United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Prevention, Pesticides,
And Toxic Substances
EPA744-F-96-010
September 1996
Designing Solutions for Screen Printers
An Evaluation of
Screen Reclamation Systems

-------

                                                     Disclaimer

      Designing Solution* for Screen Printer* -- An Evaluation of Screen Reclamation Systems is based on the draft (leaner
Technologies Substitutes Assessment:  Screen Printing.  Information  on cost and product usage was provided by individual
product vendors and has not been independently corroborated by EPA. The use of specific trade names or the identification
of specific products or processes is not intended to represent an  endorsement by the EPA or the U.S. Government.  The dis-
cussion of environmental statutes potentially affecting the commercial  printing industry is intended for information purpos-
es only; this is not an official EPA guidance document and should not be relied on by companies in the printing industry to
determine applicable regulatory requirements.

                                     Performance Demonstration Participants

The performance demonstration was successful due to the voluntary participation and cooperation of the following screen
                              printing facilities. We appreciate their valuable efforts.
            Action Graphics, Louisville, KY                                Masterscreen Products Inc., Portland, OR
                Artcraft, Portland, OR                                          Mobius, Inc., Eugene, OR
     Burlington Graphic Systems, Union Grove, HI                            Modagraphics, Rolling Meadows, II

          (oburn Corporation, Lakewood, NJ                              Morrison & Burke, Inc., Santa Ana, CA
         Fastamps and Fasigns, Randolph, MA                         Nameplate & Panel Technology, Carol Stream, II
           Gangi Studios, H. Hollywood, CA                              Paramount Screen Printing, Milwaukee, HI
          Gillespie Decals Inc.,  Wilsonville, OR                               Philadelphia Decal, Philadelphia,  PA
        Identification Products, Bridgeport,  CT                               Phillip  Plastics Co., Fredonia, HI
      Ivey-Seright International, Inc., Seattle, WA                            Quantum Graphics, Redmond, WA
               Karagraphic, Kent, WA                                               Royal Label, Boston, MA
        Leading Edge Graphics, Minnetonka, MN                                $[reen Process Specialists, Plymouth, Wl
         M&M Displays Inc., Philadelphia, PA


-------
DESIGNING SOLUTIONS
          FOR
  SCREEN  PRINTERS
     An Evaluation of kreen Reclamation tyrtorc


Developed by the Deign lor the Environment Screen Printing Project

-------

         A special thanks is extended to the Screen Printing and Graphic Imaging Association International (SGIA), particularly
Marci Kinter and Dan Marx, for their extensive efforts in the Design for the Environmental Screen Printing Project.


         We appreciate the participation of the following screen printing manufacturers in various aspects of the Project, includ-
ing the performance demonstration.  These manufacturers can be contacted through the information given below. A particular
thanks is extended to our performance demonstration co-chair, Neil Bolding, from Autotype Americas.

            Amerchem
            165 W. Mittel Drive
            Wood Dale, II60191
            Contact: J.P. Godinez
            (708) 616-8600

            Autotype America*
            1050 Hammond  Drive
            Schaumberg, II 60173-3810
            Contact: Neil Bolding
            Got International Service*
            Whippany,  NJ 07981-1179
            Contact: George Ciottone
            (101) 503-1911

            Franmar Chemical Associates
            P.O. Box 4$
            Normal, II 61761
            Contact: Frank Sliney
            Hydro Engineering, Inc.
            865 West 1600 South
            Salt Lake City, UT 84119
            Contact: Bob Robert*
            (801) 971-1181
Image Technology, Inc.
1170 North Armando St.
Anaheim, CA  91806
Contact: Harry Emtiaz
(714) 631-5191

KINO,  Inc.
P.O. Box 1009
Seabrook, TX 77586
Contact: Clark King
i-800-KIWO-USA

Nichols and Associate*, Inc.
111575 Rupp Drive
Burnsville, UN 55337
Contact: Oliver Nichols
(611) 895-1766

Ruemelin Manufacturing
3860 N. Palmer St.
Milwaukee, Wl 53111
Contact: Charlie Ruemelin
(414) 961-6500

-------
Contents
What is Design for the Environment
Screen Printing Project
Introduction
Project Goals
How to Use This Document to Make Decisions
Evaluation of Systems
Screen Reclamation Methods
Evaluation Factors
Unique Evaluation Factors
Chemical Composition
Performance
Cost
Occupational Risk and Exposure
Regulatory Concerns
System Profiles
Baseline System 1 (Method 1)
Product System Beta (Method 1)
Product System Chi (Method 1)
Baseline System 2 (Method 2)
Product System Alpha (Method 2)
Product System Chi (Method 2)
Product System Delta (Method 2)
Product System Epsilon (Method 2)
Product System Gamma (Method 2)
Product System Mu (Method 2)
Product System Phi (Method 2)
Product System Omicron AE (Method 2)
Product System Omicron AF (Method 2)
Product System Zeta (Method 2)
Product System Omicron (Method 3)
Product System Theta (Method 4)
Automatic Screen Reclamation Technology
Screen Disposal
More Information About Evaluation Methods
Chemical Composition
Performance
Cost
Occupational Risk and Exposure
Regulatory Concerns
Occupational Risk and Exposure
Ecological Risks
Safety Issues
General Population Risks
1
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
10
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
46
46
47
48
49
48
51
52
52

-------

                            FOR MORE INFORMATION

                            For copies of this booklet, 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
K.
                                               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://www.epa.gov/dfe or the SGIA home page at http://www.sgia.org.

-------
   What  is  Design
            for  the
    Environment?
The Design for the
Environment (DfE)
Program harnesses EPA's
expertise and leadership to
facilitate information
exchange and research on
risk reduction and pollution
prevention opportunities.
DfE works with both large
and small businesses on a voluntary basis, and its cooperative projects attempt to:
             Work with specific industries to evaluate the risk, performance,
             and costs of alternative 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

-------
Preceeding Page Blank
          kreen  Printing   Project
                                                                               Introduction

                                                                               As a screen printer, you know that there are a
                                                                               variety of chemical screen cleaning products
                                                                               which are commercially available.  You have
                                                                               many options.  However, these chemical prod-
                                                                               ucts can often be smelly, hazardous, and
                                                                               unpleasant to work with. The question you
                                                                               face:  which products will get a screen clean
                                                                               and still allow you to operate a facility which is
                                                                               safer for workers, cost effective, and environ-
                                                                               mentally  sound?  In response to this question,
                                                                               the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         (EPA), in partnership with the screen printing industry, developed the Design for the Environment (DfE) Screen Printing Project.
         The project is a unique cooperative effort dedicated to identifying and evaluating screen reclamation procedures, products, and
         technologies that can help screen printers do their job in the most effective manner.
The goal! of this document are:
• to help you make more informed decision! about the Kreen
   reclamation product! that you we in your !hop
• to provide you with a starting place for thinking about
   jutotitute Kreen reclamation iytfeiro that you may be able to
   we in your facility
         industry.
                 The DfE Screen Printing Project is entirely voluntary and involves EPA and almost all sectors of the screen printing
                             kreen Printing Project Partner!:
                              «•  Screen printer!;
                              «•  U.J. manufacturer! of Kreen reclamation product!;;
                              «•  kreenprinting and Graphic Imaging A!!ociation International (MA);
                              «•  Screen Printing Technical Foundation (JPTf);
                              «•  The Univenity of Tenneijee (enter for (lean Product! and (lean Technologic!; and
                              «•  EPA'! DfE Program
         Project doab

                 The DfE Screen Printing Project partners are aware that although many large commercial printers already have access
         to information about new and developing systems and technologies, smaller printers may not have the time or the resources to
         keep up with all the latest technology, nor do they have the ability to test new systems without jeopardizing their current opera-
         tions.  To respond to the needs of smaller printers, the DfE Screen Printing Project brought printers, the EPA, system manufactur-
         ers, and the SGIA together to evaluate the environmental and human health impacts of a variety of commercial screen reclama-
         tion systems and technologies.  The Project has developed information on the important trade-off issues associated with the envi-
         ronmental and human health risk, performance, and cost of 16 substitute screen reclamation systems and technologies.  The
         results of the Project are compiled in a full technical report called the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA): Screen
         Printing, which was published in draft form by EPA in September 1994.

-------


          By developing and distributing this type of information, the Project partners hope that screen printers, particularly
smaller printers, will be better equipped to make decisions on whether the costs, benefits, and risks of these substitute systems
make them possible for use in their own shops.  Each print shop has unique needs and operations -- a system that will work for
you may  not work for another printer.  This booklet is designed to encourage printers to discuss with their suppliers some of these
                                                           substitute systems. It should also alert printers to some of the
                                                           considerations that may reduce the costs and risks of screen
                                                           cleaning while improving or maintaining performance. Due to
                                                           the variability in print shops and the lack of familiarity with use
                                                           of the screen reclamation systems, the suppliers who donated
                                                           systems requested  that the trade or brand  names of their prod-
                                                           ucts not be used; therefore all of the systems are identified  by
                                                           code names.
The (ISA contain* information on:
•   Individual chemicals in the systems
•   Population and occupational risk
«•   Cost
«•   Performance
«•   Pollution prevention
•   Use and disposal of waste
«•   Energy and natural resource impacts
«•   Environmental releases
                                                           How to Ike this Booklet
                                                                   The first part of this booklet provides you with back-
                                                           ground information on the DfE Screen Printing Project.  It also
                                                           describes the factors that were used to evaluate the screen recla-
mation systems. The next part of the booklet, Table I ("Summary of Screen Reclamation Systems"), briefly presents the results of
the unique evaluation factors for each system. You may use this summary chart to select the systems that you might be interest-
ed in learning more about.

         The 2-page system profiles, or "fact sheets," which follow the table, provide you with additional information on the sys-
tems that are of interest to you. Immediately following the system profiles is a  section entitled, "More Information About
Evaluation Methods." This section is designed to give you more detailed information
about the evaluation of the screen reclamation systems. Only refer to this section if
you want more technical information about the way the evaluations were conducted.
                                                                               What the Project did not do:
                                                                               «• rank a product as better or
                                                                                  worse than another
                                                                               «• recommend "green"  products
          Remember, the goals of this booklet are: I) to help you make more
informed decisions about the screen reclamation products that you use in your shop;
and 2) to  provide you with a starting place for thinking about substitute screen
reclamation systems that you may be able to use in your facility.

Evaluation! of Systems
          All of the screen reclamation systems evaluated in the Project are commercially available. The screen reclamation sys-
tems were divided into four basic methods that are used by printers. The methods and the substitute systems that were included
in each method are shown in the box "Screen Reclamation Methods." In addition, to help you compare the various evaluation
results of the substitute systems, two baseline systems were also evaluated: Baseline System I and Baseline System 2. Each of
these  baseline systems are traditional solvent-based screen reclamation systems that you may currently be using in your shop.

-------
kreen Reclamation Methods
    Method i
Method i
Method:
Method,
    Ink Removal        Ink Removal        Ink Removal        Ink Removal

    Emulsion Removal/  Emulsion Removal/  Ink Degradent      Emulsion Removal
    Hater Haiti         Hater Haiti         Hater Rime
                                                             High Pi-enure Hater Blast
                       Haze Removal/      kreen Degreasing
                       Hater Haiti                            Haze Removal/
                                          Emulsion Removal/  High Pressure Rinse
                                          Hater Hash
Other Method!
                                                                  Automatic kreen Hashing
                                                                  Disposal of kreen
                                                                  Mesh
    System             System             System
    Baseline, (hi, Beta  Baseline, Alpha      Omicron
                       (hi, Delta, Epsilon,
                       Gamma, Mu, Phi,
                       Omicron-AE,
                       Omicron-AF, Zeta
                                      System
                                      Theta

Evaluation Facton


All of the screen reclamation systems and technologies were evaluated using the same factors.  These evaluation factors were:
        • Chemical composition
        • Performance in a print shop or testing facility
        • Cost
        • Occupational risk and exposure
        • Regulatory concerns
        • Ecological risks
        • General population health risks
        • Safety issues

         Three evaluation factors were found to be relatively consistent between systems: ecological risks, occupational safety,
and general population risks.  Therefore, they are not discussed in this section or  in the system profiles. Rather, the results of the
evaluation of these three factors are listed in the last section of this booklet entitled "More Information About Evaluation
Methods."


-------
iaue Evaluation Factors

                                                                 Unique Evaluation Factors:
                                                                • Chemical Composition
                                                                • Performance
                                                                • Cost
                                                                • Occupational Risk and Exposure
                                                                • Regulatory Concerns
     cal
          The other evaluation factors which were found to be
unique to  each system are discussed below. Table I, "Summary of
Screen Reclamation Systems," briefly presents the findings of these
evaluation factors for each system.  The system profiles which follow
the table provide more details on these findings.

Chemical Composition
           Each system profile lists the chemical constituents or chemical class in the system. If you are interested in trying a
               substitute system, you may use this chemical composition information as the basis of a discussion with your sup-
               plier to assess your current system and the substitute system. In order to maintain  the confidentiality of the
           screen reclamation systems, some of the actual chemicals that compose the systems have been  classified into chemi-
          I categories such as dibasic esters; these chemical categories are used to identify many of the chemicals in system pro-
    files.  Table 2  at the back of this booklet provides a list of chemicals in the screen reclamation systems and the categories into
which they were classified. Information on the percent of volatile organic compounds in the system and the vapor pressure of the
system components was taken directly from the Material Safety Data Sheets provided by the supplier.

Performance

           Performance evaluations gathered information  on how well the systems performed both under laboratory conditions
              at the Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF) and in an actual print  shop. The  performance information
               documents the printers' experiences with and opinions of the substitute systems and technologies during produc-
            tion  runs at the various facilities. Keep in mind that the print shops compared the performance of the substitute sys-
        tems with the system they typically use, not the baseline systems.

Specific performance  information in the profiles includes:

          The type of ink used  on the screen to be reclaimed or recommended by the supplier;
          The number and size of screens  cleaned by the printers;
          The printer's estimation of how  well the system or technology cleaned a screen; and
          The results of laboratory testing conducted by the Screen Printing Technical Foundation.

Cost

           The cost of using each substitute system was determined based on information obtained from performance demon-
               strations at printing facilities.  For some systems, costs were based on a limited number of screens reclaimed.
               The  cost estimate in each system profile includes purchasing as well as actually using the substitute system in a
            print shop (e.g, labor hours required to  reclaim a screen, cost of rags, volume of product used, etc).  Because base-
           i systems  were not included in  the performance demonstrations, the costs of these two systems were estimated. In
    order to compare costs between systems, costs are based on normalized values for product usage, number of screens cleaned,
and number of rags laundered, to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned  per day. Based on the cost information
provided in this booklet, you may determine whether your shop might save money by using a substitute system.
      line:

-------
Occupational Risk and Exposure
                                                                                                Exposure Categories
                                                                                                        High
                                                                                                     Moderate
                                                                                                        Low
              The health risks and exposure potential for workers using the ink, emulsion, and
                  haze removers in each screen  reclamation system are presented in this section of
                  the profiles. The risks associated with inhaling the chemicals or from skin/eye
              contact have been  categorized as "clear," "possible," "negligible," or "not quanti-
           fied."  The risks are based on information collected by EPA on the adverse effects that
       may be caused by specific chemicals in the screen reclamation systems. The specific chemicals that are associated with
health effects are identified. However, the presence of these chemicals in the screen  reclamation systems does not necessarily
mean that a worker will experience adverse effects, but only that such effects may occur in some or all workers.
    Risk Categories
         Clear
        Possible
                e
                             In addition to the risks for each system, we also have determined the potential for skin, eye, and
                       inhalation exposure.  Exposure potentials are based on the use of the chemicals in the print shop, the
                       vapor pressure of the chemicals, and other factors. Exposure may be substantially reduced, however, or
                       even eliminated, by the use of proper protective equipment such  as gloves, goggles, and other protective
                       clothing, and proper ventilation of the print shop.  Even if one of the substitute product systems is not
                       used in your print shop, the system you are using may contain some of the same chemicals. You can use
                       this booklet to help you  identify recommended safety precautions.  Specific chemicals that are of concern
                       in the systems and appropriate protective equipment to  prevent exposure to the chemicals are presented
in each of the individual system profiles. The risk information is based only on the use of screen reclamation systems.  For exam-
ple, it does not include risks associated with the use of solvents elsewhere in your facility.

Regulatory Concern*
    Not quantified
              Many of the chemical components of the screen reclamation systems are
                  subject to federal environmental regulations. The disposal of chemi-
                  cals, or rags containing the chemicals, may be restricted by air, water
               and solid waste regulations; printing facilities themselves may need to
                                                                                      Federal Environmental Regulations
                                                                                           CHA
                                                                                           CAA
                                                                                           CERCLA
SARA
RCRA
           report releases of the chemicals under EPA's Toxic Release Inventory program.  In each system profile, the federal
       environmental regulations that may apply to the system are indicated along with the names of the chemicals that are
subject to regulatory requirements; however, this information is not intended to address compliance issues.  For specific informa-
tion on regulatory issues that may be associated with screen reclamation, please contact your local, state, or federal environmen-
tal agency.

-------
Table i. Summary of Screen Redamation Sym*a
Performance
tyttem
lnkTypeb
Ink Remover
Emulsion Remover
Haze Remover

Nethodi
Basdinei
CM
Beta
NeOiodi
Baidinei
Alpha
Chi
Ddta
Epiilon
6anma
to
Phi
Omicrofl-Af
Omicrai-AF
Zeta

Solvent, UV, Water
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
Not demonstrated.
Not demonstrated.
System Chi was demonstrated with the ink remover/emulsion remover combination
instead of haze remover.
Additional wiping required. Left oily
residue. Could deteriorate stencil.

Not demonstrated
Removed ink effectively, but required
moderate level of additional scrubbing.
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 stencil.
Inconsistent performance across ink types.
Could deteriorate stencil.
Required more effort and, in some cases
(water-based ink), more product.
Required moderate to high level of effort.
Could deteriorate stencil.
Poor performance overall, even after
application method was modified.
Not demonstrated.

Not demonstrated
Dissolved stencil, but required additional
scrubbing; also left tint.
Worked well. More time required to
remove capillary film emulsions.
Easily dissolved stencil regardless of ink
type-
Quickly and easily removed stencil
without scrubbing.
Easily dissolved stencil regardless of ink
type.
Quickly and easily removed stencil with
scrubbing; left no ink or emulsion residue.
Easily removed stencil with very little
scrubbing.
Inconsistent performance across ink types.
Left some stain or residue.
Easily dissolved stencil. May require some
scrubbing: mav leave ink stain.
Dissolved stencil with effort and modifica-
tion of application method.
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
applications lightened stain.
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 with UV/water.

Removed ink residue, but only
lightened stain. Did not remove haze.
Some ink stain remained after
application.

Lightened stains, but did not remove
haze or residue.
Did not effectively remove haze or ink
stain.
other Methods
Omicron
Theta (High Prejiiire
Water Blatter)
Automatic kreen
Hasher

Solvent, UV, Water
Not demonstrated.
Not part of this method.
Not demonstrated.
After application and water blasting,
stencil dissolved: left some ink stain.
Not part of this method.
Immediately dissolved ink stain.


Commercially available technologies that remove ink (or in some cases, ink, emulsion, and haze) by focusing
appropriate reclamation products on a screen mesh surface within a fully enclosed unit. Not demonstrated.
Ween DiSpOial Not demonstrated
1 Significant environmental effects were only associated with Method I, Baseline system.  Cumulative releases from this system pose a risk to aquatic species. All other product
systems had negligible effects when  released to a water treatment facility, and therefore, these effects have not been included in the table.  Impacts of volatile organic compound
releases were not quantified.
' Ink type indicates those inks that were used by SPTF for the performance demonstrations.

-------
                      Table i.  Summary of km  Reclamation Jyjtem3  (continued)
Expwure Potential and Health Risks1
System
Ink Remover Haze Remover dilatory
(onctriKd
for Range*
(Vtoeen)
Nethodi
Basdinei
(hi
Beta
Metro 2
Baselinei
Alpha
(hi
Delta
Epsilon
Gamma
no
Phi
Omicron-AE
OmiowAF
Zeta
Risk: inhalation: clear/skin: clear Not part of this method. Y
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: high
Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: clear Not part of this method. N
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: high
Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: NQ Not part of this method. N
Exposure: inhalation: high/skin: high

Risk inhalation: clear/skin: clear Risk inhalation: clear/skin: clear Y
Exposure: inhalation: high/skin: high Exposure: inhalation: moderate/skin: high
Risk inhalation: possible/skin: possible Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: NQ N
Exposure, inhalation: moderate/skin: high Exposure, inhalation: low/skin: high
Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: clear Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: clear N
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: high Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: high
Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: NQ Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: NQ N
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Risk inhalation: possible/skin: possible Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: clear y
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: high
Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: clear Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: negligible y
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Risk inhalation: possible/skin: possible Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: negligible y
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: high Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: NQ Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: possible N
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: clear Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: NQ N
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: clear Risk inhalation: NQ/skin: NQ N
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Risk inhalation: possible/skin: possible Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: negligible ^
Exposure, inhalation: high/skin: high Exposure, inhalation: low/skin: moderate
$3.63
$1.95 -$2.83
$7.97

$6.27
$5.92 -$9.37
$3.25 - $3.89
$3.28 - $7.66
$3.08 - $5.28
$5.06 -$5.61
$4.79 - $9.33
$6.10 -$7.82
$5.49 - $10.85
$3.89 - $4.45
$5.39 - $8.99
other nethods
Omicron
Theta (High Pressure
Hater Blaster)
Automatic Screen
Hasher
Screen Disposal
Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: clear Not part of this method. y
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Not part of this method. Risk inhalation: negligible/skin: possible y
Exposure: inhalation: low/skin: moderate
Risk inhalation: possible/skin: clear Not assessed for exposure or risk. y
Exposure: inhalation: high/skin: high
No risks associated with screen ^
reclamation products.
$5.57
$4.53
$4.13 -$10.14
$49.43
c Exposure has been categorized by: low, moderate, and high.  Risk has been categorized as: NQ (not quantified), negligible, possible, or clear. Risk and exposure for the
emulsion remover were not included as they are the same for all systems, i.e., they cause severe eye and skin irritation.
d Y/N  = indicates systems for which there are/are not applicable federal environmental regulations as cited in the CTSA.
e Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at demonstration facilities 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.
                                                             1

-------
Baseline tyrtemi (Method i)
Chemical Composition*
                       Ink Remover
                       Emulsion Remover
100% Lacquer thinner, consisting of:
       30% Methyl ethyl ketone
       I5%n-Butylacetate
       5% Methanol
       20% Naphtha, light aliphatic
       20% Toluene
       10% Isobutyl isobutyrate
       VOC: 100%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

1% Sodium periodate
99% Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
*This is not a proprietary formulation, and therefore, the exact percent composition is provided.

Performance

             The performance of this system, which consists of an ink and emulsion remover, was not demonstrated at the SPTF
                 or at volunteer printing facilities. Because this system is commonly used in many screen printing shops, the
                  project partners decided to use the limited resources available for a performance demonstration to  evaluate
              substitutes to the traditionally used product systems.  This method is referred to as Traditional System 4,
           Method I in the CTSA.

         Although this system was not tested, its components are identical to components in other systems that were tested for
the CTSA, and those results are presented here.  The laboratory  reported that  the ink remover (lacquer thinner) was very difficult
to work with when removing solvent-based and UV-cured inks from screens and was incompatible with water-based ink systems.
The emulsion remover did not perform well when it was applied at the diluted quantity recommended by the manufacturer.
However, when the emulsion concentration was increased, it performed better at both facilities, although the improvement was
not consistent.
Cost
              For the ink remover, time and volume information were taken from SPTF laboratory testing.  Price
                 information was calculated from prices reported in response to a questionnaire that was prepared and distrib-
                  uted by SGIA and the University of Tennessee. Time, volume, and price information for baseline emulsion
              removal was based on information obtained from the  performance demonstrations.  The cost per screen for
          Baseline System I was $3.63 and the estimated annual cost of using the complete product system is approximately
       $5,446.

-------
Risk and Exposure

              Clear concerns for risks to worker health may exist when this ink remover is used on a daily basis.  This ink
                  remover may pose high inhalation exposures and clear concerns for risks from  both toluene and methyl ethyl
                  ketone. Skin contact can also lead to high exposures and clear concerns for risks from toluene and methyl
              ethyl ketone.

          This emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          All skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

              The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental reg-
                  ulation. It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                  mental regulation. The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger  reporting or other
              statutory requirements.
Chemical
lethyl ethyl ketone
i-Butyl acetate
lethanol
Toluene
CHA CAA
X
X
X
A A
CERCLA
X
X
X
1 X
SARA ft
X

X
X
RCRAU-litf
X

X
X
RCRAF-litf
X


X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CAA =  Clean Air Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act; SARA 313  =  Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Section 313;  RCRA = Resource Conservation and  Recovery
Act:  U-list  - discarded commercial chemical products, off specification species, container residues, and spill residues thereof; F-
list - hazardous waste from non-specific sources

-------
Product System Beta (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                       Ink Remover
                       Emulsion Remover
2-Octadecanamine, N, N-dimethyl-, N-oxide or a modified
amine from  unsaturated soy bean oil fatty acid/water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

Sodium periodate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
Performance

                   The manufacturer of Product System Beta submitted an ink remover only. Although the ink remover was
                   sent to three facilities for demonstration, only one facility was able to participate in the demonstration. This
                  facility used the ink remover and its standard emulsion remover to reclaim their screens. (The performance
              of the facility's standard emulsion remover was not reported.) During the three-week demonstration period, the
           facility recorded the  performance of the Beta ink remover on 17 screens with solvent-based inks. The facility reported
       that the ink remover removed the ink on most screens, but left an oily residue on the screen.  The printer found that wet
ink could be removed fairly easily. Removal of dried ink, however, required much greater time and effort.

          In the laboratory, ink  remover Beta was tested on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink, one with a UV-cured ink,
and one with a water-based ink). Laboratory results indicated that while ink remover Beta dissolved the ink effectively, a fair
amount of wiping was required.
Cost
                   For ink remover Beta, cost information was based on the performance demonstration. The quantity of emul-
                 sion remover used and cost per screen were taken from performance demonstration results for Product System
                  Zeta.  The adjusted cost per screen for Product System Beta was estimated at $7.97 in comparison to an esti-
              mated $3.63 for the baseline system.  Switching to System Beta would lead to an estimated increase in costs of
           $6,500 a year, primarily due to an increase in  labor costs.
Risk and Exposure
              High inhalation exposures can occur when this ink remover is used on a daily basis, although specific concerns for
                  risks could not be quantified. High exposures to skin can also occur, although again specific concerns for risks
                  could  not be quantified.

          This emulsion  remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

                                                   n

-------
          All skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!
             None of the chemicals used in this system are currently subject to federal environmental regulation.

-------
Product System (hi (Method i)
Chemical Composition
Performance
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
       VOC: 96%
       Vapor Pressure: <0.l mm Hg

Sodium periodate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
         The performance of Product System Chi, Method I was demonstrated at two volunteer facilities and at the SPTF labora-
             tory (on all three ink types).  Product System Chi does not include a haze remover. Only one of the two volunteer
                facilities used Product System Chi as an ink remover/emulsion remover system, without a haze remover. This
                  facility reclaimed 48 screens while testing System Chi, Method I and found that using only the ink and emul-
               sion remover combination yielded acceptable results.  This facility reported that all screens could be reused for
            future jobs and noted that it performed particularly well when used for the removal of metallic inks. When using
        this system  under Method 2, the ink remover must be reapplied after the emulsion remover to act as a haze remover.
Please see Product System Chi, Method 2 for additional details of Method 2 performance evaluations.
Cost
         Cost information for alternative System Chi was obtained from the performance demonstration. The adjusted per
             screen cost was $1.95. When compared to a baseline cost of $3.63, switching to Product System Chi
                   would yield estimated annual savings of $2,500.
       Risk and Exposure

         Negligible concerns for risks to worker health may result from using this ink remover on a daily basis.  This
            ink remover may pose low inhalation exposures and negligible concerns for risks.  Skin contact can lead to high
                exposures with clear concerns for risks from the diethylene glycol series ethers and possible concerns for risks of
                  reproductive toxicity from N-methylpyrrolidone.

                   This emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

         All skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all  components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

-------
Regulatory Concern!
             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental regu-
                 lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                  mental  regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
                statutory requirements.
                                    Chemical
CAA
                          Slycol ethers
CAA=Clean Air Act

-------
Baseline System i (Method i)
Chemical Composition*
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
      Lacquer thinner, consisting of:
       30% Methyl ethyl ketone
       I5%n-Butylacetate
       5% Methanol
       20% Naphtha light aliphatic
       20% Toluene
       10% Isobutyl isobutyrate
       VOC: 100%
       Vapor Pressure: Not available
1% Sodium periodate
99% Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

IO%Xylene
30% Acetone
30% Mineral spirits
30% Cyclohexanone
       VOC: 100%
       Vapor Pressure: Not available
*This is not a proprietary formulation, and therefore, the exact percent composition is provided.

Performance

             The performance of this system was not demonstrated at the SPTF or at volunteer printing facilities.  Because this
                 system is commonly used in many screen printing shops, the project partners decided to use the limited
                  resources available for a performance demonstration to evaluate substitutes to the traditionally used product
              systems.  This method is referred to as Traditional System 4, Method 2 in the CTSA.

         Although this system was not tested, some components are identical to components in other systems that were tested
for the CTSA.  The laboratory reported that the ink remover (lacquer thinner) was very difficult to work with when removing sol-
vent-based and UV-cured inks from screens, and incompatible with water-based ink systems.  The emulsion remover did not per-
form well when it was applied at the diluted quantity recommended  by the manufacturer. However, when the emulsion concen-
tration was increased, it performed better at both facilities, although the improvement was not consistent.  The haze remover was
never tested at SPTF due to  concerns about volatility and potential hazard. Instead, a commonly used and commercially available
haze remover containing  potassium hydroxide and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol was used.

-------
Out
          To determine the costs of using the ink remover, time and volume information were taken from SPTF testing.  Price
              information was calculated from prices reported in a questionnaire prepared and distributed by SGIA and the
                  University of Tennessee. Time, volume, and price information for Baseline 2 emulsion removal was based on
                 information obtained from the System Zeta performance demonstrations.  Time and volume information for the
             four-chemical  Baseline  2 haze remover was not available from the performance demonstrations and had to be esti-
          mated based on the SPTF evaluation of another haze remover (Product System Alpha's haze remover), which was not
similar in chemical composition, but provided the best available information.  Price information for the Baseline 2 haze  remover
was quoted by a manufacturer. The adjusted cost per screen for the Baseline System 2 is $6.27 and the estimated annual cost  of
using the system is $9,400.

Risk and Exposure

           Clear concerns for risks to worker health may be  expected when this ink remover is used on a daily basis.  This ink
               remover can  pose high inhalation exposures and clear concerns for risks from both toluene and methyl ethyl
                  ketone. Skin contact can also lead to high exposures and clear concerns for risks from toluene and methyl
                  ethyl ketone.

            This emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Clear concerns  for risks to worker health may exist when this haze remover is used on a daily basis. This haze remover
may cause moderate inhalation exposures and high concerns for risks from acetone.  Skin contact  can lead to high exposures and
clear concerns for risks from acetone.

          Skin exposures  and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate  personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are  subject  to federal environmental regu-
                 lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                   mental regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
                 statutory requirements.
Chemical
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-Butyl acetate
Methanol
Toluene
Xylene
Acetone
(yclohexanone
CHA

X

X
X


CAA
X

X
X
X


CERCLA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SARA ft
X

X
X
X
X

RCRAU-litf
X

X
X
X
X
X
RCRAF-liJt
X


X
X
X
X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CAA = Clean Air Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act; SARA 313  = Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Section 313;  RCRA =  Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act:  U-list - discarded commercial chemical products, off specification species, container residues, and spill residues thereof; F-
list - hazardous waste from non-specific sources

-------
Product System Alpha (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
       VOC: 100%
       Vapor Pressure: <4 mm Hg

Sodium periodate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

Alkali/caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
       VOC: < 15%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
Performance

           Product System Alpha consisted of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover.  This system
               was both laboratory- and field-tested.  It was demonstrated at three facilities, all of which used solvent-based
                  inks during the demonstration. One facility also reclaimed several screens that contained UV-curable ink. The
                system was laboratory-tested on two screens (one with a solvent-based ink and one with a UV-curable ink).
            This product system is not recommended for use with water-based inks.  During the demonstrations, one facility
        reclaimed 13 screens over a two-week period, another reclaimed 36 screens in a three-week period, and the third facility
reclaimed 48 screens in a four-week period.

         The facility that reclaimed the fewest screens reported that this ink  remover removed ink less effectively than was
expected. The facility that reclaimed the highest  number of screens reported that the ink remover usually worked well, but was
inconsistent and  required some extra scrubbing.  The  remaining facility noted  that this ink remover worked as well as their usual
product and worked particularly well with vinyl inks.  During laboratory tests, the ink remover worked well with solvent-based
inks, and even better with UV-curable inks.

         The facility that reclaimed the fewest screens found that the emulsion remover did  not work as efficiently (because it
required extra time for dissolving the stencil and  scrubbing) as their regular product. At the  facility that reclaimed the highest
number of screens, the emulsion remover was reported to work satisfactorily only after the screen had been rinsed with  hot water.
The remaining facility, however, reported that this emulsion remover worked as well as their regular product and  required less
effort.   During the laboratory testing, the emulsion remover worked well on screens with both types of ink.

         The haze remover performance varied across the three facilities. At the facility that reclaimed the greatest number of
screens, the haze remover worked effectively on about 80% of the screens. The remaining two facilities,  however, were not satis-
fied with the performance of the haze remover.

-------
          One facility reported that this product did not work as well as their usual haze remover, while the other reported that
it did not work at all. In laboratory testing, this haze remover effectively removed or significantly lightened haze on screens with
both solvent-based and UV-cured inks.
Out
              The adjusted cost per screen ranged from $5.92 to $9.37. The baseline cost, by comparison, is $6.27 per screen.
                  The major cost difference was found in the labor used to apply the products.  Switching to System Alpha would
                   lead to an estimated annual savings of $500 for the facility that reclaimed 36 screens.  For the other two
               facilities, this switch would result in an estimated  increase in annual costs ranging from $780 for the facility that
           reclaimed the  highest number of screens to $4,700 for the facility that cleaned the fewest screens.

Risk and Exposure

              Possible concerns for risks to worker health may  be expected when this ink remover is used on a daily basis. This
                  ink remover can pose moderate inhalation exposures and possible concerns for risks of reproductive toxicity
                   from the propylene glycol series ethers. Skin contact may lead to high exposures and possible concerns for
               risks from the propylene glycol series ethers.

          This emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Low inhalation exposures can occur when this haze remover is used on a daily basis, although specific concerns for
risks could not be quantified.  High exposures to skin may result from daily use, although again specific concerns for risks could
not be quantified.  Direct skin  or eye contact will result in severe irritation.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible  for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.
Regulatory Concern!
             The
 following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental regu-
 lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
   mental regulation. The presence of such chemicals and  chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
statutory requirements.
Chemical
Alkali/caustic
Glycol ethers
CHA
X

CERCLA CAA
X
*
CWA = Clean Water Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act;
CAA =  Clean Air Act

-------
Product System (hi (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
       VOC: 96%
       Vapor Pressure: <0.l mm Hg

Sodium periodate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not available

Same as Ink Remover
       VOC: 94%
       Vapor Pressure: <0.l mm Hg
Performance

              The performance of Product System Chi, Method 2 was demonstrated at two facilities and at the SPTF laboratory.
                  When using this substitute system under Method 2, the ink remover is also used as a haze remover.  A degreas-
                  er accompanied this product system; however, performance testing of this product was not within the scope of
              our project. Both facilities used only solvent-based inks.  During the four-week demonstration period, one facility
           reclaimed 47 screens and the other reclaimed 48 screens. In the laboratory, the system was tested on three screens
       (one with a solvent-based ink, one with a UV-curable ink, and one with a water-based ink).

         While one facility found the performance of the ink remover to be satisfactory, it also noted that the substitute
required greater time and extra effort than their usual product. The other facility had better results and considered the perfor-
mance of the ink remover to be generally very good. The second facility noted that, like its standard  ink remover, the substitute
product did not perform well with  cover/flux or clear cover coats and required additional scrubbing when used on coarse (low-
mesh  count) screens. Laboratory results indicated that the substitute ink remover worked best on the screen with a UV-curable
ink. After its application to the screen with water-based ink, some ink residue remained. In-laboratory removal of solvent-based
ink with this substitute required more effort than the other ink types and an ink residue remained on the screen.

         Both facilities were quite pleased with the performance  of the emulsion remover.  One facility reported that the substi-
tute worked as well as its standard product, while the other facility noted that the substitute worked  much better than their stan-
dard product.  When tested in the  laboratory, this emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil on  all three screens.

         This system  did not  include a  haze remover; instead, the manufacturer recommended that the ink remover be applied a
second time to remove haze.  One facility reported that an image still remained on the screen; the second application of the ink
remover did not work as well as its standard haze remover. At the other facility, however, the application of ink and emulsion
removers alone yielded good results; the second application of the ink remover was required  on only one  of the 48 screens
reclaimed at the facility. During laboratory testing, the second application of the ink remover generally lightened the ink stains,
but did not remove them.

-------
Out
             The adjusted cost per screen for Product System Chi was $3.25 for one facility and $3.89 for the other.  The facility
                 that experienced better performance of this system has a slightly lesser cost per screen.  When compared to the
                   baseline cost of $6.27, switching to System Chi proves to be a  cost-effective choice for either facility.
                Estimated annual savings for one facility could be $3,600, while the facility that experienced better performance
            could save up to $4,500 in one year.

Risk and Exposure

             Negligible concerns for risks to worker health may result from using this ink remover on a daily basis.  This ink
                 remover can cause low inhalation exposures and negligible concerns for risks. Skin contact may lead to high
                   exposures with clear concerns for risks from diethylene glycol  series ethers and possible concerns  for risks of
                reproductive toxicity from N-methylpyrrolidone.

          This emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Negligible concerns for risks to worker health can be expected when this haze remover is used on a daily basis. This
haze remover may pose low inhalation  exposures and  negligible concerns for risks. Skin contact can result in high exposures with
clear concerns for risks from diethylene glycol series ethers and clear concerns for risks of reproductive toxicity from  N-methyl-
pyrrolidone.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be  negligible for all components of this system  if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental regu-
                 lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to  federal environ-
                   mental regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
               statutory requirements.
Chemical
Glycol ethers
CAA
1 J
CAA=Clean Air Act

-------
Product System Delta (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
       VOC: 94%
       Vapor Pressure: <0.l mm Hg

Sodium Periodate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

Same as Ink Remover
       VOC: 94%
       Vapor Pressure: <0.l mm Hg
Performance

              Product System Delta consists of an ink remover and an emulsion remover.  In place of a separate haze remover
                  product, the manufacturer recommended that the ink remover be reapplied to remove haze.  A degreaser
                  accompanied this product system; however, performance testing of this product was not within the scope of
               our project. Product System Delta was demonstrated at two facilities, both of which used UV-cured inks. One
           facility reclaimed 17 screens in a three-week period, while the other facility  reclaimed nearly twice as many screens
       (31) over four weeks. In addition, the system was tested in the laboratory on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
one with a UV-curable ink, and one with a water-based ink).

         The facility reclaiming 17  screens found the performance of the ink remover to be fair; a slight ink residue remained on
approximately one third of the screens after use of the product. It noted that the ink remover required extra effort and  had a
strong smell.  The facility that reclaimed a higher number of screens had better results.  This facility considered the performance
of the ink remover to be very good;  it consistently and efficiently removed the ink from  the screens under most conditions.
During laboratory tests, the ink remover worked best with UV-curable and solvent-based inks, but ink residue remained on the
screens.

         Both facilities reported that the emulsion remover worked very well; each expressed an interest in continuing to use the
product after the demonstrations were complete.  During the laboratory testing, the emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil
on all three screens, leaving no residue  behind. It worked best on the screen with water-based ink.

         Neither facility regularly documented the performance of the ink remover used as a haze remover.  One facility per-
formed the  haze removal step a few  times and found that the haze was not  removed satisfactorily.  The facility that reclaimed a
higher number of screens, however, found that the haze removal step was not required.  During laboratory testing this step com-
pletely removed all ink residue, but  ink stains remained.
                                                  n

-------
Out
     A.
              The adjusted cost per screen for Product System  Delta was $3.28 at the facility that reclaimed the higher number of
                 screens and $7.66 at the other facility. The difference in the cost of using this system at the two facilities may
                   be attributed to a number of factors, including the difference in the number of screens reclaimed over a given
               period of time, differing work practices, and differences in the amount of product applied at each facility. Given
           these calculated costs, switching from the baseline  to Product System Delta would be cost-effective only for the facili-
       ty that performed the greater number of tests, where an estimated annual savings of $4,480 would be attained.  On  the
other hand, making the same switch would  cost the other facility an additional $2,100 per year.

Risk and Exposure

               Low  inhalation exposures may occur when this ink remover is used on a daily basis, although specific concerns for
                  risks could not be quantified. Skin exposures may be moderate, although again specific concerns for risks
                   could not be quantified.

                   This emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Low inhalation exposures can  result from using this haze remover on a daily basis, although specific concerns for risks
could not be quantified.  Skin exposures  may  be moderate, although again specific concerns for risks could not be quantified.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all  components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

               The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental reg-
                  ulation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal envi-
                   ronmental regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
               statutory requirements.
                                              Chemical
CAA
                                   Glycol ethers
CAA=Clean Air Act

-------
Product Jyjtem Eptilon (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                         Ink Remover
                         Emulsion Remover
                         Haze Remover
Cyclohexanone
Propylene glycol series ethers
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Derivatized plant oil
       VOC: 65%
       Vapor Pressure: Unknown

Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Unknown
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Alkali/caustic
Derivatized plant oil
Water
Cyclohexanone
Propylene glycol series ethers
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
       VOC: Unknown
       Vapor Pressure: Unknown
   Performance

            Product System Epsilon consists of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover.  It was demonstrated
                at two facilities, both of which used solvent-based inks. One facility also used UV-curable inks. The types of
                  stencils used by each facility differed, with one facility using a dual-cured emulsion and the other using a
                 direct photo stencil. During the thirty-day demonstration period, one facility reclaimed 16 screens, while the
             other reclaimed three times as many (48).  In the laboratory, the system was tested on three screens (one with a
         solvent-based ink, one with a water-based ink, and one with a UV-curable ink).

          Both facilities reported that the ink remover worked effectively. However, the facility that reclaimed 48 screens found
that it took longer than their standard product to break down the ink.  In contrast, the other facility had very good results with
the ink remover; not only did it remove ink as well as the products the facility currently uses, but less product per screen was
required.  During laboratory-testing, the ink remover dissolved solvent-based and UV-curable inks quickly and easily, leaving lit-
tle or no residue. Removal of water-based inks, however, required greater time and effort.

          The emulsion remover performed very well at both facilities, dissolving the stencil  quickly and easily. The facilities
reported that the performance was even better than their standard products. During laboratory-testing, the emulsion remover
dissolved the stencil, but required  some scrubbing.

-------
          The product applied to the screen for haze removal was a mixture of haze remover and ink remover in 1:4 to 1:1 ratios.
Both facilities thought that the haze remover's performance was acceptable, and in most cases worked as well as their other prod-
ucts.  In the laboratory, the haze remover lightened ink stains on all screens but did not remove them  completely; a light ink
stain was still visible.
Out
              The adjusted cost per screen for Product System Epsilon ranged from $3.08 at the facility that reclaimed a higher
                  number of screens to $5.29 for the other facility.  The difference in costs between facilities is due to differences
                  in the  quantity of product applied, the number of rags used, and the labor time required per screen. The
               baseline cost per screen was $6.27. Upon comparing each facility's calculated cost to the baseline cost, switching
           to System Epsilon would yield savings for both facilities.  Estimated annual savings would range from $1,500 at one
       facility to $4,800 at the facility that reclaimed  a  higher number of screens.

Risk and Exposure

             Possible concerns for risks to worker health may result from using this ink remover on a daily basis.  This ink
                 remover can cause low inhalation exposures and possible concerns for risks of reproductive toxicity from cyclo-
                  hexanone. Skin contact may lead to  moderate exposures and possible  concerns for risks from cyclohexanone,
               benzyl alcohol, and propylene glycol series ethers.

          The emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Negligible concerns for risks to worker health  may be expected when this haze remover is used on a daily basis.  This
haze remover can cause low inhalation exposures and negligible concerns for risks.  Skin contact may result in  moderate expo-
sures and possible concerns for risks from cyclohexanone, benzyl alcohol, and propylene glycol series ethers. Direct skin or eye
contact will result in severe irritation.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible if appropriate personal protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are  subject to federal environmental regu-
                 lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                  mental regulation. The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting  or other
                statutory requirements.
                   Chemical
           (yclohexanone
           Alkali/caustic
           Glycol ethers

CERCDT
   X
   X
RCRAU-litfRCRMt
    X              X
CfflT
                                                  X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; RCRA = Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act: U-list - discarded commercial chemical products, off specification species, container residues, and
spill residues thereof; F-list - hazardous waste from non-specific sources; CAA = Clean Air Act

-------
Product System 6amma (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Propylene glycol series ethers
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Dibasic esters
Fatty alcohol ethers
Derivatized plant oil
       VOC: 40%
       Vapor Pressure: > 10.9 mm Hg

Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: >23.4 mm Hg

Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfonate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: <0.2 mm Hg
Performance

              Product System Gamma consists of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover.  It was demonstrat-
                  ed at two facilities over a four-week period, both of which used only solvent-based inks.  One facility
                  reclaimed 55 screens but used the ink remover on only seven of these screens and the haze remover on only
              three. The other facility reclaimed 54 screens but used the ink and haze removers on only approximately half of
          the screens reclaimed. In addition, the system was laboratory tested on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
       one with a water-based ink, and one with a UV-curable ink).

         Both facilities found that the ink remover left an unacceptable amount of ink on the screen and required greater physi-
cal effort during removal than the products normally used by these facilities.  In addition, the facility that reclaimed 54 screens
reported that this ink remover required much more time to apply. In laboratory tests, the ink remover performed well on the
screens with solvent-based and UV-curable inks.  Heavy scrubbing and a greater amount of product, however, were required to
remove water-based ink.

         Both facilities reported that the emulsion remover worked very well. One facility was able to shorten the period
between the time of application and the rinse stage without compromising product performance. The other facility reported that
it improved the emulsion remover's performance by wetting the screen before applying the product.  Under laboratory conditions,
the emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil with only light scrubbing on all three screens.

-------
          Neither facility found the performance of the haze remover to be acceptable. They both reported that since the product
did not significantly remove haze, they were forced to use their standard haze remover before the screens could be reused.
During laboratory-testing, the haze remover lightened but did not eliminate ink stains.

Out
     A.
              The data for determining cost information is based on a limited number of demonstrations. This limits the useful-
                  ness of the cost information presented for Product System Gamma. The adjusted cost per screen for Product
                  System Gamma ranged from $5.06 at one facility to $5.61 at the other.  Note that these costs  may include
              costs associated with use of the facilities'  usual ink and  haze removers.  Differences in cost may be due primarily
           to differences in the labor used to apply the products and in the amount of product applied at  both facilities.

          When  compared to a baseline cost of $6.27, switching to Product System Gamma would be cost-effective for both facili-
ties. The estimated annual savings would range from $1,000 at one facility to $1,800 at the other.
Risk and Exposure

             Low inhalation exposures may be expected when this ink remover is used on a daily basis, although specific con-
                 cerns for risks could not be quantified.  Skin contact can lead to moderate exposures and clear concerns for
                   risks from diethylene glycol butyl ether.

                   The emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Low inhalation exposures may result from using this haze remover on a daily basis, although specific concerns for risks
could  not be quantified. Skin exposures may be moderate with negligible concerns for risks.  Direct skin or eye contact will result
in severe irritation.
          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

          The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental regula-
              tion.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environmental
                  regulation. The presence of such chemicals  and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other statutory
                  requirements.
Chemical
\lkali/caustic
Sodium hypochlorite
Slycol ethers
CHA
X
X

CERCLA
«
X

(M


X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act;
CAA = Clean Air Act

-------
Product Syrtem Mu (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
d-Limonene
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Derivatized plant oil
       VOC:  50%
       Vapor Pressure: <0.3 mm Hg


Periodic acid
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable


Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfonate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
Performance

              Product System Mu consists of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover.  It was demonstrated at
                 two facilities and in the SPTF laboratory. During the four-week demonstration period, one facility used pri-
                  marily UV-curable inks and reclaimed 18 screens. The other facility used solvent-based  inks and reclaimed 44
              screens.  During laboratory-testing, the system was applied to three screens (one with a solvent-based ink, one
          with a water-based ink, and one with a UV-curable ink).

         The facility that used UV-curable inks reported that the ink remover worked well, but noted that  black UV-cured inks
were more difficult to remove than other UV-cured inks. The other facility reported that the ink remover performance was unac-
ceptable for their solvent-based ink system due to remaining ink residue and a high level of physical effort. During the  laborato-
ry testing, the ink remover dissolved solvent-based and UV-curable inks effectively.  Removal of water-based ink, however,
required heavy scrubbing and additional product.

         The emulsion remover performance was very good at both facilities, with one facility reporting excellent performance.
Emulsion was removed quickly, easily, and completely.  Under laboratory conditions, the emulsion remover easily dissolved the
stencil with only  light scrubbing on all three  screens, leaving no ink or emulsion residue behind. A light to  moderate ink stain
remained, however.

-------
          With respect to haze remover performance, the facility that used UV-curable inks reported that the haze remover
worked better and faster than one of their usual products, but not as well as the haze remover that was used on difficult stains.
The other facility reported that the haze remover did not work at all; for this reason, the facility had to use its standard product
before the screens could be reused.  In laboratory testing, the haze remover lightened, but did  not eliminate, water-based and UV-
curable ink stains. During in-laboratory reclamation of the screen with solvent-based ink, the haze  remover was unsuccessful at
lightening the moderate ink stain.

Out
     ^
              The adjusted cost  per screen for Product System Mu ranged from $4.79 at the facility that used UV-cured inks to
                  $9.33 at the other facility. The difference in costs between facilities is due to differences in the quantity of
                  product used and the labor time required per screen.  The facility with higher costs had a significantly higher
               labor cost per screen. This facility was the one that found the haze remover performance to be unacceptable.
           When compared to the baseline cost of $6.27, switching to System Mu would yield an estimated annual savings of
       $2,200 for the facility that reclaimed fewer screens and had no significant problems with the haze  remover. The other
facility would incur an estimated annual increase of $4,600 by switching to System  Mu.

Risk and  Exposure

             Possible concerns for risks to worker health may exist when this ink remover is used on a daily basis.  This ink
                 remover may pose  low inhalation exposures with possible concerns for risks from d-limonene and possible con-
                  cerns for risks of reproductive toxicity from propylene glycol series ethers.  Skin  contact may result in high
                exposures and possible concerns for risks from d-limonene and propylene glycol series ethers.

          The emulsion  remover  can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Low inhalation exposures may result from using this haze  remover on a daily basis, although specific concerns for risks
could  not be quantified.  Skin exposures can  be moderate with negligible concerns for risks, although direct skin or eye contact
will result in severe irritation.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks can be controlled if appropriate personal protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concerns

             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental  regu-
                 lation. It also  indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                  mental regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
                statutory requirements.
Chemical
Alkali/caustic
Sodium hypochlorite
Glycol ethers
CHA
1 X
X

CERCLA
X
X

CAA


X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act;
CAA =  Clean Air Act

-------
Product tytem Phi (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                         Ink Remover
                         Emulsion Remover
                         Haze Remover
Dibasic esters
       VOC:  Not applicable
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

Sodium periodate
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Other
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: 23.4 mm Hg

N-Methyl pyrrolidone
Dibasic esters
       VOC: Not available
       Vapor Pressure: 0.195 mm Hg
Performance

              Product System Phi consists of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover.  Its performance was
                  demonstrated at two facilities, both of which primarily used solvent-based vinyl inks.  The facilities also tried
                   System Phi on acrylic vinyl, epoxy, and metallic inks. However, while one facility reclaimed 40 screens during
               a four-week period, the other reclaimed only 8 screens over two weeks.  In addition, the system was laboratory-
           tested on two screens (one with a solvent-based ink, and one with a UV-curable ink).  This product was not recom-
       mended for use with water-based inks.

         The facility that reclaimed a higher number of screens noted that while the  ink remover effectively broke down the ink,
it required more effort than the facility's standard ink remover. The other facility reported that the ink remover performance was
inconsistent; it worked well on metallic inks, but it did not remove ink from around the  stencil when using vinyl  ink.  Laboratory
test results indicated that the ink remover dissolved  ink quickly with minimal effort. A fairly high number of rags was required
per screen:  six rags were needed to remove solvent-based ink and five rags to remove UV-curable  ink.

         Overall, the emulsion remover performance was very effective, and it easily removed the stencil with very little scrub-
bing.  Both facilities said that  the Product System Phi emulsion remover, which removed the  emulsion quickly and completely,
performed better than their standard products.  Under laboratory conditions, the emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil
with only light scrubbing on both screens.

         The facility that reclaimed a higher number of screens reported that the haze  remover did not completely remove haze,
but the remaining haze did not affect future print image quality.  The other facility reported  that the  haze remover left a ghost
image; as a result, some screens could not be reused for reverse printing or for printing with transparent inks. Laboratory results
indicated that while the haze remover lightened ink stains, it did not eliminate them on  either screen. The laboratory technician
reported, however, that the haze remover was easy to use and required minimal effort.
                                                   30

-------
Out
     A.
              The adjusted cost per screen for Product System  Phi ranged from $6.10 for the facility that reclaimed the higher
                 number of screens to $7.82 for the other facility.  The difference in costs between facilities is primarily due to
                   differences in the labor time  required per screen. The facility with a higher cost per screen  might have been
               able to reduce labor time per screen had it reclaimed a greater number of screens with System  Phi, thereby
           reducing overall costs. When comparing each  facility's calculated cost to the baseline cost of $6.27, switching to
        System Phi would lead to estimated annual savings of $150 for the facility reclaiming the greater number of screens.
However, the other facility would face an estimated increase in  costs of $2,300.

Risk and Exposure

             Low inhalation  exposures may occur when  this ink remover is used on a daily basis, although specific concerns for
                 risks could  not be quantified.  Skin exposures may be moderate, although again specific concerns for risks could
                   not be quantified.

                   The emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Negligible concerns for risks to worker health  may result from using this haze remover on a daily basis.  This haze
remover may pose low inhalation exposures and  negligible concerns for risks. Skin contact can lead to moderate exposures and
possible risks of reproductive toxicity from N-methylpyrrolidone.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!
             None of the chemicals used in this system are currently subject to federal environmental regulation.

-------
Product System OmicronAE (Method!)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol
       VOC: 30%
       Vapor Pressure: 0.04 mm Hg

Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: 23.4 mm Hg

Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Water
Other
       VOC:  Unknown
       Vapor Pressure: O.I  mm Hg
Performance

              Product System Omicron-AE and Product System Omicron-AF were submitted for demonstration by the same man-
                 ufacturer. The ink and emulsion removers of the two systems are identical, but each has a different haze
                  remover.  Despite the similarity of the two systems, each system was evaluated separately.  A degreaser
              accompanied these product systems; however, performance testing of this product was not within the scope of the
          project.

         Omicron-AE is a water-based system. The performance of Omicron-AE was demonstrated at two  facilities and in the
SPTF laboratory.  Performance results based on a satisfactory level of testing were provided by one facility only. The other facility
reclaimed four screens, but based  on the poor results with the four screens, it withdrew from participation in the project.  Please
refer to the CTSA for further details on the standard work practices at this facility and the results of the limited testing of the
substitute system.

         The participating facility reclaimed 30 screens with solvent-based inks using System Omicron-AE  over a four-week peri-
od. Only seven of the screens, however, were reclaimed with Omicron-AE ink remover and haze remover due to poor performance.
System Omicron-AE was also laboratory-tested on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink, one with a water-based ink, and
one with a UV-curable ink).

         The facility reported that the ink remover performed poorly and required considerably more scrubbing than their usual
product. The ink remover seemed to work better when  used immediately after printing,  but the performance was still not  accept-
able.  During laboratory-testing, however, the ink dissolved well, with little effort required to remove solvent-based and UV-cur-
able inks.  Extra scrubbing was required to remove water-based ink.
                                                  y-

-------
          In general, the facility liked the Product System Omicron-AE emulsion remover better than their usual product. When
thick ink residue was present, however, the facility noted that the emulsion remover was not as effective.  In the laboratory, the
emulsion remover dissolved the stencil effectively on all three screens.  On the screens with solvent-based and UV-curable inks,
moderate scrubbing was required to break up the stencil, and pressure wash was needed to completely remove the stencil.

          The participating facility found the haze remover performance to be unacceptable, noting that there was no apparent
reduction in haze after application of the product. During  laboratory-testing, the haze remover lightened, but did not eliminate,
ink stains on all three screens.
Out
              The adjusted cost per screen for Product System Omicron-AE was estimated to be $10.85 for the participating facil-
                  ity.  This cost is significantly higher than the baseline cost of $6.27. The major cost differences were in the
                   amount of labor used to apply the products and the amount of product used.  By switching to system
               Omicron-AE, the participating facility would experience an estimated annual increase in costs of $6,900.
Risk and Exposure

              Negligible concerns for risks to worker health may exist when this ink remover is used on a daily basis.  This ink
                  remover may pose low inhalation exposures and  negligible concerns for risks. Skin contact may result in mod-
                   erate exposures with clear concerns for risks from diethylene glycol butyl ether and possible concerns for risks
               of reproductive toxicity from diethylene glycol butyl ether during immersion exposures.

          The emulsion remover can  cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Low inhalation exposures may result from using this haze remover on a daily basis, although specific concerns for risks
could  not be quantified. Skin exposures may be moderate, although again specific concerns for risks could not be quantified.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all  components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

              The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental regu-
                  lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                   mental regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
               statutory requirements.
Chemical
Glycol ethers
CAA
1 X
 CAA=Clean Air Act

-------
Product Jyjtem OmicronAF (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol
       VOC: 30%
       Vapor Pressure: 0.04 mm Hg

Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: 23.4 mm Hg

Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Alkali/caustic
Water
       VOC: Unknown
       Vapor Pressure: <0.l mm Hg
Performance

            Product System Omicron-AE and Product System Omicron-AF were submitted for demonstration by the same manu-
                facturer.  The ink and emulsion removers of the two systems are identical, but each has a different haze
                  remover.  Despite the similarity of the two systems, each system was evaluated separately. A degreaser
                accompanied these product systems; however, performance testing of this product was not within the scope of
            our project.

          Product System Omicron-AF is a water-based system.  Its performance was demonstrated at two facilities and in the
SPTF laboratory.  One facility reclaimed 19 screens containing UV-curable inks over a  two-week period; the other facility
reclaimed 32 screens primarily containing solvent-based inks over four weeks.  During laboratory-testing, the system was tested
on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink, one with a water-based ink, and one with a UV-curable ink).

          At the facility that reclaimed UV-curable ink screens, the ink remover removed ink from the mesh satisfactorily. The
facility reported, however, that residue remained in the stencil area on most  of the screens. The other facility reported that the
ink remover performed as well as their standard products.  During laboratory-testing, the ink dissolved well and with moderate
effort on  solvent-based and UV-curable inks. Extra scrubbing, time, and product were required on the screen with the water-
based ink.
         The emulsion remover worked very well at both facilities and in the laboratory. The facilities reported that it removed
the stencil easily and completely.  In the laboratory, with moderate scrubbing and a pressure rinse, the emulsion remover dis-
solved the stencil effectively on all three screens.

         The performance of the Product System Omicron-AF haze remover was not acceptable at either facility. The facility that
reclaimed screens with UV-curable inks reported that the haze remover was not effective in removing any of the haze, despite vig-
                                                   34

-------
orous scrubbing and procedural modifications. A ghost image appeared on subsequent print jobs, which required the printer to
clean the screens again with his standard product.  The other facility had a similar experience: the haze remover left excessive
haze under all conditions, and again, the facility had to apply its standard product.  During laboratory-testing, the haze remover
lightened, but did not eliminate, ink stains on all three screens.  The laboratory technician noted that, after using the haze
remover, there was a small  hole in the screen with solvent-based ink; this hole was not apparent before using the product.
Out
              The adjusted cost per screen of using Product System Omicron-AF was similar at both facilities: $4.45 at the facil-
                  ity using UV-curable inks and $3.89 at the facility using solvent-based inks. These costs are considerably
                  lower than the baseline cost of $6.27.  Both facilities used less labor to apply Product System Omicron-AF
              and less product compared to the baseline scenario.  Switching to System Omicron-AF would result in estimated
           annual savings ranging from $2,700 at one facility to $3,600 at the other.

Risk and Exposure

              Negligible concerns for risks to worker health may be expected when this ink remover is used on a daily basis.
                  This ink remover can result in  low inhalation exposures and negligible concerns for risks.  Skin contact may
                  lead to moderate exposures with clear concerns for risks from diethylene glycol butyl  ether and possible con-
              cerns for risks of reproductive toxicity from diethylene glycol butyl ether during immersion exposures.

          The emulsion remover can cause severe  skin and eye irritation.

          Low inhalation exposures may result from using this haze remover on a daily basis, although specific concerns for risks
could  not be quantified. Skin exposures may be moderate, although again  specific concerns for risks could not be quantified.
Direct skin or eye contact will result in  severe irritation.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if  appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn

Regulatory Concern!

              TThe following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject  to federal environmental reg-
                  ulation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain  chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                  mental  regulation.  The presence of such  chemicals and chemical categories may  trigger reporting or other
              statutory requirements.
Chemical
Alkali/caustic
Glycol ethers
(HA
X

(ERCIA
X

CAA

X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act;
CAA =  Clean Air Act

-------
Product System Zeta (Method i)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Emulsion Remover
                        Haze Remover
Propylene glycol series ethers
       VOC: 100%
       Vapor Pressure: 0.4-10.5 mm Hg

Sodium periodate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: 20 mm Hg

Alkali/caustic
Propylene glycol
Water
       VOC: 100%
       Vapor Pressure: 0.4-10.5 mm Hg
Performance

             Product System Zeta consists of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover.  Its performance was
                 demonstrated to a limited  extent at three facilities, which used solvent-based, UV-curable, and water-based
                  inks.  The facility using all three ink types reclaimed seven screens, while the second and third facilities
               reclaimed four and eight screens, respectively. Only a small number of screens were reclaimed due to busy pro-
            duction schedules and discouraging early results; this prevented the facilities from putting extensive effort into alter-
        ing their application techniques. In addition, the substitute system was laboratory-tested  on three screens (one with a
solvent-based ink, one with a water-based ink, and one with  a UV-curable ink).

          All three facilities found the  performance of the ink remover to  be unsatisfactory. One facility reported that although
the substitute ink remover performed poorly in general, it worked well on two out of seven screens (one with UV-cured ink and
one with water-based ink). In most  cases, the facility had to use its standard ink remover after applying the substitute. A second
facility found that when removing solvent-based inks, the ink remover dried on the screen and, as a result, did not remove the
ink. The same facility reported, however, that the substitute  ink remover was successful in removing UV-curable inks. A third
facility reported that the substitute ink remover had to be applied a number of times, required more scrubbing than  usual, and
required use of the facility's standard product to clean the product satisfactorily.

          During laboratory-testing, the ink  remover did not satisfactorily remove the ink from any of the three screens when
applied  according to the manufacturer's specifications.  The laboratory technician experimented with various application proce-
dures to see whether they would yield better performance, but these efforts were unsuccessful.

          The facilities reclaiming seven and  four screens reported that the emulsion remover did not perform well when they
applied  the diluted quantity recommended by the manufacturer.  When the emulsion concentration was increased, the emulsion
remover performed better at both facilities, but the improvement was not consistent.  The third facility reported the emulsion
remover's  performance as passable, but their standard  product was preferable. This facility reported that the substitute required
extra scrubbing,  even when applied full strength.  Laboratory results indicated that the emulsion remover dissolved the stencil
easily, with only moderate scrubbing required on all three screens.

-------
          All three facilities and the laboratory reported that the haze remover was unsuccessful in removing the haze.  In all
cases, facilities had to use their standard product instead.  Although ink stains remained on the screens at the SPTF laboratory,
SPTF did not believe the stain would affect future print quality and evaluated the product system as acceptable.

Out

            The data for determining cost information is based on a limited number of demonstrations.  This limits the useful-
                ness of the cost information  presented for Product System Zeta.  The adjusted cost per screen for Product System
                  Zeta was $5.39, $6.51, $8.99 for the three facilities.  Differences in cost across facilities may be due  primarily
                 to differences in the labor used to apply the products and  in the amount of product applied at each facility. It
             is possible that at some facilities labor time required per screen  decreases as personnel become more familiar with
         applying the substitute product. It does not  appear that increasing the number of screens reclaimed at each facility
during the demonstrations decreases the cost  per screen, nor would an additional number of demonstrations bring down labor
costs.

          When compared to a baseline cost of $6.27, switching to Product  System Zeta would be cost-effective for only the facili-
ty that reclaimed seven screens; the facility would achieve an estimated annual savings of $1,300.  The  remaining two facilities
would incur additional costs ranging from an  estimated annual increase of $400 at the facility that cleaned four screens to
$4,100 at the remaining facility.

Risk and Exposure

             Possible concerns for risks to worker  health may result from using this ink remover on a daily basis. This ink
                 remover may pose high inhalation exposures and possible concerns for risks of reproductive toxicity from the
                  propylene glycol series ethers.  Skin contact also may pose high  exposures and  possible concerns for  risk from
                the propylene glycol series ethers.

          The emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Negligible concerns for risks to worker health may exist when this haze remover is  used on a daily basis. This haze
remover may pose low inhalation exposures and negligible concerns for risks.  Skin contact  can lead to  moderate exposures and
negligible concerns for risk.  Direct skin or eye contact will result in severe irritation.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all  components of  this system  if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that  are subject to federal environmental  regu-
                 lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                  mental regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
               statutory  requirements.
Chemical
Alkali/caustic
Glycol ethers
CHA
X

CERCLA
X

CAA

X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act;
CAA = Clean Air Act

-------
Product System Omicron (Method j)
Chemical Composition
                        Ink Remover
                        Ink Degradant
                        Screen Degreaser
                        Emulsion Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol
       VOC: 30%
       Vapor Pressure: 0.04 mm Hg

Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol
       VOC: 30%
       Vapor Pressure: 0.04 mm Hg

Isopropanol
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
       VOC: Not available
       Vapor Pressure: Not available

Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: 23.4 mm Hg
Performance
Cost
            Product System Omicron is classified under Method 3 in the CTSA.  Method 3 employs an ink remover, ink
                degradant, screen degreaser, and emulsion remover to reclaim screens. The use of a haze  remover is unneces-
                  sary when Method 3 is used.  Due to constraints on  resources for this project, the effectiveness of Method 3
               could not be demonstrated for this assessment.  The SPTF is familiar with the performance  of Method 3  because
           they teach it as an alternative method of reclamation, and  they should  be contacted for information on how this
        method performs.
            Because the manufacturer of System Omicron supplied a screen degreaser formulation with the product system, this
               system, minus the haze remover, was used as an example system for Method 3. Cost data per screen for using
                  this substitute system were estimated  by using a combination of performance demonstration results for
                Omicron, as well as information gathered by SPTF for the SPTF workshop process.  Assumptions were  made for
            the quantity of product used and the reclamation time required.  According to these estimates, the adjusted cost per
        screen for using this system is $5.57, compared with the baseline cost of $6.27.

-------
Risk and Exposure

             Negligible concerns for risks to worker health may result from using this ink remover on a daily basis.  This haze
                 remover may pose low inhalation  exposures and negligible concerns for risk.  Skin contact can lead to moder-
                  ate exposures with clear concerns for risks from diethylene glycol butyl ether and possible concerns for risks
               of reproductive toxicity from diethylene glycol butyl ether during immersion exposures.

          The emulsion remover can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental regu-
                 lation.  It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                  mental regulation. The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
               statutory requirements.
                                      Chemical
                            Isopropanol
                            Glycol ethers

JAM ft
   X
CAA
SARA 313 = Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Section 313; CAA =  Clean Air Act

-------
Product System Theta (Method 4)
Chemical Composition
                         Ink Remover

                         Emulsion Remover
                         Haze Remover
                        Technology
None

Sodium periodate
Water
       VOC: 0%
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

Cyclohexanone
Furfuryl alcohol
Alkali/caustic
       VOC: Unknown
       Vapor Pressure: Not applicable

High-pressure wash system with a 3,000 psi spray applicator.
Performance

            This substitute system is classified as Method 4 in the CTSA.  This method requires removal of excess ink through the
               action of a high-pressure water blaster and without the  use of a chemical ink remover. Application of the emul-
                  sion remover is followed by rinsing the screen with a high-pressure water blaster. The final steps include
                 application of the haze  remover, followed by another high-pressure rinse.

          The performance of this substitute screen reclamation technology was demonstrated  by SPTF staff at a volunteer facili-
ty, as the necessary equipment was not available in the laboratory. One  manufacturer supplied both the technology and the
reclamation chemicals for emulsion and haze removal.  SPTF tested System Theta on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
one with a UV-curable ink, and one with a water-based ink). Several types of emulsion and haze removers are sold with this tech-
nology, but the performance evaluation of this technology is based only on those chemicals used in the testing.

          In preparing the screen for reclamation, excess ink transferred to the print side of the screen  as it was carded off. The
ink residue on both sides of the screen does not represent typical printing conditions.  Nonetheless, SPTF staff thought this situa-
tion could produce useful results. The situation represented a worst-case scenario since the presence of ink on the print side of
the screen lengthened the wash time required to remove the ink and emulsion. If the system worked under these  circumstances,
SPTF believes that the system will perform as well, if not better in a typical screen print shop.

          On the screens with the solvent-based and water-based inks, the stencil dissolved easily with the application of the
high-pressure water; no scrubbing was needed. On both screens, all of the ink and stencil dissolved after less than four minutes
of washing with the high pressure sprayer. There was no emulsion or ink residue left in the screen, but there were ink stains
remaining on both screens. Application of the haze remover completely eliminated the stain without a waiting period  or pressure
wash.
                                                   40

-------
          Removal of UV-curable ink required some process experimentation.  In most areas of the screen, the stencil dissolved
very easily without any scrubbing.  The haze remover removed all of the ink, leaving a very light stain; however, the emulsion was
still present  in approximately one-third of the blocks.  To remove the emulsion, the emulsion remover was reapplied and allowed
to sit for 20 seconds.  After pressure washing the screen again, the emulsion was completely removed.
Out
     ^
              Cost information on this substitute system was developed based on equipment specifications provided by the man-
                 ufacturer and data collected by SPTF during the facility demonstration. The estimated engineering life of the
                  equipment is ten years. The capital cost of this equipment was amortized over its estimated lifetime, annual-
               ized, added to the recurring operating and maintenance costs, and divided by the number of screens reclaimed
           per year to arrive at the per screen equipment costs.  Costs of using water, wastewater, and  electricity were included
       in the cost estimate for this system. As in all other cost estimations, the cost of a filtration system was not  included.

          The adjusted cost per screen for System Theta was $4.53, considerably lower than the baseline cost of $6.27.  Thus, a
typical screen printing facility, currently  using a baseline system, could achieve an estimated annual savings of $2,600 by switch-
ing to a system that used a high-pressure water blaster.
Risk and Exposure
             Direct skin or eye contact with the emulsion remover will result in severe irritation.
                   Negligible concerns for risks to worker health may exist when this haze remover is used on a daily basis.
               This haze remover may pose low inhalation exposures and negligible concerns for risks.  Skin contact can lead to
           moderate  exposures and possible concerns for risks from cyclohexanone. Direct skin or eye contact will result in
        severe irritation.

          Skin exposures and their associated risks will be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

             The following table indicates those chemicals present in this system that are subject to federal environmental  regu-
                 lation. It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal environ-
                   mental regulation.  The presence of such chemicals and chemical categories may trigger reporting or other
               statutory requirements.
Chemical
Alkali/caustic
(yclohexanone
CHA
X

CERCLA
X
X
RCRAU-litf

1 x
RCRAF-litf

X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; RCRA  = Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act: U-list - discarded commercial chemical products, off specification species, container residues,
and spill residues thereof; F-list - hazardous waste from non-specific sources

-------
Automatic Screen Reclamation Technology
Process Description

         A typical automatic screen washer is a large, fully enclosed metal box into which screens are placed; a pressurized
applicator sprays reclamation chemicals onto the screen. Used solvent is often  recirculated after filtration. No manufacturers of
automatic screen washers chose to participate in the performance demonstration, so information on this technology was limited.
A risk assessment was developed for an automatic screen washing system used by a facility that participated in the performance
demonstration; this particular screen washer only removed  ink. Automatic screen washers that remove  emulsion and haze, as
well as ink, are commercially available.  Experimental parameters for the risk assessment of an automatic screen washing tech-
nology were drawn from the data available from this single site.  Because the manufacturer of the actual ink remover used in the
automatic washer did not participate in the project, mineral spirits and lacquer thinner were instead used as the ink removers to
develop a risk assessment. These two ink removers were also assessed as components of Traditional Systems I and 4, respectively,
in  Methods I and 2 in the CTSA.  The use of lacquer thinner is discussed in Baseline System I and 2 of this brochure.  See the full
CTSA for a more detailed discussion of the  use of automatic screen washers.

Chemical Composition
              See Baseline System I  or 2 for the chemical composition of lacquer thinner used as an ink remover.  The percentage
                 of VOCs in the lacquer thinner and mineral spirits is
Performance
              Due to lack of manufacturer participation, performance demonstrations of automatic screen washers were not
                  undertaken. The size and speed of these systems, however, allow for removal of ink, or complete reclamation,
                  in a very short period of time; most systems can clean a screen in under five minutes. The size of an auto-
               matic screen washer can be tailored to suit the needs of virtually any facility.
Cost
              While the performance of automatic screen washers was not demonstrated, cost estimates were developed with
                 information gathered from manufacturers and printing facilities.  Two different cost estimates were generated
                  to reflect the range of equipment available for automatic screen washers removing ink from screens. One
               estimate was based on a small ink removal unit where screens are loaded and unloaded manually; the price of the
           ink remover was provided by the equipment supplier.  A second estimate was developed for a large capacity unit
       (maximum screen size) with an automated feed system to move screens through separate wash and rinse areas. This esti-
mate was based on data  gathered from equipment purchased second-hand by a facility participating in the performance demon-
stration; it was assumed  that mineral spirits were used in the automatic screen washer.  Due to incomplete equipment informa-
tion, electrical costs were not included in  either of the cost estimates.

-------
          In comparison to the baseline cost of $6.27, it is expected that printers switching to the low-cost automatic screen
washer ($5,000 annually) for ink removal would experience a cost savings of $2.14 per screen, or an estimated annual savings of
$3,200. Printing facilities switching to a high-cost automatic screen washer ($95,000 annually) would experience a cost increase
of $3.87 per screen, or $5,800 per year. Experiences with the cost of these systems will vary from these presented depending on
the  number of screens cleaned.

Risk and Exposure

              Possible concerns for risks to worker health may  occur when  lacquer thinner is used with this automatic screen
                 washer on a daily basis.  This screen washer  may pose high inhalation exposures and possible concerns for
                   risks from toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, and methanol.  Skin contact can lead to high exposures and clear
               concerns for risks from toluene and methyl ethyl ketone.

          Inhalation exposures were reduced by 70% (when compared to the manual system) when mineral spirits were used
with this automatic screen washer on a daily basis, although specific concerns for risks could not be quantified.  Skin contact may
result in moderate  exposures,  although again specific concerns for risks  could not be quantified.

          Skin exposures and  their associated risks will  be negligible for all components of this system if appropriate personal
protective clothing is worn.

Regulatory Concern!

               The following table indicates those chemicals present in  this system that are subject to federal environmental reg-
                   ulation. It also indicates chemical categories which may contain chemicals that are subject to federal envi-
                   ronmental regulation.  The  presence of such chemicals  and chemical categories may trigger reporting or
               other statutory requirements.
Chemical
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-Butyl acetate
Methanol
Toluene
CHA

X

X
CAA
X

X
X
CERCLA
X
X
X
1 X
SARA ft
X

X
X
RCRAU-litf
X

X
X
RCRAF-litf
X


X
CWA = Clean Water Act; CAA =  Clean Air Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act; SARA 313  =  Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Section 313;  RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act:  U-list  - discarded commercial chemical products, off specification species, container residues, and spill residues thereof; F-
list - hazardous waste from non-specific sources

-------
Screen Disposal
          During the course of the assessment of various screen reclamation methods, it was proposed that disposal of imaged
screens, rather than reclamation, might be a feasible alternative.  By disposing of screens, printers might eliminate the high cost
of reclamation chemicals, occupational and population exposure to these chemicals, and labor time associated with screen recla-
mation.  However, they would have to  dispose of more screens, which could be costly if ink and emulsion components were
required  to be disposed of as hazardous waste. In addition, the time involved  in preparing screens for printing would be
increased.  Due  to difficulty in assessing the pollution prevention potential of screen disposal versus screen reclamation, this com-
parison was not undertaken. Claims of screen printing performance improving with repeated  screen use were also not assessed.
Only a cost analysis was undertaken for screen disposal.
Cort
              The cost estimate of screen disposal at a representative facility was developed for comparison to other reclamation
                  methods. A number of assumptions were used to estimate the cost of this substitute method, including:
                   No other changes in operations or equipment were required.
        • Waste screens do not need to be handled as hazardous waste under RCRA (if they were classified as hazardous waste,
      the estimated cost would be much greater).

      The replacement of screens (after reaching the end of the useful life of the mesh) was not considered in the baseline  nor
      in any of the other reclamation methods; it is estimated to be approximately $0.60/screen reclamation.  Consequently, this
      value was deducted from the total cost of this method.

      The average wage rate of screen stretchers ($6.87), which is slightly higher than for screen reclaimers, was used to
      calculate labor costs  for this method.
It should be noted that screen disposal is most cost effective under two circumstances that have not been included for the model
facility's operations:
    (I) when the useful life of a screen is exceeded; and
    (2) when the size of the screen is relatively small.

          Under the assumptions used in the baseline scenario, the total cost per screen of the screen disposal alternative is
$49.43, much  higher than the baseline cost of $6.27. This would lead to an estimated annual loss of almost $65,000 if the aver-
age facility were to fully switch to from reclamation to direct disposal of screens.  Printers should not view this as a final analysis,
however, because the operations of any one facility can be very different from the assumptions used in generating this cost analy-
sis. Based on this analysis, however, screen disposal is not likely to be a  cost-effective option for a  majority of screen printing
facilities.
Risk and Exposure
              There are no dermal or inhalation risks or exposure associated with this method.
                                                    44

-------
Regulatory Concern*
               There are no chemicals in this system for which there are federal environmental regulatory concerns.  However,
                  disposal of the screens may be subject to solid waste regulations.
                                                                                                                                 «

-------
More Information About Evaluation Method!

          This section provides additional details about how the screen reclamation systems were evaluated in the DfE Screen
Printing Project. It includes information about the following evaluation factors: chemical composition, performance, cost, occu-
pational risk and exposure, regulatory concerns, ecological risks, safety issues, and general population risk. Refer to this section
only if you want more technical information about the way the evaluations were conducted.

Chemical Composition

               Each system profile presents information on the chemicals used in the formulation of the screen reclamation sys-
                  tem components, e.g., ink remover, haze  remover, or emulsion remover. In some cases, the specific chemical
                   information was proprietary and the chemical is only identified by a generic chemical class, such as dibasic
               esters. Table 2 lists the chemicals that were considered to be proprietary in the screen reclamation systems and
            the chemical category to which they were assigned. The chemical composition of each system was provided to assist
        in determining the risks and regulations that are applicable for each system; however, no comparisons were  made among
the chemicals in any system and in some cases the exact composition  of the system chemicals was not known.

Performance

                screen reclamation systems were voluntarily donated by suppliers for the DfE Screen  Printing Project perfor-
                 mance demonstrations.  Only those substitute systems that are commercially available and do not contain
                   chlorinated compounds were included in the project.  (Chlorinated compounds are scheduled to  be phased
                out under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments because they contribute to the depletion of the atmospheric
             ozone layer.)  There were no other criteria for including a project in the Project's performance demonstration.

          The Project  partners evaluated performance in two phases.

    •  First, the Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF) used the products under controlled  laboratory conditions.

    •  Second, twenty-three printers from across the United  states volunteered to evaluate the substitute product systems and
      technologies for one month in their shops. The print shops did not know the manufacturer or the brand names of the
       products they evaluated.  Each product was evaluated by at least two  different print shops.  These facilities compared the
       performance of the substitute system to the performance of the systems that they used regularly in their shops.

          In addition to the substitute systems evaluated in the print shops and SPTF laboratory, baseline systems were also iden-
tified.  These baseline systems are  traditional, solvent-based systems.  For this reason, they were not tested in any facilities. The
project partners felt that  most screen  printers would be aware  of their performance characteristics.  The two baseline systems are
presented  in this booklet:  Baseline System I for Method I which has 2 steps - ink removal and emulsion removal; and Baseline
System 2 for Method 2 which has 3 steps - ink removal, emulsion removal, and haze removal.

-------
                                   TaMci (at^orizationofkranltelairationaiaiiialj
                 (togory

                 Alkali/caustic


                 Alkyl benzyl sulfonates
                 *
.romatic solvent naphtha
                 Derivatized plant oil
                  Dibasic esters
Choniab from krcen Rcdamation Ike flitter in Category

Sodium hydroxide
Potassium hydroxide

Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt
Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid

Solvent naphtha (petroleum, light aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum, heavy aromatic

Tall oil, special
Ethoxylated castor oil

Diethyl adipate
Diethyl glutarate
                  Diethyleneglycol series ethers


                  Fatty alcohol ethers


                  Phosphate salt


                  Propyleneglycol series ethers
                              Dimethyl adipate
                              Dimethyl glutarate
                              Dimethyl succinate

                              Diethyleneglycol butyl ether
                              Diethyleneglycol butyl ether acetate

                              Alcohols, (8-Oo, ethoxylated
                              Alcohols, (11-04, ethoxylated

                              Sodium hexametaphosphate
                              Trisodium phosphate

                              Dipropyleneglycol methyl ether
                              Prppylene glycol methyl ether
                              Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
                              Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate
                              Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate
                              Ethoxypropanol
                              Ethoxypropyl acetate
                              Methoxypropanol acetate
Gut
              Each system profile presents information on the costs associated with the substitute systems and technologies.


                   Cost is comprised of several factors. The two most significant are:


                     •The cost of the product(s) in each substitute system (for the average quantity of reclamation product

                      used)


                     •The cost of using each substitute system (e.g., labor hours required to reclaim a screen)


          Facility performance demonstration data for each substitute system were adjusted so that substitute system cost data

would be comparable (I) across facilities and  (2) to the baseline cost scenario.  Participating facilities differed in several aspects,


                                                                      47
                                                                                       «

-------
including types and amounts of inks used, materials printed, size of screens used, number of screens reclaimed daily, and screen
printing methods used.  In particular, cost data for use of the product systems at each facility were affected by the screen size
(i.e., a greater amount of product and/or effort may have been required to clean larger screens) and the number of screens
cleaned during the performance evaluation period (i.e., more screens cleaned with a given amount of a substitute product).
Therefore, data on product usage values, the number of screens cleaned, and the number of rags laundered during the demonstra-
tion period at each participating facility were adjusted to account for these differences.

          There were varying levels of participation in the Project across facilities. For example, some facilities stopped using the
product after cleaning or attempting to clean only a few screens. Varying levels of participation resulted in varying levels of data
across facilities. Thus, the costs of using some  substitute systems were based on very limited data and are subject to a greater
degree of uncertainty. Although this and  other differences between performance evaluations at the participating facilities may
add uncertainty to comparability of cost data, the cost analysis procedure described above minimizes overall uncertainty.  [Note:
the number of screens cleaned with each system is indicated in the performance section of each system profile.]

          Lacking real cost data for the baseline  systems, the project partners developed cost scenarios for these systems. The
baseline cost  scenario assumed that six screens were reclaimed daily and that all screens were approximately 15 square feet in
size.  Adjustments were then made so that comparisons could be made between facilities and the baseline scenarios.

Occupational  Risk and Exposure

              In  choosing any product system  or technology, it is important to consider the health  risks that the system may pose
                 to workers or the environment.  In determining the risk associated with a given chemical or process, we first
                   analyze how hazardous the chemical is and  how likely a person is to be exposed to it.  Hazard is a measure of
                the harmful effects associated with a chemical and the doses or exposure levels that may cause those effects.
             Exposure is a measure of the amount of a given chemical that a worker may come into contact with during a specific
        period of time. In order to determine the  risk associated with a particular chemical or process, it is necessary to exam-
ine both hazard and exposure measurements. Risk is the probability that a harmful event will occur, and it may be expressed in
either quantitative or qualitative terms. The more  hazardous the chemical (assuming the same exposure), the greater the
chances that  it will have a harmful effect  on  human health or the environment.

                                       RBK  = HAZARD + EXPOSURE

          The risk level has been calculated for each system and is presented in the preceding system profiles.  The first sentence
in the Occupational Risk and Exposure Section  indicated  the overall concern for that formulation for inhalation exposure.  The
chemical that is expected to trigger the risk (if identified) is also mentioned.  Dermal exposures are also listed, but in all cases,
they would be negligible if appropriate  protective clothing and equipment is used.  Many of the chemicals used in each system
have shown specific adverse effects in animal studies.  For these  chemicals, we were able to quantify the risks associated with a
specific adverse effect, such as  chronic liver effects or reproductive problems. However, for some chemicals there was insufficient
information available to determine how hazardous  a chemical was.  The risk associated with these chemicals or systems contain-
ing these chemicals was designated as "not quantified."  For those chemicals where risk was not quantified, high exposure levels
would  constitute a reason for concern.

          As  indicated in the system profiles, the presence of strong oxidizers or strong bases in the emulsion  removers for all
product systems,  (except the automatic screen  washer which  did not  use an emulsion remover, and  some of the haze removers in
Method 2)  pose a clear risk of skin and  eye irritation for workers if proper protective equipment clothing is not worn.  In all sys-
tems, the risk posed by inhalation exposure to the emulsion  remover was insignificant.

-------



   Risk Categories:

      A "clear" risk indicates an inadequate margin-of-safety for the chemical in question under most exposure conditions.  [Note: the term
   "margin-of-safety" is used to describe the difference between the amount of a chemical known to cause an advene effect (e.g., i mg/kg of
   body weight) and the amount of a chemical to which a worker is likely to be exposed (e.g., 100 mg/kg of body weight). Using this example
   the margin-of-safety would  be o.oi]

      A "possible" risk indicates that the margin-of-safety is slightly less than desirable and may result in advene effects under some exposure
   conditions; for example, a margin-of-safety of o.i on.

      A "negligible" risk indicates that an adequate margin-of-safety exists for the chemicals in question under expected conditions of use; for
   example, a margin-of-safety of 10 or 100 which would indicate that the amount to which the worker is exposed is substantially less (e.g.,
   i mg/kg of body weight) than the amount that is known to cause an advene effect (e.g., 100 mg/kg of body weight).

      A "not quantified" risk indicates that for the chemicals in question, there are insufficient data from animal  or human studies to quantify
   the risk. Although the exposure potential may be well characterized, the precise risk associated with any exposure cannot be determined.
Regulatory Concern!

              There are several federal environmental regulations that are of concern to screen printers. The presence of the
                  chemicals in Table 3 may trigger reporting requirements or other considerations for the storage or disposal of
                    spent system product containers, cleaning rags, and the chemicals themselves.  The table below indicates the
                 chemicals that may be contained in any of the  substitute system or baseline systems and the federal regulations
            that specifically include them. Some of the provisions of each environmental regulation are presented after the
        table. It should be  noted that the descriptions of each  regulation are not comprehensive, and printers are urged to
familiarize themselves with all applicable regulations.  The EPA, SGIA or local environmental authorities should be consulted for
specific compliance information.

Clean Water Act (CWA)

          The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law governing water pollution control. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) designates hazardous substances under the Clean Water Act, and  establishes the Importable Quantity (RQ)
for each substance.  When an amount equal to or in excess of the RQ is discharged, the facility must provide notice to the federal
government of the discharge, except when the facility discharges the substance under an National Permit Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit or a Part 404 Wetlands (dredge and fill) Permit, or to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
Facilities in the industrial category of Printing and Publishing and/or in  Photographic Equipment and Supplies may need to test
for all 126 priority pollutants listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations  (CFR)  122 Appendix D, which  includes dichloromethane,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, and toluene.
                                                                     41

-------
                   Table;.  Screen Reclamation Chemicals Which Trigger Federal Environmental Regulation}*
WA
kl
           Chemical


Acetone
Butylacetate
(yclohexanone
Dichloromethane
Ethyl acetate
Glycol ethers
Isopropanol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sul-
fonic acid
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Triethanol amine salt, dodecyl ben-
zene sulfonic acid
i,i,4-Trimethylbenzene
Trisodium phosphate
Toluene
Xylene
    (HA
  Reportable
Quantity (Ibs)
    S,ooo
                                                                          (HA
                                                                         Priority
                                                                        Pollutant
    1,000
    S,ooo
    1,000
    100
    1,000

    1,000


    S,ooo
    1,000
    1,000
                                                                                                 (AA           (ER(LA
                                                                                               Hazardous        Reportable
                                                                                              Air Pollutant      Quantity (Ibs)
                                                                                                                 5,ooo
                                                                                                                 5,ooo
                                                                                                                 5,ooo
                                                                                                                 1,000
                                                                                                                 5,ooo

                                                                                                          5,ooo
                                                                                                          5,ooo
                                                                                                          1,000
                                                                                                          5,ooo
                                                                                                          1,000
                                                                                                           100
                                                                                                          1,000

                                                                                                          1,000
                                                                                                          1,000


                                                                                                          5,000
                                                                                                          1,000
                                                                                                          1,000
SARA™          R(RA
  (TRlJ          Hazardous
                Waste (ode
                                                                                      Uooi
                                                                                      "051
                                                                                      Uo8o
                                                                                      Dm
 * See following pages for a description of each acronym and regulation.
 ** In addition to being listed as a U waste, methyl ethyl ketone also exhibits a characteristic of toxicity which causes it to be
 considered hazardous waste.

 Clean Air Act (CM)

          The Clean Air Act (CAA) sets the framework for air pollution control. Part 112 of the Clean Air Act establishes require-
 ments that directly restrict the emission of 189 hazardous air pollutants which include several screen reclamation chemicals. The
 EPA is authorized to establish  Maximum Achievable Control  Technology (MACT) standards for source categories that emit at least
                                                       jo

-------
one of the pollutants on the list; however, at present, there is no MACT standard for the commercial screen printing industry.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CEKCLA)

          CERCLA is the Act that created the Superfund and set up a variety of mechanisms to address risks caused by hazardous
substance releases. Substances deemed  hazardous by CERCLA are listed in 40 CFR 302.4.  Based on criteria that relate to the pos-
sibility of harm associated with the release of each substance, CERCLA assigns a reportable quantity (RQ) of up to 5000 pounds.
Any person in charge of a facility must immediately  notify the National Response Center as soon as a person has knowledge  of a
release (within a 24-hour period) of an  amount of a hazardous substance that is equal to or greater than its RQ.1

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA, Section 313)

          CERCLA was enacted in 1980 and was amended in  1986 by Title I of SARA.  Under SARA 313, a facility that has more
than 10 employees and that manufactures, processes or otherwise uses more than 10,000 or 25,000 pounds per year of any  toxic
chemical listed in 40 CFR 372.65 must file a toxic chemical release inventory (TRI) reporting form  covering releases of these toxic
chemicals with the EPA and  a State agency. The threshold for reporting releases is 10,000 or 25,000 pounds, depending on how
the chemical is used.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

          One purpose of RCRA is to set up a cradle-to-grave system for tracking and  regulating hazardous waste. Assuming the
material is a solid waste, the first evaluation to be made is whether it is also considered a hazardous waste. The waste generator
has the  responsibility for determining whether a waste is hazardous and what classification, if any, may apply to the waste.
Wastes can be classified as hazardous either because they are listed by EPA through regulation and appear in the 40 CFR Part  261
or because they exhibit certain  characteristics. Listed wastes are specifically named, e.g., discarded commercial toluene, spent
non-halogenated solvents. Characteristic wastes are  defined as hazardous if they  "fail" a characteristic test, such as the RCRA test
for ignitability.  There are four  separate lists of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.  If any of the wastes from a printing facility is on
any of these lists, the facility is subject to regulation under RCRA.
             Please contact your local environmental authorities, the U.J. EPA, or the }GIA for information on
             reporting requirements and other compliance concerns regarding the screen printing industry.
Ecological Risks

          Ecological risks are those effects that may result from possible releases of screen reclamation product systems.  The
effects result primarily from releases of the chemicals to air, to land including landfills, and to water, including releases via sewers
to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs).  The greatest potential for environmental releases from the screen cleaning process
occurs if spent chemicals are poured  down drains or vaporize into the printing shop air.  However, other releases may occur if
products are stored in open containers (volatilization to air), during transfer and sampling operations (spills and volatilization),
and from storage and disposal of waste rags. Releases to water may occur at several points during screen cleaning -  direct
spills, product poured down drains, or laundering rags containing residues of the product.  If the rags are not recycled by laun-
' The national toll-free number for the National Response Center is (800)-424-8802; in Washington, D.C., call (202)-426-2675.

-------
dering but are disposed of directly as waste, the chemicals in the rag are assumed to be released to landfills.  Releases to land
may also occur as a result of the disposal of used product containers in landfills.

         Only the risks posed by the screen  reclamation product systems to aquatic organisms were addressed by the CTSA.
Ecological risks to terrestrial organisms and plants, other than algae, were not assessed due to the lack of ecotoxicological data.
None of the product systems presented in this document are expected to pose any danger to aquatic organisms, even when the
releases from several or all of the shops in an area are combined.

Safety  \\\m

         Although  risk and exposure potentials vary between systems, the safety measures that can be used to reduce these risks
and exposures are virtually the same for most of the systems.  The exposure and subsequent risk posed by the chemicals used in
the screen reclamation systems may be minimized by the use of appropriate  protective equipment and  clothing in the workplace.
Protective clothing includes the  use of safety  glasses (goggles), face  shields, gloves, aprons, or more elaborate suiting, to protect
eyes, skin and clothing from splashes of the chemicals during cleaning and chemical transfer operations. In addition,  proper ven-
tilation will also  minimize inhalation exposure and  prevent workers  from breathing vapors in excess of the OSHA permissible
exposure limits (PELs) from screen  reclamation systems that contain chemicals such as acetone, solvent naphtha, cyclohexanone,
xylene, mineral spirits, and dust. If the concentrations of the OSHA regulated chemicals exceed their designated PELs, a chemical
cartridge respirator should be worn.

         Because many of the chemicals used in these screen reclamation systems are flammable, they should be stored in a
tightly closed container in an appropriate flammable liquid storage  cabinet when not in use. Some of the chemicals, such as sodi-
um hypochlorite  and sodium periodate, are corrosive and/or strong  oxidizing agents and should be stored away from moisture,
heat, and light; however, if kept in tightly closed containers, these chemicals can usually be stored in a general chemical storage
area. Of course, as will all chemical products, these systems should  be treated with caution and good safety practices should be
employed.

General Population  Iftta

         General population risks were evaluated for people who are not directly involved in the screen  printing process but may
be exposed to the screen reclamation chemicals. Exposure would occur primarily from breathing contaminated air or drinking
contaminated water. The exposed population  includes people living  in the surrounding community, local  businesses, schools, etc.
Based on the releases predicted  for the screen reclamation systems from a single printing facility and the environmental fate (i.e.,
persistence and degradation  of a chemical), it was determined that the health risks to the general population from both air and
water exposure are very low for the ink removers, emulsion removers, and  haze  removers for all of the product systems evaluated
even when aggregate exposures  from several  print shops in an area are considered. Risks based on releases from all of the print-
ing facilities in an area were not determined for the substitute screen reclamation systems because the number of facilities that
may use a particular system could not be estimated.

-------