Document Nq41JNaMEVvB4o7Mb77MZaQg

POLLUTION PREVENTION SCOPING FOR CHLOROETHANE APRIL 3, 1991 CMX 052320 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS AND POLLUTION PREVENTION SCOPING FOR CHLOROETHANE APRIL 3, 1991 Participants: Libby Parker, ETD, Section Chief, Economist (Co-Lead) Ward Penberthy, ETD, Acting Branch Chief, Chemical Engineer, (Co-Lead) Russell Farris, ETD, Section Chief, Chemist Paul Quillen, ETD, Acting Section Chief, Chemical Engineer Pat Szarek, ETD, Economist Steve Devito, ETD, Chemist Dan Fort, ETD, Chemical Engineer Greg Macek,ETD, Chemical Engineer r r 382-3686 382-3664 382-3620 382-7689 382-4285 382-3748 382-3694 475-9597 Jim Darr, ECAD, Section Chief, Chemist Lois Dicker, ECAD, Biologist/Industrial Hygienist Martha Price, ECAD (RM1 Project Lead), Biochemist 382-3470 382-3387 382-3473 Pat Kennedy, EED, Section Chief. Chemist Gary Grindstaff, EED, Biostatistician Annett Nold, EED, Mathematician 382-3916 382-3952 382-3930 Ray Kent, HERD, Section Chief, Chemist David Lai, HERD, Toxicologist 382-7974 382-6222 CMA. 052321 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary and Disposition Alternatives II. Ufacycla Analyais and Pollution Pravantlon Opportunity Scoping A. Chloroathana: Qanaral Information B. Chloroathana Manufacturing: 1. Ufacycla Anatyils 2. Pollution Pravantlon Opportunity Scoping C. Uaa 1: Tatraathyllaad 1. Ufacycla Analytic 2. Pollution Pravantlon Opportunity Scoping D. Uaa 2: Ethyl Callulota and Ethyl 2*Hydroxyethyl Caduloaa 1. Ufacycla Analyais 2. Pollution Pravantlon Opportunity Scoping, E. Uaa 3: Ethyl Banzana 1. Ufacycla Analyais 2. Pollution Pravantlon Opportunity Scoping E. Uaa 4: Polystyrene 1. Ufacycla Analyais 2. Pollution Pravantlon Opportunity Scoping F. Uaa 5: Topical Anesthetic 1. Ufacycla Analytic 2. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Scoping Pag* 1 8 8 10 18 20 25 30 35 CMA 052322 SUMMARY AND DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES: CHLOROETHANE APRIL 3, 1991 INTRODUCTION Chioroethane was Idantlfiad during prallminaryscraaning (pra-RMi) as a high volume chemical with substantial air and water releases reported in TRI. A recant NTP bioassay shows chlorosthane to be a potent multi-site mouse carcinogen. RMi screening determined chioroethane to be a good candidate for the Risk Reduction List due to high air releases. The RMI decision meeting recommended that health effects information gathered on chioroethane be referred to OSHA for consideration and that an informal exchange of health effects information with the FDA wotid be beneficial. In addition, some follow up work regarding chioroethane s use in topical anesthetics was suggested, and a confirmation of the slope factor used in the RMi risk characterization was requested. A preliminary RM2 meeting set a date for scoping potential pollution prevention oriented approaches to mitigating potential environmental problems associated with chioroethane. In addition, informati n was requested concerning the use of chioroethane in foamed plastics. ETD was assigned the lead to develop the framework of a pollution prevention scoping exercise using chioroethane as an example. A workgroup was convened, made up of the staff and Section Chief participants in the RMi screening exercise. A lifecycle analysis and pollution prevention opportunities scoping methodology was designed which would utlize data developed during the RMI screening activities to develop appropriate risk reduction alternatives. The methodology arranges the RMI data to correspond with use categories. This arrangement allows for quick identification Of missing data and Its importance to developing technical alternatives. The standardization provided by the methodology fadhates quick review by staff and management information within each use is arranged in a logical order flowing from identification of uses, description of use processes, identfllcation of releases, estimates of exposures, characterization of risks, and evaluation of how the risk reduction hierarchy of source reduction, recycling/reuse and control technologies codd be used to achieve a goal of pollution prevention in the target uses. The additional work required to effect scoping for chioroethane included primarty: o the rearrangement of Information Into the new pattern, o RMI screening level information gathered by RIB, CEB and IC8 for each of the use areas, o a screening level effort by CEB to evaluate the hierarchy of controls for each of the uses. (A 'screening level* of effort Is defined as 10 hours or less per Item, in this case per use for each topic. Thus, market information for each use was between 30-40 hours of additional effort over the information collected for RMI.) The restits obtained from this exercise confirmed the recommendations obtained during RMI and provided greater certainty for those recommendations (referral to OSHA and FDA). This exercise has identified a new area of possible concern, namely consumer exposure to foamed plastic used in construction, and identified a rde for OTS in coordinating pollution prevention and cross-media issues in OAR rulemaking. In addition, this methodology has allowed for specific identification of areas where future work may be necessary pending results of the proposed ODW test nie. Finally, this document provides the basis for developing future investigatory work, by clarifying the relationship between the various parts of the analysis which are necessary to characterize risk and evaluate risk reduction opportunities in each use. 1 CMA 052323 SUMMARY AND DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES: CHLOROETHANE INDUSTRY PROFILE APRILS, 1**l Manufacturers Dow Chemical DuPont Ethyl Corp. PPG Industries Inc. Total Production Volume: 1969 120 ml!ion lbs. U.S. consumption; 90 mWon lbs. Export: 30 milIon Ibe. Market Trends: U. S. consumption of chioroethane has decreased staadly since 1970 because of phaseout of lead In gasoline. U. S. production of chioroethane in the last four years, however, has been stable because of strong export demand, eg., the Far East, Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Western Europe stH uses lead alkyl antiknock mtxes as Its most important octane enhancer. PPG and DuPont report that they wfll stop producing lead based antiknock mtetures by the end of the year. Uses % of ehdoroethane used 1. Tetraethyllead (TEL) 7S% Used as gasoline addWve for purposes of octane boosting and valve lubrication 2. Ethyl cellulose (EC) and Ethyl Hydraxyethyf cefltiose (EHEC) 10-20 % Used as a Am forming resin in lacquer, adhesives, varnishes, paints plastic products, laundry detergents 3. Ethyl benzene manufacturing <10% 4. Polystyrene manufacturing <10% 4. Topical anesthetic minimal 2 CMA 052324 Chloroethane Lifecycle Diagram ethylene T1 HO -- r-- fugitive i oo.l 17 b/yr tack 400,900 b/yr Chloroethane Manufacture 90,000.000 b/yr (4 sites) water 700 b/yr Data Sources: 1909 TRI release data Production data from RIB CEB and Contractor Libraries fugitive 1917 b/yr slack 771959 b/yr 65,000.000 b/yr TEL (1 Site) .79,000,000 Lb/yr (Based on 100,000.000 capacity for TEL prockicfion Note: If plant operates at 82% capacity then Input = output) water 70.752 b/yr fugitive 927,329 b/yr stack 738,807 b/yr 15,000,000 b/yr Ethyl Cellulose 650,000 Lb/Vr (Based on 100,000,000 production ol EC 4 EHEC and a molec wt of > 1000 for EC & EHEC) fugitive 1.014,600 b/yr lack 602,510 b/yr <10,000,000 b/yr To Be Determined Polystyrene Manufacture (4 sites) Ethylbenzene Manufacture To Be Determined To Be Determined ToB Determined Topical Anesth tic To Be Determin d CMA 052325 SUMMARY AND DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES: CHLOROETHANE AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN: APRIL 3, IMl Manufacturing: A!r Significant raiaases both fugRivt and stack. The risk appears to be low from these releases, however, considerable uncertainty exists in the risk modeling. Analysis of total waste generation using TRI treatment codes to quantify pollution prevention possibilities could be undertaken. Water, Minimal TRI reported releases to water. May be deposition of air releases in water. May want to evaluate risks from low level contaminants in drinking water. Occupational: See TEL TEL Air- Significant releases both fugitive and suck. The risk appears to be low from these releases, however, considerable uncertainty exists in the risk modeling. Analysis of total waste generation using TRI treatment codes to quantify pollution prevention possibilities cotid be undertaken. Water TRI reported water releases. Economic data shows that U. S. TEL production is being phased out as leaded gasoline is phased out. In the near term. Occupational: Monitoring dau from OSHA and NIOSH show worker exposures well below the PEL PEL 1000 ppm 2800 mg/rtf. OSHA generally does not establish PELs above lOOOppm. PEL was developed prior to Wormatlon received regarding carcinogenic and developmental toxicity endpoints. The level of concern for these endpoints is several orders of magnitude below the PEL (EED received new information from IRIS. RfC Online 4/2.) Ethyl Cellulose and Ethyl 2-Hydroxyethyl Cellulose Air Significant releases both fugitive and suck. The risk appears to be low from these releases, however, considerable uncertainty exists In the risk modeling. Analysis of total waste generation using TRI treatment codes to quantify pollution prevention possibiltles could be undertaken. Water Minimal TRI reported releases to water. May be deposition of air releases in water. May want to evaluate risks from low level contaminants In drinking water. Occupational: Sea TEL (Vnenmer Potential exposure from use in consumer products. Ethylbenzene Air Ho reported TRI releases, therefore, unknown. Water Unknown Occupational: See TEL 4 ^ 52326 SUMMARY AND DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES: CHLOROETHANE Areas of Potential Conesm, eont'd Polystyrene APRIL 3, 1**1 Air; Significant releases both fugitive and stack are repotted in TRI only for polystyrene producers. The risk appears to be low from these releases, however, considerable uncertainty exists in tfce risk modeling. Water Minimal TRI reported releases to water. May be deposition of air releases in water. May want to evaluate risks from low level contaminants In drinking water. Occupational: See TEL Consumer Possible consumer exposure exists due to use of polystyrene In construction. Topical Anesthetic; No TRI reports were avaiabie. Air release during use as a spray anesthetic and consequent exposure to health related occupations and consumers is possible. REGULATORY STATUS CAAA Hazardous Organic National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) [CAA - Clean Air Act Amendments; Hazardous Organic NESHAP - HON] Defines Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to be in-place by 1995. Note MACTs are not risk based. Multimedia impacts may be considered by HON Workgroup. Chloroethane Is on Hazardous Air Poflutant List (HAP). It and most of Its derivatives wil be targeted for air release reductions of 90% In a November, 1991 Proposed Rda. Fugitive Release NESHAP NESHAP for emission sources such as equipment leaks emanating from flanges and pumps was developed through a negotiated ntfemaktng. WB be included in the HON Proposed rule. Fugitive emissions wK be reduced by leak detection and repair programs (LDAR). Office of Drinking Water (00W) Proposed Test Rule Oral 14-day repeated dose and oral 90-day subchronle toxicity studies would be performed for chloroethane and four other chlorinated compounds. Data will be used to develop Health Advisories for unregtiated drinking water contaminants. 5 CMA 052327 SUMMARY AND DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES: CWLOflOETHANE APRIL 3, tMf RISK REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES OR MISSING PIECES Air: Because this is a volatile chemical, moat opportunities may be in better containment. Most releases are reported to air and most sources of releases identified In the pollution prevention screening support this conclusion. At the current time regulations under development In the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) may address these concerns. r Water Most reported water releases are from TEL production. TEL production is being phased out so no risk reduction action appears necessary in this area. Other water concerns would involve very low levels of releases (too low to be reported In TRI) or deposition from air releases. The OAR regulatory effort may address the air release problem as It may reduce water deposition. There may be other sources of chloroethane In water. The ODW Test RJe wf provide resJts on the level of concern in drinking water. OTS may wish to revisit this area of concern after the restits of the test nie have been received. Occupational: Develop information for OSHA, FDA Consumer Investigate possible exposure from variety of uses of ethyl cellJose in consumer products. Investigate possible exposure from foamed plastics used in construction. Wasts: Investigate TRI release codes to determine waste generation in releases (l.e. whether releases are pre-treatment or post-treatment) POTENTIAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Furthr invaaseatory work Investigate posable exposure from variety of uses of ethyl cellJose In consumer products. Investigate possible exposure from foamed plastics used in construction. Investigate TRI release codes to determine waste generation in releasas (la. whathar releases are pre-treatment or post- treatment) Voluntary aOmi: None Identified at this time informaeon OteaamfMSon; None Identified at this time infonMSon Rgiea: None identified at this time Teat Riiaat Rule has been proposed, awaiting *B' decision. Referral: Refer new endpoint hazard information to OSHA Refer new endpoint hazard information to FDA Refer to OAR for CFG Substitutes study SoeSon s Rriea: No action Identified at this time 6 CMA 052328 SUMMARY AMO DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES'. CHLOROCTHANE FURTHER WORK DATE TASK 1) Refer health data to ACGIH, OSHA; Refer concerns on topical anesthetic use to FDA DIVISION HERD & ECAD 2) Follow up on exposure from rigid foam. (Clarify use of chioroethane in ethyl benzene and polystyrene manufacture and potential for consumer exposure.) investigate appropriateness of referral to OAR/OTS CFC Substitutes project (may not be considered a CFC substitute). EED & ETD 3. Analyze TRI Release and Treatment data to Quantify Waste Generation (Return to RM2 to report and consider further actMty. Possible candidate for information dissemination.) ETD 4. Follow up on exposure from use of chioroethane in ethyl eellUosa. (Identify uses and potential for exposure.) ETD EED RESOURCES minimal TIME ~ <.1FTE, $10k 2 months <$lOk 2 months .1 FTE, $20k 4 months .1 FTE. $101 2 months Total 4 6 months 7 CMA 052329 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS AND POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY SCOPING CHLOROETHANE BASIC CHEMICAL PROPERTIES r Chloroethane (ethyl chloride) CAS # 75-00-3; C^^Ct, mw 64.52, mp -139C, bp 12.3C, density 0.891, fog )^w 1.47 (estimate), water sdubllry 5.7 g/llter (20C), vapor pressure 1199 mm Hg (25 eC). All data except log 1^, are measured values. Environmental Fate Summary: Most of the compound wotfd go to air, even 8 the major releases were not to air, because of relatively rapid vofatllzation from water, and low adsorption. There Is little potential for bioaccumulation. The half-life In air Is expected to exceed a week under most conditions (USEPA, 1969 reported a range of roughly one week to two months). Leifer estimated 27 days for the troposphere (personal communication). HEALTH HAZARD Summary of Health Hazard Concern for Chloroethane The primary health hazard concern for chloroethane is cancer. When chloroethane was tested at a single dose level (15,000 ppm) for carcinogenicity by the inhalation route in rats and mice, there was dear evidence of carcinogenic activity for female mice, as indicated by carcinomas of the uterus. There was high to moderate concern for neurotox at RM-1. Chloroethane has not been reviewed/verified by CRAVE, Le., there is no carcinogen classification for chloroethane. There Is, however, an Aprl 1.1991 inhalation RfC of 10 mg/rrf based on developmental toxicity (delayed fetal ossification in mice). This is a recent data development Quantitative Dose-Response Assessmertior Chloroethane In September 1990, EED carried out a preliminary quantitative dose-response assessment for chloroethane and estimated a slope factor of 2.9 x id1 per (mg/kg)/day (inhalation unit risk; 8.3 x iff* per mg/rn1] based on an 86% Incidence of uterine carcinomas of endometrial origin In female mice exposed to 15,000 ppm in air for 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 100 weeks In an NTP study. The linearized multistage procedure was employed, but EED expressed reservations about using this slope factor because the study employed only the one positive dose plus control. Preliminary experiments indicated that a higher dose than 15,000 ppm could have been tolerated; the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. Two more reactive analogues selected by the Oncology Branch of HERD, bromoethane and 1.2* dichloroethane. have estimated slope factors of 8.3 x iff3 and 9.1 x iff* per (mg/kg)/day, respectively. The first slope factor was derived by EED; the second obtained from the IRIS database. These slope factors are, as expected, higher but stll consistent with the estimated value for chloroethane. 8 CMA. 052330 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROETHANE USES/VOLUMES APRILS. 1M1 Manufacturers: Dow Chemical DuPont Ethyl Corp. PPG Industries Inc. Total Production Volume: 1969 - 120 mllion lbs. U S. consumption: 90 mllion lbs. Export: 30 mllion lbs. Market Trends: U. S. consumption of chloroethane has decreased steady since 1970 because of phaseout of lead in gasoline. U. S. production of cNoroethane in the last four years, however, has been stable because of strong export demand, eg., the Far East Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Western Europe stSl uses lead alkyl antiknock mbces as Its most Important octane enhancer. PPG and DuPont report that they wfl stop producing lead based antiknock mixtures by the end of the year. Once this production shuts down, domestic production of chtoroethane should decrease drastically. Uses % of choloroethane used 1. Tetraethyllead (TEL) 75% 2. Ethyl cellulose (EC) andEthyl Hydraxyethyl celtiose (EHEC) 10-20 % 3. Foamed plastics: initiator for ethyl benzene for styrene, polystyrene and alkyl catalyst < 10% 4. Topical anesthetic minimal Source: Telephone conversations with Jtiie Sheehy. CEH, 3/26-4/3,1901. REGULATORY STATUS CAAA Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Defines Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to be in-place by 1995. Note MACTs are not risk based. Miitimedla impacts may be considered by HON Workgroup. Chloroethane is on Hazardous Air Pollutant List (HAP). It and most of Its derivatives wli be targeted for air release reductions of 90% In a November. 1991 Proposed Rule. Fugitive Release NESHAP NESHAP for emission sources such as equipment leaks from flanges and pumps was developed through a negotiated niemaking. This wfl be Included in the HON Proposed rule. Fugitive emissions wit be reduced by leak detection and repair programs (LDAR). ODW Proposed Test Rule Oral 14-day repeated dose and oral 90-day subchronic toxicity studies woiid be performed for chloroethane four other chlorinated compounds. Data wfl be used to develop Health Advisories for unregulated drinking water contaminants. 9 CMA 052331 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOAOETHANE. Manufacturing . MANUFACTURING APRIL 3, 1HI INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY AND PROCESSES DESCRIPTION CNoroethane is manufactured at 4 alias: Dow Chamical, TX DuPont NJ Ethyl Corp, TX PPG, LA Tha majority of chforoethane Is producad by tha hydrochlorination of athylana. This reaction is carried out In tha presence of a catalyst such as aluminum chloride. The reaction product is sent to a separator where tha lower bding ethyl chloride Is removed and further refined by fractionation. See Figure 2 for a typical chforoethane manufacturing block diagram. CNoroethane Is most commonly produced by hydrochlorination of ethylene In the presence of aluminum chloride (AIC^); AIPi CHj-CH, + Ha-------- -> CHj-CHj*Q RELEASE ANALYSIS TRI Data 1M9 FacSity Environmental Releases (Ib/yr) Air Fugitive StKk Water Other Dow Chemical, TX DuPont, NJ1 Ethyl, TX PPG. LA 20,000 1,917 4,200 74,000 2.000 38.980 0 420,000 300 0 00 00 400 0 TOTAL 100,117 460,980 700 0 (i) DuPont NJ is both a manufacturer and user (In tetraethyl laad) of cNoroethana. For this analysis, it was assumed that 50% of the air releases were attributable to manufacture. EXPOSURE ANALYSIS General Population Atmospheric exposure (inhalation) was evaluated. Ambient levels and populations potentially exposed from both manufacturingjod user sites were previously estimated by EED from pre-1989 TRI data. See Table displayed below, following Figure 2. 10 CMA 052332 PURGE ON RECYCLED ETHYLENE 4GAS1 CMA. 0 5 2 3 3 3 f t*jure 2 I'rocwss Schematic: llyilroclilorindtion of tlliylene LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROE7HANE, Manufacturing Exposure, cont'd - Occupational PEL 1000 ppm - 2600 mg/m* OSHA generally does not establish PELS above lOOOppm. Monitoring data refers only to TEL production. See Use 1. Environment Data collected only for TEL manufacturing. See Use 1. RISK CHARACTERIZATION APRIL 3, 1W1 r General Population From Manufacturing and User Sites EED calculated a cancer slope factor for ehloroethane based on an incidence of uterine carcinomas of endometrial origin (2.9x1 ff3 per (mg/kg)/day). Since only one nonzero dose was tested, the uncertainty of this slope factor Is more than normally accepted. Because of this uncertainty, risks for ehloroethane using analogues (bromoethane and l,2<dichioroethane) were also ealctiatad. However, because the two analogues used are both more reactive than ehloroethane, derived risk estimates probably overestimate the risk. The risk numbers presented in the following sections are Intended as a means of gaining soma perspective on the significance of the estimated exposure levels. These risk numbers shoUd not be viewed as rigorous estimates of actual cancer risk. The overall number of predicted cancer cases besed on these risk numbers is relatively smafl. AMBIENT AIR EXPOSURES PROJECTED FROM 1967 TRI RELEASES From Manufacturing and User Sites EXPOSURE LEVEL (Mg/W*) 3.8E+01 22E+01 1.0E+01 7_5E*00 5.0E+00 2JE+00 1.0E+00 LIFETIME UPPER BOUND AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL DAILY POSE RISK LEVEL (*g/kg)/day 1.1E-02 7.1E-03 2.8E-G3 2.1E-03 1.4E-03 7.1E-04 2.8E-04 3E-05 2E-05 8E-06 6E-06 4E-06 2E-06 8E-07 1.0E-07 2.8E-1X 8E-14 TOTALS: (Maximum Calculated Concentration: 6.1 mg/m ) EXPOSED POPULATION 2222 10,777 5,649 L898 2L859 58,964 12,233 95205 41.406267 UPPER BOUND EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER CASES 7E-02 22E-02 5E-02 IE-02 9E-02 12E-02 IE-02 8E-09 6E-01 12 CMA 052334 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROETHANE. Manufacturing Risk Characterization, cont'd. APRIL 3, 11*1 By this estimate there could be an upper bound of less than 1 (0.6) excess life-time cancer cases among a total exposed population of 41,406,667. if the slope factors of the two analogues, bromoethane or i,2-dichioroethane, are used in the ealciiatton, the upper bound on excess life-time cancer cases Is estimated at 2 or 18, respectively. There are uncertainties associated with this evaluation. Occupational Exposures Exposure at the OSHA PEL of 2600 mg/m5 for a working lifetime corresponds to an individual upper bound lifetime cancer risk of greater than Itf1. New data on developmental toxicity also indicates that the PEL may not be sufficiently protective for this endpoint. Monitoring data refers only to TEL production. Drinking Water Exposures No separate assessment for manufacturing sector. See Use 1. 13 CMA 052335 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT. Manufacturing April 3. 1M1 SOURCE ASSESSMENT Identification of releases/wastes of coneom o Nearly all chloroethane amissions are to air o Examples of major stack release sources are storage tanks and process vents o Examples of fugitive air emissions sources are valve leaks and other equipment leaks o Analyses of data have focussed on end of pipe TRI releases. Analyses of waste generation could be undertaken using TRI treatment codas. SOURCE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES PROCESS CHANGE ASSESSMENT o Develop understanding on the size of purge stream on ethylene recycle line and its contribution to total air emissions o Research whether there are catalysts which wodd reduce amount of ethylene throughput, spent catalyst regeneration, polymer bottoms production, heavy end production in fractionating column MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT o LDAR (leak detection and repair) programs within facllty to limit fugitive emissions wil be promjgeted In HON. RECYCLE OPPORTUNITIES Potential opportunities that could be investigated era: o Condensers or carbon adsorbers In stack vents end storage tanks to recover VOC's followed by separation (if necessary) and recycling o Separation/recyding unit for cooling water streams contaminated with chloroethene o Recovery cNoroethane from polymer bottoms, heavy ends end spent eataiyst regeneration CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES ' Improved treatment technologies that may be worthy of further investigation: o Vent VOC's to existing boiler or process heeler for energy recovery o Incinerate gas from process vents, storage tanks and transfer operations o Condensers in stack vents to recover VOC's and VOC's sent to flare Improved disposal technologies: 14 CMA 052336 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROETHANE, USE 1: TETRAETHYLLEAD USE 1: TETRAETHYLLEAD (TEL) APRIL 3, 1M< INDUSTRY/USE PROFILE Manufacturers: Ethyl Corp (U S. plant on stand-by); PPG (reportedly will cease production of TEL by end of 1991), and DuPont Function: TEL is an antiknock or octane booster additive for gasoline mixes. TEL also provides valve lubrication. Processors: A DuPont site located In Deepwater,NJ makes TEL A strong export market exists, although as other countries develop regiiations for leaded gasoline, the export market may decline. Also some lead is stS used which accounts for the stable production over the last three years. About 60% of the antiknock mix is a lead alkyl, either TEL or TML (tetramethy! ethyl lead). TEL is cheaper than TML and is often used with TML for motor gasoline. For aviation additives, only TML Is used. As of 1990. E.I. duPont with an estimated 100 mUion lbs./year TEL capacity at Deepwater, N.J. probably provides most TEL to the market. A majority, 50% 80% of the TEL produced was exported. On 3/18/91, duPont announced k wl stop making TEL by mid-1991. (CMR) The only North American supplier after that wi be an Ethyl Corp. plant In Canada. Amounts needed to meet North American demand in next year is about 40 mWon lbs. (Sourea: CMR A Jaml Waklm, CEH, telephone conversation, 4/3/91.) Lead may stll be allowed in gasoline for term end mlltaiy uses. INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION The first process used for the manufacture of tetraethyflead Involved a batch reaction between sodium-lead alloy and chloroethane. This basic approach, with improvements and variations, was the predominant commercial routs to tetraethyflaad from the early 1920s to the early 1960s. DuPont's facflty in Deepwater, NJ uses chloroethane to manufacture tetraethyl lead. See figure 3 for a typical tetraethyl lead manufacturing block diagram. Sodium-lead alloy is reacted with chloroethane In the presence of a catalyst (usually acetone) to form tetraethyl lead (TEL)* After reaction is complete, unreacted chloroethane is vented and tha reactor contents are moved to a stripper for separation of the TEL from the reaction slurry. The reaction bottoms are washed to remove sodium chloride and to recover the lead. The TEL is sent to a blending unit for the antiknock mixture. The use of TEL in gasoline is (legal for most uses in the U.S. and is gradually being phased out in other areas of tha world, such as western Europe. RELEASE ANALYSIS 1989 TRI data: Facility: DuPont, NJ Air Fugitive: Stack: 1.917 lb/yr 77,959 lb/yr Water 70.752 lb/yr 15 CMA. 052337 3 s S. flake u|> CMA 052338 I c3 Siio|il i I toil II luck U*uir.a<;i: lelraolliyl lead hu:ii jOuiimi-l Allny LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROETHANE, U 1: T*tniyUMd APRIL 3, 1M1 EXPOSURE ANALYSIS General Population Occupational PEL - 1000 ppm - 2600 mg/m3 OSHA generally does not establish PELS above lOOOppm. Available OSHA and NIOSH monitoring data was substantially below PEL Environment The levels In water resulting from pre-1989 TRI reported releases were all estimated to be below 1 ppb. They ranged from 0.005 mg/L to 0.54 mg/I (ppb). No nearby drinking water utilities were found. RISK CHARACTERIZATION General Population Separate analysis not performed for scoping. See analysis prepared In Manufacturing Section Occupational Exposure at the OSHA PEL of 2600 mg/m3 for a working lifetime corresponds to an individual upper bound lifetime cancer risk of greater than iff1. A NIOSH survey at a tttraethyi lead plant showed average exposures to chloroethane of 0.4 mg/m1. Exposure at this level for a working llfetimt corresponds to a lifetime upper bound individual cancer risk of about 4E10*. Drinking Water No reported TRI releases are located upstream of drinking water intakes. Furthermore, releases to water appear to be low end modeled ambient water concentrations are very low, resulting in an overall low level of concern for water exposures. 17 CMA 052339 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT Um I: TatTMthyOtad SOURCE ASSESSMENT APRIL 3, It* 1 Identification of releases/wastst of conctm o Approximately half of the chloroethane emissions are to air and the other half to water, o Examples of major stack release sources are storage tanks and process vents, o Examples of fugitive air emission sources are valve leaks and other equipment leaks, o The major water source is from washing of reactor bottoms, o Analyses of data have focussed on end of pipe TRl releases. Analyses of waste generation could be undertaken using TRl treatment codes. SOURCE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT Market Information Tetramethyl ethyl load (TML) Is better quality; more expensive than TEL When leaded gasoline is phased out completely, there wfl no longer be a need for lead alkyl antiknock mixes. Other substances wtl be used. DuPont died declining domestic demand and tightening environmental controls as reason tor dosing U. S. plant, despite strong export demand. Chemical Criteria for Substitute Performance Since TEL may not be produced domestically in the future, there may be no need to substitute for chloroethane in TEL production. If substitutes were of Interest, the following wodd apply: The most fundamental criteria tor an alternative to using chloroethane In the preparation of tetraethyllead is for the alternative substance to provide an ethyl (-C^H>) moiety. An electrochemical process for tetraethyllead which does not utllze chloroethane was developed by K. Ziegler in the early 1960s (U.S. Patent 3,372.097 March 5.1968; K. Ziegler and H. Lehmkuhi). It is not dear to what extent the Ziegler process is used commercially, but essentially molten poassJum-e/uminum-corripiex (KAI(C^U * Nectrdyzed to yield tetraethyllead by the following equation; 4 KAI(QHL + Pb-- Pb<CifU 4 K + 4 AKC^k The preparation of the potessiunvalumlnum-ethyf complex is accomplished by combining ethylene and hydrogen with potassium and aluminum. Yield of tetraethyllead is virtually quantitative. Systems Analysis of Use Function: Not necessary for this scoping. Hazard Review of Substitutes: Not necessary for this scoping. 18 CMA 052340 POLLUTION PREVENTION ANO CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNrTY ASSESSMENT Um 1: Ttratf*yi>Md PROCESS CHANGE ASSESSMENT APRIL 3, 1M1 Technological opportunities may induda: o Research other routes to TEL synthesis other than Sodium-Lead Alkylation o Research other methods for rowing sodium chloride other than water washing which may be a large source of chtoroethane release. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT o LDAR (leak detection and repair) programs within facllty to limit fugitive emissions will be prormigated in HON. RECYCLE/REUSE OPPORTUNITIES Potential opportunities that could be investigated are: o Condensers or earbon adsorbers in stack vents and storage tanks to recover VOCs followed by separation (V necessary) and recydtng o Improved separation/recydlng unit for wash water/strfpplng streams contaminated with chtoroethane may be worthy of kiveatigtflon CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES MAY INCLUDE: o Vent VOCs to existing boler or process heater for energy recovery o Incinerate gas from process vents, storage tanks and transfer operations IMPROVED DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES Not applicable. 19 CMA 052341 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOAOCTHAHE Us* 2: Ethyl MIuIom and Ethyl 2~Hydro*y*thy1 CaUuloaa USE 2: ETHYL CELLULOSE (EC) AND ETHYL 2-HYDROXYETHYL CELLULOSE (EHEC) APRIL 3, IMt INDUSTRY/USE PROFILE r Dow vacated business In 1969. The only U. S. site currently producing EC & EHEC is in Partin, N.J. (periodic production as demanded) and is owned by Aquaion Co. This is a company formed by a merger with Hercules & Henkel's water-soluble polymers businesses. The EC & EHEC equipment was transferred from a site in Kennedy, Texas. About 10 mlllon lbs. of EC & EHEC is produced in the U. S. The functional use for EC & EHEC Is as a flm forming resin, whether used as an ink or a surface coating. Can be formulated into lacquer, adhesives, varnishes, and plastic products. It produces a candy-apple effect such as coating for bowling balls. The way it is manufactured in the U.S., It is a non water-soluble material. Processors could Include industrial coating companies, manufacturers of bowling balls, etc. Importer Beroi, Importing water soluble EC A EHEC. but under 100,000 Ibe. Source: telephone conversation with Mr. John Coin, Business Manager for Water Soluble Ethers and Markets, Chemical Economics Research, SRI. 4/3/91. INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION Their syntheses involve the reaction of alkali celltJose with chloroethane (ethyl cellulose) or chloroethane and ethylene oxide (ethyl 2-hydroxyethyt cellulose). Chloroethane la used as an intermediate to make ethyl cellulose. This occurs at five Dow Chemical sites. Alkali csiUose solution is added along with chloroethane. to an agitated, nickel-lined, pressurized vessel where I Is ethylated between 90 end ISO deg. C for 6-12 hours. The ethyl cellulose product is purified by washing wfth water In a salnless steel vessel then dried and packaged. See Figure 4 for a typical ethyfcetlutose manufacturing block diagram. 20 CMA, 052342 7* Ethyl Chloride ~k [Ethyl Chloride (some) Ethanol Ether Mydrochlor1nation of Ethanol to Ethyl Chloride --------------- Ctliyl Chlorid {storage} Ethyl Chloride ^ Alkalai Cellulose spent NaOH^ ( to recovery) Ala ter NaOlt * Water. (box soln)|r "TeTTufiSSe-* Mixer ir v Ethyl Cellulose Uasher lllock Diagram: I spent Water Ethyl Cellulose Dryer (90 C) Ethyl fi-1 (pi oHti CMA 0 5 2 3 4 3 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROETHANE Uii 2: Ethyl MluleM and Ethyl 2'Hydroayathyf CdttutoM RELEASE ANALYSIS 1989 TRI Dsti: Facility Environmental Releases 0b/yr) Air Fugitive Stack Dow Chemical. II Dow Chemical, CT Dow Chemical, GA Dow Chemical, CA Dow Chemical, Ml TOTAL 240,000 208.000 336.200 140,000 3,120 927.329 130,000 164,000 139,000 150,000 146,967 738,807 Water 0 0 0 0 8 8 APRIL 3, IMI EXPOSURE ANALYSIS Occupational PEL <* 1000 ppm 2600 mg/in' OSHA generally does not establish PELS above lOOOppm. General Population Environment Separata analysis not performed tar Scoping. Sea analyses performed In Manufacturing Section for both General Popiiatlon and Environment Conaumar Possible exposure in consumer products. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ' Occupational Exposure at the OSHA PEL of 2600 mg/m1 for a working lifetime corresponds to an individual upper bound lifetime cancer risk of greater than id1. New data on developmental toxicity also indicates that the PEL may not be sufficiently protective for this endpoint. Monitoring data refers only to TEL production. General Population, Environment, Drinking Water Separate analysis not performed for Scoping. See Manufacturing Section. 22 CMA 052344 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT Us* 2: Ethyl CeUulo** and Ethyl 2-Hydroiyhy1 Callulos* APRIL 3, mi SOURCE ASSESSMENT Identification of relaaaes/wastas of concern r o Nearly all chloroethana emissions are to air o Examples of stack release sources are storage tanks and process vsnts o Examples of fugitive air amission sources are valve leaks and other equipment leaks o Analyses of data have focussed on end of pipe TRI releases. Analyses of waste generation could be undertaken using TRI treatment codes. SOURCE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT Market Information Other cellulose ethers are likely substitutes for EHEC such as hydroxylethyl cellulose, hydroxypropy! ceflufose and methyl ceiUose; water soluble solvents. The market is dedining-expect to continue to decrease because there ere no new applications and competition from water-soluble solvents. EC end EHEC ie described by CEH as a fine functional chemical that is intrinsically a solvent Chemical Criteria for SubeUtute Performance The most fundamental criteria for an alternative to using chloroethana in the preparation of ethyl ceiitiose or ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl eeHtiose from celliiose It for the alternative substance to provide an ethyl (-C^) moiety. Examples of such substances having stmlar alkylating ablity to that of chloroethana are bromoethane and iodoethane. It does not appear, however, that bromoethane or iodoethana art used during the commercial synthesis of ethyl ceOUose or ethyl 2-hydroxyethy) ceildose. Systems Analysis of Use Function Not necessary for this scoping. Heard Review of Substitutes Bromoethane and iodoethane are more toxic than chloroethana. PROCESS CHANGE ASSESSMENT Technological opportunities may indude: o Examine extent to which wash wstar in ethyl cellulose manufacture is contaminated with chloroethana. Research other methods of washing ethyl csfdose product or reduce the amount of wash water used. o Research ethytator operating conditions so as to minimize chloroethana losses o Research use of nitration step to remove excess NaOH from alkali celluloee production before ethytator step 23 CMA 052345 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND control TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT Um 2; ethyl CIIu!m and Ethyl 2-MyWwrydthyi CWluioM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT APRIL 3. 1 HI o LDAR (leak detection and repair) programs within faclity to limit fugitive emissions will be promulgated in HON RECYCLE/REUSE OPPORTUNITIES Potential epportimltiaa that ooiM be Inveeti^tad are: o Condensers or carbon adsorbers in stack vents, storage tanks and sthyl csilulose dryer to recover VOC's followed by separation (If necessary) and recycling o Improved separation/recycling unit for coding water, ethyl celliiose wash water and possibly spent NaOH streams contaminated with eNoroethane may be worthy of investigation CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES MAY INCLUDE: o Vent VOC's to cdsting bder or process hactar for energy recovery o Incinerate the gas from process vents, storage tanks and transfer operations IMPROVED DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES Net necessary for this scoping. 24 CMA 052346 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FQA CHLOflOCTHANE, Um 3: Ettiyl Bmimm USE 3: ETHYL BENZENE APRIL 3. 1M1 INDUSTRY/USE PROFILE Chloroethane is usad as an initiator for tht production of ethylbenzene. U. S. Producars of athytbanzana: Amoco, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron Tha quantity of athytbanzana producad in 1968 in tha U. S. was about 10 bfllion lbs. Almost all athytbanzana producad is usad for styrana. U. S. production of styrana in i960 was approximately 8.5 billion lbs. INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY AND PROCESSES DESCRIPTION CNorosthane is usad as an initiator In tha production of athytbanzana. Tha number of sites and their locations are unknown at this time (and no manufacturers of athytbanzana reported for chloroethane in TRI). Chloroethane Is combined with aluminum chloride and recycled alkylated benzenes to form a catalyst-complex phase. This complex is mixed with benzene in a reactor to disperse tha catalystcomplex phase. Ethylene is sparged into tha reaction mteture and essentially complete conversion of ethylene is obtained. Tha organic phase is washed with caustic and water to remove traces of catalyst. Tha crude ethylbenzene is sent to a series of three distliation columns for recovery of crude ethylbenzene. See Figure 5 for a typical process ftav diagram. 25 CMA 052347 Figure 5 E itifiUnnrie |>Ullui 1 0 01 1w0 00 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROCTMANC Um 3: Ethyl Bwuww RELEASE ANALYSIS 1889 TRI Data: No reports APRILS, mi EXPOSURE ANALYSIS Occupational PEL - 1000 ppm - 2600 mg/m5 OSHA generally does not establish PELs above lOOOppm. General Population Environment No separate analysis done for Scoping. See analysis under Manufacturing. RISK CHARACTERIZATION Occupational Exposure at the OSHA PEL of 2600 mg/m* for a working lifetime corresponds to an individual upper bound lifetime cancer risk of greater than 101. New data on developmental toxicity also indicates that the PEL may not be sufficiently protective for this endpoint Monitoring data refers only to TEL production. General Population, Environment, Drinking Water Separate analysis not performed for Scoping. See analyses performed in Manufacturing Section. 27 CMA. 052349 pollution prevention and control technology opportunity assessment Um 3: Ettiyt Baraww SOURCE ASSESSMENT april 3. i mi Ideritlfleation of reieases/wastee of concern o Nearly an chloroethane amissions art to air 0 Examples of stack release sources are storage tanks and process vents 0 Examples of fugitive air emission sources are valve leaks and other equipment leaks 0 Analyses of data have focussed on end of pipe TRI releases. Analyses of waste generation could be undertaken using TRI treatment codes. SOURCE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT Market Information Not readly avaiabie Chemical Criteria for Substitute Performance - The most fundamental criteria for the synthesis of ethylbenzene from benzene is the addition of an ethyf (-C^) moiety onto the benzene ring. Most commercial synthases of ethylbenzene Involve reacting benzene with ethylene m the presence of a catalyst comp!ax which usually consists of aluminum chloride and chloroethane. in such synthases sthyfene provides the requisite ethyl moiety; chioroethsne serves as a constituent of the catalyst complex A synthetic procedure that does not utBize chloroethane is the Mobl/Badger ethyfbenzene process. This process was developed during the 1970s and was based on a synthetic zaoiita catalyst, ZSM-5. developed by the MoM 01 Corporation. The catalyst is basically slica-alumina and the reaction, which utlizas benzene and ethylene, provides ethylbenzene in nearly quantitative yield. Many companies have adopted this synthetic approach. System* Analysis of Us* Function Not necessary for this scoping. Hazard Review of Substitute! Not necessary for this scoping. PROCESS CHANGE ASSESSMENT Technological opportunities may include: 0 Optimize use of chloroethane as catalyst-promoter o Use hydrogen chloride (HCi) as catalyst in place of chloroethane o investigate the use of other catalyst-promoters other than HCi or chloroethane 28 CMA. 052350 POLLUTION PREVENTION ANO CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT Um 3: Ethyl BenieM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT o LDAR (task detection and repair) program within faeiity to limit fugitive emissions will be promulgated in HON. RECYCLE/REUSE OPPORTUNITIES Potential opportunltltt Mat eetfd be bw>e(pt> are: o Recover chioroethane from wash water In treating section. o Condenser In Benzene dehydrator stack section to recover chioroethane followed by recycling into reactor CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES MAY INCLUDE None IMPROVED DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES None 29 CMA. 052351 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROETHANE, Um 4: Fo^tyr*n USE 4: POLYSTYRENE APRIL 3. INI (NDUSTRY/USE PROFILE Chloroethane i$ used as in polystyrene production. No rafarencas have bean found for tha use of chloroethane as a blowing agent In the market literature. U. S. Producers of polystyrene: Dow, B Paso Products, Huntsman Chemical Corp., Koch Industries, Starting Chemicals, Inc. Styrene Is used to produce polystyrene. Approximately 66% of styrene Is used for polystyrene production. Total polystyrene production was 4.8 bCion lb*. in 1987. The use of ethylbenzene in producing polystyrene is In the polymerization process. The ethylbenzene diluent is mbced with the styrene monomer, if only e relatively small amount of diluent (e.g. 5-15%) is used, process is generally considered a modified mass polymerization process. If greatar amounts of dBuent are employed, the process is considered a solution process. Pentane, not chloroethane, is used as a blowing agent. (Telephone conversation wkh Eleanor Condly, CEH. 4/4/91.) The bulk of extruded (aa opposed to bead-molded) polystyrene foam board, used as an insulation board in construction, is produced by Dow, V.C. Industries, and Amoco. U. S. Consumption of polystyrene in construction was about 540 mi. lbs. in 1967. Approximately half of that is extruded foam board which used mostly for roofing. INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY AND PROCESSES DESCRIPTION Chloroethane Is used as a blowing agent in the production of polystyrene foam. This operation occurs at the following sites: Dow Chemical at MO, and 2 Ohio sites AMOCO Poem Products, VA Resin and nucleating agent are fed Into the first stage of the primary extruder and melted. Liquefied blowing agent is metered through the benel Into the second stage of the primary extruder, where it is thoroughly mixed with resin and nucleating agent This mixture is pumped into the secondary extruder where k b stirred, cooled and advanced to the die. As the gaseous polymer melt exits the dye, the pressure b released causing the blowing agent to vaporize and form the foam cells. See figure 6 for a typical polystyrene foam manufacturing block diagram. 30 CMA 052352 VlrghPol^rmMn 3 u* CMA. 0523S 3 C B*--l tawftiiuMfc Twnttw at Raground Snap Foam lo Sftoa Flow Diagram ol a Typical Polystyrene Foam Sheet Manufacturing Process LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROCTHANE Um 4: Felyatyrana RELEASE ANALYSIS 1969 TRI Data: Facility Dow, MO Dow, OH Dow, OH AMOCO. VA TOTAL Environmental Releases flp/yr) Fugitive Stack 330.000 282,000 12,600 390,000 390.000 212,000 510 0 1,014,600 602,510 APRILS, lilt EXPOSURE ANALYSIS Occupational PEL - 1000 ppm 2600 mg/rrf OSHA ganarally dots not astabliah PEL* above lOOOppm. Gtnaral Population Environment No saparata analysis dona for General Population or for Environment for Scoping. See analysis under Manufacturing. RISK CHARACTERIZATION Occupational Exposure at the OSHA PEL of 2600 mg/in' for a working lifetime corresponds to an individual upper bound lifetime cancer risk of greater than 101. New data on developmental toxicity also indicates that the PEL may not be sufficiently protective for this endpoint. Monitoring data refers only to TEL production. General Population, Environment, Drinking Water Separate analysis not performed for Scoping. See analyses performed in Manufacturing Section. 32 CMA 052354 POLLUTION PREVENTION ANO CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT Um 4: Petyatyrww SOURCE ASSESSMENT APRIL 3. 1991 identification of releeaee/waatee of concern o Nearly ail chioroethane emissions are to air o Examples of stack release sources are storage tanks and process vents o Examples of fugitive air emission sources are valve leaks and other equipment leaks o Analyses of data have focussed on end of pipe TRI releases. Analyses of waste generation could be undertaken using TRI treatment codes. SOURCE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT Market Information Not readly avalabie Chemical Criteria for Substitute Performance Not neceeaary for Scoping. Systems Analysis of Use Punedon Hazard Review of Substitutes PROCESS CHANGE ASSESSMENT Technological opportunities may Include: o Optimize amounts of blowing agents used in the process o investigate the use of chioroethane with other materials such as water to reduce the amount of chioroethane uaed o Substitute another blowing agent . MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT o LDAR (leak detactfon and rtpalr) program within facllty to limit fugitive emissions will be promulgated In HON. 33 CMA 052355 1i POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT Uw 4: potystyrwM RECYCLE/REUSE OPPORTUNITIES PvtanSal apportunnt-- tut eeoM b* fcwtBN art; o Capture vented blowing agent from secondary axtrudar o Condensers in stack vants and on storaga tanks to recover VOC's followed by saparation (V necessary) and racydlng o Improved separatton/recydlng unk tor cooling water streams contaminated with chioroethane may be worthy of Investigation o Recovery of blowing agent emitted from degassing from stored foam CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES MAY MCLUOC o Vent VOC's to existing boler or process heeler tor energy recovery o Incinerate the gas from process vents, storage tanks and transfer operations IMPROVED DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES Not necessary for scoping. 34 CMA. 052356 \ LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROETHANE Um S: Topical inMtxtle USE 5: TOPICAL ANESTHETIC INDUSTRY/USE PROFILE The use of chloroethane as a topical anesthetic can be traced back as early as 1848. Alffiough Its use as a topical anesthetic has declined over the past decade, many medical institutions stli use chloroethane for this purpose. In fact some sources have claimed that the use of chloroethane as a topical anesthetic wjl /ncreese as a result of the suddsn Increase in outpatient plastic surgery. Extensive literature now exists on theories and mechanisms of anesthesia, and It is believed that the local anesthetic properties of chloroethane are attributable to nonspecific interference with nerve conduction. A possible use exists as a recreational drug sold through specialty stores. The product is labeled 'Ethyl-Gaz' and the contents include chloroethane. INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY AND PROCESSES DESCRIPTION Not performed for Scoping. RELEASE ANALYSIS All chloroethane used as a topical anesthetic wtt be released to air, since it is used as a spray. EXPOSURE ANALYSIS Occupational PEL - 1000 ppm - 2600 mg/m* OSHA generally does not establish PELS above lOOOppm. Possible exposure to health care personnel. General Population Not necessary for thle scoping. Consumer Possible consumer exposure as It Is used. Environment Not necessary for this scoping. 35 CMA 052357 1 LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS FOR CHLOROCTHANE Um $: Topical ArmSmSc RISK CHARACTERIZATION APRIL 3, 1M1 Occupational Possible risk through inhalation during spray usa. General Population, Environment, Drinking Water Separata analysis not performed for Scoping. See analyses performed in Manufacturing Section. Consumer Possible Consumer risk through Inhalation and/or dermal absorption. In addition, potential abuse through home use. (Reported five cardiovascular related deaths in 1990 through use as inhaiant/stlmuiam.) Not developed for Scoping. 30 CMA 052358 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT Uh S: Topical AamOmEc SOURCE ASSESSMENT APRIL 3, Iff 1 Not necessary for this scoping. SOURCE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES SUBSTITUTE ASSESSMENT Market Information Not raadiy avalabia. Chemical Criteria for Substitute Performance In general, an ideal substitute for chforoethane as a topical anesthetic should have the following characteristics: (1) be nonflammable; (2) be inexpensive; (3) require uncomplicated equipment for administration; (4) provide adequate anesthesia; (5) produce rapid and uncomplicated induction and emergence; (6) have no effect on myocardium or respiration at anesthetic doses; (7) be chemically and metabolically stable; (8) have a reasonable margin of safety. An alternative product that Is equally as efficacious as ethyl chloride as a topical anesthetic Is methyl fluoride (fiuori-Methane"). The advantages of methyl fluoride over ethyl chloride are i. nonflammable; 2. little or no cancer concerns; 3. not as chlling (will not promote frostbite); and 4. provides the same degree of anesthesia. Systems Analysis of Usa Function Not necessary lor this scoping. Hazard Review of Substitutes e Not necessary for this scoping. The following analyst* war* not neceaaary for this ecoplng: TECHNOLOGY/PROCESS CHANGE ASSESSMENT - MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT RECYCLE/REUSE OPPORTUNITIES CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES IMPROVED DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES 37 CMA. 052359