MBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 1



## RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC SC ON 2011

CUNS FOR USE IN 2013

– UNITED STATES
Received from MBTOC February 25, 2011



## Regulatory Issues

MBTOC Question
1. One important and cross

- cutting issue raised in all the reviews of postharvest CUNs concerns the proposed regulatory change for SF. W e fully recogniz e that this domestic regulatory issue is entirely the purview of the USG

. MBTOC members have , however, raised numerous questions. Members

have asked how or if this proposed regulation will become law and when, what is the timeline for removing SF from use in various commodities and sec t ors
, the implications for SF use during th e transition period

, and the implication to increase MB use

.

USG Response It is unknown at this time when and if this proposed regulation will become law. However, sulfuryl fluoride is currently registered for the post

- harvest uses included in this CUN, and therefore remains a methyl bromide alternative.

MBTOC Question
2. Another concern is what the USG will do when PH3 resistant pests are found in commodities ? For example, does USG anticipate submitting a CUN based on control of resistant pests?

USG Response Should data be provided verifying phosphine resistance in stored product pests for the CUE uses , and should sulfuryl fluoride not be available, then the USG may adjust the CUE request.

MBTOC has received some information on these issues from the SF supplier and user groups but really they need to hear the in

formation from the government. It is possible that USG might not be able to answer these questions at this time , but they were raised, and so I am raising them here.

MBTOC is also charged with reviewing the economics of battling pest infestations in st ored commodities and food processing structures and is very concerned about the economics of damage, waste and food safety lapses that can be caused by infestation and subsequent affect on the returns to an industry. Thus, the proposed loss of SF to this sector is a concern to us.

MBTOC Question
3. How will research projects be affected by the proposed SF regulation?

USG Response The proposed SF regulation would likely eliminate incentive for academic and government researchers to

solicit federal

- and state

- financed grant opportunities with research to advance the use of SF on foodstuffs. Ongoing research projects, at least with the USDA

- ARS in places like Parlier

, California

, would likely rely solely on industry funding and limited appropriated fun ds.

MBTOC Question
4. Additionally, s ince other Parties have Emergency Use provisions in domestic regulation, MBTOC members may assume that this is also true of the US . USG might want to explain the American lawsMBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 2

and regulations concerning Emergency uses to members. It might affect CUN recommendations if members think that Emergency Use provisions might be used, so it would be best if the situation was

clear.

USG Response The US has considered the issue of an emergency rule, but at this time there is no process in place.



## US Commodities CUN

MBTOC notes the significant decrease (

- 66%) in volume of MB requested for 2013 in transition from

2012 baseline.

MBTOC Question

5

. The review team compared the US CUN Table 2 from 2010, versus the US CUN Table 2 from 2011, and found difference s in the intended dosage rates for all three commodity elements. Appendix A shows the two tables for ease of reference. What is the reason for the change in dosage rates, or has

an error been made in the CUN13 Table 2?

USG Response MBTOC is correct there were inconsistencies in the tables provided. The U.S. has attached an updated

table

.

C ORRECTED N OMINATION A MOUNT

– F OR C OMMODITIES

MBTOC Question
6

. The CUN notes that more time is needed to allow transition to the use of alternatives, specifically mentioning the need to purchase equipment, build or retrofit fumigation chambers etc (CUN Section 2, page 4)

. The 2011 CUN requests MB for 2013, which should mean that there are two intervening years for equipment purchases. Please provide details of the annual equipment purchases, building or retrofitting of chambers accomplished each year and expected purchases , building retrofitting etc is required each year to accomplish total phase out in dried fruit sector particularly.MBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 3

USG Response As MBTOC has indicated any equipment purchases for the transition of commodities to alternatives will take place in 2012 and 2013. T he USG hopes that applicants will make this information availa ble in the coming years. A t this time no specific information on anticipated equipment purchases is available

. The USG hopes that during a public comment period on sulfuryl fluoride that this information will become

available.

MBTOC Question

7

. Is the research of Dr. Walse on pest control with SF in dates ongoing? ( See also question on research in regulatory questions above.)

USG Response Research on postharvest methyl bromide alternatives for pest control is ongoing in Dr. Walse’s laboratory. Work continues with SF on dates, dried fruit, and walnuts with a specific focus on overcoming ovicidal deficiencies and understanding residue formation. Work also continues with “Horn” phosphine on dates, fresh and dried fruits, nuts, rice, and a variety of other stored products with focus on filling the void in efficacy data for US pests, shortening exposure times, and enhancing the overall toxicity/minimizing resistance.

MBTOC Questi on 8

. Aside from the regulatory issues mentioned above, we have heard that the EU has either changed or revoked the tolerance for F residues resulting from SF use on in

- shell walnuts. We do not know if this is having

, or will have

, repercussions for the use of SF on walnuts for shipment to the EU holiday

market. Could USG please inform us if the EU has changed F residue tolerances and whether this has impacted the demand for MB by the walnut sector?

USG Response

USG notes the recent EU Directive but does not know if the EU has changed the tolerance levels of fluoride at this time, nor what the impact on future trade will be. It is possible that these uses fall under QPS. http://eur

- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:154:0021:0023: EN:PDF

MBTOC Question
9

. Additionally, members have raised examples where there may have been mistakes in the CUN, and the USG may want to fix these to improve our ability to understand the CUN. For example (1), last para on page 9 repeats "four hours for fumigation" when we think you mean 4 hours for fumigation and 4 hours for ventilating, off gassing, u nloading and reloading chamber. (Correct?)

USG Response MBTOC is correct that the document should have listed 4 hours for fumigation and 4 hours for

v entilating, etc.

MBTOC Question
10

. Example (2), table 6 has two lines for production, the one in MT shows 464,270 equaling 349,284,269 kg.

USG Response

MBTOC is correct there were inconsistencies in the tables. The corrected table is shown below.

Table 6. Summary i nformation on dried fruit industry and methyl b romide

Production and Value
Commodity Metric Tons Produced per Year 1 448,370MBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 4

Commodity Kilograms Produced per Year 448,371,500

Total Annual Gross Revenue 2 $ 535,434,200

MeBr Granted

MeBr Granted by Parties 201 2 (kg) 829 Commodity Treated with 2012 Granted MeBr (cu m) 3 34,502

1 Four year average from USDA NASS, 2005

- 2008.

2 Based on four

- year average of combined total crop values, 2005

- 2008

3 Based on use rate of 1.5 lbs per 1,000 cubic feet, 24 kgs per 1,000 cubic meters.

MBTOC Question
1 1

. Example (3), line 13 of table 7 shows the c ost difference vs MB is (3,716) [13,646

- 17,363 from line 12] for SF corres

ponding to a lower cost for SF. So why is the phosphine value 3,932 also in parentheses which indicates a cost savings when the calculation i s a higher cost compared to MB?

T his illustration is applied the ful l investment cost of phosphine chambers in one year. At that rate i t would take 9 years to recover the additional investment cost for phosphine chambers. USG may wish

to comment.

USG Response

MBTOC is correct there were inconsistencies in the tables. T he corrected table is shown below. This analysis only applies to commodity treated with methyl bromide, as part of the CUE, therefore the time would not be nine years. It is assumed the $20,000 investment could be made in one year.

Table 7. Analysis o f transition to alternatives for dried fruit treated with methyl bromide
Methyl

Bromide Sulfuryl

Fluoride Phosphine

1 Cubic meters treated with 2012 granted MeBr 1 34,502 34,502 34,502

2 Capacity of fumigation chamber (cu m) 1 125 1 25 1 25

3 Time available to fumigate (days) 2 365 365 365

4 One day capacity of each chamber (cu m) 3 na na 31

5 Total chambers needed 3 0 0 4

6 Total Cost of Fumigation Chambers (@ $5,000 each) 1 $

- $

- $ 20,000

7 Cost difference between MeBr and alternative $

- $ 20,000

8 Total gas for cubic feet needing fumigation (kgs) 1 829 1,105 138

9 Price of fumigant gas ($ / kg) $ 20.94 $ 12.35 $ 9.37

10 Total cost of fumigant gas ($) $ 17,363 $ 13,646 $ 1,295

11 Cost difference between MeBr and alternative $ ( 3,716 ) $ ( 16,068 )

12 Total cost of fumigation space and fumigant $ 17,363 $ 13,646 $ 21,295

13 Total cost difference between MeBr and alternative $ ( 3,716 ) $ 3,932

14 Cost difference as % of revenue 0.0 0 % 0.0 0 %

1 See notes for this Line from Table 5.

2 Assumes that fumigation occurs year

- round; no time constraint.

3 No chambers are needed for methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride because they can be used in existing storage facilities. Chambers are only needed for phosphine because it is corrosive to electrical equipment.MBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 5



## US CUN Structures

MBTOC Question
1 2

. The CUN nominates 4.665 tonnes for pet food facilities. While acknowledging a very laudable 66% reduction for the 2013 nomination over the 2012 amount, MBTOC was surprised to have any nomination for pet food at all. Corre spondence obtained last year between the US NPMA and

USEPA explaining a new interpretation on inadvertent fumigation during SF fumigation seemed to result in the withdrawal of the NPMA from the CUN process. We assumed that pet food facilities were essentially the same and that the interpretation and new guidance for inadvertent fumigation would also apply to them.

USG Response The Pet Food industry has received specific guidance from the EPA on the use of sulfuryl fluoride that they should avoid any uses that might lead to inadvertent residues. The EPA reply to NPMA did not address the use on pet food.

MBTOC Question
13

. Could USG please explain the differences betw een food processing and pet food processing facilities

that results in the need for pet food facilities to continue to nominate MB? MBTOC notes the CUN (page 5) cites Holcomb and McLean (2010) showing 5 yr pest control success with IPM without fumigation.

USG Response

There is little difference between food processing facilities and pet foo d processing facilities with regards to computer and manufacturing equipment and the pests. However

, pet food is not a commodity that may be directly fumigated on the ProFume® label, therefore, that industry has more legal constraints when using that alternative. While the CUN cites the success of Holcomb and McLean as presented at the 2010 MBAO, the USG is not aware of other consultants having their level of success with IPM. In addition, USG is aware that facilities need fumigations after maj or weather events such as flooding and the resulting large influx of insect pests

.

MBTOC Question
1 4

. The CUN, Section 2, pages 4

- 5 are essentially the same as Section 2, in the 2010 CUN (with the exception of the SF regulatory note). What is the per centage breakdown of the adoption of SF versus

heat treatment or other treatments in each sector? What is the rate of adoption of alternatives in

each sector? Can USG provide data on the percentage of adoption of alternatives achieved by each

sector per year ? What barriers remain to the continued adoption of alternatives in each sector? This

will assist us to understand transition rates and requirements.

USG Response The USG does not track the adoption of specific methyl bromide alternatives for these uses.

MBTOC Question
1 5

. As noted in the R egulatory I ssues section above, MBTOC is concerned about the possible effect of the proposed phase out of SF in this sector

. Section 2, Page 5 of the CUN notes that 25% of flour mills are thought to be unable to use heat treatment due to wood construction. Is more information

available about the number of mills and mill volume that are wood construction ? Does USG contend that this 25% of mills constitutes an eventual baseline of MB use in this sector?

USG ResponseMBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 6

No more information is available concerning the number of wooden mills and their specific pest control procedures, volume

, or production. At this time the USG does not know if this would constitute a lower bound on the use of methyl bromide. More information may be received during the public comment period for sulfuryl fluoride.

C ORRECTED N OMINATION A MOUNT

– F OR S TRUCTURES

– F OOD P ROCESSORS



## US CUN Cured Pork

MBTOC appreciates the detailed reporting and analysis of research in this sector and notes that ensuring ongoing research is key to both supporting a CUN and resolving the difficult problems faced by the cured pork sector.

MBTOC Question
1 6

. IPM e nhancements may be the only avenue available to controlling pests in this sector

. R esearch that focuses on an evaluation of practical IPM enhancements may be needed to allow reductions in

MB use. Most meat processing facilities would incorporate pest control in a HACCP plan, so, the term IPM is not commonly used in meat processing. But, Southern cured pork seems to be a different

scenario. MBTOC wants to know specifically what IPM changes have be en tried and found to be ineffective in this sector.

USG Response IPM has been incorporated into the pest management programs of meat processing facilities for a number of years. IPM is a part of the decision

- making process that requires the country ham manager to have a thorough knowledge of the commodity, structure and pest situation such that pest levels and commodity quality can be monitored regularly, and then decisions can be made when "control" is needed. Their goal

has been to find an efficaciou s and realistic substitute for the country ham industry once there is absolutely no methyl bromide to use to control mites.

MBTOC may recall the discussions by the researchers regarding sanitation in and around aging houses

from the 2006 MBAO. While opti mizing sanitation appears to increase the time period between

infestations , it has been ineffective at preventing infestations. One other IPM note, facilities are now fumigating only when infestations are present. Some plants used to schedule fumigat ions at differentMBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 7

times throughout the year to ensure that there were no infestations even if they did not see any pests on the product. Now, plants fumigate only when t hey see pests on their product.

MBTOC Question
1 7

. Are there elements of the multi

- state cured pork research plan which test and evaluates IMP elements specifically designed for cured pork establishments? Please also refer to comments in Research CUN concerning cured pork sector.

USG Response

The USG has received information to in dicate that future research funding requests will include IPM along with development of commercial

- scale fumigation of ham houses with PH3. There has been a great

deal of work with trapping and other pest monitoring in post harvest systems other than drie d meats, and

this would be a logical next step.

C ORRECTED N OMINATION A MOUNT

– F OR D RIED , C URED P ORK P RODUCTS

US CUN Research Amounts

– Cured Pork element

MBTOC Question
1 8 . T his CUN nominates 1.220 tonnes of MB for research in cured pork sector. This nomination represents an additional 32% of the total CUN for cured pork (3.730 tonnes)

. This nominated volume

is so high that MBTOC feels certain it must be a mistake of at least one decimal point or more

. Could USG please check the n omination and c orrect it?

USG Response The correct amount is 45.5 kg.

MBTOC Question
1 9

. Regardless of the nominated volume, this CUN is unsupported by a research plan for the use of the MB and it must be supported before MBTOC can consider it. The citation of Decision IX/6 is insufficiently supportive of this CUN. MBTOC cannot proceed with an evaluation of the research CUN without information on the research plan. Will this research be part of the multi

- state research program that has been ong oing in this sector?

USG ResponseMBTOC SC Questions

- US Response March 2011 Page 8

The U.S. researchers are very active and have planned to conduct 3 trailer size tests in 2011 to see if phosphine can control pests as mites and skippers.

In 2012 and 2013, research will progress in two phases.

In Phase One, methyl bromide will be applied in shipping containers (most likely at Universities) to compare its effectiveness to phosphine and other potential alternatives against ham mites, red

- legged ham beetles or other arthropod pests. The shipping conta iners will be approximately 100 cubic meters, so

about 2

- 3 kg per fumigation will be required..

In Phase Two, dry cured ham plants will be fumigated if it has been determined that an alternative could possibly be effective at the plant level. At this sta ge, methyl bromide and the potential alternatives will be applied in different aging rooms in plants to compare their effectiveness against pests and their effect on quality and safety of the product. Larger spaces than shipping containers will be fumigat ed. Three replications twice per year or twice over two years are anticipated, depending on results.

MBTOC Question


### 20

. It might help if MBTOC understood what will happen to the remaining amount of MB if Parties were to grant the US an amount of MB for research, and the MB is not used for research in cured pork.

USG Response 

### EPA does not believe this will be a concern give n the corrected amount requested for research.
However, u nder the US G allocation process any amount of methyl bromide that is not used in a given calendar year is subtracted off from the amount of new production from the following

year.