United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S-95/021 August 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
Pollution Prevention Assessment for a Manufacturer of
Folding Paperboard Cartons
Harry W. Edwards*, Michael F. Kostrzewa*, Michelle May*,
and Gwen P. Looby"
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has funded
a pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers
who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack
the expertise to do so. In an effort to assist these manufactur-
ers Waste Minimization Assessment Centers (WMACs) were
established at selected universities and procedures were
adapted from the EPA Waste Minimization Opportunity As-
sessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988). That docu-
ment has been superseded by the Facility Pollution Prevention
Guide (EPA/600/R-92/088, May 1992). The WMAC team at
Colorado State University performed an assessment at a plant
that manufactures folding paperboard cartons. Paperboard
stock is cut to specific sheet sizes, printed using a six-color
press, cut into carton patterns, folded, and glued. The assess-
ment team's report detailing findings and recommendations,
indicated that waste paperboard is generated in large quanti-
ties, and that the most significant cost savings can be achieved
through collection and reuse of "step 1" solvent used in the
printing system.
This Research Brief was developed by the principal investiga-
tors and EPA's National Risk Management Research Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, OH, to announce key findings of an ongoing
research project that is fully documented in a separate report
of the same title available from University City Science Center.
Introduction
The amount of waste generated by industrial plants has be-
come an increasingly costly problem for manufacturers and an
additional stress on the environment. One solution to the
* Colorado State University, Department of Mechanical Engineering
"University City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA
problem of waste generation is to reduce or eliminate the
waste at its source.
University City Science Center (Philadelphia, PA) has begun a
pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers
who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack
the in-house expertise to do so. Under agreement with EPA's
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, the Science
Center has established three WMACs. This assessment was
done by engineering faculty and students at Colorado State
University's (Fort Collins) WMAC. The assessment teams
have considerable direct experience with process operations in
manufacturing plants and also have the knowledge and skills
needed to minimize waste generation.
The pollution prevention opportunity assessments are done for
small and medium-size manufacturers at no out-of-pocket cost
to the client. To qualify for the assessment, each client must
fall within Standard Industrial Classification Code 20-39, have
gross annual sales not exceeding $75 million, employ no more
than 500 persons, and lack in-house expertise in pollution
prevention.
The potential benefits of the pilot project include minimization
of the amount of waste generated by manufacturers, and
reduction of waste treatment and disposal costs for participat-
ing plants. In addition, the project provides valuable experi-
ence for graduate and undergraduate students who participate
in the program, and a cleaner environment without more regu-
lations and higher costs for manufacturers.
Methodology of Assessments
The pollution prevention opportunity assessments require sev-
eral site visits to each client served. In general, the WMACs
follow the procedures outlined in the EPA Waste Minimization
-------
Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988).
The WMAC staff locate the sources of waste in the plant and
identify the current disposal or treatment methods and their
associated costs. They then identify and analyze a variety of
ways to reduce or eliminate the waste. Specific measures to
achieve that goal are recommended and the essential support-
ing technological and economic information is developed. Fi-
nally, a confidential report that details the WMAC's findings
and recommendations (including cost savings, implementation
costs, and payback times) is prepared for each client.
Plant Background
This plant manufactures folding paperboard cartons. It oper-
ates approximately 2,200 hr/yr to produce about 1,200 tons of
cartons annually.
Manufacturing Process
Paperboard rolls of various gauges are cut to specific sheet
sizes in the sheeter machine. If required, the paper sheets are
sent to the hydraulic cutter for trimming to smaller sheet sizes.
The sheets are stacked on pallets and assigned a labeling
code in preparation for printing.
For the past several years, the plant has used its six-color
printing press exclusively. Two other presses—a two-color
and a three-color—are also available. Printing plates are
developed onsite using a recently installed photolithographic
process. Printing plates are attached to five of the six press
cylinders. Each cylinder transfers a different color to each
sheet as it passes through the press. The sixth and final
cylinder is used exclusively to apply a clear aqueous coating to
the sheet, which gives the printed sheet a glossy appearance.
Printed sheets are stacked at the end of the press to await die
cutting.
The printed sheets are cut into carton sheets by one of four die
cutters. The die cutter feeds the sheet through, cuts the
desired carton pattern, and applies the fold impression. Die
patterns used by the die cutters are produced onsite from
metal strips and wood arranged on plywood slabs. Excess
strips of paper are removed from cartons manually after die
cutting in the stripping area. The stripped sheets are stacked
on pallets and sent to either windowing or folding and gluing.
The large and small windower machines are used to apply a
clear plastic film to cover carton openings. A glue wheel is
used to apply a glue pattern on the carton to affix the film.
Cartons are sent to one of three folding and gluing machines in
which the carton sides are glued together. Glue is applied
using a glue pot and glue pads in two of the machines and
automatically in the third machine. Completed cartons are
boxed and stored to await shipping.
An abbreviated process flow diagram for folding paperboard
box manufacture is shown in Figure 1.
Existing Waste Management Practices
This plant already has implemented the following techniques to
manage and minimize its wastes.
• Ink is collected from the color presses at the end of the day,
returned to its proper container, and stored for reuse.
• Waste film from the photolithographic process is collected
and shipped offsite for recycling.
Paperboard _
Stock
Sheeting
Hydraulic Cutting
Printing
Plate Making
Die Cutting
Die Making
Stripping
Windowing
Folding and Gluing
Packaging
Finished Product
Shipped to Customers
Figure 1. Abbreviated process flow diagram for folding paperboard
carton manufacture.
- Waste paperboard instead of new paperboard is fed through
the printing press at start-up until the printing quality meets
specifications to avoid the generation of additional waste
paperboard.
• Printed and non-printed waste paperboard is baled and
shipped offsite for recycling.
Pollution Prevention Opportunities
The type of waste currently generated by the plant, the source
of the waste, the waste management method, the quantity of
the waste, and the annual waste management cost for each
waste stream identified are given in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the opportunities for pollution prevention that
the WMAC team recommended for the plant. The opportunity,
the type of waste, the possible waste reduction and associated
-------
savings, and the implementation cost along with the simple
payback time are given in the table. The quantities of waste
currently generated by the plant and possible waste reduction
depend on the production level of the plant. All values should
be considered in that context.
It should be noted that, in most cases, the economic savings of
the opportunities result from the need for less raw material and
from reduced present and future costs associated with hazard-
ous waste treatment and disposal. Other savings not quantifi-
able by this study include a wide variety of possible future
costs related to changing emissions standards, liability, and
employee health. It also should be noted that the savings
given for each opportunity reflect the savings achievable when
implementing each pollution prevention opportunity indepen-
dently and do not reflect duplication of savings that would
result when the opportunities are implemented in a package.
Additional Recommendations
In addition to the opportunities recommended and analyzed by
the WMAC team, two other measures were considered. These
measures were not analyzed completely because of insuffi-
cient data, implementation difficulty, or a projected lengthy
payback. Since one or more of these approaches to pollution
prevention may, however, increase in attractiveness with chang-
ing conditions in the plant, they were brought to the plant's
attention for future consideration.
• Install a silver recovery unit onsite to recover dissolved silver
from spent photographic fixer and wash water.
• Improve the existing paperboard recycling program. Sug-
gested improvements include standardizing the type of board
manufactured; improving the sorting of various types of
waste board; automating the collection and baling opera-
tions; reducing the size of waste bales; and moving the waste
board storage and baling unit outdoors.
This research brief summarizes a part of the work done under
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-814903 by the University City
Science Center under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. The EPA Project Officer was Emma
Lou George.
Table 1. Summary of Current Waste Generation
Waste Generated
Source of Waste
Waste Management Method
Annual Quantity
Generated (Ib/yr)
Annual Waste
Management Cost*
Non-printed paperboard stock
Non-printed paperboard stock
Printed paperboard
Waste aqueous coating
Waste "step 1" solvent
Waste isopropyl alcohol
Wash water
Waste "type wash"
Waste press wash
Sheeting, cutting, and stripping
Sheeting and cutting
Printing, windowing, folding,
and gluing
Printing system
Printing system
Printing system
Cleaning of printing system
Printing system
Printing system
Baled; shipped off site for recycling
Shipped offsite for disposal as
municipal trash
Baled; shipped offsite for recycling
Shipped offsite as hazardous
waste; incinerated
Shipped offsite as hazardous
waste; incinerated
Shipped offsite as hazardous
waste; incinerated
Shipped offsite as hazardous
waste; incinerated
Shipped offsite as hazardous
waste; incinerated
Shipped offsite as hazardous
633,700
10,000
423,000
5,410
5,410
2,170
10,800
190
$184,970
3,000
124,480
9,640
39,400
1,230
2,870
400
Solvent-laden rags
Waste glue
Spent photo fixer
Spent film
Spent machine oil
Cleaning of ink presses
Windowing, folding, and gluing
Photolithographic process
Photolithographic process
Equipment maintenance
waste; incinerated
Cleaned offsite and returned for reuse
Discharged to sewer
Discharged to sewer
Shipped offsite for recycling
Shipped offsite as hazardous
waste; incinerated
270
6,500
1,700
1,040
560
1,100
190
4,050
0
0
0
240
"Includes waste treatment, disposal, and handling costs and applicable raw material costs.
-------
Table 2. Summary of Recommended Pollution Prevention Opportunities
Pollution Prevention Opportunity
Annual Waste Reduction
Waste Reduced
Quantity (Ib/yr)
Per Cent
Net Annual
Savings
Implementation
Cost
Simple
Payback (yr)
Collect and reuse part of the waste
"step 1" that does not mix with resid-
ual aqueous coating and water in the
printing system supply lines.
Waste "step 1" solvent
2,750
50
$20,000
$0
Modify the aqueous coating cylinder
cleaning procedure to reduce waste
generation. A squeegee and rags
can be used to mechanically clean
the rubber pads and storage tray of
the printing system instead of using
water to flush out and clean the
entire system. The small quantity of
spent cleaning rags generated can be
shipped offsite for cleaning, returned,
and reused.
Ship the waste lubricating oil offsite to
an oil recycler instead of shipping it to
a hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facility for incineration.
No waste reduction will result at the
plant site, but the plant can achieve
cost savings through implementing
this measure.
Wash water
10,800
100
2,710
Spent machine oil
210
500
2.4
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/S-95/021
------- |