1 / 16

Elimination of Chlorinated Solvent Use in Cleaning: Barriers to Success

Elimination of Chlorinated Solvent Use in Cleaning: Barriers to Success. Regional Environmental Summit Providence, RI September 28, 2005 Presented by: Massachusetts OTA (Grant funded by EPA Region I). Grant Objectives - Background.

aulii
Download Presentation

Elimination of Chlorinated Solvent Use in Cleaning: Barriers to Success

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Elimination of Chlorinated Solvent Use in Cleaning: Barriers to Success Regional Environmental Summit Providence, RI September 28, 2005 Presented by: Massachusetts OTA (Grant funded by EPA Region I)

  2. Grant Objectives - Background • Identify current users of TCE – primarily in vapor degreasing cleaning operations • Perform outreach and provide technical assistance • Finding alternative cleaning chemistry • Compliance with MACT standard • Sponsor workshops focused on green alternatives and MACT compliance • Assess reduction of TCE use

  3. 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 expertise • OTA subcontractor – on-site company assistance in TUR and MACT compliance, process and technology options ID

  4. Outreach - TCE Users • OTA/TURI identified 95 facilities as potential TCE users • List 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)

  5. Outreach – TCE Users (continued) • Each of the 95 companies received an outreach letter and follow-up phone calls to offer information and assistance • Additional mailings and telephone campaign to 100’s of other companies in plating, machining and metal intensive industries

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

  7. Participant Survey Conducted at Project Completion • Purpose of survey to identify the obstacles to reducing/eliminating TCE use • Identify what motivates companies to reduce use and implement alternatives • Make policy recommendations on how to promote further reductions in TCE use at Massachusetts companies

  8. 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

  9. Data Organized & Evaluated in Three Categories • Companies that have eliminated chlorinated solvent use (CSU) • Companies that have reduced CSU • Companies that have neither eliminated nor reduced CSU

  10. Motivation - Companies that have Eliminated CSU • Regulations (78%) • Environmental health and safety (56%) • Cost efficiency(22%) • Management drivers (22%) • Customer requirements (11%)

  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%)

  12. 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%)

  13. 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%)

  14. 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%)

  15. 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%)

  16. What’s Next? • Complete analysis and interpretation of data collected • Look for trends - motivation and obstacles to implementation • Develop policy recommendations to promote further reduction in chlorinated solvent use in Massachusetts

More Related