Number

008-EN

Section

General Section

Use

Abstract

Trichloroethylene was used in a plant that manufactures car parts to clean steel parts of the air conditioning and assisted driving systems. Trichloroethylene was replaced by a closed washing system based on soap and water.

Substituted substances

Reliability of information

Evidence of implementation: there is evidence that the solution was implemented and in use at time of publication

Reason substitution

CMR
neurotoxicant
other toxic effects

Other type of alternative

Closed washing process with soap and water

Hazard Assessment

Substance to be substituted: Trichloroethylene fulfils the criteria to be listed in the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC). It is may cause cancer, is suspected of causing genetic defects and causes skin irritation, according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). Alternative substance: Water and soap is not listed in the SUBSPORTplus Database and has no harmonised classification according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). » Check the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC)

Description of Substitution

Trichloroethylene was used in the given section of the plant to clean steel parts. The parts were dipped in a pail that contained the product at high temperature. Steel parts were placed in hanging metal baskets that were immersed in trichloroethylene. After the cleaning process was completed the parts were removed by a plant operator. The operation implied the exposure of workers when they checked the correct development of the process, and especially when the workers had to remove the parts from the basket. The pails were located in a separate area of the department and even though there was an extraction system, trichloroethylene vapours affected the closest workstations. Workers who performed the cleaning operations had personal protection equipment, which they did not use because of its discomfort and because employers did not enforce them wearing it. Safety representatives had had concerns about the use of this product for some time. There had been several cancer cases among senior workers and miscarriages among pregnant women. After filling a formal request demanding the substitution of trichloroethylene, the preventive service replaced it with perchloroethylene, using the argument of its classification only as “possible carcinogen”. The substitution failed as the staff in both sections of the plant reported dizziness, nose bleeding, headaches and other adverse symptoms. Two incidents occurred with cleaning pails in that period. In one case the pail overheated and smoked the whole area. The second incident was a fire due to technical failure that affected the laboratory rooms located above the work sections. The management suggested repairing the pail but safety representatives warned that if they persisted in the use of perchloroethylene they would call for the halt of operations in the affected work stations. The company eventually changed the process and parts are now washed in a pail with soap and water. Technological description The alternative implies the installation of a cleaning machine in each trimming section. The machines use a water-based, non-toxic cleaner (96% distilled water). Aside from its cleaning function the product is also a lubricant/cooler used in trimming processes which eliminates the use of cooling oils from the process. The cleaning machines have a system to separate the oils (from the cutting process) and the metal dust from trimming. This procedure helps extend the product’s useful life period. After use the product is recycled in the trimming process. Additional comments The company did not comply with Carcinogens Directive recommendations: (a) limitation of the quantities of a carcinogen at the place of work (especially by replacement) (b) design of work processes and engineering control measures so as to avoid or minimise the release of carcinogens into the place of work; (c) evacuation of carcinogens at source, local extraction system or general ventilation, all such methods to be appropriate and compatible with the need to protect public health and the environment. Advantages: Risk reduction, cleaner production, use of safer products and better compliance with applicable legislation.

Case/substitution evaluation

Local exhaust ventilation failed to provide the necessary protection for workers’ health (there were several cases of cancer and miscarriages in the company). There was a serious risk for workers’ health and safety related to carcinogens exposure at work and substitution was the best solution to the problem. This case study shows the importance of testing a substitution and how the substitution of a toxic substance by substitution can protect the health of employees by using a non-toxic substance.

State of implementation

Full capacity

Date and place of implementation

2005 in Spain

Availability of Alternative

On the market

Type of information supplier

Research

Date, reviewed

December 11, 2020