Elimination of Chlorinated Solvent Use in Cleaning: Barriers to Success

Regional Environmental SummitProvidence, RISeptember 28, 2005Presented by: Massachusetts OTA(Grant funded by EPA Region I)

Grant Objectives - Background

Identify current users of TCE – primarily in vapor degreasing cleaning operationsPerform outreach and provide technical assistance Finding alternative cleaning chemistry Compliance with MACT standard

Sponsor workshops focused on green alternatives and MACT complianceAssess reduction of TCE use

Grant Summary

Target smaller business because: May not have information and resources May not have in-house technical expertise

TURI grant recipient – cleaning lab and alternatives chemistry expertiseOTA subcontractor – on-site company assistance in TUR and MACT compliance, process and technology options ID

Outreach - TCE Users

OTA/TURI identified 95 facilities as potential TCE usersList of facilities assembled from EPA Vapor Degreasing MACT standard

notifiers (38) – thought to be in business OTA previously provided TA on chlorinated

solvent use (24) TURI previously provided cleaning lab

services (17) Previous TURA reporter for solvent (16)

Outreach – TCE Users (continued)

Each of the 95 companies received an outreach letter and follow-up phone calls to offer information and assistanceAdditional mailings and telephone campaign to 100’s of other companies in plating, machining and metal intensive industries

Outreach - Outcomes

Dozens of companies received over-the-phone assistance on green alternatives and compliance assistanceApproximately 10 companies received on-site assistance – cleaning chemistry and process technology alternatives and MACT compliance Over 25,000 pounds of chlorinated solvent use eliminated

Participant Survey Conducted at Project Completion

Purpose of survey to identify the obstacles to reducing/eliminating TCE useIdentify what motivates companies to reduce use and implement alternativesMake policy recommendations on how to promote further reductions in TCE use at Massachusetts companies

Companies Targeted for Survey

56 Companies appropriate to contact for survey 21 Companies were contacted by letter

and phone and did not respond 4 Companies wanted to complete survey

in writing and did not return survey 1 Company never used chlorinated

solvent 30 Companies completed the survey

54% completion rate of appropriate companies

Data Organized & Evaluated in Three Categories

Companies that have eliminated chlorinated solvent use (CSU)Companies that have reduced CSUCompanies that have neither eliminated nor reduced CSU

Motivation - Companies that have Eliminated CSU

Regulations (78%)Environmental health and safety (56%)Cost efficiency(22%)Management drivers (22%)Customer requirements (11%)

Obstacles - Companies that have Eliminated CSU

Maintaining quality (78%)Extra process time - alternative system (67%)Additional cost (33%)Employee training needs (22%)Customer requirements (11%)Space of alternative system (11%)Ability to use existing custom equipment (11%)

Motivation – Companies that have Reduced CSU

Cost efficiency (58%)Regulations (50%)Cleaner EH&S policy (33%)Customer requirement (25%)Management drivers (25%)Equipment upgrades needed anyway (25%)

Obstacles – Companies that have Reduced CSU

Maintaining quality (83%)Additional cost (58%)Customer requirement (33%)Employee training needs (25%)Unique process/product (17%)Lack of proven alternative (8%)

Motivation – Companies that have not Reduced or Eliminated CSU

Regulations (56%)Cost Efficiency (44%)EH&S (44%)Customer Requirement (11%)Need to upgrade equipment anyway (11%)Considering outsourcing (11%)

Obstacles - Companies that have not Reduced or Eliminated CSU

Maintain quality (100%)Additional Cost (44%)Lack of proven alternative (22%)Management cooperation (11%)Customer requirement (11%)Unique process/product (11%)Too busy to evaluate alternatives (11%)Process time for new system (11%)Waste management issues (11%)

What’s Next?

Complete analysis and interpretation of data collectedLook for trends - motivation and obstacles to implementation Develop policy recommendations to promote further reduction in chlorinated solvent use in Massachusetts