DOC

Chapter 5

By Juan Diaz,2014-06-26 22:45
7 views 0
Chapter 5 ...

    Updated version December 2007

Form 2

    Nomination for new uses

    Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for structures, commodities or objects.

SUMMARY PAGE

NOMINATING PARTY:

NAME AS PER NAMING CONVENTION, Para 3.5.2 of Handbook

BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION:

STRUCTURE, COMMODITY OR OBJECT TREATED:

QUANTITY OF METHYL BROMIDE REQUESTED IN EACH YEAR OF NOMINATION:

REASON OR REASONS WHY ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE ARE NOT

    TECHNICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE:

    (Details on this page are requested under Decision Ex. I/4(7), for posting on the Ozone Secretariat website under Decision Ex. I/4(8))

     1

    Updated version December 2007

    NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS:

    Contact Person: Title: Address (include

    city/code numbers):

    Telephone: Fax: E-mail:

    Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1) [insert name of Party] has determined that the specific use detailed in this Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability

    of methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market disruption.

     ? Yes ? No

Signature Name Date

    Title:

2

    Updated version December 2007 CONTACT OR EXPERT/S FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS

    Contact Person: Title: Address (include

    city/code numbers):

    Telephone: Fax:

     E-mail:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL

    NOMINATION PACKAGE

List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating Party to the Ozone Secretariat

    1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of paper documents No. of Date sent to and appendices pages Ozone

    Secretariat

    2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER No. of kb Date sent to DOCUMENTS: *Title of each electronic file (for Ozone naming convention see notes above) Secretariat

* Identical to paper documents

     3

    Updated version December 2007

Part A: INTRODUCTION

1. NOMINATING PARTY AND NAME AS PER NAMING CONVENTION, Para 3.5.2 of

    Handbook:

1. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION

    < 15 words:

2. SITUATION OF NOMINATED METHYL BROMIDE USE

    e.g. food processing structure, commodity (specify)):

3. METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED

    Give quantity requested and years of nomination:

4. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL

    USE

    Describe the particular aspects of the nominated use that make methyl bromide use critical, e.g. lack

    of economic alternatives, unacceptable corrosion risk, lack of efficacy of alternatives under the

    particular circumstances of the nomination:

5. METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION FOR PAST 5 YEARS AND AMOUNT

    REQUIRED IN THE YEAR(S) NOMINATED:

     Year Metric tonnes Actual (A) or

    estimate (E)

    Previous

    years

    Year(s) of

    nomination

     5

    Updated version December 2007

    6. LOCATION OF THE FACILITY OR FACILITIES WHERE THE PROPOSED

    CRITICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE WILL TAKE PLACE

    Give name and physical address. Continue on separate sheet(s) as annex to this form if necessary.

    Number each address from one onwards. If the list is not available, or can not be made available to

    MBTOC, the Party is requested to indicate that it has checked the list of addresses and confirmed that

    there is no double-counting or that other methods have been used to ensure that an applicant only

    applies for methyl bromide in one application. This is particularly important when pest control

    operators apply for methyl bromide on behalf of customers or potential customers.

Part B: SITUATION CHARACTERISTICS AND MB USE

    7. KEY PESTS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED:

    No Genus and species for which the use Common name Indicate if common

    of methyl bromide is critical or minor pest 1 2 3 Add more rows if required

    8. SUMMARY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE METHYL BROMIDE IS

    CURRENTLY BEING USED

     Give ranges of dosage, exposure or temperatures, if appropriate

(a) Commodities

    No Methyl bromide Exposure Temp. Number of Proportion of Fixed (F),

    dosage time (?C) fumigations product mobile (M) -3(g m) (hours) per year** treated at or stack

    this dose * (S) 1 2 3 4 ? Advise if this information is not available.

    ? ** Where only part of a structure is fumigated, count partial fumigations separately in this

    column

    Add more rows if required

     6

    Updated version December 2007 (b) Fixed facilities

     3 Type of construction Vol (m) or Number of Gastightness estimate*

    and approximate age in range facilities e.g. 5

    years silos

    1

    2

    3

    4

Add more rows if required

    *Give gastightness estimates where possible according to the following gastightness scale: ‘A’ - less than 25% gas loss within 24 hours or half loss time of pressure difference (e.g. 20 to 10 Pa (t)) 1/2greater than 1 minute; ‘B’ – 25-50% gas loss within 24 hours or half loss time of pressure difference

    greater than 10 seconds; ‘C’ – 50-90% gas loss within 24 hours or half loss time of pressure

    difference 1-10 second: ‘D’– more than 90% gas loss within 24 hours or a pressure half loss time of

    less than 1 second.

    9. LIST ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE BEING USED TO CONTROL

    KEY TARGET PEST SPECIES IN THIS SECTOR

    Include main alternative techniques for situations similar to the nomination such as given in MBTOC

    and TEAP reports indexed at http://www.unep.org/ozone/teap/MBTOC and in MBTOC Assessment

    Reports:

    10. REGISTRATION OF ALTERNATIVES

    Report registration status in your country of main alternatives techniques for the subject of this CUN.

    Include information that either restricts the use of the alternative, or broadens the use of the

    alternative compared to methyl bromide.

     7

    Updated version December 2007

    11. SUMMARISE THE ALTERNATIVE(S) TESTED, STARTING WITH THE MOST PROMISING:

    No. Methyl Month/Year Premises for which Organisation(s) Summary of key Comparison of Reference

    bromide project started the CUN is undertaking the results (maximum efficacy of number*

    alternative and finished requested where research of 20 words per alternative with

    (e.g. Nov 99 alternatives have entry) methyl bromide ?Oct 04) been tested

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Add more rows or attach additional results as necessary.

    ? Place address number from Question 7 next to treatment e.g. 1-9 heat; 10 SF. This means heat was tested at address locations 1-9 and sulfuryl fluoride at location 10.

    * Use numbering of references as given in Question 16.

If necessary, any additional comments:

8

    Updated version December 2007

    12. SUMMARISE TECHNICAL REASONS, IF ANY, FOR EACH

    ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE FOR

    YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES

    For economic constraints, see Question 14

    No. Methyl bromide Technical reason (if any) for the Estimated month/year

    alternative (as shown alternative not being feasible when the technical

    in Q10) constraint could be solved

    1 2 3 4 5 6

    If necessary, add further details on why an alternative was not technically feasible:

    Part D: EMISSION CONTROL

    13. HOW HAS THIS SECTOR REDUCED THE USE AND EMISSIONS OF

    METHYL BROMIDE IN THE SITUATION OF THE NOMINATION?

    Describe procedures used to determine optimum methyl bromide dosages and

    exposures, improved sealing processes, (refer to gastightness standards given in

    Question 9(b) above) monitoring systems and other activities that are in place to

    minimise dosage and emissions. Is methyl bromide recapture equipment in use and if

    so describe its efficacy.

     9

    Updated version December 2007

Part E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

    14. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES METHODOLOGY

    MBTOC will assess economic infeasibility based on the methodology submitted by the

    nominating Party. Partial budget analysis showing the operations’ gross and net

    returns for methyl bromide and next best alternatives is a widely accepted approach.

    Analyses should be supported by discussions identifying which costs and revenues

    change and why. The following measures may be useful descriptors of the economic

    outcome using methyl bromide or alternatives. Parties may identify additional

    measures. Regardless of the methodology used, this section should explain why the

    calculated measures with the alternative are levels that indicate the alternative is not

    economically feasible. In the case of culturally significant and historical artifacts

    economic assessment is not necessary.

The following measures or indicators may be used as a guide for providing such a

    description:

    (a) The purchase cost per kilogram of methyl bromide and of the

    alternative;

    (a) Gross and net revenue with and without methyl bromide, and with the

    next best alternative;

    (b) Percentage change in gross revenues if alternatives are used;

    (c) Losses per cubic meter relative to methyl bromide if alternatives are

    used;

    (d) Losses per kilogram of methyl bromide requested if alternatives are

    used;

    (e) Losses as a percentage of net cash revenue if alternatives are used;

    (f) Percentage change in profit margin if alternatives are used.

     10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com