Beware of all Trike promotion arguments!

With prevailing issues surrounding the continued use of Trichloroethylene (Trike) the same question seems to arise for users: can you justify the use of such a chemical, against all the legislation?

With prevailing issues surrounding the continued use of Trichloroethylene (Trike) the same questions always seem to arise for users.

Looking at the trends in Western Europe the volume of Trike sales has reduced dramatically.

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 risks, mainly of cancer.

A few years ago, manufacturers of Trike predicted Perchloroethylene (Perc) would become the popular alternative to Trike for vapour degreasing.

I repeat what I said then.

"What nonsense! Unless users have an unusual application requiring heat of 121deg C this is not a suitable alternative".

Consider some common questions.

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: 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 you consider? Most people are currently trying to understand the Solvent Emissions Directive, (SED).

If you use 1 tonne of Trike pa (685 litres) you need to understand your obligations.

Two are very clear.

Firstly, 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 the Defra guidance note: www.Defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/lapc/aqnotes/aq09(04).htm .

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.

But 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.

* Potential effects on the environment.

Beware of the argument: 'My supplier says using drum containment attached to my machine means I gain more time to continue with Trike'.

Firstly, 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, since 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 your 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.

Could it be that it ties you to the supplier's product and allows price increases that in the future you will be "locked into".

Removing their 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.

www.core-chem.com.

The aim of Core-Chem is to reduce your solvent use, whilst 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.

Are there any websites worth viewing? Look at www.ensolv-europe.com www.ensolv.com www.core-chem.com www.cchydrosonics.com .

Also remember the Defra site listed earlier.

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.

This technical summary is provided by, and copyright of Derek Carpenter of Enviro Tech Europe.

Back to top