Minutes, EIPS Meeting Dec. 13, 2001

Attendees:

Jane Levy (USDA)
John Healy (IFCO Systems)
John Clarke (Va. Tech)
David Zessin (Agilent)
Suzanne Keeler (HP)
Ron Johnson (Intel)
Bob Sanders (IBM)

IPPC STANDARD STATUS:

IPPC WEBSITE: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/

IPPC STANDARD:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pim/standards/WoodPack_rev2.PDF

Jane Levy reported to everyone's surprise, including her own, that the latest (post public comments) draft is now available for review and that it will be put to a final vote at the next IPPC meeting slated for March, 2002!! Considering the amount of public comments that were received in September (including EIPS input), another round including a second opportunity for comments was expected. However, it now appears imminent that the standard will be approved in its present form in March. Jane also reported that it is not customary for the committee to respond to all parties that submit input and that no explanation should be expected regarding what was accepted/included and what wasn't.

Jane also reported that the IPPC includes 116 member countries and that implementation in many of these countries could be very swift. The US approach which involves considerable time for multiple level reviews and consensus is unusual. She did not expect the US to be able to adopt regulations in support of the IPPC standard prior to the 2004 or 2005 time frame. She acknowledged that there is still considerable debate internally regarding the efficacy of the 56C/30minutes heat treatment limits. There is still a lot of discussion about the US potentially requiring 71C/75minutes to extend the range of pests to include other pathogens such as fungi and so on. The IPPC standard would be viewed as a minimum standard and some countries, notably Australia (and maybe the US), will continue to require more stringent standards. However, such countries would be obligated to provide biological proof that higher standards were needed in order to require treatment above and beyond the 56C/30minutes IPPC standard. Furthermore, loopholes would exist for countries to exclude other specific countries if the risk was considered small (example, neighboring countries). In Australia's case, they probably can justify it since many tropical pests and others like termites have not become widespread there. Thus, materials like plywood may still be insufficient from a truly global compliance perspective but would be compliant with the IPPC standard.

The current draft as expected does cover both coniferous and non-coniferous species with equal treatment options. Those options now include Methyl Bromide (MB) fumigation as a treatment measure viewed equally to heat treatment and both are viewed as permanent treatments. This means that they must be permanently marked as such. Fumigation would be indicated by the "MB" mark since MB is the only approved fumigant. Subject wood (NMWP) also must be debarked regardless. Previous versions indicated that debarking was not needed if heat treated but this has been removed..

Other good news is that our message regarding a clear, language free symbol definitely was acknowledged and included (the bug free symbol). Also, that other identifying marks are allowable and supplementary to that (such as inspection agency logo's). Furthermore, that markings on two opposite vertoca; sides is preferred (but not specifically mandated). Also, there is no mention of the use of the bug symbol to be prohibited on non-regulated materials (example processed wood). Does this mean we can use it on processed wood if it doesn't say we can't??. Bottom line, this thing is coming along a little quicker than expected but it also appears to be more achievable.

CURRENT EU STATUS:

There have been few if any reports of enforcement actions in the EU. The only known held shipments involved items that included softwood but the markings were placed on the plywood portion of the assembly. Apparently, this was viewed as a non-compliance by one inspector. The shipment was eventually released without incident other than the delay. NOTE: Our current spec allows markings to appear anywhere on the assembly, not necessarily on the regulated portion of the assembly. What if all the regulated materials were INSIDE the crate? Maybe we should specify that markings appear on the regulated items if feasible and visible from the outside. Comments?

There continue to be concerns about EU origin packaging that is not marked and then is returned from the US to the EU. At this time there is no practical alternative other than getting these fumigated or treated some other way and marked. Marking items retroactively is not allowable. It was suggested that EU countries adopt the marking scheme identified in their FAQ file.....

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/ph_ps/harm/index_en.htm

Find on that website: quest-answ_woodpack_en.pdf

EIPS MEETING IN FEBRUARY:

Dimensions02 will be in Anaheim, CA from Feb. 16-20, 2002. Consider this note an invitation to attend an EIPS meeting in conjunction with that. There will not likely be conference calling access to that meeting. Please let me know if you'll be in Anaheim and on what dates. We will most likely meet on Monday or Tuesday of that week (luncheon meeting) or 4-6pm on one of those days. Subject to my availability since I am holding IBM meetings there too.

EIPS SPEC, NEXT STEPS:

Ron Johnson expressed concern about the expense of testing ($7K) and asked the other EIPS members to share in that expense. However, it was reported that the PDS system can be used to qualify any wooden pallet.

Also, John Clarke volunteered his services to do cursory short cut testing on candidate pallets free of charge. Any full battery of EIPS tests should be conducted only on candidates for the global pool pallet and of course, those expenses should be borne by the suppliers who hope to sell us that pallet.

MISCELLANEOUS:

For your information, I contributed an article to "Pallet Enterprise" Magazine which included some comments / visionary ideas that had previously been discussed during some of our earlier EIPS meetings. You may find it interesting. It is not available online but here is the text of it if you're interested......

(See attached file: PalletEnterpriseArticle.pdf)

NEXT MEETING:

January 17, 2002 per normal schedule. Dialing instructions remain the same.

Regards,

Bob Sanders
Corporate Packaging, Worldwide Distribution
RTP, NC 27709-2195
Phn: 919-543-1260, Fax: 919-543-4253 (IBM T/L: 441)
External Email: btsander@us.ibm.com