- Email: [email protected]
Cleaning tests
CLEANING TIMES
. :..
Cleaning Tests by John B. Durkee, II , P .E .
T
h is month we are going to write about completion of cleaning tests associated with making a purchase of cleaning agents and equipment. When you have worked with suppliers to complete those tests, you have certain expectations about success. We'll tell you how these tests should be done, and we'll share some experiences with you about what can happen if you don't do them right. We'll cover two aspects: one straightforward (cleaning management) and one less so (waste management).
CLEANING MANAGEMENT
What You Want You want your new cleaning system to be a success. You want it to be better than the one you now have. You want it to perform like the ones featured in magazine articles/advertisements. You want a real process! You want a real process based on repetitive and thorough testing. You want to know where the "sweet-spots" and "sour-spots" are in your real process. You want performance data from your real process showing it running in top condition and other data showing much poorer performance. What You Often Do You send one part in to be tested! All right, maybe two parts. Expectations and Reality The above actually happened! In the early 1990s, when I worked with a "famous maker" of cleaning agents, a "famous maker" of plastic lenses sent in a single dirty part from which a tailored and tested semiaqueous process was to be developed. That customer's expectations were very high- he told us so. The reality was that there was no reality. We couldn't develop a process with one dirty part! What do we do when the dirt comes off the first time? If we "paint" real or synthetic soil on this John Durkee is President of Creative Enterprizes, a consulting firm located in Rockford. Ill. E-mail, jdurkeeprecisioncleaning. com January 2001
single part and repeat the experiment, have we learned anything? Granted, one part is a bit extreme-though it did happen that way! Even experienced friends who should know better provide 25 or 50 grams of parts, oil, and chips from which a process producing 200 lblhr of cleaned parts was to be developed. WHAT HAPPENED?
We asked the wrong question. We asked a question out of fear: "Can you clean my parts?" We should have asked a question out of opportunity: "Can you demonstrate that your process will repeatedly provide the part cleanliness I need to run my business?" These questions don't produce the same answer. The question, "Can you clean ... " always produces the answer ''Yes!'' In fact never in the history of this world have dirty parts been returned to a customer! The answer is always ''Yes!'' The question, "Can you demonstrate ... " produces process specifications (equipment characteristics, time, temperature, composition, etc.) and concludes with a demonstration of sufficient time so that recycle of impurities can be studied and defined. There are other ramifications, as seen in Table I. Which would you rather have the column on the right or the column in center? Does every firm selling cleaning agents of cleaning equipment give you all these results on the right? No! Do some firms? Yes! Can you get successful performance with your new system without them? Yes-providing your application is either common or very familiar to the supplier you have chosen. Do you have a better chance of successful performance with them? Yes-in my opinion. Do you have to pay more for this level of service? Not at the moment, though increasing business pressures for profit may force firms to offer both levels of service and charge for one. If you had to pay more for this level of service, would you? Absolutely! 65
Table I. Questions and Answers
Can You Clean My Parts? Answer to questions Proof of validity Details Chemistry recipe Cleaning process Rinsing process Drying process Quality Control Impurity buildup Amount of Parts
Yes Parts for testing Speed Chemistry recipe Generalities
Can You Demonstrate Your Process? Data Parts for testing and process for review Speed versus quality Chemistry recipe, consumption Process design (but not blueprints)
Manufacturer's general recommendations Limited ideas A sack-full
Chemistry analysis, need for makeup Expectations about buildup and consumption A keg-full or more
Why? There is an honest disagreement among investment firms about whether more and supposedly "better" research produces better returns on investments in the stock market. John Bogle ran a firm lean on research and cost. Edward Johnson ran a firm considered to have the best (or nearly so) research staff. Which firm had superior results? Neither, which meant that Bogle proved his point and which in turn lead to the proliferation of index funds of the late 1990s. Who would you want designing your cleaning system? I think I know. As a consultant expected to provide expertise in return for pay, no potential client has ever said "it doesn't matter if your expertise is as correct as uneducated or inexperienced expertise." Remember, we really can't predict stock market performance with certainty, but there are some valid fundamentals in cleaning technology. Moral of the Story Schedule a prepurchase cleaning trial-take a keg of parts. Schedule a runoff or final acceptance cleaning trial-take a keg of parts. WASTE MANAGEMEIIT
What You Want You want to easily and legally manage the wastes emanating from new cleaning system. For sure, you want it to be better than the one you now have. You want to avoid hazardous wastes, and you don't want to have to construct a new waste treatment system to deal with the wastes from your new cleaning system. What You Often Do Forget the matter, altogether. Expectations and Reality The above actually happened! One of my clients has just introduced a new aqueous cleaning system with an on-board evaporator. 66
Boiled water is recovered for reuse in the cleaning work. Oil-based soils don't evaporate at 212°F. They remain with some water in the evaporator. The system flushes itself The next effect has been to greatly reduce the volume of wastewater. My client thought their clients would value this development. Nope! Experienced staff at the site where the new evaporator was purchased used the previous water flow to periodically flush the system at the previous frequency. They diluted the oil-water concentrate from the evaporator because disposal of wastewater had never been a local problem! Well it is now or shortly will be!
What Happened? First, my client didn't understand their client's needs. They designed, produced, and charged for a prototype cleaning machine, which possessed a capability never even considered necessary by their client! Secondly, the end-use client never considered that they would be limited in their ability to dispose spent cleaning water from their cleaning baths. Admittedly, this client was "insulated from information" and not aware of trends like the forthcoming Metal Products and Machinery (MPM) rule or water recycle. But when we do purchase a new aqueous cleaning system and on what should we insist relative to waste disposal? In the past the end-use client would have asked, "Can I put the waste to the sewer?" The supplier would have said "sure" (while muttering under his breath "under some circumstances."). What Should We Do About This? I admit I related this incident to stimulate your thinking. The incident did happen! This is much like the common software-hardware conflict. Most suppliers of cleaning machines don't also supply waste management facilities. So, the supplier of cleaning equipment says, "See your local supplier of waste management services or facilities." Metal Finishing
That firm says, "We wouldn't be in this mess if your supplier of cleaning equipment had only done X." But you are responsible for both syst ems to your federal , state, and local EPAs. What do you do? For the moment the answers aren't clear. We are dealing a deck of cards only half of which have visible faces , but they all count at the end. The two major items of uncertainty are: (1) What are the regulatory criteria? and (2) Are you going to take a long-term or short-term view? Next month, I expect to have preliminary answers to these two questions. In late October 2000, the EPA was to announce a new rule called Metal Products and Machinery (MPM ). This rule was previously introduced in 1995. It was withdrawn in 1996 because of public questions about its complexity, fairness , and application. A revised draft was presented in the spring of2000. Now, the EPA must comply with a court-mandated program: a new rule announced in October 2000, some public comment, rule adoption in about 2002 , and nearly immediate compliance in new discharge permits as existing one s expire. I have written that I expect this rule to have highly sign ifica nt effect upon U.S. industry doing ba sic aqueous cleaning of fasteners, screw machine parts, a nd some precision cleaning. The purpose of the second segment of this column is to prepare you for what we anticipate to be a s ign ifica nt and farreaching environmental rule. Large-volume users will be affected more than dischargers of smaller volumes. But we don't know what those words mean. I believe this rule will have the same impact in the aqueou s cleaning community in the early 2000s as did the NESHAP on halogenated solvents in the mid 19908 . We'll keep you informed. MF
I
2 3
' l il lI-d In." A'. .\u l /a, 'll f rt " ' (· \4S p .I;':C,'liii $1:': ..: : Th i, l \tUlk i "" .1 Ir.lll ,l.l1lol1 III till' lIn ;':'III••1 ( ; t 'rlU JII hook 011 tilt' \ JI1W suhject , hut IJItllldc.'\ a new fh,lll1t' r Illlt'I1\"lftIIlUll'lItJl con sider.uious, w hich pro vides .111 o verview uf n· ~lI1.tli UII ' .1Ild di,p,,,.11 o pt ion' in the: l ' .S. TIlt" hJ'ti r~ of .rdlu-viou IwtWl'C,'U I1WI.II, .md pl..\tin .rr t- di\(",,, \(·d. [ollowed hv .1 chapter on t'lI ~i l)('c..ri ll~ tor m rt.ll1i 71n~ pl.l'lit-". t}Il.1Iit y .1\\Ur.tn C(' .tOd pl.lIll equipment .tr, . •• hl)
Anywa y you want it. The number oi custom ro nngurations available is virtually unlimited.
Cf-cornpliant, You needn't take our word ior a n~1hi ng.
5 6 1
9 10
Safety first...and always. Saiety is built in. not added on. Our products are the sa fest available al any price. Expertise. Noone in the _ .__....,_ ....... industry has as many engineers on starf. Customerservice. \"" e're more than ready 10 answer vour questions lind help solveyour problems. Best choice for the \\ orst conditions. These products are specifi cally designed to perform reliably even in the har he,t environments. Price. You cannot iind belter·qual il ~ . more reliahl« producI, ior the price.
Guarantee. Builtby the best people in Ihp business. our productsare the safest. most reliablo availa ble: their quality. construction and periorrnanre are unequalled.
u m,i,{c'f('& ,"," Ih l (
In.,I., r, t ,, ;
METAL FINISHING "hO \X'hill' Pl .un -, Rd ..
T .t1TVlO Wt1.
NY 10S'»· 51S.'
For I.isu-r "TV Il l' . , .111 ('>14) 3l1 · ~ S 78 or FAX \ ' <>11 1' " rd"r ,,, ('>14) .1 .\1 · ~ S 70 :\11 hllP}..
Common ground. Amazingly. not e\ NY heater on the market is grounded. Our are. Every single one oi them.
It "They say" reliability. Ut- rerognized. C A·lisfed and
8 Metallizing of Plastics A Handbook of Theory and Practice
Over-temperature control. Astandard feature on more models than any other manuiacturer,
1Il"lit"p ,
must lu- prt'p.lld. l'I".I'l' uulud e $".CO ,JJ1p rin~ .11111 Jl.lndhn;:. Ivr deliv:.S., Sl:.~C fo r e,,1I;h hlll!k shipped express
t' IT .,1 c:J<:h honk viJ L'I'S t.) .H!dn"~. , t'... in I!tt"l
III l :.lIIJ dJ : and 520.00 hu- t',leh liook ~hlppl'd l·).:l' n.' ::.~ ttl .tll othl'l l'( '\Ulf ri t,~
C
PROCESS " TECHNOLOGY)
Easter n USA/C : lIOO·I.:.! 1-19')/1
Wesll'fn USA/C : /lOO·It:.! 1-19'/')
II
INT'L: .J.JO·').J/)·') .:;OO • f,\ X: .J.J(l·'J7.J· :;h 1 I/
www.prort-vc-tr« hllology,' "'11 Circle 049 on reader information card
January 2001
67
. :..
Cleaning Tests by John B. Durkee, II , P .E .
T
h is month we are going to write about completion of cleaning tests associated with making a purchase of cleaning agents and equipment. When you have worked with suppliers to complete those tests, you have certain expectations about success. We'll tell you how these tests should be done, and we'll share some experiences with you about what can happen if you don't do them right. We'll cover two aspects: one straightforward (cleaning management) and one less so (waste management).
CLEANING MANAGEMENT
What You Want You want your new cleaning system to be a success. You want it to be better than the one you now have. You want it to perform like the ones featured in magazine articles/advertisements. You want a real process! You want a real process based on repetitive and thorough testing. You want to know where the "sweet-spots" and "sour-spots" are in your real process. You want performance data from your real process showing it running in top condition and other data showing much poorer performance. What You Often Do You send one part in to be tested! All right, maybe two parts. Expectations and Reality The above actually happened! In the early 1990s, when I worked with a "famous maker" of cleaning agents, a "famous maker" of plastic lenses sent in a single dirty part from which a tailored and tested semiaqueous process was to be developed. That customer's expectations were very high- he told us so. The reality was that there was no reality. We couldn't develop a process with one dirty part! What do we do when the dirt comes off the first time? If we "paint" real or synthetic soil on this John Durkee is President of Creative Enterprizes, a consulting firm located in Rockford. Ill. E-mail, jdurkeeprecisioncleaning. com January 2001
single part and repeat the experiment, have we learned anything? Granted, one part is a bit extreme-though it did happen that way! Even experienced friends who should know better provide 25 or 50 grams of parts, oil, and chips from which a process producing 200 lblhr of cleaned parts was to be developed. WHAT HAPPENED?
We asked the wrong question. We asked a question out of fear: "Can you clean my parts?" We should have asked a question out of opportunity: "Can you demonstrate that your process will repeatedly provide the part cleanliness I need to run my business?" These questions don't produce the same answer. The question, "Can you clean ... " always produces the answer ''Yes!'' In fact never in the history of this world have dirty parts been returned to a customer! The answer is always ''Yes!'' The question, "Can you demonstrate ... " produces process specifications (equipment characteristics, time, temperature, composition, etc.) and concludes with a demonstration of sufficient time so that recycle of impurities can be studied and defined. There are other ramifications, as seen in Table I. Which would you rather have the column on the right or the column in center? Does every firm selling cleaning agents of cleaning equipment give you all these results on the right? No! Do some firms? Yes! Can you get successful performance with your new system without them? Yes-providing your application is either common or very familiar to the supplier you have chosen. Do you have a better chance of successful performance with them? Yes-in my opinion. Do you have to pay more for this level of service? Not at the moment, though increasing business pressures for profit may force firms to offer both levels of service and charge for one. If you had to pay more for this level of service, would you? Absolutely! 65
Table I. Questions and Answers
Can You Clean My Parts? Answer to questions Proof of validity Details Chemistry recipe Cleaning process Rinsing process Drying process Quality Control Impurity buildup Amount of Parts
Yes Parts for testing Speed Chemistry recipe Generalities
Can You Demonstrate Your Process? Data Parts for testing and process for review Speed versus quality Chemistry recipe, consumption Process design (but not blueprints)
Manufacturer's general recommendations Limited ideas A sack-full
Chemistry analysis, need for makeup Expectations about buildup and consumption A keg-full or more
Why? There is an honest disagreement among investment firms about whether more and supposedly "better" research produces better returns on investments in the stock market. John Bogle ran a firm lean on research and cost. Edward Johnson ran a firm considered to have the best (or nearly so) research staff. Which firm had superior results? Neither, which meant that Bogle proved his point and which in turn lead to the proliferation of index funds of the late 1990s. Who would you want designing your cleaning system? I think I know. As a consultant expected to provide expertise in return for pay, no potential client has ever said "it doesn't matter if your expertise is as correct as uneducated or inexperienced expertise." Remember, we really can't predict stock market performance with certainty, but there are some valid fundamentals in cleaning technology. Moral of the Story Schedule a prepurchase cleaning trial-take a keg of parts. Schedule a runoff or final acceptance cleaning trial-take a keg of parts. WASTE MANAGEMEIIT
What You Want You want to easily and legally manage the wastes emanating from new cleaning system. For sure, you want it to be better than the one you now have. You want to avoid hazardous wastes, and you don't want to have to construct a new waste treatment system to deal with the wastes from your new cleaning system. What You Often Do Forget the matter, altogether. Expectations and Reality The above actually happened! One of my clients has just introduced a new aqueous cleaning system with an on-board evaporator. 66
Boiled water is recovered for reuse in the cleaning work. Oil-based soils don't evaporate at 212°F. They remain with some water in the evaporator. The system flushes itself The next effect has been to greatly reduce the volume of wastewater. My client thought their clients would value this development. Nope! Experienced staff at the site where the new evaporator was purchased used the previous water flow to periodically flush the system at the previous frequency. They diluted the oil-water concentrate from the evaporator because disposal of wastewater had never been a local problem! Well it is now or shortly will be!
What Happened? First, my client didn't understand their client's needs. They designed, produced, and charged for a prototype cleaning machine, which possessed a capability never even considered necessary by their client! Secondly, the end-use client never considered that they would be limited in their ability to dispose spent cleaning water from their cleaning baths. Admittedly, this client was "insulated from information" and not aware of trends like the forthcoming Metal Products and Machinery (MPM) rule or water recycle. But when we do purchase a new aqueous cleaning system and on what should we insist relative to waste disposal? In the past the end-use client would have asked, "Can I put the waste to the sewer?" The supplier would have said "sure" (while muttering under his breath "under some circumstances."). What Should We Do About This? I admit I related this incident to stimulate your thinking. The incident did happen! This is much like the common software-hardware conflict. Most suppliers of cleaning machines don't also supply waste management facilities. So, the supplier of cleaning equipment says, "See your local supplier of waste management services or facilities." Metal Finishing
That firm says, "We wouldn't be in this mess if your supplier of cleaning equipment had only done X." But you are responsible for both syst ems to your federal , state, and local EPAs. What do you do? For the moment the answers aren't clear. We are dealing a deck of cards only half of which have visible faces , but they all count at the end. The two major items of uncertainty are: (1) What are the regulatory criteria? and (2) Are you going to take a long-term or short-term view? Next month, I expect to have preliminary answers to these two questions. In late October 2000, the EPA was to announce a new rule called Metal Products and Machinery (MPM ). This rule was previously introduced in 1995. It was withdrawn in 1996 because of public questions about its complexity, fairness , and application. A revised draft was presented in the spring of2000. Now, the EPA must comply with a court-mandated program: a new rule announced in October 2000, some public comment, rule adoption in about 2002 , and nearly immediate compliance in new discharge permits as existing one s expire. I have written that I expect this rule to have highly sign ifica nt effect upon U.S. industry doing ba sic aqueous cleaning of fasteners, screw machine parts, a nd some precision cleaning. The purpose of the second segment of this column is to prepare you for what we anticipate to be a s ign ifica nt and farreaching environmental rule. Large-volume users will be affected more than dischargers of smaller volumes. But we don't know what those words mean. I believe this rule will have the same impact in the aqueou s cleaning community in the early 2000s as did the NESHAP on halogenated solvents in the mid 19908 . We'll keep you informed. MF
I
2 3
' l il lI-d In." A'. .\u l /a, 'll f rt " ' (· \4S p .I;':C,'liii $1:': ..: : Th i, l \tUlk i "" .1 Ir.lll ,l.l1lol1 III till' lIn ;':'III••1 ( ; t 'rlU JII hook 011 tilt' \ JI1W suhject , hut IJItllldc.'\ a new fh,lll1t' r Illlt'I1\"lftIIlUll'lItJl con sider.uious, w hich pro vides .111 o verview uf n· ~lI1.tli UII ' .1Ild di,p,,,.11 o pt ion' in the: l ' .S. TIlt" hJ'ti r~ of .rdlu-viou IwtWl'C,'U I1WI.II, .md pl..\tin .rr t- di\(",,, \(·d. [ollowed hv .1 chapter on t'lI ~i l)('c..ri ll~ tor m rt.ll1i 71n~ pl.l'lit-". t}Il.1Iit y .1\\Ur.tn C(' .tOd pl.lIll equipment .tr, . •• hl)
Anywa y you want it. The number oi custom ro nngurations available is virtually unlimited.
Cf-cornpliant, You needn't take our word ior a n~1hi ng.
5 6 1
9 10
Safety first...and always. Saiety is built in. not added on. Our products are the sa fest available al any price. Expertise. Noone in the _ .__....,_ ....... industry has as many engineers on starf. Customerservice. \"" e're more than ready 10 answer vour questions lind help solveyour problems. Best choice for the \\ orst conditions. These products are specifi cally designed to perform reliably even in the har he,t environments. Price. You cannot iind belter·qual il ~ . more reliahl« producI, ior the price.
Guarantee. Builtby the best people in Ihp business. our productsare the safest. most reliablo availa ble: their quality. construction and periorrnanre are unequalled.
u m,i,{c'f('& ,"," Ih l (
In.,I., r, t ,, ;
METAL FINISHING "hO \X'hill' Pl .un -, Rd ..
T .t1TVlO Wt1.
NY 10S'»· 51S.'
For I.isu-r "TV Il l' . , .111 ('>14) 3l1 · ~ S 78 or FAX \ ' <>11 1' " rd"r ,,, ('>14) .1 .\1 · ~ S 70 :\11 hllP}..
Common ground. Amazingly. not e\ NY heater on the market is grounded. Our are. Every single one oi them.
It "They say" reliability. Ut- rerognized. C A·lisfed and
8 Metallizing of Plastics A Handbook of Theory and Practice
Over-temperature control. Astandard feature on more models than any other manuiacturer,
1Il"lit"p ,
must lu- prt'p.lld. l'I".I'l' uulud e $".CO ,JJ1p rin~ .11111 Jl.lndhn;:. Ivr deliv:.S., Sl:.~C fo r e,,1I;h hlll!k shipped express
t' IT .,1 c:J<:h honk viJ L'I'S t.) .H!dn"~. , t'... in I!tt"l
III l :.lIIJ dJ : and 520.00 hu- t',leh liook ~hlppl'd l·).:l' n.' ::.~ ttl .tll othl'l l'( '\Ulf ri t,~
C
PROCESS " TECHNOLOGY)
Easter n USA/C : lIOO·I.:.! 1-19')/1
Wesll'fn USA/C : /lOO·It:.! 1-19'/')
II
INT'L: .J.JO·').J/)·') .:;OO • f,\ X: .J.J(l·'J7.J· :;h 1 I/
www.prort-vc-tr« hllology,' "'11 Circle 049 on reader information card
January 2001
67