1

Methyl Bromide Methyl Bromide Critical Use ExemptionsCritical Use Exemptions

Colwell CookColwell CookKSU Methyl Bromide Alternatives Workshop KSU Methyl Bromide Alternatives Workshop

May 11, 2009May 11, 2009

2

TopicsTopics

Montreal ProtocolMontreal Protocol Methyl Bromide under the ProtocolMethyl Bromide under the Protocol Critical Use Exemption ProcessCritical Use Exemption Process

Division of Labor Division of Labor U.S. Technical Review ProcessU.S. Technical Review Process International ReviewInternational Review

3

4

Montreal Protocol on Substances Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layerthat Deplete the Ozone Layer

Stratospheric ozone layer shields Earth from UV radiationStratospheric ozone layer shields Earth from UV radiation Overexposure to UV radiation leads toOverexposure to UV radiation leads to

Melanoma and nonMelanoma and non--melanoma skin cancersmelanoma skin cancers Other health effects: cataracts, immunosuppressionOther health effects: cataracts, immunosuppression Ecological and economic impactsEcological and economic impacts

International treatyInternational treaty 196 ratified states196 ratified states Only universally ratified treatyOnly universally ratified treaty

Phases out production of ODSPhases out production of ODS Considered most successful environmental international agreementConsidered most successful environmental international agreement

5

Montreal Protocol TimelineMontreal Protocol Timeline

1987 1992 1995 1997 2009 2015

1987 - Treaty to Protect Ozone Layer

1995 – Agreement to phase out MeBrby 2010 in developed countries

1992 - Methyl Bromide listed as Ozone Depleting Substance

2009 – CUE requestssubmitted for 2011

1997 – Exemption processcreated

2015 – Developing countriesPhase out MeBr

6

Methyl Bromide Methyl Bromide –– Use Categories Under Use Categories Under Montreal ProtocolMontreal Protocol

Implemented under Clean Air ActImplemented under Clean Air Act Administered by Office of Atmospheric ProgramsAdministered by Office of Atmospheric Programs Critical Use Exemption ProcessCritical Use Exemption Process

No technically and economically feasible alternativesNo technically and economically feasible alternatives Loss of use will lead to a market disruptionLoss of use will lead to a market disruption

Quarantine and PreShipmentQuarantine and PreShipment Official government agency established quarantineOfficial government agency established quarantine

Commodities, nursery plants, soil treatment for propagative material Commodities, nursery plants, soil treatment for propagative material Preshipment is 21 days before shipment under regulations established before Preshipment is 21 days before shipment under regulations established before

1995 (e.g. Kenya timber)1995 (e.g. Kenya timber) Emergency ExemptionEmergency Exemption

One time use of up to 20 metric tonsOne time use of up to 20 metric tons Not implemented in U.S. Not implemented in U.S.

7

Critical Need:Critical Need:

Alternatives must be Technically and Economically Alternatives must be Technically and Economically Feasible Feasible

Alternatives lead to a Market DisruptionAlternatives lead to a Market Disruption Technical and economic review establishes the Technical and economic review establishes the

fundamentals of each applicant’s casefundamentals of each applicant’s case Information is used to derive numerical estimates (the Information is used to derive numerical estimates (the

BUNNI) on the amount of methyl bromide the U.S. BUNNI) on the amount of methyl bromide the U.S. will nominatewill nominate

Present Nomination Range for Interagency NegotiationPresent Nomination Range for Interagency Negotiation

8

Lesser Grain Borer

9

MeBr CUE MeBr CUE ––U.S. Review Process Since 2001U.S. Review Process Since 2001

OAPOAP Receives applicationsReceives applications Allocation ruleAllocation rule

OPPOPP Technical & Economic assessment of needTechnical & Economic assessment of need Estimates amount to requestEstimates amount to request Provides technical support at International meetingsProvides technical support at International meetings

USDAUSDA ReviewsReviews ResearchResearch

UniversitiesUniversities ReviewsReviews ResearchResearch

10

U.S. MeBr CUE Program TimelineU.S. MeBr CUE Program Timeline

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Developing Countries end

MeBr Consumption

Drafting 2010 CUE Final Rule,Drafting 2011 CUE NPRM

Developed Countries (including U.S.) end MeBr Consumption except for limited exemptions

U.S. submits first MeBr CUE

Nomination

U.S. 2012 CUE Nomination Due

1/25/10

11

Timeline of a Single CUE AllocationTimeline of a Single CUE AllocationYEAR ONE (Three Years Prior to Allocation)YEAR ONE (Three Years Prior to Allocation)1.1. OAR issues Federal Register notice inviting CUE applications (Spring)OAR issues Federal Register notice inviting CUE applications (Spring)2.2. Applicants send in applications for critical use MeBr (Summer)Applicants send in applications for critical use MeBr (Summer)3.3. OPP reviews applications, including quantities and any new research on OPP reviews applications, including quantities and any new research on

alternatives (Fall)alternatives (Fall)4.4. EPA, DOS, USDA, CEQ develop U.S. Critical Use Nomination document EPA, DOS, USDA, CEQ develop U.S. Critical Use Nomination document

(Winter)(Winter)YEAR TWO (Two Years Prior to Allocation)YEAR TWO (Two Years Prior to Allocation)1.1. DOS submits nomination to UNEP Ozone Secretariat (January)DOS submits nomination to UNEP Ozone Secretariat (January)2.2. Montreal Protocol Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) Montreal Protocol Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)

reviews developed country CUE Nominations and recommends amounts to the reviews developed country CUE Nominations and recommends amounts to the Parties (Summer)Parties (Summer)

3.3. At MOP, Parties At MOP, Parties authorizeauthorize CUE nomination amounts (Fall)CUE nomination amounts (Fall)YEAR THREE (One Year Prior to Allocation)YEAR THREE (One Year Prior to Allocation)1.1. OAR publishes NPRM announcing OAR publishes NPRM announcing allocationsallocations to sectors (Summer)to sectors (Summer)2.2. OAR reviews comment and makes any needed changes (Fall)OAR reviews comment and makes any needed changes (Fall)YEAR FOUR (Year of Allocation)YEAR FOUR (Year of Allocation)1.1. EPA publishes FRM (Spring)EPA publishes FRM (Spring)

12

MeBr Critical Use Exemption Application 2002 Biological and Economic Review by OPP, USDA, & Universities

Initial Assessment of Alternatives by Review Panel

Primary Biologist Review

Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues

Primary Economist Review

Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues, include spreadsheet

of analysis

Secondary Review

Biologists and Economists review database information, key issues, spreadsheets

Discussion and Evaluate on CUE Primary reviewers lead discussion, all reviewers vote

Later review all crops within a groupfor consist analysis of issues

2nd Discussion and Evaluate if Disagreements Occur Individuals submit their concerns in writing, they are summarized and

distributed to reviewers

13

MeBr Critical Use Exemption Application 2009 Biological and Economic Review by OPP & USDA

Initial Assessment of Alternatives by Review Panel

Primary Biologist Review

Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues

Primary Economist Review

Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues, include spreadsheet

of analysis

Discussion and Evaluate on CUE Primary reviewers lead discussion, all reviewers vote

Later review all crops within a groupfor consist analysis of issues

Discussions and Evaluate if Disagreements Occur

14

PostPost--Harvest CUEsHarvest CUEs

PostPost--harvest applications received:harvest applications received: in 2001 for MeBr use in 2005: 18in 2001 for MeBr use in 2005: 18 in 2009 for MeBr use in 2012: 13in 2009 for MeBr use in 2012: 13

U.S. PostU.S. Post--harvest nominated:harvest nominated: For 2005: 906,754 kgFor 2005: 906,754 kg For 2012: 161,301 kgFor 2012: 161,301 kg

Percent of U.S. NominationPercent of U.S. Nomination in 2005 9% of nominationin 2005 9% of nomination In 2012 14% of nominationIn 2012 14% of nomination

15

Amount of Methyl Bromide to Amount of Methyl Bromide to NominateNominate

Technical RecommendationTechnical Recommendation

Developed by OPPDeveloped by OPP Based on technical and economic feasibility of alternativesBased on technical and economic feasibility of alternatives

Technical feasibility of alternatives (e.g. efficacy and time lost)Technical feasibility of alternatives (e.g. efficacy and time lost) Regulatory constraints on alternativesRegulatory constraints on alternatives Loss as % gross revenue, loss as % net revenue, % profit lossLoss as % gross revenue, loss as % net revenue, % profit loss

2012 Nomination = 4.63% of 1991 baseline2012 Nomination = 4.63% of 1991 baseline Nominated amount based on negotiations between EPA, State, Nominated amount based on negotiations between EPA, State,

and USDAand USDA Technical range is 6.45 to 4.54% of baselineTechnical range is 6.45 to 4.54% of baseline U.S. nomination has always fallen inside technical rangeU.S. nomination has always fallen inside technical range

16

Indianmeal Moth Adult

17

Reduced MeBr CUE Based OnReduced MeBr CUE Based On

Technical ReasonsTechnical Reasons Alternatives Alternatives -- sulfuryl fluoride (Profume), phosphine, heatsulfuryl fluoride (Profume), phosphine, heat Better sanitationBetter sanitation Applicants do not reapplyApplicants do not reapply

Economic ReasonsEconomic Reasons Increased downtimeIncreased downtime Net revenues by facilityNet revenues by facility Losses from pests can lead to lower productionLosses from pests can lead to lower production

18

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Perc

ent o

f 199

1 Ba

selin

e

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%Nominated

Technical Range

Approved by Parties

Methyl Bromide Nomination HistorySoil and Post-Harvest Uses

19

Current Status of CUEsCurrent Status of CUEs

2010 Final Rule 2010 Final Rule Allocates 11.7% of baselineAllocates 11.7% of baseline Applies existing framework, but caps new production at 2009 Applies existing framework, but caps new production at 2009

amountsamounts Recently signed and should be published soonRecently signed and should be published soon

2011 Proposed Rule2011 Proposed Rule Parties authorized 8.1% of baselineParties authorized 8.1% of baseline Drafting proposed rule implementing that authorizationDrafting proposed rule implementing that authorization

2012 Critical Use Nomination2012 Critical Use Nomination 1,181 MT (4.6% of baseline)1,181 MT (4.6% of baseline) Submitted in January 2010Submitted in January 2010 Currently addressing second round of MBTOC questionsCurrently addressing second round of MBTOC questions

20

Colwell CookColwell Cook703703--308308--8146 8146

cook.colwell@epa.govcook.colwell@epa.gov