Jump to main content.

Transcript of the Public Hearing on the Proposed 2007 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Rule

          2                           * * *
          3                      PUBLIC HEARING
          4                           * * *
          5              NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING:
          6                   THE 2007 CRITICAL USE
          8                   DOCKET NO.: 2005-0538
         11                             EPA East Building
         12                             1201 Constitution Ave., NW
         13                             Room 1153
         14                             Washington, DC
         15                             Friday, July 21, 2006
         16                             11:10 a.m.
         19           The meeting was held on Friday, July 21,
         20  2006, at 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, commencing at
         21  11:10 a.m., Marta E. Montoro, presiding.
          1                  P R O C E E D I N G S 
          2                                            (11:10 a.m.)
          3           MS. MONTORO: Good morning. Thank you to
          4  all of you for coming today. This is the hearing on
          5  the methyl bromide critical use exemption Proposed
          6  Rule.
          7           I think we can go ahead and start. 
          8  Certainly, if other people come, they can sign in and
          9  volunteer to speak, as well.
         10           My name is Marta Montoro. I know that
         11  most of you know me. I'm filling in for Jodaya
         12  Finman, who was originally the point of contact. She
         13  couldn't be here today. As most of you know, she got
         14  her clearance to go work at the State Department, and
         15  she is winding things down back at the office.
         16           I work on the Methyl Bromide Team with her
         17  in the Office of Atmospheric Programs at EPA. Our
         18  Office is responsible for the phaseout of ozone-
         19  depleting substances.
         20           I do want to say thank you to all of you
         21  for attending on such short notice, and make just a
         22  few general remarks.
          1           Specifically, the Proposed Rule that is
          2  the subject of today's hearing, is the 2007 Critical
          3  Use Exemption Allocation Pool, which was published in
          4  the Federal Register on July 6, 2006, Docket Number
          5  2005-0538.
          6           The Proposed Rule, as you know, would
          7  allocate 6,237,890 kilograms of methyl bromide for
          8  2007, and that amounts to 24.4 percent of baseline.
          9           Again, as you probably know, the purpose
         10  of this hearing is to allow interested parties to
         11  comment on the Proposed Rule. This would be
         12  providing verbal comments to EPA, and we would
         13  consider these verbal comments in the same way we
         14  consider written comments that are provided us during
         15  the comment period.
         16           In just a couple of weeks, we should have
         17  the transcript available on the Methyl Bromide
         18  website and on the Ozone Depletion website, as well,
         19  and I can give you those, those URLs, so you can
         20  check for that transcript.
         21           The purpose of this hearing is really not
         22  to answer individual questions, but, again, for
          1  interested parties to provide comments on the
          2  proposal.
          3           And as we assemble the Final Rule, we'll
          4  be considering the verbal comments we receive today,
          5  in the same manner that we consider the written
          6  comments that we receive during the comment period.
          7           If you are attending today and are
          8  submitting oral comments and also wish to provide
          9  written comments as a followup, that's fine, too.
         10           And I want to remind you all that the
         11  deadline for submitting comments is now August 21st. 
         12  As you know, the deadline was initially August 6, but
         13  because there was this hearing requested and we want
         14  people to comment on the hearing, as well, that
         15  deadline is now moved to August 21st as the deadline.
         16           Okay, so I hope all of you who are
         17  interested in speaking, checked the speaker box in
         18  the sign-in sheet, or, if not, you can let me know,
         19  personally, as well. So far, we have one individual
         20  who is going to speak today, and that's Peter Joyce
         21  of Value Recovery.
         22           Right now, I'm going to let him take the
          1  floor. Again, if any of you are interested in
          2  speaking, I'll open up the floor for further
          3  comments, afterward.
          4           Peter?
          5           MR. JOYCE: Good morning. My name is
          6  Peter J. Joyce, and I am President of Value Recovery,
          7  Incorporated, a small technology-based research
          8  company located in Southern New Jersey.
          9           We have a 3,000 square foot laboratory for
         10  technology development, and have two patents. Our
         11  Company invents and develops technology for customers
         12  in search of novel chemical separations.
         13           We have technology for removing alkyl
         14  halides from air, water, and solid streams. Of
         15  particular interest is our technology for removing
         16  and simultaneously destroying one very important akly
         17  halide, methyl bromide, from ventilation streams and
         18  fumigations of soil, pre-plant, post-harvest, and
         19  QPS.
         20           The technology has been described at
         21  several international NBAO meetings, and, the most
         22  detailed description to date, is published in the E-
          1  Docket at OPP-2005-0123-205.1.
          2           My comments this morning are in response
          3  to the Notice of July 6, published in the Federal
          4  Register. I will specifically address the request on
          5  page 38,336, third column, in which the Agency states
          6  "In addition, the Agency welcomes comments on the
          7  implementation of emission minimization and whether
          8  and how further emission minimization could be
          9  achieved.
         10           We feel that the potential for emissions
         11  reduction of methyl bromide is very great, and could
         12  have a significant impact on the Agency's and
         13  Montreal Protocol's stated goals of protecting the
         14  ozone layer.
         15           In our experience, we've run up against
         16  many barriers in our desire to commercialize this
         17  technology. These barriers are neither technical,
         18  nor economic. They are barriers of power, politics,
         19  common sense, leadership, and will.
         20           And since you've given me the opportunity
         21  to shed light on how further emission minimization
         22  techniques could be achieved and how they are blocked
          1  by these barriers, I've come here voluntarily here
          2  today in response to your request.
          3           For us, emission minimization means the
          4  use of emissions controls that result in elimination
          5  of at least 70 percent and up to 99 percent of the
          6  methyl bromide used in a fumigation.
          7           The first barrier to adoption of emissions
          8  controls is that no -- and the major one -- is that
          9  no commercial incentives to industry have been
         10  offered by either the Montreal Protocol, or the EPA,
         11  to use emissions control technology for either pre-
         12  plant, post-harvest, or QPS.
         13           There are incentives with regard to soil,
         14  and those are in the requirement to obtain CUEs. This
         15  is a matter of public record, and it's been told to
         16  us numerous times. In one instance, a green
         17  California grower told me point blank, that even
         18  though he would love to try our technology for ozone
         19  layer protection, to do so would put him at a cost
         20  disadvantage to his competitor, who was under no
         21  obligation to use emission controls.
         22           Commercial incentives could be in the form
          1  of a CUE credit on a per-pound or fraction-of-a-pound
          2  basis. Thus, if an entity could verify that it had
          3  used methyl bromide, but had not admitted it into the
          4  atmosphere through third-party verification, then
          5  that use should not be deducted from his CUE.
          6           Room for this approach is stated in both
          7  the Clean Air Act and in the Montreal Protocol. In
          8  relating to the regulation of methyl bromide under
          9  the Montreal Protocol, Section 6 of the 1997 Clean
         10  Air Act, Definition 11, states: "Produce, produced,
         11  and production, the terms, 'produce,' 'produced,' and
         12  'production,' refer to the manufacture of a substance
         13  from any raw material or feedstock chemical, but such
         14  items do not include (a) the manufacture of a
         15  substance that is used and entirely consumed, except
         16  for trace quantities in the manufacture of other
         17  chemicals, or, (b) the reuse or recycling of a
         18  substance.
         19           Clearly, the authors of the Clean Air Act,
         20  intended that methyl bromide that did not reach the
         21  atmosphere, should be exempt from the definition of
         22  "production," due to the inclusion of the exemption
          1  terms, "reuse or recycling." 
          2           If, to Definition B, we could add, quote,
          3  "chemically destroyed in situ," then a massive
          4  incentive to use emission controls would result. The
          5  fact that this modification has not been implemented,
          6  is a barrier characterized by a lack of leadership.
          7           The amount of methyl bromide removed by
          8  emission controls, can be easily measured and
          9  verified through third parties. If this information
         10  had value in terms of non-CUE allowances for the use
         11  of methyl bromide, companies would want to collect
         12  it, collect this information, and report on it.
         13           Second barrier: The Montreal Protocol,
         14  through Decision 17/9, and CRP-10, at the 25th OEG
         15  meeting in June of 2005, asked for examples of
         16  commercialization of emissions control data.
         17           It took nine months for a one-page form to
         18  report data on emissions control technology to become
         19  available. The form never appeared on the Ozone
         20  Secretary's website, even though the Director stated
         21  it would be.
         22           It became available to us from a
          1  consultant to the EPA. The form is technically
          2  inconsistent, contradictory, and poorly documented.
          3           It confuses concentration and mass in the
          4  way that it accounts for the methyl bromide
          5  controlled.
          6           Finally, the form shows a lack of
          7  fundamental understanding of basic chemical
          8  principles. Despite making the requested data
          9  submission, we have not heard one word from the
         10  Montreal Protocol, or from Dr. Jonathan Banks, the
         11  designee to oversee receipt of this information.
         12           This year, emissions control was not even
         13  on the Montreal Protocol OEWG agenda. In addition,
         14  we were also denied the opportunity to present our
         15  data, an approach to the Montreal Protocol, through
         16  the use of a side session that was supposed to be
         17  open to all stakeholders.
         18           We can only conclude that the Montreal
         19  Protocol does not believe that emissions control
         20  technology companies are stakeholders in the goal of
         21  reducing ozone depletion.
         22           The Montreal Protocol may also be in
          1  violation of Article IX, Paragraph 1(a) in denying
          2  our request.
          3           We suggest strongly that the EPA make a
          4  point to the Protocol to provide expectations for
          5  experimentation and support for emissions control
          6  technologies and then foster an environment for the
          7  exchange of information.
          8           This is a barrier of political power to
          9  reach those entities and countries who might want to
         10  be on the cutting edge of introducing new technology.
         11           This is further reinforced, because we
         12  were also denied the opportunity to attend an
         13  international meeting on ozone depletion in Lisbon,
         14  Portugal, in 2004. We were told, quote, "We cannot
         15  allow you to attend."
         16           The third barrier, an argument that
         17  rejects the advocacy of emissions controls, the third
         18  barrier is an argument that rejects the advocacy of
         19  emissions controls, in that it would lessen the
         20  incentive to develop alternatives. This means that
         21  if users had a choice between adopting alternatives
         22  or using emissions controls and chose emissions
          1  controls, then the desired solution to the methyl
          2  bromide problem, switching to alternatives, would be
          3  severely hurt, because users would not have to give
          4  up methyl bromide.
          5           The three points can be made to counter
          6  this argument: The first is, so what? From a short-
          7  term perspective, if the alternatives developers have
          8  less of an incentive to develop alternatives, because
          9  less methyl bromide is being emitted into the
         10  atmosphere, then isn't this what is supposed to
         11  happen?
         12           The fundamental basis for the development
         13  of alternatives, is that they protect the atmosphere. 
         14  If there is protection for the atmosphere by an
         15  alternative solution like emissions controls, then
         16  why is this a concern?
         17           The objective is to keep methyl bromide
         18  out of the atmosphere and the one-way mentality of
         19  using only alternatives, should not be allowed to
         20  keep emissions controls from emerging.
         21           The second counter to this argument is
         22  from a long-term perspective. The alternatives
          1  manufacturers have been on notice since at least
          2  1992, when it was obvious that a ban on methyl
          3  bromide would be forthcoming.
          4           They have had an open playing field and
          5  have been protected from emissions advocacy for 14
          6  years. If they can't get these problems solved by
          7  now, then how much longer should they be given? 
          8  Another 14 years?
          9           Is there a contractual obligation on the
         10  part of the EPA to give alternative suppliers a
         11  regulatory advantage at the expense of potential
         12  adoption of emissions control technology?
         13           The advocacy by the Agency of
         14  alternatives, is well documented and understood. The
         15  political support has been broad and deep, and there
         16  is no reason for this support to wane.
         17           However, support for alternatives should
         18  not be cast as a corresponding competition with the
         19  same space by emissions controls. This defies common
         20  sense.
         21           Finally, the argument is made that the use
         22  of -- the counter arguments: Finally, the argument
          1  is made that the use of emissions controls for methyl
          2  bromide will mean that to adopt emissions control
          3  methods -- that users who will adopt emissions
          4  control methods, and be even more reluctant to give
          5  up methyl bromide, quote, "when it becomes phased
          6  out," unquote.
          7           The overwhelming evidence from the CUE
          8  submissions in the exempt areas of QPS and crisis
          9  uses, is that it will never -- or, should I say, not
         10  in our lifetimes, be completely phased out.
         11           Fourteen years have gone by since the
         12  Protocol was signed, and, this year, the use level
         13  for 2007, is down to 29 percent of the 1991 baseline. 
         14  At that rate, and without a major technical
         15  breakthrough or policy change, it will take another
         16  14 years and another $165 million in research
         17  spending, to get, potentially, down to eight percent
         18  of the baseline.
         19           The law of diminishing returns is setting
         20  in, and policy should change to reflect reality.
         21           The fear that emissions control will hurt
         22  the development of alternatives, and, in turn, hurt
          1  the goals of ozone depletion, are barriers that show
          2  a lack of common sense and leadership.
          3           Fourth, a review of the 2007 approved CUE
          4  nominations, shows that the allowed-use level in the
          5  U.S. is 29 percent of the 1991 baseline. A further
          6  review of those nominations show that applicants have
          7  requested 58 percent of the baseline.
          8           If one assumes that at least five to ten
          9  percent more would use methyl bromide, but did not
         10  bother to go through the cumbersome application
         11  process, potentially because of the stigma associated
         12  with asking for more methyl bromide, then a
         13  reasonable estimate for the need for methyl bromide,
         14  is 65 to 70 percent of the 1991 baseline.
         15           In other words, after four years and over
         16  $165 million in research funding, the desire for
         17  methyl bromide in the U.S. has only decreased by 30
         18  to 35 percent and maybe even less.
         19           Its use level is much less, due to an
         20  imposed Government fiat, and not due to voluntary
         21  substitutions. Methyl bromide is not going away
         22  anytime soon, and policies that its use will go to
          1  zero, absolute zero, serve no public purpose.
          2           Often Value Recovery has asked, why aren't
          3  the methyl bromide suppliers interested in emissions
          4  control technology? After all, the introduction of
          5  emissions controls would allow the suppliers to sell
          6  more and thus make much more money, which is the
          7  ultimate objective of any corporation.
          8           However, a closer look at the methyl
          9  supply dynamic, explains why selling less methyl
         10  bromide, actually makes more money for the producers.
         11           Since the Government has specified which
         12  methyl bromide suppliers can sell in the U.S., and
         13  the proportions they can sell, then most of the
         14  competitive incentive to compete on prices, is
         15  removed.
         16           Also, since only four companies are
         17  allowed to sell in the U.S., they need not fear any
         18  new competition. The Government-mandated cartel of
         19  methyl bromide has come into existence.
         20           Since the demand far outstrips the supply,
         21  the methyl bromide prices rise, instead of fall, as
         22  time goes by. Methyl bromide suppliers keep raising
          1  their prices to cover both their fixed and operating
          2  costs, and to keep their cashflow constant, or, in
          3  one case, have actually increase cashflows.
          4           Thus, higher prices allow some
          5  alternatives into the market, and lets the Agency and
          6  the Protocol claim that alternatives are replacing
          7  methyl bromide.
          8           Thus, by carefully planning how much
          9  global supply decrease will appease the Protocol,
         10  and, simultaneously keep cashflows constant or
         11  rising, by rising prices, then the suppliers are in
         12  the best of both worlds.
         13           The cry from the industry for relief on
         14  spiraling prices, is clear, and has shown up
         15  extremely recently in OAR 2005-0538-106, which was
         16  submitted to this E-Docket on July 18 by Plum Creek.
         17           In business valuations, one takes the
         18  future cashflow of a company and discounts for the
         19  risk of the business. Regarding methyl bromide
         20  supply, there is no risk, thus, the valuations are
         21  very high.
         22           Since the value generated in any business
          1  is a tug-of-war between the shareholders and the
          2  consumer, excluding, of course, management's
          3  salaries, then the loser in this equation is the
          4  consumer.
          5           Supplier business valuations keep going
          6  up, while production decreases. Thus, we believe
          7  this is the reason that supplies have not erased
          8  emissions control technology, because, in the
          9  regulated environment, it is not in their interest to
         10  do so, because they will make less money, and they
         11  are merely following the directives of the
         12  shareholders to maximize the returns of whom they are
         13  responsible to.
         14           The make less money because the higher
         15  costs of emissions control, would go to someone else
         16  and not to them.
         17           We advocate opening up competition for
         18  methyl bromide supply and providing incentives for
         19  new suppliers to add value to their product through
         20  emissions control.
         21           To allow for the continued extraction of
         22  value from the consumer in terms of higher prices,
          1  along with lessened ozone depletion, is a barrier of
          2  political leadership.
          3           Number 5: In this testimony, I have
          4  repeatedly advocated that EPA support commercial
          5  incentives for the implementation of methyl bromide
          6  controls as a fundamental method for supporting their
          7  adoption.
          8           Our recommendation for those incentives,
          9  are summarized as follows: The Clean Air Act and the
         10  Montreal Protocol have allowances in their
         11  definitions for production of methyl bromide, to
         12  exempt methyl bromide that has been chemically
         13  destroyed, post-fumigation, from the CUE allocation,
         14  as I mentioned earlier.
         15           In other words, if one can prove that a
         16  pound of methyl bromide used in a fumigation, did not
         17  enter the atmosphere, then this pound would not count
         18  against the CUE. In simple terms, doesn't this make
         19  sense?
         20           After all, if protection of the ozone
         21  layer is the ultimate objective of the Clean Air Act
         22  and the Montreal Protocol, and it is proven that, in
          1  spite of the use of methyl bromide, the ozone layer
          2  was, indeed, protected from it, then why should it be
          3  rationed?
          4           Both the Protocol and the EPA, need to
          5  revisit the regulation of methyl bromide based on
          6  use. As in most regulatory systems, it may be easier
          7  to manage for the Agency, but much more painful for
          8  the industry and consumers.
          9           And, is managing use really easy? Based
         10  on the continued drumbeat of requests for CUEs, I
         11  don't believe that industry would reject a system
         12  where they report on methyl bromide use, destroyed
         13  after use, and also emitted, provided access to
         14  increased sources of methyl bromide was available.
         15           Another commercial incentive would be for
         16  the EPA to publish methyl bromide emissions from
         17  users on an annual basis. For some reason, the
         18  vented amount of methyl bromide by users, does not
         19  show up in the TRI database for hazard emissions.
         20           I do not know the reason. It does for
         21  some industries, but not for all. I do not know the
         22  reason that this information is kept secret, and
          1  wonder if it is even legal to do so.
          2           The public's right to know is a well-
          3  established legal principle. Publishing fumigation
          4  data by user, would provide ample incentive for those
          5  companies or industry groups wishing to gain a
          6  marketing edge, based on using stated green
          7  technologies.
          8           In addition, publishing emissions data
          9  might be an incentive for companies who use methyl
         10  bromide, to actually adopt alternatives, as well.
         11           Another incentive that we recommend, is
         12  that the EPA publish a drop-dead date, five or some
         13  other years into the future, where a minimum of 50
         14  percent of methyl bromide use must be contained in
         15  some kind of emissions-control use, or use of methyl
         16  bromide would be prohibited. In ten years or some
         17  other date, a 95-percent emissions control would be
         18  required.
         19           In the '70s and '80s, the EPA went to
         20  great lengths to ensure that sulfur dioxide, nitrous
         21  oxide, mercury, and a plethora of hazardous air
         22  pollutants, were not allowed into the atmosphere,
          1  period.
          2           For some reason, all of that experience
          3  and policy does not seem to apply to methyl bromide
          4  emissions, and there is no reason not to do this.
          5           I do not know where the chemical
          6  industry's Responsible Care Initiative comes into
          7  play on this issue, other than to say it is absent. 
          8  This also could serve as an incentive for
          9  alternatives.
         10           Another incentive we'd recommend, is that
         11  the Agency seriously consider allowing new methyl
         12  bromide competition into the United States, that
         13  would be linked to controlling emissions.
         14           Maybe the mere threat of competition would
         15  convince the suppliers to support emissions control.
         16           Other points about our experience and
         17  observations that may shed light on enhancing the use
         18  of methyl bromide emissions controls, are as follows: 
         19  First, the original concept of replacing methyl
         20  bromide with alternatives, followed the model used to
         21  replace CFCs as refrigerants, and is not supported
         22  when one does a first-principles analysis and detects
          1  a technical flaw in the approach of using a methyl
          2  bromide substitution in line with a CFC substitution.
          3           The flaw is also evident in the need for
          4  continued use of methyl bromide via CUEs, since a
          5  drop-in replacement is not available.
          6           If one looks at the requirements to
          7  replace CFCs -- and it could be argued that this was
          8  a much easier problem to solve than the one for
          9  replacing methyl bromide -- first, the process of
         10  replacing CFCs, required substitutes that could
         11  substitute for the physical attributes of CFCs, such
         12  as diffusivity, volatility, and density relative to
         13  air, as well as other physical attributes.
         14           And replacing methyl bromide, besides
         15  replacing the physical attributes, one also has to
         16  find a substitute for its reactivity, since the
         17  reactivity of a fumigant is probably its most
         18  critical attribute.
         19           Thus, finding a substitute for methyl
         20  bromide requires simultaneously matching physical and
         21  reactive properties, as opposed to replacing only
         22  physical attributes, as in the case of CFCs.
          1           This is not a trivial technical task. In
          2  looking closer at CFCs, one notices that they all
          3  have at least two carbon atoms and sometimes three,
          4  while methyl bromide has only one.
          5           Thus, the degree of freedom available for
          6  the replacement of CFCs, were much greater, due to
          7  CFCs being more complex molecules than methyl
          8  bromide, and thus the probability of replacement
          9  success, much greater.
         10           This is borne out in the numerous CUE
         11  applications where there is overwhelming agreement
         12  across industries and applications, that a direct
         13  substitute for all of the remaining methyl bromide
         14  CUEs, will be impossible to achieve.
         15           This is further supported by the agreement
         16  to allow an outright ban exemption for quarantine and
         17  preshipment applications, where the thought of a
         18  drop-in replacement for methyl bromide is sometimes
         19  met with ridicule.
         20           Second point: We have done two
         21  commercial-scale demonstrations of approximately
         22  3,000 cubic feet of fumigation volume, at Royal
          1  Fumigation at the Port of Wilmington, Delaware, on
          2  imported grapes and at Insects Limited in Westville,
          3  Indiana, on exports.
          4           Both demonstrations worked, in that we
          5  were able to show through a mass balance, an in situ,
          6  instantaneous destruction of 87 and 91 percent
          7  destruction of methyl bromide from vent streams.
          8           Both were in real-world conditions, and
          9  the latter was done at 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
         10           In both demonstrations, we were able to
         11  verify mass balance of chemically-destroyed methyl
         12  bromide. We have a design and significant market
         13  interest for 100,000 and one million cubic foot
         14  systems, amenable to large-scale import fumigations
         15  and structural fumigations, respectively.
         16           The design of these larger systems
         17  overcome an inherent limitation we have on the size
         18  of the scrubbers, by applying carbon absorption as an
         19  intermediate step to separate out most of the air and
         20  simultaneously decouple our operation from the time
         21  pressure of their respective operations.
         22           The waste from our process is non-

          1  hazardous and benign, and waste treatment costs are
          2  very low.
          3           Third point: Recently, our second methyl
          4  bromide patent was published. In it, we show the
          5  solubilizing agent for enhancing methyl bromide
          6  reactions, is polyethylene glycol, a food additive. 
          7  Thus, our chemical system for destroying methyl
          8  bromide, consists of ammonium thiosulfate,
          9  polyethylene glycol, and water.
         10           Ammonium thiosulfate can be purchased in
         11  bulk for 18 cents a pound, and 30 cents worth of
         12  ammonium thiosulfate is enough to chemically destroy
         13  a pound of methyl bromide. Our system will work
         14  without the polyethylene glycol, even though a lower
         15  conversion will result.
         16           Thus, we claim that chemical scrubbing, as
         17  practiced by our Company, is uncomplicated,
         18  verifiable, cheap, easy to operate, and works on a
         19  broad range of environments, and yet it still isn't
         20  supported.
         21           Lastly, often we hear the reviewers need
         22  more data. Data can be a substitute for real
          1  knowledge, when the operating principles are not
          2  understood, or a model not available.
          3           However, based our published commercial
          4  trials, patent applications, and presentations at
          5  national meetings, we have contributed to well
          6  established mathematical process model that is in
          7  plain sight, is derivable from first principles of
          8  kinetics, thermodynamics, transfer phenomena, mass
          9  and energy balances.
         10           Only the truly incompetent reviewers need
         11  more data. In our view, then need for more data is a
         12  smoke screen for delays, the desire to grow a
         13  regulatory or political bureaucracy, and job
         14  justification.
         15           The inability of the Montreal Protocol to
         16  absorb and respond to our information, is without
         17  justification.
         18           In summary, I have presented you with our
         19  experiences and frustrations in trying to provide
         20  emissions control technology to those interested in
         21  protecting the ozone layer from methyl bromide
         22  emissions.
          1           The overall issue in this regard is that
          2  there are no commercial incentives whatsoever for
          3  someone to install very high levels of emissions
          4  control technology.
          5           Right now, only local environmental
          6  regulations related to harmful pesticide exposure or
          7  a sense of civic pride, are the only reasons someone
          8  would install this technology.
          9           It is mind-boggling that a technology can
         10  be allowed to sit on the shelf, while unnecessary
         11  suffering is endured by both consumers and growers. 
         12  To not show interest, such as the recent e-mail I
         13  received, where a high-ranking member of the EPA
         14  could not make it to a commercial demonstration
         15  because travel to Indiana, quote, "was not in the
         16  budget," unquote, and to not provide incentives for
         17  this or other technologies to protect the ozone
         18  layer, is unconscionable.
         19           There either is or isn't a problem with
         20  methyl bromide in the ozone layer. If there isn't,
         21  then let's turn out the lights and forget this 14-
         22  year sojourn has ever happened.
          1           If there is a problem, then solve it, or
          2  let those of us who have the answer, have a level
          3  playing field to solve it.
          4           Thirty-five years ago, this country
          5  launched a determined program to put a man on the
          6  moon in seven years, and did it. The lunar module
          7  had less electrical sophistication than today's cell
          8  phones.
          9           Certainly, the same country can take one
         10  of the most reactive and potentially harmful
         11  industrial molecules, keep it contained, and force it
         12  into a well known destructive chemical reaction in
         13  water, and do it safely and economically.
         14           It should not be up to a small
         15  entrepreneurial company with extremely limited
         16  resources, to have to lead this effort. When this
         17  technology emerged over three years ago on May 28th,
         18  2003, it should have been embraced.
         19           Due to intense public pressure, the
         20  chemical and process industries came to terms with
         21  the air emissions over 30 years ago. It is time for
         22  the agriculture industry to mature and take care of
          1  their air emissions, as well.
          2           Thank you very much for the invitation to
          3  share with you, my views on this subject.
          4           MS. MONTORO: Thank you very much, Mr.
          5  Joyce, for your comments. Is there anybody else
          6  today who may not have signed up to speak, but who
          7  would like to provide additional comments on the
          8  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
          9           (No response.) 
         10           MS. MONTORO: Nobody else? Okay, then,
         11  thank you all very much for coming. Again, I do
         12  appreciate your attendance today, and we will be
         13  posting the transcript of this hearing on
         14  epa.gov\ozone and ozone\mbr, in about two weeks. You
         15  can also call me, if you have any questions about the
         16  transcript.
         17           Thank you very much for your attendance
         18  today. 
         19           (Whereupon, at 1:35 a.m., the hearing was
         20  concluded.) 

Top of page

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.