Montreal Protocol and Emissions Reduction of Methyl Bromide

The Montreal Protocol, an agreement drafted in the mid to late 80’s and signed by over 162 countries, was put in place to phase out ozone depleting substances. Ozone in the upper atmosphere acts as a protective shield against ultra-violet light which can cause increased incidences of skin cancer. At first, the highest priority was chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) that were used as refrigerants. These have been banned outright. The chemical industry has been able to come up with substitutes that do not harm the ozone layer. Next highest on the list was methyl bromide and a phase out schedule for it was put in place under the assumption that chemical alternatives would be available by the time it was eliminated thus using the same replacement model as the CFC’s. The 1994 phase out schedule originally called for a complete ban by 2001. This has since been modified to a complete ban by January 2005 and only for developed countries (US, Japan, Austrailia, New Zealand and the European Union) due to a lack of economic alternatives The developed countries were not able to meet the 2005 phase out deadline and have had to rely on CUE’s or Critical Use Exemptions that are granted on an annual basis by MBTOC (Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee). Granting CUE’s is a politically driven process. The US has been approved to use 39% of its 1991 baseline amount for 2005 and 31% for 2006. The Montreal Protocol decided to ban the use of MB in the developing countries by 2015.

The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) did an economic impact study (reference) of the phase out of methyl bromide for soil fumigation and concluded that annual losses would be $480 million from using alternatives. Most of this would be born by the consumer who would have less supply of mainly tomatoes and strawberries at higher prices. Most of the reduction in methyl bromide use in the US has come from soil fumigation where its use has gone down by more than 80% since 1991.

Besides CUE’s, the only other allowed use of methyl bromide is for Quarantine and Preshipment or Q/PS. Q/PS use is an across the board exemption for the use of methyl bromide in support of trade. Quarantine is on imports that may carry unwanted insect and other pests and Pre-shipment are those items that need to be fumigated 21 days or less before leaving the country. Q/PS use of methyl bromide in the US is estimated at 6 million lbs/yr (Nov 16, 2004 presentation by Anne Bookout at the Port of Wilmington).

Emissions Control and the Montreal Protocol

The phase out of the production of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol is built upon a curious definition of production that is often misused as a basis for not considering the ultimate benefits of economic emissions control. The Montreal Protocol does call for the phase out of the production of methyl bromide. However, the Protocol defines production of ozone depleting substances by the following (Ref Sect 6, Definition No. 5):

“Production” means the amount of controlled substances produced, minus the amount destroyed by technologies to be approved by the parties and minus the amount entirely used as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and reused is not to be considered as “production”.

Clearly, the authors intended that the lack of contribution of methyl bromide to actual emissions in the atmosphere was meant to fall outside of the restrictions imposed by the Protocol. The exception in the definition for methyl bromide made for use for another chemical, as a feedstock, would not contribute to emissions and methyl bromide that was captured or recycled would also not contribute to emissions. The definition of ozone depleting substance in the Clean Air Act is even more explicit and further re-enforces the intent of the authors (Section 6 of the 1997 Clean Air Act, Definition No. 11):

Produce, produced, and production – The terms “produce”, “produced”, and “production”, refer to the manufacture of a substance from any raw material or feedstock chemical, but such items do not include –

(A ) the manufacture of a substance that is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in the manufacture of other chemicals, or

(B) the reuse or recycling of a substance.

Again, use in manufacturing and recycle (or the more unscientific recapture) are purposely exempted. Thus, it is not far fetched to imagine that instantaneous destruction, as we propose, is within the intent of these definitions since we destroy over 90% of the methyl bromide that would be emitted and thus represent a significant reduction in emissions.

What other evidence is there of the intent of the authors of the Protocol regarding emissions?

The introductory paragraph of the 1998 MBTOC reports states:

Emissions from fumigation operations occur through leakage and permeation during treatment (inadvertent emissions) and from venting at the end of a treatment (intentional emissions). Estimates of the proportion of methyl bromide (MB) used that is released into the atmosphere vary widely because of: differences in usage pattern; the condition and nature of fumigated materials; the degree of gas tightness; and local environmental conditions. Some MB may also be converted to non-volatile materials making it incorrect to equate production with emissions.

The last sentence refers to conversion of methyl bromide in soils to methanol via hydrolysis but nonetheless calls attention to a reactive separation that irreversibly converts the methyl bromide making it non-volatile. What, then, is the difference if this is unintentionally done by nature vs. intentionally done by man?

and the UNEP IE Series Report, 1998 “Protecting the Ozone Layer” lays out the case, clearly, for why our approach was never even considered. That report states:

However, recovery and recycling technologies are complex and are likely to prove significantly more expensive in terms of installation, operating cost and competence thant the fumigation facility itself. Furthermore, now that amendments to the Montreal Protocol specify precise schedules for the reduction and phase out of methyl bromide, there are many advantages in moving straight to viable methyl bromide alternatives rather than trying to recover, reclaim or recycle methyl bromide.

Why in the last sentence wasn’t the idea that methyl bromide could be irreversibly reacted even considered?

And finally, the April 2000 TEAP Report states:

There has been some further research and development of previously identified technologies for capturing and recycling and destroying MB from commodity or structure fumigation. In addition to those sites described in the 1998 MBTOC Assessment Report, a small recovery plant in the USA now captures MB for later destruction. These technologies have the potential to reduce MB emissions by 50 to 90% depending upon the commodity. However, their cost and complexity and the absence of MB re-processing facilities currently limits consideration of this technology to locations where emission reduction is mandatory.

Thus, emissions destruction technology has been permanently positioned as being expensive and complex and must be isolated to those instances where “emission reduction is mandatory”. We challenge all of these assumptions.

In conclusion, the Protocol never mentions emissions reduction as a viable alternative because the forces behind it (the Protocol) have put forth an unsupportable argument that emissions control technology is too expensive and too complicated for fumigation operations. As VR has put forth emphatically, these assumptions are clearly wrong and have hurt society.