Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0230-0103
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-06-10T04:00Z

U.
S.
government
Responses
to
MBTOC
­
CUE
nomination
in
2005
3rd
round
of
questions
dated
December
4,
2003
With
respect
to
our
initial
preparation
and
further
review
of
the
U.
S.
critical
use
exemption
(
CUE)
application,
the
U.
S.
government
has
undertaken
a
thorough
and
exhaustive
review
throughout
this
CUE
process
to
assemble,
review,
and
analyze
all
pertinent
information
related
to
the
sectors
for
which
we
have
submitted
nominations.
We
believe
this
effort
has
produced
a
thorough
and
accurate
assessment
of
the
need
for
MB
in
accordance
with
the
Protocol's
CUE
criteria.
Based
on
some
comments
and
questions
from
MBTOC,
it
appears
that
MBTOC
experts
may
be
aware
of
information
beyond
that
considered
pertinent
by
the
United
States
in
making
our
CUE
nomination
(
e.
g.,
with
respect
to
questions
1,
4,
11,
and
14).
We
believe
it
is
important
that
the
full
relevant
body
of
scientific
information
is
brought
to
bear
in
our
domestic
process,
and
would
request
that
in
these
instances
MBTOC
provide
us
with
additional
information
so
we
can
consider
it
in
future
nominations.
With
that
said,
we
also
believe
it
is
important
that
additional
information
or
studies
be
carefully
examined
to
ensure
that
they
are
relevant
for
consideration
in
the
specific
context
of
our
nomination
(
i.
e.,
comparable
topography,
production
and
cultural
practices,
climate,
pest
type
and
degree
of
pressure).
This
information
would
be
very
helpful
to
us
in
better
understanding
some
questions
from
MBTOC,
as
well
as
considering
our
future
CUE
nominations.
Responses
to
the
specific
questions
raised
by
MBTOC
follow,
and
we
have
attached
a
brief
discussion
of
recently
approved
pesticides
and
research
activities
that
may
in
the
future
be
important
in
efforts
to
replace
methyl
bromide
uses.

General
Questions
Question
1
 
Is
there
scope
for
further
reduction
in
the
nominated
quantities
of
MB
through
refinement
of
the
processes
given
above
prior
to
and
during
2005?
In
particular,
[
through]
adoption
of
MB/
chloropicrin
mixtures
containing
a
reduced
MB
component
(
e.
g.
57:
43
MB:
Pic
or
lower
where
registered),
reduced
dosage
in
conjunction
with
increased
exposure
periods
with
tarps
of
lower
permeability,
and
further
use
of
strip
treatments,
reduced
frequency
of
fumigations,
or
other
measures.

Part
of
the
argument
against
use
of
higher
proportions
of
chloropicrin
(>
35%)
in
fumigant
mixes
is
that
they
are
said
to
increase
vegetative
growth
at
the
expense
of
fruit
production
in
strawberries.
Are
there
published
studies
on
this?
It
is
notable
that
there
is
some
commercial
use
of
100%
chloropicrin
in
California
for
strawberry
production
and
that
the
57:
43
MB:
Pic
formulation
is
widely
used.

Where
reductions
are
feasible,
the
Party
is
requested
to
reassess
the
CUNs
and
provide
new
nominated
quantities.

Answers
1
a.
Possibility
of
adoption
of
lower
concentration
mixtures
of
MeBr
(
eg
57:
43
or
lower)
where
registered.
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
2
Based
on
this
question
from
MBTOC,
the
United
States
reviewed
our
original
submissions
in
the
"
noted"
categories
of
our
CUE,
and
held
discussions
with
both
US
experts
and
the
relevant
applicants.
As
a
result
of
this
work,
we
have
concluded
that
the
MeBr
mixtures
currently
committed
to
in
the
context
of
the
2005
CUE
nomination
are
at
the
lowest
level
possible
consistent
with
the
need
to
provide
both
essential
pest
control
and
economic
agricultural
production.

In
considering
this
issue,
it
should
be
noted
that,
in
most
cases,
the
crops
in
the
"
noted"
category
have
already
moved
significantly
from
historic
mixtures
of
MeBr,
which
were
at
the
98:
2
rate,
to
mixtures
averaging
67:
33
or
better.
For
example,
in
nominated
tomato
producing
regions
the
formulation
in
1997
was
predominately
98:
2,
but
by
2002
it
had
shifted
almost
exclusively
to
67:
33.
Likewise,
the
formulations
used
in
regions
nominated
for
Strawberry
production
in
1997
were
predominately
98:
2
but
shifted
by
2002
to
predominately
67:
33,
with
over
50%
of
growers
in
California
using
a
57:
43
formulation
(
although
the
use
of
this
lower
formulation
can
be
limited
by
the
specific
pest
pressures
faced
by
an
individual
user,
such
as
where
higher
nematode
and
weed
pressure
exist).
In
addition,
MBTOC
has
taken
note
of
(
2002
MBTOC
Report
p.
351)
the
lower
dosage
rates
currently
in
use
in
the
United
States
as
compared
to
other
countries;
this
hinders
the
potential
for
further
reductions
here.
As
chloropicrin
is
less
expensive
per
pound
than
methyl
bromide,
growers
already
have
an
economic
incentive
to
use
it
in
higher
concentrations
until
such
time
that
they
have
inadequate
efficacy.
According
to
Dr.
Husein
Ajwa,
at
University
of
California
at
Davis,
the
reason
higher
ratios
of
chloropicrin
are
not
used
with
methyl
bromide
is
that
weed
control
suffers
below
67:
33
(
at
250­
300
lbs
mixture
/
acre,
or
167­
200
lb
MeBr/
acre),
although
57:
43
is
used
when
weed
pressure
is
not
intense.
(
Dr.
Husein
Ajwa;
University
of
California;
Salinas,
California;
personal
communication
1/
30/
04)
In
that
regard,
we
would
like
to
address
the
statement
that
was
included
at
the
beginning
of
the
latest
round
of
MBTOC
questions
 
to
the
effect
that
we
had
calculated
dosage
rates
on
a
per
hectare,
rather
than
treated
hectare
basis.
In
fact,
we
have
calculated
on
a
treated
hectare
basis.

While
our
review
of
the
issue
of
MeBr
mixtures
has
determined
that
the
rates
included
in
our
2005
nomination
are
at
the
lowest
level
currently
deemed
effective
for
the
circumstances
in
which
the
specific
crops
are
produced,
we
would
like
to
assure
MBTOC
and
that
Parties
that
the
US
is
committed
to
evaluating
all
available
avenues
to
reduce
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
and
maintain
the
level
of
pest
control
necessary
for
modern
agricultural
production.
Indeed,
many
sectors
are
evaluating
lower
MeBr
mixtures.
For
example,
several
of
the
CUE
applicants
in
the
Forest
Seedling
sector
have
indicated
that
they
are
exploring
moving
to
67:
33
or
50:
50
methyl
bromide
chloropicrin
mixtures
or
reductions
in
formulation
possibly
combined
with
Virtually
Impermeable
Film
(
VIF).
Further,
if
our
continuing
research
in
this
area
demonstrates
that
lower
rates
are
technically/
economically
feasible
in
the
situation
faced
by
US
applicants,
we
are
committed
to
using
them
in
the
context
of
our
future
nominations.
However,
given
the
facts
noted
above,
we
are
not
in
a
position
to
assume
lower
MeBr
containing
mixtures
in
the
context
of
our
2005
nomination.

As
an
example
of
the
significant
progress
made
by
the
United
States
over
recent
years
on
shifting
to
formulations
with
lower
MeBr
content,
see
the
data
below
for
our
California
Strawberry
sector.
This
Table
presents
total
MeBr
use
(
Preplant)
and
use
of
products
with
low
percent
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
3
(<
66%
MB)
use
(
predominately
57:
43
mix).
Please
note
it
is
a
table
of
total
historical
acreage
treated
with
MB;
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
only
includes
a
portion
of
this
acreage
where
the
need
for
MB
was
deemed
to
be
critical.

Total
MB
Use
Low
Percent
MB
Use
Percent
of
Total
Year
lbs
MB
AI
Acres
MB
lbs
MB
AI
Acres
MB
lbs
Acres
1996
14,856,784
63,237
1,034,804
5,126
7%
8%
1997
15,217,859
63,885
999,682
4,993
7%
8%
1998
12,831,191
54,539
1,007,911
4,936
8%
9%
1999
14,338,149
63,033
1,019,226
5,323
7%
8%
2000
9,968,624
48,848
2,109,976
10,930
21%
22%
2001
6,155,632
33,569
3,898,608
22,698
63%
68%

1b.
Consideration
of
Reduced
MeBr
dosage
in
conjunction
with
increased
holding
times
and
the
use
of
less
permeable
tarps
and
more
strip
treatments.

Further
minimizing
MeBr
use
by
reduced
dosage
rates
in
conjunction
with
increased
holding
times,
the
use
of
less
permeable
tarps
and
greater
use
of
strip
treatments
is
not
considered
a
feasible
method
for
lowering
either
MeBr
emissions,
or
the
level
of
the
US
nomination
for
2005.
There
are
several
reasons
for
this.

First,
as
noted
by
the
MBTOC
on
page
351
of
the
2002
MBTOC
report,

"
in
some
countries
(
eg:
the
USA)
the
potential
for
reducing
MB
dosages
for
soil
fumigation
compared
to
many
other
counties
will
be
less
because
dosages
are
already
low.
In
1994,
estimates
of
rates
of
MB
used
for
soil
fumigation
in
many
European
countries
was
between
50­
100g/
m2,
compared
to
rates
as
low
as
20gm/
m2
in
regular
use
in
the
US."

Indeed,
in
some
cases,
the
rates
used
by
the
US
are
even
lower
than
20
g/
m2
(
eg:
tomato
in
Florida
and
the
Southeastern
US
are
at
the
15­
16
g/
m2
rates).
As
a
consequence
of
such
low
rates
and
the
above
noted
MBTOC
finding,
we
find
it
somewhat
confusing
that
MBTOC
is
asking
us
if
our
dosage
rates
can
be
made
lower.
Further
confusing
this
matter
were
MBTOC
comments
in
their
report
last
year
which
seemed
to
congratulate
other
countries
who
were
only
now
approaching
rates
as
low
as
we
have
been
using
for
several
years.
In
this
regard,
we
hope
we
are
not
being
put
in
a
poorer
light
for
our
historic
efforts
to
minimize
MeBr
use
and
emissions
through
low
dosage
rates.

The
consideration
of
combining
even
lower
dosage
rates
with
increasing
holding
times
and
the
use
of
less
permeable
tarps
also
raises
issues
of
the
efficacy
of
less
permeable
tarps
as
they
relate
to
both
the
economic
production
of
crops,
and
the
potential
for
lowering
use
and
emissions
of
MeBr.
In
that
regard,
we
would
like
to
first
address
the
issue
of
less
permeable
VIF
tarps.
To
do
that,
we
would
like
to
quote
from
page
349
of
the
2002
MBTOC
report.

That
report
found
that:
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
4
"
VIF
is
inefficient,
if
not
entirely
ineffectual
at
reducing
MBR
emissions
from
soil
fumigation
when:
only
part
of
the
field
is
covered
with
VIF,
any
of
the
film
strip
over
laps
become
unglued
or
are
otherwise
unsealed,
any
of
the
film
edges
anywhere
around
the
field
become
unsealed,
or
the
film
seal
is
broken
before
10­
20
days
have
passed."

Indeed,
in
our
experience,
particularly
with
strawberry
growers
in
the
southeast
who
have
experimented
with
VIF
tarps,
it
was
found
that
they
tear
easily,
take
longer
to
apply,
and
do
not
provide
the
endurance
of
standard
tarps
(
personal
communication,
Phillip
Brannen,
University
of
Georgia).
It
is
not
legal
to
use
VIF
tarps
in
California
due
to
concerns
over
worker
exposure
to
elevated
levels
of
MeBr
when
VIF
tarps
are
removed.
As
a
consequence
of
all
of
these
problems,
it
is
just
as
possible,
if
not
likely,
that
switching
to
VIF
tarping
in
the
context
of
US
growing
practices
could
result
in
greater
emissions
and
the
need
for
more
MeBr,
not
less.

Further
limiting
the
use
of
this
method
in
the
US
is
the
fact
that
there
are
environmental
impacts
related
to
the
disposal
of
these
tarps.
Indeed,
on
page
350
of
the
2002
MBTOC
report,
MBTOC
notes
that
there
has
been
little
progress
on
dealing
with
these
issues,
which
include
lack
of
environmentally
sound
disposal
options,
and
inability
to
recycle.
In
our
specific
circumstance,
out
of
related
environmental
concerns,
these
tarps
are
banned
in
California
 
an
area
of
use
encompassing
almost
50%
of
the
US
pre­
plant
nomination.
In
other
areas,
serious
disposal
issues
still
remain.

Aside
from
the
issue
of
environmentally
safe
disposal,
the
use
of
VIF
tarps
are
also
more
costly,
both
in
terms
of
the
capital
start
up
costs
necessary
to
purchase
the
machinery
for
laying
the
tarps,
the
logistics
of
supply,
and
the
capital
costs
of
the
tarps
themselves
(
the
latter
cost
is
up
to
$
200
over
the
cost
of
high
density
polyethylene
and
$
300
over
the
cost
of
low
density
polyethylene
tarps
in
cost
/
acre
of
use).

Nonetheless,
given
MBTOC
interest
in
this
issue,
we
are
committed
to
undertaking
further
evaluation
of
the
potential
for
VIF
tarping
in
certain
cropping
situations
where
it
appears
most
feasible.
In
particular,
this
issue
is
under
investigation
for
use
in
the
forest
seedling
sector.
Further,
while
we
do
have
concerns
about
the
use
of
VIF
tarps,
we
wish
to
assure
MBTOC
that
we
are
nonetheless
committed
to
using
tarps.
In
fact,
tarps
are
currently
used
in
virtually
all
circumstances
in
the
United
States.
Information
supplied
by
the
major
custom
applicator
for
the
western
United
States
(
Paul
Niday,
TriCal,
Inc.,
personal
communication)
based
on
company
records
for
2002,
indicated
that
92.5%
of
all
pre­
plant
applications
of
methyl
bromide
in
California
were
under
tarps.
The
remaining
7.5%
of
pre­
plant
applications
were
deep
injections
(
over
20
inches,
or
50
cm
in
depth)
used
for
orchard
planting
and
re­
planting.
According
to
Michael
McKenry
(
University
of
California,
personal
communication)
when
methyl
bromide
is
injected
at
this
depth
there
is
actually
less
off­
gassing
than
when
it
is
injected
at
a
depth
of
10­
12
inches
(
25­
30
cm)
and
tarped.
In
Florida
all
of
the
crops
that
have
applied
for
CUEs
are
grown
using
plastic
mulch
culture
so
all
methyl
bromide
is
applied
using
tarps
(
Michael
Aerts,
Florida
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Association,
personal
communication).

An
additional
component
of
this
MBTOC
question
implied
the
need
for
both
lower
dosage
rates
and
increased
holding
times.
While,
as
noted
above,
lower
dosage
rates
are
not
considered
feasible,
we
agree
with
MBTOC
that
the
issue
of
holding
times
is
a
very
important
consideration
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
5
when
less
permeable
tarps
are
considered.
That
is
because
using
VIF
tarps
while
maintaining
existing
holding
times
could
result
in
a
spike
in
emissions
when
the
tarps
are
removed
increasing
the
risk
of
drift
related
exposure.
We
acknowledge
that
in
other
countries,
productive
land
may
be
held
fallow
for
several
months
prior
to
planting,
thereby
enabling
the
use
of
longer
holding
times
without
sacrificing
crop
production.
However,
this
is
not
the
case
with
US
crops
covered
by
the
CUE.
Increasing
the
holding
time
in
the
context
of
the
crops
covered
by
the
US
CUE,
where
full
utilization
of
the
land
is
often
a
prerequisite
to
cost
effective
operation,
is
not
considered
economically
feasible.

The
MBTOC
question
also
suggested
that
decreasing
frequency
of
MeBr
applications
could
lead
to
further
decreased
use.
Such
a
measure
is
more
likely
to
be
effective
in
other
countries
using
much
higher
rates
of
MeBr
application,
whereas
maintaining
efficacy
at
the
lower
rates
used
by
the
United
States
involves
a
regular
application
of
MeBr
as
put
forward
in
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination.
Previous
work
by
USDA­
ARS
scientists
has
focused
much
more
extensively
on
MeBr
replacements
rather
than
a
transition
strategy
of
further
reducing
concentrations
or
frequency
of
MeBr
applications.
As
the
progress
towards
finding
replacements
has
indicated
that
anticipated
replacements
may
not
be
forthcoming
in
the
immediate
future,
additional
work
is
being
planned
to
look
at
strategies
for
rotating
alternatives
that
demonstrate
activity
for
one
or
two
years
of
application,
but
are
not
long­
term,
stand­
alone
replacements
in
the
crops
to
which
they
are
applied
at
this
time.

A
final
component
of
this
question
seems
to
suggest
that
the
measures
discussed
above
could
be
combined
with
increased
use
of
strip
treatments.
Further,
in
considering
combining
more
strip
treatments
with
VIF,
MBTOC
documents
note
that
VIF
is
inefficient
if
not
entirely
ineffectual
at
reducing
MBR
emissions
from
soil
fumigation
when:
only
part
of
the
field
is
covered
with
VIF,
any
of
the
film
strip
over
laps
become
unglued
or
are
otherwise
unsealed
passed
(
Rice
et
al.,
1996;
Thomas
1998;
Wang
et
al.
1999)
(
and
there
is
a
known
problem
with
finding
effective
glues),
any
of
the
film
edges
anywhere
around
the
field
become
unsealed,
or
the
film
seal
is
broken
before
10­
20
days
have.
These
issues
are
much
more
prevalent
in
the
case
of
strip
treatment.
Further,
while
strip
treatments
utilizing
high­
or
low­
density
polyethylene
films
have
been
used
in
the
U.
S.
for
a
number
of
years
to
reduce
the
rate
and
amount
of
methyl
bromide
used
in
crops
such
as:
cucurbits,
eggplant,
peppers,
strawberries
and
tomatoes
there
are
trade
offs
with
strip
treatments
that
may
not
make
them
suitable
for
all
situations.
Research
from
S.
R.
Yates
(
1996)
in
California
has
suggested
that
methyl
bromide
emissions
will
be
increased
if
the
entire
soil
surface
is
not
covered
(
i.
e.
strip
treatments).
Many
nursery
situations
prefer
to
use
flat
fumigation
(
100%
of
the
area
is
treated)
because
they
are
concerned
that
the
target
pests
can
rapidly
reinvade
from
the
adjacent
untreated
areas
and
infest
their
planting
stock.
This
in
turn
may
lead
to
more
frequent
applications
of
methyl
bromide
to
control
the
target
pest.

1c.
Are
there
published
studies
supporting
your
CUE
submissions
which
noted
that
use
of
a
Higher
proportion
of
chloropicrin
would
lead
to
increased
vegetative
growth
?...

Before
addressing
your
question,
we
would
like
to
make
clear
that
our
primary
concern
regarding
the
use
of
mixtures
with
lower
level
of
MeBr
relates
to
efficacy
in
addressing
target
pests,
and
that
the
issue
regarding
increased
vegetative
growth
with
higher
levels
of
chloropicrin,
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
6
while
important,
is
considered
secondary.
Regarding
increased
vegetative
growth,
while
we
cannot
cite
specific
studies
regarding
this
effect,
the
U.
S.
has
had
discussions
with
individual
applicants
and
USDA
researchers
indicating
that
higher
proportions
of
chloropicrin
can
increase
vegetative
growth.
There
are
ongoing
studies
by
the
USDA
that
are
seeking
to
quantify
this
issue,
but
those
data
are
not
yet
available.

1d.
As
an
indication
that
there
may
be
ways
to
reduce
use
of
MeBr
on
California
strawberries,
It
is
of
note
that
there
is
some
Commercial
use
of
100%
chloropicrin
in
strawberry
production
in
CA...

Regular
use
of
100%
chloropicrin
is
not
feasible
for
that
portion
of
the
strawberry
crop
included
in
the
US
nomination
for
several
reasons.
First,
and
most
importantly,
chloropicrin
does
not
control
the
target
pests
in
California,
such
as
weeds
and
nematodes.
Second,
the
plant
back
times
for
chloropicrin
are
substantially
longer
than
for
MeBr.
Mattner
et
al
2003
indicate
that
phytotoxicity
problems
with
chloropicrin
used
alone
can
require
a
doubling
of
plant
back
intervals
compared
to
methyl
bromide
plus
chloropicrin
(
70:
30)
combinations.
In
their
work
they
indicated
that
optimum
plant
back
intervals
went
from
P
opt
(
weeks)
of
3.14
weeks
with
methyl
bromide
plus
chloropicrin
(
70:
30
at
50
g/
m2)
to
6.78
weeks
with
straight
chloropicrin
(
17.5
g/
m2).)
Such
plant
back
times
are
not
technically/
economically
feasible
with
California
strawberries.

Question
2
­
Is
there
scope
for
reduction
in
the
nominated
quantities
for
2005
in
those
areas
where
a
2X
cap
is
currently
in
operation?
The
Party
is
requested
to
recalculate
nominated
MB
quantity
in
the
affected
CUNs
on
the
basis
of
a
2X
cap
or
to
provide
information
on
the
specific
circumstances
that
prevent
this
increased
usage
from
being
a
feasible
alternative
to
MB
in
2005.

Answers
California
2X
Telone
 
township
cap
 

Out
of
environmental
concerns
regarding
the
quality
of
the
ambient
air,
California
regulates
the
amount
of
Telone
 
that
can
be
used
in
each
township
within
the
State.
Specifically,
Telone
 
has
been
found
by
the
State
of
California
to
be
a
carcinogen
and
regulations
have
been
put
in
place
to
limit
the
cumulative
lifetime
exposure
to
bystanders.
There
are
over
four
thousand
townships
(
of
36
square
miles
or
9,300
ha)
represented
in
the
California
township
assessment.

The
current
rule
in
effect
for
California
Telone
 
use
was
what
was
used
for
the
2005
U.
S.
CUE
nomination.
This
is
based
on
Telone
 
usage
being
allowed
at
the
baseline
amount.
The
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulations
(
Cal
DPR)
was
contacted
for
clarification
on
the
Telone
 
township
cap
question.
Cal
DPR
explained
the
use
of
Telone
 
in
2005
and
beyond
would
be
based
on:
current
and
historic
use
patterns
in
each
individual
township,
future
enhancements
to
the
air
concentration
model
and
health
impact
models,
and
assumptions
on
the
use
of
adjacent
land
in
the
models.
Because
of
the
uncertainties
in
all
of
these
parameters
they
are
currently
unable
to
speculate
what
the
future
Telone
 
township
caps
will
be.
Therefore,
the
U.
S.
CUE
assumed
continued
application
of
the
current
regulatory
limit,
not
the
short
term
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
7
exemption
limits.
Accordingly,
we
believe
that
the
CUE
must
cover
the
level
of
MeBr
needed
to
meet
the
existing
1
times
regulatory
limit
because
the
current
limit
is
a
short
term
exemption
set
to
expire
at
the
end
of
2004.
However,
we
would
like
to
assure
MBTOC
and
the
Parties
that
we
are
committed
to
using
only
that
amount
of
MeBr
that
is
actually
needed,
taking
into
account
what
would
be
needed
at
the
time
of
allocation
of
the
CUE,
and
taking
into
account
any
future
exemption
of
the
CA
Telone
 
cap
that
is
established.

The
effect
of
the
township
caps
(
at
their
permanent
level)
in
limiting
the
use
of
1,3D
(
Telone
 
)
in
California
was
calculated
by
Carpenter
and
Lynch,
1999
and
updated
by
Carpenter
et
al.
2001.
It
is
not
possible
to
duplicate
this
work
in
the
time
allowed
for
this
response
for
a
different
level
of
township
cap,
even
if
the
level
of
the
new
cap
were
known.

Question
3
 
Parties
are
requested
to
supply
MB
usage
figures
(
quantity
used,
hectares
treated)
for
2002,
where
available,
for
the
nominated
uses
in
the
`
noted'
category
and
to
reassess
the
quantities
of
MB
nominated
where
uncertainty
at
the
time
of
initial
nomination
led
to
a
conservative
value
being
nominated,
but
where
now
a
reduced
quantity
is
feasible
for
2005.

While
the
US
tracks
overall
MeBr
consumption
nationally
for
purposes
of
compliance
with
the
Protocol,
it
is
very
difficult
for
us
to
assemble
information
on
actual
use
on
a
crop
by
crop
basis.
We
use
proprietary
(
purchased)
data
as
well
as
survey
data
collected
by
the
National
Agricultural
Statistical
Service
(
NASS)
and
the
State
of
California
to
`
ground
truth'
applicant
information.
Unfortunately,
the
kind
of
data
needed
is
not
all
collected
on
an
annual
basis
and
the
definitions
used
to
collect
the
data
do
not
closely
match
the
needs
of
the
CUE
process.
For
example,
data
on
post­
harvest
use
is
not
collected
as
part
of
the
agricultural
survey,
quarantine
use
is
not
noted,
and
in
some
cases
information
is
collected
by
`
marketing
order'
so
that
some
crops
or
crop
subdivision
are
not
included.
As
a
consequence,
there
are
no
more
recent
data
than
are
contained
in
the
numerical
tables
that
we
submitted
to
MBTOC
in
August
2003.
We
are
trying
to
gather
such
information
in
the
context
of
our
2006
submission,
but
unfortunately,
that
information
is
not
yet
available.

Rose
Plants
Question
4
­
Further
clarification
is
requested
on
why
alternatives,
principally
1,3­
D/
Pic
mixtures,
cannot
be
used
for
at
least
some
of
this
nomination
in
2005
and
also
whether
a
proportion
cannot
be
grown
in
substrates.
Rose
plants
in
diverse
climates
are
successfully
produced
in
substrates
(
containerised
systems).
These
systems
offer
substantial
commercial
advantages,
at
least
in
some
situations,
despite
the
significant
conversion
cost.
Well­
designed
substrate
systems
in
operation
in
some
regions
do
not
suffer
from
the
disadvantages
described
in
the
supplementary
CUN
of
Sept
03
(
i.
e.
"
the
cut
flower
rose
industry
has
determined
that
field
grown
roses
are
more
vigorous,
produce
more
flowers
and
are
longer
lived").
The
basis
for
the
statement
(
p.
4)
that
"
the
cut
flower
rose
industry
in
the
U.
S.
will
only
buy
field
grown
plants"
is
requested.

Answers
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
8
Use
of
1,3­
D/
Pic
and/
or
containerized
systems
and/
or
substrates
as
an
alternative
to
methyl
bromide
 

In
addressing
this
question
it
is
important
to
be
clear
on
the
crop
that
is
being
produced
using
methyl
bromide.
It
is
not
a
`
cut
flower
crop'
but
is,
rather
the
rootstock
which
goes
to
the
nurseries
which
then
provide
cut
flowers
or
the
rose
plants
sold
to
homeowners.

The
rose
plants
are
grown
in
open
fields
so
that
the
resulting
root
systems
are
extremely
vigorous
with
healthy
`
branches'
growing
in
all
directions.
When
the
rootstock
is
transferred
(
sold)
to
a
facility
for
either
cut
flower
production
or
containerized
plant
production,
the
plant
is
truncated
at
10
to
25
cm
in
height
and
the
root
system
is
sheared
at
a
circumference
of
25
cm
in
diameter.
This
remnant
is
then
grown,
sometimes
in
open
field,
sometimes
in
containerized
systems
,
to
produce
the
end
product
of
either
cut
flowers,
a
bare
root
plant
for
landscape
uses,
or
a
containerized
plant
for
landscape
uses.
To
prepare
a
field
for
the
next
crop,
remaining
roots
that
may
harbor
nematodes
or
pathogens
must
be
killed
through
fumigation
to
reduce
future
pest
pressure.

When
the
intermediate
product
(
the
rootstock)
is
produced
in
a
containerized
system
it
is
not
as
vigorous
and
is
less
likely
to
produce
healthy
landscape
plants
or
adequate
amounts
of
floristquality
flowers.
This
arises
principally
from
the
effect
of
the
container
in
constraining
root
growth
and
generally
limiting
root
development.
This
effect
is
often
exacerbated
if
the
container
is
subject
to
uneven
temperature
or
sunlight
so
that
the
root
development
occurs
only
on
one
side
of
the
plant
(
in
one
side
of
the
pot).
It
is
the
inadequate
and
often
uneven
root
development
that
causes
producers
of
the
final
product
to
reject
rootstocks
grown
in
containerized
systems
even
when
they
themselves
grow
their
products
in
a
containerized
system.
This
is
analogous
to
the
situation
of
organically
grown
strawberry
fruit
growers
who
demand
rootstock
grown
with
the
aid
of
methyl
bromide
even
though
they
themselves
do
not
use
chemicals
to
produce
their
own
products
 
unless
their
stock
is
extremely
clean,
they
cannot
profitably
grow
fruit
organically.

As
we
described
in
our
August
2003
CUE
supplemental
submission
to
MBTOC,
1,3­
D
(
Telone
 
)
is
currently
used
as
an
alternative
to
methyl
bromide
to
control
the
target
pests.
However,
the
township
caps
put
in
place
by
the
State
of
California
limit
the
potential
for
substitution
of
methyl
bromide
with
1,3­
D
Regarding
conversion
to
substrates,
it
must
be
noted
that
this
is
an
entirely
different
cropping
system.
And
it
is
used
to
produce
a
different
product
 
cut
flowers
and
plants
for
landscape
uses,
not
the
rootstocks
from
which
these
final
products
are
grown.
It
has
been
noted
by
MBTOC
that
conversion
to
entirely
different
growing
systems
(
e.
g.,
open
fields
to
substrates)
takes
substantial
time
and
money,
and
therefore
is
not
feasible
under
certain
situations.

Basis
for
Statement
that
the
rose
industry
will
only
buy
field
grown
plants
 
California
is
the
largest
producer
of
rose
rootstock
plants
for
commercial
flower
nurseries,
homeowners,
commercial
landscapers,
and
other
nursery
operations.
The
basis
for
the
statement
that
"
the
cut
flower
rose
industry
in
the
U.
S.
will
only
buy
field
grown
plants"
is
a
personal
communication
by
the
applicant.
In
addition,
Professor
Dr.
Heiner
Lieth
stated
that
field
grown
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
9
plants
are
said
to
start
faster
and
be
more
robust
than
container
grown
stock
(
personal
communication
Heiner
Leith,
U.
C.
Davis,
Jan.
15,
2004,
Dept
of
Environmental
Horticulture).

Question
5
­
The
supplementary
CUN
of
Sept
2003
estimates
a
yield
loss
of
5­
10%
if
California
rose
growers
use
1,3­
D,
and
the
nomination
is
based
on
1X
Township
cap
restrictions
on
1,3­
D.
The
CUN
of
Feb
03
discusses
some
alternatives.
Is
any
additional
information
available
about
alternatives
relevant
to
this
crop
and
is
the
yield
loss
reported
in
the
CUN
still
to
be
expected
under
optimised
use
procedures
for
1,3­
D­
based
systems
and
other
alternatives?
If
so,
technical
results
of
trials
or
commercial
practice
are
requested,
with
supporting
economic
information,
if
available.

Ornamental
nursery
growers
rely
on
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide/
chloropicrin
within
the
full­
bed,
plastic
mulch
production
system
to
control
soil
borne
diseases
and
pests.
There
has
been
extensive
research
on
alternatives
for
the
sector,
and
where
possible,
many
have
been
incorporated.
In
addition,
there
have
been
many
studies
done
on
yield
comparing
alternatives
in
the
forest
tree
seedling
sector
to
methyl
bromide
and
these
results
provide
insights
into
likely
yield
impacts
in
nursery
rose
and
chrysanthemum
production.
Sources
for
the
studies
are
The
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
Conference,
applications
for
critical
use
exemptions,
and
case
studies.
For
each
alternative,
the
amount
of
studies
done
is
as
follows:
Bare
fallow
and
combinations­
22;
Basamid
and
combinations­
76;
Brozone­
4;
Captan
and
combinations­
2;
Cedar
sawdust­
2;
Chloropicrin
and
combinations­
56;
Compost­
3;
Eptam
(
EPTC)­
12;
Fallow­
41;
Formaldehyde­
1;
Grafting­
1;
Hot
water­
3;
Methyl
bromide­
200­
1;
Methyl
bromide­
300­
8;
Metam­
Sodium
(
Vapam)
and
combinations­
19;
Nemagon­
2;
other
non­
chemicals­
1;
Silica
sand­
1;
Solarization­
1;
Telone
(
1,3­
D)
and
combinations­
6;
Thiram­
1;
Triform
and
combinations
­
8.

However,
the
effectiveness
of
chemical
and
non­
chemical
alternatives
designed
to
fully
replace
methyl
bromide
in
ornamental
production
must
still
be
characterized
as
in
a
preliminary
stage.
These
alternatives
have
not
been
shown
to
be
stand­
alone
replacements
for
methyl
bromide.
Methyl
bromide
is
believed
to
be
the
only
treatment
currently
available
that
consistently
provides
reliable
control
of
nutsedge
species
and
the
disease
complex
affecting
ornamental
nursery
production.

The
best
available
information
we
have
is
that
yield
losses
of
5­
10%
are
to
be
expected
when
the
best
alternative
to
methyl
bromide,
1,3­
D
(
Telone
 
)
,
is
used.
This
level
of
yield
loss
would
not
be
technically/
economically
feasible
in
this
sector.
However,
the
basis
of
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
was
that
this
alternative
would
not
be
available
to
growers
because
of
township
caps,
which
would
necessitate
movement
to
less
efficient
alternatives,
and
lead
to
greater
losses.
Telone
 
cannot
be
more
widely
used
because
use
of
1,3­
D
in
California
is
capped
by
the
State
of
California
on
a
township­
by­
township
basis.
See
the
answer
to
Question
2
for
additional
details
on
the
Telone
 
township
caps.

Question
6
­
The
CUN
of
Sept
03
mentions
that
California
rose
growers
used
MB
doses
of
31g/
m2
in
2002.
However,
the
calculations
in
Table
4
use
34.7
g/
m2.
It
appears
that
this
could
be
recalculated
as
65
x
310
=
20,150
kg
MB.
Is
it
appropriate
and
feasible
to
reduce
the
nomination
thus,
and
is
there
further
scope
for
reduction
such
as
based
on
reduced
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
10
overall
dosages
use
of
less
pervious
tarping,
strip
treatments
and/
or
extended
exposure
times?

Answer
Amount
nominated
for
rose
growers
 
The
figure
of
31g/
m2,
reported
as
the
use
rate
for
2002,
is
a
miscalculation.
The
correct
figure
is
derived
from
a
request
of
22,393
kg
of
methyl
bromide
(
a
reduction
of
90%
of
the
amount
originally
requested
by
the
applicant)
to
be
applied
to
65
hectares
for
a
use
rate
of
34.5g/
m2
for
2002.
This
compares
with
a
use
rate
of
34.7g/
m2
requested
for
2005.
The
main
thrust
of
the
US
government
and
applicant
research
plans
has
been
to
evaluate
replacements
for
methyl
bromide
rather
than
to
test
combinations
that
use
lower
methyl
bromide
rates
with
the
objective
of
eliminating
rather
than
just
reducing
methyl
bromide
use.
We
do
not
believe
the
rate
can
be
reduced
beyond
the
requested
rate
in
our
CUE.

Dried
Fruit,
Beans,
and
Nuts
Question
7
­
The
Party
is
requested
to
confirm
that
the
quantity
nominated
is
restricted
to
those
situations
where
the
available
facilities,
restrictions
on
time
available
for
treatment
and
other
factors
require
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
and
where
slower
acting
processes,
notably
phosphine
fumigation,
are
not
technically
and
economically
feasible.
MBTOC
recognises
that
some
industries
covered
by
this
CUN
have
successfully
made
the
transition
from
MB.

Answer
Restriction
of
the
methyl
bromide
to
only
those
situations
where
alternatives
are
not
feasible 

We
can
confirm
that
the
amounts
in
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
were
calculated
based
only
on
circumstances
where
alternatives
are
not
currently
technically
and
economically
feasible.
For
example,
Only
half
of
the
walnut
market
and
20%
of
the
pistachio
crop
are
included
in
this
request.
Specifically,
rapid
processing
and
shipment
of
nuts,
particularly
walnuts,
is
necessary
to
meet
European
holiday
demand.
California
produces
nearly
100%
of
the
U.
S.
crop
and
about
45%
of
the
world's
walnut
crop.
(
Approximately
one­
quarter
of
the
total
crop
is
sold
around
St.
Nicholas
Day,
December
6th,
with
significant
sales
occurring
before
Epiphany,
January
6th.)
Export­
quality
walnuts
are
harvested
from
the
beginning
of
September
to
the
beginning
of
December.
Nuts
destined
for
Europe
must
be
delivered
to
the
processors
no
later
than
October
31st.
Nuts
not
received
by
this
date
are
sold
in
the
lower
valued
domestic
market
resulting
in
large
economic
losses.

Slower
acting
processes,
notably
phosphine
 
The
major
alternative
to
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide
is
fumigation
with
phosphine.
This
alternative,
however,
requires
a
longer
time
than
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide
(
up
to
one
week
compared
to
four
hours)
and
would
likely
require
retrofitting
fumigation
chambers
to
enable
them
to
sustain
the
gas
at
sufficient
concentrations
for
the
longer
period.
Phosphine
has
reduced
activity
at
the
lower
temperatures
occurring
in
mid­
winter
and
has
label
restrictions
for
use
at
these
temperatures.
In
addition,
use
of
phosphine
during
the
harvest
time
would
require
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
11
the
construction
of
additional
fumigation
chambers
to
provide
capacity
equal
to
the
amount
of
nuts
being
harvested.
See
Yarkin
et
al
1994
for
additional
technical
and
economic
impacts.

Methyl
bromide
is
also
used
for
a
fraction
of
the
dried
bean
production.
In
this
case
the
issue
is
not
timing
within
a
market
window
but
fumigation
capacity.
Because
phosphine
requires
a
much
longer
in­
chamber
period,
additional
fumigation
capacity
must
be
built
before
the
remaining
use
can
be
switched
to
currently
registered
alternatives
Alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
and
phosphine
 
California
has
recently
(
January
2004)
registered
propylene
oxide
for
additional
crops,
including
walnuts.
Walnut
processors
are
eager
to
try
this
alternative
(
personal
communication
James
Leesch,
USDA
ARS)
but
as
yet
have
not
had
the
opportunity
to
determine
whether
propylene
oxide
will
enable
them
to
meet
the
European
holiday
market.
The
U.
S.
has
also
recently
registered
sulfuryl
fluoride
(
Profume
 
)
for
pest
control
in
dried
fruit
and
nuts.
However,
this
fumigant
is
not
currently
registered
for
food
crops
in
the
state
of
California
where
the
majority
of
crops
are
harvested
and
stored.
A
separate
registration
review
will
be
conducted
by
California
DPR
before
Profume
 
can
be
legally
used
in
California.
We
expect
that
in
the
future
there
will
be
reduced
need
for
methyl
bromide
in
this
sector
because
of
these
newly
available
pesticides.

Forest
nursery
seedlings
Question
8
­
The
CUN
and
supplementary
information
refer
to
single
treatments
such
as
metam
sodium
and
dazomet
as
MB
alternatives.
However
it
is
possible
that
other
treatments,
such
as
some
fumigant
mixtures,
may
have
been
successful,
presenting
feasible
alternatives
to
MB
in
the
circumstances
of
the
nomination.
Did
any
combinations
or
specific
application
methods
provide
results
close
to
MB
fumigation
in
the
specific
circumstances
of
the
nomination?
If
so,
please
provide
technical
results
of
trials
or
commercial
practice.

Answers
Fumigant
mixtures
for
treatment
of
target
pests
 
The
U.
S.
reviewed
the
"
matrix"
of
methyl
bromide
alternatives
provided
by
MBTOC
in
the
preparation
of
the
2003
CUE
nomination.
Only
the
alternatives
requested
by
MBTOC
were
addressed
in
the
nomination.
Based
on
current
discussions
with
MBTOC
members
the
U.
S.
will
include
information
to
evaluate
the
potential
of
1,3­
D
plus
chloropicrin
and
metam
sodium
plus
chloropicrin
to
control
the
target
pests
in
the
2004
CUE
nomination
document.
As
indicated
in
the
original
submission,
however,
metam
sodium
and
other
MITC
generators,
although
providing
control
of
some
pests,
do
not
provide
reliable
control
of
nutsedge
and
some
pathogens
which
are
key
pests
affecting
the
forest
nursery
sector.
Neither
1,3­
D
nor
chloropicrin
provides
weed
(
nutsedge)
control.
Because
nutsedge
is
a
key
pest
affecting
the
forest
nursery
sector,
the
potential
for
replacing
methyl
bromide
with
one
of
these
combinations
is
limited.

Alternative
treatments,
specifically
mixtures
of
fumigants,
can
be
foreseen
as
likely
long­
term
replacements
for
methyl
bromide
in
forest
seedling
nurseries.
Alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
currently
available
include
chloropicrin,
and
combinations
of
chloropicrin
with
methyl
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
12
isothiocyanate
(
MITC)
producers,
or
1,3­
D.
These
combinations
can
be
effective
in
reducing
pest
infestations,
including
some
weed
problems
(
e.
g.,
Carey,
2000;
Carey,
1996;
Carey,
1994;
Weyerhaeuser,
#
8,
1992­
95;
Weyerhaeuser,
#
10,
1994­
96).
However,
they
are
problematic
for
their
inconsistent
performances,
and
therefore,
are
unreliable
for
nurseries
with
moderate
to
high
pest
(
especially
weed)
pressure.
Their
adoption
will
depend
on
the
development
of
application
or
formulation
technologies
to
better
deliver
these
alternatives
to
soils
containing
target
pests.

Because
of
the
importance
placed
on
seedling
quality
(
due
to
the
high
correlation
of
quality
and
subsequent
forest
health
and
value),
failure
to
achieve
consistently
healthy
seedlings
in
even
a
fraction
of
the
production
area
can
have
a
devastating
effect
on
this
sector's
ability
to
provide
acceptable
seedlings
for
reforestation.
In
addition,
the
use
of
1,3­
D
may
be
restricted
due
to
legal
(
township
caps
or
buffer
zones)
or
geological
factors
(
karst
geology).
Non­
chemical
and
biological
control
methods
have
not
proven
to
be
reliable
independent
treatments,
although
in
most
nurseries
they
have
been
integrated
into
the
routine
seedling
production
system.
At
present,
therefore,
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
is
critical
to
forest
tree
seedling
nurseries
in
the
U.
S.

Did
any
combinations
or
specific
application
methods
provide
results
close
to
MB
 
While
the
U.
S.
considers
methyl
bromide
critical
for
the
short
term,
forest
seedling
nurseries
are
working
to
reduce
reliance
on
MB
in
the
future
(
also
see
comments
for
Q1,
above)
and
research
is
being
conducted
to
this
end.
For
example,
Weyerhaeuser
Corporation,
one
of
the
largest
growers
of
forest
tree
seedlings,
suggested
the
most
promising
avenues
of
research
are
(
in
descending
order):
1)
chloropicrin,
340
kg/
ha;
2)
1,3­
D
at
260
kg/
ha
+
chloropicrin
at
140
kg/
ha;
3)
metam­
sodium,
(
485
kg/
ha)
and
chloropicrin
(
115
kg/
ha);
4)
dazomet,
400
kg/
ha;
5)
nonchemical
treatments
such
as
steam;
6)
biological
control
agents.
However,
to
date
the
technical/
economic
feasibility
of
these
alternatives
has
yet
to
be
demonstrated.

Inconsistency
in
pest
management
performance
by
chemical
alternatives
is
the
primary
concern
for
this
sector,
and
the
reason
that
MB
is
currently
critical
for
maintaining
high
quality
seedlings.
While
direct
yield
losses,
in
terms
of
seedlings/
hectare,
were
not
very
large
on
average
when
alternatives
were
used,
intensive
seedling
production
relies
on
the
ability
of
nursery
managers
to
meet
quality,
as
well
as
yield,
goals.
In
addition,
economic
issues
such
as
increased
application
costs
(
e.
g.,
costs
associated
with
application
of
metam­
sodium
and
a
separate
chloropicrin
application),
and
more
lower
grade
less
marketable
plants
may
have
an
impact
on
overall
feasibility
of
these
alternatives
for
the
forest
tree
seedling
nursery
sector.

Mills
and
processors
Question
9
­
MBTOC
seeks
further
information
on
how
the
estimates
were
made
that
were
used
to
derive
the
nominated
amounts
and,
particularly
on
the
proportion
of
structures
judged
unsuitable
for
heat
disinfestation
or
IPM
approaches
because
of
structural
inadequacies
or
other
factors,
and
how
this
judgement
was
made.
Alternatives
in
commercial
use
include
combinations
of
rigorous
sanitation
programmes
and
IPM
processes
supplemented
by
heat
disinfestation
(
permanently
installed
or
transportable
equipment)
and/
or
phosphine­
based
treatments
(
where
corrosion
risk
can
be
managed).
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
13
Answers
Estimates
of
nominated
amounts
versus
heat,
sanitation,
or
IPM
as
an
alternative
 
First
it
must
be
stressed
that
mills
in
the
U.
S.
are
not
treated
with
methyl
bromide
alone,
but
rather
methyl
bromide
is
used
in
conjunction
with
sanitary
measures,
IPM
and
heat
or
other
measures,
that
significantly
reduce
the
need
for
methyl
bromide.
These
measures
alone
are
not,
however,
sufficient
to
maintain
the
required
sanitary
standards.

Most
of
the
mills
in
the
United
States
are
between
10
and
100
years
old,
although
there
are
both
older
and
newer
mills.
These
mills
range
in
size
up
to
a
city
block
(
approximately
0.1
hectare)
`
footprint'
and
five
levels
in
height.
A
variety
of
materials
have
been
used
in
their
construction,
but
a
common
feature
is
wood.
This
is
significant
because
wooden
structures
provide
harborage
and
are
often
sufficiently
"
porous"
that
insects
from
the
surrounding
area
cannot
be
excluded
from
the
facility.
Mills
generally
also
include
sophisticated
electronic
equipment
to
control
equipment,
manage
inventories
and
process
and
track
activities.
The
electronic
equipment
contains
gold,
silver,
and
copper
components
(
in
addition
to
those
of
other
materials)
which
are
particularly
susceptible
to
corrosion
when
exposed
to
phosphine.
Efforts
have
been
made
to
shield
susceptible
materials
in
mills,
but
shielding
has
provided
additional
harborage
for
insects
and
thus
been
self­
defeating.
It
is
an
industry
practice
to
treat
the
commodity
with
phosphine
or
other
fumigant
prior
to
bring
the
commodity
on­
site
for
processing,
thus
reducing
the
insect
populations
that
must
be
controlled.
In
many
cases
the
final
products
are
also
treated
with
an
alternative
fumigant
prior
to
being
packaged
and
shipped.

Heat
alone
has
also
not
proven
a
viable
alternative
to
chemical
fumigation
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
Heating
the
oils
in
products
speeds
the
oxidation
process,
which
turns
the
fats
rancid,
and
causes
some
products
to
spoil.
During
very
cold
weather
it
may
not
be
possible
to
heat
mills
to
a
sufficient
temperature
to
destroy
all
of
the
insect
stages
of
the
key
pests.
For
mills
with
significant
portions
constructed
of
wood,
heating
will
drive
insects
out
of
the
mill,
but
in
temperate
climates
they
can
survive
outdoors
and
are
able
to
return
after
the
heat
process.

Estimates
of
methyl
bromide
needed
because
alternatives
were
not
adequate
 
The
estimates
of
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
needed
were
derived
from
past
methyl
bromide
use
by
the
consortium
applying
for
the
CUE.
The
requested
amounts
were
checked
against
public
and
proprietary
sources
of
use
information
and
USG
experts
in
the
fields
of
pest­
control
in
post­
harvest
situations
were
consulted.
Applicants
were
not
allowed
to
include
any
`
growth'
in
their
request;
i.
e.
any
increase
for
new
facilities
or
higher
use
rates
was
removed
from
the
nomination.
The
amount
of
methyl
bromide
nominated
represents
use
only
where
alternatives
such
as:
heat,
IPM,
phosphine,
or
sanitation
have
not
proven
effective
in
controlling
the
target
pests.
The
nominated
amount
represents
a
weighted
average
(
where
the
weighting
factor
is
proportion
of
processing
capacity
located
in
various
climatic
zones)
of
mills
by
number
of
methyl
bromide
fumigations
per
year.
The
range
of
annual
fumigations
is
broad,
from
as
many
as
5­
6
per
year
for
older
facilities
in
the
southern
U.
S.
to
once
every
3­
5
years
for
newer
facilities
in
the
northern
U.
S.
Some
facilities
that
had
committed
to
become
methyl
bromide­
free
have
had
to
use
methyl
bromide
despite
the
commitment
when
they
were
not
able
to
maintain
sanitary
standards.
Even
facilities
that
have
not
used
methyl
bromide
in
five
years
are
reluctant
to
commit
to
not
using
methyl
bromide
ever
in
the
future
given
the
uncertainties
about
characteristics
of
future
pest
outbreaks.
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
14
Alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
and
phosphine
 
The
U.
S.
has
recently
registered
sulfuryl
fluoride
(
Profume
 
)
for
pest
control
in
dried
fruit,
nuts
and
some
mills
and
food
processing
facilities.
However,
this
does
not
allow
for
the
immediate
use
of
sulfuryl
fluoride
as
a
replacement
for
methyl
bromide.
In
the
United
States
there
is
a
two
level
registration
process.
After
registration
of
a
pesticide
at
the
federal
level,
each
state
must
also
register
the
chemical
for
use
within
the
state.
Many
states
have
a
process
which
generally
follows
the
federal
process
so
that
registration
in
the
state
follows
the
federal
registration
as
a
matter
of
routine.
Even
for
such
States,
it
takes
some
time
before
formal
approval
is
granted
for
a
pesticide
so
that
it
can
be
legally
used
in
that
jurisdiction.
Several
states,
however,
have
requirements
in
addition
to
the
federal
registration
process
that
must
be
satisfied
before
the
chemical
can
be
used
within
the
state.
California,
a
state
with
a
high
level
of
methyl
bromide
use
is
also
one
with
stringent
additional
requirements
for
pesticide
registration.
Even
if
there
are
no
issues
needing
resolution,
registration
in
California
takes
six
months
or
longer
after
the
federal
registration.
And
after
it
has
entered
CDPR's
queue.
At
this
time
the
registrant
(
Dow
AgroSciences)
has
not
yet
requested
a
California
registration.
Until
such
registrations
are
granted,
users
may
not
apply
a
Federally
registered
product.
Even
after
state
registrations
are
granted,
mill
operators
will
likely
phase­
in
new
products
in
order
to
confirm
that
they
perform
satisfactorily
at
individual
locations
before
converting
entirely
to
these
new
products.

Furthermore,
the
replacement
of
methyl
bromide
with
sulfuryl
fluoride
will
likely
be
delayed
because
the
registrant
is
requiring
that
all
potential
applicators
of
this
product
be
trained
by
the
registrant
(
this
is
in
addition
to
any
legal
requirements
for
applicator
training)
before
they
will
sell
the
product
to
the
applicator.
Given
its
recent
registration,
it
is
not
yet
possible
to
ascertain
what
the
cost
of
this
potentially
promising
alternative
will
be.
Until
issues
of
training
cost
and
availability,
among
others,
have
been
addressed,
there
will
not
be
a
cadre
of
available
applicators.

Although
the
registrant
has
a
similar
product
for
use
as
a
termite
control
agent,
termite
control
applicators
are
not
licensed
to
apply
pesticides
in
food
processing
facilities.

Float
trays
for
tobacco
seedlings
Question
10
­
MBTOC
seeks
further
information
as
to
why
steam
treatment
cannot
be
used
in
the
specific
circumstances
of
this
nomination.

Answer
The
U.
S.
consulted
Dr.
Nesmith,
professor
at
The
University
of
Kentucky
and
one
of
the
authors
of
the
paper
cited
in
the
question.
Dr.
Nesmith
clarified
that
steaming
is
only
technically
feasible
when
performed
in
a
large­
scale,
custom
steaming,
operation
with
equipment
that
can
maintain
the
temperatures
with
enough
precision
to
sterilize
the
trays
without
damaging
them.
This
method
is
used
by
large
(
commercial
scale)
growers
but
is
not
economically
feasible
for
the
smaller
growers
(
Personal
communication,
Dr.
William
Nesmith,
University
of
Kentucky
Department
of
Plant
Pathology,
December
9,
2003).
Production
systems
of
this
commercial
size
represent
a
very
small
percentage
of
plant
production
in
all
Southeastern
states.
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
15
Trials
conducted
by
Dr.
Melton,
a
Professor
at
North
Carolina
State
University,
with
steam
treatment
of
trays
indicated
that
good
control
was
not
necessarily
achieved
in
all
portions
of
the
steam
chamber.
His
assessment
is
that
if
the
scale
of
operation
is
of
sufficient
size,
steaming
can
be
as
effective
as
methyl
bromide,
but
that
both
the
technical
aspects
and
the
cost
make
it
inappropriate
for
small
operations.
He
further
stated
that
as
tobacco
allotments
are
not
expected
to
increase
in
the
foreseeable
future
any
grower
who
has
not
already
invested
in
a
steaming
operation,
doing
so
would
be
economically
infeasible.
(
Personal
communication,
Dr.
Thomas
Melton,
Professor
and
Extension
Leader,
North
Carolina
State
University,
College
of
Agriculture
and
Life
Sciences,
Department
of
Plant
Pathology,
December
9,
2003.)

Strawberry
fruit
 
field
grown
Question
11
­
The
CUN
of
Sept
2003
cites
yield
loss
data
from
studies
on
potential
MB
alternatives
prior
to
1999
(
Table
3).
Further
advances
in
MB
alternatives
have
been
made
since
that
time.
In
particular,
improved
application
methods
and
other
combinations
of
fumigants/
chemicals
have
repeatedly
shown
similar
efficacy
to
MB/
Pic
mixtures
in
broadscale
studies,
e.
g.
IR­
4
and
others.
Information
available
to
MBTOC
suggests
that
there
is
little
yield
difference
from
several
potential
alternatives.
In
the
absence
of
specific
circumstances
or
restrictions,
it
appears
that
there
are
several
available
alternatives
for
at
least
part
of
this
CUN.
In
those
circumstances
where
the
Party
believes
alternatives
cannot
be
used
due
to
nutsedge
infestation,
it
is
requested
that
the
Party
provide
substantiating
data
from
recent
studies
(
after
1999)
from
trials
on
areas
with
moderate
to
high
nutsedge
infestation.

Answers
Discuss
studies
newer
than
1999
 
The
United
States
believes
it
has
taken
into
consideration
all
relevant
studies
both
before
and
after
1999
in
assessing
our
need
for
a
MeBr
CUE.
Where
additional
appropriate
data
are
found
the
results
will
be
considered
in
future
CUE
nominations.

In
particular
the
U.
S.
attempts
to
only
cite
research
studies
conducted
under
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure
because
that
is
the
only
use
where
methyl
bromide
is
considered
critical.
The
U.
S.
briefly
reviewed
the
information
provided
by
Ian
Porter
of
MBTOC
at
the
2003
MBAO
meeting
in
San
Diego,
CA.
In
his
presentation
data
on
methyl
bromide
alternatives
for
strawberries
were
presented
in
a
table
entitled
"
Victorian
Strawberry
Fruit
Trials".
That
table
presented
supporting
data
from
1995,
1996,
1997,
1998,
1999,
2000,
and
2001.
Using
only
data
newer
than
1999
removes
seven
of
ten
research
studies.
The
U.
S.
government
believes
that
all
relevant
studies,
whether
conducted
before
or
after
1999
should
be
given
due
consideration
in
this
process.
In
the
remaining
three
studies,
there
is
no
documentation
that
any
pests
or
plant
pathogens
were
present
in
the
trial
sites
during
the
trial.
Therefore,
in
our
view,
these
studies
would
not
be
considered
adequate,
either
as
a
justification
for
or
against
the
US
submission.
Indeed,
we
think
this
is
a
very
important
point.
We
acknowledge
that
it
is
more
than
possible
to
include
20
or
more
studies
in
a
meta
analysis
for
some
crops
which
would
appear
to
indicate
that
alternatives
are
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
16
viable
for
that
crop.
However,
if
the
analysis
did
not
include
studies
which
focused
on
the
crop
conditions
faced
by
the
applicant
for
a
CUE,
we
strongly
believe
that
it
would
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
terms
of
the
Critical
use
decision
to
use
such
analyses
to
make
CUE
decisions.

Improved
application
methods
The
U.
S.
is
unaware
of
any
new
application
methods
registered
in
the
U.
S.
since
1999
that
would
have
an
appreciable
impact
on
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination.
We
would
consider
this
issue
in
future
CUE
nominations
if
provided
with
more
specific
information
by
MBTOC
that
is
pertinent
to
our
nomination.

MBTOC
data
suggest
little
yield
difference
between
several
potential
alternatives
 
The
U.
S.
briefly
reviewed
the
information
provided
by
Dr.
Ian
Porter
of
MBTOC
at
the
2003
MBAO
meeting
in
San
Diego,
CA
in
support
of
this
statement.
A
preliminary
evaluation
was
made
of
one
of
the
data
tables
entitled
Table
1.
Relative
yield
data
from
strawberry
trials
presented
at
the
MBAO
conferences
1999­
2002
created
some
level
of
concern
in
the
United
States.
One
minor
point
is
that
there
appeared
to
be
data
inaccuracies
in
the
data
presented
in
terms
of
how
averaging
was
performed.
Of
more
importance
is
the
fact
that
there
was
no
information
on
the
type
or
level
of
infestation
of
pests
or
plant
pathogens
present
in
the
trials.
The
U.
S.
nomination
is
for
methyl
bromide
use
only
in
areas
of
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure.
The
United
States
considers
this
type
of
information,
where
critical
factors
are
not
presented,
to
be
inappropriate
for
determining
critical
needs,
and
believes
that
studies
performed
in
areas
of
low
or
negligible
pest
pressure
do
not
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
alternatives
in
areas
facing
higher
pest
pressure
such
as
those
included
in
the
U.
S.
CUE.

Similar
efficacy
between
methyl
bromide
and
alternatives
in
IR­
4
studies
and
others
 
The
U.
S.
is
aware
of
studies
conducted
by
IR­
4
among
other
researcher
in
areas
of
low
to
no
pest
or
plant
pathogen
pressure
for
the
purposes
of
determining
crop
residues,
phytotoxicity,
or
measuring
parameters
other
than
performance.
While
carefully
conducted
and
documented,
we
are
not
aware
of
IR­
4
studies
that
demonstrate
sufficient
target
pest
pressure
to
be
included
in
the
U.
S.
reviews.

We
would
further
caution
on
the
applicability
of
IR­
4
data
based
on
this
communication
from
Dr.
Jack
Norton,
IR­
4
Special
Projects
Manager:
" 
I
urge
caution
because
when
you
consider
the
number
of
pests
that
affect
crop
production
that
are
effectively
controlled
by
methyl
bromide
and
when
the
entire
data
base
in
the
IR­
4
trials
is
examined
there
are
many
species
of
nematodes,
fungal
pathogens
and
even
weeds
that
have
not
yet
been
evaluated
in
direct
comparison
to
the
MB/
PIC
standard.
One
must
also
consider
the
intensity
of
the
pest
pressures
and
while
much
headway
has
been
made,
we
have
only
scratched
the
surface
when
you
consider
the
great
variability
that
occurs
between
locations
and
even
within
single
fields.
In
some
trials
the
combinations
were
evaluated
only
against
one
or
two
parts
of
the
pest
spectrum
and
not
all
components
 
On
another
point,
we
can
not
say
with
certainty
that
the
standards
and
the
experimental
products
are
economically
viable
since
our
trials
provide
only
a
part
of
the
equation,
the
yield
and
crop
quality
data."

Question
12
­
MBTOC
recognizes
that
regulatory
restrictions
associated
with
environmental
concerns
restrict
the
use
of
1,
3­
D
(
Township
caps
in
California,
karst
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
17
topography
in
Florida,
and
buffer
zones
in
the
southeast
U.
S.).
However
some
other
fumigants/
chemicals
have
been
found
effective
in
controlling
the
key
soil
borne
pests
affecting
strawberry
fruit
production,
particularly
chloropicrin
EC
alone
or
in
combination
with
metam
sodium.
To
what
extent
could
these
techniques
be
adopted
in
the
areas
involved
in
this
CUN
where
1,
3­
D
cannot
be
used
for
regulatory
reasons?

Answers
Use
of
other
alternatives
particularly
chloropicrin
 
In
the
United
States,
all
of
the
strawberry­
growing
areas
are
affected
by
weeds
as
key
pests
in
addition
to
soilborne
plant
pathogens,
and
nematodes.
Although
chloropicrin
is
effective
against
some
of
the
important
plant
pathogens,
it
is
not
useful
for
the
control
of
weeds
and
thus
does
not
address
this
key
pest.
As
reported
in
the
September
2003
submission,
chloropicrin,
whether
used
alone
or
in
combination
with
metam
sodium,
results
in
yield
losses,
which
range
from
a
likely
loss
of
5%
in
the
southeastern
U.
S.
to
a
likely
loss
of
14%
in
California.
At
present
there
are
no
registered
selective
herbicides
that
can
be
used
in
conjunction
with
chloropicrin
or
chloropicrin
plus
metam
sodium
to
provide
the
necessary
weed
control.

Even
if
a
target
crop
were
only
affected
by
plant
pathogens
(
such
areas
are
not
included
in
the
U.
S.
nomination),
rather
than
also
being
affected
by
weeds
and
nematodes,
the
strategy
of
replacing
methyl
bromide
with
chloropicrin
is
severely
limited
by
regulatory
restrictions
on
rates
of
chloropicrin
use.
In
most
California
counties,
for
example,
limit
the
rate
of
chloropicrin
application
to
200
lb/
a
(
225
kg/
h).
(
Personal
communication,
Daniel
LeGard,
Director
of
Research
and
Education,
California
Strawberry
Commission,
January
29,
2004.)

A
number
(
4
or
5
in
the
last
year)
of
farm
trials
have
been
conducted
on
strawberries
in
California
using
chloropicrin
alone.
According
to
the
John
Duniway
of
the
University
of
California
(
personal
communication,
January
29th,
2004),
drip
applied
chloropicrin
results
in
a
5­
25%
yield
loss
relative
to
methyl
bromide
when
applied
at
200
lbs
per
acre
which
is
the
maximum
permissible
rate
in
counties
where
strawberries
are
grown.
(
this
is
dictated
by
agricultural
commissioners,
not
rulemaking)
When
the
chloropicrin
is
shank
applied,
(
broadcast)
at
200
lbs/
acre
the
losses
run
10­
15%
relative
to
methyl
bromide.
The
variability
is
a
function
of
the
variety
of
strawberry,
the
level
of
pest
pressure,
and
other
factors.
However,
there
are
few
trials
which
showed
repeated
use
on
the
same
land,
and
there
is
some
evidence
that
chloropicrin
is
not
effective
against
nematodes.
A
1999
trial
conducted
by
University
of
California
at
Davis
showed
steady
declines
in
yield
compared
to
methyl
bromide
from
2.2%
the
first
year,
to
10.6%
the
second
year,
to
13.7%
the
third
year.
Accumulation
of
the
existing
pest
complex
with
chloropicrin
alone
will
also
increase
over
time.
These
increasing
yield
losses
over
time
also
lead
to
economic
losses
of
approximately
US
$
2,459
per
acre
in
Northern
California
and
a
total
loss
of
US
$
98,360
for
the
third
year
alone.

With
respect
to
regulatory
constraints,
the
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
is
currently
re­
evaluating
chloropicrin,
(
based
on
data
submitted
under
the
Birth
Defect
Prevention
Act)
and
it
is
anticipated
that
the
review
will
be
complete
in
approximately
2
years.
These
data
indicate
that
chloropicrin
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
health
effects
at
low
doses.
Presently,
chloropicrin
is
listed
as
a
toxic
air
contaminant
in
the
state
of
California
and
could
be
subject
to
additional
regulatory
constraints
after
a
complete
review
of
the
Scientific
Review
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
18
Panel
of
the
Air
Resources
Board.
(
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation,
August
2002).

Question
13
­
A
1,
3­
D/
Pic
combination
(
InLineTM)
is
in
commercial
use
as
an
alternative
to
MB
in
at
least
some
areas
covered
by
this
CUN.
The
use
of
1,3­
dichloropropene
(
1,3­
D)
is
restricted
in
some
jurisdictions
through
Township
caps.
Currently
in
at
least
some
relevant
areas
a
2X
cap
is
in
operation,
allowing
twice
the
basic
cap
to
be
used
and
increasing
the
area
that
can
potentially
where
1,3­
D
and
mixtures
containing
1,3­
D
can
be
used
in
place
of
MB.
Information
is
requested
on
what
change
to
the
nominated
quantity
can
be
made
if
a
2X
cap
was
in
operation
in
2005.

California
2X
Telone
 
township
cap
 

While
the
township
caps
on
1,3­
D
present
a
limitation
on
the
use
of
this
alternative
in
California
in
some
respect,
the
primary
basis
for
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
for
California
strawberries
is
that
alternatives,
including
1,3­
D,
do
not
provide
adequate
control
of
key
pests
in
the
areas
of
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure
included
in
our
CUE
request.
As
you
may
recall
from
Table
5
of
our
August
2003
information
submission
to
MBTOC,
the
`
key
pests
impact'
for
the
CA
strawberry
request,
comprising
89%
of
the
area
requested
by
the
applicant,
was
the
dominant
factor
in
making
our
evaluation.
In
fact,
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
includes
a
request
for
89%
of
what
the
applicant
had
requested
(
i.
e.,
we
didn't
augment
the
U.
S.
request
to
account
for
township
caps).
The
CA
caps
present
a
secondary
limitation
in
the
use
of
this
alternative,
but
as
you
can
see
from
Table
5,
we
did
not
increase
the
U.
S.
CUE
request
to
include
areas
outside
of
those
we
deemed
had
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure.
Therefore,
the
size
of
the
township
caps
in
2005
is
not
deemed
to
have
an
appreciable
impact
on
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
in
this
sector.
A
description
of
additional
issues
related
to
the
township
cap
follows.

The
2005
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
was
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
Telone
 
usage
in
California
would
only
be
allowed
at
the
baseline
amount.
The
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulations
(
Cal
DPR)
was
contacted
for
clarification
on
the
Telone
 
township
cap
question.
There
are
over
four
thousand
townships,
of
9,300
ha
or
36
square
mile
represented
in
the
township
assessment.
Cal
DPR
explained
that
use
of
Telone
 
in
2005
and
beyond
would
be
based
on:
current
and
historic
use
patterns
in
each
individual
township,
future
enhancements
to
the
air
concentration
model
and
health
impact
models,
and
assumptions
on
the
use
of
adjacent
land
in
the
models.
Because
of
the
uncertainties
in
all
of
these
parameters
they
are
currently
unable
to
speculate
what
the
future
Telone
 
township
caps
will
be.

The
effect
of
the
township
caps
(
at
their
permanent
level)
in
limiting
the
use
of
1,3D
(
Telone
 
)
in
California
was
calculated
by
Carpenter
and
Lynch,
1999
and
updated
by
Carpenter
et
al,
2001.
It
is
not
possible
to
duplicate
this
work
in
the
time
allowed
for
our
response
for
a
different
level
of
township
cap,
even
if
the
level
of
the
new
cap
were
known.

The
U.
S.
CUE
assumed
continued
application
of
the
current
regulatory
limit,
not
the
short­
term
exemption
limits.
Accordingly,
we
believe
that
the
CUE
must
cover
the
level
of
MeBr
needed
to
meet
the
existing
1
times
regulatory
limit.
However,
we
would
like
to
assure
MBTOC
and
the
Parties
that
we
are
committed
to
using
only
that
amount
of
MeBr
that
is
actually
needed,
taking
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
19
into
account
what
would
be
needed
at
the
time
of
allocation
of
the
CUE,
and
taking
into
account
any
future
exemption
of
the
CA
Telone
 
cap
that
could
be
provided.

With
regard
to
the
combination
of
1,3­
D
and
chloropicrin,
a
significant
issue
of
concern
for
some
California
strawberry
growers
is
the
lack
of
control
of
weeds.
While
some
increased
control
of
weeds
has
been
demonstrated
with
InLine
applications
and
VIF
mulch,
weed
control
is
not
observed
along
the
sides
of
the
beds
where
drip
applications
do
not
reach.
Since
these
weeds
are
under
the
mulch,
the
application
of
an
additional
herbicide
would
not
be
an
economically
feasible
solution
because
operational
costs
would
increase.

There
are
additional
problems
with
InLine
drip
applications
as
it
performs
erratically
in
sloping
fields.
The
drip
material
requires
very
specific
soil
types,
moisture,
and
delivery
conditions.
For
example,
the
volume
delivery
of
the
drip
material
is
inappropriate
for
sandy
soils
and
hilly
terrain
because
there
is
no
spread
throughout
the
bed,
while
there
is
too
much
spread
in
heavier
soil.
If
material
is
applied
too
rapidly
in
large
volumes,
the
beds
can
collapse;
this
has
occurred
in
some
experimental
trials.
Furthermore,
growers
in
some
circumstances
would
face
substantial
economic
costs
to
replace
PVC
piping
and
add
the
appropriate
valve
and
flow
equipment.
The
California
Strawberry
Commission
estimates
approximately
US$
100
per
acre
to
upgrade
and
maintain
drip
systems.
Phytotoxicity
can
also
result
if
material
left
in
the
system
reaches
transplants.
Research
is
currently
underway
by
the
California
Strawberry
Commission
related
to
finding
optimal
conditions
under
which
growers
can
implement
trials.

Furthermore,
InLine
is
subject
to
a
20%
penalty
in
calculations
for
determining
use
under
California
township
caps
(
e.
g.
1
lb
of
1,3­
D
applied
as
InLine
counts
as
1.2
lbs.
under
the
cap).
(
Personal
communication,
Husein
Ajwa,
University
of
California,
January
30,
2004.)
The
doubling
of
the
township
cap
is
considered
a
temporary
solution
until
the
unused
amounts
are
used
in
the
near
future.
According
to
USDA
(
Trout,
2002),
one
study
projects
that
in
a
best­
case
scenario,
Telone
products
will
be
unavailable
to
47%
of
the
total
strawberry
acreage
in
the
state.
The
study
projects
unavailable
acres
according
to
the
following
table,
based
on
2001
acreage:

REGION
TOTAL
ACRES
ACRES
UNAVAILABLE
%
OF
ACRES
Watsonville
10,759
4,344
40.4%
Santa
Maria
3,817
1,645
43%
Ventura
County
7,777
4,228
54%
Orange
County
2,446
243
10%

The
combination
of
1­
3D
Telone
products
and
chloropicrin
is
under
constant
regulatory
constraint
because
of
acute
toxicity
and
the
carcinogen
classification
of
1­
3D.
This
factor
makes
it
difficult
for
growers
to
consider
this
combination
a
viable
alternative,
especially
with
township
caps
in
effect.

Tomatoes­
field
grown
Question
14
­
The
CUN
of
Sept
2003
presents
some
yield
data
based
largely
on
1,3­
D/
chloropicrin
(
Table
2).
The
CUN
indicates
that
where
published
studies
of
yields
under
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
20
conditions
of
moderate­
severe
key
pest
pressure
were
not
available,
estimates
were
developed
by
contacting
university
professors
and
experts.
MBTOC
notes
that
recent
studies
in
Florida,
e.
g.
IR­
4
and
others,
have
trialled
combinations
of
fumigants/
chemicals
and
shown
performance
equivalent
for
MB
that
appear
to
have
reduced
the
need
for
MB.
Comparative
yield
data
is
requested
(
since
2000)
from
recent
studies
showing
specific
soil
preparation
information
and
key
alternatives
that
have
produced
results
comparable
to
MB
under
good
commercial
practice,
particularly
those
carried
out
under
medium
or
high
nutsedge
pressure.

Answers
Comparative
performance
data
from
studies
newer
than
2000
 
The
United
States
believes
that
we
have
considered
all
relevant
data
in
preparing
our
CUE
nomination
including
data
from
2000
or
later.
In
particular
the
U.
S.
attempts
to
only
cite
research
studies
conducted
under
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure
because
that
is
the
only
use
where
methyl
bromide
is
considered
critical.
Please
see
the
answer
to
Question
11
(
above)
for
a
discussion
of
the
need
to
use
all
relevant
studies.

Similar
efficacy
between
methyl
bromide
and
alternatives
in
IR­
4
studies
and
others
 
The
U.
S.
is
aware
of
studies
conducted
by
IR­
4
among
other
researcher
in
areas
of
low
to
no
pest
or
plant
pathogen
pressure
for
the
purposes
of
determining
crop
residues,
phytotoxicity,
or
measuring
parameters
other
than
performance.
While
carefully
conducted
and
documented,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
IR4
studies
that
demonstrate
sufficient
target
pest
pressure
to
be
relevant
in
the
U.
S.
reviews.

Turfgrass
Question
15
­
MBTOC
recognizes
that
the
sector
has
reduced
the
formulations
of
MB
to
67:
33
and
sometimes
to
50:
50.
What
are
the
constraints
to
reducing
the
MB
content
of
the
fumigant
mixture
further?
There
may
also
be
scope
for
dosage
rate
reduction
through
adoption
of
less
permeable
tarping
combined
with
increased
exposure
periods.
It
is
notable
that
the
current
use
rate
of
MB
is
high,
480
and
610kg/
Ha
in
Table
2
of
the
supplementary
nomination.
Have
these
rates
been
adjusted
to
take
into
account
the
use
of
chloropicrin
in
the
fumigant
mixtures
and,
if
so,
are
such
high
rates
necessary
against
the
target
pests?

Answers
15
a.
Constraints
to
reducing
methyl
bromide
content
in
the
fumigant
mixture
 
The
turfgrass
industry
is
still
attempting
to
find
treatments
that
provide
multi­
year
control
of
"
off­
type"
perennial
grass
species
(
see
Question
16
below).
Rates
and
fumigant
mixtures
are
the
result
of
scientific
testing
and
analysis
as
well
as
individual
farmer
experiences
based
on
the
variable
soil
types,
climatic
conditions,
time
of
year
of
application,
and
specific
pests
being
controlled.
Because
of
the
expense
of
methyl
bromide
treatments
farmers
are
interested
in
reducing
their
expenses
for
methyl
bromide
but
not
at
the
cost
of
losing
or
significantly
reducing
overall
efficacy
of
the
single
treatment
(
personal
communication
D.
Fender,
Turfgrass
Producers
Int.,
Jan.
14,
2004).

15
b.
Rate
reductions
through
less
permeable
tarping
combined
with
increased
exposure
periods.
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
21
Information
from
the
turfgrass
industry
indicates
that
they
are
already
using
high
density
polyethylene
tarps.
Additional
work
is
being
conducted
with
VIF
but
results
to
date
with
steam
sealing,
tearing,
lack
of
photo
stability
and
slower
speed
in
which
it
can
be
removed
from
the
roll
have
all
hampered
its
use
in
the
U.
S.
This
is
consistent
with
MBTOC
findings
which
found
that
"
VIF
is
inefficient,
if
not
entirely
ineffectual
at
reducing
MBR
emissions
from
soil
fumigation(
MEBTOC
2002,
p.
349)
when:
only
part
of
the
field
is
covered
with
VIF,
any
of
the
film
strip
over
laps
become
unglued
or
are
otherwise
unsealed,
any
of
the
film
edges
anywhere
around
the
field
become
unsealed,
or
the
film
seal
is
broken
before
10­
20
days
have
passed."
It
is
also
consistent
with
information
from
the
Europa
Environmental
website
(
http://
europa.
eu.
int/
comm/
environment/
ozone/
faqs.
htm)
indicates
that
VIF
can
be
ineffectual
at
controlling
methyl
bromide
emissions
unless
the
seams
and
edges
can
be
sealed
properly.
The
U.
S.
has
not
been
able
to
find
data
that
compares
tarping
intervals
and
pest
control
efficacy
to
provide
insight
into
how
longer
tarping
intervals
could
be
used
to
reduce
use
rates
in
turfgrass
sod
production.

15
c.
Current
methyl
bromide
use
rates
from
Table
2.
These
rates
have
been
evaluated
and
determined
to
include
adjustments
for
chloropicrin.
Because
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
in
turfgrass
is
for
control
of
off­
type
turfgrass
the
material
must
deeply
penetrate
the
soil
strata
and
control
dense
vigorously
growing
grass
roots.
Rates
and
fumigant
mixtures
that
were
nominated
are
the
result
of
scientific
testing
and
analysis
as
well
as
individual
farmer
experiences
based
on
the
variable
soil
types,
climatic
conditions,
time
of
year
of
application,
and
specific
pests
being
controlled.
However,
the
U.
S.
hopes
that
future
testing
can
produce
techniques
to
further
reduce
the
rates
of
methyl
bromide
needed
for
adequate
control
Question
16
­
From
the
CUN
and
supplementary
information,
it
appears
that
an
important
target
of
current
MB
use
in
the
sector
is
nutsedge
control.
What
proportion
of
the
nomination
is
concerned
specifically
with
nutsedge
control?

Answers
16a.
Nutsedge
in
turfgrass
sod
 
While
there
are
many
pests
that
addressed
by
MeBr,
including
nutsedge
the
primary
purpose
and
benefit
of
methyl
bromide
fumigation
as
compared
to
any
alternatives
is
its
multi­
year
control
of
"
off­
type"
perennial
grasses
not
nutsedge.
Nutsedge
should
not
have
been
described
as
a
primary
target
for
methyl
bromide
treatment.
Rather,
nutsedge
is
a
`
marker'
species
in
that
when
control
of
nutsedge
is
achieved
the
applicator
is
reasonably
assured
that
the
off­
grass
species
are
also
controlled.
Turfgrass
and
sod
are
also
impacted
by
a
variety
of
insect
and
nematode
pests
that
are
controlled
by
methyl
bromide.

MBTOC
notes
that
352.194
tonnes
of
MB
have
been
nominated
for
these
uses.
MBTOC
considers
that
several
alternatives,
particularly
dazomet
and
steam,
are
suitable
alternatives
for
most
of
the
uses
in
this
nomination.
From
the
information
provided,
MBTOC
could
not
determine
why
alternatives
were
not
feasible
in
the
specific
circumstances
of
the
nomination,
but
accepts
statements
in
the
nomination
that
alternatives
were
not
appropriate.
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
22
The
U.
S.
is
not
aware
of
any
referenced
research
that
supports
these
comments
from
MBTOC.
Dazomet
was
not
considered
a
suitable
alternative
because
it
does
not
provide
the
necessary
control
of
"
off
type"
perennial
grasses
and
other
pests,
particularly
when
the
turf
producer
is
seeking
multiple­
year
control
from
a
single
methyl
bromide
application.
Steam
was
not
considered
a
suitable
alternative
because
it
has
not
been
adequately
tested
or
proven
as
an
alternative,
particularly
when
multiple­
year
control
of
multiple
pests
is
required.
Please
see
"
Fumigant
Alternatives
for
MeBr
Prior
to
Turfgrass
Establishment
 
Unruh,
J.
B.
et
al,
Weed
technology,
Volume
16,
No,
2­
pp.
379­
387
for
review
of
chemical
alternatives
in
the
context
of
the
U.
S.
nomination.
As
noted
previously,
while
we
believe
we
conducted
a
thorough
review
of
pertinent
research
results,
we
would
appreciate
it
if
MBTOC
would
provide
us
with
citations
relevant
to
dazomet
and
steam
as
mentioned
in
the
question.

Supplemental
Information
for
MBTOC
on
newly­
registered
pesticides
and
research
activities
We
would
like
to
note
that
the
United
States
remains
fully
committed
to
researching,
registering
and
evaluating
methyl
bromide
alternatives.
Important
recent
action
in
the
United
States
with
respect
to
the
registration
of
MB
alternatives
are
shown
in
the
tables
below.
The
impact
of
these
new
registrations
on
the
U.
S.
need
for
methyl
bromide
isn't
clear
at
this
time,
but
we
anticipate
that
it
will
become
clear
in
the
near
future
and
will
be
taken
into
account
in
future
U.
S.
CUE
nominations.
In
any
case,
it
is
generally
recognized
that
it
takes
some
time
to
switch
over
to
newly
registered
alternatives.
We
would
like
to
assure
MBTOC
and
the
parties
that
the
U.
S.
will
evaluate
all
these
alternatives
to
reduce
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
and
maintain
the
level
of
pest
control
necessary
for
modern
agricultural
production.

New
Alternatives
for
Post­
Harvest
and
Structural
Pest
Control
Chemical
Use
Site
Transition
Strategy
Propylene
oxide1
(
PPO)
Pest
control
in
stored
fruit
and
nuts
in
shells
Newly
registered
in
California.
Requires
vacuum
chambers
for
the
current
formulation.
The
U.
S.
is
determining
the
number
of
facilities
and
time
necessary
to
can
convert
to
this
alternative.
Sulfuryl
fluoride2
(
Profume
 
)
pest
control
in
stored
products
and
flour
mills
Newly
registered
in
the
U.
S.
Not
yet
registered
in
California.
The
U.
S.
is
determining
the
number
of
facilities
and
time
necessary
to
convert
to
this
alternative.

1Propylene
oxide
California
label
available
online
at
http://
www.
cdpr.
ca.
gov/
cgi­
bin/
label/
label.
pl?
typ=
pir&
prodno=
22076
2Sulfuryl
fluoride
pesticide
tolerance
available
online
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/
EPA­
PEST/
2004/
January/
Day­
23/
p1540.
htm
New
Alternatives
for
Pre­
Plant
Soil
Pest
Control
Chemical
Use
Site
Transition
Strategy
Fosthiazate
(
Nemathorin
 
)
Nematode
control
on
tomatoes
Newly
registered
in
the
U.
S.
Only
labeled
for
application
through
drip
irrigation.
Research
being
conducted
with
fungicides
and
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
23
herbicides
for
a
replacement
combination.
Halosulfuron­
methyl
(
Sandea
 
)
Weed
control
in
tomatoes
Labeled
for
pre­
transplant,
postemergence,
and
row
middles.
Up
to
a
24
month
rotational
restriction.
Research
being
conducted
with
fungicides
and
nematicides
for
a
replacement
combination.
Rimsulfuron
(
Matrix
 
or
Shadeout
 
)
Weed
control
in
tomatoes
Labeled
for
post
transplant
and
directed­
row
middles.
Up
to
an
18
month
rotational
restriction.
Research
being
conducted
with
fungicides
and
nematicides
for
a
replacement
combination.
s­
Metolachlor
(
Dual
Magnum
 
)
Weed
control
in
tomatoes
Labeled
for
pre­
transplant,
and
row
middles.
Plant
back
to
non­
labeled
crops
may
be
restricted
for
up
to
12
months.
Research
being
conducted
with
fungicides
and
nematicides
for
a
replacement
combination.
Trifloxysulfuron
sodium
(
Enfield
 
)
Weed
control
in
tomatoes
Labeled
for
transplanted
tomatoes.
Up
to
an
18
month
rotational
restriction.
Research
being
conducted
with
fungicides
and
nematicides
for
a
replacement
combination
Research
is
continuing
on
both
pre­
plant
uses
and
postharvest
treatments.
A
well­
balanced
research
program
will
include
methodology
utilizing
chemical,
biological
and
physical
means
to
manage
the
pests
that
methyl
bromide
currently
controls.
As
methyl
bromide
is
phased
out,
undoubtedly
additional
pest
problems
are
likely
to
arise
necessitating
identification
of
the
problems
and
additional
research
efforts
to
improve
management.
Long­
term
replacements
for
MB,
such
as
biological
control
and
host­
plant
resistance,
will
be
investigated
and
incorporated
into
pest
management
systems
for
varied
crops
grown
in
the
many
US
geographic
regions.
Anticipated
expenditure
on
MeBr
alternatives
by
USDA
in
FY04
is
$
18,213,300.
The
expenditures
for
this
research
for
FY
1993
­
FY
2003
are
$
153.5M.

REFERENCES
Carey,
W.
A.
2000.
Fumigation
with
chloropicrin,
metham
sodium,
and
EPTC
as
replacements
for
methyl
bromide
in
southern
pine
nurseries.
Southern
Journal
of
Applied
Forestry
24:
135­
139.

Carey,
W.
A.
1996.
Testing
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
fumigation
at
the
Winona
Nursery.
Auburn
University
Southern
Forest
Nursery
Management
Cooperative
Research
Rept.
96­
2.

Carey,
W.
A.
1994.
Chemical
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide.
In:
Landis,
T.
D.,
Dumroese,
R.
K.,
tech.
cords.
National
Proceedings,
Forest
and
Conservation
Nursery
Associations.
Gen.
Tech.
Rep.
RM­
257.
Fort
Collins,
CO.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Forest
Service,
Rocky
Mountain
Forest
and
Range
Experiment
Station:
4­
11.

Carpenter,
Janet,
Lori
Lynch
and
Tom
Trout.
2001.
Township
Limits
on
1,3­
D
will
Impact
Adjustment
to
Methyl
Bromide
Phase­
out.
California
Agriculture,
Volume
55,
Number
3.
January
2004
U.
S.
response
to
MBTOC
Page
24
Carpenter,
Janet
and
Lori
Lynch.
1999.
Impact
of
1,3­
D
Restrictions
in
California
after
a
Ban
on
Methyl
Bromide.
Presentation
at
the
1999
Annual
International
Conference
of
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
and
Emissions
Reductions.

Europa
Environmental
website
Frequently
Asked
Questions,
2004.
Q10.
What
is
virtually
impermeable
film.
Reference
:
Art
17:
Leakages
of
controlled
substances.
Available
online
at
http://
europa.
eu.
int/
comm/
environment/
ozone/
faqs.
htm
.

Mattner,
SW,
I.
J.
Porter,
R.
K.
Gounder
and
A.
L.
Shanks.
2003.
Phytotoxicity
and
plant­
back
­
Critical
issues
in
the
Australian
strawberry
industry.
Presentation
at
the
2003
Annual
International
Research
Conference
on
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
and
Emissions
Reductions.
Available
online
at
http://
mbao.
org
Porter,
Ian.
2003.
MBTOC
Issues
(
Soils
Committee),
How
to
help
Industries
and
Parties?
Presentation
at
the
2003
Annual
International
Research
Conference
on
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
and
Emissions
Reductions.
Available
online
at
http://
mbao.
org
Unruh,
J.
B.
et
al,
Fumigant
Alternatives
for
MeBr
Prior
to
Turfgrass.
Establishment
Weed
technology,
Volume
16,
No,
2­
pp.
379­
387
Weyerhaeuser
In­
house
Research
Study
7
(
Fort
Towson
Nursery,
Ft.
Towson,
Oklahoma).
1994­
1996.
MB­
chloropicrin
alternatives
trial.
2002
CUE
request
package.

Weyerhaeuser
In­
house
Research
Study
8
(
Magnolia
Nursery,
Magnolia,
Arkansas).
1992­
1995.
MB­
chloropicrin
alternatives
trial.
2002
CUE
request
package
and
Appendices
A
and
C,
2003
CUE
request
package.

Yarkin,
C.,
D.
Sunding,
D.
Zilberman,
and
J.
Siebert.
1994.
Cancelling
methyl
bromide
for
postharvest
use
to
trigger
mixed
economic
results.
California
Agriculture,
Volume
48,
Number
3,
pp
16­
21
(
May­
June
1994).

Yates,
S.
R.
1996.
Reducing
Methyl
Bromide
Emissions
Available
online
at
http://
www.
ars.
usda.
gov/
is/
np/
mba/
april96/
yates.
htm