Alternatives to VOC and toxic solvents in batch loaded cold cleaning

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.


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.


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.


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


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.


Equipment Cost - $100 Cleaner Cost $1,404 $1,200 Electricity Cost $60 $120 Disposal Cost $1,092 $660 Total Cost $2,556 $2,080


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


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


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


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


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


Equipment Cost - $100 Cleaner Cost $960 $288 Electricity Cost $60 $120 Disposal Cost - $ 96 Total Cost $1,020 $604


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


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


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


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


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


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.

Alternatives to VOC and toxic solvents in batch loaded cold cleaning

Documents

Transcript of Alternatives to VOC and toxic solvents in batch loaded cold cleaning