Richard Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US
12/07/2007 02:01 PM	To
	"Thompson, John E \(OES\)" <ThompsonJE2@state.gov>
	cc
	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, ALee@omb.eop.gov, Burleson.Smith@usda.gov, 
Christine Augustyniak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Finman, Hodayah H \(OES\)" 
<FinmanHH@state.gov>, "Klein, Jeffrey M" <KleinJM@state.gov>, Ross 
Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	bcc
	
	Subject
	RE: 2008 CUE Rule - Iodomethane uptake estimate
	
	

John--

Thanks for your comments.  Regarding Florida, I just received confirmation 
that they didn't register Iodomethane at their decision meeting this 
week.  The State requested additional data (beyond that required by EPA) 
from Arysta related to water exposure issues.  Iodomethane will come back 
up for review at their January meeting.  I'll keep everyone informed as I 
receive additional information.  No additional states have registered 
iodomethane since OPP completed its draft analysis.

I share your concern about setting a precedent.  I think this piece of the 
analysis could benefit from some additional characterization before 
finalizing.  Would be happy to discuss specifics with you if you are free 
this afternoon.

--Rick






"Thompson, John E \(OES\)" <ThompsonJE2@state.gov> 
12/07/2007 12:19 PM	
	To
	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <Burleson.Smith@usda.gov>
	cc
	<ALee@omb.eop.gov>, Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard 
Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Christine Augustyniak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Finman, 
Hodayah H \(OES\)" <FinmanHH@state.gov>, "Klein, Jeffrey M" 
<KleinJM@state.gov>
	Subject
	RE: 2008 CUE Rule - Iodomethane uptake estimate
	
	
	
	


Thanks OAR for your continued efforts on the rule and also t Christine
and OPP for putting together an analysis in a short period of time.  A
few process and then some substantive thoughts on the document provided.
Also, I'm assuming Florida didn't register this week, but does anyone
know for sure?  Would like to put that to bed if we can.

1.  What happens to this document that OPP circulated around?  Do we
need a technical determination to back up what we put in the rule, and
if so, does this get posted to the docket???  If our analysis needs to
be made public, I would have some specific comments on the text to add
some nuance in certain areas and add some of my favorite non-committal
State Department standard text in others.

2.  I can now see more clearly the point Rick was making about the
difficulty inherent in trying to make such an estimate in a short period
of time.  I think it might be useful to have a brief discussion of some
of this.

I see that you are using the 20% of acreage applied in the EUP as a
proxy for economic feasibility.  I recognize we are short on time, but
not sure its an appropriate proxy even as a general matter, but more
specifically the decision of whether to use IodoMethane in 2006 on the
acreage was likely influenced by much more than economic feasibility.
It would have been influenced by regulatory constraints, the amount of
methyl bromide on the market because we got a CUE that had determined
they needed MB that didn't consider IM because it wasn't available, lack
of familiarity with the product, inertia, etc...  My concern would be
whether we are double applying reductions by using a very broad proxy in
element 3, and then coming back in element 4 and accounting again for
other limiting factors, some or all of which would have contributed to
the 20% of acreage of the EUP accounted for on point 3.  

With that said, I respect the need to be cautious, and wouldn't suggest
we should be cutting things down to the bone by making a series of
optimistic assumptions that could leave users without a realistic
option.  My question, though, would be whether we should first apply a
factor of 1/5th to the amount, and then follow it up with another factor
of 1/20th to 1/10th given that these issues seem to have considerable
overlap so it would appear we would account for some factors more than
once.  Maybe there is no way to avoid it, but of a roughly 579 ton
potential amount of replacement after accounting for the limited 2008
partial year factor), we end up with a 6-12 ton range of adjustment.  I
didn't expect something very big, but that's pretty small.  Sorry,
couldn't resist the usual state department test which is pretty
unscientific, and amounts to whether it looks reasonable from a
non-technical perspective.

4.  My last thought is that in some way I think we need to nuance this
approach.  I'm wondering if OPP agrees, but while we may need to use
this 20% proxy given how little time we have now, I think we need to be
careful that we don't set a precedent for the future that this is a
number we will continue to rely on.  Presumably, when we have more time,
we would revert to an OPP process (dare I say a Delphi process) that
would make a more general assessment of what a transition would look
like in terms of scope and timeline.  

Thanks again to OPP for sending this around.  Hopefully we can work
through this stuff quickly and see if we can come to a resolution.
Thanks,

John T


-----Original Message-----
From: Levy.Aaron@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Levy.Aaron@epamail.epa.gov] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:12 PM
To: Burleson.Smith@usda.gov; Thompson, John E (OES)
Cc: ALee@omb.eop.gov; Brennan.Ross@epamail.epa.gov;
Keigwin.Richard@epamail.epa.gov; Augustyniak.Christine@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: 2008 CUE Rule - Iodomethane uptake estimate


Hello Burleson and John,

EPA estimates that based on currently available information iodomethane
can replace 5,789 -- 11,578 kilograms of methyl bromide in 2008
(representing between 0.023% to 0.045% of the 1991 baseline).  Briefly,
OPP's technical estimate accounts for the following:
- 14 States have registered iodomethane
- due to time-limited registration, iodomethane will be available for 10
of 12 months in 2008 (i.e. 83% of growing season)
- there are restrictions on iodomethane, such as buffer zones, that do
not apply to  methyl bromide
- the total cost of using iodomethane is currently greater than the cost
of methyl bromide
- grower inexperience with iodomethane, and a nascent distribution
system

EPA/OPP has expressed support for any value within the technical range.
EPA/SPD supports the high end of the range primarily because other
states, most notably Florida, may register iodomethane during 2008.  SPD
also notes that while iodomethane is only registered for 10 months in
2008, the first 10 months usually accounts for more than 83% of annual
fumigation volume.

With agreement from USDA and DOS, EPA is prepared to consider 11,578 kg
of iodomethane uptake in the 2008 Final Rule, and update the preamble
accordingly.  Please respond ASAP so that we can move this rule forward.

Thanks again,

Aaron Levy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stratospheric Protection Division
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: (202) 343-9215
Fax: (202) 343-2338
Email: Levy.Aaron@epa.gov


