Page
1
NOMINATING
PARTY:
The
United
States
of
America
BRIEF
DESCRIPTIVE
TITLE
OF
NOMINATION:
JUNE
2005
QUESTIONS
ON
CUNS
FOR
2006
AND/
OR
2007
FOR
POST­
HARVEST
APPLICATIONS
DATE
Version
of
August
18,
2005
Table
of
Contents
I.
Ham...................................................................................................................................................
1
II.
Dried
Beans
.....................................................................................................................................
2
III.
Dried
Fruits
and
Nuts....................................................................................................................
4
IV.
Dried
Commodities
­
Cocoa
...........................................................................................................
6
V.
Food
Processing
Facilities
...............................................................................................................
7
VI.
Mills
and
Processors
.....................................................................................................................
12
Appendix
I
 
Sulfuryl
Fluoride
Case
Studies
in
Flour
Mills
.............................................................
17
Appendix
II
 
Timing
limitation
in
using
phosphine
on
California
dates
........................................
24
I.
Ham
Question
1.
MBTOC
remains
concerned
about
the
lack
of
prior
data
on
amount
of
MB
used,
about
the
amount
of
MB
requested
for
2007
and
about
the
lack
of
sealing
in
ham
houses
which
would
result
in
higher
use
of
MB
overall.
MBTOC
understands
the
reasons
for
difficulty
in
obtaining
MB
use
data
for
before
2005,
but
believes
the
USG
may
be
able
to
obtain
and
provide
this
use
data
for
2005,
in
2006
since
any
MB
used
in
2005
will
be
controlled
by
USG,
MBTOC
needs
this
information
before
it
can
recommend
an
amount
of
MB
for
2007,
though
recognizing
that
it
has
not
identified
alternatives
to
MB
for
this
particular
use
and
conditions.

MBTOC's
information
gathering
with
MB
distributors
in
the
regions
where
this
product
is
made
in
the
US
indicates
that
the
likely
maximum
MB
use
is
35
­
40,000
lbs/
yr.
We
have
obtained
this
number
over
two
separate
years
of
investigation
and
we
therefore
believe
that
the
amount
nominated
may
exceed
the
quantity
needed
for
this
use
considerably.
We
are
also
asking
if,
considering
that
actual
MB
use
in
this
sector
we
believe
is
likely
to
be
a
maximum
of
40,000
lbs,
and
since
the
MOP
Prague
granted
67
tonnes,
if
there
will
not
be
sufficient
MB
already
granted
to
this
sector
to
meet
its
needs
for
a
couple
of
years.

The
CUN
indicates,
and
informal
communications
with
persons
who
know
about
Southern
US
ham
house
operations
indicate,
the
structures
are
likely
to
be
quite
poorly
sealed.
We
have
asked
all
Parties
with
CUN
applications
that
indicate
poorly
sealed
structures
what
they
plan
to
do
to
ensure
the
structures
are
of
good
gastightness
before
MB
is
used.
MBTOC
believes
that
the
use
of
MB
in
very
poorly
sealed
structures
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
Decision
IX/
6.
Page
2
Although
we
acknowledge
that
there
may
be
no
alternatives
for
this
use,
we
also
note
that
there
does
not
seem
to
be
any
research
effort
to
find
an
alternative
although
it
is
required
by
Decision
IX/
6.
MBTOC
has
seen
other
Parties
continue
to
conduct
research
on
the
other,
similar,
very
difficult
applications
such
as
cheese
and
fresh
chestnuts
and
encourages
USG
to
conduct
investigations
of
the
ham
operations
and/
or
research
on
alternatives.
In
this
instance
it
also
appears
that
there
is
scope
for
improvements
in
IPM,
and
specifically
in
decreasing
the
conditions
that
lead
to
infestation
and
need
for
treatment
with
MB.

ANSWER:
USG
requested
amounts
of
methyl
bromide
from
this
sector
based
upon
several
sources,
including
the
manufacturer
and
application
companies.

We
are
unable
to
address
MBTOC's
concerns
regarding
lack
of
sealing
in
ham
houses.
It
is
USG's
understanding
that
this
sector
has
been
sealing
their
buildings
to
increase
gas
tightness
and
reduce
emissions.
Unfortunately,
due
to
the
communication
problems
and
the
unique
nature
of
this
sector
there
appears
to
be
some
disconnect
between
the
air
tightness
during
the
drying
and
aging
process
and
the
sealing
and
gas
tightness
during
the
fumigation
process.
Sealing
to
provide
a
gas
tight
structure
is
a
label
requirement
and
in
our
discussions
with
fumigation
companies
in
this
sector
they
have
described
they
comply
with
these
label
requirements.
Several
of
the
applicants
have
built
new
facilities
that
are
highly
gas
tight
and
easier
to
sanitize.
Additionally,
we
realize
that
this
is
a
small
sector
with
a
diverse
range
of
sizes
and
building
materials.

This
is
a
small
sector
that
has
had
very
little
research.
One
reason
is
that
there
were
no
registered
alternatives,
except
phosphine
in
a
few
of
the
states.
It
was
due
to
efforts
to
use
phosphine
as
a
replacement
for
methyl
bromide
that
it
was
discovered
that
phosphine
did
not
control
mites.
Recently
this
sector
has
been
working
with
USDA.
Also,
this
commodity
has
recently
received
a
tolerance
for
sulfuryl
fluoride
on
July
15,
2005.
This
industry
hopes
to
begin
testing
sulfuryl
fluoride
to
determine
how
to
incorporate
it
into
their
IPM
strategies.

With
respect
to
the
comment
on
the
67
ton
approval
for
2005,
the
United
States
does
not
allow
CUEs
approved
for
2005
to
carry
through
to
future
years,
so
this
amount
is
not
available
for
use
in
2007
and
therefore
does
not
resolve
the
issue.
Our
estimates
of
use
were
made
from
the
best
available
expert
opinion
and
at
this
time
we
do
not
have
a
basis
to
revise
our
estimate
to
a
different
nominated
amount.
We
would
be
interested
in
obtaining
the
use
estimates
obtained
by
MBTOC
to
ascertain
their
accuracy
and
comprehensiveness.
The
United
States
supports
proper
emission
minimzation
techniques,
which
are
beneficial
from
a
human
health
and
environment
perspectice,
and
may
also
be
economically
advantageous
in
reducing
the
cost
of
application
of
methyl
bromide.
We
are
currently
working
with
relevant
industry
groups
to
collect
more
accurate
data
on
methyl
bromide
usage,
identifying
research
programs,
and
selecting
methods
to
improve
sealing
where
it
is
techncially
and
economically
feasible.

II.
Dried
Beans
Question
2.
On
the
basis
of
discussions
with
California
fumigators,
MBTOC
believes
that
if
beans
are
listed
on
the
California
phosphine
label
and
the
location
is
otherwise
suitable
for
phosphine
fumigation,
then
phosphine
would
seem
to
be
approved
for
dried
beans
in
California,
regardless
of
Page
3
whether
they
are
infested
with
cow
pea
weevil
or
another
pest.
MBTOC
requests
that
USG
obtain
an
interpretation
of
the
approval
to
use
phosphine
for
dried
beans
from
State
of
California.
Phosphine
is
used
for
this
same
purpose
in
the
United
States.

ANSWER:
Originally
the
U.
S.
believed
there
were
two
reasons
why
the
California
Bean
Shippers
Association
had
a
critical
need
for
methyl
bromide.
They
could
not
meet
the
sanitation
requirements
in
a
timely
fashion
with
phosphine
(
because
of
the
extra
time
to
treat
the
beans)
and
some
counties
in
California
would
not
allow
the
use
of
phosphine
on
their
key
pests
(
regulatory
constraint).
Currently,
the
U.
S.
understands
that
there
are
no
regulatory
constraints
on
the
use
of
phosphine.
However,
the
problem
of
delays
when
using
phosphine
to
treat
the
dried
beans
still
exists.

In
consultation
with
the
California
Bean
Shippers
Association,
USG
has
determined
that
regulations
in
California
no
longer
require
that
the
pest
be
on
the
label.
Therefore,
it
is
now
allowable
to
use
phosphine
on
beans
in
California
even
though
the
cowpea
weevil,
the
major
pest
affecting
these
beans,
is
not
listed
on
the
label.
However,
this
does
not
change
the
fact
that
the
longer
time
required
for
a
phosphine
fumigation
(
a
methyl
bromide
fumigation
requires
12
hours
but
a
phosphine
fumigation
requires
72
hours)
would
necessitate
additional
fumigation
capacity
be
installed.

Harvest
season
for
garbanzos
is
June
and
July
with
an
average
of
10­
15
truckloads
(
or
approximately
2000
Cwt)
delivered
daily
to
each
warehouse.
Fumigation
with
methyl
bromide
is
set
to
begin
each
day
by
4
pm
with
completion
by
early
morning
the
next
day.
The
12
hour
time
required
to
fumigate
with
methyl
bromide
is
critical
to
keeping
up
with
the
truckloads
of
beans
arriving
from
the
harvest
on
a
daily
basis.
Harvest
season
for
blackeyes
in
California
is
September
through
November
with
an
average
of
10­
15
truckloads
(
or
2000
Cwt.)
delivered
daily
to
each
warehouse.
In
order
to
accept
the
blackeye
harvest
all
of
the
garbanzo
bean
harvest
must
be
fumigated,
cleaned
and
graded
by
September.

To
show
the
importance
of
the
12
hour
fumigant,
imagine
harvest
of
garbanzos,
a
7
day
per
week
operation
using
a
72
hour
fumigant.
On
Monday
2000
Cwt
arrives
and
is
set
for
fumigation
at
4
pm
that
same
day.
With
phosphine
the
treatment
will
not
be
complete
until
Thursday
pm,
72
hours
later.
Harvest
is
continuing
daily
with
now
an
additional
6000
Cwt
of
beans
sitting
and
waiting
to
be
fumigated.
By
the
end
of
week
two
you
would
have
an
18000
Cwt
backlog.
Using
this
cycle
it
would
be
impossible
to
have
the
garbanzo
beans
fumigated,
cleaned,
graded
and
stored
prior
to
the
start
of
the
blackeye
harvest.

If
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
is
taken
from
these
warehouses
they
would
have
to
triple
or
quadruple
their
capacity
for
fumigation
in
order
to
accommodate
the
36
­
72
hours
under
optimal
conditions
required
for
phosphine.
At
the
projected
cost
of
$
50,000
to
build
a
fumigation
chamber
with
the
additional
cost
of
$
5,000
land
costs
per
additional
chamber
at
current
market
prices
they
are
looking
at
a
minimum,
a
half
million
dollar
investment
to
use
any
product
that
requires
more
than
12
hours.
At
the
current
price
of
beans
this
would
easily
eliminate
any
profit
margin,
which
in
the
current
market
is
minimal.
It
would
definitely
in
the
case
of
these
warehouses
put
them
out
of
business.
Page
4
In
addition,
shipments
of
both
kinds
of
beans
are
made
year
round;
however,
the
heaviest
shipping
months
are
October,
November,
and
December
as
60%
 
90%
of
the
blackeye
beans
are
shipped
to
the
Southeastern
United
States
in
time
for
New
Year's
celebrations.
Shipments
are
based
on
customers
demand
frequently
with
only
a
2­
day
notification
from
the
buyer.
It
is
impossible
for
the
warehouses
to
treat
with
any
thing
more
than
a
12­
hour
fumigant.
Until
an
alternative
is
registered
in
California
that
is
a
12­
hour
fumigant,
methyl
bromide
remains
the
only
product
that
is
technically
feasible
for
this
industry.

However,
the
California
Bean
Shippers
Association
has
begun
to
work
with
Dow,
now
that
California
has
registered
Profume
®
,
to
test
sulfuryl
fluoride
in
this
industry.
The
industry
is
concerned
about
adequate
egg
kill
as
this
is
critical
to
keeping
their
product
clean.
In
addition
the
fumigation
treatment
time
will
have
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
bean
industry
to
meet
receiving
and
shipment
requirements.
The
industry
is
planning
to
test
reducing
treatment
time
by
increasing
the
rates
which
could
conceivably
make
it
competitive
with
methyl
bromide.
This
however
will
come
at
an
increased
cost
of
product
that
may
make
it
economically
not
feasible
for
this
industry.
The
California
Bean
Shippers
Association
will
be
looking
at
both
the
rate
of
egg
kill
and
comparing
the
actual
costs
of
fumigation
in
their
upcoming
studies.
Although
this
applicant
does
not
yet
have
the
results
of
these
investigations
they
are
hopeful
that
this
product
will
work
for
them,
but
they
will
still
need
time
to
transition.

III.
Dried
Fruits
and
Nuts
Question
3.
As
the
CUN
indicates,
adoption
of
gas
forms
of
phosphine
in
this
sector
and
in
the
State
of
California
is
very
significant
and
is
proceeding
very
quickly.
Furthermore,
MBTOC's
information
gathering
indicates
it
is
likely
that
the
main
pistachio
processor
will
be
85%
converted
to
phosphine
by
2007.
It
is
difficult
therefore
for
MBTOC
to
interpret
the
need
for
MB
in
this
instance
as
critical
when
a
technically
effective
and
commercially
adopted
alternative
is
in
use
in
a
very
high
percentage
of
operations
in
the
same
sector
in
the
same
state.
MBTOC
therefore
has
difficulty
finding
that
this
CUN
fully
complies
with
the
requirements
of
Decision
IX/
6.
However,
USG
may
wish
to
correct
this
impression
with
data
from
the
sector
if
MBTOC
is
incorrect.

ANSWER:
The
California
Pistachio
Commission
has
indicated
that
phosphine
is
actually
their
fumigant
of
choice.
However,
when
the
weather
cools,
it
can
take
many
days
to
fumigate
and
de­
gas
with
phosphine,
up
to
10
days.
Additionally,
processors
can
get
an
order
that
needs
to
be
filled
within
3­
4
days,
which
does
not
allow
for
phosphine
due
to
the
increase
in
time
required.
It
is
under
these
conditions
that
methyl
bromide
becomes
critical
for
meeting
the
market
demands.

In
addition,
it
is
also
a
matter
of
staging
areas.
Paramount
handles
about
60%
of
the
industry
and
within
just
a
couple
years
that
will
mean
about
250
million
pounds
of
pistachios.
If
there
are
no
fluctuations
in
shipping,
1
million
pounds
every
business
day
need
to
be
shipped.
Use
of
phosphine
exclusively
would
require
that
the
industry
have
the
capacity
to
have
10
million
pounds
of
product
in
some
stage
of
fumigation.
So,
while
quick­
turnaround
orders
are
the
most
significant
issue,
general
handling
will
continue
to
emerge
as
an
issue.
Page
5
Question
4.
MBTOC
also
wanted
to
know
if
the
dates
included
in
the
CUN
were
dried
or
were
fresh
moist
dates.
MBTOC
has
not
yet
identified
an
alternative
to
fresh
moist
dates,
but
there
are
alternatives
for
dried
dates.
Unless
we
are
mistaken,
dried
dates
do
not
seem
to
be
under
timesensitive
marketing
pressure,
so
phosphine
could
be
used.

ANSWER:
Although
California
dates
are
usually
thought
of
as
another
dried
fruit,
they
are
not.
The
USDA
and
Perishable
Agricultural
Commodities
Act
consider
harvested
dates
as
fresh
and
their
regulations
describe
them
as
such.
When
harvested
they
have
about
the
same
moisture
as
when
they
are
packed
 
(
15
­
23%).
California
Dates
are
not
dehydrated
as
raisins
(
dried
grapes)
or
as
prunes
(
dried
plums).
Only
a
small
proportion
of
fruit
is
dehydrated
for
diced
dates
and
other
by­
products
but
this
takes
place
after
this
fruit
has
been
fumigated
when
it
was
newly
harvested.

Actually,
timing
is
critical
to
the
California
dates,
whether
fresh
or
dried.
Harvest
of
dates
in
California
begins
in
late
September
and
early
October,
but
the
peak
harvest
occurs
in
November
and
early
December.
The
dates
are
fumigated
first,
then
processed,
then
shipped
to
customers.
With
methyl
bromide
this
period
takes
2
weeks,
with
the
first
harvest
reaching
store
shelves
by
late
October,
and
the
last
harvest
by
the
end
of
December.
Using
phosphine
adds
an
additional
week
to
this
timetable,
so
that
the
first
harvest
misses
late
October
and
the
last
misses
end
of
December,
thereby
missing
the
holiday
cooking
season.

There
is
also
an
economic
burden
associated
with
phosphine.
Because
phosphine
requires
a
longer
fumigation,
there
would
be
a
need
for
additional
bins
to
handle
the
dates
that
have
to
be
continuously
harvested.
Similar
to
the
case
with
beans,
there
would
need
to
be
additional
fumigation
chambers
built,
with
the
additional
land
costs,
labor
costs
would
increase
to
handle
the
additional
bins,
and
the
date
packaging
plants
would
miss
the
target
windows
at
both
the
beginning
and
the
end
of
the
U.
S.
holiday
baking
season.

Question
5.
MBTOC
believes
that
by
giving
an
'
Unable
to
Assess'
evaluation
at
this
time,
USG
would
have
time
to
reassess
its
needs
for
this
sector,
both
in
terms
of
which
commodities
were
included
and
the
amount
of
MB
that
is
requested
for
each
sector.

ANSWER
As
we
have
explained
in
the
answers
to
questions
3
and
4
above,
we
do
not
believe
additional
time
is
needed
for
the
USG
to
assess
need
in
this
sector.
The
U.
S.
Government
endeavors
to
provide
the
best
possible
information
and
expert
judgement
to
MBTOC
so
that
MBTOC
can
make
an
informed
recommendation.
We
have
put
forward
our
nominations
this
year
because
of
a
conscious
choice
to
seek
clearcut
MBTOC
recommnedations
and
decisions
from
the
Parties
by
the
end
of
2005.
We
do
this,
among
other
reasons,
because
we
have
our
own
domestic
regulatory
system
that
involves
full
notice
and
comment
public
participatory
rulemaking
as
part
of
the
process
of
making
domestic
allocations
of
methyl
bromide.
We
therefore
request
that
given
the
responses
to
the
substantive
questions
above,
we
be
provided
with
a
recommendation
for
this
sector.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
as
part
of
that
domestic
rulemaking
process,
the
U.
S.
Government
does
take
into
account
additional
information
on
changes
in
circumstances
before
allocating
amounts
of
methyl
bromide.
This
is
accomplished
through
our
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process.
As
explained
(
below)
as
part
of
this
process
there
is
provision
for
the
publc
Page
6
to
comment
on
all
data
and
assumption
used
in
a
rulemaking.
All
significant
comments
must
be
addressed.
This
requirement
is
judicially
enforceable.

IV.
Dried
Commodities
­
Cocoa
Question
6.
In
other
years
MBTOC
has
received
CUNs
from
Parties
where
all
or
part
of
the
CUN
looked
like
it
might
be
a
QPS
application.
QPS
uses
do
not
fit
into
the
critical
use
nomination
process
and
so
similar
to
the
other
cases
we
have
dealt
with,
MBTOC
has
sent
this
CUN
back
for
further
consideration
by
the
Party.
In
this
instance,
MBTOC
wonders
if
the
segment
of
US
cocoa
imports
that
are
required
by
USFDA
to
be
treated
under
official
control
should
be
considered
QPS
treatments.
Using
the
most
recent
year
of
US
import
statistics,
and
using
the
most
recent
list
of
countries
on
the
US
FDA
mandatory
treatment
list,
this
would
be
about
30%
of
cocoa
bean
imports.
If
so,
the
CUN
nominated
amount
would
be
considerably
decreased.
An
'
Unable
to
Assess'
nomination
at
this
time
gives
USG
some
time
to
make
a
determination
on
this
issue.

The
CUN
does
not
contain
a
lot
of
information
about
the
logistics
of
cocoa
bean
import,
treatment
and
storage.
Although
MBTOC
has
reviewed
the
paper
by
Marcotte
and
Sansone
(
2005),
it
too
is
lacking
information
about
the
ability,
or
not,
to
use
phosphine
on
cocoa
beans
destined
for
long
term
storage
or
for
re­
fumigations
of
long
term
stored
cocoa
beans.
Since
phosphine
is
used
for
cocoa
beans
in
many
countries,
MBTOC
considers
phosphine
to
be
a
technically
effective
alternative;
whether
it
is
economically
feasible
and
could
be
commercially
adapted
in
the
US
context
are
outstanding
questions.

The
response
to
questions
obtained
from
the
USG
indicates
cocoa
beans
are
MB
treated
only
once
in
the
US
but
this
does
not
appear
to
be
consistent
with
interviews
from
the
cocoa
merchants
and
warehouse
managers.
Cocoa
in
the
US
is
apparently
treated
first
on
import
and
then
second,
before
shipment
to
chocolate
manufacturers.
It
can
also
be
treated
more
than
twice
if
re­
infestation
happens
in
certain
warehouses.
Since
any
treatment
of
cocoa
beans
by
MB
is
one
of
MBTOC
more
contentious
issues
faced
by
MBTOC,
MBTOC
finds
it
difficult
to
justify
repeated
fumigations
by
MB.
The
paper
by
Marcotte
and
Sansone
contained
some
recommendations
that
might
assist
USG
to
work
with
the
cocoa
bean
marketing
channel
partners
to
reduce
MB
refumigations
and
reduce
the
amount
in
the
nomination.
Alternatively
the
USG
may
wish
to
clarify
this
issue
further.

ANSWER:
The
U.
S.
Government
has
reviewed
the
circumstances
of
the
cocoa
nomination
and
believes
this
use
does
not
qualify
for
methyl
bromide
under
the
QPS
exemption.
An
automatic
detention
is
mandated
by
US
FDA;
however
it
is
not
for
a
quarantine
pest,
nor
is
methyl
bromide
the
specified
fumigant.
Therefore,
USG
does
not
think
this
meets
the
QPS
exemption
requirements.
US
FDA
orders
detention
of
adulterated
beans
and
then
leaves
it
to
the
owner
to
propose
a
remediation
method.
There
does
not
yet
appear
to
be
other
feasible
fumigation
treatments
at
this
time.

Cocoa
beans
are
typically
fumigated
with
methyl
bromide
twice.
The
beans
are
usually
infested
with
pests
while
in
the
hold
of
a
ship;
therefore,
the
beans
are
always
fumigated
when
they
come
off
the
ship.
Then
the
cocoa
beans
are
usually
fumigated
at
least
one
more
time
just
before
they
go
to
the
chocolate
manufacturing
facility.
The
primary
difficulty
is
the
warehousing.
Most
warehouses
at
the
Page
7
docks
are
old,
constantly
being
reinfested
with
pests
from
the
ships
coming
into
port,
and
loaded
to
the
rafters
with
cocoa
beans.
Although
all
the
warehouses
are
certified
by
the
Cocoa
Merchants'
Association,
this
certification
does
not
mean
that
a
warehouse
has
separate
staging
areas
for
new
product
or
that
the
newly
arriving
product
is
sufficiently
sealed
off
from
existing
(
stored)
product
so
as
to
eliminate
the
possibility
of
reinfestation.

Although
phosphine
is
labeled
for
cocoa
beans,
there
are
label
restrictions
that
limit
its
use
in
these
warehouse
situations.
Phosphine
label
instructions
do
not
permit
use
of
a
warehouse
while
beans
are
under
gas.
The
exposure
period
for
phosphine
is
generally
72
hours,
plus
1­
2
days
for
aeration,
which
shuts
down
a
warehouse
for
5
days
or
so.
When
methyl
bromide
is
used,
the
fumigation
is
on
Friday
night,
aeration
begins
Saturday
night
and
the
warehouse
is
open
again
on
Monday
morning.
If
phosphine
were
used
for
fumigation,
shipments
of
beans
could
not
go
in
or
out
for
periods
of
5
days
at
a
time
as
the
warehouse
would
be
closed
for
this
entire
period.
In
addition,
the
industry
would
be
limited
in
colder
weather,
as
phosphine
cannot
be
used
at
temperatures
below
40
°
F,
and
requires
longer
fumigation
time
at
lower
temperatures.

V.
Food
Processing
Facilities
Question
7.
First,
the
critical
need
for
MB
use
in
bakeries
has
not
been
well
justified.
Little
data
has
been
submitted
by
USG
to
MBTOC
to
support
the
critical
need
for
MB
and
the
lack
of
technical
availability
or
economic
feasibility
of
the
main
alternative,
heat.
Bakery
ingredients
and
foods
cannot
be
heat
treated
but
neither
can
they
be
MB
treated.

ANSWER:
The
critical
need
for
MB
and
information
on
the
technical
and
economical
feasibility
of
alternatives
for
bakeries
does
not
differ
significantly
from
information
already
submitted
on
the
subject
for
mills,
pet
food,
rice
mills,
or
other
similar
food
handling
facilities.

Although
heat
treatment
is
very
effective
in
inactivating
insects,
it
is
not
without
significant
risks.
Its
best
application
is
in
a
controlled
room
environment,
with
a
"
temperature
safe"
structure,
with
the
absence
of
electronic
and
heat
sensitive
equipment.
In
medium
to
large
food
plants
the
use
of
heat
may
not
be
practical
and
may
not
be
economically
feasible.
Here
are
a
few
key
points
illustrating
the
limitations:
 
For
successful
use
of
heat,
expensive
equipment
which
contains
sophisticated
electronics
should
be
removed
from
the
area
to
be
heated.
Although
some
equipment
can
be
purchased
that
is
capable
of
withstanding
higher
temperatures,
some
existing
equipment
is
not
so
rated.
In
addition
many
electronic
controls
are
used
in
the
modern
plant
and
if
these
are
exposed
to
elevated
temperatures
or
hot
spots
the
likelihood
of
a
startup
failure
is
possible.
 
Hot
Spots.
In
large
food
plants
with
high
ceilings
and
large
floor
spaces
there
can
be
areas
to
be
treated
that
are
up
to
2.5
million
cubic
feet.
Although
this
is
not
typical,
areas
even
one
half
this
size
are
a
challenge
to
heat
evenly,
regardless
of
extra
fans
and
other
equipment
that
could
be
used
to
assure
a
controlled
heat
up.
Hot
spots
can
result
in
damage
to
buildings.
Also,
some
areas
are
not
well
insulated
and
in
some
cases
have
windows
with
limited
insulation
capability
making
maintaining
heat
at
insect
control
temperatures
impractical
or
even
impossible.
Page
8
 
The
time
required
for
heat
treatments
is
another
concern.
Even
if
heating
/
heat
up
is
done
by
a
contractor,
the
time
to
heat
the
facility
safely
without
concern
for
structural
damage
is
not
reasonable.
The
general
rule
is
that
you
should
not
exceed
temperature
increases
or
decreases
of
ten
degrees
per
hour,
which
if
you
would
elevate
from
a
base
temperature
of
70
F
to
140F
would
take
7
hours
to
heat
the
facility
with
an
abundance
of
heat
but
more
likely
it
takes
7
hours
to
gain
that
temperature
from
115
to
140F.
More
of
a
challenge
is
the
cool
down
which
takes
considerable
time
to
assure
that
the
facility
can
be
cooled
for
employees
to
be
able
to
return
to
these
areas
to
work.
The
other
obvious
concern
is
the
cost
of
heat
(
BTUs)
to
heat
a
facility.
 
Prior
to
any
heat
treatment
each
facility
must
go
under
a
structural
review
by
an
engineering
firm
to
be
assured
that
the
facility
is
capable
of
withstanding
the
variations
in
temperatures
typical
for
a
successful
insect
kill.
In
many
cases
enhancements
are
needed
to
assure
that
damage
will
not
be
sustained
during
the
treatment.
Large
facilities
have
been
shown
to
need
significant
upgrades
which
require
large
capital
investments
(
e.
g.
roof
replacement).
Additionally
the
long
term
impact
of
heat
is
not
known,
especially
of
older
facilities
which
are
not
designed
for
exposure
to
elevated
temperatures.
 
Electrical
components
and
wiring
are
a
concern
as
well.
The
National
Electric
Code
speaks
to
derating
of
electronic
wiring
at
elevated
temperatures.
Derating
of
circuits
which
must
remain
active
during
heat
treatments
can
result
in
circuit
overload
unexpected
shut
down
of
equipment.
Efforts
can
be
made
to
protect
some
electrical
components
but
wiring
cannot
be
upgraded
to
compensate
for
derating
without
tremendous
expense.
Unplanned
shut
down
of
equipment
is
extremely
costly
and
therefore
is
not
acceptable
from
a
business
perspective.
 
The
retrofitting
of
older
facilities
can
be
economically
prohibitive.
Incorporating
new
sprinkler
systems,
electrical
components
and
wiring,
and
other
building
components
to
withstand
heat
fumigations
can
be
very
expensive.

The
statement
that
bakery
ingredients
and
foods
cannot
be
treated
with
methyl
bromide
is
inaccurate.
US
regulations
at
40
CFR
(
Code
of
Federal
Regulations)
180.123(
a)(
2)(
i)
do
permit
residuals
of
inorganic
bromide
resulting
from
fumigations
with
methyl
bromide.
In
the
US,
methyl
bromide
is
labeled
for
use
on
processed
foods,
However,
the
bakery
applicants
did
not
request
methyl
bromide
for
use
on
their
ingredients
or
processed
foods,
only
for
their
structures.

Question
8.
The
amount
of
MB
used
in
bakeries
places
it
as
the
second
highest
post­
harvest
use
of
MB
world
wide,
second
only
to
US
mills,
yet
the
CUN
does
not
present
information
on
emissions
control
aspects
for
bakeries,
research
on
alternatives,
adoption
of
heat
treatment
in
bakeries
or
justification
for
MB
use
in
bakeries,
and
especially
for
an
increase
in
use.
There
is
more
MB
requested
for
US
bakeries
than
for
several
US
pre­
plant
uses,
yet
there
is
an
extensive
US
research
program
for
those
soil
uses.

ANSWER:
There
is
research
information
in
the
"
Structures
 
Food
Facilities"
"
submission
from
the
USG
pertaining
to
bakeries,
this
is
the
only
chapter
from
the
U.
S.
that
includes
bakeries.
The
increase
in
the
nomination
amount
is
to
provide
methyl
bromide
to
facilities
where
alternative
treatments
have
been
tested
and
shown
not
to
effectively
control
the
target
pests.
Page
9
Question
9.
MBTOC
is
also
concerned
that
since
there
are
two
US
CUNs
including
bakeries,
USG
might
not
have
considered
the
extent
of
use
of
MB
for
bakeries,
and
including
an
apparent
increase
in
this
sector.

ANSWER:
The
USG
nomination
for
bakeries
is
only
in
the
"
Structures­
Food
Facilities"
chapter.
The
"
Post­
Harvest­
NPMA"
sector
does
not
include
bakeries.
The
"
Post­
Harvest­
NPMA"
chapter
does
include
some
processed
foods
and
their
facilities,
but
the
main
difference
is
that
it
has
included
the
treatment
of
the
processed
foods
in
the
nomination.
With
regards
to
heat,
most
processed
foods
and
their
ingredients
cannot
be
heat
treated
simply
because
heat
does
not
penetrate
well,
especially
through
dense
material
such
as
processed
flour.
A
research
trial
conducted
on
pasta
revealed
that
heat
penetration
through
a
tote
of
product
would
require
close
to
seven
days
for
full
penetration
during
which
time
condensation
inside
packaging
became
a
problem.
In
addition,
subjecting
certain
ingredients
or
food
items
to
high
heat
can
affect
their
baking
quality
or
cause
degradation
of
the
material
Question
10.
MBTOC
has
been
presented
with
information
from
the
supplier
of
heat
treatment
equipment
telling
us
that
heat
treatments
have
been
successful
in
bakeries.
In
the
absence
of
data
indicating
otherwise,
MBTOC
is
considering
whether
heat
treatment
should
be
technically
and
economically
feasible
for
many
bakeries,
and
therefore
whether
MB
treatment
for
bakeries
fully
complies
with
Decision
IX/
6.
It
is
possible
that
USG
would
wish
to
correct
us
on
this
point
by
providing
detailed
sector­
specific
information
on
the
technical
and/
or
economic
infeasibility
of
heat
treatment
or
other
alternatives.
MBTOC
needs
more
detailed
information
about
this
sector,
the
need
for
MB,
valid
reasons
by
heat
can
not
be
used
as
a
disinfestation
treatment
for
bakeries,
research
on
alternatives
in
bakeries,
IPM
measures
in
bakeries
to
decreased
the
frequency
of
fumigation
and
how
bakeries
are
sealed
for
MB
treatments
to
ensure
overall
low
MB
use.

ANSWER:
Many
valid
concerns
are
associated
with
the
use
of
heat
treatments
in
bakeries
or
similar
food
handling
facilities.
Chief
among
the
concerns
is
the
economic
feasibility
of
heat
treatments.
In
a
recent
assessment
by
a
bakery
company,
restructuring
for
heat
treatments
(
to
eliminate
the
use
of
MB)
was
estimated
to
average
3
million
US
dollars
per
facility
The
engineering
firm
assessing
the
structures
examined
boiler
capacity,
building
structure,
roof
material
replacements,
sprinkler
system
upgrades,
PLCs
moved
or
cooled,
and
numerous
other
items.
In
addition
to
restructuring
costs,
there
is
the
cost
associated
with
the
actual
heat
treatment.
Heat
treatments
typically
need
to
be
scheduled
on
a
more
frequent
basis
than
a
MB
fumigation
which
leads
to
additional
downtime
costs.
Companies
that
contract
heat
treatments
typically
spend
two
to
three
times
the
cost
of
a
MB
fumigation
The
lack
of
long
term
studies
of
heat
stress
caused
by
expansion
and
contraction
over
repeated
heat
treatments
has
not
been
the
subject
of
research
by
those
who
purvey
heat
treatments
for
financial
gain.
There
has
been
the
expectation,
by
some,
that
because
heat
can
kill
insects
that
it
should
be
accepted
as
an
alternative
to
methyl
bromide
without
full
consideration
of
the
potential
negative
effects
upon
structures
and
electrical
components
and
wiring
in
food
plants..
It
is
a
fact
that
electric
wiring
when
utilized
during
periods
of
high
temperature,
such
as
heat
treatment,
is
"
derated"
meaning,
in
effect,
Page
10
that
it
loses
capacity.
Such
loss
may
render
the
electrical
circuit
in
violation
of
the
National
Electric
Code
and
may
overload
circuits
resulting
in
shut
down
of
plant
systems.
Although
efforts
can
be
taken
to
protect
sensitive
electronic
systems
and
minimize
their
use
during
heat
treatments,
it
is
not
predictable
that
facilities
would
be
able
to
always
adequately
protect
or
limit
use
(
in
particular,
the
effects
of
structural
wall
movements
and
derating
on
electrical
wiring).
Electrical
wiring
that
is
derated
by
heat
over
time
has
the
potential
to
cause
wiring
to
carry
less
current.
Additionally,
damage
to
wire
insulation
over
time
due
to
heat
stress
may
not
be
noticed
and
has
the
potential
for
arcing
between
wires
which
can
result
in
fire
or
explosion
hazards
Although
heat
treatment
is
very
effective
in
inactivating
insects,
it
is
not
without
significant
risks.
Its
best
application
is
in
a
controlled
room
environment,
with
a
"
temperature
safe"
structure,
with
the
absence
of
electronic
and
heat
sensitive
equipment.
In
medium
to
large
food
plants
the
use
of
heat
may
not
be
practical
and
may
not
be
economically
feasible.
Here
are
a
few
key
points
illustrating
the
limitations:
 
For
successful
use
of
heat,
expensive
equipment
which
contains
sophisticated
electronics
should
be
removed
from
the
area
to
be
heated.
Although
some
equipment
can
be
purchased
that
is
capable
of
withstanding
higher
temperatures,
some
existing
equipment
is
not
so
rated.
In
addition
many
electronic
controls
are
used
in
the
modern
plant
and
if
these
are
exposed
to
elevated
temperatures
or
hot
spots
the
likelihood
of
a
startup
failure
is
possible.
 
Hot
Spots.
In
large
food
plants
with
high
ceilings
and
large
floor
spaces
there
can
be
areas
to
be
treated
that
are
up
to
2.5
million
cubic
feet.
Although
this
is
not
typical,
areas
even
a
half
this
size
are
a
challenge
to
heat
evenly,
regardless
of
extra
fans
and
other
equipment
that
could
be
used
to
assure
a
controlled
heat
up.
Hot
spots
can
result
in
damage
to
buildings.
Also,
some
areas
are
not
well
insulated
and
in
some
cases
have
windows
with
limited
insulation
capability
making
maintaining
heat
at
insect
control
temperatures
impractical
or
even
impossible
.
 
The
time
required
for
heat
treatments
is
another
concern.
Even
if
heating
/
heat
up
is
done
by
a
contractor,
the
time
to
heat
the
facility
safely
without
concern
for
structural
damage
is
not
reasonable.
The
general
rule
is
that
you
should
not
exceed
temperature
increases
or
decreases
of
ten
degrees
per
hour,
which
if
you
would
elevate
from
a
base
temperature
of
70
F
to
140F
would
take
7
hours
to
heat
the
facility
with
an
abundance
of
heat
but
more
likely
it
takes
7
hours
to
gain
that
temperature
from
115
to
140F.
More
of
a
challenge
is
the
cool
down
which
takes
considerable
time
to
assure
that
the
facility
can
be
cooled
for
employees
to
be
able
to
return
to
these
areas
to
work.
The
other
obvious
concern
is
the
cost
of
heat
(
BTUs)
to
heat
a
facility.
 
Prior
to
any
heat
treatment
each
facility
must
go
under
a
structural
review
by
an
engineering
firm
to
be
assured
that
the
facility
is
capable
of
withstanding
the
variations
in
temperatures
typical
for
a
successful
insect
kill.
In
many
cases
enhancements
are
needed
to
assure
that
damage
will
not
be
sustained
during
the
treatment.
Large
facilities
have
been
shown
to
need
significant
upgrades
which
require
large
capital
investments
(
e.
g.
roof
replacement).
Additionally
the
long
term
impact
of
heat
is
not
known,
especially
of
older
facilities
which
are
not
designed
for
exposure
to
elevated
temperatures.
 
Electrical
components
and
wiring
are
a
concern
as
well.
The
National
Electric
Code
speaks
to
derating
of
electronic
wiring
at
elevated
temperatures.
Derating
of
circuits
which
must
remain
active
during
heat
treatments
can
result
in
circuit
overload
unexpected
shut
down
of
equipment.
Efforts
can
be
made
to
protect
some
electrical
components
but
wiring
cannot
be
upgraded
to
Page
11
compensate
for
derating
without
tremendous
expense.
Unplanned
shut
down
of
equipment
is
not
acceptable
from
a
business
perspective.
 
The
retrofitting
of
older
facilities
can
be
economically
prohibitive.
Incorporating
new
sprinkler
systems,
electrical
components
and
wiring,
and
other
building
components
to
withstand
heat
fumigations
can
be
very
expensive.

Question
11.
In
pet
foods,
heat
treatment
is
used
in
20%
of
the
pet
food
establishments
according
to
the
CUN.
MBTOC
is
concerned
that
this
adoption
shows
that
heat
is
technically
available
and
economically
feasible,
in
the
absence
of
data
from
USG
showing
otherwise.
MBTOC
members
are
aware
that
at
least
one
large
US
pet
food
manufacturer
relies
entirely
on
spot
heat
treatments
and
has
done
so
for
several
years.
MBTOC
acknowledges
the
reality
that
US
legislation
requires
the
same
approvals
and
sanitation
standards
for
pet
foods
as
is
required
for
human
foods,
but
the
CUN
does
not
adequately
justify
the
need
for
MB
for
pet
foods.
MBTOC
has
not
been
presented
with
detailed
information
about
the
facilities
included
in
this
sector
(
Manufacturers?
Warehouses?
Retail
establishments?),
the
need
for
MB,
valid
reasons
why
heat
can
not
be
used,
research
on
alternatives
for
pet
food
establishments,
IPM
measures,
and
how
pet
food
establishments
are
sealed
to
ensure
overall
low
MB
use.

ANSWER:
This
is
correct,
approximately
20%
of
PFI
(
Pet
Food
Institute)
plants
use
heat
treatment.
However,
not
all
plants
are
suitable
for
heat
treatments
due
to
their
construction
(
e.
g.
wood),
geographic
locations
(
colder
climates),
or
the
presence
of
finished
products
or
ingredients
that
would
be
damaged
by
high
heat.
With
regard
to
the
major
manufacturer
that
relies
on
heat,
clearly
there
are
portions
of
some
facilities
in
certain
areas
containing
certain
products
that
are
suitable
for
heat
treatment.
USG
assumes
the
use
of
the
word
"
spot"
in
MBTOC's
statement
refers
to
heat
treatments
in
specific
areas
of
a
pet
food
facility.
Heat,
therefore,
is
one
of
many
IPM
tools,
as
is
methyl
bromide,
but
heat
is
not
completely
suitable
for
all
areas
or
all
plants.

USG
thinks
that
the
CUN
does
adequately
justify
the
critical
need
for
methyl
bromide
in
pet
food
manufacturing
facilities.
In
addition
to
government
requirements
that
pet
food
products
be
free
of
insects,
pet
food
consumers
have
a
zero
tolerance
for
any
insect
contaminants.
For
example,
under
many
contractual
arrangements,
pet
food
manufacturers
are
required
to
compensate
retailers
for
not
only
the
cost
of
an
insect­
contaminated
product
but
also
the
profit
from
the
lost
retail
sale.
In
addition,
PFI
survey
research
has
indicated
that
insect
contamination
in
a
pet
food
product
is
a
top
consumer
concern.
Also,
pet
food
is
in
many
cases
a
branded
product.
That
brand
name
has
substantial
value.
Insect
contamination
in
a
pet
food
product
has
the
potential
to
cause
substantial
loss
of
market
share
and
could
permanently
damage
the
brand.

PFI
represents
the
companies
that
produce
approximately
99
percent
of
the
commercial
dog
and
cat
food
sold
in
the
United
States.
This
information
has
been
presented
in
each
and
every
application
since
the
start
of
this
process.
The
facilities
in
question
are
located
in
37
states
across
the
country
and
range
in
age
from
less
than
five
years
to
older
than
one
hundred
years.
None
of
these
production
facilities
is
associated
directly
with
a
retail
establishment
on
the
property.
Many,
if
not
all,
do
have
a
warehouse
or
some
form
of
storage
facility
connected
with
or
adjacent
to
the
production
area.
Page
12
In
addition
to
the
responses
above,
PFI
is
committed
to
improving
pest
management
at
member
facilities.
All
PFI
members
constantly
strive
to
maintain
a
pest­
free
environment
in
their
production
locations.
Better
sanitation,
chemical
spot
treatments,
traps,
insecticutors,
and
structural
repair
are
all
used
to
prevent
infiltration
by
insects
and
to
reduce
the
need
for
methyl
bromide.
However,
there
still
exists
the
need
to
fumigate
entire
facilities.
Heat
treatment
is
not
completely
suitable
for
all
facilities
but
research
will
continue.
Other
research
is
focused
on
insect
growth
regulators
embedded
into
product
packaging.
Despite
this
research
and
all
pest
management
practices
there
is
still
not
a
technically
and
economically
viable
alternative
to
periodic
methyl
bromide
fumigation
for
those
facilities
in
our
nomination.

Question
12.
In
the
category
'
Other'
included
in
this
CUN
are
several
commodities
that
can
be
phosphine
treated.
MBTOC
needs
to
know
why
they
cannot
be
phosphine
treated
in
these
particular
instances.
Are
these
commodities
treated
with
MB
as
a
result
of
infestation
found
at
import,
or
is
there
some
other
reason
that
a
fast
treatment
by
MB
is
required
instead
of
phosphine?

ANSWER:
Fumigants
of
choice
for
treating
spice
commodities
are
ETO,
PPO,
and
phosphine;
however,
a
very
small
percentage
of
spices
are
fumigated
with
methyl
bromide.
The
majority
of
spice
commodity
fumigations
with
MB
are
for
quarantine
or
pre­
shipment
requirement.
Facilities
that
have
an
occasional
need
for
fumigation
can
not
justify
the
cost
associated
with
vacuum
chambers
or
irradiation
methods
(
example:
occasional
trailer
fumigation
every
few
years)
and
are
using
methyl
bromide
due
to
time
constraints
associated
with
phosphine.
Time
constraints
for
one
company
are
due
to
demurrage
fees
of
$
200/
day
associated
with
overseas
containers.

Question
13.
In
the
category
'
herbs
and
spices',
MBTOC
seeks
assurance
that
the
MB
is
required
for
facilities
and
equipment
and
not
herb
and
spice
commodity.
There
are
alternatives
available
for
herb
and
spice
commodity.

ANSWER:
The
request
for
methyl
bromide
is
for
the
facilities
where
spices
are
blended
into
packages
(
such
as
for
pizza
mixes)
that
are
then
added
to
pre­
packaged
goods.
These
facilities
are
similar
to
grain
mills
in
that
there
are
silos,
mixing
areas,
packaging
areas,
etc.
Infestation
in
herb
and
spice
blending
facilities
is
not
localized
to
machinery
that
can
be
spot
heat
treated.
These
facilities
utilize
methyl
bromide
to
target
pests
present
in
inaccessible
areas
of
the
structure,
not
the
ingredients
or
finished
products
that
may
be
stored
on­
site.

Fumigants
of
choice
for
treating
spice
commodities
are
ETO,
PPO,
and
phosphine;
however,
a
very
small
percentage
of
spices
are
fumigated
with
methyl
bromide.
The
majority
of
spice
commodity
fumigations
with
methyl
bromide
are
for
quarantine
or
pre­
shipment
requirement.
Facilities
that
have
an
occasional
need
for
fumigation
can
not
justify
the
cost
associated
with
vacuum
chambers
or
irradiation
methods
(
example:
occasional
trailer
fumigation
every
few
years)
and
are
using
methyl
bromide
due
to
time
constraints
associated
with
phosphine.
Time
constraints
for
one
company
are
due
to
demurrage
fees
of
$
200/
day
associated
with
overseas
containers.

VI.
Mills
and
Processors
Page
13
Question
14.
Our
comments
about
bakeries
in
the
CUN
discussed
above
also
apply
to
the
over
23
tonnes
of
MB
requested
for
bakeries
in
this
CUN
ANSWER:
Although
heat
treatment
is
very
effective
in
inactivating
insects,
it
is
not
without
significant
risks.
Its
best
application
is
in
a
controlled
room
environment,
with
a
"
temperature
safe"
structure,
with
the
absence
of
electronic
and
heat
sensitive
equipment.
In
medium
to
large
food
plants
the
use
of
heat
may
not
be
practical
and
may
not
be
economically
feasible.
Here
are
a
few
key
points
illustrating
the
limitations:
 
For
successful
use
of
heat,
expensive
equipment
which
contains
sophisticated
electronics
should
be
removed
from
the
area
to
be
heated.
Although
some
equipment
can
be
purchased
that
is
capable
of
withstanding
higher
temperatures,
some
existing
equipment
is
not
so
rated.
In
addition
many
electronic
controls
are
used
in
the
modern
plant
and
if
these
are
exposed
to
elevated
temperatures
or
hot
spots
the
likelihood
of
a
startup
failure
is
possible.
 
Hot
Spots.
In
large
food
plants
with
high
ceilings
and
large
floor
spaces
there
can
be
areas
to
be
treated
that
are
up
to
2.5
million
cubic
feet.
Although
this
is
not
typical,
areas
even
a
half
this
size
are
a
challenge
to
heat
evenly,
regardless
of
extra
fans
and
other
equipment
that
could
be
used
to
assure
a
controlled
heat
up.
Hot
spots
can
result
in
damage
to
buildings.
Also,
some
areas
are
not
well
insulated
and
in
some
cases
have
windows
with
limited
insulation
capability
making
maintaining
heat
at
insect
control
temperatures
impractical
or
even
impossible
.
 
The
time
required
for
heat
treatments
is
another
concern.
Even
if
heating
/
heat
up
is
done
by
a
contractor,
the
time
to
heat
the
facility
safely
without
concern
for
structural
damage
is
not
reasonable.
The
general
rule
is
that
you
should
not
exceed
temperature
increases
or
decreases
of
ten
degrees
per
hour,
which
if
you
would
elevate
from
a
base
temperature
of
70
F
to
140F
would
take
7
hours
to
heat
the
facility
with
an
abundance
of
heat
but
more
likely
it
takes
7
hours
to
gain
that
temperature
from
115
to
140F.
More
of
a
challenge
is
the
cool
down
which
takes
considerable
time
to
assure
that
the
facility
can
be
cooled
for
employees
to
be
able
to
return
to
these
areas
to
work.
The
other
obvious
concern
is
the
cost
of
heat
(
BTUs)
to
heat
a
facility.
 
Prior
to
any
heat
treatment
each
facility
must
go
under
a
structural
review
by
an
engineering
firm
to
be
assured
that
the
facility
is
capable
of
withstanding
the
variations
in
temperatures
typical
for
a
successful
insect
kill.
In
many
cases
enhancements
are
needed
to
assure
that
damage
will
not
be
sustained
during
the
treatment.
Large
facilities
have
been
shown
to
need
significant
upgrades
which
require
large
capital
investments
(
e.
g.
roof
replacement).
Additionally
the
long
term
impact
of
heat
is
not
known,
especially
of
older
facilities
which
are
not
designed
for
exposure
to
elevated
temperatures.
 
Electrical
components
and
wiring
are
a
concern
as
well.
The
National
Electric
Code
speaks
to
derating
of
electronic
wiring
at
elevated
temperatures.
Derating
of
circuits
which
must
remain
active
during
heat
treatments
can
result
in
circuit
overload
unexpected
shut
down
of
equipment.
Efforts
can
be
made
to
protect
some
electrical
components
but
wiring
cannot
be
upgraded
to
compensate
for
derating
without
tremendous
expense.
Unplanned
shut
down
of
equipment
is
not
acceptable
from
a
business
perspective.
 
The
retrofitting
of
older
facilities
can
be
economically
prohibitive.
Incorporating
new
sprinkler
systems,
electrical
components
and
wiring,
and
other
building
components
to
withstand
heat
fumigations
can
be
very
expensive.
Page
14
The
statement
that
bakery
ingredients
and
foods
cannot
be
treated
with
methyl
bromide
is
inaccurate.
In
the
US,
methyl
bromide
is
labeled
for
use
on
processed
foods.
US
regulations
at
40
CFR
(
Code
of
Federal
Regulations)
180.123(
a)(
2)(
i)
do
permit
residuals
of
inorganic
bromide
resulting
from
fumigations
with
methyl
bromide.
However,
the
bakery
applicants
did
not
request
methyl
bromide
for
use
on
their
ingredients
or
processed
foods,
only
for
their
structures.

Question
15.
The
CUN
requests
MB
for
2007,
in
2005.
Our
secondary
reason
for
giving
this
CUN
an
'
Unable
to
Assess'
was
our
belief
at
the
meeting
in
Argentina
(
April
2005)
that
sulfuryl
fluoride
approval
for
mill
applications
in
California
was
imminent.
California
approved
SF
for
mills
in
May
2005.
MBTOC
is
aware
that
a
large
California
rice
mill
was
booked
for
SF
test
fumigation
immediately
following
the
California
approval
and
other
millers
would
be
watching
this
treatment
with
considerable
interest.
Licensed
fumigators
in
California
have
already
been
trained
and
are
ready
to
begin
assisting
mills
with
adoption,
MBTOC
could
not
recommend
an
MB
amount
for
2007
knowing
that
a
major
user
sector
would
soon
have
access
to
an
acknowledged
alternative.

ANSWER:
It
is
correct
that
SF
was
registered
for
certain
uses
by
the
State
of
California
in
May
2005.
California
is,
therefore,
approximately
18
months
less
experienced
in
conducting
SF
fumigations.
This
is
important
as
evidence
from
successful
fumigations
is
likely
to
be
persuasive
in
facilitating
adoption
of
this
alternative.
As
illustrated
by
the
submission
(
below)
from
the
one
experience
in
a
California
rice
mill,
may
facilities
will
require
some
repeat
experience
before
they
are
comfortable
concluding
that
SF
is
an
appropriate
alternative
to
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide.
The
issue
of
cost
differences,
and
thus
economic
feasibility,
is
still
outstanding.
USG
has
only
been
able
to
get
information
from
one
rice
mill
in
California
that
used
sulfuryl
fluoride
for
a
full
fumigation
using
a
20­
year
veteran
fumigator.
This
appears
to
be
the
first
and
only
commercial
application
of
Profume
in
that
state.
The
mill
operator
has
the
following
comments:

"
Efficacy­­
Gauging
by
pest
traps
placed
inside,
appeared
to
be
equivalent
(
100%
kills
in
traps)
to
Methyl
Bromide
(
MeBr)
however
this
is
the
only
fumigation
using
Profume
that
they
have
done.
They
don't
have
knowledge
of
efficacy
on
pest
eggs.
Costs­­
Down
time
for
the
mill
was
longer
than
for
Methyl
Bromide,
Material
cost
was
substantially
higher
than
the
cost
of
MeBr,
Setup
costs
were
higher
due
to
the
computer­
monitoring
points
and
piping
required
for
Profume.
Structure­­
The
mill
is
a
new
slip­
form
concrete
mill,
designed
for
easy
fumigation
(
better
sealed
than
older
architecture).
Comments:
Computer­
controlled
monitoring
worked
as
advertised
and
applied
product
where
needed
in
the
structure.
It
was
easier
to
ventilate.
Has
smaller
(
state­
required)
non­
occupied
buffer
zones.
Was
more
costly
than
MeBr.
Profume
cannot
replace
MeBr's
primary
use
in
export
containers
because
it
permeates
through
the
wooden
container
floors.
Was
used
in
a
new,
fumigation­
friendly
mill.
Does
not
know
how
it
will
work
in
older
mills."
The
miller
was
encouraged
but
not
convinced.
He
was
not
100%
satisfied.
He
requires
more
experience
with
it
to
determine
if
it
can
be
a
true
replacement
for
MeBr.

Question
16.
MBTOC
needs
to
see
how
this
sector
will
adopt
SF,
continue
to
adopt
heat,
make
IPM
improvements
to
decrease
MB
fumigation
frequency
and
improve
sealing
to
decrease
overall
use.
We
Page
15
believe
a
USG
reassessment
of
these
factors
may
result
in
a
different
amount
of
MB
nominated
for
this
sector.

ANSWER
As
MBTOC
is
aware
the
National
Management
Strategy
will
be
provided
to
the
Parties
by
February
2006
and
we
anticipate
that
many
of
these
questions
will
be
addressed
in
that
document.
The
U.
S.
Government
endeavors
to
provide
the
best
possible
information
and
expert
judgement
to
MBTOC
so
that
MBTOC
can
make
an
informed
recommendation.
We
have
put
forward
our
nominations
this
year
because
of
a
conscious
choice
to
seek
clearcut
MBTOC
recommnedations
and
decisions
from
the
Parties
by
the
end
of
2005.
We
do
this,
among
other
reasons,
because
we
have
our
own
domestic
regulatory
system
that
involves
full
notice
and
comment
public
participatory
rulemaking
as
part
of
the
process
of
making
domestic
allocations
of
methyl
bromide.
We
therefore
request
that
given
the
responses
to
MBTOC's
substantive
questions,
we
be
provided
with
a
recommendation
for
this
sector.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
as
part
of
that
domestic
rulemaking
process,
the
U.
S.
Government
does
take
into
account
additional
information
on
changes
in
circumstances
before
allocating
amounts
of
methyl
bromide.
This
is
accomplished
through
our
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process.
As
explained
(
below)
as
part
of
this
process
there
is
provision
for
the
publc
to
comment
on
all
data
and
assumption
used
in
a
rulemaking.
All
significant
comments
must
be
addressed,
and
this
requirement
is
judicially
enforceable.

In
the
US
there
is
a
process
in
place
to
take
into
account
newer
information
in
determining
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
that
will
be
allocated
to
critical
needs.
A
requirement
before
any
production
to
import
of
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses
can
take
place
is
that
the
proposal
to
allow
it
be
put
before
the
public
in
a
notice
and
comment
rule­
making.
During
this
open
and
transparent
process
the
public
has
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
all
aspects
of
the
proposed
rule.
It
is
also
a
requirement,
enforced
by
judicial
review,
that
all
significant
comments
must
be
addressed.
If
the
situation
with
respect
to
availability
and
technical
and
economic
feasibility
of
alternatives
changes
between
the
time
that
the
Parties
make
a
decision
(
in
response
to
a
MBTOC
recommendation)
and
the
time
that
the
USG
proposes
its
allocation
amount,
that
proposal
can
take
those
changes
into
account.
If
it
does
not
do
so,
the
public
(
probably
in
the
form
of
manufacturers
of
alternatives
and
environmental
groups)
will
comment
that
the
need
for
methyl
bromide
is
less
than
had
been
the
case
when
the
decision
was
made
by
the
Parties
and
that,
therefore,
the
allocated
amount
should
be
lower.
If
this
comment
is
not
addressed,
members
of
the
public
can
seek
to
have
a
court
invalidate
the
rule.
This
`
notice
and
comment'
requirement
is
a
powerful
tool
for
incorporating
new
information
into
the
internal
allocation
process.
It
acts
to
ensure
that
changes
in
the
status
of
alternatives
are
taken
into
appropriate
account
Question
17.
Concerning
flour
mills,
MBTOC
knows
that
adoption
of
SF
and/
or
heat
treatment
is
continuing,
although
slower
than
the
registrant
or
heat
equipment
suppliers
would
prefer,
and
slower
than
they
tell
us.
MBTOC
acknowledges
the
economic
arguments
presented
in
the
CUN
concerning
costs
of
heat
treatment
in
flour
mills.
However,
MBTOC
has
also
conducted
many
interviews
with
millers
and
fumigators.
We
see
that
USG's
has
reduced
the
2007
CUN
requested
amount
by
about
15%
and
we
believe
that
a
15%
per
year
adoption
level
in
the
flour
milling
sector
is
quite
likely.
We
do
not
have
further
questions
for
flour
mills.
Page
16
But
as
we
indicated
above,
that
15%
adoption
level
did
not
include
the
possibility
of
adoption
of
SF
in
California
and
we
are
seeking
new
data
on
adoption
levels
and
possible
revision
of
the
nominated
quantity
for
this
CUN.

ANSWER
The
USG
continues
to
use
the
best
information
we
have
available
and
our
expert
judgment
in
assessing
our
need
for
methyl
bromide.
As
new
information
is
developed
and
circumstances
change,
we
are
committed
to
accounting
for
it.
With
respect
to
the
change
in
the
registration
status
of
SF
in
California,
we
have
not
had
adequate
time
to
collect
relevant
data
and
analyze
it
to
assess
how
it
might
change
the
nominated
quantity
for
this
CUN
for
2007.
The
shifting
local,
state
and
federal
regulatory
requirements
have
made
the
process
of
analyzing
our
need
for
methyl
bromide
extremely
burdensome.
However,
we
are
currently
in
the
process
of
developing
our
domestic
2006
CUE
allocation
rule
by
which
methyl
bromide
is
made
available
to
those
users
that
qualify
for
them.
As
part
of
that
process,
the
USG
will
seek
additional
information
relevant
to
assessing
the
impact
of
this
registration,
and
having
obtained
better
information
will
assess
the
impact
of
this
new
registration
on
our
need
for
methyl
bromide
in
2006.
Such
an
analysis
will
also
be
applied
as
part
of
our
domestic
allocation
process
for
2007
CUEs.
Page
17
Appendix
I
 
Sulfuryl
Fluoride
Case
Studies
in
Flour
Mills
These
data
were
provided
to
the
USG
and
are
a
fumigating
company's
actual
estimate
of
the
cost
to
fumigate
a
mill
with
MB
or
SF.
These
estimates
are
based
on
targeting
all
life
stages
of
the
red
flour
beetle
and
the
confused
flour
beetle.
These
estimates
are
illustrative
of
the
significant
difference
in
cost
that
may
be
faced
by
some
facilities.
We
recognize
that
the
cost
differential
in
this
estimate
does
not
apply
to
all
facilities,
but
the
data
nevertheless
do
demonstrate
the
significant
economic
impacts
that
some
facilities
may
face
with
respect
to
the
use
of
SF
as
a
methyl
bromide
replacement.

ASSET
UTILIZATION
U.
S.
grain
mills
are
under
intense
economic
pressure.
Profit
margins
are
razor­
thin
or
non­
existent.
Elimination
of
costs
is
the
number
one
priority.
Likewise,
customer
industries
are
also
working
to
eliminate
costs.
This
has
resulted
in
a
move
toward
`
just
in
time'
delivery
whereby
inventories
are
reduced
and
deliveries
are
more
frequent.
At
the
same
time,
the
customer's
expectations
for
high
quality,
insect­
free
products
are
nonnegotiable.

An
industry
operating
on
a
5
day
schedule
would
have
less
difficulty
completing
downtime
activities
like
fumigation
as
those
tasks
could
be
scheduled
during
weekends.
To
optimize
efficiency,
however,
the
milling
industry
must
operate
24
hours
per
day
for
6
days
a
week,
and
often
operates
round­
theclock
6.5
or
7
days
per
week.
Downtime
must
be
minimized
as
every
hour
the
mill
is
out
of
production
is
an
hour's
revenue
that
can
never
be
replaced.

The
cost
of
lost
revenue
can
be
startling.
For
example,
an
average
flour
mill
in
the
US
produces
about
1.0
million
pounds
each
day.
The
sales
price
of
industrial
or
non­
retail
milled
grain
products
is
about
$
0.12
per
pound.
So,
an
additional
day
of
downtime
results
in
lost
revenue
of
$
120,000
that,
again,
can
never
be
replaced
in
an
industry
striving
for
24­
7
operation.

With
the
trend
of
low
carbohydrate
fad
diets
abating,
consumption
of
grain­
based
foods
is
increasing.
This
will
result
in
a
corresponding
increase
in
run­
time
(
production)
and
additional
pressure
to
minimize
downtime.

CHOOSING
THE
RIGHT
ALTERNATIVE
As
stated
earlier,
time
is
valuable
and
currently
available
alternatives
require
lots
of
preplanning.
Whatever
treatment
is
chosen,
it
must
be
effective
the
first
time
as
there
will
be
little
time
to
repeat
or
`
redo'
the
treatment.
Efficacy
and
downtime
must
be
balanced,
i.
e.
sufficient
time
must
be
allowed
for
slower
acting
alternatives
to
work,
while
still
fitting
into
the
(
increasingly
smaller)
time
window.

Success
will
also
be
impacted
by
inadequate
preparatory
cleaning,
structural
limitations,
low
temperatures
that
reduce
pest
respiration
and
life
stages
of
target
pests.

Sulfuryl
fluoride
(
SF)

The
adoption
of
SF
as
a
replacement
for
MB
has
been
hindered
by
3
types
of
hurdles
 
legal,
technical
Page
18
and
economic.
Significant
legal
hindrances
include:
1.
very
few
international
tolerances,
precluding
the
use
of
SF
in
facilities
when
products
may
find
their
way
into
export
channels.
2.
No
tolerances
on
enrichment
 
the
niacin,
thiamine,
riboflavin,
iron
and
folic
acid
fortifications
that
are
added
to
milled
grain
products
3.
No
tolerances
on
ingredients
such
as
sugar,
oil,
spices,
etc.
which
precluded
the
use
of
SF
in
facilities
where
ingredients
might
be
present
4.
A
label
restriction
which
required
flour
exposed
to
SF
be
blended
into
non­
exposed
flour
in
a
10:
1
ratio
(
treated:
untreated)

Important
progress
has
been
made
on
several
of
these
hurdles.
SF
recently
received
tolerances
on
enrichment
and
ingredients,
and
the
flour
blending
requirement
has
been
dropped.
Those
new
tolerances
have
yet
to
be
registered
by
the
states,
but
if
and
when
they
are
it
will
be
an
important
milestone
achieved.
The
lack
of
international
tolerances
continues
to
be
a
legal
hurdle.

When
the
legal
hurdles
are
removed,
technical
and
economic
hurdles
will
remain.
Industry
experience
thus
far
has
been
that
SF
does
not
compete
technically
or
economically
with
methyl
bromide.

These
hurdles
are
briefly
described
in
the
following,
real
world
examples.
This
is
not
intended
to
be
an
exhaustive
list,
rather
it
is
a
snapshot
of
the
experiences
described
by
milling
companies.

Example
1
These
data
were
provided
to
the
USG
and
are
a
fumigating
company's
actual
estimate
of
the
cost
to
fumigate
a
mill
with
MB
or
SF.
These
estimates
are
based
on
targeting
all
life
stages
of
the
red
flour
beetle
and
the
confused
flour
beetle.
These
estimates
are
illustrative
of
the
significant
difference
in
cost
that
may
be
faced
by
some
facilities.
We
recognize
that
the
cost
differential
in
this
estimate
does
not
apply
to
all
facilities,
but
the
data
nevertheless
do
demonstrate
the
significant
economic
impacts
that
some
facilities
may
face
with
respect
to
the
use
of
SF
as
a
methyl
bromide
replacement
Size
of
mill:
1.3
million
cubic
feet
Assumed
temperature:
82
F/
28
C
Fumigation
Price:

Methyl
Bromide
$
18,500.00
24
hour
exposure
period
12
hour
HLT
(
half
loss
time)
1,300
lbs.
gas
Sulfuryl
Fluoride
$
48,000.00
36
hour
exposure
period
7
­
9
hours
HLT
5,250
lbs.
gas
Page
19
Example
2
In
this
example,
the
quantities
of
SF
necessary
to
control
red
flour
beetles
in
a
1.8
million
cubic
foot
mill
were
calculated
at
2
target
concentrations.
The
mill
is
of
modern,
slip­
form
concrete
construction
and
therefore
represents
a
gas
tightness
much
better
than
the
average
mill.
For
a
24­
hour
fumigation
at
86
F/
30
C,
the
quantities
were:
 
Sulfuryl
fluoride
 
eggs
not
targeted
3125
lbs
 
Sulfuryl
fluoride
­
to
control
all
life
stages
5226
lbs
 
Historical
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
1800
lbs
used
to
control
all
life
stages
in
this
mill
At
this
point
the
impact
of
less
than
optimal
temperature
on
the
effectiveness
of
SF
must
be
noted.
At
the
same
mill,
managers
dissatisfied
with
the
first
SF
fumigation
planned
another
attempt
several
months
later.
The
temperature
having
dropped
with
the
change
of
seasons
resulted
in
an
estimated
quantity
to
control
"
all
life
stages"
of
approximately
13,000
pounds.
All
other
considerations
being
equal,
the
miller
would
obviously
have
difficulty
supporting
a
pest
management
regimen
that
requires
a
seven­
fold
increase
in
pesticide
usage.

Pesticide
usage
encompasses
multiple
serious
issues
in
addition
to
the
immediate
goal
of
technical
and
economic
feasibility.
These
include
worker
safety,
community
right­
to­
know
laws,
residue
tolerances
on
foods,
general
public
concern
about
pesticides
and
others.
As
a
result,
the
trend
is
toward
pest
management
solutions
that
rely
on
fewer
pesticides
­
not
more.

The
"
less
than
all
life
stages"
dosage
targets
the
larvae,
pupae
and
adult
insects,
but
not
the
eggs.
This
is
not
a
reasonable
option
for
mills.
The
eggs
that
are
not
killed
with
this
treatment
will
hatch
in
about
30
days.
The
mill
must
then
be
idled
yet
again
for
a
follow­
up
fumigation.
Therefore,
the
actual
time
to
control
all
life
stages
at
this
dosage
is
36­
48
hours
with
a
concurrent
increase
in
lost
revenue.

Example
3
In
this
example,
a
mill
and
warehouse
were
fumigated
in
May
2005.
Sulfuryl
fluoride
was
the
principal
treatment,
with
a
few
locations
in
the
complex
treated
with
either
CO2
and
phosphine
in
combination,
or
with
a
DDVP
(
dichlorvos)
fog.

Live
insect
traps
were
distributed
throughout
the
facility
to
provide
efficacy
data.
The
traps
were
checked
at
the
conclusion
of
the
fumigation,
and
again
30
days
later.
The
results
follow:

Floor
Location
Treatment
May
2,
2005
June
1,
2005
Mill
and
Packing
Department
6
top
of
filter
in
cleaning
house
sulfuryl
fluoride
All
dead
Live
larvae
top
of
air
lock
table
in
A
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
Page
20
5
ledge
on
back
wall
in
cleaning
house
"
All
dead
All
dead
Top
of
air
lock
table
in
B
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
In
phone
box
in
A
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
On
catwalk
behind
filter
"
All
dead
All
dead
Top
of
#
9
bin
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
in
sieve
screen
drawer
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
4
on
catwalk
in
cleaning
house
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
in
#
1
filter
room
in
B
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
In
phone
box
in
A
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
On
top
of
packing
bin
under
hatch
door
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
Inside
sifter
in
B
mill
(
closed)
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
Inside
packer
rebolt
sifter
(
open)
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
3
On
ledge
on
back
wall
in
cleaning
house
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
On
purifier
by
stairwell
in
B
mill
"
All
dead
All
dead
In
phone
box
in
A
mill
"
All
dead
All
dead
In
whole
wheat
roll
stand
in
packing
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
Inside
wheat
germ
classifier
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
2
In
locker
in
cleaning
house
"
All
dead
All
dead
In
roll
stand
by
locker
in
B
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
In
roll
stand
by
window
fan
in
A
mill
"
All
dead
All
dead
In
whole
wheat
sifter
on
packing
side
"
All
dead
All
dead
On
top
of
packer
"
All
dead
All
dead
On
floor
in
corner
in
room
over
"
All
dead
Live
Page
21
packer
larvae
1
On
ledge
of
back
wall
in
cleaning
house
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
On
corner
wall
by
drain
in
B
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
On
motor
in
cage
in
A
mill
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
In
front
warehouse
corner
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
Inside
wheat
germ
hopper
(
open)
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
Roll
room
"
All
dead
All
dead
On
#
4
bin
hopper
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
Warehouse
On
top
of
palletizer
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
On
pallet
in
rack
"
P"
CO2/
phosphine
in
All
dead
Live
larvae
combination
or
Shop
DDVP
fogging
1
On
top
of
tool
box
"
All
dead
All
alive
Old
warehouse
by
bakery
office
"
All
dead
All
alive
2
In
bakery
office
"
All
dead
Live
adult
By
filter
sock
storage
"
All
dead
All
dead
At
wheat
germ
metal
detector
"
All
dead
Live
adult
By
sifter
sieve
storage
"
All
dead
All
dead
Filter
sock
storage
area
by
break
room
"
All
dead
Live
adult
Bulk
Plant
6
On
slide
by
bin
#
41
sulfuryl
fluoride
All
dead
All
dead
On
ledge
by
bin
#
83
"
All
dead
All
dead
5
In
#
2
rebolt
sifter
"
All
dead
All
dead
4
On
catwalk
at
top
of
ladder
sulfuryl
fluoride
All
dead
All
dead
On
top
of
scale
bin
"
All
dead
All
dead
Page
22
3
On
whole
wheat
bin
slide
"
All
dead
All
dead
Man­
lift
area
"
All
dead
All
dead
2
On
air
lock
of
bin
#
82
"
All
dead
Live
larvae
1
On
conveyor
at
bin
#
41
"
All
dead
All
dead
More
than
half
of
the
traps
contained
live
infestation
a
mere
30
days
after
fumigation.

Example
4
This
example
shows
the
cost
to
treat
a
1.6
million
cubic
foot
mill
with
heat.
As
is
typical
for
most
mills,
heating
capacity
at
this
mill
is
insufficient
to
achieve
insecticidal
levels
so
an
outside
contractor
was
brought
in.

°
Cost
of
heat
treatment
$
25.74/
1,000
cubic
feet
°
Historical
average
cost
to
fumigate
$
15.00/
1,000
cubic
feet
this
mill
with
methyl
bromide
Preparation
$
45,943
Post
heat
treatment
repair
$
38,992
Net
total
cost
for
prep
and
repair:
$
79.06/
thousand
cubic
feet
Other
operational
considerations
include
Also,
milling
equipment
is
not
intended
nor
designed
for
high
heat
environments,
and
their
manufacturers
will
not
guarantee
their
performance.
Exposure
to
high
heat
could
void
warranties.
Likewise,
it
is
known
that
high
heat
can
cause
structural
damage
to
the
facility.
This
raises
significant
safety
concerns,
liability
issues
and
potentially
jeopardizes
insurance
coverage.

SUMMARY
Proponents
of
MB
alternatives
will
look
at
these
examples
and
criticize
their
"
doom
and
gloom"
perspective.
True,
there
are
situations
where
alternatives
have
proven
to
be
feasible.
However,
it
is
a
reality
that
alternatives
do
not
compete
well
with
methyl
bromide
on
an
economical
basis
at
the
current
time
when
they
are
attempting
to
take
away
market
share
from
methyl
bromide.
If
methyl
bromide
were
not
available,
it
would
defy
basic
laws
of
economics
if
the
alternatives
were
to
suddenly
become
cheaper.

Said
another
way,
a
product
that
does
not
compete
well
on
price
in
a
free
market
is
unlikely
to
be
priced
more
competitively
when
it
enjoys
a
(
near)
monopoly.

Regarding
technical
feasibility,
the
industry's
understanding
of
the
operational
constraints
associated
with
each
alternative
will
improve.
In
fact,
the
industry
has
shown
willingness
to
experiment
with
alternatives
and
share
that
information
through
its
professional
society.
While
the
understanding
of
the
strengths
and
limitations
of
an
alternative
will
improve,
the
chemistry
of
the
alternative
itself
will
not
Page
23
change.
If
an
alternative
damages
buildings
or
does
not
kill
eggs
today,
those
shortcomings
are
not
going
to
change.

In
conclusion,
the
USG
believes
a
15
percent
adoption
rate
is
aggressive
but
achievable
and
will
not
revise
the
nominated
quantity
for
this
CUN.
Page
24
Appendix
II
 
Timing
limitation
in
using
phosphine
on
California
dates
The
difficulties
in
using
Phosphine
to
fumigate
newly
harvested
dates
effects
the
industry
in
two
ways
A;
timing
of
harvest
relative
to
peak
market
demand
and
B;
the
cost
of
extra
equipment,
labor
and
land
necessary
to
make
the
transition.

A
­
TIMING
OF
HARVEST,
FUMIGATION
WITH
PHOSPHINE,
PROCESSING
AND
SALES
OF
CALIFORNIA
DATES
1
Chart
of
harvest
times
2
Schedule
of
fumigation
rotation
3
Definitions
4
Expected
market
display
dates
for
various
harvest
times.

1.
Chart
of
harvest
times
2
 
Activity
Schedule
in
fumigation
rotation
Day
Activity_______________
1
Build
stacks
­
Cover
with
tarp,
seal
­
Apply
Phosphine
2
Fumigate
 
24
hrs
@
6
pm
3
Fumigate
 
48
hrs
@
6
pm
4
Fumigate
 
72
hrs
@
6
pm
5
Uncover
stack
­
Air
out
6
Air
out
7
Move
fumigated
bins
 
Build
new
stacks
CALIFORNIA
DATE
HARVEST
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Sept
2
Oct
1
Oct
2
Nov
1
Nov
2
Dec
1
Dec
2
SEMI
MONTHLY
PERIODS
RELATIVE
AMOUNTS
Series1
Page
25
3
­
The
following
is
a
schedule
of
the
typical
timing
of
handling
fresh
California
dates.

The
time
necessary
to
harvest
dates
and
get
them
to
be
sold
to
the
consumer
is
equal
to;
time
of
harvest
+
fumigation
time
+
processing
time
+
shipping
time
1)
Harvest:
A
majority
of
the
fruit
is
picked
from
the
middle
of
October
until
the
end
of
November
or
the
first
week
in
December
2)
Fumigation
time
=
7
days
3)
Processing
time:
Time
from
end
of
fumigation
until
the
fruit
is
packed
into
sale
containers.
=
10
days
4)
Shipping
time:
Time
from
being
packed,
through
cooling,
loading,
shipping
to
customer
and
placed
on
display.
This
time
is
thought
to
end
in
early
December
for
the
fruit
to
be
sold
that
holiday
season.
Time
is
3
to
7
days
4
­
Timing
for
in
store
display
of
dates
by
harvest
time
and
method
of
fumigation:

Date
of
earliest
display
in
store
Date
of
Harvest
MBr
Phosphine
Oct
16
Oct
30
Nov
6
Nov
1
Nov
15
Nov
22
Nov
16
Nov
30
Dec
7
Dec
1
Dec
15
Dec
22
Dec
16
Dec
30
Jan
7
B
­
SWITCHING
TO
PHOSPHINE
 
Cost
of
extra
Equipment,
Land
and
Labor.

1)
Bin
needs
2)
Area
needed
to
fumigate
3)
Manpower
needed
4)
Additional
equipment
needed
5)
Summary
of
Costs
The
following
information
is
for
a
typical
large
packer
Page
26
1.
Number
of
bins
tied
up
in
Phosphine
fumigation
rotation.

No.
of
Stacks/
day
Lbs.
of
Dates
No.
of
Bins
No.
of
bins
per
Rotation
1
90,000
108
756
2
180,000
216
1512
3
270,000
324
2268
4
360,000
432
3024
5
450,000
540
3880
Footnote:
1
stack
=
108
bins
1
bin
=
833
lbs
2
 
Area
needed
to
fumigate
with
phosphine
2a
­
Accumulation
of
stacks
No.
of
stacks
under
fumigation
Day
No.
of
Stacks
Input
Output
1
Mon
4
0
4
2
Tue
4
0
8
3
Wed
4
0
12
4
Thur
4
0
16
5
Fri
4
0
20
6
Sat
4
0
24
7
Sun
4
0
20
8
Mon
4
4
28
9
Tue
4
4
28
2b
­
Area
per
Stack
Area
needed
is
area
covered
by
bins
plus
area
outside
stack
for
access
to
stack
3
bins
wide
X
6
bins
long
=
12
ft
X
24
ft
3
ft
added
on
each
side
for
access
=
18
ft
X
30
ft.=
540
sq
ft.

2c
 
Area
needed
for
Fumigation
rotation
Number
of
stacks
in
rotation
=
28
28
stacks
X
540
sq
ft
/
stack
=
15,120
sq
ft.

Comparison
using
MBr
=
2160
sq
ft.

***
Plus
cost
of
preparation
of
the
new
fumigation
area.
Floor
surface
must
be
non
adsorbent
to
fumigant.
Page
27
3
­
Manpower
Needed
Estimated
4
extra
laborers
4
­
Equipment
Needed
7
times
the
Tarps
7
times
the
sand
snakes
7
times
the
Tape
The
above
information
shows
that
it
would
be
very
risky
for
the
California
Date
Industry
to
rely
upon
Phosphine
to
fumigate
newly
harvested
fruit
and
attain
successful
and
profitable
sales
during
the
holiday
season.

Additionally
it
indicates
that
the
added
costs
related
to
using
Phosphine
would
impose
upon
the
packer
additional
costs
and
further
erode
any
market
advantage
which
may
exist.

This
financial
burden
would
weigh
heavier
on
the
smaller
date
packer
who
would
find
it
relatively
more
costly
to
tie
up
fruit
containers,
purchase
additional
equipment
and
labor
than
would
the
larger
packers.
