1995 Agreement to phase out MeBr by 2010 in developed countries Exemption process created

Transcription

1 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemptions Colwell Cook KSU Methyl Bromide Alternatives Workshop May 11,

2 Topics Montreal Protocol Methyl Bromide under the Protocol Critical Use Exemption Process Division of Labor U.S. Technical Review Process International Review 2

3 3

4 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Stratospheric ozone layer shields Earth from UV radiation Overexposure to UV radiation leads to Melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers Other health effects: cataracts, immunosuppression Ecological and economic impacts International treaty 196 ratified states Only universally ratified treaty Phases out production of ODS Considered most successful environmental international agreement 4

5 Montreal Protocol Timeline Treaty to Protect Ozone Layer Methyl Bromide listed as Ozone Depleting Substance 1995 Agreement to phase out MeBr by 2010 in developed countries 1997 Exemption process created 2009 CUE requests submitted for Developing countries Phase out MeBr 5

6 Methyl Bromide Use Categories Under Montreal Protocol Implemented under Clean Air Act Administered by Office of Atmospheric Programs Critical Use Exemption Process No technically and economically feasible alternatives Loss of use will lead to a market disruption Quarantine and PreShipment Official government agency established quarantine Commodities, nursery plants, soil treatment for propagative material Preshipment is 21 days before shipment under regulations established before 1995 (e.g. Kenya timber) Emergency Exemption One time use of up to 20 metric tons Not implemented in U.S. 6

7 Critical Need: Alternatives must be Technically and Economically Feasible Alternatives lead to a Market Disruption Technical and economic review establishes the fundamentals of each applicant s case Information is used to derive numerical estimates (the BUNNI) on the amount of methyl bromide the U.S. will nominate Present Nomination Range for Interagency Negotiation 7

8 Lesser Grain Borer 8

9 MeBr CUE U.S. Review Process Since 2001 OAP Receives applications Allocation rule OPP Technical & Economic assessment of need Estimates amount to request Provides technical support at International meetings USDA Reviews Research Universities Reviews Research 9

10 U.S. MeBr CUE Program Timeline U.S. submits first MeBr CUE Nomination Drafting 2010 CUE Final Rule, Drafting 2011 CUE NPRM Developed Countries (including U.S.) end MeBr Consumption except for limited exemptions U.S CUE Nomination Due 1/25/10 Developing Countries end MeBr Consumption 10

11 Timeline of a Single CUE Allocation YEAR ONE (Three Years Prior to Allocation) 1. OAR issues Federal Register notice inviting CUE applications (Spring) 2. Applicants send in applications for critical use MeBr (Summer) 3. OPP reviews applications, including quantities and any new research on alternatives (Fall) 4. EPA, DOS, USDA, CEQ develop U.S. Critical Use Nomination document (Winter) YEAR TWO (Two Years Prior to Allocation) 1. DOS submits nomination to UNEP Ozone Secretariat (January) 2. Montreal Protocol Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) reviews developed country CUE Nominations and recommends amounts to the Parties (Summer) 3. At MOP, Parties authorize CUE nomination amounts (Fall) YEAR THREE (One Year Prior to Allocation) 1. OAR publishes NPRM announcing allocations to sectors (Summer) 2. OAR reviews comment and makes any needed changes (Fall) YEAR FOUR (Year of Allocation) 1. EPA publishes FRM (Spring) 11

12 MeBr Critical Use Exemption Application 2002 Biological and Economic Review by OPP, USDA, & Universities Initial Assessment of Alternatives by Review Panel Primary Biologist Review Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues Primary Economist Review Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues, include spreadsheet of analysis Secondary Review Biologists and Economists review database information, key issues, spreadsheets Discussion and Evaluate on CUE Primary reviewers lead discussion, all reviewers vote Later review all crops within a group for consist analysis of issues 2 nd Discussion and Evaluate if Disagreements Occur Individuals submit their concerns in writing, they are summarized and distributed to reviewers 12

13 MeBr Critical Use Exemption Application 2009 Biological and Economic Review by OPP & USDA Initial Assessment of Alternatives by Review Panel Primary Biologist Review Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues Primary Economist Review Fill in Analytical Database, write a brief summary of key issues, include spreadsheet of analysis Discussion and Evaluate on CUE Primary reviewers lead discussion, all reviewers vote Later review all crops within a group for consist analysis of issues Discussions and Evaluate if Disagreements Occur 13

14 Post-Harvest CUEs Post-harvest applications received: in 2001 for MeBr use in 2005: 18 in 2009 for MeBr use in 2012: 13 U.S. Post-harvest nominated: For 2005: 906,754 kg For 2012: 161,301 kg Percent of U.S. Nomination in % of nomination In % of nomination 14

15 Amount of Methyl Bromide to Nominate Technical Recommendation Developed by OPP Based on technical and economic feasibility of alternatives Technical feasibility of alternatives (e.g. efficacy and time lost) Regulatory constraints on alternatives Loss as % gross revenue, loss as % net revenue, % profit loss 2012 Nomination = 4.63% of 1991 baseline Nominated amount based on negotiations between EPA, State, and USDA Technical range is 6.45 to 4.54% of baseline U.S. nomination has always fallen inside technical range 15

16 Indianmeal Moth Adult 16

17 Reduced MeBr CUE Based On Technical Reasons Alternatives - sulfuryl fluoride (Profume), phosphine, heat Better sanitation Applicants do not reapply Economic Reasons Increased downtime Net revenues by facility Losses from pests can lead to lower production 17

18 Methyl Bromide Nomination History Soil and Post-Harvest Uses Percent of 1991 Baseline 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Nominated Technical Range Approved by Parties 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% Year 0% 18

19 Current Status of CUEs 2010 Final Rule Allocates 11.7% of baseline Applies existing framework, but caps new production at 2009 amounts Recently signed and should be published soon 2011 Proposed Rule Parties authorized 8.1% of baseline Drafting proposed rule implementing that authorization 2012 Critical Use Nomination 1,181 MT (4.6% of baseline) Submitted in January 2010 Currently addressing second round of MBTOC questions 19

20 Colwell Cook