Government officials call for relaxation of methyl bromide ban On the heels of an international agreement in September to move up the phase-out date for the fumigant methyl bromide, top Clinton administration officials signaled that Congress may need to modify the 2001 phase-out date for U.S. producers included in the Clean Air Act. In November, Charlie Rawls, executive assistant to U.S. Department of Agriculture Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger, told participants at an international research forum on methyl bromide that growers are "very frustrated" with the "really dramatic phase-out" that the Clean Air Act calls for. EPA'S David Doniger later noted that the administration is willing to discuss with members of Congress legislation allowing exemptions to the 2001 ban. Methyl bromide, a widely used fumigant, is considered a major contributor to depletion of the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, as signed in 1995, set an international phase-out date of 2010 for methyl bromide. In September, the international treaty was revised and signed by more than 160 countries. Developed nations agreed to phase out methyl bromide by 2005, with provisional reductions (based on 1991 use levels) of 25% by 1999, 50% by 2001, and 70% by 2003. The deadline for developing nations was set at 2015. In the United States, however, manufacturers are expected to stop producing methyl bromide by Jan. 1, 2001, under provisions in the 1990 Clean Air Act. Legislation has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.) to make U.S. law conform with deadlines in the international treaty. Government officials want the authority to grant exemptions to the ban, such as in cases where viable pest control alternatives have not been identified. But simply moving up the U.S. deadline to 2005 is unacceptable to trie Clinton administration, EPA officials said. Doniger
called Miller's bill "not feasible." Environmental advocates said U.S. officials should not suggest anything other than full enforcement of the Clean Air Act. "USDA is bound to uphold die laws of the United States," said Corinna Gilfillan, the director of Friends of the Earth's Ozone Protection Campaign. However, several conference participants noted that the U.S. deadline might render farmers uncompetitive in global markets. Without methyl bromide, farmers fear that crop yields will suffer because of unchecked weeds, nematodes, and soil-borne plant diseases. An estimated 49 million pounds of methyl bromide are applied annually in the United States for preplant soil fumigation, making up more than 90% of its domestic use. The rest is used to fumigate buildings or postharvest commodities. Despite a plethora of promising research alternatives, no single chemical or nonchemical alternative has emerged as a substitute for methyl bromide in preplant soil fumigation, according to researchers. For now, com-
binations of the fumigants 1,3dichloropropene (Telone) and chloropicrin (pic), along with the herbicide pebulate, are seen as the best alternatives to methyl bromide for the preplant fumigation of strawberries and tomatoes. But many researchers and regulators consider these pesticides risky and unacceptable as long-term replacements. Speaking at the conference, Bill Thomas of EPA's Methyl Bromide Program noted, "More and more people are realizing that methyl bromide indeed will be phased out and that the way to control pests that affect yield is not one single chemical but a whole range of pest control and agronomic methods." Thomas said that several nonchemical alternatives under development by university and government researchers, including biocontrol, organic amendments, and disease-resistant compost, are promising. Scientists are also making progress with breeding plants and root stocks that are resistant to diseases and nematodes and using effective crop rotation schemes. —JANET BYRON
REMEDIATION Alm to leave DOE cleanup program Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management Al Aim will be leaving the Department of Energy at the end of January, according to DOE officials. Environmental Management is responsible for managing and cleaning up the radioactive and hazardous wastes at former nuclear weapons production sites and national laboratories. Aim, who spearheaded the effort to accelerate cleanup of the weapons complex, leaves with mixed reviews after a year and a half at the post. To reduce the multibillion dollar costs of maintaining DOE sites, he launched a "Ten Year Plan" aimed at finishing all of the cleanup work that was feasible with existing technology by 2006 (ES&T, March 11997 p. .14A)) Speaking about his departure, Aim said, "I feel I have accomplished most of what I set out to achieve. In particular, I have institutionalized the concept of closure." Energy Secretary Frederico Pena said that he regretted Aim's decison. "He has been willing to make difficult decisions that will result in faster cleanup, lower risk, and substantial savings for American taxpayers," Pena said. But community groups were highly critical of Aim's approach. Last April the Military Production Network, an alliance of watchdog groups, asked Pena to "evaluate whether Aim can successfully fulfill the mission of the EM program." —REBECCA RENNER
JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 1 A
