Current Status of Domestic and International Controls for Methyl

Chapter 19

Current Status of Domestic and International Controls for Methyl Bromide and the Status of Alternatives

Downloaded by STANFORD UNIV GREEN LIBR on September 24, 2012 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: July 16, 1999 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1999-0734.ch019

Ralph T. Ross Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250

Methyl bromide (MB) is a versatile highly effective, fast acting fumigant employed in a number of ways to kill organisms destructive to plants. Its use is important for the movement of commodities in international trade for the disinfestation of pests. The compound is unique in that it provides a wide range of pest control, may be applied to a broad spectrum of both food and non-food commodities, can be used for fumigation of large and small quantities of materials, and, when applied properly, leaves no residues of a toxicological significance. Recently, this compound has come under scientific scrutiny and has been identified as a potentially potent ozone -depleting chemical. As a result, countries operating under the Montreal protocol (MP), an international treaty for the international control of ozone -depleting substances (ODSs) and under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), will be restricting its use. Many countries will be eliminating it altogether. Its limited use and/or potential phase-out will have severe economnic implications on agricultural production and trade unless alternatives become available which are efficacious and economical.

Since 1991, methyl bromide (MB) has come under scientific scrutiny and has been identified as a potentially potent ozone-depleting substance (ODS). As a result, countries operating under the Montreal Protocol (MP) will be restricting its use or elirninating its use altogether. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has published a final rule that will terminate total production and consumption in the U.S. by 1 January 2001ft), whereas developed countries operating under the MP will be eliminating production and consumption in the year 2005 (2). Imposing limitations on its use and/or a total phaseout will have severe economic effects if viable alternative treatments are not available. In addition to its worldwide use, MB is one of the few fumigants left for insect disinfestation. It is the only remaining fumigant for commodity treatment for

244

U.S. government work. Published 1999 American Chemical Society In Pesticides: Managing Risks and Optimizing Benefits; Ragsdale, N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1999.

245 quarantine. Commodity treatments represent approximately ten percent of its total use in agriculture (3). No other treatments are available which would provide the same physical and chemical characteristics as MB and that would make them as useful as broad scale alternative commodity treatments, including quarantine treatments: that is fast action (fumigation times of 2-24 hours depending on commodity); ease and flexibility of application; and gaseous/efficacious at a broad range of temperatures.


The Montreal Protocol In 1985 the Vienna Convention under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), laid the framework for addressing substances which deplete the ozone. In response to the growing evidence that chlorine and bromine could destroy stratospheric ozone on a global basis, the international community in 1986 negotiated the MP (4). The MP limits the production and consumption of specific sets of ODSs. Significant scientific advances have continued, and reports indicate a more rapid rate of ozone depletion than previously believed and that "anthropogenic sources of MB are significant contributions to stratospheric ozone-depletion (5,6)." At the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, in Copenhagen, Denmark, 23-25 November 1992, additional adjustments were made, including an amendment for MB for developed countries. The amendment proposed: (a) to add MB to the list of controlled substances with an assigned ozone depleting potential (ODP) of 0.7; (b) tofreezeproduction and consumption in 1995 at the 1991 levels; (c) to exempt quarantine and preshipment usesfromthe 1991freezein production and consumption; (d) to conduct a two years in-depth study on MB uses and alternatives; and (e) to re-evaluate the science in 1995 and the in-depth study (7). At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, in Vienna, Austria, 5-8 December 1995, actions were taken to strengthen the overall controls for MB. These actions included: (a) a change in the listed ODPfrom0.7 to 0.6; (b) a developed country phaseout for production and consumption on 1 January 2010 which will be preceded by two interim reductions, 25 percent 1 January 2001 and an additional 25 percent on 1 January 2005; and (c) a developing countryfreezeon production and consumption commencing 1 January 2002 at the average of the 1995-1998 production levels (8). These actions did not affect the 1992 Copenhagen exemptions for quarantine and preshipment applications (2). The Ninth Meeting of the Parties further strengthened MB controls (9). For developed countries the phaseout date was moved upfrom2010 to 2005 with interin cuts of 25 percent in 1999; 25 percent in 2001; and 20 percent in 2003. For developing countries an agreement was reached for a phaseout date in 2015 which allows a ten years grace period after a complete phaseout has taken place in developed countries. Exemptions for quarantine and preshipment uses remain unchanged for both developed and developing countries. Two additional exemptions were approved by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties. These were critical and emergency uses which will not go into effect until after a total MB phaseout. The exact definitions and criteria for

In Pesticides: Managing Risks and Optimizing Benefits; Ragsdale, N., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1999.

246


identifying critical and emergency uses are currently under study by UNEP's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). However, in general terms, a Party may apply for a critical use provided that it can show that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user, and without the approved critical use, will result in significant market disruptions. Further production of MB will be permitted only if: (a) no technically and economically feasible alternatives are available; (b) no MB is available from existing stocks; and, (c) the Party must demonstrate that appropriate effort is being made to identify alternatives (9). An emergency MB use is "...to allow a Party, upon notification of the Secretariat, to use, in an emergency situation, consumption of quantities not exceeding 20 tons of MB for critical uses. The Secretariat, in consultation with the TEAP, will evaluate the use according to the 'critical MB use criteria' and present this information to the next meeting of the Parties for review and appropriate action by the Parties (9)." U.S. Clean Air Act Section 602(e) of the USCAA states: "Where the ozone-depletion potential of a substance is specified in the Montreal Protocol, the ozone-depletion potential specified for that substance under this section shall be consistent with the Montreal Protocol" (10). Therefore, the action taken under the Montreal Protocol provided the legal basis for USEPA to publish rulemaking for MB in the U.S. Federal Register in December, 1993 (1). These actions included: (a) listing MB with an ODP of 0.7; (b) freezing production and consumption on 1 January 1994 at the 1991 levels; (c) classifying MB as a Class I ozone depleting chemical; (d) terminating production and consumption on 1 January 2001; and not requiring MB treated products to be labeled. Comparison of Actions for MB under the USCAA and the MP Regulatory provisions for MB under the USCAA are more stringent than those contained in the MP. The primary objective of the U.S. at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties was to persuade other Parties for a global MB phaseout in 2001 or for Parties to take actions for MB that would be consistent with or as close to as possible the USCAA; this would have provided a level or nearly level playingfieldfor all Parties. However, most countries were not prepared to go that far, particularly developing countries. Their decision was based primarily on the importance of MB to their respective country's economies and the lack of available alternatives. After considerable debate, developed countries agreed to a MB phaseout on 1 January 2005 with two 25 percent interim reductions in 1999,2001, and another 20 percent reduction in 2003, a total of 70 percent. In spite of the additional actions taken by the Protocol to strengthen MB controls, there remains a regulatory gap between the Protocol and the USCAA. The Protocol exempts quarantine and preshipment uses; the USCAA authorizes no MB exemptions. Another more obvious difference is the distinction between Class I and Class Π ozone depleting substances and the mandatory phaseout dates required under


247 the USCAA. Class I and Class Π ODSs are based on the numerical number of their respective ODPs, and the threshold number which separates the two classes is 0.2, (i.e., chemicals with ODPs greater the 0.2 are Class I; less than 0.2, Class Π. Class I ODSs must be phased-out seven years subsequent to the listing date); Class Π, by the year 2030. The Montreal Protocol does not list ODSs by classes and there are no mandatory phase-out dates; phase-out dates are determined by consensus vote by the Parties.


Impact on U.S. Agriculture Because of the important uses of MB and their roles in agricultural production and trade, the phaseout of MB in 2001 under Title VI of the USCAA is of vital significance. This U.S. law is more restrictive than the provisions for MB under the MP that governs the rest of the world. In particular the MP allows longer phaseout schedules and provisions for essential uses and exemptions. The differences between the domestic and the international regulations has caused a profound concern among agricultural producers, processors, and those engaged in international trade. U.S. farmers are concerned that, if adequate alternatives are not available, they will be put at a significant competitive disadvantage in international agricultural trade when the U.S. phaseout takes effect. MB is particularly important for quarantine treatments because of its effectiveness against a large variety of indigenous and non-indigenous pests and because it can be easily and economically applied to both small and large shipments or storage. U.S. regulations require that a wide array of imported food and non-food commodities be fumigated with MB as a condition of entry. In addition, a number of commodities exported by the U.S. must be fumigated with MB in order to comply with quarantine requirements of recipient countries. A critical quarantine use of MB to U.S. agriculture is its role as the only practical emergency treatment to move commodities out of areas quarantined for outbreaks of exotic pest insects such as the Mediterranean fruit fly. The largest use for MB is as a soil fumigant and for intensive production of high value crops such as strawberries, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, melons, and eggplant. The 1993/94 production values for these six commodities using methyl bromide for preplant treatment were $2.4 bMon.(U). In addition to these six commodities, a 1993 USD A assessment report showed an additional 15 commodities for which methyl bromide was also important in their production (IS). Stored agricultural food products include a wide variety of dry foodstuffs, principally cereal, grains, oilseeds and legumes, grain products, driedfruitand nuts and other durable products such as, timber and timber-containing products, and various artifacts. These products are often stored for long periods of time and are treated with MB for control of a number of domestic pests. Insect and mite pests can breed on these materials during storage. Pests may also be present at time of harvest, and persist in storage or during transportation. Control of pests infesting stored commodities is


248


essential to keep commodity losses to a minimum, to maintain quality and prevent damage, and prevent the spread of pests between countries. In 1993/94 the estimated value of dried fruits and nuts alone was in excess of $4 billion. Structural fumigation of food production and storage facilities (mills, food processing, distribution warehouses), non-food facilities (dwellings, museums), and transport vehicles (trucks, ships, aircraft, rail cars) are very reliant on MB for control of a large number of pests. It is used either on an entire structure or a significant portion of a structure. Fumigation is utilized whenever the infestation is so widespread that localized treatments may result in re-infestation or when the infestation is within the walls or other inaccessible areas. Agricultural exports consistently make a large positive contribution to the U.S. balance of trade. The USDA Economic Research Service's statistics for thefiscalyear 1993/94 showed the value of U.S. exports to the world market for apples, cherries, peaches/nectarines, and strawberries was $650 million; cotton, $2.3 billion; oak logs, $130 million; and walnuts (in shell) $86 million. The export market values for these commodities to countries requiring MB treatment totaled $282.8 million ($101, $106, $24 and $1.8 million respectively).^ The current extent and importance of methyl bromide use and the potential impacts that the 2001 phaseout poses for American agriculture necessitate a major effort to ensure that American farmers can continue to raise and market their crops. USDA has directed its resources and expertise, with the support of Congress and in cooperation with growers, to conduct an ambitious research program to identify and develop alternatives to control the pests currently controlled by MB. Summary USDA has placed a high priority on dealing with agricultural concerns while contributing to the protection of the global environment There are three areas where USDA is working to develop solutions that meet both of those needs in dealing with the MB issue. These are discussed in the following: (13,14). Research. USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has for many years devoted significant research resources to approaches with potential for replacing MB. Since the USEPA announced the phaseout for MB, ARS increased its efforts tofindalternatives. ARS is seeking alternatives for MB through research on a variety of approaches which include; 1) new cultural practices, 2) improved host-plant resistance to pests and diseases, 3) biological control systems using beneficial microorganisms, and 4) less harmful fumigants. For postharvest treatment, alternatives being investigated include: a) creation of pest-free agricultural zones, b) physical methods such as hot or cold treatment or storage in modified atmospheres, c) alterative fumigants d) MB trapping and recycling technologies, etiological control, and f) systems approach. Spending for ARS research on methyl bromide alternatives increasedfrom$7.4


249


million in FY 1993 to the $13.9 million included in the current appropriation for FY 1996. This spending supports 42 scientists years involving 46 projects. This research is augmented by researchfromgrower groups and EPA. USDA recognizes that there are a number of real world factors that affect our ability tofindalternatives. We recognize that alternatives for a wide variety of crop applications spread over a diverse set of geographic conditions will have to be found and that no single practice will substitute for all those uses. We also know that a genuine alternative for farmers must be efficacious, cost effective, logistically possible, and available for efficient incorporation into standard agricultural practices. In addition, the approval process for a new use or new product takes time for registrants to conduct and submit the required studies that EPA must review by the latest standards. Finally, securing approval of quarantine practices by importing countries has typically taken years of negotiation. The Montreal Protocol USDA has actively participated in the development of United States Government positions for international deliberations by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. USDA worked within the delegation to help level the playing field for U.S. producers in the international arena, by pressing for a global phaseout at the Vienna meeting that would require that all countries meet the same standards. Although the Parties did not ultimately support that position, important progress was made. Developed countries agreed to a phaseout schedule and afreezeon developing country use was adopted. While these measures fell short of the U.S. position, they do represent a universal commitment to international controls and thefirststeps toward a worldwide phaseout. Administrative solution. Despite the progress made internationally there remains a disparity between the USCAA controls on MB in the U.S. and the controls affecting the rest of the world under the MP. As a result, USDA is very concerned that, if adequate alternatives are not available, U.S. farmers will be put at a significant competitive disadvantage in international agriculture and trade when the U.S. phaseout takes effect in 2001. The Clinton Administration has indicated its willingness to work with Congress and other stakeholders to craft a reasonable solution limited to resolving the concerns for the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture and trade by assuring the continued availability of MB where it is needed because of the lack of acceptable alternatives. If we come to a successful and responsible solution, some important principles must be incorporated into any legislation. First of all, it must protect American agriculture and tradefrombeing put at a competitive disadvantage. Second, it must provide sound protection of the global environment. Third, it must retain the incentives for research on alternatives. Fourth, it must not result in a cumbersome or unworkable administrative process. Finally, it must not undercut international agreements.


250


Literature Cited 1.

United States Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 82, December 10. 1993.

2.

UNEP, Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Pr on Substances that Deplete the Ozone, UNEP/OzL.Pro., December 1995.

3.

Methyl Bromide Science Workshop Proceedings, Washington, D.C. (June 1992). References cited therein.

4.

UNEP, Handbookfor the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete Ozone Layer: 1996. United Nations Environment Program, Fourth Edition, 1996.

5.

WMO, Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone: 1991, Wor Meteorological Organization Report No. 25, 1992.

6.

WMO, Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone: 1994, Wo Meteorological Organization Report No. 37, 1995.

7.

UNEP, Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Prot on Substances that Deplete the Ozone: UNEP/Ozl.Pro., November 1992.

8.

UNEP, Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Pro on Substances that Deplete the Ozone, UNEP/Ozl.Pro., December, 1995.

9.

UNEP, Report of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties tot he Montreal Protoc Substances that Depelet the Ozone, UNEP/Ozl.Pro., September, 1997.

10.

United States Clean Air Act, Public Law 159, Title VI-Stratospheric Ozone Protection.

11.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Statistical Data, 1993/1994.

12.

USDA, Economic Research Service, Economic Effects of Banning Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation, Report No. 677, March 1994.

13.

Elworth, Larry , U.S. Department of Agriculture, Testimony Before th Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Committee on Commerce States House ofRepresentatives, August 1, 1995.

14.

Elworth, Larry , U.S. Department of Agriculture, Testimony Before t Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Committe on Commerce States House ofRepresentatives, January 25, 1996.


Current Status of Domestic and International Controls for Methyl

Recommend Documents