Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you on methyl bromide and on EPA's
efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer. As you know,
Mr. Chairman, this protective layer is essential to life on this
planet, shielding us from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Starting
in 1977 when Nobel prize-winning American scientists first discovered
the link between chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions into the atmosphere
and depletion of the earth's ozone layer, the United States Congress,
industry, researchers, policy makers, and consumers have led the
way in worldwide commitment and action. Since the Montreal Protocol
was signed in 1987, over 160 countries have joined efforts to
simultaneously phase out ozone depleting substances while finding
effective and safe alternatives used in a wide array of applications
such as refrigeration, air conditioning, aerosols, metal and electronics
cleaning, foam blowing, and fire suppression. We have made tremendous
progress, as evidenced by recent measurements of worldwide declines
in atmospheric chlorine concentrations.
Nevertheless, remaining challenges are enormous. World ozone
layer recovery hinges on global compliance with the Montreal Protocol
as currently drafted and the international community continues
to work to achieve global reductions in remaining uses. Recent
scientific data from satellites and balloons highlighted unusually
low ozone levels in the Arctic, following a pattern previously
only seen at the Antarctic ozone hole. The National Cancer Institute
recently reported that while incidence of all other cancers have
declined, the rate of malignant skin cancer in the U.S. continues
to increase. Scientific findings like these underscore the importance
of continued vigilance if we are to be successful.
You have asked me here today to address the methyl bromide phaseout.
Methyl bromide is one of the most commonly used pesticides in
the United States and for the past 40 years has been used by American
farmers and associated industries for soil fumigation, postharvest
treatment of perishables and nonperishables at storage facilities,
and quarantine purposes. Given these diverse applications, we
understand concerns within the agricultural community about an
eventual methyl bromide phaseout. Indeed, similar concerns were
expressed by users of CFCs and other ozone depleters prior to
finding acceptable alternatives allowing for their successful
phaseout. In the majority of those cases, we have already achieved
the successful replacement of these substances thanks to industry
leadership and public-private collaboration.
EPA's efforts on methyl bromide have been taken through a number
of avenues. We have worked with USDA, research institutions, extension
agents, and growers around the country to find and develop alternatives
to methyl bromide. We have supported efforts to move alternatives
out of the laboratory and onto the farm, where target pests must
be effectively controlled. While there is no one alternative for
all of its many uses, today there are numerous innovative chemical
and non-chemical strategies and tools that effectively control
many of the pests for which methyl bromide is used either available
now or at an advanced stage of development. The Agency's assistance
program has allocated small grants for on-farm studies to strawberry
and tomato growers, the nursery and forestry industries, and tree
fruit growers. In addition, the Agency has developed an extensive
outreach program to inform the agricultural community about available
alternatives. We strongly support the $16.6 million for research
in the FY 99 budget on methyl bromide alternatives that the President
has proposed in USDA's Agriculture Research Service. We will continue
to focus our efforts to ensure that safe and effective substitutes
for methyl bromide are developed as expeditiously as possible.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA also regulates methyl bromide due to its direct effects
on public health and the environment. In addition to its damaging
effects on stratospheric ozone, methyl bromide is classified by
the Agency as a Toxicity Category I pesticide on a scale of I
- IV, with I being most acutely toxic for short-term, acute health
effects. It is an acute neurotoxin, and even in relatively small
doses can kill, or irreversibly damage major organs, like the
liver and kidneys. As a result, methyl bromide is controlled as
a restricted use pesticide, to be used only by trained and certified
applicators or persons under their direct supervision. Additionally,
personal protective equipment and other use precautions are required.
Data have recently been submitted to EPA in support of requests
for reregistration of this pesticide under the 1988 amendments
to FIFRA.
Methyl bromide is regulated under the Clean Air Act because
of its ozone depleting potential. On a molecule per molecule basis,
bromine from methyl bromide is 40-50 times more destructive to
stratospheric ozone than chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons. Based
on a new understanding of how bromine affects stratospheric ozone,
the 1994 international science assessment under the Montreal Protocol
identified methyl bromide as a powerful ozone depleting substance
and a global production phaseout was agreed upon. Industrialized
countries have agreed to a phaseout by 2005 while developing countries
must phaseout methyl bromide by 2015.
Obviously, the current Clean Air Act deadline of 2001 binds
us to a more aggressive timetable, which presents a disparity
with other industrialized countries under the Montreal Protocol.
This Administration has consistently expressed a willingness to
consider targeted legislative changes if we approach the 2001
methyl bromide phaseout date and find that alternatives do not
exist for control of key pests. However, we oppose proposals that
would more broadly open the Clean Air Act or put the United States
out of compliance with the Montreal Protocol.
The dilemma we face with methyl bromide is one that we have
faced before and solved before -- a popular and effective pesticide
that unfortunately has serious human health and environmental
risks that we must address. Through laws such as FIFRA and the
Food Quality Protection Act, Congress has spearheaded efforts
to solve such problems while still guaranteeing a safe and plentiful
food supply. Federal agencies including FDA, USDA, and EPA have
had tremendous success in ensuring food safety while providing
farmers opportunities for sustained yields and healthy conditions.
We must continue working to find and promote effective alternatives
to methyl bromide, and other ozone-depleting substances, otherwise
the world community will not be able to stop damage to the ozone
layer and reduce the risk of skin cancers and other health effects
for future generations.
We remain committed to complying with our domestic and international
obligations to protect public health and the environment. We look
forward to working with Congress and all involved parties to protect
the interests of American farmers while meeting these obligations.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}