-------
EPA-453/D-95-001
CONTROL OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS
FROM OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
DRAFT
EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION
CHEMICALS AND PETROLEUM BRANCH
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
SEPTEMBER 1993
c,-t?1 Protection Agency
U.S. Em-ironmettel re _
Region 5 Liorary ^ L-UJ
-------
NOTE
The EPA estimates that State and local regulations
developed pursuant to this draft CTG would affect about
34,500 facilities and reduce volatile organic compound
emissions by about 468,000 tons per year at a cost of about
$110,000,000 per year (assuming no savings from reduction of
alcohol used in fountain solution). Further information on
costs and controls is presented in the draft CTG document.
The EPA requests comments from the public on all aspects of
the draft CTG including the recommendations for reasonably
available control technology (RACT) and the estimated cost of
control.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chanter Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.3 MODEL PLANTS 2-4
2.4 EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES 2-4
2.4.1 Add-On Controls , 2-5
2.4.2 Process Modification 2-5
2.4.3 Material Reformulation or
Substitution 2-6
2.5 MODEL PLANT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSION ESTIMATES 2-7
2.5.1 Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Inks 2-7
2.5.2 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Fountain Solution 2-8
2.5.3 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
} from Cleaning Solutions 2-9
" 2.5.4 Reduction of Volatile Organic
} Compound Emissions from
x Heatset Inks 2-9
2.5.5 Reduction of Volatile Organic
^ Compound Emissions from Fountain
vS Solution 2-9
-> 2.5.6 Reduction of Volatile Organic
~JL Compound Emissions from Cleaning
* Solutions 2-10
2.6 COSTS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONTROL
TECHNIQUES 2-10
2.6.1 Costs of Add-On Controls for
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Heatset Inks 2-10
2.6.2 Costs of Reducing Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Fountain
Solution 2-11
2.6.3 costs of Reducing Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Cleaning
Solutions 2-13
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
2.7 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
FOR CONTROL OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS FROM OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC
PRINTING 2-13
2.7.1 Heatset Ink* 2-13
2.7.2 Fountain Solution 2-13
2.7.3 Cleaning Solutions 2-14
2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REASONABLY
AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2-14
2.9 CONCLUSIONS 2-15
2.10 REFERENCE 2-15
3.0 INDUSTRY PROFILE AND MODEL PLANTS 3-1
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PRINTING INDUSTRY 3-1
3.2 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PROCESS AND
APPLICATIONS 3-2
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC
PRINTING PRESSES 3-4
3.3.1 Types of Presses 3-4
3.3.2 Press Size and Number of Units . . . 3-12
3.4 COMPONENTS OF STANDARD OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC
PRESSES 3-13
3.4.1 Infeed Section 3-13
3.4.2 Printing Units 3-20
3.4.3 Inking Systems 3-20
3.4.4 Dampening Systems 3-24
3.4.5 Dryers and Chill Rolls 3-28
3.4.6 Folders and Sheeters 3-31
3.5 INKS, FOUNTAIN SOLUTION, AND CLEANING
SOLUTIONS 3-36
3.5.1 Inks 3-36
3.5.2 Fountain Solution 3-39
3.5.3 Cleaning Solutions 3-41
3.6 MODEL PLANTS 3-42
3.6.1 Estimated Raw Material Use 3-46
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Pacre
3.7 REFERENCES 3-49
4.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 ADD-ON CONTROLS 4-1
4.2.1 Thermal Incinerators 4-2
4.2.2 Catalytic Incinerators 4-7
4.2.3 Condenser Filter Systems 4-11
4.3 PROCESS MODIFICATION 4-15
4.3.1 Refrigerated Fountain Solution
Systems 4-15
4.3.2 Water Conditioning Devices 4-17
4.4 MATERIAL REFORMULATION OR SUBSTITUTION . . . . 4-17
4.4.1 Fountain Solution 4-17
4.4.2 Cleaning Solutions 4-19
4.5 REFERENCES 4-20
5.0 EMISSION ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES 5-1
5.1 PRINTING INKS . . . 5-1
5.1.1 Ink Use 5-1
5.1.2 Baseline (Uncontrolled) Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions
from Inks 5-2
5.1.3 Reduction of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Ink 5-4
5.2 FOUNTAIN SOLUTION 5-6
5.2.1 Isopropyl Alcohol and Nonalcohol
Additive Use 5-6
5.2.2 Baseline (Uncontrolled) Volatile
organic Compound Emissions from
Fountain Solution 5-6
5.2.3 Reduction of Alcohol in Fountain
Solution 5-7
5.2.4 Refrigerated Fountain Solution
Systems 5-11
5.2.5 Use of Alcohol Substitutes 5-12
5.2.6 Magnetizing the Fountain Solution . . 5-12
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
5.3 CLEANING SOLUTIONS 5-13
5.3.1 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Cleaning Solutions 5-13
5.3.2 Reduction of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Cleaning
solutions 5-14
5.4 REFERENCES 5-16
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND SELECTION OF
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 6-1
6.1 COSTS OF ADD-ON CONTROLS FOR EMISSIONS
FROM INKS 6-1
6.1.1 General Cost Considerations 6-1
6.1.2 Thermal Incinerator Cost Methodology 6-3
6.1.3 Catalytic Incinerator Cost
Methodology 6-6
6.1.4 Condenser Filter Cost Methodology . . 6-8
6.1.5 Comparison of Add-On Control System
Costs 6-8
6.2 COSTS OF CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
FOUNTAIN SOLUTION 6-10
6.2.1 Material Reduction or Substitution
Costs 6-10
6.2.2 Costs from Use of Refrigerated
Circulators 6-11
6.2.3 Costs from Use of Magnets 6-11
6.3 COSTS OF CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
CLEANING SOLUTIONS 6-15
6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONTROL
TECHNIQUES 6-15
6.4.1 Air Quality Impacts 6-is
6.4.2 water Quality Impacts 6-21
6.4.3 Solid Waste Production 6-21
6.4.4 Energy Impacts 6-22
6.4.5 Summary 6-23
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
6.5 SELECTION OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY 6-23
6.5.1 Background 6-25
6.5.2 Heatset Infcs 6-26
6.5.3 Fountain solution 6-26
6.5.4 Cleaning Solution 6-26
6.5.5 Request for Comment 6-27
6.6 REFERENCES 6-27
7.0 FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN IMPLEMENTING
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 DEFINITIONS 7-2
7.3 APPLICABILITY 7-3
7.4 FORMAT OF THE STANDARDS 7-4
7.5 EMISSIONS TESTING 7-6
7.6 EQUIPMENT STANDARDS 7-7
7.6.1 Fountain Solution 7-7
7.6.2 Refrigeration Equipment 7-8
7.6.3 Cleaning Solution 7-8
7.7 MONITORING 7-8
7.7.1 Control Devices 7-8
7.7.2 Fountain Solution Alcohol
concentration 7-9
7.7.3 Fountain Solution Additive
Concentration 7-10
7.7.4 Fountain Solution Temperature . . . . 7-io
7.7.5 Cleaning Solution Concentration . . . 7-11
7.8 REPORTING/RECORDKEEPING 7-11
7.9 POTENTIAL TO EMIT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS . 7-11
7.9.1 Ink 7-12
7.9.2 Fountain Solution 7-12
7.9.3 Cleaning Solution 7-12
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
APPENDIX A - CONTACTS A-l
APPENDIX B - EMISSION ESTIMATION B-l
APPENDIX C - COST CALCULATIONS C-l
APPENDIX D - OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING CTG
MODEL RULE D-l
APPENDIX E - ESTIMATED NATIONAL IMPACTS OF
RECOMMENDED RACT ON FACILITIES IN
NONATTAINMENT AREAS E-l
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
3-1 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING MODEL PLANTS 3-44
3-2 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC NEWSPAPER (NON-HEATSET WEB)
MODEL PLANTS 3-45
3-3 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING MODEL PLANTS -
ANNUAL PRODUCT USE . 3-47
3-4 NEWSPAPER (NON-HEATSET WEB) MODEL PLANTS -
ANNUAL PRODUCT USE 3-48
5-1 MODEL PLANT PRODUCT USE AND BASELINE
(UNCONTROLLED) VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS (AVERAGE TONS PER YEAR) 5-3
5-2 CONTROL VERSUS BASELINE (UNCONTROLLED) VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS FROM INKS IN
HEATSET MODEL PLANTS 5-5
5-3 ESTIMATES OF BASELINE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS FROM FOUNTAIN SOLUTION AND THE
REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A VARIETY OF
CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 5-8
5-4 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS AND
REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER VOC CLEANING
PRODUCTS (TONS PER YEAR) . 5-15
6-1 GENERAL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADD-ON
CONTROL DEVICES 6-2
6-2 CAPITAL COST FACTORS FOR ADD-ON CONTROL
DEVICES 6-5
6-3 ANNUAL COST ASSUMPTIONS FOR ADD-ON CONTROL
DEVICES 6-7
6-4 COST RESULTS FOR MODEL PLANTS WITH ADD-ON
CONTROL SYSTEMS 6-9
6-5 ANNUAL SAVINGS AND VOC REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH FOUNTAIN SOLUTION MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION
OR REDUCTION FOR THE MODEL PLANTS 6-12
6-6 COST DATA FOR REFRIGERATED CIRCULATORS 6-13
6-7 COST ANALYSIS FOR THE MODEL PLANTS WITH
REFRIGERATED CIRCULATORS 6-14
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
6-8 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF MAGNETS
FOR REDUCTION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS FROM THE FOUNTAIN SOLUTION IN THE
MODEL PLANTS 6-16
6-9 COST ANALYSIS FOR THE USE OF LOWER VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUND CLEANING SOLUTIONS IN THE
MODEL PLANTS 6-17
6-10 AIR AND ENERGY IMPACTS FOR MODEL PLANTS; WITH
ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES 6-19
6-11 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL PLANTS WITH FOUNTAIN
SOLUTION REFRIGERATED CIRCULATORS 6-24
B-l ESTIMATION OF THE EVAPORATION RATE OF ISOPROPANOL
AT SIX TEMPERATURES AND THREE DIFFUSION PATH LENGTHS B-10
C-l DESIGN BASIS FOR ADD-ON CONTROLS ON HEATSET PRESSES C-2
C-2 INTERMEDIATE COST RESULTS FOR MODEL PLANTS WITH ADD-ON
CONTROLS C-4
E-l ESTIMATED NATIONAL EMISSIONS AND COSTS OF RACT FOR
CONTROL OF VOC'S FROM INK E-l
E-2 ESTIMATED NATIONAL EMISSIONS AND COSTS OF RACT FOR
CONTROL OF VOC'S FROM FOUNTAIN SOLUTIONS E-2
E-3 ESTIMATED NATIONAL EMISSIONS AND COSTS OF RACT FOR
CONTROL OF VOC'S FROM CLEANING SOLUTIONS E-3
E-4 TOTAL ESTIMATED NATIONAL VOC EMISSION IMPACTS OF RACT
FOR OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING E-4
E-5 TOTAL ESTIMATED NATIONAL COST OF RACT FOR OFFSET
LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING E-5
E-6 TOTAL ESTIMATED NATIONAL COSTS OF RACT FOR OFFSET
LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING, INCLUDING SAVINGS E-6
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Schematic of a printing unit 2-2
3-1 Circulation of daily newspapers in 1988 3-5
3-2 An in-line printing unit (single blanket) 3-6
3-3 Schematic diagram of lithographic common-
impression-cylinder press 3-8
3-4 Horizontal and vertical blanket-to-blanket
web offset presses 3-9
3-5 Distribution of plants by number of
heatset presses 3-10
3-6 Distribution of plants by number of
non-heatset presses 3-11
3-7 Distribution of heatset presses by size 3-14
3-8 Distribution of non-heatset presses by size .... 3-15
3-9 Distribution of heatset presses by number of
printing units 3-16
3-10 Distribution of non-heatset presses by number of
printing units 3-17
3-11 Successive-sheet and stream feeding in
sheet-fed presses 3-19
3-12 Schematic diagram of blanket-to-blanket
printing 3-21
3-13 Schematic of a typical inking system 3-22
3-14 MacPhee Dampening Classification system 3-25
3-15 Schematic of a brush dampening system 3-26
3-16 Schematic of a conventional contacting
dampening system 3-27
3-17 Continuous contacting dampening system 3-29
3-18 Fountain solution circulation system 3-30
3-19 High-velocity hot air nozzles 3-32
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure Page
3-20 High-velocity hot air dryer 3-33
3-21 A chill stand 3-34
3-22 Progress of printed paper from dryer
to delivery 3-35
4-1 Discrete burner, thermal incinerator 4-3
4-2 Distributed burner, thermal incinerator 4-5
4-3 Catalytic incinerator 4-8
4-4 Condenser filter system 4-12
4-5 Refrigerated fountain solution circulators 4-16
B-l Isopropanol evaporation rate vs. temperature for
three estimated diffusion path lengths (25 wt% IPA) B-ll
B-2 Percent reduction in IPA evaporation raite with
three estimated diffusion path lengths B-12
xii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments require that
State implementation plans (SIP's) for ozone nonattainment
areas be revised. The revisions will require the
implementation of reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for control of volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from sources for which the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has already published control
techniques guidelines (CTG's) or for which EPA will publish a
CTG between the date of enactment of the Amendments and the
date an area achieves attainment status.
Section 172(c)(l) of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires
nonattainment area SIP's to provide, at a minimum, for "such
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as
may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology....11 The EPA defines
RACT as presumptively: "The lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility" (44 FR 53761,
September 17, 1979). The EPA has elaborated in subsequent
Federal Register notices on how States and the EPA should
apply the RACT requirements (see 51 FR 43814, December 4, 1989
and 53 FR 45103, November 8, 1988).
The CTG's are intended to provide State and local air
pollution authorities with an information base for proceeding
with their own analyses of RACT to meet statutory
requirements. The CTG's review current knowledge and data
concerning the technology and costs of various emission
control techniques.
1-1
-------
Each CTG contains a "presumptive norm" for RACT for a
specific source category, based on the EPA's evaluation of the
capabilities and problems general to that category. Where
applicable, the EPA recommends that States adopt requirements
consistent with the presumptive norm. However, the
presumptive norm is only a recommendation, states may choose
to develop their own RACT requirements on a case-by-case
basis, considering the economic and technical circumstances of
an individual source. Note that no lavs or regulations
preclude States from requiring more control than recommended
as the presumptive norm for RACT. A particular State, for
example, may need a more stringent level of control to meet
the ozone standard or to reduce emissions of a specific toxic
air pollutant.
This CTG is 1 of at least 11 that the EPA is required to
publish within 3 years of enactment of the Amendments. It
addresses RACT for control of VOC emissions from offset
lithographic printing. This document is currently in draft
form and is being distributed for public comment. The EPA
solicits comments on all aspects of this draft CTG including
the controls recommended as RACT and the estimated cost and
cost-effectiveness of these controls per facility (Chapter 6)
and on a nationwide basis (Appendix E). Public comments will
be reviewed and incorporated as judged appropriate before the
EPA finalizes the CTG.
1-2
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Offset lithographic printing has a broad range of
applications, including books, magazines, periodicals, labels
and wrappers, catalogs and directories, financial and legal
documents, business forms, advertising materials, newspapers,
newspaper inserts, charts and maps, calendars, tickets and
coupons, greeting cards, and stamps.
None of the above applications are exclusive to offset
printing; other modes of printing in the graphic arts industry
can produce items such as those mentioned above. However, the
newspaper industry uses offset lithography predominantly, with
over 70 percent of all newspapers in the United States printed
by this method.
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Lithography is a planographic method of printing; that
is, the printing and nonprinting areas are essentially in the
same plane on the surface of a thin metal "lithographic"
plate. The distinction between the areas is maintained
chemically: when the lithographic plate is made, the image
area is rendered water repellent, and the nonimage area is
rendered water receptive.
In offset lithographic printing, ink is transferred from
the lithographic plate to a rubber-covered "intermediate," or
"blanket," cylinder and then to the substrate. Transfer of
the ink from the lithographic plate to the blanket cylinder,
rather than directly to the substrate, is the offset
characteristic of this type of printing.
A printing press is made up of a number of printing
units, from 1 to 12. Figure 2-1 is a schematic of an offset
2-1
-------
Ink Fountain
Plat* Cylinder
Blankat Cylinder
Inking Rollers
Dampening Roller
Fountain Solution
Substrate
Figure 2-1. Schematic of a printing unit.
2-2
-------
lithographic printing unit. Printing units are available that
print both sides of the substrate at the same time (a process
known as perfecting), as well as only one side (known as
nonperfecting).
Offset lithographic printing is also characterized by the
form in which the material to be printed on (the substrate) is
fed to the press. In sheet-fed printing, individual sheets of
paper or metal are fed to the press. In web printing,
continuous rolls of paper are fed to the press and the paper
is cut to size after it is printed.
Lithographic inks are composed of pigments, vehicles,
binders, and other additives. The pigments provide the
desired color and are composed of organic and inorganic
materials. Lithographic inks may be heatset, where heat is
required to set the ink, or non-heatset, where the inks are
set by absorption into the substrate, by oxidation, or by
other non-heatset methods. Heatset inks may contain up to
45 percent VOC's. Non-heatset inks have higher boiling points
than heatset inks and are less pasty. They usually contain
below 35 percent VOC's. Most non-heatset inks used in
sheet-fed printing are below 25 percent VOC.
A "fountain solution" is applied to the lithographic
plate to render the nonimage areas unreceptive to ink. Since
printing inks are oil-based, the fountain solution is
water-based. The fountain solution contains small quantities
of gum arabic or synthetic resins, acids and buffer salts to
maintain the pH of the solution, and a wetting agent or
"dampening aid" to enhance the spreadability of the fountain
solution across the print plate. The role of the dampening
aid is to reduce the surface tension of water as well as
increase viscosity.
Isopropyl alcohol (IPA), a VOC, has been used as the
dampening aid since the 1950's. The concentration of alcohol
in the fountain solution can range from 0 to 35 percent (by
volume) or higher, with the concentration in most presses
falling between 15 and 20 percent.
2-3
-------
Cleaning solutions are used to remove excess printing
inks, oils, and paper components from press equipment. The
solutions are petroleum-based solvents, often mixed with
detergent and/or water. The cleaning compound may be a single
solvent, such as kerosene, or a combination of solvents.
Cleaning solutions are used to wash the blankets, the rollers,
and the outside of the presses. A general purpose cleaner may
not work well for every job.
2.3 MODEL PLANTS
Model plants were developed to evaluate the potential
ranges in VOC emissions from the different types of offset
lithographic printing and the different processes involved in
producing a printed product. Model plants for the following
four types of printing were used to represent the industry:
(1) heatset web, (2) non-heatset web (non-newspaper),
(3) non-heatset sheet-fed, and (4) newspaper non-heatset web.
The model plants ranged in size from small to large, and
comprised from 1 to 10 presses and from 1 to 120 individual
units. These model plants were developed to represent a range
of sizes and emission potentials, and are not meant to
characterize the printing industry. State and local agencies
are advised to use actual plant data whenever possible.
In practice, any of the four types of model plants
described above can be combined under one roof to form one
facility made up of different printing processes or
"sub-facilities." For instance, a company may have a
medium-size sheet-fed operation and a small heatset web press.
However, the possible number of combinations of two-, three-,
and four-model sub-facilities in one facility is too large for
the purposes of this discussion; therefore, State and local
agencies are advised to treat each sub-facility as a separate
unit in terms of strategies for VOC emission control.
2.4 EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES
There are three sources of VOC emissions from offset
lithographic printing: (1) exhaust from the hot air dryers
used to set heatset inks, (2) dampening aids used in fountain
solution, and (3) cleaning solutions.
2-4
-------
Mechanisms to control VOC emissions from lithographic
printing presses can be categorized as:
• Add-on controls;
• Process modifications; or
• Material reformulation or substitution.
2.4.1 Add-On Controls
Add-on control devices can be grouped into two broad
categories: combustion control devices (destructive) and
recovery devices (nondestructive). Combustion control devices
are designed to destroy VOC's in the vent stream prior to
atmospheric discharge; recovery devices limit VOC emissions by
recovering material for reuse.
The heatset web offset lithographic printing industry
employs three basic add-on control devices: (1) thermal
incinerators, (2) catalytic incinerators, and (3) condenser
filter systems. According to several vendors, the field is
dominated by incineration, with catalytic incineration being
slightly more popular. Incineration can achieve approximately
98 percent VOC removal.
The condenser filter systems currently in use have been
designed specifically for the heatset web offset printing
industry. Solvents recovered from condenser filter systems
can be burned in the dryers or boilers as supplemental fuel.
Condenser filter systems can achieve as high as 97 percent VOC
removal efficiency, although about 90 percent is typical.
With the addition of activated carbon canisters on the outlet
of the filter exhaust, 95 percent removal can be readily
achieved.
2.4.2 Process Modification
Process modifications are changes in operational methods
or equipment resulting in improved VOC control. The
modifications may involve retrofitting existing equipment or
replacing older equipment with new technology to accommodate
the process change.
Cooling a fountain solution that contains IPA is one
process modification that reduces the evaporation of IPA and,
hence, VOC emissions from the fountain. Refrigerated
2-5
-------
circulators are available that cool the fountain solution to a
pre-set temperature, usually from 55 to 60°F. This also gives
operators better control of ink emulsification and hot weather
scumming, and stabilizes the ink/water balance by minimizing
alcohol evaporation. Refrigeration of fountain solution trays
has been shown to reduce alcohol consumption by as much as
44 percent.
Another process change is a new device that has been
introduced to the printing industry that reduces the use of
dampening aids in the fountain solution. The device
magnetizes the fountain water and reduces its surface tension
so that less alcohol is needed. Over 200 units are reported
to be in use in the United States. Preliminary data show that
alcohol consumption can be greatly reduced with this device,
although a small amount of alcohol may be needed for startup.
Despite the early success of this device, current use in the
industry is limited, with some facilities reporting no
reduction in the need for alcohol.
2.4.3 Material Reformulation or Substitution
Material reformulation includes the use of nonalcohol
additives in the fountain solution dampening system and lower
VOC cleaning solutions.
2.4.3.1 Fountain Solution. A large portion of the VOC
emissions from the model plants was due to the IPA used in the
fountain solution. Nonalcohol additives (or alcohol
substitutes) have been developed in recent years to replace or
minimize the amount of alcohol used in a fountain solution.
Nonalcohol additives are made up of glycol (such as ethylene
or propylene glycol, glycol ethers, or proprietary compounds)
that are chemically similar to alcohol, with the same surface
tension reducing ability but a more complex structure.
Nonalcohol additives have a higher boiling point and a lower
volatility than traditional dampening aids. The additives are
incorporated in small quantities (from 2 to 4 ounces to
1 gallon of water) to produce a final fountain solution that
is less than 3 percent VOC. Some of the additives have
2-6
-------
recently been classified as hazardous air pollutants (HAP's)
by the EPA in the CAA Amendments of 1990.
Depending on the printing process variables, difficulties
have been reported in totally replacing alcohol with alcohol
substitutes. Some printers assert that they cannot function
without some alcohol in their fountain solution; however, the
National Association of Printers and Lithographers (NAPL) and
other printers believe that a commitment by management could
result in lower alcohol use rates. The newspaper industry has
successfully used nonalcohol additives.
2.4.3.2 Cleaning Solutions. A few cleaning solutions
are available with a lower VOC content than traditional
cleaning compounds, which are often 100 percent VOC. However,
some lower VOC cleaning products contain HAP's. The VOC
content of the lower VOC products without HAP's ranges from
0 to 30 percent. Lower VOC cleaning products that do not
contain HAP's are carried by only a few vendors at this time.
These products contain organic compounds that are not VOC's.
2.5 MODEL PLANT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION ESTIMATES
2.5.1 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Inks
Ink use for the model plants was estimated from ink usage
rates derived from surveys and other sources of information on
the industry. The estimated average ink use for the model
plants ranged from 1 to 14 tons per year (tpy) for non-heatset
sheet-fed facilities, from 77 to 618 tpy for non-heatset and
heatset web facilities (non-newspaper), and 10 to 2,155 tpy
for newspaper facilities (non-heatset web).
The VOC emissions from ink use for the model plants were
determined from the amount of ink used, the average amount of
VOC in the ink, and the amount of VOC retained on the
substrate. For heatset model plants, the VOC content of the
ink was estimated at 40 percent VOC. Using a substrate
retention factor of 20 percent VOC for heatset ink, the
corresponding VOC emissions from the heatset model plants due
to ink use ranged from 25 to almost 200 tpy.
For the non-heatset model plants, the substrate retention
factor of VOC was estimated at 0.95, since the inks are
2-7
-------
designed to dry by absorption or oxidation and not by
evaporation of the ink oils. With an estimated VOC content of
30 percent for non-heatset web inks (non-newspaper), the
estimated VOC emissions from the non-heatset web model plants
from ink use ranged from less than 1 to 11 tpy. For
non-heatset sheet-fed model plants, using an estimated VOC
content of 25 percent in the ink, the VOC emissions from ink
use were estimated to range from 0.02 to 0.25 tpy. Ink use
rates for newspaper model plants were estimated based on
information provided by industry and range from 10 to almost
2,200 tpy. The VOC emissions from ink use were calculated
from ink use rates, a 10 percent VOC content for news inks,
and a 0.95 VOC retention factor by the substrate. Estimated
emissions ranged from 0.10 ton to 11 tpy.
2.5.2 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Fountain
Solution
Isopropyl alcohol is assumed to be completely volatilized
within the fountain solution delivery system because of the
heat and work of the system on the solution. Volatile organic
compound emissions from IPA use, therefore, are equal to the
amount of alcohol used.
The estimated use of IPA for the model plants was based
on alcohol-to-ink ratios obtained from an industry survey.
The estimated use rate in the model plants ranged from 1 to
almost 600 tons of alcohol per year, according to the size and
type of facility. This use rate was estimated to correspond
to a baseline alcohol concentration in the fountain of
17 percent (by volume) in heatset web and non-heatset sheet
model plants, and 10 percent alcohol in non-heatset web model
plants.
Use of nonalcohol additives for the model plants
representing newspaper facilities also was estimated using
information obtained from an industry survey. The estimated
use of nonalcohol additives in the newspaper model plants
ranged from almost 1 tpy for the smallest model plant to
151 tpy for the largest facility. The nonalcohol additives
were estimated to be 10 percent VOC; therefore, VOC emissions
2-8
-------
estimates for the newspaper facilities ranged from 0.1 to
approximately 15 tpy, from the smallest facility to the
largest, respectively.
2.5.3 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Cleaning
Solutions
Estimated cleaning solution use for the model plants was
based on rates estimated from industry surveys. Because
cleaning compounds used for offset lithographic printing are
approximately 100 percent VOC, the VOC emissions associated
with use of cleaning compounds for the model plants are egual
to the amount of cleaners used. The estimated cleaning
solution usage for the model plants and, consequently, VOC
emissions from cleaning solutions ranged from 1 to 55 tpy,
depending on the size and type of facility.
2.5.4 Reduction of Volatile Organic Emissions from Heatset
Inks
Controlled levels of VOC emissions from inks were
calculated based on application of four types of add-on
controls: (l) thermal incinerators, (2) catalytic
incinerators, (3) condenser filters with activated carbon, and
(4) condenser filters without carbon. A 98-percent efficiency
was used for incinerators, 95 percent was used for condenser
filters with carbon, and 90 percent was used for condenser
filters without carbon. Estimated controlled VOC emissions
for the model plants ranged from 1 to 20 tpy, depending on the
size of the facility and type of control device.
2.5.5 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Fountain Solution
Controlled VOC emissions from the model plants were
estimated for fountain solution with alcohol levels at 10, 5,
3, and 0 percent (by volume), as compared with 17 or
10 percent alcohol in the baseline (uncontrolled), depending
on the type of facility. The estimated VOC emissions at the
reduced levels of alcohol were proportional to the amount of
alcohol remaining in the fountain solution. The controlled
VOC emissions calculated for the model plants using magnetism
in the fountain solution corresponded to 0 and 3 percent
2-9
-------
alcohol, where the higher level represented the use of alcohol
for startup.
Emission reductions with refrigeration of the fountain
were also estimated for the model plants with alcohol
concentrations of 17, 8.5, 5, and 3 percent (by volume).
Estimates of controlled VOC emissions for alcohol reduction
and/or refrigeration ranged from a low of zero emissions for
total elimination of alcohol to a high of approximately
311 tpy for the largest heatset web model plant operating with
17 percent alcohol and refrigeration of the fountain.
The reduction in VOC emissions with the use of alcohol
substitutes was estimated for the model plants that did not
use nonalcohol additives in the baseline (all non-newspaper
model plants). Because of the low volatility of the alcohol
substitutes, refrigeration was not considered in conjunction
with alcohol substitutes, since cooling does not contribute to
additional control. The estimated after-control emissions for
the model plants (non-newspaper) with the use of alcohol
substitutes ranged from 20 pounds per year to approximately
6 tpy, depending on the type and size of the facility.
2.5.6 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Cleaning Solutions
Some lower VOC cleaning compounds (norihazardous) are
available with VOC contents ranging from 0 to 30 percent (by
weight), as used. Controlled VOC emissions with the use of
lower VOC cleaning compounds in the model plants were
estimated to range from less than 0.5 to over 16 tpy,
depending on the baseline level of cleaning solution use.
2.6 COSTS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
2.6.1 Costs of Add-On Controls for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Heatset Inks
Design assumptions, costing equations, and price quotes
for removing VOC's emitted from heatset inks and contained in
dryer exhaust streams, were obtained from vendors with
extensive experience with the industry. Capital and annual
costs were estimated for the addition of thermal incinerators,
2-10
-------
catalytic incinerators, and condenser filters to the heatset
model plants.
The cost analyses used for thermal and catalytic
incinerators followed the methodology outlined in the OAQPS
Control Cost Manual.1 Equipment cost correlations were based
on data provided by the various vendors. Annual costs for the
add-on controls include operating and maintenance costs, as
well as annualized capital charges. With condenser filters,
solvent recovery credits were included because the condensed
VOC can be used as fuel.
The cost analyses for the model plants show that the
annual costs of adding incinerators range from approximately
$75,000 to $351,000 per year for 24 to 194 tons of VOC
removed, for small to large model plants, respectively.
Thermal incinerators are slightly more costly (approximately
10 percent) than catalytic for the same VOC reduction
potential. The use of condenser filters with carbon was
estimated for the model plants to cost approximately $69,000
to $290,000 for small to large facilities, respectively, for
23 to 188 tons of VOC removed. Condenser filters without
carbon have lower costs in general (but lower VOC reduction
potentials), ranging from approximately $50,000 to $230,000
for 22 to 178 tons of VOC removed, for small to large plants,
respectively.
2.6.2 Costs of Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Fountain Solution
2.6.2.1 Material Reduction or Substitution. Reducing
the use of alcohol in the fountain solution results in a
savings of $920 per ton of alcohol not used. Nonalcohol
fountain additives, or alcohol substitutes, although more
expensive than alcohol ($1.55 per pound), save money because
they are used in lower quantities.
Reducing alcohol or switching to substitutes may not be
an easy transition for some printers. An industry-wide
concern is the potential for lost production and the
retraining time that may be necessary. The process change may
2-11
-------
also result in paper and material waste, especially during the
transition.
Such "changeover costs" will likely differ for each
facility, depending on the type of mechanical equipment
currently in place. Sheet-fed presses may be the most
difficult to change because of the high variability and number
of products printed, each of which requires press resetting.
Although these changeover costs are recognized, it is believed
that such costs will decrease substantially after printers
become accustomed to the new regime. Material cost savings
eventually may outweigh initial costs.
The estimated potential savings of alcohol reduction or
substitution in the fountain solution for the model plants
ranged from approximately $500 to almost $13,000 per year,
depending on the size and type of the facility and the level
of alcohol reduction.
2.6.2.2 Refrigeration of the Fountain. Refrigerated
circulators cool the fountain solution to a preset
temperature, usually from 55 to 60°F, thus reducing the amount
of alcohol needed to maintain the same concentration of
alcohol in the fountain. For the model plants in the
baseline, where 17 percent alcohol is used in the fountain,
the estimated cost of using refrigeration to control VOC
emissions ranged from an expenditure of approximately $80,000
per year to a savings of almost $232,000 per year, depending
on the size and type of facility.
Because sheet-fed presses are very small sources of
fountain emissions, the cost of applying refrigerated
circulators to these plants is extremely high, with net costs
ranging from $12,000 to $80,000 per year for small to large
plants, respectively. Refrigerated circulators were not
applied to newspaper model plants, because nonalcohol
additives are used in newspaper facilities and refrigeration
does not help because nonalcohol additives have a much lower
evaporation rate as compared with even cold alcohol.
2.6.2.3 Magnetizing the Fountain Solution. Adding
magnetism to the fountain solution may reduce the alcohol
2-12
-------
needed in the fountain. The magnets' costs are low
(approximately $350 each), with insignificant installation
costs.
Most printing facilities will show a net savings with the
successful use of a magnet because of the savings in alcohol.
The estimated cost of adding magnets to the fountain solution
system in the model plants ranged from approximately $200 to
almost $8,000 per year, depending on the size and type of
facility. This cost may be reduced by the decrease in alcohol
use; the magnitude of the savings depends on the alcohol
concentration before and after the magnets are applied (see
Section 2.6.2.1 above).
2.6.3 Costs of Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Cleaning Solutions
Lower VOC cleaning compounds that do not contain HAP's
are priced slightly higher than traditional offset
lithographic cleaning compounds. The incremental costs of
using these lower VOC (without HAP's) cleaning solutions in
the model plants were estimated to range from approximately
$550 to $24,000 per year, depending on the size and type of
model plant.
2.7 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR CONTROL OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS FROM OFFSET
LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from
heatset inks, fountain solution, and cleaning solution used in
offset lithographic printing are discussed below.
2.7.1 Heatset Inks
The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from
dryer exhaust is a 90-percent reduction in VOC's.
2.7.2 Fountain Solution
2.7.2.1 Heatset Web Printing. The recommended level of
control for VOC emissions from fountain solution is equivalent
to 1.6 percent alcohol (by volume) in the fountain; it may be
achieved by actually reducing to 1.6 percent or less (by
volume). It also may be achieved with 3 percent alcohol or
less (by volume) if the fountain solution is refrigerated to
2-13
-------
below 60°F. Higher levels of control can be achieved by using
alcohol substitutes or less alcohol in the fountain.
2.7.2.2 Sheet-fed Printing. The recommended level of
control of fountain solution emissions in sheet-fed facilities
is equivalent to 5 percent alcohol (by volume) in the
fountain. It may be achieved by actually reducing alcohol to
5 percent or less (by volume). It also may be achieved by
refrigerating a fountain solution that contains 8.5 percent
alcohol. Higher levels of control can be achieved by using
alcohol substitutes or less alcohol.
2.7.2.3 Non-heatset Web. The recommended level of
control for VOC emissions from non-heatset web facilities is
the use of nonalcohol additives or alcohol substitutes (less
than 3.0 percent additive by volume in the final solution).
2.7.3 Cleaning Solutions
The recommended control of VOC emissions from cleaning
solutions is the use of cleaners with less than 30 percent (by
weight) VOC, as used.
2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
Controlling VOC emissions from offset lithographic
printing presses will significantly reduce the amount of air
pollution introduced into the environment.
Controlling VOC's in the dryer exhaust by incineration
was estimated to increase air emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) at an estimated rate of 0.1 to 2.8 tons of NOX per year
for the model plants, with high NOX emissions associated with
thermal as opposed to catalytic .incineration. Using condenser
filters to control dryer VOC exhaust will reduce the amount of
fuel consumed during printing because the collected solvents
can be used as fuel for the dryers. If reduced demand for
fuel is translated into a conservation of energy resources,
the air pollution associated with fuel production will be
reduced. Some additional energy is required to operate the
additional fans and controls for the add-on controls, as well
as for refrigerated circulator systems. This may result in
minor additional environmental impacts.
2-14
-------
Catalysts and carbon used in add-on controls in heatset
printing will result in a small (insignificant) increase in
solid waste because of periodic disposal requirements. Use of
condenser filters may increase the load to water treatment
facilities (to a small extent) because of the inability to
completely separate out ink oils.
2.9 CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the model plant analyses, the main source
of VOC emissions in offset lithographic printing facilities
appears to be alcohol used in fountain solution. Uncontrolled
exhaust from heatset ink drying is the second largest source
of emissions (in heatset facilities only). The VOC emissions
from cleaning solutions generally are less than those from
inks or fountain solution, and are estimated to range from
3.0 to 50 percent of the total VOC emissions from any one
facility.
2.10 REFERENCE
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS Control
Cost Manual. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication
No. EPA-450/3-90-006. January 1990.
2-15
-------
3.0 INDUSTRY PROFILE AND MODEL PLANTS
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PRINTING INDUSTRY
The printing industry, sometimes called the graphic arts
industry, is included under the major industrial category
Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries (Standard
Industrial Classification [SIC] 27),x which includes all
commercial, publishing, and newspaper printing.
In terms of employment, the printing industry is the
sixth largest manufacturing industry in the United States.
In 1986, the industry provided over 500,000 jobs, with a
combined payroll exceeding $11 billion. Between 1976 and
1986, the average employment growth rate for the printing
industry was 79 percent; the manufacturing industry's growth
as a whole during that period was only 8 percent.2
The printing industry is largely made up of small
businesses. In 1986, it comprised 30,564 businesses, with
over 90 percent of commercial printing establishments
employing fewer than 50 people, and over 65 percent employing
fewer than 10.2
Printing ranks as one of the top 10 manufacturing
industries in 37 States. California, New York, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, and Ohio account for 38 percent of the
industry's employment and 41 percent of its annual payroll.
In Illinois, printing is the largest manufacturing industry,
and it continues to grow despite Illinois' declining
2
manufacturing sector. On a regional basis, 57 percent of the
printing industry is concentrated in the North Central
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin), North Atlantic
3-1
-------
(New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania), and Pacific (Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington) regions.2
Printing processes include letterpress, flexography,
rotogravure, screen, and offset lithography. In March, April,
and May of 1990, offset lithographic printing made up
approximately 64 percent of the SIC 27 category, based on
number of employees.3
3.2 OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS
Unlike other printing processes, which use raised or
recessed surfaces to print the image, lithography is a
planographic method of printing; that is, the printing and
nonprinting areas are in the same plane on the surface of a
thin metal "lithographic" plate. The distinction between the
areas is maintained chemically. When the lithographic plate
is made, the image area is rendered oil receptive and water
repellent, and the nonimage area is rendered water receptive.
A fountain containing water-based solution is used to dampen
the lithographic plate in the water receptive areas.
During printing, ink is transferred first from the ink
reservoir, or fountain, to ink rollers, and then onto the
lithographic plate. The ink is transferred from the
lithographic plate to a rubber-covered blanket cylinder. The
blanket cylinder then prints the ink image onto the substrate.
Transfer of ink from the lithographic plate to the
intermediate blanket cylinder, rather than directly to the
substrate, is the offset characteristic of lithographic
printing.
Offset lithographic printing can be done using two
generic types of ink: heatset inks, which are dried by heat,
or non-heatset inks, which are not heated. In the heatset ink
printing process, the printed substrate passes through a
heated dryer to solidify (set) the printing inks by
evaporating the ink oils. In the non-heatsset ink process, the
inks dry by absorption into the substrate, by oxidation, or by
other non-heat processes.* Inks are discussed in further
detail in Section 3.5.
3-2
-------
Two types of systems to feed the substrate to the print
rolls may be used: (1) web, where paper is fed to the press
in a continuous roll and the product is cut to size after the
web is printed; and (2) sheet-fed, where individual sheets of
paper or metal are fed to the printing press.
Offset lithographic printing presses are any of three
types: heatset web, non-heatset web (newspaper and
non-newspaper), or non-heatset sheet-fed. Presses are
discussed in detail in Section 3.3.
The lithographic process is used for a broad range of
printing applications, including books, magazines,
periodicals, labels and wrappers, catalogs and directories,
financial and legal documents, business forms, advertising
brochures, newspapers, newspaper inserts, charts and maps,
calendars, tickets and coupons, greeting cards, and stamps.
One type, heatset web, is employed mostly for printing
publications such as magazines, catalogs, and books, and for
various commercial jobs (e.g., calendars).6 Non-heatset web,
on the other hand, is generally used to print newspapers,
business forms, and miscellaneous commercial items such as
newspaper inserts and multicolored catalogs. Non-heatset
sheet-fed presses are typically employed for most types of
commercial printing, such as paper packaging boxes (cereal,
etc.), greeting cards, and metal decorating.6 The most
commonly used substrates are paper, paperboard, metal,
supported foil, and film.
Newspapers are predominantly produced by the non-heatset
web offset lithographic process. Over 70 percent of the
newspapers printed in 1987 were offset, with the remainder
being produced by the letterpress printing process.8 Many
newspapers are planning to convert from letterpress to offset
Q
lithography in the future.
Preliminary figures indicate that daily newspapers were
published in 1,516 cities Nationwide in 1989 (1,626 daily
newspapers and 847 Sunday papers), with a total combined
circulation of close to 62 million. Eighty-four percent of
3-3
-------
daily newspapers have circulations of under 50,000.9
California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have the highest
number of daily newspapers.1 Figure 3-1 shows the
distribution of daily newspapers in 1988 by circulation rate.9
Circulation rate can be used as a rough estimate of facility
size. The population of weekly newspapers is in excess of
7,000 papers for over 3,100 presses.
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PRESSES
This section provides an overview of the types and sizes
of offset presses used in commercial lithographic printing,
synthesized from surveys conducted by two affiliates of the
Printing Industries of America, Incorporated: the Web Offset
Association (WOA) and the Non-Heatset Web Section (NHWS). The
WOA surveyed 552 companies operating heatset web presses; NHWS
surveyed approximately 702 companies operating non-heatset web
presses. The surveys represent approximately 80 percent of
all offset lithographic web presses currently in operation.
3.3.1 Types of Presses
3.3.1.1 Web Presses. Web offset printing presses are
available in three designs: in-line presses, common-
impression-cylinder (CIC) presses, and blanket-to-blanket
presses. The designs differ mostly in the configuration of
the printing unit. Each unit can print a different color on
the substrate.
Printing on one side of the substrate is called
"non-perfecting;" printing on both sides is called
"perfecting." Non-perfecting presses have only one blanket
per unit. Perfecting presses usually have two blankets per
unit, although a single-blanket unit can be used to print on
the reverse side by flipping the substrate over.
In-line presses can print only one side of the web and
are used mainly for printing business forms. An in-line press
printing unit (Figure 3-2) consists of the inking system,
fountain dampening system, plate cylinder, blanket cylinder,
and impression cylinder.1
3-4
-------
\
CM
oq
d
to
o
i
d
t
co
8*
s
2
'~i
ll
CM
d
co
CO
a
us
a
to
a)
c
C
o
• H
4J
(0
rH
3
U
U
I
n
0)
i_!
3
(spuBsnom)
jededsMON
3-5
-------
Dampening System
Inking Sysrtem
Plate Cylinder
Blanket Cylinder
Substrate
Impression Cylinder
Figure 3-2. An in-line printing unit (single blanket)
3-6
-------
Common-impression-cylinder presses, also known as
satellite presses, may consist of one or two printing units,
each with one large impression cylinder and up to five
printing units arranged radially around the cylinder
(Figure 3-3). A printing couple assembly includes the inking
system, dampening system, plate cylinder, blanket cylinder,
and impression cylinder. Each printing unit applies one color
to the web; therefore, a CIC press with a single printing
couple containing five printing units is capable of
sequentially printing up to five colors on one side of the
web. A CIC press operates at higher speeds than most
presses.11
Blanket-to-blanket presses are the most common type of
offset lithographic web press. They can have 1 to 12 printing
units, each with two printing couples stacked on top of each
other (horizontal configuration) or side by side (vertical
configuration). (Configuration refers to the direction the
substrate travels [see Figure 3-4].) The printing couples
lack the impression cylinders found on CIC and in-line
presses. Instead, the web is threaded between the blanket
cylinders of the two printing couples, with each blanket
cylinder acting as the other's impression cylinder. The
blanket-to-blanket press is therefore a perfecting press,
where the blanket cylinders of each printing unit can print
simultaneously on each side of the web. Each printing unit
applies the same color to both sides of the web.11
Figure 3-5 shows the distribution of printing plants by
number of heatset web presses operated by WOA members.12
Approximately 28 percent of the companies surveyed operate
only one heatset web press, 63 percent operate between two and
six presses, and 9 percent operate more than six.
Figure 3-6 shows the distribution of plants by the number
of non-heatset web presses operated by NHWS members.13 The
majority of NHWS member companies surveyed (61 percent)
operate only one non-heatset web press, approximately
3-7
-------
Substrate
Typical
Printing
Couple
Assembly
\
Cotor3
B- Blanket Cylinder
P«P1ate Cylinder
Color 2
Figure 3-3.
Schematic diagram of a lithographic
common-impression-cylinder press.
3-8
-------
Roll
Ooubl*
Blank*
Configuration
Horizontal
Orytr
CJ
0
B-BlanketCylinder
P. Plate Cylinder
Vertical
Finishing
Equipment
Figure 3-4.
Horizontal and vertical blanket-to-blanket
web offset presses.
3-9
-------
0»
A
in
CM
8
1
S
i
8
i
g
i
8
i
3
i
8
i
o
CO
0)
tt
U]
0)
tl
a
4-1
0)
U)
4J
nj
0)
o
0)
3
c
10
-U
c
VM
O
c
o
•H
JJ
4-1
Ul
i
n
0)
U
3
3-10
-------
BCSOiZU
C
n
c
o
•H
4J
•P
(A
8 8
i
8
I I I T
8898
IMMiJ PuflUMd IP *qUOTN
o o
I
n
0)
Vj
3
D>
•H
3-11
-------
37 percent operate between two and six presses, and only
2 percent operate more than six.13
3.3.1.2 Sheet-Fed Presses. Sheet-fed presses differ
from web presses in the method of substrate delivery, the
inking system design, and in the cylinder arrangement of the
printing unit. Sheet-fed presses require additional cylinders
to move the sheets through the press. The cylinder gaps
contain clamping devices that hold the plate and blanket on
their respective cylinder bodies. On a web press, the gap on
the plate cylinder represents a non-printing area where the
web is cut in the finishing process and is approximately
1/8 of an inch (in.) wide. This gap is smaller on sheet-fed
presses, so that more surface area is available on the
cylinders for printing an image. Sheet-fed presses always use
a hard impression cylinder, which is not possible with
blanket-to-blanket web offset presses.11 Generally, sheet-fed
presses, because they are non-heatset, do not have dryers or
chill rolls, but may use infrared heat to accelerate ink
setting.
3.3.2 Press Size and Number of Units
Offset lithographic presses are characterized by press
size and the number of printing units on a press. Press size
is described as the maximum length and width of paper
(substrate) that can be printed on the press.
The width of the plate and blanket cylinders determines
the maximum width of a substrate that can be printed on a
particular press. The printing industry refers to this as the
"across-the-cylinder" dimension. The across-the-cylinder
dimension is flexible on both sheet-fed and web presses; that
is, different substrate widths can be printed (up to the
maximum press capacity).
The circumference of the blanket cylinder determines the
maximum length of a substrate that can be printed on a
particular press. The printing industry refers to this as the
"around-the-cylinder" dimension. The around-the-cylinder
dimension is fixed on web presses but can be varied on
3-12
-------
sheet-fed presses. A web press size of 22 5/16 x 38 in., for
example, can print 22 5/16-in. wide paper with lengths varying
up to 38 inches. A sheet-fed press size of 17 1/2 x
22 1/2 in. can print substrates as small as 8 1/2 in. wide and
11 in. long and can be varied up to the maximum design size.
The most common press width for heatset and non-heatset
presses is 22 inches.
Figures 3-7 and 3-8 show the distribution of presses by
press width for heatset and non-heatset processes,
. . , 12,13
respectively.
The number of printing units on a press determines the
number of colors that can be printed on the substrate. Five
perfecting double blanket printing units, or couples, are most
common on web offset lithographic presses for heatset
processes and four non-perfecting, single blanket units are
most common for non-heatset processes. '
Figures 3-9 and 3-10 show the distribution of presses by
the number of printing units per press for heatset and
non-heatset presses, respectively.12'13
3.4 COMPONENTS OF STANDARD OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRESSES
The individual components of standard offset lithographic
presses are described in the following subsections.
3.4.1 Infeed Section
The mechanics of the infeed sections of web and sheet-fed
presses differ substantially.
3.4.1.1 Web Presses. The infeed section of a web press
provides for mounting, aligning, and unwinding of the rolls of
paper (web) to be run through the press. The infeed extends
from the stand that holds the roll to the first printing unit.
The infeed controls the speed, tension, and lateral position
of the web as it moves from the roll stand to the first
printing unit. A poorly set up paper roll or an improper
infeed setting can adversely affect all other sections of the
press.11
Presses may have single- or double-roll stands; a
double-roll stand can feed two webs to the press at once. An
3-13
-------
WU8926S
s
8
8
S 8
sassajd i/o
3-14
-------
1
1
I ,,,;,,..
r
[
[
[
r
I
[
[
[
EH
[x7,,:,:v.Xv,:..::.i
gj E
_
|
1" ' '
s en
-
i
\ * i ' i * i • i ' i ' i • i • i
3885833882*
/\
- §
»
- 5
- $
- 5
»
- 8
-^S
c
- a c
e
L N^
w
0>
r s
r8
- Si
- SJ
-
- R
- 2
-
(O
™ y
3
n
F-t
(1)
N
01
0)
01
01
0)
a
0)
01
«3
0)
i
c
0
c
U-l
O
c
0
-p
D
01
a
co
1
n
i-i
jy
CL,
3-15
-------
n
c
3
4J
C
•fl
i-l
a
14-1
o
E
3
C
w
OJ
u
a
fl
QJ
C
O
-------
CM
n
8
en
•P
•H
c
3
4J
C
•H
J-l
Q.
U
a)
X2
g
3
C
U)
0)
tn
en
a)
wi
a
01
ca
.p
(0
a)
r
i
c
0
c
o
in
-H
o
I
r>
0)
U
3
CP
•H
Eh
3-17
-------
auxiliary stand to hold additional rolls (usually two) is
often added to increase the number of webs that can be run
simultaneously. The roll stand can be positioned in line with
the press, to the side of the press, or underneath the
pressroom floor.
On the roll stand, the paper roll is usually turned by a
shaft inserted through its core. The roll is held on the
shaft in an exact side-to-side position, either by "chucks,"
which clamp the roll in place, or by mechanical expansion of
the shaft itself. A brake on the roll shaft controls the
infeed tension. Older roll stands have a simple friction
brakeshoe; newer ones are equipped with electromechanical,
hydraulic, pneumatic, or magnetic brakes. Controls on the
roll stand position the web laterally before it enters the
first printing unit. Photoelectric or electronic sensors read
changes in the position of the web and activate devices that
restore the web to its proper lateral position.
3.4.1.2 Sheet-Fed Presses. The infeed section on a
sheet-fed press can be either a successive-sheet feeding
system or a stream feeding system (Figure 3-11). The
successive-sheet system delivers each sheet to the printing
unit separately. The subsequent sheet is not moved until the
preceding sheet has cleared the advancing mechanisms. The
stream feeding system overlaps the sheets as they are
delivered to the printing unit. The advantage of this system
over successive-sheet infeed is more precise sheet
registration and control, since the sheet overlap tends to
stabilize the following sheets and the distance between the
feeder and registration devices is very short (several
, . i*
inches).
Sheets can be fed to either of these systems from either
a pile or roll of paper. A pile feeder contains individual
sheets of paper stacked on a platform. The platform
automatically raises the sheets to the infeed section for a
continuous supply of sheets. Roll feeders use a rolled supply
3-18
-------
Successive-Sheet Feeding
Stream Feeding
Figure 3-11. Successive-sheet and stream feeding in sheet-fed presses,
3-19
-------
of paper that is cut to size before delivery to the infeed
section.
3.4.2 Printing Units
Each press is made up of from 1 to 12 printing units.
Each printing unit has a complex arrangement of rollers for
transferring ink from the ink fountain and fountain solution
from the dampening system to the plate cylinder. When the
plate cylinder rotates, the lithographic plate usually first
contacts the dampening system rollers, which distribute the
fountain solution. The fountain solution adheres only to the
nonimage area of the plate. The lithographic plate then comes
into contact with the inking system rollers, which distribute
the ink onto the image area of the plate.
Next, the ink on the lithographic plate is transferred to
the rubber-covered blanket cylinder, which,, in turn, prints
the image on the web. The arrangement in Figure 3-12 is
commonly called blanket-to-blanket because each blanket
cylinder presses the web against the other cylinder and
simultaneously prints both sides of the web (perfecting). In
printing units that print only one side of the web
(non-perfecting), one blanket cylinder and all associated
equipment are replaced with an impression cylinder.
3.4.3 Inking Systems
Figure 3-13 represents a typical inking system for an
offset lithographic printing unit. The performance
requirements for inking systems are very stringent. The
system: (1) "works" the ink from a gel-like consistency to a
semiliquid state, (2) distributes an even thin film of ink
around all of the form rollers, (3) deposits a uniformly thin
film of ink on the image area, (4) picks up fountain solution
from the lithographic plate and emulsifies some of it into the
ink, and (5) picks up loose particles of foreign matter from
the lithographic plate and holds them in suspension until the
entire system is cleaned.
The inking system contains four major components: the
ink fountain, the ductor (transfer roller) , and two series of
3-20
-------
inK Fountain
Plat* Cylinder
Blanket Cylinder
Blanket Cylinder
Plat* Cylinder
Ink Fountain
Inking Rollers
Dampening Roller
Fountain Solution
Substrate
Dampening Roller
Fountain Solution
Figure 3-12. Schematic diagram of blanket-to-blanket printing.
3-21
-------
Fountain Roller
ink
Fountain
Thumb
Screw
Ductor
Vibrator
Intermediate
Center Vibrator
Intermediate
Figure 3-13. Schematic of a typical inking system.
3-22
-------
rollers called the roller train and the form rollers. The ink
fountain contains the ink supply and a fountain roller that
intermittently distributes the ink onto the ductor.
In a conventional inking system, the ink supply travels
through the bottom of the ink fountain over a flexible steel
strip called the fountain blade. A small adjustable gap
between the fountain blade and fountain roller determines the
amount of ink that is distributed to the system.
In an inking system called the anilox system, the
fountain roller has an engraved pattern of cells that holds
the ink. A continuous supply of ink is distributed to a
shorter series of rollers or directly to an ink form roller.
The anilox system provides a smooth, efficient distribution of
ink to the plate cylinder.
In the injector inking system, the ink is pumped onto the
roller by a solenoid-controlled pump.* Control of the pump
speed can take place away from the presses in a "quiet room."
Ink is placed on the roller in a glob and is then rolled into
a thin film. The anilox and injector inking systems are used
primarily in newspaper printing.1
The second series of rollers in a conventional system
distributes the ink between the fountain roller and the form
rollers, and is designed to work the ink by imparting energy
and motion. Including a sufficient number of intermediate
rollers between the fountain roller and the form rollers is
critical to the proper performance of the inking system,
because the number of times the ink film is split during
transfer from roller to roller is a factor in working or
conditioning the ink.
Another design feature is the lateral oscillation of
various rollers (vibrators or drums). This lateral motion,
occurring simultaneously with the normal rotational motion,
helps work the ink because the combined motions induce shear
and help reduce "ridging" of the ink through increased lateral
distribution. Rotational distribution is accomplished by
using drums and rollers of differing diameters. Feeding and
3-23
-------
working the ink ensures that the form rollers receive a
constant and properly distributed supply of conditioned ink
for each impression the printing unit makes.14
3.4.4 Dampening Systems
A well made lithographic plate on a properly operated
press prints a strong, sharp image and retains perfectly clean
nonimage areas for extremely long runs. Ink receptive
properties of the image areas are difficult to destroy when
the plate is properly made, .but the water receptive properties
of the nonimage areas can be destroyed within seconds if the
dampening rollers do not contact the printing plate. To
maintain these properties, the image areas must be wetted with
ink and the nonimage areas must be continually wetted with
fountain solution.14
Fountain solution is delivered to the plate cylinder by a
system of rollers similar to the inking system, which applies
the fountain solution to the plate cylinder. Figure 3-12
shows a generic configuration of the fountain solution rollers
within the printing unit. There are many variations in
fountain solution delivery (dampening) systems. Figure 3-14
shows a classification system for various dampener types.
The major differentiation in dampening systems is between
contacting and noncontacting systems. In the noncontacting
system, brushes or spray bars are used to transfer the
fountain solution from the fountain reservoir to the plate
cylinder, so that no eguipment contacts the plate cylinder.
Figure 3-15 shows a schematic of a brush dampening system.
In a contacting system, rollers are used to transfer the
fountain solution to the plate cylinder. In the conventional
contacting type, there is a gap between the pan where the
fountain solution is fed and the rollers; the gap is bridged
by a free-standing pivoting roller. The rollers that contact
the plate cylinder can be covered with fabric or left bare.
Figure 3-16 shows a conventional contacting dampening system.
In a continuous contacting system, all rollers are contiguous.
Some systems feed fountain solution onto the plate cylinder
3-24
-------
1
u.
IT)
e
0)
-u
U)
o
•H
.u
(B
U
U)
(0
(0
C
0)
a
0)
a,
u
I
n
O
U
3
3-25
-------
Fountain Solution Pan
Figure 3-15. schematic of a brush dampening system.
3-26
-------
Water Pan
Figure 3-16. Schematic of a conventional contacting dampening system.
3-27
-------
before the ink rollers (plate feed), some feed onto the ink
rollers, which, in turn, contact the plate cylinder (inker
feed), and some combine both of these methods. Figure 3-17
shows the arrangement of rollers in a continuous contacting
dampening system. The speed of the fountain roller controls
the amount of solution that is fed into the system.
Centralized fountain solution circulation s;ystems allow
printers to service all fountains from a centralized location,
which reduces the likelihood of variation in print quality
between the printing units on a press. Additionally,
circulation systems use filters that remove solids from the
fountain solution, which can reduce press downtime for
cleaning and increase print quality.
Circulation systems are frequently equipped with a unit
to control alcohol additions to the solution. A hydrometric
float measures the specific gravity of the solution and
triggers alcohol additions when appropriate. Figure 3-18
shows a circulating fountain system. Noncontact delivery
systems were the first to use centralized circulating systems,
since the lack of roller and plate cylinder contact reduces
the likelihood of "feedback," (i.e., ink returning to
contaminate the fountain reservoir). However, contact systems
also have had success with centralized circulating systems.
Circulation systems are useful in maintaining a more
consistent fountain solution mix, but, as a drawback, do not
allow for different fountain solution mixtures to be used on
different printing units of the press.
3.4.5 Drvers and Chill Rolls
Heatset inks require drying and chilling. Evaporation of
the ink solvent in the dryer radically increases the ink's
viscosity and leaves pigment particles embedded in semisoft
binding resins. Cooling the binding resins, with chill rolls
solidifies, or dries, the inks.11
The printed web enters the dryer after leaving the last
printing unit. Evaporation time for the ink solvent in a
dryer, which may have air temperatures as high as 600°F,
3-28
-------
Inking System
Dampening System
A
F = fountain roller
M = metering roller
C = chrome transfer roller
D = dampening form roller
I = ink form roller
V = vibrator
Fount
Solution
Pan
Figure 3-17. Continuous contacting dampening system.
3-29
-------
3-30
-------
averages about 0.7 second. High velocity hot air nozzles blow
high pressure hot air at both sides of the web, as shown in
Figure 3-19. Exhaust ducts recirculate controlled portions of
the heated exhaust air. The heated air and solvent vapor are
recirculated through a combustion chamber, oxidizing some of
the ink oil.11 Figure 3-20 is a detailed drawing of a high
velocity hot air dryer showing the air supply system and paper
pathway.
When the web leaves the dryer, its surface temperature is
between 220 and 330°F. The chill rolls cool the web to a
maximum of about 90°F.U The chill roll section is an assembly
of driven steel drums with chilled water circulating through
them. The hot web from the dryer passes over these rolls to
set the ink. Most chill roll sections have three rollers;
some have only two, others may have more. Figure 3-21 shows a
chill stand unit.
3.4.6 Folders and Sheeters
In web presses, the cooled printed web can be prepared
for shipment by rerolling the web. More often, however, the
press prints several pages on the web at one time, and thus
has a folder, or a sheeter, or both. The folder receives the
printed web, cuts it, and folds it into an assembly of pages
in the correct sequence (signature). Several signatures, each
from different press runs, may be assembled in the bindery to
create a book or magazine. Modern folders can produce a wide
array of folded signatures.
A sheeter receives the printed web, cuts it into large
sheets, and stacks the sheets for transport to the next
processing step or to the customer. Figure 3-22 shows the
progress of printed paper from the dryer, bypassing a folder,
moving through a sheeter and onto the delivery.
Although the printed material from the press may be a
finished product after folding or sheeting, additional
processing is likely. Most heatset web plants also have a
bindery section, which is separate from the pressroom.
3-31
-------
Substrate
Figure 3-19. High-velocity hot air nozzles.
3-32
-------
c
O
Mtt/Zlt
0)
>1
Ll
T3
Li
•M
fl
.2
£
CO
O)
u
O
£
§
O
(N
I
n
0)
U
3
3-33
-------
Temperature and
Speed Control
Cooling Rollers
Figure 3-21. A chill stand.
3-34
-------
d
p
o
0)
T3
0)
>
u
•a
e
o
u
0)
a
fl
a
T3
w
ui
0)
u
a>
o
u
fN
CN
I
n
0)
u
3
3-35
-------
3.5 INKS, FOUNTAIN SOLUTION, AND CLEANING SOLUTIONS
3.5.1 Inks
Lithographic inks are stronger in color than inks in
other printing processes. They are composed of pigments,
vehicles, binders, and other additives. The pigments provide
the desired color and contain organic and inorganic materials;
they must be water insoluble so the inks will not bleed in the
presence of the fountain solution. The vehicle is a solvent
that carries the pigment and binders, and is usually composed
of organic materials. Binders form a continuous film which
fixes the pigment to the substrate; they are composed of
organic resins and polymers, or oils and resins. Additives
include waxes, lubricants, and driers.
3.5.1.1 Heatset Inks. Heatset ink vehicles are used in
heatset web offset lithographic printing. The major
components of the heatset ink vehicles are petroleum oils,
hard soluble resins, drying oil varnishes, and plasticizers.
Heatset ink vehicles rely on heat-induced evaporation to dry.
The web passes through a dryer, reaches a temperature of 200
to 300°F, and then is cooled on chill rolls to a temperature
of approximately 90°F.*
Heatset web inks may contain up to 40 to 45 percent
VOC's.16 Ten to 15 years ago, 45 percent was the standard;
today, the VOC content can be as low as 30 to 35 percent (as
measured by EPA Method 24),17'18 although 30 percent is
reported to be difficult to formulate.6
For heatset inks, the ink oil is critical in controlling
viscosity and tackiness of the ink, and can be reduced only so
far without adversely affecting the perceived quality of the
final product. Narrow-cut petroleum fractions with boiling
ranges between 450 and 600°F are characteristic of the oils
used in heatset inks.11 Research is being conducted by some of
the larger ink companies on lowering the temperature at which
the inks will set. At lower temperatures, less of the oil
will volatilize and more will remain in the ink film on the
substrate.18
3-36
-------
3.5.1.2 Non-heatset Inks. Non-heatset inks have lower
vapor pressures than heatset inks and are not as pasty or
viscous. They contain below 35 percent VOC's (as measured by
1 fi 1.R
EPA Method 24 and ink formula mass balance). ' Some non-
heatset sheet-fed inks are 20 to 25 percent VOC's (unknown
19
measurement method).
The majority of sheet-fed, non-heatset inks in current
use are quickset inks. Fifteen to 20 years ago, sheet-fed
inks required 4 to 8 hours to set after printing. In an
effort to reduce drying time, quickset inks were developed.
Quickset inks contain a film former and set by absorption.
They are set to the touch within 1 to 2 minutes; however, they
should be allowed to set for at least 1 hour before printing
on the second side of the substrate.20 Some of the ink oil
absorbs and causes precipitation of resin-rich film former and
color. A complex ink may contain 12 to 17 components. The
VOC content of quickset inks is 12 to 15 percent.
Soybean oil inks, although in use for several years, have
recently become more popular in some newspaper inks for a
number of reasons. Their main advantage is that the 15- to
25-percent petroleum oil fraction of conventional inks is
reduced to between 5 and 8 percent, thereby removing 65 to
85 percent of petroleum based oils.22 Soybean oil has a much
lower vapor pressure than petroleum oil, reducing the amount
of oil that can evaporate. Additionally, soybeans are
attractive because they are a natural product, a renewable
resource, and totally independent of petroleum supplies.
Soybean oil inks have worked successfully in sheet-fed
printing and newspaper printing, but their application in
heatset processes is currently limited. °' Since many soy
inks are more costly, they will not likely replace black inks
in the near future, although color soy inks may be more
competitive.
Oxidation is the major drying mechanism used for
sheet-fed non-heatset inks. Oxygen is absorbed from the
ambient air, causing the ink to harden. Sheet-fed inks that
3-37
-------
dry by oxidation take approximately 2 to 8 hours to completely
dry after printing.1* These inks reportedly have VOC contents
around 5 to 10 percent (measurement method unknown).6
Specialty inks for use with sheet-fed plastics or foil have a
reported VOC content of 5 percent (measurement method
unknown). A low VOC content is necessary to prevent the
product from becoming greasy.19
3.5.1.3 Newspaper Inks. Newspaper inks are non-heatset
inks that dry by absorption. In addition to newspapers,
business forms and directories are printed with newspaper
inks.11 The four general categories of newspaper inks are
regular, low-rub, no-rub, and color inks. Fifty percent of
the newspapers in the industry currently use low-rub inks.
Regular newspaper inks are composed of 15 to 20 percent
carbon black pigment, petroleum oils to wet the pigment, and
high molecular weight petroleum oil. Low-rub and no-rub inks
contain around 12 percent carbon black. For no-rub inks, the
carbon black content is reduced by increasing the resin
concentration. In addition, the petroleum oil component is
lightened. Color inks contain 18 to 20 percent pigment. They
are similar to no-rub inks in their use of resins and lighter
weight petroleum oils.
3.5.1.4 Other Inks. Inks that rely on other ink-drying
mechanisms, such as radiation curing, electron beams, and
thermocatalyzation, are more expensive than traditional inks
and cannot be used on all substrates.
Radiation-cured inks are used in both sheet-fed and web
offset lithographic printing. The inks dry by the application
of ultraviolet, or other radiation. Radiation-curing inks are
highly reactive and usually contain proprietary cross-linking
chemical compounds.7 These inks differ from conventional inks
in their binding properties and lack of drying agents.
Ultraviolet inks use acrylic prepolymers and monomers, and
initiators as binding compounds. They produce a high-quality
gloss finish, which makes them a good replacement for
conventional inks, although more costly.
3-38
-------
Thermal-curing inks are also reactive inks, using special
proprietary cross-linking catalysts. These inks are used in
web printing and contain few or no solvents. Thermal-curing
inks dry by polymerization when heat is applied, as
differentiated from heatset inks, which dry by evaporation
when heat is applied.7
3.5.2 Fountain Solution
Fountain solution is applied to the lithographic plate to
render the nonimage areas unreceptive to ink. Since printing
inks are oil based, the fountain solution is water based. The
fountain solution contains a wetting agent, acids and buffer
salts to maintain the pH of the solution, small quantities of
gum arabic or synthetic resins, and a dampening aid to enhance
the spreadability of the fountain solution across the
lithographic plate. Fountain solutions are acidic if gum
arabic is used, neutral if synthetic resins and buffers are
used, or alkaline, as in the newspaper industry.
The role of the dampening aid is to reduce the surface
tension of the water, as well as increase viscosity.
Isopropyl alcohol has been used as the dampening aid since the
1950's.11 The concentration of alcohol in the fountain
solution can range from 0 to 35 percent alcohol (by volume) or
higher, with most presses falling in the 15 to 20 percent
range.26 The industry is divided on the issue of how much
alcohol is necessary to operate an offset press. The NAPL has
stated that alcohol use has become somewhat of a crutch to
printers because it permits all types of work to be run, even
under adverse conditions.26
In the past, the concentration of the additives in the
fountain solution has been controlled by pH measurements. The
newspaper industry has started a trend in the offset industry
toward increased use of electrical conductivity as a monitor
of fountain solution mixtures.15 Conductivity has been found
to be a more sensitive and reliable measure of concentration
than pH, especially with neutral solutions.15
3-39
-------
Nonalcohol dampening aids that replace or minimize the
amount of alcohol used in fountain solutions have been
developed in recent years. These alcohol replacements or
substitutes are made up of glycol, such as ethylene glycol,
glycol ethers or cellosolve ethers, or proprietary compounds,
and are chemically similar to alcohol. They have the same
surface-tension-reducing ability but are more complex in
structure and have higher boiling points.
Nonalcohol products can combine all the fountain
additives into one solution (onestep) that is mixed with water
to produce the fountain solution, or a nonalcohol dampening
aid can be added to a conventional mix of fountain additives
in concentrated form and then combined with water in a
two-step process. This latter procedure is used on sheet-fed
presses.27 The nonalcohol substitutes and/or fountain
concentrate is added in small quantities (2 to 4 ounces to
1 gallon of water).
Although alcohol substitutes range from 0 to 100 percent
VOC, the small quantities used result in a final solution that
is less than 3 percent (by weight) VOC, regardless of VOC
content of the substitute. Motivation for alcohol replacement
was originally based on lowering the alcohol fumes in the
pressroom to comply with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration regulations,28 as well as to offset the high
cost of petroleum-dependent IPA.
Depending on the choice of dampening system, difficulties
have been reported in totally replacing alcohol with alcohol
29
substitutes, although many of the newer dampening systems
operate best when the alcohol concentration is reduced to the
5 to 15 percent range.30 The NAPL, along with many printers,
says that it takes a "firm management commitment" to lower or
replace IPA in the fountain. The major suppliers of alcohol
substitutes to the printing industry have reported a more than
200 percent increase in sales since 1985. Since some of the
fountain solution must be taken up into the ink to maintain
the proper ink/water balance on the lithographic plate, ink
3-40
-------
manufacturers also have had to reformulate some of their inks
to accommodate alcohol substitutes. '
3.5.3 Cleaning Solutions
Cleaning solutions are used to wash the blankets, the
rollers, and the exterior surfaces of the press to remove
excess printing inks, oils, and paper pieces (pilings). The
solutions are petroleum-based solvents, often mixed with
detergent and/or water. The cleaning compound may be a single
solvent, such as kerosene, or a combination of solvents.33
Blanket cleaning is required at least once or twice per shift,
between jobs, and as needed to improve print quality,
depending on the type of printing.
Approximately two-thirds of the cleaning solution is used
as a blanket wash and one-third to clean the rollers and the
presses.3* A general purpose cleaner may not work well for
every job. 4 Although newspaper presses can use the same
cleaner for blankets and rollers, other printers may use two
or more different cleaners sequentially to clean a specific
area.33 The more viscous the ink, as in heatset and sheet-fed
printing, the more difficulty will be encountered with
cleaning.
Blankets and rollers may be cleaned automatically or
manually when the presses are shut down. Excess fluid from
roller washes is collected in trays below the rollers.
Cleaning compounds may be dispensed from general storage drums
to smaller containers or squirt bottles that are kept near the
presses. Manual cleaning can be performed by applying a small
amount of cleaning solution to a rag that is later disposed
of. Although a large portion of the cleaning solution is
retained by the rags if kept in an airtight container, the
VOC's still very likely will evaporate at a later time when
the rags are cleaned.
Automatic cleaning systems can be used to apply blanket
washes. Automatic systems allow presses to run continuously
without cleaning interruptions. Washing is initiated either
periodically or as triggered by paper splices.2* Since the
3-41
-------
solution is metered, less cleaning solution may be used with
automatic cleaning systems.35 The majority of the industry,
however, uses manual cleaning methods, since automatic
cleaning requires a large capital investment.35
Some cleaning solutions have been developed that contain
solvents with high flash points to avoid a hazardous ignitable
(less than 140°F) classification;2* however, these cleaners
contain the same amount of VOC as measured by EPA methodology.
Water-miscible cleaning compounds have been developed that,
when diluted with water, produce a lower VOC concentration
than traditional cleaning compounds.33 Citrus-based cleaners
with lower VOC's (less than 3.5 pounds of VOC per gallon) are
now sold by some companies and are being developed by
others.36'37
There is some industry dissatisfaction with the lower-VOC
cleaning products currently on the market.2* The
water-miscible compounds are reported to cause metal parts to
rust or promote tears in the paper when the water-soaked paper
sticks to the blanket. The water-miscible products may not
work well with ultraviolet or thermally-catalyzed inks.
Vendors of water-miscible cleaning compounds, however, claim
improved cleaning qualities with their products.33
3.6 MODEL PLANTS
To evaluate the potential ranges of VOC emissions from
different types and different materials of offset lithographic
printing, model plants were developed using information from
the following sources:
• Responses to the 1990 Section 114 printing
questionnaire sent out under the Offset Lithographic
Printing Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)
project.38
• A study done by the NAPL and discussed in a special
report on alcohol use by the industry.
26
Trip reports of site visits conducted during 1990 as
part of the Offset Lithographic Printing CTG
project.39'*0'*1
3-42
-------
Graphic Arts Monthly, August 1990 article entitled,
"The GAM 101 Official Ranking."*2
The American Newspaper Publishers Association,
Washington, DC, (1989 data).*3
Telephone conversations with members of the
sheet-fed offset lithographic printing
. •, . 44,45,46 -3 c tr ~3
industry.
Directory of Heatset Web Offset Printers and Heatset
Web Offset Press Installations (March 1990).12
Directory of Non-heatset Web Offset Printers and
Non-heatset Web Offset Press Installations
(March 1990) .13
75 voluntary responses to questionnaires by
sheet-fed printers of the NAPL.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present model plants for the four
types of printing discussed above: heatset web, non-heatset
web (non-newspaper), non-heatset sheet-fed, and newspaper
(non-heatset web). The model plants were chosen to represent
a range in emission potential and are not meant to
characterize the printing industry.
The model plants are characterized by number of presses
and number of units per press, total number of units, press
width, and operating hours. For newspaper facilities,
circulation rate was used to further characterize plant sizes.
Operating hours for the model facilities were estimated at an
average of 3,000 hours per year, based on operation of the
presses for 16 hours per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per
year, with about 25 percent of the time being "make-ready
time" in which no significant VOC emissions occur. Actual
operating hours can vary from 1,500 to 6,000 hours per year,
depending on the facility and type of printing presses.38
The non-heatset model plants represent presses that use
inks that dry by absorption or oxidation. Inks cured by
ultraviolet light, electron beam, or thermally-catalyzed inks
were not included as model presses because no VOC's are
expected to be emitted from the ink. However, the analyses
3-43
-------
TABLE 3-1. OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING MODEL PLANTS
Model
Plant
Code
HEATSET
A- 1
A-II
A-III
A-IV
Size
Number Number
of of Total
Presses Units/Press Units
Press
Width
(in.)
Annual
Hours of
Operation
WEB JjODEL PLANTS5
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
NON-HEATSET WEB MODEL
B-I
B-II
B-III
B-IV
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
1
1-2
2-4
4-6
PLANTSb
1
1-2
2-4
4-6
1-6
6-8
6-8
8
4-6
6-8
6-8
8
1-6
6-16
12-32
32-48
4-6
6-1(5
12-32
32-48
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
NON-HEATSET SHEET MODEL PLANTSb
C-I
C-II
C-III
C-IV
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
1-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
1-2
1-2
2-4
4-6
1-4
2-8
8-24
24-48
38
38
38
38
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
a Double Blanket.
b Single Blanket.
3-44
-------
co
EH
Z
3
04
w
Q
O
s
a?
w
•3.
EH
W
CO
EH
&
X
1
2
0
z
05
M
0<
CO
Z
u
x
i
a
§
EH
M
.J
EH
CO
tL,
fcl
O
m
CM
1
r>
U
CO
*c
"
rH
3
C
C
W
10
0)
!U
(X
u
o
XI
g
3
Z
14
CU
XI
3
Z
Model
o
(A
r4
3
O
X
si
•H
rH
(0
•P
0
EH
4-1
(4-4
O
Plant
c
0
•H
4J
fl
CU
a
o
-,
c
-H
*-*•
in
^j
•H
C
D
W
CO
CU
IH
^.
U
-P
•r4
C
10
a>
tn
0)
Oi
c
o
•H
ti
rH
3
O
CJ
cu
•H
CO
a>
o
u
0 0
0 O
0 0
n n
r^ r^1
CM CS)
VO O
H
1
CO
VO O
1
CO
H H
O 0
0 0
0 0
m o
CM in
I
in
OJ
f^
l_^
m
g
rH
^t rH
r4 <0
0) g
> CO
H
H H
1 1
Q Q
o
0
0
n
in
in
<*
(N
1
0\
CM
rH
1
CTi
CN
I
-------
below pertaining to fountain solution and cleaning solution
apply to presses using these as well as other types of inks.
The model plants described here might be found in any
combination within a single facility. For instance, a
printing company may have a medium-size sheet-fed operation
corresponding to Model Plant C-III and a snail heatset web
press, corresponding to Model Plant A-I.39 Because the number
of combinations of two-, three-, and four-model sub-facilities
in one facility is too large for the purposes of this
discussion, State and local agencies can treat each
sub-facility as a separate unit. Total emissions for the
entire facility can be determined by adding the emissions from
each sub-facility. Since add-on controls are only used with
heatset presses, there probably will be no economies of scale
in combining heatset with non-heatset printing. Costs of
emissions controls, therefore, will be additive.
3.6.1 Estimated Raw Material Use
Annual use of printing inks, fountain solution dampeners,
and cleaning solutions for the model plants is shown in
Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The estimates were based on the following
sources:
• Responses to the 1990 Section 114 printing
questionnaire sent out under the Offset Lithographic
Printing CTG project.
• A study done by the NAPL and discussed in a special
report entitled: "What's Being Done to Stall an EPA
Crackdown on Alcohol in Dampeners."6
• 75 voluntary responses to questionnaires by sheet-
fed printers of the NAPL.
• The American Newspaper Publishers Association,
Washington, DC, based on 1989 data."
The method used to estimate raw materials use for the model
plants, along with emissions of VOC's from use of raw
materials, is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.0.
A nominal 38-in. press width was used for model plants in
Groups A, B, and C. For narrower presses, less ink, fountain
3-46
-------
TABLE 3-3. OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING MODEL PLANTS - ANNUAL PRODUCT USE
Model
Plant
Code
HEATSET
A- 1
A-II
A-III
A-IV
Size
Total
Units
Ink
(Tons)
Fountain
Solution
Alcohol
(Tons)
Cleaning
Solution
(Tons)
WEB MODEL PLANTS3
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
1-6
6-16
12-32
32-48
15-93
92-247
185-494
494-742
14-83
83-222
167-445
445-667
0.4-3
3-8
6-16
16-24
NON-HEATSET WEB MODEL PLANTSb
B-I
B-II
B-III
B-IV
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
NON-HEATSET SHEET MODEL
C-I
C-II
C-III
C-IV
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
4-6
6-16
12-32
32-48
PLANTSb
1-4
2-8
8-24
24-48
62-93
92-247
185-494
494-742
0.4-2
1-3
3-9
.9-18
33-50
49-131
98-261
261-393
0.5-2
1-4
4-11
11-23
2-3
3-8
6-16
16-24
0.5-2
1-4
4-12
12-24
a Double Blanket.
b Single Blanket.
3-47
-------
TABLE 3-4. NEWSPAPER (NON-HEATSET WEB) MODEL PLANTS - ANNUAL PRODUCT USE
Model
Plant
Code
D-I
D-II
D-III
D-IV
D-V
D-VI
S.ize
Very Small
Small
Medium
Medium Large
Large
Extra Large
Total
Units
6
8-10
9-24
18-48
40-96
100-120
Ink
(Tons)
2-19
15-82
67-209
125-829
529-1647
1072-3239
Fountain
Solution
Additive
(Tons)
0.1-1
1-6
5-15
9-58
37-115
75-227
Cleaning
Solution
(Tons)
3
4-5
4-12
9-24
20-48
50-59
Note—The units are double-blanket.
3-48
-------
solution, and cleaning solution use can be expected; for wider
presses, more can be expected. Use rates of printing supplies
also can vary from job to job, depending largely on paper
type, degree of ink coverage, water quality, ink/water
balance, dampening system, and, to a lesser extent, season of
the year and geographic location. If possible, State and
local agencies should use actual plant records to establish
raw material use and to estimate emissions.
3.7 REFERENCES
1. Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Executive
Office of the President. Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC. 1987.
2. 'The NAPL Almanac. Printing Economic Research Center,
National Association of Printers and Lithographers,
Teaneck, NJ. 1990.
3. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Paperozzi, Andy, National
Association of Printers and Lithographers, Teaneck, NJ.
August 28, 1990.
4. Notes of meeting with EPA, Radian Corporation, and
representatives of the Newspaper Printing Industry.
Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
March 27, 1990.
5. Pocket Pal, Twelfth Edition. International Paper
Company, New York, NY. 1979.
6. Telecon. Oldham, Carla, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Shaeffer, Bill, Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA. February 22, 1990,
7. The Printing Ink Handbook. Fourth Edition. National
Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, Inc.,
Harrison, NY. 1980.
8. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Cunningham, Wilson, American
Newspaper Publishers Association, Reston, VA.
August 16, 1990.
9. 1990 Facts About Newspapers. American Newspaper
Publishers Association, Washington, DC. April 1990.
3-49
-------
10. International Yearbook. Velez, Orlando Ed. Editor and
Publisher Company, New York, NY. 1989.
11. Web Offset Press Operating, Third Edition. The Graphic
Arts Technical Foundation, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. 1989.
12. Directory of Heatset Web Offset Printers and Non-Heatset
Web Offset Press Installations, 1989. Non-Heatset Web
Section, Printing Industries of America, Inc.,
Arlington, VA. March 1990.
13. Directory of Non-Heatset Web Offset Printers and
Non-Heatset Web Offset Press Installations, 1989.
Non-Heatset Web Section, Printing Industries of America,
Inc., Arlington, VA. March 1990.
14. The Lithographers Manual, Eighth Edition. The Graphic
Arts Technical Foundation, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. 1988.
15. MacPhee, J. Trends in Litho Dampening Systems Show Vast
Improvements in Design. Graphic Arts Monthly. Technical
Publishing Company, New York, NY. April 1981.
16. Letter from Volpe, Paul, National Association of Printing
Ink Manufacturers, Harrison, NY., to Jones, Donna Lee,
Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
October 12, 1990.
17. Telecon. lozia, Donna, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Miller, Al, Flint Inks, City of
Industry, CA. February 21, 1990.
18. Telecon. Blackley, Candace, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Volpe, Peter,, National
Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers. Harrison, NY.
December 14, 1990.
19. Telecon. Oldham, Carla, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Lakie, Chuck,, Handschy
Industries, Inc., Bellwood, IL. March 15, 1990.
20. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Volpe, Paul, National
Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, Harrison, NY.
January 22, 1991.
21. Telecon. Blackley, Candace, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Zborovsky, Joe, Sun Chemical,
Fort Lee, NJ. December 6, 1989.
22. Solutions from Soybeans. Printing News. Cahners
Publishing Company, New York, NY. March 5, 1990.
3-50
-------
23. "Use of Soybean Oil Hardly an Outdated Issue in Ink
Production, says Reader." Printaction. Youngblood
Publishing Company, Toronto, ON, Canada. April 1990.
24. Notes of meeting with EPA, Radian Corporation, and
representatives of the Lithographic Printing Industry.
EPA/OAQPS, Durham, NC. March 19, 1990.
25. UV Technology. Visions Newsletter. Uvman, Inc.,
Newtown, PA. 1990.
26. Materazzi, A. R. NAPL Special Report: Safety, Health &
Environment, "A Situation Report/Alert: What's Being
Done to Stall an EPA Crackdown on Alcohol in Dampeners."
National Association of Printers & Lithographies Research
& Educational Foundation, Teaneck, NJ. June 1987.
27. Materazzi, A. R. NAPL Special Report: Plant &
Production Management, "Alcohol Substitutes Find
Increased Acceptance: If At First You Don't Succeed, Try
Again." National Association of Printers & Lithographers
Research & Educational Foundation, Teaneck, NJ.
September 1990.
28. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Cunningham, Wilson, American
Association of Newspaper Publishers, Reston, VA.
September 4, 1990.
29. MacPhee, J. Alcohol in Dampening. Graphics Arts
Monthly. Technical Publishing Company, New York, NY.
October 1984.
30. MacPhee, J. Dampening Update. Graphic Arts Monthly.
Technical Publishing Company, New York, NY.
November 1984.
31. Telecon. Oldham, Carla, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Koontz, Wayne, RBP Chemical,
Milwaukee, WI. March 19, 1990.
32. Telecon. Oldham, Carla, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Blackley, Paul, International
Blend Company, Minneapolis, MN. March 17, 1990.
33. Offset Lithography Summary Report for Technical Support
of a Revised Ozone State Implementation Plan for
Memphis, TN. Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC.
June 1985.
34. Notes of meeting with EPA, Radian Corporation, and
representative of the Lithographic Printing Industry.
EPA/OAQPS. Durham, NC. December 6, 1990.
3-51
-------
35. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Jones, Gary, Graphic Arts
Technical Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA. August 27, 1990.
36. Telecon. Oldham, Carla, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Watson, Jim, Varn Products,
Addison, IL. March 20, 1990.
37. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Zaloon, Jeff,, RBP Chemical
Company, Milwaukee, WI. September 10, 1990.
38. Memorandum from Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Summary of Section 114 Questionnaires.
August 28, 1990.
39. Trip report A. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Trip of July 10, 1990. Confidential Business
Information.
40. Trip report B. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Trip of July 27, 1990. Confidential Business
Information.
41. Trip report C. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Trip of August 2, 1990. Confidential Business
Information.
42. The GAM 101 Official Ranking. Graphics Arts Monthly and
the Printing Industry. Technical Publishing Company,
New York, NY. August 1990.
43. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Cunningham, Wilson, American
Newspaper Publishers Association, Reston, VA.
September 14, 1990.
44. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Lawton, Raymond, Lawton
Printers, Spokane, WA. September 11, 1990.
45. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Wainscott, Jeff, Weadon
Printing, Alexandria, VA. September 11, 1990.
46. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Schneidereith, William,
Schneidereith and Sons, Inc., Baltimore, MD.
September 11, 1990.
47. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Materazzi, Al, (Consultant to
the National Association of Printers & Lithographers)
Bethesda, MD. August 31, 1990.
3-52
-------
4.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes' techniques for controlling VOC
emissions from offset lithographic printing presses. There
are three principle sources of VOC emissions from lithographic
printing presses: heatset printing inks, which use
hydrocarbon liquids as carriers that are partially driven off
in dryers; the fountain solution, where VOC's such as IPA may
be used to reduce the surface tension of water; and cleaning
solutions, which are predominately VOC's.
Techniques to control VOC emissions from lithographic
printing presses can be categorized as add-on controls,
process modifications, or material reformulation or
substitution.
In the following sections, the conditions affecting VOC
removal for each method are examined, and the applicability of
each method is evaluated.
4.2 ADD-ON CONTROLS
Add-on control devices can be grouped into two broad
categories: combustion devices (destructive) and recovery
devices (nondestructive). Combustion devices are designed to
destroy VOC's in the vent stream prior to atmospheric
discharge. Recovery devices limit VOC emissions by recovering
VOC-containing material for other uses.
Add-on controls have been installed at a number of
heatset lithographic printing facilities. Equipment vendors
indicate that add-on controls have only been installed on
heatset processes1 9 because heat is used to set the ink, and
the dryer on a heatset press discharges a waste with a
relatively high concentration of VOC's. Frequently, several
4-1
-------
dryer exhausts pass through a manifold to a single control
device. (In non-heatset printing, most of the VOC's in ink
are retained by the substrate.)10'11
The offset lithographic printing industry employs three
basic add-on control devices: thermal incinerators, catalytic
incinerators, and condenser filter systems. According to
several vendors, ' ' the most prevalent control devices are
incinerators, both thermal and catalytic.
4.2.1 Thermal Incinerators
4.2.1.1 Thermal Incineration Process Description.
Thermal incinerators are used extensively in the printing
industry to burn VOC's emitted by heatset press dryers. As
with any combustion process, the combustion efficiency of the
thermal incineration process is influenced by residence time,
mixing, and temperature. An efficient thermal incinerator
system provides:
• A chamber temperature high enough to enable the
oxidation reaction to proceed rapidly to completion;
• Enough turbulence to obtain good mixing between the
hot combustion products from the burner, combustion
air, and VOC; and,
• Sufficient residence time (approximately 0.75 sec)
at the chosen temperature (1,400°F or greater) for
the oxidation reaction to reach completion.
Improper design or operation of an incinerator can result in
incomplete combustion and, consequently, VOC emissions.
Several incinerator designs are available, all of which
achieve the same VOC destruction efficiency.
A thermal incinerator is usually a refractory-lined
chamber containing a burner (or set of burners). As shown in
Figure 4-1, dual-fuel burners and inlets for the offgas and
combustion air discharge into a premixing chamber to
thoroughly mix the hot products from the burners with the
process vent streams. The mixture of hot reacting gases then
passes into the main combustion chamber. This chamber is
sized to allow the mixture enough time at the elevated
temperature for the oxidation reaction to reach completion
4-2
-------
Wast* gas
inltt
Auxiliary
fuel burner
(discrtts)
Air ,
inlet/ Premixing
chamber
Heat
recovery'
Combustion chamber
'Optional
Figure 4-1. Discrete burner, thermal incinerator,
4-3
-------
(residence times of 0.75 to 1.0 sec are common).12 Energy can
then be recovered from the hot flue gases in a heat recovery
section. Preheating combustion air or plant space heating air
is a common mode of energy recovery. (Insurance regulations
require that if the waste stream is preheated, the VOC
concentration in that stream must be maintained below 25 to
50 percent of the lower explosive limit to avoid explosion
hazards.)
Thermal incinerators designed specifically for VOC
incineration with natural gas as the auxiliary fuel may also
use a grid-type (distributed) gas burner,13 as shown in
Figure 4-2. The tiny gas flame jets on the grid surface
ignite the vapors as they pass through the grid. The grid
acts as a baffle for mixing the gases entering the chamber.
This arrangement ensures burning of all vapors at lower
chamber temperature and uses less fuel, so the system can use
a shorter reaction chamber while maintaining high efficiency.
Other parameters affecting incinerator performance are
the heating value of the dryer exhaust stream, the stream's
water content, and the amount of excess combustion air (the
amount of air above the stoichiometric air needed for
reaction). The heating value is a measure of the heat
released by combustion of the VOC in the dryer exhaust.
Combustion of a dryer exhaust stream with a low heating value
may require burning auxiliary fuel to maintain the desired
combustion temperature. Auxiliary fuel requirements can be
lessened or eliminated by using recuperative heat exchangers
to preheat combustion air.
A thermal incinerator handling combined dryer exhaust
streams with varying heating values and moisture contents
requires careful adjustment to maintain proper chamber
temperatures and operating efficiency. Because water requires
a great deal of heat to vaporize, entrained water droplets can
increase auxiliary fuel requirements to provide the additional
energy needed to vaporize the water and raise it to the
combustion chamber temperature.
4-4
-------
Stack
Vent
stream
inlet
Burner plate Flame jets
(Natural gas)
Auxiliary fuel
Fan1
Heat .
recovery1
Optional
Figure 4-2. Distributed burner, thermal incinerator.
4-5
-------
Combustion devices are always operated with some quantity
of excess air to ensure a sufficient supply of oxygen. The
amount of excess air used varies with the fuel and burner type
but should be kept as low as possible. Using too much excess
air wastes fuel because the additional air must be heated to
the combustion chamber temperature. Large amounts of excess
air also increase flue gas volume and may increase the size
and cost of the system. Prepackaged, single-unit thermal
incinerators are available to control streams with flow rates
in the range of 500 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) to
about 50,000 scfm.
4.2.1.2 Thermal Incinerator Efficiency. All VOC's are
combustible, with combustion efficiency limited only by cost.
Hazardous waste incinerators are required to achieve
99.99 percent efficiency for the principle organic
constituents present in the hazardous waste. Test results
show that thermal incinerators can achieve 98 percent
destruction efficiency for most VOC compounds at combustion
chamber temperatures ranging from 1,300 to 2,370°F and
residence times of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds.u These data reveal
significant variations in destruction efficiency for Ci to C$
alkanes and olefins, aromatics (benzene, toluene, and xylene),
oxygenated compounds (methyl ethyl ketone and IPA),
chlorinated organics (vinyl chloride), and nitrogen-containing
species (acrylonitrile and ethylamines) at chamber
temperatures below 1,400°F.
The above information, used in conjunction with kinetics
calculations, indicates that the combustion chamber parameters
for achieving at least a 98-percent VOC destruction efficiency
are a combustion temperature of at least 1,400°F and a
residence time of 0.75 sec (based on residence in the chamber
volume at combustion temperature). A thermal incinerator
designed to produce these conditions in the combustion chamber
should be capable of high destruction efficiency for almost
any nonhalogenated VOC.
At temperatures over 1,400°F, oxidation reaction rates
are much faster than the gas diffusion mixing rate. As a
4-6
-------
result, the combustion reaction is in danger of being hampered
merely because sufficient oxygen molecules are not in
proximity to the organic. To ensure that this does not occur,
mixing must _be enhanced via vanes or other physical methods.
This helps the oxidation reaction reach completion.
On the basis of studies of thermal incinerator
efficiency, it has been concluded that 98 percent VOC
destruction (or a 20 part-per-million-by-volume [ppmv] VOC
exit concentration) is achievable by all new incinerators.1*
The 98-percent efficiency estimate is predicated on thermal
incinerators operated at i,400°F or higher with 0.75 sec
residence time.
4.2.1.3 Applicability of Thermal Incinerators. In terms
of technical feasibility, thermal incinerators are applicable
as a control device for all heatset web offset lithographic
printing presses. They can be used for dryer exhaust streams
containing any type of VOC and any VOC concentration, and they
can be designed to handle fluctuation in flow rates. Thermal
incinerators are currently used in a number of printing
facilities.
4.2.2 Catalytic Incinerators
4.2.2.1 Catalytic Incineration Process Description.
Catalytic incineration, or oxidation, is another major
combustion technique used for VOC emission control. Catalysts
cause the oxidizing reaction to proceed at a lower temperature
than is required with thermal oxidation. Combustion catalysts
include platinum, platinum alloys, copper oxide, chromium, and
cobalt and mixed oxide catalysts.12 The catalytic material is
deposited in thin layers on inert substrates to provide for
maximum surface area between the catalyst and the VOC stream.
A catalytic oxidation unit is shown in Figure 4-3. The
waste gas is introduced into a mixing chamber, where it is
heated to above 600°F by contact with the hot combustion
products from auxiliary burners. The heated mixture is then
passed through the catalyst bed. Oxygen and VOC's migrate to
the catalyst surface by gas diffusion and are adsorbed in the
4-7
-------
To Atmosphen
Stack
Auxiliary Fuel
Burner
Vent Stream
Auxiliary Fuel
Burners
Catalyst Bed
Mixing Chamber
\
D
Optional Heat
Recovery
Figure 4-3. Catalytic incinerator.
4-8
-------
pores of the catalyst. The oxidation reaction takes place at
these active sites. Reaction products are desorbed from the
active sites and transferred by diffusion back into the waste
gas.15 The combusted gas may then be passed through a waste
heat recovery device before exhausting into the atmosphere.
Catalytic incinerators employed in the lithographic printing
industry are typically operated at 600 to 700°F. If the
heating value of the waste gas stream is high enough, and a
heat exchanger is used to preheat the inlet gas, a catalytic
incinerator can maintain its operating temperature without the
need for burning supplemental fuels.
4.2.2.2 Catalytic Incinerator Characteristics. The
operating temperatures of combustion catalysts usually range
from 600 to 1,200°F. Low temperatures may slow down and
possibly stop the oxidation reaction. High temperatures
(greater than 1,200°F) may result in shortened catalyst life
and possibly deterioration of the catalyst. Thermal aging is
caused by high temperatures damaging the active metal,
sintering, or crystallizing the surface area. This results in
a permanent loss of surface area. To prevent deactivation of
the catalyst, a maximum bed temperature of 1,200°F should not
be exceeded.
Masking occurs when there is a loss of active sites due
to a buildup of dust, carbons, or resins, which plug the
catalyst pores. This process is reversible to some extent;
the catalysts can be cleaned periodically with a caustic
solution to restore some of the activity. Any accumulation
of particulate matter, condensed VOC's, or polymerized
hydrocarbons on the catalyst could block the active sites and,
therefore, reduce effectiveness.
Catalyst poisoning occurs when an active site is taken up
by contaminants such as phosphorous, lead, silicons, sulphur,
bromine, fluorine, or chlorine in the waste stream. Catalysts
can also be deactivated by compounds containing sulfur,
bismuth, phosphorous, arsenic, antimony, mercury, lead, zinc,
tin, or halogens.17 If the catalyst is exposed to any of
4-9
-------
these compounds, VOC's will pass through unreacted or only be
partially oxidized, forming compounds such as aldehydes,
ketones, and organic acids.
Several articles have been published concerning problems
with phosphorous poisoning of catalytic incinerators from
fountain solution etch chemicals from offset lithographic
1 fi 1 ft
printing presses. ' In catalytic incineration, periodic
replacement of the catalyst at intervals of 2 to 5 years can
be anticipated because of thermal aging, masking, and
poisoning processes. In some applications, a service life of
only 3 to 6 months has been reported for precious metal
catalysts because of poisoning.
Problems with catalyst poisoning have led to the
development of a reportedly "poison-resistant" catalyst for
use in offset lithographic printing facilities16 that is more
tolerant of phosphorous and halogens than are traditional
catalysts. Alternately, some systems are designed with
sacrificial beds of inexpensive catalysts upstream from the
precious metal catalyst to trap the poisoning phosphorous and
silicone.6
4.2.2.3 Catalytic Incinerator Efficiency. Catalytic
incinerator efficiency depends on the "space velocity" (the
gas flow per bulk volume of the catalyst bed, time~l)f
operating temperature, oxygen concentration, and waste gas VOC
composition and concentration. A catalytic unit operating at
about 840°F with a catalyst bed volume of 0.5 to 2 cubic
feet per 16.8 standard cubic feet per sec (scf/sec) vent
stream passing through the device can achieve 95 percent VOC
destruction efficiency. In some cases, catalytic incinerators
have been reported to achieve efficiencies of 98 percent or
greater.6 These higher efficiencies are usually obtained by
increasing the catalyst bed volume-to-vent stream flow ratio.
4.2.2.4 Applicability of Catalytic Incinerators.
Because of the sensitivity of a catalytic incinerator to VOC
inlet stream flow conditions, the applicability of catalytic
units for control of VOC from some offset lithographic
4-10
-------
printing operations is limited, although many catalytic units
have operated successfully on offset lithographic dryer
exhausts.
4.2.3 Condenser Filter Systems
4.2.3.1 Condenser Filter Process Description. Condenser
filter systems condense solvents from the hot air dryer
exhaust by cooling the exhaust gases with ambient air and
multistage heat exchangers. Condensation occurs when one
component of a saturated vapor mixture undergoes a phase
change from gas to liquid. The heat removed from the vapor
phase should be sufficient to lower the vapor-phase
temperature to below its dew point temperature (the
temperature at which condensation occurs first).
Condenser filter systems have been designed specifically
for the heatset web offset printing industry. Condenser
filters are nondestructive control devices that recover oils
and solvents from the dryer exhaust gas. These devices employ
surface condensation and microfiltration to remove solvents,
as shown in Figure 4-4.:
In a condenser filter system, the dryer exhaust is drawn
from the dryer discharge stack into the first stage of the
condenser filter. A combination of velocity reduction,
directional change, and mesh screen separation causes solids
(wastes, resins, paper, etc.) to drop out. The dryer exhaust,
minus the solids, continues to flow through the first stage
condenser inlet. The first and second stage condensers are
indirect plate-to-plate heat exchangers of counterflow design.
Hot solvent-laden exhaust fumes flow from top to bottom, with
cooler ambient air flowing from bottom to top, induced by
cooling fans. The clean condenser cooling air is returned to
the atmosphere or is recovered for reuse, that is, heating
plant make-up air.
Solvents condensed in the first- and second-stage
condensers are collected and drained from the system. The
remaining airborne droplets of solvent are collected by
high-efficiency, self-draining, microfiber air filters. These
filters, called "candles," are elongated mesh bags capable of
4-11
-------
By-pass relief
stack
Air exhaust
(100*F)
1.
2.
Second stage
cooling fan
Ambient
air
Dryer exhaust (300-400°F)
Inertia! inlet separator
3. By-pass relief stack to atmosphere
4. First stage cooler/condenser
5. First stage cooling air (ambient)
6. First stage cooling air fan
7. First stage hot air exhaust (150-250°F) for reuse
8. Second stage cooler/condenser
9. Second stage cooling air (ambient)
10. Second stage cooling air fan
11. Second stage air exhaust (100°F max) to atmosphere
12. Third-stage filter section
13. Main fan
14. Treated effluent exhaust (100°F max) to atmosphere
15. Oil solvent to separator for recovery
Treated
exhaust
(KXTF)
j
j / \ Main
•M 13 I system
! V^y fan
Recovered
solvent
to separator
Figure 4-4. Condenser filter system.
4-12
-------
handling flows of 500 cubic feet per minute (cfm) each.
A slightly different design employs a prefilter, one
single-stage condenser, a filter media, and a mist
eliminator.20 The prefilter removes large particles. The
main filter media is automatically advanced by a differential
static pressure controller to maintain low system pressure
drops and optimum performance efficiency. The mist eliminator
traps and collects aerosol droplets of remaining solvent.
Solvents recovered from condenser filter systems are typically
burned in the dryers or boilers as supplemental fuel.
4.2.3.2 Condenser Filters with Carbon. A condenser
filter system sold by at least one vendor uses adsorption,
along with condensation and filtration, to remove VOC's from
dryer exhausts. Although only a few facilities are using the
device at this time, the concept has been shown to be
technically feasible for the offset lithographic printing
industry.
An activated carbon bed added directly downstream from a
condenser filter adsorbs any VOC's that remain in the
condenser filter exhaust stream and significantly improves the
VOC removal efficiency. Because of the high temperatures of
dryer exhaust (350°F), carbon adsorption alone would not be a
suitable control strategy, since adsorption efficiency
decreases with increasing temperature. However, after the
condenser filter lowers the exhaust temperature to
approximately 100°F, adsorption systems can remove additional
VOC's.
Activated carbon, however, has a finite adsorption
capacity. When the carbon is saturated, no further organic
removal is possible. At this point, the organic compounds
must be removed from the bed before adsorption can continue.
This removal process is called desorption, or regeneration.
Most gases can be desorbed from the carbon by heating them to
a sufficiently high temperature, usually via steam or hot air.
Low-pressure steam is the recommended heat source for
carbon regeneration in condenser filter systems although hot
air also can be used. The steam-laden vapors from
4-13
-------
regeneration are then sent to a condenser, and the condensate
passes to a decanter, where the VOC and water layers are
separated. The VOC's recovered from the decanter can be
burned as fuel. Depending on its quality, the water layer can
either be discharged to a wastewater treatment facility or
recycled to provide process steam. Vendors to the printing
industry have found that ink oils are not very soluble, so the
concentration of organics in the condensate water should be
low. The regeneration process may be repeated many times,
but eventually the carbon must be replaced.
The life span of the activated carbon depends on the
nature of the pollutants being controlled. Vendors to the
offset lithographic printing industry predict a 5-year carbon
life,21 after which the carbon must be disposed of and
replaced.
Often, a two-bed system is employed, where one bed is
always on-line while the other is being regenerated,
especially for 24-hour operations. Parallel beds are not
necessary if the exhaust flow is not continuous and operating
hours do not exceed the time to saturation. In the offset
lithographic printing industry, beds can typically be
regenerated at night when press lines are down. Adsorption
systems are designed to handle the maximum number of hours of
continuous press operation before saturation occurs.
4.2.3.3 Condenser Filter Efficiency. The VOC removal
efficiency of a condenser depends on the type of vapor stream
entering the condenser, condenser operating parameters, and
whether or not a carbon unit is used in the condenser exhaust.
Condenser filter systems have been evaluated in several
States. These units can reportedly achieve as high as
97 percent VOC removal efficiency, although about 90 percent
?Q
is typical for units without carbon. Carbon units can
guarantee 95 percent efficiencies.
The advantage of condenser filter systems over combustion
systems is that the recovered solvent can tae reused.
Normally, the solvent can be burned in the dryer or a boiler
4-14
-------
as fuel, with a 3-to-l ratio of recovered solvent to natural
gas.20 Operating and maintenance costs are offset by potential
fuel savings. Cost issues are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 6 . 0 ._
4.3 PROCESS MODIFICATION
Process modifications are changes in operating methods or
equipment that result in improved VOC control. The
modifications may involve retrofitting existing equipment or
replacing older equipment with new technology to accommodate
the process change.
4.3.1 Refrigerated Fountain Solution Systems
4.3.1.1 Process Description. Fountain solutions used in
offset lithography are composed primarily of water, but also
may contain an etchant (phosphoric acid), gum arabic, and a
dampening aid to reduce the surface tension of water. Most
often the dampening aid is IPA, which is a VOC. To improve
printing quality, many presses are fitted with refrigerated
circulators, which cool fountain solutions to a preset
temperature, usually from 55 to 60°F, giving operators better
control over ink/water emulsification and hot weather
scumming, and stabilize the ink/water balance by minimizing
alcohol evaporation. Cooling also reduces VOC emissions from
the fountain solutions.
One refrigerated circulator can handle six to eight
38-in. fountain solution trays.23 The units can be equipped
with stainless steel filters to remove contaminants.
Figure 4-5 shows a refrigeration fountain solution unit.
4.3.1.2 Efficiency of Refrigerated Circulators.
Refrigeration of fountain solution trays has been shown to
reduce alcohol consumption by as much as 44 percent.2* The
temperature of the fountain solution can be reduced from room
temperature to as low as 40°F. Theoretical calculations show
that the evaporation rate of IPA is decreased by 49 percent
when temperatures are reduced from 80 to 60°F (see
Appendix B).
4-15
-------
Alcohol r»t«rvoir
Fountain solution
raaafvoir \
Coil of Circulating
fountain solution
Compraaaor
Courtaay of Baldwin TachnotoglM
Figure 4-5. Refrigerated fountain solution circulators,
4-16
-------
4.3.1.3 Applicability. Refrigerated units are
technically feasible options for reducing VOC emissions from
offset lithographic printing presses that use alcohol and are
currently us_ed at a number of lithographic printing
facilities. They can be designed to handle any flow rate as
well as fluctuations in flow. Older presses can be
retrofitted with refrigerated units. Refrigerated units can
be easily installed on centralized circulating systems.
4.3.2 Water Conditioning Devices
A new device that reportedly reduces the amount of
dampening aid in the fountain solution has been recently
introduced to the printing industry. The device magnetizes
the fountain water and reduces its surface tension so that the
need for alcohol or an alcohol substitute reportedly is
greatly reduced.25 Although there has been limited use within
the industry over 200 printing units in the United States are
reportedly using this method successfully. One facility
confirmed the successful use of the device on all presses just
2 months into a trial period.27 However, preliminary use of
the devices has shown that more alcohol may be necessary for
startup of the presses.27|2B
Although some facilities have had excellent results with
magnetic devices, there is controversy about the effectiveness
within the industry. 9 Despite the early success, current use
in the industry is limited with some facilities reporting no
reduction in the need for alcohol with the use of magnets.
Third party testing also has provided conflicting results,
with some tests showing reduced surface tension and others
showing no change in surface tension.
4.4 MATERIAL REFORMULATION OR SUBSTITUTION
Material reformulation includes such techniques as
reducing the amount of alcohol in the fountain, using alcohol
substitutes in the fountain solution, and using lower VOC
cleaning solutions.
4-17
-------
4.4.1 Fountain Solution
A large amount of VOC emissions from offset lithographic
presses occur from the alcohol used in the fountain solution.
The role of the fountain solution is to dampen the water
receptive nonimage areas of the lithographic plate. Although
fountain solution is mostly water, alcohol is used in the
solution to reduce the surface tension of the water and
increase the wetting ability of the fountain solution. As
stated previously, IPA has been used by offset lithographic
printers since the 1950's. The concentration of alcohol in
the fountain solution can range from 0 to 35 percent, with an
estimated average at about 17 percent.
4.4.1.1 Reduction in Alcohol. The NAPL has correlated
continuous dampening systems and acid-based fountain solutions
with higher than average alcohol consumption rates. Brush or
spray dampening equipment sometimes is associated with lower
alcohol use, possibly due to the ability of the brush or spray
to reduce the surface tension of water.30 A survey of
suppliers of dampening equipment that inclxided both continuous
and conventional dampening on web and sheet-fed units
indicated that the equipment, regardless of type, could be
used with very little alcohol (5 percent) or even none at
i i 31'35
all.
4.4.1.2 Nonalcohol Additives. Nonalcohol fountain
solution additives, or alcohol substitutes, lower the amount
of VOC's in the final fountain mixture, as well as the amount
emitted from the presses.
Alcohol substitutes are mixed at a ratio of 3 to 4 ounces
of substitute (specific gravity approximately equal to 1) to
1 gallon of water (128 ounces) for a final concentration that
is less than 3 percent (by weight) alcohol substitute. The
VOC content of the substitutes can range from 0 to
100 percent, with two-step substitutes corresponding to the
higher end of the range and one-step substitutes corresponding
to the lower end, at 10 percent VOC or less.36
4-18
-------
Because the additives have a lower evaporation rate than
alcohol (approximately one-fourth), and because of the lower
mixing ratio of the additive with water (1 gallon of alcohol
substitute can replace up to 16 gallons of alcohol), the
overall emissions of VOC's from the fountain solution are
lowered (see Chapter 5.0).
4.4.1.3 Applicability of VOC Reduction in Fountain
Solution. Alcohol reduction or replacement may impact members
of the offset lithographic printing industry differently
because of the subtleties associated with printing on
different substrates for each individual product. A common
complaint from printers is the decline of product quality with
low alcohol rates—a criticism that is difficult to
substantiate or refute. Although some printers assert that
they cannot function without some alcohol in their fountain
solution, the NAPL and other printers believe that with a
commitment by management, alcohol use rates can be lowered.
The advantage that some printers find with alcohol is that it
is more "forgiving" than alcohol substitutes; problems with
print quality are more quickly eliminated when alcohol use is
not restricted.30
Suppliers of nonalcohol fountain solution additives state
that they have seen an increased demand for their products in
recent years in all areas of offset lithographic printing,3
although sheet-fed printers have had some difficulty adapting
to reduced alcohol levels or nonalcohol substitutes.38'39 The
slower press speeds and intermittent printing associated with
sheet-fed printing have made effective dampening difficult
with reduced alcohol levels and nonalcohol fountain solutions.
The use of alcohol substitutes in sheet-fed printing, however,
has increased in the last few years, as it has with other
offset lithographic printing methods.38 Successful alcohol
substitution may require a transition period in which as much
as 10 percent alcohol is used. '
It is believed that pressmen will eventually find a
solution to their problems with alcohol substitutes if the use
4-19
-------
of alcohol is restricted.3 '41 The newspaper industry has been
successful in converting to nonalcohol dampening solutions.42
4.4.2 Cleaning Solutions
In an EPA survey of offset lithographic printers, no
facility reported using lower VOC cleaning products
exclusively. Facilities that were visited and are using other
lower VOC products and controls to reduce VOC emissions are
not using lower VOC cleaning products as well.*1'*3'** A rule
in the South Coast Air Quality Management District in
California (Rule 1130) required that offset lithographic
printing cleaning products contain approximately 30 percent
VOC or less (2.5 pounds per gallon), although printers report
cleaning difficulties with these products.
Cleaning solutions are available from a few vendors with
a lower VOC content than traditional cleaning compounds, which
are often 100 percent VOC.*6 Of the lower VOC cleaning
products, only a few contain materials that, are not included
on the EPA's list of HAP's in the CAA Amendments of 1990, and
they are carried by only a few vendors at this time. The VOC
content of the non-HAP's lower VOC products ranges from 0 to
30 percent/7'*8'*9 These products contain organic compounds
with relatively lower volatility.
4.5 REFERENCES
Telecon. Harbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Holt, Bill, Allied Signal,
Tulsa, OK. February 21, 1990.
Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Steidele, Jin, Thermal Electron,
Kaukauna, WI. February 21, 1990.
Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Carman, Rich, TEC Systems,
Depere, WI. March 6, 1990.
Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Volpe, Paul, National
Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, New York, NY.
March 6, 1990.
4-20
-------
5. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Connor, Ray, Manufacturers of
Emission Controls Association, Washington, DC.
February 9, 1990.
6. Telecon_. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangfe Park, NC., with Burns, Ken, Engelhard
. Corporation, Edison, NJ. February 21, 1990.
7. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Chu, Wilson, Johnson Matthey,
Wayne, PA. February 21, 1990.
8. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Chrispin, Joanne, Prototech,
Boston, MA. February 22, 1990.
9. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Coskern, Harold, Watchtower
Press, Brooklyn, NY. March 6, 1990.
10. Letter from Paul Volpe, National Association of Printing
Ink Manufacturers, New York, NY., to Jones, Donna Lee,
Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC. October
12, 1990.
11. Gadomski, R. R. Report of Findings on Cooperative Test
No. 2. Graphic Arts Technical Foundation,
Pittsburgh, PA. October 1973.
12. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS, Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Volume 4: Combustion Control
Devices. Report 4. Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-026.
December 1980.
13. Reed, R.J., North American Combustion Handbook.. North
American Manufacturing Company, Cleveland, OH. 1979.
14. Memo and attachments from Farmer, J.R., EPA: Thermal
Incinerator Performance for NSPS. BSD to Distribution.
August 22, 1980.
15. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and
Waste Management. Control Techniques for Volatile
Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Publication No.
EPA-450/2-78-002. May 1978.
16. Lester, George and Jack Summers, Poison Resistant
Catalyst for Purification of Web Offset Press Exhaust.
Presented at the 81st Annual meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association. June 19-24, 1988.
4-21
-------
17. Kenson, R.E. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions.
MetPro Corp., Systems Division. Bulletin 1015.
Harleysville, PA.
18. Kusuko, Michael, and Carlos Nunex. Destruction of
Volatile Organic Compounds Using Catalytic Oxidation.
Journal of Air and Waste Management Association Vol 40,
No. 2. February, 1990.
19. Letter from Ness, Gordon, MMT Environmental Products,
St. Paul, MN., to Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation,
Research Triangle Park, NC. March 28, 1990.
20. The AEI System: "A Unique Emission Control System for
Web Offset Heatset Printing Press Dryer Emissions,"
Tandon, J. S. Presenter 7th International Clean Air
Congress and Exhibition, Sydney, Australia,
August 25-29, 1986.
21. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Tandon, Jack, AEI, Inc.,
Deerfield, IL. February 20, 1991.
22. Letter to Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., from Tandon, Jack, AEI, Inc.,
Deerfield, IL. February 12, 1991.
23. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Falanteno, Tom, Baldwin
Technologies, Stamford, CT. March 22, 1990.
24. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with McPhee, John, Baldwin
Technologies, Stamford, CT. August 31, 1990.
25. Letter from KB Litho Supply Co., Kansas City, MO, to
Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle
Park, NC. November 12, 1991.
26. Letter from Martin, Paul, C.A. Enterprise, Prairie
Village, KS., to Catlett, Karen, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Durham, NC. October 23, 1990.
27. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Van Vleet, Lyle, Vile-Goller,
Kansas City, KS. October 29, 1990.
28. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Martin, Paul, C. A. Enterprises,
Prairie Village, KS. November 28, 1990.
29. Letter from Schaeffer, William, Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA., to Berry, James, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC. August 21,
1991.
4-22
-------
30. Materazzi, A. R. NAPL Special Report: Safety, Health &
Environment, "A Situation Report/Alert: What's Being
Done to Stall an EPA Crackdown on Alcohol in Dampeners."
National Association of Printers and Lithographers
Research & Educations Foundation, Teaneck, NJ.
June 19_87.
31. Telecon. Pelt, Richard, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Dedsando, Charlie, Heidelberg
Equipment Company, New York City, NY. December 17, 1990.
32. Telecon. Pelt, Richard, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Songer, Bill, Komeri Printing
Machinery Company, New York City, NY. December 18, 1990.
33. Telecon. Pelt, Richard, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Niemero, Ted, Rockwell Graphics
Systems, Westmont, IL. December 18, 1990.
34. Telecon. Pelt, Richard, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Dahlgren, Harvey, Epic Products
International, Dallas, Texas. December 18, 1990.
35. Telecon. Pelt, Richard, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Bernetich, Joe, Akiyama
Equipment Company, West Paterson, NJ. December 19, 1990.
36. Memorandum from Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, to
file. Offset Lithographic Printing Emissions with Use of
Low-VOC Products and Other Control Options.
December 4, 1990.
37. Materazzi, A. R. NAPL Special Report: Plant &
Production Management, "Alcohol Substitutes Find
Increased Acceptance: If At First You Don't Succeed, Try
Again." National Association of Printers & Lithographers
Research & Educational Foundation, Teaneck, NJ.
September 1990.
38. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Gerson, David, Printers Service,
Newark, NJ. September 4, 1990.
39. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Waheed, Husian, Maryland Air
Management Administration, Baltimore, MD.
October 31, 1990.
40. Offset Lithography Summary Report for Technical Support
of a Revised Ozone State Implementation Plan for Memphis,
TN. Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC.
June 1985.
4-23
-------
41. Trip Report B. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Visit of July 18, 1990. Confidential Business
Information.
42. Notes of meeting with EPA, Radian Corporation, and
representatives of the Newspaper Printing Industry.
Research Triangle Park, NC. March 27, 1990.
43. Trip report C. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Visit of August 2, 1990. Confidential Business
Information.
44. Trip report A. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Visit of July 10, 1990. Confidential Business
Information.
45. Notes of meeting with EPA, Radian Corporation, and
representatives of the Lithographic Printing Industry.
EPA/OAQPS, Durham, NC. March 19, 1990.
46. Memorandum from Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Summary of Section 114 Questionnaires.
August 28, 1990.
47. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Lynch, Roy, Quality Control
Litho Products, Corona, CA. November 5, 1990.
48. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Ryan, Dennis, Varn Products,
Oakland, NJ. November 6, 1990.
49. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Wahtling, Ron, Printex Products,
North Canton, Ohio. November 16, 1990.
4-24
-------
5.0 EMISSION ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
This chapter discusses VOC emissions and potential
emission reductions with the use of the control technologies
described in Chapter 4.0, applied to the model plants
presented in Chapter 3.0.
Sources of VOC emissions from offset lithographic
printing operations are the inks (heatset), fountain solution,
and cleaning solutions used as raw materials in the printing
process. Emissions of VOC's from each type of material are
discussed separately below. Calculations to support the
information presented in this chapter are found in Appendix B.
5.1 PRINTING INKS
5.1.1 Ink Use
Estimated ink use rates for the model plants were derived
from information from industry surveys.1' For heatset and
non-heatset web model plants, the ink use rate was estimated
to be 10.3 pounds per unit-hour (Ib/unit hour); for non-
heatset sheet model plants, a rate of 0.25 Ib/unit hour was
used.1 The average ink use for model plants in Groups A, B,
and C was calculated using the following equation:
ink use = ink use rate x number of units x 3,000 hour
(Ib) (Ib/unit hour) (1)
The total operating hours estimate for the model plants
(3,000 hour) was based on operation of the presses for
16 hours per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year, where
approximately 25 percent of this time is "make ready time"
during which no significant VOC emissions occur.3
The ink use rate used for the newspaper model plants
(Group D) was the average annual ink use corresponding to
5-1
-------
facility size (from industry data).2 For model plants in
Groups A, B, and C, an average ink use was calculated for the
range of units (single blanket) in each size category.
Average annual ink use for the model plants is shown in
Table 5-1.
5.1.2 Baseline (Uncontrolled) Volatile Orcranic Compound
Emissions from Inks
Baseline emissions of VOC's from inks for the model
plants were calculated from.the amount of ink used, the
percent VOC in the ink, and the estimated percent VOC from the
ink retained by the print and substrate, according to the
following equation:
weight (100 - percent VOC
VOC weight percent VOC retained by the
emissions = of ink x in the ink x paper) (2)
from inks used 100 100
A representative percentage of printing ink VOC was
selected for each model plant type, based entirely on a survey
of the industry by the National Association of Printing Ink
Manufacturers. The survey data are anecdotal in that, as far
as can be determined, they are not based entirely on EPA
methods. In the absence of analytical values, the industry
data have been used.
A 40-percent (by weight) VOC in the ink was used to
represent a range of 25 to 45 percent VOC reported for heatset
inks.* A VOC content of 30 percent was used for non-heatset
web ink to represent a range of 0 to 45 percent VOC reported
for these inks/
For non-heatset sheet-fed model plants, a VOC content of
25 percent was used to represent the range of 5 to 35 VOC by
weight reported for sheet-fed inks.* A 10-percent VOC content
is used for newspaper ink (non-heatset web) to represent the
range of 0 to 45 percent VOC reported for newspaper inks.
For heatset inks, the amount of VOC retained by the
substrate was estimated at 20 percent.*'5'6 The retention of
5-2
-------
u
J
i
o
Q
U ~
O U
OS >
O Cd
U 0,
3 cn
M U
J O
W <4
co 2
03 >
U O
W M
D cn
f-> M
Q
o a
at, z
a. D
z z
< o
J u
(X
o
J M
u z
Q?
O CJJ
*§
m
u
J
03
^
?l
u
ill
n
II
SSP ?s»s M»2s ~*2s 5
-*+> 0
^J M ^^
O J3 0 I
•O 0 £ C
» (0 O
000
3 a a in
4J 4J 0
0 0 0 10
tt J3 JM Qt
4J I I W
10 e e >
0 o o 0
£ C C C
0000
Ul U U U
(0 «j Qt CL CL
O O O O
O O O O
c c e c
ot a a a
^j ^J ^J XJ
c c c e
10 10 10 *
^L ^L ^^ ^L
0000
'8'S'SI
zzzz
10
(0
0
3
iH
(0
0
(0
0
0
o
3
O
(0
0
£,
•o
10
0
u
X
0
0
0
8
-H 4J
O 10
J3 r-t
o o
u >
(0 h
0
-H 3
>0
o
U (0
a
o u
n
-------
VOC by the substrate is assumed to be 95 percent for model
plants that use non-heatset inks.*'5'6 In heatset printing,
VOC's from the ink are emitted from the hot. air dryer exhaust.
Because VOC's are retained by the substrate;, VOC emissions
within the facility limits are much lower from non-heatset
inks than from heatset inks. Non-heatset sheet-fed model
plants have the lowest VOC emissions because of the lower ink-
use rate and the smaller number of units per facility.
Table 5-1 shows estimated baseline VOC emissions for the model
plants, derived from the above parameters and equations.
5.1.3 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Ink
Volatile organic compound emissions from the ink in
heatset printing operations can be controlled by add-on
devices that destroy or collect the VOC released from the
dryer. Chapter 4.0 describes four technologies available to
the lithographic printing industry for controlling VOC's from
inks: thermal incinerators, catalytic incinerators, condenser
filters, and condenser filters with carbon. The control
efficiency for thermal and catalytic incinerators was
estimated at 95 to 100 percent, with 98 percent control a
reasonable estimate of performance. i8>9>1 Control
efficiency was estimated at 90 percent for condenser
filters11'12 and at 95 percent for condenser filters with
carbon.13 Controlled levels of VOC emissions from inks were
calculated according to the following equation, using an
estimated control efficiency (CE) for each add-on control
device:
controlled baseline
VOC emissions = (uncontrolled) x 100-CE
from inks VOC emissions 100 (3)
from inks
Table 5-2 shows controlled versus baseline VOC emissions
from inks in heatset model plants, using the four possible
add-on control devices. The controlled emissions figures in
Table 5-2 were calculated using a 98-percent control
5-4
-------
I
in
U
2
IB
° 2
u 3
tj «.
H
E<< »J
i!
ONTROLLED)
[N HEATSET
0 "
5 w
r*i
2
dZ ^H
3 o
^0 ^^
2s
VERSUS
EMISSI01
CONTROLLED
COMPOUND
e
CM
in
u
J
CO
g
VOC Emissions
•o
0)
"o
c
o
u
_
C
O
10
01
c
u
c
u
4.)
(O
4-t
IO
u
0)
c
c:
>0
E
u
01
Si
Ol
c
•£ c
81 -2
tf "^
ai
w
c
Q
p!
= ^
oe ""'
c
0
11
UJ <*—"
c
o — • »
O (A Q.
yj > w 4-t
S3
|||
•5 c »
"o — "°
y r\ LJ
co ao co ao
S S 3 S
- - .s, „
ao ao ao co
cj in o cri
^-« — « OO ^T
in ^- 01 co
CNJ m o 01
1
r— 2 O>
>> •— — Ol
u 3 TJ u
oi E 01 «
__ —
|"^ *~* -
i i i i
VOC Emissions
T3
^
U
C
u
Ol
•—
denser Fi
c
Q
4-> C
C 0
0) —
O 4J
u u
01 3
Q- -a
01
a:
VI
0
u a.
•Sit
Ol
Of.
Emissions
(tpy)
c
O
a
n
o
£
•5:
u
01
Condenser F
4-> C
C 0
0) -
(J 4-*
1- U
Ol 3
CX
V)
§
4»-* '-™k
U >.
3 a.
•o 4-1
0) — •
ae
c
o
in Q.
•*- 4-<
e —
UJ
1 1
w -* "
n ^, oj
m m m m
01010*01
co -^ ro co
c\j m o co
fi
C\J CO tfi "
m ^ 01 co
co m o 01
3 _ ! '.
fc 1 f i
»- ^ >
i— « «_« ^^ M«
Jc i i i
u;
m
C
•H
iH
•H
(C
^>
0)
-o
0)
J-l
o
e
c
•H
•o
0)
'Jj
0
w
0)
U)
4J
c
"
a
rH
0)
T5
o
0
de refers t
o
0
-P
c
(0
J
0
5-5
-------
efficiency for thermal and catalytic incinerators, a
95-percent efficiency for condenser filters with carbon, and a
90-percent efficiency for condenser filters.
5.2 FOUNTAIN SOLUTIONS
5.2.1 Isoprbpyl Alcohol and Nonalcohol Additive Use
Isopropyl alcohol is added to offset lithographic
fountain solution to decrease the surface tension of the water
used to wet the nonimage areas of the lithographic plate.
Some offset facilities and most of the newspaper industry use
nonalcohol additives (containing VOC's) to reduce water
surface tension. Additives are discussed in more detail in
Chapters 3.0 and 4.0.
The IPA use rates for model plants in Groups A and C were
estimated from alcohol-to-ink ratios obtained from an industry
survey.1* For heatset web model plants, a ratio of 0.9 pounds
of alcohol per pound of ink was used. For sheet-fed model
plants, a ratio of 1.25 pounds of alcohol per pound of ink was
used. For non-heatset web model plants, the IPA use rate of
0.53 pounds of alcohol per pound of ink was estimated from an
industry survey1* and discussions with industry
representatives.15 The use of alcohol in the model plants
presented in Table 5-1 was based on these ratios.
The use of nonalcohol additives for the model plants
representing newspaper facilities (Group D) was estimated
using a ratio of 0.07 pounds of additives per pound of ink.
This ratio was obtained from a survey of the industry.1 The
nonalcohol additives have a lower evaporation rate than
alcohol; therefore, less is needed to produce the same effect
in the fountain solution delivery system. The estimated
annual amount of nonalcohol additive used in the fountain
solution for various sized newspaper model plants is shown in
Table 5-1.
5.2.2 Baseline (Uncontrolled) Volatile Orcranic Compound
Emissions from Fountain Solution
The VOC's in the fountain solution are assumed to be
completely volatilized within the fountain solution delivery
5-6
-------
system because of the heat and work of the system on the
solution; no unused alcohol is disposed of. Volatile
organic compound emissions from IPA use, therefore, are
calculated using the following equation:
VOC emissions
from fountain
solution = fountain solution (4)
alcohol alcohol use
Equation (4) was used to calculate fountain solution VOC
emissions in the baseline for all of the model plants in
Groups A, B, and C in Table 5-1.
One-step nonalcohol additives or alcohol substitutes are
estimated to contain from 0 to 100 percent VOC (by weight) in
their concentrated form, based on information received from
printers and vendors.15'17 Volatile organic compound emissions
from nonalcohol substitutes were calculated according to the
following equation:
VOC emissions weight of percent VOC in
from substitute = substitute x concentrate (5)
100
Table 5-1 shows baseline VOC emissions from the model plants
in Group D (newspaper model plants), calculated using
Equation (5), and an estimate of 10 percent VOC in the
nonalcohol additive.
5.2.3 Reduction of Alcohol in Fountain Solutions
One method for controlling VOC emissions from the
fountain solution is to reduce the concentration of alcohol in
the fountain. The average alcohol content of fountain
solution currently used by industry is reported to be
17 percent by volume.1* Table 5-3 shows VOC emissions and
reductions from baseline associated with lowering fountain
solution alcohol levels to 10 percent, 5 percent, and
3 percent for model plants in Groups A, B, and C.
Volatile organic compound emissions associated with
reducing fountain solution alcohol for model plants in
5-7
-------
Z
M
D
0
fc.
O
a
w a"
OEn^
MM§
y^ ^E ^^
HQ2
DM"""
Z COMPOUN
DNS ASSOC
:RNATIVES
^•"' "^ rri
MMtH
to r^ ^^
VOLATILE OR(
itiD THE RED!
OF CONTROL
>-"*.
MMM
UD0'
tOi-J^
mw
•<
t^
O
w
b4
EH
^
M
w
u
.
CO
1
in
CQ
&s
8
4-
11
L
*
I
t
_
a
a
c
o.
g
^
i
~
$
.s
»
o:
1
R
a
^
11
O 3
CLOC
yj —
0^
t^
7~
ac
tA
§~
WJ-M
5~
ions Percent
) Reduced
I'
ae
Emissions
(tpy)
at u
(-•n
r •« >* ^ >o-o>o-o zzzzzz
oo in o ro
*- fM ro «—
>* GO in *o
ro o •- ~-i ro o — ro o'orutn <<<<<•<
ojinocorviinoeo zzzzzz
^ ^ ^~ ^~
•-»-«-«- <<<< ,-•-•-,- <<<<<<
-T -J vT J- ZZZZ -* -4- ^f v» ZZZZZZ
in o> «- o
CM-OrMrsJZZZZ ZZZZZZ
^ ^ ^ O1
•- o o r-- <<<< o<-W> <<<<<<
-JO-COfMZZZZ ZZZZZZ
«- ro
vrsr^rsr zzzz vrsr^^ zzzzzz
in o K> >»
ro-oro^»zzzz zzzzzz
«- (M
KSSS ^5i5 ^n^2 Sz5S55;
0 « * * .o°- ~M^- - „ o « « -:
^t^roln ~*°-2,o ^C\JN!^ oea^roi^lP
_-> --> - = > - = >
< < < < CO CD CD m UUUU O O O O O O
5-8
-------
2
H
<
EH
2
D
O
fn
O
IX
fc.
w 2"
os"
MEH~
WHg
2*|
2QS
u«8
C1*!4
COMPOUNI
3 ASSOCIi
NATIVES
all
•^ UU ST1
*-*r^ . T
--4r. M
^4^--*
r n f \ **«
vjJvj ^
t^S ^
P*4 N^ . T
°go
"(V
Cd£X?
**^ HM c^
J 5
MW0
£E8
z°
^^4
w r
22g
^°H
JMS
CdEng
WD^
mS<
CO^
Cb
o
w
u
r .
fcH
s
M
EH
ff\
UJ
u
«
n
1
IT)
W
n
M
OQ
<
EH
<
"•
^
K
C
c
4-
«
U
0.
o
u
H-
a
QE
1
R
<
a
X
i/-
4
s
^
IT
£"8
01 U
2-3
01 4)
Q.K
(A —
'•" %^
V r?
y Q.
I"
§
•si
wi*-"
'i^*
IU
«
4) U
"?
u £
O-Ct
VI
c
'•" in
s|
QC
«
§~
•El
VI U.
05*^
UJ
WO
c u
i!-s
41 j <<<<<<
to to to i^ r- r~- i-- oo co co co x x x x x x
o <> r>j o
r- o r\i co oxi»i-oO> "-"--oro <<<<<<
in oj in in r\j>orM<\j •- z z z z z z
*~ *~
OJ >* Kl O
ro ^« ^j co fM r*- ^ oo o o ^^ to ^ ^ *c ^ ^ *4
•— r\ji/^o^«~rumo^ zzxaeaeae
S^-%r>r r\jr\jr\jr\j ^--Nr^^ <<<<<<
co co co r^ N. r- t~- co co co co z z z z z z
O O* M ^*
co co *o i/^ o m o m *~ ^ ^o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
mruin-o M-OKIM »- z z z z z z
r~ rg -* •- (M
ru >>• rj co
f\J i/~i o IM ^* in O M O O ^ f\J O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
«-(Njir\O'-IMinO> < Z z Z Z Z
z
.-•-•-•- O O O O »-^^«- <<<<<<
r^ r- h- in in in ui
co >o ro o-
O^OO^OKI Oinof) o»~m*~ <<<<<<
-J O •- O- CM^tO>J O
«- in o M •- in o •* cldoJin <<<<<<
rjvro-^O(Nj^-o>>>o z z z z z z
^ ^
— — > _^> «Z> — ~ > —
i i i i i i i i i i i » i » i i i i
< < < < mmmm u o u u o o o o o o
5-9
-------
2
H
EH
2
D
O
b
S
0
OS
Ch
C/3
2 ^
o ac S"
WC_i ^
fcH rj
CO M Q
H R
§g3
rj 2
Cr^ f"\
Q < g
2 H ii
D U
O O CO
P-4 CO rri
s co tr
O < M
u 2
w 5««
02g
2* H fi
< EH £
o u 5
0 Q *
W j
3*0
H W«
r. — fc-^
~ »** ^
O Q U
> 2 ^
^* ^^
u °
22s,
HOC
tJ H S
U EH {q
CO D p/
CQ O $
CO
fe
O **
^0
Cd
EH
H
EH
CO
n
1
in
(4
H^
CQ
c
c
•*
c
2
^
(/) Q.
.2^
E
LU
c"8
So
u 5
ol o
Q-ce
|x
ae
M Q.
i""
UJ
TJ ID'S
OOOO OOOO
OOOO OOOO
§o r^
*O CNJ
oooo oooo
8:8:§:8: &£§:§:
O»^K>O OI^OO^
•- M m •- KI
-T O CO fO
•— rorO'O oo«— m
o- o- o- o- oo to co co
MOO-O«- •* in o •-
2 CM in •- IM
N.inom N-in^-'O
^ to m «- KI in
- = > _ Z >
<<<< CD CO CD 00
§000 oooooo
OOO C' O O O O O
fNJfOinO* ^•MOKI'O*-
v-rM^^o c»o^roh*in
*" «-
oooo oooooo
S ? O- S :ezzzzz
0 00
^ fNJ •** h-
^rOrJjO §<<<<<
•- rj o o
o o «- ro
oooo <<<<«<
oooo z z z z z z
•- T* 60 Psl
•J~'°'£ 555555
ddd^ 555555
_-E* _ = = 2:>5
uuuu oooooo
•£-
0)
0)0,
1 3
4JQ)
cue
0) 1
rc
too
c
-a—
c
(OX)
0)
0)
0)
•4J W
•H W (0
(Q.P 01
-PIOJS
0) 0) 1
T3.CC
O
CUlnC
O<4-l 0)
i x:
OI-P
eg
•H 3 U
H O<4-l
1 >
in TD
oixi e
i— i 3
«< rf»^m
EH CU
0)O
•oo.
(0
CQ)»<
iH (OH Q)
rH CO (0
01-HH Q
frt (rt "r-1
O+J— -H
3-P-pa
tnoccfl
C iHr- I4J
oitnaao
IQO) C
Q)6rHrH
U 3 0) 0) II
Q) WOO<
(0X1 U
5-10
-------
Groups A, B, and C were calculated using the following
equation:
VOC emissions
from fountain
solution at VOC emissions
lower alcohol = at baseline x lower % alcohol (6)
levels concentration baseline % alcohol
For example, for model plants in Groups A and C in Table 5-3,
reduction of fountain solution alcohol to 10 percent was
calculated using baseline emissions from Equation (4) above,
and a factor of 10 over 17, corresponding to a reduced alcohol
level of 10 percent and an alcohol concentration of 17 percent
in the baseline.
5.2.4 Refrigerated Fountain Solution Systems
Evaporation of alcohol from fountain solution can be
reduced by cooling the fountain solution with a refrigerated
circulator. Because the evaporation of alcohol is slowed,
less alcohol is needed in the fountain solution to maintain
the desired concentration, which in turn reduces the amount of
alcohol used by the facility and VOC emissions from the
fountain solution.
Refrigeration systems are designed to reduce the
temperature of the fountain solution from approximately 80 to
below 60°F. For pure IPA, this temperature decrease
theoretically results in a 50-percent reduction in evaporation
(see Appendix B). One vendor of refrigerated fountain
solution systems found that refrigeration of the fountain
reduced the alcohol consumed by the press by 44 percent.18
Equation (7) was used to estimate VOC emissions from
refrigerated fountain solution systems containing alcohol,
using 44 percent as an approximate reduction in VOC emissions:
VOC emissions VOC emissions
from a from an
refrigerated = unrefrigerated x (1 - 0.44) (7)
fountain fountain
5-11
-------
The VOC emissions and reductions for model plants in Groups A,
B, and C associated with refrigeration of fountain solutions
at 17, 10, 5, and 3 percent alcohol, as appropriate, are shown
in Table 5-3.
5.2.5 Use of Alcohol Substitutes
Volatile organic compound emissions also can be reduced
by using a nonalcohol additive, or alcohol substitute, as
discussed above for the newspaper industry. The concentrated
alcohol substitute is diluted with water at a ratio of
approximately 2 to 4 ounces of concentrate to 1 gallon of
water. One pound of alcohol substitute replaces
approximately 10 pounds of alcohol in the fountain
solution.1*'19'26
The amount of alcohol substitute (by weight) needed to
replace fountain solution alcohol can be calculated with the
equation below:
weight of
alcohol = weight of alcohol used (8)
substitute 10
The method for calculating VOC emissions with the use of
alcohol substitutes is presented in Equation (5). The VOC
emissions resulting from the use of substitutes and the
associated reductions for the model plants are presented in
Table 5-3.
5.2.6 Magnetizing the Fountain Solution
A novel water conditioning device that uses magnetism to
reduce the surface tension of fountain water is described in
Chapter 4.0. Although potentially magnetism could totally
remove the need for alcohol or alcohol substitutes, some
printers maintain that alcohol is still needed in the
fountain, especially during startup.
For the purposes of estimating emissions from the model
plants, VOC emissions with the use of a magnet are assumed to
be either zero or to reflect the use of 3 percent alcohol for
5-12
-------
start-up. Using Equation (6), VOC emissions with the use of a
magnet are:
VOC emissions
with magnetism of VOC emissions
fountain solution = at baseline x 3 % alcohol (6)
(at 3% alcohol) concentrations baseline % alcohol
or
VOC emissions
with magnetism of
fountain solution = 0 (9)
(no alcohol)
depending on the use of alcohol. Table 5-3 shows VOC
emissions and reductions for model plants in Groups A, B,
and C with either 3 percent or no VOC, and for model plants in
Group D with no VOC.
5.3 CLEANING SOLUTIONS
5.3.1 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Cleaning
Solutions
Cleaning solution use in the model plants was based on an
estimated rate of 0.04 gallons per unit hour (0.33 pounds per
unit hour). Cleaning compounds used for offset lithographic
printing are approximately 100 percent VOC.1 The VOC
emissions associated with use of cleaning compounds for the
model plants were calculated according to the following
equation:
VOC emissions weight of percent
from cleaning = cleaning x VOC (10)
solutions solution 100
If the cleaner is all VOC, the emissions are equal to the
amount of cleaning solution used. The baseline emissions for
the model plants (shown in Table 5-1) presume that the
cleaners are all VOC.
5-13
-------
5.3.2 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Cleaning Solutions
Lower VOC cleaning compounds are available that have VOC
contents ranging from 0 to 30 percent (by weight), as used
(see Chapter 4.0). Emissions and reductions from baseline
emissions with the use of cleaning products with 30 percent
VOC were calculated using Equation (10). Table 5-4 shows the
VOC emissions and reductions associated with lower VOC
cleaning products for the model plants.
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-4. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS AND REDUCTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER VOC CLEANING PRODUCTS
(tons per year)
Model Plant
Codea
Baseline
TTOC
Emissions*3
VOC Emissions
with Lower VOC
Cleaners0
VOC
Reduction
A-I
A-II
A-III
A-IV
2.5
5.5
11.0
19.9
0.7
1.6
3.3
6.0
1.8
3.9
7.7
13.9
B-I
B-II
B-III
B-IV
2.5
5.5
11.0
19.9
0.7
1.6
3.3
6.0
1.8
3.9
7.7
13.9
C-I
C-II
C-III
C-IV
1
2
8.0
17.0
0.3
0.6
2.4
5.1
0.7
1.4
5.6
11.9
D-I
D-II
D-III
D-IV
D-V
D-VI
1.5
4.5
8.2
16.4
33.9
54.8
0.4
1.3
2.5
4.9
10.2
16.4
1.1
3.2
5.7
11.5
23.7
38.4
aRefers to model plants described in more detail in Table 5-1.
^Baseline VOC content is 100 percent.
C70 percent reduction from the baseline.
5-15
-------
5.4 REFERENCES
1. Memorandum from Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, to
file. Summary of Section 114 Questionnaires.
August 28, 1990.
2. Letter from Mercer, Jane, American Newspaper Publishers
Association, Washington, DC, to Jones, Donna Lee, Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 21, 1990.
3. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Materazzi, Al, (Consultant to the
National Association of Printers & Lithographers),
Bethesda, MD. August 31, 1990.
4. Letter from Volpe, Paul, National Association of Printing
Ink Manufacturers, Inc., Harrison, NY, to Jones, Donna
Lee, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
October 12, 1990.
5. Gadomski, R. R. Report of Findings on Cooperative Test
No. 2. Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA.
October 1973.
6. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. 1:
Stationary Sources and Area Sources. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Fourth Edition.
September 1985.
7. Memorandum and attachments from Farmer, J.R., EPA:
Thermal Incinerator Performance for NSPS. BSD to
Distribution. August 22, 1980.
8. Letter from Timothy Mandich, Thermo Electron Inc.,
Kaukauna, WI., to Harbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation,
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 10, 1990.
9. Letter from Mayer, Morrie, TEC Systems, DePere, WI, to
Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle
Park, NC. July 18, 1990.
10. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Burns, Ken, Engelhard
Corporation, Edison, NJ. February 21, 1990.
11. The AEI System: "A Unique Emission Control System for
Web Offset Heatset Printing Press Dryer Emissions,"
Tandon, J. S. Presenter, 7th International Clean Air
Congress and Exhibition, Sydney, Australia,
August 25-29, 1986.
5-16
-------
12. Letter from Friedrich, Hank, MMT Environmental Services,
St. Paul, MN, to Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation,
Research Triangle Park, NC. August 14, 1990.
13. Letter to Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangl_e Park, NC, from Tandon, Jack, AEI, Inc.,
Deerfield, IL. February 12, 1991.
14. Materazzi, A. R. NAPL Special Report: Safety, Health &
Environment, "A Situation Report/Alert: What's Being Done
to Stall an EPA Crackdown on Alcohol in Dampeners."
National Association of Printers & Lithographers Research
& Educational Foundation, Teaneck, NJ. June 1987.
15. Notes of meeting with EPA, Radian Corporation, and the
National Air Pollution Control Advisory Committee,
Durham, NC. November 20, 1991.
16. MacPhee, J. Where Does the Water Go? Graphic Arts
Monthly. Technical Publishing Company, New York, NY.
February, 1986.
17. Letter from Rosos, Agi, Rosos Research Laboratories, Lake
Bluff, IL, to Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation,
Research Triangle Park, NC. January 15, 1992.
18. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with McPhee, John, Baldwin
Technologies, Stamford, CT. August 31, 1990.
19. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Lynch, Roy, Quality Litho,
Corona, CA. November 5, 1990.
20. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Anzelmo, Susan, Rosos
Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL. November 9, 1990.
21. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Singstock, Jay, RBP Chemical,
Milwaukee, WI. November 9, 1990.
22. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Whitehead, Jim, Rycoline
Products, Chicago, IL. November 9, 1990.
23. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Oser, Mark, Polychrome,
Yonkers, NY. November 9, 1990.
24. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Ryan, Dennis, Yarn Products,
November 6, 1990.
5-17
-------
25. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Maharaj, Tony, Allied Products,
Hollywood, FL. November 6, 1990.
26. Offset Lithography Summary Report for Technical Support
of a Reyised Ozone State Implementation Plan for Memphis,
TN. Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC.
June 1985.
27. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Van Vleet, Lyle, Vile-Goller,
Kansas City, KS. October 29, 1990.
28. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Martin, Paul, C. A. Enterprises,
Prairie Village, KS. November 28, 1990.
29. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Kissick, Chuck, Wright Printing,
Des Moines, IA. November 27, 1990.
30. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, with Gressin, Mike,, Commercial
Lithographing Co., Kansas City, MO. November 27, 1990.
5-18
-------
6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND SELECTION OF
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
This chapter addresses the cost and environmental impacts
of the VOC control methods described in Chapter 4.0. Sections
6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 discuss the costs of controlling VOC
emissions from inks, fountain solution, and cleaning solution,
respectively. Section 6.4 describes the potential
environmental impacts of the various control strategies.
Section 6.5 is a summary of RACT recommended for offset
lithographic printing.
6.1 COSTS OF ADD-ON CONTROLS FOR EMISSIONS FROM INKS
This section presents the methodology and results of the
procedures used to develop costs for controlling VOC's emitted
from ink in heatset printing facilities by using add-on
control devices. Design assumptions, costing equations, and
prices for removing VOC's from dryer exhaust streams using
thermal incinerators, catalytic incinerators, and condenser
filter systems can be found in Appendix C.
6.1.1 General Cost Considerations
All costs are provided in first quarter 1990 dollars.
When necessary, equipment costs were updated using Chemical
Engineering magazine cost indices. Labor rates and utility
prices were obtained from recent publications from the
U. S. Department of Labor and the U. S. Department of
Energy.1'2
Table 6-1 presents general design specifications and
emission control efficiencies for thermal and catalytic
incinerators and condenser filter systems, as applied to the
model plants described in Chapter 3.0.
6-1
-------
w
u
1— 1
>
u
N CONTROL Dl
I
Q
Q
<
O
w
o
p t
2
o
H
_.
PJ
w
cu
w
2
OT
U
^
2
5
55
^
H
I
TABLE 6-
CO
c
pecif icatioi
CO
ondenser
Filter
System
u
Catalytic
Incinerator
i,
W
o
—i i \
rH -P
(T3 (0
g LI
LI 0)
f\\ r*
(U C
J3-H
EH 0
M
e
0)
-P
M
in
CTl
1
O
ON
CO
CO
^
o
a)
-H
y
• H
([ j ^^
U C
n
Emission Control
(percent reducti*
e ^
U-l *t^
g O^rH
" o
01 rH
C t^j
<4H U
U CO fa
to o
o o
o o o
O O (7\
o -
CM in
^
«3 4H y
E O r^
t| j rn ***
CO O )»
0§^
in o"H
in
0)0)0)
M M IH
•H -«H 3
to to *J
^- "^^ rrt
Minimum capacity,
Maximum capacity,
Operating Temper;
U)
SH
0
to
O
rH
to
0
Equipment Life
0
0
n
o
o
0
0
n
T3
(!)
•H
3
O1
V
CZ
Ductwork Length 1
0)
o
c
-a
-H
O -P
J3 rH
(0 3
4J CO
0) tO (U
U O -P r4
3 O (0
tr> -p i o -
C (0 4J ^^ *O
•H in to 0)
C Q) (0 <4H 4->
-H a , .p .p a
T3 C (0
m x: o
L| 4J -H XI
O •» -H rH
MH LI a cu c
o am
*O >P *O (0 O
Q) (0 Q)
CO LI 4J >i Li
3 C > 0 3
•H Q) 3 1
g 13 Q)
<4H rH Q) • 0) ,*
U A LI g LI (Q
CO O (0 (0 g
•H 0) 4J
o a *> LI o -P
0 >i 0 4J C C
CM -P r> w u
L| QJ O rH -H L|
LI m -H
^ Oi *O O (0
O Q) * O T3
rH L| <#> g 0)
IM in a) ^4
O n £ w «J
E .p O Q) 4J
3 ~ fl 43 C
g C <*> Q) 4J •* •
-H Q) O CO
C CO LI <4-i LI en
•H O <4H O O 0) C
g J3 O I-H
u to LI >
< CO T3 4J TJ (0
CO • C 0) CO CO
(0 0) O -P O -
> rH -H O O L| rH
CO JQ 4J Q) Q) Q)
operating costs.
t>For capital cost
operating costs.
cThis temperature
1,400°F is possi
^Heat recovery op
option being sel
eAnnual operating
recovery . Howev
in plant-wide fu
6-2
-------
"Minimum capacity" pertains to the smallest unit
commercially available; "maximum capacity" represents the
largest unit available. Multiple devices are necessary for
flows exceeding the maximum control device capacity.
Conversely, installing the minimum size indicated here may
result in some devices being oversized.
Equipment life was based on vendor records (as documented
in Chapter 4.0). In practice, control equipment can be
located in the pressroom, outside the building, or on the
building roof. A ductwork requirement of 300 ft was imposed
to recognize that some facilities may not be able to install
large skid-mounted devices in an existing pressroom. An
additional fan was included to overcome pressure loss through
the additional ductwork.
Cost credits from recovery and reuse of solvents from the
use of condenser filters place an economic value on the
solvents recovered from the heatset dryer exhaust. Typically,
the recovered solvent is assigned a dollar value equivalent to
the amount of natural gas saved when the solvent is burned in
the dryer or boiler along with natural gas.
An estimate of 3,000 annual operating hours was used in
calculating direct annual costs such as labor costs, and for
utility consumption and hourly emission rates.
6.1.2 Thermal incinerator Cost Methodology
A thermal incinerator system consists of the following
equipment: combustion chamber, instrumentation, recuperative
heat exchanger (optional), blower, ductwork, and a secondary
fan. The OAQPS Control Cost Manual3 contains a detailed
discussion of incinerator control system design. Control
system elements and design assumptions specific to offset
lithography dryer exhaust streams are discussed below.
General design specifications for thermal incinerators are
shown in Table 6-1.
The VOC concentrations in the model plant dryer exhaust
streams range from approximately 600 ppmv to 800 ppmv for the
model plants in Group A. The dryer exhaust streams will
support combustion without auxiliary combustion air.
6-3
-------
The heat content values of the model plant dryer exhaust
streams are less than 10 British thermal units per standard
cubic foot (Btu/scf), well below 25 percent of the lower
explosive limit. Twenty-five percent is considered the
maximum safe concentration (without extensive safety
instrumentation) to avoid premature ignition or an explosion.
Four different heat recovery scenarios were evaluated in
the cost estimation procedure: The cost algorithm includes
systems with 0 percent, 35 percent, 50 percent, and 70 percent
heat recovery. The optimum heat exchange is calculated by an
economic optimization routine, where the tradeoff between the
capital cost of the equipment and the direct operating cost
(primarily fuel) of the system determines the optimum level of
energy recovery. The routine provided the Lowest total annual
cost, the logical choice for a control device. Total capital
and annual costs are based on the most cost-effective
configuration.
The cost analysis follows the methodology outlined in the
OAQPS Control Cost Manual.3 Equipment cost correlations were
based on data provided by various vendors. Each correlation
is valid for incinerators in the 500 to 50,000 scfm range.3
For flow rates above 50,000 scfm, multiple incinerators were
assumed.
Equipment costs for thermal incinerators are a function
of total volumetric throughput (Qtot)• expressed in scfm. The
cost of the 300 ft of ductwork (not included in equipment
cost) was derived from literature data.* It was assumed to be
a 24-in. diameter duct with two elbows per 100 ft (see
Appendix C).
Collection fan costs were developed using a method from
the literature.5 The duct and fan costs were added to the
total equipment cost. A percentage of the purchased equipment
cost was used to estimate the cost of installation.
Table 6-2 lists the initial cost factors used for
calculating direct and indirect installation and purchased
6-4
-------
W
H
U
Q
cj
H
Z
O
u
Z
1
Q
o
a
2
w
o
o
CK
t^
CA
8
bJ
2
c^
M
&
g
,
CM
|
lyi
t ^
CO
O)
V4
01
—I
ft.
Vl
0)
at
c
0)
•a
c
0
u
s
o
o
o
o
o
r-l
£
•w
U
a
0
o
o
•a a
c u u
Id -H O
4J -P
r- 1 >H Id
* rH Vl
gid at
4J C
0) « -rl
H C
M
««
II vo O vO
m to o
o « « •
0 O 0 0
^
o
r-
— rH
««
H in CM -H
o o o o
o • • •
0 0 O 0
*
(N
ff»
<£<<£<
»O m in
T5 ^ O O
4-1 O O O
id
£
4J
o
0)
ID
rf
id c
4J O
ID — 1
U id a
4J 01
a 4J c x
4-> c oi id
ID 0) £ 4-> 4J
O | 3 £
u anno
~4 4J 0) "4
4J 3 ffl r-l 0)
u tr c id vi
01 W M W U,
*»•<
Q
<
CM
CM
.
rH
H
ffl
<
ao
o
rt
II
ffl
tt.
ao
rH
^
II
a
4J OJ
0) JJ
O (D
" S
C C
0) 0
£ **^
Bl 4J
•H id
3 --I
O1 -I
0) 4
•a a
01 C
0 M
id
£ 4J
0 0
Vi 0)
3 VI
a. -i
a
fflnarn a
in rH m in «-H
•H 0 0 0 O
0000 0
ffl ffl a ffl m
en CM oo oo r-i
rH O O O O
o o o o o
0 ffl m 0 o ffl
00 T ^- CM r-l f-l
O rH O O O O
o o o o o o
•itf
O M
tJ §
O C 4J
ft o u
CU*"4 3
3 4J T)
ffl Q
01 Vi
UJ Vi O
Q) M-l
a
C d rH C
O id O.Q
•rl O» O - 1 O
41 C -rl 4J C
Id -rl VI 0»« -•
•O rH 4J C ^ 4J
C T3 O -rl 3 C
3 c ot o«n -r<
0 Id rH -r» C *
b< S W O< M Oi
a a
r» r~
CM CM
O i-l
a m
ao ao
O rH
m m
o o
m m
O rH
a
4J -U
a a
0 O
u u
c c
o o
^ AJ
fri i i |^
rH « rH
rH O <-<
id U «
4J -P
ffl 4J ffl
cue
•rl 0) M
4J -rl 4J
u o u
0 01
VI rH VI
~t « ^
Q 4> -0
0 C
EH M
naamfflto
CM in m CM oo CM
0 0 0 0 O 0
O O O O O O
m ffl m ffl m m
PO rH f*l fO f^4 W
O O O O rH 0
d d d d d o
o m co ffl a m
o m o CM <-H n
rH O rH O O O
o o o o o o
a
0)
a
c
$
Ox
X
0)
•a
rH
01
•O 4J
c a a
0 0) -I
c -• u u u
•rl 4J O C C
vi o 4-> a Vl 4J 0 -rl
•rl B1 4J Vl c c « h e
C O O 4J 0) C
W O O W 04 CJ
m
04
CM
0
a
CM
o
a
rH
ro
o
4J
(D
0
U
4J
U
Q)
>-H
*o
c
M
rH
4J
0
0)
Vl
0
4J
id
Vl
0)
C
•rl
U
C
•o
ftl ^
T3 0
3 •*-(
rH
U ffl
c *
•f4
Q)
4^ £
o s
c a
a *o
a g
0 3
u a
a
c a
IM a
4J
•o a
C 0
id u
*^ O^
Vl C
0 -1
$ 4J
4J C
O -1
D *d
a ft.
« JQ
6-5
-------
equipment costs for thermal incinerators.3 The annual costs
are presented in Table 6-3. Both operating and maintenance
labor requirements were assumed to be 0.5 hours each per
8-hour shift. Supervisory costs were estimated at 15 percent
of the operating labor cost. The maintenance rates were
assumed to be 10 percent higher than the operating rates.
Capital recovery, a part of the annual cost, was based on a
10-percent interest rate and a 10-year life for the equipment.
Taxes, insurance, and administrative costs were assumed to be
4 percent of the total capital investment.3 Overhead costs
were estimated at 60 percent of operation and maintenance.
The costs of installing thermal incinerators in the model
plants are discussed in Section 6.1.5.
6.1.3 Catalytic Incinerator Cost Methodology
A catalytic incineration system consists of the
incinerator with its preheat and catalyst chamber,
instrumentation, recuperative heat exchanger (optional),
blower, collection fan, and ductwork. The OAQPS Control Cost
Manual3 contains further discussion of catalytic incinerator
control system design. General catalytic incinerator design
specifications are shown in Table 6-1.
The cost analysis follows the methodology outlined in the
OAOPS Control Cost Manual.3 Equipment costs for fixed-bed
catalytic incinerators are given as a function of Qtot» ^n
scfm. The cost of the system was calculated for four levels
of heat recovery (0 to 70 percent). Details can be found in
Appendix C.
The selection of the optimum level of heat recovery was
the same as that used for thermal incinerators (i.e., the
lowest total annual cost alternative).
The duct, fan, and installation costs were calculated as
previously described for thermal incinerators. Table 6-2
lists the values of direct and indirect installation factors
for catalytic incinerators. The costs parameters are those
described for thermal incinerators. Catalyst life was assumed
6-6
-------
w
u
o
>
u
a
ri
g
H
i
z
o
1
o
§
OS
g
(0
§
I-I
H
04
X
3
01
M
0C
E^
W
8
j
^
D
Z
Z
*XI
*
n
i
vo
H
CO
ondense
ter Sy«
Carbon)
O r-l —
U.
g
o o
•»S"1
£*
*SJ
« S
*j 5
T* -H
3g
M
C
0
^^ ^
(Q —*
« s
£ c
E-" o
C
HI
O
o
o
n ~
0
o
o
o
0
o
ro
C
o
4J
id
VI
&
O
in ;i^ O ^r^ 4J 'fOvO OclclclvOvO
^-^^•"•"Sg-^^O- VD^HH
^in ^nw ingX vo^ 0 s ^ j Q Q .
O O u . ^ -T
O^ O JA. O fli
rH*0 ^ £3
" 3 rH
"» o *
x: >
40
-H 0
f a
» r. *
C c
Ij'cd OOOjg^S"
*d" *H...*e*l4 r^ ("^ H4H4W -^ _, ^j Q)
vo m m rMin^^o .° < 0 o o o 3 g
ind^ ^°So"3 vowZ" * ^ ^ „ * <*-g:-'
^^ CM rH rH ° ° S Vl
0 « $.
S 2 17
^ -i -0
•H
0
C £
0 4->
• JG
tJ a c
C * -r4
'is ° ° ° OD ffl «
f rHSvi n n MMMrJ 0T3
Sm... tNiniso °2 < oWOpSlo>2
m'd^^d!1"* ^'SB S^^^Sj^g
•-1 ^ ° J * n * * S ° c 5
* 0)
0 S 0
3 id vi
1-1 CU id
c n
-^ -P
c
C 0
— 3 >
4J O ^
^. «w ^ A O
4J *^4 0 ffl ffl
vw £ 0 Vl
.^ *-. ffl C 0 0 TJ
£ Vi Id JJ VI Q)
ffl o vi • c o id vi
.Q £ 0 Id 0
Vl Id 1 — 4J fa ffl >
£ j oo me 4J o
| -^ *J -H >, ffl O
03 CT> ffl C Id Vl O Q) •
^C U 0S V400U4J
a --4 ^>£ > 0 > c
Vi 4J Ij — (-I'D -U O C 4J Q)
— £ (d£rH OC OOOidg
vi ~ vi -^.•o « _ an) id 0 x> J= 4J
£0V>0"4 £ -~ &4 (K Vl 4J O
1 — -O 84 — Vl Vl Ss'OC * ")
0O"<0> 5 4J 0O Nr-«00>
— u « 3 *• £ vi-^cn VIA ec
— i VH jJ O1 n) o 04J0 0 jJ £ 3 -i
03O id 0 *J id O1 > -^ *J ffl
4JD1 OSOSffl o o OhVi O CU "4 ID • •-•
* « *> 00 SS o 5 * 0 3 3 "rT"8
* * "" 0 0 ° C ^^ OIUOO « Viffl^--l
vi vi P xi xi c to ^>_ *J c o) jj o a
OOfflididOC ~Jvw>u0in rMO*J---iu
iJiJ 00 o> o c c — id B.j-j rH u 0*' — uumjj
c c a « id 4J x at VIM -*"-1 *O-M x o o 4-> o> >i0o
.^l^i^l C C ffl --I llvi -* « * « ^ C ffl ffl s Vl £ 4J
4J 4J > 00 >"-! -P U3 0 O> 0 -r* Vl A g >iCC0
ifl id C 4J 4J r-T ~- £ C 0 U 0 ^00>CMII
V|V|0 CC43 —> r-l IB 0 Vl -rl CU 3 4J -9 vi c >iidOid0oo
oow sso< D « o < o, M w o o o os z H
(A JQ U
6-7
-------
to be 2 years. The assumptions used to calculate the annual
costs are presented in Table 6-3.
The costs of installing catalytic incinerators in the
model plants are discussed in Section 6.1.5.
6.1.4 Condenser Filter Cost Methodology
Condenser filter systems first condense VOC from the air
stream and then filter out the resulting liquid using
microfiltration. "The general design specifications for
condenser filters are presented in Table 6-1. The cost
analysis uses equipment costs and cost factors provided by
vendors.6'7 Installation factors are presented in Table 6-2.
Credit was allowed for the recovered solvent because the
condensed VOC's can be used as fuel for the dryer or boiler.
Assumptions on which annual costs were calculated are
presented in Table 6-3. Electrical costs, based on vendor
estimates, were $1.60 per year per scfm for flows less than
10,000 scfm, and $2.00 per year per scfm for flows of
10,000 scfm or greater.
The costs of installing condenser filters in the model
plants are discussed in Section 6.1.5.
6.1.5 Comparison of Add-On Control System Costs
This section discusses the capital cos;ts and annualized
costs of each of the control systems if installed on the four
heatset model plants.
For a specific control system, capital and annualized
costs vary with dryer exhaust heat content and, therefore,
exhaust VOC content. The dryer exhaust flows are assumed to
deliver 250eF air to the control device.
Table 6-4 presents the results of the cost analysis.
Additional stream information is presented in Appendix C. The
cost analyses for the model plants show that the annual costs
of adding incinerators range from approximately $70,000 to
$351,000 per year for 24 to 194 tons of VOC removed, for small
to large model plants, respectively. Thermal incinerators are
slightly more costly (approximately 10 percent) than catalytic
for the same VOC reduction potential. The cost of using
6-8
-------
(0 C
c o
<-l O -H "^
CO
§
EH
CO
X
CO
J
s
t*4
EH
Z
8
2
0
Q
Q
<
H
>»
«»
CO
&
tJ
Ed
Q
O
£
«
O
fa
CO
a
D
CO
W
OS
EH
CO
O
O
•
^*
1
VO
H
J
^"5
2
£
(fl-H-p S
4J 0) U 5
O » 3 R
EH-H T3 ii
CM CM in CM
• • • •
Tf rf CO CM
CM CM CM CM
BO)
W tf -
rH x"*
— 4J to
2 w >
e 0 ^
2 CJ
fc"« ^ J»
J** ^•^'
rt.
rH
•H X£
Q,r8~
id u
CJ
CO
0) r=
c . o 5 — >
•H * o .2 w
^ 3 > W C
8l*»S
nj 5 c 2 ~
eo "*• H g
CO rH O> VO
CO rH O 0>
Ot CM CO CO
* * ^ «•
in in on o
t» r> vo in
n rH vo a»
CM CM rH 00
rH 00 CO CM
^ * *t «.
^T rH Ol VO
[•^ CM CM Oi
H CM CM H
r- r~ r» r>-
§ • • •
•i c c
g rH O O
r4 id T3 T)
a> 4J c c
.c id o o
EH CJ CJ CJ
H H H H
1 1 1 1
r» n r^
• • •
n n H
in in in
vo CM r» in
cri ^t «* co
in vo r<> t-i
vo
CO
cr>
n t^ r» vo
ro n r» n
r> H oo o
oo CM co r^
vo o< oo CM
co co co co
in in in in
C
O
Si
U
(0
CJ
O 4J
o id
4J H
id a)
to C
0) -rH
O
c
•H
o
H O
0) 0)
4^ -P
C -H -H
M fa fa
rH 4J
id >
BrH
to id
0) -P
.c id
EH CJ
0) 0)
U) U
C C
0) 0)
•g-g
O O
CJ CJ
VO VO CO CT>
• • • •
vo vo co r-
o o o en
vo oo CM co
o r^ CM cr>
CM ** co t
^ ^ ^ *
CO O\ VO Tf
r- o o vo
CM CM CM rH
o\ r* oo r^
vo oo vo oo
f eo a> CM
« ^ * ^
oo cr> in CM
VO t-l CO CM
in in r» vo
oo co oo oo
• • • •
00 00 00 00
o o o o
(0
U
to
O
to 4J
O id
4-> M
id Q)
M C
0) -H
C U
•H C
O H
M U
•H
rH -P
Id >i
6rH
JH id
0) 4->
.C id
EH CJ
0) 0)
4J 4J
(H rH
•H -H
fa fa
h U
0) 0)
U 01
c c
0) 0)
•O T3
C C
o o
o o
H H H H
H H H H
I I I I
I I I I
S 04
CO 00 (Ti O
• • • •
co co r*> co
o» o^ oo f»
rH rH H H
in co t in
CM in oo o>
H CM H CO
rH rH O CM •'H
CO CO CM CM 1 Id
H i i
0)
r- CM rH C*
co o\ r» ^" 11 0
r» •* r^ CM
^ *. ^ ^
CM rH in in
CO CO CO rH
vo at o o\
^
,^
CO 00 00 00
• • • •
r* r- t-» r^
o\ a> a> a*
rH rH rH «H
C
o
J3
i.
M
id
o
to A
0 -P
^ 4J-H
O id 3
4-> VH
Id 0) *H ,H
H C 0) 0)
O -H 4J -P
C O rH rH
-H C -H -H
U H fa fa
C
H O to to
-H (U 0)
r-l 4J M W
«j >i c c
g rH 0) 0)
>H id T3 T3
a> 4-> c c
45 id O O
EH CJ CJ CJ
to
O
e
c
•H
T3
JS
•H
>H
U
-------
condenser filters with carbon was estimated for the model
plants at approximately $69,000 to $290,000 for small to large
facilities, respectively, for 23 to 188 tons of VOC removed.
Condenser filters without carbon have lower costs in general
(but lower VOC reduction potentials), ranging from
approximately $50,000 to $230,000 for 22 to 178 tons of VOC
removed, for small to large plants, respectively.
6.2 COSTS OF CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM FOUNTAIN SOLUTION
6.2.1 Material Reduction or Substitution Costs
Since alcohol in the fountain is a panacea for many
printing ills, there is little incentive for printers to
minimize use (see discussion in Chapter 4.0). The term
"material reduction" is used to indicate that the control
scheme would limit the use of alcohol to a preestablished
maximum level. Reducing the use of alcohol in the fountain
solution results in a savings of $9208"12 per ton of alcohol
not used. Fountain additives, or alcohol substitutes,
although more expensive than alcohol ($1.55 per
pound) /13"19 save money because they are used in smaller
quantities.
Reducing alcohol use or switching to substitutes may not
be an easy transition for some printers. There is an
industry-wide concern about the potential for lost production
and the retraining time that may be necessary. The process
change will result in paper and material waste, especially
during the transition.
Such changeover costs will likely differ for each
facility, depending on the type of mechanical equipment
currently in place.21 Sheet-fed presses may be the most
difficult to change because of the high variability and number
of products printed, each of which requires press resetting.22
Though these changeover costs are recognized, based on
the variety of solvent levels and substitute usage now
achieved across the industry, it is reasomible to conclude
that such costs would decrease substantially after printers
become accustomed to the new regime. Material cost savings
6-10
-------
eventually may outweigh initial costs. Changeover costs would
include lost production if the facility normally operates on a
24-hour per day schedule. Because the model plant analysis
was based on a 16-hour day, lost production was not included.
Table 6-5 shows the VOC reductions and estimated savings
for control of fountain alcohol.
6.2.2. Costs From the Use of Refrigerated Circulators
Refrigerated circulators reduce VOC emissions from
fountain solution by cooling the solution. This reduces the
evaporation rate from the fountain, thereby requiring less
alcohol than unrefrigerated fountains. The costs of the
refrigerated circulator is offset by savings in alcohol
consumption. Refrigerated circulators are discussed in more
detail in Chapter 4.0.
The following cost analyses use equipment cost data and
estimated operating costs provided by a vendor based on
extensive experience with the industry.23 The cost factors
for determining both direct and indirect annual costs for
refrigerated circulators are shown in Table 6-6. Example
calculations can be found in Appendix C.
Table 6-7 shows the costs of applying refrigerated
circulators to model plants in Groups A, B, and C. Because
sheet-fed presses are very small sources of fountain
emissions, the cost effectiveness of applying refrigerated
circulators to Group C plants is extremely high.
Group D (newspaper) plants are not candidates for
refrigerated circulators because they already use fountain
additives without alcohol. Refrigeration does not help in
this case, because the fountain additives have a much lower
evaporation rate than even the cold alcohol.
6.2.3 Costs From the Use of Magnets
Applying magnetism to the fountain solution reportedly
reduces the VOC needed in the fountain solution. Magnets
currently in use cost approximately $350 per fountain solution
tank. Installation costs are insignificant, and include two
hose clamps to place the magnet in the fountain solution feed
line.2* The service life of the magnet should equal the life
6-11
-------
CO
CH
C^
S
3
M04
< J
tj n
E W
z ^\
c u
D O
0 £
fa *
u
S S
r^
& £V£
*^ r*»
C*^
Q ?,
w
EH ^
"V- «••!
(4. i^>
il *J
1-1 M
Or";
_ M
O r»
w 5
" *J
W Q
rt^J tr\
fS
CO *
Z &:
Oo
l-l
REDUCT
[TUTION
0 E
0 m
> «
*^ CU
u rn
Z W
§J
SAVINGS
I MATERIJ
j *
3 o
2j H
13
** O
rf\
vJ
•
in
|
VO
j
CQ
<;
g
W '
^
O
*3
1^
i
a.
0
^
S
8
^
i^
g
w
S
Ik
in
j
S
\
11
z
u
m
U3
U
H
M
X I"
2 w
£ a
O 9
w
j
u
B
>
i
n
§
•»4 *"S
8S &
§3 3
1
_
i
•
~H IA
« B *-•
3 -H O
1 5~
< tn
•
ah
O ** Q*
> O -U
3 -
^
•
as
•°«
•H W
a S ~
3 -i W
S > »»
c S
•< Ul
«
•H
*i —
U o >s
030,
> TJ +3
C9 ^-
PC
JO
H
ft «0
555
ir
H
g
o
U •"->>>
O u O.
>l-
«
A
M
-1 » -~
« c «o
11~
< M
0
B
O
U 4J >,
>l-
«
»4 M
a, «
•a
35
o
£
cj) cn to oi
CM ID CM CM
•~* CM
co cn to CM
cn •* QD o
cn CD co p*
to PS w» o
CM tO ft rH
fi CM
CD ao to rn
HT o ft a>
•H fM en
o ft CM cn
m cn to o
ft m 10 CM
tn o> ao ft
•4- CD O) (O
ft cn
PS to CM eo
m CM *n m
ft CM *
m to CM cn
r-. oo P* o
to co rs, .*
CM tn rH rH
j
CM cn to cn
sT o> co cn
•-» cn
o rn to to
ft cn tn
cn o> PS •»
to ft cn o
o> P*. •* r*
Cn O »H rH
(0 -» 00 *H
rH CM m
rH
rH rH >
1111
< < < <
1 1
1 1
o tn
CM •»
O 0
0 0
•r •*•
CO ft
ft -»
at cn
CM to
0 0
co to
to a>
ID Ps
CM in
O O)
•» ao
o o
ft O
o a>
m -»
CM m
fl 0
o o
CM O
r- ao
r*" CN
cn co
r-t
1 1
CO (Q
i i
i i
o cn
cn to
ft
0 O
o to
CO CO
CM CO
co -*
ft
to eo
CM CM
f» CM
0 0
CM CO
CO tO
«n o
fi ft
•H CM
co ST
PS 04
ft cn
0 O
o PS
CO -*•
cn O)
o CO
fl rH
O Ps
CO C>1
rH Cn
0 O
o •*
to co
tn" o"
to o
fi cn
fH
W >
1 I
GO n
m a>
o o
tn -H
tn rv
-T CD
CO ID
O fl
CO -C
r- an
PS sT
ft
ft CM
CD cn
SHT
rs
ft
rH CM
«** CM
CM cn
m o
r- HT
rH
CM cn
•H CM
•* to
0 -H
rH rH
«-t oi
M
CJ (J
1 1 1 1 1 1
cn P*
i i i t i i
fi CN
-*• o
eo -T
CM" ID"
m CN
fi
rH tn
PS PS. | | 1 1 1 1
00 0)
•*• o
rH
to •*
rH 1 1 1 1 1 1
CM -»
CO O 1 1 1 1 1 t
to eo
m CM
rH
m o
PS rs
rH
tn CD u
rs o i i i i i i
m o
•* o
rH
mo) rs.cnocniom
rs to • o *H cn PS m
rH ft
o eo o o o o o o
OHT O O -* O O O
coin tOoiDOnrtD
(Dm cn co o ao tn
rH n to co
fl
M r-l
l-t > rH Kl > KH
U U Q Q Cl Q Q Q
•
0
•
cn
Ui
0)
4J
a
(0
A
CJ
c
etail i
•o
0)
Ul
o
c
cribed i
Ul
0)
-o
(A
. t
4->
C
(0
rH
a
,_i
CU
*o
0
e
o
4J
CO
Ul
CU
_i
O
^H
rH
O
£
o
0
rH
10
4J
C
Q)
U
Ul
CU
o,
r-
H
U
9
TJ
CU
Ul
O
4J
CU
3
T3
U)
0>
C
•H
10
CO
ja
i
CU
?
c
(0
x:
0
2
t
00
CU
o
Ul
0
c
-H
U)
.p
c
10
rH
a
rH
CU
TJ
O
Ul
0
<4H
^
C
CU
u
Ul
CU
a
o
rH
TJ
<0
•.
O •
•a
•o cu
r* fT4
C AJ
10 9
rH
< U
C
W-H
p,
9 CU
O Ul
Ul (0
o
(0
C -P
•H U)
o
(0 O
p
C Ul
(0 CU
rH >
a o
o
c
CU
£
•P
„
fii
u/
V^
O
(M
CU •
Ul rH
(U O
JC Ul
-P -P
c
— o
cu u
c
•H IW
rH O
CU
U rH
10 CU
XI >
cu
CU rH
£
-P Ul
CU
C £
-H CP
-H
Ul .C
CU
> rtJ
•H
4-) (0
•H 4->
t3 O
-a cu
(0 rH
<4-4
iH 0)
O Ui
.c
0 -P
U (0
rH X3
(0 -P
i
c c
o o
C-H
-p
cu a
Ul O
>i
Ul rH
il |^
4J C
C 0
(0
rH 0)
ax:
P
^
CU Ul
TJ -H
0
e c
o
Ul "H
CU -P
a a
(0 O
a
Ul S
> u
cu o
z >
o
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-6. COST DATA FOR REFRIGERATED CIRCULATORS
Direct Costsa
Purchased Equipment Costs
Installation
Total Capital Investment
(TCI)
Direct Annual Costs*3
Electricity
Indirect Annual Costs
Administrative Charges
Property Taxes
Insurance
Capital Recovery
Total Annual Cost
25,640
500
26,140
4.94 Kw for Model Plant A-I
8.05 Kw for all others
.02 A
.01 A
.01 A
.1628 A
Direct Annual Costs + Indirect
Annual Costs
alt was assumed that two circulators would be needed per
press, for up to eight units per press, with no limitation on
the width of the units. The cost data are presented in cost
(in 1990 dollars) per circulator.
blt was assumed that no maintenance, labor, or other annual
costs would result from the addition of refrigerated
circulators. Uncontrolled facilities use either manual
methods of alcohol addition or unrefrigerated circulators.
With the manual techniques, it was assumed that elimination
of the manual labor to add alcohol would often more than
offset the labor required to operate an automated circulating
system. The annual costs associated with unrefrigerated
systems were assumed to be similar to those of refrigerated
systems, the refrigerant is replaced infrequently and the
other hardware is identical for the two systems.
6-13
-------
CO
K
O
S
D
U .
a
H
u
a
H
EH
£
u
M
PS
CK
U
OS
X
EH
rH
J5
W
g-i
3
j
Oi
rJ
U
0
o
s
u
SB
EH
f^
K
o
fc
CO
1— 1
CO
><
J
<
EH
CO
O
U
•
p*
VO
u
J
OQ
*£
EH
_J
rt w _.
.2 o>tr
H c *•*
0* £
V *± ^
Id «•-
2 to
£
tn
c
o ^
g3 a
8S51
TJ ""
Q)
a
A u
0) C
C 0 —
•H CJ -H >
rH O W O
0) > (fl -P
W -H ^
id 3
oQ M
rH
id
P*
?
«4
£ w TT
5 4J £
<« in >
*^^
. O ,n.
« ^^
Id ^^
•P
f .
EH
-P
(0
O
U
««>
5~
+*
-H
a
id
U
rH 4J (d
0) C 0)
TJ «J TJ
O rH O
£ A 0
^f VO CM O
*s- <-4 n in
rH O> CO H
co rH n in
CM VO CM CM
rH CM
rH P» in in
n vo n ^j*
rH CM
o n vo vo
t^ in o tn
H r> in
o p^ in CM
H o\ a\ a\
•*: O rH CM
CM P^ if H
rH CM in CO
O O O O
CO VO CM CO
CM in rH VO
CM •«* o\ n
in o o H
rH CM n
M
H M >
H M M M
lilt
< < < <
O 0 O 0
VO O CO CO
in co vo ^r
VO VO CM CM
rH CO P~ n
rH
oo o en ^r
rH ^* P** ^*
rH
rH O O P*
^t ON CO CM
rH CO
o r^ in CM
rH O> O» O>
«* O rH CM
CM P» »t H
rH CM in CO
O O O O
CO VO CM CO
CM in H vo
CM ^ o\ n
in o o I-H
rH CM CO
H
H H >
H M H H
1 1 1 1
CQ 03 CD GO
P^ rH VO CO
ON rH CO O
*r o\ o co
CO VO
in o co ^
• • • «
O rH CO P*
CM co in cr>
• • • •
H CM P- VO
rH
O rH CM CO
H CO Ul P*
^ CM O CO
CM P* CM VO
H p VO CO
0 O O O
CO ^ O VO
CM CO ^" O\
CM vo H in
in in vo vo
rH CM CO
H
H H >
H M H M
1 1 1 1
O U CJ O
•
CD
•
co
!H
TJ
(0
•P
id
.-t
Qu
iH
01
'8
6
O
P
M
(H
0)
(*H
0)
«
id
TJ
c
id
cT
TJ
C
id
0)
a
3
0
iH
O
c
•H
Ul
p
c
id
rH
a
rH
0)
TJ
0
M
O
(0
O -P
r4 C
a) id
Q.rH
a
t^
H rH
0)
5|
U)
IH VH
0) O
MH MH
0)
IH 4->
C
0) 0)
c u
•H IH
•H 0)
o> a
to
id o
CO H
ja
6-14
-------
25
of the press. A printing facility will show a net savings
with the use of a magnet if there is sufficient reduction in
alcohol use. The costs to equip the model plants with
magnets, shown in Table 6-8, use a capital recovery factor of
0.163 (based on 10 percent interest rate and a 10-year service
life) and estimated indirect annual costs of 4 percent of the
total capital investment.3 The savings, of course, depend on
the amount of VOC reduction achieved after installation of the
magnets. To determine the potential costs or savings, the
magnet costs from Table 6-8 can be reduced by the material
savings (Table 6-3) from lower alcohol consumption. Example
calculations can be found in Appendix C.
6.3 COSTS OF CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM CLEANING SOLUTIONS
Lower VOC cleaning compounds that are also not HAP's cost
slightly more than traditional offset lithographic cleaning
compounds—approximately 91 cents per pound13'26'27 compared
with approximately 69 cents per pound for traditional cleaning
compounds.28 Table 6-9 shows the incremental costs associated
with the use of lower VOC cleaning compounds in the model
plants. Example calculations can be found in Appendix C.
6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The environmental impacts associated with applying VOC
control technology to offset lithographic printing facilities
are analyzed in this section. The controls are specific to
the four industry segments (heatset, non-heatset web,
non-heatset sheet, and newspaper), as well as to the specific
sources of emissions (inks, fountain solution, and cleaning
solutions).
This analysis of environmental impacts considers effects
on air and water quality, production of solid waste, and
energy consumption. The types of environmental impacts
associated with the control strategies described in
Chapter 4.0 are identified with estimates of the impacts
resulting from applying these controls to the model plants.
6-15
-------
TABLE 6-8.
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF MAGNETS FOR
REDUCTION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS FROM THE FOUNTAIN SOLUTION
IN THE MODEL PLANTS
Model
Plant
Codea
A- 1
A-II
A-III
A- IV
B-I
B-II
B-III
B-IV
C-I
C-II
C-III
C-IV
D-I
D-II
D-III
D-IV
D-V
D-VI
Number of
Units
5
11
22
40
5
11
22
40
3
5
16
36
6
9
17
33
68
110
Total
Capital
Investment
$1,750
$3,850
$7,700
$14,000
$1,750
$3,850
$7,700
$14,000
$1,050
$1,750
$5,600
$12,600
$2,100
$3,150
$5,950
$11,550
$23,800
$38,500
Annuali zed
Equipment
Costsb
$285
$627
$1,253
$2 ,.279
$285
$627
$1,253
$2,, 279
$171
$285
$911
$2,051
$342
$513
$968
$1,880
$3,873
$6,266
Total
Annual
Costsc
$355
$781
$1,561
$2,839
$355
$781
$1,561
$2,839
$213
$355
$1,135
$2,555
$426
$639
$1,206
$2,342
$4,825
$7,806
aRefers to model plants described in more detail in
Chapter 3.0.
^Calculated using a 0.163 capital recovery factor.
GThe sum of annualized equipment costs and indirect costs
(taxes, insurance, and administration charges) calculated as
4 percent of the total capital investment.
6-16
-------
CJ
-i CO
2 EH
° O4
3$
So
3*
KL W
^ aa
w 2
o H
tn w
°0
u *""*
rrt EH
P 3
W °
M CO
PH
OS 2
°i
CO ^
(—4 t"?
CO U
3 Q
*£ ^"
2
^4 O
^ 04
rH ^*
£N O
O ^
CJ
fT\
1
VO
w
CQ
£H
4J
W
O CJ -x
CJ O
•H rH
(0 (0 rH 01
3 .p 0) rH
Cr" •> rtt
MW t> yj
C QJ O C
< E J nj
0) P
o -d ^*
>
S w a
° .2ii
E
U
O (fl
0) C
c o ^.
-H CJ -rH >
rH O W O.
0) > W 4J
OJ -rH »-•
(0 E
CQ W
rH -P.Q
QJ C -i CM r- in r- «•
rHOOt^n rHC*lt*»C*l OHinrH rHfOinHClCO
H rH iH i-H (N CO
r- vo n o r- vo n 0 M vo -«r rH -t r> in CA tN •*
onnvo OrHnvo ooojin OHrg^rovo
H H
ininocri in in o o oooo inincMrrcrvco
rHrH rHrH rH HClin
HHHH
HH> HH> HH> HH> H
HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH>>
till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
<<<< CQ CQ CQ CQ U CJ CJ U QQQQQQ
£
-H
C
(0
0)
o
£
o
Q)
O
CJ
O &H
M SH
o
0)
4J C
. a a)
w (d >
- .C-H
a* u o>
sew
•rH (0
^i 5
C rH
(Tj -rH .p
C JJ T!
-H (U Q)
(0 *O >H
•P U
C Q)
O JH O
U 0 C
E
•P
0 C -P
C-H C
Q)
O TJ O
TS 0) rH
J3 Q)
in -H a
U rH
Q) O 0
c m o
(0 0) rH
Q) T3
rH in
U W -H
•P
T5
0 CJ
rH E 0
Q) >
5 O
O -P Q)
rH C
W -H
0) rH rH
W 0) Q)
O VIH Ul
£ Q) (0
EH OS CQ
(0 J3 O
J
C
0)
u
Q)
a
o
(-1
•H
l/l
•a
o
a
E
O
CJ
tr*
c
•H
C
(0
0)
rH
U
CJ
o
S-l
CD
3
O
f-H
o
c
a)
c
o
o
CJ
o
TJ
0)
-P
*T3
• E
in -H
CT^ -P
(0 in
S-i U
TS
6-17
-------
6.4.1 Air Quality Impacts
6.4.1.1 Air Impacts from Add-On Controls. The control
devices discussed in this report (thermal incinerators,
catalytic incinerators, and condenser filters) can reduce VOC
emissions by 90 percent or more.
The combustion products of incinerators will include
trace quantities of "secondary" air pollutants, which form as
a result of incomplete combustion, as well as NOX, carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (802) if the fuel contains
sulfur, and particulate matter (PM), with the most significant
secondary pollutant being NOX. If the incinerators are
improperly operated or poorly maintained, these contaminants
may increase.
The principal factors affecting the rate of NOX formation
are the amount of excess air available, the peak flame
temperature, the length of time that the combustion gases are
at peak temperature, the cooling rate of the combustion
products, and the nitrogen content of the compounds being
burned.29 Nitrogen oxide emissions from incinerators are
generally low.
Condenser filters have no direct NOX formation potential.
Condenser filters recover solvent that may be reused or burned
as fuel; therefore, a small decrease in the pollution caused
by fuel production occurs. Condenser filters with carbon
adsorption units require steam or hot air to remove or strip
the VOC's off the bed. This results in some increased boiler
demand with attendant emission increases. No emissions were
attributed directly to this technology. Energy requirements
are discussed in Section 6.4.4.
Estimates of uncontrolled and controlled VOC emissions
from inks and of NOX generated with add-on control devices for
the model plants in Group A are presented in Table 6-10.
Controlled emissions were calculated assuming a 98-percent VOC
destruction efficiency for thermal and catalytic incinerators,
a 90-percent VOC removal efficiency for condenser filters, and
a 95-percent VOC removal efficiency for condenser filters with
carbon adsorption units (see Chapter 4.0).
6-18
-------
CO
W
u
H
W
Q
0
tt£
EH
55
O
CJ
§
Q
Q
•C
p.,
H
3:
CO
EH
S
M
f\
T
W
Q
o
IX
o
CO
EH
^
a.
s
M
tt
55
U
Q
<
K
H
**•
O
I
VO
U
CQ
g
•j
ff M
U M
£ _1
§ M
z a
M
"|
u
< CO
& u
£ ta
si
fj M
g
to
y
i
z
OS
<
8 J
fl •"
X
g
A
•o §
• jj
i"1 £ ^s
2| a
£ fl ~
0 y
>
•o c
• o
t-l -H
*4 M *~
c i i
c w *-*
u u
c o
3 >
^t •
O U
*J >
§2
u
« c •
J.31
£ (^ u
(tfMI I I •-* 1 1 1 CM 1 ><«l
iir^.1 iiooi iiiOl i ' 2 '
i i I-H i i i
ID CM ^._ CO CO J*x '^ ID *O *•* "^ ID CM ^^ ^^
co-4*_-^ co*rc*i(D ID o> r^ i-» ointocn
*° °° «£ «» o -*(*> a)Pvfs.f«*
r-t ^— <— en«-t*-'*-' ^- CM — - '-'
•* *-< 1 1 O ooa>co
oo«-tCM t-i<-*cMin cMoimo -» * en a>
«-< r^
r- r^ r. r^ **«,* O 4J O J O
M4J-r4 U4J-H U«J*4 h«J
O«C O « > O « * O «
*)W *3H **M *JW
M C • • tl C • • U C • • UG •
B C C B
•-. » « -^ • • -^ • • -( •
«XCE «xee «XBC « x c c
E -i « « S ^ • • B -i • • S -i • •
C « -O T3 G « 13 T) U • -O T3 C • T) TJ
««JCC a«JCC «*>CC *4J0C
.caoo j: « o o f • o o .c « o o
Suuu ii u u u Buuu Puoo
t-l h-l W t-l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
. O
xo
0 0
z -
n
rH *O
C
O fl
in
^
- >.
U> iH
>H C
O O
4J
fl r-(
)H 0)
Q) 3
C ,
iH
C fl
fl
•o o
Q)
03
rH
fl
C
fl
0
4J
fl
>-
O
U
*
4->
C
0)
>
rH.
O
(0
•a
0)
Q)
o
u
*M
0
>1
CT
Vj
•H
C U
o
•H C
4J O
a
O rH
(0 XI
•o «
fl r-l
•H
C fl
o >
XI fl
l_(
fl 01
U JQ
£ >1
4-> fl
•H B
5
B
(0 fl
M Q)
0) 4-J
4J CO
M-l •
TS
U 0)
0) XI
c c
a> o
TJ XI
C }H
O fl
0 0
4-> 0)
fl X!
4J
rT°
> 0
Q) -H
S 4J
O fl
0)
« c
0)0)
z *
4J
0
c
Q)
r*(
fl
(0
0
•H
(0
CO
S
0)
fl
*O
c
o
o
0)
w
4-1
c
fl
TJ
C
0)
4J
4J
TJ
C
fl
C
o
•H
4J
a
B
(0
o
0
i-H.
to
3
H-l
U
0)
rH
-H
5
TJ
(0 •
JH 0)
C^
•H T5
(0 -H
U -H
•H 4J
3 C
r< CT
J-l
o
•
B
0)
(0
>1
(0
0)
X!
^
o>
0
(H
x:
(0
a
o
^
TJ
0)
^
3
(0
U)
0)
a
c
o
TJ
a>
u
fl
XI
(fl
fl
u
0)
3
>,
4J
•H
O
V4
4J
O
0)
iH
01
u
Q
i i
£
0)
-H
C
b
O
S_l
>,
•^^
juj
f^
1
^
X
M
•
(N
4J
fl
0)
4-1
fl
j_l
3
0
M-l
0
TJ
0)
4J
•H
a>
>H
0
o
(fl
fl
TJ
C
g
0)
TJ
>i
4J
•H
•^
rH
Q
0)
r-l
Q)
«.
(fl
>-l
rH
"«W
•*^.
0)
c
0)
TJ
§
•
C
0
XI
fl
o
XI
rH
Is"
0)
(A
5
Ifl
CO
11
o
4J
• o
B fl
0
(A B
fl
aw
T3
6-19
-------
6.4.1.2 Air Impacts from Fountain Solution Controls.
Uncontrolled and controlled VOC emissions from the fountain
solution in the model plants are shown in Table 5-3 of
Chapter 5.0.
Uncontrolled VOC emissions for model plants in Groups A
and C were based on an average of 17 percent (by volume)
alcohol content in the fountain solution, and 10 percent (by
volume) for model plants in Group B. Volatile organic
compound emissions range from 0.5 to 556 tpy. Emissions from
newspaper model plants (Group D) are low due to nonalcohol
additives used in the fountain solution. Nonalcohol additives
are both less volatile and used in very small quantities,
resulting in much lower VOC emissions than when alcohol is
used.
Fountain solution VOC controls include:
(1) refrigeration of those solutions that contain alcohol,
(2) lowering the solution's alcohol concentration, or
(3) using alcohol substitutes. Controlled VOC emissions from
the fountain solution for facilities that use alcohol in the
baseline range from 0 to 55 tpy, depending on the type and
size of the plant, the concentration of VOC's in the fountain
solution, and the temperature of the solution. Refrigeration
reduces the evaporation rate of alcohol by at least 44 percent
(see Chapter 4.0). There are no VOC emissions, of course, if
the VOC in the fountain solution is totally eliminated.
Some alcohol replacements currently in use, such a
ethylene glycols, are considered hazardous air pollutants.
6.4.1.3 Air Impacts from Cleaning Solution Controls.
Control of VOC's is achieved by lowering their concentration
in the cleaning solution. Estimated VOC emissions from
cleaning solutions are presented in Table 5-4 of Chapter 5.0.
Baseline uncontrolled emissions from organic cleaners range
from 1.2 tpy to 54.8 tpy. Controlled emissions from the use
of cleaners that are only 30 percent VOC range from 0.4 tpy to
16.4 tpy. Some of the lower VOC cleaning compounds contain
hazardous air pollutants, so prudence must be exercised in
selecting the appropriate cleaners.
6-20
-------
6.4.2 Water Quality Impacts
6.4.2.1 Water Impacts from Add~On Controls.
Incinerators have no wastewater discharge, hence no water
impact. Condenser filters have a negative water impact, since
both water and VOC condense. The solvent/water mixture
collected from condenser filters drains to an oil/water
separator, where the VOC's are decanted off. Although ink
solvents reportedly have low solubility in water, some will
remain in the water fraction as it moves to a wastewater
treatment plant. The water impact is believed to be
negligible, in most cases.
Carbon adsorption units also present a potential
wastewater problem. Low-pressure steam is the most common
carbon regenerating method. The steam carries VOC from the
adsorber. When cooled, the condensate contains both solvents
and water. Assuming the solvents are not very soluble in
water, an oil/water separator can be used to remove the
majority of the solvents. In some cases, the oil can be
burned in the dryer or used to make steam. The water can be
either discharged or reused for steam.
6.4.2.2 Water Impacts from Fountain Solution Controls.
Contamination of the fountain solution by ink and paper lint
results in the need to periodically flush out reservoirs. The
frequency of fountain solution disposal can be reduced by
filtration techniques that remove emulsified ink droplets and
other contaminants from the fountain solution.31'32
6.4.2.3 Water Impacts from Cleaning Solution Controls.
There are no water quality impacts expected from the control
of VOC emissions from cleaning solutions.
6.4.3 Solid Waste Production
This section presents the solid waste production impacts
associated with add-on technologies to control VOC's emissions
from inks. No solid waste impacts are expected to be
associated with changes made to fountain solution or cleaning
solution use made to control VOC's.
6-21
-------
The use of catalytic incinerators will result in periodic
disposal of spent catalyst. The frequency of disposal varies
greatly, depending on the characteristics of the waste stream.
The mechanisms of catalyst deactivation are discussed in
Chapter 4.0. Periodic replacement of the catalyst at
intervals of 2 to 5 years can be anticipated because of the
gradual loss of activity that results from thermal aging and
chemical poisoning processes.33
The use of carbon adsorption systems also will result in
periodic disposal of spent carbon, as the carbon's working
capacity diminishes with age. As with catalysts, carbon life
is a function of the environment to which it is exposed;
therefore, disposal rates will vary from fcicility to facility.
Spent carbon can sometimes be reactivated or returned to the
vendor. The facility decides the most economical pathway for
its situation.
6.4.4 Energy Impacts
Table 6-10 shows the energy impacts of add-on controls in
heatset facilities. The use of incineration to control VOC
emissions from dryer exhaust streams requires fuel and
electricity. A fuel, typically natural gas, is needed to
support combustion. Electricity is required to operate the
fans, blowers, and instrumentation that may be necessary to
ensure gas transport through the system. Fuel and energy
usage requirements for incinerators are discussed in more
detail in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3.
Condenser filters require electricity to operate the fans
and dampers that direct the gas flows through the system.
Recovered solvents are reported to have a fuel value similar
to that of No. 2 fuel oil (19,950 Btu/scf). Systems with
carbon adsorption require frequent regeneration with steam or
air. Steam requirements are presented in Table 6-10 above.
Impacts from the production of this additional steam are
expected to be small. A plant may have process steam
available; otherwise, a "tea kettle" steam generator can be
built and fueled with the VOC that is condensed.3*
6-22
-------
Energy requirements for refrigerated circulators are
shown in Table 6-11 for the model plants in Groups A, B,
and C. Energy requirements for the circulators range from
approximately 30,000 to 208,000 kW/hour, depending on facility
size.
6.4.5 Summary
Controlling VOC emissions from offset lithographic
printing will significantly reduce the amount of air
pollutants introduced into the environment. Controlling VOC's
in the dryer exhaust by incineration in the heatset model
plants is estimated to increase NOX emissions by an estimated
0.1 to 2.8 tpy (on the average).
Using condenser filters to reduce VOC's from ink dryer
exhaust eliminates NOX emissions and reduces the amount of
fuel that must be purchased because the solvents can be used
as fuel. Air pollution associated with fuel production will
be reduced if the decreased demand translates to conservation
of energy resources. Some additional energy is required to
operate the additional fans and controls of the add-on
controls and the refrigerated circulator systems. This may
result in minor additional environmental impacts.
Condenser filters may increase the load to water
treatment facilities (imperceptively) because of the inability
to completely separate ink oil from the water.
Periodic disposal of the catalysts and carbon used in
add-on controls to the dryer exhaust will result in a small
(insignificant) increase in solid waste.
6.5 SELECTION OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
This section provides State and local regulatory
authorities with guidance on the selection of RACT for VOC
emissions from offset lithographic printing operations.
Background on the regulatory authority and goals for
establishment of RACT is discussed in Section 6.5.1.
Recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from heatset
inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning solutions used in
offset lithographic printing are listed in Sections 6.5.2
through 6.5.4.
6-23
-------
TABLE 6-11. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL PLANTS WITH
FOUNTAIN SOLUTION REFRIGERATED
CIRCULATORS
Model Energy Requirements
Plant Codes (1,000 kW-hr)
A-I 29.6
A-II 96.6
A-III - 193.2
A-IV 289.8
B-I 29.6
B-II 96.6
B-III 193.2
B-IV 289.8
C-I 29.6
C-II 88.9
C-III 148.2
C-IV 207.5
Note—Model plants in Group D (newspaper) do not use alcohol;
therefore, refrigerated circulators are ineffective for
VOC control.
6-24
-------
6.5.1 Background
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 mandate that state
Implementation Plans (SIP's) for certain ozone nonattainment
areas be revised to require the implementation of RACT to
limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from sources
for which EPA has already published a CTG or for which it will
publish a CTG between the date the amendments are enacted and
the date an area achieves attainment status.
Section 172(c)(l) requires that nonattainment area SIP's
provide for the adoption of RACT for existing sources. As a
starting point for ensuring that these SIP's provide for the
required emissions reduction, the EPA has defined RACT as
"...the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility. Reasonably available control technology
for a particular industry is determined on a case-by-case
basis, considering the technological and economic
circumstances of the individual source category." The EPA has
elaborated in subsequent notices on how RACT requirements
should be applied.
The CTG documents are intended to provide State and
local air pollution authorities with an information base for
proceeding with their own analysis of RACT to meet statutory
requirements. Each CTG document contains a recommended
"presumptive norm" for RACT for a particular source category,
based on the EPA's current evaluation of capabilities and
problems general to the source category. However, the
"presumptive norm" is only a recommendation. Where
applicable, the EPA recommends that regulatory authorities
adopt requirements consistent with the presumptive norm level,
but authorities may choose to develop their own RACT
requirements on a case-by-case basis, considering the economic
and technical circumstances of the individual source category.
6-25
-------
6.5.2 Haataet Inks
The recommended level of control for VOC emissions in the
dryer exhaust from heatset inks is 90 percent. This may be
achieved by the use of incinerators, or condenser filters with
or without carbon.
6.5.3 Fountain Solution
6.5.3.1 Heatset Web Printing. The recommended level of
control for VOC emissions from fountain solution is equivalent
to a 1.6 percent alcohol (by volume) solution. It may be
achieved by actually reducing the alcohol level in the
fountain to 1.6 percent or less (by volume), It also may be
achieved with 3 percent alcohol or less (by volume) if the
fountain solution is refrigerated to below 50°F. Lower levels
of emissions can be achieved by using alcohol substitutes or
less alcohol in the fountain.
6.5.3.2 Sheet-fed Printing. The recommended level of
control for fountain solution emissions in sheet-fed
facilities is equivalent to a 5-percent alcohol (by volume)
solution. It may be achieved by actually reducing the alcohol
level in the fountain to 5 percent or less (by volume) or by
using 8.5 percent alcohol or less (by volume) if the fountain
solution is also refrigerated to below 60°F. Higher levels of
control can be achieved using alcohol substitutes or less
alcohol in the fountain.
6.5.3.3 Non-heatset Web Printing. The recommended level
of control for VOC emissions from non-heatset web facilities
reflects the use of alcohol substitutes in the fountain (less
than 3.0 percent VOC by volume in the final solution) in the
quantities recommended by the manufacturer. Higher levels of
control can be achieved when less substitute is used in the
fountain.
6.5.4 Cleaning Solution
The recommended control of VOC emissions from cleaning
solutions is the use of cleaners with less than 30 percent voc
(by weight), as used, that do not contain any hazardous air
pollutants.
6-26
-------
6.5.5 Request for
The EPA solicits comments on all aspects of this draft
CTG, including the controls recommended as RACT and the
estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of these controls per
facility (Chapter 6) and on a nationwide basis (Appendix E).
6.6 REFERENCES
l. Green, G. P. and Epstein, R. K., Employment and Earnings.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. Volume 37, No. 4. April 1990.
2. Monthly Energy Review. Energy Information
Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use,
U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE-EIA-0035(90/12). February 1990.
3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS Control
Cost Manual. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-450/3-90-006. January 1990.
4. Vatavuk, William. Pricing Equipment for Air Pollution
Control. Chemical Engineering, Volume 97, No. 5.
McGraw-Hill, Rightstown, NJ. May 1990.
5. Richardson Engineering Services, Inc. The Richardson
Rapid System Process Plant Cost Estimating Standards.
1988.
6. Letter from Friedrick, Henry, MMT Environmental Services
Inc., St. Paul, MN., to Barbour, Wiley, Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
November 12, 1990.
7. Letter from Tandon, J. S., American Environmental
International Inc, Deerfield, IL., to Barbour, Wiley,
Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC. July
18, 1990.
8. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Wilson, Jim, Exxon Corporation,
Houston, TX. November 13, 1990.
9. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Fowler, Janet, Worth Chemical,
Greensboro, NC. November 15, 1990.
6-27
-------
10. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with McMurray, Micky, Chen Central,
Jamestown, NY. November 15, 1990.
11. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Daniel, Bob, South Cham, Durham,
NC. November 12, 1990.
12. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Darnell, Nancy, Ashland,
Incorporated, Charlotte, NC. November 12, 1990.
13. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Singstock, Jay, RBP Chemical,
Milwaukee, WI. November 9, 1990.
14. Telecon, Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Whitehead, Jim, Rycoline
Products, Chicago, IL. November 9, 1990.
15. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Oser, Mark, Polychrome, Yonkers,
NY. November 9, 1990.
16. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Ryan, Dennis, Yarn Products,
Oakland, NJ. November 6, 1990.
17. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Maharaj, Tony, Allied Products,
Hollywood, FL. November 6, 1990.
18. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Lynch, Roy, Quality Litho,
Corona, CA. November 5, 1990.
19. Telecon. Lynch, Susan, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Anzelmo, Susan, Rosos
Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL. November 9, 1990.
20. Offset Lithography Summary Report for Technical Support
of a Revised Ozone State Implementation Plan for Memphis,
TN. Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC.
June 1985.
21. Memorandum to file, Notes of meeting with EPA, Radian
project staff, and members of the Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation's Environmental Conservation Board.
EPA/OAQPS, Durham, NC. December 6, 1990.
22. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Waheed, Husain, Maryland Air
Management Administration, Baltimore, MD.
October 31, 1990.
< — Oft
-------
23. Letter from MacDonald, Bob, Baldwin Technology Company,
Naugatuck, CT, to Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation,
Research Triangle Park, NC. October 29, 1990
24. Telecon. Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Van Vleet, Lyle, Vile-Goller,
Kansas City, KS. October 29, 1990.
25. Letter from Martin, Paul, C. A. Enterprises LTD., Prairie
Village, KS., to Catlett, Karen, EPA/OAQPS, Durham, NC.
October 23, 1990.
26. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Zamitt, George, Printex Products
Corporation, Clearwater, FL. November 13, 1990.
27. Telecon. Gideon, Lisa, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Wantling, Ron, Printex Products
Corporation, North Canton, OH. November 16, 1990.
28. Memorandum from Jones, Donna Lee, Radian Corporation,
Research Triangle Park, NC., to file. Summary of
Section 114 Questionnaires. August 28, 1990.
29. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Organic Chemical
Manufacturing, Volume 4: Combustion Control Devices.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-026.
December 1980. p. V-43.
30. Telecon. Barhour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Tandon, Jack, AEI Incorporated.
Deerfield, IL. February 20, 1991.
31. MacPhee, John. Dampening Update. Graphic Arts Monthly,
November 1984.
32. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Hughes, Ken, Hughes Research and
Development Corporation. Eden, NC. June 8, 1990.
33. Lester, George, and Summers, Jack, Poison Resistant
Catalyst for Purification of Web Offset Press Exhaust.
Presented at the 8lst Annual meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association. June 19-24, 1988.
34. Telecon. Barbour, Wiley, Radian Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC., with Tandon, Jack, AEI Incorporated,
Deerfield, IL. February 20, 1991.
6-29
-------
7.0 FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN IMPLEMENTING
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents information on factors that air
quality management agencies should consider when developing
an enforceable rule limiting VOC emissions from offset
lithographic printing operations. Information is provided on
important definitions, rule applicability, the standards
format, emissions testing, equipment standards, monitoring,
and reporting/recordkeeping.
Where several options exist for implementing a certain
aspect of the rule, each option is discussed, along with its
advantages and disadvantages relative to other options. For
each aspect of the rule, one option is usually identified as
the preferred option. This guidance is for instructional
purposes only and, as such, is not binding. In some cases,
there may be other equally valid options. The State or other
implementing agency can exercise its prerogative to consider
other options, provided they meet the objectives prescribed in
this chapter.
Appendix D contains an example rule that incorporates the
guidance provided in this document. The example rule provides
an organizational framework and sample regulatory language
specifically tailored for offset lithographic printing
operations. The example rule is not intended to be binding.
When developing its own rule, the State or other implementing
agency should consider all the information presented in this
document along with information about the specific sources tc.
which the rule will apply. The rule should address all the
factors listed in this chapter to ensure that the rule is
7-1
-------
enforceable and has reasonable provisions for demonstrating
compliance.
7.2 DEFINITIONS
The offset lithographic printing rule should accurately
describe the~ types of sources that will be affected and use
clearly defined terms to describe the industry and the
applicable control methods. This section offers guidance to
agencies in selecting terms that may need to be clarified when
used in a regulatory context. Example definitions of
pertinent terms are presented here so that the implementing
agency may refer to them when drafting its regulation.
Incinerators are defined and discussed in Sections 4.2.1
and 4.2.2. condenser filters are defined and discussed in
Section 4.2.3. A description of refrigerated circulators is
given in Section 4.3.1.1.
Definitions of the terms used in this chapter are given
below. It may be helpful to include these definitions in the
rule. It also may be useful to define terms pertaining to
equipment used in monitoring and recording emissions, such as
"continuous recorder" and "flow indicator."
Alcohol substitutes. Nonalcohol additives that contain
VOC's and are used in the fountain solution. Some additives
are used to reduce the surface tension of water; others
(especially in the newspaper industry) are added to prevent
piling (ink build-up).
Batch. A supply of fountain solution that is prepared
and used without alteration until completely used or removed
from the printing press.
Cleaning solution. Liquids used to remove ink and debris
from the operating surfaces of the printing press and its
parts.
Dampening System. Equipment used to deliver the fountain
solution to the lithographic plate.
Fountain Solution. A mixture of water, nonvolatile
printing chemicals, and an additive (liquid) that reduces the
surface tension of the water so that it spreads easily across
the printing plate surface. The fountain solution wets the
7-2
-------
nonimage areas so that the ink is maintained within the image
areas. Isopropyl alcohol, a VOC, is the most common additive
used to reduce the surface tension of the fountain solution.
Heat-set. Any operation where heat is required to
evaporate ink oil from the printing ink. Hot air dryers are
used to deliver the heat.
Lithography. A printing process in which the image and
nonimage areas are chemically differentiated; the image area
is oil receptive and the nonimage area is water receptive.
This method differs from other printing methods, in which the
image is a raised or recessed surface.
Non-Heatset. Any operation where the printing inks are
set without the use of heat. For the purposes of this rule,
ultraviolet-cured or electron beam-cured inks are considered
non-heatset.
Offset. A printing process that transfers the ink film
from the lithographic plate to an intermediary surface
(blanket), which, in turn, transfers the ink film to the
printing substrate.
Press. A printing production assembly composed of one or
many units to produce a printed sheet or web.
Sheet-fed. A printing operation where individual sheets
of substrate are fed to the press sequentially.
Unit. The smallest complete component of a printing
press.
Web. A continuous roll of paper used as the printing
substrate.
7.3 APPLICABILITY
As discussed in Chapter 3.0, the offset lithography
industry can be divided into four types of printing: heatset
web, non-heatset web (non-newspaper), non-heatset sheet-fed,
and newspaper (non-heatset web). Because some printing
facilities consist of more than one type of printing, it is
helpful to define the specific source or "affected facility"
that will be regulated. Printing operations having
combinations of two or more different types of printing
presses may be broken down into sub-facilities. A
7-3
-------
sub-facility may be defined as "one or more printing
operation(s) of the same type."
One possible definition of an affected facility is "one
or more sub-facilities involved in similar offset lithographic
printing processes." Other types of printing, such as
flexographic, rotogravure, or letterpress, may be present on
the property as well. The information contained in this
document, however, focuses on offset lithographic printing
only.
Another possible definition of an affected facility is
"an individual printing press with its own individual dryer
exhaust controls (if heatset) or the combination of two or
more presses and the common dryer exhaust, or fountain
solution and cleaning solution delivery systems that they
share." Obviously, if different RACT requirements are
required for different types or sizes of offset lithographic
printing operations, then the presses used in the different
processes should be considered separately when applying
requirements.
Note that this RACT implementation guidance would apply
only to sources described in this document. The implementing
agency also may wish to include this rule with other sources
that it deems appropriate—for example, other types of
printing in the graphic arts industry.
7.4 FORMAT OF THE STANDARDS
Several formats are available for RACT regulations
covering this source category. Because emissions from dryer
exhaust and applicable control devices can be measured, an
emission standard, rather than an equipment standard, is
recommended. Possible emission standard formats include:
(1) a mass emission rate limit, (2) a concentration limit, or
(3) a percent-reduction level. Emissions from fountain and
cleaning solutions are difficult to collect for measurement;
therefore, equipment (material) standards are used for these
sources.
Of the three types of emission standard formats, percent
reduction is generally preferred for add-on control devices
7-4
-------
because it best represents the performance capabilities of the
device(s) that will be used to comply with the regulation.
The other two formats (mass emission rate and concentration
limit) are not preferred because they could cause greater
control than is required by the rule at some sources and less
control than is required at others. For example, under a mass
emission rate or concentration format, the required control
efficiency is greater for streams with higher emission rates
or higher exhaust stream concentrations. Further, the
required control level for exhaust streams with a low mass
emission rate or concentration would not reflect the
capabilities of RACT.
A weight-percent-reduction standard applied to
incinerators and condenser filters is usually feasible because
emission rates can be measured readily from the control device
inlet and outlet. As discussed in Chapter 4.0 of this
document, all new incinerators can achieve at least 98 percent
(by weight) reduction in total organics concentration (minus
methane and ethane), provided that the total organic (minus
methane and ethane) of the dryer exhaust stream is greater
than approximately 2,000 ppmv. For exhaust streams with
organics concentrations below approximately 2,000 ppmv, a
98 percent (by weight) reduction may be difficult to achieve;
however, an incinerator outlet concentration of 20 ppmv is
achievable.
For condenser filters, a 90- to 95-percent (by weight)
reduction of total organics is achievable. A minimum outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv may be achievable by some types of
condenser filters. A recommended standard would be a
weight-percent reduction (depending on which device is
selected as the basis for RACT) in total organic compounds
(minus methane and ethane) or reduction to a concentration of
total organic compounds (minus methane and ethane), whichever
is less stringent.
For VOC control from the fountain solution and cleaning
solution, the recommended equipment standard is a maximum
concentration of VOC in the final solution. For fountain
7-5
-------
solutions with alcohol, the standard can be either a volume-
or weight-percent reduction because the alcohol is usually
IPA, which has a known density. For alcohol substitutes in
the fountain solution, the preferred option is a
weight-percent of VOC, as the compounds that contribute to VOC
emissions have slightly different specific gravities.
If refrigeration of the fountain solution is chosen as a
method for lowering VOC emissions, the temperature of the
fountain solution would be measured to demonstrate a specified
temperature.
7.5 EMISSIONS TESTING
When the owner or operator of any affected facility
conducts either an initial or subsequent emissions test, it is
recommended that the facility be running at a representative
full operating condition and flow rate. Emissions testing
should include an initial test when the equipment is installed
and operating, to demonstrate compliance with the specified
requirements.
The EPA Method 25 (Appendix A of 40 CFR 60) is
recommended as the best available procedure for determining
emissions from heatset dryer exhaust. However, the minimum
detectable concentration for this method is 50 parts per
million (ppm) as carbon. Given that low concentrations of
VOC's sometimes are found in dryer exhaust from offset
lithographic presses and high removal efficiencies are
achievable by add-on controls, the EPA Method 25 may not be
suitable for determining compliance with a weight-percent
reduction standard in all situations. Note that the EPA
Method 25 specifies a minimum probe and filter temperature of
265°F. To prevent condensation, the probe and filter should
be heated to the gas stream temperature, typically closer to
350°F.
The EPA Method 25A (Appendix A of 40 CFR 60) uses a flame
ionization detector (FID) , which has the etbility to measure
lower concentrations. However, this technique is not usually
recommended for incinerators, as incomplete combustion may
result in the formation of aldehydes, ketones, and partially
7-6
-------
oxidized organic species, which interferes with the accuracy
of FID measurement. For thermal and catalytic incinerators,
EPA Method 25 is recommended, except in cases where the
allowable outlet VOC concentration of the control device is
less than 50 ppmv as carbon, in which case EPA Method 25A
shall be used.
*
The EPA Reference Method 1 or 1A is recommended for
selecting the sample site. To determine reduction efficiency,
it is recommended that the control device sampling sites be
located prior to the inlet of the control device (following
the dryer) and at the outlet of the control device. The EPA
Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D are recommended for determining the
volumetric flow rate, and the EPA Method 3 is recommended for
determining the air dilution correction, based on 3 percent
oxygen in the emission sample.
7.6 EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
Equipment standards should specify the VOC concentration
of the fountain solution (as either a weight or volume
percent) and the procedure for determining compliance with the
standard.
7.6.1 Fountain Solution
A sample of the fountain solution in each tray (for
manual systems) or tank (for circulation systems) can be taken
to determine the IPA content of the fountain solution. The
method recommended for detecting and quantifying alcohol in
fountain solutions is a modification of the EPA Method 415.1
(under development), where a gas chromatograph is used for
direct identification of IPA. This method works best for a
fresh_ batch of fountain solution, before use in the press.
It may be difficult to accurately detect the IPA content
of the fountain solution after the fountain solution has been
used in the press, because it contains suspended particles of
ink and paper. In this case, the alcohol content of the
fountain solution sample can be determined with a
refractometer or hydrometer that has been calibrated against
the EPA Method 415.1 measurement of the fresh fountain
solution. Since the suspended ink and paper debris may raise
7-7
-------
the refractometer or hydrometer reading, a measurement up to
10 percent over the reading for a fresh solution will be
allowed to demonstrate compliance.
If alcohol substitutes or nonalcohol additives are used,
the VOC concentration of the fountain can be solution
determined from the vendor's analysis of VOC's in the
concentrate, and facility records of the mixing ratio of the
concentrate with water. The use of alcohol substitutes by the
facility should be established whether or not alcohol is used,
since some facilities may combine alcohol and alcohol
substitutes.
7.6.2 Refrigeration Equipment
A thermometer or other temperature detection device
capable of reading to 0.5°F can be used to ensure that the
fountain solution is at or below the temperature required by
the rule. Temperatures as low as 558F have been required in
some areas.
7.6.3 Cleaning Solution
A sample of the cleaning solution, as used, can be taken
to determine that its VOC content is at or below the desired
amount. The EPA Method 415.1 can be used to detect and
quantify VOC's for solutions with high water content. The
modification will relax the detection limits for use in the
offset lithographic printing industry.
7.7 MONITORING
7.7.1 Control Devices
Add-on control devices must be maintained and operated
properly to comply with the suggested emission limit. Two
possible monitoring methods are available: continuous
emission monitoring and continuous control device measurement.
Continuous inlet and outlet monitoring is preferred because it
will give a continuous, direct measurement of actual
emissions. However, no continuous monitoring method to
measure total organics has been demonstrated for add-on
controls in the printing industry. This is because each of
the many diverse types of compounds in the dryer exhaust
streams would have to be identified separately and the
7-8
-------
concentration of each determined. Continuous monitoring of
all the individual compounds would be too expensive to be
practical.
In continuous control device measurement, certain
parameters, such as temperature and flow rate, can reflect the
level of control device efficiency. It has been shown, for
example, that lower temperatures can cause significant
decreases in combustion control device efficiency, while
higher temperatures may cause decreases in condenser filter
efficiency. Because temperature monitors with strip charts
are relatively inexpensive and easy to operate, it is
recommended that the owner or operator of an affected facility
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a temperature
monitoring device in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications. The monitoring temperature can be set
according to the operation of the device during compliance
testing.
For heatset printing, 100 percent capture is achievable
for emissions from the dryer. To ensure 100 percent capture,
the pressure in the dryer is kept slightly lower than the
press room pressure when the press is operating. Dryer
pressure can be readily monitored and documented using a
variety of tests that qualitatively measure air flow
direction.
7.7.2 Fountain Solution Alcohol Concentration
A refractometer or hydrometer can be used to determine on
a regular basis the concentration of a fluid, such as alcohol,
in water. Refractometers rely on the differences in
refractive index (reflection of light) between water and other
liquids; hydrometers rely on the difference in specific
gravity. These devices are available for use on a frequent
basis in fountain solution at printing facilities. The
readouts are optical or digital. Standard solutions may be
used to calibrate the devices. Alternatively, the devices may
be standardized against measurements taken with the EPA
Method 415.1. Both devices should be equipped with
temperature corrections.
7-9
-------
Conductivity meters also are used to monitor the relative
concentration of the fountain solution. Conductivity meters
need to be referenced to the conductivity of the incoming
water because conductivity varies for each area, season of the
year, and, possibly, time of day. Conductivity is a good
quality assurance mechanism, as paper and ink fragments in the
fountain contribute to conductivity. However, for this very
reason, conductivity would not be as accurate a measure of VOC
concentration as a readout from a refractometer or hydrometer.
7.7.3 Fountain Solution Additive Concentration
The nonalcohol additive or alcohol substitute
concentration in the fountain solution can be monitored with a
conductivity meter, as described above for fountain solution
alcohol, or a pH meter, if a one-step additive is used. A pH
meter is less sensitive than a conductivity meter because it
is the pH of the chemical additives in the one-step solution
that actually is being monitored rather than the VOC's. It is
possible that a refractometer or hydrometer could be used with
nonalcohol additives if there is a measurable difference in
refractive index or density between the substitute and water.
If the facility can demonstrate that the use of alcohol
substitutes or nonalcohol additives consistently produces a
fountain solution that contains less than 3 percent VOC, the
States may waive the monitoring requirement or extend the
monitoring time period, on a case-by-case basis, after
consistent use has been established. A reasonable time period
to establish the baseline is 6 months.
7.7.4 Fountain Solution Temperature
Continuous temperature monitoring of the fountain tray is
possible with temperature probes installed in the fountain
tray below the surface of the solution. The probes can be
attached to continuous recording devices such as strip charts,
recorders, or computers. Manual reading of a temperature
probe can be effective if the manual reading intervals are
frequent enough to observe temperature drift.
7-10
-------
7.7.5 Cleaning Solution Concentration
No easily applied method of cleaning solution VOC
monitoring has been identified, either for continuous cleaning
solution application or for batch processes. For aqueous
cleaning solutions, a refractometer, hydrometer, or
conductivity meter may be used, although these applications
have not been noted in the industry. For automated cleaning
operations, flow meters for water and for cleaning solution
concentrate can be calibrated against equipment standard
samples (see Section 7.6.3) to achieve the required VOC limit.
For the manual preparation and application of cleaning
solutions, careful recordkeeping is the only alternative to
the use of refractometers, hydrometers, or conductivity
meters, with frequent correlations to equipment standard
samples.
7.8 REPORTING/RECORDKEEPING
Each facility subject to RACT requirements should keep
records of certain key parameters that would indicate
compliance. First, the facility should identify the control
method or equipment standard selected to meet the RACT
requirements. Next, the results of any performance and
equipment standard testing (discussed in Sections 7.5 and 7.6)
should be recorded. Furthermore, the facility should record
all parameters listed in Section 7.7 on a routine basis to
indicate continued compliance with the RACT emission limit.
Any exceedances of the monitored parameters should also be
recorded, along with any corrective actions taken.
The air quality management agency can decide which of the
recorded data should be reported and what the reporting
frequency should be.
7.9 POTENTIAL TO EMIT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Some air quality management agencies may need to
determine the potential to emit VOC's from a printing
operation for regulatory purposes. The following sections
describe the procedures that may be used to estimate VOC
emissions from each of the three types of materials used in
printing process. The potential emissions for the entire
7-11
-------
facility are equal to the sum of the potential emissions from
each type of material used by the facility.
7.9.1 Ink
7.9.1.1 Heatset Ink. The annual potential emissions
from the use of heatset ink is equal to the amount of ink used
per year multiplied times the VOC content of the ink, minus 20
percent of this total VOC to account for retention of VOC by
the substrate. The VOC content of the ink should be
determined by the EPA Method 24. In lieu of using this
estimate of 20 percent VOC retention, test data can be used to
establish the exact amount of VOC's retained in the substrate
for this type of ink.
7.9.1.2 Non-heatset Ink. The annual potential emissions
from the use of non-heatset ink is equal to the amount of ink
used per year multiplied times the VOC content of the ink, and
minus 95 percent of this total VOC to account for retention of
VOC by the substrate. The VOC content of the ink should be
determined by the EPA Method 24. In lieu of using this
estimate of 95 percent VOC retention, test data can be used to
establish the exact amount of VOC's retained in the substrate
for this type of ink.
7.9.2 Fountain Solution
7.9.2.1 Alcohol. In facilities where alcohol is used in
the fountain solution, the annual potential to emit VOC's is
equal to the amount of alcohol used per year, since alcohol is
a VOC. In most cases, the alcohol will be isopropyl alcohol.
7.9.2.2 Nonalcohol Additive or Alcohol Substitute. For
facilities where a nonalcohol additive or alcohol substitute
is used in the fountain solution, the potential to emit VOC's
is equal to the amount of additive or substitute used per year
multiplied by the VOC content of the additive or substitute,
as determined by the EPA Method 24.
7.9.3 Cleaning Solution
The potential to emit VOC's from the use of cleaning
solution is equal to the amount of cleaning solution used
during the year multiplied by the VOC content of the cleaning
solution, as determined by the EPA Method 24.
7-12
-------
APPENDIX A
CONTACTS
-------
APPENDIX A
CONTACTS
The following is a list of suppliers, equipment vendors,
trade organizations, and government representatives who may
provide additional information on issues concerning offset
lithographic printing.
A.I SUPPLIERS
ACME Printing Ink Company
Allara, Mr. Bob
Coordinator, Environmental Affairs
1419 West Carroll Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607
Borden Industrial and Packaging
Products
King, Mr. Don
Coordinator, Environmental Affairs
Post Office Box 15947
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215
Cal Ink
Damianakes, Mr. Chuck
Coordinator, Environmental
Affairs
404 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
Cal Ink
Nickoley, Ms. Loren D.
Environmental Manager
1404 Fourth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
Capitol Ink
Bien, Mr. George
Technical Coordinator
806 Charming Place, NE
Washington, D. C. 20018
A-l
-------
Flint Ink Corporation
Administrative Assistant of
Environmental Affairs
Kuligowski, Ms. Cindy
Post Office Box 8609
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
Flint Ink Company
Miller, Mr. Al
13055 East Temple Avenue
City of Industry, California 91746-1479
Handschy Industries, Incorporated
Lakie, Mr. Chuck
120 25th Avenue
Be11wood, Illinois 60104
International Blending Corporation
Blackley, Mr. Paul
8090 Ranchers Road
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
Midland Color Group
Wawak, Mr. Frank
Coordinator, Environmental Affairs
101 Morse Avenue
Elkgrove Village, Illinois 60007
Polychrome Corporation
Oser, Mr. Mark
137 Alexander Street
Yonkers, New York 10702
Printers Service
Gerson, Mr. David
Coordinator, Environmental Affairs
26 Blanchard Street
Newark, New Jersey 07105
Printex Products
Wantling, Mr. Ron
5686 Dressier Road, NW
Suite 140
North Canton, Ohio 44720
Printex Products Corporation
Hoppe, Ms. Debbie
Post Office Box 1479
Rochester, New York 14603-1515
Quality Control Litho Products
Lynch, Mr. Roy
280 North Ott Street
Corona, California 91720
A-2
-------
RBP Chemical Corporation
SingstocJc, Mr. Jay
150 South 118th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214
RBP Chemical Corporation
Koontz, Mr. Wayne and
Zaloon, Mr. Jeff
150 South 118th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214
Rosos Research Laboratories,
Incorporated
Roso, Ms. Agi
President
990 North Shore Drive
Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044
Rycoline Products, Incorporated
Whitehead, Mr. Jim
5540 Northwest Highway
Chicago, Illinois 60630
Sun Chem Corporation,
General Printing Inks (GPI)
Zboroysky, Mr. Joe
Coordinator, Environmental Affairs
631 Central Avenue
Carlstadt, New Jersey 07072
Universal Printing
Notti, Mr. Peter
Laboratory Manager
13621 Alondra Boulevard
Sante Fe Springs, California 90670
Varn Products Company, Incorporated
Ryan, Mr. Dennis
175 Route 208
Oakland, New Jersey 07463
A.2 EQUIPMENT VENDORS
Akiyama, Incorporated
Bernetich, Mr. Joe
224 Lackawanna Avenue
Post Office Box 2086
West Paterson, New Jersey 07424
Allied Signal Incorporated
Holt, Mr. Bill
Post Office Box 580970
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74158
A-3
-------
American Environmental
International, Incorporated
Tandon, Mr. J. S.
ill Pfingsten Road
Deerfield, Illinois 60015
Anguil Environmental System,
Incorporated
Anguil, Mr. Jeff
4927 North Lydell Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217
Baldwin Technology Corporation
MacPhee, Mr. John
1281 East Main Street
Stamford, Connecticut 06902-3577
C. A. Enterprises Limited
Martin, Mr. Paul
4400 West 93rd Street
Prairie village, Kansas 66207
Engelhard Corporation
Burns, Mr. Ken
Catalysts and Chemicals Division
Menlo Park, CN 28
Edison, New Jersey 08818
Epic Products
Dahlgren, Mr. Harvey
Post Office Box 560907
Dallas, Texas 75356
Heidelberg
Desando, Mr. Charlie
73-45 Woodhaven Boulevard
Glendale, New York 11385
Komeri Printing
Songer, Mr. Bill
5520 Meadowbrook Industrial Circle
Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008
MMT Environmental Services, Incorporated
Friedrich, Mr. Hank
4643 North Chatsworth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55126
Rockwell Graphics
Niemrro, Mr. Ted
700 Oakmont Lane
Westmont, Illinois 60559-5546
A-4
-------
TEC systems
W. R. Grace and Company
Carman, Dr. Richard A.
Senior Research Associate
830 Prosper Road
Post Office Box 30
De Pere, Wisconsin 54115-0030
Thermo Electron Wisconsin, Incorporated
Mundich, Mr. Timothy
820 Hyland Avenue
Post Office Box 7001
Kaukauna, Wisconsin 54130
A.3 TRADE ORGANIZATIONS
American Newspaper Publishers
Association
Cunningham, Mr. Wilson
Box 17407 Dulles Airport
Washington, D.C. 20041
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Gadomski, Mr. R. R.
4615 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3796
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Jones, Mr. Gary
4615 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Schaeffer, Dr. William
4615 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3796
Manufacturers of Emission
Controls Associations
Connor, Mr. Ray
1707 L Street, NW
Suite 570
Washington, D.C. 20036
National Association of Printers
and Lithographers
Cox, Mr. Keeler
Research and Educational Foundation
780 Palisade Avenue
Teaneck, New Jersey 07666
A-5
-------
National Association of Printers
and Lithographers
Paperozzi, Mr. Andy
Research and Educational Foundation
780 Palisade Avenue
Teaneck, New Jersey 07666
National Association of
Printing Ink Manufacturers
Volpe, Mr. Paul F.
47 Halstead Avenue
Harrison, New York 10528
National Printing Equipment and
Supply Association, Incorporated
Nuzzaco, Mr. Mark J.
1899 Preston White Drive
Reston, Virginia 22091
Printing Industries of America,
Incorporated
Non-Heatset Web Section
Basore, Mr. Thomas B.
Executive Director
100 Daingerfield Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Printing Industries of America,
Incorporated
Cooper, Mr. Benjamin Y.
Senior Vice-President
100 Daingerfield Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Printing Industries of America,
Incorporated
Purcell, Mr. Tom
1730 North Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Printing Industries of America,
Incorporated
Director of Environmental Concerns
Web Offset Association
1730 North Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
A.4 GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Schauseleerger, Ms. Chr istine
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109
A-6
-------
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Collum, Mr. Robert or Mr. Jeff Carter
Air Pollution Branch
205 Butler Street, S. E., Room 1162
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Maryland Department of the Environment
Waheed, Mr. Husain or Mr. Carl York
Air Managment Administration
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
New York Division of Air Quality
Dalton, Ms. Kathy
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency
Corbin, Ms. Margaret
200 West Mercer Street, Room 205
Seattle, Washington 98119-3958
South Coast Air Quality Management
District Board
El Sherif, Mr. Monstafa
9150 Flair Drive
El Monte, California 91731
Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment
Patten, Mr. John
701 Broadway, 4th Floor Custom
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5403
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (MD-13)
Vatavuk, Mr. William
Standards Development Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSION ESTIMATION
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSION ESTIMATION
Sample calculations for the emission estimation
techniques used in Chapter 5.0 are shown in Sections B.1.0
through B.5.0. Section B.6.0 contains background information
and analyses to support estimation of the decrease in alcohol
evaporation from the fountain due to decrease in fountain
solution temperature.
B.1.0 ESTIMATION OF RAW MATERIAL USE IN THE MODEL PLANTS
Raw materials used in offset lithographic printing are
ink, fountain solution alcohol, and cleaning solution. Use of
raw materials for model plants in Groups A, B, and C, was
estimated from industry surveys, and is shown below:
Raw Material Process Use Rate
Ink Web 10.3 pounds per unit hour
Sheet 0.25 pounds per unit hour
Isopropyl Heatset Web 0.9 pounds per pound of ink
Alcohol Non-heatset Web 0.53 pounds per pound of ink
(non-newspaper)
Non-Heatset 1.25 pounds per pound of ink
Sheet
Cleaning All 0.33 pounds per unit hour
Solution
For heatset web, each unit is a double blanket unit; for
non-heatset web and sheet, each unit is a single blanket unit.
For newspaper model plants (Group D), ink use rates were
provided by the industry. The use of non-alcohol additives at
0.07 pounds of additive per pound of ink, was estimated from
industry surveys. The cleaning solution use rate was
estimated, as above, for model plants in Groups A, B, and C.
The total number of units for each model plant is shown
in Table 5-1 in Chapter 5.0. Using an estimate of 3,000
annual hours of operation, along with an average number of
units for each model plant, annual raw material use for each
model plant was estimated and is also shown in Table 5-1.
B-l
-------
The following sections describe step-by-step calculations
for determining annual raw material use. Model Plant A-III,
which represents a medium-size heatset web facility, is used
as an example. Calculations for the other model plants are
similar to the calculations shown here for Model Plant A-III.
B.I.I Ink Use Calculation
Equation (B-l) below is used to calculate annual ink use.
ink use rate x number of units x 3000 hr = ink use (B-l)
(Ib/unit hr) (Ib)
For Model Plant A-III, an average of 22 units was used in the
calculations to represent the range of units for this size
plant. Substituting 22 units into Equation (B-l), and using
10.3 Ib per unit hour as the ink use rate, gives the following
result:
10.3 x 22 x 3000 = 679,800 pounds = 340 tons of ink used
B.I.2 Isopropvl Alcohol Use Calculation
Equation (B-2) is used to calculate annual IPA use for
Model Plant A-III, using a weight ratio of IPA to ink of 0.9
(pounds or tons of IPA per pound or ton of ink).
340 tons ink x 0.9 tons IPA per ton ink (B-2)
= 306 tons IPA used
For the model plants in Group A and C, it was assumed
that the use of alcohol corresponded to an alcohol
concentration of 17 percent (by volume) IPA in the fountain;
for model plants in Group B, the alcohol concentration was
assumed to be 10 percent (by volume). The average alcohol
concentrations were not determined from theoretical
calculations; their usefulness is shown below (Section B.4.1)
in calculating emission reductions.
B-2
-------
B.I.3 Cleaning Solution Use Calculation
An equation similar to Equation (B-l) is used to
calculate annual cleaning solution use for the model plants,
using the cleaning solution use rate (0.33 pounds of cleaning
solution per" unit hour), the number of units in the model
plant (22), and 3,000 annual operating hours. The calculation
for Model Plant A-III is shown in Equation (B-3).
0.33 X 22 X 3000 = 21,780 pounds
= 11 tons cleaning solution
(B-3)
B.2.0 CALCULATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS IN
THE MODEL PLANTS
Annual VOC emissions for the model plants were calculated
from the amount of raw material used, amount of VOC contained
in the raw material, and knowledge of the printing process.
The results of these calculations are shown in Table 5-1.
B.2.1 Calculation of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From
Ink
The average amount of VOC's from inks that were used to
estimate emissions from the model plants due to ink are shown
below. State and local agencies are advised to use actual
facility data on ink VOC if possible, when determined by EPA
Method 24.
Type of Ink
Heatset Ink
Non-heatset Web Ink
(non-newspaper)
Non-heatset Sheet-fed Ink
News Ink
Average Amount of VOC
40 percent VOC
30 percent VOC
25 percent VOC
10 percent VOC
For heatset inks, it was estimated that 20 percent of the
VOC's from ink were retained by the substrate. For non-
heatset inks, substrate retention of the VOC's from inks was
B-3
-------
estimated to be 95 percent. Equation (B-4) below was used to
calculate the VOC emissions from ink.
weight (100 - percent VOC VOC
weight percent VOC retained by the = emissions
of ink x in the ink x paper) from ink (B-4)
used. 100 100
An example calculation for VOC emissions due to ink is
shown in Equation (B-5) below using Equation (B-4) for Model
Plant A-III with an annual ink use (340 tons) calculated in
Section B.I.I above, 40 percent VOC in the ink (heatset), and
20 percent retained by the substrate (80 percent emitted).
340 tons ink x 0.40 x 0.80 (B-5)
= 109 tons VOC from ink emitted
B.2.2 Calculation of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From
Fountain Solution Alcohol
Because IPA is a VOC, annual emissions from the fountain
are equal to the amount of alcohol used. For Model
Plant A-III, where 306 tons of alcohol were estimated in
Section B.I.2 as the amount of IPA used per year in the
fountain, 306 tons of VOC also were estimated to be emitted
from the fountain.
B.2.3 Calculation of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From
Cleaning Solutions
Emissions of VOC's from the model plants from the use of
cleaning solution were calculated using annual cleaning
solution use (11 tons) as determined in Section B.I.3 above,
and Equation (B-6) below:
VOC emissions weight of percent
from cleaning = cleaning x VOC (B-6)
solutions solution 100
The cleaning solutions used in the basseline by the model
plants were considered to be 100 percent VOC. Therefore, as
with IPA in the fountain, the annual amount of VOC's estimated
B-4
-------
to be emitted from cleaning solutions for the model plants was
equal to the annual use of cleaning solution. For Model
Plant A-III, VOC emissions were equal to 11 tons per year, the
amount of cleaning solution used, as calculated above in
Section B.1.3. State and local agencies are advised to use
actual VOC data for cleaning products whenever possible.
B.3.0 CALCULATION OF CONTROLLED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS FROM INKS
Controlled VOC emissions from ink due to application of
abatement devices to heatset model plants were shown in
Chapter 5.0, Table 5-2. The amount of VOC's emitted was
calculated using Equation (B-7) below, and the estimated
control device efficiency (CDE):
uncontrolled controlled
VOC emissions x 100-CDE = VOC emissions (B-7)
from ink 100 from ink
Uncontrolled VOC emissions were equal to the annual VOC
emissions from ink as calculated using Equation (B-4) above
(Section B.2.1).
An example calculation of controlled VOC emissions from
ink is shown in Equation (B-8) for Model Plant A-III, using a
condenser filter with carbon as a control device. This device
has an estimated control efficiency of 95 percent.
109 tons VOC from ink X 0.05 = 5.5 tons VOC emitted (B-8)
B.4.0 CALCULATION OF CONTROLLED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS FROM FOUNTAIN SOLUTION
Control of VOC emissions from fountain solution alcohol
can be achieved by reducing the level of alcohol in the
fountain, refrigerating the fountain solution, or using
alcohol substitutes. The following sections illustrate the
calculations used for each of these control strategies.
Controlled emissions from fountain solution were shown in
Chapter 5.0, Table 5-3.
B-5
-------
B.4.1 Reduction of Alcohol
VOC emissions with reduction of alcohol were calculated
using Equation (B-9) below:
VOC emissions
VOC emissions from fountain
at baseline x lower % alcohol = solution at lower (B-9)
concentration baseline % alcohol alcohol levels
For the model plants using alcohol, either 10 or 17
percent (by volume) was considered the baseline, depending on
the type of process. State and local agencies are advised to
use actual baseline levels whenever possible. A sample
calculation for Model Plant A-III is shown in Equation (B-10)
for reduction of alcohol to 3 percent (by volume).
306 tons VOC x (3/17) = 54 tons VOC emitted (B-10)
B.4.2 Refrigeration of Fountain Solution
Refrigeration of fountain solution containing alcohol
reduces evaporation of alcohol from the fountain. Annual
alcohol use and, consequently, VOC emissions are reduced. On
the basis of vendor data, VOC emission reduction from
refrigeration of the fountain was estimated at 44 percent.
Section B.6.0 below shows theoretical calculations that were
used to support this estimation.
Emissions from a refrigerated fountain solution were
calculated using Equation (B-ll) below:
VOC emissions VOC emissions
from an from a
unrefrigerated x (1-0.44) = refrigerated (B-ll)
fountain fountain
For Model Plant A-III, with an estimated 306 tons of
alcohol used per year, VOC emissions with refrigeration of the
fountain to below 60°F (at the same volume percent of alcohol)
are calculated as follows:
B-6
-------
306 tons VOC X 0.56 = 171 tons VOC emitted (B-12)
If alcohol levels are reduced and then refrigerated,
Equation (B-9) is used first to calculate the reduction in
alcohol use;" Equation (B-ll) is then used to calculate the
VOC emissions with refrigeration, at the reduced level of
alcohol consumption.
B.4.3 Use of Alcohol Substitutes
The chanqeover from alcohol in the fountain to the use of
alcohol substitutes was calculated from the baseline amount of
alcohol used, according to the following equation:
weight of
weight of alcohol used = alcohol (B-13)
10 substitute
For Model Plant A-III, changeover to alcohol substitutes
was calculated as follows:
306 / 10 = 31 tons of alcohol substitute (B-14)
The resulting VOC emissions from the use of alcohol
substitutes were calculated according to the following
equation:
weight of VOC emissions
alcohol x 0.10 = from alcohol (B-15)
substitute substitute
where the VOC content of the alcohol substitutes was estimated
to be 10 percent. For Model Plant A-III, VOC emissions from
the use of alcohol substitutes was calculated as follows:
31 tons alcohol substitute x 0.10 = 3.1 tons VOC emitted (B-16)
State and local agencies are advised to use actual VOC data
whenever possible.
B-7
-------
B.5.0 CALCULATION OF CONTROLLED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS FROM CLEANING SOLUTIONS
Control of VOC emissions from cleaning solutions is
implemented by reducing the VOC content of the cleaning
solution. For a change to 30 (by weight) percent cleaning
solution (as used) , the resulting emissions were calculated
using Equation (B-17) below:
weight of VOC emissions
cleaning x 30 = from cleaning (B-17)
solution 100 solutions
For Model Plant A-III, cleaning solution emissions with a
lower VOC cleaning solution (30 percent) were calculated as
follows:
11 tons VOC X 0.30 = 3.3 tons VOC emitted (B-18)
B.6.0 THEORETICAL DETERMINATION OF THE CHANGE IN ISOPROPYL
ALCOHOL EVAPORATION RATE WITH TEMPERATURE
The evaporation rate of IPA from the printing rollers
temperature decreases as temperature decreases. Using Fick's
law for molecular diffusion, the theoretical rate of
evaporation at any temperature can be estimated. The
following equation estimates the theoretical rate of diffusion
for IPA diffusing through stagnant, non-diffusing air from
point 1 at the IPA surface to point 2 a distance from the
surface:
DIPA-A P
(PIPA-1 - PIPA-2) (B-19)
R T (Z2 - Zi) PA-M
where:
DIPA-A = Diffusivity of IPA into air (A), square
feet per hour (ft2/hr)
P = Total Pressure, atmospheres (atm)
B-8
-------
R = Gas Law Constant, cubic feet-atmosphere
per pound mole-degree Rankine (ft3-atm/lb
mole-°R
T = Temperature, °R
Z2~Zi _ = Diffusion path, feet
PIPA-1 = Partial Pressure of IPA at liquid surface
(1), atm
pIPA-2 = Partial Pressure of IPA in air (2), atm
PA-I = Partial Pressure of air at liquid surface,
atm
?A-2 = Partial Pressure of air a distance from
the surface, atm
PA-M = Lo<3 Mean Partial Pressure of air, atm
NIPA = Evaporation Rate of IPA, pound mole per
square foot-hour (Ib-mol/hr-ft^)
Diffusion paths (Z) of 0.001, 0.005, and 0.01 ft were
used to calculate evaporation rates for IPA at temperatures
from 40 to 90°F (500 to 550 °R). The concentration of IPA in
the liquid was assumed to be constant at 25 percent (by
weight). For the range in IPA concentrations in offset
lithographic printing (from 0 to 35 percent), this assumption
results in, at most, a 0.2 percent difference from the
evaporation rate calculated at 25 percent.
Table B-l presents IPA evaporation rates versus
temperature, generated with Equation B-19, for six different
temperatures and three diffusion path lengths. Figure B-l
snows the same data in graphical form. Figure B-2 shows the
percent decrease in evaporation rate for each 20°F difference
in temperature.
The steps in the calculations are shown below for a
diffusion path of 0.01 ft and a temperature of 70°F.
1. Calculate the mole fraction (MF) of IPA in solution.
The following assumptions were used:
100 pounds of fountain solution
25 percent (by weight) IPA in water
and the following values:
1 mole IPA = 60.1 pounds
1 mole water = 18 pounds
B-9
-------
TABLE B-l. ESTIMATION OF THE EVAPORATION RATE OF ISOPROPANOL AT
SIX TEMPERATURES AND THREE DIFFUSION PATH LENGTHS
Temperature
(°F) *
40
50
60
70
80
90
40
50
60
70
80
90
40
50
60
70
80
90
Estimate of
Diffusion Path
(ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
005
005
005
005
005
005
001
001
001
001
001
001
Evaporation Rate of
IPA
(Ib/hr-sq.ft)
8
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
5
7
9
8
1
1
2
3
4
.8
.3
.8
.6
.5
.8
.6
.6
.6
.1
.1
.6
.8
.3
.8
.6
.5
.8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
10'1
B-10
-------
O)
c
g
'co
0) 0) *-
QJ a)
4J
0) 3
3 m
-U CM
0) Ul
e *j
a) CT1
^ i ^
0)
• r^
Ul
> £
iJ
(U (T3
-u a
(0
ti f™
o
C-H
0 M
•^ 3
^J ^^
« >M
U -H
O T3
a
fl T3
>
o
^i aj
a cu
o s-i
i
ca
0)
u
3
a*
cp
o
iq
o
CO
0
ca
o
vdl
B-ll
-------
UU9SU*
O)
1
f
2
C
0
'55
i
a
I
U-
^H*
8
0
o
CD
0)
U.
o
o
o
1
0)
a>
u_
o
o
_
A
•P
^
CO
o
CO
8
Si!
op
-9F
U.
o
s
.2
rtj
flj
E
i2
r™
"3
| |
LL»
*tf
^1
(0 •
M (0
£
C 4J
O CJ^
•H C
4-1 0)
(C rH
O £
O.4J
> a
0)
C
< o
a, -H
M (0
3
C t^j
C T3
O
4-> (U
O 4J
3 rtJ
T3 6
-------
35 lb IPA
1 Ib-mol
MF IPA
lb
25
100
sol ution
lb IPA x
lb sol .
1
60
X
Ib-mol
1 lb IPA
+
75
100
lb
lb
60.1
water
sol.
lb
X
IPA
1
18
Ib-mol
lb water
MF IPA = 0.09086
2. Calculate the vapor pressure (VP) of IPA at 70°F, using
Antoine's Equation.
log10VPIPA = A - [ B/(T + C).
where: A = 8.117
B = 158.92
C = 219.61
T = temperature, °C
and A, B, and C are constants.
VPIPA = 35.45 mmHg at 70°F
3. Calculate the partial pressure (P) of IPA at the fountain
solution liquid surface (1), in atmospheres (atm):
PIPA-1 = VP X MF
PlPA-1 = (35.45 mmHg/760 mm Hg) X 0.09086 - 0.0042
4. Calculate the partial pressure of air at the liquid
surface (PA-I):
pA_L = 1 - PIPA-I = 1 - 0.0042 = 0.9958 atm
5. Calculate the log mean partial pressure of air
pA_M = {(1 - PA-l)/[ln(l/PA-!)]} = 0.09979
6. Calculate the evaporation rate of IPA using Equation B-19
with the following constants and assumptions:
DIPA-A = 0.3875 ft2/hr
Total pressure = 1 atm
Partial pressure of IPA at a distance (0.01 ft) from the
liquid surface = 0
R = 0.7302 (ft3 - atm)/(lb mol - °R)
T = 530 °R (70°F)
22 ~ 2l = 0.01 ft
and the values calculated in Steps 3 and 5, above.
NIPA = 0.03875 x l x (0.0042 - 0) = 0.0042 lb-mole/hr-ft2
0.7302 X 530 x 0.01 X 0.9979
B-13
-------
7. Calculate the evaporation rate of IPA on a pound basis:
0.0042 (Ib-mole/hr-ft2)x 60.1 lb/lb-mole=0.026 lb/hr-ft2
B-14
-------
APPENDIX C
COST CALCULATIONS
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
COST CALCULATIONS
The following sections provide background information and
sample calculations to support the information presented in
Chapter 6.0, cost calculations. Section C.1.0 presents the
design assumptions common to all sizing for the add"-on
control. Section C.2.0 presents calculations and assumptions
used to develop thermal incinerator costs. Section C.3.0
presents catalytic incinerator cost calculations. Section
C.4.0 presents calculations and assumptions used to develop
condenser filter costs. Section C.5.0 discusses the
calculations used to determine the costs of material
substitution and process modifications that lower VOC
emissions from fountain and cleaning solutions.
C.1.0 DESIGN BASIS FOR ADD-ON CONTROLS ON HEATSET PRESSES
Heatset web printing facilities commonly employ add-on
control devices downstream of the dryer to control VOC
emissions. The Model Plants A-I through A-IV described in
Chapter 3.0 of this document represent the industry for
purposes of illustrating cost estimation. Table C-l presents
the design assumptions for sizing the dryer and the add-on
control equipment. The exhaust equation for estimation of
total exhaust is supplied by the vendor. Total dryer exhaust
is estimated using the following relationships:
Dryer Exhaust (scfm) =0.033 * Web speed (fpm) *
press width (inches)
Total Exhaust (scfm) = dryer exhaust * number of dryers
Intermediate cost results are shown in Table C-2.
Detailed cost calculations specific to each add-control device
are shown in Sections C.2.0, C.3.0, and C.4.0.
C-l
-------
CO
w
en
CO
w
OS
cu
Z
co
1
X
0
CO
•J
o
OS
2
O
o
z
o
Q
Q
OS
O
b.
CO
M
CO
o
M
CO
u
Q
.
^^
1
U
W
j
03
<
EH
3 M
3 q.
2
M •£
*Ix7
c £
^
•—•.
xi »•*
« 2 ^.
to1^
*w
^-"
10 J3"-->
(0 4J •
0 -a c
U -H -H
CU 2 ^"*
*\ (Q
f d
£ 0
J^
o*
o k
o
2
* co o
<-t (*> VO (N
*~*
o o o o
0 0 O O
vO O O O
tH CM Ol CM
CO CO CO CO
VO CO CO CO
tH CM T VO
^
M M >
M M M M
1 1 1 1
•
m
0
-P
a
x:
u
c
•H
rH
•H
(0
0
•a
0
>-(
o
c
•H
•a
0
fj
•H
U
u
0
•o
(0
4J
C
10
r-l
a
iH
1
O
4J
(0
0
<4-l
0
M
0
•O
O
U
C
(0
"a
•H
0
•a
o
£
(0
•a
0
•d
c
y
0
^
(0
•H
•o
c
(0
CD
-H
C
3
(^
3
0
0
l^
O
-------
C.2.0 THERMAL INCINERATOR CALCULATIONS
The calculations are based on OAOPS Control Cost Manual.
Chapter 3. The stream costed in this example is Model Plant
A-III, a heatset facility. The dryer exhaust characteristics
for this model plant are as follows:
VOC to be controlled
MW
Flow rate (total)
VOC flow rate
Heat value
Oxygen content
Inert content
Ink Solvents
175.4 Ib/lb mole
20,000 scfm
72.5 Ib/hr
1.2 Btu/scf
21%
Assume all N2
C.2.1 Sizing Calculations for Thermal Incinerators
A. If the exhaust stream is not halogenated, heat
recovery is allowed. Four different options are
considered: 0, 35, 50, and 70 percent heat
recovery.
B. Calculate total moles of the vent stream and
quantify moles of VOC, ©2, and inerts.
1. VOC moles:
VOC moles = (72.533 Ib/hr)(hr/60 min)
(lb-mole/175.4 Ib)
= 0.007 Ib-moles/min
2. Total vent stream moles:
Vent moles = (20,000 scfm)(lb-mole/392 scf)
= 51.02 lb*moles/min
3. Oxygen moles: (51.02 Ib moles/rain)(0.21 moles
O2/mole air)
02 moles = 10.71 Ib moles O2/min
4. Inert moles:
Inert moles = Vent moles - VOC moles - ©2 moles
= (51.02 - 0.007 - 10.71)
Ib'inole/min
= 40.30 Ib-mole/min
C-3
-------
W
J
§
CM
EH
o
u
z
o
1
Q
0
*•
X
EH
M
*
CO
EH
2
CU
,
U
o
o
2
U.
(0
EH
3
H
(X
EH
O
0
W
M
S
5
w
j£
H
C*
n
TABLE <
,
^ *>«
^ 1^~
DC
C
o
II ~+>
— w E
§1"
U
*J ^_
"5 3,f
•S S o
O ^B M
H- X w
UJ ^^
tl
U
y
S
1
"O
^ o
5 o
£ =
OL
0 O ^T O
o
U3
U3 ^r o o
O) -^ ^^O
v O CSJ CsJ
cn
^^ ro > i
in u*i u*>
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
....
1
u
oiiT?
||fei
g-u.^
— II 1)
"a j* J J
41 5 C C
£ 0 0 O
to i >
o m o o
"* "
u
c c
f « O 0
H— a»
§§s§
o o a o
1
u
•*» k.
« II k. U
*" c £ 5
c
Thermal 1
Catalytic
Condenser
Condenser
— — — —
i i i i
O O i/> O
CO
en CM o o
m o o o
in co o o
0000
CM *^ tO (O
m ^ i i
to » i i
in
-------
C. Calculate combustion and dilution air.
Note: Additional air is not required, since
sufficient oxygen is already present in the vent
stream.
Note: No dilution air or combustion air
calculations are necessary, since sufficient ©2 is
already present in the vent stream. Therefore,
a. Dilution air flow = 0 scfra
b. Combustion air flow = 0 scfm
c. New flow = old flow = 20,000 scfm
D. Check the heat value of the precombustion vent
stream to see if it is acceptable from a .safety
perspective. Streams would be diluted as necessary
to ensure that heat contents are below maximums.
Since 1.2 Btu/scf < 95 Btu/scf, no dilution is
required for this stream.
E. Minimum incinerator flow is 50 scfm. Streams less
than 50 scfm will be increased by addition of air.
Since 20,000 scfm > 50 scfm, no additional air is
required.
F. Establish temperature that incinerator operates:
Halogenated: 2,000°F
Nonhalogenated: 1,600°F
This stream is nonhalogenated and is incinerated at
1,600°F.
G. Nonhalogenated streams are potential candidates for
heat recovery.
If the heat value of the entire vent stream is below
13 Btu/scf («25% LEL), then the entire vent stream
is eligible for heat (energy) recovery in a heat
exchanger.
Since 1.2 < 13, this stream is a candidate for
energy recovery.
C-5
-------
H. Calculate the auxiliary fuel (Qaf) requirement.
Qaf = {0.0739 * Newflow * [0.255 * (1.1 *
Incinerator Temperature - Temperature Gas
- 0.1 * 77) - (Heat Value/0.0739)]} H-
{0.0408 * [21,502 - 1.1 * 0.255 *
(Incinerator Temperature - 77)]}
Incinerator Temperature = 1,600°F
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Gas temperature = 250°F
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Gas temperature =0.35 (1600 - 250) + 250
= 722.5°F
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Gas temperature =0.50 (1600 - 250) + 250
= 925°F
4. For 70 percent heat recovery.
Gas temperature = 0.70 (1600 - 250) + 250
- 1,195°F
Note: For each heat recovery level, there will be
different auxiliary fuel flows, with lower auxiliary
fuel flows required for higher energy recovery
scenarios. However, capital investment costs for
higher heat recovery systems are also higher, so an
economic tradeoff is involved in selecting the
lowest cost systems. System costs are calculated
for all four scenarios and the system with the
lowest annualized is selected.
5. For 0 percent heat recovery and T = 250°F,
[.0739 * 20,000 * [.255 * (1.1 * 1,600 -
Qaf = T - 0.1 * 77) - 11.21.0739m
[0.0408 * [21,502 - (1.1 * .255 * (1,600 - 77)]
Qaf - F636.421.62 - 376.89T1
859.85
Qaf = 630.5 scfm
(See OAOPS Control Cost Manual. Incinerator Chapter,
for derivation and assumptions.)
C-6
-------
At 35 percent heat recovery,
Qaf = 423.4 scfm for T = 722.5°F
At 50 percent heat recovery,
Qaf = 334.7 scfm for T = 925°F
At" 70 percent heat recovery,
Qaf = 216.3 scfm for T = 1,195°F
Ensure that sufficient auxiliary fuel is added to
stabilize flame (5 percent of TEI).
Thermal Energy
Input (TEI) = 0.0739 * (new flow + Qaf) *
0.255 * (incinerator
temperature - 77)
At 0 percent heat recovery,
TEI = 0.0739 * (20,000 + 630.5) * 0.255 * (1,600
- 77)
TEI = 592,098
Qaf = (0.05 * 592,098)/(0.0408 * 21,502)
= 33.7 scfm < 630.5 scfm.
Enough fuel is added to stabilize flame.
At 35 percent heat recovery,
TEI = 0.0739 * (20,000 + 423.4) * 0.255 *
(1,600-77) = 586,155
Qaf = 33.4 scfm < 423.4 scfm
At 50 percent heat recovery,
TEI = 0.0739 * (20,000 + 334.7) * 0.255 *
(1,600-77) = 583,609
Qaf = 33.3 scfm < 334.7 scfm
At 70 percent heat recovery,
TEI = 0.0739 * (20,000 + 216.3) * 0.255 *
(1,600-77) - 580,211
Qaf = 33.1 scfm < 216.3 scfm
Calculate the total volumetric flow rate of gas
through the incinerator, Qfj_. Include auxiliary air
for the natural gas.
C-7
-------
20,423scfm
20,335scfm
20,216scfm
1. Qfi = new flow + Qaf
(No combustion air for auxiliary fuel is needed,
since sufficient oxygen is present in waste gas
stream. )
2. Qfi = New flow + Qaf
Qfi = 20,000 + 630.5
= 20,630 scfm
At heat recovery = 35 percent, Qfj
At heat recovery = 50 percent, QfjL
At heat recovery = 70 percent, Qf-[
C . 2 . 2 Estimating Thermal Incinerator Total Capital
Investment
A. The equipment cost (EC) algorithms are only good for
the range of 500 scfra to 50,000 scfm. The minimum
design size is 500 scfm. The CE index used is from
May 1989.
Design Q = Qfi > 500 scfm
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
EC = 10,294 * (Design Q^-2355) * (# incinerators) *
(CE INDEX/340.1)
EC = 10,294 * (20,630**2355) * 1 * (355.6/340.1)
EC = $111,687
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
EC = 13,149 * (Design Q*-2609) * (# incinerators) *
(CE INDEX/340.1)
EC = 13,149 * (20.423*-2609) *
EC = $183,129
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
EC = 17,056 * (Design Q*-2502j *
(CE INDEX/340.1)
EC = 17,056 * (20,335A-2502) * (1) * (355. 6/340 .
EC = $213,381
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
EC = 21,342 * (Design Q*-2500)
(CE INDEX/340.1)
EC = 21,342 * (20,216*-2500) *
EC = $266,081
(1) * (355.6/340.1)
incinerators)
(1)
incinerators) *
* (355« 6/340 . 1)
C-8
-------
B. Add duct cost. On the basis of an article in
Chemical Engineering (May 1990) and assuming l/8-in.
carbon steel and 24-in. diameter with two elbows per
100 ft.
Duct cost = {[(210 * 24A°-839)+(2 * 4.52 *
24-1.43)] * (length/100)} *
(CE INDEX/352.4)
Duct cost = $11,722.52 (for length of 300 ft)
C. Add auxiliary collection fan cost, based on 1988
Richardson Manual.
Fan cost = (79.1239 * Design Q^O.5612) *
355.6/342.5
1. For 0 percent heat recovery, design Q * 20,630 scfm,
so fan cost = $21,672
2. For 35 percent heat recovery, design Q •
20,423 scfm, so fan cost * $21,550
3. For 50 percent heat recovery, design Q —
20,335 scfm, so fan cost - $21,498
4. For 70 percent heat recovery, design Q »
20,216 scfm, so fan cost - $21,427
D. Total Equipment Cost (EC^ot)• ^s given by:
ECtot = EC + duct cost + fan cost
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Ectot ~ EC + duct cost + fan cost
= 111,687 + 11,723 + 21,672
= $145,082
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Ectot = EC + duct cost + fan cost
= 183,129 + 11,723 + 21,550
= $216,402
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Ectot = EC + duct cost + fan cost
= 213,381 + 11,723 + 21,498
= $246,602
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
ECtot = EC + duct cost + fan cost
C-9
-------
= 266,081 + 11,723 + 2].,427
= $299,231
Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) is given by:
PEC = 1.18 * ECtot
For 0 percent heat recovery, PEC « $171,197
For 35 percent heat recovery, PEC = $255,354
For 50 percent heat recovery, PEC = $290,990
For 70 percent heat recovery, PEC =« $353,093
Estimate Total Capital Investment (TCI).
Total capital investment includes the following cost
items:
Purchased Equipment Cost PEC
Foundation & Supports 0.08 PEC
Handling & Erection 0.14 PEC
Electrical 0.04 PEC
Piping (Ductwork & Valving) 0.02 PEC
Insulation for Ductwork 0.01 PEC
Painting 0.01 PEC
Engineering 0.10 PEC
Construction & Field Expenses 0.05 PEC
Contractor Fees 0.10 PEC
Start-Up 0.02 PEC
Performance Test 0.01 PEC
Contingencies 0.03 PEC
1.61 PEC
Where 1.61 is the installation factor for
Design Q > 20,000.
If Design Q < 20,000 the installation factor
-1.25 (OCCM)
If 0 percent heat recovery,
TCI = 1.61 * PEC
= 1.61 * 171,197
= $275,627
If 35 percent heat recovery,
TCI - 1.61 * PEC
= 1.61 * 255,354
= $411,120
C-10
-------
3. If 50 percent heat recovery,
TCI = 1.61 * PEC
= 1.61 * 290,990
= $468,494
4. If 70 percent heat recovery,
TCI = 1.61 * PEC
= 1.61 * 353,093
= $568,480
C.2.3 Calculating Annual Costs for Thermal Incinerators
A. Operating labor (OL), including supervision
(15 percent)
1. Assume OL rate = $15.64/hr
(0.5 hr per shift)
Assume operating hours = 3,000
OL = (0.5 * Operating hours)/8 *
($15.64/hr)(1.15)
OL = $3,372/yr
B. Maintenance labor (ML) and materials
ML = (0.5/8 * 3,000) * ($17.21/hr)
ML = $3,227
Materials - ML = $3,227
C. Utilities = Natural Gas and Electrical Costs (Elec)
Assume value of natural gas = $3.30/1,000 scf
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = (3.30/1,000) * Qaf(scfm) * 60(min/hr)
* Operating hours
Natural gas = (3.30/1,000) * (630.5)(scfm) * (60) *
3,000
= $374,517
Power = (1.17 * 10*~4 * Qfi * 4J/0.60
= (1.17 * 10~4 * 20,630 * 4)/0.60
= 16.09 KW
Elec = (0.061 $/KWh) * (16.09 kW) * (3,000hr)
= $2,945
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = (3.30/1,000) * (423.4) * (60) *
(3,000)
C-ll
-------
= $251,500
Power = (1.17 * 10-4 * 20,423 * 8)/0.60
= 31.86 KW
Elec = (0.061 $/kWh) * (21.86 kW) *
(3,000hr)
= $5,830
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = (3.3/1,000) * (334.7) * (60) *
(3,000)
= $198,811
Power = (1.17 * ID"4 * 20,335 * 12)/0.60
= 47.58 kW
Elec - (0.061 $/kWh) * (47.58 kW) *
(3,000hr)
= $8,708
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = (3.3/1,000) * (216.3) * (60) *
(3,000)
= $128,482
Power - (1.17 * 10"4 * 20,216 * 19)/0.60
- 74.90 kW
Elec - $13,707
D. Total Direct Annual Cost (DAC) is given by:
DAG - OL + ML + Material + Natural Gas + Elec
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
DAC = 3,372 + 3,227 + 3,227 + 374,517 4- 2,945
= $387,288/yr
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
DAC = 3,372 + 3,227 + 3,227 + 251,500 + 5,830
» $267,156/yr
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
DAC » 3,372 + 3,227 + 3,227 + 198,811 + 8,708
= $217,344/yr
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
DAC = 3,372 + 3,227 + 3,227 + 128,482 + 13,707
= $152,015/yr
C-12
-------
Overhead = 0.60 * (OL + ML + Material)
= $5,896/yr
Administrative = 2 percent of TCI, Tax = 1 percent
of TCI, Insurance = 1 percent of TCI.
For 0 percent heat recovery,
Administration = (0.02)(275,627)
= $5,513/yr
Tax = 0.01 * TCI
Tax = $2,756/yr
Insurance = 0.01 * TCI
= $2,756/yr
For 35 percent heat recovery,
Administration = (0.02)(411,120)
= $8,222/yr
Tax - $4,lll/yr
Insurance = $4,lll/yr
For 50 percent heat recovery,
Administration - (0,02)(468,494)
= $9,370/yr
Tax - $4,685/yr
Insurance = $4,685/yr
For 70 percent heat recovery,
Administration = (0.02)(568,480)
= $ll,370/yr
Tax - $5,685/yr
Insurance = $5,685/yr
Annualized Capital Recovery Costs (CRC) is given
by:
CRC = CRF * TCI, where CRF is the Capital
Recovery Factor. Assuming 10-year
equipment life and 10 percent interest,
CRF = 0.16275.
For 0 percent heat recovery,
CRC = 0.16275 * 275,627
$44,858
C-13
-------
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
CRC = 0.16275 * 411,120
$66,910
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
CRC = 0.16275 * 468,494
$76,247
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
CRC = 0.16275 * 568,480
$92,520
H. Total Indirect Annual Cost (IAC) is given by:
IAC = overhead + administrative + tax
+ insurance + CRC
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
IAC = 5,896 + 5,513 + 2,756 + 2,756 + 44,858
= $61,779/yr
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
IAC = 5,896 + 8,222 + 4,111 + 4,111 + 66,910
- $89,250/yr
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
IAC = 5,896 + 9,370 + 4,685 + 4,685 + 76,247
= $100,883/yr
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
IAC = 5,896 + 11,370 + 5,685 + f>,685 + 92,520
= $121,156/yr
I. Total Annual Cost (TAG) is given by:
TAG = IAC + DAG = total indirect annual cost +
total direct annual cost
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
TAG = 61,779 + 387,288
$449,067/yr
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
TAG = $356,406/yr
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
TAG = $318,227/yr
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
TAG = $273,171/yr
C-14
-------
Note that the lowest TAG is obtained from the
70 percent heat recovery system. Therefore, this
system is selected as the optimum thermal
incinerator design.
C.3.0 CATALYTIC INCINERATOR CALCULATIONS
The calculations are based on OAOPS Control Cost Manual.
Chapter 3.0. The stream costed in this example is Model Plant
A-III, a heatset facility. The dryer exhaust characteristics
for this model plant are:
VOC to be controlled
MW
Flow rate (total)
VOC flow rate
Heat value
Oxygen content
Inert content
Gas inlet temperature
Ink Solvents*
175.4 Ib/lb mole
20,000 scfm
72.5 lb/hr
1.2 BtU/SCf
21%
Assume all N2
250°F
C.3.1 Sizing Calculations for Catalytic Incineration
The information and calculations of Section C.2.1
A through J also apply to catalytic incinerators and the cost
estimates for Model Plant A-III. The following steps are
necessary to complete the sizing calculations.
K. Establish the desired outlet temperature of the
catalyst bed, Tf^.
Tfi - 700°F
L. Calculate the waste gas temperature at the exit of
the preheater.
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Gas Temperature (Two) =• 250°F
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Gas Temperature =0.35 (700 - 250) + 250 Two
= 407.5°F
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Gas Temperature =0.50 (700 - 250) + 250 Two
= 475°F
C-15
-------
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Gas Temperature = 0.70 (700 - 250) + 250 Two
= 565°F
M. Calculate the auxiliary fuel requirement, Qaf
Qaf ~ {0.0739 * Newflow * [0.248 * (1.1 *
Incinerator Temperature - Temperature Gas
- 0.1 * 77) - (Heat va:Lue/0.0739) ]> +
{0.0408 * [21,502 - 1.1 * 0.255 *
(incinerator temperature - 77)]}
Incinerator temperature = 2,000°F
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Qaf »0.0739*20.OOP*f0.248*f1.1*700-T-0.1*771-f1.2/0.7391
0.0408*[21,502-(1.1*0.248*(700-77))]
Qaf = 255.416.727 - 366.54T
870.35
Qaf - 189 scfm for T = 250°F
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Qaf = 122 scfm for T - 407.5°F
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Qaf = 94 scfm for T = 475°F
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Qaf ~ 56 scfin for T = 565°F
N. Verify that the auxiliary fuel requirements are
sufficient to stabilize the burner flame.
Thermal Energy Input (TEI) » 0.0739 * (New Flow +
Qaf) * (0.248 * (Incinerator Temperature - 250))
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
TEI = 0.0739 *(20,000 + 189) * (.248 * (700-250))
TEI = 166,504
Qaf = (0-05 * 166,504)/(0.0408 * 21,502) - 9.49
Note: Verification 9.49 < 189, therefore,
sufficient fuel is added to stabilize the burner
flame.
C-16
-------
For 35 percent heat recovery,
TEI = 0.0739 * (20,000 + 122) * (0.248 *
(700 - 250)
TEI = 165,951
Qaf = (0.05 * 165,951) / (0.0408 * 21,502)
Qaf " 9-5
Note: Verification 9.5 < 122; therefore, sufficient
fuel is added to stabilize the burner flame.
For 50 percent heat recovery,
TEI - 0.0739 * (20,000 + 94) * (0.248 * (700 -
250)
TEI - 165,720
Qaf " (0.05 * 165,720) / (0.0408 * 21,502)
Qaf - 9-4
Note: Verification 9.4 < 94; therefore, sufficient
fuel is added to stabilize the burner flame.
For 70 percent heat recovery,
TEI - 0.0739 * (20,000 + 56) * (0.248 * (700 -
250)
TEI - 165,407
Qaf " (0.05 * 165,407) / (0.0408 * 21,502)
Qaf - 9.4
Note: Verification 9.4 < 56; therefore, sufficient
fuel is added to stabilize the burner flame.
Estimate the inlet temperature to the catalyst bed,
Tfi (to ensure that the inlet temperature is
sufficient to ignite the combustible organic
compounds in the catalyst that was selected for
use) .
Tri " {0.0408 * Qaf * [21,502 + (1.1 * 0.248 *
77)] + [0.0739 * 20,000 * 0.248 *
(temperature gas + 0.1 * 77)]} 4- {1.1 *
0.248 * [(0.0408 * Qaf) + (0.0739 *
20,000)]}
C-17
-------
For 0 percent heat recovery,
(Qaf = 189 scfm, Two = 250°F)
Tri = 878.14Qaf + 366.54TWO -f 2822.39
.OllQaf + 403.1984
Tri = 643°F
Note: On the basis of ignition temperatures shown
in Table 3.2 of OAOPS Control Cost Manual. 643°F is
sufficient to ignite the organic compounds of
interest.
For 35 percent heat recovery,
(Qaf = 122 scfm, Two = 407.5°F)
Tri = 641°F
Note: 64i°F is sufficient to ignite the organic
compounds of interest.
For 50 percent heat recovery,
(Qaf - 94 scfm' TWO - 475°F)
Tri = 642°F
Note: 642°F is sufficient to ignite the organic
compounds of interest.
For 70 percent heat recovery,
(Qaf = 56 scfm, Two - 565°F)
Tri - 642°F
Note: 642°F is sufficient to ignite the organic
compounds of interest.
Calculate the total volumetric flow rate of gas
through the incinerator, Qfi-
Qfi - Qwo + Qa + Qaf
For 0 percent heat recovery,
Qfi = 20,000 + 0 + 189
- 20,189 scfm
For 35 percent heat recovery,
Qfi = 20,000 -l- 0 + 122
= 20,122 scfm
For 50 percent heat recovery,
Qfi = 20,000 +0+94
= 20,094 scfm
018
-------
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Qfi = 20,000 +0+56
= 20,056 scfm
Q. Calculate the volume of catalyst in the catalyst
bed.
space velocity: 0 = Qfj
Vcat
Vcat = Overall bulk volume of the catalyst bed,
including voids between the particles
(ft3)
Assuming space velocity = 500 min~l.
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Qfi @ 60°F = 20,189 ({60 + 460}/{77 + 460})
19,550 ft3/min
vcat = {{19,550 ft3/min}/{500 min-1})
39.1 ft3
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Qfi@ 60°F = 20,122 (0.968)
19,485 ft3/min
Vcat = ({19,485 ft3/min}/{500 min-1})
39.0 ft3
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Qfi e 60°F = 20,094 (0.968)
19,457 ft3/min
Vcat - ({19,457 ft3/min}/{500 min-1})
38.9 ft3
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Qfi @ 60°F = 20,056 (0.968)
19,421 ft3/min
Vcat = ({19,421 ft3/min}/{500 min-1})
38.8 ft3
C.3.2 Estimating Catalytic Incinerator Total Capital
Investment
A. The EC algorithms are applicable for the flowrate of
2,000 scfm to 50,000 scfm for fixed bed or
monolithic catalysts.
C-19
-------
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Qtot = 20,279 scfm
EC = 1,105 Qtot"0'5471 * (CE index/340.1)
EC = 1,105 (20,189*0-5471) * (355.6/340.1)
EC* = $261,846
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Qtot = 20,122 scfm
EC = 3,623 (Qtot"0'4189) * (1.0456)
EC = $240,564
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Qtot = 20,094 scfm
EC = 1,215 (Qtot"0'5575) * (1.0456).
EC = $318,340
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Qtot = 20,056 scfra
EC = 1,443 (Qtot"0*5527) * (1.0456)
EC = $360,140
B. Add duct cost. On the basis of an article in
Chemical Engineering (May 1990) and assuming 1/8 in.
carbon steel and 24 in. diameter with two elbows per
100 ft.
Duct cost = {(210 * 24A0.839)H-(2 * 4.52 *
24*1.43) * (length/100)} * (CE
index/352.4)
Duct cost = $11,722.52 (for length of 300ft)
C. Add auxiliary collection fan cost, linear regression
of data presented in 1988 Richardson Manual.
Fan cost = (79.1239 * design QA0.5612) *
(355.6/342.5)
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Design Q = 20,189 scfm
Fan cost = (79.1239 * 20,189A°-5612) * 1.038
Fan cost = $21,406
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Design Q = 20,122 scfm
Fan cost = $21,366
C-20
-------
For 50 percent heat recovery,
Design Q = 20,094 scfm
Fan cost = $21,349
For 70 percent heat recovery,
Design Q = 20,056 scfm
Fan cost = $21,327
Total Equipment Cost (ECtot) is given by:
ECtot = EC + duct cost + fan cost
For 0 percent heat recovery,
ECtot = 261,846 + 11,723 + 21,406
ECtot = $294,975
For 35 percent heat recovery,
ECtot = 240,564 + 11,723 + 21,366
ECtot = $273,653
For 50 percent heat recovery,
ECtot " 318,340 + 11,723 + 21,349
ECtot « $351,412
For 70 percent heat recovery,
Ectot " 360,140 + 11,723 + 21,327
ECtot « $393,190
Purchased equipment cost (PEC) is given by:
PEC - 1.18 * ECtot
For 0 percent heat recovery,
PEC = $348,071
For 35 percent heat recovery,
PEC = $322,911
For 50 percent heat recovery,
PEC = $414,666
For 70 percent heat recovery,
PEC * $463,964
Total capital investment (TCI) is given by:
TCI = 1.61 * PEC
For 0 percent heat recovery,
TCI = $560,394
For 35 percent heat recovery,
TCI = $519,887
C-21
-------
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
TCI = $667,612
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
TCI = $746,982
C.3.3 Calculation of Annual Costs for Catalytic
Incinerators
A. Operating labor (OL) including supervision
(15 percent)
1. Assume OL rate = $15.64/hr
(0.5 hr per shift)
Assume operating hours = 3,000
OL = (0.5 * Operating hours)/8 * ($15.64/hr)
(1.15)
OL = $3,372
B. Maintenance labor (ML) and materials
ML = (0.5/8 * 3,000) * ($17,21/hr)
ML = $3,227
Materials = ML = $3,227
C. Catalyst replacement (in 1990 dollars)
100 percent of catalyst replaced every three years;
assume metal oxide catalyst used.
Cat cost = $650/ft3 in 1988 dollars or
cat cost = $673/ft3 in 1990 dollars
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Vcat - 39-l ft3
Cat cost = (39.1 ft3)($673/ft3) * 0.40211
Cat cost = $10,581
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Vcat = 39-0 ft3
Cat cost = $10,554
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Vcat = 38-9 ft3
Cat cost = $10,527
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Vcat = 38-8 ft3
Cat cost = $10,500
C-22
-------
D. Utilities = Natural Gas and Electrical costs
Assume value of natural gas = $3.30/1,000 scfm
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = (3.30/1,000) * Qaf * 60 min/hr
* Operating hour
Natural gas = (3.30/1,000) * 189 * 60 * 3000
Natural gas = $112,266
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = Qaf * 594
Natural gas = 122 * 594
Natural gas = $72,468
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = Qaf * 594
Natural gas = 94 * 594
Natural gas = $55,836
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Natural gas = Qaf * 594
Natural gas = 56 * 594
Natural gas = $33,264
E. Power = (1.17 * 10~4 * Qfi * AP)/0.60,
where AP = total pressure drop across the system.
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
AP =6
Qfi = 20,189
Power = 1.95 * 10A~4 * Qfi * AP
Power = 23.62 kW
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
AP =10
Qfi = 20,122
Power = 1.95 * 10A~4 * Qfi * AP
Power = 39.24 kW
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
AP = 14
Qfi = 20,094
Power = 1.95 * 10A~4 * Qfi * AP
Power = 54.86 kW
C-23
-------
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
AP =21
Qfi = 20,056
Power = 1.95 * 10A"4 * Qfi * AP
Power = 82.13 kw
F. Elec Cost = ($0..061/kW) * (POW) * (3,000)
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
POW = 23.62 kW
Elec Cost = $4,322/yr
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
POW = 39.24 kW
Elec Cost = $7,181/yr
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
POW = 54.86 kW
Elec Cost = $10,039/yr
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
POW = 82.13 kW
Elec Cost = $15,030/yr
G. Total direct costs (TDC) + materials
TDC = Operating labor + ML + maintenance
material + cat cost + nat gas + elec cost
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
TDC = 3,372 -I- 3,227 + 3,227 4 10,581 + 112,266 +
4,322
TDC » $136,995
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
TDC = 3,372 + 3,227 + 3,227 + 10,554 + 72,468 +
7,181
TDC = $100,029
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
TDC - 3,372 + 3,227 + 3,227 H- 10,527 + 55,836 +
10,039
TDC = $86,228
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
TDC = 3,372 + 3,227 + 3,227 -I- 10,500 + 33,264 +
15,030
TDC = $68,620
C-24
-------
H. Overhead = 0.60 *(Operating labor + ML +
materials)
= $5,896/yr
I. Administrative = 2 percent of TCI
Tax = 1 percent of TCI
Insurance = 1 percent of TCI
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
Administrative = (0.02) (560,394)
$11,208
Tax = (0.01) (560,394)
$5,604
Insurance = (0.01) (560,394)
$5,604
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
Administrative = (0.02) (519,887)
$10,398
Tax = (0.01) (519,887)
$5,199
Insurance = (0.01) (519,887)
$5,199
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
Administrative = (0.02) (667,612)
$13,352
Tax - (0.01) (667,612)
$6,676
Insurance = (0.01) (667,612)
$6,676
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
Administrative = (0.02) (746,982)
$14,940
Tax = (0.01) (746,982)
$7,470
Insurance = (0.01) (746,982)
$7,470
J. Annualized Capital Recovery Costs (AnnCap) is given
by:
AnnCap = CRF [TCI - 1.08 (cat cost)]
C-25
-------
AnnCap = 0.16275 * [TCI - 1.08 (cat cost)]
For 0 percent heat recovery,
TCI = 560,394
cat cost = 10,581
AnnCap = 0.16275 * 548,967
AnnCap = $89,344
For 35 percent heat recovery,
TCI = 519,887
cat cost - 10,554
AnnCap = 0.16275 * 508,489
AnnCap = $82,757
For 50 percent heat recovery,
TCI = 667,612
cat cost = 10,527
AnnCap = 0.16275 * 656,243
AnnCap = $106,804
For 70 percent heat recovery,
TCI = 746,982
cat cost = 10,500
AnnCap = 0.16275 * 735,642
AnnCap = $119,726
Total indirect capital cost (1C) is given by:
1C = overhead + administrative + tax +
insurance + AnnCap
For 0 percent heat recovery,
1C = 5,896 + 11,208 + 5,604 + 5,604 + 89,344
1C - $117,656
For 35 percent heat recovery,
1C = 5,896 + 10,398 + 5,199 + 5,199 + 82,757
1C = $109,449
For 50 percent heat recovery,
1C = 5,896 + 13,352 + 6,676 + 6,676 + 106,804
1C = $139,404
For 70 percent heat recovery,
1C = 5,896 + 14,940 + 7,470 + 7,470 + 119,726
1C = $155,502
C-26
-------
L. Total annual cost (TAG) is:
TAG = 1C + TDC
1. For 0 percent heat recovery,
TAG = 117,656 + 136,995
TAG = $254,652
2. For 35 percent heat recovery,
TAG = 109,449 -I- 100,029
TAG = $209,478
3. For 50 percent heat recovery,
TAG = 139,404 + 86,228
TAG = $225,632
4. For 70 percent heat recovery,
TAG = 155,502 -I- 68,620
TAG = $224,122
Note that the lowest total annual cost is obtained from
the 35 percent heat recovery system. Therefore, this system
is selected as the optimum catalytic incinerator design.
C.4.0 CONDENSER FILTER CALCULATIONS
This section presents the calculations used to estimate
the cost of applying condenser filters to dryer exhaust
streams. Costs are based on vendor quotes and vendor
responses to questionnaires as described in Chapter 6.0.
Model Plant A-III was used in the sample calculations. The
exhaust stream characteristics are shown in Table C-2.
C.4.1 Estimating Total Capital Investment
A. As shown in Table C-2, Model Plant A-III has an
exhaust stream of 20,000 scfm. From Table 6-2, the
EC for a condenser filter sized to handle
10,000 scfm is $170,000. Assuming two condenser
filters will be used, each rated at 10,000 scfm, the
equipment cost for the condenser filters (ECCf) is
given by:
ECCf = $170,000 * 2
ECcf = $340,000
B. For a system with a carbon adsorption unit as the
final stage of gas treatment, calculate the EC of
C-27
-------
the carbon adsorption unit (ECa(j) using the
following equation (supplied by vendor):
ECad = ECcf * 0.20
ECad = (340,000) * 0.20
ECad « $68,000
C. Ductwork costs are calculated on the basis of an
article in Chemical Engineering (May 1990) and
assuming 1/8 in. carbon steel and 24 in. diameter
duct with two elbows every 100 ft.
Duct cost = [(210 * 24A°-839) + (2 * 4.52 *
24"1-43)] * 3 * (CK Index / 352.4)
DUCt cost = (11,617) * (355.6 / 352.4)
Duct cost = $11,723 (for length of 300 ft)
D. Fan cost is calculated on the basis of the following
equation derived from 1988 data from The Richardson
Manual;
Fan cost = (79.1239 * QA0.5612) *
CE Index / 342.5
Fan cost = $20,508 (for Q - 20,000 scfm)
E. Total equipment cost (ECtot) is given by:
Ectot = ECcf + Ecad + duct cost + fan cost
ECtot " 340,000 + 68,000 + 11,723 + 20,508
ECtot ' $440,230
F. Cost of auxiliaries/instrumentation (equations
supplied by vendors) is given by:
Auxiliaries = 0.056 * ECtot
Auxiliaries = $24,653
G. Cost of taxes (equations supplied by vendors) is
given by:
Tax = 0.06 * ECtot
Tax = $26,414
H. Cost of freight (equations supplied by vendors) is
given by:
Freight = 0.006 * ECtot
Freight = $2,641
I. Purchased equipment cost (PEC) is given by:
PEC = Ectot + auxiliaries + tax + freight
C-28
-------
PEC = 440,230 + 24,653 + 26,414 + 2,641
PEC = $493,938
J. Total direct cost (TDC) (using installation factors
presented in Table 6-2) is given by:
TDC = 1.27 * PEC
TDC = $627,302
K. Total indirect cost (TIC) = 0.22 * PEC
TIC = $108,666
L. Total capital investment (TCI) = TDC + TIC
TCI = 627,302 + 108,666
TCI = $735,968
C.4.2 Estimating Total Annual Cost
A. Operating labor (OL) for condenser filters is
estimated using the annual cost assumptions listed
in Table 6-3 (i.e., 0.5 hr per 8-hr shift). For
systems with carbon adsorbers, use 1.0 hr per 8-hr
shift.
1. Assume OL rate = $15.64/hr, and operating hours =
3,000 hr/year
OL = (1/8) * (Operating hours) * (labor rate)
OL = (1/8) * 3,000 * 15.64
OL = $5,865
2. Assume supervisory cost is 15 percent of labor
Supervisory cost = 0.15 * OL
Supervisory cost = $880
B. Maintenance labor (ML) and materials
1. ML = 0.8/8 * 3,000 * 17.21
ML » $5,163
2. Materials = ML
Materials = $5,163
3. Carbon replacement (materials and labor), assuming a
5-year carbon life and 10 percent loading (based on
vendor quote) is given by:
C-29
-------
Mass of Carbon = (voc^\ * (16 -j*_\ * (10 lb carbo"\
\ hr/ \ day/ \ lb VOC /
= (217,600/3,000)* 16 * 10
= 11,605 Ibs carbon
Cost of carbon = (11,605 lb) * (2 $/lb) * 1.08
$25,067
Replacement
Labor = (0.05 $/lb) * 11,605 lb
$580
Annual Carbon Replacement Costs
(Materials & Labor) = (25,057 -f 580) * CRF
$25,647 * 0.2638
$6,766/yr
C. Electricity for condenser filter fans
Electrical costs for condenser filters estimated to
be $2/yr per scfm (based on vendor quote).
Therefore:
ElecCf = 2 * 20,000
Eleccf - $40,000/yr
D. Electricity for carbon bed fan
Additional electricity costs for carbon bed systems
are assumed negligible, based on vendor quotes.
Since the model plants have 8-hr downtime each day,
there is no need for fans to dry bed after
desorption. The large system fans required for the
condenser filter system are assumed capable of
overcoming the additional pressure drop through the
carbon bed.
E. Steam costs
Steam costs for carbon bed are calculated assuming
3.5 lb steam/lb VOC and a cost of $3.5/1000 lb
steam. Therefore:
Steam = 3.5 * (3.5/1,000) * (217,000)
Steam = $2,666
C-30
-------
F. Total direct annual costs (DAC) is given by:
DAC = OL + Supervisor + ML + Materials + Annual
Carbon Replacement Cost + Eleccf + Steam
DAC = $65,839/yr
G. Overhead = 0.60 * (OL + ML + Materials +
Supervisor)
Overhead = $9,317/yr
H. Administration = (0.02) * TCI
Administration = • $14,719/yr
I. Property taxes = (0.01) * TCI
Property taxes = $7,360/yr
J. Insurance = (0.01) * TCI
Insurance = $7,360/yr
K. Capital recovery costs (CRC)
CRC are calculated using the capital recovery factor
(CRF) on the basis of a 10-yr equipment life and 10
percent interest rate:
CRC's = CRF * TCI
CRC's = 0.16280 * $735,968
CRC's = $119,816/yr
L. Total indirect annual costs (IAC) is given by:
IAC = Overhead + Administration + Tax +
Insurance + CRC's
IAC = 9,317 + 14,719 + 7,360 + 7,360 + 119,816
IAC = $158,571/yr
M. Recovery credits (RC's)
RC's are calculated on the basis of $0.63/gal value
and 4 gal of solvent recovered per 100 Ib of ink
used (for 90 percent recovery):
RC's = (4/100) * 0.63 * 680,000 lb/yr * 95/90
RC's = $18,088/yr
Note that the (95/90) correction factor accounts for
95 percent solvent recovery for carbon bed systems.
N. Total annual cost (TAG) = DAC + IAC - RC
TAG = 65,839 + 158,571 - 18,088
TAG = $206,322/yr
C-31
-------
C.5.0 COSTS OF MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION AND PROCESS
MODIFICATIONS
The following sections show calculations for the costs of
material substitution in fountain and cleaning solutions and
process modifications to the fountain by magnetism and/or
refrigeration of the fountain. Model Plant A-III was used in
the example calculations.
C.5.1 Reduction in Alcohol
Alcohol reduction in the fountain results in a net
savings to the printer. Since the cost of IPA was estimated
at $0.46 per pound, savings for the model plants from reducing
IPA were calculated according to the following equation:
alcohol $0.46
savings = reductions x 2,000 x per pound (C-l)
($) (tons/yr) (Ib/ton) IPA
For Model Plant A-III, reduction to 3 percent alcohol
resulted in an emission reduction of 252 tons VOC per year
(see Chapter 5.0). Since IPA is 100 percent VOC, IPA
reduction also was 252 tons per year. Using Equation C-l, the
following calculation was used to estimate savings from
alcohol reduction for Model Plant A-III:
$232,000 = 252 tons IPA x 2000 x $0.46 reduced
C.5.2 Use of Alcohol Substitutes
The use of alcohol substitutes as a control option for
the model plants involves the elimination of alcohol, with a
resulting savings, and the addition of alcohol substitutes, at
a cost of $1.55 per pound.
The costs from the use of alcohol substitutes are
determined from the weight of alcohol substitute used to
replace 306 tons of alcohol. See Equations 7 and B-7
(Chapter 5 and Appendix B, respectively) and the following
equation:
amount of alcohol $1.55
cost - substitute x per pound of (C-2)
($) (pounds) alcohol substitute
For Model Plant A-III, this results in an alcohol
substitute cost calculated as follows:
C-32
-------
$94,000 to remove = 61,200 pounds of x $1.55 per pound
306 tons of alcohol alcohol substitute used substitute
For Model Plant A-III, the savings from alcohol reduction
are calculated as in Equation C-l above, for complete
elimination "of alcohol. For Model Plant A-III, the savings
from alcohol reduction are:
$281,000 = 306 tons IPA x 2000 x $0.46 reduced
The overall costs for Model Plant A-III are equal to the
savings from alcohol reduction minus the cost from using
alcohol substitutes, shown below:
$281,000 - 94,000 = $187,000 savings with alcohol substitutes
C.5.3 Use of Refrigerated Circulators
The cost of refrigerated circulators includes equipment
costs as well as savings from reducing the amount of alcohol
added to the fountain solution to maintain the same level of
alcohol as before refrigeration.
The costs for refrigerated circulators are calculated on
the basis of the cost factors shown in Table 6-6, Chapter 6.0.
Capital costs are multiples of $26,140, the total capital
investment for each refrigerated circulator. In the cost
analysis for the model plants, it was estimated that two
refrigerated circulators were used per press.
For Model Plant A-III with four presses, eight
refrigerated circulators were used to estimate costs for this
control option, for a total capital cost of $209,000.
Total annualized costs were determined from direct and
indirect annual costs using the total capital investment and
the cost factors of Chapter 6.0. For Model Plant A-III, the
indirect annual costs are calculated as follows:
Administrative Charges,
Property Taxes, and
Insurance = 0.04 * TCI
0.04 * 209,000
$8,360/yr
Capital Recovery
Costs = 0.1628 * TCI
$34,025/yr
C-33
-------
Capital Recovery
Costs = 0.1628 * TCI
$34,025/yr
Indirect Annual
Costs = 8,360 + 34,025
$42,385/yr
For Model Plant A-III, the direct annual costs were
calculated as follows:
Electricity Cost = 8.05 kW * 3000 hr/yr *
Electricity Cost = 0.061 $/kWh * no. of circulators
Electricity Cost = 8.05 * 3000 * 0.061 * 8
Electricity Cost = $ll,785/yr
Indirect Annual
Costs = $42,385/yr
Total annual costs for Model Plant A-III are the sum of
the direct and indirect annual cost, shown below:
Total Annual Costs = 42,385 + 11,785
$54,000/yr
The reduction in alcohol consumption was calculated as
44 percent of the unrefrigerated level. The following
equation was used:
reduction in
alcohol consumption alcohol use
with = without x 0.44 (C-3)
refrigeration refrigeration
(tons/year) (tons/year)
For Model Plant A-III, the reduction in consumption of
alcohol from refrigeration of the fountain, from a baseline of
306 tons of IPA used per year, was calculated as follows:
reduction in
alcohol consumption
with refrigeration = 306 * 0.44
(tons/year)
= 135 tons/yr
A savings of $124,000 was calculated using Equation C-l
and the amount of alcohol eliminated (135 tons/yr).
Therefore, the overall costs for refrigerated circulators
for Model Plant A-III are equal to the total annualized costs
C-34
-------
minus the savings from reducing alcohol consumption, as shown
below:
$70,000 = $124,000 - $54,000
total savings costs
savings
C.5.4 Use of Magnetism
The costs of magnetism of the fountain solution for the
model plants were calculated from equipment costs for the
magnet provided by the vendor. Equipment costs are estimated
at $350 per magnet, assuming one magnet per unit; installation
costs are expected to be minimal. For Model Plant A-III, with
22 units on the average, the TCI is calculated as follows:
$7,700 = 22 units X $350 per unit (one magnet-per unit)
The annualized equipment costs are calculated using a
capital recovery factor of 0.163. For Model Plant A-III,
total annual costs were calculated from the annualized
equipment costs (0.163 * TCI) and indirect annual costs for
taxes, insurance, and administration charges (0.04 * TCI), as
follows:
Total Annual Cost = (TCI * 0.163) + (TCI * 0.04) (C-4)
For Model Plant A-III, the total annual costs for magnetism of
the fountain solution were calculated using Equation C-4, as
shown below:
$1,561 = (7,700 * 0.163) "+ (7,700 * 0.04)
C-35
-------
APPENDIX D
OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
CTG MODEL RULE
-------
APPENDIX D
OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING
CTG MODEL RULE
D.1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents a model rule to limit volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from offset lithographic
printing operations. This rule is for informational purposes
only and, as such, is not binding on the air quality
management authority. However, the EPA expects that state and
local air quality rules developed pursuant to this CTG will
address all the elements covered in the model rule.
The remainder of this appendix contains the model rule.
Separate sections cover the following rule elements:
applicability, definitions, emissions standards, equipment
standards, emissions standards testing, equipment standards
testing, monitoring requirements, and reporting/recordkeeping.
D.2 APPLICABILITY
The provisions set forth in this model rule apply to the
offset lithographic printing industry only. There are four
types of offset lithographic printing: heatset web, non-
heatset web (non-newspaper), non-heatset sheet-fed, and
newspaper (non-heatset web). An affected facility may be
defined as follows: one or more printing operations involved
in at least one type of offset lithographic printing process.
Other types of printing operations, such as flexography,
rotogravure, or letterpress, may be present in an offset
lithographic printing facility; however, these operations are
not subject to the requirements set forth in this model rule.
D.3 DEFINITIONS
Alcohol substitutes. Nonalcohol additives that contain
VOC's and are used in the fountain solution. Some additives
are used to reduce the surface tension of water; others
(especially in the newspaper industry) are added to prevent
piling (ink build-up).
D-l
-------
Batch. A supply of fountain solution that is prepared
and used without alteration until completely used or removed
from the printing process.
Cleaning solution. Liquids used to remove ink and debris
from the operating surfaces of the printing press and its
parts.
Dampening system. Equipment used to deliver the fountain
solution to the lithographic plate.
Fountain solution. A mixture of water, nonvolatile
printing chemicals, and an additive (liquid) that reduces the
surface tension of the water so that it spreads easily across
the printing plate surface. The fountain solution wets the
nonimage areas so that the ink is maintained within the image
areas. Isopropyl alcohol, a VOC, is the most common additive
used to reduce the surface tension of the fountain solution.
Heatset. Any operation where heat is required to
evaporate ink oil from the printing ink. Hot air dryers are
used to deliver the heat.
Lithography. A printing process where, the image and
nonimage areas are chemically differentiated; the image area
is oil receptive and the nonimage area is water receptive.
This method differs from other printing methods, where the
image is a raised or recessed surface.
Non-heatset. Any operation where the printing inks are
set without the use of heat. For the purposes of this rule,
ultraviolet-cured and electron beam-cured inks are considered
non-heatset.
Offset. A printing process that transfers the ink film
from the lithographic plate to an intermediary surface
(blanket), which, in turn, transfers the ink film to the
substrate.
Press. A printing production assembly composed of one or
many units to produce a printed sheet or web.
Sheet-fed. A printing operation where individual sheets
of substrate are fed to the press sequenticilly.
Unit. The smallest complete printing component of a
printing press.
D-2
-------
Web. A continuous roll of paper used as the printing
substrate.
D.4 EMISSION STANDARDS
(a) Any person who owns or operates a heatset offset
lithographic printing press shall reduce VOC emissions from
the press dryer exhaust vent by 90 percent (weight) of total
organics (minus methane and ethane), or maintain a maximum
dryer exhaust outlet concentration of 20 ppmv (as C^),
whichever is less stringent when the press is in operation.
D.5 EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
(a) Any person who owns or operates a heatset web offset
lithographic printing press that uses alcohol in the fountain
solution shall maintain total fountain solution alcohol to
1.6 percent or less (by volume). Alternatively, a standard of
3 percent or less (by volume) alcohol may be used if the
fountain solution containing alcohol is refrigerated to less
than 60°F.
(b) Any person who owns or operates a non-heatset web
offset lithographic printing facility that use alcohol in the
fountain solution shall eliminate the use of alcohol in the
fountain solution. Alternatively, nonalcohol additives or
alcohol substitutes can be used to accomplish the total
elimination of alcohol use.
(c) Any person who owns or operates a sheet-fed offset
lithographic printing facility shall maintain the use of
alcohol at 5 percent or less (by volume). Alternatively, a
standard of 8.5 percent or less (by volume) alcohol may be
used if the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60°F.
(d) Any person who owns or operates any type of offset
lithographic printing press shall be considered in compliance
with this regulation if the only VOC's in the fountain
solution are in nonalcohol additives or alcohol substitutes,
so that the concentration of VOC's in the fountain solution is
3.0 percent or less (by weight). (The fountain solution should
not contain any alcohol.)
(e) Any person who owns or operates an offset
lithographic printing press shall reduce VOC emissions from
D-3
-------
cleaning solutions by using cleaning solutions with a
30 percent or less (as used) voc content.
0.6 EMISSIONS STANDARDS TESTING
(a) For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the
emission control requirements of this rule, the affected
facility shall be run at typical operating conditions and flow
rates during any emission testing.
(b) Emission tests shall include an initial test when
the control device is installed and operating that
demonstrates compliance with either the 90 percent (by weight)
reduction or the 20 ppmv emission limit.
(c) The following EPA methods (in 40 ££B 60, Appendix A)
shall be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit or percent reduction efficiency requirements listed
in D.4(a) above. Alternate methods may be used with the
approval of the Administrator.
(1) The EPA Method 1 or 1A, as appropriate, shall be
used to select the sampling sites. The control device
sampling sites for determining efficiency in reducing total
organics (less methane and ethane) from the dryer exhaust
shall be placed before the control device inlet (after the
dryer) and at the outlet of the control device.
(2) The EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, as appropriate,
shall be used to determine the volumetric flow rate of the
exhaust stream.
(3) The EPA Method 25 or 25A shall be used to
determine the VOC concentration of the exhaust stream
entering and exiting the control device. Good judgment is
required in determining the best applicable VOC test method
for each situation.
(i) For thermal and catalytic incinerators, EPA Method
25 shall be used, except in cases where the allowable outlet
VOC concentration of the control device is less than 50 ppmv
as carbon, in which case EPA Method 25A shall be used.
D-4
-------
(ii) The EPA Method 25 specifies a minimum probe and
filter temperature of 265°F. To prevent condensation, the
probe and filter should be heated to the gas stream
temperature, typically closer to 350°F.
D.7 EQUIPMENT STANDARDS TESTING
(a) Fountain Solution Testing
(1) A sample of the fountain solution (as used) shall be
taken from the fountain tray or reservoir containing a fresh
batch of fountain solution (after mixing) for each unit or
centralized reservoir to determine fountain solution alcohol
content in accordance with Section D.5(a) through (c), above,
before the fountain solution is used.
(2) Direct measurement of the alcohol content of the
fountain solution sample(s) should be performed with a
modification of the EPA Method 415.1 (under development).
(3) Alternatively, a sample of the fountain solution (as
used) may be taken from the fountain tray or reservoir of
fountain solution during use and measured with a hydrometer or
refractometer that has been standardized,with tests performed
in accordance with Section D.7(a)(l) and (2). The unit shall
be considered in compliance with Section D.5(a) through (c) if
the refractometer or hydrometer measurement is less than or
equal to the measurement obtained with a modification of the
EPA Method 415.1 [Section D.7(a)(2)], plus 10 percent.
~~ (4) The VOC content of a fountain solution containing
alcohol substitutes or nonalcohol additives shall be
established with proper recordkeeping, and manufacturer's
laboratory analysis of the VOC content of the concentrated
alcohol substitute. Records should include the amount of
concentrated substitute added per quantity of fountain water;
date and time of preparation; and calculated VOC content of
D-5
-------
the final solution to fulfill the requirements in D.5(d),
above.
(b) Refrigeration Equipment Testing
(1) A thermometer or other temperature detection device
capable of reading to 0.5°F shall be used to ensure that a
refrigerated fountain solution containing alcohol is
below 60°F at all times.
(c) cleaning Solution Testing
(1) A sample of the cleaning solution (as used) shall be
taken to demonstrate compliance with the cleaning solution VOC
content limitations listed in D.5(e), above.
(2) A modification of the EPA Method 415.1 shall be used
to determine the VOC content of the cleaning solution (as
used).
D.8 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
(a) Add-On Dryer Exhaust Control Device
(1) The owner or operator of a heatset offset
lithographic printing press shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a temperature monitoring device,
according to the manufacturer's instructions, at the outlet of
the control device. The monitoring temperature should be set
during testing required to demonstrate compliance with the
emission standard in D.6(3). Monitoring should be performed
only when the unit is operational.
(2) The temperature monitoring device shall be equipped
with a continuous recorder and shall have an accuracy of
0.5°F.
(3) The dryer pressure shall be maintained lower than
the press room air pressure such that air flows into the dryer
at all times when the press is operating. A 100 percent
emissions capture efficiency for the dryer shall be
demonstrated using an air flow direction measuring device.
(b) Fountain Solution VOC Concentration
(1) The purpose of monitoring the alcohol concentration
in the fountain is to provide data that can be correlated to
the amount of material used when the fountain solution
complies with the limits listed in D.5(a) through (d), above.
D-6
-------
The following methods may be used to measure the concentration
of alcohol in the fountain solution frequently.
(2) The owner or operator of any offset lithographic
printing press shall monitor the alcohol concentration of the
fountain solution with a refractometer, that is corrected for
temperature, at least once per 8-hour shift or once per batch,
whichever is longer. The refractometer shall have a visual,
analog, or digital readout with an accuracy of 0.5 percent. A
standard solution shall be used to calibrate the refractometer
for the type of alcohol used in the fountain. Alternatively,
the refractometer shall be standardized against measurements
performed to determine compliance, according to the procedures
described in Section D.7(a)(l) and (2).
(3) Alternatively, the owner or operator of any offset
lithographic printing press shall monitor fountain solution
alcohol concentration with a hydrometer, equipped with a
temperature correction, at least once per 8-hour shift or once
per batch, whichever is longer. The hydrometer shall have a
visual, analog, or digital readout with an accuracy of
0.5 percent. A standard solution shall be used to calibrate
the hydrometer for the type of alcohol used in the fountain.
Alternatively, the hydrometer shall be standardized against
measurements performed to determine compliance, according to
the procedures described in Section D.7(a)(l) and (2).
(4) The VOC content of the fountain solution may be
monitored with a conductivity meter if it is determined that a
refractometer or hydrometer cannot be used for the type of
VOC's in the fountain solution. The conductivity meter
reading for the fountain solution shall be referenced to the
conductivity of the incoming water.
(5) If, through recordkeeping for a period of 6 months
or more, the printing process is shown to consistently meet
the requirements in D.5(d) and D.7(a)(4) above, the monitoring
requirement can be waived or extended to a longer period of
time.
D-7
-------
(c) Fountain Solution Temperature
(1) The owner or operator of any offset lithographic
printing press using refrigeration equipment on the fountain
shall install, maintain, and continuously operate a
temperature monitor of the fountain solution reservoir.
(2) The temperature monitor shall be attached to a
continuous recording device such as a strip chart, recorder,
or computer.
(d) Cleaning Solution
(1) For any offset lithographic printing press with
continuous cleaning equipment, flow meters are required to
monitor water and cleaning solution flow rates. The flow
meters should be calibrated so that the VOC content of the
mixed solution complies with the requirements of D.5(e),
above.
D.9 REPORTING/RECORDKEEPING
(a) The owner or operator of any offset lithographic
printing press shall record and report the following key
parameters on a daily basis.
(1) The type of control device operating on the heatset
offset lithographic printing press and the operating
parameters specified in D.8(a), above.
(2) The equipment standard selected to comply with the
requirements listed in D.5(a) through (e), above.
(3) The VOC content of the fountain eind cleaning
solutions, to comply with the requirements listed in D.7,
D.8(b), and 0.8(d), above.
(4) The temperature of the fountain solution to comply
with the requirements listed in D.8(c), above, if applicable.
(5) For manual cleaning methods, the amount of cleaning
solution and amount of water added per batch of cleaning
solution mixed.
(6) For automatic cleaning methods, the flow rates of
water and cleaning solution concentrate, as specified in
D.8(d), above.
D-8
-------
(7) Corrective actions taken when exceedances of any
parameters monitored according to the requirements of D.6
through D.8, above, occur.
D-9
-------
APPENDIX E
ESTIMATED NATIONAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED RACT
ON U.S. FACILITIES IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS
-------
J
A
a
E"
2
O
U
o
B
c§
o
w
En M
O ^*
§ §
b
W
o •
So
w o
H
§ o
^J
^«
§
H
jjjj
2
Q
U
1
H
W
U
iH
1
H
s
OQ
^
3
ij
^
o
*"*
.
2
§
u
u
04 **£
tl
^
c
M
§
£ ^s
0 >
c "22
0 * |
•** 4J 4)
• 0 OS
a H
i
PU
g
c
•— *
V
a
vo ^
CO ^^ C^ ^^
VO CM P> C^
vo m rH m
M M M M
1 1 1 1
vO OOOO
at w w ww
vO
vO
CM
O
^r
in
v>
IH * «-i r- *
C^ *^ ^^ ^? ^K
o CM in ft CM
m oooo
in
m
vo
^ ^ on o on
VO CM in «-l CM
% % » »
f* i-t r- *
vo oo in oo r-
CM in n on on
ao IH tn tH ^
M M >
M H M M
a a a ai
O OOOO
w wwww
in t-t in vo *
o in CM r* on
CM CM * CM r>
0 OOOO
1/1 M^ l/l id ^A
Ml ff^ Ul H* ^F
O in CM t* on
CM CM * CM It
1-1
CO CM »H •* 1*1
oo «O «CM m
CM «n «H vo r»
CM « CMCM
M M M M
UUUl)
0
w
•r
•n
•H
O
tA
V0
VO
*
fl
0
in
CO
0
CO
^J
^^
^J
Q
a
n
OOOOOO O vO
wwwwww w on
vO
vO
CM
O
^
in
w
f-(CMflno*«t on CM
cMCMCMin** o m
CM 00
in
CM
OOOOOO O in
m
in
%
^4 &t ^^ G^ ^P ^0 ^n ^*
CMCMCMin*>*> O O
CM *
«
CM
VO
on ^1 CM *^ oo ^ r^ ^
•-t on » CM eo in
^ in in
«
4
^t
0
4J
JQ
M 3-4
M S > W W ^
M H M M > > «J
A 1 1 1 1 1 0
O O O OO H
.
0
n
lj
0)
+J
a
6
c
•H
,_,
•H
(B
01
T3
0)
W
O
a
c
"**
•o
A
•H
M
U
(0
01
"O
a
(0
a
^^
a>
1
0
-p
a
0)
*H
0)
a
R)
E-l
-------
M
O
K
EH
2
8
f^
I
e .
S|
rJ H
»l
if
— H
ii
w§
o fa
M Jg
w 5
to 2
i«
^
»J O
^1 O
25 ^>
o
2
Q
&M
i
^
EH
(A
W
N
1
H
TABLE
£
t
c
«
e
2
S
0
h
0
•J
a
-1
S
0
^
H
i
to to at
CM Ot f
•H o m
vo •* r-
en to •*
CM * en
•-I vO rt
*^ «v*i/V
«•
O CM r-
en O ^
moo
rH CO «f
to <-i en
en to ^
* CM en
CO O W
rH P» CM
to en o
to to at
* 00 P»
•-I C- en
CM on co
CM *-« O
fH en en
M
H M >
M M I-t
S
O
O
^
at
i/>
—*
at
o
CM
in
Ot
00
0
I-l
CM
^
iH
Ot
^
en
CM
tO
00
1
jt
Subtot
at P* vO co
r* r* CO CO
en in co IH
CM m ao CM
r» CM en +
•-I P- CM tO
vH co at en
v»w»en CM
^^ ^^ W V}
^«^
O CM P- CM
o en o at
at at rH en
en CO O 00
CM en t-
1-1
CO VHCO
r> co in at
CM * tO tO
rH ot CM in
* CM
00 to CO O
p» «H in at
rH « f»O
in ao CM «
en r^ o
rH iH
co in co r>
m en at o>
*H m i-ien
•»
M
M M >
H M H H
ea 09 01 GO
0
rH
00
P»
r-
CM
p^
wv
en
en
rH
CM
CM
i-l
Ot
P»
CM
*
0
CM
CO
CO
CM
•fc
CM
.
4
Subtot
ao en r-i in
§O CO tO
rHOt CM
to o en in
o co ao m
o in CM at
Ot * O CM
V»»H «H) i-t
^^ 4A V^ W
^^ ^
en at in *
en CM o at
o in to ao
^f ^D *f ^D
at ao co f
co * P» en
r» 00 rH P»
Ot in rH tO
CM p» en co
CM P« OS CM
CO en r» to
en CM in en
•H CM rH CM
CM rH ^ en
vO en CM en
en »H to r-
* ^ % »
* CM CM rH
rH rH
M M >
H H H M
oooo
P o o o o o o
in
o
CO
to
^
v^
^
rH OMB CM Ot rH O
tO CM iN * tO tO to
O
CM
CM
Ot OO O O OO
in
in
O Ot CO CM Ot rH O
rH CMCM * tO tO tO
VO
in
f%
O Ol en CM rH CO «
in H at « CM
00 1
^
o
^J
d
m M
W M M > M
M M M M > >
1 1 1 1 1 1
H a a a a Q
0 00
«v in
00
ao
in
en
rH
en
v>
•*•
o o
«^ t9
CM r»
00
CM
o to
in
in
en
o to
ot in
CM CM
rH
en
tO
co in
in in
^
en
*
0
Subtot
tal
£
0
n
S
(0
6
c
•H
rH
•H
id
4J
OJ
•o
0)
o
a
c •
•H 10
U *H
•H (0
rH (0
O
a oj
« tH
T» 10
CO CO
4J gj
C 10
« 0)
C
rH 0)
Q) U
•3 «o
^j CL
a
O-H
10
CO b
V4 V
OJ fO
0) ^
K2
<0 A
E-2
-------
^2
o
o
0
§
EH •
5 w
H
fa H
O g
81
z •?
2 &*
J
wo
•E 2
M O
(0 £
W fa
H
s „
o
jg
o &•
So
2
O
u
EH
M
EH
(A
W
?
H
M
i-3
3
EH
X
Pj
*.,
•^
tj
e
§
«
2
VM
•
O
••^
•
"»H
u
y
X
>
0
14
•I
3
SB
s
0
4J
0
2
C
u
•
•p
VM
<
||
*-H O
< §
** i
0 OS
H
«
-«
r-t
•
fj
00
C -P
-• e
:i.
-4 -« «
4J « »
•4 -P H
^ ii
u e
1
fc •
^
*H 0
« O
1
(^ lA ^1 ^O fO ^*
oo in vo CM CM CM
Q e* in ** in in
^f CM 0> in rH CM
00 Qt CM 00 CR f^
«>CM in vo m i-i
r-l (M *
w w
t^ c?v CM O oo oo
in o> * fi CM i-i
fH O 00 rH r-l
~« n
« in CM o> o t
fH * * CM m CM
CM * r>
fH in * co oo CM
o> vo r* QA CM QK
f| vO O
•H
r- CN eft oo vo oo
r» CM f) flj f^
•J
t!
. 1
M M > ">
M M M M M
1 1 1 1 1
< < < < 03
in rH CM
o in CM
00 CM O
ro •* r-l
00 ^* vO
CM r- *
« * »
i-i in n
1/b W Vr
in * oo
r- IH m
oo c« «n
n CM
rH CM CM
* n o
O «H in
CM ot in
vo vo rH
rH ^v* VO
0V O 00
CM f> t*
i«4
in oo r>
^^ o\ ^n
in rH m
^
h^
M M >
M «H M
1 1 1
a a a
in
0
•H
VO
VO
%
O
fH
W
VO
CM
•^
0
in
vo
rH
^
•H
CM
CM
00
00
CM
CM
•J
ubtot
CO
^ft Q\ QO CO
oo in r- r*
in in r- vo
«n CM CM »H
CM oo* r>
m vo CM VTV
% % * *
vO OCH CM
V^ rH VV rH
v> wv
CH ON 00 00
O P^ O^ ^
m CM CM oo
* rTvo eo
in co o> CM
O 0> vO vo
OVO*C3
rH rH rH CM
CM CM CM rH
VO VO 0« vO
•n CMO> *
rH CM CM CM
CM rH * n
vo f» CM «n
m rH vo r>
* CM CM rH
rH fH
^
M M >
M M rH M
| | | |
o o o o
fO
O
VO
o
CM
CM
«
Cft
f*l
v>
m
CM
vo
CM
in
m
CM
vO
r*-
r««
O
»
GO
O
in
00
0
3
|
«0
v7> vo CN o> o> *
CM VO ft CO O rH
c* CM vO vO •* U>
VO ^ rH rH CIV VO
r> OD in m rH ov
CM rH rH rH rH
v> v> w vy
CM rH * * f» rH
vo » n tn CM CM
OV en CM rH 00 «
rH Ol * CM
m
H M > M
M M M M > >
1 1 1 1 1 1
o o a o a a
vO
OV
rH
O
00
Ov
W
00
VO
VO
09
in
m
rH
VO
CM
CM
CM
r»
00
in
•J
ubtot
«Q
CM
m
m
«
in
in
v>
00
r»
t-
en
CM
vO
rH
00
00
«
in
CM
rH
rH
in
in
s
_J
0^
J^j
Q
t^
o
•
C*l
J4
I
6
e
•H
•H
id
tl
0)
•o
0)
i
C
-H
I
•H
^
U
a
0)
•o
a
^J
id
^j
i^^
a
a>
o
4J
a
0)
a
-------
e
o
to
S.
fi} O
SE ^
M H
Z i»
O M
WJ /w
to S
to
M y
9C fc*J
y jjj
O 2
ai
%
O ^1
gtS
* to
afc
w o
S o
S f*
K
5^
H
»j
^^1
0
fc*
•
^*
u
w
J
1
0
u
V
S
0)
*
|
• TJ
§ $
•»* O
• 6
• i
*S
H o
0
f* ft
^j i i
^^ *•
« o
*M O
OB fl
• B
• C •
v» v
U *H **4 4
S -^ 4J V
B *^ *• w
Z3§
h 9
**
5\
^4 Q
41 0
*8
X
O\ \£ O\ f) O\ C>| Q\ O* IA
^^ ^^ ^^ ^0 ^^ ^^ 4^ O( ^f
^O ^f ^^ f^ ^i ^4 ^^ ^^ ^^
r4(M H M >
MMMH HMMH
^9 ON fn ^^ CM fn
oo in CM ft ft ft
fi co «r ft r> in ON
o QO co oo *n oo
to ON CM in r> in
ON ft oo r- r- en
M M M M
| | | |
O O 0 O
ON NO ^ CM NO ON r^ to
enr»r-cMCONO *O en
CMftflCMftft fl M el
M M M M » *J
1 1 1 1 1 1 0
I) O O O O O H
*
O
•
en
.^
en
Jj
a
^
c
•H
•H
4J
Q)
•O
Q)
ft
g
P*
C
•o
dl
^3
•H
o
Q
0)
•o
a
c
(0
rH
a
^
0)
1
v
a
«
0)
CK
E-4
-------
O
H
X
04
H
)J
CO
fa
fa .
o (n
~, o
*P
og
in
i
u
H
£
u
fl
0
C f\
c°
M Jl
5 3
^ ft
° W
rt
.U
e •
-4 C
«J O
C 4J
§3
w
e
^
C *J
•f e
«M «
0«S
• 2 •
jj +J "* •
g fl U jit
z"o e
4 0
hZ
±>
fi*
0< •
|1
CM 00
r» en
^* ^3
Cn CM
in p-
•H v
ww
O in
co in
O P-
oo en
WCM
^J ^J
O fl
p- fl
CM vO
in n
en
ft
O
O
en
o
W
vO
CM
in
CO
vo
CM
w
?
in
p»
*>
n
rj
fl
*
00
en
^
fi
vO
P-
CM
W
oo
0
M
£
CO
VO
oo
in
w
en
CM
in
fi
in
w
ft
fi
o
o
^
en
ft
"
VO
VO
VO
CM
O
^
in
w
CD
fl
a
p» in fi CM
CM o in CM
in ao CM O
CM m ««> ft
P- CO f VO
fl CM P» *
IH in «n
WWW
p- in IH CM
CM o in CM
in oo CN o
SS5vo
fi CM r»*
w • » »
•H in en
WWW
en p- vo co
ft ft 00 CO
n in oo ft
CM in co CM
fl f CM vO
f*4 CO 0t f^
v»v>n c«
^^ ^»* w v>
O 000
wwww
oo in co P>
in n ate*
fi in fi m
fi
H H >
H M M M
in
o
M)
,_,
vO
VO
O
fl
w
in
o
VO
VO
VO
O
W
O
fl
en
CO
p»
CM
p>
W
0
w
CO
CO
CM
CM
0
i
en en co co
co in r» P>
in in r> vo
m CM CM fl
CM CO * P-
en vo CM en
vooencM
w w
en en oo co
oo in p> p>
in in P» vo
SS3S
en vo CM on
vooencM
w w
OOODJ VO
vo o en in
o co co en
en «o CM
Wflfl fl
**Vb V> 1/b
OOO 0
wwww
CM ft^»> m
^ CM CM fl
fl fl
M M >
H H M H
O
VO
0
CM
CM
cn*
m
w
o
vO
O
CM
CM
en
en
w
in
in
o
CO
vO
^
w
0
w
o
in
00
o
m
3
!
on vo en en en *
CM vo in en o fi
r-cM vo vo * m
vo « fi t-i en vo
p. co in in ft en
CN fl fl fl fl«>
wwww
en vo en en en *f
CM vo n en o fi
P>CM vo vo * m
vo* «H) fi on vo
p»co in in ficn
CM fl fl fl fl«»
wwwww
OOO OOO
wwwwww
oooooo
wwwwww
enm CM fi co «
fi en ^c CM
*
M M > M
M M M M > >
i i i i 77
OQ Q a O O
vO
en
o
00
en
vo
en
t-i
O
CO
en
w
0
o
w
p»
00
in
s
1
(0
CM
vO
O
CO
^
en
o
ft
w
p-
CM
en
en
in
^f
in
in
w
CO
in
CO
CO
in
n
ft
en
w-
VO
VO
vO
CM
O
V
in
w
ft
in
in
*
en
1
N
(0
0
E-5
-------
O
H
^
2
H
u
H
X
H
a
3
VM
w
1
X
o
ja
3
O
H
IS
4J
2 ^
o §
«*
e*.
-1 C
« o
Jj f~A
4* "^
e *J
25
•» o
H.
C
"
C ij
-H e
9 §
-H -1 «
*» « •
•^ *> V
0 C
« 0
fcZ
e
r*«
cu c
• c
CO 00
•-I CM
ON *
CM f»
ON vo
•H P-
W W
^^ *^
O in
oo in
O P-
•+ CM
00 ON
«/»CM
W
O VO
ON CM
O rH
P- 1-1
CM VO
in ft
It CM
W rM
<— 'W
CM CM
fl P»
ro n
m ^r
1-1 ^
w w
P> CM
P- CM
M
M M
ON VO
m vo
vo in
* P-
vo ^
CM «•)
* 00
tow
*^ •**•
n vo
in H
ON m
CM CO
in vo
« »
•-I CM
v*> vy
vO ON
ON t-
o in
* p-
vO «
« rH
"* —
P- 00
in ON
* *
NO 1H
« VO
O P-
CM CM
ON 00
i-l O
M
M >
CM
in
co
in
n
iH
WV
CM
in
r-t
in
*
qf
w
r-l
r-t
O
0
^
ON
1-1
"
vO
vo
VO
CM
O
^
in
vo
CM
00
rH
«
CM CM vO vO
ON r^ m VO
ON * * ••«
^»p. f» O
wm CM
^^4r> V)>
P- m 1-1 CM
CM O in CM,
in co CMC
^4 ^^ ''^ ^^
r- oo •* vo
i-i CM r» «
w • • •
r-l in «*»
V)>
ON P» vO 00
•-» i-» 00 00
v»«vrn CM
N^ *«r 44} {/)>
0000
WWWW
oo in oo P>
in m ON 9
IH in IH «»i
^
M
M M >
M M M M
1 1 1 1
• 00 0) CO
in
o
p»
r4
CM
vO
^*
in
0
VO
^
vO
NO
*
O
v»
o
ON
00
CM
p»
v>
o
v>
OB
OB
CM
CM
r-l
«
ON inm *r
rH<#O r^
CM P- iH NO
So>* m
ooo v>
CM «•) r*.
WWW
%^ «*r ^^
ON ON 00 CO
oo in p> p>
in in P- vo
m CMCM r*
CM 00 ^ P*
fO VO CMON
NO O ON* CM
Vb fH V^> r^
W 4A>
§ oca «o
rHONCM
§o <*i in
00 00 tO
in CM ON
ON « O CM
V)> v4 v*4 4*4
^^ V> V)> V^
oooo
CM »-4 ^ fr|
NO n«M m
n »me p>
* CM CM i-l
M H >
M M M M
oooo
in
00
in
(«.
Vb
^^
§
o
CM
CM
01
«n
m
m
o
00
vO
«^
vv
o
w
o
in
00
o
•n
i
«
ON vO ON O> ON ^
CM «o m ft o i-t
p- CM vo vo * in
VO •« r-l i-l ON vO
p> oo m in ri ON
CM r-t <-l iH r-t W^
ON v«i ON ON ON ^
CM vti m « O <-t
p- CM vo vo «r in
vO ^P i-l r-l ON VO
p> a> in in r^ ON
CM 1-4 rH l-l r-l W>
V^ %V Vfr W Vfr
o o o o o o
ooo ooo
ON n CM rH CO ^
r1^ ON ^ CM
"
M
M M > M
I-l M M M > >
OOO O OO
VO
ON
O
00
ON
vO
ON
r-l
O
00
ON
vo
o
o
w
p.
00
in
|
(0
in
00
o
1-1
^
o
CM
W
CM
ON
o
in
%
in
in
I
00
00
in
-------
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/D-95-001
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Control of Volatile Organic
Offset Lithographic Printin
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
2.
, Compound Emissions from
g- DRAFT
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 1993
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND
Draft
PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Also see related ACT document - Alternative Control
Techniques Document: Offset Lithographic Printing (EPA-453/R-94-054).
16. ABSTRACT
This is a draft control techniques guideline (CTG) document for control of volatile organic compound
emissions from offset lithographic printing. The document address sheet fed, non-heatset web,
newspaper, and heat-set web offset lithographic printing. The principle emission sources addressed
are fountain solution, cleaning solvents (blanket and roller washes) and heatset dryers. The purpose
of a CTG document is to assist state and local air pollution agencies in developing regulations to limit
emissions of volatile organic compounds.
17.
a. DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Air Pollution control
Printing
Lithography
Offset Lithography
Volatile Organic Compounds
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
256
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Flow
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |