Un~ted States Officeof Air Quality EPA-450/2-78-033 Environmental Protection PlannrngandStandards OAQPS NO.1.2-109 Agency Research Triangle Park NC27711 December 1978 Air GRAPH

### IC ARTS (GENERAL) 

# OAQPSGuideline AP-42 Section 4.9 Reference Number 

# Series Controlof Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

# - VolumeVIII: Graphic Arts

# - ~otogravure and Flexography

### EPA-450/2-78-033 

## OAQPS NO.

### 1.2-109



# ControlofVolatile Organic Emissions from ExistingStationarySources

# -

VolumeVIII:GraphicArts

# - Rotogravureand Flexography

Second Printing (First printing errata corrected)

Emission Standardsand EngineeringDivision Chemical and PetroleumBranch

U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY OfficeofAir andWaste Management OfficeofAir Quality Planning andStandards ResearchTriangle Park,NorthCarolina27711

December 1978OAQPSGUIDELINESERIES

Theguidelineseriesof reports isbeing issued bytheOfficeofAir Quality Planning andStandards(OAQPS)to provide information to state and local air pollutioncontrol agencies; for example, to provide guidance onthe acquisition andprocessingofair qualitydataandon theplanning andanalysisrequisiteforthemaintenanceofair quality. Reports published inthisserieswillbeavailable- assupplies permit

### -fromtheLibraryServicesOffice (MD-35),U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, ResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolina27711,or,for anominal fee, fromthe NationalTechnical InformationService,5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

PublicationNo. EPA-450/2-78-033 (OAQPSNO.1.2-109)

### CONVERSION FACTORS FOR METRIC UNITS

Metric Unit Metric Name Equivalent English Unit 3 

### kilogram (10

### grams) 1i

### ter meter cubic meter Mg b 

### megagram (10

### grams) metric ton 6 

### metric ton (10

### grams)

In keeping with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy, metric units are used in this report. These unitsmay 

### be converted to 

### common English units by using the above conversion factors. Temperature in degrees Celsius 

## (cO) can be converted to temperature in degrees Farenheit (OF) by 

### the following formula:

tof = 

### temperature in degrees Farenheit

to = 

### temperature in degrees Celsius or degrees Centigrade C



### i'i i

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONVERSION FACTORS FOR METRIC UNITS

## .................................. iii 1.Q INTRODUCTION

### AND SUMMARY 

## ....................................... 1-1 1.1 General Discussion 

## ........................................ 1-1 1.2 Achievable Control Levels 

## ................................. 1-7 

### 1.2.1 Available Add-on Control qevices 

## ........................ 1-2 1.2.2 Water Borne and High-Solids Inks 

## ........................ 1-3 

### 1.2.3 Alternative Control Methods 

## ............................. I-?

1.3 Cost Effectiveness 

## ........................................ 1-5 1.2.4 Qifferentiation of Coating and Printing 

## ................. 1-fl

2.0 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS

## ............................... 2-1 2.1 General Discussion 

## ........................................ 2-1 2.2 Printing Processes 

## ........................................ 2-1 

### 2.2.1 Flexography 

## ............................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Gravure 

## ................................................. 2-2 2.2.2.1 Uses for Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing and Coating 

## ........................................ 2-a 2.2.2.2 Nature of the Flexographic and Gravure Printing Industries 

## ......................................... 2-5 2.3 Stock Feeding Methods 

## ..................................... 2-5 2.4 Printing Inks 

## ............................................. 2-5 2.5 Emmission Points 

## .......................................... 2-5 2.5.1 Dryer Types 

## ............................................. 2-7 2.6 National Emmissions 

## ....................................... 2-7 2.7 References 

## ................................................ 2-43.0 APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMMISSION REDUCTION

## ....................... 3-1 3.7 Introduction 

## .............................................. 3.2 Add-on Equipment 

## .......................................... 3.2.1 Carbon Adsorption 

## ....................................... 3.2.2 Incineration 

## ............................................ 3.2.2.1 Heat Recovery 

## ......................................... 3.3 Use of Low Solvent Inks for Packaging Gravure and Flexographic Printing

## .............................. 3.3.1 Water-Borne Inks 

## ........................................ 3.4 Summary of Applicability of Control Methods 

## ............... 3.4.1 Rotogravure 

## ............................................. 3.4.2 Flexography 

## ............................................. 3.5 References 

## ................................................ 0 COST ANALYSIS

## ................................................... 1 Introduction

## .............................................. 4.1.1 Purpose 

## ................................................. 4.1.2 Scope 

## ................................................... 4.1.3 Use of Mode1 Plants 

## ..................................... 4.1.A Bases for Capital Costs 

## ................................. 4.1.5 Bases for Annualized Costs 

## .............................. 4.2 VOC Control inthe Printing Industry 

## ...................... 4.2.1 Model Plant Parometers 

## .................................. 4.2.2 Control Costs 

## ........................................... 4.2.3 Cost-effectiveness 

## ...................................... 4.2.4 References 

## ..............................................5.0 ADVERSE AND BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF APPLYING CONTROL METHODS

## ..................................................... 5-1 5.1 Incineration 

## .............................................. 5-1 5.2 Carbon Adsorption 

## ......................................... 5-1 6.q MONITORING TECHNIQUES AND ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS

## ................... 6-11.0 

### INTRODUCTIONAND SUMMARY

1.1 

### GENERAL DISCUSSION This report is one of a continuing series designed to assist State and local jurisdictions in the developmentof air pollution control regulations for volatjle organic compounds. (VOC)which contribute to the formation of photochemical oxidants. Thereportdeals with VOC emissions from the graphic arts operationswhich utilize inks containing volatile organic solvents. The graphic arts industry encompassesprinting operationswhich fall into fourprincipal categories, namely: letterpress, offset lithography, rotogravure and flexography. This guideline is applicable to both the flexographic and rotogravureprocesses as applied to both publication and packaging printing. It does not apply to offset lithography or letterpress printing.
1.2 ACHIEVABLE CONTROL LEVELS Rotogravure and flexographyutilizes inkswhich contain large fractions (50

### to 80 

### percent or higher) of volatile organic solvents. Certain applications are as high as 96 

### percent solvent. Below are provided emission limitations that represent the presumptive
norm that can be 

### achieved through the application of reasonably available control technology (RACT)

# . Reasonably available control technology is defined as the lowest emission limit that a 

### particular source is

### capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. It may require technology that has been applied to similar,but not necessarily identical source categories. It must be cautioned that the limits reported in this section are based on capabilities and problems which are general to the industry, but may not be applicable to every plant. 1.2.1 AvailableAdd-on Control Devices The vast majority of rotogravureand flexographicprinting units use organic solvent-borne inks. Emission reduction can be achieved by use of carbon adsorption or incineration sytems. A reduction efficiency of 90percent of the VOC 

### delivered to these devices can and should be achieve-. In addition, it is implicit the RACT requires installation of the best practicable capture system to assure that the VOC 

### is directed to the controi dev~~ce.

### A number of

### carbon adsorption systems at publication and rotogravure plants have been reported to achieve overall recovery efficiencies of 75 

### percent ormore, based on material balances. Assuming adsorber efficiencies of 90to 95

### percent,capture efficienciesof 75 

### to 85 

### percent
were being realized. There is no avai

### 1ablemethod ofmeasurins capture efficiency directly. Large packaging rotogravurepresses could be expected to have capture efficiencies somewhat less than publication plants because of shorter
runs and other factors. 

### A capture efficiency of 75 

### percent would appear to be reasonable, with an 

### overall VOC recovery/control efficiency oi- 

### about 65 

### percent for either adsorption on incineration systems. 1-2The capture problem for flexographic presses ismore difficult than for rotogravure presses because of the manner of construction of fllexographic presses. The printing units and dryers are mounted on a vertical circular axis such that effective hooding and ducting are difficult to construct. A capture efficiency of 70 percent appears to be reasonable for these presses for an overall VOC control efficiency of 60 percent. 1.2.2 Water-Borne and High Solids Inks Water-borne inks are available which willmeet some printing requirements of both rotogravure and flexography. Ink manufacturers
are working to develop water-borne inks which will meet additional requirements. EPA desires to encourage such developments because of the material and energy saving potentials. It isrecommended that printing systems inwhich all printing units utilizea water-borne ink whose volatile portion consists of 75 volume percent water and 25 volume percent organic solvent (or a lower VOC content) be considered equivalent to the exhaust treatment systems described inSection 1.2.1. Some printing systems may be able to utilizewater-borne inks for heaviest coverage, but still require some solvent-borne inks for light coverage.* For such systems, if a 70 volume percent overall reduction of solvent usage isachieved (compared to a11 solvent-borne ink usage), the complete operation can be considered equivalent to the exhaust treatment systems described in5ection 1.2.1.

- There are no high solids inks now inuse in rotogravure or flexographic printing operakions. However, ink manufacturers have stated that they will continue development work inthis area. It isrecommended that, inks which contain 60 percent or more non-volatile material be exemp.: from emission limitations inorder to encourage development of high solids inks. *Heavy coverage means large areas of a given color. A thin strip of a

given color isan example of light coverage.

### 1.2.3 Alternative Control Methods Publication rotogravureuses inks with solvent mixtures of water- immiscible solvents. The vapor can be recovered with carbon adsorption systems and reused by ink manufacturers and printers. Some systems yield a net profit after amortization and operating expenses. Printing of packaging materials by rotogravure and flexography requires inks with more complex solventmixtures. Many of the solvents are water-soluble. Conventional carbon adsorption systems using steam for regenerationmay not be a viable control method because the recovered solvents cannot be reused. Reformulation of the inks may, in some cases, make carbon adsorption a viable control technique. 

### A new fluidized bed carbon adsorption system uses nitrogen for desorption and may provide a viable method for recovering solvents from packaging inks,
as well as publication inks. Incineration systemswith heat recovery may beamorepractical solution for some packaging operations. Incineration has been shown to provide 90 

### percent and greater removal of 

### VOC in many similar applications. 1.2.4 Differentiation of Coating and Printing Operations The production of packaging materials involves twaprincipal operations which emit volatile organic compounds: 1) 

### coating and laminating of paper, film, and foil; 2)printing of words, designs, and pictures upon webs of paper, film, and foil. For the purposes of this document, coating is defined as the application of a uniform layer of material across the entire width of aweb. Printing is the formation of words, designs and pictures, usually by a series of application rolls each with only partial coverage.-- The recommended emission limits forcoatingand laminating operations inthe production of packaging materials are given inVolume I1 of this series.* The emission limits inthis document apply to printing operations inthe production of packaging materials and to publication rotogravure printing operations. However, all units ina machine which

has both coating and printing units will be considered as performing
a printingoperation. A typical operation isas follows: The first unit applies a uniform background color; subsequent units printaddtiional colors; the final unit applies a varnish overcoat. Such a machine would be subject to the guideline for graphic arts.
1.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness of carbon adsorption is influenced strongly by VOC concentration and tonnage and by the value of recovered solvent. Where VOC concentration is 1200 ppm, cost effectiveness range from $51 to $38/Mg ($46 to $34/ton) of VOC recovered over the range of 2000 Mg (2200 tons) to 4000 Mg (4400 tons) of VOC input per year. Ata VOC concentration of 2400 ppm and 2000 Mg/yr input the recovery system pays for itself, and at 4000 Mg/yr input yields a $15/Mg profit. Thesevalues are typical of a large operation where the wlvent :an be reused inthe process or sold to an ink manufacturer. No cki;;l 

### are available for smaller carbon systems. The cost effectiveness of incineration systems are strongly influenced by annual tonnage of the VOC controlled and by the VOC concentration and degree of heat recovery. For a VOC input rate of about 90 Mg/yr (100 tons/yr) the cost of effectiveness ranges from $600/Mg ($600/ton) of VOC controlled at a concentration of 1500 ppm and 85 percent heat *Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

# -

Volume I1: Surface Coating ofCans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA-450/2-77-008, May 1977.

### recovery to $2000/Mg ($1800/ton) at a VOC concentrationof 500pprn and
no heat recovery. For aVOC input rate of about 1500Mg/yr (1650 tonlyr) the cost effectiveness ranges from $120 per ton of VOC at concentrations of 1500 ppm and 85 

### percent heat recovery to $1500/Mg ($1650/ton) for concentrations of 500ppm and no heat recovery. The greatest VOC control costs are associated with small flexo- graphic printing operations having relatively lowVOC levels and often operated intermittedly. Inmany cases, itmay be possible to improve capture systemsresulting in higher VOC levels and lower ventilation rates. Even with improved capture systems, it may not be 

### reasonable to require exhaust gas treatment at many small printing installations.

### 2.0 SOURCESAND TYPES OF EMISSIONS

2.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION Originally the term graphic artsmeant only such fine arts as painting and drawing. In time themeaning expanded and shifted to various picture reproduction methods, such as engraving, etching, and lithographing. Finally, the graphic arts industry has become simply a different name for the printing industry.

### 1 This diverse industry is characterized by a large number of small plants and a small number of large plants. Approximately 80 

### percent of commercial printing establishments employ fewer than 20 

### people.2 The largest publication gravure plants employ hundreds of people and have
a 

### daily potential VOC emission rate of 20 Mg (22 tons). Printing establishments are scattered throughout the country but the vast bulk of the printing has historically been done in the large metropolitan areas. Most periodicals are published in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Los ~n~e1es.l However, in the last few years several
new large plants have been built in non-urban areas. This appears to be a
new trend.
2.2 PRINTING PROCESSES Printing operations of any sizeablevolume utilize presses in which the image carrier is curved and mounted on a cylinderwhich rotates, (rotarypresses) or the image is engraved or etched directly on a cylinder.In direct printing the image istransferred directly from the image 

### to the print surface. In indirect printing the image istransferred to an intermediate roll (called a blanket) and thence to the print surface. 2.2.1 Flexography In flexographic printing, the image areas are raised above the nonimage surface. The distinguishing feature isthat the image carrier is made of rubber and other elastomeric materials. A feed cylinder rotates in a trough of ink (called an ink fountain), and delivers ink to the plate (image), cylinder, through a distribution roll, as shown in Figure 2.1. Flexographic presses are usually of rotary web design, i.e., roll-fed. Presses printing upon corrugated paperboard are amajor exception. Flexography uses very fluid inks, (low viscosity) typically about 75 volume percent organic solvent. The inks dry by solvent absorption into the web and evaporation, usually in high velocity air dryers at temperatures below 120~~. Solvents compatible with rubber or other plate materials must be used. Typical solvents are alcohols, glycols, esters, hydrocarbons and ethers. 2.2.2 Gravure In the gravure method printing, image areas are recessed relative to non-image area. The image carrier is a copper-plated steel cylinder usually also chrome plated 

### toenhance wear resistance. The image is in the form of cells or cups mechanically or chemically etched in the surface. Typically, a gravure cell is35 (.0014 inches) deep by 125 lrl (.005 inches) square, with 22,500 cells to the square inch.3 The gravure cylinder rotatesin an ink trough or fountain. Excess ink isremoved by a steel doctor blade. The ink in the cells isthen transferred 

### tothe web when it is pressed against the cylinder by a rubber-covered impression roll, as shown in Figure 2-2. Rotary gravure presses are called rotogravure presses. Rotogravure also requires very fluid inks. Solvent content ranges from 50 to 85 percent or higher. Typical solvents, include alcohols, aliphaticnapthas, aromatic hydrocarbons, esters, glycol ethers, ketones, nitroparaffins and water.3 Solvent isevaporated in low temperature driers, 38' to 93'~(loo0to 200'~). The hot air impringement dryers usually are indirectly heated by steam or hot air. Steam drum dryers are also used. 2.2.2.1 Uses for Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing and Coating Flexographic and gravure printing and coating applications fall into threemajor cateogries: publication, packaging and specialties. In the publ~ications field, magazines, mail order catalogues, brochures, newspaper supplements, comics and other commercial printing are printed by the gravure process. Packaging products predominantly printed by gravure, include cigarette cartons and labels, can labels, detergent cartons, and many other folding cartons. Flexography is typically used for bread bags, multi-wall bags, milk cartons, corrugated paper board, paper cups and plates, labels, tags, tapes and envelopes. Both printing processes are used for flexible film and foil to be used for overwraps or laminates, composite cans, carrier cartons, frozen food wraps, and giftwraps. In the specialty field, both flexography and gravure are used forwall covering and decorating household paper products such as towels and tissue. Gravure isused for floor covering, cigarette filtertips, vinyl upholstery,woodgrains, and a variety of other products. Gravure isalso used for applying accurately metered quantities of coatings to paper and other kinds of webs in various manufacturing operations where itsfast-drying inks and the ability toprint well on a wide variety of surfaces are advantageous.3 Recommended emissions 1 imitations from the coating uses of gravure are covered in other volumes of this guideline series, such
as Volume 11: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabric, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks, and Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. The recommended emission limitations given in this volume do not apply to these operations. 2.2.2.2 Nature of the Flexographic and Gravure Printinq Industries

# - Publication printing is done in large printing plants, numbering less than 50 in total.3 Package and specialty printing by flexography and gravure is done by a considerably larger number of companies, ranging from large integrated packaging companies with many press units of small captive operations with only one or two press units.3 It isestimated that there
n are from 13to 14 thousand gravure printing units7 and 30,000 flexographic printing units.5

2.3 STOCK FEEDING METHODS Presses are divided into two classes by feeding methods: sheet-fed and roll-fed. Stock fed from a roll isreferred to as a web. High volume roll presses are significant sources of VOC.
2.4 PRINTING INKS Printing inks are composed of the same type of ingredients as surface coatings: pigments, vehicles and solvents. Of course, they are tailored to have different properties than coatings. In addition to regulatory

### limitations required by EPA, OSHA, FDA, and USDA, the specifications for an ink are governed by a number of considerations such as: 

### (1) printing processes and methods; (2)

### kind of press; (3)paper or other substrate; 

### (4)drying process; (5) desired finish, matte, gloss, etc., (6)

### end use of the printed product; 

### (7)color; (8) 

### fabricationmethod to which the printed stock will be subjected; (9)

### sequenceof ink application, in multicolor printing.1 

### The solvent content of inks varies widely. Flexograph and gravure ink contain 50 to 85percent solvent and dry by solvent evaporation. Water- borne inks are used for special applications;they contain 5 

### to 30percent VOC solvent. The following solbents are representativeof 

### those used in printing inks, usually in combinations: To1uene Ethanol Xylene Butanol Heptane Glycols 

### Isooctane Glycol ether esters Mineral Spirits Glycol esters Naphtha Acetone Hexane Methyl ethyl ketone Propanol Isopropyl acetate Isopropanol Normal propyl acetate Methanol Ethyl acetate
POINTS Roll-fed printing presses require dryers to evaporate solvent in order to produce a product with immediate handleability. Solvent vapors are emitted from printing units and dryers. Some printing operations which utilize air pollution control equipment have the printing units hooded and vented to the control device. 2-62.5.1 Dryer Types A variety of dryer types are used including steam-heated and other indirectly heated designs. Direct-fired dryers aremainly high velocity/ hot air dryers. Steam-heated dryers are the principal type of indirectly heated dryers. Steam-heated dryers are of two types: drum and forced circulation dryers. Drum dryers are cylinders to which steam is applied. The printed web isbrought around the drum with the printed surface on the outside. The web isheated by conduction. In forced circulation dryers, air is heated by passing over steam coils or tubes and is circulated through the drying chamber by a fan(s).
2.6 NATIONAL EMISSIONS Data for a direct determination of the total national emissions from the printing industry are not available. However, a report by Gadomski2 contained data on the ink and solvent usage for 1968 from plants estimated to have 32 percent of the national total. Total ink usage for these p1an.t~ was 141 million pounds

## . Additional solvent for ink dilution and clean-up totaled 21 million gallons. Total solvent usage was 95,000 tons (87,000 Mg). From this the study suggested a 1968 national total usage of 300,000 tons (270,000 Mg). Assuming a three percent annual growth rate, the 1976 solvent usage rate would be 380,000 tons (340,000 Mg). The average degree of control isestimated to be 30 percent leaving uncontrolled emissions of 270,000 tons per year (240,000 Mg/yr)

# . The above report separated the ink consumption into a percentage for each printing process by the survey results and by a survey conducted by the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers. The additionalsolvent figures were also separated by printing process type. The three sets of figures were averaged to give the following breakdown: Percent of Emissions Process Emissions Mg/yr Gravure Lithography Letterpress F1 exography2.7 REFERENCES 1. Strauss, Victor, The Printing Industry. Printing Industries of America, Inc., Washington, D.C. 1967. 2. Gadomski, R. R., et. a1

## . Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies inthe Graphic Arts Industries, Phase I, Graphic Arts Technical Institute. August 1970. 3. George, H. F., Gravure Industry's Environmental Program. 

### In conference on Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use inPrinting Operations. EPA-5601/1-005. Office ofToxic Substances, Environmental ProtectionAgency, January 1976. pp 204-216 4. Long, R. P., and W. R. Daum, "Gravure Survey," Packaqe Printing Diecutting, January 1975, pp 12-14. Cited inReference 3. 5. Comment letterfrom the Flexographic Technical Association, November 27, 1978.3.0 APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMISSION REDUCTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) can be reduced by add-on control devices and by the use ofwater-borne and low solvent inks. Inthis chapter the applicability of these methods tothe various printingprocesses wi11 be reviewed. 3.2 ADD-ON EQUIPMENT Fume incinerators and carbon adsorbers are the only devices which have proven tohave a high efficiency incontrolling vapors from rotogravure and fl exographic printing operations. 3.2 .'l Carbon Adsorption Recovery ofsolvents by use of carbon adsorption systems has been successfu1 at a number of large publication rotogravure plants. The presses inquestion used a single, water immiscible solvent (toluene) or a mixture which isrecovered inapproximately the proportions used inthe ink. Three such plants were reported to have systems which recover 6,000 to 7,000 gal lons (20 to 23 Mg) per day of solvent each. 

### '*'3 These recovery systems
were installed for economic and regulatory reasons. Solvent isevaporated from the web inindirectsteam heated dryers which precludes any solvent decomposition. Regeneration isaccomplished by use ofsteam, followed by condensation and a simple decantation. Because the solvents are waterimmiscible a re1 atively simple system for separating condensed water and solvent ispossible.Some rotogravure operations, such as printing and coating of packaging materials, utilize inks and coatings containing complex solvent mixtures. Many of the solvents are water soluble. The solvents required for a folding carton operation, for example, consists ofto1uene, heptane, ethyl acetate, methyl ethyl ketone, and isopropyl alcohol. The lastthree are soluble inwater. If a carbon recovery system with steam regeneration were used, a disti11ation systemwould be required to recover and separate the watersoluble solvents. Since azeotropes (constant boilingmixtures) are formed, adequate separation would be very difficult. Inaddition, frequent product changes result invarying solvent combinations, making solvent recovery for reuse difficult and costly. However, reformulation of inks offers a possible method of avoiding the above difficulties. Many of the present solvent mixtures were developed to comply with Rule 66 of Los Angeles County and similar legislation. Because of EPA's 1977 policy statement on reactivity, it is now possible to revert to the simpler solvent mixtures used inthe past. Many printerswill be able to revert to a mixture of immiscible hydrocarbons and a single ester
or MEK, which could be reused as a mixture after dewatering. Itwill be practical formany packaging type printers to solve a large percentage of theiremission control requirements by the use of carbon adsorption and relatively simple dewatering techniques.4 A new type of carbon adsorption system offers another method of avoiding trouble with water soluble solvents. A fluidized bed carbon system, developed inJapan, isbeing marketed inthe United States. The carbon is inthe form of highly abrasion resistant carbon beads. Intheadsorbing section the beads cascade inthe fluidized state down a tray tower. Solvent laden airenters the bottom of the tower and leaves at the top. The beads then flow through the desorbing section ina dense bed where they are heated indirectly inthe presence of nitrogen which acts as a desorbing gas. The nitrogen isthen cooled inindirect heat exchangers to condense the solvent. The nitrogen isthen recycled tothe desorber. The following advantages are claimed for the fluidized bed system, relative to fix bed systems:



## . Better thermal efficiency



# . Lower blower power consumption



# . No mixing withwater at desorption



## . No valves or cycling equipment



## . less space required



# . Less susceptible to blinding



# . Can be regenerated at higher temperatures to remove high boiling materia1s A disadvantage of this system isthat relatively constant air volume must be maintained. Also the capital cost may be higher. Additional information on theory, design and practices concerning carbon adsorption systems isgiven inVolume I [EPA-450/2-76-028) of this guideline series

## .5 3.2.2 rnci neration Incineration destroys organic emissions by oxidizing them to carbon dioxide and water vapor. Incineration isa technically feasible method ofcontrolling emissions from all printing operations. Both direct flame (thermal) and catalytic incinerators are potentia1 methods of controlling emissions from flexography and packaging gravure printing. 3.2.2.1 Heat Recovery The cost of operating an incineration system can be substantia1ly reduced by the use of heat recovery equipment. Primary heat recovery uses the hot incinerator exhaust gases to preheat the dryer exhaust gases prior to incineration. A secondary heat exchanger can sometimes supply the heated air required tooperate the dryer. Cost data is given in Chapter 4for incineration systems with and without heat recovery. Incineration and heat recovery systems are described in Volume I (EPA-450/2-76-028) of this 5 series

## . In addition todirect-flame and catalytic incinerators

### ,a third type is available. Pebble bed incinerators combine the functions of a heat exchanger and a combusti

### on device. A diagram of such a system is shown in Figure 3-3. The solvent 1 aden exhaust from the dryers and floor sweeps enter one of the pebble beds which has been heated by the combustion chamber exhaust intheprevious cycle. Oxidation of the vapors starts in the preheat bed and is completed in the combustion chamber. The exhaust gases exit through a second pebble bed transferring heat to the pebbles. The dampers are reversed periodically, thereby alternating the functions of the two pebble beds.An incinerator having three or more pebble beds wi11 a1low one pebble bed to be removed from the process while the other two pebble beds
are acting as both theenergyrecovery after incineration and as air preheat prior to incineration. The use of the third pebble bed wi11 further a1low the residual fumes in that chamber to be flushed to the combustion
zone prior to flow reversal, thus providing the highest level of combustion efficiencies. Such flushing isnot possible if there are only two pebble beds. A diagram of a five bed system is shown in Figure 3-4. Pebble bed systems have been designed to achieve a heat recovery efficiency of 85 percent. When the vapor concentration is about 10 percent of the LEL, the burner throttles to a pilot light condition, the VOC fumes furnishing virtual1 y a11 of the fuel requirement during periods of continuous operation. Recovery of heat from incineration exhaust gases can also be accomplished by the use of liquid media heat exchangers. A system using hot oi1to transfer heat from the incinerator exhaust to the dryers has been installed on a number of rotogravure presses atpaperboard and bag printing plants. This system utilizes an organic vapor sensing device to control dampers in dryer exhaust so as to maintain a preset percentage of the Lower Explosive Limit (L.E.L.). Thus the exhaust rate isminimized, and the VOC furnishes the greater part of the heat to operate the incinerator. Also the incinerator furnishes the heat to operate the dryers. A sketch of such a system isshown in Figure 3-5. 3.3 USE OF LOW SOLVENT INKS FOR PACKAGING GRAVURE AND FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING Low solvent inks are of three types: water-borne, high-solids and radiation curable inks. Only water-borne inks are widely used atthe present time and are discussed in the following section. 3-63.3.1 Water-Borne Inks These inks are not completely solvent-free, as the vofatileportion contains up to35 percent water so1uble organic compounds. Water-borne inks

are used extensively in printing of corrugated paperboard for containers,
or multi-wall bags and other packaging materials made of paper and paper products. There is a limit upon the amount of water-borne ink that can be printed upon thin stock before paper will be seriouslyweakened. Thus, the expandeduse of water-borne inks faces this severe limitation. 3.4 SUMMARY 

### OF APPLICABILITY OFCONTROL METHODS The available control methods foreach of the printing methods are summarized inthe following sections. 3.4.1 Rotoqravure Pub1i cation rotogravure operations can be controlled by carbon adsorption systems with a capture efficiency of 75-85 percent of the VOC emitted from the printing units and the dryers. The carbon recovery system
can be operated with a recovery efficiency of 90 percent of the VOC entering the carbon beds. An overall emission reduction efficiency of 75 percent
can 

### thus be achieved. Packaging rotogravure printing operations can be controlled by incineration systems with an expected capture efficiency of 70-80 percent and a combustion efficiency of 90 percent. An overall emission reduction efficiency of 65 percent can thus be achieved. Some rotogravure packaging printing operations with less demanding qua1ity requirements can use water-borne inks. Most water-borne inks contain some VOC as a co-solvent. Emission limits comparable to carbon adsorption and incineration can be achieved if the solvent portion of the ink consists of 75 volume percent water and 25 volume percent organic solvent.3.4.2 Flexography Flexographic printing operations can be controlledby incineration systems with an expected capture efficiency of 65-70 percent and a combustion efficiency of 90 percent. Thus an overall emission reduction efficiency of 60 percent can be achieved. Some flexographic packaging printing operations can uti 1izewaterborne inks. Emission 1imits comparable to incineration can be achieved when the solvent portion of the ink consists of 75 volume percent water and 25 volume percent organic solvent.3.5 REFERENCES George H. F. 

### ,Gravure Industry's Environmental Program. In conference on Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use inPrinting Operations

# . - EPA-5601/1-75-005. Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, January 1976. pp 204-216 Watki

### ns

### ,8.G., and P. Marnel1

### ,Solvent Recovery in a Modern Rotogravure Printing Plant. In conference on Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use in printing Operations, EPA 5601/1-75-005. Office of Toxic Substances

### , Environmental Protection Agency. January 1976. pp. 344-355. Harvin, R. L., Recovery and Reuse of Organic Ink Solvents. In conference on Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use inPrinting Operations. EPA 5601/1-75-005 Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protecti

### on Agency. pp 367-387. January 1976. Comment letterfrom Michael J. Worral 

### ,American Ceca Corporation. November 30, 1978. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

# - Volume I: Control Methods 

### for Surface Coating Operations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N

# .C. 27711. November 1976. Study of Systems for Heat Recovery from Afterburners. Prepared forU.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Industria1 Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc. Stamford, Connecticut. Apri1 1978.4.0 COST 

### ANALYSIS 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.1.1 Purpose This section presents estimated installed capital and annualized costs forcontrol of volatileorganic compounds (VOC) from that portion ofthe graphic arts industry involved in flexographic and rotogravure packaging printing and rotogravure publication printing. The section also includes
an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the control methods. 4.1.2 Scope The analysis includes all the printing operations involved, i.e., the application and drying orcuring of inks. Cost estimates have been developed
on the basis of retrofitting VOC controls on existing plants. Two groups of printing processes areanalyzed. The firstuses flexographic and rotogravure processes on packaging. The second 

### uses the rotogravure processes to print publications. Light hydrocarbon emissions aregenerated by both groups. Various typical plant sizes (based on annual ink use) areanalyzed for both packaging and publication printing. Tables4-1 and 4-2 present the process parameters of the model sizes selected for the packaging and pub1ications groups, respectively. These parameters include exhaust gas volumetric flow rates and temperatures, control devices, and control efficiencies for each model plant. (Flow diagrams showing theplant configurations
arepresented in Chapter 2.) 4.1.3 

### Use of Model Plants Cost estimates developed forthis analysis arebased solelyon model plant configurations. Yearly ink usage of 

### the mode1 plant sizes selected for packaging printing are 7 Mg (7.7 tons), 40 Mg (44tons), 150Mg (165tons),__;f__- VOC VOC capture UdS flow. concentration, Uncontrolled VOC,. rate. PI"" Mg/yr (tons/yr) Mglyr (tonslyr) 28 (1000) 500 4.10 (4.50) 3.31 (3.65)

9 ( 330) 49 (120) 1500 4.10 (4.50 3.31 3.65) 28 (1000) 49 (120) 500 4.10 (4.501 3.31 13.65)

9 ( 330) 49 (120) I500 4.10 (4.50) 3.31 (3.65)



## ' Control etf~~iency

Volatilr Organic Compounds. IS 90 percent across ~nc~nerator. Ttlt.se Pdr-dlWterS dlso apply to pebble-bed Inc Inerato, a td~h prt.5~1, d>bullled to operate 30. ot the pldnt operatlny tl~le. lh5rd oft soivrlt content of the 1111, 65 percent by VOIUII~ and 58.5 percent by welght. Nulrculdr welytlr of solvent. 92.TABLE 4-2. PROCESS PARAMETERS AND FLOW RATES FOR MODEL PLANT

-CONFIGURATIONS, PUBLICATION ROTOGRAVURE, 

### wITH CARBON ABSORPTION FOR VOC~

## CONTROL^

- -. - YOC VOC capture Gas temp.. concentrat~orr. Uncontrolled VOCd. rate,

OC (OF) DD~I Wyr(tons/vr) Wyr(tons/yr) 

# I (3860) rmo 11420 (io.000)

a Volatlle Organlc Compounds.

Control efflcirncy 1s 90 percent across tn'lnerator. Each press 1s assumed tooperate 50 percent of the plant operating tlme. Bdsed on solvent content of Ink, 65 percent by volume and 58.5 percent by welght. Molecular weight of solvent, 92.400 Mg (440tons), and 2500 Mg (2750 tons). For publication printing, the yearly ink usages are 3500 Mg (3860 

### tons) and 7000 Mg (7720 tons). Because factors such as width and operating speed of the printing machinery influence control costs atactual facilities, actual costs for specific plant sizes will vary. Nevertheless, cost estimates based on model plants areuseful for comparing control a1ternatives. 4.1.4 Bases for Capital Costs Installed capital costs represent the total investment required for installing retrofit emission control systems on existing presses; they include the cost 

### of equipment, material, labor for equipment erection, and other associated costs. These estimated costs reflect mid-1978 dollars and
arebased on equipment costs obtained from equipment vendors.1-6, 8-10 The control equipment is assumed to be mounted on structural steel above grade
or roof; the ducting requirement isbased 

### on equipment that is installed within 100meters (350 ft)ofthe press.' The installation costs have been estimated on instal1 ed material requi rements. No attempt has been made to include either production losses during installation and startup, or research and development costs. Table 4-3 presents the bases and assumptions used in estimating capital costs. 4.1.5 Bases forAnnualized Costs Annualized costs represent the cost of operating and maintaining control systems and the cost of recovering the capital investment required for these systems. They include direct costs such as utilities, materials, labor, and- - 

### TABLE 4-3. 

### BASES 

### FOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES


### All costs are expressed in mid-1978dollars. The afterburners have a 0.5-second residence time and a 746°C (1375°F) incineration temperature. Afterburners and carbon adsorption systems have a VOC emission reduction efficiency of 90percent. The initial carbon for bedding is included in capital costs. Capital investment includes: Basic control equipment Auxiliary equipment (e.g., hoods, ducts) Fuel oil storage for 10 

### days operation Installation of basic and auxiliary equipment Removal of existing equipment, as required Contingencies Contractor's fee, taxes, and other indirect costsmaintenance; indirect costs such as taxes, insurance, depreciation, interest rate, administration, and permits; and adjustments such as credits for recovered solvents. Table 4-4 presents bases and assumptions used to estimate annualized costs. 4.2 VOC CONTROL IN THE PRINTING INDUSTRY 4.2.1 Model Plant Parameters Costs were developed for thermal incinerators with and without 40 percent primary heat recovery on flexographic and rotogravure packaging, and for carbon adsorption control on rotogravure publication printing processes. In addition, the costs for thermal incinerators with heat recovery were compared to costs for identically sized pebble bed incinerators. 4.2.2 Control Costs The capital and annualized costs and cost-effectiveness ratios of thermal incinerators for VOC control on flexographic and rotogravure packaging model plants are presented in Tables 4-5 through 4-9; costs of carbon adsorption systems 

### on rotogravure publication model plants are presented in Table 4-10. The respective cost data are plotted against mode7 plant ink usage in Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3. Finally, Table 4-11 displays these data for pebble bed incinerators. In packaging printing, the incinerator with a primary heat recovery system requires a larger capital investment than one without primary heat recovery. Because primary heat recovery reduces fuel costs, the savings therefrom increase proportionately with volumetric flow rate and VOC concentration. In packaging printing, incineration for each model plant size has been evaluated attwo gas flow rates, the smaller rate being one third of the larger. These 1ower rates are considered attainable withminor modifications to press-- TABLE 4-4.

Description Annualized costs Installation type Press operating time

Utilities

No. 2 fuel oila
Electricity

Steam
Operating labor Maintenance Labor
Material Unit cost

0.105/liter (S0.3961gal)
0.0266/kWh

59.02/Mg ($4.10/103 lb) $8.66/h
S9.53/h
89.53 

### BASES 

### FOR ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES

Basts for costs and other comnents One year period comnencingmid-1978 Retrofit 1000 h/yr or 250 dayslyr at 4hlday; 2000 h/yr or 250 dayslyr at 8h/day; 3000 h/yr or 250 days/yr at 12 h/day; 4000 h/yr or 250 days/yr at 16 hlday $O.l05/liter ($0.396/gal); based upon transport lots of 27,250 liters (7200 gal) delivered from Midwest terminal EPA-23013-77-015b report cost for iron and steel industry Based on 80% efficiency ; includes I&' for facilities, maintenance, depreciation, and othersb Includes 20% for fringes Hourly rate at 10: premium over operating labor $9.53/h Average (over 1ife of equipment)material costs equal to labor costs
Carbon beds: annual allowance for 5-year 1ife, 10% of the equipment capital cost
10% interest rate and 10 years equip- ment 1ife

Reclaimed solvent for use of diesel or fuel oil

1000 Btu/lb x S0.396/gal t (140,000Btu/gal x 0.8 eff.) $4.10/103 lb steam. Misc. maint., parts and material Capital recovery

factor 16.275% of capital cost Taxes and insurance 2% of capital cost Administration and

permits 2% ofcapital cost Adjustment creditc

a Assumed to be the only fuel used by all systems. In other words: 1000 Ib steam x = $354/103 lb steam plus 16; = Where applicable.C TABLE 4-6. COST OF VOC CONTROL BY THERMAL INCINERATOR AT PLANT USING 40 Mg (44 tons)OF INK PER YEAR (Mid-1978 dollars) Without heat With 40% primary recovery heat r covery 1500 ppma 500 ppma 1500 ppma Equipment costb Installedcapital costb Direct operating cost Annualized capital charges Total annualized cost
Pollutants controlled at90% control device efficiency, Mglyr (tonslyr Cost-effectiveness of pollutant controlled, $/Mg ($/ton)

a VOC concentration by volume inemissions gas stream. References 1, 2, 5, 6, 7. Primary heat recovery reduces fuel consumption.TABLE 4-7. COST OF VOC CONTROL BY THERMAL INCINERATOR AT PLANT USING 150 Mg (165 tons) OF INK PER YEAR (Mid-1978 dollars) Without heat With 40%primary recovery heat recovery
Equipment costb Installedcapital costb Direct operating cost Annualized capital charges P I 

# - Total annualized cost 0 Pollutants controlled at 90% control1 device efficiency, Mg/yr (tonslyr) Cost-effectiveness of pol1 utant controlled, BIMg ($1 ton)

a VOC concentration by volume inemissions gas stream. b References 1, 2, 5, 6, 7. L Primary heat recovery reduces fuel consumption.--- I TABLE 4-8. COST OF VOC CONTROL BY THERMAL INCINERATOR AT

Equipment costb Instal1 ed capital costb Direct operating cost Annualized capital charges 

### P Total annualized cost
4 4 Pollutants controlled at 90% control device efficiency, (tonslyr) Cost-effectiveness of pollutant controlled, $/Mg ($/ton) PLANT USING 400 Mg (440 tons) OF INK PER YEAR (Mid-1978 do1lars)

Without heat With 40%primary recovery heat recovery 500 ppma


## -- 1500 ppma

77,000 95,000 228,000 224,000 247,300 33,600C

46,200 45,400 293,500 79,000

- Mglyr

L a VOC concentration by volume inemissions gas stream. References 1, 2, 5, 6, 7. C Primary heat recovery reduces fuel consumption.TABLE 4-9. 

### COST OF VOC 

### COUTROL BY THERMAL 

### INCINERATOR AT PLANT USIAG 2500 My (2753 tons) !IF INK PER YEAR (Mid-1978 do1lars) Without heat With 40%primary recovery heat recovery 500 ppma 1500 ppma 500 ppma



## -

# - 1500 ppma Equipment cmtb 351,000 24O,OOO Installed capital costb 1,110,000 568,000 Direct operating cost 1,440,500 168,300C Annualized capital charges 225,000 115,200 Total annualized cost 1,665,500 283,500

-.- Pollutants controlled at 90% 1,008 control device efficiency, Mg/yr (tons/yr) (1,125) Cost-effectiveness of 1,650 pollutant controlled, $/My ($ton) (1,4801



# -
a VOC concentration by volume inemissions gas stream. References 1, 2, 5, 6, 7. Primary heat recovery reduces fuel consumption.TABLE 4-10. COST OF VOC CONTROL BY CARBON ADSORBER FOR PUBLICATIONS ROTAGRAVURE PRINTING (Mid-1978 dollars) Plant using 3500 Mg Plant using 7000 Mg (3860 tons) of ink per yr (7720 tons) of ink peryr
Equipment costb Installed capital costb Direct operating cost Recovered solvent (credit) 

### f 

# - Annualized capital charges Csr Total annualized cost
Pollutants controlled at 90% control device efficiency, Mg/yr (tonslyr) Cost-effectiveness of pollutant controlled, $/Mg ($/ton)

a VOC concentration by volume inemissions gas stream. References 3, 4.ANNUAL PLANT INK USAGE, Hg/yr (ton/yr) Figure 4-1. Capital and annualized costs of thermal incinerator

without heat recovery for VOC control atexisting graphic arts plant using flexographlc and rotogravure printing process for packaging.Figure 4-2. Capital and annualized costs of thermal incinerator with 50% primary heat recovery for VOC control at existing graphic arts plant using flexographic and rotogravure printing process for packaging. 1000 * L * 

# - 

# - 0 0 '0 E m ul ¶ 0 c U cD 1 1 1 I I I '



# - - - 

# - - - -
-

h cn 

# -

V)IV) 0 v 100- W N I 2 

### 3 2 3 a 0 2 

### 2 II. Q 

### 5 ...a 

# ... 

# ............. ....... ...(I" ..a 

### - 

## .... - O'.'' -


## .... ......... -



## ..... ................ 

# .... -



## .......... a -



## ............ - .* 0"""



# ........ 

# - CAPITAL COST - 

# *' .d* 

## .----- ANNUAL1ZED COST 

### . 

## - d.' EMISSIONS AT 500 ppn VOC 0 EMISSIONS AT 1500 ppn YOC

### - 

## -enclosures. Significant modifications to enclosures or the addition of highvelocity airjets could reduce ventilation rates 

### to one-sixth that of the unimproved, and could increase VOC concentration proportionately. This reduction inflow rates significantly reduces the control system capita1 cost for all plants. The capital cost reductions for the model plant sizes of 7 Mg/yr (7.7 tonslyr)

### ,40 Mg/yr (44tons/yr)

### , 150 Mg/yr 

### ( 165 tons/yr)

### ,400 Mg/yr (440 tons/yr), and 2500 Mg/yr (2750 tons/yr) are, respectively: lo%, lo%,41%,36%,and 67%for incinerators without heat recovery; and €4,13%,23%,31%, and 67%for incinerators with 40%primary heat recovery. For all model plants, these lower capital costs effect proportional reductions in annualized capital charges. This 66%reduction in the volumetric flow rate (with an accompanying trebling of VOC concentration)
causes reductions in the direct annual operating costs (fuel

### ,electricity, etc.) for the respective model plant sizes of: 50%,65%,70%,72%, and 74%for incinerators without heat recovery; and 37%,60%, 78%,75%,and 78%for incinerators with40%primary heat recovery. In other words, for a given model plant size, smaller incinerators are less expensive than larger ones to buy and operate. The addition of primary heat recovery equipment to incinerators increases the capital cost, but reduces annual fuel consumption proportionately with the operating hours. Neither the 7Mg/yr (7.7 tons/yr) plant nor the 40 Mg/yr (44 tons/yr) plant operates enough hours per year 

### torealize an annualized cost savings from heat recovery, relative to the corresponding thermal incinerator without heat recovery. For the larger plants operating more hours per year, however, the incinerators with heat recovery have lower annualized costs than those without heat recovery.The effect of heat recovery on total annualized cost is also illustrated by Figures 4-1 and 4-2. As these figures show, the annualized costs are less than 25%of the capital costs of incinerators with or without heat recovery for the smallest model plant. As the plant size increases to the largest model plant size, however, the annualized costs exceed capital costs for those without heat recovery, but the addition of heat recovery reduces the annualized costs 

### to less than the corresponding capital costs. Table 4-10 lists capital and annualized costs for carbon adsorption systems. Although the capital cost increases with plant size, smaller volumetric flow rates may effect reductions in both capital and operating costs for a given model plant size. For example, a 50 percent reduction in volumetric flow rate for the 3500 Mg/yr (3860 tonslyr) plant reduces the capital cost from $701,000 to $435,000, and reduces the annualized capital charges from $142,100 to $88,200. The sol vent recovery credits

are $170,100 for both volumetric flow rates, since the VOC emissions from the presses are based on the same hourly emission rate and the same annual operating hours. The direct operating costs are reduced from $100,800 and $82,900 solely because less electric power is required for the lower volumetric flow rate. It is important to note that neither the steam requirements for desorbing nor the cooling water required for condensing the steam and desorbed VOC isreduced, because both are related to the VOC collected and not the volumetric flow rate. In all, the total annualized cost is reduced from $72,800 to $1000 for

### a 3500 Mg/yr (3860tons/yr) model plant. If thismodel plant were operated more hours per year, or ata faster line speed, the recovery credits could result in negative total annualized costs. For example, the 7000 Mg/hr (7720tonslyr) plant, operating 4000 hours per year and emitting VOC at a concentration of 2400 ppm, has a negative annualized cost of $41,700. (See Figure 4-3. ) Installed and annualized costs for pebble bed units are shown in Table 4-11. Installed and operating costs for these units were obtained from a vendor.'-lo However, because the vendor's estimates did not include ductwork, foundations, or fuel oil storage, his figures were adjusted 

### to include costs for these auxi1 iaries.11 Costs for labor, fuel, power, and maintenance were computed using parameters supplied by the vendor and unit costs from Table 4-4. As with thermal incinerators, a ten-year operating lifewas assumed. As Table 4-11 shows, the installed costs for pebble bed units range from $118,000 to $1,500,000 for the 7.0 Mg/yr (1500 ppm stream) and 2500 Mg/yr (500 ppm stream) model plants, rexpectively. For most plant sizes, these costs are 10

### to 34 percent lower than those for incinerators with primary heat recovery (seeTables 4-5 to 4-9). The cost differences, however, are not significant relative 

### to the precision of these study estimates. The annualized costs, which vary widely, depend, in general 

### ,on the plant size, but on the gas flowrate and VOC emission rate in particular. As with thermal incinerators, the annualized capita1 charges 'accounts formore than one-half of the total annualized cost. Nonetheless, itmustCAPITAL COST ANNUALIZED COST EMISSIONS AT 1200 0 EMISSIONS AT 2400bpn(

NOTE

## - THESE HAY NOT BE STRAIGHT-LINE RELATIOHS. A STRAIGHT LINE ISUSED BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY

# i

TWO DATA POINTS.

ANNUAL PLANT INK USAGE, Mg/yr (ton/yr)
Figure4-3. Capital and annualized costs of carbon adsorption VOC control 

### atexisting graphic artsplant

using rotogravure printing process forpublications.(Hid-1978 do1lars)

-. - ---- -
..- - - Plant size installed Direct Annualized Total

ink use, VOC capital operating capital annualized VOC Cost-effectiveness, Ilg/~r concentrat ion, cost, cost, charges, cost, controlled, $/Mg ($/ton) 4tonslyr) PP $ $/Yr $/yr S/Y r Wyr(tons/yr) VOC controlled

7- 7.0 (7.7) 500 121,000 1,500 118,000 l46.000 1 35,000 268.000 167,000 391,OOO 202,000 1.500,OOO

585,000

a References 8 to 11. Designed for 85%primary heat recovery. Costs based on 90%device control efflclency; however, according to a vendor, a pebble bed incinerator can remove as much as 98 to 99%of the VOC.be emphasized that the pebble bed incinerator vendor claims a very high primary heat recovery (85to go%),versus 40%for the thermal incinerator. Thus, the pebble bed's fuel cost constitutes an even lower percentage of itstotal annualized cost. Indeed, in some cases, the fuel requirements-- and costs--are negligible. Shown inTable 4-11, the annualized cost ranges from $26,600 to $478,000 per year for the smallest and largest plant sizes. These costs are significantly lower than those for the thermal incinerator with primary heat recovery. The incinerator costs range from $33,700 to $1,117,000 per year. Now, the costs in Table 4-11 correspond to an 85%heat recovery, a fairly typical value. If the recovery were boosted to 90%,the annualized costs would decrease modestly in most cases. However, in some instances the annualized costs would increase, because the higher heat recovery units would require larger pebble beds which would, in turn, drive up their installed costs

## . 4.2.3 Cost-effectiveness The cost-effectiveness ratio (in this report) isdefined as the total annualized cost per annual unit of pollutant controlled. The annual amount of pollutant controlled depends on control device efficiency and total operating hours. By definition, the lower the ratio, the better the costeffectiveness. The cost-effectiveness ratios and efficiencies of the control systems and the quantities of pollutant controlled are shown in Tables 4-5 through 4-10 for thermal incinerators and carbon adsorbers, and in Table 4-11 for pebble bed incinerators. Figures 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 present cost-effectiveness
curves for thermal incinerators on packaging printing processes and carbon adsorbers on publication printing processes.EMISSIONS AT 500 ppcn VOC o EMISSIONS AT 1500 ppn VOC

Figure 4-4. Cost-effectiveness of thermal incineration without heat recovery for VOC control of rotogravure printing process at graphic arts plant.EMISSIONS AT 500 ppm VOC 0 EMISSIONS AT 1500 ppn VOC 12 

## 3 m L U E 9 U E -- 10- Y C Y a C 

# - 8

Figure 4-5. Cost-effectiveness of thermal incineration control with

40 percent heat recovery for VOC of rotogravure printing process atgraphic arts plant. I I I 1 I I I ?


## - Q



# -

- I I W'S a $1 r 

# - -x 1 I I I I 

### x:s 7 0

# , 100 200 300 400 500 (110) (220 (330) (550) (16%) (2750) 1500 (440 2500 ANNUAL PLANT INK USAGE, Mg/yr (ton/yr)EMISSIONS AT 1200 PPm VOc o EMISSIONS AT 2400 PPm VOC

NOTE 

### - THESE MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT-LINE RELATIONS. A STRAIGHT-LINE ISUSED BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY ' TWO DATA POINTS.

ANNUAL PLANT INK USAGE. M/yt (tonlyr)

Figure 4-6. Cost-effectiveness of carbon adsorption control for rotogravure printing process at graphic arts plant.Data show that the cost-effectiveness of control systems improves with plant size. Because thermal incinerator costs are based on the same efficiency for all plant sizes, their cost-effectiveness isenhanced by increased plant operation and control utilization. As shown inFigure 4-5 and discussed inSection 4.2.2, the incinerator with heat recovery isless cost-effective than a system without heat recovery for the two smaller packaging printing plants analyzed, and ismore cost-effective for the three larger plants. The cost-effectiveness ratiofor thermal incinerators with heat recovery decreases from $12,5OO/Mg ($11,37O/ton) atthe smallest plant to $280/Mg ($250/ton) at the largest plant, based
on the 90%control device efficiency. The cost-effectiveness of controlling the publication printing process also improves as the plant size increases. Specifically, the costeffectiveness ratiodecreases from $51/Mg ($46/ton) atthe srnal1 est pl ant to a negative $15/Mg ($13/ton) atthe largest plant, based on this same 90%control device efficiency. Lastly, because itsannualized costs are consistently lower than those for identically-sized thermal incinerators with heat recovery, the cost-effectiveness of pebble bed incinerators isalso better. Itscosteffectiveness ratiodecreases from $9,26O/Mg ($8,40O/ton ) to $130/Mg ($120/ton) as the plant size goes from smallest to largest.REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Stamford, Connecticut. Study of Systems for Heat Recovery from Afterburners. Prepared for Chemical and Petroleum Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, under Contract No. 68-02-1473, Task No. 23. October 1977. C-E Air Preheater, Combustion Engineering, Wellsville, New York. Report of Fuel Requirements, Capita1 Cost, and Operating Expense for Catalytic and Thermal Afterburners. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-1473, Task No. 13. December 1973. Personal communication from Derek Oaks, Hoyt Manufacturing Corporation, Westport, Massachusetts, to Art Knox, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. August 1978. Personal communication from K. A1len Napier, Oxy-Catalyst, Inc.

### ,ResearchCottrell, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, to

### Art Knox, PEDCo Environmental, Inc.

### ,Cincinnati, Ohio. February 23, 1978. Personal communication from Dennis Snyder of Smith Environmental, South Elmonte, California, toArt Knox, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. August 23, 1978. Personal communication from Carol Paulette of C-E Preheater Division, Wellsville, New York, toArt Knox, PEDCo Environmental, lnc., Cincinnati, Ohio. August 30, 1978. R.S. Means Company. Building Construction Cost Data 

# - 1978; and Mechanical and Electrical Cost Data

# - 1978. Duxburn, Massachusetts. Personal communication from R.L. Pennington, REECo, Inc., Morris Plains, New Jersey, to E.J. Vincent, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air QualityPlanning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., October 27, 1978. Personal communication from W.M. Vatavuk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air QualityPlanning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., to R.L. Pennington, REECo, Inc., Morris Rlains, New Jersey. November 13, 1978. 10. Ibid. November 20, 1978. 11. Personal communication from W.M. Vatavuk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air QualityPlanning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., toArt Knox, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. November 22, 1978.5.0 ADVERSE AND BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OFAPPLYING CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 5.1 INCINERATION Incineration is applicab1e to packaging gravure and flexographic printing operations which use conventional solvent-borne inks. The principal disadvantage is the use of scarce and increasingly expensive fuel. Fuel consumption can be minimized by the inclusion of heat recovery equipment in the design. Primary heat exchangers can reduce fuel usage to some extent. Hypothetically, the use of pebble bed incinerators with their inherently effective heat recovery systems can reduce fuel usage substantially. At current fuel prices the annualized cost of the heat recovery system will be greater than the fuel saving and there wi11 be a net increase in operating cost. 5.2 CARBON ADSORPTION Carbon adsorption systems can recover solvent for reuse in ink manufacture. Thus, a valuable and increasingly scarce material can be conserved. Steam stripping isthe usual method for removing adsorbed solvent from the carbon beds. If water soluble solvents are used in the inks, the condensed steam wi11 contain organics which wi11 require the additional expense of pretreatment faci 1 ities. This disadvantage isnot present inthe recently developed fluidized bed carbon adsorption system in which desorption is achieved by indirect heat and nitrogen gas.6.0 MONITORING TECHNIQUES AND ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS
In the majority of cases the suggested emission limits will probably be met by incineration and carbon adsorption systems. The basic problem of the control official is determining that the control device is operating correctly. A measurement of efficiency across the device could be required when the unit is installed. (One test may be adequate when several identical units are instal1ed)

## . A thermal incinerator which initially shows a high combustion efficiency wi11 probably continue to perform we11if operated atthe same or greater temperature. A11 incinerators should be equipped with temperature indicators; recorders shouldbe required for 1arger instal1 ations

## . The range instrument of 1200~ to 1800~~ wi 11 cover thermal incinerators; catalytic units seldom operate at less than 600' or more than 1200~~. The sensing elements should be shielded from direct f 1 ame radiation. Other incinerator parameters are fixed by the design, e.g., there is no need to monitor residence time or mixing velocity. For catalytic incinerators

### , the temperature rise across the catalyst bed should be measured during the initial test for combustion efficiency. This temperature rise reflects the activity of the catalyst (but may also vary with process variables and materia1 input changes in the process)

## . Temperature sensors should be installed on both the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed to provide a continuous indication of catalyst activity.To assure satisfactory operation of carbon adsorbers, itisnecessary 

### toregenerate the carbon beds at intervals sufficientto prevent "breakthrough". Breakthrough is the point 

### atwhich VOC starts to appear inthe exit gases in significant concentrations. The regeneration cycle is controlled by three methods: 1) a sequence timer, 2) a vapor detector, 3) both a sequence timer and a vapor detector. A sequence timer isthe simplest control method. The length of the adsorption period is determined by trial 

### at thehighestVOC concentrations likely to occur. This method can be wasteful of steam, as regeneration will often be performed before the bed is fully loaded. On the other hand, if the cycle is made 

### too long 

### ,breakthrough wi11 often occur. A vapor detector sensitive to 50 

### to 100 ppm is sufficient formost applications. The detector may actuate an audible or visible alarm only, with the regeneration operations being performed manually. Or the detector may actuate 

### an automatic control mechanism for performing the regeneration operation. This method is the more economical of steam, as regeneration is done only when the bed is loaded 

### to the maximum allowable level. However, if the detector malfunctions extended breakthroughs could occur. The combination system is always fully automatic. The sequence timer is setfor 

### a period of average VOC concentration. During periods of higher than average VOC concentration the vapor detector wi11 initlate the regeneration. The timer wi11 act as a back-up device in case of amalfunction of the vapor detector. Most system at publication rotogravure plants
are of this type.

### I TECHNICAL REPORT DATA :PleasereadInsnuctionson rhereverse belorecompleting) 1. REPORTNO. 13. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION 1\10.

!4. TITLE

. ... - - 

### Control of Volatile Orqanic Emissions trom txisting 

# 1 December 1978 

### I stationary Sources

# - Volume VIII: Graphic:

### Arts

# - 6. PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONCODE 

### Rotogravure and F1exography

7.AUTHOR(S) 18. PERFORMINGORGANIZATION REPORT NO. 

### Edwin 

### J. Vincent OAQPS No. 1.2-109 William M, 

### Vatavuk 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONNAMEANDADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENTNO. 

### U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office ofAir, Noise and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

# I11.CONTRACT/GRANTNO. 

### Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 12. SPONSORINGAGENCY NAMEANDADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORTANDPERIODCOVERED I14.SPONSORINGAGENCY CODE I

15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16.ABSTRACT 

### This document provides guidance for development of regulations to limit emissions of volati1

### e organic compounds from rotogravure and flexographic printing operations. This guidance includes recommended control requirements for carbon adsorption and incineration systems which representReasonably Avai1able Control Technology for these operations, Provisions for the potential compliance by 

### use of water-borne and high-solids inks are recommended. The industry is described, methods for reducing organic emissions are reviewed, and monitoring and enforcement aspects are discussed.

1 17. KEYWORDSANDDOCUMENT ANALYSIS a. DESCRIPTORS Ib.IDENT lFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS 

# Ic. COSATIField/Group I I 

### Air Pollution Air Pollution Control Pub1i

### cation Rotogravure Printing Packaging Printing Industry Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Limits Stationary Sources OrganicVapors Regulatory Guidance

18. OlSTRlEUTlON STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS(ThisReporr) 21. NO. OF PAGES 

### Unclassified 52 20.SECURITY CLASS/Thispage) 22. PRICE 

### Un1

### imited Unclassified I €PAForm2220-1 (Rev.4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION isOBSOLETE