United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency	
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
(7406)	
EPA744R-94-005
February 1998
            Cleaner Technologies
            Substitutes Assessment
            Industry:  Screen Printing
DRAFT   Use Cluster:  Screen Reclamation
            Developed in Cooperation with the Screen
            Printing Association International and the
            University of Tennessee Center for Clean
            Products and Clean Technologies

-------
(2/12/98)
              Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
              Assessment

              Executive Summary

              Industry:  Screen Printing
              Use Cluster:  Screen Reclamation
              United States Environmental Protection Agency
              Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
              Design for the Environment Program

              Developed in Cooperation with the Screen Printing Association
              International and the University of Tennessee Center for Clean
              Products and Clean Technologies
              DRAFT
              February 1998

-------
                                      Disclaimer

       Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Screen Printing Screen Reclamation is
in draft form, should not be quoted or cited, and has not been subjected to required EPA policy
or technical reviews.  The final version of this document is expected to be released in late-1994.
Information on cost and product usage in this document was provided by individual product
vendors and has not been independently corroborated by EPA. The use of specific trade names
or the identification of specific products or processes in this document are not intended to
represent an endorsement by the EPA or the U.S. government.  Discussion of environmental
statutes is intended for information purposes only; this is not an official guidance document
and should not be relied on by companies in the printing industry to determine applicable
regulatory requirements.
DRAFT—September 1994                                                                  iii

-------
                                 Acknowledgements

       A special thanks is extended to the Screen Printing Association International (SPAI),
particularly Marci Kinter and Dan Marx, for their extensive efforts in the Design for the
Environment Screen Printing Project. We thank the members of the SPAI Environmental
Committee for their helpful comments and prior review of sections of this document.

       This document was also developed in cooperation with the University of Tennessee
Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies; much gratitude to Lori Kincaid and Dean
Menke for their active participation and useful advice.

       We appreciate the participation of the following screen printing manufacturers in
various aspects of the project, including the performance demonstration.  These manufacturers
can be contacted through the information given below.  A particular thanks is extended to our
performance demonstration co-chair, Neil Holding, from Autotype Americas.
Amerchem
165 W. Mittel Drive
Wood Dale, IL 60191
Contact: J.P. Godinez
(708) 616-8600

Autotype Americas
2050 Hammond Drive
Schaumberg,  IL 60173-3810
Contact: Neil Holding
(708) 303-5900

Ciot International Services
48 Marlin  Drive
Whippany, NJ 07981-1279

Contact: George Ciottone
(201) 503-1922

Franmar Chemical Associates
P.O.  Box 483
Normal, IL 61761
Contact: Frank Sliney
(309) 452-7526

Hydro Engineering, Inc.
865 West 2600 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Contact: Bob Roberts
(801) 247-8424
Image Technology, Inc.
1170 North Armando St.
Anaheim, CA 92806
Contact: Harry Emtiaz
(714) 632-5292

KIWO
P.O. Box 1009
Seabrook, TX 77586
Contact: Clark King
1-800-KIWO-USA

Nichols and Associates, Inc.
111575 Rupp Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337

Contact: Oliver Nichols
(612) 895-1766

Ruemelin Manufacturing
3860 N. Palmer St.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Contact: Charlie Ruemelin
(414) 962-6500
DRAFT—September 1994
                             IV

-------
     The performance demonstration was successful due to the voluntary participation and
cooperation of the following screen printing facilities.  We appreciate your valuable efforts.

                             Action Graphics, Louisville, KY
                                 Artcraft, Portland, OR
                      Burlington Graphic Systems, Union Grove, WI
                           Coburn Corporation, Lakewood, NJ
                          Fastamps and Fasigns, Randolph, MA
                            Gangi Studios, N. Hollywood, CA
                           Gillespie Decals Inc., Wilsonville, OR
                         Identification Products, Bridgeport, CT
                        Ivey-Seright International, Inc., Seattle, WA
                                 Karagraphic, Kent, WA
                         Leading Edge Graphics, Minnetonka, MN
                           M&M Displays Inc., Philadelphia, PA
                         Masterscreen Products Inc., Portland, OR
                                Mobius, Inc., Eugene, OR
                           Modagraphics, Rolling Meadows, IL
                         Morrison & Burke, Inc., Santa Ana, CA
                     Nameplate  & Panel Technology, Carol Stream, IL
                        Paramount Screen Printing, Milwaukee, WI
                           Philadelphia Decal, Philadelphia, PA
                            Phillips Plastics Co.,  Fredonia, WI
                           Quantum Graphics, Redmond, WA
                                Royal Label,  Boston, MA
                         Screen  Process Specialists, Plymouth, WI

     Much gratitude is extended to the following members of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency DfE Staff and DfE Printing Project Risk Management-2 (RM-2) Workgroup
who worked on this document.
DfE Staff:

Stephanie Bergman
Beverly Boyd
Kathryn Pirrotta Caballero
Jed Meline

RM-2 Workgroup:

Robert Boethling

Richard Clements

James Darr

Susan Dillman

Sondra Hollister

Pat Kennedy

Susan Krueger

Fred Metz
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, OPPT
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, OPPT
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, OPPT
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, OPPT
Exposure Assessment Branch, Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division, OPPT
Environmental Effects Branch, Health & Environmental
Review Division, OPPT
Risk Analysis Branch, Chemical Screening & Risk
Assessment Division, OPPT
Technical Programs Branch, Chemical Management
Division, OPPT
Exposure Assessment Branch, Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division, OPPT
Exposure Assessment Branch, Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division, OPPT
Regulatory Impacts Branch, Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division, OPPT
Industrial Chemistry Branch, Economics, Exposure and
Technology Division, OPPT
DRAFT—September 1994

-------
Paul Quillen                     Chemical Engineering Branch, Economics, Exposure and
                                Technology Division, OPPT
Paul Randall                     Office of Research & Development, Cincinnati, Ohio
Heidi Siegelbaum                 New Chemicals Branch, Chemical Control Division, OPPT

     This document was prepared under EPA Contract 68-D2-0064, Work Assignment 2-23,
by ICF Incorporated of Fairfax, VA, under the direction of James Dickson. The EPA Work
Assignment Manager was Stephanie Bergman.

     The basis of the Performance Demonstration was a report prepared by Abt Associates,
specifically Cheryl Keenan and Andrew Stoeckle, of Cambridge, MA for the EPA Office of
Research & Development.
                                For More Information

     For more information on the DfE Printing Project or other DfE industry projects, contact

                   Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                              401 M Street, SW (PM-211A)
                                Washington, DC  20460

                               Telephone: 202/260-1023
                                Facsimile:  202/260-0178
                                          or
                        The Design for the Environment Program
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                         Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
                                401 M Street, SW (7406)
                                Washington, DC  20460

                               Telephone: 202/260-1678
DRAFT—September 1994                                                                vi

-------
                                                              Executive Summary
     The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program in EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) is a voluntary, cooperative program that works in partnership with industry
to develop and distribute pollution prevention and environmental and human health risk
information on alternative products, processes, and  technologies. The DfE Program develops
technical information as well as information products such as case studies, video-conferences,
training videos, and software to help industries and the public make cleaner choices in their
business practices.  All of the technical information developed by industry and the DfE Program
is assembled in a document called a Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA).
The CTSA forms the basis for subsequent information products and serves as a repository for
all of the technical information (environmental and human health, exposure and risk,
performance, and cost) that is developed in a DfE industry project.  In the development of the
CTSA, the DfE Program harnesses the expertise for which OPPT is best known:  comparative
and multi-media risk analysis, methods for evaluating alternatives for risk reduction, and
outreach to industry and the public on pollution prevention topics.

     The DfE Program uses a new approach to compare the risk, performance and cost trade-
offs of alternatives in a decision focused evaluation. The approach evaluates a "use cluster,"
that is, a set of chemicals, processes and technologies that can substitute for one another in
performing a particular function. This method is different from traditional pollution
prevention approaches in that it does not focus strictly on waste minimization. Instead, the use
cluster approach explicitly arrays alternative chemicals, products and processes allowing
comparison of the risk management issues along with performance  and cost in a systematic
way. During the process  of identifying alternatives, attention is focused on finding newer,
cleaner substitutes as well as comparing traditional ones.

     The DfE Program has been working with the screen printing industry to reduce risk and
prevent pollution in the use cluster of screen reclamation.  Partners in this effort include the
Screen Printing Association International (SPAI) and the University of Tennessee's Center for
Clean Products and Clean Technologies.  Through a process of collecting information  on
currently existing screen reclamation alternatives and through a search for other promising
options, the DfE Program and the screen printing industry have compared alternative and
traditional screen reclamation products,  technologies, and processes in terms of environmental
and human health exposure and risk, performance, and cost.  The results of this comparative
assessment are contained in the Screen Reclamation Products Cleaner Technologies
Substitutes Assessment.

     Specifically, the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA) is an analytical tool
developed by the DfE Program for use by industry. The CTSA is intended to provide a flexible
format for systematically comparing the trade-off issues associated with a use cluster.  In the
CTSA, traditional trade-off information such as cost and performance are brought together with
environmental trade-off information  including comparisons of environmental releases, human
health and environmental exposures and risk, energy impacts, and resource conservation.  The
goal of the CTSA is to offer a complete picture of the environmental and human health impacts,
cost and performance issues associated with traditional and alternative products, processes,
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                ES-1

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
and technologies so that businesses can make more informed decisions that fit their particular
situation. Data contained in the CTSA will be used as the basis for information products
designed to reach individual printers and suppliers who may not have the resources to utilize
this information on their own.

                                Structure of the CTSA

     The CTSA for Screen Printing Screen Reclamation focuses on the use cluster of screen
reclamation.  Screen reclamation is  a process (to clean a screen a printer must remove the ink,
the emulsion, and the haze from the screen)  rather than a specific set of chemicals or
technologies. Therefore, the CTSA is structured to evaluate screen reclamation systems.
Systems typically include combinations of products designed to perform three functions:
remove ink, emulsion, and haze and are typically sold as a system (see figure ES-1).  Within any
given screen reclamation system, the CTSA defines and evaluates the products used in the
system and the chemicals  that make up the products that are used in that system. The DfE
Screen Printing Project has identified five individual methods and technologies through which
screen reclamation can be performed.

                     Profile of Screen Reclamation Use Cluster

     To develop comparative information on screen reclamation products and technologies, an
array of different kinds of information about the industry is necessary. For example, in order
to develop exposure estimates, information about the work practices,  the number of employees,
the chemicals used by employees, etc.,  is required.  Chapter 1 in the CTSA provides
background information, including market information, on the screen printing industry, and
the screen reclamation process, in particular. It also describes some  of the alternative cleaning
technologies that could be applicable to the screen printing industry.

     The screen printing  industry is characterized by small businesses employing an average
of 15 people or fewer. While screen printers can print on a variety of substrates, this effort
focuses on the approximately 20,000 facilities who print graphic  arts  materials, such as fine art
prints, billboard advertisements, point-of-purchase displays, posters, plastic banner wall
hangings, original equipment manufacturing, and electronic equipment.

     The screen printing  process involves stretching a porous mesh material over a frame to
form a screen.  Part of the screen mesh is blocked by a stencil to  define the image. A rubber-
type  blade (squeegee) is swept across the surface of the screen, pressing ink through the
uncovered mesh to print the image defined by the stencil. After the screen has been used to
print numerous images, it needs to be cleaned for future use.  Many screen printing facilities
reclaim their screens for reuse because the screen material is valuable and costly to replace.
While screen reclamation techniques may vary significantly from one screen printer to another,
two basic functions must be performed in  order to restore a used screen to a condition where it
can be reused: removal of ink and removal of emulsion (stencil).  A third step, removing any
remaining "ghost image" or haze, may also be required.  (See Figure ES-1).

Screen Reclamation Methods

     A variety of commercial products have been  developed to perform each of these functions
and a complementary series of products (e.g., a particular brand  of ink remover product,
emulsion remover product, and haze remover product)  are often  sold by manufacturers and
distributors as a package.  For the purposes of this project, the trade-off issues associated with


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                ES-2

-------
•o_
CD"

CD
         Disposal of
         Screen Mesh
         (No Reclamation
               Occurs)
i i i
2
                    Method 1

                   Ink Removal
Products Used
Include:
• GLYCOL ETHERS
• SURFACTANTS
• DIBASIC ESTERS
• HYDROCARBON SOLVENTS
• TERPINEOLS
• ALCOHOLS
                  Emulsion
                  Removal/Water
                  Wash
                 Product Groups
                 Include:
                 • OXIDIZERS
                 • NON-OXIDIZERS
                 • SOLVENTS
                 • SURFACTANTS
                                                          Figure ES -1
                                              Screen Printing Substitutes Tree
                                                    Screen Reclamation
Method 2

                                          Ink Removal
                                           See
                                           Method 1
                                         Emulsion
                                         Removal/Water
                                         Wash
  See
  Method 1
                                         Haze Removal/
                                         Water Wash
Product Groups
Include:
• GLYCOL ETHERS
• CAUSTICS
• DIBASIC ESTERS
• SOLVENTS
• SURFACTANTS
                           J
                         Method 3
                        Ink Removal
                          See
                          Method 1
                                                                  Ink Degradant/|
                                                                  Water Rinse
                        Product Groups
                        in Method 1 Ink
                        Removal
                          Screen
                          Degreaser
                              I
                         Product Groups
                         in Method 1 Ink
                         Removal
                                                                  Emulsion
                                                                  Removal/Water |
                                                                  Wash
                                                                   See
                                                                   Method 1
                                                                                          Method 4
                                                                                          Water Only
                                                                                            See
                                                                                            Method 1
                                                 High Pressure |
                                                 Water Blast
                                                 (3000 psi)
                                                Haze Removal/
                                                High Pressure
                                                Rinse
                                                      I
                                               Product Groups
                                               In Method 1
                                               Emulsion Removal
                                                                                           Automatic
                                                                                           Screen Washer
                                                                                           (Enclosed System)
                                                                  Technology available
                                                                  for ink removal only
                                                                  OR total removal (ink/
                                                                  emulsion/haze removal).
                                                                  See product groups in
                                                                  Method 1.
                                                                                           CD
                                                                                           CO
                                                                                                P

                                                                                                I
                                                                                                m
                                                                                                73
                                                                                                3
                                                                                                o

                                                                                                o

                                                                                                I
                                                                                                83
                                                                                                83
                                                                                                >
                                                                                                83
                                                                                                83
                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                                         33
                                                                                                                                         s?

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
a particular product system, consisting of an ink remover, emulsion remover and haze
remover, are frequently assessed. Screen printers use these product systems in a variety of
methods to reclaim screens.

      DfE and SPAI identified five methods of undertaking screen reclamation; these are
exhibited in Figure ES-1. Method 1 illustrates how screen reclamation is performed with
products from the functional groups of ink removal and emulsion removal only.  Under each
functional group, some of the categories of chemicals that might be found in these products are
listed. Some screen printers may use only products from these functional groups when
reclaiming screens. More common among screen printers is the additional use of a haze
remover in the screen reclamation process, as depicted in Method 2. Method 3 was developed
by technical staff at SPAI and is currently taught at SPAI in workshop classes; it is referred to
by the name "SPAI Workshop Process." It differs from Method 1 in that screen degreasers and
ink degradants are used in the screen reclamation process. It also differs from Method 2 in that
no haze remover is necessary. Method 4 employs both mechanical and chemical technologies to
reclaim a screen. The use of a high-pressure water blaster eliminates the need for an ink
remover in this method; however, emulsion and haze removers are still  used. Method 5  involves
the use of an automatic screen washer, an enclosed system that can be used for ink removal
only, or as a complete system for screen cleaning.

Alternative Cleaning Processes

      Because the Screen Reclamation CTSA is designed to be as comprehensive as possible, it
presents information on the fullest consideration of cleaning alternatives. Some of these
alternatives may be new or esoteric, others have been used in a cleaning function in other
industries and are discussed in the Screen Reclamation CTSA because they may have the
potential to be used in screen printing, perhaps with slight modifications. Some of these
technologies include blasting methods, stripping methods, and methods that involve pulse light
energy.  Water-soluble stencils/emulsions also represent a product change that may affect other
aspects of the printing and reclamation process (e.g., inks used).

      The descriptions of the technologies that are highlighted in the CTSA are not exhaustive,
but are intended to promote discussion of the use of potential alternative technologies in the
screen reclamation process. Currently, some of these technologies  are used in high-tech
applications, and may not be economically feasible for the average screen printing
establishment.  However, further research into  these technologies,  and  their continued
development, may result in more cost-effective, easy-to-use applications in the screen printing
industry.

      One alternative technology evaluated for its potential in screen reclamation was a
pressurized baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) spray. The pressurized baking soda spray, when
combined with water, could remove solvent and water-based ink from a screen; the spray was
ineffective in removing UV-curable ink. Emulsion could also be removed, with only a light haze
remaining on the screen. Issues such as potential damage to the screen  mesh and cost-
effectiveness warrant further investigation, but equipment modifications could make the
technology feasible for use in screen reclamation.

                                  Chemical Profiles

      Another set of information that is required to complete the comparative analysis of
traditional and alternative screen reclamation products and technologies is chemical data. The
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                ES4

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
screen printing industry identified seventy-two chemicals that are in use in screen reclamation.
These chemicals comprise the screen reclamation use cluster and range from hydrocarbon
solvents and glycol ethers, to surfactants, caustics and oxidizers. Specific information on each
chemical was developed to support the risk assessment of screen reclamation products. Each
chemical profile includes physical/chemical properties, industrial synthesis, aquatic toxicity,
environmental fate, and a hazard summary. The regulatory status of each chemical is also
provided as a ready reference, although the discussion of federal environmental regulations is
intended for information purposes only and should not be used as a guide for compliance.
Market profile information on each chemical, such as total U.S. production and total use in
screen reclamation, was also developed. Included in this section is a generic categorization of
some of the screen reclamation chemicals; this was developed in order to protect the
proprietary nature of the alternative screen reclamation products submitted by manufacturers.

                                    Methodologies

     Because the Screen Reclamation CTSA is the DfE Program's first CTSA and will serve as
a model for CTSA's developed for other DfE industry projects, it presents a full discussion of
the methodologies that are used to develop the comparative environmental and human health
risk information.  The methodologies presented include: Environmental Releases and
Occupational Exposure Assessment, Population Exposure Assessment, Risk Assessment,
Performance Demonstration,  Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage, and Cost Analysis.  By
presenting this information in its entirety, the DfE Program hopes to make the evaluation
process completely visible so that others will be able to conduct some of these analyses
independently.

     Most of  the methodologies that are applied in this analysis are standard methodologies
that the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) Existing Chemicals Program uses,
except for the Performance Demonstration, Chemical Usage, and the Cost Analysis
Methodologies that will be discussed in more detail later in this section. The human health
hazard information was drawn from both literature searches and from public databases such
as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Hazard information including
carcinogenicity, chronic health hazard and developmental toxicity was compiled when available.
Aquatic toxicity data were taken from literature when available but otherwise structure activity
relationships were used to estimate  six types of aquatic toxicity.  Release and exposure
estimates were based on values derived from product usage and work practices information
obtained from the Workplace  Practices Questionnaire completed as part of the DfE project as
well as industry sources.


Performance Demonstration  Methodology

     To collect performance and cost information on alternative screen reclamation products,
EPA's Office of Research and Development and the DfE Program conducted a demonstration of
the performance of alternative screen reclamation products.
This type of analysis is not usually part of the work done by the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics' Existing Chemicals Program.   The performance demonstration methodology
summarizes how performance information was collected during both laboratory and
production run demonstrations with alternative screen reclamation products.  The
methodology was developed jointly by EPA, screen printers, and product manufacturers and it
governs the demonstration of products in the laboratory and in the field.
DRAFT—September 1994                                                                 ES-5

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
      Performance data were collected for 11 alternative screen reclamation product systems
and one alternative technology.  First, performance data were collected for the alternative
product systems in a laboratory setting at The Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF).
Then, in thirty-day production runs at 23 volunteer facilities field performance information was
collected on alternative screen reclamation systems, including information on the time spent on
ink removal, volume of products used, and appearance of the screen following each step in the
reclamation process.  It should be noted that the performance demonstrations are not rigorous
scientific investigations. Instead, a large portion of the performance information  outlinesthe
printers' experiences with and opinions of these products as they were used in production runs
at their facilities.  The DfE Program will be developing four performance demonstration case
studies for distribution to industry based on the more effective demonstrations.


Chemical Usage Methodology

      Since there was no resource available providing specific screen reclamation chemical
volumes or cost information, the DfE Program worked with industry to develop techniques to
estimate both the chemical volume and basic cost information for the methods evaluated.
Chemical volume  information is necessary to complete both the cumulative exposure estimates
and the basic cost comparisons.

      The methodology for determining chemical usage summarizes the assumptions and
calculations used to estimate the annual national totals of chemicals used in screen
reclamation. The  Use Cluster Analysis of the Printing Industry and The Workplace Practices
Questionnaire for Screen Printers developed as part of the DfE Printing Project, the Screen
Printing Association International 1990 Industry Profile Study and expert opinion estimates,
were used to develop an estimate of the chemical volumes. The information needed to develop
the estimates included the average screen size, the per screen volume of each type of
reclamation product, market shares, the number of screens cleaned yearly, and the number of
screen printing operations.  The screen size, in conjunction with the amount of product used or
purchased and the number of screens cleaned, was used to determine the per screen product
usage. Typical formulations were then used to determine the chemical breakdown of the
reclamation products.  Combining this information resulted in estimates of the volumes for
each of the chemicals involved in screen reclamation.
Cost Analysis Methodology

     A cost methodology was developed to estimate the costs of baseline screen reclamation, as
well as the cost of six alternative chemical, technological and work practice substitutes. The
cost estimation methodology is intended to reflect standard industry practices and uses
representative data for the given screen reclamation substitutes.  For each substitute method,
annual facility costs and per screen costs were estimated for individual facilities (those involved
in the performance demonstrations) whose operations were characteristic of the given
substitute method. For the hypothetical baseline facility, the total annual cost and per screen
cost were estimated for reclaiming six screens (2,127 in2 or 14.7  ft2) per day.  In addition, each
facility's costs were normalized to allow cross-facility comparisons, particularly with the
baseline scenario. Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and
number of rags laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of
screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario.
DRAFT—September 1994                                                                ES-6

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
                     Functional Groups in Screen Reclamation

     The Screen Reclamation CTSA devotes two chapters to the subject of comparative risk.
Chapter 4, focuses on screen reclamation products, while Chapter 5 focuses on screen
reclamation systems.  Chapter 4 presents cost and risk information by functional group (i.e.,
different ink removal product formulations)  where the products evaluated might be simply
substituted for one another.  The evaluations in Chapter 5 focus on systems of products
comparing both the formulations of the products within those systems and the changes in the
methods used to clean screens.

     In Chapter 4, information on the characteristics associated with each of the ink remover,
emulsion remover and haze remover products  is presented in a format that would allow
comparison of several types of products within each functional group. For example, 13
different formulations were evaluated for ink removers.

     For each type of product (ink removers, emulsion removers and haze removers), several
pieces of information are provided: chemical properties (flash point, percent VOC, vapor
pressure), hazard summary (health effects description and aquatic hazard rankings), purchase
cost, occupational exposures and risk conclusions, environmental releases and population
exposure conclusions. A process safety hazard evaluation was not included but could be an
important consideration.  For example, when substituting one product for another to avoid a
health concern, the new product might have  fire hazard issues. A safety hazard evaluation
should be included in future CTSAs.

     Information on total cost and product  performance is not provided on product basis but
rather on a system basis.  These products are typically sold as a system and more complete
cost and performance information is provided  in Chapter 5 where systems of products are
evaluated.

     One of the more important inputs required to conduct a comparative risk assessment is
product chemical formulation information.   Since EPA is not developing specifications or
labeling standards for products, the DfE Screen Printing Project did not believe it was
necessary to give product names or to release proprietary formulation information to other
product manufacturers or to the public. To  make the CTSA usable and flexible, the DfE
Program, in conjunction with the screen printing manufacturers and the Screen Printing
Association International devised a standard format that includes generic product formulations
and product names.  The generic formulations and names allow the users of the CTSA to
compare chemical constituents in product systems in a range of volumes while protecting the
proprietary nature of the product formulations. Therefore, the chemical formulations for the
products in the functional groups are not all-inclusive and other formulations may be available
commercially.

      Substitute Comparative Assessment of Screen Reclamation Systems

     Chapter 5 in the CTSA compiles comparative risk, cost and performance data on
complete screen reclamation product systems.  This comprehensive assessment details four
screen reclamation methods  and the automatic screen washer and serves as the backbone of
the CTSA. Information is provided for each  method and technology on occupational exposure
and risk, population exposure and risk, performance of traditional and alternative systems,
and the analysis of cost of traditional and alternative product systems when available.  Table
ES-1 summarizes the cost and risk trade-offs for the methods evaluated.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                               ES-7

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING

Executive Summary	
Method 1

      Method 1 encompasses the use of only ink removal and emulsion removal products to
reclaim screens. The action of these two products can eliminate the use of a haze remover;
some screen printers are able to reclaim screens without the need for a haze remover.
Eliminating the haze remover achieves the highest priority in the pollution prevention
hierarchy, source reduction. Six systems were assessed that can be used with this method.
Many of these systems can also be used with a haze remover and are also included under
method 2.
Method 2

     In a typical screen printing facility, ink remover, emulsion remover and haze remover are
all used in the process of screen reclamation. Method 2 incorporates the most common
practices in screen reclamation. For the purposes of determining occupational exposure to the
haze remover, it was assumed that screen reclaimers only used haze remover on 1-2 screens of
the estimated six screens reclaimed daily in the average small/medium screen printing facility.
Because Method 2 is the most representative of current screen reclamation practices, 14
systems are assessed that use this method including four traditional systems and ten
alternative systems.
Method 3

      Method 3 was developed by technical staff at SPAI and is currently taught at SPAI in
workshop classes; it is referred to by the name "SPAI Workshop Process." It differs from
Method 1 in that screen degreasers and ink degradants are used in the screen reclamation
process. Method 3 also differs from Method 2 in that no haze remover is necessary. Technical
staff at SPAI developed this method specifically to avoid the use of haze removers, which can
damage the screen meshes well as contribute to human health and environmental risks. Only
one system was assessed using this method. Due to resource limitations, no performance
demonstration was completed for this method. However a cost assessment was completed and
issummarized table ES-1.
Method 4

      Method 4 is currently in use in screen printing facilities as an alternative to traditional
screen reclamation. Method 4 utilizes the action of a high-pressure water blaster (3000 psi) so
that the need for ink removal chemicals is eliminated. Emulsion and haze remover chemicals
are still applied to the screen, and the water blaster also aids in removal of stencil and haze.
Because an ink remover is not used in screen reclamation in Method 4, source reduction, the
highest priority in the pollution prevention hierarchy, is achieved. Again, only one system was
evaluated using this method.
Automatic Screen Washer

     Automatic screen washers are commercially available technologies that remove ink, or in
some cases, ink, emulsion and haze, by focusing appropriate reclamation products on a screen

DRAFT—September 1994                                                                 ES-8

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
mesh surface within a fully enclosed unit. The system can be selective, in that it can be used to
remove ink only, or to completely reclaim screens. These units employ facets of the washout
booth, pressurized sprayer/applicator, and filtration system to effectively remove ink.  Because
these systems have a fully enclosed cleaning area, the amount of occupational exposure to the
chemical reclamation system in use can be minimized if used properly.

      Due to the lack of manufacturer participation, the demonstration of the performance of
an automatic screen washer was not undertaken. However, a risk assessment was developed
for an automatic screen washing system used by a facility that participated in the performance
demonstration; this screen washer only removed ink.  Experimental parameters used in the
occupational exposure and population exposure calculations were drawn from the data
available from this single site. The risk assessment could not be undertaken for the actual
solvents used in the screen washer as the composition of the ink remover was unknown.
Instead, two typical ink remover formulations were substituted to complete the assessment of
releases and risk. Also two cost estimates were developed to reflect different facility operations
and size. One estimate reflects a large enclosed system with  automated movement of screens
through the cleaning process. The other estimate was conducted for a smaller piece of
equipment requiring manual loading and unloading of screens, as well as water rinsing of
residual ink remover.
Screen Disposal as a Method of Pollution Prevention

     During the course of the assessment of various screen reclamation methods, it was
proposed that disposal of imaged screens, rather than reclamation might be a feasible alternative.
It was known that some screen printers with long production runs and extremely small screens,
such as those used to print on medicine bottles, simply cut the screen mesh out of the frame after
completion of the production run. By simply disposing of the screens, printers could eliminate the
high cost of reclamation chemicals and labor time associated with screen reclamation, as well as
reduce the risk associated with occupational and population exposure to these chemicals.
Conversely, printers would have to dispose of more screens, with the potential for some screens
to be designated as hazardous waste due to the chemicals applied to them during imaging and
printing.  Due to the different types of source reduction involved in these two options, they are
difficult to directly compare in terms of pollution prevention.  To determine whether screen
disposal was a cost-effective option, a cost estimate was developed to reflect the baseline facility's
operations and size. It was estimated that the total cost per year of disposing of the screens,
instead of reclaiming them, would be $74,141.  The baseline cost of reclaiming screens for a year
was estimated at $9,399. Based on this analysis, it is clear  that screen disposal is not a cost-
effective option for a majority of screen printing facilities.  However, printers should not view this
cost estimate as a final analysis, because the operations of any one facility can be different from
the assumptions used in generating this analysis.  It should  be noted that screen disposal would be
more cost-effective under two circumstances that were not included in the baseline facility
estimates: where production runs approach the useful life of a screen and where the size of the
screen is relatively small.
DRAFT—September 1994                                                                 ES-9

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
Summary of Risk Conclusions

      The general conclusions for estimated risks from screen reclamation are outlined below. As
presented, the risk conclusions are for all of the methods, unless stated otherwise.

      o    Estimated worker dermal exposures to traditional and alternative screen reclamation
           products can be high if proper protective clothing is not worn.

      o    All of the traditional products presented clear concerns for both inhalation exposures
           and unprotected dermal exposures to workers.

      o    Only one of the alternative products (mu) presented a clear concern for inhalation
           exposures to workers. In general, the alternative products are much less volatile than
           the traditional products, and, therefore, have fewer releases to air.

      o    Health risks to the general population from ambient air and drinking water exposures
           are estimated to be very low for all of the products evaluated due to low quantities of
           releases from individual sites.

      o    The major health impact on the general population for screen reclamation products is
           probably its release of volatile organic compounds that contribute to the formation of
           photochemical smog in the ambient air. The traditional products, because of their
           volatility, are likely to have a much greater impact than the alternative products on
           ambient air quality.

      o    Use of an automatic screen washer for ink removal may significantly reduce air
           emissions of certain volatile ink remover components, although the amount of
           reduction depends on the specific components of the formulation. However, the
           automatic screen washer is expensive and is probably unaffordable for most screen
           printers.
Performance and Cost Summary

      In Chapter 5, immediately following the risk assessment of each product system, is a
detailed performance summary.  It includes a general summary of product performance, a
description of the product application method, results from the evaluation at the Screen Printing
Technical Foundations (SPTF), details of product performance reported separately for each
volunteer printing facility, and facility background information. For each product system, a table is
also included which provides certain summary statistics from the performance demonstrations at
the volunteer printing facilities and at SPTF (for three ink types). For a quick summary of the
results, the table providing summary statistics (Chapter 5) is very helpful.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                ES-10

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
     In general, the alternative products performed similarly to traditional products but with
generally lower costs and generally more risk reduction than the traditional products. Three
systems/technologies consistently met the expectations of printers: Epsilon, Chi and Theta. Delta,
Mu and Phi also received mostly favorable reviews. Product Systems Alpha and Omicron AF, as
well as ink remover Beta, received mixed reviews, with performance documented as acceptable at
some facilities and unacceptable at others. Performance of Gamma, Omicron AE, and Zeta was
deemed unacceptable at the facilities that used these product systems. A performance assessment
of one traditional system, Traditional System 3, was also conducted; this evaluation was only
completed at SPTF. The performance of the products varied greatly with the different ink types;
the lacquer thinner removed the ink on screens printed with UV-curable and solvent-based inks,
but was completely incompatible with water-based ink.  In the case of the screen printed with
solvent-based ink, the sodium hypochlorite (bleach) solution used as an emulsion remover caused
the screen mesh to rip.

     Table ES-1 summarizes the cost and hazard issues by method and system for the alternative
systems.  Summaries for the baseline method used in the cost  estimates is given followed by the
four major methods of screen reclamation, automatic screen washer and simple disposal of the
screens without reclamation.  Within the four primary screen reclamation methods the various
systems that can be used with those methods (e.g., alpha, chi, delta, etc.) are listed with the cost
and risk summaries. This table presents  summaries only, for a more complete description of the
costs and exposure and hazard issues consult Chapter 5.

        Overall Pollution Prevention Opportunities  in Screen Reclamation

     Pollution prevention, or source reduction, is the reduction of any hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment.
Pollution prevention can be accomplished through activities such as material substitution, process
improvements, changes in workplace practices and in-process recycling.   The primary focus of
the CTSA through Chapter 5 is on material substitution, Chapter 6 lists ways to achieve pollution
prevention and risk reduction through improved workplace practices and equipment
modifications.
Pollution Prevention Through Improved Workplace Practices

     In an effort to help industry think of pollution prevention options that might be available to
them and that do not require changing chemical products, the Screen Reclamation CTSA provides
information on improved workplace practices.  The basic framework for pollution prevention
through improved workplace practices involves:

     o    raising employee awareness;
     o    materials management and inventory control;
     o    process improvement; and
     o    periodic, in-house audits.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                ES-11

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING

Executive Summary	
                                           Table ES-1
                 Costs and Risk Trade-offs of Screen Reclamation Substitutes
System Evaluated
Baseline for Method 1 (Traditional System 4 - Haze
Remover)
Method 1: Chemical substitutes
for ink removal and emulsion
removal. No haze removal
required.
Chi (no haze
remover)
Beta
Baseline for All Other Methods (Traditional System 4)
Method 2: Chemical substitutes
for ink removal, emulsion
removal and haze removal.
Method 3: Chemical substitutes
for ink removal, degreasing and
emulsion removal. No haze
removal required.
Method 4: Technology substitute
of screen disposal in lieu of
reclamation.
Technology Substitute
Work Practice Substitute
Alpha
Chi
Delta
Epsilon
Gamma
Mu
Phi
Omicron-AE
Omicron-AF
Zeta
Omicron
Theta
Automatic Screen
Washer
Screen Disposal
Cost/Screen
$3.63
$1.95-2.83
$7.97
$6.27
$5.92-9.37
$3.25-3.89
$3.28-7.66
$3.08-5.29
$5.06-5.61
$4.79-9.33
$6.10-7.82
$5.49-10.85
$3.89-4.45
$5.39-8.99
$5.57
$4.53
$4.13-10.14
$49.43
Cost/Facility
$5,446
$2,918-4,245
$11,958
$9,399
$8,886-
14,062
$4,879-5,829
$4,917-
11,489
$4,624-7,930
$7,590-8,417
$7,185-
13,997
$9,233-
11,728
$8,240-
16,278
$5,836-6,675
$8,080-
13,479
$8,358
$6,797
6,198-15,213
$74,141
Risk Trade-offs
Clear concern for worker dermal
risks and worker inhalation risks
Moderate concern for worker
dermal risks and very low concern
for inhalation risks
Clear concern for worker dermal
risks and worker inhalation risks
Moderate concern for worker
dermal risks and low concern for
inhalation risks
Moderate concern for worker
dermal risks and very low concern
for inhalation risks
Marginal concerns for worker
dermal risks and very low
concerns for worker inhalation
risks
Moderate concern for worker
dermal risks and very low concern
for inhalation risks
No risks associated with screen
reclamation products
 Note: Costs presented are normalized costs. Ranges are presented when there was more than one facility using the method
 and system in the performance demonstration.
DRAFT—September 1994
ES-12

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
     Raising employee awareness may be the best way to get employees to actively participate in
a pollution prevention program.  Materials management and inventory control means
understanding how chemicals and materials. With this information opportunities for pollution
prevention can be identified. Process improvement through workplace practices requires re-
evaluating the day-to-day operations that make up the printing and screen reclamation processes
with the goal of waste minimization and pollution prevention.  Finally, in-house audits can be used
to collect real-time data on the effectiveness of a pollution prevention program. These efforts can
give both operators and managers the incentive to strive for continuous improvement. Table ES-
2 lists some workplace practices that prevent pollution and describes the benefits associated with
them.
Pollution Prevention Through Equipment Modifications

     In addition to workplace practices, several types of equipment can be used in screen
reclamation to prevent pollution. Such equipment includes sprayer/applicator systems, washout
booths, filtration systems, recirculation systems and distillation units. Illustrative examples of each
of these systems, as well as explanatory text, are outlined in Chapter 6 of the CTSA.

     The use of sprayer/application systems to apply screen reclamation chemicals to the used
screen may reduce losses and potential exposures with more effective application. A washout
booth can also minimize exposures and waste by containing the reclamation process in a confined
area and collecting spent chemicals for proper reuse or disposal. Filtration  systems can be used to
remove specific substances from the waste stream facilitating compliance and allowing the reuse
of some chemicals. Recirculation systems are generally required to reuse captured chemicals.
Typically, recirculation systems are used in conjunction with filtration systems, washout booths
and/or sprayer application systems.  Distillation devices can provide an effective means of
recycling and reusing spent solvents.

     Many of these systems can save money as well as facilitate compliance and prevent
pollution by reducing the amount of chemicals used in screen reclamation.  Each printer would
need to examine his or her particular process to determine the applicability of any or all of the
above equipment modifications. In addition printers should consult applicable water and waste
disposal regulations to ensure compliance before making equipment changes.

        Social Cost/Benefits of Alternative Screen Reclamation Processes

     A summary of various macroeconomic considerations, including energy and natural
resource considerations and a social costs^eneflts analysis complete the Screen Reclamation
CTSA.  These considerations allow printers to put into perspective their contributions to
environmental problems by discussing the aggregate impact issues.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                               ES-13

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
                    Table ES-2: Workplace Practices and Their Benefits
Workplace Practices
Keep chemicals in safety cans or covered containers
between uses
Use plunger cans, squeeze bottles or specialized spraying
equipment to apply chemicals to the screen
Consider manual, spot-application of chemicals, where
applicable
Use a pump to transfer cleaning solutions from large
containers to the smaller containers used at the work station
Reduce the size of the towel or wipe used during clean-up
Reuse shop towels on the first pass with ink remover
Evaluate alternative chemical: water dilution ratios (increase
the amount of water)
Only apply chemicals where necessary
Avoid delays in cleaning and reclaiming the screen
Gravity-drain, wring, or centrifuge excess solvent from rags
Place catch basins around the screen during the screen
cleaning/reclamation process
Use appropriate personal protective equipment (gloves,
barrier cream, respirator, etc.)
Benefits
Reduces materials loss; increases worker safety; reduces
worker exposure
Reduces potential for accidental spills; reduces materials
use; reduces worker exposure
Reduces materials use; reduces worker exposure if aerosol
mists are avoided
Reduces potential for accidental spills; reduces worker
exposure
More efficient use of the towel; reduces solvent use;
reduces worker exposure
Reduces material (shop towel and ink remover) use; reduces
worker exposure
Reduces chemical usage with no loss of efficiency; reduced
worker exposure
Reduces chemical usage; reduces worker exposure
Simplify ink and emulsion removal; less potential for haze on
the screen
Recovers solvent for reuse
Captures chemical overspray for recovery and reuse
Reduces worker exposure
Energy and Natural Resource Considerations

     When designing products or processes with the environment in mind, conservation of
energy and natural resources (e.g., materials) should also be a goal. The Screen Reclamation
CIS A identifies the areas where energy and materials are consumed as a result of the screen
reclamation process.  For screen cleaning and reclamation chemicals, the DfE Screen Printing
Project elected to focus on energy and natural resource consumption during the use stage, when
printers are actually cleaning and reclaiming their screens.  The data collected during the
performance demonstration did not allow for clearcut extrapolation because of the variety of
conditions present in screen printing shops. As a result, quantitative analysis was not possible.
Summarized below are some of the areas where energy and natural resources may be consumed
as a result of the screen reclamation process.
DRAFT—September 1994
ES-14

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
      o    During a water wash, the rate of energy use may be dependent on type of equipment
           used to apply the water.  High-pressure spray washes may require more energy than a
           non-pressurized water wash.

      o    Also during a water wash, the use of hot or warm water washes are much more
           energy intensive than those conducted at ambient water temperatures.

      o    Another source of resource consumption is disposable shop towels.  In addition to the
           consumption  of resources, they also generate solid, potentially hazardous, waste and
           increased disposal cost.
Social Costs/Benefits Analysis

      There are a variety of issues that need to be considered when assessing the overall cost to
society that screen reclamation imposes.  Many of the issues cannot be quantified but they ought
to be included in the decision-making process. The social cost/benefits section in the Screen
Reclamation CTSA offers a qualitative discussion of these issues.

      The risk assessment conducted as a part of the CTSA analyzed the risk of both traditional
and alternative screen reclamation systems using four different methods.  Automatic screen
washing and simple disposal of the used screens was also examined. A cost analysis was
performed to estimate the cost of each alternative screen reclamation method, technology, and
work practice evaluated in the CTSA. The social  cost/benefits analysis compares in general
terms the costs and benefits (in terms of reduced human health risks) of switching to alternative
screen reclamation products, technologies, and work practices. In addition, this analysis looks
beyond just the costs (material, labor, etc.) and benefits (reduced worker health risks) to printing
operations of switching to alternative product systems and considers the potential for benefits to
society as a whole. Specifically, it considers the possibility that the use of screen reclamation
substitutes could result in reduced health risks to the general population, lower health insurance
and liability costs for the printing industry and society, and decreased adverse impacts to the
environment. Based on this analysis, the following conclusions were drawn.

      o    The population of workers exposed to screen reclamation products in the graphics
           section of the screen printing industry is estimated to be as low as 20,000 or as high
           as 60,000 depending on how many workers at each facility spend part of their time
           reclaiming screens.

      o    The major benefit identified for switching from traditional screen reclamation methods
           to alternative methods is a significant reduction in inhalation risks to workers.

      o    Among the chemical substitutes evaluated, labor was the largest portion of the
           reclamation  cost.  For the technology and work practice substitutes, equipment and
           materials constituted the largest portion of the reclamation cost.  Alternative
           products, however, did not necessarily have greater labor costs as compared to

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                ES-15

-------
CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT FOR SCREEN PRINTING
Executive Summary	
           traditional products.  Rather the labor costs tended to depend on the mix of chemicals
           and technologies (i.e., high pressure sprays) selected.

      o    The estimated cost associated with using the baseline traditional screen reclamation
           system equaled $3.63/screen for method 1 and $6.27/screen for all other methods.

      o    Under the alternative systems, estimated costs range from $1.95/screen ($2,918 per
           year) for Method 1 to $10.85/screen (Omicron-AE, Method 2).

      o    For all systems overall, alternative products are estimated to be less costly than
           traditional systems depending on the technologies used  (see table ES-1).

      o    The social benefit of switching to alternative screen reclamation products includes the
           benefit to society of reduced risk from exposure to such hazardous wastes during
           transport to landfills and in the event of migration of contaminants from the landfill
           into groundwater. Printers may also receive benefits in the form of reduced
           hazardous waste disposal costs since for most of the alternative product systems,
           there might not be any hazardous waste. It should be noted that determination of
           hazardous wastes was based on ignitability of chemical constituents; toxicity testing
           could result in a different classification of the wastes as hazardous.

      A more complete discussion of the social costs and benefits is included in Chapter 7 of the
CTSA.

                                       Conclusion

      The appendices include a glossary of terms used in the environmental fate summaries.  Also
included is a sample questionnaire from the Workplace Practices Questionnaire and the basic
results of the survey. The evaluation sheets for both the observers and the participants in the
performance demonstration are also included. Finally, general methodology data and a
description of some of the models used are included in the appendices.

      The draft of the Screen Reclamation Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment is being
released for public review and comment for 90 days. After which, comments will be incorporated
and a final version of the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment will be released in the
spring of 1995.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                ES-16

-------
                                                                               Chapter I
                                  Profile of Screen Reclamation Use Cluster
                                Profile of Screen Printing
Overview of Screen Printing
      Screen printing is probably the most versatile of the printing techniques, since it can place
relatively heavy deposits of ink onto practically any type of surface with few limitations on the size
and shape of the object being printed.  The ability to print variable thicknesses of ink with a high
quantity of pigment allows for brilliant colors, back lighting effects, and durable products which
are able to  withstand harsh outdoor weather conditions and laundering.  Unlike many other
printing methods, substrates for screen printing can include all types of plastics, fabric, metals,
papers,  as  well as exotic  substrates such as  leather,  masonite,  glass, ceramics, wood, and
electronic circuit boards.1 While screen printing does compete with other printing techniques for
some products (especially for small paper substrate products), it has a specialized market niche
for many graphic art materials  and textile printing applications.  Comparatively low equipment
investment costs allow for low cost short production runs.

      The screen printing process involves stretching a porous mesh material over a frame to form
a screen. Part of the screen mesh is blocked by a  stencil to define the image.  A rubber-type blade
(squeegee) is swept across the surface of the screen, pressing ink through the uncovered mesh to
print the image defined by the stencil.  The substrate is then either manually placed onto drying
racks or placed onto a conveyor transport system for conveyance into a drying unit. The screen
and its stencil can be used repeatedly to print the same image multiple times.

      The screen printing process  differs  in many ways from the other printing methods of
lithography,  gravure, flexography, and letterpress.  Because screen printing utilizes various
materials in a printing process that differs greatly  from other  printing methods, it presents
environmental challenges that are unique in the  printing industry.

      Products Printed

      The majority of screen printers do not restrict their operations to printing on one substrate
or to the production of one end product.  Textile products, however, are the most common
products in production.  Surveys conducted by the Screen Printing Association International (SPAI)
show that approximately 54 percent of screen printers produce  imprinted  textile garments.2
Perhaps the most well known example is T-shirts.  Textile printing also includes the markings and
patterns on towels, comforters, caps,  visors, aprons,  drapes, carpet, sheets, flags, and the basic
patterned material  that is made into pants, dresses, and other clothing.
  'Types of plastics used as substrates include acrylic, epoxies, vinyl, topcoated and nontopcoated polyester, and polycarbonate,
while fabric substrates can be either natural or synthetic. Metals used as substrates include aluminum, brass, copper, lacquer-
coated metals and steels. Paper substrates range from uncoated, coated and corrugated coated fiberboard to poster and
cardboard.

  2Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991), p. 9.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     1-1

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Profile of Screen Printing	Market Information on the Screen Printing Industry

      Another major category of screen printed products includes graphic arts materials with
products as diverse as fine art prints, billboard advertisements, point-of-purchase displays (such
as those displayed in supermarkets), posters, plastic banner wallhangings, wallpaper, and decals.
Large banners, durable outdoor displays, and short poster runs are specialty products  of many
commercial screen printing establishments.

      Other applications include original equipment manufacturing (for example, the soft keypad
on cash registers at some fast food restaurants or the heating controls in a car), printing on
electronic equipment such as circuit boards, and product identification markings on products like
wine bottles, fire extinguishers, cosmetic compact covers, insulated beverage and food containers,
and aerosol spray cans.


Market Information on the Screen Printing Industry

      Number of Screen  Printing Facilities

      The number of American screen  printers and the quantity of their sales is difficult to
determine because parts of the screen printing industry are "captive in-plant screen departments"
within a separate manufacturing industry. For example, one step in toothpaste production is
screen printing product identification markings on the tube.

      There are three major categories of screen printing facilities:

      o     Commercial Screen Printing Facilities (garments, signs, posters, decals, etc.)

      o     Industrial  Screen Printing  Facilities (panel  fronts,  circuits,  glassware,  original
            equipment, etc.)

      o     In-Plant (Captive) Screen Printing Departments (markings and decals on products)

SPAI estimates that there are at least 40,000 plants in the U.S. with screen presses, consisting of
approximately 20,000 plants that focus  on textile substrates (50 percent) and 20,000 graphics
printers.3 This number is derived from known addresses of screen printing shops.  This estimate
includes in-plant operations and the majority of industrial screen printing operations.4

      Quantity of Sales and Percent of Market

      According to Bruno's Status of Printing 1989-90, screen printing accounted for less than
three percent of the total value of U.S. printing industry output in 1991. This figure excludes in-
plant "captured" printing.  It  has been estimated that the screen printing industry posted gross
sales of $ 13 billion in 1986.5 A statistical weighted average calculation performed from 1990 SPAI
  3Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991), p. 9.

  torrespondence between Kathryn Caballero, U.S. EPA, and Marcia Y. Kinter, Director of Government Affairs, SPAI, May 1994.

  5Air and Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Buonicore, Anthony and Davis, Wayne T. (ed.),
(New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992), p. 288.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                      I-2

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Definition and Overview of Screen Reclamation	Overview of Screen Reclamation

Survey Information estimated U.S. annual sales volume estimate of $21.9  billion in 1990.6
According to Bruno, the screen printing market is expected to show little or no growth between
1995 and 2025.7

      Size of Screen Printers

      The Screen Printing Industry is dominated by small businesses with the average screen print
shop having approximately 15 employees.8  From a 1992 Survey, Screen  Printing Magazine
estimates the following size categories for screen printing facilities:9

      o     1 to 20  employees (70.9 percent)
      o     21  to 50 employees (14.0 percent)
      o     51  to 100 employees (7.8 percent)
      o     More than 100 employees (7.4 percent)

The SPAI  1990 survey of U.S. screen printing companies showed that respondents had slightly
more than 20  employees  and of the 20, approximately 14 were production workers, two were
managers/supervisors,  two were sales personnel, and two were classified as "other".

                    Definition and Overview of Screen Reclamation

Definition of Screen Reclamation

      For the purposes of the Design for the Environment Printing Project, screen reclamation will
be defined as the process that begins once  excess ink  has been carded off the screen and ends
when the screen is ready for reuse. Ink removal performed at press side was not evaluated as part
of this project.
Overview of Screen Reclamation

      Purpose of Reclamation

      Many screen printing facilities reclaim their screens for reuse because the screen material
is valuable and costly to replace.  Screen fabric can be one of the more expensive supplies that a
screen printer uses and can have a large impact on cost of operations.  For example, the most
commonly used fabric, polyester, costs $ 10 to $40 per square yard.10'11 A shop that wastes $ 100
  6Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991), p. 10.

  7Bruno's Status of Printing 1989-90, (1991), p. 17.

  8Air and Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Buonicore, Anthony and Davis, Wayne T. (ed.),
(New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992), p. 397.

  ^uccilli, S., "The 1992 Industry Survey: Safety and Environmental Practices in the Screen-Printing Industry," Screen Printing
Magazine, (April 1992), p. 50.

  '"Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991), p. 15.

  "Frecska, T., Screen Printing Magazine, (1992), p. 120.


DRAFT—September 1994                                                                      I-3

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Definition and Overview of Screen Reclamation	Overview of Screen Reclamation

to $200 per week, in fabric costs from ruining screens or failing to reclaim them, can increase its
annual production  costs by as much as $5000 to $10,000.12 The average monthly expense for
fabric is $360.13 In addition, reclaiming screens has the advantage of saving labor time needed for
stretching mesh across the frame and adjusting it to the correct tension. Some printers believe that
using retensionable frames when stretching the mesh "work hardens" the fabric, improving the
printability and longevity of the screen.  Other printers  note that reusing screens for other jobs,
instead of storing them in an imaged screen inventory, saves both screen fabric costs and storage
space often needed for presses.

      Screen Reclamation Frequency

      While 90.3 percent of screen printers reclaim screens daily,14 not all screen printers attempt
to reclaim every screen.  Some orders of a specific stencil may be  reordered systematically (for
example, a stop sign or sale poster), in which case a screen printer may want to store the screen
and stencil until the customer returns and requests another run of the print.  In other cases, the
screen may be very small (for  example, a message printed on an plastic aspirin bottle). When
screens are small, the time and effort needed to reclaim  the screen can be higher than the cost of
cutting out the fabric and replacing it.15

      SPAI's  1990 Industry Profile Study reports that 68 percent of respondents reclaim between
1 and  10 screens per day and 17.3 percent reclaim between 11  and 20 screens per day.16 Many
operational factors determine the lifetime of a screen, including the roughness of substrate and ink,
number of impressions, the  daily handling of the screen, and the types of products used to  reclaim
the screen. The number of impressions printed affect the screen lifetime because repeated runs
of the squeegee over  the fabric can weaken and warp the fibers of the mesh. A printer may mark
and date screens to keep track of the screen history, including number of impressions.  Printers
discard  the  screen when it has been reclaimed a certain number of times or shows signs of
weakening.17

      Screen Reclamation Process

      Screen cleaning is the forgotten process in our industry.  It generally takes place in
      a dungeon-like area in the most remote corner of the shop. As a result, the forgotten
      process has developed differently in every screen-printing business.  Walk into ten
      shops  and you could easily find just as many different  solvents and  disposal
      methods being used. - Steven Duccilli, Editor.18
   12Frecska, T., Screen Printing Magazine, (1992), p. 120.

   13Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991), p. 16.

   "Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991), p. 23.

   15Personal communication between Beverly Boyd, U.S. EPA, and Dutch Drehle, Screen Printing Association International, May
1993.

   16Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991), p. 23.

   "Personal communication between Beverly Boyd, U.S. EPA, and Dutch Drehle, Screen Printing Association International, May
1993.

   18Duccilli, S., "In Search of Screen-Cleaning Standards," Screen Printing Magazine, (April 1993), p. 6.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                      I-4

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Definition and Overview of Screen Reclamation	Overview of Screen Reclamation

      While screen reclamation techniques may vary significantly from one screen  printer to
another, two basic functions must be performed in order to restore a used screen to a condition
which it can be reused: removal of ink and removal of emulsion (stencil).  A third step, removing
any remaining "ghost image" or haze, may be required depending upon the type of ink used,
effectiveness of ink removal and/or emulsion remover products, and the length of time that ink and
stencil have been on the screen.

      A variety of commercial products have been developed to perform each of these functions and
a complementary series of products (i.e., a particular brand of ink remover product, emulsion
remover product, and haze remover product) are often sold by manufacturers and distributors as
a package.  For the purposes of this project, the trade-off issues associated with a particular
screen reclamation system, consisting of an ink remover, emulsion remover  and haze
remover, are typically assessed.  Other products,  such as screen degreaser and ink degradant,
sometimes play a role in the reclamation of screens. These are not assessed. Different equipment,
application techniques, and work practices play a role in the efficacy and quantity required of each
product. All of these affect the trade-offs associated with product systems.

      Ink Removal

      Ink categories include: traditional solvent-based inks (which includes enamels),  ultraviolet
(UV)-curable inks, water-based  inks and plastisols (for textile printing). Ink removal (also called
screen washing or screen cleaning) precedes stencil removal so that excess ink does not interfere
with removal of the stencil.

      Ink is also removed at other times prior to screen reclamation (for example, when dust gets
into the ink and clogs the screen mesh, or at lunch break, to avoid ink drying on the screen).  This
"process cleaning" usually occurs at press side.  Screen cleaning performed as a part of screen
reclamation may be performed at press side, in a separate ink removal area of the shop,  or in an
area where emulsion and haze are removed. This study will focus on ink removal performed as
a part of the screen reclamation process and not on process or press-side cleaning.

      Emulsion (Stencil) Removal

      Several types of emulsions or stencils, such as indirect or direct photo stencils, are used in
transferring an image to the screen.19  Most direct stencils are water-soluble and thus incompatible
with water-based inks.  However, chemical curing of water-soluble stencils  can improve their
resistance to water. A water-resistant stencil must accompany a solvent-based ink, and a solvent-
resistant stencil must accompany a water-based ink.  Solvent and  UV curable inks  are typically
coupled with water-resistant emulsions.  Thus, a commercial facility using 90 percent solvent-
based inks and 10 percent UV curable inks can use the same water resistant emulsion systems for
both inks. If, however, the screen printing facility wants to replace some of its solvent-based inks
with water-based inks, a new type of solvent resistant emulsion will have to be used to complement
the water-based inks.  Using solvent-resistent emulsion with water-based inks  will cause the
emulsion to erode quickly and  pinholes will show up in the stencil.

      Most emulsion removers are packaged  in a water solution or as a powder to be dissolved in
water; the water acts as a carrier for the actual reclaiming chemical. The predominant chemical
in an emulsion remover  is often sodium metaperiodate. Because periodate needs water as a carrier
   19Direct photostencils are exposed in direct contact with the screen, after adhesion to the mesh. Conversely, indirect photo
stencils are exposed, developed and adhered to the mesh. Different chemicals are used for each type of stencil.


DRAFT—September 1994                                                                    I-5

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Definition and Overview of Screen Reclamation	Overview of Screen Reclamation

to reach certain chemical groups in the emulsion, it is more difficult to reclaim a water-resistant
emulsion than one which is only solvent-resistant. Most commercially available emulsion remover
products are able to remove either water resistant or solvent resistant emulsions.  High pressure
water spray can also facilitate emulsion removal and may lower the quantity of emulsion remover
required. Special care must be taken to ensure that the emulsion remover does not dry on the
screen, as the screen will become almost impossible to clean, even with repeated applications of
the remover.

      Haze (Ghost Image) Removal

      A haze or ghost image is sometimes visible after the emulsion has been removed.  This
results from ink or stencil being caught in the knuckle (the area between the overlap of the screen
threads) or dried/stained into the threads of the screen.  Staining of the mesh frequently occurs
when petroleum-based solvents are used in the ink removal process.  The solvents dissolve the ink,
leaving behind traces of the pigment and resin in the screen. The residual pigment and resin bonds
to the screen after the solvent evaporates, leading to  haze accumulation.  Ghost images are
especially common when dark inks (blue, black, purple and green) are used, or if an excessively
long time period elapsed prior to ink removal from the screen.  A ghost image is particularly likely
when using solvent-based ink systems, as opposed to other ink systems. If the ghost image is dark
or will interfere with later reimaging and printing, a haze remover product can be applied until the
image disappears or fades.  The level of cleanliness required at the end of the process varies
depending on the kind of printing job that the screen will be used for  after reclamation. Some
printers can use screens with light ghost haze, others cannot.

      Haze removal can potentially damage the screen mesh, particularly  caustic haze removers
that are traditionally used in the industry.  The excessive use of these products, such as  applying
the chemical  and leaving it on the screen too long, can weaken the mesh.

      Printer Environmental Concerns about Screen Reclamation

      Concern on the part of screen printers and SPAI about screen cleaning and reclamation
stems from two sources; (1) the use of highly volatile organic solvents; (2) the common practice of
screen printers of allowing water from screen washing and reclaiming to go directly down the drain
without prior filtration. According to a 1992 survey by Screen Printing magazine, of the 250
companies that answered a question about the latter practice, 191 (76 percent) indicated they send
unfiltered waste down the drain.20 Depending on what is in the water (ink, ink remover chemicals,
emulsion, emulsion  remover chemicals, and/or haze remover)  this practice could contribute to
health and environmental problems since the water goes either directly to a wastewater treatment
facility, a body of water (streams, etc.) or a printer's septic tank.

      Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), particularly in the Western states, have increased
awareness of  the water discharge problem by tracing problem inputs into the sewer system back
to screen printers and levying fines on offenders.  Three major categories of concern have been
raised by the POTWs:

      o    Heavy metals, which can be found in the residue of ink, can enter the sewer system
           and contaminate sewage sludge
  20Duccilli, S., "The 1992 Industry Survey: Safety and Environmental Practices in the Screen-Printing Industry," Screen Printing
Magazine, (April 1992), p. 53.


DRAFT—September 1994                                                                   I-6

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Identification of Screen Reclamation Functional Groups
      o    Heavy concentrations of certain chemicals can disrupt the pH balance at the treatment
           plant and disrupt the bacterial systems essential to the sewage treatment process

      o    Combinations of mixtures with low flash points can cause flammability concerns in the
           sewage system

      Concern has also been expressed about screen printing facilities that discharge waste water
to septic tanks. In these cases, water containing ink cleaning solvents, ink residue, emulsion,
emulsion remover, haze remover products or other wastes could disrupt the bacterial balance in
septic tanks and/or contaminate local groundwater supplies.

      Confusion has been exacerbated by "biodegradable", "drain safe",  "solvent-free" claims on the
labels of many ink removal and emulsion removal products.  Unfortunately, some printing facilities
that use  so-called "biodegradable" products have mistaken these products for  waste-disposal
panaceas. Simply because the product itself is drain permissible, does not mean that the product
combined with ink residue or emulsion residue from screen reclamation is also drain permissible.
Also, something which is currently drain permissible may contribute environmental problems and
may be subject to future regulation.  Printers should always check with local, state and federal
water regulations prior to discharging a product marked "drain-safe" to water.  An effort to
ascertain the environmental or health impact of the chemical may also be prudent.

      While water  concerns  have inspired interest in this area, this Substitute Assessment
document presents an analysis of cross media effects (air, waste disposal, etc.) and will outline the
trade-off issues that are associated with different screen reclamation options, such as occupational
exposure concerns, total cost differences, performance effectiveness and toxicity of waste water.

              Identification of Screen Reclamation Functional Groups

      Figure 1-1  is a graphical model of the integration  of all screen reclamation methods. It
separates the basic components of any screen reclamation process into five functional groups:  ink
removal, screen degreasing,  ink degrading, emulsion (stencil) removal and haze removal. A general
flow chart is depicted for the integration of these functional groups. However, this flow chart may
not be representative of all types  of screen reclamation processes.  Several steps that may be
included in the reclamation process are low-pressure and high-pressure water rinsing, which
typically involve different equipment.  Preparation of the screen or disposal of waste from screen
reclamation are not included in this basic flow chart.

      To concentrate on those functional groups most often associated with screen reclamation,
this CTSA focuses  on the  three functional groups of ink  removal, emulsion removal and haze
removal.  The parameters associated with the use of screen degreaser and ink degradant are not
discussed.

     Identification of Screen Printing Substitute Trees for Screen Reclamation

      Figure 1-2 depicts the five main methods (including the automatic screen washer) that are
used in screen reclamation. Because the actual process of screen reclamation can be performed
using any of these methods, these methods "substitute" for each other in screen reclamation.  In
addition to the five methods, the substitute tree also suggests that the disposal of the screen mesh
without screen reclamation would be an option. This disposal option is considered in Chapter VI,
Overall Pollution Prevention Opportunities for Screen Reclamation.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  I-7

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Identification of Screen Reclamation Functional Groups
                            Figure I -1
    Identification Of Screen Reclamation Functional Groups
       This Exhibit is an Integration of Screen Reclamation Methods
       Boxes denote
       functional product
       groups
                           Ink Removal
            Screen
            Degreaser
           Ink
           Degradant
                            Emulsion
                            (Stencil)
                            Removal
              Haze
              Removal/Water
                        Wash
            Denotes step
            without chemical
            reclamation
            products
        High-Pressure^
        Water Blaster
            (3000 psi)
Screen is Reclaimed
           Screen is Reclaimed
                                                              C47028-2
DRAFT—September 1994
                         I-8

-------
•o_
CD"

CD
Disposal of
Screen Mesh
(No Reclamation
      Occurs)
                                                   Figure I - 2
                                     Screen Printing Substitutes Tree
                                            Screen Reclamation
           Method 1
               I
 Method 2
          Ink Removal
       Products Used
       Include:
       • GLYCOL ETHERS
       • SURFACTANTS
       • DIBASIC ESTERS
       • HYDROCARBON SOLVENTS
       • TERPINEOLS
       • ALCOHOLS
                                 Ink Removal
   See
   Method 1
         Emulsion
         Removal/Water |
         Wash
        Product Groups
        Include:
        • OXIDIZERS
        • NON-OXIDIZERS
        • SOLVENTS
        • SURFACTANTS
Emulsion
Removal/Water
Wash
   See
   Method 1
Haze Removal/
Water Wash
Product Groups
Include:
• GLYCOL ETHERS
• CAUSTICS
• DIBASIC ESTERS
• SOLVENTS
• SURFACTANTS
                             J
                                                                 Method 3
                         Ink Removal
                                                                    See
                                                                    Method 1
                         Ink Degradant/l
                         Water Rinse
                                                                  Product Groups
                                                                  in Method 1 Ink
                                                                  Removal
                           Screen
                           Degreaser
                                                                        I
                                                                   Product Groups
                                                                   in Method 1 Ink
                                                                   Removal
                                                          Emulsion
                                                          Removal/Water I
                                                          Wash
                                                          ^^M
                                                           See
                                                           Method 1
Method 4
                                                                                 Water Only
                                                                                   See
                                                                                   Method 1
 High Pressure |
 Water Blast
 (3000 psi)
                                                                                          Haze Removal/
                                                                                          High Pressure
                                                                                          Rinse
                                                                                                I
                                                                                         Product Groups
                                                                                         In Method 1
                                                                                         Emulsion Removal
Automatic
Screen Washer
(Enclosed System)
                                                                                                                           Q_
                                                                                                                           CD
                                                                                            O
                                                                                            m
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            3
                                                                                            o

                 Technology available
                 for ink removal only
                 OR total removal (ink/
                 emulsion/haze removal).
                 See product groups in
                 Method 1.
                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                    5'
                                                                                                                                    3
                                                                                                                                    8L
                                                                                                                                    Q
                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                        3
                                                                                                                                        m
                                                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                O
                                                                                                1
                                                                                                m
                                                                                                P

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Identification of Screen Reclamation Functional Groups
      Method 1 in Figure 1-2 illustrates that screen reclamation is performed with products from
the functional groups of ink removal and emulsion removal only.  Under each functional group,
some of the categories of chemicals that might be found in these products are listed. Currently,
some screen printers only use products from these functional groups when reclaiming screens.

More common among screen printers is the  additional use of a haze remover in the screen
reclamation process, as depicted in Method 2.

      Method 3  was developed by technical staff at SPAI and is currently taught at  SPAI in
workshop classes; it is referred to by the name "SPAI Workshop Process." It differs from Method
1 and Method 2 in that screen degreasers and ink degradants are used in the screen reclamation
process.  It also  differs from Method 2 in that no haze remover is  deemed necessary. Technical
staff at SPAI developed this method to avoid the use of caustic haze removers, which can damage
the screen mesh.

      Method 4 employs both mechanical and chemical technologies to reclaim a screen.  No ink
remover is applied to the screen during Method 4; instead, removal of ink residue is accomplished
by the action of a high-pressure water.  A small quantity of diluted emulsion remover is applied to
the screen prior to spraying with the high-pressure water blaster. Two different pressures are
typically used to remove the emulsion, and subsequently, the remaining ink.  If a ghost or haze
image is apparent on the screen, a haze remover is sprayed on the screen and brushed from the
surface. The pressure spray is repeated and for heavy ghost images, the screen is turned over and
the action repeated on the reverse side.

      Although the use of an automatic screen  washer is not typically found at a screen printing
facility, it is a technology that can be used to reclaim screens.  Automatic screen washers can be
used  for ink removal only, or for ink removal, emulsion removal and haze removal.   Some
automatic processing systems also rinse and dry screens. The screen is immersed in an enclosed
system, which then performs the desired screen reclamation function without the labor of the
screen reclamation employee.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  1-10

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Potential Screen Reclamation Substitute Technologies                                 Blasting Technologies


                     Potential Screen Reclamation Technologies

Introduction

      The methods presented in Exhibit 1-2 are traditional screen reclamation processes that use
chemicals combined with water washes to clean and reclaim the screen, including a relatively new
technology, the automated wash system.  In order to fully examine alternatives in search of cleaner
technologies, it is useful to identify other process technologies not traditionally used in the printing
industry  that may accomplish  these same ink  and the emulsion  (stencil) removal functions.
Exhibit 1-3, Screen Printing Substitutes Tree, identifies technologies used in other industries to
remove a material from a substrate that could  potentially be modified to reclaim screens, but are
not currently used for this purpose. Many of the suggested methods are established technologies
in paint stripping and  parts cleaning applications.  They include blasting methods, stripping
methods, and methods that involve  pulse light energy.  Water-soluble stencils/emulsions, also
presented below, represent a product  change that will affect other aspects of the printing and
reclamation process (e.g., inks used). Except for the sodium bicarbonate blasting method, this
CTSA does not evaluate the performance or cost of these technologies in screen reclamation. The
intent of Figure 1-3 is to bring further thought into how screen reclamation could be performed.
The following are reviews of these technologies to evaluate potential feasibility and determine if
further research is warranted.

Blasting Technologies

      Blasting methods, commonly known as media blasting, use the abrasive and/or fractioning
action of a propelled media to remove a coating. Dry media blasting uses air as the propellant for
solids of plastic, wheat  starch, ice, or carbon  dioxide (dry ice); wet media blasting  utilizes water
as the propellant with sodium bicarbonate as the primary solid. To be effective the media must
be hard enough to remove the coating,  but soft enough not to damage the underlying substrate.
Other factors affecting removal efficiency are application pressure, distance from surface, and angle
of application.

      There are many aspects that affect the use  of blasting technologies for screen reclamation.
The equipment required for a media blasting method is media dependent.  Each method requires
a pressurized air/water source and a specifically  designed nozzle for media delivery (plastic and
wheat starch units can be interchangeable).  In  addition, plastic media blasting will require media
separation and recycling prior to waste  disposal.  Wheat  starch media blasting may require dust
control, but may not require media separation if the spent media and materials removed can be
discharged to the sewer.  Also, wheat starch is  highly moisture sensitive, thus requiring moisture
control within the process area.  Carbon dioxide  media blasting alleviates the potential disposal
problems of plastic and wheat starch  media blasting; CO2 pellets, after impacting on the surface,
sublime rapidly to the gaseous state,  thus leaving only the removed  coating behind for disposal.
However, storage and pelletizing of CO2 requires relatively complex,  energy intensive  equipment.
Ice  crystal blasting  requires the maintenance of refrigeration, ice making, and ice handling
equipment.

      Media blasting technologies have  been successfully applied to large, industrial operations
such as building and bridge refinishing, and corrosion removal from process equipment.21
   :1Armex Blast Media, (1993).
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   1-11

-------
                                                Figure 1-3
                                     Screen Printing Substitutes Tree
                           Undemonstrated Technologies In Screen Reclamation
                      (The cost and performance of these technologies in screen reclamation is undetermined)
              /
Blasting Methods

  Dry Abrasives

  • PLASTIC BEADS
  • WHEAT STARCH
  • CARBON DIOXIDE
  • ICE CRYSTALS


  Wet Abrasives

  . SODIUM BICARBONATE
            /
          /
Pulse Light Energy
Laser Stripping
 Flashlamp Stripping
                                \
                                \
                        Stripping Methods
                          Dry or Wet Mechanical
                          Sanding
                         Heat Gun to Burn Off Ink
                                                       Liquid Nitrogen (cryogenic)
                                                       Spray With Dry Blast Media
Use of
Water-Soluble
Stencils/Emulsion

To allow emulsion
removal with water only
                                                                              8L
                                                                              CO
                                                                                                            §
                                                                                                            f
                                                                                                            8
                                                                              o
                                                                              eg

                                                                              8
                              3

                              m
                              O
                              Tl



                              ft
                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                            CD
                                                                                                            m
                                                                                                            CD
C47028-1-2
                                                                                                            o_
                                                                                                            o

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Potential Screen Reclamation Substitute Technologies                          Pulse Light Energy Technologies
Starch media blasting units include small hand cabinets, and sodium bicarbonate units can be
either fixed or portable, both suggesting they can be used in small-scale applications.22

     Other characteristics of the media blasting technologies may also lend themselves well to
screen reclamation if further research  is directed  toward development.  Small-scale screen
reclamation applications may only require changes in operating pressure (reduced pressure),
media hardness, and equipment down-sizing.  For example, adjustment of application pressure
and solids flow rate in the sodium bicarbonate system can control whether just oils and greases
are removed from a painted surface,  or the paint is removed along with the oils and greases.23
Wheat starch has been used in industrial applications where surface etch must be avoided on
substrates of aluminum and magnesium, and  carbon dioxide pellet blasting has been applied to
clean precise and delicate circuit boards.24

     The small media size of wheat starch and sodium bicarbonate may adequately penetrate the
weave of the screen, removing both ink and stencil to a degree which could eliminate or reduce the
need for a haze removal step.  Plastic media, as well as the other media blasting techniques, may
cause excessive wear and stretching of the screen mesh. This may result in a shortened screen life
and increased screen maintenance (e.g., adjustment of screen tension  could be periodically
required). It has been documented that crystalline carbon dioxide damages woven fibers, thus
limiting its applications in the printing industry.25 Sodium bicarbonate may have similar damaging
effects on the materials of the screen mesh due to the chemical nature of the  media which can
revert to caustic soda ash in the presence of water and heat.26 These limitations, however, should
not prevent further evaluation of many blasting technologies as a potential clean technology for the
screen reclamation process.
Pulse Light Energy Technologies

      Pulse light energy technologies use an energy source to vaporize and fracture coatings off of
substrates. Laser and flashlamp methods are included in this technology. Laser stripping uses
high energy photons generated by a CO2 or neodymium (Nd) laser to vaporize the coating, leaving
an  ash behind for disposal.  Laser frequency selection can maximize coating removal  while
minimizing substrate  damage; layer-by-layer coating removal can be accomplished with proper
control.27 Initial tests and full-scale operations indicate heat damage of the substrate is a potential
problem with  laser removal methods.28 Flashlamp  methods use an intense pulse of light to
     22U.S. EPA Economics and Technology Division, Office of Toxic Substances, Reducing Risk in Paint Stripping,
(Washington:GPO 12-13 February, 1991).

  23Ibid.

  24Ibid.

  25Ibid.

  26Ibid.

  27"Light Stripping," Manufacturing Engineering, (September, 1992).

  28Ibid.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    1-13

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Potential Screen Reclamation Substitute Technologies	Stripping Technologies

vaporize the coating a microlayer at a time.  Factors that contribute to the removal efficiency of the
flashlamp method include flash repetition rate, intensity, spectral content and flash duration.29

      The equipment required for the laser and flashlamp methods are unique to the pulse light
energy technology. The energy (light) source may have a high capital cost, and energy requirements
may be substantial.  These units may also be  automated.  Dust control and waste disposal
equipment may be combined in a single vacuum unit, with the volume of waste minimized due to
vaporization of the coating.   The vapors, however,  generated by these methods may require
personal  protective equipment (respirators), as well as additional process area ventilation and
emissions control.  Portable, full-scale CO2 laser  units to remove paint from bridges (fitting on a
flat bed truck) can cost between $750,000 and $ 1,000,000.30

      As with media blasting technologies, pulse light energy technologies have had successful
applications in large-scale operations such  as bridge and  airline  fuselage refinishing.  These
technologies, however, have not been applied to  small-scale operations.31'32  Since many of the
operating parameters of laser and flashlamp units can be controlled, it may be possible to optimize
these methods to perform small-scale operations such as screen reclamation. The ability of these
methods to remove a single or microlayer of material from a substrate may make them useful in
a number of industries if they  are cost  effective.   However, substrate heat sensitivity, vapor
generation, and high capital and  operating costs may limit these processes from entering other
markets.  A screen mesh, made of polymeric fibers, for example, may be permanently damaged in
the reclamation process from the heat generated by  the pulse light energy technologies.  Also, the
fumes generated from the vaporization of inks and  stencils, when limited to a closed process area,
may cause health and  safety hazards.  Finally,  the  current costs of these  technologies are
prohibitive to all but possibly the very largest screen printers. Pulse light energy technologies,
however, may be suitable for screen reclamation  and therefore further study may be warranted.


Stripping Technologies

      Stripping methods in Exhibit 1-3 include sanding, heat gun stripping, and cryogenic methods
to remove a coating from  a substrate.  Sanding methods also use the abrasive properties of a media
to remove the coating. The media, either on a sanding block (paper, cloth,  etc.) or in a slurry, is
applied to the substrate and mechanically worked to remove the coating. Heat guns are intended
to either soften or burn the coating which is then scraped from the substrate. Cryogenic methods
cool a coating to cause it  to  contract, weaken and  loosen from the substrate.  This thermal
contraction is accomplished by the application  of liquid nitrogen (-320°F at atmospheric pressure),
and the  weakened coating is removed  by media blasting methods or another mechanical
technique.33
     29U.S. EPA Economics and Technology Division, Office of Toxic Substances, Reducing Risk in Paint Stripping,
(Washington:GPO 12-13 February, 1991).

  ^Correspondence between Dean Menke, UT Center for Clean Products, and Simon Engles, HDS Industries, July 1994.

  31"Laser System Will Automate Paint Stripping," Laser Focus World, (June, 1991).
  32
    "Nd:YAG Lasers Strip Paint Effectively," Laser Focus World, (October, 1992).
     33U.S. EPA Economics and Technology Division, Office of Toxic Substances, Reducing Risk in Paint Stripping,
(Washington:GPO 12-13 February, 1991).


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     1-14

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Potential Screen Reclamation Substitute Technologies	Stencils/Emulsions Chemistry

      Stripping methods utilize diverse, technology-specific equipment. Sanding methods have the
potential to be automated, but are traditionally manual operations consisting solely of a sanding
block or slurry applied to the surface to be refinished.  Heat guns typically utilize an electrical
power source to heat a metallic element held in contact with the coating. The heat softens or burns
the coating thus simplifying removal. After heating, the coating is promptly removed by a scraping
device or spatula.  Cryogenics is the most energy intensive method of the stripping technologies.
Equipment includes units to liquify nitrogen, a chamber for substrate-liquid nitrogen contact, and
media blasting equipment.

      Most stripping methods mentioned here appear to have a high potential to damage the
screen.    Manual  sanding methods  could damage the screen in areas  where  there is no
stencil/emulsion and sanding media is  in direct contact with the mesh. As with pulse light energy
technologies, the polymeric materials used for screen mesh may be permanently damaged if
subjected  to temperature  extremes; therefore, the  heat  gun method may not be  feasible.
Cryogenics, with its extreme operating temperatures (cold) may also damage screen mesh.
However, the thermal resistance of most polymers to cold  is greater than to heat, and the process
may warrant further research. However, current cryogenic  technologies are probably too costly for
the average screen printer.


Stencils/Emulsions Chemistry

      The substitute technologies presented above  focussed on methods that could  be used to
remove a stencil/emulsion that would traditionally be removed with chemical products.  The use
of water-soluble stencils/emulsions,  however,  could eliminate  the need for  chemical removal
products  as well as any of the above mentioned  alternatives. Certain products of the  indirect
stencil/emulsion process are water soluble and can be removed using only water to reclaim the
screen; other indirect stencil/emulsion products may use an enzyme or gelatin film decoater.

      The image printed on a substrate  in the screen printing process is defined by the stencil -
the area of the screen on which there is no emulsion blocking the flow of ink through the mesh to
the substrate.  The stencil/emulsion is applied to the screen mesh using  direct or indirect
processes. In direct processes (either capillary direct or direct emulsion), the printed image is
photographically developed after the emulsion is on the screen.  This is accomplished by the
following procedure:

      1.    apply a water dispersion of polymer and sensitizers over the screen,

      2.    allow this to dry (this  dried dispersion is still completely water soluble until exposed
           to curing light),

      3.    block the desired image from the developing  light,

      4.    expose the screen to  light (usually UV), thus curing the dried dispersion  (a reaction
           between the sensitizers and polymer creating a cross-linked emulsion film), and

      5.    wash the uncured dried dispersion away with water.

During screen reclamation,  emulsion remover is required for these products to break the cross
links  and destroy the polymer network.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  1-15

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Potential Screen Reclamation Substitute Technologies	Conclusions

      Indirect processes, on the other hand, photographically develop the image of the emulsion
away from the screen and then apply the developed stencil/emulsion to the mesh.  The procedure
to accomplish this is as follows:

      1.    expose the thin film emulsion to the desired image,

      2.    develop the image using a developing solution in a shallow tray,

      3.    wash away the uncured emulsion (image) with a aerator water nozzle,

      4.    adhere thin film emulsion to screen mesh and allow to dry,  and

      5.    remove the supporting plastic film from the dried emulsion.

This stencil/emulsion can be removed during screen reclamation using an enzyme or gelatin film
decoater to soften the emulsion, which  is then removed with a water spray. However, discussions
with printers and vendors of indirect emulsions indicated that a warm  water wash alone can be
used to  adequately remove the stencil/emulsion following ink removal. The water wash will take
approximately five minutes  to  sufficiently soften  the emulsion (longer than a process  using
chemicals), but this process time is chosen over chemical costs and disposal.34 Limitations of this
water-soluble stencil/emulsion lie in the inks used (no water-based inks,  only oil- and rubber-based
can be used) and possibly the operating conditions (low humidity required).


Conclusions

      Many of the  substitute technologies presented  in Exhibit  1-3  possess properties and
characteristics that may be applicable to the screen reclamation process performed by screen
printers. The technologies presented here are not exhaustive, and were solely intended to  bring
further  thought into the area of potential alternative technologies.  Currently, these technologies
have high-tech applications, and therefore may not be economically feasible for the average printing
establishment. However, that is not to  say that further research into these technologies, and their
continued development, could not result in more cost-effective, easy-to-use applications.

      Issues that should be addressed when considering these alternative technologies in future
research include the following:  effectiveness of ink, emulsion and haze  removal; cost, both capital
and operating; potential of damaging screen; risk to human health and the environment from use
of the methods; waste generation and disposal; and  energy and natural resource use. A multi-
media approach must be taken when researching the potential applications for these technologies.
For example, wheat starch and bicarbonate media blasting may be cleaned by washing with  water
and disposing of the  waste down the  drain.   This may simplify  the  cleaning process, but
consideration must be given to the local disposal and permitting requirements of wastewater
pretreatment and disposal; the  inks and emulsion materials also washed down the drain  could
impart  an additional  load on the wastewater treatment facility,  and  have  the  potential  to be
hazardous. Also, as mentioned above, vapors generated from coating destruction by pulse light
energy technologies may require personnel protection equipment, ventilation and control.
   ^Correspondence between Dean Menke, UT Center for Clean Products, and Gary Coffey, Coffey Screen Printing, Knoxville,
TN and John Uhlman, Ulano, Brooklyn, NY.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   1-16

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Alternative Sodium Bicarbonate Screen Reclamation Technology	Application Method

         Alternative Sodium  Bicarbonate Screen Reclamation Technology


General Summary of the Technology

     The sodium bicarbonate screen reclamation technology consists of an enclosed spray cabinet
where pressurized sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and water are sprayed onto the parts inside
the cabinet to clean them.  Currently, this technology is used primarily for removing coatings, such
as paint, grease, or teflon from metal parts. As part of the DfE Performance Demonstration, the
sodium bicarbonate technology was tested to determine if it is potentially  adaptable as an
alternative screen reclamation technology. A risk assessment was not conducted for the use of this
technology in screen reclamation.  However, it is known that sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) is
a fairly innocuous chemical that is not a skin irritant and has a low toxicity; it is a common
ingredient in baked goods, toothpaste, detergents, air fresheners and deodorants.

     Prior to this study, the sodium bicarbonate technology had never been tested for screen
reclamation applications.  The cleaning procedure used during the test was a method developed
for cleaning metal parts, and adapted to screen reclamation.  The screen was placed inside the
enclosure and held under the pressurized baking soda spray to remove the ink, emulsion and haze
from the screen simultaneously. 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 bicarbonate technology showed potential for
effectively removing solvent- or water-based inks. Results on a screen with UV ink, however, were
poor.  In all cases, further development and testing are needed before the technology could be used
in a screen printing facility.


Application Method

     At this time, the sodium bicarbonate-based technology has not been developed specifically
for screen reclamation. It has been successful in replacing hazardous cleaning chemicals in other
applications such as in metal parts degreasing and paint and adhesives removal. To determine if
this technology could be adapted for screen reclamation, three screens were prepared for cleaning:
one with solvent-based ink, one with UV-curable ink, and a third screen with water-based ink. All
tests were  conducted at  the equipment manufacturer's facility.   This particular manufacturer
developed the enclosed spray cabinet, and is a distributor of sodium bicarbonate. Because this
technology is still under development and is unproven for screen reclamation, no demonstrations
were conducted at printing facilities. An observer from the DfE Printing Project was present to
record information on the system's performance  in cleaning the three test screens.

     Tests were conducted in two different enclosures.  Half of each screen was first cleaned in
an enclosure which delivered dry, pressurized baking soda to the screen.  The second half of each
screen was cleaned in an enclosure which delivered both pressurized water and baking soda. The
same cleaning procedure was used for the two systems.  After excess ink was carded off, the screen
was placed inside the enclosure with the flat side down. The door was locked  and the operator
placed his hands through the gloves built into the box.  By stepping on a foot pedal, the operator
started the flow of pressurized sodium bicarbonate from the fan nozzle mounted in the top of the
enclosure. The fan nozzle, designed by the enclosure manufacturer, spreads out the impact of the
sodium bicarbonate to reduce the stress on the screen.  The nozzle  used for testing dispersed the
sodium bicarbonate over an area approximately one inch wide by  three inches  long.  On the wet
system, the  same nozzle was used to deliver the  sodium bicarbonate, and the water nozzle was


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  1-17

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Alternative Sodium Bicarbonate Screen Reclamation Technology	Alternative System Performance Results

mounted  on the fan nozzle, so  that the water and baking soda mixed together as they were
discharged. Holding the screen under the fan nozzle, the operator moved the screen from side to
side. The operator was able to see where the ink or emulsion remained on the screen by watching
through the primary viewing area.  This window was purged with air to enhance visibility by
clearing the dust from  the viewing area. When the first side was clean, the operator flipped the
screen over and repeated the cleaning procedure on the other side until all ink, emulsion, and haze
were removed.

      During the test, the following parameters were used:

      o     Sodium Bicarbonate:  75 micron particle size
                                 Delivered at 1 to  1.5 pounds/minute
                                 Sodium bicarbonate delivered at 5 to 30 psi
                                 Water delivered at 200 to 250 psi
      o    Screen:               Polyester mesh mounted on wood frames
                                 Dual-cure emulsion
                                 13" x 23" outside diameter

      o    Inks:                 Solvent-based ink = Naz-Dar 9700 Series All Purpose Ink
                                 9724 Black
                                 UV-cured ink = Nor-Cote CD  1019 Opaque Black
                                 Water-based ink = TW Graphics WB-5018 Black

      o    Ink application:       Each type of ink was applied to one screen, carded off, and the
                                 screen was allowed to dry for 18 hours before starting the
                                 cleaning test.


Alternative System Performance Results

      Dry Cleaning Process

      During the demonstration, several different application  methods were tested to optimize the
system performance.  First,  the screen with solvent-based ink was cleaned in a dry box; only
pressurized baking soda was delivered, without any water. At a pressure of 5 psi, some of the ink
and emulsion were removed,  but very slowly. A heavy haze  and some ink and emulsion residue
remained. To accelerate the removal, the pressure was increased to 10 psi.  This pressure proved
to be too high and the screen developed pin  holes and eventually ripped.  The pressure was
reduced to 5 psi.  To reduce  the stress on the mesh, a flat  plate was placed behind the screen.
Screen damage was reduced,  but was not eliminated.

      Similar results were obtained with the water-based ink screen. Significant ink and emulsion
residue remained on the screen after cleaning a 4 inch by 4 inch area for 5 minutes. Again, screen
wear and small holes were visible in some areas.  After these disappointing results, dry testing was
discontinued  in favor of the wet delivery  system.   The water  serves to soften the  sodium
bicarbonate, making it less abrasive than the dry delivery process.  Because of the softening effect,
a higher pressure could be used with the wet delivery system without damaging the screen.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 1-18

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Alternative Sodium Bicarbonate Screen Reclamation Technology	Alternative System Performance Results

      After such poor performance was demonstrated using the dry cleaning process on the
solvent- and water-based ink screens, the decision was made to skip the dry process for the UV
ink screen, and start with the wet cleaning process.  Additionally, the UV ink does not dry (unlike
the solvent- and water-based inks), and the manufacturer felt that the application of the dry sodium
bicarbonate would stick to the wet ink across the entire screen, instead of removing the ink.  If the
sodium bicarbonate was covering the screen, the wet cleaning process test would not be valid.

      Wet Cleaning Process

      All three screens were tested using the wet process.  Water was sprayed onto the screen at
200 to 250 psi, while the sodium bicarbonate was sprayed out of a fan nozzle at varying pressures.
On the screens where the dry process was used to clean half the screen, the  wet process was used
for the other half.  Performance clearly improved using the wet technology.

      On the  screen  with UV ink, the sodium bicarbonate-based technology was completely
ineffective. After about 5 minutes  of cleaning, there was almost no removal of  the ink or the
emulsion.  The operator increased the  pressure to 20 psi to improve  the system performance.
When there was no improvement at 20 psi, the pressure was increased to 30 psi.  Even at the
higher pressure, there was no significant removal of the ink or the emulsion from the screen.  The
operator put a glass plate behind the screen to concentrate the sodium bicarbonate and to support
the screen, but this did not help to remove the ink or emulsion.  After approximately 10 minutes
of cleaning without any noticeable removal of ink, the test was stopped.

      The solvent-based ink screen was cleaned first. At 5 psi, it took approximately 5 minutes
to remove the ink and emulsion from a 4 inch by 4 inch area of the screen. At this point the screen
was visually inspected. There was no visible damage to the screen, so the pressure was increased
to 10 psi.  Another  4 inch  by 4 inch area was cleaned,  and at 10 psi, it  took approximately 3
minutes.  Some areas of the emulsion came off in stringy pieces.  After cleaning the rest of the
screen, a light haze remained in the image area. Around the edges of the screen where the ink was
fairly thick, a heavy residue remained, but there was no ink or emulsion residue in the image area.
Total screen cleaning time for the half of the screen that was cleaned with the wet cleaning process
(a 10 inch by 10 inch area), took approximately 16 minutes.

      Performance on the screen with water-based ink was similar to the screen with solvent-based
ink.  On the  water-based ink screen, all testing was conducted with the sodium  bicarbonate
pressure at 10 psi. Initially, the ink started to come off fairly well, but very slowly. After a few
minutes, the ink began flaking off, instead of dissolving.  The flaking made it significantly easier
to remove the ink. Again, the emulsion came off in stringy rolls. Ink residue remained around the
edges of the screen, but the image area was clean with a very slight haze. After closer inspection,
some very small spots of ink residue were apparent.   In an effort to remove these spots, the
operator concentrated the spray on the small effected  area.  After one  or two minutes, this
concentrated pressure ripped the screen.  Total cleaning time for the portion  of the screen that was
cleaned with wet cleaning (10 inches by 10 inches), was approximately 13  minutes.


Technology Potential

      The cleaning procedures used during testing were the methods used for cleaning metal parts
and were not specifically developed for screen reclamation.  With further testing and research, this
application method could be improved to clean the screens faster and with less possibility for
screen damage. For example, during the test, a piece of rigid material (safety glass) was  held
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  1-19

-------
I. PROFILE OF SCREEN RECLAMATION USE CLUSTER
Alternative Sodium Bicarbonate Screen Reclamation Technology	Cost

behind the screen to reduce the pressure on the mesh. From the limited testing performed, this
support seemed to concentrate the cleaning media on the desired area while reducing the stress
on the screen.  As another change that may improve performance, the operator suggested using hot
water. When cleaning the screens with solvent- and water-based ink, the emulsion came off in
stringy pieces that rolled off the screen.  This reaction did not seem to increase or decrease the
removal efficiency, however, hot water may help dissolve the emulsion, potentially accelerating the
removal process. A third possible improvement in the application technique may be to add a small
platform inside the enclosure which would help the operator hold the screen closer to the spray
nozzle.

      In addition to equipment modifications, several other variable changes that may be specific
to each facility should also be investigated.  These factors include increasing or decreasing the
particle size of sodium bicarbonate, changing the pressure of the water or the sodium bicarbonate,
and changing the rate of delivery of the medium. With further research into improvements in the
sodium bicarbonate application, this technology could potentially reduce chemical use during
screen reclamation for printers using solvent-based or water-based inks.
Cost

      Because  the  equipment used during testing was not  developed specifically for screen
reclamation, it is difficult to estimate what the actual cost would be for a screen printing facility to
implement this technology. However, some rough estimates of equipment and chemical use are
available.  The equipment used in the wet cleaning could range in cost from $32,000 to $52,000.
This  estimate is subject to a wide range of actual operating conditions, including the type of
filtration and waste treatment that is necessary; the filtration and waste treatment needs will vary
depending on the ink and emulsion components on the screen.  The blast media can cost between
$0.65 to  $0.75 per pound, with the less expensive price available for large volume purchases.
Further research into the use of the sodium bicarbonate-based technology in screen reclamation
would give a better indication of the costs that could be expected for a typical screen printing
facility.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  I-20

-------
                                                                           Chapter  II
                                               Screen Reclamation Chemicals
                                     Introduction
     Chapter 2, in which the characteristics of individual chemicals are detailed, is intended
for use as a reference section. The specific information concerning each chemical was
developed to support the risk assessment of screen reclamation products. Such information
includes physical/chemical properties, industrial synthesis, aquatic toxicity, environmental fate,
and a hazard summary. Tables II-4 through II-6 detail aquatic toxicity and hazard summary
data for the chemicals in the screen reclamation use cluster. The preface to these exhibits
explains the technical language and abbreviations used throughout the exhibits.

     The regulatory status of a chemical was also provided as a ready reference; Table II-3 lists
those chemicals used in screen reclamation which trigger federal environmental regulations. In
addition, market profile information was developed to assess the overall production of the
chemical,  and its use in screen reclamation.  Originally, if it was determined that more than 5
percent of the U.S. production volume of a chemical was used in screen reclamation, an
analysis of the bulk  chemical production, including occupational and population exposure
assessments, would be undertaken.  However, due to the lack of information on the quantity of
specific chemicals used in screen reclamation, the latter analysis was not developed for any one
chemical.  Instead, economists at EPA developed a methodology for estimating the quantity of
specific chemicals used in screen reclamation; this methodology is outlined in Chapter 3.

     The chemicals that are discussed in this chapter comprise the screen reclamation use
cluster; Table II-1 lists  all of the chemicals in the screen reclamation use cluster, as well as
their particular function in screen reclamation. Table II-1 also provides the page number on
which information about a specific chemical can be found. Table II-2 is a generic categorization
of some of the screen reclamation chemicals that was developed to protect the proprietary
nature of the  alternative screen reclamation products submitted by manufacturers. In Chapters
4 and 5, specific chemicals in ink removers, emulsion removers and haze removers are
occasionally not identified by name, but by a generic category.  For example, the product
category "propylene  glycol series ethers" might refer to the presence of tripropylene glycol
methyl ether, propylene glycol methyl ether and methoxypropanol acetate. Although this
categorization was developed to protect proprietary formulations, the risk assessment
conducted for each type of screen reclamation product details the hazard and risk associated
with only those  chemicals that occur in the actual product formulation.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  11-1

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Introduction
                                       Table 11-1
             Summary of Screen Reclamation Chemicals and Their Functions
Chemical
Acetone
Alcohols, CR-Cin, ethoxylated
Alcohols, C19-C1d, ethoxylated
Benzyl alcohol
2-Butoxyethanol
Butyl Acetate
Butyrolactone
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
Diacetone alcohol
Dichloromethane
Diethyl adipate
Diethyl glutarate
Diethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol monobutyl
ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
acetate
Diisopropyl adipate
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid,
triethanol amine salt
CAS Number
67-64-1
71060-57-6
68439-50-9
100-51-6
111-76-2
123-86-4
96-48-0
108-93-0
108-94-1
123-42-2
75-09-2
141-28-6
818-38-2
111-46-6
112-34-5
124-17-4
6938-94-9
627-93-0
1119-40-0
106-65-0
34590-94-8
27323-41-7
Ink
Remover
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X
X

X
X
X
X

Emulsion
Remover
X




X
X

X
X




X
X




X

Haze
Remover
X







X





X
X

X
X
X

X
Possible
Substitutes











X
X



X





Page
Number
II-7
II-8
11-10
11-11
11-13
11-14
11-16
11-17
11-19
II-20
II-22
II-23
II-25
II-26
II-28
II-29
11-31
II-32
II-34
II-35
II-36
II-39
DRAFT—September 1994
II-2

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Introduction
                                       Table 11-1
             Summary of Screen Reclamation Chemicals and Their Functions
Chemical
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl lactate
Ethyl oleate
Ethoxylated castor oil
Ethoxylated nonylphenol (np 4-
9.5)
Ethoxypropanol
Ethoxypropyl acetate
Furfuryl alcohol
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Isobutyl oleate
Isopropanol
d-Limonene
Methanol
Methoxypropanol acetate
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl lactate
Mineral spirits (straight run
naphtha)
Mineral spirits (light
hydrotreated)
N-methylpyrrolidone
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-
dimethyl-, N-oxide
Periodic acid
CAS Number
141-78-6
97-64-3
111-62-6
61791-12-6
9016-45-9
52125-53-8
54839-24-6
98-00-0
97-85-8
10024-47-2
67-63-0
5989-27-5
67-56-1
84540-57-8
78-93-3
547-64-8
64741-41-9
64742-47-8
872-50-4
71662-60-7
13444-71-8
Ink
Remover
X


X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

Emulsion
Remover
X



X





X



X



X

X
Haze
Remover



X
X


X








X
X
X


Possible
Substitutes

X
X






X





X





Page
Number
11-41
II-42
II-44
II-45
II-47
II-48
II-50
11-51
II-53
II-54
II-55
II-57
II-58
II-60
11-61
II-62
II-64
II-66
II-68
II-69
II-70
DRAFT—September 1994
II-3

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Introduction
                                       Table 11-1
             Summary of Screen Reclamation Chemicals and Their Functions
Chemical
Phosphoric acid, mixed ester
w/ispropanol and ethoxylated
tridecanol
Potassium hydroxide
Propylene carbonate
Propylene glycol
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol methyl ether
acetate
Silica
Silica, fumed (amorphous,
crystalline-free)
Sodium bisulfate
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium lauryl sulfate
Sodium metasilicate
Sodium periodate
Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene
sulfonic acid
Solvent naphtha (petroleum),
light aliphatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum),
light aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum),
heavy aromatic
Tall oil, special
CAS Number
68186-42-5
1310-58-3
108-32-7
57-55-6
107-98-2
1320-67-8
108-65-6
7631-86-9
112945-52-5
10034-88-5
10124-56-8
1310-73-2
7681-52-9
151-21-3
6834-92-0
7790-28-5
25155-30-0
64742-89-8
64742-95-6
64742-94-5
68937-42-5
Ink
Remover

X

X
X
X




X





X
X
X

Emulsion
Remover

X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X





Haze
Remover
X
X

X





X
X

X
X

X



X
Possible
Substitutes


X

















Page
Number
II-72
II-73
II-75
II-76
II-78
II-79
11-81
II-82
II-84
II-85
II-87
II-88
II-90
11-91
II-93
II-94
II-96
II-98
11-100
11-101
DRAFT—September 1994
II-4

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Introduction
                                       Table 11-1
             Summary of Screen Reclamation Chemicals and Their Functions
Chemical
Terpineols
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Trisodium phosphate
Xylenes (dimethyl benzene)
CAS Number
8000-41-7
97-99-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
95-63-6
25498-49-1
7601-54-9
1330-20-7
Ink
Remover
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
Emulsion
Remover
X





X

Haze
Remover

X



X

X
Possible
Substitutes








Page
Number
11-103
11-104
11-106
11-107
11-109
11-110
11-112
11-114
DRAFT—September 1994
II-5

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Introduction
                  Categorization of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

     In order to maintain confidentiality among the formulators and to simplify the evaluation
of the different screen reclamation systems, some of the constituent chemicals were categorized.
When a category is referred to (e.g., dibasic esters), that formulation includes one or more of
the chemicals in that category (e.g., diethyl adipate, diethyl glutarate, diisopropyl adipate, etc.)

                                        Table 11-2.
                   Categorization of Screen Reclamation Chemicals for
                         Use in Alternative System Formulations
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
Chemicals from Screen Reclamation Use Cluster in Category
Sodium hydroxide
Potassium hydroxide
Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt
Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Tall oil, special
Ethoxylated castor oil
Diethyl adipate
Diethyl glutarate
Diisopropyl adipate
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Alcohols, C8-C10, ethoxylated
Alcohols, C,,-CU, 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
DRAFT—September 1994
II-6

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Acetone

                     Information on Individual Printing Chemicals

      The following pages provide information on individual chemicals used in the screen
printing industry for screen reclamation.

                                         Acetone
                                Chemical Properties and Information
  Acetone [dimethyl ketone, 2-propanone]
  CAS# 67-64-1
  Molecular weight: 58.079
  Melting Point: -95.4to-94°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 185 mm Hg (20°C)
  LogKow:  -0.24 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 3.97 x 10'5 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C,HfiO
-"31 '6
Structure: CH,COCH.
          3     3
Boiling Point: 56.2°C(M)
Density:  0.7908420 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:   -18°C(M)
Koc: 2 (E)
                           Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Acetone is the simplest and most important of the ketones. It is a colorless, flammable
liquid with a mildly pungent, somewhat aromatic odor. It shows typical reactions of aliphatic
saturated ketones.  It undergoes many condensation reactions; condensation with amines yields
Schiff bases, and various esters condense readily with  acetone in the presence of amine or
ammonia.  It is stable to many of the usual oxidants. Acetone is highly flammable and has a
threshold limit value of 2400 mg/m3.

      The two common methods of manufacturing acetone are 1) cumene hydroperoxide
cleavage and 2) the dehydrogenation of isopropyl alcohol.  In the first process, benzene is
alkylated to cumene, which is oxidized to cumene hydroperoxide, which, in turn, is cleaved to
phenol and acetone. Acetone is a coproduct of this process, which is used to produce a large
fraction of phenol produced in the U.S.. In the second process, which is endothermic,
isopropanol is dehydrogenated catalytically, with a variety of possible catalysts, including
copper, silver, platinum, and palladium metal; sulfides of transition metals, as well as zinc
oxide-zirconium oxide, copper-chromium oxide,  and copper-silicon dioxide combinations.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 230 million gallons. Imports were 9 million gallons
and exports were 27 million gallons.  Total U.S. quantity estimated for use in screen
reclamation was 6.92 million gallons.


Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.


Hazard Summary

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-7

-------
 I. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                       Alcohols, Cs-Cio, Ethoxylated
      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released on soil, acetone will volatilize into the air or leach into the ground where it will
probably biodegrade.  Photolysis will be important on terrestrial surfaces and in surface waters
exposed to sunlight. If released to water, acetone may also be lost due to volatilization
(estimated half-life 20 hr from a model river) and biodegradation.  Bioconcentration in aquatic
organisms and adsorption to sediment should not be important transport processes in water.
In the atmosphere, acetone will be lost by photolysis and reaction with photochemically
produced hydroxyl radicals.  Half-life estimates from these combined processes average 22 days
and are shorter in summer and longer in winter.  In air, acetone may also be washed out by
rain.  Using a rapid and a moderate biodegradation rate for acetone in the STP fugacity model
results in 97 and 84 percent, respectively, predicted total removal from wastewater treatment
plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                              Alcohols,  Cs-Cio, Ethoxylated
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Alcohols, C8-C10, ethoxylated [ethoxylated fatty alcohols]
  CAS# 71060-57-6
  Molecular weight: 150-220
  Melting Point:  <20°C(E)
  Water Solubility:  Dispersable (n=3 to 10) (E)
  Vapor Pressure:  <0.1 mm Hg (at20°C) (E)
  Log Kow:  Not available
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use: Surfactant	
Molecular formula varies
Structure: R (0-CH2-CH2)nOH, R = C8 to C10
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density:  1.02g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint:    >100°C(E)
K • Not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      These chemicals will exhibit surfactant-like properties for n=3 to 10.  When n> 10, they
will behave as mild surfactants.  Melting point, boiling point, and flash point will increase as n
or R increases.  They are soluble in alcohol and ether.

      These chemicals are prepared by ethoxylation of alcohols with ethylene oxide.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-8

-------
 I. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Alcohols, Cs-Cio, Ethoxylated
Market Profile

      Production volumes for C8-C10 Ethoxylated Alcohols were not available.  However, in
1992, total U.S. consumption of alcohol ethoxylates (including both C8-C10 and C12-C14) was 386
million pounds. In 1988, 29 million pounds of this chemical was exported.  Data for imported
amounts was not available.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Alcohols, C8-C10, ethoxylated do not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, C8-C10 ethoxylated alcohols are expected to rapidly biodegrade. Two
factors influencing biodegradation are the number of ethylene oxide units in the hydrophilic
moiety and the structure of the hydrophobic moiety.  Studies have shown that the linearity of
the hydrophobic moiety has a more pronounced effect on biodegradability than the hydrophobic
chain length, point of attachment of the polyglycol chain (i.e., whether alcohol moiety is primary
or secondary), or degree of ethoxylation.  Biodegradation occurs by the p-oxidation of the alkyl
chain, scission of the hydrophobic and hydrophic moieties and step-wise removal of ethoxylate
groups, forming more hydrophobic metabolites. The C8-C10 ethoxylated alcohols will be highly
mobile in soil with the mobility increasing with increasing number of ethoxylate groups.
Volatilization from soil to the atmosphere is not expected to occur.  Studies have shown that C8-
C10 ethoxylated alcohols undergo rapid biodegradation in river water; degradation is essentially
complete in about a week. Shorter chain ethoxylates may also partition to sediment and
particulate matter in the water column. Volatilization of C8-C10 ethoxylated alcohols to the
atmosphere is not expected to occur. If released to the atmosphere, C8-C10 ethoxylated alcohols
will be associated with aerosols and will be removed by wet and dry deposition.  Using a rapid
biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 100 percent predicted total removal
from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary






DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-9

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                       Alcohols, Ci2-Ci4, ethoxylated
                              Alcohols, Ci2-Ci4, ethoxylated
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Alcohols, C12-C14, ethoxylated [ethoxylated fatty alcohols]
  CAS# 68439-50-9
  Molecular weight: >200
  Melting Point: <50°C(E)
  Water Solubility: Dispersable (n=3 to 10) (E)Vapor Pressure:
  <0.01 mm Hg (E)
  Log Kow: Not available
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use: Surfactant	
Molecular formula varies
Structure: R (0-CH2-CH2)nOH, R = C12 to C14
Boiling Point: Decomposes (E)
Density:  0.95g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint:    >100°C(E)
K • Not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      These chemicals will exhibit surfactant-like properties for n=3 to 10. When n> 10, they
will behave as mild surfactants. Melting point, boiling point, and flash point will increase as n
or R increases.  They are miscible in organic solvents.

      These chemicals are prepared by ethoxylation of alcohols with ethylene oxide.
Market Profile

      Production volumes for C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohols were not available. However, in
1992, total U.S. consumption of alcohol ethoxylates (including both C8-C10 and C12-C14) was 386
million pounds.  In 1988, 29 million pounds of this chemical was exported. Data for imported
amounts was not available.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Alcohols, C12-C14, ethoxylated do not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohols are expected to rapidly biodegrade. Two
factors influencing biodegradation are the number of ethylene oxide units in the hydrophilic
moiety and the structure of the hydrophobic moiety. Studies have shown that the linearity of
the hydrophobic moiety has a more pronounced effect on biodegradability than the hydrophobic
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          11-10

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                       Alcohols, Ci2-Ci4, ethoxylated
chain length, point of attachment of the polyglycol chain (i.e., whether alcohol moiety is primary
or secondary), or degree of ethoxylation.  Biodegradation occurs by the p-oxidation of the alkyl
chain, scission of the hydrophobic and hydrophic moieties and step-wise removal of ethoxylate
groups, forming more hydrophobic metabolites. The C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohols will be highly
mobile in soil with the mobility increasing with increasing number of ethoxylate groups.
Volatilization from soil to the atmosphere is not expected to occur. Studies have shown that
C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohols undergo rapid biodegradation in river water; degradation is
essentially complete  in about a week.  Shorter chain ethoxylates may also partition to sediment
and particulate matter in the water column.  Volatilization of C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohols to the
atmosphere is not expected to occur. If released to the atmosphere, C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohols
will be associated with aerosols and will be removed by wet and dry deposition. Using a rapid
biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 100 percent predicted total removal
from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                       Benzyl Alcohol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Benzyl alcohol [Benzenemethanol, Benzene carbinol, o
  Hydroxy toluene]
  CAS# 100-51-6
  Molecular weight: 108.13
  Melting Point:  -15.19°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 40 g/L (M)
  Vapor Pressure:      0.048 mm Hg (at20°C) (E)
                   1mmHg(at58°C)(M)
  LogKow: 1.10(M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.1X10'7 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C7H80


Structure:
Boiling Point: 204.7°C(M)
Density:  1.045 g/cm3(M)
FlashPoint:    101°C (closed cup) (M)
            104°C (open cup) (M)
KOC:5-16(M)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical has a faint aromatic odor and sharp burning taste.  It is miscible with
alcohol, ether, chloroform, acetone.

      Benzyl alcohol is produced by reaction of sodium or potassium carbonate with benzyl
chloride.
Market Profile

      In 1988, total U.S. production was 4.8 million gallons; an additional 1.6 million gallons
was imported. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          11-11

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Benzyl Alcohol


Regulatory Status

     Benzyl alcohol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

     Aquatic Toxicity

     See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

     See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

     Environmental Fate

     If released to soil, benzyl alcohol is expected to display high mobility. Volatilization from
moist soil to the atmosphere is not expected to be important,  although it may slowly volatilize
from dry soils. Microbial degradation in soil may be rapid, especially in acclimated soils.  If
released to water, benzyl alcohol is expected to undergo microbial degradation under aerobic
conditions. Biodegradation  may be rapid under acclimated conditions. It is also expected to
slowly  biodegrade under anaerobic conditions.  Neither volatilization to the atmosphere,
chemical hydrolysis, direct photolytic degradation, chemical oxidation, bioconcentration in fish
and aquatic organisms, nor  adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter are expected
to be significant processes in environmental waters.  If released to the atmosphere, benzyl
alcohol is expected to undergo a gas-phase reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl
radicals;  the estimated half life for this process is 16 hours. Its water solubility indicates that
benzyl alcohol may also undergo atmospheric removal by wet deposition processes; however,
its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet deposition may be of limited importance.
Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted
total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

     Health Hazard

     See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 11-12

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                 2-Butoxyethanol
                                      2-Butoxyethanol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  2-Butoxyethanol [Glycol ether EB; butyl Cellosolve; Dowanol
  EB; Poly-Solv EB; glycol butyl ether, ethylene glycol
  monobutyl ether]
  CAS# 111-76-2
  Molecular weight: 118.18
  Melting Point: -75°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 3 mm Hg (25°C)(E)
  Log Kow = 0.57 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.1 x 10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C6H1402
Structure: CH3CH2CH2CH2OCH2CH2OH
Boiling Point: 171.2°C(M)
Density: 0.902 g/ml (M)
Flash Point:   Open cup: 74°C (M)
           Closed cup: 68°C(M)
Koc:  49 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      The physical state of 2-butoxyethanol is an oily, colorless liquid with mild rancid odor.
Glycol ethers are both ethers and alcohols. Their hydroxyl groups can be etherified, esterified,
chlorinated, or otherwise modified.

      The reaction of ethylene oxide and alcohols gives a mixture of glycol monoethers and
monoethers of the lower polyethylene glycols.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was 350 million gallons. In 1991, imports were 2.8
million gallons and in 1988, exports were 73.1 million gallons.  Total U.S. production quantity
for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.  The generic category of glycol ethers are also
listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants in the Clean Air Act.
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      2-butoxyethanol is not expected to undergo hydrolysis or direct photolysis in the
environment. In water, volatilization, adsorption to sediments and suspended solids, and
bioconcentration in aquatic  organisms are not expected to be  important transport processes for
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          11-13

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Butyrolactone

2-butoxyethanol.  Aqueous screening test data indicate that biodegradation is likely to be the
most important removal mechanism of 2-butoxyethanol from aerobic soil and water.  If released
to soil, 2-butoxyethanol is expected to display very high mobility. Volatilization from dry soil
surfaces will be important.  In the atmosphere, 2-butoxyethanol is expected to exist almost
entirely in the gas-phase and reactions with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals should
be fast (estimated half-life of 5.6 hrs). Using a rapid biodegradation rate for 2-butoxyethanol in
the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted removal from wastewater treatment
plants; a moderate rate corresponds to 83 percent predicted removal.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary

                                        Butyl Acetate
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Butyl acetate [n-butyl acetate; butyl ethanoate]
  CAS# 123-86-4
  Molecular weight: 116
  Melting Point: -77°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 10g/l(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 12.8 mm Hg (25°C)(M)
  LogKow=1.82(M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.81 x 10'4 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C6H1202
Structure: CH,COOCH,CH,CH,CH

Boiling Point: 125-6°C(M)
Density:  0.883 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:   29°C(M)
KOC:23(E)
Physical state: Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Butyl acetate is a colorless, flammable liquid with a pleasant, fruity odor.  It is miscible
with most organic solvents. The threshold limit value for air is 150 ppm.  The vapors are
irritating to the eyes  and respiratory tract.     Synthetic esters are generally prepared by
reaction of an alcohol with an organic acid in the presence of a catalyst such as sulfuric acid or
p-toluene sulfonic acid.  Butyl acetate thus may be prepared by the reaction of butanol and
acetic acid.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 250 million gallons.  In 1991, imports were less than
100,000 million gallons. In 1992, exports were 127.5 million gallons.  Total U.S. production
quantity for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 1.92 million gallons.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    11-14

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Butyrolactone

Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released to soil, butyl acetate is expected to rapidly biodegrade.  Chemical hydrolysis is
not expected to occur in moist soils although it may occur in alkaline soils (pH greater than 8).
Butyl acetate is expected to display high mobility. Volatilization of butyl acetate to the
atmosphere from both dry and moist soil surfaces may be significant. If released to water,
butyl acetate is expected to biodegrade under aerobic conditions as 5-day theoretical BODs of
23-58 percent using a sewage seed, 21 percent in river water, and 40 percent in salt water have
been reported. Volatilization to the atmosphere is also expected to be important.  The
hydrolysis half-lives of butyl acetate at pHs 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 are about 3.1 years, 114 days and
11.4 days, respectively, at 20 °C indicating that hydrolysis will be important only in very
alkaline environmental waters. Adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter and
bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms are not expected to be significant processes.  If
released to air, butyl acetate will exist almost entirely in the gas-phase in the ambient
atmosphere.  It may undergo atmospheric removal by the gas-phase reaction with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of 2.5 days for this
process.  Butyl acetate may also  undergo atmospheric removal by wet deposition processes;
however, its short atmospheric residence time suggests that this process may be of limited
importance. Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent
predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 11-15

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Butyrolactone

  	Butyrolactone	
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Butyrolactone [v-Butyrolactone; dihydro-2(3H)-furanone; 1,2-
  butanolide; 1,4-butanolide; v-hydroxybutyric acid lactone; 3-
  hydroxybutyric acid lactone; 4-hydroxybutanoic acid lactone]
  CAS# 96-48-0
  Molecular weight:  86
  Melting Point: -44°C(M)
  Water Solubility: miscible (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 3.2 mm Hg (25° C)(M)
  Log Kow = -0.640 (M)
  Henry's Law  Constant: 1.81 x 10"5 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
C4H602
Structure:
Boiling Point: 204°C(M)
Density:  1.125g/ml(M)
Flash Point:    Open cup: 98°C (M)
KOC:53(E)
Physical state:  Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Butyrolactone undergoes characteristic y-lactone reactions including ring openings and
reactions wherein oxygen is replaced by another ring heteroatom.  There is also a marked
reactivity of the alpha hydrogen atoms.  Butyrolactone is soluble in methanol, ethanol, acetone,
ether and benzene.

      Two routes are used for commercial production: the dehydrogenation of butanediol, and
hydrogenation of maleic anhydride to tetrahydrofuran and butyrolactone. In the former, the
exothermic dehydrogenation is carried out in a fixed bed at atmospheric pressure with
preheated butyrolactone over a copper-on-silica catalyst at 230 to 250°C. The yield of
butyrolactone, purified by distillation, is approximately 90 percent.
Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production was 67 million gallons. Data for imported and exported
amounts were not available.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Butyrolactone does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary
      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     11-16

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Cyclohexanol

      Environmental Fate

      In aqueous solutions butyrolactone is in dynamic equilibrium with its free acid and under
basic conditions the acid form may predominate.  If released to soil, butyrolactone may
volatilize from both dry and moist soil to the atmosphere. It is expected to display moderate to
high mobility in soil. In basic soils, the free acid form may predominate which may alter both
the rate at which butyrolactone volatilizes from soil and the degree to which it adsorbs.
Biodegradation  in acclimated aerobic soils is expected. If released to water, butyrolactone may
volatilize from water to the atmosphere.  The estimated half-life for volatilization from a model
river is 1.5 days. Butyrolactone is not expected to bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic
organisms, nor  is it expected to adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter.
Biodegradation  under aerobic conditions is expected.  If released to the atmosphere,
butyrolactone is expected to undergo a gas-phase reaction with photochemically produced
hydroxyl radicals; the estimated half life for this process is 4.4 days. Butyrolactone may also
undergo atmospheric removal by both wet and dry deposition processes.  Using a rapid
biodegradation rate for butyrolactone in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted
total removal from wastewater treatment plants.  If a moderate biodegradation rate is used in
this model, 83 percent predicted total removal may be achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                       Cyclohexanol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
CfiH,,0
   12*-
  Cyclohexanol [hexahydrophenol, hexalin]
  CAS# 108-93-0                                   Structure:
  Molecular weight: 100.16
  Melting Point: 23-25°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 36 g/l (at 20°C) (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.8 torr (at 20°C) (M)
  LogK .  1.23(M)                                  Boiling Point: 161°C(M)
  Henrys Law•Constant 1.02X10-
-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Cyclohexanone

Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production for both cyclohexanol and cyclohexanone was 2.1 billion
gallons. Data for imported and exported amounts were not available.  Total U.S. production
quantity for use in screen reclamation is  unknown.


Regulatory Status

      Cyclohexanol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, cyclohexanol will be expected to exhibit high to very high mobility in
soil. It will not hydrolyze in moist soil, but it may be subject to volatilization from near surface
soil. It may be  subject to biodegradation in soil based upon results observed in laboratory
aqueous screening tests.  If released to water, it will not be expected to adsorb to sediment or
suspended particulate matter or to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms.  It will not be expected
to hydrolyze or directly photolyze in water. It may be subject to biodegradation in natural
waters based upon results observed in laboratory biodegradation aqueous aerobic screening
tests using sewage and activated sludge inocula.  It will be subject to volatilization from surface
waters with estimated half-lives of 23 hr for volatilization from a model river and 10.6 days for
volatilization  from a model pond, respectively. If released to the atmosphere, it can be expected
to exist mainly  in the vapor-phase in the ambient atmosphere based on its vapor pressure.  The
estimated half-life for vapor-phase reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals is
22 hr at an atmospheric concentration of 5X104 hydroxyl radicals per cm3. Cyclohexanol will
not be expected to directly photolyze in the atmosphere. Using a rapid biodegradation rate for
cyclohexanol  in the STP fugacity model, 97 percent removal can be predicted from wastewater
treatment plants. Using a moderate biodegradation rate for cyclohexanol in the STP fugacity
model, 84 percent removal can be predicted from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 11-18

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Cyclohexanone

  	Cyclohexanone	
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Cyclohexanone [ketohexamethylene, pimelic ketone, cyclohexyl
  ketone, Hytrol 0, Anone, Nadone]
  CAS# 108-94-1
  Molecular weight: 98
  Melting Point: -47°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 100g/l(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 3.975 mm Hg (M) (20°C)
  Log Kow = 0.81 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 9 x 10"6 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C6H100
Structure:
Boiling Point: 156.7°C(M)
Density:  0.9478 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:   Closed cup: 42°C(M)
Koc: 10(E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Cyclohexanone is a colorless liquid with an odor suggestive of peppermint and acetone.
Cyclohexanone is miscible with methanol, ethanol, acetone, benzene, n-hexane,  nitrobenzene,
dimethyl ether, naphtha, xylene, ethylene, glycol, isoamyl acetate, diethylamine,  and most
organic solvents.

      Cyclohexanone may be produced by the catalytic hydrogenation of phenol, by the catalytic
air oxidation of cyclohexanol, by the catalytic dehydrogenation of cyclohexanol, or by the
oxidation of cyclohexanol. The hydrogenation of phenol, which is best carried out in the  liquid
phase, catalyzed by palladium on carbon, is the most efficient route.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production for both cyclohexanol and Cyclohexanone was 2.1 billion
gallons.  Imports were 0.6 million gallons and exports were 48.5 million gallons.  Total U.S.
production quantity of Cyclohexanone for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be
270,000 gallons.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    11-19

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                        Diacetone Alcohol
      Environmental Fate

      If released to the atmosphere, cyclohexanone will degrade by reaction with sunlight
produced hydroxyl radicals (half-life of about 1 day)  and by direct photolysis (half-life of about
4.3 days).  If released to water, cyclohexanone may degrade through biodegradation and
photolysis.  Volatilization from environmental waters will not be rapid except from rapidly
moving, shallow streams. If released to soil, cyclohexanone will be susceptible to significant
leaching.  Volatilization and photodegradation will occur on soil surfaces. Using a rapid and a
moderate biodegradation rate for cyclohexanone in the STP fugacity model results in about 97
and 83 percent, respectively, predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                     Diacetone Alcohol
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Diacetone alcohol [4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone,
  dimethylacetonylcarbinol, 2-methyl-2-pentanol-4-one; pyranton]
  CAS# 123-42-2
  Molecular weight: 116
  Melting Point: -44°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 0.97 mm Hg (M) (20°C)
  Log Kow =-0.34 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.4 x 10"9 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C6H1202
Structure: (CH3)2C(OH)CH2COCH3
Boiling Point: 164°C(M)
Density: 0.9306 g/ml (M)
Flash Point:   Open Cup: -66°C (M)
Koc: 21 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Technical grade diacetone alcohol contains up to  15 percent acetone. Diacetone alcohol is
miscible with alcohol, ether, and other solvents. Its physical state is a colorless oily liquid with
a faint pleasant odor.

      Diacetone alcohol may be produced from acetone in the presence of a base such as
barium hydroxide or calcium hydroxide. It can be isolated from the arctic bramble Rubus
articus, from green algae and from the sleepy grass sp.  Stipa vaseyi.
Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production volume was 18 million gallons. In 1992, imports were 0.5
million gallons and exports were 1.8 million gallons.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in
screen reclamation is unknown.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                   II-20

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Pi acetone Alcohol


Regulatory Status

      Diacetone alcohol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, diacetone alcohol will be expected to exhibit very high mobility.
Although no data were located regarding its biodegradation in soil, the compound may be
subject to biodegradation in soil based upon results observed in laboratory biodegradation
aqueous aerobic screening tests. It should not be subject to volatilization from moist
near-surface soil. However, it may volatilize from dry near-surface soil and other dry surfaces.
In water, it will not be expected to adsorb to sediment or suspended particulate matter or
bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms.  Diacetone alcohol has been  demonstrated to biodegrade
in aqueous aerobic screening tests.  The compound may be subject to biodegradation in natural
waters. It should not be subject to volatilization from surface waters. Hydrolysis should not be
an important removal process.  If released to the atmosphere, gas-phase diacetone alcohol will
react with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals; the estimated half-life is 8 days (12-hr
daylight day).  Diacetone alcohol may be susceptible to direct photolysis  in the atmosphere
based upon its possible absorption of light at wavelengths greater than 290 nm.  The
compound may be susceptible to removal from the atmosphere by washout because of its high
water solubility. Using a moderate biodegradation rate for diacetone alcohol in the STP fugacity
model, 83 percent total removal can be predicted from wastewater treatment plants.


Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 11-21

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                Dichloromethane
                                      Dichloromethane
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Dichloromethane [methylene chloride; methylene dichloride;
  Freon 30; DCM]
  CAS# 75-09-2
  Molecular weight: 84.93
  Melting Point: -97°C(M)
  Water Solubility:  17g/l(M)
  Vapor Pressure:  340 mm Hg (20°C) (M)
  LogKow= 1.25(M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 3.25 x 10'3 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
CH2CI2
Structure: CH2CI2
Boiling Point: 40-41°C(M)
Density:  1.33415g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    -96.8 °C(M)
Koc: 67 (M)
Physical  state:  Clear, colorless volatile liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Methylene chloride is nonflammable, and stable under normal laboratory storage
conditions. It is soluble in ether.  Methylene chloride may form explosive mixtures with certain
materials.

      Methylene chloride is produced industrially by (1) first reacting hydrogen chloride and
methanol in the vapor phase with the aid of a catalyst to give methyl chloride, and then
chlorinating, (the predominant method) or  (2) directly reacting excess methane with chlorine at
high temperature (= 485-510°C), which produces multiple coproducts.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was 240 million gallons. Imports were 5.6 million
gallonsss and exports were 79.0 million gallons.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in
screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, dichloromethane is expected to display high mobility. It may rapidly
volatilize from both moist and dry soil to the atmosphere.  Aerobic biodegradation may be
important for dichloromethane in acclimated soils. If released to water, volatilization to the
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-22

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                    Pi ethyl Adipate
atmosphere is expected to be a rapid process.  Neither bioconcentration in fish and aquatic
organisms nor adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter are expected to be
significant.  Dichloromethane has been found to slowly biodegrade under aerobic conditions. It
is also expected to slowly biodegrade under anaerobic conditions in sediment and groundwater.
If released to the atmosphere,  dichloromethane is expected to persist for long periods of time.
The estimated half-life for the gas-phase reaction of dichloromethane with hydroxyl radicals  is
approximately 88 days.  Direct photolytic degradation is not expected to occur.
Dichloromethane may undergo atmospheric removal by wet deposition processes although any
removed by this processes is expected to rapidly re-volatilize to the atmosphere. Using a slow
biodegradation rate for dichloromethane in  the STP fugacity model, 64 percent total removal
can be predicted from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                      Diethyl Adipate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Diethyl adipate [Diethyl ester adipic acid]
  CAS# 141-28-6
  Molecular weight: 202.25
  Melting Point: -19.8°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.1g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.8 mm Hg (25°C)(E)
  Log Kow = 2.37 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.3 x 10"7 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Lubricant, Plasticizer	
C10H1804
Structure: (C2H50)CO(CH2)4OC(OC2H5)
Boiling Point: 245°C(M)
Density:  1.002g/ml(M)
FlashPoint:    110°C(M)
Koc: 44 (E)
Physical state: Colorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Diethyl adipate is soluble in alcohol and ether.  When heated to decomposition, it emits
acrid smoke and fumes.  The production of adipic acid esters is second only to the production
of adipic acid polyamides.  These esters are marketed as plasticizers.

      Diethyl adipate is the esterification product of adipic acid and ethanol. Adipic acid is
produced by the oxidation with air and nitric acid, separately, of cyclohexane. Diethyl adipate,
along with other esters, is produced in the mother liquor during adipic acid manufacturing.
Diethyl adipate is produced along with other esters, and is subsequently separated and refined
by distillation.
Market Profile

      In  1991, total U.S. production of adipate plasticizers was 35 million pounds. Data
specific to diethyl adipate was not available; nor were data for imported and exported amounts.
Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                             II-23

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Pi ethyl Adipate


Regulatory Status

      Diethyl adipate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, diethyl adipate is expected to display high mobility.  Biodegradation in
aerobic soils may be rapid. Volatilization of diethyl adipate from both moist and dry soil to the
atmosphere is expected to be very slow.  Chemical hydrolysis of the ester group is not expected
to be significant except for highly basic soils (pH greater thanS). If released to water, aerobic
biodegradation may be rapid.  Diethyl adipate is not expected to bioconcentrate in fish and
aquatic organisms or adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter. Volatilization of
diethyl adipate from water to the atmosphere will be very slow.  Chemical hydrolysis may occur
in highly basic waters.  If released to the  atmosphere, diethyl adipate may undergo oxidation by
the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of approximately 1.9
days.  It may  also undergo atmospheric removal by  both wet and dry deposition processes;
however, its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet deposition is of limited
importance.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for diethyl adipate in the STP fugacity model
results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.  If a moderate
biodegradation rate is used in this model, 85 percent predicted total removal may be achieved.

      Health Hazard


      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-24

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                 Pi ethyl Glutarate
                                      Diethyl Glutarate
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Diethyl glutarate [Diethyl ester glutaric acid; diethyl
  pentanedioic acid]
  CAS# 818-38-2
  Molecular weight:  188.2
  Melting Point: -24.1°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 8.8 g/L (at 20° C) (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.1 mm Hg(25°C)(E)
  LogKow=1.88(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.65 x 10"7 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Plasticizer	
C9H1604
Structure: (C2H50)CO(CH2)3CO(OC2H5)
Boiling Point: 237°C(M)
Density: 1.022g/ml(M)
FlashPoint:    96°C(M)
KOC:20(E)
Physical state:  Colorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Diethyl glutarate is incompatible with acids, bases, oxidizing agents, and reducing agents.
It is soluble in alcohol and ether. Diethyl glutarate can be isolated from the water extracts of
crude wool.

      Diethyl glutarate is produced by the oxidation of cyclopentanol or cyclopentanone.  The
resulting glutaric acid is then reacted with ethanol to give the product diethyl glutarate.
Esterification of glutaric acid  followed by distillation gives adequate results.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production for glutarate plasticizers was 3 million pounds.  This
category includes both diethyl glutarate and dimethyl glutarate, among others. Data specific to
Diethyl Glutarate were not available; nor were data for imported and exported amounts.  Total
U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.


Regulatory Status

      Diethyl glutarate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for  this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, diethyl glutarate is expected to display very high mobility.
Biodegradation in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid. Volatilization of diethyl glutarate from
moist soil to the atmosphere is expected to be very slow although volatilization from dry soil
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           11-9*1
                                           II £.\J

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Pi ethyl Glutarate

may be significant.  Chemical hydrolysis of the ester group is not expected to be significant
except for highly basic soils (pH greater thanS).  If released to water, aerobic biodegradation
may be rapid especially in acclimated waters. Diethyl glutarate is not expected to appreciably
bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms or adsorb to sediment and suspended organic
matter.  Volatilization of diethyl glutarate from water to the atmosphere will likely be very slow.
Hydrolysis may occur in highly basic waters.  If released to the atmosphere, diethyl glutarate
may undergo oxidation by the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-
life of approximately 2.5 days.  It may also undergo atmospheric removal by both wet and dry
deposition processes.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for diethyl glutarate in the STP
fugacity model results  in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.
If a moderate biodegradation rate is used in this model, 84 percent predicted total  removal may
be achieved.

      Health Hazard

            See Table II-6 and accompanying summary

                                      Diethylene Glycol
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Diethylene glycol [2,2'-oxybisethanol, 2,2'-oxydiethanol,
  diglycol, &,&'-dihydroxydiethyl ether, dihydroxyethyl ether,
  ethylene diglycol, 3-oxa-1,5-pentanediol, DEC, Dicol, bis(2-
  hydroxyethyl) ether, diglycol]
  CAS# 111-46-6
  Molecular weight:  106.12
  Melting Point: -6.5°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure:  <0.0013 mm Hg at25°C (M)
  LogKow:-1.47(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.03X10'9 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
C4H1003
Structure: HOCH,CH,OCH,CH,OH

Boiling Point: 245.8°C(M)
Density:  1.11 (M)
FlashPoint:    138°C(M)
Koc: 4(E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Diethylene glycol is readily esterified with mono- and dicarboxylic acids to yield
plasticizers and resins.  Diethylene glycol is similar in many respects to ethylene glycol but
contains an ether group.  1,4-Dioxane is prepared directly from diethylene glycol. It is miscible
with water and other polar solvents.

      Diethylene glycol is a co-product when ethylene glycol is produced by ethylene oxide
hydrolysis.  The acid-catalyzed hydrolysis reaction is conducted in a large excess of water at
moderate temperatures.  This reaction yields approximately 9 to 10 percent diethylene glycol as
the primary by-product.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                      II-26

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Pi ethyl en e Glycol

Market Profile

     In 1991, total U.S. production was 369.2 million gallons.  Imports in 1992 were about 99
million gallons; exports were about 25 million gallons. Total U.S. production quantity for use
in screen reclamation was estimated to be 122,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

     Diethylene glycol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

     Aquatic Toxicity

     See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

     See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

     Environmental  Fate

     If released to soil, diethylene glycol is expected to biodegrade under aerobic conditions
and it may be rapid if acclimated organisms are present. It is expected to display high mobility,
although rapid biodegradation will decrease its potential to leach through soil. Volatilization of
diethylene glycol from both moist and dry soil to the atmosphere is not expected to be
important. If released to water, diethylene glycol is expected to biodegrade under aerobic
conditions and it may be rapid if acclimated organisms are present. Diethylene glycol is also
expected to slowly degrade under anaerobic conditions. Neither bioconcentration in fish and
aquatic organisms, adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter, nor volatilization to
the atmosphere are expected to be important.  If released to the atmosphere, diethylene glycol is
degraded rapidly by reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (typical half-life
of 6.2 hours). Physical removal by wet deposition processes may also occur because of its
substantial water solubility;  however,  its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet
deposition may be of limited importance. Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity
model  results in 97 percent  predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants; a
moderate rate corresponds to 84 percent predicted removal.

     Health  Hazard

     See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-27

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                   Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
                            Diethylene Glycol  Monobutyl Ether
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether [2-(2-butoxyethoxy)
  ethanol; butyl ethyl Cellosolve; diethylene glycol butyl  ether;
  butyl Carbitol; Dowanol DB; Poly-Solv DB;  butoxydiglycol,
  butyl digol, butyl diicinol ]
  CAS# 112-34-5
  Molecular weight:  162.2
  Melting Point:  -68°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.02 mm Hg (E) (20° C)
  Log Kow =  0.29 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.5 x 10"9 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
C8H1803
Structure: C4H9OCH2CH2OCH2CH2OH
Boiling Point: 231° C(M)
Density: 0.954 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    Open cup:  110°C(M)
            Closed cup: 78°C(M)
Koc: 34 (E)
                             Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Glycol ethers are both ethers and alcohols. Their hydroxyl groups can be etherified,
esterified, chlorinated, or otherwise modified.  Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether is miscible in
many organic solvents. It is a colorless liquid with a mild pleasant odor.

      The reaction of ethylene oxide and alcohols gives a mixture of glycol monoethers and
monoethers of the lower polyethylene glycols.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was  100 million gallons. Data for imported and exported
amounts were not available. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation was
estimated to be 420,000 gallons.
Regulatory Status

      Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.
However, the generic category of glycol ethers is listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants in the Clean
Air Act.
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-28

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                 Diethylene Glycol Butyl Ether Acetate
      Environmental Fate

      Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether is not expected to undergo hydrolysis or direct
photolysis in the environment. Volatilization, adsorption and bioconcentration are not
important transport processes of diethylene glycol monobutyl ether in water.  Aqueous
screening test data indicate that biodegradation may be an important removal mechanism of
diethylene glycol monobutyl ether from aerobic soil and water. If released to soil, diethylene
glycol monobutyl ether is expected to display very high mobility.  Volatilization from dry soil
surfaces will be important. In the atmosphere, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether is expected to
exist almost entirely in the gas-phase and reactions with photochemically produced hydroxyl
radicals should be fast (estimated half-life of 3.5 hours).  Physical removal of diethylene glycol
monobutyl ether from air by wet deposition may occur due to its high water solubility; however,
its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet deposition is of limited importance.
Using a rapid biodegradation rate for diethylene glycol monobutyl ether in the STP fugacity
model results in 97 percent predicted removal from wastewater treatment plants; a moderate
rate corresponds to 83 percent predicted removal.

      Health Hazard

            See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                          Diethylene Glycol Butyl Ether Acetate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate [2-(2-butoxyethoxy)
  ethanol acetate; butyl diethylene glycol acetate; diglycol
  monobutyl ether acetate]
  CAS# 124-17-4
  Molecular weight: 204.26
  Melting Point:  -32.2°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 65 g/l (M)
  Vapor Pressure: <0.01 mm Hg (M) (20° C)
  LogKow=1.3(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 9.9 x 10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C10H2004
Structure: C4H9(OC2H4)2OOCCH3
Boiling Point: 246.7°C(M)
Density:  0.9810 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    Open cup: 115.6°C(M)
Koc: 15(E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate is soluble in ethanol, ether, acetone, and other
organic solvents.  It is a liquid with a mild, not unpleasant odor. Its fire potential is moderate;
when exposed to heat or flame it emits degradation products, it can react with oxidizing
materials.

      Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate is manufactured by the esterification of diethylene
glycol monobutyl ether with acetic acid or acetic anhydride.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-29

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Diethylene Glycol Butyl Ether Acetate

Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of "other" E-series glycol ethers was 500,000 pounds.  This
category includes diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate, as well as other minor E-series glycol
ethers.  Data for imported and exported amounts were not available.  Total U.S. production
quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.


Regulatory Status

      Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate does not trigger any federal environmental
regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the  comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate is not expected to undergo hydrolysis or direct
photolysis in the environment. In water, volatilization, adsorption to sediments and suspended
solids, and bioconcentration in aquatic  organisms are not expected to be important transport
processes for diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate. Biodegradation is likely to be the most
important removal mechanism of diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate from aerobic soil and
water based on a 4-week BOD of 100 percent of theoretical. If released to soil,  diethylene glycol
butyl ether acetate is expected to display very high mobility. Volatilization from dry soil
surfaces will  be important. In the atmosphere, diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate is expected
to exist almost entirely in the gas-phase and reactions with photochemically produced hydroxyl
radicals should be fast (estimated half-life of 3.8 hrs).  Physical removal of diethylene glycol
butyl ether acetate from air by wet deposition may occur due to its high water solubility;
however, its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet deposition is of limited
importance.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate in the
STP fugacity  model results in  97 percent predicted removal from wastewater treatment plants;
a moderate rate corresponds to  83 percent predicted removal.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-30

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                               Diisopropyl Adipate
                                    Diisopropyl Adipate
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Diisopropyl adipate [Disopropyl adipate; 2,3-dimethylbutyl
  adipate; adipic acid diisopropyl ester]
  CAS# 6938-94-9
  Molecular weight:  230.34
  Melting Point: -1.1°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 1 g/L (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.02 mm Hg (25°C)(E)
  LogKow = 3.2(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.3 x 10"6 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Lubricant, Plasticizer	
C12H2204
Structure: -/-C3H702C(CH2)4C02-/-C3H7
Boiling Point: 257°C (at 760 mm Hg) (E)
Density:  0.9569 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    116°C(M)
Koc:  1311(E)
Physical state:  Colorless, odorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Diisopropyl adipate is soluble in alcohol, ether, acetone and acetic acid. When heated to
decomposition, it emits acrid smoke and fumes. The largest consumption of adipic acid after
polyamides is the production of esters. These esters are marketed as plasticizers.

      Diisopropyl adipate is the result of the esterification of adipic acid. Acid catalysts are
normally used,  but the reaction will proceed at elevated temperatures if water is removed
during the reaction.  Diisopropyl adipate, along with other esters, is produced in the mother
liquor during adipic acid manufacturing. Diisopropyl adipate is subsequently separated and
refined by distillation.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of adipate plasticizers was 35 million pounds. This
category includes diisopropyl adipate, diethyl adipate, dimethyl adipate, and possibly others.
Data for imported and exported amounts were not available. Total U.S. production quantity for
use in screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Diisopropyl adipate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           11-31

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                 Dimethyl Adipate
      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, diisopropyl adipate is expected to display low mobility. Biodegradation
in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid.  Volatilization of diisopropyl adipate from moist soil
to the atmosphere is expected to be  very slow although volatilization from dry soil may occur.
Chemical hydrolysis of the ester group is not expected to be important except for highly basic
soils  (pH greater than 8).  If released to water, aerobic biodegradation may be rapid especially
in acclimated waters. Diisopropyl adipate is not expected to appreciably bioconcentrate in fish
and aquatic organisms although it may adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter.
Volatilization of diisopropyl adipate from water to the atmosphere will likely be very slow.
Chemical hydrolysis may occur in highly basic waters. If released to the atmosphere,
diisopropyl adipate may undergo oxidation by the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals
with an estimated half-life of approximately 1 day.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for
diisopropyl adipate in the STP fugacity model results in 98 percent predicted total removal
from  wastewater treatment plants. If a moderate biodegradation rate is used in this model, 88
percent predicted total removal may be achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                      Dimethyl Adipate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Dimethyl adipate [Dimethyl hexanedioate; methyl adipate;
  dimethyl ester adipic acid]
  CAS# 627-93-0
  Molecular weight:  174.25
  Melting Point: 8°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.1 g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.06 mm Hg (25°C)(E)
  LogKow=1.39(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.3 x 10"7 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Lubricant, Plasticizer	
C8H1404
Structure: (CH30)CO(CH2)4CO(OCH3)
Boiling Point: 193.7°C (at 760 mm Hg)(E)
Density: 1.063 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    107°C(M)
Koc: 136(E)
Physical state: Colorless, odorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Dimethyl adipate is soluble in alcohol, ether and acetic acid. It is incompatible with
acids, bases, oxidizing agents and reducing agents. When heated to decomposition, it emits
acrid smoke and irritating fumes.

      Dimethyl adipate is the result of the esterification of adipic acid.  Adipic acid is produced
by the oxidation  of cyclohexane first with air, then with nitric acid. The adipic acid is then
methylated to produce the dimethyl adipate.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-32

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Dimethyl Adipate

Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of adipate plasticizers was 35 million pounds.  This
category includes diisopropyl adipate, diethyl adipate, dimethyl adipate, and possibly others.
Data for imported and exported amounts were not available.  Total U.S. production quantity of
dimethyl adipate for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 304,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      Dimethyl adipate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, dimethyl  adipate is expected to display moderate to high mobility.
Biodegradation in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid.  Volatilization of dimethyl adipate
from moist soil to the atmosphere is expected to be very slow although volatilization from dry
soil may be significant. Chemical hydrolysis of the ester group is not expected to be important
except in highly basic soils (pH greater thanS). If released to water, aerobic biodegradation
may be rapid especially in acclimated waters.  Dimethyl adipate is not expected to appreciably
bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms or adsorb to sediment and suspended organic
matter. Volatilization of dimethyl adipate from water to the atmosphere will be very slow.
Chemical hydrolysis may occur in highly basic waters.  If released to the atmosphere, dimethyl
adipate may undergo oxidation by the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals with an
estimated half-life of approximately 3.3 days.  It may also undergo atmospheric removal by wet
deposition  processes because of its moderate water solubility. Using a rapid biodegradation
rate for dimethyl adipate in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total
removal from wastewater treatment plants. If a moderate biodegradation rate is used in this
model, 85 percent predicted total removal may be achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-33

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Dimethyl Glutarate

   	Dimethyl Glutarate	
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Dimethyl glutarate [glutaric acid, dimethyl ester; pentanedioic
  acid, dimethyl ester]
  CAS# 1119-40-0
  Molecular weight: 160.17
  Melting Point: -42.5°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 1 g/L (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.1 mm Hg (E)
  Log Kow: 0.90 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 9.1X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C7H1204
Structure: CH302C(CH2)3C02CH:
Boiling Point: 214°C(M)
Density:  1.088 g/cm3(M)
FlashPoint:    100°C(E)
Koc: 6 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical has a faint, agreeable odor. It is soluble in alcohols and ether.

      This chemical is synthesized by the reaction of methanol with glutaric acid.


Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of glutarate plasticizers was 3.4 million pounds.  This
category includes both dimethyl glutarate and diethyl glutarate, among others. Total U.S.
production quantity of dimethyl glutarate for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be
609,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      Dimethyl glutarate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released to soil, dimethyl glutarate is expected to readily biodegrade especially if
acclimated organisms are present. In moist, highly alkaline soils, chemical hydrolysis may also
occur. It has a very low estimated adsorptivity to soil and therefore should be highly mobile in
soil. Volatilization from soil should not be important. If released to water, dimethyl glutarate is
expected to biodegrade. Since its estimated alkaline hydrolysis half-life is  60 days at pH 8,
chemical hydrolysis may contribute to its loss in alkaline waters (pH greater thanS).
Volatilization, bioconcentration in aquatic organisms, and adsorption to sediment and


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-34

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Dimethyl Succinate

suspended organic matter are not expected to be important. If released to the atmosphere,
dimethyl glutarate will degrade by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals
(estimated half-life of 9 days). Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model
results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary

                                    Dimethyl  Succinate
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Dimethyl succinate [succinic acid, dimethyl ester; butanedioic
  acid, dimethyl ester; methyl succinate]
  CAS# 106-65-0
  Molecular weight: 146.14
  Melting Point: 19°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 8.3 g/L (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.1 mm Hg (E)
  LogKow:0.19(M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 5.8X10'6 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C,H,A
Structure: CH302C(CH2)2C02CH:
Boiling Point: 196.4°C(M)
Density:  1.12g/cm3(M)
FlashPoint:    100°C(E)
Koc: 3 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This is a colorless liquid.  It is soluble in alcohols, acetone and ether. This chemical is
synthesized by the reaction of methanol with succinic acid.
Market Profile

      Data for total U.S. production of this chemical is unknown.  Total U.S. production
quantity for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 304,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      Dimethyl succinate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary



DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-35

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                     Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether
      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, dimethyl succinate is expected to biodegrade and this process may be
rapid if acclimated organisms are present.  In moist, highly alkaline soils,  chemical hydrolysis
may also occur. It is expected to be highly mobile in soil. Volatilization of dimethyl succinate
from both moist and dry surface soil to the atmosphere may contribute to its loss. If released
to water, dimethyl succinate it is expected to biodegrade. Neither bioconcentration in fish and
aquatic organisms nor adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter are expected to
be important.  Volatilization from water may contibute to its loss from bodies of water with a
strong current or  wind; the estimated half-life in a model river is 8 days. The estimated
alkaline hydrolysis half-life at pH 8 is 85 days and therefore chemical hydrolysis may occur in
alkaline environmental media (pH  greater than 8).  If released to the atmosphere,  dimethyl
succinate will degrade by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals  (estimated
half-life of 37 days). Using a rapid  biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 97
percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                             Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Dipropylene glycol methyl ether [Glycol ether DPM; Dowanol
  DPM]
  CAS# 34590-94-8
  Molecular weight: 148.2
  Melting Point: -80°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.4 mm Hg (M) (25° C)
  Log Kow =-0.35 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.15 x 10"9 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C7H1603
Structure: CH3CHOHCH2OCH2CH(OCH3)CH3
                 or
            CH3CHCH2OCH2CHCH3
            OH      OCH3
Boiling Point: 188.3°C(M)
Density:  0.951 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    75°C(M)
Koc: 15(E)
Physical  state: liquid	
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Glycol ethers are both ethers and alcohols.  Their hydroxyl group can be etherified,
esterified, chlorinated, or otherwise modified.  Dipropylene glycol methyl ether is miscible in
many organic solvents.  It is a liquid with a mild, not unpleasant odor.

      Glycol ethers are prepared by reacting propylene oxide with methanol.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-36

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether

Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was 22 million pounds. Imports were less than 100,000
million gallons and exports were 0.6 million gallons. Total U.S. production quantity for use in
screen reclamation is unknown.


Regulatory Status

      Dipropylene glycol methyl ether does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.
However, the generic category of glycol ethers is listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants in the Clean
Air Act.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      In water, dipropylene glycol methyl ether would not be expected to sorb to sediments or to
bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms. The main degradation mechanism  in water is
expected to be biodegradation.  Unpublished data support this, with 34 percent and 72.9
percent of theoretical  being observed in two screening tests (Strum test and OECD Screenin g
Test, respectively) and 93.7 percent of theoretical in a Zahn-Wellens test. Photolysis and
hydrolysis  are probably not important removal processes for dipropylene glycol methyl ether in
water. Volatilization from water will not be important. In the atmosphere, dipropylene glycol
methyl ether will react with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (half-life  of
approximately 3.4 hours). In soil, dipropylene glycol methyl ether will be highly mobile and
may leach to groundwater. In soil biodegradation will probably be the primary removal
mechanism; however, this process may require an acclimation period.  Dipropylene glycol
methyl ether may volatilize from dry soil surfaces.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for
dipropylene glycol methyl ether in the STP fugacity model, 97 percent removal can be predicted
from wastewater treatment plants. Using a moderate biodegradation rate for dipropylene glycol
methyl ether in the STP fugacity model, 83 percent removal can be predicted from wastewater
treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-37

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate

  	Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate	
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate [Dowanol DPMA;
  Acrosolv DPMA]
  CAS# 88917-22-0
  Molecular weight: 190
  Melting Point: -90°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.02 mm Hg (E) (25° C)
  Log Kow= 0.66 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 7.5 x 10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C9H1804
Structure: CH,CHCH,OCH,CHCH

         OCH3    OC=OCH3
Boiling Point: 200°C(E)
Density:  0.90 g/ml (E)
FlashPoint:   60°C(M)
Koc: 5 (E)
Physical  state: liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate is a glycol derivative that is both an ether and an
ester.  Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate is soluble in organic solvents.

      Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate is produced by the esterification of dipropylene
glycol methyl ether.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of "other" P-series glycol ethers was 1 million pounds.
This category includes dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, ethoxypropanol, ethoxypropyl
acetate, and propylene glycol methyl ether acetate, among possibly others. Data for imported
and exported amounts were not available. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen
reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status
      Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate does not trigger any federal environmental
regulations.
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate is not expected to undergo hydrolysis or direct
photolysis in the environment.  In water, volatilization, adsorption to sediments and suspended
solids, and bioconcentration in aquatic organisms are not expected to be important transport
processes for dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate. Biodegradation is likely to be an

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-38

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
               Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate
important removal mechanism of dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate from aerobic soil and
water based on screening studies from structurally similar glycol ether compounds.  If released
to soil, dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate is expected to display very high mobility.
Volatilization from dry soil surfaces will be important.  In the atmosphere, dipropylene glycol
methyl ether acetate is expected to exist almost entirely in the gas-phase and reactions with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals should be fast (estimated half-life of 3.4 hrs).
Using a rapid biodegradation rate for dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate in the STP fugacity
model results in 97 percent predicted removal from wastewater treatment plants; a moderate
rate corresponds to 83 percent predicted removal.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonic Acid, Triethanol Amine Salt
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt
  [benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, compd. with
  2,2',2"-nitrilotris[ethanol](1:1)]
  CAS# 27323-41-7
  Molecular weight: 475.5
  Melting Point:  Not available
  Water Solubility: Low Solubility (E)
  Vapor Pressure: <10"5 mm Hg (E)
  LogKow:-1.49(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: Not applicable
  Chemistry of Use: Surfactant	
C24H45N06S
Structure:
                 HN(CH,CH,OH),
Boiling Point: Not available
Density:  1.09g/cm3(M)
Flash Point:    Not available
Koc:  10,000 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical exists in a pale yellow, slightly viscous paste, and has a bland odor.

      This chemical is synthesized by reacting dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid with
triethanolamine.


Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production was 8.2 million pounds. Imports and exports of this
chemcial are unknown. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-39

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonic Acid, Triethanol Amine Salt

Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt, is expected to
biodegrade under aerobic conditions, especially when acclimated organisms are present.
Although dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt is an ionic compound, studies
have shown that dodecyl  benzene sulfonic acid salts strongly adsorb to soil and that the force
dominating this process is the hydrophobic nature of the non-polar tail of the molecule.
Volatilization of dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt from surface soil will not
be significant. If released to water, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt is
expected to biodegrade. It will also adsorb to sediment and particulate matter in the water
column.  Volatilization of dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt from water
should be insignificant. Experimental data indicate that similar dodecyl benzene sulfonic acids
do not bioconcentrate in  fish and aquatic organisms.  If released to the atmosphere, triethanol
amine salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid will be associated with aerosols and be removed by
gravitational settling.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for the parent acid in the STP fugacity
model results in 97 percent predicted total removal for dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid,
triethanol amine salt from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-40

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Ethyl Acetate

   	Ethyl Acetate	
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Ethyl acetate [Acetic ester]
  CAS# 141-78-6
  Molecular weight: 88
  Melting Point: -83.6°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 77g/l (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 90 mm Hg (M) (25°C)
  Log Kow= 0.730 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.34 x 10"4 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C4H802
Structure: CH,COOCH,CH

Boiling Point: 77.1°C(M)
Density:  0.884 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:   -4.4°C(M)
Koc: 9 (E)
Physical  state: volatile liquid
                             Above data is either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Ethyl acetate is a volatile, flammable liquid with a characteristic fruity odor.  It is found in
cereal crops, radishes, fruit juices, beer, and wine. The threshold limit value for air is 440
ppm.  Ethyl acetate is miscible with most organic solvents.

      Ethyl acetate occurs naturally, and recovery can be accomplished by steam distillation,
extraction or pressing, or a combination of these.  Synthetic esters are generally prepared by
reaction of an alcohol and an organic acid in the presence of a catalyst such as sulfuric acid or
p-toluene sulfonic acid.  Ethyl acetate thus may be prepared synthetically by the catalyzed
reaction of ethanol and acetic acid.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was 245 million gallons. Imports were 12.3 million gallons
and exports were 96.2 million gallons.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen
reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, ethyl acetate is expected to display high mobility.  Biodegradation in
both aerobic and anaerobic soils is expected to be rapid.  Volatilization of ethyl acetate from
both moist and dry soil to the atmosphere is expected to occur. If released to water, ethyl

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     1141

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                   Ethyl Acetate
acetate is expected to rapidly degrade under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Five-day
theoretical BODs of 50 percent and 53 percent using an activated sludge seed and in seawater,
respectively, have been observed.  Under anaerobic conditions using a water/sediment aquifer
slurry obtained from under a municipal landfill, 94 percent conversion to methane was
observed.  Ethyl acetate is not expected to appreciably bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic
organisms or adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter. Volatilization of ethyl acetate
from water to the atmosphere may also occur. If released to the atmosphere, ethyl acetate may
undergo oxidation by the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of
approximately 8 days.  It may also undergo atmospheric removal by wet deposition processes
because  of its high water solubility.  A pilot plant activated sludge system removed  100 percent
of the  167 mg/L of influent ethyl acetate with 93 percent lost through biodegradation and 7
percent lost though stripping.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                        Ethyl Lactate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Ethyl lactate [(S)-Ethyl lactate; ethyl-2-hydroxypropanate;
  Acytol]
  CAS# 97-64-3
  Molecular weight: 118.13
  Melting Point: -26°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 5 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  LogKow = -0.180(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 5.8 x 10"6 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C5H1003
Structure: CH3CH(OH)COOCH2CH3
Boiling Point: 154°C(M)
Density: 1.042g/ml(M)
FlashPoint:    48°C(M)
Koc: 8 (E)
Physical state: Colorless, odorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Ethyl lactate is incompatible with oxidizing agents, bases and acids. It is miscible with
alcohols, ketones, esters, hydrocarbons and oils. Ethyl lactate is combustible. Ethyl lactate
has a fruity, buttery taste when used as a flavoring.

      Ethyl lactate is primarily derived from lactonitrile by the esterification of lactic acid with
ethanol. It is also produced by combining acetaldehyde with hydrogen cyanide to form
acetaldehyde cyanohydrin, which is converted to ethyl lactate by treatment with ethanol and an
inorganic acid.
Market Profile

      Market information for this chemical is not available.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II42

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Ethyl Lactate


Regulatory Status

      Ethyl lactate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, ethyl lactate is expected to display very high mobility. Biodegradation
in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid. Volatilization of ethyl lactate from the upper layers of
dry soil to the atmosphere may be significant although volatilization from moist soil may be
relatively slow. In basic soil with a pH greater thanS, chemical hydrolysis of ethyl lactate may
occur. If released to water, aerobic biodegradation may be rapid especially in acclimated
waters. Ethyl lactate is not expected to bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms nor
adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter.  Volatilization of ethyl lactate from water to
the atmosphere may occur at a moderate rate.  In basic waters, ethyl lactate may undergo
chemical hydrolysis with an estimated half-life of approximately 7 days at pH 8.  If released to
the atmosphere, ethyl lactate may undergo oxidation by the gas-phase  reaction with hydroxyl
radicals with an estimated half-life of approximately 6.4 days. It may also undergo atmospheric
removal by wet deposition processes.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for ethyl lactate in the
STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment
plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-43

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                     Ethyl Oleate
                                         Ethyl Oleate
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Ethyl oleate [9-octadecenoic acid; ethyl ester oleic acid]
  CAS# 111-62-6
  Molecular weight: 310.53
  Melting Point:  -32°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.01g/l(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.01 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow = 8.51 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.0 x 10"2 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
Structure: CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH
Boiling Point: 205-208°C(M)
Density:  0.870 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    175°C(M)
Koc: >10,000(E)
Physical state: Colorless, oily liquid
2,6CH2COOCH2CH3
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Ethyl oleate is soluble in alcohol and ether.  Ethyl oleate is combustible. It is
incompatible with strong oxidizing agents and is light-sensitive and air-sensitive.

      Ethyl oleate is produced from the esterification of oleic acid.  Oleic acid is  derived from
fruits or plant seeds.  Once refined, the fats are heated in the presence of a strong base, and
esterification occurs at the glycerol hydroxides.  The reaction occurs with the appropriate
alcohol to provide the desired product.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production of salt and esters of oleic, linoleic, or linoleric acids was 36
million pounds.  Greater specificity is not available due to the low number of companies
producing these products. Data for imported and exported amounts were not available. Total
U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Ethyl oleate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment.

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, ethyl oleate is expected to be essentially immobile.  Biodegradation in
acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid. Chemical hydrolysis of the ester group is not expected
to be significant except in highly basic soils (pH greater thanS).  Volatilization of ethyl oleate
from moist soil to the atmosphere may be a significant process although it is likely to be
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-44

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                     Ethyl Oleate
relatively slow from dry soil. If released to water, aerobic biodegradation may be rapid
especially in acclimated waters. Bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms and
adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter may also occur. Volatilization from
water to the atmosphere may be rapid although its expected strong adsorption to sediment and
suspended organic matter may significantly attenuate the rate of this process.  Chemical
hydrolysis may occur in highly basic waters. If released to the atmosphere, ethyl oleate may
undergo rapid oxidation by the both the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals  and ozone
with estimated half-lives of approximately 1.5 and 1.4 hours for the trans isomer, respectively,
with similar rates for the cis isomer. Using a either a rapid or moderate biodegradation rate for
ethyl oleate in the STP fugacity model results in greater than99 percent predicted total removal
from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

           See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                   Ethoxylated Castor Oil
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Ethoxylated castor oil [cosmetol, ricinus oil, neoloid
  CAS# 61791-12-6
  Molecular weight: 298.47 (ricinoleic) +135 (ethoxy)
  Melting Point:  5.5°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.003 g/L (E)
  Vapor Pressure: <0.1 mm Hg at20°C (M)
  Log Kow: Not available
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use:  Drying/coating agent
C18H3403 (ricinoleic) + (C2H50)3 (ethoxy)
Structure:
   CH3(CH2)5CHCH2CHCH(CH2)7COOH (ricinoleic)
       OCH2CH3   OCH2CH3
Boiling Point: 313°C(M)
Density:  0.961 (M)
FlashPoint:   299°C(M)
K • Not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Ethoxylated castor oil is derived from the bean of the castor plant. The composition of
ethoxylated castor oil is ricinoleic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acids, oleic acids, and several
ethoxy groups.  Ricinoleic acid comprises nearly 90 percent of castor oil. Ethoxylated castor oil
is a drying agent. It is soluble in ethyl alcohol and polar organic solvents.

      Castor oil is recovered by use of hydraulic presses followed by solvent extraction. Oil
taken from mechanical presses requires refining steps to remove toxic proteins, improve the
color, and reduce the fatty acid content. Fatty acid content is reduced by treatment with caustic
soda solution. In the polyethoxylation reaction the hydroxyl groups undergo alkylation to
produce the polyethoxyl triglyceride fatty acid.  Common catalysts for the dehydration
procedure are sulfuric acid and its acid salts.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-45

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Ethoxylated Castor Oil
Market Profile

     In 1992, total U.S. production was 22.3 million gallons.  Imports and exports of this
chemical are unknown. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

     Ethoxylated castor oil does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

     Aquatic Toxicity

     See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

     See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

     Environmental Fate

     If released to soil, ethoxylated castor oil is expected to rapidly biodegrade as do linear
primarily alcohol ethoxylates.  Biodegradation occurs by the p-oxidation of the alkyl chain,
scission of the hydrophobic and hydrophic moeties and step-wise removal of ethoxylate groups
to more hydrophobic metabolites.  The mobility of ethoxylated castor oil will increase with
increasing number of ethoxylate groups although the expected rapid biodegradation of the
ethoxylate groups will reduce the importance of leaching. Volatilization from soil to the
atmosphere is not expected to occur.  If released to water, ethoxylated castor oil is expected to
undergo rapid biodegradation.  Experimental studies on other ethoxylated natural oils
possessing 3-20 ethoxylate groups have resulted in five-day theoretical BODs of up to 100
percent and those containing 50 or more ethoxylate groups are also amenable to
biodegradation.  Shorter chain ethoxylates may also partition to sediment and particulate
matter in the water  column. Volatilization of ethoxylated castor oil to the atmosphere is not
expected to occur.  If released to the atmosphere by mechanical means, ethoxylated castor oil is
expected to undergo removal by both wet and dry processes due to its appreciable water
solubility and low expected vapor pressure, respectively.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate in
the STP fugacity model results in 100 percent predicted total removal from wastewater
treatment plants.

     Health Hazard

     See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-46

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                          Ethoxylated Nonylphenol
                                 Ethoxylated Nonylphenol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Ethoxylated nonylphenol [poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), o
  (nonylphenyl)-Q-hydroxy-; Antarox; polyethylene glycol
  mono (nonylphenyl) ether]
  CAS# 9016-45-9
  Molecular weight: 630 (for n=9.5) (typical range 500 - 800)
  Melting Point:  -20 to+10°C(E)
  Water Solubility: Soluble (M)
  Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
  LogKow:3.93(E)(np = 7)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.81X10'22 atm-m3/mole (E) (np = 7)
  Chemistry of Use:  Nonionic surfactant	
C34H62010 (for n=9.5)
                         -0(CH,CH,0)H
I-\L   L    Branched- CQH1Q—(\   />-
Structure:        9 19 > //


Boiling Point: >300°C (E) (decomposes)
Density:  0.8g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint:    200-260°C(E)
Koc:0.64(E)(np = 7)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical is colorless with a mild odor. It is stable under normal conditions. Its
properties vary with degree of ethoxylation.  It is soluble in oil, alcohols, and aromatic solvents.

      This chemical is synthesized by reacting branched nonylphenol with ethylene oxide.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 394.7 million gallons. Imports and exports of this
chemical are unknown. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Ethoxylated nonylphenol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Ethoxylated nonylphenol has a high primary biodegradation rate which has been
demonstrated in wastewater treatment, river water, soil, and sediment.  The rate of ultimate
degradation of ethoxylated nonylphenol, however, is low.  Biodegradation proceeds by the step-
wise removal  of ethoxylate groups, leading to the  accumulation of more hydrophobic
metabolites, namely mono- and diethoxylates,  nonylphenol, and mono- and dicarboxylates. The
mobility of ethoxylated nonylphenols varies with the number of ethoxy groups. Estimates
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II47

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Ethoxypropanol

based on molecular structure indicates that Koc is 110 for four ethoxylate groups.  Longer chain
ethoxylates (n > 4) should therefore be fairly mobile in soil.  The mobility of the mono- and
diethoxylate should be low.  If released to soil, ethoxylated nonylphenol is expected to leach into
the soil and biodegrade.  Volatilization from soil will be negligible. If released in water
ethoxylated nonylphenol should undergo rapid primary biodegradation. Shorter chain
ethoxylates may adsorb  to sediment and particulate matter in the water column.  Volatilization
will not be significant. If released to the atmosphere, vapor-phase ethoxylated nonylphenol
should degrade rapidly by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals (estimated
half-life of approximately 3.7 hours).  However, it is anticipated that ethoxylated nonylphenols
will have very low vapor pressures and therefore would be associated with aerosols rather than
in the vapor.  Using a rapid primary biodegradation rate  in the STP fugacity model results in
100 percent predicted removal  in wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                      Ethoxypropanol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Ethoxypropanol [propylene glycol monoethyl ether]
  CAS# 52125-53-8
  Molecular weight: 104.1
  Melting Point: -100°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Completely miscible with water (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 7.2 mm Hg (at 25°C) (M)
  Log Kow: 0.002 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.45X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C5H1202
Structure: CH,CH,OCH,CHOHCH

Boiling Point: 132°C(M)
Density:  0.895 g/cm3(at25°C) (M)
Flash Point:   43°C (open cup) (M)
Koc: 24 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Glycol ethers are both ethers and alcohols.  Their hydroxyl groups can be etherified,
esterified, chlorinated, or otherwise modified.  Miscible with acetone, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, ethyl ether, petroleum ether.

      This chemical is synthesized by reaction of ethanol with propylene oxide.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of "other" P-series glycol ethers was 1 million gallons. This
category includes dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, ethoxypropanol, ethoxypropyl acetate,
and propylene glycol methyl ether acetate, among possibly others. Imports and exports of this
chemical are unknown.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-48

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Ethoxypropanol

Regulatory Status

      Ethoxypropanol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.  However, the
generic category of glycol ethers is listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants in the Clean Air Act.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, ethoxypropanol is expected to biodegrade under aerobic conditions and
it may be rapid if acclimated organisms are present.  It is expected to display high mobility;
however, rapid biodegradation will decrease its potential of leaching through soil. Volatilization
of ethoxypropanol from both moist and dry soil to the atmosphere is not expected to be
important.  If released to water, ethoxypropanol is expected to biodegrade under aerobic
conditions  and it may be rapid if acclimated organisms are present.  Neither bioconcentration
in fish and aquatic organisms, adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter, nor
volatilization to the atmosphere are expected to be important. If released to the atmosphere,
ethoxypropanol is degraded rapidly by  reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl
radicals (typical half-life of 6.2 hours).  Physical removal by wet deposition processes may also
occur because of its substantial water solubility; however, its short atmospheric residence time
suggests that wet deposition may be of  limited  importance. Using a rapid biodegradation rate
in the STP  fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater
treatment plants; a moderate rate corresponds to 84  percent predicted removal.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-49

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                             Ethoxypropyl Acetate
                                   Ethoxypropyl Acetate
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Ethoxypropyl acetate [propylene glycol, monoethyl ether
  acetate, 2-propanol, 1-ethoxy-, acetate]
  CAS# 54839-24-6
  Molecular weight: 146.1
  Melting Point: -100°C(E)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 3.5 mm Hg (at 20°C) (E)
  Log Kow:  -0.46 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 9.09X10'12 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C7H1403
Structure: CH3CH2OCH2CHOOCCH3
              CH3

Boiling Point: 153.2°C(E)
Density:  1.0g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint:    40°C(E)
Koc: 13(E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Ethoxypropyl acetate is a glycol derivative that is both an ether and an ester.  It is soluble
in organic solvents.

      Ethoxypropyl acetate is prepared by hydrolysis of propylene oxide. Etherification is by
reaction with ethanol.  Esterification is accomplished by reaction with acetic acid.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of "other" P-series glycol ethers was 1 million gallons. This
category includes dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, ethoxypropanol, ethoxypropyl acetate,
and propylene glycol methyl ether acetate, among possibly others.  Imports and exports of this
chemical are unknown. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Ethoxypropyl acetate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, ethoxypropyl acetate is expected to biodegrade under aerobic
conditions and it may be rapid if acclimated organisms are present.  It is expected to display
high mobility; however, rapid biodegradation will decrease its potential of leaching through soil.
Volatilization of ethoxypropyl acetate from moist soil to the atmosphere is not expected to be
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-50

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Ethoxypropyl Acetate

important although it may slowly volatilize from dry soil.  If released to water, ethoxypropyl
acetate is expected to biodegrade under aerobic conditions and it may be rapid if acclimated
organisms are present.  Chemical hydrolysis will be important only in very alkaline
environmental media (pH greater than 8.5). Neither bioconcentration in fish and aquatic
organisms, adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter, nor volatilization to the
atmosphere are expected to be important. If released to the atmosphere, ethoxypropyl acetate
is degraded rapidly by reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (typical
half-life of 6.2 hours). Physical removal  by wet deposition processes may also occur because of
its substantial water solubility; however, its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet
deposition may be of limited importance. Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity
model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants; a
moderate rate corresponds to 84 percent predicted removal.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary

                                      Furfuryl Alcohol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
Furfuryl alcohol [2-Furanmethanol; 2-Furylcarbinol;
2-Hydroxymethylfuran]
CAS# 98-00-0
Molecular weight: 98.1
Melting Point: Not available
Water Solubility: Miscible (unstable) (M)
Vapor Pressure: 0.45 mm Hg (at 20°C) (M)
Log Kow: 0.28 (M)
Henry's Law Constant: 7.86X10'8 atm-m3/mole (E)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
                                                C5H602
                                                Structure:
                                                              CH2OH
                                                Boiling Point:  170°C(M)

                                                FlashPoint:   75°C(M)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Furfuryl alcohol has a faint burning odor and bitter taste. It is very soluble in alcohol and
ether.

      Furfuryl alcohol is prepared from furfural by the Cannizzaro reaction.  It is prepared
industrially by the catalytic reduction of furfural using nickel and Cu-CrO catalysts.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 39.2 million gallons. Imports and exports of this chemical
are unknown. Total U.S. production quantity for use in sreen reclamation is unknown.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    11-51

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Furfuryl Alcohol

Regulatory Status

      Furfuryl alcohol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, furfuryl alcohol will be expected to exhibit very high mobility, based upon its
estimated soil adsorption coefficient. It may be subject to biodegradation in soil based upon results
observed in a laboratory aqueous biodegradation aerobic screening test using an activated sludge
inoculum.  No information was found regarding its rate of biodegradation in soil.  Volatilization of
furfuryl alcohol from moist soil should not be important.  However, some volatilization would occur
from dry surface soil and other dry surfaces. If furfuryl alcohol is released to water, it would be
expected biodegrade according to results of laboratory screening studies. It should not adsorb to
sediment or suspended particulate matter in the water column  or to bioconcentrate in aquatic
organisms. Furfuryl alcohol absorbs radiation greater than290 nm and therefore it may directly
photolyze in surface waters.  According to its estimated Henry's Law constant, volatilization from
water will not be important.  In the atmosphere, furfuryl alcohol will exist mainly in the vapor phase.
It will be rapidly degraded by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals (typical half-
life 3.7 hours).  It may also undergo atmospheric degradation by direct photolysis. Physical removal
by rain would occur because of its miscibility in water. Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP
fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-52

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Isobutyl Isobutyrate

  	Isobutyl Isobutyrate	
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Isobutyl isobutyrate [propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-
  methylpropyl ester, isobutyric acid, isobutyl ester]
  CAS# 97-85-8
  Molecular weight: 144.21
  Melting Point: -81°C(M)
  Water Solubility: <1 g/L (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 3.2 mm Hg (at 20°C) (M)
  LogKow:  2.68 (E)Henry's Law Constant:  8.22 x 10'4atm-
  m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
CRHlfiO.
   16W2
Structure: (CH3)2CHCOOCH2CH(CH3)2
Boiling Point: 147°C(M)
Density:  0.855 g/cm3(at20°C) (M)
Flash Point:   38°C (closed cup) (M)
           44°C (open cup) (M)
KOC:98(E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This is a slow evaporating solvent, and is blush resistant. It is miscible with alcohol and
ether.

      This chemical is prepared from the reaction of isobutyric acid and isobutyl alcohol.


Market Profile

      Total U.S. production is unavailable. Imports and exports of this chemical are unknown.
Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 2.63 million
gallons.


Regulatory Status

      Isobutyl isobutyrate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5  and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released to soil, isobutyl isobutyrate is expected to biodegrade under aerobic conditions
and it may be rapid in acclimated soils.  It is expected to display high mobility in the absence of
significant biodegradation. Volatilization of isobutyl isobutyrate from both moist and dry soil to
the atmosphere may be important.  If released to water, it is expected to biodegrade  under
aerobic conditions and it may be rapid if acclimated organisms are present.  Neither
bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms nor adsorption to sediment and suspended
organic matter are expected to be important.  Volatilization of isobutyl isobutyrate from water to


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-53

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                  Isobutyl Oleate
the atmosphere may be relatively rapid. Chemical hydrolysis will be important only in very
alkaline environmental media (pH  greater than 8.5). If released to the atmosphere, isobutyl
isobutyrate will degrade by reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals
(estimated half-life of 2.3 days). Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model
results in 98 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                       Isobutyl Oleate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Isobutyl oleate [Isobutyl ester oleic acid]
  CAS# 10024-47-2
  Molecular weight: 395
  Melting Point:  -26°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.001 g/l (E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.01 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow = 9.42 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.5 x 10"2 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Numerous	
C22H4202
Structure: CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH
Boiling Point: 226°C(M)
Density:  0.86 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    180°C(M)
Koc: >10,000(E)
Physical  state: Oily liquid
2y6CH2COO-/-C4H11
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Isobutyl oleate may be harmful if absorbed through the skin.  Vapor and mist are
irritating to the respiratory tract and eyes.  Isobutyl oleate is soluble in ethanol.

      Isobutyl oleate is produced from the esterification of oleic acid. Oleic acid is derived by
mechanic means from the seeds of specific fruits and plants. Once refined, the oleate is heated
in the presence of a strong base and an alcohol. Esterification occurs at the glycerol hydroxides
of the oleic acid.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production of salt and esters of oleic, linoleic, or linoleric acids was 36
million pounds.  Greater specificity is not available due to the low number of companies
producing these products. Data for imported and exported amounts were not available.  Total
U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Isobutyl oleate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-54

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                    Isopropanol
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, isobutyl oleate is expected to be essentially immobile. Biodegradation
in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid.  Chemical hydrolysis of the ester group is not
expected to be significant except for highly basic soils (pH greater thanS) . Volatilization of
isobutyl oleate from moist soil to the atmosphere may be a significant process although it is
likely to be relatively slow from dry soil. If released to water, aerobic biodegradation may be
rapid, especially in acclimated waters.  Bioconcentration in fish and  aquatic organisms and
adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter may also occur.  Volatilization from
water to the atmosphere may be rapid although its  expected strong adsorption to sediment and
suspended organic matter may attenuate the rate of this process.  Chemical hydrolysis may
occur in highly basic waters.  If released to the atmosphere, isobutyl  oleate may undergo rapid
oxidation by the both the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals and ozone with estimated
half-lives of approximately 1.5 and 1.3 hours for the trans isomer, respectively, with similar
rates for the cis isomer.  Using either a rapid or moderate biodegradation rate for isobutyl
oleate in the STP fugacity model results in greater than99 percent predicted total removal from
wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                         Isopropanol
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Isopropanol [Isopropyl alcohol; 2-propanol, dimethyl carbinol,
  sec-propyl alcohol ]
  CAS# 67-63-0
  Molecular weight: 60.1
  Melting Point: -88.5°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 33 mm Hg (M) (20°C)
  Log Kow = 0.05 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 8.1 x 10"6 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
C3H80
Structure: (CH3)2CHOH
Boiling Point: 164°C(M)
Density:  0.7849 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    Tag Open Cup: 17.2°C(M)
            Closed Cup:  11.7°C(M)
KOC:25(E)
Physical  State:  Colorless, volatile, flammable liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-55

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Isopropanol

     Isopropanol is a colorless, volatile, flammable liquid.  Its odor is slight, resembling a
mixture of ethyl alcohol and acetone. Isopropanol boils only 4°C higher than ethyl alcohol and
possesses similar solubility properties, and thus the two products compete for many solvent
applications. Because of its tendency to associate in solution, isopropanol forms azeotropes
with compounds from a variety of chemical groups.  As an alcohol, it can be dehydrogenated,
oxidized, esterified, etherified, animated, halogenated, or otherwise modified.

     Indirect hydration is the common process for  commercial manufacture of isopropanol in
the United States. This two-step method involves:  (1) formation of mono- and diisopropyl
sulfates by reacting propylene with sulfuric acid, and (2) hydrolysis of the sulfates to isopropyl
alcohol. The catalytic hydration process, increasingly used in Europe and Japan, uses
superheated steam and high pressures to directly convert propylene to isopropanol:

           CH3CH = CH2 +  H2O « (CH3)2CHOH
                 catalyst

Market Profile

     In 1991, total U.S. production was 1.4 billion  gallons.  In 1992, imports were 91.5 million
gallons and exports were 416.9 million gallons. Total U.S. production quantity for  use in
screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, biodegradation is expected to be an important removal process for
isopropanol.  Adsorption to soil will not be important. In water, biodegradation is expected to
be fast, even under anaerobic conditions. Bioconcentration in fish, adsorption to sediment,
photolysis, and hydrolysis will not be important for isopropanol. Volatilization from water is
slow. In the atmosphere,  isopropanol will photodegrade primarily by reaction with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals with a half-life of 1-2 days.  Using a rapid and a
moderate biodegradation rate for isopropanol in the STP fugacity model results in about 97 and
83 percent, respectively, predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-56

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	d-Limonene

                                         af-Limonene
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  d-Limonene [1-methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl) cyclohexene;
  carvene; citrene; 1,8-p-menthadiene; 4-isopropenyl-1-
  methylcyclohexene cinene; cajeputene; kautschin]
  CAS# 5989-27-5
  Molecular weight:  136
  Melting Point: -74°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.014 g/L(M)
  Vapor Pressure: 5 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow = 4.83 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 0.38 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Wetting and Dispersing Agent	
C,nH
 10' '16
Structure:
Boiling Point: 176°C(M)
Density:  0.84 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    48°C(M)
Koc: 1,000-4,800 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      d-Limonene is a terpenoid in a group of closely related compounds called p-
menthadienes.  The p-menthadienes can all be hydrogenated to produce p-menthane, the
hydroperoxide of which is useful in the rubber industry. Limonene isomerizes rather slowly to
terpinolene, while the irreversible isomerization of terpinolene to a-terpinene is very rapid.  The
physical state of limonene is a liquid with a fresh, citrus odor and taste.

      d-Limonene is naturally occurring and is obtained from lemon and orange peel, dill,
cumin, neroli, bergamot, and caraway.  The lemon oil that is obtained in 0.35 percent yield
from lemon peel is approximately 80 percent limonene (d and dl).  Nonetheless, the
characteristic odor and flavor of lemon comes not from limonene, but from citral and other
compounds.
Market Profile

      In 1988, total U.S. production was 28 million pounds. Data for imported and exported
amounts were not available.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation was
estimated to be 150,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      d-Limonene does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment



DRAFT—September 1994                                                                      II-57

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                      Methanol
      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, d-limonene is expected to exhibit low to slight mobility. It is expected
to rapidly volatilize from both dry and moist soil surfaces and biodegrade at a moderate rate in
soil. However, strong adsorption to soil may attenuate the rate of this process.  If released to
water, d-limonene may bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms and it may adsorb to
sediment and suspended organic matter.  It is expected to rapidly volatilize from water to the
atmosphere. The estimated half-life for volatilization of d-limonene from a model river is 3.4
hrs, although adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter may attenuate the rate of
this process.  If released to the atmosphere,  d-limonene is expected to rapidly undergo
gas-phase oxidation reactions with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals and ozone, and
to react at night with nitrate radicals. Calculated half-lives for these processes are 2.3-2.6 hrs,
25-26 min and 3.1 min, respectively.  Using a moderate biodegradation rate for d-limonene in
the STP fugacity model results in greater than99 percent predicted total removal from
wastewater treatment plants. Assuming no biodegradation in the STP fugacity model also
results in greater than99 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                          Methanol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Methanol [methyl alcohol, carbinol, wood spirit, wood alcohol]
  CAS# 67-56-1
  Molecular weight: 32.04
  Melting Point: -97.8°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 93.7 mm Hg (at 20°C) (M)
  Log Kow:  -0.770 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 4.55X10'6 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
CH40
Structure: CH3OH
Boiling Point: 64.7°C(M)
Density:  0.792 g/cm3 (M)
Flash Point:   12°C (closed cup) (M)
K„„: not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Pure methanol has a slight alcoholic odor, but more crude forms of methanol may have
repulsive odors.  Methanol is generally a better solvent than ethanol.  Methanol is flammable
and mobile.  Methanol has an ignition temperature of 470°C. It is miscible with ethanol, ether,
benzene, ketones, and most other organic compounds.

      Methanol is usually manufactured from hydrogen and carbon monoxide at high pressure
and temperature.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-58

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Methanol

Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production of methanol was 1.4 billion gallons. About 521 million
gallons were imported and 55 million gallons were exported. Total U.S. production quantity for
use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 610,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released to soil, methanol is expected to rapidly biodegrade under aerobic conditions.
Methanol is also expected to slowly biodegrade under anaerobic conditions in soil.  It is
expected to display very high mobility although its rapid rate of biodegradation limits its
potential to leach through soil.  Volatilization of methanol from moist soil to the atmosphere is
not expected to occur although it may be important from dry soils. If released to  water,
methanol is expected to rapidly biodegrade under aerobic conditions.  Slow biodegradation in
anoxic sediments is also expected to occur. Neither volatilization to the atmosphere,
bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms, adsorption to sediment and suspended organic
matter, chemical hydrolysis, oxidation, nor photolysis are expected to occur.  If released to the
atmosphere, methanol is expected to undergo a gas-phase reaction with photochemically
produced hydroxyl radicals; the estimated half life for this process is 11 days. Its substantial
water solubility indicates that wet deposition may also be an important atmospheric removal
process.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent
predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-59

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Methoxypropanol Acetate

  	Methoxypropanol Acetate	
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Methoxypropanol acetate [propylene glycol methyl ether
  acetate]
  CAS# 84540-57-8 (also 108-65-6)
  Molecular weight: 132
  Melting Point: -100°C(E)
  Water Solubility: 200 g/L (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 3.7 mm Hg (M)
  Log Kow:  0.43 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 4.2X10'6 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
CfiH,A
             CH,0
Structure: CH,OCH,CHOCCH

Boiling Point: 140°C(M)
Density:  0.97g/cm3(M)
FlashPoint:    45°C(setaflash) (M)
Koc: 0.36 (M)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Methoxypropanol acetate is a glycol derivative that is both an ether and an ester. It is
combustible and has an ester like odor. It is soluble in organic solvents.

      Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate is prepared by reacting propylene oxide with methyl
alcohol and esterifying with acetic acid or acetic anhydride.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was 67.1 million gallons. About 6.9 million gallons were
exported. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be
420,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      Methoxypropanol acetate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, methoxypropanol acetate is expected to readily biodegrade.
Methoxypropanol acetate has a very low soil adsorption coefficient and is expected to be highly
mobile in soil. Volatilization of methoxypropanol acetate from dry surface soil and other
surfaces may be important,  but volatilization from moist surface soil will be minimal. If
released to water, methoxypropanol acetate is expected to biodegrade. The estimated half-life
resulting from base-catalyzed chemical hydrolysis at pH 8 is 88 days and therefore chemical

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-60

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                              Methyl Ethyl Ketone
hydrolysis would only be significant in highly alkaline water. The volatilization half-life of
methoxypropanol acetate from a model river is 10 days and therefore volatilization may occur
under some circumstances. Neither bioconcentration in aquatic organisms nor adsorption to
sediment and suspended organic matter should be significant. If released to the atmosphere,
methoxypropanol acetate is degraded by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl
radicals (estimated half-life 34 hours).  Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity
model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                    Methyl Ethyl Ketone
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Methyl ethyl ketone [2-Butanone; Ethyl methyl ketone; Methyl
  acetone; MEK]
  CAS# 78-93-3
  Molecular weight: 72.11
  Melting Point: -87°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 24 g/L (M)
  Flash Point:   -7°C
  Log Kow = 0.29 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 5.69 x 10"5 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C4H80
Structure: H3CCH2COCH3
Boiling Point: 79.6°C(M)
Density:  0.8049420 g/ml (M)
Vapor Pressure:  77.5 mm Hg (M) (20°C) (M)
Koc: 5 (E)
Physical  State: Clear colorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Methyl ethyl ketone is stable under normal laboratory conditions and is miscible in
ethanol, benzene, and diethyl ether. It is highly flammable. Forms a constant-boiling mixture
with water, b.p.  73.40° containing 11.3 percent water.  Strong oxidizing agents can cause
spontaneous ignition and violent reaction; ignition on reaction with potassium t-butoxide; can
attack many plastics, resins, and rubber; incompatible with chlorosulfonic acid, chloroform,
hydrogen peroxide, and nitric acid.

      Methyl ethyl ketone is mainly produced from sec-butanol and butylene.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 510 million gallons.  Imports were 56.6 million gallons
and exports were 132.2 million gallons. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen
reclamation was estimated to be 3.72 million gallons.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          11-61

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Methyl Lactate

Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released to soil surfaces, methyl ethyl ketone will either volatilize into the atmosphere,
directly photolyze, or  leach into  the ground where it will biodegrade.  If methyl ethyl ketone
leaches to groundwater, biodegradability studies in anaerobic systems suggest slow
biodegradation after a long acclimation period. In surface waters, methyl ethyl ketone will
volatilize, photolyze, or biodegrade.  Chemical hydrolysis, adsorption to sediment,
bioconcentration in aquatic organisms, and indirect photooxidation will not be important fate
processes for methyl ethyl ketone in water. If released to the atmosphere, gas-phase methyl
ethyl ketone will react with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals (estimated half-lives of
less than 10 days).  Methyl ethyl ketone may be removed from air via wet deposition. Using a
rapid and a moderate biodegradation rate for methyl ethyl ketone in the STP fugacity model
results in 97 and 84 percent, respectively, predicted total removal from wastewater treatment
plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary





  	Methyl Lactate	
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Methyl lactate [2-Hydroxypropanoicacid methyl ester; lactic
  acid; methyl ester]
  CAS# 547-64-8
  Molecular weight: 104
  Melting Point: -66°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 7.7 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow =-0.67  (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 8.5 x 10"9 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
Structure: CH3CH(OH)COOCH3
Boiling Point: 145°C(M)
Density:  1.0939 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:   49°C(M)
Koc: 8 (E)
Physical  State: Colorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-62

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Methyl Lactate

      Methyl lactate is acetylated with acetic anhydride to produce the acetyl derivative.  Methyl
lactate is soluble in alcohol and ether. It is a dye solvent. A dye solvent has a high boiling
point, it is practically nonvolatile and maintains the dye in the solution long enough to stain the
wood. Methyl lactate decomposes in water.

      Methyl lactate is a byproduct in the formation of lactic acid. Methyl lactate results from
the esterification of lactic acid with methyl alcohol. The methyl lactate is distilled and
hydrolyzed with a strong acid catalyst to produce semi-refined lactic acid. It is also produced
by hydrolyzing lactonitrile with sulfuric acid and purifying with  methanol to form methyl
lactate.
Market Profile

      Market information on this chemical is unavailable.


Regulatory Status

      Methyl lactate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, methyl lactate is expected to display very high mobility. Biodegradation
in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid. Volatilization of methyl lactate from the upper layers
of dry soil to the atmosphere may be significant although volatilization from moist soil will be
very slow.  In basic soil with a pH greater thanS, chemical hydrolysis of methyl lactate may
occur. If released to water, aerobic biodegradation may be rapid, especially in acclimated
waters. Methyl lactate is not expected to bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms nor is it
expected to adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter.  Volatilization of methyl  lactate
from water to the atmosphere is expected to be very slow. In basic waters methyl lactate may
undergo  chemical hydrolysis with an estimated half-life of approximately 7 days at pH 8. If
released  to the atmosphere, methyl lactate may undergo oxidation by the gas-phase reaction
with hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of approximately 6 days.  It may also undergo
atmospheric removal by wet deposition processes. Using a rapid biodegradation rate for
methyl lactate in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from
wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   II-63

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
           Mineral Spirits (Naphtha, Heavy Straight-run)
                      Mineral Spirits (Naphtha, Heavy Straight-run)
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Mineral spirits [Many trade names by companies including
  Amsco, Apco, Epesol, Exxon, Phillips, Shell, etc., most of
  which include "mineral spirits" in the name]
  CAS#64741-41-9
  Molecular weight:  86 for n-hexane; 112 for
   ethycyclohexane, for example
  Melting Point: -60°C(E)
  Water Solubility: 0.001 g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  LogKow = 3.4->6(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.5 x 10"3 -13 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
Molecular formula: CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n
 (cycloparaffin)
Structure: Typical structures include normal paraffins,
 CH3(CH2)nCH3, branched paraffins, and cycloparaffins
Boiling Point:  160-200°C(M)
Density:  0.78 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    43°C(M)
Koc: 500 - >5000 (E)
Physical State: Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      The term mineral spirits refers to a range of petroleum solvents consisting largely of
saturated hydrocarbons, including both straight-chain and branched paraffins, and
cycloparaffins, which may have alkyl side chains. Up to one-fourth of some mineral spirits
consists of aromatic hydrocarbons. A typical boiling range for mineral spirits is  160-200°C.
Mineral spirits are miscible with petroleum solvents.

      Mineral spirits may be prepared by fractionation of straight-run, cracked, and reforming
petroleum distillates or fractionation of crude petroleum. The naphtha streams are generally
divided into heavy and light, and may then be further fractionated. The naphthas are usually
treated (chemically, with lye or other compounds, or hydrotreated) to  remove sulfur
compounds and aromatic hydrocarbons, leaving the solvent consisting mostly of aliphatic
hydrocarbons.
Market Profile

      No information is available on the production volumes of the numerous specific naphtha
fractions, excluding special naphthas.  The production volume for all naphthas was 2.1 billion
pounds in 1991.  The vast majority of naphthas are used in the production of gasoline and
other petroleum products and not directly as solvents. Data for imported and exported
amounts is not available. Total U.S. production for both mineral spirits (naphtha, heavy-
straight-run and distillates, hydrotreated light) use in screen reclamation was estimated to be
6.9 million gallons.
Regulatory Status

      Mineral spirits does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-64

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Mineral Spirits (Distillates, Hydrotreated Light)

Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Naphtha, heavy straight-run is a mixture of components chiefly C6-C12 cyclic and alicyclic
hydrocarbons. If released to soil, naphtha, heavy straight-run is expected to biodegrade at a
moderate rate under aerobic conditions, although some of the cycloalkanes may be resistant to
biodegradation.  Some components of naphtha, heavy straight-run are expected to adsorb very
strongly to soil.  Naphtha, heavy straight-run may rapidly volatilize from both moist and dry
soils to the atmosphere, although strong adsorption may significantly attenuate the rate of this
process.  If released to water, naphtha, heavy straight-run  is expected to biodegrade at a
moderate rate under aerobic conditions with the exception of some cycloalkanes. Some
components are  expected to significantly bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms and
strongly adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter. The estimated half-life for
volatilization of naphtha, heavy straight-run components from a model river is approximately 1
hour while that from a model lake is  greater than 100 days; the former model does not account
for the attenuating affect of strong adsorption. If released  to the  atmosphere, the dominant
atmospheric removal process for naphtha, heavy straight-run is expected to be oxidation by
hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of 1-2  days. Using representative components that
either biodegrade rapidly and display moderate sludge adsorption and those that are
moderately biodegradable and display strong adsorption to sludge, the STP fugacity model
indicates that greater than 94 percent total removal from wastewater treatment plants may  be
achieved.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-65

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
          Mineral Spirits (Distillates, Hydrotreated Light)
                     Mineral Spirits (Distillates, Hydrotreated Light)
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Mineral spirits [Many trade names by companies including
  Amsco, Apco, Epesol, Exxon, Phillips, Shell, etc., most of
  which include "mineral spirits" in the name]
  CAS# 64741-47-8
  Molecular weight:  86 for n-hexane; 112 for
   ethycyclohexane, for example
  Melting Point: -60°C(E)
  Water Solubility: 0.001 g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.5-1 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow = 4.76-8.25 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 0.2 - 3.4 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
Molecular formula: CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n
 (cycloparaffin)
Structure: Typical structures include normal paraffins,
 CH3(CH2)nCH3, branched paraffins, and cycloparaffins
Boiling Point:  140-180°C(M)
Density:  0.78 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    <43°C(M)
Koc: 220 - >5000 (E)
Physical State: Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      The term mineral spirits refers to a range of petroleum solvents consisting largely of
saturated hydrocarbons, including both straight-chain and branched paraffins, and
cycloparaffins, which may have alkyl side chains.  Up to one-fourth of some mineral spirits
consists of aromatic hydrocarbons.  A typical boiling range for mineral spirits is 160-200°C.
Mineral spirits are miscible with petroleum solvents.

      Mineral spirits may be prepared by fractionation of straight-run, cracked, and reforming
petroleum distillates or fractionation of crude petroleum.  The naphtha streams are generally
divided into heavy and light, and may then be further fractionated. The naphthas are usually
treated (chemically, with lye or other compounds,  or hydrotreated) to remove sulfur
compounds and aromatic hydrocarbons, leaving the solvent  consisting mostly of aliphatic
hydrocarbons.
Market Profile

      No information is available on the production volumes of the numerous specific naphtha
fractions, excluding special naphthas.  The production volume for all naphthas was 2.1 billion
pounds in 1991.  The vast majority of naphthas are used in the production of gasoline and
other petroleum products and not directly as solvents.  Data for imported and exported
amounts were not available. Total U.S. production quantity for both mineral spirits (naphtha,
heavy-straight-run and distillates, hydrotreated light) use in screen reclamation was estimated
to be 6.9 million gallons.
Regulatory Status

      Mineral spirits does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-66

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Mineral Spirits (Distillates, Hydrotreated Light)

Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Distillates, hydrotreated light is a mixture of components, chiefly C9-C16 cyclic and
alicyclic alkanes.  If released to soil, distillates, hydrotreated light is expected to biodegrade at a
moderate rate under aerobic conditions although some cyclic paraffins may be resistant to
biodegradation. Some components of distillates, hydrotreated light may adsorb very strongly to
soil and some may  rapidly volatilize from both moist and dry soils to the atmosphere although
strong adsorption may significantly attenuate the rate of this process.  If released to water,
distillates, hydrotreated light is expected to biodegrade at a moderate rate under aerobic
conditions although some components may be resistant. Some components may significantly
bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms and strongly adsorb to sediment and suspended
organic matter. The estimated half-life  for volatilization of distillates, hydrotreated light
components from a model river is approximately 1.5 hours while that from a model lake is
greater than 100 days; the former model does not account for the attenuating affect of strong
adsorption.  If released to the atmosphere, the dominant atmospheric removal process for
distillates, hydrotreated light is expected to be oxidation by hydroxyl radicals with an estimated
half-life of less than 1 day. Using representative components that either  biodegrade rapidly and
display moderate sludge adsorption and those that are moderately biodegradable and display
strong adsorption to sludge, the STP fugacity model indicates  that greater than 99 percent total
removal from wastewater treatment plants may be achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying  summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-67

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                              N-Methylpyrrolidone
                                    N-Methylpyrrolidone
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  N-methylpyrrolidone [1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone;  1-
  methylazacyclopentan-2-one; N-methyl-Y-butyrolactam]
  CAS# 872-50-4
  Molecular weight: 99.13
  Melting Point:  -17 to-23°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.334 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow =-0.73 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.56 x 10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C5H9NO
Structure:
           CH-,
Boiling Point: 202°C(M)
Density:  1.03g/ml(M)
FlashPoint:    96°C(M)
Koc: 10(E)
Physical State:  Colorless liquid with mild amine odor
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      N-Methylpyrrolidone is a dipolar aprotic solvent. It is steam volatile and forms hydrates.
It dissolves many organic and inorganic compounds.  N-methylpyrrolidone is soluble in ether
and acetone, miscible in castor oil, miscible with lower alcohols and ketones, ethyl acetate,
chloroform and benzene, and moderately soluble in aliphatic hydrocarbons.

      N-Methylpyrrolidone is an N-substituted heterocycle.  In addition to its chemical
synthesis, it may be a naturally occurring compound as it has been identified as a volatile
component of roasted nuts.
Market Profile

      Total U.S. production in 1991 was 55 million gallons. In 1992, exports were 14.8 million
gallons. Data for imported amounts was not available. Total U.S. production quantity for use
in screen reclamation was estimated to be 38,000 gallons.
Regulatory Status

      N-Methylpyrrolidone does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-68

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, N-methylpyrrolidone has the potential to biodegrade under aerobic
conditions. It is expected to display very high mobility in soil. N-Methylpyrrolidone may slowly
volatilize from dry soil to the atmosphere, but it is not expected to volatilize from moist soil.  If
released to water, screening studies  indicate that N-methylpyrrolidone will biodegrade under
aerobic conditions after a short lag period.  N-Methylpyrrolidone is not expected to
bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms nor is it expected to adsorb to sediment or
suspended organic matter. N-Methylpyrrolidone is not expected to volatilize from water to the
atmosphere. The estimated half-life for volatilization of N-methylpyrrolidone from a model river
is greater  than2,000 days. If released to the atmosphere, N-methylpyrrolidone is expected to
undergo a  gas-phase reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals with an
estimated half-life of 5.2 hrs. It may undergo atmospheric removal by wet deposition
processes; however, its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet deposition is of
limited importance. Using a fast biodegradation rate for N-methylpyrrolidone in the STP
fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                       2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide [2-
  Octadecyldimethylamine oxide]
  CAS# 71662-60-7
  Molecular weight: 313.22
  Melting Point: >200°C (decomposes) (E)
  Water Solubility: Soluble (<10 g/L) / Dispersable (E)
  Vapor Pressure. <10'6 mm Hg (E)                      Boi|jng pojnt m gpp|icgb|e

  u°9V,   lj  ,  ,  QCov,n4 *    3i  i  ,o          Density:  Not available
  Henry s Law Constant 3.62X10 atm-m /mole (E)          Rgsh pojnt.
  Chemistry of Use: Surfactant                         K .  „„„ „„,, „-,
Structure:
           o

         — N— CH,
  CH3(CH2)15CHCH3
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical is a surfactant.  It is soluble in polar solvents.

      This chemical is synthesized via oxidation of alkyl dimethyl amine.


Market Profile

      No market information was available for this chemical.



DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-69

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Periodic Acid
Regulatory Status

      2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide does not trigger any federal environmental
regulations.
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Long chain dimethyl amine oxides degrade completely and rapidly in screening studies
and therefore, if released to soil, 2-octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-,  N-oxide would be expected
to rapidly biodegrade.  It would adsorb strongly to soil because of its long hydrophobic alkyl
chain. If released in water, 2-octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide would be expected to
rapidly biodegrade based on results  of screening tests on analogous long chain dimethyl amine
oxides. Initially it would be expected to strongly adsorb to sediment and particulate matter in
the water column.  Volatilization of 2-octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide to the
atmosphere should be  important (estimated half-life from a model river 4.7 hours). If released
to the atmosphere, 2-octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-,  N-oxide will be associated with aerosols
and will be removed by gravitational settling. Using a  rapid biodegradation rate in  the STP
fugacity model results in 100 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment
plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                       Periodic Acid
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Periodic Acid [Metaperiodic acid]
  CAS# 13444-71-8
  Molecular weight: 191.9
  Melting Point: 130° C (M) decomposes
  Water Solubility: 3,700 g/l (M)
  Vapor Pressure: Negligible (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Oxidizing agent
4
HIO,
Structure: HI04
Boiling Point: Not applicable
Density:  3.0g/ml(E)
Flash Point:   Not applicable
Physical  State: White crystals
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-70

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Periodic Acid

      Periodic acid is a powerful oxidant especially in acid solution.  It undergoes a potentially
explosive reaction with DMSO. It is soluble in alcohol and slightly soluble in ether.

      Periodic acid is prepared by electrolytic oxidation of iodic acid in a diaphragm cell.
Alternatively, an alkaline solution of sodium iodate is oxidized with chlorine and the resulting
sodium periodate is converted to the acid via the barium salt.
Market Profile

      The total U.S. production is unknown. Imports and exports for this chemical are
unknown.  Total U.S. quantity for use in screen reclamation is estimated to be 1.02 million
pounds.


Regulatory Status

      Periodic acid does not trigger any any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and  accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, the powerful oxidant periodic acid is expected to readily oxidize organic
matter and will be short-lived. If released to water, oxidation of organic matter is expected to be
sufficiently rapid to dominate all  other potential fate pathways. If released to the atmosphere,
periodic acid is expected to undergo removal by both wet and dry deposition processes.
Depending on the composition of other components  that may be present in the water droplets,
periodic acid may be transformed by oxidizing either organic, inorganic, or metallic species
present before deposition occurs. In wastewater treatment plants, periodic acid is expected to
undergo complete removal through the oxidation  of numerous organic, inorganic, or metallic
species present in the wastewater.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  11-71

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Phosphoric Acid, Mixed Ester.

    Phosphoric Acid, Mixed Ester with Isopropanol and Ethoxylated Tridecanol
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Phosphoric acid, mixed ester with isopropanol and
  ethoxylated tridecanol [poly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) otridecyl-
  03-hydroxy-, 1-methylethyl phosphate]
  CAS# 68186-42-5
  Molecular weight: >540
  Melting Point: Not available
  Water Solubility: Soluble/Dispersable
  Vapor Pressure: <10"6 mm Hg (E)
  Log Kow: Not available
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use: Surfactant	
Varies
Structure:
               0   CHj
 C, 3H27(OCH2CH2)nO — P — OCHCHj

               OH
  n = 5 to 20
Boiling Point: High Boiling (E)
Density:  Not available
Flash Point:    Not available
K •  Not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical is a phosphate surfactant.  It is soluble in polar solvents and alcohols

      This chemical is synthesized via phosphorolation of ethoxylated alcohol.
Market Profile

      Total U.S. production is unknown.  The majority of this chemical was imported/exported.
Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Phosphoric acid, mixed ester with isopropanol and ethoxylated tridecanol, does not
trigger any federal environmental regulations.
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, phosphoric acid, mixed ester w/isopropanol and ethoxylated tridecanol
would be expected to biodegrade.  Studies on a series of phosphate esters and ethoxylate
phosphates confirm that they are suseptible to primary biodegradation.  Phosphoric acid,
mixed ester w/isopropanol and ethoxylated tridecanol is expected to be immobile in soil
because of the long hydrophobic alkyl group and because of complex formation with metal
cations,  especially calcium and iron.  Volatilization to the atmosphere is not expected to occur.
If released to water, phosphoric acid, mixed ester w/isopropanol and ethoxylated tridecanol


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-72

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Potassium Hydroxide

would be expected to biodegrade. Initially, it would be expected to adsorb to sediment and
particulate matter in the water column. It may bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms because of
its low water solubility, but this may be attenuated due to rapid biodegradation. Volatilization
from water would not be expected.  If released to the atmosphere, phosphoric acid, mixed ester
w/isopropanol and ethoxylated will be associated with aerosols and will be removed by
gravitational settling.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in
100 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6  and accompanying summary
                                   Potassium Hydroxide
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Potassium hydroxide [caustic potash]
  CAS# 1310-58-3
  Molecular weight: 56
  Melting Point: 380°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 1500g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
  Chemistry of Use: Caustic	
KOH
Structure: KOH
Boiling Point: 1320-1324°C(M)
Density:  2.0 g/ml (E)
Flash Point:   Not applicable
Physical  State: Solid, white or slightly yellow lumps, rods,
pellets	
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Potassium hydroxide is strongly basic and highly caustic to tissue; a 0.1 M aqueous
solution has a pH of 13.5. It is extremely corrosive and toxic via ingestion.  Potassium
hydroxide is soluble in 3 parts alcohol or 2.5 parts glycerol.

      Potassium hyroxide is prepared industrially by electrolysis of potassium chloride. In
diaphragm cells, the product liquor contains potassium hydroxide (10-15 weight percent) and
potassium chloride. Most of the potassium chloride crystallizes during concentration by
evaporation and subsequent cooling, which results in purification of the potassium hydroxide
solution.  The anode is constructed of titanium; the cathode is a flowing layer of metallic
mercury. Feed to the cells consists of brine, which is saturated with potassium  chloride at a
moderate temperature.  Water is added to the potassium-mercury amalgam that results, to
form potassium hydroxide and hydrogen.
Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production was 3.6 billion pounds. Imports were 8,740.6 million
pounds and exports were 1,140 million pounds. Total U.S. production quantity for use in
screen reclamation was estimated to be 1.06 million pounds.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-73

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Potassium Hydroxide

Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      The environmental fate of potassium hydroxide is that of its aqueous solution; the
dominant fate of solid potassium hydroxide release will be its dissolution in water.  In aqueous
solution, potassium hydroxide will dissociate into potassium cations (K+) and the hydroxide
anion (OH).  Potassium ions are naturally present in surface water, groundwater, and
rainwater as are hydroxide ions due to the ionization of water.  Given that the components of
potassium hydroxide are naturally present and participate in the reactions of natural systems,
their fate will be determined by both the amount released and the composition of the receiving
medium.  Depending on the size of the release  and the buffering capacity of the receiving
medium, which is in a large part determined by the amount of naturally occurring acids such
as hydrogen sulfide, humic acids, and those produced from carbon dioxide (the carbonate
system), silica, and inorganic phosphates, the resulting pH may either increase or remain
constant.  In those systems with limited buffering capacity, the increase in basicity with the
increase in the hydroxide ion concentration may lead to the formation  and precipitation of
insoluble transition metal complexes such as iron, aluminum, and manganese hydroxides. In
soils with limited buffering capacity or a low organic content, potassium hydroxide may display
high mobility. Potassium hydroxide will not volatilize to the atmosphere but it or its aqueous
solutions may be released to the atmosphere by mechanical means during its production, use,
or transport. If released to the atmosphere, potassium hydroxide will  undergo removal by
either wet or dry deposition processes. In wastewater treatment plants, potassium hydroxide
will undergo reactions similar to those described above with the net result being an increase in
the potassium ion concentration of the effluent.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-74

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                             Propylene Carbonate
                                   Propylene Carbonate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Propylene carbonate [1,2-Propylene carbonate; 4-methyl-1,3-
  dioxolane-2-one]
  CAS# 108-32-7
  Molecular weight: 118
  Melting Point: -55°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 100g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.44 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow= 0.54 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 3.6 x 10"4 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C4H603
Structure:
Boiling Point: 241.7°C(M)
Density:  1.20g/ml
FlashPoint:    132.2°C(M)
Koc: 6 (E)
Physical State:  Colorless, odorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Propylene carbonate is combustible.  It has a high solubility for CO2.  This solubility
makes propylene carbonate widely used for drying natural gas.  Propylene carbonate is miscible
with acetone, benzene, chloroform, ether and ethyl acetate.

      Propylene oxide is reacted with carbon dioxide to yield propylene carbonate.  Propylene
carbonate can be further hydrolyzed to propylene glycol.  The reaction is catalyzed by
potassium iodide, calcium bromide or magnesium bromide.
Market Profile

      In 1989, total U.S. production was 8.3 million gallons. Data for imported and exported
amounts were not available.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status
      Propylene carbonate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released to soil, propylene carbonate is expected to display very high mobility.
Biodegradation in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid. Volatilization of propylene carbonate
from both moist and dry soil to the atmosphere is expected to occur at a moderate rate.  If
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-75

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Propylene Carbonate

released to water, aerobic biodegradation may occur and it may be rapid in acclimated waters.
Propylene carbonate is not expected to bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms or to
adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter. Volatilization of propylene carbonate from
water to the atmosphere is expected to be relatively rapid.  If released to the atmosphere,
propylene carbonate may undergo oxidation by the gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl radicals
with an estimated half-life of approximately 2.5 days. It may also undergo atmospheric removal
by wet deposition processes.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for propylene carbonate in the
STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment
plants. If a moderate biodegradation  rate is used in this model, 84 percent predicted total
removal may be achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary

                                      Propylene Glycol
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Propylene glycol [1,2-propanediol, methyl glycol, 1,2-
  dihydroxypropane, methylethylene glycol, trimethyl glycol]
  CAS# 57-55-6
  Molecular weight: 76.10
  Melting Point: -60°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 0.2 mm Hg at 20°C (M)
  Log Kow: -.920 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.3x10"8atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
C3H802
Structure: HOCH(CH3)CH2OH
Boiling Point: 187.3°C(M)
Density:  1.038(M)
FlashPoint:    101°C(M)
Koc: 7 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Propylene glycol is practically odorless with a slight taste.  More volatile than ethylene glycol, it
is three times as viscous at room temperature.  Although propylene glycol has a secondary hydroxyl
group, its chemistry parallels that of ethylene glycol.  It is miscible with water and other polar
solvents.

      Propylene glycol is produced by the hydrolysis of propylene oxide.  The hydrolysis is carried
out under pressure at high temperature without catalysts. The proportion of products is controlled
by the ratio of water to propylene oxide.
Market Profile

      In 1989, total U.S. production was 651 million gallons.  In 1989, imports were 0.3 million
gallons.  In 1988, exports were 144.5 million gallons. Total U.S. production quantity for use in
screen reclamation was estimated to be 203,000 gallons.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                      II-76

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether


Regulatory Status

      Propylene glycol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, propylene glycol may rapidly degrade under aerobic conditions. It is
expected to display very high mobility; however, its expected rapid biodegradation will decrease its
potential of leaching through soil.  Volatilization of propylene glycol from moist soil to the atmosphere
will not be important although it may occur slowly from dry soils. If released to water, propylene
glycol may biodegrade rapidly under aerobic  conditions.  It may also slowly degrade under anaerobic
conditions. Neither volatilization to the atmosphere, bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms,
adsorption to sediment and suspended organic matter, chemical hydrolysis, nor oxidation are
expected to occur.  If released to the atmosphere, propylene glycol is degraded rapidly by reaction
with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (typical half-life of 11 hours).  Physical removal by
wet deposition processes may also occur because of its substantial water solubility; however, its
short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet deposition may  be of limited importance. Using a
rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal
from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-77

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                      Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether
                              Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Propylene glycol methyl ether [Glycol ether PM]
  CAS# 107-98-2
  Molecular weight: 90.12
  Melting Point: -95°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 8.03 mm Hg (M) (20°C)
  Log Kow= -0.49 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.8 x 10"8 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C4H1002
Structure: CH3OCH2CH(CH3)OH
Boiling Point: 121°C(M)
Density: 0.9234 g/ml (M)
Flash Point:   Open cup: 36°C (M)
           Closed Cup: 33°C(M)
Koc:  13(E)
Physical State: Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Glycol ethers are both ethers and alcohols.  Their hydroxyl groups can be etherified,
esterified, chlorinated, or otherwise modified.  Propylene glycol methyl ether is miscible with
acetone, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, ethyl ether and petroleum ether. Glycol monoethers are
prepared by conventional etherification procedures, including the reaction of an alkali metal
glycolate with an alkyl halide, and reaction of propylene oxide with methanol.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was 125 million gallons.  Imports were less than 100,000
million gallons and exports were 28.7 million gallons. Total U.S. production quantity for use in
screen reclamation was estimated to be 418,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      Propylene glycol methyl ether does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.
However, the generic category of glycol ethers is listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants in the Clean
Air Act.
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Propylene glycol methyl ether is not expected to undergo hydrolysis or direct photolysis in
the environment.  In water, volatilization, adsorption to sediments and suspended solids, and
bioconcentration in aquatic organisms are not expected to be important transport processes for
propylene glycol methyl ether. Biodegradation is likely to be the most important removal
mechanism of propylene  glycol methyl ether from aerobic soil and water based on a 4-week
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-78

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether

BOD of 88-92 percent of theoretical.  If released to soil, propylene glycol methyl ether is
expected to display very high mobility.  Volatilization from dry soil surfaces will be important.
In the atmosphere, propylene glycol methyl ether is expected to exist almost entirely in the gas-
phase and reactions with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals should be fast (estimated
half-life of 8.2 hrs). Physical removal of propylene glycol methyl ether from air by wet
deposition may occur; however, its short atmospheric residence time suggests that wet
deposition is of limited importance.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for propylene glycol
methyl ether in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted removal from
wastewater treatment plants; a moderate rate corresponds to 83 percent predicted removal.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                         Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate[1-Methoxy-2-
  acetoxypropane; 1-Methoxy-2-propyl acetate; 2-Acetoxy-1-
  methoxypropane]
  CAS# 108-65-6
  Molecular weight:  132
  Melting Point:  -100°C(E)
  Water Solubility: Miscible
  Vapor Pressure: 2 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow= 0.56 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 4.26 x 10'6 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use:  Solvent	
C,H,,0,
Structure: CHqOCH,CHOCCH
Boiling Point: 140°C(E)
Density:  0.90 g/ml (E)
FlashPoint:    40°C(E)
Koc: 2 (M)
Physical  State:  Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate is a glycol derivative that is both an ether and an
ester.  Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate is soluble in organic solvents.

      Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate is made by reacting propylene oxide with methanol
followed by acetylation.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production of "other" P-series glycol ethers was 1 million pounds.
This category includes dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, ethoxypropanol, ethoxypropyl
acetate, and propylene glycol methyl ether acetate, among possibly others.  Data for imported
and exported amounts were not available. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen
reclamation was estimated to be 217,000 gallons.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-79

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate
Regulatory Status

      Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate does not trigger any federal environmental
regulations.
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, propylene glycol methyl ether acetate is expected to display very high
mobility. Biodegradation in acclimated aerobic soils may be rapid. Hydrolysis of the ester
group is not expected to be significant except for highly basic soils (pH greater thanS).
Volatilization of propylene glycol methyl ether acetate from dry soil to the atmosphere may be
significant although it is likely to be a slow process from wet soil. If released to water, aerobic
biodegradation is likely to be the dominant removal process with 20-day BODs of 61 percent of
theoretical reported.  Neither bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms, adsorption to
sediment and suspended  organic matter, hydrolysis, nor volatilization to the atmosphere  are
expected to be significant fate processes in surface water. If released to the atmosphere,
propylene glycol methyl ether acetate may undergo oxidation by the gas-phase reaction with
hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of approximately  11 hours. It may also undergo
atmospheric removal by wet deposition processes; however, its short atmospheric residence
time suggests  that wet deposition is of limited importance. Propylene glycol methyl ether
acetate is listed as degradable in the Japanese MITI test which uses an acclimated sludge seed
and it is expected to undergo significant removal in a wastewater treatment plant. Using a
rapid biodegradation rate for propylene glycol methyl ether acetate in the STP fugacity model
results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-80

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                          Silica
                                             Silica
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Silica [silicon dioxide]
  CAS# 7631-86-9
  Molecular weight: 60
  Melting Point: 1550°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Practically insoluble; vitreous form more
  soluble than quartz
  Vapor Pressure: (E)
  Log Kow: Not applicable
  Henry's Law Constant: Not applicable
  Chemistry of Use: Anticaking/defoaming agent	
Si02
Structure: Occurs as a variety of minerals including quartz;
crystals are hexagonal
Boiling Point: Density: 2.65 (quartz) (M); 2.2 (amorphous)
Flash Point:    (E)
Koc:  Not applicable
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Silica combines with many elements and oxides in  the general realm of ceramic
chemistry.  It occurs in nature as agate, amethyst, chalcedony, cristobalite, flint, quartz, sand,
tridymite, carnelian, onyx, and jasper; hydrated amorphous forms include opal, infusorial
earth, and diatomaceous earth. A common vitreous form is obsidian. It is practically insoluble
in acids, except aqueous HF, in which it readily dissolves, forming Si F4 and H2SiF6.

      It is naturally occurring.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 1.8 billion pounds. Imports and exports of this
chemical are unknown.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Silica does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, silica is expected to be essentially immobile. Although silica slowly
dissolves in water to a limited extent, adsorption to soil is expected through strong silica-soil
interactions.  Experimental data to assess the degree of adsorption of silica to soil are not
available.  Silica is not expected to biodegrade in soil nor volatilize to the atmosphere.  Silica's
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           11-81

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Silica

ultimate fate in soil is expected to be chemical hydrolysis to silicic acid and participation in the
natural silicon cycle although this process occurs on a geological time scale.  If released to
water, silica may slowly dissolve and may also undergo very slow chemical hydrolysis to silicic
acid.  Its dominant aquatic fate process is expected to be adsorption to sediment although
ultimately it will enter the natural silicon cycle. Volatilization to the atmosphere,
biodegradation, and bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms are not expected to occur.
If released to the atmosphere as particulates, it is expected return to the earth via dry
deposition and rain-out. Removal of silica from wastewater treatment plants is expected to be
essentially complete due to its high degree of adsorption to sludge and complexation with
metals.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                        Silica, Fumed
             	(amorphous, crystalline-free)	
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Silica, fumed [pyrogenic silica, aerosil, amorphous silica]
  CAS# 112945-52-5
  Molecular weight: 60
  Melting Point: 1550°C(E)
  Water Solubility: 0.1 g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
  Log Kow: Not applicable
  Henry's Law Constant: Not applicable
  Chemistry of Use:  Thickener/reinforcer	
Si02
Structure: Lack of crystalline structure
Boiling Point: 2950°C(E)
Density:  2.16g/cm3(M)
Flash Point:    Not available
Koc:  Not applicable
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Fumed silica is an extremely pure form of silica.  It is insoluble in all acids except HF (M).

      Fumed silica is made by burning SiCl4 with H2 and O2 at 1000°C.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 48.6 million pounds. In 1992, about 2.6 million
pounds were imported and 2.0 million pounds were exported. Total U.S. production quantity
for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-82

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Silica, Fumed (amorphous, crystalline-free)




Regulatory Status

      Silica, fumed, does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, fumed silica is expected to be essentially immobile.  Although fumed
silica slowly dissolves in water to a limited extent, adsorption to soil is expected through strong
silica-soil interactions. Experimental data to assess the degree of adsorption of fumed silica to
soil are not available.  Fused silica is not expected to biodegrade in soil nor volatilize to the
atmosphere. Fumed  silica's ultimate fate in soil is expected to be chemical hydrolysis to silicic
acid and participation in the natural silicon cycle although this process will occur on a
geological time scale.  If released to water, fumed silica may slowly dissolve and may also
undergo very slow chemical hydrolysis to silicic acid.  Its dominant aquatic fate process is
expected to be adsorption to sediment although ultimately it will enter the natural silicon cycle.
Volatilization to the atmosphere, biodegradation, and bioconcentration in fish and aquatic
organisms are not expected to occur. If released to the atmosphere as particulates, it is
expected return to the earth via dry deposition and rain-out. Removal of fumed silica from
wastewater treatment plants is expected to be essentially complete due to its high degree of
expected adsorption to sludge and complexation with metals.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   II-83

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Sodium Bisulfate

                                     Sodium Bisulfate
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium bisulfate [sulfuric acid, monosodium salt,
  monohydrate]
  CAS# 10034-88-5
  Molecular weight: 138
  Melting Point: Decomposes (M)
  Water Solubility: 1250g/L(M)
  Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
  Log Kow: Not applicable
  Henry's Law Constant: Not applicable
  Chemistry of  Use: Salt	
H3Na05S
Structure:  HOSO,Na-H,0

Boiling Point: Not Applicable
Density:  >2 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point:    Not applicable
Koc:  Not applicable
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical changes to pyrosulfate when strongly heated.  This chemical exists as
colorless, odorless crystals. This chemical is corrosive and its aqueous solution is strongly
acidic. It decomposes in alcohol.

      This chemical is made by crystallization from an aqueous solution containing NaHSO4.

Market Profile

      No information on production volumes of sodium bisulfate was available. In 1990, total
U.S. production of sodium sulfate was 812 million pounds.  In 1991, about 34.6 million
pounds of sodium sulfate were imported and about 250 million pounds of sodium sulfate were
exported.  Total U.S. production of sodium bisulfate for use in screen reclamation was
estimated to be 2.35 million pounds.


Regulatory Status

      Sodium bisulfate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and  accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      The environmental fate of sodium bisulfate is that of its aqueous solution; the dominant
fate of solid sodium bisulfate release will be its dissolution  in water.  In aqueous solution,
sodium bisulfate will ionize to sodium cations (Na+) and the bisulfate anion (HSO4).  In water,
the bisulfate ion will rapidly dissociate to the sulfate ion (SO42) and a hydronium ion (H3O+).
Sodium ions are naturally present in surface water, groundwater, and rainwater as are sulfate


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-84

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                       Sodium Hexametaphosphate
ions. Sulfate ions are also important components of the sulfur cycle. Depending on the size of
the sodium bisulfate release and the buffering capacity of the receiving medium, the resulting
pH may either decrease or remain constant. In soil and water systems with limited buffering
capacity, the increase in acidity with the increase in hydronium ion concentration may lead to
the solubilization of metal complexes of phosphate, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum.
Sodium bisulfate will not volatilize to the atmosphere but it may be released to the  atmosphere
by mechanical means during its production, use, or transport.  If released to the atmosphere,
sodium bisulfate will undergo removal by either wet deposition due to its appreciable  water
solubility or dry deposition due to settling.  In wastewater treatment plants, sodium bisulfate
will undergo rapid ionization and subsequent dissociation and will pass through the treatment
plant as the ions.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                              Sodium Hexametaphosphate
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium hexametaphosphate [Metaphosphoric acid,
  hexasodium salt; sodium polymetaphosphate; Graham's salt;
  glassy sodium metaphosphate]
  CAS# 10124-56-8
  Molecular weight: 611.17
  Melting Point:  628°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Very Soluble
  Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
  Log Kow: Not applicable
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use: Corrosion inhibitor/dispersant	
(NaP03)6
Structure: 12 member ring with alternating P and 0 atoms
      Na+16(P6018)-6
Boiling Point: Not available
Density: 2.4g/cm3(E)
Flash Point:    Not available
Koc:  Not applicable
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical appears as a clear, hygroscopic glass.  Sodium hexametaphosphate is a
mixture of polymeric metaphosphates, and is not a hexamer. It depolymerizes in aqueous
solution to form sodium trimetaphosphate and sodium ortho phosphates.

      Sodium hexametaphosphate is prepared by rapidly chilling molten sodium
metaphosphate.
Market Profile

      In 1989, total U.S. production was 88 million pounds.  Imports and exports of this
chemical are unknown.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-85

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Sodium Hexametaphosphate

Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, sodium hexametaphosphate is expected to be essentially immobile due
to the formation of insoluble complexes with metal salts, particularly calcium and iron.
Sodium hexametaphosphate is expected to be unstable in soils and will eventually degrade to
orthophosphate. Degradation rates increase in clay containing soils resulting from metal
catalyzed processes. Volatilization to the atmosphere is not expected to occur.  If released to
water, sodium hexametaphosphate will undergo slow chemical hydrolysis to orthophosphate
with a half-life of approximately 1 month at 40 °C at neutral pH. If organisms containing
phosphatase enzymes are present, sodium hexametaphosphate will undergo rapid hydrolysis in
environmental waters.  In the absence of rapid hydrolysis, adsorption to sediment and
suspended organic matter may occur initially, followed by chemical degradation. Neither
volatilization to the atmosphere or bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms are expected.
If released to  a wastewater treatment plants, complete removal of sodium hexametaphosphate
is expected from hydrolysis due to the relatively high local phosphatase concentration.
Available data indicate that metaphosphates in raw sewage are predominately hydrolyzed to
orthophosphate before they even reach the treatment plant

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-86

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                               Sodium Hydroxide
                                    Sodium Hydroxide
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium hydroxide [caustic soda; lye; sodium hydrate; soda
  lye]
  CAS# 1310-73-2
  Molecular weight: 39.9
  Melting Point: 323°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 1,180g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure:      Negligible (E)
                   1mmHg(M)(739°C)
  Chemistry of Use: Caustic	
NaOH
Structure: NaOH
Boiling Point: 1390°C(M)
Density:  2.13 g/ml (M)
Flash Point:   Not applicable
Physical  State: Deliquescent orthorhombic white powder
                           Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Sodium hydroxide is an important industrial alkali.  It readily reacts with atmospheric
CO2 to form Na2CO3.  It reacts with all the mineral acids to form the corresponding salts.
Sodium hydroxide is very soluble in ethanol and soluble in glycerol. It is insoluble in diethyl
ether and acetone.

      Sodium hydroxide is manufactured either by electrolysis of brine (Castner-Kellner
process) or by treatment of Na2CO3 or NaHCO3 with CaO or Ca(OH)2. It can also be prepared
from sodium metal and water vapor at low temperature.
Market Profile

      In  1991, total U.S. production was 25 billion pounds. In 1992, imports were 1,138
million pounds and in exports were 2,536 million pounds.  Total U.S. production quantity for
use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 1.45 million pounds.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      The environmental fate of sodium hydroxide is that of its aqueous solution; the dominant
fate of solid sodium hydroxide release will be its dissolution in water. In aqueous solution,
sodium hydroxide will dissociate into sodium cations (Na+) and the hydroxide anion (OH).
Sodium ions are naturally present in surface water, groundwater, and rainwater as are
DRAFT—September 1994
                                         II-87

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Sodium Hypochlorite

hydroxide ions due to the ionization of water. Given that the components of sodium hydroxide
are naturally present and participate in the reactions of natural systems, their fate will be
determined by both the amount released and the composition of the receiving medium.
Depending on the size of the release and the  buffering capacity of the receiving medium, which
is in a large part determined by the amount of naturally occurring acids such as hydrogen
sulfide, humic acids, and those produced from carbon dioxide (the carbonate system), silica,
and inorganic phosphates, the resulting pH may either increase or remain constant. In those
systems with limited buffering capacity, the increase in basicity with the increase in the
hydroxide ion concentration may lead to the  formation and precipitation of insoluble transition
metal complexes such as iron, aluminum, and manganese hydroxides. In soils with limited
buffering capacity or a low organic content, sodium hydroxide may display high mobility.
Sodium hydroxide will not volatilize to the atmosphere  but it or its aqueous solutions may be
released to the atmosphere by mechanical means during its production, use,  or transport. If
released to the atmosphere, sodium hydroxide will undergo removal by either wet or dry
deposition processes. In wastewater treatment plants, sodium hydroxide will undergo
reactions similar to those described above with the net result being an increase in the sodium
ion concentration of the effluent.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                   Sodium Hypochlorite
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium hypochlorite [chloric(l) acid, sodium salt;
  hypochlorous acid, sodium salt; Clorox, Dazzle, Eau de
  Labarraque]
  CAS# 7681-52-9
  Molecular weight: 74.4
  Melting Point: 18° C (M) crystals decompose
  Water Solubility: 260 g/l (M)
  Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
  Chemistry of Use:  Oxidizing agent	
NaOCI
Structure: NaOCI
Boiling Point: Not applicable
Density:  1.21g/ml(M)
Flash Point:   Not applicable
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Sodium hypochlorite is a strong oxidizing agent usually stored and used in solution.
There is a fire risk in contact with organic materials.  It is highly reactive.  The physical state of
sodium hypochlorite is a greenish yellow liquid  (in solution) with a disagreeable sweetish odor.

      Sodium hypochlorite is synthesized by bubbling C12 through aqueous NaOH in the
presence of CO2. It is manufactured by the electrolysis of brine.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    II-88

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Sodium Hypochlorite

Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production was 380 million gallons. In 1991, imports and exports
were believed to be negligible.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation was
estimated to be 69,000 gallons.

Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      The environmental fate of sodium hypochlorite is essentially that of its aqueous solutions;
the dominant fate of solid sodium hypochlorite release will  be its dissolution in water. If
released to soil, sodium hypochlorite is expected to readily  oxidize organic matter and is likely
to be short-lived. If released to water, sodium hypochlorite is expected to be short-lived
although its aquatic fate is partially dependent on the pH of receiving water.  Sodium
hypochlorite is expected to dissociate to hypochlorous acid  which may, in the presence of
additional chloride ions under acidic conditions, form chlorine. At pH 7.5, the hypochlorite ion
and hyperchlorous acid are at approximately equal concentrations; at pH 8.5, only 10 percent
of the added sodium hypochlorite would exist as hypochlorous acid.  Hypochlorous acid and, if
formed, chlorine may undergo significant volatilization to the atmosphere. Sodium
hypochlorite itself is not expected to volatilize from water. Chlorine, hypochlorous acid,  as well
as sodium hypochlorite are expected to readily oxidize organic compounds. Hypochlorous acid,
which is always in equilibrium with the hypochlorite ion, may also oxidize sulfur compounds,
nitrate ions, and certain metals such as Fe(II) an Mn(II). Hypochlorous acid may also
decompose under  the influence of UV light. Reduction is ultimately expected to be the
dominant removal process for sodium  hypochlorite in water. Sodium hypochlorite will not
volatilize to the atmosphere but it or its aqueous solutions may be released to the atmosphere
by mechanical means during its production, use, or transport. If released to the atmosphere,
sodium hypochlorite is expected to removed by both wet and dry deposition processes.
Depending on the composition of other components that may be present in the water droplets,
sodium hypochlorite may be transformed by oxidizing organics, certain metals,  and some
inorganic species (such as nitrate ions) before deposition occurs.  In activated sludge
wastewater treatment plants, sodium hypochlorite is expected to undergo rapid and complete
removal via the reductive pathways discussed above.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 II-89

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
                                   Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium lauryl sulfate [sulfuric acid monododecyl ester
  sodium salt; sodium dodecyl sulfate; SDS; irium]
  CAS# 151-21-3
  Molecular weight: 288.38
  Melting Point: Decomposes
  Water Solubility: 100g/L(M)
  Vapor Pressure: Not applicable
  LogKow:  L7(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use: Detergent	
C12H25Na04S
Structure: CHgfCH
Boiling Point: Decomposes
Density:  1 g/cm3 (E)
Flash Point:    Not applicable
Koc: 80,000 (E)
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Sodium lauryl sulfate has a mild fatty odor. It is an anionic  detergent and lowers the
surface tension of aqueous solutions.  It is soluble in alcohols and ethers.

      Sodium lauryl sulfate is synthesized by sulfation of lauryl alcohol, followed by
neutralization with sodium carbonate.
Market Profile

       No market information was available for this chemical.


Regulatory Status

      Sodium lauryl sulfate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, sodium lauryl sulfate is expected to readily biodegrade under aerobic
conditions. The first step in the biodegradation pathway is believed to be hydrolysis to the
alcohol and inorganic sulfate.  Sodium lauryl sulfate is chemically stable in neutral and alkaline
solutions, but readily hydrolyses in the presence of acids. Since the sodium bisulfate produced
in the hydrolysis is strongly acidic, once hydrolysis starts it is autocatalytic. Although sodium

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                     II-90

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                              Sodium Metasilicate
lauryl sulfate is ionic, studies have shown that long chain alkyl sulfates strongly adsorb to soil
and that the force dominating this process is the hydrophobic nature of the non-polar tail of the
molecule.  Volatilization of sodium lauryl sulfate from surface soil will not be significant.  If
released to water, sodium lauryl sulfate is expected to rapidly biodegrade.  It should also
adsorb to sediment and particulate matter in the water column.  Volatilization of sodium lauryl
sulfate from water should be insignificant.  Experimental data on similar long-chain alkyl
sulfates indicate that bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms is not an important
process. If released to the atmosphere, sodium lauryl sulfate will be associated with aerosols
and be removed by gravitational settling.  Using a rapid biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity
model results in 100 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                    Sodium Metasilicate
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium metasilicate [waterglass]
  CAS# 6834-92-0
  Molecular weight: 122.08
  Melting Point:  1089°C (decomposes) (M)
  Water Solubility: Completely soluble in cold water (M)
  Vapor Pressure: <10"8torr(E)
  Log Kow: Not applicable
  Henry's Law Constant: Not applicable
  Chemistry of Use: Corrosion inhibitor
Na203Si
Structure:
 2  Na
0
I
Si-
I
0
                -2
Boiling Point: Not applicable
Density:  2.614 g/cm3(M)
Flash Point:   Not available
Koc:  Not applicable	
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
      This chemical is usually obtained as a glass, and sometimes as orthorhombic crystals.  It
is hydrolyzed in hot water. It is insoluble in organics and alcohols.  Sodium metasilicate is
prepared from sand (SiO2) and soda ash (Na2CO3) by fusion.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 106 million pounds. In 1992, for all metasilicates,
about 3,062 million pounds were imported and 23,058 million pounds were exported. Total
U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          11-91

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Sodium Metasilicate


Regulatory Status

      Sodium metasilicate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, sodium metasilicate's mobility is likely dependent on both the silicate
species present and the type of soil.  Highly polymerized forms of sodium metasilicate are not
expected to be mobile due to surface complexation with either active sites in soil via ion
exchange reactions or adsorption onto insoluble metal oxides.  Mono and oligomeric silicates
are expected to display increased mobility yet may adsorb strongly onto clay soils due to
silicate-metal interactions. Experimental data to assess the degree of adsorption to soil are not
available.  Sodium metasilicate is not expected to biodegrade nor volatilize to the atmosphere.
Alkaline earth silicates are one part of the natural buffer system of environmental waters and if
released to water, sodium metasilicate is expected to undergo typical acid/base reactions of
silicate buffers which, depending upon the pH of the receiving water, may include proton
exchange, polymerization, or depolymerization reactions. Volatilization to the atmosphere,
biodegradation, and bioconcentration in fish and aquatic organisms are not expected to occur.
The degree in which sodium metasilicate adsorbs to sediment is dependent on the same factors
influencing its adsorption to soil. The degree to which sodium metasilicate  is removed from
wastewater treatment plants is also dependent on the nature of the silicates and the water being
treated. Highly polymerized soluble silicates are used in water treatment to precipitate metal
oxides and metal ions and these silicates are expected to be efficiently removed from wastewater
treatment plants via complexation with metals and adsorption to sludge.  Mono and oligomeric
sodium metasilicates may not undergo significant removal in wastewater treatment plants.
Removal by biodegradation and volatilization of sodium metasilicate from wastewater treatment
plants is expected to be negligible.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-92

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                Sodium Periodate
                                     Sodium Periodate
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium periodate [sodium metaperiodate; sodium iodate(VII);
  lodic(VII) acid, sodium salt; periodic acid, sodium salt]
  CAS# 7790-28-5
  Molecular weight: 213.8
  Melting Point:  300° C (M) decomposes
  Water Solubility: 140g/l(M)
  Vapor Pressure: Negligible (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Oxidizing agent	
Nal04
Structure: Na+I04"
Boiling Point: Not applicable
Density:  3.865  g/ml (M)
Flash Point:    Not applicable
Physical State:  Colorless tetragonal crystals
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Sodium metaperiodate is a strong oxidizer; contact with combustible or flammable
materials can cause fire or explosion.  It is soluble in acetic acid.  Sodium metaperiodate is
synthesized by direct oxidation of NaIO3 using O2 in the presence of an alkali at 300 °C and 34
atm.  It is also a product of the thermal decomposition of NaH4IO6 • H2O.
Market Profile

      The total U.S. production is unknown.  Total U.S. quantity for use in screen reclamation
was estimated to be 11.7 million pounds.


Regulatory Status

      Sodium periodate does not trigger any federal environmental regulations


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the  comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      The environmental fate of sodium periodate is that of its aqueous solution; the dominant
fate of solid sodium periodate release will be  its dissolution in water.  If released to soil, sodium
periodate is expected  to readily oxidize organic matter and will be short-lived. If released to
water, oxidation of organic matter is expected to be sufficiently rapid to dominate all other
potential fate pathways. If released to the atmosphere, sodium periodate is expected to undergo
removal by both wet and dry deposition processes.  Depending on the composition of other
components that may be present in the water droplets, sodium periodate may be transformed
by oxidizing either organic, inorganic, or metallic species present before deposition occurs. In
wastewater treatment plants, sodium periodate is expected to undergo complete removal
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-93

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
           Sodium Salt, Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonic Acid
through the oxidation of numerous organic, inorganic, or metallic species present in the
waste water.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                      Sodium Salt, Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonic Acid
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid [Sodium
  dodecylbenzenesulfonate; Conoco C-50; Santomerse #1]
  CAS# 25155-30-0
  Molecular weight: 348.49
  Melting Point:  Not available
  Water Solubility: Low Solubility (E); dispersible (E)
  Vapor Pressure: <10"5 mm Hg (E)
  LogKow: 1.96(M)
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use: Surfactant
C18H29Na03S
Structure:
 C12H25~S\    /
Boiling Point:  Not available
Density: 0.5g/cm3(E)
Flash Point:    Not available
Knc:  100,000 (M)	
                             Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical is synthesized by reacting dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid with sodium
carbonate.
Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production was 224.6 million pounds.  Imports and exports of this
chemical are unknown.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                           II-94

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Sodium Salt, Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonic Acid


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid is expected to biodegrade
under aerobic conditions, especially when acclimated organisms are present. Although sodium
salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid is ionic, studies have shown that dodecyl benzene sulfonic
acid salts strongly adsorb to soil and that the force dominating this process is the hydrophobic
nature of the non-polar tail of the molecule.  Volatilization of sodium salt, dodecyl benzene
sulfonic acid from surface soil will not be significant.  If released to water, sodium salt, dodecyl
benzene sulfonic acid is expected to biodegrade. It will also adsorb to sediment and  particulate
matter in the water column. Volatilization of sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid from
water should be insignificant.  Experimental data indicate that bioconcentration in fish and
aquatic organisms is not an important processes.  If released to the atmosphere, sodium salt,
dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid will be associated with aerosols and be removed by gravitational
settling. Using a rapid biodegradation rate for the parent acid in the STP fugacity model results
in 97 percent predicted total removal of sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid from
wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-95

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                       Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum,
                      Light Aliphatic (VM&PNaptha)
             Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum, Light Aliphatic (VM&P Naptha)
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Solvent naphtha, petroleum, light aliphatic [VM&P #66;
  lacolene; rubber solvent; petroleum ether; naphtha; varnish
  makers' and painters' solvent; VM&P Naphtha ]
  CAS# 64742-89-8
  Molecular weight: 86 for n-hexane; 112forethycyclohexane,
  for example
  Melting Point:  <-80°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.001 g/L(E)
  Vapor Pressure: 20 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Log Kow= 3.27->6(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 8.0 x 10"3 - 5 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
Molecular Formula: CnH2n+2 (paraffin) and CnH2n
(cycloparaffin)
Structure: Typical structures include normal paraffins,
CH3(CH2)nCH3, branched paraffins, and cycloparaffins
Boiling Point: 35-160°C(M)
Density:  0.7g/ml(E)
FlashPoint:    0°C(E)
Koc: 200 - >5,000 (E)
Physical State:  Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      These commercial products are all light aliphatic solvent naphthas with similar
compositions and properties. Most consist of 80 to 90 percent paraffins most of which are
straight- or branched-chain alkanes in the range of C5 through C10.  Up to 10 percent is typically
aromatics, with only a fraction of this being C8 and above. They are miscible with petroleum
solvents.

      Solvent naphthas are prepared by fractionation of straight-run, cracked, and reforming
distillates, or by fractionation of crude petroleum or natural gasoline.  The naphtha streams are
divided into heavy and light, and may be further fractionated.  The  naphthas are usually treated
to remove sulfur, either chemically, with lye or other compounds, or by hydrotreating
processes.  Aromatic hydrocarbons are also removed by solvent extraction or by destructive
hydrogenation.
Market Profile

      Based on boiling range and other evidence, it has been assumed that this naphtha
fraction corresponds to "special naphthas."  The 1990 production volume for this naphtha  was
4.2 billion pounds. Data for imported and exported amounts were not available. Total U.S.
production quantity for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 12.6 million pounds.
Regulatory Status

      Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic, does not trigger any federal environmental
regulations
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-96

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals                                   Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum,
	Light Aliphatic (VM&PNaptha)
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      Solvent naphtha, light aliphatic is a mixture of components, chiefly C5-C10 alkanes
typically with up to 10 percent aromatics. If released to soil, solvent naphtha, light aliphatic is
expected to biodegrade at a fast to moderate rate under aerobic conditions. Some components
of solvent naphtha, light aliphatic may adsorb very strongly to soil.  Solvent naphtha, light
aliphatic may rapidly volatilize from  both moist and dry soils to the atmosphere although
strong adsorption may significantly attenuate the rate of this process.  If released to water,
solvent naphtha, light aliphatic is expected to biodegrade at a fast to moderate rate under
aerobic conditions. Some components may significantly bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic
organisms and strongly adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter.  The estimated half-
life for volatilization of solvent naphtha, light aliphatic components from a model river is
approximately 1 hour while that from a model lake is  greater than 100 days; the former model
does not account for the attenuating  affect of strong adsorption. If released to the atmosphere,
the dominant atmospheric removal process for solvent naphtha, light aliphatic is expected to be
oxidation by hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of 1-3 days.  Using representative
components that either  biodegrade rapidly and display moderate sludge adsorption or are
moderately biodegradable and display strong adsorption to sludge, the STP fugacity model
indicates that greater than 94 percent total removal from wastewater treatment  plants may be
achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-97

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
           Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum, Light Aromatic
                      Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum, Light Aromatic
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Solvent naphtha, petroleum, light aromatic [Comsolv 100 ]
  CAS# 64742-95-6
  Molecular weight: 128 for naphthalene
  Melting Point: -80°C(E)
  Water Solubility: 0.03 g/L (M) for naphthalene
  Vapor Pressure: 0.5 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  LogKow=3.0-3.5(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 4.8 x 10'4 - 8 x 10'3 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C10H8 for naphthalene
Structure:     Consist chiefly of aromatic hydrocarbons,
            including small fused-ring compounds such
            as naphthalene
Boiling Point: 135-210°C(E)
Density:  0.87 g/ml (E)
FlashPoint:    38°C(E)
Koc: 500 - 2,000 (E)
Physical State:  Liquid	
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      The light aromatic solvent naphtha products are a complex combination of hydrocarbons
that consists chiefly of C8 through C10 aromatics, but they also may contain up to 30 percent
paraffins and cycloparaffins

      Solvent naphthas  are prepared by fractional distillation of petroleum. Sulfur compounds
are most commonly removed or converted to a harmless form by chemical treatment with lye or
other agent, or by hydrorefining processes.
Market Profile

      No information is available on the production volumes of the numerous specific naphtha
fractions, excluding special naphthas. The production volume for all naphthas was 2,100
million pounds in 1991. The vast majority of naphthas are used in the production of gasoline
and other petroleum products and not directly as solvents.  Data for imported and exported
amounts were not available.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic, does not trigger any federal environmental
regulations
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          II-98

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum, Light Aromatic

      Environmental Fate

      Solvent naphtha, light aromatic is a mixture of components, chiefly C8-C10 aromatics.  If
released to soil, solvent naphtha, light aromatic is expected to biodegrade at a moderate rate
under aerobic conditions. Some components of solvent naphtha, light aromatic may adsorb
strongly to soil.  Solvent naphtha, light aromatic may rapidly volatilize from both moist and dry
soils to  the atmosphere although adsorption may significantly attenuate the rate of this process.
If released to water, solvent naphtha, light aromatic is expected to biodegrade at a moderate
rate under aerobic conditions.  Some components may significantly bioconcentrate  in fish and
aquatic  organisms and adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter.  The estimated half-
life for volatilization of solvent naphtha, light aromatic components from a model river is
approximately 2 hours while that from a model lake is greater  than 100 days; the former model
does not account for the attenuating affect of adsorption. If released to the atmosphere, the
dominant atmospheric removal process for solvent naphtha,  light aromatic is expected to  be
oxidation  by hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of 0.5-2 days. Using representative
components that biodegrade either at a rapid or moderate rate  and display moderate sludge
adsorption, the STP fugacity model indicates that greater than 92 percent total removal from
wastewater treatment plants may be achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See  Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  II-99

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                       Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum,
                     Heavy Aromatic (Aromatic 150)
            Solvent Naphtha, Petroleum, Heavy Aromatic (Aromatic 150)
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Solvent naphtha, petroleum, heavy aromatic [Aromatic 150;
  Comsolv150]
  CAS# 64742-94-5
  Molecular weight: 128 for naphthalene
  Melting Point: -80°C(E)
  Water Solubility: 0.03 g/L (M) for naphthalene
  Vapor Pressure: 0.5 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  LogKow=3.5->5(E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 8 x 10'4 - 8 x 10'3 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C10H8 for naphthalene
Structure:    Consist chiefly of aromatic hydrocarbons,
           including small fused-ring compounds such
           as naphthalene
Boiling Point: 150-290°C(E)
Density:  0.87 g/ml (E)
FlashPoint:   38°C(E)
Koc: 700 - >5,000 (E)
Physical State: Liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      The heavy aromatic solvent naphtha products consist chiefly of C8 through C16aromatics,
but they also may contain up to 30 percent paraffins and cycloparaffins. It is soluble in
petroleum solvents and other organics.

      Solvent naphthas are prepared by fractional distillation of petroleum.  Sulfur compounds
are most commonly removed or converted to a harmless form by chemical treatment with lye or
other agent, or by hydrorefining processes.
Market Profile

      No information is available on the production volumes of the numerous specific naphtha
fractions, excluding special naphthas.  The production volume for all naphthas was 2.1 billion
pounds in 1991. The vast majority of naphthas are used in the production of gasoline and
other petroleum products and not directly as solvents. Data for imported and exported
amounts were not available. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is
unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic does not trigger any federal environmental
regulations
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment
DRAFT—September 1994
                                         11-100

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                  Tall Oil, Special
      Environmental Fate

      Solvent naphtha, heavy aromatic is a mixture of components, chiefly C9-C16 aromatic
hydrocarbons. If released to soil, solvent naphtha, heavy aromatic is expected to biodegrade at
a moderate rate under aerobic conditions.  Most components of solvent naphtha, heavy
aromatic are expected to adsorb strongly to soil. Solvent naphtha, heavy aromatic may
volatilize from both moist and dry soils to  the atmosphere although its expected strong
adsorption may significantly attenuate the  rate of this process.  If released to water, solvent
naphtha, heavy aromatic is expected to biodegrade at a moderate rate under aerobic conditions.
Most components are expected to bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms and strongly
adsorb to sediment and suspended organic matter. The estimated half-life for volatilization of
solvent naphtha, heavy aromatic components from a model  river is approximately 2 hours
while that from a model lake is greater than 100 days; the former model does not account for
the attenuating affect of strong adsorption.  If released to the atmosphere, the dominant
atmospheric removal process for solvent naphtha,  heavy aromatic is expected to be oxidation by
hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of 1-2.5 days. Using representative components
that biodegrade at a moderate to slow rate and display strong adsorption to sludge, the STP
fugacity model indicates that greater than 96 percent total removal from wastewater treatment
plants may be achieved.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                      Tall Oil, Special
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Tall oil, special [fatty acids, C18 and C18-unsatd., me esters,
  methyl stearate, methyl oleate]
  CAS# 68937-81-5
  Molecular weight: 296-298
  Melting Point: 36-39°C(E)
  Water Solubility: Insoluble (M) (<0.1 g/L) (E)
  Vapor Pressure: <10"3 mm Hg (E)
  Log Kow:  Not available
  Henry's Law Constant: Not available
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C19H3602 and C19H3802
Structure: CH3(CH2)16COOCH3
      and CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)7COOCH3
Boiling Point: 325°C(E)
Density: 0.88g/cm3(E)
FlashPoint:   200°C(E)
K • Not available
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical exists as white crystals. It is soluble in alcohol and ether. The methyl
oleate portion of this mixture is made by refluxing oleic acid with p-toluene sulfonic acid in
methanol.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                         11-101

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Tall Oil, Special

Market Profile

      In 1987, total U.S. production of all tall oil was 1.892 million pounds. Information
specific to special tall oil was not available. Imports and exports of this chemical are unknown.
Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.


Regulatory Status

      Tall oil (special) does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      The long chain unsaturated acids and rosin acids that are the principal components of
special tall oil will adsorb strongly to soil because of their long hydrophobic alkyl chain. They
readily biodegrade by p-oxidation.   Henry's Law constants estimated for the principal
components of special tall oil range from 2 x 105  to 7 x 106 atm-m3/mole. If released to soil,
special tall oil would initially be expected to adsorb strongly to soil and readily biodegrade. If
released in water, special  tall oil would be expected to rapidly biodegrade based on results of
screening tests on its principal components and tall oil soaps. Initially it would be expected to
strongly adsorb to sediment and particulate matter in the water column. Volatilization of
special tall oil to the atmosphere may be significant (estimated half-lives of principal
components from a model river range from 3 to 12 days). If released to the atmosphere, special
tall oil will be associated with aerosols and be removed by gravitational settling. Using a rapid
biodegradation rate in the STP fugacity model results in 100 percent predicted  total removal
from wastewater treatment plants.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 11-102

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                      Terpineols
                                          Terpineols
                                   Chemical Properties and Information
  Terpineols [r-Butyrolactone; dihydro-2(3H)-furanone,
  terpineo!318]
  CAS# 8000-41-7
  Molecular weight:  154
  Melting Point: NA
  Water Solubility: 2 g/L (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.023 mm Hg (M) (20°C)
  LogKow= 3.33-3.46 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 3 x 10"6 atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use:  Cleaner/Disinfectant
C10H180
Structure: oterpineol
      (98-55-5)
  P-terpineol
(1380-87-4)
 y-terpineol
(586-81-2)
Boiling Point: 218°C(M)
Density:  0.9412 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    75°C(E)
Koc: 60-1,800(E)
Physical State:  Pure a-isomer is white, crystalline powder
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      The terpineols are 10-carbon alcohols of the structures shown above that are included in
a class of oxygenated isoprene derivatives called terpenes or terpenoids. Many of these
compounds, including terpineols, occur naturally in essential oils.  All pine oils contain a-
terpineol as the main oxygenated component.  Terpineols are soluble in propylene glycol and
are soluble in 1:8 proportion or more in 50 percent alcohol.

      Terpineols are the major constituents in pine  oils, which may be obtained in three ways:
(1)  by steam distillation of the  extract from aged pine stumps in the southeastern U.S.; (2) by
fractionation of crude sulfate turpentine; or (3) synthetically, by the acid-catalyzed hydration of
pinene, followed by distillation. High-grade perfumery a-terpineol is made by partial
dehydration of terpin hydrate under  weakly acidic conditions.  It may also be prepared from
isoprene and methyl vinyl ketone, using methyl magnesium iodide.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production for a-terpineols was 2.4 million pounds. In 1989, imports
were 0.8 million pounds. Data for exported amounts were not available.  Terpineols are
important constituents of a number of chemical products, such as pine oils and lime oils;  1991
U.S. synthetic pine oil production, of which terpineol is a chief constituent, totaled 71 million
pounds. Thus, although unknown, the total volume of terpineols produced may be significantly
higher than the cited volume.

      Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation was estimated to be 1.1
million pounds.
Regulatory Status

      Terpineols do not trigger any federal environmental regulations
DRAFT—September 1994
                                         11-103

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol

Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to the atmosphere, gas-phase terpineol is expected to degrade by reaction with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (estimated half-life of 4 hours).  Reaction with
ozone molecules may also be an important fate process for terpineol in air. If released to soil,
terpineol is expected to exhibit low adsorption potential.  One biological treatment study
suggests that biodegradation may be fast in soil and water; however, data are limited. In water,
hydrolysis, adsorption to sediment, and bioconcentration in aquatic organisms are not expected
to be important for terpineol.  Volatilization half-lives for a-terpineol of 15 and 110 days have
been estimated for a model river (one meter deep) and a model environmental lake,
respectively. Using  a fast biodegradation rate for terpineol in the STP fugacity model results in
99 percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants; a moderate
biodegradation rate results in 92 percent total removal.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary







   	Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol	
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol [2-furanmethanol, tetrahydro,
  aliphatic ether alcohol]
  CAS# 97-99-4
  Molecular weight: 102.13
  Melting Point: <-80°C(M)
  Water Solubility: Miscible with water (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 0.64 mm Hg (20°C) (E)
  LogKow:-0.11(E)
  ,,   ,  ,   ^11  JAAV.IA9 i    31  i  /i-%           Density: 1 .0543 g/cm3 (M)
  Henry's Law Constan  4.09X10'9 atm-m3/mole (E)                *      »    ^
                                                                v ^    Vl v  '
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C5H1002
Structure:
              CH2OH
Boiling Point: 178°C(M)
                                                   U-° [
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      This chemical is a hygroscopic and is colorless. It is flammable in air. It is miscible with
alcohol, ether, acetone, chloroform, benzene.  Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol is manufactured by
catalytic hydrogenation of furfural or furfuryl alcohol.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   11-104

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 14.2 million gallons.  In 1992, about 0.1 million
gallons were imported and 4.4 million gallons were exported.  Total U.S. production quantity
for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      If released to soil, tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol will be expected to exhibit very high mobility,
based upon its estimated soil adsorption coefficient.  Two biodegradation screening studies
have found tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol to be readily biodegradable and biodegradation should be
the dominant degradative process in soil.  Volatilization of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from
moist soil should not  be important, however, some volatilization would occur from dry surface
soil and other dry surfaces.  Biodegradation is expected to be the dominant environmental fate
process for tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol in water. Chemical hydrolysis, volatilization, adsorption
to sediment, and bioconcentration are not expected to be environmentally important. In the
atmosphere, tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol is  expected to exist almost entirely in the vapor phase.
It will degrade in the ambient atmosphere by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl
radicals (estimated half-life of 13 hours).  Physical removal from air via wet deposition  is
probable since tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol is miscible in water. Using a rapid biodegradation
rate in the STP fugacity model results in 97 percent predicted total removal from wastewater
treatment plants.

      Health  Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-105

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                       Toluene
                                           Toluene
                                  Chemical Properties and Information
  Toluene [Methylbenzene, Phenylmethane, Toluol]
  CAS# 108-88-3
  Molecular weight: 92.14
  Melting Point: -95.0 to-93°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 0.5 g/L (M)
  Vapor Pressure: 55 mm Hg (M) (25°C)
  Log Kow= 2.73 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 6.64 x 10"3 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C7H8
Structure:
  ChU
Boiling Point: 110.6°C(M)
Density:  0.8660420 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    4°C(M)
Koc: 38-300 (M)
Physical  State:  Clear, colorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Chemical derivatives of toluene are formed by substitution of the hydrogen atoms of the
methyl group, by substitution of the hydrogen atoms of the ring, and by addition to the double
bonds of the ring.  Toluene can also undergo  a disproportionation reaction in which two
molecules react to yeld one molecule of benzene and one of xylene.  Toluene has a TLV of 375.
It is highly flammable, and reacts violently with oxidants. It is stable under normal laboratory
storage conditions.  Toluene  is miscible in ethanol, chloroform,  diethyl ether, acetone, and
acetic acid.

      Toluene is generally produced along with benzene, xylenes and C9 aromatics by the
catalytic reforming of straight-run naphthas.  The resulting crude reformate is extracted, most
frequently with sulfolane, to yield a mixture of benzene, toluene, xylenes and C9 aromatics,
which are then separated by  fractionation. The catalyst may be  Pt-Al2O3-based, or bimetallic,
containing both platinum and rhenium. Toluene was formerly produced from coke ovens and
coal-tar products.
Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production was 6 billion gallons.  In  1991, imports were 520.8 million
gallons and exports were 438.8 million gallons.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in
screen reclamation was estimated to be 2.67 million gallons.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary
DRAFT—September 1994
                                         11-106

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                       Toluene
Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If toluene is released to soil, it will be lost by evaporation from near-surface soil and is
expected to be very mobile. Biodegradation occurs at a moderate to rapid rate in soil and may
occur in acclimated groundwater, but at high concentrations, toluene may be toxic to
microorganisms.  The presence of acclimated microbial populations may allow rapid
biodegradation  in aerobic soil and water. It will not hydrolyze in soil or water under normal
environmental conditions. If toluene is released into water, its concentration will decrease due
to evaporation and biodegradation. This removal can be rapid or take several weeks,
depending on temperature, mixing conditions, and acclimation of microorganisms.  It may
adsorb to sediment, but should not bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms. If toluene is released
to the atmosphere, it will degrade by reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals
(half-life 3 hr to slightly over 1 day) or be washed out in rain.  It will not be subject to direct
photolysis. Using a fast biodegradation rate for toluene in the STP fugacity  model results in 98
percent predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants; a moderate biodegradation
rate corresponds to 92 percent predicted total removal.

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
                                      Basic Chemical Properties
  1,1,1-Trichloroethane [methyl chloroform; solvent 111; TCA;
  chlorothene]
  CAS# 71-55-6
  Molecular weight: 133.42
  Melting Point: -30.4°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 4.4g/L(M)
  Vapor Pressure: 127 mm Hg (M) (25°C)
  Log Kow= 2.49 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant: 1.72 x 10"2 atm-m3/mole (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C2H3CI3
Structure: CCI3CH3
Boiling Point: 74.2°C(M)
Density:  1.33g/ml(M)
Flashpoint: Not applicable
Koc: 107(M)
Physical State:  Liquid with sweetish, chloroform-like odor
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT—September 1994
                                         11-107

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	1,1,1-Trichloroethane

      Releases of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in water and soil volatilize or leach out.  Releases to air
can travel long distances.  Common routes of exposure are air and drinking water. Soluble in
acetone, benzene, methanol and carbon tetrachloride.

      1,1,1-Trichloroethane is prepared by action of chlorine on 1,1-dichloroethane, or by
catalytic addition of hydrogen chloride to 1,1-dichloroethylene.  It can  be produced by
chlorination of vinyl chloride derived from  1,2-dichloroethane; hydrochlorination of vinylidene
chloride derived from 1,2-dichloroethane; or thermal chlorination of ethane.
Market Profile

      In 1990, total U.S. production was 500 million gallons. In 1991, imports were 2.41
million gallons and exports were 101.8 million gallons.  Total U.S. production quantity for use
in screen reclamation is unknown.

Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary


Hazard Summary

      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental Fate

      If released to soil, 1,1,1-trichloroethane is expected to rapidly volatilize from both moist
and dry soil to the atmosphere. Biodegradation may occur slowly in both aerobic and
anaerobic soils.  It has a high potential to leach into soil. If released to water, volatilization to
the atmosphere is expected to be the dominant fate process. Neither bioconcentration in fish
and aquatic organisms nor adsorption to sediment and  suspended organic matter are expected
to be significant.  The biodegradation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in water has been well studied
and removal under aerobic conditions has not occurred to any significant extent.  Experimental
half-lives for the anaerobic degradation of 1,1,1 -trichloroethane in water or water/sediment
systems range from 1 day to 16 weeks; high concentrations ( greater than 1 mg/L) were found to
be toxic to microorganisms. 1,1-Dichloroethane has been identified as the primary anaerobic
degradation product of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. If released to the atmosphere, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane is expected to persist for long periods of time.  Half-lives for the gas-phase
reaction of 1,1,1 -trichloroethane with hydroxyl radicals  ranging from 2 to 6 years have been
reported.  Direct photolytic degradation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the troposphere does not
occur to any significant extent. It may undergo atmospheric removal by wet deposition
processes, although any 1,1,1-trichloroethane removed by this processes is expected to rapidly
re-volatilize to the atmosphere. In experimental studies using a model wastewater treatment
system, 1,1,1-trichloroethane underwent 99 percent removal due entirely to volatilization and
not biodegradation.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-108

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	1,1,1-Trichloroethane

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                1,2,4-Trimethyl Benzene
Chemical Properties and Information
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene [pseudocumene, trimethyl benzene,
asymmetrical trimethyl benzene]
CAS# 95-63-6
Molecular weight: 120.19
Melting Point: -43.78 °C(M)
Water Solubility: 0.02 g/l (E)
Vapor Pressure: 10.34 torr (at 54.4°C) (M)
Log Kow: 3.78 (M)
Henry's Law Constant: 6.16X10'3 atm-m3/mole (M)
Chemistry of Use: Solvent
C9H12
Structure:
0CH,
o

~..6 CH3
Boiling Point: 169-171°C(M)
Density: 0.876 g/cm3 (M)
FlashPoint: 54.4°C(M)
Koc: 440-2,700 (E)
                           Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

     This chemical occurs naturally in coal tar and in many petroleums. It is soluble in
alcohols, benzene, and ether.

      1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene is synthesized by extraction from C9 hydrocarbon reformate by
superfractionation.
Market Profile

     In 1992, total U.S. production of alkylbenzenes was 1.2 billion pounds. Information
specific to 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene was not available. Imports and exports of this chemical are
unknown. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation is unknown.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary.


Hazard Summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-109

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                           1,2,4-Trimethyl Benzene
      Aquatic Toxicity

      See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

      See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

      Environmental  Fate

      In the atmosphere, gas-phase 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene will degrade by reaction with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (estimated half-life of 7 hours).  Removal from air
via wet deposition may also occur.  If released to soil, 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene would have a
high adsorption potential and exhibit slight to medium soil mobility. Biodegradation should be
important in soil and  water; however, this removal process may be hindered by high
adsorption. On terrestrial surfaces, volatilization will be an important removal process.  In
surface waters, volatilization is expected to be the primary transport process with estimated
half-lives of 1.2 and 105 hours from a model river (1 meter deep)  and a model lake,
respectively. Adsorption to sediment will also be important.  Hydrolysis and photolysis are not
expected to be important fate processes for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene in water.  Bioconcentration
in fish may be important. Assuming a fast biodegradation rate for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene in
the STP fugacity model results in greater than99 percent predicted total removal from
wastewater treatment plants; a moderate rate corresponds to 97 percent removal.


      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                            Tripropylene Glycol Methyl Ether
                                 Chemical Properties and Information
  Tripropylene glycol methyl ether [propanol, [2-(2-methoxy-
  methylethoxy) methylethoxy]-, 2, 2, 2, Methoxypropoxy
  propoxy propanol]
  CAS# 25498-49-1
  Molecular weight: 206.3
  Melting Point: Not available
  Water Solubility: Completely miscible in water (E)
  Vapor Pressure:      0.022 torr (at75°C) (E)
                   0.002torr(at20°C)(E)

  Log Kow: 0.56 (E)
  Henry's Law Constant: 2.02x10'9atm-m3/mole (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent	
C10H2204
Structure:
  HOCH2CHOCH2CHOCH2CHOCH3
         CH-
CH-
CH-
           '3        3       3
Boiling Point: 242.4°C (at 1 atm) (E)
Density:  0.96g/cm3(E)
Flash Point:    260°C (open cup) (E)
Koc:  48 (E
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)
DRAFT—September 1994
                                         11-110

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Tripropylene Glycol Methyl Ether

      The chemical properties were estimated by comparing this chemical to tripropylene glycol
monoethyl ether (2-Propanol, 1-[2-(2-methoxy-l-methyl ethoxy)-!-methyl ethoxy]-), which has
CAS number 20324-33-8. It is miscible with organics.

      This chemical is synthesized by the addition of three moles of propylene oxide to
methanol.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was about 4.3 million gallons.  Of this quantity,  1.6 million
gallons were exported. Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen reclamation was
estimated to be 623,000 gallons.


Regulatory Status

      Tripropylene glycol methyl ether does not trigger any federal environmental regulations.
However, the generic category of glycol ethers is listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants in the Clean
Air Act.
Hazard Summary

     Aquatic Toxicity

     See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

     See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

     Environmental  Fate

     Dipropylene glycol isopropyl ether is not expected to undergo hydrolysis or direct
photolysis in the environment.  In water, volatilization, adsorption to sediments and suspended
solids, and bioconcentration in aquatic organisms are not expected to be important transport
processes for dipropylene glycol isopropyl ether. Biodegradation is likely to be the most
important removal mechanism of dipropylene glycol isopropyl ether from aerobic soil and water
based on screening studies of other glycol ether compounds.  If released to soil, dipropylene
glycol isopropyl ether is expected to display very high mobility.  Volatilization from dry soil
surfaces will be important. In the atmosphere, dipropylene glycol isopropyl ether is expected to
exist almost entirely in the gas-phase and reactions  with photochemically produced hydroxyl
radicals should be fast (estimated half-life of 2.5 hrs).  Using a rapid biodegradation rate for
dipropylene glycol isopropyl ether in the STP fugacity model results in 97% predicted removal
from wastewater treatment plants; a moderate rate corresponds to 83% predicted removal.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-111

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Tripropylene Glycol Methyl Ether

      Health Hazard

      See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
                                   Trisodium Phosphate
                                      Basic Chemical Properties
  Trisodium phosphate [phosphoric acid, trisodium salt; sodium
  phosphate; tribasic sodium phosphate; trisodium
  orthophosphate; TSP; Oakite]
  CAS# 7601-54-9
  Molecular weight: 163.9
  Melting Point: 75°C(M)
  Water Solubility: 145g/L(M)
  Vapor Pressure: Negligible (E)
  Chemistry of Use: Caustic	
Na3(P04)
Structure: Na3(PO,
Boiling Point: 1583°C(M)
Density:  2.5 g/ml (M)
Flashpoint: Not applicable
Physical  State:  Colorless crystals
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      Trisodium phosphate behaves as a moderately strong alkali;  many of its applications are
based on this property.  Trisodium phosphate commercially contains excess sodium hydroxide.
It readily forms a variety of double salts with other sodium compounds. Trisodium phosphate
is insoluble in alcohol and carbon disulfide.

      Trisodium phosphate is synthesized from solid state reactions such as Na4P2O7 + Na2CO3
at 800° or Na2HPO4 + Na2CO3 at 600°, which provide the high-temperature form initially. It is
also manufactured by mixing soda ash and phosphoric acid in proper proportions to form
disodium phosphate and then adding caustic soda.
Market Profile

      In 1991, total U.S. production was 46 million pounds.  In 1989, imports were 2.8 million
pounds and in 1991, exports were 3.6 million pounds.  Total U.S. production quantity for use
in screen reclamation was unknown.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   11-112

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Trisodium Phosphate


Hazard Summary

     Aquatic Toxicity

     See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

     See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

     Environmental Fate

     Phosphorous is an essential nutrient for all organisms and trisodium phosphate is
expected to participate in the biological assimilation and mobilization inherent in the natural
phosphorous cycle. If released to soil, trisodium phosphate is expected to be quickly sorbed
and converted to less soluble metal salts which will become  essentially immobile. The use of
phosphate  as a soil fertilizer has shown that this fixation processes is appreciable in all but
very coarse-textured soils and that only one fourth of the applied phosphate is usable by plants
with the rest being lost to the occluded soil fraction. Trisodium phosphate may also be
removed from soil during its assimilation as a nutrient in the metabolism of other organic
compounds.  Trisodium phosphate loss by volatilization to the atmosphere is expected to be
negligible.  If released to water, trisodium phosphate will dissociate into H2PO4, HPO42, and
PO4 3 ions depending on the pH of the receiving medium.  In seawater (pH =  8), 87 percent of
inorganic phosphate exists as HPO42, 12 percent as PO43, and 1 percent as H2PO4 and these
species can complex with metals other than sodium. There are significant bodies of data
indicating that inorganic phosphates are responsible for algal  blooms; however, uptake by
aquatic plants may not remove phosphate from the aquatic system as it is available  to
microorganisms in decaying alga. Dependent on the medium, insoluble salts of iron, calcium,
and aluminum may form resulting in the phosphate being deposited on sediment.  If released to
the atmosphere, particulate trisodium phosphate is likely to undergo removal by both wet and
dry deposition processes. If released to a wastewater treatment plants, essentially complete
removal of  trisodium phosphate  by precipitation is expected when aluminum and iron salts are
added.

     Health Hazard

     See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-113

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals
                                         Xylene
                                            Xylene
                                       Basic Chemical Properties
  Xylene [Dimethylbenzene; methyltoluene; xylol]
  CAS# 1330-20-7
  Molecular weight:  106.2
  Vapor Pressure: 10 mm Hg (E) (25°C)
  Water Solubility: 0.1g/L(E)
  Melting Point:  o: -25°C(M)
              m: -48°C(M)
              p: 13°C(M)
  LogKow= 3.12-3.20 (M)
  Henry's Law Constant:  5.18 x 10'3- 7.53 x 10'3 atm-m3/mole
  (M)
  Chemistry of Use: Solvent
Structure: o-xylene
     CH
        o
           .CH
m-xylene
   CH3
                            p-xylene
               3
   o-xylene
                  m —xylene
                p —xylene
Boiling Point:  137-140°C(M)
Density:  0.864 g/ml (M)
FlashPoint:    o: 17°C(M)
            m: 29°C(M)
            p: 27°C(M)
Koc: 25-166(M)
Physical State: Colorless liquid
                            Above data are either measured (M) or estimated (E)

      The commercial product "mixed xylenes" is a technical product generally containing
approximately 40 percent m-xylene and 20 percent each  of o-xylene,  p-xylene, and ethylbenzene,
as well as small quantities of toluene. Xylene is produced in large quantities and is an agent of
major chemical and occupational significance. Xylene is miscible with absolute alcohol, ether,
and many other organic liquids.

      Xylene is recovered from petroleum-derived catalytic reformate or pyrrolyis of gasoline. It
is recovered from crude light oil, a by product of coke manufacture.  It is also synthesized by
the disproportionation of toluene.
Market Profile

      In 1992, total U.S. production was 5.5 billion gallons.  Imports were 305 million gallons
and exports were 318.8 million gallons.  Total U.S. production quantity for use in screen
reclamation was estimated to be 6.88 million gallons.
Regulatory Status

      See Table II-3 and accompanying summary
DRAFT—September 1994
                                          11-114

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Information on Individual Printing Chemicals	Xylene


Hazard Summary

     Aquatic Toxicity

     See Table II-4, Table II-5 and accompanying summary

     See Appendix M for the comprehensive methodology for this assessment

     Environmental Fate

     In the atmosphere, xylenes will degrade by reaction with photochemically produced
hydroxyl radicals.  Half-lives for this reaction in air are typically 1-16 hours. Photolysis and
reaction with ozone will not be important. If released to water or soil surfaces, volatilization to
the ambient atmosphere will be the dominant removal process.  Hydrolysis and
bioconcentration in aquatic organisms will not be important fate processes for xylenes in water.
Xylenes may partition from the water column to sediment.  In soil, xylenes exhibit moderate
adsorption potential. Biodegradation will be important in soil and water where volatilization
does not occur.  Xylenes are readily degradable in standard aerobic biodegradability tests using
a variety of inocula including sewage, activated sludge, and  seawater.  Under anaerobic
conditions, an acclimation period may be required for significant biodegradation.  Using a
moderate biodegradation rate for xylenes in  the STP fugacity model results in 94 percent
predicted total removal from wastewater treatment plants.

     Health Hazard

     See Table II-6 and accompanying summary
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-115

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Federal Environmental Regulations that Affect Screen Reclamation Chemicals
 CWA
  Federal Environmental Regulations that Affect Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      This section describes the federal environmental regulations that affect the use of screen
reclamation chemicals.  Discharges of screen reclamation chemicals may be restricted by air,
water and solid waste regulations; in addition, facilities may be required to report releases of
some reclamation products subject to the federal toxic release inventory program.  Table II-3
identifies federal regulations that govern releases of specific screen reclamation chemicals; in
addition, emissions or disposal of some chemicals may be regulated under general provisions.

                                           Table 11-3
                         Screen Reclamation Use Cluster Chemicals
                     Which Trigger Federal Environmental Regulations^,
Chemical
Acetone
Butylacetate
Cyclohexanone
Dichloromethane
Ethyl acetate
Isopropanol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene
sulfonic acid
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Triethanol amine salt, dodecyl
benzene sulfonic acid
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Trisodium phosphate
Toluene
Xylene
CAS#
67-64-1
123-86-4
108-94-1
75-09-2
141-78-6
67-63-0
67-56-1
78-93-3
1310-58-3
10124-56-8
1310-73-2
7681-52-9
25155-30-0
71-55-6
27323-41-7
95-63-6
7601-54-9
108-88-3
1330-20-7
CWA
Report able
Quantity (Ibs)

5,000






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

1,000

5,000
1,000
1,000
CWA
Priority
Pollutant



X









X



X

CAA
Hazardous Air
Pollutantb



X


X
X





X



X
X
CERCLA
Report able
Quantity (Ibs)
5,000
5,000
5,000
1,000
5,000

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

5,000
1,000
1,000
SARA 31 3
(TRI)
X


X

X
X
X





X

X

X
X
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste Code
U002

U057
U080
U112

U154
U159
0035°





U208



U220
U239
 ° See following pages for a description of each acronym and regulation.
 b The generic category of glycol ethers are also listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants in the Clean Air Act Amendments.
 0 In addition to being listed as a U waste, methyl ethyl ketone also exhibits a characteristic of toxicity which causes it to be considered hazardous waste.
DRAFT—September 1994
11-116

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Federal Environmental Regulations that Affect Screen Reclamation Chemicals	CWA

CWA

     The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the basic Federal law governing water pollution control in
the United States today.

     Part 116 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) designates hazardous
substances under Section 311 (b) (2) (a) of the Clean Water Act, and Part 117 of the FWPCA
establishes the Reportable  Quantity (RQ) for each substance listed in Part 116. When an
amount equal to or in excess of the RQ is discharged, the facility must provide notice to the
Federal government of the discharge, following Department of Transportation requirements set
forth in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 153.203. This requirement does not apply to
facilities that discharge the  substance under an National Permit Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit or a Part 404 Wetlands (dredge and fill) Permit, or to a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW), as long as any applicable effluent limitations or pretreatment
standards have been met.

     The National Permit Discharge Elimination System permit program contains regulations
governing the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. The NPDES program
requires permits for the discharge of "pollutants" from any "point source" into "navigable
waters". The Clean Water Act defines all of these terms broadly, and a source will be required to
obtain an NPDES permit if  it discharges almost anything directly to surface waters. A source
that sends its wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) will not be required to
obtain an NPDES permit, but may be required to obtain an industrial user permit from the
POTW to cover its discharge.

     In addition to other permit application requirements, facilities in the industrial category
of Printing and Publishing,  and/or in Photographic Equipment and Supplies, will need to test
for all  126 priority pollutants listed in 40 CFR 122 Appendix D. Each applicant also must
indicate whether it knows or has reason to believe it discharges any of the other hazardous
substances, or non-conventional pollutants located at 40 CFR 122 Appendix D.  Quantitative
testing is not required for the other hazardous pollutants; however, the applicant must describe
why it expects the pollutant to be discharged and provide the results of any quantitative data
about its discharge for that pollutant. Quantitative testing is required for  the non-conventional
pollutants if the applicant expects them to  be present in its discharge.

     For the purpose of reporting on effluent characteristics in permit applications,  there
exists a small business exemption (40 CFR 122.21 (g)(8)) for all applicants for NPDES permits
with gross total annual sales averaging less than $100,000 per year (in second quarter 1980
dollars). This exempts the small business from submitting quantitative data on  certain organic
toxic pollutants (see 40 CFR 122.21 Table  II, Appendix D). However, the small business must
still provide quantitative data for other toxic pollutants (metals and cyanides) and total phenols,
as listed in 40 CFR 122.21 Table III, Appendix D. The same regulations apply to the small
business concerning the other hazardous pollutants and non-conventional pollutants as for the
larger facilities (see previous paragraph).
CAA

     The Clean Air Act (CAA), with its 1990 amendments, sets the framework for air pollution
control. Part 112 of the Clean Air Act establishes requirements that directly restrict the
emission of 189 hazardous air pollutants. The EPA is authorized to establish Maximum
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-117

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Federal Environmental Regulations that Affect Screen Reclamation Chemicals	CAA

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for source categories that emit at least one of
the pollutants on the list. Currently, there is no MACT standard scheduled for proposal in the
commercial screen printing industry.
CERCLA

     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (also known as
CERCLA, or more commonly as Superfund). CERCLA is the Act that created the Superfund and
set up a variety of mechanisms to address risks to public health, welfare, and the environment
caused by hazardous substance releases.

     Substances deemed hazardous by CERCLA are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 302.4. Based on criteria that relate to the possibility of harm associated with the release
of each substance, CERCLA assigns a substance-specific reportable quantity (RQ); RQs are
either 1, 10, 100, 1000, or 5000 pounds (except for radionuclides). Any person in charge of a
facility (or a vessel) must immediately notify the National Response Center as soon as a person
has knowledge of a release (within a 24-hour period) of an amount of a hazardous substance
that is equal to or greater than its RQ.1 There are some exceptions to this requirement,
including exceptions for certain continuous releases and for Federally permitted releases.
SARA 313

      CERCLA was enacted in 1980 and, among other amendments, was amended in 1986 by
Title I of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Under SARA 313, a
facility that has more than 10 employees and that manufactures, processes or otherwise uses
more than 10,000 or 25,000 pounds per year of any toxic chemical listed in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations  (CFR) 372.65 must file a toxic chemical release inventory (TRI) reporting form
(EPA Form R) covering releases of these toxic chemicals (including those releases specifically
allowed by EPA or State permits) with the EPA and a State agency. The threshold for reporting
releases is 10,000 or 25,000 pounds, depending on how the chemical is used (40 CFR 372.25).
Form R is filed annually, covers all toxic releases for the calendar year, and must be filed on or
before the first of July of the following year. Table II-3 lists chemicals used by facilities in
screen reclamation that are listed in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Individual facilities may
use other chemicals which are listed in the TRI, but are not in Table II-3.
RCRA

      One purpose of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (as
amended in 1984) is to set up a cradle-to-grave system for tracking and regulating hazardous
waste. The EPA has issued regulations, found in 40 CFR Parts 260-299, which implement the
Federal statute. These regulations are Federal requirements. As of March  1994, 46 States have
been authorized to implement the RCRA program and may include more stringent
requirements in their authorized RCRA programs. In addition, non-RCRA-authorized States
(Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa and Wyoming) may have State laws that set out hazardous waste
  1 The national toll-free number for the National Response Center is (800)-424-8802; in Washington, D.C., call (202)-426-
2675.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-118

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Federal Environmental Regulations that Affect Screen Reclamation Chemicals	RCRA

management requirements. A facility should always check with the State when analyzing which
requirements apply to their activities.

     Assuming the material is a solid waste, the first evaluation to be made is whether it is
also considered a hazardous waste. Part 261 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
addresses the identification and listing of hazardous waste. The waste generator has the
responsibility for determining whether a waste is hazardous, and what classification, if any,
may apply to the waste. The generator must examine the regulations and undertake any tests
necessary to determine if the wastes generated are hazardous. Waste generators may also use
their own knowledge and familiarity with the waste to determine whether it is hazardous.
Generators may be subject to enforcement penalties for improperly determining that a waste is
not hazardous.

     Wastes can be classified as hazardous either because they are listed by EPA through
regulation and appear in the 40 CFR Part 261 or because they exhibit certain characteristics.
Listed wastes are specifically named, e.g., discarded commercial toluene, spent non-
halogenated solvents. Characteristic wastes are defined as hazardous if they "fail" a
characteristic test, such as the RCRA test for ignitability.

     There are four separate lists of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261. If any of the wastes
from a printing facility is on any of these lists, the facility is subject to regulation under RCRA.
The listing is often defined by industrial processes, but all wastes are listed because  they
contain particular chemical constituents (these constituents are listed in Appendix VII  to Part
261). Section 261.31  lists wastes from non-specific sources and includes wastes generated by
industrial processes that may occur in several different industries; the codes for such wastes
always begin with the letter "F." The second category of listed wastes (40 CFR 261.32) includes
hazardous wastes from specific sources; these wastes have codes that begin with the letter "K."
The remaining lists (40 CFR 261.33) cover commercial chemical products that have been or are
intended to be discarded; these have two letter designations, "P" and "U." Waste codes beginning
with "P" are  considered acutely hazardous, while those  beginning with "U" are simply considered
hazardous. Listed wastes from chemicals that are commonly used in the screen reclamation are
shown in Table II-3. While these exhibits are intended to be as comprehensive as possible,
individual facilities may use other chemicals and generate other listed hazardous wastes that
are not included in Table II-3. Facilities may wish to consult the lists at 40 CFR 261.31-261.33.2

     Generator status defines how to  dispose of a listed or characteristic waste. The
hazardous waste generator is defined as any person, by site, who creates a hazardous waste or
makes a waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C. Generators  are divided into three categories:

     o    Large Quantity Generators -These facilities  generate at least 1000 kg (approximately
           2200 Ibs.) of hazardous waste per month, or greater than 1 kg (2.2  Ibs) of acutely
           hazardous waste3 per month.
  2 Lists of the "F, P, K and U" hazardous wastes can also be obtained by calling the EPA RCRA/Superfund/EPCRA Hotline at
(800) 424-9346.

  3 The provisions regarding acutely hazardous waste are not likely to affect printers. Acutely hazardous waste includes
certain "F" listed wastes that do not apply to printers, and "P" listed wastes, none of which were identified as in use in the
commercial screen printing industry. (See 40 CFR 261.31-33 for more information).


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  11-119

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Federal Environmental Regulations that Affect Screen Reclamation Chemicals	RCRA

     o     Small Quantity Generators (SQG) — These facilities generate greater than 100 kg
           (approx. 220 Ibs.) but less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste per month, and up to
           1 kg (2.2 Ibs) per month of acutely hazardous waste.

     o     Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) — These facilities
           generate no more than 100 kg (approx. 220 Ibs) per month of hazardous waste and
           up to 1 kg (2.2 Ibs) per month of acutely hazardous waste.

     Large and small quantity generators must meet many similar requirements. 40 CFR 262
provides that SQGs may accumulate up to 6000 kg of hazardous waste on-site at any one time
for up to 180 days without being regulated as a treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facility
and thereby having to apply for a TSD permit. The provisions of 40 CFR 262.34 (f) allow SQGs
to store waste on-site for 270 days without having to apply for TSD status provided the waste
must be transported over 200 miles. Large quantity generators  have only a 90-day window to
ship wastes off-site without needing a RCRA TSD permit. Keep  in mind that most provisions of
40 CFR 264 and 265 (for hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities) do not
apply to generators who send their wastes off-site within the 90- or 180-day window, whichever
is applicable.

     Hazardous waste generators that do not meet the conditions for conditionally exempt
small quantity generators must (among other requirements such as record  keeping and
reporting):

     o     Obtain a generator identification number;

     o     Store and ship hazardous waste in suitable containers or tanks (for storage only);

     o     Manifest the waste properly;

     o     Maintain copies of the manifest, a shipment log covering all hazardous waste
           shipments, and test records;

     o     Comply with applicable land disposal restriction requirements; and

     o     Report releases or threats of releases of hazardous  waste.
 Summary of the Environmental Hazard Assessment for the Screen Reclamation
                                      Chemicals
     The chemicals in screen reclamation are divided into three groups: (1) discrete organic
chemicals, (2) petroleum products, and (3) inorganic chemicals. While the assessment process
is the same for all three groups, the methodology used to provide estimates of the aquatic
toxicity of the chemicals varies.
Methodology

     The Environmental Effects Branch uses a standard assessment process (see Appendix M)
for assessing the hazards of chemicals to the aquatic environment. The process has been

DRAFT-September 1994                                                               11-120

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Summary of the Environmental Hazard Assessment
for the Screen Reclamation Chemicals	Methodology

described and published in several publications, both inside and outside the Agency. A
summary of the hazard assessment process and references are in Appendix M. The
methodology involves the development of a standard hazard profile for each chemical consisting
of three acute toxicity values and three chronic values for aquatic species. The standard hazard
profile consists of the following toxicity values:

     o    Fish acute value (Usually a Fish 96-hour LC50 value)

     o    Aquatic invertebrate acute value (Usually  a Daphnid 48-hour LC50 value)

     o    Green Algal Toxicity value (Usually an Algal 96-hour EC50 value)

     o    Fish Chronic value (Usually a Fish 28-day early life stage no effect concentration
           (NEC).

     o    Aquatic Invertebrate Chronic value (Usually a Daphnid 21-day NEC.

     o    Algal Chronic value (Usually a Algal 96 hour NEC value for biomass)

     The toxicity values may be obtained from the results of standard toxicity tests reported to
the Agency, published in the literature, or estimated using  predictive techniques.  For this
study,  discrete organic chemicals were assessed using predictive equations called Structure
Activity Relationships (SARs) to estimate the inherent toxicity of these chemicals to aquatic
organisms.

     The petroleum products such as mineral spirits and solvent naphtha are mixtures and do
not lend themselves readily to the standard hazard assessment process using SARs. The
chemical constituents and the percentage of each in the mixture varies. The constituents in
these products include linear and branched paraffins, cyclic paraffins with the total number of
carbons varying between 5 and 16. The toxicity of the petroleum products were determined by
estimating the toxicity of each individual constituent and then evaluating the potential hazard of
the product.

     The estimates of toxicity for the inorganic chemicals was either based on information
extracted from a report by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1973) or assessed using actual
data and nearest analog information taken from open literature.
Environmental Hazard Ranking

     For the purpose of an overall assessment, the listed chemicals can be ranked according to
the estimated chronic value. This ranking is based on scoring the chemicals as High, Moderate
or Low concern for chronic effects according to the following criteria:

                      < 0.1 mg/L  	High
                      > 0.1 to < 10 mg/L  	Moderate
                      > 10 mg/L  	Low

See Appendix M for the basis and citations supporting these criteria.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-121

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Summary of the Environmental Hazard Assessment
for the Screen Reclamation Chemicals	Results

     The results of this ranking are summarized in Table II-5. The chemicals are ranked from
the highest hazard potential to the lowest based on lowest of the three estimated chronic values
for each chemical. The petroleum products are rated as high hazard to aquatic organisms and
the concern is for chronic effects. Also included in the high hazard category are periodic acid
and sodium periodate, both which are strong oxiding agents and highly reactive. The concern
for trisodium phosphate is for phosphorus enrichment of receiving waters leading to algal
blooms.

     This relative ranking of toxicity, provides guidance to the selection  and use of chemicals
that are less hazardous to aquatic organisms.

     A search for toxicity data in the AQUIRE database (AQUatic toxicity Information REtrieval
database) has been completed. The search indicates that some data were available for 22 of the
chemicals being assessed in the data set. These data were evaluated and  the measured toxicity
values  compared favorably with the  predicted values.
Results

      The toxicity values for acute and chronic effects to aquatic organisms were estimated
using predictive equations based on SARs, except for the inorganic chemicals. The values for
inorganic chemicals were obtained from published reports. The results are summarized in
Table II-4.  The chemicals are listed alphabetically. For each chemical, the estimated toxicity
values in mg/L (ppm) for acute and chronic effects offish, daphnid and algae are given. The last
column shows the concern  concentration set for the chemical in the water. This value is derived
by dividing the lowest of the three chronic values by a factor of 10. If the discharge of a chemical
to the aquatic environment results in a concentration equal to or greater than the concern
concentration set, then the  chemical would be hazardous to aquatic organisms.

      To assess the potential hazard of the petroleum products, toxicity values were estimated
for the individual components, i.e., C5 to C16 linear and branched paraffins and cyclic paraffins.
To estimate the toxicity of a product, the assumption is made that each component is present
as an equal percentage in the product and the geometric mean of the range of estimates
provides the best estimate of the toxicity. For example, for a C9 to C12 linear paraffin, the
estimated chronic values for the Daphnid Chronic are 0.019, 0.008, 0.004 and 0.002 mg/L and
the geometric mean is 0.006 mg/L. Based on these procedures the hazard potential of the
various products are discussed in  the following paragraphs.

      Mineral Spirits

      Mineral spirits consist of linear and branched paraffins and cyclo paraffins. Based on the
information provided, the assessment was based on the estimated toxicity for n-hexane and
ethylcyclohexane. The linear form of n-hexane is approximately two times more toxic than cyclic
hexane. The lowest chronic value for n-hexane is 0.004 mg/L for fish and the lowest chronic
value for ethylcylohexane is 0.09 mg/L for fish.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-122

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Summary of the Environmental Hazard Assessment for the Screen Reclamation Chemicals	Hazard Ranking

      Naphtha Solvents

      The monomers associated with the various naphtha mixtures include linear and
branched paraffins, cyclic paraffins and aromatics such as naphthalene. The carbon chain
lengths vary from product to product and spans range from 5 to 16.

      Inorganics

      The toxicity values for the hydroxides of sodium and potassium are based on the inherent
toxicity of the compounds at pH  7.0. Sodium hypochlorite is a bleaching agent and the best
estimate  of toxicity indicates acute toxicity values to fish and daphnids at or below 2 mg/L.
Periodic  acid and sodium periodate are highly reactive and strong oxidizing agents and as such
are expected to be highly toxic at 1 mg/L or less. All estimates on the remaining inorganic
chemicals (sodium bisulfate, sodium hexametaphosphate, silica, silica (fumed), and trisodium
phosphate) were based on pH 7.0 test conditions. Fumed silica  and silica were considered the
same and showed no effects at their aqueous water solubility limits.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11-123

-------
                                                Table 11-4

                                  Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values

                                            (Values in mg/L)
                                                                                                                                   CO

                                                                                                                                   i
                                                                                                                                   3

                                                                                                                                   Si
Chemical
Acetone
Alcohols, C8-C10, Ethoxylated
Alcohols, C12-C14, Ethoxylated
Benzyl alcohol
2-Butoxyethanol
Butyl Acetate
Butyrolactone
Cyclohexanolt
Cyclohexanone
d-Limonene
Diacetone alcohol
Dichloromethane
Diethyl adipate
Diethyl glutarate
Diethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Diethylene gylcol butyl ether acetate
Diisopropyl adipate
Dimethyl adipate
Fish
Acute
>1000
24
2.2
56.6
>1000
25
140

950
0.86
>1000
320
44
78
>1000
>1000
41
24
140
Daphnid
Acute
>1000
24
2.2
13.5
>1000
160
>1000

950
1.1
>1000
320
295
830
>1000
>1000
263
94
>1000
Algal
Acute
>1000
24
2.2
33.0
620
1.9
>1000

550
0.76
>1000
190
3.4
6.0
>1000
760
3.2
1.9
11
Fish
Chronic
490
2.4
0.22
8.2
120
2.5
14

100
0.16
745
36
4.4
7.8
>1000
140
4.1
2.4
14
Daphnid
Chronic
100
2.4
0.22
6.07
33
16
>100

29
0.14
154
12
29.5
83
>1000
41
26.3
9.4
>100
Algal
Chronic
76
2.4
0.22
2.0
32
1.4
7.5

28
0.27
124
13
2.6
4.6
656
40
3.1
1.5
8.4
Concern
Cone. a
7.6
0.24
0.020
0.20
0.32
0.14
0.75
1.4
2.8
0.014
12.4
1.2
0.26
0.46
70.0
4.0
0.31
0.15
0.84
                                                                                                                                   CD
                                                                                                                                   3


                                                                                                                                   ffl
                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                   w
                                                                                                                                   CD
                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                   CD

                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                   8.
                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                   9
                                                                                                                                   CD

                                                                                                                                   o'
s?
o
                                                                                                                                       O

                                                                                                                                       o
s Concern concentration is derived by dividing the lowest chronic value (in mg/L) by 10.

t Data will be inserted in the final version.
                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                   N
                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                   3D

                                                                                                                                   §

-------
                                              Table 11-4 (cont.)
                                   Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values
                                              (Values in mg/L)
Chemical
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl lactate
Ethyl oleate
Ethoxylated castor oil
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
(np 4-9.5)
Ethoxypropanol
Ethoxypropyl acetate
Furfuryl alcohol
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Isobutyl oleate
Fish
Acute
246
165
>1000
674
2.6
64
143
N.E.S.
0.07
2.0
>1000
80.0
>1000
12.7
N.E.S.
Daphnid
Acute
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
2.6
>1000
>1000
N.e.s.
0.10
2.0
>1000
>1000
>1000
45.6
N.E.S.b
Algal
Acute
18.3
12.4
>1000
49
0.5
4.8
11
N.E.S.
0.08
2.0
>1000
6.1
>100
1.03
N.E.S.
Fish
Chronic
25.0
17.0
184
67.4
0.4
6.4
14.3
N.E.S.
0.02
0.2
>1000
8.0
147
1.3
N.E.S.
Daphnid
Chronic
650
530
149
>100
0.4
>100
>100
N.E.S.
0.03
0.2
311
102
31.6
4.6
N.E.S.
Algal
Chronic
13.6
9.2
877
36
0.13
3.6
8
N.E.S.
0.07
0.5
227
4.5
25.9
0.8
N.E.S.
Concern
Cone. a
1.0
1.0
14.9
3.6
0.01
0.36
0.8
N.E.S.
0.002
0.02
20.0
0.5
3.0
0.08
N.E.S.
a Concern concentration is derived by dividing the lowest chronic value (in mg/L) by 10.
b N.E.S. - No Adverse Effects expected in a saturated solution during the specified exposure period.
c Estimated toxicity at pH 7.0.
d Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life. WASH-1249,  United States Atomic Energy Commission, June 1973.
(Environmental Effects Files)
t Data will be inserted in the final version.
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       i
                                                                                                                                       3
                                                                                                                                       Si
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       3

                                                                                                                                       ffl
                                                                                                                                       en
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       70
                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       m
                                                                                                                                       CD

                                                                                                                                       o'
                                                                                                                                       8L
                                                                                                                                       CO
     o
                                                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                                                            o
m
N
m
                                                                                                                                       §

-------
                                             Table 11-4 (cont.)
                                   Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values
                                             (Values in mg/L)
Chemical
Isopropanol
Methanol
Methoxypropanol acetate
1 -Methyl-4-(1 -methyl-ethenyl)
cyclohexane (limonene)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl lactate
Mineral spirits (straight run naptha) C10
Linear
Mineral spirits (light hydro-treated) C10
Linear
N-methylpyrrolidone
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl N-
oxidet
Periodic Acid
Phosphoric Acid, mixed ester, with
isopropanol and ethoxylated
tridecanolt
Potassium hydroxidec'd
Fish
Acute
>1000
>1000
305
0.86
>1000
243
N.E.S.
N.E.S.
>1000

<1

>1000
Daphnid
Acute
.1000
>1000
>1000
1.1
>1000
>1000
N.E.S.
N.E.S.
>1000

<1

>1000
Algal
Acute
>1000
>1000
22.4
0.76
>1000
18
0.02
0.02
>1000

<1

>1000
Fish
Chronic
285
111
30.5
0.16
224
24.3
0.004
0.004
>1000

<0.1

>100
Daphnid
Chronic
62
128
>1000
0.14
53
>100
0.008
0.008
373

<0.1

>100
Algal
Chronic
51
90.0
16.6
0.27
45
13
0.021
0.008
265

<0.1

>100
Concern
Cone. a
5.1
9.0
2.0
0.014
4.5
1.3
0.001
0.001
26.5
0.002
<0.01
0.018
>10
a Concern concentration is derived by dividing the lowest chronic value (in mg/L) by 10.
b Estimated toxicity at pH 7.0.
c Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life. WASH-1249, United States Atomic Energy Commission, June 1973.
(Environmental Effects Files)
t Data will be inserted in the final version.
CO
i
3
Si
                                                                                                                                     CD
                                                                                                                                     3

                                                                                                                                     ffl
                                                                                                                                     en
                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                                     CD
                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                                     CD
                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                                     70
                                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                                     m
                                                                                                                                     CD

                                                                                                                                     o'
                                                                                                                                     8L
                                                                                                                                     CO
     o
                                                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                                                          o
m
N
m
                                                                                                                                     §

-------
                                              Table 11-4 (cont.)
                                   Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values
                                              (Values in mg/L)
Chemical
Propylene carbonate
Propylene glycol
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Silica
Silica, fumed
Sodium bisulfate
Sodium hexameta-phosphate
Sodium hydroxideb'c
Sodium hypochloriteb'c
Sodium lauryl sulfate
Sodium metasilicatet
Sodium periodate
Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic
acid
Solvent Naphtha light aliphatic C5 - C10
Fish
Acute
177
>1000
>1000
304
NES
NES
>100
>100
>1000
<1.7
2.6

<1
2.6
0.64
Daphnid
Acute
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
NES
NES
>100
>100
>1000
<2.0
2.6

<1
2.6
0.86
Algal
Acute
13
>1000
>1000
22
NES
NES
>100
<1.0
>1000
<2.0
0.5

<1
0.5
0.23
Fish
Chronic
17.7
>1000
>1000
30.4
NES
NES
10.0
0.1
>100
<0.17
0.4

<0.1
0.4
0.05
Daphnid
Chronic
>100
495
210
>100
NES
NES
10.0
>10.0
>100
<0.2
0.4

<0.1
0.4
0.05
Algal
Chronic
10
329
158
17
NES
NES
10.0
0.06
>100
<0.2
0.13

<0.1
0.13
0.11
Concern
Cone. a
1.0
30.0
15.8
1.7
NES
NES
1.0
0.006
>10
<0.02
0.01
d
<0.01
0.01
0.005
a Concern concentration is derived by dividing the lowest chronic value (in mg/L) by 10.
b Estimated toxicity at pH 7.0.
c Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life. WASH-1249,  United States Atomic Energy Commission, June 1973.
(Environmental Effects Files)
d No adverse effects expected in a saturated solution during prescribed test duration.
t Data will be inserted in the final version.
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       i
                                                                                                                                       3
                                                                                                                                       Si
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       3

                                                                                                                                       ffl
                                                                                                                                       en
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       70
                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       m
                                                                                                                                       CD

                                                                                                                                       o'
                                                                                                                                       8L
                                                                                                                                       CO
     o
                                                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                                                            o
m
N
m
                                                                                                                                       §

-------
                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                 i
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                 Si
                                                                                                                                         s?
                                                                                                      o
           Table IW(cont.)
Estimated Aquatic Toxicity Values
           (Values in mg/L)
Chemical
Solvent Naphtha light aromatic C8 - C10
Solvent Naphtha heavy aromatic C8 -
C-16
Tall oil, special!
Terpineols (Mixed Isomers)
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzenet
Trisodium phosphateb
Xylenes, (mixed isomers)
Fish
Acute
5.6
5.6

28
>1000
14
34

>100
3.5
Daphnid
Acute
6.7
6.7

31
>1000
16
38

>100
4.1
Algal
Acute
4.5
4.5

20
>1000
10
24

<1
2.8
Fish
Chronic
0.9
0.9

4.0
268
2.0
4.8

.10
0.57
Daphnid
Chronic
0.6
0.6

2.1
64.6
1.1
2.4

>10
0.40
Algal
Chronic
1.0
1.0

3.0
56.7
1.6
3.2

0.06
0.64
Concern
Cone. a

0.06
d
0.21
6.0
0.11
0.24
0.015
0.006
0.04
a Concern concentration is derived by dividing the lowest chronic value (in mg/L) by 10.
b Estimated toxicity at pH 7.0.
c Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life. WASH-1249, United States Atomic Energy Commission, June 1973.
(Environmental Effects  Files)
t Data will be inserted in the final version.
                                                                                                                                    CD
                                                                                                                                    3

                                                                                                                                    ffl
                                                                                                 en
                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                 CD
                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                 CD
                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                 70
                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                 m
                                                                                                 CD

                                                                                                 o'
                                                                                                 8L
                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                 m
                                                                                                 N
                                                                                                 m
                                                                                                 §

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Summary of Aquatic Hazard Information for Screen Reclamation Chemicals
Table 11-5
                                        Table 11-5
   Ecological Hazard Ranking of Screen Reclamation Chemicals Based on the Estimated
                                     Chronic Values
Chemical
Solvent naphtha (light aliphatic)
Mineral spirits (light hydrotreated)
Mineral spirits (straight run)
Trisodium phosphate
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethly N-oxide
Alcohols, ethoxylated C12-C14
Periodic acid
Sodium periodate
Phosphoric Acid, mixed ester, with
isopropanol and ethoxylated tridecanol
1-methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)cyclohexane
(limonene)
1,2,4-trimethyl benzene
Sodium hypochlorite
Xylenes
Solvent naphtha (light aromatic)
Solvent naphtha (heavy aromatic)
Toluene
Butyl acetate
Diisopropyl adipate
Terpineols
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Alcohols, ethoxylated, C8-C10
Diethyl adipate
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Ethyl acetate
Diethyl glutarate
Butyrolactone
Ethyl lactate
Dimethyl adipate
Propylene carbonate
Dichloromethane
Lowest Value (mg/L)
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.06
0.02
0.1
0.10
0.10
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.40
0.60
0.60
1.1
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.6
4.6
7.5
8.0
8.4
10
12
Chronic Eco Hazard Rank
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
DRAFT—September 1994
  11-129

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Summary of Aquatic Hazard Information for Screen Reclamation Chemicals
Table 11-5
                                        Table 11-5
   Ecological Hazard Ranking of Screen Reclamation Chemicals Based on the Estimated
                                     Chronic Values
Chemical
Methyl lactate
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexanol
Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate
2-Butoxyethanol
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Methyl ethyl ketone
Isopropanol
Acetone
Sodium hydroxide
Potassium hydroxide
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Diacetone alcohol
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate
N-methylpyrrolidone
Isobutyl oleate
Ethyl oleate
Sodium metasilicate
Tall oil, special
Lowest Value (mg/L)
13
28
14
17
32
36
40
45
51
76
100
100
120
124
149
158
265
a
a
a
a
Chronic Eco Hazard Rank
L

L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
 ' No adverse effects expected in a saturated solution during prescribed test duration.
   Summary of Human Hazard Information for Screen Reclamation Chemicals

     Table II-6 summarizes toxicity information obtained, to date, on the chemicals used in
screen reclamation. Initial literature searches were limited to secondary sources such as EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System  (IRIS) and the National Library of Medicine's Hazardous
Substances Data Bank.
DRAFT—September 1994
  11-130

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Summary of Aquatic Hazard Information for Screen Reclamation Chemicals	Table 11-5

Explanation of Table 11-6

      The "TOX ENDPOINT" column lists adverse toxicological effects that have been reported
in the literature. This is simply a qualitative listing of reported effects and does not imply
anything about the severity of the effects nor the doses at which the effects occur. Furthermore,
an entry in this column does not necessarily imply that EPA has reviewed the reported studies
or that EPA concurs with the authors' conclusions. Toxicological effects are abbreviated as
follows:

      o     car = carcinogenicity

      o     dev = developmental toxicity, i.e. adverse effects on the developing embryo, fetus, or
           newborn

      o     repro = reproductive toxicity, i.e. adverse effects on the ability of either males  or
           females to reproduce

      o     gene = genetic toxicity, such as point mutations or chromosomal aberrations

      o     neur = adverse neurological effects;  includes a wide range of effects from serious
           neuropathology to transient CNS depression commonly seen with high exposures to
           solvents

      o     chron =  chronic effects not otherwise listed; commonly includes target organ
           toxicity such as liver and kidney effects.

      "RfD/RfC" is the EPA Reference Dose or Reference Concentration. The RfD is an estimate
of a daily exposure to the human population that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime. The RfD is usually expressed as an oral dose in
mg/kg/day. The RfC is an analogous value for continuous inhalation exposure, usually
expressed in mg/m3.

      "NOAEL/LOAEL" is the no-observed-adverse-effect level or the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect level, respectively. The NOAEL is an exposure level at which there are no statistically or
biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effects in the exposed
population. The LOAEL is the lowest exposure level at which adverse effects have been shown
to occur.

      "SLOPE/UNIT RISK" is a measure of cancer potency derived from the dose-response curve
from a carcinogenicity study (usually an animal study). The slope factor is expressed as risk
per mg/kg-daily dose. Unit risk is a similar measure for air or water exposure levels and is
expressed as risk per ug/m3 in air or as risk per ug/1 in water.

      "WOE" refers to the EPA weight-of-evidence classification for carcinogens. The WOE
categories are  as follows:

      o     Group A - human carcinogen

      o     Group B - probable human carcinogen. Bl indicates limited human evidence; B2
           indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans.

      o     Group C - possible human carcinogen


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 11-131

-------
II. SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS
Summary of Human Hazard Information
for Screen Reclamation Chemicals	Explanation of Table 11-6
      o     Group D -- not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity

      o     Group E -- evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    11-132

-------
         Table 11-6

Human Health Hazard Effects
Chemical Name
Acetone
Alcohols, ethoxylated C8-C10
Alcohols, ethoxylated
C12-C14
Benzyl alcohol
2-Butoxyethanol
Butyl acetate
Butyrolactone
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
Diacetone alcohol
Cas No.
67-64-1
71060-57-6
68439-50-9
100-51-6
111-76-2
123-86-4
96-48-0
108-93-0
108-94-1
123-42-2
Tox
Endpoint
neur, chron


dev, neur,
chron
dev, chron
dev, neur,
chron
dev*, repro,
neur, chron
dev, repro,
neur, chron
gene.dev.rep
ro.neur.chron
neur, chron
RfD/RfC
-0.1 mg/kg/day
(kidney)


0.3 mg/kg/day
(forestom.
hyperplasia)
RfC in review



5 mg/kg/day
(decreased wt
gain)

NOAEL/
LOAEL








1000
ppm-N,650
ppm-N

Slope/
Unit Risk










WOE
D









Comment

no data found

not care in NTP
study;notmutag. in
several tests
NTP carcinogenicity
study in review



1 000 ppm NOAEL for
repro tox, 650 ppm
NOAEL for dev tox

  co  =


  i

  3

  Si
  •<

  o
                                                                           m
  m

O m



| =•


S ?
a> 3
      o
                                                                               o

                                                                               o
                                                                               g
                                                                               w

-------
      Table 11-6 (cont.)

Human Health Hazard Effects
Chemical Name
Dichloromethane
Diethyl adipate
Diethyl glutarate
Diethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol monobutyl
ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
acetate
Diisopropyl adipate
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Cas No.
75-09-2
141-28-6
818-38-2
111-46-6
112-34-5
124-17-4
6938-94-9
627-93-0
1119-40-0
Tox
Endpoint
car, gene,
dev, neur,
chron
gene, dev

dev, neur,
chron
dev, chron
dev, chron

dev, chron
chron
RfD/RfC
0.06 mg/kg/day
(liver)








NOAEL/
LOAEL




51
mg/kg/day-
L, 2000
mg/kg/day-
N




Slope/
Unit Risk
4.7E-7/ug/
m3








WOE
B2








Comment
RfC in review


negative in Salmonella
mutagenicity test
LOAEL for chronic,
dermal NOAEL for dev
tox
RfC in review, sec. 4
data

chron, repro(- result)
studies on mixture of
dibasic esters
chron, dev(- result),
repro(-) studies on
mixture of dibasic esters
  co  =


  i

  3

  Si
  •<

  o
                                                                               m
  m

O m



| =•


S ?
a> 3
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  o

                                                                                  o
                                                                                  g
                                                                                  w

-------
      Table 11-6 (cont.)

Human Health Hazard Effects
Chemical Name
Dimethyl succinate
Dipropylene glycol methyl
ether
Dipropylene glycol methyl
ether acetate
Dodecyl benzene sulfonic
acid, TEA salt
Ethoxylated castor oil
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethoxypropanol
Ethoxypropyl acetate
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl lactate
Ethyl oleate
Ethylene glycol propyl ether
Furfuryl alcohol
Cas No.
106-65-0
34590-94-8
88917-22-0
27323-41-7
61791-12-6
9016-45-9
52125-53-8
54839-24-6
141-78-6
97-64-3
111-62-6
2807-30-9
98-00-0
Tox
Endpoint
chron
neur, chron




dev, chron

neur, chron
neur*

dev, chron
neur
RfD/RfC






0.7 mg/kg/day






NOAEL/
LOAEL













Slope/
Unit Risk













WOE













Comment
chron, dev(- result),
repro(-) studies on
mixture of dibasic esters
health effects at high
concentrations

only acute toxicity data
found
very little data

dev tox at high doses

health effects at high
dose



NIOSH 40 mg/m3 TWA;
60 mg/m3 STEL (skin);
NTP care in progress
  co  =


  i

  3

  Si
  •<

  o
                                                                            m
  m

O m



| =•


S ?
a> 3
                                                                                o
                                                                                o

                                                                                o
                                                                                g
                                                                                w

-------
      Table 11-6 (cont.)

Human Health Hazard Effects
Chemical Name
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Isobutyl oleate
Isopropanol
d-Limonene
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl lactate
Mineral spirits (straight run
naphtha)
Mineral spirits (light
hydrotreated)
N-methylpyrrolidone
2-Octadecanamine,
N,N-dimethyl, N-oxide
Cas No.
97-85-8
10024-47-2
67-63-0
5989-27-5
67-56-1
78-93-3
547-64-8
64741-41-9
64742-47-8
872-50-4
71662-60-7
Tox
Endpoint


dev, neur,
chron
dev, chron
gene, dev,
neur, chron
dev, neur,
chron



dev, repro,
chron

RfD/RfC




0.5 mg/kg/day
(liver)
0.6 mg/kg/day,
1.0mg/m3





NOAEL/
LOAEL



150
mg/kg/day
LOAEL





175
mg/kg/day
NOAEL

Slope/
Unit Risk











WOE





D





Comment
no effects in subchronic
rat study up to 1000
mg/kg/day

limited chronic data
LOAEL on kidney effect
in review at NTP
RfD/RfC on
developmental toxicity



NOAEL on
developmental toxicity

  co  =

  i
  3

  Si
  •<
  o
                                                                               m
                                                                               m

                                                                             O m
                                                                              "
o o
9L 3
o> 3
                                                                                   o
      o

      o
                                                                                   g
                                                                                   w

-------
      Table 11-6 (cont.)

Human Health Hazard Effects
Chemical Name
Periodic acid
Phosphoric acid, mixed ester
w/isopropanol and ethoxilated
tridecanol
Potassium hydroxide
Propylene carbonate
Propylene glycol
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol methyl ether
acetate
Silica
Silica, fumed
Sodium bisulfate
Cas No.
13444-71-8
68186-42-5
1310-58-3
108-32-7
57-55-6
107-98-2
108-65-6
7631-86-9
112945-52-5
10034-88-5
Tox
Endpoint


corrosive

chron
dev, neur

care, chron

corrosive
RfD/RfC




20 mg/kg/day
RfD 0.7
mg/kg/day, RfC
2.0 mg/m3




NOAEL/
LOAEL





3000 ppm-L




Slope/
Unit Risk










WOE










Comment
oxidizer


CTFA assess; tech
grade may contain
propylene oxide, a
carcinogen
negative Genetox for
SCE and cell
transformation
LOAEL on dev, RfC on
neur, RfD on liver,
kidney

crystalline silica is IARC
2A carcinogen


  co  =


  i

  3

  Si
  •<

  o
                                                                            m
  m

O m



| =•


S ?
a> 3
                                                                               o
                                                                               o

                                                                               o
                                                                               g
                                                                               w

-------
      Table 11-6 (cont.)

Human Health Hazard Effects
Chemical Name
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium lauryl sulfate
Sodium metasilicate
Sodium periodate
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Naphtha, light aromatic
Sodium salt, dodecyl
benzenesulfonic acid
Solvent naphtha, heavy
aromatic
Tall oil, special
Cas No.
10124-56-8
1310-73-2
7681-52-9
151-21-3
6834-92-0
7790-28-5
64742-89-8
64742-95-6
25155-30-0
64742-94-5
68937-81-5
Tox
Endpoint
chron
corrosive
gene, dev,
chron
dev, chron
dev,
corrosive


dev



RfD/RfC











NOAEL/
LOAEL



300
mg/kg/day,
400
mg/kg/day-
N







Slope/
Unit Risk











WOE











Comment
not mutagenic in
Salmonella or S.
cerevisiae; chron effects
at high doses

oxidizer
NOAELS are 300
mg/kg/day dev't tox and
400 mg/kg/day chronic
tox

oxidizer

developmental toxicity
data on C9 fraction



  co  =

  i
  3

  Si
  •<
  o
                                                                            m
                                                                            m

                                                                          O m
                                                                           "
o o
9L 3
o> 3
                                                                                o
      o

      o
                                                                                g
                                                                                w

-------
                                                                        Chapter III

          Background  Information on Methodologies  Used In Screen

	Reclamation Risk, Performance and Cost  Evaluation

     This chapter is intended to serve as a reference section for the CTSA document and
contains details of data collection and methodologies used in the CTSA risk assessment,
performance demonstration and cost evaluation. The methodologies and assumptions
underlying the evaluations in Chapter 5 are outlined in this chapter, including:

     o    Screen Printing Workplace Practices Questionnaire

     o    Occupational Exposures (inhalation and dermal)

     o    Environmental Releases

     o    Population Exposure Assessments

     o    Risk Assessments

     o    Performance Evaluations

     o    Cost Estimates

  Overview of Data from the Screen Printing Industry Used in Risk Assessment

     In August and September  1993, screen printers were surveyed on the workplace practices
associated with the screen cleaning/reclamation process. The survey tool was the "Workplace
Practices Questionnaire for Screen Printers" (Appendix B), developed by the Screen Printing
Association International (SPAI), the University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products  and
Clean Technologies and staff of the EPA Design for the Environment Program.  The survey was
developed to characterize typical screen printing facilities and workplace practices associated
with the screen cleaning/reclamation process. This information was needed to estimate the
amounts  and types of environmental releases from the screen cleaning/reclamation process and
to estimate exposure from the process. The results were also used to help identify pollution
prevention opportunities for screen printers.

     SPAI distributed the workplace practices questionnaire to approximately 300 printers,
focusing on printers with 20 or fewer employees. Respondents mailed completed
questionnaires to SPAI, which sent them  to the University of Tennessee Center for Clean
Products and Clean Technologies, where  they were entered into a data base using FOXPRO
software. The University of Tennessee, under a research grant from the EPA Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, developed a summary of responses to the questionnaire.  Respondents
to the survey were guaranteed anonymity and their identities withheld from the computerized
database  provided to EPA and from the summary of results.

     All facilities that received the questionnaire were asked to respond to pages one, two and
11 of the  questionnaire, which included a business profile, major products produced, general
facility information, equipment and materials use, and pollution prevention opportunities for


DRAFT-September 1994                                                              111-1

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment
screen printers.  Only screen printers who used solvent or UV-based inks printed on
plastic/vinyl substrates were asked to respond to the remainder of the questionnaire.

     Appendix C presents the summary of responses to the questionnaire. A total of 1 15
screen printers responded to the questionnaire, which represents an approximate 38 percent
response rate. Representatives from SPAI and the screen printers who participated in the
survey should be congratulated for this exceptionally high response rate to a direct mail
questionnaire. Of the total, 107 respondents were screen printers who primarily use solvent or
UV-based inks printed on plastic/vinyl substrates.

         Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment

     Specific quantities for environmental releases  and occupational exposure to chemicals
can be determined for a particular system used in screen reclamation. This summary  provides
an overview of the releases and exposure and methodology used in determining the releases
and exposure for the traditional ink remover, emulsion remover, and haze remover products.

     While the greatest environmental releases and occupational exposure occur during the
actual process of screen reclamation, releases and exposure also occur from volatilization from
open containers, transfer operations, sampling operations,  and waste rags. Air releases and
the inhalation exposures occur as a result of volatilization during these operations. Releases to
air occur by volatilization of chemicals from open containers, from the surface of the screen as
it is being cleaned, and from rags used in the cleaning process. Estimation of releases to land
and water is based on a mass balance relationship.  Dermal exposures can also be estimated
based on operations, formulation concentrations, and established dermal exposure models.1

     It is assumed that workers perform the following activities during each step of the screen
reclamation process. Some of these steps are not necessary or are altered for certain methods
assessed here. See Figure 1-2 for an outline of the steps involved in each method.

Step 1 . Ink removal

     o    Open 55-gallon drum of ink  remover
     o    Pour ink remover into 5-gallon pail
     o    Dip rag or brush into pail
     o    Remove ink from screen
     o    Toss rag into laundry pile
     o    Drum waste ink for disposal

Step 2. Emulsion removal

     o    Open container of emulsion  remover
     o    Dip brush into container
     o    Remove emulsion from screen
     o    Rinse screen
  'U.S. EPA. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Jan. 1992, Document no. EPA/600/8-9/01 IF.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-2

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment
Step 3.  Haze removal

      o     Open container of haze remover
      o     Dip brush into container
      o     Remove haze from screen
      o     Rinse screen

      To support the assessments, numerous sources of information were used in gathering
data.  Preliminary information was collected from the  1 1-page Screen Printing Workplace
Practices Questionnaire. Meetings with printers to discuss the basic data assumptions used in
the assessment were held at Screen Print '93 in New Orleans in October 1993 and at the SPAI
Environmental Committee Meeting in January 1994.  Information was also verified though
facilities participating in the Screen Printing Performance Demonstration from February to May
1 994 . These operation assumptions and data are presented in Table III- 1 .
                                        Table 111-1
                  Assumptions and Data from Industry and Trade Groups
Type of Data
Number of employees involved in ink removal
Hours per employee per day in ink removal
Number of employees in screen reclamation
Hours per employee per day in screen reclamation
Average number of screens cleaned per day
Average screen size
Size of combined screen reclamation/ink removal area
Amount of ink remover per screen
Amount of emulsion remover per screen
Amount of haze remover per screen
Average value
Number
3
1
2
1.5
6
2,127
80
8 (traditional)
4 (alternative)
3.5
3
Units
employees
hours
employees
hours
screens
in2
ft2
oz
oz
oz
a Normalized from Workplace Practices Questionnaire to remove printing establishments larger
than 20 employees.
Estimation Methodology

     In general, in evaluating traditional and alternative screen reclamation systems, it is
assumed that all releases to air, land, or water occur via the four scenarios described below.
Using this assumption cleaning fluid usage has been partitioned to air, land, and water with
concentrations of mass. Volatilization is estimated using a number of established models as
DRAFT—September 1994
III-3

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Estimation Methodology

documented below. Water and land releases are estimated to be all cleaning fluids not
volatilized. The exposure/release scenarios are defined as follows:

      o    Scenario I. Actual screen cleaning operations. Air releases are due to volatilization
           of chemicals from the screen surface. Unvolatilized material is assumed to be
           disposed to land or water. Ink, emulsion, and haze removal for 6 screens a day;
           each screen is approximately 2100m2.

      o    Scenario II. Releases to the atmosphere from pouring of 1 oz of material for
           sampling.  This is assumed to take place  over 15 minutes each day.

      o    Scenario III. Releases to the atmosphere  from pouring of cleaning mixtures from a
           55-gallon drum into a 5 gallon pail.

      o    Scenario IV. Releases from rags stored in a two-thirds empty drum.  The water
           releases in this case occur in a commercial laundry. The drum is opened to add
           more rags once per day and  to transfer the rags from the storage drum to a
           laundry.  Rags are used only for the ink removal step.


      Releases shown in the above scenarios will occur during the use of Reclamation Methods
1,2, and 4 of Exhibit 1-2. In addition to these releases, in Method 3 (SPAI Workshop Process),
an ink degradant is applied after the ink remover, followed by a water rinse; a screen degreaser
is then applied  prior to use of the emulsion remover.  For the purposes of this assessment,
Method 3 is evaluated only in conjunction with system Omicron.

      Assumptions for Environmental Releases

      The environmental releases model prepared for this report assumes that releases to air
equal the total airborne concentration of chemicals from:

      o    volatilization of solvents from screens
      o    emissions from transfer operations
      o    emissions from sampling operations
           volatilization from waste dirty rags
o
      The following assumptions and sources of information were used in the model:

      o    typical airborne concentrations

      o    typical ventilation rates

      o    emission factors from EPA (AP-42) (an EPA compendium of emission factors from
           the Office of Air)

      o    formulation data and physical properties

      o    average amounts of ink, haze, and emulsion remover used per site-day of 36
           ounces, 21 ounces,  and 18 ounces
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-4

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Estimation Methodology

     The model addresses releases to three media:  air, water, and land.  Releases to air result
from volatilization from the screens during cleaning, and fluid sampling and transfers.
Releases for all systems studied were associated with ink removal, emulsion removal, and haze
removal.

     Water releases result primarily from the emulsion removal phase which is typically a
rinse step using a water and sodium hypochlorite or sodium periodate solution for the
traditional systems, and a water and sodium periodate solution for the alternative systems.
The emulsion removal phase may also generate a contaminated rinsewater. In either phase,
waste water results from screen rinsing and the spray or rag application of haze and emulsion
removers.

     Off-site releases to land result from the cleaning of non-disposable rags and the landfilling
of disposable rags. It is assumed that rags are used only to remove the ink. The model
assumes that non-disposable rags sent to a laundry contain 0.75 grams of ink remover per 18
rags.  This assumption is based on:

     o    limited data on how much material stays on a damp shop rag with mineral spirits
     o    the average number of rags used to remove ink per screen (3 per screen)
     o    the average number of screens cleaned per day (6 screens)

The model assumes weekly laundering of non-disposable shop rags and 250 days of use per
year.  Similarly, rags sent to a landfill are assumed to contain 0.75 grams of ink remover per 18
rags.

     For Systems Omicron  and Beta, which have ink remover products that are water-
miscible, it was assumed that nonlaunderable rags were used and the discharge to water
occurred at the screen printing facility.  This assumption was made given that a water rinse is
used with these products in  removing ink.

     For aqueous solutions, the density of all components is assumed equal to 1 g/cm3.  For
nonaqueous solutions, ideal solution behavior is assumed and the density of each component is
used to find the amount of the component in 4 ounces of ink remover.  (See Appendix D  for a
further explanation) .

     Assumptions for Occupational Exposure

     In order  to estimate  occupational exposure to chemicals during the screen cleaning
process, an inhalation model and a dermal exposure model was developed. The assumptions
underlying each model are described below.

     Inhalation Model

     The inhalation model used in the CTSA is a mass balance model. It assumes that the
amount of a chemical in a room equals the amount leaving the room  minus any generated in the
room.  The model is valid  for estimating the displacement of vapors from containers, and the
volatilization of liquids from open surfaces.  Assumptions include:

     o    incoming room air is contaminant-free
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-5

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Estimation Methodology

      o    generation and ventilation rates are constant over time

      o    room air and ventilation air mix ideally

      o    Raoult's law is valid (i.e., the volatilization and interaction of vapors)

      o    ideal gas law applies (i.e., the interaction of vapors)

      o    inhaled doses of each chemical were based on "typical case" ventilation parameters,
           since these seem to give the best fit to the highest observed values (see below) .
           Actual ventilation conditions are unknown.

      o    median values were used for the composition; worst case evaluation for air releases
           would include the most volatile  compound at its maximum concentration.

We used the following assumptions for the frequency and duration of inhalation exposure for
ink, emulsion, and haze removal:

      o    6 screens cleaned per day
      o    1 to 3 workers per site
      o    3 hours per  day exposure total
      o    250 days per year

The four scenarios described on page III-4 were modelled for assessing inhalation exposure.
Inhalation exposures occur as a result of volatilization during these scenarios. The model
assumes that shop workers do not wear respirators in any of the four scenarios.

      Dermal Model

      Dermal exposure is caused by contact with the material.  Contact with the material
includes touching damp rags, dipping hand(s) into a pail of ink remover, and manually
applying the brush or rag to the screen to loosen the ink. Two  scenarios, routine contact with
two hands and routine immersion with two hands, were modelled for assessing dermal
exposure.  Routine contact occurs from touching rags and manually applying the  brush or rag
to the screen.  Routine immersion occurs from dipping hand(s) into a pail or ink, haze, or
emulsion remover.

      Dermal contact models from the CEB handbook (CEB, 1991) were used by adjusting the
concentration of the chemical in  the mixture.  Dermal exposure assumes no gloves or barrier
creams will be used. Although exposure was estimated for the  emulsion removers or haze
removers containing sodium hypochlorite or sodium  hydroxide, it is usually expected that use
of these chemicals would result in negligible exposure given that use of these solutions  without
gloves causes irritation and corrosivity effects.
Overview of Methodology

      CEB (Chemical Engineering Branch) models the evaporation of chemicals from open
surfaces, such as the surface of a screen, using the following model:
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-6

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Overview of Methodology


                         0.02MP
                     G=-
                           RT
D ,v
                                    7TZ
                                                    (1)
where
      G    =    Volatilization rate, g.m 2.s '
      M    =    Molecular weight, g.mol '
      P    =    Vapor pressure, mm Hg
      R    =    Gas constant, 0.0624 mmHg.mlmol'.K1
      T    =    Temperature, K
      Dab   =    Diffusivity, cm2.s '
      vz    =    Air velocity, m.s1
      z    =    Distance along pool surface, m

The air velocity is assumed to be vz = 100 ft.min '. Since Dab is not available for many of the
chemicals of interest to CEB, the following estimation equation is used:
                                                                                       (2)
where
      Dab   =    Diffusion coefficient in air, cm2. sec '
      T    =    Temperature, K
      M    =    Molecular weight, g.mol '
      Pt    =    Total pressure, atm

This equation is based on kinetic theory and generally gives values of Dab that agree closely with
experimental data.  The value of G computed from eqs (1) and (2) above is used in the following
mass balance expression to compute the airborne concentration in the breathing zone:
where
      Cv   =    Airborne concentration, ppm
      T    =    Ambient temperature, K
      G    =    Vapor generation rate, g.m 2.sec '
      M   =    Molecular weight, g.mol '
      A    =    Area of surface, m2
      Q    =    Ventilation rate, ft3.min '
      k    =    Mixing factor, dimensionless

The mixing factor accounts for slow and incomplete mixing of ventilation air with room air.
CEB sets this factor to 0.5 for the typical case and 0.1 for the worst case.  CEB commonly uses
values of the ventilation rate Q from 500 ft3.min ' to 3,500 ft3.min '.  An effective ventilation rate
of 250 ft3/min was used, which was equal to the mixing factor of 0.5 multiplied by the lowest
ventilation rate (500 ft3/min) .  The value of Cv from equation (3) is converted to mass/volume
units as follows:


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   III-7

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Overview of Methodology


                         r -r M
                         c»rCvT7                                                   (4)
where
     Cm   =    Airborne concentration, mg.m 3
     Cv    =    Airborne concentration, ppm
     M    =    Molecular weight, g.mol '
     Vm   =    Molar volume of an ideal gas, l.mol '

At 25 °C, Vm has the value 24.45 l.mol '.  Since a worker can be assumed to breathe about 1.25
m3 of air per hour, it is a straightforward matter to compute inhalation exposure once Cm has
been determined. Equations (3) and (4) can be combined to yield the following, given the
"typical case" choice of ventilation parameters:

                        I=QA8GAt                                                   (5)

where
     I     =    Total amount inhaled,  mg.day '
     G    =    Vapor generation rate, g.m 2.s '
     A    =    Area of surface, m2
     t     =    Duration of exposure, s

The advantage of equation (5) is that the quantity GAt is often known beforehand, since it is
equal to the total amount of the chemical released to the atmosphere. It is also useful when
computing the total dose  due to a sudden release of material, such as occurs when a container
is  opened.  In this case, it is  difficult to ascertain the duration of exposure, but it is a simple
matter to estimate the amount of vapor in the container's headspace.

Example 1. Estimate the vapor generation rate and worker exposure during removal of ink
from a printing screen using 100 percent toluene.  The worker cleans screens for 1 hour each
day in a room with a ventilation rate of 3,000 ft3. mm1. The screen area is 2,21 7 in2. Assume
a mixing factor ofk = 0.5.

Toluene has the following physical properties:

     Molecular weight:           92. 14 g.mol '
     Vapor pressure:             28 mmHg at 25 °C
     Diffusion coefficient:         0.076 cm2. sec '

Using these values in equation (1) gives:

     Generation rate G:           0.28 g.s '.m2
     Airborne  concentration:      141 ppm (Cv)
                                 534 mg.m 3 (CJ
     Exposure over 1 hour:       667 mg

If the CEB worst-case parameters are used in equation (2), i.e., a  mixing factor of k  = 0.1 and a
ventilation  rate of 500 ft3.min ', then the estimated airborne concentration is Cv = 4,216 ppm.
Exposures and volatilization rates are calculated by multiplying the pure-component values


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-8

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Release and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Uncertainties

from Exhibit 4 by the mole fraction of that component in the liquid phase. A typical screen has
an area of 2127 in2 = 1.37 m2. Each worker cleans screens for 1 hour per day. Amounts
released should be checked against amount used to ensure mass balance.

Example 2. If a worker cleans 6 screens using 8 oz/screen of mineral spirits, the amount of
spirits used will be:

                6 x 8 x 29.57 fluid oz/cc x 0.78 g/cc  =  1 107 g

The amount volatilized will be:

                0.01087 g.m2.s ' x 3600 s x 1.37 m2 = 53 g

Thus, the amount volatilized is not limited by the amount used.  For the case of the traditional
haze remover, however,  volatilization is limited by the amount used. If 3 oz of haze remover
containing 30 wt percent (32 volume percent or 21 mole percent) acetone is used per screen,
the total amount available is:

                6 x 3 x 0.32 x 29.57 fluid oz/cc x 0.79 = 133 g

The amount that would volatilize over 1 hour is:

                 1.49x 1. 37 x 3600s = 7,350 g


Uncertainties

      Occupational Exposure:  Uncertainties

      Determining occupational exposure levels associated with screen cleaning requires
making assumptions about the cleaning process,  the workplace environment, health and safety
practices, and waste  management practices.  This section describes the uncertainties involved
in assessing occupational exposure for screen cleaning. It also explains the assumptions
underlying the exposure assessment model developed for  the CTSA.

      EPA has published Guidelines for Exposure Assessment in the Federal Register.  These
are guidelines for the basic terminology and principles by which the Agency is to conduct
exposure assessments.  There are several important issues relevant to this assessment. If the
methodology is one which allows the assessor to in some way quantify the spectrum of
exposure, then the assessor should assess typical exposures, as well as high end exposures or
bounding exposures. Typical exposures refer to exactly that, how much the typical person is
exposed to the particular substance  in question.  High end refers to a  person exposed to
amounts higher than 90 percent  of the people (or ecological species of interest) exposed to the
substance.  Bounding estimates are judgements assuming that no one will be exposed to
amounts higher than that calculated amount. However, in many cases, all we can do is give a
picture of what the exposure would be under a given set of circumstances, without
characterizing the probability of these circumstances  actually occurring.  These are called "What
if scenarios. They do not try to judge where on the exposure scale the estimate actually falls.
All of the exposure assessments fall  into the  "What if"  category for this assessment.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  III-9

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Release and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Uncertainties

      Although the screen cleaning process is relatively straightforward, occupational exposure
levels will differ in actual shop environments because of many variables such as variations in:

      o    toxicity of the chemicals used
      o    amount of chemicals applied
      o    how the chemicals are applied
      o    compliance with health and safety and waste management procedures
      o    equipment operating time
      o    ventilation conditions and shop lay-out
      o    temperature conditions (ambient and solvent)

      All of these variables will influence the impacts of chemicals used in the screen cleaning
process on shop workers. Based on studies of screen printing operations conducted by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), it appears that many of the
small to medium sized operations do not follow health and safety precautions.2  Specifically,
workers were observed performing screen reclamation without protective gloves or proper
breathing apparatus.  Nor did shop workers wear protective aprons to reduce dermal exposure.
According to  one study, some workers used solvent to wash their arms and hands after
completing the screen cleaning process. In another study, rags and paper towels contaminated
with solvent were placed in an open trash can. Both of these practices will also increase
exposure levels significantly.

      There are also differences in how screen printers wash the screens; this affects
occupational  exposure. Some shops use automated screen washers which blast the screens
with solvent or hot water in an enclosed system .  Others use a hose in a sink to flush the
screens by hand or the cleaner is spread on the screen by hand, and the worker uses a rag or
paper towel to wipe down the screen. Exposure levels will differ if individual workers use more
(or less) cleaner than specified, and if they allow it to remain on the screen longer than
specified.

      During research to support this assessment a NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE)
document on screen washing was located and used to validate exposure estimates.  CEB
initially estimated occupational exposures by applying the relatively conservative models that
are normally  used for review of new chemicals. The resulting exposure estimates were high in
comparison to actual monitoring data. These data indicated that, after necessary corrections
were made, the exposures predicted by the CEB model were within the range of the NIOSH
observations, as long as the "typical case" ventilation parameters were chosen.  Use of the "worst
case" ventilation parameters in the CEB model leads to results that exceed the range of the
experimental data by about an order of magnitude.  The theoretical basis of the CEB model was
investigated and a standard engineering formula for mass transfer in laminar boundary layers
was found to  provide a closer approximation to the upper end of NIOSH data when used with
the same "worst case" ventilation parameters.

      Both the CEB model (when used with the "typical case" ventilation parameters)  and the
boundary-layer approach can provide estimates of inhalation exposures which agree with the
experimental data within one order of magnitude or better.  It is difficult to obtain better
agreement than this without knowing a great deal more about each exposure scenario, such as
  2Sources: Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 84-299-1543, (Chicago, IL:Impressions Handprinters). Health
Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 81-383-1151, (Chicago, IL:Main Post Office).


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 111-10

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Release and Occupational Exposure Assessment _ Uncertainties

the details of the screen cleaning process at each site, the solvent temperature, the air
temperature, and the ventilation pattern in the screen cleaning area. These items are not
routinely recorded by NIOSH investigative teams. A report documenting an alternative
volatilization and exposure model based on laminar boundary layers is provided in Appendix
E.

      Dermal Exposure Model

      The dermal exposure model is based on the concentration of material contacting the skin
and the surface area contacted.  Dermal exposure levels will differ in actual shop environments
because of many variables such as variations in:

      o    type of worker activity
      o    likelihood or type of contact (i.e., routine or immersion)
      o    frequency of contact (i.e., routine or incidental)
      o    potential surface area contacted
      o    likelihood and effectiveness of protective equipment being used
      o    amount of chemical remaining on the skin
      o    evaporation rate of the chemical

      In estimating dermal exposure, it was assumed that gloves were not worn. However,
assuming that gloves are worn, dermal exposure is  assumed to be negligible to none depending
on the chemical in question. In situations where the chemical is corrosive (e.g., sodium
hypochlorite) , dermal exposure to shop workers using gloves is zero. The model assumes that
one hand (surface area 650 cm2) is routinely exposed during the screen cleaning process (1 to 3
mg/cm2 typically remaining on the skin)3

      Environmental Releases: Uncertainties

      Determining environmental releases associated with screen cleaning requires making
assumptions about the cleaning process, the workplace environment, and waste management
practices.  This section describes the uncertainties  involved in assessing environmental releases
associated with screen cleaning. It also explains the assumptions underlying the environmental
release assessment model developed for the CTSA.

      Uncertainties

      Uncertainties related to environmental releases overlap with the uncertainties associated
with occupational exposure. They include variations in:

      o    toxicity of the chemicals used
      o    amount of chemicals applied
      o    how the chemicals are applied
      o    compliance with waste management procedures
      o    equipment operating time
      o    ventilation conditions and shop lay-out
      o    temperature conditions (ambient and solvent)
  3Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical Engineering Branch Manual for the Preparation of
Engineering Assessments, (February 28, 1991), p. 4-36.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  111-11

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Release and Occupational Exposure Assessment                            Release Amounts
_ vs. Occupational Exposures
Release Amounts vs. Occupational Exposures

      Air releases were computed in two different ways, depending on the particular scenario
under consideration. For Scenario I (evaporation from a screen) and Scenario II (evaporation
during sampling), the equations used for computing the total mass of material volatilized can be
condensed into the following expression:

                8.24x l(T8Ma WP( — +—)a V' 5At
           GAt=	
                            -0.05 0. 5p 0. 5
                           J   z  rt

where:
      GAt  =     Mass released (= flux x area x time)
      M    =     Molecular weight (g.mol')
      P    =     Vapor pressure (mmHg)
      vz    =     Air velocity (ft.min ')
      A    =     Area of surface (cm2)
      t     =     Duration of release (s)
      T    =     Air temperature (K)
      z    =     Length of surface (cm)
      Pt    =     Total pressure (atm)

For all cases of interest here, the temperature T, total pressure Pt, and air velocity vz are
assigned fixed values. These are 298 K, 1 atmosphere, and 100 ft.min ', respectively.  In
addition, the surface is taken to be square, so that z = A0'5. Thus, the mass of material
released has the following dependencies:

                              -_j_+_j_\o.25
                               29  M
                                                                                      (8)


                                                                                      (9)
For Scenario III (releases from pouring) and Scenario IV (releases from drum of rags), the
vapor space of the container was assumed to be saturated. The model used can be represented
as:

                              MPV
                                                                                     (10)
                                                                                     l   '
                           (24.45)(760)
where:
      M    =     Molecular weight (g.mol ')
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 111-12

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Release and Occupational Exposure Assessment                            Release Amounts
_ vs. Occupational Exposures

     P    =    Vapor pressure (mmHg)
     V    =    Volume of container (1)

For each scenario, the container volume is fixed, so that:

                          QAt^M                                                  (11)


                          QAt^P                                                  (12)
Releases to water and/or land disposal are computed by a mass balance approach; any
chemical not volatilized is assumed to be disposed to one of these two media.

     The amount of each chemical inhaled by workers is given by the following expression:
where
     7     =    Inhaled dose (mg.day')
     Q    =    Ventilation rate (ft3.min ')
     k    =    Mixing factor (dimensionless)

In this report, Q is fixed at 3,000 ftlmin ' and k = 0.5.  Thus,

                        I=QASGAt                                                 (14)
Thus, the inhaled dose has the same dependencies as the amount released, no additional
variables being introduced.

Based on the above expressions, the amount released to the atmosphere in Scenarios I and II is
approximately proportional to JVf 835P. For Scenario III and IV, the dependence is
approximately MP.  The vapor pressure is generally lower for compounds with higher molecular
weights.  An idea of the sensitivity of vapor pressure to molecular weight can be obtained from a
molecular model of the liquid state. According to Fowler and Guggenheim (Statistical
Thermodynamics, Cambridge, 1956), for a liquid whose intermolecular potential energy can be
represented by the Lennard-Jones function:
                               ---                                               (15)
                                   r


the vapor pressure can be estimated to be:
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 111-13

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Environmental Release and Occupational Exposure Assessment                            Release Amounts
	vs. Occupational Exposures


                    «-1 1 ^S_^_£> ~& 136(e/£Z)
                    ^-lliS—e  -^                                                (16\
                           a
As noted in the development of an expression for Dab, the diffusivity, in Appendix K of the CEB
Manual, the quantities e and o can be roughly correlated with molecular weight. When these
parameters are regressed against experimental data for CrC9 and substituted into the
expression for vapor pressure, a relationship of the following form is observed:

                       p-M^e^1                                                (17)
Somewhat different dependencies will be found with different sets of experimental data, but all
of the resulting expressions will show that vapor pressure falls off rapidly with molecular
weight within a homologous series of compounds.  Thus, the amount of chemical volatilized
and the resulting inhaled dose will be approximately proportional to

                        Ma6Vrfa                                                 (18)
       Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes

     The purpose of a general population exposure assessment is to account for amounts of
chemicals with which people who are not directly involved in the screen printing process may
be in contact.  There are several ways that the general population may be exposed to substances
used in the screen reclamation process.  People may breathe the air containing vapors which
have been carried away by air currents from a screen printing facility.  The vapors would be
environmental releases stemming from evaporation of products at the screen printing facility.
People may drink water which contains residues from the reclamation products, which can
originate with the facility discharging the products down the drain.  People may also drink well
water that contains contaminants which have migrated from a landfill where wastes are
disposed. The amount which a person may come in contact with varies with how far away they
are located from the facility, how many of the different routes of contact they actually have (such
as drinking, breathing, touching), how long the chemical has been in the environment and how
the chemical moves through the environment. The amounts also depend on such
environmental conditions as the weather or the amount of water that is flowing in the receiving
stream or river where the facility's discharges go.

     EPA has published Guidelines for Exposure Assessment in the Federal Register. These
are guidelines  for the basic terminology and principles by which the Agency is to conduct
exposure assessments. There are several important issues relevant to this assessment. If the
methodology is one which  allows the assessor to in some way quantify the spectrum of
exposure, then the assessor should assess typical exposures, as well as high end exposures or
bounding exposures. Typical exposures refer to exactly that, how much  the typical person is
exposed to the particular substance in question.  High end refers to a person exposed to
amounts higher than 90 percent of the people (or ecological species of interest) exposed to the
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                111-14

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes
substance. Bounding estimates are judgements assuming that no one will be exposed to
amounts higher than that calculated amount. However, in many cases, all we can do is give a
picture of what the exposure would be under a given set of circumstances, without
characterizing the probability of these circumstances actually occurring. These are called "What
if scenarios. They do not try to judge where on the exposure scale the estimate actually falls.
All of the exposure assessments fall into the "What if" category for this assessment.

      The fate of the chemical in the environment is how we refer to the breakdown
(transformation) and mobility of the chemical through air, water and land.  There is a different
chemical fate for release through a waste water  treatment facility as opposed to an air release or
a landfill release.  There are also different processes by which degradation may occur. For
example, in air, a chemical may be broken down by sunlight (by either direct photolysis  or
photooxidation) or by reaction with water in the atmosphere (hydrolysis) .  In water and soil, an
important degradation process is biodegradation, where the substance may be decomposed by
bacteria and other biota in the environment.  Each of these processes will have its own rate
(speed) at which it occurs, and  this may vary with the concentration of the chemical in the
system. Often the way we present the fate for a chemical is by giving a half-life value. This term
simply means the amount of time it takes for one-half of the substance initially present to be
lost by degradation. There are  other ways to present fate.  If we are interested in how much of a
chemical is removed from water during its trip  through a waste water treatment facility (such as
a POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works), we will give a removal amount, usually in percent.
There are summaries in Chapter 2 of the chemical fate of all of the chemicals identified as being
used in screen reclamation products.

      There are two perspectives to address when handling exposure concerns for any
commercial process.  The first is best described as a local point of view, i.e., a single facility in
normal operation will have certain releases which affect a specific area and specific local
population. Since we do not have information for each screen printing facility, we use a  "model
facility" approach to calculate typical releases and environmental concentrations.  This will not
allow us to specify the number of people around the facility, because the population varies
considerably depending on the location  of the screen printing facility. The other perspective is
to view the overall impact, i.e., what is the impact of all of the printing facilities for the general
population. While one facility may not be releasing very much of any given chemical, the
cumulative effect of all of the printers in an area could be serious.

      For this assessment, we have tried to present a view of the local concerns by presenting
exposures for  a standard set of conditions, by which we are trying to simulate a single facility
for all of the methods and systems. The overall perspective is presented only for the traditional
systems, which are the systems which are considered to already be in common use. It was felt
that it would far too hypothetical to do an overall perspective  for the alternative formulations
since we do not have a basis for predicting how many screen printers might use any given
formulation.

      The effects of a chemical may be a short-term (acute) effect, such as the effect a poison
would have on the body, or it could be long-term, such as a carcinogen.  For long-term (chronic)
effects, it is most helpful to have average, or typical, exposures,  since the effect will vary  with
the cumulative exposure.  For acute effects, a peak exposure estimate would be more helpful.
This can then  be compared to levels at which the chemical is known to give immediate health
problems. In general  for this assessment, average concentrations are calculated.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 111-15

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes	Overview by Media


Overview by Media

     Air

     Releases to air are from evaporation of chemicals during the process.  This may be from
allowing screens to dry during reclamation, or from rags or open drums of chemicals located
around the facility.  These vapors are then carried and mixed with outside air.  The air
concentration will depend on weather conditions.  Stagnant conditions will not move vapors
away quickly, so local concentrations will be higher than the concentrations of the chemical
farther from the plant. There is the potential that everyone outside the facility could be affected.
The chemical concentrations will decrease with distance, but the number of people may
increase with distance, depending on the location of the screen printing facility.  Usually the
exposure assessor will use a computer program to  determine the number of people around a
known facility by using census data.  Since the locations of all the screen printing facilities
across the country are not known to us,  we use the model facility approach, and do not count
population for the model facility.

     For  our model facility, we assume  a building  height of three meters, and a width of 10
meters. This is a building approximately the size of a garage. We then pick sample weather
conditions, usually from San Bernardino, to determine what the air concentration of a chemical
will be at a set distance from the printing facility. We use San Bernardino because the weather
conditions there will give the highest average concentrations around the facility of any of the
approximately 500 weather stations in the United States.  However, none of the average
concentrations across the country will be even ten times less than the average concentrations at
San Bernardino. If the highest concentration were  10 ug/m3, then anywhere in the country the
concentration would be greater than 1 ug/m3. We would say that there is less than an order of
magnitude difference.

     Methodology References

           Air Modeling Parameters for ISCLT90

                MODEL - Industrial Source Complex. Long Term: US EPA, Office of Air and
                Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
                Park, NC 27711, version 90, as implemented by the Office of Pollution
                Prevention and Toxics in the Graphical Exposure Modeling System, GEMS
                Atmospheric Modeling Subsection.

                      The following default parameters were used:

                           o    Regulatory default setting for ISCLT.

                           o    Facility location at 34°  latitude,  117° longitude

                           o    The Star Station (meteorological) data from the station
                                 closest to the point of release, San Bernardino, CA.

                           o    Urban Mode (U3)
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                111-16

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes _ Overview by Media

                           o    Standard Polar grid, with 3 calculations per segment.

                           o    Single point of release at the facility location.
                                 Release height of 3 meters for fugitive releases from an area
                                 source of 1 0 meters by 1 0 meters ( 1 00 m2) .
      Surface Water
      Releases to surface water are those releases discharged through a drain at a screen
printing facility that end up going to public sewers or Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) .  This discharge is treated before being released, and the effectiveness of the treatment
determined, so that the amount actually getting through to the receiving water body can be
calculated. The receiving water will dilute the discharge from the POTW, and a stream
concentration can be calculated using stream flow information.

      We use average stream concentrations to calculate average drinking water consumption.
We assume that people actually drink the two liters a day that is recommended for good health.
If the chemical is one that will accumulate in animals or plants, we calculate ingestion of the
chemical from eating fish.

      The other issue for surface water is the effect that a chemical may have on aquatic
organisms, from algae to fish.  If the food chain is broken in a stream, the consequences are
dire.  No algae, no fish.  A healthy stream with numerous organisms will also have a better
ability to handle chemical releases than one whose quality is already compromised.  The
organisms lower on the food chain, such as algae, tend to have shorter lives, making shorter
exposure time periods more critical. Since concentrations will vary with the stream flow, there
may be periods of lower flow conditions where the same amount released as on a regular flow
situation will cause problems. We use historical stream data to try to predict how often this
will happen.

      Cumulative releases to the same POTW may be estimated by counting the number of
screen printers in an area and distributing the releases across all the POTWs in the area. We
have to assume that the releases are for the same  products, or very similar products. As for
air, this cumulative number is expected to be far more significant than the amount for any
single screen printer.

      Methodology Reference

           Single Site

           Concentration = Chemical Loading / Streamflow

                In general, the concentration will be in ug/L, and the chemical loading is in
                grams or kilograms.  The streamflow used is the harmonic mean streamflow
                in Million Liters per Day (MLD)  for drinking water concerns, if the location is
                known. Otherwise, the streamflow will be assumed to be  1000 MLD.

           US-Wide Water Releases
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                111-17

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes _ Overview by Media

                The methodology used is outlined in its entirety in a report from VERSAR, Inc
                for Task 1-1 1, sub task 101, from Contract 68-D3-0013. Copies of this report
                are available from either VERSAR, Inc or from Sondra Hollister at EPA.

     Septic Systems

     There appears to be a significant minority of screen printers who do not release water to
a waste water treatment plant. These printers are assumed to release to septic systems. The
releases of this type are not modeled in this assessment.  There are some general guidelines
that may be used to determine if there will be exposure to any of the screen reclamation
chemicals from septic system seepage.  Each chemical will have an estimated potential
migration  to ground water, which is usually used for landfill assessments. This can be directly
applied to septic systems, because the potential to migrate to ground water will be the same.  Of
course the individual characteristics of  the system will determine the actual speed that each
chemical travels into the ground water.  If the septic system is relatively leaky, and the ground
water table is relatively high, the time that a chemical takes to get into the ground water will be
shorter than for a septic system which is sealed well and where the ground water table is low.

     Landfill

     Our usual techniques for estimating exposures from landfill releases are not applicable to
printing. For a typical situation, we would assume one facility sending waste to a landfill. For
the printing industry, the use of landfills cannot be so simplified. A lack of data limits the
determination of exposures.  We do not know how many printers are sending what types of
wastes to any given landfill. There also is no way to account for a printer sending a portion of
their wastes to a hazardous waste handler, and sending another portion to the county landfill,
or how many printers will be sending to any given landfill. For these reasons, even though the
exposures from landfill releases may be significant, we will not be able to calculate exposures
from landfill seepage and migration into ground water. However, we can give the expected fate
of the chemical in the landfill  -- will the  chemical migrate to ground water rapidly, moderately
or negligibly.
       Background on Risk Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes
Human Health Risk

     Assessment of the human health risks presented by chemical substances includes the
following components of analysis:

     o    Hazard Identification is the process of determining whether exposure to a
           chemical can cause an adverse health effect and whether the adverse health effect is
           likely to occur in humans.

     o    Dose-response Assessment is the process of defining the relationship between the
           dose of a chemical received and the incidence of adverse health effects in the
           exposed population.  From the quantitative dose-response relationship, toxicity

DRAFT-September 1994                                                                111-18

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes _ Methodology References

           values are derived that are used in the risk characterization step to estimate the
           likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels.

      o    Exposure Assessment identifies populations exposed to a chemical, describes their
           composition and size, and presents the types, magnitudes,  frequencies, and
           durations of exposure to the chemical.

      o    Risk Characterization integrates hazard and exposure information into
           quantitative and qualitative expressions of risk.  A risk characterization includes a
           description  of the assumptions, scientific judgments, and uncertainties embodied in
           the assessment.

      Quantitative Expressions of Hazard and Risk

      The manner in which estimates of hazard and risk are expressed depends on the nature
of the hazard and the types of data upon which the assessment is based.  For example, cancer
risks are most often expressed as the probability of an individual developing cancer over a
lifetime of exposure to the chemical in question. Risk estimates for adverse effects other than
cancer are usually expressed as the ratio of a toxicologic potency value  to an estimated dose or
exposure level. A key distinction between  cancer and other toxicologic  effects is that most
carcinogens are assumed to  have no dose  threshold; that is, no dose or exposure level can be
presumed to be without some risk.  Other toxicologic effects are generally assumed to have a
dose threshold; that is,  a dose or exposure level below which a significant adverse effect is not
expected.

      Cancer Hazard and Risk

      EPA employs  a "weight-of-evidence" approach to determine the likelihood that a chemical
is a human carcinogen.  Each chemical evaluated is placed into one of the five weight-of-
evidence categories  listed below.

      o    Group A - human carcinogen

      o    Group B - probable human carcinogen.  Bl indicates limited human evidence;  B2
           indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence  in humans.

      o    Group C - possible human carcinogen

      o    Group D - not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity

      o    Group E - evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans

      When the available data are sufficient for quantitation, EPA develops an estimate of the
chemical's carcinogenic potency. EPA "slope factors" express carcinogenic potency in terms of
the estimated upper-bound incremental lifetime risk per mg/kg average daily dose. "Unit risk"
is a similar measure of potency for air or drinking water concentrations and is expressed as
risk per ug/m3 in air or  as risk per ug/1 in  water for continuous lifetime exposures.

      Cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the estimated dose or exposure level by the
appropriate measure of carcinogenic potency. For example an individual with a lifetime average
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 111-19

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes _ Methodology References

daily dose of 0.3 mg/kg of a carcinogen with a potency of 0.02/mg/kg/day would experience a
lifetime cancer risk of 0.006 from exposure to that chemical. In general, risks from exposures
to more than one carcinogen are assumed to be additive, unless other information points
toward a different interpretation.

     Chronic Health Risks

     Because adverse effects other than cancer and gene mutations are generally assumed to
have a dose or exposure threshold, a different approach is needed to evaluate toxicologic
potency and risk for  these "systemic effects." "Systemic toxicity" means an adverse effect on any
organ system following absorption and distribution of a toxicant to a site in the body distant
from the toxicant's entry point.  EPA uses the "Reference Dose" approach to evaluate chronic
(long-term) exposures to systemic toxicants. The Reference Dose (RfD) is defined as "an
estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the
human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk
of deleterious effects during a lifetime" and is expressed as a mg/kg/day dose. The RfD is
usually based on the most sensitive known effect; that is, the effect that occurs at the lowest
dose. EPA calculates a comparable measure of potency for continuous inhalation exposures
called a Reference Concentration or RfC, expressed as a mg/m3 air concentration. Although
some RfDs and RfCs are based on actual human data, they are most often calculated from
results obtained in chronic or subchronic animal studies.  The basic approach for deriving an
RfD or RfC involves determining a "no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) " or "lowest-
observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL)" from  an appropriate toxicologic or epidemiologic study
and then applying various uncertainty factors and modifying factors to arrive at the RfD/RfC.

     RfDs and RfCs can be used to evaluate risks from chronic exposures to systemic
toxicants. EPA defines an expression of risk called a "Hazard Quotient" which is the ratio of the
estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the RfD/RfC. Hazard Quotient values below unity
imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.  The greater the Hazard Quotient exceeds
unity, the greater is the level of concern.  However, it is important to remember that the Hazard
Quotient is not a probabilistic statement of risk.  A quotient of 0.001 does not mean that there
is a one-in-a-thousand chance of the effect occurring. Furthermore, it is important to
remember that the level of concern does not necessarily increase linearly as the quotient
approaches or exceeds unity because the RfD/RfC does not provide any information about the
shape of the dose-response curve.

     An expression  of risk that can be used when an RfD/RfC is not available is the "Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE)." The MOE is the ratio of a NOAEL or LOAEL (preferably from a chronic
study)  to an estimated dose or exposure level. Very high MOE values such as values greater
than 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or 1000  for a LOAEL-based MOE imply a very low level of
concern. As the MOE decreases, the level of concern increases. As with the Hazard Quotient,  it
is important to remember that the MOE is not a probabilistic statement of risk.

     Developmental Toxicity Risks

     Because of the  many unique elements associated with both the hazard and exposure
components of developmental toxicity risk assessment, these risks are treated separately from
other systemic toxicity risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                III-20

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Population Exposure Assessment for Screen Reclamation Processes _ Methodology References

     EPA defines developmental toxicity as adverse effects on the developing organism that
may result from exposure prior to conception, during prenatal development, or postnatally to
the time of sexual maturation.  Adverse developmental effects may be detected at any point in
the life span of the organism. The major manifestations of developmental toxicity include: (1)
death of the developing organism, (2) structural abnormality, (3) altered growth, and (4)
functional deficiency.

     There is a possibility that a single exposure may be sufficient to produce  adverse
developmental effects.  Therefore, it is assumed that, in most cases, a single exposure at any of
several developmental stages may be sufficient to produce an adverse developmental effect.  In
the case of intermittent exposures, examination of the peak exposure(s) as well as the average
exposure over the time period of exposure is important.

     EPA has derived Reference Doses and Reference Concentrations for developmental
toxicants in a similar manner to the RfDs and RfCs for other systemic toxicants.  The RfDDT or
RfCDT is an estimate of a daily exposure to the human population that is assumed to be without
appreciable risk of deleterious developmental effects. The use of the subscript DT is intended
to distinguish these terms from the more common RfDs and RfCs that refer to  chronic
exposure situations for other systemic effects.

     Developmental toxicity risk can be expressed as a Hazard Quotient (dose or exposure
level divided by the RfDDT or RfCDT) or Margin-of-Exposure (NOAEL or LOAEL divided by the
dose or exposure level), with careful attention paid to the exposure term, as described above.

NOTE:  The closely related area of reproductive toxicity is also an important aspect of systemic
toxicity. For purposes of this report, toxicity  information on adult male and female
reproductive systems will be assessed as part of the chronic toxicity risk.

     Assumptions and Uncertainties

     Estimated doses assume  100 percent absorption.  The actual absorption rate may be
significantly lower, especially for dermal exposures to relatively polar compounds. The
assessment used the most relevant toxicological potency factor available for the exposure under
consideration. In some cases the only potency factor available was derived from a study
employing a different route of exposure than the exposure being evaluated.  For example, oral
RfD values were sometimes used to calculate  Hazard Quotients for inhalation and dermal
exposures. For the occupational risk assessment, RfC values were converted to units of dose
assuming a breathing rate of 20 m3/day and a body weight of 70 kg.  This conversion was done
because occupational inhalation exposures were calculated as a daily dose rather than as an
average daily concentration.  The general population risk estimates compare RfC values directly
to average daily concentrations  because continuous exposure is assumed for the general
population.  Most of the Margin-of-Exposure calculations presented in the assessment are
based on toxicity data that have not been formally evaluated by the Agency.  Simple esters of
glycol ethers were assumed to present the same hazards at approximately the same potencies
as the corresponding alcohol. The same  potency data were used in risk estimates for each
alcohol  and its corresponding ester unless specific data for each compound were available.

     All risk estimates are based on release and exposure values estimated from information
on product usage and work practices obtained from industry surveys. No actual measures of
chemical release or exposure levels were available.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 111-21

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Background and Methodology for Performance Demonstrations _ Background

      Certain formulation components are described in the CTSA by their category name, such
as propylene glycol series ethers.  However, all risk calculations in the CTSA are based on
chemical-specific hazard  and exposure data. Thus, risk values may appear for some category
members but not others because of limitations in available data.

Ecological Risk

      The basic elements of ecological risk assessment are similar to those employed in human
health risk assessment. This report will address only ecological risks to aquatic species.
Quantitative evaluation of aquatic risks involves deriving an "ecotoxicity concern concentration
(ECO CC)" for chronic exposures to aquatic species. The ECO CC may be based either on
actual toxicologic test data on the subject chemical or on quantitative structure- activity relation
analysis of test data on similar chemicals.  The ECO CC is typically expressed as a mg/1 water
concentration. Concentrations below the ECO CC are assumed to present low risk to aquatic
species.  A notation of "N.E.S." rather than a numeric estimate of the ECO CC indicates that no
adverse effects are expected in a saturated solution during the specified exposure period.

      For further background on the determination of ecological hazard,  see Appendix M.
          Background and Methodology for Performance Demonstrations
Background

      One purpose of the DfE Printing Project was to collect and disseminate to printers
information concerning the performance of several screen reclamation alternatives.  This
section of the CTSA summarizes performance information collected during laboratory and
production run performance demonstrations with alternative screen reclamation products
carried out between January and April 1994.  Performance data collected includes time spent
on ink removal, volume used, and appearance of the screen following each step.  Information
from the performance demonstrations, taken in conjunction with risk, cost and other
information in the CTSA, provides a more complete assessment of product systems than has
otherwise been available from one source. DfE participants believe that this information will
allow printers to make a number of comparisons that were not previously possible. For
example, printers can compare cost, risk and performance between screen  reclamation systems
currently used and alternative systems as well as across the alternative systems evaluated
during the performance demonstrations.

      In a joint and collaborative effort, EPA and the Screen Printing Association International
(SPAI) organized and conducted the performance demonstrations of 11 screen reclamation
product systems and one alternative technology.4 The DfE project staff contacted all known
product manufacturers to request submission of product systems.  The industry participants
and the  internal EPA workgroup decided to request that alternative product systems contain no
stratospheric ozone depleting substances and no chlorinated compounds. This is due, in part,
  4Product systems are whatever combination of specific ink removers, emulsion removers, and haze removers the participating
manufacturer submitted or recommended.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-22

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Background and Methodology for Performance Demonstrations _ Background

to the expectation that impending regulations may effect market availability and use of these
substances. The DfE Project Staff did not solicit those products containing chlorinated
compounds due to the scheduled phase-out of many of these chemicals under the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments.

     Performance data were collected for each product system in a laboratory setting at the
Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF) and also in production runs at 23 volunteer
facilities. The performance demonstration protocol was developed by consensus with the
involvement of EPA, product manufacturers, and screen printers. The protocol was designed
to allow the evaluation of the maximum number of product systems given the resources
available to the project.  The intent of the SPTF evaluations was to assure that the product
systems sent to printers would provide an acceptable level  of performance. This screening level
evaluation also provided another set of observations to compare with in-facility demonstration
results. In-facility testing was undertaken at the request of printers participating in the DfE
project so that product systems would be evaluated during production runs at printing
facilities. It should be noted that the performance demonstrations are not rigorous scientific
investigations. Instead, the performance information in Chapter 5 documents the printers'
experiences with and opinions of these products as they were used in production runs at their
facilities.

     Methodology

     Performance evaluations were conducted in two distinct phases of the project.  SPTF
evaluated products under very controlled and consistent conditions. Volunteer printing
facilities nationwide collected much of the same information, but did so under more variable
conditions  during production.  The methodologies for data collection at SPTF and at the
printing facilities are outlined below.

     SPTF Evaluations

     At SPTF, each product system was tested on three imaged screens; one with solvent-
based ink,  one with LJV-cured ink and one with water-based ink. One of the most important
aspects of the SPTF methodology is that all evaluations were conducted under consistent screen
conditions  (e.g., tension, mesh type, emulsion type, thread count, image)  for all screens.  In
addition, the same technician conducted the  evaluations for all  product systems at SPTF. The
technician at SPTF recorded the following information:  amount of product used, time spent on
each reclamation step, level of effort required, and a qualitative assessment of product
effectiveness and screen condition. (See Appendix L for SPTF methodology.)

     Printing Facility Demonstrations

     SPAI recruited volunteer screen printers who print on plastic and vinyl substrates from
across the country.  EPA and SPAI staff matched the submitted product systems to volunteer
printing facilities based on existing equipment, ink type, and current practices.  Most products
were scheduled to be evaluated in two or three facilities to provide performance data from
different operating and ambient conditions.  Prior to shipping product systems to printers,
SPTF repackaged products or removed identifying marks and brand names so that those
printers (and the DfE observers) evaluating the products did not know the manufacturer or
product name. Masked MSDSs were also developed and shipped along with the product
systems to  be evaluated.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-23

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Background and Methodology for Performance Demonstrations _ Background

     The appropriate staff at each volunteer facility were asked to:

     o    provide background information on the facility, its screen printing operations, and
           its current screen reclamation process and products;

     o    participate in a one-day site visit in which a DfE observer would observe and
           document current practices, introduce facility staff to data recording and reporting
           needs of the project and allow the observation of screen reclamation using the
           alternative system;

     o    record information on product performance over a four-week period; and

     o    participate in a weekly telephone call with the DfE observer.

In designing the protocol and record-keeping, every effort was made to keep volunteer printers'
burden low and to minimize production disruptions.

     The printers recorded the same performance information as described in the SPTF
methodology.  Following the receipt of a facility background questionnaire sent by SPAI, the DfE
observer called each facility to review the details of their operation and to schedule a site visit.
(See Appendix G.)  Alternative product systems, MSDSs, application instructions, and spray
bottles were shipped to each facility prior to the DfE observer's site visit.

     DfE observers were not EPA employees, but were drawn from staff from Abt Associates,
Inc., and its subcontractor, Radian Corporation. They conducted the initial site visits to all
facilities.  During these visits, the observer documented current screen reclamation procedures
and the performance of current product systems, as well as three screen reclamations with the
alternative system.  Printers were asked to comment on the effectiveness of each product (ink
remover, emulsion remover and haze remover) and to determine if screen cleanliness was
sufficient for future re-imaging and printing. (See Appendix H for an example of the site visit
evaluation sheet.) After the observer's visit, the facility continued to use the alternative systems
for one month. During this time, facility staff recorded performance information (including
subsequent print image quality) on the alternative systems for approximately  12 screen
reclamations per week, using the standardized observation forms.  (See Appendices I and J for
examples of the evaluation sheets for ink removal and for haze and emulsion removal.)  Where
possible, facilities tracked the screens used in the demonstration to collect information on the
long-term performance and effects of these products. Each week, the DfE observer called the
facility staff for an update on the product system's performance, as well as to identify any
changes in the way the products were used.  These calls were documented in telephone logs.
(See Appendix K for an example.)

     A more detailed explanation of the methodology and product review protocols  is provided
in Appendix L.

     Data Col lection

     The information summarized in chapters 4 and 5 comes from five sources.

     o    Each product system  was evaluated at SPTF using ink types compatible  with the
           product system (up to three types:  solvent-based, UV-cured, and water-based).
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-24

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Background and Methodology for Performance Demonstrations _ Background

      o    Each facility completed a background questionnaire profiling printing and
           reclamation operations. The questionnaire was typically either completed or
           reviewed with the DfE observer during the initial site visit.

      o    DfE observers visited each facility. During the visits they observed a reclamation
           with the current product system and up to three reclamations using the alternative
           system.

      o    The facility staff completed as many as 12 observation forms per week for four
           weeks.

      o    Weekly follow-up calls made by the DfE observers.

      Data Summary and Analysis

      Summaries and analyses were prepared for each product system keeping each facilities'
experiences with that product system separate. A number of statistics correlations were
attempted for each facility but the results are typically not statistically significant due to small
sample size.  Correlations included:

      o    the effectiveness of ink removal compared with variables, such as, effort/time spent
           on ink removal,  ink color, number of impressions

      o    the condition of screen after emulsion removal step compared with variables, such
           as,  effort/time spent on emulsion removal, prior ink coverage

      o    the condition of screen after all reclamation steps are complete (is screen reusable
           for  all types of print jobs) compared with effort/time spent on haze removal,
           effectiveness of previous steps

      Where appropriate, these results are included within the text summaries in Chapter 5 of
each product system. Some summary statistics, such as average  amount of product used, are
presented in accompanying tables.

      Limitations

      As noted  previously, the inclusion of widely variable conditions across and within
facilities and the short duration of the performance demonstrations does not allow the results
to be  interpreted as definitive performance assessments of the product systems. In addition,
some facilities did not provide the full complement of observation forms for several reasons
including, unacceptable performance of the product system, personnel problems, insufficient
volume of products supplied, and lost records of the performance demonstrations.

      As mentioned above, the performance demonstrations are not scientifically rigorous but
are subjective assessments which reflect the conditions and experience of two to three
individual facilities.  There are a number of reasons why the results of performance
demonstrations for one particular product system  may differ from one facility to another and/or
from the SPTF  results. Among these reasons are:
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-25

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Background and Methodology for Performance Demonstrations _ Background

      o    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 during the performance demonstrations
           including age of screen, ink color, ink coverage, image size, ink type and drying time
           prior to reclamation.

      o    Variability of ambient conditions. Conditions, such as temperature and humidity,
           were recorded but not controlled during performance  demonstrations.  Many
           screen printers reported that ambient conditions affect performance of products
           they use (e.g., temperature effect on drying of ink on screens).

      o    Chemical interactions with products used previously on  screen. Printers and
           manufacturers have reported that the use of several different types of chemicals
           previously applied to clean a screen can affect the performance of products
           currently used to clean the screen. Product systems are often designed for chemical
           compatibility during the screen reclamation process; if another product is added to
           the product system that is chemically incompatible, cleaning performance of the
           system may be affected. This may occur when a particular chemical, such as
           lacquer thinner,  is used to remove ink at press-side during a print run (such as
           removing ink while the printer stops for lunch); if a printer is using a water-based
           screen reclamation product system, chemical incompatibilities can affect product
           system performance.  If a printer has been using a variety of hydrocarbon solvents,
           such as acetone and xylene, to clean a screen, prior to demonstrating the
           effectiveness of an  alternative system, the performance of the alternative  system may
           be affected by a residue of hydrocarbons on the surface of the screen.  In the second
           case, the testing would be more effective if a new screen was used; however, this
           was typically not the case in  the performance demonstration.  In either case, the
           performance demonstration may have been affected by (1)  residue chemicals on the
           surface of the screen or (2) the chemical "conditioning" of the screen.

      o    Variability of staff involved in performance demonstrations. At SPTF,  the same
           technician conducted  and recorded all testing. At the volunteer facilities, more than
           one individual often conducted the reclamations during which data were collected.
           Reclaimers' past experience also differs and can affect their perception of
           performance.  For  example,  a screen reclaimer who has  only used highly effective
           ink removers may  differ in their  opinion of "moderate  scrubbing effort" from a
           reclaimer whose current ink remover instructions call for one to two minutes of
           scrubbing with a brush.


Product System Summaries

      A performance summary of each product system is detailed in Chapter 5. In each is a
general summary of product performance, a description of the product application method,
results from the evaluation at SPTF, details of product performance reported separately for
each volunteer printing facility, and facility background information. For each product system,
a table is also included which provides certain summary statistics from the performance
demonstrations at the volunteer printing facilities and at SPTF (for three ink types) .  For a
quick summary of the results,  the table providing summary statistics is very helpful.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                III-26

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Chemical Volume Estimates
                               Chemical Volume Estimates

      Volumes for chemicals used within screen reclamation were estimated.  Volumes of the
chemicals produced within the nation, export volumes, and import volumes were estimated
from information obtained from the following sources:  Chemical Economics Handbook5,  US
ITC6, Mansville7, US EPA reports8, Kirk-Othmer9, and industry sources.  In some cases,
volumes reported represent broader categories than the individual chemical.  Volumes for the
portion of the chemicals used within screen reclamation was not readily available.

      The Workplace Practices Questionnaire,10 SPAI's 1990 Survey,11 and expert opinion
estimates were used to develop an estimate of the chemical volumes. The following
methodology summarizes the assumptions and calculations used to estimate the annual
national totals of chemicals used in  screen reclamation.

      The information needed to develop the estimates included the average screen size, the per
screen volume of each type of reclamation product, market shares, the number of screens
cleaned yearly, and the number of screen printing operations.  This information, and its
sources, is summarized in Table III- 1 .

      The screen size, in conjunction with the amount of product used or purchased and  the
number of screens cleaned, was used  to determine the per screen product usage. Typical
formulations were then used to determine the chemical breakdown of the reclamation
products.  Combining this information resulted in estimates of the volumes of chemicals used
for screen reclamation.  Additional detail of the methodology is given below.


Average Screen Size

      Estimated from the Workplace Practices survey, observations were weighted by the
number of screens cleaned per day. This is a normalization technique which  incorporates the
frequency of screen cleaning  as well as the size  of the screens.  The average screen size was
  5SRI. selected reports from 1985 to 1993. Chemical Economics Handbook. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

  6USITC.  1993 and 1994 Synthetic Organic Chemicals:  United States Production and Sales. 1991. U.S. International
Trade Commission, Washington, DC.

  7Manville. selected reports from 1990 - 1993. Manville Chemical Products Corporation, Asbury Park, NJ.

  8US EPA reports, including the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory (1985), "Aqueous and
Terpene Cleaning" (1990), "Economic Analysis of Final Test Rules for DGBE and DGBA" (1987), "Glycol Ethers: An
Overview" (1985)
  9Kirk-Othmer, 1981, "Oils,essential." Om: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., vol 16. New York:
Wiley.

  10The Workplace Practices Questionnaire was developed by EPA, SPAI and the University of Tennessee in 1993. It
contains information on 115 screen printing facilities' operating and work practice characteristics.  See Appendix B for a
reproduction of the blank questionnaire and Appendix C for a summary of responses.

  "Screen Printing Association International, 1990 Industry Profile Study, (Fairfax, Va.: 1991).


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    III-27

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage _ Number of Screens Cleaned

estimated to be 2,916 square inches.  This value differs from the average in the appendix due to
this normalization to incorporate incomplete responses.


Per Screen Product Usage

      Usage levels for three types of reclamation products were calculated using information
collected through the Workplace Practices Survey:  ink remover, emulsion remover, and haze
remover.  Information used included average screens printed per day, volumes of products
purchased each year,  and the unit price of the products.  Certain observations such as those
from facilities carrying out in-plant recycling, were excluded from the calculations as these
would distort the average volume used per screen of one-time ink removal operations. The
average volume used per screen was calculated  by dividing the annual amount of product
purchased by the number of screens cleaned per year (assuming 252 working days and the
midpoint of the range of screens cleaned per day) .
Derivation of Market Share of Traditional and Alternative Screen Reclamation Products

      Current use of screen reclamation products is  divided  between traditional products,
generally high VOC solvents, and alternative products, usually low or no VOC content products.
To calculate the market share represented by each type of product, data was collected from the
Work Practices Survey (see Appendices B and C).  In the calculation, market share is not based on
volume used but rather on total screen area cleaned since traditional and alternative products may
require very different quantities to clean the same screen area.

      The formula used to calculate market share is as follows:

           Market ShareAlt = AAlt/AAlt+Tra       Market ShareTra = ATra/AAlt+Tra

Where:

Alt denotes Alternative Product
Tra denotes Traditional Product          F
A = total screen area cleaned daily =     S [# of screens cleaned daily x area of screens]
                                 n
F = number of facilities cleaning screens

Ink Removers

      A simplistic decision rule, based on expert opinion, was used to classify ink removers as
alternative or traditional.  If the price of an ink remover in the Work Practices Survey was below
$5.60/gallon then it was considered traditional. If the unit price was above $ 18.90/gallon then the
product was considered to be alternative.  An additional seven ink removal products were assigned
as traditional or alternative based on having a brand name in common with a product assigned
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-28

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage _ Number of Screens Cleaned

using the price thresholds.12  As the Work Practices Survey collected brand names, we did not
know the composition of the product and had no other method to determine which category the
products fit into.  Once facilities were identified as using either traditional or alternative products,
the screen area cleaned per day for each facility was estimated.13 The screen area cleaned per day
is then summed across facilities within product types.  To estimate market share, the screen area
cleaned using each type of product was then divided by the total screen area cleaned daily with both
types of products.  The results indicate  that the percentage of total screen area cleaned  using
traditional products equals 65.6% and the percentage of total screen area cleaned using alternative
products equals 34.4%.

Emulsion Removers

      As there is little difference among emulsion removers used in the Work Practices survey no
distinction was made between traditional and alternative emulsion removers.

Haze Removers

      The market share of haze removers used by printing operations that is considered to be
traditional and the market share that is considered to be alternative is not known.  Consequently,
in the cost analysis, it was assumed that all haze removers currently used are traditional products.
Number of Screens Cleaned

      The number of screens cleaned per year was taken from SPAI's 1990 survey, where facilities
reported which range they fit into.  In order to use this information for our calculations, an average
value was chosen to represent each range. For the top range of 41 screens or more, 50 screens per
day was used.  The remaining figures are reported in Table III-1.

      Using an SPAI estimate of 20,000 screen printing facilities  (excluding textile printers), the
total number of screens cleaned per day can be estimated. For example, 57 percent of facilities
clean one to ten screens, or an average of 5.5, a day, resulting in 62,700 screens a day for that
particular range.  Continuing the analysis results in an estimate of 272,710 screens cleaned per
day.
   12  A substantial portion (~ 70%) of screen area reported in the Work Practices survey could not be assigned to traditional or
alternative products and were, therefore, not included in the above calculation.


   13  Data reported in the Work Practices Survey was limited to the total volume of alternative and traditional products
purchased annually and the total number of screens cleaned per day at the facility. The number of screens cleaned per day with
each type of product was not indicated. As a result, the average price of the ink remover was calculated and used to establish
which type of product the facility was using.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    III-29

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
EVALUATION
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage
National Estimates of Screen Reclamation Products
                                          Table 111-2
                             Information for Screen Reclamation
                                 Chemical Volume Estimates
Description
Average screen size3
Per screen product usage3
Ink remover market share3>d
Screens cleaned per dayb
Number of screen printing facilities0
Number of screens cleaned per dayd
Data
2916 sc
Product
Ink remover (traditional)
Ink remover (alternative)
Emulsion remover
Haze remover
in
Oz/Screen (Gal/Screen)
98 (0.7663)
22(0.1731)
8.8 (0.0685)
2(0.0160)
Traditional - 65.6%
Alternative - 34.4%
Range of # of Screens
1to10
11 to 20
21 to 30
31 to 40
41 or more
Value used
5.5
15.5
25.5
35.5
50
% of facilities
57.0
23.2
9.8
4.1
5.9
20,000
272,710
  3Based on raw data from WPQ for screen printing adjusted for incomplete responses.
  "SPAI's 1990 Industry Profile.
  CSPAI estimate.
  Calculated value.

National Estimates of Screen Reclamation Products

      Multiplying product usage per screen by market share by the total number of screens cleaned
per year provides estimates of the amount of screen reclamation products used nationally.  All
facilities are assumed to use ink remover, emulsion remover, and haze remover; this may result
in an overestimate of chemicals used as not  all facilities use haze remover, at least not on all
screens.  Market share estimates, developed  by EPA in consultation with industry experts, are
provided in Table III-3.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                   III-30

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
EVALUATION
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage
National Estimates of Screen Reclamation Products
                                          Table 111-3
                  Estimated Market Share for Screen Reclamation Products
Chemical
Ink Remover, Traditional Formulations
Xylene
Mineral spirits
Acetone
Lacquer thinner3
Market Sh are (%)

20
20
20
40
Ink Remnver Alternative Formulations
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Methoxypropanol acetate
Dibasic estersb
Diethylene glycol
Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Terpineols/d-limonene (50/50)
Propylene glycol
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Cyclohexanone
10
10
30
3
5
1
5
15
10
5
Fmulfiinn Remnver
Bleach (sodium hypochlorite) (12% solution in water)
Sodium metaperiodate (4% solution in water)
Periodic acid (10% solution in water)
Sodium bisulfate (50% solution in water)
Ha7e Remnver
Sodium hydroxide (20% solution in water)
Potassium hydroxide (20% solution in water)
Sodium hypochlorite (12% solution in water)
Mixture of 65% Glycol ethers0 and 35% N-methylpyrrolidone
10
80
5
5

25
25
10
10
DRAFT—September 1994
                                    111-31

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage _ Estimates of Chemical Usage for Screen Reclamation

                                           Table 1 1 1-3
                  Estimated Market Share for Screen Reclamation Products
Chemical
Mixture of 10% d-limonene, 20% Sodium hydroxide, and 70% water
Mixture of 10% Xylene, 30% Acetone, 30% Mineral spirits, and 30% Cyclohexanone
Market Sh are (%)
10
20
 aThe formulation for Lacquer thinner is as follows:
                               CAS#       Percentage
 (1) Methyl ethyl ketone       78933          30%
 (2) n-butyl acetate                123-86-4        15%
 (3) Methanol                     67561          5%
 (4) Solvent naphtha, light aliphatic     64742-89-8      20%
 (5) Toluene                     108883         20%
 (6) Isobutyl isobutyrate       97858          10%
 bThis category includes dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl adipate, dimethyl succinate in a 2:1:1 ratio.
 This category includes propylene glycol methy ether, methoxypropanol acetate, propylene glycol methyl ether acetate,
 tripropylene glycol methyl ether, and diethylene glycol mono butyl ether in equal portions.



Estimates of Chemical Usage for Screen Reclamation

      To estimate the amount of individual chemicals used, the product volumes estimated earlier
were combined with the market share estimates to determine the amount of individual chemicals
used. Chemicals that are solids at room temperature are reported in units of mass (pounds) and
those that are liquids are reported in units of volume (gallons).  The estimated amount of chemicals
is  reported in Table III-4. Many of the chemicals do not have estimates; the chemical's specific
information provided for this analysis  (reported in Table III-2) is an overview and, therefore, did
not  cover all of the chemicals used in screen reclamation.  We were unable to collect volume
information directly from reclamation  product manufacturers.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                      III-32

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
EVALUATION
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage
Estimates of Chemical Usage for Screen Reclamation
                                        Table 111-4
       Estimated Annual Amount of Chemicals Currently Used in Screen Reclamation
                     (Liquids are reported by volume, solids by weight)
Chemical
Acetone
Alcohols, C8-C10, ethoxylated
Alcohols, C12-C14, ethoxylated
Benzyl alcohol
2-Butoxyethanol
n-Butyl acetate
Butyrolactone
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
Diacetone alcohol
Dichloromethane
Diethyl adipate
Diethyl glutarate
Diethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Diisopropyl adipate
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol amine salt
Ethoxylated castor oil
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Ethyl acetate
Ethvl lactate
Volume
(Gallons)
6,920,000
NAa
NA
NA
NA
1,920,000
NA
NA
270,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
122,000
420,000
NA
NA

609,000
304,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Weight
(Pounds)

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
2,700,000
5,500,000

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DRAFT—September 1994
                                    III-33

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
EVALUATION
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage
Estimates of Chemical Usage for Screen Reclamation
                                        Table 111-4
       Estimated Annual Amount of Chemicals Currently Used in Screen Reclamation
                     (Liquids are reported by volume, solids by weight)
Chemical
Ethyl oleate
Fumed silica
Furfuryl alcohol
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Isobutyl oleate
Isopropanol
d-Limonene
Methoxypropanol acetate
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl lactate
Mineral Spirits
N-Methyl pyrrolidone
2-Octdecanamine, N.Ndimethyl, Noxide
Periodic acid
Phosphoric acid, mixed ester w/isopropanol and ethoxylated tridecanol
Potassium hydroxide
Propylene carbonate
Propylene glycol
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene gycol methyl ether acetate
Silica
Silica, fumed (amorphous, crystalline-free)
Sodium bisulfate
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Volume
(Gallons)
NA
NA
NA
2,630,000
NA
NA

420,000
610,000
3,720,000
NA
6,920,000
38,000
NA

NA

NA
203,000
418,000
217,000
NA
NA

NA

69,000
Weight
(Pounds)
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
1,100,000



NA


NA
1,020,000
NA
1,060,000
NA



NA
NA
2,350,000
NA
1,450,000

DRAFT—September 1994
                                    III-34

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
EVALUATION
Screen Reclamation Chemical Usage
Estimates of Chemical Usage for Screen Reclamation
                                         Table 111-4
       Estimated Annual Amount of Chemicals Currently Used in Screen Reclamation
                     (Liquids are reported by volume, solids by weight)
Chemical
Sodium lauryl sulfate
Sodium metasilicate
Sodium periodate
Sodium salt, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid
Solvent naphtha, heavy aromatic
Solvent naphtha, light aliphatic
Solvent naphtha, light aromatic
Special tall oil
Terpineols
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Triethanolamine salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Trisodium phosphate
Xylene
Volume
(Gallons)
NA
NA

NA
NA
2,160,000
NA
NA

NA
2,670,000
NA
NA
NA
623,000
NA
6,880,000
Weight
(Pounds)
NA
NA
11,700,000
NA
NA

NA
NA
1,100,000
NA

NA
NA
NA

NA

  aNot available. Some chemical amounts were not estimated; sufficient information on the use of those chemicals in the screen
  printing industry was not available.

                              Cost Analysis Methodology

      The following methodology was used to estimate the costs of baseline screen reclamation as
well as the cost of six alternative chemical, technological and work practice substitutes.  The cost
estimation methodology is intended to reflect standard industry practices and representative data
for the given screen reclamation substitutes.  The performance demonstrations conducted during
production runs at  23 volunteer facilities in early 1994 were  the predominant source of
information for the cost estimates.  Information  from the performance demonstrations was
supplemented by several other sources, including (1) product evaluations undertaken by the
Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF), (2) equipment specifications from manufacturers
DRAFT—September 1994
                                    III-35

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Cost Analysis Methodology _ General Description of Costing Methodology

and distributors, (3) industry statistics collected by trade groups, (4) EPA's risk assessment work
undertaken as part of the CTSA, and (5) industry experts and suppliers.

      For each substitute method, annual facility costs and per screen costs were estimated for
individual facilities (those involved in the performance demonstrations) whose operations were
characteristic of the given substitute method.  For the hypothetical baseline facility, the total annual
cost and per screen cost were estimated for reclaiming six screens (2, 127 in2) per day.  In addition,
each  facility's costs were normalized to allow cross-facility comparisons, particularly with the
baseline  scenario.  Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and
number  of rags laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of
screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario.

      A general description of the cost estimation methodology and data sources used is presented
below. The second section presents additional details for the baseline scenario and  each of the six
substitute screen reclamation methods.
General Description of Costing Methodology

      The baseline screen reclamation scenario and substitutes are defined as follows:

      o    Baseline.  Traditional chemical formulations for ink removal, emulsion removal and
           haze removal.

      o    Method 1. Chemical substitutes for ink removal and emulsion removal.  No haze
           removal required.

      o    Method 2. Chemical substitutes for ink removal, emulsion removal and haze removal.

      o    Method 3.  SPAI Workshop Process -- Chemical substitutes for ink removal,  ink
           degradant, degreasing and emulsion removal.  No haze removal required.

      o    Method 4.  Technology substitute of high pressure wash for ink removal; technology
           substitute and reclamation products used for emulsion and haze removal.

      o    Technology substitute. Use of automatic screen washer for ink removal.

      o    Work practice substitute.  Screen disposal in lieu of reclamation.

      In general, the cost estimate for each reclamation  method was composed of the sum of six
distinct cost elements: labor, reclamation products, materials, resource use, equipment, and waste
disposal.

      o    Labor.  The  printer's staff time spent on each reclamation step (e.g., ink removal,
           emulsion  removal,  haze removal and  degreasing) was collected or estimated from
           various sources. The total time estimate does  not include collecting screens from
           printing  areas,   waiting  for  product reactions  as  might  be  specified  in  the
           manufacturers^ application instructions, maintenance of reclamation area, or handling
           of segregated waste materials. The labor cost was calculated as the total time spent
           multiplied by  (1) the average wage rate for screen reclaimers of $6.53/hour (as reported
           in SPAI's  1993 Wage Survey Report for the  Screen Printing Industry)  and  (2) an


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 III-36

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
EVALUATION
Cost Analysis Methodology
General Description of Costing Methodology
           industry multiplier of 2.01 (calculated from SPAI's 1992 Operating Ratios Study) to
           account for fringe and overhead costs.

           Reclamation products. The average usage per screen was calculated for each product
           (i.e.,  ink remover,  emulsion remover, haze  remover, and degreaser) used  by a
           particular facility. Because of wide variations, no attempt was made to average across
           facilities or product systems within the same substitute method.   For comparative
           purposes, "normalized" average quantities were calculated by multiplying actual usage
           with the ratio of the baseline screen size of 2,127 in2 to the recorded screen size.
           Multiplying usage with the unit cost of each product (provided by each participating
           manufacturer and summarized in Table III-5) yielded the reclamation product costs.
           Costs associated with special storage requirements for products were not considered
           in the cost analysis.
                                         Table 111-5
                 Alternative Screen Printing Systems: Manufacturer Pricing
System
Alpha
Beta
Chi
Delta
Epsilon
Gamma
Mu
Phi
Omicron
Theta
Ink Remover
$18.18/gallon
(5gallons/$91)
(55 gallons/$850)
$15.10/gallon
$31.20/gallon
(5gallons/$156)
(55gallons/$1,315)
$20.00/gallon
(5gallons/$100)
(55 gallons/$900)
$7.80/gallon
(5 gallons/$39)
$10.90/gallon
(25 liters/$72)
(5 gallons/$55)
($7.76/gallon)
(20liters/$41)
(5 gallons/$39)
$24.95/gallon
$13.40/gallon
(5 gallons/$67)
(55 gallons/$540)
No ink remover costs
Other costs: $5,170
Emulsion Remover
$4.00/gallon
Ink remover only
$32.00/gallon
(5gallons/$160)
(15gallons/$438)
(55gallons/$1,238)
$32.00/gallon
(5gallons/$160)
(15gallons/$438)
(55gallons/$1,238)
$13.54/gallon
(5kg/$149)
$1.60/lb
(15kg/$53)
$10.34/gallon
(3 five liter units/$41)
(5 gallons/$52)
$24.95/gallon
$11.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$55)
(55 gallons/$530)
$21.95/gallon
Haze Remover
$9.39/gallon
(5 kg/$50)
Ink remover only
$31.20/gallon
(5gallons/$156)
(55gallons/$1,315)
$20.00/gallon
(5gallons/$100)
(55 gallons/$900)
$1.09/gallon
(15kg/$36)
$9.39/gallon
(25 liters/$62)
(5 gallons/$52)
$7.57/gallon
(5 five liter units/$50)
(5gallons/$189)
$39.95/gallon
$18.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$90)
$43.00/gallon
DRAFT—September 1994
                              III-37

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Cost Analysis Methodology _ General Description of Costing Methodology

                                         Table 1 1 1-5
                 Alternative Screen Printing Systems: Manufacturer Pricing
System
Zeta
Ink Remover
$23.00/gallon
Emulsion Remover
$23.00/gallon
Haze Remover
$30.00/gallon
  Note:  Volume conversions were made using 3.785 liters/gallon.
       The price of the greatest volume in the table (e.g., 55 gallons) was used when estimating cost for a particular system.

     o    Materials (e.g.. rags, screens).  This element is most important for the work practice
           substitute of screen disposal.  A supplier quote was used for the  unit cost of screen
           mesh (40" wide, 260 threads per square inch). Wastage was assumed to be 10 percent
           of the screen size. For all methods, rag use was estimated or recorded for the baseline
           and all substitute methods.  It was assumed that rags were leased and laundered at
           a  cost  of $0.15/rag.  Changes in  the number of application brushes  between the
           baseline and substitute methods is considered inconsequential.

     o    Resource Use. The cost of electricity and water was addressed quantitatively only for
           Method 4 (high pressure wash). The equipment was assumed to be in operation only
           for the recorded time spent on ink removal.  Equipment specifications  for flow rate
           and electrical rating provided by the manufacturer allow the calculation  of water and
           electricity use. The cost of water,  electricity and sewer were estimated using utility
           rates in the Northeast, a generally  conservative assumption.  For all other methods,
           changes in resource use are considered inconsequential.

     o    Equipment. Equipment costs were considered for Method 4 (high pressure wash) and
           the automatic screen washer only.   Equipment costs common to all the methods and
           the baseline were excluded from the analysis. The capital costs were amortized over
           a ten-year period, the estimated engineering life of the equipment.  An interest rate of
           7 percent for small business loans was used (which represents the marginal rate of
           return on capital). The annualized cost of equipment was adjusted (using a marginal
           tax rate of 34 percent) to reflect  the nontaxable  nature of interest and (10-year)
           depreciation for such equipment.

     o    Waste disposal. Hazardous waste disposal costs were assumed only if the reclamation
           products contain RCRA-listed chemicals or if the products are defined  as characteristic
           wastes due to their ignitable  nature (See  Table III-6).  For each  product system,
           hazardous waste generation rates (in g/day for 6 screens), were estimated by chemical
           engineers on EPA's staff.  This methodology does not consider  the possible effect
           residual inks may have on the waste's hazard classification. It also assumes that other
           wastestreams at the facility are hazardous; thus, the labor cost of training and
           managing hazardous wastes is not associated with screen reclamation  only. Given that
           filtration systems used to remove residual inks and reclamation products from spent
           wash water (spent filters must be disposed of) may be required for both baseline and
           alternative systems,  filtration system and filter disposal costs were not included in the
           cost analysis. The analysis focuses on quantifying cost differences among reclamation
           methods.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  III-38

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
EVALUATION
Cost Analysis Methodology
           Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach
                                           Table 111-6
   Alternative Screen Printing Systems:  Determination of RCRA Hazardous Waste Listing
System
Alpha
Beta
Chi
Delta
Epsilon
Gamma
Mu
Phi
Omicron (AE &
AF)
Theta
Zeta
Ink remover
RCRA Characteristic waste (ignitable)
Flashpoint = 101°F/38°C
None
None
None
RCRA Listed waste (cyclohexanone - all
other components qualify as listed under
mixture rule). Also Characteristic waste
(ignitable)
Flashpoint = 46°C/1 15° F
None
RCRA Characteristic waste (ignitable)
Flashpoint = 131°F/55°C
None
None
No ink remover
RCRA Characteristic waste (ignitable)
Flashpoint = 101°F/38°C
Emulsion remover
None
Ink remover only
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Haze remover
None
Ink remover only
None
None
1:1 dilution with ink remover. All
components quality as hazardous
waste under mixture rule.
None
None
None
None
RCRA Listed waste (cyclohexanone
- all other components qualify as
listed under mixture rule)
None
 All information on flashpoint was gathered from masked MSDSs submitted by supplier.  None of the above information should
 be used for compliance purposes.  None of the chemicals in these formulations is listed as toxic characteristic contaminants and
 were not treated as such in the cost analysis; however, printers should use the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
 (TCLP) to determine the applicability of the toxicity characteristic to their particular waste stream.

Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach

      In  addition to the methodological approach outlined  above, there  a number of important
assumptions and  differences specific to the cost estimations of each screen reclamation method.
Details related to data sources and the methodological approach used to estimate the cost of each
reclamation method are presented below.

      Baseline Screen Reclamation

      Four traditional systems are defined in Chapter 5, the primary distinction among them being
the chemical constituents of  the ink remover, emulsion remover and haze remover.  Traditional
System #4 was used to estimate baseline costs, as it was expected to be more representative of
systems  currently in use. The baseline products used are described as follows:
      Ink remover
      Emulsion remover
      Haze remover
lacquer thinner
1.25% sodium periodate in water
10% xylene (by weight)
30% acetone
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                       III-39

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Cost Analysis Methodology _ Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach

                                 30% mineral spirits
                                 30% cyclohexanone

     For ink remover, time and volume information was taken from SPTF testing. An average
price for lacquer thinner was  calculated from  prices  reported in the Workplace  Practices
Questionnaire conducted by SPAI and the University of Tennessee.  Time, volume, and price
information for baseline emulsion removal was taken from the Zeta system used in performance
demonstrations.  Time and volume information  for the four-chemical baseline haze remover was
not available from the performance demonstrations and had to  be estimated based on the SPTF
evaluation of a similar haze remover, resulting in a time of 11.5 minutes. A volume of 3 ounces for
haze removal was taken from the application instructions developed for SPTF.  A price for
purchasing this formulation in a 5 5 -gallon drum quantity was quoted by Ashland Chemical.

     A second baseline scenario was developed which excluded the haze removal step.  The second
baseline reflects the fact that between 27 and 80 percent of facilities regularly use a haze remover.
The  second baseline also allowed comparisons of Method 1 (no haze removal) with a similar
baseline.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                III-40

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Cost Analysis Methodology	Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach


     Substitute Method 1: Chemical Substitutes for Ink Removal and Emulsion Removal.  No
     Haze Removal Required.

     Two assumptions affect the cost analysis of Substitute Method 1. Eliminating haze removal
avoids both the material and labor costs of haze removal. The estimated cost difference between
Substitute Method 1 and the baseline may also be affected by the assumption that the baseline
facility uses haze remover during all screen reclamations; however, industry figures indicate that
haze removal is undertaken on between 27 and 80 percent of reclamations. Therefore, the baseline
used in the analysis of this alternative method excludes haze removal.  The amount of ink remover
and  emulsion remover used  and time  spent on reclamation were taken  from performance
demonstrations.   Product prices were  provided by  participating suppliers.   Performance
demonstration results  from product systems Chi (excluding the haze removal step) and Beta
(including an emulsion removal step from System Zeta) were used to estimate the cost of Substitute
Method 1.

     Substitute Method 2: Chemical substitutes for ink removal, emulsion removal and haze
     removal.

     The amount of each reclamation product used and time spent on reclamation were available
from the performance demonstrations.  Product prices were provided by participating suppliers.
Performance demonstration results for product systems Alpha, Chi, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu,
Phi, Omicron-AE, Omicron-AF, and Zeta were used to estimate the cost of Substitute Method 2.

     Substitute Method 3: SPAI Workshop Process - Chemical substitutes for ink removal,
     ink degradant, degreasing and emulsion removal.  No haze removal required.

     The amounts  of ink and emulsion removers used were  available  from performance
demonstrations of product system Omicron.  Based on information about the SPAI Workshop
Process, which indicated that  the  overall  time  spent reclaiming  screens  would not change
appreciably from  a typical reclamation process, the average time spent (including 5 minutes for
treatment with ink degradant and degreasing)  from the evaluation of product system Omicron by
four facilities was used to estimate labor costs.  Documentation of the SPAI Workshop Process was
used to estimate the amount of ink degradant (3 ounces) and degreaser (3 ounces) used. Product
prices were available from participating suppliers.

     Substitute  Method 4:  Technology substitute of high pressure wash for ink removal;
     technology substitute and reclamation products used for emulsion and haze removal.

     Data collected by SPTF staff during a facility visit and equipment specifications provided by
the manufacturer were used to develop the cost for this method.  The capital cost of this equipment
was  annualized by  the method described above and added to  the  recurring  operating and
maintenance costs and divided by the number of screens reclaimed  per year to arrive at the per
screen  equipment costs.  Water, wastewater and electrical usage costs  were included in the cost
estimate for this method only. As in all other cost estimations, the cost of a filtration system was
not included  as the analysis was  focused on quantifying  cost differences  between reclamation
systems, without accounting for filtration costs that could be expected to occur in all cases.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                11141

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Cost Analysis Methodology _ Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach

     Technology Substitute of Automatic Screen Washer for Ink Removal

     Although several suppliers  of automatic  screen washers were asked to participate in
performance demonstrations, none accepted.  As information on automatic screen washers was,
therefore, not collected as part of the performance demonstrations, it was gathered from other
sources, including an equipment supplier and a printer.  Two cost estimates were developed which
reflect the baseline facility's operations and size and the range of equipment available. Typically,
automatic screen washers substitute for the ink removal step; emulsion removal and haze removal
may still be required.

     Automatic Screen Washer # 1 was a large capacity (in terms of the maximum size of screen)
enclosed washer with a fully automated feed system to move the screens through separate wash
and rinse areas. It was assumed that mineral spirits were in  both reservoirs. As mineral spirits
were used in the ink removal step, the cost analysis of automatic screen washer # 1 assumes the
same emulsion and haze removal costs as in the baseline. Its purchase price was assumed to be
$95,000, the original manufacturer's list price, although the printer purchased the equipment at
auction.  The only operating costs were related to solvent make-up (daily) and replacement of the
reservoirs' contents 70 gallons (every eight to nine months) .  Information on other operating costs
was  not available;  it was assumed that these  costs would be minimal as compared to the
equipment costs. Time spent loading and unloading the washers was taken from manufacturer's
documentation of the equipment.  As the equipment's electrical rating was not available from
information provided by the distributor, electrical costs were not included. The price of mineral
spirits ($4.00/gallon)  was taken from the Work Practice Survey.  Emulsion removal  and  haze
removal costs were  assumed to be similar to those of the baseline system.

     Automatic Screen Washer #2 is  a smaller unit.  Screens  must be loaded and unloaded by
hand. Because it uses a solvent with lower volatile fraction than # 1 , more solvent remains on the
screen and must be washed off following ink removal.  Time  spent loading and unloading the
washers was taken  from manufacturer's documentation of the equipment. Two pumps operate
using compressed air which is reportedly available from other sources at the facility; the cost of
a generator was not included in the cost analysis. The price  of the ink remover was provided by
the equipment supplier.  Emulsion removal costs were assumed to be similar to those of the
baseline system.  The manufacturer indicated that a  haze remover was not required  given the
formulation of the ink remover.

     Work Practice Substitute of Screen Disposal

     The cost estimate of screen disposal was developed for comparison to other reclamation
methods.  Information on screen disposal was  not  collected  as part of the performance
demonstrations.  Consequently, one  cost  estimate was developed which reflects the baseline
facility's operations and size.  It should be noted that screen disposal is most cost effective under
two circumstances  not assumed for the model facility's  operations:  where  production runs
approach the useful life of a screen and where the  size of the screen is relatively small. A number
of assumptions were used to estimate the cost of this substitute method, including:

     o     No other changes in operations or equipment were  required.

     o     Waste screens do not need to be handled as hazardous waste under RCRA which
           would greatly increase the  estimated  cost.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                III42

-------
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON METHODOLOGIES USED IN SCREEN RECLAMATION RISK, PERFORMANCE AND COST
Cost Analysis Methodology _ Details Related to Data Sources and Methodological Approach

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

      o    The average wage rate of screen stretchers ($6.87),  which is slightly higher than  for
           screen reclaimers, was used to calculate labor costs for this method.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                   III-43

-------
                                                                          Chapter IV
                      Screen Reclamation Products: Functional Groups
     The intent of this chapter is to define the characteristics associated with each ink remover,
emulsion remover and haze remover.  Because of the specific functions these three types of
products perform, they have been designated as functional groups in a screen reclamation system.
Information on the characteristics associated with each of these functional groups is presented in
a format that will allow comparison of several types of products within each functional group. For
example, given a hazard summary, purchase cost, exposure analysis and risk characterization for
several different types of ink removers, decisions regarding which one of these products would
work best in an individual facility could be made. However, to gain a better understanding of all
the issues associated with the ink removers, performance information in Chapter V should be
referenced.   In  this chapter  information about  the different  ink removers is  combined with
emulsion and haze removers, forming a product system by which they are typically sold.  In this
way the variables of performance and total cost can be fully evaluated.

     In the sections below, characteristics of many of the different formulations  associated with
ink, emulsion and haze removers are described. However, these formulations are not all-inclusive;
other formulations may be available commercially. These particular formulations were selected
by a workgroup consisting of screen printing manufacturers who participated in the performance
demonstration, SPAI and DfE staff. For the purposes of this document, an ink remover has been
defined as any chemical, set of chemicals, process or technology that removes ink from the screen
surface.  Ink removers can also be referred to  as ink degradants.  Because the final  screen
reclamation process is being considered, not press-side in-process activities, some of the  ink
removers may also remove emulsions.  An emulsion or stencil remover has been defined as any
chemical, set of chemicals, process or technology that removes an emulsion from the  screen
surface.  Lastly,  a haze remover has been defined as  any chemical, set of chemicals, process or
technology that can remove the residual pigment and resin in screen mesh so as to  eliminate ghost
images.

     Each functional group is evaluated as follows:

     o     Hazard Summary and Cost
     o     Occupational Exposure
     o     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations
     o     Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
     o     Ecological Risks from Water Releases
     o     General Population Exposure Conclusions and Observations

     At  the  end of this chapter is a brief discussion of the process of manufacturing  screen
reclamation chemical products and a general source release assessment on product formulation.
Energy and natural resources use in product formulation is also discussed. Information on these
areas could not be discussed for each formulation or technology due to limited data availability.

     Information about pollution prevention opportunities  through workpractice changes and
equipment modifications is discussed in Chapter VI.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                IV-1

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function	Substitute Comparative Assessment


                                Ink Removal Function


Substitute Comparative Assessment

     Table IV-1 below lists some of the chemical ink removers that are available to screen printers.
In addition to chemical ink removers, specific technologies, such as high-pressure water wash
systems, are commercially available. Reference Method 4 in Chapter V for a discussion of this
option.  In Table IV-1, a brief hazard summary and a list of purchase prices is included for each
ink remover. For information on the chemical properties and industrial synthesis of the bulk
chemicals, refer to Chapter II and for performance information on these products in a given system
see Chapter V.  Market information on the volume of specific ink remover products sold is not
available.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 IV-2

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                                        Table IV-1
                       Hazard Summaries and Costs: Ink Removers
Formulation
Traditional Systems
System 1
100% Mineral spirits
System 2
100% Acetone
Svstem 3 & Svstem 4
100% Lacquer Thinner, consisting of:
30% Methyl ethyl ketone
15% Butyl acetate
5% Methanol
20% Naphtha, light aliphatic
20% Toluene
10% Isobutyl isobutyrate
%voc
Flash Pt.
V.P.a

100 %
109 F
1 mm Hg
100 %
OF
185mm Hg
100 %
Hazard Summary
Health Effects
Description

limited hazard data
neurotoxicity; chronic
toxicity
developmental toxicity;
genetic toxicity?;
neurotoxicity; chronic
toxicity
Aquatic
Hazard
Rankingsb

High
Low
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Purchase Cost

$4.00/gallon
$3.00/gallon
$3.50/gallon
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Beta
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-
oxide or a modified amine from
unsaturated soy bean oil fatty acid
Water
Chi
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Delta
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
100 %
101 F
< 4mm Hg
0%
205 F
NAC
96%
<200F
<0.1 mm Hg
94%
<200F
< 1.0mm Hq
developmental toxicity;
neurotoxicity
limited hazard data
developmental toxicity;
reproductive toxicity;
neurotoxicity; chronic
toxicity
developmental toxicity;
chronic toxicity
Low
Low/Medium
High
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Low/Medium
Medium
$18.18/gallon
(5 gallons/ $91
55 gallons/ $850)
$15.10/gallon
(estimated)
$31.20/gallon
(5 gallons/$156
55
gallons/$1,315)
$20.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$100
55 gallons/$900)
DRAFT—September 1994
                        IV-3

-------
IV.  SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                                                     Table IV-1
                               Hazard Summaries and Costs:  Ink Removers
Formulation
Epsilon
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Derivatized plant oil
Gamma
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Dibasic esters
Fatty alcohol ethers
Derivatized plant oil
Mu
Dibasic esters
Methoxypropanol acetate
d-Limonene
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Derivatized plant oil
Ehi
Dibasic esters
Omicron AE & Omicron AF
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Propylene glycol
Zeta
Propylene glycol series ethers
%voc
Flash Pt.
V.P.a
65%
115F
unknown
40%
76 F
10.9 mm Hg
50%
131 F
< 0.3 mm Hg
NA
<160F
NA
30%
214F
0.04 mm Hg
100 %
101 F
0.4-10.5 mm
Hg
Hazard Summary
Health Effects
Description
developmental toxicity;
reproductive toxicity;
genetic toxicity;
neurotoxicity; chronic
toxicity
developmental toxicity;
chronic toxicity
developmental toxicity;
chronic toxicity
developmental toxicity;
chronic toxicity
developmental toxicity;
chronic toxicity
developmental toxicity;
neurotoxicity; chronic
toxicity
Aquatic
Hazard
Rankingsb
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low/High
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium/High
Low/High
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Low/High
Medium
Low
Low
Low/Medium
Purchase Cost
$7.80/gallon
(5 gallons/$39)
$10.90/gallon
(25 liters/$72)
$7.76/gallon
(20liters/$41)
$24.95/gallon
$13.40/gallon
(5 gallons/$67
55 gallons/$540)
$23.00/gallon
  aV.P. means vapor pressure.
  bThe hazard rankings shown identify the categories (low, medium, or high) into which the individual components of the product system fall. The aquatic hazard
  ranking for each chemical is listed on the same line as the chemical name. When an alternative system includes chemicals from a chemical category (see Table
  II-2), the hazard ranking shown is the range of the rankings of all of the individual chemicals comprising the category. This analysis did not estimate the aquatic
  hazard ranking of the product systems as mixtures.
  °NA means not available.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                IV-4

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization

     For specific assumptions and details of the occupational exposure, environmental releases
and risk assessment, please reference Chapter III.
                                        Table IV-2
                          Occupational Exposures: Ink Removers
System
Traditional Systems
System 1
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
System 2
Acetone
Systems 3 & 4
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butyl acetate, normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Inhalation Exposures, by Scenario
(mg/day)
I

26
539
165
44
27
98
110
7
II

0.1
11
5.3
1.3
4.7
1.6
2.3
0.4
III

0
5
3
1
2
1
1
0
IV

0.3
38
20
5.3
15
6.2
9.2
1.7
Dermal Exposures, (mg/day)
Routine

1560
1560
468
234
78
312
312
156
Immersion

7280
7280
2180
1090
364
1460
1460
728
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Beta
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide
or a modified amine from unsaturated soy
bean oil fatty acid
Water
Chi
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Delta
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
13
56
292
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0.1
0.6
4.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
2.6
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
1250
312
1530
31
312
858
312
78
702
780
78
5820
1460
7130
146
1456
4000
1460
364
3280
3640
364
DRAFT—September 1994
                             IV-5

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                                  Table IV-2
                                Occupational Exposures: Ink Removers
System
Epsilon
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Gamma
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Mu
Dibasic esters
Methoxypropanol acetate
d-Limonene
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Derivatized plant oil
EM
Dibasic esters
Omicron AE & Omicron AF
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Propylene glycol
Zeta
Propylene glycol series ethers
Method 5 (Automatic Screen Washer)
Ink remover solvent (mineral spirits or
lacquer thinner)3
Inhalation Exposures, by Scenario
(mg/day)
1
39
17
0
0.1
0.1
1.6
4.6
0
0
0.2
0.4
1.3
3
31
21
0
0
4
0
17
139
II
0.3
0.4
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.6
III
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV
1.4
1.7
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0
0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.7
2.4
0
0.2
0.2
0
0.4
2.8
266
Dermal Exposures, (mg/day)
Routine
468
234
312
101
55
156
234
62
780
62
187
468
1014
312
156
94
62
1561
984
576
1560
Immersion
2180
1090
1460
473
255
728
1090
291
3640
291
873
2184
4728
1460
728
437
291
7270
4590
2690
7280
3900
  Occupational exposure from automatic screen washers are estimated to be the same for either mineral spirits or lacquer
  thinner. See traditional system 3 for the composition of lacquer thinner. This analysis did not consider alternative exposure
  routes for automatic screen washers.

  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = transferring waste rags from a storage drum to a "laundry bag."
DRAFT—September 1994
                                    IV-6

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                        Table IV-3
                     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations:
                                      Ink Removers
System
Observations
Traditional Systems
System 1
System 2
Systems 3 & 4
Dermal exposures to workers using mineral spirits in ink removal can be very high, although the risks
from mineral spirits could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data.
Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal and inhalation exposures to
workers using acetone in ink removal.
Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for both toluene and methyl ethyl ketone with
respect to chronic dermal and inhalation exposures to workers using these chemicals in ink removal.
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation exposure to workers
using methanol in ink removal.
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Beta
Chi
Delta
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation exposure to workers
using propylene glycol series ethers in ink removal. Possible concerns also exist for chronic dermal
exposure to propylene glycol series ethers based on the calculated hazard quotients, which assume
100% dermal absorption. If the actual dermal absorption rate of propylene glycol series ethers is
significantly lower, this concern would be significantly reduced or eliminated.
Inhalation exposures to propylene glycol series ethers also present possible concerns for
developmental toxicity risks, based on margin-of-exposure calculations.
Dermal exposures to other chemicals used in ink removal or haze removal can be high, although the
risks could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data.
Both inhalation and dermal exposures to workers using 2-octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide in
ink removal can be high, although the risks could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard
data.
Clear concerns exist for chronic dermal exposures to diethylene glycol series ethers used in ink
removal based on the calculated margins-of-exposure.
Concerns exist for developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to N-methylpyrrolidone based
on the calculated margin-of-exposure. Similar calculations for inhalation exposures to N-
methylpyrrolidone indicate very low concern.
Inhalation exposures to other ink remover components are very low.
Dermal risks from other ink remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in
hazard data, but exposures can be high.
Although no risks could be quantified because of limitations in hazard data, relatively high dermal
exposures to ink remover components could occur.
Inhalation exposures to all components are very low.
DRAFT—September 1994
                             IV-7

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
                                                  Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                                  Table IV-3
                          Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations:
                                                Ink Removers
       System
                                     Observations
  Epsilon
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal exposures to
cyclohexanone and benzyl alcohol during ink removal.  Similar calculations for inhalation exposures
to cyclohexanone and benzyl alcohol indicate low concern.

Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate a marginal concern for developmental toxicity risk from
inhalation exposures to cyclohexanone during ink removal. Reproductive and developmental toxicity
risks from dermal exposures to cyclohexanone could not be quantified.

Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal exposures and low
concern for chronic inhalation exposures to methoxypropanol acetate.

Risks from other ink remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard
data, although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
  Gamma
Clear concerns exist for chronic dermal exposures to diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate used in ink
removal based on the calculated margin-of-exposure.

Developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate are very
low based on the calculated margin-of-exposure.

Risks from other ink remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard
data, although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.

Inhalation exposures to all components are very low.	
  Mu
Concerns exist for chronic risks from both inhalation and dermal exposures to d-limonene during ink
removal based on the calculated margins-of-exposure.

Hazard quotient calculations for methoxypropanol acetate used in ink removal indicate a marginal
concern for chronic dermal exposures and low concern for chronic inhalation exposures.

Margin-of-exposure calculations show possible concerns for developmental toxicity risks from
inhalation exposures to methoxypropanol acetate.

Risks from other ink remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard
data, although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
  Phi
Risks from ink remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.

Inhalation exposures to all components are very low.	
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                                      IV-8

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
                                                  Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                                  Table IV-3
                          Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations:
                                                Ink Removers
       System
                                     Observations
  Omicron AE &
  Omicron AF
Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal exposures to workers
using diethylene glycol butyl ether in ink removal.

Margin-of-exposure calculations also show possible concerns for developmental toxicity risks from
dermal "immersion" exposures to diethylene glycol butyl ether.  Routine dermal exposures, however,
represent a very low concern for developmental toxicity risks.

Hazard quotient calculations for inhalation and dermal exposures to propylene glycol during ink
removal indicate very low concern.

Inhalation exposures to other components are very low.

Risks from other components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data, although
dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
  Zeta
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation exposure to workers
using propylene glycol series ethers in ink removal. Possible concerns also exist for chronic dermal
exposure to propylene glycol series ethers based on the calculated hazard quotients, which assume
100% dermal absorption.  If the actual dermal absorption rate of propylene glycol series ethers is
significantly lower, this concern would be significantly reduced or eliminated.

Inhalation exposures to propylene glycol series ethers also presents possible concerns for
developmental toxicity risks, based on margin-of-exposure calculations.

Inhalation exposures to other components are very low.

Risks from other ink remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard
data, although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                                      IV-9

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
                                                Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                                 Table IV-3
                         Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations:
                                              Ink Removers
       System
                                    Observations
  Method 5
  (Automatic Screen
  Washer)
Mineral spirits

Inhalation exposures were significantly lower (reduced by about 70%) than the exposures during
manual use of this system. Risks could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data.

Dermal exposures can still be relatively high.

Lacquer Thinner

Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation exposures to toluene,
methyl ethyl ketone, and methanol.

Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal exposures to toluene and
methyl ethyl ketone and marginal concerns for dermal exposures to methanol.

The risks described above are slightly lower than the corresponding risks during manual use of this
system.

Risks from other components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data, although
dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                                 IV-10

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                        Table IV-4
                  Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations:
                                       Ink Removers
System
Traditional Systems
System 1
Mineral spirits - light hydrotreated
System 2
Acetone
Systems 3 & 4
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butyl acetate, normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
Air

54
1120
344
92
57
204
229
15
Water

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Land

1050
0
0
80
0
25
0
100
II
Air

0.2
22
11
2.6
9.8
3.2
4.8
0.8
III
Air

0.1
11
5.7
1.5
4.1
1.7
2.6
0.5
IV
Air

0.6
80
42
11
30
13
19
3.4
Water

1350
1270
363
191
37
257
251
132
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Beta
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-
oxide or a modified amine from
unsaturated soy bean oil fatty acid
Water
Chi
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Delta
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
27
117
609
0
0.1
0.1
6.8
0
3.7
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
473
8
0
12
138
381
132
35
319
359
36
0.1
1.3
9.1
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.7
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
5.4
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0.2
0
0
1080
265
0
0
270
742
270
67
608
675
67
DRAFT—September 1994
                            IV-11

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Ink Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                        Table IV-4
                  Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations:
                                       Ink Removers



System
Epsilon
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Gamma
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Mu
Dibasic esters
Methoxypropanol acetate
d-Limonene
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Derivatized plant oil
EM
Dibasic esters
Omicron AE & Omicron AF
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Propylene glycol
Zeta
Propylene glycol series ethers
Method 5 (Automatic Screen Washer)
Usina Mineral Spirits
Mineral Spirits
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
1
Air

82
36
0
0.2
0.2
3.2
9.6

0
0.1
0.3
0.8
2.7

5.1
64
43
0
0.3

8.1

0
35

290

15.1

Water

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0

0

NAa

Land

126
68
138
45
24
66
94

28
355
28
84
210

446
75
27
42
27

766

440
222

375

NA

II
Air

0.7
0.8
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.2

0
0
0.1
0
0

0
0.8
1.2
0
0.1

0

0
0.2

1.4

NA

III
Air

0.4
0.5
0
0
0
0.1
0.1

0
0
0
0
0

0
0.5
0.7
0
0

0

0
0.1

0.8

NA

IV
Air

2.9
3.6
0
0
0.3
0.5
0.8

0
0
0.3
0.1
0.3

0.3
3.6
5.1
0
0.3

0.3

0
0.7

5.8

NA

Water

402
199
270
88
47
135
202

54
675
54
162
405

877
266
130
81
54

1349

852
497

1345

NA

DRAFT—September 1994
                            IV-12

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Emulsion Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                                         Table IV-4
                  Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations:
                                        Ink Removers

System
Method 5 (Automatic Screen Washer)
Usina Lacquer Thinner
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butyl acetate, normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
1
Air
335
27.7
91.5
57.7
80.7
4.6
Water
NAa
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Land
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
II
Air
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
III
Air
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IV
Air
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Water
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
  aThis analysis did not estimate releases to water or land from automatic screen washing.

  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario II = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = transferring waste rags from a storage drum to a "laundry bag."

      Ecological Risks from Water Releases of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o    Cumulative releases of mineral spirits from Traditional System 1 present a concern
           for risk to aquatic species. The largest contributor to these  releases is the hypothetical
           commercial laundry that launders the shop rags used by  the area's screen printers.

      o    None of the other components of any of the four traditional systems reached an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases from
           all  shops in the area.

      o    None of the single facility releases of either traditional or alternative systems reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

      General Population Exposure Conclusions and Observations

      o    Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very low
           for all of the ink removers evaluated.

                               Emulsion Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment

      Table IV-5 below lists some of the chemical emulsion removers that are available to screen
printers. Table IV-5 includes a summary of key physical properties, a brief hazard summary, and
a list of purchase prices for each emulsion remover.  For information on the chemical properties
DRAFT—September 1994
                        IV-13

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Emulsion Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
and industrial synthesis of the bulk chemicals, refer to Chapter II.  Market information on the
volume of specific emulsion remover products sold is not available.

                                        Table IV-5
                    Hazard Summaries and Cost: Emulsion Removers
Formulations
%voc,
Flash Pt.,
V.P.b,
(per
formulation)
Hazard Summary
Health Effects
Description
Aquatic
Hazard
Rankingsc
Purchase Cost
Traditional Systems
Systems 1. 2. & 3
12% Sodium hypochlorite (bleach)
88% Water
System 4
1% Sodium periodate
99% Water (as applied)
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
developmental
toxicity; genetic
toxicity; chronic
toxicity
NA
Medium
High
$1.80/gallon
$23.00/gallon (5%
sodium periodate)
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Sodium periodate
Water
Chi
Sodium periodate
Water
Delta
Sodium periodate
Water
Epsilon
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water
Gamma
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Water
0%
NA
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
unknown
0%
NA
23.4mmHg
(water)
NA
NA
NA
corrosive
chronic toxicity;
corrosive
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
$4.00/gallon
$32.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$160
15gallons/$438
55gallons/$1,238)
$32.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$160
15gallons/$438
55gallons/$1,238)
$13.54/pound
(5kg/$149)
$1.60/pound
(15kg/$53)
DRAFT—September 1994
                       IV-14

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Emulsion Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                                              Table IV-5
                        Hazard Summaries and Cost:  Emulsion Removers
Formulations
Mu
Periodic acid
Water
EM
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Other
Water
Omicron AE & Omicron AF
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Theta
Sodium periodate
Water
Zeta
Sodium periodate
Water
%voc,
Flash Pt.,
V.P.b,
(per
formulation)
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
23.4mmHg
(water)
0%
NA
23.4mmHg
(water)
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
9D mm Hn
Hazard Summary
Health Effects
Description
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Aquatic
Hazard
Rankingsc
High
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
High
High
Purchase Cost
$10.34/gallon
(three 5-liter units/$41
(5gallons/$51.73))
$24.95/gallon
$11.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$55
55 gallons/$530)
$21.95/gallone
$23.00/gallon
  aWhile many of these formulations may seem similar, they may vary in the composition of specific components.
  bV.P. means vapor pressure.
  bThe hazard rankings shown identify the categories (low, medium, or high) into which the individual components of the product
  system fall.  The aquatic hazard ranking for each chemical is listed on the same line as the chemical name. When an
  alternative system includes chemicals from a chemical category (see Table II-2), the hazard ranking shown is the range of the
  rankings of all of the individual chemicals comprising the category.  This analysis did not estimate the aquatic hazard ranking of
  the product  systems as mixtures.
  dNA means  not available.
  Troduct system also requires a fixed cost of $13,165. Reference Method 4 in Chapter V.
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization

      For specific assumptions and details of the occupational exposure, environmental releases
and risk assessment, please reference Chapter III.
DRAFT—September 1994
                          IV-15

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Emulsion Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                                        Table IV-6
                       Occupational Exposures: Emulsion Removers
System
Traditional Product Systems
Systems 1 & 3 (Bleach)3
Sodium hypochlorite (12%)
Water
Systems 2 & 4 (Zeta diluted 1 :4)
Sodium periodate (1%)
Water
Inhalation Exposures, by Scenario
(mg/day)
I

0
0
0
0
II

0
0
0
0
III

0
0
0
0
IV

0
0
0
0
Dermal Exposures, (mg/day)
Routine

187
1370
16
1540
Immersion

874
6410
73
7210
Alternative Systems
Alpha (diluted to 0.8%)
Sodium periodate
Water
Chi (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Delta (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Epsilon (3% chemicals. 97% water)
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water
Gamma
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Other
Water
Mu
Periodic acid
Water
Ehi
Sodium periodate
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1550
16
1540
39
1520
23
23
1510
39
16
117
117
1270
156
1400
47
1210
123
181
58
7220
73
7210
182
7100
109
109
7060
182
73
546
546
5930
728
6550
218
5640
575
844
DRAFT—September 1994
                       IV-16

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Emulsion Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                            Table IV-6
                         Occupational Exposures: Emulsion Removers
System
Omicron AE & Omicron AF
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Zeta (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Theta (Method 41"
Sodium periodate
Water
Theta (Method 4Hdiluted 1:31
Sodium periodate
Water
Inhalation Exposures, by Scenario
(mg/day)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
III
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dermal Exposures, (mg/day)
Routine
47
31
1480
16
1540
1250
312
312
1250
Immersion
218
146
6920
73
7210
5820
1460
1460
5820
  aDermal exposures presented are worst-case and the use of gloves is expected due to irritation and corrosive effects.
  bThis system can be used with or without diluted emulsion remover, depending on the needs of the facility.
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario II = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = transferring waste rags from a storage drum to a "laundry bag."

      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

      All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either  a strong oxidizer such as
hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide. The haze removers in Alpha,
Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain these compounds. All of these materials
present a high concern for skin and eye irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the
absence  of proper protective clothing.   None  of the  emulsion removers  present significant
inhalation risks.
DRAFT—September 1994
                              IV-17

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Emulsion Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                        Table IV-7
                  Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations:
                                   Emulsion Removers
System
Traditional Product Systems
Systems 1 & 3 (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Svstem 2 &4(Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
Air

0
0
0
0
Water

75
546
6
615
Land

0
0
0
0
II
Air

0
0
0
0
III
Air

0
0
0
0
IV
Air

0
0
0
0
Water

0
0
0
0
Alternative Systems
Alpha (diluted to 0.8%)
Sodium periodate
Water
Chi (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Delta (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Epsilon (diluted to 3%)
Sodium periodate
Sodium salt
Water
Gamma
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Other
Water
Mu
Periodic acid
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
616
6
615
16
605
9
9
602
16
6
47
47
506
62
559
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DRAFT—September 1994
                            IV-18

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                                           Table IV-7
                   Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations:
                                     Emulsion Removers
System
Ehi
Sodium periodate
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Other
Omicron AE & Omicron AF
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Water
Zeta (diluted 1:41
Sodium periodate
Water
Theta (Method 4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Theta (Method 4Hdiluted 1:31
Sodium periodate
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
1
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water
19
481
49
72
19
13
603
6
615
177
44
44
177
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
III
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = transferring waste rags from a storage drum to a "laundry bag."

      General Population Exposure Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very low
            for all of the emulsion removers evaluated.

      Ecological Risks from Water Releases of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the single facility releases of emulsion removers reach an ecotoxicity concern
            concentration.
DRAFT—September 1994
                        IV-19

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                               Haze Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment

     Table IV-8 below lists some of the chemical haze removers that are available to screen
printers.  Table IV-8 includes a summary of key physical properties, a brief hazard summary, and
a list of purchase prices for each emulsion remover.  For information on the chemical properties
and industrial synthesis of the bulk chemicals, refer to Chapter II.  Market information on the
volume of specific haze remover products sold is not available.
                                       Table IV-8
                      Hazard Summaries and Cost:  Haze Removers
Formulation
Traditional Product Systems
Systems 1.2. 3. & 4
10%Xylene
30% Acetone
30% Mineral spirits
30% Cyclohexanone
%voc
Flash Pt.
V.P.a

100%
Hazard Summary
Health Effects Description

developmental toxicity;
reproductive toxicity; genetic
toxicity; neurotoxicity;
chronic toxicity
Aquatic
Hazard
Rankingsb

Medium
Low
High
Low
Purchase Cost

$5.12/gallon
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Alkali/caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
Chi
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Delta
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
< 15 %
183 F
NAC
94%
<200F
<0.1 mm Hg
94%
<200F
< 1.0mm Hq
corrosive
developmental toxicity;
reproductive toxicity; chronic
toxicity
developmental toxicity;
chronic toxicity
Low
Medium
Low/Medium
Low/Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Low/Medium
Medium
$9.39/gallon
(5 kg/$50)
$31.20/gallon
(5 gallons/$156
55gallons/$1,315)
$20.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$100
55 qallons/$900)
DRAFT—September 1994
                      IV-20

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Substitute Comparative Assessment
                                        Table IV-8
                      Hazard Summaries and Cost: Haze Removers
Formulation
Epsilon
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Sodium hydroxide
Derivatized plant oil
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Derivatized plant oil
Water
Gamma
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Water
Mu
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Water
Ehi
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Dibasic esters
Omicron AE
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Other
Water
Omicron AF
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Alkali/caustic
Other
Water
%voc
Flash Pt.
V.P.a
unknown
NA
unknown
0%
NA
<0.2mmHg
(@70F)
0%
NA
NA
NA
>185F
0.195
unknown
210 F
0.1 mm Hg
unknown
unknown
< 1 mm Hg
Hazard Summary
Health Effects Description
developmental toxicity;
reproductive toxicity; genetic
toxicity; neurotoxicity;
chronic toxicity; corrosive
developmental toxicity;
genetic toxicity; chronic
toxicity; corrosive
developmental toxicity;
genetic toxicity; chronic
toxicity; corrosive
developmental toxicity;
reproductive toxicity; chronic
toxicity
limited hazard data
corrosive
Aquatic
Hazard
Rankingsb
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Low/High
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low/High
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Low
Low
Purchase Cost
$1.09/lb
(15kg/$36)
$9.39/gallon
(25 liters/$62))
$7.57/gallon
(five 5-liter
units/$50))
$39.95/gallon
$18.00/gallon
(5 gallons/$90)
$18.00/gallon
5 gallons/$90
DRAFT—September 1994
                       IV-21

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                              Table IV-8
                          Hazard Summaries and Cost:  Haze Removers
Formulation
Theta
Alkali/caustic
Cyclohexanone
Furfuryl alcohol
Zeta
Alkali/caustic
Propylene glycol
Water
%voc
Flash Pt.
V.P.a
unavailable
171 F
NA
100 %
101 F
0.4-10.5 mm
Hn
Hazard Summary
Health Effects Description
developmental toxicity;
reproductive toxicity; genetic
toxicity; neurotoxicity;
chronic toxicity; corrosive
corrosive
Aquatic
Hazard
Rankingsb
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Purchase Cost
$43.00/gallond
$30.00/gallon
  aV.P. means vapor pressure.
  bThe hazard rankings shown identify the categories (low, medium, or high) into which the individual components of the product
  system fall.  The aquatic hazard ranking for each chemical is listed on the same line as the chemical name. When an
  alternative system includes chemicals from a chemical category (see Table II-2), the hazard ranking shown is the range of the
  rankings of all of the individual chemicals comprising the category. This analysis did not estimate the aquatic hazard ranking of
  the product systems as mixtures.
  CNA means not available.
  dProduct system also requires a fixed cost of $13,165.  Reference Method 4 in Chapter V.

Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization

      For specific assumptions and details of the occupational exposure, environmental releases
and risk assessment, please reference Chapter III.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                IV-22

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                         Table IV-9
                         Occupational Exposures: Haze Removers
System
Traditional Systems
Systems 1.2. 3. and 4
Xylenes (mixed)
Acetone
Mineral spirits-light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Inhalation Exposures, by Scenario
(mg/day)
I

21
64
7
27
II

0.9
11
0.1
0.3
III

1
5
0
0
IV

0
0
0
0
Dermal Exposures, (mg/day)
Routine

156
468
468
468
Immersion

728
2180
2180
2180
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Alkali/caustic3
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
Chi
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Delta
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Epsilon
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Alkali/caustic3
Water
Gamma
Sodium hypochlorite3
Alkali/caustic3
Water
Sodium alkyl sulfate
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
12
5.2
0
0
0
0.5
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.4
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
390
234
936
312
858
312
78
702
780
78
234
117
156
51
27
78
62
140
62
117
408
109
585
39
827
109
1820
1090
4370
1456
4000
1460
364
3280
3640
364
109
546
728
273
127
364
291
655
291
546
1890
510
2730
182
3860
510
DRAFT—September 1994
                            IV-23

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                                  Table IV-9
                              Occupational Exposures:  Haze Removers

Mu System
Sodium hypochlorite3
Alkali/caustic3
Water
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Ehi
N-methylpyrrolidone
Dibasic esters
Omicron AE
Other
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Water
Omicron AF
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkali/caustic3
Phosphate surfactant
Other
Water
Zeta
Alkali/caustic3
Propylene glycol
Water
Theta (Method 4)
Alkali/caustic3
Cyclohexanone
Furfural alcohol
Inhalation Exposures, by Scenario
(mg/day)
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dermal Exposures, (mg/day)
585
39
827
109
780
780
109
16
78
1360
16
156
78
109
1200
234
62
1260
515
515
530
2730
182
3860
510
3640
3639
510
73
364
6330
73
728
364
510
5610
1090
291
5900
2400
2400
2480
  "Dermal exposures presented are worst-case and the use of gloves is expected due to irritation and corrosive effects.

  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario II = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = transferring waste rags from a storage drum to a "laundry bag."
DRAFT—September 1994
                                  IV-24

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                        Table IV-10
                     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations:
                                      Haze Removers
System
Observations
Traditional Product Systems
Systems 1 .
2.3. & 4
Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal and inhalation exposures to workers
using acetone in haze removal.
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal exposures to workers using
xylene and cyclohexanone in haze removal.
Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate very low concern for developmental and reproductive toxicity risks
from inhalation of cyclohexanone. Reproductive and developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to
cyclohexanone could not be quantified.
Dermal exposures to workers using mineral spirits in haze removal can be very high, although the risks from
mineral spirits could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data.
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Chi
Delta

Epsilon
Dermal exposures to other chemicals used in haze removal can be high, although the risks could not be
quantified because of limitations in hazard data.
Clear concerns exist for chronic dermal exposures to diethylene glycol series ethers used in haze removal
based on the calculated margins-of-exposure.
Concerns exist for developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to N-methylpyrrolidone based on the
calculated margin-of-exposure. Similar calculations for inhalation exposures to N-methylpyrrolidone indicate
very low concern.
Inhalation exposures to other haze remover components are very low.
Dermal risks from other haze remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard
data, but exposures can be high.
Although no risks could be quantified because of limitations in hazard data, relatively high dermal exposures
to haze remover components could occur.
Inhalation exposures to all components are very low.
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal exposures to cyclohexanone and
benzyl alcohol during haze removal. Similar calculations for inhalation exposures to cyclohexanone and
benzyl alcohol indicate low concern.
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal exposures and low concern for
chronic inhalation exposures to methoxypropanol acetate.
Risks from other haze remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
althouah dermal exposures to all components could be relatively hiah.
DRAFT—September 1994
                            IV-25

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
                                                        Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                                 Table IV-10
                         Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations:
                                              Haze Removers
    System
                                        Observations
  Gamma
Developmental and chronic toxicity risks from dermal exposures to sodium alkyl sulfate in haze remover are
very low based on the calculated margin of exposure.

Inhalation exposures to all components are very low.

Risks from other haze remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
although dermal  exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
  Mu
Developmental and chronic toxicity risks from dermal exposures to sodium alkyl sulfate in haze remover are
very low based on the calculated margin of exposure.

Risks from other haze remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
although dermal  exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
                Dermal exposures to N-methylpyrrolidone during haze removal present a concern for developmental toxicity
                risk based on the calculated margins-of-exposure.  Similar estimates for inhalation exposures to N-
                methylpyrrolidone indicate very low concern.

                Inhalation exposures to all other components are very low.

                Risks from other haze remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
                although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
  Omicron AE
Inhalation exposures to components are very low.

Risks from components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data, although dermal
exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
  Omicron AF
Inhalation exposures to components are very low.

Risks from components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data, although dermal
exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
  Zeta
Hazard quotient calculations for chronic inhalation and dermal exposures to propylene glycol during haze
removal indicate very low concern.

Inhalation exposures to other components are very low.

Risks from other haze remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                                          IV-26

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
                                                     Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                               Table IV-10
                        Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations:
                                             Haze Removers
    System
                                       Observations
  Theta
  Method
Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal exposures and very low concern
for chronic inhalation exposures to cyclohexanone during haze removal.

Margin-of-exposure calculations show low concern for developmental and reproductive toxicity risks from
inhalation exposures to cyclohexanone. Reproductive and developmental toxicity risks from dermal
exposures to cyclohexanone could not be quantified.

Inhalation exposures to other components are very low.

Risks from other haze remover components could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
although dermal exposures to all components could be relatively high.	
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                                      IV-27

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                        Table IV-11
                  Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations:
                                     Haze Removers



System
Traditional Product Systems
Systems 1.2. 3. & 4
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
Air


44
133
15
57
Water


0
0
119
76
Land


0
0
0
0
II
Air


1.9
22
0.2
0.7
III
Air


1.1
11
0.1
0.4
IV
Air


0
0
0
0
Water


0
0
0
0
Alternative Systems
Alpha
Alkali/caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
Chi
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Delta
Dibasic esters
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Epsilon
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkali/caustic
Water
Phosphate salt

0
1.5
0

0.1
0.1
6.8
0

3.7
0.1
0

25
11
0
0.1
0.1
1
2.9
0
0
0
0
0

133
78
319

104
286
97
26

239
269
27

55
29
53
17
9.3
26
37
48
21
138
37
21

0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0.1
0

0
0
0.1
0

0
0
0

0.7
0.8
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0
0

0
0.1
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0.7
0.8
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0.4
0.5
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DRAFT—September 1994
                            IV-28

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Haze Removal Function
Exposure Analysis & Risk Characterization
                                               Table IV-11
                     Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations:
                                            Haze Removers
System
Gamma
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Water
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Mu
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Water
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Ehi
N-methylpyrrolidone
Dibasic esters
Omicron AE
Other
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Water
Omicron AF
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkali/caustic
Phosphate surfactant
Other
Water
Zeta
Alkali/caustic
Propylene glycol
Water
Theta (Method 4)
Alkali/caustic
Cyclohexanone
Furfural alcohol
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
3.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
53
0
Water
200
13
282
37
200
13
282
37
270
279
43
6.2
31
540
5.6
56
28
39
428
80
21
431
291
239
300
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0.7
0
III
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0.4
0
IV
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = transferring waste rags from a storage drum to a "laundry bag."
DRAFT—September 1994
                                 IV-29

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Manufacturing of Screen Reclamation Chemical Products	Manufacturing Process
      General Population Exposure Conclusions and Observations

      o    Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very low
           for all of the haze removers evaluated.

      Ecological  Risks from Water Releases of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o    None of the single facility releases of haze removal chemicals reach an ecotoxicity
           concern concentration.

             Manufacturing of Screen Reclamation Chemical Products
Manufacturing Process

      Most screen reclamation chemical products are formulated in facilities outside of the United
States.1  The basic process description that follows is based primarily on conversations with two
formulation manufacturers in the United States and may not describe the range of manufacturing
processes used by formulation manufacturers elsewhere.2 3

      Screen reclamation chemical products typically consist of a mixture of two or more liquid
and/or solid chemicals. In some cases, the mixture may include water used as a diluent or to
dissolve solids and facilitate the  spray application  of the product.  Regardless of whether the
product is an ink remover, emulsion remover or haze remover, the basic manufacturing process
is the same, as described below.

      Chemical ingredients are received from a chemical manufacturer or distributor in small (55
gallon drums or 350 gallon totes) or large (tanker trucks) quantities and stored on-site.  Small
quantities are typically stored on pallets or racks on the process floor in a designated area without
separate ventilation.  Large quantities may be stored in dedicated storage tanks.

      Chemicals are pumped or  emptied by weight into  a mixing vessel.  The mixing vessel is
covered and ingredients are agitated  or mixed using turbine or rotary blade/propeller mixing,
aeration and shear dispersion. The addition of  heat or pressure is not normally required to
accomplish the mixing step.  Typically, mixing vessels do not have a separate ventilation system
(e.g., ventilation is to the process room).

      Products are usually packaged in 55 gallon drums, 15 gallon drums, 5 gallon pails and one
gallon jugs, although other sizes are available if requested by the customer. Containers are filled
manually with a hand-held pump and semi-automated fillers or  by pouring from smaller mixing
   'Correspondence between Marci A. Kinter, SPAI, and Lori Kincaid, University of Tennessee, June
1994.

   Correspondence between Oliver Nichols, Nichols and Associates, and Dean Menke, University of
Tennessee, June 1994.

   Correspondence between Clark King, Kiwo, and Dean Menke, University of Tennessee, June
1994.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                IV-30

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Manufacturing of Screen Reclamation Chemical Products	Energy and Natural Resources Issues

vessels (e.g., 55 gallon drums).  Employees wear gloves, goggles, and respirators when needed.
Packaged products may be inventoried on the process floor, in a separate designated area or stored
outside of the process area pending distribution.
Source Release Assessment:  Product Formulation

      Process air emissions of volatile organic compounds from product formulation processes can
originate from the venting of mixing vessels. Fugitive air emissions can result when process fluid
leaks from plant equipment such as pumps, compressors and process valves.  Air emissions from
storage and handling operations can also occur where screen reclamation products are formulated.
Other potential sources of environmental releases or transfers include:

      •     wastewater discharges from a facility into rivers, streams or other bodies of water or
           transfers to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW);

      •     on-site releases to landfills, surface impoundments, land treatment or another mode
           of land disposal; and

      •     transfer of wastes to off-site facilities for treatment, storage or disposal.
Energy and Natural Resources Issues

      The use of different chemical products, processes or technologies in a use cluster can result
in changes in the rate of energy and natural resources consumption, either in the product use
stage, manufacture stage, or other life cycle stages (e.g., extraction of raw materials, transportation,
disposal, etc.). The processes used to formulate traditional versus alternative screen reclamation
chemical products  appear to be similar, however,  with no differences that would significantly
influence the rate of energy or natural resources consumption during product manufacturing.  The
following lists potential energy and natural resources issues that should be considered when
choosing among alternatives.

      •     The energy required to manufacture the chemical ingredients  of screen reclamation
           products  can  vary substantially.  For example, the energy  required to manufacture
           solvents derived from plants using a cold-press process may be less than that required
           in a hot-press process.

      •     Products manufactured from petrochemicals have an energy equivalence, as do other
           products  with sufficient energy  content  to  be  used as fuel.   The amount  of
           petrochemicals used to manufacture screen reclamation products, however, is small
           compared to other uses of petroleum-based products.

      •     Products  manufactured from petrochemicals are also derived from a nonrenewable
           resource,  petroleum.  However, products manufactured from renewable resources,
           such  as  plants,  frequently  use petrochemicals  at some point in the chemical
           manufacturing process.  In either case, the  amount of  petrochemicals used  to
           manufacture  screen  reclamation products is small  compared to  other uses  of
           petroleum-based products.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 IV-31

-------
IV. SCREEN RECLAMATION PRODUCTS: FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Manufacturing of Screen Reclamation Chemical Products	Energy and Natural Resources Issues

      •     Products that are formulated using heat or pressure to dissolve product ingredients
           or  cause a chemical reaction consume more energy than those manufactured using
           simple mixing processes.

      •     Compared to undiluted products, formulations that are diluted with water prior to
           shipping result in greater energy consumption during transportation of the product
           from the manufacturer to the printing facility.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                  IV-32

-------
                                                                        Chapter V

            Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation

	Methods


                                    Introduction

     Chapter 5 provides a comprehensive assessment of screen reclamation methods 1-4 and
the automatic screen washer. When available, information is provided for each method and
technology on occupational exposure and risk, population exposure and risk, performance of
traditional and alternative systems, and the cost analysis of traditional and alternative systems.
The discussion of the details of each method or technology includes an explanation of the
particular advantages or disadvantages of that method or technology. The details, assumptions
and uncertainties of each of the methodologies in this chapter are discussed in Chapter 3;
referencing this chapter while reading Chapter 5 may eliminate the confusion that may occur
due to the numerous exhibits.


                        Method 1:  Traditional Reclamation

     Method 1  encompasses the use of only ink removal and emulsion removal chemical
products to reclaim screens. The action of these two products must eliminate the use of a haze
remover. Some screen printers are able to reclaim screens without the need for a haze
remover. Because a haze remover is not used in screen reclamation in Method 1, source
reduction, the highest priority in  the pollution prevention hierarchy, is achieved.  However,
simply because the haze remover is not used does not mean that occupational and population
risk is low.  The intrinsic hazard of the particular  chemicals used in ink and emulsion remover
products must be combined with worker and general exposure to the chemicals to generate a
risk assessment. In the following discussion of Method 1, data detailing occupational and
population exposure are presented to support overall risk conclusions for 6 systems comprised
of only ink and emulsion removal products:  Traditional Systems 1, 2, 3 and 4, Alternative
System Chi, and Alternative Ink remover Beta. Limited performance and/or cost information is
available for Traditional Systems 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Alternative System Chi.  Figure V-l
provides a schematic illustration of the product groups used in the two steps required under
Method  1.
Traditional System 1

     Formulation

     Ink Remover:         100% Mineral spirits
     Emulsion Remover:          12 wt% Sodium hypochlorite/ 88% water
DRAFT-September 1994                                                              V-1

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 1
                      Figure V -1
         Process Steps Included in Method 1
                      Ink Removal
                    Products Used
                    Include:
                    • GLYCOL ETHERS
                    • SURFACTANTS
                    • DIBASIC ESTERS
                    • HYDROCARBON SOLVENTS
                    • TERPINEOLS
                    • ALCOHOLS
                      Emulsion
                      Removal/Water
                      Wash
                    Product Groups
                    Include:
                    • OXIDIZERS
                    • NON-OXIDIZERS
                    • SOLVENTS
                    • SURFACTANTS
DRAFT—September 1994
         V-2

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 1
      Occupational Exposure


                                          Table V-1
            Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 1, Traditional System 1

Ink Remover
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Emulsion Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Inhalation (mg/day)
I
26
0
0
II
0.1
0
0
III
0
0
0
IV
0.3
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine
1560
187
1370
Immersion
7280
874
6410
     Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III =
     transferring chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.

      Occupational Risk Estimates

      Quantitative risk estimates could not be determined for this system due to insufficient
data. See risk conclusions for areas of concern for this system.

      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

      Ink Remover

      o    Dermal exposures to workers using mineral spirits in ink removal can be very high,
           although the risks from mineral spirits could not be quantified because of
           limitations in hazard data.

      Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

      o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds.  All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective  clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-3

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 1
      Environmental Releases

                                               Table V-2
               Estimated Environmental Releases for Screen Cleaning Operations
                                   Method 1, Traditional System 1
System
Ink Remover
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Emulsion Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
Air
54
0
0
Water
0
75
546
Land
1050
0
0
II
Air
0.2
0
0
III
Air
0.1
0
0
IV
Air
0.6
0
0
Water
1350
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.


                                               Table V-3
       Summary of Estimated  Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                    Using Screen Reclamation  Method 1, Traditional System 1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Sodium Hypochlorite
To Air
54.9 g/day

To Water
1350g/daya
75 g/day
To Landfill
1050g/daya

    a1,350 g/day is estimated to be released from the rags. This release from the rags will be either to landfill or to water. If
    the release is to water through the laundry (launderable rags), then the landfill column is blank. If the release is to landfill
    (disposable rags), then the landfill column will be 1,050 g/day. This is true of all of the ink remover chemicals. For our
    purposes, the rest of the assessment assumes release to water only, since we are not assessing landfill releases.
DRAFT—September 1994
              V-4

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 1
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                          Table V-4
  Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from Screen Reclamation at a
                                        Single Facility
                     Screen  Reclamation Method 1, Traditional System 1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Sodium Hypochloriteb
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
1350g/dayat
laundry
75 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
94%
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste Water
Treatment
81 g/day
0
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
8x10'2
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.
  Concentrated solutions of sodium hypochlorite will kill the biota which degrade organic chemicals (the other substances listed
  in the table) during waste water treatment.  This could cause problems at the waste water treatment plant, reducing the waste
  water treatment efficiency for the other compounds sent to the plant.

      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

     The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low.  However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers, all of which are connected to the same waste treatment
facility. The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which could be significant, even if the release from one screen printing facility is
not.

     To demonstrate the  combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St. Louis
County, Missouri were picked as  an example.  The Dun and Bradstreet data shows 135 screen
printing facilities in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water  from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company, which releases into the Meramec River.  Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the St. Louis County Water company.  These service an
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively. The mean flow of the river
is 7895 million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the drinking water intakes than it
is at the release point.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-5

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 1
                                          Table V-5
              Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                     Screen Reclamation Method 1, Traditional System 1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Sodium Hypochlorite
Total Amount
Released to Water
from All Facilities
182 kg/day at
laundry
10 kg/day
Waste Water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
94%
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
1 1 kg/day
0
Average Concentration
in Meramec River,
ug/L (ppb)
1
0
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                          Table V-6
                Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                    a Single Model Facility
                     Screen Reclamation Method 1, Traditional System 1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Amount of Releases per
day
54.9 g/day
Highest Aver age
Concentration 100 M
away
1 x 10'1 ug/m3
Annual Potential Dose,
mg/yeara
7x10'1
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk Conclusions  and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 1, Traditional System 1.

      Because of the low concentration estimate found from single source releases, multiple
facility impacts are note likely to significantly raise concentration estimates.  Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2,  and Alternative  System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections
as illustrative examples.  Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk. Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-6

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 1
      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     Cumulative releases of mineral spirits from Traditional System 1 present a concern
           for risk to aquatic species.  The largest contributor to these releases is the
           hypothetical commercial laundry that launders the shop rags used by the area's
           screen printers.

      o     None of the other components of Method 1, Traditional System 1 reached an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases
           from all shops in the area.

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method 1, Traditional System 1 reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

      The following table summarizes the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 1. The analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
                                        Table V-7
             Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method  1, Traditional System 1




Substance
Mineral Spirits


Sodium
Hypochlorite

Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
16 kg/day +
182 kg/day at
laundry
10 kg/day


Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
94%


100 %



Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
960 g/day
11 kg/day

0

Daily Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
1 x 10'1
1

0




ECOCC
(ug/i)
1


<20

ECO Risk
Indicator
(Stream
Cone/
ECO CC)
1.1


0

      Performance

      The performance of this system was not demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical
Foundation or at volunteer printing facilities. Since this system is commonly used in many
screen printing shops, it was decided to use the limited resources available for a performance
demonstration to evaluate alternatives to the traditionally used product systems.

      Cost

      Because the performance of this system was not determined in this project, the total cost
of using this system was also not calculated.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-7

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 2
Traditional System 2

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:     100% Acetone
      Emulsion Remover:     1% Sodium periodate/ 99% water

      Occupational Exposure

                                          Table V-8
            Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 1, Traditional System 2
System
Ink Remover
Acetone
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Inhalation (mg/day)
I
539
0
0
II
11
0
0
III
5
0
0
IV
38
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine
1560
16
1540
Immersion
7280
73
7210
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

      Ink Remover

      o    Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal and
           inhalation exposures to workers using acetone in either ink removal or haze
           removal.

      Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

      o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as  hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds. All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-8

-------
                                                         Table V-9

                          Occupational Risk Estimates for Method 1, Traditional System 2.
o
Q.
a>

o-
CO
Name
Ink Remover
Acetone
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted
M
Sodium periodate
Water
Hazard Quotient
Inhalation
84
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
22
NA
NA
Immersion
1,040
NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures
Inhalation
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
LOAELd
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.

bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard

Quotient values less than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.

CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.

dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                                                           m
                                                                                                                                           Q.
                                                                                                                                           o_

                                                                                                                                           m


                                                                                                                                           m

                                                                                                                                           o'
     CD



     ff


     •o

     Q)




     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                               CD
                                                                                                                                               s
                                                                                                                                               I
                                                                                                                                               Q)


                                                                                                                                               8-
                                                                                                                                               O
     a

     o
     Q.
     CO
                                                                                                                                           m
                                                                                                                                           g.


                                                                                                                                           5'
                                                                                                                                           3

                                                                                                                                           8L

                                                                                                                                           CO


                                                                                                                                           2-
                                                                                                                                           S"

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 2
      Environmental Releases

                                              Table V-10
               Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                   Method 1, Traditional System 2
System
Ink Remover
Acetone
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
Air
1120
0
0
Water
0
6
615
Land
0
0
0
II
Air
22
0
0
III
Air
11
0
0
IV
Air
80
0
0
Water
1270
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.


                                              Table V-11
       Summary of Estimated  Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                               Using Method 1, Traditional  System  2
Substance
Acetone
Sodium Periodate
To Air
1,233 g/day

To Water
1,270a g/day
6 g/day
To Landfill
1,270a g/day

  a1,270 g/day is estimated to be released from the rags. This release from the rags will be either to landfill or to water.  If the
  release is to water through  the laundry, then the landfill column is blank. If the release is to landfill, then the landfill column will
  be  1,270 g/day and the water column will be empty. This is true of all of the ink remover chemicals.  For our purposes, the rest
  of the assessment assumes release to water only, since we are not assessing landfill releases.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-10

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 2
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                        Table V-12
             Estimated Releases to Water from Method 1, Traditional System 2
Substance
Acetone
Sodium Periodate
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
1270g/day
6 g/day
Waste Water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
87%
100%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
165 g/day
0 g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1,000 MLD
Receiving Water
0.2
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.
      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

      The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low.  However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers, all of which are connected to the same waste treatment
facility. The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which could be significant, even if the release from one screen printing facility is
not.

      To demonstrate the combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St. Louis
County, Missouri were picked as an example.  The Dun and Bradstreet data shows 135 screen
printing facilities in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company,  which releases into the Meramec River. Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the St.  Louis County Water company.  These service an
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively. The mean flow of the river
is 7895 million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the drinking water intakes than it
is at the release point.


                                         Table  V-13
             Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                               Method 1, Traditional System 2
Substance
Acetone
Sodium
Periodate
Total Amount
Released to Water
from All Facilities
171 kg/day
810 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
87%
»99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
22.3 kg/day
«8.1 g/day
Average Concentration
in Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
3
«8x10'4
  • is very much greater than, « is very much less than.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-11

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 1: Traditional Reclamation	Traditional System 2

      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                         Table V-14
               Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                   a Single Model Facility
                               Method 1, Traditional System 2
Substance
Acetone
Amount of Releases per
day
1233g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M
away
3ug/m3
Annual Potential Dose,
mg/yeara
20
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall into
  this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model is more completely explained in the
  Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the
  amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by
  dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 1, Traditional System 2.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk  conclusions.  Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for  Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1  and 2,  and Alternative System Chi in Method 2;  please reference these sections
as illustrative examples.  Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk. Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.

      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the components of Method 1, Traditional System 2 reached an ecotoxicity
            concern concentration, even when considering the  cumulative releases from all
            shops in the area.

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method 1, Traditional System 2 reach an
            ecotoxicity concern  concentration.

      The following table summarizes the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 2.  The analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                    V-12

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 2
                                       Table V-15
             Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method 2, Traditional System 2





Substance
Acetone
Sodium
Periodate


Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
171 kg/day
810g/day


Waste
water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
87%
»99%




Amount to Water
After Waste
water Treatment
22.3 kg/day
«8.1 g/day

Daily
Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
3
«8x10'4





ECOCC
(ug/L)
7600
<10


ECO RISK
INDICATOR
(STREAM
CONG/
ECO CC)
4x1 0'4
~io-5

      Performance

      The performance of this system was not demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical
Foundation or at volunteer printing facilities. Since this system is commonly used in many
screen printing shops, it was decided to use the limited resources available for a performance
demonstration to evaluate alternatives to the traditionally used product systems.

      Cost

      Because the performance of this system was not determined in this project, the total cost
of using this system was also not calculated.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-13

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
Traditional System 3

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:    100% Lacquer Thinner, consisting of:
                       30% Methyl ethyl ketone
                       15% n-butyl acetate
                        5% Methanol
                       20% Naphtha,  light aliphatic
                       20% Toluene
                       10% Isobutyl isobutyrate
      Emulsion Remover:    12 wt% Sodium hypochlorite, 88% water

      Occupational Exposure


                                          Table V-16
            Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 1, Traditional System 3

System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Inhalation (mg/day
I

165
44
27
98
110
7

0
0
II

5.3
1.3
4.7
1.6
2.3
0.4

0
0
III

3
1
2
1
1
0

0
0

IV

20
5.3
15
6.2
9.2
1.7

0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

468
234
78
312
312
156

187
1370
Immersion

2180
1090
364
1460
1460
728

874
874
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.


      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations


      Ink Remover

      o     Hazard quotient calculations indicate  clear concerns for both toluene and methyl
            ethyl ketone with respect to chronic dermal and inhalation exposures to workers
            using these chemicals in ink removal.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-14

-------
                                                            Table V-17

                             Occupational Risk Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System 3.
o
Q.
a>

o-
CO



Name
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

9.2
NA
1.4
NA
17.
NA

NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

22
NA
2.2
NA
44.
NA

NA
NA
Immersion

103
NA
10
NA
208.
NA

NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.

bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient

values less than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.

CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.

dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                              Q.
                                                                                                                                              o_

                                                                                                                                              m


                                                                                                                                              m

                                                                                                                                              o'
     CD



     ff


     •o

     Q)




     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                  s
                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                  Q)


                                                                                                                                                  8-
                                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                                                  a

                                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                                  Q.
                                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                              g.


                                                                                                                                              5'
                                                                                                                                              3

                                                                                                                                              8L

                                                                                                                                              CO


                                                                                                                                              2-
                                                                                                                                              S"

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
      o     Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation
            exposure to workers using methanol in ink removal.
      Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

      o     All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
            such as hypochlorite or periodate or a  strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
            haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
            these compounds.  All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
            irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
            protective clothing. None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
            risks.

      Environmental Releases
                                          Table V-18
              Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                Method 1, Traditional System 3
System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
344
92
57
204
229
15
0
0
water
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
546
land
0
80
0
25
0
100
0
0
II
air
11
2.6
9.8
3.2
4.8
0.8
0
0
III
air
5.7
1.5
4.1
1.7
2.6
0.5
0
0
IV
air
42
11
30
13
19
3.4
0
0
water
363
191
37
257
251
132
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-16

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
                                             Table V-19
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                              Using Method 1, Traditional System 3
Substance:
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl Acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium hypochlorite
To Air:
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7 g/day

To Water:
363 g/day at laundry
191 g/day at laundry3
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at laundry
251 g/day at laundry
132 g/day at laundry
75 g/day
To Landfill:

80 g/daya

25 g/day

100 g/day

  aThe landfill number is the amount estimated to be released from the rags. This release from the rags will be either to landfill or
  to water.  If the release is to water through the laundry, then the landfill column is blank. This is true of all of the ink remover
  chemicals. For our purposes, the rest of the assessment assumes release to water only, since we are not assessing landfill
  releases.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-17

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                          Table V-20
               Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                           Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                               Method 1, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium Hypochloriteb
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
363 g/day at
laundry
191 g/day at
laundry
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at
laundry
251 g/day at
laundry
132 g/day at
laundry
75 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
58 g/day
5.7 g/day
1.1 g/day
15 g/day
20 g/day
2.6 g/day
0
Mean Daily
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
6x10'2
6x10'3
1 x 10'3
2x10'2
2x10'2
3x10'3
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.
  Concentrated solutions of sodium hypochlorite will kill the biota which degrade organic chemicals (the other substances listed
  in the table) during waste water treatment. This could cause problems at the waste water treatment plant, reducing the waste
  water treatment efficiency for the other compounds sent to the plant.

      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

     The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low. However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers, all of which are connected to the same waste treatment
facility. The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which  could be significant, even if the release from one screen printing facility is
not.

     To demonstrate the combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St. Louis
County, Missouri were picked as an example.  The Dun and Bradstreet data shows  135 screen
printing facilities in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company, which releases into the Meramec River. Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the St. Louis County Water company.  These service an
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively. The mean flow of the river
is 7895 million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the drinking water intakes than it
is at the release point.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-18

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
                                        Table V-21
             Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                              Method 1, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium Hypochlorite
Total Amount
Released to Water
from All Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day
34 kg/day
18 kg/day
10 kg/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
» 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
7.8 kg/day
8 x10'1 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day
2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
«100g/day
Average Concentration
in Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
«1 x 10'2
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-19

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                           Table V-22
                Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                     a Single Model Facility
                                Method 1, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Amount of Releases per
day
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
8x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
4x10'1ug/m3
5x10'1ug/m3
4x10'2ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
6
1
1
3
4
0.3
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall into
  this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model is more completely explained in the
  Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III.  To calculate the annual potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the
  amount a person will breathe (20  m3/day) and the number of days per year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by
  dividing by 1000.

      General Population  Risk Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are
            estimated to be very low for Method 1, Traditional System 3.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1.
Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-Exposure (MOE)  values
above  100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low risk.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-20

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
                                       Table V-23
                      Risks from Potential Drinking Water Exposures
                   Screen Reclamation Method 1, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium Hypochlorite
Daily Stream
Concentration in
Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
«1 x 10'2
Daily dose from
Drinking Water
(mg/kg)
3x1 0'5
3x1 0'6
6x1 0'7
9x1 0'6
9x1 0'6
1x10'6
«3x10'7
RfD (mg/kg)
0.6
not available
0.5
not available
0.2
not available
not available
Hazard
Quotient
(dose/RfD)
5x1 0'5

1x10'6

4x1 0'5


                                       Table V-24
          Estimated Risks from Ambient Air Releases from a Single Model Facility
                   Screen Reclamation Method 1, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphthajight aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Highest Avg
Concentration 100 M
away
8x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
4x10'1ug/m3
5x10'1ug/m3
4x10'2ug/m3
Daily Potential
Dose, (mg/kg)
2x1 0'4
4x1 0'5
4x1 0'5
1x10'4
2x1 0'4
1x10'5
RfD/RfC (mg/kg,
mg/rm)
1 mg/m3
not available
0.5 mg/kg
not available
0.4 mg/m3
not available
Hazard
Quotient(dose
or conc/RfDor
RfC)
8x1 0'4

8x1 0'5

1x10'3

     Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

     o     None of the components of Method 1, Traditional System 3 reached an ecotoxicity
           concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases from all
           shops in the area.

     o     None of the single facility releases of Method 1,  Traditional System 3 reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-21

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 3
     The following table summarizes the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 3. The analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
                                       Table V-25
             Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method 1, Traditional System 3





Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light
aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium Hypochlorite


Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day

34 kg/day
18 kg/day
10 kg/day


Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%

92%
98%
» 99%


Amount to
Water After
Waste water
Treatment
7.8 kg/day
8 x10'1 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day

2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
«100g/day
Daily
Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1

3x10'1
4x10'2
«1 x 10'2




ECOCC
(ug/L)
4500
140
9000
5

110
80
<20

ECO RISK
INDICATOR
(STREAM
CONG/
ECO CC)
2x1 0'4
7x1 0'4
2x1 0'6
0.06

3x1 0'3
5x1 0'4
-0.05
     Performance

     The performance of a similar system was demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical
Foundation; the performance demonstration differed from this product system in that it
included the use of a haze remover containing potassium hydroxide and tetrahydrofurfuryl
alcohol. Reference Traditional System 3 in Method 2 for a complete description of the
performance of this system with a haze remover.

     Cost

     Because the performance of this particular system was not determined in this project, the
total cost of using this system was not determined.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-22

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
Traditional System 4

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:    100% Lacquer Thinner, consisting of:
                       30% Methyl ethyl ketone
                       15% n-butyl acetate
                        5% Methanol
                       20% Naphtha,  light aliphatic
                       20% Toluene
                       10% Isobutyl isobutyrate
      Emulsion Remover:    1% Sodium periodate, 99% water

      Occupational Exposure


                                          Table V-26
            Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 1, Traditional System 4

System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Inhalation (mg/day)
I

165
44
27
98
110
7

0
0
II

5.3
1.3
4.7
1.6
2.3
0.4

0
0
III

3
1
2
1
1
0

0
0
IV

20
5.3
15
6.2
9.2
1.7

0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

468
234
78
312
312
156

16
1540
Immersion

2180
1090
364
1460
1460
728

73
7210
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations
      Ink Remover
            Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for both toluene and methyl
            ethyl ketone with respect to chronic dermal and inhalation exposures to workers
            using these chemicals in ink removal.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-23

-------
                                                            Table V-27

                              Occupational Risk Estimates for Method 1, Traditional System 4
o
Q.
a>

o-
CO
Name
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted
M
Sodium periodate
Water
Hazard Quotient
Inhalation
9.29
NA
1.4
NA
17
NA

NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
22
NA
2.2
NA
46
NA

NA
NA
Immersion
103
NA
10.4
NA
210
NA

NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures
Inhalation
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
LOAELd
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
LOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
LOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.

bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient

values less than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.

CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.

dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
m
a.


5'
3

8L



o_

m


m

o'
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                  •o
                                                                                                                                                  Q)




                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                  CO

                                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                  Q)
                                                                                                                                                  a

                                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                                  Q.
                                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                              g.


                                                                                                                                              5'
                                                                                                                                              3

                                                                                                                                              8L

                                                                                                                                              CO


                                                                                                                                              2-
                                                                                                                                              5T

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
      o     Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation
            exposure to workers using methanol in ink removal.

      Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

      o     All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
            such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
            haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
            these compounds.  All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
            irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
            protective clothing. None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
            risks.

      Environmental Releases
                                          Table V-28
              Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                Method 1, Traditional  System 4
System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
344
92
57
204
229
15
0
0
water
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
615
land
0
80
0
25
0
100
0
0
II
air
11
2.6
9.8
3.2
4.8
0.8
0
0
III
air
5.7
1.5
4.1
1.7
2.6
0.5
0
0
IV
air
42
11
30
13
19
3.4
0
0
water
363
191
37
257
251
132
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-25

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
                                              Table V-29
       Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                               Using Method 1, Traditional System 4
Substance:
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl Acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium periodate
To Air:
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7 g/day

To Water:
363 g/day at laundry
191 g/day at laundry3
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at laundry
251 g/day at laundry
132 g/day at laundry
6 g/day
To Landfill:

80 g/daya

25 g/day

100 g/day

  a191 g/day is estimated to be released from the rags if the rags are laundered. This release from the rags will be either to
  landfill or to water. If the release is to water through the laundry, then the landfill column is blank. If the release is to landfill,
  then the landfill column will be 80 g/day and the water column will be blank. This is true for all of the ink remover chemicals.
  For our purposes, the rest of the assessment assumes release to water only,  since we are not assessing landfill releases.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-26

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                        Table V-30
              Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                           Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                              Method 1, Traditional System 4
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium periodate
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
363 g/day at
laundry
191 g/day at
laundry
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at
laundry
251 g/day at
laundry
132 g/day at
laundry
6 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste Water
Treatment
58 g/day
5.7 g/day
1.1 g/day
15. 4 g/day
20 g/day
2.6 g/day
0
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
6x10'2
6x10'3
1 x 10'3
2x10'2
2x10'2
3x10'3
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.

      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

      The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low.  However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers, all of which are connected to the same waste treatment
facility. The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which could be significant, even if the release from one screen printing facility is
not.

      To demonstrate the combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St. Louis
County, Missouri were picked as an example.  The Dun and Bradstreet data shows 135 screen
printing facilities in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company,  which releases into the Meramec River. Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the  St.  Louis County Water company.  These service an
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively. The mean flow of the river
is 7895 million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the drinking water intakes than it
is at the release point.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-27

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
                                        Table V-31
             Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                              Method 1, Traditional System 4
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium Periodate
Total Amount
Released to Water
from All Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day
34 kg/day
18 kg/day
810g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
» 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
7.8 kg/day
0.8 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day
2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
«8.1 g/day
Average Concentration
in Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
«1 x 10'3
     These stream concentrations will be put into perspective in the risk integration section of
this document. Please refer to that section for information on how to interpret these
concentrations.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-28

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                          Table V-32
                Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates for
                                    a Single Model Facility
                                Method 1, Traditional System 4
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Amount of Releases per
day
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
8x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
4x10'1ug/m3
5x10'1ug/m3
4x10'2ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
6
1
1
3
4
3x10'1
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall into
  this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model is more completely explained in the
  Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the
  amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by
  dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures  are very
            low for Method 1, Traditional System 4.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown  for Method 2, Traditional System  1
in Methods 1 and 2,  and Alternative System Chi in  Method 2; please reference these sections
as illustrative examples.  Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.

      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the components of Method 1, Traditional System 4 reached an ecotoxicity
            concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases from all
            shops in the area.

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method 1,  Traditional System 4 reach an
            ecotoxicity concern concentration.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-29

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
     The following table summarizes the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 4. The analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
                                        Table V-33
                 Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method 1, Traditional System 4
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light
aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium Periodate
Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day
34 kg/day
18 kg/day
810g/day
Waste
water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
» 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste
water Treatment
7.8 kg/day
0.8 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day
2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
«8.1 g/day
Daily
Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
«1 x 10'3
ECOCC
(ug/L)
4500
140
9000
5
110
80
<10
ECO RISK
INDICATOR
(STREAM
CONG/
ECO CC)
2x1 0'4
7x1 0'4
2x1 0'6
0.06
3x1 0'3
5x1 0'4
~io-4
      Performance

      The performance of this system was not demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical
Foundation or at volunteer printing facilities. Since this system is commonly used in many
screen printing shops, it was decided to use the limited resources available for a performance
demonstration to evaluate alternatives to the traditionally used product systems.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-30

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Traditional System 4
     Cost
                                       Table V-34
                    Method 1:  Summary of Cost Analysis for Baseline
                       (Traditional System 4 Minus Haze Remover)
Cost Element Description
Traditional
System 4
(minus Haze
Remover)
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2,127
6
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost($)
# of rags used
Cost($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
12.9
2.82
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
—
34
0.02
Totals
Total Cost($/Screen)
Total Cost($/year)
3.63
5,446
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-31

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method!  Traditional Reclamation
                                                  Product System Chi
Alternative System Chi

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:


      Emulsion Remover:
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
Water
      Occupational Exposure

                                          Table V-35
           Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 1, Alternative System Chi

System
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Inhalation (mg/day)
I

0
0
3
0

0
0
II

0
0
0
0

0
0
III

0
0
0
0

0
0
IV

0
0
0.1
0

0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

312
858
312
78

16
1540
Immersion

1456
4000
1460
364

73
7210
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations
      Ink Remover
            Clear concerns exist for chronic dermal exposures to the diethylene glycol series
            ethers used in ink removal based on the calculated margins-of-exposure.

            Concerns exist for developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to N-
            methylpyrrolidone based on the calculated margin-of-exposure.  Similar
            calculations for inhalation exposures to N-methylpyrrolidone indicate very low
            concern.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                             V-32

-------
                                                            Table V-36
                                   Occupational Risk Estimates for Method  1, System CHI
o
Q.
a>
o-
CO



Name
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Immersion

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA
NA
3,600
NA

NA
NA
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

1,800
NA
39
NA

NA
NA
LOAEL

46
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

380
NA
8.4
NA

NA
NA
LOAEL

9.8
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC).  Hazard Quotient
values less than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.
CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                              Q.
                                                                                                                                              o_
                                                                                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                              o'
     CD

     ff

     •o
     Q)


     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                  s
                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                  Q)
                                                                                                                                                  8-
                                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                                                  a
                                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                                  Q.
                                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                                                              Q.
                                                                                                                                             f
                                                                                                                                              5T
                                                                                                                                              O

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Product System Chi
      o    Inhalation exposures to other ink remover components are very low.

      o    Dermal risks from other ink remover components could not be quantified because
           of limitations in hazard data, but exposures can be high.

      Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

      o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide. The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu,  Omicron, and  Theta also contain
           these compounds. All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue  damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.

      Environmental Releases
                                         Table V-37
              Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                              Method 1, Alternative System Chi
System
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
0.1
0.1
6.8
0
0
0
water
0
0
0
0
6
615
land
138
381
132
35
0
0
II
air
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
III
air
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV
air
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
water
270
742
270
67
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-34

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Product System Chi
                                        Table V-38
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                Using Screen Reclamation Method 1, Alternative System Chi
Substance:
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium Periodate
To Air:
0.1 g/day
0.1 g/day
7.1 g/day


To Water:
270 g/day at laundry
742 g/day at laundry
270 g/day at laundry
67 g/day at laundry
6 g/day
To Landfill:
138 g/day
381 g/day
132 g/day
35 g/day

      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                        Table V-39
              Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                          Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                Using Screen Reclamation Method 1, Alternative System Chi
Substance
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
Amount
Released to
Water from
Facility
270 g/day at
laundry
742 g/day at
laundry
270 g/day at
laundry
67 g/day at
laundry
6 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
83%
83-97%
97%
100%
»99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
46 g/day
126 g/day
8.1 g/day
0 g/day
«.06 g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
4x10'2
1 x 10'1
8x10'3
0
«6x10'5
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-35

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Product System Chi
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                         Table V-40
               Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                   a Single Model Facility
                Using Screen Reclamation Method 1, Alternative System Chi
Substance
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Amount of Releases
per day
0.1 g/day
0.1 g/day
7.1 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M
away
2x10'4ug/m3
2x10'4ug/m3
1x10'2ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
1 x 10'3
1 x 10'3
1 x 10'1
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall into
  this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model is more completely explained in the
  Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the
  amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by
  dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 2, Alternative System Chi.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions.  Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Alternative System Chi in
Method 2.  Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-Exposure
(MOE) values  above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low risk.

      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method 1, Alternative System  Chi reach an
            ecotoxicity concern concentration.

      Performance

      The performance of System Chi, with the ink remover also in use as a haze remover, was
demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical Foundation and at two volunteer printing
facilities. Reference Product System Chi in Method 2 for details of these performance
evaluations. The information reported from Facility 21 will be particularly applicable to Method
1 as Facility 21 was able to use the ink remover/emulsion remover combination and achieve
acceptable performance. Facility 21 noted that all screens could be reused for future jobs and
that this system worked particularly well in removing metallic inks.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-36

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Product System Chi
      Cost
                                             Table V-41
          Method 1: Summary of Cost Analysis for Method 1, Alternative System Chi
Cost Element Description
Baseline
(Traditional
System 4-
Haze Remover)
Alternative System Chi
Facility 3
Facility 21
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2,127
6
1,977
15
1,088
23
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost ($)
# of rags used
Cost ($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Amount (g)
Cost($)
12.9
2.82
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
—
34
0.02
9.4
2.07
1.2
0.18
1.1
0.21
2.1
0.07
—
0
0
4.5
0.98
1.2
0.19
1.1
0.21
1.5
0.05
—
0
0
Totals
Total Cost ($/screen)
Normalized3
Total Cost ($/year)
Nnrmali7firia
3.63
3.63
5,466
5,446
2.53
2.83
9,497
4,245
1.43
1.95
8,005
2,918
     formalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at demonstration
     facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs,
     however, are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between the baseline and facility results.

     Note: For additional information regarding product performance see performance demonstration summaries.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-37

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
                                               Product System Beta
Alternative System Beta

      Unlike other manufacturers who participated in the project, this manufacturer submitted
only an ink remover, rather than a product system consisting of ink remover, emulsion
remover and haze remover. To accommodate the screen reclamation methods identified in this
CTSA and develop a risk assessment based on a product system, an emulsion  remover
product was arbitrarily added to ink remover Beta to form Product System Beta. While the risk
and cost assessment include this other product, the performance of the ink remover was
profiled at a single facility (12) which used their standard emulsion and haze remover to
completely clean their screens. Due to a lack of information about the standard emulsion and
haze remover products used by Facility 12, the risk assessment for these products was not
undertaken.
      Formulation

      Ink Remover:


      Emulsion Remover:
2-octadecanamine, N, N-dimethyl-, N-oxide or a modified amine
from unsaturated soy bean oil fatty acid/ water
                            Water
      Sodium periodate
      Occupational Exposure

                                         Table V-42
              Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 1, Alternative Beta
System
Ink Remover
2-Octadecanamine, N, N-dimethyl, N-oxide
Water
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Inhalation (mg/day)
I
292
0
0
0
II
4.3
0
6
615
III
3
0
0
0
IV
0
0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine
1530
31
0
0
Immersion
7130
146
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.

      Occupational Risk  Estimates

      Quantitative risk estimates could not be determined for this system due to insufficient
data. See risk conclusions for areas of concern for this system.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                           V-38

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Product System Beta
      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

      Ink Remover

      o    Both inhalation and dermal exposures to workers using 2-octadecanamine, N,N-
           dimethyl-, N-oxide in ink removal can be high, although the risks could not be
           quantified because of limitations in hazard data.

      Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

      o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds. All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective clothing.  None of the  emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
      Environmental Releases

                                         Table V-43
             Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                             Method 1, Alternative System Beta
System
Ink Remover
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl, N-
oxide
Water
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
609
0
0
0
water
0
0
6
615
land
0
12
0
0
II
air
9.1
0
0
0
III
air
6.3
0
0
0
IV
air
0
0
0
0
water
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-39

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Product System Beta
                                           Table V-44
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                 Using Screen Reclamation Method 1, Alternative System Beta
Substance:
2-octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl, N-
oxide
Sodium periodate
To Air:
624 g/day

To Water:

5 g/day
To Landfill:


      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                           Table V-45
               Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                            Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                 Using Screen Reclamation Method 1, Alternative System Beta



Substance
Sodium periodate

Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
5 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
100 %

Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
0
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.

      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                           Table V-46
               Air Releases, Concentrations and  Potential Dose Estimates from
                                     a Single Model Facility
                Using Screen Reclamation Method 1, Alternative System Beta
Substance
2-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl, N-oxide
Amount of Releases
per day
624 g/day
Highest Aver age
Concentration 100 M away
1.3ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
9
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III.  To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-40

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 1: Traditional Reclamation	Product System Beta

     General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations

     o    Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
           low for Method 1, Alternative System Beta.

     Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions.  Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2,  and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections
as illustrative examples.  Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above  1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.


     Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen  Reclamation Chemicals

     o    None of the single facility releases of Method 1, Alternative System Beta reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

     Performance

     General Summary of Ink Remover Beta Performance, and Related Variables

     Facility 12 used ink remover Beta during the performance demonstrations.  Unlike the
Product Systems submitted by other manufacturers, the manufacturer of Beta supplied the ink
remover only.  The facility used the alternative ink remover Beta, along with their standard
emulsion remover and haze remover to reclaim  their screens.  During the demonstrations, the
performance of ink remover Beta was recorded for  17 screens with solvent-based inks over a
three week period. Facility 12 prints graphic overlays, labels,  and flexible membrane switches,
and all products are primarily printed on plastics.

     Ink remover Beta was also sent to two other facilities who were not able to participate in
the Performance Demonstrations. One facility could not use the product because they send all
their screens out to be reclaimed; they only use ink removers as an in-process cleaner.  Since
this project is intended to evaluate ink removers used for  screen reclamation, not for in-process
ink removal, this facility did not participate.  The second facility felt they could not use the
alternative system because of an on-going EPA inspection.  The printer regretted not being able
to participate, however, the EPA was in the process of testing his waste water, so he did not
want to add any new chemicals to his waste stream.

     Facility 12 reported that the ink  remover removed the ink on most screens, but it also left
an oily residue on the screen.  Prior to the  demonstration, this facility used an acetone and
toluene blend that left no residue on the screen. The printer found that the ink wiped off more
easily when it was wet, however it was very time-consuming to remove dried ink. On some
screens, it took 30 minutes to remove  the ink.

     Alternative Ink Remover Beta Profile

     The manufacturer recommends  applying ink remover Beta as follows:
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-41

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 1: Traditional Reclamation	Product System Beta

     Water Resistant Emulsions:  Card off the excess ink from the screen.  Using a spray
     bottle, apply the ink remover to the screen.  After a short penetration time (only for dried
     inks) use high pressure water and rinse all the ink residue from the screen. For tests
     done at SPTF, a 1000 psi spray was used for rinsing the ink remover.

     Non Water Resistant Emulsions:  Card off the excess ink from the screen. Using a spray
     bottle, spray the ink remover directly onto the screen.  Clean the screen with a cloth
     slightly dampened with ink remover. Dry both sides of the screen with a dry and
     absorbent cloth.

     Alternative System Performance at SPTF

     Ink remover Beta was tested at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink, one
with a UV-curable ink, and one with a water-based ink). On all three screens, the technician
reported that the  ink dissolved well, however a fair amount of wiping was required. For the
screen with the solvent-based ink, seven wipes were needed. Six wipes were used on the UV
ink screen, and eight wipes were required to remove the ink from the water-based ink screen.
On all three screens, the technician noticed that the ink remover affected the stencil image in
the half tone area. The color of the stencil appeared on the rag, which also indicated that the
product was deteriorating the emulsion.

     Alternative System Performance Details

     Performance Details from Facility 12

     Facility 12 felt the ink remover Beta sufficiently removed the ink from most screens,
however, it took a long time to remove the ink and the product left an oily haze on the screen.
In some cases, they reported ink residue or ink stains were also left in the mesh. The oily film
and the ink residue were both removed during emulsion removal and haze removal steps, and
all screens were reusable for all types of printing jobs.

     Unlike all of the other facilities in the Performance Demonstrations, an observer did not
visit this facility to introduce them to the project and to the alternative system.  This lack of in-
person guidance may have affected the results. During the first week, the printer sprayed on
the ink remover, rubbed it in with a brush and pressure washed the screen to remove the ink.
This application method was very messy and did not effectively remove the ink. For the
remainder of the demonstrations, the printer changed his application method and used rags to
wipe the ink off the screen. This second method removed the ink much more easily, but took a
long time (an average of 25 minutes per screen). Two or three rags were used on each screen.
While wiping the screen with the rags, the  printer  noticed that the emulsion started to
deteriorate. He also mentioned that he needed to  replace his filters on the ink removal sink
waste water more frequently when using the alternative system.

     In reviewing the data, there did not appear to be any correlations between the product
performance and the screen conditions,  however,  the printer felt it was much easier to remove
wet ink  and light colored inks, than dried  on and  black ink.

     Alternative System Performance Table Compiled from Field Sites

     The following table highlights the observed performance of the ink remover and the
relevant conditions at the demonstration facility.  In addition to the field demonstrations data,
results of the product tests performed at SPTF are also summarized in this table.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-42

-------
                Table V47

Performance Summary for Ink Remover BETA
•o_
CD"


CD







System
Component



Performance

Avg Drying
Time Before
Using Product


Average
Quantity
Applied


Average
Cleaning
Time


Average
Effort
Required


Performance for
Each System
Component


Overall System
Performance


Demonstration Conditions

Ink
type(s)



Emulsion
type



Mesh
type;
Thread
count

Average
Screen
Size

In-field Demonstrations at Volunteer Printing Facilities
Facility
12



Ink remover




3.9±8.2hrs
(n=15)



4.2±1.5oz.
(n=17)



24.6 ± 5.4
mins (n=17)



Moderate




Removed ink but
took a long time
and left an oily
residue.

•Not
demonstrated as
part of a system.


Solvent-
based ink



Capillary film




Polyester,
abraded;
195-390
threads/
inch
1089 in2




Laboratory Testing at SPTF
SPTF
Solvent-
based Ink

SPTF
UV-
curable
Ink
SPTF
Water-
based Ink

Ink Remover



Ink Remover



Ink Remover



15mins



15mins



15mins



2.5 oz.



2.5 oz.



3.0 oz.



9.1 mins



6.3 mins



12.0 mins



Moderate



Moderate



Moderate



Ink dissolved well, but 7 rags were
needed and the stencil started to
deteriorate.



Ink dissolved well, but 6 rags were
needed and the stencil started to
deteriorate.



Ink dissolved well, but it took a long time
(8 rags were needed) and the stencil
started to deteriorate.



Solvent-
based


UV-
curable


Water-
based


Dual cure
direct


Dual cure
direct


Dual cure
direct


Polyester;
260
threads/
inch
Polyester;
390
threads/
inch
Polyester;
260
threads/
inch
360 in2



360 in2



360 in2



o
Q.
                                                                               m
                                                                               Q.
                                                                               o_
                                                                               m

                                                                               m

                                                                               o'
    co_

    rt^
    c

    CD"


    ff


    •o
    Q)



    I
    CD

    >
    CO
    CO
                                                                                   CD
                                                                                   s
                                                                                   I
                                                                                   Q)

                                                                                   8-
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   a

                                                                                   o
                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                   CO
                                                                               O
                                                                               0.
                                                                               CO

                                                                               5T
                                                                               CD

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 1: Traditional Reclamation	Product System Beta

     Facility Profiles

     General Facility Background for Facility 12

     Facility 12 prints graphic overlays, labels, and flexible membrane switches on plastics,
paper,  and metals.  Their typical run length is one hour, and approximately 70% of their orders
are repeat orders. There are about 10 employees involved in screen printing at this location,
and approximately 4 are involved in screen reclamation.  Solvent-based vinyl and polyester inks
used at this facility. Screens with mesh counts of 195 - 390 threads/inch and capillary film
emulsions were used during the demonstrations.  The average screen size at this facility is 9 ft2
and 10-15 screens are reclaimed daily.

     Screen Reclamation  Area in Facility 12

     Ink removal is done in a spray booth where a local, mechanical system provides
ventilation. Screen reclamation is done in a high-pressure (2700 psi) water blaster booth.
Waste water from the wash of the emulsion remover and haze remover is filtered prior to
discharge to the sewer.  Filters and spent solvent from the ink removal area are disposed of as
hazardous  waste.

     Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 12

     This facility uses a solvent blend ink remover containing 50% toluene and 50% acetone.
Their emulsion remover consists primarily of sodium periodate. For haze removal, they use a
proprietary solvent blend which includes sodium hydroxide and cyclohexanone.

     Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 12

     Using their standard  products, this facility reclaims their screens following the procedure
described below.  Personal protective equipment worn by operators includes gloves, eye
protection, respiratory protection, and rubber boots (for haze removal).

     o    Ink Remover: Card off the excess ink.  Spray the ink remover onto the screen from
           a low pressure  tank (60 psi). Wipe off the dissolved ink with disposable rags (one
           or two rags are used on each screen).

     o    Emulsion Remover: Spray the emulsion remover onto both sides of the screen.
           Brush the emulsion remover into the screen.  Pressure rinse and allow to air dry.

     o    Haze Remover:  Dip a brush into the container of haze remover and rub it into the
           screen.  Rinse with the high-pressure water blaster.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-44

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method! Traditional Reclamation
Product System Beta
      Cost
                                              Table V-48
                    Method 1: Summary of Cost Analysis for Alternative Beta
Description
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
Baseline
(Traditional
System 4 minus
Haze Remover)

2,127
6
Alternative
System Betas
Facility 12

1,089
15
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost($)
# of rags used
Cost($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
12.9
2.82
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
—
34
0.02
29.4
6.43
2.2
0.34
4.2
0.50
1.8
0.06
—
0
0
Total Costs
Total Cost ($/screen)
Normalized11
Total Cost ($/year)
Nnrmali7i=Hb
3.63
3.63
5,446
5,446
17.33
7.97
27,477
11,958
         aThe emulsion removal use and cost per screen were taken from performance demonstration results for
         product system Zeta.
         bl\lormalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at
         demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline
         scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between the
         baseline and facility results.

         Note: For additional information regarding product performance see performance demonstration summaries.
DRAFT—September 1994
              V-45

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Traditional System 1

              Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover

     In a typical screen printing facility, ink remover, emulsion remover and haze remover are
all used in the process of screen reclamation. Method 2 incorporates the most common
practices in screen reclamation; it differs from Method 1 in that printers are assumed to use a
haze remover (see Figure V-2). For the purposes of determining occupational exposure to the
haze remover, it was assumed that screen reclaimers only used haze remover on 1-2 screens of
the estimated six screens reclaimed  daily in the average small/medium screen printing facility.

     Because Method 2 is most representative of current screen reclamation practices, the
majority of alternative systems are included in this category. A total of fourteen systems are
assessed,  including four traditional systems and ten alternative systems. The alternative
systems were submitted by manufacturers who volunteered to participate in the project. These
systems were named Alpha, Chi, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Phi, Omicron-AE, Omicron-AF
and Zeta.  Printers who are interested in further exploration of the merits of one of these
systems should contact the manufacturers listed  in the acknowledgements section of the
document.

     Although three chemical products are used in Method 2, as opposed to two chemical
products in Method 1, pollution prevention can still be achieved through a combination of
improved workplace practices and equipment modifications.  Chapter 6 should be referenced
to best determine which pollution prevention practices are most appropriate for a particular
facility. In Chapter 6, a discussion of workplace practices reported by printers as a means of
reducing or preventing pollution is followed by an overview of spray applicator systems,
washout booths, filtration systems, recirculation  systems and distillation units. All of these
modifications can be used in combination with Method 2 to prevent pollution.

Traditional System 1

     Formulation

     Ink Remover:          100% Mineral spirits
     Emulsion Remover:         12% Sodium hypochlorite (bleach)
     Haze Remover:         10%Xylene
                           30% Acetone
                           30% Mineral spirits
                           30% Cyclohexanone
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-46

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 1
                              Figure V - 2
               Process Steps Included in Method 2
                              Ink Removal
                            Products Used
                            Include:
                            • GLYCOL ETHERS
                            • SURFACTANTS
                            • DIBASIC ESTERS
                            • HYDROCARBON SOLVENTS
                            • TERPINEOLS
                            • ALCOHOLS
                             Emulsion
                             Removal/Water
                             Wash
                            Product Groups
                            Include:
                            • OXIDIZERS
                            • NON-OXIDIZERS
                            • SOLVENTS
                            • SURFACTANTS
                             Haze Removal/
                             Water Wash
                            Product Groups
                            Include:
                            • GLYCOL ETHERS
                            • CAUSTICS
                            • DIBASIC ESTERS
                            • SOLVENTS
                            • SURFACTANTS
DRAFT—September 1994
          V-47

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 1
      Occupational Exposure


                                         Table V-49
            Occupational Exposure Estimates For Method 2, Traditional System 1
System
Ink Remover
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Emulsion Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed)
Acetone
Mineral spirits-light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Inhalation Exposures, by
Scenario (mg/day)
I
26
0
0
21
64
7
27
II
0.1
0
0
0.9
11
0.1
0.3
III
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
IV
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dermal Exposures, (mg/day)
Routine
1560
187
1370
156
468
468
468
Immersion
7280
874
6410
728
2180
2180
2180
     Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III =
     transferring chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry

      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

      Ink Remover and Haze Remover

      o    Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal and
           inhalation exposures to workers using acetone  in haze removal.

      o    Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal
           exposures to workers using xylene and cyclohexanone in haze removal.

      o    Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate very low concern for developmental and
           reproductive toxicity risks from inhalation of cyclohexanone.  Reproductive and
           developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to cyclohexanone could not be
           quantified.

      o    Dermal exposures to workers using mineral spirits in ink removal can be very high,
           although the risks from mineral spirits could not be quantified because  of
           limitations  in hazard data.

      Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

      o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as  hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-48

-------
                                                       Table V-50

                           Occupational Risk Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System 1



Name
Ink Remover
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Emulsion Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

NA


NA

0.2
11
NA
0.08
Dermal
Routine

NA

NA
NA

1.1
66
NA
1.3
Immersion

NA

NA
NA

5.2
311
NA
6.2
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAELb

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
180
LOAELc

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
o
Q.

IS3
m
a.


5'
3

8L


c?
o.

m


m

o'
    CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       •o
                                                                                                                                       Q)




                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                       Q)
                                                                                                                                       a

                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                                                                       CO
aNA means Not Available.

bNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.

10AEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                   g.


                                                                                                                                   5'
                                                                                                                                   3

                                                                                                                                   8L

                                                                                                                                   CO


                                                                                                                                   2-
                                                                                                                                   5T

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 1
The haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain these
compounds.  All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye irritation and tissue
damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper protective clothing.  None of the
emulsion removers present significant inhalation risks.

      Environmental Releases
                                           Table V-51
              Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                Method 2, Traditional System 1
System
Ink Remover
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Emulsion Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
54
0
0
44
133
15
57
water
0
75
546
0
0
119
76
land
1050
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
air
0.2
0
0
1.9
22
0.2
0.7
III
air
0.1
0
0
1.1
11
0.1
0.4
IV
air
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
water
1350
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-50

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 1
                                              Table V-52
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility:
                                         Traditional System 1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Sodium Hypochlorite
Acetone
Xylene
Cyclohexanone
To Air
69.5 g/day

167g/day
47.5 g/day
58.1 g/day
To Water
119 g/day
1350g/daya
74.5 g/day


76.5 g/day
To Landfill
1053g/daya




    aThis release is either to water from the printing facility, or is sent with wastes to a waste handler to go to a landfill or to
    incineration. For our purposes, the rest of the assessment assumes release to water only, since we are not assessing
    landfill releases.
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                              Table V-53
            Estimated Releases to Water from Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                                         Traditional System  1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Hypochloriteb
Amount Released to
Water from Facility
119 g/day
1350 g/day at laundry

76.5 g/day
74.5 g/day
Waste water
Treatment Removal
Efficiency
99%
75%
90%
»c 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
1 .2 g/day
13.50 g/day

7.6 g/day
« .7 g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
1.2x10'3

7.6 x10'3
«7x10'4
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.
  Concentrated solutions of sodium hypochlorite will kill the biota which degrade organic chemicals (the other substances listed
  in the table) during waste water treatment. This could cause problems at the waste water treatment plant, reducing the waste
  water treatment efficiency for the other compounds sent to the plant.
  c» is very much greater than, « is very much less than.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-51

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 1
      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

      The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low. However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers, all of which are connected to the same waste treatment
facility.  The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which could be significant, even though the release from one screen printing
facility is not.

      To demonstrate the combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St. Louis
County, Missouri were picked as an example.  The Dun and Bradstreet data shows 135 screen
printing facilities  in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company, which releases into the Meramec River.  Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the St. Louis County Water company. These service an
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively.  The mean flow of the river
is 7895  million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the  drinking water intakes as it is
at the release point.


                                        Table V-54
                  Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                                   Traditional System 1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Hypochlorite
Total Amount Released
to Water from All
Facilities
16 kg/day + 182 kg/day at
laundry
10 kg/day
10 kg/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
99%
90%
» 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
160g/day
1 .8 kg/day
1 g/day
«100g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration in
Meramec River,
ug/L (ppb)
1.6x10'1
1.8
1 x 10'3
«1 x 10'1
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-52

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 1
                                             Table V-55
        Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates From a Single Model
                                               Facility
                                        Traditional System 1
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Acetone
Xylene
Cyclohexanone
Amount of Releases
per day
69.5 g/day
167g/day
47.5 g/day
58.1 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
3x10'1ug/m3
23 ug/m3
9x10'2ug/m3
1 x 10'1 ug/m3
Annual Potential Dose,
mg/yeara
1.1
2.6
0.7
0.9
      aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility.  The actual number of people who
      would fall into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to
      calculate concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To
      calculate the annual potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day)
      and the number of days per year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      The following graphic depicts the population near San Bernardino, CA, and the lines
(isopleths) are equal average concentration of acetone from a hypothetical facility at 34 ° latitude
and 117°  longitude. The concentrations do not vary in concentric  circles from  the release
point, but in patterns which depend on the weather and terrain.

                                             Table V-56
                       Population Risk Estimates for Traditional System 1
Chemical Name
Mineral spirits
Sodium hypochlorite
Xylene
Acetone
Cyclohexanone
Ambient Air
(Health)
See note 1
Air releases not expected
Hazard Quotient = ~ 10'5
Hazard Quotient = ~ 10'3
Hazard Quotient = ~ 10'5
Ambient Water
(Health)
See note 1
See note 2
Water releases not
expected
Water releases not
expected
Hazard Quotient = ~ 10'8
Ambient Water
Conc/Eco CC
2
~io-3
Water releases not
expected
Water releases not
expected
~io-7
    Note 1: Risks resulting from exposures to mineral spirits could not be quantified.
    Note 2: Human health risks from the release of hypochlorite to water are expected to be very low, but cannot be quantified
    because of limitations in the available hazard data. Estimated concentrations of hypochlorite in ambient water are much
    lower than hypochlorite concentrations in typical drinking water supplies.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-53

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Traditional System 1

     General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations

     o    Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
           low for Method 2, Traditional System 1.

     o    Risks to the general population from ambient air and drinking water exposures are
           very low for Method 2, Traditional System 1.

     o    The major health impact on the general population for this type of product is
           probably its release of volatile organic compounds that contribute to the formation
           of photochemical smog in the ambient air.

     o    A marginal concern exists for risks to aquatic species resulting from the release of
           mineral spirits from a commercial laundry that launders shop rags from all of the
           screen printing facilities in the area.  Aquatic risks from all of the chemicals are low
           with respect to direct water releases from the screen printing facilities.

     Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2 and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections as
illustrative examples.  Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk. Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-54

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                                                       Traditional System 1
                                       Figure V-3
         Acetone Concentration Patterns Around a "Typical" Screen Print Facility
ISOPLETH #     CONCENTRATION.
                 ug/m3
           5.4 x 104
           5.Ox 104
           l.Ox 104
           5.Ox  105
           1.8x 105

      * =   Population Centroid - Weighted center of population of one census block group.
           There are roughly 800 to 1200 people represented by each centroid.

      Distances are in kilometers
1
2
3
4
5
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                                  V-55

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 1
      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     Cumulative releases of mineral spirits from Traditional System 1 present a concern
           for risk to aquatic species.  The largest contributor to these releases is the
           hypothetical commercial laundry that launders the shop rags used by the area's
           screen printers.

      o     None of the components of Method 2, Traditional System 1 reached an ecotoxicity
           concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases from all
           shops in the area.

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method 2, Traditional System 1 reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

      The following table summarizes  the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 1. The  analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
                                        Table V-57
                 Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method 2, Traditional System 1





Substance
Mineral Spirits


Cyclohexanone
Sodium Hypochlorite


Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
16 kg/day +
182 kg/day at
laundry
10 kg/day
10 kg/day

Waste
water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
94%


83%
100 %



Amount to Water
After Waste
water Treatment
960 g/day
11 kg/day

1 .7 kg/day
0
Daily
Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
1 x 10'1
1

2x10'1
0




ECOCC
(ug/i)
1


2800
<20

ECO RISK
INDICATOR
(STREAM
CONG/
ECO CC)
1.1


7x1 0'5
0
      Performance

      The performance of this system was not demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical
Foundation or at volunteer printing facilities. Since this system is commonly used in many
screen printing shops, it was decided to use the limited resources available for a performance
demonstration to evaluate alternatives to the traditionally used product systems.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-56

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                                                          Traditional System 1
      Cost

      Because the performance of this system was not determined in this project, the total cost
of using this system was also not calculated.
Traditional System 2

      Formulation
      Ink Remover
      Emulsion Remover
      Haze Remover
                        100% Acetone
                        12% Sodium hypochlorite (bleach)
                        10%Xylene
                        30% Acetone
                        30% Mineral spirits
                        30% Cyclohexanone

Occupational Exposure


                                     Table V-58
       Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System 2

System
Ink Remover
Acetone
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Inhalation (mg/day)
1

539

0
0

21
64
7
27
II

11

0
0

0.9
11
0.1
0.3
III

5

0
0

1
5
0
0
IV

38

0
0

0
0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

1560

187
1370

156
468
468
468
Immersion

7280

874
6410

728
2180
2180
2180
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                                      V-57

-------
                                                            Table V-59

                              Occupational Risk Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System 2
o
Q.

IS3
     CO



Name
Ink Remover
Acetone
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

84

NA
NA

0.2
11
NA
0.07
Dermal
Routine

23

NA
NA

1.1
66
NA
1.3
Immersion

1,040

NA
NA

5.2
311.
NA
6.2
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
180
LOAELd

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
0
Immersion
NOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
0
LOAEL

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
0
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.

bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient

values less than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.

CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.

dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
m
a.


5'
3

8L


c?
o.

m


m

o'
                                                                                                                                                   CD
                                                                                                                                                  •o
                                                                                                                                                  Q)




                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                                   CD
                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                   Q)
                                                                                                                                                   a

                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                              g.


                                                                                                                                              5'
                                                                                                                                              3

                                                                                                                                              8L

                                                                                                                                              CO


                                                                                                                                              2-
                                                                                                                                              5T

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Traditional System 2


     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

     Ink Remover and Haze Remover

     o     Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal and
           inhalation exposures to workers using acetone in either ink removal or haze
           removal.

     o     Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for dermal exposures to
           workers using xylene and cyclohexanone in haze removal.

     o     Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate very low concern for developmental and
           reproductive toxicity risks from inhalation of cyclohexanone. Reproductive and
           developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to cyclohexanone could not be
           quantified.

     o     Dermal exposures to workers using mineral spirits in haze removal can be high,
           although the risks from mineral spirits could not be quantified because of
           limitations in hazard data.

     Emulsion Removers  (All Systems)

     o     All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover (all systems except Beta) use
           either a strong oxidizer such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as
           sodium hydroxide. The haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron,
           and Theta also contain these compounds. All of these materials present a high
           concern for skin and eye irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the
           absence of proper protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present
           significant inhalation risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-59

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 2
      Environmental Releases
                                              Table V-60
               Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                  Method 2, Traditional System 2
System
Ink Remover
Acetone
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
1
air
1120
0
0
44
133
15
57
water
0
75
546
0
0
119
76
land
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
air
22
0
0
1.9
22
0.2
0.7
III
air
11
0
0
1.1
11
0.1
0.4
IV
air
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
water
1270
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-60

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2:  Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 2
      Estimated Environmental Releases from Screen Reclamation Processes
      Method 2, Traditional Screen Reclamation System 2

From Ink Removal Operations:
      Acetone
                  1233g/day to air
                  1270 g/day to water

From Emulsion Remover:
      Sodium Hypoclorite
                  75 g/day to water

From Haze Remover:
      Acetone:
                  166 g/day to air
      Xylenes:
                  47 g/day to air
      Mineral Spirits:
                  15.3 g/day to air
                  119 g/day to water
      Cyclohexanone:
                  58.1 g/day to air
                  76 g/day to water


                                          Table V-61
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                             Using Method 2, Traditional System 2
Substance:
Acetone
Sodium Hypoclorite
Mineral Spirits
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
To Air:
1,399 g/day

15.3 g/day
47 g/day
58.1 g/day
To Water:
1270a g/day
75 g/day
119 g/day

76 g/day
To Landfill:
1270a g/day




  a1270 g/day is estimated to be releases from the rags. This release from the rags will be either to landfill or to water. If the
  release is to water through the laundry, then the landfill column is blank. If the release is to landfill, then the landfill column will
  be 1270 g/day and the water column will be empty. This is true of all of the ink remover chemicals. For our purposes, the rest
  of the assessment assumes release to water only, since we are not assessing landfill releases.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-61

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 2
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                        Table V-62
              Estimated Releases to Water from Method 2, Traditional System 2
Substance
Acetone
Cyclohexanone
Mineral spirits
Sodium Hypoclorite
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
1270g/day
76 g/day
119g/day
75 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
87%
83%
94%
»99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
165 g/day
12.9 g/day
7. 14 g/day
«1 g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
0.2
1 x 10'2
7x10'3
«1 x 10-3
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water.  MLD is Million liters per day.
      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

      The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low. However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers, all of which are connected to the same waste treatment
facility. The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which could be significant, even if the release from one screen printing facility is
not.

      To demonstrate the combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St. Louis
County, Missouri were picked as an example. The Dun and Bradstreet data shows 135 screen
printing facilities in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company, which releases into the Meramec River.  Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the St. Louis County Water company. These service an
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively. The mean flow of the river
is 7895 million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the drinking water intakes than it
is at the release point.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-62

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 2
                                           Table V-63
                   Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                                 Method 2, Traditional  System 2
Substance
Acetone
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium
Hypochlorite
Total Amount
Released to Water
from All Facilities
171 kg/day
16.1 kg/day
10.3 kg/day
10.1 kg/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
87%
94%
83%
»99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
22.3 kg/day
964 g/day
1 .7 kg/day
« 100 g/day
Average Concentration
in Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
3
0.1
0.2
« 1 x 10'1
 » is very much greater than, « is very much less than.

      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities
                                           Table V-64
                Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                     a Single Model Facility
                                 Method 2, Traditional  System 2
Substance
Mineral Spirits
Acetone
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
Amount of Releases per
day
15.3 g/day
1399 g/day
47 g/day
58.1 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M
away
3x10'2ug/m3
3ug/m3
9x10'2ug/m3
1 x 10'1 ug/m3
Annual Potential Dose,
mg/yeara
0.2
20
0.7
0.7
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 2, Traditional System 2.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-63

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 2
     Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2 and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections as
illustrative examples. Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.

     Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

     o    None of the other components of Method 2, Traditional System 2 reached an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases
           from all shops in the area.

     o    None of the single facility releases of Method 2, Traditional System 2 reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

     The following table summarizes the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 2. The analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
                                       Table V-65
             Estimated Cumulative Releases to Water for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method 2, Traditional System 2





Substance
Acetone
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium
Hypochlorite


Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
171 kg/day
16.1 kg/day
10.3 kg/day
10.1 kg/day



Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
87%
94%
83%
»99%



Amount to
Water After
Waste water
Treatment
22.3 kg/day
964 g/day
1 .7 kg/day
« 100 kg/day

Daily
Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
3
0.1
0.2
« 1 x 10'1





ECOCC
(ug/L)
7600
1
2800
20


ECO RISK
INDICATOR
(STREAM
CONG/
ECO CC)
4x1 0'4
0.1
7x1 0'5
«1 x 10'2

      Performance

      The performance of this system was not demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical
Foundation or at volunteer printing facilities. Since this system is commonly used in many
screen printing shops, it was decided to use the limited resources available for a performance
demonstration to evaluate alternatives to the traditionally used product systems.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-64

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                         Traditional System 2
      Cost

      Because the performance of this system was not determined in this project, the total cost
of using this system was also not calculated.

Traditional System 3

      Formulation
     Ink Remover:
     Emulsion Remover:
     Haze Remover:
100% Lacquer Thinner, consisting of:
30% Methyl ethyl ketone
15% n-butyl acetate
5% Methanol
20% Naphtha light aliphatic
20% Toluene
10% Isobutyl isobutyrate
12 wt% Sodium hypochlorite/88 % water
10%Xylene
30% Acetone
30% Mineral spirits
30% Cyclohexanone
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                     V-65

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
      Occupational Exposure

                                          Table V-66
            Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System 3

System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate, normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Inhalation (mg/day
1

165
44
27
98
110
7

0
0

21
64
7
27
II

5.3
1.3
4.7
1.6
2.3
0.4

0
0

0.9
11
0.1
0.3
III

3
1
2
1
1
0

0
0

1
5
0
0

IV

20
5.3
15
6.2
9.2
1.7

0
0

0
0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

468
234
78
312
312
156

187
1370

156
468
468
468
Immersion

2180
1090
364
1460
1460
728

874
874

728
2180
2180
2180
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations
      Ink Remover and Haze Remover
            Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for both toluene and methyl
            ethyl ketone with respect to chronic dermal and inhalation exposures to workers
            using these chemicals in ink removal.

            Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation
            exposure to workers using methanol in ink removal.

            Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal and
            inhalation exposures to workers using acetone in haze removal.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-66

-------
                                                            Table V-67

                              Occupational Risk Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System 3



Name
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

9.29
NA
1.4
NA
17
NA

NA
NA

0.2
11
NA
0.07
Dermal
Routine

23
NA
2.2
NA
44
NA

NA
NA

1.1
66
NA
1.3
Immersion

103
NA
10
NA
208
NA

NA
NA

5.2
311
NA
6.2
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
180
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
"Margin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.

bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient

values less than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.

CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.

dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
o
Q.

IS3
m
a.


5'
3

8L


c?
o.

m


m

o'
                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                                   CD
                                                                                                                                                  •o
                                                                                                                                                  Q)




                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                   CO

                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                                   CD
                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                   Q)
                                                                                                                                                   a

                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                                                                                   CO
m
g.


5'
3

8L

CO


2-
5T

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Traditional System 3

     o    Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal
           exposures to workers using cyclohexanone in haze removal.

     o    Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate very low concern for developmental and
           reproductive toxicity risks from inhalation of cyclohexanone.  Reproductive and
           developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to cyclohexanone could not be
           quantified.

     o    Dermal exposures to workers using mineral spirits in haze  removal can be high,
           although the risks from mineral spirits could not be quantified because of
           limitations in hazard data.

     Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

     o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover (all systems except Beta) use
           either a strong oxidizer such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as
           sodium hydroxide. The haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron,
           and Theta also contain these compounds. All of these materials present a high
           concern for skin and eye irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the
           absence of proper protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present
           significant inhalation risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-68

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
      Environmental Releases

                                              Table V-68
               Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                  Method 2, Traditional System 3
System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate, normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Bleach)
Sodium hypochlorite
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
1
air
344
92
57
204
229
15
0
0
44
133
15
57
water
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
546
0
0
119
76
land
0
80
0
25
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
air
11
2.6
9.8
3.2
4.8
0.8
0
0
1.9
22
0.2
0.7
III
air
5.7
1.5
4.1
1.7
2.6
0.5
0
0
1.1
11
0.1
0.4
IV
air
42
11
30
13
19
3.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
water
363
191
37
257
251
132
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-69

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
                                             Table V-69
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                              Using Method 2, Traditional System  3
Substance:
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl Acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Bleach
Mineral Spirits
Acetone
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
To Air:
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7 g/day

15.3 g/day
166 g/day
47 g/day
58.1 g/day
To Water:
363 g/day at laundry
191 g/day at laundry3
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at laundry
251 g/day at laundry
132 g/day at laundry
75 g/day
119 g/day


76 g/day
To Landfill:

80 g/daya

25 g/day

100 g/day





  aThe landfill number is the amount estimated to be releases from the rags. This release from the rags will be either to landfill or
  to water.  If the release is to water through the laundry, then the landfill column is blank. This is true of all of the ink remover
  chemicals. For our purposes, the rest of the assessment assumes release to water only, since we are not assessing landfill
  releases.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-70

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2:  Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                          Table V-70
               Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                            Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                                Method 2, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Hypochloriteb
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
363 g/day at
laundry
191 g/day at
laundry
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at
laundry
251 g/day at
laundry
132 g/day at
laundry
119 g/day
76 g/day
75 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
94%
83%
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
58 g/day
5.7 g/day
1.1 g/day
15 g/day
20 g/day
2.6 g/day
7.1 g/day
13 g/day
0
Mean Daily
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
6x10'2
6x10'3
1 x 10'3
2x10'2
2x10'2
3x10'3
7x10'3
1 x 10'2
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water.  MLD is Million liters per day.
  Concentrated solutions of sodium hypochlorite will kill the biota which degrade organic chemicals (the other substances listed
  in the table) during waste water treatment. This could cause problems at the waste water treatment plant, reducing the waste
  water treatment efficiency for the other compounds sent to the plant.

      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

     The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low.  However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers,  all of which are connected to the same waste treatment
facility. The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which could be significant, even if the release from one screen printing facility is
not.

     To demonstrate the combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St.  Louis
County, Missouri were picked as an example. The Dun and Bradstreet data shows 135 screen
printing facilities in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company, which releases into the Meramec River.  Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the St. Louis County Water company.  These service an
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-71

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively.  The mean flow of the river
is 7895 million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the drinking water intakes than it
is at the release point.
                                        Table V-71
                  Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                              Method 2, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Hypochlorite
Total Amount
Released to Water
from All Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day
34 kg/day
18 kg/day
16 kg/day
10 kg/day
10 kg/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
94%
83%
» 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
7.8 kg/day
8 x10'1 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day
2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
960 g/day
1.7 kg/day
« 100 g/day
Average Concentration
in Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
1 x 10'1
2x10'1
«1 x 10'2
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-72

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                           Table V-72
    Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from a Single Model Facility
                                Method 2, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Acetone
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
Amount of Releases per
day
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7
15.3 g/day
166 g/day
47 g/day
58.1 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
8x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
4x10'1ug/m3
5x10'1ug/m3
4x10'2ug/m3
3x10'2ug/m3
3x10'1ug/m3
9x10'2ug/m3
1 x 10'1 ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
6
1
1
3
4
0.3
0.2
2
0.7
0.7
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known.  The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk Conclusions  and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 2, Traditional System 3.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions.  Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1.
Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk. Margin-of-Exposure (MOE) values
above  100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low risk.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-73

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
                                        Table V-73
                      Risks from Potential Drinking Water Exposures
                    Screen Reclamation Method 2, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Hypochlorite
Daily Stream
Concentration in
Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
1 x 10'1
2x10'1
«1 x 10'2
Daily dose from
Drinking Water
(mg/kg)
3x1 0'5
3x1 0'6
6x1 0'7
9x1 0'6
9x1 0'6
1x10'6
3x1 0'6
6x1 0'6
«3x10'7
RfD (mg/kg)
0.6
not available
0.5
not available
0.2
not available
not available
5
not available
Hazard
Quotient
(dose/RfD)
5x1 0'5

1x10'6

4x1 0'5


1x10'6

DRAFT—September 1994
            V-74

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
                                       Table V-74
           Risk Estimates from Ambient Air Releases from a Single Model Facility
                    Screen Reclamation Method 2, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Acetone
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
Highest Avg
Concentration 100 M
away
8x10'1ug/m3
2x10-1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
4x10'1ug/m3
5x10'1ug/m3
4x10'2ug/m3
3x10'2ug/m3
3x10'1ug/m3
9x10'2ug/m3
1 x 10'1 ug/m3
Daily Potential
Dose, (mg/kg)
2x1 0'4
4x1 0'5
4x1 0'5
1x10'4
2x1 0'4
1x10'5
8x1 0'6
8x1 0'5
3x1 0'5
3x1 0'5
RfD/RfC (mg/kg,
mg/m 3)
1 mg/m3
not available
0.5 mg/kg
not available
0.4 mg/m3
not available
not available
0.1 mg/kg
2 mg/kg
5 mg/kg
Hazard
Quotient(Dose
or Conc/RfD or
RfC)
8x1 0'4

8x1 0'5

1x10'3


8x1 0'4
1x10'5
6x1 0'6
      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the other components of Method 2, Traditional System 3 reached an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases
           from all shops in the area.

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method 2, Traditional System 3 reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

      The following table summarizes the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 3. The analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-75

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 3
                                       Table V-75
                 Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method 2, Traditional System 3
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha light
aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Hypochlorite
Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day
34 kg/day
18 kg/day
16 kg/day
10 kg/day
10 kg/day
Waste
water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
94%
83%
» 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste
water Treatment
7.8 kg/day
8 x10'1 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day
2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
960 g/day
1 .7 kg/day
« 100 g/day
Daily
Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
1 x 10'1
2x10'1
«1 x 10'2
ECOCC
(ug/L)
4500
140
9000
5
110
80
1
2800
<20
ECO RISK
INDICATOR
(STREAM
CONG/
ECO CC)
2x1 0'4
7x1 0'4
2x1 0'6
0.06
3x1 0'3
5x1 0'4
0.1
7x1 0'5
-0.05
      Performance

      General Summary of Traditional System 3 Performance

      The performance of Traditional System 3 was demonstrated at SPTF.  This product
system consisted of an  ink remover (lacquer thinner), an emulsion remover (sodium
hypochlorite or bleach), and a haze remover.  The ink remover and the haze remover were
selected based on general chemical formulations that were identified by manufacturers as the
most common types of products currently used in the screen printing industry.  SPTF did not
use the haze remover suggested by the manufacturers due to concerns about the volatility and
hazards of the product; instead a commonly used, commercially available haze remover
containing potassium hydroxide and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol was used.  Unlike the
alternative systems, Traditional Product System 3 was only tested at SPTF; no demonstrations
were conducted at volunteer printing facilities.  Traditional System 3 was tested following the
same procedure as was used for alternative system testing at SPTF (see Appendix F for details
of the testing methodology and test parameters).

      Overall, SPTF described the ink remover (lacquer thinner) as very difficult to work with,
and incompatible with water-based ink systems. Using bleach as an emulsion remover was
also inefficient: it required a lot of time and effort to remove the stencil.  The haze remover
worked very well on the screens with solvent-based ink and UV ink, but it was not tested on the
screen with water-based ink.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-76

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Traditional System 3


     Traditional System 3 Profile

     The products in Traditional System 3 were used to reclaim screens as follows:

     o    Ink Removal Card up the excess ink from the screen with cardboard or plastic
           squeegees.  Spray the screen surface with the ink remover and wipe up the
           dissolved ink and solvent with an absorbent rag or cloth.  Repeat spraying on the
           product and wiping off the ink until the ink is removed and little comes off on the
           cloth.

     o    Emulsion Removal  Place the screen in the washout sink and spray both sides of
           the stencil area so that the product evenly covers the stencil. Use a soft brush to
           loosen the stencil.  Scrub with the brush until the  stencil is  broken up in all areas.
           Apply more product if necessary. Wash away the stencil with a hard spray of water,
           preferably with a pressure washer.

     o    Haze Removal Mix the haze remover paste thoroughly. Brush the product on the
           stained areas on both sides of the wet mesh. Let stand for a maximum of 8
           minutes. Rinse off the  residue with a gentle water spray, followed by a high
           pressure water spray to remove the stain.

     Traditional System 3 Performance by SPTF

     Traditional System 3 was tested by SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
one with a UV-curable ink, and one with a water-based ink). The performance of the products
varied  greatly with the different ink types.

     On the screen with the solvent-based ink, the lacquer thinner removed the ink, but left a
gray haze over the  screen. The technician noted that the lacquer thinner was very difficult to
use: it  required a lot of wiping effort and ten rags were used to remove the ink. The stencil was
affected during ink removal, either from the lacquer thinner itself or from the excessive wiping
that was required to remove the ink.  The emulsion remover was also very difficult to  use.
Three applications of the bleach were required, along with  vigorous scrubbing for over 10
minutes to remove the stencil. When the stencil finally did dissolve and the screen was
pressure washed, ink residue and stain remained in the image areas.  The haze remover easily
removed all of the  ink residue and  the ink stain. The screen was then left in the laboratory
testing area  overnight.  The next day, the technician noticed that the screen had ripped
sometime after the test was complete.

     The performance of the traditional system was similar on the screen with UV ink. The
lacquer thinner left a gray haze on the screen and  the stencil started to deteriorate during the
ink removal step.  The UV ink screen did not require quite as  much scrubbing effort as the
solvent-based ink screen, and seven rags were used. The bleach performance was the same as
with the solvent-based ink screen: the stencil dissolved very slowly, and an excessive amount of
scrubbing, effort, and rinsing were needed to remove the stencil.  After the rinse, ink residue
remained in the image areas. As with the solvent-based ink screen, the  haze remover  easily
removed the ink residue and no latent image was visible.

     On the screen with the water-based ink, the  lacquer thinner proved to be completely
incompatible.  All of the ink  on the screen solidified when the  lacquer thinner was applied.  At
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-77

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Traditional System 3

that point, the test had to be aborted and the emulsion remover and haze remover were not
applied.

     Traditional System 3 Performance Table

     The following table highlights the observed performance of Traditional Product System 3
during the product tests performed at SPTF.

     Cost

     Although the performance of this system was demonstrated at SPTF, the total cost of this
system was not calculated.  It was determined that a cost analysis with a sodium periodate-
based emulsion remover would be more representative of the products that are currently being
used at screen printers. Subsequently, the traditional system cost baseline was based on
Traditional System 4, not System 3.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-78

-------
•o_

CD"



CD
                                                              Table V-76

                                     Performance Summary For Traditional Product System 3

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying Time
Before Using
Product
Average
Quantity
Applied
Average
Cleaning Time
Average
Effort
Required
Overall System Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink type
Emulsion
type
Mesh type;
Thread count
Average
Screen Size
Laboratory Testing at SPTF
Solvent-
based Ink
UV-
curable
Ink
Water-
based Ink
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover3
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover1
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover
15mins
24 hours
Omins
15mins
24 hours
0 mins
15mins
not used
not used
3.5 oz.
3.0 oz.
1.5oz.
2.5 oz.
3.0 oz.
1 Ooz
not recorded
not used
not used
8.7 mins
22.5 mins
11. Omins
7.4 mins
17.7 mins
120mins
not recorded
not used
not used
High
High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
not recorded
not used
not used
Removed ink with a lot of scrubbing.
Gray haze remained on entire screen.
Stencil dissolved slowly with vigorous
scrubbing. Heavy ink residue and
stain remained in image areas.
Removed all residue and stain.
Removed ink with moderate
scrubbing. A gray haze remained on
the screen.
Stencil dissolved slowly with vigorous
scrubbing and excessive rinsing. Ink
residue and stain remained in image
areas.
Removed all residue and stain
The ink solidified across the entire
screen when the ink remover was
applied. Testing was stopped at this
point.
Test aborted after ink remover failure.
Test aborted after ink remover failure.
Solvent-
based
UV-cured
Water-
based
Dual-cure
direct
Dual-cure
direct
Dual-cure
direct
Polyester; 245
threads/inch
Polyester;
390
threads/inch
Polyester; 245
threads/inch
360 in2
360 in2
360 in2
                                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                                    Q.

                                                                                                                                                    IS3
                                                                                                                                            m
                                                                                                                                            o.
                                                                                                                                            o_

                                                                                                                                            m


                                                                                                                                            m

                                                                                                                                            o'
<


CO



co_

?5^
C

CD"



ff


•o
Q)




I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                                                                                CD
                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                Q)



                                                                                                                                                8-
                                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                                a

                                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                                Q.
                                                                                                                                                CO
3 Performance for details.
                                                                                                         n. See General Summary of Traditional System
                                                                                                                                            m
                                                                                                                                            g.


                                                                                                                                            5'
                                                                                                                                            3

                                                                                                                                            8L

                                                                                                                                            CO


                                                                                                                                            2-
                                                                                                                                            5T

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                              Traditional System 4
Traditional System 4

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:
     Emulsion Remover:
     Haze Remover:
100% Lacquer Thinner, consisting of:
30% Methyl ethyl ketone
15% n-butyl acetate
5% Methanol
20% Naphtha light alipahtic
20% Toluene
10% Isobutyl isobutyrate
      1% Sodium periodate/ 99% water
10%Xylene
30% Acetone
30% Mineral spirits
30% Cyclohexanone
     Occupational Exposure
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                          V-80

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
                                          Table V-77
            Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System 4

System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Inhalation (mg/day)
I

165
44
27
98
110
7

0
0

21
64
7
27
II

5.3
1.3
4.7
1.6
2.3
0.4

0
0

0.9
11
0.1
0.3
III

3
1
2
1
1
0

0
0

1
5
0
0
IV

20
5.3
15
6.2
9.2
1.7

0
0

0
0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

468
234
78
312
312
156

16
1540

156
468
468
468
Immersion

2180
1090
364
1460
1460
728

73
7210

728
2180
2180
2180
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
      Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations
      Ink Remover and Haze Remover
            Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for both toluene and methyl
            ethyl ketone with respect to chronic dermal and inhalation exposures to workers
            using these chemicals in ink removal.

            Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation
            exposure to workers using methanol in ink removal.

            Hazard quotient calculations indicate clear concerns for chronic dermal and
            inhalation exposures  to workers using acetone in haze removal.

            Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal
            exposures to workers using cyclohexanone in haze removal.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-81

-------
                                                                      Table V-78
                                  Occupational Risk  Estimates for Method 2, Traditional System  4



Name
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Butyl acetate normal
Met hand
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1 :4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

9.3
NA
1.4
NA
17
NA

NA
NA

0.2
11
NA
0.07
Dermal
Routine

22
NA
2.2
NA
44
NA

NA
NA

1.1
66
NA
1.3
Immersion

103
NA
10
NA
208
NA

NA
NA

5.2
310
NA
6.2
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
180
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
o
Q.
IS3
m
a.

5'
3
8L

c?
o.
m
m
o'
     CO
                                                                                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                                                                                          •o
                                                                                                                                                                          Q)

                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                                                                          Q)
                                                                                                                                                                          a
                                                                                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                                                                                          Q.
                                                                                                                                                                          CO
"Margin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
'Hazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient values less than 1 imply that adverse effects
are very unlikely to occur.
°NOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
m
g.
5'
3
8L
CO
2-
5T

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Traditional System 4

     o    Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate very low concern for developmental and
           reproductive toxicity risks from inhalation of cyclohexanone.  Reproductive and
           developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to cyclohexanone could not be
           quantified.

     o    Dermal exposures to workers using mineral spirits in haze removal can be high,
           although the risks from mineral spirits could not be quantified because of
           limitations in hazard data.

     Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

     o    All of the systems that employ an  emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon,  Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds. All of these materials present a high  concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective clothing. None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-83

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
      Environmental Releases

                                              Table V-79
               Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                  Method 2, Traditional System 4
System
Ink Remover
Methyl ethyl ketone( 2-butanone)
Butyl acetate, normal
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Emulsion Remover (Zeta diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
Acetone
Mineral spirits- light hydrotreated
Cyclohexanone
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
344
92
57
204
229
15
0
0
44
133
15
57
water
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
615
0
0
119
76
land
0
80
0
25
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
air
11
2.6
9.8
3.2
4.8
0.8
0
0
1.9
22
0.2
0.7
III
air
5.7
1.5
4.1
1.7
2.6
0.5
0
0
1.1
11
0.1
0.4
IV
air
42
11
30
13
19
3.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
water
363
191
37
257
251
132
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-84

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
                                              Table V-80
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                               Using Method 2, Traditional System 4
Substance:
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl Acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Sodium periodate
Mineral Spirits
Acetone
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
To Air:
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7 g/day

15.3
166 g/day
47 g/day
58.1 g/day
To Water:
363 g/day at laundry
191 g/day at laundry3
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at laundry
251 g/day at laundry
132 g/day at laundry
6 g/day
119 g/day


76 g/day
To Landfill:

80 g/daya

25 g/day

100 g/day





  a191 g/day is estimated to be releases from the rags if the rags are laundered.  This release from the rags will be either to
  landfill or to water. If the release is to water through the laundry, then the landfill column is blank. If the release is to landfill,
  then the landfill column will be 80 g/day and the water column will be blank. This is true for all of the ink remover chemicals.
  For our purposes, the rest of the assessment assumes release to water only, since we are not assessing landfill releases.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-85

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                        Table V-81
              Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                           Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                              Method 2, Traditional System 4
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium periodate
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
363 g/day at
laundry
191 g/day at
laundry
37 g/day at laundry
257 g/day at
laundry
251 g/day at
laundry
132 g/day at
laundry
119 g/day
76 g/day
6 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
94%
83%
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
58 g/day
5.7 g/day
1.1 g/day
15. 4 g/day
20 g/day
2.6 g/day
7.1 g/day
13 g/day
0
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
6x10'2
6x10'3
1 x 10'3
2x10'2
2x10'2
3x10'3
7x10'3
1 x 10'2
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.

      Releases to Water from Multiple Screen Printers

      The concentrations listed in the chart above are relatively low.  However, in the local area
there may be many screen printers, all of which are connected to the same waste  treatment
facility. The concentration in the stream would be the combined amounts of all of the releases
in the stream, which could be significant, even if the release from one screen printing facility is
not.

      To demonstrate the combined effects, the multiple screen printing facilities in St. Louis
County, Missouri were picked as an example.  The Dun and Bradstreet data shows 135 screen
printing facilities in St. Louis County.  We are assuming that the waste water from all of these
is going to the St. Louis County Sewer Company,  which releases into the Meramec River. Less
than five kilometers downstream is the Kirkwood Water Department, and just about ten
kilometers downstream is an intake for the  St.  Louis County Water company.  These service an
estimated 28 thousand people and one million people, respectively. The mean flow of the river
is 7895 million liters per day (MLD), and is not any larger at the drinking water intakes than it
is at the release point.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-86

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
                                        Table V-82
                  Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                              Method 2, Traditional System 4
Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Periodate
Total Amount
Released to Water
from All Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day
34 kg/day
18 kg/day
16 kg/day
10 kg/day
810g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%
92%
98%
94%
83%
» 99%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
7.8 kg/day
0.8 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day
2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
960 g/day
1.7 kg/day
«8.1 g/day
Average Concentration
in Meramec River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1
3x10'1
4x10'2
1 x 10'1
2x10'1
«1 x 10'3
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-87

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                           Table V-83
                Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                    a Single Model Facility
                                Method 2, Traditional  System 4
Substance
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Acetone
Xylene
Cyclohexanone
Amount of Releases per
day
403 g/day
107g/day
101 g/day
222 g/day
255 g/day
19.7
15.3 g/day
166 g/day
47 g/day
58.1 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
8x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
2x10'1ug/m3
4x10'1ug/m3
5x10'1ug/m3
4x10'2ug/m3
3x10'2ug/m3
3x10'1ug/m3
9x10'2ug/m3
1 x 10'1 ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
6
1
1
3
4
3x10'1
2x10'1
2
7x10'1
7x10'1
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III.  To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      General Population  Risk  Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 2, Traditional System 4.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method  2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2 and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections as
illustrative examples. Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk. Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above  1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-88

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the other components of Method 2, Traditional System 4 reached an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration, even when considering the cumulative releases
           from all shops in the area.

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method 2, Traditional System 4 reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

      The following table summarizes the exposure and risk estimates for cumulative releases
of Traditional System 4. The analogous figures for single facilities show much lower exposure
and risk levels.
                                       Table V-84
                 Estimated Cumulative Releases for St. Louis County, MO
                    Screen Reclamation Method 2, Traditional System 4





Substance
Methyl ethyl ketone
n-butyl acetate
Methanol
Naphtha, light
aliphatic
Toluene
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Mineral Spirits
Cyclohexanone
Sodium Periodate


Total Amount
Released to
Water from All
Facilities
49 kg/day
26 kg/day
5 kg/day
35 kg/day

34 kg/day
18 kg/day
16 kg/day
10 kg/day
810g/day

Waste
Water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84%
97%
97%
94%

92%
98%
94%
83%
» 99%



Amount to Water
After Waste
water Treatment
7.8 kg/day
0.8 kg/day
150g/day
2.1 kg/day

2.7 kg/day
360 g/day
960 g/day
1 .7 kg/day
«8.1 g/day
Daily
Stream
Cone, in
Meramec
River, ug/L
(ppb)
1
1 x 10'1
2x10'2
3x10'1

3x10'1
4x10'2
1 x 10'1
2x10'1
«1 x 10'3




ECOCC
(ug/L)
4500
140
9000
5

110
80
1
2800
<10

Eco Risk
Indicator
(Stream
Cone/
ECO CC)
2x1 0'4
7x1 0'4
2x1 0'6
0.06

3x1 0'3
5x1 0'4
0.1
7x1 0'5
~io-4
      Performance

      The performance of this system was not demonstrated at the Screen Printing Technical
Foundation or at volunteer printing facilities. Since this system is commonly used in many
screen printing shops, it was decided to use the limited resources available for a performance
demonstration to evaluate alternatives to the traditionally used product systems.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-89

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Traditional System 4
      Cost
                                            Table V-85
                                 Baseline (Traditional System 4)
Cost Element Description
Traditional
System 4
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2,127
6
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost($)
# of rags used
Cost($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
24.4
5.33
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
3.0
0.12
34
0.02
Totals
Total Cost ($/screen)
Total Cost ($/year)
6.27
9,399
                   Note: For additional information regarding product performance see
                   performance demonstration summaries.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-90

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                                  Product System Alpha
Product System Alpha

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:

      Emulsion Remover:
      Haze Remover:
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
      Sodium periodate/water
Alkali/Caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
      Occupational Exposure
                                           Table V-86
          Occupational Exposure Estimates for Method 2, Alternative System Alpha

System
Ink Remover
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Emulsion Remover (diluted to 0.8%)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Alkali/Caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
Inhalation (mg/day)
1

13
56

0
0

0
1
0
II

0.1
0.6

0
0

0
0.1
0
III

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
IV

0.2
2.6

0
0

0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

1250
312

12
1550

390
234
936
Immersion

5820
1460

58
7220

1820
1090
4370
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                                V-91

-------
                                                                 Table V-87
                                      Occupational Risk Estimates for Alternative System Alpha
o
Q.
IS3
     CO



Name
Ink Remover
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Emulsion Remover (diluted to 0.8%)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Alkali/Caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
water

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

NA
1.4

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

NA
7.4

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Immersion

NA
34

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA


NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
LOAELd

NA
230

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
                                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                                                                                   c?
                                                                                                                                                   o_
                                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                                   o'
     CD

     ff

     •o
     Q)


     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                                        CD
                                                                                                                                                        s
                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                        Q)
                                                                                                                                                        8-
                                                                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                                                                        a
                                                                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                                                                        Q.
                                                                                                                                                        CO
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient values less
than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.
CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                                                                                   f
                                                                                                                                                   5T

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha


     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

     Ink Remover and Haze Remover

     o    Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic inhalation
           exposure to workers using propylene glycol series ethers in ink removal.  Possible
           concerns also exist for chronic dermal exposure to propylene glycol series ethers
           based on the calculated hazard quotients, which assume 100% dermal absorption.
           If the actual dermal absorption rate of propylene glycol series ethers is significantly
           lower, this concern would be significantly reduced or eliminated.

     o    Inhalation exposures to propylene glycol series ethers also present possible
           concerns for developmental toxicity risks, based on margin-of-exposure
           calculations.

     o    Dermal exposures to other chemicals used in ink removal or haze removal can be
           high, although the risks could not be quantified because of limitations in hazard
           data.

     Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

     o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either  a strong oxidizer
           such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds. All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the  absence of proper
           protective clothing. None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-93

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Alpha
      Environmental Releases

                                          Table V-88
              Estimated Environmental Releases in Screen Cleaning Operations
                             Method 2, Alternative System Alpha
System
Ink Remover
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Emulsion Remover (diluted to 0.8%)
Sodium periodate
Water
Alpha - Haze Remover
Alkali/Caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
1
air
27
117
0
0
0
1.5
0
water
0
0
5
616
133
78
319
land
473
8
0
0
0
0
0
II
air
0.1
1.3
0
0
0
0.1
0
III
air
0.1
0.7
0
0
0
0.1
0
IV
air
0.5
5.4
0
0
0
0
0
water
1080
265
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
                                          Table V-89
      Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
               Using Screen Reclamation  Method 2, Alternative System Alpha
Substance:
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Sodium periodate
Alkali/caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
To Air:
27.7 g/day
124 g/day


1 .7 g/day
To Water:
1080 g/day at laundry
265 g/day at laundry
5 g/day
133 g/day
78 g/day
To Landfill:
473 g/day
8 g/day



DRAFT—September 1994
              V-94

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Alpha
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                            Table V-90
               Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                             Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                 Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Alpha
Substance
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Sodium periodate
Alkali/caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
1080g/dayat
laundry
265 g/day at
laundry
5 g/day
133 g/day
78 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
92-96 %
83-84 %
100 %
100 %
97%
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
43 g/day
45.1 g/day
0
0
2.3 g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
4x10'2
5x10'2


2x10'3
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.

      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                            Table V-91
                 Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                      a Single Model Facility
                 Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Alpha
Substance
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Amount of Releases
per day
27.7 g/day
124 g/day
1 .7 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
5.6x10-2ug/m3
2.5x10-1ug/m3
3x10'3ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
4x10'1
2
2x10'2
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III.  To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.
DRAFT—September 1994
              V-95

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

     General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations


     o    Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
           low for Method 2, Alternative System Alpha.

     Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions.  Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2 and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections as
illustrative examples. Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above  1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.

     Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen  Reclamation Chemicals

     o    None of the single facility releases of Method 2, Alternative System Alpha reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

     Performance

     General Summary of Alternative System Alpha Performance, and Related Variables

     This product system consisted of an ink remover, emulsion remover, and a haze remover.
The products were demonstrated at Facilities 8, 13, and 14. Facility 8 prints labels,
nameplates, and graphic overlays. They reclaimed 48 screens over 4 weeks of demonstrations
using solvent-based inks.  Facility 13 prints store displays, decals, and outdoor signs, and they
reclaimed 13 screens using UV-cured and solvent-based inks during the 2 weeks they
participated in the demonstrations.  Facility  14 prints metal nameplates, vinyl pressure
sensitive decals, and signs. They used solvent-based inks during the three weeks they used
Alternative System Alpha and they reclaimed 36 screens.

     Facility 8 reported that the ink remover worked well most of the time, but results were
inconsistent and some extra scrubbing was required to achieve the desired results.
Performance was improved if the ink remover was sprayed on both the scrubbing rag and the
screen.  The ink remover did not seem to work at all with epoxy inks. Facility 13 also
reported that the ink remover required more time and scrubbing than their usual product.
Facility 14 reported that the ink remover worked as well as their usual product.   One screen
reclamation employee at this facility reported that the ink remover worked particularly well
with their vinyl inks.
     At Facility 8, the emulsion remover worked satisfactorily only if the screen was rinsed
with hot water before applying the product. Facility 13 reported that the emulsion remover did
not work as efficiently as their usual product, taking more time to dissolve the stencil and more
scrubbing, even at full strength. Facility 14 reported  that the emulsion remover worked as well
as their usual product and required less effort than the regular product with the same positive
results. The only negative feature mentioned by Facility 14 was that the emulsion remover left a
slight green tint on the screen, but this tint was removed by the alternative haze remover.

     The haze remover performance varied between  the three facilities. At Facility 8, the haze
remover removed the ink stain on most of the screens, however, it did not sufficiently remove
haze from about 20% of the screens.  These screens had to be cleaned again with their standard


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-96

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

product. Facility 13 thought that the haze remover did not work at all, and required extra
scrubbing and follow up use with their regular product.  Facility 14 initially reported that the
haze remover performance was average, but another reclaimer said that it did not work as well
as their usual product.

     Alternative System Alpha Profile

     The manufacturer recommends applying Product System Alpha as follows:

     o    Ink Remover.  Card up as much ink as possible with plastic squeegees or
           cardboard. Spray the screen surface with the ink remover and wipe up the
           dissolved ink and solvent with an absorbent rag or cloth.  Repeat spraying on the
           ink remover and wiping it off until the ink is removed, and little comes off on the
           cloth.

     o    Emulsion Remover.  Dilute the emulsion remover as instructed on the label and
           pour it into a spray bottle. Place the screen in a washout sink and spray both sides
           of the stencil so that the product evenly covers the stencil.  Using a soft brush,
           scrub the stencil until it is broken up in all areas. Apply more emulsion remover if
           necessary.  Wash away the stencil with a pressure washer (a  1000 psi pressure
           washer was used at SPTF).

     o    Haze Remover. Thoroughly mix the haze remover paste. Wet the screen before
           applying the haze remover. Scoop out the paste from the container and apply the it
           to a brush. Brush the haze remover into the stained areas on both sides mesh.
           Allow the haze remover to stand for a maximum of 8 minutes. Rinse the screen
           with a gentle water spray, followed by a high pressure wash.
     Alternative System Performance at SPTF

     Alternative System Alpha was tested at SPTF on two screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, and one with a UV-curable ink).  This product system is not recommended for use with
water-based inks.  On the screen with the solvent-based ink, the ink dissolved well with
moderate scrubbing.  On the screen with the UV ink, the ink dissolved more easily and minimal
scrubbing was needed.  Four wipes were used to clean each screen.

     On both screens, the emulsion remover dissolved the stencil with moderate scrubbing
effort, leaving no emulsion stain.  There was a moderate ink stain remaining on the solvent-
based ink screen after emulsion removal, but the application of the haze remover removed the
stain completely.  On the screen with UV ink, a light stain remained after emulsion remover
use, but the haze remover lightened the stain considerably.

     Products were applied according to the manufacturer's recommended application
procedure. The technician noted  that the ink remover did have an unpleasant odor.

     Alternative System Performance Details

     Performance Details from Facility 8

     Over the four week demonstration period, this facility reclaimed 48 screens with the
Product System Alpha.  The screen printing manager reclaimed the screens himself during the


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-97

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

demonstration period. He was willing to experiment with different application techniques to
improve the performance of the alternative system.

     The printer thought the ink remover performance was satisfactory, but results were
inconsistent and the product required extra scrubbing effort to achieve acceptable results.  He
noted that the ink remover performance was unacceptable on epoxy inks, even with the extra
effort.  One specific observation was that the ink remover did  not stay wet on the screen which
made wiping more difficult.  Performance improved, however, when he sprayed the product
both on the rag and on the screen. After using the ink remover, the printer evaluated each
screen and reported that the ink was removed effectively on 62% of the screens.

     Typically, this facility uses hot water to start the breakdown of their emulsion.  When
following the manufacturer's application instructions for the Alpha emulsion remover, which
does not require hot water, the printer found the emulsion came off in "strings," instead of
dissolving. The stringy, solid mass clogged the drain.  To solve this problem,  the printer rinsed
the screen with hot water before applying the emulsion remover.  This additional step took an
extra 3 - 5 minutes, but the emulsion remover performance improved.

     The haze remover did not sufficiently remove the haze on approximately 20% of the
screens.  The printer wiped these screens with lacquer thinner (which easily removed the haze)
before reusing the screen. The observer confirmed that this supplementary wipe down was
necessary and noted that the white rag with lacquer thinner on it turned black as the dark haze
was removed from the screen. Overall, the printer felt the alternative haze remover
performance was not acceptable.

     Data from the printer's product evaluation forms was analyzed to determine if there were
any correlations between variations in the product performance and changes in the
demonstration conditions (e.g., ink type, emulsion type, screen condition). The printer was
asked to evaluate the screen after using each product (ink remover, emulsion remover, and
haze remover). In addition, the printer recorded the amount of ink remaining on the screen at
the start of reclamation. In reviewing this data, it was found that for screens where the initial
ink remaining on the screen was high (i.e., it was not carded off well), there was an ink stain
remaining on the  screen after emulsion removal (for 100% of the screens in the demonstration).
When the  initial ink remaining on the screen was recorded as  "low", an ink stain remained after
emulsion removal for  only 33% of the screens. This could indicate that if the screen  is
effectively carded before ink removal (as the manufacturer recommends),  the product
performance may improve significantly.  Overall, 76% of the screens had an ink stain or stencil
stain after using the emulsion remover.  After applying the haze remover, 20% of the screens
could not  be reused because of the remaining haze.

     During the four  week demonstration, this facility did not notice any change in screen
failure rate or any deterioration of the screen mesh. The printer had no problems with print
image quality while using Product System Alpha, however, he  felt he avoided potential print
quality problems  by cleaning the screens again with his own ink remover before reusing them.

     Performance Details from Facility 13

     Overall, this facility was not satisfied with the performance of System Alpha. The
alternative system required more time and effort than their standard products and were not as
effective in cleaning the screens as their standard products. Because of the extra time required,
the facility could not reclaim screens fast enough to keep up with their need to reuse the
screens.  The screen reclaimer also did not like the strong smells associated with the alternative


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-98

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

system. For these reasons, the printing manager made the decision to discontinue participation
in the demonstrations after two weeks. More experimenting with application methods could
have lead to improved performance, but this facility did not seem willing to try. The facility
contact also mentioned that the reclamation employee was not reliable and that he did not feel
confident in the screen reclamation results that were provided. In analyzing the limited data
from this facility, the performance of the alternative system did not seem to be affected by ink
type, ink color, mesh type, or other demonstration conditions.

     The ink remover did not perform as well as their usual product. It removed ink less
effectively than was expected and involved more applications and rinsing (which meant more
time) to get the ink out of the mesh. The only application changes attempted were to use more
product and effort. The added scrubbing was considered a very negative characteristic of the
ink remover.

     Even at full strength the emulsion remover required more scrubbing and time to remove
the emulsion from the screens than their usual product. The alternative emulsion remover did
remove the stencil, however, because of the extra time required, the facility discontinued use of
the emulsion remover after the first week of demonstrations.

     The haze remover did not reduce stains in the mesh as effectively as the facility's usual
haze remover. Almost every time the haze remover was used, the facility had to follow with
their usual haze  remover to get the screen clean enough for reuse. When using their standard
product system,  this facility needed to use a haze remover for only about 30 percent of their
screens. Facility 13 did not experiment with application methods other than extra scrubbing
and they stopped using the haze remover after the first week of demonstrations.

     No changes were noted in the screens used with the alternative system. Longer-term use
of the alternative system may have damaged the screens or reduced screen life because of the
excessive scrubbing that was needed with Product System Alpha.

     Performance Details from Facility 14

     Performance of System Alpha was average at Facility 14. The results are complicated by
the fact that three different people were involved in the demonstrations and the two original
screen reclamation employees were terminated after about three weeks into the demonstration
period. The initial data quality seemed good, but a lot of information was missing from the
forms that were submitted from the last week(s) of employment of the terminated employees.
The new screen reclaimer may not have followed the same procedures when using the
alternative system.

     The ink remover worked fairly well, but sometimes had to be reapplied for the screens to
be thoroughly cleaned. The product worked particularly well with vinyl inks.  The ink
remover's performance was improved by applying the ink remover immediately after a print run
and letting it  sit on the screen for up to a day before it was pressure rinsed off. The
manufacturer's directions do not give any recommendations of the soaking time for  the ink
remover.

     The emulsion remover was reported to have worked well at this facility and it worked
faster than their  usual product. In one case, however, the emulsion remover left a slight green
tint in the screens, but this was removed by their usual haze remover.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                 V-99

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

     The initial screen reclaimers felt that the haze remover had average performance, but the
final reclaimer felt that it left more of a haze in the mesh than she expected. This later
reclaimer only used the product on a few screens and may not  have applied the ink remover
immediately after the press run which the original employees were doing to improve the
performance of the ink remover.  This may explain why the new employee thought that more
haze than usual was left on the screens. The alternative haze remover and the standard haze
remover used at this facility are almost identical chemically. Also, the print quality was very
rarely documented by this  facility, although it may be safe to assume that problems with print
quality would have been reported, if obvious.

     The analysis of the data from this facility did not show any correlation between the
performance of the alternative system and any variations in  ink type, ink color, mesh type, or
other demonstration conditions.  No side effects on the screens or changes in the screen failure
rates were noted during the demonstrations.

     Alternative System Performance Table Compiled from Field Sites

     The table below highlights the observed performance of the product system and the
relevant conditions of the demonstration, as recorded by the printers using the products at the
demonstration facilities.  In addition to the field  demonstration performance data, results of the
product tests performed  at SPTF are also summarized in this table.  More descriptive
information on the demonstration facilities is included in the section following the table.

     Facility Profiles

     General Facility Background for Facility 8

     Facility 8 prints labels, nameplates, and graphic overlays,  primarily on plastics, but they
also do some printing on paper and metals.  Their typical run length is 100 sheets, and
approximately 75% of their orders are repeat orders.  Of the 40  - 50 employees at this facility,
approximately 3 are  involved in screen reclamation.  All printing is done with solvent-based
inks; both vinyl and  epoxy  inks are used.  All screens used in the Performance Demonstrations
were made of a monoester  mesh that was treated with a roughening paste and a degreaser when
each screen was initially stretched. Mesh count  during the demonstration period ranged from
195 - 330 threads/inch and an  indirect stencil was used for all screens.  The average screen size
used at this facility is 24.5  inches x 31.75 inches (778 in2) and 10-15 screens are reclaimed
daily.

     Screen Reclamation  Area in Facility 8

     The screen printing,  ink removal,  and screen reclamation activities are all done in the
same area of the facility.  Ink removal is done at the press and screen reclamation is done in a
spray booth.  The open plant area with high ceilings and overhead fans provide ventilation for
the general area.  The spray booth has an integrated ventilation fan in the hood. The average
temperature during the observer's visit was 68°F (and 40% relative humidity).  Rags used  for
clean up and for ink removal are cleaned under  contract by  a laundry service.  Waste water
from the high pressure wash of the emulsion remover and haze remover is filtered at this
facility.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-100

-------
•o_
CD"


CD
                                                             Table V-92

                                           On-Site Performance Summary For System Alpha

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying Time
Before Using
Product
Average
Quantity
Applied
Average
Cleaning Time
Average
Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink
type(s)
Emulsion
type
Mesh type;
Thread
count
Average
Screen
Size
In-field Demonstrations at Volunteer Printing Facilities
Facility
8
Facility
13
Ink remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover
10.8±17.6hrs
(n=50)
1.8±4.2mins
(n=50)
1.1 ±3.5mins
(n=50)
1.5±3.0hrs
(n=15)
5.7±5.8mins
(n=6)
5.7±4.0mins
(n=3)
1.7±0.8oz.
(n=50)
1.0±0.2oz.
(n=50)
1.0±0.0oz.
(n=39)
2.5±0.8oz.
(n=15)
3.9±20oz.
(n=7)
1.3±0.5oz.
(n=4)
5.9±2.5mins
(n=32)
9.0±3.9mins
(n=50)
7.6±2.5mins
(n=39)
15.5±8.0mins
(n=15)
11.7±4.5mins
(n=7)
9.5±2.4mins
(n=4)
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Good on 40% of
screens; Fair on
22%; Poor on
38%
With hot water,
removed stencil.
Haze was not
removed from
20% of screens.
Removed the ink
but required extra
time and effort.
Removed stencil,
but required extra
time and effort.
Did not effectively
remove the haze.
• 20% of screens
required
additional
cleaning before
reusing them.
• Needed to use
hot water to get
the emulsion to
break down.
• Most screens
had to be re-
cleaned with the
standard haze
remover before
the could be
reused.
Solvent-
based
vinyl and
epoxy inks
UV-
curable
and
Solvent-
based inks
Indirect
photo
stencil
Direct photo
stencil
Monofilamen
t Polyester;
195-330
threads/inch
Abraded
polyester;
155-390
threads/inch
823 in2
1591 in2
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  Q.

                                                                                                                                  IS3
                                                                                                                                  m
                                                                                                                                  o.
                                                                                                                                  o_
                                                                                                                                  m

                                                                                                                                  m

                                                                                                                                  o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                                                                      CD
                                                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                                                      Q)


                                                                                                                                      8-
                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                                      a

                                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                      Q.
                                                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                                  Q.
<:

o
                                                                                                                                  f
                                                                                                                                  5T

-------
                                                               Table V-93

                                   On-Site and Laboratory Performance Summary For System Alpha
•o_
CD"


CD

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying
Time Before
Using Product
Average
Quantity
Applied
Average
Cleaning
Time
Average
Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink
type(s)
Emulsion
type
Mesh type;
Thread count
Average
Screen
Size
In-field Demonstrations at Volunteer Printing Facilities
Facility
14
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
6.6 ± 39.4 hrs
(n=37)
19.9 ±17.9 hrs
(n=37)
5.0 ± 19.6 mins
(n=37)
4.4 ±2.0
oz.
(n=37)
4.1 ±0.7
oz.
(n=37)
4.0 ±1.0
oz.
(n=15)
5.0 mins
(n=1)
5.0 ±0.0
mins
(n=36)
5.2 ±0.8
mins
(n=16)
Low/
Moderate
(n=37)
Low
(n=37)
Moderate
(n=14)
Worked very well
with vinyl ink;
acceptable on other
inks by increasing
the soaking time.
Removed stencil
easily.
Haze remaining on
some screens had to
be removed with their
standard product.
• Most screens could be
reused, however, some
had to be recleaned
with other products.
• Two reclaimers felt the
haze remover
performance was
acceptable, one did not.
Solvent-
based
inks
Direct
photo
stencil
305-390
threads/inch
1577 in2
Laboratory Testing at SPTF
SPTF
Solvent-
based Ink
SPTF
UV-
curable
Ink
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
15 mins
24 hours
Omins
15 mins
24 hours
Omins
1 .5 oz.
1 .0 oz.
1 .0 oz.
2.0 oz.
1 .0 oz.
1 .0 oz.
3.9 mins
3.7 mins
9.7 mins
3.5 mins
2.6 mins
10.0 mins
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Ink dissolved with scrubb ng; has bad odor.
Stencil dissolved completely; medium ink stain.
Removed stain completely.
Ink dissolved well; has bad odor.
Stencil dissolved completely; medium ink stain
remaining.
Lightened ink stain.
Solvent-
based
UV-
curable
Dual cure
direct
Dual cure
direct
Polyester; 255
threads/inch
Polyester; 390
threads/inch
360 in2
360 in2
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                   Q.

                                                                                                                                   IS3
                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                   o.
                                                                                                                                   o_
                                                                                                                                   m

                                                                                                                                   m

                                                                                                                                   o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                       Q)


                                                                                                                                       8-
                                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                                       a

                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                                                                       CO
<:

S
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                                                                   f
                                                                                                                                   5T

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

      Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 8

     Facility 8 uses an ink remover that is a solvent blend of 50% toluene and 50% methyl
ethyl ketone, as well as a proprietary blend of propylene glycol ethers (<30%), Stoddard Solvent
(a petroleum distillate) (<5%), and d-limonene (<20%). As an emulsion remover, they use a
formulation consisting primarily of sodium periodate.  Information on their haze remover was
not currently available.

      Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 8

     The screen reclamation process at Facility 8 is described below:

     o    Ink Remover:  Card of excess ink.  Pour lacquer thinner from a one-gallon can onto
           the screen surface with the screen lying flat. Using reusable rags, wipe the ink off
           the screen. After ink removal at the press,  move the screen to the reclamation
           area.

     o    Emulsion Remover: Wet the screen with hot water at low pressure. Spray an ink
           remover on the emulsion side of the screen. Dip a brush into the container of
           emulsion remover and brush it into both sides of the screen. Rinse both sides of
           the screen with a high pressure (2500 psi) washer to remove the emulsion.

     o    Haze Remover: If an ink stain remains after emulsion removal, spray more lacquer
           thinner onto the screen and rub it in with a scrubber pad. After  allowing the
           lacquer thinner to soak for 1  - 2 minutes, remove the excess ink  with a high
           pressure wash. Haze remover is only applied to approximately 25% of the screens.
           When needed, apply the haze remover by pouring it from a quart container onto a
           brush and then rubbing it into the screen.  Rinse the screen with the high  pressure
           washer.

      General Facility Background for Facility 13

     Facility 13 prints store displays, decals, and  outdoor signs.  Their products are  printed
on plastics, paper, and metal.  A typical run length is 500 - 1000 sheets and  approximately 25%
of their orders are repeat orders.  There are about  70 employees at this facility and 1 - 3
employees are responsible for screen reclamation.  The facility uses both UV ink and solvent-
based ink. During the Performance Demonstrations they used a direct photo stencil and the
screen mesh was an abraded polyester.  Mesh counts ranged from 155 - 390 threads/inch. The
screen size typically used in this facility is 49 inches x 41 inches, and approximately 20 screens
are reclaimed daily.

      Screen Reclamation Area in Facility 13

     Ink removal and screen reclamation are both done within the screen printing area of the
facility where local ventilation is provided. The screen  reclamation area is 20 - 50 ft2 in size.
During the observer's visit, the average temperature in the area was 76°F (and 44% relative
humidity). Rags used for screen reclamation activities  are disposed of as hazardous waste.
Waste water from emulsion and haze removal washes is not filtered at this facility.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-103

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

      Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 13

     Facility 13 uses an ink remover that is a proprietary blend consisting primarily of
tripropylene glycol methyl ether. Their emulsion remover consists primarily of sodium
periodate.  Information on their haze remover was not available.

      Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 13

     Gloves, eye protection, aprons, and respiratory protection are available for employees
during screen reclamation. At Facility 13, screens are reclaimed as follows:

     o    Ink Remover:  Card off the excess ink at press. Dip a soft bristle brush into a five-
           gallon bucket of ink remover and brush it onto the screen.  The dirty ink remover
           brush is repeatedly dipped into this bucket so the ink remover becomes diluted
           with ink residue.  Pressure wash  (1000 psi) the screen.

     o    Emulsion Remover:  Dip a soft bristle brush into the bucket of emulsion remover
           and rub the product into screen.  Apply enough emulsion remover to both sides of
           the screen to cover the stencil.  Pressure wash both sides. Rinse the screen with
           low pressure water, vacuum it dry, wipe it dry with a disposable rag, and set it in
           front of an electric fan  to dry.

     o    Haze Remover: Haze remover is used on approximately 50% of the screens,
           primarily when black,  red, and blue inks are used. If haze remover is not needed,
           apply undiluted ink remover to the screen with a brush after emulsion removal.
           Rub into both sides of the screen, then pressure wash.  Rinse both sides of the
           screen with low pressure water from a hose. If haze remover is used,  do not apply
           the ink remover after emulsion removal.  To apply the haze remover, dip a soft
           bristle brush into the paste.  Rub it into both sides of the stain and wait for 5-15
           minutes, depending on the severity of the haze. Pressure wash the screen. Vacuum
           the screen dry, then wipe it with a disposable wipe. Place the screen in front of a
           fan to dry.

      General Facility Background for Facility 14

     Facility 14 prints three-dimensional panels, pressure-sensitive labels, and specialty items
for advertising.  Primarily, they print on plastics and metals, but they also do some printing on
paper. A typical run is 100 - 300 sheets and approximately 85% of their orders are repeat
orders. Of the approximately 12 employees at this facility, 3 are involved in screen reclamation
activities.  Several different types of ink are commonly used at Facility 14, including thermal
setting, vinyls, and UV-curable, and small amounts of lacquers, enamels, and epoxies. All
screens used in the Performance Demonstrations were made of a monofilament polyester and a
direct photo stencil emulsion was applied. Mesh count during the demonstration period ranged
from 305 - 390 threads/inch.  The  average screen size used at this facility is 12 ft2  and
approximately 12 screens are reclaimed daily.

      Screen Reclamation Area in Facility 14

     This facility has two spray booths; one for ink removal and  one for emulsion and haze
removal. At the ink removal area,  the solvent is applied with a pressure sprayer and then
filtered and recycled through the system. For ventilation, there is a hood above each spray
booth. The average temperature during the observer's visit was 72°F (and 45% relative


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-104

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Alpha

humidity).  Rags used for screen reclamation are washed by an industrial laundry service.
Spent filters are disposed of as hazardous waste. Waste water from the high-pressure wash of
the emulsion remover and haze remover is not filtered.

      Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 14

     For ink removal, Facility 14 uses either a product consisting of 99% tripropylene glycol
methyl ether, or a proprietary solvent blend sold by a manufacturer not participating in the
performance demonstration. MSDS information on the latter product states it contains no
hazardous substances, is non-flammable, has no SARA reportable chemicals, and meets
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements. Their emulsion
remover is a formulation consisting primarily of sodium periodate.  For haze removal, they use
either an aqueous blend which consists of potassium hydroxide (27%) and tetrahydrofurfuryl
alcohol (11%), or an aqueous blend that contains sodium hydroxide (5%) and
tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (17%).

      Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 14

     The screen reclamation process at Facility 14 is described below:

     o    Ink Remover:  Card off the excess ink.  At the press, spray on the ink remover and
           wipe off about 95% of the ink with reusable rags. Approximately 2 - 4 rags are used
           for each screen.  Take the screen to the wash out sink and spray on the ink
           remover solvent from the recirculating tank. With a brush, scrub the ink remover
           into the screen, then squeegee off the excess solvent and ink. Wipe down with rags.
           If ink clumps are remaining, spray on more ink remover and wipe the screen again.

     o    Emulsion Remover: Move the screen to the reclamation area. Spray emulsion
           remover on the top of the screen and use a scrubber pad to spread it out and work
           it into the screen. Rinse with a high pressure (2000 psi) wash to remove the
           emulsion. With a brush, apply a degreaser then rinse with a low pressure (200 psi)
           wash.

     o    Haze Remover:  After emulsion removal, a haze remover is used only if needed (on
           approximately 6% of the screens). Apply the haze remover by dipping a brush in
           the product and rubbing it into the screen. Rinse with a high pressure water spray.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-105

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Alpha
      Cost
                                              Table V-94
                     Method 2:  Summary of Cost Analysis for System Alpha
Cost Element Description
Baseline
(Traditional
Svstem 4^
Alternative System Alpha
Facility 8
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2,127
6
823
12.5
1,591
20
1,577
12
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous
Waste Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost($)
# of rags used
Cost($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
24.4
5.33
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
3.0
0.12
34
0.02
22.5
4.92
1.1
0.17
1.8
0.21
1.0
<0.01
1.0
0.30
31
0.02
36.7
8.02
4.1
0.61
2.5
0.31
3.9
0.01
1.3
0.37
60
0.04
15.3
3.34
0
0
4.4
0.53
4.1
0.01
4.0
1.18
59
0.04
Totals
Total Cost ($/screen)
Normalized3
Total Cost ($/year)
Normalized3
6.27
6.27
9,399
9,399
5.62
6.79
17,574
10,183
9.36
9.37
46,800
14,062
5.10
5.92
15,313
8,886
  3Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at demonstration
  facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs, however,
  are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between the baseline and facility results.

  Note: For additional information regarding product performance see performance demonstration summaries.
DRAFT—September 1994
              V-106

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                                   Product System Chi
Product System Chi

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:



      Emulsion Remover:

      Haze Remover:
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
      Sodium periodate
Water
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
      Occupational Exposure
                                           Table V-95
                 Occupational Exposure Estimates for Alternative System Chi

System
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Inhalation (mg/day)
I

0
0
3
0

0
0

0
0
3
0
II

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
III

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
IV

0
0
0.1
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

312
858
312
78

16
1540

312
858
312
78
Immersion

1456
4000
1460
364

73
7210

1456
4000
1460
364
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                              V-107

-------
                                                            Table V-96
                            Occupational Risk Estimates for Method 2, Alternative System Chi
o
Q.
IS3
                                                                                                                                                  CO



Name
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA
NA
3,600
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
37
NA
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

1,800
NA
39
NA

NA
NA

1,800
NA
39
NA
LOAEL

46
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

46
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

380
NA
8.4
NA

NA
NA

380
NA
8.4
NA
LOAEL

9.8
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

9.8
NA
NA
NA
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC).  Hazard Quotient
values less than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.
CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                                                             Q.
                                                                                                                                             c?
                                                                                                                                             o_
                                                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                                                             o'
o
Q.
f
5T
O
     CD

     ff

     •o
     Q)

     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                                                  S
                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                  Q)

                                                                                                                                                  8-
                                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                                                  a
                                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                                  Q.
                                                                                                                                                  CO

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Chi


     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

     Ink Remover and Haze Remover

     o     Clear concerns exist for chronic dermal exposures to diethylene glycol series ethers
           used in ink removal based on the calculated margins-of-exposure.

     o     Concerns exist for developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to N-
           methylpyrrolidone based on the calculated margin-of-exposure. Similar
           calculations for inhalation exposures to N-methylpyrrolidone indicate very low
           concern.

     o     Inhalation exposures to other ink remover components are very low.

     o     Dermal risks from other ink remover components could not be quantified because
           of limitations in hazard data,  but exposures can be high.

     o     The haze remover components are identical to the ink removers and present
           essentially the same risk profile.

     Emulsion Removers (All Systems)
     o     All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover (all systems except Beta) use
           either a strong oxidizer such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as
           sodium hydroxide. The haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron,
           and Theta also contain these compounds.  All of these materials present a high
           concern for skin and eye irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the
           absence of proper protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present
           significant inhalation risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-109

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2:  Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Chi
      Environmental Releases

                                          Table V-97
              Environmental Release Estimates in Screen Cleaning Operations
                              Method 2, Alternative System Chi
System
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
N-methylpyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
0.1
0.1
6.8
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
6.8
0
water
0
0
0
0
6
615
104
286
97
26
land
138
381
132
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
air
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
III
air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV
air
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
water
270
742
270
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry

      Environmental Release Estimates from Screen Reclamation Processes
      Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Chi

From Ink Removal Operations:
      Diethylene glycol series ethers
                 0.1 g/day to air
                 270 g/day to water from rags at commercial laundry
                 138 g/day to landfill

      Propylene glycol series ethers
                 0.1 g/day to air
                 742 g/day to water from rags at commercial laundry
                 381 g/day to landfill
DRAFT—September 1994
          V-110

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Chi
     N-methyl pyrrolidone
                7.1 g/day to air
                270 g/day to water at commercial laundry
                132 g/day to landfill

     Ethoxylated nonylphenol
                67 g/day to water from rags at commercial laundry
                35 g/day to landfill

From Emulsion Remover:
     Sodium periodate
                6 g/day to water

From Haze Remover:
     Diethylene glycol series ethers
                0.1 g/day to air
                104 g/day to water

     Propylene glycol series ethers
                0.1 g/day to air
                286 g/day to water

     N-methyl pyrrolidone
                6.9 g/day to air
                97 g/day to water

     Ethoxylated nonylphenol
                26 g/day to water
                                        Table V-98
     Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
                Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Chi
Substance:
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
To Air:
0.2 g/day
0.2 g/day
1 4 g/day


To Water:
104 g/day
270 g/day at laundry
286 g/day
742 g/day at laundry
97 g/day
270 g/day at laundry
26 g/day
67 g/day at laundry
6 g/day
To Landfill:
138 g/day
381 g/day
132 g/day
35 g/day

DRAFT—September 1994
          V-111

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Chi
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                          Table V-99
               Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                            Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Chi
Substance
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
104g/day
270 g/day at
laundry
286 g/day
742 g/day at
laundry
97 g/day
270 g/day at
laundry
26 g/day
67 g/day at laundry
6 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
83%
83-97 %
97%
100 %
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
18 g/day
46 g/day
49 g/day
126 g/day
3 g/day
8.1 g/day
0 g/day
0 g/day
0 g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
2x10'2
4x10'2
5x10'2
1 x 10'1
3x10'3
8x10'3
0
0
  ' ug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.
DRAFT—September 1994
          V-112

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Chi
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                          Table V-100
                Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                    a Single Model Facility
                 Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Chi
Substance
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Amount of Releases
per day
0.2 g/day
0.2 g/day
1 4 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
3.5x10-4ug/m3
3.5x10-4ug/m3
2.9x10-2ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
3x10'3
3x10'3
2x10'1
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility.  The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III.  To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      General Population  Risk  Conclusions and Observations
      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 2, Product System Chi.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Alternative System Chi below.
Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-Exposure (MOE) values
above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low risk.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-113

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Chi
                                      Table V-101
                     Risks from Potential Drinking Water Exposures
                  Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Chi
Substance
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
Daily Stream
Concentration, (ug/L)
5.8 xirj2
i.5xirj1
1.1X10'2
0
0
Daily Dose from
Drinking Water
(mg/kg)
2x1 0'6
4x1 0'6
3x1 0'7
0
0
NOAEL or
LOAEL (mg/kg)
51 LOAEL
not available
175 NOAEL
not available
not available
MOE-
NOAEL or
LOAEL/Dose
3x1 07

6x1 08


                                      Table V-102
           Risk Estimates for Ambient Air Releases from a Single Model Facility
                  Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Chi
Substance
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Highest Avg
Concentration 100 M
away
3.5x10-4ug/m3
3.5x10-4ug/m3
2.9x10-2ug/m3
Daily Potential
Dose, (mg/kg)
1x10'7
1x10'7
8x1 0'6
NOAEL or
LOAEL (mg/kg)
51 LOAEL
not available
175 NOAEL
MOE-
NOAEL or
LOAEL/
Dose
5x1 08

2x1 07
     Ecological Risks From Water Releases Screen Reclamation Chemicals

     o     None of the single facility releases of Method 2, Product System Chi reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

     Performance

     General Summary of Product System Chi Performance, and Related Variables

     This product system consisted of an ink remover and an emulsion remover. In place of a
separate haze remover product, the ink remover was reapplied to remove haze. A degreaser
accompanied this product system and was used by the facilities, however, detailed information
on the performance of the degreaser is not included in the scope of this project. The
performance of the product system was demonstrated at Facilities 3 and 21. Facility 3 prints
decals and vacuum formed sheets; Facility 21 prints decals for glass and ceramics.  During the
DRAFT—September 1994
          V-114

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Chi

four week demonstration period, Facility 3 reclaimed 47 screens and Facility 21 reclaimed 48
screens.  Both facilities used only solvent-based inks during the demonstrations.

     The ink remover performance was considered satisfactory by Facility 3 and was
considered good at Facility 21. At Facility 3, the alternative ink remover took longer to
solubilize the ink and required more physical effort than their usual product. Facility 21
reported that the Product System Chi ink remover worked very well on most of their inks, but
the alternative ink remover did not work as well with cover/flux ink or clear cover coats. They
have similar problems with their standard ink remover on the cover/flux and clear coats. They
also found additional scrubbing was needed when using the alternative ink remover on very
coarse (low mesh count) screens.  Overall,  they described the ink remover performance as
good, but not quite as good as their standard product.

     The two facilities were both quite pleased with the performance of the emulsion remover.
Facility 3 reported the performance was as good as their standard product.  Facility 21 thought
that the emulsion remover worked much better than their usual product.  Although it worked
well on both direct and capillary film emulsions, Facility 21 found a little more effort was
required to remove the capillary film emulsions than the direct emulsions.

     This system did not include a haze remover. Instead, the manufacturer recommended
that the ink remover be used a second time as a haze remover. After using the ink remover
following removal of the emulsion, Facility  3 reported that an image was still left on the screen
and that, when used for haze removal, the ink remover did not perform as well as their usual
haze remover. At Facility 21,  a haze remover was needed  on only one screen of the 48 screens
reclaimed.

     Alternative System Chi Profile

     The manufacturer recommends applying Product System Chi as follows:

     o    Ink Remover:  Card up the excess ink to remove as much as possible from the
           screen.  Bring the screen to the reclaiming area and apply the ink remover as soon
           as possible, even if the screen is not to be cleaned until later. Use a spray bottle
           and apply the product to both sides of the screen, using ample product to coat the
           inked areas completely. Thoroughly brush the ink remover into the screen, paying
           close attention to print areas and heavy ink spots.  Allow as much time as possible
           for the product to dissolve the ink. If more product is needed to loosen the ink,
           apply it in the needed areas and brush again.  Pressure rinse the screen, beginning
           with  the well side, from the bottom of the screen to the top.  Turn the screen
           around and repeat the pressure rinse from bottom to top.

     o    Emulsion Remover: Dilute 1 part emulsion remover in 4 - 5 parts water. Spray the
           emulsion remover onto the wet screen and allow enough time for the product to
           completely dissolve the emulsion.  Use a brush to loosen the emulsion on the entire
           screen.  Pressure wash the screen on both sides, rinsing from the top to the bottom.
           At SPTF, a 1000 psi pressure washer was used.

     o    Additional Stain Removal Step:  If stains remain in the screen, allow the screen to
           dry and repeat the application procedure for the ink remover and pressure rinse.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-115

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Chi

     Alternative System Performance at SPTF

     Product System Chi was tested at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
one with a UV-curable ink, and one with a water-based ink). The ink remover performance
varied, depending on the type of ink used.  Performance of the emulsion remover and the haze
remover was consistent for all three screens. All products were applied according to the
manufacturer's recommended application procedure.

     On the screen with the solvent-based ink, there was considerable ink residue remaining
after spraying the screen with product, scrubbing with a brush, and rinsing with a high
pressure wash. The technician also noticed that the stencil was beginning to peel off. After
repeating the ink remover application process, the ink residue was still present and about half
of the stencil had been removed. The ink dissolved more easily on the screen with UV ink,
however, after using the ink remover, a gray haze remained on the screen, but there was no
noticeable ink residue and the stencil was intact. On the screen with the water-based ink, the
product dissolved the ink fairly well, however, a light ink residue remained on the screen and
the stencil began to peel off.

     The emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil with only light scrubbing on all three
screens, leaving no emulsion residue behind. On the screen with the solvent-based ink, the
heavy ink residue was still present after using the emulsion remover.  When additional ink
remover was applied (used instead of a haze remover in this product system), it removed the
residue and lightened the stain.  After using the  emulsion remover on the screen with UV ink, a
moderate to heavy ink stain remained. The reapplication of the ink remover lightened this
stain considerably.  On the screen with water-based ink, the ink residue persisted in some
areas and there was a heavy ink stain on the screen after using the emulsion remover. An
additional application of ink remover lightened the stain, but did not remove it.

     Alternative System Performance Details

     Performance Details from Facility 3

     Throughout the performance demonstration period, the facility contact was asked about
the performance of the  components of Product System Chi.  He was generally pleased with the
performance of the ink remover and emulsion remover, although the ink remover took longer to
solubilize the inks than their standard product in some cases, when used as a haze remover,
the ink remover usually did not remove the ghost image from the screen. Overall, the facility
contact remarked that he did not think that System Chi would be a viable long-term alternative
reclaiming system for his plant.

     The ink remover worked acceptably on all screens, although it was somewhat slower to
dissolve the inks than the facility's regular ink remover. The printer tried using the product to
clean the squeegee and flood bar on the press after printing runs, but found that it was  slow to
break down the ink and left an oily film. After several cycles of printing and reclaiming with the
demonstration screens, a noticeable ink haze began to build up in the screens, indicating that
the ink remover was not removing all the ink from the mesh. The buildup was not enough to
prevent successful printing of regular jobs with the screens, but the facility contact felt that the
performance of the screens on a transparent ink image or a flood coat would be unacceptable.
There were some variations in the time it took to remove the ink, ranging from 2 to  12
minutes. However,  the recorded data does not show any correlation between the ink remover
time and any of the  variable screen conditions, such as ink color or number of impressions.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-116

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Chi

     The emulsion remover worked well, with no notable variations in performance among the
screens used for the demonstration period. The facility contact did not think the product was
chemically different from what he had been using previously.

     This system did not include a haze remover; instead the manufacturer recommended
applying the ink remover again to remove any remaining haze.  At Facility 3, the ink remover
did not satisfactorily remove the haze. Ghost images continued to build on the screens
throughout the demonstration period. The facility normally uses two haze remover products.
One haze remover is a milder chemical, which leaves a small amount of ink haze in the screens.
This product is used by itself on a regular basis until ghost images in the screen become
unacceptable. The other haze remover, which is a stronger chemical, is then used to de-haze
the screen to a baseline clean state, after which the screen reclaimer returns to the milder
chemical for as many reclaimings as possible. The facility contact remarked that the
performance of the alternative haze remover is similar to their "milder" regular haze remover,
except that the ink haze built up faster using the alternative product.

     Product System Chi did not appear to cause screen failure, or have any noticeable
permanent effects on the screens or frames.  The three squirt bottles shipped with the products
started leaking around the triggers during the first week of the demonstration, and had to be
replaced.  It is not known if this is an effect of the products or not.

     Performance Details from Facility 21

     This facility was generally pleased with the performance of System Chi.  Currently, the
facility uses an automatic screen washer, which cleans the screens in a closed system that
recycles the solvent. This was a very organized facility and the quality of the data received was
probably quite high.  They thoroughly documented the demonstrations and only one screen
reclaimer was involved in the demonstrations. The production manager was responsible for
monitoring the future print quality on screens reclaimed with the alternative system. He paid
very careful attention to screen conditions and would have noticed any deleterious effects of the
alternative system.  No changes in the screen mesh or print quality were noted during the
dem onstr ations.

     The ink remover worked well, however it was not as efficient as their standard product.
The facility particularly liked the ink remover's performance with metallic inks. When used on
screens with cover (flux) coats or with other clear ink coats, the ink remover did not work well,
although the facility has similar problems with their current ink remover. Added scrubbing
was needed to remove ink from very coarse (low mesh count) screens.  Ink color and number of
impressions did not seem to affect ink remover  performance.

     The emulsion remover worked much better ("excellent") than the product they had been
using.  Although it worked very well on both emulsion types, the emulsion remover required a
little more effort to remove capillary film emulsion than direct emulsion.

     For Product System Chi, a second application  of the ink remover was used in place of a
haze remover as needed. At this facility, a haze  remover was needed on only one screen.  On
that screen, a ghost image remained in the mesh after using the ink remover one time. After
reapplying the ink remover two more times, the image was lightened enough to reuse the
screen. Normally, this facility does not use a haze remover.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-117

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Chi

     Alternative System Performance Table Compiled from Field Sites

     The following table highlights the observed performance of the product system and the
relevant conditions of the demonstration, as recorded by the printers using the products at the
demonstration facilities.  In addition to the field demonstration performance data, results of the
product tests performed at SPTF are also summarized in this table. More descriptive
information on the demonstration facilities is included in the section following the table.

     Facility Profiles

     General Facility Background for Facility 3

     Facility 3 prints decals and vacuum formed sheets on plastics and paper. A typical run is
250 sheets, and  71% of their orders are repeat orders. Of the approximately 40 employees at
this facility, 1 - 3 are involved in screen reclamation. All printing is done with solvent-based
inks.  Screens used in the Performance Demonstrations were polyester or monoester/polyester
with a mesh count of  180 - 370 threads/inch. The facility used a dual cure emulsion. The
average screen size at this facility is 15 ft2 and approximately 15 screens are reclaimed daily.

     Screen Reclamation Area in Facility 3

     Ink removal is done at the press where local ventilation is provided. The screen
reclamation room is approximately 150 ft2, with a large spray booth built into one wall, and is
also ventilated with a local system.  The average temperature during the observer's visit was
64°F (and 39% relative humidity). Rags used for clean up and for ink removal are cleaned by a
laundry service.  Waste water from the high-pressure wash of the emulsion remover and haze
remover  is not recycled or filtered at this facility.

     Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 3

     Facility 3 uses a proprietary solvent blend for ink removal, which  consists of n-butyl
acetate (81%) and toluene (19%). For emulsion removal, they use a formulation consisting of
100% sodium periodate. They use two different haze removal products  at this facility.  One
product is a proprietary solvent  blend which contains at least sodium hydroxide and
cyclohexanone.  Their other haze removal product, sold by a manufacturer who is not
participating in the performance demonstration, contains no carcinogens, no ingredients with
TLV or PELs, and no petroleum derivatives, according to the MSDS.

     Current Screen Reclamation Practices in  Facility 3

     Using their standard products, screens are reclaimed as follows:

     o     Ink Remover: Card off the excess ink.  Pour the ink remover onto the screen and
           wipe with rags until clean.  Approximately 2 - 4 rags are used for each screen.
           Gloves and eye protection are worn during ink removal.

     o     Emulsion Remover:  Dip a scrubber pad into the container of emulsion remover.
           Scrub both sides of the screen.  Using a high pressure wash (1200 psi), rinse the
           screen. Gloves, eye protection,  respiratory protection, and ear protection are
           available to employees for emulsion removal and haze removal.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-118

-------
                                                             Table V-103

                                            On-Site Performance Summary For System Chi
•o_
CD"


CD

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying Time
Before Using
Product
Average
Quantity
Applied
Average Cleaning
Time
Average
Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink
type(s)
Emulsion
type
Mesh type;
Thread count
Average
Screen
Size
In-field Demonstrations at Volunteer Printing Facilities
Facility
3
Facility
21
Ink remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover
7.2±3.6mins
(n=50)
15.1 ±21.7hrs
(n=50)
0.2±0.2mins
(n=47)
7.6 ± 12.6 hrs
(n=51)
4.7±8.6mins
(n=51)
15.0mins
(n=1)
1.1 ±0.4oz.
(n=50)
2.1 ±0.4oz.
(n=50)
2.1 ±0.3oz.
(n=47)
1.1 ±0.3oz.
(n=48)
1.5±1.4oz.
(n=48)
2.0 oz.
(n=1)
6.6±2.3mins
(n=50)
2.9±0.3mins
(n=50)
2.9±0.3mins
(n=47)
2.0±1.5mins
(n=47)
2.5±2.2mins
(n=48)
3.5±0.7mins
(n=2)
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Dissolved ink with
extra effort.
Removed stencil
easily.
Ghost images built
up.
Dissolved ink with
extra effort.
Removed stencil
easily.
Several applications
needed to remove
haze.
• All screens could
be reused.
• Printer was
concerned with
effect of possible
haze build up over
time.
• All screens could
be reused for
future print jobs.
• Haze removal
step rarely
needed.
• Worked well on
metallic inks.
Solvent-
based
Solvent-
based
Dual Cure
Capillary film
and Direct
photo stencil
Polyester, no
treatment;
180-370
threads/inch
Polyester, half-
calendared or
low elongation
threads;
60-390
threads/inch
1977 in2
1088 in2
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                   Q.

                                                                                                                                   IS3
                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                   o.
                                                                                                                                   o_
                                                                                                                                   m

                                                                                                                                   m

                                                                                                                                   o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                       Q)


                                                                                                                                       8-
                                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                                       a

                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                                   Q.
<.



CO
                                                                                                                                   f
                                                                                                                                   5T

                                                                                                                                   O

-------
                      Table V-104

Laboratory Testing Performance Summary For System Chi
•o_
CD"


CD

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying Time
Before Using
Product
Average
Quantity Applied
Average
Cleaning Time
Average Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Laboratory Testing at SPTF
SPTF
Solvent-
based
Ink
SPTF
UV-
curable
Ink
SPTF
Water-
based
Ink
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
15mins
24 hours
Omins
15mins
24 hours
Omins
15mins
24 hours
Omins
not recorded
1.0 oz.
2.5 oz.
1.0 oz.
1.0 oz.
1.0 oz.
2.0 oz.
1.5oz.
1.5oz.
7.5mins
3.3mins
4.7mins
4.0mins
4.0mins
4.0mins
4.5mins
4.1 mins
3.3mins
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink
type(s)
Emulsion
type
Mesh type;
Thread count
Average
Screen
Size

Heavy ink residue. Started to remove
stencil.
Dissolved stencil easily. Heavy ink
residue remaining.
Lightened ink stain.
Dissolved the ink but left a grey haze
over entire screen.
Dissolved stencil easily.
Lightened the ink stain.
Light ink residue. Stencil started peeling.
Dissolved stencil easily. Heavy ink stain
and light residue.
Lightened ink stain.
Solvent-
based
UV-
curable
Water-
based
Dual cure
direct
Dual cure
direct
Dual cure
direct
Polyester; 255
threads/inch
Polyester; 390
threads/inch
Polyester; 255
threads/inch
360 in2
360 in2
360 in2
                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                 Q.

                                                                                                                                 IS3
                                                                                           m
                                                                                           o.
                                                                                           o_
                                                                                           m

                                                                                           m

                                                                                           o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                               CD
                                                                                               I
                                                                                               Q)


                                                                                               8-
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               a

                                                                                               o
                                                                                               Q.
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                           O
                                                                                           Q.
                                                                                          f
                                                                                           5T

                                                                                           O

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Chi

     o    Haze Remover: The facility uses two haze remover products.  Apply the first
           product to every screen.  Spray the product onto the screen, brush it into the
           stained area on both sides and rinse with a high pressure wash.  The second
           product is a stronger chemical and is used only when the ghost images in the
           screen become unacceptable (approximately 15% of the reclamations). To apply
           this haze remover, dip a scrubber pad into the container of product  and scrub both
           sides of the screen. Rinse with a high pressure wash.

     General Facility Background for Facility 21

     Facility 21 prints decals for glass and ceramics. Their typical run length is 1000 sheets
and approximately 50% of their orders are repeat orders. There are approximately 15 -20
employees at this facility, and  1 - 3 people are responsible for screen reclamation. During the
Performance Demonstration, this facility used solvent-based inks, a capillary film emulsion,
and screens with mesh counts that ranged from 60 - 390 threads/inch. Their average screen
size is  3 feet x 3 feet and 20 - 25 screens are reclaimed daily.

     Screen Reclamation Area in Facility 21

     Ink removal and screen reclamation are both done in the screen reclamation room, which
is approximately  150  ft2 in size. A fan in the hood above the reclamation sink provides
ventilation for the area.  During the observer's visit, the average temperature in the room was
68°F (and 56% relative humidity).  Ink remover is recycled off-site, and the recycled product is
returned to the facility for in-house use. Reusable shop rags are cleaned by an industrial
laundry service.  Waste water from the washes of the emulsion remover and haze remover is
not recycled or filtered at this facility.

     Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 21

     The standard ink remover at Facility 21 is a proprietary product, sold by a manufacturer
not participating in the performance  demonstration, that contains no carcinogens, no
ingredients with TLV or PELs, and no petroleum derivatives, according to the MSDS.  Their
emulsion remover contains primarily sodium periodate.  Their standard haze remover is a
proprietary solvent blend which includes sodium hydroxide and cyclohexanone.

     Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 21

     During the screen reclamation process at Facility 21, personal protective equipment
available to the employees includes gloves, eye protection, aprons, respiratory protection,  ear
protection, and barrier cream. Screens are reclaimed as follows:

     o    Ink Remover:  At the press, card off excess ink and wipe the screen with the in-
           process ink remover.  Bring the screen to the screen reclamation room. Spray on
           the ink remover and rub  it into the screen with a scrubber pad. Remove the ink by
           running a squeegee over the screen. Wipe off both sides of the screen with a
           reusable rag.  One or two rags are used on each screen. Move the screen to the sink
           and rinse  both sides of the screen with a hose to remove the blockout.

     o    Emulsion Remover: Spray both  sides of the screen with the emulsion remover.  Let
           sit until the emulsion starts to dissolve.  Rub the stencil with a reusable rag.  Rinse
           the screen with a high pressure wash (1000 psi).
DRAFT-September 1994                                                               V-121

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Chi

     o    Haze Remover: A haze remover is rarely used (on approximately 1 % of the screens
           reclaimed).  Instead, the ink remover is reapplied to about 50% of the screens.  For
           the remaining screens, reclamation is considered complete after the emulsion
           removal step.  When haze remover is used, apply as follows: dip a brush in the
           product container, rub the haze remover into the screen, and rinse with a pressure
           wash.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-122

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Chi
      Cost
                                             Table V-105
                Method 2:  Summary of Cost Analysis for Alternative System Chi
Cost Element Description
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
Baseline
(Traditional
Svstem 4^

2,127
6
Alternative System Chi
Facility 3

1,977
15
Facility 21

1,088
23
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost ($)
# of rags used
Cost ($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Amount (g)
Cost($)
24.4
5.33
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
3.0
0.12
34
0.02
12.3
2.69
1.2
0.18
1.1
0.21
2.1
0.07
2.1
0.39
0
0
8.0
1.74
1.2
0.19
1.1
0.21
1.5
0.05
2.0
0.37
0
0
Totals
Total Cost ($/screen)
Normalized3
Total Cost ($/year)
Normalized3
6.27
6.27
9,399
9,399
3.55
3.89
13,312
5,829
2.56
3.25
14,413
4,879
     "Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at demonstration
     facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs,
     however, are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
     Note: For additional information regarding product performance see performance demonstration summaries.
DRAFT—September 1994
           V-123

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                                  Product System Delta
Product System Delta

      Formulation

      Ink Remover:


      Emulsion Remover:

      Haze Remover:
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
      Sodium periodate
Water
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
      Occupational Exposure
                                           Table V-106
                Occupational Exposure Estimates for Alternative System Delta

System
Ink Remover
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:1)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Inhalation (mg/day)
I

2
0
0

0
0

2
0
0
II

0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
III

0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
IV

0.1
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

702
780
78

39
1520

702
780
78
Immersion

3280
3640
364

182
7100

3280
3640
364
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                              V-124

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Delta

     Occupational Risk Estimates

     Quantitative risk estimates could not be determined for this system due to insufficient
data.  See risk conclusions for areas of concern for this system.


     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

     Ink Remover and Haze Remover

     o     Although no risks could be quantified because of limitations in hazard data,
           relatively high dermal exposures to ink remover and haze remover components
           could occur.

     o     Inhalation exposures to all components are very low.

     Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

     o     All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide. The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds. All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-125

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Delta
      Environmental Releases

                                         Table V-107
              Environmental Release Estimates in Screen Cleaning Operations
                                   Method 2, Delta System
System
Ink Remover
Dibasic esters
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:1)
Sodium periodate
Water
Haze Remover
Dibasic esters
Tripropylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
3.7
0.1
0
0
0
3.7
0.1
0
water
0
0
0
16
605
239
269
27
land
319
359
36
0
0
00
0
0
II
air
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
III
air
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
IV
air
0.2
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
water
608
675
67
0
0
00
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry

      Environmental Release Estimates from Screen Reclamation Processes
      Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Delta

From Ink Removal Operations:
      Dibasic esters
                 3.9 g/day to air
                 608 g/day to water from rags at commercial laundry
                 319 g/day to landfill

      Propylene glycol series ethers
                 0.1 g/day to air
                 675 g/day to water from rags at commercial laundry
                 359 g/day to landfill

      Ethoxylated nonylphenol
                 67  g/day to water from rags at commercial laundry
                 36  g/day to landfill
DRAFT—September 1994
            V-126

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Delta
From Emulsion Remover:
      Sodium periodate
                 16 g/day to water

From Haze Remover:
      Dibasic esters
                 3.7 g/day to air
                 239 g/day to water

      Propylene glycol series ethers
                 0.1 g/day to air
                 269 g/day to water

      Ethoxylated nonylphenol
                 27 g/day to water
                                       Table V-108
     Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
               Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Delta
Substance:
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
To Air:
7.6 g/day
0.2 g/day


To Water:
239 g/day
608 g/day at laundry
269 g/day
675 g/day at laundry
27 g/day
67 g/day at laundry
16 g/day
To Landfill:
31 9 g/day
359 g/day
36 g/day

DRAFT—September 1994
           V-127

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Delta
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                            Table V-109
                Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                             Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
                 Using  Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Delta
Substance
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium Periodate
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
239 g/day
608 g/day at
laundry
269 g/day
675 g/day at
laundry
27 g/day
67 g/day at laundry
16 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
84-97 %
83-97 %
100 %
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
22 g/day
55.1 g/day
35 g/day
88 g/day
0
0
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
2x10'2
6x10'2
3x10'2
9x10'2
0
0
  ' ug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water.  MLD is Million liters per day.

      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities
                                            Table V-110
                 Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                      a Single Model Facility
                 Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Delta
Substance
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Amount of Releases
per day
7.6 g/day
0.2 g/day
Highest Aver age
Concentration 100 M away
1.6x10-2ug/m3
3.5x10-4ug/m3
Annual Potential Dose,
mg/yeara
1.1x10'1
3x10'3
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-128

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Delta

     General Population Risk Conclusions and Observations

     o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
           low for Method 2, Product System Delta.

     Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2 and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections as
illustrative examples. Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk. Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.

     Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

     o     None of the single facility releases of Method 2,  Product System Delta reach an
           ecotoxicity concern concentration.

     Performance

     General Summary of Product System Delta Performance, and Related Variables

      The performance of the Alternative System Delta was demonstrated at Facilities 10 and
11, who both used UV-cured inks.  This product system consisted of an ink remover and an
emulsion remover. In place of a separate haze remover product, the manufacturer
recommended that the ink remover be reapplied to remove haze.  A degreaser accompanied this
product system and was used by the facilities, however, detailed information on the
performance of the degreaser is not included in the scope of this project. Facility 10 prints
store displays and Facility 11 prints vehicle markings and pressure sensitive decals.  During
the demonstrations, Facility  10 reclaimed 17 screens over a 3 week period and Facility 11
reclaimed 31 screens over 4 weeks.

     At Facility 10, the ink remover removed the ink efficiently on 67%  of the screens.  On the
other 33% of the screens, a slight ink residue remained on the screen after using the ink
remover.  Overall, the performance of the ink remover was considered fair, however, it required
extra effort and it had a strong smell and the screen reclamation employees thought it gave
them headaches.  Facility 11 had better results and they considered the  performance  of the ink
remover to be very good. It consistently and efficiently removed the ink from their screens
under most conditions.

     The emulsion remover worked very well and both facilities expressed an interest in
continuing to use the product after the demonstrations were complete.  Facility 10 found the
product worked best when diluted at one part emulsion remover to one  part water. Facility 11
used a dilution of one part emulsion remover to three parts water.

     Neither facility regularly documented the performance of the ink remover used in a
second application as a haze remover. Facility 10 used it a few times and found that it did not
remove the haze satisfactorily. On subsequent screens where a haze remover was needed,  they
used their standard haze remover product. At Facility 11, the ink remover and emulsion
remover cleaned the screen well enough that a haze removal step was not needed.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-129

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Delta

     Alternative System Delta Profile

     The manufacturer recommends applying Alternative System Delta as follows:

     o     Ink Remover Card up the excess ink to remove as much as possible from the
           screen.  Apply the ink remover as soon as possible after the press run, even if the
           screen is not to be cleaned until later.  Use a spray bottle and apply the product to
           both sides of the screen, using ample product to coat the inked areas completely.
           Thoroughly brush the ink remover  into the screen, paying close attention to print
           areas and heavy ink spots.  Allow as much time as possible for the product to
           dissolve the  ink. If more product is needed to loosen the ink, apply it in the needed
           areas and brush again. Pressure rinse the screen, beginning with the well side,
           from the bottom of the screen to the top. Turn the screen around and repeat the
           pressure rinse from bottom to top.  At SPTF, a 1000 psi pressure washer was used.

     o     Emulsion Remover  Dilute 1 part emulsion remover in 4 - 5 parts water.  Spray the
           emulsion remover onto the wet screen  and allow enough time for the  product to
           completely dissolve the emulsion. Use a brush to loosen the emulsion on the entire
           screen.  Pressure wash the screen on both sides, rinsing from the top to the bottom.

     o     Additional Stain Removal Step  If stains remain in the screen, allow the  screen to
           dry and repeat the application procedure for the ink remover and pressure rinse.

     Alternative System Performance at SPTF

     Product System Delta was tested at  SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
one with a UV-curable ink, and one with a water-based ink). The ink remover performance
varied, depending on the type of ink used. Performance of the  emulsion remover  and the haze
remover was more consistent for the three screens. All products were applied according to the
manufacturer's recommended application procedure.

     On the screen with the solvent-based ink, there was some ink residue remaining after
applying the ink remover.  While scrubbing the screen to remove the ink, approximately half of
the emulsion was also removed. The results were  similar on the screen with UV  ink. Moderate
ink residue remained on the screen and some of the stencil in the half-tone area peeled off
while scrubbing. On the third screen (water-based ink), the ink residue was still heavy after
applying the ink remover.  Again, some of the stencil was lost while brushing in the ink
remover.  For this screen (water-based ink), the technician repeated the ink remover
application process, which removed most of the residue, but also removed most of the stencil.
Because two applications of ink remover were needed, the quantity of ink remover and the time
it took to clean the screen were about twice as much for the screen with water-based ink.
     The emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil on all three screens, leaving no
emulsion residue behind.  On the  screen with the solvent-based ink, a heavy ink residue was
still present after using the emulsion remover.  The haze remover, which is an additional
application of the ink remover in this product system, was then applied.  It removed the
residue, but an ink stain remained on the screen.  Some ink residue remained on the screen
with UV ink after using the emulsion remover,  but the haze remover (a second application of
ink remover) removed the residue, leaving a moderate ink stain.  The emulsion remover worked
best on the screen with water-based ink.  The stencil dissolved easily with only light  scrubbing.
A small amount of ink residue remained,  as well as moderate ink stain. A reapplication of the
ink remover removed the residue, but did not lighten the stain significantly.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-130

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Delta

     Alternative System Performance Details

     Performance Details from Facility 10

     System Delta had average success at this facility. The ink remover performance was
acceptable and the emulsion remover worked very well.  A second application of the ink
remover as a haze remover did not remove the haze from the screens, therefore the facility used
their standard haze remover when needed. After three weeks, the print manager decided they
did not want to continue their participation in the performance demonstrations because their
standard ink remover and haze remover worked better than the alternative system.

     The ink remover's effectiveness was considered average at this facility.  Prior to the
performance demonstrations, the facility was using an ink remover that had a chemical
composition very similar to that of the ink remover supplied in Product System Delta.  This
facility cards off excess ink and also wipes the screen with a rag so there is very little ink left on
the screen when the ink remover product is applied. The reclaimers did not like using this
product because of its strong smell and many of the employees felt that the ink remover gave
them headaches.  Facility 10 did not use a pressure wash to remove the ink, as recommended
by the manufacturer.  Instead, they wiped off the dissolved ink with reusable rags.

     The emulsion remover was very effective when diluted one part emulsion remover to one
part water (the manufacturer recommends diluting with 4 - 5 parts water).  At this dilution
level, the reclaimers were very pleased with its performance and wanted to continue using the
product. This facility also liked the emulsion remover's lack of odor.  When  they first started
using this emulsion remover, they diluted it in 4 parts water, as recommended. They found it
did not work as well as their usual emulsion remover, so they tried diluting it in two parts
water, and found  it worked best when one part emulsion remover was diluted in one part
water.

     The facility  infrequently documented  the performance of the ink remover as a  haze
remover when applied a second time. After only a few screens, they felt that their usual haze
remover worked much more effectively. On most of the screens, no haze remover was needed,
however, when it  was  required, Facility  10 used their standard haze remover after using the
alternative ink remover and emulsion remover.

     Facility 10 did not notice that the alternative system performed differently with screen
conditions.  The data  did not show any correlations between screen conditions (e.g., ink color,
ink drying time) and indicators of performance (e.g., time to clean, quantity of product used).
The printer  felt that screens that sat around for days before reclamation were more  difficult to
clean than screens cleaned immediately after the print run ended.

     No changes were noticed in screen wear or in screen failure rates. Print image quality
was good, however, since they were using their own  haze remover, it is difficult to determine if
there would have  been any changes to the print image quality as a result of using only the
alternative system.

     Performance Details from Facility 11

     Overall this facility felt that System Delta worked well. The printing manager felt that if
the alternative system is actually safer for his workers or for the environment, then he would
like to use this product system at his facility.  The application procedures for the alternative
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-131

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Delta

system closely resembled their usual reclamation procedures and this similarity may have
made Facility 11 more receptive to using System Delta.

     The ink remover effectively removed the ink from the screens in all instances. A UV-
cured ink system was used with all screens in the demonstrations. The printer commented
that the ink remover was "less effective" when the ink dried on the screen for a long time. The
data from this facility shows that screens where the reclaimer took 5 minutes or less to remove
the ink had dried an average of 2.7 hours prior to ink removal. Screens where the ink removal
step took longer than 5 minutes had dried an average of 21.6 hours.  By applying the ink
remover immediately after the press run, as recommended by the manufacturer, it appears
time spent on ink removal could possibly be reduced. Facility 11 followed the manufacturers
instructions and used a pressure wash to remove the ink from the screen. Before the ink
removal step, most of the ink was carded off the screen.

     The emulsion remover worked very well for this facility at a variety of concentrations.
The initial reclamations were performed without diluting the emulsion remover and
performance was very good. After  trying several different dilution ratios, they found a mix of
one part product to three parts water worked very well at this  facility.

     After applying the ink remover and emulsion remover, the screens were clean enough that
a haze removing step was unnecessary.  Even without a haze remover step during the
reclamation process, the print quality was excellent. When using their usual products, this
facility attempts to minimize their use of haze remover; they only uses haze remover to clean a
screen when there is a haze that has built up over time or when much adhesive remains in the
screen.

     The same screen reclaimer performed all of the demonstrations and evaluated the
printing performance of the reclaimed screens.  However, the reclaimer was moved to the
position of printer during the demonstrations period.  Undoubtedly, this change reduced the
number of screens that were reclaimed with the alternative system and the forms were also
lacking  in details.  Since he was pleased with the alternative system performance, he did not
take the time to record many specific details.

     Overall the use of System Delta did not produce any deleterious effects of the screen mesh
or subsequent print image quality. The printing supervisor noted that the alternative system
may be  reducing their screen failure rate.

     Alternative System Performance  Table Compiled from Field Sites

     The following table highlights the observed performance of the product system and the
relevant conditions of the demonstration, as recorded by the printers using the products at the
demonstration  facilities.  In addition to the field demonstration performance data, results of the
product tests performed at SPTF are also summarized in this  table.  More descriptive
information on the demonstration  facilities is included in the section following the table.

     Facility Profiles

      General Facility Background for Facility 10

     Facility 10 prints store  displays, primarily on paper,  but they also print on plastics,
metal, ceramic, glass, and other materials.  Their typical run length is 200 - 500 impressions
and less than 5% of their orders are repeat orders.  Of the approximately 25 employees at this


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-132

-------
                  Table V-111

On-Site Performance Summary For System Delta
•o_
CD"


CD

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying
Time Before
Using Product
Average
Quantity
Applied
Average
Cleaning Time
Average
Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink
type(s)
Emulsion
type
Mesh
type;
Thread
count
Average
Screen
Size
In-field Demonstrations at Volunteer Printing Facilities
Facility
10
Facility
11
Ink remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze Remover
1 7.4 ± 40.9 hr
(n=18)
1 7.2 ± 32.7 hr
(n=18)
3.0mins
(n=1)
11.4±22.2hr
(n=30)
4.7 ± 14.4 min
(n=31)
not needed
9.9±4.2oz.
(n=18)
8.6±1.5oz.
(n=18)
1.0 oz.
(n=1)
7.7±3.5oz.
(n=29)
8.0±3.5oz.
(n=30)
not needed
9.2 ±2.1 mins
(n=16)
4.7 ±2.2 mins
(n=18)
17.0 mins
(n=1)
6.3 ±3.3 mins
(n=29)
6.0 ±3.2 mins
(n=31)
not needed
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low/
Moderate
Low/
Moderate
not needed
Removed ink well
on 67% of screens;
Slight residue on
33%.
Easily removed
stencil.
Did not remove
haze.
Consistently
removed ink well.
Easily removed
stencil.
Not needed.
• This facility used
their own haze
remover on most
screens.
• Ink remover
performance was
considered
average.
• All screens were
reusable.
• Print image
quality was
excellent.
• No haze remover
needed.
UV-
curable
UV-
curable
Direct photo
stencil
Direct photo
stencil
Twill
weave;
305-390
threads/
inch
Monofilame
nt twill
weave;
390
threads/
inch
7767 in2
5291 in2
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                   Q.

                                                                                                                                   IS3
                                                                                       m
                                                                                       o.
                                                                                       o_
                                                                                       m

                                                                                       m

                                                                                       o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                           CD
                                                                                           I
                                                                                           Q)


                                                                                           8-
                                                                                           O
                                                                                           a

                                                                                           o
                                                                                           Q.
                                                                                           CO
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                       o

                                                                                       CO


-------
                   Table V-112

Laboratory Performance Summary For System Delta
•o_
CD"


CD

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying
Time Before
Using Product
Average
Quantity
Applied
Average
Cleaning
Time
Average
Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink type(s)
Emulsion type
Mesh
type;
Thread
count
Average
Screen
Size
Laboratory Testing at SPTF
SPTF
UV-
curable
Ink
SPTF
Solven
t-based
Ink
SPTF
Water-
based
Ink
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
15mins
24 hours
Omins
15mins
24 hours
Omins
15mins
24 hours
Omins
1.0 oz.
1.0 oz.
1.5oz.
1.0 oz.
1.5oz.
2.0 oz.
2.5 oz.
1.0 oz.
1.5oz.
3.5mins
4.8mins
2.5mins
4.5mins
3.7mins
3.5mins
7.1 mins
3.8mins
2.8 mins
Med
Med
Low
Med
Med
Low
Med
Low
Low
Moderate ink residue remaining. Half of
stencil peeled off.
Removed stencil. Ink residue remaining.
Removed residue. Dark ink stain left.
Moderate ink residue remaining; some
stencil deterioration.
Removed stencil completely. Ink residue
remaining.
Removed residue; moderate ink stain left.
Slight ink residue remaining. Dissolved
most of the stencil.
Removed stencil completely. Slight ink
residue and some ink stain remaining.
Removed residue. Slight ink stain left.
UV-curable
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Dual cure
direct
Dual cure
direct
Dual cure
direct
Polyester;
390
threads/in
ch
Polyester;
255
threads/in
ch
Polyester;
255
threads/in
ch
360 in2
360 in2
360 in2
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  Q.

                                                                                                                                  IS3
                                                                                        m
                                                                                        o.
                                                                                        o_
                                                                                        m

                                                                                        m

                                                                                        o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                            CD
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            Q)


                                                                                            8-
                                                                                            O
                                                                                            a

                                                                                            o
                                                                                            Q.
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        Q.
                                                                                        o

                                                                                        CO


-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Delta

facility,  1 - 3 are involved in screen reclamation activities.  The screens used in the Performance
Demonstrations were twill mesh with mesh counts of 305  - 390 threads/inch and a direct photo
stencil was applied.  The average screen size at this facility is 70 inches x 100 inches and 5-10
screens are reclaimed daily.

     Screen Reclamation Area  in Facility 10

     Ink removal is done near the press where plant wide ventilation is provided.  Screen
reclamation is done in a separate room which is ventilated to the main production area. Within
the reclamation room, there is a back-lit spray booth with  a vented hood. During the observer's
visit, the ambient conditions in the ink removal area were  67°F and 45% relative humidity.  In
the screen reclamation room, the temperature averaged 63°F and the relative humidity was
60%.  Reusable rags used for ink removal are cleaned by a laundry service.  Waste water from
the wash in emulsion removal and haze removal is filtered prior to disposal.

     Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 10

     Facility 10 uses a proprietary blend ink remover consisting of at least propylene glycol
ethers and dimethyl adipate.  For emulsion removal,  they use a proprietary aqueous mixture
which contains periodate salt (< 10%).  Their haze remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture
which contains sodium hydroxide (< 15%).

     Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 10

     Using their standard products, this facility reclaims  their screens following the procedure
described below:

     o     Ink Remover: Immediately after the print run, card off excess ink at the press.
           Saturate a reusable rag in ink remover and wipe remaining ink off the screen.
           Approximately 2 - 4 rags are used for  each screen.  Gloves are worn during ink
           removal.

     o     Emulsion Remover:  Rinse the screen with a pressure washer (1500 psi).  Spray
           emulsion remover onto both sides of the screen and scrub with a scrubber pad.
           Pressure rinse on both sides. Gloves, eye protection, respiratory protection, and
           ear protection are available to employees  during emulsion removal and haze
           removal activities.

     o     Haze Remover:  If there are any ink stains or stencil stains on the screen, reapply
           the ink remover or the emulsion remover where needed.  Pressure rinse again.  If
           the second application does not clean the screen sufficiently, then apply the haze
           remover.  Typically, haze remover is only required  on  2 - 5% of the screens
           reclaimed. To apply, dip a bristle brush into the pail of haze remover. Brush the
           haze remover into both sides of the screen and let sit for one minute.  Rinse the
           screen with a high pressure water spray.

     General Facility Background for Facility 11

     Facility 11 prints fleet graphics and pressure sensitive decals. Typically, they print about
100 units per run and 50% of their orders are repeat orders. There are approximately 35
employees at this facility, and 1 - 3 people are involved in screen reclamation activities. During
the Performance Demonstrations, this facility used UV-cured inks and a direct photo stencil.


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-135

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Delta

Screens with a monofilament twill weave and a mesh count of 390 threads/inch were used. The
average screen frame size used in this facility is 68 inches x 88 inches and approximately 5
screens are reclaimed per day.

     Screen Reclamation Area in Facility 11

     Ink removal and screen reclamation are both done in the same area of the facility which is
50 - 100 ft2 in size.  Natural ventilation and a shipping door next to the back-lit reclamation
spray booth provide air flow for the area. During the observer's visit, the average temperature
in the area was 59°F (and 42% relative humidity).  Ink removal waste is sent to an off-site
recycler. Waste water from the washes of the emulsion remover and haze remover is not
recycled or filtered at this facility.

     Current Screen  Reclamation Products at Facility 11

     Facility 11 uses  a standard ink remover that is a proprietary product, sold by a
manufacturer not participating in this project.  According to the MSDS, this product contains
no carcinogens, no ingredients with TLVs or PELs, and no petroleum derivatives. Information
on the  emulsion remover used at Facility 11 was not available.  Their haze remover is a
proprietary aqueous mixture that contains sodium hydroxide (< 15%).

     Current Screen  Reclamation Practices in Facility 11

     Screen reclamation at Facility 11 usually follows the procedure detailed below. One
exception is when there is a clear coat on the screen. In this case, lacquer thinner is applied to
remove the clear coat prior to the ink removal step. Haze remover is rarely used at this facility
(on approximately 1 -  3% of the screens reclaimed). It is usually only required when there is
excessive adhesive and block out on the screen.  During the screen reclamation process at
Facility 11, gloves and eye protection are worn.  Screens are reclaimed as follows:

     o    Ink Remover: At the press, card off the excess. Bring the screen to the screen
           reclamation area and spray on the ink remover. Remove the ink by running a
           squeegee across  the screen.  Wipe off both sides of the screen with a reusable rag (2
           - 4 rags are used on each screen) and pressure rinse (1000 psi).

     o    Emulsion  Remover: Dip  a scrubber pad with a handle into the container of
           emulsion remover and  scrub the product on the stencil side of the screen.  Repeat
           dipping and scrubbing until stencil is covered  (4 - 5 dips). Turn the screen over
           and spray emulsion remover on the other side of the screen. Let the remover sit on
           the screen for one or two minutes.  Pressure rinse.

     o    Haze Remover:  A haze remover is rarely used  (on approximately 1 - 3% of the
           screens reclaimed). When haze remover is used, apply as follows: dip a brush in
           the product container,  rub the haze remover into the screen, and rinse with a high
           pressure wash. Lacquer  thinner is used to remove any stains remaining on the
           screen.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                               V-136

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Delta
      Cost
                                             Table V-113
               Method 2:  Summary of Cost Analysis for Alternative System Delta
Cost Element Description
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
Baseline
(Traditional
Svstem 4^

2,127
6
Alternative System Delta
Facility 11

5,292
5
Facility 10

7,767
8
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost ($)
# of rags used
Cost ($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Amount (g)
Cost($)
24.4
5.33
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
3.0
0.12
34
0.02
12.3
2.69
0.0
0.0
7.7
0.99
8.0
0.28
not
used
0
0
30.9
6.76
6.5
0.97
9.9
1.27
8.6
0.30
1.0
0.13
0
0
Totals
Total Cost ($/screen)
Normalized3
Total Cost ($/year)
Normalized3
6.27
6.27
9,399
9,399
3.96
3.28
4,953
4,917
9.43
7.66
17,675
11,489
     "Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at demonstration
     facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs,
     however, are not normalized.  Normalization allows a comparison between the baseline and facility results.

     Note: For additional information regarding product performance see performance demonstration summaries.
DRAFT—September 1994
             V-137

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
                                            Product System Epsilon
Product System Epsilon

      Formulation

      Ink Remover
     Emulsion Remover
      Haze Remover
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Derivatized plant oil
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Sodium hydroxide
Derivatized plant oil
Water
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Derivatized plant oil
DRAFT—September 1994
                                                         V-138

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Epsilon
      Occupational Exposure
                                              Table V-114
                      Occupational Exposure Estimates for Epsilon System

System
Ink Remover
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Emulsion Remover (diluted 1:4)
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water
Haze Remover
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Alkali/Caustic
Water
Inhalation (mg/day)
I

39
17
0
0.1
0.1
1.6
4.6

0
0
0

12
5.2
0
0
0
0.5
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
II

0.3
0.4
0
0
0
0.1
0.1

0
0
0

0.3
0.4
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
III

0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.1

0
0
0

0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
IV

1.4
1.7
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.4

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

468
234
312
101
55
156
234

23
23
1510

234
117
156
51
27
78
62
140
62
117
408
109
Immersion

2180
1090
1460
473
255
728
1090

109
109
7060

109
546
728
273
127
364
291
655
291
546
1890
510
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry
DRAFT—September 1994
               V-139

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon

     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations


     Ink Remover and Haze Remover

     o     Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal
           exposures to cyclohexanone and benzyl alcohol during both ink removal and haze
           removal. Similar calculations for inhalation exposures to cyclohexanone and benzyl
           alcohol indicate low concern.

     o     Margin-of-exposure calculations indicate a marginal concern for developmental
           toxicity risk from inhalation exposures to cyclohexanone during ink removal.
           Reproductive and developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to
           cyclohexanone could not be quantified.

     o     Hazard quotient calculations indicate marginal concerns for chronic dermal
           exposures and low concern for chronic inhalation exposures to methoxypropanol
           acetate.

     o     Risks from other ink remover and haze remover components could not be
           quantified because of limitations in hazard data, although dermal exposures to all
           components could  be relatively high.

     Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

     o     All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as  hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as  sodium hydroxide.  The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds.  All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-140

-------
                                                                Exhibit V-115
                                           Occupational Risk Estimates for System Epsilon
o
Q.
IS3
     CO



Name
Ink Remover
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Emulsion Remover (diluted to 3%)
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

0.12
0.45
NA
0.004
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

1.3
5.6
NA
4.8
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Immersion

6.2
26
NA
23
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

120
0
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                                    Q.
                                                                                                                                                    c?
                                                                                                                                                    o_
                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                                    o'
     CD

     ff

     •o
     Q)


     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                                         CD
                                                                                                                                                         s
                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                         Q)
                                                                                                                                                         8-
                                                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                                                         a
                                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                                                         Q.
                                                                                                                                                         CO
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient values less
than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.
CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
o
Q.
f
5T
                                                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                                                    o"

-------
                                                                Exhibit V-116
                                           Occupational Risk Estimates for System Epsilon
o
Q.
IS3
     CO



Name
Haze Remover
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Alkali/Caustic
Water

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

0.03
0.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

0.8
2.8
NA
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion

3.6
13
NA
8.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

400
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                                    Q.
                                                                                                                                                    c?
                                                                                                                                                    o_
                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                                    o'
     CD

     ff

     •o
     Q)

     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                                         CD
                                                                                                                                                         s
                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                         Q)
                                                                                                                                                         8-
                                                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                                                         a
                                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                                                         Q.
                                                                                                                                                         CO
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient values less
than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.
CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                                    Q.
f
5T
                                                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                                                    o"

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Epsilon
      Environmental Releases
                                             Table V-117
                Environmental Release Estimates in Screen Cleaning Operations
                              Method 2, Alternative  System Epsilon
System
Ink Remover
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Emulsion Remover (diluted to 3%)
Sodium periodate
Sodium salt
Water
Haze Remover
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Alkali/Caustic
Water
Phncnhatp calt
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
82
36
0
0.2
0.2
3.2
9.6
0
0
0
25
11
0
0.1
0.1
1
2.9
0
0
0
0
n
land
126
68
138
45
24
66
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
water
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
602
55
29
53
17
9.3
26
37
48
21
138
37
91
II
air
0.7
0.8
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0
n
III
air
0.4
0.5
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0
n
IV
air
2.9
3.6
0
0
0.3
0.5
0.8
0
0
0
0.4
0.5
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
n
water
402
199
270
88
47
135
202
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
               V-143

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon


     Environmental Releases from Screen Reclamation Processes
     Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Epsilon

From Ink Removal Operations:
     Cyclohexanone
                86 g/day to air
                402 g/day to  water from rags at commercial laundry
                126 g/day to  landfill

     Methoxypropanol acetate
                40.9 g/day to air
                199 g/day to  water at commercial laundry
                68 g/day to landfill

     Diethylene glycol
                270 g/day to  water at commercial laundry
                138 g/day to  landfill

     Benzyl alcohol
                0.2 g/day to air
                88 g/day to water at commercial laundry
                45 g/day to landfill

     Derivatized plant oil
                0.6 g/day to air
                47 g/day to water from rags at commercial laundry
                24 g/day to landfill

     Aromatic solvent naphtha
                4 g/day to air
                135 g/day to  water from rags at commercial laundry
                66 g/day to landfill

     Diacetone alcohol
                10.7 g/day to air
                202 g/day to  water from rags at commercial laundry
                94 g/day to landfill

From Emulsion Remover:
     Sodium periodate
                9 g/day to water

     Sulfate salt
                9 g/day to water

From Haze Remover:
     Cyclohexanone
                26.8 g/day to air
                55 g/day to water
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-144

-------
     V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
     Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon


Environmental Releases from Screen Reclamation Processes
Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Epsilon (cont.)


          Methoxypropanol acetate
                     13.1 g/day to air
                     29 g/day to water

          Diethylene glycol
                     53 g/day to water

          Benzyl alcohol
                     0.1 g/day to air
                     17 g/day to water

          Derivatized plant oil
                     0.3 g/day to air
                     9.3 g/day to water

          Aromatic solvent naphtha
                     1.3 g/day to air
                     26 g/day to water

          Diacetone alcohol
                     3.4 g/day to air
                     37 g/day to water

          Alkyl benzene sulfonates
                     48 g/day to water

          Ethoxylated nonylphenol
                     21 g/day to water

          Phosphate salt
                     21 g/day to water

          Sodium hydroxide
                     138 g/day to water
     DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-145

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Epsilon
                                       Table V-118
     Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
              Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Epsilon
Substance:
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Alkali/Caustic
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
To Air:
113g/day
54 g/day

0.3 g/day
0.9 g/day
5.3 g/day
14.1 g/day






To Water:
55 g/day
402 g/day at laundry
29 g/day
199 g/day at laundry
53 g/day
270 g/day at laundry
17 g/day
88 g/day at laundry
9.3 g/day
47 g/day at laundry
26 g/day
135 g/day at laundry
37 g/day
202 g/day at laundry
48 g/day
21 g/day
21 g/day
138 g/day
9 g/day
9 g/day
To Landfill:
126 g/day
68 g/day
138 g/day
45 g/day
24 g/day
66 g/day
94 g/day






DRAFT—September 1994
             V-146

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Epsilon
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility

                                         Table V-119
               Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                            Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
               Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Epsilon
Substance
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Diacetone alcohol
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
55 g/day
402 g/day at
laundry
29 g/day
199 g/day at
laundry
53 g/day
270 g/day at
laundry
17 g/day
88 g/day at laundry
9.3 g/day
47 g/day at laundry
26 g/day
135 g/day at
laundry
37 g/day
202 g/day at
laundry
48 g/day
21 g/day
21 g/day
138 g/day
9 g/day
9 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
83%
97%
84%
97%
100 %
92-96 %
83%
97%
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
9.4 g/day
68.3 g/day
9x10'1g/day
6 g/day
8.5 g/day
43.2 g/day
5 x 10 "1 g/day
3 g/day
0 g/day
2 g/day
10.8 g/day
6.3 g/day
34 g/day
1.4 g/day
0 g/day
0 g/day
0 g/day
0 g/day
0 g/day
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
9x10'3
7x10'2
9x10'4
6x10'3
9x10'3
4x10'2
5x10'4
3x10'3
0
2x10'3
1 x 10'2
6x10'3
3x10'2
1 x 10'3
0
0
0
0
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water. MLD is Million liters per day.
DRAFT—September 1994
              V-147

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Epsilon
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                         Table V-120
                Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                    a Single Model Facility
              Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Epsilon
Substance
Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Derivatized plant oil
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Amount of Releases per
day
113g/day
54 g/day
0.9 g/day
5.3 g/day
0.3 g/day
14.1 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M away
2.3x10-1ug/m3
1.1x10-1ug/m3
1.8x10'3ug/m3
1.1x10-2ug/m3
6x10'4ug/m3
3x10'2ug/m3
Annual Potential
Dose, mg/yeara
2
8x10'1
1 x 10'2
8x10'2
4x10'3
2x10'1
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk Conclusions  and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 2, Product System Epsilon.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions.  Examples of
general population exposure  and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2 and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these sections as
illustrative examples. Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100  for a NOAEL or above  1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.

      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen  Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the single facility  releases of Method 2, Product System Epsilon reach an
            ecotoxicity concern concentration.
DRAFT—September 1994
              V-148

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon

     Performance

     General Summary of Product System Epsilon. Performance, and Related Variables

     This product system consisted of an ink remover, emulsion remover and haze remover.
It's performance was demonstrated at Facility 20 and Facility 24. Facility 20 employs
approximately 10 people and prints mainly banners and displays. Facility 24 employs 15-20
people in their production area with 4 employees involved in the screen printing operations of
their business.  They print pressure sensitive labels and Lexan face plates. Over a thirty-day
period, Facility 20 reclaimed 48 screens and Facility 24 reclaimed 16 screens  using Product
System Epsilon. Both facilities used solvent-based inks, and Facility 24 also used UV-curable
inks. Facility 20 used a dual-cured emulsion and Facility 24 used a direct photo stencil.

     There were some differences between the two facilities in their evaluations of the
performance of Product System Epsilon.  Facility 20 found the ink remover was effective, but it
took longer to breakdown the ink than their standard product.  Facility 24 had very good
results with the ink remover. They felt it worked as well as the products they had used
previously and they were using less product per screen.  The ink remover worked well on both
UV and solvent-based inks, but the UV ink was easier to clean than the solvent-based ink.

     The alternative emulsion remover performance was very good at  both facilities.  The two
facilities reported that the performance was even better than their standard products; it
dissolved the stencil quickly and easily.

     Both facilities thought that the haze remover performance was acceptable,  and in most
cases, it worked as well as their other products.

     Alternative System Epsilon Profile

     The manufacturer recommends applying Product System  Epsilon as follows:

     o    Ink Remover After carding off as much excess ink as possible, spray both sides of
           the screen with the ink remover.  Also spray a rag and rub both sides of the screen
           until all ink residue is completely dissolved or emulsified and the emulsion
           becomes clearly visible.  Rinse well with water.

     o    Emulsion Remover Dilute the powdered emulsion remover in water as follows: 1%
           for photoemulsions, 2% for fast exposing solvent resistant  emulsion, 3% for dual-
           cured and water resistant photo emulsions.  Stir thoroughly until the product is
           dissolved. Pour the diluted mixture into a spray bottle.  Spray the solution on both
           sides of the screen. Rub the screen gently with a brush for approximately two
           minutes. Rinse thoroughly with a high pressure water spray.  A 1000 psi pressure
           wash was used at SPTF.  If any ink residue remains, apply additional ink remover
           to the screen, brush it in for a few minutes until emulsified, and pressure rinse.

     o    Haze Remover Create a mixture of haze remover and ink remover in a ratio of 1:4
           to 1:1. Scoop out the mixture and apply it to a brush. Brush the paste into both
           sides of the screen. Wait for a minimum of 10 minutes  up to a maximum of 30
           minutes. Rinse the mixture off with running water and then spray out the dissolved
           and softened residue with a high pressure washer.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-149

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon

     Alternative System Performance at SPTF

     Product System Epsilon was used at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, one with a UV-curable ink, and the third with water-based ink). The ink remover dissolved
the solvent-based ink well and was easy to use.  A light grey haze was left on the screen. On the
screen with UV ink, the ink dissolved quickly, wiped off easily, rinsed clean of residue, but left
a moderate ink stain. When used on the screen with water-based ink, more time and effort
were needed to remove the ink which seemed to dry in the screen. With the extra effort, the ink
was removed except for a light ink stain. For each of the three screens, one rag was used  to
remove the ink.

     On all three screens, the emulsion remover dissolved the stencil with some scrubbing.
The remainder of the stencil came off easily with the pressure wash. There was no emulsion
stain or residue on any of the screens.  On the screen with the solvent-based ink, a moderate
ink stain remained after using the emulsion remover.  The UV ink screen and the water-based
ink screen had light stains. On all the screens, the haze remover lightened the  ink stain, but
did not remove it completely; a light ink stain was still visible.

     Manufacturer's instructions were followed in applying the products to the screen. The
technician noted that the ink remover had an unpleasant odor, but that it was not very strong.
     Alternative System Performance Details

     Performance Details from Facility 20

     Users of the reclaiming products were asked to evaluate the performance of the
components of System Epsilon relative to the facility's regular system.  The screen reclaimer
thought that the products were generally better than their previously used ones.  The
operations manager, however, felt that the ink remover did not perform quite as well in cutting
some inks as their previously used products.  No evaluation sheets were received from Facility
20, although the facility reported that they sent them.  Unfortunately, they did not make copies
of the sheets before they were mailed.  Therefore, all performance information from Facility 20
was received through the observer's on-site documentation and through weekly telephone
conversations with the facility. The observer interviewed both the reclamation employee and
the operations manager, who was also one of the printers who used the ink remover.

     The ink remover worked acceptably in the facility, although some of the printers who
used it complained that it acted slowly. Performance was not as good on catalyzed inks as on
other solvent-based inks.  The catalyzed inks also require more effort to remove with the
facility's regular ink remover, but the alternative ink remover did not perform as well as the
regular product in this case. The alternative product did eventually remove all the ink from the
screens.  The operations  manager, who also used the product, commented that it was more of
an respiratory irritant than their previously used product; he said that the alternative ink
remover smelled bad and made him dizzy.

     The emulsion remover worked well at this facility. One screen, with an 83  mesh screen
that had been used with an aggressive ink system, required at least two applications of
emulsion remover to clean. Two applications of emulsion remover are also required when
using the facility's standard emulsion remover with this type of screen.  The reclaimer felt that
either the coarse mesh or the ink system could have made the screen more difficult to clean.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-150

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon

     Haze remover performance was acceptable. Again, when reclaiming screens with a mesh
count of 83 threads per inch, the haze remover also had to be applied 2 or 3 times.

     Overall, the use of Product System Epsilon had no deleterious effects on the screen mesh
or on the subsequent print quality image and the printer did not notice any change in screen
failure rate over the time period that the alternative system was in use.

     Performance Details from Facility 24

     This facility felt the ink remover and the emulsion remover worked better than their
standard system, and the haze remover performed as well as their own product.  Screen
printing is a relatively small part of the operations at this facility,  and although they used
Product System Epsilon on all the screens they reclaimed, the total number of screens over four
weeks was 14.

     The ink remover consistently removed the both the solvent-based and the UV-curable
inks.  Although the product performance was good for both ink types, this printer found the UV
inks easier to clean than the solvent-based inks. In addition, the facility found the quantity of
alternative ink remover used per screen was significantly less than the quantity used of
standard product.

     The printer felt the emulsion remover was as effective as their standard product, and it
dissolved  the stencil quickly.

     Product System Epsilon haze remover performance was evaluated as the same as  the
facility's standard haze remover.  Although the data from this facility indicates that there were
several cases where the screen could not be reused for reverse printing or for use with
transparent inks, the printer felt that these restrictions were not entirely due to the alternative
system. Some of the remaining ink stains may have been on the screen prior to the start of the
dem onstr ations.

     During the four weeks the products were used in this facility, no change in the screen
failure, mesh deterioration, or print quality were noted. The observer felt the facility evaluated
the alternative system's performance objectively and conscientiously. At the conclusion  of the
demonstrations, the printer mentioned that he was  interested in continuing to use the
alternative ink remover and emulsion remover.

     Alternative System Performance Table Compiled from Field Sites

     The table below highlights the observed performance of the product system and the
relevant conditions of the demonstration, as recorded by the printers using the products at the
demonstration facilities. In addition to the field demonstration performance data, results of the
product tests performed at SPTF are also summarized in this table. More descriptive
information on the demonstration facilities is included in the section following the table.

     Facility Profiles

     General Facility Background for Facility 20

     Facility 20 prints banners and point-of-purchase displays on paper, plastic, metals,
ceramics,  and glass. Their typical run is 20 parts and about 20% of their orders are repeat
orders.  Of the approximately 10 employees at this facility,  1  - 3 are involved in screen


DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-151

-------
                                                             Table V-121

                                          On-Site Performance Summary For System Epsilon
•o_
CD"


CD

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying Time
Before Using
Product
Average Quantity
Applied
Average
Cleaning Time
Average Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink
type(s)
Emulsion
type
Mesh type;
Thread
count
Average
Screen
Size
In-field Demonstrations at Volunteer Printing Facilities
Facility
20
Facility
24
Ink remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
no data
no data
no data
10.3 ±26.1 hrs
(n=14)
13.8 ±12.2 hrs
(n=14)
2.9 ±2.1 mins
(n=14)
3.0 oz. (n=1)
3.3±0.6oz.
(n=3)
4.0±1.7oz.
(n=3)
4.2±1.7oz.
(n=14)
4.2±1.9oz.
(n=13)
1.5±0.5oz.
(n=14)
no data
no data
no data
3.7 ± 1.5 mins
(n=13)
3.7 ± 1.1 mins
(n=14)
10.9 ±4.7 mins
(n=14)
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Removed ink well,
but took some extra
time.
Easily removed
stencil.
Lightened ink stain.
Removed ink well,
especially UV ink.
Easily removed
stencil.
Usually removed
haze.
• Data forms were
not received from
this facility.
• All information is
based on weekly
phone calls.
• All screens could
be reused after
reclamation.
• Some screens
could not be used
for reverse printing.
• Light ink stain
remained.
Solvent-
based
vinyl,
enamels
Solvent-
based
and UV-
curable
Dual cure
Direct
photo
stencil
Polyester;
83-280
threads/inch
Monofilamen
t Polyester,
no
treatment;
355
threads/inch
2538 in2
1296 in2
                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                    Q.

                                                                                                                                    IS3
                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                    o.
                                                                                                                                    o_
                                                                                                                                    m

                                                                                                                                    m

                                                                                                                                    o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                       Q)


                                                                                                                                       8-
                                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                                       a

                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                                    Q.
                                                                                                                                   f
                                                                                                                                   5T
Ol
NJ
                                                                                                                                    CO

                                                                                                                                    o"

-------
                     Table V-122

Laboratory Performance Summary For System Epsilon
•o_
CD"


CD

System
Component
Performance
Avg Drying Time
Before Using Product
Average
Quantity Applied
Average
Cleaning Time
Average Effort
Required
Performance for
Each System
Component
Laboratory Testing at SPTF
SPTF
Solvent-
based
Ink
SPTF
UV-
curable
Ink
SPTF
Water-
based
Ink
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
Ink Remover
Emulsion
Remover
Haze
Remover
15mins
24 hours
Omins
15mins
24 hours
Omins
15mins
24 hours
Omins
1 .5 oz.
1 .0 oz.
1 .0 oz.
1 .5 oz.
1 .5 oz.
1 .0 oz.
1 .5 oz.
1 .0 oz.
1 .0 oz.
3.9mins
3.4mins
31.8 mins
3.3mins
3.8 mins
2.2 mins
5.6 mins
3.2 mins
32.8 mins
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Overall System
Performance
Demonstration Conditions
Ink
type(s)
Emulsion
type
Mesh type;
Thread
count
Average
Screen
Size

Dissolved ink well; gray haze left on screen.
Dissolved stencil; medium ink stain
remaining.
Lightened ink stain.
Dissolved ink well; has unpleasant odor.
Dissolved stencil; light ink stain remaining.
Lightened ink stain.
Dissolved ink with scrubbing.
Dissolved stencil; light nk stain remaining.
Lightened ink stain.
Solvent-
based
UV-
curable
Water-
based
Dual cure
direct
Dual cure
direct
Dual cure
direct
Polyester;
260
threads/inc
h
Polyester;
390
threads/inc
h
Polyester;
260
threads/inc
h
360 in2
360 in2
360 in2
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  Q.

                                                                                                                                  IS3
                                                                                          m
                                                                                          o.
                                                                                          o_
                                                                                          m

                                                                                          m

                                                                                          o'
<


CO


co_

?5^
C

CD"


ff


•o
Q)



I
CD


CO
CO
                                                                                              CD
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              Q)


                                                                                              8-
                                                                                              O
                                                                                              a

                                                                                              o
                                                                                              Q.
                                                                                              CO
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          Q.
                                                                                          f
                                                                                          5T
                                                                                          CO

                                                                                          o"

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon

reclamation activities.  The facility uses a variety of solvent-based inks including vinyl, enamel,
and a multipurpose ink.  They use a dual cure emulsion. Screens used in the Performance
Demonstrations were polyester (untreated) with a mesh count of 83 -280 threads/inch. The
average screen size at this facility is 4 feet x 5 feet and approximately 5-10 screens are
reclaimed daily.

      Screen Reclamation Area in Facility 20

     The ink removal  and screen reclamation activities are done in the press room in a back-lit
spray booth. A plant-wide system provides the ventilation for the screen reclamation area. The
average temperature during the observer's visit was 68°F (and 36% relative humidity). Ink
waste is disposed of as hazardous waste. Waste water from the high-pressure wash of the
emulsion remover and haze remover is not recycled or filtered at this facility.

      Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 20

     The standard ink remover product at Facility 20 is an acetone blend. For emulsion
removal, they use a proprietary aqueous mixture which includes periodate salt (< 10%). Their
standard haze remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture with sodium hydroxide (< 15%).

      Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 20

     This facility uses a  custom blended ink remover. The application procedure listed below
is used for most screens.  One exception is the 83 mesh, where two applications of the
emulsion remover are required.  Occasionally, a dried ink requires an initial rinse with
cyclohexanone. The screen reclamation process is described below:

     o    Ink Remover:  Card off excess ink from the screen. Apply ink remover to a reusable
           rag from a  safety can. Gloves and eye protection are usually worn during this step.
           Brush the product into the screen. Wipe the screen with a reusable rag. Continue
           wiping with clean rags until ink no longer comes off on the rag. Typically, 2 - 4 rags
           are used on each screen.

     o    Emulsion Remover:  After ink removal, rinse the screen with the hose.  Apply the
           emulsion remover with a spray bottle. Scrub in the product with a pad brush.
           Rinse the screen with a pressure wash (100 psi).

     o    Haze Remover: To apply haze remover,  dip a bristle brush into the pail of product.
           Brush the haze remover into both sides of the screen and let sit for one minute.
           Rinse the screen with a high pressure water spray. If the stain is dark, reapply the
           haze remover and let sit for 1 - 2 minutes and rinse again with the high pressure
           spray.

      General Facility Background for Facility 24

     The majority of the products printed by Facility 24 are pressure sensitive mylar labels
and polycarbonate Lexan face plates. Run lengths are typically 500 - 1000 impressions, and
approximately 50% of their business is for repeat orders. There are 15-20 employees involved
in production operations at this facility and 2 - 3 are involved in screen reclamation operations.
The facility uses both solvent-based inks and UV inks; sometimes on the same screen. They
use a direct photo stencil and a monofilament (untreated) polyester mesh. All screens used in
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-154

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Epsilon

the Performance Demonstrations had a mesh count of 355 threads/inch. The average screen
size at this facility is 36" x 36" and 3 - 5 screens are reclaimed each week.

      Screen Reclamation Area in Facility 24

     Ink removal is done at press side and screen reclamation takes place nearby in a spray
booth. The high ceilings and facility-wide ventilation cover both work areas.  During the
observer's visit, the average temperature in the area was 68°F (and 40% relative humidity).
Rags used for ink removal are cleaned under a contract with a laundry service. Waste  water
from screen reclamation is not recycled or filtered.

      Current Screen Reclamation Products at Facility 24

     Facility 24 uses a proprietary solvent blend ink remover  consisting primarily of
cyclohexanone,  diacetone alcohol and dipropylene glycol methyl ether. Their emulsion remover
is a proprietary aqueous mixture with at least sodium periodate.  Their standard haze  remover
is an aqueous blend consisting of sodium hydroxide (5%) and tetrahydrofurfuryl  alcohol
     %).

      Current Screen Reclamation Practices in Facility 24

     At Facility 24, all screens are reclaimed following the application procedure below:

     o     Ink Remover:  At the press, scrape the excess ink off the screen. Wearing gloves,
           eye  protection, and an apron, pour the ink remover onto the screen from a one-
           gallon can. Scrub with an abrasive brush.  Wipe the screen with reusable rags until
           ink no longer comes  off on the rag.  Rinse the screen with a pressure  wash (500
           psi).

     o     Emulsion Remover:  Spray emulsion remover onto both sides of the screen. Work
           the  product into the screen using a scrubber pad.  Rinse both sides of the screen
           with a high pressure wash. After washing off the emulsion, spray the screen with
           an ink degradent. Wait for one minute. Scrub the screen with a brush and pressure
           rinse both sides.

     o     Haze Remover: Wearing gloves and eye protection, dip a brush into the bucket of
           haze remover. Brush the product into the screen on the effected area on both sides.
           Wait for 15 minutes. Rinse both sides of the screen with a high-pressure wash.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-155

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Epsilon
      Cost
                                             Table V-123
              Method 2:  Summary of Cost Analysis for Alternative System Epsilon
Cost Element Description
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
Baseline
(Traditional
Svstem 4^

2,127
6
Alternative System Epsilon
Facility 20

2,538
8
Facility 24

1,296
1
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, scrubbing, and
removing reclamation products (min)
Cost ($)
# of rags used
Cost ($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Amount (g)
Cost($)
24.4
5.33
3
0.45
8.0
0.22
3.5
0.13
3.0
0.12
34
0.02
9.7
2.12
7.0
1.05
3.0
0.18
3.3
0.09
4.0
0.27
112
0.08
18.3
4.00
3.8
0.57
4.2
0.26
4.2
0.11
1.5
0.10
57
0.04
Totals
Total Cost ($/screen)
Normalized3
Total Cost ($/year)
Normalized3
6.27
6.27
9,399
9,399
3.79
3.08
7,097
4,624
5.08
5.29
1,269
7,930
    3Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags laundered at demonstration
    facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs,
    however, are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between the baseline and facility results.

    Note:  For additional information regarding product performance see performance demonstration summaries.
DRAFT—September 1994
               V-156

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Gamma


Product System Gamma

     Formulation

     Ink Remover           Propylene glycol series ethers
                            Diethylene glycol series ethers
                            Dibasic esters
                            Fatty alcohol ethers
                            Derivatized plant oil
     Emulsion Remover         Sodium periodate
                            Sulfate salt
                            Phosphate salt
                            Water
     Haze Remover         Sodium hypochlorite
                            Alkali/Caustic
                            Sodium alkyl sulfonate
                            Water
DRAFT-September 1994                                                                V-157

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Gamma
      Occupational Exposure

                                             Table V-124
               Occupational Exposure Estimates for Alternative System Gamma

System
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Emulsion Remover
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Water
Haze Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/Caustic
Water
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Inhalation (mg/day)
I

0
0
0.2
0.4
1.3

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
II

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
III

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
IV

0
0
0.2
0.1
0.2

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
Dermal (mg/day)
Routine

62
780
62
187
468

39
16
117
1270

585
39
827
109
Immersion

291
3640
291
873
2184

182
73
546
5930

2730
182
3860
510
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry.
DRAFT—September 1994
               V-158

-------
                                                               Exhibit V-125
                                           Occupational Risk Estimates for System Gamma
o
Q.
IS3
     CO



Name
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Emulsion Remover
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Water

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

2258
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

57
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

481
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAEL

12
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
                                                                                                                                                  m
                                                                                                                                                  Q.
                                                                                                                                                  c?
                                                                                                                                                  o_
                                                                                                                                                  m
                                                                                                                                                  m
                                                                                                                                                  o'
     CD

     ff

     •o
     Q)


     I
     CD
     CO
     CO
                                                                                                                                                      CD
                                                                                                                                                      s
                                                                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                                                                      Q)
                                                                                                                                                      8-
                                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                                                      a
                                                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                                      Q.
                                                                                                                                                      CO
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient values less
than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.
CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
o
Q.
                                                                                                                                                 f
                                                                                                                                                 5T

                                                                                                                                                 CD
                                                                                                                                                 m

                                                                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                                                                 m

-------
                         Exhibit V-126
Occupational Risk Estimates for Alternative System Gamma
                                                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                                                     Q.
                                                                                                                                                     IS3
                                                                                                                 CO



Name
Haze Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/Caustic
Water
Sodium alkyl sulfate

Hazard Quotient

Inhalation

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion

NA
NA
NA
NA
Margin Of Exposures

Inhalation
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
LOAELd

NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
Routine
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
192
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
Immersion
NOAEL

NA
NA
NA
41
LOAEL

NA
NA
NA
NA
                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                             Q.
                                                                                                             c?
                                                                                                             o_
                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                             o'
                                                                                                                                                          CD

                                                                                                                                                          ff

                                                                                                                                                          •o
                                                                                                                                                          Q)


                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                 CD
                                                                                                                 s
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 Q)
                                                                                                                 8-
                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                 Q.
                                                                                                                 CO
aMargin of Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL and 1000 for a LOAEL indicate low risk.
bHazard Quotient is the ratio of the estimated chronic dose/exposure level to the Reference Dose (RfD) or the Reference Concentration (RfC). Hazard Quotient values less
than 1 imply that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur.
CNOAEL means No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
dLOAEL means Lowest Observed  Adverse Effect Level.
                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                             Q.
                                                                                                            f
                                                                                                            S"

                                                                                                            CD
                                                                                                            m

                                                                                                            3
                                                                                                            m

-------
V.  Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover	Product System Gamma

     Occupational Risk Conclusions and Observations

     Ink Remover and Haze Remover

     o    Clear concerns exist for chronic dermal exposures to diethylene glycol butyl ether
           acetate used in ink removal based on the calculated margin-of-exposure.

     o    Developmental toxicity risks from dermal exposures to diethylene glycol butyl ether
           acetate are very low based on the calculated margin-of-exposure.

     o    Risks from other ink remover and haze remover components could not be
           quantified because of limitations in hazard data, although dermal exposures to all
           components could be relatively high.

     o    Developmental and chronic toxicity risks from dermal exposures to sodium alkyl
           sulfate in haze remover are very low based on the calculated margin of exposure.

     o    Inhalation exposures to all components are very low.

     Emulsion Removers (All Systems)

     o    All of the systems that employ an emulsion remover use either a strong oxidizer
           such as hypochlorite or periodate or a strong base such as sodium hydroxide.  The
           haze removers in Alpha, Epsilon, Gamma, Mu, Omicron, and Theta also contain
           these compounds. All of these materials present a high concern for skin and eye
           irritation and tissue damage if workers are exposed in the absence of proper
           protective clothing.  None of the emulsion removers present significant inhalation
           risks.
DRAFT-September 1994                                                               V-161

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Gamma
      Environmental Releases

                                            Table V-127
               Environmental Release Estimate for Screen Cleaning Operations
                                    Method 2, Gamma System
System
Ink Remover
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Emulsion Remover
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Water
Haze Remover
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/Caustic
Water
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Release Under Each Scenario
(g/day)
I
air
0
0.1
0.3
0.8
3.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
water
0
0
0
0
0
16
6
47
506
200
13
282
37
land
28
355
28
84
210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
air
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
III
air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV
air
0
0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
water
54
675
54
162
405
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
  Scenario I = reclaiming 6 screens per day; each screen is approximately 2100 in2; Scenario 11 = pouring 1 ounce of fluid for sampling; Scenario III = transferring
  chemicals from a 55 gallon drum to a 5 gallon pail; Scenario IV = storing waste rags in a drum and transferring them to a laundry
DRAFT—September 1994
               V-162

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Gamma
                                      Table V-128
     Summary of Estimated Daily Environmental Releases from a Hypothetical Facility
             Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Gamma
Substance:
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Other
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfate
To Air:

0.1 g/day
0.7 g/day
0.9 g/day
3.0 g/day







To Water:
54 g/day from laundry
675 g/day from laundry
54 g/day at laundry
162 g/day at laundry
405 g/day at laundry
16 g/day
6 g/day
47 g/day
47 g/day
200 g/day
13 g/day
37 g/day
To Landfill:
28 g/day
355 g/day
28 g/day
86 g/day
210 g/day







DRAFT—September 1994
             V-163

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Gamma
      Releases to Water from a Single Facility
                                        Table V-129
              Estimated Releases to Water from Traditional Formulations from
                           Screen Reclamation at a Single Facility
              Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Gamma
Substance
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
acetate
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Sodium Periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Other
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfate
Amount Released
to Water from
Facility
54 g/day at laundry
675 g/day at
laundry
54 g/day at laundry
162 g/day at
laundry
405 g/day at
laundry
16 g/day
6 g/day
47 g/day
47 g/day
200 g/day
13 g/day
37 g/day
Waste water
Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
83%
83%
100 %
100 %
84-97 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
Amount to Water
After Waste water
Treatment
9.2 g/day
115 g/day
0
0
28.3 g/day
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Daily Stream
Concentration, ug/La
for 1000 MLD
Receiving Water
9x10'3
1 x 10'1
0
0
3x10'2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
  aug/L is Micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion for a substance in water.  MLD is Million liters per day.
DRAFT—September 1994
              V-164

-------
V. Substitute Comparative Assessment, Screen Reclamation Methods
Method 2: Traditional Reclamation With Haze Remover
Product System Gamma
      Releases to Air from Individual Screen Printing Facilities

                                        Table V-130
               Air Release, Concentration and Potential Dose Estimates from
                                   a Single Model Facility
              Using Screen Reclamation Method 2, Alternative System Gamma
Substance
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Derivatized plant oil
Fatty alcohol ethers
Dibasic esters
Amount of Releases
per day
0.1 g/day
0.7 g/day
0.9 g/day
3.0 g/day
Highest Average
Concentration 100 M
away
2x10'4ug/m3
1.4x10-3ug/m3
2x10'3ug/m3
5x10'3ug/m3
Annual Potential Dose,
mg/yeara
1 x 10'3
1 x 10'2
1 x 10'2
5x10'2
  aThis estimates doses for people living 100 Meters from the hypothetical facility. The actual number of people who would fall
  into this range can be determined from census data, if the facility location is known. The model used to calculate
  concentrations is more completely explained in the Overview by Media-Air Section in Chapter III. To calculate the annual
  potential dose, the concentration is multiplied by the amount a person will breathe (20 m3/day) and the number of days per
  year (365), and the units are converted to mg/year by dividing by 1000.

      General Population Risk  Conclusions and Observations

      o     Health risks to the general population from both air and water exposures are very
            low for Method 2, Product System Gamma.

      Although air releases were evaluated for only a single facility, it is very unlikely that an
analysis of cumulative air releases would lead to different risk conclusions. Examples of
general population exposure and risk estimates are shown for Method 2, Traditional System 1
in Methods 1 and 2 and Alternative System Chi in Method 2; please reference these  sections as
illustrative examples. Hazard Quotient values below one indicate very low risk.  Margin-of-
Exposure (MOE) values above 100 for a NOAEL or above 1000 for a LOAEL indicate very low
risk.

      Ecological Risks From Water Releases Of Screen Reclamation Chemicals

      o     None of the single facility releases of Method  2, Product System Gamma reach an
            ecotoxicity concern concentration.

      Performance

      General Summary of Product System Gamma Performance, and Related Variables

      Product System Gamma, demonstrated at Facilities 16 and 25, consisted of an ink
remover, an emulsion remover,  and a haze remover. Facility 16 prints vehicle markings;
Facility 25 prints appliance panel overlays, back-lit automotive panels, and store displays.
During the four week demonstration period, Facility 16 reclaimed 55 screens although ink
DRAFT—September 1994