Substitution of trichloroethylene in metal parts cleaning in the European Union: A survey-based study on the effects of the authorisation requirements in REACH
Creators: name: Slunge, Daniel
name: Andersson, Ida
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Chemical substitution
REACH
Chlorinated solvents
Trichloroethylene
Authorisation
Substitution cost

description: Trichloroethylene (TCE) has been a very common solvent used in metal parts cleaning in the European Union. While several hundreds of European companies were involved in applications for authorised use of TCE after the REACH sunset date in 2016, no applications for renewed authorisation after 2020 have been made. This implies that the legal use of TCE for metal parts cleaning in the European Union has ended. The purpose of this study is to identify what solvents and methods have replaced TCE in metal parts cleaning in the EU and to analyse the role played by the REACH authorisation requirements and other factors in the companies´ substitution decisions. Based on a literature review, interviews with stakeholders and industry experts, and an industry survey, the main findings of the study are: A large share of the companies that have used TCE in metal parts cleaning under the previous authorisation is instead using perchloroethylene (PERC). As PERC has similar chemical characteristics as TCE, companies can continue to use the same machines after making minor modifications. Some companies have combined the shift to PERC with the introduction of other solvents or methods, mainly modified alcohols. In some cases, companies continue to use older types of machines (open top) in metal parts cleaning with PERC. This is surprising since the REACH authorisations for the use of TCE only covered closed metal cleaning systems. Older types of machines increase exposure risks. The costs for substituting TCE with PERC are low. The annualised investment cost to modify machines from TCE to PERC use is around 1900 EUR on average for the surveyed companies. There are no clear trends in terms of changes in overall operating costs when substituting from TCE to PERC. The substitution from TCE to PERC may at best have created some marginal health benefits. TCE is within the European Union classified as a substance which “may cause cancer” and PERC is classified as “suspected to be carcinogenic”. As the substitution process in most cases has not involved major changes in metal cleaning machines or processes, larger health and environmental benefits have not been achieved. The main reason for substituting TCE has been to avoid the cost of having to renew the application for authorisation. The majority of the surveyed companies stated that a longer review period would not have influenced their substitution decision. The inclusion of TCE in the REACH authorisation list incentivized substitution. As the two TCE authorisations for metal parts cleaning covered several hundreds of downstream users, but only 38 companies made actual use of the authorisation, a large share of the companies must have substituted TCE between the years of application (2014) and the years of granted authorisation (2017 and 2018). The study focuses on those European companies that have been the slowest in substituting TCE. Companies who substituted TCE prior to the sunset date have not been surveyed. The late substitution of TCE among the companies that participated in the survey may partly be explained by industry-specific requirements in for example the aerospace industry. Based on the survey responses in combination with interviews with industry experts, we believe the findings of this study to be representative of the companies under the previous TCE authorisation.