-------

-------
r.   „

-------

-------
   Cleaner Technologies
Substitutes Assessment
  Lithographic Blanket Washes
           September 1997
                U.S. EPA*
   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,
The Environmental Group (formerly, the Environment Conservation Board of the
         Graphic Communications Industry), and
         The Graphic Arts Technical Foundation

-------
                                      NOTICE

      This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and approved for publication. The information contained here was developed by the EPA
Design for The Environment (DfE) Program's Lithography Project in collaboration with partners
from the printing industry and the University of Tennessee. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not imply endorsement or recommendation for use.  Information on
cost and product usage was provided by individual product vendors and was not independently
corroborated by EPA.

      Discussion of federal environmental statutes is intended for information purposes only;
this is not an official guidance document and should not be relied upon by companies to
determine applicable regulations.

      A draft of the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Lithographic Blanket
Washes was released for public comment in July 1996.  A Federal Register Notice of Availability
for Comment was published August 7, 1996, establishing a 45-day comment period. Written
comments were received from three parties. These comments were reviewed and incorporated
as appropriate.

      The following members of the U.S. EPA staff are primarily responsible for the
Information collected in this document:

                                      DfE Staff:

                    Stephanie Bergman    Jed Meline   David Fuhs

                                   EPA Workgroup;
                    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.

Any questions or comments regarding this document should be addressed to:

                                     Jed Meline
                          Design for the Environment Program
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                401 M Street, SW (7406)
                                Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                      PREFACE

       This document is designed to be the repository for the technical information developed
through the DFE Lithography Project. A summary booklet intended for printing industry
professionals has been developed entitled Solutions for Lithographic Printers: An Evaluation of
Substitute Blanket Washes (EPA/744-F-96-009) that captures much of this information in a
simpler, more user-friendly format.   It is available from the Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse at the address listed below.

Other documents developed through the DfE Lithography Project include:

•      Lithography Project Fact Sheet
       (EPA/744-F-95-005)
•      Solutions for Lithographic Printers: An Evaluation of Substitute Blanket Washes
       (EPA/744-F-96-009)
•      Managing Solvents and Wipes, Lithography Project Case Study # 1
       (EPA/744-K-93-001)
•      Working Together for Pollution Prevention, Lithography Project Case Study #2
       (EPA/744-F-96-001)
•      Substitute Blanket Washes—Making Them Work, Lithography Project Bulletin # 1
       (EPA/744-F-96-002)
•      Workplace Practices Make the Difference,  Lithography Project Bulletin #2
       (EPA/744-F-96-008)
•      Vegetable Ester Substitute Blanket Washes,  Lithography Project  Bulletin #3
       (EPA/744-F-96-014)
•      A Worksheet to Help You Choose a Better Blanket Wash, Lithography Project Bulletin #4
       (EPA/744-F-96-015)

 To obtain any of these documents or for further information about the DfE Program 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) 260-4659

               Or visit the Design for the Environment Program Homepage at:

                                http://www.epa.gov/dfe
                                          Mi

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
      A special thanks is extended to Thomas Purcell, formerly with the 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 on behalf of 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 Kincaid 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-Term Co.

Ms. Debbie Hoppe
Chemist
Printex Products Corporation

Mr. Paul Jadrich
Director of Research & Development
Slebert Inc.

Mr, Gary Jones
Manager, Office of Environmental
Information
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation

Ms. Lori Kincaid
University of Tennessee/
Center for Clean Products and Clean
Technologies
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
                                          iv

-------
                            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 l/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, FL32216
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/Printers1 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

-------
                   PARTICIPATING SUPPLIERS (CONTINUED)
Rycoline Products
Mr. James K. Whltehead
5540 Northwest Highway
Chicago, IL 60630
Phone: (312)775-6755

Slebert, 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 RUbain
1 American Lane
Greenwich, CT 06831
Phone: (203) 552-3426
                                        vi

-------
                      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, MAO2210
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
SlOSwannAve.
Alexandria, VA 22301

Printing by Yazge
Mr. Ken Yazge
3407 8th Street, NE
P.O. Box 29048
Washington, DC 20O17

PS Graphics Inc.
Mr. Paul Stotler
21 Fontana Lane
P.O. Box 70001
Baltimore, MD 21237

Queen City Printers, Inc.
Mr. Alan Schillhammer
701 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
                                         vii

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                              Page

Executive Summary	  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 	  1-7
             1.2.3 Types of Lithography	  1-8
             1.2.4 Blanket Washing 	  1-8
      1.3 PROFILE OFTHE 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 	  1-12
             1.4.4 Market Conditions 	  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

Chapters 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	  3-41
             3.4.3 Occupational Risks	  3-44
             3.4.4 General Population Risks	  3-62
      3.5 PROCESS SAFETY CONCERNS	  3-67
                                        viii

-------
                       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 METHODOLOGY 	   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
                                         ix

-------
                                     LIST OF TABLES
 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  	  3-42
 3-8. Worker Occupational Risk Estimates	  3-45
 3-9. Occupational Risks Summarized by Formulation 	  3-52
 3-10. General Population Risk Estimates for Drinking Water, Fish Ingestion, and Inhalation	  3-63


 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 Demonstration  	  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

-------
                                                                                      Page
                            LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
7-1. Summary of Risk Conclusions of Substitute and Baseline Blanket Wash Cleaners  	  7-2
7-2. Relative Flammability Risk of Substitute and Baseline Blanket Washes	  7-5
7-3. VOC Content of the Substitute and Baseline Blanket Washes	  7-7
7-4. Blanket Wash Laboratory Test Results  	  7-8
7-5. Summary of Cost Analysis for Blanket Wash Performance Demonstrations	  7-11
7-6. Glossary of Benefit/Cost Analysis Terms	  7-14
7-7. Costs and Benefits of Baseline and Substitute Blanket Washes	  7-16
7-8. Relative Benefits and Costs of Substitute Versus Baseline Blanket Wash  	  7-24
7-9. Estimated WijIingness-to-Pay to Avoid Morbidity Effects for One Symptom Day (1995 dollars) .  7-26
                                    LIST OF FIGURES
3.1  Material Balance	  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
                                             xi

-------

-------
                              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
                        i
      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

-------
 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.
                                          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 of 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
                                          ES-3

-------
 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 intended 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.
EPA methods) included melting point, solubility, vapor pressure, soil sorption coefficient, octanol
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).
                                             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 pombined 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 toxicity 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.  Ten 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, diethylene 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

-------
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,
                                          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.SxlCT3 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
10 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 the blanket wash formulations may present risks to aquatic
organisms. The two chemicals were alkyl benzene sulfonates, present in Formulations 3, 4, 6, 8,
11, 18, and 20, and ethoxylated nonylphenols, present in Formulations 4, 5,  7, 8, 9, 17, 24, and
40. 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

-------
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 50°F to greater
than 230°F; 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
                                          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:

       (1) there were four blankets per press;
       (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, it was possible 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 $20.00/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.


III.  OTHER ISSUES

       Many factors influence a printer's decision to use a particular blanket wash.   These
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

-------
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
formulatlon-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.
                                          ES-10

-------
                                      Chapter 1
                                    Introduction
      This chapter introduces the
Design for the Environment (DfE)
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
   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
   1.2
   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

-------
 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:

    • 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.
    » 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
 Public Interest Groups •
• Academia
Other Government Agencies
       1.1.2  Document Overview

       Chapter I 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
ReviewTeam (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.
                 What is a Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment?

     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.
                                            1-2

-------
                                                                     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.
     •  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 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 flexography 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

-------
 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 alsoi 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.
      » 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.
      » 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 Project 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.
                                             1-4

-------
                                                                 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 project, 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 chosen1 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

-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
                                            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: 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.
                                          1-6

-------
                                                                1.1  PROJECT BACKGROUND
proprietary formulation data. While specific methods were developed by the DfE Lithography
Project team for conducting the performance demonstration and 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 project 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 conjunction
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, and  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

-------
 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.
                                           1-8

-------
                                              1.3 PROFILE OF THE BLANKET WASH USE CLUSTER
      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.  At least two major U.S. manufacturers of blanket
washes in the United States have 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.  The market is very  fractured, as the largest
producers of blanket cleaner in the United States are estimated to 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.

      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.1  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
"traditional" cleaner.2  Alternative  washes discussed below include:  water miscible solvents,
vegetable oil-based cleaners,  and terpene-based cleaners.
                                          1-9

-------
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
 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 20°C, 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.3

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. These ink systems are not available for all types
of printing and have been utilized primarily in the business forms industry.


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.4  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
lithography will control only 35% of the U.S. market by the year 2025, due to competition from
flexography and plateless  printing technologies.5   Industry contacts indicated, however, that
                                          1-10

-------
                                                                        1.4 MARKET PROFILE
plateless printing will find its market "niche" and will not result in a market decline for the
lithographic blanket wash industry.6

      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.7  Small
to medium  size companies have had greater success in providing low VOC cleaners to the
marketplace.8'9

      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%).10

      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.11  In addition, many companies that produce printing equipment  also manufacture
blanket washes or private label another manufacturer's wash, 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.12
        Plants with presses are firms that possess any printing press or duplicator/photocopier and engage in printing as
their primary business.
                                           1-11

-------
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 Multigraphics*
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*
Vam International
Witco*
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.
                                          1-12

-------
                                                                               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
Chemical
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), medium aliphatic*
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic*
Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy*
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic*
2-Butoxyethanol
Solvent Naphtha (petroleum), heavy aliphatic
Mineral Spirits (straight run naphtha)*
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*
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
64742-96-7
64741-41-9
75-9-2
1330-20-7
71-55-6
67-63-0
67-64-1
64742-47-8
108-88-3
64742-94-5
108-65-6
2807-30-9
5989-27-5
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
146,497
140,000
125,003
76,503
66,000
60,000
55,000
51 ,943
51,000
49,815
38,000
27,932
22,000
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

-------
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.13-1*

       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 1996.15  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.16


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 safety 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.
                                          1-14

-------
                                    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

-------
 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.17-18 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.19

       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.20'21  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.22-23

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.
                                          1-16

-------
                                    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. Cross, Lisa.  "Suppliers Expand their Eco-roles." Graphic Arts Monthly. December 1994.

2. U.S. EPA. Control Techniques Guideline for Offset Lithographic Printing - Draft. July 12,
1993.                                                :

3. Hoppe, Debbie. Printex Products Corporation.  "Comments on the Draft CTSA Review,"
memorandum to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA. April 19, 1996.

4. U.S. Department of Commerce.  U.S. Industrial Outlook 1994. January 1994.

5. Bruno, Michael H.  Michael H. Bruno's Status of Printing, 1991 Update: A State-of-the-Art
Report. Salem,  NH: GAMA Communications, 1991.

6. Kannenberg, Mark.  RBP Chemical  Corporation. Fax received April 19, 1995.

7. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Ray Brady,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Orange Park, FL.  May 3, 1995.

8. Jadrich, Paul. Siebert, Inc., comments on draft submitted to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA on Nov
7, 1995.

9. Crawford, James. State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources comments on draft
to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA. Nov 1995.

10. Lewis, A.F., Blue Book Marketing Information Reports.. June 1994.

11. Telecon.  Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Bill Lofquist,
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. May 3, 1995.
                                          1-17

-------
 CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION
 12. Jadrich, Paul. Siebert, Inc. Comments on draft provided to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA. Nov 7,
 1995.

 13. Sheppard, William J. Litho Research. Fax received April 21, 1995.

 14. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Asspciates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Ray Brady,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Orange Park, FL. May 3, 1995.

 15. NPES. The Association for Suppliers of Printing and Publishing Technologies, Monthly
Statistics Report and Quarterly Economic Forecast  1994.

 16. Kannenberg, Mark.  RBP Chemical Corporation. Fax received April 19, 1995.

 17, Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with C.K. Berthold,
Oxy-Dry Corporation, Itasca, IL. April 20, 1995.

18. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Jerry Hubbard,
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Stamford, CT. April 27, 1995.

19. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Jerry Hubbard,
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Stamford, CT. April 27, 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 C.K. Berthold,
Oxy-Dry Corporation, Itasca, IL. April 20, 1995.

22. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with C.K. Berthold,
Oxy-Dry Corporation, Itasca, IL. April 20, 1995.

23. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Jerry Hubbard,
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Stamford, CT. April 27, 1995.
                                         1-18

-------
                                     Chapter 2
                                  Data Collection
                                          2.1
                                          2.2
                                          2.3
                                          2.4
      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 toxLcological data for each
chemical.   Information on the exposure
routes,   toxicity   endpoints   (such   as
carcinogenicity, 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, flammability, ignitability and corrosivity
have been assigned to each of the blanket washes.
        i 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
                                          2.5
                                          2.6 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

-------
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), oc-hexyl-co-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
                                          2-2

-------
                                                            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 Aether;
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether;
Propylene glycol monobutyl ether;
  Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, terpene processing by-products;
c/-Limonene;
Linalool;
Nerol;                     ;
2-Pinanol;
Plinols;
cc-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

-------
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
 Soil sorption coefficient
 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 °C.

 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/L.

 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 organics) 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.
                                                  2-4

-------
                                                                   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 °C.
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 20°C 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  s:orption 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
              octanol/water coefficient.  Environ Toxicol. Chem. 15(2): 100-106.)
                                            2-5

-------
 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. Sci.
             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,
 dodecyK 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, flammabilify, igriitability 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 §261.20 (Protection of Environment, RCRA, Identification and Listing of
             Hazardous Waste), Characteristic of Ignitability.

       •      Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Table 49 CFR § 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
                                          2-6

-------
                                                                  2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
             release  of energy, but not violently; fires involving these materials should  be
             approached with caution.

      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 flammabiliry, materials are ranked on a scale of 0 through 4:

      0 -    any material that will not burn.

      1 -    materials that must be preheated before ignition will occur and whose flash point
             exceeds 200°F (93.4°C), 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.

Chemicals not 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
§261.20  (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 60°C (140°F) 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 corrosivity, 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 §172.101. This table lists
all required labels a chemical must have affixed to its container prior to shipping.  Chemicals
                                            2-7

-------
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-
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-0
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-
propanamine0
Butyrolactone
Cumenea
Diethanolamine8
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succlnate
Dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether
Dipropyiene 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
dodecylbenzenesulfonic 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-butoxy-1-
methylethoxy)-
DGMBE
DPGME
Hydrotreated middle distillateb
                                         2-8

-------
                       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
diethanolamine3
Fatty acids, tall oil, compounds with
diethanolamine
Hydrocarbons, terpene processing
by-products0
d-Limonene3
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,
a-(nonylphenyl)-co-hydroxy-, branched
and unbranched isomers0;
NP-6b; NP-9b
Tetrasodium EDTA
Fatty acid methyl estersb
Diethanolamine tallateb
Diethanolamine tallate

Cyclohexene, 1 -methyl-4-(1 -
methylethenyl)-b; Terpenesb
1 ,6-Octadien-3-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-b
Petroleum distillate13
NMP
Aliphatic petroleum distillate Cg-C^13
2,6-Octadien-1 -ol, 3,7-dimethyl-b
Linear alkyl ethoxylateb
Bicyclo[3.1 .1]heptan-2-ol, 2,6,6-
trimethyl-b
Cyclopentanol, 1 ,2-dimethyl-3-(1-
methylethenyl)-0
Poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyi), a,a'-(iminodi-
2,1 -ethanediyl)bis[co-hydroxy]-, N-[3-
(branched decyloxy)propyl] derivatives0
Ethoxylated hexyl alcohol
Ethyl-3-ethoxy propionate
1 ,2-Propanediol
2-Propanol, 1-butoxy-b
Butanedioic acid, sulfo-, 1 ,4-bis(2-
ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt0
Caustic soda
2-9

-------
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-octadecenoate°
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 solvent*
Tall oil, special
a-Terpineola
Terpinolene3 •
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 naphthab
Aromatic petroleum distillate CB-C^b
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
b Indicates name supplied by industry.
c Indicates that the name was chosen from
the CHEMID Files.

the TSCA Inventory.
                                             2-10

-------
                                                                           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:  <50°C(E)
Water Solubility:  Dispersable (n=3 to 10) (E)
Vapor Pressure:  <0.01 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow:  3.40 (E)
Log10Koc: 3.97 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.35 (E)
Henry's Law: O.OOX10'8 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-99 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
Molecular formula varies
Structure:
               R(OCH2CH2)nOH
               R - C12to  C15

Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density:  0.95g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint:      >100°C (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: -43.78°C (M)
Water Solubility: 0.02g/L(E)
Vapor Pressure: 10.34 torr (at 54.4°C) (M)
Log10Kow: 3.78 (M)
Log10Koc: 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 component
C9H12
Structure:
Boiling Point: !169 -171°C(M)
Density:  0.876 g/cm3 (M)
FlashPoint:      54.4°C(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Reactivity: 0
 Flammability;  2
 Ignitability: N
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                2-11

-------
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: Miscibie(E)
  Vapor Pressure:  <104 mm Hg (E)
  Log10Kow: 4.78 (E)
  Log10BCF: 3.41 (E)
  Henry's Law:  6.27X1 0"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99.82-99.98 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Surfactant
C18H30S03
Structure:
          C12H25
Boiling Point:  204.5°C (M)
Density:  1.00g/cm3(M)
Flash Point:      149° 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: Dodecyfoenzensulfonic acid, ethanolamine salt
  Molecular weight: 387.59
  Melting Point: Not available
  Water Solubility: Dispersible (E)
  Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
  Log10 K^f Not available
           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)
                                                 2-12

-------
                                                                         2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
       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"5 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
C21H39N03S:
Structure:
             C12H25'
HNH2CH(CH3)2I
Boiling Point:  Decomposes (M)
Density:  1.03g/cm3(M)
Flash Point:      Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
     Benzenesuifonic 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"5mmHg(E)
Log10Kow: 4.78 (E)
Log10Koc: 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
Cn+9H2n+15NS03(n=10-16)
Structure:
          OH3(CH2),
           n = 10 to 16
  HNH2CH(CH3)2
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density:  1.05g/cm3(E)
Flash Point:     Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                               2-13

-------
CHAPTER 2:  DATA COLLECTION
     Benzenesulfonic Acid, (Tetrapropenyl)-, Compound with 2-Propanamine
                                             CAS# 157966-96-6
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms: Isopropylamine salt of (tetrapropenyl)
  benzenesulfonfc acid
  Motecular weight:  383.5
  Melting Point:  Not available
  Water Solubility: Dispersible (E) (surfactant)
  Vapor Pressure: <10~5 mm Hg (E)
  LcxjujK^,: Not available
  Log,^: Not available
  LogJOBCF: Not available
  Henry's Law:  Not available
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Dispersant
C21H37N03S
Structure:
                           HNH2CH(CH3)J
                    T- branchad, unsaturatad
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; y-hydroxybutyric acid lactone; 3-
  hydroxybutyric acid lactone; 4-hydroxybutanoic acid lactone
  Molecular weight:  86
  Melting Point: -44°C (M)
  Water Solubility: miscible (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 3.2 mm Hg (25° C)(M)
           -0.640 (M)
           0.85 (E)
  Log10BCF:  -0.72 (E)
  Henry's Law:  1.81 x 10'5 atm-m3/mole (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-97 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
  2
  Structure:
  Boiling Point:  204°C (M)
  Density: 1.125g/mL(M)
  FlashPoint:      Open cup: 98°C (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)
                                                   2-14

-------
                                                                             2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
                                              Cumene
                                             CAS# 98-82-8
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms:  benzene, (1-methylethyl)-; Isopropylbenzene
Molecular weight: 120.19
Melting Point:  -96°C(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 component
C9H12
Structure:
                       CH(CH,),
                             3'2
Boiling Point: 152-153°C (M)
Density:  0.862 g/cm3 (M)
Flash  Point:      39°C (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:  28°C (M)
Water Solubility: Very soluble
Vapor Pressure: Not available
Log10Kow:  -1.43(M)
Log10Koc: -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
C4H1lN02
Structure: HOCH2CH2NHCH2CH2OH
Boiling Point: 270°C (M)
Density:  1.08'814ag/mL(M)
FlashPoint:  ,    137°C(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Reactivity: 0
 Flammability:  1
 Ignitability:  N
                             Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                  2-15

-------
CHAPTER 2:  DATA COLLECTION
                              Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
                                               CAS# 112-34-5
                                     Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms: 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol; butyl ethyl
  Celtosolve; diethylene glycol butyl ether; butyl Carbitol;
  Dowanol DB; Poly-Solv DB; butoxydiglycol, butyl digol,
  butyl diteinol
  Molecular weight:  162.2
  Melting Point: -68°C (M)
  Water Solubility:  Miscible (E)
  Vapor Pressure:  0.02 mm Hg (E) (20° C)
            0.56 (M)
  Log,0BCF: 0.46 (E)
  Henry's Law: <1.00X10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  83-97 (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C8H18°3
Structure:  C4H9OCH2CH2OCH2CH2OH
Boiling Point: 231° C (M)
Density: 0.954 g/mL(M)
Flash Point:      Open cup:  110°C(M)
                Closed cup: 78°C(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: 8°C (M)
  Water Solubility: 0.1 g/L (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.06 mm Hg (25°C)(E)
           1.39 (E)
           1.04 (E)
  Log10BCF:  0.82 (E)
  Henry's Law:  1.28 x 10"7 atm-m3/mo!e (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 85-97 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C8H1404
Structure: (CH30)CO(CH2)4CO(OCH3)
Boiling Point: 193.7°C (at 760 mm Hg)(E)
Density:  1.063g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 107°C(M)
Physical state: Colorless, odorless liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Ignitability: N
                               Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                   2-16

-------
                                                                             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:  -42.5°C (M)
Water Solubility:  1 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure:  0.1 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 0.90 (E)
Log10Koc:  0.77 (E)
Log10BCF: -0.14 (E)
Henry's Law: 9.09X10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C7H1204
Structure: CH302C(CH2)3C02CH3
Boiling Point: 214°C (M)
Density:  1.088g/cm3 (M)
FlashPoint: 100°C(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; butanedioic acid,
  dimethyl ester; methyl succinate
Molecular weight: 146.14
Melting Point: 19°C(M)
Water Solubility: 8.3 g/L (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.1mmHg(E)
Log10Kow: 0.19 (M)
Log10Koc:  0.48 (E)
Log10BCF:  Not available
Henry's Law:  5.8X10'6 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 97 (E)
Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C6H1004
Structure:  CH302C(CH2)2C02CH3
Boiling Point:  196.4°C(M)
Density: 1.12g/cm3(M)
FlashPoint:  100°C(E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
  Ignitability:  N
                             Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                  2-17

-------
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
  Motecular weight:  190.3
  Melting Point: -73°C (M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.044 mm Hg (M)
           1.13 (E)
 LogtoBCF: 0.63 (E)
 Henry's Law: <1.00X10'8atm-m3/mole(E)
 POTW Overall Removal Rate (%}: 83-97 (E)
 Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C10H22°3
Structure:
          H(OCHCH9)9OCAH,
               CH
Boiling Point: 229°C (M)
Density:  0.913 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point:  118° 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: -80°C(M)
 Water Solubility: Miscible(E)
 Vapor Pressure: 0.4 mm Hg (M) (25°C)
        :  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
Structure: CH3CHOHCH2OCH2CH(OCH3)CH3
Boiling Point:  188.3°C (M)
Density:  0.951 g/mL (M)
FlashPoint: 75°C(M)
Physical state: Liquid
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Reactivity: 0
 Flammability: 2
 Ignitability: N
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                               2-18

-------
                                                                                 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:  -70°C (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 (%):  « 100 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
cnH2n+2 and GnH2n (cycloparaffin)
Structure:  No definite structure. Mixture of
 normal-, branched-, and cyclo-paraffins.
Boiling Point:  180-210°C(E)
Density: 0.78g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint:  50°C (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Ignitability:  Y
                                Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                      Ethoxylated Nonylphenol
                                     CAS# 9016-45-9, 26027-38-3, 68412-54-4
                                      Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms:  poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-(nonylphenyl)-O-
  hydroxy-; Antarox; polyethylene glycol mono (nonylphenyl)
  ether
  Molecular weight: 630 (for n=9.5) (typical range 500 - 800)
  Melting Point: -20to+10°C (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
  Henry's Law:  1.81X10'22 atm-m3/mole (E) (np = 7)
  POTW Overall Removal  Rate (%): 95 (M)a
  Chemistry of Use: Nonionic surfactant
C34H62010(forn=9.5)
Structure:
 Branched-C9H19—£    \- O(CH2CH20)nH

 n = 9.5 (for screen printing formulation product)

Boiling Point: >300°C (E) (decomposes)
Density: 0.8g/cm3(E)
Flash Point:  200 - 260°C (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
  Ignitability:  N
                                Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
    "  Based on testing data (Weeks, J.A. et al.  1996.  Proceedings of the CESIO 4th World Surfactants Congress,
Barcelona, Spain.  Brussels, Belgium: European Committee on Surfactants and Detergents, pp. 276-91.) the original
estimate of POTW removal has been changed from 100% to 95% in the final report. This revision results in increased
estimates of the releases from POTWs to surface waters as described in section 3.3.  When the releases to surface water are
compared with the concern concentration set at the default value of 0.001 mg/L, the formulations containing ethoxylated
nonylphenols (formulations 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, 24, and 40) present concerns to aquatic species that were not reported in the
draft CTSA.
                                                      2-19

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
                    Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, tetrasodium salt
                                              CAS# 64-02-8
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms: Glycine, N,N'-1,2-ethanediylbis[N-
  (carboxymelhyl)-, tetrasodium salt; Tetrasodium EDTA
  Molecular weight 380.20
  Melting Point: >300°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 1030g/L(M)
  Vapor Pressure: <10"7 mm Hg (E)
           Not available
           Not available
  LogJOBCF:  Not available
  Henry's Law:  Not available
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83.3-96.6 (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Chelating agent
C10H12NaN208
Structure:
               Na
-oc'c
CH2CO
Na+
               -
                OCCH2NCH2CH2NCH2CO Na
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density:  0.83 g/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
                                            CAS# 67762-38-3
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
 Synonyms:  fatty acid methyl esters
 Molecular weight: 270-298
 Melting Point: 27-36°C (M)
 Water Solubility: <0.1 g/L (E)
 Vapor Pressure: <10"3mmHg(E)
           4.53 (E)
 Log10BCF:5.65(E)
 Henry's Law: 2.00X1 0'2 atm-m3/mole (E)
 POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  94-100 (E)
 Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Cn+2H2n+2°2
Structure:
                      0
                      II
                    RCOCH-
            R =
                - 15-17
                           unsalurated
Boiling Point: 325°C (E)
Density:  0.88 g/cm3 (E)
FlashPoint: 200°C (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Ignitability: N
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                  2-20

-------
                                                                         2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
   Fatty Acids, C16-C18 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)
Henry's Law:  5.23X10'5 atm-m3/mol (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
 n=15 to
                                                 Structure:
                                                                            C22H45N°4
                                                              RCO   NH2(CH2CH2OH)2
                                                             R = C^5_^7 ,  and unsaturoted
                                                  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
Log10K:  Not available
   10ow
   10Koc:
 Log10BCF: Not available
 Henry's Law: Not available
 POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 83-100 (E)
 Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
                                                  C22H45N04 and
                                                  Structure:
                                                               0
                                                               ii
                                                              RCO
        NH2(CH2CH2OH)
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

-------
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 -60°C (E)
  Water Solubility: 0.02g/L(E)    .
  Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg (E)
  t*fliolW 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: 165-180°C(E)
Density: 0.84 - 0.87 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point:      30 - 50°C (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
  Corrosivity: N
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                            cf-Limonene
                                             CAS# 5989-27-5
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
 Synonyms:  1-methyl-4-(1-methyIethenyl} cyclohexene; (+)-
 carvene; citrene; 1,8-p-menthadiene; 4-isopropenyl-1-
 methyteyclohexene cinene; cajeputene; kautschin
 Molecular weight:  136
 Melting Point: -74°C(M)
 Water Solubility: 0.014 g/L (M)
 Vapor Pressure: 5 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
 Log10Kow:4.83(E)
 Log,^: 3.12 (E)
 Log10BCF: 3.44 (E)
 Henn/s Law: 3.80X10'1 atm-m3/mol (E)
 POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): >99 (E)
 Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C10H16
Structure:
Boiling Point: 176°C(M)
Density:  0.84g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 48°C(M)
Koc:  1,000-4,800 (E)
Safety Hazard Factors:  Not available
                             Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                 2-22

-------
                                                                               2.2  CHEMICAL INFORMATION
                                               Linalool
                                              CAS# 78-70-6
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms:  1,6roctadien-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)
Log10Koc:  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
C10H180
Structure:
Boiling Point:  198-200°C(M)
Density: 0.8622 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point:   .   74°C (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: -60°C (E)
Water Solubility:  0.001 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure:  0.5-1  mm Hg  (E) (25°C)
Log10Kow: 3.90 (M)
Log10Koc: 2.17 (E)
Log10BCF: 2.73 (E)
Henry's Law: 1.71 atm-m  /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: 140-180°C(M)
 Density:  0.78 g/mL (M)
 Flash Point:      <43°C (M)
 Physical  State: Liquid
 Safety Hazard! Factors:
  Reactivity: 0
  Flammability: 2
  Ignitability: Y
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                   2-23

-------
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
   ethyfcyclohexane, for example
  Melting Point:  -80°C (E)
  Water Solubility:  0.001 g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure:  1 mm Hg at 25°C (E)
  Log10Kow:4.27(E)
  Log10BCF: 3.01 (E)
  Henry'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:  66-230°C (M)
Density: 0.8 g/ml (E)
Flash Point:      60°C (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: <-15.4°C (M)
 Water Solubility: Insoluble (E)
 Vapor Pressure: 0.06 mm Hg (M)
 Log^ 3.47 (E)
 Log^: 1.85 (E)
 Log10BCF:  2.41 (E)
 Henry's Law:  5.89X10'5 atm-m3/mole (E)
 POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 94-99 (E)
 Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C10H180
Structure:
Boiling Point: 224-225°C (M)
Density: 0.8756 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point:      77°C (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:  Not available
                               Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                    2-24

-------
                                                                           2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
                                     N-Methylpyrrolidone
                                            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 -23°C (M)
Water Solubility: Miscible (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.334 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
Log10Kow:  -0.38 (M)
Log10Koc:  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: 202°C
(M)
Density:  1.03g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 96°C(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Reactivity: t
 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: <-50°C (E)
Water Solubility: Dispersible (n=3 to 10) (E)
              Miscible (n>10) (E)
Vapor Pressure: <104 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow: 3.26 (E)
Log10Koc: 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
                      CH,
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

-------
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 - 80°C (M)
  Water Solubility: <0.1 g/L (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 1.9x10"2mmHg(E)
  Log10IV2.85(E)
           1.73 (E)
  Log10BCF:  1.94 (E)
  Henry's Law:  1. 90X1 (P atm-m3/mole (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  88-98 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C10H180
Structure:
                                  OH
Boiling Point: 220°C (M)
Density:  1.01 g/cm3(E)
Flash Point:      65°C (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-methylethenyl)-
  Molecular weight:  154.24
  Melting Point: 93°C (M)
  Water Solubility: Very slightly soluble (E)
  Vapor Pressure: <0.01 mm Hg (E)
  Log10Kow:3.34(E)
  Log^: 1.74(E)
  Log10BCF:  2.31 (E)
  Henry's Law:  1.34X10"5atm-m3/mole(E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  11-99 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
Structure:
                             'CH2
Boiling Point: 220°C (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)
                                                     2-26

-------
                                                                            2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
                        Polyethoxylated Isodecyloxypropylamine
                                           CAS# 68478-95-5
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms:  poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), oc,a'-(iminodi-2,1
 ethanediyl) bis[co-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"6mmHg(E)
Log10Kow:  0.92 (E)
Log10Koc: -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(CH2'CH20)nCH2CH2NCH2CH2(OCH2CH2)nOH
                         CH2CH2CH2OR
        R =
                     ~ branched
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), a-Hexyl-oo-Hydroxy-
                                           CAS# 31726-34-8
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms: ethoxylated hexyl alcohol
Molecular weight:  >278
Melting Point:  -10°C(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:  <1.00X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C2n+6H4n+14°h+1  (n>3)
Structure: C6H130(CH2CH20)nH  (n>3)
Boiling Point: >270°C (E)
Density:  >0.95 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point:      >150°C (E)
Safety Hazard; Factors:
 Ignitability: N
                             Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                 2-27

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
                           Propanoic Acid, 3-Ethoxy-,  Ethyl Ester
                                              CAS# 763-69-9
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms: ethyl-3-ethoxy propionate; ethyl-p-ethoxy
   propionate
  Molecular weight:  146.1
  Melting Point: -100°C (M)
  Water Solubility: Slightly soluble (1 g/L)(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.9 mm Hg (at 20°C) (M)
            1.08 (E)
           0.61 (E)
  Log10BCF: 0.59 (E)
  Henry's Law: 4.77X10-7 atm-m3/mo!e (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  84-97 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C7H1403
Structure: CH3CH2OOCCH2CH2OCH2CH3
Boiling Point: 170°C(M)
Density:  0.9496 g/cnr (M)
Flash Point:      82°C (open cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:  Not available
                               Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                         Propylene Glycol
                                               CASf 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:  -60°C (M)
  Water Solubility:  Miscible
  Vapor Pressure:  0.2 mm Hg at 20°C (M)
            -0.92 (M)
           0.00 (E)
  Log10BCF: -0.82 (E)
  Henn/s Law: 1.74x10'7atm-m3/mole (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  97 (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C3H802
Structure: HOCH(CH3)CH2OH
Boiling Point: 187.3°C(M)
Density: 1.038g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 101°C(M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Reactivity: 0
 Flammability:  1
 Ignitability: N
                               Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                   2-28

-------
                                                                            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: -100°C(M)
Water Solubility: 64 g/L (M)
Vapor Pressure: <0.98 mm Hg at 20°C (M)
Log10Kow:  0.98 (E)
Log10Koc: 0.11 (E)
Log10BCF: 0.52 (E)
Henry's Law: 4.88X10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  83-97 (E)
Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C7H16°2
Structure: C4H9OCH2CH(CH3)OH
Boiling Point: 170°C(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: 15 g/L (at 25°C) (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 (%):  nearly 100 (E)
Chemistry of Use: Surfactant
C20H37Na07S
Structure:
                  CH2COCH2CH(CH2)3CH3

           Nal"~OjSCH2COCH2CH(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

-------
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:  323°C(M)
  Water Solubility:  1,180 g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure:  Negligible (E); 1 mm Hg (M) (739°C)
            Not available
           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:  1390°C (M)
 Density: 2.13 g/mL(M)
 Flash Point:      Not applicable
 Physical State: Deliquescent orthorhombic 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)
  Log10Kovy: Not available
  Log^K^: Not available
  Log10BCF:  Not available
  Henry's Law:  Not available
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  83-97 (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Hydrotrope
C8H9NaS03
Structure:
                and other bo mars
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)
                                                   2-30

-------
                                                                             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:  -80°C (E)
Water Solubility:  0.03 g/L (M) for naphthalene
Vapor Pressure:  0.5 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
Log10Kow:  4.45 (M)
Log10Koc: 4.31 (E)
Log10BCF: 3.15 (E)
Henry's Law: 2.56X10"5 atm-m3/m'ole (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:; 150-290°C (E)
                                                     Density:  0.87g/mL(E)
                                                     Flash Point:  38°C (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: <-80°C (M)
Water Solubility:  0.001 g/L (E)
Vapor Pressure:  20 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
          3.44 (M)
         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
L°9ioKow:
L°9ioKoc:
Molecular Formula: CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n
(cycloparaffin)
Structure: Typical structures include normal paraffins,
CH3(CH2)nCH3, branched paraffins, and cycloparaffins
Boiling Point:: 35-160°C(M)
Density: 0.7 g/mL (E)
Flash  Point:      0°C (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

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
                       Solvent Naphtha (Petroleum),  Light Aromatic
                                             CAS# 64742-95-6
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms: ComsolvlOO
  Molecular weight:  128 for naphthalene
  Melting Point: -80°C (E)
  Water Solubility: 0.03 g/L (M) for naphthalene
  Vapor Pressure: 0.5 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
           3.26 (E)
  Log10BCF: 2.28 (E)
  Henry's Law:  3.70X1 04 atm-m3/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: 135-210°C (E)
Density: 0.87g/mL(E)
Flash Point: 38°C (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), Medium Aliphatic
                                             CAS# 64742-88-7
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
 Synonyms: Solvent 140
 Molecular weight: 86 for n-hexane; 112 for
   ethycyclohexane, for example
 Melting Point: -60°C (M)
 Water Solubility: 0.001  g/L (E)
 Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg at 25°C (E)
 Log10Kow:5.64(M)
 Log^: 3.77 (E)
 Log,0BCF:  4.51 (E)
 Henry'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: 176-210°C(M)
Density:  0.787 g/mL(M)
FlashPoint: 60°C (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Reactivity: 0
 Flammability:  2
 Ignitability: Y
 Corrosivity: N
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                  2-32

-------
                                                                     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:  <20°C(E)
Water Solubility:  Dispersible (M)
Vapor Pressure:  <10"6 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow:  5.89 (E)
Log10Koc: 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
                                             C24H44°6
                                             Structure:
                                                                       CHOH

                                                         ;              CH2R
                                                            R = OC(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)7CH3
                                                         ;       o
                                             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
polyoxyethylenic 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
                                             C54H114°26
                                             Structure:
                                                                 >V	JCocj

                                                                  N>AH«
                                                                     H2
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
                                      Sorbitan, Monolaurate
                                             CAS# 5959-89-7
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms: D-glucitol; 1,4-anhydro-, 6-dodecanoate
  Molecular weight: 358.34
  Melting Point: <20°C(E)
  Water Solubility: Insoluble (M)
  Vapor Pressure: <10'6 mm Hg (E)
          - 3.15 (E)
           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
C18H34°6
Structure:
                HO
                             0
Boiling Point: 393°C (M)
Density:  1.0g/cm3(E)
Flash Point:      Not available
Safety Hazard Factors: Not available
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
        Sorbitan, Tri-9-Octadecenoate,  Poly(Oxy-1,2-Ethanediyl) Derivatives
                                             CASff 9005-70-3
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
  Synonyms: sorbitan tri-oleate (crillet 45)
  Molecular weight: 1,836(n=20)
  Melting Point: Not available
  Water Solubility: Completely soluble (E)
  Vapor Pressure: <10  mm Hg (E)
           Not available
           Not available
  Log10BCF: Not available
  Henry's Law:  Not available
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): 99.98-100 (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Dispersant
C100H188°28
Structure:
                           ;OC2H4)XR


                           'CH(OC2H4)yOH

                          H2C(OC2H4)ZR
            w+x-t-y+z = 20

            R = OC(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)7CH3
                0
Boiling Point: Not available
Density:  1.1 g/cm3 (E)
FlashPoint:     160°C(E)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Ignitability: N
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                  2-34

-------
                                                                            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:  -30°C(E)
Water Solubility:  Insoluble (E)
Vapor Pressure:  0.01 mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow:  7.80 (E)
Log10Koc: 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)
FlashPoint:      160-180°C(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: <10~5mm Hg (E)
Log10Kow:  15.33 (E)
Log10Koc:  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
FlashPoint:  .'   Not available
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Reactivity: 0
 Flammability:  1
 Ignitability:  N
                             Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                  2-35

-------
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; 1 12 for
   ethyteyclohexane, for example
  Melting Point:  -70°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Insoluble (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg at 25°C (E)
            5.25 (E)
100 (E)
  Log10BCF: 3.58 (E)
  Henry's Law: 5.3 atm-m3/mole (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
                     CnH2n+2 (paraffins), CnH2n (cycloparaffins)
                     Structure:  No definite structure.  Mixture of
                       normal-, branched-, and cyclo-paraffins
                     Boiling Point:  157-196°C(M)
                     Density: 0.787 (M)
                     Flash Point:       60°C (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, C18 and C18-unsatd., methyl
  esters,  methyl stearate, methyl oleate
  Molecular weight: 296-298
  Melting Point: 36-39°C (E)
  Water Solubility:  Insoluble (M) (<0.1 g/L) (E)
  Vapor Pressure:  <10"3 mm Hg (E)
           4.53 (E)
  Log10BCF: 5.65 (E)
  Henry's Law: 2.00X1 0'2 atm-m3/mole (E)
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%): nearly 100 (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
                     C19H3602 and C19H3802
                     Structure: CH3(CH2)16COOCH3
                              and CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)7COOCH3
                     Boiling Point: 325°C(E)
                     Density:  0.88g/cm3(E)
                     Flash Point:      200°C (E)
                     Safety Hazard Factors:
                       Ignitability:  N
                               Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                    2-36

-------
                                                                               2.2 CHEMICAL INFORMATION
                                             cc-Terpineol
                                               CAS# 98-55-5
                                    Chemical Properties and Information
Synonyms:  3-cyclohexene-1-methanol, ce,a,4-trimethyl-;
 p-menth-1-en-8-ol
Molecular weight:  154.24
Melting Point: 2°C (M)
Water Solubility: Slightly soluble (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.12 mm Hg (M)
Log10Kow:  3.33 (E)
Log10Koc:  1.76 (E)
Log10BCF:  2.30 (E)
Henry's Law: 3.15X10"6atm-m3/mol(E)
POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  86-98 (E)
Chemistry of Use:  Solvent
C10H180
Structure:
Boiling Point: 214-224°C (M)
Density: 0.9338 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point:      90°C  (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:  183-185°C(M)
Density: 0.864 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point:      37.2°C (closed cup) (M)
Safety Hazard Factors:
 Ignitabiiity:  Y
 Corrosivity: N
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                   2-37

-------
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:  1090°C(M)
Water Solubility: 1,870g/L(M)
Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
           Not available
           Not available
  Log^BCF: Not available
  Henry's Law: Not available
  POTW Overall Removal Rate (%):  0-25 (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Sequestering agent
                                                      K407P2
                                                      Structure:
                                                                  K+0~ —
0          0
II          II
P —0— P —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) (25°C)
  Water Solubility: 0.1g/L(E)
  Melting Point:    o: -25°C (M)
                 m:  -48°C(M)
                 p: 13°C(M)
           3.15 (M)
           -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
                                                    Boiling Point:  137-140°C(M)
                                                    Density: 0.864 g/mL(M)
                                                    FlashPoint:      o:  17°C(M)
                                                                    m: 29°C(M)
                                                                    p:  27°C (M)
                                                    Physical State: Colorless liquid
                                                    Safety Hazard Factors:
                                                      Reactivity: 0
                                                      Flammability:  3
                                                      Ignitability: Y
                                                      Corrosivity: N
                  p—xylene
                              Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
                                                  2-38

-------
                                                     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 §§ 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  = carcinogeniciry
      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

-------
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 whiclr 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.
                                          2-40

-------
                                                     2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION

Comment

r^
z^
UJ <
o 3
z
1
^
~ '§
••• Q.
n ""
H C

w *
Q) 3 4)
•X (/) «
O « O

o
z
CO
2
•5*6
t=z

ill
Chemical Nami
















CO
CD
73
s|
* <0 £ ^ 0)
So -5 to .$" g>








D>
2"

(D
C
C
o
to
c
LO
05
"
5
30
CD
CO
CO


Alcohols, C12-C15,
ethoxylated
s
CO
^s
Included in TSCA Sectio
testing of C9-hydrocarbo
data available
CB 73 <0_^
1>I o
1? |i
£> *
^ g !
_il§!








(0
CD
73
"O >-^
ns « •§
£ 2 •
JlS


o-°c
3 0
CD .c
C 0

c
.0
to
w
_c

CO
S

CM
_!.
£
Benzene, 1, 2, 4-trime
















CO
*

c
Q5
2
o













c
o
to
s
_c
o

27176-8

CM


Benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl-
o
'c o>
J5 .32
§ i
data from dodecylbenzen
acid, triethanolamine salt
>,
-§_
^1
£ o
w S
•



«
0)



13
CD
73















c
.0
to
1
_c
N.
i
O
CD
CO
00
c3

CO
,.
i
Benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl-, compounds
2-aminoethanol
1 1
C *-
<0 ^3
co £
CO ^
S?-'" =
2 to .2
££.!
co "o .±














fo
CD
73













c
o
'ts
5
_c

LO
26264-0

co
CM
'>
Benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl- compounds v
propanamine
.•^ en
15
CO C
SAT report; the surfactan
of the chemical will result
irritation















0 c --

Oj £ CO
c 45.


"ffl
43

.0
ts
H
_c
CD
CO
157966-E
CM
CO
co
73
C
3
O
Benzenesulfonic acid,
(tetrapropenyl)-, comp
with 2-propanamime
1!
SAT report; the surfactan
of the chemical will result
irritation





0)
N
•j;
(O
CD
0)

"5
0)
73

J.
CO







o
to
CO
_c



®
o
0
Benzenesulfonic acid,
C16 -alkyl derivatives,
compounds with 2-


propanamine
ra
(0

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION


1
1


Is
*— -I
_l IU
111 <
|3


0

S
£

^
||

i- uj
i_ £
Q) 3 
^
to
s
0
§
I
1
£
CD
4o
s
- 500 mg/kg/daya
(fetotoxicity)
_j






p
i_*

CD
•o
c
75 .2

•s 1
o
01
CM





1
o
1
co
1
o
JD CD
_ (0
O ®
CO "0
"it
CO
CO >.
.g ® S"
O CO 'G
•S .Q CD
3 i fr


§•
515_-
y C
"3> 2
^1.
o
__.
D>

0

75
P
CD
T3

CD
.n
CO
1
1
CO
o
CO
is
H


o
E3-,
^>S
E J
W^

O 0}
i;||

*O o
c
_g
to
ca
_c
CO
CM
CO
CO
OJ
a>
CM






CD
CD
3
O






•gl?
E c
Sll
• 3.
"*






r
2 2~ ™ c

O

75
i
•S
co"
_CD
3 .2
1-8
O
o Q
-a co
CD -
to 5
 -S
® rf "m
2 1- co
^; CD '(0
Tt|f








iiii
CD CD JZ CD
*- c o ^:

c
o
to
CO
.c
c
CM
••"
t





CD
CO
o
CO
tan
O
CO
h-
- 191 mg/kg/day
•z.







CO
CD
.C


75
E
CD
TJ


T3
1
CD
1
1
0


a.
a.
T—
1
•z.







0
Q. cf CO

T3
C
O
to
ca
JZ
c.
LO
4
CO
^
^
r- co
CM CM
.a
o
c
o
E
t
D)
CD
C
CD
ll
Q 'S

CD
-8
1
1
•j)


5-
i.
t —
LO
^











75
E
CD
•a
0)
C
'co
3
f
1 2>
"O
CD .9
co =5
O M—
o o
o 3
'x .25
Q C
CD
o
1
O
CM
-^1







8-
2


c
o
to
CO
c
CD
CO
-




CD
ts
Q.
TJ
CO
•1^
ts
Q

CD
.a
JO
CO
§
5
CD
1
P


p
D)
LO
J











75
^
CD
•a
01
c
i.
c S
O CO
"So
co 55
CO CO
•& .Q
CD 73
•- -5
X .5
2 E
"S
1
J







8-
£


c
0
'to
ca
_c
§
1
^
-



CD
Is
«
•§,
•5^
1
5
                                           2-42

-------
            2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION

Comment

i.
_l Ul
LU <
< O
0 -J
Z

o
5=
Q
2E
^ *••
'o S
"x

*~ m

>_ £

LU
o"
CO
2
oc z

fl>
CO
8
1
o



TSCA §4 review available
.^
•S
E cp
T- &,
LO

_J










£
CD
D)
c
'co
f
O 05
"O
CD O
1 8
-Q _g
,
.c
US
E
Q

o
1
o
LO
s
Q
"CO
1









2
» CD
CD 0>
C -r
j> 2?
o o
CX o
Q E

CD
C
CO
Q.
D)
1o
ffi
CD
73
CO
O
LO
*» CO
•§>T3
,
Z










CO
CD
•o


CO
c\i W <"
^ co 2
•p- 0) D)
III
§ co JiT
^"5>2
-< E




Q.
cT 2
fli C
c o

o
c
_g
13
1
i
«8

f
"o
CD
C
_CD

Q 0)
CD
equivocal skin tumor response in
mice through dermal exposure,
positive Ames assay in multiple
strains, with and without
activation. No increased
frequency of micronuclei in mous
bone marrow cells















CO
0
















r
g
13
CO
c
|
CO
Si


IJB
l|
« =
a^
CO CO
CD CD
— "5
'to ^
Q ^

possible endocrine
disrupter
>^
CO
500 mg/kg/d
[dev/repro)
1
•z.




C CJ>
2

t> oj


CO
CD

°->,
CO
s
1
%

•z.




2
.ct
o

CD
T5
C
g
13
CO
_c
9016-45-9
26027-38-3
68412-54-4
co LO
T- CM

"o
C
CD
QL.
C
O
c
T3
3s
O
Gj

SAT report - low to moderate
concern; poor skin absorption















F
CD
TJ














r
0
13
1
_c
64-02-8
a
0
1
iaminetetras
sodium salt
"S 8
§2
>"0
LU CO

.-S* CD
11
11
II
CO 5 C
CD « -2
£ .0 Jjj
PI
Si: .« _3
^ **— c
CO O CO















"co
CD
•* cp cp
CM CO O)
Op CO CO
CM CM O
O CO O)
^3 t^** t^*"
co r^ T™
CO CO CO














r
o
13
CO
_c

c^


12
5 CD
05 >.
.<£*:£
£ E

SAT report - low concern















CO
CD
T3
68956-56-9














c
0
13
CO
^:
c

C^

CD ">
CD 3
ft
eo~ >,
81

X Q.
2-43

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION



1
1
o

Q ^__^
^C O
Q -1
§
9
oc
<-
•s o.
o c
H* nj
©
*•* *- «.
s 3 .2
IP
5|-tt

Q
"2H

g
"S'd
0=2
i
2

1
E
01
!^*










1* 2-s
"B>T3 | •3S5-,
^C CD C o)  O) CO °O
b .a 2 Q."™









"co
CD
•o



1
E
i^
uo
00
1
o
IO
Q
1
0








c
1 inhalatio
CO
pi.
•f
CM
1
CO
0
CM
£
.0)

;1= ^

co 13


s|
1 J=
.CD
CO
CO
s
i
«

f^
^ 2
|2
i
z



2
Q.
2
•o

CD
T3







in ^___
||



CO
§5
*f
c
inhalatio

^"
O
LO

fe
0
* "^
CD
O
T3
1

JS*
>»

'33
z

CD
13
»::
CD
73
0
E
1
I
tc
£ |
!< §
co 8









To
CD

CD
13
£
CD r-
o|
E S
81
T ro
•C .3
o
Q. cf
£ |
Si 1





2
c
1
c
inhalatio
0)
CO
^*

1
CM

.
3 >

2 ^
QJ T3
Q. ^CD
"IT <"
CO CD
.C ^3
li
z. £
                                           2-44

-------
           2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION




Comment
i_
-I UJ
LU ^
< o
0 -I
„
QC
Q
H—
QC


if

H£
fe la.
J£ <0 'g
| X<=
UJ

6
f_^

*^*



0)
E
Chemical Na



^

Q5
"to
CD
-o
tf
O
Q.
Si














	
£
1





0
o
i
o
1
O
•tf
O
Q.
!^I
§ E











CD
•a

c.
g
to
CO
"^

s
CM
CD
O
T—


CM
CM




2
CD
•z.




•c
o
a.
£
1














—
£
CD















c
g
to
1
*~~
LO
S
CM

CO

«

a> -^
C t3
•^*-§
_r O
"53 o
'X s £
O 5 a>




0
Q.
CO














to
E
CD















C
g
to
1
*"""

5
F&
•*


CM
CO




"o
CO
CL
CM




no information available














—
£
CD
-0





no information available














c
g
to
CO
c

N.
402-00-
CM


CM
CO




CO
0
CL




o
Q.
CD
CO














"co

CD















g
to
CO
c

in
478-95-
03
CO

CO

CD
C
'£
olyethoxylated
odecyloxypropyla
Q- .52




•c
o
a.
§














'ffl

CD















c
o
'to
CO
_c

CO
CO
T—
CO

8
s
z~-
^»
•a
CQ
oly(oxy-1,2-etham
lexyl-co-hydroxy-
Q- -V




1s>
o
o
s
"CO
oS














"CO

CD
•o





o
D>
E
§
o
to
1
o
to
O
1
o














.g
to
s:


o>
CD
|%»


Si




ropanoic acid, 3-
•hoxyethyl ester
n QJ

cO co
= c c
d) ._ —
no evidence of carcinogenic
effects by dermal exposure;
questionably positive Salmon
test (host-mediated) with Stre
G46 and TA1530; positive foi
chromosome aberrations in
hamster fibroblasts, negative
other mammalian cells




O> CO

7? 0>
E ;£,

o
CM



"cO
E
o>

to
CD
•o
3
toxic effects based on oral st
no evidence of carcinogenic
effects by oral exposure




£
;o ^
O) ^3
•^ £
0)0
E €,

o
CM
C JS
2 E
f™ 05
o -c
c
g
"5
CO
_c


CO
UJ


T- T- O)
•t- CM CM




1
CD
.CD
Q.
Q
a.
2-45

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION





i*^
1





NOAEL(N)or
LOAEL (L)


i
fl
P™ HI

»• S «
09 3 tw
•£ *° 3
^ x"^
iD

o
*z*
CO
s
ll



(U
E
|| Chemical Na


_^
S
is
73
il
CD
3=
(D

*g
S
5? S
§•§
i

^




73
E
CD
t>

CO
CD
CO
t
CO
to
co£
5.

JD
2
g
| Propylene glycol m«
ether
w
O
1
To
1
o
g
T3
Q}
S
XI
to
t>
75
.U
x
- 400 mg/kg/day0'1

z

cf
2
f
Q

§
1
to
c




















1
'to
tD
CO
- 50 mg/kg/daya
(repro/dev)
z*





75

•§


*l
^
^
U)
CM



^^

Sodium bis(ethylhe;
sulfosuccinate
to
.£
13
To
2
o
c
o
•a
o
to
to
X)

^•r
1
o
1
- 50 mg/kg/dayd
(repro/dev)
^^


2"
3
ID . •
C. <=>

T3
C
O
75
to
~










•
















.i
to
§
o
u

75
E
0

CM
CO
s^
6
8





Sodium hydroxide
















8-
£


c
o
73
75
C



















tr
1

CO







75
£
•D

^
CM
K^J
8
CO
s


0)
73
c
Q
to
0}
.2
•5
o
CO



















c
o
73
to
x:
d













E
to
o
8
•2
h.
T3
0

•c
o
Q.
£

CO







75

CD
TJ

LO
^J-
O)
i
CM
CO





Solvent naphtha


E
CD
O
8
1
w
CD
•D
O

•£
0
i.

CO







c
g
73
.c
•—





0
3

5
L.
CO
0
D
— C
U
5
D








•c
0
Q.
£

w
U~
=§, to a> to
g> E £ E
E (D _ ID
o€, 8=5.
E: ro
CO t-
i



to
to
x:


75 .2
£ 73
o> -
C
o
73
to
•-











                                          2-46

-------
           2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION






ff
o
E
E
3






|3
_l UJ
UJ <
< 0
0 -J
Z

ir
2> =
||
I-UJ
fl) 3 Q)
1 o i

UJ
6
o
"5*0



0)
(0
Chemical

















t
If!
i *— ^
z



15
g
•8

1338-43-8
CO



d)
Sorbitan, mono
octadecanoate
CO
CD
T3
%
2
0
C
o
•o
CO
.2
-23
CD
CD
_o
2

5 >.
D)  0)
•xl
2 Io

S1"5"
-0 Q.
If
Ii
in o>
• CO
z E,

d> co
ll
.c
o
.0
15
CO
•—





•6
CD
c
CO
»poly(oxy-1 ,2-etr
derivatives











•c
0
Q.
£
^
CO








15

•8

1
in
in
$



CD
2
CO
|| Sorbitan, monol






















D> <0
fl
«
.0
15
CO
•—


















•c
§•

^
CO








15
E
•D

i
in
o
o
o>
&


:
\
~
i
|| Sorbitan, tri-9-






















0) CO
II
^^
o
.0
15
CO
•—


CO
>. ®
? >
derivati
II
J W.











•c
o
£
HJ
CO








15
E
•8

67784-80-9
a

CD

CD
1
'5
CO
CD
CO
























.0
15
CO
•—


















•c
o
Q.
£
1^
CO








15
E
•8

CO
CVI
CO
CO
c^

"U
CD
N
~
CD
'o
C
CO
CD
t
CO
























.0
15
CO
•—






•o
CD
N
T3
§

















tco
E
CO £-
i
-1

53) CO
ll
,c
O
—
E
1

2
C\l
in
o
CO
CM



t—
Stoddard solvei

















5 -lf
•§ £
C
g
13
CO
•—


















•c
o
Q.
£
b
CO








13

1

in
CO
r-i.
CO
CO
CO
8




1
Q.
CO
'6
























c
o
3s
£
•—







2-47

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION





Comment




w.
Zcr
sr
-I Ul
III <
|3
O
§
£

*!fc. '*"-
jCj JZZ
& §.

o £*
*~ tu

Q)
fe 3 CD
•£ g "5
££"
1
CO
g
«•-• .
££
1
1
0






CD
2
1
1
I
t±
O
g-E
»- CD
§§















_
P
73
•a
r§ CO
o

!£
f.S
1>E
EX
5> .EtH-
Q £%) T™
3 E-§
ill















§
t5
1
U)
ig
CO
o>
T™
CM

75
g
'&
m
i.
a




o
CD
i
O
s"
I
00
tfS"
O CO
£ O>
CO E















75
§
CD
73















c
to ;
75
_c
a>
CM
CO
CO
CO
in
CM

CD
c
CD
0
'§•
0










CO*

"&>_
E o
8-g
CM •=•
Z











75
g
CD
73
CO
CD
73
3
to
1
0
0
CD
CO
CO
.a

E I
gf
CM
z





£^
S
f-
u


c
t5
CO
_c
7320-34-5
co
CM
E CD
.3 co
If
1^
ft
a> >.
H Q.



CD
TO
1
CD
1
So
vt
CO

>,
Co i—
^.i
^> CD !c
E 
0 g g
£ o S
c
1 ^^
_l
§•
if
tl
CM







75

CD
73





f
to
2
o
c
o
73
Q)
JD
Q
£
^^
CD

O
1
g
f « T,
1? ~!>^
"3> E CD
E h-5-
SS
£"&
3 S>
CD ^
^~ cf
> S
CD £
73 0
C
O
to
CO
x:
c
I
CO
«2§3

CD
C
_CD
>^
X
                                                          £
                                                          o
                                                          CD
                                                          :§
                                                          ffl
                                                          >-
                                                          CD
                                                          lo
                                                          o £
                                                          CO o
                                                         .-^«
                                                          o «
                                                          f^. ^
                                                          c.2
                                                          §,«
                                                          ° i
                                                          S, c
11
= •?
                                                                o
                                                                o
a
II


I).
<5 |.

H
Is
                                                       5
                                                        c o g a. o>
                                                        2 •- ^ =* .£
                                                        •SS 73 o Tl CO
                                                        CO m J^ S< —i
                                                       HI?
                      ^ _j
                      8 8


                                                                             o
                   ro CD
                   0 co
                  >-§c
                                                                             "O   T-i
                                                                             8 •§ I
                                                        w ^5 •= m ff
                                                        0 O O < Q.
                                                       -I '5 r- O Q.
                                                       < 2 § rl .£
                                                       O 75 '5> w "
                                                       ^ o co

                                                       SlSla
                                                                                       |
                                                                                      CO CO
                                                                                        UL

                            3 73
                            to £

                            11
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                      to
                               O
                               g-
                            73  E
                            o
                            IT/
                            I I
                            CD  "
                            S O
                            'o
                            X
                                                                                     t3
                                                                                     '-50
                                                                                     £ c
                                                                                     2'8
                 .-g-io
                 •^ S
                 ^ S
                 £ ?•
                                                                                          CD
       CD
       >
                                                       1 c -a 'g g
                                                       1 1 1 1 :|>
                                                       QO ^ =0
                                                       «  J3 0 T3  (D

                  " O)
                      v^
                      o
                                            2-48

-------
           2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
ducted between
were not reviewed.
C CO
o co
8 8
CD I
o **-2
« 2

CO ™
"CO °"
i!
73 .g
Q.-O
0 =
1 CO
73 CM
CD .JD
C\T.g
•g |j
CO O
- Q.
O> CD
CM •-
CM 
CD ^
£ «
D>5
C 73
•§ c
— >.
*O j^P
o 5
.c ja
cation to Sprague-
Q.
Q.
OS
"to
E
CD
73
i
CD
Becci PJ, Knickerbocker MJ, Reagan El, et al. 1982. Teratogenicity study of N-methylpyrrolidor
Dawley rats. Fund Appi Toxicol 2:73-76.




T^



responses to vapors of
c
E
j=

c
CO
15
'c
 t5
Q £
2 15
"o S
=» E
T3 C
5 O
P
S W
Exxon. 1980. TSCA sec 8(e) submission 8EHQ-1 079-031 2 follow up. A 12 Week Inhalation T<
Rat. Bio/dynamics Inc. Project No. 78-7092B. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances, U.




iri



73
CO
CD
.C
CO
1
o
'c
CD

JZ.
O
1
<° 6.
-C Q.
^t ^.
!i ci
X
o c
Hazleton. 1989. Hazleton Laboratories. 86-890000466S. A 91 -day subchronic percutaneous t
letter dated 061289 (sanitized). Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. EPA, Washingto




CD



RC Monographs on the

c
'^
"CD
EC
E

lARC. 1989. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Occupational Exposures in Petrole
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, Vol. 45. Lyon, France: lARC.




i~~



in
s
CD,
i—
8

t

CD
1
o
73
£
!
o"
00
c
OS
Q.
CO,
CD
O
0
O
i
8
"o
73
1
E
•c
o
.c
CO
s-
O5
T—
15
0)
£
O)




06



1
73
1
1
OS
73
K
SB
to
*-
c
3
to
Landy TD, Yano BL. 1 984. Dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether: a 1 3-week inhalation toxicity
Toxicol 4:612-617.




o>



I two-year inhalation

LO
— : CM
CO CM
si
jl
CL CO
v^ CD
fj to



CD




4
en
(5
a.
m
§
L.
O>
CM
CD

C\l
55

d

•c
o
Q.
CD
EC
Litton Bionetics, Inc. 1974. Mutagenic Evaluation of Compound FDA 71-56, Propylene Glycol.
294. Kensington, MD: Bionetics, Inc. NTIS PB245450/2.



T—
1—



1
£
CO
£
1
'o
s
co
£

CO
1

73
S
>,
t
MacKenzie K, Henwood S, Foster G, et al. 1990. Three-generation reproduction study with dio
Appi Toxicol 15(1):53-62.



CM




8
1
CO
o>
15
c
Xs
Q
c
c
o

.—
73
4_>
]o
"c
CD
Meyer 0, Haubro Anderson P, Hansen EV, Larsen JC. 1988. Teratogenicity and in vitro mutag
Pharmacol Toxicol 62:235-238.



CO













I
CO
r-.
CM
c
E
o
_o
CD
73
'o.
LU
-3
CD
t
•s
1
15
to
1
Q.
1
15
to
uJ
1
is



^
•^



2-49

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
 o

 &
 2
.Q


to

.2
to



 CD

1
CO
Retriev
nfo
                                        CD
                           -   = £    o
                                        CO
                                        DC
                                        0
                                        111
es
co
JD

CO

1

CD

6

"o
OJ
o
                                       UJ
                                        o
                                       •R
                                       |2
                                        0>
                                       EC
                                       OJ
TECS.
edicine.
ional Library o
 CD

 I
 CO

 1
 CD
 •c
 0)
 cc
        £
        _c

        CD


        6
        CO
        cc
Q
UJ
 o
 c
 CO

I

CO
16
.a

 CD

6

"o
UJ
o
1
CO
'CD
CD
CC
                                               O)
                                               OJ
RTECS.
Medicine.
                                                        o
                                                        &•
                                                       "co
                                                        c
                                                        o
                                                       •
         S.
        CO
Retriev
atio
nfo
        6
        CO
        o:
                Q
                UJ
cal Substances
        CD
        6
        "o
                O
        0?

        in
        OJ
        OJ

         .  CD
        CO  S
        o .a
        UJ -o
        I—  CD
        E 2
nogenic
ca
                                                                o
                                                               •c
                                                                CL
                                                                OJ
                                                                CO

                                                                Q.

                                                               |

                                                                Q.
                                                                O

                                                                S:
                CO
                CO

                I
                0.
                                                               o
onic
72.
w§
cd°

SI
25
CD O

^"^
S^
'« £
E co
>'i
CO UJ

El
ushi
                15
                22
                               s
                               o_

                               I

                               CO
                               OJ
                               CD
                               OJ
                               OJ
                               <
                                                                            in
                                                                            T—
                                                                            co
                             "o
                             u
                                                                            CO

                                                                            Q.
                                                                            "5.
                                                                            Q.
ts. Toxic
                             1
                             CO
                             £
             I
             !
             o
             Q.
                                                                            c
                                                                            CD
                                                                            JZ
                                                                            CL
                                                                            CO
                                                                            CD

                                                                            TJ
                                                                            J3
                                                                            to
j?
o
o
^

OJ
s
Calandra JC.
eveni
ion
ice of Pol
                                          c
                                          g


                                         1
                                          c
                                          o
                             S    co
Hydroc
      I
      O
                                                                                 o>
                                                                                 O
                                  O
                                  Q.
                                                                                 cc
                                  CD
                                  OJ
                                                                                 C
                                                                                 o
991. U.S Environmental Prot
Washington, DC.
                                                                                         f
                                                                                         to
8

1
CM

-------
                                                               2.3 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
CO
o
i£.

Si


E
        |


        73
                    73




                    I
O

S.

CD

o>
c
2
Q.

b

73

CO


ST
CO
CO
01 g


f§
(5 i
"5 «>
•2 CO
o *
o o
.>> o
CD Q
c
0
        3
        0}
        (D


        0>
        N

        C
        s
        73
        O
        73


        UJ



        to

        o
        s
        §
       5
       •>,
        o
        0>
       •§
S"w    .~
O 
-------
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.
                                           2-52

-------
                                                    2.4  ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD /NFORIWATYON
     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 (ppm) 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

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
          Table 2-5. Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values of Blanket Wash Chemicals
                              Based on SAR Analysis (mg/L)
Chemical
Alcohols, C12-C1S, ethoxylated
Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyi
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl
Benzenasulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compounds with
2-aminoethanol
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-.compounds with
2-propanamine
Benzenesuifonic acid, (tetrapropenyl)-,
compounds with 2-propanamine
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16-alkyl derivatives,
compounds with 2-propanamine
Butyrolactone
Cumana
Diethanolamine
Diethylena glycol monobutyl ether
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Dipropylena glycol monobutyl ether
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated, middle
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethylenodiaminetetraacetic acid, tetrasodium salt
Fatty adds, C16-CJ8 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-Llmonane
Llnaloo)
Mineral spirits (light hydrotreated)
N-Methyipyrrolidone
Naptha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy
Nero!
Oxfrane, methyl, polymer with oxirane,
monodecyl ether
2-Pinanol
Finds
Polyethoxylated isodecyloxypropylamine
Poly(oxy-1 ,2-ethanediyl), a-hexyl-o>-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
*
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
0.4
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
*
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
                                         2-54

-------
                                                             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
ct-Terpineol
Terpinolene
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Xylene
Acute Toxicity
Fish
60
>1000
>1000
3
>1000
>1000
0.6
3.3
5.5
it
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
Algal
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
*
1r
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

-------
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 S 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-alkyl 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
Cumene
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
98-82-8
Lowest
Chronic Value
(mg/L)

0.001
0.001
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
0.28
Hazard
Rank
H2
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
                                          2-56

-------
          2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INFORMATION
Chemical
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compounds
with 2-aminoethanol
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-Pinanol
oc-Terpineol
Sorbitan, mono-9-octadecenoate
Linalool
Sorbitan, tri-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1 ,2-
ethanediyl) derivatives
Sorbitan, monododecanoate, poiy(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), oc-hexyl- -hydroxy
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Propylene glycol
Sodium xylene sulfonate
CAS Number
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
57-55-6
1300-72-7
Lowest
Chronic Value
(mg/L)
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
100
100
Hazard
Rank
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
L
L
2-57

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
Chemical
Sodium hydroxide
N-MethylpyrroIidone
Dipropyiene glycol methyl ether
Tall oil, special
Fatty acids, C16-C18, methyl esters
Soybean oil, methyl esters
Soybean oil, polymerized, oxidized
CAS Number
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
149
*3
*
*
*
Hazard
Rank
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1 Ranking based on the lowest estimated chronic value; H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low.
2 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 * s No effects in a saturated solution during the prescribed test duration.
                                                  2-58

-------
                                                              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
Ethylene 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
27176-87-0
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.
 Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as an eight-hour Time Weighted Average concentration (ppm).
c The generic chemical category Glycol ethers is listed as a CAA 112B Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) and on
SARA 313 TRI. The only glycol ether found in these blanket washes that is considered a HAP is diethylene glycol
monobutyl ether (CAS No. 112-34-5). The propylene glycol ethers are not included in the glycol ether category
under this law and are not considered HAPs.
d Dipropylene glycol methyl ether has a PEL of 100 ppm.
e OSHA ceiling value.
                                            2-59

-------
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 311(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 pretreatrnent 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
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
                                          2-60

-------
                                                          2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
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.b 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 R is
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.

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,
       The national toll-free number for the National Response Center is (800)-424-8802; in Washington, D.C., call (202)-
426-2675.
                                          2-61

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
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 CFR Parts 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
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.
                                         2-62

-------
                                                             2.5 FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUS
      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.c

      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 wasted 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.

           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 (f) allow SQGs to store
waste on-site for 270 days without having  to apply for TSD status provided the waste  must be
transported over 2OO 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
      c 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.

       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

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
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 and 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 Safely 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.

      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
                                           2-64

-------
                                                         2.6 SAFETY HAZARD BY FORMULATION
           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 burn.

     1 -   materials that must be preheated before ignition will occur and whose flash point
           exceeds 200°F (93.4°C), 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 flammability 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, §261.21, 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  60°C  (140°F) 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.

     For corrosivity, 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, §261.22, 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.
                                           2-65

-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
              Table 2-8. Safety Hazard Factors for Blanket Wash Formulations1
Formulation Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 !
38
Reactivity
0




0






0


o2







0
0



Y



Y
Y

Flammability
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
Y
Y
Y
N
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
N
N
N
N
N
N
                                          2-66

-------
                                                        2.6 SAFETY HAZARD BY FORMULATION
Formulation Number
39
40
Reactivity


Flammability


Ignitability
N
N
Corrosivity
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, B.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.

ll.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.

15. Ullman, F.  1985.  Ullman's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.

16. Verschueren, K.  1977.  Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals.
                                          2-67

-------

-------
                                     Chapter 3
                                        Risk
                                           3.1
                                           3.2
                                           3.3
                                           3.4
                                            3.5
        Chapter Contents

Environmental Release Estimates
Occupational Exposure Estimates
General Population Exposure Estimates
Risk Characterization
3.4.1 Background
3.4.2 Ecological Risk
3.4.3 Occupational Risks
3.4.4 General Population Risks
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.  Figure 3-1 decribes the overall material balance:
                                          3-1

-------
 CHAPTERS: RISK
        Blanket
         wash  -
       Purchased
       (160gal/yr)
Blanket wash
  activity
                                                               -> Air release
                                                 Blanket Wash
                                                 to air and rags
                                                 (160gal/yr)
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.
3.4 ft2
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
                                            3-2

-------
                                                        3.1  ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE ESTIMATES
Hg vapor pressure3) 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

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
     In this example:

     •   The average density of the blanket wash is 0.867 g/cm
 n  weight fractionj
 Z   -
i~l     density
          i—
n    Sformulatlon
                                                        n
                                                        Z
                                                                cm0
                             1=1
                                ^formulation
                                      cm
         cm formulation

         oformulatlon
                      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
0.48]
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 jn 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;
                                            3-4

-------
                                                     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

-------
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
Alkyl 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
                                           3-6

-------
            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

-------
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
AlkyI 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
                                           3-8

-------
          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 nbnylphenol
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

-------
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
Alkyl 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
                                          3-10

-------
                                                               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
110-330
30-89
52-160
130-380
190-570
950-2,800
38-110
1 Formulation compositions were adjusted to equal 100 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.
4 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

-------
 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.
                                          3-12

-------
                                                     3.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
                                     0.02MXiPi
                              G±  = 	±±
                                         RT
                                                              (1)
                                                    7TZ
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
Diffusiviry, 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:
                    D
                     'ab
                           4.09 xlO^T1-9 (l/29+l/M)°-5M'°-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 x 105 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

-------
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  -.
                                                             (4)
where:
      Cv
      M
Airborne concentration, mg/m3
Airborne concentration, ppm
Molecular weight, g/mol
Molar volume of an ideal gas, L/mol
      At 25°C, 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
                                    I =  0.48GAt
Total amount of substance inhaled, mg/day
Vapor generation rate, g/m2-sec
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.
                                         3-14

-------
                                                     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 xlO"5 T1-9(l/29+l/M)°-5 M"°-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

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
Using the above value for diffusivity, the volatilization rate can be calculated using Equation 1,
as follows:
                                    0.02MXiPi
                                        RT
where:
      M
      R
      T
      D,
        'ab   =
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/nr-sec
Using this value for Glt 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
Propyiene glycol monobutyl ether
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Inhalation Rate
Negligible
3.9 mg/day
4.3 mg/day
Negligible
                                         3-16

-------
                                                    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

-------
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 "what-if scenario" 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.
                                           3-18

-------
                                                3.3 GENERAL POPULATION 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-
term (chronic) effects, such as carcinogenicity,  it is most helpful to have average, or typical,
                                          3-19

-------
CHAPTERS:  RISK
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
uncertainty 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.

Overview 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 of ten) 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  .
                                          3-20

-------
                                               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 90°, 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 m3  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 ug/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 Daily Dose or LADD (Table 3-3).  The formula for this dose rate is:
                LADD   =
Concentration x Daily 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

-------
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
9x10'1
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)
3x10"J
8x1Q-4
1 xlO^
1.29X10'3
3 x 10"J
1 X10"3
5x10'4
9 x 10"4
3x10-4
4.5 X 10"d
9 x 10'4
6 X 10"4


1 x 10'3
3x10"4
1.3x 10'-3
4x10'4
4.6 x 10"J
                                            3-22

-------
      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
(Mg/m3)
5 x 10'1
4
9x10"1
1.8
6 X ID'1
9
2
1
3
4
3
6
4
4
2
6 x 10'1
12.3
6x10'1

21
10

9
1
2
10 ;
10
3
3
6X10'1
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 x10'4
1 x10"3
3x10'4
6x10'4
2 x 10"4
3x10'3
5x10'4
3x10'4
7x10"4
1 x10"3
9x1Q-4
2x10'3
1 x1Q-3
1 x10'3
7x10'4
2x 10'4
4.4 x10'3
2x1Q-4

6.3 x10'3
3x10'3

2 x 10'3
4x10'4
5x 10"4
3x 10'3
3x10'3
9x10'4
9 x 10'4
2x 10"4
3-23

-------
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
6x10'1
12
5
8
2
3
1
7x10'1
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
6x10'4
5x10"4
3X10"3
7X10'4
3x10'4
2x10"4
4x10'3
1 x 10"3
2 x 1Q-d
6 x 10"4
7x10'4
4x10'4
2 x 10-4
5 x 10'4
6 x 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.
                                          3-24

-------
                                                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
4x10'1
6X10'1
6.5 x 10'1
1
6x10'1
2x10'1
5x10'1
2x10'1
1.72
5 X 10'1
3x10'1
I


8 X 10'1
1 x 10'1
9x10°
2x10'1
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 x10'4
2x10'4
1.45X10'4
3 x 10'4
2x10'4
6x1CT5
1 x icr4
6x10'5
4.56 x10'4
1 x 10'4
9x10'5


2 x icr4
3xicr5
2.3 x 10'4
6x10'5
5.2 x 10'4
                                           3-25

-------
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
Glycots
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)
4x10^2
6x1Q-1
1 x10"1
2.6 x10'1
8x10'2
1
3X10'1
2x10"1
4X10'1
6x10"1
5x10'1
8X10'1
5x10'1
6x10'1
3X10"1
8x10-2
1.63
8x10"2

3
2

1
2x10'1
3X10"1
2
2
5X10"1
5x10'1
8x10'2
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
3x10-1
4
7X10'1
2
6X10'1
9
2
1
3
4
4
6
4
4
2
6x10'1
12.4
6x10'1

23
10

9
1
2
10
10
4
4
6x10'1
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
1 x10'5
2X10"4
3x10'5
8x 10-5
2x10-5
4x10"4
9x10""
6x10'5
1 X10'4
2x10'4
1 x 10"4
2x10"4
1 x10"4
2 x 10"4
9x10'5
2x10"5
4.59 X10"4
2 x 10"5

7.9 x 10"4
5 x 10'4

4x10'4
6x1Q-5
9x10*
6x 10"4
5 x 10"4
1 x10'4
1 X10'4
2x10'5
                                          3-26

-------
                                                 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)
3x10'1
3x10'1
3X1Q-1
2
4x10'1
2 x 10'1
8 x 10'2
1.8
8x10'1
1
3x10'1
4x10'1 ,
2X1CT1
9xiry2
3x10'1
3x10'1
Annual
Pot. Dose
(mg/year)
2
2
2
10
3
1
6 x 10"1
14
6
9
2
3
1
7x10'1
2
2
LADD
(mg/kg/day)
9 x 10'5
9 x 10'5
9 x 10'5
5 x 10'4
1 x10'4
6x10'5
2x10'5
6 x 10'4
2x1Q-4
4x10"4
9 x 10'5
1 x 10'4
6 x 10"5
3x10"5
9x 10"b
9 X 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

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
       Since there are many chemicals which accumulate in living organisms (bioaccumulation),
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 bioaccumulation 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
                                          3-28

-------
                                               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

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
o
w
c C3l H?
c5 — §
|||
I^nT
tn c ff
Ego
E cc
i

"S
® *r?r-l
^S C <9 *— K
O ® CJ

- p w«
"C § O





2
fa
cS ^™^
§^

£*""
s
(O


.£

JZ
0
T™
J
51
*
«s
8
s
sS

£
T-

I
•C
s
.1 3
S o
***
£ 3
S j
o 3

P^
— C
£ ro
O CD
r- g
- 1
Jj§ *5
i S
0 0)
in g
111?
DC ^ .§ 2
1<^^
T- ,-.
tit
Q a j£
>~


«}
C
«g
Chemical Compoi
ij











































Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
-
°cb
^ ^j-
x
*~

o b
*~ ^~
x x
T- CO
^ ^
b b
^ ^"^
X X
CO CM

CM CM
0 O
X X
n- co
CM CM
o o
^ T~
X X
Tf CO

*3" ^
o o
X X
CD M-
in in
0 0
X X
r-- in
CM CM
0 0
X' X
CO CO
CO CM
_
b b
x x
i- in
CD fZ
CO
S
JB
'•g
y
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
CO









,_
b
^f™
X
CO

CM
b
x
00
CM
0
X

o
co
CO
b


q
t
o
X
CM
CM
0
X
CO

CO
in
'"






Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
-
'b'b
^3
X X
T- C-
CM CM
O O
*~ ^~ o
X X
i- C3>
CM ^ ^
b ? b
"*" x '^ O
x ,„ x
oo^in

^o k'b
"*" x r" &
XX
^CM50
^ °? CM
x x T~ ^
X
T^ CU *"
— ""
T b^

^ CM in
T- ^- CM CM
0 0 0 O
X X X X
O CM O O
CM T^ CO CM





Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
in
"o
^^ Q
X
CM

O
'T o
X
CO
r- CM
0 0
T~ T~
X X
CO CM

M CO
o b
X X
CO CO
M CO
b o
^~ ^
X X
CO CO

r\ *-^
b '°
x x
 o
(^ CO

b
co ••"
•r^ X
q
"•"
CO
o>
JO
'•g
B
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
CO

o




o


CM CM
0 0
T— T—
X X
CM h-

CO CO
b b
1— 1—
X X
CO O>
CO CO
b b
T~ ^
X X
co en

in ^~
b o
x x
in i-
co in
b b
X X
CO CM
bb
XXX
y\
CO O>
CM CM
b b
X X
o o
co co





Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Alkoxylated alcohols
r--
CM i-
0 0
*~ ^~ o
X X
O> CO
CM CM
O O
^ *- o
X X
T- 00
CM ^ ^
b ? b
*" X ^ °

40 CT "*
CM
CO OCM
o ••- o
•^ x ^- o
x in x
O O> 10
CO CM
^^b
X X ^~ O
j: in x
S °? w
0> Tf
•<)•
^ C3^
^- x *- o
X 00 X
T- q co
CO
in ^
o T~ o
•^ X T- 0
X T- X
CM T T-
CJI
° x •£ 0
*^5
in
»- T CM CM
0 ° 0 0
X * X X
t-; ^ 
-------
      3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
i
c Q m

fit
(A C 4>
iZ S •
Ills
'C S Q
Q .3


,_
(A
C
1
S^
^
O c
0 *
E
i

V)


re ^*£
0) Jfc Jit
"5> £ P
DC . •»-
t*I
go-

>Ts?
— co •§
re -
i 2
*~ ^
CD §
=| S

•*• ra
S i

>»
S
1)
St















"o
^~
X
CO
CM
*~
X
^J.

b b

x x
f- CM
i- CO
b b
x x
T- CO
t- CO
b b
x x
i- CO
n in
b b
X X
T- 10


<* CD
b b
x x
CM CO
CM
^3 i
1— O
X ^
s m

CM
b
co ••"
T-^ X
0
co






Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
0>

o
T~
X

CM
T"
X
^_

b

x
CO
CM
O
X
CO
CM
0
X
CO
«.
b
X
IO


"
O
X
N-
•M
b

X
CO

,_
b
*-"
X
co
10






Fatty acid derivatives
Water
o

CM
O
*- o
X
CM
0
T" o
X
CM

b b

X X
IO T-
b b
X X
CO CM
N CM
0 0
X X
CO CM
t f
O O
X X
O> CM


* in
b b
x x
i- CO
CM CM
O O

X X
O CO
CO T^

CM
0
— ^ T~
- £
oi

n co
C3 0
X X
CM T-
m co
0 0
X X
CM f-
n in
0 b
X X
CO CM


'•a co
b b
x x
^* CM
n 


o



o



b

X
CO
CM
b
x
"*
CM
b
X
•*
t
o
x
co


in
b
X
CO
CM
O

X
o>
CO

„_
b
^~
X
p
^
CO
0


lo
T3
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
CM

~o
T~
X
CO
*b
^
X
*cj*

CM
0

X
CO
CM
O
X
^
CM
b
X
*~
^.
b
x
CM


in
b
x
CM
CM
O

X
p



p


CO
Q)
"co

In
*o
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Fatty acid derivatives
CM

3-31

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK

§
O x™s
c Q m
III
«j e J2
J£ *9 »
2 o J?E*
"C *™ f*l ^"^
o jp



1
.2
I:
12
8 E
^7T-
E
§
is
CO




J
1
1
®
P


0
in
M
g|
T"
^
*s?
CT1*
f
S
_£ £
«^ £
£ %
S3
== 1
P 5=
£ ca
O C3
^~ S
o 3
ss o
oS *~




Jaii
>. C^ Q> y
IS $- L™ ^"^
ca < *^
Q
"•S
2? § ^
"^ ® "^*
Q ^S V
OC SS.



c
£
Chemical Compor
E"!
C c
0 §

"?
X
CM
^
^
X
CO

CM
O
X
in
=5"
b
T~
x
t"
M
O
X
•-
n
b
X
v—


t
0
^
X
T-

N
O
X
o>
CD



CM
^







Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic

CM
CM















































Terpenes
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Alkoxylated alcohols

CO
CM

O O


0 O



CM CM T-
O fa fa
XXX
• f-
CM i-1


fa fa

X X
h* t*»
•^ ^
CO
CD
J?
^
'•5
Water
Terpenes
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives

^j-
CO
                                          3-32

-------
    3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
1*

llf
D) Q> £


.M C jjj
|£ (0 (0

3
X

i- "(3
£ -J=CM
 fl> *-
III!
c°- ec •!:
11 II
6 5 °
X


"1
is
CD 2"
C gj
8 E,
E
£
W




=
.c
0
T—
_o

^
°
£
s
u>
u
t^
£
T-
1


m
= S
££
1!
3l
^ c
S o
^ E
= 0
3? ^
—
£ co
O 0)
in s
» Q 5 Jy
i§£~
^gis
« <0 *D
sp
cc ~—



c
£
o
Q.
i
o
b
C c
o E
£i







































co
CD
IS
1
TT
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic


no
x
CO

N
0
T™
x
CO

^
b
X
^
M
o
x
o>

.y
b
x
en
b
^
X

t
o
T—
x
CM


N
b
x
o
05

in
•^

CO
CD
re
c
CO
s
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
CO
CO







































CO
cu
_re
1
T3
D. 1. Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Hydrocarbons, aromatic

CO







































<0
03
3s
1
••5
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Alkoxylated alcohols
Fatty acid derivatives
CO
CO
o





0



CM
O
X
o>
CM
o
X


CM
0
T—
X
o
*"•
X
CM

•9
0
^
X
CM


CM
0
T-
X
CM
<1~
CM
b
^
x
CO
CO
CO
(D
3s
to
=5
Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol ethers


o





, 0



CM
0
0 '"
X
CO
CO
b
o '~
x


CO
b
o ^
x
in
b
O v~
X

<9
O
1 o •""
X
05



CO
b
o ^
x


CM
O
, •* ^
T^ X
00
CO
CO
qj
JS
1
T3
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
o

                    H!
              Iirf
                 l
J> *g X ^

O W ^ ^
=5 c £ £
E E re r-


illl
       55 £ *- .2 £
       $8£i8
        pi!
                        ra
                    o >- |oo

                   ,i

              IlUllIill
              ro.EoS-gcfflc^S
                       "
3-33

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
           Table 3-6. Stream Concentrations and Residential Population Potential Dose
                     Rates from Denver Lithography Blanket Wash Releases
Form.
No.
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 nonylphenol3
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycoi ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Propylene glycoi ethers
Terpenes
Expected
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)1

1.4x102
36
73
47
28
14
4.7
3.1 x102
24
14
14
85
40
12
3.8
3.8x1 02 ,
14
1.3x102
2.3x1 02
22

51

After
Treatment
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)1

8.6
6.1
3.7
2.4
5.6x1 0'1
14
0.0
19
7.1x10'1
0.7
2.1
12.22
2.0
12
0.0
23
0.7
7.9
14
3.7

3.0

Stream
Concentration
South Platte
River (mg/L)
Mean
Flow

1x10'2
7x1 0'3
4x1 0"3
3x1 0'3
7x1 0'4
2x1 0'2
0
2x1 0'2
8x1 0'4
8x1 0"4
2x1 0'3
1.2x10'2
2x1 0'3
1x10'2
0
3x1 0'2
8x1 Q-4
9x1 0'3
2x1 0'2
4x1 0'3

3x1 0'3

Low
Flow

1x10'2
1x10'2
6x10"3
4x10'3
9x1 0'4
2x1 0'2
0
3x1 0'2
1x10'3
1x10'3
4x1 0'3
2.4x1 0'2
3x1 0'3
2x1 0'2
0
4x1 0'2
1x10'3
1x10'2
2x1 0'2
6x1 0'3

5x1 0'3

Human Potential
Dose Rates
(mg/year)2
From
Water

5
3
2
1
2.8x1 0'1
8
0
10
4x1 0'1
0.4
1
7.07
1
7
0
10
4
5
8
2

2

From
Fish
Ingestion

2x1 04
80

2
10
4x1 04

2
10
5x1 04
2x1 04
3x1 04

7x1 03

                                            3-34

-------
     3.3  GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
Form.
No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chemical Components
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
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 nonylphenol3
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)1
10
4.7
2.1x102
22
1.7x102
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)1
0.5
2.8x1 0'1
13
3.7
10
9.2
2.4
16

1.1
9.9x1 0"1
3.7

2.896x1 01
9.6x1 0'1


30




Stream
Concentration
South Platte
River (mg/L)
Mean
Flow
6x1 0'4
3x1 0'4
1x1Q-2
4x1 0'3
1x10'2
1x1 0~2
3x1 0'3
2x1 0'2

1x10'3
1x10'3
4x1 0'3

3.1x10'2
1x10'3


3x1 0'2




Low
Flow
8x1 or4
5x1 0"4
2x1 0'2
6x1 0'3
2x1 0"2
2x1 0'2
4x1 0'3
3x1 0'2

2x1 0'3
2x1 0'3
6x1 O'3

5.2x1 0'2
2x1 0"3


5x1 0'2




Human Potential
Dose Rates
(mg/year)2
From
Water
0.3
2x1 0"1
7
2
6
5
1
9

6x1 0'1
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

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
No.
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 nonylphenol3
Expected
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)1
39
39

3.5x1 O2


16
3.3x1 02
21
After
Treatment
Total
Release for
Denver, CO
(kg/day)1
6.7
3.9

21


2.7
0.0
1.1x10'3
Stream
Concentration
South Platte
River (mg/L)
Mean
Flow
8x1 0-3
5x1 0'3

2x1 0'2


3x1 0"3
0
1.2x10'3
Low
Flow
1x10'2
7x1 0'3

4x1 0'2


5x1 0'3
0
1.9x10"3
Human Potential
Dose Rates
(mg/year)2
From
Water
4
2

10


2
0
0.6
From
Fish
Ingestion
3

5x1 04



0
1 A blank space in these columns indicates that there were no releases to water expected for this chemical in this
  formulation.
2 A blank in the drinking water columns of this table indicates that there are no exposures expected from this chemical
  due to people drinking water.  This may be due to either no releases to water expected, or the chemical  may be
  completely removed during wastewater treatment, and therefore, is not expected to be released to the stream or river
  from the POTW. An additional blank in the Fish Ingestion columns means that a bioaccumulation factor was not
  available for this chemical.
3 Based on testing data  (Weeks, J.A. et al. 1996.  Proceedings of the CESIO 4th World Surfactants Congress,
  Barcelona, Spain.  Brussels,  Belgium:  European Committee on Surfactants and  Detergents,  pp. 276-291.), the
  original estimate of POTW removal has been changed from 100% reported in the draft document to 95% in the final
  report This revision results in increased estimates of the releases from POTWs to surface waters of ethoxylated
  nonylphenols. When the releases to surface water are compared with the concern  concentration set at the default
  value of 0.001 mg/L, the formulations containing ethoxylated nonylphenols (formulations 4, 5,7, 8, 9,17, 24,  and 40)
  present concerns to aquatic species that were  not  reported in the draft CTSA.


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.
                                                3-36

-------
                                               3.3 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES
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.

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, toxiciry 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.
                                          3-37

-------
 CHAPTERS: RISK
       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.

 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
pg/m3 in air or as risk per pg/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 genetic toxicity 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
uncertainly 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
                                          3-38

-------
                                                                3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
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.

       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.
                                          3-39

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
       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 toxicify 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
toxiclty. For purposes of this report, toxicity information on adult male and female reproductive
systems will be assessed as part of the chronic toxicity  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 MOEt}OAEL is greater than 100 or the MOELOAEL 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.
                                          3-40

-------
                                                                 3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
       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 report 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
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.

       A number of formulations present concerns with respect to potential impacts on aquatic
species resulting from water releases. 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,
20, and 24, and in Formulations 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, 24, and 40, 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 and assumptions reviewed by industry experts
of product usage and work practices.  No actual measures of chemical release or exposure levels
were available.
                                           3-41

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
             Table 3-7. Risks to Aquatic Species from Blanket Wash Chemicals
Form.
Number
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
Chemical Components
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkoxylated alcohols
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol2
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol2
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol2
Alkoxylated alcohols
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol2
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol2
ratty acid derivatives
Water
ratty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Terpenes
ratty acid derivatives
Ethylene glycol ethers
Terpenes
Stream concentrations (mg/L)
50th %ile
Mean flow

7x1 cr5
5x1 0'5
1.56X10"4
2.0x1 0'5
5x1 0'6
1x1 ry4
0.
2x1 ry4
6x1 0'6
6x1 ry6
2x1 0'5
1.11x10"4
i.7xiry5
1x1 ry4
0
2x1 ry4
6x1 ry6
7x1 0"5
1x1 ry4
3x1 ry5


3x1 ry5

10th %ile
Mean flow

6x1 ry4
4x1 ry4
1.1 82x1 ry3
i.52xiry4
3.9x1 ry5
9x1 ry4
0
1x1 ry3
5x1 ry5
4.5x1 ry5
1x1 ry4
8.08x1 ry4
i.29xiry4
8x1 ry4
0
1x1 o'J
4.5x1 ry5
5x1 ry4
9x1 ry4
2x1 ry4


2x1 cr4

10th %ile
Low flow

4x1 ry2
3x1 ry2
7.8x1 ry2
1.0x10'2
2.6x1 ry3
6x1 ry2
0
8x1 ry2
3x1 ry3
3.0x1 0'3
9x1 0'3
4.95x1 0"2
8.5x1 0'3
5x1 0'2
0
1x10"1
3x1 0'3
3x1 0'2
6x1 Q~z
2x1 0"2


1x10"2

Concern
cone "cc"
(mg/L)

It
1x10"3
1x10'3
1x10"3
2x1 0'3
2x1 0'1
*
1x10'3
1x10'3
1x1 0"1
1x1 0+1
1x10'3
2x1 0'1
*
1x10"3
*
*
1x10'3


*

Low1
flow
cone/
"cc"

3x1 01
78
10
1
3x1 0'1
3
3
9x1 0'2
5x1 0"1
8.5
3x1 0'1
3

2x1 0+1




                                         3-42

-------
                       3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Form.
Number
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chemical Components
Ethoxylated nonylphenol2
Propylene glycol ethers
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Dibasic esters
Esters/lactones
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Fatty acid derivatives
Ethylene 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 nonylphenol2
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
Stream concentrations (mg/L)
50th %ile
Mean flow
4x1 0'6
2x1 0'6
1x10"4
3x1 0'5
9x1 0'5
8x1 0"5
2x1 0'5
1x10'4

9x1 0'6
8x1 0'6
3x1 0'5

2.08x1 0'4
8x1 0'6


3x1 0"4




10th%ile
Mean flow
3.3x1 0'5
2x1 0'5
8x1 0'4
2x1 0"4
7x1 0'4
6x1 0'4
2x1 0"4
1x1 0-3

7x10'5
6x1iO'5
2xlO'4
•
2.06x1 0'3
6xtO'5


2x10'3




10th %ile
Low flow
2.2x1 0"3
1x10'3
5x1 0'2
2x1 0'2
4x1 0'2
4x1 0'2
1x10"2
7x1 0'2

4.6x1 0'3
4x1 0'3
2x1 0'2

1.04X10'1
4x1 0'3


1X10'1




Concern
cone "cc"
(mg/L)
1x10'3
2
*
1x10'3
*
1x10'3
*
*

1x10'3
3x1 0'2
9x1 0'2

3x1 0'1
3x1 0'1


*




Low1
flow
cone/
"cc"
2.2
5x1 0"4
2x1 0+1

4x1 0+1



4.6
1x10'1
2x1 0'1

1x10'2







3-43

-------
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
Aliphatic hydrocarbon
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 nonylphenol2
Stream concentrations (mg/L)
50th %ile
Mean flow
6x1 0"5
3x1 0"5

2x1 0'4


2x1 0'5
9x1 0"6
10th %ile
Mean flow
4x1 0'4
3x1 0"4

1x10"3


2x1 0'4
6.7x1 0'5
10th %ile
Low flow
3x1 0"2
2x1 0"2

9x1 0'2


1x10'2
4.4x1 0'3
Concern
cone "cc"
(mg/L)
3x1 0"1
7x1 0'2

*


1
1x10'3
Low1
flow
cone/
"cc"
1x10'1
3x1 0"1




1x10'2
4.4
  Low flow concentration/concern concentration; reported as mg/L
2 Based on testing data (Weeks, J.A. et at. 1996.  Proceedings of the CESIO 4th World Surfactants Congress,
  Barcelona, Spain. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee on Surfactants and Detergents, pp. 276-291.) the original
  estimate of POTW removal has been changed from 100% reported in the draft document to 95% in the final report.
  This revision results in increased estimates of releases to surface water. When the releases to surface water are
  compared with the  concern concentration set at the default value of 0.001  mg/L, the formulations containing
  ethoxylated nonylphenols (formulations 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, 24 and 40) present concerns to aquatic species that were
  not reported in the draft CTSA.
  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
                                              3-44

-------
                                                               3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
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 1000 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.
                      Table 3-8. Worker Occupational Risk Estimates
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
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal




10
1
0.36 (HQ)
1 (HQ)

5
135
159
Inhalation




4464
33
0.02 (HQ)
0.02 (HQ)

236


                                          3-45

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
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
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal

10
26
117





38



22





318



200

135






455



21


Inhalation

1.8x104
1.8x105






6233



1.8x104









4.1x104












4429


                                          3-46

-------
                       3.4  RISK CHARACTERIZATION
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
Propylene glycol ethers
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
Fatty acid derivatives
Fatty acid derivatives
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Water-
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal

73




22






515
0.05 (HQ)

5208


26

4
4
4






84


13
8




Inhalation

7.0x1 04




1.8x104







6x1 0'b (HQ)




5803

5405
9091
5263






9.4x1 04


4464
1336




3-47

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
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
Propylpne glycol ethers
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Margin of Exposure (MOE)1'2
Dermal
63
98


28
83
218
2



22




218

45
151





455


7

4


17


Inhalation
2.1x104
2.1 x104


7292
7.8x1 0&





1.8x104




1.5X104








3.6x1 05


110

5168


1.1x104


                                          3-48

-------
                                                                           3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Form.
Number '
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chemical Components
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
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
10
11
3322


26

140


3

50

1979



100




50
200
25
83

59

318
Inhalation
1.0x104
2.2x1 04
3.6x1 05


5147




1.1x1 04

8014

6.4x1 04



1.5x105




5.6x1 04
8.8x1 04

4.5x1 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 1000 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.
                                                 3-49

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
       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
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.

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
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 jRisfc - 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.
      Hazard values refer to NOAELs, LOAELs, RfDs, or RfCs 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"
                                           3-50

-------
                                                                3.4  RISK CHARACTERIZATION
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.

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.
                                          3-51

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
                 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
reproductive and developmental effects
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
liver effects
blood effects
liver effects
developmental effects
developmental effects
                                          3-52

-------
                                                                             3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
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
                                                   3-53

-------
 CHAPTERS: RISK
 Blanket Wash 8

        Worker Risk - Dermal Exposure

        Margin of exposure calculations indicate low 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.

 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.
                                              3-54

-------
                                                                       3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
       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.

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.
                                               3-55

-------
 CHAPTERS: RISK
 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
 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
                                               3-56

-------
                                                                       3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
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.

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 forterpenes 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.
                                               3-57

-------
CHAPTERS:  RISK
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/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.

        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
                                              3-58

-------
                                                                       3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
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.

       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.

       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.
                                               3-59

-------
CHAPTERS:  RISK
        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.

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.
                                               3-60

-------
                                                                       3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
       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.

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.
                                               3-61

-------
 CHAPTERS: RISK
 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
 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.
 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.
                                            3-62

-------
                                                                   3.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Table 3-10.  General Population Risk Estimates for Drinking Water, Fish Ingestion, and Inhalation
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 nonylphenol3
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Ethylene glycol ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
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 nonylphenol3
Alkoxylated alcohols
Drinking Water
MOE1'2










8.8 x 105



7x106















•2.3 x107

Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2
































Inhalation
MOE1'2




1.6x106
2.0 x 104
3.0x1(T5(HQ)
7.1 x 10'5 (HQ)

8.0 x104


1.2x 105
4.5 x 104






6.0 x 105



3.0 x 105







                                            3-63

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
Form.
Number
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
Chemical Components
Water
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Propylene glycol ethers
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkoxylated alcohols
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Fatty acid derivatives
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
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
Propylene glycol ethers
Water
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Ethoxylated nonylphenol3
Glycols
Fatty acid derivatives
Alkali/salts
Water
Drinking Water
MOE1'2



5.0 x10'
8.1 x 10b






2.3x10'



















3.2 x107




Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2




































Inhalation
MOE1'2


7.0 x 10b












4.0x10b



2.0x10b




3.0 x 10b







1.0x 10"5(HQ)



                                          3-64

-------
                        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
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 nonylphenol3
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Alkali/salts
Water
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Terpenes
Esters/lactones
Drinking Water
MOE1'2



























1.5 x107
5.0 x 10b









Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2






































Inhalation
MOE1'2

4.0x10"

3.0 x104
3.0 x 104
3.0 x 104






8.0 x 105


2.5 x 10s
1.0x10&




1.0x 10&
1.0x 104


4.0 x 105
1.1 x104





3.0 x 105




2.0 x 10e
3-65

-------
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
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
D. I. Water
Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic
Hydrocarbons, aromatic
Drinking Water
MOE1'2


1.3 x 10B























6.0 x 10'











Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2


6.3 x 10b



































Inhalation
MOE1'2








6.0 x 105


1.2X 10°

7.0 x 104


2.5 x 10b


2.0 x 10b
1.6x 10"
1.0x10b


4.0 x 105




3.0 x 104

8.0 x 10b

2.0 x 10b



1.2x 10b
                                           3-66

-------
                                                                      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 nonylphenol3
Drinking Water
MOE1'2






4.0 x 10b
i



1.6 x 10'
Fish Ingestion
MOE1'2












Inhalation
MOE1'2




8.0 x 105
1.0x 106

1.1 x 105

8.0 x105


  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 Tables 3-4 and 3-5.
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 Based on testing data  (Weeks, A.J. et al.  1996.  Proceedings  of the CESIO 4th World Surfactants Congress,
  Barcelona, Spain. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee on Surfactants and Detergents, pp. 276-291.) the original
  estimate of POTW removal has been changed from 100% reported in the draft document to 95% in the final report.
  This revision results in increased estimates of releases to surface water. When the releases to surface water are
  compared with the concern concentration set at the default value  of 0.001  mg/L, the formulations containing
  ethoxylated nonylphenols (formulations 4, 5, 7, 8,  9, 17, 24 and 40) present concerns to aquatic species that were
  not reported in the draft CTSA.


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,
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, arid practice good ergonomic procedures when engaged in physical
activity.
                                              3-67

-------
CHAPTERS: RISK
Training

      A critical element of workplace safely 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
afire.

      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
flammability and corrosMty, see Section 2.2 Chemical Information.

Use of Personal Safety Equipment
                           i
      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 OSHA.   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,
                                          3-68

-------
                                                            3.5 PROCESS SAFETY CONCERNS
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  CFR Part 1910.212 and are applicable to all 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 CFR Part 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 61eaning 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
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 OSHA lockout/tagout standard to printing operations, contact the local OSHA
field office or the Printing Industries of America, Inc.
                                          3-69

-------
 CHAPTERS:  RISK
                                      References

 1. General Sciences Corporation. 1988. Exposure Screening Manual, May. (GSC-TR-32-88-015)

 2.  General Sciences Corporation.   1991.  Graphical Exposure Modeling System, GEMS, User's
 Guide. (GSC-TR-32-91-001)

 3. General Sciences Corporation. 1990. GAMS Version 3.0 User's Guide. (GSC-TR-32-90-010)

 4. 1988 Rand McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, (119th Edition). 1988. RandMcNally
 & Company.

 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1992. Exposure Assessment Guidelines, May.

 6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Exposure Factors Handbook, May. (EPA/600/8-
 89/043)

 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1992.  Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion
 Models User's Guide, March.  (EPA-450/4-92008a).

 8. Versar, Inc.  1995. Electronic Consolidated Industrial Discharge Database.

 9. Versar, Inc.  1995. ReachScan with PDM. March 9.

 10. Versar, Inc.  1991. Stream Dilution Factors Program, [Implementation in Lotus 1-2-3 Version
2.3],

 11. CEB Manual.  1991.
                                         3-70

-------
    Chapter 4
Competitiveness
       4.1
           4.1.2
           4.1.3
           4.1.4
           4.1.5
       4.2
       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
      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.


4.1  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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
demonstration methodology was developed by 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 project 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
                                          4-2

-------
                                                                  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

-------
 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 DIE 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.
       •      Fottow-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
                                           4-4

-------
                                                                   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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS

E
£
.M
JS
fr
Q




E
Bu
.M
n
1



1
to
2
m


T™
1 •
§.
0 =
§
l:
U. I
1-
£'
Strokes
•s"g
•* e
{= a
03 O
a-
£1
&
*°* w^
Sa
•£ g
2 0)
CD D
Strokes
*• -a
|g
ra ro
m o
*t
Q
!£
•g w
i c
£ 03
m a
££
in S-
^^
T_ »_,
r
Q.
*p-i~
JS
- JP
|i
Q >>
S,JQ
gs
^
i E*
° s_-
). ^
o

CO
3

85=

8

•*
CO
CO

CO
CO

CM
CO

0
co
in
T~
CO
I--
ss
o
co
CO
c\i
£
CO
w


rj-
•cf
CO

9

$

•*
•«fr
CO

s

CO
CO

to
•*
to
'*"
^
CO
ss
V*
O)
•<1-
CD
<5j-

CO

CM
g

5

$

co
3

to
CO

8J

CM
in
o
co
I--
co
55
o>
CO
•*
CO
TJ-
1—

-*

CO
CO

?

3

o>
3

R

co

•*
in
Y—
CO
CO
•*
>s
tf^
8
in
oi
CD
CO

in

CO
in
CO

CM
in

CO
CO

CO
*a-
CO

oo

c^

in
N.
o
'in
in
vP
6
in
co'
CM
in

CO

CO
CO
CO

•r-
in

co

CD
CO
CO

R

CM

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
en
5?
CO
CO
o
CO
in
CO

r«-

o>
•*
CO

$

CO
CO

h-
•*
CO

CD
t^

&

O
CM
f-
h-
o
•*
vP
3^
5
CO
CO
in

CO

0
CO
5

&

®

CO
T—
CO
CO

s

CO
CO

in
in
^
CO
•*
S?
O
T-
fc
d
o
CO
CM
CD

CO
CD
CM

5

3

CVJ
T—
5!

R

CO
CM

h-
d
h~
d
i^
in
S?
CM
CD"
d
A
CO
CM
O

in
in
CO

$

co1

•*
5

CO
CO

CM
CO

in
0
o
^
in
5S
T-
co
CO
•*
o
in

^_

-
CO

^

8

h-
co
CO

R

CO
CO

in
o
o
CM
CO
5?
o
CM
CO
in
CM

CM

o
$

In

O)
CM

CO
CO

R

CO
CM

o
CO
in
T~
o
in
3?
CM
T—
CD
d
£
CM
•*

CM
3

in

8

CM
O
CO

s

m
CM

CD
d
T—
in
•*
CO
o>
sS
CD
0)
CM
K
in
•*

CO

0
o
T—
3

3

co1

I
s

s

(V.
CM

in
^~
m
•^
CO
O)
3?
CO
d
in
o
d
£
CM
h-

r--
8

S

&

CO
CO
CO

£

$

in
•*
in
T"
m
in
sS
§
••a-
•*'
o
in

CO

ro
§

3

CM

£
CO
CO

R

00
CM

in
T~
in
T—
CO
*fr
3?
Si
00
1—
°
CM
0)

h-
8

&

3

in
cS

fc

o
CO

in
o
o
T-
h-
5S
in
CO
r--
CM
R

8

CD
5!

9

co

t^
5

8

CM
CO

in
Y—
O
o
CM
CO
g
m
CO
in



 £
 I
 •*•«
 I
 ?
 3


 I

 1
 ffl
  »
 5
 .2

 i
                                             4-6

-------
                       4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA

£
iZ
Q




E
LL
i



_
3
2
m


1-
°

O
5
£
W
2
S.
Strokes
n
c CO
CQ O
-*
"S
I'l
m o
Strokes
1 P
CQ O
^t
~Q
it
ffl Q
£ ^o*
^-
£-7
^^
z
a.
£
To '5
f 5
JQ >»
^, JQ
s?
IE
6
CO
T-

9

s

CO
CO

CO

CO

in
••"
in
^~
s-
S
c\i

z
"5"
te
oa
CM
o
o
CO
CO

in

CO

a
CO

R

s

10
T—
o
0
CM
O>
CO
^
O
o
CO
CM
CM
CO

in

CO

in
cS

fc

SI

0
CO
in
••"
o>
o>
ra-
in

o
o
CM
CM
CO
S

s

s

CM
CM
8

R

CM

in
"*
o
CO
CO
•<*
U5
in
T-
*
CM
in
CM
T—
0

9

SI

CO
s

R

CO

0
0
o
0
CO

5?
CO
co

CM
CO
CM
CO
S

in
in

8

CO
g

CO"

h-

m
*
o
CO
o>
CO
CO
CM
"
in
N-
CM
CO
CO
CO

LD

C?

CO
SI

g

s

0
CO
m
T"
CO
CD
n
o

CD
O
in
CO
CM
CO
8

rj

CO

o>
^

S

81

in
•""
in
•^
CM
^
CO
1—
CM
CM
O)
CM
-
Si

o
in

CM

in
o>
CM

CO
CO

O)
CM

in
•>"
^
o
£?
CO
t-I
co"

o
o"
0
0
co
CO
a

T—
in

8

CO
CO

CO

CO

o
CO
in
T"
CO
^~
g
O)
CO
CO
in
o
CO
S
0

59

o>
CM.

in
CO
CO

£

CM

in
•"~
^_
o
in
CO
£
in
CO
o
H
'
in
CO

3

CO

-
CO
CM

f-

CM

CO
r-.
in
*
CM

1
*^-
CO
8
8
o
CM
in
CO

9

CM
CO

0
in
CO

S

CM
CO

O
CO
in
*"
CO
CO
i
CO
CM
CO
CO
a
m
CO

S?

CO
CO

CO
CO

12

co1

,_
CO
in
••"
o
CO
1
N-~
CO
8
in
CO
in
CO

9

s

-
8

s

8

in
T~
^
o
.
in
CO
m
CO
K
«
CO
s

s

s

in
cS

S

s

o
CO
o
CO
o>
CO
s
o

8
fe
CO
fe

CO

8

o>
9

R

8

in
^
0
o
CO
in
5?
in
CO
O)

i
CO
CO
0
s

o
m

CO

-
CO

R

3

0
CO
in
'"
CM
OJ
^p
fe
c»
CM
in
in
o>
CO
0
S

in

S

in
S

CO

S

0
CO
in
^
CO
/*
CM
in
CO
CO
in
in
s




•o
§
o
JD
0
CO
I
CO
o
Q.

1
co
CD
0
i
2
Z



g
S"
' '


1
1
2
                                      £
                                      3
                                     i

                                     £1
                                      CO ^




                                      O 33


                                      1 O
                                     T5 CO
                                      S E

                                      »-§
                                      g S


                                      O |
                                      O 5

                                      >0
                                        o>
                                      f.^
                                      cs S

                                      n
                                      l!
                                      ii
                                      co co
                                      II
                                      o o
                                      o o

                                      O O

                                      O O
4-7

-------
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. In 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).
                                          4-8

-------
                                                    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
°F)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 1
Facility 3
Facility 6
2.3; 30%
230+
1.1 ±0.2
[1.0]a
1.5 ±0.6
[1.5]a
Based on a sample size of 1 0 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 11
Facility 15
3.5; 47%
152
1.0 + 0.2
[0.7 ± 0.2f
0.9 + 0.2
[1.5±0.7]a
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 ± 0.3
[1.5]a
0.7 + 0.1
[1.5 + 0.7]3
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
0.16; 2%
230+
1.0 + 0.0
[1.0]a
3.0 + 0.0
[3.0 + O.Of
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

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS

Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
%bywt)
Flash-
point
(°F)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 11
Facility 1
Facility 2
4.3; 61%
150
2.5 ± 0.6
[2.5 ± O.Of
1.5 ±1.5
[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
1.3; 20%
125
5.4 ± 0.8
[4.4 ±1.6]
1.8 ±0.4
[2.1 ± 0.5]
Based on a sample size of 1 6 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 1 9 blanket washes:
• When not diluted with water, performance surpassed baseline
and standard washes.
• Averaged over all dilution levels, required slightly less effort
than baseline wash.
• Overall fair performance rating across ink coverages and
dilutions.
WASH 14
Facility 6
Facility 16
0.97; 12%
230+
1.3 ±0.6
[1.5]
2.8 ± 0.5
[2.0 ± 0.0]
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.
                                           4-10

-------
                         4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA

Productf
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
(°F)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 19
Facility 18
Facility 19
1.8; 22%
230+
4.8 ± 3.0
[1.5 + 0.8]3
2.2 ± 0.5
[0.9 ± 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 11
Facility 12
2.7; 35%
170
1.4±0.6
[0.7± 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.
WASH 21
Facility 6
Facility 17
3.5; 47%
115
2.0 ± 0.6
[1.5]
1.6 ±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 info rag easily.
WASH 22
Facility 12
Facility 13
Not
measurable;
2.17%b
157
4.4 ± 0.6
[4.4 ±1.6]
3.4 ± 1.7
[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 1 7 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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS

Product/
Facility
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
°F)
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation
WASH 24
Facility 16
Facility 17
1.5; 19%
100
2.2 ± 0.6
[2.0 ± 0.0]
1.3 ±0.6
[1.5 ±0.4]
Based on a sample size 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.
WASH 26
Facility 5
Facility 15
1.3; 18%
230+
0.5+ 0.1
[1.0]
0.7± 0.1
[1.5+0.7]
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.
WASH 29
Facility 7
Facility 8
2.1; 30%
230+
1.0 ±0.0
[1.2 + 0.0]
0.8 ± 0.6
[0.7 ± 0.0]
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 ± 0.0
[1.5 ±0.8]
0.7 ± 0.0
[0.9 ± 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.
                                           4-12

-------
                         4.1  PERFORMANCE DATA

Product/
Facility
WASH 31
Facility 7
Facility 8
WASH 32
Facility 1
Facility 5
WASH 34
Facility 1
Facility 19
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
% by wt)
Flash-
point
(°F)

6.6; 99%
105

6.5; 99%
220
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation

1.5 ±0.6
[1.2±0.0]a
1.1 ±1.5
[0.7 ± 0.0]

2.5 ± 0.0
[2.5 + 0.0]
0.7 ± 0.2
[1.0]
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.

2.8; 39%
138
2.5 ± 0.0
[2.5 ± 0.0]
1.2 ±0.4
[0.9 ± 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.
WASH 37
Facility 3
Facility 4
1.0; 14%
82

1.3 ±0.6
[1.0]
2.2 ± 0.8
[3.0 ± 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

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS

Product/
Facility
WASH 38
Facility 2
Facility 4
Laboratory Results
VOC Content
(Ibs/gal;
%bywt)
Flash-
point
(°F)

4.9; 65%
230+
Field Demonstration Results
Avg Volume
Used
(ounces)
Performance Evaluation

2.2 ± 0.6
[1.2±0.8]a
3.7 ±1.3
[3.0 ± 0.0]
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.
WASH 39
Facility 5
Facility 8
WASH 40
Facility 1
Facility 10
2.9; 37%

3.8; 52%
155

155
0.7 ± 0.3
[1.0]
1.0 ±0.0
[0.7 ± 0.0]

2.5 ± 0.0
[2.5 ± 0.0]
0.9 ± 0.2
[1.5 ±0.0]
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 (Q) 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.
                                                4-14

-------
                                                                    4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
                                     Blanket Wash 1
              Composition:
                    Fatty acid derivatives
                    Alkoxylated alcohols

                    VOC Content: 30%; 2.3 Ibs/ga!
                    Flashpoint:  230+°F
                    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 ink well, 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 ink well 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

-------
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.
                                          4-16

-------
                                                                               4.1  PERFORMANCE DATA
 M


I
JS
CD
(0
o

I
I
i
8
-g
CD
CL

•5

£•
CO

E

(O














(0
cc
D)
aboratory T
_i




















If
•° "o
co to
fe *,




1
c
J2
m

^
5
w
6'
Je
5
*•
>


5 hour
o
fi?
ii
£ E
& *o
Q. O
>I
for
iC o
W "-^
CO
u.





X





|l!
PS
t>
1
£L





(O



^-



m
in

LL.
o
8
lg>
d
o
CO
CM

In

m
c
•g
1
o
y^.
00
1^.

O
co
CO
cvi
1

"




CO



CO



co
in
T—

U.
O
O
o
®
m
o
m





CO
CO





^o
O
O
61
CO
1
CD
CD
m
CO














*2
ID
CD
a:
o
I
o
0)
Q
2
E





















0
n

5
u
o
o
Q
1
S


If
ir °
||
8s-
H
Q.



o
•o ^*
S. c
'5 .2
!• *•
~ •— •




^1
11
F 8,
=i ^
^ S
§<3
if
§)
? TO
S ®
3:,,o
o
Medium
Coverage
g>
^ CO
.O) CD
— ' o
o
"8
S>5?
§ S =
MS
It
o! i2



§> 2
2^ fc-

• . > CD
0) O £ CC
CD 0 *= _
•C v •- £
10 C m CD 'g
•*- ^ CD -^ CD
•J< =5 o CD O
C CD O O c
O 0 '^ 3 CO
•*- •£ S 2 5
O O) q) CD ^-
oj ~ -c 5 j2
"tO *- >S *-•
O
ii
«»
o ^
^.s
Q. CD
•R-
8?
oo

z

J
z

-



CO


"ZH


~

^:
CD =5
.c CO
"CD"-
aia
m
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             £


                                                                                             1

                                                                                             IS
                                                                                             d


                                                                                             00
                                                                                             CO

                                                                                             T3
                                                                                             cB
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             'o
                                                                                             .2
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             CD
                                                                                             CO

                                                                                             00

                                                                                             00
c
_o

15

2

CD
Q.

CD
                                                4-17

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                    Blanket Wash 6
               Composition:
                     Fatty acid derivatives
                     Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
                     Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
                     Alkyl benzene suifonates

                     VOC Content: 47%; 3.5 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint:  152°F
                     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 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, Facility 11 uses a blanket wash which, according to the MSDS, consists of
petroleum naphtha, dipropyleneglycol 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.


Facllltv 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
                                          4-18

-------
                                                                   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 operator who 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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS














to
^*
3
CO
CD
DC

1"
m
o»
|
"3
E.
O
frt
3
























&"<»
n= CD
.0 js:
5 2
*!•» «^
w to
|s.


ta
03
i
fe«
Q


.5
i


K>
Q

*S>
3 "e


S '-
D! Tj"
CD
o t:
||

*^ ^^



z
D.







*^

fcr
•C o
tn *•— *
co
u.





*->
list
>


ts
1



CD



co


in
T—
CD


U.
0
CO
CO
Q
\a*

CM
O





m
in









CM
in









ih"
co




CO
D
^


CO



co


co
in


u.

o
o
"*"
^p
m





co
co









o
in








1
CM"
CO*


JZ
co
CO
>
CD
"03
CO
CO
00














CO
£•
CO
™
c
o
1

lemons
u
•o

.S
uu


























0
1
2
w
t*\
Performance


•o —

^ O)
'5 x

fT* O
o E"
M— *_
nj "^
— ^
0 -
'to 5
>. o







o
2 g
'5 .2
2 -2
CO 2
£• .j.





CD
^» S*
1 1


vj
co
E o>
^ g3
CD i*

^i (N

CD
O)
.S5 ®
cS


Q>
5^*  <&
-j ^
O
•c
l!|
fll c C
*|i
>


ol?
3 •=


«fo
^ o-'m -5
m **^ "^ CJ"
1 •- ^ 2
,_ Q. CD t
lil 1
(55 Q)
3 -0 0 CD
-§ « 1
^•c o e
o /i\ >— JLT
Based on a sample size <
• Left oily residue that inte
• Did not readily absorb ir
thick consistency.
• Fair performance overal
with heavy ink coverage.


.c


I


E
g
•^
CD
S


|
T3
CD
^r
.^

O
d

~Tl
0
co

co
d
+i
in
CM
CO
o
+1
in
CM

CD ^Z~
31


•4—*
CO T-
co ""
If


j:
•g
CO
*U
«
c w

^ "35
«8
It
0? Q





-z.


|
S
CD
S


73
CD
^




-^



0
CD
+1
O
co
CO
CD
+1
^
CO

CM
H
d

.c
CO T-
CO T-
CD i=
"Q

CO O
CD **
"§ % t

^ ^^ *fc '
~~ fl^ ^i5
8 5"° - c
«^ Si r" •* C
c -2 § si JS
jg Q. to -25-0
•Q o >,:£: CD
«^_ o "D 52 c

.§ iiil
co o CD > S
CO i- > CO
"5. co i- co "~
E >, ff & *
CO ~ C U CD
°> _• ^ « o g
to "CD g .co «- g
° -^ ° Q S °


j=
D)

if



.c
.2*
|f


.0)
~r

•*
CD

+1
O)
CO

in
CD
+1
CO
co
in
o
+i
r^-
CM

CM ^^
CD CO
d ~~"


.
co m
co T~
S =
5 u.







t:
o
CD
_O
'I
1 °
> -a
3 .ra
O CO





•z.




^
•z.


cl










^
^

o
CD
+1
O
c\i

-I
in -E.

ji
co in
CO i-
CD :=
mCO

                                                                                       CO

                                                                                       u
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       in
                                                                                       •o
                                                                                       ca
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       to
                                                                                       2
                                                                                       CD
                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                       CD



                                                                                       I

                                                                                       co


                                                                                     II
                                                                                   "0.2
                                                                                   ,
                                                                                  1
                                                                                   o co 3 o
                                                                                   S-i
                                                                                   CO •— (0
                                                                                   5 •§ S >.
CL
o
                                                                                   owe?
                                                                                   ^-^ S 8
                                                                                         10
                                           4-20

-------
                                                                   4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
                                    Blanket Wash 9
               Composition:
                     Fatty acid derivatives
                     Water
                     Ethoxylated nonylphenol

                     VOC Content: 10%; 0.77 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint:  230+°F
                     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 MSDS. 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

-------
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.
                                          4-22

-------
                                                                     4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
o>
w
i
m
to
o

1
to
o
tu
Q
8
m


I
(0












«
0)
EC
D)
"^
1

o
E


J
























it?
A ^tf
« o
•b +^
m *°


1
(0 ^
(0
m
^
5
§


|
•«M
i


O
«0
o
•c
ro
S. 3^
5 OT
(O C
S ^
£^"
o C
II

X
Q.






|
^ fT^
fm o
W "-^
E





*-
0) ^-ip-
O "


ts
1
Q.



CO


o>


in
in

LL
o


q
V

cq
•*







gX
CO
CM







5?
O
d



O)
CO
5



co


co


CO
in

• *
u_
o
O
O
©
m

co
co







o
in








v§
8
CM"
CO

x:
to
to
CD
"CD
CO











(0
II)
o
'in
i

g
0)
O
2

.2
^

























o
1
1
UJ
Performance !

"O "*

.— .2*
g.i
r E"
0 3

£ ^*






Q
£ =
O" -^
(1) CO
CD ?
E *
H




^ §>
CO

I o
O
Medium
Coverage
8>
S 5
3 i
c3
CD

^ co1
tp CD
1 0
O
s §,
.a 2
"I §

s o
- 1

-2> CD
— ' o
O
•o
0)
o> « •«•

111
>


"o '5
o n



tf
CD ^ CD
CO ® CO
g JD CO
* 1 *
J? 0> t.
c ° . 
J^ S- "*~* _r~
Based on a sample size ot
• Poor performance.
• Did not cut ink well, requi
and did not soak into shop
• Discontinued use of Wasi

•^



O)
±

D)
ir




2;


^
-i~
+i
^_-
•"-
•
SI
§5
CO T3
1 8.
(DO
E
.2
"O
CD
2
z

<
z




m



~





<




-t
^"^

c-
CO O
CO T-
CD i=
1?
cS15

tO CD
CD c~
to "CD
to to
S CO
1 .1
3 H
^ o "C
Based on a sample size ol
• Poor performance.
• Did not soak into the sho|
• Required much more effo

.C
C3)

IE

O)
±

D)



CO
d
+1
r-;
•*
• i£
•




tf
^
CD
mance.
with minimal
•il
o 3
Q.J.:
T3 .£
(5 O

•^
-^
4Z~

Z

|
5




•£_



~



O
d
+1
o
CM

1^
d c\r
+i ii
iq ^^

^
to m

"CD i£
d^
                                                                                    to
                                                                                    p
                                          4-23

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                   Blanket Wash 10
               Composition: '
                     Fatty acid derivatives
                     Water

                     VOC Content:  2%; 0.16 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint: 230+°F
                     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
                                          4-24

-------
                                                                   4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
ink coverage conditions, Wash 10 did not cut the ink well 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

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS








o
t—
x:
CO
s
5
1
5

£
CO
§
**
g
I

Q
0)
o

O
i
Q.
•5
I
3
w























i
CD
CC
D)
to
CD

O
S
a
5















^"lo"
:= o
JO -g
CO t/5


"5
4-1 sP
|b
CO
m


*
•£•
s*

Je
5
1*4
£

!
i


if
CO C
CO £


Q. TJ
^
u
••*
X
Q.
•*•»
ftr
IS5"
u.
4_>

!•-
•3 ^
0
•a
CD __^
CO ... o
^ CD ;!
III
^
II

.. 0
to _
CO CD
i o
H 1
2ll|
"• "o O
.§ S c •£
to S cB _ _:
llfll
CQ . *§ . .

Z

_0)



a>
±



Z
o
C)
+1
o
CM
O
O
+1
O
CM

O


IS





c
0)

3 O
o -a
sl
| s
E «
•Sf
§.§
T3 £
8.5>
CD co

z

1
^
CD
S


z



2
o
C)
+1
q
T—






^^
II
q

^^ P^*
Q) "5
1 ^
m
.."6
CO —
"1? CD
^ O
11 1
2: 1=1
"o O
N ^ c C
CO S CB 1_ •
jj o ^J "CD "CD
S c -a o .c
w ^ g to „
1 -1 £ P S
t§ *V ^ ^ ^

Z

.D)



Z



z
in
d
+1
CM
CO






O
°?
o£
TO

°.J
|'s
5 ""





|
0)
_( . jj
il
« CO
E g
It
•o £
O CO

z

*



z



z
o
c>
+1
o
CO






o
?,^
o *5*
co

x:
CD ^
"35 LL
CO ••-;
CO CO
CQ
J,
1
U.
03
CD
0)
in
CM
•o
A
CO
t
"o
£
CO
d
CD
(O
o
C>
II
C
0
I
1»
CD
Q.
CD
§>
^
S g
£ o
0) V;
to to
g-8 s
° ^ 'CD


O "u "^
f 2 E
ni jjj
"O ^ C
§ .0)
"to S -0 -e-
•fe "O Q)
to (O CD ?»
§'« = I
E^ S^
O TJ (» O
<- .2 j- o
C *" ^ 'o"
!2 O c Q.
5 •§ xi °
11 §1
XI 5 0 S
ii il E "S
,- ir to
z« ^ -°

                                            4-26

-------
                                                                   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:  150°F
                     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

-------
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 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 network 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.
                                          4-28

-------
                                                        4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
w
a
I
_co

m
co
o

1
I

co



I
CD
a.
CO






CO













W

CC
O)
w
fl)
K-
1
O
en
™





















.•^i?
rz Q)
CO O
Jz *™
m ^

1
CO
|£
CO
m



^
5
cj


1

|
^
^
T>


^^
2i
w ^
CO £
s. „
si
||
ttr
J= 0
CO '-'
_co
u.




I
Q.







I..
If I


t»
1
Q.


in



»

in

o





LL
CO
CM
CD
O
m
T—


•Z?
CD
O)
*iZ
3
TJ

"Irt
3
•t^
O
^,
CD


CO
cb"


T"™
CO
1


CO



co

co
in






u.
0
O
Q

in
o
in





CO
CO







5?
O
o
c\T
co
.c
CO
CO

CD
15
CO
CO













a>
"5
CO
0
1
w
I
CD
O
TJ
^5
iZ























nee Evaluation
Performa






TJ •£
CT
||
co S
II




T>-
CD W
'= .2

o
CD i-
Eat
j^




CD

If
O
Medium
Coverage
+. §>
,^ ^
<3

x&
S4 2?
m ®
II
ll

^5 O
^ 0
§>
£ *o
CD cB
13 o
0
Average
Volume Used
(ounces)


1^
"I «
1^

CD
8)1 -5
05 1 | =
CO § "C ^
co — .-t;
> of 26 blanket w
light/medium ink
eeded for heavy
on blanket, but i
K i- C CD
S ® TJ >, cr
co E c = *^
CO - CO 0 .C
ns T: CD •£ Q.
TJ "° CO ro ^

co O LU _i tt
CO ... cO


O)
X

1
TJ
CD
E
1

CO
CD
+1
q
h-
CD
+|

in
CO
o
d
+1
0
co
°1o
SI
CM ^^

to ^_

|1


TJ
1
1
CO
effort than their
ss wash.
performance.
red slightly more
to remove exce:
TJ 3 0
O CT =»
O CD T3
CD DC 2
. . Q.


*

Medium
Medium



2

o
CD

O
c\i
o
CD
+1
0
CM
o
Sf
m -5-
CM
.c

5 •&
CD ^
.E co
1 ~
CD
QJ
O)
1 = 0
i88r I
•s-g s 1
co jc as
^ E •- *-
*- .2 >2 3
co :=: *~ J3
ill 1 ^
ill ll
E .0 TJ ^2"
O) CD CO O H
l~> *r"
CO CD •*-*" Q.
O -^ "^ O) *~* -£Z
TJ "^ CO CO CO •*"'
CD g ^ (5 « o
co CD Hi o — i 3=
CQ . . o . cd


O)
X

I
TJ
CD
£
1

in
CO
+1
CM
CO
CM
+1

o
CM'
co
o
+1
T—
cvi .
in ^___
*
•s
T- "^
ll






r standard wash.
performance
k as well as theii
TJ c
0 „
O 3
CD 0



z

z
Medium



2

<
"Z.


T-
T-
+1
h-
c\i
CO
°' co
+i u
CMS
.c

$ •&
1"?
CD
                                                                    CM
                                                                    2
                                                                    •a
                                                                    c
                                                                    (0
                                                                    o
                                                                    CO
                                                                    (0

                                                                    CM

                                                                    CO
                                                                    CM
    O



    I
                                                                    a>
                                                                    a.

                                                                    CD
    I
                                                                  Q.2
    O

    c
(0 P


£ O J3


  -
|2 .2 co



Illl
O -C *- 0


• i{«

S-ill
                                                                 •-•- 8 o g
                                                                   C d> 73
                                                                   ll E co
                                  4-29

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                    Blanket Wash 12
               Composition:
                     Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
                     Water

                     VOC Content: 20%; 1.3 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint: 125°F
                     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 eifort 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.
                                         4-30

-------
                                                                  4.1 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 facility 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

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS
    M
    T~


    «
    J>
    I
    CO











2
3
CO
o
DC
ys
t/S
J—
O
<+•*
i
•U
(8
«J




























||
CO O
» "w
1
w ^
1
CO



^g
C

6

Wet Ink
o
•C
1

all fc
0) "O)"

ii
2^.
O
o »-
>fll
k.


Q.





•£
IE
03
U.





4.1
C
Cl) • H <*>
c o>
Q -J-J >»
f i •** "°
0=-5?

tj
1
Q.





1~
T—

f-
in
o




u.
O
co
CO
(Sp
^^
CD


CM
CO






in
CM









sS
1
CM
erf
T-
CM

CO
"^




CO


CO
co
in




LL.
o
O
••-
(§)
in


co
CO






o
in









£S
8

c\T
co
j=
e§
£
.i
CD
CO
CO
CO











£
(W
iS«
%
t3
*
C/)
c
o
CO
Q
•n

il






























Performance Evaluation



•a 2*
.— S
®" 0
^» •*
II
co S
**
•5 5
ts




O
*fm ^_
U ^^^
Q) W
'5 .2
0) ?
E =8:
P"




x o>
— * 1?
 3 0
"*£""

o 5"
"S '«
Ifi



__
2
CD
^ o
•§ -£

(asecf on a sample size of 16 blanket w,
Caused potential print quality problems
Was considered equal to baseline was!
erformance.
Had difficulty cutting paper residue.
Wash was diluted 50% with water.
CQ Q, . .
E
3
T3
CD

C
CD


.C
o>
X
CO
o
+I
in
"*
CO
o
+l
q

o
c>
+l
o
c\i


00 «
0 CD-
+| i—
•* c
m
to cxj
CM -r-
xt
CO o
^^





CO
CO J=
||
ll
I!
•e =
O CD
i 5
i_ CO
0) CO
CD .S
T3 3
m . .
"- O
3 C
CC Q
.

^.
-^
^.


i:
O)
X


O)
X


-7


q
T—
+1
in
CM

o
d
+1
q



cq
••- to
+\ n
. c
'*
"to CM
CO T-
5 S"
"CD LL
cO "S
CQ
O cu
in t 21
W •— /rt
co o S
. Q. 3= CU
| « co 8
en CD cu ^
ca y — c
(amp/e size of 19 blanket w
iluted with water, performan
standard washes.
tion levels, required slightly
i wash.
performance rating across i
w -o -a 2 £ ± co
O C CD 'tO W = •§

E
3
S
CD

C
CD

_
1
O
d
+1
q
T~
o
d
+i
q

o
d
+1
q



<^j-
d 3T
+1 TiT

"
to „
CM T-
CO '0
^?







Good performance, cut the ink well.
Removed ink in one rotation.



^



O)
X


CD


^r


O
d
+i
q

0
d
+1
o
•^


in
o ^"
+1 n
T >^'
CM
CO CO
ca T—
5 s>
0 =
"CD u.
CO m
CQ
                                                                                              CO
                                                                                              .
                                                                                               ca
                                                                                               d
                                                                                               co
                                                                                               in

                                                                                               co

                                                                                               CO
                                                                                               CM

                                                                                               ^
o
CD
CO
q
co
                                                                                               C
                                                                                               g
                                                                                               8.
                                                                                               CD
                                                 4-32

-------
                                                                    4.1  PERFORMANCE DATA
                                    Blanket Wash 14
             Composition:
                   Fatty acid derivatives
                   Propylene glycol ethers
                   Water

                   VOC Content: 12%; 0.97 ibs/gal
                   Flashpoint:  230+°F
                   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 ink well. 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 16 used Wash 14 for all jobs
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

-------
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 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. 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.
                                          4-34

-------
                         4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
i







^1
^KB
•C

15
m
o
(0
o
1
CO
o
Q
Q)
O
n
o
1
•5
E

C/J





















*2
3
cc
D)
1

i
o
•g
-1















£?
« -
CO g
£ "—




me required0
# rotations)

*~



CD
If
m
Medium
loveragt
v^
_
o>
§i

CD
||
I" ^
0
5 ^

^ 1
5) CD
13 cS
0
Q) CO "M?
c?3 "
>


t> $«
o'l

1 ^
CQ Q) •

1 II
CO — P •"
S 

CD


£
3

O
O
+1
O
06
in
CD
'+1

co
o
+1
CO
•*
CO
d%

•s
*®
11
1"




1
3£
0
performance;
T3
o
o
CD
•

z

!



•z.


~z.


0
c>
+1
0
cvi






2 \
j:

5 ^
CD ^
"53 Lu
co 13
CO
• • —^
01 • ^
c§ 5 ^
^00) ~
*- C S CD
CO j= CO -g
5 0 =5 "§5
,NT ;= x co
CO ^ .Q >
•»- j«: •
.§ =f >• J ^ -55
•S co jc *-• o 2
8 3= s i ! !
co5^=5 | o
Of- *^^ O Ti
c ^ .E ^> o .£
•2 2 -^ .55 -^ •*
c§ Q ^ S"1" W
03 . • CD ' 2

~z.

.O)



.2>


z .


in
d
q

CO
o
+1
CM
CO
in ^
o ^*
00 C,
CM


CO to
if


1

ty"s standard
'o
1
CD
"55
S
m
•

1

z



•z.

o
C3
+1
0
CO
z





q
+1 II
CM
r~
CO CO
CO i-
11
CQ "
CO
&
ci
LL
15
s
CO
00
§
^
CO
CO
1
IS
u
CD
CO

c\i
CVJ
II
c
o
I
2
1_
s.
0
•4=
?
<
^ 2
o3 .2
.1 S
« 5.2
.2 £ t)
S £ :&
~° -^ c
c S" co
85^
 8) >»
co _§ -0 -c-
to CO CD >
S « 1 i
i S io co
c co to ja
CD TJ <]} O
*^ .!2 £ t3
O ^ •*"• O
C ^"* ® "«*
i|lf
till
•2 8 o I
? **~ TJ *-
•^ flj fl5

*- £ CD" c
O 3 •- 0
^ " .i 1
Z<0 J3 £-
4-35

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                   Blanket Wash 19
                 Composition:
                       Fatty acid derivatives
                       Propylene glycol ethers
                       Water

                       VOC Content: 22%; 1.8 Ibs/gal
                       Flashpoint:  230+°F
                       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.
                                          4-36

-------
                                                                  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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
   tn


   I
   1
   m
   tn

   i
   is
   8

   I
   o

   I
   CO


   I













.2
I
CO
m
|Z

2
o
•§
~*




















^* ^_
is
la •!*
m o
"5
c
jj
m"™"




|

^»
Q


Wet Ink
•a

Q
^

f^
„, "55
£ x
to c
S -
aw. |!j
C£

*»••*


X
D.






Q
m it ~*
x: o
to ' — •
d





+*
S «^T ^
PS
>


1
T»
a
Ou




O5




t—
in
T—

in

T



LL
o
in




CO






1






S?
CM
CM
cq
i—



O)
CO




CO




co
o
co"

in

T~



u_
o
O
o
in




CO
CO






o
in






S
CM"
CO

r-
CO
CO
CD
"CD
CO
CO
CO













CO
1
0>
OC
§
1
2
js
CO
c
o
i
T"l
W
o>
E























'erformance Evaluation
u>




"O *"^*
>- D)
1?
cc °
« E"
it •-


CO S
o ••
o. "**





% ^,
ime require
(# rotations
i-




 co
-J O
O
•D
Q)
|=^
i||
>


S*
P
1-2



.*:
CO
o
CO
to 2
ca *- .
np/e s/ze o/ 5 blanket wash
mcy of wash made it difficul
suited in uneven application
as were required to cut ink.
CK m CD *•*
W .« = •§
w c "i |
"Q '^ S^ ®
Q^ O 1.. *— "
^ jE 2 _3


•z.
g>

"T*


D)
T*


^


CM
t^
0
d
+1
0
CO

CO ^.


^•*
03
0)
T- 00
co 2?
^> rrt
u.






CD
C
CD
3
CD
O
CO
E
1
CD
Q.
T3
0
O
0


Z
i
o



1
_1


^


d
+1
in
co
m
d
+1
r-
CM

oq
0 CO"
+1 ll
ȣ.

C"
CO
|?
CD .$•
= ^
CO
^J CO
2 CD
— £
O *—
^~ c
oo '-o «
co -o t:
•c c o
CO CO 5=
JO «_ CD
j* % CO
CD Q) *t?
-g E CD
5 CD
II 11
II 1=
S° is 45 co
m W c °
15 C O o
CO P *=
0 C3 g -o
*^3 v* "O CD
Q) PO 4^ •—



D)
if
g>

JL


.O)
i
O
d
+1
q
"*
o
d
q
o
d
+1
q
•*

in
® CD"
evi


"K
0)
T- O>
CO $•
^* rrt
U-
^
c
CO
JQ
CD
JZ
CO
CO
s
_i O
^1
€ t=
*- £
S'g
8 S
c o
CO •*=
§1
o^
m T3
Q. 2
•a '5
o cr
O CD
(S CC.


Z.


^z.


O)
X


•z.


•z.
•*
d
+i
CM
CM

CM
S?
O5 -E-
d

j:
CO
|0>
CD £?
i|
« i

                                                                            o>
                                                                            I
                                                                            o
                                                                            8
                                                                            in
                                                                            co


                                                                            i
                                                                            CO
                                                                            1
                                                                            (0

                                                                            OJ

                                                                            CO
    2

    L.
    CD
    Q.

    CD








    I
                                                                          •i §
                                                                          D.2
  T3
                                                                          CO

                                                                          CO

      -c-
S -° -D O
CO CO  C
                                                                        O = w O
                                                                        Z c 2 -o
                                                                        „ ll E o

                                                                        
-------
                                                                   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:  170°F
                       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  pn 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

-------
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.
                                          4-40

-------
                                                          4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
o
CM


(0
I

m
o
H—

*
O
•c
k.
1



*i— iS
O)
E
£ -o
0
Q.
(0
£
o
Q.
2,
Q.





!E
1"
E




*-
0}
4^ i
o

o :
>






J.
1^^






s^

°S

Product


^
in

in

0




u.
0
R:
<8>
in

^







T—






vP
0^
CO

CM

O
CM
X
CO
1



oo
co

co

in




u.
o
O
O
*~
in

co
CO







o
in






vj>
o
o
T-
c\r
CO

1
CD
C
'%
&











n Results
o
1
u
CD
Q
•o
CD
n:

















0
'•i
performance Eval





i- O)
3 I
*s
cc °
0 3
s ^

£-





o
S g
'= .2
 *-• 3
-Q CD CD £ "°
£• S .£ *- CD ^2

co CL "^ £ 2 g- >-
"° 2 o ° .2 "g .^

CQ 1 i ^ "S x 8

£1
O)
X


|
CD

|
CD
2
co
0
+1
o
•*3-

00
d
+1
CM
O
O
+1
O
CM

C0<8
dp
+| T-
"*. -S

O i-
C\l >fc.
f^*
11
5



rformance.
or.
CD T3
Q. 0
"0 £
gn>

O CO


z


E
^1
CD

E
=5
CD
5

•
z



o
d
+1
o
CO
CO
o
+1
f-
m

CM
+i *T\
d

.c
CO' T-
CO -r-
11
CD LL
m ^
.. 52 •
•c o t5
°> % ^
§ 2 -a
^ CD 0
^5 §•&•
•S co 1o
5 s s
* fe-s
a sample size of 1
nduced nausea in
clined opportunity
§'^^
•s^t
CO C. O
CO D- CO
CQ . LL


Z


O)
X

z



z



o
d
+i
0
in

<



Q
IT
c
o
CO

"3 eg
o *-
it
5
.
"m *
standard wa,
tandard wast"
c to
J2 co
P
CD CO
v- CO
1-5 °
3 c E

cc b co


1


O)
X

0)
X



z



q
+1
in
CM
o
o
+1
o
•*

CO
*~ co"
+1 n
5s

"w CM
CO 1—
if
m 13
                                                                     I?

                                                                     LL.
                                                                     CO

                                                                     q
                                                                     '8
                                                                     co


                                                                     co
                                                                     o
                                                                     CD
                                                                     a.
                                                                     CD
                                                                     I


                                                                  S   1
                                                                  4-*   +->

                                                                cs'll o

                                                                -2 2 § "CD
                                                                S £ to ^
                                                                   CD
                                                               5 8
                                                                  -
                                                               •D CD c 5s 'C'
                                                                C  _	
                                                                i s -D 2 °
                                                                §•8 111

                                                                ^I»|I
                                                                »-S S c J!
                                                                | 2 « « r.
                                                                «lSt?
                                                                o
                                                                   ^ 2 8
                                                                   3 " M
                                                                o o o "a fc
                                                                =5. ^ v. £ •*=

                                                                Sills
                                                                4- C t (B T3
                                                                O = = »- CD
                                                                Z c c CD W
                                                                | ..... E J-J
                                   4-41

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                    Blanket Wash 21
               Composition:
                     Hydrocarbons, aromatic
                     Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
                     Fatty acid derivatives

                     VOC Content: 47%; 3.5 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint:  115°F
                     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 color wash-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
                                          4-42

-------
                                                                   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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
    CM

    *

    I


    1

    I
    ffl
    CO
    I
    I
   Q
    o
   I
   D.



















CO
22
g
CC
cn
1
1
1
cs
























•S"fB*
K= o
,0 •*
co w
S5S


1

J
D
>
j
>
>





CD
^ S?
1|
E §>
-9 2
-Q CD
CD i>
s<3
CD
§,
^* CO
S |
*!
_ CD
5 &
Qi ^
S o
•^o
8»
•**• J»*
Oi Qj
13 o
O
•o
01
Volume Usi
(ounces)


1 £•
i =
i 'o
" u>


CD *-

O "o
E ^
CD o

CD P. Q-
•C 4-1
co "5 -^
& —CO
<-. S J3
CD *O 4-*
•* ?n 0
d JJ« o)
i 50
«> §•§
H-. -a ,
Jo > 'co
CO > CO
S ±i CD
1 I 1
"Q "7? Jr^i,
J^J Q

CD
|


•z.

d
+i
•T—
CM'
^>
d
+1
cq
T-'

d to"
cq £,
^
to ^
T- T-
CO *o
^ i£









T3
£
'3
CT
£
1
•o
mance
as standar
L. . .
o t
t o
S.O
Jco


•z.
E
3
T3
CD
Medium


^

o
d
+1
q
T-
in
d
+1
cq
T^

°' to
51
co t~-
CO T-
^> _^J*
O rr^
CD |.i n
CO "S
m

                                                                                    o
                                                                                    0>
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    >,
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    8
                                                                                    10
     c
     o
                                                                                    CD
                                                                                    Q.
                                                                                    CD
    I
                                                                                    CO

                                                                                    .1
                                                                               111
                                                                               
                                                                               CO CO CD

                                                                               I-a S
                                                                               cB-g S
                                                                               •° co E
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      0)
                                                                               O CO C T-,
                                                                               ^^ si
                                                                               O o
u.
^-'
                                                                                 I U
                                                                               *- E CD C
                                                                               o 3 w o
                                                                               Z C « -D
                                                                               II II E CD
                                                                               < CH 3
                                              4-44

-------
                                                                   4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
                                    Blanket Wash 22
              Composition:
                    Fatty acids derivatives
                    Hydrocarbons.aromatic
                    Water

                    VOC Content: Not measured
                    Flashpoint:  157°F (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 ink well 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

-------
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 on the good-fair-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.
                                          4-46

-------
                                                            4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
I
CO
0)
DC
D)


I

I
2
2
«  p
•f  ~
CO  CO
CO
ffi
e
     O)
3 E

£E
D. -O

a. o
  Q.

     hi
     o-aS1
     8=^
Product
          CO
          CO
          u>
          in
            CD
            CO j^J
            CD W
                 oo
                 CO
                 CO
                 in
                 in
                           O
                           1
                           I
                           I
                           re
                        •g
                        £
                      11

ge
Medium
Covera
                         - 1
                         Sj
                           II
                           *<§
Medium
Coverage
                         ~l
                           .$>
                             0
H«

I|I
   O
^1

I*
                                  f
                                  CD
                                  T3
                                  O)


                                  to
                                  CD
                              5511 =
                                j§.* 2
                              -  a o ?
                              Q. co co o
                                CO CO
                                  d) o
                                m
                                  ••-• TJ •—
                                  3 S CO
                                  O Q U.
                                CM
                                CM
                                Sfe
                                +1 li
                                -
                                CM •>-

                                xf
                 CO

                 •c

                 1
                 CD
                 O)
                 S
                 :x
                 ^
                 o>
                                       3 T3
                                       cy o
                                       CD O
                                       CC CD
                                         o>
                                         I
                                         o>
                                         +1
                                         in
                                         cJ
                                       cq
                                       ^ CD"
                                       +1 li
                                       •*£.
                                         CO CM
                                         .
                                       11
                                              CD
                                            CO


                                            +1
                                            in
                                            CJ
                                                 p
                                                 o
                                                 +1
                                                 O
                                              co
CO „
CM -r-


xt
                                                            CD
pe
              €l
              TJ CO
              8s
              D) C
              CO
                                                              •— "U
                                                              ^  CD


                                                              O Q
                                                          O)
                                                         ±
Medium
                                                           in
                                                           cv
                                                            CO CO
                                                              CD :=

                                                              i g
                                                              CD LL
                                                                           i
                                                                         s

                                                                         TJ
                                                                         CO
                                                                         CM
                                                                              s
                                                                              CO
                                                                              in

                                                                              CM
                                                                              II
                                                                    O J.O


                                                                    > CM
                                  4-47

-------
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: 100°F
                   pH: 9.9
Facility 16

       Facility 16 used a 2-unlt 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.
                                          4-48

-------
                                                                   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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS










^
•5
1
t»
2
5
1
CO
1




a>
'erformane
•>••
•s
E
w






















O}
^£5
S

b
o
1














.$"«•
» O

V* SJ
Is.


L
jg &^
i
m

fit
^
b '
Q

Wet Ink


1
«
in


|
*

35
il
CO
0)
dl


X
Q.



E
J







IE
j?
u.










is?
i
I

CM


m
T—


O
CO


in



u.
CM
©


O)
o>



8
T—






Q
O)
T—
10
T—


Si
(O
i


co


CO


o
co


in



u.
o
8
T—
in


co
CO



o
m






S?
8
c\r
CO


1
.1
0)
i















ion Results
CO
is
CO
o
1
U
•o
_QJ

t















0
1
Is
£

CO
1
Q.




T3 •=•
m f
S 0)
'5 £
C £
£ •-
ffl "g
•• ^
o »

>«_o
Q. ^»

O
~O *~.
5 co
.£ =
3 .2
*•" rt
o S
.is




_
>S ^
s 1
 2
'.j S
<3
1 1
^a

E O)
.a 5
•Q CD
CD i.
O

8)
"§>!
o


•8
d) « 'S*
O) 3 Q)
III
O
^*

Product/
Facility

"O k_
..CD CD
8 ~ -0
•§ §" | ^
§ ^ 0) —

C tt Q) *±
IS *= CO 'g.
^ CD CD a-
"*- 'S •— C
^ CD >. -5
IliSi
Q. *- m c "°
J^ * *~^ O5 Q)
{Q ^% "3
_ ^3 '5 g §f
C ^ ^ "I CO
r~ /i\ 05 ®
9> « •=• .>• o"
I5!5*

E
3
S
S

CD

E

1
5
o
C3
+1
O
CO

0
o
+1
o
co

o
T-
+1
T—
co

CO
H
c\i ~-'


if

1
•o
to

CO
'o
CD
£
o
"co
CO
I
1
i
CD
"53 .
CO CO
CD CO


1


z


<
Z

0
CD
0
CO

z



<
^


o
II
c\i


CO CO
is.
11
CD LL.

2
CO i_
CD o
•S to
vj 5— »_Z
§  °
5 8| |

0 o eo B
•§ -9- f? >
|- 5 | co
oj "CD t 'co Q
c ^ ^ o g "g
T3 C CO ^ "' W
8 -s $ •! 1 1
«o O LU H 3 O
OQ . . -. o .


Z


0)
X


<
z

z

co
o
+1
m
c\i


<
^


CO
°?
coS


i!
2
0)
o
CO
t5
'co
> CD
.*: 73
™ "5
o '5
| E|
§ 3 5
€ S "
CD £ g
Q. CD fc-
1||
C5 01 2
. . 73


z


Medium

E
_3
"§
2
2

0
c>
+1
o
T-I

m
CD
+1
co
T-

^
Sf
in S
T—


CD =
03 L^_
(/} _^
m co
£
i£
IS

o
CD
CO
73 CO
$ ^
.g CM
CD C
'o co
C ^
s.^
3=5
w
0. tj
. . CD
CO CO
CO T-
73 ^
CO CM
0 II
£ C
 -5
12 •_
._ 0 CD
£ 0 J3
t! CD g
fli ""I
"i53!
3 - 0)
73 "g^^
0 CO >, CD
CO S -° £
i5 73 CD
g » g, »
O (13 3 O
111?
S .a E •§•
g£ ^3 o.
-C ^ CD
liii
Ss-0^1
= §IE
O CO C 73
g CD CO o
Q-£ o> g
o S w £
m 5 ° °
S'S'gl
*i*s
Z) E CD 73
O 3 *~ CD
•2 C 
-------
                                                                   4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
                                    Blanket Wash 26
               Composition:
                     Fatty acids derivatives
                     Esters/lactones

                     VOC Content: 18%; 1.3 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint: 230+°F
                     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 wash1 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

-------
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.
                                          4-52

-------
                                                                            4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA

CD


S
o>
(0

o


0)
Q

0)
U

(Q
I
(0











=?
(A
O
CC
05
i
*

2
I
2


















.£"»•
m o
Sfc
W 4fc
> *-'

1
(0 ^
(0
m
j,.
1^
h
Q
JC
^
•%
^
^
to
1
if
£ _
QL -a
a. o
to a.
>£

x
Q.






IF
LL





i ~
1-5?
f\ ^f >*
o -° "^
o^^
Product



2



CO

0
o
LL.
o
r-»
®
V

»






cl
CM






00
T—
cb"

co
CM
I
CO
S



co



cr>

co
in
LL.
o
O
O
ir-
®
in

CO
CO






o






.0
8

>
II









• Cut ink satisfactorily.
z


z
F
.3
CD
2


z





O
O
+1
0
CM

'_»
P ¥
•i- _C_

.c
CD "o
"55 u-
co *;
CC cu
CD
CO

•S -"= w
to co oj
- ^ J

TO CD 'i
S i- T3
ail-S
Based on a sample size o
• Good performance rating
• Performed as well as sta
and baseline wash.
|


|

1


CD
-H
O
CM

0
d
+1
o
CM
o
o
+1
o
CM

d c\T

r**"* f—
0
*
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                    Blanket Wash 29
               Composition:
                     Fatty acid derivatives

                     VOC Content: 30%; 2.1 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint:  230+°F
                     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-buryl-p-cresol,  ethylbenzene  and  1,2,4  trimethylbenzene
                                          4-54

-------
                                                                  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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS












g Results
c
1
o



CO
_J















*
II £
-O mX
rS o 	 	
.= *s
C8 M ^
|S- 5
i

1 *
".-. *°
5 «


0) D)


0) £

If

£








4^
|E
u~





IIS
o ^ "^
0-52
I
Q.



CO
o>


tq
iq



U.
?n
fO

^V

CM









Si





0
T-
CM
O>
CM
1



co
co


0
co'
iq



u.
o
o

S>
10

CO
co









n





0
T—
cvf
CO
I
- D)
3 I
CT
c E"
If
CO •*
II







o
o "w"
•=.§
fl
0) S.
1-




0)
^ c?
s §
^^ o
O

Medium
Coverage

if
o
O

0)
^* Cj)
CQ §
3^ 0
O

It
"8 §
ScS
8,
S 5
•S> §
—1 o
0
•D
0)
H|
> § 3
** 5 ""
It
•go
I'fi


CO
1 I
I-1
co _^ o
co i£
•^ ° 5
W .. tT
^ g £
l§8
8||
w -E 5
§ a'g
"§11
8<§S
03 . .


Z



O)
X

Z





<
z


o
CD
+1
O
CM'


z


§ CO
o -E-
T—
3> 1^-
^



S

Good performance; cut in



z



Medium

z





<
z


0
o
+1
o
cvi


Z


0
s?
CM^
*
^:
•§«£
M 15
OQ
0) >>
8-^ i,
g to .5>
fa TO
QJ > -.
•S CD . §
!-E S g
2 11 i

O ro "~ -n
CD w ° ®
«13f
^J 05 ^- £
Q. <0 CD m
^ 0 0 .g el
§•5 -5 ffl-a
13 C C CD C
S J5 Q 2 E
CQ . . . a=


z



0)
X

'•5
CD
*5




<
z


o
CD
+1
O
CO
o
+1
T—
•*
CO
^?
oo S
o
N ^>
5

2
CD
O
1
CO
£ ^
g CD C
& 3 CO
•^ "O o
Good performance; cut in
Extra effort was required
eing dragged across the 1
o


z



D)

Z





<
z


in
CD
+1
CM'


Z


o
S?
h- -S-
0
o ^
E co
-55 u-
co c3
CO
                                                            .8
                                                            o
                                                            CD
                                                            CO

                                                            LO

                                                            IO

                                                            iq

                                                            Ed
                                                            c
                                                            o
                                                            .
                                                            m
                                                            a.

                                                            CD


                                                            •
                                                           I.
                                                          •11
                                                          D. 2
                                                          11
                                                         o> o S
                                                         £ O .Q
                                                         t: a e
                                                          P
                                                            *- co


                                                         ss § ®^
                                                         aiftf
                                                        fit!!
                                                        5* C 
-------
                                                                   4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
                                    Blanket Wash 30
             Composition:
                   Hydrocarbons, aromatic
                   Propylene glycol ethers
                   Water

                   VOC Content: 7%; 0.48 Ibs/gal
                   Flashpoint: 100°F (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 30, the press operator at Facility 18
evaluated its performance as "fair". 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. 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

-------
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.
                                          4-58

-------
                            4.1  PERFORMANCE DATA














] Results
Wf
I

O
2
o
A
JS





















>* _i-i_

E o>
« g
c **
|3£.

L
a
CO

5
^

Q


Je
^
5
^
O
•c
T~ .
^ "5>
2x
0 £
£ "O*
>!

a.






.n
tC
iC O
co
u.





^
c
Q) • •» ^^
lt>-
g&S
>

Product


r™





m

in
T-
d

±.
to
©


tcq








o
o









*•$
co"
d


o
co
X
co
i


co





co

co
in

D
O

in

CO
CD








o
m









o^
O
O
Cvf
CD

_c
I! Baseline Wasi














w
"5
c
.2
to
c
o

CO
Q
2
E

























o
i
1
ui
Performance 1

11
3 X
0) J?
al Effort R
Medium, c
•5 $
£2





o
^•w
£ c
= £
0) >-
.i S





^|
1 ^
<3

Medium
Coverage
05
s|
""* O
O
 » "oT
0>D $
!|i
>

Product/
Facility
to
(U
5 .•

s *g
05 5
c £
|l|
0=1
Based on a sample size
• Good performance; cut
• Worked best with no di
E
CO


z

z


to
d
co
CO


z



-
*yf




O

0 ,£,


ttf co
o •«-
CO ^
|£







|
C
• Good performance; cut

z


1

1




z


r^
d
m
CO

m
d
+1
h-
CM


CO
<=> to
+1 II
in -£•
T—

.c
to co
"55 LL.
io
Q) CO
-C _ C3
w E c
CO' Q JO
s j= co to
S E Z 8
§ *= 2 o
§ 1, Is
"S -o i?
gj 2 to £ "S
Q) ^ >. £ —
"§- m £ to -0
E ca § « ®
CB u -ff & ^
<0 — : X « >
* i ^ c o°
§^2 .818
t, £ =1 tS * « -g
CO ±i m" "^ "tt ^

Z


O)
X

O)
X




z


o
d
+1
0
co

0
d
•H
0
CO


0
2f
d


00 i

8
c

to
'to
£

J)
& O
-?
• Good performance; cut
• Extra effort was require
to surface of the blanket

z


z

o>
X



<
*•



z


^.
d
~rl
CM
CM


CM
S?
0) &

^
11
CO U.
m *-
S *
                                               f
                                               I
                                               u
                                               CO
                                               in

                                               iq

                                               co


                                               •o

                                               to
                                               £
                                               (0


                                               o
                                               CO
                                               (O

                                               CM

                                               to
                                                c
                                               _o
                                                Q)
                                                Q.

                                                O
                                               I
4-59

-------
 CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                    Blanket Wash 31
             Composition:
                   Hydrocarbons, aromatic
                   Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates

                   VOC Content: 99%; 6.6 Ibs/gal
                   Flashpoint:  105°F
                   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-butoxyethanol, 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 ink well, did not dry fast, and
left an oily residue on the blanket.
                                          4-60

-------
                                                                  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 ink well, 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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
            03 O

            «5
ke

(
Bla
et Ink
                 1
              D. TJ

              •- .2
              =5.
oduc
                      CO
                      CO
                      CO
in
                      co
                      CO
                      CO
                        CO
                        co
                        eo
   in
                        in
   §
  UJ
   0)
   u

   §
Perfo
1s.
li
         22 g


        '^1
         Q) CO





        H ^"
                                   s  a
                                      CD
                                     a
                                     o
                                   =5
Average

lume Used

(ounces)
Product/

Facility
                                          B
                                           CD
                                           c
                         •o   >-
                         CD   O
                                        Je  o

                                        C !t=
                                        CO  CD


                                           2
                                           0
                                           P
                                           e
                         CO

                         CD
                         «
                         CD
 J TJ


 ^1
i- CO
JO CD

•O o


§'£
                                        .S>  CO

                                        !•=
                                        |  a
                              CO

                              -o
:$•


1
CO
CO
                           .
                       CD 3= ;S C

                       •§ Ss 2
                       w w o- «  .




                                        i
                                        D)
                   O)

                  I
                                        C\J
                                        co
                                        in
                   co ^

                     'i
Good pe
                                   I

                                   I
                                                        p
                                                        o
                                                        p

                                                        CM
                                                        CM
                                                        m
                                                              05
                                                                    8
                                                                    CD
                                        co

                                        Si -g
                                    -
                                               §•
                                             i
size

; cut

as st
                                                                    $
Based on a sample

• Good performance;

• Performed as well
• Slightly more effort w

to surface of the blanke
                                                             in
                                                             co
                                                                            o>
                                              CD
                                              O


                                              I
                                              CO

                                              'co
                             I2
S  2
o '5 *-
• -  cr CD
CD  CD -^



I  il
C  > CD

€B«
CD £
0.  (5

•O  CO
G
rface
                                                                         O)
                                           in

                                           d

                                           +1



                                           CM
                                                    0


                                                    H
                                                    o
                                            c S
                                           = i?5
                                           •53 u-
                                            
-------
                                                                   4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
                                    Blanket Wash 32
               Composition:
                     Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates

                     VOC Content: 99%; 6.5 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint:  220°F
                     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 ink well, 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

-------
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 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 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.
                                          4-64

-------
                                                                           4.1  PERFORMANCE DATA
CM
CO



1

|

_C8
m

£
(0

_o
45
S
 o

 0)
Q

 8

 m
•§
0)
Q.
V)











resting Results
1 —
0
S
E
(0




















If
B g
w w




I
+* ^a
Blanke
(9


£

Mfef /nfr




£
o
-c
1
*

2?
Vapor Pressu
(reported, mm

i
o.





^
ILT
f o
(fi *~*
_«
IL
UK





i —
O O)
f \ ^3 "^
o ='^
>

ts
1
Q.

8

m




in

CD


LL
o
co
CO
©
'v

in
CO






m
CO






sS
O
O5
in"
CO


CM
co
I
<
|
co

CO




co
in



LL
o
8
m
T-

CO
CO






CO
CO
o
in






vP
o-
I
CM
CO

CO
1
.1
CD
CO
£











stration Results
g
o
Q
•O
CD
il




















o
1
"5
^
LLJ


m
1



•o-
i- CD
K
o E"
s^.
'M
£<*




Q
•o ^-«
m en
CD W
'5 .2
£|
0) S
E^.
._ 2£-
i—




^i1
II
Medium
Coverage
CD
lb 5
— i o
G
SJ
X O)
1 1
a: o
0
Medium
Coverage
9
"t£ en

.§) CD
-J Q
O
•ol-S-
OS ... o
> i 3
"o
>

If
T3 'o
O (0
£ "•

shes:
e excess
1 | .
••-» n
§ 0 "S
S t: §
«. 0s"
^ *= P
0 <" CO
.§ 11



Z
D)
±

^:
O)




Z


0
o
+1
o
c\i
o
CD

+1
0
cvi
o
S?
mS
cvi

CO
ll
CD CO
CO LL
CO „
CD rt
73
co :£
1 ll
Q) E cr
r£ Q) -*-•
^" C"
-S w •=
-Q CO Q.

*M ^ Q
"fS ®
"o si
.« §|
CO . 73 E-
q> S 'co 2
§• i !r 73
en ^ c
CO ^ "5 CO
co >c ••-!• ^2
§ s.§ 1
T3 73 CO 0
1111
CQ . . OT
E
CD
CD

5
3


o
+1
CD
CO
0
CD
+1
0
CO
o
CD

+1
o
CO
CM ^
CD CM
h- c:
CD


I .$•

SLL
1
p.
CO
73
1
CO
CO
CO

tr
o
a5
CD
8 S
c .c
CO .-g
ll
CD >
Q.JC
73 .£
83
O 0


^
z

g
fi



z


z



CM



«=??
,_ ^


(0
|m
«t
•— 'o
|£
^ CO
                                                                                         IO
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         LL
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         CD
                                                                                         CO

                                                                                         CO

                                                                                         O
                                                                                         T—

                                                                                         73


                                                                                         CO

                                                                                         T~


                                                                                         .
CD
•§
«
>
CO
•5
e
CO
S
&
S
13
73
^
'>
CO

o>
o
'o
CD
Q.
CO
8
3
CO
O
.g
. -a
CO CD
§|
i|

'o
£
to

CD
CO
o
O
CM
II
C
o
to
o
k.

CD
a.
CD
E
•»^
?
<

co
. c
S-B
•§ ^
0.2
« 15
i =
S1 co  >,
•to S js -0
*^ ^   ^3
CO >, CO  CD


fc ^ CO  CO "
                                                                                  £!f s
                                                                                  t> O ._ CD
                                                                                  o o
                                                                                  z z
                                                                                  II II
                                                                                  < o
     C  
-------
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: 138°F
                     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-
trlmethylbenzene, 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
                                          4-66

-------
                                                                  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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS






S
1
CC
g
~
CO

*
r
<*-*
2
II

























Washability
(# strokes)

I
CO
«-• c^1
CD
m
*
&
1
44
S
o
10
1

0) e
£. fc
gs
§M
"O ^.
*«*
O B.
Q. 0
^^

C
.C o
W *— *
IT





Q.






4-*
I-f
o'i'^
O -0 s^

t/
^



•o
o
1



o
CM
O

co
iq



j.
®
CM


1






CO
CD






Q
n
cb"
N




^.
CO
X
CO
1



co
CO

CO
in



j_
o
o
in


LO






co
co






-?
D
CM"



r
co
CO
CD
"CD
rt
CQ






CO
4^
CO
CD
CC
O
1
ro
f
i
2
Z
























o
1
Performance Eva



%*
S. 0)
I*
r E
S3
s^
^ p
CO ^
o ..
Ii



j
m (/)
,™ =
= .2
Eat
mm j**,.




0)
v. C3>

S 5
CJ
Medium
Coverage

CD
j» CQ
O) Q3
o
x8,
S* w
S?
3: o
0
C S.
i i
CB ^
^^ o

s,
2= jo1
.& o3
o
0
O CO "tn"
S CD p
g E §
*i ^i ^S-
o
>


•^
It
"o '**
o:"-


1 S,
CO CD 5?
H S^
1-1 Jg«
55 co > ~
11 ?8|
§« =gi=.£
d CD CD c •-
fc £ E § >2
03 fl • CO = T3
*.. O ?-. CO ^ CD
i«!ll
* CD « -€ .2> -c
IIM1*-
TOC 5 XI m . CD
nisii^
« O CD O « CO 3
OQ . TJ .to . J3


.c
D>
X

CD


CD
^
q
+1
T—
CO
«^.
o
+1
CM
CM
CO
O
•H
CO
CM

° C?
M' •*-





»|

3 o •-
? 0^
* £-8
.§8 iS
co c -t; c
|I51
tlij
« e-Ml
§ § 'CD 2 .
1%£5|
i£5ll


c
O)
X

1


CD

*>.
+1
*"•»
co
o
o
+1
o
^
CO
o
+1
co
CO

0 ¥
°N c
Y— ^~^



•*-•
« ro

W CO
^1


5 1
CO >
jQ "O
"Q> ^
• Good performance.
• Fewer impressions were neede
acceptable print quality than witf



z

z


D)
X


z



z

•3-
0
+1
CM
CM
1?
CM
CD
^.j

O)
0
£-
co en
CO T-

15 u.
w ^_,

CD *
                                                                               CO
                                                                               C
                                                                               o
                                                                               Its
                                                                               73


                                                                               8

                                                                               o
                                                                               CO
                                                                               CD


                                                                               h.
                                                                               CD
                                                                               •a
                                                                               c
                                                                               3


                                                                               "§

                                                                               ?

                                                                               to
                                                                               C
                                                                               o

                                                                               § jj
                                                                               73 .C

                                                                               O Q.

                                                                               C CD

                                                                               8«

                                                                               5^

                                                                               i T3

                                                                               II

                                                                               S.8

                                                                               b-*
                                                                                     I

                                                                                     S-
                                                                                     T3
                                                                                     CD

                                                                                     i
                                                                                     CD
                                                                                     CO

                                                                                     o
                                                                                     CD
                                                                                     CO
                                                                                     M
                                                                                     c
                                                                                     o
                                                                                     's
                                                                                     d>
                                                                                     a.

                                                                                     CD


                                                                                     •»=




                                                                                     I
                                                                                     S
   I

   _CO
   J3
   E

   3
   C

   CD


   >,
   .a

   T3
  . CD
 5 =
- S* rn
                                                                                 c5
                                                                               o j:
                                                                               !!
                                                                               i*
                                                                               n"
                                                                               < =
                                                                               Zee
 C CO
 S g
 J3 =
 O *-
   m
 CD J£

 >>75 7?
 J3 •" CD
 73 ® 'CO
 •S€.i

 8§1

 2 "O,

 S °Z
 £ 73 —
 CO CD =


 Its


 *^2
 II E CD

 = i=5
                                           4-68

-------
                                                                  4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
                                   Blanket Wash 37
               Composition:
                     Water
                     Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
                     Hydrocarbons, aromatic

                     VOC Content:  14%; 1.0 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint: 82°F
                     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, 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 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 baseline 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

-------
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.
                                          4-70

-------
                                                                                4.1  PERFORMANCE DATA
(0
co
I
_CB
m
w
o
o

i
8
m
!












a
I
O)
C
I
!
o
A
2





















£-~
CO
«• rt
5 2
(0 U)



1
0) ^
m
m

"j£
"J,
Q


|
>w
Q)
^

^
in
I
« "55
£x

||
CO ^*
> £,
Q.





•g
'5 ^^
!"£.
<0






•g
Iff
O O) ^

0
•o
o
£


CO



m



co
CO


LL
o
CO
CO
©
co
cvi


O)
CO







CM
co








q

CO
3:
CO
i


CO



co



co
in


u.
8
©
m


CO
CD







o
in








o
cvT
CD
.c
CO
CO
5
CD
"53
m












^
(0
!
_o

fft
w
o
i

il

























o
I
1
IU
0)
o
CO
1
Q.

"D ^
|f
o E"
*t «s
8^*
.- >
il
D.



Q
~o ^— ~
£ g
'= .2
fi\ CO
o
0) i.
Eat
fg^
1-




SN 0>
m *-
*i
||
Q) ^
§cS
sl
.Q Q>
«j ^
o
||
r^
O

CD
§ CO*
1 |
O

CD)
-c 5
"^i i>.
-1 o
0
0) __^
O) ^} 01
S a, o
m C C
III
o

o $*
f^
£"•


col S •

•«£ CO (Q
•S ? -S E
-Q = C >> CD
K CD CO ffi 3
*l IP
U III
Based on a sample
• Longer drying time
washes.
• Performance rated
medium coverages,
• Press operators ha

^
z
|
'o
CD

1


z


^
O
+1
m
cvi

o
CD
+i
o
cvi

||
«
r- "
lit
,
     §


     I
                                                                                                  8.
                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                  CO

                                                                                                  o
°  ^S
Q  QJ JU

CD £-5
05  >. i-
                                                                                             "B
                                                                                                S CD
                                                                                                ££
                                                                                             i=  - T3  O
                                                                                             CO  C m  >

                                                                                             §  ° §  |


                                                                                             CD  CO en  O
                                                                                             °  2 'S -2,
                                                                                             ||J  J.

                                                                                             tt  co o £
                                                                                             3 ^ -C  >»
                                                                                             "O "*— "*"* •"
                                                                                             O  W C ~n
                                                                                             =5.   2  g
                                                                                             S:^ -5 .i
                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                     co
                                                 4-71

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
                                    Blanket Wash 38
                    Composition:
                          Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
                          Alkoxylated alcohols
                          Fatty acid derivatives

                          VOC Content: 65%; 4.9 Ibs/gal
                          Flashpoint: 230+°F
                          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
                                          4-72

-------
                                                                   4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
the blanket.  This standard blanket washing procedure was not modified for the performance
demonstration.

      Wash 38 cut the ink well, 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 or 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 ink well. Press operators described the odor of the baseline wash as
strong.
                                          4-73

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
   CO
   CO
   CQ
   2

   OT
   co
   o


   I

   I










3
0>
cc
1
H
&
2
S
0
CO
— J






















— a)
.0 "5
J2 8
co to

"55
(/> ^
jl ^.
m

"^
"^
Q
Wet Ink

Q
I
,_ _
|f
o. "o
It

3C
Q.








£
S* IL
"^ £ _j
•—
u.





*d
•S irff"
O W JQ
O r~- vP
o °
>
s
!
Q.


CO

O)

in
o

u.
O
8
®
o
cvi

co
in








+
o
CVI








-S
CO
of

CO
CO
1


co

CO

co
in
T—

LL
S
Gti
in

co
co









o
in








*5
o
o
cvf
co

CO
1
II Baseline








a
3
CO
_o
g
o
E
S
•D
O
il























_o
*3
S
§
UJ
0)
Performanc

TJ •=•
CD -C
.— .2*
*" o
t: E"
O 3
S ^
*co ^

^ •— '







Q
^ ^**
cu co
m" IS
*• o
0) k
Eat
.— ^-




ca
!|
CD
II
"Si
s<3

^^ O
^i fs

05
s i*
.& CD
•^ o
0
•a
0)
o co -5J-
S a> S
m C C
> § 3
>
1*
•a 'S
il

0
*J
0)
1 co-ig
^ E co §
9 blanket ws
quality proble
after 1 .5 daj
: quality probl
or^ =
Based on a sample size
• Oily residue caused prii
• Use of wash discontinu
poor performance and pi

D)
±

z

D)
±



O
d
+l
o
in

^^
^


o
d
+l
o
CO

co^
ff
cvi ""'

CB
11
51""




1
^ c
0 0
O CD
•ii
18
y» QJ
3 ^
CO C
CO T3
55

•z.

•z.
E .

CD
2



^
-£.







CVI
T-
+1
1 —
cvi

co
2?
CVJ £-

is
1 Baseline
at Facili
S
Q.
O
CO **
CD CD
^ %
§ J2
1= ^ CD
^S m -3
•fe T3 •- 2?
0 CD >,-C
Based on a sample size
• Use of wash discontinu
quality problems from oil
• Wash cut ink satisfacto

O)
ir

CD


                                                                             co

                                                                             p
                                                                             in
                                                                             •*

                                                                             •a

                                                                             co

                                                                             CM
    I

    to
    cj

    p
    in
    co
     u

    o
     CD
     Q.

     CD


    '.!=


     C»

.2
CD
                                                                             -CD
                                                                             :
     80)
    X)
   o  cr


   ii
   .  CD
                                                                         T3 CD *^
                                                                         9> CO >>

                                                                         2 5 "° IT
                                                                         *3   T3 
                                                                         W.<0 CD £


                                                                         IS S 8
                                                                         "~ CD JQ Q

                                                                         CD TJ CD o

                                                                         ^ .CO E (D

                                                                         2 £ tg £
                                                                         o

                                                                         TJ
                                                                         o
                                                                           ~ CO
   _ 0 ^

   o £ o
       o
   CO C 5
   -- to c


     « E
     O '4=
                                                                         < -2 O" (O
                                                                         I; E CD co
                                                                         ^ 2 s £-

                                                                         ^"Ir

                                                                         iCHl
                                                                         ^- OJ ^3  LL
                                          4-74

-------
                                                                   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: 155°F
                   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-Cg
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

-------
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.
                                          4-76

-------
                                                                         4.1 PERFORMANCE DATA
u>

I
jo
m

















y Testing Results
o
*
E
m
~*




















tf

CB g
(0 0)





L
*• -^
.2 £^
c
(0
m


C
^
£



|
i

b
d
O
c


s
O

Vapor Pressure
(reported, mm Hg)


Q.




'It?
£^.





+•«

S •*§*
of?
t*
E
Q.




o









CO



in
T—
1.
©
CO
d


cq




in
in
T—







^O
co
oi
cvi
S
w
^




m





CO



CO



in

3
O
©
in


CO
CD




o
in







o^
O
O
c\T
CO
.c
CO
CO
CD
HI
CO
CQ

















onstration Results
E
0)
•o
0
LL.























=
O
'•5
3
§
UJ
1
OS
c
1
£





1 Effort Required
Aedium, or High)
«• ^
d "—
•5
0) ">
CO ^>

< u.
<









CD
5
^
c
3
o
i"
CO
1_
o
•p
CD
Q.
T3
0
O
C5

Z

E
3
13
CD
^

<

Z
o
0
+1
o
c\i



q?
j=
= i
CO •t-'
cfl CO
CD
CD
E
- •*=
CO
i.! m 	 ;
a> -n ®
•s ^ S
v> i— O
JO -.R **
s 5- Q.
^ CD W
I o |
!£ ^ oi « CD
^ ^ ^ 0 ^
u ^ CD CO C
Ii C r~ O
•Sic 8 §
|^ | 5 g>
CO ' ° D)-CO
tO 3 2 0 £
C '° •£ *"
O "X o ^" ^*
lilli
CQ . CO . .
Z



Z




o
d
+1 '
0
CO


•T» ,




o
° in"
+1 II
o •£•
15
o,60
CO ^>

< u_
5


o>
c
CD
o
£i
S

CO
to
'co
£
2
CD
1_ ™
& =
£ CD
§ CO
== * o


^: 0 -o
^ "K O)
'\ 1 1^[ CO
. . TJ
2?
O)
X


<




in
d
+1
c\i







o
n
d
U
c i
Si i
CO CO
33
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    f

                                                                                    s
                                                                                    to
                                                                                    d
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    10

                                                                                     o
                                                                                     (D
                                                                                     CO
                                                                                    10
                                                                                     C
                                                                                     o

                                                                                     I
                                                                                     
-------
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: 155°F
                     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
                                          4-78

-------
                                                                   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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
    CO












to
DC
to
£
I
8

_j





















it?
« "o
(•* !•»
11




L
4-* -sO
§
m

j£

£

 TJ <-^
>• CD D)
fei1
DL •• C
'= .2
!1

JH




. §>
1 1
Medium
Coverage
CD
1)1
CJ
CD
^ eg
CD ®
^^ ^
O
It
73 Q)
^ 0
•^ o
CD
S 5
O> CD
-J o
0
•§
1=1
> § 3
<1"^
I54
3 :=
a"-


CD
3
73
CO 'CO
CD CD
CO o
CO Z
1 1
IB 2^
co *;


CD £J .
g co 5 to
CO E 73 —
sii£
C" 05 ^= CO
§ Q--U E
ctj o 5 2
E
1
1

z

CO
o
+1
fs^
CO
0
d
o
CM


2



q
in £,
CM
to
T—
T|"
< £

0
J-
co
i
73
CO
73
1
CO
ci
.C

£
m •
• Good performance.
• Required slightly more
remove the excess wash

z
O)
X

O)
X



z


o
d
+1
o
CM
O
O
+1
O
CM

q
in •£•
CM
"w ^
CO
.11
05 -tJ
co co
CD

CO

8 I
^ D)
CA cd
m *-
•CD 1
"c f-
CQ . S
•Q -Qj §

"^ "c !&

Based on a sample size
• Good performance; cut
• Required slightly more
heavy.
£
73
CD
E
3
73
CD

1

0
o
+1
o
•*
o
d
o
CO
o
o
+i
0
CO

CM
d S
en ,£.
o
as o
o i-
co ^
$*






1
c .

CO O
2 D)

• Good performance; cut
• Operator noticed a stro
E
3
73
CD
z

z

o
o
+1
o
in
Z



z



q
in •£•
T-
CO O
CO T—
•E!
c§ to
m
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            to
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            CD
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            CM
                                                                                             CO

                                                                                             8
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                            q
                                                                                             0)
                                                                                             Q.

                                                                                             CD
                                                                                            I
                                                                                          .
                                                                                          0.8
                                                                                          JB t5
                                                                                          -
                                                                                        O 73 £
                                                                                        Q> ffl "5
                                                                                        <0 ^  ,_
                                                                                        £ O  CD
                                                                                        £ O J3

                                                                                          2  E
                                                                                        aj co >,

                                                                                        1 _co "g
                                                                                        O flj 3

                                                                                        §i s
                                                                                          is
                                                                                           w   °
                                                                                        1.1 §5
                                                                                             .i a
                                                 4-80

-------
                                                                      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

-------
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

       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.)
     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 cost provided by supplier
Materials - Wipes
•      Recorded quantity used during
       demonstration
•      Lease price - $0.1 I/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
learning 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.
                                                4-82

-------
                                                                           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.13
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
1 0 - Ester/Water
1 1 - 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.
     Products 9, 22, and 32 are not included within Figure 4.1 because VOC content for these products was not available.
                                            4-83

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS
sr
c
u
m:
0.1

55
f
J.
§
u
1


1
<5
££
^^


c
'i
§
m
0)
OS
£
<

*

§
m
X

3
K
1
3
*

in
CM
+



8
CO

8
tn
tn
CO
CM





CM
CM


OJ
CO
o



in
o

CO
£.
hs
u
•2
-

0>
CO
+



1
CO

I

CO
CO





s
T—


ccl
o



CO
o

CO
£.
~
u.


1-
-J-



o
o
CM
CO

1

CO
CM
co





8
CM


CO
d



^
o

T-
^
jLi
1
CO

In
4*



O
|C

|
tn
CO
o
CO





8
CM


fc
O



g
O

tn
^
.Li
1


CO
CM
\



O
o
CO
o
CM

8
03
CM
CO





s
CO


CO
o
CM



TO
c!

O
5^
..
•5
CO

m
-4*



o
o
CM
en

0
8
in
CO
CO
CO





0
o
CM


o>
o



o
in
d

in
^
.*=^
•o


^.




O
s
m

0
8
m
CO
CM
CM





CM
CM


N-
tn
o



in
in
o

CO
£.
: —
O
.2
o

O5
.in
',



O
8
Si

0
8
CO
8
CO





§
CO


o
CM
CM



in
CO
o

^.
£,
:£?
I


05
',



O
8
CM

0
8
in
CO
in





CO
CO
CM


m
CM
T~



o>
in
o

^
Sf

&
-

CO
4-



O
O
CO
CO

0
o
CO
in
CM
CM





CM
CM


CO
CO
0



CO
in
o

CM
>,
1=
I


CM
-f.



8


0
o
CO
CO
CO





CM
CO


O)
CD
0



1—
CO
o

CM
>,
±±
0
CM
T—

^-




O
o
CO
CO

0
8
CO
CM
CO





o
CM
CO


CO
CO
0



8
o

CO
>_
:±±
s


CO
V



o
o

1

8
•^>





cS
t-


^
T-



s?
o

CO
£,
^z
I
*

Si
+



o
CO

8
CO
CO
CO
CO





CO
CM


CO
o



to
o

CO
^
.ts
•5
.2


§
4-



o
8
CO

0
o
CM
CO
CO
CD





CO
CM



CO

o
o
CO
in
CO
in
CO





CM
CM


§
o



CO
m
o

en
.^
.±±
1
LU


S




O
8


o
o
o

s
Ttf-





8
CM


co
'-



£J
o

T-
J^
±±
1
a

in
4*



O
8
in

o
o
CO
CM
CO
CO





c\i
CO


CO
tn
••-



CO
o

CM
^
.ts
2

                                           4-84

-------
                                4.2  COST ANALYSIS
oT
1
S ;
CD s
0. (

s
i
JO
(0
CD
ll
Q.
0
u
"5
*•»


CO
(0
s-
M
O
O
5




tfl

O
5
£


*
iM
Hd
CB »
•3 J
gi
o -
u. -i
R
5
3>
1=
3
U
1
<






CD
(0
m
1
c
~



0)
S~

m
0)
15
£
**
£

CO
m

3"
3

?

3
r

1



0
o
o"







I
^

„
"*




0$
1—


o
*~


CO
o

CO
.£•
LL


CM



+



o
s
in







8
^f

co1
CM




CO
T-


8
o


5
o

h>
&
I






T;



1
co"







0
o
CO

CO
CM
CO




CM
CO


CM
CO
O


CO
O

CM
$f
I


CM
CM



0)
CO



O
0
in







0
o
o
CO

s
CO




o
CM
CO


in
T~


§
0

CO
2f
I






!*



o
0)







o
o
CO
CO

CO
00
CO




CO
CM


O5
0


CO
o

CO
£s
O
,£


CM



in



o
o
CO
co"







o
o
^J.

CM
in
CO




S
1—


cS
o


5
o

1^.
>•
LL






?



o
o
CO
h-~







o
g
in

CM
CM




S
CM


co
O


in
in
o

in
a±
£


CO
CM



CO



O
O







O
8
in

CO
CO
'"




o
0
CM


§
O


o
in
o

in
Sf
«






CO



o
o
CO
CJ>"







o
in

CM
CO




CO
CM
CM


g
o


t-.
in
o

^
Sf
I


O)
CM



CM



o
o
O)
co"







o
g
in

CO
in
CO




CM
CM


§
o


in
in
o

CO
Sf
0
i£






CO



o"







1
CO

o
"*




"
CM


o
lf~


CO
0

CO
>.
2


o
CO



f.



o
CM
CD"







g
in

00
CM




CM
CM


CM
CO
0


S
o

OJ
>,
o
CO
LL






S



0
O
o>
in







I
m

CO
CO
CO




CO
CM
CM


o>
in
^


!n
o

^ .
.&.
LL .


CO



^



O
in







0
o
in
in

CO
CO
CM




o
CM
CM


OJ
in
o


in
in
o

CO
.«
LL






$



0
o
co"







0
o
O)
in

^
in




CO
CO
CM


CO
T~


o>
in
o


&
&


CM
CO



05



O







0
O
CO
in

ff
^~




CM
T—
CM


«
O


CO
in
o

m

a






s



o
o
0>
co"







0
o
CT>
in

CO
CO




CO
CO
CM


§
C)


o>
m
o


Sf
&


CO



S



o
g
o>"







o
o
CO
in

§
CO




CM
CM


05
O


S
O

O5
^*
1





4-85

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS
I]
a3

1
£
1
1—
1
O
1
?
,
to
8
3


•S

1
I


O
Altemattv



Baseline
1
<


1
§
m
C»
j>
§
3
$
m
m
it
— CO
C -0
/ £ fc
o 2
U. 2
CO
1


I



in"
T-



s
CM

§
O

S
o

co
i-
•p
.s.


1



§
CO
CO
CO



9
CO

en
o

in
CO
o

1
o

i»-
co


s


o
o
CO
o



s
CO
Iff
CM
CO
•*



CM
CM

§
i—

S
o

CM
.§•
'o
CO


8



g
in
CO
3



o
•<*•
co

T—
t—

in
CO
C3

t

CO
CO


in


co"



in
CM



0
CM

O>
CO
O

«.
O

in
in
+


0
g
00



o
o
in
in"
CO



0
CM

O
CO
o

in
in
o

CO
!

en
CO


?


o
8



o
8
in"
CO
T-
00



CO
CO
CM

0>
O

en
in
0

!
t


o
CO



0
o
en
co



S
CO

CO
0

o>
0

1°
£

o
^


                                                   Q.


                                                   CO
                                                  JD


                                                   O
                                                   03

                                                   
-------
                                                                         4.2 COST ANALYSIS
         200%
         150%
     a   100%
     U
     S   50%
     u
     I
          0%
         -50%
              10  30  14  37  26  24  12  19  29  1  20  34  21   6
                            Forumla Number (sorted by VOC content)
                                                                39  40  11  38  31
           Lowest VOC Content (2%)
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 JVAPL 1993
Cost Study. The NAPL study presents a number of facility-specific characteristics, including
                                           4-87

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
      .£
      'S3
     S
              1-3      6-11     9-10     10-3     11-1     12-12     14-6     19-18    20-11     21-6     22-12
                  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     34-1      37-3     38-2     39-5     40-1
                  24-17    26-15    29-8     30-19    31-8     32-5    34-19    37-4     38-4     39-8     40-10

                                             Formulation - Facility
                                    Labor
                                                       Product Use
                                                                          Materials
           Figure 4.2  Cost Difference Between Substitute and  Baseline Blanket Washes
                                                      4-88

-------
                                                                       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, a weighted 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
Annual Wage
$31,200
$64,740
$99,060
Hourly Wage
$15.00
$15.56
$15.88
Totals:
Weight (Facilities x shifts)
9
8
12
29
Wage x Weight
$135
$124
$191
$450

Total wage x weight:
Total/29:
$450.04
$15.52
Source: NAPL 1993 Cost Study
                                           4-89

-------
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.
+ 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
                          i
       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 manual blanket washing, the only
materials or equipment affecting the cost of blanket washing were the wipes used by the press
       Overhead 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.
                                           4-90

-------
                                                                        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 larges't 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.6
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.f 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 4.2.4 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:
      eCosts 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.
      fThe EPA is planning to develop guidance to the States for the use, reuse, transportation, and disposal of shop
 towels.
                                           4-91

-------
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):
                                          4-92

-------
                                                                        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 of
             weeks/year
             =$2.76/press x 10 washes/shift x 5 shifts/week x 50 weeks/year
             =$6,900

      Costs of using the basfeline 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 (VM&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

-------
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
                                          4-94

-------
                                                                        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 18and 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

-------
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 $ 13.15/gallon compared
to a price of $5.88/gallon for the baseline product. The press operator at facility 13 commented
that 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 18 percent and 160 percent for facilities 16and  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.

Substitute Blanket Wash 26

      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. 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.
                                          4-96

-------
                                                                        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

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS
percent and 8O 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
                                          4-98

-------
                                                                         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

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS










CD
-^
.2*
1










co

^*
*5







































Facility Characteristics











in
CM
X
CO












CM
X





£
i
CL













1









1


C
1





|| Average ink coverage













o













o





|| Dilution ratio (water.wash)































en
(9
=S
| Cost Element per Blanket










CO

.5*
1










m

^*
'5
•2
raTcD
& O
CD 2
§1
CL Q
Jl 2
8 I
Q J™
< Q
OS
11
< 5

O
c
11
m ?
I 1
CD i£
Q. Q
'ID
CD "
3 §
%£

.>
CO
If
< 5

CD
C
11
pa 5








S
+

^1
+

^f
10 5-



co •£•

m



in
+


fel



CO -S

D)
c
'c
CO
o
c
CD
8-
11


g
+
O)
T—
f^
+

^
O



CO
CM
d

C\J



fe
o


in
CO
d



CO
d





o
O
o
CO
_J


^
1
CO
CO



•^- S"
T- II
T- -S,



in IT

+



o
o


s!



§!
IT
s
^,
"E
CO
3
O
CD
I


m
+

0
+

CO
o



d

CM



T—
o


CO
d



§
d

0-)_
to
o
c
5
8
o.
1
1
ft
m r?


o
o
+
o
^—
+

of
CM £-



sl

?



^
CD

_
CO IT



CM -£•





f
*


o
o
+

o
+

Si
o



d

CO



^
CD


CO
d



CM
CM
d





to
o
o
f*
CO Q)
to §•
SUJ

































w
I


en
m
+

o
+

CO"
.0



d

CM



?
+


§
d



in
m
d






| Total cost/wash


o
m
+
CO
1"~
+

$
CO



«

m



CD
in
0


£
CM



O
CM
CM'





m
1
8
o
I


o>
CO
+
8
^t"
+

o
CO



o
8

in


o

TJ:


0
§
CO"



o
o
in
in




«•
I Total cost/press/ shift/year4
                                                                          T3 g O
                                                                          iiiS
r
to
s
r
in
iti
in
Presse
The foll
ifts, 5 d
1
cl
2
3
4
                                          4-100

-------
                                4.2  COST ANALYSIS

















T™
=












b
CM
>^



















1
=5
CD











r
ffi
E
3
^



















0














o





















































in
T-
's
£













T"
J

'o
£

«-0
1 1
o o
II

ll

g> jo
< Q

1
c .c
< 5


o
ll

col-
s' s
_co o
CD Si
o o
CD £
CL Q



solute
ference
•° S
< Q


.1
I|
CD
Ti* ^—
ll






o>
?




+


f
in £.



si



T—




fs»
4*



•f
CD •£•

^^1^^
,_ II


D)



?



Si
?


s
d



d



^



fe
Q
+



s
d


s
d






S?



^.
d


^?
^ -S



c\T
LO II



CM



m
d
+



§1
o -B

^^,
S^
d 5-

N
,3,



5



s
d


T—
d



d



!



s
d
+



CO
o
d


8
d

. 	 .
^.



0



,_
d


^?
i-: -B.



s!



o





o



si

>-—-s
si






?



o
d


CM
d



T—
d



o





o



d


d









































1



CM
d


fc
d



S
d



-



CM
T—
d
+



d


d






3



00
TJ;


8
CO



s
CM



r-.



9
d
+



CO
CM
CO


S
CM






S


O
O
CM"


|




o
o
o
in



-



1
*—
.}.



o
o
CM
CO

O
8



O 3
1 ^
cp .E
.> -a
"at ®
m o
<•— • »Ji
'CO CD
CD °-
JC .CO
"*"* *\x
.IP o
c e\T
.C "O
B a
1 !
o <-
CD (A
Q. o
'5 E
"o '**
i ill
-j Q. m tn
i g-s 1
**—  ^ 3 *-
CO 3 ,O CO
•~ o ® l~
15 c o 15
CD* ^22.
= ^ S § co
CO « S 05 JD^
"5 co is" ~ v.
s .1 1 -8 8.
4-101

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS










>*

1















<5*
i







































Facility Characteristics










CM

CD














CO
CM
X
&>




CD
CL








r

e

•g















c
=5
CO




|| Average ink coverage












o
















o




II Dilution ratio (watenwash)































x:
1

1 Cost Element per Blanke










>.

o
i2














T—
.2*
73
8.
1 1

to
||

CD
C

CQ 5
1*8
"c c
O i_
o>3=
Q. Q
'"CD
3 §


"5

S £
< 5
CD
C.
11
co 5






CM
+

3



CO"
§1



co •£•


m
P-
+


in
o





ii


CD -£•
CD
'E
CO
CD
0
c
o
&_
E CD
P -Hi-

CM
+

1



d



d


in
i1-
+


fe
o




CM
in


8
d




1o
3

CO
•

S
C3



CD CM
00 II
d 3-



CM
in ^



CO



T-
o




co" •£-


co -£•
?
i&
i
o
§>
2
1


o

o



d



&
d



CD
+


^2
o




in
CM
d


d
,-*
0
O

_3
5
In
o
0-
CO
CO
•^cu
*r m
CO (Q
m =}


o

o



si



CM
51



o
+


00
o




CO II
CM' -S,


CM -B-




S
Q.
*


0

o



T—
d



d



j^
+


CD
O
+




CO
d


Si
d




8
o
Materials and
Equipment2


































I

CD
+

d



d



o
in
d


m
CM
+


£
TJ;




§
c\j


Cft
d




1 Total cost/wash ($)

CO
+

CO
CD



00
CD
CO



8
CM


m

+


CO
CD
t




CO


S
CO




CO
CD
t
O
o
1

CD
+
O
••*"



0


o
o
o
in


O)
CM
+

o

T£


0
o
00
d
CM


S


»

1 Total cost/press/shift/year4
rea
uct.
erv
fou
50
a
as
r
tes t
are
win
P
                                           4-102

-------
                                                                                           4.2  COST ANALYSIS
(0
GO
 (0
<0
o
O
 (D




w







«*•
g
'o
£














CO
>.
!^
0
£






































|| Facility Characteristics







.
CO'
X
1















8

=
00





co
IM
'co
ol








Medium















E

•a
•

0
£
CD*-
1 £
<5 i£
o: Q
•*§
ll
< Q
V
ll

CD
ll
"H m
SE

fl> E
Q. Q
T"a>
o o
3 CD
11
< Q
0}
>
•s
CO
11

CD
C
Tn **"
co 5







CM
1

s

i!

8!



0




O




of
co -5-


^_^
si
0>
c
i
CD
O
g
CD
8-_
H"™~ 05
*«— *

01
?

oo
CO

h~

c!



o




o




00
CM
o'



CO
CM
CD







o'


o
+



q
+




N.
o
d



in
o
d
s

8
o
c

Q
8
CL
1
1
r™
O
J2 to
CO ^


O

T—
1

51

CM S,



O




0




CM -S-


^_^
c\i -E-





*


o
•9

0

T—
O

Si
o'



o




0




CJ
CJ
d



CM
CM
o'





to
o
o
Materials and
Equipment2
































J2
1

m
in

1

o
CM
CM

m
oo
d



+



o
+




fe
d



8
d





I Total cost/wash ($)

m
in

1

o
OO
CO

CO



t



00
o
o
+




3
C\j



o
CM
c\i





CO
CO
CO
Q.
1

o>
in
o
3
CO
T—

8
o
8T

0
o
in
oo"



t



o
o
CM
+




0
s
in


o
s
in



w

1 Total cost/press/shift/year4
incr

rodu

obs
                                                                                       .S>-a
                                                                                        co ca co
                                                                                        CD «J &
                                                                                        > 
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS















t-
T-
1
5
1
1
?
*J^
»
I
rf
M
g
/J
£
m
SS
C
P
C
OT





















oa
ft*
1
















V
x5*
°3
^^g














































s
|
£•
1













CO

X
co
T—
















•
CM
X






CD
•S
CL













|
1
E
€
CD

















E
1





i
u
.*:
CD
D)
I















O


















O




2-
i
.9
2,
1
a






































j;
i
i
i
1 Cost Elemeni














CM
ft*
1
















T*
•&
I
fg
g £
si
p. a



® g
11
< Q

CD
.a
1 -=
ll
CD
.S
si
m 5
0-
n? 8
1 1
cu 5
'"CD
CD £3

ll

CD m
^ ?


CD

ll









m
°V




o
^




of
co •£•


§1



?



?




fj
Is* *£*




§1


.Is
c
c
CD
8-
CD "5"
E CD
P -2-

in
^




q





*


fe
d



1



d




CD
d




fe
d




S
1

i

CO
+




d
+



m'
3 CO


h- co"
^ -S-



T



d




CO"
i- CO
CO II
cvi •£*




o «\r
m u
cvi •£.


I
&•
1
a
I


o
00
^




05
o
d
+




d


in
o
d


^
Tf



d




S
d




Y—
d


S
1
CJ
c
o
15
1

Blanket Wash
Use2

o
V™





2
+



«•
CO


s!


o
5



5




a?
CO
T^ II
co ȣ*




s!




CO
.8,
*

CO
CO
^*-




in
d
+




d


d


0)
§



S3
d




S
d




d




«?
1
O

•a
 .S-
| §•
2 LLJ









































CO
m

CO
+




in
d
+




S
d


CO
in
d


a>
^



d




o>
01
•^




en
in
d





S
£
CO
to
8
2

CO
+




s
d
+




R
oi


OJ
oi


O)
T^
T—



§
oi




CO
in




CO
CO
oi





CO
81
£
t
1

CO
+




S
in
+



o
§
co"


o
o
CO
in"


a>
TJ:


Q
|




O
s
of





in"




CO
1
(/>
£
a.
I

2 1
C r-
— CO
ja
.1 S
To g
E 1
(D O
«-* *^
CO CD
CD Q-
£ •—
c O
en ^
3 5
c oT
i =
^ (0
8 *f
U i^
CO
o >-
CD rn
Q. o
'3 E
•.- '•=
° . 0
® • "S ^
.Q (0 r* «
C rt? ®
| J-JS
c 3 o co
^ "5 .22
••S w to •—
C CD CO (o
3 ^ r? CD
? i«i
i |ii
CD
£ ^"o T^~
CD § -O CD
CD CD" S2 ?
8 .1 3 -52
"O "tj! CD (o
B D> CO £
I HI
C CO c O
•S C35 CO —
c S S
= '5 t. 'S
0) ^S 3 •»
0> 3 ^O CO
I 8 aj*
c CD S § CO
CO !? fe D) CD
_ 3 .. >,
1 ||||
C§ *J £ 3 E -jg
-Hill!
= CL»- ^ 
-------
                                4.2 COST ANALYSIS

























CM
.C
CO
^
*-
(0
m
^
£
































m

jfr
•5
£













CM

f
'o
£
























































Facility Characteristics
























=
CO
CM
X
b
CM















1
X
CO
CM






CD
N
'co
CO

CL

























|
1















Medium






Average ink coverage


























T—















T:






Dilution ratio (watenwash)
















































in
(0
Cost Element per Blanket Vt
























T-
*:
1













CM

£•
1
»T-
O CD
CO O
I 1
O CD
CL Q



CD
•*-• C
3 m
— - ^
8 .2

<£. b



V
to
C SL
S. %
< 5


CD
1 1
CO ^

CD-r-
O) CD
S g
C m
CD t.
CD £
0. Q

,_
o y
•S c
•§ £
f^ **—
< Q
.1
to
11
< >


CD
C
11













t





LO
CM






_- ^
"? ^
to •&



si




o>




^*
+

«!


?!




0)
'£
CO
_CD
CD
Q.
CO ^
F^.





t





8
d







CO
in
d



m
d




o>



8
d


d


d






8
1






?





SJ

"f





co~
to CM
CO II
dS



co to"
rt n
CM •&•




CO
t



CO
CO

1

ob"
•^- CM
S n
CM £-


?!



-— »
8,
1
C3
1°
CD





o







o






;:
d



d




o



CM
T—
d


S^
d


S
d




?
c3
c
o
3
b
to
o
Q-
1 ,
m B






o







o





co"
CM
CO II
T^ -E-



cof




T—



co
d


cJ-B


to"
CO 11






I
*





o







o






5
d



T—
d




in



8



CO
CM
d


d






to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2

















































CO
1






+





8
d
+






CO
CO
d



§
d




CM
CM



CO
d
+

d


CO
d






Total cost/wash ($)






+





CM
T—
?'







co
CO



co




CM
CM



ff
d
+

CO


CO






CO
CO
CO
I






+





o
CO
+





0

co"



co"




S



o
o
^—
+

1-


o
o
co"






Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($]


*-" k_
.* o
i 5

•I i
CO c
£ §
CD O
^ t
CO CD
CD ^"
£ .22
O) *^
.£ o
CO 2>
3 >
C C\T
Q) _
5 «
§ «?
8 15
i_ CO
o *-
2 8.
CD i "S .22 *
^ o — ro
•»- i_ CO —
C CD CO (O
tf i * °-
E TJ <2 "5
•^ c E co
(B 18 V- 111
~ -s S ^
O -5 "O CD
Jg o- JB ^*
1 Ml
« &§!
1 fit
* 111
c '-5 ,_ "5
C35 JS 3 *•'
*CO 3 O CO
1 l"5f
« c S to
o> •- ^3 o
CD "D *™ c ul
= S g (D CO
CO 22 ^ D) CD
_: 3 .. _ >.
^ /A //) *- ._
22 S — ir
55 C 5S /^ »l*
« 0 § -§ Q.
1 • * 1 E|
2-0 S IB CD. 5
A positive sign denotes an ir
leaner instead of the base pro
"n" denotes the number of ol
Presses are assumed to hav
The following assumptions w
hifts, 5 days per week and 50
T- OCM CO •* CO
4-105

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
 i
 t>
CD

£
J>


i
 a
 E



 I












CO

"5
&













(O

1








































|| Facility Characteristics













CO
CM
X
•














10
CM
X
CO




CD
8
£
Q.











r
CD
E
1














E
H3
CD




I Average ink coverage














o















o




|| Dilution ratio (watenwash)

































1
H
|| Cost Element per Blanke












ID

'o













CO

'5
&

to
II
< 5


o
11
m 5
CD-r-
~ c
§ £
0 CD
(1) •—
a. Q
'"CD
ft £
= m
11
< Q
CD
to
c j=
1 S

CD
IT
11
m ?








I



CO
1



<0



of
in •£•


0
CM
+



S


s-^_
CO
§1


CO •£•
D)
C
S
CD
O
*
§.
to
g"c?
E o>
F-52.



CO
1


p^
d
i



8
d



CO
d


8
CM
+



+



CO
CO
d


CO
CM
d




to
o
O
o
3



o
t


CO
o



2
co n
CM -B-



CM A



1^
1



U5
CM
d
i


CO



O ^7"
21
?

.§•
"c
CO
o
1
I



CO
CO


CM
o



CM
d



O)
o
d


0)
C\J
+



S
d
.


en
o
d


o
d
1?

to
o
O
c
o
.b
Q
to
O
D-
Blanket Wash
Use2



8


0
Tf



«-!
CM i-



°f



CO
+



CO
d


CO
"I


sl




CO
.9-
*



8


£
o



CM
CM
d



T-
T—
d


CO
CO
+



1



to
d


T—
d




to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2



































CO
*s



3


CO
o



d



CO
CO
d


CO
^—
+



CO



fe


CO
d




|| Total cost/wash ($)



CM


S
o



CO



CO
CM


8

+



1



CO
CM


CO




CO
CO
to
£
t
o
o
Is



3

o
8
7£



o
co"



0
o
CO
co"


S

+


0
o
5"

o

o"


o
o
CO
•*"



g
1 Total cost/press/shift/year4
                                                                             CD



                                                                            .2


                                                                             CD


                                                                            to
                                                                             c:



                                                                            "S
                                                                             CO
                                                                             CD
                                                                             Q.

                                                                             §

                                                                             §•

                                                                           C
                                                                           g>

                                                                           'to

                                                                           CD






                                                                           I

                                                                           CO
                                                                                    •a
                                                                                     CD
                                                                                      CD


                                                                                      to
                                                                                     •o

                                                                                     CO

                                                                                     s
                                                                                     !c
                                                                                     CO


                                                                                     8.
                                                                                   (J '

                                                                                 ill
                                                                                 •S-^J co
     CO CO (/>


     E o.£


a>    = S £
E    TJ 2 o
~    c E ^

CD
                                                                            -
                                                                            CO
    HI

    "Q^ CD CO
     D) CO £

     1^5-
     >^0
    •.S5 .
    _CO 3

     3^

                                                                                 •s-i  -

                                                                                 •S §  S -
                                                                                 « "8,8
                                                                                 3 71

                                                                                 CO
                                                                            CD   '-5 3

                                                                            !2  . S ^
                                                                            TO 4W ^ -J

                                                                            £ § §£



                                                                            -^IH

                                                                            S '^'S •=
                                                                            W CD   n
                                                                            co S te S .2

                                                                            S S^-D «
                                                                            & -0 c co
                                                                            C CD § £

                                                                            •S£ -
                                                                                     |JS
                                                                                     C CD

                                                                                     £ |
                                                                                     CD S

                                                                                     5 O
e n

assu
ive sign

instead o

otes th

s are
iti
si

r i

e

s
                                                                            8-1-  !

                                                                            < g=C°

                                                                            T-   OCM CO
                                                                                     co "'
                                                                                     C TO
                                                                                     O C

                                                                                    |-
                                                                                     E co

                                                                                     3 i
                                                                                     (0 ^

                                                                                     S)8.


                                                                                    Is-

                                                                                    is
                                                                                     CO
                                                                                    •^ ^

                                                                                    4-  tO
                                              4-106

-------
                                4.2 COST ANALYSIS






















o>
T"
(0
5
5
i
c
(0
m
>_
M—
CO
1
CO
^
4^
(0
5
(5
E '
|
(0


























o>
• T"
f
'o
£














CO
T™

*o
£

















































|| Facility Characteristics





















=
CO
CM
X














_
CO
CM
X
TT-




CD
'55
co
CO
2
Q-






















r
CD













1
I
E
CD




| Average ink coverage






















o
















o




|| Dilution ratio (waterwash)












































1 Cost Element per Blanket Wash




















o>
Tm
™
"o
£














GO
^

"o
£
OT-
D> CO
a o
£ CD
tu C
CD £
Q. Q


'"CD
CD CJ
3 CD

f"» ™
•^ Q


CD
>
•s
c .c
l|
< 5



CO
CD
O
CD
Q.
CO
1?
j_ 42-




CO
+




TO
CM
d
+





CO
d


CO
TO
d



CO

+


in
CO
d




o
p


1




I
I



O)

+




CO
d
+




to"
r-. IH
i- -S-


O) II



o
o

+


in




o"
TO * —


in n



IT
o
Average Quantity (



o
o

+




CM
d
+





CO
d


o
d



0
o
TO



CM
d




CO
CM
d


0
d



g
1
O
|
5
1
Q.
^:
to
to
S z>



O

+




T-
d
+




co"
i- IT
i- ^


in"



o
CO

+


CO




o"
CO ¥
CM -E-


co"
21




Q.
'S
*




O)
+




o
d
+





CM
d


T—
d



CO

+


CO
d




o>
CM
d


d




I
Materials and
Equipment2












































0)
I



CO
CO
+




TO
d
+





§
d


TO
in
d



S

+


S




CO
CD


d




1 Total cost/wash ($)



00
CO
+




5
T—
+





S
TO


CM
CM



1

+


CO
t




CO
CO


CM




CO
1
O
O
1



CO
CO
+



o
s
TO
+




O

co~


0
o
TO
w"



S

+


S
d




0
o
CD
CD"


o
co"




1 Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)

•K !=
1 1
c f^
CO ~1
-° ^
—. fC
.> 73
CO c
E §
15 CD
CD ^"
£ .22
O) *^
.£ o
c c\T
0 T)
•§ c
CO
13 *.r
O Jtz
O f~
i- CO
O i-
CD
to o.
CD co
Q. 05
'i E
*- *=
0 . o
CD "S *~
1 8 1«
c S to £
i -I"-"!
c 5 o to
^ "5 .<2 *
to ja CD to

c co °-
E -D o>o
~ c E co
^ CO -J= UJ
CD _
r- «.T f - — *
f tar
.£ C CD Jg
CD § -O CD
8 ^.Si1
S ® Si
CD | 1-52

CO g, | CD
I Ijf
C '•g i_ 'S
•co go co
O •= - D)
> TO  C/T c i_
! sl* &
1 A positive sign denotes an increase
cleaner instead of the base product.
2 "n" denotes the number of observat
3 Presses are assumed to have four
4 The following assumptions were ma
shifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks
4-107

-------
r
                  CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS

















75
C .CZ
S c§
< >
CD
j^
Is
m 5
fl
CD £
CD S
0- Q
'"CD
||

73
c .C
1 3
^ >


o
c
11
CD ?









£



CO

+



^^.^
o ^
T- x_

f
3 -S-


In
+


 -S-



51


c
CO
CD
O
•s
8.
CO ^__
E CD



t


^j
t*-
O





^
••"

5
0


fe
+

a
0




s
o



CO
in
d





o
O
O
JD



CM
CO



Tf

t



^ - ^
• c*
co -=-

*f
•* -51


§
+

CO
?



•*
m w
CO II
T— ^S*



C3 -S-
isi
_o_

.g-
tz
CO
o
CD
?
CD
^



in


in
p
^^
+




CM
C3

O
CM
d

t*.
CO
+

q
+




?i
d



§
O



1
o
_o
Q
0.
(0
1
frs
m 3



^



CM
^J
+



^^^
0 ¥
CM •£.

GO 11
^- ^
* E





cq
?


^^^^
^i*
. c
T- £•



°1





CO
1
*



o
T


CM
O
d
+




™
°

o
CM
d





K^
h^
C3
+




CO
in
••"

T—
CO
d


T-
+

5
c>




CO
^



d





|| Total cost/wash ($)



m
o>


CO
o
CO
+




m
CO

It
CO


T_
+

CM
^




CM
in
^*



§
CM





1 Total cost/press3 ($)



in
O)

0

r*-^
^^
+


o
o
CO
in


0
o
CO


T~
+

O
f


o
o
CO.
T-



o
s
r--"




g
1 Total cost/press/shift/year4
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   _JO
                                                                                                   .0


                                                                                                   I


                                                                                                   75
                                                                                                    CD

                                                                                                    o

                                                                                                    o


                                                                                                    8"
                                                                                                    Q.

                                                                                                    5
                                                                                                    CD
                                                                                                    JD
                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                    O


                                                                                                    •J=
                                                                                                    CD
                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                    CO

                                                                                                    £

                                                                                                    8
                                                                                                    •a
     3

     O
                                                                                                             •S
                                                                                                             o
     ^:
     co
     CD
     Q.
                                                                                                        .S-'J>  w
                                                                                                         5 O  £0

                                                                                                        •s «  5
                                                                                                           Q. Si
                                                                                                         3
                                                                                                         c
1-Si
CT- CD .>>



I|l
                                                                                                    |    |lf


                                                                                                    •a    0)1 -^

                                                                                                    C   ;§ -° ^

                                                                                                    'co   "5 ^ co

                                                                                                    O   "~~  « O5
                                                                                                    >    s p .c
D>
C
CO
73
i
an increase <
denotes
D)
'co
CD
>
*2
8
Q.

<




tj
T3
2
a.
CD
"o
1
1
tc
i—

-------
                                4.2 COST ANALYSIS


















i™
£
i
i
32
m
L.

*~
'55
"<5
^
Ta
£

0
(D
E
E
CO



























T"
jj?
'o
m
u.
















CO
'o
£
























































Characteristics
g
"o
£
















_
CO
CM
X
c»

















a
in
CM
X
CO
T—








CD
'co
ol















r
Q>

1
CD
5

















| Medium








s ink coverage
UJ
s
1



















o

















o








ratio (waterwash)
.0
5










































£
10
(ft
i
<*•*
1
CO
m
1
CD
CD
UJ
I

















i
'o
(9
U.
















(O
t
'u
£

CDi-
s> s
(w w
c §3
O CD
CD £
a. Q

''o
S 8
3 

CD
ll





1









CM

+


CO





00 r-
CO > —


^
CM •£


^
V




CM





CM M
CO -S

si




c?
i
CD
O
•£
1
|?



CM
in
+


CM
d




in
CO
d


S3
d


fe





O)
CM
d




in
d

CO
CM
d

'






I

!





.
'



O




2!


in1?
T-: £.


CO





m
d




of
CM -5-

in ¥


	 	 	
N
-2,
'•g
CO
3
o
o>
D)
S
1



i^.
in
+


S
d




d


£
d


O)
CM





o>
o
d




CO
d

0
o



f^.
i

c
.2
15
1
1
1
s*k
m z>




o

+


,-
d




,|


of
t-= £.


s





in
7f




in "ft
CM -S

si








Q.
5
*




O)
+


q
+




CM
d


^
d


S





£
d




CO
CM
d

d








ti>
o
O
h
1 1
II








































,





:
«
I




T_
^
+


t
d




CO
in
d


5
d


0
^




S
d




c>
•r—

d








1
"5




^_
•*
+


CO
d




CM


s



1





o
CM
^




S
•*

!








CO
£
t
i




T-
•
3 >•
c CM"
5 1
5 ^
CO oJ
o xi
»_ <0
s
CO O-
S. 2
.& 1
? Tji
1 8 1«
C Co (~
3 .9- «D "S
c 3 o «
£ "5" «
| fe | »
3 r~ ^ IK
§• E Q. £
rf 1 « ^
E "o ® "S
•;-; C E CO
CO » UJ
1 ^5^
.= 'c S jg
§§ T3 CD
jj- CD ^-
P i^i

w §) co £
CO CO (g Q.
1 || §
•o g'-S 15
c '•»>-§
'55 'S _€} co
CD •= "*1 O)
.£ S £ -S
CD T^ w •
= 15 S a
CO « S TO o
"2 co a •- »-
M C Q (D CD
| . 1 ll 12
1 1 8° £ 1
g "D _Q CD CD *
C Q. ° " S
|l i 1 co |
||l«||
.> ti5 o co ^ ®
m =C w -^ JS
^- "OOJ CO TJ- CO
4-109

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS



















Si
•C
co
•5
OJ
w
ra
m
k>v

•»-
1
<
to
3

"o
i
•3
OT























CO
*"
2*
"a
















CM
T™
2?
1

















































Facility Characteristics


















CO
CM
X
b
CM
















,
§
X
CO
CM




.8
CO
Q~



















E
1















r
CD
E
=1
CD




Average ink coverage




















T—


















T—




Dilution ratio (water.wash)












































Cost Element per Blanket Wash

















C*3
^~
•j2*
1
















CM
^«
'o
£
fs
F S
O "
£1 -|

Q. 5

CD °
1 2
< 5



CD
ll
< 5

CO
c
11
m ^

CDr-
O> CD
jS CJ
I £
J£ ffl
CD S
0. Q

T—
CD
«j y
-2 S
11
< Q


1
13
11
< 5


c
11
m S









fs^

+


o





g«
i- -S,



co"
O M
co -£•




CO
°?




CO
1




aX



co"



01
Time spent cleanin
(sec.)



|S^

+


«
?




CM
d



18
d




CO
°?




m
d
i




CO
CM
d



d




to
o
O
CVL
0




l-~

+


^.
+




h-f
CM -S-



co"
CO II
CM -S-




^j.
CO




in
T-




co
ro n
CM •£•



co"
51



^
'E
CO
O
CD
I


in
in

+


fc
d




CO
d



d




0
+




o
d




§
d



d



g
o
O
o
i5
to
o
OL
Blanket Wash
Use2



in


+


in
+




cf
00 II
c\i -S-



CO II
T— ^.^




CO
+




CO
d




CM
cvi •£-



co"
CO II




CO
CO
Q.
's
*


.,_
CM

+


f-
d




T—
CO
d



d




o
+




CO
o




d



d




to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2












































CO
I




o>
CO



p:
d




Ln
•^



§
d





'+




T-
O




d



CO
d




Total cost/wash ($)





O5

+


-
*+




S
CO



CO





^




o




CO



CO




CO
1
o
1




O5

+


o
o
+




in"




o
o
0
co"





^




S




o
eo"



oo"




Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)

1 1

— - 00
•° r
m •—
> -o
1 1
"CO CD
»= •—
£> •£
.£ o
3 >
<= CM"
05 T3
1 s
O *-
C0T Q.
0> co
(Q. fl)
5 £
0 o
1 cgli
3 .Q- CO •§
c 3 "o co
^ "5 '- co
'•£ CD CO in
§ •§ £ <8
 '15 ^2
' CO
co £2 S a) CD
" 3 .. >,
^ «"•=•-
? .11*8.
A positive sign denotes an increase
eaner instead of the base product.
"n" denotes the number of observat
Presses are assumed to have four i
The following assumptions were ma
lifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks
i- OCM co •* to
                                           4-110

-------
                                4.2  COST ANALYSIS



















S
•C
(0
s
%
Js£
(0
ffl
o
(0
'55
>»
c
<
•85
5
•5
i
E
at




























_£.

'o
£













CO
T"*
1






















































Facility Characteristics

















a
CO
CM

X
0>
T—














CO
CM
X
s








CD
N
'co
ol
















!

E
_3
.

'o
£













CO
^™
1
CUf-
D> CD
« 0
C fl\
CD £-
CD 3=
0. Q


oT8
"3 m
11
"^ Q

CD
1
c .c
ii


CD
C

1|
m >

CDi-
O> CD
.JS °
St Q5
o CD

CD £
Q. Q

T-
CD
3 m
1 £
J2 S
< Q

Alternative
Wash

CD
C
u
00 5-













CO
in
^




o>
CO




-I
co -5.




10
CM -B-




00





O)
+

o> 1
LO -=•


c\T
si




D)
_C
'c
CO
CD
O
CD
Q.
CO
2 0
E CD
F -2-



CO
in
^




c?
d




o>
LO
d




CM
d




CO




CO
p

+

d


s?
d








to
o
O
1





CO
T~
1




CM
9




CO ^




in n





CO



CO
o
d
+

CO CO
SI


CM-5-



	 	 	
8.
gr
5
CO
3
O
1
1



^
in
"+




T—
d




CO
d




0.



CM
CVJ
+



o
CM
Q
+

O)
CM
d


o>
o
d




•4—t
8
0
c
1
b
to
o
0.
Blanket Wash
Use2






o




o




CO




in




Q
+



CO
Q
+

si


t








Q.
'S
*





o




o




d




d




i**.
*+



8
Q
+

d


d








to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2













































CO
S




in

'+




5?
d




§
d




5-
d




f^.
"+



co
Q
+

o>
d


CO
CO
d








Total cost/wash ($)




in

"+




s




CO




!




r^«.
"+



s;
^
+

CO
CO
CO


CM'








CO
CO
CO
I
8
o




in
^
+



o
•*"



o
o
CO
co"



o
0




f**
?


o
o
T—
CO
+

0
of


CO"







f^-
Total cost/press/shift/year4 (


"CD 3
•^ o
C r*
^^ CO
•" c
.i -5

0 ^
% 1
8 «"
C_5 ^
" w
s
So.
^ <»
O. CD
'S E

° o
ffl . "m II
-^ co c S
P CD frt
3 .9- tD "m
c 5 o |
t** M— (/) &
O *™~ ff\
v- CO •—
£5 -Q 2. S?
J i«!
u* *i» ~
g "D g O
'•Jjj « -j= iS
£ ^"o T-"
.c ''S S |s
CD § -0 CD
CO rr Q> ^*
^ ^" -^
1 1 1 1
1 fSt
1 "11
c 3  
3 . ., >,
c 2 B -S fe
1 IH 5-
8 *j £ g £ "CD
o -1 co "~ S- 5
•£ "o "o > § o
A positive sign denotes an
leaner instead of the base pr
"n" denotes the number of i
Presses are assumed to he
The following assumptions i
hifts, 5 days per week and 5'
r- CJPJ CO •* CO
4-111

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS













10
T"
S>
1

















to

1
u.




















































Facility Characteristics














in
CM
X
CD

















x
CO
T—
X
"r~







<0












r
CD
E
1


















E
i
CD
2







|| Average ink coverage















o




















o







|| Dilution ratio (watenwash)








































fB
•^
CO
1
*-•
II Cost Element per Blanke













10
>.
^
&

















in
>•
1
u.
CDr-
O CD
S £
CD E
0. O
^
CD
1 £
|1

CD
.>
to
||


CD
C
11
CDt-
D> CD
+^f





.




5
s5


^^^^^
CO
CD <1~
to II
d -£•


o TI
•r^ £.
rsj
_3.

>^

1
o
CD
?
1



Y-«



CD
+



CO
o
d



&
d





o





0




to
o
CO


10
o
CD

N^

co
o
o
c
Q

5
to
o
0-
Blanket Wash
Use2




o



o


^_^
Si



c\T
Si




o





CO
cp'


i>—^
CO
21


0 ^
CM' -S,







1
'S




o



o



CD



CD




CM
CO




^
cp




CO
CD


CM
CM
CD







8
o
Materials and
Equipment2












































(0
S




"?


CO
o
CD



CD



§
CD




CO
*+




CO
?




d


to
IO
<=>







1 Total cost/wash ($)




°?


CM
cp



s



8
CM




CO
*+




£!
?




CM


CM
CM







i
£
t
8
I




9


§
CO



1
>*



to"




CO
*+



o
s
T—



Q
8


o
s
to"





g

Total cost/press/shift/year4
                                                                                 g>
                                                                                'co
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 c
                                                                                          •o
                                                                                          CD
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           CD
                                                                                          8.
                                                                                 Ji
CD
>
to

CD
to
CD

O)
C
'co
                                                                                 c
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 Q.
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 ja

                                                                                 3
                                                                                 C
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 _
                                                                                ~
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                1   III
     l-J-g
     5 o co
     *r 0) 5
     2 ».a
     CD co co
     ja £ co
     3 ^ Q_
     C CD J=
     C E .CO
     — 3 "*"*
     3 O CO
     •a"^- °>
     S £.S
                                                                                     CD 2 CD  CO
                                                                                     CO ^ O) CD
                                                                                     
-------
                                                                            4.2 COST ANALYSIS
(0
<0
I
_(0
CO
VI
'w
>.
CO
S
O
(0
V)















00

'o
£















£.
'5
£












































II Facility Characteristics















_
fO
CM
X
b
CM















8
X
b
CM




CD
N
'co
CO
CO
22
Q.
















_
1















£
1




|| Average ink coverage

















o
















o




1 Dilution ratio (waterwash)






































1
1 Cost Element per Blanket W















CO

£
'o
s.















1
1
CD-r-
O) CD
a o
O CD
0} **""
a. Q
'"CD

to
||

CD
11
oT"cD
« a
c §3
£ CD
CD £
Q- Q
'"CD
CD £
52
l£
< Q
CD
>
to
C .C

CD
11
m 5









CO
+



0>
+


_
s^
1s- -^~^


*!



CM
CM



O
+



^^
LO IL
LO -5-

!?1

0)
c
c
CO
CD
O
C
CD
Q.
CO
18
i — —



^
CO
+



Ki
+



CO
CO
CD


CD




2
CD
i



CO
CNJ
+



o
+



0
o


8
CD



O
CO
+


LO
0
+




O
CM
CD

LO
O
CD

CO^

8
o
.0
5
o_
!
m 5





o




o


^^
s!


-I



o
o

+


p
+



lf^^
LO
P n
CM 3-

51
-



CO
CD
O.
*





O




o



CD


T—
CD



O
O

+


o
+




CM
CM
CD

Y—
CD




%
^0 §
CO C£
to §•
'S LLJ







































CO
I



fM

+



CO
CD
+



O5
CO
O


LO
LO
CD



ro
CO
+


CO
CO
0





CD

D5
O




1 Total cost/wash ($)



CXI
CO
+



CO
CO
+



%
CO


o
CM
CM'



CO
CO
+


T—
+




CO

CO
CM
c\i




CO
CO
CO
CD
f
o
o



CM
CO
+


o

+



co"


0
o
LO
LO"



CO
CO
+


o
8
+



o
8_

I
LO"




I Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
Q* 05 tn
3 o %
                                                                              -o g o
                                                                              c E co
2 co -g-
§ -S^
« c  8
c 3 2
                                                                              3 O  C8
                                                                              CD ¥  to CO
                                                                              sf.?§.
incr
odu
obs
ve f
te
ba
be
d
P
T
ift
                                            4-113

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS





















i
•§
i
*•*
2
i
CD
•»•
3£

05
H
S
I
*«
o

E
3
CO


























OJ
V*
2?
1













CO
T-
5*
•5
CO
u.
















































1 Facility Characteristics



















CO
CM
X
*
o>
Tr—













X
CO
CM
X
a
O>





O
N
'55
CO
2
a.




















^
1














c
€
CD
5




| Average ink coverage





















o
















o




1 Dilution ratio (waterwash)











































1 Cost Element per Blanket Wash


















o>
'•"
,j5*
'o
&













CO
fi*
'o
CO
u.
CDr-
^ O
1 *
oi
0. Q


'"CD
S c
^ QJ
s!
o Si
< Q



CD
.>
to
II
^ >


CD
_C
11

CD-r-
D> CD
CO O
C F
5T U)
CD Si
CD £
0. Q
'"CD
CD g
"3 §
"o S
CO J2
.Q 3=

CD
C
11
CD 5








CO
.f.





T^






co"
m -E-




13"
•p- "


^
+




j.
?


CM!
co -5-


co^
•* •£-



D>
C
'c
CO
CD
O
C
CD
Q.
CO
_E CD



CO
.f.




o
d






9
o




CO
CO
d


,_
+



CM
CO
+


R
d


5
d




1
0
0
3



CO
^




T—
d





f 	 ,
^ T~
O "w-




eo 25"
CO II
d •£•


CO
O)



OJ
»•}•
Tf


sf
CM 5-


SCO"
II
* s£^



3
"c
CO
3
O
CD
O>
S
CD



LO
c\J

'


o
o






8
d




o
d


p;
T—



LO
O
?


CM
T—
d


0
d



1?
1
0
c
o
5
to
o
a.
1
"S
1~8
m Z)




o





o





f 	 ^
<=>.\
T— O-




LO"


o





CM
d


co~
CM H.
T- ^_.


S"
T- -S-




CO
1
*




o





o






T—
d




T-
d


CO





CM
d


CO
d


-
d




to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2











































0)
«



r-
_i_




p
+






CO
d




S
d


CO
¥



o
CO
d


q
1~


CM
CO
d




1 Total cost/wash ($)



h-
_j_




CO
CO
d






CO
CM




CM
CM


CO
+



CO
LO
i-


q
•*


CO
CM




•%
CO
Q.
1
O
1



r^
^.




i







o
co"




1
LO"


CO





o
co"


o
o
d



0
o
CM
CO"




Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)


S =
1 -
S c
0 .—
1 I
S o
to CD
CD °-
•B .2
.I* 0
tn ^
3 >
§ ^
^ 13
5 C
^ CO
8 £
o ^:
•_ co
O L-
0
CO O.
CD /n
Q. CD
5 .E
"® . 0
m "S ""
-° « c 'S
1 .s- S •§
c '5 o co
•!S j_ co ™
^ CD CO CO
CO .Q 0} CO
5 Is-1
1 111
CD m, ~ ^
•^ 3J* o T~
._• *i*^ (0 •
™ C Q> :=>
CD §TICD
i ^lt
* til
1 iff
•o c?|^
D) CO ^ •*-*
'CO 3 ^O CO
CD "zs ~ ^J
•— '^ "~ O QJ
? "° m C i-'
C 0) S CD CO
CO » S O> CD
•o oj co" c L^
§ ilia-
1 A positive sign denotes an increase
;leaner instead of the base product.
'• "n" denotes the number of observat
! Presses are assumed to have four i
1 The following assumptions were ma
>hifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks

                                           4-114

-------
                                4.2 COST ANALYSIS

















eo
CO
co
^^-
1
CO
m

i?
M-
co
1
CO
c
^^
8
O
"5
CO


E
(0




















00


1














r-
2-
'o
•2











































Facility Characteristics















.
CO
CM
X














s
CM
X
o
CM



CD
N
'co
CO
CO
CD
Q_














E
13

Q>
5
1
o>
Li















1
'•5
CD



Average ink coverage


















o
















o



Dilution rate (waterwash)







































Cost Element per Blanket Wash















00
^^

'5
£














f*»
2;
'o
S.
OT-
D> CD
CO O
t= §
O CD
CD iS
0. Q

•t; C
•§ £
^ Q
CD
to
1 »
Si co
< 5

CD
C
1|
CO >•
CDr-
D) CD
CO O
1-i
0 0)
CD 5E
0- D

^
CD
0 g
11
< Q

Alternative
Wash '


(D
ll










t



^

_
||
•^- -B-



58 I



T-
CM




LO
+

i!



?!


O)
C
i
CD
O
•s
CD
Q.
CO
|i





t


,-
9


^«
d



2




c\i




CO
CO
+

S



C)



1
O
o
.£}
CO
_J






O


^
?

cS
T— II
T-: -£



s!




o





0

2!



°s


"?
Average Quantity (<




Is*
^


§
C3

CO
o
d



8
p



o
CO




8
d


oo
o
d



§
d


^
to
o
O
o
is
b
to
o
ex
1
S 3






o



o

to"
CO
O M
T^ ^



s!



o
o





q
+

CM"
P H
CM -&



°s



CO
1
*:





o



o


T— t
d .



d



8





T-
T—
d


CM
CM
d



T—
d



to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2







































CO
I






i^


o
?

a>
in
o



S
d



O)
+




q
+

o>



D5
d



Total cost/wash ($)






•+


CO
d

CO
CO
cJ



OJ



0,
T




s
+

CD
CO
CO



CO
CM
CM



^
CO
£
c
•5
c
c






•+


0
?

o

in"



o
S
10"



s
"V



0
o
CM
O
+

0
o
CD
10"


O
O
to"



Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)


*Ji% ••?
^ o
§ £
"o ^w
> '5
1 i
15 CD
CD CL
£ •—
DJ -r£
.£ o
= c\T
^ CO
§ SE
o .c
o >-
CO
co o-
1 S


^° . o
® • 1» ^1
"i S c ®
i' fll

^ <4— (/) >
"C Q> (g o)
tf 1 « °-
E -o <2 "5
~ c E co
"T CO »= LIJ
? - .c • — •
"^ •£ co T]
o |-S S
t§ cr J2 ^
I ill
"° m £ »
« §>co £
1 III
* III
C -.=; ,_ ^
O) JS 3 *^
'co 3 o co
CD -^ *!. 0)
to c .0 to
c? S S | ^ •
c CD JB CD CO
CO £§ ±= 0> ^
•a co J2 ~ !r
§ Sl«8.
A positive sign denotes an increase
leaner instead of the base product.
"n" denotes the number of observat
Presses are assumed to have four i
The following assumptions were ma
hifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks
t- OCO CO •* CO
4-115

-------
CHAPTER 4:  COMPETITIVENESS




















&


^

1
m
en
1.
t

^
to
o
O
•5
CO
3
w





















in

5*
1
-H-U-l^1^













T-
1











































1 Facility Characteristics

















M
CO
1—
X
N
T—













fe
X
o



CD
S


















__
6
CD













1
€
CD
S



1 Average ink coverage




















o














o



| Dilution rate (watenwash)







































Cost Element per Blanket Wash

















in

^"
"5
£













J
'5
£
0T-
D) CD
CO O
11
O 0
0:£
0- Q


T™
o |
3 0)
31
< Q

0
to
c x:

to
p x:
ii
0
_C
11









in
"V





CO



*!



si




CM
CD



|




ll

c\T
o£


O)
CO
0
0
C
i?
H-J2-





in
T—
1





CO
o
9



CO
d



d




CM
CO



CO
d




c-
05
d

d



to
o
O
CS_
o
XI





f-
"?





CO
d



co~
d A



fcf




o



0




cc?
in u
cvi-E.

si


?
Average Quantity (





0
CO





s
o



o
d



in
o
d




in



§
d




CO
0
d

T-
T—
d


&
to
o
O
.0
5
S
CL
!
l"s
m r>






O





O



co~
si



s!




o
in



in




cc?
in II
CM' -E-

s!



i
5
*






o





o



d



d




in
m



N.
d




CO
CM
d

d



to
o
O
Materials and
Equipment2







































u>
1





05
^y





o
CD



d



S5
d




!



d
+




CO

in
d



Total cost/wash ($)





o>
V





0



T—



CM
c\i




CM
CM



CO
CO




Si
in

CO
CO
c\i



"1
t
o
o
Is
o





O)
T




o
f—



S
CO



o
o
CO
in"




CM
CM


o
o
CM_




0
o
co"

o
o
o>
in



|| Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)

•f-* X—
0 3

3 °°
c
0 .t=
.S T3
03 2
E ^
JJ 0
"CO 0
0 °-
£ .£2
.E* o
(O ^*
3 >
"§ C
to
o E
o x:
>_ w
o >-
8.
S »
.9- 0
s= E
° . o
S • ^ S
co £ ^
1 .s-S •§
c 5 o co
>> -g co 5
'*- i- CO •—
C 0 CO CO
eg xi 0 Jo
S- E 0.2
0- i «£
1 |*^
^ S co . .
0 §-Ss
CO :± 0 >,
Co f» ^— .
CD CD" co ~
•§ '*= 0 "^
« cica £
1 lit
S "gS
§, IJ§
'CO 3 £ CO
0) "ts P. CJ)
O* "™ Q) m
c |l S 53
co co ±3 o, 0
1 111^
1 A positive sign denotes an increase
cleaner instead of the base product.
2 "n" denotes the number of observat
3 Presses are assumed to have four i
4 The following assumptions were ma
shifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks
                                          4-116

-------
                                4.2 COST ANALYSIS

























m

T-
w
"o
£















T"
^
1
03 1-
O> CD
3 £
S CD
03 Si.
O 03

03 ™
Q. Q


^"^

3 c
3 03
•— w
li
< Q

03
>
'S
£J=
CO
5 5

03
11
m 5

03 1-
B? 0
1 1
a S
v-
0) O
3 03
§|
t^> Jts
^ Q
o>

'is
ii
< 5

03
C
11











CO

+






CO
CM
+



^_^
CO

CD -S


s!




o





o


s!



s!



O3
§
o
§.
CO CM
2 "cJ
E 03
F 42-





CQ

+






s
+





CM
CD
CD


8




o





0


fe
C3



Eo
d




t
o
CO






o

+






d
+



^_^
CO

T-1 -S-


co Jo"
00 II
C3 S-




o





0


5-
to II
CM •&



CM -E-



N
Average Quantity (i




o
U)

+






o
+





?
d


.S
C3



|




CO
C)



s
CD



CD



S
1
O
.0
Q
1
Blanket Wash
Use






o
CO







CO
CD
+



^_^
CO
CO IF
* c


s!



0
7£



T-
T™
+


i- II
CM-B



s!




CO
03
_Q.
*





CO

+






CO
q
+





O3
o'


CD



1




CM
CD



CD



CD




1
O
Materials and
Equipment

















































CO
1






O)

+






d
+





s
CD


s




+



CO
CD



§
CD



O3
U3
CD




Total cost/wash ($)






O)

+






CO
CO
+





§
CO


CM
CM




to



s
T
+


S
CO



CO
CO
CM'




CO
CO
CO
£
t
5






o>

+





o
o
CM_
+






O3~


O
to"




+


o
s
co"



co"



o
o
o>




Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)


•*•* i_
J2 0
C _c^
— CO
JD
rti .—
gj .—
•3s "°
ctS c
£ E
03 O
±± t
CO 03
03 CL
£ .£2
.£ o
CO ^*
3 >
1 =
*- CO
CO .^J*
O I"*
" w
o >-
8.
CD m
0. $
'S E
° • °
CD . I'D II
_Q (/j ^ t?
I 8.8-g
c 5 o to
f °»»
*8 -Q Q> CO
CT* C QL w
a> i * °*
J 1 •- ll
(D "^ ^_^

c '1 § ^
OJ £3 -o »
o S *•••••
"D *-* -v W
/t^ tD CO
CO O)  » .
S ^ « § co
CO CO ^ 03 0^
"2 co is" — >-
S 51*8.
A positive sign denotes an increase
leaner instead of the base product.
"n" denotes the number of observat
Presses are assumed to have four i
The following assumptions were ma
(lifts, 5 days per week and 50 weeks
T- oca co •* 
-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS














5
75
&

















m
a-
"3
if













































|| Facility Characteristics














&
X
jr
O


















(M
X
00




CD
CO
1
0.














E
=1
CD














r
CO
CD

1
1




1 Average ink coverage















o



















o




| Dilution ratio (watenwash)







































to
m
1
«
3Z
C
S3.
m
!
*-
CD
CD
LU
"55
8














2f
1

















CO
as
'o
&
CDi-
D) CD
| o
C Q
o <5
QL Q
s p
li

<. LJ
CD
13
C .C
£18
< 5
CD
li
m >
CD-r-
D) CD
S i
£= Q
Q i-
O CD
CD£
Q. Q
r-
CD
® a
^3 CD
~~ CL
11
< Q
CD
.a
13
P ^:
| 3



CD
_C
ll









,_
^


^
1


to"
t -S-

LO -S




o
^



CO



^•.^
^ If
CM -S-



co -5-

O)
_c
CO
CD
o
CD
Q.
CO
1?
P^2.




^_
^

o
CD
t


CD
CO
CD

?




O
'V



CO

»

CO
CO
CD
i

^^
2TT
CM B-

cvT
9 »
co ~E-




CO
'+



CO
CD


^_^
CM
® "HI
t~ -^— '



°I
N
.£.

..g-
c
CO
O
1
1




O)
"+

^™
o
+


IO
CM
CD

CD




8
^*-



CO
CD




CO
CD



LO
O
CD

*^

1
O
c
o
is
b
to
o
Q.
Blanket Wash
Use2




O
CO
1

CO
CD



00
T^ -B-

cvj -B-




o
^



CO


^_^
CM
CM II
i^ ^.^



CM -S




to
CD
Q.
3




CM


fe
Q
1


w
CD

Si
CD




T_
t



CT>
O
CD




CO
CD



S!
CD




O
O
Materials and
Equipment2








































in
CO





l>

CO
0
CD



en
CD

CD




CO
T-
1



tD




S?
CD



LO
LO
O




1 Total cost/wash ($)





•>

c\i
CD



CO
CO

CO




CO
1



CO
CM
CD




°3>
T~



OJ




CO
I
o





T

o
o
CO



S
en
I1-"

o
S
of




CO
1



0
i?



o
o
CO
"f



1




1 Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
                                                                    S D) CB
tes an incr
base produ
ber of obs
d to have f
e
e
t
n
itive sign de
instead of h
notes the
are as
                                                              lift
                                                              < CO
                                                                .CD
                                                              T-  OCM CO
e following
, 5 days pe
P
                                      4-118

-------
                                                                                     4.2 COST ANALYSIS
00
1
jra
ffl
.22
'55
>•
(Q
o
•5
 £
 E
co














J
'o
£












04

»
0





































II Facility Characteristics














s
CO
X
b












.
CO

fo


s
'in
ol














E
1













F
rs
•D
O


II Average ink coverage















0















0


II Dilution ratio (water:wash)


































1 Cost Element per Blanket Wash














j
i












CM

«
'o
£
caTij
jS °
§5 S

Q. Q
'"co
I §
ai
^5
CD
>
•f

j| S
< >
V
II
flji-
O) 0)
s F
§ «
CJ CD
CO E
D. Q
m"8
= ^
li
< Q
o>
To
C (~
il

o
"~~ XT
II






in
T


CO




-nf
t £•

sl



CM
CD


in
+


^^ ^
CD
in A
CO •=-



co
u>
c
Time spent clean!
(sec.)



10
t

S
9




5-
o

d



CM
+

a
+



8



CO
d


o
O
i



CO
+

^.
o



o"
t IT
co -E-

CM
O II
co £•



5
+

in
d
+


LO
CD TT


	
SI
IT
^— -•
Average Quantity


t*.
m
+

8
+




S
o

d



0
+

o
CM
d
+



in
CM
d



in
o
d
.

0
.0
S
1
Q.
.n
(0
eo
m ~>



O
i

CM
O



^_^
CO f?
1- ^

CM 3-



o
+

V
+


LO
S A


	
21


1




9

8
o




CM
O

SI
d



o>
o
•r-
+

CM
0
+



CO
CM
d



d


f
Materials and
Equipment2


































10
n



CO
+

CO
CM
o




£
f—

S
d



S
+

in
in
+



8



S
d


Total cost/wash ($)



T~
+

o
Tjl




5
"*

co



S
+

o
CM
+



§



CM
T—
CM


I
O
O
1
.2



CO
+

o
o
CO
*+



8
'r~-
'"

CO



s
+

0
o
in
in
+

o
o
CO
o"


o
in"


Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)

                                                                                       ro
se
r
to
otes a
bas
mb
d
e
osi
r i
"n
P
                                                  4-119

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS


















CO
J?
1
BBBB












in
>,
73












































to
6
75
£


















a
8
X
a













m
co
X
CM



.8
i
Q-



















E
i














g
1



I Average ink coverage




















o















o



1 Dilution ratio (water.wash)







































•5
m
I Cost Element per Blanket Wi














r



CO
&
1













in

!
 c
Z> CD
8je
?"> »5
^ Q

CD
.S
If H
^ «
< 5

0
If
m 5
fl

2 _£-
1 1

CD
ll










O

+


CO

+



B!


si







CO




s!


co -E-
D)
c
'c
CO
CD
O
4-*
CO
21?
E CD
£23.






o

+


t
d
+



00
LO
d


d


pn
+



T—
d



o
d


00
d



In
o
O
0






^tj*

+


CM
LO
d
+



Sjf


d -£-



9



co
o


 CO
CD II
d -E,


51
7T
"— ••
t
c
CO
0
§,
2
0)
3





o
o

+


§
d
+



CO
o
d


8
d



o




o



LO
o
d


S
d
*

8
0
§
I
o
Q_
Blanket Wash
Use2






O
CM
+


CM





CM|


2l


o




CM
d


S"
CM £•


CM' -S



S
Q.
s






CO

+


S
d
+



CO
d


d



o>



o
d



d


CM
CM
d



o
O
Materials and
Equipment2








































(0
S






Lp

+


cQ
d




o
CO
d


LO
in
d


LO




T—
d



S
d


LO
LO
d



1 Total cost/wash ($)






to

+


8
T"
+



co


CM"


LO



CO
LO
d



S
CM


O
CM
CM



"S
Q.
CO
o
o
3






U5

+


8
LO
CM"




8
o
co"


o
o
LO
LO"


LO


o

^
^£


o
o
O)
CO


8
LO
LO"



I Total cost/press/shift/year4 ($)
                                                                £
 *•"  f •*—
 o  I i
 <0  JO ^
 CO ^_j ^ 3
 £ 9 § >2

 •8|«l
 «o°!
 CO to m ••=
 S S.S -d
 B •" c CD
 s a § E

  f S S

 •i1-1!
 «> co co £
 
-------
                                                     4.2 COST ANALYSIS
(0


i


|


JS
m


fi

_<0

'55

"«
to
n





(O













O
j^
'3
£
















^™

•5
£












































1 Facility Characteristics













CO
(M

£

















CO
CM
X
d




CD
'co
i
ol













E
3
73
CO















|
73
CD
£
£>




1 Average ink coverage















0


















o




1 Dilution ratio (waterwash)





































CO
m
i
**
Cost Element per Blanke













o
T-
™
'o
£
















^™
£
'o
£
CDi-
O> CO
JS °
F v
O CD
CO *=
a. b
t]
< Q
CD
to
1 «
5 -5
CO
"7T JC
II
0T-
D> CO
Q o
§ £
CD i£
DL Q
'"CD
o S
"5 o5
^ ji

< Q
CD
>
'«=
re
C JZ
1|
< 5

CO
•— C~
i|
CD 5











o

o


LtT
sl

^^^
§1



o





o




^-^
§1


il
D>
C
re
CO
o
"c

re
1





05

s
d


o
d


d



CM
CO



o>
o
d
+





o
CM
d


d
9

8
o
.0
a
1o
o
D-
1 '
'S
re (/j
m ^






o

o

^
o"
CM -B-

^^
CM -5-



I



q

+




o
CM -S-


C\T
51




CO
CD
Q.
5
*






o

o


CM
CM
d


CM
CM
d



8



^
d
+





CM
CM
d


d




f
O
Materials and
Equipment2







































(0
I






t
8
d


h-
00
d


d



1



8
d
+





d


S
d




1
1






1"
CO
9


00
CO


s
CO



5



s
d
+





CO
CO


CM




CO
CO
2
~&






^
0
o
t


o
oo"

o
o
O)



?




CM"
+




0
8


LO



S
II Total cost/press/shift/year4

                                                         «
                                                         73

                                                         CD
                                                         •§
                                                         CO
                                                         Q.
                                                         73
                                                         C
                                                   C  CO "
                                                   «  o '=
                                                   CD  '•« =


                                                   hi!

                                                   •sill

                                                   s???


                                                   Uli
                                                   c co £ p
                                                   CD .C 5 §
                                                   •o **  «
                                                   c 'o £ «§
                                                   2»T3 —
                                                   co re co £
                                                   CD «J S re

                                                   :-! S i 8

                                                   &i?i
                                                   < J3=£
                                                   i-  OC\1 CO '
er

w
                               4-121

-------
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.  International competition within  the U.S.,  however, is
anticipated to increase as greater  emphasis is placed on low-VOC, environmentally friendly
washes.3'4 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.5-6

       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.7 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, Yarn
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 Yam'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.8-9

      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.10  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
holding steady or increasing because of their expanding markets for printed materials as well as


                                         4-122

-------
                                                           4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES
the relaxing of import restrictions.11  Representatives of both Yarn  and Anchor identified
difficulties in penetrating the Japanese market because of the many import restrictions as well
as the strong ethic to  purchase locally.12'13   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.   According to a representative of Yarn, sales to Japan
are down and have been steadily decreasing over the past several years.15

      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."
16
      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.  Hie Subsprint project, which has full responsibility for promoting the
vegetable technology, was established in 1993 and is expected to last three years.17 According
to a representative of Varn International, based in the United Kingdom, 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 United States, where air quality concerns have been the driving force
behind the development of alternative washes.18

      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 a vegetable-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
European market in 1993. Recently, Flint Ink entered into an exclusive agreement with Unichema
to market the product in the United States.
                                         4-123

-------
CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVENESS
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,
Yarn 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 Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Brady, Ray,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Orange Park, FL. May 3, 1995.

4. Sheppard, William J. Litho Research.  Fax received April 21, 1995.

5. Sheppard, William J. Litho Research.  Fax received April 21, 1995.

6. Telecon.  Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.

7. Telecon.  Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Vonzwehl, Paul,
Varn International, Oakland, NJ. May 31, 1995.

8. Telecon.  Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Kroneman,
Barry, Prisco, Newark, NJ. May 23, 1995.

9. Hoppe, Debbie. Printex Products Corporation. Memorandum to Jed Meline, U.S. EPA.
Novembers. 1995.

10. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.

11. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Vonzwehl,
Paul, Varn International, Oakland, NJ. May 31,  1995.

12. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.

13. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Vonzwehl,
Paul, Vam International, Oakland, NJ. May 31,  1995.
                                         4-124

-------
                                                           4.3 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES
 14. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.

 15. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA with Vonzwehl,
Paul, Varn International, Oakland, NJ.  May 31,  1995.

 16. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Stevens, John,
Anchor/Lithkemko, Zwolle, Holland. June 21, 1995.

 17. Subsprint Project Newsletter.  Subsprint: Background Detail  Kooperationsstelle,
Hamburg. July 1993.

 18. Telecon. Van Atten, Christopher, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, with Rollins, David,
Varn International, Greater Manchester, U.K. June 15, 1995.
                                         4-125

-------

-------
                                    Chapter 5
                                  Conservation
                                            5.1
                                            5.2
                                            5.3
      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.
        Chapter Contents

Energy and Resource Conservation
During the Blanket Washing Process
Energy and Resource Conservation
Based on Chemical Composition,
Formulations and Packaging
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

-------
 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 uncertainly 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.
                                          5-2

-------
                                 5.2  ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION BASED ON CHEMICAL
                                                COMPOSITION, FORMULATIONS, AND PACKAGING
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

-------
 CHAPTERS: 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.
                                          54

-------
                                         5.3 COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE TRADE-OFF 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

-------

-------
                                    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

-------
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.
                                          6-2

-------
                                                   6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
     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%
11.8%
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

-------
 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.
                                          6-4

-------
                                           6.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
           Table 6-4. Benefits of Raising Employee Awareness
Activity to Raise Employee Awareness
Prepare a written environmental policy
Prepare written procedures on equipment
operation and maintenance, materials
handling, and disposal
Provide employee training on health and
safety issues, materials handling and disposal
Seek employee input on pollution prevention
activities
Make employees accountable for waste
generation and provide incentives for
reduction
Provide feedback to employees on materials
handling and disposal, and pollution
prevention performance
Benefits
Establishes environmental management goals;
illustrates management commitment to pollution
prevention and environmental goals
Better informs employees of the proper procedures
for using equipment and disposing of materials; helps
prevent accidents
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
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
Encourages employees to be aware of ways they can
prevent pollution; rewards active involvement in
pollution prevention activities
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

-------
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
                                          6-6

-------
                                                   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

-------
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 in 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
blanketwashing 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.
                                           6-8

-------
                                                     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%
11.3%
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.a 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

-------
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-slte 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 ib the March 1995 issue of Graphic Arts Monthly.

                                            __

-------
                                                                 6.2 RECYCLE 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.  In 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 20-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.
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

-------
 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

 Uitraflltration 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.

 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.
                                          6-12

-------
                                                               6.2 RECYCLE 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 Gallic, 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

-------

-------
                                     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
information on composition, performance
are intended to provide the reader with a
                                   7.3
              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
Overview of Risk, Cost and Performance
                                      each blanket wash. These summary sheets contain
                                      , cost, risk, exposure, and regulatory concerns and
                                      quick reference guide for each blanket wash.
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

-------
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
Ethylene 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
Fatty 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
no/low 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
                                          7-2

-------
                                        7.1 FINDINGS
Formula
Number
17
1.8
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/iactones
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 concern1
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 concern1
no/low concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern1
no/low concern2
no/low concern2
no/low concern
no/low concern
no/low concern2
no/low concern
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 concern1
no/low concern
no/low concern1
7-3

-------
 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
no/low 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
1 Risks for this chemical 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 chemical 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.
                                               7-4

-------
                                                                              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.

Flammabilitv 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.21  Flammable liquids are defined by OSHA as
having a flash point less than 141°F. Similarly, EPA defines RCRA ignitable wastes (40  CFR
261.21) as having a flash point of 140°F 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 (°F)
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 (°F)
157+
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

-------
 CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Blanket Wash
17
18
19
20
21
Flash Point (°F)
220+
150
230+
170
115
Blanket Wash
37
38
39
40

Flash Point (°F)
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.
 Two chemicals contained in the blanket wash formulations may present risks to aquatic
 organisms. The two chemicals were alkyl benzene sulfonates, present in Formulations 3, 4, 6,
 8, 11. 18, and 20, and ethoxylated nonylphenols, present in Formulations 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,  17, 24,
 and 40. Risks to plants (other than aquatic algae) and wildlife were not examined.
 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
                                          7-6

-------
                                                                             7.1  FINDINGS
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. VOCs are currently regulated under clean air legislation
occupational exposure rules and toxics use and release reporting laws; therefore, substitution
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
(lbs/gal;% 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
                                           7-7

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
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
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
(°F)
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/ga!;
% 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; 2.1 7%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
                                           7-8

-------
                                                                              7.1 FINDINGS
Form.
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Flash
Point
(°F)
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
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.

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

-------
 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 farmer 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.
                                             7-10

-------
                                                7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
 o
1
 o

 

— a> ^
CO ^ (Q
o -5- c
r- oi 

0 S.
(0
CO ^
I °- 1
1— In CO
0 *"
o
ill
1— to a>
o ±;
0 S
ill
£ W (0
8S.
^
w 73
CO >-
= Ji
£ |


CM




O
O
03
CD"








o
o
LO
in





£
CM



CM
CM


CD
O


8
0

CO
1





O3
00




O
of








O
8
•*





CO
CO



cS
•>—


^
0


CO
0

CO
I





1^.




o
CO








§
^





00
CM
CO



§
CM


a
0


o
f-
o

•^-
>•
2


CD


m




o








0
o
o
in





§
CO



o
o
CM


^
O


o
in
o

in
.£-
'i
LL.


'


03
CM




O
0
00
O
CM








O
O
O3





CM
CO
CO



CD
CO


CO
O
CM


O3
O

O
JtS
LL


O3


CO




O
O
CM_








O
O
O
in





CO
CO
CO



o
0
CM


CM
O


s
0

in
s





T




o
in








o
o
in
in





CO
CM
CM



S
CM


^
0


B
0

CO
s


o


in




0
o
0
CM"
CM








o
S
00





o
00
CO



§
CO


0
CM


in
CO
o

^.
's





O3




0
O
03
CM"








I
in





CD
in



CO
CO
CM


O3
CM
T-


O3
in
o

^_
'o


"


?




§
00
co"








0
in





£
CM



CM
T—
CM


CO
CO
O


CO
in
o

CM
«
LL





CM
CM




O
O
O3
03"








0
O
00





CD
O3
CO



Si
CO


O3
O3
O


CO
O

CM
1


CM


+




0
O
CO
co"








o
o
o
CO





CM
CO
CO



o
CM
CO


cS
o


8
0

CO
I





CO
CO




o
o
o"








o
o
CD
•*





CO
CM
•^H



CO
T—


^
T-


CO
0

CO
o


"


?




o
o
CM
oo"








o
o
CO
CD





CO
CM
CO



cS
CM


S
0


CO
CO
o

CO
'o
£





CO
CO




0
o
CO
CD"








o
o
CM
CO





CO
CO



«
CM


CO
T—


CM
CO
o

CO
'o


03


CO




o
co"








8
in





CD
in
CO



CM
CM


03
o


CO
m
o

03
.$•
'o
•2





CO




0
o
co_








0
8
t^





s
«^-



o
CO
CM


CO
T-


o
o

,-
'o
CO
u.


o
CM


?




o
8
in"








0
o
CO





CO
CO



CM
CO


CO
m
T-


co
o

CM
LL



                                                                                              O)
                                                                                             1
                                                                                             -a
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             CD
 o

is
"(0
0
D3
C
'to
C
CD
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              CD
                                                7-11

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
«"•«
fl
<£5

§
S "Sf
I'll
iF\ t3 C
f- m ®
Is
8
1
£
ill
LM CD
k.
§•
8


w §
1 1.1
i— "§ §>
§«
05
to ^
2 o.|
(— 15) CD
O *""*
• 4


f" fl)
Js*
1
"" § j§
° s.

_,.
ll?
1— w CO
8~

"S s
w 75
>-,£

— aJ
1|
£z

1




8

o"




8
Tf






cS
•if


cS
V






o
•-



§
o

co
S?
1


CM


+






in




o
o
Tj-






CO
CM


S
T—






8
O



5
o

f^
£,
1





f




o
c\i
CO




8
CO






CO
CM
CO


Si
CO






S!
o



CO
o

CM
£.
1


CM
CM


8




8
1 "
in




8
CO






o
CO


s
CO






5
••-



o
CO
o

CO
2?
1





?




o
Js^
0>"




8
CO
CO






CO
CO
CO


s
CM






fc
0



CO .
CO '
0

CO
£
1


Si


in
•T—




o
o
CO
co"




o
o
T—
Tl-






CM
in
co


s
1—






s
0



g:
0

h.
2?
1





CO
9




R
CO





0
o
in
in






Si
CM


CM
CM






R
o



in
m
o

in
S>
1


CO
CM


«P




O
Js,^
•^




8
in






§
i—


8
CM






§:
o



o
in
d

in
£,
S





s




o
CO
oi~




1
in






w
CO


CO
CM
CM






m
o



fe
o

^
&
'o


o>
CM


CM
CO




0
O)
CO




8
in






CO
in
CO


o
CM
CM






en
CO
o



s
o

CO
£r
'i
LL.





CO
CD




0
O

O




O
O
CM
CO






S
'tf'


"
CM






O
'-



CM
O

00
^,
1
U.


o
CO


•r-




8
CM
cb"




8
CO
in






?
CM


CM
CM






CM
CD
0



CO
m
0

o>
g?
1





o>
1r_




8
UJ
in




0
in






CO
CO


CO
CM
CM






en
in
•<-



m
o

N
^
1


CO


•5:






in




o
S
in






CO
CO
CM


CM
CM






O)
in
o



B
o

CO
£•
s





!




o
o
^^.
CO




o
8
in






Si
in


CO
CO
CM






co
•^



0>
m
o

T_
.^
S
LL


C^


o>
1




0
o
CO
•*'




0
o
CO
in






CM
T—


CM
CM






^
O



S
o

in
§•
%
LL.





in






CO




0
8
in






in
co


CO
CM






S
o



o>
in
o

,_
3?
1


CO


?'






a>




§
in






§
CO


CM
CM






cS
0



CO
in
o

o>
£?
1




73
0.
CD
CD
"o
T3
«
W
CO
c
l_
CD
C
s
0
1
CD
CD
CO
CD
D)
C
CO
c
CD

to
8
CD
C
CD
CD
U
CD
CO
CD
"5
C
•S
T3
C
0)
CO
§
•s
c
CO
TJ
CD
C§
CD
O
CO
CO
s
c
CD
•o
C
CO
CD
1
a.
                                           7-12

-------
7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
oTjj
8 c
C to
0 <5
CB£
0. Q
f ?
f*l
II
o
1
I|I
Q.
33
(0
o
o
co "HT
w >
— Q) "^

*n ^" C
H In 0>
0 SS
ill
0 *•*
U
"5 .>
s ig
1— W CD
O 2±
(0 ^—
11«
)- w CO,
*=
•2|
— 0)
1 1
O 3
£ z
CO
1



0
o
co_


o
o
m
in"








CM
O)
i—

O
CM
CM



?
O

in
m
o
CO
1

CO


^



o


o
o
in
co"








CO
T-
co

CO



£
o

in
CO
o
I
1




s



o
o
CO
0


o
8
in








CM
CO
^*

CM
CM



§
t—

s
o
CM
'0
l£

CO
CO


CO



0
o


co"








^*
•^~
Tj-

CO



j:
1—

«,
o
J
1




in
CM



o
0
o>
CO"


in"








CO
r-.
CM

CM



§
o

in
0
£
1

s


9



co"


0
s
in








o
CM
CO

o
CM
c\i



o
00
o

u,
0
CO
ji




CO



1


0
o
o>
in








CO

CO

CO
CO
c\i



o>
o

o>
m
o
i-
1

o


1



8
CO"


o
o
of








CO

CO

CO
CO



fe
o

5
o
^ °
£ "




 u

 T3
 Q.

 0
 JO
 CD
 CD
 to
 CD
 I
 15

 |j
 CO
 CD


 O)

 'co
 05
 8
 CD
 CD


 1

 I
 CO
 co
 CD
 CD
 TJ


 O)
 "CO
 O)
 CD
 TI

 CO
 CD

 O
 CO
 CD
 s
 7-13

-------
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.
                                             7-14

-------
                                           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

-------
CHAPTER 7:  EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
presented, weigh each piece according to facility and community characteristics, and develop an
Independent choice.

      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
•i
Alternative: 2.76
Baseline: 2.20
Alternative: 3.48
Baseline: 1.84
%
Change
+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.
Low 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
Aquatic
species risk
Aquatic
species risk
Aquatic
species risk
Aquatic
species risk
Aquatic
species risk
                                           7-16

-------
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
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
Aquatic
species risk
No estimated
risk
No estimated
risk
  7-17

-------
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
Not tested
Alternative: 3.56
Baseline: 2.36
Alternative: 3.80
Baseline: 2.12
+63
+62
+63
+17
+179
+7
+122
-19

+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
                                          7-18

-------
                                            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
+1.04
+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
Low 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
Aquatic
species 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 100°F; 2) Moderate Risk:
products with a flash point greater than 100°F but less than 150°F; and Low Risk: products with a flash point greater
than 150°F.
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

-------
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.
                                          7-20

-------
                                         7.2 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Reduced Flammabilitv 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 141 °F. Similarly, EPA defines RCRA
ignitable wastes (40 CFR 261.21) as having a  flash point of 140°F or less. The baseline product
has a flash point of 50°F, 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

-------
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
baseUne product and blanket wash 31 have the highest VOC  content (99%).


       7.2.4 Associated Costs

       In 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 (®) indicates an increase in cost,  worker health risks, flammability, risk to aquatic
       e A successful VOC reduction strategy can not be limited to blanket washes. All sources of VOC releases (i.e.,
inks, coatings, etc.) within the print shop must be evaluated in order to design and implement an efficient emissions control
plan.

        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.


                                           7-22

-------
                                         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 (©) 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 <
                                          7-23

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
      Table 7-8. Relative Benefits and Costs of Substitute Versus Baseline Blanket Wash
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
®
Facility #2
©
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
©
©
Not tested
Not tested
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
Not tested
©
©
Not tested
©
©
Not tested
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
Worker Health Risk
Dermal
©3
o
0
o
o
o
o
©
©3
0
0
©3
o
©
o
©3
o
o
©3
©
o
o
o
o
©
o
0
©
Inhalation
o3
©
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
©
Flammability
Risk
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
Risk to
Aquatic
Species
o
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
0
©
0
o
o
©
©
o
©
o
o
o
©
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
VOC
Content2
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
o
©
©
©
©
©
NM
©
©
©
©
o
©
©
0
o
                                           7-24

-------
                                            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
©
©
Not tested
Not tested
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
Worker Health Risk
Dermal
o
0
o
o
o
©
©
o
Inhalation
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
Flammability
Risk
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
Risk to
Aquatic
Species
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
©
VOC
Content2
©
©
o
©
©
©
©
©
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.
each.
       1 Several approaches are available for estimating the costs of illness. Appendix E provides a brief description of
                                             7-25

-------
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.  1986.  Valuation of Reductions in Human Health Symptoms and Risks.
University of Chicago. Final Report for the U.S. EPA. January. 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. 1987. Improving Accuracy and Reducing Costs of Environmental Benefit
Assessments. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC,  September, and Tolley, G.S., et al.  1986.  Valuation of
Reductions In Human Health Symptoms and Risks.  University of Chicago.  Final Report for the U.S.
EPA.  January. 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.  1986.   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
                                           7-26

-------
                                                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 100°F; 2) Moderate Risk:  products with a flash point greater than 100°F but less than
150°F; and Low Risk: products with a flash point greater than 150°F.

      Environmental risks are also presented. Only those formulations containing alkyl benzene
sulfonates or  ethoxylated nonylphenols  presented a  possible risk to aquatic species.  The
methodology and specific results can be found in Section 3.4.2.
                                          7-27

-------
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.
                                         7-28

-------
                                                 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+°F
                     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 of ten 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

-------
CHAPTER?:  EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
Rtsk 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.
                                          7-30

-------
                                               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:  114°F
                     pH: 3.4 (fluctuates wildly)
Performance
                    wet ink- 4 strokes
                    dry ink- 4 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
Wipability:


The performance of Blanket Wash 3 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
       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

-------
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 313
X

RCRA
X

OSHA
X

                                           7-32

-------
                                               7.3  OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
                               Blanket Wash Formulation 4
               Composition:
                     Terpenes
                     Ethoxylated nonylphenol

                     VOC Content: 89%; 6.4 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint:  114°F
                     pH: 8.7
Performance

      Wipability:
wet ink-  3 strokes
dry ink-  2 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 3.0%
5 hrs.- 5.2%
      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: Aquatic species risk due to presence of ethoxylated nonylphenols.

Regulatory Concerns

       None of the chemical  categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
                                          7-33

-------
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:  139°F
                      pH: 4.3
Performance

       Wlpability:
wet ink- 9 strokes
dry ink- 8 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.-6.1%
5 hrs.- 15.4%
       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
and ethoxylated nonylphenols.
                                          7-34

-------
                                               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 313
X
X

RCRA
X


OSHA
X


                                          7-35

-------
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:  152°F
                      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.
       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.
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.
                                           7-36

-------
                                                7.3 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 313
X

RCRA
X

OSHA
X

                                           7-37

-------
 CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                               Blanket Wash Formulation 7
               Composition:
                      Terpenes
                      Ethoxylated nonylphenol
                      Alkoxylated alcohols

                      VOC Content:  36%; 3.0 Ibs/gal
                      Flashpoint: 165°F
                      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:  Aquatic species risk due to the presence of ethoxylated nonylphenols.

Regulatory Concerns

       None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
                                          7-38

-------
                                                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:  115°F
                     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
and ethoxylated nonylphenols.
                                           7-39

-------
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 313
X


RCRA
X


OSHA
X


                                          7-40

-------
                                                 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+°F
                      pH:  4.6
Performance
       Wipability:
wet ink- 19 strokes
dry ink- 30 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 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

-------
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:  Aquatic species risk due to the presence of ethoxylated nonylphenols.

Regulatory Concerns

       None of the chemical categories present in this blanket wash contain chemicals that
may trigger specific federal environmental regulation.
                                           7-42

-------
                                                  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+°F
                      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

-------
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:  150°F
                      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 "V indicates an increase in cost, and a "-" indicates a decrease.
                                            7-44

-------
                                               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

-------
 CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                                Blanket Wash Formulation 12
                Composition:
                      Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
                      Water
                      VOC Content: 20%;
                      Flashpoint:  125°F
                      pH: 8.2
                   1.3lbs/gal
 Performance
       Wipability:
wet ink-
dry Ink-
7 strokes
11 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.~ 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
       * 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 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.
                                           7-46

-------
                                                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

-------
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+°F
                    pH:  5.0
Performance
       Wipability:
wet ink-
dry ink-
8 strokes
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.
      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.
                                           7-48

-------
                                                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

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                              Blanket Wash Formulation 16
                 Composition:
                       Terpenes
                       VOC Content: 99%; 7.2 Ibs/gal
                       Flashpoint:  145°F
                       pH: 9.8
Performance
      Wipability:    wet ink- 2 strokes
                    dry ink- 2 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 4.5%
5 hrs.- 10.6%
      The performance of Blanket Wash 16 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
       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.
                                          7-50

-------
                                                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+°F
                        pH: 9.8
Performance
                     wet ink-  100 strokes
                     dry ink-  100 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 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: Aquatic species risk due to the presence of ethoxylated nonylphenols.

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 313

RCRA

OSHA

                                           7-51

-------
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:  150°F
                        pH:  5.5
Performance

       Wipability:
wet ink- 8 strokes
dry ink- 7 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
       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
                                           7-52

-------
                                                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 313
X

RCRA
X

OSHA
X

                                           7-53

-------
 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+°F
                         pH:  4.6
Performance

       Wipability:
wet ink- 11 strokes
dry ink- 9 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 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.
                                           7-54

-------
                                                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

-------
 CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                               Blanket Wash Formulation 20
                  Composition:
                        Water
                        Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates
                        Hydrocarbons, aromatic
                        Alkyl benzene sulfonates

                        VOC Content: 35%; 2.7 Ibs/gal
                        Flashpoint: 170°F
                        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*
$11,300
$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
                                           7-56

-------
                                                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.

       Flammabilify: 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

-------
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:  115°F
                      pH: 6.2
Performance
       Wipability:
wet ink- 7 strokes
dry ink- 6 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.- 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.
                                           7-58

-------
                                                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 313
X

RCRA
X

OSHA
X

                                          7-59

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                                Blanket Wash Formulation 22
              Composition:
                     Fatty acids derivatives
                     Hydrocarbons.aromatic
                     Water

                     VOC Content: Not measured
                     Flashpoint:  157°F (full strength)
                     pH: 7.4(25%)
Performance
       Wipability:
wet ink- 13 strokes
dry ink- 13 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 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 "+" 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.
                                            7-60

-------
                                                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.

       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
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 313
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
                                           7-61

-------
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:  140°F
                    pH: 9.2
Performance

      Wipability:
wet ink- 24 strokes
dry ink- 100 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 0.0%
5 hrs.- 1.5%
      The performance of Blanket Wash 23 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
       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 toxiciry.

       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 toxiciry.

       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.
                                          7-62

-------
                                                 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: 100°F
                    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
and 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 160 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

-------
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.

       Flammabiliry: Moderate risk

       Environmental:  Aquatic species risk due to the presence of ethoxylated nonylphenols.

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 313
X


RCRA



OSHA



                                           7-64

-------
                                               7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
                              Blanket Wash Formulation 25
            Composition:
                   Terpenes
                   Esters/lactones

                   VOC Content: 55%; 4.1
                   Flashpoint: 220+°F
                   pH: 4.3
Ibs/gal
Performance
                    wet ink-  22 strokes
                    dry ink-  32 strokes
       Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 3.0%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
Wipability:


The performance of Blanket Wash 25 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
Cost
       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. RJsks 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

-------
 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+°F
                      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/galIon 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 f
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.
                                           7-66

-------
                                                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

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                              Blanket Wash Formulation 27
               Composition:
                     Terpenes
                     VOC Content: 93%; 7.2 Ibs/gal
                     Flashpoint: 145°F
                     pH: 3.9
Performance

      Wlpability:
wet ink-  3 strokes
dry ink-  3 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 3.0%
5 hrs.- 4.5%
      The performance of Blanket Wash 27 was not demonstrated at any facilities.
      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.
                                          7-68

-------
                                                 7.3 OVERVIEW OF RISK, COST AND PERFORMANCE
                               Blanket Wash Formulation 28
               Composition:
                      Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates

                      VOC Content: 100%; 6.2 Ibs/gal
                      Flashpoint: 50°F
                      pH: 6.6
Performance
                     wet ink-  3 strokes
                     dry ink-  8 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5 hrs.- 3.0%
Wipability:


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

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                                Blanket Wash Formulation 29
                Composition:
                      Fatty acid derivatives

                      VOC Content: 30%; 2.1 Ibs/gal
                      Flashpoint:  230+°F
                      pH: 7.2
Performance
       Wipabillty:
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.
                                           7-70

-------
                                                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

-------
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: 100°F (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 not 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*
$10,100
$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.
                                           7-72

-------
                                                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 313
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
                                           7-73

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                               Blanket Wash Formulation 31
             Composition:
                   Hydrocarbons, aromatic
                   Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates

                   VOC Content: 99%; 6.6 Ibs/gal '
                   Flashpoint: 105°F
                   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.
                                           7-74

-------
                                                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.

       Flammabiliry: 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 313
X

RCRA
X

OSHA
X

                                          7-75

-------
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING TRADE-OFF ISSUES
                               Blanket Wash Formulation 32
               Composition:
                      Hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates

                      VOC Content: 99%; 6.5 Ibs/gal
                      Flashpoint:  220°F
                      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.
       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.
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.
                                            7-76

-------
                                                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

-------
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: 105°F
                      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.
1 Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X

CAA
X

CERCLA
X

SARA 313
X

RCRA
X

OSHA
X

                                           7-78

-------
                                                  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:  138°F
                      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

-------
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.
                                          7-80

-------
                                                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: 105°F
                      pH:  6.0
Performance

      Wipability:
wet ink-  3 strokes
dry ink-  5 strokes
Blanket swell:
1 hr.- 1.5%
5hrs.-6.1%
      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 313
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
                                           7-81

-------
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: 175°F
                      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.
Chemical
Hydrocarbons,
aromatic
CWA
X
CAA
X
CERCLA
X
SARA 313
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
                                           7-82

-------
                                                 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:  82°F
                      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
CostfPress
$1.92
$3.16
Annual Cost*
$4,800
$7,900
Baseline Cost*
$5,500
$8,500
% Change**
+13
-7
       1 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

-------
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 313
X
RCRA
X
OSHA
X
                                           7-84

-------
                                                 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+°F
                          pH:  5.6
Performance
       Wipabillty:
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

-------
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.
                                           7-86

-------
                                                 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: 155°F
                    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, and 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

-------
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.

       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
Alkanolamines
Ethylene glycol
ethers
CWA


CAA
X
X
CERCLA
X

SARA 313
X
X
RCRA


OSHA
X

                                           7-88

-------
                                                 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:  155°F
                      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.

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

-------
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:  Aquatic species risk due to the presence of ethoxylated nonylphenols.

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
                                          7-90

-------
                                                   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

-------

-------
                                  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

-------
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 I/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 I/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.
                                           A-2

-------
                                                                            APPENDIX A
 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

-------
APPENDIX A
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. 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 forTesting 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, RJ. 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 forTesting 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.
                                         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 u,g/m3

Exposure calculations:
      mg per year:
            4.3 }xg/m3 x 20 m3/day x 250 days/year * 1000 = 21.5 mg/year = 20 mg/year

      Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
            4.3 ng/m3 x 20 m3/day x 0.001 - 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 -*- 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 H- 1000 u.g/mg = 3 mg/year
      Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
            0.68 x 20 rrrVday x .001 - 70 kg = 1.9 x 10'4 mg/kg/day = 2 x 10'4 mg/kg/day
                                         B-1

-------
APPENDIX B
       B.1.2. Propylene glycol monobutyl ether

(SCLT Parameters:
       Half-life in ain 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 ng/m3 x 20 m3/day x 250 days/year -*• 1000 = 23.5 mg/year« 20 mg/year

       Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
              4.7 jig/m3 x 20 m3/day x 0.001 -t- 70 kg  = 1.3 x 10'3 mg/kg/day = 1 x 10'3 mg/kg/day

BQXMOD Parameters:
        DECAY = 0.693 -i- 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 p.g/m3

Exposure calculations:
       mg per yean
              1.0 u.g/m3 x 20 m3/day x 250 days/year H- 1000 = 5 mg/year

       Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD)
              1.0 ng/m3 x 20 m3/day x 0.001 + 70 kg = 2.9 x 10'4 mg/kg/day = 3 x 10'4mg/kg/day
                                             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 •*• 499 million liters per day = 0.1 u.g/L

Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year:
       0.1 fig/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year -5-1000 = 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 ng/L

Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year
       0.8 ug/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 ng/L x 250 days/year x 16.9 g/day x 446,683 H- 1,000,000 = 1510 mg/year
                      = 2x 103 mg/year

10th percentile low flow of 1 million  liters per day
       0.05 kg/site/day x 1000 -5-1  million liters per  day = 50 ug/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 (ig/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 |ig/L x 16.9 g/day x 446,683 x 250 days/year -t-1,000,000 = 2.8 x 104 mg/year
                      = 3x 104 mg/year

South Platte River Low flow Stream Concentration:
       12.71 kg/day x 1000 - 590 million liters per day = 22
                                       B-3

-------
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 |ig/L

       Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year:
              0.2 (ig/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year ^ 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 u.g/L

       Human Potential Dose via drinking water in mg/year
              1.5 ng/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 ng/L

       Denver Release Daily Release Amount:
              25.2 kg/site/day x 235 sites -5- 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 |xg/L = 2 n.g/L

       Human Potential Drinking Water Ingestion in mg/year:
              1.6 u.g/L x 2 L/day x 250 days/year •*• 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 + 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 \ig/L
                                               B-4

-------
                                                                               APPENDIX B
B.2  ISCLT INPUT FILE EXAMPLE
SITE 001 - SANBERN - Sample Formulation Single Facility in San Bernardino
 1 2200323420 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
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

-------
APPENDIX B
SSW
 SW
WSW
 W
WNW
 NW
NNW
 N
NNE
 NE
ENE
 E
 SE
SSE
 S
SSW
 SW
WSW
 W
WNW
 NW
NNW
 N
NNE
 NE
ENE
 E
 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
                                           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

-------
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
                                           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
                                        C-1

-------
APPEND9XC
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.
                                          C-2

-------
                                                                                APPENDIX 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
MSDS 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, and 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 and 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

-------
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.
                                           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 provider15 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.
   b A contract will be prepared by EPA to staff this Junction. 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

-------
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.
                                           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 130°C; greater than 90% at
      145°C)
      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  100
                                         C-7

-------
APPENDIX C
      Sample

1. Control
    (VM&P Naphtha)

2.

3.

4.

*.'

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	
                                         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
       Playtex® 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 Playtex® 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 Playtex® 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

-------
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 panty 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.
                                           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. 1 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

-------
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%
D
n
n
n
n
n
50 - 95%
D
n
n
n
n
n
95 - 100%
n
n
n
n
n
n
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
n
n
n
D
n
n
50 - 95%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
95 - 100%
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
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?
                                            D-2

-------
                                                                                   APPENDIX D
6.
       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 0
waterless D
other D
conventional D
vegetable oil-based D
UV D
waterless D
other D
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

-------
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 n
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 O
(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?
                                             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

-------
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	

(1 - 3) Wash#       (1 - 5)
(enter code
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
vpgetahle oil-hased....n other (specify)
Renord length of run (# impressions)
(check one):
Heavy Medium Liaht

Record substrate printed:
Time from ^nd nf 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 of wash
poured)
minutes (time for blanket cleaning only)
rotations (corresponding number of blanket 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 	 w
Hid you havp tn 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):
                                       D-6

-------
                                                                               APPENDIX D
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

-------
APPENDIX D
D.3 PRINTER'S EVALUATION SHEET



Facility name:  	
Date:
Press Operator's Initials:
Answer these questions for the BLANKET WASH ONLY (do 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)
?ted
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...D No.
If yes, please explain:
..D
Comments or suggestions - Use the back of this sheet or the space below for any comments:
                                          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?
           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 condition(s).
           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 back to acceptable print quality
           is greater, the same, or less than were required using your standard blanket wash?
           Why?
    5.     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

-------

-------
                                APPENDIX E
     CATEGORIZATION FOR LITHOGRAPHIC BLANKET WASHES
      Table E-l. presents the following categories and classification 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
Pass1 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 (£3.0%) and basic washability
                                      E-1

-------

-------
                                     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

-------

-------