1

Arling, Jeremy

Subject: FW: Revised format of language on methyl bromide - emergency use

Attachments: MeBr CUE 2014 2015 Revised 7 2 14_Final_Draft.doc

From: Hufford, Drusilla 

Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 11:31 AM 

To: 'Laity, Jim' 

Cc: Donaldson, David 

Subject: RE: Revised format of language on methyl bromide - emergency use 

Jim – Attached is a draft that reflects our interpretation of your email w/r/t Cheryl’s view – so still in redline. Also, we 

have included language that addresses the question you raised yesterday, as an effort to be clearer about the Armillaria 

example. 

Thanks, 

Drusilla 
F. Emergency Uses 

In 2013 EPA held discussions with USDA and the Department of State on tools that 

could potentially address immediate and unforeseen needs for methyl bromide including whether 

emergency situations may arise that warrant the use of methyl bromide consistent with the treaty, 

recognizing that emergency uses are not intended as a replacement for CUE uses. In August, 

EPA held a stakeholder meeting to present, among other things, the findings of those discussions 

and noted that the three agencies had not yet identified any specific situations that could not be 

addressed by current mechanisms. The mechanisms discussed include, among others: the

continuing critical use exemption process, including the supplemental application process which 

allows for a second opportunity to review applications from growers with a critical need; the prephaseout inventory (if remaining); the emergency use exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA; 

and ongoing targeted research and outreach to develop and implement alternatives to methyl 

bromide. The U.S. government is committed to using flexibility in the Protocol’s existing 

mechanisms as an avenue to address changes in national circumstances that affect the transition 

to alternatives. 

EPA solicited comments on specific emergency situations that may necessitate the use of 

methyl bromide, consistent with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol, and which could be 

difficult to address using current tools and authorities. EPA received one comment which 

discussed “hand-held probe” treatments for outbreaks of Oak Root Fungus (Armillaria) in fruit 

and nut orchards. The commenter states that the use is limited in scope, methyl bromide is the 

only treatment proven to have long term efficacy, and the treatment is critical to the viability of 

infested orchards. The commenter stated that as a threshold matter, there must be clear and 

objective criteria to establish the existence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. 
In addition the process to meet a particular emergency must be efficient so as to enable all 

stakeholders to meet the need before the emergency has caused significant damage. 

Clear and objective criteria would be required to establish the existence of an emergency 

situation and the basis for approval. Decision IX/7 states that the Secretariat and the TEAP will 

evaluate the use according to the critical use criteria in IX/6. Therefore, at a minimum, any 

potential emergency use must also be able to qualify as a critical use. The example of Armillaria

raised by the commenter was also included in an application for a critical use exemption in 2016. 

The U.S. Government did not include this as part of the 2016 U.S. Nomination because the 

application did not provide data to demonstrate either the efficacy of methyl bromide or that the 

alternatives are not effective. Nor did it include data showing that the loss of methyl bromide 

would create a significant market disruption. EPA will continue in interactions with stakeholders 

and other agencies to receive information on understanding emergency situations that may 

necessitate the use of methyl bromide.