Safer Products That Work Cleaners and Degreasers for Auto Repair State/Community Hazardous Material Source Reduction Jane Paulson October 25, 2017 Minnesota Technical Assistance Program • Mission Statement: Strengthening Minnesota businesses by improving efficiency while saving money through energy, water, and waste reduction • Based in the University of Minnesota School of Public Health • Confidential, free and non-regulatory • Staff of 12 scientists and engineers with 30 years assisting business through: • Site assessment visits • Intern Program • Company team facilitation • Demonstrations & research projects • Minnesota Materials Exchange • Website, fact sheets & case studies Why Industrial Maintenance and Automotive Repair? • Most businesses perform degreasing for equipment maintenance or production processes • 7,738,000 lb VOC emissions from area sources in MN • 5% of Industrial/Commercial VOC emissions • Common methods • Aerosol degreasing cleaners • Manual parts washers What is “better”? • Does the product work? • No Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP’s) • Low Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) • Low Ozone Generator (lbs.O3/lbs.product) • Minimize MN Chemicals of Concern • Do a comparison! How do I find safer products? • TURI – Check out their Cleaner Solutions Database • Look for reputable labels: • EPA’s Safer Choice Label • Green Electronics Council - EPEAT • USDA Organics Product Comparison – SDS Information • Product A • Product B • VOC Content: 100% • VOC Content: ??? • HAP Content: 34.72% • Specific Gravity: 0.728 • Section 2: Ingredients • Section 2: Ingredients Hydrotreated Light Naphtha 64742-49-0 30-60% Xylene 1330-20-7 10-30% Acetone 67-64-1 50-70% Propane 74-98-6 10-30% Heptane-branched, cyclic and linear 426260-76-6 30-50% Methyl Alcohol 67-56-1 7-13% Heptane 142-82-5 1-5% Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2-8% Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 5-10% Toluene 108-88-3 <0.1% Product Comparison - Examine Ingredients • Product A Ingredient CAS # Wt %MIR Value Overall MIR Lists Hydrotreated Light Naphtha 64742-49-0 48.28% 1.4** 2.6 Xylene 1330-20-7 21% 7.76 HAP, MnCOC-Respiratory Propane 74-98-6 17% 0.49 Methyl Alcohol 67-56-1 9% 0.67 HAP, MnCOC-Development Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 4.62% 3.04 HAP, MnCOC-Cancer, Development Toluene 108-88-3 <0.1% 4.0 HAP, MnCOC-Multiple **mixed isomers, alkanes, iso-alkanes, BP: 40-60C (104-140F) • Product B Ingredient CAS # Wt %MIR Value Overall MIR Lists Acetone 67-64-1 52% 0.36 0.83 VOC Exempt Heptane-branched, cyclic and linear 426260-76-6 40% 1.47 Heptane 142-82-5 5% 1.07 Carbon Dioxide 64742-52-5 3% 0 Product Comparison – Summarize • Product A • Product B • VOC Content: 100% • VOC Content: 45% • HAP Content: 34.72% • HAP Content: 0% • MIR Value: 2.6 lbs O3/lb • MIR Value: 0.83 lbs O3/lb • Ingredients on HAP, MnCOC lists • Ingredients on VOC Exempt Which products were they? A: 3M High Power B: Parts Master Low-VOC Brake Cleaner #08880 Brake Cleaner #0732 • O’Reilly Non-Chlorinated Brake Cleaner – 72408 • Toluene 30-40% • Methanol 30-40% • Acetone 20-30% • Carbon Dioxide 5-15% • O’Reilly Low VOC Brake Cleaner - 00482 • Heptane 50-55% • Toluene 20-25% • Acetone 15-20% • Carbon Dioxide 0-15% • O’Reilly Ultra Low VOC Brake Cleaner - 46580 • Acetone 80-85% • Heptane 5-10% • Carbon Dioxide 0-15% • Penray Non-Chlorinated • CRC Brakleen 05089 • Gunk M720 • Valvoline 6861046 Brake Cleaner - 4620 • • Perchloroethylene • Acetone 86.21% • Xylene 7-13% Perchloroethylene 90-100% 40-50% • Xylene 5.12% • Toluene 1-5% • Methanol 2.79% • • Dichloromethane • Acetone 30-60% Carbon Dioxide 40-50% • Ethyl Benzene 1.53% 1-5% • Heptane 25-70% • Carbon Dioxide • Carbon Dioxide • Carbon Dioxide 3-7% 1-5% 5.86% Parts Washers • Aqueous parts cleaners can replace solvent based parts washers or other cleaning products. • City of Minneapolis & MPCA are partnering with Safety-Kleen to offer a cost share program for aqueous-based parts washers • Covers 45% of upfront cost and service • Other parts washers we have seen success with include SafeWasher by Cintas, Superclean AP by Cuda and Aqueous-based Solvent-based Ozzy Juice by Chemfree. General Structure of Projects • Introduce the project and get agreement from business to participate • Identify current products and suppliers • Assess products • Identify potential alternative products • Provide samples • Test samples • If company agrees to make a change, provide a case of product to get them started Round 1: Auto repair and industrial maintenance pilot projects • Outreach to MN auto repair and industrial maintenance facilities • Assess product use at industrial/automotive businesses • Identified safer alternatives • Companies trialed grant purchased sample of new product • MnTAP provided hands-on technical support • 23 facilities conducted trials/12 implemented change • 3,030 lbs VOC, 760 lbs HAP, 650 solid waste, $7,470 savings EPA SRA Grant Project X9-00E01322-0 Demonstrating and Trialing Products • Potential replacements have to work for the process! • With trials, observe how the trial product compares to the current product • Time it takes to do the job • Does it leave any unwanted residue? • Can you use the same method? (type of rag, force needed to clean, etc) • Overall, can you achieve the results required for the job? Round 2: Duluth Degreasing Blitz • Air Quality Project for Duluth, Minnesota, EPA “Making a Visible Difference in Communities” • Identified sites using the Mergent Intellect Database and developed a batch-geo road map for accomplishing the site visits. • Needed to be fast due to travel constraints • 50 shops visited in two days • 32 Businesses sampled product, 16 redeemed vouchers, 10 sites implemented change • 1700 Pounds of VOCs, 660 Pounds HAPs EPA CEP Grant Project X9-00E02031 Vendors and Samples • Worked with local suppliers in advance to get buy-in • Advanced Auto Parts • O’Reilly • Auto Value • Put together a product list • Acquired samples • Created vouchers. Blitz Assessments • Quick Intro • University of Minnesota Project on brake cleaners • Offer a free case of brake cleaner. • Goals: • reduce VOCs, chemicals that contribute to air pollution • HAPs, chemicals that can have adverse effects on human health • Collect information • Type of brake cleaner used • Quantity • Preferred vendors • Provide sample product and voucher • Follow up by phone within a month to learn how the safer product worked. Round 3: Phillips Community Small Automotive Businesses • The Phillips community is an area of Minneapolis with high concentrations of environmental impacts. • A MnTAP intern was based at a community partner to work with small businesses. • Partnerships with business groups were helpful in building trust. • Short initial contact • Provide samples after assessment • Quick in-person follow up • Contacted 24 shops • 14 participated, 11 made changes • 430 lbs HAPs, 840 lbs VOCs EPA SRA X9-00E02051 Overall Outcomes • 89 facilities engaged/informed of safer products • 55 facilities conducted trials • 22 facilities implemented change • 4700 lbs VOCs eliminated • 1400 lbs HAPs eliminated • 650 lbs of solid waste by changing to bulk products • $7,740 per year in savings for businesses Key Learning - Engagement • Providing trial product critical to engagement • Community partnerships help build trust • Not easy for facilities to choose safer products • Simple messaging is important • Avoid technical jargon • Focus on human health risks - especially exposure to HAPs • Helpful to explain that sample products have tested positively with other sites • Quick visits are good, showing that you understand their time constraints • Follow-up soon after visit (within 1 week recommended) Key Learning - Formulations • Acetone – the VOC Exempt alternative • There were some complaints about smell and headaches • 50-60 wt% was a threshold where complaints increased • Common that employees don’t use any PPE when degreasing • Avoid HAPs • Toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, and methanol were most common • Adding 5-10% to increase cleaning power in 90% Acetone mixes is still 5- 10% HAPs • Citrus cleaners were not recommended • d-limonene is a VOC, MIR = 4.55, acute aquatic toxicity • Perception is that if it smells like oranges, its okay because its natural • One alternative may not work for every job – partial change is still an improvement Key Learning – Bulk Products • Pressurized streams are preferred at most shops • Benefits • Bulk products are usually much cheaper than aerosol products • Reduce packaging • Eliminate propellants, which also may be VOCs • Obstacles • Often only available in 55 gallon drums • Too much inventory for small businesses • Difficult to transport • May create reporting obligation, hazardous waste generator • Upgrading from bulk cleaner to the safest bulk cleaners is often a big price increase Key Learning - Working with suppliers • It is helpful to get suppliers on board • Suppliers may/may not stock safer products • Education is needed. • Many of the best options are formulated for California. Some suppliers think these products cannot be sold elsewhere. • Pricing and supplier relationships are big • Shops may get a great deal if they have one supplier for all products What’s Ahead- Round 4: North Minneapolis • North Minneapolis is another area with higher than average air quality impacts. • Grant funded by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Plan to work with a variety of businesses, automotive and industrial • Engagements will be by MnTAP staff, with a format similar to Phillips intern project • Preparation in progress now, outreach and trials at businesses planned for late fall 2017-spring 2018. Resources • Webinar and video case studies • http://www.mntap.umn.edu/resources/we binars/ • MnTAP Source Degreasing Issue • http://www.mntap.umn.edu/download/161 /2016-2020/11838/source-2016-issue-1.pdf MnTAP’s Degreasing Busters Minnesota Technical Assistance Program Strengthening Minnesota businesses by improving efficiency while saving money through energy, water, and waste reduction Thank You! Jane Paulson 612-624-1826 [email protected].