Number

013-EN

Section

General Section

Use

Abstract

The document presents five case stories where plating companies using perchloroethylene have substituted it with safer alternatives. Three of the platers were using perchloroethylene (PERC) degreasers to remove non-destructive testing fluids and two were using the degreasers to clean oil and buffing compounds from the parts. Four of the companies substituted PERC with water-based cleaners. One company opted to substitute acetone hand wiping for PERC vapor degreasing. That company uses acetone to remove oil and buffing compound.

Substituted substances

Alternative Substances

Reliability of information

Evidence of implementation: there is evidence that the solution was implemented and in use at time of publication
Evidence of assessment: there is evidence of an official (positive) assessment of the substitution

Reason substitution

CMR

Other type of alternative

Water-based cleaners

Hazard Assessment

Substance to be substituted: Tetrachloroethylene is a carcinogen cat. 2A according to IARC. It is also endocrine disruptor cat. 2 (EU EDC database), as listed in the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC). Alternative substance: Aceton is highly is not listed in the SUBSPORTplus Database. » Check the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC)

Description of Substitution

Many plating companies relied on perchloroethylene (PERC) vapor degreasers to clean their parts prior to plating. Perchloroethylene is considered 4a suspect carcinogen and it is heavily regulated. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) modified one of their cleaning regulations to prohibit the use of PERC open-top vapour degreasers. The Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) received funding from three Pollution Prevention Centre partners to assist small platers in making the conversion away from PERC. During the project, IRTA worked with five platers. Three of the platers were using PERC degreasers to remove non-destructive testing fluids and two were using the degreasers to clean oil and buffing compound from the parts. These applications were perceived to be more difficult than other applications where only oil requires removal. IRTA and the companies participating in the project tested alternative cleaning systems. Four of the companies decided to implement water-based cleaners. Three of these companies now use airlift systems to remove fluids and oil and one uses an ultrasonic system to remove oil and buffing compound. One company opted to substitute acetone hand wiping for PERC vapour degreasing. IRTA analysed the costs of the conversion for three of the facilities. The cost comparison for these facilities demonstrates that, in all cases, it is less costly to use the alternative system. In two cases, the costs were not available for analysis. The companies that made the conversion away from PERC vapour degreasing serve as examples for other companies in California and the U.S. The project demonstrates that small plating shops processing parts made of various substrates that are contaminated with oil, buffing compound and non-destructive fluids can make a successful and cost-effective conversion to safer alternatives.

Case/substitution evaluation

The substitution was successful in eliminating the health risks. In most of the cases the cost evaluation is positive. This case study shows the substitution of a very dangerous substance with a much less dangerous substance. This means that the risk has been reduced, but not eliminated.

Date and place of implementation

2003 in Canada

Type of publication and availability

Freely avaible

Publication source: author, company, institute, year

Michael Morris Katy Wolf Institute for Research and Technical Assistance February 2003

Publication source

Type of publication and availability

https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/01/Alternatives-to-PERC.pdf

Date, reviewed

December 11, 2020