ELECTRONIC COMPONENT COOLING ALTERNATIVE TO CFC-12

Revision Date: 9/00
Process Code: Navy/Marines: ID-22-00; Air Force: PM04; Army: ELM
Usage: Navy: Medium; Marines: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Compliance Impact: Low
Alternative for: CFC-12
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Dichlorodifluoromethane (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview:

Carbon dioxide can be used as a replacement coolant for Freon R-12 sprays. Freon R-12 (CFC-12) is used in aerosol containers to cool electronic components during isolation and repair. Many manufacturers are phasing out these sprays and are introducing alternatives that protect the ozone layer. The COMP-CO2LD or CC-1 component cooler, manufactured by Va-Tran Systems, is a viable alternative to Freon CFC sprays used in electronic component cooling applications. This CO2 spray tool was originally designed and manufactured to remove submicron particle contamination in the semiconductor and hybrid circuit industry. Allied-Signal demonstrated that the CC-1 component cooler performs better than CFC-12. The CC-1 component cooler requires a shorter blast to cool the components to the required temperature. This results in faster detection of weak or defective components.

The CC-1 component cooler consists of a CO2 cylinder, a cart to make it portable, and a hand-held dispenser. The CO2 cylinders are typically procured in 20-lb containers although other sizes are available. CO2 is stored as a liquid under about 850 psig of pressure. As it vaporizes, its temperature can drop to less than -100 degrees F allowing for the formation of tiny dry ice particles. The CC-1 component cooler is not only "ozone-safe" but is also considered a low-cost, effective option for electronic component cooling.
Compliance Benefit:

Use of carbon dioxide as a replacement coolant for Freon R-12 sprays will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of CFC-12 at the facility decreases the possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.

The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:


Carbon dioxide is an inert gas with excellent material compatibility as a cooling agent, especially since contact is typically of short duration. Use of carbon dioxide can possibly cause material fracture in those applications requiring prolonged contact or in temperature sensitive components.
Safety and Health:

Since carbon dioxide can be an asphyxiating gas, CO2 monitors should be considered for use in any confined space, clean room, or other space with limited ventilation. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Benefits:
  • Use of the CC-1 component cooler as an alternative to CFC-12 will reduce the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals entering the environment.
  • Although not quite as convenient as freon CFC aerosol spray cans, the CO2 hand-held spray tool is relatively convenient to use and can be adapted for a high degree of portability.
  • CO2 is non-corrosive and leaves no residue.
  • The CO2 spray tool speeds up the rate of defect detection. A shorter blast of coolant is used to chill the components to the required temperature. Using less coolant can result in cost savings.
  • Cost savings are achieved from the lower cost associated with the CO2 cylinders when compared to the Freon R-12 cylinders.


Disadvantages:
  • The CO2 spray tool will require an initial hardware cost. However, this up-front cost is minimal (less than $630 for a 20-lb cylinder system).
  • CO2 is a global warming gas. However, CO2 is considered to have relatively low global warming potential (GWP).
  • The CC-1 component cooler is not as convenient as CFC-12 aerosol spray cans. Aerosol cans can be used frequently by several individuals at any given time. The CO2 spray tool is expected to be more limiting in terms of users. Although the CO2 spray tool can be made portable, its use will not be as flexible as the aerosol cans.
  • The CO2 canisters will require refilling. Refilling costs are expected to be minimal (about $10 for each 20-lb. canister excluding any freight charges). Freight charges can be higher than the refilling costs. A 20-lb. canister can weigh up to 48 lbs. once filled. Local welding distributors may be able to refill the canister without requiring freight charges. Since only a small amount of CO2 is needed to cool the component, the canister is expected to last a long time before refilling is needed.


Economic Analysis:

The capital cost of the CO2 component cooler (COMP-CO2LD) system includes the control unit, a 20-lb. cylinder, and a cart that is used to make the system portable. The following economic analysis was obtained from a case study on “Eliminating CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Aircraft Maintenance Procedures” for the government of Thailand by the U.S. EPA Solvent Elimination Project.

Assumptions:

  • Number of CC-1 units needed to replace CFC-12: 50
  • Cost of CO2 system: $340.00
  • Labor requirements for both systems are approximately equal.
  • Number of CFC-12 cylinders used/year: 300
  • Number of CO2 cylinders needed to replace CFC-12 cylinders are equal.
  • Cost per CFC-12 cylinder: $105.00
  • Cost to refill CO2 cylinder: $6.00

Annual Operating Cost Comparison for CO2 and CFC-12 Component Cooling

  CO2 CFC-12

Capital Cost:

$17,000

$0

Operational Costs:

   

Material:

$1,800

$31,500

Total Operational Costs:

$1,800

$31,500

Total Recovered Income:

$0

$0

Net Annual Cost/Benefit:

-$1,800

-$31,500

Economic Analysis Summary

    Annual Savings for CO2 component cooler: $29,700
    Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $17,000
    Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 7 months

Click Here to view an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.


Approving Authority:

Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
None Identified     $  

*There are multiple MSDSs for most NSNs.
The MSDS (if shown above) is only meant to serve as an example.


Points of Contact:

Navy:
Mr. Peter Mullenhard
Navy Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse, GEO-CENTERS, Inc.
1755 Jeff Davis Highway
Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1023 ext 109 or (703) 416-1132
FAX: (703) 416-1178


Vendors:

Va-Tran Systems, Inc.
677 Anita Street
Suite A
Chula Vista,  CA   91911-4661
Phone: (619) 423-4555 102
FAX: (619) 423-4604
URL: http://www.vatran.com
Contact: Mr. Jeff Sloan
Service: Manufacturer of the “Sno-Gun” carbon dioxide pelletizing and blasting equipment.
Sources:

Mr. Pete Mullenhard, GEO-CENTERS, Inc., August,1998.
Mr. Jim Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., January,1998.
Mr. Jeff Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., May 1996.

[Back]