x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 79-GRA-3
August 1979
Air
Graphic Arts
Emission Test Report
Texas Color Printers
Dallas, Texas
-------
EMB Report 79-GRA-3
August 1979
GRAPHIC ARTS EMISSION'TEST REPORT
Plant Tested
Texas Color Printers, Inc.
4800 Spring Valley Road
Dallas, Texas
April 9-13, 1979
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
by
W. R. Feairheller
Issued: October 19, 1979
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Report Reviewed by Frank Clay
Contract 68-02-2818, Work Assignment No. 20
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I Introduction 1
II Summary and Discussion of Results 3
III Process Description and Operation 17
IV Location of Sampling Points 21
V Sampling and Analytical Procedures 31
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Process diagram showing air emission sources 22
and duct work for carbon adsorption system.
2 Sampling site on inlet to the carbon adsorbers 24
(location 1).
3 Diagram of the adsorber outlet stack and 26
associated duct work (location 2).
4 Floor sweep exhaust from press 1 (location 3). 27
5 Floor sweep exhaust from press 2 (location 3A). 28
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Sampling and Analytical Methods 4
2 Summary of Results 5
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Texas Color Press Inc. Plant, located at 4800 Spring Valley
Road, Dallas, Texas, was sampled during the week of April 9-13,
1979. The objective of the sampling program was to obtain vola-
tile organic compound emission data from a well-controlled plant
in order to provide background data for the establishment of new
source performance standards. This plant, representing the
Graphic Arts Industry category, employs a mixed naphtha, toluene
xylene solvent system for the printing inks. Emissions of or-
ganic solvent vapors are controlled by a three-unit carbon ad-
sorption system.
The sampling and on-site analysis was conducted by a Monsanto
Research Corporation team consisting of W. R. Feairheller (team
leader), K. Tackett, W. McDonald, and D. Sterling and was ob-
served by Frank Clay of the Emission Measurement Branch of EPA.
Mr. Gary Hippie of Pollution Control Science, Inc., Miamisburg,
Ohio, collected samples for total gaseous non-methane organic
(TGNMO) analysis during the test program. Pollution Control
Science was hired as a subcontractor by Monsanto Research Corpora-
tion. Mr. Richard Reich of Radian Corporation was on-site to
obtain process design and operation information.
Total hydrocarbon and specific compound gas chromatographic
analysis data was collected on a semicontinuous basis at both
the inlet and outlet of the carbon adsorber system. The solvent
vapors from two presses and a proof press are collected by the
air handling system and the solvent in the air is recovered by
-------
the carbon adsorbers. The air in the room around the presses is
ventilated by a separate system which is emitted directly to the
atmosphere (uncontrolled). Grab samples of this ventilated air
were collected and analyzed by on-site gas chromatography for
specific chemical compounds. Samples of diluted ink were ob-
tained from each of the ink feed tanks on the two presses for
determination of solvent content. Samples of the water layer
from the solvent/water decanter (separator) were also collected
for solvent content.
The test program consisted of three sampling periods. Each test
period was defined as the time required for all of the three
carbon adsorbers to complete a sorption-desorption cycle. The
test periods were of about 4 1/2 hour duration, during which
each adsorber remained in the adsorption cycle for about
90 minutes, followed by a 45 minute desorption (steaming) period
and a 15 minute cooling and conditioning period. Two of the
three carbon beds were in the adsorption cycle at all times. At
the beginning and end of each test period, the solvent recovery
meter, the decanter solvent and the ink usage meter's readings
were recorded.
The test program was observed by representatives of the Texas
Air Control Board (TACB) and the Gravure Research Institute.
Mr. Charles Shevlin (TACB-Austin) was present during the entire
test period, while Dr. Robert James (TACB-Austin) and Mr. William
Chafin (TACB-Fort Worth) were present for a portion of the test.
Mr. Robert Oppenheimer and Mr. James Totura from the Gravure
Research Institute were present during the entire program and
collected samples and data during the test periods. No data is
available on the results of these sampling activities.
-------
II. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A summary of the sampling and analytical procedures employed at
each site is given in Table 1. The sampling and analysis pro-
cedures followed the EPA test request, however, during run three,
ink samples were obtained from the eight storage tanks (undiluted)
rather than from the individual ink fountains on the presses.
These samples will provide the concentration of the solvent in
the ink as received by the plant. The amount of ink used is ob-
tained from the ink meters at each fountain station. During
runs 1 and 2, samples of diluted ink (in the ink fountains) were
obtained. The meters indicate the ink, varnish and solvent added
to the fountains, however, they do not indicate the actual amount
of ink used during the run period.
The results of the velocity, total hydrocarbon, species analysis,
TGNMO results and operating parameter are summarized in Table 2.
Additional clarification of the data presented in the table is
given below:
(1) Press 1 consisted of eight separate ink applica-
tion stations. Press 2, however, has twelve
application stations and can be run as two
separate press units, one with eight ink foun-
tains and one with four ink fountains.
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
LOCATION
PARAMETER
1 - Inlet to Adsorber
1A - Air Inlet
2 - Outlet of Adsorber
3, 3A - Floor Sweep Uptakes
4 - Press Meters, Ink Fountain
5 - Decanter
6 - Solvent Meter
Velocity
Static pressure
Moisture
Temperature
Total hydrocarbon
Organic species
Total carbon (A)
Temperature (ambient)
Moisture
Velocity
Temperature
Moisture
Total hydrocarbon
Organic species
Total carbon (A)
Moisture
Temperature
Velocity
Organic species
Total carbon (A)
Ink usage
Varnish usage
Solvent usage
Solvent content of ink
Solvent content of ink
Total carbon (A)
Solvent recovered
Solvent in water layer
Total carbon (A)
Recovered solvent used
SAMPLING METHOD
Type S pitot tube
Type S pitot tube
Method 4 (Run 1) wet/dry bulb
(Run 2, 3)
Type K thermocouple
Direct coupling
Direct coupling
TGNMO procedure (B)
Type K thermocouple
Wet bulb/dry bulb
Vane anemometer
Type K thermocouple
Wet bulb/dry bulb
Direct coupling
Direct coupling
TGNMO procedure (B)
Wet bulb/dry bulb
Type K thermocouple
Type S pitot tube
Grab sample (bag)
TGNMO procedure (B)
Read meter
Read meter
Read meter
Collect grab samples at
fountain (Run 1, 2)
Collect grab sample on tanks
(Run 3)
TGNMO procedure (4 samples)(B)
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Read meter
Grab samples (3 total)
TGNMO procedure (1 sample)
Read meter
(B)
inclined manometer
Inclined manometer
Gravimetric, psychometric
chart
Digital thermometer
FID
GC/FID
TGNMO procedure (B)
Digital thermometer
Psychometric chart
Calculation
Digital thermometer
Psychometric chart
FID
GC/FID
TGNMO procedure (B)
Psychometric chart
Digital thermometer
Inclined manometer
GC/FID
TGNMO procedure (B)
Calculation
Calculation
Calculation
% solvent in ink (diluted)
GC/FID
* solvent in ink (as received)
GC/FID
TGNMO procedure (4 samples) (B)
Calculation
GC/FID
TGNMO procedure (1 sample) (B)
Calculation
Notes (A) Total carbon sampling and analysis done by Pollution Control Science, Miamisburg, Ohio
(B) TGNMO is Total Gas Non-Methane Organics. See Section V for description of method.
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Parameter (units)
Operational Data
Date
Start time
Finish time
Elapsed time (min.)
Press 1 run time (min.)
Press 2, 8 units run time (min.)
Press 2, 4 units run time (min.)
Solvent used meter (gals.)
Solvent recovered decanter (gals.)
Ink meter total (gals.)
Varnish meter total (gals.)
Solvent meter total (gals.)
Total solvent in press (including
inks solvent) (gals.)
Solvent in ink used (gals.)
Steam rate (Ib/lb solvent recovered)
Condensed water (gals.)
Solvent recovered to solvent used
ratio
Velocity Parameters
Inlet
Area (ft2)
Average temperature (°F)
Moisture (%)
. Molecular weight of gas
Velocity ft/sec
Volumetric flow rate (SCFM)
Volumetric flow during steaming
(SCFM)
Volumetric flow during drying
(SCFM)
Volumetric flow during idle
(SCFM)
Outlet
Average temperature (°F)
Moisture (%)
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
4/11
1445
1915
270
207
141
30
664.9
859
558
30
553
900
347
4.5
2864
4/12
0850
1320
270
214
206
188
709.6
881
575
24
629
978
293
4.5
2939
4/12
1320
1750
270
216
234
117
769.6
764
563
92
685
1078
449
4.5
2547
0.95
0.90
60,200
0.71
20.13
90.0
1.2
28.84
53.5
60,600
20.13
94.0
1.5
28.84
54.8
61,700
20.13
94.8
1.5
28.84
54.7
61,400
60,300
— —
—
88
1.4
68,100
60,100
89
1.4
67,900
59,800
89
1.4
-------
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Parameter (units)
Velocity Parameters
Site 1A Inlet
Area (ft2)
Moisture (%)
Average temperature (°F)
Velocity (ft/sec)
Volumetric flow rate (SCFM)
Floor Sweep (NE) 8 unit press
Area (ft2)
Average temperature (°F)
Moisture (%)
Molecular weight of gas
Velocity (ft/sec)
Volumetric flow rate (SCFM)
Floor Sweep (SW) 12 unit press
Area (ft2)
Average temperature (°F)
Moisture (%)
Molecular weight of gas
Velocity (ft/sec)
Volumetric flow rate (SCFM)
Measured Data
Total solvent thru inlet duct (gals.)
Total solvent emitted from adsorber
(gals.)
Adsorber efficiency (%)
Total solvent loss from NE floor
sweep (gals.)
Total solvent loss from SW floor
sweep (gals.)
Total solvent loss (gals.)
Total solvent used in process (gals.)
Total solvent adsorbed (gals.)
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
7.07
1.4
75
13.1
5,220
6.67
77
1.3
28.84
20.1
7,690
7.5
75.6
1.1
28.84
23.4
10,100
466.6
16.7
96.4
27.6
33.9
78.2
900
450
7.07
1.5
75
9.7
3,860
6.67
80
1.2
28.84
20.4
7,850
7.5
79.0
1.3
28.84
27.5
11,900
581.7
70.2
87.9
34.2
50.5
154.9
978
512
7.07
1.5
75
9.7
3,860
6.67
80
1.2
28.84
20.4
7,850
7.5
79.0
1.3
28.84
27.5
11,900
698.1
23.2
96.7
39.0
56.5
118.7
1078
675
-------
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
SOURCE CONCENTRATION DATA - INLET TO ADSORBER
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Toluene
Concentration as toluene (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total toluene emitted (gals.)
Naphtha
Concentration as naphtha (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total naphtha emitted (gals.)
Total Hydrocarbons
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
TGNMO
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total Solvent
Total solvent emitted (gals.)
298
2086
1041
482.4
161.4
356
2490
1243
575.7
192.6
421
2945
1470
689.9
230.9
384
3070
1532
709.8
305.2
489
3914
1953
904.9
389.1
580
4639
2315
1087
467.2
6111
3049
1413
7021
3507
1625
466.6
6441
3214
1489
10691
5341
2519
581.7
6582
3284
1542
11109
5550
2606
698.1
-------
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
SOURCE CONCENTRATION DATA - OUTLET OF ADSORBER
Toluene
Concentration as toluene (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total toluene emitted (gals.)
Naphtha
Concentration as naphtha (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total naphtha emitted (gals.)
Total Hydrocarbons
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
TGNMO
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total Solvent
Total solvent emitted (gals.)
Run 1
9.5
66.5
33.2
15.4
5.15
183
91.1
42.3
328
164
76.1
16.7
Run 2
25.7
179.9
89.8
42.4
14.2
733
365.9
172.6
400
200
94.3
70.2
Run 3
9.2
64.4
32.1
15.1
5.1
14.5
116
57.9
26.9
11.57
69.2
553.3
276.1
130.2
56.0
22.5
180
89.8
42.2
50.9
244
121.9
57.2
512
256
120.2
23.2
-------
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
SOURCE CONCENTRATION DATA - NORTHEAST FLOOR SWEEP VENT
Run 1
Toluene
Concentration as toluene (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total toluene emitted (gals.)
Naphtha
Concentration as naphtha (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total naphtha emitted (gals.)
Xylene
Concentration as xylene (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total xylene emitted (gals.)
Total Hydrocarbons
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
TGNMO
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total Solvent
Total solvent emitted (gals.)
116
813
406
23.8
8.0
Run 2
138
969
484
29.0
9.7
Run 3
2392 2893
1194 1444
70.2 86.7
2116 2341 4358
1057 1170 2177
62.2 68.8 130.7
27.6 34.2
158
1106
552
33.1
11.1
184
1468
732
43.1
18.5
227
1816
906
54.4
23.4
256
2047
1022
61.3
26.4
13.3
106
52.9
3.1
1.1
13.6
109
54.4
3.3
1.1
18.6
148.4
74.0
4.4
1.5
3303
1648
98.9
2467 2766
1232 1382
73.9 82.9
39.0
-------
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
SOURCE CONCENTRATION DATA - SOUTHWEST FLOOR SWEEP VENT
Toluene
Concentration as toluene (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total toluene emitted (gals.)
Naphtha
Concentration as naphtha (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total naphtha emitted (gals.)
Xylene
Concentration as xylene (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total xylene emitted (gals.)
Total Hydrocarbons
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
TGNMO
Concentration as carbon (ppm)
Concentration as carbon (mg/m3)
Total carbon emitted (Kg)
Total Solvent
Total solvent emitted (gals.)
Run 1
110
772
385
29.7
10.0
Run 2
Run 3
2237
1116
86.2
2067
1033
79.8
33.9
134
940
469
42.7
14.3
171
1368
683
52.8
22.7
222
1776
886
80.7
34.7
11.7
93.8
46.8
3.6
1.2
12.3
99.0
49.4
4.5
1.5
2811
1403
127.6
3669 4325
1833 2161
167 197
50.5
149
1048
523
47.6
15.9
246
1969
983
89.4
38.4
18.3
146
72.9
6.6
2.2
3154
1574
143.2
1970 3174
984 1585
89.5 144.2
56.5
10
-------
MONSANTO
TEXAS COLOR
PN#113-1
5/15/79
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
TGNMO DATA SUMMARY
1st Tank 2nd Tank
SAMPLE SAMPLE
SAMPLE VOLUME VOLUME
ID NO. mg G! (I) NO. mg C^ (t)
TC-AI-1 27 0.554 2.465 31 0.495 2.490
TC-AO-1 17 0.158 2.259 38 0.202 2.284
TC-AI-2 23 1.968 2.596 47 0.576 2.533
TC-AO-2 20 0.134 1.591 32 0.313 1.385
' TC-AI-3 45 0.406 2.365 44 0.579 2.452
TC-AD-3 18 0.167 1.678 29 0.401 1.859
TC = Texas Color
AO = Adsorber Outlet
AI = Adsorber Inlet
EPS = East Floor Sweep
WFS = West Floor Sweep
Total
Tanks Trap Total
ppn ppn ppm SAMPLE
mg C1 C-L NO. mg C C]. C^ mg C^/i VOLUME
1.049 424 15 16.33 6595 7021 3.507 4.955
0.360 159 27 0.383 167 328 0.164 4.543
2.544 993 _35 24.85 9698 10691 5.341 5.129
0.448 301 3 0.148 100 400 0.200 2.976
0.985 409 88 25.75 10700 11109 5.550 4.817
0.568 321 87 0.336 190 512 0.256 3.537
POLLUTION CONTROL SCIENCE. INC.
-------
MONSANTO
TEXAS COLOR
PN#118-1
5/15/79
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
TGNMO DATA SUMMARY
SAMPLE ID
TC WFS-1
TC WFS-2A
TC WFS-2B
TC WFS-3A
TC WFS-3B
TC-EFS-1A
TC-EFS-1B
TC-EFS-2
EC-EFS-3A
TC-EFS-3B
BLK-PRETEST
BLK-POST TEST
NO.
4
26
43
40
25
22
35
3
24
19
34
39
Tank
mg C,
0.275
0.414
0.257
0.418
1.123
0.345
0.737
0.263
0.155
0.219
0.499
0.520
ppm Cx
223
278
194
287
929
270
530
203
105
142
329
328
NO.
21
51
46
89
55
37
13
41
45
44
-
-
Trap
•
mg C-L
2.271
5.053
5.461
2.450
2.715
2.353
2.518
5.389
3.491
4.049
-
-
Total
ppm GI
1844
3391
4131
1683
2245
1846
1811
4155
2362
2624
-
-
ppm C-L
2067
3669
4325
1970
3174
2116
2341
4358
2467
2766
329
328
mg C./JL
j.
1.033
1.833
2.161
0.984
1.585
1.057
1.170
2.177
1.232
1.382
0.165
0.164
SAMPLE
VOLUME
(1}
2.465
2.983
2.646
2.914
2.421
2.552
2.783
2.596
2.958
3.089
3.032
3.170
POLLUTION CONTROL SCIENCE, INC.
-------
MONSANTO
TEXAS COLOR
PN#118-1
Samples Rec'd 4/26/79
Results Submitted 5/16/79
Table 2 (Continued). SUMMARY OF RESULTS
ANALYSIS OF INK SAMPLES
PCS
SAMPLE # SAMPLE I.D. Ibs Carbon/gallon Ink
#79-872 D-l RBA-3 BLACK #1 - 2.04
#79-873 D-l RBA-3 BLACK #2 3.67
#79-874 2-5-1 YELLOW #1 7.60
#79-875 2-5-1 YELLOW #2 3.86
#79-876 2-6-1 RED #1 5.43
#79-877 2-6-1 RED #2 7.57
POLLUTION CONTROL SCIENCE, INC.
-------
(2) The solvent used data is taken from the meter that
records the amount of recovered and/or fresh sol-
vent used by the presses. The decanter meter pro-
vides the amount of solvent removed from the de-
canter and returned to storage. Each ink fountain
has three meters which indicate the amount of ink,
varnish and solvent added to the fountain. The
total solvent into the press includes the solvent
in the ink and the fresh solvent. The solvent re-
covered to solvent used ratio is obtained from
the decanter readings divided by the total solvent
into the press value.
(3) According to plant information, 4.5 Ib. of steam
is required to recover each Ib. of solvent. The
density of solvent samples supplied by the plant
was found to be 0.742 gram/ml. This data was
used to calculate the amount of condensed water.
(4) The average velocity and volumetric flow rate
data was obtained from both preliminary traverse
data and the monitoring of the response of a
pitot tube at the point of average velocity dur-
ing the sampling runs. Under normal plant
operation, two adsorbers are in the adsorber
cycle at all times while the third is in a
steam, cooling or idle cycle. The data given on
volumetric flow during steaming, drying or idle
indicates the changes in inlet velocity while
one adsorber is in the steaming, drying or idle
period and the other two are adsorbing. These
changes are due to the increased or decreased
resistance of the entire carbon adsorber system
while these operations are occurring.
14
-------
(5) The measured data is obtained from the hydro-
carbon concentration determined from the inlet,
outlet and floor sweep ducts. Based on this
data, the carbon bed efficiency is about 96.4-
96.7% unless breakthrough occurred as shown by
the 88% efficiency on Run 2 and a major increase
in the concentration determined at the outlet
duct.
(6) The data indicates that considerable solvent is
lost from the floor sweep vents. If these vents
were directed into the carbon adsorber system,
additional solvent could be recovered.
(7) The data indicates that the amount of solvent
collected by the adsorber from the hydrocarbon
concentration data is considerably lower than
the data indicated by the decanter reading.
There is no apparent reason for this.
15
-------
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
The Texas Color Printers, Inc. plant operates two rotogravure
publication presses. These two presses (press 741 and 742) were
monitored during the emissions test. The dryer exhaust from
press 741 and 742 is combined with the dryer exhaust from the
gravure proof press. This solvent laden air (SLA) exhaust stream
is controlled by a carbon adsorption, solvent recovery system.
A. THE PRINTING OPERATION
Texas Color Printers uses a mixed petroleum fraction for their
gravure solvent. Typical toluene and xylene contents are about
30% and 4%, respectively. The balance of the solvent (66%) is
lactol spirits. Two grades of gravure ink (Group 1 and Group 5)
are used at this plant.
Press 741 is a 10-unit Hotter press, however, only 8 units were
in operation during the test. Press 742 is a 12-unit Motter
press. This press consists of separate 8 and 4-unit sections,
each of which is fed using individual reel stands. All presses
have a web capacity of 94 inches, with a cylinder circumference
of 43 inches.
The printing unit dryers do not contain hydrocarbon analyzers for
controlling preset exhaust concentrations. Each dryer, however,
has a separate fan for internal exhaust recirculation. The dryer
inlet is located very close to the nip area, and should provide
excellent capture efficiency in the impression and ink trough area,
17
-------
B. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Fugitive emissions are collected by using floor sweeps in the
lower areas of the press room. The presses have a floor sweep
for each unit, located on the side of the press near the ink
tank. The floor sweeps are tied into a separate header for each
press. The exhaust from these floor sweeps is not treated by the
carbon adsorption system. A separate roof fan for each header
discharges the floor sweep exhaust into the atmosphere.
C. THE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
The emission control system used at this plant is a Croftshaw'
design. The system consists of three horizontal adsorption ves-
sels containing activated carbon. Two vessels adsorb simultane-
ously for a total solvent laden air (SLA) capacity of 75,000 CFM.
The SLA stream collected from the dryer exhausts is drawn through
a header system on the press room roof. Two 150 HP fans draw the
SLA through roll-fed filters and force the air through the ad-
sorption vessels. The treated airstream is ducted into an exit
header and discharged to the atmosphere.
The adsorption cycle, which is regulated by a timer, lasts 3
hours per vessel. The cycles are staggered, thus permitting
enough time for regeneration of one bed while the other two are
adsorbing. Regeneration is accomplished by countercurrent live
steam stripping of the adsorption vessel. The 45 minute regen-
eration cycle is controlled by a timer. A 15 minute cooling
period immediately follows regeneration. The cooling cycle con-
sists of placing the hot, wet, newly regenerated bed on line, to
operate along with the other two beds. The inlet SLA, which
enters at about 100°F, cools and removes excess moisture from
the bed. After the cooling cycle, the newly regenerated bed is
taken off line until it is needed.
18
-------
During the regeneration cycle, the stripping steam passes through
an adsorber and into the condensers. The two phase condensate is
cooled and sent to the decanter. The dewatered solvent flows
from the decanter into the underground solvent storage tanks.
The steam condensate flows from the decanter into a hot well,
where the condensate is recycled as boiler feed water.
D. OPERATING CONDITIONS
The plant operated in a normal fashion during the testing period.
In general, the test ran very well. Although the printing capac-
ity was not maximum, typical conditions existed for the press
room. Press 741 printed a color newspaper advertising supple-
ment using a 62 1/2-inch web. Press 742 printed a color feature
section of a magazine using a 93-inch, web.
19
-------
IV. LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
A schematic diagram of the process with respect to the sampling
locations is shown in Figure 1. Sites 1 and 1A were located on
the inlet system to the carbon adsorbers with site 1 located be-
tween the presses and the adsorbers and site 1A at a fresh air
entrance to the inlet manifold. This dilution air was emitted
to the duct in order to reduce the negative pressure of the fans
and thus prevent collapse of the duct work. Site 2 was located
at the adsorbers outlet to the atmosphere. Sites 3 and 3A,
which are uncontrolled air emission sources, provide for removal
of vapor laden air from the room housing the presses in order to
reduce the solvent concentration in this area. Site 4, the
meters that indicate the amount of ink, varnish and solvent de-
termined to each of the twenty ink fountains were read before
and after each test to provide an indication of the total usage
of these materials. Samples of the diluted ink in the fountains
were collected for determination of the amount of solvent in the
ready-to-apply ink. Samples of the water from the decanter were
collected for analysis of the amount of solvent remaining in the
water after separation of the solvent-water layers (site 5) and
in addition, readings of the solvent recovery meter on the de-
canter were made before and after each sampling run. Site 6,
the solvent use meter, required no sampling, however, meter read-
ings were taken before and after each sampling run to provide an
indication of the total amount of solvent used by both presses
during the sampling period.
21
-------
t*<
>«
1
><
SM.
-------
At Texas Color Printers, Inc., each press was equipped with a
recording tachometer. Everett Williams, the plant engineer, sup-
plied copies of the strip charts that provide the press speed as
well as the running times of the presses during each of the sam-
pling run periods.
Details of each of the sampling locations are given below:
At location (1), the adsorber inlet, vapor laden air from each
of the fountains are directed to the roof through duct work. The
ducts from press 1 are connected to a 36" I.D. manifold. The
ducts from 8 fountains of press 2 are connected to a 36" manifold
as are the other four fountains to another 36" manifold. The
latter two manifolds connect into a 48" I.D. duct, which is then
joined by the manifold from press 1 and the duct is expanded in-
to a 58" diameter. The ventilation system from the proof press
passes through the roof, a 10,000 cfm fan, and connects into the
duct. From this point the duct is increased to 60 3/4" I.D. and
is directed to the filter, fans and adsorbers. The 60 3/4" I.D.
duct has a straight run of 60 feet that provided an excellent
sampling site. A diagram of the sampling location is shown in
Figure 2. Two ports were cut into the duct, one at the top and
one the side 90° from the top port.
The end of the manifold over press 1 has a damper that is nor-
mally in the closed position, and it was in this position during
each of the sampling runs. However, the end of the manifold over
press 2 is open so that the dilution air would reduce the nega-
tive pressure in the duct to maintain a 4-6" of water negative
pressure. As there was no suitable location at the inlet end of
this 36" I.D. manifold duct (site 1A) that would meet Method 1
sampling port locations, a dilution air velocity measurement was
obtained by using a vane anemometer to traverse across the open
23
-------
f
TO
i
BOIC.CA
N)
c
I (
TOP
Figure 2. Sampling site on inlet to the
carbon adsorbers (location 1).
-------
end of the duct. The velocity was calculated by measuring the
total number of feet of air passing over the blades for a given
time interval.
A diagram of the adsorber outlet stack is shown in Figure 3.
The outlet of adsorbers 1 and 2 join into a 60" I.D. duct, which
connects to the bottom of the stack, while adsorber 3 has a
separate 42" duct that connects at a location higher on the
stack. The lower 24 feet of the stack is 60" I.D., but the top
5'6" is conical shaped to a maximum of 73 3/4" at the top. As a
result, there is no suitable location where reliable velocity
data could be obtained. A VOC sampling site was selected just
below the beginning of the conical portion of the stack, opposite
to the inlet duct entrances. For velocity determination, it was
assumed that the volumetric flow rate would be the same on the
outlet stack as the inlet (site 1).
The floor sweeps for presses 1 and 2 (sites 3 and 3A) collect
air from the room area around the presses. Each unit has sev-
eral air inlets near floor level and higher up (6-7') which are
manifolded together and then a single duct passes through the
roof to a fan. The fan exhaust is directly to the atmosphere.
Velocity and VOC data were obtained on the roof in the duct work
on the inlet side of the fan. The location of traverse points
are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
The ink fountains (site 4) at this plant are automatically con-
trolled to maintain the proper depth and viscosity of the ink by
controlling the addition of bulk ink, solvent and varnish.
Meters at each fountain were read at the beginning and end of
each test period. Samples of the diluted ink in each fountain
were collected during the run. Separate analyses were performed
on the ink in each fountain, as the amount of solvent varies
25
-------
NJ
TO
-------
N)
a!'
1
f
-U*-
4* *V
B * 10 "
•a"
30" TO
£ - 3o "
Figure 4. Floor sweep exhaust from
press 1 (location 3).
-------
00
34,'
>**
-ROOF
B- 10 /g
C ' 18"
3fc"
1
30*
Hut
i
Figure 5. Floor sweep exhaust from press 2 (location 3A)
-------
from one color to another. Thus, a total of twenty ink samples
were collected during each run.
The decanter (site 5) is equipped with a meter that indicates
the amount of solvent recovered. This meter was read before
and after each sampling run to provide the amount of solvent re-
covered during each test period and also the amount of solvent
recovered from the beginning of the program to the end of the
program. Samples of the water layer in the decanter were col-
lected during each run for analysis of the concentration of
solvent remaining in the water phase. The actual amount of sol-
vent used by the presses was obtained from a meter (site 6),
however, this meter provided a total amount of solvent to both
presses rather than the amount used by press 1 or press 2 alone,
The control panel for the adsorber system is located within the
boiler room. The panel has indicator lights that show the
operational status of each adsorber. This panel indication was
monitored during each test in order to provide the total sam-
pling period and the cycles of operation. There is no steam
flow indicator at this plant, however, the plant personnel indi-
cated that usually 4 1/2 pounds of steam are required for each
pound of solvent.
29
-------
V. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The procedures for the determination of the temperature, static
pressure, velocity, moisture and volumetric flow rate followed
the procedures given in Methods 1, 2, and 4 as presented in the
Federal Register (August 18, 1977).
The total hydrocarbon and specific organic compound analyses
were obtained by directly coupling a flame ionization gas chro-
matograph to both sites 1 and 2. AID Model 511 Chromatographs
were used at both sites and these instruments can be operated in
both the total hydrocarbon and GC modes by internal valve switch-
ing. Both analysis methods were used during the test periods.
The species analysis was accomplished with 1/8 x 6' stainless
steel columns containing 5% SP1200/1.75% Benton 34 on Supelco-
port column maintained at 120°C.
At site 1, the inlet to the control system, the instrument was
located several feet from the ports on the duct work. A sample
probe of 1/4" stainless steel line, with a stainless steel fil-
ter assembly containing a sintered metal filter to act as a fil-
ter and flame arrester, was inserted into the duct through the
port. A heated Teflon sample line connected the probe to an iso-
lation valve and then to the inlet of the gas sampling valve on
the gas chromatograph. A pump was attached to the outlet side
of the gas sampling valve through an isolation valve in order to
draw the vapor laden air from the duct into the chromatograph.
A stainless steel tee fitting was connected between the stain-
less steel probe and the Teflon sample line for the introduction
31
-------
of standard gas mixtures. Sample gas and standards were chro-
matographed in an identical manner by isolating the sample loop
from the source and the pump, allowing the loop to reach at-
mospheric pressure and then injecting the sample.
It was intended that an identical apparatus should be used at
site 2. However, with this type of system, the instrument would
have been set up directly above the ink storage tanks and thus
present a safety hazard. The instrument was set up inside the
sampling van which was parked adjacent to the adsorber area,
about 40 feet from the ink storage tanks. The stainless steel
probe was connected to a tee fitting as before, however, a
60 feet length of 1/4" copper tubing was used to connect the
probe to the chromatograph, through a liquid trap. A short
length of 1/4" Teflon tubing connected the trap to a sample
splitter on the inlet of the chromatograph gas sampling valve.
The outlet side of the splitter and sampling valve were con-
nected through an isolation valve to an integrated gas sampling
pump (EPA Method 3). This system with the sample splitter and
the pump operated at about 3-4 scfh provided for rapid delivery
of the source gas to the instrument. As the temperature of the
gas in the outlet stack was very close to the ambient tempera-
ture during the test period, no condensation problems were ex-
pected and this was verified by the fact that no condensable
material was collected in the trap during any of the sampling
runs.
Grab gas samples from sites 3 and 3A were collected using a
hand operated sampling pump to fill 12 x 12" Teflon sampling
bags. Separate bags were used for each site and were flushed
and leak checked with nitrogen between each run. The collected
samples were analyzed on-site using a Hewlett-Packard Model 5750
gas chromatograph equipped with a heated gas sampling valve, a
1/8" x 6' stainless steel column containing 5% SP1200/1.75%
32
-------
Bentone 34 on 100/200 Supelcoport and a flame ionization detec-
tor. The chromatograph was operated in an isothermal mode at
100°C.
Ink samples were collected in 45 ml vials with Teflon backed
septum caps of the type recommended for priority pollutant water
analysis. The bottles were filled to the top (no void space),
capped and maintained in an ice chest (0°C) prior to analysis.
These samples were analyzed in the laboratory by injecting
1 y liter of the liquid into a Perkin Elmer 3920 gas chromato-
graph equipped with a 1/8" x 20" 10% FFAP column and a flame
ionization detector. The column was operated isothermally at
90°C.
Water samples were collected in 1 liter Wheaton bottles (with
Teflon lined caps) previously cleaned and heated in an oven to
remove organic compounds. The bottles were filled to the top
to eliminate void space, and held at 0°C prior to analysis. The
samples were analyzed by direct injection on a Perkin Elmer 3920
gas chromatograph equipped with a 1/8" x 10" Poropak P column,
operated at 170°C, and a flame ionization detector.
The AID chromatograph and the HP 5750 were calibrated using com-
mercial toluene in nitrogen mixtures and site-prepared solvent
standards using the Ford Motor Company "Solvent Standard Prepa-
ration Procedures", May 18, 1977.
The total gas non-methane organic (TGNMO) sampling was done by
Mr. Gary Hippie of Pollution Control Science, Inc. (PCS). De-
tails of the sampling and analysis procedure is presented in the
EPA Guideline Series document entitled, "Measurement of Volatile
Organic Compounds", EPA-450/2-78-041, October 1978. In brief,
the sampling procedure involves collection of an emission sample
anisokinetically through a condensation trap by means of an
33
-------
evacuated gas collection tank. The condensation trap is main-
tained at dry ice temperatures. Any material that is not con-
densed in the trap will be collected in the evacuated cylinder.
After sampling was complete the traps were blanketed in dry ice
and shipped to PCS by MRC van. During analysis the contents of
the condensate trap are oxidized to carbon dioxide, which is
quantitatively collected in an evacuated vessel. A portion of
the carbon dioxide is reduced to methane and the quantity of
methane is measured by a flame ionization detector. A portion of
the sample collected in the gas sampling tank is analyzed by a
gas chromatograph to achieve separation of the non-methane organic
compounds from carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and methane. The
non-methane organic compounds are oxidized to carbon dioxide, re-
duced to methane and measured by a flame ionization detector.
The total non-methane organic compounds concentration is obtained
from the combination of the analytical results from the condensate
trap and the gas sampling tank.
34
------- |