Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2001-04-18T04:00Z

Summary
of
Methyl
Bromide
Crltlcat
Use
Meeting
Environmental
Protection
Agehcy,
Washington
DC
February
16,2001
lntroductioh
After
welcomlng
and
introduction,
EPA
thanked
everyone
for
their
attendance
an
The
outline
for
the
meeting
schedule
and
goals
was
as
follows:
1)
Discussion
of
EPA's
timeline
for
formulating
a
critical
use
process;
2)
Review
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
language
relating
to
Critical
and
Emergency
Use
Exemptions;
and
3)
tdentlflcation
of
any
issues,
questions,
and
concerns
raised
by
stakeholders.

 PA
then
stated
that
stakeholder
input
is
extremely
valuable
in
ensuring
that
the
process
is
a
success.
especially
because
the
policy­
making
process
is
still
in
Its
early
stages­

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
U
s
e
Exemption
 PA
gave
a
slide
presentation
discussing
the
foollowing:
1)
The
steps
taken
to
conform
the
methyl
bromide
phaseout
with
the
Montreal
Protocot
(
Protocol)
and
the
CAA,
2)
The
regulatory
steps
In
developing
an
exemption
process:
3)
EPA's
timeline;
4)
Montreal
Protocol
language
relating
the
Critical
and
Emergency
Use
exemption:
and
5)
Recent
Changes
to
the
CAA
relating
to
Critical
and
Emergency
U
s
e
exemptions.

International
Perspective
EPA
began
the
discussion
by
assuring
attendees
that
the
goal
of
a
methyl
bromide
phaseout
is
to
phase
out
methyl
bromide,
not
to
harm
agricultural
interests.
Stakeholders
should
not
hat
the
US.
government,
including
the
Departments
of
Agriculture
and
State,
not
EPA
alone,
negotiate
the
critical
use
exemption
criteria
agreed
by
the
Parties
(
countries
that
have
ratified
the
Montreal
Protocol)
and
that
the
Parties
formulated
the
language
for
Critical
Use
Exemptlons.
EPA
explained
that
portions
of
the
Essential
Use
process
already
in
operation
for
CFCs
and
other
chemicals
might
possibly
be
used
as
a
template
for
the
Critical
and
Emergency
Use
exemption
process,
stressing
that
the
essential
use
process
will
have
to
be
modified
far
agriculture.
ln
addition,
EPA
discussed
the
Parties
understanding
of
the
need
for
flexibility
in
the
Critical
and
Emergency
Use
exemption
process
to
account
for
regional
and
crop­
speciflc
considerations.

EPA
also
illustrated
how
the
methyl
bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
process
could
possibly
function
internationally.
Stakeholders
should
note
that
with
the
exception
of
the
January
1,
2005
date
set
for
allowing
exempted
uses,
the
timeline
for
the
international
process
has
not
yet
been
set
by
the
Parties.
The
following
steps,
based
on
the
Essential
Use
process
for
CFCs,
summarize
a
possible
international
process
for
critical
uses:
1
)
National
governments
submit
nominations
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
by
January
31,
2003:
2)
The
Ozone
Secretariat
submits
nominations
to
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
(
TEAP),
which
submits
nominations
to
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
(
MBTOC)
for
review;
3)
MBTOC
makes
a
recommendation
to
TEAP;
4)
TEAP
considers
the
recommendatlon
and
sends
it
to
Parties
for
debate
in
meetings
(
mid
2003);
5)
The
Parties
reach
a
declslon
(
fall
2003)
in
suficient
time
to
enable
conttnued
critical
use
after
the
January
1,2005
methyl
bromide
phaseout.
The
process
may
be
repeated
in
the
following
year
to
make
supplemental
requests
for
2005,
as
well
as
requests
for
2006­

1
.
Summary
of
Stakeholder
Suggestions
and
Concerns
Many
stakeholders
expressed
concern,
as
the
methyl
bromide
phaseout
date
approaches,
over
the
future
of
crops
currently
uslng
methyl
bromide.
The
following
bulleted
list
summarizes
stakeholder
suggestions
and
concerns
that
were
introduced
and
discussed
at
the
meeting.
They
do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinions
of
every
attendee
at
the
meeting
or
of
 PA;
rather,
thfs
list
is
provided
as
a
summary
of
information
offered
by
stakeholders.
Text
In
bold
represents
stakeholder
tAmrnents.
All
other
text
represents
clarifications
made
by
EPA
in
response
to
stakeholder
concerns
and
questions.

The
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Critical
Use
Exemptions
will
not
exist
until
2005.
Users
can
acquire
methyl
bromide
until
the
phaseout,
as
long
as
they
are
wllllng
to
pay
the
market
price.
­
Individual
methyl
bromide
users
are
not
currently
required
by
EPA
regulations
to
consume
less
methyl
bromide
than
in
the
past.
 PA
requires
only
methyl
bromide
producers
and
importers
to
reduce
their
production
and
import.
The
Montreal
Protocol
negotiates
Qn
the
basis
of
methyl
bromide
consumption,
not
emissions.
Policy
has
addressed
the
reduction
of
emissions
only
through
minimizing
consumption;
thus,
Critical
Use
exemptiohs
are
related
to
production
and
consumption,
not
emissions.
­

The
Critical
Use
exemptfon
process
is
designed
to
provide
users
with
approved
exemptions
for
calendar
year
2005.
In
order
to
process
a
larger
number
of
applicatlons
under
time
constraints,
EPA
has
increased
Its
staff
working
on
methyl
bromide,
­

­
The
timetine
of
the
appllcation
process
could
possibly
be
a5
follows:
­
­

­

­

­
­
Application
process
begins,
mid
2002;
US.
government
reviews
appllcations,
late
2002;
EPA
submits
only
those
nominations
approved
by
the
US,
government
to
the
Protocol
Parties,
January
2003;
Protocol
makes
determinations
for
granting
critical
uses,
December
2002:
Applicants
notified
of
Protocol
decisions,
2004;
and
Approved
applicants
allowed
to
use
methyl
bromide,
January
7
,
2005.

Critical
use
exemptions
should:
­
Consider
use
ovw
volume;
­
­
Be
granted
to
coincide
with
crop
cycles;
Be
granted
on
a
multi­
year
basis:
­
­
The
CAA
and
the
Protocol
do
not
specify
the
time
period
of
granted
exemptions­
EPA
is
checking
with
Protocol
officials.
Growlng
conditions
and
pesticide
needs
do
not
change
drastically
annually.
It
Is
therefore
unlikely
that
an
exemption
would
be
needed
one
year
and
not
the
next.
­
Requiring
single­
year
exemptions
would
decrease
the
security
level
of
­
Metfunctlons
In
the
adminlstratlve
process
are
posstbte;
a
multiyear
exemption
would
further
minimize
rlsk
to
growers;
and
Not
be
denled
because
of
atternetjveo
that
are
feasible
but
not
available
in
the
US.
TEAP
has
noted
that
90%
of
all
uses
have
alternatives
that
ate
technically
feasible.
However,
EPA
realizes
that
not
all
of
these
alternatives
are
available
in
the
U.
S.
gfOWQr8.

­
The
exemption
process
should:
Be
simple
and
meaningful;
Reflect
8
cooperative
effort
between
EPA,
USDA,
and
stakeholders;
Reflect
the
lessons
learned
from
the
1996
FIFRA
Section
18
workshop
~
n
creating
a
worlrabte
exemptioh
process;
Be
timely,
reflecting
the
fact
that
mQthyl
bromlde
is
the
first
agricultural
product
to
be
considered
for
an
exernptfon
from
the
phaseout
of
otone­
depleting
substances;
Allow
growers'
assodatlons
rather
than
indivlduals,
to
submit
applicatfons;
Allow
fat
an
appeal
review
processlpeer
review
panel
should
the
viewpolnts
of
applicants
and
EPA
scientists
dlffer;
and
Be
consistent.
In
the
FlfRA
Sectlon
18
precess,
the
first
state
submitting
might
be
required
to
submit
a
greater
amount
of
data
than
another
state
submftting
for
the
same
use.
Such
inequalltles
could
exlst
in
the
crttlcal
use
process.
­

­

­

­
­

­

0
In
order
to
standardlte
the
crltical
use
exemption
process,
 PA
should:
­
­

­
Dlstlnguish
between
regtonal
and
natlonal
significant
market
dlsruptions;
Define
phrases
such
as,
"
slgnlflcant
market
disruption"
and
"
technlcalfy
and
economically
feasible;"
and
Keep
decislons
made
at
the
international
level
(
between
now
and
2005)
In
harmony
with
decislons
made
at
the
EPA
to
avoid
complications.
­

­

­
While
the
Parties
wlll
use
a
common
set
of
criteria
b
judge
applications,
each
country
designs
its
own
domestic
policy.
EPA
should
look
to
the
criteria
set
by
Canada
and
the
Ozone
Secretarkat
before
finalizing
U.
S.
criterla.
Bill
Thomas,
a
member
of
MBTOC.
and
Paul
Horwitz,
EPA's
primary
Montreal
Protocol
negotiator.
wlll
help
EPA
get
as
close
to
the
thinking
at
the
international
level
as
possible.

Critical
use
applications
will
be
sent
to
the
Parties
for
review
regardless
of
the
recommendations
given
by
the
TEAP.
which
does
not
have
the
authority
to
grant
or
deny
exemptions.

Under
Decision
fX/
6,
the
TEAP
does
not
consider
"
significaht
market
dlsruption",
but
does
consider
"
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives."
"
Significant
market
disruption"
could
vary
for
every
country.
and
therefore
the
Parties
decided
that
it
would
be
overly
subjective
for
them
to
review
this
criterion.
However,
whether
a
nomlnated
use
is
''
technologically
and
economically
feasible"
will
be
considered
by
the
Parties.

The
Emernencv
U
s
e
Exemption
Process
Emergency
Use
exemptions
represent
a
subset
of
Critical
Use
exemptions.
There
will
be
no
deadline
for
emergency
use
applications
as
there
will
be
for
critical
use
applications.
Emergency
uses
will
only
be
granted
after
the
phaseout
and
wlll
be
dealt
with
on
a
rolling
basis.
­
To
understand
the
retationshlp
between
Emergency
Use
exemptions
and
Critical
Use
exemptions,
refer
to
Decision
IN6
and
IX/
7
of
the
Montreal
Protocol,
where
it
is
stated
that
the
Secretariat
and
the
TEAP
will
evaluate
Emergency
Use
exemptions
according
to
the
Crltical
U
s
e
criterla.

The
Emergency
Use
exemption
provision
was
developed
for
a
situatlon
where
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
is
Imperative.
includlng:
­

­
A
situation
where
one
needs
an
exemption
In
2005
after
Critical
Use'exemptions
for
2005
have
been
granted.,
If
a
grower,
who
had
previously
used
methyl
bromide,
switched
to
an
alternative
substance
whlch
became
unavailable
after
the
deadline
for
appfication
submissions.

.
EPA
would
like
stakeholder
input
concerning
the
issue
of
who
should
determine
whether
a
u
s
e
is
considered
an
etnet$
ehcy,
as
this
information
is
hot
specified
in
the
Protocol.

Methvl
Bromlde
Alternatives
b
Information
about
alternatives
should
be
available
so
that
critical
use
applications:
­
­
Discuss
all
relevant
alternatives.
Are
robust
and
complete
wlthout
being
overly
burdensome;
and
0
In
developing
a
list
of
alternatives,
the
EPA
should:
­
­
­
Make
information
available
regarding
the
sffectlveness
of
alternatlves
by
crop
and
region;
Recognize
that
field
trials
of
alternatlves
take
a
full
year;
and
Acknowledge
the
flaws
of
exfstlrkg
alternatives.
For
example,
in
the
forestry
industry.
saplings
on
which
alternatlves
have
been
used
ere
produdng
20
percent
less
wood,
leadlng
to
decreased
photosynthetic
activity
and
carbon
sequestration.

EPA's
Offlce
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP)
and
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
(
OAR)
are
worklng
together
to
identify
feasible
alternatives.
The
USDNEPA
working
group
is
creating
a
list
of
potential
alternatives
by
looking
at
isues
such
as
the
efficacy
and
regulatory
constraints
of
atternatives.

Closinsr
Statement
EPA
thanked
everyone
fbr
attending
the
meeting
and
reminded
attendees
that
the
next
meeting
would
be
on
March
19.2001.
st
9:
OO
am,
at
the
same
location
(
EPA,
501
3M
Street,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.).
Stakeholders
were
encouraged
to
contact
Amber
Moreen
or
&
been
Akhtar
(
also
working
on
critical
and
emergency
uses)
with
any
comments,
suggestions,
and
concerns
at
202­
564­
9295
(
moreen.
amber~.
epa.
aov).
the
facilitator
encouraged
everyone
to
contact
EPA,
(
all
EPA
email
addresses
are
lastname.
firstname~
ewa.~
lpv).
especially
concerning
comments
on
the
terms,
"
significant
market
disruption"
and
"
technologically
and
economically
feasibte".

.
4
List
of
Attendees
Jabeen
Akhtar,
OAWEPA
Dan
Botts.
Florida
Frult
&
Vegetable
Association
James
Butler,
NOAA
Margriet
Caswell,
USDA
Stanley
Cichowicz,
FDA
Betsy
David,
Stratus
Consulting
Jim
Delaney,
Van
Waters
&
Rogers
Torn
buafals,
Trlcal,
lnc.
Charlie
Garlow,
OECNEPA
Larry
Glaze.
FDA
Steve
Godbehere,
Hendrix
&
Dale,
Inc.
Rachael
Goodhue,
UC
Davis
Dan
Haley,
Haley
8
Associates
Tracy
Heinanan­
Smith.
Howrey
&
Simon
Charles
Herrick,
Stratus
Consulting
Dr,
Charles
Hinton,
Florida
Strawberry
Growers
Association
Paul
HQWik,
OAWEPA
Amy
K(
imbal1,
Mead
Corporation
Tom
Land,
OAWEPA
Susan
Lawrence,
OPPTSEPA
Gabriel
Ludwig,
Shramrn
&
Williams,
representing
Western
Growers
Association
Matt
lynch,
Albemarle
David
McAllister,
GLCC
blane
McConkey,
OGC/
EPA
Douglas
McNeal,
USTR
Amber
Moreen,
OAWEPA
William
"
Chip"
Murray,
American
Forest
8
Paper
Assoclation
Phil
Ross,
OPPTS/
EPA
Edward
M.
Ruckert,
McDermott,
Will
B
Emery;
Crop
Protection
Coalition
Steve
Rutz,
Florida
Dept.
of
AgriGulture
Jim
Schaub,
USDA
LaUtC?
h
Shapiro,
ICF
Consulting
Adam
Sharp,
Amerlcan
Farm
Bureau
Federation
Robert
Shramrn,
Shramm
8
Williams,
representlng
Western
Growers
Association
Sue
Stendebach,
OAR/
EPA
David
Sullivan,
Sullivan
Environmental
Consulting;
representing
Metarn­
Sodlum
Task
Force
Bill
Thomas,
OAWEPA
AI
Tillman,
Arneribrom
Ken
Vick.
USDA
Vern
Walter.
WAW
lnc.

5
.