Transcript Slide 1
Toxics Use Reduction Institute RI Workshop: Tools for TCE Substitution Hands-On Training from the TURI Lab Jason Marshall – Laboratory Director Heidi Wilcox – Research Associate March 14, 2008 CCRI-Warwick Knight Campus Warwick, RI Funding from EPA Region 1 Workshop Agenda • 8:30 - 9:00 • 9:00 - 9:05 • 9:05 - 9:15 • 9:15 - 9:25 • 9:25 - 9:35 • 9:35 - 10:15 • 10:15 - 10:20 • 10:20 - 12:25 • 12:25 - 12:30 Registration and Refreshments Introduction & Overview Choosing an Alternative Past TCE Work Success Stories from RI Other Resources Available Break Hands-on Cleaning Next Steps Introduction & Overview • • • • • TURI EPA Region 1 NBC RI DEM RI DOH TURI-Lab • www.turi.org/laboratory – Information on cleaning basics – Past projects – Capabilities of lab – Future workshops - projects – Database link • www.cleanersolutions.org Choosing an Alternative • Don’t shift the risk – From worker to environment OR – From environment to worker • Ex. Replacing flammable solvent with a ozone depleting chemical • Want to select a product that is safer for one or the other – Would be best if safer for both What are Indicators at TURI’s Lab? • The lab uses five criteria for screening products – Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – Global Warming Potential (GWPs) – Ozone Depletion Potential (ODPs) – Hazardous Material Information System/ National Fire Protection Association (HMIS/NFPA) – pH Why These Five Indicators? • Worker Health & Safety – VOC, HMIS, pH • Environmental Safety – VOC, GWP, ODP, pH Guidelines VOC content (g/l) 0-24 Good 25-49 Good 50-74 Okay 75-99 Okay 100-149 Okay 150-199 Fair 200-299 Fair 300 Poor >350 Poor GWP Values ODP Values GWP = 0 Good ODP = 0 Good GWP = 1 (CO2) Okay All others = Poor All others = Poor Guidelines pH HMIS/NFPA Point Assessment 0-1.0 Poor H-0 F-0 R-0 Good 1.1-2.4 Poor H-0 F-0 R-1, H-0 F-1 R-0 Good 2.5-2.9 Fair H-1 F-1 R-0, H-2 F-0 R-0 Good 3.0-4.0 Okay H-1 F-1 R-1, H-2 F-1 R-0 Okay 4.1-5.9 Okay H-3 F-0 R-0 Poor 6.0-6.4 Good H-2 F-2 R-0, H-1 F-2 R-1 Okay 6.5-7.5 Good H-1 F-3 R-0 Poor 7.6-8.9 Good H-2 F-2 R-1 Fair 9.0-9.9 Okay H-1 F-3 R-1, H-2 F-3 R-0 Poor 10-11.4 Okay H-2 F-2 R-2 Fair 11.5-11.9 Fair H-3 F-3 R-0 Poor 12-12.4 Poor H-3 F-3 R-1, H-3 F-3 R-2 Poor 12.5-12.9 Poor 13-14 Poor Example Screening Values Product Name Indicator Value Comments Perchloroethylene VOC 1620g/l Poor GWP 0 Good ODP 0 Good HMIS H 2 HMIS F 0 HMIS R 0 pH NA Good Indicator Value Comments VOC 1.1 g/l Good GWP 0 Good ODP 0 Good HMIS H 1 HMIS F 0 HMIS R 0 pH 11.6 Product Name Brulin Formula 815 GD • Solvent Okay Good Okay • Alkaline Aqueous Find a Safer, Effective Alternative • CleanerSolutions Database – Used to identify safer and effective products • Safety Scores – VOC, ODP, GWP, HMIS/NFPA, pH • Matching Performance – Contaminant, substrate, equipment, current solvent CleanerSolutions • How it works - http://www.cleanersolutions.org Search Results Past TCE Work • TURA Work in MA • EPA Grant in MA • EPA Funding in RI TURA Work in MA • SSL Testing (1993-2003) – Worked with 21 companies trying to replace TCE in cleaning applications – A wide range of industries were represented • • • • • • Aircraft Electronics General Mfr Metal working Optical Plating Contaminants Removed • Conducted over 100 experiments • 11 Contaminant types – – – – – Abrasives Buffing Compounds Coatings Fluxes Grease – – – – – – Inks Paints Cutting Fluids Lubricants Oils Waxes Previous Testing for TCE Replacement • Abrasive – 1 Company in semi-conductor industry • Ceramics parts for a company that manufactures parts for the • Buffing compound – 2 Companies • Metal working shop • Light manufacturer – Brass and silver parts • Coatings – 1 Company - tool manufacturing – Steel surfaces – Immersion Previous Testing for TCE Replacement (cont.) • Flux – 1 company manufactured brass bellows – Flux removal • Grease – 2 Companies • Musical instrument manufacture • Tool maker – Brass, ceramics & steel parts – Immersion and/or ultrasonic energy Previous Testing for TCE Replacement (cont.) • Paint/Ink – 2 companies • Ceramic capacitor/electronics manufacturer • Tool maker – Plastic bottles and steel pieces – Immersion • Oil – 8 companies – Steel, carbon steel, stainless steel, aluminum, brass and ceramics – Immersion, ultrasonic and mechanical agitation • Wax – 4 companies • Electronics • Metal working – Aluminum, brass, ceramics, copper, glass and steel surfaces – Manual wiping, immersion and /or ultrasonic energy Summary of Alternatives Testing to TCE • 21 Vendors • 44 Products • 11 Product Types Class # of Products Alkaline Aqueous 23 Caustic 1 Ester 3 HCFC 1 Neutral Aqueous 2 Organic 1 Petroleum Distillate 3 Semi-Aqueous 2 Terpene 5 Terpene-Organic 1 Terpene-Semi-Aqueous 2 EPA Grant to Replace TCE & Chlorinated Solvents • Two year grant - 2003-2005 – Conducted with MA Office of Technical Assistance – Help small companies move away from TCE & chlorinated solvents in vapor degreasing • Work focused on drop-in substitutes – Due to capital investment of large closed looped systems – Gathered EH&S data for • TCE and other chlorinated solvents • The chemical classes of the substitutes for comparisons – Article in Process Cleaning Magazine on Drop In Alternatives • Sept/Oct issue • http://www.processcleaning.com/ SSL Testing (2003-2005) • 8 companies trying to replace TCE/ Chlorinated Solvents in cleaning applications – Six joint site visits by OTA and TURI – Two site visits by TURI • A wide range of industries are represented by these companies – – – – – – – Aircraft Electronics-Ceramic Jewelry Metal working job shops Tool Capacitors Wire & Cable Contaminants Removed • Conducted over 70 experiments • 8 Contaminant types – – – – – – – – Buffing Coating Grease Ink/Paint Mold Release/Silicone Oil Resin/Rosin Waxes Testing for TCE/Chlorinated Solvent Replacement • Buffing compound – Removal had been conducted for brass parts for ornament industry • Coating – Cleaning trials conducted for a metal job shop and a tool manufacturer • Grease – Testing performed for the electronic/ceramics manufacturer • Ink/Paint – Trials run for the electronic/ceramics manufacturer and the tool mfr Testing for TCE/Chlorinated Solvent Replacement • Mold Release/Silicone – Worked with a wire and cable manufacturer • Oil – Testing conducted for a jewelry manufacturer, a capacitor company, aircraft component manufacturer and the tool manufacturer • Resin/Rosin – Worked with a wire & cable manufacturer • Waxes – Testing performed for the electronic/ceramics manufacturer EPA Funding in RI 2006-8 • Workshop Fall 2006 – Worked with 13 companies – On-site testing for 6 • Second Grant 2007-8 – Worked with 4 so far – Plus all of you… Success Stories from RI • Types of Parts Cleaned • IRA Green • Three A’s RI Parts Cleaned Alternative Tested Parts Cleaned Part description Contaminant removed Process US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Brass bracket Buffing compound Ultrasonic US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Brass rifle pin Buffing compound Ultrasonic US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Thin brass buckle Buffing compound Ultrasonic RI Parts Cleaned US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Brass dog tags Buffing compound Ultrasonic US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Carbon Steel dog tags Buffing compound Ultrasonic RI Parts Cleaned US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Brass belt buckle Buffing compound Ultrasonic Buffing compound Low Pressure Spray; Ultrasonic Buffing compound Low Pressure Spray; Ultrasonic Alconox Inc Detergent 8 Hubbard Hall Inc Ultrasoak 127 Alconox Inc Detergent 8 Brass Army pins US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Hubbard Hall Inc Ultrasoak 127 Alconox Inc Detergent 8 US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Brass Army pins RI Parts Cleaned Hubbard Hall Inc Ultrasoak 127 Alconox Inc Detergent 8 US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Brass Army pins Buffing compound Low Pressure Spray; Ultrasonic Brass U.S. Army pins Buffing compound Low Pressure Spray; Ultrasonic Hubbard Hall Inc Ultrasoak 127 Alconox Inc Detergent 8 US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS RI Parts Cleaned Micro Care Heavy Duty Degreser C Kyzen Corporation Metalnox M6960 Brass Parts Buffing compound Vapor Degreasing Warren Chemical Company Sea Wash Blue Steel Parts Oil Ultrasonics US Polychem Corporation Polyspray Jet 790 XS Nickel, Chrome Buffing compound Ultrasonics DuPont Vertrel XP 10 Petroferm Inc Lenium CP RI Parts Cleaned Bio Chem Systems Bio T Max Bio Chem Systems Solsafe 245 Dynamold Solvents Inc DS 104 Kyzen Corporation Optisolv OP 7168 Solvent Kleene Inc D Greeze 500 LO Stainless steel parts Buffing Compound Ultrasonics Ira Green - Background • 270 employees - Products consist of metal pieces for the DoD – Military unaware of TCE use in metal finishing operations • Used 12,500 pounds of TCE in 2004 • When EPA contacted Ira Green, the company was very close to exceeding permit limitations • Already had enforcement action against them by the RI DEM 2003 and 2004 Ira Green – Finding an Alternative • EPA collected parts for TURI to test • Set up a test tank in Ira Green’s facility – Determined that alternative solution works as well as TCE – TURI provided free gallon of alternative solution Ira Green Summary • One product line completely converted to aqueous cleaning • Installed additional soap cleaning tanks in plating area • Have done enough hands on shop floor testing to know they can effectively clean 95-100% of all products • Now working through the logistics, material handling, and queue/work in process issues to make a total conversion • Critical to process – Clean as soon as possible after polishing – Very concerned about drying, watermarks or staining Contact Ira Green • Gary Eich – 401-467-4770 x113 – [email protected] Three A’s - Background • Small, family-owned job shop – 4 employees • Owner wanted to stop using TCE because of associated health risks • Used approximately 55 gallons (~690 pounds)/ year at a cost of about $1000 Three A’s – Finding an Alternative • EPA collected parts for TURI to test • Needed to find an alternative process that would maintain an antique finish on metal parts • An alternative was found that will allow Three A’s to retrofit current degreaser with an immersible transducer, saving money on equipment costs • Switched to a Steam Cleaner – Eliminating TCE from their plant Contact Three A’s • Alfred Mekuto III – 930 Plainfield St, Johnston, RI 02919 – 401-944-8600 Overall TCE Reduction • All Companies from 1993-2008 – – – – 46 companies Used 297,300 lbs Reduced 195,200 lbs 66% • RI 2006-7 – Used 24,500 lbs – Estimated reduction 12,500 lbs – 51% reduction • RI 2007-8 – Used 16,500 lbs – Estimated reduction 11,100 lbs – 67% reduction Other Resources Available • • • • RI DEM NBC RI DoH EPA – How-to-Guide – nPB information • DoD Break • Grab some coffee while we get set up for the fun stuff… Hands-on Cleaning • Product Selection Based On – Contaminant removal – Substrate compatibility – Equipment compatibility • Use CleanerSolutions.org or Vendor Literature Successful Products Previously Tested • Buffing Compound – Magnaflux Daraclean 283 – US Polychemical Polyspray Jet 790 XS – Oakite Inproclean 3800 – Buckeye XL 100 – Matchless Metal Polish Co. MC 132 – Matchless Metal Polish Co. Buffclean 14L, 125L and 175 – Alconox Detergent 8 – Magnaflux Daraclean Kx 43 • Oils – Magnaflux Daraclean 283 – US Polychemical Polyspray Jet 790 XS – Oakite Inproclean 3800 – Brulin Aquavantage 1400 – International Products Surface Cleanse 930 – Warren Chemical Sea Wash Blue Testing Process • Establish Baseline – Measure how effective your current process is – Compare the alternatives • Test the Alternatives – – – – – – Dilutions to use Hot or cold Equipment Time Rinsing Drying Four Phases of Process • Phase 1 Testing Chemistry Only – No mechanical energy • Phase 2 Add Mechanical Energy – Use best cleaners Four Phases of Process • Phase 3 Piloting – Lab Setting – Clean supplied parts using best products • Phase 4 Piloting On-site – Set up cleaning process at your facility and compare directly with current process Next Steps • Sign up for lab testing – Arrange for soils and part pickup • Sign up for on-site testing – Schedule a visit with TURI