental effects
liver effects
reproductive and developmental effects
blood effects
blood effects
possible presence of carcinogens
liver effects
blood effects
possible presence of carcinogens
blood effects
possible presence of carcinogens
blood effects
liver effects
possible concern for diethanolamine component
of salt
blood effects
olfactory effects
blood effects
possible presence of carcinogens
reproductive and developmental effects
blood effects
possible presence of carcinogens
liver effects
developmental effects
concern based on MOE from single dose study
no effects seen
liver effects, blood effects
liver effects
developmental effects
developmental effects
3-51
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chemicals of Concern*
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
None
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Insufficient data for evaluation
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Insufficient data for evaluation
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Ethylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Toxicologic Concern**
liver effects
blood effects
reproductive and developmental effects
reproductive and developmental effects
reproductive and developmental effects
blood effects
liver effects
reproductive and developmental effects
blood effects
possible presence of carcinogens
reproductive and developmental effects
blood effects
blood effects
blood effects
blood effects
blood effects
possible presence of carcinogens
* Table lists only chemicals that triggered concern. Formulations may also include other chemicals. All concerns are
for dermal exposures only unless otherwise specified. Identification of chemicals of concern is based on Hazard
Quotient and Margin-of-Exposure estimates shown in Table .3-8. The Hazard Quotient and Margin-of-Exposure
estimates do not necessarily apply to all of the toxicologic endpoints listed in this table. Hazard Quotient and Margin-of-
Exposure calculations are usually based on a "NOAEL" or the "LOAEL" for the most sensitive endpoint.
"The "Toxicologic Concern" column lists adverse effects that have been reported in the literature for animal or human
studies. This is simply a qualitative listing of reported effects and does not imply anything about the severity of the
effects nor the doses at which the effects occur. Furthermore, an entry in this column does not necessarily imply that
EPA has reviewed the reported studies or that EPA concurs with the authors' conclusions. Toxicologic concerns are
described as follows:
blood effects = hematological effects, i.e., adverse effects on blood cells
carcinogens = possible cancer causing agents
developmental effects = adverse effects on the developing embryo, fetus, or newborn
kidney effects = adverse effects on kidney physiology
liver effects = adverse effects on liver physiology
olfactory effects = adverse effects on nasal physiology
reproductive effects = adverse effects on the ability of either males or females to reproduce
"none" = no concern at predicted exposure levels
DRAFT
3-52
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
.Blanket Wash 6
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margins of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
However, the hazard value is based upon inhalation studies. Risks for other chemicals in the formulation
could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a
moderate hazard concern for aromatic hydrocarbons because of the possible presence of carcinogenic
compounds. The fatty acid derivatives and alkyl benzene sulfonates are of low concern because of their
expected low rate of dermal absorption and low to moderate hazard.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for exposure to petroleum distillate
hydrocarbons. Due to low or negligible inhalation exposures, the petroleum distillate hydrocarbons, alkyl
benzene sulfonates, and fatty acid derivatives used in this formulation present little or no concern.
Blanket Wash 7
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to terpenes and very low concern
for exposure to ethoxylated nonylphenol. However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral
study. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of
hazard values, although none of the chemicals present more than a low to moderate hazard concern based
on structure-activity analysis.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate a very low concern for exposure to terpenes. However,
the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Due to low or negligible inhalation exposures, other
chemicals in the formulation present little or no concern.
Blanket Wash 8
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for propylene glycol ethers and very low concern
for ethoxylated nonylphenol. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to
the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons because of the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. The other
compounds in the formulation present low to moderate hazard concerns.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for propylene glycol ethers. However,
the hazard value is based upon a subacute oral study. Due to low or negligible inhalation exposures, other
chemicals in the formulation present little or no concern.
3-53
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Blanket Wash 9
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate a very low concern for ethoxylated nonylphenol. Risks
for the fatty acid derivative could not be quantified but is expected to be very low based on structure-activity
predictions of low toxicity and poor dermal absorption.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Due to negligible inhalation exposure, the chemicals used in this formulation present no concern.
Blanket Wash 10
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Risk for this formulation could not be quantified but is expected to be very low based on structure-
activity predictions of low toxicity and poor dermal absorption of the fatty acid derivatives.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives used in this formulation present no concern.
Blanket Wash 11
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
However, the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for the other chemicals in this'
formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values.
Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for aromatic hydrocarbons because
of the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. The alkyl benzene sulfonates are of low concern
because of their expected low rate of dermal absorption and low to moderate hazard.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for exposure to petroleum distillate
hydrocarbons. Due to low or negligible inhalation exposures, other chemicals in the formulation present
little or no concern.
Blanket Wash 12
Worker Risks - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. However
the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risk could not be quantified but structure-activity
analysis indicates a low to moderate hazard concern.
Worker Risks - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Risk could not be quantified but is expected to be low because of low exposure and low to moderate
toxicity.
DRAFT
3-54
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Blanket Wash 14
Worker Risks - Dermal Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of structure-
activity predictions of low toxicity for both the fatty acid derivatives and the propylene glycol ethers. Also,
the fatty acid derivatives are expected to be poorly absorbed.
Worker Risks - Inhalation Exposure
Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives used in this formulation present no concern.
Risks for the propylene glycol ether are also expected to be low because of low exposure and its predicted
low toxicity.
Blanket Wash 16
Worker Risks - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to terpenes. However, the hazard
value is based upon an oral study. Risks for the other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified
due the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analyses of these compounds indicates low to
moderate hazard concerns.
Worker Risks - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for exposure to terpenes. However, the
hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral study. Risks for the other chemicals in this formulation
could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of low exposures and low to moderate toxicity.
Blanket Wash 17
Worker Risks - Dermal Exposure
Hazard quotient calculations indicate very low concern for propylene glycol ethers. However, the
hazard value is based upon an oral study. Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
ethoxylated nonylphenol and alkali/salts. However, the hazard value for alkali salts is based upon oral
values. The alkanolamine component of the fatty acid derivative/alkanolamine salt presents a possible
concern. However, dermal absorption of the alkanolamine salt is likely to be lower than that of free
alkanolamine.
Worker Risks - Inhalation Exposure
Hazard quotient calculations indicate no concern for glycols. However, the hazard value is based
upon an oral study. Due to negligible inhalation exposure, ethoxylated nonylphenol, fatty acid derivatives
and alkali/salts present very low concern.
Blanket Wash 18
Worker Risks - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and dibasic
esters. However, the hazard values are based on inhalation studies. Risk from the alkyl benzene
sulfonates could not be quantified but is expected to be low because of structure-activity predictions of poor
3-55
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
absorption and low to moderate toxicity. Risk from esters/lactones is also expected to be low based on
structure-activity predictions of low toxicity.
Worker Risks - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations 'indicate very low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and
dibasic esters. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be
low due to low or negligible exposures and low to moderate hazard concerns.
Blanket Wash 19
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be calculated due to the unavailability of hazard values.
However, risks are expected to be low based on structure-activity predictions of low toxicity of propylene
glycol ethers and poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity of the fatty acid derivatives.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives present no concern. Risks for propylene glycol
ethers are expected to be low because of low exposure and low hazard concern.
Blanket Wash 20 .
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. However,
the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for the other chemicals in this formulation could
not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. Risk from the alkyl benzene sulfonates is
expected to be low because of structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity.
Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for aromatic hydrocarbons because of the
possible presence of carcinogenic compounds.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be low due to low
or negligible exposures and low to moderate hazard concerns.
Blanket Wash 21
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for aromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum distillate
hydrocarbons. However, the hazard values are based upon inhalation studies. Risk for the fatty acid
derivatives could not be quantified but are expected to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor
absorption and low toxicity.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for aromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons. Due to negligible exposure and predicted low toxicity and absorption, fatty acid
derivatives presents no concern.
DRAFT
3-56
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Blanket Wash 22
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be calculated due to the unavailability of hazard values.
Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for aromatic hydrocarbons because of the
possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. Risks from the fatty acid derivatives are expected to be
low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Risks could not be quantified but are expected to be low due to low or negligible exposures.
Blanket Wash 23
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate possible concerns for terpenes and nitrogen heterocyclics.
However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral study. Risks for the alkoxylated alcohols
could not be quantified but are expected to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption
and low to moderate toxicity.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for terpenes and nitrogen heterocyclics.
However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral study. Risks for the alkoxylated alcohols
could not'be quantified but are expected to be low based on low exposure and structure-activity predictions
of poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity.
Blanket Wash 24
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for alkyl benzene sulfonates and terpenes,
possible concern for ethylene glycol ethers, and very low concern for ethoxylated nonylphenol. However,
the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral study. Risks for alkali/salts could not be quantified
but are expected to be very low based on structure-activity predictions of no absorption and low to
moderate toxicity.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for terpenes and ethylene glycol ethers.
However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral study. Due to negligible exposure, the other
chemicals in this formulation present no concern.
Blanket Wash 25
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to terpenes and possible concern
for exposure to esters/Iactones. However, the hazard values are based upon oral studies. Risks for other
chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. The other
chemicals are all terpene-type compounds and are rated as low to moderate hazard concern based on
structure-activity analysis.
3-57
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for exposure to terpenes and
esters/lactones. However, the hazard values are based upon oral studies. Risks for other chemicals in
this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be low based on low exposure and structure-
activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Blanket Wash 26
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for esters/lactones, and very low concern for the
fatty acid derivatives. However, the hazard values are based upon oral studies. Risks for the fatty acid
derivatives could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of structure-activity predictions of
poor absorption and low toxicity.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Due to negligible exposure, the chemicals used in this formulation present no concern.
Blanket Wash 27
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for terpenes. However, the hazard value is based
upon an oral study. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the
unavailability of hazard values. The other chemicals are all terpene-type compounds and are rated as low
to moderate hazard concern based on structure-activity analysis.
ป
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for terpenes. However, the hazard value
is based upon an oral study. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified but are
expected to be low based on low exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Blanket Wash 28
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. However,
the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Blanket Wash 29
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of structure-
activity predictions of poor absorption and low toxicity for the fatty acid derivatives.
DRAFT
3-58
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Due to negligible exposure, the chemicals in this formulation present no concern.
Blanket Wash 30
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the hazard
value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for propylene glycol ethers could not be quantified due to
the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates low hazard concern for propylene
glycol ethers.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for
propylene glycol ethers could not be quantified but are expected to be low based on low exposure and
structure-activity predictions of low toxicity.
Blanket Wash 31
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons. However,
the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not
be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates low to
moderate hazard concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons.
Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified but are expected to be low based on
low exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Blanket Wash 32
Worker Risk
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values.
Structure-activity analysis indicates low to moderate hazard concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Blanket Wash 33
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and aromatic
hydrocarbons, and very low concerns for propylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard values for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons are based upon an inhalation study.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons,
aromatic hydrocarbons, and propylene glycol ethers.
3-59
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Blanket Wash 34
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concerns for terpenes and very low concerns for the fatty
acid derivatives. However, the hazard values are based upon oral studies. Risks for fatty acid derivatives
could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of structure-activity predictions of poor
absorption and low to moderate toxicity. Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified.
Structure-activity analysis indicates low to moderate hazard concern for these chemicals.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure values indicate very low concern for terpenes. However, the hazard value is
based upon an oral study. Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives present no concern. Risks
for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of low
exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate hazard concern.
Blanket Wash 35
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the hazard
value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified
due to the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates low to moderate hazard
concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified but are expected to be low based on low exposure
and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Blanket Wash 36
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculation indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons, and very low
concern for propylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard value for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons is
based upon an inhalation study. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due
to the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons because of the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. Risks from fatty acid
derivatives are expected to be low because of structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low
toxicity.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and
propylene glycol ethers. Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives present no concern. Risks
from aromatic hydrocarbons could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of low exposure.
DRAFT
3-60
-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Blanket Wash 37
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate possible concern for aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for
other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. The
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons are considered to present low to moderate hazard concerns according
to structure-activity analysis.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for
other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of low
exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate hazard.
Blanket Wash 38
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. The
fatty acid derivatives and alkoxylated alcohols are expected to present low risk because of structure-activity
predictions of poor absorption and low or low to moderate toxicity. Petroleum distillate hydrocarbons
present low to moderate hazard concern according to structure-activity analysis.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives present no concern. Risks for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of low exposure and
structure-activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Blanket Wash 39
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons, ethylene
glycol ethers, and alkanolamines, and possible concerns for propylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard
value for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons is based on an inhalation study.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons,
propylene glycol ethers, and ethylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard value used for propylene glycol
ethers is based on an oral study. Due to negligible exposure, alkanolamines present no concern.
Blanket Wash 40
Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and very low
concern for ethoxylated nonylphenol. However, the hazard value for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons is
based upon an inhalation study. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due
to the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons because of the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. Risks from fatty acid
3-61
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
derivatives are expected to be low because of structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low
toxicrty.
Worker Risk - Inhalation Exposure
Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Due to negligible exposure, fatty acid derivatives and ethoxylated nonylphenol present no concern. Risks
from aromatic hydrocarbons could not be quantified but are expected to be low because of low exposure.
3.4.4 General Population Risks
No concerns were identified for general population exposures through drinking water, fish
ingestion, or ambient air as seen in Table 3-10. Predicted exposure levels in these environmental
media were extremely low. The calculated risk numbers should be viewed as low-confidence
estimates because of the many uncertainties associated with both the hazard and exposure
components of the calculation. However, the overall risk conclusion can be regarded with high
confidence because all of the risk estimates fall far below standard risk benchmarks. Thus, the
"true" risk value could vary substantially from the estimated value without changing the
conclusion. In addition, a generally conservative approach (i.e. one that overestimates the risk)
was taken in the assessment.
A Margin-of-Exposure (MOE) or a Hazard Quotient (HQ) gives an estimate of the "margin
of safety" between an estimated exposure level and the level at which adverse effects may occur.
Hazard Quotient values below unity imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur. The
more the Hazard Quotient exceeds unity, the greater is the level of concern. High MOE values
such as values greater than 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or 100 for a LOAEL-based MOE imply
a low level of concern. As the MOE decreases, the level of concern increases. The hazard values
used in the HQ or MOE calculations were taken from Table 2-3. The exposure values used in the
calculations were taken from Table 3-4. The absence of HQ or MOE values in this table indicates
that insufficient hazard data were available to calculate a HQ or MOE for that chemical.
Table 3-10. General Population Risk Estimates for Drinking Water, Fish Ingestion, and Inhalation
Form.
Number
1
3
4
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyi benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Drinking Water
MOE1'2
Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2
Inhalation
MOE1'2
1.6 x105
2.0 x 104
3.0 x10"5 (HQ)
7.1 x10'5 (HQ)
8.0 x 1 04
DRAFT
3-62
-------
CHAPTER 3: R\SK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Form.
Number
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Chemical Components
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Drinking Water
MOE1'2
5.0 x 1 07
Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2
Inhalation
MOE1'2
1.2x 10b
8.0 x 104
6.0 x 105
3.0 x 105
7.0 x 105
4.0 x 10b
_
3-63
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chemical Components
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Glycols
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Dibasic esters
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
ratty acid derivatives
:atty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Water
Drinking Water
MOE1'2
Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2
Inhalation
MOE1'2
2.0 x106
3.0 x 105
1.0x1Q-5(HQ)
4.0 x 105
3.0 x 104
3.0 x 104
3.0 x 104
8.0 x105
2.5 x 105
1.0x105
DRAFT
3-64
-------
CHAPTER 3-. RISK
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Form.
Number
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chemical Components
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Water
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Esters/lactones
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Drinking Water
MOE1'2
5.0 x 10b
1.3x108
Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2
6.3 x105
Inhalation
MOE1'2
1.0x10b
1.0x 104
4.0 x 10b
2.0 x 104
3.0x10b
2.0x10b
6.0 x 10b
1.2x10b
7.0 x 104
2.5 x 10b
2.0 x 106
1.6x10b
1.0x10b
3-65
DRAFT
-------
3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chemical Components
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
D. I. Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers ,
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Drinking Water
MOE1'2
6.0 x107
4.0 x 106
Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2
Inhalation
MOE1'2
4.0 x 105
3.0 x 104
8.0 x 105
2.0 x 106
1.2x 105
8.0 x 105
1.0 x 106
2.0 x 105
8.0 x 105
A Margin-of-Exposure (MOE) or a Hazard Quotient (HQ) gives an estimate of the "margin of safety" between an
estimated exposure level and the level at which adverse effects may occur. Hazard Quotient values below unity imply
that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur. The more the Hazard Quotient exceeds unity, the greater is the level
of concern. High MOE values such as values greater that 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or 100 for a LOAEL-based
MOE imply a low level of concern. As the MOE decreases, the level of concern increases. The hazard values used
in the HQ or MOE calculations were taken from Table 2-3. The exposure values used in the calculations were taken
from Table 3-4.
2 The absence of HQ or MOE values in this table indicates no exposure is expected by this route or that insufficient
hazard data were available to calculate a HQ or MOE for that chemical.
3.5 PROCESS SAFETY CONCERNS
Exposure to chemicals is just one of the safety issues that printers may have to deal with
during their daily activities. Preventing worker injuries should be a primary concern for employers
and employees alike. Work-related injuries may result from faulty equipment, improper use of
equipment or bypassing equipment safety features, failure to use personal protective equipment,
DRAFT
3-66
-------
CHAPTER 3: RISK
3.5 PROCESS SAFETY CONCERNS
and physical stresses that may appear gradually as a result of repetitive motions (i.e., ergonomic
stresses). Any or all of these types of injuries may occur if proper safeguards or practices are not
in place and correctly used. The use of personal safety equipment and the presence of safety
guards on equipment can have a substantial impact on business, not only in terms of direct
worker safety, but also in reduced operating costs as a result of fewer days of absenteeism,
reduced accidents and injuries, and lower insurance costs. Maintaining a safe and efficient
workplace requires that employers and employees understand the importance of using personal
protective equipment, have appropriate safeguards on mechanical .and electrical equipment, store
and use chemicals properly, and practice good ergonomic procedures when engaged in physical
activity.
Training
A critical element of workplace safety is a well-educated workforce. To help achieve this
goal, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard
requires that all employees at printing facilities (regardless of the size of the printing plant) be
trained in the use of hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed, therefore, it is recommended
that a formal training program be instituted for all workers at lithography plants. Training may
be conducted by either facility staff or outside parties who are familiar with the lithography
process and the pertinent safety concerns. The training should be held for each new employee,
as well as periodic retraining sessions when necessary (for example, if new equipment is to be
used), or on a regular schedule. The training program should explain to the workers the types of
chemicals with which they work and precautions to be used when handling or storing them; when
and how personal protection equipment should be worn; the need for other safety features such
as machine guards and their proper use; and how to maintain equipment in good operating
condition.
Storing and Using Chemicals Properly
Because lithographic printing requires exposure to and use of a variety of chemicals, it is
important that workers know and follow the correct procedures for using and storing the
chemicals. Much of the use, disposal, and storage information about blanket wash chemicals may
be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheets provided by the manufacturer for each chemical
or formulation. MSDSs will also alert the workers to the need for appropriate personal protection
equipment. All chemicals should be stored in appropriate storage space and should be labeled
accordingly with all federal, state, and local regulations. Chemicals that are incompatible with
other chemicals or that require special precautions in their use should also be appropriately
labeled and stored. Because many of the chemicals used in blanket wash formulations are highly
flammable, it is recommended that the facility be periodically inspected by the local fire marshall
to ensure that the chemicals are stored properly and ventilated, thus reducing the potential for
a fire.
Rags or towels that are used to wipe up chemicals or clean blankets may be considered
hazardous waste by EPA and state and local agencies if they contain specified hazardous
chemicals in sufficient amounts. These towels should be stored and disposed of in accordance
with the federal, state, and local regulations. Blanket wash workers should also be aware of the
potential for smoldering of the rags, particularly those that contain terpenes. If a printer is
uncertain about whether or not the used rags or towels require special treatment as hazardous
waste, he or she should contact their local state environmental agency, or state technical
assistance program. For further information about the specific safety factors and hazards
associated with specific chemicals used in lithography blanket wash formulations, such as
flammabiliry and corrosivity, see Section 2.2 Chemical Information.
3-67
DRAFT
-------
3.5 PROCESS SAFETY CONCERNS
CHAPTERS: RISK
Use of Personal Safety Equipment
Although EPA developed the Design for the Environment Program to assist industry in
determining the environmental effects and risks associated with various industries, worker safety
is the responsibility of QSHA. Many printers are already familiar with OSHA's Hazard
Communication Standard which covers many aspects of worker safety for a variety of industries,
including printing facilities. OSHA has already developed several personal protective equipment
standards that are applicable to the printing industry. These standards address general safety
requirements (29 CFRPart 1910.132), the use of eye and face protection (Part 1910.133), head
protection (Part 1910.135), foot protection (Part 1910.136), and hand protection (Part 1910.138).
The standards for eye, face and hand protection are particularly important for the printing
industry where there is frequent contact with a variety of chemicals, such as solvents,
dispersants, surfactants, and inks, that may irritate or otherwise harm the skin and eyes. In
order to prevent or minimize exposure to such chemicals, workers should be trained in the proper
use of personal safety equipment. For many blanket wash chemicals, appropriate protective
equipment includes goggles to prevent chemical from splashing into the eyes during the transfer
of chemicals from large containers to small ones, aprons or other impervious clothing to prevent
splashing of chemicals on clothing, and gloves. In some printing facilities with loud presses,
hearing protection may be required or recommended.
Other personal safety considerations are the responsibility of the worker. Workers should
be discouraged from eating or keeping food near presses or chemicals. Because presses contain
moving parts, workers should also be prohibited from wearing jewelry or loose clothing, such as
ties, that may become caught in the machinery and cause injury to the worker or the machinery
itself. In particular, the wearing of rings or necklaces may lead to injury. Workers with long hair
that may also be caught in the machinery should be required to securely pull their hair back or
wear a hair net.
Use of Equipment Safeguards
In addition to the use of proper personal protection equipment for all workers, OSHA has
developed safety standards that apply to the actual equipment used in printing facilities. These
machine safety guards are described in 29 CFRPart 1910.212 and are applicable to ail sectors
of the industry, including lithography. Among the safeguards recommended by OSHA that may
be used for lithographic printers are barrier guards, two-hand trip devices, and electrical safety
devices. Safeguards for the normal operation of press equipment are included in the standards
for mechanical power-transmission apparatus (29 CFRPart 1910.219) and include belts, pulleys,
flywheels, gears, chains, sprockets, and shafts. The National Printing Equipment and Supply
Association has made available copies of the American National Standard for Safety Specifications
for Printing Press Drive Controls. These safety recommendations address the design of press drive
controls specifically, as well as safety signaling systems for web and sheet-fed printing presses.
Printers should be familiar with the safety requirements included in these standards and should
contact their local OSHA office or state technical assistance program for assistance in determining
how to comply with them.
In addition to normal equipment operation standards, OSHA also has a lockout/tagout
standard (29 CFR part 1910.147). This standard is designed to prevent the accidental start-up
of electric machinery during cleaning or maintenance operations that apply to the cleaning of
blankets as well as other operations. This standard has posed particular problems for
lithographers during minor, routine procedures such as cleaning the press which requires
frequent .stops and small movement of the rollers (inching) which may be accomplished without
extensive disassembly of the equipment. For such cases, OSHA has granted an exemption for
minor servicing of machinery provided the equipment has other appropriate safeguards, such as
DRAFT
3-68
-------
CHAPTERS-. RISK
3.5 PROCESS SAFETY CONCERNS
a stop/safe/ready button which overrides all other controls and is under the exclusive control of
the worker performing the servicing. Such minor servicing of printing presses has been
determined to include clearing jams, minor cleaning, lubricating, adjusting operations, plate and
blanket changing tasks, paper webbing, and roll changing. Rigid finger guards should also extend
across the rolls, above and below the area the be cleaned. Proper training of workers is required
under the standard whether lockout/tagout is employed or not. For further information on the
applicability of the OSHAlockout/tagout standard to printing operations, contact the local OSHA
field office or the Printing Industries of America, Inc.
References
1. General Sciences Corporation, Exposure Screening Manual, May, 1988 (GSC-TR-32-88-015)
2. General Sciences Corporation, Graphical Exposure Modeling System, GEMS, User's Guide, 1991
(GSC-TR-32-91-001)
3. General Sciences Corporation, GAMS Version 3.0 Usefs Guide, 1990 (GSC-TR-32-90-010)
4. 1988 Rand McNaUy Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 119th Edition Rand McNally &
Company, 1988.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Assessment Guidelines, May, 1992.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Factors Handbook, May, 1989 (EPA/600/8-
89/O43)
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion Models
User's Guide, March 1992 (EPA-450/4-92008a).
8. Versar, Inc. Electronic Consolidated Industrial Discharge Database, 1995.
9. Versar, Inc. ReachScan with PDM, March 9, 1995.
10. Versar, Inc. Stream Dilution Factors Program, Implementation in Lotus 1-2-3 Version 2.3,
1991.
11. CEB Manual, 1991
3-69
DRAFT
-------
-------
Chapter 4
Competitiveness
4.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.2
This chapter focuses on the
performance and cost of each
substitute blanket wash. Section 4.1
discusses the results of the
performance demonstration of each
blanket wash, both in a laboratory-
setting and in an actual print shop. All
37 blanket washes (including the
baseline) were tested at the Graphic
Arts Technical Foundation (GATF)
laboratory for flash point, volatile
organic compound (VOC) content, pH,
blanket swell potential and wipability.
Of the 36 formulations (plus the
baseline) analyzed at GATF, 22 were
field tested. Each of these 22 blanket
washes was used at two print shops,
and evaluated on factors such as how
well the ink was cut and how quickly
the blanket dried. The limitations of
these field evaluations are briefly
presented and the results discussed in
greater detail. Section 4.2 presents the
costs associated with using the 22 field
tested blanket washes. For each of the
two facilities where a blanket wash was
tested, data on cost/wash, cost/press, and cost/press/shift/year were developed and compared
with baseline costs using VM&P Naphtha. This section also contains a description of the different
variables used to develop the cost data, such as labor costs, blanket wash costs, and other
materials costs. Section 4.3 addresses international trade issues for blanket washes in general.
Importation and exportation of both petroleum based blanket washes and low VOC blanket
washes are discussed, as well as joint ventures between foreign companies.
4.3
Chapter Contents
Performance Data
4.1.1 Background
Methodology
Data Collection, Summary and Analysis
Limitations
Blanket Wash Summaries
Blanket Wash Cost Analysis Methodology
4.2.1 General Description of Costing
Methodology
4.2.2 Details Related to Data Sources and
Methodological Approach
Example Calculation
Blanket Wash Cost Analysis Results
International Trade Issues
4.3.1 International Trade of Petroleum-based
Blanket Washes
4.3.2 International Trade of "Low VOC" Blanket
Washes
4.3.3 Joint Ventures Impacting the International
Trade of Blanket Washes
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
4.1.1 Background
This section of the CTSA summarizes performance information collected during laboratory
and production run performance demonstrations with substitute blanket washes carried out
between November 1994 and January 1995. Performance data collected included information
such as quantity of wash used, time spent to wash the blanket, ink coverage, and the effectiveness
of the wash. Data from the performance demonstrations, in conjunction with risk, cost and other
information presented in other sections of the CTSA, provides a more complete assessment of
substitute blanket washes than has otherwise been available from one source.
In a joint and collaborative effort, EPA worked with the Printing Industries of America (PIA),
the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF), and other industry representatives to organize and
conduct the performance evaluations of 36 substitute blanket washes and the baseline. The
4-1
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
demonstration methodology was developedby consensus and was designed to allow the evaluation
of the maximum number of blanket washes given the resources available to the project.
Performance data were collected for each product in two distinct phases: 1) a laboratory test of
the chemical and physical properties and the efficacy of the substitute products, and 2)
evaluations conducted in a production setting at volunteer printing facilities. The intent of the
laboratory evaluations was to independently measure some of the properties of the washes, such
as volatile organic compound (VOC) content, and to assure that the blanket washes sent to
volunteer printers would provide an acceptable level of performance. Facility demonstrations were
undertaken at the request of printers participating in the DfE proj ect so that blanket washes could
be evaluated under the more variable conditions of production runs at printing facilities. It should
be noted that the performance demonstrations are not rigorous scientific investigations. Instead,
much of this chapter documents the printers' experiences with and opinions of these products as
they were used in production at their facilities.
Participation in the demonstration project was open to all blanket wash manufacturers.
Prior to the start of the demonstrations, the DfE project staff contacted nearly 100 blanket wash
manufacturers to explain the project goals and request their submission of a product. All those
who responded and submitted blanket washes were included in the first phase of the
demonstrations.
4.1.2 Methodology
The performance evaluation methodology developed by the workgroup is described below
and covers both the laboratory testing protocol and the on-site demonstrations methodology. In
developing the methodology, the workgroup agreed that product names would be masked. Neither
the volunteer printers nor the DfE observers knew the manufacturer of the products being
evaluated. Trade names are not listed in this report, instead the blanket washes are referenced
by a numerical code and a genericized chemical formulation. This agreement to mask product
names was made for several reasons:
The chemical formulations of commercial products containing distinct chemicals
are frequently considered proprietary. Manufacturers of these products typically
prefer not to reveal their chemical formulations because a competitor can
potentially use the disclosed formulation to sell the product, often at a lower price,
since the competitor did not have to invest in research and development.
The performance of products may vary depending on use and shop conditions, and
suppliers were concerned about the characterization of the performance of their
products.
The EPA was concerned about appearing to endorse brand name products that
fared well in the CTSA evaluation.
In the initial stages of the Lithography Project the Project partners chose VM&P Naphtha
as the baseline against which to compare the 36 substitute blanket washes. VM&P Naphtha,
composed of 100% solvent naphtha, light aliphatic and referred to as formulation 28 in certain
sections of the text, was chosen primarily because it is well known among lithographers as an
effective blanket wash. Many lithographers have used VM&P in their shops and know how it
works in their applications and what it costs. VM&P is known to be highly effective at very low
cost, however, because of its high VOC content (100%) printers are searching for formulations to
replace it.
As the Performance Demonstration was being conducted, some suppliers who had
submitted blanket washes chose to withdraw. Their reasons included not wishing to reveal to EPA
DRAFT
4-2
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
their complete formulations or concern over the potential results of the performance tests. The
formulations that were withdrawn after work had already begun were numbers 2,13, and 15. For
this reason, those numbers are missing from all the tables in the CTSA.
Laboratory Evaluations
Laboratory testing was carried out by GATF in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A total of 36
products were submitted plus the baseline. For each wash, the flash point, VOC content, and pH
were tested. The vapor pressure of the product was not tested, but was submitted by the supplier.
Two additional tests, a blanket swell test and a wipability test, were conducted to determine the
efficacy of each wash prior to sending it out for field demonstrations. Only products that passed
this functional demonstration stage were used in the field demonstration portion of the project.
For both of these tests, GATF followed the manufacturer's instructions for diluting or mixing the
product.
The blanket swelling potential of each product was tested to determine the effect of the
wash on the blankets. The procedure used (detailed in Appendix C) involved measuring the
thickness of the blanket test square (2x2 inches), maintaining contact between the test square
and the wash for one hour, and taking another thickness measurement to calculate the percent
swell. Another measurement is taken after 5 hours. Any wash where the blanket swell exceeded
3 percent after 5 hours indicated that the wash may dimensionally distort the blanket and was
eliminated from field demonstrations.
Washability of each blanket wash was evaluated using both a wet and a dry ink film
(detailed in Appendix C). To measure the washability, a standard volume of ink was evenly
applied to a section of a new, clean test blanket. A measured volume of the wash was applied to
a cleaning pad. The pad was attached to a mechanized scrubber and the number of strokes
required to remove the wet ink were recorded. The procedure was repeated for a dry ink film
where the ink was dried with a blow dryer for 20 minutes prior to the cleaning. The dry ink and
wet ink tests were repeated for each alternative blanket wash submitted. Any wash where more
than 100 strokes were required to clean the blanket (with cleanliness determined by using a
reflective densitometer) was eliminated from the field demonstrations.
Based on the,results of the blanket swell and the washability tests, 22 of the original 36
products submitted (plus the baseline) qualified for further evaluation through field
demonstrations. Prior to shipping substitute blanket washes to printers for these on-site
evaluations, each wash was repackaged into a generic container so that those printers
demonstrating the products did not know the manufacturer or product name. Masked Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) were also developed and shipped along with the substitute blanket
washes to be evaluated.
Printing Facility Demonstrations
PIA affiliates recruited printers located in the Boston, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
areas, who volunteered their facilities and their time to conduct the field demonstrations of the
substitute products. A total of 17 facilities participated. Each substitute product was
demonstrated at two facilities and each facility demonstrated a minimum of two and up to five
different blanket washes. The product brand name was replaced with a blanket wash number so
that the demonstration facilities did not know what product they were using.. In addition, the
facility names have been replaced with a facility number. A list of participating facilities appears
at the front of this document.
To start the on-site demonstration, an "observer" from the DfE project visited each of the
volunteer facilities. DfE observers were not EPA employees, but were drawn from staff of the
4-3
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
contractor, Abt Associates Inc. The observers called each facility to review the details of their
operation, discuss the goals of the project, and to schedule a site visit. The substitute products,
a baseline product, MSDSs, application instructions, and a measuring device were shipped to each
facility prior to the DfE observer's arrival.
During each one-day site visit, the observer collected information on the background of the
facility, as well as data specific to blanket wash performance. Background data included
information on the size of the presses, the number of employees, and current blanket washing
practices. After collecting the initial background data, the observers documented information on
three types of blanket washes: the blanket wash currently used at the facility, a baseline blanket
wash, and the substitute wash. All information was recorded on an Observer's Evaluation Sheet
(see Appendix D). Starting with their standard wash, the press operator cleaned the blanket while
the observer recorded the quantity of wash used, the time required to clean the blanket, the length
of the run, the type and color of the ink on the blanket, and the number of wipes used. After
restarting the press, the press operator was asked to comment on the effectiveness of the blanket
wash and to determine if there were any changes in subsequent print quality that could be
attributed to the blanket wash. This procedure was then repeated using Blanket Wash 28, VM&P
Naphtha, the selected baseline. Naphtha was used at all participating facilities. By comparing
the differences in the performance of the baseline at the two different facilities, any significant
effects of facility-specific operating conditions (e.g., the type of ink, size of blanket, and operator's
effort) on the performance of the substitute wash were more apparent. After cleaning the blanket
with the baseline wash, the press operator then used the substitute wash provided. The observer
recorded the same type of information as was recorded for both the current wash and the baseline
wash. The total number of washes required varied from one facility to the next, since the observer
was on-site for one day and recorded information on as many washes as were required during
production that day.
After the observer's visit, the facility continued to use the substitute wash for one week.
During the week, the printer at each volunteer print shop was asked to record information on
product performance. The data recorded were similar to that collected by the on-site observer.
However, the Printer's Evaluation Sheets (Appendix D) were simplified in an effort to minimize
volunteer printers' burden and production disruptions. Facility background information such as
the press size and type of shop towel used were recorded by the observer only. At the end of the
week, the observer interviewed the press operator to obtain an overall opinion of the product. The
exit interview information was recorded on another standardized form (Appendix D).
4.1.3 Data Collection, Summary and Analysis
The information summarized in the following section comes from five sources.
Laboratory results: the chemical characteristics and the results of the blanket swell
and washability tests were reported for each wash.
Facility background information: the observer collected information on operating
conditions while on-site at each volunteer print shop.
Observer's data: DfE observers recorded information on the performance of the
facility's current blanket wash, a baseline wash, and the substitute blanket wash.
Printer's data: press operators recorded performance data for each blanket wash
completed during the week-long demonstration of the substitute blanket wash.
Follow-up interviews: observers interviewed the press operators at the end of the
week-long demonstration on their overall opinion of the substitute blanket wash.
For each of the 22 substitute blanket washes in the field demonstrations, data from the
sources mentioned above were analyzed and are summarized in this section. The experiences of
the two facilities who demonstrated each product are presented individually. As part of the
DRAFT
4-4
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
analysis, a number of correlations were attempted for each facility but the results were typically
not statistically significant due to small sample size. These analyses were run to determine if
variations in the printer's opinion of the effectiveness of the blanket depended on any-other
variables such as ink coverage, effort and time spent on blanket washing, or run length. Where
appropriate, these results are included within the following text summaries of each substitute
blanket wash. Additionally, some summary statistics, such as average amount of product used,
are presented in accompanying tables (Table 4-1).
4.1.4 Limitations
The widely variable conditions between and within printing facilities, the limited number
of facilities, and the short duration of the performance demonstrations does not allow the results
to be interpreted as definitive performance testing of the blanket washes. In addition, some
facilities did not provide the full complement of evaluation forms because they found the
performance of the substitute wash to be unacceptable and they discontinued use before the end
of the week.
As mentioned previously, the performance demonstrations are not scientifically rigorous
but are subjective assessments which reflect the conditions and experience of two individual print
shops. There are a number of reasons why the results of performance demonstrations for any
given blanket wash may differ from one facility to another. Among these reasons are:
Variability in operating conditions. Because performance demonstrations were carried out
during production runs, many factors which affect the performance of the blanket washes
were not controlled during the evaluations including: ink type, ink coverage, condition of
the blanket, the length of the run prior to blanket cleaning, and the ambient conditions
such as temperature, humidity, and ventilation.
Variability of print jobs. Different types of jobs had different requirements for blanket
cleanliness. Observers noticed that what one facility considers to be a clean blanket
another facility may find unacceptable.
Variability of staff involved in performance demonstrations. Press operators' attitudes
towards alternative blanket washes differ from one operator to the next and can affect their
perception of performance. As previously mentioned, some of the information recorded was
subjective and varied depending on a variety of factors including the attitude, perception,
and previous experiences of the operator. For example, many of the substitute products
were low in VOC content and did not evaporate as quickly as some of the more traditional
blanket washes. Often, an extra step was needed to wipe the blanket with a dry rag to
remove a residue left by some of the substitute washes. While extra cleaning steps can be
time consuming and lead to increased production costs, even a minimal extra effort was
regarded as an unacceptable burden by some operators. Other operators understood that
some changes in their procedures and even some extra effort may be needed in order to
effectively clean the blanket with an alternative product.
Variability in application method. Press operators' overall opinion of the blanket wash
could have been affected by their current application method. For example, operators who
are accustomed to using high solvent blanket washes where little effort is required may
differ in their opinion of "moderate effort" from operators who are currently using an
alternative where some extra effort is already required. All manufacturers were asked to
supply application procedures for their product. When instructions were supplied, the
observer reviewed the procedures with the press operators, verified the correct procedure
was used when the observer was on-site, and asked in the interview at the end of the week
4-5
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
~
DC
to
o
in
I
.2
m
5
|2
ฃ
LL
^
_C
&
Q
E
u.
.*
c
1
1
CO
2
m
*^
1
5
0
g
1
u.
ง
ฃ
Strokes
*ป "O
J8 8
a 1
m o
II
S =
ta ป*
5^
1 g
m ฐ
m<
Strokes
11
s *
CD o
11
= JC
JS .ซ
CQ5
1 ฃ
= 0
-
^, J3
V?
5^
1-
O o
a. ^^
d
z
CD
*
CO
tf
rX
'fr
00
CO
co
CO
s
o
CO
in
T-
m
1^
S?
o
CO
CO
CM
O
CO
CM
^1-
*
CO
3
?!
*
(D
*
CO
CM
CD
CO
5
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
in
co
CM
CO
(M
in
o
CO
r-~
CO
5?
en
oo
*
to
*
^-
oo
t^
CO
3
CO
CO
o>
CO
CO
ฃ
CO
Tf
in
,_
CD
CO
*
ง
CO
in
CM
en
CO
in
CO
in
CO
CM
in
CO
CO
oo
*
CO
i
co
CM
CO
in
f~
o
in
in
5?
h-
*
in
CO
CM
in
CD
co
CO
CO
in
CO
CO
CO
CO
12
?M
00
co'
CO
CO
CO
a>
S?
CO
CO
o
CO
in
CO
r-
o>
*
CO
^
s
1^.
*
CO
p
CM
CO
o
CM
h~
h-
o
st
#
5-
co_
co'
in
CO
o
CO
Tt
-*
CM
in
CM
CO
o>
to
CO
s
CO
CO
in
in
'"
CD
*
S?
o
l^
o
o
CO
CM
O>
CO
0)
CM
5
co
r-
s
in
o
o
CM
co
5?
o
CM
CO
in
CM
CM
O
CM
CO
in
O)
CM
co
CO
ฃ
00
CM
0
CO
in
^
o
in
S?
CM
ro
CD
o
CO
*
CM
'd-
CO
T
in
o
CO
CM
o
CO
^J-
CD
in
CM
CD
o'
in
-*
oo
O)
Sซ
o>
OJ
CM
1^
in
*
CD
o
o
i
ง
oo
a-
CM
CO
O
o
-*
in
S
ฃ3
in
in
T~
oo
o>
5?
to
d
in
o
d
o
CM
(--
I-~
CO
CO
in
in
CM
CO
oo
co
CO
f^
%
in
*
in
T~
in
in
S?
o
CD
*
^
O
in
00
a>
o
CO
3
1^
CM
T
CO
CO
O)
h~.
co
CM
in
in
i
co
ซ*
S?
CM
CM
00
0
CO
cn
h-
*
CO
CM
in
o>
CM
in
^f
CO
F:
o
CO
in
o
o
f
r~
5?
in
CO
l^
CM
o
h-
o
CD
5!
9
CO
1^.
T
*
CD
in
CM
CO
in
o
o
CM
CD
1
m
CO
in
DRAFT
4-6
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
E
u.
Q
E
LL
c
i
_
ง
CO
m
ฃ"
o -
.
i
1;
i_
Strokes
ง ro
CQ Q
||
JS .t:
| ฃ
5<
Strokes
|1
c en
CQ o
II
mg
S co
-^ c
ง.ฐ
m "*
= ia
in ^
ฃ *o"
T- -~^
2.
If O>
S>'5>
Sg
*
M
S^
L ฃ-
0
CO
5
ง
%
CO
CO
fe
00
CM
in
-I~
in
'*"
^
T
CM
._
Z
in
CM
CM
0
O
T
3
5
co
CM
CM
CO
S
CM
in
""
o
o
CM
05
CO
sf
O
O
CO
CM
CM
CO
*
CO
in
T
S
fc
CM
CO
O
CO
LO
T~
o>
o>
S?
o
in
o
o
CM
CM
CO
ง
s
CO
CO
CM
CM
CO
CO
p
CM
LO
^
O
CO
CO
LO
in
o
CM
CM
LO
CM
s
9
CO
c.
co
CO
CO
R
CO
CM
O
O
O
o
co
s?
co
CO
o
CO
CM
CD
CM
CO
in
CO
in
LO
%
CO
o
CO
CO
CM
LO
^
o
CO
ro
co'
s?
CO
o>
CM
in
1
CM
00
CO
CO
LO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
%
o
CO
in
*~
CO
co'
o
o
CM"
co'
o
in
co
CM
oo
o
CO
ง
CM
CO
en
5
S
CM
CO
in
T~
in
1
CM
g
CO
1
CM
ct
CO
CM
O
CM
-
CM
O
in
N-
CM
in
TO
CM
co
CO
CT>
CM
in
T~
^
o
co"
s
sf
o
~o
o
o
CO
CO
s
LO
CM
CO
CO
CO
s
co1
o
CO
LO
*~
co
s?
O5
o>
CD
CD
LO
o
T
CO
o
CO
s
in
o>
CM
in
CO
CO
ฃ
CM
LO
1
t
o
LO
co'
o>
o>
in
CO
o
CM
CM
CM
CO
-
LO
CO
*
CO
-
co
CM
fc
CM
CD
^
LO
"*
C\j
5?
CD
si-
co
in
o
CO
CO
o
CM
in
CO
a.
CO
o
in
CO
s
CM
CO
o
CO
in
*~
CO
co
s?
o>
CO
co
CM
co
CO
T
CO
in
CO
9
%
CO
in
CO
co
CM
CO
T
CD
LO
*~
o
CD
en
f~
CD
LO
o
T
in
CO
in
CO
co
CO
CO
-
co
CO
oo
%
LO
*-
^
0
LO'
ง
in
CO
in
t
CO
co
co
CO
O5
si-
CO
CO
in
CO
in
co
s
o
co'
o
CO
o>
CO
ฃ
o
CM
co
CO
co
T
CO"
co
CM
CO
o>
9
o
CO
CM
co
CO
o
s
o
in
CO
-
T
CO
p
CM
o
CO
in
'-
CM
o>
CO
m
CM
in
in
CT>
CO
o
1
in
CO
i
in
CO
in
o>
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
in
'-
oq
CM
LO
CO
CO
in
in
o
CO
0
E
c
CO
CO
CD
to
3
1C
*
-o
CO
CO
CO
5
z
S?
LO
CM
~
.g
c
CD
CO
[5
1
'E
-Q
o
'to .
i fe
ฃ ^
1 o
0 i
-o co
CD C
CO fc
ซ
CO -F
o E
O
Q 5
> o
ฃ0
liT
o
3 CD
CO P
CO C
II
II
CO CO
c c
CD CD
o o
o o
O O
_
4-7
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
if the application procedures had been modified in any way. If any changes were made,
the type of change and the reason for the change are described in the performance
summary.
Short term nature of the demonstrations. Printers used the substitute blanket washes in
their facilities for one week. Any long term effects such as premature blanket wear or
corrosion would not have been apparent.
4.1.5 Blanket Wash Summaries
A summary of the performance of each of the 22 substitute blanket washes follows. Since
the trade names of the substitute blanket washes are not given in this document, each blanket
wash is identified by a numerical code and a generic chemical formulation. The specific types of
chemicals that make up each of the generic formulations are explained in greater detail in
Chapter 2. hi addition, the facility names have been replaced with a facility number.
Performance of each product is presented separately for the two facilities, and includes a
description of the facility's current blanket wash, their past experience in testing alternative
blanket washes, their overall opinion of the substitute wash performance, and, if applicable, a
summary of the factors that may have influenced performance. A table is also included for each
blanket wash which presents the results of the laboratory test of both the substitute blanket wash
and the baseline wash. Averages of the volume of wash used, time required, and effort required,
as recorded by the printers during field demonstrations are also included in each product
performance table. In addition, a summary table is provided that consolidates the results from
all products into a single table (Table 4-2).
DRAFT
4-8
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Table 4-2. Summary of Blanket Wash Performance Demonstrations
Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
(ฐF)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 1
Facility 3
Facility 6
2.3; 30%
230+
1.1 ฑ0.2
[1.0f
1.5 + 0.6
[1.5f
Based on a sample size of 10 blanket washes:
Good performance for light or medium ink coverage.
Poor performance for heavy ink coverage; the extra time and
effort needed were unacceptable.
Left a slight residue that was removed with a dry rag.
Based on a sample size of 4 blanket washes:
Poor performance.
Print quality problems: image of the previous job was showing.
WASH 6
Facility 1 1
Facility 15
3.5; 47%
152
1 .0 ฑ 0.2
[0.7ฑ0.2]a
0.9 ฑ 0.2
[1.5 + 0.7]3
Based on a sample size of 1 1 blanket washes:
Wash left oily residue that interfered with print quality.
Did not readily absorb into rag due to thick consistency; created
delays.
Fair performance overall; more effort required with heavy ink
coverage.
Based on a sample size of 23 blanket washes:
Cut ink well.
Did not readily absorb into rag due to thick consistency; created
delays and effort necessary to clean was rated "high."
Did not leave a residue on the blanket.
WASH 9
Facility 10
Facility 15
0.77; '10%
230+
3.1 ฑ0.3
[1.5]a
0.7 ฑ0.1
[1.5ฑ0.7f
Based on a sample size of 4 blanket washes:
Poor performance.
Did not cut ink well, required excessive effort, and did not soak
into rag.
Discontinued use of Wash 9 after 4 washes.
Based on a sample size of 21 blanket washes:
Poor performance.
Did not soak into the rag.
Required much more effort than the baseline.
WASH 10
Facility 3
Facility 4
0.1 6; 2%
230+
1 .0 ฑ 0.0
[1-0]a
3.0 ฑ 0.0
[3.0 + 0.0]a
Based on a sample size of 4 blanket washes:
Printer declined to test product due to level of effort required to
clean blanket.
Did not absorb well into rag.
Did not cut ink well.
Based on a sample size of 4 blanket washes:
Printer declined to test product due to level of effort required to
clean blanket.
Did not absorb well into rag.
Did not cut ink well.
4-9
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
(ฐF)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 11
Facility 1
Facility 2
4.3; 61%
150
2.5 ฑ 0.6
[2.5 ฑ 0.0]a
1.5 ฑ1.5
[1.2 + 0.8]
Based on a sample size of 26 blanket washes:
Good performance for light/medium coverage.
Poor performance for heavy ink coverage; extra time and effort
were needed.
Left slight, oily residue on blanket, but it did not affect the print
quality.
Based on a sample size of 31 blanket washes:
Good/Fair performance for light/medium cover.
Poor performance for heavy ink coverage; extra product, time
and effort were required.
Left slight, oily residue on blanket, but it did not affect the print
quality.
WASH 12
Facility 12
Facility 13
WASH 14
Facility 6
Facility 16
1.3; 20%
0.97; 12%
125
230+
5.4 ฑ 0.8
[4.4 ฑ1.6]
1.8 + 0.4
[2.1 ฑ 0.5]
1.3 + 0.6
[1.5]
2.8 ฑ 0.5
[2.0 ฑ 0.0]
Based on a sample size of 16 blanket washes:
Was considered equal to baseline wash in overall performance.
Had difficulty cutting paper residue.
Wash was diluted 50% with water.
Based on a sample size of 19 blanket washes:
When not diluted with water, performance surpassed baseline
and standard washes.
Averaged overall dilution levels, required slightly less effort
than baseline wash.
Overall fair performance rating across ink coverages and
dilutions.
Based on a sample size of 15 blanket washes:
Good performance; cut ink well.
Extra effort was required to remove the oily residue that the
wash left on the blanket.
Based on a sample size of 34 blanket washes:
Did not cut ink as well as the baseline wash.
Black inks and heavy ink build up are especially difficult to
clean.
Thick consistency of the wash made it difficult to soak into rag.
DRAFT
4-10
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
(ฐF)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 19
Facility 18
Facility 19
1 .8; 22%
230+
4.8 ฑ3.0
[1.5ฑ0.8]a
2.2 ฑ 0.5
[0.9 ฑ 0.2]
Based on a sample size of 5 blanket washes:
Thick consistency of wash made it difficult to soak into rag and
resulted in uneven application.
Large quantities were required to cut ink.
Based on a sample size of 8 blanket washes:
Thick consistency of wash was messy and difficult to use.
Cut demonstration short due to extra effort and time required to
clean blanket.
WASH 20
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
2.7; 35%
WASH 21
Facility 6
Facility 17
WASH 22
Facility 12
Facility 13
3.5; 47%
170
1 .4ฑ 0.6
[0.7ฑ 0.2]
3.0
[4.4+ 1 .6]
Based on a sample size of 17 blanket washes:
Performance considered fair, but worse than facility and
baseline washes.
Left oily residue on blanket that required additional rotations to
remove.
Hard to apply to rags due to thick consistency.
Based on a sample size of 1 blanket washes:
Product induced nausea in press operators; Facility declined
opportunity to test product.
115
2.0 ฑ 0.6
[1.5]
1 .6 ฑ 0.4
[1.5 + 0.4]
Based on a sample size of 6 blanket washes:
Fair performance.
Cut ink well, but oily residue was difficult to remove.
Extra waste sheets required to get back up to color because of
residue.
Based on a sample size of 25 blanket washes:
Fair performance.
Oily residue caused print problems if it was not completely
removed.
Wash did not absorb into rag easily.
Not
measurable;
2.17%b
157
4.4 ฑ 0.6
[4.4 ฑ 1 .6]
3.4 ฑ1.7
[2.1 +0.5]
Based on a sample size of 5 blanket washes:
Cut ink as well as baseline wash.
Did not readily soak into rag, creating delays.
Fair performer overall.
Based on a sample size of 17 blanket washes:
Difficult to apply to rag due to thick consistency.
Left blanket slightly streaked and wet, extra drying time
necessary to prevent print quality problems.
Cut ink as well as baseline wash, but required greater effort; a
fair performer.
4-11
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
(ฐF)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 24
Facility 16
Facility 17
WASH 26
Facility 5
Facility 15
1.5; 19%
1.3; 18%
100
230+
2.2 ฑ 0.6
[2.0 ฑ 0.0]
1.3 ฑ0.6
[1.5 ฑ0.4]
0.5+0.1
[1.0]
0.7ฑ0.1
[1.5+0.7]
WASH 29
Facility 7
Facility 8
2.1; 30%
230+
1.0 ฑ0.0
[1.2 ฑ0.0]
0.8 ฑ 0.6
[0.7 ฑ 0.0]
Based on a sampletsize of 28 blanket washes:
Cut ink well, but some extra effort was required to wipe off oily
residue.
Oily residue significantly increased the number of copies
required to return to print quality.
Based on a sample size of 4 blanket washes:
Cut ink well.
Extra effort to wipe off oily residue.
Thick consistency of wash caused operator to curtail use.
Citrus odor was very strong to operator.
Based on a sample size of 14 blanket washes:
Good performance rating after every wash.
Performed as well as both standard facility wash and baseline
wash.
Slight oily residue caused print quality problems when wash
was used for roller clean-up.
Based on a sample size of 22 blanket washes:
Good performance rating after every wash.
Performed as well as standard facility wash and baseline wash.
Based on a sample size of 3 blanket washes:
Good performance; cut ink well.
Extra effort was required to dry the blanket.
Based on a sample size of 36 blanket washes:
Did not cut ink as well as baseline wash.
Did not cut paper dust or powder.
More effort was required to remove slight oily film on blanket.
WASH 30
Facility 18
Facility 19
0.48; 7%
100
4.0 ฑ 0.0
[1.5 ฑ0.8]
0.7 ฑ 0.0
[0.9 ฑ 0.2]
Based on a sample size of 3 blanket washes:
Good performance; cut ink well.
Worked best with no dilution with water.
Based on a sample size of 8 blanket washes:
Cut ink well.
Required extra effort to dry oily film from blanket.
Thick consistency was difficult to use.
Extra effort was required due to resistance to surface of the
blanket.
DRAFT
4-12
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
WASH 31
Facility 7
Facility 8
WASH 32
Facility 1
Facility 5
6.6; 99%
6.5; 99%
Flash-
point
(ฐF)
105
220
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used .
(ounces)
1.5 ฑ0.6
[1.2ฑ0.0]a
1.1 +1.5
[0.7 ฑ 0.0]
2.5 ฑ 0.0
[2.5 ฑ 0.0]
0.7 ฑ 0.2
[1.0]
Performance Evaluation
Based on a sample size of 4 blanket washes:
Cut the ink well; slightly more effort needed to remove oily
residue on blanket.
Oily residue slightly increased the copies required to return to
print quality.
Smell not as strong as facility's standard wash or baseline
wash.
Based on a sample size of 61 blanket washes:
Good performance; cut ink well
Performed as well as standard wash.
Slightly more effort was required due to resistance to surface of
the blanket.
Based on a sample size of 4 blanket washes:
Good performance.
Required slightly higher effort to remove excess wash than with
the standard wash.
Based on a sample size of 12 blanket washes:
Good performance.
Left slight, oily residue that was removed with dry rags and did
not affect print quality.
WASH 34
Facility 1
Facility 19
2.8; 39%
WASH 37
Facility 3
Facility 4
1.0; 14%
138
82
.2.5 ฑ0.0
[2.5 ฑ 0.0]
1 .2 ฑ 0.4
[0.9 ฑ 0.2]
Based on a sample size of 37 blanket washes:
Good performance; best of the 5 substitute washes
demonstrated at this facility.
Cut the ink well with the same effort as with the standard wash
for light/medium ink coverage.
Slightly more effort needed for heavy ink coverage, but
acceptable.
Based on a sample size of 13 blanket washes:
Fair/Poor performance.
Cut the ink well, but did not soak into rag and extra effort was
needed to remove the oily residue.
1.3 ฑ0.6
[1.0]
2.2 ฑ 0.8
[3.0 ฑ 0.0]
Based on a sample size of 17 blanket washes:
Longer drying time than baseline and standard facility washes.
Performance rated as good and fair on light and medium
coverages, respectively.
- Press operators had no problems with wash.
Based on a sample size of 6 blanket washes:
Worked well initially, but caused paper breakup due to blanket
tackiness.
Use of wash discontinued.
4-13
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
(ฐF)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 38
Facility 2
Facility 4
4.9; 65%
230+
2.2 ฑ 0.6
[1.2ฑ0.8]a
3.7 ฑ1.3
[3.0 ฑ 0.0]
WASH 39
Facility 5
Facility 8
WASH 40
Facility 1
Facility 10
2.9; 37%
3.8; 52%
155
155
0.7 ฑ 0.3
[1.0]
1.0 ฑ0.0
[0.7 ฑ 0.0]
2.5 ฑ 0.0
[2.5 ฑ 0.0]
0.9 ฑ 0.2
[1.5 ฑ0.0]
Based on a sample size of 9 blanket washes:
Oily residue caused print quality problems.
Use of wash discontinued after 1 .5 days due to poor
performance and print quality problems.
Based on a sample size of 6 blanket washes:
Use of wash discontinued after 6 trials due to print quality
problems from oily residue.
Wash cut ink satisfactorily.
Based on a sample size of 32 blanket washes:
Good overall performance; cut ink well.
Did not dry as quickly as baseline wash and left an oily residue
on the blanket.
Product did not work on rollers.
Based on a sample size of 5 blanket washes:
Did not cut ink well and therefore required extra time and effort
to clean blankets.
Difficult to get wash to soak into rag.
Left oily residue on blanket.
Based on a sample size of 6 blanket washes:
Good performance.
When diluted with water, left residue. No residue problem at full
strength.
Based on a sample size of 20 blanket washes:
Good performance; cut ink well.
Required slightly more effort when coverage was heavy.
* Bracketed values ([]) are the results using the baseline wash (VM&P Naphtha) to clean the same blanket as was used
in the demo at this facility.
b VOC content not measurable; % by weight VOC content was reported by manufacturer.
DRAFT
4-14
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 1
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
VOC Content: 30%; 2.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 7.8 (fluctuates wildly)
Facility 3
Facility 3 used Wash 1 for one week on a two-unit, 18" x 25" press. During the
demonstration week, the facility used conventional inks to print letterhead and brochures. The
standard blanket wash at Facility 3 contains aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and
alcohol, according to the MSDS. Facility 3 had recently tried a sample of another substitute
blanket wash, but found it to be too oily; they had difficulty removing the residue from the
blanket. In their typical cleaning procedure, the press operator pours the wash onto a reusable
shop towel from a squirt bottle, and wipes the ink off the blanket. Both the baseline wash and
the facility's standard product evaporated quickly and there was no need to remove excess wash.
For light or medium ink coverage, the press operator evaluated the performance of Wash
1 as "fair;" it removed the inkwell, but left an oily residue on the blanket. To remove this residue,
the press operator had remove the excess wash from the blanket with a dry shop towel. The press
operator felt the extra effort of the drying step required for Wash 1 was minimal, and if that were
the only disadvantage to Wash 1, he would have considered using the product regularly. However,
,in the case of heavy ink coverage, performance was considered "poor;" Wash 1 did not cut the ink
well, even when the product was applied twice. The press operator felt the effort, time, and
product needed to clean a blanket with heavy ink coverage were excessive.
Facility 6
Facility 6 prints credit cards and identification cards on plastic sheets using conventional
inks. Wash 1 was used on a single-unit, 18" x 25" press. Currently, this facility cleans their
blankets using a wash which, according to the MSDS, consists of aliphatic petroleum distillates,
aromatic petroleum distillates, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, nonylphenoxypoly (ethyleneoxy) ethanol,
diisononyl phthalate, 2,6,-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol. Each blanket is typically wiped down four times
during cleaning: three times to remove the ink with reusable shop towels soaked with blanket
wash, and once with a shop towel soaked with a more volatile cleaner to thoroughly dry the
blanket. Blanket wash is applied to the shop towel using a squirt bottle and the last shop towel
from the previous wash is used as the first shop towel on the next wash. The same shop towels
are used until there is too much ink build-up on the shop towel to effectively remove ink. The
application procedure was modified slightly for both the baseline wash and the substitute wash
during the performance demonstration; a dry shop towel was used to dry the blanket rather than
a drying solution.
This facility did not use Wash 1 for the full week-long demonstration period. While on-site,
the observer recorded the data for four blanket washes. During this time, the performance of Wash
1 was categorized as "good" by the operator; the product cut the inkwell and the blanket appeared
to be clean. Compared to the baseline product, slightly more effort and time were required for
Wash 1 (an average of 4 rotations or 75 seconds) than for the baseline wash (2 rotations or 38
4-15
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
seconds). The operator found the baseline product worked very well; it cut the ink and dried
quickly after wiping the blanket with one dry wipe, whereas the substitute wash required at least
two drying rotations to fully remove excess wash from the blanket with a dry shop towel.
After the observer's visit, the press operator continued to use Wash 1. He recorded
information on four more washes, rating the performance as "good." For all of these washes, ink
coverage was medium. He found the product had no odor, which he preferred to the unpleasant
odor of this facility's standard product. However, after four blanket cleanings, the press operator
noticed problems with the subsequent print job. He found that the blanket did not take the ink
well and that the image of the previous job was showing up on the next job printed. The press
operator felt these problems with print quality were associated with Wash 1 and he discontinued
using the product. After switching back to his standard wash, he did not experience further
problems with print quality.
Upon interviewing the press operator at the end of the demonstration, he felt that the
product's overall performance was "poor." This is not reflected in the data since the printer
discontinued using the product before he noticed the print quality problems.
DRAFT
4-16
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
n
I
jo
OQ
en
g
1
to
o
Q>
Q
CD
O
i
I
0)
0.
n
i
CO
CC
O>
to
(U
!
o
J3
J
^ ^^
s co
= a
!i
i
ซ
"^ vO
C
m
^
.g
w
Jt
^j
|
w
i
O
C
o
,-v
a> a)
& p^
CO c
ฃ E
Q. 73"
o r
Q. O
> o
**^
"E
'o _
to i-*
CO
u.
Q.
"E
11)^
O "35 &
o-s?
|
73
s
Q.
CD
CO
in
U_
o
X)
O
i
Sj
*f">
co
CD
*-*
D)
-g
.2
cO
"o
_3
CO
f^
o
CO
. -
CO
CM
1
00
CO
CO
in
JL
b
ฉ
LO
O
LO
CD
CD
-S
O
0
CM"
CD'
to
CO
CD
"55
CO
CO
1
(0
Q)
oc
o
1
IS
CO
O
i
o
CD
Z
o
1
1
LU
9>
Performanc
73 =
il
o E"
Q)
8s-
||
% ^r
ฃ g
"5.2
S"2
^" O
o> >-
H "
CD
x 2*
s |
Medium
Coverage
^^
CD
_ ฐ>
D) CD
13 CD
0
CD
X ฐ>
? CO
"7^
O
E 8,
3 JO
73 CD
(D i-
5 0
CD
ง |
-1 o
O
o> v
CD CO 57-
H|
Q) C
> = g
Is"
It
"S 'ซ
P ซB
a"-
CD
to O fr CO
ฃ ฐ x:
"~- V ซ** * *
JS c Ss to "1
Illll
-ie 73 o CD o
C CD O O c
S Iji ป
H-. ^1 ง 2- ^
O _O) Q) CD .+_,
ง fef SI
CO *- 3 CD
>s
D
CO
r~
>
^
r~
W
CO
CO
CO
0)
o
X
CD
D)
"> CD
O 5
E '5
CD CT
. - ฃ
CD 73
O C o
C CO c
III
CD CT CD
111
. to
z
Medium
z
z
"
^
ฐ- if
'" C
"w
CD ^
.ฃ to
CD LL
co -^^
co to
CQ
CO,
-Q
o
CO
W ,3
S .2
& Q.
1 -^
^J' O
3 CD
"* m
H*. ^
Based on a sample size c
Poor performance.
Print quality problems: in
showing.
z
|
CD
<
^^
Z
0
o
+1
p
*
Z
CD
0 ^
+1 II
LO_ -
05 CD
n: j=
O) o
$ U-
^>
tf
"CD
CO
ni
Good performance
Cut the ink well without i
z
o
Z
^j
Z
CM
Z
LO^
ป c
^:
CD ^
.ฃ to
to tฑ
CO CO
m
CD
>.
o
CD
tn
cq
co
to
CO
J?
'o
CO
o
CD
CO
CO
CO
CD
CL
CD
ฃ ฃ
c n3
"o.S
II
,_ c
> CO
O "
O -o
CD OJ ^O
> O ,
4_, > ^
73
I?
_CD -
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 6
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
VOC Content: 47%; 3.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 152ฐF
pH: 5.5
Facility 11
Wash 6 was tested on a 5-unit, 19" x 26" press at Facility 11. During the performance
demonstration, conventional and vegetable-based inks were used to produce commercial products
such as brochures, publications, and mailings. Facility 11 had tried using alternative blanket
washes for \vorker health and safety or environmental reasons on four occasions prior to the
performance demonstration, but use of all four products had been discontinued due to odor
problems. Currently, Facility 11 uses a blanket wash which, according to the MSDS, consists of
petroleum naphtha, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, and l,8(9)-nenthadiene. Normal blanket wash
procedure consists of three wipes with a reusable shop towel saturated with blanket wash,
followed by a single wipe with a clean dry shop towel to remove excess wash and dry the blanket.
The blanket wash is applied to the shop towel with a squirt bottle. If possible, the shop towels
were used to clean more than one blanket. This standard application method was also used for
the performance demonstration.
On average, Wash 6 and the baseline wash received performance ratings of fair on the
good-fair-poor scale across all ink coverages. The baseline wash was used on light and medium
ink coverages, whereas Wash 6 performance was demonstrated at all levels of ink coverage.
Wash 6 cut the ink as well as the baseline wash and required slightly less time (as measured by
blanket rotations) to complete the blanket wash procedures. The effort required to remove ink
increased, for Wash 6 from a medium to high level on heavy coverage jobs, however, while the
effort required to wash the blanket was a medium level for the baseline wash on light and medium
ink coverages. Press operators commented that Wash 6 had an especially difficult time cutting
black inks.
According to press operators, Wash 6 did not soak into the wipe as well as the baseline or
standard facility washes, causing some delays in the blanket wash-up procedure, as press
operators waited for the wash to slowly absorb into the shop towel material. Press operators also
noticed a slight oily film remaining on the blanket from Wash 6, even after the dry wipe step. The
oily residue caused problems with print quality; subsequent print jobs required a greater number
of copies than usual to reach acceptable print quality. Wash 6 odor was considered slightly strong
by press operators.
Facility 15
Facility 15 used Wash 6 on a brand new, 2-unit, 19" x 25" press to print commercial
printing products such as brochures with conventional inks. Facility 15 had experimented with
an alternative blanket wash for environmental, worker health and safety reasons prior to the
performance demonstration, but had not adopted the wash due to its "ferocious" odor. Standard
DRAFT
4-18
-------
CHAPTER 4-. COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
facility blanket wash was a petroleum naphtha-based product, according to the MSDS. Standard
blanket washing procedure consisted of a two wipe process: one reusable cloth shop towel is used
to apply the blanket wash to the blanket and remove the ink, and another clean and dry reusable
cloth shop towel is used to remove the excess wash and dry the blanket. The blanket wash is
applied to the reusable shop towel with a squirt bottle; a small (approximately one ounce) and
relatively consistent quantity of blanket wash is applied for each cleaning. This standard
application process was used throughout the performance demonstration.
The press operatorwho conducted the week-long demonstration felt that Wash 6 performed
worse than both the baseline wash and the facility standard wash. The baseline wash received a
good performance rating, whereas Wash 6 received a poor rating on the good-fair-poor scale. The
press operator's major complaint was that the thick consistency of Wash 6 caused delays during
the wash application process; the viscous substitute wash required time to slowly soak into the
shop towel material before blanket washing could begin. The press operator experimented with
reducing the quantity of blanket wash in order to minimize delays, but the reduced volume was
insufficient to finish a blanket in one wash application. The application shop towels were identical
in material and size to other reusable laundered shop towels observed at other facilities. The
viscosity problem was the only complaint about the substitute wash, however, as it performed well
in all other areas. According to the press operator, Wash 6 cut the ink well, did not leave a
residue on the blanket, and did not require a greater overall effort to clean the blanket than the
baseline wash. The quantity of Wash 6 used to clean a blanket was also less than that of the
baseline wash. In the opinion of the press operator, the effort required to apply the substitute
wash to the shop towel outweighed these considerations, however. Wash 6 was categorized as
requiring a high level of effort. In comparison, the baseline wash required low effort according to
the press operator.
4-19
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
CD
I
I
m
(A
0)
O
to
O
|
^
I
CC
P
'w
o
^,
1
ง
ro
>
^"e?
Q)
^S
^2
to co
Ift
"S
to ^^
ป- x^
E
CO
E
M
^
ฃ
H-4
^^
|
ซ0
^
o
ซ
t~
ฃ *^
M C
Q) *
Q- S
to o.
> 2,
Q.
*-
C
|c:
ฃ o
M ^-^
CO
u.
4^
C
O ซM ****
ji'E
u ja ^
o N~'^
>
5
3
o
o
ol
CO
CO
LO
CD
U-
o
CO
CD
ฉ
CM
O
LO
LO
CM
LO
vO
S
LO~
co'
CD
0
CO
CO
CO
LO
LL.
O
0
o
LO
CD
CD
n
c&
D
cv[
CD'
_j_
w
CO
^
B
5
'/)
CO
m
ion Results
2
^0
o
o
TJ
.tu
I
E
O
1
S
tu
o
CO
1
(U
Q.
o 2>
ฃ U>
'5 'ฃ
II"
S'S
0 -
'** ง
g"d.
a
"D *-^
G) CD
"1
03
^* CQ
CD ^
"T"
O
"6 CD
CD ^
^3 O
^ o
O)
ฃ 5
3*1
0
o
<1> W * ง 3
"o '
>
ง >
3 ~
* JJJ .
|iฃ
^
, ^^ __
CO frt O /is
jฃ ~ ."
1-1"ฐ 1
-to Q. CD ^
S ฃ 0 ฃ
^T ' ซ *t
-S ^ Q. ฎ
Q T3 O CD
i CD -^ Q
s-. t ฐ
O Q) ฐp~ " "*
CD C T ฃ CD
Nj .ฃ * "* 5 ฐ
CQ QJ C CO v*
03 '<ป & ฃ ง .1=
^ ฃ CD .<ป o ^
ฃ. * CO *ฃ >
t3 '0 ง 8 ฐ- J
$ -g g .g 1 jl
.c
D)
i
ฃ
CD
2
E
3
CD
O
O
+1
CD
CO
CD
O
+1
LO
c\i
CO
o
+1
LO
CM
CMW
CD ;r
+1 *-
q ฃ
"-
"cO t-
i>*
X :ฃ"
> LL
co
CO
"E
CO
TS
3
il
2 "o
CD ฃ
C ซ
ffl *
li w
Q. ซ
C
O) ^~
T5 Q.
CD ^
"S C
CD "0
DC Q
<;
jf
Medium
E
ZJ
TD
CD
^
^~
O
O
+1
0
CO
CD
0
-H
h.
co'
CM
S?
l^~ ฃ-
o
i i-
B -r-
^* -^*
- ^5
= CO
| ซ
CO O
CD &
-C CD t-
tO =! t-
ง T3 ฃ
^, 0) ฎ J1J
i^ ^ r^ = C
-S a. (o .2>S
Q o >, x:
^- ffl >; * "~
CO C O CD
(0 . T3 CD >
"tD S .1 ฐ g
111 1 si
to '* S -^ g S
eg p ฐ J ฎ ^
jz
en
X
0)
X
D)
*
0
+1
O)
co'
LO
O
+1
CD
CO
LO
CD
+1
|^
cvi
CM
CD CO
03 .ฃ.
o'
i5 LO
^fc.
x s
5 U-
tf
^o
1
-C
"* 0
^s
g CD
O CO
LO
to T-
^* .^>
g!
5iฃ
|ซ
o
(0
U-
8
to
CO
LO
CO
co
CD
O
to
s
L_
*-
"~ Co cd e\
^ T3 CD CD
1 ฃ -K Q.
CO -= "c *
co ~ to ฃ
6 ฐ ~ _co
O CO C y
*- CD CO o
-^ JH o
CD" re ฐ ฃ
o *o "n E
^ ,_ <ฐ '^
II fg
^ t CD TJ
^ f | 1
II " .ฃ -Q
*r ^l-^
DRAFT
4-20
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 9
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
VOC Content: 10%; 0.77 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 4.6
Facility 10
At Facility 10, performance demonstrations were conducted on a six-unit, 19" x 28" press
using conventional inks. This facility primarily prints commercial products, such as brochures,
cards, and posters. Currently, Facility 10 uses a naphtha blend as their standard wash. They
have tried a few alternative washes, but found that they either did not work as well, or that they
cost more than twice as much as their standard blanket wash. Typically, the facility cleans the
blanket as follows: wipe the blanket with a wet sponge to remove built-up paper and particles
(1-2 rotations); pour blanket wash onto a reusable shop towel from a squeeze bottle; wipe blanket
with product (2 rotations); wipe off excess with a clean, dry shop towel (1-2 rotations). The
baseline product and Wash 9 were applied using the same procedure.
When using Wash 9, the operator rated the performance as "poor." After the first four
blanket washes, the press operator discontinued use of the product. Compared to the baseline
wash, which cut the ink well, the substitute wash required excessive effort and time (up to 12
rotations or 3 minutes, compared to 5 rotations or 1.25 minutes with the baseline wash), and still
did not cut the ink. Although none of the four blankets washed had heavy ink coverage, Wash
9 still was not able to remove the ink to the satisfaction of the press operator. Before continuing
the print job, the operator cleaned all the blankets again with his standard wash. Additionally,
the thick, creamy consistency of the wash did not allow it to soak into the shop towel; this made
for a messy application as the wash dripped from the blanket onto the floor and onto other parts
of the press during the blanket washing procedure. After the four blanket washes, the operator
varied the application procedure somewhat in an effort to improve performance. To try to get the
wash to soak into the shop towel, the operator tried using a shop towel dampened with water
instead of a dry one to apply the wash. This did not improve the absorption of Wash 9 into the
shop towel or the performance in cleaning the blanket. Because this facility re-washed the
blankets with their standard product before starting the next print job, it is unclear as to whether
this blanket wash would have an affect on future print quality or not.
Facility 15
Facility 15 prints commercial products (brochures), direct-mail products, and other
publications. Performance demonstrations at this facility were conducted on a two-unit 19" x 25"
press using conventional inks. The standard wash contains aromatic hydrocarbons, polyglycol
ether, and aliphatic hydrocarbons, according to the USDS. The press operator noted that while
the standard wash cuts the ink well, it does have somewhat of an odor. In the past, Facility 15
tried an alternative blanket wash, but it did not work well and it had a very offensive odor.
Recently, this facility installed a new press with an automatic blanket washer. In their standard
blanket washing procedure, the press operator at this facility pours the blanket wash on to a
4-21
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
reusable shop towel, wipes the ink off the blanket in one rotation, then uses a dry shop towel for
one rotation to remove the excess wash. This procedure was used for both the baseline and the
substitute wash.
Over the course of the week, Facility 15 washed 21 blankets with the Wash 9. While the
baseline wash performance was "good" and cut the ink well with minimal effort, the overall
performance of Wash 11 was consistently rated as "poor" at all levels of ink coverage. The press
operator noted several reasons for the poor performance: the thickness of the wash prevented it
from soaking into the shop towel thoroughly; when applied to the blanket, Wash 9 did not cut the
inkwell; it required excessive effort (more than twice as much as the baseline product); and, it did
not dry well on the blanket. Although the wash did not seem to affect future print quality, the
operator felt he had to carefully and thoroughly dry the blanket to avoid print quality problems.
DRAFT
4-22
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
o
(0
_
CD
co
O
I
I
o
1
V
u
co
co
E
(A
CO
CO
CC
I
co
0
2
o
CO
J
ฃ^
o ,^
CO O
jS. ฃ
to to
"S
^
C
CO
m
X
11
djnsse
%
a.
co
Q.
C
li
eo
CO
LL
^_
1
8
8
Product
^
c
ฃ
1
^
V*
^
o
10
^
o
C
-"*
O)
E
E
I
13
V^
*^
J-
W'
II
=-5?
CO
O3
LO
LO
ฑ.
ฉ
O
V
CD
0
CO
CM
6?
o
^ป
f"1^.
O
I
5
CO
CO
CO
LO
J-
o
ฉ
LO
T
CD
CD
O
LO
5?
o
o
T
CM"
CD"
.c
CO
1
CD
C
"55
to
co
CD
CO
I
1
I
iiป
IT t
DC ฐ
o E"
s|
&"
X *""*
"S i?
ฃ g
3 .2
ฃ *
H
Average
Product/
^ ง5
CD ฎ
Medium
Coverage
8,
.03 g
~^ O
0
CD
^ to*
ซ 03
5 0
O
CD
-1 a
"O Q)
q) ^
ง<ง
S,
s a
C3) CD
=J r^
0
O
volume use
(ounces)
5
co
ฃ.
w o co'
CD 3= CD
-C CD x:
CO 03
js CD co
^ .> 5
1 1 t
C ฐ ฎ
^ "S o *ป
^ ง o.^
o- o cc
\j 5_ w i>
55 -/-%**
. = 2 o
JjD 0) ฎ c
Sฃ \s ~.~: "is
CO -je. ^
w E ^ CO CD
c 1 " 1 -i
"S fe ^^ ง
03 0 P -o -03
03 . . co .
^
D3
ฑ
C!3
<
^j.
+1
^
0
CD o
"3 c
o o
CD W
ฃ to
CO T!
E .ฃ
| =
-a 2
O CD
O Q.
O O
E
^
-a
CD
2
z
z
LO
<
1 j^
03 O
tO T-
CD :=
15 . LL.
03 ^
m OT
O3 CD
CD C
io "55
CO CO
^ CO
1 .i
> . *"'
S (DC
i\i ฐ ฃ
"o งฃ
CD co CD
ISJ rt CD
^ 03 jji*
-f^ O
^ E -^ 3
^ CO P
CO O o
c t co -o
73 .- C "5
Si งP aT
ca a. Q DC
n . . .
en
I
O3
D3
CD
O
+1
t^
"*
^j.
O
+1
C3
CO
LO
O
+1
CO
CO
C3 ^
_i_i CM
t^. sm
d ~~"
CO LO
< ^
t:
CD
E
CD ฃ
0 ^
| CD
O '^
o n
'3 0
S
-
O
~z.
<
o
d
+1
0
CM
0 CM"
+1 u
LO.S-
"ง5 LO
CO i-
11
CD LL
O3 ^^
to m
m
o
CD
(0
O
LO
CO
-u
CO
O
^ (0
LO LL
III
> ^q
ป s."
15.1
5> S co
0 to Q.
it o ฎ
o i- ฃ
,!>.-
co"S rf,
(D
U)
_
CO (D
ฃ ง
W 03 O
o J2 CD
to
o
>_to
-Q
cu o O 03
ฃ c o .a
03 C
m _ *~
T3 "5 <0 2
C O tO c
5 ฐ - 03
t3 ฃ I) ^ C-
03 03 CO >, CO
(0 "03 ซ XI ฃ
i= 5 -ฐ T3 CD
tO T 03 03 <ฐ
tO 3 O
"C3 03 03
.CO E "o"
t- 'ffl ฐ-
jr: -^ as
^ ง-
f-^lT
g *^
O -*j a)
-D
a
o
-
*- o
lo
11
CD tO
r~ 03
5 "" ฃ
5 03
p
o o
II II
< O
MJ ,. V_
-g 0-ฐ
E CD -o
3 >- 03
d
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 10
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
VOC Content: 2%; 0.16 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 5.7
Facility 3
Facility 3 used Wash 10 on a 2-unit, 18" x 25" press, using conventional inks to print a
variety of commercial products. Facility 3 had used a new blanket wash for health, safety, or
environmental reasons on one occasion prior to the performance demonstration, but the wash had
not been adopted because it left an oily residue on the blanket and took too long to dry. Normal
blanket washing procedure is the following: a squirt bottle is used to apply blanket wash to a
reusable shop towel, the shop towel is then used to wipe the blanket as it is manually rotated, and
the blanket is allowed to air dry. Standard facility blanket wash was a mixture of aliphatic and
aromatic hydrocarbons, according to the MSDS. The application procedure was not changed for
the performance demonstration.
The press operator cleaned four blankets with Wash 10 before declining to conduct a
performance demonstration of the product due to its poor performance. Wash 10 did not absorb
into the application shop towel, creating safety and cleanliness problems in the pressroom as
excess wash dripped on the floor and press. A variety of methods were tried to get the wash to
absorb into the standard reusable application shop towel, but none were successful. These
methods included cupping the shop towel to keep the blanket wash from running off of the surface
immediately, applying the blanket wash to the shop towel on a flat surface and then folding the
shop towel over the applied wash, and placing the mouth of the applicator bottle directly onto the
surface of shop towel to contain the wash until it had fully absorbed. In addition, Wash 10 did
not cut the ink well. According to the press operator, 3-4 times the effort required to use the
baseline wash was necessary to remove ink from the blanket with Wash 10 under light ink
coverage conditions.
Facility 4
Wash 10 was used on a 4-unit, 34" x 40" press at Facility 4 which does most of its
business in commercial printing products such as software manuals and calendars. Facility 4
uses a solution of aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and surfactants, according to
the MSDS, as the standard blanket wash. Blanket wash procedure at Facility 4 consists of a two
wipe process. Blanket wash is applied to a clean, dry, and reusable shop towel which is used to
wash the blanket. Another clean dry shop towel is then used to remove excess wash and dry the
blanket. If ink buildup on the shop towels is not significant, the shop towels are used to wash
more than one blanket. If paper coating is deposited on the blanket from the job, the blanket
wash shop towel is dipped into a bucket of water before wiping down the blanket. This standard
blanket washing procedure was not modified for the performance demonstration.
The press operator at Facility 4 used Wash 10 to clean four blankets before declining to
conduct a performance demonstration of the product due to its poor performance. Under medium
DRAFT
4-24
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
ink coverage conditions, Wash 10 did not cut the inkwell and required considerably more effort
then the standard facility wash or baseline wash of the performance demonstration. An average
of six blanket rotations were necessary to clean the blanket, two times more than were necessary
with the baseline and standard washes. In addition, Wash 10 did not soak well into the standard
reusable shop towels at Facility 4, creating further delays. A variety of methods were tried to get
the wash to absorb into the application shop towel, but none were successful. These methods
included cupping the shop towel to keep the blanket wash from immediately running off of the
shop towel surface, applying the blanket wash to the shop towel and then folding the shop towel
over the applied wash, and placing the mouth of the applicator bottle directly onto the surface of
shop towel to contain the wash until it had fully absorbed. The press operator, who had broken
into a sweat from the effort required to use Wash 10, declined to use the product for the week-long
performance demonstration.
_
4-25
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
s
ra
I
CQ
O
P
(0
O
i
a
ro
Q)
a.
"5
1
U)
i
M
D)
CO
:>,
O
2
o
,0
(0
^
^
^5* **s t*
*" W f^
H O ^^
^ *-
w "S ^
^* ซK*
i
_ o
* *:
g >o
en
to o
03 -C
^*
^^
ฃ Is
n
o> =
*I
X
CL
1
re
EE
*-ป
m
S* -^ ^*
c w 5
O "w ^
o ^^
>
*^
0
=>
I
Q.
CO
CM
r-
d
d
LL
o
CO
CD
in
t^;
in
o
CM
^
CM
S
d
o
c
CO
CO
CO
in
ฑ.
D
ฉ
in
CD
CD
o
Q
^
o
o
c\T
CD'
0
3
*
D
)
co
co
33
&
0)
o
2
ts
C
o
i
o
CD
E
_o
1
LLJ
/i\
Performance
11
!!
>~
>> Q
1. "-'
% ^
3 .1
3) CJ
s S.
ฃ *
CD
^ TO*
S |
Medium
Coverage
CD
E c
^j iป
O
cu
""T" ^
0
l!
^ Qi
5?
^ o
CD
Jc: ca
O) CD
' o
O
o
0)
fl> W *ซ)*
s o) ง
Q) J te
> ? 5
>
t> 5*
li
ฃ"-
.. o
CO
CD CD
-C >
Co
CD -Q 5
fcJ $ c c
co ^S co _J
.CD o .ฃ CD "CD
CO C ^-r rt C
Co . ^3 O
T> CD CO -^
CO m . -ฐ ^3
c -53 3 CO 0
CO '~ o -^ ~
co Q_ ^ O Q
Q . CD . .
2
D)
D)
ฑ
Z
O
d
-H
0
CM
O
d
+\
o
CM'
p
+i?
p ^,
T-
0
D
<ฃ
^
CD
CD
-C
od performance: cut
jht, unpleasant odor
o
O co
z.
Medium
CO CD
CO
^ ฐ
n? O
^ -u jg_o
"o i. ซ m
Q) -t-4 -Q +-i
-fc! g c =
CO 42 CO _
III!!
CO (~ f"~
Co T3 O .
ฐ it CD ^ ^
"^ -|- *~ ฃZ C
05 t~ "f^ ^ปป _
J Ql ^ Q Q
CQ . CD . .
^
D)
<;
z:
z
in
d
+1
CM
CD'
^
^~
o
ฐ,T
0 ฃ-
co'
to
0 "*
".-&1
C iฃ
*
CD
C
CD
ad performance: cut
lht, unpleasant odor
o ~
O CO
z.
o
^
z.
z
o
d
+1
0
CO
<
*-
p
+1 II
o -S
CO'
5 ^. "
> ^
CD ^
E co
0) L1-
co +
0 CO
S
U-
to
d
co
in
CM
o
CM
CO
CO
ฃ
o
CD
CO
O
O
CO
CD
Q.
CD
o
0) ซ=
CO CO
ปง 2
O CD
18=
3 -CD
"
J> to >,
CO _Q ^-.
*3 ~D 0>
^ .52 CD ฃ
O (0 3 S
O -C *-
-------
CHAPTER*. COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 11
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
VOC Content: 61%; 4.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 150ฐF
pH: 5.0 (fluctuates wildly)
Facility 1
At Facility 1, performance demonstrations were conducted on an eight-unit, 28" x 40" press
using vegetable-based inks to print high quality, multi-color, commercial products. Currently,
Facility 1 uses a blanket wash which, according to the MSDS, consists of aromatic hydrocarbons,
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and aliphatic -hydrocarbons. In the months preceding the
demonstrations, the facility had tried two different low-VOC blanket washes; neither worked as
well as their standard wash. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down twice during
cleaning: once with a reusable shop towel saturated in blanket wash to remove the ink, and once
with a dry shop towel to remove excess blanket wash. Each saturated shop towel is used to clean
two blankets. The same application procedure was used for the baseline and substitute products.
The quantity of wash needed to saturate the shop towel and clean the blanket remained constant
throughout the demonstration, regardless of the ink coverage or ink build-up on the blanket.
There were both positive and negative aspects to this application method. While more wash than
was needed may have been used in some cases, the consistency of the application volume made
it possible to compare the performance of the standard, baseline, and substitute products under
the same conditions.
In the case of light or medium ink coverage, Wash 11 cut the ink well and the press
operator generally considered the performance "good" or "fair." For heavy ink coverage,
performance of the product was usually evaluated as "poor." The press operator cleaned all
blankets using Wash 11 for three days (26 blankets) until he ran out of the substitute wash.
Extra time and effort were needed, however, to remove the oily residue from the blanket when
compared to the baseline product. Wiping the blanket with one clean, dry shop towel (as was
used with their standard blanket wash and with the baseline wash) did not completely remove the
residue; oily streaks of wash remained on the blanket. The press operator was able to remove the
residue by wiping the blanket with a clean shop towel that was dampened with water, followed
by a clean, dry wipe. This extra step reduced the oily residue, but increased the time and effort
required to wash the blanket (from 2 rotations or 40 seconds with the baseline wash to 3 - 4
rotations or 60 - 80 seconds with Wash 11).
In the case of heavy ink coverage,-the performance of Wash 11 was considered "poor." The
substitute wash, did not cut the ink well in cases of heavy coverage or excessive ink build-up.
Since this printer has eight unit press, the ink build-up on the last print unit can be especially
heavy. Because of this problem with heavy ink coverage, the printer felt this product was not a
suitable substitute for his facility.
The printer found the oily residue had no overall affect on the print quality: while it made
the blanket less tacky which reduced the time to get back up to acceptable quality, the same
4-27
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
residue washed out the color somewhat, which increased the sheets required to achieve acceptable
print quality.
Facility 2
Facility 2 used a three-unit, 13" x 18" press for the performance demonstrations. This
facility prints commercial products (brochures, flyers, cards) using both conventional and
vegetable oil-based inks. Their standard wash consists of aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene, and aliphatic hydrocarbons, according to the MSDS. The press operator noted
that the standard wash cuts the inkwell, but does have somewhat of an odor. In the past, Facility
2 has tried two substitute blanket washes: performance was rated as poor ("it did not work at all")
for one product, and the other product they tried was too expensive. In their standard blanket
washing procedure, the press operator at this facility pours the blanket wash onto a reusable shop
towel from a squirt bottle, wipes the ink off the blanket in one rotation, then uses a dry shop towel
for one rotation to remove the excess wash. This application procedure was also used for both the
baseline and the substitute washes.
The performance of Wash 11 was considered "good" or "fair" when ink coverage was light
or medium. For heavy ink coverage, the wash performance was evaluated as "poor." Facility 2
used Wash 11 for one week, recording information on 31 blanket cleanings. When ink coverage
was light or medium, the Wash 11 usually matched the baseline level of performance, which was
rated as "good." The baseline wash cut the ink very well; the quantity, effort, and time required
were the same as with this facility's standard product. The performance of Wash 11 was
comparable to the baseline for light/medium ink coverage requiring an average of two cleaning
rotations, two wipes, and approximately one ounce of product to clean the blanket. For heavy ink
coverage, however, an average of 8 rotations (ranging from 4 up to 12), 5 wipes, and 4 ounces of
Wash 11 were needed to clean the blanket. In addition to the extra time and quantity of product
needed, removing the heavy coverage ink required additional physical effort. The overall product
performance for removing heavy ink coverage was considered "poor," although Wash 11 ultimately
did remove the ink and did not affect print quality.
In all cases, Wash 11 left an oily residue on the blanket which was removed with a dry
shop towel. Removing this oily residue did not require any time or effort beyond their standard
method where the blanket is wiped with a dry shop towel for one rotation.
DRAFT
4-28
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
0)
re
CO
(0
o
tn
o
i
0)
o
(0
E
V)
*2
1
0)
CC
en
0
"r
1
o
J2
3
= w
Q -S
ซ 0
ป to
* S
S
c
m
*
"^
^*
Q
^
.ฃ
fli
sj^
O
UJ
^
ij
"^
^H,
S
D "^
to ฃ
ฃ E
0. -0
o t:
Q. O
ซ 0.
> 2,
I
o ^^
Q- II
if o
GO
CD
CM
O
n
H
to
CD
D)
C
3
73
"O
3
CO
13
3
0
LO
CD
cb~
1
00
CO
CO
LO
'f
LL
o
D
T-"
ฉ
LO
O
in
CD
CD
5?
o
0
CM"
CD
.c
to
CO
CD
"CD
CO
CO
CQ
co
(0
o>
_o
7
1
tn
o
o>
Q
2
o
IT
c
.0
*g
3
>
Ul
0)
o
Performa
0 ฃ
.2 .D)
cc ฐ
||
u "S
5*-
f.3
a
Is
3 .2
O" *S
a> ป-
.S ^.
*~
CD
N^ O)
^ to
2 ^>
0
s 8,
.3 2
"5 CD
CD i>
CD
Q) CD
^J ^
0
^s,
^ CO
CD 05
T**
0
~ g^
ง SO
=i ^
73 CD
CD ^
ง(3
CD
O1
C3) CD
3 o
O
a
a>
&5?
S Q) ซ
III
O ^^
Product/
Facility
CD'
0)
CD 2 _
* ^ ^
S > ฐ J5
'n Q c
2 *. '
31 & _Q
I E _ซ 3.
^ =5 ป- ^S
-O CD *2 C
CO E 73 -2
C\J is CD -Q
'o "S)^ g
s^ d)
S5 '*- C ^
till!
ii^^j
(Q i_ rrt O t_
O '^
co *t; ฎ *-r CL
O ฐ- "4= _c;
"7-i "O rrt -W "*~*
m O * -ซ "ft
tr\ O "s? */i\
to CD UJ ^j ^
CQ . . . to
D)
X
E
CO
E
3
73
Q)
5
DO
O
+1
CD
*
|^
CD
+1
in
co-
p
CD
+1
p
CO
o &
CM "-"
'co
11
"E
CO
c
S
CO
V
'CD
>-
c
CO
XZ r~
t CO
^ Jg
CO CD
ฐ X
0) E tD
g 1: o
E D) ฃ
0 CO 2
CO ~0 0
Q. CD *-
73 "5 "0
00"^
O CO 73
O CC E
. . Q.
<
~^-
|
CD
E
73
CD
2
p
CD
+1
0
CM
0
o'
+1
o
OJ
o
+1 II
LO-B
c\i
tD ^
S, to
.S "o
; o ^ c
/) O ^
2 \ฃ S IS
B C CD "0
0 ^^ "^^
^ E X- H-
ซ i ฐ 5
g ^ 73 ^_-
1 '-i - ^
^ "r- 7^ C
i- C3) CD JS
-. *- CO c
M CO ^
^ tD 5 CD
to c 'C -o >?
CO g ฃ 'W =
"5. E tD 2 3
E 0 73 >, ฐ"
CO ^ C r= *;
CO tD co O C-
CO ^ CD ฃ- CX
g "5 .i co "ง) CD
^-* -3^ *"* O) - -C
"G ~O cO CO "^ "*"*
Qi O *" *~ **"* "o
Cn O W *fli m
CO O UJ ol3=
CQ . . o . co
cn
X
|
tD
E
3
73
CO
2
LO
CO
+1
CM
tป
CM.
i
+1
O
CM
CD
d>
+1
T-
CM
in ^^
LO C,.
*-
^
to
CO
73
CO
73
t .
to
1_
performance
ik as well as thei
73 .!=
0 *_
0 3
0 0
<
~z.
z
E
3
73
CD
^
^
^
I-;
T
+1
r~ป
OJ
00
ฐ CO*
+l II
CM -B
.c
03 CM
CD 75
.ฃ to
to i
co to
CQ
CM
o
^
2^^
to co OJ
0 S 5j
E 03 oS
CD 73 Ic m
^ 5 -ฐ ฃ
o ^- q> T
o
o ~ .n
10 S 73
S-S
0 S
o o
O *O "O *~
^=
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 12
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Water
VOC Content: 20%; 1.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 125ฐF
pH: 8.2
Facility 12
At Facility 12, Wash 12 was used on a 6-unit, 28" x 40" press with conventional inks. A
variety of commercial products on a variety of paper types were printed during the performance
demonstration: from posters on glossy stock to information cards on cardboard stock. Wash 12
was used approximately thirty times during the week-long performance demonstration. In the
typical blanket washing procedure at Facility 12, each blanket is wiped twice: once with a reusable
shop towel saturated with blanket wash from a plunger can, and once with a dry reusable shop
towel to remove the excess blanket wash. The blanket wash shop towel is often used on more
than one blanket, depending on the cleanliness of the shop towel as well as the ink coverage. The
standard facility wash is a petroleum naphtha-based product, according to the MSDS. In the
performance demonstration, the only change in application procedure was that Wash 12 was
directly applied to each shop towel for the application process and the plunger can was not used.
Wash 12 was diluted 50% with water at Facility 12.
Wash 12 was considered approximately equal to the baseline wash in overall performance;
both received fair ratings on the good-fair-poor scale. According to press operators, Wash 12
required less effort than the baseline wash, but more time to complete the wash procedure. The
number of rotations increased from an average of 3.0 for the baseline wash to 4.6 for Wash 12,
approximately equal to a time increase of one and a half minutes per blanket at this facility.
Wash 12 cut the ink satisfactorily, but not well, at all ink coverages, and did a poor job of cutting
through paper residue on the blankets. On print runs that coated the blanket with paper residue,
12 rotations were necessary to clean the blanket, while only 4 rotations were needed for print runs
without paper residue. Use of Wash 12 was discontinued on paper residue coated blankets due
to this increased time requirement. The problem with paper residue was not related to ink
coverage; the major increase in number of rotations occurred on a light coverage job. Some
inconsistencies also arose with print quality. In some cases, after the blanket was cleaned, the
color came back faster than with the baseline and regular washes (10 impressions instead of 20).
At other times, however, Wash 12 may have caused dull spots to appear on the printed image.
Facility 13
Facility 13 used Wash 12 on a 2-unit, 20" x 26" press during the performance
demonstration. Performance demonstration print jobs were primarily folders and brochures
printed with light conventional ink coverage on glossy enamel paper. The blanket washing
procedure at this facility involves two disposable paper shop towels: one is saturated with blanket
wash from a squirt bottle and used to clean the blanket; the other is used dry to remove excess
wash and dry the blanket. During this process, the blanket is rotated incrementally under
manual control. The standard application method was not changed for the performance
demonstrations.
DRAFT
4-30
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
1.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Wash 12 was used for two one week trial periods in order to experiment with a variety of
dilution ratios, ranging from 50% to 0% water. Averaged over all dilution ratios, Wash 12 required
slightly less effort than the baseline wash, but was only considered a fair performer overall by the
press operator. The time required to wash the blanket (as measured by number of rotations) was
equal for the baseline wash and Wash 12 when averaged across dilution levels. However, as the
ratio of blanket wash to water increased, the'performance of Wash 12 improved. A 50% mixture
of blanket wash and water left the blanket "wet" and solicited a poor performance rating from the
press operator under all ink coverages. When the percentage of water was decreased to 25% of
the overall mixture, the wash performance was generally rated as fair to good across all print ink
coverages. The undiluted blanket wash performed the best. The press operator conducting the
trials commented that the undiluted blanket wash performed better than the baseline wash and
even surpassed the performance of the standard fa'cility blanket wash in all categories. The
undiluted wash received good performance and low effort ratings every time it was used. Product
instructions, however, indicate that the blanket wash should be mixed from 1:1 to 1:8 with water.
The press operator commented that the blanket wash odor was faint at all dilution levels, but was
not disagreeable. '
4-31
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
CO
I
I
JH
CQ
s.
ฃ
ฃ
3.
%
*>*f
ฃ
o
I
CD
U
TO
!
(0
CO
&
ratory Test
0
2
II
CO O
CO "**
_
i
CO ^
IE
1
CQ
^
^
^
5
Wet Ink
t
0
5
o
4;
^^
_^^
01
Vapor Pressure
reported, mm H
"~*
D.
fir
J2
LL.
**
|||
o^35
*ป
u
n
2
D.
-
in
o
o
CO
CD
d
CVI
oo
in
N
M
m
"
CM
T
0
00
CO
CO
in
LL
o
O
0
in
CD
CD'
o
-O
1
Cvf
co'
CO
CO
^
CD
C
"CD
CO
CO
m
I
cc
.2
Demonstra
a
.2
o
1
1
LU
CO
u
ra
ฃ
1
0)
0.
"ง ฃ
k* O)
II
c E"
5 .2
if
II
Q
Tt .ป.
W ^T^
Q) w
3 .2
o 2
E %
CD
ik RJ
1 1
ll
'S CD
CD i>
0
CD
O)
-c S
O) CD
^ ง
CD
x CD
TO S
C o
O
s 8,
-1 5
t! CD
CD ^
ง<ง
CD
S 2
^1
0
D
|lf
2 o> a
S>|ง
"*!
s^
0 ^
If
1-2
ฃ
CD
1 E
m .
1 ซ ป
*ซ r~ nj
CD CD ^
11.1 !*
-Q ฐ-~ซ
11
| ซ
"S S
ซ> t- ra
8 ฃ 2'
Q_ 3^ (D
/ " *~ ฎ >
ป | CO 8
1 1 I ง
ll 1 ง
-Q Q. . ID ra
cs> ,_- co .t .ฃ
Q CO CO QJ
> CO * flj
CD 5 - O
55 -"g ^ "CD J5
"5."ฐ "c ฐ> .g
1 = ง ฃ 5 <5
* -D -o -i ฎ .,_ w
O C CD ^5 Jg = ง
CD "^ ฃ "^ CD "^
CO ^^ ซ . CZ ^
co ^ co *^ ^ O c
CQ . .n . ฃ . to
E
T3
CD
E
3
TJ
CD
E
ZJ
TJ
CD
^
0
d
+1
p
-r-^
O
d
+1.
p
o
d
+1
p
d ST
00 ^
'~
<^
CO
CM T-
it
CO o
-
0) =
"CD LL
(0
tS a
CO
>-
8
co
in
cvi
co
-a
co
cvi
"o
CO
o
CD
co
p
co
c
o
CO
'H
CD
ex
co
O CD
O -Q
CO =
- CD
'
CO ^CO f^
"o c CD
TJ ฐ ^
owe
CD CO
>,
TJ
3500
CO 4_ *" CD
ISli
< c C7- "-
^ E CD c
o g *- o
ii " -i 1
DRAFT
4-32
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 14
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
VOC Content: 12%; 0.97 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 5.0
Facility 6
At Facility 6, Wash 14 was used on a single-unit, 18" x 24" press and a single-unit 18" x
25" press with conventional inks to print credit cards, identification cards and other products on
plastic substrates. The press operator cleaned all blankets using Wash 14 for the week-long
demonstration. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down four times during cleaning:
three times to remove the ink with reusable shop towels soaked with blanket wash; and once with
a shop towel soaked with a more volatile wash to dry the blanket. Currently, this facility cleans
their blankets using a wash which contains aliphatic petroleum distillates, aromatic petroleum
distillates, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, nonylphenoxypoly (ethyleneoxy) ethanol, diisononyl phthalate,
and 2,6,-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol, according to the MSDS. The blanket wash is applied to the shop
towel using a squirt bottle and the shop towel is resoaked with wash prior to reuse on other
blankets. The same shop towels are used until there is too much ink buildup on the shop towel
to effectively clean the blanket. During this procedure, the blanket turns automatically at a
constant rate. This application procedure was modified for the substitute product demonstration
by replacing the Tru-dot cleaner used in the last step with a dry shop towel to dry the blanket.
Overall, the performance of Wash 40 was considered "good" on all ink coverages, although
it required almost twice as many rotations (eight rotations) to clean a blanket with heavy ink
coverage than to clean a blanket with medium ink coverage. The press operator found that Wash
14 cut the ink well; with about the same effectiveness as the* baseline wash which the operator
also found to cut the inkwell. Some additional time and effort were needed to remove a slight oily
residue left by the substitute wash using a clean dry shop towel. The average time required to
rotate a blanket was measured to be 22.5 seconds, therefore it required an extra 1.5 minutes to
clean the blanket with heavy ink coverage. The amount of extra effort required, however, was
considered to be a "medium" amount for light and medium ink coverages and "high" when
cleaning a blanket with a heavy ink coverage. The quantity of substitute wash used was slightly
lower than the quantity of baseline wash used. At all levels of ink coverage, no print quality
problems attributable to Wash 14 were experienced. The press operator also noticed that Wash
14 did not have a strong solvent smell as opposed to the facility's standard wash or the baseline
wash.
Facility 16
Facility 16 used a 2-unit 20" x 26" press with conventional inks to print advertisements,
cards, and other commercial products. The press operator at Facility 16usedWash 14foralljobs
during the one-week demonstration. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down three
times during cleaning: once with a wet sponge to remove paper dust (when needed); once with a
reusable shop towel soaked with naphtha (which is also the baseline wash used throughout the
demonstrations); and finally with a clean dry shop towel to remove excess wash. This application
procedure was also used for the application of the substitute wash. Facility 16 has tried
4-33
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
substitute, low-VOC blanket washes in the past, but found that the products were not acceptable
because they did not dry on the blanket as fast as their standard wash.
Overall, at Facility 16 the performance of Wash 14 was considered "fair". The press
operator found that Wash 14 did not cut ink as well as the baseline wash, especially on black inks
and in cases of heavy ink build up. Wash 14 was tested under light and medium ink coverage
conditions while the baseline wash was observed only under heavy ink coverage conditions.
Because the baseline \vash is normally used at the facility, the operator's familiarity with the
baseline wash allowed him to make accurate comparisons between the substitute wash and the
baseline wash under all ink coverage conditions. The substitute wash required more time and
effort to clean the blanket than the baseline wash because additional rotations were required to
remove the ink. The substitute wash typically required one extra blanket rotation with a blanket
wash soaked shop towel. On average, this press operator required 20.8 seconds per blanket
rotation, so the actual time to clean a blanket using Wash 14 was not increased significantly. The
press operator found that a larger volume of Wash 14 was also needed to remove.the ink in
comparison to the baseline wash (2.0 ounces for the baseline wash compared to 2.8 ounces for
the substitute wash). The overall time and effort to clean the blankets was also a factor of the
thick consistency of the substitute wash which made it difficult for the operator to get the product
to soak into the shop towel.
DRAFT
4-34
-------
CHAPTER*: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
i
o>
'5
ฃ
ฃ
0
S
o
^
i
>>^^
ฑz u)
!= 0>
Washabi
(# stroki
i
V) ^
** xP
CU o**
55 ^*
C
(0
CQ
1
k.
I
Wet Ink
o
c
WJ
I.
o
f~
*.
ฃ
ฃ
^
ป1
0. 0
(0 Q.
>ฃ,
Q.
tcr
C o
(0 *-*
n
u.
1
^.^
C ffl ฃ
o .o> r
o ซj jjp
o r~
>
13
1
D.
'ฃ-.
0
00
CO
2
LL
o
DO
CO
LO
LO
0
CM
xf>
CM
CD
T
1
00
CO
CO
LO
U_
o
O
O
T
ฉ
LO
CO
CD
O
LO
^O
O
O
c\[
CD
-C
CO
CO
CD
"CD
co
CO
m
E
valuation
LU
ni
Performance
o ??
o -^
^ w)
1.1
^ J_
II
1 J
S, o
Q. s""'
ฐ ^
e require
rotations
.i S
i
CD
X g>
51
Medium
Coverage
CD
*. 0)
_ฃ ^
-2> CD
O
CD
V CO
CD *
a: o
o
1 ^
T3 CD
CD i>
ง O
&
\J)
O) q)
^ ฃ
0
O W ^/^
OJ ^J Q)
i = =
> | 3
O *" *
>
ง >
3 IS
0 'o
lฃ
$ >>
"ง 'ฐ
^Q QJ .
~^ QJ
CD QJ C"
5 ~ฎ CD <"
v- ^ 2 c
-i rt) * ป
CD = .i= "CD
Isj 0 Z3
CO ? CTjz
CD Q) CO
2 c ^ ซ
co H 5 ._
w o t; *=
^ 1i ^ to
C Q_ *Q -^
^_ t3 CO O
O O * *~t
C/5 /n iji -^
iS E>
JZ
D)
E
^
73
CD
E
T3
CD
S
CZ)
CD
+1
CD
CD
LO
O
+1
-=t
^
CD
0
+1
CO
*
O ipf
51
"
ซ CD
|1
< LL
^^
CD
.ฃ
i -
formance; cu
1_
CD
Q.
73
O
O
O
*
!
^
^
S
o
o
+1
0
CM'
^
^-
-f
JZ
CD ^
.S CO
CD L1-
CO <-
CO CO
m
8 JC J
-C co 3=
co 2 --B
ง *-
^ CD CD
*- ฃ= ซ ฎ
CD CO 73
-^ CD o. CO
C CO 5" C
CO CO -* C
-Q -ฐ "0 JC
S^i s
0 ป ^ d ffl
^ c5 r"
^ CD |> "7T ** CD
ilpll
^ o "^ "ฐ o -2
C ._ ^* o ^-
"ililii
Jง V=^ CD CL\ co
CQ . ' CD ' 2
z.
D)
I
DJ
^
-y
LO
0
+1
0
Tt
CD
O
+1
CM
CO
LO ^_^
O 'si"
-H"
00 S-
CM
03 CO
If
^?
^f
CO
standard WE
_co
i-S"*
'o
CO
JZ
co
g
CD
c
"55
CO
CO
m
o
i
-z.
p
0
+i
p
CO
z.
^
^~
p
0 a?
-H II
o .ฃ
CM
f
CO CD
CO T-
CD :=
co '05
CQ
8
o
CD
co
o
CM
CO
'o
CO
U-
o
CD
CO
iq
CM
CM
II
CD
Q.
o
c
O cO
E 'Jo
CD 73
73 2>
o lc
I
CO ซ0
So
-^ ?= i-
o *- d.
: ซ -S CD
CD
JZ
Z'.c
I'll ป
<'c
zซ
SI
o 8
*- CD
- O
ฎ 73
E CD
H co
4-35
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 19
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
VOC Content: 22%; 1.8 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 4.6
Facility 18
At Facility 18, Wash 19 was used on a single-unit 20" x 30" press and a 2-unit, 19" x 26"
press with soy oil-based inks. Commercial products such as business forms and brochures were
printed. The press operator used Wash 19 for the four days that the presses were operating
during the one-week demonstration period which resulted in only five blanket cleanings. At this
facility, each blanket is typically wiped down three times during cleaning: twice with a reusable
rag soaked with blanket wash, and once with a dry rag to remove excess blanket wash. Blanket
wash is applied to the rag using a squirt bottle and the rag is resoaked with wash prior to reuse
on other blankets. The same rag is used until it has too much ink build-up to effectively clean
the blanket. Currently, this facility cleans their blankets using a wash which contains aliphatic
hydrocarbons, according to the MSDS. Other than changing the number of rotations to clean a
blanket, this application procedure was not modified during the demonstration of the substitute
product. Facility 18 had tried an alternative low-VOC blanket wash, but found that it did not dry
as fast as their standard product and was more expensive.
Based on the five blanket cleanings with Wash 19, the press operator at Facility 18
evaluated its performance as "poor". The press operator found that Wash 19 cut ink sufficiently
only when applied to the blanket generously. The baseline wash was found to cut the ink well,
but required additional effort due to the wash's high resistance to the blanket surface. On
average, more than three times as much of Wash 19 was used compared to the baseline wash.
The thick consistency of the substitute wash also contributed to the larger quantity of wash
needed, as well as increased time and effort to clean a blanket in comparison to the baseline
wash. The press operator had difficulty getting the product to soak into the rag, which resulted
in a large amount of wash being applied to the blanket on the first few swipes of the rag and a
comparatively small amount near the end of the blanket rotation. The press operator would then
need to rotate the blanket additional times, applying more substitute wash to ensure that the
necessary amount of blanket wash reached all areas of the blanket. This significantly increased
the average number of rotations required to clean a blanket, especially in the case of light ink
coverage where rotations increased from 2.7 rotations for the baseline wash to 8.0 rotations for
the substitute. Because the average time to rotate a blanket was 16.2 seconds at Facility 18, the
average blanket cleaning time increased by 1.4 minutes over the baseline wash for light ink
coverage. The effort needed to use Wash 19 was evaluated as "high" due to its thick consistency
and the extra rotations it required. The press operator observed that the wash cut the ink better
on the first few swipes where the wash on the blanket was relatively thick in comparison to other
areas with a thinner layer of wash. The press operator also noticed that the ability of the
substitute wash to remove ink was better when it was allowed to sit on the blanket for a few
minutes before being removed.
DRAFT
4-36
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Facility 19
Facility 19 used a 2-unit 19" x 26" press also with soy oil-based inks to print brochures,
cards, and other commercial products. The press operator at Facility, 19 used Wash 19 for three
days and then stopped because he found that the product required a significant amount of extra
effort, time and quantity of wash to clean the blankets. The operator typically cleans the blanket
by pouring the blanket wash onto a clean, reusable rag and wiping the blanket while rotating it
manually twice. The blanket is then allowed to dry by evaporation before restarting the press.
This application procedure was also used for the application of the baseline wash. When using
Wash 19, the press operator modified the application procedure slightly and wiped the blanket
with a dry rag before resuming the print job. The standard wash used at this facility contains
aromatic hydrocarbons, polyglycol ethers, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and a proprietary combustible
chemical, according to the MSDS. Prior to this project, they did some experimenting with another
substitute wash, but it did not work as well as their standard product and it was irritating to the
skin as well. In the past, they used an automatic blanket washer, hoping to reduce their blanket
wash chemical use and labor, but they discontinued using it after they found it required more
effort and wasted solvent.
The press operator at Facility 19 evaluated the performance of Wash 19 as "poor". The
operator felt that the substitute product did not cut ink as well as the baseline wash. The
baseline wash was found to cut the ink well, but required additional effort due to its high
resistance to the blanket surface. Some additional time was required to remove the ink using
Wash 19 than was required with the baseline wash. In addition, the thick consistency of Wash
19 was found to require extra time, effort and quantity to clean the blankets. The press operator
had difficulty getting the product to soak into the rag which resulted in spillage and a "messy"
application. When the usual application procedure was used with the Wash 19, an oily residue
remained on the blanket which increased the number of copies required to get up to print quality
after restarting the press. One or two rotations with a dry rag were needed to remove the residue
from the blanket before printing. The quantity of Wash 19 needed to remove the ink more than
doubled in comparison to the baseline wash. The press operator rated the effort needed as "high"
for both the baseline and the substitute washes. Although the performance of the baseline wash
was considered to be good, the effort needed to use the baseline wash was rated as "high" because
the operator found it to have high resistance to being dragged across the blanket. The effort to
use the substitute wash was rated as "high" due to the extra rotations and the messy application.
4-37
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
o
S
I
CO
1
o
i
o
CD
o
I
Q.
"5
1
CO
CO
ซ
CD
EC
D)
CD
*
O
1
CO
_J
ฃ"~*
iS o
CO g
co "85
"CD
re
CQ
ฃ
c*
10
Wet Ink
o
c
1
T*ซ
CD "ฐ*
w ฃ
CO C
2
re" p-
> 2,
X
Q.
tuT
CO "-*
m
u.
ll!
0 ^^
8-s?
ts
o
S
Q.
O)
-
in
in
^
UL
o
CO
in
CD
o
CO
CM
CM
CM
of
"
05
1
CO
CO
0
co'
in
*
LL
o
0
O
ฉ
LD
CO
co'
0
in
0
cvF
CO
_c
CO
CD
C
"CD
co
CO
m
*2
1
CD
DC
ง
1
CO
c
o
1
a
D
0)
UL
,,
nee Evaluation
re
I
CD
D.
o =
CD ^
,S g>
0 3
re S
o ~
w it
ฐ- ""
% .
'5 ,o
Q) tS
Q
^o
_
C35
^ CO
m ^
3^1 o
o
1 s
T3 01
oi iป
ง O
01
^~ CO
.Co Qi
J ^
0
Ml
ฃ cu o
CD C "
> ฃ 3
< 0""
o ^*
3 ป2
"o 'i
CO
0
05 <- .
of 5 blanket wash
ash made \\ difficu:
uneven application
equired to cut ink.
05 >
fc! ^ .ฃ ฃ
W "o -0 05
CD 5^ CD 5
til*
TO -Jx 0 .-*-
ง 8 ||
n\ O i2 ^'
(O !cf m
CQ H C -1
<
gi
Ol
^
CM'
h.
"""
o
o
+1
o
00
o
"cr
ฐฐ. -ฃ
"*
<*-
CO
C31
T- CO
I ^~
CO .&
LI-
CD
CD
.c
3
o
I
CO
o
CD
Q.
-o
O
0
O
z
o
J
^
o
in
CO
in
0
+1
i^.
CM
CO
ฐ co"
+1 II
m-B
"
CO
*
^-
CD ;&
^= *o
03 CO
CQ 5
ฃ CD
H
o
ฃ c
CB -o r:
-C C 0
05 CO 5=
^ 1" ฃ
Qi 0) "C
"g E cu
-S* w 2
*o *S 3J .
CO T_ *-*
Qj ^ o OJ
^ f~ V^
.c
01
o
o
+1
0
<*
p
o
+1
o
"*
o
o
+1
o
*
in
+1 II
CMฃ-
CM
s
O3
^- 01
CO .&
< =
LL
s
-^
CO
XJ
CD
CO
CO
2
. o
|S
2
'CD -2
^ o
u *:
O 01
CD" "co
o c:
C 0
CO '4=
ง1
0 CO
CD TJ
Q. <ฃ
T3 '5
o o-
O 01
O DC
Z
<
O5
-^
<
^j.
O
+1
CM
CM
CM
0 to"
+1 II
O5 -ฃ-
o
05
* O>
5 -
CD .$
"CD co
CQ ra
o
CD
CO
in
od
a
eo
oo
S
CO
CM
CD
II
o
CD
Q.
CD.
C CO
ปE.ฃ
ill
"^3 tr c
O -o
CD CD
^ O
ฃ O
CD *~.
g 8
T3 CD '-'
.<2 CO >,
4= ^ ~O
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 20
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
VOC Content: 35%; 2.7 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 170ฐF
pH: 7.1
Facility 11
Wash 20 was tested on a 5-unit, 19" x 26" press at Facility 11. During the performance
demonstration, conventional and vegetable-based inks were used to produce commercial products
such as brochures, publications, and mailings. Facility 11 had tried using alternative blanket
washes for worker health and safety or environmental reasons on four occasions prior to the
performance demonstration, but use of all four products had been discontinued due to odor
problems. Currently, this facility's standard wash consists of petroleum naphtha, dipropylene
glycol methyl ether, and l,8(9)-nenthadiene, according to the MSDS. Normal blanket wash
procedure consists of three wipes with a reusable shop towel saturated with blanket wash,
followed by a single wipe with a clean dry shop towel to remove excess wash and dry the blanket.
The blanket wash is applied to the shop towel with a squirt bottle. If possible, the shop towels
were used to clean more than one blanket. This standard application method was also used for
the performance demonstration.
Overall, Wash 20 was given a fair performance rating and a medium effort rating. On
average, the baseline wash performed better overall, but also required a medium amount of effort.
The time required to wash the blanket was slightly less for Wash 20 than for the baseline wash;
Wash 20 required 2.8 rotations whereas the baseline wash required 3.5 rotations. However,
delays resulted from an oily film sometimes left on the blanket after use of Wash 20. This film had
to be removed with a third rotation, thus bringing the average number of rotations close to 3.0 for
the performance demonstration. Additional delays resulted from the thick consistency of Wash
20. The press operator often had to wait for the wash to soak into the application shop towel.
Greater effort was required to cut ink under heavy ink coverage situations; the press operator gave
a greater proportion of high effort ratings to the wash under these conditions. Wash 20 also had
difficulty cutting through light inks such as reds and yellows. Press operators did not consider
the odor of Wash 20 to be significant.
Facility 12
At Facility 12, Wash 20 was used on a 6-unit, 28" x 40" press with conventional inks. A
variety of commercial products on a variety of paper types were printed during the performance
demonstration: from posters on glossy stock to information cards on cardboard stock. Wash 20
was used approximately thirty times during the week-long performance demonstration. In the
typical blanket washing procedure at Facility 12, each blanket is wiped twice: once with a reusable
shop towel saturated with blanket wash from a plunger can, and once with a dry reusable shop
towel to remove the excess blanket wash. The blanket wash shop towel is often used on more
than one blanket, depending on the cleanliness of the shop towel as well as the ink coverage.
According to the MSDS, the standard facility wash is a petroleum naphtha-based product. In the
4-39
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
performance demonstration, the only change in application procedure was that Wash 20 was
directly applied to each shop towel for the application process and the plunger can was not used.
Press operators at Facility 12 declined to use Wash 20 after experiencing nausea and
dizziness after three trials. Wash 20 aggravated a previously existing respiratory condition in one
press operator, and caused dizziness in another. These health problems coincided with a strong
odor as blanket wash evaporated from the wash shop towel during the wipe process.
DRAFT
4-40
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CO
CB
I
JB
m
(0
o
1
I
o
a>
a
Q)
O
(0
n
E
V)
Ing Results
ซ
$
S
o
ซ
-is
.5
*^ *3T ^*
fl> jit
ja :ซ: Q
wi n
S** **
% w c
S * 5
>*
^h
"3 ID
Z
c ^" ^
re o
5 ซ
.< s,
2>ฃ
Vapor Pressu
(reported, mm
X
Q.
.1
_jo
LL
ป
ปB -IT!?*
O ง>
(J "Jj >>
o -0
o -"^
ts
1
a.
N.
LO
LO
0
LL
|^ป
f^n
ฉ
LO
ฃ
O
N.
5?
LO
"O
r--~
CM
O
X
CO
<
00
CO
CO
LO
LL
o
0
o
LO
T
CO
CO
0
LO
0?
O
o
T
c\f
co'
CO
CO
^
CD
"55
CO
CO
m
ion Results
to
o
D
a>
E
c
.2
1
"
>
Ul
Performance
0 '-
ฃ O>
!i
if
.2 ^-
It
ie required'
rotations)
e =tfc
^*_V
_
CD
x S1
S" m
1 1
Medium
Coverage
CD
,_ O>
^. ^J
.C3) CD
-J o
0
VD
^ CQ
^ m
0) ^:
*Tป ^
^j^_ Q
O
Medium
Coverage]
Ol
* m
,O) CD
"^ O
0
cu
E
"3 "w"
> "O g
0) (0 C
0)Z) 3
2 ,0,,
o BS*
|i
CO
r^ CO
"ง ฃ *
CO _ "O 0
S CD CD
5 S2 - ฃ
ฃ +^ i_ CD
-S 15 t-' S
-Q ^2 CO "O
K v_- ^ CD' jo
Y~ CO to 'm > ฎ
\4-ป i^_ ** QJ Q ^
0 -o ^ "^ p o
Based on a sample size
Performance considere
facility and baseline was
Left oily residue on blai
additional rotations to rei
Hard to apply to shop t
consistency.
j.
D)
X
E
CD
E
13
TJ
CD
^
CO
o
+1
p
^:
CO
0
+1
CM
O
0
+1
0
CM
COcO__
O 1^.
+1 *
* c
~~
"co T_
0 T~
10 o
S LL
Good performance.
Slight odor.
z.
Medium
E .
T3
CD
^
^
O
O
+1
O
co'
CO
o
+1
CO
CM
^ 5-"
+1 II
^ c
CD
^r
CO T-
CO T-
5^
11
CD LL
CO ^^
CO rrt
m ro
co~
s|l
111
H- 0- ^
CD O "-
"^ w to
m K ฎ
^u 0) ^_i
*,^ ^^ ^~*
T~-
0 co >-
Based on a sample size
' Product induced nause
Facility declined opportui
^
0)
X
-z.
^
p
o
+1
0
LO
<
^~
a
^
_c_
p
CO
"CO (M
o "
X =
CO 0
+1
o
*
CO
'^" co"
+1 II
* -S.
"
"S CM
CO t-
5 >?
CD i=
"CD LL
co
CO cO
m ro
o
CD
CO
p
O
CM
TS
CO
'ง
LL.
o
CD
CO
LO
C3)
o
to
CD
a.
I
co'
o
. 'co
<5 2
-ฐ Ji ^
15-1
ง - O CD
T3 CD .C ^_
, CD
CO CO CO -Q c
is - -^3 CD
CO (0 ^ (1^ CO
c o Si _a
o co -r, ^ o
1*1 II
,- .22 ^2 c p
.2 "S
ง1
CO CO
CD CD
CO ,_ _
.S2 o o
III
'o = ^
^^
*- CD
1 8
CD
a- w
CD TJ
"- (D
: CD to
ECO
._ ^2
:I-c^
o f
4-41
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 21
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distjllates
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 47%; 3.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 115ฐF
pH: 6.2
Facility 6
Facility 6 prints credit cards and identification cards on plastic sheets using conventional
inks. Wash 1 was used on a single-unit, 18" x 25" press. Currently, this facility cleans their
blankets using a wash which consists of aliphatic petroleum distillates, aromatic petroleum
distillates, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, nonylphenoxypoly (ethyleneoxy) ethanol, diisononyl phthalate,
2,6,-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol, according to the MSDS. Each blanket is typically wiped down four
times during cleaning: three times to remove the ink with reusable shop towels soaked with
blanket wash, and once with a shop towel soaked with Tru-dot cleaner (a more volatile wash) to
thoroughly dry the blanket. Blanket wash is applied to the shop towel using a squirt bottle and
the last shop towel from the previous wash is used as the first shop towel on the next wash. The
same shop towels are used until there is too much ink build-up on the shop towel to effectively
remove ink. The application procedure was modified slightly for both the baseline wash and the
substitute wash during the performance demonstration; a dry shop towel was used to dry the
blanket rather than a drying solution.
The operator rated the performance of Wash 21 as "fair" for all levels of ink coverage. It
cut the ink well, but it left an oily residue even after wiping the blanket with a dry shop towel.
To remove the residue, the press operator wiped the blanket a second time with another dry shop
towel. Even with the extra wiping, the operator felt the residue caused colorwash-out on the next
job, so that additional waste sheets (approximately 50 percent more) were needed to get back to
color. After cleaning six blankets with Wash 21, the press operator switched back to using the
standard wash. The operator summarized the product performance as fair: it cut the ink well, but
the oily residue resulted in extra effort (to dry the blanket) and extra waste sheets (needed to get
the press to color). The operator noticed Wash 21 had an odor, but he felt it was much better
than the unpleasant odor of his standard wash.
Performance of the baseline product was considered good; it cut the ink well with minimal
effort. Compared to Wash 21, the baseline required less effort and time to clean a blanket with
medium ink coverage (2 rotations or approximately 41 seconds for the baseline compared to an
average of 3.3 rotations or 61 seconds for Wash 21).
Facility 17
At Facility 17, performance demonstrations were conducted on a two-unit, 19" x 26" press
with conventional inks where commercial products such as advertisements and brochures were
printed. Currently, this facility uses which contains petroleum naphtha, dichloromethane, and
1,1,1-trichloroethane, according to the product's MSDS. This performance demonstration was
DRAFT
4-42
-------
CHAPTER 4-. COMPETITIVCMCSS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
their first experience in experimenting with substitute blanket washes. Typically the press
operator cleans the blanket by pouring the wash from a squirt bottle onto a reusable shop towel
and wiping down the blanket. The wash is allowed to dry by evaporation. Occasionally the
operator will mix the wash with water to remove paper dust and paper lines from the blanket.
The overall performance of Wash 21 was rated as "fair;" it cut the ink well, but it left an
oily residue on the blanket. Facility 17 used the substitute wash for one week during which 25
washes were recorded by the press operator. Wash 21 cut the ink well, but it was necessary to
modify the application procedure slightly and add a drying step to remove the oily residue left on
the blanket after applying the wash. Although this step was not required with the facility's
standard wash, the operator did not view it as particularly burdensome; level of effort was rated
as "low" or "medium." Both Wash 21 and the baseline wash were only used on blankets with light
or medium ink coverage; no heavy coverage jobs were run during the demonstration period. The
baseline wash cut the ink well with the same level of effort as is required for the facility's standard
blanket wash. Compared to the baseline wash, Wash 21 took slightly more time because of the
extra drying step.
In addition to the extra effort, the printer noted that the oily residue occasionally caused
problems with subsequent print jobs. In two cases, the printer noticed the prints were mottled
(fuzzy edges). The printer had to run additional waste sheets to get acceptable, clear print quality.
The press operator also commented that the wash did not absorb into the shop towel easily,
making it messy to apply. Absorbency was improved somewhat when the wash was applied to a
shop towel wet with water.
4-43
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
CM
I
I
m
J>
ฃ
ฃ
2
1
o
CD
O
I
Q.
s
|
V)
V)
H^
CO
0)
OC
D)
.ฎ
t-
!
0
^3
nr
J
>,^^
izz o
.Q Hฃ
w to
^*
1
(O ^^
.ง 4-
n
m
ฃ
0
(/
S
a
|
1
*-
c
c
&
c
E
Z
c
*;
c
1
5
a
o
t:
t
S
a
Jc
^
"^
^
^
^
Or
s
o
J5
^
jj
*
^ ^
> o
\ i
if
r
(reported
\E
'.
|I
*
CO
^
in
o
LL
o
00
CO
0
V
in
t
CM
CD'
in"
co'
CM
1
CO
CO
CO
in
U.
o
O
O
ฉ
O
in
CO
CD
o
o
CM"
co"
-C
5
^^
CD
"55
CO
CO
CD
U)
1
fit
W
tc
o
1
C/)
o
i
Q
2
i *
^^
ฃ
'i
i
L
a
c
ฃ
(
ฃ
c
<
Q
1|
t g"
0)
cn
2
1
*
1
a
i
i
i
ป
j
>
j
CD
II
Medium
Coverage
CD
^~ ^0
O) Qj
33
CD
1" 2
CD ง
a^ o
0
S o>
S en
T3 CD
CD i-
^ O
&
o>
R. 2
.2> CD
' o
O
o
fl>
Volume Us
(ounces)
i ^
: S
' 'o
> OJ
LL
CD "-
O "o
ฃ ^
CD o
CO ,-^
Q> 2 Sr
f= ~
co = ^t
! 11
Q) "O i-
CQ > O
IQ > ป-
**- -o 2
^ *CO ^3
CD
11
< LL
^*
tf
"CD
2
'JS
CD
^
O
|f
11
II
Q- CD
T3 ~^~
O ^
O 3
O O
Z
o
2
^
CM
<
-f
.ฃ=
CD ^
.E co
CO ป-
CO CO
m
4-
o
CO C
j; ฐ> ^>
<2 > 'to
CO > CO
S .ฑi CD
CD ~ ^5
c p g
-S c5 *^
io "o J2
^ Q. CO
c *-
CD 'C .ฃ
.^ Q-
CD ฎ "^ S
-g CD W ง ฃ
Q. o 13 > -ฃ2
ฃ c co O co
co eo ฐ E -g
CO p CD CD X
ซ o^ ^.-S
ง ^ ป S ^
-*_. Q_ x_ CD f~
lฃ^l^
^
ฃ
CD
1
Z
o
+1
OJ
^.
o
+1
00
^
CD LO"
CD ,C,
i
'3 [-^.
C\l "-i..
j^T*
CO '5
^
T5
.i
3
CT
CO
CO
T3
mance .
as standar
i!
2,-s
-0 CD
o c
z
Medium
Medium
z
p
o
+1
o
l^
iq
o
+1
CO
'-
+1 II
T
co h~-
CO T-
CD :=
"35 U_
CO .,
OS 'co
m
o
CD
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 22
Composition:
Fatty acids derivatives
Hydrocarbons,aromatic
Water
VOC Content: Not measured
Flashpoint: 157ฐF (full strength)
pH: 7.4(25%)
Facility 12
At Facility 12, Wash 22 was used on a 6-unit, 28" x 40" press with conventional inks. A
variety of commercial products on a variety of paper types were printed during the performance
demonstration: from posters on glossy stock to information cards on cardboard stock. Wash 12
was used approximately thirty times during the week-long performance demonstration. In the
typical blanket washing procedure at Facility 12, each blanket is wiped twice: once with a reusable
shop towel saturated with blanket wash from a plunger can, and once with a dry reusable shop
towel to remove the excess blanket wash. The blanket wash shop towel is often used on more
than one blanket, depending on the cleanliness of the shop towel as well as the ink coverage. The
standard facility wash is a petroleum naphtha-based product, according to the MSDS. In the
performance demonstration, the only change in application procedure was that Wash 22 was
directly applied to each shop towel for the application process and the plunger can was not used.
Overall, the performance of Wash 22 was rated as fair. According to press operators, Wash
22 cut the inkwell and performed better than the baseline wash overall, but it's thick consistency
caused delays while the press operator waited for the wash to soak into the application shop
towel. During the initial observation period, the press operator showed great enthusiasm for Wash
22, rating overall performance as good as the standard facility wash and better than the baseline
wash in all trials. Over the course of the week, however, the time delays associated with wash
application began to weaken the press operator approval for Wash 22. The difficulty in saturating
the wash shop towel may have been due to the squirt bottle application device used in the
performance demonstration. The use of a plunger might have decreased the wash application
time.
At Facility 12, Wash 22 removed the ink with low or medium effort on all ink coverages
and, on average, outperformed the baseline wash. The number of rotations required to wash the
blanket (proportional to the amount of time) did not increase dramatically from one ink coverage
to another. Wash 22 did not leave streaks or residue on the blanket after wiping with a dry shop
towel in the standard procedure. There was no change in print quality attributed to the wash.
The wash did not perform as well with metallic inks as it did with conventional inks, however.
When used on metallic inks, both the effort required to wash the blanket and the amount of wash
required increased.
Facility 13
Facility 13 used Wash 22 on a 2-unit, 20" x 26" press during the performance
demonstration. Performance demonstration print jobs were primarily folders and brochures
printed with light conventional ink coverage on glossy enamel paper. The blanket washing
procedure at this facility involves two disposable paper shop towels: one is saturated with blanket
4-45
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
wash from a squirt bottle and used to clean the blanket; the other is used dry to remove excess
wash and dry the blanket. During this process, the blanket is rotated incrementally under
manual control. The standard application method was not changed for the performance
demonstrations. .
Overall, press operators rated Wash 22 as a fair performer onthegood-fatr-poor scale. The
baseline and standard washes cut the ink well and were given good performance ratings. Wash
22 cut the ink as well as the baseline and standard washes, but its thick consistency caused
delays at the wash application and drying stages. At the blanket wash application stage, the
viscous Wash 22 required extra time to soak into the application shop towel before blanket
cleaning could begin. After blanket cleaning, Wash 22 left the blanket slightly streaked and wet.
Press operators recognized that extra time was necessary to allow excess wash to evaporate and
to avoid potential print quality problems. As an indication of this, the number of rotations needed
to clean the blanket (considered proportional to the overall time required to wash the blanket) was
four times greater for Wash 22 than with the baseline wash. A contributing factor to both of these
delays may have been the type of disposable shop towel used by Facility 13 for blanket washing
and other press cleaning activities. These disposable paper shop towels were clearly less
absorbent than reusable alternatives. The excess wash remaining on the blanket was allowed to
evaporate because the disposable shop towels were not absorbent enough to remove it. Overall,
press operators at Facility 13 rated the ink cutting ability of Wash 22 as the same as the baseline
and standard washes, but felt that the delays in the wash process resulted in greater overall effort
and a fair performance rating.
DRAFT
4-46
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
a
1
1
.2
m
co
O
CO
ฃ
O
i
ง
n
1
CD
0.
"5
>,
ra
0)
'
Testing Results
1
J3
-?* "S'
S o>
Q ~^
a o
c i;
CO (0
1
*" ^~.
n
m
*
w^
^*
Q
Wet Ink
\,
3
o
*
0
1
Vapor Pressure
(reported, mm Hg)
Q.
C
'o ^
f -
CO ^^
.2
1-^
!l|
O ^ ฃ"
ฐง-5S
>
Product
CO
CO
LO
T
LO
LL
o
00
CD
ฉ
^.
LO
^
jQ CO
|iS
Z OJ T-
co -. ;
CD cvl
E
CM
CM
1
00
CO
CO
*
LL
0
O
O
ฉ
LO
CD
CO
0
in
o
0
CM
.c
CO
CO
llBaseline W
istration Results
0
i
o
.2
u.
Evaluation
8
E
ซJ
1
9
Q.
TJ ฃ
B
o 1
w S
^
"S 'to'
'3 .1
ง""(3
*" "S
H >"
11
Medium
Coverage
~ 8>
ซc~ ^
.CD CD
CD
^ CO
S g>
ฃ CD
3
0 ^=- 0
-ง 1 -1 =
CD CO o *
Q. CO 0) o
"55 -^ m
CC CO CD o
,-. CO u..ฐ
S = |8L
S nS'5
cSฐQLL
E
T3
CD
CD
|
0
O
+1
p
p
CD
+1
0
CO
CM
+1
[v.
CM
ฐ GT
+1 II
*
"* CM
CM *-
xi
CO CJ
^f CO
c1
CO
fo
>
T5
CO
T3
5
CO
c
O
"CD
t
CD
g>
^ ffi
to
is.
'3 ~o
D" O
CD O
CC (5
s
0)
X
.c
o>
^
p
+1
LO
CM
p
0
+1
o
ซa-
CD
+1 II
5 """
~M CM
CO t-
CD S
M Jo
CD U_
CO
<ง ซ
^ O
^ co ca
co "0 ฃ 2
CO CO CD D)
ฃ J of 2^ i-
Hill
O ^ CT TT
-Q o co ^j -Q
fc. ~ ^ Q. g
i ^
'55 CD w S -g
j) -^ ^ 0. 0 gj
B- >< D) ฃ jr
"3 CO *- CO ^ CO
c "^ 5 CD ฎ 5
O *ฑ _CO O Q. W
CD ^ dฑ CO -f*
CO -t ฎ CD *- ^
CB Q _| ฃ < 3=
CQ . . ys . CD
Z
ฃ
CD
|
TJ
^>
^
CD
+1
LO
CM
0
O
+1
O
*
N; ___
co' "
'S
CM T-
St
p
CD
0
t *-*
"O CO
D) C
CO ฐ
"53 ~o
= 0
H-. CD
O Q
-
.c
D)
E
^
z
0
CD
+1
O
T
0
O
+1
o
1-
10
+i Hi
^_ c
CM"
CO CO
CO T-
CD :=
"CD u.
co ^,
& ซ
1
>.
JD
"O
(D
g ฐ
.1 s-
^ co
ง I
o >
co O
CO (-)
?i
CD O)
11
"O ^
CD -Q
ซb-
งJ2
CO
CD
O
c
o
>,
1
O
CD
CO
LO
O
T3
C
CO
CM
o
CD
CO
CM
II
O
'CO
2
CD
0.
. - CD
C CD CO
II E^
C^ซ
. OJ JD O "O
4-47
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 24
Composition:
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Water
VOC Content: 19%; 1.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 100ฐF
pH: 9.9
Facility 16
Facility 16 used a 2-unit 20" x 26" press with conventional inks to print advertisements,
cards, and other commercial products. The press operator at Facility 16 used Wash 24 for all jobs
during the one-week demonstration, with the exception of one job for which there was a concern
that the substitute wash would have an effect on the print quality. At this facility, each blanket
is typically wiped down three times during cleaning: once with a wet sponge to remove paper dust
(when needed); once with a reusable shop towel soaked with naphtha (which is also the baseline
wash used throughout the demonstrations); and finally with a clean dry shop towel to remove
excess wash. This application procedure was also used for the application of the substitute wash.
Facility 16 has tried substitute, low-VOC blanket washes in the past, but found that the products
were not acceptable because they did not dry on the blanket as fast as their standard wash.
Overall, the press operator at facility 16 felt that the performance of Wash 24 was "fair".
The wash was found to remove the ink well, but a residue was left on the blanket which had an
effect on the print quality. Following the manufacturer's instructions, Wash 24 was initially tried
at 50% dilution with water. After washing three blankets with the diluted wash, it was apparent
that it was not adequately cutting the ink. The baseline wash was found to cut the ink well, but
required additional effort due to its resistance to the blanket surface. At full strength, Wash 24
was found to cut the ink with about the same effectiveness as the baseline wash. Wash 24 was
tested under light, medium and heavy ink coverage conditions while the baseline wash was
observed only under heavy ink coverage conditions. Because the baseline wash is normally used
at the facility, the operator's familiarity with the baseline wash allowed him to make accurate
comparisons between the substitute wash and the baseline wash under all ink coverage
conditions. Under heavy ink coverage conditions, Wash 24 was observed to match the baseline
level of performance as measured by blanket rotations. Under light and medium ink coverage
conditions, however, Wash 24 was found to require slightly more time than the baseline wash.
Overall, the level of effort was rated as "medium" for the substitute wash and "low" for the baseline
wash. The press operator considered the effort to be higher than the baseline wash because the
substitute wash required extra effort to remove as much of an oily residue as possible and
because the thick consistency of the product made it difficult to get it to soak into the shop towel.
Most importantly, however, was that this oily residue consistently increased the number of copies
needed to return to print quality after restarting the press. Some of this residue would remain
on the blanket even after wiping it with a clean dry shop towel.
DRAFT
4-48
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Facility 17
At Facility 17, Wash 24 was used on a 2-unit, 19" x 26" press with conventional inks to
print commercial products such as advertisements and brochures. Facility 17 operates two shifts
per day, however, Wash 24 was tested by only one press operator during the first shift. The press
operator used Wash 24 for two days and then stopped because he found the amount of effort
required to use the substitute wash to be unacceptable. The press operator typically- cleans the
blankets by going over the blanket once with a shop towel soaked with blanket wash, and then
allowing the blanket to dry by evaporation. Occasionally the operator will mix the wash with water
to remove paper dust and paper lines from the blanket. Currently, this facility cleans their
blankets using a product which consists of petroleum naphtha, dichloromethane and 1,1,1
trichloroethane, according to the MSDS.
Overall, the performance of Wash 24 was considered "poor" by the press operator.
Although the product was observed to cut the ink with about the same effectiveness as the
baseline wash, it had a thick consistency and left an oily residue, both of which required
additional time and effort to clean the blanket. The press operator found the baseline wash to cut
the ink well, but some extra effort was required to drag the wash soaked shop towel across the
blanket compared to the substitute wash. Wash 24 was demonstrated on blankets with medium
ink coverage only. The press operator found that under these conditions the substitute wash
required more than twice the number of rotations as the baseline wash, due to the extra steps
needed to remove the oily residue using a clean dry shop towel. At this facility, one rotation of the
blanket typically took 24.6 seconds, so on average the substitute wash required an extra 37
seconds of cleaning time. Most important to the operator, however, was that the thick consistency
of the substitute product made it very difficult to get the product to soak into the shop towel which
increased the overall effort to clean the blankets and resulted in significant amounts of wash
spilling on the floor and press. The quantity of wash used was about the same for both the
substitute wash and the baseline wash. In addition, the press operator was bothered by the
strong citrus odor of Wash 24.
4-49
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
ฃ
co
3
II CO
CD
DC
j to
II t-1
1-2
li Q
La
M
li
>> >
S (/)
f 1_
co t?
**"
1
CO _
J
m
^
^
J?
^
IS
*!
i
1
10
I
"S)
3 "E
M 1
ฃ ~
o t:
a. o
to a.
> o
a.
.^
ฃ
o _^
.C a
W v-*
J2
n"
ฃ
S "* ^*
c w ^
"f-^
|~5ฐ
g
3
D
2
a.
CM
in
T
O
CO
in
LO
CM
v
en
0)
0
^S
in"
j
-i-
>
CO
co
o
co'
in
LL
ฎ
LO
CO
CO
o
in
"*?
->
o
r\F
CO
0
ca
^
)
!=
CD
CO
CO
CO
rn
^3
$
CC
0
CO
o
Q
a>
Q
o
a>
. ,o
73
1
u
0)
Performanc
"งฃ-
3 i'
ป s
QC ฐ
li
si
* i
ฃ _i
L ""
^ 17
ฃ c
3 .2
1) (Q
ป2
ง,
S4 co
ca en
ฃ 0
O
Medium
Coverage
it
o ^
^ o
O
CD
^ (?
S ?
O
C j-j.
=3 JO
"CD S
5 <3
O)
S S
~i i>
^ o
0
o
>,,
IM
*73 *""
O m
a"-
co'
CD
CO "^~
cu ?
ง co CD ex
i -c "ฐ c
ง 0 CO ง
S 3= co *s
^ CD CD CD y
c3 ฃ3 o o
O %" CD ' "O
lull
llSfs
ca ex co -Q_
eg CD 5 3 O
> O "U -|
^3 ._ CD * CD ^n
(Tj ^-^ ^i -Q .'tz!
CD
2
E
_2
CD
|
CD
^^
O
O
+1
o
CO
o
o
+1
o
co'
0
1
+1
1
CO
CO
^
o oo
co "-"
.ป-*
<ฐ CO
Cj\j ^^
-^*
CO ^
^
?.
CO
-o
c
CO
to
o
CD
'*"
O
CO
"CO
CO
CO
^z
CO
CO
CD
"CD .
CO _C
ca co
CO co
5
3
z.
^
o
CD
+1
O
CO
^
2
o
0 CO
+1 II
o .ฃ.
CM
0 CO
CO T-
^ -^*
-------
CHAPTER fc COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 26
Composition:
Fatty acids derivatives
Esters/lactones
VOC Content: 18%; 1.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 7.8 (fluctuates wildly)
Facility 5
At Facility 5, Wash 26 was used on a single-unit, 12" x 18" press to print commercial
products such as business cards and advertisements with conventional inks. Facility 5 has tried
a variety of substitute blanket washes donated by suppliers but has never adopted one due to
performance and cost issues. Currently, this facility uses two different blanket washes.
According to the product MSDSs, one wash contains aliphatic hydrocarbons, cyclohexane, n-
heptane, methylcyclohexane, toluene, C6-C8 paraffins, and C6-C8 cycloparaffins) and the other
wash contains aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, xylene,
dipropylene glycol methyl ether, and propylene glycol methyl ether. Typically, the blanket is wiped
down twice during cleaning: once with blanket wash to remove the ink, and once with a clean, dry
shop towel to remove excess wash. Blanket wash is applied directly to the blanket using a squirt
bottle and is then wiped off using a reusable shop towel. The same shop towel is used until it has
too much ink build-up to effectively clean the blanket. This application procedure was modified
slightly for the baseline wash and substitute wash demonstrations in that the wash was poured
onto the shop towel instead of directly on the blanket.
Wash 26 was comparable in performance effectiveness to both the baseline wash and the
standard wash used by Facility 5. Wash 26 earned a performance designation of good for every
blanket on which it was used during the week-long performance demonstration. The baseline and
facility standard washes also received good performance ratings. The effort required to wash the
blanket for both the baseline and substitute washes was described as moderate by the press
operator. The time required to wash the blanket (as measured by number of rotations) was
roughly equal to the baseline wash. Wash 26 cut the ink well across all ink coverages, but left
a slight oily residue on the blanket after the initial blanket wiping with wash. This oily residue
was removed at the dry wipe step of the blanket washing process and did not cause print quality
problems. However, this oily residue did cause problems when Wash 26 was used to wash the
press rollers. When used on rollers, the oily residue caused ink splotches to occur. This resulted
in time delays during the full press wash procedure as two products were necessary: the standard
facility wash for roller cleaning and Wash 26 for blanket cleaning. The press operator commented
that the use of the same product for both roller and blanket cleaning is an important cost and
effort consideration for his facility. ,
Facility 15
Facility 15 prints commercial products (brochures), direct-mail products, and other
publications. Performance demonstrations at this facility were conducted on a two-unit, 19" x 25"
press using conventional inks. The standard wash contains aromatic hydrocarbons, polyglycol
ether and aliphatic hydrocarbons (as stated on the MSDS) and, according to the press operator;
cuts the ink well, but does have somewhat of an odor. In the past, Facility 15 tried an alternative
blanket wash, but it did not work well and it had a very offensive odor. Recently, this facility
4-51
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
installed a new press with an automatic blanket washer. In their standard manual blanket
washing procedure, the press operator at this facility pours the blanket wash on to a reusable
shop towel, wipes the ink off the blanket in one rotation, then uses a dry shop towel for one
rotation to remove the excess wash. This same procedure was used for both the baseline and the
substitute wash.
Wash 26 performed as well as the baseline wash and the standard wash used by Facility
15. Wash 26 received a performance rating of good on the good-fair-poor scale from the press
operator after every one of its 22 trials in the week-long performance demonstration. The time
required to wash the blankets (as measured by the number of rotations) was equal to the baseline
wash. The physical effort required to clean the blanket was described as low for all ink coverages.
Over the course of the performance demonstration, Wash 26 did not leave a residue on the blanket
and did not affect print quality. The press operator who conducted the performance
demonstration stated that Wash 26 would be purchased by his facility if appropriately priced, as
well as beneficial from an environmental, worker health, and safety standpoint.
DRAFT
4-52
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
s
I
1
1
ffl
to
ง
o
o
i
0>
o
n
1
Q)
Q.
(0
E
E
(A
ing Results
I
J
ฃ
to
o
(0
^
ft
ฐ ฃ
(0 O
ป "5
ป ^ฃป
c/> ^
CO
m
i^ฃ
C
^^
1-
^
f
Q)
i*.
1
10
^
5
*-
ซ. O)
Vapor Pressure
(reported, mm H
Q.
'5 ^
ฃ 0
w -'
(0
LL
ฃ
oil
O J5 .Q
8=-*
1
D
s
Q.
*^f
CD
O
O
LL
>
ฉ
CO
CO
+
0
CO
CM
00
oo~
T~
CD
CM
CO
g
Q
CO
CO
in
i.
b
ฉ
in
CD
CD
o
m
0
o
T.
CD
.C
CO
CO
CD
"55
co
to
m
tion Results
to
ง
ง
rj
2
.2
H
o
I
B
>
LU
Q)
O
c
Performa
a) ฃ
LB 0)
1!
P"
si
*:-
o> >
ฃ ^
o
2(0
._ c
3 .2
g> 2
o 2
.ง ฃ
i
CU
II
Medium \
Coverage]
CD
O)
_~ CO
^ o
O
gr
^ CO*
s 1
"-T- ^
^L O
o
_. tb
E o>
3 CO
"5 CD
CD i>
S o
^ o
CD
]r^ CO
O) CD
=3 S
O
D
S o 8
> 1 ง
** o
It
o o
i*
1
1) CO
-c _cฃ >* J^
yj (ซ ^^ ' *jj
2 ง "5 x.
f ฃ,ฃ ^-^
a ^-o i 2
S Q) -^
5 i_ cz ซ- "*"
^. 0) ซ -ง g
v^ *tjl O_ CO
0 ^''O CD CO
, g
ID* o "I * -g>-i
to O Q! ซ CO ฃ Q.
CO . . 3 . Q. =
Z
ฃ
13
T3
CD
O
z
CD
+1
CO
o
CD
+1
O
c\i
o ^
in ^
o
^_
CO
CD10
CM ^>
i!
< LL
5
>,
k satisfactoril
s
3
~z_
Z
E
T3
CD
z
z
o
o"
+1
o
CM
O 'Jj'
^- -S
.c
CD ^
.E to
CD LL-
to *^
CO CO
CD
Q
j) . _C
: ^r co
g to co
a ^%
5 CD O
S >- -o
^ *co "^
S D) CO
tu ~ 'co
ta co to
co - co
on a sample
performance
med as well
seline wash.
ง"งง 5
SocSl
CQ . . CO
O
!
o
o
CD
+1
O
tM
p
O
+1
o
CM
0
CD
+1
0
c\i
CD c\T
I^. _ฃ,
CD ""'
, .
CD i-
xf
11
ri)
c
"Jo
. ^~
T3 CD
CD 0
^ CO
cr p
_: CD ฃ
5; o
1
> o ฎ
y ?*~* *~*
Ego
<5 .3 o
.
z
i
1
z
z
o
CD
+1
p
CM
+1 II
co m
CO T-
tO "rrt
m
CO
c
o
^
c
o
o
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: .COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 29
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 30%; 2.1 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 7.2
Facility 7
At Facility 7, Wash 29 was used on a single-unit 20" x 26" press with conventional inks
to print commercial products such as brochures and advertisements. The press operator cleaned
only one blanket using Wash 29 after the observer left, and then stopped the demonstration
because the substitute wash was found to leave an unacceptable, thick, oily film on the blanket.
The following information is, therefore, based on the observer data. At this facility, each blanket
is typically wiped down two times during cleaning: once to remove the ink with a reusable shop
towel soaked with blanket wash, and once with a clean, dry shop towel to remove excess wash.
Blanket wash is applied to the shop towel using a squirt bottle and the shop towel is resoaked
with wash prior to reuse on other blankets. The same shop towel is used until it has too much
ink build-up to effectively clean the blanket. The standard blanket wash at Facility 7 contains
petroleum distillates, 2-butoxyethanol and a proprietary surfactant, according to the MSDS.
Based on the four blanket cleanings with Wash 29, the press operator at Facility 7 found
its performance to be "poor". The baseline wash was observed to perform well; cutting the ink well
and drying quickly. Although the press operator felt that Wash 29 cut the ink with about the
same effectiveness as the baseline wash, the product was very oily, would not dry off of the
operator's hands and left an oily residue on the blanket that was very difficult to remove.
Additional time and effort were needed to remove as much of the residue as possible using a clean
dry shop towel, but some of the oily film was still present after this procedure. Although no
difference was noticed between the time to clean the blankets using the baseline wash and Wash
29, the level of physical effort needed to wash the blanket was rated as "high" for the substitute
wash compared to "medium" for the baseline wash. The oily film from Wash 29 was observed to
slightly increase the number of copies required to return to acceptable print quality after
restarting the press. The thick oily consistency of the product also increased overall effort because
it made it difficult to get the wash to soak into the shop towel. The press operator did notice,
however, that the smell of the product was not as strong as the baseline wash or the facility's
standard wash.
Facility 8
Facility 8 used a 6-unit 20" x 26" press with conventional inks to print brochures,
advertisements and other commercial products. The press operator at Facility 8 used Wash 29
for all jobs during the one-week demonstration. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped
down two times during cleaning: once with a reusable shop towel saturated with blanket wash,
and once with a clean dry shop towel to remove excess wash. The saturated shop towel is typically
used to clean all six blankets on the press before being resaturated or sent out for laundering.
This application procedure was also used for the application of the baseline wash and the
substitute wash. Facility 8 was using a wash which contains aliphatic petroleum distillates,
aromatic petroleum distillates, xylene, 2-butoxy ethanol, methylene chloride, diacetone alcohol,
diisononyl phthalate, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol, ethylbenzene and 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
DRAFT
4-54
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
(according to the MSDS) to clean the blankets prior to and following the blanket wash
demonstration. Alternative low-VOC blanket wash were experimented with in the past, but they
did not cut the ink well, did not dry fast and left and oily residue on the blanket.
The press operator at Facility 8 evaluated the performance of Wash 29 as "poor". The
operator found that Wash 29 did not cut the ink as well as the baseline product and did not
remove paper dust and powder. The baseline product was observed to cut the ink well and dry
quickly, but required some extra effort to drag it across the blanket surface. Using Wash 29, more
time and much more effort were needed to remove the ink than was needed with the baseline
product. Under medium ink coverage conditions, the average number of rotations required to
clean the blanket using Wash 29 was 4.0 compared to 2.7 for the baseline wash. Because the
average time to rotate a blanket was 15.5 seconds at facility 8, the average blanket cleaning time
increased by 20 seconds under medium ink coverage conditions over the baseline wash. The
press operator rated the effort needed to clean the blankets using both the baseline wash and
Wash 29 as "high" under medium ink coverage conditions due to the extra time needed to remove
the ink. The effort to use the baseline wash was rated as "high" because the operator found it to
have high resistance when dragging it across the blanket and the effort to use the substitute wash
was rated as "high" due to the extra rotations needed to remove the ink. The substitute wash was
also observed to leave a slight oily film on the blanket, but no effect was observed on the print
quality. The press operator noticed that the substitute wash's odor was agreeable and not too
strong.
4-55
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
%
%
I
+*
I
.s
03
ฃ
w
S
I
o
a
a>
s
I
Q.
I
U)
g Results
c
0
^>
o
*-*
S
o
xt
2
^
.ฃ"ซ b
~ S Q
m 0
<* i_
0 "to ฃ
o ^"^
o
2
a.
05
LO
LO
U.
O
CO
CO
CM
^.
1
vO
D
CM'
CJ>
CM
31
O
CO
CO
p
CO
LO
LL.
o
O
0
@
LO
CO
CD
O
LO
o
>^
ง
CM-
CO
co
to
0
"55
CO
to
m
in Results
\j
"S
s
o
E
Q
D
0
T.
,o
ts
. "5
UJ
Q)
U
(0
1
0)
a.
o 2~
'5 i
It
TO ^
'" ^
>ป o
JZ J,
Q.
a
T^
w ^^^
= .1
O" *!
ฃ2
a> 2
E *
CD
X ฐ>
ca *
.50 S
O
Medium
Coverage
CD
'*- Q>
ฃ i-
.vj) CD
-1 o
O
CD
^ i5
CD ฎ
o
Medium
Coverage
CD
*- ฐ)
~ง> CD
^ 0
O
tj
o
Q) CO fซ^
to <* o
Ms
-
CD -5
-C
s ^0 Q)
a5 5 "w
"ฃ Q) ^
CQ . O ^
w 5 ฎ
00 J2 ฐL ^
"c-i CO >- ^
CO O ^
CD <- P
.g "a) ง "5
0 0 ฃ CO
0-5-5ฎ-ฐ
-Q C C CD C
|ssi j
^
z
D)
E
^
"D
G)
^
z
p
CD
+1
0
3O
CD
+1
i
"*
CO ___^
CD CO
+l II
00 ^
o ""^
'a
ro00
CM ^
|1
< LL.
^>
O
* '
CD
O
C
CO
to
CO
0)
> Q C
HI CO
^ "^ _Q
"O m
3 E ฎ
ฐ1- "
jffiง
||8
E 5 "o
^c a
ฎ ฐ Sป
Q-'CD 2
T3 CO ~ฐ
0 i5 0)
O t< C
CD LU "53
^
z.
s^
D)
^
-^
Z
LO
CD
+1
CM
"Z.
p
d ^
+1 II
CD
JZ
CO ^^
> ^*
CD ^
_= co
to to
CQ
o
ra
o
, >- >
-Q ง "0
ฃ co ฃ
W O ฐ
^ > ,O "*~*
'ฃ-
Q. ._
CD ฃ
-
* Q -J~T - WU
O CO C. ฎ !g
;=; CD CO T3 T!
" ป "S R -2
3 1 S ง S
o T=; -S ฃ CD
CD
CD
u E
.S co
. ffS & 00 U
DRAFT
4-56
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 30
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
VOC Content: 7%; 0.48 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 100ฐF (full strength)
pH: 7.6 (25%)
Facility 18
At Facility 18, Wash 30 was used on a single-unit 20" x 30" press and a 2-unit, 19" x 26"
press with soy oil-based inks and commercial products such as business forms and brochures
were printed. The press operator used Wash 19 for the four days that the presses were operating
during the one-week demonstration period which resulted in only three blanket cleanings. At this
facility, each blanket is typically wiped down three times during cleaning: twice with a reusable
shop towel soaked with blanket wash, and once with a dry shop towel to remove excess blanket
wash. Blanket wash is applied to the shop towel using a squirt bottle and the shop towel is
resoaked with wash prior to reuse on other blankets. The same shop towel is used until it has
too much ink build-up to effectively clean the blanket. Currently, this facility cleans their
blankets using a product which contains aliphatic hydrocarbons, according to the MSDS. Other
than changing the number of rotations to clean a blanket, this application procedure was not
modified during the demonstration of the substitute product. Facility 18 had tried an alternative
low-VOC blanket wash, but found that it did not dry as fast as their standard product and was
more expensive.
Based on the three blanket cleanings with Wash 3O, the press operator at Facility 18
evaluated its performance as "fair". The baseline wash was found to cut the inkwell, but required
additional effort due to the wash's high resistance to the blanket surface. Wash 30 was only
tested under heavy ink coverage conditions and the baseline wash was observed under light and
medium coverage conditions. The substitute wash was observed to require about the same
amount of time as measured by blanket rotations under heavy ink coverage conditions as the
baseline wash required under medium coverage conditions. The press operator found that Wash
30 cut the ink well and overall it performed with about the same effectiveness as the baseline
wash. Following the manufacturer's instructions, the substitute wash was tried with 25% dilution
with water, but was found to perform better at full strength. The press operator rated the effort
needed to clean a blanket with heavy ink coverage as "medium". Although the baseline wash was
not tested under those conditions, the operator felt that the amount of physical effort needed to
clean the blanket with Wash 30 would be about the same as that of the baseline wash. The press
operator also observed that when accidentally spilled on a clear plastic guard on the press, Wash
30 permanently clouded the plastic, necessitating its replacement.
Facility 19
Facility 19 used a 2-unit 19" x 26" press also with soy oil-based inks to print brochures,
cards, and other commercial products. The press operator at Facility 19 used Wash 30 for the
entire one-week demonstration. The operator typically cleans the blanket by pouring the blanket
wash onto a clean, reusable shop towel and wiping the blanket while rotating it manually twice.
4-57
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
The blanket Is then allowed to dry by evaporation before restarting the press. This application
procedure was also used for the application of the baseline wash. When using Wash 30, the press
operator modified the application procedure slightly and wiped the blanket with a dry shop towel
before resuming the print job. The standard wash used at this facility contains aromatic
hydrocarbons, polyglycol ethers, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and a proprietary combustible chemical.
Prior to this project, they did some experimenting with another substitute wash, but it did not
work as well as their standard product and it was irritating to the skin as well. In the past, they
used an automatic blanket washer, hoping to reduce their blanket wash chemical use and labor,
but they discontinued using it after they found it required more effort and wasted solvent.
The press operator at Facility 19 evaluated the performance of Wash 30 as "fair". The
substitute product was found to cut the ink well, but required additional effort because the
substitute wash did not evaporate off of the blanket quickly and needed to be wiped off with a
clean dry shop towel and the product's thick consistency made it difficult and "messy" to use. The
baseline wash was found to cut the ink well, but required additional effort due to the wash's high
resistance to the blanket surface. On average, about one extra rotation of the blanket was
required with the substitute wash compared to the baseline wash due to the additional step
needed to dry the blanket. Because the average time to rotate a blanket was 18.5 seconds at
facility 19, the increase in blanket cleaning time was not substantial. The press operator rated
the effort needed as "high" for both the baseline and the substitute washes. The effort needed to
use the substitute wash was rated as "high" due to the additional drying step, difficulty in getting
the wash to soak into a shop towel, and because the operator found it had a slight resistance to
the blanket surface. The effort to use the baseline wash was rated as "high" because the operator
found the baseline wash had unusually high resistance to the blanket surface. An oily film was
noticed on the blanket after using Wash 30, but the operator felt that the film had only a slight
effect on the number of copies needed to get back to print quality after restarting the press.
DRAFT
4-58
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Results
^^
7n
a>
^
^^
8
_i
fl
I!
5
^
i
m
*
t
JC
ฃ
4w
0)
i
5
U)
o
p
Vapor Pressur
(reported, mm \
n.
g
Q
^Z o
co
I
E
4) % '"'*'
"ฃ "3 'i
O w) ^_
O "cS ฃ"
o ฃ vง
O "^
o
2
Q.
T-
LO,
iq
d
L.
tt
ฉ
CM
CM
CO
O
cb"
o
o
CO
1
CO,
CO
CO
LO
L
b
ฉ
LO
CO
CO
o
o
o
CM"
CO*
CO
CO
CD
c
CO
m
Results
c
_o
to
"to
c
o
F
D
CD
ฑ.
ง
1
1
. 0)
u
n
1
Q.
u- O)
11
t: s"
P 3
ซ s
~ ^
>> ฐ
n si
^*
o
u * .
ฃ c
5 o
I|
o 2
H "
CD
^ 5
||
Medium
Coverage
CD
** CK1
ฃ jg
j ^
~ซ4 ^
O
CD
^ S
CO n\
3; o
0
CD
^ CD
CD ^
^ O
CD
ฃ 2
13 ^
O
Average
Volume Used
(ounces)
It
1^
6
D
1 1
CD 5
"c *=
pi
J v O
^0 .ฃ'"5
gj g '~ฐ
ill
= CO S
*w C
O ' |
CO ^ W
S-. CD
^ CD
-Q T5 j*:
111
13
V
5?
*
13
O
formance;
D
D
6
<
^~
o
g
1
^
!^
f^.
CD
+1
LO
CO
LO
O
+1
r-
CVI
CO
ฐ S"
+1 u
LO ฃ.
CO 00
n
ii
CD LL
CD
0
0 -CD
1 1 |
S ^ CD CO
t-. ... CO "co
^ E ^ CD
5 ^ ~ ฃ
Q 'o ~5 CD
co ^ o :3
"o -o i?
CD .^ CO S- CD
fcJ ^ co '5 ฃ
CD *^ ซiป. ฎ
5 *CD O *" -^
CO ' "X ^> "^
uj a) ฎ co t: o
ง|1^ 8.1 8
lงL?liis |
<
z
g>
_^
en
T
^
O
0
+1
o
CO
o
0
+1
o
CO
o
oo
+1 II
CD
, .
co en
O 'r~
IE =
CD
O
C.
to
'co
CD
: o
li
"a .
3 >- CD
o "5 j<:
- ฃr c
CD CD CO
M S
111
c "g o
2.1 8
-ง2-2
%%a
OLLI 2
.Jj
2;
s
-C
en
n~
^
21
z
^-
o
+1
CM
CM
CM
S?
C3) -E-
CD
CO C3>
CO T-
11
CD LL
eo ^_
m &
o
CO
LL
to
i
co
LO
CO
-o
5
I
to
o
CD
CO
CXI
CO
C
o
'
CD
CL
g a
O CD
O T3
CD 0> "S
CD ^ ,_
m O 0>
*" CB P
c3 "- ง
n co 2
c co
3 . CD
~ฐ -B t?
>> ฃ
-ฐ 5
CD
i_*
^3 CD
to
. CO CO 2; ,~
I S ง ฐ
i-S ง S
!2 -!2 E "o"
j:
o
lis
o co c ^
fl3 OJ /^
ฃ.S> o
=s 2 ซ*
&ซง c
<ง ง-ฐ
z>
c
II
<
4-59
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 31
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
VOC Content: 99%; 6.6 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 105ฐF
pH: 7.6
Facility 7
At Facility 7, Wash 31 was used on a single-unit 20" x 26" press with conventional inks
to print commercial products such as brochures and advertisements. The press operator at
Facility 7 used Wash 31 for all jobs during the one-week demonstration which resulted in only 4
cleanings. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down two times during cleaning: once
to remove the ink with a reusable shop towel soaked with blanket wash, and once with a clean,
dry shop towel to remove excess wash. Blanket wash is applied to the shop towel using a squirt
bottle, and the shop towel is resoaked with wash prior to reuse on other blankets. The same shop
towel is used until it has too much ink build-up to effectively clean the blanket. The standard
blanket wash at Facility 7 contains petroleum distillates, 2-butoxyethanol and a proprietary
surfactant, according to the MSDS.
The press operator at Facility 7 evaluated Wash 31 as "fair". Wash 31 was observed to cut
the ink well, but did not dry as fast as the baseline wash. The baseline wash was observed to
perform well; cutting the ink well and drying quickly. Although not reflected in the data, the
operator felt that some additional time and effort were needed to remove the excess wash using
a clean, dry shop towel. Under medium ink coverage conditions, no difference was noticed
between the time to clean the blankets as measured by the number of rotations using the baseline
wash or Wash 31. However, the level of physical effort needed to wash the blanket was rated as
"high" for the substitute wash compared to "medium" for the baseline wash. The press operator
noticed that the smell of the substitute wash was noticeable, but not disagreeable.
Facility 8
Facility 8 used a 6-unit 20" x 26" press with conventional inks to print brochures,
advertisements and other commercial products. The press operator at Facility 8 used Wash 31
for all jobs during the one-week demonstration. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped
down two times during cleaning: once with a reusable shop towel saturated with blanket wash,
and once with a clean dry shop towel to remove excess wash. The saturated shop towel is typically
used to clean all six blankets on the press before being resaturated or disposed. This application
procedure was also used for the application of the baseline wash and the substitute wash. Facility
8 was using a product containing aliphatic petroleum distillates, aromatic petroleum distillates,
xylene, 2-butoxy ethanol, methylene chloride, diacetone alcohol, diisononyl phthalate, 2,6-di-tert-
butyl-p-cresol, ethylbenzene and 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, according to the MSDS, to clean the
blankets prior to and following the blanket wash demonstration. Alternative low-VOC blanket
washes were experimented with in the past, but they did not cut the inkwell, did not dry fast, and
left an oily residue on the blanket.
DRAFT
4-60
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Overall, the performance of Wash 31 was considered "good/fair". Wash 31 was tested
under light, medium and heavy ink conditions, while the baseline wash was observed only under
medium coverage conditions. The press operator observed that the wash cut the inkwell, dried
quickly and performed about as well as the baseline wash. Under medium coverage conditions,
it was observed that the substitute wash required less time to clean the blankets than the baseline
wash. Somewhat more of Wash 31 was needed, however, to remove the ink in comparison to the
baseline wash (0.7 ounces for the baseline wash compared to 1.1 ounces for the substitute wash).
The press operator rated the effort needed to clean the blankets using Wash 31 as "low" under all
coverage conditions, although he did note that there was slightly more resistance to the blanket
surface. The effort needed to use the baseline wash was rated as "high" because the operator
found it to have unusually high resistance to the blanket.
4-61
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
ซ
ro
>.
^
I
c
J2
lonstratfons for B
1
Q
CD
1
g
O
t
d>
Q.
5
o
1
I
II ^ s il
I
i
resting Results
0
Ln
L3
1
-
ฃ"-*
Vapor Pressur*
(reported, mm H
Q.
t^
C
'o ^.^
.C 0
to >-
re
LL
I^-e
c ns 5
O ^) ^
^^ ,Q
o ^^
^
5
3
D
2
Q.
CO
CO
0
co'
in
LJ.
o
00
CO
ฉ
O
V
CD
in
0
55
ง
CO
^
r
%
>
=ป
00
CO
q
CO
in
U.
o
0
0
ฉ
in
CD
co"
0
m
5?
o
0
T
\J
~6
c
CO
M
ป
5
CO
co
a
stration Results
o
I
o
0>
E
_o
ง
5
Ul
8
c
n
0
0)
Q.
"gs-
.fe ra
II
c s"
ฐ.S
s-s
T5 ^
0 -
II
"S i?
ฃ ซ
'5 .2
F*
H
CO
If
Medium
Coverage
ซ S
.S> *
~" = =
^1^
^ >
is S
"o '5
P
m CD *- co
J3 CD f-J TJ >.
il. CD CD -^
M- o -* co =
H-. p C CO O
O JO CD CO
m ^* o Q . **"~
-fcj ฃ c .ฃ co
m "to CD ^ .= c
(^ ~^ ^~ frt O
ง- = TJ .5> ง i:
ฃ S 'co ป a- o> .
gj S CD co -C
_^ :i=; c co co
CO ฃ; _>ป -73 ^- ป S*
ง J2 I! '8 S" j= CD
"Q "*^ > ^* r- ~ni
|o |5|co|
Z
0)
ฑ
D)
-^
E co
M *-
CO CO
ฃ1
CD
o
c
CO
co' To
1 -1
S w '
CQ ^ "^
r- 5 co ^
CO .^ TJ O"
H-. -S C CD
o .ฃ co "-
m *-' '('n CO ^^
ffi 3 W CO 0)
y o co ^ j*
CD ^ "t- ct
g CO 5 'flj flj
co E co gj ^
CO ง -D 'ฐ "S
o Q. E ^ c
"O "^ CD "r^ *S
s o o! to ^
o
o
5
CM
O
-1
TT*
cvi
q
o
+1
o
cvi
o
o"
+1
^
CM'
in
* *~-^
i- ฐฐ
r> ^
1 "O
-.CO
u.
CD CO
~ 8'
ฃ | LL
ง
m
1o
'co
ฃ
= o
CD
^ 0)
C
CO
^*
1
II
LL.
cO
6
CO
in
cvi
co
u
c
o
to
o
CD
Q.
CD
O)
CO
. C
CD ฐ
gil
2 ฎ -co
^-j -S^
c > m
CD CD ~0
/> Tf j_
C R S
3 O -Q
5 "~ ง
-CD
3 - CD
D ~ฐ ฃ
S CO >,
W .CO "S
O CO ^
E 'to co -^r-
-ง "ฐ g CD
+-* * ^
O J^ ป- CD
C *= ^g CO
3 c _g ^
o co c -Q
Q-^ CD -ง
i)" co ฐ o
o ^ -2 CD
L) "o TJ -
= ^ CD CD
ง~-P o-'*3
5 Z5 ฃ ง
2 c CD -,., ,
ii " .i <"
% _ - J2
4-62
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 32
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
VOC Content: 99%; 6.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 220ฐF
pH: 8.5
Facility 1 ,
At Facility 1, performance demonstrations were conducted on an eight-unit, 28" x 40" press
using vegetable-based inks to print high quality, multi-color, commercial products. Currently,
Facility 1 uses a blanket wash which consists of aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
and aliphatic hydrocarbons, according to the MSDS. In the months preceding the
demonstrations, the facility had tried two different low-VOC blanket washes; neither worked as
well as their standard wash. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down twice during
cleaning: once with a reusable shop towel saturated in blanket wash to remove the ink, and once
with a dry shop towel to remove excess blanket wash. Each saturated shop towel is used to clean
two blankets. The same application procedure was used for the baseline and substitute products.
The quantity of wash needed to saturate the shop towel and clean the blanket remained constant
throughout the demonstration, regardless of the ink coverage or ink build-up on the blanket.
There were both positive and negative aspects to this application method. While more wash than
was needed may have been used in some cases, the consistency of the application volume made
it possible to compare the performance of the standard, baseline, and substitute products under
the same conditions.
Overall, the performance of Wash 32 was considered "fair/poor." Although it cut the ink
well, more effort was required than with the baseline wash. When using the baseline wash, the
operator found it cut it the inkwell, but required some more effort than their standard wash. The
additional effort to clean the blanket with Wash 32 was needed to remove the oily residue that
remained on the blanket. With Wash 32, an average of 4 rotations (approximately 80 seconds)
were needed to clean the blanket, whereas with the baseline product, only 2 rotations (40 seconds)
were required. After using Wash 32, the residue persisted, even after wiping down the blanket
with two dry wipes. The press operator commented that normally a slight residue may not be a
problem, but in this case, it caused problems with future print quality. On subsequent images,
there was visible "chatter" (faint, inconsistent lines where the color is supposed to be uniformly
solid) on the print. Eventually, the residue is picked up in the prints and the chatter is only a
temporary problem, however, more impressions are needed to get back up to acceptable quality
than with the standard or baseline wash. After eight blanket cleanings (four with the observer
present and four more conducted by the printer), Facility 1 decided to discontinue the
performance demonstration with Wash 32.
Facility 5 .
At Facility 5, performance demonstrations were conducted using a single-unit, 12" x 18"
press with conventional inks to print commercial products such as business cards and
advertisements. According to the MSDSs, this facility currently uses either a blanket wash which
contains aliphatic hydrocarbons, cyclohexane, n-heptane, methylcyclohexane, toluene, C6-C8
paraffins, and C6-C8 cycloparaffins or one that consists of aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic
4-63
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, xylene, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, and propylene
glycol methyl ether. Facility 5 has tried several substitute blanket washes that were donated by
their supplier. None of these products were adopted either because they did not work as well as
their standard wash (left an oily residue on the blanket) or they were too expensive (up to twice
as much as their standard wash). The facility has reduced the quantity of solvent used by reusing
the drying shop towel from the previous wash for the application of blanket wash in the
subsequent blanket wash procedure. This reduced the amount of solvent used, the number of
shop towels sent to the laundry and the associated laundering costs, and the environmental
impacts such as laundry wastewater and energy usage. Typically, the blanket is wiped down twice
during cleaning: once with blanket wash to remove the ink, and once with a clean, dry shop towel
to remove excess wash. Blanket wash is applied directly to the blanket using a squirt bottle and
is then wiped effusing a reusable shop towel. The same shop towel is used until it has too much
ink build-up to effectively clean the blanket. This application procedure was modified slightly for
the baseline wash and substitute wash demonstrations in that the wash was poured onto the
shop towel instead of directly on the blanket.
Wash 32 was used for one week and 12 washes were recorded by the press operator.
Overall, the performance of Wash 32 was rated "good." When compared to the baseline wash
(which cut the inkwell and cleaned the blanket as well as their standard wash), the effort needed
to clean the blanket with Wash 32 was slightly higher because Wash 32 left an oily residue on the
blanket. With the baseline or the standard wash, one rotation with a dry shop towel was enough
to remove the excess wash. With Wash 32, two or three rotations with the dry wipe were required.
On average, the drying time increased from approximately 21 seconds using the baseline or
standard wash to approximately 32 seconds using Wash 32. This extra drying step increased the
effort required, however, the residue did not affect future print quality. The printer commented
that the slight residue came off quickly during the normal waste sheet portion of the next run.
During the demonstration, Wash 32 was used on light, medium, and heavy ink coverage;
all with good results. It should be noted that heavy ink coverage for a business card, is not the
equivalent of heavy ink coverage for larger print operations. The printer at Facility 5 felt the oily
residue could cause some problems on a bigger press with greater ink coverage.
DRAFT
4-64
-------
CHAPTER 4-. COMPETITIVENESS
4J PERFORMANCE DATA
I
_
CD
o
Q)
Q
* _ ,
Washabilit
(# strokes
^_
"3
t-> xP
Q) 0s*
CO
CQ
*
^
^^
Q
fe*
ist
*5
y
0
V.
O
c
E?
1 1
ฃ =
Q. TJ
0 t
Q. O
(0 Q.
Q.
C
"3
a. ฃฃ
CO *-*
n
u.
I-*
ll!
0 ซ5 jฃ
gS.#
"5
o
S.
a.
o
^J
in
Q
O
J-
XI
CD
ฉ
^
LO
co'
in
06
0
CM
CM
O)
O)
CD
CM
CO
I
CO
^t
00
CO
CO
uq
U_
o
ฉ
in
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
UO
xO
O
0
c\T
CD
_C
CO
CO
CD
c
"55
CO
ca
m
Results
ง
1
CO
o
i
Q
o
.2
IT
.0
S?
>
LU
Q>
U
CO
c
1
ฃ
o *-
a> -C
^ o
c E"
if
CD
-S> g
""^ O
0
Si
^ ca
CD ฎ
3; o
O
C rr.
"^ 5
^ CD
CD ^
^ CJ
Oi
^-- ca
-C C.
.D) CD
J g
O
a>
2 a> ง
< 3 ฐ
o ""
^.-^
fo
2 w
a. "-
CO
CO
tn
iket washes:
i remove exci
h.
5 "*""* CO
O "C ^
^3- O
M-, ^ "E
O nj
CD fl) ~E
<3 . S? ~y)
ฃฃ^f
fM i_ __. (
^u ฃ.* OJ i^
50 ^ ^ c
o Q- ฃ ซ
T-j T3 "^ ซ-
CD ฐ cr .c
CO 0 ffl CO
ca CD CC co
CQ . . g
Z
ra
ฑ
i
z
in
o
+1
CM
^
O
o "S-^
LO ฃ,
CM
"cO
CM
co -
CO =
S ca
co
"c
Q.
subsequent
.ซ
CD
03
CD' P
c "o
ca CD
E ^
O CO
"C ฐ
CD CD
i_ -0
8 "8
-S-
^ >.
ca ~
u. O
Z
.c
D)
0)
^
O
O
+1
o
CM
O
O
+1
0
CM'
p
+1 II
m -ฃ-
CM
-C
cn
ca
CD ^
"a5 ca
co LL.
CO
CD ^5
-o
. f~~
Jy ^ฑ
^ 5
05 TJ >.
S* CD -t:
^ ง ง
a E 'o-
c ฃ "E
-2 cn ">-
-Q ca Q-
ij ^ ^3
H-. CO M
ฐ ฃ CO
CO . TJ
CD g 'CO S
"S. c ฃ "ฐ
P CO ^^ T3
CO >- O CO
O ,-
co t *--^2
J-. CD -C CD
ฐ^= |
Qi O .**-" ' *-*
co O S ^
CD . . co
E
rs
CD
E
'o
CD
1
O
O
+1
p
co'
p
o
+1
p
co'
p
C3
+1
O
co'
CM ^_^
O O?
O ~~"
to
co m
^ ฃ:
$ CO
^ LL
J=
cn
standard wa
CO
CO
t:
O
o
o
m
8 S
|i
o -^
c S
CD >
T3 IE
O <-.
O 13
O O
z
z
1
Z
^
CM
ฐf
co
CO
CD .-51
-S^
CD CO
co U-
CO
CQ ca
8
LL
O
CD
CO
CD
CD
T3
CO
(D "o
o CO
U.
o
ffl
to
1
O)
o
'o
CD
Q.
CO
(D
CO
CO
O
CD
.a .
. T3
CO 0>
1^.
%%
ง 8.
o -
eg g g _Q
** ^ ^""^ "O
W "-^ _ฃ
-
ca n>
.2 u
o o ^
zz =
U II
< o
^T3
II E CD
= P c3
:ซ ^ ฃ-
4-65
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 34
Composition:
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 39%; 2.8 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 138ฐF
pH: 6.6
Facility 1
At Facility 1, performance demonstrations were conducted on an eight-unit, 28" x 40"
press using vegetable-based, inks to print high quality, multi-color, commercial products.
Currently, Facility 1 uses a blanket wash which consists of aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene, and aliphatic hydrocarbons, according to the MSDS. In the months preceding
the demonstrations, the facility had tried two different low-VOC blanket washes; neither worked
as well as their standard wash. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down twice during
cleaning: once with a reusable rag saturated in blanket wash to remove the ink, and once with
a dry rag to remove excess blanket wash. Each saturated rag is used to clean two blankets. The
same application procedure was used for the baseline and substitute products. The quantity of
wash needed to saturate the rag and clean the blanket remained constant throughout the
demonstration, regardless of the ink coverage or ink build-up on the blanket. There were both
positive and negative aspects to this application method. While more wash than was needed may
have been used in some cases, the consistency of the application volume made it possible to
compare the performance of the standard, baseline, and substitute products under the same
conditions.
The operator used Wash 34 for one week and cleaned 37 blankets. The wash performance
was considered "good;" this facility used five different substitute washes over a two month period
for the performance demonstrations project and the press operator considered Wash 34 to be the
best performer. During the course of the week, the operator recorded data on the performance
of Wash 34 on blankets with all levels of ink coverage. On blankets with light or medium ink
coverage, Wash 34 cut the ink well with the same level of effort as was used when cleaning with
the baseline or standard wash. For light and medium ink coverage, the operator considered the
performance to be "good" for all washes. On blankets with heavy ink coverage, slightly more effort
was required than with the standard wash. For the 19 blankets cleaned where ink coverage was
heavy, performance was rated as "good" on 12 blankets (63%) and "fair" for 7 blankets (37%). The
press operator noticed that the product had a "very dry feel" to it. He found performance and ease
of use improved when he wiped the blanket with a sponge soaked with water before applying Wash
34. Wiping the blanket with a wet sponge prior to application of the wash is often done to remove
paper build-up, so the printer did not consider this step to be an extra effort.
Performance of Wash 34 was comparable to that of the baseline wash (which cut the ink
well, and required the same amount of time as their standard wash, but did require some
additional effort to remove the oily residue). Average time required to clean the blanket with the
DRAFT
4-66
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
baseline wash was approximately 40 seconds for light or medium ink coverage, and with Wash
34, average cleaning time varied between 40 and 60 seconds.
Facility 19
For the performance demonstrations, Facility 19 used a 2-unit, 19" x 26" press with soy
oil-based inks to print brochures, cards, and other commercial products. The standard wash used
at this facility contains aromatic hydrocarbons, polyglycol ethers, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and a
proprietary combustible chemical, according to the MSDS. Prior to this project, they did some
experimenting with another substitute wash, but it did not work as well as their standard product
and it was irritating to the skin as well. In the past, they used an automatic blanket washer,
hoping to reduce their blanket wash chemical use and labor, but they discontinued using it after
they found it required more effort and wasted solvent. Typically, the operator at Facility 19 cleans
the blanket by pouring the blanket wash onto a clean, reusable shop towel and wiping the blanket
while rotating it manually twice. The blanket is then allowed to dry by evaporation before
restarting the press. This application procedure was also used for the application of the baseline
wash. When using the substitute Wash 34, the press operator modified the application procedure
slightly and wiped the blanket with a dry shop towel before resuming the print job.
This printer considered the performance of Wash 34 to be "fair" or "poor" for light, medium,
and heavy ink coverage. Data sheets were completed for 13 blanket washes. The printer found
that Wash 34 left a light coating on the blanket, and often "high" effort was needed to remove this
residue. The consistency of the wash was another problem: the printer found that the thick
consistency of the wash prevented it from soaking into the shop towel easily. Before he could
apply the wash, the press operator had to work it into the shop towel, additionally increasing the
effort needed to clean the blanket with Wash 34. It took longer to clean the blanket with Wash
34 than with the baseline wash. The baseline wash cut the ink well, but required slightly more
effort than their standard wash. Additional effort was due to the increased drag of the shop towel
over the blanket; the baseline wash was not as smooth as their standard wash. The printer did
note that fewer impressions were needed to get back up to acceptable print quality after cleaning
the blanket with the baseline product. When ink coverage was light, the average time to clean the
blanket with Wash 34 was approximately 65 seconds; with the baseline wash the average cleaning
time was approximately 40 seconds.
4-67
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
S
ฃ
C/J
I
ro
5
M
ง
1
o
i
CD
O
ra
f
Q.
CO
E
(A
co
|
3)
0
X
3
0
3
A
B
S
i= S
s *
ro o
.C ฃ1
S *
5^
0)
g S^
ro
CO
^
s
!e
0
-C
o
c
2 ฃ
ฃ!?
si.
Q. CD
ra ป-,
>
g
o x_s
iฃ? 0
co '
LL
Q.
C _^
"e "en ?
o g,^
o s-'8s
t>
3
73
2
o.
o
CM
0
CO
LO
J_
CD
CD
ฉ
CM
CO
o
CD
CD'
^
o
xf
v>
i
*
CO
CO
CO
LO
1.
r>
o
ฉ
LO
0
CO
CO
0
o
o
JD
0
CO
CD
)
co
11
n
tt
i>
5
a
n
2
0
a
o
1
g
LU
0)
. O
CO
1
CD
D.
TJ =
0) -C
t 0)
II
||
"ro S
w >*
fl ^
a> 1o~
i C
i .2
"r "5
CD L.
CD
X D>
O
1 5
^3 03
Q) i*
CD
Ol QJ
aa
Q)
1*5
"T
o
r- *^
S O)
-3 5
-B CD
CD iป
^ O
CD
ฃ 1*
ง) CD
1 Q
O
0) ^^
Si 3 CO
2 CD ง
> 1 |
o ^^
^ >.
-* iM
||
CD l-i J
o|:tf "SS
ll^l ฐl
* r CO ฎ
CO C! ^ -f~ "P >, 0)
T3-0 2^ ^g g
m O O .^ 73 n\ m
0) 0 C ZJ C ' TO
CO O CD O ซ C73 3
-Q .73 .CO . jQ
D)
ฑ
5
D
3
CD
O
CO
O
+1
CM
CM
CD
O
-H
to
CM
ฐ.-
ฑ
3)
X
<ฃ
^
O
o
+1
o
CM
o
o
+1
o
'NJ
0 CM"
+1 n
\i
I-
^* .
0) 'o
= CO
^ 13
n
CD
CO 5 ^
CO O
CO f
J3 73
o5|
ra-g
0 CO
ฃ "
CD -C
73 --g
CD g
0)
2 5
m^
CD ^
. 5~
CD CO CO
0 C 3
C O U"
CO '(o *-
P co c:
e s.0-
a E -2
^-s
ฐ 11-
,? ฎ 0
CD LL "
. CO
<
^"
5)
n:
,3-
-^
^y
*
O
+1
OJ
CM
1
d
M
O
+|
3>
j CJ)
i^*
E CO
CD LL
co .^
2
o
o
CD
CO
CD
73
CD
21
to
I
CD
CD
CO
O
CD
73
UL
O
CD
CO
O
CM
03
o
x_
CD
Q.
CD
D)
CO
C
o
"55
_cg
CD
_Q
Q. O .-
CD CD jg
CD ฃ ฃ
O CO ^
O CD A
; O
1 O _ _
- P CD 77
co co o i
CO CD
O -C -C 73 &-'
= CO CO CD S
Q. CO CO .t: o
"Z. *
ii !l
< c
21 (TJ J
^ CO
= CD 0
E CD
^
O r-
DRAFT
4-68
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 37
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
VOC Content: 14%; 1.0 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 82ฐF
pH: 3.9
Facility 3
Facility 3 used Wash 37 on a 2-unit, 18" x 25" press, with conventional inks to print a
variety of commercial products. Facility 3 had used a new blanket wash for health, safety or
environmental reasons on one occasion prior to the performance demonstration. The wash had
not been adopted because it left an oily residue on the blanket and took too long to dry. Normal
blanket washing procedure is the following: a squirt bottle is used to apply blanket wash to a
reusable shop towel, the shop towel is then used to wipe the blanket as it is manually rotated, arid
the blanket is allowed to air dry. Standard facility blanket wash was a mixture of aliphatic and
aromatic hydrocarbons, according to the MSDS. The application procedure was changed for the
performance demonstration. Wash 37 did not dry as quickly as the standard facility wash, so a
dry shop towel was used to remove the residue from the blanket after the washing step. For each
blanket cleaning, the procedure was to apply only a sufficient amount of wash to the shop towel.
Press operators increased the amount of Wash 37 applied to the shop towel as ink coverage on
the blanket increased.
Press operators had no problems with Wash 37 during the performance demonstration.
Wash 37 drying time was slightly greater than for the base.line and standard facility washes, but,
according to press operators, Wash 37 performed as well overall. Wash 37 received good and fair
performance ratings on light and medium ink coverage print jobs, respectively, as there were no
heavy ink coverage jobs during the week of the performance demonstration. According to press
operators, medium ink coverage jobs required more effort to clean than light ink coverage jobs
with Wash 37. The baseline wash was considered a good performer, although it was only tested
on medium coverage print jobs. Due to the addition of the drying step, the use of Wash 37
doubled the time required to wash the blanket (which is proportional to the number of blanket
rotations needed), from one, as required with the baseline, to two rotations on average.
Facility 4
Wash 37 was used on a 4-unit, 34" x 40" press at Facility 4 which does most of its
business in commercial printing products such as software manuals and calendars. Facility 4
uses a solution of aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and surfactants, as the
standard blanket wash, according to the MSDS. Blanket wash procedure at Facility 4 consists
of a two wipe process. Blanket wash is applied to a clean, dry, and reusable shop towel which is
used to wash the blanket. Another clean dry shop towel is then used to remove excess wash and
dry the blanket. If ink buildup on the shop towels is not significant, the shop towels are used to
wash more than one blanket. If paper coating is deposited on the blanket from the job, the
blanket wash shop towel is dipped into a bucket of water before wiping down the blanket. This
standard blanket washing procedure was not modified for the performance demonstration.
4-69
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Initially, Wash 37 performed well at Facility 4. It cut the ink well, soaked into the
application shop towel readily, and required little effort. Then, after a few days of usage, Wash
37 caused uncoated paper to stick to the blankets. The tackiness of the blankets was such that
uncoated paper stock was pulled apart during the printing process. Facility 4 discontinued its
performance demonstration of Wash 37 and the problems disappeared.
DRAFT
4-70
-------
CHAPTER k COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
M
I
m
ฃ
(0
o
M
O
I
0
g
re
I
Q.
ra
ฃ
co
'esting Results
t
fr*
1
o
rt
Jut
5
,*> -jr>
"= ffi
re g
C JS
w 55
1*
L
(0
OQ
Je
^
v^
e?
Wet Ink
in
1
jii ^
ซ ฐ>
2 x
Vapor Pressui
(reported, mm
Q.
'c
'o
co'
CM
CO
T
p~
1
CO
CO
CO
LO
LL
o
0
0
LO
CD,
CO
0
LO
^O
O
CM"
co
seline Wash
to
m
jtration Results
w/
o
CD
Q
.2
ง
1
1
LLI
8
Performan
TJ ^r*
B
r s"
0 3
si
S""" ^E
r.
"55 ^
g d.
a
g C
5 .2
Is
CD B
Eat
_ CS-
CD
^s ^
^ 5
^ 0
O
Medium
Coverage
CD
* S^
S|
<ง
ง,
^ 2
I s
a: o
0
p ง.
-3 2
Q CD
i o
ง0
CO
5 5
.CD CD
3 1
O
0)3 $
2 a> o
d> e c
> | 3
"o "^
If
go
"O
T3 C .
ป CO <ฐ -:
cli ฃ ' "ซ
C/3 flj ^ CO
*-o o ฃ
g c: j_ "g
1 2 ^ ^ i
-O C ^. Q)
W ^ "^
^ ^ o 'ง ง.
U sll
J> 2 "S ป5
|i g &S
ง ? o 2 2
CO C g CO CO
^t |||
S S, 8 ฃ 1 8
S g-S^^s 2
sj iฐ- Eฐ-
^.
z
E
CD
O
^
Z
1^
CD
+1
LO
CM'
o
o
+1
o
CM"
o p
CO c
"co
n &
P
^>
CD
C
CD
ood performance: cut
O
^
Z
Medium
Z
^_
ง
o
o
+1
P
*^
z
IT
o
1
^z
CO 75
_ฃ co
co *-
CO CO
m
CD
"O
Q.
. s
Co' CO
CD CD
-C >^-
to -Q
CO 1
s ^
^ Q.
S T3
^5 CD
.Q CO
13
CO CO
H-ป O '
O ! Q
ง J. -i
Co ^^ ^
CD = CO O
~- co co o
Q. V- CD CO
E j= Jl =5
CO g 5 CO
ง T3 ^D ^
m Q CO co
(S ^ "o D
^J
z
E
T3
CD
Z
^^
Z
^.
o
+1
CO
CM
^
Z
CO
+1 II
CM S-
c\i
n ^
|1
< U-
^^
CD
.ซ
CD
.C
O
CD
O
CO
O iJ
t 0
2.?
ง1
O CO
Z
o
Z
^^
z
P
o
+1
P
co'
3C
Z
P
+1 II
o -S
CO
x:
11
CD LL
co *-'
CO CO
DO
o
a.
i
o
s
CO ^
ill
~& '~ C
C Q. tO
8 co^
CD -B ~0
8-2 i
CO
3 O .2 -S ,
T3
o
.2 co
-C -C
O o
i^
OJ CD
5.i
CD C
*- o
2 -a
E co
4-71
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 38
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 65%; 4.9 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 5.6
Facility 2
Facility 2 used, a 3-unit, 13" x 18" press for the performance demonstrations. This facility
prints commercial products (brochures, flyers, cards) using both conventional and vegetable oil-
based inks. The standard blanket wash consists of aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene, and aliphatic hydrocarbons (per the MSDS) which, according to the press
operator, cuts the ink well, but does have somewhat of an odor. In the past, Facility 2 has tried
two substitute blanket washes: performance was rated as poor ("it did not work at all") for one
product, and the other product they tested was too expensive. In their standard blanket washing
procedure, the press operator at this facility pours the blanket wash onto a reusable rag from a
squirt bottle, wipes the ink off the blanket in one rotation, then uses a dry rag for one rotation to
remove the excess wash. This procedure was used for both the baseline and the substitute wash.
The use of Wash 38 was discontinued by Facility 2 after 1.5 days of use due to print
problems resulting from an oily residue left on the blanket after the blanket wash process.
According to press operators, Wash 38 also required more effort to cut the ink and to wipe the
blanket than both the standard wash and the baseline wash of the performance demonstration.
Performance was especially poor with heavy ink coverage, but Wash 38 was rated as requiring
high effort and demonstrating poor performance after every blanket cleaning at Facility 2. The oily
film left on the blanket after using Wash 38 caused a noticeable increase in the number of
impressions required to reach acceptable print quality after a wash procedure. Press operators
experimented with a variety of ways for removing this residue (e.g., dry wipe, water) but were
unable to prevent it from affecting print quality.
Facility 4
Wash 38 was used on a 4-unit, 28" x 40" press at Facility 4 with conventional inks to
produce a variety of commercial printing products such as software manuals. Facility 4 uses a
solution of aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and surfactants (according to the
Information on the MSDS) as the standard blanket wash. Facility 4 has pursued some work
practice changes to reduce its use of blanket wash solution. Instead of saturating rags with wash
in a plunger can, press operators at Facility 4 are encouraged to apply an appropriate amount of
blanket wash on each rag as needed, which reduces the overall quantity of blanket wash used at
the facility. Blanket wash procedure at Facility'4 consists of a two wipe process. Blanket wash
is applied to a clean, dry, and reusable rag which is then used to wash the blanket. Another clean
dry rag is then used to remove excess wash and dry the blanket. If the rags are clean enough,
they are used to wash more than one blanket on the 4-unit press. The press blankets rotate
automatically during this process. If a significant amount of paper coating is deposited on the
blanket from the job, the blanket wash rag is dipped into a bucket of water before wiping down
DRAFT
4-72
-------
CHAPTER*: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
the blanket. This standard blanket washing procedure was not modified for the performance
demonstration.
Wash 38 cut the inkwell, but left an oily residue on the blanket that increased the number
of impressions required to return print quality by 5 to 10 times above that required with the
baseline of standard facility washes. Due to this print quality interference, the press operator
returned to the standard facility wash after 6 trials. The press operator attempted to remove the
oily residue with a dry wipe, but was unable to remove it completely. The oily residue interfered
with ink adhesion, especially with red and yellow inks. According to the press operator, Wash 38
cut the ink well but caused sufficient print quality problems to prevent a facility from adopting
it for environmental or worker health and safety reasons. The baseline wash was considered a
good performer that cut the inkwell. Press operators described the odor of the baseline wash as
strong.
4-73
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
CO
m
CO
I
1
1
i
CD
I
O
I
a.
CO
09
*ป*
1
CO
DC
^
H
b
^
o
^
n
I
|1
CO g
M Ifl
!$.
1
to ^
"S o^
Is"
m
^
1
Je
5
4^
co
^
o
c
in
|
^
0) ^
^ ^u
w ฃ
!!
if
ca Q.
> ฃ.
a.
4ซi
tg
iT"
ฃ
0) ... ^>
III
0-S5
"5
TJ
ฃ
a.
CD
0
LO
0
LL
o
CO
CO
O
CM'
CD
LO'
CM
^p
LO
CD
CO
"*"
OO
CO
1
CO
CO
CO
LO
^~
1 1
LL.
o
0
o
@
LO
CD
co'
O
LO
^?
O
o
c\r
CD'
co
1
CD
"CD
CO
CO
CD
to
i**
i
,o
^rf
^
c
o
1
a>
O
"O
a>
LL
g
I
1
LU
8
U
n
a.
o =
.if
C ฃ
2. .2
T5 ^
||
Q
Tt .
ne require*
f rotations]
F ""
CD
^ TO
^1
Medium
Coverage
_ ง>
13 S
W 'M'
M ""^ ***
D) J m
2 o> o
> 1 |
< o"2-
If '
0 '"
g
Igli
03 CI W . CD ,_
TO O Z> 0
CQ . . o_
_ฃ.
D)
z.
_E
D)
0
O
+1
0
LO'
z.
o
0
+1
0
CO'
CO
+1 *]?
ฐ^ .s
c\i ~~'
*-ป
n
CO $?
11
< U-
^J
"CD
E
JO
'E c:
c satisfacto
3 residue o
c >
co
ZJ
o *-
CO T3
5 b
.
^
z.
"Z.
E
ZJ
T3
CD
^
2
s
C\j
^~
+1
h^
CNJ
OO
ฐ' CO
+1 II
CN|-ฃ
*
OT
1~
co co
CO
Q.
2-
c: ^5
05 "O
S CO
S .2
"C ซ> CD
TO * ZI
^ ^2 -a
w'S'g .
^ T3 "- ^
0 CD >,-C
m ZJ nz: o
.ง .ฃ ฐ o
ซ c E ^5
CD O O .CO
Q. to "*" 'co
TO E ^s
CO "^ CD C
TO CO 3 ~
r- g 0 ZJ
0^0."
CD CD ^ Jg
TO ID ZJ 5
OQ . cr .
<
D)
X
1
CD
z. '
CD
O
+1
LO
CO'
O
0
+1
O
co'
rf
z.
CO
"" CD"
+1 II
CO
t .
CO ,J>>
< LL.
^J
:
^ iJ
v* o
E T3
o
H- O
O CO
, .
^f
^
O
z.
^
^
o
0
+1
o
CO
^
z.
p
o -S
CO
w
^> fi^
Q) "o
ILL
CO >-
co co
CD
O
CD
CO
O
LO'
co
CM
"o
CO
U-
o
CD
U)
LO
CO
c.
o
I
CD
Q.
CD
I
<ป a.
8|
CD ^
r %
%ซ
c CO
"O CD
&
58 o 5
g _ _ca
> *> o
O CO
'E
8
fe ^H CD
" \n c\ r
CD CO ฐ E
5 g o -J=
CO s- ^ E
3. m ~ "d
a. JP. 5 CD
< -2 cr co
^ E CD ro
7Z. -^ i__ /^
CD
O
ฃ
DRAFT
4-74
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
Blanket Wash 39
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
VOC Content: 37%; 2.9 Ibs/gal
; Flashpoint: 155ฐF
pH: 9.2
Facility 5
At Facility 5, Wash 39 was used on a single-unit 12" x 18" press, and a single-unit 12" x
18" press with conventional inks and print commercial products such as business cards and
advertisements. The press operator at Facility 5 used Wash 39 for most jobs during the one-week
demonstration. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down two times during cleaning:
once with blanket wash to remove the ink, and once with a clean, dry shop towel to remove excess
wash. Blanket wash is applied directly to the blanket using a squirt bottle and is then wiped off
using a reusable shop towel. The same shop towel is used until it has too much ink build-up to
effectively clean the blanket. This application procedure was modified for the baseline wash and
substitute wash demonstrations by applying the wash first to the shop towel instead of directly
to the blanket. Currently, this facility uses two blanket wash products. According to the MSDSs,
one contains aliphatic hydrocarbons, cyclohexane, n-heptane, methylcyclohexane, toluene, C6-C8
paraffins, and C6-C8 cycloparaffins and the other consists of aromatic hydrocarbons; aliphatic
hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, xylene, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, and propylene
glycol methyl ether. Facility 5 has tried a variety of substitute blanket washes donated by
suppliers. None of these products were adopted either because they did not work as well as their
standard wash (left an oily residue on the blanket) or they were too expensive (up to twice as
much as their standard wash).
The press operator at Facility 5 evaluated Wash 39 as "good". Although Wash 39 did not
dry as fast as the baseline wash, it was found to cut the ink well. The substitute wash was also
observed to leave an oily residue on the blanket which required some extra effort to remove with
a dry shop towel, but no effect was noticed on the print quality. Wash 39 was tested: under light,
medium and heavy ink coverage conditions, while the baseline wash was tested under light ink
coverage conditions only. Under light coverage conditions, it was observed that Wash 39 required
2.7 rotations to clean the blankets and the baseline wash required 2.0 rotations. The level of
physical effort needed to wash the blanket was rated as "medium" for both the substitute wash
and the baseline wash. While Wash 39 was found to be effective on the blankets, according to the
press operator it could not be used on the rollers. Two products were therefore required to clean
up the press, increasing the time and effort needed.
Facility 8
Facility 8 used a, 6-unit 20" x 26" press with conventional inks to .print brochures,
advertisements and other commercial products. The press operator at Facility 8 cleaned five,,
blankets using Wash 39 and then stopped the demonstration because the substitute wash did not
cut the ink well and required an unacceptable amount of effort to clean the blankets. At this
4-75
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
facility, each blanket is typically wiped down two times during cleaning: once with a reusable shop
towel saturated with blanket wash, and once with a clean dry shop towel to remove excess wash.
The saturated shop towel is typically used to clean all six blankets on the press before being
resaturated or sent out for laundering. This application procedure was also used for the
application of the baseline wash and the substitute wash. Facility 8 was using a wash which,
according to the MSDS, contains aliphatic petroleum distillates, aromatic petroleum distillates,
xylene, 2-butoxy ethanol, methylene chloride, diacetone alcohol, diisononyl phthalate, 2,6-di-tert-
butyl-p-cresol, ethylbenzene and 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene to clean the blankets prior to and
following the blanket wash demonstration. Alternative low-VOC blanket washes were
experimented with in the past, but they did not cut the ink well, did not dry fast, and left and oily
residue on the blanket.
Based on the five blanket cleanings with Wash 39, the press operator at Facility 8
evaluated the performance as "poor". The baseline wash was observed to perform well; cutting the
ink well and drying quickly. The operator observed that Wash 39 did not cut the ink well and
required a substantial amount of time and effort to get the blankets ready for printing. Wash 39
and the baseline wash were tested under medium Ink coverage conditions only. Under these
conditions, it was observed that the substitute wash required 6.0 rotations to clean the blanket
and only 2.7 rotations using the baseline wash. Because Facility 8 took 17.7 seconds on average
to rotate the blanket once, the average increase in blanket cleaning time was about one minute
over that of the baseline. Additional time and effort were also needed because the thick
consistency of Wash 39 made It difficult to get the wash to soak into the shop towel. The
substitute wash left an oily residue on the blanket, but the residue was not observed to have an
effect on the print quality. The press operator rated the effort needed to clean the blankets using
Wash 39 as "high" primarily due to the extra steps needed to clean the blanket and the difficulty
in getting the product to soak Into the shop towel. The effort needed to use the baseline wash was
also rated as "high" because the operator found it to have unusually high resistance when
dragging it across the blanket.
DRAFT
4-76
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
at
I
.2
m
(0
o
8
(0
1
Q.
ffl
E
(A
2
0
u
O)
i
5
3
o
3
>.*-^
i 0)
t ^
ซ p
fe-s;
S*
j ^
ฃ ^"**
3
DO
>i
Q
^
.g
**
i
*3
o
10
o
c
*
(^^
IE
2 E
o t:
a o
n a.
> 2
a.
Q-fT"
ฃ o
W *
LL
*;
C
Q) .-. ^^
W =,^
o ^
*{5
T3
2
Q.
o
in
ฉ
CD
d
CO
in
LO
CM
O)
m
T.
CO
o
CO
in
T
L
b
un
CD
CD"
o
1
c\f
CD
CO
10
>
CD
"CD
CO
CO
Ti
0
I
3
2
o
a
i
CD
LL
C
O
75
3
CD
LU
1
n
1
a>
a.
11
I!
l-i
S "S
o Sป
ป ง
It
5 .2
^ ^
C3) CD
^ O
O
CD
w cB
*>- ^
O
it
^ O
CD
4- ฐ>
^ CO
ฃ C:
.O) CD
^ 0
O
TJ
Average
Volume Use
(ounces)
"o >
11
"o
c
CO
_CD
CD T3
S C.
SS -C
S = CO
*-. - '
ซ co ^.c -a
03 CD -fe c T3
"~ ^ ^~^ i
5 o -g ฐ t3
"O ^ c u T5
3 . . V? .
5
-a
CD
c
Z3
T3
D
5
T3
CD
O
+1
CM
*
^*
o"
+1
r>
CO
in
~>
+\
t~~-
CM
"ซ
ฐ $
O
"cO
CO ^ป
< LL
CD
nance; c
5
5
Q.
TJ
O
~^
|
|
ฎ
^
"ZL
<
0
+t
o
CM
O 'jj
T-^ C
ป m
ง ฃ.,
CD ^
.ฃ co
CD L1-
co ซ-
CO CO
CD
E
2
"x
n 0) ^^
\ Q)
w ฃ ^
ง o- ฐ-
<~- CD ^
i CO
ง ง 1
ฐ i^ "CD co c
gj c -g ^
B =g 3 -| g
5- 5 ง 5 CD
; -^ CD *- ^
W .<_ O) CO
"O c "^ O ^
IsllS.
3 . CO . .
~7
^,
if
<
<
P
CJ
+1
o
CD
^
O
uo
+1 II
o -5-
"CO
c*00
CO ^-
11
< LL
D)
CD
o
o
CD
C
w
CO
E
0
CD
TS <_:
-D jg
2l
E CD
co ^-
2 co
1 ฐ i
> 5r CO
-^ CD -D
~ 2 ง)
S LU 2 .
. TJ
-^
5)
I
<
<
LO
O
+1
*>.
CM
^
O
=* ^
+1 II
o
'W 00
5 &
CD ^
ฃ co
"55 "-
co *-
CO CO
I
o
CD
CO
T5
c:
CO
o
,
O
CO
C *5 co
J-s s-g-
"o 2 *- CD
ซ5 c-l
> lc -^ CD
^ > Q ?-
t> e ซ*
^ o ฃ **
o co c: 73
ซ u/ * * x-
CD CO u O
-Q 5 S S
CO M- ^ ฃ
= CD CD
111!
o 2 *- o
Z C <" -o
n ป .i <ป
<; c l~ co
2! ns .a
4-77
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Blanket Wash 40
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
VOC Content: 52%; 3.8 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 155ฐF
pH: 4.8
Facility 1
At Facility 1, performance demonstrations were conducted on an eight-unit, 28" x 40" press
using vegetable-based inks to print high quality, multi-color, commercial products. Currently,
Facility 1 uses a blanket wash which consists of aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
and aliphatic hydrocarbons as their standard wash, according to the MSDS. In the months
preceding the demonstrations, the facility had tried two different low-VOC blanket washes; neither
worked as well as their standard wash. At this facility, each blanket is typically wiped down twice
during cleaning: once with a reusable shop towel saturated in blanket wash to remove the ink,
and once with a dry shop towel to remove excess blanket wash. Each saturated shop towel is
used to clean two blankets. The same application procedure was used for the baseline and
substitute products. The quantity of wash needed to saturate the shop towel and clean the
blanket remained constant throughout the demonstration, regardless of the ink coverage or ink
build-up on the blanket. There were both positive and negative aspects to this application
method. While more wash than was needed may have been used in some cases, the consistency
of the application volume made it possible to compare the performance of the standard, baseline,
and substitute products under the same conditions.
Overall, the performance of Wash 40 was considered "good" when ink coverage was
medium, and "good/fair" for heavy ink coverage; no information was recorded on the performance
of Wash 40 on a blanket with light ink coverage. The facility used Wash 40 for one week, but
recorded information on only 6 washes. The press operator who usually completed the forms was
out of the facility for several days, during which time forms were not completed although the
product was used. Following the manufacturer's instructions, Facility 1 diluted one part wash
with one part water. When used at the diluted concentration, Wash 40 left a greasy residue on
the blanket. It usually took two rotations of the blanket while wiping with a dry shop towel to
remove this residue. Because of this extra effort, the press operator stopped diluting the wash
and tried using it at full strength. At full strength, residue was no longer a problem. Blankets
with medium ink coverage on average required one rotation to clean, one rotation to dry, and low
effort. When the ink coverage was heavy, the effort increased and three or four rotations and
medium effort were needed to clean the blanket. The performance of Wash 40 was comparable
to the baseline wash performance. The operator found the baseline wash cut the ink well, but
required slightly more effort than their standard wash. As with Wash 40, two blanket rotations
were needed to clean the blanket when ink coverage was light or medium; the baseline was not
used on a blanket with heavy ink coverage. Since blanket rotation is automatic, each rotation
consistently took 20 seconds, resulting in an average cleaning time when using Wash 40 of 40
seconds (2 rotations) for medium ink coverage, and, 80 seconds (4 rotations) for heavy ink
coverage. The press operator found that Wash 40 was easier to apply when the blanket was wiped
with a sponge wet with water prior to application of the blanket wash. In this facility's standard
DRAFT
4-78
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
practice, a wet sponge is occasionally used to wipe any paper or particles from the blanket before
applying a blanket wash, so this extra step was not seen as particularly burdensome. At all levels
of ink coverage, no print quality problems attributable to Wash 40 were experienced.
Facility 10
At Facility 10, Wash 40 was demonstrated on a six-unit, 19" x 28" press using conventional
inks to print primarily commercial products, such as brochures, cards, and posters. Currently,
Facility 10 uses a naphtha blend as their standard wash, according to the MSDS. They have tried
a few alternative washes, but found that they either did not work as well, or that they cost more
than twice as much as their standard blanket wash. Typically, this facility uses the following
procedure to clean the blanket: wipe the blanket with a water-soaked sponge to remove built up
paper and particles (1-2 rotations); pour blanket wash onto a reusable shop towel from a squeeze
bottle; wipe blanket with product (2 rotations); wipe off excess with a clean, dry shop towel (1 -
2 rotations). Both the baseline product and Wash 40 were applied using the same procedure.
Facility 10 used Wash 40 for one week, recording data for 20 blankets, and the
performance was evaluated as "good" Although the manufacturer's instructions indicated that
Wash 40 could be diluted with up to 50 percent water, the press operator preferred to try it at full
strength first, and if successful, he would dilute the product. At full strength, the wash cut the
ink well.. Only one blanket with heavy ink coverage was cleaned with Wash 40 during the
demonstrations. On this blanket with heavy coverage, the operator found some extra effort was
required (4 blanket rotations instead of the 3 rotations required for light and medium coverage,
and medium effort instead of the low effort reported for light and medium coverage). Because of
this additional effort for heavy ink coverage, the printer felt that the diluted wash would not
perform well and,he only used Wash 40 at full strength. He did, however, pour the wash onto a
shop towel that was slightly dampened with water, instead of a dry shop towel. According to the
press operator, the performance of Wash 40 was comparable to the performance of the baseline
wash. The operator found the baseline product worked as well, with the same effort required and
ability to cut the heavy ink coverage as their standard product, but the odor was strong. There
were no problems with print quality attributable to the wash, and there was no odor noticed when
using this blanket wash.
4-79
DRAFT
-------
4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
o
T
CO
I
I
I
m
,2
CO
g
ฃ
CD
O
I
a.
"8
I"
|
ป
1
II
I
I
ICC
I
to
fl>
1
o
re
_i
II
||
l|
t?
3 .2
n o
1
*"* ^
Jg S^
c
to
5
c
1
|
**ง
m
i
o
UJ
,^
o
ซ
^**
Vapor Pressure
(reported, mm
Hg)
a.
~
0 ^
CO ~
in
c
O O)
0 -ฐ "^
o '-'^
>
ts
3
TJ
2
a
o
If)
CO
in
LL
>
ฉ
00
D
v^
n
co~
co
o
5
CO
CO
CO
in
^
D
ฉ
in
CD
CD
D
*$
D
O
CJ"
CD
a
CO
D
5
CO
co
33
i
i
cc
o
5
2
CO
c
O
1
is
n
o
1
"re
>
u
2
ฃ 4t=
II
It
^3 05
05 ^
O
05
-ป-_i O)
ซฃ ^J
^-*
Q)
^ CO
Ch ฎ
u) ^
ซ*ป -^
o
_. U)
3 CO
"B CD
^
5 O
CD
2 *&
O) CD
-J o
0
o
ฎ w 1/r
co S
Q) C ซ
> ง 3
** -5
>
It
ci
1*
CD
co' 'tn
CD CD
-c -
I 2
i i
co co
co t:
H-
CD .<2 .
-fcj co ฃ
CO t "5 *^~
C: CD':= CO
0 CL^3 c
T3 -g ง ง
CO CD ^^ -Q
CO O 5 2
CQ . . o.
E
_u
CD
1
z
CO
o
+1
^.
co'
0
0
+1
0
oj
J
o
-u to"
+1 II
10 ฃ.
c\i
0
" LL
^
2
JZ
CO
CO
CO
o
c
CO
ra
c
CO
c
o
CD CO
o 2
CD E *
O ^ CO
C >ป CO
CO "^ CD
E DJ S
^- WJ ?S
t (11
S.ฃ^
-D'5 ง
o cr o
0 CD g
C5 cc S
CD
~z_
D)
ฑ
_c
O)
ฑ
^
o
CD
+1
o
cxi
o
0
+1
q
oj
q
ฐ c\T
+1 II
in *ฃ
c\i
n __
3 *^
CD ^
= CO
? ^'
to co
n
co
CO
* 1
CO CO
S CD
s >
i-. O
CD 0
15 == ^
Q 1 3 t;
S-. "^ -S.
ฐ "o3
.ง1 ฃ
CO .0
5 S E
Q. C .>
ง-C
O)
CO *f- ^
ง-!l
Q* O ^^ ^*
to O (D IS
CQ ^ฃJ Q^ QJ
3Q . . (
1
CD
CD
ซr
^
1
q
o
+1
q
^
0
CD
q
CO
q
CD
+1
o
co'
CM
0 0
05 -E,
o
"* 0
5 ^
* ^~
CD
vj
> -a
CO O
3 2
ฐ. ซ
m CD
E -ฐ
li- C
ฃ"2
O CD
O Q.
0 0
Medium
z:
z
q
o
_i_i
q
in
<
^
^
o
0 c\r
+i n
in ฃ.
^
n o
) :=
= CO
) LL
3 "nt
LL
O
0)
O)
o
(D
to
q
CD
CM
c
o
'to
5
c S-_co
8 TJ -0
-
. CD
-D g t=
ฃ CO >,
I-S^
co M S
c: i-
O CO ^
Eti cฐ
CO CO
.CD-a g
. . to E
~ _CO CD
> o ฃ
m CD
C 2 CO
ฐ--8
to c
CD CO CD
- - J=
o-S
S
CO .
II
B ง
CD
3 CO
cr ca
CD CD
CD'S
E Eg
DRAFT
4-80
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
4.2 BLANKET WASH COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The methodology described below was used to estimate the cost of using the .baseline
blanket wash as well as the cost of using 22 substitute blanket washes. The primary source of
information for the cost estimates was the performance demonstration conducted during
production runs at 17 volunteer facilities in late 1994 and early 1995 and described in section 4.1.
This information was supplemented by several other sources, including: 1) industry statistics
collected by trade groups such as NAPL; 2) lease prices for cloth printer's wipes from a large east
coast industrial laundry; and 3) EPA's risk assessment work presented in chapter 3.
The performance demonstration collected data on the use of donated, substitute blanket
wash products and the baseline, VM&P Naphtha. Substitute products were screened for blanket
swell and washability; each was then sent to two printing facilities. Each facility also tested the
baseline product; results are presented comparing the substitute products to the baseline.
Although each facility was to use the substitute product for one week, performance problems and
scheduling conflicts resulted in some products being used more than others. Section 4.1.4
provides a discussion of the limitations of the demonstration. Table 4-2 in the previous section
summarizes the results.
Certain assumptions were used in this analysis to smooth out the differences among the
various facilities participating in the performance demonstration in order to make the results
comparable and to remain consistent with assumptions used in other parts of this CTSA. For
example, it was assumed that there are four blankets or "units" per press, each of which is
washed 10 times per shift. Additionally, it was assumed that work is performed for one 8-hour
shift per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year. Using these assumptions, the following costs
were estimated for individual facilities involved in the performance demonstrations for the baseline
blanket wash and each substitute blanket wash:
Total cost/wash,
Total cost/press, and
Total cost/press/shift/year.
A general description of the cost estimation methodology and data sources used is
presented in Section 4.2.1 below. Section 4.2.2 provides a more detailed description of the
methodology. Section 4.2.3 provides an example of the calculations described in Sections 4.2.1
and 4.2.2.
4.2.1 General Description of Costing Methodology
In general, the cost estimate for each reclamation method combines product cost and
product performance data. Variations in the sample sizes, the value for 'n', found in the labor rate
(time), the number of wipes per cleaning, quantity of wash used and number of cleanings used
to determine performance are due to differences in the way the data for each factor was collected.
For example, in the case of the time required to clean the blanket, only the data collected by the
observer on the first day of the demonstration were used in the assessment. In determining the
average quantity of blanket wash used, data collected during the entire week were utilized in the
assessment resulting in a higher sample size. The final cost estimates are a combination of the
three distinct cost elements listed below:
Labor
The time spent to clean the blanket was recorded in the performance demonstrations by
the observer on the first day of the demonstration for each product, as it was not feasible for press
operators to time themselves while cleaning. Therefore, estimates of time to clean the blanket
4-81
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
recorded by observers were used to calculate
the labor cost.a The labor cost was
calculated as the total time spent multiplied
by 1) the average wage rate for lithography
press operators of $15.52/hour, 2) an
industry fringe rate (to account for holiday and
vacation) of 1.07, and 3) an industry multiplier
of 1.99 to account for overhead costs. All of
these cost elements were calculated from
industry statistics reported in NAPL's 1993
Cost Study and are explained in more detail in
Section 4.2.2.
Blanket wash products
Cost Methodology Information Basis
Summary
Labor
Observer time from demonstration
. Wage rate - $15.52/hr
Fringe rate multiplier - 1.07
Overhead rate multiplier - 1.99
Blanket Wash
Recorded quantity used during
demonstration
Adjusted for dilution
. . Product cqst provided by supplier
Materials - Wipes
Recorded quantity used during ,
demonstration . ;,
Lease price - $0.1 I/wipe
The quantity of blanket wash used per
blanket was recorded during the observer's
visit and by the press operator during the
week of demonstrations. Average usage per
blanket was calculated at each facility for both
the baseline product and the 22 substitute products. Multiplying usage per wash, accounting for
dilution where necessary, by the unit cost of each product (provided by each participating
manufacturer and summarized in Table 4-3) yielded the blanket wash costs.
Materials (i.e.. wipes)
The only materials consumed in manual blanket washing are the wipes used by the press
operator to wash the blanket. All but one of the print shops participating in the performance
demonstration used cloth wipes; the other used disposable wipes. Materials costs were therefore
calculated by multiplying the number of wipes used, as recorded in the' performance
demonstrations, by the lease price of a cloth printer's wipe. (A representative of Standard Uniform
Services, one of the largest industrial laundries in Massachusetts, provided an estimated lease
price of $0.11 per wipe.)
An alternative method of determining the labor time was examined, apart from using the average time estimates
compiled by observers. Within each facility, observers and press operators collected data on the number of blanket rotations
per wash. Because only observers compiled time estimates, the rotations data included more observations and was,
therefore, considered as an alternative method for estimating labor time. However, this approach was abandoned after
further analysis found poor correlation between time and number of rotations. Although occasionally high correlation was
found to exist, the majority of facilities did not show a high degree of correlation. Eight facilities with the greatest number
of observations were analyzed separately to determine if time and number of rotations were correlated. Again, poor
correlation was found. This is interpreted to mean that there was not a preset cleaning speed for,the rotation of the
cylinders; we were not, therefore, able to use the number of rotations multiplied by the average time per rotation recorded
by the observer to determine the labor time involved with cleaning the cylinders. In addition, the ink Coverage changed from
one cleaning to the next, adding a variation which affected the cleaning time. However, poor correlation between time and
number of rotations was also found to exist for facilities that reported consistent ink coverage.
The trend in the number of rotations necessary to clean a cylinder was also examined to determine if there was a
leamins curve involved with using the alternative cleaners. While it is believed that there is a learning curve, the
demonstration timetable was too short for this observation, which was further complicated by variable ink coverage.
DRAFT
4-82
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
A summary of the cost comparisons is presented in Table 4-4, followed by a graphical
display (Figure 4.1) of the relative cost changes (substitute compared to baseline) at each facility.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the range of percentage cost changes (compared to the baseline) measured
at each facility. Two points are plotted for each of the substitute products because each was
tested at two facilities. Formulations are arranged by ascending VOC content. Cost comparisons
for each blanket wash against the baseline are provided at the end of this section; summary
paragraphs are followed by tables providing specific results. Absolute and relative cost variations
are reported for each substitute. An increase in the time required to clean the blanket, quantity
of wash solution used, number of wipes expended, and costs of labor and materials is preceded
by a plus sign; conversely, decreases are denoted by a minus sign.
Table 4-3. Substitute Blanket Washes, Manufacturer Pricing
Blanket Wash Number and Type
Baseline - VM&P Naphtha
1 - Vegetable Fatty Ester
6 - Ester/Petroleum + Surfactant
9 - Ester/Water
10 - Ester/Water
11 - Ester/Petroleum + Surfactant
12 - Petroleum/Water Diluted for Use
14 - Vegetable Fatty Ester + Glycol
19 - Vegetable Fatty Ester + Glycol
20 - Petroleum/Water
21 - Ester/Petroleum
22 - Water/Petroleum/Ester
24 - Terpene
26 - Vegetable Fatty Ester
29 - Vegetable Fatty Ester
30 - Petroleum/Water Diluted for Use
31 - Petroleum
32 - Petroleum
34 - Water/Petroleum/Ester
37 - Petroleum/Water
38 - Ester/Petroleum
39 - Petroleum/Water
40 - Ester/Petroleum + Surfactant
Product Cost per Gallon ($)**
(based on the 55 gallon drum price)($)
5.88
20.00
12.35
10.26
9.55
12.15
16.40
9.55
11.80
10.80
10.08
13.15
17.85
12.24
18.00
5.00
9.80
2.85
15.00
14.80
19.00
8.95
10.25
Unit costs supplied by manufacturers participating in the performance demonstrations.
bProducts 9, 22, and 32 are not included within Figure 4.1 because VOC content for these products was not available.
4-83
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Or
O)
CD
C
(U
B
CD
Q.
CO
jC
.n
2
CO
CO
S.
a.
5s
CO
o
U
1
r~
M
CO
ฃ
Q.
O
U
l*j
ฃ
CO
5
5
o
"5
*J X
2 ct
i E
Q =
ฃ2
O
U
ฃ
o>
Q
d>
'co
ฃ
<
d>
"55
CO
CO
CO
ง
I
cu
o
c
"EJ
CO
m
V
1
G)
jj
0)
~S
CO
m
S
)
J
t
II
1
1
o
o
o
co"
o
g
in
E
CM
O
CM
CM
o>
CO
o
18
o
CO
;!*
o
ฃ
^
oo
o
co"
0
o
CD
*d-
oo
sr
CO
-*
oo
T-
E5
o
CO
sf
o
CO
I"
UL
ฃ
o
o
CM
oo"
o
o
o
N-
00
CM
CO
o
co
CM
CM
OO
O
f=
0
T-
.ฃ
LI-
CO
3
o
N."
o
S
in
oo
o
CO
o
o
CM
ฃ
0
g
o
in
o
en
CM
o
o
CO
o"
CM
o
o
o>
CM
CO
co
CD
CO
oo
o
CM
o
o
o
o
CO
05
oo
o
o
CM
O5~
o
o
o
tn
00
CO
CO
0
o
CM
CM
C3>
o
o
in
0
in
.ฃ
LL.
+
o
o
in
o
g
in
oo
CM
CM
o
CM
CM
c-
in
o
g
o
CO
;&
o
o
T-
in
o
o
o
CM"
CM
o
0
in
oo
o
co
oo
ง
CO
o
CM
CM
in
00
o
^
jg-
LL
ro
o
o
en
CM"
T
O
o
01
tn
CD
in
CD
CM
CM
T
in
o
1
.&
I
T-
*~
co
o
o
oo
co"
o
o
CO
in
ฃ
CM
CM
CM
CO
CD
O
S
o
CM
:&
O
CM
O
O
en"
o
o
T
00
CD
O
CO
c\i
CO
ro
o>
o
oo
o
CM
>-
"o
CM
*~
?
O
o
CO
oo"
0
0
o
oo
CM
CO
CO
o
CM
CO
CO
oo
o
o
03
o
CO
ฃ.
8
U-
co
CO
o
o
o"
o
o
CO
^f
OO
CM
^
00
T
o
r-
CD
o
CO
&
o
M-
T
3
o
o
CM
oo"
o
%
CD
oo
CM
CO
CO
CM
Si
o
CO
co
o
CO
>.
8
LL
00
CD
T
O
o
CD
co"
o
0
CM
CO
co
CO
S?
CM
co
CD
T_
CM
CO
O
CO
f
"o
CO
LL
ro
oo
CD
0
o
o>
co"
o
o
CO
in
CD
in
CO
CM
CM
en
oo
o
CO
in
o
o>
>.
ฃ
5
o
o
co_
o
o
o
ivT
CM
in
-*
o
oo
CM
CO
0
o
T-
.ฃ>
'o
o
CM
in
+
o
o
oo
in"
o
o
00
CM
CO
CD
CM
CO
00
in
^j
00
0
CM
ฃ.
'o
CO
LL
.1
1
a
CD
O
ฃ
J5
m
I
(0
to
8
I
_ฃ
2
DRAFT
4-84
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
fl)r-
TO a
if
u a
*- &
0) ฑ
a. C
ro
f
IE
CO
ฃ
a.
CO
0
u
To
3
CO
s>
CO
Q
0
15
+ป
.
j_
g
^
co
O
u
"?.
0
+ป
CO
CO
1
ฃ
)
)
)
0)
1
ฃ
,
1
CM
CM
O)
OO
O
O
i
O
o
o
00
o
CD
8
CO
in
r-
o
oo
o
CO
ฃ,
1
LL.
+
O
O
o
o
CD
CD
00
OO
CO
3
CM
CO
O
CO
CD
O
CO
ฃ,
"6
CO
u_
CM
LO
T
O
o
CO
00
o
o
1
3-
CM
LO
CO
CD
1
oo
co
o
5:
0
f--
>,
s
CO
CO
o
o
CO
o
o
LO
LO
CM
CD
CM
CM
CM
P
O
LO
LO
o
LO
;&
o
CO
u_
co
CM
CO
o
o
o
o
IO
oo
oo
*~
8
CM
ง
O
o
LO
o
in
ฃ.
"o
CO
u.
co
CD
O
O
cr>
CO
o
in
CM
CO
oo
CM
CM
s
o
in
0
h-
.ฃ
8
LJ-
C!>
CM
CM
CD
O
O
O)
OO
0
O
in
in
CO
in
CO
o
CM
CM
CO
oo
o
in
LO
o
oo
.-ฃ
o
CO
LL.
CO
CD
O
O
^
O
CD
O
"*
OO
CM
O
i-
CM
CD
O
00
ฃ
'o
CO
LL
O
CO
T
O
o
CM
CD
O
LO
9
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
O
CO
LO
O
CD
>
"o
ฃ
35
O
O
CD_
1
0
O
IO
CO
CD
OO
in
o
in
LO
o
co
.IT
1
CM
CM
O
O
O
O
CD
IO
^
LO
CD
CO
CM
1
CO
1
CD
LO
0
,_
.ฃ
8
U-
CM
CO
CO
O
O
CO
0
o
CO
in
CM
v
CM
T
CM
ง
o
8
o
LO
&
o
CO
U-
LO
0
o
CO
00"
o
o
CO
10
CD
IO
CO
CD
CO
CM
CD
OO
o
LO
o
T-
.&
8
LI-
CO
3)
o
o
o
o
CO
LO
o
oo
CO
CM
CM
in
CD
o
CO
in
o
CD
ฃ
1
4-85
DRAR
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
(B O
*
o
CO
m
CM
LO
*
o
g
o
Q.
CD
cuia
CO
o
2
|
o
o
CO
o
8
I---"
o
o
co
o
o
o
o
en
8
o
ง
o
C
CO
_CD
O
10
to
o
o
tn
ZJ
cr
in
o>
CD
ฃ
o
CO =
co
lo
o
ฃ
CM
.ง
'o
tฃ
*
ฃ
'i
u.
in
ฃ>
o
i2
o
CO
LL
CO
co
CD
CD
o
-ฐ
-
CO
if
CO
CO
C3>
CO
O
*
CO
CD
S
CO
o
Q.
DRAFT
4-86
-------
CHAPTER 4: -COMPETITIVENESS.
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
200%
150%
a
e
'ซ 100%
60
U
U
t 50%
ง
0%
-50%
L
ฅ
1
Jf
^
1
,
i
1
, ^
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1 '
1
I 1
:
1
T
1
.
T
,1
I
1
g
10 30 14 37 26 1
Fc
owest VOC Content (2%)
.4 12 19 29 1 20 34 2
>rmula Number (sorted by VOC co
r .
**"
.1 6 39 40 11 38 31
ntent)
> Highest VOC Content (99%)
Figure 4.1 Blanket Wash Costs Changes Arranged by Lowest to Highest VOC Content of
Formulations
4.2.2 Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach
As mentioned above, the blanket wash cost comparison considered three cost elements
when comparing the performance of baseline and substitute blanket cleaners: labor costs (time
x wage rate): blanket wash use (quantity x unit price), adjusting for dilution: and material and
equipment costs (# wipes x cost per wipe). Each element is described in more detail below. Also,
Figure 4.2 presents a graphical display of the relative contribution of labor, product use, and
material use to the overall cost differences (compared to the baseline) for each of the substitute
products. For example, performance results for product 1, tested at facility 6 indicate that overall
costs per wash were $0.41 greater for Blanket Wash 6 compared to the baseline. The $0.41
difference is divided up as follows: costs associated with labor were $0.19 higher than the
baseline, costs associated with product use (i.e., price x quantity) were $0.11 greater than the
baseline, and costs associated with material and equipment use were $0.11 greater than the
baseline.
Labor Costs
The hourly wage and overhead rate for press operators was calculated from the NAPL 1993
Cost Study. The NAPL study presents a number of facility-specific characteristics, including
4-87
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
-0.5
1-3 6-11 9-10 10-3 11-1 12-12 14-6 19-18 0-11 1-6 2-12
1-6 6-15 9-15 10-4 11-2 12-13 14-16 19-19 20-12 21-17 22-13
Formulation - Facility
Labor
Product Use
Materials
-0.2
24-16 26-5 29-7 30-18 31-7 32-1
24-17 26-15 29-8 30-19 31-8 32-5 34-19 37-4
Formulation - Facility
38-2 39-5 40-1
38-4 39-8 40-10
Product Use
Materials
Figure 4.2 Cost Difference Between Substitute and Baseline Blanket Washes
DRAFT
4-88
-------
CHAPTER V. COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
annual wages and overhead costs by press type and brand, number of shifts per day, length of
work week, and vacations and holidays allowed. Because of the many variables impacting hourly
wages and overhead rates, several assumptions were made to facilitate comparisons along the
various alternatives.
Assumptions
Based on a review of press sizes used in the performance demonstrations as well as
discussions with performance demonstration observers, wage rates and overhead expenses
for a 26-inch, 2-unit press were used in this analysis.
The NAPL 1993 Cost Study presents three possible employment scenarios (referred to as
areas A, B, and C), each with differing wages and overhead costs. The "areas" are defined
as follows: 1) area A: 35 hours/week, 4 weeks paid vacation, and 11 paid holidays; 2) area
B: 37.5 hours/week, 3 weeks paid vacation, and 10 paid holidays; and 3) area C: 40
hours/week, 2 weeks paid vacation, and 8 paid holidays. It was assumed that press
operations at performance demonstrations shops operate under a 40 hour work week and
are offered 2 weeks paid vacation and 8 paid holidays per year.
Annual wages and overhead rates vary according to the number of (eight hour) shifts the
press facility operates per day. As the number of shifts increase, the wage rate for all
shifts increases and the overhead rate decreases. To estimate average wage and overhead
rates for this analysis, hourly wage estimates and overhead rates were weighted according
to the proportion of facilities participating in performance demonstrations operating one,
two or three shifts per day.
The NAPL cost study provides overhead expenses for seven brands of presses within the
26-inch, 2-unit press category. Overhead rates were calculated by averaging across the
seven brands. Annual wages do not vary across the seven brands of presses.
Hourly wage rate for a press operator
As mentioned above, annual wage rates, presented in the NAPL cost study, do not vary
across press type; however, wages do vary according to the number of shifts operated per day.
In this analysis, aweighted average of $15.52/hour was calculated given that nine of the facilities
that participated in the performance demonstration operate one shift per day, four facilities
operate two shifts per day, and four facilities operate three shifts per day. Calculations of the
average hourly wage are presented in Table 4-5 below.
Table 4-5. Calculation of Average Hourly Rate
# Shifts (8 hrs.)
1
2
3
Totals:
Annual Wage (Hourly Wage [Weight (Facilities x shifts)) Wage x Weight
$31 ,200
$64,740
$99,060
$15.00
$15.56
$15.88
9
8
12
29
$135
$124
$191
$450
Total wage x weight:
Total/29:
$450.04
$15.52
Source: NAPL 1993 Cost Study
4-89
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Fringe rate '
To account for costs associated with fringe benefits such as holiday and vacation time, a
fringe rate was calculated. The NAPL Cost Study indicates that press operators working a 40 hour
week receive eight paid holidays and two weeks vacation per year. To calculate the fringe rate,
non-productive hours were subtracted from total hours of operation per year (i.e., 2,080 hours
minus 144 hours = 1936 hours). The ratio of total hours to productive hours is equal to the fringe
rate applied to each hour worked (2080/1936 = 1.074).
Overhead rate
Overhead rates for this analysis are calculated according to the following formula0:
depreciation + rent & heat + fire & sprinkler insurance + pension fund + welfare benefits + payroll taxes + workmen's comp.
H- light & power+ direct supplies + repairs to equipment + general factory + administrative & selling overhead
direct labor + supervisory and misc. labor
The NAPL cost study provides overhead expenses for seven brands of presses within the
26-inch, 2-unit press category. For the purposes of this analysis, overhead rates were averaged
across the seven brands. As with the hourly wage calculations, a weighted average was
calculated, accounting for the variability in the number of shifts a facility may operate per day.
The overhead rate was estimated to be 1.99.
Total Labor Cost
The total labor cost associated with the use of an individual blanket wash was calculated
by multiplying the average cleaning time by the press operator's hourly wage, overhead rate, and
fringe rate. For example, the total labor cost for Blanket Wash 1, tested by facility 3, was
calculated by multiplying the average time spent cleaning (37.5 seconds) by the wage per second
($15.52/60min/60secd), overhead rate (1.99), and fringe rate (1.074) for a total cost of $0.35 per
wash. :
Blanket Wash Use
Costs attributable to blanket wash use were calculated by multiplying the average quantity
of blanket cleaner used per wash cycle by the price of the appropriate wash. In cases where
participants diluted blanket wash with water, the unit price was multiplied by the ratio of cleaner
used and not the total quantity of the mixture. For example, if the dilution ratio was -1:1, the unit
price of the blanket wash was multiplied by 0.5 to account for dilution and then multiplied by the
volume used. As mentioned above, blanket wash prices were provided by manufacturers
participating in the performance demonstrations. During the performance demonstrations it was
observed that most printing facilities purchased blanket cleaner in 55-gallon quantities. This was
assumed to be true of all printing facilities participating in the performance demonstration.
Material and Equipment Costs
Because the performance demonstrations were limited to manualblanket washing, the only
materials or equipment affecting the cost of blanket washing were the wipes used by the press
cOverhead cost elements were taken directly from the NAPL 1993 Cost Study.
The wage rate of $15.52 per hour translates to $0.0043 per second.
DRAFT
4-90
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
operator to remove Ink and paper products. The cost of press wipes were calculated by
multiplying the average number of wipes used per wash by the lease price of a cloth printer s wipe.
A representative of Standard Uniform Services, one of .the largest industrial laundries in
Massachusetts, estimated a lease price of $0.11 per wipe.
Waste Disposal
Because blanket washing wastes may be classified as hazardous .wastes by regulations
implementing RCRA and therefore require more careful and costly handling and disposal, printers
may reduce waste disposal costs if wastes associated with alternative blanket washes do not
contain any RCRA listed wastes, eliminating the need to be handled as hazardous waste.
Disposal costs were not considered in this cost comparison, however, because all but one of the
printers participating in the performance demonstrations use cloth wipes that are leased from an
industrial laundry. Industrial laundries currently do not distinguish between hazardous and
nonhazardous blanket washes when laundering wipes; it was therefore assumed that there would
be no savings in waste handling or processing costs associated with switching to an alternative
blanket wash product. In addition, the impact of alternative cleaners on the costs of handling and
processing used wipes is unclear. For example, according to the Uniform and Textile Service
Association wipes impregnated with vegetable-oil based cleaners have a higher potential for
spontaneous combustion when piled together in a laundry bag. Vegetable-oil based cleaners
break down, creating exothermic heat and the potential for spontaneous combustion. In addition,
the vegetable oil-based cleaners may make wastewater treatment and permit compliance more
difficult for the industrial laundry (Dunlap, 1995).
While there is a potential for reduction in waste treatment and disposal costs attributed
to the use of alternative blanket cleaners, the current state of federal regulations is in flux. Also,
there are many different state and local regulations which might dictate different treatment for
hazardous blanket wash wastes. Specifically, future changes to RCRA and the Clean Water Act
(CWA) could potentially create a cost advantage for printers using alternative blanket cleaners.
Currently under RCRA, the mixture rule classifies a non-hazardous waste as hazardous when
combined with a listed waste (F, P, K, and U listed wastes). The mixture rule was struck down
by a 1991'District of Columbia Circuit Court ruling, but was temporarily reenacted while EPA
conducts a review of the rule. EPA has not provided definitive guidance on the treatment of
solvent contaminated shop towels, leaving it to each state to provide guidance on the identification
and management of press wipes/ Many states have responded by recognizing a conditional
exemption from the mixture rule for contaminated press wipes. EPA's Office of Solid Waste is
currently considering changes to the definition of hazardous and solid wastes that could
potentially exempt press wipes from hazardous waste classification. Also, EPA is currently
developing categorical standards for the industrial laundry industry that could potentially impact
the cost of treating press wipes.
The results of the cost comparisons are presented in section 4.2 A in both cost summary
tables and descriptive paragraphs (for each of the 22 field tested blanket washes). As indicated
in the tables, presses of three standard sizes were used in the performance demonstrations:
6'Costs of managing hazardous wastes include placing the waste in a closed and properly labeled container,
manifesting shipments and using special shipping arrangements, and shipping to a permitted hazardous waste treatment or
disposal facility.
f The EPA is planning to develop guidance to the States for the use, reuse, transportation, and disposal of shop
towels.
4-91
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
19" x 26" - also recorded by printers as 18" x 25", 19" x 25", 19" x 28", and 20"
x 26";
11" x 17" ~ also recorded by printers as 13" x 18", and 12" x 18"; and
40" x 28" -- also recorded by printers as 40" x 34."
Additionally, ink coverage is reported in the tables as the average ink coverage observed on the
blanket throughout the demonstrations. Coverage is reported as light, light-medium, medium,
medium-heavy, and heavy. Cost savings or increases (absolute and percent differences)
associated with using each of the alternatives as compared to the baseline (VM&P Naphtha) are
indicated for each facility. A positive sign denotes an increase and a negative sign denotes a
decrease in the time, quantity, number of wipes, or cost when using the alternative blanket
cleaner instead of the base product.
4.2.3 Example Calculation
As an example of the cost calculations presented in the cost summary tables, the
calculations for alternative Blanket Wash 1, tested by facility 3, are described in full. Total labor
cost was calculated by multiplying the average time spent cleaning (37.5 seconds) by the wage per
second ($15.52/60min./60sec.), overhead rate (1.99), and fringe rate (1.074) for a total cost of
$0.35 per wash. The cost associated with blanket wash use was calculated by multiplying the
average quantity used per wash (1.04 ounces or 8.13 x 10"3 gallons) by the unit price of Blanket
Wash 1 ($20.00/gallon) for a total cost of $0.16 per wash. The material cost was calculated by
multiplying the average number of wipes used per wash (1.6 wipes) by the estimated lease cost
per wipe ($0.11/wipe). The total cost per wash for Blanket Wash 1 ($0.69) is simply the sum of
the labor, blanket wash, and material costs and is presented at the bottom of the cost summary
table for Blanket Wash 1.
Labor Cost
=average cleaning time/wash x wage rate x overhead rate x fringe rate
=37.5 sec x ($15.52/hr x lhr/60min x lmin/60sec) x 1.99 x 1.074
=$0.35 per wash
Blanket Wash Cost
=average quantity used/wash x unit price of blanket wash
=(8.13 x 10'3 gallons) x $20.00/gallon
=$0.16 per wash
Material Cost
=average number of wipes used/wash x lease cost/wipe
=1.6 wipes x $0.11/wipe
=$0.18 per wash
Total Cost per Wash
=labor cost + blanket wash cost + material cost
=$0.35 + $0.16 + $0.18
=$0.69 per wash
Also presented at the bottom of each table are estimates of total cost per press and total
annual costs. The total cost per press ($2.76) for Blanket Wash 1, tested at facility 3, is calculated
by multiplying the total cost per wash ($0.69) by the estimated number of blankets per press (4
blankets). The total annual cost ($6,900) is calculated by multiplying the total cost per press
($2.76) by the number of washes per shift (10 washes), the number of shifts per week (5 shifts),
and the number of weeks worked per year (50 weeks):
DRAFT
4-92
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
Total Cost per Press
=cost/wash x estimated number of blankets/press
=$0.69 x 4 blankets
=$2.76
Total Annual Cost
=total cost/press x number of washes/shift x number of shifts/week x number ol
weeks/year
=$2.76/press x 10 washes/shift x 5 shifts/week x 50 weeks/year
=$6,900
Costs of using the baseline product were calculated according to the same procedure used
for the alternative blanket washes. The absolute and percentage difference between the costs of
the baseline product and Blanket Wash 1 are presented in the cost summary table for Blanket
Wash 1. For example, the absolute difference between the labor cost for the baseline product and
Blanket Wash 1 is +$0.07 ($0.35 minus $0.28). The positive sign indicates an increased labor
cost when using Blanket Wash 1 instead of the baseline CVM&P Naphtha). Labor costs associated
with the use of Blanket Wash 1 increase 25% based upon the experience of facility 3. In contrast,
the cost associated with material and equipment use for Blanket Wash 1 decreased by four cents
or 18%.
4.2.4 Blanket Wash Cost Analysis Results
The results of the cost analysis are summarized in the following paragraphs and tables.
It is important to keep in mind several factors when reviewing these results. First, they are based
almost entirely on the results of the performance demonstration. For each individual product, the
performance demonstrations were subjective assessments reflecting the conditions and
experiences of two individual print shops, not scientifically rigorous evaluations. As such, the
information derived from the demonstrations are illustrative and are not necessarily reflective of
the actual experience of using the various products at a particular facility. The two facilities
which tested each product often had very different experiences. As described in the introduction
to Section 4.1 - Performance Demonstration, reasons for these differences included variability in
operating conditions, type of print jobs, staff involvement, and application method.
The cost factors considered in this analysis were the cost of labor, the cost of the blanket
wash and the cost of the wipes. Among these three factors, the driving factor was the cost of
labor,' which, on average, contributed 63% of the overall cost of washing the blanket. The time
spent to clean the blanket was recorded in the performance demonstrations by the observer on
the first day of the demonstration for each product on the first few uses of the substitute. With
continued use, the time necessary to clean the blanket may be reduced because of the press
operator's familiarity with the substitute product. The wipes contributed, on average, 21% and
the blanket wash, on average, 16% of the cost. There were some instances were the cost of the
blanket wash was the largest contributor, but there were no instances where consistently the cost
of a particular product outweighed the cost of labor or where this trend was seen for a particular
facility.
Comparisons of each alternative blanket wash product with the baseline blanket wash,
VM&P Naphtha (Blanket Wash 28), for each facility are summarized in the paragraphs below and
in more detail in the tables which follow. Absolute and relative cost variations are reported for
each alternative. An increase in the time required to clean the blanket, quantity of wash solution
used, number of wipes expended, and costs of labor and materials is preceded by a plus sign;
conversely, decreases are denoted by a minus sign.
4-93
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Substitute Blanket Wash 1
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 1 instead of the baseline product at both facilities 3 and 6. Press operators
commented that cleaning and drying times were excessive, as reflected in the performance data;
performance results indicate a 25 percent increase and a 70 percent increase in cleaning times
at facilities 3 and 6, respectively. The costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) are
also significantly higher for Blanket Wash 1 when compared to the baseline, driven primarily by
the product's high price. The manufacturer's price for product 1 is $20/gallon versus
$5.88/gallon for the baseline product. Costs associated with product use increased roughly 220
percent and 160 percent for facilities 3 and 6, respectively. Facility 6 did not use alternative
product 1 for the full week-long demonstration, discontinuing use after experiencing print quality
problems believed to have been attributable to use of the alternative product.
Substitute Blanket Wash 6
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 6 instead of the baseline. Costs for facilities 11 and 15 increased roughly 20
percent and 50 percent respectively when using Blanket Wash 6 instead of the baseline.
Operators at both facilities commented that the alternative required more time to be absorbed into
the press wipe, causing delays in the wash-up procedure. Performance results indicate an 11
percent increase and a 69 percent increase in cleaning times at facilities 11 and 15, respectively.
Press operators at both facilities commented that Blanket Wash 6 cut well. Despite a 30 percent
decrease in the average quantity of blanket wash used, facility 15 experienced a 60 percent
increase in costs associated with blanket wash use (i.e., volume x price) due to a product cost of
more than twice the baseline cost ($12.35/gallon for product 6 compared to $5.88/gallon for the
baseline product). Facility 11 experienced a 20 percent increase in product use, with a
subsequent increase of 170 percent in costs associated with product use.
Substitute Blanket Wash 9
Blanket washing costs increase significantly when using Blanket Wash 9 as compared to
the baseline product at facilities 10 and 15. Both facilities rated the performance of product 9 as
poor, indicating that its use requires excess time and effort. Costs increased 129 percent and 84
percent at facilities 10 and 15, respectively, when compared to the baseline. Performance data
indicate that increased cleaning times are the driving force behind the cost increases experienced
by both facilities. Cleaning times increase 175 percent and 129 percent when compared to the
baseline at facilities 10 and 15, respectively. Facility 10 discontinued use of the alternative
product 9 after four washes due to its poor performance.
Substitute Blanket Wash 10
Performance data indicate mixed results in the performance of Blanket Wash 10. Blanket
washing costs increased 4 percent at facility 3 and 160 percent at facility 4 when Blanket Wash
10 is used rather than the baseline. Although the performance data indicate a small increase in
cost at facility 3, the press operator's comments describe difficulty in getting the blanket wash to
absorb into the application shop towel. The press operator at facility 4 had similar difficulties.
After washing four blankets, the press operators at both facilities 3 and 4 discontinued use of the
product.
Substitute Blanket Wash 11
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 11 instead of the baseline. Overall costs per wash at facilities 1 and 2
DRAFT
4-94
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
increased roughly 120 percent and 30 percent, respectively, when using Blanket Wash 11 instead
of the baseline. Costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) are driven by the higher
price of Blanket Wash 11 as compared to the baseline. Blanket Wash 11 is priced at
$12 15/gallon compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline product. Both press operators indicate
that a dry shop towel was required to clear the oily residue left by Blanket Wash 11. Material
costs (i e press wipes) increased by roughly 210 percent and 140 percent at facility 1 and 2,
respectively Press operators at both facilities indicated that Blanket Wash 11 cut the ink well in
the case of light or medium ink coverage but was not effective when ink coverage was heavy.
Substitute Blanket Wash 12
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 12 instead of the baseline. Average costs per wash increased roughly 20
percent and 5 percent at facilities 12 and 13, respectively. Facility 12 experienced difficulty with
Blanket Wash 12 in cutting through paper residue and discontinued use of the wash on paper
residue coated blankets. Facility 13 experimented with a variety of dilution ratios and found that
the undiluted product worked best, outperforming both the baseline as well as their standard
wash At a cost of $16.40/gallon, however, Blanket Wash 12 would not be economically
competitive with the baseline ($5.88/gallon) unless the average quantity used was significantly
lower.
Substitute Blanket Wash 14
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 14 instead of the baseline product at both facilities 6 and 16. Compared to
the baseline, total costs per wash increased 133 percent at facility 6 and 24 percent at facility 16.
The average cleaning time increased significantly at facility 6 compared to the baseline, requiring
an additional minute per wash. Despite a decrease in the average cleaning time, overall costs per
wash at facility 16 increase, driven primarily by the product's higher price. Blanket Wash 14 is
priced at $9.55/gallon compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline. The press operator at facility
6 commented that Blanket Wash 14 cut the ink well, however, the press operator at facility 16
commented that Blanket Wash 14 did not cut ink as well as the baseline.
Substitute Blanket Wash 19
The results of the performance data indicate an increased financial cost when using
Blanket Wash 19 instead of the baseline at both facilities 18 and 19. Overall costs per wash
increased roughly 170 percent and 70 percent at facilities 18 and 19, respectively. Press operators
commented that cleaning and drying times were excessive, as reflected in the performance data;
performance results indicate a 150 percent increase and a 60 percent increase in cleaning times
at facilities 18 and 19, respectively.
Substitute Blanket Wash 20
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 20 instead of the baseline. Average costs per wash increased roughly 60
percent and 95 percent at facilities 11 and 12, respectively. Cleaning times at facility 11 increased
from an average of 60 seconds for the baseline to an average of 100 seconds for Blanket Wash 20
The press operator at facility 11 cites two primary reasons for the higher cleaning times: 1
Blanket Wash 20 left an oily residue on the blanket requiring an additional cleaning step, and 2)
the product's thick consistency resulted in additional delays as the press operator waited for the
wash to soak into the shop towel. After three trials, the press operator at facility 12 began to
experience nausea and dizziness and discontinued use of the product. For this reason the
contribution of labor to the product cost for Facility 12 is based on only one observation.
4-95
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
Substitute Blanket Wash 21
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 21 instead of the baseline. Costs per wash increase roughly 120 percent at
facility 6 and 40 percent at facility 17 when compared to the baseline. Press operators at both test
facilities comment that the alternative product left an oily residue on the blanket. Extra wiping
was required to clear the blanket as reflected in the performance data when compared to the
baseline, average cleaning times increased roughly 110 percent for facility 6 and 50 percent for
facility 17. Press operators at both facilities commented that Blanket Wash 21 cut the ink well
The press operator at facility 6 discontinued use of Blanket Wash 21 after six washes because the
oily residue began to affect subsequent runs.
Substitute Blanket Wash 22
Performance data indicate mixed results for Blanket Wash 22. Total costs per wash
increased 89 percent for facility 13, but increased only 1 percent for facility 12. Despite a 34
percent decrease in the average quantity used, costs associated with product use (i e volume x
price) increased 50 percent for facility 12. Blanket Wash 22 is priced at $13. is/gallon 'compared
5 a P^ce ฐf $5-88/gallon for the baseline product. The press operator at facility 13 commented
ttiat Blanket Wash 22 cuts the ink as well as the baseline, but its thick consistency resulted in
delays during wash application and drying. Average cleaning time increased 67 percent at facility
13 compared to the baseline. The press operator at facility 12 commented that Blanket Wash 22
cut the ink well and performed better than the baseline wash.
Substitute Blanket Wash 24
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 24 instead of the baseline. Costs per wash increased roughly 50 percent at
facility 16 and 110 percent at facility 17, when compared to the baseline. Press operators at both
facilities commented that Blanket Wash 24 cut the ink well, however, it left an oily residue on the
blanket and did not readily absorb into the press wipe. When compared to the baseline average
cleaning times increased ISpercentand 160 percent for facilities 16and 17, respectively. Despite
the iact that facility 17 used a smaller average quantity of Blanket Wash 24 compared to the
baseline, the costs associated with blanket wash use (i.e., volume x price) increased due to a
much higher price per gallon. The manufacturers price for product 24 is $17.85/gallon versus
$5.88/gallon for the baseline product. Costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price)
increased roughly 220 percent and 160 percent for facilities 16 and 17, respectively.
Substitute Blanket Wash 26
Performance data indicate mixed results for Blanket Wash 26. Total costs per wash
^effer rฐughly 30 Percent for facility 5, but decreased 6 percent at facility 15. Press operators
at both facilities rated the performance of Blanket Wash 26 as good on the good-fair-poor scale
for every one of its trials. Despite the fact that Blanket Wash 26 is priced higher than the baseline
wash, differences in costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) did not contribute to
the higher overall cost per wash at facility 5. Blanket Wash 26 is priced at $12 24/gallon
compared to a price of $5.88/gallon for the baseline. Performance data indicate that the average
quantity of blanket wash used at both facilities decreased by roughly 40 percent compared to the
baseline. The savings experienced by facility 26 result from a 14 percent decrease in cleaning time
compared to the baseline.
DRAFT
4-96
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
Substitute Blanket Wash 29
Using Blanket Wash 29 rather than the baseline, costs per press increased roughly 60
percent at both facilities 7 and 8. Blanket Wash 29 is priced three-times higher than the baseline,
contributing significantly to the higher overall costs associated with its use. Costs associated with
product use (i.e., volume x price) increase 300 percent and 230 percent at facilities 7 and 8
respectively due primarily to the products higher price. Blanket Wash 29 is priced at
$18.00/gallon compared to a price of $5.88/gallon for the baseline. In addition, average cleaning
times are higher for Blanket Wash 29 compared to the baseline for both facilities. Cleaning times
increased 22 percent for facility 7 and 64 percent for facility 8.
Substitute Blanket Wash 30
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 30 instead of the baseline. Compared to the baseline, costs per wash
increased roughly 60 percent at facility 18 and 20 percent at facility 19. Increased cleaning time
was the primary contributor to the higher cost per wash for both facilities. According to the
performance data, cleaning times at facility 18 increased from an average of 48 seconds for the
baseline to an average of 82 seconds for Blanket Wash 30; however, this alternative was only
tested under heavy ink coverage conditions and the baseline wash was observed under light and
medium coverage conditions. The press operator at facility 19 commented that Blanket Wash 30
evaporated slowly; cleaning times for the alternative increased by roughly 30 percent, compared
to the baseline. Press operators at both facilities commented that Blanket Wash 30 cut the ink
well.
Substitute Blanket Wash 31
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 31 instead of the baseline. Compared to the baseline, costs per wash
increased roughly 180 percent at facility 7 and 7 percent at facility 8. The press operator at
facility 7 observed that drying times for Blanket Wash 31 were greater than the baseline; cleaning
times averaged 140 seconds for Blanket Wash 31, compared to 45 seconds for the baseline
product. The press operator at facility 8 experienced a decrease in cleaning time, but an increase
in the quantity of blanket wash used. According to the performance data, cleaning times at facility
8 decreased by 4 percent compared to the baseline. The average quantity of blanket wash used,
however, increases roughly 60 percent, off-setting the gains in labor savings. Press operators at
both facilities indicated that Blanket Wash 31 cut the ink well.
Substitute Blanket Wash 32
Performance data indicate mixed results in the performance of Blanket Wash 32. Total
costs per wash increased roughly 120 percent at facility 1, but decreased 20 percent at facility 5.
Material costs (i.e., press wipes) contributed significantly to the higher costs per wash observed
at facility 1. Costs associated with material use increased roughly 160 percent compared to the
baseline. After eight blanket cleanings, facility 1 discontinued use of Blanket Wash 32 because
an oily-residue remained on the blanket affecting subsequent print quality. Facility 5 reported
lower cleaning times and reduced blanket wash use for Blanket Wash 32, compared to the
baseline. Performance results indicate a 15 percent decrease in cleaning time and a 60 percent
decrease in the quantity of blanket wash used for facility 5.
Substitute Blanket Wash 34
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 34 instead of the baseline; average costs per wash increased roughly 50
4-97
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
percent and 80 percent at facilities 1 and 19, respectively. Performance data indicate that costs
associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) at facility 1 increased roughly 160 percent;
however, the press operator at facility 1 rated the performance of Blanket Wash 34 as good on the
good-fair-poor scale. This increase is completely attributable to the alternative product's higher
price. Blanket Wash 34 is priced at $15/gallon compared to a price of $5.88/gallon for the
baseline. The press operator at facility 19 commented that Blanket Wash 34 leaves a light residue
on the blanket and does not readily soak into the press wipe. At facility 19, increased cleaning
time is the single largest contributor to the higher average cost per wash of Blanket Wash 34-
cleaning times averaged 67 seconds for Blanket Wash 31, compared to 41 seconds for the baseline
product.
Substitute Blanket Wash 37
Performance data indicate a reduced financial cost when using Blanket Wash 37 instead
of the baseline. Average costs per wash decreased roughly 13 percent and 7 percent at facilities
3 and 4, respectively. Overall costs per wash decreased due to reduced cleaning time and material
use (i.e., press wipes). Compared to the baseline, cleaning times decreased roughly 20 percent
at both facilities 3 and 4. After several days of usage, however, facility 4 discontinued use of
Blanket Wash 37 because it caused uncoated paper to stick to the blankets.
Substitute Blanket Wash 38
Performance data indicate an increased financial cost when using Blanket Wash 38 instead
of the baseline. Average costs per wash increased roughly 100 percent at facility 2 and 30 percent
at facility 4. Costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) contributed significantly to
the higher overall costs of using Blanket Wash 38. Specifically, compared to the baseline, costs
associated with blanket wash use increased 400 percent at facility 2 and roughly 260 percent at
facility 4 due primarily to Blanket Wash 38's high price. Blanket Wash 38 is priced at
$19.00/gallon compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline. Press operators at both facilities
commented that Blanket Wash 38 left an oily-residue on the blanket with subsequent affects on
print quality. Facility 2 discontinued use of the alternative after 1-1/2 days of use and facility 4
discontinued use of the product after six trials.
Substitute Blanket Wash 39
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 39 instead of the baseline. Costs at facilities 5 and 8 increased roughly 25
percent and 45 percent respectively when using Blanket Wash 39 instead of the baseline.
Operators at both facilities commented that the alternative left an oily residue on the blanket,
although no effect was noticed on print quality. Performance results indicated roughly a 40
percent increase in cleaning time at both facilities 5 and 8. Despite a 30 percent decrease in the
average quantity of blanket wash used, the costs associated with product use (i. e., volume x price)
did not vary between Blanket Wash 39 and the baseline. The manufacturer's price for product
39 is $12.35/gallon compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline product.
Substitute Blanket Wash 40
Performance data indicate mixed results in the performance of Blanket Wash 40
Compared to the baseline, average costs increased roughly 35 percent at facility 1 but decreased
4 percent at facility 10. The higher cost experienced by facility 1 is attributable to Blanket Wash
40's higher price as well as an increase in the average number of press wipes used. The average
quantity of blanket wash used-by facility 1 is 2.5 ounces for both the alternative as well as the
baseline: however, costs associated with blanket wash use (i.e., volume x price) increased roughly
80 percent due to Blanket Wash 40's higher price. The reduced costs experienced by facility 10
DRAFT
4-98
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
are attributable to a reduction in the average quantity of blanket wash used. Costs associated
with product use decreased roughly 30 percent for facility 10. Press operators at both facilities
commented that Blanket Wash 40 cut the ink well.
4-99
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
ฃ
CO
c
m
>_
^
.2
"55
co
0
O
E
to
CO
Xi
I
1
If
CO
f
*o
u.
1
racterist
i
u
o
t
_
tn
CM
X
=
00
_
&
X
o
CD
J
to
to
I
O
.^
c
CD
i
CD
0
0
2T
to
to
S
CD
1
_O
're
c
_o
jj
Q
ป
B
i
5
m
S.
5
3
UJ
Q
O
CO
;S
'o
"
CO
o
ra
LL
D5 CD
S c
0} il
O CC
c. J::
CD 3=
Q- Q
CD
0> g
3 CD
ง1
< Q
CD
to
E -^
S S
< 5
CDi-
cn CD
ฃi o
! 1
0 CO
CL Q
'"CD
CO 0
J3 S
_a 3=
< Q
CD
to
11
< 5
CD
C
11
ca ฃ
?
^
CM
^, ^
"ft
S -S
i
o Ji
CO -B
CM
in
+
[5?
c55-
o M
CO -=-
D)
C
"E.
to
0)
0
CD
a.
to
ฃ tu
F 3-
O
+
a>
d
!5:
d
OO
CM
d
CM
o
d
in
CO
d
OO
CM
d
S
to
o
O
N_
0
J2
CO
_J
CM
CO
CO
O
.-.
2 f\
T^ ฃ,
in IT
c
+
o
d
!1
0 1\
i-1 ~5-
N
-^
C
to
3
O
CD
ฃ
CO
f**.
in
T
O
co
T
d
0
d
o
CM
CM
T
d
CD
d
in
o
d
Si
io
o
D
5
Q
3
a.
r"
CO
m ~>
o
o
o
i-
^.^
co
0 II
CM ^
0 ^T
i-: ฃ-
O
CM
0
CD Tf
O II
CM -B
to
ID
-)
*
o
o
i
T
O
CM
CV
d
^
d
OO
T
O
d
i
oo
T
d
CM
CM
d
s
to
o
O
li
it
2 UJ
to
1
3
0
OO
5
d
oo
d
co
o'
in
CM
d
ro
CD
d
in
in
d
ป
0
|| Total cost/wa
0)
oo
CD
Tฃ
co
co'
co
^
in
CM
CD
in
d
X)
CM'
o
CM
CM'
to
ฃ
t
o
o
"ro
0
ll
o>
oo
o
o
1
+
o
ฃ
co"
o
s
*"
m
o
5
o
o
o>
CD"
o
s
in"
"Si
to
CD
IE
to
1
t
0
o
"to
'o
to
5
"to
CD
C
CD
to
O
O
o
to"
Q.
g
CD
J2
ฃ
CD
CD
to
to
CD
O
CD
-a
&
CO
CD
s
to
0)
Q.
D
C.
CD
Q.
-
CD 0) to
ซ= UJ
J5 'B ~
3 O to
IS-.E
c ฃ co
co co
CD , CD tO
2> i= D5 tD
<ซ CO
to to
CD
0 C -D
3 .0 c
Ili
73
to to >
'to "re
ง
-S
OCM CO * to
DRAFT
4-100
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CO
(0
1
I^J
ffl
CO
m
^
.2
15
<
s
o
o
"o
(0
3
(O
LA
>.
"o
.2
.ซ
1
CO
o
to
Facility Character
_
LO
CM
X
o>
CD
CM
X
o>
CD
N
'co
CO
CO
ol
1
T3
CD
CD
E
CD
CD
D5
cO
CD
S
O
J^
_c
CD
D)
ฃ
CD
3
O
O
I
CD
to
_0
'S
C
o
;s
Q
0}
C8
Blanket
0)
Q.
'o
cs
u.
.K
'o
.2
CD T-
D) CD
B c
ง ฃ
O CD
c2 5
CD
CD <2
]3 CD
^ CD
< Q
CD
.>
to
^^ CO
_CD cQ
< 5
CD
li
CD >
CD-r-
O) CD
CO 0
*ฑ C
CJ5 CD
0 CD
CD S
a. Q
'"CD
CD ฐ
-S c
= CD
SJ2
-Q S
< Q
CD
to
ฃ ^
CD
_c
^ (
m 5
C3>
CD
CM
^-
_ II
O r-
LO -b-
ปI
-:
+
+
ocT
CO ป
CD O-
s A
D5
"E
CO
CD
o
CD
O.
CO
i o
ฃ CD
ro
CD
CM
CM
O
_k
LO
CD
CM
CO
CD
-
+
O
CD
S
CD
CD
LO
O
to
o
0
0
_Q
CO
_J
CM
,
CD
^^^
\
CM
^ 11
c\T
LO II
CM
LO
o
CO 1?
CD -S
si
N
>,
"^
CO
a
CD
D5
2
CD
i
h-
LO
o
o"
T~
O
fe
CD
CD
+
LO
0
CD
CO
O
CD
O
CD
^^
S-
to
o
0
c.
_0
a
to
0
Q.
!
งCVJ
m Z)
O
1
CD
f^
CM
i II
C
s!
o
o
ro~
o II
c
q II
CO
CD
_Q.
*
o>
O
o
CM
o
CD
O
O
CD
O
CO
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2
_w
1
LO
CM
CD
hป
f^.
o
o
LO
o
ฃ
+
CM
CD
+
CM
CO
CD
O
Total cost/wash ($
LO
co
o
Tf
co
o
CO
o
0
CM
ฃ
+
CD
+
co
CM
CO
ง
CM
|| Total cost/press3 (
LO
o
^^
CM"
o
o
Is-"
o
o
LO"
ฃ
+
o
o
CM_
+
O
o
CM
co"
O
O
O
g
^_
CO
f
|| Total cost/press/sr
to is
"c _c
JS co
CD
'S CD
1 i
CD O
ฃ t:
CO CD
CD CL
-c .ฃ2
*J !M
.ฃ o
CO >
:3 >
*^ c\T
^ CO
to *J~
o iฃ
o -C
v- ป
o >-
CD
CO "-
CD co
Q. CD
'g ฃ
0 'o
1 ili
13 .Q- . "Q
'H i_ co
C CD CO CO
CO _Q CD CO
^ g CO 0-
CD C , _c
ฃ -a ฃ o
~ c E co
"^ CO '^Z ] 1 1
^ fi^ O T
_ "^ cO jj
'o ! -a 5
CO g- CD .>>
ฃ a,- "w ~
TJ *-' CO
ซ &งg
co 2 w -Q-
c ^ฐ* c o
0) QJ CO
C V* ^_ O
"W 13 ^O CO
^ - 5 ^
CO -t-S ฃ 5 ^- (D
1 1 1 "i 1 !
ซ"ฐ t|i
co co Jjj -ti..2 5
c ^ CD co co i-
!3) -O ^ ฐ* O) o.
'co co co ฃ .ฃ ro
CD 2 ^ ^ & >^
:-! J g 8 | -S
CO ,_ ฎ CO ฃ LO
i- "OCVJ CO ป CO
4-101
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
o>
I
I
m
.o
CO
c
<
In
o
O
E
to
XI
1
o
>,
CS
LL
|| Facility Characteristics
to
CM
X
52
s
00
CM
X
a
CD
IM
U)
%
JD
tx
r
CD
I
i
O
E
3
o
CD
I Average ink coverage
o
o
^^
.c
CO
1
CD
5,
o
2
c
0
3
a
.n
CO
CO
5
4-ป
0
Jฃ
co
m
u
Q.
M
0)
V
111
33
to
5-
'o
>,
.ts
1
oT~CD
CO C
C g
8 ง
CD =6
D- Q
Ta>
ฎ y
ฃ
CO -i
.a S
< Q
CD
to
II
CD
C
1!
CQ ?
CDi-
O) CD
CO O
1 I
O (D
S 3=
0. Q
^CD
CD O
i! C
n CD
II
< Q
CD
to
C JZ
II
CD
II
o>
CM
T
LO
+
of
oo ฃ
LO M
co -B
LO
J;
+
LO
O
_ ,
LO "ft
0 M
CD ^^*
O)
CO
CD
O
CD
D.
CO
li
O>
CM
CM
Tj"
CD
0
CM
CO
O
LO
ฃ:
^+
a>
o
CM
LO
LO
LO
o
to
o
o
!0
%
1
CD
CD
^
CO CM
00 II
0^
LO.f
CO
CD
, ^
T- II
co'ฃ
co -S
_o^
&
c
CO
0
CD
C?
1
o
0
o
o
ฐJ
+
o
LO
CM
CD
0
-
to
o
O
c
o
"^
Q
to
o
CO
! ' '
'S
55 p
o
0
2!
c\T
q II
o
+
CO
o
f ^
oq |
CM -5.
q IT
CM ^*
CO
CD
o.
*
o
o
CD
O
^
+
0)
o
CD
CO
O
^
O
to
(3
1 Materials and
Equipment2
CO
5
o
00
CM
CD
o'
o
10
CD
o
CM
^
^
ง
CM
CD
|| Total cost/wash ($)
co
oo
CD
^
oo
CD
CO
o
o
CM'
a>
CM
?
00
CO
+
eo'
CD
co'
CO
CD
t
o
o
I
co
o
o
CM
+
o
o
o
o
LO"
C35
CM
'+
CD
o
Q
o
oo
o"
CM
o
o
en"
s
**
II Total cost/press/shift/year'
c:
co
>
to
c
JB
"co
o>
-
CO
o
o
1ป
o
co"
(D
O
t
CD
CD
Q.
CO
CD
-i-_CD W
5 O CO
CO -
ง S
^2-g
c E co
CO ;= LU
S ซ1
E 5 -J2
*ix> ฃ
D) CO ฃ
o
CD
-D
CD
CD
13
C.
D)
'co
CD
. O L.
CO ^- O CO
[j*1 ^3 CD
c "SI S CO
CO W ฃ D) CD
O CO
-. D>
-s
CO
CD
- 53 n
o
<0 CO ^ 2 .0 C
la 2-^?
CD ^ 3 ซ g >,
CO "~~ CD (o O ..-.
O gj TJ 0) "tT
^ S t - -c ^2
< jg = ^ i- H
i- OC\J CO ^t CO
DRAFT
4-102
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
o
T-
JC
ซ
2
ฃ
1
n
CD
.g
U)
"tn
^^
"a
<
1
^
H
O
ta
CO
E '
E
(/)
^.
>,
1^
"o
ฃ
CO
'o
to
LL
1 Facility Characteristics
CO
.,
?x
o
LO
CM
X
=
CO
T
s
"to
to
CO
ol
ฃ
Z3
TS
CD
|
^
CO
2
1 Average ink coverage
o
o
to
งj
CD
'to
g
to
c
o
Q
JZ
| Cost Element per Blanket Was
^.
>,
ป
?o
CO
'o
COT-
CD 0
ซ 0
tD &_
0 CD
03=
0. Q
1
(n O
* c
1|
35
0
~
CO
C r~
j| CO
^C ^>
0
_C
- - (
CD 5
cnlo
to o
0 ฃ
O 0
Q. O
^
^0
2 0
o ;t
< Q
0
I
^t ^>
0
a
11
03 >
CM
CO
CM
O
in
, .
ง1
CM -S
ff^_
CM
in -H-
o
o
of
co -ฃ-
O r-
CO -O
D)
c
"c
CD
0
0
Q.
CO
ฃ 0
CM
OO
CM
CO
CO
+
co
1
o
0
CD
00
CM
^^
OO
CM
O
"to
0
o
O
-Q
to
o
o
s^
CD II
'CO ^ '
^^
m -E,
0
o
sl
o II
c:
N
>,
1
CO
^
O
0
O)
ฃ
0
^
in
CO
o
o
CM
CM
O
T
O
o
+
CM
O
O
o
o
in
o
o
g
'S5
Q
O
c:
_g
Q
to
o
Q_
JC
to
1
0
I^S
m r>
O
in
T
^ ^
o TT
T -^^
x ^.
CM
c\i -5-
o
0
0 II
CM ฃ-
o II
CM -E-
to
0
Q.
*
o
in
ฃ
o
T~
o
o
o
0
CM
CM
O
CM
CM
o'
O
Q
Materials and
Equipment2
_w
o
in
in
CO
+
o
CM
CM
s
C3
+
CM
q
o
in
o
in
in
o
| Total cost/wash ($)
o>
in
o
in
o
co
oo'
cri
^
CO
o
o
co
CM
CM
o
CM
CM',
CO
to
to
CD
t
O
o
"o
CO
in
0
o
co"
o
o
o
CM"
CM
o
o
in
oo"
+
o
o
CM
O
in
o
0
in"
Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
t ^ ;
c c\T
"i "=
'to *J-
o ^
O r~
i_ -
0
to CL
0. W
"ง . ฃ
_! \j_ป
0 . o
3' .Q-_0 ซ
c 5 o co
:ซฑ ฐ to
ป-- i_ to
"3 XI tD to
g- | o. ฃ
- C ^
ฃ -o g ง
~ c E to
tO -^= LU
ฃ ^"^ ^~"
_C 'ฃ g >_
fl3 ;H "^ fl)
CO Cr JZ ^
g 1 a 1
OJ ฎ ^ 0
tO CO .- Q.
0 rt" 1 -^
O > _^ Q
tP ^5 tO ^^
D) _tO ^ *-
'to 3 o tO
0 ^ ^ 05
.> o ฃ --
'to c o to
51 2 <5
c "S j| ง S
=J Tl ,_ >ซ
^ to <2 >-
! 11* ^
to o M o to
it: c c 0 = TJ
to'~ to Jo ^1 m
<
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
T"
t
f
^CO
5
4_ซ
CD
ra
m
o
ijs
w
ซ*
(/)
j2*
ro
^^
to
0
o
UM)
^
^ป
re
E
3
CO
CM
1
>s
'o
ฃ
| Facility Characteristics
s
CO
s
CO
CO
CM
X
=
o
s
'to
ฃ
D.
r
CO
I
ฃ
3
T3
CO
| Medium
1 Average ink coverage
o
o
to
to
co
I
_o
to
c
o
J5
Q
1 Cost Element per Blanket Wash
CM
'5
ฃ
J
'o
Co1"ฎ
*~* c
C m
CO ฃ
O CO
S. Q
'"co
*J 1
11
0)
ll
CD 2
t _
^
O
lf^
CM
0 ป
CO =-
co"
O c;
en
co
CO
CO
FT
to Jl
h- ~_-
s!
CD
C
'c
to
CO
0
tr
Q.
to
*" "c?
.ง. <ฐ
10
CM
CD
CD
CO
CM
CD
CO
O
O>
CO
CO
CO
d
0
(*
CD
CO
CD
to
O
O
CVL
o
a
CO
CM
CM
d
__^
CO
xf CO
2 A
SI
+
T
T-
d
, .
CO
r- CO
to ll
CM -
S A
N
' ~
Average Quantity
O
co
ro
o
d
^3-
T
d
in
0
d
CM
T^*
r-
d
in
CM
d
d
- *
.
to
o
0
_o
Q
to
o
Q.
1
^OJ
ง s
m ^
O
x^-
+
2
^__
CO
sA
co"
o
T-
cvi
, ^
CO
T~ 11
co -5,
c\T
q II
to
CO
_Q.
*
tD
CO
in
d
to
CM
o'
d
ro
o
CM
CO
CM
d
^
CO
d
d
to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2
(0
1
oo
CM
in
d
co
CO
d
S
d
ro
f>
l^
d
o>
CM
'"
ro
in
d
| Total cost/wash ($)
co
CM
O
CO
d
CM
(^
CM'
CM
csi
ro
o
co
c\i
CD
LfJ
to
CO
CM
CO
to
to
ฃ
t
o
0
1
co
CM
o
o
in
o
o
co
to"
o
o
CO
in"
ro
o
o
CD
^^
.4.
o
o
ro
CM"
o
o
in"
| Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
t5 3
^ o
c ^
00
,o
0)
E 1
CO O
*; tr
to c
9 to
to o-T
O ซ
O f~
O "-
. &
to Q-
CO w
Q- CO
> .i -
"o S
o5 "^ II
ฃ2 to c n^
3 .E- tD -g
c: 5 "o to
^r t; to ^
.^ ฐ ~ to
*- ป- to
ฃ co to to
03 X3 CO to
g- | o.ฃ
I -a 5 TJ w
flj * > -^c
n *-* co
ซ ง>Sฃ
to 2 to ^~
o $ to w
C tO c ง
-8 g^lO;
cz *~ ฐX
D) _ฃ0 ^ <-
'to 3 o to
CO -^ **~1 CO
to c o to
co g te
CO f fl) tO
(0 ^ *= CO ,
.> to o to ฃ m
0 JjT T3 to "^
ฐ- c =- ฃ Ji w~
< 2 = F Q- 1- E
T- O OJ CO ^ CO
DRAFT
4-104
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CM
CO
(0
_ra
m
in
I
CO
ง
0
I
CO
!_>
'o
CM
'o
1 Facility Characteristics
=
CO
CM
X
CD
CM
O
X
co
CM
CD
N
"co
CO
CO
CD
CL.
E
3
T5
CD
E
T3
CD
II Average ink coverage
T
r.
|| Dilution ratio (watenwash)
^^
CO
CO
ซฃ
|| Cost Element per Blanke
CO
IZ
'o
ฃ
CM
'o
CDi-
O) CD
ฃ5 O
"ฃ ง
CD ป_
0 CD
$53=
a. Q
'"CD
aj M
ฃ
li
< Q
CD
>
to
II
< ง
CD
^ *-
CO |
m ?
CDi-
O) CD
ซ 0
CD i_
0 CD
CL Q
CD ง
-*-J ฃ=
~^ QJ
11
< Q
CD
.>
to
m CO
.ฃ CO
< 5
CD
c
I!
CO ^
+
LO
c\i
^_^
C\l r-*
CD -S-
^^.^
CO
0 ป
co -E*
O)
+
^^^^
"i?
"* -E-
S"
5 =
O)
"c
CO
CD
O
CD
Q.
CO ^_^
P-2.
+
q
CD
OO
LO
CD
LO
LO
CD
O>
CO
O
CD
+
5
CD
CD
to
O
O
O
s
!5
V
f ^
CO
ง^
CD ฃ,
^^^
CO CO
CO 11
CM i.
t
co
oq
'"
^ ^
oo
SCM
11
CM B,
TL
N
_O^
-^
*- '
"S
CO
13
o
CD
O>
CO
CD
o
0
ฃ1
CD'
CD"
o
co
CM
CD
CM
o
o
CM
o
^.
to
0
o
c
_o
"Q
to
o
Q.
CO
CO
55 =>
o
o
^^^
CO
CM
CO 11
i-^ ฃ.
-_ll
CO
CO ^
t
CO
0
^-^
fx^
T-
CM -S
co"
co II
CO
CD
.Q-
*
O
o
T
CD
CD
to
CO
CD
CD
+
cu
CD
CD
to
O
O
(Materials and
Equipment2
CO
w
1-
+
CO
o
o
CO
oo
CD
0
00
CD
CM
CM
CO
O
+
0)
CD
OO
CD
Total cost/wash ($)
+
CM
CD
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
Cvl
0
+
CD
C3>
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
t
o
o
2
ฃ
?
o
O'
CO
o
o
CO
co"
o
o
o
CO-
CM
CM
O
O
C0_
+
O
o
CO
O)
f)
o
oo
s
1 Total cost/press/shift/year4
>
I
2
"re
CD
.ฃ
O)
"co
to
O
o
._
~
CD
o
CD
-a
CO
CD
CO
CD
O
t
CD
Q.
CM
T3
CO
CD
Q.
5
5
CD
J2
3
ฃ=
^*
CO
CO
CD
_Q.
5
M
CD
-Q
CO
CD
E
. 0
a i-
CD -73
S <ป
ซ jl
_CD co
O CO
CO 5
CO
co
!fi ">
CD CO
T3 ^ O
c E co
CO "4= 111
> -
a
CD
i !งI
-^
S,^
CO fn JD_
"!= tl 'S
"5 o co
o 2: -^:
c ฃ ซ
"~ -
s I -s
_CD = r-
OCO CO -*
4-105
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
s
1
*"'
1
JS
CQ
IM
**"
W
1
CO
c
^
to
0
o
"5
ro
E
3
V)
:
CO
V"
jr
"5
i2
CO
f
'5
ฃ
1 Facility Characteristics
5
w
x:
b
CM
In
CM
x
CO
s
CO
1
CL
r
cfl
CD
T
E
CD
|
T3
CD
2
1 Average ink coverage
0
o
1 Dilution ratio (water:wash)
1 Cost Element per Blanket Wash
CO
T
>>
1
CO
'5
.2
CD-i-
ro CD
ro o
1 I
Hi
D- Q
'"CD
0ฃJ
~ C
=5 CD
||
< b
CD
to
11
^ 2>
(D
C
1|
CQ ?
rolu
ro o
p c
ง ฃ
0 CD
553=
Q. Q
'"CD
CD "
ป-* C
3
to
11
< 5
CD
ll
CD
CO
i
_
CO
TJ- ..
of
in -5-
o
o
CM
+
o
CO
O c-
ro &
o M
co -5-
D)
ro
CD
o
CD
Q.
CO
CD *g
E CD
P -!2.
CD
o
d
i
ro
CO
o
co
d
o
o
CM
+
in
10
d
CO
co
d
00
CM
d
to
o
O
ro
o
oo
d
o"
C
CM 0-
f
^
t
in
CM
d
ocT
T S-
ง IF
_
N
*ป_-*
ซ
O
CD
O)
2
1
CO
CO
CM
t
d
CM
d
ro
o
d
ro
CM
+
CM
O
d
ro
CD
d
o
d
^^*
to
o
O
c
o
Jj
Q
to
o
CL
1
to
ro (^
CQ 13 '
0
o
o
+
o~
q II
CM ^^-
sl
o
+
CO
d
oo"
CO ^
i ฃ.
T
co
CD
.Q.
*
O
o
^
d
CM
CM
d
d
co
CO
o
d
in
d
d
to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2
CO
I
CM
CO
d
CO
d
CD.
CD
d
1
+
co
d
0.
T
d
| Total cost/wash ($)
CM
CD
d
OO
CM
co'
CD
CM
8
+
5
+
co
^J-
CO
1
o
0
ฃ!
CM
o
o
+
o
o
CM
00"
o
o
co
CO-
CO
CO
1
o
o
T
CD-
CD
o"
O
O
CD
j Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
1 ฐ
i ป
.a
-a
1 1
flj O
iฑ t
ro CD
o
-c co
c5 "H
u >
"ง c.
^ ffl
o o ฃ ~
to c ^o "S
*~ CD ._ CD ro
ro fo i: o> CD
=' ป J2 -S -
ro ^~ "c CD S
CD 'S CO en
1 A positive sign denotes an increas
:leaner instead of the base product.
' "n" denotes the number of observa
3 Presses are assumed to have four
1 The following assumptions were m;
shifts, 5 days per week and 50 week
DRAFT
4-106
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
o>
T~
CO
i
1
n
m
IM
ฃ
CO
'55
To
1 '
0
\J
O
"o
(0
E
|
V)
o>
T-
1
00
^,
'o
"
| Facility Characteristics
=
CD
CM
X
=
O
CO
CM
X
T
CD
N
"co
CL
1
CD
g>
CO
CD
X
ฃ
3
73
CD
2
| Average ink coverage
O
o
| Dilution ratio (waterwash)
| Cost Element per Blanket Wash
O)
T-
S
1
CO
ฃ,
'5
"
en1"ฎ
4-rf ^
C m
(D s_
O fl)
V_ u_
CD *E
Q. Q
T
O
.ฃ2 c
n
8 J
jQ =
CD
II
CD ?
CDT-
c?S
1 1
ง -i
a. Q
r-
CD
3
to
c _c
< >
CD
c
11
m ?
T-
CO
in
CM
00
CO "
CD -ฃ
uT
T^" ฃ
CD
O
f-
00 ">"
T- _-
CD"
^ -S
O)
c
CO
CD
O
c
CD
Q.
co
g 6
E co
T*~
CD
CO
CM
CD
^
CD
CD
00
CO
O
CO
T
in
CO
o
o>
o
l~
5
CD
O
O
o
CO
o>
00
00
o
CD"
^~
^ r-
r ฃ*
ง A
o
0
T
in
+
o"
o IT
CO -S-
co"
in ฃ
^
N
O
i
CO
3
o
CD
D)
CO
CD
0
o
CO
CM
o
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
CO
CM
O
CO
CM
CD
fe
O
^
to
c
_o
i5
to
0
Q.
to
1
-งco
55 ~>
O
T
CD
co"
^~
*t H
T -ฃr
of
O
co
CD
+
o"
CO II
CM
0 ฅ
^ -S^
CO
CD
_9_
*
+
o
CD
CM
CD
CD
CD
00
O
C3>
CM
CD
1~
CD
to
0
O
Materials and
Equipment2
CO
83
CO
CD
CO
CO
0
O
CO
CD
S
CD
00
CD
O
+
CD
CD_
'"
CM
CD
O
| Total cost/wash ($)
00
CD
^
CD
CO
CM
CM'
co
co
CD
T
*
CD
CO
oo
CM
CO
ฃ
t
o
o
~a
00
CD
o
o
CD
erf
o
o
o>
oo"
o
o
CO
in
oo
co
T
O
o
o"
+
o
o
CD
co"
7~
o
o
CM
CD
Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
CD 3
-^ O
C .c
rrt
^ ฐฐ
f~
-g ซ.
<ซ C
E ฃ
flj O
ฑz t
CO CD
CD ^~
ฃ
.ฃ o
w ^?
3 -=*
C C\T
"> C
^ CO
to ^f
o 1H
O x-
CD
to Q-
O QJ
'ง ฃ
M '*-*
ฐ .CD
3 .9- CD ^
c 5 13 co
& "S~ w
5 CD CO CO
CO _Q CD CO
ง | Q-ฃ
ฃ 73 ffi "O
~ c ฃ co
"}": ^* ^j T
= 1 S -
5 ฎ co
CD f5 T3 CD
CO 5-p ffi ^
| If!
05 > """-^
~ฐ 'm ฎ ป
18 8><5 ฃ
! Hf
^ ro c o
"ฐ c 2 f5
c *= "Z 'S
'co ^3 o co
i *ii
c? ^ "ฃ ฎ -.
CO ป ^ 0> CD^
"0 03 io" .ฃ ^.
s .1 i -s s.
1 A positive sign denotes an increase
ileaner instead of the base product.
' "n" denotes the number of observat
3 Presses are assumed to have four i
* The following assumptions were ma
shifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks
4-107
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
CO
I
.2
m
co
'cO
co
o
O
en
E
CNl
If*
1
^
jj.
'a
&
II Facility Characteristics
o
^"
X
=
CO
CM
_
CO
CM
X
s
en
CD
N
'to
CO
a!
ฃ=
H5
CD
r
(D
ฃ
CD
|| Average ink coverage
o
o
|| Dilution ratio (watenwash}
j;
ra
1
*
|| Cost Element per Blanke
CM
JSS
'o
.2
T~
1
CD-r-
CD CD
tO O
*ฑ c:
ง ฃ
O CD
CD S
D- Q
t5 CD
sl
3-5
'to
C n<"T
Jrr W
.ฃ (C
< >
~
co
CD
t
CO
o'
CO
CD
Total cost/wash ($)
tn
o>
CO
o
co'
CM
CO
CO
co'
t
CD
CM
CM
tn
o
co
CM'
"to
to
CD
I
O
o
1
tn
o>
o
+
o
o
co
tn
o
co"
t
CD
O
O
CO
O
O
0
O
0_
g
|| Total cost/press/shift/year4
CD
C
to
o
o
CO
CD
O.
'S
CD
.a
Z!
ฃ1
3
cr
co"
.-
'-
C
CO
CD
CO
CO
O
co
CD
CO
as
CO
Q- vx
E-g'
=1 CD
S ^
ซ
O> Q.
!i
is
l|
* to
DRAFT
4-108
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CM
ป
S
I
jo
ffl
(0
"ca
CO
o
o
(0
E
w
i
I.
CO
'o
1 Facility Characteristics
CD
CM
X
b>
_
in
CM
X
cb
'to
CO
CO
ol
1
flj
E
CD
|
TJ
CD
1 Average ink coverage
O
o
1 Dilution ratio (waterwash]
.C
%
tS
.2
c
ts
m
<5
Q.
s
g
3 (D
ง1
-d S
< Q
CD
to
E JZ
Jn "^
ฑฑ ~2
< &
CD
C
11
03 5
CM
in
CO
i
,
m
oo ซ
co -S
CT
al
o
T
CM
OO
ff ^
in
CM ป
CD ^C^
O I;
co ~b-
en
'H
ca
CD
o
CD
a.
to
c "'
ฃ co
CJ
in
CM
d
in
CO
d
CO
CM
d
o
+
o>
ca
CD
fN^
in
d
co
CM
d
to
o
0
o
1
'
^j-
CO
^ A
ta
in II
CO
+
in
CD
j(_^
CD
0 II
CM' -E-
in IF
N
_o_
&
ฃ
CO
Z5
O
CD
D)
CO
S
^
j^
in
o
d
-,
d
h-
o
d
en
CM
+
a>
0
CD
CD
d
0
d
JS.
t/5
o
O
o
B
(5
to
o
a.
1
frs
ca =>
o
T
d
^
^-
CO
^ -S,
uT
o
in
+
in
+
rf^. ^
CD
in II
CM
O II
C
CO
CD
Q.
*
+
0
d
CM
d
T-
T
d
in
in
+
ฃ
CD
OO
CM
d
d
to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2
CO
ts
5
1
si-
^
d
co
in
d
5-
d
o
CM
+
in
in
o'
^
q
T~
d
I! Total cost/wash ($)
1
+
oo
CD
d
CM
c\i
co
o
CM
+
0
CM
OJ
^J-
q
"*
oo
m
CO
CO
CD
t
o
o
1
^
^i-
o
o
h-
^
+
0
o
00
in"
o
o
o
CM
+
o
0
in_
+
o
o
o"
'I~
0
o
co_
s
*
II Total cost/press/shift/year
_CO
J2
CD
'1
C
o>
"eg
0)
to
o
o
co
0)
a.
3
c
CD
C
o
CO
T3
D>
'to
o
CD
to
CO
-a
CO
o
t:
-a
*T
_E
o
~- 1
I ป ง
^ <
-D ฎ O
c E co
CO "4= UJ
CO
ซ
g ro^
I 5^
g>iis
2 w -g-
$ tu to
S -^ o
o co
c ฃ to
CD a5
"S CD c t
CO Jil CD CO
w i: en co
IIII
ซ - 2.S
ฃ - CD
o -g ป co S
to to
2^
o
5 .0
t3 S.
co p
ง,ฐ-
.S3 -o *- en o.
<ฐ ca to ฃ .ฃ
co S ฎ ro ฃ
O CO
-
to O m O
= c =
"tO CD
Q. ฎ "ฐ CO
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
1
5
ฃ
!
m
L*
ฃ
(A
ซ^
i .
C/)
0
o
"o
ra
ฃ
E
3
(O
CO
T
>,
"-
'S
CM
^f."
t
"o
if
| Facility Characteristics
=
CO
CM
s^
s
O
CM
X
CO
CM
CD
N
'to
to
,
'o
ฃ
JJrf
'o
CDt-
D3 CD
52 ^
g ฃ
O CD
CD ฃ
Q. a
'"CD
03 iฃ
3 CD
ง|
_Q ~
< Q
CD
"m -*
pf) ^>
CD i
D> CD
CO 0
d rt
CD 2:
O CD
CL 5
'"CD
S 8
=5 CD
sl
_Q its
< Q
CD
to
ฃ J=
< ?
CD
CD
O
+
ll
^
o?
CO -E-
CD
CD
i
?
CM -E-
?!
Di
C
"c
CO
CD
O
'H
CD
Q.
to
E^
E CD
P -2i-
CD
CO
O
+
CM
a>
o
in
in
o
CD
CO
in
CD
CO
CM
o
CD
to
o
O
o
T
+
^>
o
+
o~
CM
CM -E.
f
co1!?
CM -5-
ซ
iq
r ^
CO
o IT
CM 5,
CD"
31
N
CO
a
CD
ro
2
CD
in
+
^
o
+
oo
CM
CD
T
CD
O
in
o
CD
o
CO
CD
CD
<ฃ
to
o
0
c:
_o
5
to
o
a.
JZ
CO
1
m D
m
T~
,+
in
j
+
o"
CM
00 II
CM E,
^ ^
ซ. 1
CO
+
CD
CD
f ^
CM
CM -E-
CD"
CO II
CO
CD
Q.
*
CM
+
t
CD
+
CO
O
T
oo
oo
c\i
+
CD
CD
CO
^
O
CD
OO
CM
CO
CO
CO
ฃ
t
o
o
To
'S
0
oo
o
0
T
f*ซ
+
o
o
in"
T
o
o
o
co"
^
o
o
o
o
CM
co"
o
o
T
oo"
Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
tD 5
"c ฐ
^^ CO
CD -
> T3
1 1
CD O
*: tz
CO CD
CD ฐ-
B -22
O) **^~
.S o
w ^?
o ^
J "c
JX
CO ^-t
0 te
0 J3
t. ฎ
CO Q-
Cl. CD
., '^
1 ill
c > O J3
.^ o .2 I
c S w *w
Co JD ซ ฃ
to 2 co -g-
ง $ to w
ฐ 5 jซ o
gj " C O
C o CO
'co "5 o co
CD -jฃ "*". D)
S S ฃ -S
CO r- .P CO
C3> rt* c ป
c CD ฃ CD CO
CO ฃ0 ^3 o> CD
.I ^ .'.' >ซ
^ CO
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
w
.c
Vf
1 .
1
CO
m
,2
to
15
^
to
o
u
"o
tl
TO
E
E
CO
,
i^.
:H
'o
CD
i
"o
'
CD
CM
X
=
o>
co
CM
X
=
o
CM
>
S
0
E
0
0
o
o
f
CO
m
r-
V-
t
"o
CD
1
01-
D5 0
CO O
1 ฃ
O 0
03=
CL Q
i
CD
CD ^
Z3
0
1|
CD ?
0T-
D) 0
CO 0
t: c
c 0
co Si:
'O 0
03=
a. Q
^0
^ S
11
< Q
0
>
to
| 1
*^ >
0
CD
in
T
CO
^j*
"* II
CD -E*
4
co
+
o> ^
in -S
of
in -o
o>
c: .
'c
CO
0
CD
in
+
CD
CO
0
O>
in
d
CO
CM
d
co
co
CD
d
S
d
co
d
CO
^
CM
d
i
^j-
CO II
T"1 -i^*
in 1?
CO
CO
CD
d
^_^
in
CD CO
0 II
CM -B
f
CM i-
N
'
&
in
+
d
00
d
o
d
CM
CM
CM
o
c\i
+
o>
CM
d
o
d
S?
'
to
o
O
o
o
CO
0 II
^_ v^.
in"
o
CO
CO
d
__
CO
CO II
1 ^*
f
o
o
^-~
'
d
i
T
d
5
CO
CD
d
5
d
T
d
in
T
T
d
CO
co
d
d
+
CO
d
h-
a>
d
CO
CD
d
in
t
co
cq
CM
in
co'
?
+
CM
+
CO
co
CO
S
CM
in
+
o
o
h-_
+
o
o
co_
CO"
o
$
o
o
co"
o
12.
C3>
o
ง
CD"
"/1\ ^~
CD ^
-* 0
1 1
.ฃ -o
CO c-
c n
0 O
as t:
CO 0
0 ฐ-
-1 .52
.E o
3 ,
E c\T
0
f ^^
> c
^ CO
I ฃ"'
O _c~
o ฑ-
CD
CO Q.
Q. * Q T
-- 1 S s
CD ง T3 CD
co ji. ^
CO t 1ft
2 0- gi
8 .i 1 1
H5 *- CO
CO 0) CO 2
to co w d.
1 111-
-73 O> ^
c "t; i_ o
o> co -T *-*
"co is -o to
CD -7= ^ 0)
1 8 ง 1
c 0 ฃ 0 co
CO <0 i= D5 0
_, =>.__>,
^ u> co .E i_
s ง I -g 2.
S IS Zl ซ ffi
CO . 5 ir c -i^
(O *J ฃ ' *- 0
ฃ g '(D >S (D .
^ i g S = "ง
co CD CO ฃ in
- to T
i- OCM CO
4-111
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
(O
u>
&
i
5
CO
o
o
in
V"
i
in
>,
'5
2
II Facility Characteristics
in
CM
X
s
en
=
co
X
a
8
'co
00
ฃ
r
CD
X
E
'5
CD
S
1
.
'5
2
u>
>.
*i
'o
i2
>
3
o
-C
CD
O
O
i_
O
co"
CD
J3
CO
cr
CD~
CD
s
co
CD
o
c:
CD
-a
a
ro
"co
.i
c.
CO
o
CO
CD
Q.
CD
E
.9-J3 "m
5 O CO
*^ 00 ^
ฐป.2
(D CO CO
Q (D f/>
E Q. ฃ
i co Q.
m *""
~D 2 O
c E co
^ 3 ป=
3 O CO
T _ D>
o "^
c: ฃ Is
CD >- CD CO
fO ฃ 0> -
$ *i - g J2
fO 4-1 P 5 *- d)
ฃ " fe ฃ CD g
llll
CO (0 >
CD CO CO ป-
-C CO CD
CD 3. & * 5 2.
> U> O /o O CO
c =
CO =c
T- OCM n
^2
CO
DRAFT
4-112
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CD
CM
f
W
1
1
(0
m
,2
(0
'55
"ra
to
o
o
*^
o
(0
E
E
3
CO
'o
>,
'o
=
CD
CM
X
O
CM
CD
CM
X
O
1
CD
5
|
CD
^
0
CO
>
'o
CO
LL
l^_
>,
1
CD-^-
D> CD
CO O
"*li C
o CD
CD ฃ
Q. Q
r-
CD
3 c
3 CD
J|
< Q
CD
CO
c s:
| %
(0
1|
m >
CD-i-
O5 CD
CO 0
I 1
0 CD
CD 3=
Q- Q
^_
CD
CM
^j-
si
ง1
CM
CM
O
+
__^^^
in 1
in -E^
LO r
^.
CO
CM
O
co
CD
CD
T
O
CM
CM
O
T
+
1
in
o
5;
t-~\
o
o
^
o
in
r-- n
d -ฃ-
3l
o
o
^_^
oo
"* "
o II
c:
CO
CO
CM
q
o
+
o
CD
CO
o
o
o
o
CO
in
o
+
o
CM
CD
in
o
/ \
o
o
__^
o
si
si
o
o
q
+
_^_^
CM -E-
o IF
C
O
O
CD
CD
O
O
1
O
+
ou
CM
O
f-^
CM
CD
CO
O
+
0>
co
o
in
in
CD
CO
CD
CD
CO
0
+
s
o
I--
in
f-i
CM
CD
CD
CO
T
+
CD
in
CO
o
CM
CM
CO
CD
5
+
ff
CO
co
CM
r\i
CM
CD
O
ฐ_
CO"
+
O
o
co"
o
in
in"
CO
CD
o
o
CD_
+
0
o
CO
o
o
h-
irT
en ~j
-^ O
C ฃ
- ?
g ~
E 1
0) O
^ t
.CO CD
CD ฐ-
JZ CO
ro ฃ
c o
ง ^
^ CO
to
o ~
O -C
j_ CO
ฐ CD
co" Q.
CD CO
Q. CD
"5 .E
"o o
CD . "ง II
o CO c" M
^ .s- S -ti
c 5 "o co
&
^^ **~ CO ^
S 0 CO (0
1 III
I -o g -ง
~ c E co
ฎ ro- s ^
c '? ID ^
eo *ฐ
CO
CD
3
to
o
o
c:
Q
to
o
D.
to
CO
t5
eo
CD
ex
5
*
to
o
0
(Materials and
Equipment2
ID
to
ฃ
1 Total cost/wash ($)
CO
CD
t
O
0
'o
ป
| Total cost/press/shift/year4 i
CD *g ~ cO jO.
co -*-i p 3 ^" "CD
CD " CD .ฃ CD CD
" -0 S CD CD ^
-S 2 ง S 5 o
1 A positive sign denotes an
cleaner instead of the base p
2 "n" denotes the number of
3 Presses are assumed to hฃ
4 The following assumptions
shifts, 5 days per week and 5
4-113
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
1
4-*
|
J2
m
ฃ
'55
*ra
co
o
O
ra
E
3
(0
G)
*t>
CO
T*
ซ
i*
u.
I) Facility Characteristics
a
CO
CM
X
2
O>
to
CM
x
0)
1
s
CO
ฃ
r
CD
E
3
CD
5
CD
D)
ฃ
CD
g
O
.M
_c
CD
O>
2
CD
3
O
o
I Dilution ratio (watenwash)
.c
CO
m
I] Cost Element per Blanket Wi
C7>
T-
ฑz
"o
2
~
'o
"
CD,-
O) CO
CO 0
= ง
CD ฃ
O CD
CD *=
D. b
'"CD
CD ฐ
+- c
13 CD
11
< b
CD
to
C .C
SJ
< 5
CD
11
CD-i-
O) CD
ซ g
O *"
CO %
CO 5
CD
+
r
+
CD"
CM M
LO O-
In"
^ ll
+
CO
CM M
co -5-
^
co *"
* ^~
D)
"E
CD
O
'c
CD
CL
CO
"* "cT
E CD
F-2-
co
+
o
d
CO
d
co
CO
d
+
CM
CO
d
fS
d
5
d
to
<3
0
CO
CD
T
5
d
i
d-S
CO 1?
d-S
CO
o>
s
LO CD
CD II
^_^
LO 1?
T-
N
^
'ฃ
CO
O
CD
O>
2
CD
$
LO
CM
i
O
cp
ง
d
o
d
^
5
LO
O
d
CM
d
0
d
^5.
to
o
O
c
o
is
L5
to
o
I
CO CO
m ^
0
o
2!
to"
o
CM
CM
d
CD
CM II
CD
9 ป.
* t_
.0.
*
0
o
i
d
d
CO
d
CO
d
JI
d
to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2
v>
I
Is-
?
o
d
CM
co
d
s
d
CO
co
en
CO
d
o
CM
CD
d
|| Total cost/wash ($)
Is-
+
CO
CO
d
co
CM
CM
CM
?
CD
LO
CD
CO
CM
cr>
CO
CO
ฃ
t
o
0
~2
'o
l-~
+
o
o
CO
o
o
CM
CD"
o
o
CO
LO"
CO
co
o
o
O)_
o
o
o"
o
o
CM
co"
Total cost/press/shift/year ($)
c
CO
.1
to
E
CD
to
O
o
co
co
QL
CD
CD
CO
CO
CD
i_,
O
CD
TJ
.E?
'co
CD
>
to
D>
CD
TJ
E
CO
O
-C
CD
E
^
CD
Q.
CO
CD
Q.
CD
O g
.CO 9
CO
1
c E co
CO -4= LU
S re T]
g Si
i 5 -^2
&งi
fit
5 ^i O
c o
O5 JO -_
c ja w
1ง1
c ฃ 2"
0) CD
Oi J-- CD
t; r* co co
^ c ^^
CD
CO CO
0 m oj to
,-, C
S .2
*-3 ^ CD
c 3 co >
CO CO *
l
-S
,
8 = -s
ป
DRAFT
4-114
-------
CHAPTER 4: COWIPETITIVEMESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
eo
w
2
m
.2
'w
"5
CD,-
O> CD
tfl O
ง ฃ
O CD
CD 3=
0. Q
'"CD
CD g
=5 CD
ง1
< Q
CD
>
to
c _c
a S
<5
O CO
"H ซ-*
TO x_
CO ,n LQ.
= I - ซ
g> _cO .3 *^
"to is o to
CD -^ **~1 o>
-B S ฃ -I
co c .o co
CD b!i CD CO
CO ^ O) CD
CO ^ - Jr
-
I| II
0 -0 _ง CD
S
CD
I
o
l
' "S
E
CD ฎ OJ CO
> CO
.8
O1 CO
to == T3
** _CD = D-
i- OCM CO
4-115
DRAFT
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
CM
O
f
W
i
1
to
CO
ij
*ป
tn
tn
t
**
tr>
o
0
"o
re
ฃ
3
U)
to
.p*
*O
.2
J
'5
,ฐป
IX.
1 Facility Characteristics
CO
X
CM
s
CO
CM
X
=
o
CD
N
CO
CO
CO
ฃ
cz
'&
CD
|
CD
S
1 Average ink coverage
o
o
1 Dilution rate (water:wash)
| Cost Element per Blanket Wash
LO
4^
'5
.t:
'o
"
CDT-
D) CD
CO 0
*ฑ C
ง ฃ
0 CD
CD *=
n. b
ID
*- c
_3 CD
0 m
CO ^
< Q
CD
to
11
< 5
CD
C
11
03 5
(D T
D) CD
_C8 0
ง ฃ
O
CD
_C
S
TO
d
CO
d
to
o
O
0
J2
CO
fv^.
IT)
fs^
CD
q
CD"
STi
d-E-
ฃ ฅ
o
o
co"
in ll
CM -E-
CM"
in ll
CM -B-
N
ci
a
CD
2
CD
o
CO
t
^J-
o
q'
o
d
S
d
in
in
o
q'
CD
o
d
-
d
. .
ฃ^
to
0
O
c.
o
i5
to
o
CL
CO
1
h
m =)
O
O
co"
0 IT
T-^ -E,
of
o
in
in
+
co"
in n
c\i ~
CM"
0 II
* c
CO
CD
Q.
*
O
o
T
d
T
d
in
in
ฃ
d
co
CM
d
^Z
d
to
o
Materials and
Equipment2
0)
CO
jS
<3>
T
O
d
i
g
d
S
d
CM
CM
CM
h-
d
CO
-
en
in
d
1 Total cost/wash ($)
o>
o
d
CM
^
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
in
CD
CO
CM
"co
CO
ฃ
t
o
o
Is
o
en
o
o
o_
T
1
0
o
co_
o
o
CO
in"
CM
CM
o
o
CM_
+
o
o
co"
T
o
o
en
in"
CO
CD
t
1
CO
CD
t
O
o
I
* 1
CD 3
^ O
m J=
^ CO
-ป-<
> ^
to
J-: TJ
> c
^ <ฐ
o ฃ
CJ n .C
i_ <0
CD
S co
.0- CD
5 E
^- *=
0 .0
ฎ ~ 1 ฃ~ -E
CO ^ O CO
D) ffl o5
c "S CD c >-:
c CD "i CD CO
CO W 'S D) CD
3 .- j.. >>
cH c '? CD "*
O ฃ -T-J Q_
1 A positive sign denotes an increase
ileaner instead of the base product.
! "n" denotes the number of observati
! Presses are assumed to have four i
[ The following assumptions were mai
shifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks
DRAFT
4-116
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
3
1
1
BJ
CO
.2
CO
'to
>>
CO
^
to
0
0
0
ซ
c
E
w
o>
i
'o
cs
LL
^
K
'o
0)
u
1
1
s
CO
0
g
'53
ฃ
CD
CM
X
CO
CM
X
CD
N
"co
CO
CO
CD
DL
|
CD
E
^
'-a
CD
CD
O5
covera
^
c
CD
c
CC
a
<
o
0
jET
cง
i
ฃ
c
Q
CO
CD
m
<5
a.
ฃ
a
a
tj
-^ C
CD ป
O CD
CD iฃ
a. Q
^"cD
CD 0
"!3 fll
S s
jง s
< Q
CD
to
11
< 5
CD
"~ *""
ll
CO
+
CD
CM
CO~
||
CD E,
f?
O
o
ง1
si
D)
_C
'c
ca
CD
o
c
CD
Q.
C0c\l^
E CD
CD
+
^.
CM
CD
CM
CD
O
CO
CO
CD
O
0
CD
CO
CD
<&
v>
o
O
O
CD
+
LO
CO
o"
CO
CO ^~
CM II
T-: -5-
00 LT?
00 II
oB.
o
o
LO 11
CM -E-
^_^
CM
LO II
c\i -E.
N
>i
CO
a
CD
2
CD
<
^
>j
+
o
T
CD
^*
T
CD
O
CD
CD
+
oo
CD
+
O)
CM
CD
CD
^-^
^^
CO
8
c
g
(5
"co
o
QL
^:
I
'CD
^z
co u)
m D
o
oo
+
oo
0
^^
CO
T"~
00 II
T-^ -S-
si
o
+
^_
^
+
I- II
CM-B
_>^^1
CM
CO
CD
a.
"g
*
CO
+
CO
o
CD
+
Cป
CD
CD
O
+
CM
CD
O
i
O
<ฃ
to
o
O
TJ
[Materials an
Equipment
ca
I
35
+
CM
^1*
CD
+
LO
C5
CD
CO
LO
CD
T
LO
+
CO.
o
+
C35
co
O
LO
CD
CO
CO
'co
o
o
'o
o>
+
oo
CD
T
+
o
00
CO
CM
c\i
LO
+
O
CM
+
CD
LO
CO
CD
CO
CM"
^
CO
CD
t
o
o
"CO
'o
05
+
o
0
CM
sf
+
o
o
LO_
CT>~
Q
O
CO
LO"
LO
+
O
o
o
co"
+
o
o
CJ5
oo"
O
O
O5
LO"
^_
CO
0
>.
1
1
CO
CD
^
tii
o
0
"cc
c
"CD 3
ฃ 5
to
CO
c
"^ (D
CO c
ฃ E
CD O
ป-^ *t"
CO CD
CD ฐ-
t- CO
D) -^
.E O
0 ^
> c
> CO
o ;cT
o ^c
Z. ซ
o >-
. tu
Co" CL,
CD co
.O. CD
M '^
^ ฐ
CD . "CD Z^
O (0 c^ JK
zs .9- co -g
c 5 73 co
>; - co 5
S* ฐ co
i= i_ co
5 CD CO CO
CO JD CD CO
g- | Q.S_
I 1 i 8
CD "1^ ^
^ fi* o i
- "^ ฎ eg
งง T3 CO
g-_c2^-
ฃ CO 0 c
to c o to
c" CD aj
* CO ,_ CD CO
CO CO ฃ o) CO
3 .. c >ซ
c3 c "c o> Q.
CO *^ CO CO
CO CO i- JH JJ
CO *-! ? -^ *- CD
ฃ S3 0 ฃ CD co
g-g ป CD CD ^
- ฐ 0 > g O
c Q.^^ ป u>
i 1 s ฐ 1 1
c CD ^ p ฃ "co
Illfll
CD ฎ OJ CO "ง g,
> CO O (n O CO
E ซ= c 3 ^ "ฐ
CO " CD co ฃ in
||t|5a"
CD "" *ig
T- "<3
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
r
ii
* ii
11
ii
ii
ii
~
if "^
Nป II ^
"S II
i
"5 11
i
*
2
u
1
s
5
0
b
i
1 k
w ~
II
1
II
11
I
II
II
[
n
ป
5
E
5
O
3
s
CO
X
o
<*
'n
CM
X
8
CO
CO
CO
D
CD
s
r
CD
ฃ
CD
2
Average ink coverage
o
o
| Dilution ratio (watenwash
m
m
5
m
3
Q.
5
5
UJ
0
o
-*
51
1
CO
1
o
o
CM
i
CD
O
CD
CM
CM
CD
CO
CM
O
to
O
0
o
XI
CO
o>
CM
CO
00
CD
f ^
? f?
CM' ฃ-
CM"
0 II
co' -E,
CD
CD
o
CM
O II
C
^ ^
N
O
^
C
CO
a
CD
D)
S
U
+
CD
in
CM
o
o
o
co
00
q
+
CO
o
in
o
CD
S
to
n
O
(-
o
Q
io
o
a.
a
Ik
DQ =)
o
CD
CD
oo"
t-: 3-
CM' 3-
o
co
o
<<_li
CM
CM
CM II
O II
CM -S
co
CD
_fX
*
Materials and
Equipment2
c\
c
o
1
in
o
CM
CM
CD
i
O
o'
1
CO
o
Si
o
to
o
0
5
0
>
cc
CD
o>
O
8
o
CO
, 1
o
CD
t
co
o
B
CD
f ^
Total cost/wash
^
si-
cv
CD
CD
T
CO
co'
CO
oo
CM
O
ง>
1
S
CM'
S
CO
CO
Q.
to
o
o
2
0
t
o
o
CD
o
o
o
f-
o
o
in
OO"
CO
T
1
o
s
o
s
o
o
in
in
f .
Si
CO
CD
E
CO
~3>
n
s.
r>
o
o
D
5
! i
CD 3
* 0
c5 s~ '
XI ฐฐ
CD -S
1 1
CD O
CO CD
CD ฐ-
ฃ .2
D) ฃ
.E o
\
CD
> c.
9 CO
1 *="
0 JC
i_ CO
. CJ
co o.
.0- CD
5 E
^ .0
ฎ "S ^n
1 S.CD-S
ซ= g "o co
t ฐ~l
c CD CO to
CO XI CD Jo
ง- ง cxฃ
g CO ฐ-
1 '^ll
ffl ซ-4=UI
^ ฃ-ฃ ^
-E "1 g ฃ
1 ir||-
8 ฃ ง jฃ
ซ Sell
CO CO (0 CL
C (0 ^ i"ป
-ง gj-a
O) CO -^ +^
'55 "5 o co
CD = . O>
-B 22-1
ง) c -2 2
*~ fl) ,_ (]) (0
(0 W ^ o) 0)
g w jf .ฃ L*
! lง|-
ฃ 5 CD M- ^ g
ฃ2 O Q OJ (D -^
'= Q.-2 J w S
llllp
"ฐ - CD m *
'co co co ฃ .ฃ
1 1 1 1 1 1
ฐ- c V ฃ J2 to
< ro =c CL p -S
DRAFT
4-118
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
I
I
_ra
m
.J2
'55
"<5
S
o
o
"o
^
3
*
'o
CM
'o
CO
o
f
CD
1
CO
O
1
LL
V
X
O
_
oo
X
CO
T
2
CD
<
O
O
aterwash]
Z.
o
s!
c
o
Q
1
1
**
CD
&
C
CO
m
ci>
ost Element p
u
J,
1
CM
'o
07-
D) CD
5 CD
CD i_
O CD
S. Q
'"CD
13 0
< Q
0
to
C r-
0 !2
$i co
< ง
0
C
11
role
(0 O
O CD
a. Q
'"CD
0
_c
in
00
1
, ,
^~
II
^ -E.
c\T
s A
CM
CD
in
+
, .
CO
in M
CO CI^
CO
O)
'E
CO
0
o
t:
0
Q.
CO
i d
ฃ 0
o
CO
in
oo
o
d
T~~
*tj"
d
sf
d
CM
CD
CO
CM
O
+
O
CD
d
CO
o
o
CO
rfr
d
___
o
I
^f II
co^-
c\r
q II
5
T
in
o
+
__^
m
co ^~
CD H
i-
tf
N
^
ฃ
'c
CO
n
O
0
O)
CO
0
^
1
1
55 5
h-
in
CO
CO
d
o
in
d
d
o
+
o
CM
o
+
in
CM
d
in
o
d
&
'co
o
0
_o
i5
to
o
0.
o
T
CM
d
. .
05
CO II
C
c\i -S-
o
T
T
+
T
1
+
__
in
^~
C^
CM ฃ;
si
CO
0
Q.
"5
CO ง
CO P
If
2 LU
O)
1
0
d
^^
CVl
d
CM
CM
d
cn
o
T
+
CM
d
+
CO
CM
o'
T
d
to
0
O
CO
S
H
CO
CD
CM
d
f
^ป
T
in
oo
d
'i-
o
+
in
in
d
+
oo
q
T"
CO
in
d
_
otal cost/wash
H
T
CO
S
+
^"
^*
*
co'
o
+
o
CM
CM
+
CM
CO
"*
CM
cvi
en
otal cost/press'
*~
CO
o
o
co_
+
o
0
~
t
o
o
in
oo"
o
+
o
o
in"
+
e
o
o
oo
o"
0
o
CO
in"
&
CO
1
CO
otal cost/press/
"~
CO
0
CO
O
O
o
co"
E
0
0
8
-a
to
D)
0
CO
CO
0
CO
CO
o
0
E
t
0
a.
co
0
a.
co
0
.e-JJ w
5 o co
*^~ CO ^
i_ CO
0 CO CO
^2 CD (0
ฃ Q.ฃ
C CO ฐ-
-o g-o
C C (0
^ CO ;j
ซ -S S
o co
O (0
"> ฃ 6) 0
its i
_ to ^ I ^
S^ CD *S 0) <1>
i S CD 0 S=
15
CO
CO
> CO
co .S
>,
CO
.ฑi c: d 0 ==
8'i-S |-sป
-------
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
cn
co
I
|
C3
m
'5
t
O
O
<4
O
ฃ
E
3
0)
CO
1
Lfl
ฃ,
1
1 Facility Characteristics
_
CO
CM
X
b
CM
_
00
X
CM
T
E
u
TJ
CD
1 Average ink coverage
o
o
1 Dilution ratio (watenwash
j=
u>
cs
&
ft
.i
CO
CO
cu
Q.
ฃ
0)
UJ
t>
o
O
CO
'o
LO
'o
ฃ
CD CD
CO 0
C C
0 CD
a. a
ID
(D O
3 c
Q 1_
CO ฎ
.0 -E
< Q
CD
To
S 3
<5
CD^CD
ซ g
S3E
Q- Q
'"CD
(D ซ
^3 05
11
to
CD
CD
C
'co
o
o
CO
CD
s
CO
CD
CO
8
. -
_co ^j *J
D O CO
-75 "*". D)
0 ฃ -ฃ
r- O 'cO
*-
CO K> ir " .O
0 "" C &>
.
CO CO CO
,
DRAFT
4-120
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.2 COST ANALYSIS
o
.c
58
(0
ฃ
1
co
ffl
ฃ
,
'o
^
1
0)
u
to
Facility Character
_
CD
CM
X
CD
CO
X
o
CD
N
"co
CO
CO
cL
E
CD
E
:g
CD
_0)
CD
^
&
CD
ง
O
^.
_E
CD
D)
2
CD
ฃ
O
O
2T
co
CO
CD
I
_o
Is
c
o
5
Q
JZ
Blanket Was
^
0)
Q.
E
CD
0)
LU
to
O
O
0
^~
>,
'o
ฃ
-
^
1
CD-r-
CD CD
ซ ^
CD i-
0 CD
o53=
Q. Q
i-
CD
CD "
B g
II
< Q
CO
05
J CO
^P CO
< 5
CD
c
11
CDi-
OJ CD
CO O
c5 ฃ
0 CD
CD S
Q- Q
CD
m O
Absolutf
Differen
Alternative
Wash
CD
1!
GO >
O
O
^^
LO
]|
!2-
o
o
LO
LO
o
LO
LO
CD
O
O
CO
CD
fe
CD
to
O
O
0
CO
O
CO
CO
1
T
T
CM II
T^ -ฃ-
co -E-
o
o
LO IF
CM -E-
c\r
LO II
cv-B
N
o
^
c
CO
o
CD
O)
2
CD
>
<
o
CM
O
CD
i
0
o
t
o
CM
CO
+
CD
p
o
o
o
g
CO
0
o
c:
o
B
Q
to
0
Q.
1
m 5
o
o
o
T
0 II
CM -ฃ-
0 TF
CM -E-
O
O
+
p
O~
O II
T
co
CD
_Q.
*
o
o
CM
CM
O
CM
CM
O
0
O
+
O
S!
o"
1
CD
to
0
O
J
CO ง
5 E
If
in
a
t
o
CD
1^
co
o
S
CD
CO
+
O
CM
o
o
LO
CD
1 Total cost/wash ($)
i
CD
T
CD
CO
sl-
co
CO
CO
CO
+
o
co
o
CD
CO
CD
CO
CM
Total cost/press3 (S
i
0
0
o
h-
CO
O
O
of
CO
+
O
O
O_
+
O
o
CD
O
O
05
LO"
ง
^
CO
CD
1 Total cost/press/sh
^ 0
g ซ
CD -
.> "0
2 1
CD O
CO CD
CD CL
.C CO
-*-
D> Tฃ
.ฃ o
C CM
JZ "O
5 ง
ง ^
CD
CO Q-
CD co
Q- CD
g E
0 o
a> "CD ^5
_Q W c m
Z3 .ฐ- 03 W
c iฃ O W
.*-* ฐ w
CTJ _Q <1> 0)
g- E Q-2
~ "c ฃ co
0 CO -^111
ti! -J= co V!
- 5 <"> ra
CD ง -O CD
ฃ CD" <ง 1
S E If
ill
1 lit
* ill
c v. r_ IS
en co ^5 i-
"co ^ o co
CD 4= ^1 O)
> CO a) c
to c ฐ ^
en ^ fe
CO CO ฃ O) CD
~a co J2" - >-
! 1 ง 1 j
| ^ ฃ g ฃ -^
o -o J "a I 5
iniii
lllifl
ง, ฐ ฃ tO 01 o.
"co co co ฃ c .
CD . ซ ซ CO 5 >,
> CO O (o O CO
S .ฃ c co =g "ฐ
ฐ- c = ฃ ? co"
< S =c a- i5 s
T- OCM CO * CO
4-121
DRAFT
-------
4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES
Historically, foreign competition within the U.S. lithographic blanket wash industry has
been limited due to the dominance of domestic suppliers as well as several barriers to import,
including: 1) disparities in petroleum prices favoring U.S. manufacturers; 2) transportation
expenses and import duties; and 3) paperwork requirements such as Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting requirements.1 Barriers also exist
for U.S. companies seeking to enter foreign markets. U.S. manufacturers will often require a local
distributing partner which invariably raises the selling price of the product, further reducing their
profit margins.2
According to industry sources, very few companies compete on an international basis
within the blanket wash industry. The leading companies which do include: Yarn (U.S.), Anchor
(U.S.), Druckerei Service (Germany), and Openshaws (U.K.).3 International competition within
the U.S., however, is anticipated to increase as greater emphasis is placed on low-VOC,
environmentally friendly washes.4-5 Low VOC washes, which do not rely upon the relatively
inexpensive raw materials of traditional washes, allow foreign competitors to profitably export
blanket wash products to the United States. Upon arrival, concentrated blanket washes are often
diluted by local blending companies and shipped to market. According to industry sources,
European manufacturers are major competitors in the "green" segment of the blanket wash
market, with Denmark leading the conversion to environmentally preferable washes.6'7
4.3.1 International Trade of Petroleum-based Blanket Washes
According to industry contacts, high-VOC, petroleum-based washes are the dominant
blanket wash product worldwide because of their low cost and good performance. Imports of
traditional, petroleum-based blanket washes into the United States, however, have been limited.
Industry contacts cite two primary reasons for the limited import of blanket washes: 1) refining
capabilities in the United States are sufficient to satisfy domestic production needs and are often
superior to foreign capabilities, and 2) prohibitive costs resulting from tariffs and transportation
expenses reduce potential profits for imports.8 The potential for the export of petroleum-based
washes from the United States, however, is much greater.
According to industry sources, petroleum-based blanket washes are being exported from
the U.S. in significantly greater quantities than are being imported. For example, Vam
International is currently generating in excess of fifty-percent of their blanket wash sales from
products manufactured in the United States and exported abroad. Yarn does not import any
cleaning solvents into the U.S. market. The main export destinations for Yarn's blanket wash
products include: Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
In addition to Yarn, several other U.S. companies are exporting blanket washes to foreign markets,
including: Frisco, Printex, Anchor/Lithkemko, Rycoline, and RBP Chemical. These blanket wash
manufacturers are exporting their products to various destinations throughout the world. For
example, Anchor/Lithkemko exports petroleum-based blanket washes to Europe, Australia, and
the Far East; Frisco exports to Europe, Mexico, and Canada; RBP Chemical exports small
quantities of blanket washes to Canada and the Philippines, and Printex exports to Europe,
Canada, and Korea.9-10
The largest markets for printed materials and therefore blanket washes are the United
States, Japan, and Germany; however, the fastest growing markets are located in Asia and Central
and South America.11 Recently, Yarn has been focusing their foreign trade efforts on Central
and South American nations as their governments continue to relax barriers to foreign trade.
Significant growth is said to be occurring in these markets, although any growth can be
considered significant since current levels of importation are extremely low. The Yarn
representative also indicated that sales to Pacific Rim nations, such as Korea and Taiwan, are
DRAFT
4-122
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES
holding steady or increasing because of their expanding markets for printed materials as well as
the relaxing of import restrictions.12 Representatives of both Varn and Anchor identified
difficulties in penetrating the Japanese market because of the many import restrictions as well
as the strong ethic to purchase locally.13-14 Foreign companies attempting to enter the
Japanese market would require a strong relation with a local distributing partner in order to
successfully enter the Japanese market. *ฐ According to a representative of Varn, sales to Japan
are down and have been steadily decreasing over the past several years.16
4.3.2 International Trade of "Low VOC" Blanket Washes
Spurred by concerns regarding the release of VOCs as well as health and safety concerns
associated with the use of petroleum-based blanket washes, U.S. and foreign blanket wash
manufacturers have developed a range of low-VOC washes, providing an alternative to
"traditional," petroleum-based washes. A wide range of low-VOC washes are currently available
in the United States, several of which are manufactured or developed abroad. According to
industry contacts, low-VOC washes are more likely to be imported into the U.S. market than are
petroleum-based washes because of the higher valued raw materials that go into their production.
Currently, low-VOC, low toxicity washes control a small portion of the total international blanket
wash market. Denmark has proven to be leader in the transition to alternative blanket washes,
with an estimated 30 percent of their offset-printing shops using vegetable-based washing
agents.17
Petroleum-based washes dominate the blanket wash market worldwide; however, the
European community has made a significant investment in promoting the use of "alternative"
blanket washes, with special emphasis on the use of vegetable-oil technology. It is estimated that
30 percent of Danish offset-printing shops and 5-10 percent of German offset-printing shops
currently employ vegetable-based washes to some degree. To further promote their use, the
European parliament has allocated roughly 2 million European Currency Units (ECU) or
approximately $2.7 million to train printers in the use of vegetable-based washes, and collect and
disseminate information on technical, ecological, and economic aspects of the substitution of
petroleum-based washes. The .Subsprint project, which has full responsibility for promoting the
vegetable technology, was established in 1993 and is expected to last three years.18 According
to a representative of Varn International based in the U.K., health and safety concerns have been
the primary impetus behind the promotion of vegetable-oil based washes in Europe. This is in
contrast to the U.S., where air quality concerns have been the driving force behind the
development of alternative washes.
f9
4.3.3 Joint Ventures Impacting the International Trade of Blanket Washes
In addition to the export of blanket wash products from the United States, North American
companies have penetrated foreign markets through joint ventures with foreign companies. For
example, Deluxe Corporation, one of the largest printers in the United States, has entered into an
agreement with Coates Lorilleux S.A., a Paris-based company, to manufacture and distribute its
Printwise ink system throughout Europe and beyond. The Deluxe ink is a vegetable oil-based
lithographic ink that can be converted into a water-soluble form after printing is complete. Once
the conversion has occurred, the water-soluble ink can be removed with a water-based blanket
cleaning solution; thereby, eliminating the need for traditional cleaning solvents containing VOCs.
The vegetable oil-based ink and water-based blanket wash together compose the Printwise ink
"system".
Flint Ink, under exclusive agreement with Unichema International, has recently begun
marketing avegetable-oil-based press cleaner. Unichema International, based in the Netherlands,
developed the product at its laboratories in the Netherlands and first introduced the wash into the
4-123
DRAFT
-------
4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
European market in 1993. Recently, Flint Ink entered into an exclusive agreement with Unichema
to market the product in the United States.
Conclusions
Few companies are involved in international trade in blanket washes (both petroleum based
and lower-VOC washes). By and large, petroleum-based blanket wash products are dominant in
both the domestic and international printing industry with relatively little importation of such
products into the United States. U.S. manufacturers are currently exporting blanket wash
products worldwide with growing markets in Asia and the Americas. Although petroleum-based
blanket wash products dominate the blanket wash industry, low-VOC products are also a growth
area in response to air quality concerns in the United States and health and safety concerns in
Europe. Vegetable-oil-based products are more likely to be imported into the United States
because they are competitively priced with similar U.S. made products. The markets for these
products are expected to grow as a result of U.S. joint ventures with European manufacturers.
References
1. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Rollins, David,
Varn International, Greater Manchester, U.K. June 15, 1995.
2. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.
3. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates toe., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.
4. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Brady, Ray,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Orange Park, FL. May 3, 1995.
5. Sheppard, William J. Litho Research. Fax received April 21, 1995.
6. Sheppard, William J. Litho Research. Fax received April 21, 1995.
7. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.
8. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Vonzwehl, Paul,
Vam International, Oakland, NJ. May 31, 1995.
9. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Kroneman,
Barry, Frisco, Newark, NJ. May 23, 1995.
10. Hoppe, Debbie. Printex Products Corporation. Memorandum to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA.
Novembers, 1995.
11. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.
12. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Vonzwehl,
Paul, Varn International, Oakland, NJ. May 31, 1995.
DRAFT
4-124
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES
13. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.
14. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Vonzwehl,
Paul, Varn International, Oakland, NJ. May 31, 1995.
15. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.
16. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Vonzwehl,
Paul, Varn International, Oakland, NJ. May 31, 1995.
17. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.
18. Subsprint Project Newsletter. Subsprint: Background Detail. Kooperationsstelle,
Hamburg. July 1993.
19. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Rollins, David,
Varn International, Greater Manchester, U.K. June 15, 1995.
4-125
DRAFT
-------
-------
Chapter 5
Conservation
Chapter Contents
5.1
5.2
This chapter discusses energy and
natural resource issues associated with using
the various substitute blanket washes for
lithography. The first part of this chapter
focuses on the blanket washing process.
Standard shop practices such as the amount
of blanket wash consumed, the dilution of
the blanket wash, the number of shop wipes
used, and the method of wipe management
are examined in terms of how they affect
energy and natural resource consumption.
The chapter then moves on to encompass the
entire life cycle of the blanket wash formulations. Chemical composition, product formulation and
packaging, and waste disposal are all considered part of the blanket wash life cycle, and their
impacts on energy and natural resources are discussed. The energy and natural resource trade-
offs that exist when considering standard shop practices and life cycle issues are summarized.
Energy and Resource Conservation
During the Blanket Washing Process
Energy and Resource Conservation
Based on Chemical Composition,
Formulations and Packaging
5.3 Comparison of Life-Cycle Trade-Off
Issues
5.1 ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DURING THE BLANKET WASHING PROCESS
Energy and resource conservation are increasingly important goals for all industry sectors,
particularly as global industrialization creates more demand for limited resources. Although the
blanket washing process is not particularly energy- or resource-intensive, a printer can still help
conserve energy and resources through his or her choice of blanket washing products and the
manner in which the products are used. These choices have environmental implications not only
in the_lithographic print shop, but also upstream and downstream in the product life cycle. From
an environmental perspective, the life cycle of any product begins with the extraction of raw
materials from the environment, and continues on through the manufacture, transportation, use,
recycle, and disposal of the product. Each stage within this life cycle consumes both energy and
natural resources. This section focusses primarily on energy and natural resource conservation
during the blanket washing process, but also considers some of the life-cycle energy and natural
resource issues associated with alternative blanket wash products.
To assess the effects alternatives have on the rates of energy and natural resource
consumption during the blanket washing process, specific data were gathered during performance
demonstrations. The following data were initially requested using the performance survey tool
presented in Appendix D:
the amount of chemical product consumed during each blanket washing step
the dilution of the product
manual or automatic rotation of blanket during washing
the number of shop wipes required to attain an adequate level of cleanliness
the size of the wipe and whether it is disposable or reusable
the size of the blanket and ink coverage
method of wipe management
quantity of waste print run
5-1
DRAFT
-------
5.1 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES
CHAPTERS: CONSERVATION
Though much of these data were collected, statistically meaningful conclusions could not
be drawn from the compiled data. Ink coverage, chemical wash volumes applied, and operator
variations, just to name a few possibilities, introduced enough uncertainty and variability to
prevent the formulation of quantifiable conclusions. Discussed below, however, are energy and
resource conservation issues to consider when cleaning the blanket and purchasing blanket
washing products.
The primary resources consumed or used during the blanket washing process include the
blanket wash product itself, disposable or reusable wipes, and the waste print run required to
attain adequate print quality following blanket washing. The use of disposable or reusable wipes
and the amount of waste print run also are important from an energy conservation perspective.
Some blanket washing methods may require the use of a greater amount of chemical wash
than others. The amount of chemical wash required to clean the blanket should be optimized to
the extent possible, whether the process is automated or manual, to avoid unnecessary use of
resources. Optimization depends on the chemical product selected for blanket washing, the extent
of ink coverage on the blanket, the washing technique employed, the time allowed for the ink to
dry before cleaning, as well as other factors. Changes in the standard operating procedures and
cleaning techniques should be conducted to identify optimal parameters. Potential changes can
be identified through case studies, discussions with other printers at association meetings and
seminars, and other sources.
The use of reusable or disposable wipes to wash the blanket is of importance when
considering both energy and natural resource consumption. Reusable wipes, though viewed by
many as an act of conserving natural resources, consume a considerable quantity of energy,
water, and chemical cleaning agents to clean and prepare them for reuse. Cleaning of reusable
wipes via dry-cleaning or aqueous processes uses natural resources such as solvents for dry-
cleaning, water for aqueous laundering, and detergents. Energy to heat the cleaning solutions,
as well as dry and press the wipes, all require significant energy inputs. The disposable wipes
consume energy and natural resources in their manufacture and natural resources in their single-
use applications, as well as create a solid waste disposal issue (addressed below, Disposal).
Without quantifying the rates of energy and resource consumption throughout their life
cycles, it is unclear which is the preferred wipe from the perspective of energy and natural
resources use. Standard practices within the print shop, however, can minimize the consumption
of energy and natural resources. Optimizing the use of wipes (whether reusable or disposable)
should be strived for in the shop; proper management of the used wipes should be followed (see
Disposal, below); and when using reusable wipes, influencing the supplier to optimize energy,
water, and chemical detergent use offers an opportunity for printers to influence the product chain
of which they are a part.
Energy consumption during the blanket washing process itself is negligible for the manual
blanket cleaning methods employed by small print shops that were the focus of this CTSA. These
blanket washing procedures typically rotate the blanket manually while applying and wiping the
wash from the blanket to remove the ink. This practice conserves energy while maintaining safe
working conditions. Energy and natural resources are consumed, however, during the waste print
run. Whether the blanket is washed manually or automatically, a waste print run is required to
attain adequate print quality following blanket washing. Minimization of these waste runs will
minimize both energy and natural resource consumption.
DRAFT
5-2
-------
CHAPTERS: CONSERVATION
5.1 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES
5.2 ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION BASED ON CHEMICAL COMPOSITION,
FORMULATIONS, AND PACKAGING
The chemical composition of a blanket wash product, the manner in which the product
is formulated, and the type of packaging all influence the overall rates of energy and resource
consumption of a blanket washing product. These issues are particularly important from a life-
cycle perspective, as discussed below.
Chemical Composition
Chemicals used in the formulations of blanket washing products are derived from a variety
of raw materials. Solvents traditionally used in blanket washing products are derived from
petroleum or natural gas; categories such as the mineral spirits and aromatic hydrocarbons are
examples of these solvents. Other chemicals can be derived from plant products; fatty acid
derivatives and select examples of the terpenes categories are examples of these chemicals.
The extraction, processing and transportation of these various raw materials result in
different energy consumption and natural resource use issues. Petrochemical raw materials
originate from crude oil which must be pumped from reserves deep in the earth. These reserves
are typically transferred via pipeline to processing facilities (refineries) where large quantities of
energy are used to separate and react the crude oil into various petrochemical products and by-
products. The use of petroleum for the production of solvents, however, is small when compared
to the amount of petroleum consumed as fuel.
This consumption of energy must be contrasted with the energy used to harvest, transport,
and process plants into chemical raw materials. Plants and fruits are seasonally harvested in
various regions of the U.S. and abroad. Transport to the processing facilities is by truck or rail.
These raw materials are then chemically and mechanically processed to extract the desired
chemical products. Some of these processes utilize petrochemical products to extract the desired
chemicals from the plant. Some plant and fruit sources are by-products from the food processing
industry, and are therefore taken from a stream that may traditionally be viewed as a waste.
The depletion of non-renewable resources, such as petroleum, is of importance when
considering natural resource consumption. Renewable resources, such as plant-derived
chemicals, do not require extensive use of non-renewable fuels for extraction and production.
From the representative generic formulations applied in the performance demonstrations,
however, products often mix non-renewable and renewable chemical raw materials in one
formulation.
Product Formulation and Packaging
When contacted, manufacturers of blanket washing products indicated that the same basic
processes are used to formulate blanket washing products, regardless of the types of ingredients.
Therefore, no significant differences between products are expected in energy consumption during
the product formulation process. The specific steps required for production (e.g., mixing,
application of pressure or heat, etc.) is dependent on the specific product chosen. Differences in
the use of natural resources in this formulation step, beyond the formulations themselves, are
also expected to be minimal.
Differences in energy and natural resource consumption may exist, however, when the
nature of the product and its packaging are considered. Some formulations are concentrated and
require dilution with water at the print shop; others already contain water and are ready to use
right from the shipping container. (Still others are not diluted with water, either at the
manufacturer or at the print shop). The concentrated formulations evaluated in this assessment,
5-3
DRAFT
-------
5.1 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES
CHAPTER 5: CONSERVATION
such as formulations No. 12, 17, 22, 24, 30, and 33, occupy less volume and therefore require less
packaging when shipped to printers when diluted on site. Furthermore, energy consumed during
the transportation/distribution of a concentrated product is less than that of a diluted product.
The materials in which the formulations are packaged should also be considered. In
general, packaging containing recycled content and which is recyclable reduces resource
consumption (and possibly energy use) as compared with disposable packaging materials.
Reusable packaging may be even more beneficial than recycled/recyclable packaging depending
on the energy required for transport and reuse.
Waste Disposal
Differences may exist in the amounts of energy and natural resources consumed during
the disposal of blanket washing waste streams. The use of disposable wipes or shop towels
creates a solid waste stream that must be properly managed. A similar waste stream generated
by automated systems are the disposable pads used to remove the ink and applied wash; this pad
represents consumption of natural resources similar to disposable wipes and must be compared
to the use of reusable/disposable wipes. This use of disposable shop towels clearly consumes
natural resources. However, from the discussion above, reusable shop towels also consume
significant quantities of natural resources for cleaning purposes. Optimizing the use of either wipe
alternative is most desirable.
Chemical wash recycling can be accomplished though centrifuging, hand-wringing, or
gravity draining wash-soaked wipes. While recycling of waste blanket wash conserves natural
resources, it also consumes energy. For example, centrifugation requires the use of equipment
which consumes energy. Further processing of the collected chemicals, such as distillation, may
be required, and therefore represents further energy consumption. These energy issues, and the
issues of natural resource use, should be considered to capture the full life-cycle costs and
benefits of blanket wash alternatives and the methods used to apply and manage the materials.
Recycling of waste solvents is usually preferred over disposal, as established in the national waste
management hierarchy outlined in the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
5.3 COMPARISON OF LIFE-CYCLE TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Printers should consider the life cycle of alternative blanket washing products if the goal
is to conserve energy and natural resources. Only by considering and comparing the energy use
and natural resource consumption of each life cycle stage can a completely informed decision be
made. Though a quantitative evaluation of each life-cycle stage is beyond the scope of this CTSA,
printers can still consider the life cycle trade-offs to optimize the blanket washing process and the
overall consumption of energy and natural resources. There is rarely a clearly preferred choice,
however, when considering the life-cycle energy and natural resource impacts of a selected
product. Table 5-1 summarizes some of the trade-offs when considering energy consumption and
natural resources use.
DRAFT
5-4
-------
CHAPTERS: CONSERVATION
5.1 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES
Table 5-1. Summary of Trade-Offs When Considering Energy Consumption and Natural
Resources Use
Standard Shop Practices
Chemical Composition
Formulation and
Packaging
Disposal
Energy Issues
Natural Resource Issues
no clear distinction between reusable and disposable wipes or shop
towels
optimizing cleaning process and minimizing waste print run
conserves energy and natural resources
no clear distinction between products concerning renewable and non-
renewable resources
concentrated formulations
consume less energy during
transport/distribution when diluted
on site
recycling waste blanket wash
consumes energy (e.g.,
centrifugation, distillation, etc.)
concentrated formulations require
less packaging thus reducing
natural resource consumption
packaging containing recycled
content and which is recyclable
reduces natural resource
consumption
collection and reuse/recycling of
waste blanket wash conserves
natural resources
5-5
DRAFT
-------
-------
Chapter 6
Additional Improvement Opportunities
6.1
6.2
This chapter focuses on techniques
which may be employed at lithographic print
shops to prevent pollution, to reduce
chemical consumption, and to minimize
waste. Section 6.1 examines results from a
pollution prevention survey, which asked
lithographers to identify what activities they
currently employ to achieve a more
environmentally friendly workplace. The
most common of these activities and their
effects are presented. The pollution
prevention benefits that result from changing
workplace practices are discussed in detail.
Section 6.2 addresses options for recycling
solvents and the economic and
environmental implications associated with
such recycling. Methods for extracting solvents from
for treating spent solvents so that they may be reused
are also discussed.
Chapter Contents
Pollution Prevention Opportunities
6.1.1 Summary of Responses to
Workplace Practices Questionnaire
6.1.2 Workplace Practices
6.1.3 Conclusions
Recycle Opportunities
6.2.1 Solvent Recovery from Press
Wipes
6.2.2 Methods of Solvent Recycling
press wipes are addressed, as are methods
Solvent recycling and distillation systems
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
Pollution prevention, toxic chemicals reduction, and waste minimization efforts -within a
print shop can take many and varied forms. The "Workplace Practices Questionnaire for
Lithographers" was used to collect information on many such efforts. This survey tool was
developed by printers, union representatives, consultants to the printing industry, suppliers, and
the University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. The questionnaire
was distributed in 1992 by representatives from the Printing Industries of America, the Graphic
Communications International Union, the Association of Quick Printers, and printers who helped
design the questionnaire. Two-hundred and six questionnaires were completed by printers, and
comprise the database from which the following information was drawn. Improved workplace
practices, facility programs (e.g., pollution prevention or waste minimization programs), as well
as process, equipment, and product changes were the primary categories of pollution prevention
opportunities identified in the questionnaire.
6.1.1 Summary of Responses to Workplace Practices Questionnaire
Of the respondents to the questionnaire, 76 percent have tried alternative blanket washing
chemicals products, as shown in Table 6-1. This option was the most frequently tried pollution
prevention option identified by the respondents to the questionnaire. Changes in workplace
practices to prevent pollution were next at 48 percent. Nearly 30 percent of the respondents
indicated they had implemented either equipment and/or process changes to improve the blanket
washing process.
6-1
**DRAFP*
-------
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
Table 6-1. Blanket Washing Activities to Prevent Pollution
Pollution Prevention Activity
Tried Alternative Blanket Wash
Implemented Workplace Practices Changes
Established Pollution Prevention, Waste Minimization, or Source Reduction
Program
Implemented Equipment Changes
Implemented Process Changes
% Response
, 76.1%
48.4%
36.1%
28.8%
26.9%
Note: Due to multiple responses, numbers add to more than 100%.
Many printers are realizing that implementing changes such as these can save time and
cut costs while preventing pollution. From the results of the Workplace Practices Questionnaire,
over 70 percent of the respondents who have implemented changes to reduce the use of blanket
wash indicated that materials cost had decreased or remained unchanged. Furthermore, the time
required to clean the blanket for these respondents had either remained unchanged or decreased
for 61 percent of the respondents. These results are presented in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Effects of Pollution Prevention Activities
Parameter
Materials Cost
Time to Clean Blanket
Waste Run After Cleaning
% Response
Increased?
24.6%
36.9%
24.6%
Decreased?
36.9%
32.3%
21 .5%
No Change?
33.8%
29.2%
49.2%
No Response
4.6%
1.5%
4.6%
The application of alternative chemical products can significantly reduce chemical
exposures in the workplace. Many alternative products contain a reduced percentage (< 30%) of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or are derived from chemical sources other than petrochemical
feedstocks. The questionnaire asked printers which alternative products they have implemented
or tested; Table 6-3 summarizes the responses. These results show that the alternative products
most frequently used were either citrus-based (nearly 53 percent) or low VOC-content
(approximately 40 percent) products.
"DRAFT*
6-2
-------
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNJTJES
Table 6-3. Alternative Blanket Washing Products Implemented or Tested by Printers
Product Category
< 30% VOC Content
Citrus-Based
Oil-Based
Surfactant-Based
% Response
39.2%
52.9%
10.5%
1 1 .8%
Note: Due to multiple responses, numbers add to more than 100%.
Further Investigation into the application of alternative products identified over 50 percent
of the respondents were satisfied with the performance of the alternative chemical products,
independent of the type of alternative chemical products tried. Forty-four percent found
alternative products unsatisfactory. Inadequate product information and operator preference were
the two primary reasons identified by those respondents who had not tried alternative chemical
products. The evaluation of alternative blanket washing chemical products is the focus of this
CTSA; further discussion of pollution prevention opportunities in this section will therefore focus
on workplace practices and facility programs to prevent pollution.
6.1.2 Workplace Practices
As the second pollution prevention effort most frequently identified by the respondents of
the questionnaire, improved workplace practices can encompass every sector of a print shop.
Even when focusing strictly on the blanket washing, workplace practices have the potential to
eliminate or minimize sources of pollution and reduce chemical exposure to workers and the
public. The Workplace Practices Questionnaire compiled data on many workplace activities. The
following discussions summarize common workplace practices to prevent pollution and draw upon
the results of the questionnaire for practical examples.
Raising Employee Awareness
Raising employee awareness of pollution prevention benefits is the best way to get
employees to actively participate in pollution prevention efforts. Many press operators are
reluctant to change from traditional blanket washing chemicals and methods; they simply do not
believe the alternative, less polluting chemical products and methods will work. This
unwillingness to try new products and new technologies may imply that printers are unaware of
the potential benefits. Printers need to understand that pollution prevention can result in
improved worker health and safety, an improved working environment, cost savings, and reduced
or less toxic waste streams, which means less overall impact on human health and the
environment. One printer indicated that his new operators are more conscientious and use less
blanket wash; this may illustrate benefits gained from raising employee awareness of the health,
safety and environmental issues associated with workplace practices.
Furthermore, many printers are beginning to design and implement programs to teach
employees about the benefits of pollution prevention. Thirty-six percent of the respondents to the
questionnaire report having a pollution prevention, waste minimization, or source reduction
program at their facility. One printer in Kansas City, Missouri is required to prepare a written
pollution prevention program as a large quantity hazardous waste generator. He goes on to
6-3
'DRAFT*
-------
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
explain, however, that this program is only the basis of a big-picture, source reduction program
implemented at the facility. Similarly, a printer in Kent, Washington, and others, stated they have
adopted the corporate pollution prevention and/or waste management program as their facility
program. Other printers contacted indicated that their, pollution prevention programs were
management strategies, rather than written programs.
Table 6-4 lists steps designed to raise employee awareness, including written
environmental policies, and the benefits of these activities. Other examples drawn from the
questionnaire include a shop owner in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, who organizes monthly meetings
with his print operators to inform them of new products, to review Material Safety Data Sheets,
and update printers on the newest waste management strategies. Periodic training is also offered
to maintain optimal printing techniques and effective waste minimization/management practices.
At another facility in Madison, Wisconsin, printers have commented on the improved working
conditions resulting from the implementation of a low-VOC blanket washing product. The
headaches and odors associated with the old products have been eliminated with the new product.
Materials Management and Inventory
Materials management and inventory control means understanding how chemicals and
materials flow through a facility to identify the best opportunities for pollution prevention. Proper
materials management and inventory control is a simple, cost-effective approach to prevent
pollution. Keeping track of chemical usage and limiting the amount of chemicals on the process
floor gives operators an incentive to use the minimum amount of chemical required to do the job.
This was one benefit identified by a printer who now purchases non-bulk chemical products; this
materials management practice resulted in a controlled use of chemicals on the press room floor.
Ensuring that all chemical containers are kept closed when not in use minimizes the amount of
chemical lost through evaporation to the atmosphere. Not only do these simple practices result
in less overall chemical usage, thus representing a cost savings, they also result in reduced worker
exposure to chemicals and an improved working environment. Table 6-5 lists some of the steps
to and benefits of materials management and inventory control.
Selected results from the Workplace Practices Questionnaire reveal that many printers
follow a number of these materials management and inventory practices. In one portion of the
questionnaire printers were asked to describe their chemical storage practices (how and where),
as well as the way(s) in which these products are retrieved for use at a press. The largest
percentage of printers, nearly 46 percent, store their chemical products in closed containers or
safety cans. Over 35 percent of the respondents use closed drums or pails; safety cans, employed
by 10 percent of the responding printers, can further improve the safety and working conditions
of the print shop by offering a more improved form of chemical containment. Furthermore, over
50 percent of the printers responding to this portion of the questionnaire pump chemical products
from large storage containers to the smaller containers used at the press.
These results also indicate that many printers have opportunities for improving their
materials management practices to prevent pollution. Printers who are storing chemicals in open
containers can easily improve worker conditions and prevent materials loss by simply using a
closed safety container. Investing in a simple hand-held pump can have a rapid pay-back period
due to the money saved from preventing the spills that can occur when chemicals are transferred
from container to container by hand.
*DRAFT"
6-4
-------
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 6-4. Benefits of Raising Employee Awareness
Activity to Raise Employee Awareness
Benefits
Prepare a written environmental policy
Establishes environmental management goals;
illustrates management commitment to pollution
prevention and environmental goals
Prepare written procedures on equipment
operation and maintenance, materials
handling, and disposal
Better informs employees of the proper procedures
for using equipment and disposing of materials; helps
prevent accidents
Provide employee training on health and
safety issues, materials handling and disposal
Ensures that employees have proper training to
understand benefits of proper materials handling and
disposal, and potential consequences of improper
workplace practices to their health and safety, the
environment, and company profitability
Seek employee input on pollution prevention
activities
Encourages the persons closest to the process to
develop the best, most creative approach to pollution
prevention; employee involvement and ownership of
the program has been essential to many successful
programs
Make employees accountable for waste
generation and provide incentives for
reduction
Encourages employees to be aware of ways they can
prevent pollution; rewards active involvement in
pollution prevention activities
Provide feedback to employees on materials
handling and disposal, and pollution
prevention performance
Re-emphasized management commitment to
pollution prevention; encourages employees to
continue to improve
Table 6-5. Materials Management and Inventory Practices and Their Benefits
Workplace Practices
Manage inventory on a first-in, first-out basis
Minimize the amount of chemicals kept on the
process floor at any time
Centralize responsibility for storing and
distributing chemicals
Store chemical products in closed, clearly
marked containers
Use a pump to transfer chemical products from
large containers to smaller containers that are
used at work stations
Benefits
Reduces materials and disposal costs of
expired materials
Gives employees an incentive to use less
materials
Gives employees an incentive to use less
materials
Reduces materials loss; increases worker
safety; reduces worker exposure; prevents
mixing of hazardous and nonhazardous
materials
Reduces potential for accidental spills; reduces
worker exposure
6-5
'DRAFT**
-------
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
Process Improvements
Once the flow of materials within a facility has been documented, the next step is to
analyze the process to identify workplace practices that can be adopted to prevent pollution at the
source. Process improvements through workplace practices mean reevaluating the day-to-day
operation that make up the printing process. Table 6-6 lists some workplace practices, and their
benefits, that prevent pollution.
The Workplace Practices Questionnaire also collected specific information on whether
printers are using many of these process improvements. According to the results,. 62 percent of
the surveyed printers use squirt bottles to store chemical blanket washes at the press. In
addition, 81 percent of the printers use safety cans, closed containers, and/or safety cabinets for
chemical storage beside the press. The use of these materials minimize evaporative losses of
chemical products and therefore prevents pollution. Very few respondents (less than 4 percent)
identified the use of open containers of any kind beside the press.
In addition to chemical storage practices, many printers reported using good operating
procedures to reduce worker exposure to blanket washing chemicals. The use of gloves (nearly
70 percent), eye protection, and aprons protects workers from direct contact with chemical
products. The forty-four respondents (22.4 percent) who use no personal protective equipment,
however, identify the great potential that exists in a print shop for chemical exposure reduction
efforts.
Table 6-6. Process Improvements and Their Benefits
Workplace Practices
Use plunger cans or squeeze bottles to deliver
controlled quantities of blanket, wash
Apply a specified amount of chemical products
to shop towels rather than an uncontrolled
amount directly to blanket
Reduce the size of the towel or wipe used
during clean-up, and use reusable towels or
wipes
Use reusable towels or wipes, and reuse shop
towels for multiple blanket washes
Store chemical-laden wipes in closed container
between uses
Evaluate alternative chemicals: water dilution
ratios (increase the amount of water)
Only apply chemicals where necessary
Avoid delays in cleaning blankets
Use appropriate personal protective equipment
(gloves, eye protection, etc.)
Benefits
Reduces potential for accidental spills; reduces
materials use; reduces worker exposure
Reduces chemical usage through controlled
applications
More efficient use of towels; reduces solvent
use; reduces worker exposure
Reduces materials use (shop towels, and
blanket wash); reduces solid waste generation;
reduces worker exposure
Reduces chemical losses due to evaporation;
reduces worker exposure
Reduces chemical usage with no loss of
efficiency; reduces worker exposure
Reduces chemical usage; reduces worker
exposure
Simplifies ink removal from blanket
Reduces worker exposure
"DRAFT*
6-6
-------
CHAPTER 61 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
The application of cleaning products to shop towels by squirt bottle or safety plunger,
identified as standard practice by over 50 percent of the surveyed printers, is another workplace
practice that controls the use of chemicals resulting in materials conservation and improved
working conditions.
Discussions with printers identified further effective operating procedures and process
improvements to minimize waste. One such operating procedure is limiting the number of times
the blanket is washed. One respondent to the questionnaire cleans the blanket "only when
finished, not every time the position of the plate is changed during a print run". A printer in
Tucson, Arizona has changed workplace practices to optimize the number of wipes used. With
this current workplace practice, which involves the use of an alternative wash supplemented by
the limited use of a strong solvent, wipe use has been reduced by half.
Waste Management Practices
After the blanket is clean, there still exist opportunities for improving the management of
waste products generated during normal printing operations. Table 6-7 presents basic workplace
practices that can be applied to prevent pollution in the management of wastes. Tables 6-8 and
6-9 present information about printers waste management practices compiled from the Workplace
Practices Questionnaire.
The results from the Workplace Practices Questionnaire presented in Table 6-8. After
accounting for those printers for which storage of blanket wash chemicals is not applicable
(49.8%), over three-fourths of the remaining printers store their blanket wash chemicals in closed
containers. The methods of treatment and disposal presented in Table 6-8 reveal that there are
a variety of management possibilities available to printers. Recycling of spent-solvents, whether
on- or off-site, is preferable to discharging to a sewer system or disposing of the solvent as
hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
Table 6-7. Waste Management Workplace Practices and Benefits
Waste Management Practices
Maintain accurate logs of chemical and
materials stock, chemicals and materials use,
and waste generation rates
Segregate waste by waste stream and keep in
marked, easily accessible, closed containers
Use gravity-drain, wringing, or centrifugation to
collect excess chemical products from used
shop towels and wipes
Keep used shop towels and collect waste
chemicals in closed containers
Benefits
Understanding materials flow and how it relates
to waste generation rates provides insights into
pollution prevention opportunities
Allows for more effective reuse and recycling of
waste materials; prevents nonhazardous waste
from becoming contaminated with hazardous
waste; minimizes evaporation of chemical waste
products; reduces worker exposure
Recovers chemical products for reuse and
recycling
Minimizes evaporation of chemical waste
products; reduces worker exposure
6-7
"DRAFT*
-------
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
Table 6-8. Waste Management Practices for Waste Blanket Wash
Method of Storage
In a closed container
In an open container
No specific container
Other
No response
Not applicable
% Response
39.9%
3.4%
1.5%
0.5%
4.9%
49.8%
Method of
Treatment/Disposal
Sent to Recycler
Recycled on-site
Discharged to sewer
Hazardous Waste
Nonhazardous Waste
Other
No Response
Not Applicable
% Response
14.8%
1 .0%
2.5%
9.9%
8.4%
4.4%
9.4%
49.8%
Note: Printers were able to specify unique methods under the category "Other". The "Not Applicable" category
represents those printers who indicated they do not generate and/or collect liquid waste blanket wash.
Table 6-9 identifies a variety of strategies available for the management of shop towels.
As stated to Table 6-6, the use of reusable towels can be an effective pollution prevention practice
which conserves natural resources and minimizes waste disposal fees. The cleaning of these
reusable towels, however, creates a waste stream from the cleaning facility which must be
considered. Collecting used towels in a closed container, a workplace practice employed by nearly
75 percent of the respondents, minimizes chemical losses via evaporation thus improving the work
environment. When collected, a pretreatment method (e.g., centrifugation or wringing) to collect
any excess chemical remaining on the towels is possible. One respondent to the questionnaire
recovers spent blanket wash and reuses it to clean the press rollers. From the results of the
survey, however, few printers (less than 10 percent) are taking advantage of such management
strategies.
6.1.3 Conclusions
Several pollution prevention opportunities exist to reduce the quantity and toxicity of
blanket washing materials used within lithographic printing facilities. Many of these opportunities
can be accomplished simply by implementing various improved workplace practices. Written
pollution prevention or waste minimization programs, proper materials management, process
Improvements, and waste management practices represent such workplace practices. A pollution
prevention program can establish accepted operating procedures and set waste reduction goals.
Proper materials management may offer incentives for printers to use less chemicals and minimize
chemical losses through evaporation or inefficient use. It also provides a means to track
improvements as well as the resulting cost savings. Safety and health benefits can be achieved
with process improvements and proper waste management practices, as well as more efficient use
of chemical supplies. These improved workplace practices can be achieved at little to no expense
to the print shop; they are cost effective and represent good business practice.
'DRAFT**
6-8
-------
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 6-9. Waste Management Practices for Reusable Shop Towels
Method of Storage
In a closed
container
In an open
container
No specific
container
Other
74.4%
14.3%
7.9%
3.4%
Method of Pretreatment
Centrifuge
Dryer
Hand Wringing
Automatic Wringer
None
Other
No Response
3.4%
1.5%
3.9%
0.5%
70.0%
4.9%
15.8%
Method of Reuse or Disposal
On-site Laundry
Off-site Laundry
Hazardous Waste
Nonhazardous
Waste
Other
No Response
0.5%
62.6%
4.9%
1 1 .3%
16.8%
3.9%
Note: Printers were able to specify unique methods under the category "Other".
6.2 RECYCLE OPPORTUNITIES
There are several technologies that may make solvent recovery a viable alternative for
printers seeking to reduce their operating costs and waste management expenses. Printers
typically use cloth shop towels or leased towels to clean presses and blanket rollers. The spent
solvents contained in these wipes may present toxicity and flammability concerns for printers,
industrial laundries, and local sewer systems. Printers have adopted several practices for
reducing the quantity and toxicity of the solvents left in their press wipes, including the extraction
of solvent using a hand-operated wringer or explosion-proof centrifuge. Once extracted, solvents
can then be directly reused for imprecise cleaning such as parts washing or can be treated by
some form of distillation or filtration for reuse as a blanket cleaner. This section discusses options
for extracting solvents from press wipes, as well as options for treating solvents for reuse. Solvent
recycling systems used in conjunction with brush-based automatic blanket wash systems are also
discussed below.
6.2.1 Solvent Recovery from Press Wipes
Solvent laden press wipes present several environmental concerns for printing facilities,
industrial laundries, and local sewer systems that receive the laundry's wastewater. Concerns
include volatility, flammability and aquatic toxicity of the effluent discharged by industrial
laundries to publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Additionally, some states require that
solvent laden press wipes be treated as a hazardous waste. EPA's mixture rule states that a non-
hazardous product is rendered hazardous when combined with a hazardous material.61 Most
press wipes would, therefore, be classified as a hazardous waste once contaminated with a
hazardous blanket cleaner. Many states, however, have recognized a conditional exemption from
the mixture rule for contaminated press wipes. For example, Massachusetts does not consider
a The mixture rule was struck down by a 1991 D.C. Circuit court ruling, but has been temporarily reenacted while EPA
conducts a review of the rule. For an update of changes to RCRA, contact the RCRA Hotline at (800)424-9346.
6-9
"DRAFT*
-------
6.2 RECYCLE AND CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
industrial wipes to be hazardous if they satisfy the following conditions: 1) the wipes are not
saturated and are able to pass the Department of Environmental Protection's "one drop test"; and
2) wipes are handled in accordance with state and federal (OSHA) regulations requiring that used
wipes be stored in closed containers designed for solvent laden contents. Massachusetts
regulations forbid the air-drying of press wipes in order to satisfy the "one drip rule"; however,
printers are permitted to extract solvents by hand wringing or mechanical compaction. Several
other states recognize an exemption from the mixture rule for contaminated press wipes and
industrial wipes in general.1
One approach to reducing the quantity and toxicity of solvent being shipped off-site in
press wipes is to extract solvents from wipes for reuse or appropriate disposal.2 This approach
has the added benefit of potentially lowering overall solvent costs when solvents are recovered and
reused. The following paragraphs discuss two options for extracting solvents from press wipes:
hand-operated wringer and explosion-proof centrifuge. The use of these extraction devices may
be regulated. Printers should consult with their state and local regulatory authorities before
installing such equipment.
Extraction of Solvents from Press Wipes
Two basic methods are available for extracting solvents from press wipes: 1) hand-operated
wringers and 2) explosion-proof centrifuges. Hand-operated wringers require the smallest capital
investment and may prove to be a viable option for small printing operations that use a limited
number of press wipes. When using a hand-operated wringer, printers should verify that the
squeeze rollers are resistant to solvents and will not rapidly deteriorate. Squeeze rollers should
be made of a rubber material, similar to that used on the blanket cylinder of an off-set printing
press. One company manufactures a hand-operated wringer that mounts on the top of a 55-
gallon drum. The squeeze rollers are made of nitrite and are resistant to several types of solvents,
although printers should investigate the units' compatibility with their specific solvents and
determine if any flammability concerns exist as a result of placing their solvents under pressure.
The price of the unit is under $600.3
A second alternative for solvent recovery is an explosion-proof centrifuge which may be
used for extracting cleaning solvents from used press wipes. The centrifuge is most appropriate
for large printing facilities that generate significant quantities of shop towels.b These centrifuges
are manufactured with a self-balancing, perforated basket that retains the rags while liquid
solvents are squeezed out and drain through the outer containment shell. Solvents can be
extracted from cloth shop towels or disposable wipes. It is estimated that a four-minute cycle can
extract between 2.5 and 3.5 gallons of solvent for every load of 225 wipes processed. Centrifuges
are available that can process 35, 60, 100, or 130 pounds per load and that cost between $21,000
and $30,000 depending upon the capacity required. The most popular model among printers
processes 225 towels per load and costs roughly $25,000. Installation involves bolting the unit
in place and connecting it to an appropriate power source and 60 pounds of air supply.4
Purchase of a centrifuge unit involves a substantial capital investment and may not be
appropriate for all printers. Alternatively, printers may have the option of contracting with a
mobile centrifuge service to extract solvents on-site. One such solvent extraction service in
Minnesota, operates a van that transports an explosion-proof centrifuge to printing facilities for
on-site solvent extraction. Once the solvents have been extracted from the shop towels, it is left
Printers should consult with their local regulatory agency to determine if any restrictions exist for operating a
centrifuge within their facility. For example, California and Virginia consider the operation of an on-site centrifuge to be a
form of hazardous waste treatment and, therefore, subject to local permitting requirements. For a listing of all state
environmental agency contacts, refer to the March 1995 issue of Graphic Arts Monthly.
"DRAFT"
6-10
-------
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
6.2 RECYCLE AND CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
to the printing facility to determine how to handle the solvent. Pricing for extraction services, are
based upon a rate of $65/hour, during which time it is possible to process between 1,500-1,800
towels. - ,
6.2.2 Methods of Solvent Recycling
Blanket wash solvent recovered from press wipes can not be immediately reused as a
replacement for virgin solvents. Typically, solvents are separated by ink color, allowing solid
particles to settle out before reuse. This process does not produce virgin quality solvent and is
therefore best reused for imprecise cleaning, such as parts washing. Alternatively, used blanket
wash can be treated by some form of distillation or filtration before reuse. The most common
method of solvent recovery is distillation for both on-site and off-site applications.
Distillation of Blanket Wash
As an option for blanket wash recovery, the distillation process produces near virgin quality
blanket wash. Most commercially available distillation units employ the differential distillation
process, hi this process, the liquid solution is heated to roughly 20 to 30 degrees above the
desired solvent's boiling point, causing the more volatile (higher vapor pressure) components to
vaporize. The relative boiling points of the solution components are critical for the effective
operation of a distillation system. Solvent vapors rise into the condenser where they are cooled
and recovered for reuse. Contaminants remain in the distillation tank and are disposed of as a
liquid, semi-liquid or solid sludge. Waste residues, referred to as still bottoms, may be designated
as hazardous waste if the they were distilled from a listed waste solvent (F-listed wastes). The
recovery rate for a distillation unit averages roughly 90 percent. .
One manufacturer can provide solvent distillation units with the capacity to handle
between eight and 55 gallons of solvent. The largest unit provides the ability to process waste
solvents in 2O-gallon batches or 55-gallon units of continuous, closed-loop operation. The
approximate cost of a 20-gallon unit is $12,000 and increases to $15,000 for the continuous feed
option. For printers generating smaller quantities of solvents, a smaller model is available that
handles 8-gallons of solvent per batch. The cost of an 8-gallon unit is approximately $3,300.5
When considering the purchase of a distillation unit, printers should consider the quantities and
type of solvent they hope to distill, as well as evaluate capital costs and operating costs for labor,
electricity, and parts. Equipment vendors will run tests on a sample of spent solvent to determine
whether the system will distill the solvent, and assess the recovery efficiency of the unit. One
company charges $100 to test 5-10 gallons of used solvent.6 In addition, some vendors may have
units available for use on a trial basis, allowing printers to better assess whether a distillation unit
is appropriate for their individual situation.
. Safety concerns, however, are a significant consideration for printers contemplating, the
purchase of a distillation unit. For example, nitrocellulose, found in inks and paints, is an
explosive when dry. Distillation of materials containing nitrocellulose is, therefore, not
recommended. The International Fire Code Institute, an organization consisting of state fire
marshals, has been investigating whether on-site distillation units constitute an explosion hazard
given the flammable nature of the solvents they treat. Changes in the Uniform Fire Code are
currently under consideration which may affect the availability of such units. Printers should
consult with their local environmental regulatory agency and investigate whether any changes
have been made in the Uniform Fire Code before investing in a distillation system.
In many cases on-site distillation will not be cost-effective for printers; instead, a
commercial solvent recycling service may prove to be a better alternative. Three basic
arrangements are available for off-site, solvent recycling: 1) toll recycling; 2) speculative recycling;
and 3) waste brokers. Toll recycling involves off-site processing of solvents by a recycling firm for
6-11
*DRAFT**
-------
6.2 RECYCLE AND CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
reuse by the printing facility. Typically large batches are required for such an approach to be
cost-effective, although some recyclers will accept small quantities from many producers and
combine their waste for batch distillation. Speculative recycling schemes recycle the waste
solvents and then sell the product on the market. In this case, recyclers may pay the facility for
solvents if the product has a high market value. Waste brokers match the needs the facility
seeking to dispose of their solvents with a potential waste user. Such an arrangement can only
be considered a recycling scheme if the solvent is bought by a solvent recycler. More commonly,
waste brokers will sell the solvent for use as a waste-derived fuel for use in a cement kiln or
industrial furnace.7
Ultrafiltration of Blanket Wash
Several filtration technologies are available to handle a variety of applications requiring the
removal of suspended waste particles from contaminated solutions. The ultrafiltration process
operates by passing effluent through a porous material, screening out the largest molecules as the
effluent travels through the filter. Through the use of selective pore sizing, solutions can be
filtered to varying degrees of quality. Generally, filtration technologies are similar in that the
membrane material is made of some type of proprietary polymer-blend. Where the technologies
differ is in the substrate material that holds the membrane in its rigid form. Possible substrate
materials include ceramics, stainless steel, and nylon.
According to industry sources, filtration technology is not being used in the lithographic
printing industry apart from its use in the treatment of fountain solutions and in conjunction with
automatic blanket cleaners. The primary barrier for the use of filtration technology is the
incompatibility of the membrane materials with the solvents. One company, however, is currently
testing a poly-vinyl, spiral wound membrane that is resistant to solvents and, therefore,
appropriate for the treatment of many blanket cleaners.8 The system will operate using cross-flow
filtration. Effluent is passed under pressure across a spiral wound membrane. Gaps between the
membrane create turbulence in the flow of the effluent, reducing top loading or clogging of
molecules by knocking them off of the membrane's surface. The system is currently being tested
and is said to have several advantages over ceramic and stainless steel technologies. The spiral
membrane is capable of nanofiltration and is expected to be less costly than stainless steel
systems.9
Conclusions
Solvent recovery from used shop towels may be an economically sound and
environmentally improved alternative for printers. The extraction of spent solvent from shop
towels, whether via hand-operated wringers or the use of explosion-proof centrifuges has permits
the recovered solvent to be reused. For small printers with limited capital, hand-wringers are the
least costly option, whereas larger printers with a greater number of towels to be processed may
prefer explosion-proof centrifuges. Extraction of the solvent also provides benefits to printers in
terms of reduced expenditures for virgin solvent and/or the use of the spent solvent for less
precise equipment cleaning. When the recycled blanket wash solvent is to be reused in place of
virgin solvent, distillation is the most common method of reclamation, whether conducted on-site
by the printer, or off-site by commercial solvent recycling services. Ultrafiltration, although used
in some lithographic processes, is not, as yet, a viable method for solvent reclamation.
"DRAFT*
6-12
-------
CHAPTER 6: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
6.2 RECYCLE AND CONTROL OPPORTUNITIES
References
1. Printing Industries of New England. Moss Finalizes Policy for Industrial Wipers Contaminated
with Solvents (Printer's Shop Towels). Natick, MA;
2. J.J. Keller & Associates. Environmental Regulatory Advisor. November, 1994.
3. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Landry, Wallace,
Crucial, Inc., Harvey, LA. May 30, 1995.
4. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Long, David, Bock
Engineered Products, Inc., Toledo, OH. June 1, 1995.
5. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Makela, Ralph,
Solvent Kleene, Inc., Peabody, MA. June 13, 1995.
6. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Makela, Ralph,
Solvent Kleene, Inc., Peabody, MA. June 13, 1995.
7. Hazardous Waste Reduction Program, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Guidelines for Waste Reduction and Recycling: Solvents. August, 1989.
8. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Gaffie, George, G4
Environmental Consulting. June 14, 1995.
9. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Vail, Bob, Infinitex
Incorporated, Clarence, NY. June 13, 1995. .
6-13
"DRAFT*
-------
-------
Chapter 7
Evaluating Trade-off Issues
7.1
7.2
This chapter serves to
summarize much of the
information presented throughout
the CTSA. Section 7.1 presents a
summary of the findings, drawing
upon the risk information
developed in Chapter 3 and the
cost analysis developed in
Chapter 4. Section 7.2 presents
a benefit/cost analysis of using
the baseline blanket wash, VM&P
naphtha, compared to the
substitute blanket washes.
Information on costs, exposures
and risks are presented here so
that an easy comparison can be
made between the substitute
blanket washes and the baseline.
Section 7.3 provides summary sheets for each blanket wash. These summary sheets contain
information on composition, performance, cost, risk, exposure, and regulatory concerns and
are intended to provide the reader with a quick reference guide for each blanket wash.
Chapter Contents
Findings
Qualitative Discussion of Benefit/Cost Analysis
7.2.1 Introduction
7.2.2 Benefit/Cost Methodology
7.2.3 Potential Benefits
7.2.4 Associated Costs
7.2.5 Costs and Benefits by Formulation
7.2.6 Potential Benefit of Avoiding Illness Linked to
Exposure to Chemicals Commonly Used in
Blanket Washing
7.3 Overview of Risk, Cost and Performance
7.1 FINDINGS
Earlier sections of the CTSA evaluated the risk and performance of the baseline blanket
wash as well as the alternatives. This section presents the findings associated with the
analysis of blanket washes. Relevant data include: worker health risks, public health risks,
flammability risks, ecological risk, energy and natural resource use, VOC content, and labor,
materials, and product costs. Each is discussed in turn below.
Worker Health Risks
The majority of substitute formulations, as well as the.baseline, present some concern
for dermal exposure, driven primarily by high exposure levels estimated in Chapter 3. The
dermal exposure estimates provide an upper-bound estimate which no worker is expected to
exceed because the exposure assessment assumes that no gloves or barrier creams are used
by workers when cleaning a blanket. Worker inhalation risks are very low for nearly all of the
blanket wash products due to low or negligible exposure levels. Only one of the substitute
formulations (Blanket Wash 3) triggered inhalation concerns. The components of all other
substitute products present low or no concern. The baseline presents low inhalation concern.
Table 7-1 presents a summary of worker risks beginning with the baseline product, VM&P
naphtha. The risk assessment assumed that components of concern present a greater risk
than components of low to moderate concern, and components of low to moderate present a
greater risk than components of low concern, and so on (no/low concern < low to moderate
concern < concern).
7-1
DRAFT
-------
7.1 FINDINGS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Table 7-1. Summary of Risk Conclusions of Substitute and Baseline Blanket Wash Cleaners
Formula
Number
Baseline
(28)
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
Chemicals Identified as a
Concern in the Risk
Assessment
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
No individual chemicals of concern
identified
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Propylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Fatty acid derivatives
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
=atty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
Worker Health Risk
Dermal
concern
no/low concern1
concern
concern
concern
concern
no/low concern
concern
no/low concern
concern
concern
moderate concern1
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
concern
no/low concern
concern
no/low concern
moderate concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
concern
moderate concern1
no/low concern1
concern
low to moderate
concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
concern
Inhalation
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern
concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern2
no/low concern1
no/low concern
DRAFT
7-2
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.1 FINDINGS
Formula
Number
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
Chemicals Identified as a
Concern in the Risk
Assessment
Glycols
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Dibasic esters
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Esters/lactones
Propylene glycol ethers
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Esters/lactones
Esters/lactones
Fatty acid derivatives
Terpenes
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Worker Health Risk
Dermal
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
possible concern
concern
concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
concern
no/low concern1
moderate concern1
concern
concern
no/low concern1
moderate concern1
no/low concern
possible concern
possible concern
concern
concern
possible concern
no/low concern
concern
possible concern
concern
no/low concern
no/low concern1
concern
no/low concern1
concern
no/low concern1
concern
low to moderate
concern1
Inhalation
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern1
7-3
DRAFT
-------
7.1 FINDINGS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Formula
Number
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chemicals Identified as a
Concern in the Risk
Assessment
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Fatty acid derivatives
Worker Health Risk
Dermal
low to moderate
concern1
concern
concern
no/low concern
concern
no/low concern
no/low concern1
low to moderate
concern1
concern
low to moderate
concern1
concern
moderate concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern1
possible concern
low to moderate
concern1
low to moderate
concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
low to moderate concern
concern .
concern
concern
possible concerns
concern
no/low concern
moderate concern1
no/low concern1
Inhalation
low to moderate
concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
Risks for this chemicals in this product could not be quantified; therefore, the level of concern for this
chemical is based upon a structure-activity analysis of potential hazard.
2 Risks for this chemicals in this product could not be quantified; therefore, the level of concern for this
chemical is based upon a low risk call based on estimates of no or extremely low exposure.
DRAFT
7-4
-------
CHAPTER 7-. EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.1 FINDINGS
Public Health Risk
In addition to worker exposure, members of the general public may be exposed to
blanket wash chemicals due to their close physical proximity to a printing facility or due to the
wide dispersion of chemicals. Individuals in the general public that are exposed to blanket
wash chemicals are potentially subject to health risks. The EPA risk assessment identified no
concerns for the general public through ambient air, drinking water, or fish ingestion due to
use of blanket washes under the small shop scenario used here. Using the model facility
approach, the general population exposure assessment predicted that exposure levels would be
extremely low for all media examined. Because of the low exposure levels, no concerns were
identified for the general public from the use of blanket wash chemicals.
Flammability Risk
Some blanket wash chemicals in this assessment present risks of fire and explosion
because of their flammability and high volatility. In order to assess the relative fire hazard of
the substitute and baseline blanket washes, the flash points of each product is compared to
OSHA and EPA definitions of flammable liquids.a Flammable liquids are defined by OSHA as
having a flash point less than 141ฐF. Similarly, EPA defines RCRA ignitable wastes (40 CFR
261.21) as having a flash point of 140ฐF or less. Table 7-2 presents the flash points of the
baseline as well as the alternative blanket washes. Flash points were developed as part of the
performance demonstration.
Table 7-2. Relative Flammability Risk of Substitute and Baseline Blanket Washes
Blanket Wash
Baseline (28)
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
Flash Point (ฐF)
50
230+
114
114
139
152
165
115
230+
230+
150
125
230+
145
Blanket Wash
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Flash Point (ฐF)
1 57+
140
100
220+
230+
145
230+
100+
105
220
105
138
105
175
"Flash point is defined as the lowest temperature at which a liquid gives off vapor within a test vessel in sufficient
concentration to form, an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid.
7-5
DRAFT
-------
7.1 FINDINGS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash
17
18
19
20
21
Flash Point (ฐF)
220+
150 .
230+
170
115
Blanket Wash
37
38
39
40
Flash Point (ฐF)
82
230+
155
155
Ecological Risk
The EPA risk assessment evaluated the ecological risks of the substitute products as
well as the baseline blanket wash; in the analysis for this CTSA, only the risks to aquatic
species were considered. Evaluation of aquatic risks involved comparing a predicted ambient
water concentration to a "concern concentration" for chronic exposures to aquatic species
using a hypothetical receiving stream (a relatively small stream at low flow conditions). The
concern concentration is expressed in mg/L water. Exposure concentrations below the
concern concentration are assumed to present low risk to aquatic species. Exposures that
exceed the concern concentration indicate a potential for adverse impact on aquatic species.
The following formulations were found to pose a risk to aquatic species: blanket washes 3, 5,
6, 8, 11, 18, and 20. All the chemicals of concern are amine salts of an alkybenzene sulfonate.
Switching to these substitutes would likely increase aquatic risks rather than decrease them.
The baseline product was not identified as creating an aquatic species risk.
Energy and Natural Resource Use
As described in Chapter 5, the life cycle of any product begins with the extraction of
raw materials from the environment, and continues through the manufacture, transportation,
use, recycle, and disposal of the product. Decisions at each stage of a product's life will
impact its energy and natural resource demand. Section 5.1, Energy and Natural Resource
Issues, presents a discussion describing the issues to consider when cleaning the blanket and
purchasing blanket washes but does not analyze the individual energy and natural resource
requirements of the substitute and baseline washes due to various data limitations. The
issues discussed include: 1) optimization of the washing technique to reduce blanket wash
use, press wipe use, and waste print runs; 2) derivation of blanket wash products from non-
renewable (petroleum and natural gas) and renewable (plant products) chemical raw materials
(it is not clear, however, which raw materials demand the least energy and natural resources
without a full life-cycle analysis); 3) lack of differentiation between products in terms of energy
consumption during the product formulation process because the same basic processes are
used to formulate all blanket wash products; and 4) reduction in packaging requirements and
transportation/distribution energy consumption due to the use of concentrated formulations,
assuming the products are diluted by the printer. A thorough quantitative evaluation of each
life-cycle stage was beyond the scope of the CTSA.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Releases
As described in Chapter 4, the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the
alternative and the baseline blanket washes was independently tested by the GATF laboratory
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. VOCs are currently regulated under clean air legislation
occupational exposure rules and toxics use and release reporting laws; therefore, substitution
DRAFT
7-6
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.1 FINDINGS
of high VOC cleaners has the potential to reduce the regulatory burden for printers. Table 7-3
presents a summary of the relative VOC content of the baseline and alternative blanket
washes.
Table 7-3. VOC Content of the Substitute and Baseline Blanket Washes
Blanket Wash
Baseline (28)
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
VOC Content
(lbs/gal;% by weight)
6.2; 100%
2.3; 30%
6.4; 91%
6.4; 89%
2.5; 30%
3.5; 47%
3.0; 36%
3.3; 41%
0.11; 10%
0.16; 2%
4.3; 61%
1 .3; 20%
0.97; 12%
7.2; 99%
0.051 ; 0.6%
4.4; 60%
1.8; 22%
2.7; 35%
3.5; 47%
Blanket Wash
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
VOC Content
(% by weight)
Not measured; 2.17%
0.48; 6%
1.5; 19%
4.1; 55%
1.3; 18%
7.2; 93%
2.1; 30%
0.48; 7%
6.6; 99%
6.5; 99%
3.4; 46%
2.8; 39%
6.7; 99%
3.5; 48%
1.0; 14%
4.9; 65%
2.9; 37%
3.8; 52%
Performance
The performance of each of the substitute blanket washes as well as the baseline was
demonstrated using both laboratory and production run tests. The laboratory tests
determined the flash point, VOC content, and pH and demonstrated the blanket swell and
wipability of each product. The production run tests, conducted at two facilities for each of the
substitute products and at all facilities for the baseline, collected information such as quantity
of wash used, time spent to wash the blanket, ink coverage, and the effectiveness of the wash.
Summary results are presented in Table 7-4. The widely variable conditions between and
7-7
DRAFT
-------
7.1 FINDINGS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
within printing facilities and the short duration of the production runs used for the
performance demonstrations does not allow the results to be interpreted as definitive
performance assessments of the blanket washes.
Table 7-4. Blanket Wash Laboratory Test Results
Form.
No.
1
3
4
5
6
7
, 8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Flash
Point
(ฐF)
230+
114
114
139
152
165
115
230+
230+
150
125
230+
145
220+
150
230+
170
115
157(a)
140
100
220+
230+
145
50
230+
100(a)
VOC Content1
(Ibs/gal;
% by weight)
2.3; 30%
6.4; 91%
6.4; 89%
2.5; 30%
3.5; 47%
3.0; 36%
3.3; 41%
0.77; 10%
0.16; 2%
4.3; 61%
1.3; 20%
0.97; 12%
7.2; 99%
0.051 ; 0.6%
4.4; 60%
1.8; 22%
2.7; 35%
3.5; 47%
NM;2.17%2
0.48; 6%
1.5; 19%
4.1; 55%
1.3; 18%
7.2; 93%
6.2; 100%
2.1; 30%
0.48; 7%
pH
7.8*
3.4*
8.7
4.3
5.5
9.3
4.0
4.6
5.7
5.0*
8.2
5.0
9.8
9.8
5.5
4.6
7.1
6.2
7.4(c)
9.2
9.9
4.3
7.8*
3.9
6.6
7.2
7.6(c)
Blanket Swell
1 hr
(%)
1.5
1.5
3.0
6.1
0.7
3.8
7.7
1.5
0.7
,0.0
0.0
1.5'
4.5
'1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.5
3.0
0.0
3.0
1.5
1.5
0.7
5hr
(%)
3.0
4.5
5.2
15.4
1.5
6.8
20
1.5
0.7
1,5
1.5
3.0
10.6
1.5
4.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
4.5
0.0
4.5
3.0
1.5
1.5
Wet Ink Film
Strokes
4
4
3
9
8
6
7
19
12
4
7
8
2
100
8
11
5
7
13
24
15
22
6
3
3
9
5
Dry Ink Film
Strokes
. 6
4
2
8
6
8
9
' 30
13
5
11
10
2
100
7
9
7
6
13
100
12
32
14
3
8
18
11
DRAFT
7-8
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.1 FINDINGS
Form.
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Flash
Point
(ฐF)
105
220
105
138
105
175
82
230+
155
155
VOC Content1
(Ibs/gal;
% by weight)
6.6; 99%
6.5; 99%
3.4; 46%
2.8; 39%
6.7; 99%
3.5; 48%
1.0; 14%
4.9; 65%
2.9; 37%
3.8; 52%
PH
7.6
8.5
7.2*
6.6
6.0
5.7*
3.9
5.6
9.2
4.8
Blanket Swell
1 hr
(%)
1.5
0.1
4.5
1.5
1.5
0.7
3.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
5hr
(%)
3.0
1.5
7.6
3.0
6.1
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
Wet Ink Film
Strokes
3
5
4
10
3
4
5
9
7
5
Dry Ink Film
Strokes
3
30
4
20
5
5
8
16
10
10
(a) full strength (c) 25% NC - not calculated NM - not measured * - pH fluctuates wildly
1VOC content in Ibs/gal was measured at GATF; % by weight VOC was'calculated based on information submitted
by the manufacturer.
2VOC content in Ibs/gal was not measurable; % by weight VOC was submitted by the manufacturer.
Prior to testing the blanket washes in a print shop, the 36 substitute blanket washes
were tested in the laboratory for blanket swell potential and wipability. Of the 36 washes, 22
were deemed to be satisfactory for demonstrations at volunteer printing shops (two shops
demonstrated each blanket wash). The results of the performance demonstrations were highly
variable between the two print shops using a particular blanket wash and among the many
blanket washes themselves. Performance varied to a great extent based on the amount of ink
coverage. Excluding trials with heavy ink coverage, eleven washes gave good or fair
perfbrmances at both facilities, seven washes gave good or fair performance at one facility but
not the other, and the remaining four washes performed poorly at both facilities.
Labor. Materials, and Product Costs
The costs of using each of the substitute blanket washes as well as the baseline depend
on variations in labor costs, product use, and material and equipment use at each facility that
participated in the performance demonstrations. Each substitute blanket wash product was
tested by two facilities. The baseline product was tested by all facilities. Costs for each
product are presented on a per wash basis, a per press basis, and a cost per press/shift/year
basis. In comparing the cost data for the substitute and the baseline products, the costs of
using the substitute blanket cleaners exceed the cost of using the baseline product in nearly
all cases. In some cases smaller quantities of wash or less cleaning time was required,
resulting in a cost savings when using the substitute instead of the baseline wash. Blanket
Washes 26, 32, 37, and 40 resulted in costs savings relative to the baseline product. Overall,
however, the costs of using the substitute blanket washes exceed the costs of using the
baseline wash in the large majority-of cases. Costs associated with using the substitute
7-9
DRAFT
-------
7.1 FINDINGS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
blanket washes range from a low of $1.72 to a high of $8.80 per press.b Costs of using the
baseline product range from $1.64 to $3.64 per press. Where costs of the alternative blanket
washes exceed the baseline, percentage cost increases range from one percent to 179 percent.
Table 7-5 presents a summary of the cost comparisons.
Disposal costs were not considered in this cost comparison because all but one of the
printers participating in the performance demonstrations use cloth wipes that are leased from
an industrial laundry. Many industrial laundries currently do not distinguish between
hazardous and nonhazardous blanket washes when laundering wipes; therefore, it was
assumed that there would be no savings in waste handling or processing costs associated with
switching to a substitute blanket wash product.
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
7.2.1 Introduction
Social benefit/cost analysis is a tool used by policy makers to systematically evaluate
the impacts to all of society resulting from individual decisions. The decision evaluated in this
analysis is the choice of a blanket wash product. Printers have certain criteria which they use
to evaluate the benefits and costs of alternative blanket cleaners such as price, drying time,
flexibility of use for rollers and blankets, propensity to cause blanket swell, etc. A printer
might ask what impact their choice of blanket washes will have on operating costs, compliance
costs, liability costs, and insurance premiums. This business planning process is unlike social
benefit/cost analysis, however, because it approaches the comparison from the standpoint of
the individual printing firm and not from the standpoint of society. A social benefit/cost
analysis seeks to compare the benefits and costs of a given action, considering both the 'private
and external costs and benefits.0 Therefore, the analysis will consider the impact of the
alternative blanket cleaners on operating costs, regulatory costs, and insurance premiums, but
will also consider the external costs and benefits of the alternative blanket cleaners such as
reductions in environmental damage and reductions in the risk of illness for the general
public. External costs are not borne by the printer, however; they are true costs to society.
Benefits of the substitute blanket cleaners may include private benefits such as
increased profits resulting from improved worker productivity, a reduction in employee
sickness, or reduced property and health insurance costs and external benefits such as a
reduction in pollutants emitted to the environment or reduced use of natural resources. Costs
of the substitute blanket cleaners may include private costs such as higher operating expenses
resulting from a higher priced blanket wash and external costs such an increase in human
health risks and ecological damage. Several of the benefit categories considered in this
analysis share elements of both private and external costs and benefits. For example, use of
the substitute blanket washes may result in energy and natural resource savings. Such a
Presses are assumed to have four units; therefore, four blankets are washed each time a press is cleaned.
c Private costs include any direct costs incurred by the decision-maker and are typically reflected in the firm's
balance sheet. In contrast, external costs are incurred by parties other than the primary participants to the transaction.
Economists distinguish between private and external costs because each will affect the decision maker differently. Although
external 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 their decisions. A common example of external costs is the electric utility
whose emissions are reducing crop yields for the fanner operating downwind. The external costs incurred by the farmer in
the form of reduced crop yields are not considered by the utility when deciding how much electricity to produce. The
farmer's losses do not appear on the utility's balance sheet.
DRAFT
7-10
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES 7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
o
o
Q)
Q
0)
u
03
0)
Q.
m
ฃ
_
CO
o
o
C3
ฃ
3
CO
u>
ri
d)t-
D) JJ
BS SJ
** c
a. 5
CD
0)
_ 2 s
ซ ,w <3
ง-S
to
0
u
s
%:
-5 "5T
CB Jg W
R W CB
ฃ ฐ> m
Q.
CO
0
0
to <1>
0) >
ฐm SJ "^
1 W S
O g
W
W ___
*S Q. W
1 t> oa
o ^""
u
a >
S 5 ^
1 co &
O ฑ!
u <
,1}
o *> ซ
1 W CB
O m
o 'H
w
LL.
a fe
M
13
in
o
o
C)
co"
o
o
in
in"
S
CM
O
CM
CM
CD
O
in
o
LL
1
0>
CO
o
o
oo"
o
o
CD
^jT
OO
CO
oo
r-
fe
O
CD
O
8
UL
T
O
o
CM
00"
O
O
O
|S^
oo
CM
CO
ฐ
CM
CM
CO
O
0
o
,_
T
"o
CO
LL
CO
in
o
o
R
in
00
o
CO
o
o
CM
ฃ
o
o
in
o
in
^.
1
LL
O>
CM
O
O
00
o"
CM
O
O
O
CM
CO
CO
CD
CO
co
o
CM
T
o>
o
o
^
1
o>
co
o
o
CM
O>
O
O
o
in
CO
co
CO
0
o
CM
CM
o>
o
o
in
o
in
>,
1
u_
+
o
in"
o
o
in
in
oo
CM
CM
CM
CM
in
o
in
in
o
CO
"o
CO
LJ_
o
C3)
in
o
o
o
CM
CM
o
o
in
co
o
oo
oo
o
CO
o
CM
in
00
o
^
>.
"o
CO
LL
ro
o
o
m
CM"
o
o
en
in
CO
in
co
CO
CM
o>
CM
*-
in
o
ฃ:
2
^
co
CM
O
O
CO
CD"
o
o
CO
in"
N!
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
O
CO
in
o
CM
"o
CO
LJ-
CM
CM
0
o
o
o
oo
CD
o>
CO
CM-
CO
O)
0>
o
co
o
CM
>..
'o
CO
LL
CM
+
O
co"
O
O
O
OO
CM
CO
CO
O
CM
CO
CO
00
0
c
ง
O
CO
>,
L?
CO
CO
o
o.
o
o
o-
CD
*3-
OO
CM
*
00
^-
fe
*-
CD
O
CD
2
5
?
0
o
CM
00"
O
ง
CO
oo
CM
CO
CD
CM
00
O
CD
CD
O
CD
^.
"o
CO
LL
00
CD
O
O
CD
CD"
o
o
CM
CD
CD
CD
00
CM
CD
CD
r~
CD
O
co
ฃ.
s
2
CO
CO
O
O
O>
oo"
o
o
CO
in
co
in
CO
CM
CM
ง
o
s
o
o
ฃ,
1
LL
co
o
0
co_
o
1*^
CM
in
'*
o
00
CM
CO
1
0
o
T-
>,
'o
(0
LL
o
CM
in
o>
o
o
00
in"
o
o
oo
CM
CO
co
CM
CO
00
in
*"
oo
0
CM
3^
LL
CD
CO
CO
CO
CD
to
CO
_CD
O
.1
O)
'co
co
.c
to
o
o
CD
CO
CO
CD
O
CD
o
C
s
C
D)
"co
CD
ffl
O5
CD
CD
O
CO
CO
CO
o
c
CD
C
D)
'co
0
< S
r- Q.
7-11
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Srซ
CO t>
ll
H o
iy*"
a 5
CO
0)
t?
^gs
A<
co
O
0
,_
1
s=
sff
g co eo
H g) S.
Q.
CO
o
0
co "3"
CO ,>
S 5.1
f- t> 5
8 <
CO
CO
111
ฃt5s.
o
o
jc "3"
CO .>
Ill
( co d>
o as
0 <
H S-sr
2 5 -
o
1
CO
o
CO
.ฃ
2
c\i
5
+
o
ง
to
o
o
"*
CO
CM
CO
T-
co
LO
0
5
o
r--
^
'o
CO
LL
,-
"*"
o
CO
o
o
00
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
00
o
T-
co
o
CM
ฃ,
1
CM
CM
o>
co
+
o
o
LO
o
S
CO
ง
CO
o
CM
CO
LO
t
o
00
0
CO
ฃ.
2
N;
4*
o
05
o
o
co
cp
ง
CO
S
CM
fe
o
CO
CO
0
CO
&
'o
CM
10
T
V
o
o
co
CO
o
o
*
CM
LO
CO
S
T-
ง
o
T
o
h.
&
"o
CO
4*
o
o
CO
0
o
LO
LO
CM
o
CM
CM
CM
f2
o
LO
LO
o
LO
ฃ?
I
co
CM
CD
1
o
*
o
o
o
10
oo
co
*-
o
o
CM
!J
o
o
LO
o
LO
ฃ.
'o
CO
LL
CO
CO
+
o
o
CO
o
LO
ff
CO
ซ
CM
CO
0
LO
o
J^
&
LL
CM
CM
CD
+
o
o
CD
co
o
o
LO
LO
CD
LO
CO
S
CM
CD
CO
O
LO
LO
O
CO
.ฃ
O
CO
LL
CO
CO
+
O
0
T-
o
o
o
CM
CO
-d-
o
"f
9
CM
O
T-
CM
CO
0
00
^
2
o
CO
r--
4*
o
o
CM
CD
O
O
CO
LO
OO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
O
S
0
CD
ฃ,
2
o
\
o
o
a>
LO
o
10
CO
CO
co
co
CM
CM
en
LO
i
LO
0
^
ฃ?
I
CO
N.
"
o
g
LO
o
o
LO
LO
CO
CM
O
CM
CM
O3
LO
O
LO
O
co
I
CM
CM
O
O
CO
o
o
LO
SJ
LO
CO
CO
CM
CO
1
S
o
T
a-
I
CM
CO
05
i
O
*
o
ง
LO
^
'-
CM
CM
9
O
CO
LO
o
LO
I
LO
0
o
co
o
ง
LO
co
LO
CO
CO
CO
CM
ง
o
o
LO
o
2?
I
CO
o>
4.
o
o
LO
a>
o
LO
o
00
CO
CM
CM
LO
C35
o
CO
LO
o
O)
ฃ.
'1
LL
TJ
o
a.
CO
CO
CD
"o
-Q
CO
to
c
CO
CD
0
41
C
CO
XI
CD
C.
CH
CO
CD
D)
C
CO
3
c
CD
to
O
O
CD
_G
C
8
CO
S
CD
a
CO
CO
CD
'S
c
CD
D)
a>
IS
O)
CD
c.
CO
o
c
CCS
CD
to
CO
CD
o
c
CO
fl)
c
CD
o
'co
CD
S
CO
o
a.
DRAFT
7-12
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
งfj>
CB o
c S
o >-
a) ฃ
a. o
(B
O
|||
CO
o
o
CB
O
H .-.
K "ป (8
ฃ W DQ
H eu Sii
5.
CO
0
o
ป .ฃ
3 Hi
o ~5" ฃ
O *p
CO
CO
It!
o
o
*=f
ill
1 CO O
O ฑฃ
O <
JZ
CO ,-^
^5 CB cu
ฃ w CD
0 *"
O
8 =
12 4
CB "77
a)
H
li.
CO
I
o
s
o
o
in
in"
CM
O)
i
o
CM
CM
00
in
in
o
CO
o
CO
LL.
CO
i
O
O
o>
^
o
o
oo"
CO
1 .
00
o
CO
CT>
CD
in
CO
CD
J
I
o
T
o
o
oo
o"
o
in"
CO
Tf
CM
CM
oo
CD
CO
LO
CD
CM
LU
co
CO
CO
!o
o
1
T
o
o
in
00"
<*
*
co'
T
in
oo
o
1
o
to
U-
in
0
o
C3>
CO"
o
o
in
w"
s
CM
o
CM
CM
s.
d
In
CD
in
M
U-
C3>
CO
in
+
o
8
oo"
o
o
in
in"
8
ซ
o
CM
CM
O
oo
CD
in
in
d
oo
I
CO
o
o
K
o
o
in"
CO
CO
CD
CO
CM
o>
N.
CD
in
CD
>.
0
o
t
o
co"
o
o
co
<*
CO
CO
CO'
oo
o'
o
CD
to
CO 1~
u.
o
a.
CD
1
o
C3
co
CO
_CD
O
CD
>
CO
CD
CO
o
o
CD
JC
CO
CO'
-a
co
(0
co
C3
C
CD
'co
0
ro
CD
C
CO
CD
O
C
"C
CO
CO
CO
o
C
CD
-D
C
S?
"to
CD
to
o
a.
7-13
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
The following terms are used throughout the benefit/cost analysis:
Table 7-6. Glossary of Benefit/Cost Analysis Terms
Term
Exposed Population
Exposed Worker
Population
Externality
External Benefits
External Costs
Human Health
Benefits
Human Health Costs
Illness Costs
Definition
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 specific 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 or a product containing a chemical, or
through other means.
The estimated number of employees in an industry exposed to the
chemical, process and/or technology under consideration. This number
may be based on market share data as well as estimations of the number
of facilities and the number of employees in each facility associated with
the chemical, process, and/or technology under consideration.
A cost or benefit that involves a third party who is not a 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 legitimate activity"
(Mishan, 1976). The term "externality" is a general term which can refer to
either external benefits or external costs.
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.
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.
Reduced health risks to workers in an industry or business as well as to
the general public as a result 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.
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.
A financial term referring to the liability and health care insurance costs a
company must pay to protect itself against injury or disability to its workers
or other affected individuals. These costs are known as illness benefits to
the affected individual.
DRAFT
7-14
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES 7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Indirect Medical Costs
Private (Internalized)
Costs
Social Cost
Social Benefit
Willingness-to-pay
Indirect 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 friends.
The direct costs incurred by industry or consumers in the marketplace.
Examples include a firm's cost of raw materials and labor, a firm's costs of
complying with environmental regulations, or the cost to a consumer of
purchasing a product.
The total cost of an activity that is imposed on society. Social costs are the
sum of the private costs and the external 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 external costs
(e.g., the costs associated with the poisoned fish).
The total benefit of an activity that society receives, i.e., the sum of the
private benefits and the external 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 external benefit (benefit society
receives from reduced waste).
Estimates used in benefits valuation 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 a life.
benefit may result in private benefits in the form of reduced product usage and waste print runs as well
as external benefits in the form of reduced consumption of non-renewable resources.
7.2.2 Benefit/Cost Methodology
The methodology for conducting a social benefit/cost assessment can be broken down into
four general steps: 1) obtain information on the relative performance, human and environmental
risk, 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 7.1 presents the results
of the first task by summarizing the performance data, risk data, and energy and natural resource
information for the baseline and the alternative blanket washes. In Table 7.5 the data required
to make a determination of the relative costs and benefits of switching to an alternative blanket
wash are organized according to formulation number, beginning with the baseline. Ideally, the
analysis would quantify the social benefits and costs of using the substitute and baseline blanket
wash products, allowing identification of the substitute product whose use results in the largest
net social benefits. However, because of data limitations and production facility variations, the
analysis presents instead a qualitative description of the risks associated with each substitute
product compared to the baseline. Benefits derived from a reduction in risk are described and
discussed, but not quantified; the information provided can be very useful in the decision making
process. A few examples are provided to quantitatively illustrate some of the benefit
considerations. Personnel in each individual facility will have to examine the information
7-15
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
presented, weigh each piece according to facility and community characteristics, and develop
independent choice.
an
The analysis is further developed in the following sections, beginning in Section 7.2.3 with
summaries of the potential risks of the substitute and baseline blanket washes. Section 7.2.4
provides a summary of the financial costs of the baseline and the alternative blanket washes,
Section 7.2.5 compares the benefits and costs of using the substitute blanket wash products
instead of the baseline wash, and Section 7.2.6 provides an indication of the minimum benefits
per affected person that would accrue to society if switching to substitute blanket wash products
reduced cases of certain adverse health effects.
Table 7-7. Costs and Benefits of Baseline and Substitute Blanket Washes
Formula
Number
Baseline
(28)
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
Private Costs1
Average Cost/Press
%
Change
Alternative: 2.76
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 3.48
Baseline: 1.84
+25
+89
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
Alternative: 3.28
Baseline: 2.80
Alternative: 3.08
Baseline: 2.00
+17
+54
Not tested
Not tested
Private Benefits
Worker Risk
Trade-offs
Low to moderate concern
for dermal and inhalation
exposure.4
Overall concern is low for
dermal and inhalation
exposure.4
Concern for dermal
exposure and inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Flamma-
bility Risk2
High risk
Low risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
%
voc
99%
30%
91%
89%
30%
47%
36%
41%
External
Benefits
Environ-
mental Risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
DRAFT
7-16
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Formula
Number
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
19
20
21
22
Private Costs1
Average Cost/Press
Alternative: 8.32
'Baseline: 3.64
Alternative: 3.68
Baseline: 2.00
Alternative: 2.28
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 8.80
Baseline: 3.40
Alternative: 5.16
Baseline: 2.36
Alternative: 2.72
Baseline: 2.12
Alternative: 3.96
Baseline: 3.24
Alternative: 3.32
Baseline: 3.20
Alternative: 4.28
Baseline: 1.84
Alternative: 3.28
Baseline: 2.64
%
Change
+129
+84
+4
+159
+119
+28
+22
+4
+133
+24
Not tested
Not tested
Alternative: 6.64
Baseline: 2.48
Alternative: 3.56
Baseline: 2.12
Alternative: 4.52
Baseline: 2.80
Alternative: 6.32
Baseline: 3.24
Alternative: 4.04
Baseline: 1.84
Alternative: ' 2.32
Baseline: 1.64
Alternative: 3.28
Baseline: 3.24
Alternative: 6.04
Baseline: 3.20
+168
+68
+61
+95
+120
+41
+1
+89
Private Benefits
Worker Risk
Trade-offs
Very low concern for
dermal exposure and no
concern for inhalation
exposure.4
Very low concern for
dermal exposure3 and no
concern for inhalation
exposure.4
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and low. concern
for inhalation exposure.3
Low concern for dermal
and inhalation exposure.3
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Possible concern for
dermal exposure and very
low concern for inhalation
exposure.4
Low concern for dermal
and inhalation exposure.3
Concern for dermal
exposure and low concern
for inhalation exposure.3
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Moderate concern for
dermal exposure3 and low
concern for inhalation
exposure.4
Flamma-
bility Risk2
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Moderate
risk
Low risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Low risk
Low risk
Moderate
risk
Low risk
%
voc
10%
2%
61%
20%
12%
99%
0.6%
22%
35%
47%
17%
External
Benefits
Environ-
mental Risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
7-17
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Formula
Number
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
Private Costs1
Average Cost/Press
%
Change
Not tested
Alternative: 3.88
Baseline: 2.64
Alternative: 3.52
Baseline: 1 .64
+47
+115
Not tested
Alternative: 2.92
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 1 .88
Baseline: 2.00
+33
-6
Not tested
Alternative: 3.72
Baseline: 2.28
Alternative: 3.56
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 4.04
Baseline: 2.48
Alternative: 2.48
Baseline: 2.12
Alternative: 6.36
Baseline: 2.28
Alternative: 2.36
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 5.24
Baseline: 2.36
Alternative: 1 .72
Baseline: 2.12
+63
+62
+63
+17
+179
+7
+122
-19
Not tested
Alternative: 3.56
Baseline: 2.36
Alternative: 3.80
Baseline: 2.12
+51
+79
Private Benefits
Worker Risk
Trade-offs
Possible concern for
dermal exposure and very
low concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and no concern
for inhalation exposure.4
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Low concern for dermal
exposure3 and no concern
for inhalation exposure.4
Concern for dermal
exposure and low concern
for inhalation exposure.3
Concern for dermal
exposure and low concern
for inhalation exposure.3
Low to moderate concern
for dermal and inhalation
exposure.3
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and low concern
for inhalation exposure.3
Flamma-
bility Risk2
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
risk
Low risk
Low risk
Moderate
risk
Low risk
Moderate
risk
Moderate
risk
Low risk
Moderate
risk
Moderate
risk
%
voc
6%
19%
55%
18%
93%
30%
7%
99%
99%
46%
39%
External
Benefits
Environ-
mental Risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
DRAFT
7-18
-------
CHAPTER 7-. EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Formula
Number
35
36
37
38
39
40
Private Costs1
Average Cost/Press
%
Change
Not tested
Not tested
Alternative: 1 .92
Baseline: . 2.20
Alternative: 3.16
Baseline: 3.40
Alternative: 4.32
Baseline: 2.12
Alternative: 4.44
Baseline: 3.40
Alternative: 2.76
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 3.20
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 3.16
Baseline: 2.36
Alternative: 3.48
Baseline: 3.64
-13
-7
+104
+31
+25
+45
+34
-4
Private Benefits
Worker Risk
Trade-offs
Concern for dermal
exposure and low concern
for inhalation exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and low concern
for inhalation exposure.3
Low to moderate concern
for dermal exposure and
low concern for inhalation
exposure.3
Low to moderate concern
for dermal exposure and
low concern for inhalation
exposure.3
Concern for dermal
exposure and very low
concern for inhalation
exposure.
Concern for dermal
exposure and low concern
for inhalation exposure.4
Flamma-
bility Risk2
Moderate
risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
%
voc
99%
48%
14%
65%
52%
52%
External
Benefits
Environ-
mental Risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
1 Cost analysis based upon product performance as determined by the performance demonstration at various testing
facilities and pricing submitted by the product supplier. See Chapter 4 for a more in-depth description of the cost
analysis and descriptions of the testing facilities.
2 Flammability risks are defined as follows: 1) High Risk: products with a flash point less than 100ฐF; 2) Moderate Risk:
products with a flash point greater than 100ฐF but less than 150ฐF; and Low Risk: products with a flash point greater
than 150ฐF.
3 Risks for this chemical could not be quantified; therefore, the level of concern for this chemical is based upon a
structure-activity analysis.
4 Risks for this chemical could not be quantified; therefore, the level of concern for this chemical is based solely upon
estimated exposure levels.
7.2.3 Potential Benefits
The potential social benefits associated with the use of a substitute blanket cleaner versus
the baseline wash include: reduced health risks for workers and the general public, reduced risk
of fire and explosion due to lower flammability, reduced ecological risks, reduced use of energy
and natural resources, and reduced VOC emissions. In order to assess the risk to workers, the
EPA risk assessment combines hazard and exposure data for individual chemical components of
the substitute as well as the baseline products into a single qualitative expression of risk. This
qualitative expression of risk provides the basis for comparing the relative worker exposure risks
associated with the use of the substitute blanket wash products as compared with the baseline.
While members of the general public are also potentially at risk from blanket wash chemicals that
are released to air and water, the EPA risk assessment identified no concerns for the general
7-19
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
public through ambient air, drinking water, or fish ingestion. Due to data limitations, the
exposure assessment does not estimate cumulative exposures from landfill releases or septic
system releases. The relative risks of fire and explosion are determined by comparing the flash
point of each blanket wash, using the OSHA definition of a flammable liquid as well as EPA's
definition of an ignitable waste as a benchmark. In addition to the risks faced by workers and. the
general public, the risk assessment considers the potential ecological risks of using each of the
alternative products and the baseline blanket wash. Several of the substitute formulations were
found to present a risk to aquatic species. The energy and natural resource requirements of the
substitute and the baseline blanket wash vary and a full life-cycle assessment, which was beyond
the scope of this CTSA, would be needed to determine the requirements. The risks associated with
volatile organic compound (VOC) releases were not examined within the risk assessment; however,
the relative VOC contents of the substitute formulations are discussed below since VOC releases
are the primary driving factor behind current regulations affecting printers.
Reduced Worker Health Risks
Reduced risks to workers can be considered both a private and an external benefit. Private
worker benefits include reductions in worker sick days and reductions in health insurance costs
to the printer. External worker benefits include reductions in medical costs to workers as well as
reductions in pain and suffering associated with work related illnesses. The EPA risk assessment
considers two paths of worker exposure: inhalation and dermal. Inhalation exposure results from
the volatilization of blanket wash chemicals from the blanket during washing and from the rags
used to wipe down the blanket. Dermal exposure results from direct contact with the blanket
wash chemicals during blanket cleaning. Worker dermal exposure to all products can be easily
minimized by using proper protective equipment such as gloves or barrier creams during blanket
cleaning. Worker health risks associated with the use of any blanket wash product are a function
of both the product's toxicity as well as the degree of worker exposure which occurs during
blanket cleaning. For example, the worker health risks associated with the use of a more toxic
blanket wash may be reduced by the product's low volatility (i.e., reduced inhalation exposure)
or workplace practices such as the use of automatic blanket cleaning technology (i.e., reduced
dermal exposure). The exposure assessment (Chapter 3) estimates worker exposure (dermal and
inhalation) for each of the blanket wash products. The risk assessment (Chapter 3) evaluates the
toxicity of the individual blanket wash components for the substitute and baseline products and
integrates the hazard and exposure information into a single qualitative expression of risk. The
risk assessment does not provide a single measure of risk for the products overall, making it
difficult in some cases to determine the relative risk from one product to another. For example,
blanket wash 22 contains heavy aromatic solvent naphtha and fatty acid esters which were
determined to posses moderate dermal concern and low dermal concern, respectively.
Reduced Public Health Risk
In addition to worker exposure, members of the general public may be exposed to blanket
wash chemicals due to their close physical proximity to a printing facility or due to the wide
dispersion of chemicals. Such releases impose an external cost on society that is typically not
considered by printing facilities in selecting their blanket wash. For example, people may breath
blanket wash vapors that have been released from a printing facility or people may drink water
containing blanket wash residues discharged by a facility. Individuals in the general public that
are exposed to blanket wash chemicals are therefore potentially subject to health risks. The EPA
risk assessment identified no concerns for the general public through ambient air, drinking water,
or fish ingestion. Using the model facility approach, the general population exposure assessment
predicted that exposure levels would be extremely low for all media examined. Because of the low
exposure levels, no concerns were identified for the general public from the use of blanket wash
chemicals.
DRAFT
7-20
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Reduced Flammability Risk
Some blanket wash chemicals in this assessment present risks of fire and explosion
because of their flammability and high volatility (Table 7-3). Reduced flammability risk may result
in both private and external benefits. Private benefits may accrue to the printer in the form of
lower risk of fire damage to the print shop. The population surrounding the print shop may
experience external benefits in the form of lower risks of fire damage to their homes. In order to
assess the relative fire hazard of the substitute and baseline blanket washes, the flash points of
each product is compared to OSHA and EPA definitions of flammable liquids.d Flammable
liquids are defined by OSHA as having a flash point less than 141ฐF. Similarly, EPA defines RCRA
ignitable wastes (40 CFR 26.1.21) as having a flash point of 140ฐF or less. The baseline product
has a flash point of 50ฐF, well below OSHA and EPA standards. Several of the substitute blanket
washes have flash points below the OSHA and EPA thresholds: blanket washes 3, 4, 5, 8, 12,21,
23, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35,and 37.
Reduced Ecological Risk
Blanket wash formulations are potentially damaging to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems,
resulting in external costs borne by society. The EPA risk assessment evaluated the ecological
risks of the substitute products as well as the baseline blanket wash; however, only the risks to
aquatic species were considered. Reductions in aquatic species risks may create external benefits
by increasing the catch per unit effort for commercial fishers as well as by increasing catch and
participation rates of recreational fishers. The following formulations were found to pose a risk
to aquatic species: blanket washes 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 18, and 20. All the chemicals of concern are
amine salts of an alkylbenzene sulfonate. Switching to these substitutes would likely increase
aquatic risks rather than decrease them. The baseline product was not identified as creating an
aquatic species risk.
Energy and Natural Resource Conservation
Benefits may accrue to society (external) as well as the printer (private) in the form of
energy and natural resource savings if substitute blanket washes are substituted for the baseline
wash. For example, blanket wash 34 was found to require fewer impressions to get back to
acceptable print quality than with the baseline wash, thereby consuming less paper and energy.
A similar situation may occur with press wipes. By switching to the substitute blanket wash, the
printer might experience lower energy and resource costs. At the same time, society would also
benefit from the printer's reduction in energy and natural resource use. As discussed in Section
7.1, the analysis did not estimate the individual energy and natural resource requirements of the
substitute and baseline washes due to various data limitations. A thorough quantitative
evaluation of each life-cycle stage was beyond the scope of the CTSA.
Reduced Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Releases
The reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) within the pressroom can potentially.
result in private benefits including lower compliance costs and savings on insurance premiums,
as well as external benefits including a safer work environment and reduced health effects outside
Flash point is defined as the lowest temperature at which a liquid gives off vapor -within a test vessel in sufficient
concentration to form an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid.
7-21
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
of the facility.6 VOCs are currently regulated under clean air legislation as well as toxics use and
release reporting laws and, therefore, were not re-evaluated as part of the risk assessment.
Because there are several sources of VOCs within any given print shop, no attempt was made to
quantify the benefits associated with an Incremental reduction in the release of blanket wash
VOCs. However, case studies are available documenting the potential benefits of VOC reduction
throughout the pressroom. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance found that Hampden Papers of Holyoke, Massachusetts experienced savings by
reducing VOCs (97 percent reduction over a ten year period)/ Hampden Papers, by adopting a
source reduction strategy, has avoided the need to purchase VOC collection and control
equipment or explosion-proof mixers for inks and coatings containing VOCs. In addition, they
have incurred significant savings in fire insurance premiums, and reduced their liability under
Superfund, air regulations, OSHA, RCRA, and other laws (OTA, no date). VOC content of the
baseline as well as the alternative formulations, as measured by the GATF laboratory, are
presented in Table 7-4. VOC content ranges from a low of 2 percent to a high of 99 percent. The
baseline product and blanket wash 31 have the highest VOC content (99%).
7.2.4 Associated Costs
hi comparing the cost data for the alternative and the baseline products, the costs of using
the alternative blanket cleaners exceed the cost of using the baseline product in nearly all cases.
Some cases required smaller quantities of wash or less cleaning time, resulting in a cost savings
when using the substitute instead of the baseline wash. Blanket Washes 26, 32, 37, and 40
resulted in costs savings relative to the baseline product. Overall, however, the costs of using the
substitute blanket washes exceed the costs of using the baseline wash in the large majority of
cases. Costs of the using the substitute blanket washes range from a low of $1.72 to a high of
$8.80 per press.g Costs of using the baseline product range from $1.64 to $3.64 per press.
Where costs of the alternative blanket washes exceed the baseline, percentage cost increases
range from one percent to 179 percent.
7.2.5 Costs and Benefits by Formulation
The objective of a social benefit/cost assessment is to identify those products or decisions
that maximize net benefits. Ideally, the analysis would quantify the social benefits and costs of
using the substitute and baseline blanket wash products in terms of a single comparable unit (i.e.,
dollars) and calculate the net benefits of using the substitute instead of the baseline product. Due
to data limitations, however, the analysis presents a qualitative description of the risks associated
with each product compared to the baseline. Table 7-8 compares the relative risks and costs of
each substitute blanket wash to the baseline. While this table presents a comparison between
the blanket washes and the substitutes, it is important to keep in mind that not all of the risk
assessments are based on risk (comprised of both exposure and hazard), but that some of the
assessments are based solely on a hazard call based upon a structure-activity analysis. A
frowning face (ฎ) indicates an increase in cost, worker health risks, flammability, risk to aquatic
0 A successful VOC reduction strategy can not be limited to blanket washes. All sources of VOC releases (i.e.,
inks, coalings, etc.) within the print shop must be evaluated in order to design and implement an efficient emissions control
plan.
f For a copy or further information about this case study, contact: Office of Technical Assistance (OTA), Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02202, or phone OTA at (617) 727-3260.
& Presses are assumed to have four units; therefore, four blankets are washed each time a press is cleaned.
DRAFT
7-22
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
species, or VOC content when using the substitute blanket wash instead of the baseline product.
A smiling face (ฉ) indicates a reduction in cost, worker risk, flammability, aquatic species risk, or
VOC content when using the substitute instead of the baseline product. A zero (o) indicates that
the risk assessment identified no difference in relative risks when using the substitute blanket
cleaner instead of the baseline. Because the risk assessment evaluated individual blanket wash
components, the relative worker health risks are based upon the component that poses the
highest degree of concern. For example, components of Blanket Wash 32 were determined to pose
no or low concern (propylene glycol ethers) and concern (aromatic and petroleum distillate
hydrocarbons); therefore, the overall dermal risk of Blanket Wash 32 is one of concern. Blanket
Wash 32 is shown to have similar relative dermal risks to workers when compared to the baseline
because the baseline product's component of highest concern poses concern (i.e., petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons).11
In nearly every case the substitute product costs more to use than the baseline. There
were several products whose use was determined to decrease dermal worker health risks; these
were Blanket Washes 1, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 29, 37 and 38. Formulation 10 was found to
increase costs by less than 10 percent for one of the facilities. The few products that did show
evidence of reduced costs, had mixed results in terms of their relative health risks. For example,
Blanket Wash 37, which was found to be less expensive to use than the baseline, was found to
reduce worker dermal risks but was neutral in terms of relative inhalation risk. Blanket Washes
26 and 40 showed evidence of reduced costs; in addition, the risk assessment found that worker
dermal risks were similar for both products over the baseline. In addition, while Blanket Wash
32 was less expensive than the baseline at one facility, it was found to present increased dermal
and inhalation risks over the baseline. All of the substitute products had lower flash points and,
therefore, reduced flammability risk when compared to the baseline. Finally, three blanket
washes (6, 11, and 20) had higher aquatic risks than the baseline.
7.2.6 Potential Benefit of Avoiding Illness Linked to Exposure to Chemicals Commonly Used
in Blanket Washing
As mentioned above, the risk assessment did not link exposures of concern to adverse
health outcomes. Data do exist, however, on the cost of avoiding or mitigating certain illnesses
that are linked to exposures to blanket wash chemicals. Such cost estimates indicate potential
benefits associated with switching to less toxic products. Health endpoints potentially associated
with blanket wash chemicals include: eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks. The
following discussion presents estimates of the economic costs associated with each illness. To the
extent that blanket wash chemicals are .not the only factor contributing toward the illnesses
described, individual costs may overestimate the potential benefits to society from substituting
alternative blanket cleaners; also, this is not a comprehensive list of the potential health effects
of exposure to blanket washes. For instance, inks and other pressroom chemicals may also
contribute toward adverse worker health effects. The following discussion focuses on the external
benefits of reductions in illness: reductions in worker medical costs as well as reductions in pain
and suffering related to worker illness. However, private benefits, accrued by the decision-maker,
may be incurred through increased worker productivity and a reduction in liability and health care
insurance costs. While reductions in insurance premiums as a result of pollution prevention are
not currently widespread, the opportunity exists for changes in the future.
Often adverse health effects are experienced when working with chemicals. For example,
press operators at facility 12 experienced nausea and dizziness when using blanket wash 20, a
petroleum based blanket wash containing petroleum distillates and aromatic hydrocarbons. In
The risk classification scheme should be interpreted as follows: no/low concern < low to moderate concern <
concern.
7-23
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Table 7-8. Relative Benefits and Costs of Substitute versus Baseline Blanket Wash1
Formula
Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
Cost/Press
Facility #1
ฎ
Facility #2
ฎ
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
ฎ
ฉ
Not tested
Not tested
ฎ
ฎ
ฎ
ฎ
ฉ
ฉ
ฎ
ฎ ,
ฎ
ฉ
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
ฎ
ฎ
ฎ
ฎ
ฎ
ฉ
ฎ
ฎ
Not tested
ฎ
ฎ
Not tested
ฎ
ฉ
Not tested
ฎ
ฎ
ฎ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฎ
ฉ
Worker Health Risk
Dermal
ฉ3
o
o
o
0
o
o
ฉ
ฉ3
o
o
ฉ3
0
ฉ
0
ฉ3
o
o
ฉ3
ฉ
o
o
o
0
ฉ
o
o
ฉ
Inhalation
o3
ฉ
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ฉ
Flammability
Risk
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
. ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
Risk to
Aquatic
Species
o
ฉ
o
ฉ
ฉ
0
ฉ
0
O"
ฉ
o
o
o
0
ฎ
0
ฉ
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
0
voc
Content2
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
o
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
NM
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
o
ฉ
ฉ
0
o
DRAFT
7-24
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Formula
Number
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Cost/Press
Facility #1
Facility #2
Not tested
ฎ
ฎ
Not tested
Not tested
ฉ
ฎ
ฉ
ฎ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
Worker Health Risk
Dermal
0
o
o
o
0
ฉ
ฉ
0
Inhalation
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
0
Flammability
Risk
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
Risk to
Aquatic
Species
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
VOC
Content2
ฉ .
ฉ
o
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
ฉ
1 Baseline Blanket Wash is Formulation 28, VM&P naphtha. Information used to develop this table varies in the level
of confidence. Please refer to earlier tables and to the development of each type of information for additional
information.
2 "NM" indicates that VOC content was not measured. ' '
3 Level of concern for this substitute blanket wash based upon a structure-activity analysis of potential hazard.
addition, blanket wash 20 aggravated a previously existing respiratory condition in one press
operator. The economic literature provides estimates of the costs associated with eye irritation,
headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks, each of which may result from exposure to blanket wash
chemicals. An analysis summarizing the existing literature on the costs of illness estimates
individual willingness-to-pay to avoid certain acute effects for one symptom day (Unsworth and
Neumann, 1993). The estimates for eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks are
all based upon a survey approach designed to illicit estimates of individual willingness-to-pay to
avoid a given illness. Such surveys, when properly designed, should capture direct treatment
costs, indirect costs, and costs associated with pain and suffering.1 As eye irritation, headaches,
nausea, and asthma attacks typically occur as short-term, discrete incidents, cost estimates
represent an individual's willingness-to-pay to avoid a single incidence and not the average lifetime
cost of treating a disease. Table 7-6 presents a summary of the low, mid-range, and high
estimates of individual willingness-to-pay to avoid each of these health endpoints. These
estimates provide an indication of.the benefit per affected individual that would accrue to society
if switching to a substitute blanket wash product reduced the incidence of eye irritation,
headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks.
1 Several approaches are available for estimating the costs of illness. Appendix E provides a brief description of
each.
7-25
DRAFT
-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Table 7-9. Estimated Willingness-to-pay to Avoid Morbidity Effects
for One Symptom Day (1995 dollars)
Health Endpoint
Eye Irritation1
Headache2
Nausea1
Asthma Attack3
Low ($)
20.79
1.67
29.11
15.62
Mid-Range ($)
20.79
13.23
29.11
42.96
High ($)
46.14
66.72
83.66
71.16
Sources:
1 Tolley, G.S., et al. Valuation of Reductions in Human Health Symptoms and Risks. University of
Chicago. Final Report for the U.S. EPA. January 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.
2 Dickie, M., et al. Improving Accuracy and Reducing Costs of Environmental Benefit Assessments.
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC September 1987. and Tolley, G.S., et al. Valuation of Reductions in
Human Health Symptoms and Risks. University of Chicago. Final Report for the U.S. EPA. January
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.
3 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.
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
This section gives an overview of the substitute blanket washes including information
regarding performance, cost, risk and exposure, and regulatory concerns. Since these evaluation
factors are unique to each formulation, an individual profile was developed for each of the
substitute blanket washes. The results of the process safety and general population risk analyses
are similar for all formulations (see Sections 3.5 and 3.4.4, respectively). The profile summarizes
information from various sections of the CTSA as described below.
Chemical Information
The generic chemical composition of each substitute blanket wash is provided. The
categorization of blanket wash chemicals used to genericize the formulations was described in
detail in Section 2.1. Also included in each profile are the flash point, VOC content, and pH of
each substitute wash, which were determined during laboratory testing by the Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation (GATF) (see also Table 4-1).
Performance
The performance section of the profile summarizes information collected during laboratory
and production run performance demonstrations with each substitute blanket wash. The data
DRAFT
7-26
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
on wipability and blanket swell were determined in laboratory evaluations conducted by the GATF
(see also Table 4-1).
Wipability is based on the number of strokes required to remove a standard volume of
either wet or dry ink from the test blanket using a measured volume of the substitute blanket
wash. Washes for which more than 100 strokes were required to clean the blanket were
eliminated from field testing. The blanket swelling potential of each substitute wash was
determined by measuring the thickness of the test blanket before and after exposure to the
substitute blanket wash for one and five hours. Washes for which the blanket swell exceeded 3
percent after 5 hours were eliminated from field testing.
Based on the laboratory test results, 22 products qualified for further evaluation through
field demonstrations. Each of the 22 substitutes was demonstrated at two facilities, and
performance was compared to a standard baseline wash (VM&P naphtha). Qualitative
performance evaluations were made by DfE observers and printers at the test facilities (see also
Table 4-2).
Cost
A cost analysis was conducted for the 22 field-tested substitute blanket washes and the
baseline wash. The primary source of information for the cost estimates was the performance
demonstrations. The specific assumptions and methodology used in the analysis are discussed
in detail in Section 4.2. In general, the data for cost per wash were based on estimates for labor,
blanket wash, and material costs. The cost per press was calculated by multiplying the cost per
wash by the estimated number of blankets per press. The annual cost was calculated by
multiplying the total cost per press by the number of washes per shift, the number of shifts per
week, and the number of weeks worked per year.. The percent change refers to the percent
increase or decrease that the facility would incur if it switched from using the baseline (VM&P
naphtha) to using the substitute blanket wash. These data were extracted from Table 4-3. The
number of times the blanket wash was used by the printing facility provides the number of data
points, i.e., the sample size.
Risk and Exposure
This section of the profile addresses the risks that may result from the substitute blanket
washes under typical conditions of use. The risk characterization integrates hazard and exposure
information into quantitative and qualitative expressions of risk. The specific assumptions and
methodology used to estimate occupational exposure are described in detail in Section 3.2. The
risk characterization methodology is discussed in detail in Section 3.4.1 and 3.4.3.
Separate risk estimates are presented for dermal and inhalation exposure. Most of the
formulations (27 of the 37 formulations including the baseline) present at least some concern for
dermal exposures to workers primarily due to relatively high potential exposure levels. In
contrast, worker inhalation risks are very low for almost all of the formulations, reflective of the
generally low exposure levels.
Flammability risks are defined as follows: 1) High Risk: products with a flash point less
than 100ฐF; 2) Moderate Risk: products with a flash point greater than 100ฐF but less than
150ฐF; and Low Risk: products with a flash point greater than 150ฐF.
Environmental risks are also presented. Only those formulations containing alkyl benzene
sulfonates presented a possible risk to aquatic species. The methodology and specific results can
be found in Section 3.4.2.
7-27
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Regulatory Concerns
This section identifies the substitute blanket washes that may trigger federal environmental
regulations. Discharges of blanket wash chemicals may be restricted by air, water, and solid
waste regulations; in addition, facilities may be required to report releases of some blanket wash
products. It is important to note that this analysis is based on the generic chemical composition.
Specific blanket wash chemicals that trigger federal environmental regulations (and one
occupational health regulation) are given in Table 2-6. They are:
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 112B - Hazardous Air Pollutants '
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Section 313
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Section 104
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
The generic category for these chemicals (based on Table 2-1) was compared to the generic
compositions of the substitute blanket washes.
DRAFT
7-28
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 1
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols .
VOC Content: 30%; 2.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 7.8 (fluctuates wildly)
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 4 strokes
dry Ink- 6 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 1 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 3
based their performance evaluation on a sample size often blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility found that the wash yielded good performance for light or ,
medium ink coverage but poor performance for heavy ink coverage. The extra time and effort .
required for heavy ink coverage were unacceptable. The wash also left a slight residue that
was removed with a dry rag.
Facility 6 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of four blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility found that the wash yielded poor
performance, and resulted in print quality problems. The image of the previous job was still
showing. Facility 6 did not use alternative product 1 for the full week-long demonstration,
discontinuing use after experiencing print quality problems believed to have been attributable
to use of the alternative product.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 1 instead of the baseline product at both facilities 3 and 6. Performance
results indicate a 25 percent increase and a 70 percent increase in cleaning times at facilities
3 and 6, respectively. The costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) are also
significantly higher for Blanket Wash 1 when compared to the baseline, driven primarily by the
product's high price. The manufacturer's price for product 1 is $20/gallon versus
$5.88/gallon for the baseline product. Costs associated with product use increased roughly
220 percent and 160 percent for facilities 3 and 6, respectively.
Facility #
3
6
Cost/Wash
$0.69
$0.87
Cost/Press
$2.76
$3.48
Annual Cost*
$6,900.00
$8,700.00
Baseline Cost*
$5,500.00
$4,600.00
% Change**
+25
+89
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 1. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
7-29
DRAFT;
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Risk and Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard
values. However, overall concern is low because of low inhalation exposure levels, poor dermal
absorption, and low to moderate toxicologic concern based on structure-activity analysis.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-30
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 3
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
VOC Content: 91%; 6.4 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 114ฐF
pH: 3.4 (fluctuates wildly)
Performance
Wipability: wet ink- 4 strokes
dry ink- 4 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
Cost
The performance of Blanket Wash 3 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 3 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Hazard quotient calculations indicate a concern for exposure to
some aromatic hydrocarbons and very low concern for exposure to other aromatic
hydrocarbons. However, the hazard values are based upon oral or inhalation studies. Margin
of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposures to aromatic hydrocarbons. However,
the hazard values are based upon inhalation studies. Risks for other chemicals in this
formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values.
Inhalation Exposure: Hazard quotient calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value for one of these aromatic
hydrocarbons is based upon an oral study. The RfD used to calculate the risk estimate is
classified as "low confidence" by IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). Margin of
exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to certain aromatic hydrocarbons, but
very low concern for exposure to others. Due to negligible inhalation exposure, the alkyl
benzene sulfonates and fatty acid derivatives used in this formulation present no concern.
Risks for other chemicals in the formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability
of hazard values.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: Aquatic species risk is due to the presence of alkyl benzene sulfonates.
7-31
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
Alkyl benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
DRAFT
7-32
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 4
Composition:
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
VOC Content: 89%; 6.4 ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 114ฐF
pH: 8.7
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 3 strokes
dry ink- 2 strokes
1 hr.- 3.0%
5 hrs.- 5.2%
Blanket swell:
The performance of Blanket Wash 4 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 4 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to
terpenes and low concern for exposure to ethoxylated nonylphenols. However, the hazard
value for terpenes is based upon an oral study.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate a very low concern for
exposure to terpenes. However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Due to
negligible exposure, no concern exists for exposure to the ethoxylated nonylphenols.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No. measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-33
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 5
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
VOC Content: 30%; 2.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 139ฐF
pH: 4.3
Performance
1 hr.- 6.1%
5 hrs.- 15.4%
Wipability: wet ink- 9 strokes Blanket swell:
dry ink- 8 strokes
The performance of Blanket Wash 5 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 5 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposures to
aromatic hydrocarbons and ethylene glycol ethers, and very low concern for exposure to
ethoxylated nonylphenols. However, the hazard value for aromatic hydrocarbons is based
upon an inhalation study. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be
quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons and ethylene glycol ethers. Due to negligible exposure, no
concern exists for the other chemicals in this formulation.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: Aquatic species risk is due to the presence of alkyl benzene sulfonates.
DRAFT
7-34
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
Ethylene glycol
ethers
Alkyl benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
CAA
X
X
CERCLA
X
X
SARA 31 3
X
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-35
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 6
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
VOC Content: 47%; 3.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 152ฐF
pH: 5.5
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 8 strokes
dry ink- 6 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.7%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 6 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 11
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 11 blanket washes and printed with
conventional and vegetable-based inks. This facility found that the wash left an oily residue
that interfered with print quality. Due to its thick consistency, the wash did not readily absorb
into rags creating delays. In addition, this facility found that more effort was required with
heavy ink coverage. This facility felt that Blanket Wash 6 yielded fair performance results
overall.
Facility 15 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 23 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility also noted that the blanket wash did not
readily absorb into rags due to its thick consistency. This created delays in cleaning, and
prompted this facility to rate the cleaning effort as "high." However, this facility felt that
Blanket Wash 6 cut the ink well and did not leave a residue on the blanket.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 6 instead of the baseline. Costs for facilities 11 and 15 increased roughly
20 percent and 50 percent respectively when using Blanket Wash 6 instead of the baseline.
Performance results indicate an 11 percent increase and a 69 percent increase in cleaning
times at facilities 11 and 15, respectively. Despite a 30 percent decrease in the average
quantity of blanket wash used, facility 15 experienced a 60 percent increase in costs
associated with blanket wash use (i.e., volume x price) due to a product cost of more than
twice the baseline cost ($12.35/gallon for product 6 compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline
product). Facility 11 experienced a 20 percent increase in product use, with a subsequent
increase of 170 percent in costs associated with.product use.
1 Facility #
11
15
Cost/Wash
$0.82
$0.77
Cost/Press
$3.28
$3.08
Annual Cost*
$8,200
$7,700
Baseline Cost*
$7,000
$5,000
% Change**
+17
+54
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 6. A"+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-36
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
1'A OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margins of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value is based upon inhalation
studies. Risks for other chemicals in the formulation could not be quantified due to the
unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard
concern for aromatic hydrocarbons due to the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds.
The fatty acid derivatives and alkyl benzene sulfonates are of low concern due to their expected
low rate of dermal absorption and low to moderate hazard.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. Due to low or negligible inhalation exposures,
the petroleum distillate hydrocarbons, alkyl benzene sulfonates, and fatty acid derivatives used
in this formulation present little or no concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: Aquatic species risk is due to the presence of alkyl benzene sulfonates.
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
Alkyl Benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-37
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 7
Composition:
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
VOC Content: 36%; 3.0 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 165ฐF
pH: 9.3
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 6 strokes
dry ink- 8 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 3.8%
5 hrs.- 6.8%
The performance of Blanket Wash 7 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 7 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to
terpenes and very low concern for exposure to ethoxylated nonylphenol. However, the hazard
value for terpenes is based upon an oral study. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation
could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values, although none of the
chemicals present more than a low to moderate hazard concern based on structure-activity
analysis.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to terpenes. However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Due to low or
negligible inhalation exposures, other chemicals in the formulation present little or no concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-38
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 8
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
VOC Content: 41%; 3.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 115ฐF
pH: 4.0
Performance
Wipability: wet ink- 7 strokes
dry ink- 9 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 7.7%
5 hrs.- 20%
Cost
The performance of Blanket Wash 8 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 8 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for propylene
glycol ethers and very low concern for ethoxylated nonylphenol. Risks for other chemicals in
this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. Structure-
activity analysis indicated a moderate hazard concern for aromatic hydrocarbons due to the
possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. The other compounds in the formulation
present low to moderate hazard concerns.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
propylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard value is based upon a subacute oral study. Due
to low or negligible inhalation exposure, other chemicals in the formulation present little or no
concern.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: Aquatic species risk is due to the presence of alkyl benzene sulfonates.
7-39
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
Alkali/salts
Alkyl benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
X
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
DRAFT
7-40
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 9
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
VOC Content: 10%; 0.77 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 4.6
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 19 strokes
dry ink- 30 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 9 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 10
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of four blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility found that the wash yielded poor performance overall. The
wash did not cut ink well, required excessive effort for cleaning, and did not soak into the rag.
For these reasons, this facility discontinued using Blanket Wash 9 after four washes.
Facility 15 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 21 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility also found that the wash yielded poor
performance and that the wash did not soak into the rag. This facility felt that using Blanket
Wash 9 required much more effort than using the baseline.
Cost
Blanket washing costs increase significantly when using Blanket Wash 9 as compared
to the baseline product at facilities 10 and 15. Costs increased 129 percent and 84 percent at
facilities 10 and 15 respectively when compared to the baseline. Performance data indicate
that increased cleaning times are the driving force behind the cost increases experienced by
both facilities. Cleaning times increase 175 percent and 129 percent when compared to the
baseline at facilities 10 and 15, respectively.
Facility #
10
15
Cost/Wash
$2.08
$0.92
Cost/Press
$8.32
$3.68
Annual Cost
$20,800
$9,200
Baseline Cost
$9,100
$5,000
% Change
+129
+84
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 9. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
7-41
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate a very low concern for
ethoxylated nonylphenol. Risks for the fatty acid derivative could not be quantified but is
expected to be very low based on structure-activity predictions of low toxicity and poor dermal
absorption.
Inhalation Exposure: Due to negligible inhalation exposure, the chemicals used in this
formulation present no concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-42
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 10
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
VOC Content: 2%; 0.16 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 5.7
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 12 strokes
dry ink- 13 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.7%
5 hrs.- 0.7%
The performance of Blanket Wash 10 was demonstrated at two facilities. Both facilities
3 and 4 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of four blanket washes and
printed with conventional inks. Both facilities declined to further test the blanket wash due to
the level of effort required to clean the blankets. Blanket Wash 10 did not absorb well into the
rags and did not cut ink well at either facility.
Cost
Performance data indicate mixed results in the performance of Blanket Wash 10.
Blanket washing costs increased 4 percent at facility 3 and 160 percent at facility 4 when
Blanket Wash 10 is used rather than the baseline.
Facility #
3
4
Cost/Wash
$0.57
$2.20
Cost/Press
$2.28
$8.80
Annual Cost
$5,700
$22,000
Baseline Cost
$5,500
$8,500
% Change
+4
+159
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 10. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates-a decrease.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Risk for this formulation could not be quantified but is expected to
be very low based on structure-activity predictions of low toxicity and poor dermal absorption
of the fatty acid derivatives.
Inhalation Exposure: Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives used in this
formulation present no concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-43
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 11
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
VOC Content: 61%; 4.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 150ฐF
pH: 5.0 (fluctuates wildly)
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 4 strokes
dry ink- 5 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 11 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 1
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 26 blanket washes and printed with
vegetable-based inks. This facility found that the blanket wash yielded good performance
results from light to medium ink coverage, but poor performance results for heavy ink coverage
due to the extra time and effort required. This facility found that the blanket wash left a
slight, oily residue on the blanket, although this did not affect the print quality.
Facility 2 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 31 blanket washes
and printed with conventional and vegetable-based inks. This facility found that the blanket
wash yielded good to fair performance results for light to medium ink coverage but poor
performance for heavy ink coverage due to the extra product, time and effort required. This
facility also found that the blanket wash left a slight, oily residue on the blanket which did not
affect the print quality.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost
when using Blanket Wash 11 instead of the baseline. Overall costs per wash at facilities 1 and
2 increased roughly 120 percent and 30 percent respectively when using Blanket Wash 11
instead of the baseline. Costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) are driven by
the higher price of Blanket Wash 11 as compared to the baseline. Blanket Wash 11 is priced
at $12.15/gallon compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline product. Material costs (i.e., press
wipes) increased by roughly 210 percent and 140 percent at facility 1 and 2, respectively.
Facility #
1
2
Cost/Wash
$1.29
$0.68
Cost/Press
$5.16
$2.72
Annual Cost*
$12,900
$6,800
Baseline Cost*
$5,900
$5,300
% Change**
+119
+28
These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 11. A"+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-44
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to the
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value is based upon an inhalation
study. Risks for the other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the
unavailability of hazard values.
Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for aromatic
hydrocarbons due to the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. The alkyl benzene
sulfonates are of low concern due to their expected low rate of dermal absorption and low to
moderate hazard.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. Due to low or negligible inhalation exposures,
other chemicals in the formulation present little or no concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: Aquatic species risk is due to the presence of alkyl benzene sulfonates.
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
Alkyl benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-45
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 12
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Water
VOC Content: 20%; 1.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 125ฐF
pH: 8.2
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 7 strokes
dry Ink- 11 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 12 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 12
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 16 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. The wash was diluted 50% with water. This facility noted that the wash
caused potential print quality problems. This facility also found that the wash had difficulty
cutting paper residue and discontinued use of the wash on paper residue coated blankets.
Nevertheless, the wash was considered equal to baseline in overall performance.
Facility 13 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 19 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility considered the overall performance of the
wash to be fair across ink coverages and dilutions. When not diluted with water, performance
surpassed baseline and standard washes. The wash required slightly less effort than the
baseline wash when averaged over all dilution levels.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 12 instead of the baseline. Average costs per wash increased roughly 20
percent and 5 percent at facilities 12 and 13, respectively. At a cost of $16.40/gallon,
however, Blanket Wash 12 would not be economically competitive with the baseline
($5.88/gallon) unless the average quantity used was significantly lower.
Facility #
12
13
Cost/Wash
$0.99
$0.83
Cost/Press
$3.96
$3.32
Annual Cost*
$9,900
$8,300
Baseline Cost*
$8,100
$8,000
% Change**
+22
+4
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease In cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 12. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risk
could not be quantified, but structure-activity analysis indicates a low to moderate hazard
concern.
DRAFT
7-46
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. Risk could not be quantified but is expected to be low due
to low exposure and low to moderate toxicity.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-47
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 14
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
VOC Content: 12%; 0.97 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐ F
pH: 5.0
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 8 strokes
dry ink- 10 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 14 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 6
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 15 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility found that the wash cut ink well, and the performance was
good. The facility noted that extra effort was required to remove the oily residue that the wash
left on the blanket.
Facility 16 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 34 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks and printed with conventional inks. This facility found
that the substitute wash did not cut ink as well as the baseline wash. Black inks and heavy
ink build up were especially difficult to clean. In addition, the thick consistency of the wash
made it difficult to soak into the rag.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 14 instead of the baseline product at both facilities 6 and 16. Compared
to the baseline, total costs per wash increased 133 percent at facility 6 and 24 percent at
facility 16. The average cleaning time increased significantly at facility 6 compared to the
baseline, requiring an additional minute per wash. Despite a decrease in the average cleaning
time, overall costs per wash at facility 16 increase, driven primarily by the product's higher
price. Blanket Wash 14 is priced at $9.55/gallon compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline.
Facility #
6
16
Cost/Wash
$1.07
$0.82
Cost/Press
$4.28
$3.28
Annual Cost*
$10,700
$8,200
Baseline Cost*
$4,600
$6,600
% Change**
+133
+24
These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 14. A"+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-48
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Risks for this formulation could not be quantified but are expected
to be low based on structure-activity predictions of low toxicity for both the fatty acid
derivatives and the propylene glycol ethers. Also, the fatty acid derivatives are expected to be
poorly absorbed.
Inhalation Exposure: Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives used in this
formulation present no concern. Risks for the propylene glycol ether are also expected to be
low due to low exposure and its predicted low toxicity.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-49'
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 16
Composition:
Terpenes
VOC Content: 99%; 7.2 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 145ฐF
pH: 9.8
Performance
1 hr.- 4.5%
5 hrs.- 10.6%
Wipabiliiy: wet ink- 2 strokes Blanket swell:
dry ink- 2 strokes
The performance of Blanket Wash 16 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 16 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to
terpenes. However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Risks for the other
chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard
values. Structure-activity 'analyses of these compounds indicate low to moderate hazard
concerns.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to terpenes. However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral study.
Risks for the other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be
low due to low exposures and low to moderate toxicity.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-50
-------
CHAPTER 7-. EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 17
Composition:
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Glycols
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
VOC Content: 0.6%; 0.051 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 220+ฐF
pH: 9.8
Performance
wet ink- 100 strokes
dry ink- 100 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5hrs.- 1.5%
Wipability:
The performance of Blanket Wash 17 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 17 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Hazard quotient calculations indicate very low concern for propylene
glycol ethers. However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Margin of exposure
calculations indicate very low concern for ethoxylated nonylphenols and alkali/salts. However,
the hazard value for alkali/salts is based upon oral values. The alkanolamine component of
the fatty acid derivative/alkanolamine salt presents a possible concern. However, dermal
absorption of the alkanolamine salt is likely to be lower than that of free alkanolamine.
Inhalation Exposure: Hazard quotient calculations indicate no concern for glycols.
However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Due to negligible inhalation exposure,
ethoxylated nonylphenol, fatty acid derivatives and alkali/salts present very low concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Alkali/salts
CWA
X
CAA
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
RCRA
OSHA
7-51
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 18
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
VOC Content: 60%; 4.4 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 150ฐF
pH: 5.5
Performance
wet ink- 8 strokes
dry ink- 7 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
Wipability:
The performance of Blanket Wash 18 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 18 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons and dibasic esters. However, the hazard values are based on
Inhalation studies. Risk from the alkyl benzene sulfonates could not be quantified but is
expected to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low to
moderate toxicity. Risk from esters/lactones is also expected to be low based on structure-
activity predictions of low toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and dibasic esters. Risks for other chemicals in this
formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be low due to low or negligible
exposures and low to moderate hazard concerns.
Flammability: Not available
Environmental: No measured risk
DRAFT
7-52
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7,3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
Alkyl benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-53
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 19
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
VOC Content: 22%; 1.8 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 4.6
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 11 strokes
dry ink- 9 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 19 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 18
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 5 blanket washes and printed with soy
oil-based inks. This facility noted that the thick consistency of the wash made it difficult to
soak into the rag, which resulted, in uneven application. Large quantities were required to cut
ink.
Facility 19 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 8 blanket washes
and printed with soy oil-based inks. This facility noted that the thick consistency of the wash
was messy and difficult to use. The demonstration was cut short due to the extra effort and
time required to clean the blanket.
Cost
The results of the performance data Indicate an increased financial cost when using
Blanket Wash 19 instead of the baseline at both facilities 18 and 19. Overall costs per wash
increased roughly 170 percent and 70 percent at facilities 18 and 19, respectively. This
increase in cost was due in large part to an increase in cleaning and drying times. Press
operators commented that cleaning and drying times were excessive, as reflected in the
performance data; performance results indicate a 150 percent increase and a 60 percent
increase in cleaning times at facilities 18 and 19, respectively.
Facility #
18
19
Cost/Wash
$1.66
$0.89
Cost/Press
$6.64
$3.56
Annual Cost*
$16,600
$8,900
Baseline Cost*
$6,200
$5,300
% Change**
+168
+68
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 19. A"+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-54
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Risks for this formulation could not be calculated due to the
unavailability of hazard values. However, risks are expected to be low based on structure-
activity predictions of low toxicity of propylene glycol ethers and poor absorption and low to
moderate toxicity of the fatty acid derivatives.
Inhalation Exposure: Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives present no
concern. Risks for propylene glycol ethers are expected to be low due to low exposure and low
hazard concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-55
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 20
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfohates
VOC Content: 35%; 2.7 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 170ฐF
pH: 7.1
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 5 strokes
dry ink- 7 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 20 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 11
based, their performance evaluation on a sample size of 17 blanket washes and printed with
conventional and vegetable-based inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash
to be fair, but worse than facility and baseline washes. The wash left an oily residue on the
blanket that required additional rotations to remove. The wash also was hard to apply to rags
due to its thick consistency.
Facility 12 based their performance evaluation on a sample size, of one blanket wash
and printed with conventional inks. The product induced nausea in press operators, and the
facility discontinued the test.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 20 instead of the baseline. Average costs per wash increased roughly 60
percent and 95 percent at facilities 11 and 12, respectively. For facility 11, this increase is
due in large part to an increase in cleaning times. Cleaning times at facility 11 increased from
an average of 60 seconds for the baseline to an average of 100 seconds for Blanket Wash 20.
The contribution of labor to the product cost for Facility 12 is based on only one observation.
Facility #
11
12
Cost/Wash
$1.13
$1.58
Cost/Press
$4.52
$6.32
Annual Cost*
$1 1 ,300
$15,800
Baseline Cost*
$7,000
$8,100
% Change**
+61
+95
' These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 20. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" Indicates a decrease.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks
for the other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of
hazard value. Risk from the alkyl benzene sulfonates is expected to be low based on
DRAFT
7-56
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity. Structure-
activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for aromatic hydrocarbons due to the
possible presence of carcinogenic compounds.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be
quantified but are expected to be low due to low or negligible exposures and low to moderate
hazard concerns.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: Aquatic species risk is due to the presence of alkyl benzene sulfonates.
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
Alkyl benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
X
SARA 313
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-57
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 21
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 47%; 3.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 115ฐF
pH: 6.2
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 7 strokes
dry ink- 6 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 his.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 21 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 6
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 6 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash to be fair. The wash
cut ink well, but the oily residue was difficult to remove and began to affect subsequent runs.
Extra waste sheets were required to get back up to color due to the residue.
Facility 17 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 25 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility also considered the performance of the wash
to be fair. This facility also found that the wash cut the ink well. The oily residue caused
print problems if it was not completely removed. In addition, the wash did not absorb into the
rag easily.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 21 instead of the baseline. Costs per wash increase roughly 120 percent
at facility 6 and 40 percent at facility 17 when compared to the baseline. Extra wiping was
required to clear the blanket as reflected in the performance data when compared to the
baseline, average cleaning times increased roughly 110 percent for facility 6 and 50 percent for
facility 17.
Facility #
6
17
Cost/Wash
$1.01
$0.58
Cost/Press
$4.04
$2.32
Annual Cost*
$10,100
$5,800
Baseline Cost*
$4,600
$4,100
% Change**
+120
+41
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 21. A"+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-58
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for aromatic
hydrocarbons and petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. However, the hazard values are based
upon inhalation studies. Risk for the fatty acid derivatives could not be quantified but are
expected to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. Due to negligible exposure and
predicted low toxicity and absorption, fatty acid derivatives present no concern.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-59
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 22
Composition:
Fatty acids derivatives
Hydrocarbons.aromatic
Water
VOC Content: Not measured
Flashpoint: 157ฐF (full strength)
pH: 7.4 (25%)
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 13 strokes
dry ink- 13 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 22 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 12
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 5 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility considered the wash to be a fair performer overall. The
substitute wash cut ink as well as the baseline, but it did not readily soak into the rag,
creating delays.
Facility 13 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 17 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility also considered the wash to be a fair
performer. The facility found that the wash was difficult to apply to the rag due to its thick
consistency. In addition, the wash left the blanket slightly streaked and wet. As a result,
extra drying time was required to prevent quality problems. The facility also found that the
wash cut ink as well as baseline wash, but it required greater effort.
Cost
Performance data indicate mixed results for Blanket Wash 22. Total costs per wash
increased 89 percent for facility 13, but increased only 1 percent for facility 12. Despite a 34
percent decrease in the average quantity used, costs associated with product use (i.e., volume
x price) increased 50 percent for facility 12. Blanket Wash 22 is priced at $13.15/gallon
compared to a price of $5.88/gallon for the baseline product. Average cleaning time increased
67 percent at facility 13 compared to the baseline.
Facility #
12
13
Cost/Wash
$0.82
$1.51
Cost/Press
$3.28
$6.04
Annual Cost*
$8,200
$15,100
Baseline Cost*
$8,100
$8,000
% Change**
+1
+89
' These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 22. A "V indicates an increase in, cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Risks for this formulation could not be calculated due to the
unavailability of hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard
concern for aromatic hydrocarbons due to the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds.
DRAFT
7-60
-------
CHAPTER 7:-EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risks from the fatty acid derivatives are expected to be low based on structure-activity
predictions of poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Risks could not be quantified but are expected to be low due to
low or negligible exposures,
Flamrnability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-61
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 23
Composition:
Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
VOC Content: 6%; 0.48 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 140ฐF
pH: 9.2
Performance
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
Wipability: wet ink- 24 strokes Blanket swell:
dry ink- 100 strokes
The performance of Blanket Wash 23 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 23 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate possible concerns for
terpenes and nitrogen heterocyclics. However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an
oral study. Risks for the alkoxylated alcohols could not be quantified but are expected to be
low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
terpenes and nitrogen heterocyclics. However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an
oral study. Risks for the alkoxylated alcohols could not be quantified but are expected to be
low based on low exposure and structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low to
moderate toxicity.
Flammabiliry: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-62
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 24
Composition:
Terpenes
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Water
VOC Content: 19%; 1.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 100ฐF
pH: 9.9
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 15 strokes
dry ink- 12 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of-Blanket Wash 24 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 16
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 28 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility found that the wash cut ink well. However, the wash left an
oily residue, which required some extra effort to wipe off. In addition, the oily residue
significantly increased the number of copies required to return to print quality.
Facility 17 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of four blanket washes
arid printed with conventional inks. This facility also found that the wash cut ink well. Again,
extra effort was required to wipe off the oily residue. In addition, the thick consistency of the
wash caused the operator to curtail use. The. operator felt that the citrus odor of the wash was
very strong.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 24 instead of the baseline. Costs per wash increased roughly 50 percent
at facility 16 and 110 percent at facility 17, when compared to the baseline. When compared
to the baseline, average cleaning times increased 18 percent and 16O percent for facilities 16
and 17, respectively. Despite the fact that facility 17 used a smaller average quantity of
Blanket Wash 24 compared to the baseline, the costs associated with blanket wash use (i.e.,
volume x price) increased due to a much higher price per gallon. The manufacturers price for
product 24 is $17.85/gallon versus $5.88/gallon for the baseline product. Costs associated
with product use (i.e., volume x price) increased roughly 220 percent and 160 percent for
facilities 16 and 17, respectively.
Facility #
16
17
Cost/Wash
$0.97
$0.88
Cost/Press
$3.88
$3.52
Annual Cost*
$9,700
$8,800
Baseline Cost*
$6,600
$4,100
% Change**
+47
+115
' These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 24. .A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
7-63
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for alkyl benzene
sulfonates and terpenes, possible concern for ethylene glycol ethers, and very low concern for
ethoxylated nonylphenol. However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an oral study.
Risks for alkali/salts could not be quantified but are expected to be very low based on
structure-activity predictions of no absorption and low to moderate toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
terpenes and ethylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard value for terpenes is based upon an
oral study. Due to negligible exposure, the other chemicals in this formulation present no
concern.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Ethylene glycol
ethers
Alkali/salts
Alkyl benzene
sulfonates
CWA
X
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
OSHA
DRAFT
7-64
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 25
Composition:
Terpenes
Esters/Iactones
VOC Content: 55%; 4.1 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 220+ฐF
pH: 4.3
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 22 strokes
dry ink- 32 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 3.0%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
Cost
The performance of Blanket Wash 25 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 25 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure '.'.,.
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure'calculations indicate concern for exposure to
terpenes and possible concern for exposure to esters/lactones. However, the hazard values
are based upon oral studies. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be
quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. The other chemicals are all terpene-type
compounds and are rated as low to moderate hazard concern based on structure-activity
analysis.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to terpenes and esters/lactones. However, the hazard values are based upon oral
studies. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified but are expected
to be low based on low exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-65
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 26
Composition:
Fatty acids derivatives
Esters/lactones
, VOC Content: 18%; 1.3 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 7.8 (fluctuates wildly)
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 6 strokes
dry ink- 14 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.- 0.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 26 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 5
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 14 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility considered the performance to be good after every wash. The
wash performed as well as both the standard facility wash and the baseline wash. However, a
slight oily residue caused print quality problems when the wash was used for roller clean-up.
Facility 15 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 22 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility also considered the performance to be good
after every wash. Again, the wash performed as well as both the standard facility wash and
the baseline wash.
Cost
Performance data indicate mixed results for Blanket Wash 26. Total costs per wash
increased roughly 30 percent for facility 5, but decreased 6 percent at facility 15. Despite the
fact that Blanket Wash 26 is priced higher than the baseline wash, differences in costs
associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) did not contribute to the higher overall cost
per wash at facility 5. Blanket Wash 26 is priced at $12.24/gallon compared to a price of
$5.88/gallon for the baseline. Performance data indicate that the average quantity of blanket
wash used at both facilities decreased by roughly 40 percent compared to the baseline. The
savings experienced by facility 26 result from a 14 percent decrease in cleaning time compared
to the baseline.
Facility #
5
15
Cost/Wash
$0.73
$0.47
Cost/Press
$2.92
$1.88
Annual Cost*
$7,300
$4,700
Baseline Cost*
$5,500
$5,000
% Change**
+33
-6
' These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease In cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 26. A"+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-66
-------
CHAPTER 7-. EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for esters/lactones
and very low concern for the fatty acid derivatives. However, the hazard values are based
upon oral studies. Risks for the fatty acid derivatives could not be quantified but are expected
to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Due to negligible exposure, the chemicals used in this
formulation present no concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-67
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 27
Composition:
Terpenes
VOC Content: 93%; 7.2 ibs/gai
Flashpoint: 145ฐF
pH: 3.9
Performance
wet ink- 3 strokes
dry ink- 3 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 3.0%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
Wipability:
The performance of Blanket Wash 27 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 27 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for terpenes.
However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Risks for the other chemicals in this
formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values. The other
chemicals are all terpene-type compounds and are rated as low to moderate hazard concern
based on structure-activity analysis. . . ;
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
terpenes. However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Risks for the other
chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified but are expected to be low based on low
exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-68
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 28
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
VOC Content: 100%; 6.2 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 50ฐF
pH: 6.6
Performance
Wipability: wet ink- 3 strokes
dry ink- 8 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 28 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 28 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard
values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a low to moderate concern for petroleum distillate
hydrocarbons.
Flammability: Not available
Environmental: Not available
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-69
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 29
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 30%; 2.1 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 7.2
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 9 strokes
dry Ink- 18 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 29 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 7
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of three blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash to be good. The wash
cut ink well; however, extra effort was required to dry the blanket.
Facility 8 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 36 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility noted that the wash did not cut ink as well as
the baseline wash and did not cut paper dust or powder. In addition, a slightly oily film
remained on the blanket, which required more effort to remove.
Cost
Using Blanket Wash 29 rather than the baseline, costs per press increased roughly 60
percent at both facilities 7 and 8. Blanket Wash 29 is priced three-times higher than the
baseline, contributing significantly to the higher overall costs associated with its use. Costs
associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) increase 300 percent and 230 percent at
facilities 7 and 8 respectively due primarily to the products higher price. Blanket Wash 29 is
priced at $18.00/gallon compared to a price of $5.88/gallon for the baseline. In addition,
average cleaning times are higher for Blanket Wash 29 compared to the baseline for both
facilities. Cleaning times increased 22 percent for facility 7 and 64 percent for facility 8.
Facility #
7
8
Cost/Wash
$0.93
$0.89
Cost/Press
$3.72
$3.56
Annual Cost*
$9,300
$8,900
Baseline Cost*
$5,700
$5,500
% Change**
+63
+62
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 29. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" Indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-70
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Risks for this formulation could not be quantified but are expected
to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low toxicity for the
fatty acid derivatives.
Inhalation Exposure: Due to negligible exposure, the chemicals in this formulation
present no concern.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-71
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 30
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
VOC Content: 7%; 0.48 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 100ฐF (full strength)
pH: 7.6 (25%)
Performance
Wipability:
wet Ink- 5 strokes
dry ink- 11 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.7%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 30 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 18
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of three blanket washes and printed with
soy oil-based inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash to be good. This
facility noted that the wash cut ink well and worked best when riot diluted with water;
Facility 19 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of eight blanket washes
and printed with soy oil-based inks. This facility also noted that the wash cut ink well.
However, the wash left an oily film on the blanket, which required extra effort to dry. In
addition, the thick consistency of the wash was difficult to use, and extra effort was required
due to its resistance to the surface of the blanket.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost
when using Blanket Wash 30 instead of the baseline. Compared to the baseline, costs per
wash increased roughly 60 percent at facility 18 and 20 percent at facility 19. Increased
cleaning time was the primary contributor to the higher cost per wash for both facilities.
According to the performance data, cleaning times at facility 18 increased from an average of
48 seconds for the baseline to an average of 82 seconds for Blanket Wash 30; however, this
alternative was only tested under heavy ink coverage conditions and the baseline wash was
observed under light and medium coverage conditions. The press operator at facility 19
commented that Blanket Wash 30 evaporated slowly; cleaning times for the alternative
Increased by roughly 30 percent, compared to the baseline.
Facility #
18
19
Cost/Wash
$1.01
$0.62
Cost/Press
$4.04
$2.48
Annual Cost*
$ro,ioo
$6,200
Baseline Cost*
$6,200
$5,300
% Change**
+63
+17
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 30. A"+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-72
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for aromatic
hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for
propylene glycol ethers could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard values.
Structure-activity analysis indicates low hazard concern for propylene glycol ethers.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for propylene glycol ethers could not be quantified but are
expected to be low based on low exposure and structure-activity predictions of low toxicity.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns .
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-73
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 31
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
VOC Content: 99%; 6.6 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 105ฐF
pH: 7.6
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 3 strokes
dry Ink- 3 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 31 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 7
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of four blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility found that the wash cut ink well. However, the wash left an
oily residue on the blanket, which required slightly more effort to remove. In addition, the oily
residue slightly increased the number of copies required to return to print quality. The facility
noted that the smell was not as strong as the facility's standard wash or the baseline wash.
Facility 8 based their performance .evaluation on a sample size of 61 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility also found that the wash cut ink well. The
wash performed as well as the standard wash, and the facility considered the performance to
be good. Slightly more effort was required due to the resistance of the wash to the surface of
the blanket.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost
when using Blanket Wash 31 instead of the baseline. Compared to the baseline, costs per
wash increased roughly 180 percent at facility 7 and 7 percent at facility 8. The press operator
at facility 7 observed that drying times for Blanket Wash 31 were greater than the baseline;
cleaning times averaged 140 seconds for Blanket Wash 31, compared to 45 seconds for the
baseline product. The press operator at facility 8 experienced a decrease in cleaning time, but
an increase in the quantity of blanket wash used. According to the performance data, cleaning
times at facility 8 decreased by 4 percent compared to the baseline. The average quantity of
blanket wash used, however, increases roughly 60 percent, off-setting the gains in labor
savings.
Facility #
7
8
Cost/Wash
$1.59
$0.59
Cost/Press
$6.36
$2.36
Annual Cost*
$15,900
$5,900
Baseline Cost*
$5,700
$5,500
% Change**
+179
+7
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 31. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-74
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for exposure to
aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks
for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified due to the unavailability of
hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates low to moderate hazard concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be
quantified but are expected to be low based on low exposure and structure-activity predictions
of low to moderate toxicity.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-75
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 32
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
VOC Content: 99%; 6.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 220ฐF
pH: 8.5
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 5 strokes
dry Ink- 30 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.-0.1%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 32 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 1
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of four blanket washes and printed with
vegetable-based inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash to be good.
However, the substitute wash required slightly higher effort to remove excess wash than the
standard wash. The substitute wash left an oily-residue on the blanket affecting subsequent
print quality.
Facility 5 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 12 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility also considered the performance of the wash
to be good. The substitute wash left a slight, oily residue that was removed with dry rags; the
residue did not affect print quality.
Cost
Performance data indicate mixed results in the performance of Blanket Wash 32. Total
costs per wash increased roughly 120 percent at facility 1, but decreased 20 percent at facility
5. Material costs (i.e., press wipes) contributed significantly to the higher costs per wash
observed at facility 1. Costs associated with material use increased roughly 160 percent
compared to the baseline. Facility 5 reported lower cleaning times and reduced blanket wash
use for Blanket Wash 32, compared to the baseline. Performance results indicate a 15 percent
decrease in cleaning time and a 60 percent decrease in the quantity of blanket wash used for
facility 5.
1 Facility #
1
5
Cost/Wash
$1.31
$0.43
Cost/Press
$5.24
$1.72
Annual Cost*
$13,100
$4,300
Baseline Cost*
$5,900
$5,300
% Change**
+122
-19
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 32. A"+" indicates an Increase in cost, and a "-" Indicates a decrease.
DRAFT
7-76
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Risk and Exposure
Risks for this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard
values. Structure-activity analysis indicates low to moderate hazard concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
7-77
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 33
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
VOC Content: 46%; 3.4 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 105ฐF
pH: 7.2 (fluctuates wildly)
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 4 strokes
dry ink- 4 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 4.5%
5 hrs.- 7.6%
The performance of Blanket Wash 33 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 33 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons and very low concern for propylene glycol
ethers. However, the hazard values for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and aromatic
hydrocarbons are based upon an inhalation study.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and propylene glycol ethers.
Flammability: Not available
Environmental: Not available
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
[Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 313
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
DRAFT
7-78
-------
CHAPTER?: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 34
Composition:
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 39%; 2.8 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 138ฐF
pH: 6.6
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 10 strokes
dry ink- 20 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 34 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 1
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 37 blanket washes and printed with
vegetable-based inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash to be good. The
wash cut the ink well with the same effort as with the standard wash for light/medium ink
coverage. For heavy ink coverage, slightly more effort was required, but the level of effort was
acceptable.
Facility 19 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 13 blanket washes
and printed with soy-oil based inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash to be
fair/poor. Again, the wash cut the ink well. However, it did not soak into the rag. In addition,
the wash left an oily residue, which required extra effort to remove. .
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost
when using Blanket Wash 34 instead of the baseline; average costs per wash increased
roughly 50 percent and 80 percent at facilities 1 and 19, respectively. Performance data
indicate that costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) at facility 1 increased
roughly 160 percent. This increase is completely attributable to the alternative product's
higher price. Blanket Wash 34 is priced at $15/gallon compared to a price of $5.88/gallon for
the baseline. At facility 19, increased cleaning time is the single largest contributor to the
higher average cost per wash of Blanket Wash 34; cleaning times averaged 67 seconds for
Blanket Wash 31, compared to 41 seconds for the baseline product.
Facility #
1
19
Cost/Wash
$0.89
$0.95
Cost/Press
$3.56
$3.80
Annual Cost*
$8,900
$9,500
Baseline Cost*
$5,900
$5,300
% Change
+51
+79
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 34. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
7-79
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for terpenes and
very low concern for the fatty acid derivatives. However, the hazard values are based upon
oral studies. Risks for fatty acid derivatives could not be quantified but are expected to be low
based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low to moderate toxicity. Risks
for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified. Structure-activity analysis
indicates low to moderate hazard concern for these chemicals.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
terpenes. However, the hazard value is based upon an oral study. Due to negligible exposure,
the fatty acid derivatives present no concern. Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons
could not be quantified but are expected to be low due to low exposure and structure-activity
predictions of low to moderate hazard concern.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-80
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 35
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
VOC Content: 99%; .6.7 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 105ฐF
pH: 6.0 , .
Performance
wet ink- 3 strokes
dry ink- 5 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 6.1%
Wipability:
The performance of Blanket Wash 35 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost-estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 35 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for aromatic
hydrocarbons. However, the hazard value is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard
values. Structure-activity analysis indicates low to moderate hazard concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified
but are expected to be low based on low exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to
moderate toxicity.
Flammability: Moderate risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
7-81
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash Formulation 36
Composition:
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
VOC Content: 48%; 3.5 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 175ฐF
pH: 5.7 (fluctuates wildly)
Performance
wet ink- 4 strokes
dry ink- 5 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.7%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
Wipability:
The performance of Blanket Wash 36 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
Cost estimates associated with using Blanket Wash 36 were not developed.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons and very low concern for propylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard
value for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons is based upon an inhalation study. Risks for other
chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of hazard
values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for aromatic
hydrocarbons due to the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. Risks from fatty acid
derivatives are expected to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption
and low toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons and propylene glycol ethers. Due to negligible exposure, the
fatty acid derivatives present no concern. Risks from aromatic hydrocarbons could not be
quantified but are expected to be low due to low exposure.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
1 Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
DRAFT
7-82
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 37
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
VOC Content: 14%; 1.0 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 82ฐF
pH: 3.9
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 5 strokes
dry ink- 8 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 3.0%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 37 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 3 .
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 17 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility noted that longer drying time was required with the substitute
wash than with the baseline and standard facility washes. The performance was rated as good
and fair on light and medium coverages, respectively. The press operators had no problems
with the substitute wash.
Facility 4 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of six blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility found that the substitute wash worked well
initially but caused paper breakup due to blanket tackiness. Use of the substitute wash was
discontinued.
Cost
Performance data indicate a reduced financial cost when using Blanket Wash 37
instead of the baseline. Average costs per wash decreased roughly 13 percent and 7 percent at
facilities 3 and 4, respectively. Overall costs per wash decreased due to reduced cleaning time
and material use (i.e., press wipes). Compared to the baseline, cleaning times decreased
roughly 20 percent at both facilities 3 and 4.
Facility #
3
4
Cost/Wash
$0.48
$0.79
Cost/Press
$1.92
$3.16
Annual Cost*
$4,800
$7,900
Baseline Cost*
$5,500
$8,500
% Change**
+13
-7
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent Increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 37. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate possible concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified
due to the unavailability of hazard values." The petroleum distillate hydrocarbons present low
to moderate hazard concern based on structure-activity analysis.
7-83
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
aromatic hydrocarbons. Risks for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified
but are expected to be low due to low exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to
moderate hazard. , .
Flammability: High risk , '
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
DRAFT
7-84
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 38
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
VOC Content: 65%; 4.9 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 230+ฐF
pH: 5.6
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 9 strokes
dry ink- 16 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
The performance of Blanket Wash 38 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 2
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of nine blanket washes and printed with
conventional and vegetable-based inks. This facility found that the wash left an oily residue,
which caused print quality problems. Use of the substitute wash was discontinued-due to
poor performance and print quality problems.
Facility 4 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of six blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility found that the wash cut ink satisfactorily.
However, use of the substitute wash was discontinued due to print quality problems
associated with the oily residue.
Cost
Performance data indicate an increased financial cost when using Blanket Wash 38
instead of the baseline. Average costs per wash increased roughly 100 percent at facility 2 and
30 percent at facility 4. Costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) contributed
significantly to the higher overall costs of using Blanket Wash 38. Specifically, compared to
the baseline, costs associated with blanket wash use increased 400 percent at facility 2 and
roughly 260 percent at facility 4 due primarily to Blanket Wash 38's high price. Blanket Wash
38 is priced at $19.00/gallon compared to $5.88/gallon for the baseline.
Facility #
2
4
Cost/Wash
$1.08
$1.11
Cost/Press
$4.32
$4.44
Annual Cost*
$10,800
$11,100
Baseline Cost*
$5,300
$8,500
% Change**
+104
+31
These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 38. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
7-85
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Risks for this formulation could not be quantified due to the
unavailability of hazard values. The fatty acid derivatives and alkoxylated alcohols are
expected to present low risk based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption and low
or low to moderate toxicity. Petroleum distillate hydrocarbons present low to moderate hazard
concern based on structure-activity analysis.
Inhalation Exposure: Due to negligible exposure, the fatty acid derivatives present no
concern. Risks for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons could not be quantified but are expected
to be low due to low exposure and structure-activity predictions of low to moderate toxicity.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
DRAFT
7-86
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 39
Composition:
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers
VOC Content: 37%; 2.9 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 155ฐF
pH: 9.2
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 7 strokes
dry Ink- 10 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance, of Blanket Wash 39 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 5
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 32 blanket washes and printed with
conventional inks. This facility found that the wash cut ink well and rated its performance as
good overall. However, the substitute wash did not dry as quickly as the baseline wash and
left an oily residue on the blanket. In addition, the product did not work well on rollers.
Facility 8 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of five blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks. This facility noted that the wash did not cut ink well and,
thus, required extra time and effort to clean the blankets. In addition, it was difficult to get
the wash to soak into rags, arid the wash left an oily residue on the blanket.
Cost
The results of the performance demonstration indicate an increased financial cost when
using Blanket Wash 39 instead of the baseline. Costs at facilities 5 and 8 increased roughly
25 percent and 45 percent respectively when using Blanket Wash 39 instead of the baseline.
Performance results indicated roughly a 40 percent increase in cleaning time at both facilities
5 and 8. Despite a 30 percent decrease in the average quantity of blanket wash used, the
costs associated with product use (i.e., volume x price) did not vary between Blanket Wash 39
and the baseline. The manufacturer's price for product 39 is $12.35/gallon compared to
$5.88/gallon for the baseline product.
Facility #
5
8
Cost/Wash
$0.69
$0.80
Cost/Press
$2.76
$3.20
Annual Cost*
$6,900
$8,000
Baseline Cost*
$5,500
$5,500
% Change**
+25
+45
* These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease in cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 39. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
7-87
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons, propylene glycol ethers, and alkanolamines as well as possible concern
for other propylene glycol ethers. However, the hazard value for petroleum distillate
hydrocarbons is based on an inhalation study.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons, propylene glycol ethers, and ethylene glycol ethers.
However, the hazard value used for propylene glycol ethers is based on an oral study. Due to
negligible exposure, alkanolamines present no concern.
Flarnmability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
Chemical
; Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol
ethers
CWA
CAA
X
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
X
RCRA
OSHA
X
DRAFT
7-88
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
Blanket Wash Formulation 40
Composition:
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
VOC Content: 52%; 3.8 Ibs/gal
Flashpoint: 155ฐF
pH: 4.8
Performance
Wipability:
wet ink- 5 strokes
dry ink- 10 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.~ 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
The performance of Blanket Wash 40 was demonstrated at two facilities. Facility 1
based their performance evaluation on a sample size of six blanket washes and printed with
vegetable-based inks. This facility considered the performance of the wash to be good. The
facility noted that when the wash was diluted with water, it left a residue. There was no
residue when the wash was used full strength.
Facility 10 based their performance evaluation on a sample size of 20 blanket washes
and printed with conventional inks.. This facility found that the wash cut ink well and rated its
performance good. The facility noted that the wash required slightly more effort when coverage
was heavy. ...... , . , v _. .
Cost
Performance data indicate mixed results in the performance of Blanket Wash 40.
Compared to the baseline, average costs increased roughly 35 percent at facility 1 but
decreased 4 percent at facility 10. The higher cost experienced by facility 1 is attributable to
Blanket Wash 40's higher price as well as an increase in the average number of press wipes
used. The average quantity of blanket wash used by facility 1 is 2.5 ounces for both the
alternative as well as the baseline; however, costs associated with blanket wash use (i.e.,
volume x price) increased roughly 80 percent due to Blanket Wash 40's higher price. The
reduced costs experienced by facility 10 are attributable to a reduction in the average quantity
of blanket wash used. Costs associated with product use decreased roughly 30 percent for .
facility 10.
Facility #
1
10
Cost/Wash
$0.79
$0.87
Cost/Press
$3.16
$3.48
Annual Cost*
$7,900
$8,700
Baseline Cost*
$5,900
$9,100
% Change**
+34
-4
' These costs refer to the cost/press/shift/year
** Refers to the percent increase or decrease In cost that this facility would incur if it switched from using
VM&P naphtha to using Blanket Wash 40. A "+" indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
7-89
DRAFT
-------
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Risk and Exposure
Dermal Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate concern for petroleum
distillate hydrocarbons and very low concern for ethoxylated nonylphenol. However, the
hazard value for petroleum distillate hydrocarbons is based upon an inhalation study. Risks
for other chemicals in this formulation could not be quantified due to the unavailability of
hazard values. Structure-activity analysis indicates a moderate hazard concern for aromatic
hydrocarbons due to the possible presence of carcinogenic compounds. Risks from fatty acid
derivatives are expected to be low based on structure-activity predictions of poor absorption
and low toxicity.
Inhalation Exposure: Margin of exposure calculations indicate very low concern for
petroleum distillate hydrocarbons. Due to negligible exposure, fatty acid derivatives and
ethoxylated nonylphenol present no concern. Risks from aromatic hydrocarbons could not be
quantified but are expected to be low due to low exposure.
Flammability: Low risk
Environmental: No measured risk
Regulatory Concerns
The following table indicates which chemical categories present in this blanket wash
contain chemicals that may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
1 Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 31 3
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
DRAFT
7-90
-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
References
1. Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA. Telecon with Schuler, Scott, Printing Industries of Minnesota.
November 29, 1995a.
2. Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA. Telecon with Kim, Eva, Printing Industries of Illinois.
Decembers, 1995b.
3. Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA. Telecon with Dave Dunlap, Uniform and Textile Service
Association. July 24, 1995c.
4. Abt Associates Inc. 1993. The Medical Costs of Five Illnesses Related to Exposure to Pollutants.
Draft Report.
5. Krupnick, Alan J., et al. 1989. Valuing Chronic Morbidity Damages: Medical Costs and Labor
Market Effects. Draft Final Report on EPA Cooperative Agreement CR-814559-01-0. Resources for
the Future.
6. Mishan, E.J. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Praeger Publishers. New York. 1976.
7. OTA, Office of Technical Assistance, Toxics Use Reduction Case Study: VOC Reduction at
Hampden Papers Inc., Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of Technical Assistance, no date.
7-91
DRAFT
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A.1 HAZARD PROFILE
The environmental hazard assessment of chemicals consists of the identification of the
effects that a chemical may have on organisms in the environment. An overview of this
assessment process has been reported by Zeeman and Gilford (1993a). The effects are expressed
in terms of the toxicity of a chemical on the organisms and are generally given as the effective
concentration (EC) that describe the type and seriousness of the effect for a known concentration
of a chemical. When the effective concentrations for a range of species for a chemical is tabulated,
the tabulation is called a Hazard Profile or Toxicity Profile. A more detailed discussion of a
comprehensive Hazard Profile has been presented by Nabholz, 1991. The most frequently used
Hazard Profile for the aquatic environment consists of six effective concentrations as reported by
Nabholz, et al., (1993a). These are:
Fish acute value (usually a fish 96-hour LC50 value)
Aquatic invertebrate acute value (usually a daphnid 48-hour LC50 value)
Green algal toxicity value (usually an algal 96-hour EC50 value)
Fish chronic value (usually a fish 28-day chronic value (ChV))
Aquatic invertebrate chronic value (usually a daphnid 21-day ChV value)
Algal chronic value (usually an algal 96-hour NEC value for biomass)
For the acute values, the LC50 (mortality) (EC50) (effects) refers to the concentration that
results in 50 percent of the test organisms affected at the end of the specified exposure period.
The chronic values represent the concentration of the chemical that results in no statistically
significant effects on the test organism following a chronic exposure.
The Hazard Profile can be constructed using effective concentrations based on toxicity test
data (measured) or estimated toxicity values based on Structure Activity Relationships (SARs).
The measured values are preferred, but in the absence of test data SAR estimates, if available for
the chemical class, can be used. Thus the Hazard Profile may consist of only measured data, only
predicted values, or a combination of both. Also, the amount of data in the hazard profile may
range from a minimum of one acute or chronic value to the full compliment of three acute values
and three chronic values.
In the absence of measured toxicity values, estimates of these values can be made using
Structure Activity Relationships (SARs). SAR methods include Quantitative Structure Activity
Relationships (QSARs), qualitative SARs or use of the best analog. The use of SARs by OPPT has
been described (Clements, 1988; Clements, et al., 1994 in press). The use and application of
QSARs for the hazard assessment of new chemicals has been presented (Clements, et al., 1993a).
The development, validation and application of SARs in OPPT have been presented by OPPT staff
(Zeeman, etal., 1993b; Boethling, 1993; Clements, etal., 1993b; Nabholz, etal., 1993b; Newsome,
et al., 1993 and Lipnick, 1993).
A-1
'DRAFT*
-------
APPENDIX A
The predictive equations (QSARs) are used in lieu of test data to estimate a toxicity value
for aquatic organisms within a specific chemical class. Although the equations are derived from
correlation and linear regression analysis based on measured data, the confidence interval
associated with the equation are not used to provide a range of toxicity values. Even with
measured test data, the use of the confidence limits to determine the range of values is not used.
A.2 DETERMINATION OF CONCERN CONCENTRATION
Upon completion of a hazard profile, a concern concentration (CC) is determined. A
concern concentration is that concentration of a chemical in the aquatic environment which, if
exceeded, may cause a significant risk. Conversely, if the CC is not exceeded, the assumption is
made that probability of a significant risk occurring is low and no regulatory action is required.
The CC for each chemical is determined by applying Assessment Factors (AsF) (USEPA 1984) to
the effect concentrations in the hazard profile.
Assessment Factors incorporate the concept of the uncertainty associated with (1) toxicity
data; laboratory tests versus field test and measured versus estimated data and (2) species
sensitivity. For example, if only a single LC50 value for a single species, is available, there several
uncertainties to consider. First, how good is the value itself? If the test were to be done again by
the same laboratory or a different laboratory, would the value differ? Second, there are differences
in sensitity (toxicity) among and between species that have to be considered. Is the species tested
the most or the least sensitive? In general, if only a single toxicity value is available, there is a
large uncertainty about the applicability of this value to other organisms in the environment and
large assessment factor, i.e., 1000, is applied to cover the breadth of sensitivity known to exist
among and between organisms in the environment. Conversely, the more information that is
available results in more certainty concerning the toxicity values and requires the use of a smaller
assessment factor. For example, if toxicity values are derived from field tests, then an assessment
factor on 1 is used.
Four AsFs are used by OPPT to set a CC for chronic risk: 1, 10, 100, and 1000. The AsF
used is dependent on the amount and type of toxicity data contained in the hazard profile and
reflects the amount of uncertainty about the potential effects associated with a toxicity value. In
general, the more complete the hazard profile and the greater the quality of the toxicity data, a
smaller factor is used. The following discussion describes the use and application of the
assessment factors:
1. If the hazard profile only contains one or two acute toxicity values, the concern
concentration is set at 1/1000 of the acute value.
2. If the hazard profile contains three acute values (base set), the concern
concentration is set at 1/100 of the lowest acute value.
3. If the hazard profile contains one chronic value, the concern concentration is set
at 1 /10 of the chronic value if the value is for the most sensitive species. Otherwise,
it is 1/100 of the acute value for the most sensitive species.
4. If the hazard profile contains three chronic values, the concern concentration is set
at 1/10 of the lowest chronic value.
5. If the hazard profile contains a measured chronic value from a field study, then an
assessment factor of 1 is used.
"DRAFT**
A-2
-------
APPEMDfXA
A.3 HAZARD RANKING
Chemicals can be also be ranked according to hazard concern levels for the aquatic
environment. This ranking can be based upon the acute toxicity values expressed in milligrams
per liter (mg/L). The generally accepted scoring is as follows (Wagner, et al. 1995):
High Concern (H)
Moderate Concern (M)
Low Concern (L)
< 1
> 1 and < 100
> 100
This ranking can also be expressed in terms of chronic values .as follows:
High Concern (H)
Moderate Concern (M)
Low Concern (L)
>0.1 and< 10.0
> 10.0
Chronic toxicity ranking takes precedent over the acute ranking.
References
Boethling, R.S. 1993. Structure Activity Relationships for Evaluation of Biodegradability in the
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment,
2nd Volume, ASTM STP 1216, J.W. Gorsuch, F. James Dwyer, Christopher G. Ingersoll, and
Thomas W. La Point, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp.
540-554.
Clements, R.G. (Ed.) 1988, "Estimating Toxicity of Industrial Chemicals to Aquatic Organisms
Using Structure Activity Relationships," EPA-748-R-93-001, Environmental Effects Branch, Health
and Environmental Review Division (7403), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. PB94-108206, National Technical Information
Services (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22161.
Clements, R.G. (Ed.) 1994, "Estimating Toxicity of Industrial Chemicals to Aquatic Organisms
Using Structure Activity Relationships," EPA-560/6-88-001, Environmental Effects Branch, Health
and Environmental Review Division (7403), Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. PB89-117592, National Technical Information Services
(NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22161. In Press.
Clements, R.G., J.V. Nabholz, D.W. Johnson and M. Zeeman. 1993a. "The Use and Application
of QSAR's in the Office of Toxic Substances for Ecological Hazard Assessment of New Chemicals".
Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, ASTM STP 1179, Wayne G. Landis, Jane S.
Hughes, and Michael A. Lewis, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1993, pp. 56-64.
Clements, R.G., J.V. Nabholz, D.E. Johnson, and M.G. Zeeman. 1993b. "The Use of Quantitative
Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs) as Screening Tools in Environmental Assessment".
Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. 2nd Volume. ASTM STP 1216, J.W. Gorsuch, F.
James Dwyer, Christopher G. Ingersoll, and Thomas W. La Point, Eds., American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 555-570.
Lipnick, R.L. "Baseline Toxicity QSAR Models: A Means to Assess Mechanism of Toxicity for
Aquatic Organisms and Mammals. Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. 2nd Volume,
A-3
**DRAFP*
-------
APPENDIX A
ASTM SIP 1216, J.W. Gorsuch, F. James Dwyer, Christopher G. Ingersoll, and Thomas W. La
Point, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 610-619.
Nabholz, J.V., 1991. "Environmental Hazard and Risk Assessment Under the United States Toxic
Substances Control Act,: The Science of the Total Environment. Vol. 109/110, pp. 649-665.
Nabholz, J.V., Miller, P., and Zeeman, M., 1993a "Environmental Risk Assessment of New
Chemicals Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section Five," Environmental
Toxicology and Risk Assessment ASTM STP 1179, Wayne G. Landis, Jane S. Hughes, and Michael
A. Lewis, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 40-55.
Nabholz, J.V., Clements, R.G., Zeeman, M.G., Osborn, K.C. and R. Wedge. 1993b "Validation of
Structure Activity Relationships Used by the USEPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics for
the Environmental Hazard Assessment of Industrial Chemicals. Environmental Toxicology and
Risk Assessment. 2nd Volume. ASTM STP 1216, J.W. Gorsuch, F. James Dwyer, Christopher G.
Ingersoll, and Thomas W. La Point, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1993, pp. 571-590.
Newsome, L.D., Johnson, D.E. and J.V. Nabholz. "Quantitative Structure-Activity Predictions for
Amine Toxicity Algae and Daphnids". Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, 2nd
Volume. ASTM STP 1216, J.W. Gorsuch, F. James Dwyer, Christopher G. Ingersoll, and Thomas
W. La Point, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 591-609.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1984. "Estimating Concern Levels for
Concentrations of Chemical Substances in the Environment," Environmental Effects Branch,
Health and Environmental Review Division (7403) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Wagner, P.M., Nabholz, J.V., Kent, R.J. 1995. "The New Chemicals Process at the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA): Structure-Activity Relationships for Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment." Toxicology Letters 79:67-73.
Zeeman, M.G. and James Gilford. 1993a. "Ecological Hazard Evaluation and Risk Assessment
Under EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): An Introduction". Environmental Toxicology
and Risk Assessment. ASTM STP 1179, Wayne G. Landis, Jane S. Hughes, and Michael A. Lewis,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 7-21
Zeeman, M.G. Nabholz, J.V., and R.G. Clements. 1993b. "The Development of SAR/QSARfor Use
Under EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): An Introduction. Environmental Toxicology
and Risk Assessment. 2nd Volume. ASTM STP 1216, J.W. Gorsuch, F. James Dwyer, Christopher
G. Ingersoll, and Thomas W. La Point, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 523-539.
"DRAFT*
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
This appendix presents the following model input data used for developing the exposure
information presented in Chapter 3:
B. 1 Sample Formulation Calculations for Modeling for 4 Chemicals
B.2 ISCLT Input File Example
B.3 BOXMOD Model Run For Sample Formulations for 2 Chemicals
B.1 SAMPLE FORMULATION CALCULATIONS FOR MODELING
B.1.1. Solvent Naphtha, heavy aromatic:
ISCLT Parameters:
Half-life in air: 2.5 days (from Fate Summary)
x 24 hours/day x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute = 216,000 seconds
Release Rate for Single Facility:
0.02429 g/sec *-100 m2 = 0.0002429 = 2.4 x 10'4 g/sec/m2
Model Result: 4.3 ng/m3
Exposure calculations:
mg per year:
4.3 uxj/m3 x 20 m3/day x 250 days/year -> 1000 = 21.5 mg/year = 20 mg/year
Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
4.3 fig/m3 x 20 m3/day x 0.001 H- 70 kg = 1.2 x 10"3 mg/kg/day = 1 x 10"3 mg/kg/day
BOXMOD Parameters:
DECAY = 0.693 * 216000 = 3.21 X 10'6
Time Constant= 1 - DECAY = 216000 - 0.693 = 311688
Molecular Weight = 128
Release Rate for Denver:
0.02429 kg/site/day x 235 sites = 5.7 kg/day
5.7 kg/day -s- 277130000 m2 (277.13 km2) = 2.1 x 10'8 g/sec/m2
Model Result: 0.68 u.g/m3
Air Potential Dose calculations:
mg per year:
0.68 x 20 m3/day x 250 days/year -5-1000 uxj/mg = 3 mg/year
Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
0.68 x 20 m3/day x .001 -^ 70 kg = 1.9 x 10~4 mg/kg/day = 2 x 10"4 mg/kg/day
B-1
**DRAFT"
-------
APPENDIX B
B.1.2. Propylene glyco! monobutyl ether
ISCLT Parameters:
Half-life in air: 14 hours
14 hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute = 50400 seconds
Release Rate for Single Facility:
0.03815 g/sec *-100 m2 = 0.0003815 g/sec/m2
Model Result: 4.7 u.g/m3
Exposure calculations:
mg per yean
4.7 u.g/m3 x 20 ms/day x 250 days/year + 1000 = 23.5 mg/year ~ 20 mg/year
Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
4.7 u.g/m3 x 20 m3/day x 0.001 * 70 kg = 1.3 x 10'3 mg/kg/day ซ 1 x 10"3 mg/kg/day
BOXMOD Parameters:
DECAY = 0.693 * 50400 = 1.38 x 10'5
Time Constant = 1 -^ DECAY = 50400/0.693 = 72728
Molecular Weight = 132
Release Rate for Denver:
0.03815 kg/site/day x 235 sites = 9.0 kg/day
9.0 kg/day * 277130000 m2 (277.13 km2) = 3.2 x 10"8 g/sec/m2
Model Result: 1.0 u.g/m3
Exposure calculations:
mg per yean
1.0 u.g/m3 x 20 m3/day x 250 days/year -* 1000 = 5 mg/year
Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
1.0 u.g/m3 x 20 m3/day x 0.001 -i- 70 kg = 2.9 x 10'4 mg/kg/day = 3x10'4mg/kg/day
'DRAFT"
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B
B.1.3 Fatty Acids, C16-C18, Methyl Esters
Water Release of 225.3 kg/site/year
Estimate of 94% removal during wastewater treatment
Daily Release:
225.3 kg/site/year -* 250 days/year = 0.9 kg/site/day
Daily Release after treatment:
0.9 kg/site/day x (1-0.94) = 0.05 kg/site/day
50th percentile mean flow of 499 million liters per day
0.05 kg/site/day x 1000 -5- 499 million liters per day = 0.1 u.g/L
Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year:
0.1 |ig/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year -* 1000 = 5 x 10 "2 mg/year
Human Potential Dose via fish ingestion:
Log BCF = 5.65; BCF = 105'65 = 446,683
0.1 ug/L x 250 days/year x 16.9 g/day x 446,683 -*-1,000,000 = 189 mg/year
~ 2 x 102 mg/year
10th percentile mean flow of 66 million liters per day
0.05 kg/site/day x 1000 -*- 66 million liters per day = 0.8 u.g/L
Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year
0.8 u.g/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year *-1000 = 0.4 mg/year
Human Potential Dose via fish ingestion:
Log BCF = 5.65; BCF = 105'65 = 446,683
0.8 |j,g/L x 250 days/year x 16.9 g/day x 446,683 -* 1,000,000 = 1510 mg/year
= 2 x 103 mg/year
10th percentile low flow of 1 million liters per day
0.05 kg/site/day x 1000 *-1 million liters per day = 50 u.g/L
Denver Release Daily Release Amount:
225.3 kg/site/day x 235 sites * 250 days/year = 212 kg/day
Denver Daily Release After Treatment:
212 kg/day x (1-0.94) = 12.71 kg/day
South Platte River Mean flow Stream Concentration:
12.71 kg/day x 1000 *- 875 million liters per day = 15 u.g/L
Human Potential Drinking Water Ingestion in mg/year:
15 u.g/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year + 1000 = 7.5 mg/year
Human Potential Fish Ingestion in mg/year:
15 u.g/L x 16.9 g/day x 446,683 x 250 days/year * 1,000,000 = 2.8 x 104 mg/year
= 3 x 104 mg/year
South Platte River Low flow Stream Concentration:
12.71 kg/day x 1000 *- 590 million liters per day = 22 u.g/L
B-3
*DRAFT*
-------
APPENDIX B
B.1.4 Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Water Release of 25.2 kg/site/year
Estimate of 0% removal during wastewater treatment
Daily Release:
25.2 kg/site/year -^ 250 days/year =0.1 kg/site/day
Stream Concentrations:
50th percentile mean flow of 499 million liters per day
0.1 kg/site/day x 1000 -*- 499 million liters per day = 0.2 jug/L
Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year: ,
0.2 u.g/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year H- 1000 = 0.1 mg/year
10th percentile mean flow of 66 million liters per day
0.1 kg/site/day x 1000 * 66 million liters per day = 1.5 |ig/L
Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year
1.5 jxg/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year * 1000 = 0.8 mg/year
10th percentile low flow of 1 million liters per day
0.1 kg/site/day x 1000 * 1 million liters per day = 1 x 102 fxg/L
Denver Release Daily Release Amount:
25.2 kg/site/day x 235 sites *- 250 days/year = 23.7 kg/day
Denver Daily Release After Treatment:
23.7 kg/day x (1 -0.94) = 1.4 kg/day
South Platte River Mean flow Stream Concentration:
1.4 kg/day x 1000 * 875 million liters per day = 1.6 ng/L = 2 (o.g/L
Human Potential Drinking Water Ingestion in mg/year:
1.6 u.g/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year -t-1000 = 0.8 mg/year
Human Potential Fish Ingestion in mg/year:
1.6 fig/L x 16.9 g/day x 446,683 x 250 days/year ซ-1,000,000 = 3.0 x 103 mg/year
South Platte River Low flow Stream Concentration:
1.4 kg/day x 1000 *- 590 million liters per day = 2.4 jig/L
'DRAFT*
B-4
-------
APPENDIX. B
B.2 ISCLT INPUT FILE EXAMPLE
SITE 001 - SANBERN - Sample Formulation Single Facility in San Bernardino
12200323420 0-7-8-9 0010100110
1 0 30 16 0 1 6 5 16 0
33.33
300.00
566.67
833.33
0.
(7X.6F7.5)
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
N
NNE
NE
ENE
66.67
333.33
600.00
866.67
22.50
100.00
366.67
633.33
900.00
133.33
400.00
666.67
933.33
166.67
433.33
700.00
966.67
200.00
466.67
733.33
1000.00
233.33 266.67
500.00 533.33
766.67 800.00
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
0.001580.000200.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000730.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000210.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000080.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000180.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000150.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000210.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000290.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.000550.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.001150.000300.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.003930.001000.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.005670.001800.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.014280.004600.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.010100.003400.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.005820.001600.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.002300.000400.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.003510.000400.000100.000000.000000.00000
0.003190.000300.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.002430.000100.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.002590.000200.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.004070.000200.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.002480.000200.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.002020.000100.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.001300.000200.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.002390.000600.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.003180.000800.000300.000000.000000.00000
0.007580.003400.001600.000000.000000.00000
0.009880.005800.003200.000000.000000.00000
0.022150.012400.007300.000000.000000.00000
0.012960.006100.002400.000000.000000.00000
0.006630.002500.000600.000000.000000.00000
0.002220.000600.000100.000000.000000.00000
0.001070.000500.000900.000200.000100.00000
0.001460.000400.000400.000000.000000.00000
0.001990.000400.000100.000000.000000.00000
0.001920.000500.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.003130.000700.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.001730.000300.000100.000000.000000.00000
0.001780.000500.000200.000000.000000.00000
0.001190.000500.000200.000000.000000.00000
0.000970.000500.000400.000000.000000,00000
B-5
*DRAFP*
-------
APPENDIX B
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
294.10
1728.00
1152.00
1152.00
843.00
534.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
1.5
0.00
180.00
0.001160.000600.000600.000000.000000.00000
0.002960.002200.002900.000100.000000.00000
0.004290.003900.008400.000400.000000.00000
0.007670.006400.020900.000900.000000.00000
0.002830.002300.004000.000300.000000.00000
0.001280.000700.000900.000000.000000.00000
0.001100.000800.000500.000000.000000.00000
0.002800.001200.001300.004800.002400.00060
0.001900.000900.000700.003200.001500.00080
0.001940.001200.000300.000700.000200.00010
0.003070.001900.000400.000100.000000.00000
0.009610.003800.001300.000200.000000.00000
0.007900.002900.001600.000100.000000.00000
0.006660.002500.001800.000400.000000.00000
0.003620.001400.000800.000400.000000.00000
0.003350.001500.001000.000200.000000.00000
0.003580.001300.001000.000300.000000.00000
0.009760.004200.003600.001300.000000.00000
0.016040.007400.008000.003900.000100.00000
0.026460.013000.018300.010100.000100.00000
0.007520.003700.002500.000800.000000.00000
0.003720.001600.000900.000800.000000.00000
0.002300.001100.000700.001400.000200.00000
0.003700.001200.001700.000000.000000.00000
0.009260.002500.001500.000000.000000.00000
0.028130.009000.000600.000000.000000.00000
0.036010.010100.000600.000000.000000.00000
0.057860.011300.000500.000000.000000.00000
0.036440.005100.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.024540.002800.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.008130.001500.000000.000000.000000.00000
0.006850.001200.000100.000000.000000.00000
0.003970.000700.000100.000000.000000.00000
0.013900.004000.000800.000000.000000.00000
0.037200.014100.004000.000000.000000.00000
0.062430.023800.009400.000000.000000.00000
0.008390.002400.000700.000000.000000.00000
0.002870.000800.000100.000000.000000.00000
0.002090.000900.000500.000000.000000.00000
294.10 294.10 291.00 287.90 287.90
0.00 0.00 9.800.00000321
2.5 4.3 6.8 9.5 12.5
22.50 45.00 67.50 90.00 112.50 135.00 157.50
202.50 225.00 247.50 270.00 292.50 315.00 337.50
"DRAFT*
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B
0.15000001
0.15000001
0.2
0.25
0.30000001
01011020
0.00
0.00 3.00
10.00
0.0002429
B-7
'DRAFT**
-------
APPENDIX B
B.3 BOXMOD MODEL RUN FOR SAMPLE FORMULATION
B.3.1 Solvent Naphtha
* * * * GAUSSIAN BOX MODEL INPUT
Latitude 39.49.30. Longitude 104.57. 0.
Area Width (km) = 1.66E+01
Emission Rate (g/m**2/s) = 2.10E-08
Time Constant (s) = 3.12E+05
Precipitation Rate (mm/hr) = 1.22E+00
Precipitation Frequency = 4.30E-02
STAR station 0618 - DENVER/STAPLETON CO
Molecular Weight = 1.28E+02
* * * * GAUSSIAN BOX MODEL RESULTS * * *
Scavenging Coeff (1/s) = 6.01 E-05
Deposition Speed (m/s) = 7.00E-03
Concentration (ug/m**3) = 6.77E-01
B.3.2 Propylene Glycol
* * * * GAUSSIAN BOX MODEL INPUT
Latitude 39.49.30. Longitude 104.57. 0.
Area Width (km) = 1.66E+01
Emission Rate (g/m**2/s) = 3.20E-08
Time Constant (s) = 7.27E+04
Precipitation Rate (mm/hr) = 1.22E+00
Precipitation Frequency = 4.30E-02
STAR station 0618 - DENVER/STAPLETON CO
Molecular Weight = 1.32E+02
* * * * GAUSSIAN BOX MODEL RESULTS * * *
Scavenging Coeff (1/s) = 5.92E-05
Deposition Speed (m/s) = 7.00E-03
Concentration (ug/m**3) = 9.99E-01
'DRAFT"
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
LITHOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents information on the methods that were used to gather the
performance demonstration data at the print shops and in the laboratory, as presented in
Chapters 4 and 7. Specifically, this appendix includes:
C. 1 Characteristics to be Reported Out of the Performance Demonstration
C.2 Demonstration Methodology
C.3 Blanket Swell Test (laboratory test)
C.4 Washability/wipe Test (laboratory test)
C.1 CHARACTERISTICS TO BE REPORTED OUT OF THE PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION
C.1.1 Cost of Each Product as Utilized
Product Cost
Interested product suppliers should include the manufacturer's, suggested retail price (to
the end user) of their products ($ per 5 gallon drum) upon submission of samples for
demonstration so that the cost per volume used in a cleaning cycle can be determined and
reported.
Disposal/Spoilage Costs
Suppliers should provide specific recommendations for the disposal or treatment of wastes
associated with using their products. Based upon these recommendations and the wastes
determined in the field tests, disposal or treatment costs will be estimated.
Labor/Down-time Costs
This information will be based on the time required to wash a standard 19" X 26" blanket
(based on two measures: button-push to completion of wash excluding time for other activities,
such as refilling paper; and, after washing, zero the counter and count the number of sheets to
get back to salable printing), a standard press operator wage, and standard press time costs. The
costs of time and paper losses while returning to salable.printing following the wash should be
included here as well as any costs that may be associated with changes in or destruction of the
blanket or other printing system components. The standard press operator wage information will
be obtained from the wage and hourly survey developed by the National Association of Printers
and Lithographers.
Storage Costs
These costs will include any special storage required due to hazardous components present
in the blanket wash materials.
C.1.2 Product Constraints
The blanket wash supplier should provide information about product compatibility with
specific inks (e.g. petroleum or vegetable oil based, UV water based), if known. If the supplier does
: : ~ "DRAFT**
-------
APPENDIX C
not provide information regarding product incompatibilities, it will be assumed that there are
none.
C.1.3 Special Safety Storage Requirements
Suppliers should provide information about the flammability (as measured by flash point)
of the product. This will be confirmed by the laboratory test in the pre-screening procedure.
C.1.4 Ease of Use
The physical effort required to effectively clean the blanket using the test product will be
evaluated and reported. This is a subjective judgement based on the experience of the press
operator.
C.1.5 Duration of the Cleaning Cycle
The measured time will be the entire cleaning cycle from press shut down to completion
of the cleaning process (this excludes any activity unrelated to blanket cleaning). This information
when correlated with labor and press-time costs will attempt to measure the total costs associated
with the use of the product.
C.1.6 Effectiveness of the Blanket Wash Solution
This will be the subjective judgement of the press operator. The basic criteria will be
whether the blanket is sufficiently clean to resume printing based on the judgement of the
operator. VM&P Naphtha will be used as the baseline blanket wash to measure a test solution's
efficacy, and the operator should also compare against what is normally used on the press.
C.1.7 Printing Equipment and Ink
Information will include the manufacturer, type and age of the press, the blanket and the
ink, and the length of press run prior to blanket wash.. This is basically descriptive information
that may assist in discovering and reporting incompatibilities between the blanket washes and
equipment or inks. Additionally, the type of printing job, type of fountain solution, paper size
relative to press size, paper type, brief description of blanket condition (Note: the blanket used
should be runable with no smashes or repairs) along with a general description (light, medium,
and heavy) of ink coverage will also be reported.
C.2 DEMONSTRATION METHODOLOGY
C.2.1 Product Pre-Screening and Masking
The project will demonstrate alternative blanket washes. Products, product information
and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will be submitted by suppliers in properly labeled generic
commercial containers to an independent laboratory (e.g. Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
(GATF) or university). The independent laboratory will test the flash point and volatile organic
chemical (VOC) content of the alternative blanket washes. The vapor pressure of the product will
be submitted by the supplier (the supplier will note whether the vapor pressure is based on a
calculation or test data.) The pH of the product will be provided by the supplier and will be
verified by the laboratory. Suppliers wishing to participate in the performance demonstration will
have to make direct arrangements with the independent laboratory.
DRAFT*
C-2
-------
APPENDS C
The laboratory will mask all products by removing the trade names and manufacturer from
the containers and assign each sample a random ID number. Suppliers will provide a masked
USDS in addition to the standard MSDS sent for shipping. They will also give directions for use
of the product without any identifying names, labels or characteristics.
The laboratory will perform a standard test for blanket swelling potential of each product.
They will also perform a washability/wipe test for cleaning effectiveness on all of the products
submitted. The blanket swell test and the washability/wipe test proposed methodologies are
attached. The directions for each specific product will be used as much as possible, including the
manufacturer's directions for dilution or mixing. Any deviation from the manufacturers directions
will be noted along with the reasons for the deviation. Only products that pass this functional
demonstration stage will be used in the field demonstration portion of the project.
Based on the results of the product pre-screening, products will be grouped into categories
based on their formulation and/or chemical parameters. These categories should be consistent
with the categories used in the EPA risk assessment. One or more products successfully
completing the screening will be chosen to "represent" each of the categories; these representatives
(one or two per category) will be from the average of the class. The selection of masked products
will be sent to volunteer printers for field demonstration. The selection of printers will take into
account the type of inks being used as well as the sizes and types of blankets. The variety of inks
and blankets used for the demonstration will depend on the number of demonstration sites.
Each printer will test a limited number of products. This number will be determined when the
number of volunteer printers is established. Although contingent upon the number of categories,
the number of volunteer printers, arid available resources, each representative blanket wash will
be field demonstrated by at least two.
C.2.2 Documentation of Existing Conditions at Volunteer Facility
Once the products have been shipped to the volunteer printing facilities, an observer* will
record the type, color, and manufacturer of the ink currently being used on the press. The
observer will also document the type, model, and condition of the press and blanket being used
for the demonstration and the type of paper being run on the press. The observer will also briefly
describe the experience of the press operators participating in the test and will document any past
experiences that the printer has had with the demonstration of blanket washes; the observer will
note any potential biases. The current waste and wipe disposal practices and costs will be
documented by the observer. NOTE: Presence of observer should be cleared with insurance
carrier if necessary, and the purpose of the observer should be carefully explained to the
personnel in the pressroom.
The observer will record the product name and cleaning procedure for the blanket wash
currently used by the company. The observer will record the cost of the current blanket wash
solution. The observer will also record how the product is being stored (in bulk and at the press)
and disposed of as waste.
The observer will document the current practices by observing the clean up of a blanket,
utilizing the company's current product. This will include any pre-application dilution of the
product. The observer will measure the quantity used for the cleaning with the company's current
" A contract is currently being prepared by EPA to staff this function. This observer will not provide technical assistance
to the printers. The observer will serve to document the demonstration arid record the operators observations. The observer
will ensure the operator performs the demonstration according to the final approved methodology. The observer will additionally
serve as the press operators conduit to the technical assistance personnel This conduit is necessary so as to clearly document
the direction given and the actions taken.
C-3
*DRAFP*
-------
APPENDIX C
blanket wash solution and record the time required for the cleanup. The pressman will use a
clean rag to clean the blanket, and the observer will record the size and weight of the rags used
for cleaning before and after the cleaning. This will provide an estimate of the retention factor of
the product. .
The observer will describe the density of the image currently being printed and will record
information on the relative frequency of blanket cleaning. The observer will document the number
of images required to obtain an acceptable print.
C.2.3 Establishing Evaluation Baseline at Volunteer Facility
The blanket will be cleaned by the press operator using the baseline solution (VM&P
Naphtha). This initial cleaning will serve to familiarize the press operator with the baseline
product performance. The printer will compare the baseline solution with the blanket wash that
is typically used. It has been suggested that this initial cleaning should not be used for
comparative purposes, but the information noted below in Section B.2.4 should be noted for
reference in any case. .
C.2.4 Demonstration
The press will then be restarted for printing and then stopped for cleaning according to the
company's standard procedures. The observer will measure the time of cleaning from button push
to completion of wash excluding time for other activities, such as refilling paper, and will ask the
press operator to zero the counter in order to count the number of sheets to get back to salable
printing. The observer will document the volume of baseline solution used and describe the
procedure used to ensure the directions were adhered to by the operator. This procedure will be
followed for three complete cleaning cycles.
C.2.5 Press Operator Evaluation
At the completion of these cycles the press operator will subjectively evaluate the condition
of the blanket, i.e., scaling, picking, etc. Additionally, the operator will evaluate the ease of use
and performance of the baseline solution. The observer will describe the density of the image
currently being printed. The observer will document the number of images required to obtain an
acceptable print image for each of the cleaning cycles.
C.2.6 Resetting the Blanket
The blanket will be cleaned by the press operator using the test blanket wash solution.
This initial cleaning will serve to familiarize the press operator with the product and to avoid
complications with the previously used solutions. The press operator should measure the volume
after each cleaning (the volume used in the initial cleaning may not be used for comparative
purposes).
C.2.7 Demonstration
The press will be restarted for normal operation and then be stopped for cleaning according
to the company's standard practice. The observer will measure the time of cleaning from button
push to completion of wash excluding time for other activities, such as refilling paper, and will ask
the press operator to zero the counter in order to count the number of sheets to get back to
salable printing. The observer will document the volume of solution used and describe the
procedure used to ensure the directions were adhered to by the operator. This procedure will be
followed for five complete cleaning cycles.
"DRAFT*
C-4
-------
APPENDIX C
C.2.8 Press Operator Evaluation
At the completion of these cycles the press operator will subjectively evaluate the condition
of the blanket, i.e., scaling, picking etc. Additionally, the press operator will document the density
of the last printed image. The press operator will document the number of images required to
obtain an acceptable print image for each of the cleaning cycles. The press operator will compare
the relative performance of the test solution as compared to the baseline solution.
C.2.9 Long Term Test
After completion of the above demonstration, a longer term test will be performed by the
printer. This test will consist of continued use of the supplied product for a period of one week.
The blanket will not be cleaned with any other solutions until the observer returns. The press
operator will record the total number of copies printed, the number and relative frequency of
blanket washes performed, the volume of product used for each blanket wash, the total amount
of product used, and the number of images required to obtain an acceptable print quality for each
cleaning cycle.
At the completion of this phase, the observer will return to the shop and will record the
press operator's data. The observer will then document the procedures used in a final cleaning
of the blanket by the press operator. This will indicate whether there has been any deviation from
the initial cleaning procedure by the press operator. If there has been a deviation the observer
shall record the reasons for the deviation.
The press operator will then evaluate the condition of the blanket and describe the density
of the product currently being printed.
If at any time during this phase of the demonstration there is problem with the solution
or the press, the press operator or company point of contact will document the problem as
specifically as possible and call the technical assistance provider*3 for guidance. Any corrective
action will be documented by both the technical assistance provider and the press operator. The
observer will record the actions documented by the press operator.
C.2.10 Trouble Shooting
If problems arise during the field demonstration of the blanket solutions, the following
procedures will be followed. If the observer is present, the problem will be documented and the
observer will call the technical assistance provider for guidance. If the observer is not present the
press operator will document the problem and contact the technical assistance provider.
The technical assistance provider will first review the procedures used by the press
operator to ensure they are in compliance with the instructions provided with the product. If the
procedures are correct then the technical assistance provider will contact one of the printers
currently using a product in that category for assistance. Names of these support printers will
be provided by the suppliers of the products. The technical assistance provider will relay and filter
the recommendation of the support printer to the press operator. The technical assistance
provider will ensure the confidentiality of the products is maintained during this period. The
identity of the product in the field will remain masked, and the identity of the specific product
being used by the support printer providing guidance will not be asked or provided by the printer.
6 A contract will be prepared by EPA to staff this function. The technical assistance provider (i.e., GATF, university, etc.)
will be available to trouble-shoot during the field demonstration portion of the project.
C-5
'DRAFT"
-------
APPENDIX C
The observer and/or the technical assistance provider will document all actions recommended and
taken.
If the recommendations provided by the technical assistance provider are unsuccessful,
the press operator will then attempt to solve the problem. The observer and/or the technical
assistance provider will document the actions taken by the press operator and the success or
failure of the actions.
The above procedures will be repeated for each product tested at the printer test site.
C.2.11 Results and Final Report
Final results will be assembled from the test sites and provided to a contractor to develop
into a final report. The report will be developed so that the blanket wash products submitted for
testing are grouped according to their formulations/chemical parameters (e.g., VOC content, vapor
pressure). The results from similar products in a grouping will be reported in ranges so that the
scope of performance from each group can be reported in the information provided to printers.
The parameters delineating the grouping will be clearly defined so that both printer and supplier
can determine the grouping for any particular blanket wash of interest. Special attention will be
paid to the report-out of information on water-miscible products so that printers realize that the
category characteristics are based on the use of proper amounts of water. [Note: No results will
be provided for individual/named products, but blanket washes participating in the study will be
listed in the report, along with their grouping.] Results from the field demonstration will be
evaluated and assembled so that for any particular group the "average" experience with the
products in the group is presented, along with the extreme reactions.
The report will thus have two parts. One part that presents the independent laboratory's
screening and other information founded in essentially concrete or quantitative data and a second
part that gives experiential anecdotes derived from the subjective evaluations of the demonstration
site personnel. Both types of information can be used to develop a second type of information
product: case studies of individual demonstration locations that discuss specific actions, changes
in techniques, attitude adjustments or other factors that could be significant to a printer that is
contemplating product substitution. The products would continue to be masked in the case
study. It may be possible to combine several sites with similar experiences into a single report
focussing on a single group of products.
DRAFT*
C-6
-------
APPENDIX C
C.3 BLANKET SWELL TEST
The purpose of this test is to determine the effect of blanket washes on lithographic
blankets by measuring any change in thickness by the use of a micrometer.
Equipment:
Crystallization Dish
Cady Gauge (gauge +/- 0.0005 inch)
Swell Test Clamp
2x2 inch squares compressible blankets
VM&P Naphtha, Varnish Makers' and Painters' Naphtha; petroleum fractions meeting
ASTM specifications. (Distillation range, at 760mm Hg 5% at 130ฐC; greater than 90% at
145ฐC)
Various Blanket Washes
Experimental Procedure:
This procedure involves measuring and adding 10 ml of the blanket wash to a
crystallization dish using a graduated cylinder. An initial caliper measurement is taken of the 2
x 2 inch blanket sample and then it is placed over the mouth of the dish. The dish and blanket
are placed into the swell clamp where the blanket is tightened down onto the mouth of the dish
until a leak proof seal is formed. The various washes are kept in contact with the blanket for one
hour. Caliper readings are taken and the percent swell is calculated. The blanket is re-tightened,
exposed for an additional five hours, and the caliper is measured again. This same procedure will
be repeated for each blanket wash. The VM&P Naphtha will be used as a control.
Percent Swell =
Final Caliper - Initial Caliper
Initial Caliper
x 1OO
C-7
'DRAFT*
-------
APPENDIX C
Sample
1. Control
(VM&P Naphtha)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
% Caliper Change After 1 Hour % Caliper Change After 6 Hours
Temperature.
Relative Humidity
Blanket Type
DRAFT"
C-8
-------
APPENDIX C
C.4 WASHABILITY/WIPE TEST
Equipment:
Ink - Sheetfed Process Black
Blanket - Compressible Blanket Cut Into Squares
Quickpeek Brayer Apparatus
Gardner Scrubber Apparatus
Graduated Cylinder
Control Blanket Wash - VM&P Naphtha
Playtexฎ Panty Shield
Status T Reflective Densitometer
Standard 1200-1500 Watt Blow Dryer
Various Candidate Blanket Washes
Experimental Procedure:
The procedure involves an initial evaluation by using both a dry and wet ink film drawn
down on separate pieces of blanket using a quickpeek brayer apparatus. The ink stripes will
measure 2 inches wide and five inches in length. The amount of ink applied will be determined
by using one small or large hole on the Quickpeek apparatus. The blanket will be new and
cleaned with the standard prior to applying the ink films. One of the ink films will be dried with
a standard blow dryer.
The piece of blanket will then be placed into the holder of the Gardener Scrubber
Apparatus. A measured volume of standard and candidate washes will be evaluated. The number
of strokes necessary to clean the blanket with the standard will be determined. Once the area has
been cleaned with the standard, the densitometer will be used to evaluate the cleanliness of the
blanket. Each candidate wash will be placed onto a clean Playtexฎ Panty Shield and the
cleanliness of the blanket will be measured after the same number of strokes found necessary by
the standard, if the blanket is not clean, the number of strokes necessary to clean the blanket
will be noted. Any residue or other unusual conditions will be indicated.
One of the wet ink films will be dried for 20 minutes with the blow dryer. The same volume
of standard and blanket wash as used for the wet ink will be use. The above procedure will be
repeated.
The following represents a more detailed review of the step-by step procedure for the
Gardner Scrubber Apparatus: .
1. A piece of blanket is cut to fit into the holder of the Gardener Scrubber apparatus and
the section to be scrubbed is drawn on the blanket. A measured quantity of ink is spread
evenly onto the surface of the blanket, insuring that the thickness of the ink is uniform in
the area to be scrubbed. Inking should be done on a counter or other level surface - inking
in the holder will result in an uneven surface.
2. The wooden block is used to hold the sample collector, in this case a Playtexฎ Panty
Shield. A new, dry shield should be weighed, without the coated paper that protects the
adhesive. Solvent will be placed on the shield, not on the inked surface. The initial weight
of the shield should be noted and the shield placed on the wooden block. Affix the shield
on the side of the block not marked "top" block using the shield's adhesive, and place the
block in its holder. Make sure the shield ends are inside the metal holder. They can be
C-9
'DRAFT
-------
APPENDIX C
forced In by hand or held with thumbtacks. Use the side screw to insure the block is held
securely. - .
3. Prepare a pipet with 0.4 mL of standard solvent. Insure that the Scrubber counter is
reset and that the holder is in a position where it can be stopped after the test. The far
right hand side of the tray is suggested.
4. Place the inked blanket into the tray. Hold the wooden block with the parity shield up
and away from the inked surface so that no ink gets on the panty shield. Pipet the wash
onto the pad using a swirling motion to evenly distribute the solvent over the surface.
5. Turn the pad over and start the scrubber. It should be allowed to go back and forth 20
times. At the completion of the last cycle, lift the pad off the blanket surface.
6. Lift the tray and blanket out of the apparatus.
7. Remove the block holder and remove the panty shield. Place in a 110 C forced draft
oven for 2 hours to drive off the solvent. Weigh the dried panty shield and note the weight.
8. Clean the piece of blanket and re-ink to perform more tests.
9. Complete the tests for the blanket wash materials being tested with 2 replications each.
Repeat the test using the standard solvent upon completion of the test series.
Note: A modified method may need to be developed for aqueous cleaners.
"DRAFT"
C-10
-------
APPENDIX D
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION OBSERVER SHEETS
The following four forms (shown on the following pages) were used by the observers and
printers to record information for the performance demonstrations:
D.I Observer's Evaluation Sheet
D.2 Observer's Performance Evaluation Sheet
D.3 Printer's Evaluation Sheet
D.4 End-of-Week Follow-up Questionnaire
D-1
*DRAFT*
-------
APPENDIX D
D.1 OBSERVER'S EVALUATION SHEET
FACILITY NAME:
DATE:
Ask each participating printer in the substitute blanket wash performance demonstrations, to answer
these questions when you call to schedule your visit to their facility. Once on-site, verify the answers.
1. Printing process
Approximately what percentage of your business (based on annual sales) is in the following
segments? Please check all boxes that apply.
Lithography/Offset
Gravure
Flexography
Screen printing
Letterpress
Other (specify)
<50%
n
n
n
n
n
n
50 - 95%
D
q
n
n
n
n
95 - 100%
D
D
D
n
n
q
2. Products
What percentage of your lithography business (based on annual sales) is in the following
products? Please check all boxes that apply.
.
Commercial Printing
Direct-mail Products
Business Forms
Publications (other than news)
Packaging
News
Other (specify)
<50%
n
q
n
q
n
q
q ' '
50 - 95%
n
q
q
q
n
q
q
95 - 100%
q
q
n
q
q
q
q
3. General Facility Information
How many employees are at this location?
How many employees work in the press room?.
How many shifts does your facility run per day?
"DRAFT*
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D
Press Type(s)
Describe the press(es) that will be used for the performance demonstrations. The required
press size is in the 19" x 26" class.
1. Press size:
(in. x in.)
2. Press size:
(in. x in.)
# of print units:
# of print units:
Print speed:
(# impressions/hour)
Print speed:
(# impressions/hour)
Blanket information
On the press(es) that will be used for the demonstration, what is the average number of times a
blanket is washed per shift?
What type of blanket do you use on the press(es) that will be used for the demo:
- Manufacturer:
Type (e.g., 3-ply compressible, etc.)
- Number of impressions on this blanket prior to the demonstrations:
1 week or less...D 1 week to 3 months...D 3 months or more...D
- Do you have any automatic blanket washers in your facility?
Blanket Washes
Press
Used in
Demo.
Trade Name of Blanket
Wash/Manufacturer
Cost
($/gallon)
Dilution
Ratio
(wash: water)
Ink Type(s)
conventional D
vegetable oil-based D
UV D
waterless D
other D
conventional D
vegetable oil-based D
UV D
waterless D
other O
7. Experience with Substitute Blanket Washes
a. Have you tried any substitute blanket washes for environmental or worker health and safety
reasons?
- Did the substitute wash work better, the same, or worse than your old wash? Why?
D-3
"DRAFT"
-------
APPENDIX D
b. Besides substitute washes, have you changed any equipment, procedures or work practices
that reduced your use of blanket wash solution or reduced the time required to wash the
blanket? Yes D No D - If yes, please describe:
8a. Cleaning Procedure - CURRENT PRODUCT
Record blanket cleaning procedure using the chart below and the space at the bottom of the
page for additional comments. In each column, check all that apply.
Method for Applying
Blanket Wash
Use squirt bottle D
to spray directly
on blanket
Use squirt bottle D
to spray on
wipe and apply
wipe to blanket
Dip wipe in D
blanket wash
and apply to
blanket
Use safety D
plunger can
None Used D
Other D
(specify)
Type of Wipe
Used to Clean
the Blanket
Disposabl D
e
Size:
Wet O
Dry D
Reusable D
Size:
Wet D
Dry D
Other D
(specify)
Avg. No. of
Wipes
Used/Cleaning
(cleaning+excess)
1-2 D
2-4 D
4-6 D
6-8 D
8-10 D
Other D
(specify)
Method for
Removing Excess
Wash from
Blanket
Clean dry rag D
Clean wet rag d
Allow to D
evaporate
No excess D
Other D
(specify)
Wipes
Management
Send off-site D
for laundering
Launder on- D
site
Dispose of as
hazardous
waste
Dispose of as D
non-
hazardous
waste
Other D
(specify)
Was the rotation of the blanket during washing (circle one): manual or automatic?
Note any other steps taken in washing the blanket:
For the current blanket wash product, ask the press operator if there are ever any variations in the
cleaning procedure, and if so, under what circumstances?
'DRAFT"
D-4
-------
APPENDIX D
8b. Cleaning Procedure - BASELINE PRODUCT
Clean the blanket using the baseline product, Naphtha, recording the required information on
the observer's evaluation sheet for each cleaning.
Note the condition of the blanket before cleaning:
Weigh the Naphtha container before use. Record weight:
Pour Naphtha onto a clean, dry wipe.
Weigh the Naphtha container again. Record weight:
Record the difference in weight on the evaluation sheet.
Clean the blanket.
Was the rotation of the blanket during washing (circle one): manual or automatic?
Note any other steps taken in washing the blanket:
8c. Cleaning Procedure - SUBSTITUTE PRODUCT #
Clean the blanket using the substitute blanket wash. Follow the manufacturers instructions and
record the required information on the observer's evaluation sheet for each cleaning.
Note the condition of the blanket before cleaning:
Describe the cleaning procedure:
Was the rotation of the blanket during washing (circle one): manual or automatic?
D-5
*DRAFP
-------
APPENDIX D
D.2 OBSERVER'S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEET
Facility Name_
Date
Demo Type: (Check one and enter wash #)
Current Wash Baseline Wash
Wash#
Substitute Wash
# )
(enter code
(1 - 3) Wash # .
(1 - 5)
Ink used before wash-up
Run length
Ink coverage (obtain a
sample sheet for each level
of coverage)
Substrate
Drying time
Dilution
Quantity of wash used
Cleaning time
Ease of cleaning
Excess wash
Wipes used
Specify ink color, type, and manufacturer:
conventional D
vegetable oil-based.. ..D other (specify)
Record length of run (# impressions)
(check one):
Heavy Medium Light
Record substrate printed:
Time from end of press run to start of blanket wash:
minutes
(enter wash:water ratio or "none" if used at full strength)
ounces (pour wash on wipe; record volume nf wash
poured)
minutes (time for blanket cleaning only)
rotations (corresponding number nf hlanket rotations)
(check one for each question):
Compared to your standard wash, was the effort needed:
Lower Same Higher
Compared to the baseline wash, was the effort needed:
Lower Same Higher
Did the wash cut the ink: Well Satisfactorily
Unsatisfactorily
Did you have to remove excess wash? (check one) Yes
No
If "Yes", how was it removed? (check all that apply):
Wet wipe Dry wipe Allow to evaporate
Enter the total number of fresh wipes used for blanket washing
(includes both wipes used for washing and for removing excess wash):
"DRAFT*
D-6
-------
Odor
(check one):
Odor not noticed,
odor
Odor detected^
Strong
Printer's opinion of the
wash performance?
The wash performance was (check one):
Good Fair
Poor
Examine the blanket
Evaluate the blanket appearance after the wash:
Printing after the wash
Specify the ink color and type used after the wash:
How many impressions were run to get back to acceptable quality?
Does the printer think the wash caused problems with the print quality? Yes
or No If yes, explain:
D-7
*DRAFT*
-------
APPENDIX D
D.3 PRINTER'S EVALUATION SHEET
Facility name:
Date:
Press Operator's Initials:
Answer these questions for the BLANKET WASHQftLY (tfo not include the roller cleaning)
Ink used before
wash-up
Run length
Ink coverage
Quantity of
wash used for
this cleaning
Cleaning
rotations
Ease of
cleaning
Wipes used
What is your
opinion of this
blanket wash?
Examine the
blanket
condition after
the wash
Printing after
the wash
Specify ink color:
Specify ink type: conventional D other
vegetable oil-based.. .D
Record length of run:
# impressions =
circle one:
Estimate the image coverage: Heavy Medium Light
# of ounces from Portion Aid dispenser provided
rotations (record the number of blanket rotations complt
during the blanket cleaning)
tied
circle one:
The effort needed to clean the blanket was: Low Medium High
Number of fresh wipes used for blanket washing:
circle one:
The wash performance was: Good Fair Poor
Is there any residue, debris, etc. on the blanket? Yes D NO.....D
If yes, please explain:
How many impressions were run to get back to acceptable print quality?
Did the blanket wash cause problems with the print quality? Yes.. .a No.
If yes, please explain:
n
Comments or suggestions - Use the back of this sheet or the space below for any comments:
"DRAFT"
D-8
-------
APPENDIX D
D.4 END-OF-WEEK FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE
End of Week Follow-Up to Lithographers
At the end of the week-long demonstration, contact the press operator who used the blanket
wash either in-person or by phone. Interview the operator to determine if there were any
problems, changes, or concerns since your visit. If you are contacting them by phone, remind
them to send in the completed forms immediately.
Facility Name
Substitute Wash #
1. In your opinion, was the performance of the substitute wash better, worse, or about the
same as your standard wash? Why?
2. Did you find any conditions where the wash did not work? (e.g., a certain ink type, ink
color, or especially heavy coverage). If so, describe the condttion(s).
3. Have you changed the appliation procedure in any way?
- Do you use more wash?
Have you changed the dilution?
Have you changed the method for removing excess wash?.
Do you think the number of impressions required to get backto acceptable print quality
is greater, the same, or less than were required using your standard blanket wash?
Why?
Did you use any other blanket washes during the week on this blanket? Why?
6. Note the condition of the blanket
7. Do you have any other comments, concerns or problems regarding the substitute
blanket wash?
D-9
*DRAFP*
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
CATEGORIZATION FOR LITHOGRAPHIC BLANKET WASHES
Table E-l. presents the following categories and classsification of formulations that were
developed by the DfE Lithography Project Core Group and reviewed by the blanket wash suppliers.
The categorization was developed to assist with the development of the Performance
Demonstrations.
Table E-1. Categories and Classifications of Formulations
Category
1.
1a.
2.
2a.
3.
4.
5.
6.
6a.
7.
8.
8a.
9.
Mix
Vegetable fatty ester
Vegetable fatty ester
(+glycol)
Ester/Petroleum
Ester/Petroleum
(+surfactant)
Ester/Water
Petroleum
Petroleu/Terpene
Petroleum/Water-
Petroleum/Water (diluted
for use)
Water/Petroleum/Ester
Terpene
Terpene (+ additives)
Detergent
Washes
All
1
26
29
14
19
3
21
36
38
6
11
18
40
9
10
31
32
35
13
15
5
8
20
37
39
12
30
33
22
34
16
24
27
4
7
23
25
17
Pass to Demo
1
26
29
14
19
21
36
38
6
11
40
9
10
31
32
13
20
37
39
30
12
22
34
24
-
1 indicates formulations passed blanket swell test (53.0%) and basic washability
E-1
"DRAFT**
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
COST OF ILLNESS VALUATION METHODS
Several approaches are available to estimate the economic benefits of reduced morbidity
effects associated with pollution releases, including: contingent valuation, averting behavior,
hedonic valuation, and cost of illness approaches. Table F-1 provides a brief summary of each.
Table F-1. Cost of Illness Valuation Methods
Valuation Method
Description
Contingent Valuation
Approach
The contingent valuation approach uses a survey to illicit estimates of
individual willingness-to-pay to avoid a given illness. The contingent
valuation technique, when properly designed, should capture direct
treatment costs, indirect costs, and costs associated with pain and
suffering.
Cost of Illness Approach
The cost of illness approach estimates the direct medical costs
associated with an illness and will sometimes include the cost to
society resulting from lost earnings. Cost of illness studies do not
account for pain and suffering, the value of lost leisure time, or the
costs and benefits of preventive measures.
Hedonic Valuation
Approach
Hedonic valuation studies use regression analysis to estimate the
relationship between environmental improvement or reduced worker
risk and other independent variables. For example, a hedonic wage
study may attempt to describe the relationship between wage rates
and job related risks (i.e, what is the premium required to compensate
workers for the added risk they incur from their occupation). The
weakness of the hedonic approach is based upon the difficulty in
separating illness effects from other independent variables.
Averting Behavior Approach
The averting behavior method examines preventive measures
undertaken to avoid exposure or mitigate the effects of illness.
Investments made in preventive measures are then used as a proxy for
individual willingness-to-pay to avoid a particular illness.
Source: 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.
F-1
"DRAFT"
-------
------- |