Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 155
Appendix A Statement of Task The National Research Council will produce a detailed written report, con - clusions, and recommendations where appropriate on the following subjects: 1. Review the current industry practice for the use and storage of MIC in manufacturing processes, including a summary of key lessons and con- clusions arising from the 1984 Bhopal accident and resulting changes adopted by industrial users of MIC. 2. Review current and emerging technologies for producing carbamate pesticides, including carbaryl, aldicarb, and related compounds. The review should include: 2.1 Synthetic methods and patent literature 2.2 Manufacturing approaches used worldwide for these materials 2.3 Manufacturing costs for different synthetic routes 2.4 Environmental and energy costs and trade-offs for alternative approaches 2.5 Any specific fixed-facility accident or transportation risks associated with alternative approaches 2.6 Regulatory outlook for the pesticides including their expected life - time on the market 3. Examine the use and storage of MIC at the Bayer CropScience facility in Institute, West Virginia: 3.1 Identify possible approaches for eliminating or reducing the use of MIC in the Bayer carbamate pesticide manufacturing processes, through, for example, substitution of less hazardous intermediates, 155
OCR for page 155
156 USE AND STORAGE OF METHYL ISOCYANATE (MIC) AT BAYER CROPSCIENCE intensifying existing manufacturing processes, or consuming MIC simultaneously with its production. 3.2 Estimate the projected costs of alternative approaches identified above. 3.3 Evaluate the projected benefits of alternative approaches identified above, including any cost savings, reduced compliance costs, liabil- ity reductions, reduced emergency preparedness costs, and reduced likelihood or severity of a worst-case MIC release or other release affecting the surrounding community. 3.4 Compare this analysis to the inherently safer process assessments conducted by Bayer and previous owners of the Institute site. 3.5 Comment, if possible, on whether and how inherently safer process assessments can be utilized during post-accident investigations.