[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21223-21225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9422]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD
[Docket No. CSB-10-01]
National Academy of Sciences Study
AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations legislation for the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) provides funding
for a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine the
use and storage of methyl isocyanate, including the feasibility of
implementing alternative chemicals or processes and an examination of
the cost of alternatives at the Bayer CropScience facility in
Institute, West Virginia. With this notice, the CSB is outlining the
scope of the study to be undertaken by the NAS and requesting public
comments regarding the study.
DATES: Written comments must be received by the CSB on or before May
10, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by docket number
CSB-10-01, by either of the following methods:
E-mail (preferred): [email protected]. Include CSB-10-01
in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,
Office of Congressional, Public, and Board Affairs, Attn: D. Horowitz,
2175 K Street, NW., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20037.
Instructions: All comment submissions must include the agency name
and docket number. All comments received, including any personal
information provided, will be made available to the public without
modifications or deletions. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments electronically, including acceptable file formats, see the
``Electronic Submission of Comments'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Comments received by the CSB will
be posted online in the Open Government section of the CSB Web site,
http://www.csb.gov/open.aspx.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Daniel Horowitz, Director of
Congressional, Public, and Board Affairs, at (202) 261-7613.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Bayer CropScience Incident
On August 28, 2008, a fatal explosion and fire occurred at the
Bayer CropScience (BCS) plant located in Institute, West Virginia. The
explosion occurred during the restarting of the plant's methomyl
production unit, when highly toxic and reactive methomyl waste was
overloaded into a residue treater vessel. A violent runaway reaction
ruptured the 5,000-pound vessel and sent it through the production
unit, breaking pipes and equipment. The explosion and resulting
chemical release and fire fatally injured two employees. Six volunteer
firefighters and two others showed likely symptoms of chemical
exposure. The blast wave damaged businesses thousands of feet away.
Congressional Testimony
On April 21, 2009, John S. Bresland, Chairman of the CSB, testified
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee regarding the CSB's
ongoing investigation at the BCS site. Chairman Bresland testified that
the CSB investigation had revealed significant lapses in process safety
management. Plant operators had received inadequate training on a new
computer control system, which was being used for the first time.
Written operating procedures were outdated and could not be followed
during startups, due to longstanding equipment problems. The heater for
the residue treater was known to be undersized. This regularly forced
operators to defeat critical safety interlocks during startups--
increasing the chance of dangerously overloading the treater with
methomyl.
Chairman Bresland also stated that the blast could have propelled
the residue treater in any direction. About 80 feet from the original
location of the treater, there was a 37,000-pound capacity tank of
methyl isocyanate (MIC), which held 13,800 pounds of the highly toxic
and volatile liquid on the night of the accident. Chairman Bresland
announced that the CSB was further investigating whether this tank was
located in a safe position and whether alternative arrangements to
using or storing MIC had been considered at Bayer, or should be
considered in the future.
Interim Public Meeting
On April 23, 2009, the CSB investigation team presented its initial
findings to the Board at a public meeting in Institute, West Virginia.
In its presentation the CSB team stated that it planned to conduct
further studies on how MIC was used and stored at the facility, in
light of the preliminary findings.
Bayer Announcement
In August 2009, Bayer officials announced a plan which they said
would reduce both the maximum and the average inventory of MIC at the
Institute site by approximately 80%. This would be accomplished in part
by
[[Page 21224]]
eliminating the on-site production of two MIC-derived carbamate
pesticides, and in part by restricting the inventory of MIC needed for
producing two remaining pesticides. Bayer officials also stated the
company would end the bulk storage of MIC in aboveground tanks,
including the 37,000-pound capacity MIC tank that was near the August
2008 explosion site. That tank, as noted in Congressional testimony in
April, was exposed to potential projectiles and other hazards from the
explosion.
Congressional Appropriations
On October 30, 2009, the President signed the Fiscal Year 2010
appropriations legislation for the CSB. See Public Law 111-88, 123
Stat. 2949. This legislation contained the following language regarding
the CSB's ongoing investigation of the Bayer CropScience incident,
``Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading,
$600,000 shall be for a study by the National Academy of Sciences to
examine the use and storage of methyl isocyanate including the
feasibility of implementing alternative chemicals or processes and an
examination of the cost of alternatives at the Bayer CropScience
facility in Institute, West Virginia.'' Public Law 111-88, 123 Stat.
2950.
Proposed Study
In order to accomplish the study called for by the CSB's
appropriations legislation, the agency has drafted the following task
statement for the NAS:
Proposed Task Statement for National Academy of Sciences Study on
``Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: The Use of Methyl Isocyanate at
Bayer CropScience''
Public Law 111-88 (the Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010) directs the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) to conduct ``a study by the
National Academy of Sciences to examine the use and storage of methyl
isocyanate including the feasibility of implementing alternative
chemicals or processes and an examination of the cost of alternatives
at the Bayer CropScience facility in Institute, West Virginia.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congress appropriated $600,000 for conducting the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study is needed because of concerns about the potential for an
airborne release of the chemical, which is highly toxic by inhalation
and could adversely impact the health and safety of workers and the
public in West Virginia's Kanawha Valley.\2\ Depending upon the
progress of the study, the availability of funding, and other factors,
the CSB may contract for a second, related study to examine inherently
safer technology (IST) alternatives to other high-volume toxic
chemicals used in industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On December 3, 1984, the uncontrolled release of MIC from an
underground storage tank at a Union Carbide pesticide manufacturing
facility in Bhopal, India, killed thousands of residents and
disabled or injured thousands of others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a number of years, the Bayer facility in Institute \3\ has
stored approximately 200,000 pounds of methyl isocyanate (MIC), which
has been used as an intermediate to produce carbamate pesticides,
including carbofuran, carbaryl, aldicarb, methomyl, and thiodicarb
(Larvin). It is the only remaining site in the U.S. which manufactures
and stores large quantities of MIC. In August 2009, one year after a
serious explosion and fire near an aboveground MIC storage tank, Bayer
announced a plan to reduce the maximum inventory of MIC at the
Institute site by 80% and to eliminate aboveground storage of the
chemical. This plan, which is currently being implemented, would leave
approximately 40,000 pounds of MIC stored underground at the site on an
ongoing basis. To achieve the inventory reduction, Bayer plans to use
its existing carbamate manufacturing technology but to discontinue the
production of two MIC-derived carbamate pesticides, methomyl \4\ and
carbofuran.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The facility was constructed in the 1940's and was developed
as a carbamate pesticide manufacturing complex by Union Carbide,
which owned the facility from 1947-1986. Bayer CropScience acquired
the facility in 2002.
\4\ The methomyl production unit was heavily damaged in the
August 2008 explosion. Bayer opted not to rebuild the unit but to
begin purchasing methomyl from other sources and convert it into
thiodicarb (Larvin) at the Institute site. The conversion of
methomyl to thiodicarb does not use MIC.
\5\ On December 31, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency revoked all tolerances for the pesticide, having determined
that ``dietary, worker, and ecological risks are unacceptable for
all uses of carbofuran.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasks
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study will focus on further
risk-reduction opportunities, above and beyond the envisioned 80%
reduction in MIC inventory. To perform the study, the NAS shall convene
an expert panel with diverse representation, including individuals with
industry, academic, community, environmental, and labor experience and
backgrounds. The expert panel shall produce a detailed written report
and recommendations on the following subjects:
1. Review and evaluate the state of the art in inherently safer
process assessments and implementation:
Provide a working definition of Inherently Safer
Technology (IST), as the term applies to the chemical industry and
other process industries.
Review and evaluate current practices for inherently safer
process assessments, including the goals and applicability of these
tools. Specifically, do existing methods adequately account for all the
potential life-cycle benefits and risks from adopting inherently safer
technologies?
Review and evaluate current economic valuation methods for
estimating the cost of alternative chemicals and processes.
Specifically, do these methods accurately estimate capital investment
costs, operating costs, and payback periods?
Review and evaluate current standards and metrics for
measuring the effectiveness of inherently safer technology applications
in the chemical and process industries.
Review and evaluate the impact of existing State and local
regulatory programs that seek to promote inherently safer processes,
such as the Industrial Safety Ordinance in Contra Costa County,
California, and the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act in New Jersey.
Provide guidance on best practices for inherently safer
process assessments, metrics, and IST cost evaluation methods.
2. Examine the use and storage of MIC at the Bayer CropScience
facility in Institute, West Virginia:
Review the current industry practice for the use and
storage of MIC in manufacturing processes, including a summary of
changes adopted by industrial users of MIC following the 1984 Bhopal
accident.
Review current and emerging technologies for producing
carbamate pesticides, including carbaryl, aldicarb, and related
compounds. The review should include:
--Synthetic methods and patent literature.
--Manufacturing approaches used worldwide for these materials.
--Manufacturing costs for different synthetic routes.
--Environmental and energy costs and tradeoffs for alternative
approaches.
--Any specific fixed-facility accident or transportation risks
associated with alternative approaches.
--Regulatory outlook for the pesticides, including their expected
lifetime on the market.
Identify the best possible approaches for eliminating or
reducing
[[Page 21225]]
the use of MIC in the Bayer carbamate pesticide manufacturing
processes, through, for example, substitution of less hazardous
intermediates, intensifying existing manufacturing processes, or
consuming MIC simultaneously with its production. Examine these
approaches using the best practices for inherently safer process
assessment identified under Task 1.
Estimate projected costs of alternative approaches
identified above.
Compare the inherently safer process assessments conducted
by Bayer and previous owners of the Institute site with benchmarks
established under Task 1.
Deliverables
For each task, the NAS shall provide a monthly progress report to
the CSB from inception to completion. The NAS should promptly notify
the CSB of any problems encountered or other matters that require CSB
attention.
The principal deliverable item is a detailed written report of the
expert panel addressing each point in Tasks 1 and 2, above. The report
should be produced within 12 months of the initiation of the project.
The panel may conduct public hearings in West Virginia, or elsewhere,
as appropriate.
Questions for Public Comment
1. Does the proposed Task Statement include the appropriate topics
for consideration by the NAS? Are there any additional general or
specific topics the NAS panel will need to consider in order to reach a
satisfactory answer on the feasibility and costs of reducing the use
and storage of MIC?
2. If funds are available, should the CSB initiate a second,
related study to consider the feasibility, costs, and benefits of
inherently safer alternatives to other chemicals? For example, should a
study consider alternatives to the use of hydrogen fluoride in refinery
alkylation processes and/or to the use of chlorine in water treatment?
What other chemicals or processes should be considered if a second
study is undertaken?
3. What kinds of backgrounds and expertise should be represented on
the NAS panel?
4. Is the proposed timetable appropriate?
Electronic Submission of Comments
Electronic submission of comments is preferred. Comments should be
submitted by e-mail to [email protected]. Comments may be submitted
in the body of the e-mail message or as an attached PDF, MS Word, or
plain text ASCII file. Files must be virus-free and unencrypted. Please
ensure that the comments themselves, whether in the body of the e-mail
or attached as a file, include the docket number (CSB-10-01), the
agency name, and your full name and address.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(F), (N); Pub. L. 111-88, 123
Stat. 2950.
Dated: April 19, 2010.
Christopher W. Warner,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-9422 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6350-01-P