Post on 06-Jul-2016
In July 1997, South-
ern California’s
South Coast Air
Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)
amended one of its
cleaning rules, Rule
1122, to significantly
limit the amount of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that could
be used in the cleaning agents employed in
batch loaded cold cleaning (BLCC) operations.
The new requirements became effective on Janu-
ary 1, 1999.
Rule 1122 also gave companies the option of
using airless/airtight degreasers. In addition, the
rule exempted some specialized types of opera-
tions, but this exemption is due to expire in Jan-
uary 2003. The exemption covers BLCCs with
open-top surface areas of less than one square
foot, or with a capacity of less than two gallons,
if the equipment is used for certain types of oper-
ations, including high-precision optics and aero-
space applications.
Many different types of solvents have been
widely used in BLCC operations; the most com-
mon include mineral spirits, toluene, xylene, iso-
propyl alcohol, and terpenes. In addition to their
classification as VOCs, some of these solvents
pose toxicity problems.
In response to the rule change, a number of
companies within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction con-
verted to water-
based cleaners by
the January 1999
deadline. However,
many others did not
know what alterna-
tives would work
effectively for them.
This article
describes a project undertaken by the Institute for
Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) to help
companies convert their BLCC operations to
non-solvent alternatives.
IRTA and PPCThe Institute for Research and Technical
Assistance is a nonprofit organization estab-
lished in 1989 to assist companies in adopting
alternatives to solvents in cleaning, coating,
adhesives, and paint-stripping applications.
IRTA runs and operates the Pollution Preven-
tion Center (PPC). The mission of the PPC is to
help companies implement low- and non-sol-
vent technologies. IRTA and the PPC provide
pollution prevention technical assistance to
individual firms, and also work with whole
industries on tests and demonstrations of new
and emerging technologies.
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 19
© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/tqem.10050
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf
Alternatives to VOC andToxic Solvents in BatchLoaded Cold Cleaning
Converting to water-based
cleaners
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf20 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
The BLCC Conversion Project IRTA and several members of IRTA’s PPC were
concerned that companies might need assistance
to convert from the VOC solvents traditionally
used in BLCC operations. By demonstrating that
conversions were possible for companies affected
by the 1999 deadline and the soon-to-expire Rule
1122 exemptions, IRTA and PPC believed they
could provide useful guidance for other compa-
nies considering conversions. PPC members pro-
vided funding for IRTA to assist companies in
converting away from VOC solvents.
During the project, IRTA worked with eight
firms that represented a range of different activi-
ties and company types; the companies all adopt-
ed alternative cleaners.
Based on their experi-
ence, IRTA prepared
case studies that could
be used by similar
companies, or by com-
panies with similar operations, as examples of suc-
cessful conversions.
In an earlier project sponsored by the
SCAQMD, IRTA had helped two additional com-
panies convert to alternative cleaners in their
BLCC operations; information on these two con-
versions is also included in this article. A few of
the companies included here decided to make an
early conversion to an alternative cleaner, even
though their operations were covered by the Rule
1122 exemption.
The results of the project described here indi-
cate that water-based cleaners are a viable alter-
native to the VOC solvents used in BLCC opera-
tions. The water-based cleaners offer an overall
advantage from the standpoint of human health
and environmental impacts. In addition, they
generally cost no more than VOC solvents, and
often are actually less expensive.
There are thousands of BLCC operations in
the South Coast Basin, in a wide variety of com-
panies. The businesses highlighted here represent
a sample of the many types of BLCC operations.
The companies that participated in this project
ranged in size from large to very small, and
included many different industries, from
machine shops to aerospace contractors.
Regulatory Background In California, there are a variety of regulations
that affect the conversion to water-based cleaning
processes, and they influence company practices.
Key regulations, and the handling practices they
affect, are discussed below.
Cleaner VOC Content The SCAQMD was the first air district in Cal-
ifornia to pass a regulation requiring conver-
sion away from VOC solvents in batch loaded
cold cleaning. The regulation, Rule 1122, on
Solvent Degreasers, was substantially amended
in 1997.
The amended rule required BLCCs to use
cleaners that have a VOC content of 50 grams per
liter or less; higher-VOC-content cleaners could
be used in airless/airtight degreasers. Most BLCCs
had to comply with the rule by January 1999. The
SCAQMD later amended the rule again to reduce
the VOC content of cleaners even further, to 25
grams per liter.
One other air district in California, the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, has
recently passed a regulation similar to Rule 1122.
Other air districts in California are also consider-
ing similar regulations.
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over a four-
county area in Southern California that includes
the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
and San Bernardino. In 1998, there were several
thousand BLCCs in the South Coast Basin that
relied on VOC solvents. The SCAQMD estimated
that Rule 1122 would lead to a VOC emissions
reduction of about 40 tons per day.
Water-based cleaners are a viablealternative to the VOC solventsused in BLCC operations.
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 21Alternatives to VOC and Toxic Solvents in Batch Loaded Cold Cleaning
The third method of disposal applies if the
spent bath is nonhazardous waste and meets the
applicable discharge standards. In this case, com-
panies can seek permission from the POTW or
sanitary district to discharge the spent bath peri-
odically. If the volume of the discharge is small
enough, the company may not be required to get
a discharge permit.
The fourth method of disposal is to treat the
spent cleaning bath in an evaporator. This type
of treatment will probably require an air district
permit. If the bath is hazardous waste, the treat-
ment will also require
a DTSC tiered permit
from a local Certified
Unified Program
Agency (CUPA). If the
bath is evaporated
and recondensed, and
the recovered water is
used on-site, no tiered permit is required. In
addition, if the spent bath is not hazardous
waste, no tiered permit is required.
Disposal of Oil Products, Filters, and Sludge Some water-based cleaning systems are
equipped with oil skimmers or other oil removal
devices. The oil removed from the bath can be
taken off-site by an oil recycler. Oil recyclers can-
not legally accept spent filters if they are classi-
fied as hazardous waste.
The sludge that remains from the evaporation
process may be classified as hazardous waste. Oil
recyclers cannot legally accept this sludge if it is
classified as hazardous. The filters and sludge, if
they are hazardous waste, can be shipped off-site
by a licensed hazardous waste transporter.
Water-Based Cleaners for Batch Loaded ColdCleaning
Numerous water-based cleaning formula-
tions are being offered for BLCC operations that
Disposal of Spent Water-Based Cleaning Baths Many of the water-based cleaning systems
offered today include oil skimmers and filters,
which extend the bath life of the cleaner. Even-
tually, however, the spent cleaning bath will have
to be changed out. The frequency of changeout
depends on contaminant loading, the oil-rejec-
tion capability of the cleaner, and the methods of
oil removal that are employed.
Some spent water-based cleaning baths, when
they require changeout, may meet the discharge
standards set by the local publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTW) or sanitary district. But oth-
ers will have high concentrations of oil and
grease and/or metal that exceed discharge stan-
dards. In addition, some of the spent cleaning
baths may be considered hazardous waste under
the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA); others may be classed as hazardous
only by California standards. Still others might be
nonhazardous waste.
There are several methods for disposing of
spent water cleaning baths. The first method is to
ship the spent cleaner off-site as hazardous or
nonhazardous waste. If the bath is nonhazardous
waste, it can be taken by any firm that uses
appropriate disposal methods. If the bath is haz-
ardous waste, it must be picked up by a licensed
hazardous waste transporter, typically at a higher
cost. The waste must be stored in a properly
labeled hazardous waste container. In most cases,
the allowed accumulation time is 180 days,
which applies after the generator has accumulat-
ed 100 kilograms of hazardous waste.
The second method of disposal relies on using
a wastewater treatment system to treat the spent
bath before discharge. In order to exercise this
option, the firm must obtain permission from the
local POTW or sanitary district. If the spent bath
is hazardous waste, treatment will require a tiered
permit from California’s Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC).
Some of the spent cleaning bathsmay be considered hazardous wasteunder the federal Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act.
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf22 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
currently use VOC solvents. These cleaners usu-
ally contain surfactants or builders, with addi-
tives like rust inhibitors as appropriate. Some of
the cleaners contain solvent additives; com-
mon solvents added to water-based cleaners are
terpenes, glycol ethers, and alcohols. Water-
based cleaners do not require solvent additives
to be effective, however. In fact, some of the
most effective cleaners in this sector have no
solvent added.
With some of the equipment being sold in
this sector, workers’ hands contact the cleaner.
When this is the case, the cleaner will damage
the skin if it has a high pH. Thus, in hand-con-
tact systems, cleaners that are neutral or only
slightly alkaline are more suitable.
Some water-based cleaners emulsify the oil
and grease, while others are designed to reject it.
Cleaners that reject oil
are generally more
practical; the oil and
grease float on the sur-
face of the bath, and
can be removed with
physical methods like skimming. The cleaning
formulation will have a much longer bath life
and will be less costly if it is designed to reject oil
and grease.
Water-Based Parts Cleaning Equipment The companies that participated in the proj-
ect described here converted to a variety of water-
based and no-clean alternatives. The equipment
used by these companies for their water cleaning
processes spans the whole range of equipment
available. Commonly used cleaning systems are
discussed below.
Sink-on-a-Drum Units The most basic type of parts cleaning unit is a
sink-on-a-drum. This type of unit consists of a
sink mounted on a drum that has a fluid capaci-
ty of between about 15 and 40 gallons. The unit
contains a heater, a pump, a faucet, and a brush
applicator. Water cleaner is added to the unit, and
heated to about 105 degrees F. A neutral cleaner
generally is used in these units because they
require hand contact. The units can be construct-
ed of metal or plastic.
The sink-on-a-drum configuration is used by
enzyme cleaning systems, which rely on an
enzyme cleaning formulation and microbes to
clean parts; the microbes biodegrade the oil that
is removed from parts. One advantage of an
enzyme system is that the bath may not require
changeout at all.
Immersion Parts Cleaners Immersion parts cleaners are somewhat larger
than sink-on-a-drum units. The difference
between this type of unit and the sink-on-a-drum
is that the immersion system has a false sink that
can be removed, and a reservoir that is accessible
for cleaning or soaking.
Immersion/Agitation Units Some immersion units are simply large tanks
that are used to soak parts in a water cleaner,
while others use agitation of various types. For
instance, in the so-called agilift systems, parts
are placed on a platform that moves up and
down. This motion generates flushing that
removes contaminants. Other types of immer-
sion units may have water jets that propel the
water cleaner in different directions to achieve a
flushing motion.
Spray Cabinets Spray cabinet cleaning units operate by spray-
ing and/or flushing high-pressure cleaning for-
mulation in an enclosed cabinet. The parts to be
cleaned are placed inside the cabinet, generally
on a platform. Spray nozzles are positioned to tar-
get specific areas of the parts. These units often
Water-based cleaners do notrequire solvent additives to beeffective.
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 23Alternatives to VOC and Toxic Solvents in Batch Loaded Cold Cleaning
from solvent to water-based cleaning systems.
Three of the companies are traditional machine
shops: S&H Machine Inc., Honemasters Inc., and
Orange County Screw.
Three are commercial manufacturers or
rebuilders that used solvent BLCCs as part of their
operations: Southern California Valve, Adams
Rite, and Deltronic.
Four are aerospace companies that manufacture
or rebuild aerospace parts: Litton Guidance & Con-
trol Systems (now part of Northrop Grumman);
Fortner Engineering; EMCO Fluid Systems; and
Industrial Tectonics Bearings.
The case studies included below provide infor-
mation on the solvent
systems each company
used in the past, and
the alternative systems
they adopted. The case
studies also summarize
and compare the costs
to the facilities of using solvent BLCC systems and
alternative systems.
Burbank Machine Shop Adopts Water-BasedCleaning Process
Conversion Reduces Overall Cost S&H Machine Inc. is a small machine shop in
Burbank with 13 employees. The company is a
job shop that machines parts made of alu-
minum, stainless steel, and carbon steel. Many of
the parts are complex, with blind holes and
threads. S&H Machine’s primary customers are
aerospace subcontractors.
For many years, the company used mineral
spirits for cleaning parts. On one side of the
shop, there are 21 stations where operators
machine parts. After the parts were machined,
the workers cleaned them in coffee cans that
contained solvent. The parts were allowed to
soak for a time; then the worker removed them
use an alkaline cleaner, which is heated to
between about 140 and 200 degrees F.
Spray cabinets generally are made of metal,
and can be loaded from the top or the front. The
liquid capacity of these units can range from 20
to hundreds of gallons, depending on the size of
the parts to be cleaned.
Spray Conveyorized Systems These systems, like spray cabinets, rely on
high-pressure spray to clean parts. The systems
have a conveyor belt that moves the parts
through spray modules. Some units have several
modules, including a pre-wash, a wash, and two
rinses. Systems may spray the parts both above
and below the conveyor, and the spray pressure
can be higher than 100 psi. The higher-end sys-
tems include a dryer.
Ultrasonic Cleaning Units Ultrasonic cleaning relies on cavitation ener-
gy generated by ultrasound. Basically, tiny bub-
bles are formed which provide the mechanical
action to “scrub” parts. Ultrasonic systems have a
generator that produces sound waves, and a set of
transducers in the cleaning tank that convert the
sound waves to mechanical energy.
Ultrasonic systems can have one simple
wash bath, or several baths. Some systems are
automated. This type of system is most effective
for cleaning parts that have complex geometries
and passages.
Case Studies Between 1999 and 2001, IRTA staff worked
with several facilities, assisting them in convert-
ing to alternative cleaning systems. Eight of the
case studies described here reflect this technical
assistance work; two others cover facilities that
made earlier conversions.
The case studies represent a range of different
types of facilities that have made the transition
Between 1999 and 2001, IRTA staffworked with several facilities,assisting them in converting to
alternative cleaning systems.
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf24 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
from the coffee can and blew off the excess sol-
vent with compressed air.
On another side of the shop, two five-gallon
batch loaded cold cleaners were used to final clean
many of the parts. The parts were dipped in the
tank and allowed to soak for a time. The worker
then removed them from the tank and blew them
off individually to remove excess solvent.
In 1998, IRTA began work with S&H Machine
to assist them in converting from mineral spirits
to water-based cleaning processes, in response to
the SCAQMD’s modification of Rule 1122. S&H
Machine was affected by the rule change because
their coffee cans and five-gallon containers were
classified as batch loaded cold cleaners.
The alternative to reducing VOC solvent
use—installing airless/airtight degreasers—was
very expensive. As a result, S&H Machine decided
they would work to implement water cleaning
processes. “We were very skeptical of water-based
cleaning at first,” says David Fisher, manager and
vice president of S&H Machine. “We thought
water cleaners would rust the parts and we didn’t
think they would clean as well.”
IRTA arranged for S&H Machine to test two
water-based cleaning units. One was a 30-gallon
Gray Mills sink-on-a-drum supplied by Applied
Cleaning Technologies (ACT), which was intend-
ed to substitute for the coffee cans. The other was
a small ultrasonic cleaning unit made by Western
Sonics, which was used to test the parts cleaned
in the five-gallon containers for final clean.
After a few months of successful testing, S&H
Machine decided to purchase the Gray Mills unit.
They also purchased seven additional 15-gallon
Gray Mills sink-on-a-drum units for use at the 21
workstations. For the final clean area, the compa-
ny purchased a two-bath ultrasonic unit. The
wash and rinse baths each hold 30 gallons.
IRTA and S&H Machine tested a few different
water-based cleaning formulations to identify
one that was suitable for removing all of the oils
used by the company and encountered in the
cleaning process. IRTA encouraged the company
to use one cleaning formulation for all the parts
cleaners and the ultrasonic cleaning unit. That
way, when the ultrasonic wash bath required
changeout, it could be used in the parts cleaners,
which could tolerate a dirtier cleaning agent.
The company settled on a neutral cleaner
called Power Clean Scrub Tub, made by ACT. “We
needed a neutral cleaner for both applications so
the workers’ hands would not be damaged in the
parts cleaners,” says David Fisher.
The Gray Mills unit did not need changeout
even after it had been operating for six months.
The ultrasonic unit, which is used for final clean,
will probably require changeout more often—per-
haps every two months.
Mr. Fisher has been persuaded that water-
based cleaning is effective for S&H Machine’s
parts. “We like the new water cleaning systems.
They are better for the workers than the solvent
and better for the environment,” he says. “The
surprise is that the water-based cleaners are
slightly less costly than the solvents.”
Job Shop Converts to Water-Based Cleaners Honemasters Inc. is a small machine shop with
seven employees located in Huntington Beach, Cal-
ifornia. The company is a job shop that provides a
honing service to aerospace and commercial com-
panies, including medical device manufacturers.
Annual Cost Comparison for S&H Machine
Mineral Spirits Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $2,081 Cleaner Cost $2,525 $398 Rust Inhibitor Cost - $66 Oil Dilution Solvent Cost - $594 Electricity Cost - $1,419 Labor Cost $3,900 $1,560 Disposal Cost - $187 Total Cost $6,425 $6,287
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 25Alternatives to VOC and Toxic Solvents in Batch Loaded Cold Cleaning
Honemasters owns a parts cleaner now, pur-
chases the water cleaning agent, and contracts for
hauling of the oily wastewater. Based on results
from the testing period, the parts cleaner will prob-
ably have to be changed out once a month. Under
this assumption, the cost of the cleaner is now $100
per month and the hauling fee is $55 per month.
The electricity cost is higher with the water-based
parts cleaner because the cleaner is heated.
Honemasters has found the conversion to be a
minimal change for its operations. “I didn’t think
it would be so easy to change from solvent to
water cleaning,” says Mr. Sylvester. “We got rid of
the solvent, which is good for smog and the work-
ers, and we have a very effective cleaning system
that is lower cost than the solvent system.”
Screw Machine Company Converts to Water-Based Cleaner
Plant Manager Designs New Basket Orange County Screw Products Inc. is a small
company with 15 employees located in Anaheim,
California. The company, which has been operat-
ing in the same location since 1968, makes 300 to
400 different types of automatic screw machine
parts for diverse applications, including music,
automotive, and aerospace.
For many years, Orange County Screw used
two large 25-gallon tanks of mineral spirits to
clean the oil from parts after they came off the
machines. The workers put the parts in large bas-
kets that were shaken repeatedly in the solvent.
Honemasters processes many different types
of substrates, including stainless steel, titanium,
aluminum, beryllium, copper, and inconel. Stain-
less steel and titanium make up the majority of
the substrates that are received by the company.
The company has six machine stations where
workers hone the parts. In the past, each station
had a one-gallon container of mineral spirits. The
workers honed the parts and cleaned the oil from
them between honing operations. The company
also had a mineral spirits parts cleaner that was
used in the final clean operation.
IRTA began working with Honemasters as part
of a batch loaded cold cleaning project sponsored
by Southern California Edison and IRTA’s other
Pollution Prevention Center partners. In the
beginning, Gary Sylvester, the owner of Hone-
masters, was skeptical that water-based cleaners
could be used in place of the mineral spirits.
IRTA arranged for the company to test a
water-based parts cleaner that was supplied by
Applied Cleaning Technologies of Los Alamitos.
Over a three-month period, two different water-
based cleaners were tested in the parts cleaner.
Mr. Sylvester immediately liked the way the
water-based parts cleaner worked, and he decided
to purchase it. “The workers found the cleaner to
be very effective right from the start,” he says.
“We take heated solution from the parts cleaner
in the morning and fill up the batch loaded cold
cleaners at the honing stations. We use the parts
cleaner for the final clean.”
Honemasters previously used a service that
provided the mineral spirits and the parts clean-
er. The service charged the company $117 per
month for 30 gallons of mineral spirits and lease
of the parts cleaner. The service also charged $91
per month for hazardous waste disposal. Mr.
Sylvester indicates that workers used to spend
about three hours per day in cleaning, and that
the conversion to the water-based cleaner has not
changed the labor time.
Annual Cost Comparison for Honemasters Inc.
Mineral Spirits Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $100 Cleaner Cost $1,404 $1,200 Electricity Cost $60 $120 Disposal Cost $1,092 $660 Total Cost $2,556 $2,080
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf26 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
The parts were blown off with compressed air,
and sometimes stored for a month or two before
they were processed further.
Orange County Screw used a service that pro-
vided the solvent, changed out the baths regu-
larly, and disposed of the spent solvent. The
company also purchased some solvent from
another supplier.
Walter Fleck has been the plant manager at
Orange County Screw almost since the company
was started up. He knew about the SCAQMD rule
amendment that required companies to convert
away from VOC solvents, and had strong con-
cerns that the company would not be able to
find a water-based cleaner that cleaned without
rusting parts.
IRTA began working with Orange County
Screw to assist the company in identifying, test-
ing, and implementing a suitable alternative
water-based cleaning system. IRTA arranged for
the company to test a parts cleaner, which they
used for a few months.
The company decided to purchase an auto-
mated Kleer-flo agilift system with oil removal
capability. While they waited for the system to be
built, they used a parts cleaner with an oil
removal system.
Orange County Screw eventually installed the
new agilift system, and is using an alkaline water-
based cleaner that works very effectively. The
workers place parts to be cleaned in baskets on
the machine’s platform; the platform is lowered
into the liquid and agitated for a few minutes.
When the parts come out of the cleaning unit,
they are dipped in rust inhibitor and blown off
with compressed air.
The workers like the new water-based clean-
ing system much better because its automated
feature saves them substantial time and labor. “By
switching to the water-based system, we cut our
cleaning labor requirement by more than half,”
says Walter Fleck. The spent cleaner requires
changeout about once a month, and the compa-
ny has contracted with a hazardous waste hauler
to dispose of the spent cleaner.
According to Mr. Fleck, the new system cleans
well and works faster than the solvent did. Labor
requirements have been reduced from an average
of about five hours per day to two hours per day.
“I designed a new basket for a certain type of rod
we make,” says Mr. Fleck. “Instead of cleaning the
rods individually one-by-one, the workers can
clean many of them in the basket at once. While
the machine is cleaning, they can go do other
things,” he says.
“We were skeptical at first, but the water-
based cleaner works really well,” says Mr. Fleck.
“The owner is pleased because it’s lower cost than
the solvent system.”
Santa Fe Springs Company Converts to WaterCleaning System
Reduces Labor Cost and Saves Money Southern California Valve Maintenance is
located in Santa Fe Springs. The company repairs
valves used in petrochemical and power genera-
tion plants. They perform field service work and
repair many of the valves in-line.
Some of the valves the company repairs are
very large; most of these large valves are made of
carbon steel. They come to Southern California
Valve heavily contaminated, often with caked-
Annual Cost Comparison for Orange County Screw
Mineral Spirits Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $980 Cleaner Cost $941 $713 Servicing Cost $1,206 - Electricity Cost - $2,535 Labor Cost $8,750 $3,500 Disposal Cost - $1,296 Total Cost $10,897 $9,024
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 27Alternatives to VOC and Toxic Solvents in Batch Loaded Cold Cleaning
chase a spray cabinet that is big enough to han-
dle the very large valves the company repairs.
During the testing, Bill Bowker was impressed
with the effectiveness of the unit’s cleaning abili-
ty. “The spray cabinet was able to clean the parts
quickly and effectively,” he says.
Southern California Valve installed the spray
cabinet, and has been operating it successfully.
The unit has an oil skimmer, and Mr. Bowker has
indicated that the wash bath will probably have
to be changed out every four months.
The new system saves the workers a lot of
time. “We knew the new system would save time.
It’s also saving us money,” says Mr. Bowker. “It’s
great when we can do the right thing for the envi-
ronment and also reduce our costs.”
Santa Ana Company Converts to Water Cleaner
Workers Prefer the Water Unit Deltronic is a mid-sized company located in
Santa Ana. The company makes precision meas-
urement devices that they sell to manufacturers
for meeting tolerance criteria. They also run a
commercial job shop.
Deltronic makes ring gages for checking the
tolerance of bolts, as well as plugs to check the
tolerance of threads. The company manufactures
plugs and gages of all sizes, and all the parts are
made of steel. In addition to their main mission,
the company also performs job shop work for
customers of various types.
In the past, Deltronic used solvent for all of
their cleaning needs. Then a few years ago, the
company purchased and installed an ultrasonic
system that uses an alkaline water-based cleaner.
The system is used for removing lapping com-
pound from many of the plug gages that are
processed during manufacture. Says Bob
Larzelere, president of Deltronic, “We’re happy
with the ultrasonic unit. It reduced our solvent
use significantly.”
on crude oil, sludges of various kinds, heavy oil,
and solids.
Before the valves can be repaired, they must
be cleaned. According to Bill Bowker, the general
manager at Southern California Valve, “The
valves are very dirty when they come to us. We
need a reliable and aggressive cleaning system to
handle them.”
For several years, Southern California Valve
leased a mineral spirits-based agilift parts cleaner
from a large service provider. Most parts were
cleaned in the agilift for two hours to loosen con-
taminants. Even with this long cleaning cycle,
the parts did not get very clean.
When the SCAQMD amended Rule 1122 to
require low-VOC cleaners, Southern California
Valve leased another agilift system. It was similar
to old unit, but used a water-based cleaner
instead of solvent.
IRTA began work with Southern California
Valve as part of the project sponsored by IRTA’s
Pollution Prevention Center partners. The com-
pany was not satisfied with the water cleaning
system they were using. “It moved up and down
but it didn’t clean our parts at all,” says Mr. Bowk-
er. “The workers called it a floshing machine.”
IRTA assisted Southern California Valve in testing
alternatives and selecting a different system.
After testing various types of cleaning equip-
ment, Southern California Valve decided to pur-
Annual Cost Comparison for Southern California Valve
Mineral Spirits Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $2,119 Cleaner Cost - $715 Servicing Cost $3,000 - Electricity Cost - $1,140 Labor Cost $2,730 $273 Disposal Cost - $480 Total Cost $5,730 $4,727
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf28 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
In the job shop area, Deltronic has grinding,
turning, and milling operations. For many years,
the company relied on several dip tanks and bread
pans, along with a centralized parts cleaner. They
used mineral spirits for all of the cleaning.
IRTA began work with the company to assist
them in identifying and testing an alternative
water-based cleaning system. IRTA arranged for
the company to test a water-based parts cleaner.
The workers liked the system, and the com-
pany purchased a sink-on-a-drum water-based
parts cleaner. All of the workers in the area use
the water-based cleaner. One of the workers
stated that “the water system works just as well
as the solvent and we like it. It feels good on
our hands.”
The water-based parts cleaner is changed out
every three months. When mineral spirits was
used, the system had to be changed out every
month. Even though the water-based cleaning
system uses more electricity, the company real-
ized a savings from the conversion.
Says Kevin Smith, manufacturing manager at
the company, “We’re glad we can do the right
thing for the environment and save money at the
same time. Our cost was reduced by 41 percent.”
Pomona Company Moves and UpgradesCleaning Operation
In early 2000, Adams Rite Manufacturing
moved into a new 95,000-square-foot facility in
Pomona. Previously, the company had leased a
68,000-square-foot facility in City of Industry.
Adams Rite has two product lines. The com-
pany manufactures architectural hardware and
power modulating controls, such as hydraulic
components for buses and trucks.
The architectural hardware made by Adams
Rite must be visually pleasing. The components
are made of brass, bronze, stainless steel, and alu-
minum. The company polishes the parts. Then
they are cleaned and painted with a clear coat.
The power controls are made of steel. Adams
Rite uses a contractor to plate them with zinc,
and the parts are cleaned prior to coating.
In the past, Adams Rite used a vapor degreaser
for cleaning parts. A few years ago, the company
converted away from their vapor degreasing sol-
vent. The degreaser was modified to work as a large
250-gallon batch cleaning unit. Adams Rite used a
heated formulation that contained d-limonene, a
VOC solvent, for cleaning all of the parts.
Adams Rite management wanted to convert
away from the VOC solvent to a fully water-based
cleaning system when they opened their new
facility. It was important to the company to have
a cleaning system that would allow for growth
and production increases. IRTA worked with the
company to test a conveyorized cleaning unit for
cleaning their parts.
The process proved successful, and Adams
Rite purchased a conveyorized unit from Trek
Industries in Azusa. The cleaning system has a
wash bath, an isolation chamber, two rinse baths,
and a dryer.
The d-limonene cleaning agent was much
more expensive than the water-based cleaner the
company adopted. In addition, the d-limonene
bath was changed out once every three weeks; the
water-based cleaner requires changeout only
twice a year. The longer bath life of the water-
based cleaning system reduced costs even further.
Because the new system is conveyorized,
Adams Rite has reduced its labor costs related to
cleaning. With the d-limonene system, the worker
Annual Cost Comparison for Deltronic
Mineral Spirits Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $100 Cleaner Cost $960 $288 Electricity Cost $60 $120 Disposal Cost - $ 96 Total Cost $1,020 $604
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 29Alternatives to VOC and Toxic Solvents in Batch Loaded Cold Cleaning
1968. Fortner repairs aircraft components, includ-
ing hydraulic flight controls, actuators, and link-
ages. The company repairs parts for aircraft man-
ufactured by Boeing and Douglas, and counts
many airlines among their customers.
Prior to 1998, Fortner used a vapor degreaser
with 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) to remove
heavy oil, grease, and Skydrol hydraulic fluid
from aluminum, steel, stainless steel, bronze, and
titanium parts from the field. The company also
performs dye penetrant inspections to verify that
the parts are not cracked prior to repair. The
vapor degreaser was used to clean the parts before
and after inspection.
IRTA worked with Fortner to identify, test, and
implement alternatives to TCA, an ozone depleting
substance, so the company could stop using the
vapor degreaser. Fortner purchased and installed a
spray cabinet and an ultrasonic cleaning system
using water-based cleaners. This allowed the com-
pany to eliminate the vapor degreaser.
Fortner was still using petroleum solvent
(Tolusol) in batch loaded cold cleaners in four
other operations in their facility. Because the
company repairs hydraulic flight controls, they
were temporarily exempt from the requirement
to convert their BLCC operations to low-VOC
cleaners. That exemption was due to expire in
2003, however.
IRTA began working with Fortner to assist the
company in identifying, testing, and implement-
ing alternative cleaners for their BLCC opera-
tions in the assembly area, the shipping and
receiving area, the lapping and honing area, and
two final hydraulic testing areas. IRTA arranged
for the company to test two parts cleaners that
used neutral water-based cleaner, as well as a
small ultrasonic system on wheels with an alka-
line cleaner that could be transported through-
out the facility.
The parts cleaner worked well in the assem-
bly area and in the shipping and receiving area.
devoted about three-fourths the time to cleaning.
With the increased throughput of the new system,
cleaning labor was reduced to about half the time.
According to Norm de Guzman, a manufac-
turing engineer at Adams Rite, the labor savings
have been substantial. “With the old system, our
operator spent about 30 hours per week cleaning
parts. The same operator only spends about 20
hours a week cleaning parts with the new system,
even with a production increase of about 20 per-
cent,” he says.
The cost of the d-limonene system is roughly
the same as that of the water-based cleaning sys-
tem, even though the company purchased new
cleaning equipment. Says George Burge, manufac-
turing engineering manager, “We reduced our use
of chemicals, which is good for our employees, we
eliminated our VOC emissions from the cleaning
operation, and we lowered operating costs. The
new cleaning system works well for us.”
Aerospace Company Converts Away fromSolvent
Lapping Area Is Most Challenging Fortner Engineering, a small family-owned
company in Glendale, was established in 1958. In
1998, the company had 45 employees; today the
company has grown to 60 employees.
The company has been a licensed Federal Avi-
ation Administration (FAA) repair station since
Annual Cost Comparison for Adams Rite
d-Limonene Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $9,265 Cleaner Cost $6,257 $2,688 Electricity/Gas Cost $391 $8,200 Labor Cost $27,000 $18,000 Maintenance Cost $600 $1,112 Training Cost - $7 Total Cost $34,248 $39,272 Production Adjustment (20%) $41,098 $39,272
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf30 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
The neutral cleaner, made by Applied Cleaning
Technologies of Los Alamitos, was especially
effective in removing the Skydrol hydraulic fluid
on many of the parts. The company has now
purchased and installed two plastic parts clean-
ers for these areas.
The ultrasonic water-based cleaning system
also worked very well in the lapping and honing
area. It was effective in removing the lapping
compound from the “slides” and “sleeves” that
must fit together tightly in hydraulic systems.
The company has purchased a small ultrasonic
system that they are fitting up with a filter for use
in the lapping area.
According to Jim Fortner, vice president at
Fortner Engineering, the system is effective. “The
water-based cleaner cleans some of our parts bet-
ter than the solvent did,” says Mr. Fortner.
Fortner is also testing a stainless steel parts
cleaner in their two final hydraulic testing areas.
The parts cleaner works well in the final cleaning
operation. The company plans to purchase two
stainless steel parts cleaners for these areas in the
near future.
“We could have kept cleaning with solvent for
a few more years because of the exemption in the
rule for hydraulic systems,” says Jim Fortner. “We
decided we should begin testing and convert
early so we didn’t have to worry about the dead-
line. In a few months, we’ll be completely out of
solvent. It’s better for the environment and for
our workers,” he says.
Valencia Aerospace Subcontractor ConvertsAway from Solvent
Additional “Crock Pot” Testing Planned EMCO Fluid Systems occupies three buildings
in Valencia. The company contracts with Boeing
and Lockheed to manufacture aircraft hydraulics,
valves, and actuators.
Like other aerospace contractors, the compa-
ny has deburring, honing, lapping, grinding,
final assembly, and testing operations. The parts
they manufacture are made of various sub-
strates, including stainless steel, aluminum, tita-
nium, and steel. As part of manufacturing and
assembly, the parts are cleaned at various stages
in the process.
For many years, the company relied on a
petroleum-based solvent to meet their cleaning
needs. EMCO had several parts cleaners, as well as
a number of small and large batch loaded cold
cleaning units containing the VOC solvent.
IRTA began working with EMCO to assist the
company in testing and adopting alternative
water-based cleaning systems. Says Nate Welch,
vice president of manufacturing at EMCO, “We
want to be good citizens in our community. We
wanted to find water cleaners that worked well
for our operations.”
IRTA arranged for the company to test a water-
based parts cleaning system and a spray cabinet.
The systems worked well, and EMCO purchased
eight parts cleaners that are used in the deburring
and honing operations, as well as a spray cabinet,
which is used in the final assembly area.
John Zavadil of Applied Cleaning Technolo-
gies provided the test units and cleaners. “We
tested a neutral cleaning agent for the parts
cleaners because the workers’ hands contact the
formulation,” he says. “For the spray cabinet, we
used an alkaline cleaner.”
IRTA is conducting additional testing with
EMCO for the lapping area. Hydro-Aire, another
Annual Cost Comparison for Fortner Engineering
Tolusol Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $2,544 Start-Up Cost - $400 Cleaner Cost $5,280 $4,096 Electricity Cost $389 $1,345 Disposal Cost $2,800 $700 Total Cost $8,469 $9,085
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 31Alternatives to VOC and Toxic Solvents in Batch Loaded Cold Cleaning
ITB must clean bearings a number of times as
they go through the process. Cleaning is required
for both unassembled and assembled bearings in
order to remove a diverse range of contaminants,
including quench oil, machining oil, coolant,
chips, and lapping compound. The assembled
bearings are especially difficult to clean.
For many years, the company used a mineral
spirits solvent for cleaning parts. ITB primarily
relied on agilift systems containing the mineral
spirits in several areas of the plant. IRTA began
working with ITB a few years ago to assist them in
identifying, testing, and implementing water-
based cleaning alternatives.
IRTA arranged for ITB to test equipment in
their facility, and also performed extensive test-
ing to identify water-based cleaners that were
suitable for their operations. ITB has converted to
water-based cleaning systems in eight of their
operations, and plans to convert one last opera-
tion in the near future.
For two operations, the company installed
heaters in the agilift systems they already owned;
water-based cleaners are now used in these sys-
tems. For a third area, the company purchased a
large heated agilift system secondhand.
For another three areas, ITB tested and pur-
chased three water-based parts cleaners. In the
heat treat area, ITB purchased a very large agilift
system that uses a water-based cleaner for remov-
ing quenching oil. Finally, for the refurbishing
area, ITB purchased a large spray cabinet that uses
a water-based cleaner.
In the beginning, ITB was skeptical that water-
based cleaners could work without rusting the
parts. Says Trevor Boardman, the manufacturing
engineering manager at ITB, “We modified some
of our equipment and we purchased new systems.
We’re very happy with the water-based cleaners.
They work very well in all the applications.”
The workers like the new water-based cleaners
as well. According to one worker, “The heated
aerospace contractor, is using crock pots in their
lapping operation. IRTA and EMCO are planning
to test a neutral water-based cleaner in a heated
crock pot to determine whether EMCO could use
the process during lap fitting. The company is also
planning to continue testing alternatives for some
of their final assembly handwipe operations.
Says Phil Peterson, an EMCO employee who
works in the lapping area, “We all like the water
cleaning systems. We didn’t think they would
work, but they’re effective on our parts. They’re
also better on our hands.”
Rancho Dominguez Company Converts EightCleaning Operations
Industrial Tectonics Bearings Corporation
(ITB) is located in Rancho Dominguez and has
150 employees. The company manufactures bear-
ings of all kinds for commercial and aerospace
applications. This includes ball bearings, roller
bearings, and integrated bearing assemblies. In
addition to manufacturing new bearings, ITB also
refurbishes bearings brought back from the field.
During manufacture, the company performs
numerous operations, including deburring,
grinding, lapping, heat treating, electroetching,
assembly, and inspection.
Nearly all of the bearings manufactured and
processed by ITB are made of carbon steel. In
many cases, the bearings are plated with cadmi-
um. The largest bearings currently manufactured
by the company are 42 inches in diameter.
Annual Cost Comparison for EMCO Fluid Systems
Solvent Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $2,379 Cleaner Cost $4,366 $2,718 Electricity Cost Increase - $950 Labor Cost $136,500 $116,025 Maintenance/Service Cost $5,800 $330 Disposal Cost $8,137 $4,654 Total Cost $154,803 $127,056
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf32 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
cleaners feel good on my hands and they clean
really well.”
IRTA and ITB analyzed the cost of four opera-
tions where the company converted from miner-
al spirits to water-based cleaners, and one small
inspection operation where the company con-
verted to acetone from mineral spirits. Even
though the company purchased a number of new
cleaning systems, the cost of the water and ace-
tone cleaning operations are slightly less than the
cost of the mineral spirits cleaning operations.
Says Mr. Boardman, “We wanted to do the right
thing for the workers and the environment, and
the cost of cleaning didn’t increase. We reduced our
labor requirements in the refurb area and the work-
ers are pleased with all of the new systems.”
Litton Converts Away from VOC Solvents Litton Guidance & Control Systems is located
in Woodland Hills, California. Since the work
reported here was completed, Litton has become
part of Northrop Grumman.
The company makes laser-based guidance sys-
tems for space applications. The optical compo-
nents must meet stringent performance specifica-
tions, and cleaning is a major part of the operation.
The company historically used ozone deplet-
ing solvents (CFC-113 and 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
or TCA) for their cleaning. Litton began work sev-
eral years ago on alternatives when production
bans on ozone depleting substances were
announced. All of their operations were convert-
ed away from CFC-113 and TCA, primarily to
VOC solvents and water-based cleaners with high
concentrations of VOC solvents.
When the SCAQMD amended Rule 1122 with
respect to batch loaded cold cleaning operations,
Litton was significantly affected since it had
many operations that used VOC solvents.
IRTA began work with Litton in 1998 to assist
the company in evaluating their processes and in
adopting low- and non-VOC cleaners so they
could comply with the January 1999 deadline.
Says Gary Augeri, a member of the technical staff
at Litton, “Our operations might have been cov-
ered by one of the exemptions in Rule 1122, so we
could have continued to use the VOC solvents.
Litton Manufacturing Management wanted to set
an example and we decided to make a commit-
ment to switch away from these solvents.”
Litton Optics Manufacturing has now con-
verted virtually all cleaning processes in its frame,
substrate, and prism operations away from VOC
cleaners. For frame manufacture, wax was used to
plug the frame bores to prevent lapping com-
pound from entering the internal bores.
Litton eliminated a cleaning step that
employed n-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) by using
plugs with O-rings to block the frame bores as a
physical barrier to the lapping compound. The
lips of the plugs are now sealed with adhesives,
which are removed with a Liquinox detergent.
Epoxy is used to bond the frames to holding
fixtures during lapping and polishing. In the past,
NMP was used to remove this epoxy. Very hot
detergent is now used to separate the frame from
the fixture. The thermal expansion difference
between the glass part and the metal fixture caus-
es the debonding.
In the substrate operation, pitch was used to
hold the mirror substrates to mounting blocks
during lapping operations. NMP, methanol, and
methylene chloride were used in the past for
cleaning. Litton now uses thermoplastic instead
Annual Cost Comparison for ITB
Water-Based/Solvent Acetone
Cleaning Cleaning
Equipment Cost - $2,069 Cleaner Cost $7,349 $4,729 Electricity Cost Increase - $2,069 Labor Cost $5,200 $1,300 Disposal Cost $1,438 $2,975 Total Cost $13,987 $13,142
Environmental Quality Management / Autumn 2002 / 33Alternatives to VOC and Toxic Solvents in Batch Loaded Cold Cleaning
percent to 65 percent. In some cases, the cost sav-
ings were significant.
Companies in California are concerned about
rising energy costs. Water-based cleaning systems
do require more energy use than solvent cleaning
because the water-based cleaners are heated and
they are often used in equipment that is more
energy intensive.
A few of the companies discussed here (S&H
Machine, Fortner, and Litton) are located within
the jurisdiction of the Department of Water and
Power; these companies probably will not experi-
ence an increase in energy costs. The remaining
seven companies are located in the service territo-
ry of Southern California Edison; they could see
energy cost increases of 50 percent in the future.
IRTA analyzed the effects on six companies of
an energy cost increase of 50 percent. Litton was
not included in this analysis since the company
did not report energy costs. Some of the compa-
nies had electricity costs related to cleaning when
they used solvents. If these companies had con-
tinued using solvents, the energy costs associated
with the solvent use would also increase. In only
two cases—Adams Rite and ITB, where the costs
for use of solvents and water-based cleaners were
already comparable—would the cost of using
water-based cleaners exceed the cost of using sol-
vents. Thus, even a very large increase in energy
costs of 50 percent does not change the conclu-
sions of the analysis dramatically.
The results of the cost analysis indicate that
most companies will reduce their costs by con-
verting from solvent to water-based processes in
batch loaded cold cleaning operations. In some
cases, the costs of using solvents and water-based
cleaners will be comparable; in a few instances,
company’s costs will increase.
IRTA did not quantify other benefits compa-
nies might realize from the conversion, such as
insurance cost reductions or worker satisfaction.
If these potential benefits are taken into account,
of pitch for this bonding. Acetone is currently
used to dissolve most of the thermoplastic; this is
followed by a soak in a water-based detergent.
In the prism operation, wax is used to bond
the prisms to mounting blocks for lapping and
polishing. A terpene-based cleaning process was
used to dissolve the wax and clean the parts. Lit-
ton has converted to a water-based cleaner for
this cleaning process.
All of the parts are put through a final clean,
either with hot water alone or with hot water and
detergent. In some cases, ultrasonics are neces-
sary to achieve the required cleanliness.
“The new processes work very well,” says Mr.
Augeri. “In some cases, we were able to use dif-
ferent materials in our processes and could avoid
cleaning altogether. In other cases, we could sub-
stitute water-based cleaners. We found we don’t
have to rely on solvents for getting the cleanli-
ness we need. The new water-based cleaners are
better for the environment and for our workers.”
Discussion of Cost Analysis Exhibit 1 summarizes the cost comparison
for solvents and water-based cleaners for all of the
companies that converted their cleaning opera-
tions and that were included in the cost analysis.
In all cases except one, Fortner, the compa-
nies reduced their costs through the conversion.
Fortner’s costs increased by approximately 7 per-
cent, a fairly modest increase. The cost savings for
the remaining nine plants ranged from about 2
Annual Cost Comparison for Litton Guidance &Control Systems
Solvent Water-BasedCleaning Cleaning
Cleaner Cost $36,130 $2,760 Materials Cost
(Thermoplastic & Pitch) $2,000 $12,000 Disposal Cost $5,130 $405 Total Cost $43,260 $15,165
Mike Morris and Katy Wolf34 / Autumn 2002 / Environmental Quality Management
it is likely that all companies would benefit from
the conversion.
Summary and Conclusions In 1997, the SCAQMD amended Rule 1122.
The amendment required companies with batch
loaded cold cleaners to use cleaning agents that
had a VOC content of 50 grams per liter or less,
or else purchase an airless/airtight cleaning sys-
tem. The rule requirement became effective in
January 1999. The SCAQMD later reduced the
VOC limit even further, to 25 grams per liter.
Many companies in the South Coast Basin
have converted to water-based cleaners in order to
comply with the rule provisions. But many others
have had difficulty identifying water-based clean-
ing systems that are appropriate for their opera-
tions and that are reasonably cost-effective.
The project discussed in this article involved
working with facilities in Southern California that
used solvents in batch loaded cold cleaners for
cleaning parts. IRTA provided technical assistance
to these companies to help them identify, test, and
implement water-based cleaning alternatives that
were suitable and fit well with their processes.
Companies that were the focus of this project
included three machine shops, three commercial
manufacturers, and four aerospace companies.
IRTA analyzed and compared the cost to the
companies of using the solvent systems and the
water-based cleaning systems. Most of the com-
panies had to invest in new equipment to use the
water-based cleaners.
The cleaning costs for one of the companies
increased after the conversion to water-based
cleaners. The costs of the remaining nine facilities
were lower by 2 to 65 percent. The results of the
cost analysis for this diverse range of companies
confirms that it is generally cost-effective for com-
panies to convert from solvent systems to water-
based cleaning systems, even though the compa-
nies generally have to purchase new equipment.
This project involved developing case studies
for each of the companies assisted. These case
studies include descriptions of the old solvent
systems and the new water cleaning systems,
along with a summary cost analysis.
The case studies should provide useful infor-
mation to other companies that are still using sol-
vents in batch loaded cold cleaning operations.
They can offer guidance as to which systems
might be most suitable for their operations.
Exhibit 1. Annual Cost Comparison for All Companies
Company Solvents Water-Based Cleaners
S&H Machine Inc. $6,425 $6,287Honemasters Inc. $2,556 $2,080Orange County Screw Products Inc. $10,897 $9,024Southern California Valve Maintenance $5,730 $4,727Deltronic $1,020 $604Adams Rite Manufacturing Co. $41,098 $39,272Fortner Engineering and Manufacturing Inc. $8,469 $9,085EMCO Fluid Systems $154,803 $127,056Industrial Tectonics Bearings $13,987 $13,142Litton Guidance & Control Systems $43,260 $15,165
Mike Morris is a scientist and project manager at the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) in Santa Mon-ica. Katy Wolf is executive director of IRTA.