SPRING 2002
There are about 50 major commercial furniture strippers in the Southern California area that use equipment for stripping coatings from wood items. There may be as many as 400 companies that strip furniture and other wood items in the course of their business; a number of these businesses deal with antique furniture. Virtually all of these companies have fewer than five employees and are classified as very small businesses.
Nearly all furniture strippers use methylene chloride (METH) strippers for removing coatings. Strippers containing METH are the only ones that can remove the wide range of cured coatings encountered in this industry. METH is a suspect carcinogen and it is regulated stringently by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), by EPA and by the local air districts in California. IRTA has worked with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to test alternative low-METH content strippers and high air flow ventilation systems. Both methods can reduce the worker exposure and the exposure of the residents in the immediate community surrounding the facilities to METH.
All of the attention to date has been focused on reducing exposure in these facilities to METH. Now there is some evidence that furniture strippers and those who live in the community around these facilities may be exposed to lead as well. Lead is a very hazardous substance and lead poisoning can cause severe problems, particularly in children. For many years, lead was used in paints and, although it is generally not used in most coatings today, it remains in the paints applied to surfaces many years ago. Bridges, for example, were often painted with lead based paints and today, when the paint is removed, stringent precautions for collecting the lead must be taken. Some paint also used in older houses may still contain lead and children playing in these houses may ingest the lead which can contaminate food and toys.
Some of the coatings used to paint older furniture and other wood items like doors that are routinely stripped in furniture stripping facilities may contain lead. In 1998, the Occupational Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (OLPPP) of the California Department of Health Services and a county health department examined cases of lead poisoning in six furniture workers. The investigation was prompted when a blood lead test of a worker's child revealed that the child had high lead levels and had been poisoned.
OLPPP visited the shop where the child's father worked. The shop apparently did not perform stripping but was involved in refinishing antique furniture. The furniture that arrived at the shop had been chemically stripped elsewhere. At the shop, four carpenters used power tools like saws, planers and manual and power sanders to repair and smooth the furniture. The workers ate and drank in work areas and used no protective equipment.
The workers and their family members were tested for lead toxicity. All six workers in the shop had elevated blood lead levels and five had levels above the OSHA standard of 40 micrograms per deciliter which requires medical examination and other follow-up activities. Only one of the six family members of the workers had an elevated blood lead level, an infant. The lead was apparently tracked home on the worker's shoes and clothes and the child was exposed.
Some furniture strippers perform only stripping but others strip and refinish the wood items they receive. Other companies, furniture refinishers, repair and refinish the wood items after they have been stripped. Many stripping and refinishing shops process the wood with power tools of various kinds and the workers could be exposed to lead that apparently may remain even after the wood is stripped of the paint. When the power tools or sanders are used on the wood, the lead that remains in the wood can become airborne and can be inhaled by the workers or can be deposited on their clothing and shoes. All of these workers and some of their family members may be in danger.
NIOSH is planning to analyze the lead levels in a few furniture stripping shops in Southern California in the next several months to determine the extent of the problem. NIOSH will monitor the lead levels in the stripper and in the air. If lead is present, NIOSH plans to monitor the worker exposure to the lead.
Methods for avoiding or reducing exposure include adopting good hygiene practices, providing medical examinations for workers, wearing protective clothing, using respiratory protection, implementing dust cleanup measures and arranging for training.
If very high lead levels are found in stripping and refinishing facilities, the lead could also be exposing community members. Lead and lead compounds are listed in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) toxics rules, Rule 1401 and 1402 as Toxic Air Contaminants but no risk values have yet been established.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has scheduled their Governing Board hearing on Rule 1421 "Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems" for May 3. The District held a public consultation meeting on March 27 to present their proposal to the community.
There are an estimated 2,200 dry cleaners in the South Coast Basin. The vast majority, 2,100 of them, use perchloroethylene (PERC) as the dry cleaning solvent. Only one percent of the equipment is converted machines, machines that were originally vented and have been converted to closed loop machines. These machines emit the most PERC. About two-thirds of the PERC machines have only primary controls (a refrigerated condenser) and about one-third have secondary controls (a refrigerated condenser and a carbon adsorber). Emissions from dry cleaning facilities are still fairly high and, because PERC is classified as a suspect carcinogen, they pose a significant risk to the community.
The District is proposing to phase out the use of PERC machines altogether. Within three years of the date the rule is adopted, no converted equipment would be allowed to operate. New facilities and existing facilities that are adding additional dry cleaning equipment must use non-PERC systems beginning on January 1, 2003. Within three years of the date the rule is adopted, all replacements of existing PERC equipment must be non-PERC systems. Also effective within three years of the rule adoption, all PERC equipment that is 15 years old must be replaced with non-PERC systems.
The District's proposed rule would gradually eliminate PERC dry cleaning equipment with only primary control to non-PERC alternatives by December 9, 2013. All PERC equipment would be eliminated by May 3, 2020. The District is designing a financial assistance program for dry cleaners to transition to alternatives.
The District considered a wide range of options in deciding which proposal to bring to their Governing Board. Other options that were considered included replacement of currently used PERC machines with tighter PERC machines. Through risk calculations, however, the District determined that even dry cleaners with the best PERC machines would pose a cancer risk to the community that is higher than 25 in a million. This is the level established as significant in the District toxic rules for existing facilities.
In the end, the District staff made the decision to propose a ban on PERC machines because of the widespread availability of alternative systems. These include wet cleaning, petroleum solvent, volatile methyl siloxane, glycol ether and carbon dioxide systems. Many dry cleaners in the Basin have adopted alternative systems and the cost of some of these systems is comparable to or less than the cost of a PERC system. Because the alternatives are now well demonstrated, the District's proposed ban is very timely.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) will hold their Governing Board hearing on Rule 1168 "Adhesive and Sealant Applications" on May 3. The District has included a few new exemptions in the rule.
Rule 1168 was last amended in September of 2000. At that time, the District adopted major changes to the rule. In several categories, the District reduced the VOC content of the adhesives that could be used. In addition, the District added a prohibition of sale provision that became effective on September 1, 2001.
In the past, many adhesive distributors sold users adhesive formulations that did not comply with the requirements of Rule 1168. The users were responsible for the illegal use of the adhesives and the companies using the adhesives were cited when noncompliant adhesives were being used. The prohibition of sale changed all that. It made the distributors responsible for the illegal activity if they sold adhesives that did not comply with the VOC limits in the rule.
An unintended consequence of the rule was that distributors stopped selling the high VOC adhesives that did not comply with the rule requirements. Instead, they began selling methylene chloride (METH) adhesives that did comply with Rule 1168. Since METH is exempt from VOC regulations, its use in formulations reduced the VOC content. METH is a suspect carcinogen, however, and is regulated by other toxics regulations at the federal, state and local level.
When the September 1, 2001 prohibition of sale went into effect, hundreds of facilities in the Basin began using METH based adhesives. The District became aware of the substitution and decided to amend Rule 1168 to include a prohibition of sale of METH adhesives. The District's Governing Board has adopted strict policies on toxics and has instructed the District staff to regulate toxics in existing rules wherever possible. The rule the District is now proposing includes a prohibition of sale of METH adhesives that would become effective on January 1, 2003.
Some of the adhesive suppliers are opposing the prohibition of sale of METH adhesives. They are claiming that companies in the rest of the U.S. are still using the adhesives so it should be allowed in Southern California. Companies in the rest of the country, in some cases, are using METH adhesives but they are not in compliance with a regulation that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finalized in 1997. That regulation specifies a worker exposure level of 25 ppm and an action level of 12.5 ppm. Companies exceeding the action level must institute a medical surveillance program for their workers and must conduct regular monitoring. None of the vendors can cite examples of companies using METH adhesives that are in compliance with the OSHA standard.
It is not good public policy for companies to continue using METH adhesives. The workers and community are exposed to a carcinogen. This is dangerous for those who are exposed and it can also open company management up to liability. Companies using METH can also be sued under Proposition 65 (see article in this issue). Many companies offer adhesives that comply with the VOC limits and do not contain METH and users should investigate and convert to these alternatives.
The District is proposing two new exemptions in Rule 1168.
The first exemption applies to automotive and marine top and
trim installations; these operations can use adhesives containing
540 grams per liter VOC until January 1, 2003. The second exemption
applies to adhesives used in shoe repair shops, prosthetics and
orthotics.
In Southern California, because of the smog problems, the regulations on solvents classified as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are very stringent. There are a number of chemicals that are exempt from VOC regulations. Chemicals are considered to be VOCs unless they are specifically deemed exempt from VOC regulations by EPA and then by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
There are advantages to using exempt chemicals since they are not covered by VOC regulations. Many exempt chemicals, however, have other problems. Some are classified as toxics, some are ozone depleters and some contribute to global warming. It is important that companies know the problems posed by a chemical when they begin using it. The chemical could be regulated in the future and may not provide a permanent solution for the cleaning activity.
Chemical producers and distributors are aware of the value of offering a chemical that is not classified as a VOC. Over the last several years, when companies begin marketing a new chemical, they often submit a petition to EPA requesting an exemption for the chemical from VOC regulations. If these companies can get their chemical exempted, they can gain a high market share simply on that basis, particularly in Southern California. EPA currently has many chemicals on the petition list; some of the petitions for exemptions were submitted years ago. It often takes EPA several years to evaluate an exemption petition. Sometimes additional data from atmospheric modeling is required. Exemption petitions can become political as well, particularly if the chemical in question poses another problem.
This article discusses several cleaning solvents that are exempt from VOC regulation or that have petitions for exemption pending. Some of these chemicals have other problems and these are identified.
Chlorinated Solvents
Three of the chlorinated solvents, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), methylene chloride (METH) and perchloroethylene (PERC), are exempt from VOC regulation. These solvents have been used in a variety of applications for many years, including cleaning. TCA production has been banned because the chemical contributes to ozone depletion; there is virtually no TCA left in inventory. METH and PERC are classified as suspect carcinogens.
HCFCs
Two hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), HCFC-141b and HCFC-225, are used today in cleaning applications. Virtually all HCFCs are exempt from VOC regulation because they generally have fairly long atmospheric lifetimes. Both HCFCs are ozone depleters and global warming chemicals. HCFC-141b has a high ozone depletion potential and the chemical will be banned at the end of 2002. HCFC-225, which has a lower ozone depletion potential, will not be banned until 2015. The latter chemical is a blend of two isomers, one of which is toxic. The recommended exposure level for HCFC-225 is 50 ppm which is fairly low.
Virtually all companies using HCFC-141b and HCFC-225 can convert to alternatives for cleaning. HCFC-225 is very expensive, in the range of $15 per pound. It is often blended with other VOC solvents to increase its cleaning capability or to enhance cleaning of certain types of soils.
HFC and HFEs
The hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) are exempt from VOC regulations. They contain no chlorine or bromine so they do not contribute to ozone depletion. They do contribute to global warming, however, and may eventually be regulated for that reason.
HFC-43-10 and the HFEs are used in cleaning applications but they are very gentle cleaners. Generally these chemicals are combined with other solvents to increase their cleaning capability. One chemical often used in the blends is 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene (DCE). DCE has not been tested for chronic toxicity but is likely to have high toxicity because of its structural similarity to carcinogens like vinyl chloride, PERC and trichloroethylene (TCE).
The HFC and HFEs and their blends are very expensive, in the range of $15 to $17 per pound. Alternatives are available and are priced much lower.
Acetone
Acetone was deemed exempt from VOC regulations several years ago. The chemical has well known and low toxicity; it has a Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 750 ppm. Acetone is an aggressive solvent and since its exemption, it has been used widely in coatings, adhesives and cleaning. The chemical has two problems. First, it has a very low flash point so it must be used in a manner approved by local fire departments. Second, acetone has a very high vapor pressure and it evaporates quickly; ventilation must be used so workers are not irritated by the smell.
Methyl Acetate
Methyl acetate is similar to acetone in terms of its aggression, its vapor pressure and its flash point. Acetone is lower in toxicity than methyl acetate based on its worker exposure level. Because of this, acetone should be chosen over methyl acetate.
Tert-Butyl Acetate
Tert-butyl acetate or TBAC is not yet exempt from VOC regulations. The petition to exempt the chemical was submitted several years ago. CARB has been opposed to the exemption of TBAC because the chemical forms a metabolite, tert-butyl alcohol, that is a carcinogen. The exemption has become controversial and EPA is still evaluating the petition.
Parachlorobenzotrifluoride
Parachlorobenzotrifluoride or PCBTF has been exempt from VOC regulations for several years. It is being used for repair and maintenance cleaning and also in coatings used by the autobody industry. Occidental Chemical was the only domestic producer of the PCBTF but the company stopped production a few years ago. Today the chemical is being imported to the U.S.
PCBTF has never been tested for chronic toxicity and Occidental recommended an exposure level of 25 ppm. This is a very low level and may signal Occidental's concern about potentially high toxicity. The chemical has a benzene structure with a chlorine substitute which often indicates high toxicity. Another problem is that the imported material may contain free fluorine which could expose workers to hydrogen fluoride, a highly toxic material.
Volatile Methyl Siloxanes
The volatile methyl siloxanes (VMSs) have been exempt from VOC regulations for several years. They are being used in cleaning and dry cleaning. Virtually none of the VMSs has been tested for chronic toxicity but the VMS that is used in dry cleaning is currently undergoing toxicity testing. The manufacturer recommends a worker exposure level of 10 ppm. This is a very low exposure level, even lower than the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration level of 25 ppm for PERC.
n-Propyl Bromide
The n-Propyl bromide (nPB) producers submitted a petition to EPA requesting exemption from VOC regulations a few years ago. The chemical is used widely in cleaning and adhesive applications and is being proposed for use in dry cleaning. nPB contributes to ozone depletion, but minimally. Of more concern is the fact that nPB is a reproductive toxin. It contains a contaminant that is also a strong reproductive toxin. nPB has an atmospheric lifetime of about 11 days which indicates it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for exemption from VOC regulations.
Regulatory agencies often encourage the use of exempt chemicals because they can substitute for VOC solvents. Because of the other problems they may have, exempt chemicals rarely provide a permanent solution to the cleaning problem. They should be used judiciously with an eye toward their limitations. Aside from acetone, IRTA generally recommends against the use of VOC exempt chemicals.
If you would like information on cleaning alternatives that are permanent solutions, call IRTA at (310) 453-0450.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is
planning to modify Rule 1171 "Solvent Cleaning Operations"
to make it consistent with some of the deadlines in Rule 1122
"Solvent Degreasers."
Rule 1122 was amended in September of 2001. It regulated vapor
degreasers, batch loaded cold cleaners and conveyorized cold cleaners.
Prior to January 1, 2003, the rule allows the use of solvents
which have a VOC content of 50 grams per liter in batch loaded
cold cleaners and conveyorized cold cleaners. After January
1, 2003, the allowed VOC content for these cleaners declines,
to 25 grams per liter.
In the past, the VOC content tests were not able to accurately
measure the VOC content below about 50 grams per liter. At this
stage, the test has become more sensitive and can measure a VOC
content of 25 grams per liter with accuracy. Although the more
sensitive test is available today, the District wanted to give
companies time to establish that the cleaners they are using can
meet the 25 gram per liter level.
Rule 1171 was last amended in October of 1999. It established
future limits for a number of different cleaning categories.
For some of the categories, the District specified a 50 gram per
liter VOC level and delayed the 25 gram per liter level until
2005. The District has decided that certain categories can achieve
the 25 gram per liter level earlier, in 2003. This would make
the rule limits consistent with the rule limits of Rule 1122.
As an example, consider general repair and maintenance cleaning.
The current VOC limit for cleaners used in that category is 50
grams per liter. The rule 1171 requirement is that these cleaners
have a VOC content of 25 grams per liter in July of 2005. The
District will probably require an earlier compliance date of 2003
for the 25 gram per liter VOC limit to achieve consistency with
Rule 1122.
Some companies may be using water-based cleaners for general
repair and maintenance cleaning that have a higher VOC content
than 25 grams per liter. For example, if a company uses a parts
cleaner with a cleaner concentration of about one-third, the cleaner
concentrate must have a VOC content of only 75 grams per liter
or less to comply with the 25 gram per liter limit. If the parts
cleaner has a 40 percent concentration of cleaner, a 75 gram
per liter concentrate would not comply. Companies should check
with their suppliers to verify the VOC content of the cleaner
concentrate so they can ensure they will be in compliance when
the rule changes go into effect.
Rule 1171 specifies a lower VOC content for several categories
of cleaning beginning December of 2001. IRTA's Winter 2002 Alternative
included an article about these compliance limits. The District
has found that most screen printers are not in compliance with
the December 2001 limit of 750 grams per liter. The staff is
planning an outreach effort to make screen printers aware of the
regulatory changes.
There are some other limits that companies should be aware of.
The allowed VOC content of coating and adhesive spray gun cleaners
was reduced from 950 to 550 grams per liter on December 1, 2001.
Most companies are using solvents with higher VOC content so
a conversion to a lower VOC content material would be necessary.
In the category of electrical apparatus components and electronic
components that are cleaned during manufacture, the VOC content
of the allowed cleaners was reduced from 900 to 500 grams per
liter on December 1, 2001. This affects rework of printed circuit
boards. Most companies use isopropyl alcohol for rework operations
and this is no longer allowed.
At least three small environmental legal groups sent about 4,400 notices to sue California businesses under Proposition 65 in late December, 2001. The notices were also sent to the Attorney General and that office received 3,500 notices between December 21 and December 31. The timing of the notices was interesting because there were changes to Proposition 65 scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2002.
With the changes to the law, organizations that initiate lawsuits will be required to provide "certificates of merit," which must show a scientific basis for the actions. In effect, it will be more difficult for environmental legal groups to sue companies under Proposition 65. They will have to submit additional information to back their claims that the businesses did not provide adequate notification for Proposition 65 substances.
Business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce are trying to get the legal challenges disqualified. If they were disqualified, they would have to be refiled with certificates of merit.
Proposition 65 is enforced through civil lawsuits and it allows private citizens to enforce its provisions if public prosecutors do not begin an action within 60 days from the date the notices are sent. The Proposition 65 list includes substances that cause cancer and that reproductive toxicity. Solvents like perchloroethylene (PERC) and methylene chloride (METH) are contained in the list. Businesses with nine or fewer employees are exempt from Proposition 65. Most dry cleaners using PERC and furniture strippers using METH have fewer than 10 employees so only a few of the larger operations received notices.
Many other companies that use PERC and METH received notices from the environmental legal groups. More than 200 companies still use PERC for vapor degreasing and METH is still used widely in adhesive applications. Even if the notices that were sent out last December are ruled to be disqualified, companies using these chemicals could still be sued again if the environmental legal groups decide to reissue notices with more information as the law now requires.
A number of companies are using chlorinated paraffins as lubricants in stamping and forming and as coolants. Certain chlorinated paraffins are also listed on Proposition 65 and companies using lubricants with these extreme pressure additives are also vulnerable to Proposition 65 lawsuits.
Alternatives to chlorinated solvents are available and widely used in cleaning and adhesive applications. Alternative lubricants that do not contain chlorinated paraffins are also available. Businesses can avoid the potential liability and the possibility of lawsuits by adopting the alternatives.
If you would like to work on alternatives, call IRTA at (310) 453-0450.