United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
               Research and Development
EPA/OOO/SR-95/081
June 1995
EPA       Project  Summary
                Performance Demonstrations  of
               Alternative  Screen  Reclamation
                Products for  Screen  Printing
               Cheryl Keeman, and Paul Randall
                 Environmentally preferable products
               for the screen reclamation process in
               screen printing were evaluated by print-
               ers during month-long demonstrations
               at 23 printing facilities nationwide.
               Screen reclamation is the process
               where the ink and image are removed
               from the mesh in order to reuse the
               screen for a different image. Through
               the Environmental Protection Agency's
               Design for the Environment program,
               performance characteristics of alterna-
               tive screen reclamation products were
               demonstrated. Manufacturers submit-
               ted ten "product systems" for evalua-
               tion. Each product system included the
               three  chemical  products commonly
               used to reclaim  a screen: an ink re-
               mover, a stencil or emulsion remover,
               and a haze remover. Additionally, one
               ink remover and two substitute tech-
               nologies were demonstrated.
                 Performance of the alternative chemi-
               cal  systems was evaluated in two
               phases: (1)  laboratory testing to en-
               sure the products were generally effec-
               tive,  and  (2) in-field demonstrations.
               Product evaluations from the field were,
               in large part, subjective and reported
               results relied on the experience and
               judgment of the printers using the prod-
               ucts. In general, most emulsion remov-
               ers worked very well, but the success
               with the ink and haze removers was
               mixed.
                 Costs of switching from a baseline
               reclamation  system  to an alternative
               system were estimated. These costs
               included: chemicals, labor, rag use, and
               waste disposal.  Based on this cost
analysis, 14 of the 23 volunteer facili-
ties would realize reduced screen rec-
lamation costs  if switched from  the
baseline to an alternative product sys-
tem. The other 9 facilities would expe-
rience increased costs.
  This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's National Risk Management
Research  Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce  key findings of the re-
search project that is fully documented
in a separate report of the same title
(see Project Report ordering informa-
tion at back).

Introduction
  The  objective  of the Screen Printing
Performance Demonstrations was to pro-
vide critical information on the performance
of environmentally safer screen reclama-
tion products and technologies for the De-
sign for the Environment (DfE) Printing
Project. The goal of the DfE  Printing
Project is to encourage printers to  use
risk and hazard  information, along with
performance data, to make informed, en-
vironmentally sound decisions about the
chemicals and  processes they  use. This
non-regulatory, voluntary project is a co-
operative partnership between the EPA,
the  Screen  Printing Association Interna-
tional (SPAI), printers, and manufacturers
of printing  supplies. As one of the initial
tasks for this project, industry representa-
tives selected screen reclamation as the
focus area for the DfE project.
  In support of the EPA Office of  Re-
search and Development (ORD), the  DfE
staff within the  Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics  (OPPT) conducted  the

-------
Performance Demonstration portion of the
DfE Printing Project. Substitute products,
voluntarily supplied by manufacturers, were
evaluated for their ability to efficiently and
effectively clean screens. This performance
information was an essential element the
final  project report,  titled Cleaner Tech-
nologies  Substitute Assessment (CTSA),
EPA document number EPA744R-94-005.
The CTSA integrates these performance
data with information on the costs, risks,
and hazards associated with the products
demonstrated.
  Performance data on alternative  screen
reclamation products were collected dur-
ing  demonstrations  carried out between
January and April 1994 and include infor-
mation such as time spent on screen rec-
lamation, volume of product  used,  and
appearance of the screen after reclama-
tion.  Performance  data  came  from two
sources:  laboratory demonstrations  and
field evaluations. This  document summa-
rizes the results on the  field demonstra-
tions  and the cost estimates for each
alternative system. It should be  noted that
the performance demonstrations were not
rigorous scientific investigations. Instead,
product evaluations are based on the print-
ers' experiences with and opinions of these
products  as they were used in production
at their facilities.

Background
  Most printers reclaim their used screens
instead of disposing of them due to the
high  cost of the screen  material and the
labor required to replace a screen. Screen
reclamation techniques vary from one fa-
cility to another; however, the three basic
steps performed to reclaim  a screen are:
ink removal, emulsion  removal, and haze
removal.  Typically  a different product  is
used for each step, and in this project the
three products (ink remover, emulsion re-
mover, and haze remover) are referred  to
as a "product system."  For the DfE  Perfor-
mance Demonstration Project,  manufac-
turers were encouraged to submit complete
product systems to minimize the probabil-
ity of chemical incompatibilities among the
system components. A total of ten prod-
uct  systems and  one  individual  ink re-
mover were submitted.
  Ink removal is the first step in reclaim-
ing  a screen.  In  most  facilities,  an ink
remover  product is  sprayed, poured,  or
wiped onto the screen. The ink remover
chemical and the ink are both wiped off or
rinsed off the screen with a water spray.
Next, the emulsion is removed.  The pre-
dominant emulsion  removal chemical  in
use today is sodium metaperiodate. Typi-
cally,  it is  used  in an  aqueous solution
and is sprayed on the emulsion, rubbed in
with a brush and is rinsed off with a pres-
sure wash. After the emulsion is removed,
a haze from ink residue may remain on
the screen. A haze remover is typically
brushed onto the affected area then rinsed
off with pressurized water.  Haze remover
chemicals are often caustics and can dam-
age or weaken the mesh  if used exces-
sively or if allowed to remain in contact
with the mesh for too long.

Environmental Concerns
Associated with Screen
Reclamation
  Screen reclamation was selected as the
focus  area of this project for several rea-
sons:
  • Screen reclamation products often
    contain  highly  volatile  organic
    solvents.  In order to meet regulatory
    requirements and to protect the health
    of the workers,  many printers are
    looking for less volatile cleaners.
  • Wastewater  from screen recla-
    mation typically goes directly down
    the drain. According to a 1992 Screen
    Printing magazine survey, 76 percent
    of companies reported  they  send
    unfiltered waste down  the drain. Ink,
    emulsion,    and/or   reclamation
    chemicals  are likely  to  be in the
    unfiltered rinse water which could lead
    to health and environmental problems
    as the water goes to a wastewater
    treatment facility, or discharged  to a
    waterbody or septic system.
  • Confusion over products that claim
    to be "biodegradable,"  or "drain-
    safe." Although a given product may
    itself be safe to rinse down the drain,
    once it is mixed with ink or emulsion,
    drain disposal may not  be permissible.
    Also, confusion surrounding the term
    "biodegradable" is widespread among
    printers; each manufacturer, regulator,
    and  printer  may  define  the  term
    differently.

Performance Demonstration
Methodology
  Performance  evaluations were  con-
ducted in two distinct phases: (1) testing
at the Screen Printing  Technical Founda-
tions (SPTF) under controlled and consis-
tent laboratory conditions,  and (2)
demonstrations at volunteer screen  print-
ing facilities under the variable conditions
of production  runs. The testing methodol-
ogy for both  phases of the demonstra-
tions was developed by consensus  with
the involvement of EPA, SPAI, individual
screen printers,  and  manufacturers  and
suppliers of screen reclamation  products
and equipment.  Due to the numerous vari-
ables associated with screen reclamation,
the work  group agreed that  a rigorous
scientific test of screen reclamation prod-
uct systems would be difficult to develop.
The group decided that it would be prefer-
able  to rely on the seasoned judgment of
screen printers in evaluating the effective-
ness of the alternative products. Addition-
ally,  the group  felt  that  a month-long
demonstration at the volunteer facility was
required in order to identify the types of
problems that occur  only  after repeated
uses of the product on the  same screen.
  Manufacturers'  cooperation  in  this
project was  essential to  gather  perfor-
mance information on as many alternative
product systems as possible at the  start
of the project. The  DfE project staff  con-
tacted all known manufacturers of screen
reclamation  products designed for print-
ers who use vinyl  or plastic  substrates,
and invited them to submit alternative prod-
uct systems. To be considered an alterna-
tive,  products were  to contain  no
stratospheric ozone-depleting substances
and  no chlorinated compounds.  Prior to
submitting their products,  manufacturers
were informed that product trade  names
would be masked throughout the demon-
strations.  Neither the volunteer  printers
nor the DfE observers knew the manufac-
turer of the  products  being  evaluated.
Trade names are not reported  out of this
project. Product systems are identified only
by a generic formulation:  a  list  of  the
chemical  components  associated  with
each individual product.
  In  initial testing,  each product system
was evaluated under laboratory conditions.
The  intent  of the laboratory evaluations
was  to ensure that the  product systems
sent  to printers would provide an accept-
able  level  of performance. A  description
of the results from the laboratory testing is
not included  in this  project summary; it
can be found in both  the CTSA and the
full ORD report.  In the second phase of
the project, volunteer  printing facilities col-
lected performance information under vari-
able  conditions specific to their production
runs.  Each of the  product systems  was
evaluated  in two or three facilities to pro-
vide  performance data from different op-
erating and  ambient conditions,  and all
facilities were scheduled to use the alter-
native product systems for  one  month.

Results

Variability in  Results
  Performance  demonstrations were not
scientifically rigorous  but were  subjective
assessments which  reflected  the condi-
tions and experiences of the reclamation
employees at two or three facilities. Table

-------
1 presents the results of product system
evaluations from each of the participating
facilities.  Each system is referred to  be a
Greek  letter code  name; actual  product
trade  names are  not given. In  several
cases,  two facilities with the same operat-
ing  parameters  using the same reclama-
tion products had very different perceptions
of the  product performance. Among the
reasons why the results of  performance
demonstrations for one particular product
system may differ from one facility to an-
other are:
  •  Variability  of  screen  conditions.
    Because performance demonstrations
    were  carried out during production
    runs,  many  factors  which affect the
    performance of reclamation products
    were  not controlled  including:  age of
    screen, ink color, ink coverage, image
    size, ink type and drying time prior to
    reclamation.
  •  Variability  of ambient conditions.
    Conditions  such as temperature,
    humidity,  and  ventilation  were
    recorded but  not  controlled  during
    demonstrations.
  • Chemical interactions with products
    used previously on  the screen.
    Printers  and  manufacturers  have
    reported  that  chemicals previously
    applied to clean a screen can affect
    the performance of products currently
    used to clean the screen.
  •  Variability  of  staff  involved  in
    performance demonstrations. At the
    facilities,  several different individuals
    often conducted the  reclamations and
    recorded the data.  Reclaimers'  past
    experience also differs and can affect
    their perception of performance.
  •  Level of cleanliness expected by
    the facility. Different facilities often
    have very different opinions about the
    cleanliness  of a screen. At some
    facilities,  a light haze is acceptable
    and  it does  not affect the quality of
    future prints.  Other  facilities  may
    require that every screen look  new
    after reclamation.

Costs
  Costs were  estimated for each recla-
mation system.  The estimates included
the cost of: labor time spent to reclaim the
screen,  the average quantity of reclama-
tion product used, the  rags used, and the
hazardous waste disposal for RCRA-listed
chemicals.  To compare the  costs of the
substitute  systems to a known system, a
baseline was established using  a tradi-
tional solvent-based  screen reclamation
system.  The  traditional system  used in
the comparison consisted of lacquer thin-
ner as the  ink remover, a sodium periodate
solution  as the  emulsion  remover, and a
xylene/acetone/mineral  spirits/cyclohex-
anone blend as the haze remover. These
chemicals  were selected  because screen
printers  indicated  they  were commonly
used in  screen reclamation. For all cost
estimates,  it was assumed that the chemi-
cals  were  applied manually to 6  screens
per day, each 2,127 in2 (approximately 15
ft2) in size. Table  2 summarizes the cost
estimates  of  the  alternative systems at
each demonstration facility.
  Since product  trade names  are  not
given, the  printer  must identify the prod-
ucts  by their chemical class. Tables 3 and
4 provide printers  with  a list of the chemi-
cals  used  in each of the product systems
demonstrated. Table  3 lists  the formula-
tion  of  each  product  system in  generic
chemical categories.  Table  4 describes
the chemicals which are included in each
generic category. Using the chemical com-
position  information in conjunction with the
performance information in Table 1, print-
ers can determine  which product system(s)
they  think  would  be successful  in  their
facility. Once  that determination is made,
printers  can contact their distributors, in-
form them of the type of product they are
looking for (based on the  chemical formu-
lation), and ask for a recommendation on
such a product system. A list of the par-
ticipating manufacturers  is given in  the
CTSA and in the full  ORD  report.  For
information on the risks  associated with
each product system,  the printer should
refer to  the CTSA Screen  Reclamation
document.

Demonstration of Alternative
Technologies
  In  addition  to the demonstration of al-
ternative chemical product systems,  the
DfE Printing Project evaluated the perfor-
mance of two alternative screen reclama-
tion technologies: (1)a high pressure water
blaster; and (2) a sodium bicarbonate re-
claim system.
  For the  high  (SOOOpsi) pressure water
blaster technology, an emulsion remover
and a haze remover were used,  but no
ink remover was needed. The system was
demonstrated on three screens: one with
solvent-based  ink, one  with  UV-curable
ink, and one with  water-based ink. On all
three screens, the observer felt this tech-
nology efficiently  and effectively  cleaned
the  screen, while reducing the labor, ef-
fort, and quantity of chemicals required
for reclamation.
  The sodium bicarbonate technology con-
sists of an  enclosed spray cabinet where
pressurized  sodium bicarbonate  (baking
soda) and  water are sprayed onto the
parts  inside the cabinet to clean  them.
Prior this project,  the sodium bicarbonate
technology  was never tested  for  screen
reclamation  applications. The advantage
of such  a  system for screen reclamation
is that no hazardous chemicals are used,
and the need for ink remover, emulsion
remover, and haze remover is eliminated.
In  preliminary testing, the sodium bicar-
bonate technology  showed potential for
removing solvent- or water-based inks.
Results on  a screen with UV-curable ink,
however, were poor. In all cases, further
development and  testing are needed be-
fore the technology  could be used practi-
cally in a screen printing facility.
  This report was submitted in partial ful-
fillment of Contract No. 68-D2-0175, Work
Assignment No. 2-21 under the sponsor-
ship of the  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency  and it covers a period from De-
cember 16, 1993 to  September 30,  1993.

-------
Table 1.  Product System Performance at Volunteer Printing Facilities.
Ink Remover Performance
                                  Emulsion Remover Performance
                                                                           Haze Remover Performance
                                                                                                               Overall System Performance
PRODUCT SYSTEM ALPHA
Variable results: removed ink
on most screens, but soaking
time or extra application
were needed.
INK REMOVER BETA
Removed ink, but required
extra time and left an
oily reside.

PRODUCT SYSTEM CHI
Removed ink with some extra
time and effort, but worked
very well with metallic inks.
Variable results: removed
stencil quickly and easily at
one facility, but required a  lot
of scrubbing effort at another.
Not applicable; this man-
ufacturer submitted an ink
remover product only.
Removed stencil easily and
completely.
Variable results: Removed haze
on most, but not all screens at
one facility and worked well at
another.
Not applicable; this manufacturer
submitted an ink remover pro-
duct only.
Lightened, but did not remove
haze at one facility; haze
remover was not needed at
the second facility.
All 3 facilites using this system
found that some of their
screens had to be cleaned with
their standard product before
they could be reused.
This product was not demon
strafed as part of a system.
All screens could be reused for
future print jobs. At the one
facility where haze remover
was needed, printer was
concerned with the effect of
possible haze build up over
time.
PRODUCT SYSTEM DELTA
Removed ink well on most
screens, but left a residue on
some.
PRODUCT SYSTEM EPSILON
Removed the very well, but
one of the facilities found
several applications were
needed on some screens.
Removed stencil easily and
completely.
Removed stencil easily
and completely.
One facility did not need
haze remover. Did not re-
move the haze at the
other facility.
Removed haze, but some-
times a light ink stain
remained.
Good performance, except one
facility found the haze remover
did not work.
Good performance; all screens
could be reused for future print
jobs.
PRODUCT SYSTEM GAMMA
Ink residue and oily film
remained in mesh after
applying ink remover several
times.

PRODUCT SYSTEM MU
Variable results: Removed
ink well with less effort and
product needed than with
their standard product at
one facility; left ink residue
at the other facility.
Removed stencil completely
and easily.
Removed stencil completely
and easily
                                         Did not remove the haze.
Variable results: Worked well
on moderate haze, but required
at least 1 hr wait time at one
facility; left ghost image in
screen at other facility.
                                    The facilities discontinued use
                                    of the ink and haze removers
                                    after 1 - 2 weeks of demonstra-
                                    tions due to poor performance.
Good performance at one
facility: all screens could be
reused for future print jobs; Fair
performance at the other
facility: their standard haze
remover was applied before the
screens could be reused.
PRODUCT SYSTEM OMICRON-AE
Ink residue remained in
the mesh.
PRODUCT SYSTEM OMICRON-AF
Removed the ink well.
Removed stencil completely
 and easily.
                                  Removed stencil completely
                                  and easily.
Lightened the ink stain, but
did not remove it.
                                         Reduced the ink residue, but
                                         did not remove haze from screen.
Demonstration discontinued at
both facilities due to poor
performance.
                                    Good performance for the ink
                                    and emulsion removers, but the
                                    facilities found the haze
                                    remover did not work well.
PRODUCT SYSTEM PHI
Worked well on metallic inks,
but left an ink residue with
other ink types.
PRODUCT SYSTEM ZETA
Removed the ink if applied
several times, but usually
left a residue.
Removed stencil completely
and easily.
Worked well at times, but
results were inconsistent
and other screens required
a lot of scrubbing effort.
Did not consistently remove
the haze.
Seemed to have no effect
on haze.
A light stain remained on the
screen after reclamation, so the
screens could not be reused for
all types of printing jobs.
The three demonstration
facilities discontinued use after
a few days due to poor
performance.

-------












































ui
s
S
CO
"o
c
•S
"w

"o
CD
^
C
1
w
S
1
05

"8
^
•S
co
15
E
"co
co

1
J™


—•S
tw
Table 2. Sumnn.




§
§
§









2
O
;-4
CO
8]










p
pi

Q








0












5










1
— I
CO





SYSTEM CODE


LO
C\J



CO







,-J.
CM




o
CM





T~
^ — ,






S





CM



CO





M-




CO






CD










Facility Code:

K
•*~
CD



S
LO





00
S
LO



01
IV
CO




CO

Oj






CO



CD
LO



LO
LO
CO




o
LO"



CO
CO
oj





co
LO




CO





Total
Cost/Screen

T~*
CD
LO"



§
LO





05
CM
LO



CO
Q
CO




CO
CO
[^






CO



LO
CM
CO


0)
CD
CO




CM
LO"



K
CO
O)





rv
CO



rv
CM
CO
w-




Total'
Cost/Screen
Normalized
IV
LO
CO"



|
Lff
CM




0)
CD
CNJ
T-"



IV
C)
o
NT


LO
IV

IV"





co

0)


CO

^~
•"~

T^
CO
co"




1~~
CO
LO-



CI
o
CO




K

IvT
1~


01

CO
of





Total Cost/Year
K,
-j^
''^l'
03"


O
O5 *r
LO |C
rv LU
N



o
co
05
IV



CM
CO
^"
^
t?
05
OD

^
i — ,




i^

$ ^
O
cc
o
05 g

CQ Q
M--

05
CM
CO
LO" q-
2
0
DC
co O
CO ^
CD" O



CM
CD
o

i

CO
CD

o"



§ ^

co 3
05" uj
^5- £*J




Total Cost/Year"
Normalized
PRODUCT
SYSTEM CODE

^0 O> C\j
i^ ^j- o> LO
T-, 03 CQ O)^


<&}
CM !^o o>
IX. N. ^> Oj




5
f~. O> N.
CO CO ^
^O ^O MT) TS.



K
<^3 CNJ !-O
t^ O5 CQ C>
c\j u*> K! u^"



"!~~

>- i~ O)
LO CO CD v--




co
"^ O) C\J
CQ i- CO CO
i~ CO CO O>


^
 "* CD'



o
LO LO IV
CO CO 'Sf
co o o"



CO
^ CO
 CM
IV ^ K. 00"



0)
iV rv O)
CM CM co
co co CD"
^/^  co 
-------
Table 3.  Chemical Composition of Alternative Screen Reclamation Systems
Product System
                           Ink Remover
                                                                    Emulsion Remover
                                                                                                        Haze Remover
Alpha
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Sodium periodate
Water
Alkali/caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
Beta
                           2-octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-,
                           N-oxide or a modified amine from
                           unsaturated soy bean oil fatty acid
                           Water
                                         Ink remover only
                                    Ink remover only
Chi
Delta
Epsilon
Gamma
Mu
Phi
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol

Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol

Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Derivatized plant oil

Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Dibasic esters
Fatty alcohol ethers
Derivatized plant oil

Dibasic esters
Methoxypropanol acetate
d-Limonene
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Derivatized plant oil

Dibasic esters
                                                                    Sodium periodate
                                                                    Water
                                                                    Sodium periodate
                                                                    Water
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Other
Water

Periodic acid
Water
                                                                    Sodium periodate
                                                                    Water
                                                                    Ethoxylated nonylphenol
                                                                    Other
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol

Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol

Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Sodium hydroxide
Derivatized plant oil
Water
                                                                                                        Sodium hypochlorite
                                                                                                        Alkali/caustic
                                                                                                        Sodium a Iky I su If on ate
                                                                                                        Water
                                                                                                        Sodium hypochlorite
                                                                                                        Alkali/caustic
                                                                                                        Sodium alky I su If on ate
                                                                                                        Water
                                                                             N-methyl pyrrolidone
                                                                             Dibasic esters
Omicron
(AE)
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Propylene glycol
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Other
Water
Omicron
(AF)
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Propylene glycol
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Alkali/caustic
Other
Water
Theta
Zeta
                           None
                           Propylene glycol series ethers
                                                                    Sodium periodate
                                                                    Water
                                         Sodium periodate
                                         Water
                                    Alkali/caustic
                                    Cyclohexanone
                                    Furfuryl alcohol

                                    Alkali/caustic
                                    Propylene glycol
                                    Water

-------
Table 4.  Categorization Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals For Use In Alternative Product System Formulations
        Category
                  Chemicals in Category
Alkali/caustic

Alkyl benzyl sulfonates


Aromatic solvent naphtha


Derivatized plant oil

Dibasic esters


Diethylene glycol series ethers


Fatty alcohol ethers

Phosphate salt

Propylene glycol series ethers
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, Diisopropyl adipate
Dimethyl adipate, Dimethyl glutarate, Dimethyl succinate

Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate

Alcohols, C8 - C10, ethoxylated, Alcohols, C12 - C14, ethoxylated

Sodium hexametaphosphate, Trisodium phosphate

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether, Propylene glycol methyl ether
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether,
Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, Ethoxypropanol
Ethoxypropyl acetate, Methoxypropanol acetate

-------
Cheryl Keeman is with Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA 02138-1168
Paul Randall is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Performance Demonstrations of Alternative
    Screen Reclamation Products for Screen Printing," (Order No. PBX95-
    230983;  Cost $27.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
        National Technical Information Service
        5285 Port Royal Road
        Springfield, VA 22161
        Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
        National Risk Management Research Laboratory
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Cincinnati, OH 45268
   United States
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Center for Environmental Research Information
   Cincinnati, OH 45268

   Official Business
   Penalty for Private Use
   $300
     BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
   EPA/600/SR-95/081

-------