The World Bank Ozone Operations Resource Group (OORG) 18th Meeting, June 12th, 2001

Transcription

1 The Ozone Operations Resource Group (OORG) 18th Meeting, June 12th, 2001 "Aerosol Filling Equipment and MP Projects" By Geno Nardini, OORG Aerosol Specialist

2 After almost a decade, it is clear that many project managers do not understand what is aerosol filling equipment and why it must be replaced. In its simplest form it is: A liquid filler, to fill the active ingredients or concentrate. A crimper, to seal the valve with the can. A propellant charger or gasser to put in the propellant, normally propane butane.

3 We replace the liquid filler because most companies fill the concentrate in the same place where they put in the gas. The largest selling "non-aerosol" liquid filler used by aerosol companies is the "Fillomatic," electric and can be very dangerous near propane - butane. Safety experts would very much prefer to have all pneumatic equipment. This may be "over-kill," but so far to the best of my knowledge no company assisted financially by the MP has had a fire or explosion.

4 We replace the crimper ("sealer") because bad crimps cause leaks, an economic problem with CFCs, but extremely dangerous with propane butane. Crimp leakers are often found, and the cause corrected, due to the waterbath test, but some leakers defy the waterbath test and show up weeks or months later. Crimp gauges are needed, otherwise even a new crimper can produce "leakers." Training is needed to produce good crimps, here we are sadly lacking.

5 The propellant charger is the main item for us, and they all leak. Old ones leak a lot, new ones much less. Every can filled produces some escape of gas. With the proper gassing adapter and equipment in good condition, this is minimal. Without proper training, this can be a major problem. Using the wrong gassing adapter is the single most dangerous act that we deal with in the field. We have been very careful to specify proper gassing adapters in MP projects, but personnel must be trained to change them when they change valves.

6 Besides leakage, there is also "catastrophic failure." Old tubing and piping breaks much more frequently than new tubing and piping. Valves wear out and can fail in a strong "constant leakage" condition. One machine in India uses a 12 kg. burette which can break open. 1 kg. leaking in this room could cause an explosion, 12 kg. is unthinkable.

7 Bigger lines may have auxiliary equipment. A valve placer put the valve in the can instead of a person doing this. Automatic actuator and cap placers also avoid people. The waterbath is an important Q. C. and safety check, required by law in many places like the USA.

8 What is "UEL" and "LEL"? "UEL" is Upper Explosive Limit of propane - butane, about 9% in air. More than this cannot explode, it is too "rich" in fuel and too "poor" in Oxygen. We don t use this much. "LEL" is Lower Explosive Limit of propane - butane, about 2% in air. Less than this we have no problem, there is not enough propane butane to catch fire. Many safety factors are based on the LEL. Between 2% and 9% of propane butane, your consultant wants to be somewhere else.

9 Ignition control is the other half of the equation. We give liquid fillers so that no electricity is used near the propane butane. We do many other things to avoid sparks or fires much too much to cover here. And we train, train, train. Or we should, we are lacking here.

10 So new aerosol filling equipment is safer than old equipment. Why? Because its pneumatic and not electric, and we ground it (earth it) to avoid static electricity. Because it generally leaks less, much less. Things don t break on new machinery, it is much less subject to catastrophic failure.

11 And we destroy the old machinery. Why? Sometimes we allow the company to keep liquid fillers or crimpers for lab use, they have no commercial value to speak of anyway. They must sign stating that these will remain on the premises unless they have approval from the local "ozone office." To avoid the same machinery being used in two or more projects, in aerosols it s the height of futility. The expert that writes the project can often avoid fraud, controlling the equipment cannot. But it is a MP rule. In most countries it is possible to buy a liquid filler, crimper, and gasser, for less than $5,000, that could be used for a $60,000 project. They wouldn t necessarily work, but only an expert would know that.

12 And air movement and ventilation? More important even than good equipment. Very difficult to assure using MP Multilateral Fund rules. The biggest factor in safety, maybe we can deal with this next OORG.

13 FAQs: Can old aerosol filling equipment be used for filling propane butane? Of course, it is being done in hundreds of places around the world. Then why do we give new equipment to companies that convert? Because it is MUCH safer.

14 FAQs: : (cont.) Could their old equipment be renovated? Of course it could, sometimes. We have done so in a couple of occasions. To be truly effective, it must be done at the original equipment supplier s plant. Why don t we do it everywhere? Sometimes it can t be done the enterprise has locally made machinery with strange, incompatible dimensions. And in almost all other cases, it would involve a lot of "fuzzy expenditures" for customs handling, shipping, insurance, down time, etc. All implementing agencies discarded this option long ago, except in certain situations.

15 FAQs: : (cont.) Can the replacement equipment be used to fill CFCs? Of course it can, they are liquefied gases at ambient temperatures, the same as the propane butane mixtures that replace them. Then how can we be sure that we are replacing CFCs with substitutes? Economics, not technology. CFC based aerosols cannot compete with propane butane based ones in price markets. Virtually all aerosols are sold in markets controlled by price.

16 FAQs: : (cont.) Then how effective have we been? Very, very effective. By starting the CFC to hydrocarbon conversions, we have eliminated more CFCs than we claim. By teaching safety, we have done this without major accidents. Have their been any "bad" aerosol projects? The bigger an omelette that you make, the better chance there is that a spoiled egg will get in. But generally speaking, this has been an effective program that is achieving its results.

17 FAQs: : (cont.) Where have we failed? The "cost effectiveness" issue has blocked some projects, right now many in India, and we have not done enough teaching and training. It is probably inevitable that an accident will occur sometime because of this. And some projects have been prepared by non-experts in aerosol technology, and these are possibly more suspect than those done by experienced experts.

18 FAQs: : (cont.) What have been the major successes? Due to their size alone, the China projects and the GEF initiative with the Russian aerosol producers dwarf all other work in the aerosol field. In terms of the number of enterprises affected, the India work is first, and much more can be done here if we can get past the CE bottleneck.