EPA/600/R-94/157
                                                    January 1994
DEVELOPMENT OF A POLLUTION PREVENTION FACTORS
 METHODOLOGY BASED ON LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT:
         LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING CASE STUDY
                            by
           DA Tolle, BW Vigon, JR Becker, and MA Salem
                          Battelle
                    Columbus, Ohio 43201
                 EPA Contract No. 68-CO-0003
                    Work Assignment 3-47
                       Project Officer

                      Mary Ann Curran
               Pollution Prevention Research Branch
              Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
                    Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
         RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
          OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
                                            Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                          DISCLAIMER


      The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-CO-0003 to Battelle.  It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review, and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
                                                 11

-------
                                             FOREWORD
       Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices frequently
 carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten both public
 health and the environment.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
 protecting the Nation's land,  air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
 Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities
 and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform
 research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.

       The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and managing
 research, development, and demonstration programs.  These provide an authoritative defensible engineering
 basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water,
 wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-related activities.  This
 publication is one  of the products of that research and provides a vital communication link between
 researchers and users.

       This report describes a preliminary pollution prevention (P2) factors methodology which was
 developed using a  streamlined life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The lithographic printing industry was
 selected as the test industry.  Two P2 activities associated with lithographic printing were selected for P2
 factor calculation.  These two activities were solvent substitution in blanket and press wash and waterless
 versus conventional dampening fountain system printing.  Individual criterion scores and the total of all
 criteria scores were determined for  impacts occurring both before and after implementation of the P2
 activity. The P2 factor was determined to be the ratio obtained by dividing the total score after P2
implementation by the total score before P2 implementation, with a score higher than 1.0 indicating a
reduction in environmental impacts. The results of applying the preliminary methodology to the two selected
pollution prevention activities to identify reduced or increased environmental impacts are presented in the
report.
                                     E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
                                Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
                                                 111

-------
                                            ABSTRACT                              :

                                                                                     1  «
      A preliminary pollution prevention (P2) factors methodology was developed using a streamlined life-
cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The lithographic printing industry was selected as the test industry due to
the willingness of the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) and seven of their member companies to
provide data, as well as the availability of published information on a wide variety of P2 activities that have
been undertaken by this industry. Scoring criteria were developed with five levels that indicate decreasing
environmental impact by the numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, with the number 9 indicating the least environmental
impact. Criteria for a given P2 activity were selected from a master list of possible criteria by using
stressor/impact chains to indicate the environmental impact areas where a change is expected due to
implementation of the P2 activity.  A good understanding of LCA and environmental impact assessment, as
well as an understanding of the industry and P2 activities under evaluation, are very important in selecting
the appropriate criteria for scoring.

       Two P2 activities associated with lithographic printing were selected for P2 factor calculation.  These
two activities were solvent substitution in blanket and press wash and waterless versus conventional
dampening fountain system printing. Individual criterion scores and the total of all criteria scores were
determined for impacts occurring both before and after implementation of the P2 activity. Each of the
criteria was given equal weight in calculating the total score. The P2 factor was determined to be the ratio
obtained by dividing the total score after P2 implementation by the total score before P2 implementation,
with a score higher  than 1.0 indicating a reduction in environmental impacts.  However, improvement in one
or more individual criteria should also be considered when selecting a P2 activity, even if the overall P2
factor score does not show a dramatic improvement.

       It should be stressed that the preliminary P2 factors methodology described in this report still requires
more development before it can be used as an accurate  screening tool to provide direction in selecting P2
activities that provide the most environmental improvement. Therefore, the P2 factor numbers should only
be used  as an indicator of the general degree of environmental improvement for the entire life-cycle that has
occurred, or might be expected to occur, as a result of implementing a particular P2 activity.

       The methodology permitted calculating and comparing P2 factors for individual companies and
averages for multiple companies.  The accuracy of the P2 factor depends on better data collection than many
companies have historically done, since most companies focus their data collection connected with
implementing a P2 activity on cost savings and not on data needed to score environmental criteria.  Potential
problems with the methodology that can be resolved with additional testing include evaluation of the impact
 on the P2 score due to implementation of more than one P2 activity at the same time, and addition of
 criteria that give credit for reduction in the quantity of hazardous materials (e.g., solvents) used. Additional
 testing is also needed to see if the P2 factors methodology is applicable to other industries and to evaluate
how much improvement in the P2 factor is necessary to make implementation of the new activity worthwhile
 from an environmental impact reduction standpoint.

       This report was submitted in fulfillment of contract 68-CO-0003 by Battelle under the sponsorship of
 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from July 1993 to December 1993,
 and work was completed as of January 1994.
                                                  IV

-------
                                            CONTENTS
                                                                                              Page
 Disclaimer	                      y
 Foreword	         ]	-^
 Abstract	                    -y
 Figures	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	      vi
 Tables	' '      ^
 Acknowledgements	                         ^

       1.  Introduction and Overview	          i
             P2 Factors Definition	-_  ^
             Life-Cycle Assessment	•     i
             EPA's Life-Cycle Assessment Research Program	  2

       2.  Preliminary P2 Factors Framework  	  3
             Potential Users of P2 Factors	                3
             Limitations of the P2 Factors Methodology	  3
             Criteria Selection	  3
             Criteria Selection for Industry-Average or
                   Site-Specific P2 Calculation	  4

       3.  Evaluation of Preliminary P2 Factors Methodology
             Using Lithographic Printing	  6
             Selection of Industry and P2 Activities for Case Study	  6
             Selection of Scoring Criteria for Specific
                   P2 Activities	       g
             Petrochemical Classifications	         15
             Solvent Substitution in Blanket or Press Wash	 15
                   John Roberts Company	19
                   Impressions, Inc	 19
                   Intelligencer Printing Company	22
                   P2 Factor Average for Three Printers 	22
             Waterless versus  Conventional Printing	    22
                   Interpretation of the Results	,         26
References
                                                                                                27

-------
                                             FIGURES
                                                                                              Page
Figure 1.     Stressor/Lnpact Diagram for Solvent Substitution
                in Blanket or Press Wash	
Figure 2.     Stressor/Impact Diagram for Waterless Plates Versus Conventional
                Plates for Printing and Aluminum Plate Recycling  	
Figure 3.     Ozone Non-Attainment Classifications for the United States
                (Thompson Publishing Group, Inc., 1993)	
Figure 4.     Ozone Non-Attainment Classifications for the Northeastern U.S.
                Ozone Transport Region (Thompson Publishing Group, Inc., 1993)
 7

 8

14

15
                                             TABLES
Table 1.     List of Potential Scoring Criteria for Determining P2 Factors,
                 with Relevant Life-Cycle Stage Indicated by an "X".	
Table 2.     Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Ranges for Calculation of P2
                 Factors for Two P2 Activities Used by Lithographic Printers
Table 3.     Determination of Energy Use, Air Emissions, and Waterborne
                 Effluent Criteria Scores for Manufacture of Petrochemicals ,
                 in Classification Categories	
Table 4.     Definitions of Petrochemical Classification Categories Used
                 in Table 3	
Table 5.     Criteria Scores for Individual Solvents Used in Press or
                 Blanket Wash Mixtures or Dampening Fountain Solutions  	
Table 6.     Combined Solvent Mixture Scores Based on Percent Composition
                 of Individual Chemicals	
Table 7.     Scoring Criteria Selected for P2 Factor Calculation Due to
                 Switching from Conventional Dampening System to Waterless
                 Printing Plates	
Table 8.     Scores for Individual Criteria and Combined Scores for Conventional
                 Versus Waterless Sheetfed Printing Systems	
 5

 9


17

18

20

21


24

25
                                                 VI

-------
                                     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


       Battelle gratefully acknowledges the assistance of members of the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
(GATF) and Toray Corporation. Gary Jones, Manager, Office of Environmental Information at GATF,
assisted in identifying cooperating printing companies and supplied comments on the impact/stressor
diagrams for lithographic printing pollution prevention activities.  Individual company data on pollution
prevention activities was supplied through the assistance of the following employees who work at the
lithographic printing companies indicated:  David Hewitt, Dartmouth Printing; Jeff Adrian, The John Roberts
Company; Kathleen Winters, Mack Printing Group; Bob Bade, Impressions, Inc.; Walter Bowles, James
River Corporation; Bill Spencer, Intelligencer Printing Company; and Rob Sternau and Kevin Green,
Merchants Press.  John O'Rourke of the Toray Corporation provided the results of a survey of nine printers
that switched from conventional to waterless printing.

       Battelle also acknowledges the support and encouragement of the U.S. EPA Project Officer, Mary
Ann Curran. Two Battelle staff, Jody A. Jones and Kenneth D. Pugsley, assisted with the data collection by
visiting the printing facilities.
                                               vu

-------

-------
                                            SECTION 1

                                 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
P2 FACTORS DEFINITION

       The basis for this Work Assignment is the idea that the Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach can
be used for the development of pollution prevention (P2) factors.  A P2 factor is defined as a numerical or
semi-quantitative ratio between alternative source reduction activities which indicates the magnitude of the
resulting environmental effects.  This methodology does not require conducting a "full LCA" which accounts
for all emissions associated with energy use, resource extraction and environmental releases across the life-
cycle system. It is anticipated that this type  of an approach would require excessive effort and cost, resulting
in the development of very few P2 factors. Therefore, the goal of this task is to develop a simplified LCA
methodology involving a mix of life-cycle inventory and impact assessment scoring criteria that can be used to
screen candidate P2 activities.

LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT

       LCA is a systematic method for identifying, evaluating, and minimizing the environmental
consequences of resource usage and environmental releases associated with a product, process, or package.
LCA takes a comprehensive approach by analyzing the entire life cycle, which includes the following four
stages:  raw materials acquisition, manufacturing, use/reuse/maintenance, and recycle/waste management
(U.S.  EPA, 1993). LCA has traditionally been used by industry to guide internal decision-making on product
and process  changes..                                                              '

A complete LCA  consists of several interrelated phases.

       1)     Goal Definition and Scoping - goal definition identifies the purpose for a particular LCA and
             its intended uses.  Scoping defines the boundaries, assumptions, and limitations for a specific
             LCA (Fava et al., 1993).

       2)     Inventory Analysis - a technical, data-driven process of quantifying energy and raw material
             requirements, atmospheric emissions, water effluents, and solid waste for the entire life cycle
             of a product, process, or package, including all four of the life-cycle stages listed above.

       3)     Impact Assessment - a technical, quantitative, and/or qualitative process of characterizing and
             assessing the effects Of the resource requirements and environmental loadings identified in the
             inventory component.  The assessment should address ecological and human health impacts, as
             well as resource depletion.

       4)     Improvement Assessment - a systematic evaluation of the needs and  opportunities to  reduce
             environmental burdens associated with energy, raw materials  use, and waste emissions
             throughout the life cycle of a product, process, or  package (Fava et al., 1993; U.S. EPA, 1993).

       The LCA methodology can provide valuable information to effect environmental improvements.
Implementation of opportunities to reduce burdens to the environment can occur during any of the  three
components  of LCA. For example, the inventory component alone may be used to show where an input or
output is highest in a given process and, therefore, direct opportunities for reducing emissions, energy
consumption, and material use.  The impact assessment attempts to use information on environmental
effects, moving beyond the numerical quantification of inputs and outputs of the inventory data.

-------
Improvement analysis, though not well-developed from a methodological standpoint, provides information
which helps ensure that environmental benefits are optimized and adverse impacts to human health and the
environment are not created as improvement opportunities are implemented.

EPA'S LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM                             |

      The P2 Factors research project is one of several life-cycle related projects being conducted under the
auspices of the Life-Cycle Assessment Research Program. This program was established in 1990 by the
EPA's Pollution Prevention Research Branch (PPRB) in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Through the LCA Research
Program, PPRB is investigating LCA-related issues through a series of case studies on various products,
processes, and activities. The results of these studies will be used to advance current understanding of the
methodology and encourage wider adoption of the life-cycle concept by industry and government. In 1993,
PPRB published a guidance manual on LCA, entitled "Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and
Principles" (EPA/600/R-92/245).  The procedural guidance described hi the manual is being u$ed to conduct
demonstrations  to measure the effectiveness and utility of the LCA manual. Life-cycle inventory and impact
assessment methodology will continue to develop as PPRB conducts real-world applications in close
cooperation with industry, academia, and other federal agencies.                           ;

      In a related field, PPRB is working with universities and other federal agencies, including the
Departments of Defense and Energy, to identify opportunities for product and process re-design through life-
cycle assessments.  A series of life-cycle design demonstrations is being conducted with industry  and
government partners.                                                                  ;

      PPRB continues to investigate life-cycle assessment methodology (inventory, impact assessment, and
improvements analysis) and its many applications in order to provide a wide audience with the necessary
tools and data that are needed to evaluate the environmental impacts of products, processes and activities
from cradle to grave so that risks to human health and the environment can be identified and minimized or
eliminated.

-------
 SECTION 2
                             PRELIMINARY P2 FACTORS FRAMEWORK
       A preliminary P2 factors methodology has been developed that accommodates calculation of both an
 industry average for an entire industry and a site-specific value for an individual company, in order to
 determine which P2 activities result in the greatest environmental improvement.  This section describes
 potential P2 factors users and limitations of the method. Section 3 demonstrates how the calculations would
 be used for a specific industry (lithographic printing).

 POTENTIAL USERS OF P2 FACTORS

       It is expected that the users of this P2 factors methodology will include both industry and government.
 The method can be used by an entire industry, or a single company in that industry, to identify which P2
 activities result in the greatest overall environmental improvement. This information can be used along with
 other factors, such as cost, manufacturability, and performance, to choose among similar P2 alternatives.  It
 can also be used by government agencies to justify policy decisions regarding preferred P2 activities.

 LIMITATIONS OF THE P2 FACTORS METHODOLOGY

       P2 factors are designed to quantify the environmental improvement in the form of a ratio, where  the
 denominator is the  summed score for criteria before application of a specific P2 activity, and the numerator
 is the summed score for the same criteria after implementation of that P2 activity. A P2 factor calculated for
 a specific P2 activity hi a given industry can be compared on a relative basis with other P2 factors calculated
 for the same industry to see which activity provides the greatest environmental improvement. However, a P2
 factor should not be used to claim that a specific alternative is good or bad for the environment. Each factor
 is only scored for selected criteria within certain life-cycle stages that are expected to be effected by the
 implementation of the P2 activity. P2 factors are not based on all activities and do not represent all possible
 impacts in all life-cycle stages, and thus do not represent a full LCA.

       It should be  stressed that this preliminary P2 factors methodology is still being developed as a
 screening tool to provide direction in selecting P2 activities that provide the most environmental
 improvement. Therefore, the P2 factor should only be used as an indicator of the general degree of
 environmental improvement for the entire life-cycle that has occurred, or might be expected to occur, as  a
 result of implementing a particular P2 activity. At this point in development of the methodology, sensitivity
 analysis has not been calculated for each factor.  That is to say, hi comparing two P2 factors we need to
 determine how much of a difference is needed between the factors in order to be able to say that one is
 clearly superior.  For example, if a factor of 1.01 is compared to a factor of 1.05 and each is described as
±0.5  through sensitivity  analysis, then these factors would be essentially equivalent.

 CRITERIA SELECTION

      The first step in developing P2 factors is to identify which criteria are likely to change as a result of
 implementing a P2 activity.  This is accomplished with the help of stressor/impact chains as discussed in the
 impact framework document prepared by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Fava et
 al., 1992). The impact/stressor concept has also been developed by The Scientific Consulting Group,  Inc.
 (1993) for the Environmental Resource Guide (ERG) under a contract with the American Institute of
Architects (AIA) and with cooperative funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
ERG  constructs general  materials flow diagrams, which focus on the most important environmental
considerations at each stage of the life cycle and  connects these with one or more impacts that could occur.

-------
Thus, the ERG concentrates on the elements that appear to be most significant in terms of their volume,
toxicity, or potential environmental damage.

      As defined by SETAC (Fava et al., 1993), stressors are conditions that may lead to human health or
ecological impairment or to resource depletion.  Stressor/impact chains can be developed by considering the
energy, water, and raw material inputs to life-cycle stage, as well as the air, water and solid waste emission,
outputs from each life-cycle stage.  The inputs and outputs can then be compared against lists of potential
impacts (e.g., Fava et al., 1993 and Heijungs et al., 1992), in order to develop stressor/impact chains.  The
development of stressor/impact chains prior to calculating P2 factors is designed to focus the P2 evaluation
only on those stressors and associated impacts that are expected to change in one or more life-cycle stages as
a result of implementation of a P2 activity.  Development of the stressor/impact chains and selection of the
impact criteria for analysis should be done by someone who is teamed in life-cycle or impact assessment and
who has a reasonably good understanding of the industry and P2 activities under evaluation.

CRITERIA SELECTION FOR INDUSTRY-AVERAGE
OR SITE-SPECIFIC P2 CALCULATION

       Depending on whether the P2 factors are going to be used for making general recommendations
applicable to an entire industry or whether the use of the P2 factors is specific to a single company at a
single location (site-specific), the criteria selected for determining the P2 factor may be slightly different.
Table 1 lists the criteria that may be selected to develop industry-average or site-specific P2 factors for any
industry. The life-cycle stages where these criteria may be relevant are indicated by an "x".  However, during
the calculation of  a specific P2 factor for a particular industry, only a subset of the criteria will be relevant.
Furthermore, the  stressor/impact chains discussed above may indicate that significant changes resulting from
implementation of a P2 activity are only likely to occur during selected stages for a certain criterion.  In
addition, some criteria are relevant from a industry-average standpoint (i.e., when the entire industry is
evaluated), and other criteria may only be appropriate when the P2 factor is determined from a site-specific
standpoint (i.e., a single company at  one location).

-------
             Table 1.  List of Potential Scoring Criteria for Determining P2 Factors,
                      with Relevant Life-Cycle Stage Indicated by an "X".
SCORING CRITERIA
Habitat Alteration
Industrial Accidents
Resource Renewability
Energy Use
Net Water Consumption
Preconsumer Waste Recycle Percent
Airborne Emissions
Waterborne Effluents
Solid Waste Generation Rate
Recycle Content
Source Reduction Potential
Product Reuse
Photochemical Oxidant Creation
Potential (POCP)
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Surrogate for Energy/Emissions to
Transport Materials to Recycler
Recyclability Potential (Postconsumer)
Product Disassembly Potential
Waste-to Energy Value
Material Persistence
Toxic Material Mobility after Disposal
Toxic Content
Inhalation Toxicity
Landfill Leachate (Aquatic) Toxicity
Incineration Ash Residue
RMA
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X




X
X
X










MAN^

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X





X
X


U/R/M



X
X

X
X




X
X
X
X









R/WM(d>



X
X

X
X




X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RMA = Raw Material Acquisition
U/R/M = Use Reuse and Maintenance
^  MAN = Manufacturing
(d)  R/WM = Recycle/Waste Management

-------
                                           SECTION 3

                 EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY P2 FACTORS METHODOLOGY
                                USING LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
SELECTION OF INDUSTRY AND P2 ACTIVITIES FOR CASE STUDY

      In order to demonstrate the use of this preliminary framework for developing P2 factors, the
lithographic printing industry has been selected for the first case study. This decision was based in part on
the willingness of the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) and seven of their member companies to
provide data.  Selection of the printing industry as the first case study was also based on the availability of
published information on a wide variety of P2 activities that have been undertaken by this industry.

      Many different P2 activities have been implemented by one or more of the seven lithographic printers
that agreed to provide information for this project. Two P2 activities, solvent substitution for blanket or
press wash (Figure 1) and use of waterless versus conventional printing (Figure 2), were selected for more
detailed analysis, because data needed for analysis were readily available, and the criteria used for evaluation
were expected to be different.  Thus, criteria for the two P2 activities on solvent substitution in blanket and
press wash and waterless versus conventional printing were scored and the P2 factors were calculated.,

SELECTION OF SCORING CRITERIA FOR SPECIFIC P2 ACTIVITIES

      Based  on  the stressor/impact chains shown in Figures 1 and 2, 11 scoring criteria were selected in
three life-cycle stages (Table 2) using the process described in Section 2.  These criteria were selected from
the larger list of scoring criteria hi Table 1, because these specific stressors were expected to change from
the conditions before versus after implementation of the two P2 activities. In addition, a twelfth scoring
criterion is available as  a fall-back option for scoring stressors that can not be readily quantified with
available data. Some criteria, such as global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential (ODP),
and photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP) were applied to printing, but not to manufacture  of
petrochemicals. These potentially applicable criteria were not scored for petrochemical manufacture, in
order to keep the process as simple as possible, and because existing data on petrochemical manufacture do
not indicate which emissions result from manufacture of individual chemicals. If refinements in the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) request information on emissions of chemicals with ODP, GWP, or
POCP, these criteria can be (and should be) included later.

-------
 w
 J
 s
 (4
 2
•a
 §
 W

 K
 00

-------
I til

-------
             Table 2. Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Ranges for Calculation of P2 Factors
                          for Two P2 Activities Used by Lithographic Printers
                              RAW MATERIAL ACQUISITION STAGE
Habitat Alteration
        9
        7

        5
        3
        1
Criteria Ranges for
Habitat Alteration

Few acres altered; habitat recovery <5 years (e.g., natural gas or oil extraction)
Moderate number of acres altered; recovery 5-25 years (e.g., temperate forestry,
underground mining)
Moderate number of acres altered; recovery 25-100 years (e.g., tropical forestry)
Many acres (hundreds) altered; recovery 25-100 years (e.g., strip mining)
Many acres altered; recovery 100+years
Insufficient information
Resource Renewabilitv

                 Criteria Ranges for
      Score      Resource Renewabilitv

        9        Renewability <  1 year (e.g., biomass feedstocks)
        7        Renewability 1 - 25 years (e.g., temperate softwoods)
        5        Nonrenewable, sustainability > 500 years (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas)
        3        Nonrenewable, sustainability 50 - 500 years (e.g., aluminum)
        1        Nonrenewable, sustainability < 50 years
        *        Insufficient data
Energy Usage
        9
        7
        5
        3
        1
                                    MANUFACTURING STAGE

                                       Material Manufacture
Criteria Ranges for
Energy Usage Per Unit Output

< 5,000 BTU/lb
5,000 -10,000 BTU/lb
10,000  - 20,000 BTU/lb
20,000  - 30,000 BTU/lb
> 30,000 BTU/lb
Insufficient data

-------
                                        Table 2. (continued)
Toxic/Hazardous Airborne Emissions
      Score

        9
      *  7
        5
        3
        1
        *
Criteria Ranges Based on Applicable
Airborne Pollutant Emissions Regulatory
Limits at Material Manufacturing Facility

Airborne pollutant emissions consistently >50% below limits
Airborne pollutant emissions frequently > 25-50% below limits
Airborne pollutant emissions frequently > 10-24% below limits
Airborne pollutant emissions typically at the limits
Airborne pollutant emissions often exceed one or more of limits
Insufficient information
Waferborne Effluents                                               -

                 Criteria Ranges Based on Applicable
                 Water Pollutant Emissions Regulatory
      Score      Limits at Material Manufacturing Facility

        9        Water pollutant emissions consistently >50% below limits
        7        Water pollutant emissions frequently > 25-50% below limits
        5        Water pollutant emissions frequently > 10-24% below limits
        3        Water pollutant emissions typically at the limits
        1        Water pollutant emissions often exceed one or more of limits
        *        Insufficient information
                                   Product Fabrication (Printing)
       Score

        9
        7
        5
        3
        1
Criteria Ranges for
Energy Usage Per Unit Output

<5,000 BTU/lb
5,000 - 10,000 BTU/lb
10,000 - 20,000 BTU/lb
20,000 - 30,000 BTU/lb
>30,000 BTU/lb
Insufficient data
                                                10

-------
                                        Table 2.  (continued)
Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential (POCP)

                 Potential for Ground-Level Ozone (Smog) Formation (The POCP of an emission is based
                 on the ratio between the change in the ozone concentration due to a change in the
                 emission of that VOC and the change in the ozone concentration
       Score  "   due to a change in ethylene emissions)	

        9        < 0.005 (e.g., methane, tetrachloroethylene)                            ..     .  •
        7        0.050-0.006 (e.g., average halogenated hydrocarbons, methylene chloride)
        5        0.500-0.051 (e.g;, average alcohols, methanol, average ketones, acetone, methyl ethyl
                 ketone, average non-methane 'hydrocarbons, average alkanes, average esters)
        3        0.999-0.501 (e.g., average aromatic hydrocarbons, toluene, o-xylene, m-xylene, p-xylene,
                 average olefins)
        1        > 1.000 (e.g., ethylene, propylene)
        *        Insufficient information [see Heijungs (1992a) for POCP of additional chemicals]

Score Modifier   The score should be modified if more than 500 gallons of solvent are released (total used
                 minus amount recovered for recycle or fuel blending) per year due to blanket cleaning .
                 activities and if the printer is located in an air quality non-attainment area for ozone.
              :   Decrease the calculated score by two or four points for areas with ozone non-attainment
                 classifications considered, respectively, "marginal-to-serious" or "severe-to-extreme" (see
                 maps on Figures 3 and 4).
Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP)
       Score

        9

        7

        5
        3
   .     1

        *

Score Modifier
PDF (for Stratospheric Ozone) Relative to CFC-11	

<0.01 (all non-halogenated chemicals, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-143a,        /
HCFC-152a)                                                     .
0.01-0.39 [HCFC-22, HCFC-123, HCFC-124, HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, HCFC-225ca,
HCFC-225cb, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (HC-l40a)]
0.40-0.69 (CFC-115)
0.70-0.99 (CFC-114)
> 1.00 (CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, Carbon Tetrachloride, Halon-1301,
Halon-1211, Halon-1202, Halon-2402, Halon-1201 HC-10) ./_...
Insufficient information                                     .

The score should be modified based on the quantity of solvent released (total used minus
amount recovered for recycle or fuel blending) per year times the ODP. Decrease the
score by two points if the product of ODP times solvent quantity released per year is
greater than 100 gallons. For calculation purposes,  assume an ODP of 0.01 for all non-
halogenated hydrocarbons.
                                                 11

-------
                                        Table 2. (continued)
Global Warming Potential (GWP1
Score Modifier
      Score     GWP; Equal Mass Relative to CO3 over 100 Years                     j

        9       <1 (H-2401, H-2311)                                                ',             -
        7       1-99 (C02, HCFC-123, H-1211, H-1202, H-2402, H-1201, Methane,       !
                HCFC-141b)
        5       100-499 (Nitrous Oxide, HCFC-124, HFC-152a, Methyl Chlorofonn)
        3       500-4999 (CFC-11, CFC-113, Carbon Tetrachloride, HCFC-22, HFC-125,
                HFC-134a, HCFC-142b, HFC-143a)
        1       >5000 (CFC-12, CFC-114, CFC-115)                                  ;
        *       Insufficient information

                The score should be modified based on the quantity of solvent released (total used minus
                amount recovered for recycle or fuel blending) per year times the GWP.  Decrease the
                score by two points if the product of the vapor pressure of the solvent times the length of
                evaporation time results in a number greater than 500. The evaporation time is the
                number of minutes the solvent is uncovered and available for rapid evaporation during one
                press cleaning operation (e.g., the amount of time the solvent  is on shop towels or
                automatic blanket roller wash).                                       :

Surrogate for Energy/Emissions to Transport Material to Recyclers

                The quantity of printing plates or wastepaper in pounds is a surrogate for the amount of
                energy and air emissions required to transport each material to the aluminum smelter or
                paper mill where the materials are finally recycled into new aluminum or paper. The units
                are expressed as the change in pounds of plates or wastepaper recycled for before minus
                after the P2 activity implementation.  The score for before implementation lof the P2
                activity should be given a 5 and the score for after implementation should be
                determined as indicated below.	                        '.'
      Score

        9
        7
        5
        3
        1
        *
                Decrease in pounds recycled by >25%
                Decrease in pounds recycled by 10-25%
                Change in pounds recycled ±  10%
                Increase in pounds recycled by 10-25%
                Increase in pounds recycled >25%
                Insufficient data
                                               12

-------
                                        Table 2. (continued)
Inhalation Toxicity
      Score

        9
        7
        5
        3
        1
        *
Score Modifier
Air Concentration Criteria Ranges for
Major Component, Additives, or Degradation
Products: NOAEL or OSHA Standard	                              ,

NOAEL > 1,000 mg/m3 in air
NOAEL 10-1,000 mg/m3 in air
NOAEL 0.1-10 mg/m3 in air
NOAEL 0.01-0.1 mg/m3 in air
NOAEL <0.01 mg/m3 in air or carcinogen
Insufficient information
The score should be modified based on the presence of toxic trace constituents that are  -
present in such low (< 5 %) concentrations in a formulation that their contribution from a
percentage standpoint would not effect the overall formulation score. In these cases, if the
trace  constituent would receive  a score of 1 when considered alone, the score for the
overall formulation should be lowered by two points.
        9
        7
        5
        3
        1
     Fall-Back Option for any Criteria where Data are Unavailable

Estimated Status for xxxxxx Criterion Relative to Industry Norm

Much better than industry norm (roughly > 50% better)
A little better than industry norm (roughly 25-50% better)
Roughly equal to industry norm (status quo ±  25%)
A little worse than industry norm (roughly 25-50% worse)
Much worse than the industry norm (roughly < 50% worse)
                                                13

-------

Classifed Ozone Nonattainment Areas
        It
        H.
a
I
a
S
.
                                               a
                                               8
                                               Q.
                                               S
                                               o
                                               B
                                               "•a
                                               I2
                                               U
                                               E
                                               
-------
                           Northeast Ozone Transport Region
                         Classifed Ozone Nonattainment Areas*
                                                                    • Rhode Island
                                                WnHnghm.aC.

                                          Maryland
       Pennsylvania
Nonattainment
Classifications
• Severe-17
• Severe-15  ,
• Serious
• Moderate
H Marginal
& Anas with insufficient air
  quatty data but previously
  designated nonattainment
    Only the portion of Virginia falling within the Washington, D.C, CSMA (the portion shaded
    Serious) is part of the Ozone Transport Region.

    Stars indicate Rural Transport Areas. These small, mountaintop areas are classified as Marginal


FIGURE 4. OZONE NON-ATTAINMENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE NORTHEASTERN U.S.
           OZONE TRANSPORT REGION (Thompson Publishing Group, Inc., 1993)
                                       15

-------
PETROCHEMICAL CLASSIFICATIONS                     .                         ;

       Many P2 activities involve the use of chemicals derived from petroleum and natural gas. Evaluating
energy consumption and emissions for producing these materials is an important part of a life-cycle
methodology.  Pollution prevention assessments would typically involve either comparing two options where
one set of chemicals was substituted for another or-where a non-chemical alternative was substituted for a
chemical one.  To maintain the practical usability of the P2 factors approach, it was necessary to develop a
scoring system that did not require detailed analysis of the life-cycle of each individual chemical.

       Petrochemical production involves taking a complex mixture of aliphatic and aromatic compounds
through a series of thermal and chemical reactions to separate them into marketable fractions and to
upgrade then* economic value. This suggested that a simple basis for categorizing the chemicals into groups
would be the type and extent of processing. In each category chemicals were grouped together if the number
and character of the processing steps were similar.  Then, energy estimates were made for one or two
members of the group in order to obtain the group score. This yields a simple tabulation of the basic slate
of petrochemicals that should be suitable for scoring most P2 activities involving these materials (Table 3).

       The use of categories for partitioning the compounds is a simplification of the actual operations within
a petrochemical complex (Table 4).  In some cases energy recovered from exothermic reactions is used to
offset the requirements of reactions requiring energy.  Further, as one moves from Category A, where the
operations are applied to the entire mixture of materials, to categories E and F, where the starting materials
may be subjected to individual reaction sequences to produce the final compounds, the potential for a given
chemical not falling into the range of energy scores for the class  increases. Resources for thijs effort did not
permit individually checking additional chemicals to estimate the magnitude of the error and to determine
whether it is systematic or random.  (Random errors for a larger number of chemicals wouldt increase the
overall uncertainty of the method, but would result in equal probability of high and low scores.) In the
future it is recommended that additional individual compounds be used to check the validity of the
recommended P2 methodology.

SOLVENT SUBSTITUTION IN BLANKET OR PRESS WASH
                                                                                     i
       The first P2 activity used to demonstrate calculation of a P2 factor was substitution of the solvents for
blanket or press wash formulations.  Data for this P2 activity were obtained from three  of the cooperating
lithographic printers. The main reason for implementing this P2 activity is to reduce the quantity of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)  released to the air. Based on the stressor/impact chain shown in Figure 1, the
following seven scoring criteria were selected in two life-cycle stages: energy use, airborne emissions, and
waterborne effluents  for the materials manufacturing (petroleum refining) step of the manufacturing stage;
and photochemical oxidant creation potential, ozone depletion potential,  global warming potential, and
inhalation toxicity for the product fabrication (printing) step of the manufacturing stage. The^e criteria were
selected from the larger list of scoring criteria in Table 1, because these seven stressors were!expected to
change due to the decreased volatility of the blanket/press wash  mixture.
                                                 16

-------
Table 3.  Determination of Energy Use, Air Emissions, and Waterbome Effluent Criteria Scores for
                 Manufacture of Petrochemicals in Classification Categories'8'.
CLASS00
A Examples: Rule 66 Mineral
spirits or Solvent 140 (aliphatic
C8-C11 hydrocarbons), Aliphatic
Petroleum Distillates(C9-Cll),
VM&P (complex mixture of
aliphatic C7-C9 and toluene)
B Examples: Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, Xylerie, Cumene,
Naphthalene, Ethyl Benzene
C Examples: Acetone,
Methanol, MEK, Isopropyl
Alcohol, Filmcol, MIK, 2-Butoxy
Ethanol
D Examples: Toluene, 1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
E Examples:!,!,!
Trichloroethane, Dipropylene
Glycol Monomethyl Ether, 1,4-
Dioxane, Methylene Chloride
F Examples:Diisononyl
Phthalate, 2,6-Di-Tert-Butyl-p-
Cresol
CRITERIA0*'
Energy Use (Aliphatic C8-C11 - 30,000 BTU)
Refs: 1,4,5, 7
Air Emissions^ Based on a 98% efficiency of the air
pollution control equipment. Refs: 1, 4, 5, 8
Waterbome Effluents Refs: 1,4,5,7
Energy Use (Cumene - 22,500 BTU; Ethylbenzene -
20,000 BTU) Refs: 1,4,5,7
Air Emissions^ Refs: 1,4,5,8
Waterbome Effluents Refs: 1,4,5,7
Energy Use (Acetone - 20,000 BTU) Refs: 1, 4, 5, 6, 8
Air Emissions^ Based on a 98% removal efficiency of
the air pollution control equipment. Refs: 2, 4, 5, 7
Waterbome Emissions Refs: 1, 4, 5, 7 ' -
Energy Use (Trimethylbenzene - 35,059 BTU) Refs:
1,4,5,7
Air Emissions'^ Refs: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
Waterbome Effluents Refs: 4,5,7,8
Energy Use (1,1,1 Trichloroethane - 35,000 BTU)
Refs: 1,4,5,6,7
Air Emissions(c) Refs: 4,5,7,8
Waterbome Effluents Refs: 4,5,7
Energy Use (Diisononyl Phthalate - > 30,000 BTU)
Refs: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7
Air Emissions^ Refs: 4, 5, 7, 8
Waterbome Effluents Refs: 4,5,7-
SCORE
3
7
5
3
5
5
5
7
7
1
5
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
Petrochemical Classification Categories are described in Table 4.
References: 1) PWMI (1993), 2) Heylin (1979), 3) Kronsoder (1976), 4) McKetta (1993), 5) Nelson
   (1958), 6) Froment and Bischoff (1979), 7) Kirk and Othmer (1984), and 8) Farrauto et al. (1992).
An- emissions do not include CO2 emissions.
                                             17

-------
Table 4.  Definitions of Petrochemical Classification Categories Used in Table 3.
Category A:  contains simple aliphatic molecules and distillate fractions obtained from the petroleum source
             with minimal processing effort.

Category B:  contains simple aromatic molecules and distillate fractions obtained from the petroleum source
             with minimal processing effort.

Category C:  contains more complex aliphatic molecules obtained from the petroleum source with moderate
             processing effort.
                                                                                      j
Category D:  contains more complex aromatic molecules obtained from the petroleum source with moderate
             processing effort.                                                         j

Category E:  contains the most complex aliphatic molecules obtained from the petroleum source with high
             processing effort. These should be evaluated separately when possible.        j
                                                                                      i
Category F:  contains the most complex aromatic molecules obtained from the petroleum source with high
             processing effort. These should be evaluated separately when possible.
                                                  18

-------
       Individual solvents used in one or more blanket wash or fountain solution mixtures for any of the
printing facilities used in P2 factor calculations have been scored in Table 5.  The scores for energy use, air
emissions, and waterborne effluents were obtained for the material manufacture step of the manufacturing
life-cycle stage by using the scores for the appropriate petrochemical classification in Table 3.  The scores for
the criteria on POCP, ODP, and GWP were determined directly from the examples listed for each criterion
range in Table 2. The POCP, ODP, and GWP:intensity values for the chemicals listed as examples in the
scoring ranges for these criterion in Table 2, as well as additional individual chemicals not used in the solvent
formulas evaluated, are available in Heijungs (1992a). The score for the criterion on inhalation tqxicity [i.e.,
the time-weighted average (TWA) in mg/m3] was determined from the OSHA (1990) standards or from
toxicity data in the material safety data sheet (MSDS).  In Table 6, the raw scores for the individual
chemicals were proportionally (based on % composition of the mixture) used to calculate the combined score
for each mixture used in a blanket or press wash by one of the three printing companies evaluated.

John Roberts Company                                                                  .

       The stressor/impact chain in Figure 1 shows  the two changes made by the John Roberts Company in
their blanket and press wash over a 5 year period. They started with 543 Type Cleaner in 1988, changed to
Ultra Fast Blanket Wash 2215 in 1990, and made another switch to 1044 Press Wash in 1993.  Records were
kept of the quantity of solvent used for each year, and the total sales increased by 61 percent over the five
year period.

       For the John Roberts Company, the solvent mixture  combined scores for each of the three
blanket/press wash formulations were as follows: 543 Type Cleaner - 45.1, Ultra Fast Blanket Wash - 37.0,
and 1044 Press Wash - 43.8.  Based on the scores for the solvent mixtures, the first solvent switch was
calculated as a P2 factor of 0.82, and a P2 factor of  1.18 was calculated for the second solvent switch. In
each case the solvent mixture combined score after the solvent switch is divided by the solvent mixture
combined score  before the solvent switch. Since there were two solvent mixture changes in this/example, the
P2 factor can also be determined by dividing the solvent mixture combined score after the second solvent
switch by the solvent mixture combined score before the first solvent switch, which results in a P2 factor of
0.97 for switching from the first to the last solvent mixture.  These P2 factors can then be  compared with P2
factors for other solvent substitutions (e.g., the other two companies described below) or with other types of
P2 activities for  the lithographic printing industry. The higher the P2 factor, the lower the environmental
impacts.

impressions. Inc.        .

       Impressions, Inc. was initially using 555 Typewash and 70 Press Wash and switched to 1066 Press
Wash. The combined score for the 555 Type wash and 70 Press Wash, which is proportionally based on the
quantities of each solvent mixture used, is indicated  as 43.7 in Table 6.  The combined solvent mixture score
for 1066 Press Wash is 42.5. Thus, a P2 factor of 0.97 was calculated for the switch.
                                                  19

-------
r








a
o
to
s
1
V/J
&
**•«
-2
s
1
ta
bo
a
••*
s
e>
0.
a
«
P
o
3
1*
|

55
,a
W
«
*
*w
0
09
5
I*
o
W
s
Pi
J3
tJ
Q>
{3
43
a
e>
>
"o
M
R
3
•e
•5
*•«
•a
,21
1*
5
s
o
o
CO
•c
«
•2
U
*
v>
.2
3
£

ii
H
H

II
N
II
ii
H
!!
!!
ii
ii
H
it
ii
ii
it
11
ii
n
n
n
n
n
u
i!
u
n
n
H
11
II
il
I!
n
u
ii
n
u
n
n
it
u
11
u
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
II
11
H
n
!!
u
11
H
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
ii
n
n
n
n
H
n
!!
n
n
n
H
u
H
11
U
"3 CD'S
•O jj -a

e) 11
|£

2 g»-S
s»i
N 0 8
° S-o
%£
§*^
«t
« *s
•s o
J=l-
M

I t& c C "cS
o S « » '-5
o £5| g
**««Z
a (A
6 S
J3 '£/)
T; .52
IS
5
 en
ffi^
i
UJ


L»
co"!
S5




Chemical


G)O)O G>G>G)G>G>G>G)G)G)O)G>O)O>Ot^O>O)<7>G> G>IAG)OG>O> |j
II
II
11
II
II
II
O) O) O) O> O) O) O) O> O> O)O>O>OO)O>O)O>O>O)O)OO) O>h^O)O>O)O> if
II
; II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
in 10 co eoincocotnu>i-eointnininioinr^h-cou) ior"*iou)iouiiou>io(s-r^rii*-fs»rs-inu>ioi/>in to in i/> u> N- u) j|
!!
n
n
n
u
n
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^_ -^ -^ -^ _^ -^ ^j_ _ _ y» p^ - ^ jy_ . _ -^ -^ _ Ij
' II
II
II
II
U) CO CO COU)COT"^~^T"COT*lfllOU1U)lOT— 09CO^~00 T" T— T— CO IO CO i!
II
II
II
II
II
o> mO)l3) g 1 £§s 11 s i!
s ?1 f siii^iii
a gl 5- ? Isfli ^-58 i!
1 It U liill ttf ii
lill .If t 1
i§iio 1 If , g|«!|fi^ JJS
|o"i| 1 ll^gsl iJlPliV ;Stf !!
|§8S| Iliilill |llS|||S %Ul I
.S*|*|gfl*Tgg2*?*-858,||2|«iPM
Iliiiili?2?f l^s Iff fsJtS^s.^&i! I!
?tiei?!l4li|'t^8-!ii'SiSf §ifi^51|i8
$^jj
!!
.11
                                                                 20

-------
       5
8
!l
21

-------
Intelligencer Printing Company                                                        [

       Intelligencer Printing Company was initially using VT3-A and Power Kleen XF Plus and switched to
IP Wash.  The combined score for the VT3-A and Power Kleen XF Plus, which is proportionally based on
the quantities of each solvent mixture used, is indicated as 39.4 in Table 6.  The combined solvent mixture
score for 1066 Press Wash is 41.4. Thus, the P2 factor for the switch is 1.05.

P2 Factor Averaee for Three Printers
• ^   '        —»—                                                                  i
                                                                                     i
       Since data were only readily available to determine P2 factors due to solvent substitution for three
lithographic printing companies, the average P2 factor of 1.00 indicated in Table 6 does not represent a true
industry average.  However, this average P2 factor is a reasonably good indicator of the level of
environmental improvement that might be expected due to implementation of this P2 activity [by other
lithographic printers. Basically, very little overall environmental improvement was achieved, on average, by
solvent substitutions made by the three companies.  The most individual company improvement was made by
the John Roberts Company in their second solvent switch, which had a P2 score of 1.18. A very small net
environmental improvement was also made by Intelligencer Printing Company, which had a F2 score of 1.05
for their solvent switch.

       Although the goal of the printers to limit the quantity of VOCs to the atmosphere is important, the
criterion on photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP) does not always reflect a decrease in VOC
release. As noted in Table 2, the  POCP criterion is based on the potential for ground-level ozone ("smog")
creation relative to ethylene. To get a more accurate estimate of the quantity of a solvent that might become
part of smog, the POCP could be  multiplied by the amount of solvent  actually released to the air. The
amount of solvent released to air could be calculated using the vapor pressure of that solventi or simply
assuming that the amount of solvent released to air is equal to the total solvent used minus the amount of
solvent recycled or recovered for fuel blending.  The concentration of VOCs in indoor air wak not used as a
criterion for this analysis, due to the difficulty in getting the data needed to make these calculations. The
quantity of solvent released to the environment was not included in determining the POCP score, but instead
was used as a score modifier for companies located in ozone non-attainment  areas (see Figures 3 and 4).
Contributions of ozone precursors to areas that are in ozone attainment (e.g., Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN)
were not considered to be a serious environmental problem.                              !

       One possible improvement to calculation of a P2 factor for solvent substitution would be to add a
criterion that gave credit for decreasing the quantity of solvent required per year or per ton of printed
product by switching to a solvent formulation with a lower vapor pressure.  However, addition of this new
criterion would be unlikely to improve the P2 factor for solvent substitution in any significant amount, since
the P2 factor is determined by many criteria and several criteria need to be increased in order to improve
the P2 factor. It should be noted  that improvement in one or more individual criteria are important, so gains
in an individual criterion should also be considered when selecting a P2 activity, even if the overall P2 factor
score does not show a dramatic improvement.                                           !

WATERLESS VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PRINTING                                   |
                                                                                     i
       The  second P2 activity used to evaluate the P2 factors methodology is switching a nonheatset, sheetfed
offset press from conventional dampening system printing to waterless printing. Although detailed data for
individual companies that have made this switch were not readily available, the results of a siirvey for nine
individual printing companies that switched to waterless were provided by John O'Rourke from Toray
Corporation. The results were presented in a qualitative rather than quantitative  manner, so [scoring of
criteria required use of the "fall-back" scoring method shown at the end of Table 2 for the criterion on
energy use during printing. Based on the stressor/impact chain shown in Figure 2, the 11 scoring criteria
                                                 22

-------
associated with three life-cycle stages/steps shown in Table 7 were selected from the larger list of scoring
criteria in Table 1.

       Scores for individual criteria associated with both conventional and waterless, nonheatset, sheetfed
offset printing are indicated in Table 8.  For dampening fountain solvents, it was assumed that most of the
companies converting to waterless were using either 2-butoxy ethanol or ethylene glycol in the fountain
solution before switching.  Thus, individual criteria scores for these two chemicals were averaged.  Energy
use and emission scores due to manufacturing these two fountain solvents are based on the petrochemical
classification system shown in Table 3. Waterless printing received a score  of nine for all of the criteria
associated with fountain solution solvents, since no fountain solution is required for waterless printing, and
environmental impacts associated with these solvents are eliminated.

       A potential difference between waterless and conventional nonheatset, sheetfed offset printing is the
energy used by the press chillers required for waterless printing. However,  some conventional nonheatset,
sheetfed offset presses may have IR heaters, spray powder systems, and coating units requiring electric
energy that would be eliminated when switching to waterless. Since data on energy use for these press
accessories were not available, the "fall-back" scoring criterion described at the end of Table 2 was used.
Thus, each printing method was given a score of five for energy use during printing. The energy use scores
for the two printing methods may be significantly different, if a  specific company did not use IR heaters,
spray powder systems, and coating units on then- conventional press before switching to waterless.

       Two important  differences between waterless and conventional nonheatset, sheetfed offset printing
from a life-cycle impact standpoint are the differences in the amount of aluminum printing plates and paper
used. According to the survey by Toray of nine printers that switched from conventional to waterless
printing, waterless printing plates generally do not last as long as conventional printing plates. Printers who
typically have long press runs will end up using more printing plates for waterless printing  than for
conventional printing.  On the other hand, the absence of the dampening fountain and tighter control on the
press temperature with the chiller added, means that the makeready time is shorter for waterless than for
conventional printing.  This translates into fewer lost impressions and a decrease in the amount of
wastepaper available for recycle.  Since nearly all printers recycle both their aluminum plates and their
wastepaper, the transport  emissions to get recycled aluminum plates or wastepaper to the recycler is
expected to differ between the two printing methods. Thus, scoring criteria were evaluated in both the
material manufacture and product fabrication steps of the manufacturing life-cycle stage, as shown in Tables
7 and 8.  The quantity of printing plates or wastepaper in pounds is a surrogate for the amount of energy
and air emissions required to transport each material to the aluminum smelter or paper mill where the
materials are finally recycled into new aluminum or paper.  Thus, conventional printing was scored as five for
the quantity of aluminum  plates and wastepaper recycled and waterless printing was given  scores of three
and seven, respectively for the quantity of aluminum plates and  wastepaper  recycled.  Data for energy use
needed to make virgin and recycled aluminum was taken from ATA (1992).  Data for energy use needed to
make virgin and recycled paper was taken from raw data supplied to Battelle by paper mills.

       The final P2 factor for switching from conventional to waterless nonheatset, sheetfed offset printing is
1.25 (Table 8).  This assumes that the quantity of aluminum plates needed for waterless is over  10 percent
more than if conventional printing was used.  As explained above, some printers have consistently  short press
runs, so the fact that waterless plates do not last as long as conventional plates may not make any difference.
If the score for transport of aluminum scrap from waterless printing to recycle is changed to 5 (i.e., no more
than a 10% change from conventional printing), than the P2 factor increases from 1.23 to 1.25.
                                                  23

-------
V
•W
• •
OJ
01
-2
CO
0)
£
»•
3
•frri
u
,2
3
i
CO
B
£
•**
(4
4u
'C
j=
£
•<«»
u
•a
o
(£
CO
a>
• •4
i_
0
S
8
u
<:
00
CO
£
£




CO
—
o
Of
v2

CD
s
1
(U
a
W
                                                      -o
                                                       0>
                                                O
                                2?
                                c °°
                                W -J3

                                I &
                                a «
                                e ^
                                Ofl O

                                N|'

                                £Q


                                11
                                g>'SS


                                I'i
                                w W
 4) CO
 0.
 a a>
 « 7!
o o
O Q<

"3 B
co «

u.
Q
CS
O
4-t
V)
fr*
C
CO
01
03
Manufacturing Si
3
? j
Material Manufa<
^
TS
a
01
B
(Petroleum Refin
•o
'fl
B
Material Recvcli
en
'S
Dampening Solve
-S s
a 
-------


i
^
S
I
ii f
ii
ii
it
. !
i
§ !!
-S • ii
£ |
~
! O)
"S !! £
•a !! €
« !! 6=-
•c Q.
*
•2 -!
~
«
o> 1
1
c
.S
1
-« 'I 'g
w j
Cfl

1


ofi 8"
g to
H
"3 *3>'^S
£t .£ •&
££.

ill
O Q.'Q
S> Q.

a-^
•«3 U
S 'x
|i2
lllll
°-|o5£
I1

i»
a ii
0
U
T. i
i
I
o !! a.
*»
S
S
to
£ ii £
1 j| |
a j! i
15
i ^
1 !! 1
w !! i
"2 • U
S N
es „
« I
9 at
o
jg -s
^ *
OS ^
5
0> (0
|!
iS
^|
*

•c ii
S I .1
*• ji *5
U '
1
i
i .ffi
i !
i -2
£
8. Scores for In
Raw Ma
w
3
'8t
3 .Q
g $
** c
:& O
*I
i 1




































TIONAL SYSTEM
til
S



in in o
in


O) O) O
O)


o> o> o
O)



N r- q
^^


in in o
in

in o
in


N. in o
co"




N CO O
in"
S
«•»-««!- q
^ GO
O '
^ CO Q. O
Jiri

1
h^ o 0} o
5 in
If»
^ w in
*l4. g
lillf §
0_ Q &> °* jg ^
,_ .C g ffl >.<
- eo o
in


en o
Oi


O) O
0)



O) q
O)


o> o
O)

in o
in


' o> <•>
o>


_

O) O
O)

in i- o> o
in

h* CO O
in

i^ co o
in
1
CO
la i S
3 « g i &
n. ^-55 uj
CO n O 5B ^C
$ 8. < U. OL
^
II
1

dli
p II
g !!
5 ji
°-!l


!
II
II
II
II
II
i!

ii
ii
n
H
H

<3
c-
D)
C
'3 !i
8 ii
•o n
§ !!
-
in II
i |j

0 II
£ i
*
g-
f
^
-»
= 1
ID •=
•n jd
may inclui
; include cl
lal sheetfed systems
ss sheetfed systems
l{|
ffl
25

-------
Interpretation of the Results                                                           '

       As indicated in Section 2, this preliminary PZ factors methodology still requires additional
development/refinement. Ultimately, it can serve as a screening tool to provide direction in selecting P2
activities that provide the most environmental improvement.  For now, the P2 factor should pnly be used as
an indicator of the general degree of environmental improvement for the entire life cycle that has occurred,  ,
or might be expected to occur, as a result of implementing a particular P2 activity.  If the P2 score is
multiplied by 100, the amount over  100 is roughly the percent of reduction hi environmental impacts over
conditions before implementation of the P2 activity. Thus, the overall P2 factors for solvent substitution in
blanket and press wash determined  for the the three cooperating printers (i.e., 0.97, 0.97, and 1.05) are
probably not far enough from 1.00,  or from any of the P2 factors for the same P2 activity, to say that the
implementation of this P2 activity resulted in a significant overall reduction in environmental impacts, or that
one printer's switch resulted in a greater improvement than for another printer's switch.  On;the other hand,
if more accurate data indicate that the switch from conventional to waterless printing typically results in an
average P2 score of 1.25, it is likely  that this represents greater environmental improvement than the average
P2 score of 1.00 determined for the three printers switching their blanket or press wash solvent formulation.

       It should be noted that this preliminary P2 factors methodology gives equal weight to each of the
environmental scoring criterion.  There are  methods for applying differential weights to the criteria, so that
an improvement in one score has a  greater  impact on the overall P2 factor.  In either case, ah improvement
in one or more individual criteria should be considered when selecting a P2 activity, even if the overall P2
factor score does not show a dramatic improvement.                                     ;

       The accuracy of the P2 factor depends on better data  collection than many companies have
historically done, since most companies focus their data collection  connected with implementing a P2 activity
on cost savings and not on  data needed to score environmental criteria. Potential problems >jvith the
methodology that can be resolved with additional testing include evaluation of the impact on the P2 score
due to implementation of more than one P2 activity at the same tune, and addition of criteria that give credit
for reduction in the quantity of hazardous materials (e.g., solvents) used. Additional testing is also needed to
see if the P2 factors methodology is applicable to other industries and to evaluate how much [improvement in
the P2 factor is necessary to make implementation of the new activity worthwhile from an environmental
impact reduction standpoint.                                                            >
                                                 26

-------
                                          REFERENCES

American Institute of Architects (AIA).  1992,  Environmental Resource Guide.  The American Institute of
Architects, Washington, DC.

European Center for Plastics in the Environment (PWMI). 1993.  Eco-profiles of the European Plastics
Industry, Report 2: Olefin Feedstock Sources.

Farrauto et al.  1992. Environmental Catalysts.  Chem Eng News.  (9)42.

Fava, JA, F. Consoli, R. Denison, K. Dickson, T. Mohin, and BW Vigon.  1993.  A Conceptual Framework
for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and SETAC
Foundation for  Environmental Education, Inc., Pensacola,  FL. 160pp.

Froment, GF and KB Bischoff.  1979. Chemical Analysis Reactor and Design. John Wiley, New York, NY.

Heijungs, R. (Final Editor).  1992a.  Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Products: Guide - October
1992. Report 9266.  CML (Centre of Environmental Science) in Leiden, TNO (Netherlands Organisation for
Applied Scientific Research)  in Apeldoorn, and B&G (Fuels and Raw Materials  Bureau) in Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.  96 pp.

Heijungs, R. (Final Editor).  1992b.  Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Products: Backgrounds -
October 1992.  Report 9267.  CML (Centre of Environmental Science) in Leiden, TNO (Netherlands
Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) in Apeldoorn, and B&G (Fuels and Raw Materials Bureau)  in
Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 130pp.

Heylin,M. 1979. Chem Eng News. (9)13.

Kirk, RE and DF Othmer. 1984. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  3rd Edition. Wiley, New York,
NY.

Kronsoder, JG.  1976. Hydrocarbon Processing. (7)56-F.

McKetta, J1. 1993. Chemical Processing Handbook.  Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY.

Nelson, L. 1958. Petroleum Refinery Engineering. 4th Edition. McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. 1993.  Clean Air Permits: Managers Guide to the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Thompson Publishing Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Todd, J A. 1993. Pollution Prevention in Architecture:  The Application of Life  Cycle Assessment to
Building Materials.  Draft Report.  Prepared for the American Institute of Architects by The Scientific
Consulting Group, Inc., Rockville, MD.                                 ,       ,        ,

U.S. EPA. 1993. Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles.  EPA/600/R-92/245.
Prepared by Battelle and Franklin Associates, Inc. for the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Reduction Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.  108 pp.
                                                        •ftV.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: IMS - «5W¥Xi/OOM2
                                                27

-------

-------