1

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has funded

a pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers

who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack

the expertise to do so. In an effort to assist these manufacturers Waste Minimization Assessment Centers (WMACs) were

established at selected universities and procedures were

adapted from the EPA Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988). That document has been superseded by the Facility Pollution Prevention

Guide (EPA/600/R-92/088, May 1992). The WMAC team at

Colorado State University performed an assessment at a plant

that manufactures folding paperboard cartons. Paperboard

stock is cut to specific sheet sizes, printed using a six-color

press, cut into carton patterns, folded, and glued. The assessment team’s report detailing findings and recommendations,

indicated that waste paperboard is generated in large quantities, and that the most significant cost savings can be achieved

through collection and reuse of “step 1” solvent used in the

printing system.

This Research Brief was developed by the principal investigators and EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to announce key findings of an ongoing

research project that is fully documented in a separate report

of the same title available from University City Science Center.

Introduction

The amount of waste generated by industrial plants has become an increasingly costly problem for manufacturers and an

additional stress on the environment. One solution to the

problem of waste generation is to reduce or eliminate the

waste at its source.

University City Science Center (Philadelphia, PA) has begun a

pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers

who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack

the in-house expertise to do so. Under agreement with EPA’s

National Risk Management Research Laboratory, the Science

Center has established three WMACs. This assessment was

done by engineering faculty and students at Colorado State

University’s (Fort Collins) WMAC. The assessment teams

have considerable direct experience with process operations in

manufacturing plants and also have the knowledge and skills

needed to minimize waste generation.

The pollution prevention opportunity assessments are done for

small and medium-size manufacturers at no out-of-pocket cost

to the client. To qualify for the assessment, each client must

fall within Standard Industrial Classification Code 20-39, have

gross annual sales not exceeding $75 million, employ no more

than 500 persons, and lack in-house expertise in pollution

prevention.

The potential benefits of the pilot project include minimization

of the amount of waste generated by manufacturers, and

reduction of waste treatment and disposal costs for participating plants. In addition, the project provides valuable experience for graduate and undergraduate students who participate

in the program, and a cleaner environment without more regulations and higher costs for manufacturers.

Methodology of Assessments

The pollution prevention opportunity assessments require several site visits to each client served. In general, the WMACs

follow the procedures outlined in the EPA Waste Minimization

Pollution Prevention Assessment for a Manufacturer of

Folding Paperboard Cartons

ENVIRONMENTAL

RESEARCH BRIEF

Harry W. Edwards*, Michael F. Kostrzewa*, Michelle May*,

and Gwen P. Looby**

* Colorado State University, Department of Mechanical Engineering

** University City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA

E AP

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

National Risk Management

Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Research and Development EPA/600/S-95/021 August 1995
2

Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988).

The WMAC staff locate the sources of waste in the plant and

identify the current disposal or treatment methods and their

associated costs. They then identify and analyze a variety of

ways to reduce or eliminate the waste. Specific measures to

achieve that goal are recommended and the essential supporting technological and economic information is developed. Finally, a confidential report that details the WMAC’s findings

and recommendations (including cost savings, implementation

costs, and payback times) is prepared for each client.

Plant Background

This plant manufactures folding paperboard cartons. It operates approximately 2,200 hr/yr to produce about 1,200 tons of

cartons annually.

Manufacturing Process

Paperboard rolls of various gauges are cut to specific sheet

sizes in the sheeter machine. If required, the paper sheets are

sent to the hydraulic cutter for trimming to smaller sheet sizes.

The sheets are stacked on pallets and assigned a labeling

code in preparation for printing.

For the past several years, the plant has used its six-color

printing press exclusively. Two other presses—a two-color

and a three-color—are also available. Printing plates are

developed onsite using a recently installed photolithographic

process. Printing plates are attached to five of the six press

cylinders. Each cylinder transfers a different color to each

sheet as it passes through the press. The sixth and final

cylinder is used exclusively to apply a clear aqueous coating to

the sheet, which gives the printed sheet a glossy appearance.

Printed sheets are stacked at the end of the press to await die

cutting.

The printed sheets are cut into carton sheets by one of four die

cutters. The die cutter feeds the sheet through, cuts the

desired carton pattern, and applies the fold impression. Die

patterns used by the die cutters are produced onsite from

metal strips and wood arranged on plywood slabs. Excess

strips of paper are removed from cartons manually after die

cutting in the stripping area. The stripped sheets are stacked

on pallets and sent to either windowing or folding and gluing.

The large and small windower machines are used to apply a

clear plastic film to cover carton openings. A glue wheel is

used to apply a glue pattern on the carton to affix the film.

Cartons are sent to one of three folding and gluing machines in

which the carton sides are glued together. Glue is applied

using a glue pot and glue pads in two of the machines and

automatically in the third machine. Completed cartons are

boxed and stored to await shipping.

An abbreviated process flow diagram for folding paperboard

box manufacture is shown in Figure 1.

Existing Waste Management Practices

This plant already has implemented the following techniques to

manage and minimize its wastes.

• Ink is collected from the color presses at the end of the day,

returned to its proper container, and stored for reuse.

• Waste film from the photolithographic process is collected

and shipped offsite for recycling.

• Waste paperboard instead of new paperboard is fed through

the printing press at start-up until the printing quality meets

specifications to avoid the generation of additional waste

paperboard.

• Printed and non-printed waste paperboard is baled and

shipped offsite for recycling.

Pollution Prevention Opportunities

The type of waste currently generated by the plant, the source

of the waste, the waste management method, the quantity of

the waste, and the annual waste management cost for each

waste stream identified are given in Table 1.

Table 2 shows the opportunities for pollution prevention that

the WMAC team recommended for the plant. The opportunity,

the type of waste, the possible waste reduction and associated

Paperboard

Stock

Sheeting

Hydraulic Cutting

Printing

Die Cutting

Stripping

Windowing

Folding and Gluing

Packaging

Plate Making

Die Making

Finished Product

Shipped to Customers

Figure 1. Abbreviated process flow diagram for folding paperboard

carton manufacture.
3

savings, and the implementation cost along with the simple

payback time are given in the table. The quantities of waste

currently generated by the plant and possible waste reduction

depend on the production level of the plant. All values should

be considered in that context.

It should be noted that, in most cases, the economic savings of

the opportunities result from the need for less raw material and

from reduced present and future costs associated with hazardous waste treatment and disposal. Other savings not quantifiable by this study include a wide variety of possible future

costs related to changing emissions standards, liability, and

employee health. It also should be noted that the savings

given for each opportunity reflect the savings achievable when

implementing each pollution prevention opportunity independently and do not reflect duplication of savings that would

result when the opportunities are implemented in a package.

Additional Recommendations

In addition to the opportunities recommended and analyzed by

the WMAC team, two other measures were considered. These

measures were not analyzed completely because of insufficient data, implementation difficulty, or a projected lengthy

payback. Since one or more of these approaches to pollution

prevention may, however, increase in attractiveness with changing conditions in the plant, they were brought to the plant’s

attention for future consideration.

• Install a silver recovery unit onsite to recover dissolved silver

from spent photographic fixer and wash water.

• Improve the existing paperboard recycling program. Suggested improvements include standardizing the type of board

manufactured; improving the sorting of various types of

waste board; automating the collection and baling operations; reducing the size of waste bales; and moving the waste

board storage and baling unit outdoors.

This research brief summarizes a part of the work done under

Cooperative Agreement No. CR-814903 by the University City

Science Center under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA Project Officer was Emma

Lou George.

Table 1. Summary of Current Waste Generation

Annual Quantity Annual Waste

Waste Generated Source of Waste Waste Management Method Generated (lb/yr) Management Cost*

Non-printed paperboard stock Sheeting, cutting, and stripping Baled; shipped offsite for recycling 633,700 $184,970

Non-printed paperboard stock Sheeting and cutting Shipped offsite for disposal as 10,000 3,000

municipal trash

Printed paperboard Printing, windowing, folding, Baled; shipped offsite for recycling 423,000 124,480

and gluing

Waste aqueous coating Printing system Shipped offsite as hazardous 5,410 9,640

waste; incinerated

Waste “step 1” solvent Printing system Shipped offsite as hazardous 5,410 39,400

waste; incinerated

Waste isopropyl alcohol Printing system Shipped offsite as hazardous 2,170 1,230

waste; incinerated

Wash water Cleaning of printing system Shipped offsite as hazardous 10,800 2,870

waste; incinerated

Waste “type wash” Printing system Shipped offsite as hazardous

waste; incinerated 190 400

Waste press wash Printing system Shipped offsite as hazardous

waste; incinerated 270 190

Solvent-laden rags Cleaning of ink presses Cleaned offsite and returned for reuse 6,500 4,050

Waste glue Windowing, folding, and gluing Discharged to sewer 1,700 0

Spent photo fixer Photolithographic process Discharged to sewer 1,040 0

Spent film Photolithographic process Shipped offsite for recycling 560 0

Spent machine oil Equipment maintenance Shipped offsite as hazardous 1,100 240

waste; incinerated

 *Includes waste treatment, disposal, and handling costs and applicable raw material costs.
4

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT No. G-35

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

EPA/600/S-95/021

Table 2. Summary of Recommended Pollution Prevention Opportunities

Annual Waste Reduction

Net Annual Implementation Simple

Pollution Prevention Opportunity Waste Reduced Quantity (lb/yr) Per Cent Savings Cost Payback (yr)

Collect and reuse part of the waste Waste “step 1” solvent 2,750 50 $20,000 $0 0

“step 1” that does not mix with residual aqueous coating and water in the

printing system supply lines.

Modify the aqueous coating cylinder Wash water 10,800 100 2,710 0 0

cleaning procedure to reduce waste

generation. A squeegee and rags

can be used to mechanically clean

the rubber pads and storage tray of

the printing system instead of using

water to flush out and clean the

entire system. The small quantity of

spent cleaning rags generated can be

shipped offsite for cleaning, returned,

and reused.

Ship the waste lubricating oil offsite to Spent machine oil 0 — 210 500 2.4

an oil recycler instead of shipping it to

a hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facility for incineration.

No waste reduction will result at the

plant site, but the plant can achieve

cost savings through implementing

this measure.