tf/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMBReport81-GRA-4
Air
Letterpress/Off set
Lithographic Industry
Condenser/ESP
Emission Test Report
Lehigh Steck-Warlick
Dallas, Texas
-------
0 EMISSION TEST REPORT °
METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR
LETTERPRESS/OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY
Lehigh Steck-Warlick Company
Dallas, Texas
ESED 80/48
by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc,
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-3546
Work Assignment No. 7
Task Manager
Frank Clay
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH, MD-13
EMISSION STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
May 1981
-------
CONTENTS
Figures ii-1
Tables iv
QA Element Finder v
1. Introduction 1~1
2. Summary of Results 2-1
2.1 Emission test results 2-1
2.2 Process data 2-i:
3. Process Description 3-1
4. Sampling and Analytical Procedures 4-1
4.1 Description of sample locations 4-1
4.2 Gas stream flow rate and composition 4-5
4.3 Particulate and hydrocarbon emission tests 4-5
4.4 Gas stream isopropanol content 4-7
4.5 Process sample analysis 4-8
5. Quality Assurance 5-1
Appendices
A Computer Printouts and Example Calculations .A-l
B Field Data B-l
C Laboratory Results C-l
D Sampling and Analytical Procedures D-l
E Calibration Procedures and Results E-l
F Quality Assurance F-l
G Project Participants and Project Log G-l
11
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Relationship Between Measured Ink Volatile
Content and Heating Time in Analysis 2-21
4-1 Inlet Test Site and Traverse Point Locations 4-3
4-2 Outlet Test Site and Traverse Point Locations 4-4
iii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Velocity Traverse Data 2-2
2-2 Gas Stream Conditions Measured During
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Tests 2-4
2-3 Method 25 Data Summary 2-5
2-4 Isopropanol Content of the Emission Stream 2-9
2-5 Method 5 Data Summary 2-12
2-6 Press Operation Summary for the Lehigh
Steck-Warlick Company 2-14
2-7 Press Process Data Summary 2-16
2-8 Control Equipment Operation 2-17
2-9 Ink Usage at the Lehigh Steck-Warlick
Company 2-19
2-10 Ink Density and Percent Volatile Content 2-20
2-11 Residual Solvent Content of Printed
Signatures 2-24
IV
-------
QA ELEMENT FINDER
Item
Project Description
Project Organization and Responsibility
QA Objectives
Sampling Procedures
Sample Custody
Calibration Procedures
Analytical Procedures
Data Validation, Reduction, and Reporting
Internal QA Checks
Performance Systems Audits
Preventive Maintenance Schedule
Corrective Action
Quality Assurance Reports to Management
Page
1-1
Appendix G
Appendix F, 5-1
Appendix D, 4-1
Appendix B & C
Appendix E
Appendix D, 4-1
Appendix F
Appendix F
Appendix F
Appendix F
Appendix F
Appendix F
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
During the week of March 23, 1981, personnel from PEDCo
Environmental, Inc., conducted emission tests at the offset
lithographic printing plant of Lehigh Steck-Warlick Company in
Dallas, Texas. Tests were conducted to determine the efficiency
of a condenser/electrostatic precipitator (ESP) control system
used to control hydrocarbon emissions from the press dryer.
Hydrocarbon sampling was conducted by means of an Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 5 sample train with a tee
at the back of the heated filter from which a Method 25 sample
was extracted. Samples were collected isokinetically, and
Methods 5 and 25 sampling procedures were followed in the opera-
tion of the separate portions of the sample train. This pro-
cedure was used in order to limit bias that could result from any
aerosol or particulate matter present in the gas streams.
During the testing, process data were monitored and several
process samples were collected. Process samples included foun-
tain solutions analyzed for percent isopropanol, process ink
analyzed for density and percent volatile content, and printed
signatures analyzed for the quantity of ink solvent remaining in
the finished product.
1-1
-------
During this week, numerous problems were encountered in the
press operation. Testing was conducted on only two days, and
both tests were run with the press at a lower than normal
operating speed. Press speeds during the two tests were 259 and
305 m/min (850 and 1000 ft/min). Normal operating speed ranges
from 427 to 488 m/min (1400 and 1600 ft/min).
Because these tests were run at lower than normal press
speeds, the data are not representative and cannot be used to set
standards for the industry. While the EPA test was in progress,
a similar test was conducted by Pollution Control Science, Inc.
(PCS). This effort was sponsored by the Sun Chemical Corporation
and the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation and consisted of
filtered Method 25 samples taken from a single point in the inlet
and outlet ducts. The samples were taken at the beginning and
end of the EPA runs, which means that there is no corresponding
PCS data for the middle portion of the EPA test.
The following individuals were present to observe the sam-
pling program:
Mr. Frank Clay - EMB Task Manager
Mr. Theodore Michaelis - Engineering Science Process Officer
Mr. J.D. Boehlert - Sun Chemical Corporation
Mr. J.L. Zburovsky - Sun Chemical Corporation
These data will be evaluated for use in a Control Techniques
Guideline document for the letterpress/offset lithographic print-
ing industry.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
2.1 EMISSION TEST RESULTS
Gas Stream Flow Rate and Composition
Table 2-1 lists gas stream temperatures and flow rates that
were measured by EPA Methods 1* and 2* prior to particulate
sampling. Gas stream temperatures at the inlet test site aver-
aged 150°C (302°F) and 161°C (322°F) during the first two days.
After these measurements were taken, it was discovered that a
damper controlling the amount of dilution air added to the dryer
discharge had been inadvertantly left closed. Plant personnel
corrected the problem, and in subsequent velocity traverses the
recorded inlet temperatures were 73°C (163°F) and 86°C (186°F).
The outlet gas temperature dropped from 42°C (107°F) on the first
day to 30°C (86°F) and 32°C (90°F) on the following days. This
temperature drop was due to adjustments made on the control
system by a representative of United Air Specialists, who was on
hand to inspect the condenser/ESP operation.
Gas flow rates were adjusted to standard conditions based on
the assumed moisture contents indicated in Table 2-1.
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 160, August 18, 1977.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. VELOCITY TRAVERSE DATA
Date,
1981
3/24
3/25
3/26
3/28
Time,
24-h
1035
0730
1400
0830
Gas stream temperature
Inlet
°C
150
161
73
86
°F
302
322
163
186
Outlet
°C
42
30
32
32
°F
107
86
90
89
Gas stream flow rate
standard conditions9
Inlet
dscmh
7,000
6,826
9,664
9,893
dscfh
247,200
241,080
341,280
349,380
Outlet
dscmh
10,433
9,778
12,550
12,441
dscfh
368,460
345,300
443,220
439,380
Standard conditions: 760 mm Hg, 20°C (29.92 in. Hg, 68°F), adjusted
to dry basis with the following assumed moisture contents:
3/24, 25/81: Inlet, 3.5%; Outlet, 3.0%; 3/26/81: Inlet, 3.0%; Outlet 3.0%;
3/28/81: Inlet, 3.0%; Outlet, 1.5%.
2^2
-------
Table 2-2 lists the gas stream flow rate and composition
measured during the particulate and hydrocarbon sampling. At the
inlet site, the flow rate was measured at 10,275 dry standard
cubic meters per hour (dscmh) (362,839 dscfh) during Test 1 and
10,296 dscmh during Test 2. Gas temperatures were 73° and 81°C
(163° and 178°F), respectively. Orsat analysis at the inlet site
showed 0.4 percent carbon dioxide and 20 percent oxygen. At the
outlet site, the flow rate was measured at 12,999 dscmh (459,065
dscfh) for Test 1 and 11,751 dscmh (414,984 dscfh) for Test 2.
Outlet temperatures were 32° and 34°C (89° and 93°F) for the two
tests. Orsat analysis showed 0.2 percent carbon dioxide at the
outlet site. The difference between the inlet and outlet flow
rates is due to air leakage around the fan which was located
after the ESP and before the outlet sampling location. Some
leaks were sealed for the second test.
All calculations for hydrocarbon and particulate emission
rates were based on flows measured during the test. These data
are presented in Table 2-2.
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Method 25 Analysis
Each test at the inlet and outlet of the condenser/ESP
consisted of three separate particulate traverses. During each
traverse, a Method 25* sample was collected from the back of the
Method 5** filter for hydrocarbon analysis. Table 2-3 summarizes
the data from the Method 25 sampling.
*
Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 194, October 3, 1980.
**
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 160, August 18, 1977.
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2. GAS STREAM CONDITIONS MEASURED DURING PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON TESTS
Test No.
LWI-51
LW0-51
LWI-52
LWO-52
Sample
location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Gas stream
temperature
°C
73
32
81
34
°F
163
89
178
93
Gas absolute
pressure
mm Hg
756.8
762.1
750.9
755.7
in. Hg
29.80
30.01
29.56
29.75
Actual
flow rate
acmh
12,402
13,694
12.967
12,660
acfh
437,987
483,606
457,911
447,072
Flow rate at
standard ^
conditions
dscmh
10,275
12,999
10,296
11,751
dscfh
362,839
459,065
363,589
414,984
Composition,
% H20
1.89
1.51
2.90
2.23
% o2
20.0
20.2
20.0
20.2
% co2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
to
aActual flow rate at stack temperature and pressure.
bFlow rate adjusted to standard conditions: 760 mm Hg, 20°C (29.92 in. Hg, 68°F); dry basis.
-------
TABLE 2-3. METHOD 25 DATA SUMMARY3
Test No.
LW-1-1
LW-1-2
LW-1-3
Average
LW-2-1
LW-2-2
LW-2-3
Average
LW-Ae
Hydrocarbon
concentration
as CHd,b ppm
Inlet
630
902
653
728
1319
1897
1104
1440
1739
Outlet
475
657
755
629
350
569
600
506
827
Hydrocarbon mass flow
rate as CH4C
Inlet
kg/h
4.31
6.17
4.47
4.98
9.04
13.00
7.57
9.87
11.92
Ib/h
9.50
13.60
9.85
10.98
19.93
28.66
16.69
21.76
26.28
Outlet
kg/h
4.11
5.68
6.53
5.44
2.74
4.45
4.69
3.96
6.47
Ib/h
9.06
12.52
14.40
11.99
6.04
9.81
10.34
8.73
14.26
Control d
efficiency ,
%
4.6
7.9
69.7
6b.8
38.0
59.9
45.7
Press speed was less than normal and data should not be used for standard
setting.
Parts per million by volume measured as methane.
°Based on dry standard gas flow rates measured during the test period (see
Table 2-2) and on the molecular weight of methane: 16 g/g-mole
(16 Ib/lb-mole) kg kg
Control efficiency is based on mass emission rates —^Vj ^— x 100.
eLW-A run as standard Method 25 (single point, constant in
sampling rate) simultaneous with inlet and outlet runs
LW-2-3.
2-5
-------
During Test 1, hydrocarbon concentrations at the inlet test
site were measured at 630, 902, and 653 ppm as methane with an
average concentration of 728 ppm as methane. The equivalent
hydrocarbon mass flow rates to the condensers were 4.31, 6.17,
and 4.47 kg/h (9.50, 13.60, and 9.8 Ib/h) with an average value
of 4.98 kg/h (10.98 Ib/h).
At the outlet site, Test 1 concentrations were 475, 657, and
755 ppm as methane. The outlet emission rates were 4.11, 5.68,
and 6.53 kg/h (9,06, 12.52, 14.40 Ib/h) with an average value of
5.44 kg/h (11.99 Ib/h).
Based on mass emission rates, the control efficiencies
indicated by the results are 4.6 and 7.9 percent for the first
and second samples and negative efficiency for the third sample
and the average. The press was operating at the rate of 259
m/min (850 ft/min) through most of the test period.
During Test 2, the press speed was 305 m/min (1000 ft/min)
and the measured inlet hydrocarbon concentrations were 1319,
1897, and 1104 ppm for an average of 1440 ppm as methane. The
average value of 1440 ppm corresponds to a hydrocarbon mass flow
of 9.87 kg/h (21.76 Ib/h) as methane.
At the outlet, the measured concentrations were 350, 569,
and 600 ppm as methane with an -average concentration of 506 ppm.
The average mass emission rate was 3.96 kg/h (8.73 Ib/h).
Based on the average inlet and outlet mass emission rates,
the average control efficiency for Test 2 was 59.9 percent. The
control efficiencies for Samples 1, 2, and 3 were 69.7, 65.8, and
2-6
-------
38.0 percent, respectively. Press speeds during both tests
were lower than normal.
Test LW-A consisted of standard Method 25 samples collected
simultaneously with the third inlet and outlet samples in Test 2.
These samples were collected at a single point in the inlet and
outlet stacks using a constant sampling rate of 85 ml/min. No
particulate filters were used at either site. The hydrocarbon
concentrations measured with standard Method 25 procedures were
1739 ppm at the inlet to the condensers and 827 ppm at the outlet
of the ESP. The control efficiency at 45.7 percent was higher
than the 38 percent measured with Sample LW-2-3, which was taken
from the back of the Method 5 filter.
If the values of the first test were to be consistent with
the values of the second test, the inlet concentrations of the
first test should be multiplied by a factor of 2. The data,
however, have been checked and rechecked and samples were re-
analyzed to check results. The initial values remain unchanged.
The procedure of collecting Method 25 samples from the back
of a Method 5 filter is an innovation. Data on the precision and
accuracy expected from this sampling procedure has not yet been
compiled and published by the EPA. In reviewing the data in
Table 2-3, it appears that the variance in the measured concen-
trations for both tests is about +20 percent. This variance may
be partly due to the variance in actual stack conditions and
partly due to the inherent precision of the test procedure.
Thus, the negative efficiency indicated by the data in Test 1 is
2-7
-------
probably more a reflection of the precision of the test method
than the actual operating conditions. The actual efficiency is
probably low but positive. Based on the variance in the data,
the true efficiency could be as high as 10 to 15 percent or as
low as the 5 percent indicated by Tests LW-1-1 and LW-1-2. The
data from Test 2 show about the same variance as measured effi-
ciency ranges from 69.7 percent to a low of 38.0 percent.
Appendix B contains field data sheets for the velocity
traverses and Method 25 sampling. Appendix C contains all
laboratory results. Appendix D contains a complete description
of the sampling and analytical procedures.
Isopropanol Content
Isopropanol is used as a roll wetting agent in the press
fountain solutions and as a general solvent for cleaning around
the press. To determine the amount of isopropanol vented in the
press dryer discharge, samples were collected at each site and
analyzed for isopropanol content. Table 2-4 gives the results of
these analyses.
During each particulate test, an evacuated stainless steel
tank was used to collect the samples. A stainless steel probe
line with an outside diameter (O.D.) of 0.635 cm was used. A
needle valve was placed between the tank and the probe line to
control sample flow rate. In analyzing these samples, several
light hydrocarbon peaks were included in the total isopropanol
content (see Section 4.4). This was based on the assumption that
the light hydrocarbons present resulted from chemical reactions
of the isopropanol in the dryer.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-4. ISOPROPANOL CONTENT OF THE EMISSION STREAM
Test No.
LW-1
LW-2
Isopropanol
concentration ,
Inlet,
ppnf
88
117
Outlet,
ppnJc
24
86
Equivalent
concentration
as methane,
Inlet,
ppmd
264
351
Outlet,
ppnr
72
258
Percent of total
hydrocarbon3
Inlet,
I
36.3
24.4
Outlet,
%
11.4
51.0
Isopropanol
emission rateb
Inlet
kg/h
2.25
3.01
Ib/h
4.98
6.64
Outlet
kg/h
0.7U
2.53
Ib/h
1.72
5.58
ro
vo
The Isopropanol concentration as methane compared with the average total hydrocarbon concentration as
methane (see Table 2-3) for the corresponding test number.
Based on dry standard flow rate measured during the test and on the molecular weight of isopropanol:
60.09 g/g-mole.
"Parts per million by volume as isopropanol.
Basis: 3 moles of methane formed per mole of isopropanol.
-------
At the inlet site, isopropanol concentrations were 88 and
117 ppm as isopropanol. For comparison to the Method 25 data,
the equivalent concentrations if measured as methane would be 264
and 351 ppm. Thus the alcohol content was 36.3 percent of the
total hydrocarbon concentration measured with Method 25 for Test
1 and 24.4 percent for Test 2. Based on the molecular weight of
isopropanol (60.09 g/g-mole), mass flow rates were 2.26 kg/h
(4.98 Ib/h) for Test 1 and 3.01 kg/h (6.64 Ib/h) for Test 2.
At the outlet site, isopropanol concentrations were 24 ppm
and 86 ppm as isopropanol. The equivalent concentrations as
methane would be 72 and 258 ppm. The mass emission rates of
isopropanol were 0.78 kg/h (1.72 Ib/h) in Test 1 and 2.53 kg/h
(5.58 Ib/h) for Test 2.
During Test 1 at the outlet site, the needle valve in the
sample train became partially plugged, thus reducing the sampling
rate. Although the total sample volume was about the same as the
other samples, the plugged valve and reduced sample rate may have
affected the amount of isopropanol collected. This may account
for the lower than expected value of isopropanol found in this
test (24 ppm).
Isopropanol would reduce the control efficiency of the con-
trol system operation because isopropanol has a much lower
boiling point than the ink solvent and would therefore be less
condensible at the condenser operating temperature. In the
second test where the measured efficiency was positive, the
control efficiency would change from 59.9 percent, based on
2-10
-------
average total hydrocarbon content, to 74.0 percent, if the
alcohol content were subtracted from the total hydrocarbon at the
inlet and outlet. In Test 2 the hydrocarbon emission rates
corrected by subtracting the isopropanol content would be 7.43
kg/h (16.38 Ib/h) at the inlet and 1.93 kg/h (4.26 Ib/h) at the
outlet.
Method 5 Data Summary
Table 2-5 summarizes the data obtained from the Method 5
sampling train. In all cases, the amount of material collected
was extremely low. Method 5 filters were used through both
tests. At the inlet site, the total filter catch was only 0.8 mg
in 7.42 standard cubic meters sampled (262.030 scf). At the
outlet site, the filter catch was zero in 6.535 scm (230.768
scf). Condensible organic material ranged from 11.9 mg for Test
1 to 43.7 mg for Test 2 at the inlet. At the outlet site, the
condensible organic catches were 22.5 mg Test 1 and 8.7 mg in
Test 2. Impinger contents were recovered after each test.
In no case was there sufficient material to ensure an accur-
ate recovery and weighing. Therefore, the only conclusion indi-
cated by the Method 5 data is that the particulate and aerosol
content of the gas stream was negligible.
Data in Table 2-5 do not include particulate catch from the
toluene rinse of the front-half glassware and probe. These
rinses were shipped to the Emission Measurement Branch laboratory
for analysis. No particulate could be observed by visual inspec-
tion of the rinses.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-5. METHOD 5 DATA SUMMARY
Test
date,
1981
3/26
3/26
3/28
3/28
Test
No.
LWI-5-1
LWO-5-1
LWI-5-2
LWO-5-2
Sample
location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Filterable9
particulate
kg/h
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
Ib/h
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
Condensible
orqanics
kg/h
0.033
0.086
0.120
0.033
Ib/h
0.073
0.189
0.265
0.072
Condensible
inorganics
kg/h
0.009
0.006
0.013
0.006
Ib/h
0.020
0.013
0.029
0.013
Does not include toluene rinse of front-half glassware and probe.
2-12
-------
All Method 5 field data are presented in Appendix B of this
report. Values in Table 2-5 were calculated without including
the Method 25 sample volumes. These sample volumes ranged from 3
to 4 liters per sample and thus had a negligible effect on the
Method 5 calculations. For comparison, calculations were made
onsite using the Method 25 sample volumes. These calculations
are shown in Appendix B with the field data sheets. Method 5
computer calculations are shown in Appendix A of this report.
Laboratory data are presented in Appendix C. A complete descrip-
tion of the sampling and analtyical procedures is shown in
Appendix D.
2.2 PROCESS DATA
During each test, the process operation was carefully moni-
tored, and operating parameters were recorded every 10 minutes.
In addition, an attempt was made to measure the volume of ink
dispensed, the quantity of isopropanol used, and the amount of
ink solvent and water recovered from the condenser drain.
Table 2-6 summarizes the press operation during the test
periods. Press speed during both tests was slower than normal
because of problems with the press operation. Test 1 press speed
averaged 261 m/min (856 ft/min). During Test 2, the press speed
was constant at 305 m/min (1000 ft/min). Normal press speed
ranges from 427 to 488 m/min (1400 to 1600 ft/min). Some down-
time occurred during each test. Testing was stopped whenever the
press went down and resumed only when the press was back on line
at full operating speed. Appendix B contains a complete list of
downtime and causes along with the field data sheets.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-6. PRESS OPERATION SUMMARY FOR THE LEHIGH STECK-WARLICK COMPANY
Test
No.
LW-1
LW-2
Date,
1981
3/26
3/28
Measurement
period,
24-h time
1500 - 2010
0845 - 1745
Downtime during
measurement,
min.
40
141
Total
operating
time,
min.
270
399
Signature count,
signatures/
minutes recorded
96,000/245
106,820/413
Press speed
summary
Time period
1500 - 1520
1520 - 1545
1545 - 2010
0845 - 1745
m/min
262
290
259
305
ft/mi n
860
950
850
1000
to
I
-------
Table 2-7 lists the average values of the press operating
parameters monitored during the testing. Data were recorded
every 10 minutes during the test, but no significant variations
were observed. Appendix B presents a complete data list along
with field data.
During each test, the ambient relative humidity was measured
in the press room with a sling psycrometer. In Test 1, the rela-
tive humidity averaged 56 percent at 24°C (76°F). In Test 2, the
relative humidity was 60 percent at 26°C (79°F).
At the test site, the condenser cooling fluid temperature,
the air temperature at the outlet of the final condenser, and the
ambient temperature and relative humidity were recorded every 10
minutes during the test. Table 2-8 lists the average values of
these parameters for each test. Cooling fluid temperatures were
steady for both tests with a variance of only +1°F through the
entire test period. The air temperature was also constant, vary-
ing +1°C.
Process Ink
Process ink is pumped to the press by means of a piston-type
displacement pump. The piston covers the cross-sectional area of
the ink drum, and ink is forced out of the exit line as the
piston is moved into the barrel. The displacement of the pump
and the cross-sectional area of the ink drum were measured to
determine the volume of ink used during the test periods.
Samples of each ink color used were obtained from the supplier,
Sun Chemical Corporation, and analyzed to determine the density
and the percent volatile content.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-7. PRESS PROCESS DATA SUMMARY1
Test
No.
LW-1
LW-2
Date
1981
3/26
3/28
Web speed
m/min
261
305
ft/min
856
1000
Web temperature
°C
121
103
°F
249
218
Dryer tern
°C
131
148
perature
°F
269
298
Chill roll water
Temperature
Inlet
°C
17
17
°F
62
63
Outlet
°C
18
19
°F
64
67
Flow rate,
mVmin
0.202
0.204
Average values reported here. Complete data log is in Appendix B.
ro
\->
a\
-------
TABLE 2-8. CONTROL EQUIPMENT OPERATION
Test
No.
LW-1
LW-2
Date,
1981
3/26
3/28
Ambient conditions
Temperature
°C
23
21
°F
73
69
% relative
humidity
49
77
Condenser cooling
fluid temperature
Inlet Outlet
°C
28
29
°F
82
84
°C
44
46
°F
111
115
Air temperature at
the outlet of the
final condenser
°C
34
34
°F
93
93
2-17
-------
Table 2-9 lists the ink usage for each test. The mass of
ink used was determined based on the average ink density for all
four colors, 0.985 kg/liter (8.219 Ib/gal). Density and volatile
content data are listed in Table 2-10. Ink density varied from
0.974 kg/liter for the yellow and black inks to 1.010 kg/liter
for the blue ink. This amounts to a variance of only +2.5 per-
cent from the mean value. The average density of the four ink
colors and the total volume of the four ink colors dispensed were
used to compile the data in Table 2-9.
For Test 1, the amount of ink dispensed was 95.04 liters
(25.11 gal), which is equivalent to 93.61 kg (206.38 Ib). A
total of 274 minutes of press operating time was recorded for the
measurement period. The rate of ink usage was 0.39 kg/min (0.75
Ib/min). In Test 2, 152.99 liters (40.39 gal) of ink were dis-
pensed in 405 minutes of operating time. The ink usage rate for
Test 2 was 0.37 kg/min (0.82 Ib/min).
Volatile content of the ink was determined by means of Pro-
cedure B of ASTM Method D-2367. In this procedure, the ink is
dispersed in solvent and heated for 1 hour at 110°C to drive off
volatile material. The sample is weighed before and after the
heating period to determine the percent volatile content gravi-
metrically. Because this method may not be applicable for all
types of coatings, samples were also heated through extended
periods of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 24 hours to determine the relationship
of heating time to the measured volatile content. These data are
included in Table 2-10. Figure 2-1 is a graphical representation
of this same data. 010
f*~ J.O
-------
TABLE 2-9. INK USAGE AT THE LEHIGH STECK-WARLICK COMPANY
Test
No.
LW-1
LW-2
Date,
1981
.3/26
3/28
Total ink usage, all colors
Volume
liter
95.04
152.89
gal
25.11
40.39
Mass3
kg
93.61
150.60
Ib
206.38
332.01
Total
operating
time,b
mm
274
405
Usage rate
kg/min
0.34
0.37
Ib/min
0.75
0.82
aBased on average ink density of 0.985 kg/liter (8.219 Ib/gal).
Total operating time = (measurement time period) - (downtime in period).
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-10. INK DENSITY AND PERCENT VOLATILE CONTENT
Ink color
Density, kg/liter
Ib/gal
% Volatile*9
1 h at 110°C
3 h at 110°C
4 h at 110°C
5 h at 110°C
6 h at 110°C
24 h at 110°C
Blue
1.010
8.428
18.77
31.00
31.60
31.90
31.95
32.55
Black
0.974
8.127
19.48
21.85
23.65
25.05
26.05
32.05
Red
0.980
8.178
27.36
34.60
35.35
35.80
36.00
37.35
Yellow
0.974
8.127
27.84
34.30
35.30
36.00
36.55
38.75
Average
all colors
0.985
8.219
23.36
30.44
31.48
32.19
32.64
35.18
aPercent volatile content by weight determined by Procedure B of ASTM Method
D-2369-81, which calls for a heating period of 1 hour at 110°C. To deter-
mine relationship between heating time and measured volatile content, samples
were also heated through 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, and 24-hour periods.
2-20
-------
1—
z
i£ UJ
Z h— H—
«— z a;
O 13
O <_>•-•
1 1 1 1 1 1
c£ LLJ 2
«£ t— CO
UJ
-------
The measured volatile content increases steadily with in-
creased heating time. Even after 6 hours at 110°C, measured
volatile content had not reached a steady level as indicated by
the samples heated for 24 hours.
Laboratory data for the ink samples are shown in
Appendix C.
Residual Solvent Content in Printed Product
Samples of the printed signatures were collected during each
test and analyzed for residual solvent content. The paper
samples were extracted with pentane by means of a soxhlet extrac-
tion apparatus, and the extracts were analyzed for ink solvent
content by gas chromography (GC). Samples of the ink solvent
were used to identify the solvent peaks from the extract.
Unprinted paper was extracted as a blank to identify and elimi-
nate from consideration those peaks resulting from extractables
in the paper.
Signature samples were collected at the beginning, middle,
and end of each test run. Each sample consisted of about 25
signatures. At the PEDCo laboratory, the top and bottom portions
of this sample were discarded. At least one whole signature
from the center of the sample pack was then shreaded and loosely
packed in a soxhlet apparatus. No attempt was made to evaluate
the percent ink coverage on the signature nor to separate the
lightly covered areas from the more heavily covered areas.
2-22
-------
Soxhlet extraction data are summarized in Table 2-11.
Samples from Test 1 averaged 0.30 ing of solvent per gram of
paper. In Test 2, the samples average 0.20 mg of solvent per
gram of paper.
The paper used on both test days was Champion paper product
weighing 60 Ib/ream. A ream of paper is defined as 500 sheets
measuring 25 by 38 in. Thus, the weight of the paper is 1.26 x
-4 2
10 Ib/in. During Test 1, 96,000 signatures were run in 245
operating minutes. Each signature is 42 in. wide by 45.669 in.
2
long or 1918.10 in. Thus, in Test 1, 5682 Ib of paper per hour
were run through the press. Based on the average solvent content
from Table 2-11, 1.70 Ib/h of ink solvent was retained in the
printed product. The measured ink usage rate for Test 1 was 0.75
Ib/min or 45.00 Ib/h. Assuming that 30 percent of the ink
weight is solvent, 13.5 Ib/h of ink solvent was applied to the
paper. Therefore, about 12.6 percent of ink solvent applied
remained in the printed product after the press dryer unit.
In Test 2, 106,820 signatures were run in 413 operating
minutes for a rate of 3751 Ib/h of paper run. Based on the
extraction data, therefore, 0.75 Ib/h of solvent was retained in
the printed product. The ink usage rate for Test 2 was 0.82
Ib/min or 49.20 Ib/h. If the ink contains 30 percent solvent,
14.76 Ib/h of solvent was applied to the paper. Thus, 5.1 per-
cent of the solvent applied remained in the printed product.
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-11. RESIDUAL SOLVENT CONTENT OF PRINTED SIGNATURES
Sample I.D.
Test la
No. 1, top line
No. 1, bottom line
No. 2, top line
No. 2, bottom line
No. 3, top line
No. 3, bottom line
No. 4, top line
No. 4, bottom line
Average Test 1
Test 2
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
Average Test 2
Weight of paper
extracted, g
36.69
35.26
35.62
37.63
35.42
38.99
40.92
42.03
37.82
40.31
39.90
36.92
39.04
Solvent content
mg solvent/
g paper
0.38
0.40
0.24
0.37
0.21
0.23
0.27
0.29
0.30
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.20
Ib solvent/
Ib paper
3.8 x 10"!
4.0 x TO"!
2.4 x 10":
3.7 x 10";
2.1 x 10"7
2.3 x 10":
2.7 x 10":
2.9 x 10~*
3.0 x 10"4
1.9 x 10"!
2.1 x ID":
2.1 x 10"4
2.0 x 10"4
Signatures from the Test 1 product were split after printing into two
product lines. Thus, top line and bottom line samples are of the same
signature. Product in Test 2 was not split.
2-24
-------
Laboratory data from the study are presented in Appendix C.
A description of the sampling and analytical procedure is con-
tained in Appendix D.
Fountain Solutions
During the tests, samples of the fountain solutions were
collected to check the concentration of isopropanol. In addi-
tion, attempts were made to measure the amount of isopropanol
used per test.
Isopropanol concentration was measured by determining the
specific gravity of the solutions using a hydrometer. In Test 1,
fountain solution concentrations ranged from 6.7 to 10.0 percent
isopropanol with an average value for the four solutions of 8.2
percent. The makeup alcohol was 96.9 percent isopropanol. In
Test 2, the fountain solution concentrations ranged from 6.2 to
10.9 percent isopropanol with an average value of 8.2 percent.
Makeup alcohol for Test 2 was 96.4 percent isopropanol.
All four fountain solution temperatures were checked every
1/2 hour through a 4-hour period during Test 1. Temperatures of
the fountain solution ranged from 14° to 17°C (58° to 63°F) with
an overall average temperature of 16°C (60°F). Alcohol use was
determined by measuring the liquid level in the makeup containers
at various times during Test 1. This proved impractical, how-
ever, because the makeup containers were frequently refilled,
often before the data clerk could take readings. As a result,
only one valid measurement was recorded for one 71-minute period.
Based on this measurement, 1.49 liters of 96.9 percent
2-25
-------
isopropanol were used in 71 minutes. This corresponds to a usage
rate of 16.5 g/min (0.036 Ib/min).
During Test 2, the press operators were instructed to fill
several 5-gal containers with makeup alcohol and then to use
these containers to refill fountain solution containers. Thus,
alcohol use was measured by weighing the full 5-gal containers at
the start of the day, and as they were emptied. The alcohol in
these containers, however, was also occasionally used for general
cleaning around the press. Thus, this measurement does not yield
an accurate indication of the amount of isopropanol delivered to
the fountain solutions. Based on this measurement, a total of
185.36 Ib of isopropanol was used in 359 operating minutes.
Thus, the usage rate for isopropanol was 0.516 Ib/min or 234.3
g/min.
Material Recovered from the Condenser Drain
To measure the material collected in the condensers, a
decanter system was set up on the condenser drain line. The
decanter consisted of a large drum with outlet taps at the top
and bottom of the drum. Ink solvent was collected off of the top
drain and condensed water from the bottom of the drum. Solvent
and water were collected in tared buckets and weighed to deter-
mined the quantity condensed.
In Test 1, a total of 25.91 Ib of ink solvent was collected
in 319 operating minutes. A total of 5.38 Ib of water was col-
lected in the same 319-minute period. Thus, 4.87 Ib/h of ink
solvent and 1.01 Ib/h of water were condensed. In Test 2, 47.40
2-26
-------
Ib of ink solvent and 0.89 Ib of water were recovered in 400
operating minutes. The rates of condensation were, therefore,
7.11 Ib/h for solvent and 0.13 Ib/h for water.
The Method 25 data for Test 2 indicates that 13.03 Ib/h of
ink solvent were condensed.
2-27
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Testing was conducted on Press No. 64 at the Lehigh Steck-
Warlick Company in Dallas, Texas. Press No. 64 is a Toshiba
model four-color printing press with a TEC Systems Series 80
dryer unit. Vapors exhausted from the dryer are vented along
with dilution air to a control system consisting of five water-
cooled condensers in series followed by an ESP with two collec-
tors.
The printing rolls on the Toshiba press are 106.68 cm (42
in.) in diameter with a 116-cm (45.669-in.) cutoff. Normal
printing speed ranges from 427 to 488 m/min (1400 to 1600 ft/min).
The press is designed for maximum operating speed of 549 m/min
(1800 ft/min).
The inks used in this printing operation are formulated with
a solvent base that consists primarily of C-10 to C-16 straight
chain, saturated hydrocarbons. Based on solvent vapor pressure
data, it was estimated that the exhaust air from the dryer could
contain up to 3000 ppm hydrocarbon vapor at a dryer temperature
of 132°C (270°F).
The other source of hydrocarbon emissions from the press
operation is the isopropanol used as a wetting agent in the
fountain solution. Samples of the four fountain solutions were
3-1
-------
collected during the test. The isopropanol concentration in
these samples ranged from 8 to 11 percent by volume. Pure
isopropanol (~97 percent) is used to make up the alcohol content
of the fountain solutions and is also used for cleaning the
printing rolls and other equipment around the press. Press rolls
are cleaned periodically during the day, and some of the vapors
from the isopropanol used for cleaning are also drawn through the
press dryer.
The TEC Series 80 dryer normally operates in the temperature
range of 121° to 127°C (250° to 260°F). This is somewhat lower
than the temperature used in most press dryers, but the dryer is
longer than most units and thus provides more drying area. This
arrangement is employed by the plant to lower the chance of
damaging the paper or print quality through overheating, to pro-
vide more even drying, and to conserve energy by lowering the
heat input to the dryer and reducing the amount of cooling
required in the chill rolls. During testing, the dryer tempera-
ture was measured at 131°C (268°F) for the first test and 148°C
(298°F) for the second.
The emission control system consists of five condenser units
T3
in series followed by a Smog Hog ESP with two collectors. Most
of the control equipment was supplied by United Air Specialists,
Inc.
A 50/50 mixture of ethylene glycol and water is used as the
cooling fluid in the condenser system. The gylcol-water mix
enters the condenser system at the fourth condenser then flows
3-2
-------
through the fifth, third, second, and first condensers in series.
During testing, the inlet temperature of the cooling fluid
averaged 28°C (83°F), and the outlet temperature after the first
condenser averaged 45°C (113°F). These temperatures were read
from thermometers installed on the inlet and outlet lines by
plant personnel. Cooling fluid flow rate is approximately 132
liters/min. (35 gal/min).
Hot cooling fluid from the condensers is directed to a heat
exchanger near the press where the heat of the fluid is used to
preheat dryer blower air. Because the dryer preheater and the
condensers at the control system are part of the same heat ex-
change system, temperatures at the condenser are not variable.
Experiments conducted by Lehigh Steck-Warlick personnel have
shown that varying condenser temperatures more than +^10 °F results
in fouling and plugging of the condenser coils and reduced
operating efficiency in the ESP. All testing was conducted under
normal operating temperatures.
3-3
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Tests were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the con-
denser/ESP to determine the hydrocarbon concentrations at each
site and the control efficiency achieved by the condenser/ESP
system. Because a potential existed for aerosol formation in the
inlet duct, samples were collected isokinetically by means of the
EPA Method 5* sampling procedure. A Method 25** sample was col-
lected from the backside of the Method 5 filter and analyzed for
total nonmethane organic content. In addition to the emission
test, samples of the process ink, printed product, and isopropa-
nol fountain solutions were collected for analysis. The follow-
ing report sections describe the sampling and analytical proce-
dures used in this test.
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE LOCATIONS
The inlet test site consisted of an insulated 15 by 24 in.
rectangular duct. Approximately 2-1/2 duct diameters of undis-
turbed flow were downstream from the sample location and about
1/2 diameter upstream. A total of 25 sample points were used in
each traverse. Five ports were installed in the duct to provide
*
**
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 160, August 18, 1977.
Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 194, October 3, 1980.
-------
a 5 by 5 sample point matrix. Based on the procedures of Method
1*, a 6 by 6 sample point matrix should have been used to provide
36 traverse points. Studies by Fluidyne, Entropy Environmenta-
lists, Inc., and others indicate that the number of points
sampled to obtain representative data may be less than those
123
presently specified in Method 1. ' ' The Method 25 sampling
time is also limited by the size of the sample tank to less than
1 hour. Thus, to accommodate the Method 25 sample, the number of
sample points were reduced to 25, and each sample point was
sampled for 2 minutes for a total test time of 50 minutes.
Figure 4-1 is a diagram of the inlet test site.
The rectangular duct at the outlet test site was 20 by 24
in. The sample location selected was 4 duct diameters from the
nearest downstream flow disturbance and 1 duct diameter from the
nearest upstream flow disturbance. Four sample ports were
installed. Traverse points were laid out in a 4 by 5 matrix to
provide a total of 20 traverse points. Figure 4-2 is a diagram
of the test site and traverse point locations. Again, the number
of traverse points selected was based on the total test time
allowed by the Method 25 sample train and the rationale presented
above. Each traverse point was sampled for 2-1/2 minutes for a
total test time of 50 minutes.
if
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 160, August 18, 1977.
H.A. Hanson, R.J. Davini, J.K. Morgan, A.A. Iverson. Fluidyne.
Particulate Sampling Strategies for Large Power Plants Including
Nonuniform Flow. EPA-600/2-76-170, June 1976.
2
Traverse Point Study. June 1977. Entropy Environmentalists,
Inc., P.O. Box 12291, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27709. 18 p.
P.G.W. Hawksley, S. Badzioch, and J.H. Blackett. Measurement of
Solids in Flue Gases. The British Coal Utilization Research
Association. Leatherhead, Surrey, England, 1961.
4-2
-------
ROOF LEVEL
-15 in.
DRYER DISCHARGE
SIDE VIEW
0.8 ft
SAMPLE PORTS
-24 in.-
o o o o o
SAMPLE PORTS
ROOF
LEVEL
DRYER DISCHARGE
FRONT VIEW
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION
24 in.
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
^•^ ^^™
0 '
o
o
0
o
^M— *••
o
0
o
0
o
MM, MH
o
o
0
o
o
15 in.
SAMPLE PORTS
TRAVERSE
POINT NO.
1
2
3
4
5
LOCATION IN DUCT,
INCHES
2.0
5.0
8.0
11.0
14.0
Figure 4-1. Inlet test site and traverse point locations.
4-3
-------
ESP
1 3/4 ft
7 1/4 ft
SAMPLE PORTS
o o o o
-20 in.-
I.D. FAN
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION
20 in.
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
0000
o o o o
- —.,— —— -
SAMPLE PORTS
24 in.
TRAVERSE
POINT NO.
1
2
3
4
5
LOCATION IN DUCT,
INCHES
2 5/8
7 3/8
12 1/4
17
21 3/4
Figure 4-2. Outlet test site and traverse point locations.
4-4
-------
4.2 GAS STREAM FLOW RATE, TEMPERATURE, AND COMPOSITION
Gas stream flow rate and temperature were measured before
each test using the procedures described in EPA Method 2*. Dur-
ing each particulate test, an integrated bag sample was collected
and analyzed by orsat analysis to determine the oxygen and
carbon dioxide content. Method 3* sampling and analytical pro-
cedures were used.
Gas stream velocities were measured with an S-type pitot
tube and an inclined draft gauge manometer. Temperatures were
measured with a calibrated thermocouple and digital potentiom-
eter.
Calculations and results for velocity traverses are shown in
Appendix A. Equipment calibration procedures and results are
presented in Appendix E.
4.3 PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSION TESTS
Hydrocarbon and particulate sampling were conducted simul-
taneously by means of a method that combined Methods 5* and 25**.
In conducting these tests, the gas stream was sampled isokinet-
ically using the standard Method 5 procedures described in the
Federal Register*. The Method 25 sample was extracted from a tee
at the back of the Method 5 filter. A shutoff valve was placed
between the Method 5 and 25 sample trains to enable the operator
to leak check each section separately.
For each test, three complete particulate traverses were
made. A Method 25 sample was extracted during each traverse.
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 160, August 18, 1977.
**
Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 194, October 3, 1980.
4-5
-------
Method 5 impinger contents were recovered after the third tra-
verse and analyzed for organic and inorganic condensibles with
ether-chloroform extraction. Impingers were rinsed first with
distilled water, then with acetone to ensure complete recovery of
the condensed organics. The Method 5 filters and probe rinses
were not recovered until both tests were completed.
The following leak check procedures were used in conducting
the sampling:
1. Prior to each traverse, the Methods 5 and 25 sampling
trains were leak checked separately before they were
connected. The pretest leak check of the combined
system was conducted with the shutoff valve to the
Method 25 sample tank closed. This was necessary to
prevent loss of tank vacuum prior to sampling.
2. The posttest leak check was conducted with the shutoff
valve between the Method 25 condensate trap and the
Method 5 filter closed. This procedure was necessary
to prevent loss of material collected in the condensate
trap. Methods 5 and 25 sample trains were thus leak
checked separately after each traverse.
For analysis, the Method 5 filters were desiccated to a
constant weight and then weighed on an analytical balance to
within 0.1 mg. The probe and front half of the filter holder
were rinsed with toluene after completion of the testing.
Toluene rinses were shipped to the Emission Measurement
Branch laboratory for analysis. The impinger contents were
rinsed with distilled water and acetone. The distilled water
rinse and the impinger contents were analyzed for organic and
inorganic condensibles by ether-chloroform extraction. After
separation, the organic and inorganic fractions were dryed,
desiccated to a constant weight, and weighed on an analytical
4-6
-------
balance. The acetone rinse was treated in the same manner as the
ether-chloroform extract. The condensible material from the
acetone rinse was added to the catch from the ether-chloroform
extract to determine the total organic condensibles.
Method 25 samples were collected by drawing the sample gas
from the back of the Method 5 filter through a dry-ice condensate
trap by means of an evacuated sample tank. A constant sampling
rate of 85 ml/min was maintained throughout the test.
The sample tanks were analyzed by injecting the contents
into an analyzer that separates the nonmethane organics from CO,
CH., and C0_; oxidizes organic compounds to CO-; reduces the CO-
to methane; and measures the resulting methane with a flame
ionization detector (FID). Condensate is recovered by completely
oxidizing the trap contents, then reducing the C02 to methane for
measurement with the FID. The total nonmethane organic content
is the sum of the trap and tanks fractions.
A complete description of the sampling and analytical pro-
cedures is contained in Appendix D. Calculations including gas
velocity data are shown in Appendix A. Field and laboratory data
sheets are presented in Appendices B and C, respectively. Equip-
ment calibration procedures and results are shown in Appendix E.
4.4 GAS STREAM ISOPROPANOL CONTENT
During each test period, gas samples were collected and
analyzed for isopropanol content. Samples were collected in
evacuated stainless steel tanks using an 0.635-cm O.D. stainless
4-7
-------
steel probe line. A stainless steel needle valve was placed be-
tween the tank and probe line to control the sampling rate.
In the laboratory, the sample tanks were pressurized with
nitrogen, and the contents were injected into a gas chromotograph
with an FID for analysis. Calibration standards of isopropanol
in air were made by injecting known quantities of isopropanol
into stainless steel tanks similar to those used for sampling.
A precolumn packed with 10 percent methyl silicone oil was
used to prevent the heavy molecular weight ink solvent from
bleeding into the separation column and FID. Thus, only the
alcohol and light hydrocarbon fractions were quantified with the
FID.
In calculating the isopropanol concentrations, peaks re-
sulting from all light hydrocarbons were summed. In the press
dryer, some chemical reactions may occur with the isopropanol.
Thus, it was assumed that all light hydrocarbons observed were
the result of the isopropanol reactions and therefore should be
included with the measured isopropanol. Appendix C of this
report contains all laboratory data and example chromatograms
to show those peaks which were summed.
Field data for the isopropanol sampling are shown in Appen-
dix B. Calculations and results are presented in Appendix A.
4.5 PROCESS SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Printed Signatures
During the testing at the Lehigh Steck-Warlick Company,
signature samples were collected and analyzed for residual ink
4-8
-------
solvent content by means of a soxhlet extraction procedure sug-
gested by a GATF laboratory study. Signature samples were col-
lected at the beginning, middle, and end of each test run. Each
sample consisted of about 25 signatures. Signature samples were
wrapped in oil-free aluminum foil to prevent solvent loss during
shipment to the PEDCo laboratory. Unprinted paper samples were
collected and shipped in the same manner; extracted, and analyzed
as blanks.
At the PEDCo laboratory, the top and bottom portions of
each sample pack were discarded. At least one whole signature
(about 30 to 40 g of paper) from the center of the sample pack
was then shreaded and loosely packed in a soxhlet apparatus. No
attempt was made to evaluate the percent ink coverage on the
signature, and no attempt was made to separate lightly covered
areas of the signature from the more heavily covered areas.
The material was then subjected to a four hour soxhlet
extraction using nanograde pentane. Approximately 350 ml of
pentane were used for each extraction. After extraction, the
pentane extract was concentrated by evaporating the pentane at
room temperature. The concentration step reduced the volume of
pentane extract to about 10 ml. Unprinted paper was extracted
by the same procedure.
Extracts were analyzed with a gas chromatograph and flame
ionization detector (FID). The FID was calibrated with standards
of ink solvent in pentane. Extracts from paper blanks were
analyzed to located and eliminate from consideration those GC
4-9
-------
peaks which were attributable to the extractable content of the
paper itself. Signature extracts were then analyzed, and the
ink solvent content was quantified by comparison to the FID
response of the solvent calibration standards.
The instrument used for analysis was a Perkin-Elmer 990 gas
chromatograph with a flame ionization detector. The following
GC conditions were used:
Column: 4 ft x 1/8 in. O.D. nickel, packed with 3% SP2100
on 100/120 mesh supelcoport
Temperatures: Injection port: 350°C
Manifold: 350°C
Column: Ambient, hold 3 minutes then program
to 325°C at 12°C/min
Carrier gas: Nitrogen at 30 cc/min
Process Ink Samples
Samples of the process ink were obtained from the manufac-
turer, the Sun Chemical Corporation, and analyzed for density and
percent volatile content by means of the procedures specified in
Reference Method 24*. These procedures are ASTM Method D-1475-60
for density and D-2369-81 for percent volatiles. The procedure
for percent volatiles involves heating the sample for 1 hour at
110°C. In addition, samples were also analyzed by means of an
alternate procedure suggested by printing industry representa-
tives in which the samples were heated for 3 hours at 110°C. To
determine the relationship between heating time and the measured
percent volatiles, samples were also analyzed by heating for 4-,
5-, and 6-hour periods. Percent volatile content appears to
level off after 5 hours of heating.
Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 194, October 3, 1980.
4-10
-------
All results are included in this report. Laboratory data
are shown in Appendix C.
Fountain Solutions
During each test, samples of the fountain solutions, recir-
culating barrel contents, and makeup alcohol were collected to
determine the percent isopropanol in each. The isopropanol
content in each was determined by specific gravity measurements
taken with a hydrometer. Laboratory results are presented in
Appendix C.
4-11
-------
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality assurance is an important facet of stack sampling
because the end goal of testing is to produce representative
emission results. Quality assurance guidelines provide detailed
procedures and actions necessary for defining and producing
acceptable data. Three documents were used in this test program
to provide the required guidance to help ensure the collection of
acceptable data and to define data quality that is unacceptable.
These documents were the EPA Quality Assurance Handbook Volume
III (EPA-600/4-77-8276), the draft PEDCo Environmental Emission
Test Quality Assurance Plan, and the PEDCo Environmental Labora-
tory Quality Assurance Plan. The last two documents are PEDCo's
general guideline manuals that define the company's standard
operating procedures followed by the emission testing and labora-
tory groups.
More details on the Quality Assurance procedures are pro-
vided in Appendix F. Included in Appendix F are details on
quality assurance objectives, data reduction procedures, quality
control checks, performance and system audits, preventative
maintenance, precision, accuracy, completeness, corrective actions,
and quality assurance reports to management.
5-1
-------
Routine standard reference method quality control procedures
were followed throughout this test program. Included in the
standard procedures are the following:
0 Calibration of field sampling equipment. Calibration
procedures and results are described in detail in
Appendix E. All equipment used met established EPA
requirements.
0 Train configuration and calculation checks. Calcula-
tions from preliminary data were checked on site by the
EPA Task Manager. This procedure verified that iso-
kinetic sampling rates and gas flow rate and moisture
data were acceptable before further testing was con-
ducted. Onsite calculation sheets are included with
field data in Appendix B.
0 Onsite quality assurance checks such as sample train,
pitot tube, and orsat line leak checks. In addition to
standard procedures, PEDCo performed the following
checks during this test. Dry gas meter calibrations
were checked on site by means of EPA calibrated criti-
cal orifice No. 174. One meter was found to be 13.3
percent off the expected volume and was not used for
any testing. The two meters that were used for the
testing were 2.5 and 4.6 percent off the expected
volume through the critical orifice. Acceptable limits
for this calibration check are +5 percent of the ex-
pected volume. Data sheets for the field meter box
checks are in Appendix B with the field data.
Thermocouples were checked on site against a mercury-
in-glass thermometer on each day of testing. All
thermocouples were within 1.5 percent of the absolute
temperature indicated by the reference thermometer.
0 Use of designated sampling equipment and analytical
reagents. Sampling equipment is described in Appendix
D. Blank analytical data for the reagents used in
sampling are shown along with the laboratory results in
Appendix C.
0 Lab analysis procedures.
0 Internal and external audits to ensure accuracy .in
sampling and analysis.
5-2
-------
Sampling equipment, reagents, and analytical procedures
for this test follow and meet all guidelines established for
Methods 5* and 25**.
*
**
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 160, August 18, 1977.
Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 194, October 3, 1980.
5-3
------- |