-------
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
-------
-------