Product category:
Materials and components
News Release from: Enviro Tech Europe | Subject: EnSolv
Edited by the Engineeringtalk Editorial
Team on 27 January 2006
Beware of Trike promotion
Derek Carpenter summarises the options open to users of trichloroethylene.
With prevailing issues surrounding the continued use of trichloroethylene (Trike) the same questions seem to arise for users Looking at trends in Western Europe the volume of sales has reduced dramatically
This article was originally published on Engineeringtalk on 27 Jan 2006 at 8.00am (UK)
Related stories
Boeing approves of trichloroethylene alternative
EnSolv 5408, the unique, patented, alternative to trichloroethylene (Trike), has now been listed by Boeing as approved for use under its BAC 5408 requirements.
Vapour degreasing alternative
Alternative to trichloroethane and trichloroethylene is neither an ozone depleter nor a carcinogen and has gained Boeing and Airbus approval on top of critical cleaning performance.
From a starting point in 1998 when 101,000 tonnes were sold the decline by 2003 was to 38,000 tonnes.
With predictions set for 2007 to be below 10,000 tonnes this produces a 90% reduction.
What does this tell us?.
Clearly, there is a mass move away from Trike as users recognise the risk of cancer.
A few years ago, manufacturers of Trike predicted perchloroethylene (Perc) would become the popular alternative to Trike for vapour degreasing.
Further reading
Studies confirm solvent safety
In vitro bioassay studies confirm EnSolv to be a safer alternative to trike.
Solvent Emissions Directive: time for action
Remarkably, as the deadline looms for compliance with the Solvent Emissions Directive (SED), confusion still exists for solvent users.
EU regulation creates pressures
It would be surprising if any business in the manufacturing sector was not being affected by EU Directives, says Derek Carpenter.
I repeat what I said then: what nonsense.
Unless users have an unusual application requiring heat of 121C this is not a suitable alternative.
Consider some common questions.
Latest job opportunities
(Embedded) Electronics Design Engineers - Graduates to Senior
(Embedded) Electronics Design Engineers - Avon Ongoing business growth at this worl leading company has created a number of challenging and rewarding career opportunities to appeal to exceptional Electronics Design Engineers with varying levels of...
Field Service Engineer
Field Service Engineer, Service Engineer, Installation Engineer
Job Title: Field Service Engineer
Area: Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, Berkshire, Home Counties, South East
Salary: up to...
Field Service Engineer (Photocopiers)
Field Service Engineer (Photocopiers)
Job Title: Field Service Engineer, Service Engineers, Copier Engineer
Area: London, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Home Counties, South...
Is it right that my supplier encourages the continued use of Trike?.
I doubt a supplier would admit to encouraging the use of Trike.
The legal position is clear and users must seek a safer alternative.
Suppliers should be discussing other options, generally methylene chloride, EnSolv and Perc.
As a user of Trike it is you who must justify why you are unable to replace Trike.
What legislation must I consider?.
Most people are currently trying to understand the Solvent Emissions Directive (SED).
If you use 1 tonne of Trike per annum (685 litres) you need to understand your obligations.
Two are very clear: first, you must replace Trike in the "shortest possible time"; and secondly ensure no further use without permit beyond 31st July 2008 based on reclassification 6 years earlier (see guidance note on the DEFRA website).
If you are below the 1 tonne threshold you are not required to register with your environment department under this legislation, which originates in 1999 and demands compliance by 2007.
Also, the EU Cancer Directive defines replacement of Trike and overlaps other legislation.
It is unavoidable.
In short, you must move away unless you can argue some unique inability to replace Trike.
Article 7 is not unclear.
Your primary responsibilities to consider are: fitness for use; potential effects on human health and occupational exposure; and potential effects on environment.
My supplier says using drum containment attached to my machine means I gain more time to continue with Trike.
First, ask why the drum might be held in a sealed environment?.
Does it not reinforce what hazards exist?.
You must ask your supplier to fully justify this, as the legal obligations set fall on you.
The risk phrase "may cause cancer" is clear.
You gain no performance benefits.
Handling product is clearly part of essential risk assessment.
However, never become distracted from the most important area of a vapour degreaser to monitor and assess - the open top area of the machine.
Concentrate on this.
It is better to find a way to reduce solvent use.
Enclosing a drum in a sealed environment does nothing for this.
Drum containment was designed primarily for closed systems.
Look at product literature that will likely confirm this.
Ensure proper controls of water cooling and loading and unloading.
These are crucial.
Ask why you might be offered drum containment.
It ties you to the supplier's product and allows price increases in the future into which you will be locked.
Removing the system to resolve this will be problematic.
If you pay for it, you are not likely to ever own it.
Always study the arguments put to you.
As soon as you fit such a system you lose your choices.
Get in writing how this system complies with SED and Cancer Directive legislation.
Never be misled.
A system called Core Unibund is worth considering, as it avoids the pitfalls listed above.
The aim of Core-Chem is to reduce your solvent use, while being responsible about product handling.
How can I avoid misinformation?.
Be alert.
Demand validation.
Confirm things in writing.
Contact an independent specialist in all aspects of surface cleaning.
Don't assume the big companies have the best expertise.
They don't.
Smaller, independent companies with a range of solutions and experience offer more personal attention.
When a supplier spends his time telling you the possible issues of other solvents beware he is not avoiding the existing issues of Trike.
Why has Trike never had a Chemical Hazard Alert Notice (CHAN) issued when other less dangerous solvents have?.
CHANs are only advisory.
They appear in the absence of an established exposure standard.
As Trike has a maximum exposure standard and carries the risk phrase R45 - "may cause cancer", this is considered sufficient to guide users to their obligations.
Meeting legal obligations protects staff, community and our environment.
Trike is disappearing.
Solvent reduction schemes are best.
We are already in the eleventh hour.
Taking responsibility may come at a price but paying a price for irresponsibility should be avoided.
Always get comparative information to ensure you are never misled. Request a free brochure from Enviro Tech Europe ...
• Enviro Tech Europe: contact details and other news
• Email this article to a colleague
• Register for the free Engineeringtalk email newsletter
• Engineeringtalk Home Page
Search the Pro-Talk network of sites
