United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-92/201 January 1993
& EPA Project Summary
Alternative VOC Control
Technique Options for Small
Rotogravure and Flexography
Facilities
David A. Green and Coleen M. Northeim
The Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTGs) for the graphic arts industry
was published in December 1978. It de-
fined Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) emitted from publi-
cation and packaging rotogravure and
packaging flexography. Subsequent
EPA guidance limited the applicability
of RACT requirements to sources that
emit 91 tonnes/yr or more of VOCs.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAAA) now require RACT for VOC
sources that emit as little as 9 tonnes/
yr in extreme ozone nonattainment ar-
eas. Therefore, states are now required
to establish and implement RACT for
these smaller sources as well. This
document identifies Available Control
Techniques (ACTs) for states to use as
a reference when implementing RACT
for graphics arts facilities that are cov-
ered by the CTGs, but emit less than
91 tonnes/yr of VOCs.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Air and Energy Engi-
neering Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC, to announce key find-
ings of the research project that is fully
documented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
Emissions of VOCs from rotogravure
and f lexographic printing facilities arise from
the evaporation of solvents during ink dry-
ing. These emissions can be reduced by
conversion of solvent-borne ink systems to
waterborne ink systems, or by capture of
the solvent vapors and use of a control
device such as thermal or catalytic incin-
eration systems or carbon adsorption sys-
tems. Limitations are associated with each
approach and individual circumstances,
including the type of product produced, the
customer base, and the type of ink used,
which will affect the applicability of differ-
ent technologies.
Conversion to waterborne inks can re-
duce VOC emissions by about 80%. Un-
certainties in retrofitting existing presses
for waterborne inks exist; required modifi-
cations are site-specific. Drier systems and,
in some cases, ink-supply systems must
be modified. Gravure cylinders must be
replaced. Waterborne inks can eliminate
the problems of designing and testing cap-
ture systems. In some cases, it is difficult
to achieve the same level of gloss with
waterborne inks as with solvent-borne inks.
Where waterborne inks are suitable, con-
version to waterborne inks may be the
most cost-effective solution. Due to the
site-specific nature of conversion costs, no
generalized cost estimates can be devel-
oped.
Properly operated carbon adsorption
systems with total enclosures or efficient
capture systems can reduce VOC emis-
sions by 95%. Solvent can be recovered
for reuse on site or sold to a reclaimer.
Carbon adsorption systems are incompat-
ible with certain inks and are most suitable
for facilities with a predictable, long-term
production schedule. Facilities using a wide
variety of inks to print numerous small jobs
are not likely to be able to use carbon
adsorption systems. Activated carbon has
a solvent capacity which varies for differ-
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ent organic components. Cost estimates
have been developed on the basis of tolu-
ene as the design solvent. In some cases,
other solvents which are present in some
inks may require larger and, thus, more
expensive systems.
Properly operated catalytic incinerator
systems with total enclosures or efficient
capture systems can reduce VOC emis-
sions by up to 98%. Solvents are destroyed
in these systems. Catalytic incinerators pro-
vide an energy savings over thermal incin-
erators, but they are not compatible with
all inks. Incinerator specifications must be
written with specific reference to the type
of ink to be used. Small facilities may avoid
catalytic incinerators because of higher ini-
tial capital costs than thermal incinerators,
and the desire to maintain flexibility to print
a wider variety of jobs.
Table 1. Cost Effectiveness of Control Technologies for Small Rotogravure and Flexography Facilities'
Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)
Plant Size?
(ton/yr)
10
25
50
100
1000
Thermal
Incineration
$3,200 to $4,300
$1,800 to $2,900
$1,200 to $2,200
$820 to $1,800
$170 to $480
Catalytic
Incineration
$3,200
$2,000
£740 fc,^7~g0g
$520 to $1,200
$150 to $3 10
Carbon
Adsorption
$3,100
$1,280
$660 to $6^0
$420 to $430
$110 to $120
1991dottars,exduslveonotalenc!osureorcapturedevices.Controletticienciesassurnedtobe95to100%.Capture
elfidoncJBS ara assumed to be 100%. For conversion purposes, 1 ton = 0.907 tonnes.
* Total solvent use Including solvent present in purchased ink and solvent added by facility.
D. Green and C. Northeim are with Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709.
Jamie K. Whltfleld is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Alternative VOC Control Technique Options for Small
Rotogravure and Flexography Facilities,'' (Order No. PB93-122307/AS; Cost:
$17.50; subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Off her can be contacted at:
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Properly operated thermal incinerator
systems, with total enclosures or efficient
capture systems, can reduce VOC emis-
sions by 98%. Thermal incinerators are
compatible with most inks used in rotogra-
vure and flexography, but these systems
are relatively energy intensive. Cost-effec-
tiveness data for these control devices are
summarized in Table 1. The cost of total
enclosures must be added to these costs.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/SR-92/201
------- |