United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
EPA744-R-99-003
November 1999
www.epa.gov/dfe
oEPA      Design for the Environment
             Building Partnerships for
             Environmental Improvement
             Printed on paper containing at least 30 percent postconsumer recovered fiber.

-------

-------
Notice

   This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
approved for publication. It is based on experiences gained from projects conducted by EPA's Design
for the Environment staff in collaboration with partners from industry, public interest groups, and
research/educational institutions and does not constitute EPA policy. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not imply endorsement or recommendation for use.
Acknowledgments
   This document was published under the leadership of Bill Hanson, Chief, Design for the Environ-
ment Branch. Kathy Hart, Cindy Stroup, Carol Hetfield, Maria Hendriksson, and Karen Doerschug
revised and updated the document to reflect recent DfE projects and lessons learned. Dr. Mary Ellen
Weber, Director, Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division and Libby Parker, a former DfE Staff
Director, provided the document's vision and early support. Jed Meline, a former DfE staff member,
prepared and edited the first document.
    In addition to EPA staff, many individuals from the public and private sectors that are partici-
pants in DfE projects have contributed valuable ideas and perspectives. They include Marci Kinter
(Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Association International), Stuart McMichael (Custom Print),
Bob Peters (Sun Chemicals, Inc.), Tom Purcell (formerly with Printing Industries of America), Bonnie
Rice  (Greenpeace), William Seitz (Neighborhood Cleaners Association), Jodie Siegel (University of
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute), and Manfred Wentz (R.R. Street £t Company). The publi-
cation was prepared by Jan Connery and John Jester of Eastern Research Group, Inc.

-------

-------
                                              Contents
Foreword	viii

Executive Summary	xi

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms	  xvii

CHAPTER i:  Introduction	  1
   What Results From a DfE Project?	  3
   Who Participates in a DfE Project?	  3
   Why Participate in a DfE Project?	  3
     DfE Project Results Can Improve Businesses' Bottom Line	  5
     DfE Promotes Effective, Efficient Change	  8
     DfE Promotes Constructive, Long-Term Relationships
     Among Stakeholders	  8
     DfE Leverages Resources and Enhances Credibility. . . -.	  9
   DfE Process Overview	1°
   Into the Future	11
   About This Publication	11

CHAPTER 2:  Scoping	 13
   Recruiting Partners	 14
     Identifying Partners	 15
     Stakeholder Sectors	 15
     Organizations	 18
     Individuals	 19
     Building Relationships	 19
   Preparing the Regulatory Profile	 20
   Preparing the Industry and Use Cluster Profile	21
   Selecting the Project Focus	 23
   Soliciting Input From Stakeholder Sectors	 26
   Taking the Next Steps	 27
                                                                           in

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement

CHAPTER 3:  Convening the Project Team	 29
   Defining the Project Goals	31
   Developing an Organizational Structure	  32
      Work Groups	  32
      Core Group	  32
      Project Managers)	  32
      Member Organization Advisory Committees	  34
      Other Resources	  34
   Communication	  34
   Operating Principles	  35
   Developing a Project Plan	  35
   Performance Measures	  36

CHAPTER 4:  Performing the Technical Work	 37
   What's Involved—An Overview	 .  38
   Identifying and Selecting Alternatives	41
      Identifying Traditional Alternatives	..41
      Identifying Nontraditional Alternatives	  42
      Selecting Alternatives	  42
   Setting Boundaries for the Risk Evaluation	  43
      Lifecycle Boundaries	  43
      Risk Boundaries	  45
      Boundaries Associated With the Ability To  Influence Change	  45
   Obtaining Information on and Samples of Alternatives	  46
   Workplace Practices Questionnaire	  47
   Conducting the Performance Evaluation	  48
      Protocol Development	  48
      Confidentiality	  50
      Pretesting  of Nontraditional Alternatives	  50
      Quality Assurance	  50
      Facilities	  50
   Other Sources of Information	51
   Data Analysis	  52
   Publishing the CTSA Document	  52
   Performance  Measures	  52

CHAPTER 5:  Communication	  53
   Industry Community	  56
iv
CONTENTS

-------
                    DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement

     What To Communicate	 58
     Reaching the Industry Community	 59
   Communicating With the Public	61
   Communicating With Other Interested Parties	 62
   Performance Measures	 63

CHAPTER 6:  Implementation	•	 65
   Publications	 69
   Training and Demonstrations	 69
     Training	70
     Demonstrations	,	70
   Identifying and Removing Institutional Barriers	 71
   Providing Incentives	 72
     Total Cost Accounting	 72
      Certification Programs	 72
      Sign-up Programs	•	 73
      Voluntary Industry Standards	  74
   Performance Measures	  74

CHAPTER 7:  Evaluation  and Closure	 75
   Measuring Project Success	• • •  76
   Project Closure	  78

CHAPTER 8:  The  DfE Printing Projects	 79
    SECTION 1: PRINTING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT	  79
    Scoping	•  79
      Initiation	  79
      Development of the Industry and Use Cluster Profile	  80
      Stakeholder Identification and Recruitment	81
      Initial Open Meeting	81
      Preparation of the Regulatory Profile	81
    Convening  the Project Team	  82
      Initial Meetings	  82
      Formation  of the Core Group	  83
      Definition of Project Goals	 83
    SECTION 2: THE DFE  SCREEN PRINTING PROJECT	 83
    Development of the Project Team	 83
      Use Cluster Selected	 83
                                         CONTENTS

-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement

       Screen Printing Partners	  85
       Evolution in Project Team Structure and Composition	  85
     Identifying Alternative Screen Reclamation Systems	  86
       Workplace Practices Questionnaire	  86
       Screen Reclamation System Alternatives	  86
       Chemical Information	  86
       Screen Printing Performance Demonstration	  87
       Developing the CTSA	  88
       Screen Printing CTSA Results	  88
     Communication and Implementation	  88
       Communication Focus Groups	  88
       Fact Sheet	  92
       Case Studies	  92
       Project Result Bulletins	  92
       Trade Show Presentations and Booths	  92
       Articles and Editorials in the Trade Press		  92
       Video	  93
       Information Summary Matrix	  93
       Pollution Prevention Conference for Screen Printers	  94
       Total Cost Accounting Software and Training for
       Screen Printers	o	  94
       Evaluation of Behavior Changes	  94

 CHAPTER 9:  The DfE Garment and Textile Care Project	 95
    Scoping	,     95
       Background	  95
    Stage One: The Original Drycleaning Project	  97
       Open Stakeholder Conference	  98
       Multiprocess Wetcleaning Demonstrations	  100
       Wetcleaning Demonstrations	101
    Convening the Project Team	102
       Project Focus: The Drycleaning Project	104
       Project Focus: The Garment and Textile Care Program	104
      Information Gathering: Focus Groups	104
    Performing the Technical Work	105
      Identifying Alternatives	105
      Currently Available Alternatives	105
      Newly Available Alternatives	107
VI
                                         CONTENTS

-------
                    DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     Developing Potential Alternatives .................................  107
     Developing the Performance Demonstration Protocol ..................  107
     Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA) Development .......  108
     Stakeholder Site Visits .........................................  108
   Communication ................................................  1°9
     Other Outreach Efforts .............................. • ..........  113
   Implementation .................................................  114
     Care Labeling ................................................  114
     Wetcleaning Training Program ...................................  114
     The Wetcleaning Partnership .....................................  115
     Training Workshops in Total Cost Accounting . ..... . ................  115
     Future Implementation Activities .................................  115

CHAPTER 10: The DfE Printed Wiring Board Manufacturing Project ....  11 7
   DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Partners ............................  118
   First Project Focus-Making Holes Conductive .........................  118
   Results of the Technical Work ................. .....................  118
   Evaluation ............................................. ........  119

CHAPTER 11:  DfE Partnerships— New Directions ...................... 121
   The DfE Auto Refmish Shop Project in Philadelphia .....................  121
   The DfE Industrial and Institutional Laundry Partnership Initiative ........  122
   DfE Environmental Management System Project ......................  122
     Partnership with Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging
           Association Pilot Project ..................................  123
     Web Site [[[  123
     Video [[[  123

CHAPTER 12: References ............................................. 1 25

APPENDIX A:  The DfE Printing Projects: Communications Plan and
            Communication Products ...........................  A1

APPENDIX B:  The DfE Garment and Textile  Care Project: Fact Sheet
            and Communications Plan   .......... _ .............  B1

-------
                                                      Foreword
     In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pollution Prevention
     and Toxics (OPPT), along with other EPA
 offices, was considering ways to streamline the
 regulatory risk management process, which relied
 heavily on controlling the release of specific chemi-
 cals into particular environmental media—water,
 air, or land. The regulatory approach to environ-
 mental management had accomplished much, but
 was far from ideal:
 •   Because regulations prescribe solutions, they
     often had proved burdensome, inflexible, and
     resource intensive for both the regulated com-
     munities and the government.
 •   Some regulations solved environmental prob-
     lems by creating others. For instance:
     - Pollution control effectively shifted pollut-
       ants from one environmental medium to
       another. For example, the air and water pol-
       lutants trapped by pollution control devices
       are disposed on land.
     - Some industries complied with chemical-
       specific regulations by substituting
       nonregulated chemicals that also posed a
       threat to public health or the environment.
     In response to regulations, industry began
 to devise ways upstream in the production proc-
 ess to reduce or eliminate waste streams that
 were costly to manage. For example, many in-
 dustries increasingly utilized pollution
 prevention as an efficient approach to combat-
 ing  environmental problems and reducing
 compliance costs. Also, since industry already
 was designing products for conventional objec-
 tives, such as quality or marketability,
 designing for environmental objectives was a
 natural next step. Industry began talking about
 "designing for recyclability" and "designing for
 the environment." A new school of thought, "in-
 dustrial ecology," was born that attempted to
 look at business decisions in the context of
 social, political, and environmental impacts.
 One of industrial ecology's main spokespersons,
 Brad Allenby, began writing about "Design for
 Environment (DfE)" and formulating methodolo-
 gies for incorporating environmental
 considerations into business decision criteria.
    From the early 1990s, EPA has sought to in-
 form private sector efforts at improving
 environmental management. The concept of
 designing for the environment offered great
 potential to contribute to these goals if it could
 be harnessed to actively promote voluntary
 environmental improvement. To capitalize on
 this potential, EPA established the Design for
 the Environment (DfE) Program. The program
 began as a pilot to help industries (especially
 those characterized by smaller businesses) more
 fully incorporate environmental considerations
 into the design and redesign of products and
 processes. OPPT was well positioned to under-
 take the task, because of its long experience in
 examining multimedia chemical risks under the
 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), its work
 to foster voluntary approaches to environ-
 mental management such as EPA's 33/50
 Program (see Chapter 6), and its experience ad-
 ministering the Pollution  Prevention Act. Also,
 OPPT's experience weighing the benefits and
 costs of risk management options, as mandated
 by TSCA, provided a technical model for the
 DfE program goal of integrating environmental
 risk with performance and cost to inform busi-
 ness decision-making.
   This document describes the DfE process for
voluntary environmental improvement that was
 developed through the DfE program's initial
partnerships with the printing and dry cleaning
industries and other stakeholders. The story and
viii

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
results of these two projects are offered in the
hope that they will inspire others who are work-
ing to solve environmental problems and that
they can provide a working model for success-
ful stakeholder partnerships for voluntary
environmental improvement. This publication
is designed for those interested in learning
about initiating, or participating in DfE partner-
ships and for anyone who may benefit from the
increased efficiency and reduced risk that a suc-
cessful DfE project provides.
  IX
                                          FOREWORD

-------

-------
                                            Executive
WHAT IS THE DfE PROCESS?
This publication describes the "design for the environment" (DfE) process pioneered by
the US. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT). On the cutting edge of environmental protection, the process catalyzes
voluntary environmental improvement through stakeholder partnerships. DfE project
partners include industry groups, government agencies, public interest groups, and
educational/research institutes and universities.
   In order to inform the private sector's
 efforts towards environmental improvement,
 EPA developed the DfE process in the early
 1990s. The DfE process promotes voluntary (i.e.,
 nonregulatory) environmental improvement
 by addressing industries' need for information
 on how to incorporate environmental con-
 cerns into business decisions. The process
 systematically:
Identifies the array of traditional and nontra-
ditional technologies, products, and processes
that may be used to perform a particular func-
tion within an industry, as well as any
pollution prevention opportunities associated
with performing that function.
Evaluates and compares the risk, perform-
ance, and cost tradeoffs of the alternatives.
                                                                             XI

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
*   Disseminates this information to the indus-
    try community.
•   Encourages and enables use of this infor-
    mation by providing mechanisms and
    incentives to institutionalize continuous
    environmental improvement within the
    industry.
    The DfE process does not recommend alter-
natives. Rather, it provides decision-makers
with information, tools, and incentives to make
informed decisions that integrate risk, perform-
ance, and cost concerns. A DfE project potentially
provides many benefits:
•   Consumers, the public, and workers benefit
    from the reduced health, safety, and ecologi-
    cal risks that may result from a successful
    DfE project.
•   Incorporation of environmental considera-
    tions into the design and redesign of
    products and processes can enhance an in-
    dustry's bottom line by reducing the
    regulatory burden, increasing efficiency, in-
    creasing customer acceptance, reducing
    liability and insurance costs, and improving
    worker morale and productivity.
•   A successful DfE process builds channels of
    communication, cooperation, and collabora-
    tion among stakeholder organizations that
    can extend long past the project's lifetime
    and contribute to increased efficiency in
    handling future environmental concerns.
THE SIX DfE PROCESS AREAS
FTPIhe DfE process was forged by projects
   I  that EPA conducted with the printing and
  JL drycleaning industries and other stake-
holders. The process can be divided into six
areas-scoping, convening the project team,
performing the technical work, communication,
implementation, and evaluation and closure.
           Scoping
               The first step toward initiating a DfE project
           is to assemble a partnership of stakeholders
           who want to work together. Scoping involves
           recruiting partners and involving them in re-
           search and analysis to identify a productive
           project focus. Joint  research helps build relation-
           ships among potential team members and lays
           the groundwork for the culture of collaboration
           essential to project success. Scoping may be in-
           itiated by any stakeholder interested in starting
           a DfE project. Research includes profiling the in-
           dustry in terms of the size, operation, and
           geographic distribution of its businesses; identi-
           fying the variety of functions that make up the
           industry processes and subprocesses; identify-
           ing some alternatives that the industry can use
           to perform these functions; and reviewing key
           regulations that apply to the industry.
               Based on this information, the project part-
           ners typically decide to focus the project's
           technical work on evaluating a particular group
           of alternatives that can be used to perform one
           key function within the overall industrial process.
           For example, stakeholders in the Dryleaning
           Project decided to focus on evaluating garment
           cleaning technologies that could potentially serve
           as alternatives to traditional drycleaning. The
           Printing Projects examined (1) alternative chemi-
           cals for blanket washes (cleaning ink and debris
           from the printing surfaces) in lithographic print-
           ing, and (2) alternatives to performing the
           process of screen reclamation (i.e., the removal
           of ink, emulsion, and haze from screens) used in
           screen printing.

           Convening the Project Team
               A project team builds during scoping as
           stakeholder organizations and representatives
           express a strong interest in the project and
           start contributing to scoping efforts. As scoping
           successfully recruits additional stakeholders,
           the embryonic team expands and evolves
           into a full-fledged project team with sufficient
xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
representation, resources, motivation, and com-
mitment to undertake a DfE project. At this
stage, team members formally convene to de-
fine the project goal(s), develop an
organizational structure, and begin work. The
team may acquire additional members over
time if new organizations express an interest in
the project after it is under way.
   The project team is one of the most critical
factors affecting project success. Adequate rep-
resentation on the project team of the industry,
public interest groups, and other important
stakeholder sectors is important to ensure the
quality, credibility, and utility of the project's
technical results and to provide a solid founda-
tion for long-term, continuous environmental
improvement. Typical responsibilities of DfE
project team members include attending team
meetings, planning the work, promoting the
project within their organizations, managing
any aspects of the project work assigned to
their organization, publicizing the project by
speaking at meetings and conferences, and net-
working among their contacts to recruit support
and funding as needed to perform the work.
DfE project team members often receive sub-
stantial positive visibility among their peers
within their stakeholder community.
   Goals and objectives are defined early in
the process; roles and responsibilities are identi-
fied, and partners agree to collaborate and
share information. A DfE Project, in turn,  will
recognise partners' contribution and that each
partner brings unique knowledge, experience,
and expertise to the project.

Performing the Technical  Work
   A DfE project's technical work aims to
develop as complete and systematic a picture
as possible of the risk, cost, and performance
tradeoffs associated with the traditional and
nontraditional (i.e., unusual, new, or novel)
alternatives that may be used to perform the
function selected during scoping. DfE technical
work involves a number of steps to define the
scope of the technical work and then gather,
analyze, and document information. The techni-
cal work typically includes organizing tests or
demonstrations to evaluate and compare the
performance and cost of the alternatives, and
reviewing literature, developing models, and
conducting surveys to obtain information re-
lated to risk and cost. The results of the
technical work are documented as a Cleaner
Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA)
document, which serves as a permanent record
of the technical information and provides a ba-
sis for subsequent information products. The
CTSA records and presents facts but does not
make value judgments or advocate particular
choices.

Communication
    Communication in a DfE project involves in-
forming and educating a variety of groups
about the project, the project results, and pollu-
tion prevention to:

•   Build interest in the project results.
•   Disseminate the results of the technical as-
    sessment in a manner that individual
    businesses can understand and utilize.
•   Utilize the technical results to promote in-
    corporation of environmental considera-
    tions into the traditional business parame-
    ters of performance and cost.
•   Position the project within the industry as a
    focal point for pollution prevention infor-
    mation.
•   Educate stakeholder communities about
    options and alternatives for environmental
    improvement.
•   Cultivate an industry culture of continuous
    environmental improvement.

    Target audiences for DfE communication
efforts typically include industry and the
public (e.g.,  consumers, workers, and environ-
mentalists). Communication products may
include brochures, fact sheets, presentations
                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                          xiii

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 and exhibits at trade shows and conferences,
 press releases and articles, videos, project news-
 letters, and electronic bulletin boards.

 Implementation
    During implementation, the project team
 works with stakeholder organizations to
 identify and  remove institutional barriers to
 voluntary environmental change, to develop
 tools and incentives that encourage and enable
 industry to use cleaner alternatives, and to es-
 tablish a foundation for (1) incorporating
 environmental considerations into business de-
 cision-making, and (2) long-term, continuous
 environmental improvement within the indus-
 try. Implementation activities may include:

 •  Demonstrating nontraditional, lower-risk
    alternatives.
 •  Providing training to enable users to  make
    changes.
 •  Identifying and helping to remove institu-
    tional barriers to change (e.g., accounting
    methods, industry standards, and loan poli-
    cies that discourage or prevent the types of
    changes necessary to reduce risk).
 •  Establishing institutional incentives (e.g.,
    certification programs) to motivate change.

 Evaluation and Closure
    During evaluation, the project team assesses
 the success of the project as a whole in achiev-
 ing its overall goals. Evaluation involves
 establishing measures  of project success and
 gathering data on changes in attitudes, knowl-
 edge, and/or behaviors of target populations via
 interviews,  surveys, focus groups,, or other meth-
 ods. Data on standard  industry practice prior to
 the project  can be used as a baseline against
 which to measure change.
    As the project draws  to a close, individual
 project partners and stakeholders take responsi-
 bility for long-term management of the various
 implementation activities, and the project team
 decides whether to continue the partnership to
 investigate other opportunities for environ-
 mental improvement.
 FORGING THE PROCESS:
 THE DfE  PRINTING AND

 DRYCLEANING PROJECTS

 Printing
      The idea for the DfE Printing Projects origi-
      nated in 1991, when an industry trade
      association, the Printing Industries of
 America (PIA), asked EPA for assistance in evalu-
 ating the environmental merits of printing
 products. PIA was concerned that its constitu-
 ents-primarily small lithographic printers-did
 not have sufficient information to judge claims
 their suppliers were making about the environ-
 mental "friendliness" of various chemical
 products used for printing. EPA staff networked
 among printing industry trade associations and
 businesses and held a series of workshops in 1992
 to build interest in establishing a stakeholder part-
 nership for environmental improvement. These
 efforts resulted in the formation of a DfE project
 team that included representatives from the
 screen printing and lithography industries and
 from universities and research institutes. The
 team decided to focus its initial efforts on two ar-
 eas: evaluating alternative chemicals for washing
 "blankets" (printing surfaces) in lithographic print-
 ing, and evaluating alternative processes for
 reclaiming the screens used in screen printing.
   The project team identified alternatives in
 these two areas and organized two sets of per-
 formance demonstrations at screen printing and
lithographic shops to compare the cost and per-
formance of the alternatives. The demonstration
results, along with tfie project's analysis of risk-
and cost-related data from industry and literature
sources, were documented in two publications—
a screen printing CTSA and a lithography CTSA-
XIV
                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
that describe the risk, cost, and performance
tradeoffs of the various alternatives examined.
    To publicize the project and raise industry
awareness about pollution prevention, the pro-
ject team members organized focus groups with
small printers to find out how these printers
preferred to receive information, developed and
distributed user-friendly brochures about the
project and pollution prevention opportunities,
made presentations and stationed booths at in-
dustry conferences, and provided material for
articles and editorials in the trade press. As the
project's technical work produced tradeoff infor-
mation on the comparative risk, cost, and
performance of the alternatives examined, the
project team disseminated  and promoted applica-
tion of this information by developing and
distributing brochures, participating in a pollu-
tion prevention conference for screen printers,
and developing tools and training designed to
help printers use total cost accounting methods to
incorporate environmental costs and benefits into
their business decisions.

 Drycleaning
    The DfE Drycleaning Project evolved out of
several years of work by EPA with the dryclean-
ing industry to examine ways to reduce exposure
to perchloroethylene (perc)—the chemical solvent
most drycleaners use to clean clothes. EPA laid
the groundwork for the project by sponsoring an
 International Roundtable on Pollution Prevention
 and Control in the Drycleaning Industry in 1992
 and by organizing small-scale performance dem-
 onstrations to investigate whether a commercially
 viable alternative to drycleaning existed. The suc-
 cess of these early demonstrations catalyzed the
 formation of a project team that included repre-
 sentatives from EPA, tiie drycleaning trade
 associations, solvent producers and suppliers, dry-
 cleaners, research institutes, and environmental,
 labor, and consumer groups.
     The project organized a series of demonstra-
 tions at actual or simulated drycleaning
 facilities to compare the cost and performance
of alternative clothes-cleaning technologies.
The protocol developed for these demonstra-
tions could conceivably provide a basis for
future industry performance standards.
    Outreach activities to publicize the .project
and build a market for its results have included
development and distribution of a fact sheet, bro-
chure, and case studies; presentations and booths
at trade shows and environmental conferences;
briefings to members of Congress; and coverage
of the project in dozens of mass and trade media
articles.
    The project results, which will be published as
a drycleaning CTSA, indicate that there are .com-
mercially viable alternatives to conventional
drycleaning. The project team has been working
to promote application of the project results by in-
dustry decisionmakers. These implementation
efforts have included starting a dialogue with the
Federal Trade Commission to review care labeling
requirements that could be a barrier to using alter-
native garment cleaning technologies; providing
opportunities for industry representatives to view
the alternative cleaning technologies in action; and
sponsoring training for drycleaners in how to use
alternative technologies and how to apply total
cost accounting methods to track the cost and
benefits of environmental  investments.
 APPLYING THE DfE PROCESS

       The DfE process provides a model and
       framework for national- or state-level
       partnerships to catalyze voluntary change
 within an industry. Communities, universities, or
 other organizations also may adapt this model to
 develop local partnerships.
     Since the Printing and Drycleaning Projects
 entered the implementation phase, EPA has
 been establishing new DfE partnerships with
 other  industries. The DfE process described in
 this publication will evolve further as more ex-
 perience is gained with these and other
                                      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                                                                             xv

-------
                        DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
  applications of the process. Creativity and flexi-
  bility to adapt the DfE process framework to
  best serve the unique aspects of each project-
  its goals, resources, organizational cultures,
  team member personalities, and so on—will
  always be vital to project success. Ultimately, most
  important to the success of any DfE project will be
the leadership of the individual team members.
It is their strong commitment to the project
goals that provides the momentum, the will,
and  the collaborative spirit necessary to break
new ground and illuminate options for volun-
tary environmental improvement through
constructive institutional change.
xvi
                                     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-------
                                  Glossary  of
                                    Terms  and
                                      Acronyms
alternative
case study
Cleaner Technologies
Substitutes Assessment
(CTSA)


DfE

FC

FTC

HCFC

HFC

life cycle of a product
Any traditional or nontraditional (i.e., unusual, new, or novel)
technology, process, or chemical product that performs a particular
function. Synonymous with substitute.

A brief fact sheet providing risk, cost, and performance information
on alternatives or other pollution prevention ideas. Case study
information is obtained from product or technology demonstrations
conducted as part of a DfE project or from the experience of
individual industry practitioners who have successfully reduced risks
associated with their operations.

A document that systematically evaluates the relative risk,
performance, and cost tradeoffs of alternatives. The CTSA serves as a
repository for all the technical information (including methodology
and results) developed by a DfE project.

Design for the Environment

fluorocarbon

Federal Trade Commission

hydro chlorofluorocarb on

hydrofluorocarbon

Encompasses the extraction and processing of raw materials needed
to manufacture the product, as well as the manufacture,
transportation, distribution, use/reuse/maintenance, recycling, and
final disposal of the product.
XVII

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
MPWC

MSDS
MWC

NCA

nontraditional

OPPT


partner


perc

process
project team

public interest group
PWB

risk
 multiprocess wetcleaning

 Material safety data sheet, which is a fact sheet containing
 information about a chemical or mixture of chemicals, including
 health effects and safe handling procedures. MSDSs for chemicals at
 a worksite must be  available to workers and unions at the worksite.

 machine wetcleaning

 Neighborhood Cleaners Association

 unusual, new, or novel

 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency,  Washington, DC

 An organization, company, state or local government, or individual
 that participates on the DfE project team.

 perchloroethylene (also called PCE)

 A set of operations  that produce or accomplish something that
 represents most or all  of a particular type of business  operation (e.g.,
 the process of paint stripping, the process of diycleaning, the process
 of screen printing).  A process may consist of several subprocesses,
 each of which is performed using various chemical products and/or
 technologies  (see system below).

The group that  plans and manages the DfE project.

Any group organized  specifically for the purpose of promoting and
protecting the interests of a specific group of individuals (e.g.,
 consumer group, environmental group, environmental justice group,
labor group).

printed wiring board

For DfE projects, health and safety risks are the potential for adverse
effects on humans resulting from the handling  of or exposure to
chemical substances. Environmental or ecological risk  is the potential
for adverse effects on  living organisms associated with human
activities such as pollution of the environment  by effluents,
emissions, wastes, or accidental chemical releases; energy use; or the
depletion of natural resources. The term risk, as used here, does not
include financial risk.
                                          GLOSSARY.
                                                                                         XVIII

-------
                      Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
risk assessment
risk management


stakeholder


substitute


suppliers



system
TCA

TSCA

use cluster


value chain


VOC
The process that scientists use to understand and evaluate the
magnitude and probability of risk posed to human health and
ecosystems by environmental stressors, such as pollution or habitat
loss or change.

Management of health, safety, and environmental risks.
(Does not include management of financial risks.)

Any organization or individual that has a stake in  or may be affected
by the outcome of a DfE project. All DfE partners are stakeholders.

Any traditional or nontraditional (i.e., unusual, new, or novel)
technology, process, or chemical product that performs a particular
function. Synonymous with alternative.

Businesses that supply chemicals, products, or equipment (e.g.,
chemical manufacturers, printing product formulators, printing press
manufacturers) to users.

A set of specific technologies and/or chemical products that,
collectively, are used to accomplish a specific function (or
subprocess) within a process (e.g., to accomplish the screen
reclamation subprocess within the screen printing process).

trichloroethane

Toxic Substances Control Act

A set of competing chemicals, processes, and/or technologies that
can substitute for one another in performing a particular function.

A series of stages or particular activities performed during the  life
cycle of a product that add value to that product.

volatile organic compound
 xix
              GLOSSARY

-------

-------
                                      Introduction
This publication describes the "design for the environment" (DfE) process pioneered and
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). The DfE process catalyzes voluntary environmental
improvement through stakeholder partnerships. DfE project partners include industry
groups, government agencies, public interest groups, and educational/research institutes
and universities (Figure 1-1).
   EPA developed the DfE process to address
industries' need for information on how to in-
corporate environmental concerns into business
decisions. The process systematically:

•  Identifies the array of traditional and non-
   traditional (i.e., unusual, new, or novel)
   technologies, products, and processes that
   may be used to perform a particular func-
   tion within an industry, as well as any
pollution prevention opportunities associ-
ated with performing that function.
Evaluates and compares the risk,1 perform-
ance, and cost tradeoffs of the alternatives.
Disseminates this information to the indus-
try community.
Encourages and enables use of this informa-
tion by providing mechanisms and
incentives to institutionalize continuous
environmental improvement within the
industry.
'The term risk, as used in this publication, refers to health, safety, and environmental risks; it does not include financial
risk. For purposes of DfE projects, health and safety risks are the potential for adverse effects on humans resulting from the
handling of or exposure to chemical substances. Environmental risk is the potential for adverse effects on living organisms
associated with human activities such as pollution of the environment by effluents, emissions, wastes, or accidental chemi-
cal releases; energy use; or the depletion of natural resources.

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 Figure 1-1
 DfE Project  Partner Communities
      •.: I
      ;"	'f
          INDUSTRY
          • Trade Associations
          • Users
          • Suppliers
• Environmental
• Environmental Justice
• Labor
• Consumer
• Community Groups
    DfE provides industry decision-makers with
information, tools, and incentives to make
informed decisions that integrate risk, perform-
ance, and cost concerns (Figure 1-2).
    This publication is designed for those inter-
ested in learning about, initiating, or participating
in DfE partnerships and for anyone who may
benefit from the increased efficiency and reduced
risk that a successful DfE project provides. The
publication describes the DfE process developed
by EPA and its partners during projects with the
printing and drycleaning industries and identifies
                                           GOVERNMENT
                                             Federal
                                             Regiona
                                             State
                                             Local
• Trade and Technical
 Schools
•Research Institutes
• Foundations and
 Alliances
• Universities
                                     factors that contribute to project success. A
                                     companion publication—Cleaner Technologies
                                     Substitutes Assessment: A Methodology and Re-
                                     source Guide (EPA, 1996)-describes in detail the
                                     technical approach used in DfE projects to evalu-
                                     ate and compare the risk, performance, and cost
                                     tradeoffs of alternatives.
                                        The DfE process provides a model for
                                     national- or state-level partnerships to catalyze
                                     voluntary change within an industry. Communi-
                                     ties also may adapt this model to develop local
                                                *y
                                     partnerships.
 Sec also Environmental Planning for Small Communities: A Guide for Local Decision-Makers (EPA, 1994a) for guidance
on local partnerships.
                                       INTRODUCTION

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
WHAT RESULTS  FROM  A DfE
PROJECT?

A        DfE project seeks to broaden the way
        an industry (or any sector with envi-
        ronmental impacts) approaches and
manages the risks associated with its activities.
The DfE process works on two levels to achieve
this goal (Figure 1-3):

•   On a technical level, a DfE project evaluates
    and compares the risk, performance, and
    cost attributes of both traditional and non-
    traditional approaches to performing a
    specific function within  a particular indus-
    try (e.g., paint stripping within the
    aerospace industry). The project  communi-
    cates this information to the business
    community and provides training, tools,
    and incentives to encourage the  use of
    lower-risk alternatives. This information
    enables businesses to directly incorporate
    environmental considerations into their
    decision-making about at least one specific
    area of their business.
•   On an. organizational level, a DfE project
    builds a publicly supported foundation for
    long-term voluntary environmental im-
    provement within the industry. This
    provides a basis for implementing the pro-
   ject's technical results and sets the stage for
    continuous, proactive, prevention-oriented
    efforts by the industry to reduce the overall
    health, safety, and environmental risks asso-
    ciated with its activities.
 Figure 1-2
 The DfE Process Promotes
 Informed  Business Decisions That
 Integrate  Risk, Performance, and
 Cost Concerns
(including environmental, environmental jus-
tice, labor, consumer, and community groups),
and educational/research groups—each of which
brings unique and valuable resources to the
table (Figure 1-4). Participants contribute to DfE
projects in a variety of ways, depending on their
interest level and resources (Figure 1-5). Partici-
pation includes direct, active involvement to
define and accomplish project goals, as well as
any voluntary behavior changes that industry
members make in response to information dis-
seminated by the project.
WHO PARTICIPATES IN A DfE
PROJECT?
       DfE project participants typically include
       a broad spectrum of organizations and
       individuals from four stakeholder sectors-
government, industry, public interest groups
WHY PARTICIPATE IN A
DfE PROJECT?
r m ^he DfE process attracts partners from
  •   different sectors because it provides
 JL  important benefits to each sector, as
described below.
                                     INTRODUCTION

-------
             DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
                   o
                   +j
                   c
v>
OJ


+3
TO
E
                TO
 tn
 03
' O
   CL>
   C
cn
3
O
             .2
             tl
 O
 c
             cc
             •
o

_o

TO

(U
                          o
                         V>

          o
         '-M
          O
          EL
      .ii  o
      ~  
"O
3
"O
C
cn
c
'o
cr>
c
O
ital improvemeni

ironme
>
tu
<+-
o
c
- Disseminatio
V)
O

•3
T3
C
TO
w?
O
+3
Q.
O
information
o
•4-"
in
>_


o
cL
.§
"ci5
i_ i
environ meni
ing stakeholders
a
E
TO
t/1
CL
elationsh
Constructive r
                                 INTRODUCTION

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 What  Is "Design for the Environment"?
   •  he design of a product specifies its form, nature, and function. Therefore, a product's
   I  attributes— including performance, cost, and risk— are largely locked in at the design phase. For
 - 1  example, product design influences what raw materials are used to make the product, how much
 .energy is needed, the volume and characteristics of waste streams generated during production, and
 whether a product can be recycled, or reused at the end of its lifetime.    '         ,
     "Design for the environment" refers to the increasingly adopted industrial concept that product
 design is the most efficient point at which to reduce the health, safety, and environmental risks associ-
 ated with  production and use of a product The DfE process expands the-concept of design to include-'
 the choices of technologies, products, and  processes that industry members use for their operations. For
 •.example:             *                  "                     .,:,,',-,         ,  ,
     Technology Alternatives              ~        «   ,    ,       '"'"    .
   '  By using a different piece of equipment, an industry may be able to accomplish the same job using
     (or generating fewer, less toxic chemicals.                  ,,-.  ~' „*,"„,

     Chemical Product Alternatives     ,    ,      "           \~-.--~
                        's       '   '          ~                  v           **  _     ( ~   /
     «   Identify an entirely different way of performing the same process-for example, using water^
         (i.e., wetcleaning) instead~6f "solvents (i.e., drycleamng) to clean clothes.
          V             *•              „    _,4 ™ r          i/54-*"        t
     • ' Find a way to elimjnate the process altogether-for example, paint stripping becomes unneces-
         sary if an industry can prepare surfaces that do not need paint    •  < - -    -

     By providing a systematic way to evaluate environmental concerns along witfrperformance and
  cost, DfE projects enable and encourage business decision-makers to redesign their operations toward
  cleaner, "greener" ways of doing business.                   ',''*"'''"""""            • •
DfE Project Results Can Improve
Businesses' Bottom  Line
    In the past, industry changes to reduce
health, safety, or environmental risks have
largely been compelled by regulation and
enforcement. This command-and-control
approach has improved environmental quality,
reduced public health and occupational risks,
and conserved natural resources, but it has dis-
advantages. The regulatory process frequently is
expensive, adversarial, litigious, and inflexible.
Often, the required changes are based on lim-
ited understanding of industry realities or cover
a wider range of unrelated industries and activi-
ties.  Also, regulatory solutions may simply
shift pollutants from one environmental me-
dium to another and cause industry to
substitute other approaches that in turn must be
regulated. This  "regulate, substitute, regulate"
cycle can be wasteful of society's resources.
                                        INTRODUCTION

-------
                    DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement


Figure 1-4
Each  DfE Partner Brings Unique Perspectives and  Resources to the Table
                  INDUSTRY
Perspective on industry concerns and
priorities
Knowledge of industry infrastructure
Expertise and data on industry
technologies, products, and practices
Expertise on cost and performance
Access to industry communication
channels and networks
Industry credibility
           PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
       Perspective on constituents' concerns
       Access to channels and networks for
       communicating to constituents
       Risk data
       Awareness of nontraditional
       alternatives
                                                   GOVERNMENT
                                                 Perspective on government and the
                                                                    •
                                                 public's concerns and priorities
                                                 Risk expertise and data
                                                 Regulatory information
                                                 Public credibility                    f
                                                 Ability to convene stakeholder groups f
                                                 Ability to mediate divergent          '^
                                                 stakeholder interests
                                                 RESEARCH/EDUCATION
                                           Expertise and facilities for:
                                           - Research and analysis
                                           - Tests and demonstrations
                                           - Information/technology transfer
                                           Public credibility
                                           ** tl 4
    Increasingly, government, industry, and
public interest groups are recognizing that vol-
untary changes to reduce risks by preventing
pollution are good for business and good for
the environment:
•   By preventing pollution, businesses may
    reduce their regulatory burden or avoid
    regulation altogether.
•   By considering environmental risk issues
    when designing or choosing technologies,
    products, and processes, businesses can
                                           minimize and possibly avoid the costs asso-
                                           ciated with response to future regulations.
                                           By looking ahead, Industries can discover
                                           ways to reduce environmental impacts be-
                                           low levels required by regulatory
                                           compliance.
                                           Pollution prevention often lowers costs by
                                           reducing the volume of materials used in
                                           production and the volume of waste that
                                           must be treated or disposed.
                                      INTRODUCTION

-------
Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
                  INTRODUCTION

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 •  Voluntary change to provide lower-risk
    products and services and to prevent
    pollution helps businesses promote an
    "environmentally friendly" image that
    increases customer acceptance.
 •  Management efforts to improve the working
    environment by reducing health and safety
    risks contribute to improved labor relations,
    worker morale, and productivity and may re-
    duce workers' compensation and other
    insurance costs.
 •  Reduced use of toxic materials decreases a
    company's liability and the potential for liti-
    gation on the part of workers, communities,
    and consumers.

 DfE Promotes Effective,
 Efficient Change
    The change from a command-and-control
 approach to voluntary environmental manage-
 ment shifts the responsibility for environmental
 quality from government to a partnership that
 includes industry. DfE provides an effective
 process that partners can use to fulfill their re-
 sponsibility to address health and environ-
 mental concerns.
    The DfE approach, as well as other volun-
 tary partnerships for environmental change,
 allows those most knowledgeable about an
 industry—the industry practitioners—to  play a
 major role in deciding what and how to change.
By engaging the creative expertise of industry
to find the most efficient solutions to environ-
mental problems, such as designing processes to
 avoid environmental problems, DfE can achieve
 better environmental results than prescribed so-
lutions. Many of the most innovative and
effective ideas for change have come from
those company employees closest to the day-to-
day operations within the industry.
   The DfE process seeks to identify those alter-
natives that will be most effective hi reducing
risk. By using risk as a yardstick to compare al-
ternatives, the DfE process can evaluate all
types of approaches to environmental manage-
ment (Figure 1-6), including treatment and
disposal options, which often are excluded from
other pollution prevention activities based on
the presumption that they are less beneficial
than other options. Also, when comparing the
risk associated with alternatives, the DfE proc-
ess can potentially consider the risk over the
entire life cycle of activities connected with the
alternatives—including extraction and process-
ing of raw materials; manufacture and
transport; and use, recycling, and disposal—to
identify which alternatives will achieve the
greatest overall risk reduction.
    Finally, the DfE process opens up the evalu-
ation and assessment process to those parties-
such as customers,  workers, and local  communi-
ties—affected by the choices that industry
makes. As a result,  industry decision-makers
can be more informed about the concerns and
values of these groups when making choices for
their operations. This increases  the likelihood
that industry decisions will meet with  accep-
tance rather than resistance from potentially
affected parties.

DfE  Promotes Constructive,
Long-Term Relationships Among
Stakeholders
    The DfE process provides a valuable oppor-
tunity for stakeholders to work  together to
achieve shared, mutually beneficial goals.
Through the DfE process, stakeholders come to
know one another as colleagues rather than
adversaries. By understanding each other's
perspectives and concerns, and  by pooling their
expertise and resources, DfE stakeholders are
able to find common ground and develop con-
structive solutions acceptable to all parties. A
successful DfE process builds lasting channels
of communication and cooperation among
stakeholder organizations that may extend
past the project's lifetime and contribute to
                                       INTRODUCTION

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement

 Figure 1-6
DfE Works at All Levels of Environmental Management To Find
Efficient Ways To Reduce Risk

 *y*
                               REUSE/RECYCLING
                              Any activities to turn waste
                                        products
                                 into useful materials.


                       %-"%'%
                     i^  *s* JfKV ^ri& fH-*°^,
                     ^^  A\. " * *•
increased efficiency in handling future environ-
mental issues.

DfE Leverages Resources and
Enhances Credibility
   By  sharing and coordinating resources, DfE
partners can accomplish far more together than
would be possible working separately:

•  Each stakeholder brings to a project unique
   information, knowledge, skills, and capabili-
   ties that enhance the resources available to
   the project partners. For example, individ-
   ual companies or industry sectors working
   alone often cannot access the information
   they need to understand environmental
impacts or improve environmental quality,
this is particularly true for small businesses.
Often this type of information is available
through the nonindustry partners. Con-
versely, industry brings to a DfE project
information about industrial technologies,
products, and practices that would be diffi-
cult, if not impossible, for nonindustry
partners to obtain on their own.
Multiple stakeholder participation confers
greater credibility on the project results
than could be achieved by individual efforts.
Evaluating options and setting priorities for
environmental improvement inevitably in-
volves value judgments. The decisions
based on  those judgments will prove more
                                     INTRODUCTION

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     acceptable if the stakeholders potentially af-.
     fected by those decisions have had a chance
     to participate.
 DfE PROCESS OVERVIEW
         DfE process can be divided into six
       areas (Figure 1-7):
    Scoping
    This first stage involves:
    *   Research to identify potential partners
        and areas of project focus.
    •   Building a foundation of relationships
        and basic knowledge needed to launch
        a DfE project.
    Convening the project team
    This constitutes the formal start of a DfE
 project. The project team launches the project
 by defining project goals, creating an organiza-
 tional structure, and developing a project plan.
    Performing the technical work
    A technical work group develops the infor-
mation and performs the evaluations necessary

Figure  1-7
DfE Process Overview
to analyze the risk, performance, and cost trade-
offs of alternatives.
    Communication
    Concurrently with the technical work, a
communication work group develops and imple-
ments a communication strategy to:

    •  Build interest in the project results to
       promote implementation.

    •  Disseminate the results of the technical
       assessment in a manner that individual
       businesses can understand and utilize.
    •  Utilize the technical results to promote
       the incorporation of environmental con-
       siderations into business decision-
       making.

    •  Position the project within the industry
       as a focal point for pollution prevention
       information.

    •  Educate stakeholder communities about
       options and alternatives for environ-
       mental improvement.
    •  Cultivate an industry culture of continu-
       ous environmental improvement.
                                     TIMEI
10
                                       INTRODUCTION

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Implementation
    An implementation work group works with
stakeholder organizations to identify and
remove institutional barriers to voluntary
environmental change and to develop tools and
incentives that encourage and enable industry
to use cleaner alternatives.

i®" Evaluation and Closure
    The project team gathers information to as-
sess the success of the project as a whole in
achieving its overall goals. As the project draws
to a close, individual project partners and other
stakeholders take responsibility for long-term
management of key implementation activities,
and the project team decides whether to con-
tinue the partnership to investigate other
opportunities for environmental improvement.
INTO THE FUTURE

      The DfE process described in the following
      chapters provides a model and framework
      for future DfE partnerships. As these
chapters reveal, a DfE project is a process of
education, negotiation, and change. Every DfE
partnership will have its own "personality" and
dynamics, and every DfE project inevitably will
venture into uncharted technical and political
territory as it opens new channels of communi-
cation and facilitates the flow of information
among various groups. Flexibility to accommo-
date the particular circumstances of each
project is vital to success. Readers therefore are
encouraged to build on and adapt the model
described here as appropriate for the particular
circumstances of their project. The success of
any DfE project will depend on the  leadership
by the individual team members whose strong
commitment to the project's goals provides the
momentum, the will, and the  collaborative
spirit necessary to  break new  ground and illumi-
nate options for voluntary environmental
improvement through constructive  institutional
change.
  ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION                            ll       ,
                t                     r                ,                    '£*
  •  Chapters 2 through 7 of this publication describe each Of the six DfE process components
     in detail, including wiiat they involve and ideas 'for*performing the work and measuring
     success.      •  ' .   '              t       V  '  -    **         ,'"'""';'',
 „•  Chapters 8 and 9, respectively, describe how the DfE process has been applied within the >
     printing and drycleaning industries.             *                  -
                                    (       '     .    ,      * " , * i        "$">.,
 , •  Chapter 10 describes the DfE project with the printed wiring board industry-and discusses
     future evolution of the DfE process.                     ,        ',"•>'''
  •  Chapter 11 describes several new partnerships and outreach methods.
                                                  >•        r       3       ' ,
  *  Chapter 12 lists references.   "               "  .   -  :  ~        „
  •  Appendices A and B present the communications plan and examples of information
     and educational materials developed for the DfE Printing Project.      ^ r     '' '
  •  A glossary at the front of this publication defines key terms and acronyms used in this
     document.  -                    ,        •  "  '    ' .       *         ."'""*"'*,
                                      INTRODUCTION
                                         11

-------

-------
                                           C  J-i  A  P  T  E  R
                                                         Scoping
 The first step toward initiating a DfE project is to assemble a partnership of stakeholders
 who want to work together on a DfE project. Scoping involves recruiting partners and in-
 volving them in research and analysis to identify a productive project focus (Figure 2-1).
Joint research helps build relationships among potential team members and lays the
groundwork for the culture of collaboration essential to project success.
    Scoping establishes the foundation for a
DfE project but does not constitute the formal
start of the project. A DfE project starts when a
team of stakeholder representatives formally
commits to the project and begins work (Chap-
ter 3).
    Scoping may be initiated by any stake-
holder interested in starting a DfE project.
For example:
•  A trade association seeking to help its
   members stay ahead of environmental
   regulations.
•  A government agency that wants to assist
   an industry in making voluntary changes to
   reduce risk.1
•  An environmental, environmental justice,
   labor, or consumer group concerned about
   occupational, public health, or ecological
   risks associated with current industry practice.
 Two factors are paramount to starting a DfE project: the existence of an industry risk issue that would benefit from DfE
work, and the industry's enthusiasm for participating in a DfE project. Success is ultimately measured in the application of
technological or chemical choices that reduce health, safety, and/or environmental risk. Therefore, dedication on the part
of the industry often is the most important consideration, since its participation is a key factor affecting project success.
                                                                                13

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Figure 2-1
Scoping
                     Activities
   Identify Partners and Build Relationships
    Telephone calls
    One-on-one meetings
    Informal small group meetings
    Open stakeholder meeting(s)
    Joint research
                             Results

                            Dedicated
                               DfE
                         Project Team
   Gather Information
    Profile the industry, including current practices
    and chemicals used
    Regulatory profile
    Information/ideas from potential
    partners/interested stakeholders
                            Project
                           Technical
                             Focus
   Stakeholders recruited to the project begin
contributing to the scoping process as they ex-
press an interest in becoming project partners.
RECRUITING  PARTNERS

      Partners are members of stakeholder com-
      munities who formally join a DfE project
      and contribute resources needed to per-
form the project. Partners may be organizations,
components of organizations (e.g., divisions,
chapters, affiliates), or individuals. Each partner
commits one or more people to serve as its
     representative(s) on the DfE project team and
     provides access, via its representatives, to organ-
     izational resources such as staff time, expertise,
     equipment, mailing lists, and databases. Recruit-
     ing partners involves:

     •   Marketing the project—for example, by
         publicizing the project via presentations at
         stakeholder meetings (trade association
         meetings, environmental conferences, etc.)
         and writing articles in the trade press.
     •   Identifying and contacting potential partners.
     •   Building relationships with potential partners.
14
SCOPING

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
•   Educating partners about what a DfE proj-
    ect is, what it seeks to accomplish, and
    what it involves.

Identifying Partners
    A DfE project area may be of potential inter-
est to dozens of public and private sector
organizations. One of the first tasks in scoping
out a DfE project is to identify those organiza-
tions that will have the greatest interest and
stake in the project outcome. High-stake organi-.
zations make important partners because:

•   They usually are motivated to participate.
•   They have resources  (expertise, information,
    contacts) essential to project success.
•   Their participation brings credibility to the
    project results.
•   Their buy-in helps ensure their support of
    the project and its results, and minimizes
    the potential for the  type of opposition that
    can result when a stakeholder feels excluded.

    Networking is one important way to iden-
tify potential partners. Attending meetings,
conferences, and trade shows on subjects (e.g.,
pollution prevention) that are related to the po-
tential DfE project area is another way to
identify partners. Organizational directories,
such as lists of trade associations, may also be
helpful in identifying potential partners.
    The search for partners can be organized
into three levels—sectors, organizations within
those sectors, and individuals within those or-
ganizations (Figure 2-2)-as described below.

Stakeholder Sectors
    Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 lists typical stake-
holder sectors for a DfE  project. These include
industry, government (federal, regional, state,
local), public interest groups (environmental, en-
vironmental justice, labor, consumer), and
education/research sectors. Table 2-1 describes
the role these stakeholder sectors typically play
in a DfE project.
    Industry is an essential partner in any DfE
project, because it is industry that will ulti-
mately make the changes.2 Industry partners
bring unique and current knowledge about how
their industry operates, as well as the technical
expertise to evaluate performance and cost pa-
rameters, that a DfE project needs to evaluate
alternatives. JndJis&yTrepresentatives also bring
an understanding of the needs and concerns of
industry members, as well as credibility to the
project results. Finally, industry partners are
essential to creating long-term, institutional
change within the industry during and after the
DfE project's lifetime.
    In many DfE projects, environmental
authorities, such as the EPA or a state or local
agency, also will be an essential partner. Gov-
ernment agencies bring unique resources to a
project, which may include expertise in risk
assessment, access to risk information, and  the
ability to provide neutral leadership. Also,
government participation lends important
credibility to the project results. Government
agencies with environmental, occupational, pub-
lic health,  or business-related missions all
represent potential DfE partners.
    The stake of various public interest groups
in a particular DfE project often depends on the
degree of risk that current industry practices
are perceived as posing to the interest group's
constituency. For example, a practice perceived
as posing  a risk to workers may be of interest
to labor and environmental justice groups.
A practice perceived as posing a risk to consum-
ers may be of interest to consumer groups. A
practice perceived as posing a risk to wildlife or
 2As mentioned in Chapter 1, some DfE projects may focus on a nonindustry sector, such as municipalities or other govern-
 ment entities responsible for making process or product design decisions. In this type of project, the nonindustry sector will
 be an essential project partner.
                                            SCOPING
                                                                                             15

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     10
          -
          P
to
O
1
25
O
cc
O

i/>
3
O
5
25
16
SCOPING

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Table 2-1
Potential Roles and Contributions of Key Stakeholder Sectors
  nsr INDUSTRY
      • Cochair core group and work groups.
      • Gather industry-specific information.
      • Provide technical expertise on industry processes and technologies.
      • Identify nontraditional alternatives.
      • Publicize project events and results to members.
      • Develop and disseminate information/educational materials.
      • Identify and encourage industry members who will contribute to and participate in
        performance demonstrations, establishing assumptions, and reviewing outputs.
      • Provide funding for some project activities.
      • Promote risk reduction and pollution-prevention behavior changes.
      • Ensure cost effectiveness of solutions.
      GOVERNMENT          ,
      • Provide leadership.
        Cochair core group and work groups.
        Provide technical expertise (e.g., for risk assessment).
        Gather regulatory information.
        Contribute to the development and dissemination of outreach and educational materials.
        Provide funding for some project activities.
        Promote  risk reduction and pollution prevention behavior changes.
      PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
      • Provide information on risks (e.g., environmental releases, exposure) associated with
        industry processes, products, and practices.
      • Identify nontraditional alternatives.
      • Contribute to the development of outreach and educational materials.
      • Publicize project events and results to the public.
      • Ensure that solutions consider public interest perspectives.
      RESEARCH  INSTITUTES/UNIVERSITIES
      • Conduct research, analyze technical data, and develop technical documents.
      • Provide technical expertise on industry processes and technologies and on risk assessment.
      • Conduct performance demonstrations to  evaluate alternative processes and products.
      • Ensure technical work meets scholarly standards.
      • Integrate results into curricula.
      • Develop and deliver training.
                                          SCOPING
17

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
ecosystems may be of interest to environmental
or conservation groups.  And a practice with
purely local impacts may be of interest to local,
but not national, public interest organizations.
Practices perceived  as having relatively low or
diffuse risks may not be of sufficient concern to
public interest groups to motivate their partici-
pation.
    The following questions can be helpful in
assessing the interest level and importance of
potential stakeholders:
•   Who is most affected by actual or perceived
    risk associated with the project area?
•   Whose support is necessary to identify and
    assess options for voluntary environmental
    improvement?
•   Whose support is necessary to ultimately
    make the changes needed for environmental
    improvement?

Organizations
    Most stakeholder sectors are represented by
several organizations. One key to the success of
a DfE project is ensuring that the key stake-
holder sectors—particularly industry—are
adequately represented on the project team.
    With industry, both  the function and size
of operations may need to be considered. For
example, some industries such as printing may
be broken down into several basic processes:
lithography, gravure, flexography, screen print-
ing, and plateless processes. Each process area
includes businesses that supply alternative tech-
nologies and products (suppliers) and businesses
that use these alternatives (users). During scop-
ing, organizations representing suppliers and
users for all the various process areas within an
industry may be contacted to ascertain their
level of interest. The final project team will be
most effective if it includes representatives of
both suppliers and users for whichever process
area(s) the project will focus on and if repre-
sentatives are drawn from both trade
      associations and individual businesses. In fact,
      participation of both suppliers and users—
      preferably beginning as early as possible in the
      project—generally will be essential to project
      success because of their key roles in the techni-
      cal work (Chapter 4) and in implementing any
      changes.
         In addition, most industries consist of facili-
      ties of different sizes. A facility's size may
      significantly affect how it operates, which alter-
      natives it uses, management's awareness of and
      receptivity to pollution prevention ideas, and
      other factors that need to be considered when
      designing a DfE project. Also, large businesses
      may  not comprehend the special problems of
      small businesses and the need for different ap-
      proaches within a DfE project to address small
      business needs. For all these reasons, it is very
      important that a project team include repre-
      sentatives from businesses of the typical size(s)
      that the project is trying to  reach. Small busi-
      ness  representation is particularly important if
      small businesses are a significant portion of the
      industry.
         Trade associations are often key industry
      representatives on DfE projects. Identifying  rep-
      resentative associations can be complicated by
      several factors:

      •  Some industries are represented by a num-
         ber of associations, some of which may
         have overlapping constituencies.
      •  Within some industries, a significant por-
         tion of businesses (e.g.,  small businesses)
         may not be members  of any trade associa-
         tion.
      •  A single trade association may have several
         organizational units—for example, a na-
         tional  office, a board  of directors, regional
         affiliates, local chapters, and a research  in-
         stitute. Any of these units may be potential
         DfE  partners.

         In such situations, it may take some time
      to get to know the organizational landscape
18
SCOPING

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
sufficiently to recruit a representative cross-
section of industry partners.
    The search for industry partners may some-
times be complicated by political factors within
the industry. A DfE project seeks to treat all
partners equally and open channels of commu-
nication and  collaboration. It is important that
nonindustry groups remain neutral and allow
the industry groups to work through their align-
ments without interference. If a DfE project is
to succeed, all potential partners ultimately will
need to maintain an openminded, constructive
attitude and avoid trying to control, manipu-
late, or obstruct the project to fulfill their
organization's political agenda.

Individuals
    The attitudes of the organizational repre-
sentatives who serve on the DfE project team
are a primary determinant of a project's
success. Enthusiastic, positively oriented repre-
sentatives can be instrumental in persuading
their organizations to become DfE partners and
in helping the project to achieve its goals once
it is under way. Ideally, DfE project team mem-
bers will:
 •   Be personally motivated and committed  to
     the project.
 •   Be willing to work collaboratively and coop-
     eratively, to listen to the perspectives of
     other stakeholders, and to  work creatively
     to resolve differences.
 •   Be appropriately positioned within the or-
     ganization to represent the organization's
     and members' views, to obtain information
     necessary for a DfE project, and to develop
     appropriate channels  of communication
     with organization members and constituents.
 •  Have organizational support for their par-
     ticipation on a DfE project and the ability
     to access organizational resources to sup-
     port the project
   Project team members often receive substan-
tial positive visibility within their organizations
and stakeholder communities as a result of their
participation in a DfE project.

Building Relationships
    Stakeholders initiating a DfE project may
need to invest time to build relationships and
create trust among potential partners. This is
especially necessary if stakeholders have an ad-
versarial history, for example, due to regulation,
enforcement, and litigation. In such cases, both
sides  must be convinced they are committed to
doing business in a new,  cooperative way. Trust-
building activities include:
•  Working collaboratively with stakeholders
    to gather background information on the in-
    dustry and the regulations affecting it (see
    below).
•  Contacting partners informally over a
    period of time (by phone, one-on-one meet-
    ings, etc.).
•  Holding small group  meetings to discuss
    interests, concerns, views, and issues.
•  Demonstrating that each stakeholder's
    issues will be seriously considered.
    Potential partners, for example, may have
divergent views about what is desirable and pos-
sible in a DfE project, and they may bring their
own  agendas to the table. An environmental
 group,  for example, may want industry to aban-
 don a particular practice; industry may want an
 environmental group to  cease negative cam-
 paigning against the industry; industry may
want regulatory agencies to take steps to reduce
 the regulatory burden; and so on. Small group
 meetings of potential partners during scoping
 may be necessary to help them understand each
 others' views, resolve issues,  modify or set aside
 their individual agendas, and find a workable
 common ground.
                                            SCOPING
                                                                                            19

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Often, the stakeholder initiating a DfE pro-
ject plays a lead role in marketing the project
and building momentum and enthusiasm
among potential partners. The initiating stake-
holder must avoid the temptation to define and
direct the project up front, which could impair
collaboration and partnership. A DfE project
will be most likely to attract partners and, ulti-
mately, to produce successful results if the
initiating stakeholder remains flexible and en-
sures that all interested stakeholders contribute
to defining the project.
 PREPARING THE
 REGULATORY PROFILE

          Many industries are subject to federal
          and state environmental regulations.
          Which regulations apply to any par-
 ticular operation depends on such factors as the
 size of the operation; the types of chemical
 products it uses; and the types, quantity, and
 toxicity of the emissions and wastes it gener-
 ates. An early step in a DfE project is to profile
 the main environmental regulations potentially
 affecting the industry. A regulatory profile may
 serve:
 •  To educate project partners about the most
    important regulations affecting the industry.
 •  To identify how using various alternatives
    might affect the regulatory status of a facil-
    ity (e.g., to reduce the regulatory burden or
    shift the burden from one media to another).
 •  To help ensure that the project does not
    waste resources evaluating alternatives that
    would increase the industry's regulatory.
    burden.
 •  To identify impending chemical or technol-
    ogy bans, such as phaseouts or other
    regulatory action that could affect the market
    availability and use of affected substitutes.
    The DfE Printing Project, for example,
         specifically avoided evaluating alternatives
         that contained ozone-depleting substances
         and/or chlorinated compounds expected to
         be covered in impending regulations.
      •  To aid the industry in understanding and
         complying with current regulations, which
         often is an industry's highest priority. Indus-
         try representatives may be more likely to
         participate in a voluntary project if they
         feel they are getting help with their regula-
         tory responsibilities.
      •  To provide a vehicle for acknowledging and
         highlighting regulatory areas that present dif-
         ficulties to industry—for example, multiple
         reporting responsibilities or inconsistent inter-
         pretation. Highlighting these areas can be an
         important step toward building a constructive
         relationship between government and indus-
         try. Also, it may catalyze separate efforts to
         reduce the regulatory burden to industry
         through activities such as consolidated record-
         keeping and reporting.
      •  As a primary data source for the regulatory
         status section of the Cleaner Technologies
         Substitutes Assessment document compiled
         during the technical phase of the project
         (see Chapter 4).

         The greater the number and complexity of
      regulations concerning an industry, the more
      important it is to develop a regulatory profile.
      A regulatory profile was developed for the DfE
      Printing Project (EPA,  1994b), for example,
      because the printing industry is potentially
      subject to a wide variety of regulations.  Con-
      versely, a regulatory profile was not developed
      for the DfE Drycleaning Project because the in-
      dustry is subject to fewer regulations that
      already were well known to the stakeholders.
         Industries may be regulated by several
      different federal,  state, and local authorities.
      Profiling all these regulations could require sub-
      stantial effort, depending on the number of
      regulations. If project resources are limited, par-
      ticipating stakeholders will need to focus on
20
SCOPING

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
profiling only those regulations they feel are
most significant to the industry as a whole. This
often will be all, or a subset of, the federal regu-
lations. Regulations for particular states may
also be profiled if a large portion of the indus-
try is centered in a particular state or region of
the country.
    Government stakeholders often take the
lead in preparing regulatory profiles, particu-
larly if they represent the agency or agencies
responsible for promulgating, interpreting, and
enforcing the applicable regulations. As repre-
sentatives of the regulated community, industry
stakeholders also provide important input into
regulatory profiles. They can point out areas of
particular confusion or concern, for example, to
the regulated community that should be ad-
dressed in a regulatory profile.  Federal
Environmental Regulations Potentially Affecting
the Commercial Printing Industry (EPA, 1994b)
provides an example of a regulatory profile
developed for the printing industry. This
document was developed by EPA repre-
sentatives, with input from and review by the
printing industry.
 PREPARING THE  INDUSTRY
 AND USE  CLUSTER PROFILE
         Another task usually performed during
         scoping is preparation of an industry
         and use cluster profile. This profile
 compiles the information needed to decide the
 technical focus  of a DfE project and provides in-
 dustry information important to the project's
 technical work.
    A profile:
 •  Describes how an industry is structured in
    terms of the size, operation,  and geographic
    distribution of businesses that compose the
    industry.
•  Identifies the industry processes and the
   functions within processes.
•  Identifies the various products, processes,
   chemicals,  and/or technologies that may be
   used to perform these functions, thereby es-
   tablishing "use clusters."
   A use cluster is a set of competing chemi-
cals, processes, and/or technologies that can
substitute for one another in performing a par-
ticular function. Figure 2-3, for example, shows
the use cluster for the function of paint strip-
ping during maintenance operations. As the
figure indicates, five different methods—involv-
ing different chemicals and/or processes—may,
be used to achieve the goal of paint stripping:
use of the chemical solvents N-methyl pyrolli-
done or methylene chloride, sandblasting,
plastic pellet blasting, or redesigning the sur-
face  so that it does not need paint (thus
avoiding altogether the need to strip paint). The
technical work performed during a DfE project
compares the risk, performance,  and cost trade-
offs of the alternatives within a use cluster
(Chapter 4).
   Identification of use clusters during scoping
involves:
•  Identifying the key functions within the in-
   dustry.
•  Using readily available information to iden-
   tify some of the alternatives that can be
   used to accomplish those functions.

   The first step—identifying  key functions—is
simple if the industry has only one primary
process  (e.g., the primary process of drycleaning
is to clean clothes). Many industrial processes
are relatively complex, however, involving
many processes, subprocesses, and functions
(e.g., printing,  see Figure 2-4). In such cases, a
use cluster  profile typically identifies each proc-
ess and  breaks it down into its component
functions.
   The second step—identifying some alterna-
tives—constitutes the project's first pass at
                                          SCOPING
                                          21

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 Figure 2-3
 Use Cluster for  Paint Stripping in  Maintenance
                                           Paint
                                        Stripping in
                                       Maintenance

USE CLUSTER




                                     ft I
                                     1 I
 N-Methyl       Methylene
Pyrollidone       Chloride      Sandblasting
  Solvent          Solvent
                                                             Plastic
                                                             Pellet
                                                            Blasting
                                   Use of a
                                 Paint-Free
                                   Surface
establishing use clusters. The project partners
use readily available information to identify al-
ternatives that may be used to perform some or
all of the functions they identified. Industry rep-
resentatives often are quite familiar with most
of the alternatives. Although these initial use
clusters may be incomplete (e.g., they may lack
some less conventional alternatives), they do
provide the project partners with  a basis for
deciding where the greatest opportunities for
environmental improvement may lie—an impor-
tant consideration when selecting the project
focus (see Selecting the Project Focus, below).
Once the project partners have chosen a use
duster as a focus for the project, they can col-
lect additional information about alternatives.
   The Printing Industry and Use  Cluster Profile
(EPA, 1994c), developed by the DfE Printing
Project, provides an example of how a more
complex industry  can be profiled. As illustrated
      in Figure 2-4, printing use clusters were identi-
      fied in five steps:

      •  Printing was divided into six general proc-
         ess categories: lithography, gravure,
         flexography, letterpress, plateless, and
         screen printing processes.
      •  Major subprocesses were identified. Four of
         the six printing processes had subprocesses.
      •  Process flow diagrams were constructed to
         show the operational steps involved in each
         process or subprocess.
      •  The functions associated with each process
         step were identified.
      •  The chemicals used to perform each func-
         tion were listed. Each set of competing
         chemicals potentially capable of performing
         a particular function constituted a use cluster.
22
SCOPING

-------
                     DfE; Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
   Figure 2-4 shows the process flow diagram
developed for screen printing and lists the
functions and alternatives for the screen recla-
mation subprocess.
   The printing profile is an example of a rela-
tively comprehensive industry and use duster
profile because it describes an entire industry
that involves many processes and subprocesses,
each of which entails several steps, functions,
and use clusters. Less comprehensive, more in-
formal profiles may be performed for projects
that focus on a particular segment of the indus-
try (e.g., screen printing only) or when the
industry involves fewer processes (as with dry-
cleaning, for example [EPA, 1995b]).
   Compiling the industry and use cluster profile
is usually one of the first tasks that stakeholders
perform together in a DfE project. A profile can
be prepared from published information; it gen-
erally will not require original research or
industry surveys. Industry stakeholders usually
are an important source of the most up-to-date
information on the industry structure, proc-
esses, and trends. Table 2-2 lists the informa-
tion typically included in an industry and use
cluster profile.
SELECTING THE PROJECT
FOCUS
      Each use cluster constitutes an area where
      the risk, cost, and performance tradeoffs
      of alternatives can be evaluated and com-
pared. For practical reasons, DfE stakeholders
Table 2-2
Information Typically Included  in an  Industry and Use Cluster Profile
     Number and geographic distribution of businesses by size and function.

  upvalue of shipments, international trade, and industry outlook.

     Volume of output and percentage of total market

     Number and relative size of businesses.

     Technology trends.

     Definition of key industry process areas.

     For each process area:
     •  A breakdown of the process into subprocesses, operational steps, and functions
        (use cluster areas).
     •  Existing and emerging chemical products, technologies, and/or processes used
        within each step.
     •  Alternatives for each step.
     •  Volume  of output and percentage of total market.
     •  Number and relative size of businesses.
     •  Technology trends.
                                           SCOPING
                                                                                         23

-------
                    DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
                                    _
                                    o .2
                                   I  s s
                                   ^J^0-

1
•S
•3
U

OJ
V»
wj




ro
£
JS
 v.
2 £ » |
s s SD
•5 o •£• y •*-
is H- X *C u.

^^™tt t^
T
"5 »V ""
>
o * ,
£—-.*?**
_ ,, s» fc '.:
                                                                  2 c
                                                                        !»•»„(
                                                                 ^
                                   N
                                   TO
                                      O Ol
                                            O^ *£
                                            c
             »?
                                   •°^5-g>Br
US-f-EtJ
?" sT +3 +-> M jl,^„
JZ  QJ r«T 53 jy ^W^**
O. 1/3   W F> s*»*^~
   2,  - in >; Vff
   CT) w> .
                                          0. -C

                                          fei"
                                          en XH.

                                          er

                                         ?*

                                         i-s
                                          f? en
                                         •- Ji
                                         3 -S
                                          3 TO
                                         a. o_



                                         -I
                                           S3.
                                           2
                                           en
                                           o
                       j i
            ^ A U A


            I  '    g1
                           W


                          | at
                 ffi

                I  I
                 •  S"
                  a
                          I 111 |
                          ,_ 'c 01 "s ^
                           o
                                          ' k
              k.  h- •»-• *••
            v 'C  cn-JS 2

            ** °-  3 g.6 a>
                             
-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
generally choose one of these use clusters as the
focal point for the project's technical work.
When the technical analysis of this use cluster
is complete, the project team can decide
whether to extend the project to investigate
other use clusters.
    A systematic approach to selecting the  focal
use cluster is to rank the use clusters identified
in the industry and use cluster profile according
to their overall importance. The "most important"
use cluster can serve as the initial technical
focus, while other high-ranked clusters remain
candidates for future analysis.
    "Importance" is based on the overall impact
the project results are likely to have. Several
factors contribute to the potential impact of
focusing on one use  cluster versus another. The
following considerations can be helpful in  rank-
ing use clusters:

n®" Which  use  clusters are of greatest
    interest to  industry?
    A project's impact will be directly related to
the industry's motivation to develop and apply
the project results. One factor influencing indus-
try's interest in a use cluster will likely be the
perceived economic benefits the industry antici-
pates it might gain from using nontraditional
 alternatives. Industry also may be interested in
 areas where the use of alternatives might signifi-
 cantly facilitate regulatory compliance. An
 open meeting (see below) can be an excellent
 forum  for getting input on which use clusters
 the industry views as most important.
     Which use clusters are of greatest
     interest to other stakeholders?
     The interest of the nonindustry partners in
 the use cluster will be an important factor
motivating their participation. The perceived
degree of risk associated with a use cluster (see
below) will likely be one of the important
factors.
    How high is the risk associated with
    current practice?
    "High risk" use clusters (e.g., those that
involve high levels of exposure to very toxic
chemicals) may offer a greater potential for
significant human health and environmental
risk reduction. To rank use clusters according
to risk, the DfE printing project made use of the
Use Clusters Scoring System developed by the
Chemical Engineering Branch of OPPT's Eco-
nomics, Exposure and Technology Division
(EPA, 1993a).3
    Is the use cluster functional area tied to
    process steps outside the use cluster?
    If so, the project's technical work may need
to evaluate not only the use cluster alternatives,
but also the risk, performance, and cost tradeoffs
of the related changes in the linked process
steps that would be associated with the use of
each alternative. A linked use cluster therefore
may require a greater level of effort than a non-
linked use cluster.
    Are there identifiable alternatives for the
    traditional  products and/or technologies
    that currently compose the use cluster?
    The purpose of the project's technical work
 is to develop and provide information to users
 on lower-risk alternatives. Therefore, use clus-
 ters with identifiable alternatives are preferable
 candidates for a DfE project.4 In some cases,
 a pilot demonstration of a novel alternative's
 technical and/or economic viability may be
 3The Use Clusters Scoring System (UCSS) is a PC-based relational database system that ranks use clusters based on readily
 available information about hazard and exposure for the individual chemicals within each use cluster.
 ''Theoretically, a DfE project could be conducted for areas where no alternatives apparently exist, if research and develop-
 ment were first conducted to identify alternatives. Such a project, however, would likely require some years to complete
 the research and development phase. Stakeholders probably will be more enthusiastic about working on a project that can
 produce more immediate results.
                                              SCOPING
                                                                                                25

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 necessary during scoping to convince key
 stakeholders that there is sufficient basis for in-
 cluding that alternative in a DfE project. In the
 Drycleaning Project, for example, a successful
 2-week pilot demonstration of wetcleaning, a
 novel alternative to drycleaning (see Chapter 9),
 was instrumental in attracting industry to the
 project team.
    Will suppliers be willing to provide
    information on the alternatives within
    the use cluster?
    The cooperation of suppliers in providing
 information on and samples of products and
 technologies will be essential to the project's
 success.
    How large a segment of the industry
    performs the function associated with
    the use cluster?
    A project's potential impact is directly re-
 lated to the size of the industry segment that
 could use the alternatives evaluated by the
 project
    How readily can the industry segment
    that performs the use cluster function
    obtain information  on the performance,
    cost and risk tradeoffs of alternatives
    without participating in a DfE project?
    Larger businesses, for example, tend to have
greater resources and motivation to identify
and compare alternatives. A DfE project may
therefore choose to focus on a use cluster that
is of clear interest to small businesses, which
may not be able to obtain this type of compara-
tive information from their own efforts or from
other sources. Ideally, a use cluster will be of in-
terest to both small and large businesses since
the support of large  businesses often is critical
to project success.
   " To what extent might the functional area
    change in the future?
    A project's impact depends, in part, on how
 long its results will be useful. Use clusters for
 functional areas that may become obsolete in
 the foreseeable future due to technological
 changes within the industry may not be optimal
 candidates for DfE project focus.
    Will any current or planned activities by
    other groups produce similar information?
    If a use cluster is being covered by a sepa-
 rate activity, potential project partners may
 choose not to initiate a project in that area or
 may use their resources to supplement the ongo-
 ing activity.
SOLICITING INPUT FROM

STAKEHOLDER SECTORS

       Once some headway has been made in
       developing an information base and
       identifying key players, the scoping
team may decide to hold an open meeting at
which any interested organizations and indi-
viduals can learn about the potential DfE
project, offer ideas and feedback, and indicate
their interest in joining the project team.
    Broadly publicizing the meeting among
all potential stakeholder groups-particularly
industry-will help ensure good representation.
Open meetings can be publicized in the trade
press, and trade associations can mail meeting
announcements to their members. An open
meeting:

•   Establishes a spirit of openness and
    fairness for the project
•   Educates potential partners about the pro-
   ject and offers them a chance to join.
•   Gives all parties a chance to air any con-
    cerns. A project will be more likely to
26
                                         SCOPING

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
   succeed if concerns are identified and con-
   sidered before the project is under way.
•  Publicizes the potential project in the user
   community, which helps build a constitu-
   ency of interested user community
   members, who ultimately will use the pro-
   ject information to make changes in their
   operations.
•  Helps develop a network of suppliers and fa-
   cilities that may be willing to participate in
   the performance demonstration parts of the
   project (see  Chapter 4).
   Topics appropriate for an open meeting
include:
•  Explaining the purpose and process of a
   DfE project.
•  Inviting participants to join the project
   team.
•   Soliciting ideas on potential areas of focus
    for the project.
•   Soliciting ideas for communicating project,
    progress and results.
•  Presenting preliminary results of the regula-
    tory profile and the industry and use cluster
    profiles.
•  Providing information on current
   regulatory initiatives and access to
   representatives of those efforts.

   One difficulty with an open meeting is that
some stakeholders may not be able to afford the
transportation costs to attend. If so, another
stakeholder group may be willing to pay the
transportation costs (e.g., a trade association
may support attendance by a key environ-
mental group); a provision can be made for
including the absent stakeholder's views and in-
forming the stakeholder about the meeting's
outcome; or, in some cases, participants may be
able to participate via conference call.
TAKING THE NEXT  STEPS

      Scoping identifies potential partners and
      provides a mechanism for testing their
      attitude and commitment. The scoping
phase draws to a close once a representative set
of potential project partners has indicated a de-
sire to work on a DfE project and has compiled
sufficient information to decide what they want
to work on. The next step is to formally launch
the project by convening the project team
(Chapter 3).
                                           SCOPING
                                                                                          27

-------

-------
                            C HAP  T E  R
                               Convening
                             the  Project
                                            Team
The project team is the heart of a DfE project. Project team members plan and manage
the project and perform much of the work. A project team builds during scoping as
stakeholder organizations and representatives express a strong interest in the project
and start contributing to scoping efforts. As scoping successfully recruits additional
stakeholders, the embryonic team expands and evolves into a full-fledged project team
with sufficient representation, resources, motivation, and commitment to undertake a
DfE project (Figure 3-1). At this stage, team members formally convene to define the pro-
ject goal(s), develop an organizational structure, and beg in work. The team may acquire
additional members over time if new organizations express an interest in the project
after it is under way.
                                                         29

-------
                        DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
                                	—
                                  01
                                                                     I
      CO
      E

     £

      E
      CO
      o
      OJ
                                                          c.- a.:o>
          » |U ,,'imi!! •-: ,v;!' •„!' ; 	"lit,- .,,i»

          "• ,	>„'>,' ™1111"i11!lil": '«	iLiiiil' -	[	
          (. )•	« •	ii :>	r><:i	i	iiii!	l|l::l"w
          ,	i,«: i";	I,"T	 rn  /".iii,
                                                                   •   •
         	•	I.	i	3
   I
  PI

                       cn
                  '   ..-  c;
           	•	-	~-•

             :" '»  01

                  E .5
           I'llt^^rl*  X_
                    3
                  h- Q
     CD
     CO
30
CONVENING THE PROJECT TEAM

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Convening the project team enables team
members and partner organizations to formally
declare the start of the project and to publicly
announce their involvement. Also, establishing
the official start point helps assuage concerns
about inclusion by members who joined the
team during the latter stages of scoping.
    The composition of the project team is criti-
cal to project success. Adequate representation
from industry, public interest groups, and other
important stakeholder sectors is important to en-
sure the quality, credibility, and utility of the
project's technical results and to provide  a solid
foundation for long-term, continuous environ-
mental improvement in the industry.
    Typical responsibilities of DfE project team
members include  attending team meetings, plan-
ning the work, promoting the project within
their organizations, managing any aspects of
the project work assigned to their organization,
publicizing the project by speaking at meetings
and conferences,  and networking among their
contacts to recruit support and funding as
needed to perform the work. DfE project team
members often receive substantial positive visi-
bility among their peers within their stakeholder
community.
    The first formal team meeting has three
main purposes:
•  To confirm team members' commitment to
    participate in the project.
•  To achieve consensus on the project scope
    and goal(s).
•  To begin developing the management and
    organizational foundation for performing
    the work.
DEFINING THE PROJECT GOALS

      Clearly defined goals provide a project
      focus and destination. They help orient
      and coordinate team efforts. Also, clear
goals ensure that project partners understand
what they are committing to. The process of
developing goals helps illuminate and resolve
areas of confusion or controversy before  the
project gets under way. Factors to consider
when defining goals include:
•   The anticipated value of the results (see
    section on Selecting the Project Focus in
    Chapter 2).
•   The resources available to the work group.
    (Goals that are too ambitious will tax the
    project resources and likely cause the pro-
    ject to fail.)
•   A project pace, or schedule, that is realistic
    in terms of the level of effort that project
    partners can contribute, and will produce
    outcomes in a sufficiently timely fashion to
    be of value to the  industry. For example,
    businesses in a rapidly changing industry
    will need results in a relatively short  period
    of time to ensure that the information does
    not quickly become obsolete.
•   An industry's willingness to change.  For ex-
    ample, some industries just beginning to
    consider environmental change may  prefer
    less ambitious goals or a slower pace with
    more educational activities.
•   The concerns of nonindustry partners. For
    example, partners from the public interest
    sector may bring to the table a valuable
    perspective on risk that differs from the
    perspective of the industry and government
    partners.
    Discussions about project goals often begin
during scoping as potential project partners be-
come informed about the industry and its use
clusters. The first formal project meeting pro-
vides an opportunity to confirm any implied
                                CONVENING THE PROJECT TEAM
                                          31

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 consensus that may exist about the project's
 goals, to resolve any disagreements or misun-
 derstandings, and to make modifications based
 on input from recent team members.
 DEVELOPING AN

 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

      Figure 3-2 shows an organizational structure
      for DfE projects. This structure includes
      three work groups responsible for the tech-
 nical, communication, and implementation
 components of the project1 and a core group to
 manage and coordinate the project as a whole.
This structure provides a means to distribute the
work among a variety of individuals according to
their skills and interests. For example, the kind of
people who want to work on technical issues may
likely be different from those who want to work
 on communication. Distributing the work among
work groups reduces the workload for individual
participants and helps ensure representation of
different perspectives.

Work Groups
    The work group's roles and responsibilities
are described hi Chapters 4 through 7. To ensure
balanced stakeholder representation, each work
group typically has one industry cochair and one
or two additional cochairs from government
and/or a public interest group.

Core Group
    The core group consists of the work group co-
chairs, as well as any other individuals important
to the project (e.g., representatives of key stake-
holder organizations that are not already
represented by a work group chair). The core
                group resembles the board of directors of a non-
                profit organization. It is a decision-making
                body that:

                •   Establishes project goals.

                •   Defines the project's organizational struc-
                    ture.

                •   Develops the overall project plan, with
                    input from the work groups.

                •   Directs the overall project.

                •   Coordinates the work groups.

                •   Maintains project momentum.

                •   Publicizes the project (e.g., by speaking at
                    meetings).

                •   Recruits  participants and solicits funding as
                    necessary.

                •   Provides a forum to mediate differences.

                •   Assesses the overall success of the project.

                Project Manager(s)
                    The overall managers of a DfE project are
                the persons who chair the core group. A project
                may have only one core group chair—usually
                from a nonindustry sector. Or, a project may
                have two or  three cochairs—one industry repre-
                sentative and one or two representatives from
                nonindustry sectors.
                    Because  of the collaborative nature of a DfE
                project, the managers function primarily as
                facilitators and motivators who help the team
                achieve its goals efficiently and effectively, and
                as negotiators who identify and work to con-
                structively resolve any problems that may arise.
                The best DfE project managers are enthusiastic,
                entrepreneurial, and openminded; they also
                have strong interpersonal, marketing, political,
                and problem-solving skills.
 In some projects, the core group and/or the communication work group perform the implementation activities, in which
case there may be no need for a separate implementation work group (see Chapter 6).
32
CONVENING THE PROJECT TEAM

-------
                  DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Figure 3-2
Typical  DfE Project Organization
 = Cochair
   (each group may have
   two or three)
$

 = Work group member
                                  Core Group
                                                                     SJ#l
                                                Member Organization
                                                Advisory Committees '
                                                      (Optional)
  t^iv
     *=  Personnel resources
        potentially available to
        DfE project team
 Technical
Work Group
                                Communication
                                  Work Group
                                                      implementation
                                                        Work Group
1

Stakeholder
Orqaniz.
ation
1
Interested
Parties
                      Resources
                                                                             If
                             CONVENING THE PROJECT TEAM
                                                                              33

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 Member Organization
 Advisory Committees
     Individual project team members may wish
 to form a project advisory committee within
 their organization. An advisory committee pro-
 vides a mechanism a team member can use to:
 •   Inform organization managers and decision-
     makers about the project goals, design,
     progress, and results.
 •   Become fully informed about the organiza-
     tion's interests and concerns in relation to
     the project, so that the representative can
     communicate these to the project team.

 Other Resources
     Each project team member may draw upon
 resources within his or her organization to
 perform the project work. For example, a trade
 association representative may utilize trade as-
 sociation staff to send out mailings, develop
 draft materials, collect industry data, etc. A gov-
 ernment representative may call upon risk
 specialists to contribute to the project's techni-
 cal work. A company representative may ask
 the company's technical staff to review project
 work and may solicit communication ideas
 from the marketing staff.
    Also; the work groups may draw upon re-
 sources available from other interested parties.
 For example, a supplier may provide chemical
 information and products for the project's per-
 formance evaluation; a user may agree to
 demonstrate alternative products at his or her
 facility.
    State technical assistance providers or small
 business development centers may have per-
 formed extensive work in a particular industry
 sector. They may be able to provide background
 information, facilitate contacts, or suggest ideas
 for possible case studies. Local assistance
 providers are also excellent conduits for getting
 project information into the hands of individual
 small businesses.
    Environmentally conscious industry practi-
 tioners can be valuable resources for a DfE
 project. Such individuals often have been work-
 ing within their company and with other
 industry practitioners to explore and implement
 environmentally sound business practices.
 These individuals can contribute useful ideas to
 a DfE project and champion the project among
 local practitioners. Recruiting such individuals
 to participate as team members or interested
 parties  may be a good investment in the pro-
 ject's success.
 COMMUNICATION

       Each group will need to determine a sched-
       ule for meeting. A predetermined
       meeting schedule is important to keep
 the project moving and to enable participants
 to plan for the necessary time commitment.
 Some groups may meet regularly (e.g., monthly
 or quarterly), while others may meet as needed.
 While face-to-face meetings are desirable,
 groups can also meet regularly via conference
 calls when distance and travel fund restrictions
 prevent in-person meetings.
    Communication between the core group
 and the work groups and among the work
 groups is important for effective project man-
 agement and coordination. Also, it contributes
 to project momentum by giving individual
 work group members a sense of the overall proj-
 ect accomplishments. Responsibility for
 communication between the core group and
 work groups typically resides with the work
 group cochairs, as they belong to both. Internal
 communication can also  be facilitated by hold-
ing periodic meetings or conference calls
between the core group and one or more work
groups and by distributing meeting minutes or
a project newsletter.
34
                               CONVENING THE PROJECT TEAM

-------
                     Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
OPERATING  PRINCIPLES

       One way to help ensure constructive
       team dynamics during the project is to
       have the team formulate a set of guid-
ing principles or process considerations that all
team members agree to follow. These principles
may address, for example, the type of interac-
tion expected (e.g., cooperative, constructive),
the type of commitment expected, and ground
rules for using project information and sharing
it with the press and other outside parties. Table
3-1 shows the draft process considerations
developed by the team members for the DfE
Printed Wiring Board Project. For each project,
DfE team members should develop their own
unique set of principles that they feel will be
most effective for ensuring  a constructive
team process within their particular project
circumstances.
DEVELOPING  A PROJECT PLAN

       Good planning is key to the efficiency
       and success of any project. DfE projects
       will benefit if the project team takes
time at the beginning to systematicaUy plan its
activities. Planning elements may include those
already discussed-project goals, organizational
structure, roles and responsibilities of the work
groups and core group, and internal communi-
cation—as well as tasks, schedules, outcomes,
and performance measures for each work group.
    One factor to consider when planning and
scheduling project activities is their importance
in maintaining project presence and momen-
tum. A perception of activity and progress is a
key factor that keeps team members available,
committed, and engaged and that  attracts inter-
est and contributions from people  who are not
part of the project team.
Table 3-1
Draft Process Considerations for the DfE Printed Wiring  Board  Project
     Commitment to Project Goals and Process
     •  Project participants commit to working cooperatively toward our common goals of identifying and
        evaluating alternative technologies for printed wiring board (PWB) manufacturing, disseminating
        the information to the PWB industry and other interested parties, and promoting voluntary
        implementation of environmentally beneficial and economically feasible alternatives by PWB
        manufacturers.
     •  To the extent possible, project participants commit themselves and their organizations to regular
        and continuous participation in the project

     Exchange and Use of Project Information
     •  Project participants will use discretion, fairness, restraint, and good faith in publicly sharing data
        and other information and in discussing DfE work with outside interested parties. In particular,
        participants will encourage candid exchange of information and free expression of opinion during
        working sessions by clearly recognizing and acknowledging that information provided and
        opinions expressed at those times are offered solely for the benefit of the DfE project and to
        strengthen the collective work of the project team.
     •  In any communications with the press, project participants will strive to affirm the cooperative
        spirit of the project, avoid  negative statements about fellow participants, and refrain from
        attributing individual  comments or statements of opinion to individual participants or their
        affiliation.
                                 CONVENING THE PROJECT TEAM
                                                                                           35

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     Some team members, particularly those
 from public interest groups, may encounter dif-
 ficulty participating in the project as fully as
 they would like due to their organizations'
 resource limitations. In such cases, the project
 team will need to find creative ways to support
 their participation.
     The core group members also will need to
 consider whether to obtain data on standard in-
 dustry practice at the  beginning  of the DfE
 project so that they will have a baseline against
 which to measure the  impact and success of the
 project as it nears completion (see Chapter 7).
 PERFORMANCE MEASURES

       Every DfE project involves many different
       activities and outputs along the path to
       achieving the overall project goal(s). Per-
 formance measures for project activities and
 outputs are an important management tool
 because they:

 •  Serve as interim objectives that team mem-
    bers can use to orient, focus, motivate, and
    coordinate their work.
 •  Provide yardsticks for measuring, document-
    ing, and ensuring incremental success
    toward accomplishing the overall project
    goal(s).
 •  Help team members justify their involve-
    ment on the project to their organizations.
 •  Provide markers for defining completion of
    DfE project activities.

    Performance measurement is the concern of
 all project groups. Each work group will need  to
 track its own performance to obtain feedback
 on whether its planned approach is sound or
 whether midcourse corrections might be
needed. The core group will need information
on the performance of all work groups to assess
the success of the project as a whole. Therefore,
at the outset of each project, the core group and
each work group will need to determine its re-
spective role and responsibilities for defining
performance measures for the work group,
monitoring performance, communicating per-
formance information, and restrategizing, as
necessary, to improve performance.
    Table 3-2 lists some examples of ways to
measure the performance of activities culminat-
ing in project team formation. Performance
measures for the technical, communication, and
implementation parts of a DfE project are pro-
vided in Chapters 4 through 6.

Table 3-2
Example Performance  Measures
for Project Team Formation
  1 Partner organizations and individuals
   commit sufficient resources to conduct
   and complete the project
   Team members achieve consensus (e.g.,
   on the scope and goals of the project).
   Key stakeholders have been identified and
   approached to be on the project team.
   A representative selection of stakeholders
   have joined the team.
   Team members share ownership of the
   project
   Team members are enthusiastic about the
   project
   Team members promote the project
   within their organization and among their
   peers.
36
                               CONVENING THE PROJECT TEAM

-------
                              C  HAP T  E  R
                                Performing
                         the  Technical
                                              Work
A DfEproject's technical work aims to develop as complete and systematic a picture as
possible of the risk, cost, and performance tradeoffs associated with the traditional and
nontraditional (i.e., unusual, new, or novel) alternatives that make up the project's focal
use cluster. The technical work records and presents facts, but does not make value judg-
ments or advocate particular choices. DfE technical results are used to:
• Raise industry awareness about environ-
  mental risk management1 as an important
  decision parameter.
• Promote informed industry decisions.
Catalyze future efforts by suppliers, users,
and industry associations to compare the
risk, cost, and performance tradeoffs of
other alternatives and use clusters.
'The term risk management, as used in this publication, refers to management of health, safety, and environmental risks.
It does not include management of financial risk.
                                                           37

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    DfE technical work involves:

 •  Identifying traditional and nontraditional
    alternatives within the focal use cluster.
 •  Selecting alternatives for evaluation.
 •  Setting boundaries for evaluation.
 •  Evaluating the risk, performance, and cost
    tradeoffs of the selected alternatives.
 •  Assembling and documenting this informa-
    tion in the form of a Cleaner Technologies
    Substitutes Assessment (CTSA) document,
    which serves as a permanent record of the
    technical information and provides a basis
    for subsequent information products.

    The technical work includes a number of
 steps to gather, analyze, and document informa-
 tion. The credibility of the technical results  and
 their value as a long-term educational and
 evaluation tool will be enhanced by performing
 the technical work as openly as possible—for
 example, by publicizing the work, by giving in-
 terested parties a chance to contribute to and
 comment on the protocols and methodologies,
 and by allowing interested parties to observe
 performance evaluations of alternatives.
    Due to limitations of project resources and
 information availability, a DfE project will not
 be able to provide an exhaustive evaluation of
 all alternatives. Rather, a CTSA typically pro-
 vides comparative information on a subset of
 alternatives, as well as any additional pollution
 prevention information assembled during the
 technical work. In addition, the CTSA provides
 a comparative analytical framework that can be
 used to evaluate new alternatives at a later date.
    Technical work is planned and managed by
 the technical work group. Industry work group
 members, as well as suppliers and users, are
 primary sources of the industry information,
 products, technologies, and facilities needed for
 the technical work. Contributions of govern-
 ment, public interest, and research/education
work group members can include working with
                  industry stakeholders to develop performance
                  evaluation protocols, assembling hazard and ex-
                  posure information, and documenting the
                  technical results.
                  WHAT'S  INVOLVED-

                  AN  OVERVIEW

                  f • "ihe methodology for performing the tech-
                    I  nical work is described in detail in a
                   .A.  companion publication, Cleaner Technolo-
                  gies Substitutes Assessment: A Methodology
                  and Resource Guide (EPA, 1995a). This chapter
                  provides an overview of what is involved in per-
                  forming the technical work.
                      Figure 4-1 shows the basic steps. Technical
                  work begins with identifying  and selecting the
                  alternatives for which the project will develop
                  risk, performance, and cost information. Next,
                  the technical work group sets the boundaries
                  for the risk evaluation. For example, resource,
                  time, and/or information limitations will likely
                  prohibit a thorough analysis of all types of hu-
                  man and environmental risk that may be
                  associated with each of the various lifecycle
                  stages (from extraction of raw materials needed
                  to make the alternative to recycling or disposal)
                  connected with each alternative. Typically a
                  technical work group will decide to focus on
                  those areas  that have the greatest potential for
                  environmental improvement (see Setting
                  Boundaries for the Risk Evaluation, below).
                  Working within the specified project bounda-
                  ries, the technical work group then develops
                  information on the risk, performance, and cost
                  tradeoffs for the selected alternatives by gather-
                  ing data from a number of sources, developing
                  methodologies for data analysis, and then using
                  these methodologies to analyze the data. The
                  results of the technical work are published as a
                  CTSA document.
                     Figure 4-2 shows the information typically
                  included in a CTSA. Information is gathered
38
PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                   DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Figure 4-1
DfE Project Technical Work
               Identify Alternatives Within the Focal Use Cluster
           Select Subset of Alternatives for Evaluation (as Necessary)

                     ..""        '  '     I
                   Set the Boundaries for the Evaluation
                     " -  y  v  '~       i            T~r:    -
                                '"  ' 'V	-
                                                                       if
             Obtain Risk, Performance,
                   and Cost Data
             • Workplace Practices
              Questionnaire
             • Performance Evaluation
             • Industry Data
             • Literature
             • Databases
             • Experts
                                                4 "-,-«i<.#
                                                *S» gf—i, ! •>.)«
                       Develop Methodologies
                         for Data Analyses
                                   Analyze Data
                                                   '
 4
     •y?
    ^  , <  Develop CTSA
    * "  ^  • Prepare Draft
                                                                          V
    JiJ
          • Perform Peer Review  ' *,*
't,!,/-,  <<                       liC^J***. J"*,
     < x   • Publish Document

                           PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
                                                         39

-------
                    DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Figure 4-2
CTSA Information Flow
  DATA
                                                                 f k»
          H!J      4 Chemical ft Process Information
          	 „ .,,;,,!	J|j||||||ir	 i	i||n||| j,	'|||||||||jit                                           ,
          	"	•	:	:	:	iii!   Chemical Properties
                       Chemical Manufacturing Process £t Product Formulation
                       Environmental Fate Summary
                       Human  Health Hazards Summary
                       Environmental Hazards Summary
                       Chemistry of Use Efc Process Description
                       Process  Safety Assessment
                       Market  Information
                       International Information
           i";'.'Hi"!	L	Sfaffl	M£!R$!
   Risk
   • Workplace Practices £t
    Source Release Assessment
   • Exposure Assessment
   • Risk Characterization
tMDEOJ^^^^
j^ALUAtM"	"""'	"'"";.   ,   ^
          '.'•••• K'-S^'-'v Tradeoff Evaluation
                             \
                              Competitiveness
                              • Regulatory Status
                              • Performance Assessment
                              • Cost Analysis
:d Conservation
V • Energy Impacts
~.'; • Resource Conservation

  ADDITIO
  IMPROV||1|
  OppORTtlNltl"
                           Social Benefits/Cost Assessment
                           Choosing Between Alternatives
                                                           **?:
                      ™,«ilK	((rvHir1; , .V.'!'""'^!^.^.!!'!.!'!!'
                      KtSf"	,"'IP!'!:!!!	.lii;,,".,,"!!; i'"*»!,'«(''('*

                               Additional Improvement Opportunities

                               • Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment
                               • Control Technologies Assessment
                                   ,,,4,,	  	    	•jjS&'f^'f^'S'^^j;^
40
                         PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
from a variety of sources, including literature
and databases, surveys, DfE project partner or-
ganizations and other interested parties, and
performance demonstrations (Table 4-1).
   Expertise needed to develop and analyze
the information (including conducting surveys,
developing performance evaluation protocols,
and performing risk assessments) can be found
among partner organizations. The technical
work group can also draw upon expertise at
universities and research institutions to perform
various aspects of the technical work. For exam-
ple, conducting a comparative risk assessment
requires expertise in toxicology, environmental
fate and exposure, and risk assessment. This ex-
pertise is available within EPA and may also be
available within state agencies and at research
institutes and universities. Other interested par-
ties and those who attended any open meetings
held during the project's scoping phase may
Table 4-1
Some Information Sources for DfE
              represent an important source of ideas and ex-
              pertise for the technical work.
              IDENTIFYING AND  SELECTING
              ALTERNATIVES
              r • ^ihe use cluster selected as the project fo-
                •  cus may consist of competing chemical
               .M. products, technologies, and/or processes.
              One of the first steps in the technical work is to
              identify the traditional and nontraditional alter-
              natives that compose the use cluster.

              Identifying Traditional
              Alternatives
                 Traditional alternatives are particularly im-
              portant candidates for evaluation because they
           Project Technical Work3
 Information Source
 Industry Data Sources
 (Suppliers, Experts, Surveys, etc.)
 Industry and Use Cluster Profile^
 Workplace Practices Questionnaire
 Performance Tests and/or
 Demonstrations
 Chemical Information Literature,
 Databases, Experts
    Types of Information Obtained
      Chemical formulations of alternatives
      Cost data


      Market information                 ,  " „
      Number of workplace sites and workers in the industry
      Identification of alternatives     _„,,„>•,
      Amounts and types of environmental releases
      Occupational exposure data
      Chemical usage
      Pollution prevention opportunities
      Performance, information
      Cost information
      Physical/chemical properties of chemicals
      industrial synthesis
      Human health hazards
      Environmental hazards
      Environmental fate
      Regulatory status
      Market information
aThis is a partial list for illustrative purposes.
technical work.
EPA (1995a) provides a detailed discussion of information sources for DfE
                              PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
                                                       41

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
are often widely used and provide a baseline
against which to compare nontraditional alter-
natives. Traditional alternatives can also be
quite varied and have significantly different
costs and risks. Industry usually is the best
source of information on traditional alternatives.

Identifying Nontraditional
Alternatives
    Nontraditional alternatives, by definition,
are not mainstream products. Their existence is
not widely known, and some may not be com-
mercially available. Nontraditional alternatives
include:

•   New alternatives that have just entered the
    industry market or are under development.
•   Alternatives that are currently being used
    by a small segment of the industry.
•   Modifications and improvements to tradi-
    tional alternatives.
•   Products and technologies  routinely used
    by another industry that are being applied
    for the first time to the DfE project's target
    industry.
•   Products and technologies  routinely used
    within the industry for another purpose that
    may have application within the specified
    use cluster.

    Nontraditional alternatives may be identi-
fied or developed by industry, research
institutes, universities, or individual entrepre-
neurs. Some nontraditional alternatives may
already be in use in other countries.
    All stakeholder groups are potential sources
of information about nontraditional alternatives.
Suppliers or trade research facilities may be devel-
oping new alternatives. Trade associations may
be aware of cutting-edge developments. Public in-
terest groups concerned about risk may have
independently searched for lower-risk options.
                      Project partner organizations and other in-
                  terested parties can be important sources of
                  information. In addition, outreach beyond these
                  two groups usually is necessary to ferret out
                  potentially viable alternatives not yet known to
                  the core DfE community. Outreach may be con-
                  ducted by word of mouth (e.g., work group
                  members can network among their personal
                  contacts to try to uncover options), through an-
                  nouncements at industiy meetings, by mailings
                  to industry members, and through articles and
                  announcements in the trade press. Suppliers
                  who are developing new alternatives that seek
                  to address environmental issues may be particu-
                  larly interested in participating in a DfE project
                  to validate their claims. Trade show participant
                  lists can be a good source of innovative suppli-
                  ers. Some flexibility in the project's technical
                  work may be important to incorporate interest-
                  ing alternatives that come to light later in the
                  project.

                  Selecting  Alternatives
                      Once several alternatives have been identi-
                  fied, the technical work group decides which
                  alternatives to evaluate. Traditional alternatives
                  usually are selected for evaluation because they
                  are widely used and provide a baseline against
                  which to compare the risk, performance, and
                  cost of nontraditional alternatives. Factors to
                  consider when selecting nontraditional alterna-
                  tives include:

                  •   Potential for  reducing risk. Alternatives that
                      appear to have significant potential  for re-
                      ducing risk may be selected over those that
                      show less potential.
                  •   Ease of obtaining information about and
                      samples of the alternative (see Obtaining In-
                     formation on and Samples of Alternatives,
                      below).
                  •   Cost associated with evaluating the alterna-
                      tive relative to other alternatives.
42
PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
•   Whether implementing the alternative
    would require changes in process steps out-
    side the use cluster that would also have to
    be evaluated in a CTSA.
•   How broadly the alternative is or could be
    used. Alternatives applicable to only a  small
    portion of the industry will likely not be as
    important as others that can be broadly
    used.
•   Viability of the alternative. Alternatives
    that are in very early stages of development
    or that appear not to be viable due to poor
    performance, very high costs, or difficulties
    in meeting current or anticipated regula-
    tions may be excluded from the evaluations.

    Where appropriate, a pilot demonstration
can be conducted to obtain preliminary data on
the viability of key alternatives. This can be par-
ticularly appropriate if the project is considering
focusing  its resources on only one or a very small
number of alternatives, hi that case, the technical
work group may wish to have some early assur-
ance that these alternatives have the potential to
reduce risk while comparing favorably or
equally to traditional alternatives in terms of
performance or cost. A pilot demonstration was
the approach taken by the DfE Drycleaning
Project, which compared one nontraditional al-
ternative to  one traditional alternative (see
Chapter 9).
SETTING BOUNDARIES  FOR
THE RISK  EVALUATION
^T^he technical work is a comparison of the
  I  risks associated with using the various al-
 -M_ ternatives within the use cluster. For each
alternative, a variety of risks may be associated
with any stage of the alternative's life cycle (see
Figure 4-3). A thorough evaluation of all risks
associated with all lifecycle stages of each
alternative, though theoretically desirable, will
likely be impossible within the constraints of
the project budget and schedule. Instead, mem-
bers of the technical work group use the
information available to them at this stage to
focus the risk evaluation on those areas likely
to provide the greatest opportunities for envi-
ronmental improvement. As described below,
this involves identifying those areas where the
greatest risk reduction opportunities lie and
where the project can most likely influence in-
stitutional or behavioral change to reduce risk.

Lifecycle Boundaries
    Any product may have environmental,
health, and safety impacts at any stage of its .
life cycle—from the extraction and processing
of raw materials used to make the product, to
the manufacture and transport of the product,
to its use, recycling, and disposal.  At this stage
of the technical work, the work group examines
the lifecycle stages of the selected alternatives
and considers which stages may have the great-
est risks. The work group then sets lifecycle
boundaries for the risk evaluation, as appropri-
ate, depending upon the available resources in
relation to the perceived risk concerns. For ex-
ample, the DfE Printing Project team chose to
focus their risk evaluation on the commercial
use stage. Questions that may be useful in set-
ting lifecycle boundaries for the evaluation
include:

•   Are the natural resources used to manufac-
    ture the alternatives in abundant supply?
    Depletion of a scarce natural resource con-
    stitutes a serious environmental concern. If
    availability of the alternatives  depends
    upon scarce natural resources, then a DfE
    project may wish to focus on evaluating the
    upstream environmental impacts (i.e., ex-
    traction and processing of raw materials),
    including the social benefits and costs, asso-
    ciated with the alternatives.
                              PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
                                          43

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement

   CO
    CD
    C
    CO
    CO
   'o

co
4
    OJ
44
PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 •  Does the manufacture of alternatives rely
    on natural resources found only in low con-
    centrations prior to extraction? Extraction
    and processing of raw materials that occur
    in low concentrations in the environment
    can have substantial environmental impact.
    For example, metals that are found in low
    concentrations in their ores typically re-
    quire more mining and processing and
    generate more mill tailings than those
    found in high concentrations.

 •  Is use of the final product produced by the
    alternatives likely to pose a health or safety
    risk to consumers? If so, consumer use can
    be an important factor to include in the risk
    evaluation.

 •  Is disposal of the final product produced by
    the alternatives likely to have environ-
    mental impacts? If so, consumer disposal
    may be important to evaluate.

 Risk Boundaries
    At any stage of its life cycle, an alternative
may pose one or more risks to varying degrees
(see Figure 4-3):
•  A health or safety risk to workers involved
    in resource extraction or product manufac-
    turing, transportation, use, or recycling/
    disposal.
•  A health or safety risk to populations in
    surrounding locations where extraction,
    manufacturing, transportation, use, or
    recycling/disposal is taking place.
•  A health or safety risk to product
    consumers.
•  An ecological risk.
•  Risks and social costs associated with use of
    energy and natural resources.

    For each lifecycle stage of interest, a DfE
project may  evaluate  one, several, or all of
these risks. Information gathered during earlier
stages of the project may suggest that certain
risks are more significant than others. If so, the
technical work group may decide to restrict the
evaluation to the most significant risks.

Boundaries Associated With the
Ability To  Influence Change
    The ability to influence change is an impor-
tant factor to consider when setting boundaries
for the technical evaluation. Project resources
will be most effectively utilized if they are fo-
cused on those risk and lifecycle areas where
the project is likely to have the greatest influ-
ence toward reducing risk. Considerations
include:

•   What actors in the product's life cycle are
    represented on the project team? Team
    members have  a vested interest in the pro-
    ject outcome and an implicit commitment
    to work within their sector to influence
    change. Suppliers, for example, can work to
    improve the environmental attributes of
    their products.  Consumer groups can work
    to educate consumers about reducing health
    and environmental risks associated with
    product use and disposal. If members of the
    technical work group determine that there
    is a significant risk associated with a life-
    cycle stage (e.g., extraction of raw materi-
    als) that is not represented on the project
    team, then they may, if possible, wish to
    recruit a representative stakeholder from
    this lifecycle stage to join the team.

•   How large  an overall market share for the
    alternatives under consideration does the
    use cluster functional area constitute? If the
    alternatives under consideration are also
    used by other industries for completely dif-
    ferent functions, then the manufacturers of
    the alternatives  are unlikely to make changes
    based on the DfE project results—especially
    if the functional area  of interest to the DfE
                              PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
                                                                                         45

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
   project constitutes a relatively small share
   of the overall market for the alternatives.
OBTAINING INFORMATION
ON AND SAMPLES OF
ALTERNATIVES
PTPlo evaluate alternatives, the technical
  I  work group members will need informa-
 JL. tion. If they plan to conduct
performance demonstrations, they will also
need samples of alternatives:
•  If the alternative is a chemical used in a
   process, the technical work group will need
   information on its formulation, on the vol-
   ume of chemical typically used during
   application, and on its cost in order to
   evaluate the risk and cost parameters. Sam-
   ples of the chemical, as well as a material
   safety data sheet (MSDS), will be needed for
   the performance demonstration.
•  If the alternative is a technology, one or
   more complete sets of the equipment will be
   needed for the performance demonstrations.
   Also, the technical work group may need
   information on how to operate the technol-
   ogy if the staff of the evaluation facilities
   have no experience with it. Where feasible,
   the technical work group may arrange for
   the tests or demonstrations to be performed
   in facilities that already are using the alter-
   native technologies. This approach reduces
   the variability associated with using newly
   trained operators and avoids the need to ob-
   tain, transport, and install equipment.
   Industry suppliers usually are the primary
source of information on traditional alternatives.
Information on nontraditional alternatives must
be provided by the organization or individual that
developed the alternative.
                    Suppliers generally have two concerns
                 about releasing the necessary information. First,
                 developing the human health and environ-
                 mental risk data typically requires complete
                 information about a product's formulation, and
                 suppliers are understandably reluctant to reveal
                 such proprietary information. Second, suppliers
                 may be concerned that a specific product may
                 not demonstrate as well as others, which would
                 harm their reputations. Those concerns can be
                 addressed  by creating a system that ensures
                 confidentiality of the data and that separates
                 the data from the trade name or the manufac-
                 turer. To protect proprietary information, a
                 project partner can sign confidentiality agree-
                 ments with participants, or the project can use
                 the confidential business information (CBI)
                 process in the Toxic Substances Control Act
                 (TSCA). For anonymity, a neutral individual
                 (e.g., a representative of a trade association)
                 may be assigned to receive and code informa-
                 tion on the alternatives to be demonstrated.
                 This person can also sign confidentiality agree-
                 ments with participants. In addition, each
                 product and generic formulation can be given a
                 code name so that it will not be linked with  any
                 single manufacturer. Neither the DfE project
                 staff nor the demonstration facility personnel
                 need to know the origins of the alternatives.
                 Code names are used when documenting the re-
                 sults in the CTSA and other project publications
                 so that users will not associate any particular al-
                 ternative with a particular supplier. Coding the
                 results also helps the DfE project avoid the
                 appearance of advocating any particular alter-
                 native or supplier. This is important since the
                 purpose of a DfE project is not to make  specific
                 recommendations but rather to encourage the
                 user community to make informed decisions.
                     Outreach generally is required to inform
                 suppliers and developers of alternatives about
                 what information is needed, why it is needed,
                 how it will be used, and how participation
                 in the project may benefit them. Suppliers'
46
PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                      DfE: Builditig Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
responses to requests from the DfE technical
work group for information and samples may
range from enthusiasm to reluctance to refusal.
As the project develops momentum, people who
were initially reluctant may change their minds.
It is important, where possible, to stay flexible
and allow people to come on board when they
feel comfortable in doing so.
    Several benefits may accrue to suppliers
who participate:
•  Participating suppliers will receive informa-
    tion from a neutral partnership regarding
    the relative risk, performance, and cost
    evaluations of their alternative as it relates
    to other products. They are free to use the
    results for their own marketing purposes.
•  Participating suppliers can publicize their
    involvement with the project, which helps
    them project an image of "environmental
    friendliness" within the industry and to
    their customers.
•  Participating suppliers often get significant
    positive visibility within their industry as a
    result of their participation. They are recog-
    nized as  project contributors in publicity
    about the project and may be asked to
    speak about their participation at various in-
    dustry events.  The trade press may run
    positive articles about the project that recog-
    nize suppliers  for their contributions.
. •  The risk information generated by participa-
    tion in the project may contribute to
    achieving corporate product stewardship
    goals. (Product stewardship is the concept
    of corporate responsibility for reducing the
    health, safety,  and environmental risks
    throughout all of the product's lifecycle
    stages.)
 •  Thinking about risk in a multimedia, life-
    cycle context may help suppliers plan ahead
    of the regulatory curve in developing new
    products or processes.
WORKPLACE PRACTICES
QUESTIONNAIRE

r m ^ihe technical work group will need infor-
  1  mation on standard work practices of
 JL user businesses to estimate worker expo-
sure to chemicals and costs associated with
baseline procedures and to consider what im-
provements in work practices may help reduce
risk. This information also may be a valuable
source of baseline data for the final project
evaluation (see Chapter 7). Obtaining this kind
of information often will require surveying
users to obtain:

•   Current information on workplace practices
    associated with the use cluster function
    (e.g., equipment and materials used, how
    procedures are performed, how often they
    are performed, the volume and type of
    wastes generated, and the recycling and
    disposal methods used).
•   Practical pollution prevention ideas (includ-
    ing both work practices and technologies)
    being developed and applied by the user
    community.

    Trade association partners usually take the
lead in developing a workplace practices ques-
tionnaire, distributing it to representative
members, and collecting and tabulating the
data. Companies filling out the questionnaire
may need assurance of anonymity to assuage
fears that divulging information on workplace
practices may invite enforcement scrutiny.
Questionnaires that are simple and efficient to
use (e.g., questionnaires that allow the respon-
dent to check off, rather than write out, many
of the answers) will likely be most successful. A
copy of the workplace practices questionnaire
                               PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
                                          47

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
developed for the DfE Screen Printing Project
can be found in Appendix B of the draft
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for
screen printing (EPA, 1994d).
CONDUCTING THE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

A        performance evaluation systematically
        compares how well alternatives
        perform under various conditions.
Two approaches can be used to evaluate
performance:
•   Use available information to evaluate the al-
    ternatives identified. Collect and format the
    information so that it provides consistent
    and comparable information. This proce-
    dure will show where information is
    missing. The information can then be used
    to identify the best probable alternatives
    that would provide good performance. This
    information could also be used to select
    alternatives for performance testing or
    demonstration.
•   Performance tests conducted under condi-
    tions that are controlled, consistent, and
    reproducible (e.g., at trade research laborato-
    ries, supplier testing sites, or user facilities
    under circumstances that allow important
    variables to be controlled).
•   Performance demonstrations in which alter-
    natives are demonstrated under real-life
    conditions (e.g., at actual user facilities)
    where the practices and procedures used in
    applying them may vary widely.
    The goal of testing is to produce  scientifi-
cally valid data that enable a rigorous
comparison of the performance and costs of
various alternatives. The goal of demonstrations
is to provide reliable information on how well
alternatives function under real-life conditions,
which may be of particular interest to business
                 decision-makers who often prefer information
                 from colleagues rather than academics. Where
                 adequate facilities and other resources are avail-
                 able, a DfE technical work group may decide to
                 conduct both tests and demonstrations. Both
                 approaches require:

                 •  Developing a rigorous protocol approved by
                    all project partners.
                 •  Identifying suitable facilities that are will-
                    ing to participate in the evaluation.
                 •  Obtaining samples of alternatives (i.e., the
                    products, technologies, and/or systems to be
                    evaluated) from suppliers/developers (as
                    described above).
                 •  Shipping the samples to the evaluation fa-
                    cilities (which can be costly if the products
                    must be shipped as hazardous materials)
                    and/or using evaluation facilities that al-
                    ready have these alternatives in house.
                 •  Training facility personnel (e.g., in use of
                    the alternatives,  the evaluation and docu-
                    mentation procedures, and/or emergency
                    procedures).
                 •  Quality control (e.g., by observing and
                    monitoring the evaluation).
                    Figure 4-4 shows the steps involved in the
                 performance demonstrations conducted under
                 the DfE Screen Printing Project.
                    Consider an alternative hybrid DfE ap-
                 proach. It would be possible to have a DfE
                 project that develops baselines and 'collects
                 available performance information on new
                 innovative technologies without actually
                 testing performance.

                 Protocol  Development
                    The protocol specifies what will be evalu-
                 ated and how. It is a primary determinant of
                 the type and quality of data the project will
                 produce and disseminate. Protocol develop- ,
                 ment therefore is one of the  most critical and
48
PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement

Figure 4-4
Steps in the Performance Demonstrations for the DfE  Screen
Printing Project
       Obtain Samples
       of Alternatives
Develop Demonstration
       Protocol
          I
            Mask or Remove Identifying Marks
            or Trade Names from Samples and
               MSDSs, Assign Code Names
               Ship Samples to Laboratory
               Conduct Laboratory Safety
              Pre-testing of Nontraditional
                      Alternatives
                          Identify Demonstration Facilities
                                         4   ,
                          Develop Documentation Protocol
                          	I
                                                                                     •At
                                   -„«!
                                         Ship Samples to
                                     Demonstration Facilities
                                               \
                                      Train Facility Personnel
  'f      Conduct Performance
  *P Demonstration in User Facilities
                                                                                     a*
                                          Report Results
sensitive areas of a DfE project. Participation
and approval of all project partners is essential
to development of a sound, credible, and effec-
tive protocol. As necessary, the technical work
group may contract with neutral, external spe-
cialists to contribute to protocol development,
                 review and comment on the draft protocol,
                 and/or resolve differences of opinion.
                     Product suppliers can be important con-
                 tributors to protocol development. They know
                 which parameters of their products are of
                 most interest to the users. They may also be
                             PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
                                                          49

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
unwilling to submit samples of alternatives un-
less they agree with the protocol. Some issues
typically addressed in protocols are discussed
below. The protocol used for the Screen Printing
Project performance demonstration can be
found in Appendix L of the screen printing
CTSA (EPA, 1994d).
    In some cases, the testing protocol can be
designed to serve as an industry standard or
can be derived from an industry standard. In
the Drycleaning Project, for example, a member
of the Drycleaning Standard-Setting Committee
of the American Association for Textile Chem-
ists and Colorists is contributing to protocol
development so that the protocol may ulti-
mately provide a basis for an industry
performance testing standard.

Confidentiality
    As mentioned earlier, confidentiality can be
a critical issue in tests and demonstrations.
When alternative chemical products are being
evaluated, product formulations and brand
names can be kept confidential by using a code
name. The technical work group will need to en-
sure that samples of these alternatives are
repackaged prior to shipment to the test or dem-
onstration facilities and that any identifying
marks or trade names have been removed.
    The test or demonstration facilities will
need access to the  material safety data sheets
(MSDSs) for any chemical products hi case of
any inadvertent exposure during the demonstra-
tion. MSDSs typically contain information
identifying the supplier. Confidentiality can be
ensured by blacking out the product name on
the MSDSs before sending them to the test or
demonstration facilities or by establishing a hot-
line that test or demonstration personnel can
call should they need tiie MSDS information, hi
the DfE Printing Project, for example, a major
chemical trade association allowed the project
to use an existing 24-hour chemical informa-
tion hotline. Demonstration facilities that
needed MSDS information could call the hotline
                 at any time and obtain the information by
                 giving the product's code name.

                 Pretesting of Nontraditional
                 Alternatives
                     Some nontraditional alternatives may never
                 have been applied under real-life conditions. If
                 such products are to be tested or demonstrated
                 at user facilities, pretesting under laboratory
                 conditions may be needed to ensure that they
                 will not damage user equipment when the test
                 or demonstration is performed. Alternatives
                 that appear to pose a hazard can be eliminated
                 from evaluation.

                 Quality Assurance
                     The quality of tests and demonstrations at
                 user facilities can be ensured by developing a
                 rigorous data documentation method, thor-
                 oughly training facility operators, obtaining
                 their commitment to follow the procedures,
                 and providing regular oversight throughout
                 the test or demonstration. Quality and consis-
                 tency also can be assured by making one or
                 more persons responsible for overseeing some
                 or all of the tests or demonstrations. This per-
                 son travels to each user site to train onsite
                 personnel and  observe the test or demonstration
                 to ensure that the protocol is followed carefully
                 and consistently.

                 Facilities
                     Performance demonstrations may be con-
                 ducted at actual or simulated user facilities or
                 at facilities associated with an industry or aca-
                 demic vocational training institute. Perform-
                 ance tests may be conducted at user facilities
                 under suitably controlled conditions or in labo-
                 ratories associated with a trade association,
                 academic research institute, or supplier. The
                 choice depends on a number of factors, includ-
                 ing the availability of suitable facilities, the
                 types of variables that need to be controlled,
                 the number of alternatives to be tested, and the
 50
PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                     Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
degree of training and equipment needed to use
or operate the alternatives. For example:

•  The DfE Screen Printing Project conducted
   a series of performance demonstrations at
   various printer facilities under real-life
   conditions. In preparation for the demon-
   stration, the project pretested the non-
   traditional alternatives at the Screen Print-
   ing Technical Foundation's laboratory to
   ensure that they would not damage printer
   equipment during the demonstrations.
•  Under the DfE Drycleaning Project, laborato-
   ries at North Carolina University and Texas
   Women's University will be testing and com-
   paring the performance of conventional
   drycleaning with alternative garment clean-
   ing technologies. The project also has
   sponsored a number of tests  and demonstra-
   tions at actual or simulated drycleaning
   facilities and at the garment cleaning facil-
   ity associated with an industry training
   institute.
   Training of user facility personnel in proce-
dures for conducting the test or demonstration
and recording data will be necessary. Training
also may be needed  in using or operating alter-
natives and, if the test or demonstration may
pose a potential safety risk, in emergency
procedures.
   The contribution required of businesses volun-
teering their facilities for testing or demonstrating
alternatives may include such tasks as:
•  Providing background information on the
   facility, its operations, and the current proc-
   esses and products used. (An example of a
   facility background questionnaire can be
   found  in Appendix G of the screen printing
   CTSA [EPA,  1994d]).
•  Allowing a DfE observer to visit the site to
   observe and document current practice,
   to train staff in use of the alternative, and
    to explain the recording and reporting
    needs of the project.
•   Faithfully and meticulously recording infor-
    mation on the performance of the
    alternative for an agreed period of time. (An
    example of an observers' evaluation sheet
    can be found in Appendix H of the screen
    printing CTSA [EPA, 1994d].)
•   Participating in periodic telephone calls
    to discuss the progress of the test or
    demonstration.

    Users will be more likely to volunteer their
facilities if the protocol is designed to minimize
the operational  disruptions, as well as the over-
all time and resource contributions, required of
their facilities.
    Providing participants with specific acknow-
ledgment of their contributions can motivate
participation and promote positive relationships
with the project. In the Lithographic Printing
Project, for example, the Assistant Administra-
tor of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances signed a joint letter with the
president of the Printing Industries of America
that was sent to all participants. Other ideas in-
clude providing plaques and T-shirts with
project logos.
OTHER SOURCES OF
INFORMATION

    In addition to the workplace practices ques-
    tionnaire and the performance tests or
    demonstrations, information from other
sources will be needed to develop comparative
risk and cost evaluations for the various alterna-
tives. Sources of additional information include
industry data, technical literature, hazard infor-
mation databases, and expert judgment (see
Table 4-1).
                              PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
                                          51

-------
                    DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
DATA ANALYSIS

r I Ihe technical work group will need to de-
  I  velop methods for analyzing the project
 JL data to estimate the risk and cost associ-
ated with each alternative. The Cleaner
Technologies Substitutes Assessment: A Meth-
odology and Resource Guide (EPA, 1995a)
explains what methods are needed and how
to develop and use them. The CTSA for the
lithographic blanket wash cluster (EPA,  1996)
provides examples of the methods used for
the Lithography Project.
PUBLISHING THE CTSA
DOCUMENT

fTT^he methodologies and results of the tech-
  I  nical work are documented as a CTSA.
 JL  The CTSA serves as the repository for all
the technical information collected during the
project and documents the methods used to ana-
lyze the information. The CTSA simply presents
the information so that readers can make their
own informed decisions about which alterna-
tives they wish to use. Neither the CTSA nor
any information products derived from it advo-
cate any particular choices. The selection of
alternatives, which involves individual circum-
stances and value judgments, is the prerogative
of the user community.
    A draft CTSA is circulated for review and
comment among the project partners and to
                any interested parties or others whose com-
                ments may be helpful. The project team
                responds to comments and publishes a final
                document. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
                Assessment: Lithographic Blanket Washes.
                (EPA, 1996), developed by the DfE Lithography
                Project, provides an example of a draft
                assessment.
                    Although the CTSA is available to the pub-
                lic, it is not designed for nontechnical readers.
                The communication and implementation work
                groups use the CTSA to design information
                products that report the key project results to
                nontechnical audiences in practical, user-
                friendly formats.
                 PERFORMANCE MEASURES

                 r • ^ihe technical work culminates in a single
                   I  end product: the CTSA document. There-
                   •  fore, measures of performance for the
                 technical work may address the efficiency of
                 the CTSA development process, as well as the
                 quality, credibility, and overall value of the
                 CTSA itself. Ideas for technical work perform-
                 ance measures include:

                 •  Time to complete the draft and final CTSA.
                 •  Number and diversity of alternatives investi-
                    gated.
                 •  Peer and/or industry review of the CTSA.
52
PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK

-------
                                 CHAPTER
                    Communication
DfE project communication involves informing and educating a variety of groups about
the project, the project results, and pollution prevention. Communication occurs through-
out the lifetime of a project and serves many purposes vital to project success (Table 5-1).
   DfE project communication is often man-
aged by a communication work group. It
involves developing and implementing a com-
munications strategy that includes:

•  The audiences the project will reach.
•  The goal(s) of communicating with these
   audiences.
•  The types of information to be communi-
   cated to each audience.
The products the project will use to commu-
nicate the information.
The channels that will be used to distribute
information products to the target audi-
ences.
The schedule for developing and distribut-
ing communication products.
A system for tracking results and measuring
performance.
                                                                  53

-------
                      Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Table 5-1
Purposes  of DfE Project
Communication
     To enhance project development and
     performance by:
     • Ensuring balanced participation in the
       project.
     • Building a base of support for the project.
     • Energizing project participants.
     • Contributing to project momentum.
     • Publicizing opportunities for involvement in
       the project


     To build a foundation for implementing
     the technical results by:
     • Creating a project presence in the business
       community.
     • Developing a market for the project results.
     • Focusing attention on environmental issues
       so that environmental improvement
       becomes a selection factor in making
       choices.
     • Motivating communities that will benefit
       from risk reduction to encourage industry
       to choose cleaner alternatives.


     To promote pollution  prevention by:
     • Providing industry with practical ways of
       preventing pollution.
     • Positioning the project as a focal point
       for pollution prevention information on
       the industry.
     • Raising awareness about the purpose and
       value of pollution prevention.
     • Motivating the use of pollution prevention.
             Often, the target audiences for a DfE project
          can be divided into three main groups: the in-
          dustry supplier and user communities, the
          public (e.g., consumers, workers, environmental-
          ists, environmental justice groups, and
          community groups), and other interested parties.
          Ideas for a communication strategy to reach these
          target audiences are listed in Table  5-2 and elabo-
          rated on in this chapter. Often, a communication
          strategy is modified and revised over time in
          response to new ideas and information or feed-
          back from recipients of communication products.
          The outline for the communication strategy de-
          veloped for the DfE Printing Projects is provided
          in Table 5-3. The communication strategy devel-
          oped for the DfE Printing Projects is included in
          Appendix A.
             DfE projects typically develop a number of
          publications. Some are created explicitly for
          communication purposes, while others are
          developed in connection with the  project's
          technical or implementation work and may also
          be utilized as communication vehicles. Table
          5-4 lists typical DfE publications and describes
          their uses for both those working directly on
          the project (internal) and the other audiences
          for the project's output (external).
             The process of developing information prod-
          ucts can uncover areas of disagreement among
          DfE project partners about what to communi-
          cate. For example, statements about the risks
          associated with current industry practice may
          be a contentious issue. In such cases, the com-
          munication work group will need  to spend time
          discussing issues, negotiating language, and de-
          veloping solutions acceptable to all parties.
          External communication specialists can be
          helpful in  mediating solutions and ensuring the
          overall quality of the final communication
          products.
S4
COMMUNICATION

-------
                      DfE; Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Table 5-2
Ideas for  a DfE Communication Strategy"
Audience Communication Communication Communication Distribution 1
Goals Subjects Products Channels |
Industry
Users and
Suppliers











The Public
*'* * •$" * ^
""","'
•
'•, ' r "' " '
~ *• " ~, • .
•"" i ' ' "
, i -v- »
' ~* " ~
Other
Interested
Parties







• Develop a project
presence in business
community
• Publicize
opportunities for
involvement in the
project
• Develop a market for
the project result
• Encourage attention
to risk as a selection
factor in making
choices
• Raise awareness of
the importance and
value of pollution
prevention
• Motivate use of
pollution prevention
• Position the project
as a focal point for
pollution prevention
information


• Build customer
market for the end
products of cleaner *
processes .
• Build customer.
worker, or
community
incentives for industry
to choose cleaner
alternatives
• Position^the project
as a focal point for _
pollution prevention
information
• Build a base of
support for the
project
• Maintain a project
presence
• Ensure balanced
project participation
• Motivate
participation
• Develop a market for
project results
• DfE project purpose
and outcomes
• Environmental
impacts of current
practice
• Information on
alternatives
• Pollution prevention
ideas









• DfE project purpose
and outcomes
• Potential, customer,
worker, or community
advantages that will
result from, industry's
use.of alternatives _t



i-r

,
• Project purpose,
methods, progress,
and results
• Opportunities for
participation






• Case studies
• Fact sheets
• Presentations at trade
shows and conferences
• Articles published in
trade press and
association
newsletters
• Booths for exhibit at
trade shows and
conferences
• Videos








• Brochures ,
• Fact sheets
• Press releases
• Press conferences
• Media articles
/


-'
- <


• Project newsletter
(print or electronic)
• Periodic meetings
• Case studies







• Mailings
• Association
newsletters
• Trade shows and
conferences
• Craftsmen's clubs,
trade guilds, and
affiliates of trade
associations
• Trade schools
• Dealers and others
that market products
to users
• State and federal
technical assistance
programs
• EPA regional offices
• Trade press
• Announcements
about product
availability (e.g., in
media articles, via
presentations)
• World Wide Web
• Teleconferences
• Print media
* Mailings
• Organizations
representing customer,
worker, or community
groups
• World Wide Web
• Environmental
conferences
• Talk shows

„
~
'_
• Mailings
• Meetings
• World Wide Web








  "This table presents ideas and is not meant to be all-inclusive.
  bThe state technical assistance programs can be reached through the National Roundtable of State Pollution Prevention
  Programs at 202 543-7272.
                                         COMMUNICATION
                                                                                              55

-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 Table 5-3
 Outline of Communication Plan  Developed  for the  DfE Printing Projects
      Background Information
      • We need to design information for two different audiences when communicating with small printers.
      • What do small printers need to understand as a prerequisite to using the information that will come
        from this project?
      • What are the motivating factors that would encourage a small printer to use DfE information?
      • What are the industry sources of information currently used by small printers?
        What are the most credible sources of information for small printers?
      • What are the available industry channels for distributing information to small printers?
        Will these channels help with distribution?
      • What kinds of educational and technical assistance programs currently reach small printers?
      • What are the most effective product  formats for communicating with small printers?

      Intermediate Steps To Prepare for Communicating Project Information  to Small
      Printers-Task Descriptions, Staff, Distribution Channels, and Schedule
      • Develop and communicate background information to prepare small printers for project output.
      • Develop support for project in local organizations and with local industry leaders.
      • Work with suppliers to determine how they can communicate  project information to their
        customers.
      • Work with schools to determine how  they can communicate project information to printers and
        printing students.
      • Work with trade press to determine how they can help communicate project information to industry.

      Distributing Project Output
      • National teleconference to introduce  project information to key users.
      • Use of existing industry communication channel.
      • Posting on Web sites for viewing and  downloading.
INDUSTRY COMMUNITY

rTTlhe ultimate success of a DfE project
  I  depends on whether the industry commu-
 JL nity utilizes the information to make the
changes needed for environmental improve-
ment and continues to seek environmental
information. Communication to the industry
community is the critical link between the
project's technical results and their implementa-
tion. Communication with industry
practitioners generally begins early in the proj-
ect and continues over the project's lifetime to:

•   Raise awareness about the project.
•   Educate industry members about the value
    of pollution prevention.
•   Build a market for the project results.
•   Make the project results readily available to
    industry suppliers and users.

    The communication work group will need
to  decide what to communicate to the industry
                                      COMMUNICATION

-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Table 5-4
DfE Project  Publications
 Product
 Industry and Use
 Cluster Profile
  Regulatory
  Profile
  Fact Sheets and
  Brochures
Description
Describes the industry, including types of
operation, size of businesses, markets, and
technological trends. Breaks the different
operations down into processes, process steps,
and use clusters associated with each step. Is
typically developed during scoping.
Reviews the various regulations that may
apply to the industry. Is typically developed
during scoping.
 Contain basic information on the DfE project
 (e.g., why and how it is being conducted) and
 may be used to highlight various parts of the
 project (e.g., results of a performance
 demonstration). These products typically are
 developed by the communication work group.
Internal
• Used during scoping to determine the
  range of project partners needed to
  adequately represent the industry.
  Used by project team to select the
  use cluster that will serve as the focus
  of the project's technical phase.
• Provides data for estimating chemical
  usage (part of the technical work).
• Provides data for exposure estimates
  used to characterize environmental
  risks (part of the technical work).

External
• May be distributed to other
  interested parties (including
  government agencies) upon request.
Internal
• Provides a regulatory context for the
  project technical work.

External           *   ,
* May be used by trade associations to
 -educate members about their „
  regulatory responsibilities.
• May be used by'individual companies
  to educate their staff and Inform
 'them of policies.

External
• Widely distributed in mailings and at
  conferences to industry, public
  interest groups, the general public,
  and the media to build awareness
  about the project and develop a
  market for the project results.
                                          COMMUNICATION
                                                                               57

-------
                        DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 Table 5-4
 DfE Project Publications (continued)
  Product
  Case Studies
  Cleaner
  Technologies
  Substitutes
  Assessment
  (CTSA)
 CTSA Summary
 Brochure
 Description
 Four-page brochures that either provide
 practicarsummary information on alternatives
 and their risk, cost, and/or performance
 tradeoffs, or illustrate how a company
 successfully reduced the overall risk
 associated with its operation by evaluating
 and using substitutes. Case study information
 is obtained from the CTSA or from the
 experiences of individual industry
 practitioners who have successfully used
 alternatives at their facilities. Case studies
 typically are developed by the communication
 workgroup.
 Documents all the technical information (e.g.,
 risk, performance, cost) developed by a DfE
 project. Is assembled as part of the project's
 technical work. Includes an Executive
 Summary to convey overview and highlights.
Presents a summary of the CTSA results in a
user-friendly format. Is typically developed by
the implementation work group.
 External .' ;'--•  ,'. ..    ',•/.•,  ,•;•..- ••-.:'•
 • Communicates practical risk
  reduction and pollution prevention
  ideas and information to industry
  practitioners in a user-friendly
  format.
Internal
• Serves as a repository for the
  methodology and results of the
  project's technical work.

External
  Provides the basis for subsequent
  information products.

External
  Widely distributed during     .
  implementation to industry users and
  public interest groups to convey,the
  project's key technical results in a
  practical, user-friendly format that
  encourages informed decision-making
  by industry practitioners. ,
community, when to communicate, and how to
get the information to the industry community
in useful, appealing formats.

What To Communicate
    Typically communicated to the industry
community in DfE communication products are:
                                •  Information about the project itself. What
                                   it is, why it is being conducted, how it is
                                   being conducted, progress, and opportuni-
                                   ties for involvement in performance
                                   demonstrations.

                                •  Information about the methodologies used.
                                   For example, the demonstration protocols,
58
                                        COMMUNICATION

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
   the questionnaires and surveys, and the
   analytical methodologies used.
•  Information about the results of the project,
   including the comparative risk, perform-
   ance, and cost information for the various
   alternatives investigated.
•  Pollution prevention information. Examples
   of innovative pollution prevention ideas,
   successfully developed and implemented by
   individual companies, that provide practical
   models others can reproduce. (The commu-
   nication work group, in conjunction with
   the technical work group,  solicits ideas for
   case studies from the user community.)
   Appendix A provides examples of case
   studies developed for the DfE printing project.
•  Information about how the industry commu-
   nity can take responsibility and initiative
   for identifying and managing environ-
   mental problems.

Reaching the Industry Community
   The communication work group  determines
how best to reach the industry community with
information. This involves deciding:
•  What types of information products are
   most likely to appeal to industry members.
«  How information products can be most
    effectively distributed to as many industry
    members as possible. Usually several distri-
   bution mechanisms will be needed, as no
    single mechanism reaches the entire user
    community (see Table 5-2).
    One of the most effective ways to answer
these questions is to obtain direct input from in-
dustry practitioners including, for example,
how they typically receive information about
their industry, which information sources they
trust, and what information formats are most
appealing and useful. This  can be done by or-
ganizing  a series of focus groups. A focus
group brings together a  small number of people
together for informal discussions of selected is-
sues. Responses are recorded and analyzed.
Draft outreach products can be presented to fo-
cus group participants to get feedback on the
appeal and utility of the products. Chapter 8 de-
scribes the focus groups held for the DfE
printing projects.
    If limited project resources prevent use of
focus groups, the communication work group
should, at a minimum, talk with individual in-
dustry practitioners who represent typical
members of the user community to get input on
which communication products  and channels
are likely to be most successful.  This is particu-
larly important when the industry is
characterized by small businesses and "mom
and pop" shops not represented  by any industry
group.
    Existing industry groups—including trade
associations, industry councils, trade guilds,
unions, craftsmen's clubs, and trade schools-
can provide valuable insight into the forms and
type of information most likely to appeal to
their members. The local affiliates of national
organizations may be particularly helpful in de-
veloping communication ideas and strategies.
    Industry groups also are important
resources for communicating with the industry
community. These groups have mailing lists of
their members, may hold periodic member meet-
ings, and may have other vehicles such as
newsletters for reaching members. Some groups
may have environmental committees that could
provide input into and participate in the project
and publicize the project among their peers
(e.g., by talking with them, giving presentations
at local meetings, writing articles for local
newsletters, distributing project  information).
Industry groups that do not yet  have an envi-
ronmental committee may be  willing to form
one if they have a strong interest in the project.
The communication work group can support
the outreach efforts of industry  environmental
committees and organizations by developing
project information packages, including fact
                                       COMMUNICATION
                                          59

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
sheets, case studies, and overheads for presenta-
tions.
    For industries that have a large number of
small businesses, the communications group
may need to invest time in building local area
networks that can provide input into the work
and direction of the DfE project, build support
for the project at the local level, and transmit
project information to local businesses. This
was the approach taken by the DfE printing
project, since the printing industry consists
largely of small businesses. Ideas for developing
project support and communication channels at
the local level are provided in Table 5-5.
    Editors at the trade press may prove to
be important allies for communicating DfE

Table 5-5
Ideas for Building Project Support and  Communication Channels at the
Local Level
          information. Many editors support projects that
          promote voluntary environmental change and
          may be willing to cover the project via periodic
          articles and editorials to encourage the industry
          to participate in the project and implement the
          results.
             Typical products and distribution channels
          for communication with the industry commu-
          nity include:

          •  Written products developed and printed by
             the DfE project and distributed by mail, at
             meetings and conferences, by dealers and
             others who market products to the industry
             community and by state and federal techni-
             cal assistance programs. Written products
             include fact sheets and case studies.
     Contact local affiliates of industry associations and enlist their support and
     participation.  Find someone in each affiliate to take responsibility for contacting
     other local organizations and environmental-oriented businesses in their area.

     Identify and contact those businesses that are the environmental leaders for the industry
     and encourage them to support the project.  Assist them in forming committees to
     support the project using existing environmental committees established by the
     local-level trade associations where possible.

 is? Identify and contact local-level organizations, such as trade associations, guilds,
     craftsmen organizations, and union locals, in large urban areas and encourage them
     to actively support the project.

     Develop and distribute a packet of information that the local organizer can use to
     publicize the project among colleagues at the local level.

     Develop and distribute a packet of information that businesses and other groups can
     distribute to the public.

 us* Ask representatives of local businesses who are on the project team or have a special
     interest in the project to contact other local organizations in their area about the
     project.
60
COMMUNICATION

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
•  Written products developed by the DfE proj-
   ect and provided as camera-ready copy to
   interested groups who take responsibility
   for their printing and distribution.
•  Booths at industry trade shows and
   conferences.
•  Presentations at industry events, including
   trade shows, conferences, and meetings of
   local trade groups. Speakers may include
   DfE team members, participating users and
   suppliers, and environmentally conscious in-
   dustry members. Some communication
   work groups may find it beneficial to estab-
   lish a speakers'  bureau—for example, by
   recruiting qualified speakers and providing
   them with project information and presenta-
   tion overheads.
•  Articles and editorials in the trade press and
   association newsletters.
•  Collaboration with state technical assistance
   providers (TAPs), NIST Manufacturing Ex-
   tension Partnership (MEP) organizations,
   small business development centers
   (SBDCs), and others who have regular con-
   tact with small  businesses.
   DfE project communication may be able to
piggyback onto related communication efforts
initiated by trade associations. For example, if a
trade association is developing training materi-
als related to pollution prevention, DfE
information could be included.
   The communication work group may also
become involved in assisting the implementa-
tion work group to  develop various training
products, such as videos and manuals, to help
the user community implement the project
results (see Chapter 6).
COMMUNICATING  WITH THE

PUBLIC

r • "ihe public includes consumers, industry
   I  customers, workers, environmentalists, and
  -A. any group concerned about the health,
safety, or environmental risk posed by current
industry practice or likely to benefit from risk
reduction. Communication with the public
raises awareness about how they will benefit
from a successful DfE project outcome. Public
awareness about the project helps keep the pro-
ject focused on environmental improvement,
creates a market for cleaner alternatives,  and en-
. courages industry to choose cleaner alternatives.
    DfE projects that investigate alternatives
that may reduce consumer risk (e.g., the DfE
Drycleaning Project) may be of significant pub-
lic interest. In such cases, mass media can
provide a powerful, no-cost communications
vehicle. The communication work group  can
catalyze media attention via press releases,
press conferences, and personal contacts  with
the media and by organizing events designed to
attract media attention.
    The communication work group also  may
be able to catalyze grassroots efforts to publi-
cize the project and its results by contacting
local organizations that represent members of
the public—for example, women's clubs and
high schools.
    When designing a communication strategy
and crafting communication products, the com-
munication work group may benefit from
consulting a professional risk communicator in
situations where the industry's current practice
poses or is perceived as posing a significant
occupational and/or public health risk. Risk
communication specialists can provide guid-
ance on how to communicate risk information
constructively and minimize the possibility for
undue alarm. Experience has shown that  clear,
frank, and timely communication has the great-
est chance of building trust. DfE projects
                                      COMMUNICATION
                                          61

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
provide a constructive opportunity and forum
for addressing high-risk issues because, from
their inception, DfE projects involve the public
as a full partner in identifying effective options
for reducing risk.
COMMUNICATING  WITH
OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
          people is a valuable resource to a DfE project
          (Table 5-6). The communication work group can
          lay the groundwork for their participation by
          keeping them informed about the project. Peri-
          odic communication about project progress
          stimulates interest in the project and publicizes
          opportunities for interested parties to participate.
             The communication work group can create
          a mailing list of interested parties from sources
          such as:
       Other interested parties are stakeholders
       who have a high level of interest in a
       DfE project but are not members of the
DfE core group or work groups. This pool of
                                                                         j
Table 5-6
Types of Involvement Interested  Parties May Have in  a DfE  Project
             Participants at any open meetings held dur-
             ing scoping.
             Colleagues and contacts of the work group
             and work group members.
     Suppliers
     • Speak about the project at industry meetings.
     • Contribute their products for evaluation by the project.
     • Review technical and information products.
     • Implement project results  by changing products.
     • Provide support for implementation projects such as certification programs, voluntary industry
       standards, or product stewardship programs.
     • Provide DfE information as a service to their customers.
     Users
     • Participate in demonstrating alternatives.
     • Review technical and information products.
     • Provide input on ways to communicate effectively with the user community.
     • Provide information, for DfE case studies, about pollution prevention ideas they or their
       colleagues have used successfully.
     • Implement project results by changing products or by joining product stewardship programs.
     • Provide support for implementation projects such as certification programs or voluntary industry
       standards.
     • Communicate project results to colleagues.
     Members of the Public
     • Help publicize the project within their community.
     • Provide expertise or funding for various parts of the project.
     • Review technical and information products.
62
COMMUNICATION

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
   People who express an interest in the project.     PERFORMANCE M EASU RES
   The communication work group can con-
tinue to build a list of interested parties by:

•  Providing a sign-up list at trade shows and
   meetings and informing attendees about
   opportunities to sign up via announcements
   and signs.
•  Obtaining contact information from anyone
   who expresses an interest in the project
   (e.g., in informal conversations with project
   team members or over the telephone).
•  Including project contact information
    (name, telephone number, fax number, mail-
    ing address) as part of other publications
    developed by the project.
•   Encouraging journalists to include contact
    information with any article they write
    about the project.
    Ideas for communicating with interested
parties include:
 •  A brief periodic newsletter.
 •  Periodic large group meetings.
 •  World Wide Web site.
 •  Providing names and numbers of project
     staff who  can be contacted for information
     about the project.
     The  communication work group can only
 communicate project progress if progress has
 been made! Therefore, it is important to avoid
 building expectations about the frequency of
 communication that cannot be met due to
 delayed project progress, since failure to meet
 such expectations may depress project momen-
 tum and create an image that the project is
 faltering.
        As mentioned in Chapter 3, performance
        measurement is a joint responsibility
        of the work groups and the core group.
The communication group and the core group
will need to discuss and agree on their mutual
roles in and responsibilities for defining per-
formance measures for communication,
monitoring performance,  and restrategizing, as
necessary, to improve performance. Perform-
ance measures of communication include:
•   Number of different communication prod-
    ucts developed (e.g., number of different
    publications, speeches, presentations, trade
    show booths, press releases).
•   Number of people reached by each product
    and the percentage of the total industry this
    represents (e.g., number of publications
    distributed, number of people who heard a
    presentation, number of people visiting a
    trade show booth, number of media repre-
    sentatives receiving a press release).
 •  Feedback on the appeal and utility of prod-
    ucts from members of the target audience.
 •  Number and reach of communication prod-
    ucts (e.g., articles, editorials) prepared and
    disseminated by the trade and public media
    and others  who are not members of the DfE
    project.
    The communication work group can moni-
 tor performance by keeping files of the
 communications products it has developed,
 keeping records of how and when those prod-
 ucts were distributed, and maintaining a
 clippings book of media  articles and other
 forms of project publicity developed and distrib-
 uted by other groups.
    Also, where possible, the work group can
 conduct a formal  or informal survey of users to
 obtain feedback on the products they have dis-
 tributed. Appropriate survey questions include,
 for example: Did you receive the product? Did
                                        COMMUNICATION
                                                                                           63

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 you read the product? Was it easy to under-
 stand? Was it useful? How did you use the
 information? What additional information
 would have been useful?
             The communication work group can use
          this type of feedback to assess the success of
          the communications strategy and determine
          whether any midcourse corrections might make
          it more effective.
64
COMMUNICATION

-------
                                 G  H  AFTER
                    Implementation
The ultimate goal of a DfE project is to catalyze long-term, environmentally oriented
change within the industry community. Implementation encourages and enables indus-
try members to make changes based on the information they have received via the
project's technical and communication work, as well as the information on project
results they receive during implementation. In addition, implementation seeks to estab-
lish a foundation for long-term, continuous environmental improvement within the
industry. Implementation activities may include:
   Disseminating information on the project
   results.
   Demonstrating nontraditional alternatives.
   Providing training to enable users to make
   changes.
   Identifying and helping to remove institu-
   tional barriers to change (e.g., accounting
methods, industry standards, and loan poli-
cies that discourage or prevent the types of
changes necessary to reduce risk).
Establishing institutional incentives (e.g.,
total cost accounting, certification pro-
grams, or awards) to motivate change.
                                                                  65

-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 •   Monitoring the success of implementation
     activities.

     Table 6-1 lists examples of typical products
 and activities associated with implementation.
     As one of the final stages in a DfE project,
 implementation synthesizes and builds on the
 results of the preceding technical and communica-
 tion activities. Because of its integral connection
 to the previous project work, implementation may
 be performed by:

 •   A separate implementation work group that
     (1) works closely with the other work groups
     and the core group, and/or
     (2) includes members of these groups, and/or
     (3) delegates certain tasks to these groups.
 •   The core group.
 •   The communication work group.
 •   Particular stakeholders. For example, certifica-
     tion or voluntary standards might be
     developed and instituted by industry stake-
     holders in consultation with the DfE project
     team; government stakeholders might work
     to remove regulatory barriers.

     Implementation is particularly related to com-
 munication. Communication raises awareness and
 makes information available, while implementa-
 tion removes boundaries and creates incentives to
 promote and enable use of the project results to
 change behavior, work practices, technological
 and  chemical choices, etc. Both involve communi-
 cating to specific target audiences such as
 industry practitioners and the public, and some
 DfE products, such as training programs,
 simultaneously achieve both communication
 and  implementation goals. For these reasons,
 implementation will benefit greatly from the com-
 munication formats and distribution channels
 developed by the communication work group.
The boundary between communication and imple-
 mentation can be unclear and may need
 delineation  when separate work groups perform
these two parts of the project.
     Implementation activities can span the life-
 time of a DfE project. Initial activities may
 include, for example, identifying institutional bar-
 riers to environmental change and laying the
 groundwork for removing those barriers. Since in-
 stitutional change invariably requires time, the
 project's success in stimulating change will likely
 be greater if these types of implementation activi-
 ties start earlier in the project rather than later.
     The success of the DfE project in establishing
 an institutional framework, for long-term environ-
 mental change rests, to a large extent, on
 involving project partner organizations and other
 institutions in taking ownership of the implemen-
 tation activities. For many activities, the work
 group acts as a catalyst, bringing ideas and issues
 to the attention of the institutions most appropri-
 ate to create the institutional  change needed to
 support implementation. For example, a trade
 association may be the appropriate institution to
 oversee a voluntary industry environmental certi-
 fication program, while involvement of a
 regulatory authority will be necessary to change
 regulations that pose a barrier to implementation.
    Implementation of environmental improve-
 ment inevitably involves value judgments and
 choices in the context of individual circum-
 stances. For example, the DfE project team will
 need to decide what to promote or institute based
 on the information obtained during the technical
 portion of the project. In much environmental
 guidance, value judgments are embedded within
 the assumptions used to reach conclusions. One
 important goal of a DfE  project is to make any as-
 sumptions and value judgments explicit and open
 to discussion so that the decision-maker can
 make a well-balanced judgment. Clearly separat-
ing the technical work of gathering data and
 objectively analyzing tradeoffs from the
implementation work of promoting informed
choices is one important way to achieve this goal.
66
                                      IMPLEMENTATION

-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Table 6-1
Examples  of  DfE Implementation  Products and Activities
 Product/Activity   Examples
 Publication
 Publication
 Training
  Demonstrations
 ^^^••^^^^^^••^^^^^^^^^•••^^^^^^•••••^^H
 > A CTSA summary brochure, which presents the
  project's key technical results in a user-friendly
  format, including a substitutes matrix.
  CTSA executive summary, which provides an
  overview of the risk, performance, and cost
  information developed by the project, the
  methodology used to develop this information,
  and the pollution prevention opportunities
  highlighted by the project results.

Topics
• Nontraditional alternatives.
• Pollution prevention.
• Methods for overcoming institutional barriers
  to change  (e.g., how to use total cost
  accounting procedures).

Formats
• Self-training materials (manuals, videos,
  interactive software).
• Group training programs (e.g., workshops,
  teleconferences).
• Train-the-trainer programs.
• Onsite training demonstrations.
• Technical support "hotline."
• Curricula for schools teaching courses about
  the industry.
• Demonstrations at actual or simulated user
  facilities.          t    ""
• Demonstrations at vocational training facilities.
• Mobile demonstrations for'use at trade
  conventions, workshops, in different cities and
  regions, etc.
• Companion videos and slide sh'ows to publicize
  the training.             '  "
• Widely distributed to
  industry users and public
  interest groups to convey the
  project's key technical results
  in a practical, user-friendly
  format that encourages
  informed decision-making by
  industry practitioners.

• Communicates key details of
  the project's technical work "
  to  interested parties, mem-  ,,
  bers of partner advisory
  committees, and others.
• Raises user community
  awareness about the
  availability and benefits of
  options for environmental
  improvement.
• Transfers to the user
  community the skills and
  knowledge needed to make
  environmentally beneficial
  changes.
  Raises user community
  awareness about
  nontraditional alternatives.
  Provides interactive,
  hands-on training in
  operation of nontraditional
  alternatives.
                                         IMPLEMENTATION
                                                                                                67

-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
Table 6-1
Examples  of DfE Implementation Products and Activities (continued)
 Product/Activity  Examples
 Removing
 Institutional
 Barriers to Change
 Establishing
 Incentives
 Programs
• Working with regulatory or standard-setting
  institutions to modify regulations or standards that
  discourage use of environmentally beneficial
  alternatives.
• Working with the finance and insurance
  industries to develop policies that support pollution
  prevention investments.
• Working with the accounting profession to develop
  methods that better account for environmental
  costs.
• Conducting outreach activities to publicize
  institutional issues and potential solutions.
• Using CTSA information to develop total cost
  accounting manuals or software for a specific
  industry.
• Training to build skills in new institutional practices
  that support pollution prevention (e.g., training in
  total cost accounting).

• Certification programs.
• Sign-up programs.
• Voluntary industry standards.
• Awards programs.
1 Facilitates implementation
 by the user community of
 environmentally beneficial
 options.
 Motivates change within the
 user community.
 Establishes goals for
 environmental improvement.
 Provides a mechanism for:
 - Transferring information
  and guidance to participants
  to support their achievement
  of program goals.
 - Publicly acknowledging the
  ••'environmental-efforts of
  participants.
 - Tracking progress and
  success in environmental
  improvement.
68
                    IMPLEMENTATION

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
PUBLICATIONS

       During implementation, a DfE project
       team typically prepares and distributes
       two publications based on the project's
technical results:
•  A CTSA summary booklet, which summa-
   rizes the CTSA results in a user-friendly
   format, including a substitutes matrix.
•  A separate publication containing the CTSA
   executive summary.
   The CTSA summary booklet provides the
most succinct summary of the project's key
technical results. Using a matrix format to facili-
tate comparison, this publication displays the
risk, performance, and cost information for all
alternatives evaluated by the project. The book-
let can be widely distributed to industry users
and public interest groups to promote informed
decision-making by  industry practitioners.
EPA has developed a CTSA summary booklet
for the DfE Screen Printing Project to help
screen printers choose among the screen recla-
mation  alternatives.   See Cleaner Technologies
Substitutes Assessment. Industry: Screen Print-
ing. Use Cluster: Use Reclamation (EPA, 1994d).
   The CTSA executive summary provides an
overview of the project's methodology and tech-
nical results and highlights risk reduction and
pollution prevention options within the indus-
try. The executive summary is prepared by the
technical work group as part of the CTSA docu-
ment. The implementation work group simply
publishes and distributes this summary as a
separate document. The CTSA executive summary
provides a cost-effective format for  communi-
cating key details of the project's technical
work to people (e.g., other interested parties and
members of partner  advisory committees) who
want more information than provided by the
CTSA summary booklet, but not the substantial
detail in the CTSA document. Cleaner Technolo-
gies Substitutes Assessment. Industry: Screen
Printing. Executive Summary (EPA, 1994e) is one
example of a CTSA executive summary, in this
case for the Screen Printing Project.
    The implementation work group also may
develop other publications, as needed, to publi-
cize or supplement various implementation
activities—for example, brochures to publicize
workshops and trainings, and manuals or other
handouts to supplement training. Development
and distribution of publications may readily be
delegated to the communication work group.
TRAINING AND
DEMONSTRATIONS

      The technical work of a DfE project typi-
      cally generates information on the
      environmental risk, cost, and perform-
ance tradeoffs of various alternatives, as well as
ideas for pollution prevention. The communica-
tion work group communicates the project
results to the industry community in the form
of fact sheets, case studies, presentations, and
other information products. But simply commu-
nicating information often is not sufficient to
stimulate behavior changes in a significant por-
tion of the user community—particularly if
change requires new knowledge, skills, or capi-
tal. Even the opportunity to reduce costs may
not, in and of itself, be sufficient motivation for
people to change their habits. Industry members
may remain skeptical about whether a nontradi-
tional alternative really can perform adequately
or may feel unprepared to use an alternative
that requires a substantial departure from con-
ventional procedures. These barriers can be
addressed through training and demonstrations.
    As the technical work yields results, the im-
plementation work group will have to decide
which results to highlight. Nontraditional, vi-
able, and cost-effective technologies that offer
substantial risk reduction compared to conven-
tional systems usually are the most important
subjects for training and demonstration activities.
                                      IMPLEMENTATION
                                          69

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Early and substantial involvement of stake-
holder organizations in developing training and
demonstrations usually is essential to the success
of these activities. Stakeholder organization
involvement helps leverage the project's limited
resources and adds credibility to the efforts. Also,
stakeholder "ownership" of training and demon-
strations helps ensure that these activities will
continue after the DfE project team disbands.
Potential partners for training and demonstration
efforts include:
•   Trade associations.
•   Developers and vendors of alternative tech-
    nologies.
•   Research and educational institutions.
*   Public interest groups.
•   Regional and state environmental staff.
•   Government programs providing technical
    assistance and support to businesses.
•   Technical schools and community' colleges
    that offer instruction in the trade.

Training
    Since most user communities are large,
a variety of training methods will likely be
necessary to reach a substantial portion of the
community. Ideas for training include:
•   Developing and distributing self-training
    materials to individual industry members
    (e.g., manuals, videos, interactive software).
•   Developing and delivering training pro-
    grams to groups. Training programs may be
    delivered as workshops and/or teleconfer-
    ences.
•   Training trainers who can then deliver train-
    ing to the industry community over time.
•   Developing curricula to educate students
    about the industry.
•   Providing demonstrations (see below).
                                                    Subjects for DfE-initiated training programs
                                                 include nontraditional alternatives, pollution
                                                 prevention through improved workplace prac-
                                                 tices, and methods for overcoming institutional
                                                 barriers to change (e.g., how to obtain loans for
                                                 pollution prevention options, how to factor
                                                 environmental costs into budgeting
                                                 and accounting).
                                                    Training products can be distributed
                                                 through such mechanisms as workshops, confer-
                                                 ences, and marketing by stakeholders and
                                                 through institutions that provide technical or
                                                 educational support to industry, including the
                                                 National Institute of^Standards and Technol-
                                                 ogy's (NIST's) Manufacturing Extension
                                                 Partnership, the Small Business Association's
                                                 Small Business Development Centers, state tech-
                                                 nical assistance providers, university centers,
                                                 and trade schools.

                                                 Demonstrations
                                                    Seeing a technology in action can be much
                                                 more effective than reading about it, especially
                                                 if the technology is operated in a real-life facil-
                                                 ity. If the technical work has identified one or
                                                 more nontraditional alternatives that perform
                                                 comparably to or better than conventional sys-
                                                 tems at similar or lower cost and substantially
                                                 lower risk, demonstrations can be a powerful
                                                 mechanism for publicizing the new alternatives
                                                 in the industry community and providing
                                                 hands-on training.
                                                    For example, the DfE Drycleaning Project is
                                                 organizing demonstrations of nontraditional
                                                 garment-cleaning technologies at real and simu-
                                                 lated drycleaning facilities in different U.S.
                                                 cities. Industry members will be able to tour the
                                                 sites and interact with the facility staff. (Videos
                                                 and slides of the demonstrations will be used to
                                                 publicize the demonstrations and raise aware-
                                                 ness about the nontraditional technologies.)
70
                                      IMPLEMENTATION

-------
                     Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
IDENTIFYING AND  REMOVING
INSTITUTIONAL  BARRIERS

A        number of institutional barriers may
        limit or discourage the use of nontradi-
        tional alternatives and pollution
prevention. For example:

•   Conventional management budgeting and
    accounting practices do not adequately re-
    flect potential environmental impacts  or
    benefits of business decisions. Conse-
    quently, business decision-makers cannot
    readily assess the financial advantages that
    would result from investments in pollution
    prevention.
•   Regulations or industry standards may pre-
    vent or discourage industry members from
    using nontraditional alternatives. For exam-
    ple, care labeling regulations that result in
    labels such as "Dryclean Only" to be affixed
    to clothing effectively discourage the use of
    water-based technologies to professionally
    clean clothes.
•   Financial institution loan policies or insur-
    ance premium policies oriented toward
    pollution control rather than pollution pre-
    vention may make it difficult for industry
    members to finance pollution prevention
    investments.
•   Inadequate training in the proper use of
    chemicals and equipment; insufficient prod-
    uct stewardship by materials supplier.

    Once work group members have identified
institutional barriers, they will have to decide
whether and how to help remove or reduce
these barriers. Most institutional change requires
the support of one  or more institutions. The
work group can make the institution(s) aware
of the need for change, suggest options for
change, and provide support to the institution
in implementing change. For example, the
implementation work group for the DfE Dry-
cleaning Project realized that care labeling
requirements posed a barrier to the use of alter-
native garment cleaning technologies. They
brought the problem to the attention of the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the regulatory
authority for garment labeling. As a result, and
in accordance with FTC regulatory review sched-
ules, the FTC issued a notice in the Federal
Register soliciting comments on whether the
labeling rule should be reopened. The Dryclean-
ing Project team collectively provided
comments in response to the notice.
    Some institutional barriers can be tackled
on two or more institutional fronts simultane-
ously. For example, the work group may
contact the banking industry or venture capital-
ists to discuss ideas for changing their loan
policies  to accommodate pollution prevention
investments and to request a pilot program tar-
geted at the industry. At the same time, the
work group may work with industry to develop
an industry-backed loan program to fund pollu-
tion prevention investment by small businesses.
    The work group also may support efforts for
institutional change through outreach and train-
ing. Outreach activities can be used to publicize
institutional issues and potential solutions, and
training can be used to provide industry mem-
bers with particular skills they will need to
surmount these institutional barriers. For
example, both the DfE Screen Printing and Dry-
cleaning projects are sponsoring training in
total cost accounting methods  for these indus-
tries. Total cost accounting enables industry
members to fully and explicitly account for
the environmental costs of doing business and
to evaluate the financial benefits of environ-
mental improvements. Total cost accounting
                                      IMPLEMENTATION
                                         71

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
simultaneously removes an institutional barrier
to change and creates an incentive for change
(see Total Cost Accounting, below).
PROVIDING  INCENTIVES

fTT%e motivation to change likely will
  I  range widely among industry members.
  JL Proactive and environmentally oriented
industry members often have substantial
internal motivation to change, while many
others—particularly small businesses with
limited resources—may be more concerned with
maintaining day-to-day  operations, staying
profitable, and complying with regulations. Lim-
ited awareness or concern about environmental
issues may be an obstacle to change among
industry members even when project data
clearly demonstrate that  environmentally bene-
ficial changes would also benefit industry's
bottom line.
    Incentive programs can be an important
factor to motivate change. These programs can
provide a mechanism for publicly acknowledging
the environmental efforts of program partici-
pants. This recognition promotes the image of
participant companies as "environmentally
active" businesses, which  helps attract environ-
mentally oriented customers. Ideas for incentive
programs include total cost accounting training,
certification programs, sign-up programs, and
voluntary industry standards. The success of an
incentive program depends on how well it is mar-
keted within the industry  and, ultimately, on the
program's credibility as a  mark of true environ-
mental participation.
    Incentive programs may be administered
by an industry organization (e.g., a trade asso-
ciation), a government agency, or a public
interest group.
          Total Cost Accounting
             Perhaps the greatest incentive for change is
          reduced cost or increased profit. Businesses,
          however,  often cannot readily appreciate the
          cost advantages associated with environmental
          activities  such as pollution prevention because
          conventional accounting systems typically do
          not fully  account for environmental costs and
          benefits. For example, environmental costs
          often are  included in company overhead rather
          than being linked to the product lines that incur
          them. Thus, the benefits of prevention pollution
          associated with a specific production process
          may not be visible and may not be considered
          in decision-making, including capital budget-
          ing. Total cost accounting (TCA) promotes more
          accurate costing and pricing of products and
          processes, with emphasis on environmental
          costs and benefits, thereby creating incentives
          to meet environmental goals.
             Developing TCA systems for the industry in
          question and training industry practitioners in ap-
          plication of TCA methods are two activities that
          can provide a powerful incentive for change
          among industry practitioners. Both the DfE
          Screen Printing and Drycleaning projects have
          been involved in TCA development and training
          (via such mechanisms as TCA software, manuals,
          workshops, and videoconferences) as a means to
          help companies use the results of the DfE process
          to make informed decisions.

          Certification Programs
             A certification program is a mechanism to
          certify industry members who implement par-
          ticular changes. A certification program has
          four basic components:

          •  Criteria that must be met to receive
             certification.
                                I
          •  A mechanism for establishing that the
             criteria have been met.
72
IMPLEMENTATION

-------
                     Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
•  A formal system for publicizing the
   certification.
•  An organization to administer the program.

   The most resource-intensive component of
a certification system is the mechanism for es-
tablishing that criteria have been met. This may
take a variety of forms, including:

•  Passing an examination.
•  Undergoing an audit or inspection to verify
   that change has been made.
•  Signing an agreement, memorandum of un-
   derstanding, or other form of commitment.

   Certified businesses can use their certification
for marketing purposes. Proof of certification
often includes decals and logos, which may be
included with marketing materials or displayed
prominently in shop windows, and certificates,
which may be hung in view of customers.

Sign-Up Programs
   Sign-up programs are programs in which
businesses voluntarily agree to make certain en-
vironmentally oriented changes. Often, sign-up
programs establish broad environmental goals
and leave individual companies free to deter-
mine the best ways to meet those goals.
Program managers track participation in the
program and report the progress of participants
in achieving the program goals. This provides
participants with a sense of accomplishment
that can be a powerful motivating force toward
achieving program goals. It also provides the
program administrators with data on the pro-
gram's success. Examples of sign-up programs
include:
• EPA's Green Lights Program, which
    encourages the widespread use of energy-
    efficient lighting. Participants sign  a
    memorandum of understanding in which
   they agree to survey their facilities and up-
    grade the lighting wherever it is profitable
   to do so within 5 years. EPA provides
   information on alternative lighting tech-
   nologies and guidance on how to finance
   upgrades. Many participants have reduced  ,
   their electric bills by 50 percent or more.
•  EPA's and the U.S. Department of Energy's
   Climate Wise Program encourages and rec-
   ognizes voluntary efforts to reduce green-
   house gas emissions. Participants submit a
   letter pledging to take actions to reduce
   greenhouse gas emissions, determine the
   most cost-effective actions to  achieve the
   program goals, and report their progress to
   the program.
•  EPA's WAVE (Water Alliances for Voluntary
   Efficiency)  partnership with U.S. hotels,  mo-
   tels, and other lodging businesses to reduce
   water consumption while increasing effi-
   ciency, profitability, and competitiveness.
   Partners sign a memorandum  of under-
   standing pledging to take specific actions to
   increase water efficiency and report pro-
   gress and results to EPA. EPA provides
   technical support, training, workshops, out-
   reach materials, marketing, and public
   relations support.
•  EPA's 33/50 Program worked with some
    1,300 manufacturing corporations through-
   out the United States to  achieve a 33
   percent reduction (as compared to 1988) in
   their use of 17 high-priority toxic chemicals
   by 1992 and a 50 percent reduction by
    1995.
•  The Chemical Manufacturers Association's
    (CMA's) Responsible Care® program,  in
   which CMA member companies pledge to
    manage their businesses according to spe-
    cific environmental, health, and safety
    principles and codes that concern chemical
    product stewardship from initial research
    through recycling and disposal. Members
    self-evaluate and submit reports to CMA
    annually on their progress in meeting these
                                      IMPLEMENTATION
                                          73

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    codes. A public health advisory panel of
    leaders in environmental, health, and safety
    fields helps ensure thatthe program is
    responsive to public concerns. Program
    participants may use the Responsible
    Care® logo in accordance with approved
    guidelines.
•   The Encouraging Environmental Excellence
    (E3) program is a voluntary program
    established in 1992 by the American Textile
    Manufacturers Institute for its members. Pro-
    gram participants adopt a ten-point
    environmental plan to voluntarily reduce the
    amount of environmentally sensitive materi-
    als in their facilities. Participants must
    perform periodic objective environmental
    audits at each facility operation to ensure
    compliance with all federal, state, and local
    regulations, and must submit an  annual
    status report on their progress in achieving
    their individual waste minimization goals for
    the previous year. The program prepares audit
    manuals and case studies and organizes an-
    nual education seminars. Participants are
    allowed to use the E3 logo on their products.

Voluntary Industry Standards
    Voluntary industry standards are another way
to provide incentives for environmental change.
Voluntary standards programs generally are devel-
oped by industry groups in conjunction with one
of the recognized standard-setting organizations
(e.g., the American Society for Testing and Materi-
als or the American National Standards Institute).
In the case of a DfE project, the CTSA would
provide the technical information to develop
standards for the product, process, or technology
under consideration. Standards can also be devel-
oped by public interest groups, such as "Green
Seal," or by government institutes. Companies
may refer to the standards when marketing prod-
ucts that meet the standards.
    One example of a government-initiated vol-
untary standards program is EPA's Energy Star
          Computer program to promote more energy-
          efficient computers. Participants are computer
          manufacturers who agree to manufacture com-
          puter equipment that automatically powers
          down when it is not being used. Manufacturers
          can use a special Energy Star logo on their
          equipment to enhance consumer recognition of
          the energy-saving features.
          PERFORMANCE MEASURES

             Implementation focuses on providing tools,
             knowledge, and incentives to catalyze envi-
             ronmentally oriented change by the
          industry community.  Relevant performance
          measures therefore include the quantity and
          quality of the implementation activities, pro-
          grams, or products and the number of industry
          members reached by or participating in these ef-
          forts. Specific implementation performance
          measures may include, for example:

          •  The quality and quantity of training materi-
             als created.
          •  The number of industry members trained.
          •  The number of self-training materials dis-
             tributed to the industry community.
          •  The establishment of one or more incentive
             programs.
          •  The number of industry members participat-
             ing in incentive programs.
          •  The degree to which industry or other stake-
             holders take ownership of followup
             activities or programs.

             The ultimate performance measure—to what
          extent environmentally oriented change is actu-
          ally occurring—pertains to the project as a
          whole and not just implementation. This meas-
          ure therefore is addressed during the overall
          project evaluation (see Chapter 7).
74
IMPLEMENTATION

-------

                                        Evaluation
                                    and   Closure
Evaluation aims to assess the success of the DfE project as a whole in achieving its overall
goals-for example, to promote informed decision-making, to facilitate the use of environ-
mentally improved alternatives, to promote institutional change that will support
continuous environmental improvement, and so on. Project closure involves deciding
whether and when to end a DfE project, begin a new project, and/or have individual
stakeholders take responsibility for continuing key long-term implementation activities.
   As described earlier, each phase of a DfE
project can be evaluated separately while the
project is under way to help ensure the indi-
vidual success of each program phase and thus,
in turn, the success of the whole project. The
final evaluation described in this chapter is con-
ducted at the project's conclusion to measure the
success of the project components as an inte-
grated whole in achieving the overall goals. This
final evaluation involves establishing measures
of project success, developing a strategy for
evaluation, and applying that strategy to gather
data—for example, on changes in attitudes,
knowledge, and behaviors of target populations—to
assess performance.
   The DfE Printing and Drycleaning projects
are just entering the evaluation stage. There-
fore, this chapter is based on ideas about how
evaluation might proceed for those and other
DfE projects. Additional ideas likely will de-
velop as experience is gained with evaluation.
                                                                       75

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Because it concerns the entire project, evalu-
ation likely will be managed by the core group.
The experience gained in gathering data during
the technical work and the distribution chan-
nels and outreach mechanisms established by
the communication work group provide valu-
able resources for developing and implementing
a strategy for evaluation. Also, early planning
of the final evaluation can reveal opportunities
to combine evaluation data collection efforts
with earlier phases of the project—for example,
collection of baseline information can be com-
bined with collection of technical information.
Project closure decisions typically are made by
the core group in consultation with the entire
project team.
MEASURING PROJECT
SUCCESS

      Project team members likely will notice
      many signs of project success during the
      lifetime of the project. For example,
industry members who hear about the project
may contact project team members for more
information or may report successes in imple-
menting environmental changes in their
businesses; project team members may detect a
substantial shift in industry attitude toward
using alternative technologies (e.g., based on
presentations and discussions at industry
conferences); industry groups may organize
special committees to deal with environmental
concerns.
    Since these successes are anecdotal, the
project team may want to obtain more objective
measures of project success—particularly, the
extent to which the project has catalyzed behav-
ior changes for environmental improvement
within the industry community. A number of
approaches may be used to evaluate success,
including:
              •   Survey target communities at the beginning
                  and end of the project to measure changes
                  in awareness, knowledge, attitudes, behav-
                  ior, etc.
              •   Track relevant industry trends, for example
                  in:
                  - Sales or use of particular types of
                    supplies such as pollution prevention
                    equipment or low-risk products that were
                    identified and publicized by the project.
                  - The number of businesses that convert
                    their operations to utilize low-risk proc-
                    esses (e.g., the number of drycleaners
                    that convert to wetcleaning).
                  - The number of new businesses that open
                    to offer services utilizing low-risk
                    processes.
                  - The extent and nature of coverage  in the
                    trade media about topics such as low-risk
                    alternatives or pollution prevention
                    opportunities.
                  - Customer awareness about low-risk
                    options available to the industry.
              •   Establish one or more incentive programs
                  (see Sign-Up Programs in Chapter 6) to en-
                  courage industry to  implement changes
                  based on the project results, and ask pro-
                  gram participants to report periodically on
                  their success in implementing changes.

                  The first two approaches generally will re-
              quire data on standard industry practice prior
              to the project as a baseline against which  to
              measure change. Therefore, as one  of the first
              tasks in a DfE project, the project team will
              need to consider what performance measures
              they wish to evaluate, what approach they will
              use to obtain the data, and whether baseline
              data are needed. Performance measures may in-
              clude, for example:

              •   Increased awareness about the need for,
                  benefits of, and options for environmental
                  improvement.
76
EVALUATION AND CLOSURE

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
•   Increased knowledge about how to
    implement options for environmental
    improvement.
•   Positive attitude toward environmental
    improvement.
•   Number and types of lower-risk alternatives
    used.
•   Pollution prevention changes made.
•   Benefits that industry members experienced
    as a result of environmental changes.
•   Industry cost savings as a result of environ-
    mental improvements.
    Factors to consider when selecting perform-
ance measures include:

•   Which parameters most closely relate to the
    project goals? The utility of the evaluation
    will depend in large part on how closely
    the evaluation parameters relate to the pro-
    ject goals. The project goals therefore
    provide a good starting point for identify-
    ing parameters.
•   What level of effort is required to obtain the
    data? Some parameters, while ideal, may
    require too great a level of effort to justify
    their selection. In such cases, surrogate
    parameters often can be identified. For
    example,  a survey of trade media coverage
    of a topic can serve as a surrogate for sur-
    veying industry awareness of the topic.
•   How rapidly is the target community likely
    to exhibit evidence of change? Certain
    parameters, such as behavior change, may
    take some time to occur. Premature attempts
    to assess such parameters likely will provide
    a spurious negative impression of project
    success. The core group members will need
    to select parameters that are realistic within
    their time frame for evaluation. If the core
    group members want to complete the
    evaluation shortly after implementation,
    for example, they may need to focus
    on evaluating the types of changes in
    awareness, knowledge, or attitudes of the
    target community that precede the desired
    behavior change.

    Ideally, baseline data on the selected pa-
rameters will be gathered as early as possible in
the project, before the project's outreach and
technical efforts begin to influence industry
awareness, knowledge, and behavior. Informa-
tion may be collected from written, telephone,
or in-person surveys; trade association data;
government statistics; user and supplier data
(e.g., supplier catalogs); frequency and
content of coverage of particular topics in trade
journals); frequency and content of coverage of
particular topics in the public media (to indicate
changes in consumer awareness); and other
information sources. To conserve resources,
collection of baseline information can be com-
bined with collection of technical information.
For example, the work practices survey used for
the screen printing CTSA yields some baseline
data. Planning the evaluation early can uncover
opportunities to combine data collection efforts.
    Toward the end of the project, members of
the core group will need to reevaluate the initial
performance parameters they selected in light
of the project activities and results, as well as
any changes in project emphasis that occurred
once the project was under way. Based on this
analysis, the core group may decide to add or
change evaluation parameters. For example, if
the project uncovers and publicizes many exam-
ples of successful pollution prevention ideas
within an industry, the core group may decide
to add pollution prevention awareness or imple-
mentation as one parameter to be measured. Or,
if the project's technical work reveals that one
novel low-risk alternative is particularly viable
and the project's implementation work therefore
focuses on enabling industry to utilize this alter-
native, then the core group may well  decide to
evaluate the extent to which industry has
started to utilize this alternative.
                                  EVALUATION AND CLOSURE
                                                                                          77

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    In addition to its efforts to formally gather
evaluation data, the core group may also gather
data informally—for example, by indepth inter-
viewing of individual industry members about
their efforts toward environmental improve-
ment, including any barriers they encountered.
Also, while evaluation efforts typically focus on
the industry community, the core group may
also want to survey representatives of other sec-
tors, such as public interest groups and workers,
whose participation was sought to implement
the project results or who may have perspective
on changes implemented by the industry. This
type of feedback can be very helpful to any fu-
ture efforts to promote environmental change
within the industry.
              PROJECT CLOSURE
                                   ii
                 As implementation activities draw to a
              close, the project team will need to decide
              whether to continue working together as a
              project team to promote change within the
              industry. Several options are possible:

              •  The team may decide to conduct further
                 technical work to compare the risk, perform-
                 ance, and cost tradeoffs of alternatives in a
                 different use cluster.
              •  The team may continue its implementation
                 activities to  further catalyze application of
                 the project results.
              •  Or, the team may gradually disband as
                 individual project partners and other
                 stakeholders take responsibility for long-
                 term management of the various
                 implementation activities set in motion
                 by the project, or as the industry sector
                 develops other mechanisms for coordinat-
                 ing and fulfilling its responsibilities  for
                 environmental management.
                 When a successful DfE project ends, it will
              have established tools and momentum for con-
              tinual, long-term environmental improvement
              within the industry.
78
EVALUATION AND CLOSURE

-------
                                 CHAPTER
                  The  DfE   Printing
                                             Projects
The DfE program has conducted projects with three segments of the printing industry:
lithography, screen printing, and flexography. For each industry project, a different set of
alternatives were evaluated, including, for lithography, blanket washes, for screen print-
ing, screen reclamation techniques, and for flexography, inks. This chapter is in two
sections: Section 1 outlines the development of the printing projects and Section 2
provides a case study of the screen printing project development.

SECTION 1: PRINTING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
SCOPING

Initiation
   DfE began working with the printing indus-
try in 1992, when an industry trade association,
the Printing Industries of America (PIA), asked
EPA for assistance in evaluating the environ-
mental merits of printing products. PIA was
concerned that printers did not have sufficient
information to judge claims their suppliers were
making about the environmental "friendliness"
of various chemical products. These chemicals
could potentially enter the environment via sev-
eral pathways (Figure 8-1). EPA's DfE staff
decided to work with industry representatives to
scope the potential for a collaborative project
with the printing industry.
                                                                  79

-------
                                                                      I
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
 Figure 8-1
 Potential  Pathways of Exposure to Chemicals  Used in  Printing

 (l) Indoor air at printers; (2) ambient (outdoor) air; (3a-c) surface waters that receive discharges from pub-
 licly owned treatment works, which treat sewage containing discharges from printing operations; (4) soil
 and ground water around waste disposal sites.
Development of the Industry and
Use  Cluster Profile
    Early in the scoping process, EPA, using in-
formation from PIA and other sources,
developed a Printing Industry and Use Cluster
Profile to better understand the printing indus-
try structure and identify potential areas for
project focus. EPA presented the draft profile at
an open industry meeting (described below)
and revised it over time based on comments
              received from meeting participants and project
              partners.
                  The final profile, published in June 1994
              (EDPA, 1994c), describes the number, type, size,
              and geographic distribution of printing opera-
              tions, the value of shipments and international
              trade, and the market outlook. The profile then
              breaks the industry operations of each sector
              down into processes, subprocesses, steps, and
              use clusters, and describes technological trends
              that may affect industry processes. It examines
80
THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS

-------
individually the five major sectors of the print-
ing industry: screen printing, lithography,
flexography, letterpress, and gravure.

Stakeholder Identification and
Recruitment
   With knowledge of industry structure based
on the draft industry and use cluster profile,
EPA staff began to network among the industry
trade associations and businesses to build inter-
est in the project among representatives from
different segments of the printing industry. Net-
working activities included telephone calls to
and meetings with industry representatives and
attendance at an industry environmental confer-
ence in the spring of 1992.

Initial Open Meeting
   Several printing industry representatives
contacted expressed potential interest in work-
ing collaboratively  on a DfE project. In June
1992, EPA convened an open meeting of indus-
try representatives from all sectors to explain
the project and recruit team members. Meeting
announcements were sent to about 400 indi-
viduals representing various segments of the
printing industry. Approximately 100 people at-
tended; most represented the lithography
segment of the printing industry.
   At this meeting, EPA representatives de-
scribed the DfE process they envisioned and
asked industry participants to comment on the
proposed process. EPA staff also passed out
cards that participants could use to sign up for
four work groups:
• A use cluster work group responsible for
    gathering risk-related information regard-
    ing alternatives within the various use
    clusters being examined as potential
    focus  areas.
•  A performance demonstration work group
   responsible for demonstrating the perform-
   ance of alternatives.
•  An information products work group respon-
   sible for developing information products.
•  A publicity work group responsible for
   publicizing the project and distributing
   project information. EPA representatives
   emphasized that the project presented an
   opportunity for the printing industry to
   (a) leverage its resources by teaming with
   EPA and (b) learn how the Agency thinks
   about risk in the printing industry. EPA
   also presented its  draft printing industry
   and use cluster profile and asked partici-
   pants for feedback.

   Many industry members were initially
mistrustful of EPA's intentions and angry
about EPA regulations. The meeting provided
an important opportunity for industry mem-
bers to vent their complaints  about how the
industry was regulated. In particular, industry
members were  frustrated by the inconsistent
interpretations they had received from different
environmental regulatory agencies of regula-
tions affecting the printing industry. Neverthe-
less, there was  significant industry interest in
starting a DfE project, particularly from
medium-sized, large,  and environmentally con-
scious printers. Most  of the meeting attendees
signed up to join project work groups.

Preparation of  the Regulatory
Profile
   EPA responded to the regulatory concerns
expressed by meeting participants by preparing
the Profile of Federal Regulations Potentially Af-
fecting the Commercial Printing Industry. A
draft profile was presented at a second industry
meeting in July 1992 (see below) and revised
based on industry comments. A final profile
was published in 1994 (EPA,  1994b).
                                 THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
                                          81

-------
                       DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
       he printing industry—which includes
       printers; firms providing related services
       (e.g., piatemaking and  binding); and
  publishers of newspapers, books, and
  periodicals—represents the largest
  conglomeration of small businesses in the
  domestic manufacturing sector. The five most
  common printing processes—lithography^
  letterpress, flexography, gravure, and screen
  printing—a'ccount'fbr 97 percent" of the output "
  of the printing industry. An  estimated
  100,000 establishments in the United Stages
  perform some combination of prepress,
  "     „ li     J   "' ^i '             '• 	..'	 :
  press, or postpress printing operations (EPA,
  1994c]. Approximately 80 percent of these
  plants employ fewer than 20 people. Printing
  OsfS a viriely of chemicals, including
 ji!	i1	ih , MI ,;,"''':,,:	ii'^iiiih/'i'iJi^jiiiiiM	Lii'Mfint: 'J I	'' 	    ni   < • '	,,
 photoprocessing chemicals, inks, cleaning
 "'fil'Ii iiiiniii	IIIOT      <	   	i > -i'*"	N • i-, ,*;, M: >• ,.•	.'iiii'iiv11:;	iiiiiiliiiiiisi
 sdlVents, and adhesives; many are potential
 "ill";:'!	11:	ijpiiirihii IH: liiaW;	*» i»i	;ii<|i!l!jii|i T» ;!',i	 11 "-i'"' i 	'	-',!	 ', i ?'.' *;	r	PIHIWII,!!!; IP	wr	^rv»:--f
 hazards to human health and the environment.
 ..i:"1!:1". ,,."„„:":,,Ml:,:"»;:i."ifi.111.:!!1:11 „	>i:=t!,i	v,	dij1" , 7 v,	 ,   •; in i  » •:»:::, J'",,,,"", is,i:|||ilLi!iiM
                          The regulatory profile proved useful in dis-
                      pelling confusion about the federal regulatory-
                      requirements affecting the printing industry. It
                      was also useful in demonstrating EPA's sincerity
                      about establishing a constructive partnership
                      with the industry. Over time, the profile has
                      proven to be a popular document that is fre-
                      quently requested from EPA's Pollution
                      Prevention Information Clearinghouse and at
                      trade shows. It has served as a useful resource
                      for comprehensive, multimedia approaches to
                      environmental regulation and enforcement.
                      CONVENING  THE  PROJECT
                      TEAM

                      Initial Meetings
                          On June 30, 1992, EPA convened the indus-
                      try representatives who had signed up for the
                      use cluster work group so they could begin dis-
                      cussing potential areas of project focus. At the
Table 8-1
Overview of DfE Printing Projects
 Activity
 Scoping

 Convening the Project Team

 Technical Work
 Communication
Outputs
 Implementation
• Industry and use cluster profile
• Profile of regulations potentially affecting the industry
• Partnership developed with industry, government, and  university partners
  (see Table 8-2, p. 85)                    ^  ".'"
• Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA)
• Focus groups
• Communications strategy
• Booths and presentations at trade shows
• Fact sheets
• Case studies and bulletins
• Articles and edi1;prials in the trade press                            .
• Videos  	; ...',       „          '\ ;•• v; ..":.'!•'...',..•     ,  •.'.,	
• Total cost accounting (TCA) software
• Workshops for screen printers on TCA software
• Pollution prevention conference on TCA software
• Voluntary industry standards - proposed for discussion
82
       THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS

-------
                     DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
meeting, EPA staff presented the use cluster
concept and described the Use Clusters Scoring
System (UCSS) they had developed for ranking
use clusters (EPA, 1993a). This PC-based system
uses readily available information on hazard
and exposure to calculate health and ecological
risk scores or toxicity rating scores for each
chemical within a use cluster. An overall use
cluster score is calculated based on the individ-
ual scores of the use cluster chemicals. UCSS
ranks use clusters using a risk-based analysis.
   EPA staff also discussed what was involved
in performing a Cleaner Technologies Substi-
tutes Assessment (CTSA). Participants were
divided into three breakout groups. Each group
had a cross-section of participants, including
suppliers, printers, and representatives of the
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, who had prior
experience working with printers. Each group
constructed a printing process flow chart and
discussed which parts of the process  (or use
clusters) might be fruitful areas of project focus.
The groups used EPA's UCSS to aid in selecting
use clusters. Since most participants  were lithog-
raphers or lithographic suppliers, the groups
identified several parts of the lithographic proc-
ess as possible focal areas. The industry
participants  also selected two industry cochairs
for the use cluster work group.
    Representatives of the screen printing,
flexography, and gravure segments of the print-
ing industry, who had not been present at
earlier meetings, decided they also wanted to
select a use cluster for a possible DfE project
with their industry segment. In response, the af-
ternoon agenda was reorganized to revisit the
use cluster selection, and each industry segment
selected one use cluster for its area.
    In addition, the information products and
publicity work groups developed some ideas
about how they would  organize themselves and
what their next steps should be. EPA provided a
cochair for each work group, and each work
group selected an industry cochair.

Formation of the Core  Group
    Shortly after this meeting, the project team
created a core group of representatives from li-
thography and screen printing made up  of the
cochairs of each work group. The core group
was responsible for overall planning, coordina-
tion, and oversight. The core group, which met
monthly, was  cochaired by  an EPA repre-
sentative and  a printing industry representative.

Definition  of Project Goals
    Although participants at the July  1992
meeting had identified  four use clusters  as po-
tential candidates for the project focus, the core
group decided for resource reasons to restrict
the initial project focus to two use clusters—one
for screen printing and one for lithography.
SECTION 2: THE  DFE SCREEN PRINTING  PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROJECT TEAM
Use  Cluster Selected
    The screen printing use cluster selected was
screen reclamation. Screen reclamation is a
process that involves removing ink, emulsion,
and haze from the printing screen. The screen
reclamation use cluster is therefore a set of
systems, each of which includes combinations
of technology(ies) and/or chemical products
designed to perform three functions: ink re-
moval, emulsion removal, and haze removal
(see Figure 8-2).
                                 THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
                                         83

-------
                      DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
                                                                                            I v1
                           3
                          <
                            •o "c:   
                                                 it
                     «s

                     o
                     E
                     (U
                                             3
                                             */>
                                             VI
                                             (U
                                             »-
                                            a.
                                                                            M  CD
                                                                            J2  i
             3*''- O

            "§-™ I'
            . .CD • JB " oe

             H »«; • O
            '"o "^- '2'

            •;d '^.-, 1
               •.  U4
                                                                                             !M'
                                                                                             ,s
     CO
     £=
     O
    "-M
     CO


     c.
    cc
     G:
     
     OJ
     CJ
              _
              o
              OJ
              I/I

              c
              o
               £
               CD
               CJ
               (LI
              CC
 OJ

 U
l/l
            CO
            a
            O

            I
         TO

         O
         E
         (LI
        CC
T3
O




1

(U
(U
t/5

                                                       £2,
                                                       3
                                                       O T3
                          g
                          O


                          ID
                         DC •

                         Jsi'
         _  (U
         C  V)
         (U  TO
         W  
  • {3 O 2 e -o o c •H Q O I 03 O E (LI CC •s o E "5 "ra ^ £ g > ^ I cc -a o HI 2. § mu ova UJ CC 73 .O .. y-v 4-* CC •§ j -g o -z t% <^ -g I . E S2 W 3 o 84 THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS

  • -------
                          Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     0
            Ine of the most versatile of all the printing processes, screen printing involves stretching a porous
            mesh material over a frame to form a screen (EPA, 1994c).The print image is defined by placing a
            nonporous stencil over the screen. Then, a rubber-type blade (squeegee) is swept across the
    .. screen surface, pressing ink through the image (i.e., the unblocked) area and onto the print material. After
    "B'rinting numerous images, screens must be either cleaned or replaced. Since screens are expensive, many
    ^facilities'choose to reclaim and reuse their screens. Screen reclamation techniques vary, but must include
    i-'two basic functions: removal of the ink and  removal of emulsion (the stencil). Removal of any remaining
    ,*•*" OH/S »'...'                                                y
    -tjhost image, or "haze," may also be required.
    ', ^,, Because screen printing is a relatively simple process, it can use a wider range of inks and dyes than
    /JJRy' other printing p'rocess (EPA, 1994c). Also, the process can print on a wide variety of materials, includ-
    °"%g paper,Vlastic, glass, metals, and"fabrics. Screen-printed products include fine art prints, billboard
    ^^'ertisements, posters, banners, wall hangings, and electronic equipment. In 1991, screen printing ac-
    " c6tfrjteaf,forTess than 3 percent of the total  value of the U.S. printing industry (excluding in-plant
            £ but comprised approximately 40,000 facilities (EPA, 1994c). Sales reported by screen printing
            ies for 1994 totaled $48 billion to $80 billion (SGIA, 1995).  t
                                                      an implementation work group for DfE projects
                                                      was conceived later, during the DfE Dryclean-
                                                      ing Project.)
                                                     Table 8-2
                                                      Partners in  the DfE Screen
                                                      Printing Project
    Screen  Printing Partners
        Project partners for the DfE Screen Printing
    Project are listed in Table 8-2. They include in-
    dustry associations and business, EPA, and
    universities. None of the environmental groups
    or union groups contacted decided to join the
    project team, although some asked to receive in-
    formation about the project as it developed.
    
    Evolution  in  Project Team
    Structure  and Composition
        Over time, the two sectors separated into
    two distinct projects, lithography and screen
    printing. SGIA played the major role repre-
    senting industry on the core group. Groups of
    printers were identified to perform the role of
    the Technical  and Outreach Work Groups on an
    as needed basis.
        Eventually, the use cluster and performance
    work groups merged to form a technical work
    group for screen printing. The information prod-
    ucts and publicity work groups merged to form
    a communication work group. The core group
    took responsibility for developing ideas for im-
    plementation, and the industry association
    cochairs took ownership of longer-term imple-
    mentation activities. (The concept of having
                                                           INDUSTRY
                                                           • Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging
                                                             Association International (SGIA)
                                                           « Screen Printing Technical Foundation
                                                           • Individual printers and suppliers
    
                                                           GOVERNMENT
                                                           • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    
                                                           RESEARCH/EDUCATION
                                                           • The Center for Clean Products and Clean
                                                             Technologies, University of Tennessee
                                                           • University of Massachusetts Toxics Use
                                                             Reduction Institute, Lowell
                                                           • The Center for Business and
                                                             Environmental Studies, California State
                                                             University, Hayward
                                       THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
                                                                                                 85
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    IDENTIFYING ALTERNATIVE
    SCREEN RECLAMATION SYSTEMS
    
    Workplace Practices Questionnaire
       The technical work group needed informa-
    tion on current workplace practices to complete
    the technical analysis. The screen printing trade
    association distributed questionnaires to its
    members requesting information on a variety of
    practices, including type of procedure and how
    each was performed, equipment used, type and
    volume of materials used,  and pollution preven-
    tion activities related to screen reclamation
    activities. The trade association collected and
    consolidated the results, and the University of
    Tennessee assisted in analyzing the data. A
    copy of the workplace practices questionnaire
    for screen printing can be  obtained from
    EPA (1994d).
    
    Screen Reclamation System
    Alternatives
       As plans for the performance demonstration
    developed, the technical work group contacted
    all known screen printing  industry suppliers to
    explain the project and request information
    about and samples of alternative screen recla-
    mation systems for the performance
    demonstration. Suppliers were assured that
    chemical data would be kept confidential and
    that their products would be given code names
    to mask product identity during the perform-
    ance demonstration and hi all documents
    reporting the results. For the screen printing
    demonstration, suppliers were asked not to sub-
    mit any products containing stratospheric
    ozone-depleting chemicals. Suppliers were told
    they would receive copies  of the raw data ob-
    tained from the performance demonstration, as
    well as the risk data in the CTSA for review
    prior to release to the public. Also, the project
    would credit their participation in outreach
    materials publicizing the project results.
                      Based on these outreach efforts, nine screen
                  printing suppliers contributed screen reclama-
                  tion product information and samples to the
                  project. Many participating suppliers were sub-
                  sequently invited to speak at industry events
                  and have received positive visibility within the
                  industry and with customers.
    
                  Chemical Information
                      One of the first things the screen printing
                  technical work group did was identify the indi-
                  vidual components of the chemical products
                  used in screen reclamation and to seek informa-
                  tion on the volumes of chemicals typically
                  used. This information was necessary to analyze
                  environmental and human health risks associ-
                  ated with product use.
                      Product suppliers provided information on
                  formulations. Suppliers were initially reluctant
                  to divulge information on alternatives, but felt
                  more at ease providing this information once
                  they understood the purpose of the project. An
                  important barrier to their participation was the
                  fear that proprietary information would be re-
                  vealed. This concern was addressed by devising
                  a system that allowed suppliers to provide pro-
                  prietary information to a third party (a trade
                  association for screen printing), who then
                  camouflaged the information before providing
                  it to the technical work group and EPA.
                      Using data from suppliers and other indus-
                  try sources, 72 separate chemical constituents
                  used in screen reclamation formulations were
                  identified. This information was provided to
                  EPA project staff who were performing the risk
                  assessments for the project. Chemical informa-
                  tion databases and literature were searched to
                  obtain information on the physical and chemi-
                  cal properties, industrial synthesis, aquatic
                  toxicity, environmental fate, and  health hazards
                  of each chemical. This information is docu-
                  mented in Screen Printing Cleaner Technologies
                  Substitutes Assessment: Screen Reclamation
                  Use Cluster (EPA, 1994d).
    86
    THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Screen  Printing  Performance
    Demonstrations
        The methodology for the screen printing
    performance demonstration was developed
    jointly by EPA, screen printers, and product
    manufacturers in the fall of 1993. It was de-
    signed to evaluate the maximum number of
    product systems possible within the project's re-
    source limitations. Industry representatives
    preferred demonstrating the alternatives in real-
    life conditions rather than in a laboratory
    setting. The methodology therefore relied on
    demonstrating alternatives under real-life condi-
    tions at volunteer facilities to provide
    information about performance and cost. As a
    result, the performance demonstration was not
    a rigorous scientific evaluation. The protocol in-
    volved two phases:
    •   First, a laboratory screening was established
        to ensure that the nontraditional screen rec-
        lamation systems would not damage screen
        printing equipment and that they performed
        adequately to merit being included in the
        performance demonstration.
    •   Second, alternatives were demonstrated at
        actual screen printing facilities for 30 days.
        The screen printing trade association took
    the lead in identifying screen printers to  con-
    duct the performance demonstrations.
    Twenty-three screen printers volunteered their
    facilities and staff.
        In early 1994, 14 nontraditional screen rec-
    lamation systems were first evaluated at the
    Screen Printing Technical Foundation labora-
    tory (using one traditional system as a
    performance baseline) and then demonstrated
    in 30-day production runs at the 23 volunteer
    facilities.  Each nontraditional system was dem-
    onstrated in two or three different facilities.
    The Screen Printing Technical Foundation also
    evaluated one nontraditional technology,
    but this was not demonstrated further due to
    practical difficulties in making the technology
    available at demonstration sites.
        Each chemical product demonstrated was
    given a code name to mask its identity. The
    staff of SGIA repackaged products and removed
    identifying marks and brand names from the
    alternatives before shipping them to the demon-
    stration facilities so that the printers and the
    DfE observers evaluating the systems would
    not know the manufacturers or the product
    names.
        The protocol was designed to minimize the
    effort and disruption required of demonstration
    facilities. Each facility was asked to:
    •   Provide background information on the fa-
        cility, its current operations, and the current
        systems used.
    •   Participate in a 1-day site visit in which a
        DfE observer documented current practices
        and provided training in using the alterna-
        tive systems and the recording and
        reporting requirements.
    •   Record performance information over a 30-
        day period, including information on
        volumes of chemicals used, time spent us-
        ing the systems, level of effort required, and
        the quality of the results.
    •   Participate in weekly phone calls with the
        DfE observer.
        One issue that arose during protocol devel-
    opment was how to handle material safety data
    sheets (MSDSs) for the chemical products dem-
    onstrated. Volunteer facilities would need
    access to the information on these MSDSs in
    case of accidental worker exposure during the
    demonstration. Because MSDSs identify the
    product manufacturer, however, providing dem-
    onstration facilities with standard MSDSs would
    compromise the confidential nature of the per-
    formance demonstration. This issue was solved
    with the help of Chemical Manufacturers Asso-
    ciation representatives, who donated the use of
    their 24-hour chemical information hotline.
                                      THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
                                              87
    

    -------
                          DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     During the performance demonstration, partici-
     pating facilities could obtain MSDS safely
     information at any time by calling the 24-hour
     hotline and giving the product code name.
        The screen printing performance demonstra-
     tion not only yielded performance data, but
     also provided both cost information for screen
     reclamation systems and substantial project visi-
     bility within the industry. The results of the
     performance demonstration were documented
     in the CTSA (EPA, 1994d) (see below).
    
     Developing the CTSA
        The project methodologies and results were
     documented in a CTSA developed by EPA and
     the University of Tennessee. CTSA preparation
     involved gathering data  and developing and
     implementing analytical methodologies to
     generate comparative risk, cost, and per-
     formance information for all  alternatives
     investigated by the project. Industry partners
     reviewed the methodologies developed by EPA
     and supplied data for analysis. Data sources
     included chemical literature, the performance
     demonstrations, the workplace practices ques-
     tionnaire, and experts. Each section of the
     CTSA was reviewed by the technical work group.
        As an example, the CTSA for screen print-
     ing includes:
     •   A profile of the screen reclamation use
        cluster.
     •   A profile (i.e., physical/chemical properties,
        industrial synthesis, aquatic toxicity, envi-
        ronmental fate, and hazard summary) of
        each of the individual chemical components
        of the alternatives examined.
     •   Information on the methodologies used to
        assess risk,  performance, and cost.
     •   Comparative risk, cost, and performance in-
        formation on the various traditional and
        nontraditional alternatives evaluated.
     *  A description of overall pollution preven-
       tion opportunities  for screen reclamation.
     •  A discussion of macrpeconomic issues, in-
        cluding international trade issues, energy
        and natural resources issues, and a macroe-
        conomic cost-benefit analysis of alternative
        screen reclamation systems.
    
     Screen Printing  CTSA Results
        As described in the screen printing CTSA
     (EPA,  1994d), nontraditional screen printing al-
     ternatives generally performed similarly to
     traditional products. Some of the alternatives
     exhibited lower costs and reduced risk as well.
     Some  nontraditional systems met printer expec-
     tations consistently, some received mixed
     reviews, and some were found unacceptable. By
     way of illustration, Table 8-3, reproduced from
     the screen printing CTSA, lists some general
     conclusions about risk associated with screen
     printing that resulted from the technical work.
     Table 8-4, taken from the CTSA summary book-
     let (EPA 1994d), summarizes the cost and
     hazard issues for the alternative screen printing
     systems evaluated.
     COMMUNICATION  AND
     IMPLEMENTATION
    
     Communication  Focus Groups
        When defining the project focus, the core
     groups for both screen printing and lithography
     agreed that small printing shops should be the
     primary target audience for the project results,
     since these operations had fewer resources and
     therefore were least able to obtain risk, cost,
     and performance information on their own.
    The communication work group decided to go
     directly to small printers to learn how to com-
    municate with them and motivate them to
    change their behavior. In 1992 through 1993,
    both the screen printing and lithography work
    groups sponsored two series of focus groups de-
    signed to answer questions such as:
    88
                                    THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
    

    -------
                          DfE; Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Table 8-3
    Summary of Risk Conclusions for  Screen Reclamation8
            Estimated worker dermal exposures to traditional and alternative screen reclamation products can
            be high if proper protective clothing is not worn.
            All of the traditional products presented clear concerns for both inhalation exposures and
            unprotected dermal exposures to workers.
            Only one of the alternative products (mu) presented a clear concern for inhalation exposures to
            workers. In general, the alternative products are much less volatile than the traditional products,
            and therefore have fewer releases to air.
            Health risks to the general population from ambient air and drinking water exposures are
            estimated to be very low for all of the products evaluated due to low quantities of releases from
            individual sites.
            The major health impact on the general population for screen reclamation products is probably its
            release of volatile organic compounds that contribute to the formation of photochemical smog in
            the ambient air. The traditional products, because of their volatility, are likely to have a much
            greater impact on ambient air quality than the alternative products.
            Use of an automatic screen washer for ink removal may significantly reduce air emissions of
            certain volatile ink remover components, although the amount of reduction depends on the
            specific components of the formulation. However, the automatic screen washer is expensive and is
            probably not affordable for most small and medium-sized printers.
     Reproduced from the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for screen printing (EPA, 1994d).
     •  What type of information do printers need
        to evaluate environmentally friendly alter-
        native products?
     •  In what format would printers like to see
        this information presented?
     •  What is the best way to distribute this infor-
        mation to as many printers as possible?
        Which sources are most credible?
     •  What would motivate printers to prevent
        pollution?
        The first series of focus groups was held
     from December 1992 to February 1993, in nine
     cities across the United States, to get printer in-
     put on the issues listed above. The second series
     consisted of eight focus groups, held in five dif-
     ferent cities  from October 1993 to April 1994,
     to get feedback on which information product
     formats printers preferred. In all, 26 focus
     groups were held, 13 with screen printers and
    13 with lithographers. The methodology and re-
    sults of the first and second series of focus
    groups are reported in two documents (EPA,
    1993b and EPA, 1994f, respectively).
        At each  focus group, participants were
    asked a series of questions related to how they
    receive  and  use information. During the second
    series of focus groups, participants also were
    asked to comment on a variety of different po-
    tential formats for presenting DfE information.
        The focus groups provided valuable input
    that helped  the DfE communication work
    groups design a draft communication strategy
    (Appendix A). Focus group participants were
    generally enthusiastic about the DfE project and
    felt it was an important step toward encourag-
    ing pollution prevention in the industry. They
    emphasized that DfE information should be pre-
    sented in  simple clear formats (e.g., case
    studies, fact sheets). Local trade sources
                                        THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
                                                                                                  89
    

    -------
                            DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Table 8-4
    Summary  of Screen Reclamation Systems3
    
    System
    Method 1
    Baseline
    Chi
    
    
    
    
    Beta "
    ™ >Miji 	 ;i 	 ' '-'
    Method 2
    Baseline
    Alpha
    
    
    cf:; 	 ';;"';
    ""
    : 	 -::::*:': 	 ''•'' •< 	 ; "
    Delta
    
    
    .Epsllon
    '""",!"',! "ll '..*. .
    Gamma
    
    
    & 	
    
    ,.' ' ,
    Phi
    
    OftJcron-AE
    
    .". .' - . i 	
    Omicron-AF
    
    
    $&,'.. 	 ,,r
    ,' ,'.; 	 •.
    Other Methods
    Omicron
    Thcta (High-
    Pressure
    Water Blaster)
    Automatic
    Scfefen Washer
    if if;11",,!! '/I1!1 • 	 "n •
    !l.i mi 'In,, I' In '
    Scrtcn
    Disposal
    
    Ink Type
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    
    Solvent, UV
    
    
    Solvent UV,
    Water
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    Solvent, UV
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    
    Solvent, UV,
    Water
    
    ••••^^^
    Ink Remover
    
    Mot demonstrated.
    System Chi was demonstrated with the
    ink remover also in use as a haze
    remover. See ink and emulsion
    remover performance under Method 2,
    Chi.
    Addjtional wiping required. Left oily
    jesiduft tould deteriorate, stencil.
    
    Not demonstrated.
    Removed ink effectively, but required
    moderate level of additional scrubbing.
    
    1 in1",1 i r 1 11 ^n r f » "t
    Performance varied across ink types.
    Generally required additional effort.
    ,: '
    Fair to good overall performance. Best
    with solvent/UV.
    
    Removed ink effectively. Extra time
    needed to remove water-based ink.
    Required more time, effort, and
    product. Could deteriorate stencil.
    
    Required more effort and product for
    some ink. Could deteriorate stencij.
    .' ', .\/'/J'..'L..!ii:L:,' '.'.'J.'..;:..V '\.':'l,-.
    Inconsistent performance across ink
    types. Could deteriorate stencil.
    Required more effort and, in some
    cases (water-based ink), product.
    . ,' 	 '. '. '.:*-': 	 ",'1, ;"i,"i" V ',;';' 	 '' .'^.'....'i, ;': •'.•-,. ,
    Required moderate to high level of
    effort. Could deteriorate stencil.
    
    Poor performance overall, even after
    application method was modified.
    
    Not demonstrated.
    Not part of this method.
    
    
    Performance
    Emulsion Remover
    
    ,;,;Mot demonstrated. ...'...-,
    
    
    
    
    
    Not demonstrated.
    
    
    Not demonstrated.
    Dissolved stencil, but
    required additional
    scrubbing; also left tint.
    Worked well. More time
    required to remove capillary
    film emulsion's.' ..." ' :'' '.,-
    Easily dissolved stencil
    regardless of ink type.
    
    Quickly and easily removed
    ,.steB^.L,',,.._;...l!.l'l_".;,.,'lJ
    Easily dissolved stencil
    regardless of ink type.
    
    Quickly and easily removed
    Stencil; left no ink or, ,
    .ernulsiqn, residue., ,., „'
    Easily removed stencil with
    very little scrubbing.
    Inconsistent performance
    acrossjnk types. Left some
    stain or residue/
    Easily dissolved stencil. May
    require some scrubbing; may
    leave ink stain.
    Dissolved stencil with effort
    : and modification of method.
    
    Not demonstrated.
    After application and water
    blasting, stencil dissolved;
    left some ink stain.
    Commercially available technologies that remove ink (or, in some cases,
    1 P',:i " i1
    
    
    mmmmmm
    Haze Remover
    
    ,, Not part of this method.
    Not part of this method.
    
    
    
    
    Not part of this method.
    
    
    Not demonstrated.
    Lightened or removed
    ink stain, but left haze.
    
    Ink remover used.
    Several applicatibns
    ., removed, sjain.; _ 	 .,
    Ink remover used.
    Removed residue, but left
    stain.
    Lightened ink stain and
    .usually removed the haze.
    At facilities, did not
    remove ink haze. In lab,
    left light ink stain.
    ; Did not lighten stain
    ... (solvent based ink).
    .. .Better wigi;llJ^(W,aterv --,'.'.
    Removed ink residue, but
    only lightened stain.
    Some ink stain remained
    after application.
    
    Lightened stains, but did
    not remove haze or
    residue.
    Did not effectively
    remove haze or ink stain.
    
    Not part of this method.
    Immediately dissolved
    ink stain.
    
    ink, emulsion, and haze) by
    focusing appropriate reclamation products on a screen mesh surface within a fully enclosed unit.
    r'Not'SemonstrateS^ 	 	 '• 	
    Not demonstrated.
    
    
    
    
    
    "Significant environmental effects were associated with Method 1, Baseline system only. Cumulative releases from this
    system pose a risk to aquatic species. All other product systems had negligible environmental effects when released to a
    water treatment facility and, therefore, these effects are not discusssed in the table. Impacts of volatile organic
    compound releases were not quantified.
                                                                                          .
    Source: Reproduced from the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for screen printing (EPA, 1994d).
    90
    THE Dffi PRINTING PROJECTS
    

    -------
                                Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    
    
    Table 8-4
    Summary of Screen  Reclamation  Systems (continued)
                                              Exposure Potential and Health Risks
     Method 1
     iaseline
    
     Chi
    
     Beta
    
     Method 2
     Jaseline
    
     Alpha
    
     Chi
    
     Delta
    
     Epsilon
    
     Gamma
    
     Mu
    
     Phi
    
     Omicron-AE
    
     Omicron-AF
    
     Zeta
    
     Other Methods
     Omfcrbn
    
     Theta (High-
     Pressure Water
     Blaster)
     Automatic
     Screen Washer
     Screen Disposal
                        Ink Remover
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+++)
    Risk: clear/clear
    Exposure: skin {++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: clear/negligible
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+++)
    Risk: not quantified/not quantified
    
    
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+++)
    Risk: clear/clear                  " ,
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+++)
    Risk: possible/possible
    Exposure skin (++)/mhalation (+)
    Risk clear/negligible
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: not quantified/not quantified
    Exposure skin (++)/inhalauon (++)
    Risk-possible/neghgible-possible
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (++)
    Risk: negligible-clear/not quantified
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk, possible/negligible-possibie
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: not quantified/not quantified
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: clear/negligible
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: clear/negligible
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+++)
    Risk: negligible-possible/possible •
    
    
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: negligible-clear/negligible
    Not part of this method.
                                                                     Haze Remover
    Not part of this method.
    
    
    Not part of this method.
    
               » f '. •* ~»^ X
    Not part of this method.
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalatiqn C++)
    Risk: clear/clear
    Exposure: skin (+++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: not quantified/not quantified
    Exposure, skin (+++)/inhaIatton (+)
    Risk clear/negligible
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhaIation (+)
    Risk: not quantified/not quantified
      **         ~  -    ~    -
       *        <~  -        -.
    Exposure skin (++)/mhalation (+)
    Risk possible/negligible
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: negligible/not quantified
      V         ~, 1  •*• •? ?**  ) $ yrv
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: negligible/not quantified
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: possible/negligible
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: not quantified/not 'quantified
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: not quantified/not quantified
    Exposure: skirt (++)/inhalatton (+)
    Risk^negligible/negligible
    
    
    Not part of this method.
    
    Exposure: skin (++)/inhalation (+)
    Risk: possible/negligible
     Exposure: skin (+++)/inha!afion (+++)
     Risk: clear/possible
     No risks associated with screen reclamation products.
                  t,    *
     Not assessed for exposure or risk.
                                                                                          Cost Range1
                                                                                          ($/Screen)
     Not calculated.
    
    
     $1.95-$2.83
    
    
     $7.97  ,
    
    
    
    " $6.27 ""
    
    
     $5.92 - $9.37
    
    
     $3.25 - $3 89~*
    
    
     $3.28 - $7.66
    
    
     $3 08 - $5 29 *
    
    
     $5.06 - $5.61
    
    
     $4.79 - $9.33"'
    
    
     $6.10-$7.82
    
    
     $5.49 - $10.85*
    
    
     $3.89 - $4.45
     $5.39" - $8*.99"
     $5.57
    
    
     $4.53
    
    
    
     $4.13
    
    
     $49.43
     bExposure has been categorized by: (+) low, (++) moderate, and (+++) high. Risk has been categorized as: not quantified,
     negligible, possible, or dear.
     formalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at demonstration facili-
     ties to reflect the screen size and  number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario. Normalization allows a
     comparison between the baseline and facility results.
                                                 THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
                                                                                                      91
    

    -------
                          DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     (e.g., local trade press, suppliers, local trade and
     craft organizations, and other small printers)
     were generally regarded as the most credible by
     sfhall printers. Conferences were difficult for
     small printers to attend because of the cost
     and the difficulty of sparing staff from daily
     operations.
        The focus groups also showed that small
     printers were concerned primarily about per-
     formance and cost, and generally had limited or
     no awareness about environmental issues asso-
     ciated with their business choices.  Therefore,
     the communication work groups for both screen
     printing and lithography decided to direct their
     early efforts toward raising basic awareness
     about the project and the need for and benefits
     of pollution prevention, in order to build a mar-
     ket for project results.
    
     Fact Sheet
        Early in the project, the communication
     work groups developed a fact sheet for the DfE
     Printing Project providing background informa-
     tion on the purpose, focus, and approach of the
     project and providing contact information for
     readers who might want to participate or obtain
     further information (EPA, 1993e). This fact
     sheet, which is reproduced in Appendix A,
     was updated several times during the project.
     An additional fact sheet was developed specifi-
     cally for screen printers (EPA, 1995c) (see
     Appendix A).
    
     Case Studies
        To raise industry awareness about pollution
     prevention, the DfE Project decided to develop
     and distribute a case study describing successful
     applications of pollution prevention by industry
     practitioners. The case study  format highlighted
     industry participation to  create  greater credibil-
     ity within  the industry.
        Overall, the DfE Screen Printing Project de-
    veloped three case studies, each describing how
     a screen printing company involved its entire
                   staff in auditing its operations, reviewing chemi-
                   cal product substitutes to toxic constituents,
                   and developing and implementing creative
                   ideas that prevented pollution and lowered
                   costs. These case studies are provided in Appen-
                   dix A (EPA, 1996a; 1996b; 1993c). The DfE
                   project partners have distributed these case stud-
                   ies to screen printers by several mechanisms,
                   including booths at industry trade shows and
                   conferences, mailings by the trade associations,
                   and on the World Wide Web.
    
                   Project Result Bulletins
                      The project team developed  a series of
                   four bulletins that highlight technology and
                   workplace practice alternatives in screen recla-
                   mation. The documents compared one or more
                   nontraditional alternatives with traditional op-
                   tions in terms of risk, performance, and cost.
                   This information was based on the screen print-
                   ing CTSA. These bulletins can be found in
                   Appendix A (EPA,  1996c; 1996d; 1996e; 1996fJ.
                      Each of these outreach products was re-
                   viewed by industry representatives and
                   individual printers. Table 8-5 lists these out-
                   reach materials.
    
                   Trade Show Presentations  and
                   Booths
                      DfE project team members have made pres-
                   entations  at many  industry conferences to
                   publicize the project and recruit participants.
                   Early in the  project, EPA developed two booths
                   for outreach at industry trade shows and confer-
                   ences. Typically, a  communication work group
                   member traveled to the meeting  to staff the
                   booth, discussed the project with interested par-
                   ties, and distributed copies of the fact sheet,
                   case studies, and other project materials.
    
                   Articles and Editorials in the
                   Trade  Press
                      The trade press has  been an important  com-
                   munication vehicle for the DfE Screen Printing
    92
    THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
    

    -------
    Table 8-5
    DfE  Screen Printing Project Publications
     DfE Screen Printing Project Fact Sheet: Designing Solutions for Screen Printers
     Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Ah Evaluation of Screen
     Reclamation Systems                  -                /,  *
     Designing Solutions for Screen Printers: An Evaluation of Screen  Reclamation
     Systems
     DfE Screen Printing Project Case Study #1: Reducing the Use of Reclamation
     Chemicals in Screen Printing
     DfE Screen Printing Project Case Study #2: Changing Equipment and
     Reducing Solvent Use in Screen Reclamation
     DfE Screen Printing Project CaseStudy #3: Innovations in Adhesives, Screen
     Cleaning, and Screen Reclamation                        _   "
     DfE Screen Printing Project Bulletin #1: Technology Alternatives for Screen
     Reclamation
     DfE Screen Printing Project Bulletin 42: Smarter, Safer Screen Reclamation
     Alternative System Epsilon                           f     "<   „,
     DfE Screen  Printing Project Bulletin #3: Work Practice Alternatives for Screen
     Reclamation
     DfE Screen  Printing Project Bulletin #4: Smarter, Safer Screen Reclamation
     Alternative System Chi
                              EPA 744-F-95-003
                              EPA 744-R-94-005a
    
                              EPA 744-F-96-010
    
                              'EPA744-F-93-015
    
                              EPA744-F-96-011
    
                              .EPA744-F-96-012
    
                              EPA 742-F-95-008
    
                              "EPA 742-F-95-009
    
                              EPA742-F-95-010
    
                              EPA 742-F-95-011
     Project. The trade associations that are partici-
     pating as project partners have publicized the
     project to their membership via their print
     media and have taken the lead in involving
     others in the trade press. Trade articles have
     built industry awareness of the project and in-
     terest in its results. Editorials have encouraged
     industry members to participate.
    
     Video
         DfE project partners have contributed
     funding and technical assistance to develop
     two videos on pollution prevention in screen
     printing. Targeted for industry decision-makers
     and chief executive officers, one of the videos,
     Saving Money, Reducing Waste, was produced
     by a Small Business Administration Develop-
     ment Center (SBDC) and was publicized and
    sold by the screen printing trade association
    and the SBDC. The second video, Pollution Pre-
    vention at Action Graphics, Inc., was produced
    by EPA and describes one screen printer's ef-
    forts to prevent pollution and reduce risks to
    workers.
    
    Information Summary  Matrix
        The project team produced a brochure sum-
    marizing the risk, performance, and cost results
    by product in a user-friendly matrix. This bro-
    chure is targeted for use by small printers and
    technical assistance providers. The summary
    matrix gives a brief description of how well
    the ink remover, emulsion remover, and haze
    remover worked for each of the screen reclama-
    tion systems. In addition, the exposure potential,
    health risks, regulatory concerns, and cost
                                        THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
                                                                                                93
    

    -------
                          DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     information were provided for each screen recla-
     mation system.
    
     Pollution Prevention Conference
     for Screen  Printers
        SGIA and EPA cosponsored a pollution pre-
     vention conference and information forum for
     leaders in the screen printing industry in
     Chicago in April 1995 entitled "Resource."
     Billed as the "first annual conference on the en-
     vironment" for the industry, the conference
     offered new approaches to pollution prevention
     in screen printing.
        This conference included presentations by
     pollution prevention experts, DfE staff, and
     representatives  of state technical assistance
     programs. Also, the conference featured a
     presentation on total quality environmental
     management to stress the importance of build-
     ing environmental considerations into all
     aspects of business operations  and involving
     the whole staff in developing and implementing
     pollution prevention activities.
        This conference was merged with confer-
     ences on environmental concerns for
     lithographic printing, flexographic printing, and
     gravure printing. This joint environmental con-
     ference is now held annually and  focuses on
     these four sectors of the printing industry.
    
     Total  Cost Accounting Software
     and Training for Screen  Printers
        EPA funded the development of software
     that screen printers can use to  evaluate the
                   "total cost" of pollution prevention investments
                   compared to the printer's current operation. The
                   P2/FINANCE for Screen Printers: Total Cost As-
                   sessment Software Program provides a tool for
                   business managers to assess the profitability of
                   pollution prevention investments by fully and
                   explicitly accounting for environmental costs
                   and benefits. EPA provided  funding for two sat-
                   ellite videoconferences to publicize and train
                   printers in  using the software and provided in-
                   itial instruction in its use. Individuals trained
                   during the  first session were on hand to provide
                   further training to printers after the second
                   videoconference.
    
                   Evaluation  of  Behavior Changes
                      The project team is developing a program to
                   evaluate the extent to which the project has
                   catalyzed changes in pollution prevention be-
                   havior in the printing industry. For the Screen
                   Printing Project, this evaluation program in-
                   cludes interviews with project participants and
                   a national survey of industry members.
                      In 1996, EPA contracted with Westat to
                   conduct a sample telephone  survey of the
                   screen printing industry. The survey collected
                   information on establishment characteristics,
                   recycling procedures, screen reclamation activi-
                   ties, sources of technical information, and
                   interest in adapting cleaner technologies. The
                   survey provides a baseline for analyzing the im-
                   plementation of technological changes in the
                   screen printing industry. The full survey results
                   will be reported in an upcoming DfE document.
    94
    THE DfE PRINTING PROJECTS
    

    -------
                                C H A P  T E  R
                                         The  Df E
                            Garment  and
                               Textile  Care
                                            Project
    SCOPING
    
    Background
        ie DfE Garment and Textile Care Pro-
        gram evolved out of several years of
        work by EPA with the drycleaning indus-
    try to examine ways to reduce exposure to
    perchloroethylene (perc), the chemical solvent
    most drycleaners use to clean clothes.
      Originally, the effort was identified as the
    DfE Drycleaning Project. The goal of the DfE
    Drycleaning Project was to help drycleaners,
    who are mostly small businesses, use less perc
    while maintaining the quality of their services
    and their economic competitiveness. The Dry-
    cleaning Project successfully brought together
    key stakeholders in the textile manufacturing,
    garment manufacturing, retail, and professional
    cleaning industry to explore developments in al-
    ternative cleaning methods. At the conclusion
    of the Drycleaning Project, stakeholders over-
    whelmingly expressed their desire for continued
                                                            95
    

    -------
                           DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
          pfflK.-;i7r;, ;,v  .'.:-.;,-^	r\\^£rtii			
          e Prvcleaning Industry and the  Reduction in  Perc Use
                m	.j	iiiiin,	i	ill	s	wliii	•	»•	ill	iii!«^
                                                                 ;mM;B-!J;kSa;K£,r^
             rycleaning, which refers to processes that clean clothes using solvents other than water, is        1
             I performed in three types of facilities:                    -"'.   •   ;                     i'-:^
    
                      gi4l^^
                      —J     densely populated areas.                                        ;   ,  : ";
                              i—^^^
                                 •s, the largest drycleaning facilities, which often are part of a business thlt  s
                            ,1'^hWfc^^
                            , towels, or other garments.                        '
                   v	ft	;	", '*•,,	f3«"3^^
                  l-operated drycleaning facilities, which typically are part of a full-service retail or
                  	U!^^                                                      S^riei^.fJM*&^u*^^\M*
                  •nmer-operated laundror0*
                 	
                       	i	i;	KB	r	•*•	!ii«!i!ii«i«^^
                       LjSSfi&OTE^
         J1I1P1,I    BBI	JMfl^
        ^*l§§^^-'i9^.P-rYc.^?.^?,n3 Project decided to focus its technical work on commercial drycleariihq   ^
          rilMllPJim ^'' ..'iflihiiM''.^!™ ;• i *	'''"''iilJtsiU^'CftiioiLjiicitA^'jiw^
          use	Qflois	5ector's^^[dlPligfiSg^                      ;:.-.V'-/.' "  ''...' ;.',.:''. • "'••'--'-. '•••-^^
                             ;fi^S||X,SLteSS                                 soiled garr--.. ''*,, ^.  \
                  ^	&Y^pe*iE!i^
                            sleSfflSi^                                                  -drum^to^,^
              	m__	_	]IIT	_	_	m_	jJ,!3i3,sySi^tt|£^|M          th'g .drum' to evapprate the 'remaining splyentX-- '"-I
              i garments are removed from ther machine and are finished and pressed.               :- ."'•" :^-^l
              llllllilllilllJII'illll!"!1 "'""I"riiiiiHlii'iiiiKi'" i ,iii!'*i,'"il!"'!1'Siil1'' iPiif	Rmlilii'lFl'IIISlliyiSiilliilffi^^               !MifIS^S»w^^                   '.J-LH-L ... .' , ..., Ai :.M,. ,. .*,'-i-^.,.\- .'iLvi ,ixiuj^v*f»**
                   tn ri^	S"H£«]ll&                                              Rercjnd:l4-:;'f
                      l«,2i2«i,^S2lS*^^
                      i '&"^A ^'^tn'^^"^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^y^e CJea^AipAct-^
    jip feiii-y*»iijRi
    
    |w ||3raHiawiil
    
    
                       in|-degjeting gotentiaj
                                        wmmmmmmmmmMMmammmmmmrmtmmMvv^wm -'*' r 'V^m^^wmmc.nn-m u-.,wSI«l?W
    -------
                         Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    include textile composition and garment con-
    struction, which have a significant bearing on
    how well any particular cleaning method will
    perform. (See sidebar, page 99 and Figure 9-1,
    Industrial Ecology Approach). Furthermore,
    these earlier steps in the chain are affected by
    consumers' needs and preferences. Products
    need to be designed from the start to permit the
    effective use of technologies that are both cost-
    competitive and environmentally friendly. Thus,
    stage two of the project emphasizes seeking and
    promoting effective drycleaning alternatives
    with a fabric lifecycle approach that will ensure
    success. For a detailed discussion of industrial
    ecology, see page 99.
        This chapter will  discuss important activi-
    ties of both the earlier Drycleaning Project
    and the current Garment and Textile Care
    Program.
    
    Figure 9-1
     Industrial Ecology Approach
    STAGE ONE: THE ORIGINAL
    DRYCLEANING PROJECT
       With more than 34,000 commercial shops
    in neighborhoods and malls across the country,
    drycleaners are one of the largest groups of
    chemical users that come in direct contact with
    the public. One chemical commonly used by
    drycleaners, perc, is classified as a hazardous
    air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and  is con-
    sidered to be a probable carcinogen. Perc is
    released into both ambient (outdoor) and indoor
    air during drycleaning and from drycleaned
    clothes. The chemical has been found in fatty
    foods in establishments located near dry-
    cleaners, in the indoor air of nearby residences,
    in the indoor air of the homes and apartments
    of drycleaning workers and customers,  and in
    soil and ground water near drycleaning sites
    (Figure 9-2). As the potential hazards of perc
                                                Winding &
                                                Weaving
            Dyeing,
          Preparing &
            Finishing
                    Fiber Production
                                                                        Garment Care
               Technological Push; Green Chemistry ;«
       Technological Pull: Cleaner Technologies
                              THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                                                                              97
    

    -------
                           DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    
     Figure 9-2
     Potential  Pathways of Exposure to Perc From  Drycleaning Operations
    
     (1) Indoor air at drycleaners; (2) ambient (outdoor) air; (3) indoor air of nearby residences; (4) indoor air of
     nearby food establishments (e.g., restaurants and grocery stores) and in fatty foods in these establishments;
     (5) indoor air of homes and apartments of drycleaning workers and customers; and (6) soil and ground water
     near drycleaning sites.
    became recognized and resulted in increased
    regulation, compliance became more burden-
    some for many businesses. Many professional
    cleaners responded to the situation and
    pursued new cleaning methods that would
    both protect the environment and be cost-
    effective. EPA developed the DfE Drycleaning
    Project to identify and promote industry inno-
    vation in environmentally preferable cleaning
    methods.
    Open Stakeholder Conference
        From the beginning, EPA recognized that
    the drycleaning industry consists mainly of
    small businesses that are least able to absorb
    the impact of increased regulation. Thus, the
    agency forged a partnership with the industry
    to explore ways of reducing exposures to dry-
    cleaning solvents through safer work practices
    and alternative technologies. DfE's philosophy
    of fostering voluntary initiative soon resulted in
    the successful and lasting collaboration be-
    tween all stakeholders.
    98
                             THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
    

    -------
                          DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     Industrial Ecology:
     flow It Affects the Textile and Garment Care Industries
            s its name implies, "industrial ecology" concerns the relationships between an industry's"
            interrelated network of components, or the value chain, and the environment. By 1997, it became
           klear to participants in the Drycleaning Project that drycleaners' options were limited by thefact
    Ft|at drycleaning was the last step in "an elaborate textile value chain (see Figure 9-1], Also evident was*
    Ithe realization that changesln garment cleaning technology directly affect other industries up"the value
    •Sham. These other industries, Jcnown as market segments,, include fiber and textile manufacture and*^
    Distribution; and apparel, upTiolstery^and floor-covering manufacture, design, and distribution.
     |Green Chemistry                                                 "'„„,*..,„,
      jpif., Working in tandem withtthe"concept of industriafecology is "green chemistry." Green chemistryjn-^
      /gives any environmentally benign^cKeniical'synthesis arid processing method used to eliminate^
    Jpoliutants. Until recently, improvements to the'environment entailed more engineering than chemistry^
    fanj3 tended to occur at the end-pf-process treatments to eliminate' pollutants. Green'chemistry can be^
    t used^at any point between thfnrjanufa'cture and distribution of a product or resource—that is, at any
    tpoint in the value chain.    '           *  *  '              *',   <•   t          -     '^^^,^1* '*
    ||r?fc''Previously, stakeholders evaluated new cleaning technologies and concluded that changes in textile
         apparel industry processescould potentially remove some of the barriers that kept drycleVners frpm
    3m,* i vr           ' r    f,         ; t  *•„                        ATI         ,, n-i v,'f~r* 4   X   ~
    Incorporating new methods. Now, stakeholders anticipate that some of these new processes that incorpo--
    tertfejndustriaf ecology and'greeVchemfstry will bring significant environmental benefits to both gajroent
    Meaning industries and related market segments. Using liquid" carbon dioxide (a green cfemistryTllerna- *
    SSTH-KtSs. -               •*      i   -**     *^ *r         -»«              *      H     >      -Vjfr *<• V -9^ t? \
       ve) to dye textiles as well as clean clothes, for example, will have a huge global benefitm the form of ^
       Ijer savings (resource and"cost) ancljeciuced hazardous waste management costs' Already^a less sopfiis-
      |cated alternative technobgy, wetcleanTng, has expVn'ded from a zero'nUmber of businesses prior to the
      ^program, to more than 15b"se1f-Wentified*wetcleaners*in just a coupjeof'years.'As both'Weseproc-^
       - -                     *  _ »     '     f ~             »,*.<,          i  .   «
    :sses,and the fabrics that benefit most from their technology gam m consumer popularity, perc
     *-**-        '    -   '  <+%3&8**' r* r*« J ,1 «««><.-     ',^'^j^ ^* •  rt  -n "  i'5   <\wW''
                         ndant costs (environmental, health, and financial) will continue to dec
                                                          -
                                                                               f,1
     i*   t   .      , . -,  « <+
     Snsumbtion and its attenda
     ISrtsV           ,  -  } '"
    *&»*/;            ?    ir-*~                 it-    *    ^*  -*
    Beal-World Potentials of .Industrial pcology and Green Chemistry
     -                      v                      •
                                                                                          ine.
        "
       iCuFrently, there are effortslmder way with the Department or" Energy's Amtex program to improve
       •textile industry's global competitive*position that are complimentary to DfE's program to promote eh-
        ^lentally friendly technoiogiesrNew, more environmentally friendly production technologies will "'
          •^•^L!*                  P*"*^***" ^4. J'*t-,«!A*v Aw*  ^""^          ^     *         "» ^      jr?*  *»#*   ^  vAtft^:t°"f:s*
          lally replace existing processes in the weaving, dyeing, and finishing stages of textile manufactur-^
        ftyemg operations now use*a&out^76o,00 tons of various chemicals per year of which Id to Vs'
        ^^Is refeased into the"air or'into aqueous waste streams. Many of these chemicals are eitfier1:oxic
           nfleast cause adverse envfrohm'eritat effectsrsuch as increasing the bio-oxygen demand irTa'auWc
        im^*^ ^~ ^           ^ 1**f*^}*' * $ ^j-%- JiVSSs ^  *\£    *•         4 t  $  ~*          *      -^ •% * -^ Ji A *S *s^ 3
        ems. Using an industrial ecology approach would prevent both significant human health hazards as^
        ^environmental degradatlprTanci the^costs'associated with waste removal, Because'there aVe a'Ebul
        "Companies in the textile rrTanufacturing industry and another 15,000 companies that^ro^uce^ ** ^
         el garments from textiles, a&fwiejrnllion workers in these companies would benefit from eovi-**
         lerjtally friendly technologies.
                               THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                                                                                 99
    

    -------
                           DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    mm	B?,
    llndystr,
                            (continued)
                                              n* t V
                             approach also will be used to promote environmentallyfTienclly textiles that
                              . -gyg-j^g^ arjgfwall coverings! Traditional methods of producing these;'tex--'.,:.
                                   "TrcTi™                                      us&dtp*mSla 3iemT*
                                    •BIB^
             emlcalscanaffectIfjiiJQoTau' quality in homes, schools, and childcare facilities. Some progress
             ••I'M
                been made in promoting the commercial use of environmentally benign textiles. Recently,
                •IIIIIIM^
                f Char ottesville, Virginia,  has developed a line of "environmentally intelligent" textiles now
           .iiiiii	, .  	suit	.:	mill:	i	Hi	:,]	•	aiiiiii	!_2iLi«^^^^
           adopted for use in commercial buildings. The collection uses a completely redesigned manufacture
           i	     .     -	Jill11:.! r-ij'iJiiM
    antex
               is that creates no pollutants during the manufacturing process. The dyes in the fabrics are
                 jiiii'i,''	i^iwii	I'lnitiii'''!''''..!:;!11'/'!'!	i,	.".i	.IIIILIIIHI	JIIJIIIE^^^
                 ;d without the release of carcinogejis, persistent toxic chemicals, heavy metals, or otner'.sub-.
               pplicationsorthe'fabrTcs^
        turei
          ten
       :i.aillusefoflthese'lfabriSjs..1:h£^    	industry, which wp'ui3"6en"eTjiF.^
           tpately,	increased	interest
           '••1lnjlt^{j|^ carelndustry
                                               Reject
                                               ""	       	
                                                 from all
    jryc eanmg
      	"!	"	
                             ie market .segments networked with the   :
                             stirtiijiiiiiw
            liJJn'fixpan^'ed set of stakeholders, This in turn,has trans-   ,
             thedr
             cleaning project into a garment and textile project with further reaching environmental
              Ki JIH^^^    ..... !;'iii!ii;Mmiw
    
                  UKi JIH^^^    ..... !;'iii!ii;Mmiw
                  alth benefits. Now the Garment and Textile Care Program will continue to use its industrial
                  Siis''''1?^ ....... asiiHi!5 .............. ii«!>;:«^
               )proach to encompass the development, fabrication, manufacture, distribution, and care of gar-
               f '" ....... piijii'ii pi'iiii , iKi ..... i ..... fli'inir ...... i i - ' ::"i!i iik'i v, B|S "i; ' jiiiiiHtiiMai ..... •!iisiifiiiHiBiiiBi»iiiBi|ii|iiBiiiii!iL;«M^                       ^'SDLtii-i^asHrfivi:^^ s^feftoMS
                other textile products. Its expanded vision will seek to identify and evaluate alternative        •'
       ........ .....    ...............     ^     ' ....... IniSIIW
       roducts,  processes, and technologies associated with the manufacturing and care of garments and tex-
       ..................................... UljIEIIJBiJK^^^^   ..... ill ..... :il£E ......... Ill ....... SULLiili!^
      iiLiiiiJiiiji	iii:|iiiiiii	en	;.  .   	i.i	Kan	nil	i::!)!:	iiiffiiM
      ;iJes: educate other market segments, organizations, and communities; and develop strategies and
      III iilEH^                      	IHHilHI	•HIIIIIIBIlBIHHiBlilllH^
        In May 1992, EPA sponsored an Interna-
    tional Roundtable on Pollution Prevention
    and Control in the Diycleaning Industry to ex-
    change information on several issues, including
    exposure reduction, pollution control, financing
    options, regulatory activities, and information
    dissemination (EPA, 1992). Roundtable partici-
    pants included representatives of industry,
    federal and state government agencies, public
    interest groups, and research institutes from the
    United States and other countries.
        At a wrapup session, participants listed issues
    that need to be addressed through research in-
    itiatives and future discussion forums. Many
    participants indicated a strong interest in work-
    ing cooperatively to explore voluntary approaches
    to reducing perc exposure. Diycleaning trade
                                                 associations were unsure, however, whether
                                                 there were any viable alternatives to conven-
                                                 tional drycleaning. Following the conference,
                                                 the Garment and Textile Care Program was initi-
                                                 ated to  explore these issues. The program seeks
                                                 to promote existing alternative approaches to
                                                 drycleaning and encourage the development of
                                                 new technology in this area.
    
                                                 Multiprocess Wetcleaning
                                                                          i
                                                 Demonstrations
                                                     Shortly after the 1992 Roundtable, EPA re-
                                                 ceived a study, commissioned by Greenpeace,
                                                 demonstrating an alternative cleaning process
                                                 called multiprocess wetcleaning (MPWC). This
                                                 process was a low-tech, nonmachine based
                                                 process that required more skill and labor than
    100
                         THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships,for Environmental Improvement
    traditional drycleaning methods. The process
    uses the controlled application of heat, steam,
    soaps, and water to clean clothes that are usu-
    ally drycleaned. MPWC includes several steps,
    which are customized for each garment. MPWC
    marked a new turn in the Drycleaning Project's
    activity: exploring and testing alternative
    technologies.
        In July 1992, EPA discussed the study
    with industry representatives and suggested a
    1-day demonstration, by the developer, with a
    focus on the stain removal capabilities of the
    process. The industry representatives remained
    skeptical, however, about whether MPWC would
    be competitive under real-life conditions. To ad-
    dress this issue, EPA sponsored a small-scale
    demonstration at a single drycleaning facility to
    show the economic competitiveness of MPWC
    and provide an opportunity for industry repre-
    sentatives to observe the process in action.
        Following positive results arising from the
    smaller study, the Neighborhood Cleaners Asso-
    ciation (NCA) offered to host a large-scale study
    to compare the cost and performance of MPWC
    and drycleaning. The NCA's New York School of
    Drycleaning in Manhattan was selected as the
    demonstration site.
        Initial study results indicated that the tech-
    nology was economically competitive and
    performs as well as, or better than, traditional
    drycleaning. Additional research was initiated
    to gauge the long-term consumer acceptance,
    cleaning performance, and commercial viability
    of the  process. Because of the high labor re-
    quirements of MPWC, however, it was soon
    eclipsed in 1994 by machine wetcleaning, or
    simply "wetcleaning," whose less expensive and
    advanced methods became more popular. Since
    discovering wetcleaning's beneficial environ-
    mental and cost-effective attributes, it has been
    the subject of expanded Garment and Textile
    Care Program research and promotion. This ef-
    fort has contributed significantly to this
    alternative's successful advancement.
    Wetcleaning Demonstrations
        Beginning in May 1995, EPA, in collabora-
    tion with the Center for Neighborhood
    Technology (CNT), sponsored a 1-year
    demonstration project in Chicago to study the
    effectiveness of wetcleaned garments  compared
    to traditional perc drycleaning. CNT designed,
    monitored, and evaluated the performance of a
    wetcleaning-only shop, The Greener Cleaner. In
    addition, CNT evaluated the costs and customer
    satisfaction associated with a range of typically
    drycleaned garments.
        The evaluation consisted of two customer
    satisfaction phone surveys of Greener Cleaner
    customers. During the first survey, conducted in
    November 1995 with 203 out of 1,800 custom-
    ers, 85 percent of those surveyed rated the
    shop's performance as either "good" or "excel-
    lent." The second survey conducted in June
    1996 concluded similar results with 84 percent
    of those surveyed (100 out of 2,868 Green and
    Clean customers) saying they would recom-
    mend the business to a friend. Nineteen
    volunteers including drycleaners, fabric special-
    ists, fashion educators, and consumers
    evaluated a random sample of wetcleaned cus-
    tomer garments from the Greener Cleaner. In
    addition, an evaluation was made of identical
    garments before and after wetcleaning and
    drycleaning as well as an evaluation and com-
    parison of the condition of "old" clothing
    before and after multiple wet- and drycleanings.
        Based on the findings of the demonstration
    projects, researchers concluded that, although
    not a complete replacement for drycleaning op-
    erations, wetcleaning was a viable substitute for
    a significant percentage of clothing labeled
    "dryclean only."
        The South Coast Air Quality Management
    District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources
    Board (CARB), and the EPA sponsored a
    12-month case study evaluation of a  demonstra-
    tion site to compare the effectiveness of
    wetcleaning with that of perc. Conducted by
                              THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                             101
    

    -------
                          DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     the University of California at Los Angeles'
     Pollution Prevention Education and Research
     Center, the site, Cleaner by Nature, was opened
     February 1, 1996, hi Santa Monica as a wet-
     cleaning-only facility. Cleaner by Nature
     cleaned 34,950 garments and accepted 99.9  per-
     cent of customer garments during its 12 months
     of operation. Cleaner by Nature's rate of cus-
     tomers returning garments for additional work
     was on par with drycleaners.
        The assessment of wetcleaning's viability
     and comparative analysis emphasizes three pri-
     mary areas: performance (how clothes were
     cleaned and customer response), financial (how
     Cleaner by Nature performed as a startup busi-
     ness in its first year), and environmental (what
     kinds of environmental benefits wetcleaning
     provides).
        The most problematic garments tended to
     have spotting, pressing, shrinkage, and color-
     fastness cited as the most challenging for
     wetcleaning. Problems, however, did diminish
     as the wetcleaner gained more experience.
     Moreover, stain removal was identified as more
     of a problem for drycleaning with perc than  for
     wetcleaning. There were more problems cited in
     the areas of pressing and general appearance in
     wetcleaned items than for drycleaned garments.
     Volunteers wearing the test garments indicated
     greater satisfaction with wetcleaned garments
     and slightly greater problems with drycleaning
     in stain removal and damage to fabrics and
     buttons.
        Ninety percent of customers surveyed rated
     Cleaner by Nature as good or excellent, 90 per-
     cent said they would recommend the business
     to a friend, and a high customer retention rate
     of 77.8 percent was achieved. This was on par
    with drycleaning customers. Wetcleaning cus-
     tomers did give higher ratings for stain removal
     and prevention of damage to fabric and buttons
    than then: drycleaning counterparts.
        Cleaner by Nature, like most new busi-
    nesses, reported significant startup losses but
    reported a 5.4 percent profit in the fourth
                           quarter. Although pressing labor was identified
                           as a challenge in wetcleaning, the business's
                           pressing wages as a percentage of revenue (11
                           percent) were close to industry expectations for
                           a profitable cleaner (10 percent).
                               Although an initial concern, the study
                           found that water use was not high enough to
                           warrant any concern in Los Angeles and that
                           wetcleaning's effluent met all regulatory
                           standards and generated few environmental
                           impacts. Given perc's reputation as a hazardous
                           waste, the study found that wetcleaning can be
                           considered an environmentally preferable pollu-
                           tion prevention alternative.
                               Figure 9-3 shows a comparison of dryclean-
                           ing and wetcleaning processes.
                           CONVENING THE PROJECT
                           TEAM
    
                              The wetcleaning projects conducted in Flor-
                           ida and New York successfully demonstrated
                           that at least one potentially viable alternative to
                           conventional drycleaning existed. Based on
                           these results, representatives of the drycleaning
                           industry decided to participate in a DfE dry-
                           cleaning project. Several other stakeholders,
                           who had also expressed a strong interest in
                           working collaboratively to reduce the environ-
                           mental impacts of drycleaning, were invited to
                           join the project. The project team coalesced in
                           early 1993 and other team members were added
                           once the project was under way. Partners in-
                           cluded representatives of EPA,  drycleaning
                           trade associations, solvent producers and suppli-
                           ers, drycleaners, research institutes, and
                           environmental, labor, and consumer groups. In
                           1997, the Garment and Textile Care Program ex-
                           panded the project partners to also include
                           textile manufacturers, garment designers, ap-
                           parel manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and
                           consumers.
    102
    THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
    

    -------
                      Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Figure 9-3
    Comparison of Drycleaning and Wetcleaning Processes
      PRYCLEANING
    WETCLEANING
    
                                      I
                                      tumble
                                      drying:
                       i
                     •  Drip
                      drying
                                                                Hand washing
                                                                 Steaming
                   Press: a rid;
              Press afjd;
                          THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                                   103
    

    -------
                          DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Project Focus: The Drycleaning
    Project
        During the Drycleaning Project, identifying
    the project focus was straightforward because
    drycleaning is a relatively simple process. Since
    the risks associated with drycleaning largely
    stem from the use of solvents to clean clothes,
    the team agreed that the overall project goal
    would be to reduce exposure to drycleaning sol-
    vents. They would achieve this goal by:
    •   Identifying and evaluating alternative clean-
        ing technologies, solvents, control methods,
        and work practices.
    •   Providing drycleaners with technical assis-
        tance and incentive to implement pollution
        prevention measures.
    •   Conducting outreach to the drycleaning in-
        dustry and the general public.
    
    Project Focus:  The Garment and
    Textile Care  Program
        Because the Garment and Textile Care Pro-
    gram  utilizes  an industrial ecology approach
    encompassing many industries, identifying
    likely pollution prevention measures was a com-
    plex task. The GTCP needed to determine where
    these  opportunities might exist in each industry
    hi the garment and textile care value chain. The
    program also  sought to explore the effects of
    implementing pollution prevention measures.
    Since the industries in the garment care value
    chain were related, changing the way one indus-
    try operated might affect a process in another
    downstream industry. Changes in cleaning
    methods, for example, might necessitate a
    change in a process in the garment manufactur-
    ing industry in order for the new cleaning
    process to be  effective.
       The focus of the project will also continue
    efforts to not only identify viable alternatives,
    but also gather information to help identify
    appropriate promotional activities for those
    alternatives.
                           Information Gathering: Focus Groups
                              The successful initiatives begun by EPA con-
                           tinue to be informed by innovative information
                           gathering techniques. To help identify pollution
                           prevention opportunities, explore industry link-
                           ages, and improve Garment and Textile Care
                           Program communication products, EPA held a
                           series of focus groups in 1997. Focus groups are
                           interactive discussions between a trained mod-
                           erator and a group of 8 to 10 participants that
                           provide a qualitative way to gauge opinions
                           about a topic and gather information about be-
                           havior or motivation concerning that topic.
                           After carefully targeting the group to the topic
                           at hand, each participant shares their views and
                           experiences on a specific topic and the results
                           are analyzed. Focus groups are valuable be-
                           cause they capitalize on respondent interaction
                           to gather the kinds of candid information that
                           would be difficult, or even impossible, to collect
                           using traditional methods.
                              The Garment and Textile Care Group held
                           two types of focus groups, consumer-oriented
                           and industry-oriented. Two consumer-oriented
                           discussions were held in Kansas and  Oregon
                           and all participants related that they were com-
                           pletely satisfied with various aspects of
                           performance and convenience associated with
                           wetcleaned articles. Kansas consumers related
                           they would switch to wetcleaning as long as
                           costs were competitive with drycleaning.
                           Oregon consumers, however, stated they were
                           willing to pay as much as 25 percent more for
                           wetcleaned articles. Both groups agreed there
                           was a need for more information concerning
                           availability of wetcleaning establishments and
                           its environmental safety. In general, attitudes to-
                           wards wetcleaning were  favorable.
                              Two other consumer-oriented focus groups
                           were held in New York City with high-volume
                           users consisting of consumers  who have 20 or
                           more articles cleaned per month, and medium
                           users who have between 3 and 19. High-volume
                           users tended to be more enthusiastic  about
    104
    THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
    

    -------
                          Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    environmentally friendly methods of cleaning.
    Like the Kansas and Oregon groups, most New
    York City consumers agreed there was a need
    for more information on all aspects of alterna-
    tive methods of professional cleaning.
        One focus group also was held in New York
    City among manufacturing and retail purchas-
    ers of fabric and clothes. Participants were
    unfamiliar with environmentally friendly meth-
    ods of professional cleaning. Discussion results
    determined that price was the most important
    factor in choosing fabrics. Moreover, any alter-
    native cleaning method would have to be
    competitive with current methods and result
    from consumer demand. To encourage public
    acceptability of alternative professional  clean-
    ing methods, purchasers strongly suggested that
    a comprehensive and 3- to 5-year-long  media
    campaign was necessary.
        Information derived from all the focus
    groups will be used to determine the focus of fu-
    ture communication products, facilitate
    discussion among different industry groups,
    and prioritize pollution prevention initiatives.
    
    
    PERFORMING THE TECHNICAL WORK
    
    Identifying Alternatives
        In the initial stages of the Garment and Tex-
    tile Care Program, EPA staff performed a search
    to locate any new processes for professional
    cleaning. After the alternatives were identified,
    members of the project team have identified or
    designed and performed evaluations to analyze
    the risk, performance, and cost tradeoffs of al-
    ternative cleaning and manufacturing
    technologies. Technical work groups are cur-
    rently performing several of these evaluations.
    To aid in this effort, EPA initiated a series of
    site visits to various businesses and met with in-
    dustry representatives from each new
    technology.
        Figure 9-4 shows the traditional and new
    alternatives identified. The newer alternatives
    include processes that currently exist, are newly
    available, and those still in the development stage.
    
    Currently Available Alternatives
       Petroleum solvents—cause less shrinking
    and fading than perc for most garments, clean
    delicate fabrics better than perc, are not consid-
    ered either a hazardous waste or air pollutant,
    and are less expensive than perc. There are two
    types: Stoddard solvents and 140° solvents.
    Stoddard solvents pose a moderate to high fire
    hazard because of their high flash point (i.e., the
    temperature at which a solvent can ignite) of 100°
    to 105°. Although new machines have reduced
    the fire hazard, they tend to be costly. Newer 140°
    solvents have higher flash points than Stoddard
    solvent. They have the same low regulatory bur-
    den and cleaning effectiveness as Stoddard
    solvents and their machines are less costly. Nei-
    ther Stoddard or 140° petroleum solvents are as
    effective as perc at degreasing clothing.
        Wetcleaning—has emerged as an effective
    cleaning process that uses fully automated ma-
    chines, water as the primary solvent, and skilled
    workers to clean most clothes labeled "dryclean
    only." As a result of advances in machine tech-
    nology, new wetcleaning machines require less
    agitation than conventional home cleaning ma-
    chines and can clean more clothes.
        Currently, there are two types of wetclean-
    ing machines: conventional and one that uses
    air bubbles to create high-frequency vibrations
    to shake soil and stains loose from clothes.
    Once thought to only clean 40 percent of
    clothes previously cleaned by perc, wetcleaning
    companies are now claiming rates of 90 to 100
    percent. The process is odorless, safe for work-
    ers, and there is no regulatory burden resulting
    from any environmental or health hazard.
    Because a wide range of machine sizes is  avail-
    able, cleaners can choose to be a "dedicated"
    wetcleaner or offer wetcleaning as  an added fea-
    ture to their  drycleaning services. Drawbacks
    include some damage caused by agitation after
    repeated washings, small loads necessitated by
                             THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                             105
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
         in
         CO
    
    
         
    -------
                         Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    dedicated machines, and higher labor costs asso-
    ciated with finishing labor to remove wrinkles.
    
    Newly Available Alternatives
        Rynex—has been developed for commercial
    production by Rynex Corporation and is a de-
    rivative of air aliphatic glycol ether. It is neither
    a vegetable- nor a petroleum-based product.
    Rynex is designed to work in retrofitted perc
    machines and its manufacturer claims it is non-
    carcinogenic, nonflammable, and lighter than
    water. The company also claims the chemical is
    less costly per pound to clean than perc and
    that its cleaning, stain removal, and degreasing
    properties are equal to perc. Potential draw-
    backs include a higher level of maintenance
    than perc cleaning systems and that new surfac-
    tants still need to be developed to clean
    effectively with Rynex. The solvent was com-
    mercially released in May 1999.
        Liquid carbon dioxide (€62)—is considered a
    solvent and provides excellent cleaning ability,
    particularly when appropriate detergents are
    added. There is no need for machine drying, be-
    cause when the wash cycle completes and the
    cleaning chamber is depressurized, the  liquid
    quickly becomes gas and evaporates. Potential
    advantages of liquid C02 include less graying
    of fabric compared to perc and other cleaning
    processes, lower wash and dry cycle time since
    machine drying is eliminated, excellent ratings
    from early performance tests,  no environmental
    and health hazards, and a low regulatory bur-
    den. Disadvantages include its unavailability,
    the high capital cost of machinery, and the need
    for more detergents that will work, effectively
    with liquid C02 to remove certain stains. This al-
    ternative technology is now out of development
    and two prototype liquid COa  machines have
    emerged. One uses  a more traditional agitation
    process incorporating a system of rotating tum-
    blers. Another uses an agitation model  based on
    high-velocity fluid jets to clean clothes. Both
    models are expected to be commercially avail-
    able by 2000.
    Developing Potential Alternatives
       Microwave drying—was originally explored
    as a complement to wetcleaning, but was aban-
    doned in late 1997. Technological infeasibility,
    high energy consumption, and cost issues were
    cited as major reasons.
       Ultrasonic cleaning—a radically different
    process whereby a  garment is immersed in a
    fluid, such as cold water and detergents, and
    agitated with high-frequency (18 to 120 kHz)
    sound, which creates microscopic bubbles. The
    process is called cavitation; the popping of the
    microscopic bubbles creates a scrubbing effect
    to clean clothes. The collapsing bubbles create
    small implosions, producing shock waves that
    knock or loosen the p articulate from the fabric.
    Because the technology is so new to the fabri-
    care industry, information is preliminary. The
    process promises a short wash cycle (seconds),
    no mechanical agitation (minimal dimensional
    changes), excellent color retention, low energy
    consumption, and a reduced need for detergent.
    So far it has been shown to be effective in
    cleaning drapes and window blinds but is not
    expected to be commercially available until at
    least 2000.
    
    Developing the  Performance
    Demonstration  Protocol
       In order to obtain objective data  on the per-
    formance of cleaning technologies, measures
    for professional cleaning performance needed
    to be developed. In the original wetcleaning
    demonstrations, performance was generally as-
    sessed based on consumer perception—a
    relatively subjective measure. Also, the demon-
    strations were assigned for only one  alternative
    cleaning method: wetcleaning. EPA recognized
    the need for a performance protocol that could
    assess all emerging new methods of cleaning.
    To this end,  EPA sponsored the development of
    a performance demonstration protocol by tex-
    tile scientists at the University of North
    Carolina and the Texas Woman's University.
                             THE Dffi GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                             107
    

    -------
                          E)fE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    The protocol establishes types of fabrics to be
    tested and rates cleaning methods on many di-
    mensions, such as stain removal, shrinkage,
    wrinkling, hand, smoothness, and stretching.
    Tests of wetcleaning and liquid C02 systems are
    being conducted using the protocol at the Uni-
    versity of North Carolina, with results expected
    in 1999. This protocol will form the basis for
    further performance demonstrations of other
    emerging cleaning methods, and conceivably
    could provide a basis for future industry per-
    formance standards.
    
    Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
    Assessment (CTSA) Development
        EPA has taken the lead in compiling and
    analyzing the risk, cost, and performance infor-
    mation on the various conventional and new
    alternatives for professional cleaning. This infor-
    mation has been compiled in a document called
    the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assess-
    ment (CTSA). The goal of the CTSA is to provide
    individual professional cleaners with a compara-
    tive assessment of professional cleaning
    technologies. The CTSA can be used as a basis
    for making informed choices of cleaning meth-
    ods that incorporate environmental concerns
    along with cost and performance. Data sources
    include the drycleaning industry, performance
    demonstrations, expert judgment, and health
    risk literature. Exposure information for dry-
    cleaning was collected from a variety of
    sources, including federal and state agencies.
        Published and distributed in 1998, the
    drycleaning CTSA compares the risk, perform-
    ance, and cost tradeoffs of various approaches
    to reducing perc exposure, describes the meth-
    odologies used to obtain and analyze the data,
    and discusses pollution prevention options
    available to the drycleaning industry. In 1997,
    80 representatives from federal and state
    government, private industry, and the scientific
    community reviewed the draft CTSA and pro-
    vided comments. True to the DfE process, this
                           document represents the various perspectives
                           of major participants in the fabricare industry
                           and stands as the largest compendium of avail-
                           able data.
    
                           Stakeholder Site Visits
                              To build relationships with partners from
                           the professional cleaning industry, EPA under-
                           took a series of site visits and participated in
                           drycleaning industry meetings and conferences.
                           Throughout 1997, EPA initiated a series of im-
                           portant site visits with representatives of
                           innovative companies exploring alternatives in
                           wetcleaning and liquid C02 technologies. Useful
                           information was obtained from each company
                           concerning their progress implementing alterna-
                           tive technologies. The site visit included a
                           general tour of each facility, explanations of
                           various processes involved, and stakeholder
                           meetings. Discussions between EPA and busi-
                           ness representatives covered issues such as
                           business strategies utilized to promote the new
                           methods, special research and development
                           challenges and solutions, performance, the envi-
                           ronmental safety and health impact of each
                           technology, and various financing and cost con-
                           siderations. At some site visits, demonstrations
                           of new technologies were conducted and mod-
                           els of new machinery examined.
                              MiCELL Technologies was the site of the
                           first visit. Founded  in 1995, the company is  a
                           research and development firm headquartered
                           at North Carolina State University. The com-
                           pany set out to develop a drycleaning process
                           that would eliminate waste and toxic sub-
                           stances and the associated regulatory burdens,
                           lower energy consumption, and save money.
                           MiCELL does use a conventional system of agi-
                           tation as opposed to high-speed fluid jet
                           agitation and will have machines commercially
                           available in late 1999. The company has devel-
                           oped surfactants to work in conjunction with
                           liquid COa for many fabrics and stains. A par-
                           ticular problem for liquid C02 is its current
                           ineffectiveness against inorganic stains. MiCELL
    108
    THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
    

    -------
                         Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    is continuing research into new surfactants and
    is exploring the use of certain enzymes that can
    clean inorganic stains.
        Kirk's Suede Life was another technology
    partner visited by EPA. The company is a major
    internationally known leather cleaning firm lo-
    cated in Chicago. After nearly 50 years of
    business and using chemical solvents to clean
    leather, the company began seeking more envi-
    ronmentally friendly  alternatives in the 1980's.
    After years of testing, the company began mar-
    keting  its "Clean and Green" wetcleaning
    process and line of cleaning agents in 1993.
    Kirk's maintains its process can clean more
    than 95 percent of all leather goods, performs
    better than perc, and costs less to operate than
    traditional drycleaning. The company is cur-
    rently exploring C02  as a means to clean
    leather in the future.
        EPA also visited Los Angeles to confer with
    representatives of Global Technologies. The
    company is exploring the use of high-speed
    fluid jets to clean clothes using liquid CCh tech-
    nology. Borrowing technology from the
    aerospace industry and others, Global licenses
    technology developed at Hughes Aircraft and
    makes  it available for the commercial market.
    Like MiCELL, Global claims it will have its sys-
    tem commercially available in 2000.
        Currently, EPA is cosponsoring performance
    testing at Los Alamos National Laboratories to as-
    sess the viability of liquid C02 cleaning systems.
        In  another effort  to reinforce relationships
    with professional cleaners, EPA visited several
    large professional cleaning establishments in
    several cities and met with leaders of several
    professional organizations. EPA also met with
    textile and garment manufacturers in order to
    initiate relationships  with representatives from
    these industries.
    COMMUNICATION
        Informing the public concerning changes
    in the fabricare industry is critical to the
    acceptance of environmentally preferable clean-
    ing methods. In conjunction with both the
    Drycleaning Project and the Garment and Tex-
    tile Care Project, many informative publications
    have been developed and distributed. Future
    communications products and public affairs
    activities will be identified during future stake-
    holder meetings and will be developed by EPA.
        In addition to the general public, industry
    also needs to be informed about environmen-
    tally preferable methods of cleaning used in the
    drycleaning industry as well as new develop-
    ments occurring in related industries such as
    garment design, textile and garment manufac-
    turing, and retail industries. The primary
    messages to the public are:
    
    •   The Drycleaning Project was a successful
        partnership of industry, government, re-
        search, and environmental organizations.
    •   The Garment and Textile Care Program  is
        an expansion  of the Drycleaning Project
        that uses an industrial ecology approach to
        identify pollution prevention opportunities
        in the industry.
    •   The risks associated with drycleaning are
        being addressed.
    •   Pollution prevention opportunities exist in
        the drycleaning industry.
    •   Everyone has  a role in preventing pollution
        in drycleaning.
        Other target audiences include drycleaning
    trade associations; federal, state, and local
    agencies; pollution prevention centers; environ-
    mental, labor, and consumer groups; the media;
    and academia.
        The Drycleaning Project and the  Garment
    and Textile Care Program have produced and
    distributed a variety of publications and other
    communication products. Key publications  have
    been translated into Spanish and Korean with
    more translations on the way.
                             THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                             109
    

    -------
                           DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Table 9-1
    DfE Garment and Textile Care Communication  Products
           jsac[
    -------
                          Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Table 9-1
    DfE Garment and Textile  Care Communication Products  (continued)
     Cleaner Technologies
     Substitutes Assessment
     (CTSA) for Professional
     Fabricare Processes
     CTSA for Professional
     Fabricare Processes:
     Summary
     CTSA for Professional
     Fabricare Processes: Fact
     Sheet
     Frequently Asked Questions
     About Drycleaning
     Wet Cleaning
                                  Date      Pub. Number      Description
    EPA 1998  EPA744-B-98-001   A technical document that compares
                                  the risk, performance, and cost tradeoffs
                                  of professional cleaning processes.
    
    EPA 1998  EPA/744/S-98/001   Shorter compilations from the CTSA for
                     '             Professional Fabricare Processes.   "  v
            ^        ""- t
    
    EPA 1998  EPA/744/F-98/011    A brief overview of EPA744-B-98-001.
     EPA 1998  EPA744-K-98-002
               Korean    >
       /   ,   , EPA/744/K-98/002k
    <   .     -  Spanish
        >  .  «  EPA/744/K-98/002S
     EPA 1997  EPA744-K-96-002
    Answers a number of questions about
    drycleaning processes and related risks.
     Training Curriculum for
     Alternative Clothes Cleaning
      Plain English Guide for Perc
      Dry Cleaners: A Step by Step
      Approach to Understanding
      Federal Environmental
      Regulations
      Plain Korean Guide for Perc
      Dry Cleaners
      Multimedia Inspection
      Guidance for Drycleaning
      Facilities
     EPA 1997  EPA774-R-97-004a
               EPA774-R-97-004b
     EPA 1996  EPA/305/B-96/002
     EPA 1999  EPA#05/B-97/001
    A brochure that describes what
    wetcleaning is, how it works, and the
    general results of performance testing
    derived from various demonstrations.
    Targeted to drycleaners, the public,
    special interest communities, and
    government agencies.
       ""  ~     -'   i"    ,  .. «, •'  c *  ~"
    Contains instructional materials that,
      «iW        -r            ^   ?
    can be used by professional cleaning
    training institutes, tra^e associations,
    commercial cjeaners, and others, "*
    Targeted to perc drycleaners to explain
    in plain English (and Korean) how their
    businesses are affected by legislated
    regulations including the Clean Air Act;
    Resource and  Conservation Act; Toxic
    Substance and Control Act; and the
    Occupational, Safety, and Hazard Act.
    See above.
    EPA 1996  EPA/305/B-96/001   As stated.
                              THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                                                   111
    

    -------
                            DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Table 9-1
    DfE Garment	and Textile Care Communication  Products  (continued)
                                   Date       Pub. Number       Description
      OECA Sector Notebook:
      Profile of the Dry Cleaning
      Industry
                                 EPA 1995  EPA/310/R-95/001
                        - ,--.-- ,-.•..• -;•..   ,  -   ••„>--,— -,•;?»•— jt;;;™--!!7,-5jrfT"'"-^"'-'
     Summary of a Report on       EPA 1994   EM744-S-94-001  .
     .. .  .          -  . ..... »• •  ,;i „.>•! ,, .'  '..    •,'•""',» .»:',*,; ..... (itJWl.stCf'.-.Voa.w.v'
     Multiprocess Wet Cleaning
                  • -: ....... i!" .'"in .............. '•"' ......... ..... ...... i'* ...... .,•'; "• ,• - • "• -'••  - .,"'' "'.•  ^itvfi!^         wn^
          •    "                           '
                                           ,
                                r ......... ..... I;: ....... ...... ........... ...... ' • ..... :-''• ......
    Chemicals in the
    Environment:
    Perchloroethylene
                                   EPA 1994  EPA749-F-94-020
      Fact Sheet P.n^egcjiVToftfie^^	JpA	'	'[
      Environment Drycleaning       1994,
      Project       	'"	"'	""'	'"	'	''" revised"
     -	"  	'.  • :,,',>•               1998
     Provides general industry information,
     including a description of processes,
     pollution outputs, pollution prevention
     opportunities, federal statutory and
     regulatory framework, compliance
     history, and descriptions of partnerships
     formed among stakeholders.
    v-r: rpS...p;M;yvi^* •:>:',: •. '.^',;^ 2^'S,fete' »Vwr¥if <,~^^^m>am**®mk®-m>wnnL
                      'km^^^n^**-,;,^
     Focuses on the uses and potential
     hazards of perc, and provides a
     summary of regulatory activity. Targeted
     to drycleaners, special interest
     communities, and government agencies.
    :fcV^VAV;'::.'TOr'?!S8»«3^^
     Targeted to;ar^cleanej^,otlfiej>ublic,,. ^ :•
     media} sp'eciai interi?sjc^r|!^nitfes,;'   :;
     an3' ^^^^*j^^^^ff •-•"•-•-- • *"•-"- -•: *-
    Multiprocess Wet Cleaning:    EPA 1993  EPA744-R-93-004
    Cost and Performance
    Comparison of Conventional
    Dry Cleaning and an
    Alternative Process,
    Executive Summary
                                                                  Summarizes the findings of a study on
                                                                  multiprocess wetcleaning.
                      .... y,, .it' (  ..:•.-, ,•	•     ij'
      Proceedings of the,             EPA 1992   EPA/774/R-92/Op2
      	    ": 	I!	,	«	'	,;|i;	''i,  	I™'	r		«',»>'^KV^^^:r^^a^^^'J
      nternational Roundtable on
      	:..  -	:i•
      Pollution Prevention ana
      '"	  t      "'  "'!T"S	^ifli'l'ip'!^^	,»!	:;if|lh;|;";	, i1' 	", ": Ji	; r,	;'IL,/\/: i;i,:;;;'yii,ip:ilMr^->is.'.vv/:;tvnj,::i
      Control in the Di^cleanmcj	'	 ^	;;	_
      Industry    .  .   ''^	''.'',.'	\	',''..'\'" .  '. .'",'. '' "mr",'''""'
                              	 	i	I ,   	',|	l!	.lii1'"!!
                                 j'Siiri	;:.i"|i",;>' '	,iti	KTmnTC
                                                                Covers a 1992 meeting during which
                                                               f" ^reseaf ch|i;|;'fllpsl^
    -------
                           DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Table 9-1
    DfE Garment and Textile Care Communication Products  (continued)
      Forthcoming Publications
      Use Cluster Analysis of the Drycieaning
      Industry
                                      i> '
    
      General Drycieaning brochure
      Fact Sheet on demonstration sites
      CTSA Technical Report
      Brochure on Alternatives
      Demonstration Study: Mixed Mode/
      Dedicated Wet Facilities
    
      Brochure on Demonstration Project
    
      Press Package on Demonstration Program
    
    
      Fact Sheet on Environmental Certification
    
      Press Release on Environmental
      Certification
      Identifies and considers viable substitute chemicals,
      processes, and technologies during the initial /eview of perc
      useVdrycleaning.      "            „,'. ^J,
      Explains what drycleaning is, how it works, and why it is
      done and addresses concerns associated with the process, as
      well as potential solutions.
    . .  .  .         ,- «- -v                 ,^ *^-3«~.( ) ^ .»  f  „_»•
      Provides key details on the sites that are part of the
     " demonstration study (e.g., location, timing, activities that
     ' will take place),                   _  " ' °L"' „*  _T
      Presents the results of the CTSA, which examines a number
      of alternative cleaning technologies, substitute solvents, and
      methods to control and limit chemical exposures from
      drycleaning.
      Summarizes, in general terms, a number of alternative
      cleaning technologies studied through the Drycleaning
      i     f          3     A   V    s   * Xt* S*^~i "*s  *i   ' n *<•*
     , Project to explain how the technologies work and the costs,
      performance, and tradeoffs associated with these
     . .technologies.
      Presents the results of the demonstration project on three
      alternative cleaning technologies (multiprocess wetcleaning,
      machine wetcleaning, and microwave drying).
      Summarizes, in general terms, the results of the
    ' demonstration project.        '         „-_ " ' ^
      Provides an attractive and useful package of materials (e.g.,
      fact sheets, reproducible DfE logos, press releases,
      brochures, trade clips) on the demonstration project.
      Provides a concise explanation of environmental ^
      certification,^  i     s       ,        ^  ~"^'^  ",
      Announces  EPA/partner activities associated with
      environmental certification.
     'The fact sheet is reproduced in Appendix B.
     Documents can be obtained by contacting the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse.
     Phone: 202 260-1023, Fax: 202 260-4659, E-Mail: Llppic@epa.gov.
     Other Outreach  Efforts
     *  Dozens of presentations at trade shows and
        pollution prevention conferences, including
        meetings sponsored by the drycleaning
                   industry, the International Joint Commis-
                   sion of the United States and Canada, EPA
                   offices and regions, the states, and the
                   Council for Indoor Air Quality.
                   Briefings to members of Congress.
                               THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                                          113
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    •  Booths at environmental conferences and
       trade shows including industry-sponsored
       CLEAN 9|, 96J and 97, NCAI's TEX-CARE
       andMAXPO.
    •  Press releases—The project has attracted a
       lot of media attention because of its poten-
       tial effects on the drycleaning industry and
       consumers. Dozens of articles have been
       written in the mass and trade media, and re-
       porters frequently contact the project staff
       for updates.
    •  Participation in an interactive teleconfer-
       ence, sponsored by EPA's Office of Air
       Quality Planning and Standards. DfE repre-
       sentatives spoke about pollution prevention
       in the drycleaning industry.
    •  A Web site targeted to all parties interested
       in the mission and activities of the DfE and
       Garment and Textile  Care Program projects.
       Updates are provided on information con-
       cerning new developments in the fabricare
       industry's move toward more cost-effective
       and environmentally benign technologies.
       The Web site address is
       .
    •  Consumer-oriented focus groups were con-
       ducted in 1997 with general and industrial
       consumers of wetcleaners to assess attitudes
       on performance, costs, and convenience as-
       sociated with wetcleaned garments.
    •  Industry-oriented focus groups were con-
       ducted in 1997 with manufacturing and
       retail fabric and clothing purchasers to
       gauge what kinds of communication prod-
       ucts would best increase their awareness of
       drycleaning alternatives.
       The Garment and Textile Care Program has
    successfully utilized a variety of channels to dis-
    tribute products and information, including
    mailings to constituents of partner organiza-
    tions and other interested parties, pollution
    prevention clearinghouses and centers, Small
    Business Administration Technical Assistance
                           Centers, EPA regions, conferences and trade
                           shows, and the media.
                           IMPLEMENTATION
    
                           Care Labeling
                              Currently, garments are labeled with spe-
                           cific care instructions (e.g., "Dryclean Only")
                           according to requirements developed by the
                           Federal Trade Commission (FTC). At present,
                           there is not an FTC symbol for wetcleaning or
                           any other alternative technology. FTC require-
                           ments are based on conventional cleaning
                           technologies and do not accommodate the new
                           cleaning technologies being investigated by the
                           Garment and Textile Care Program. Labeling re-
                           quirements could be a barrier to the
                           implementation of newer technologies since
                           professional cleaners could potentially be liable
                           for cleaning a garment using a different process
                           than indicated on the label.
                              hi light of this concern, the stakeholders
                           started a dialogue with the FTC to review care
                           labeling requirements. As a result, the FTC in-
                           cluded a section in an issue of the Federal
                           Register published in the fall of 1994. This sec-
                           tion described the Drycleaning Project and the
                           care labeling issues it raises and solicited public
                           comment on whether the rule should be modi-
                           fied. With the Garment and Textile Care
                           Program's expansion into textile and garment
                           manufacturing processes, care labeling issues
                           will be explored by all industry segments, as
                           well as professional cleaners.
    
                           Wetcleaning  Training Program
                              Both the original Drycleaning Program and
                           the Garment and Textile Care Program initiated
                           key training programs to promote and train
                           drycleaners in wetcleaning methods. One pro-
                           gram stakeholder, the Massachusetts Toxics Use
                           Reduction Institute (TURI), has developed
                           materials to  train drycleaners in how to use
    114
    THE DfE GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
    

    -------
                         Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    wetcleaning technologies. Two training sessions
    were held at the Chicago demonstration facility:
    one for drycleaners and one to train trainers
    who can then continue to deliver the training
    to industry practitioners. Also, TURI has devel-
    oped a training manual that can be used by
    future trainers and as a self-training tool by
    drycleaners.
        In addition, EPA established outreach grants
    to the Center for Neighborhood Technology and
    the Small Business Development Corporation
    for training drycleaners about alternative tech-
    nologies and pollution prevention methods
    available in their industry.
    
    The Wetcleaning Partnership
        Primarily in response to the Drycleaning
    Project, the stakeholders (Greenpeace, UNITE,
    IFI, NCA, Korean Association of Drycleaners,
    Center for Neighborhood Technologies, and oth-
    ers) have formally joined together to establish
    the Wetcleaning  Partnership, which is commit-
    ted to the development and expansion of
    wetcleaning as an alternative to perc.
    
    Training Workshops in  Total Cost
    Accounting
        Conventional accounting methods pose a
    barrier to implementation because they do not
    consider the costs associated with the environ-
    mental aspects of drycleaning or the benefits of
    pollution prevention. EPA has sponsored the de-
    velopment of total cost accounting materials
    targeted for drycleaners. Materials include a
    manual and training workshops. Data collected
    during the demonstrations will be used to de-
    velop the materials.
    
     Future Implementation Activities
        The Garment and  Textile Care Program will
    continue to incorporate the key elements of
    the DfE process begun with the Drycleaning
    Project. The program's scoping activities have
    included building relationships with partners
    from the cleaning and manufacturing industry,
    new technology developers, educators, labor
    representatives, and environmental groups. The
    project team is being convened in a series of
    work groups that will develop an action plan to
    promote environmentally benign alternative
    technologies. The team will utilize  a lifecycle
    approach in developing the action  plan. Indus-
    try segments included in this analysis are
    fiber manufacture, textile manufacture, ap-
    parel design, upholstery and floor-covering
    design, retail, and professional cleaning. This
    approach will examine the environmental and
    economic effects of voluntary initiatives, tech-
    nology changes,  and evolving regulations on
    each segment of the textile value chain. The
    team will identify evaluations to analyze the
    risk, performance, and cost tradeoffs of alterna-
    tive cleaning and textile manufacturing
    technologies.
        The action plan, developed by  the stake-
    holder work groups, will propose tools and
    incentives that will encourage and enable the
    garment and textile industry to use cleaner al-
    ternatives. The project team presented the
    action plan at a large stakeholder conference in
    the spring of 1998. This conference was
    planned as a follow-up to the highly successful
    1996 conference, Apparel Care and the Environ-
    ment. Stakeholders at the conference met to
    resolve  outstanding issues in the action plan.
    These action strategies will be implemented by
    the stakeholders  within each industry segment
    in the garment and textile value chain. At the
    close of the project, the stakeholders will take
    responsibility for long-term management of key
    implementation initiatives. After implementa-
    tion, the project  team will evaluate the success
    of the project by assessing the extent to which
    environmentally benign alternative technolo-
    gies are used in garment  and textile manufac-
    turing and care processes.
                              THE Dffi GARMENT AND TEXTILE CARE PROJECT
                                             115
    

    -------
    

    -------
                           G  H A P T E R
                                  The  Df E
                                    Printed
                       Wiring  Board
                    Manufacturing
                                     Project
    fT^he printed wiring board (PWB) is the
     I building block of the electronics industry.
     ~L It is the underlying link among semicon-
    ductors, computer chips, and other electronic
    components. PWBs are an irreplaceable part of
    many products in the electronics, communica-
    tions, defense, and automotive industries.
      A PWB has conductive material (e.g. cop-
    per) patterned on a nonconductive substrate.
    Multilayer PWBs have multiple layers of con-
    ductive and nonconductive materials. The
    conductive layers are electrically connected by
    through-holes that are plated with a conductive
    material (EPA, 1995e).
                                                 117
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
        In March 1993, the electronics industry
    research consortium, Microelectronics and Com-
    puter Technology Corporation (MCC), released
    an industry-led study entitled Environmental
    Consciousness: A Strategic Competitive Issue
    for the Electronics Industry. In this study, EPA,
    the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and 40
    industry partners performed a collaborative life-
    cycle assessment of a computer workstation,
    focusing on the manufacturing aspects of the
    life cycle. The study recognized that wet chemi-
    cal processes, such as those used in PWB
    manufacturing, use a variety of toxic chemicals,
    are a significant source of hazardous waste, and
    consume large amounts of water and energy.
    The potential for improvement in these areas
    led to the formation of EPA's DfE Printed
    Wiring Board (PWB)  Project.
    Table 10-1
    Partners in the DfE PWB Project
         Industry
         • Institute for Interconnecting and
           Packaging Electronic Circuits (national
           trade association for PWB manufacturers,
           assemblers, and suppliers)
         • Individual PWB manufacturers and
           suppliers
    
         Government
         • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    
         Research/Education
         • The Center for Clean Products and Clean
           Technologies, University of Tennessee
         • Microelectronics and Computer
           Technology Corporation (MCC)
    
         Public Interest
         • Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
                               DfE PRINTED WIRING BOARD
                               PROJECT PARTNERS
    
                                  The primary project partners (members of
                               the project's "core group") for the DfE PWB Pro-
                               ject are listed in Table 10-1. They include
                               industry members and trade associations, EPA,
                               research and academic institutions, and public
                               interest groups.
                               FIRST PROJECT FOCUS-
    
                               MAKING  HOLES  CONDUCTIVE
    
                                  The DfE PWB Project partners identified the
                               "making holes conductive" (MHC) process step
                               as the focus of the project. This process step tra-
                               ditionally employs an electroless copper plating
                               process to plate a thin layer of copper on the
                               hole walls of a PWB. The copper layer creates a
                               conductive surface that is necessary for electro-
                               lytic copper plating of the PWB. The electroless
                               process uses chemicals such as formaldehyde
                               that may pose risks to the environment and to
                               human health. The process can also be a signifi-
                               cant source of hazardous waste and uses
                               significant amounts of water and energy.
                               RESULTS OF THE TECHNICAL
                               WORK
    
                                  To collect performance data, the project ran
                               standardized test PWBs at 25 volunteer facili-
                               ties, each using one of the seven MHC
                               technologies evaluated in the study. A compara-
                               tive cost analysis, risk characterization, and
                               resource use (water and energy) analysis were
                               also conducted for each technology. The DfE
                               PWB Project evaluated six alternative technolo-
                               gies plus the baseline electroless copper process.
                               Some of the technologies used traditional,
     118
    THE DfE PRINTED WIRING BOARD MANUFACTURING PROJECT
    

    -------
                         Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Table 10-2
    MHC Process Evaluated in the CTSA
     MHC Technology
                                                                  Equipment Configuration
        Nonconveyorized
    Conveyorized
     Electroless Copper (baseline)
     Carbon
     Conductive Polymer
                             f  —'•*  f~>
     Graphite
     Non-Formaldehyde Electroless Copper
     Organic-Palladium
     Tin-Palladium
     non-conveyorized baths; others used conveyor-
     ized equipment (see Table 10-2).
        The full technical report-Printed Wiring
     Board Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
     Assessment: Making Holes Conductive-laas
     information on performance, cost, and risk
     aspects of the MHC technologies. The study
     found that the alternative technologies perform
     as well as the electroless copper process, pose
     less potential risk, are cost effective, and use
     significantly smaller amounts of water and en-
     ergy. A shorter reference booklet summarizes
     the findings reported in the CTSA. The project
     also has produced an implementation guide for
     the alternative MHC technologies as well as sev-
     eral other technical reports, and a series of eight
     case studies containing suggestions and success
    stories on how PWB manufacturers can im-
    prove their environmental performance.  Table
    10-3 lists these informational materials.
    EVALUATION
    
        After completion of the project, the project
    team hopes to develop a program to evaluate
    the extent to which the DfE project has caused
    pollution prevention behavior changes in the
    PWB manufacturing industry. A recent survey
    of industry members indicates that use of the al-
    ternative technologies has increased from 15
    percent of PWB facilities in 1995  to 30 percent
    in 1997.
                        THE DfE PRINTED WIRING BOARD MANUFACTURING PROJECT
                                             119
    

    -------
                            DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     Table 10-3
     DfEjrintedJ/VmiigJioard Project Publications
                                                                                        EPA Number
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Fact Sheet: Making the Connection                      Updated
      Printed Wiring Board CTSA: Making Holes^Conductive (V^umes 1 and 2)                   Updated
      Implementing Cleaner Technologies in the Printed Wiring Board Industry: Making Holes      EPA 744-R-97-001
      Conductive
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Case Study #1: Pollution Prevention Work Practices        EP[Aj44-F-95-pQ4i
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Case Study #2: On-Site Etchant Regeneration             EPA 744-F-95-005
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Case Study #3: Opportunities for Acid Recovery           EPA 744-F-95-009
      and Management
        	!l                     	    •	!..-•»...	 .1:	:          «   I        4 „*»          ,      ft tr^t ,) ; fl \, ff,^
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Case Study #4: Plasma Desmear-A Case Study            EPA 744-F-96-003
      DfE Inrjted Wiring Board Project Case Study #5: A Continuous-Flow System for             EPA 744-F-96-024
      Reusing Microetchant                                                                        „„   *1.
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Case Study #6: Pollution Prevention Beyond Regulated      EPA 744-F-97-006
      Materials
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Case Study #7: Identifying Objectives for Your             EPA 744-F-97-009
      'Environmental	Management'System	'	•	"'
      DfE Printed Wiring Board Project Case Study #8: Building an Environmental Management    EPA 744-F-97-010
      System-H-R Industries' Experience
      Printed Wiring Board Project Fact Sheet                      :':V"':1 '-'•(''!..;'"':'';;;;-' :•'/'-;|ip^^f-^g^g.'
      Alternative Technologies for Making Holes Conductive: Cleaner Technologies for Printed      EPA 744-R-98-002
      Wiring Board Manufacturers
      Printed Wiring Board Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Making Holes           EPA 744-R-98-004a
      Conductive, Volumes 1 and 2           ,                                              EPA744-R-98-004b
         i                          . . -'-.- -•.-. -.^.^I-.L.,',,^ „'„„. „ -*,•..,['_ •... i,,, ' •  ... . t,i. ' -+         ^.jai  f                  ^»V jy  * mpvnjf* *vV "
      Pollution Prevention and Control  Technology: Analysis of Updated Survey Results            EPA 744-R-98-003
      Implementing Cleaner Technologies in the Printed Wiring Board Industry: Making Holes       EPA 744-R-97-001
      Conductive                    -   ,    ^      :        •'..    :                                    J^-^''
      Printed Wiring Board Industry and Use Cluster Profile                                    EPA 744-R-95-005
      Federal ^nyironrnental Regulations Affecting the Electronics Industry	        EPA 744-B-95-g31
    120
    THE DfE PRINTED WIRING BOARD MANUFACTURING PROJECT
    

    -------
                                    C  H  A  P T E  R
                DfE  Partnerships-
                            New  Directions
    The DfE Program has explored several new approaches to support the DfE focus on
    making changes and choices-in materials and process-that prevent pollution before it
    is created.
    THE DFE AUTO REFINISH SHOP
    PROJECT IN PHILADELPHIA
    
       The DfE Auto refmish Shop Pilot Project
    focuses on small shops because they make up
    the majority of the auto refmish industry and
    often have the fewest resources to upgrade their
    shops. The DfE Program works directly with
    shop owners in the community and local gov-
    ernment to identify and adopt safer, cleaner,
    and more efficient practices and technologies.
    This approach benefits both the shop worker
    and the community. Partner shops serve as
    resources to the DfE Program. They offer a real-
    world perspective on health and safety matters
    in the shop; they identify the barriers and incen-
    tives to change; and they offer advice on how
    to convert from old to new practices, equip-
    ment, and infrastructure.
       The DfE Program selected Philadelphia for
    the project's first pilot site because of the
    city's experience working with auto refinish
    shops, concern for small businesses and the
    environmental and safety issues they face, and
    the large number of auto shops in the Philadel-
    phia area.
       As part of the pilot, an industrial hygienist
    and a project manager survey shops for im-
    proved practices and equipment, follow up with
    a report to the shop owner on both good and
    bad practices, and provide recommendations for
                                                                     121
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     change. The shops' reports, owners, and workers
     provide the DfE Program invaluable resources
     to understanding the difficulties in adopting
     safer, cleaner practices, and the technical prob-
     lems faced in using improved equipment. The
     project team is identifying best practices, costs,
     pollution prevention, and hazard reduction op-
     portunities.
        The DfE Program will use the information
     gathered in this process to facilitate a dialog
     among the shops, the material and equipment
     suppliers, and training program providers to
     move toward a safer, cleaner workplace. This  ex-
     change will encourage product supply chain
     stewardship that closes the loop between manu-
     facture and use.
     THE DFE INDUSTRIAL AND
     INSTITUTIONAL LAUNDRY
     PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE
    
        Each year, formulators use billions of
     pounds of chemical ingredients to make laun-
     dry products. Ultimately, laundries release these
     chemicals to the environment in their waste
     water. DfE is concerned about the effect laun-
     dry chemicals in the waste water will have on
     aquatic life. Redesign of detergent formulations
     offers an important opportunity to prevent pol-
     lution before it occurs and to advance energy
     efficiency,  resource conservation, and innova-
     tive technologies. The DfE program identified
     positive attributes for laundry formulators to
     consider when developing or updating then-
     product line. The project's goal is to encourage
     formulators to improve the environmental pro-
     file of then-products and processes.
       Formulators are encouraged to enter into a
    partnership with DfE to redesign their formula-
    tions. The formulator shares  information with
    the DfE program on processes, current chemical
    formulations, and substitute  chemicals. The
    Agency offers expert advice  on alternative
                      chemical formulations. The formulator and the
                      DfE program enter into a Memorandum of Un-
                      derstanding that outlines an ongoing
                      relationship to work together toward agreed
                      upon goals to improve the environmental per-
                      formance of laundry products and cleaning
                      systems. The DfE Program has entered into sev-
                      eral partnerships and is actively communicating
                      with additional new partners.
                      DFE ENVIRONMENTAL
    
                      MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
                      PROJECT
    
                         The DfE Program is encourging the use of
                      DfE principles and analytical methods by devel-
                      oping a project to integrate DfE with the
                      management standards required for an Environ-
                      mental Management System (EMS).
                         The DfE/EMS project is based on the struc-
                      ture outlined in the ISO 14001 Standard. It
                      incorporates the five phases of Commitment
                      and Policy, Planning, Implementation, Evalu-
                      ation, and Review. The DfE/EMS focuses on
                      analyzing a company's chemical risk reduction
                      processes, pollution prevention opportunities,
                      and resource and cost savings. This project is
                      aimed at small and medium-sized businesses
                      who are not actively seeking ISO 14000 certifi-
                      cation but would like to measure and improve
                      their environmental performance. (While gener-
                      ally consistent with the ISO 14001 standard, the
                      DfE/EMS might place less emphasis on manage-
                      ment  infrastructure and documentation.
                         DfE is creating a step-by-step guide (cur-
                      rently in the "working draft" stage) for developing
                      and implementing an EMS based on DfE princi-
                      ples. The manual is broken down into ten
                      modules and includes self-assessment work-
                      sheets for the various phases of planning and
                      implementation. The goal of the manual is to
                      provide simple yet complete direction to a small
    122
    DfE PARTNERSHIPS-NEW DIRECTIONS
    

    -------
                        Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    company (10 to 20 people) previously unfamil-
    iar with environmental management planning.
    Partnership  with
    Screenprinting and Graphic
    Imaging Association Pilot
    Project
        DfE is currently working with the Screen-
    printing and Graphic Imaging Association
    (SGIA), a trade association for screen printers,
    on a DfE/EMS pilot project. SGIA is adapting
    the DfE/EMS manual to reflect the needs and
    concerns of its members by working with seven
    companies that are setting up a DfE/EMS.
    Through this experience, DfE hopes to tailor the
     manual and other guidance materials to be sim-
     ple, effective, and user-friendly. DfE is holding
     three training sessions for the pilot companies
     and will measure their progress through 1 year
     of development.
     Web Site
         The DfE/EMS Web site (scheduled to be on-
     line by June 1999) is a resource for additional
     technical guidance on EMS development, meant
    for users who are familiar with EMS or might
    already have an EMS. The site includes sections
    on policy, gaps analysis, process mapping, and
    environmental aspects. The site focuses on
    integrating EMS concepts with DfE cleaner tech-
    nology principles and approaches. The Web site
    also will feature tools to aid companies (e.g.,
    OPPT models,-a Risk Guide, and the P2 Finance
    Tool) and helpful links to related Web sites.
    Video
    
        The video, "Environmental Management
    Systems for Printers: It's a Bottom Line Bene-
    fit," documents the experiences of two printers
    who developed EMSs for their companies. The
    purpose of this video is to encourage businesses
    of all sizes to consider implementing an EMS
    within their companies. By focusing on small
    steps and easy successes at first, companies can
    garner the support and enthusiasm from em-
    ployees needed to proceed to larger, more
     complex projects. The video cites many exam-
    ples of easy ways to incorporate environmental
     and pollution prevention (P2) decisions  into
     daily business practices and shows that many
     environmental benefits might be economic
     benefits as well.
                                  DfE PARTNERSHIPS-NEW DIRECTIONS
                                                                                           123
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                             CHAPTER
                                                References
    EPA. 1996. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
    Assessment: Lithographic Blanket Washes. Of-
    fice of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
    Washington, DC. EPA744-R-95-008. Draft. July.
    
    EPA. 1995a. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
    Assessment: A Methodology and Resource
    Guide. Office of Pollution Prevention and Tox-
    ics, Washington, DC. EPA 744-R-95-002. Under
    development by L.E. Kincaid, J. Meline, and
    G.A. Davis, University of Tennessee, Center for
    Clean Products and Clean Technologies,
    Knoxville, Tennessee, EPA Grant X821-543.
    
    EPA. 1995b. Dry Cleaning Industry Use Cluster
    Analysis. Regulatory Impacts Branch, Office of
    Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington,
    DC. Draft final report. March 1.
    
    EPA. 1995c. Design for the Environment:
    Screen Printing Project. Designing Solutions
    for Screen Printers. Office of Pollution
    Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
    EPA744-F-95-003. March.
    
    EPA. 1995d. Design for the Environment:
    Lithography Project. Blanket Wash Solutions
    for Small Printers. Office of Pollution Preven-
    tion and Toxics, Washington, DC.
    EPA744-F-95-005.
    
    EPA. 1994a. Environmental Planning for
    Small Communities: A Guide for Local
    Decision-Makers. Office of Research and Devel-
    opment/Office of Regional Operations and
    State/Local Relations, Washington, DC.
    EPA/625/R-94/009. September.
    
    EPA. 1994b. Federal Environmental Regula-
    tions Potentially Affecting the Commercial
    Printing Industry. Office of Pollution Preven-
    tion and Toxics, Washington, DC.
    EPA-744-B-94-001. March.
    'Many of these EPA documents can be obtained through: Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC);
    U.S. EPA, 3404, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; phone: 202 260-1023; fax: 202 260-0178.
                                                                                    125
    

    -------
                          DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     EPA. 1994c. Printing Industry and Use Cluster
     Profile. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
     Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. EPA744-R-
     94-003. June.
    
     EPA. 1994d. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
     Assessment. Industry: Screen Printing. Use
     Cluster: Use Reclamation. Office of Pollution
     Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
     EPA744-R-94-005. Draft. September.
    
     EPA. 1994e. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
     Assessment. Industry: Screen Printing. Use
     Cluster: Use Reclamation. Executive Summary.
     Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Wash-
     ington, DC. EPA744R-94-005. September.
    
     EPA. 1994f. Summary of Focus Group Discus-
     sions with Screen Printers and Lithographers
     for the Design for the Environment Printing
     Project. Office of Pollution Prevention and Tox-
     ics, Washington, DC. EPA 742-R-94-004. June.
    
     EPA. 1994g. Design for the Environment Print-
     ing Project, Screen Printing Case Study 2. U.S.
     EPA and the Printing Trade Associations Nation-
     wide, Fairfax, VA. Draft. October.
    
     EPA. 1994h. Design for the Environment Print-
     ing Project, Screen Printing Case Study 3. U.S.
     EPA and the Printing Trade Associations Nation-
     wide, Fairfax, VA. Draft. October.
    
     EPA. 1994L Design for the Environment Print-
     ing Project, Screen Printing Case Study 4. U.S.
     EPA and the Printing Trade Associations Nation-
     wide, Fairfax, VA.  Draft. December.
    
     EPA, 1994J. Design for the Environment Print-
     ing Project, Screen Printing Case Study 5. U.S.
     EPA and the Printing Trade Associations Nation-
    wide, Fairfax, VA.  Draft. December.
    
    EPA. 1994k. Summary of a Report on Multi-
    process Wet Cleaning. Office of Pollution
    Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
    EPA744-S-94-001. June.
     EPA. 19941. Fact Sheet on "Design for the
     Environment Dry Cleaning Project." Office of
     Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
     EPA/744/F93/004. December.
                            ii
     EPA. 1993a. Chemical Use Clusters Scoring
     Methodology. Chemical Engineering Branch of
     the Economics, Exposure and Technology Divi-
     sion, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
     Washington, DC. Draft Report. July 23.
    
     EPA. 1993b. Printing Industry Study (Final Re-
     port). Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
     Washington, DC. April.
    
     EPA. 1993c. Design for the Environment Print-
     ing Project, Case Study 1. U.S. EPA and the
     Printing Trade Associations Nationwide,
     Fairfax, VA. EPA744-K-93-001.
    
     EPA. 1993d. Design for the Environment Print-
     ing Project, Case Study 2. U.S. EPA and the
     Printing Trade Associations Nationwide,
     Fairfax, VA. EPA744-F-93-015.
    
     EPA. 1993e. Fact Sheet on "Design for the
     Environment's Printing Project." Office of
     Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington,
     DC. EPA744-F-93-003. July.
    
     EPA. 1993f. Multiprocess Wet Cleaning: Cost
     and  Performance Comparison of Conventional
     Dry  Cleaning and an Alternative Process,
     Executive Summary.  Office of Pollution Preven-
     tion  and Toxics, Washington, DC.
     EPA744-R-93-004. September.
    
     EPA. 1992. Proceedings of the International
     Roundtable on Pollution Prevention and Con-
     trol in the Drycleaning Industry, Falls Church,
    Virginia (May 27-28). Office of Pollution
    Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
    EPA/774/R-92/002. November.
    
    Pitts, G., R. Ferrone et al. 1993. Environmental
                          i  i|
    Consciousness: A Strategic Competitiveness
    Issue for the Electronics and Computer
    126
                                           REFERENCES
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    Industry. An industry-led study sponsored in
    part by the U.S. Department of Energy and the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
    coordinated by the Microelectronics and Com-
    puter Technology Corporation (MCC), Austin,
    Texas.
    SGIAI (Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging As-
    sociation International). 1995. Marci Kinter,
    personal communication.
                                            REFERENCES
                                             127
    

    -------
    

    -------
    The  DfE Printing Projects:
    Communications Plan  and
    Communication Products
    
    This  Appendix Contains:
    EPA. 1994. Draft Plan for Communicating DfE
    Project Information to Small Printers	A2
    
    EPA. 1993. Design for the Environment Print-
    ing Project Office of Pollution Prevention and
    Toxics. EPA 744-F-93-003. July	A7
    
    EPA. 1995. Design for the Environment Lithog-
    raphy Project. Blanket Wash Solutions for
    Small Printers. Office of Pollution  Prevention
    and Toxics. EPA 744-F-95-005. September. . A9
    
    EPA. 1995. Design for the Environment Screen
    Printing Project. Designing Solutions for
    Screen Printers. Office of Pollution Prevention
    and Toxics. EPA 744-F-95-003. March	All
    
    EPA. 1993. Design for the Environment Print-
    ing Project. Case Study 1. Managing Solvents
    and Wipes. U.S. EPA and the Printing Trade As-
    sociations Nationwide. EPA 744-K-93-001.  A13
    
    EPA. 1996. Design for the Environment Print-
    ing Project. Case Study 1. Reducing the Use of
    Reclamation Chemicals in Screen  Cleaning.
    U.S. EPA and the Printing Trade Associations
    Nationwide. EPA 744-F-93-015. July	A17
    EPA. 1996. Design for the Environment Screen
    Printing Project. Bulletin 1. Technology Alter-
    natives for Screen Reclamation. U.S. EPA and
    the Printing Trade Associations Nationwide.
    EPA 742-F-95-008. July	 A22
    
    EPA. 1996. Design for the Environment Screen
    Printing Project. Case Study 3. Innovations in
    Adhesives, Screen Cleaning, and Screen Recla-
    mation. U.S. EPA and the Printing Trade
    Associations Nationwide. EPA 744-F-96-012.
    September	 A26
    
    EPA. 1996. Design for the Environment Screen
    Printing Project. Bulletin 3. Work Practice
    Alternatives for Screen Reclamation. U.S. EPA
    and the Printing Trade Associations Nation-
    wide. EPA 742-F-95-010. July	 A30
    
    EPA. 1996. Design for the Environment Screen
    Printing Project. Screen Printing Bulletin 4.
    Smarter, Safer Screen Reclamation. U.S. EPA
    and the Printing Trade Associations Nation-
    wide. EPA 742-F-95-011. July	 A34
                                                                                      A1
    

    -------
                        DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
     Draft  Plan  for  Communicating DfE Project
     Information to Small  Printers
    1. Background  Information
    
    A. Need to design information for
    two different audiences when commu-
    nicating with small printers.
    • Owners and press men and women are
       two distinct audiences that need to be
       considered separately when planning com-
       munication with small printers. These two
       groups have different concerns and
       approaches to information. This distinction
       needs to be kept in mind in all of the
       following.
    
    B. What do small printers need to un-
    derstand as a prerequisite to using
    the information  that will come from
    this project?
    • At this time most small printers are not in-
       terested in the kinds of environmental
       information that this project will produce.
       Those working with small printers agree
       that preliminary educational work with
       small printers is fundamental to the success
       of this project. This will require both long
       and short term efforts. At this point, to get
       the attention of small printers, the project
       needs to place environmental issues in the
       context of cost and performance.
    • Small printers have not, on the whole,
       heard about this project. When introduced
       to the project, printers have expressed
       doubts about the need for and goals of the
       project. Small printers, especially in lithog-
       raphy, do not currently perceive the areas
       targeted by the project as a problem. In or-
       der to insure an audience, the project needs
              to begin explaining its goals now to small
              printers.
           •  Most small printers do not know the current
              impact that they collectively have on the en-
              vironment. Conversely, they do not know
              the positive affect they could make if they
              included environmental impacts in their
              business decisions. Information on current
              environmental impacts and potential im-
              provements need to be developed and
              presented to small printers.
           •  Case studies on efforts of small printers to
              reduce environmental impacts need to be
              gathered and distributed to demonstrate the
              possibility for improvement, the benefits
              that can be derived* and the methods used
              to identify and implement changes that re-
              duce environmental impacts. The potential
              costs reductions resulting from practices
              that reduced environmental impact need to
              be emphasized.
           •  Background information on using MSD's
              needs to be provided, including how to iden-
              tify information and where to  go if the
              information is missing. This is especially
              true with respect to environmental impact
              information.
    
           C. What are the motivating factors
           that would encourage a small printer
           to use DfE project information?
           •  Costs, performance, and human health are
              the issues that currently motivate small
              printers to consider using environmental in-
              formation. Costs are the overwhelming
              concern of small printers and even health
              concerns need to be placed in terms of costs.
    A2
    APPENDIX A
    

    -------
                         DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
    D. What are the industry sources of
    information currently used by small
    printers? What are the most credible
    sources of information for small
    printers?
    •  Small printers rely primarily on three
       sources of information: Suppliers, local
       trade and craft organizations, and the trade
       press.
    •  For credible information, printers rely on lo-
       cal clubs and local associations, the trade
       press, suppliers, and state and university
       technical assistance programs. Printers do
       not have confidence in the EPA and other
       governmental regulatory organizations as
       credible sources of information.
    
    E. What are the available industry
    channels for getting  information to
    small printers? Will they help with
    communication?
    •  Suppliers are a key source of information
       for small printers. A relatively small num-
       ber of large suppliers supply most of the
       market. Meetings with suppliers to find out
       how they mights participate in disseminat-
       ing project information need to be held.
    •  Local craft clubs and local trade associa-
       tions are a key to reaching small printers.
       Further work needs to be done to identify
       these groups, win their support, and deter-
       mine how they might help to disseminate
       project information.
    
    For  lithography:
    •  The lithographic trade press reaches a high
       percentage of the industry, including small
       printers. For example, the largest journal
       has a circulation of 94,000 with 60,000
       going to printers with less than 100 employ-
       ees. For comparison, the DfE Industry
       Profile identifies 53,000 lithography plants
       in this category of less than 100 employees.
       We can estimate that the trade press reaches
       at least 80°/o of our target audience. Mem-
       bers of the trade press participate in the
       project and have expressed a willingness to
       printed project information. Methods for
       getting project output into the trade press
       need to be developed.
    •  National lithographic industry meetings and
       trade shows: There are three or four major
       trade shows for lithography. Attendance
       ranges from 4,000 to 20,000. A high per-
       centage of our target audience with
       between  20 and 100 employees attend one
       or more of these meetings. Few small print-
       ers with less than 20 employees can afford
       to attend. Associations and the industry's
       Environmental Conservation Board have
       agreed to disseminate project information at
       these national meetings. Most other shows
       are organized by the trade press and ar-
       rangements might be developed with them
       for disseminating project information.
    
    For screen printing:
    •  The Screen Print trade press reaches about
       70% of the industry. Members of the trade
       press participate in the project and have
       expressed a willingness to print project in-
       formation. Methods for getting project
       information. Methods for getting project
       output into the trade press need to be
       developed.
    •  The Screen Print Trade Association has ap-
       proximately 2,500 members out of the
       total of 35,000 screen printers. The associa-
       tion is committed to disseminating project
       information.
    •  Screen Print Industry meetings and trade
       shows: There are twenty trade shows sched-
       uled for  1993. The screen print trade
       association will attend five or six of these.
       Most shows are organized by the trade press
                                            APPENDIX A
                                                                                            A3
    

    -------
                        Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
       and arrangements might be developed with
       them for disseminating project information.
    
    E. What kinds of educational  and
    technical assistance programs
    currently reach small  printers?
    «  Every state has one or more technical out-
       reach program directed at small businesses.
       These programs can be contacted through a
       single national organization, the Pollution
       Prevention Roundtable. There are also seven
       Manufacturing Technology Centers organ-
       ized by the National Institute of Standards
       and Technology. Pending legislation would
       increase the number of these centers to 170.
       These national centers are  also targeted at
       small businesses and may be good means
       for reaching printers. The Environmental
       Defense Fund and the Council of Great
       Lakes Governors Industrial Pollution Preven-
       tion Partnership Project has chosen the
       printing/publishing industry as the focus
       for a pilot outreach project in the Great
       Lakes Area. Further work needs to be done
       to determine how all of these technical as-
       sistance organizations are  likely to use
       information from the project. Further work
       also needs to be done to identify additional
       EPA. technical transfer efforts that might
       support this project.
    •  A large number of college-level schools
       teach lithography and screen printing.
       These schools have contact with similar
       high school programs. A high percentage of
       printing professional are trained in these in-
       stitutions and they are key to any
       educational efforts in the industry. The
       Graphic Arts Technical Association plays a
       similar role in screen print education. Fur-
       ther work with these schools needs to be
       done to determine how they might help to
       disseminate information from the project.
    •  The Printing Industries of America has be-
       gun an educational program in association
              with 3M. Further work needs to be done to
              determine how the information from this
              project could fit  into this program.
    
           F. What is the best means (format,
           length, video, etc.) to  use to commu-
           nicate with small printers?
           •  Printers have requested printed information
              in short, clear formats such as one page
              newsletters. They would prefer a format like
              a "consumer guide" that makes information
              on products~easy to use. Interest was also
              expressed in a video format for use in the
              shop or at home.
    
           II. Intermediate  Steps To Prepare
           for Communicating Project
           Information to Small Printers
                      .1
           A. Develop and communicate back-
           ground information to prepare small
           printers for project output.
           •  Develop and distribute information explain-
              ing the environmental impacts of their
              operations to small printers. Do analysis of
              small printers for impacts and develop ag-
              gregate figures for collective impact.
              Responsibility: Information Products Com-
              mittee
              Dissemination: All industry channels
              When: Distribution in April
           •  Develop a speakers network from  the pro-
              ject participants to send speakers to explain
              the project at as many industry meetings as
              possible.
              Responsibility: Publicity Committee
              When: Begin in  April and continue
           •  Develop and distribute information explain-
              ing the environmental impacts of their
              operations to small printers. Do analysis of
              small printers for impacts and develop ag-
              gregate figures for collective impact.
              Responsibility: Information Products
    A4
    APPENDIX A
    

    -------
                        DfE: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
       Committee
       Dissemination: All industry channels
       When: Distribution in May
    •  Develop and distribute case studies on ef-
       forts of small printers to reduce
       environmental impacts to demonstrate the
       possibility of improvement, the benefits that
       can be derived, and the methods used to
       identify and implement changes.
       Responsibility: Information Products Com-
       mittee
       Dissemination: All industry channels
       When: Distribution in April, June, July
    •  Develop background information on using
       MSDS's  including how to identify important
       information and how to  find missing infor-
       mation.
       Responsibility: Information Products Com-
       mittee
       Dissemination: All industry channels
       When: Distribution in August
    •  Collect existing environmental information
       products directed at small printers from
       trade press and other sources and combine
       as resource  for industry and schools.
       Responsibility: Information Products Com-
       mittee
       Dissemination: All industry channels
       When: Distribution in August
    
    B. Develop support for  project in local
    organizations and  with local industry
    leaders.
    •  Contact local craft groups and trade associa-
       tions to  explain the project. Develop list of
       local industry leaders and communicate di-
       rectly with them to win their support and
       input for the project.
       Responsibility: Publicity Committee
       When: April, June, July
    C. Work with suppliers to determine
    how they can communicate project
    information to their customers
    •  Meet with suppliers and suppliers' associa-
       tions to find out how they currently gather
       environmental information and how they
       communicate it to small printers. Explore
       possibilities for communicating project in-
       formation to small printers.
       Responsibility: Publicity Committee
       When: April, June, July
    
    D. Work with schools to determine
    how they can communicate project
    information to printers  and printing
    students.
    •  Communicate and meet with schools. Form
       educational subcommittee to help organize
       work. Investigate possibility of curriculum
       development incorporating project output.
       Responsibility: Publicity Committee
       When: April, June, July
    
    E. Work with trade  press to determine
    how they can help to communicate
    project information to industry.
    •  Communicate and meet with trade press. In-
       vestigate best means of disseminating
       information in press. Investigate dissemina-
       tion of project output at trade shows
       sponsored by trade press.
       Responsibility: Publicity Committee
       When: April, June, July
    
    III. Distribution Project Output
    
    A. National teleconference to intro-
    duce project information to key users.
    •  Close to time of completion, the project will
       organize a national teleconference with
       links to community colleges throughout the
       nation. This teleconference will target local
                                          APPENDIX A
                                            A5
    

    -------
                           Dffi: Building Partnerships for Environmental Improvement
        printers, printing educators, local trade asso-
        ciation staff, local craft clubs, trade press,
        and state and national technical assistance
        staff. It will be used to explain the project
        information, answer questions, and provide
        any training necessary for using the infor-
        mation.
    
     B. Relying on existing channels of
     communication with industry.
     •  Existing channels of communication are suf-
        ficient for reaching small printers with the
        project output. Current plans are for partici-
        pating printers or the EPA to print the first
        run and for other organizations to reprint
        as needed. The following will be used:
        Industry Workgroup Members: Mailing to
        all by EPA.
    Trade Press: Mailing to all trade press by as-
    sociations. Press conference and interviews
    organized by Project Core Group.
    Suppliers: Mailing to all suppliers by asso-
    ciations.
    Local craft clubs and trade associations:
    Mailing to all by associations.
    Local industry leaders: Mailing to all by lo-
    cal associations.
    Educational institutions: Mailing to all by
    EPA.
    State and National Technical Assistance Pro-
    grams: Mailing by Pollution Prevention
    Roundtable.
    National Industry Meetings: Distribution at
    national meetings by association and Envi-
    ronmental Conservation Board, and Graphic
    Arts Technical Foundation.
    A6
                                             APPENDIX A
    

    -------
                       United States
                       Environmental Protection
                       Agency
                   Pollution Prevention
                   and Toxics
                   (7406)
                                            EPA744-F-95-003
                                            September 1995
                       Design  for  the  Environment
                       Screen  Printing  Project
          U.S.EPA*
    What Is Design for the
    
    Environment?
    
    The Design for the
    Environment (DfE) Program
    harnesses EPA's expertise and
    leadership to facilitate informa-
    tion exchange and research on
    risk reduction and pollution
    prevention efforts. DfE works
    with both large and small
    businesses on a voluntary
    basis, and its wide-ranging
    projects include:
    • Changing general business
      practices to incorporate
      environmental concerns.
    • Working with specific indus-
      tries to evaluate the risks,
      performance,  and costs of
      alternative chemicals,
      processes, and technologies.
    • Helping individual business-
      es undertake  environmental
      design efforts through the
      application of specific tools
      and methods.
    DfE partners include:
    • Industry
    • Professional Institutions
    • Academia
    • Environmental and Public
      Interest Groups
    • Other Government Agencies
                                 Designing Solutions
                                 for Screen Printers
    Why is EPA
    Working With
    Screen Printers?
                                                       There are about
                                                       20,000 graphic art
                          screen printing shops in the United States.
                          These mostly small- and medium-sized busi-
                          nesses perform diverse functions ranging from
    the printing of billboard advertisements and posters to printing onto elec-
    tronic equipment. Screen printing involves stretching a porous mesh
    material over a frame to form a screen. Then a rubber-type blade
    (squeegee) is swept across the screen surface, pressing ink through a sten-
    cil and onto the print material. In the course of providing their services,
    screen printers can reclaim the screens using solvents to remove inks,
    emulsion (stencils), and remnant image elements so the screens can be
    used again. The use of these solvents, however, can pose potential risks to
    the people who work with them and to the environment.
    
    The Design for the Environment (DfE) Screen Printing Project is a unique,
    voluntary effort between  the screen printing industry and the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dedicated to helping screen
    printers prevent pollution and reduce risks to their workers and the envi-
    ronment in cost-effective ways. Printers, EPA, product manufacturers, and
    the screen printing trade association are all concerned with minimizing
    the environmental and health risks of screen reclamation chemicals cur-
    rently used in screen printing shops. DfE's goal in working with screen
    printers is to help them make more informed choices, now and in the
    future, by promoting the  search for and evaluation of cleaner products,
    processes, and technologies.
    How Did the DfE
    Printing Projects
    Get Started?
                         DfE began working with the printing industry in
                         1992, when the Printing Industries of America
                         (PIA) requested EPA's assistance in evaluating
                         environmental claims for products. This effort
                         ultimately grew into two separate projects aimed
    at preventing pollution in the industry, one focused on the screen printing
    sector, and the other on the lithography sector. Each project addresses a
    different area of environmental concern in the printing process. In lithog-
    raphy the focus is on blanket washes, while for screen printing the project
    partners chose to look at screen reclamation. DfE Screen Printing Project
    partners include the Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Association
    (SGIA),the University of Tennessee, and individual printers and suppliers.
    
    
                                            Recycled/Recyclable
                                           Sprinted on paper that contains at least
                                           '20 percent postconsumer fiber.
    
                                                               A7
    

    -------
     Wil3t HBS tllG     DfE's work with the screen
     lff£ Crroon        printing industry is conducted
       ,   .- ^ee"        under three distinct project
     Printing Project  areas: technical studies,
     Accomplished?   implementation, and out-
             r            reach.
    
    
     Technical Studies
     The DfE Screen Printing Project completed a compari-
     son of the environmental and human health risk, per-
     formance, and cost of 14 substitute screen reclama-
     tion product systems and technologies. The project
     collected hazard and environmental release informa-
     tion (i.e., releases to air, water, land) on 72 different
     chemicals that are found in these screen reclamation
     systems With this information, the project assessed
     the risks to human health and the environment posed
     by the substitute product systems and technologies.
     Performance was evaluated in two phases: 1) the
     Screen Printing Technical Foundation's laboratory
     evaluated the products under controlled conditions,
     and, 2) field demonstrations at volunteer printers'
     facilities provided performance information under
     "real world" conditions of production. Twenty-three
     screen printing shops volunteered to use the substi-
     tute product systems for one month. The participat-
     ing printers recorded the amount of product used, the
     length of time needed to reclaim the screens, and
     their opinion of how well the product cleaned the
     screen.
     The information collected in the performance demon-
     stration was used to develop cost data for each of the
     demonstrated product systems and technologies.
     The Screen Printing Project also identified simple
     workplace practice changes that printers can easily
     and cheaply implement. In addition, new methods
     and technologies were examined that might help
     printers improve their bottom line while reducing
     human health and environmental impacts.
     Information on the comparative risk, performance,
     and cost of each of the substitute product systems and
     technologies is contained in the DfE Screen Printing
     Project's full technical report, the Screen Reclamation
     Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA).
     The Screen Reclamation CTSA is the first that DfE
     has completed, and it will be used as a model for
     future assessments of pollution prevention opportuni-
     ties in other industries.
    Implementation Efforts
    In an effort to encourage pollution prevention in the
    screen printing industry, the DfE Screen Printing
    Project is providing technical assistance to screen
    printers. In cooperation with the Small Business
    Administration^ the New Jersey Small Business
    Development Center, and SGIA, the project has pro-
    duced a training video entitled Saving Money and
    Reducing Waste. The video provides screen printers
    with concrete ideas on how to prevent pollution and
    reduce waste in their shops, as well as promote new
    ways to impove their processes.
    The project has also developed computer software
    that helps screen printers assess the profitability of
    pollution prevention investments using total cost
    assessment techniques. The DfE Screen Printing
    Project is conducting pilot workshops for screen print-
    ers in 1995 on how to use the software.
    Both of these products are available at low cost to
    printers, technical assistance providers, and others
    interested in pollution prevention in the screen print-
    ing industry.
    
    Outreach Activities
    The project has created a variety of informational
    materials based on the Screen Reclamation CTSA. To
    explain to printers the results of the assesment, the
    project produced a simple, concise brochure. A series
    of case studies also has been developed to help screen
    printers sort through some of the different factors that
    can make one product system, technology, or work
    practice a more attractive substitute than another.
    Other information products geared to small- and
    medium-sized screen printers are also under
    development.
    Culminating their three-year cooperative effort, DfE
    and SGIA co-sponsored the first annual screen print-
    ing industry conference on the environment. The con-
    ference highlighted pollution prevention resources
    including those developed for the DfE'Screen Printing
    Project.
    A8
      How Can I Get More Information?
      To learn more about the Screen Printing Project or
      EPA's Design for the Environment Program, or to
      obtain the documents described in this fact sheet,
      contact:
      EPA's Pollution Prevention
        Information Clearinghouse
        (PPIC)
      U.S. Environmental Protection
        Agency
      401 M Street, S.W. (3404)
      Washington, DC 20460
      Tel: 202 260-1023
      Fax: 202 260-0178
                    .I,,Hi	iiiiiii	• , jiiiiikiijj  ,11;,,, !
    

    -------
                        United States
                        Envfranmental Protection
                        Agency
                            Pollution Prevention
                            and Toxics
                            (7406)
    EPA744-F-95-005
    September 1995
    &EPA
    Design for  the  Environment
    Lithography Project
              Blanket  Wash
              Solutions for Small
              Printers
           U.S.EPA
      What Is Design for the
      Environment?
      The Design for the
      Environment (DfE) Program
      harnesses EPA's expertise and
      leadership to facilitate informa-
      tion exchange and research on
      risk reduction and pollution
      prevention efforts. DfE works
      with both large and small
      businesses on a voluntary
      basis, and its wide-ranging
      projects include:
      • Changing general business
        practices to incorporate
        environmental concerns.
      • Working with specific indus-
        tries to evaluate the risks,
        performance, and costs of
        alternative chemicals,
        processes, and technologies.
      • Helping individual business-
        es undertake environmental
        design efforts through the
        application of specific tools
        and methods.
      DfE partners include:
      • Industry
      • Professional Institutions
      • Academia
      • Environmental and Public
        Interest Groups
      • Other Government Agencies
              Why IS EPA       There are more than 52,000 lithographic printers
              Workino With    ^ ^ United States. These small and medium-
              i sth      tt   9   sized businesses print materials such as books,
              Lithographers?   brochures, newspapers, magazines, and other
              items that are fixtures in our daily lives. In doing so, they make an
              important contribution to the nation's economy.
    
              Offset presses utilized in the industry transfer the printed image from
              a plate to a rubber or plastic blanket and then to the paper or other
              medium for the final printed product. The cleanliness of the blanket is
              a primary concern for producing high-quality images. Blanket washes,
              consisting of varying types of solvents, are employed in removing ink,
              paper dust, and other debris from the blanket cylinder. However, some
              of these solvents can pose risks to human health and the environ-
              ment. New, potentially less harmful blanket washes are appearing on
              the market, giving printers the opportunity to reduce impacts on the
              environment and minimize risks to workers.  Testing new blanket
              washes, however, can be a time-consuming and expensive process.
    
              The Design for the Environment (DfE) Lithography Project is a unique
              voluntary effort between the lithographic printing industry and the
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that provides information
              about less polluting materials  and process alternatives. DfE's goal in
              working with printers is to help them make more informed choices by
              easing the search for and evaluation of cleaner processes, products,
              and technologies. Since blanket washes are the primary concern, they
              have been the project's first focus. Through the demonstration of man-
              ufacturer supplied, commercially available products at volunteer
              printing shops, the assessment of associated human health and envi-
              ronmental concerns, and the evaluation of other factors, the project
              will make information available that will help printers make more
              informed decisions about the products -they bring into their shops.
              HOW Did the DfE  D*E began working with the printing industry in
              Printinn Prniort  1992, when the Printing Industries of America
              mining rrojeci  jpIAj requeste(j EPA'S assistance in evaluating
              Get Started?     environmental claims for products. This effort
              ultimately grew into projects with three separate sectors of the printing
              industry: lithography, flexography, and screen printing. Each project
                                                       . Recycled/Recyclable
                                                       /Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumerftoer.
                                                                                          A9
    

    -------
     addresses a different area of environmental concern:
     for fiexography the focus is on the types of inks
     used; for screen printing the focus is on screen
     reclamation; and for lithography the project part-
     ners chose to look at blanket washes. DfE lithogra-
     phy partners include PLA, the Graphic Arts
     Technical Foundation (GATF), the Environmental
     Conservation Board of the Graphic Communications
     Industry (ECU), The University of Tennessee, and
     individual printers  and suppliers.
     What Has the
     DfE Lithography
     Project
     Accomplished?
    DfE's work with the litho-
    graphic printing industry is
    conducted under three distinct
    project areas: technical studies,
    implementation, and outreach.
     Technical Studies
     The DfE Lithography Project focused its efforts on
     developing specific risk, performance, cost, and
     other technical information on blanket washes to
     help small and medium-sized lithographic printers.
     The project partners agreed to focus their efforts
     initially on the needs of small shops using small
     (less than 26" wide) presses.
    
     The DfE Lithography Project is examining the envi-
     ronmental and human health risks of more than 38
     potential substitute blanket washes. The project is
     collecting  health hazard and environmental release
     information (i.e., releases to air, water, land) associ-
     ated with the use of generic formulations found in
     these blanket washes.
    
     Between November 1994 and February  1995, per-
     formance evaluations were conducted. Performance
     was evaluated in two phases: 1) GATF's laboratory
     performed screening evaluations of certain charac-
     teristics of the blanket washes, and 2) eighteen
     printing shops across the country volunteered to
     provide performance information under real world
     conditions of production. These shops used the
     substitute  blanket washes for one week. Press oper-
     ators at the shops recorded the amount  of product
     used, the length of time needed to clean the blan-
     ket cylinders, and their opinion of how  well the
     products worked.
    
     The information collected in the performance
     demonstration is being used to develop cost data
     for each of the demonstrated blanket washes. In
     addition, the DfE Lithography Project is identify-
    A10
                          i
    ing simple workplace practice changes, pollution
    prevention options, and other steps that printers
    can implement easily and cheaply.
    
    
    Information on the comparative risk, performance,
    and cost of each of the substitute blanket washes
    will be included in the DfE Lithography Project's
    full technical report—the Blanket Wash Cleaner
    Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA). A
    draft of this document should be available for com-
    ment in the fall of 1995.
    
    Implementation Efforts
    In an effort to encourage pollution prevention in
    the lithography sector of the printing industry, the
    DfE Lithography Project is developing a variety of
    technical assistance for lithographic printers. For
    example, plans are in place to develop computer
    software that can help lithographic printers assess
    the profitability of pollution prevention invest-
    ments using total  cost assessment  techniques. DfE
    is also planning to conduct pilot workshops for
    lithographic printers on how to use the software.
    
    Outreach Activities
    The project will create different informational
    materials based on the Blanket Wash CTSA. The
    project partners will produce a simple, concise
    brochure to explain to printers the results of the
    technical work. A series of case studies will also be
    developed to help  lithographic printers sort through
    some of the different factors that can make one
    product a more attractive  substitute than another.
    Other information products geared to small and
    medium-sized printers will also be developed.
                                     How Can I Get More Information?
                                     To learn more about the Lithography Project of
                                     EPA's Design for the Environment Program or
                                     to obtain the documents described in this fact
                                     sheet, contact:
                                     EPA's Pollution Prevention
                                       Information Clearinghouse
                                       (PPIC)
                                     U.S. Environmental Protection
                                       Agency
                                     401 M Street, S.W. (3404)
                                     Washington, DC  20460
                                     Tel: 202 260-1023
                                     Fax: 202 260-0178
    

    -------
                      United States
                      Environmental Protection
                      Agency
                 Pollution Prevention
                 and Toxics
                 (7406)
    EPA 744-F-95-006
    February 1996
                      Design for the  Environment
                      Flexography  Project
          U.S.EPA*
    What Is Design for the
    Environment?
    The Design for the
    Environment (DfE) Program
    harnesses EPA's expertise and
    leadership to facilitate informa-
    tion exchange and research on
    risk reduction and pollution
    prevention opportunities. DfE
    works with both large and
    small businesses on a volun-
    tary basis, and its cooperative
    projects attempt to:
    • Work with specific industries
      to evaluate the risks, perfor-
      mance, and costs of alterna-
      tive chemicals, processes,
      and technologies.
    • Change general business
      practices to incorporate
      environmental concerns.
    • Help individual businesses
      undertake environmental
      design efforts through the
      application of specific tools
      and methods.
    
    DfE partners include:
    
    • Industry
    . • Professional Institutions
    • Academia
    • Environmental and Public
      Interest Groups
    • Other Government Agencies
                                  Focusing  on
                                  Flexo  Inks
    More than 1,600 printers in the United States
    use flexographic presses. These presses can be
    found in facilities ranging from small (less than
    10 employees) to large (200 to 300 employees). Flexography is primari-
    ly used for printing on consumer packages or labels made of paper, cor-
    rugated, and plastic films. In addition, some consumer and commercial
    products have parts that are produced on flexographic presses.
    
    Flexography involves printing from a raised image on a printing plate
    made from either rubber or photopolymers with highly fluid, quick-
    drying inks. The ink is  applied to the raised portion of the plate, and
    the image is transferred by the plate to a substrate (e.g., paper, film,
    or board). The inks used for flexography are liquid and contain sol-
    vents or water.  Selection of inks is critical to meeting the quality and
    performance requirements for a wide variety of substrates with vary-
    ing printing parameters.
    
    The conventional inks used for flexography consist of solvents made
    of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can pose risks to
    human health and to the environment. For this reason, they are regu-
    lated as air pollutants and hazardous materials. The VOCs in conven-
    tional inks contribute to ozone pollution and can adversely affect air
    quality. These inks also can have potentially  detrimental effects
    when disposed  of improperly.
    
    The flexography industry has been evaluating and adopting alterna-
    tives to the conventional ink formulations in an effort to find cleaner
    and safer materials for printing images. The industry's efforts in this
    area have included evaluating waterborne and UV-cured inks, as well
    as press modifications and add-on controls. Adopting these technolo-
    gies can reduce  the potential for pollution, eliminate or reduce air
    emissions, and prevent the generation of hazardous wastes and other
    discharges. There are technical and environmental advantages and dis-
    advantages associated with each of these technologies, however. These
    advantages and  disadvantages might affect product quality, production
    efficiency, and energy usage, or involve the transfer of pollution from
    one medium to another, transfer of waste streams, retraining facility
    personnel, and modification or replacement of existing equipment.
    
    The Design for  the Environment (DfE) Flexography Project is a unique
    voluntary effort between the flexographic printing industry and the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that seeks to provide
    information about the advantages and disadvantages associated with
    solvent, waterborne, and UV-cured flexographic ink technologies. The
    project will assess the performance, costs, environmental and human
                                                       Recycled/Recyclable
                                                       /Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent post consumer fiber.
                                                                                              A11
    

    -------
     health risks, and pollution prevention effects associ-
     ated with these technologies. DfE's goal in working
     with flexographic printers is to help them make
     more informed choices now and in the future by eas-
     ing the search for and evaluation of cleaner process-
     es, products, and technologies.
    
     HOW DM the DIE  DfEl hegan working with the
     _, .„   ~   ,   .   printing industry in 1992,
     Priming Project   when the Printing Industries of
     Get Started?      America (PIA) requested EPA's
                        assistance in evaluating envi-
     ronmental claims for products. This effort ultimately
     grew into projects aimed at preventing pollution in
     three sectors of the industry: lithography, screen
     printing, and flexography. Each project addresses a
     different area of concern within the printing indus-
     try. For lithography the focus is on blanket washes;
     for screen printing the focus is on screen reclama-
     tion; and for flexography the project partners chose
     to look at the types of inks used. DfE flexography
     partners  include the California Film Extruders and
     Converters Association (CFECA), the Flexible
     Packaging Association (FPA), the Flexographic
     Technical Association (FTA), the Industrial
     Technology Institute (ITI), the National Association
     of Printing Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM), the Plastic
     Bag Association (PBA), RadTech International, N.A.,
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology
     (NIST), the Tag and Label Manufacturers Institute,
     Inc. (TLMI), the University of Tennessee, Western
     Michigan University, and individual printers and
     suppliers.
    What is the
    The DfE flexography project has
    WE Flexographythree key acdvity areas: techni-
    cal studies, implementation
    tools, and outreach activities.
    Prefect?
    
    Technical Studies
    The DfE Flexography Project is focusing its efforts on
    developing specific risk, performance, cost, pollution
    prevention, and process requirement information on
    conventional and alternative ink technologies in
    order to help flexographic printers make more
    informed decisions about the ink technologies that
    they use in their facilities.
    
    The project is examining the environmental and
    human health risks of solvent-based, waterborne, and
    UV-curable ink technologies. The project is collecting
    information on hazards and environmental releases
    (i.e., releases to air, water, or land), energy consump-
    tion, and solid and hazardous wastes associated with
    the use of each technology. With this information,
    the project will assess the risks to human health and
    the environment posed by each of these flexographic
    ink technologies.
    A12
    The performance of each ink technology will be
    evaluated in two ways: 1) by a laboratory under
    controlled conditions; and 2) by printers under real-
    world conditions of production. The information
    collected in the performance demonstration will be
    used to develop cost data for each ink technology. In
    addition, the DfE Flexography Project will identify
    workplace practice changes, pollution prevention
    options, and other steps that printers can implement
    to better utilize each ink technology.
    
    Information on the comparative risk, performance,
    cost, and pollution prevention opportunities associat-
    ed with these ink technologies will be included in
    the DfE Flexography Project's full technical report,
    the Flexographic Inks Cleaner Technologies
    Substitutes Assessment (CTSA). The draft CTSA is
    scheduled to be released for comment in 1996.
    
    Implementation Tools
    In an effort to encourage pollution prevention in the
    flexography sector of the printing industry, the DfE
    Flexography Project will create a variety of technical
    assistance tools for flexographic printers. For exam-
    ple, plans are in place to develop computer software
    that can help flexographic printers assess the prof-
    itability of pollution prevention investments using
    total cost assessment techniques. DfE is also plan-
    ning to conduct pilot workshops for flexographic
    printers on how to use the software.
    
    Outreach Activities
    The project will create different informational  materi-
    als based on the CTSA. The project partners will pro-
    duce a simple, concise brochure to explain to printers
    the results of the technical work. A series of case
    studies also will be developed to help flexographic
    printers sort through some of the different factors
    that can make one ink technology a more attractive
    option than another. These and other products will be
    available on the Internet, making the information
    developed by the DfE Flexography Project easily
    accessible to printers and the general public.
                                     How Can I Get More Information?
    
                                     To learn more about the Flexography Project or
                                     EPA's Design for the Environment Program, contact:
    
                                     EPA's Pollution Prevention Information
                                       Clearinghouse (PPIC)
                                     U.S. Environmental Protection
                                       Agency
                                     401 M Street, S.W. (3404)
                                     Washington, DC 20460
                                     Tel: 202 260-1023
                                     Fax: 202 260-0178
    

    -------
                                                                                           LITHOGRAPHY CASE STUDY 1
    A Cooperative Project
    between the
    U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency
    and the
    Printing Trade
    Associations
    Nationwide
                                              MANAGING
                                                SOLVENTS
                                               AND WIPES
                                            CASE   STUDY  V
                                              LITHOGRAPHY
    
                                           Being responsive to the environment
                                           means learning new procedures and
                                           using new tools to do the same job
                                      with less hazard. Decisions about the pur-
                                      chase of equipment and chemicals for press
                                      rooms or other production processes depend
                                      not only on cost, availability, and perfor-
                                      mance, but also on whether environmental
                                      requirements can be met. Meeting environ-
                                      mental requirements means understanding the
                                      comparative human and ecological risks of
                                      the alternatives being considered.
                                           This case study is brought to you by the
                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
                                      (EPA's) Design for the Environment (D£E) Pro-
                                      gram. Through the DfE Program, government
                                      and industry are working together to identify
                                      alternative products and processes that are safer
                                      for the environment.
          This is the first in a series of case stud-
    ies that EPA is developing to illustrate how the
    DfE theme can be applied to lithographic
    printing operations. This study describes a suc-
    cessful pollution reduction program at the
    John Roberts Company in Minneapolis, Min-
    nesota. Although the company did not have
    access to risk and impact information, the way
    in which it searched out safer alternatives illus-
    trates how printers can achieve significant
    environmental results.
    In particular, this case study illustrates:
      • How a self-audit of solvents used in print-
      ing operations led to the substitution of
      more environmentally appropriate solvents.
      • How the use of a centrifuge to extract sol-
      vents from industrial wipers prior to laun-
      dering resulted in reduced solvent in the
      laundry's wastewater.
      • How this company saved money through
      its efforts to use safer solvents and reduce
      waste.
          The story of this company's experience
    and the steps it followed show how problems
    can become opportunities and how environ-
    mental planning can be good for business.
    Background
          The John Roberts Company is a com-
    mercial printer of annual reports, brochures,
    catalogs, forms, limited edition fine art prints,
    and direct mail pieces using both sheet-fed
    offset and web offset printing processes. The
    company began to really understand its sol-
    vent use practices as a result of a problem
    encountered by the industrial laundry that
    washes the company's press wipers. The efflu-
    ent from the laundry had become a concern to
    the local regulatory agency that oversees the
    sanitary sewer system in the Minneapolis met-
    ropolitan area.
                                                                                                      OCTOBER 1995
                                                                                                                   A13
    

    -------
               Understand the
               Problem
    
                     The John Roberts Company uses
               leased towels as wipers for press
               deanup. The company was sending its
               leased towels to an industrial laundry
               for cleaning, and with them went a
               great deal of ink and "spent" solvents.
               The presence of these solvents in the
               wipers was creating a problem for the
               laundry and for the local sanitary sewer
               system that handles the effluent from
               the laundry. The two major concerns
               were volatility and flammability.
               ~^ The local regulatory agency
                I approached the industrial laundry
                I because too much solvent was being
                 washed out of the towels, causing the
                 vapors from the laundry's effluent to
                I exceed the lower explosive limit (LEL).
                     The laundry, in turn, asked^its
               major printer customers and a traSe
               association, the Printing Industry of
               Minnesota, Inc. CPIM), to work out a
               solution. There were incentives for
               both parties; the laundry would be able
               to retain its  business, and the printers
               would be able to continue using leased
               towels.
    
    
               Consider Possible
               Solutions
    
                     The John Roberts Company
               decided to concentrate on two main
               objectives: (1) to change the nature of
               the solvent that was left in the towels
               from cleaning presses, and (2) to reduce
               the volume or* solvent left in the towels.
    Change
    The Nature
    Of The Solvents
    
    Finding An Alternative
    
          The first step was to examine
    the nature of the solvents used to clean
    the presses to see if a less volatile sub-
    stitute could be used. More information
    was needed  about the tasks solvents
    must accomplish and the conditions
    under which these solvents perform.
          As a result of thorough discus-
    sion with everyone involved in the
    process, the  company prepared a list of
    necessary solvent criteria:
      • For washing press blankets, a sol-
       vent must work quickly to cut ink,
       require minimal wiping to remove
       any oily residue, and dry quickly.
       Time and the ability to get back up
       to color quickly is critical  during a
       press run.
      • For cleaning the metal .parts of a
       press, a slower-working solvent
       would be suitable as a general press
       wash.
      • For cleaning the chain of ink rollers,
       a solvent that is slow to evaporate is
       needed. This solvent must not flash
       off before it has gone through the
       entire sequence of rollers  or it will
       fail to clean them adequately.
      • On a limited basis, a very aggressive
       solvent is needed for removing
       hardened ink that sometimes col-
       lects on the press.
          In light of these criteria, the com-
    pany's first task was to find a blanket
    wash that balanced these production
    needs with the environmental needs of
    less volatility and flammability.
          Press operators prefer solvents
    that do not require a lot of wiping or
    leave behind an oily film. Unfortunate-
    ly, most solvents with these desirable
    properties also create problems for
    industrial laundries by exceeding the
    LEL level. When the John Roberts Com-
    pany audited its operations, it discov-
    ered that press operators had been
    using a highly volatile solvent called
    type wash as a general, all-purpose  sol-
    vent, including for blanket cleaning.
    This product was a blend of acetone,
    toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK),
    and isopropyl alcohol and contributes
    not only to in-plant volatile organic
    compounds (VOC's)  in the air, but also
    to problems with the laundry's effluent.
          This solvent was never intended
    for all-purpose use, but using the sol-
    vent had become a habit that was hard
    to break. Because it flashed off so readi-
    ly, no time was lost by press personnel.
    It was easy to see why the solvent was
    so popular.
          As the company analyzed the
    product's properties further, however, it
    round that almost one half the total  vol-
                                                                                                            Vfe,,
    A14
               OCTOBER 1995
    

    -------
      ume of the solvent was wasted. It sim-
      ply evaporated before the work could
      be performed! The goal was to find a
      solvent that was better matched to the
      tasks it was to perform and that did not
      substantially affect work procedures or
      productivity.
    
    
      Work Together
      To Implement Changes
    
            It is important to recognize that
      it was not sufficient to simply look for a
      technical solution to the problem. For
      success to be possible, the support of
      upper management was vital, as well
      as the cooperation and understanding
      of press personnel. Management gave
      its support by assuring plant personnel
      that learning to work with new sol-
      vents might involve some procedural
      changes that could affect productivity
      slightly, but that small losses would not
      reflect negatively on overall perfor-
      mance evaluations. Input was sought
      from each press person and floor helper.
      The reasons why it was necessary to
      change solvents and how the change
      was to be accomplished •were
      explained to them.
            The raising of awareness in the
      effort to find a substitute resulted in a
    •.'VS&
    
    reduction in the misuse of the type
    wash solvent. Type wash usage was
    reduced from 152 to 5 fifty-five gallon
    drums in the first year. The company
    still uses type wash, but only where its
    use can be justified. A new replace-
    ment solvent, an ultra-fast blanket
    wash, was blended especially for the
    company and performed well with
    respect to speed and lack of an oily
    film. Only 38 fifty-five gallon drums of •
    this new blanket wash were purchased
    in the first year. Even after including
    the purchase of the replacement sol-
    vent, the John Roberts Company real-
              __ ized a savings of more than
                    $18,000 in the first
                    year by changing sol-
                   vents and using them
                    more prudently.  More
               1 importantly, by selecting
                   a replacement solvent
    with a lower evaporation rate and by
    strictly limiting the use of type wash,
    the contribution of vapors from the
    John Roberts Company to the laundry's
    effluent no longer exceeded the LEL
    and was no longer a concern.
    
    
    Make Additional
    Improvements
    
          There were, however, some lin-
    gering concerns with the new solvent.
    One ingredient in the new blanket
    wash was 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA),
    \vhich gave the blend some of .its per-
    formance characteristics, but is being
    phased out because it is an ozone
    depleter and a suspected health hazard.
    TCA will  soon be banned by the Mon-
    treal Protocol, an international treaty to
    eliminate the manufacture of ozone
    depleters.
          The company therefore contin-
    ued its investigation of alternatives, this
    time with an emphasis on reduction of
    fugitive VOC emissions. It reformulated
    its blanket wash to a less volatile press
    wash that contains no TCA. The compa-
    ny approached its search for a substi-
    tute with reduced VOC emissions with
    the realization that vapor pressure plays
    an important role. A solvent with a
    lower vapor pressure will evaporate
    less readily  will release less VOC emis-
    sions to the air. Therefore, when the
    goal is reduction of fugitive VOC emis-
    sions, volatility should be considered.
          Early results from this change
    show that because considerably less
    solvent is lost to the air through evapo-
    ration,  the company is  purchasing four
    fewer drums of solvent each month.
    However, four more drums of spent
    solvent are  removed from the rags and
    sent off-site for fuel blending. In spite
    of the costs to manifest and ship this
    solvent, the company still saves $100
    per month.  In addition, the John
    Roberts Company has lower fugitive
    emissions and a healthier workplace.
          During trials for new solvent
    blends, the  company's  management
    came to a critical realization: the way in
    which a product is used is key to its
    performance. The company found that
    testing the same product on different
    presses using different  crews produced
    widely varying results.  The success of
    the solvent  changes the company made
    was due largely to the development of
    a very specific procedure for solvent
    use, which  was developed by the press
    operators themselves.
    
    
    Reduce
    The Volume
    Of Solvent
    
          The second objective was to
    reduce the volume of solvents left in
    the towels.  With the help of its trade
    association, the Printing Industry of
    Minnesota,  Inc. (PIM), the company
    began  to explore ways to "wring out"
    the wipers.
          The first step was to make sure
    efforts to train employees not to dump
    excess solvent in the pile of used
                                                                                                    OCTOBER 1995
                                                                                                                         A15
    

    -------
              wipers had not eroded. Confident that
              training had assured that the rags put
              in the used rag container retained the
              "minimum" amount of solvent,
              the company explored the use of a com-
              mercial grade laundry centrifuge to sepa-
              rate out any remaining solvent. The
              company was surprised to learn  that
              the "minimum" amount of solvent was
              much more than originally thought.
                    Now, before wipers are sent to
              the laundry, they are spun in a safe,
              explosion-proof centrifuge, which
              extracts between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 gal-
              lons of "spent" solvent for every load
              of approximately 220 wipers. This
              amounts to quite a lot of solvent over
                              time. The recovered
                              solvent is now reused
                              throughout the plant
                              in a series of parts
                              washers to clean
                              press ink trays,
                              instead of going out
              with the laundry, and the spent selvent
              is then sent to a fuel blender. Reuse of
              this solvent eliminated (he purchase of
              more than one drum a week of virgin
              solvent for use in parts washers
              throughout the plant. The centrifuge
              recovery program has saved the com-
              pany more than $34,000 in the first
              year alone, resulting in a quick pay-
              back on the $15,000 centrifuge. The
              centrifuge has also resulted in a  size-
              able reduction in the volume of  solvent
              sent to the sewer system. Using  a cen-
              trifuge for this purpose might not be
              allowed in all states, but other options
              could be available.
    The Design for
    the Environment
    Approach	
    
      This case study described how a com-
      pany systematically assessed a problem,
      applied knowledge acquired through
      that assessment (along with the assis-
      tance of its trade association), and
      dealt with the problem in its context.
          The result is a methodology that
    is affordable, effective, readily adapt-
    able, and can be transferred to other
    printers.  Environmental benefits
    demonstrated in this case study include
    reduced  fugitive air emissions, less sol-
    vent discharged to the water system,
    and decreased toxic chemical purchas-
    es. Waste solvent is being used for
    energy recovery. In addition, the com-
    pany has completely eliminated its use
    of TCA, and the  safety of its work envi-
    ronment was greatly improved.
          The methodical evaluation of a
    problem, leading to solutions aimed at
    reducing the creation of pollutants at
    their source, is what EPA's Design for
    the Environment Program is seeking to
    encourage. While this story illustrates a
    method for evaluating alternatives, the
    company did not have access to impor-
    tant risk  information. The DfE Printing
    Project seeks to provide information to
    industries and companies (often
    through  their trade associations) on the
    comparative risk and performance of
    alternative chemicals, processes, and
    technologies, so that printers are able
    to make more informed decisions. EPA
    will make this information available in
    the form of a "Substitutes Assessment"
    later in 1996.
          The search for alternative chem-
    icals and new technologies begins
    with today's success. Assisting in the
    search for and evaluation of alterna-
    tives is the goal of EPA's DfE program.
    With this case study and others like it,
    we hope to illustrate the application of
    this goal and the pursuit of continuous
    improvement.
          If you would like more informa-
    tion about John Roberts Company's
    experience, contact:
                 Jeff Adrian
           John Roberts Company
            9687 East River Road
           Minneapolis,  MN 55433
           Telephone:  612-755-5500
              Fax: 612-755-0394
       For more information about EPA's
      Design for the Environment Program
                  contact:
        Pollution Prevention Information
             Clearinghouse (PPIC)
                  U.S. EPA
            401 M Street, SW (3404)
            Washington, DC 20460
             Phone: 202-260-1023
              Fax: 202-260-0178
            Recycled/Recyclable
            Printed with Soy/Canolo Ink on paper
            that contains at least 50% recycled Fiber.
    A16
                                                                                                             OCTOBER 1995
    

    -------
    A Cooperative Project
    between the
    U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency
    and the
    Printing Trade
    Associations
    Nationwide
    FOR
    THE
    
                                                                                   SCREEN PRINTING CASE STUDY 1
                                       REDUCING THE USE
                                        OF RECLAMATION
                                              CHEMICALS
                                     IN SCREEN  PRINTING
    
                                          CASE  STUDY   1
                                          SCREEN PRINTING
                                          Being responsive to the environment
                                          means learning new procedures and
                                          using new tools to do the same job
                                     with less negative environmental impact.
                                     Decisions about the purchase of equipment
                                     and chemicals for screen reclamation or other
                                     production processes depend not only on
                                     cost, availability, and performance, but also
                                     on-whether environmental requirements can
                                     be met. Meeting environmental requirements
                                     means understanding the comparative human
                                     and ecological risks of the alternatives being
                                     considered.
                                          This case study is brought to you by the
                                     .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
                                     (EPA's) Design for the Environment (D£E)
                                     Program with assistance from the Screenprint-
                                     ing and Graphic Imaging Association Interna-
                                     tional (SGIA). Through the DfE Printing
            Project, EPA and the printing industry are
            working together to identify alternative prod-
            ucts and processes that are safer for the environ-
            ment. The DfE Printing Project provides the
            chemical risk and pollution prevention informa-
            tion that printers need in order to conduct their
            day to day business operations with the envi-
            ronment as a priority.
                 This is the first in a series of screen
            printing industry case' studies that EPA is
            developing to illustrate how the DfE concept
            can be incorporated into printing facilities.
            This study describes a successful pollution
            reduction program at Romo Incorporated, a
            screen printer in De Pere, Wisconsin.
            Although the company did not have access to
            risk information like that was produced in the
            DfE Printing Project, the way that the compa-
            ny searched out safer alternatives illustrates
            how. screen printers can achieve significant
            environmental results.
            In particular, this case study shows:
             • How a self-audit of ink remover products
               used in screen cleaning led to the substitu-
               tion of more environmentally appropriate
               solvents  at press side.
             • How using a still to recover and reuse ink
               cleaning solvent saved the company
               money.
                                                                                                  OCTOBER 1995
                                                                                                               AM 7
    

    -------
                 • How using a high-pressure water
                  blaster and changing product appli-
                  cation techniques allowed the com-
                             pany to decrease the
                             use of its reclamation
                              chemicals.
    company. Romo is continuing its quest
    for further improvement by seeking
    methods to reduce its use of haze
    remover.
                                   The story of this
                             company's experience
                           s,hows how problems can
                become opportunities and how envi-
                ronmental planning can be good for
                business.
               Background
                     Romo is'a commercial screen
                printer that produces a wide variety of
                products including decals, banners,
                point of purchase displays, and original
                equipment manufacture.  About 60 per-
                cent of the company's printing isjcon-
                ducted with traditional solvent based
                Inks and 40 percent of its printing uti-
                lizes ultraviolet (UV) curable inks
                 Over the 40 years of its operation,
                 Romo has experienced increasingly
                 stringent environmental  and health
                 regulations on local, state, and federal
                 levels, many of which have required
                 expensive changes or threatened high
                 fines for noncompliance. A change in
                 ownership in 1983 led company man-
                 agement to make a conscious decision
                 to stay ahead of the regulations.
                     The result was a management
                and employee commitment to decreas-
                ing the environmental impact of Romo
                as much as possible without compro-
                mising profits and competitiveness.
                     The story of Romo has  been one
                of continuous improvement. Romo
                began by making a number of changes
                to reduce its use of ink cleaning sol-
                vent and emulsion remover. Soon
                after, it began slowly introducing UV
                curable inks t6 redu.ce volatile organic
                compound (VOC) emissions.  In early
                1992, Romo Joined EPA's  33/50 Pro-
                gram, a voluntary pollution prevention
                initiative, targeting 17  high-priority
                chemicals.  As part of the program,
                Romo voluntarily has worked to reduce
                the use of two of these chemicals,
                toluene and methyl isobutyl ketone,
                which are key ingredients in the screen
                cleaning product that was used at the
    Target
    Opportunities
    for Change
          In 1987, Romo began looking
    for pollution prevention opportunities,
    particularly in the screen reclamation
    process.  Since screen reclamation is
    crucial to screen durability and the
    quality of printing, but also requires a
    number of expensive and harsh chemi-
    cal products, the process seemed to
    provide  a large potential to prevent
    pollution and save money. In addition,
    since wastewater from the reclamation
    process  washed down drains directly to
    a sewage treatment plant, Romo want-
    ed to be sure that the water contained
    no environmentally damaging chemi-
    cals.
    Consider Possible
    Solutions
    
          Romo decided to concentrate on
    all three parts of screen reclamation: ink
    removal (screen cleaning), emulsion
    removal, and haze or "ghost image"
    removal. The company sought employee
    suggestions and cooperation for
    improvement in each area. The compa-
    ny management decided to search for
    ways to reduce chemical risk and pre-
    vent pollution through three strategies:
      • Reducing the volume of all products
       used
      •Testing alternative application
       techniques
      • Experimenting with alternative for-
       mulations of traditional products.
    Improving The Ink
    Removal Process
    
    
    Begin In-Process
    Recycling
    
          A new plant engineer who
    arrived in 1986 brought with him an
    idea for reducing Rome's consumption
    of screen cleaning product.  His idea'
    was to recover screen cleaning solvent
    for reuse through an in-process recy-
    cling still. At that time, Romo was using
    between 20 and 40 gallons of solvent
    per day. Used screen cleaning product
    drained through a trough into an open
    tank, then was lightly filtered and hosed
    back onto the screen.  Unfortunately,
    the open tank allowed large quantities
    of solvent to evaporate, and an ineffi-
    cient filtering system left the recovered
    solvent dirty and effective.
          Management decided to act on the
    plant engineer's idea and install a still at a
    one-time cost of $2,900. This investment
    was recovered widiin seven weeks
    through reduced solvent costs. The new
    still is a closed system that utilizes a
    heating and filtering system to remove
    pigment before pumping solvent back
    for reuse. The 5-gallon still is cleaned
    once or twice per week; although the
    solvent becomes discolored over time,
    the same 55-gallon solvent container
    lasts for three to four weeks. When the
    A18
               OCTOBER 1995
    

    -------
         EPA
    solvent becomes to dirty to clean effec-
    tively, Romo disposes of the ink-conta-
    minated solvent as a hazardous waste.
    Through the use of the still, Romo was
    able to reduce its consumption of
    cleaning product to only one 55-gallon
    drum every three to four weeks (even
    in conjunction with an increase in facil-
    ity production).  This saves the compa-
            (ny $83 per day or $20,750 per
                 year in solvent procure-
                 ment costs alone. The
                 decreased consumption
                 in screen cleaning prod-
            * uct also contributes to a
         healthier working environment,
    since employees are no longer exposed
    to large quantities of evaporated sol-
    vent.
    Change To Alternative
    Application Techniques
    
          By working together with compa-
    ny employees, Romo discovered new
    work practices that further reduced the
    volume of screen cleaning product need-
     ed. For years, the screen cleaning sol-
     vent was applied in the same way, by
     hosing the solvent onto the screen.
     One creative employee suggested
     adding an adjustable spray nozzle, like
     that on a garden hose, in order to pro-
     vide more direct and efficient applica-
     tion of the product. The nozzle, paired
     with better use of brushes to loosen
     the ink, was able to reduce the amount
     of solvent needed for each screen.
           Further reductions in solvent use
     were made in 1991 by creating a pres-
    sure control device for the spray noz-
    zle.  The device was simply a small
    piece of wood secured under the han-
    dle of the nozzle by a locking band.
    Since the wood prevented the screen
    reclaimers from pushing the nozzle
    past a certain point, the amount of sol-
    vent being sprayed was controlled.
    
    
    Investigate Alternative
    Products For Toxics Use
    Reduction
    
          In early 1992, Romo decided to
    go one step further and made a volun-
    tary commitment to EPA's 33/50 Pro-
    gram to reduce its use of toluene and
    methyl isobutyl ketone by 50 percent
    by 1995. Management
    decided to test some alter-
    native screen cleaning
    products that contained
    less of these ingredients.
          Romo was aware of
    a number of press-side
    screen cleaning products
    claiming to be "biodegrad-
    able," "drain safe," or
    "environmentally safe."
    After ruling out several that
    contained toluene, methyl
    isobutyl ketone, and other
    chemicals listed by EPA's
    33/50 Program as ingredients of envi-
    ronmental concern, Romo decided to
    test a few products that had been rec-
    ommended by other screen printers.
    One particularly promising product,
    formulated for process cleaning at
    press side, primarily consisted  of a mix
    of propylene glycol monomethyl ether,
    propylene glycol monomethyl ether
    acetate, and cyclohexanone. Although
    expensive at $13 per gallon, as
    opposed to $3 per gallon for the sol-
    vent Romo was using at the time, the
    product performed well, and Romo
    decided to use the less hazardous prod-
    uct for press side cleaning. Savings
    generated by using less reclaiming sol-
    vent were used to  fund the increased
    cost of the new press-side screen clean-
    ing product.
          In 1991, Romo used 12,382
    pounds of toluene and 6,098 pounds of
    methyl isobutyl ketone. By making the
    switch to the new press-side screen clean-
    ing product, Romo was able to reduce its
    use of these chemicals by approximately
    70 percent, bringing the use of toluene
    down to 3,611 pounds and methyl
    isobutyl ketone down to 1,779 pounds.
    Change Emulsion
    Remover Approach
    
          With a number of successes
    behind it, Romo continued its search for
    other potential pollution prevention
    opportunities by looking at the emul-
    sion removal process. Following up on
    an advertisement, Romo tested and then
    bought and extremely high-pressure
    water blaster (290 pounds per square
     inch [psiD for $2,450 that harnessed the
     physical power of water pressure to
     reduce the amount of chemical emul-
     sion remover product used on each
     screen.  Romo was concerned that the
     increased pressure might disturb screen
     tensioning or deteriorate the mesh. But
     after five years of successfully using the
     high-pressure blaster, Romo was confi-
     dent enough that the equipment did not
                                                                                                  OCTOBER 1995
                                                                                                                     A19
    

    -------
             deteriorate the mesh that it bought
             another even higher pressure (1,500 to
             4,000 psi) blaster for $4,900.
                   Another way Romo reduced the
             amount of emulsion remover needed
             was by diluting it with water before
             applying it to the screen. Although a
             ration of 1 gallon of full strength emul-
             sion remover to 3 gallons of water was
             previously used, the company found
             that a further dilution of 1 gallon of
             emulsion remover to 6  1/2 gallons of
             water was just as effective.
                   The company has gleaned even
             more savings by creating a new appli-
             cator for emulsion remover. Formerly,
             employees dipped a scrub brush into
             the sliced open top of an emulsion
             remover container before bringing the
             brush to the screen. Unfortunately, it
             was a messy practice, wasting expen-
             sive emulsion remover by dripping it
             on the floor.  Instead, a Romo engineer
             modified a 15-gallon drum by adding a
             spray nozzle to evenly  mist the emul-
             ston remover onto the screen.
                   The plant engineer estimates that
             the combination of the change in emul-
                        sion remover application
                            technique, further
                            dilution of the emul-
                            sion remover, and use
                            of the high-pressure
                         water blaster has resulted
                           in a 75 percent reduc-
             tion in emulsion remover use. This
             reduction save the company almost
             S3.800 per year, which means that the
             high-pressure water blaster paid for
             itself in approximately  15 months.
    The Next Step: Change
    Haze Remover Use
    
          Romo is continuing to seek envi-
    ronmental improvement by searching
    for ways to minimize its use of haze
    remover. Press operators concern that
    haze remover makes a screen mesh
    brittle and more likely to tear provides
    a built-in incentive for reduction of its
    use. Romo has taken several steps to
    reduce the use of its haze remover. First,
    the screen reclaimer applies haze
    remover precisely to the part of the
    screen that is stained. Second, employ-
    ees try to remove ink and emulsion as
    quickly as possible, since the longer
    either material sits on the screen, the
    more likely it is that the operator will
    have to  apply haze remover.
          Third, Romo is looking for alter-
    native chemicals by working with a
    local chemical supplier to formulate an
    emulsion remover that will eliminate
    ghost images and the need for haze
    remover. The company is also testing
    a method that the Screen Printing Tech-
    nical Foundation believes can eliminate
    the need for a haze  remover. The
    technique requires that the operator
    degrease and apply ink degradant to
    the screen before applying emulsion
    remover.
    The Design for the
    Environment
    Approach
      This case study described how a com-
      pany continuously improved its opera-
      tions by identifying toxic use reduction
      and pollution prevention opportuni-
      ties, encouraging creative new work
      practices, and trying out new methods
      and products. By changing work prac-
      tice techniques and purchasing new
      equipment, die company realized sub-
      stantial cost savings.
           The result is a methodology that
     is affordable, effective, readily adapt-
     able, and can be transferred to other
     printers. Environmental benefits
     demonstrated in this case study include
     reduced fugitive air emissions, less sol-
     vent discharged to the water system,
     decreased toxic chemical purchases,
     and in a less hazardous work environ-
    ment.
          The EPA's Design for the Envi-
    ronment Program encourages the sys-
    tematic evaluation of environmental
    challenges.  The goal of this effort is to
    reduce the creation of pollution at its
    source. The DfE Printing Project seeks
    to provide information to industries
    and companies (often through their
    trade associations) about the compara-
    tive risk and performance of alterna-
    tive chemicals, processes, and
    technologies. This will enable printers
    to make more informed choices.  Infor-
    mation on alternatives for screen clean-
    ing and reclamation will be available
    from the DfE Printing Project in 1995.
          The search for alternative chemi-
    cals, work practices and new technolo-
    gies begins with today's success.
    Assisting in the search for and evalua-
    tion of alternatives is the goal of EPA's
    DfE Program. With this case and others
    like it, we hope to illustrate the applica-
    tion of this goal and the pursuit of con-
    tinuous environmental improvement.
          If you would like more informa-
    tion about Rome's experience, contact:
          Jonathan Darling, Plant Engineer
          Romo Incorporated
          800 Heritage Road
          P.O. Box 800
          De Pere, WI 54115-0800
          414-336-5100
        For more informatiori^bout EPA's
      Design for the Environment Program. -C
                ...r contactif '      x' .-• ;
        Pollution Ereveritiori Information^ .,."$.
             Clearnilhovise (PPIC):.'
                  U.S/EPA  ..<:•'•;'
            401 lyt Street, SW,(3404)
            Waslfrtiton, DC 20460 '
             PJiqner 202-260-1023
              ,,Fax:202-260-0178
                   id/Recyclable
            Printed" witfiSoy/Canola Ink on paper
            that contains qt least 50% recycled fiber.,
    
                 "    "
    A20
                                                                                                           OCTOBER 199
    

    -------
                                                                                  SCREEN PRINTING PROJECT BULLETIN 1
    A Cooperative Project
    between the
    U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency
    and the
    Printing Trade
    Associations
    Nationwide
                          U.S.EPA
                                          SCREEN PRINTING
                                   TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES
                                    FOR SCREEN  RECLAMATION
                                    /"T~1he screen reclamation process can be
                                       I  one of the most hazardous operations
                                      JL  in a screen printing facility. Typically,
                                    highly volatile solvents are used which may
                                    be hazardous to the health of employees if
                                    inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the
                                    skin. These products may also be hazardous
                                    to the environment if they are not disposed of
                                    properly. Traditionally, when  reclaiming
                                    screens, employees vigorously scrub the
                                    screens in a wash-out booth, with their faces
                                    dose to the reclamation chemicals. This
                                    increases the likelihood that they will inhale
                                    the chemical vapors.
    
                                          To reduce the hazards  of screen recla-
                                    mation to workers and to the environment,
                                    screen printers can use alternative tech-
                                    niques for screen reclamation. These tech-
                                    nologies help to reduce the employee
                                    exposure to hazardous chemical vapors
                                    either by speeding up the reclamation
                                    process, or by enclosing the process, or by
                                    eliminating the use of volatile solvents.
         The DfE Screen Printing Project identifies
    several potential substitute technologies that
    can be environmentally safer than traditional
    screen reclamation, including: high pressure
    water blasters, automatic screen washers, sodi-
    um bicarbonate spray, media blasting, pulse
    light energy technologies, stripping technolo-
    gies, and emulsion chemistry. This bulletin
    highlights three of these technologies:
      • High pressure screen washers
      • Automatic screen washers
      • Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) spray
          High pressure screen washers and auto-
    matic screen washers are two commercially
    available technologies that can reduce a facili-
    ty's usage of traditional solvent-based ink
    removers. Sodium bicarbonate spray is a tech-
    nology now under development that could
    further reduce the costs and potential health
    risks of screen reclamation. This bulletin pro-
    vides comparative cost, performance and risk
    information for these reclamation technologies,
    when available.
          It should be noted that these technolo-
    gies were evaluated using a case study
    approach; these were not rigorous, scientific
    investigations. Instead, much of the informa-
    tion presented here is based on printers' opin-
    ions of these technologies as they are used in
    production. This bulletin compares the alter-
    native screen reclamation techniques to manu-
    al application and scrubbing of traditional
    screen reclamation chemicals. The traditional
    system used in the comparison consists of:
    lacquer thinner as the ink remover, a sodium
    periodate solution as the emulsion remover,
    and a xylene/acetone/mineral spirits/cyclo-
    hexanone blend as the haze remover. These
    chemicals were selected because screen print-
    ers indicated they were commonly used in
    screen reclamation.
                                                                                                                    A21
    

    -------
              High Pressure Screen Washers
    
                   High-pressure screen washers reclaim screens using
              pressurized water, usually in conjunction with some reclama-
              tion chemicals. Typically, excess ink is carded off the screen
              prior to cleaning. No ink remover is applied to the screen. An
              emulsion softener or remover is applied and allowed to work,
              usually for from ten seconds to one minute. The ink and sten-
              cil are then removed with a high pressure water blaster
              sprayed on both sides of the screen at pressures of up to
              3,000 pounds per square inch (psO- If necessary, a haze
              remover is then applied and allowed to work. Again, the high
              pressure water blaster is used to rinse off the  haze and the
              haze remover. Cleaning usually takes place in a washout
              booth where the rinse water can be collected.
                   While this technology may require significant water
              use, in the systems evaluated, the emulsion and haze
              removal products were formulated to allow discharge to
              sewers. Where ink residues in the rinse water exceed waste-
              water permit concentration limits, such as for suspended
              solids, manufacturers also supply a variety of filters.  The
              greatest environmental benefits are realized for systems
              using improved filtration systems which allow rinse water to
              be reused. Filter wastes are typically disposed of as haz-
              ardous waste.
                                High Pressure Washer
              Risk
                    In general, the benefits of high pressure washers are
              that they reduce both chemical use (eliminating ink
              removers) and worker exposure (less scrubbing required).
              The DfE Screen Printing Project found that the occupational
              risks of this system were notably lower than the risks associ-
              ated with the manual application of traditional solvent-based
              reclamation chemicals. For the traditional screen reclamation
              system, health risks associated with both daily inhalation and
              skin contact with the chemicals, particularly organic solvents,
              were significant. For the high pressure screen reclamation sys-
              tem, health concerns were related to unprotected skin contact
              with the reclamation chemicals. Dermal exposures  could be
              reduced dramatically, however, by wearing gloves.
                    Switching to this type of screen reclamation technology
              can reduce both your facility's releases of hazardous materials
    and your regulatory burden by reducing the amount of clean-
    ing solvents you use. Contact your state and local regulatory
    authorities for information specific to your location.
    
    Performance
    
         Performance of a high pressure water blaster was evalu-
    ated by DfE staff at a volunteer printing facility where the
    technology was in place. Overall, the high-pressure screen
    washer reclaimed the screen efficiently and effectively. When
    demonstrated on screens with solvent-based, water-based
    inks, or UV-curable inks, the stencil dissolved easily, leaving
    no emulsion residue. Ink stains on these screens were com-
    pletely removed by the haze remover even before the waiting
    period or pressure wash.
    
    Cost
    
         The DfE Screen Printing Project also estimated the cost
    of equipment, labor, and chemicals for the high pressure
                wash. Assuming that 6 screens are reclaimed
                   daily and each screen is 15 ft2 in size, the
                     cost estimate for the high pressure washer
                     totaled $4.53 per screen reclamation. This
                     estimate was compared to that of the tra-
                     ditional screen reclamation system (using
                    lacquer thinner, sodium periodate, and a
                  solvent blend). Using the same assumptions,
    the estimated reclamation cost of the traditional system is
    $6.27 per screen; 30 percent more than the high pressure
    wash, with the greatest savings coming from the reduced
    labor costs for the high pressure washer.  Equipment costs,
    estimated at $5,300 (installed) account for just 12 percent of
    the per screen costs. This estimate does not include filtration
    units, which  range in price from $1,300 to $12,000, or mainte-
    nance and operating costs which may also vary widely.
    
    
    Automatic Screen Washers
    
         There are several different types of automatic screen
    washers, and although most are used for ink removal only,
    automatic systems for emulsion and haze removal are  also
    available, The major benefits of automatic screen washers
    are reduced solvent losses,  reduced labor costs, and
    reduced  worker exposures. The DfE Screen Printing Project
    identified a wide variety of automatic screen washers on
                    Automatic Screen Washer
    A22
    

    -------
       US. EPA
    the market and found significant differences in the chemi-
    cals used and costs. Costs vary based on the level of
    automation (such as conveyors), system capacity, and com-
    plexity of the equipment.
         The basic component of the automatic screen washers
    is the wash unit, an enclosed box that can house a variety of
    screen sizes (up to 60 in. by 70 in.). After a screen is clamped
    inside the wash unit and the top closed, the cleaning process
    begins. A mobile mechanical arm sprays solvent onto the
    screen through pressurized nozzles (30 to 150 psi) for any
    preset number of cleaning cycles. Since the systems are
    enclosed to reduce solvent losses, volatile solvents, such as
    mineral spirits, are often recommended because of their effi-
    cacy. There are, however, a number of alternative formula-
    tions offered by equipment manufacturers. Used solvent
    drains off the screen and is directed to a filtration system to
    remove particulates (inks and emulsion). Following the filtra-
    tion step(s), reclaimed solvent is typically reused. Some sys-
    tems have separate wash, rinse, and air dry cycles or separate
    tanks for washing and rinsing. Solvent reservoirs must be
    replenished intermittently and changed once or twice a year.
    Filter wastes are typically disposed of as hazardous waste.
    
    
    Risk
    
          Compared to manual application of the traditional
    screen reclamation chemicals, the DfE risk evaluation of
    automatic screen washers found that worker inhalation expo-
    sures to the volatile  organics used in solvents (mineral spirits
    and lacquer thinner) were reduced by as much as 70 per-
    cent. Although the health risks associated with skin contact
    of the chemicals remained high, these risks could virtually be
    eliminated if gloves are worn while handling the screens.
    Since the automatic screen washer evaluated was used for
    ink removal only, the risks associated with emulsion and
    haze removal remained the same as the traditional system's
    risks for these steps.
     Performance
          As described above, there are several types of automat-
     ic screen washers, and for each type there are several manu-
     facturers. Because of the resources required to do a full
     demonstration of all the equipment that is commercially avail-
     able, performance demonstrations of automatic screen wash-
     ers were not conducted in this project.
     Cost
          The DfE Screen Printing Project estimated costs for two
     automatic screen washers, assuming that the washers were
     used for ink removal only and that six screens (15 ft2 each)
     were reclaimed per day. Screen reclamation costs using an
     automatic screen washer ranged from $4.13 to $10.14 per
     screen compared to $6.27 for traditional reclamation. The
     largest cost component, and the cause of the variability in
     costs, is typically equipment cost. For many print shops, espe-
    cially higher volume printers, the equipment pays for itself
    through savings in reduced chemical use. Additionally, the
    savings of switching to this technology would be greater if
    this costing accounted for the labor savings of workers mov-
    ing on to other tasks once the screen is loaded in the washer.
    It is important to note that the cost per screen of the more
    automated, higher cost washer would be much lower if it
    operated nearer to its capacity of over 100 screens per day.
    
    
    Sodium Bicarbonate Spray
    
         A sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) spray technology
    was evaluated by the DfE Screen Printing Project to deter-
    mine if it is potentially adaptable as an alternative screen
    reclamation technology. This technology is currently used for
    removing coatings, such as paint, grease, or teflon from
    metal parts. In these applications, the technology has been
    successful in replacing hazardous cleaning chemicals. Based
    on the success of the sodium bicarbonate spray in other
    applications, it appears to be a promising substitute for
    chemical screen reclamation systems. Because the sodium
    bicarbonate spray technology had never been tested for
    'screen reclamation,  DfE staff conducted a one-day site visit
    to the equipment manufacturer's facility. Three imaged
    screens were inked  with three types of ink. Each inked
    screen was individually placed inside an enclosed cleaning
    booth, and the screen was passed, back and forth, under the
                Sodium Bicarbonate Spray Enclosure
    
     sodium bicarbonate spray. No chemicals other than the sodi-
     um bicarbonate were used during the reclamation.
    
    
     Risk
    
          The DfE project did not undertake a risk assessment of
     this spray technology for a number of reasons. Sodium bicar-
     bonate has been shown to be a fairly innocuous chemical
     and it is not a skin irritant. In addition, it is a common ingre-
     dient in  baked goods, toothpaste and detergents. If this tech-
     nology proves to be a viable alternative for screen
     reclamation in the future, a detailed assessment of the human
     health and environmental risk should be conducted.
                                                                                                                     A23
    

    -------
    A24
                Performance
    
                     Several different methods for screen reclamation with
                the pressurized sodium bicarbonate spray were demonstrated.
                Performance was best when the sodium bicarbonate spray
                was delivered through a pressurized water spray. Typically,
                the emulsion came off in stringy rolls, and ink flaked off
                rather than dissolved. A 100 in2 area took approximately 15
                minutes to clean. Following this cleaning, haze or ink residue
                spots remained. Cleaning of UV-curable inks was ineffective.
                No evaluation of subsequent use of these screens was made.
    
                     Based on these limited demonstrations, initial results
                indicate that with further testing and research, this may devel-
                op into a promising new screen reclamation technology.
                Modifications are needed to reduced the cleaning time
                required for reclamation and to reduce the possibility of
                screen damage. For example, the physical support behind the
                screen greatly reduced the stress on the mesh. Use of hot
                water was suggested as a means of improving emulsion
                removal. Other modifications may include decreasing the
                sodium bicarbonate particle size, or modifying the delivery
                fate and pressure of the sodium bicarbonate and water
                sprays. Further testing is needed before a definitive evaluation
                of performance can be given.
    
    
                Cost
    
                    Since the available equipment was not designed specifi-
                cally for screen reclamation, it was assumed that the cost of
                equipment modified for screen reclamation would be similar
                to the cost of the equipment used in the performance demon-
                stration. The cost of the available equipment ranges from
                $32,000 to $52,000, including a filtration system. The sodium
                bicarbonate  itself costs between $0.65 to $0.75 per pound,
                based on amount purchased, and approximately one pound
                is sprayed per minute. If this technology proves to be a feasi-
                ble alternative  for screen reclamation after further develop-
                ments, a more detailed cost analysis can be conducted.
              What is the Design for the
      Environment Screen Printing Project?
    
    
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
     Design for the Environment (DfE) Screen Printing Project is
     a voluntary project that encourages printers to consider
     environmental concerns along with cost and performance
     when purchasing materials. Replacing hazardous chemicals
     with environmentally-safer substitutes is one way to reduce
     the impact of printing on the environment while maintain-
     ing product quality. Many printers, however, may not have
     the time to identify and test environmentally-safer substi-
     tutes.
    
           That's where DfE fills the gap. EPA has teamed up
     with screen printing industry representatives (including
     trade associations, printers, and suppliers) in the DfE
     Screen Printing Project. The Project's goal is to evaluate
     and publicize pollution prevention opportunities in screen
     printing, particularly in the screen reclamation process.
    For More Information...	
    
          For more information on the technologies discussed
    here, contact your equipment suppliers. For more detailed
    information on other technological and chemical alternatives,
    see the summary booklet, Designing Solutions for Screen
    Printers— An Evaluation of Screen Reclamation Systems.
    Additional bulletins are also available.
    
       Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     401 M Street, SW (3404)
                     Washington, DC 20460
                    Telephone: 202-260-1023
                       Fax: 202-260-0178
                                                                                                    or
    
                                                                          Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Association International
                                                                                                  (SGIA)
                                                                                              10015 Main Street
                                                                                              Fairfax, VA 22031
                                                                                          Telephone: 703-385-1335
                                                                                              Fax:703-273-2870
    
                                                                          You may also contact the DfE Home Page at:
                                                                          http://es.inel.gov/dfe or the SGIA Home Page at
                                                                          http://www.sgia.org/
                                                                                       Recycled/Recyclable
    
                                                                               Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper containing at
                                                                               least 50% recycled Fiber.
                           JLiii	
    

    -------
    A Cooperative Project
    between the
    U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency
    and the
    Printing Trade
    Associations
    Nationwide
       September 1996
                                                                    FOR
                                                                    THE
                                                                    SCREEN PRINTING PROJECT CASE STUDY 3
                        U.S. EPA
    SCREEN PRINTING
                                       Innovations in Adhesives,  Screen
                                       Cleaning, and  Screen  Reclamation
                                   This case study describes how T.S.
                                   Designs, a textile screen printer in
                                   Burlington, North Carolina, used ini-
                               tiative and creativity to prevent pollution
                               at its facility. In doing so, the company
                               minimized risk to workers and the envi-
                               ronment, greatly reduced its solvent use,
                               and increased its cost efficiency.
                                  Background
                                      T.S. Designs began textile screen print-
                                  ing in 1977 and today processes 4.5 million
                                  articles of clothing per year. The company
                                  employs 55 people, about a third of whom
                                  are directly involved in production. T.S.
                                  Designs mainly uses plastisol inks, which
                                  are polyvinyl chloride-based, although it
                                  does occasionally use water-based inks
                                  when requested by customers. Currently,
                                  T.S. Designs produces mostly T-shirts, but
                                  also prints sweatshirts, piece goods, and
                                  hosiery products. The materials include both
                                  synthetic and natural fibers. The firm's pri-
                                  mary market is contract screen printing for
                                  large sportswear companies. The company
                                  also prints for local schools, restaurants,
                                  clubs, and other organizations.
    
    
                                  Automated Adhesive
    
                                  Application Process
    
                                       T.S. Designs began reducing its sol-
                                  vent use in 1991 as a quality control issue,
                                  not for environmental reasons. At that
    This case study shows how:
    • Water-based adhesives can
      effectively replace solvent-
      based adhesives in the textile
      printing process.
    • Solvent use can be drastically
      reduced by reusing chemicals
      in enclosed screen cleaning
      and reclamation tanks.
                                                                     time, the company used a solvent-based
                                                                     spray adhesive to hold T-shirts in place on
                                                                     a platen while the image was applied. The
                                                                     adhesive came in 12- and 16-ounce aerosol
                                                                     cans, and workers manually sprayed it
                                                                     onto the platen. The process was imprecise,
                                                                     and if a worker sprayed too much or too
                                                                     little adhesive, the printed image would
                                                                     often be defective.
                                                                          The company wanted to lower the
                                                                     number of products rejected due to incor-
                                                                     rect adhesive application. It contacted sev-
                                                                     eral chemical companies to discuss
                                                                     automating the adhesive application
                                                                     process. Several partially automated sys-
                                                                     tems did exist, but given the large quantity
                                                                     of textiles the company prints and its quali-
                                                                     ty control requirements, the firm decided
                                                                     to design and build a totally new, fully
                                                                     automated system. The new system would
                                                                     be tied electronically to the printing
                                                                     machine, and could precisely control when
                                                                     and how much adhesive is applied.
                                                 i Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
                                                                                                      A25
    

    -------
           Water-Based Adhesives
                 1   '      ;, ,'!'"  i iici *  • .»'  ik	
                As T.S. Designs began research-
           ing the application options, the compa-
           ny also considered the cost, waste,
           health, and safety issues related to the
           adhesive itself. It found many disad-
           vantages to continuing to use the sol-
           vent-based adhesive. Because it was
           flammable, and countless adhesive-
           filled aerosol cans were used through-
           out the plant, the company faced the
           risk of a can accidentally being
           dropped onto a conveyor belt and
           being carried into a dryer, causing a
           small explosion or fire. The company
           also determined that if it switched to
           an automated system that used air
           pressure to apply the solvent-based
           adhesive, there could be performance
           problems. Moreover, the solvent-
           based adhesive had possible adverse
           health effects—it contained 1,1,1-
           trkhloroethane, which can cause  **
           dizziness or light-headedness or
           more serious effects from longer
           exposures.
                Replacing the solvent-based
           adhesive with a water-based adhesive
           —a type commonly used before the
           invention of solvent-based adhesives—
           was considered. The company realized,
           however, that by today's standards, the
           thicker water-based adhesive would
           take too long to dry and would clog
           the spray nozzles of an automated sys-
           tem. Thus, the company began looking
           for a thinner water-based adhesive that
    would be more compatible with mod-
    ern automation.
         T.S Designs used all the re-
    sources available to determine the right
    combination of adhesive and automa-
    tion for its application process. It
    brought together teams of employees
    and also spoke to representatives from
    other industries, such as the automo-
    bile industry, who had experience with
    similar spray systems. In addition, the
    company worked with the
    Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging
    Association International (SGIA) and
    participated'in an EPA study that test-
    ed several water-based adhesives.
    
    
    The New Adhesive
    
    Application Process
    
         Ultimately, through testing, T.S.
    Designs found that a very fine spray of
    a water-based adhesive would dry
    quickly and not dog its system of noz-
    zles. Automated systems using this
    adhesive were then installed on six of
    the company's seven presses. The adhe-
    sive is stored in one place in 55-gallon
    drums and pumped to the presses
    where the amount of adhesive applied
    to the T-shirts is controlled by computer.
    The system has reduced T.S. Designs'
    use of solvent-based adhesive by 91 per-
    cent, from 4,800 to 430 aerosol cans a
    year. This, in turn, has greatly decreased
    the release of potentially health-threat-
    ening chemicals into the environment.
         Not long after implementing this
    change, T.S. Designs encountered an
    obstacle. Over time, the thinner adhe-
    sive coated and eventually clogged the
    nozzles. A contact in the automobile
            T.S. Designs'automatic glue sprayer effectively reduces costs.
    industry recommended more advanced
    nozzles. Though they were more
    expensive, the cost was offset by better
    performance. The more advanced noz-
    zles allowed the machines to operate
    longer and more smoothly.
         The new automated adhesive
    process required total equipment pur-
    chases of about $12,000 ($2,000 per
    press), but the water-based adhesive is
    considerably less expensive than the
                   solvent-based one.
                      The new system
                       paid for itself
                        through
                        reduced adhe-
                        sive costs in
                        about 2 years,
                       and now saves
                      T.S. Designs
                   roughly $6,000 a year.
    Quality also has been greatly improved
    by the much higher level of control
    afforded by the automated process.
                                         Automated Ink
                                         Removal and Enclosed
                                         Emulsion Removal
                                         Systems
    
                                              T.S. Designs also found that its
                                         ink removal and emulsion removal
                                         processes had room for improvement
                                         in efficiency, health, and environmental
                                         considerations.
    A26
    

    -------
      U.S. ERA
         In 1992, the company used tradi-
    tional ink removal and emulsion
    removal processes that required the use
    of several hazardous chemicals. The
    first part of the ink removal process,
    carding out the screens, required work-
    ers to remove excess ink with card-
    board cards. Next, workers applied a
    diluted ink remover detergent to the
    screens. The detergent contained glycol
    ethers (less than 30 percent), petroleum
    distillate (less than 5 percent), and
    d-limonene (less than  20 percent). For
    the emulsion removal process, workers
    more stringent. In addition, the old sys-
    tem used large amounts of water and
    was very labor intensive.
    
    
    Automated Ink
    Removal System
    
         The firm sought out ways to
    improve its ink removal and emulsion
    removal processes at every level.
    Beginning with the carding out phase, it
    eliminated the thousands of cardboard
     T.S. Designs' enclosed reclaim tank has cut the company's use of water in half.
     applied an emulsion remover consisting
     partially of peracetic acid (25 to 30 per-
     cent). Occasionally, if a stain still
     remained on the screens, workers used
     a haze remover containing alkylphe-
     noxypolyethoxyethanol (less than 18
     percent). To complete the process, they
     used a degreaser with a small amount.
     of propylene glycol ether (3 percent).
     After each step in the ink removal and
     emulsion removal processes, the chemi-
     cals were washed through the screens
     with a very low-pressure water stream.
     The resulting mixture was then washed
     down the drain in compliance with
     local, state, and federal regulations.
          Even though the old system was
     in compliance, T.S. Designs knew that
     the fewer chemicals it sent down the
     drain, the lower their impact  on the
     environment. The company also stood
     less chance of avoiding future compli-
     ance problems if regulations became
     cards and replaced them with reusable
     cards made from scrap Formica. Next,
     the company improved the application
     of its ink removal chemical. It identified
     and installed an automated closed loop
     system that did not need water and did
     not send ink down the drain. This sys-
     tem simply requires workers to put the
     screen inside an enclosed tank, and the
     equipment does the rest, much like an
     industrial dishwasher.
          This new enclosed system allows
     chemicals to be applied in a much more
     controlled environment. They can be
     recycled many times and
     waste is greatly
     reduced.
          This reuse
     process keeps
     approximately
     1,000 gallons of
     solvent a year
     out of the waste-
    water system. The new system cost
    nearly $13,000 to install, but saves T.S.
    Designs over $20,000 in reduced labor
    and purchasing costs annually.
    
    
    Enclosed  Emulsion
    
    Removal System
    
         The emulsion removal process
    presented many of the same concerns as
    the ink removal process. Too many haz-
    ardous chemicals were being washed
    down the drain, and workers were
    spending too much time applying the
    chemicals, waiting for them to loosen
    the emulsion, and washing off the
    screens. T.S. Designs started experi-
    menting with its emulsion remover
    chemical. It found that much smaller
    amounts of the chemical, if left on the
    screen longer, were just as effective as
    the amount the company had been
    using. Although the chemical looked
    dirty after use, it could be reused many
    times and still successfully reclaim the
    screens.
       T.S. Designs used this new informa-
    tion to design and build its own
    enclosed system. Similar to the ink
    removal system, workers place the
    screen in a tank where it is soaked in
    emulsion remover. This chemical softens
    the emulsion. Workers then remove the
    screen from the tank and wash out any
    remaining emulsion with gray water
    recycled from the degreasing process
    (described below) at a pressure of 200
    pounds per square inch. Previously, T.S.
    Designs used roughly 90 gallons of
    emulsion remover a month, but now
    about 25 gallons are retirculated
    through the system each month. This
    redrculation reduces the amount of
    emulsion remover purchased and dis-
    posed of by about 780 gallons a year,
    saving over $900 in purchasing costs
    annually. These purchasing savings
    allowed the firm to recoup its labor and
    equipment costs for designing and
    implementing the new emulsion
    removal system in just over a year. In
    addition, the effectiveness of the ink
    removal and emulsion removal systems
    has allowed the firm to virtually elimi-
    nate the haze remover step.
                                                                                                              A27
    

    -------
             The final step in reclaiming a screen
          is the degreasing process, in which the
          screen is given a final rinse with fresh
          water. This process also takes place in
          an enclosed tank. The used water is
          stored and then pumped back to be
          used in the emulsion removal tank.
          This recycling step has cut the compa-
          ny's use of water in half, saving 630
          gallons a week.
               Taken together, new systems
          have substantially reduced the compa-
          ny's impact on the environment,
          decreasing the company's chemical use
          by 86 percent, and cutting water and
          energy consumption as well. By mak-
          ing the effort, the company discovered
          alternatives that are not only cost-
          effective, but that also reduce risks to
          workers and the environment.
          For More Information^
    
                For more information on the
          technologies discussed in this case
          study, contact your equipment suppli-
          ers. For more detailed information on
          other technological and chemical alter-
          natives, refer to the summary booklet
          Designing Solutions for Screen Printers:
          An Evaluation of Screen Reclamation
          Systems. Additional case studies and
          bulletins are also available. For more
          information on EPA's Design for the
          Environment Program or to obtain the
          case studies, bulletins, and other relat-
          ed materials, contact:
         Pollution Prevention Information
           Clearinghouse (PPIC)
         U.S. EPA
         401 M Street, SW. (3404)
         Washington, DC 20460
         Phone:202-260-1023
         Fax:202-260-0178
         World Wide Web:
           http: //es.inel.gov/dfe
         For more information on this case
    study, contact:
         Eric Henry
         President
         TS. Designs, Inc.
         2035 Willow Springs Lane
         Burlington, NC 27215-8854
         Phone: 910-229-6426
         Fax: 910-226-4418
         E-mail: eric@netpath.net
         World Wide Web:
           http://www.tsdesigns.com
         For trade association information,
    contact:
         Screenprinting and Graphic
           Imaging Association
           International (SGIA)
         10015 Main Street
         Fairfax, VA 22031
         Phone: 703-385-1335
         World Wide Web:
           http://www.sgia.org
         Also be sure to investigate your
    local health and environmental regula-
    tions. Local agencies are familiar with
    priority issues in your area and can
    help you find the best ways to prevent
    pollution in your community.
     Mention of trade names, companies, or
     commercial products does not constitute
     endorsement or recommendation for use by
     either the U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency or other firms, organizations, or
     individuals who have participated in the
    . preparation of this publication:
            What Is the Design for the Environment
            Screen Printing Project?
    
                The U5. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Design for
            the Environment (DfE) Screen Printing Project is a voluntary project
            that encourages printers to consider environmental concerns along
            with cost and performance when purchasing products to use in their
            facilities. Replacing hazardous chemicals with environmentally safer
            substitutes is one way to reduce the impact of printing on the environment while main-
            taining product quality. Many printers, however, have limited time and resources and
            therefore need help identifying and testing environmentally safer substitutes.
                DfE fills this information gap. EPA has teamed up with screen printing industry
            representatives (including trade associations, printers, and suppliers) in the DfE Screen
            Printing Project. The project's goal is to evaluate and publicize pollution prevention
            opportunities in screen printing, particularly in the screen reclamation process.
    A28
    

    -------
    A Cooperative Project
    between the
    U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency
    and the
    Printing Trade
    Associations
    Nationwide
                                          FOR
                                          THE
                                                                                SCREEN PRINTING PROJECT BULLETIN 3
                         U.S.EPA
           ff
                  vfo
                                         SCREEN PRINTING
                                               from a survey of screen printers, DfE identified
                                               many alternative workplace practices that par-
                                               ticipants found helped them prevent pollution
                                               while reducing chemical exposures and screen
                                               cleaning costs.
                                                    This bulletin describes simple changes in
                                               screen reclamation work practices that have
                                               resulted in significant reductions in costs, envi-
                                               ronmental impact and worker exposures.
                                               Although this bulletin concentrates on prevent-
                                               ing pollution in the screen reclamation
                                               process, it highlights a basic framework for
                                               pollution prevention through improved work
                                               practices that can be applied to any process in
                                               your shop.
                                    Work Practice Alternatives
                                      for Screen Reclamation
    ^T"1he Design for the Environment (DfE)
      I   Screen Printing Project is a voluntary
      JL  cooperative effort between the screen
    printing industry and the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) dedicated to helping
    screen printers improve their efforts to reduce
    risk to their workers and the environment in
    cost effective ways.
          Printers, EPA, product manufacturers,
    and the screen printing trade association are
    all concerned with minimizing the environ-
    mental and health hazards of screen
    reclamation. Through the DfE Screen Printing
    Project,  these groups are working together to
    identify and
    share informa-
    tion on
    alternative
    screen reclama-
    tion work
    practices and to
    evaluate alterna-
    tive screen
    reclamation
    products. Using
    information
                                                                              Background
         A survey of screen printers (conducted
    by the screen printing trade association) deter-
    mined that almost 36 percent of the respon-
    dents had implemented changes in workplace
    practices to reduce their use of ink removal or
    screen cleaning/reclamation products. With lit-
    tle or no capital expenditures, pollution pre-
    vention through improved workplace practices
    can result in cost savings through the reduced
    use of materials, lower waste disposal costs,
    less worker exposure and other benefits.
    Improving work practices to prevent pollution
    is simply a common-sense approach to run-
    ning a print shop.
                                                              Increase the Benefits by Reducing Your Chemical Use
                                                                                                                  A29
    

    -------
                Getting Started
                     The flr^t step in a pollution prevention program is to
                examine your process and identify the waste generated by
                each process step, any inefficient use of resources, and areas
                •Where improvements can be made. This examination can be
                accomplished through an in-house process evaluation. Under-
                taking a process evaluation involves observing, measuring,
                and recording data on the materials used and waste generat-
                ed in your shop. This information will then allow you to take
                a comprehensive look at your facility and to focus your atten-
                tion on areas where waste reduction and cost savings  are
                most easily accomplished. After your initial evaluation, peri-
                odic in-house evaluations will help you determine the effec-
                tiveness of alternative products and practices being
                implemented. The process evaluation results  should be
                shared with all employees to raise employee  awareness about
                die benefits of the pollution prevention program, to provide
                them with feedback on pollution prevention  progress, and to
                get their input on improvements. In-house evaluations can
                give both operators and managers the incentive to strive for
                continuous improvement.
    
    
                How Everyone Can Help
    
                Process Improvements
                After obtaining a good understanding of your material flows
                and waste streams through a process evaluation, you should
                identify your opportunities for pollution prevention. While the
                materials use and waste generation are different in every shop,
                and solutions particular to  your operation may need to be
                              PROCESS EVALUATION
                                                  Reduction
                                                     Ideas
                      Dip rag in   IR evaporates Apply with
                      Ink Remover IR drips       spray bottle
                      (IR)
                                   Rags are      Centrifuge
                                   hazardous    rags
                                   waste
    developed, many of the printers contacted through the survey
    found similar pollution prevention solutions to be effective,
    including:
    
    Keep chemicals la safety cans or covered containers.
       This minimizes chemical losses from evaporation and spills.
    Use plunger cans, squeeze bottles, or specialized spraying
    equipment to apply chemicals.
       The use of such equipment can reduce materials and acci-
       dental spills.
    
    Use manual spot application of screen reclamation chemi-
    cals and alternative rinses.
       One printer reduced chemicals  use for screen cleaning 15%
       by using spot application of ink degradant, and a low pres-
       sure rinse, followed by a high pressure water blast.
    Reuse shop towels to reduce ink remover use.
       If using towels for ink removal, reuse the towel from the last
       pass of one screen for the first pass on the  next screen. This
       will reduce the number of towels disposed of or sent to the
       laundry service.
    
    Try increasing your water dilution.
       Some printers have been able to dilute their screen reclama-
       tion products without reducing  performance.
                                Evaluate Your Process
                   Avoid delays in reclaiming screens
    
    
    Avoid delays in cleaning and reclaiming screens.
       If screens are cleaned promptly, the chemicals needed to
       remove ink, emulsion, and haze can be reduced.
    
    Recover solvent from rags for reuse.
       Some printers realized significant savings in their chemical
       costs by recovering solvent from used rags either by gravity
       draining, wringing the solvent into a covered container, or
       using an explosion-proof centrifuge.
    
    Recover used cleaning product and chemical overspray
    for reuse.
       One printer found that used cleaning chemicals could be
       captured, treated in a small still to remove pigments, and
       then used again. Another printer found that installing a sim-
       ple "catching frame" around each screen to capture over-
       spray during chemical application steps allowed significant
       amount of chemical to be reused.
    A30
    

    -------
       U.S.ERA
    Materials Management and
     Inventory Control
         Many printers have found that proper materials manage-
    ment and inventory control cut both the amount of chemicals
    used and their screen cleaning costs. Keeping track of chemical
    usage clarifies materials flow, how it relates to waste generation
    rates, and where pollution prevention opportunities can be
    implemented. Materials management and inventory control
    techniques used by many printers to help reduce material use
    and disposal include:
    
    Manage inventories on a first-in, first-out basis.
       This will minimize the disposal of expired materials.
    Maintain accurate' logs of your chemical and materials
    stock, use and waste generation rates.
       This will help you evaluate your shop's materials flow and
       identify where wastes are being generated.
    Minimize the amount of chemicals in the production area.
       This will encourage materials conservation.
    Keep all wastes separate1 and in clearly marked containers.
       This allows wastes to be reused or recycled, and prevents
       hazardous wastes from contaminating non-hazardous wastes.
    Keeping it Going
          According to many printers, a reluctance to change to
    alternative screen cleaning products or work practices is one of
    the largest obstacles to pollution prevention in their shops.
    Much of this unwillingness to try new products, technologies,
    and procedures arises from employees' lack of awareness of the
    benefits and a belief that the alternatives will not work. Training
    on health and safety issues and on materials handling and dis-
    posal procedures will help employees understand both the ben-
    efits of proper materials handling and disposal and the potential
    consequences of improper workplace practices to their health
    and safety, the environment, and company profitability.
          Seek your employees' input on pollution prevention
    activities to encourage their participation; the people clos-
                                         Capture
    est to the process often come up with the most creative
    approaches to pollution prevention. Awareness of materials
    use and waste generation can be fostered by centralizing the
    responsibility for storing and distributing chemicals, by making
    employees accountable for the waste they generate, and by
    providing incentives for waste reductions.
         Prior to Work   After Implementing   After Additional    After Continued
         Practice Changes    Initial Ideas      Evaluation      Evaluation
                    Reduce Your Chemical Use
               Through Continuous Improvements
    
          It is important that employees are aware of your compa-
     ny's commitment to environmental goals and pollution preven-
     tion. Depending on the company size, it may be helpful to
     prepare a written environmental policy and written procedures
     on proper equipment operation, maintenance, and materials
     handling and disposal. Providing feedback to employees on
     materials handling, disposal and pollution prevention perfor-
     mance re-emphasizes your commitment to pollution prevention
     and encourages your employees to continue to improve their
     workplace practices.
     Finally, pollution prevention should be an ongoing process
     where work practices are monitored regularly to ensure that
     improved practices already identified are actually being imple-
     mented on the shop floor, and that new opportunities for pollu-
     tion prevention are being identified continuously.
               Reuse Your Reclamation Chemicals
                                                                                                                        A31
    

    -------
                     What is the Design for the
             Environment Screen Printing Project?
    
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
            Design for the Environment (DfE) Screen Printing Project is
            a voluntary project that encourages printers to consider
            environmental concerns along with cost and performance
            when purchasing materials. Replacing hazardous chemicals
            with environmentally-safer substitutes is one way to reduce
            the impact of printing on the environment while maintain-
            ing product quality. Many printers, however, may not have
            the time to identify and test environmentally-safer substi-
            tutes.
    
                 That's where DfE fills the gap. EPA has teamed up
            with screen printing industry  representatives (including
            trade associations, printers, and suppliers) in the DfE
            Screen Printing Project. The Project's goal is to evaluate
            and publicize pollution prevention opportunities in screen
            printing, particularly in the screen reclamation process.
    For More Information...
         For more detailed information on technological and
    chemical alternatives for screen reclamation, see the DfE
    Screen Printing Project summary booklet, Designing Solu-
    tions for Screen Printers — An Evaluation of Screen Recla-
    mation Systems. Additional case studies and other bulletins
    summarizing the evaluation of screen reclamation alterna-
    tives are also available.
         For copies of this bulletin, other DfE Screen Printing
    Project materials, or for more information about the project,
    please contact:
    
       Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
              U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                     401 M Street, SW (3404)
                     Washington, DC 20460
                    Telephone: 202-260-1023
                       Fax: 202-260-0178
                              or
                                                                         Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Association International
                                                                                                (SGIA)
                                                                                            10015^ Main Street
                                                                                            Fairfax, VA 22031
                                                                                        Telephone: 703-385-1335
                                                                                            Fax: 703-273-2870
    
                                                                        You may also contact the DfE Home Page at:
                                                                        http://es.inel.gov/dfe or the SGIA Home Page at
                                                                        http://www.sgia.org/
                                                                                     Recycled/Recyclable
    
                                                                             Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper containing at
                                                                             least 50% recycled fiber.
    A32
    

    -------
    A Cooperative Project
    between the
    U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency
    and the
    Printing Trade
    Associations
    Nationwide
                                                                                 SCREEN PRINTING PROJECT BULLETIN 4
                          U.S.EPA1
                                          SCREEN PRINTING
                                        SMARTER, SAFER SCREEN
                                              RECLAMATION
                                         Alternative System Chi
    
    
                                    /• • 1he chemicals used for screen reclama-
                                       I  tion can be some of the most
                                      _1_  hazardous products in a screen print-
                                    ing facility. Typically, highly volatile solvents
                                    are used. These cleaners may contain chemi-
                                    cals that are harmful to the health of
                                    employees if inhaled, ingested, or absorbed
                                    through the  skin. If they are not disposed of
                                    properly, these products may also harm the
                                    environment.
                                          To reduce the hazards of screen recla-
                                    mation to workers and to the environment,
                                    screen printers using solvents for screen
                                    reclamation  should consider switching to one
                                    of the safer substitute products currently on
                                    the market. These substitutes often contain
                                    less harmful chemicals and have a lower
                                    volatile organic compound (VOC) content.
                                    With a lower VOC content, the chemical is
                                     less likely to be inhaled by employees or
                                     released to the air
                                          This bulletin highlights the characteris-
                                     tics of one type of substitute product system
                                     and compares it to a traditional (solvent-
                                     based) screen reclamation system. Specifically,
                                     this bulletin describes:
    • Performance of the alternative screen recla-
      mation system as demonstrated in laboratory
      tests and the two volunteer printing facilities;
    • The health and environmental risks of the
      alternative system;
    • The cost of the alternative system.
                                                                               Background
         Initiated by industry, the DfE Screen
    Printing Project was entirely voluntary and
    involved almost all sectors of the screen
    printing industry: manufacturers donated
    their products for evaluation, staff from
    Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Associa-
    tion International (SGIA) coordinated the
    field demonstrations, the Screen Printing
    Technical Foundation (SPTF) performed ini-
    tial product testing, printers nationwide eval-
    uated the products in their print shops, and
    EPA staff conducted a risk assessment of the
    products. One advantage of this coordinated
    effort is that all product systems were evalu-
    ated using the same methods. The consisten-
    cy of the evaluations  allows you to compare
    the results to determine which of the alterna-
    tives may be a viable substitute for your cur-
    rent reclamation products.
                                                                                                                  A33
    

    -------
          Performance was evaluated in two phas-
    es: 1) performance demonstrations at SPTF's
    laboratory under controlled conditions; and 2)
    field demonstrations at volunteer printers'
    facilities under the variable conditions of pro-
          This bulletin highlights one alternative system referred
     to as Alternative System "Chi." This system, as with all sys-
     tems demonstrated in this project, is a real, commercially
     available screen reclamation system; however, "Chi" is a
     nlasked name. The actual trade name for this alternative sys-
     tem (or for any of the alternative systems demonstrated) is
     not used in this case study or in the final project report. Trade
     names were masked for several reasons:
       • One of the goals of the DfE project is to illustrate  the
        process of searching for and evaluating cleaner alterna-
        tives. DfE hopes to  encourage you to incorporate  envi-
        ronmental concerns in your facility's decision-making
        processes and into your discussions with suppliers. By
        masking trade names, DfE encourages you to discuss the
        characteristics of die products you use, or are considering
        using, with your suppliers. This case study and the DfE
        project help you to  know what characteristics to look for
        in the screen reclamation products you
        purchase.
      '"• Since every screen printing shop is differ-
        ent, manufacturers recognize that their
        product's performance may vary greatly
        depending on the operating conditions
        and, moreover, printers' opinions of prod-
        ucts will vary, In order to get their full
        cooperation before  the results were avail-
        able, the Project complied with the
        requests by some manufacturers that prod-
        uct names be masked.
          To compare the cost and risk of Alterna-
     tive System Chi to a known system, a baseline
     was established using a traditional solvent-
     based screen reclamation  system consisting of:
     lacquer thinner as the ink remover, a sodium
     periodate solution as the emulsion remover,
     apd a xylene/acetone/mineral spirits/cyclo-
     hexanone blend as the haze remover. These
     chemicals were selected because screen print-
     ers indicated they were  commonly used in
     screen reclamation.
          It should be noted the alternative recla-
     mation systems were evaluated using a case
     study approach; rigorous scientific testing was
     not conducted. Instead,  much of the informa-
     tion presented here is based on printers' expe-
     riences with these products as used at their
     facilities.
    Promising
    Performance
                 duction. Since conditions vary greatly from one facility to the
                 next, printers felt it would be most valuable to evaluate per-
                 formance based on the experiences and opinions of the
                 experts: the printers who used the alternative products in
                 their print shops during the month-long demonstrations.
                 Each product system was demonstrated in two or three facili-
                 ties to get a more complete evaluation of performance under
                 a variety of operating conditions.
    
    
                 Laboratory Testing
    
                      During laboratory testing, three imaged screens were
                 reclaimed using Alternative System Chi: one where a solvent-
                 based ink was applied, the second with an ultraviolet-curable
                 (UV) ink,  and the third with a water-based ink. In the lab,
                 two applications of the Chi ink remover were required to
                 remove the solvent-based ink. The UV-curable ink and water-
     Traditional
     System
                                        Chemical Composition
                       Ink Ramover
      Alternative
      System Chi
     Propylene glycol series ethers
     N-methyl pyrrolidona
     Ethoxyloted nonylphenol
     Lacquer thinner, consisfing of:
     30% Methyl ethyl kelone
     20% Haphtha light aliphatk
    I 20% Toluene
     15% n-butyl acetate
    110% Isobutyl isobutyrote
     SXMethanol
                                        Emulsion Removor
                         Sodium periodate
                         Water
    1% Sodium periodate
    99% Water
                                                                Haze Ramover
                          Diethylene glycol series ethers!
                          Propylene glycol series ethers [
                                                             Ethoxyloted nonylphenol
    10%Xylene
    30% Acetone
    30% Mineral spirits
    30% Cyclohexanone
    1 Clear concems>Marginal concems>Negligible concerns. Concerns were identified because exact
     risks were not calculated. The information in this table is based on the September 1994 draft
     Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Screen Printing Technical Report.
    

    -------
           U.S.EPA
        based inks dissolved more easily, however an ink residue or
        haze remained on all of the screens after applying the ink
        remover. The emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil
        with only light scrubbing, leaving no emulsion.residue
        behind. When additional ink remover was applied (used
        instead of a haze remover), it removed the ink residue and
        lightened the stain on all three screens.
    
    
        On-site Demonstrations
    
             Two different facilities (referred to as Facility C and
        Facility D) used System Chi for a month to evaluate how well
        it performed in an actual production situation. The participat-
        ing facilities recorded the amount of product used, the length
        of time needed, and their opinion of how well the product
        reclaimed the screen.
                                          Performance
    • Health Risks' HPH|
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H Remover
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    • Inhalation risks of the ink and haze removers are
    negligible.
    • If you use the ink or haze remover on a daily basis
    without wearing gloves, there is a dear concern for
    harmful effects from diethylene plycol series ethers
    absorbed through your skin. If gloves are worn, the
    risk is negligible.
    • If your skin regularly contacts tbe ink or haze
    removers, there is a concern for reproductive toxicity
    risk from absorbing N-methyl pyrrolidone. If gloves
    and safety goggles are worn, the risk is negligible.
    • There is a clear concern that regular, unprotected
    contact with the emulsion remover will cause skin and
    eye irritation and tissue damage. If gloves and safety
    goggles are worn, the risk is negligible.
    • If you use the ink or haze remover on a regular
    basis, there is a clear concern for harmful health
    effects from inhaling the chemicals (specifically
    toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, and acetone).
    • There is also a clear concern for adverse health
    effects if your skin contacts the ink or haze remover
    on a daily basis (from toluene, methyl ethyl ketone,
    and acetone). The concern is marginal for contact with
    cydohexanone in the haze remover. If gloves and
    safety goggles are worn, these risks are negligible.
    •There is a clear concern that regular, unprotected
    contact with the emulsion remover will cause skin and
    eye irritation and tissue damage. If gloves and safety
    goggles are worn, the risk is negligible.
    In on-site
    demonstrations.
    removed the ink well.
    One of the facilities
    found it worked very
    well on metallic inks.
    In lab testing,
    dissolved UV-curable
    and water-based ink '
    well. Two applications
    were needed to
    remove the solvent-
    based ink.
    
    
    Removed solvent
    and UV inks with
    moderate scrubbing
    effort. A gray haze
    remained on the
    entire screen. With
    water-based ink, the
    ink solidified.
    
    
    Emulsion
    Remover
    Quickly and
    easily
    removed the
    stencil during
    facility
    aemonstratio
    ns and lab
    tests.
    
    
    Not
    demonstrated2
    
    
    
    Haze ^^^^^H
    Remover ^^^^^^^^B
    W Facility C, the
    laze remove
    ightened
    noderate stains,
    jutwasnot
    iffective on
    leovy stains. At
    Facility D, haze
    remover was
    not needed. In
    lab testing, the
    haze remover
    lightened the
    ink stain.
    
    Not
    demonstrated1
    
    
    
    Facility C:
    $3.89/screen
    $5,829/year
    Facility D:
    S3.25/screen
    S4,879/year
    
    
    $6.27/screen
    S9,399/year
    
    
    
    The ink remover was demonstrated during laboratory tests as a component of a different reclamation system.
         Ink Remover Performance: At Facility C, the Chi ink
    remover worked well, although in some cases, it acted more
    slowly than their standard solvent blend. Facility D found the
    ink remover worked well, especially on metallic inks.
         Emulsion Remover Performance: The emulsion remover
    worked very well at both facilities, dissolving the stencil
    quickly and easily.
         Haze Remover Performance: Alternative System Chi did
    not include a separate haze remover; instead the manufactur-
    er recommended applying the ink remover again to remove
    any remaining haze. Facility D found their screens were com-
    pletely clean after using just the ink and emulsion removers; a
    haze remover was not needed. At Facility C, the haze
    remover lightened the haze; however, when the haze was
    heavy, a ghost image remained on the screen.
         Overall Evaluation: At both facilities, the performance
    of Alternative System Chi was as good as the performance
                    of the facilities' standard screen reclama-
                    tion products. The consistent performance
                    of the product at SPTF and in the two facil-
                    ities demonstrates  that System Chi can
                    work under different operating conditions.
                    Reduced Risk
    
                         Occupational risks and environmen-
                    tal releases associated with using Alterna-
                    tive System Chi and the traditional system
                    for screen reclamation are summarized in
                    the table.
                         Whether using traditional screen recla-
                    mation techniques or an alternative system,
                    chemicals can get into your body either
                    through your skin when you contact the
                    product or through your lungs when you
                    inhale chemical vapors.  Some chemicals
                    have a lower tendency to evaporate or to
                    enter the body through the skin; and differ-
                    ent chemicals have different effects, some
                    more harmful than others, once in your
                    body. The risks associated with inhalation
                    of the chemicals in Alternative System Chi
                    were found to be negligible, while there is a
                    clear concern for chemical inhalation risk
                    with the traditional system. With the tradi-
                    tional system, daily inhalation of toluene
                    and methyl ethyl ketone in the ink remover,
                    and acetone in the haze remover could lead
                    to eye, nose, and throat irritation,
                    headaches, or fatigue. With Alternative Sys-
                    tem Chi, the adverse effects from inhalation
                    are negligible.
                         Applying either the Alternative System
                    Chi or the traditional system products regu-
                    larly without wearing gloves can be harmful
                    to your health. In the traditional system,
                    these effects are from the toluene and
                                                                                                                          A35
    

    -------
     methyl ethyl ketone in the ink remover, the sodium periodate
     in the emulsion remover, and the acetone in the haze
     remover. In the alte,mative system, potential for these harmful
     effects through skin contact are attributed to diethylene glycol
     series ethers in the ink/haze remover, and sodium periodate
     in the emulsion remover. If gloves and safety goggles are
     worn regularly, however, the dermal risks from either system
     are negligible.
    
    
     Minimal Environmental Releases
    
          Based on the EPA assessment, none of the chemicals in
     either the traditional system or Alternative System Chi were
     found to be hazardous to the environment in the quantities
     used for screen reclamation. However, reducing the use of
     the traditional chemicals could cut a facility's air releases.
     Traditional screen-cleaning solvents often have a high volitile
     organic compound (VOC) content, contain Hazardous Air
     Pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, or contain a
     RCRA listed or characteristic waste. Substituting an alternative
     product for these screen reclamation chemicals could reduce
     your" facility's regulatory burden. Contact your state and local
     regulatory authorities for information specific to your location.
    
    
     Cost Savings
    
          The performance  demonstrations showed that both of
     the participating facilities could reduce their costs for screen
     reclamation by switching from the traditional system to Alter-
     native System Chi. As with the risk comparisons, costs of
     Alternative  System Chi were compared to the costs of using
     the traditional system. It was assumed 6 screens were
     reclaimed daily and that all screens were 2,127 in2 (approxi-
     mately 15 ft2) in size for both the traditional and the alterna-
                   tive systems. The cost estimate for each
                       reclamation system included labor time
                        spent to reclaim the screen, the cost of
                         an average quantity of reclamation
                          products, and the cost of hazardous
                         waste disposal for RCRA-listed waste
                        or RCRA-characteristic waste (ignitable
                       based on flashpoint). For the alternative
                  system and the traditional system, RCRA issues
    apply only to the traditional system ink remover.
          For Facility C, their reclamation cost per screen would
    drop by 38% from $6.27/screen to $3.89/screen for annual
    savings of $3,560. At Facility D, the reclamation cost of
    $6.27/screen using the traditional system would decrease 48%
    to $3.25/screen at Facility D for the alternative  system. Over a
    year, the savings would amount to $4,520. The difference in
    costs between the facilities is due to differences in the quanti-
    ty of product used and the labor time required per screen as
    recorded by each facility's employees.
                                                                          For More Information...
    
                                                                                Although the alternative system described in this case
                                                                          study proved to be a viable alternative in the two printing
                                                                          facilities where performance demonstrations were conducted,
                                                                          it may not be the solution for all types of screen printing
                                                                          operations. If you find that Alternative System Chi does not
                                                                          seem like a feasible substitute for your facility, refer to the
                                                                          summary booklet, Designing Solutions for Screen Printers: An
                                                                          Evaluation of Screen Reclamation Systems, which includes
                                                                          information on all the alternative product systems and alterna-
                                                                          tive technologies evaluated. When you identify a product sys-
                                                                          tem that seems like a potential substitute, contact your
                                                                          supplier, identify the alternative system by its chemical com-
                                                                          position, and discuss the characteristics of the products you
                                                                          are looking for.
                                                                                 This bulletin is part of a series of bulletins and case
                                                                            studies that provide screen printers with information on
                                                                            products and techniques that can help them to prevent pol-
                                                                            lution in their facilities. Information in these bulletins is
                                                                            largely based on the work done by the Design for the
                                                                            Environment Screen Printing Project. For copies of this bul-
                                                                            letin, other DfE Screen Printing Project materials, or more
                                                                            information about the project, contact:
    
                                                                              Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
                                                                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                                           401 M Street, SW (3404)
                                                                                            Washington, DC 20460
                                                                                           Telephone: 202-260-1023
                                                                                              Fax: 202-260-0178
                                                                             Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Associati
                                                                                                tionaKSGIA)      f  "§
                                                                                              10015 Main Street ••: 'tfc3*
                                                                                              Fairfax, VA 22031 :y%^'
                                                                                           Telephone: 703-385-1335 *"*
                                                                                              Fax: 703-273-2870 r-,.
                                                                                                               "' ./     .'#
    
                                                                           You may also contact the DfE Home Page at:  I
                                                                           http://es.inel.gov/dfe or the SGIA Home:Page |t
                                                                           http://www.sgia.org/            •    5  3  ^';
    /,.-"
                                                                                          R«cycled/Re,
    A36
    

    -------
    A  P  P  E  N   D  I  X
      DfE Garment and Textile Care
      Project:  Fact Sheet and
      Communications Plan
    
      This Appendix Contains:
      EPA. 1999. Design for the Environment Dry
      Cleaning Project. Office of Pollution Prevention
      and Toxics. EPA744-F-98-012. February.	B3
    
      EPA. 1994. Dry Cleaning Project Communica-
      tions Plan. Office of Pollution Prevention and
      Toxics	B5
                                       B1
    

    -------
    

    -------
               United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
               Pollution Prevention
               And Toxics
               (7406)
                                           EPA744-F-98-012
                                           February 1999
               Design  for the  Environment
               Garment and  Textile Care  Program Fact Sheet
    U.S. EPA
    What is Design for the
    Environment?
    
    EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE)
    Program is a voluntary initiative that
    forges partnerships with various
    stakeholder groups in an effort to:
    
    •  Incorporate environmental concerns
       into the traditional decision-making
       parameters of the business world:
       'cost' and 'performance.'
    
    «  Build incentives for behavior change
       to encourage continuous environmental
       improvement.
    
    To accomplish these goals, the program
    utilizes EPA expertise and leadership to
    compare the relative environmental and
    human health risks, performance, and cost
    tradeoffs of traditional and alternative
    technologies.  DfE disseminates informa-
    tion on its work to all interested parties
    and also assists businesses to implement
    the new technologies identified through
    the program.
    
    The program currently has cooperative
    partnerships with:
    
    •   Industry
    •   Academia
    •   Environmental and Public Interest
          Groups
    •   Labor Unions
    •   Research Organizations
    •   Government purchasing agencies
    •   Professional Institutions and Trade
          Associations
                                Cleaner  Clothes,
                                Cleaner  Neighborhoods,
                                And  Cleaner Solutions
    Why Is EPA Work-
    ing With Garment
    Care Professionals?
                             Since 1992, EPA has worked in partnership with
                             the drycleaning industry as part of EPA's Design
                             for the Environment Program.  With more than
                             30,000 commercial shops in neighborhoods and
                             malls across the country, drycleaners are one of
    the largest group of chemical users that come into direct contact with the public.
    Because of the potential health and environmental concerns associated with
    perchloroethylene, or "perc," a chemical solvent used by most drycleaners, EPA
    and stakeholders from the drycleaning industry and public interest groups, have
    been working together to evaluate other cleaning process controls and technologies.
                                How Did the DfE
                                Garment and
                                Textile Care Pro-
                                gram Get Started?
                              The DfE Garment and Textile Care Program
                              (GTCP) was initiated after a 1992 international
                              roundtable on drycleaning in which industry lead-
                              ers and EPA agreed that health and environmental
                              issues surrounding the drycleaning industry could
                              be addressed most effectively through the Design
                              for the Environment's voluntary, proactive
    approach. Hence, the project partnership was established to encourage the devel-
    opment and incorporation of environmentally-preferable cleaning methods which
    professional cleaners can offer to their customers, while maintaining or increasing
    economic viability. Initial efforts focused on the development and evaluation of
    new cleaning methods, the development of training materials, and the publication
    of information. In 1996, at the DfE Apparel Care Conference, it was recognized
    that decisions made in related industries affect the cleanability of garments, and
    ultimately the decisions made by drycleaners. EPA organized a follow-on
    conference, which was held in early 1998, to expand the partnership to include
    representatives from industries such as garment and textile designers, manufactur-
    ers, fiber producers, retailers, and consumers. The primary goal of the expanded
    partnership is to explore how decisions made by other industries, such as textile
    manufacturers, affect the incorporation of environmentally-preferable methods
    into professional cleaning operations. These issues have resulted in the GTCP
    incorporating a life cycle approach, including the identification of upstream
    industrial decisions and trends that impact garment care process choices.
    
    What Is EPA Doing  The GTCP continues to work with partners on
    About Garment     gathering, generating, and  analyzing technical data;
                             promoting the implementation of cleaner technolo-
    Care Today?          gies information through education and assistance;
                             and communicating project information though
    outreach activities.  The GTCP encourages new technologies coming online, and
    is also exploring related industries that might provide opportunities to expand on
    .the successes of the drycleaning industry partnership.
    
                                                          B3
    

    -------
     •   Technical Studies
              ,"'   '     '.   !!." i  , •.)'
     Working with the industry, EPA published the Cleaner Tech-
     nologies Substitutes Assessment for Professional Fabricare
     Processes |CTSA) in September 1998, which is a technical
     report that presents relative cost, risk, and performance
     information on existing and new cleaning technologies and
     substitute solvents. The goal of the CTSA is to create a
     comparative assessment of clothes cleaning technologies in
     order to provide drycleaners with information they can use to
     make informed technology choices that incorporate environ-
     mental concerns along with the usual parameters of cost and
     performance.  The CTSA is part of an effort to assist cleaners
     who might have  limited time or resources to collect the
     information themselves. EPA has produced informational
     documents'Jpr industry and the general public to promote
     cost-effective, environmentally sound choices. Several fact
     sheets and case studies on emerging technologies are in
     preparation.
        1      ;            ' |)     'ii
     •   Implementation Efforts
              " .»,           , F   '  • '            i
     EPA is supporting a project with North Carolina State
     University College of Textiles to develop a methodology
     for evaluating the effectiveness of various existing and new
     cleaning technologies on typical fabrics and soils.  The study
     includes perc, petroleum solvent and water-based cleaning
     processes, and hopes to add a liquid carbon dioxide system.
    
     EPA is also supporting a life cycle analysis project with
     NCSU College of Engineering.  The project seeks to work
     with various industrial partners to build a garment care life
     cycle tool.
    
     In 1997, the GTCP designed an outstanding training course to
     teach garment care professionals and staff about wetcleaning.
     Developed through an EPA grant with the Toxics Use
     Reduction Institute at the University of Massachusetts, the
     curriculum explains how wetcleaning works and how to
     operate a wetcleaning facility. The course also explains how
     to convert from drycleaning to a wetcleaning facility.
    
     •   Outreach Activities
    
     The GTCP has a  number of ongoing outreach activities
    Including wetcleaning seminars across the U.S. Now.that a
     liquid carbon dioxide process is commercially available in this
     country, the GTCP will expand its outreach activities to in-
     clude information on this brand new garment care technology,
     and others as they come online.  The GTCP and its project
     partners have created a variety of informational materials,
     most of which are available in hardcopy or on the GTCP web
     site. The GTCP is currently preparing a number of auxiliary
     documents to make the highly technical fabricare CTSA more
     accessible to non-technical audiences, including a much
     shorter summary  version of the CTSA (due out shortly), as
     Well as the plain English Frequently Asked Questions
    about Drycleaning and the CTSA Fact Sheet.  The GTCP
     has begun drafting several case studies to elaborate on
     specific aspects of alternative professional garment cleaning
     technologies.
    HOW DOCS the GTCP   By joining EPA in its
    Affect Garment Care  fitment to safer, cleaner
                                  technologies, drycleaners can
    Professionals?           maintain a competitive edge in
                                  the marketplace. With an en-
    hanced awareness of available technological options, drycleaners
    can improve their operations and bottom line, while contributing
    to a cleaner environment and safer workplace. As consumers
    increasingly opt for "green," environmentally sound products
    and services, drycleaners that consider the health and environ-
    mental impacts of their business decisions are more likely to
    sustain solid support from both their customers and neighbors.
    Educating the public about various cleaning technologies, and
    their own efforts toward environmental protection, is a job
    professional cleaners can embrace.
    How Does the GTCP
    Affect Consumers?
                                 Like businesspeople, consumers
                                 also benefit from understanding
                                 how their everyday choices
                                 affect the environment.
    Consumers today face an ever-widening array of products and
    services from which to choose. As people better understand
    how a product's design and manufacturing process affects the
    environment, they will be able to make responsible decisions that
    benefit them, their families, and their community.
                        How  Can I Get  More
                              Information?
     Contact EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Center to
     receive an information packet about EPA's DfE Program or the
     Garment and Textile Care Program, or to request single copies
     of DfE documents. A revised DfE Publications List along with
     these recent GTCP publications are now available:
    
       CTSA for Professional Fabricare Processes
            (EPA744-B-98-001)
       CTSA: Summary (EPA 744-S-98-001)
       CTSA Fact Sheet (EPA 744-F-98-011)
       Frequently Asked Questions about Drycleaning
            (EPA 744-K-98-002)
       Garment and Textile Care Resource Guide
            (EPA 744-K-98-005)
    
       Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       401 M Street, SW (7409)
       Washington, DC 20460
       Phone: (202) 260-1023
       Fax: (202) 260-4659
       Email address: ppic@epa.gov
    
       DfE Garment and Textile Care Program Web  Site:
       http://www.epa.gov/dfe/garment/gannenthttnl
    

    -------
                DRY CLEANING PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
                                           1994-1996
    Project Goals
    
    
           While the Dry Cleaning Project embraces many goals, it is centered around four main targets:
    
    
           •     To reduce exposure to perchloroethylene ("perc") and other chemicals used in dry cleaning.
    
           •     To seek out and examine alternative cleaning technologies, solvents, and control methods.
    
           •     To provide dry cleaners with both technical assistance and incentives to implement pollution
                  prevention measures.
    
           •     To conduct a detailed technical study of alternative solvents, processes, and cost-effective,
                  environmentally sound options identified through the Project.
    
    
     Communications Themes
                                                                                             B5
    

    -------
                  "Ml  i	41
            Four themes or messages guide the development of all communications outputs for the Dry Cleaning
    Project:
                   The Dry Cleaning Partnership is a success.
                   The risks associated with dry cleaning are being addressed.
                   Pollution prevention opportunities exist in the dry cleaning industry.
                   Everyone has a role in preventing pollution in dry cleaning.
    These four messages should be communicated to all of the audiences of our products. Depending on the
    product, its purpose, and its timing, certain themes will at times be more relevant than others.
    1. The Dry Cleaning Partnership is a success.
      ?"'   .,-,'.  i ,1"i  ,•»;: "            ;                        ,„         ,         'i    •   .     •;
      i            i;    .11                                      ,         '•  •       i   '
           Dffi has formed a productive partnership with stakeholders in the dry cleaning business.  The
    partnership enables these stakeholders to have equal input and interaction in the Dry Cleaning Project. The
    members of the. Dry Cleaning Partnership represent diverse and sometimes  competing interests.  They
    include representatives from the dry cleaning industry; solvent producers; solvent suppliers; universities; and
      :, .,     . •    : i:   ' «! '          .                                            '.  I           :
    environmental, labor, and consumer groups.
                  \     ,: _                          .                            :  j
           In less than two years, the Dry Cleaning Partnership has made significant progress in achieving the
    goals of the Project. In particular, the Partnership has:
                   Conducted technical studies of alternative solvents and processes.
                                                                                i
                                                                                j
                   Conducted in-depth, short-term performance tests and cost studies of one  alternative
                   technology known as "multiprocess wet cleaning."
                  1:    '>•                        •                                 i
                  ..''    
    -------
           By working with representatives from all sides of the dry-cleaning question, EPA hopes to arrive
    at solutions beneficial to everyone.  Indeed, interaction among these groups has led to creative, concrete
    strategies for addressing the challenge of pollution prevention in the dry cleaning industry.
    2. The risks associated with dry cleaning are being addressed.
    
           With more than 34,000 commercial shops in  neighborhoods and malls across the country, dry
    cleaners are one of the largest groups of chemical users that come into direct contact with the public. Perc
    is a toxic air pollutant found at high concentrations in  urban environments. The Project has helped raise
    awareness of the general public, the dry cleaning industry, and the media concerning the potential risks
    associated with dry cleaning chemicals.
    
           Through the Project, the human health and environmental risks associated with traditional and
    alternative chemicals, processes, and technologies also  are being evaluated.  Detailed risk assessments are
    being completed to outline the potential for any adverse effects to dry cleaning workers, the general public,
    specific subpopulations, and the environment.
    3. Pollution prevention opportunities exist in the dry cleaning industry.
    
           The Dry Cleaning Project seeks to identify pollution prevention options that make both economic
    and environmental sense. The Project is focusing on three key pollution prevention areas:
                   Work Practices.  Safe work practices can reduce both consumer and worker exposures to
                   perc. The Project is helping dry cleaners understand how to work safely. It is also exploring
                   the possibility of establishing an environmental certification program to standardize safe
                   work practices in the industry.
                   Controls. Effective controls can prevent pollution and reduce perc exposures. Through the
                   Project, DfE and its partners are exploring control technologies that could prove effective
                   in reducing perc emissions. Through the Project, this information is being passed on to dry
                   cleaners.
                   Alternative Technologies. Emerging technologies offer promising alternatives to the use
                   of chemical solvents in dry cleaning. The Project is exploring the commercial viability of
                   several alternative technologies through performance tests, cost studies, and demonstration
                                                                                                 B7
    

    -------
                   sites.  Through the Project, dry cleaners (and other interested parties) can see these
                   alternative technologies in action, learn how to perform the processes, and consider their use
                   in their own businesses.
    4. Everyone has a role in reducing pollution in dry cleaning.
    
    
           In the end, everyone has a role to play in preventing pollution in the garment cleaning industry:
                   The dry cleaning industry can consider new technologies, controls, and work practices to
                   reduce perc emissions and be good neighbors in their communities.
                                                                            1  I
                   Trade groups can continue to investigate new controls and alternative processes, and
                   encourage their members to explore these new technologies where feasible.
                   The federal government can continue to provide research, technical assistance, and
                   leadership to the dry cleaning industry to help them prevent pollution.   The federal
                   government also can inform everyone of the potential risks associated with dry cleaning and
                   alternative processes.
    
                   State and local government can provide financial incentives and technical assistance to the
                   dry cleaning industry to encourage pollution prevention initiatives.
    
                   Research institutions and entrepreneurs can continue to explore and design pollution
                   prevention practices. They can also develop methodologies and tests so that these practices
                   can be assessed.
    
                   Consumers can make environmentally responsible decisions about the products and
                   services they use. They can also use their purchasing power to encourage the marketplace
                   to provide pollution-reducing practices and goods.
    
                   The media can channel information to the public about  risks, pollution prevention
                   opportunities, and research activities through radio, television, newspapers, and magazines.
            It is DfJE's hope that the Project will help instill a pollution prevention ethic in all of these
    
    stakeholders, while providing the technical information these groups need to make responsible decisions.
      B8
                                                                            „	I
    

    -------
    

    -------
    

    -------