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
-------
-------
------- |