    [Senate Hearing 107-997]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-997

                PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs)
                               IMPLEMENTATION ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

       S. 2118, A BILL TO AMEND THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT AND THE
              FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT
    TO IMPLEMENT THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
    AND THE PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS TO THE CONVENTION ON
                               LONG-RANGE TRANS-
                             BOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 14, 2002

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                                     ______

    83-693              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          one hundred seventh congress
                                 second session
                      JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
    HARRY REID, Nevada                   JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
    BOB GRAHAM, Florida                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    BARBARA BOXER, California            GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
    HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
    JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey           PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
                     Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
                     Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  MAY 14, 2002
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..     1
    Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire....    28

                                   WITNESSES

    Buccini, chair, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on POPS..    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Burnam, Jeffry M., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment,
      Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
      Affairs, Department of State...................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords......    30
    Johnson, Stephen L., Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    31
    Muir, Warren, executive director, Commission on Life Sciences,
      and executive director, Board on Agriculture and Natural
      Resources, National Research Council...........................    12
        Prepared statement on behalf of Bruce Alberts................    33
        Response to additional question from Senator Jeffords........    35
    Perry, Karen, deputy director, Environment and Health Programs,
      Physicians for Social Responsibility...........................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Jeffords.........................................    61
            Senator Smith............................................    61
    Walls, Michael, senior counsel, American Chemistry Council.......    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    49
    Yeager, Brooks, Vice President for Global Threats, World Wildlife
      Fund...........................................................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    37

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Article, U.S. Ratification of POPs Treaty in Danger..............    56
    Letters:
        American Chemistry Council...................................    53
        OCEANA.......................................................    86
        Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oceana, World Wildlife
          Fund, U.S. PIRG............................................    58
        Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oceana, World Wildlife
          Fund, U.S. PIRG, Sierra Club, American Oceans Campaign,
          Center for International Environmental Law, Pesticide
          Action Network North America, Friends of the Earth, League
          of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, American
          Rivers, The Ocean Conservancy, Earth Island Institute,
          Circumpolar Conservation Union, Indigenous Environmental
          Network, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Silicon Valley
          Toxics Coalition, Atlantic States Legal Foundation Inc.,
          Department of the Planet Earth, Protect All Children's
          Environment, Cancer Action NY, Commonweal, Greenwatch Inc.,
          Pennsylvania Environmental Network, Air, Montana
          Environmental Information Center, Anacostia Watershed
          Society, Northwest Environmental Advocates, Bluewater
          Network, Citizens for a Future New Hampshire, Michigan
          Environmental Council, Friends of Casco Bay................    59
        State of Alaska, Office of the Governor......................    85
    Map, Toxic Hot Spots............................................. 45-48
    Publications:
        CropLife International, Creating Opportunities for
          Sustainable Agriculture.................................... 66-84
        Interagency Collaborative Paper, Contaminants in Alaska: Is
          America's Aractic At Risk?................................. 87-98
    Statements:
        Alberts, Bruce, president, National Academy of Sciences......    33
        Vroom, Jay J., president, CropLife America...................    62
    Text of bill:
        Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
          Implementation Act.........................................99-194

      PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs) IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in room
    406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James Jeffords (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senator Jeffords.

    OPENING STATEMENT Of HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                          THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Senator Jeffords. Good morning. We have had a little
    difficulty getting started on this hearing. I would like to
    thank our witnesses, several of whom flew from great distances
    twice to participate in today's hearing, and we appreciate
    that.
        I am sorry that we did not receive the consent required
    from the minority leader to proceed last Thursday. I know it
    meant a great deal of expense and inconvenience for several of
    you, and therefore I greatly appreciate your dedication for
    coming here today.
        This committee has an important task before it. Last May,
    the United States signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
    Organic Pollutants, otherwise known as the POPs Convention. The
    Senate now has two jobs--to pass this treaty, as well as the
    LRTAP POPs Protocol, and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior
    Informed Consent, and to pass corresponding implementing
    legislation. This committee must craft the implementing
    legislation that will allow the United States to domestically
    fulfill its obligations under these treaties. Passage of these
    treaties is not in dispute.
        After reviewing the Administration's implementing
    legislation, it seems the disagreement centers on whether we
    implement the POPs Convention in its entirety. The POPs
    Convention is a landmark agreement that has brought the
    international community together to protect human health and
    the environment. The initial goal of the convention is to
    phaseout the dirty dozen. These 12 pesticides and industrial
    chemicals and other POPs resist degradation. They are toxic to
    humans and also wildlife, and travel across international
    boundaries.
        Currently in the United States, registration for 9 of the
    12 POPs have been canceled, and the manufacture of PCBs have
    been banned. However, other countries still use these
    substances. They come back to us on our food, in our water, and
    through our air. These POPs create a circle of pollution
    requiring a global solution, and it is a solution that the
    United States has embraced. President Bush stated that the POPs
    Convention is an example of ``the way environmental policy
    should work.'' I agree with the President, and that is why I am
    perplexed by the Administration's POPs implementing proposal.
        In addition to eliminating the dirty dozen, the Convention
    provides process for the nomination, assessment and addition of
    future POPs. This is important to understand. The POPs
    Convention was not intended to be a static agreement. The
    United States made an international commitment to eliminate all
    current and future POPs. The adding mechanism, that is, a
    mechanism to add POPs beyond the dirty dozen, has never been
    disputed. In fact, LRTAP includes four additional POPs. Since
    LRTAP served as a precedent for the POPs Convention
    negotiation, it is reasonable to assume that the four POPs will
    be considered as next likely additions to the POPs Convention.
        Industry, environmentalists, public interest organizations
    and a bipartisan, bicameral group of congressional members have
    joined the Bush administration in supporting the swift
    Convention ratification of POPs. I expect to hear support for
    an adding mechanism from all of our witnesses at today's
    hearing.
        My legislation, the POPs Implementation Act of 202, mirrors
    the POPs Convention. Like the Administration's proposal
    introduced by Senator Smith, my bill seeks to amend TSCA and
    FIFRA, for example. Both bills provide EPA with the authority
    to prohibit the manufacture of POPs for export. However, only
    the legislation I have introduced takes the next step. It
    provides a process consistent with the POPs Convention for
    listing additional chemicals. The Administration proposal fails
    to include this mechanism.
        I am concerned about the omission of the adding mechanism
    and demonstrations of unwillingness to fulfill the U.S.
    commitment to the POPs Convention, and it would severely slow
    down any future attempt to eliminate toxics. The Administration
    is proposing that the United States once again take the easy
    way out with respect to our international environmental
    commitments. If we follow the Administration's example, we will
    be perceived by the international community as withdrawing from
    our commitments.
        I look forward to working with the Administration and my
    colleagues to pass legislation that completely implements the
    POPs Convention, as well as LRTAP and PIC. Otherwise, there
    will be lengthy delays in the addition of additional problems.
        Our first panel, first witness is Jeffry Burnam. Jeffry
    Burnam is Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Environment at the
    State Department. From 1981 to 2001, he served on the
    professional staff of the U.S. Senate, working on energy,
    environmental and forestry issues for Senator Lugar and for the
    Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. From
    1979 to 1981, he was the Research Director of the House
    Republican Task Force on Government Regulation, and Legislative
    Assistant also to Congressman Mickey Edwards. Welcome back, Mr.
    Burnam.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

          Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
                                State of Vermont

        Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses, several of whom
    flew from great distances twice, to participate in today's hearing. I
    am sorry that we did not receive the consent required from the Minority
    Leader to proceed last Thursday. I know it meant a great deal of
    expense and inconvenience for several of you. Therefore, I greatly
    appreciate the dedication that has ensured your presence here today.
        This committee has an important task before it. Last May, the
    United States signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    Pollutants, otherwise known as the POPs Convention.
        The Senate now has two jobs: to pass this treaty, as well as the
    POPS Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
    Pollution (LRTAP), and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed
    Consent (PIC); and to pass corresponding implementing legislation. This
    committee must craft the implementing legislation that will allow the
    U.S. to domestically fulfill its obligations under these treaties.
        Passage of these treaties is not in dispute. However, after
    reviewing the Administration's implementing legislation, it seems the
    disagreement centers on whether we implement the POPs Convention in its
    entirety.
        The POPs Convention is a landmark agreement that has brought the
    international community together to protect human health and the
    environment. The initial goal of the Convention is to phaseout the
    ``dirty dozen.'' These 12 pesticides and industrial chemicals and other
    POPs resist degradation, are toxic to humans and wildlife, and travel
    across international boundaries.
        Currently in the United States, the registrations for 9 of the 12
    POPs have been canceled; and the manufacture of PCBs has been banned.
    However, other countries still use these substances.
        They come back to us on our food, in our water, and through our
    air.
        These POPs create a circle of pollution requiring a global
    solution. The POPs Convention provides this solution. And it is a
    solution that the United States has embraced. President Bush stated
    that the POPs Convention is an example of ``the way environmental
    policy should work.'' I agree with the President. That is why I am
    perplexed by the Administration's POPs implementing proposal.
        In addition to eliminating the ``dirty dozen,'' the Convention
    provides a process for the nomination, assessment, and addition of
    future POPs. This is important to understand. The POPs Convention was
    not intended to be a static agreement. The United States made an
    international commitment to eliminate all, current and future, POPs.
        The ``adding mechanism''--that is, a mechanism to add POPs beyond
    the ``dirty dozen''--has never been disputed. In fact, LRTAP includes
    four additional POPs. Since LRTAP served as the precedent for the POPs
    Convention negotiations, it is reasonable to assume that these four
    POPs will be considered as the next likely additions to the POPs
    Convention. Industry, environmentalists, public interest organizations,
    and a bipartisan, bicameral group of congressional members, have joined
    the Bush administration in supporting swift Convention ratification. I
    expect to hear support for an ``adding mechanism'' from all our
    witnesses in today's hearing.
        My legislation, the POPs Implementation Act of 2002 (S. 2118),
    mirrors the POPs Convention. Like the Administration's proposal
    introduced by Senator Smith, my bill seeks to amend the Toxic
    Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). For example, both bills provide the
    Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to prohibit the
    manufacture of POPs for export.
        However, only the legislation I have introduced takes the next
    step. It provides a process, consistent with the POPs Convention, for
    listing additional chemicals. The Administration proposal fails to
    include this mechanism.
        I am concerned about the omission of the ``adding mechanism.'' It
    demonstrates an unwillingness by the Administration to fulfill the U.S.
    commitment to the POPs Convention. And it would severely slow down any
    future attempt to eliminate toxics.
        The Administration is proposing that the United States, once again,
    take the easy way out with respect to our international environmental
    commitments. If we follow the Administration's example, we will be
    perceived by the international community as withdrawing from our
    commitment.
        As a major producer of persistent, biological toxics, the United
    States has a responsibility to lead the world in eliminating known
    deadly pesticides and chemicals, as well as those yet to be
    manufactured.
        And we have a responsibility to our own citizens.
        Last week, I received a compelling letter from Alaskan Governor
    Tony Knowles. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), one of the 12 POPs, are
    not produced in Alaska. Yet, they are discovering low levels in the
    Arctic. Alaskan natives now fear the threat PCBs pose to their
    subsistence foods.
        Governor Knowles agrees with me; he is concerned about a lengthy
    administrative and legislative process for adding future POPs.
        I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues
    to pass legislation that completely implements the POPs Convention, as
    well as LRTAP and PIC.

     STATEMENT OF JEFFRY M. BURNAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
    ENVIRONMENT, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
              AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Mr. Burnam. Thank you, Senator.
        I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here
    today to speak about three treaties--each of which the
    Administration supports. These treaties are the Stockholm
    Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, better known as
    the POPs Convention; the POPs Protocol to the Convention on the
    Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, known as the LRTAP POPs
    Protocol; and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed
    Consent, known as PIC.
        With your permission, I have a written statement that I
    would like to submit for the record.
        Senator Jeffords. It will be accepted without objection.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Burnam. The Stockholm POPs Convention aims to protect
    human health and the environment from 12 chemicals that are of
    particular concern. They are of particular concern because they
    have four intrinsic characteristics. Namely, they are toxic,
    they have the potential to bio-accumulate, they are stable, and
    thus resistant to natural breakdown, and they can be
    transported over long distances. The POPs Convention has been
    submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, and the
    Administration looks forward to working with the Senate to help
    ensure its early ratification.
        POPs are capable of impacting human health and the
    environment far away from where they are released, including
    across national borders. POPs can have impacts in areas all
    over the United States, but have been a particular concern in
    Alaska and the Great Lakes region. I also understand, Senator,
    they are of concern in Lake Champlain as well, as you probably
    know. These chemicals have been linked to adverse human health
    effects. Those effects include cancer, damage to the nervous
    system, reproductive disorders, and disruption of the immune
    system.
        As you pointed out, Senator, these 12 chemicals are banned,
    severely restricted or controlled in the United States, but
    they are still used abroad in many places. Because they are
    capable of long-range transport, a global treaty to address
    their human health and environmental effects is needed, and was
    sought by the United States. You are fortunate, Senator
    Jeffords, to have in the room today many of the people who
    worked on this treaty, including my predecessor Brooks Yeager
    who did an outstanding job of completing its negotiation.
        I have been to a number of international meetings, and when
    the EU, the G-77 and the United States and what is known as the
    JUSSCANNZ nations (Japan, United States, Switzerland, Canada,
    Australia, Norway, and New Zealand) can agree on something, it
    is not a small matter. This, as you also know, is an
    outstanding example of industry and environmental cooperation.
    We have representatives from the organizations that worked on
    the treaty, as well as Mr. Buccini, who did an outstanding job,
    I understand, as chair.
        The POPs Convention addresses two types of pollutants--
    intentionally produced POPs such as DDT or PCBs, and
    unintentionally produced POPs such as dioxins and furans. For
    intentionally produced POPs, the Stockholm POPs Convention
    prohibits their production and use. There are certain
    exemptions. The only general exemption is for the use of DDT
    for malaria control. However, the Convention does allow
    countries to seek a special exemption if they need to for 5
    years for certain uses that they might view as being essential.
    The Stockholm Convention bans trade in POPs among parties,
    except that parties may still import POPs for environmentally-
    sound disposal. For unintentionally produced POPs, the POPs
    Convention requires countries to develop national action plans.
        Under the POPs Convention, parties must take appropriate
    measures to ensure that POPs wastes are managed in an
    environmentally sound manner. Recognizing the needs of
    developing countries in managing POPs, the POPs Convention
    includes a flexible system of financial and technical
    assistance, by which developed countries will help developing
    countries meet their POPs obligation.
        Finally, the Convention includes a science-based procedure
    to govern the inclusion of additional chemicals to the
    Convention, including a statement of the criteria that these
    chemicals must meet, and a list of various risk management
    factors. However, the United States does not yet know the
    manner in which the risk management factors involved will be
    weighed when applied to additional chemicals.
        The implementing legislation also permits the United States
    to become a party to two additional agreements. The first
    agreement, closely related to POPs, is the LRTAP Convention.
    This is a regional agreement negotiated under the auspices of
    the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which
    includes the United States, Canada, Europe and the former
    Soviet Republics. The other agreement is the Rotterdam
    Convention on Prior Informed Consent. The Rotterdam Convention
    stipulates that the export of certain especially hazardous
    chemicals can only take place with the prior informed consent
    of the importing country.
        Together, these three treaties address a number of chemical
    management problems faced by the international community. They
    enjoy broad support from the public, from environmental and
    industry organizations, and from many Members of Congress with
    whom we have been in contact. I would like to thank you,
    Senator Jeffords, as well as Senator Smith, for your firm
    support and keen interest in these treaties. All of these
    agreements benefit the health and welfare of citizens of the
    United States and people all over the world.
        Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions
    that you may have.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you for an excellent statement.
        Our next witness is Stephen Johnson. Stephen Johnson is the
    Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention,
    Pesticides and Toxic Substances at the Environmental Protection
    Agency. OPPTS is responsible for implementing the Nation's
    pesticide, toxic substances and pollution prevention laws. Both
    of the domestic statutes that are implementing legislation
    seeks to amend would come under the jurisdiction of this
    Office.
        Mr. Johnson, thank you for your participating today, and
    please proceed.

       STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
     OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S.
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
    much for the opportunity and invitation to appear before you
    today.
        With your permission, I would like to submit my written
    testimony for the record.
        Senator Jeffords. Without objection, it is accepted.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        It is my privilege to represent the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency and to discuss the Administration's
    legislative proposal on three international environmental
    agreements. Let me first say that the Bush administration is
    firmly committed to working closely with all members of this
    committee and the U.S. Senate to ensure quick enactment of the
    implementing legislation and subsequent ratification and/or
    approval of these international agreements negotiated by the
    previous Administration. We stand ready to work with you to
    craft legislation that tracks supervision of these agreements,
    and are committed to ensuring that the United States retains
    our current position as a world leader in chemical
    environmental safety.
        As Mr. Burnam has explained, there are three agreements we
    are here to discuss: the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
    Organic Pollutants, known as the global POPs treaty; the
    Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure
    for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International
    Trade, known as the PIC Convention; and the Protocol on
    Persistent Organic Pollutants negotiated under the U.N.
    Economic Commission for Europe's Convention on Long-range
    Transboundary Air Pollution, also known as the LRTAP POPs
    Protocol.
        Here in the United States, we have already taken extensive
    steps to address risks posed by the substances covered by these
    agreements. But as we all know, stand alone action by one
    country is not enough. As Mr. Burnam explained earlier, these
    chemicals continue to pose real health risks to U.S. citizens
    and to the people around the world. They are used and released
    in other countries and travel distances from their source.
        In the United States, these agreements are of particular
    importance to the people of the environment of Alaska, the
    Great Lakes region, which are unfortunately impacted by POPs
    transported by air and by water from outside these States. This
    is particularly true for Alaska Natives, who rely heavily on
    traditional diets comprised of fish and wildlife. By joining
    with the rest of the world to phaseout and reduce these toxic
    pollutants, we will help to protect the health and the
    environment, not only of our fellow Americans, but of all those
    who share our planet.
        As mentioned, we take the threats posed by these pesticides
    and chemicals to our environment and public health very
    seriously. For example, the United States was the first country
    to begin a thorough scientific reassessment, or if you will,
    re-registration program for pesticides and to evaluate
    cumulative risk posed by pesticides. Across the world, the
    United States is considered an international model for sound
    scientific risk assessments and effective regulatory
    decisionmaking. Our actions are respected and often replicated
    in other countries across the globe.
        We have implemented a series of aggressive approaches for
    mitigating and subsequently reducing exposure to POPs
    chemicals. For example, EPA developed national action plans for
    persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBTs as they
    are known, a number of which are POPs chemicals. These
    comprehensive plans focus on Federal, State and local efforts
    to reduce emissions to and exposures to PBTs, with an emphasis
    on prevention. Many of these national action plans have already
    been reviewed and commented on in the public, and are in the
    process of being finalized. Many of the action plans will
    implement innovative and voluntary partnership activities.
        The Administration's legislative proposal provides targeted
    changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal
    Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act in order to track
    the provisions of these three agreements. Because these
    agreements are largely consistent with existing U.S. law and to
    ensure expeditious approval of these agreements, only narrowly
    targeted adjustments to FIFRA and TSCA are necessary for the
    United States to implement our obligations under them.
        For the POPs chemicals, the legislation would prohibit any
    production, use, processing, distribution and commerce, and
    disposal operations that may be inconsistent with treaty
    obligations. It also contains provisions for specific
    exemptions from the prohibition, such as those needed for
    research purposes consistent with the agreements.
        The Administration's legislative language directly tracks
    obligations in the PIC Convention, effectively controlling the
    international trade of toxic chemicals and pesticides through
    export notification, export controls and labeling. With these
    provisions, the United States will be able to effectively and
    expeditiously implement this important Convention.
        As you know, the legislation does not include provisions to
    address the listing of additional chemicals under the global
    POPs and LRTAP POPs. Such a provision is not required to bring
    the United States into compliance with these agreements. I want
    to stress that the Bush administration is fully committed to
    the listing of additional chemicals to the POPs agreements,
    using the science-based listing process outlined in the global
    POPs treaty and ratifying amendments that list appropriate
    chemicals.
        In fact, that is why the Administration's legislative draft
    contains information collection provisions. These provisions
    will ensure that the United States is as informed as possible
    of the risks, benefits, production and uses and other pertinent
    factors concerning candidate chemicals when negotiating
    amendments to add future chemicals. The Administration believes
    the processes set forth in the POPs Convention and the LRTAP
    Protocol for listing chemicals are rigorous and science-based.
    We are confident that they will identify strong candidates for
    listing, based on a rigorous scientific risk assessment.
        However, the parties must still work through details of a
    decision process for evaluating cost and other information for
    listing additional substances under the POPs. At this time, we
    do not have enough experience with how, after a decision that a
    chemical meets the scientific standard for listing, the
    international community will weigh and balance socioeconomic
    and other factors when making final listing decisions, and
    deciding on appropriate control measures for the chemical.
        Recognizing that a provision to address the listing of
    additional chemicals is not required to bring the United States
    into compliance upon entry into force of these agreements, the
    Administration determined that it would be best to consider
    these issues in the context of an evolving detail POPs listing
    process. The experience gained at the negotiating table over
    the next several years on how the international community
    chooses to evaluate socioeconomic and other factors when
    shaping control actions for future listings will be of great
    value. We stand ready to work with you on this important issue.
        The Administration would also like to recognize you, Mr.
    Chairman, and Senator Smith, for your significant efforts to
    support the global POPs Convention and the LRTAPs Protocol.
    Administrator Whitman and I are committed to working with you,
    Senator Smith, all members of the committee, and Congress in
    general to ensure expeditious enactment of the best legislation
    possible to implement the POPs, PIC, and LRTAP agreements.
        The Administration is seeking swift approval of these
    agreements. We believe the Stockholm Convention may come into
    force soon, and it is important that the United States be a
    full participant at that time so we can play a strong role from
    the outset of the Convention. It is especially important to be
    at the table as a party when crucial early implementation
    decisions are being made, and when parties, including the
    United States, submit proposals to add new chemicals to the
    global POPs and LRTAP.
        The United States would like to demonstrate its ongoing
    commitment to the goals of this important treaty, and by our
    example encourage other countries to ratify the Convention. I
    am very proud of the POPs treaty because it provides a perfect
    example, as you have stated, of how industry and environmental
    interests have worked together to resolve serious environmental
    issues. These agreements illustrate how much we can accomplish
    when people can come together in support of common
    environmental goals.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these
    international agreements this morning. Again, I want to thank
    you for your support and assure you that President Bush,
    Administrator Whitman and I are looking forward to working with
    you and the committee to approve these important agreements and
    finalize the implementing legislation.
        I would certainly be pleased to answer any questions.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you both for excellent statements.
    I will have a few questions for the record here.
        Mr. Burnam, U.S. negotiators agreed some time ago to ban or
    severely restrict four additional POPs under the provisions of
    the LRTAP POPs Protocol. How can the Administration say that it
    does not know what additional chemicals are likely to be added
    to the POPs Convention?
        Mr. Burnam. Well, Senator, I think those four chemicals are
    likely candidates for addition. You have to look at the
    differences between LRTAP and POPs. LRTAP does not contain some
    of the trade and waste disposal elements that the global POPs
    does, but those are certainly very likely candidates for
    addition. I merely point out that the obligations of countries
    under the LRTAP proposal are somewhat narrower than they are
    under the global POPs Convention, so you would have to consider
    that in evaluating why there are 16 chemicals in one and 12 in
    another.
        Senator Jeffords. Doesn't it make sense from a level
    playing field point of view to support global bans on chemicals
    we have already agreed to ban on a regional basis in the LRTAPs
    POPs Protocol?
        Mr. Burnam. Well, I guess I would have to refer to my
    previous answer. My understanding is that the LRTAP Protocol
    does not contain some of the trade elements of the Stockholm
    Convention. So it would not necessarily be the case that the
    two Conventions would be the same. But yes, you certainly have
    a point. If we were to agree to having these chemicals listed
    under the LRTAP Protocol, that would certainly be a strong
    argument for listing them under the Stockholm Convention.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson. Senator, if I might?
        Senator Jeffords. Sure. Please, Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. If I may add to my colleague's comment, just
    as a reminder for all of us that LRTAP focuses on air
    transport, and POPs focuses on air transport, water transport
    and all of the other pathways. While there has been a great
    deal of effort looking at the air transport issues in LRTAP,
    there has been less international review on these other
    pathways--so just as a point of reference.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
        Mr. Burnam, again, you have stated that you wish to have
    more experience with additional procedure and practices of the
    POPs Review Committee as part of the process of developing
    language to add new chemicals to the global POPs Convention.
    But is it not the intent of this Administration to notify at
    the time of positing the articles of ratification that intends
    to utilize the option provisions provided in the Convention?
        Mr. Burnam. I think it is likely. I will refer your
    question also to Mr. Johnson for a more technical answer, but
    yes, the United States probably will, and I would anticipate
    that the United States would use a provision of the Convention
    known as the opt-in, which the United States pushed to make a
    part of the Convention. Under the opt-in provision, the United
    States would have to positively state that it accepted the
    addition of a chemical before it would be bound by that
    provision. In other words, you have a scientific review panel,
    the Convention of the parties, which by the way might meet as
    early as next June, a year from now, a convention of the
    parties would approve the chemical, and if there was
    controversy, could approve it by a three-fourths vote. But
    under the opt-in provision, the United States or any other
    country that exercised the opt-in provision would have to
    positively affirm that it had accepted the listing of that
    chemical.
        That would be a question, then, would the executive branch
    make that decision? It would consult with the Senate to see
    whether the Foreign Relations Committee would want to hold a
    hearing and send that to the Senate for advice and consent. But
    yes, under the opt-in provision, the United States would have
    to affirmatively state that it had accepted the listing of that
    additional chemical.
        Senator Jeffords. Mr. Johnson, a comment?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. I think it is some other points about the
    listing process for POPs that is built into both the Convention
    and certainly is supported by our draft legislation. That is,
    as a chemical comes into the listing process, the proposal is
    sent for scientific review. The POPs Review Committee then
    applies screening criteria which we are all in agreement with
    are scientifically sound, looking at persistence, bio-
    accumulation, toxicity, and long-range transport. If in fact
    those screening criteria are met, the committee prepares a risk
    profile for the chemical. It is actually at that point in our
    draft legislation that we then may issue a Federal Register
    notice asking for comment, additional information from the
    United States.
        The Review Committee then looks at it to determine whether
    this risk profile actually satisfies the long-range
    environmental transport, and would lead to adverse health or
    environmental effects. If that is met, the committee prepares a
    risk management evaluation, getting into the cost, the
    benefits, the socioeconomic kinds of issues. Again, as it moves
    into that arena, our legislation has a provision again for
    asking for any comment that would help direct the United States
    as we move forward.
        Based upon this risk profile and risk management, a
    recommendation is made to the conference of the parties, as my
    colleague has already stated, a final decision is made. There
    is a window of time, and I believe it is a year, that member
    states or in this case the United States would have the option
    of opting in or opting out.
        So there is a great deal of process, and again just to
    emphasize, the risk profile arena has been a well-thought-out,
    science-based standard, we are all very much in agreement. It
    is when we get into the risk management and what criteria we
    will all consider for balancing the risks and benefits leading
    to either restrictions or a worldwide ban, that is less clear
    at this point.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
        My final question is, doesn't this opt-in provision protect
    the United States from ever being forced to ban a potential
    POPs against its will?
        Mr. Burnam. Yes, I think it does. I think that was the
    purpose of it. Some treaties operate on a consensus basis,
    where all nations have to agree to anything that is done under
    the treaty that is significant, to put it in colloquial terms.
    In this particular case, since there is a three-fourths vote if
    there is controversy, it was important to the United States to
    ensure that it was not bound by a decision with which it
    disagreed. So it put the opt-in provision in there to ensure
    that it would have to--and I anticipate we would exercise the
    opt-in provision.
        There is another provision called opt-out, where you accept
    an additional listing simply by your silence, but under the
    opt-in provision, you have to affirmatively state. So we did
    put that in there to protect U.S. interests in the off-chance
    that there would be a listing with which we disagreed.
        Senator Jeffords. Mr. Johnson, a comment?
        Mr. Johnson. I have really nothing more to add. I guess one
    other specific of that, I think that another point that you
    might want to reference. This is with regard to the new
    chemicals, that at the diplomatic conference in May 2001, the
    member States agreed not to begin work on new chemicals under
    after ratification. Of course, we are hopeful that we will be a
    part of the 50 to ratify the Convention through this
    legislation.
        However, it has been estimated by the POPs Convention
    secretariat that the listing process and going through looking
    at the risk management aspects of new chemicals, the times
    range anywhere from 3 to 6 years. So while there may be some
    new chemicals that people would like for the POPs Convention to
    consider, it has been estimated that it is going to be a number
    of years before those chemicals actually move through the kind
    of science process that is outlined in the Convention. So
    issues of opting in and opting out may be a little ways away.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you both. Sorry again we had to
    call you back, but glad to have you here and thank you for
    excellent testimony.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Jeffords. Now I would ask if my final five
    remaining witnesses would please approach and be seated. I will
    introduce while you are getting organized here.
        Our first witness is Dr. Warren Muir. Warren is the
    executive director for the Commission of Life Sciences, and the
    executive director of the Board on Agriculture and Natural
    Resources at the National Research Council. From 1971 to 1977,
    he was a senior staff member for the Environmental Health of
    the Council on Environmental Quality. He was a key formulator
    of the Administration's proposal for TSCA. After TSCA was
    enacted, he served at EPA from 1977 to 1981 in various
    capacities associated with implementation. Welcome, Mr. Muir.
        The second witness is John Buccini, a native of Winnipeg,
    Canada. He is the chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiation
    Committee established by the United Nations Environmental
    Program to negotiate a global POPs Convention. Prior to his
    election as chair in June 1998, he served in leadership roles
    in other international programs addressing toxic chemical
    issues, including the North American Commission on
    Environmental Cooperation, the OECD Chemicals Program, and the
    Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety. Thank you for
    traveling your long distance to be here, and we appreciate your
    coming twice.
        The third witness is Brooks Yeager. Brooks is Vice
    President for the Global Threats Program at the World Wildlife
    Fund. Before joining WWF, he was the Deputy Assistant Secretary
    for Environment and Development at the U.S. State Department.
    At State, he was responsible for the development and
    negotiation of U.S. policy in a wide variety of global
    environmental discussions, and was the U.S. lead negotiator for
    the POPs Convention. Thank you for being here today.
        Our fourth witness is Michael Walls. He is a senior counsel
    at the American Chemistry Council. Mr. Walls has been with the
    ACC for more than 15 years. During that time, he has counseled
    committees and staff on a broad range of international and
    domestic issues. He has represented the industry in several
    international negotiations including PIC and the POPs
    Conventions, and the Basel Convention on Transboundary Waste
    Movements. Thank you for coming, Mr. Walls.
        Karen Perry is the deputy director of the Environment and
    Health Program for Physicians for Social Responsibility. She
    directs the SR's work on a variety of toxics issues, including
    POPs and other persistent bio-accumulative substances. From
    1998 to 2001, she served as a Coordinator of the International
    POPs Elimination Network--a network consisting of more than 400
    NGO's in 70 countries focused on the phase-out of POPs through
    a global treaty. Ms. Perry, thank you for your coming and being
    with us today.
        We are back to Mr. Muir and ask you for your comments.

      STATEMENT OF WARREN MUIR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON
    LIFE SCIENCES, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND
              NATURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

        Mr. Muir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am happy to be here today and to present the testimony of
    Dr. Bruce Alberts, who is the president of the National Academy
    of Sciences, who was invited to testify earlier and who is
    unfortunately out of the country today. With your permission, I
    ask that his statement be entered into the record.
        Senator Jeffords. Without objection, it is accepted.
        Mr. Muir. Because the role of the National Academy of
    Sciences and its affiliated institutions is to serve as a
    source of independent scientific, engineering and medical
    advice, I will limit our testimony to scientific issues and the
    possible involvement of our operating arm, the National
    Research Council, in reviewing candidate chemicals for possible
    future inclusions in these Conventions, starting with the
    general issues and moving to more specific drafting issues.
        Section 107, research program to support POPs Convention,
    contains a provision in which EPA may enter into a contract
    with the National Academy of Sciences to, No. 1, develop and
    apply screening criteria for adding new substances or mixtures
    to the POPs Convention; two, to propose alternative designs for
    a global monitoring program aimed at identifying persistent
    bioaccumulative chemical substances; and No. 3, to recommend
    priority chemicals for possible nomination to the POPs Review
    Committee of the POPs Convention. It also requests that we
    consider a list of specific chemicals.
        With respect to the second of these, the National Academies
    would be able to produce an expert report recommending
    alternative designs for a global monitoring program aimed at
    identifying persistent and bioaccumulative chemical substances.
    Such alternative designs would be driven primarily by practical
    and scientific considerations.
        Turning to the remaining two requests of the National
    Academies in the bill, according to the two Conventions, risk
    profiles are to be first prepared on specific chemicals. These
    risk profiles are then used to make decisions on adding
    specific chemicals to the Conventions. Final decisions on
    additions involve appropriately not only scientific criteria,
    but also policy political considerations such as the weighing
    of costs and benefits and other socioeconomic factors.
        Because non-scientific factors are properly involved in
    such considerations, the National Academies are reluctant to be
    asked to recommend that specific chemicals be added to the POPs
    Convention. Rather, we propose that if asked to be involved,
    that the National Academies be requested to recommend
    scientific principles and methods for preparing risk profiles
    and to apply such principles and methods to prepare risk
    profiles with information available in the United States for
    chemicals listed in Section 107 of the proposed bill, as well
    as chemicals with similar attributes.
        According to the above proposal, the Environmental
    Protection Agency and the U.S. Government would use the risk
    profiles that we developed to make decisions on what chemicals
    to propose for inclusion in the POPs Convention. These
    decisions would incorporate non-scientific policy
    considerations, as well as the scientific considerations that
    we provide.
        Section 107(b) of the bill reads, ``The Administrator may
    offer to enter into a contract with the National Academies.''
    However, the language thereafter mandates the specifics of such
    a contract. We would urge that these mandates be softened to
    recommendations. Such softening might remove the disincentives
    for EPA to enter into such a contract and would allow us to
    work out practical arrangements.
        Included in the specifics is a January 1, 2004 date for the
    National Academies to complete a report. We recommend that the
    report be described as a progress report to avoid any
    misinterpretation of the nature of the report. The many
    activities called for of the National Academies in this section
    cannot all be completed within 18 months or less. Furthermore,
    there is no specific start date for such a contract.
        We suggest that the requested outcome be more than a single
    report. Instead, Section 107 could provide the basis for the
    National Academies first to provide and furnish long-term
    support to the U.S. Government in carrying out its
    responsibilities under the Stockholm Convention and the
    Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
        In sum, the National Academies, through its operating arm,
    the National Research Council, is prepared to assist the U.S.
    Government in carrying out its responsibilities under these two
    Conventions. To do so would entail the development of several
    reports providing independent scientific advice, leaving the
    weighing of important policy and political considerations to
    the government.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I will have questions later,
    but I want everyone to have a chance of being heard. We are
    having a vote in about 20 minutes, which should not take very
    long. It is just to find out who is here, basically.
        Mr. Buccini.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN BUCCINI, CHAIR, INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING
                           COMMITTEE ON POPS

        Mr. Buccini. Thank you, Senator. I will try not to keep you
    from the vote.
        I am here in my capacity as chairman of the
    Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. I view my
    participation today primarily to respond to any questions you
    may choose to pose. So I would like to confine my opening
    remarks to a few observations about the treaty and its
    development. I do have a copy of my text which I am quite happy
    to leave with you, sir.
        Senator Jeffords. It will be included in the record.
        Mr. Buccini. Thank you.
        The Stockholm Convention has as its objective the
    protection of human health and the environment from POPs. It
    was developed in response to an acceptance by the international
    community of the need to take collective global action to
    reduce and/or eliminate the generation and release of POPs.
    This acceptance was based on the recognition that the continued
    generation and release to the environment of POPs is not a
    sustainable practice, as once released into the environment,
    POPs undergo widespread environmental distribution through
    natural processes. They contaminate environmental media and
    living organisms, including the food chain, and persist for
    very long periods of time and thus pose a threat to present and
    future generations of both humans and wildlife.
        The process of developing the Convention was initiated in
    May, 1995 by the United Nations Environment Program, or UNEP.
    In March 1996, an agreement was reached that there was
    sufficient scientific evidence available to justify taking
    immediate international action on POPs. This agreement has
    underpinned and given a sense of urgency to the efforts made by
    stakeholders from all sectors of society, including
    governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental
    organizations, including both industry and public interest
    groups, and aboriginal groups.
        The activities involved in developing the Convention have
    resulted in a broad acceptance of the urgent need for action in
    countries around the world. This is demonstrated by the fact
    that less than 1 year after the Convention was opened for
    signature in Stockholm on May 23 last year, 130 countries and
    the European Community have signed the treaty. So far, nine
    have become parties through ratification, acceptance or
    accession procedures.
        Another indicator is the number and nature of the actions
    that stakeholders are taking to address the risk posed by POPs.
    Based on an annual UNEP survey of representatives of all
    stakeholder groups, about 110 countries are already active in
    taking action to address POPs, and actions are also being taken
    by the public, industry and aboriginal and public interest
    groups around the world. As one example, the International POPs
    Elimination Network was established during the negotiation of
    the treaty, and today it includes over 400 public interest
    groups from countries around the globe, with programs to
    address POPs issues at the local, national, regional and
    international levels. This is indeed encouraging to note.
        Let me now turn to the Convention itself. In my view, there
    are three key provisions to the treaty. The analogy I like to
    use is the three-legged stool. All three of these legs are
    needed to make this convention function the way it was
    designed. The first is controls on the 12 POPs. The second is
    the evaluation of future candidates for addition to the treaty;
    and third, financial and technical assistance for developing
    countries and countries with economies in transition.
        The control provisions of the Convention address three
    areas: intentionally produced POPs, unintentionally produced
    POPs, and POPs in stockpiles and waste. For intentionally
    produced POPs, including industries chemicals and pesticides,
    the goal of the Convention is to eliminate their production and
    use, and measures are specified for 10 chemicals. To prevent
    the introduction into commerce of new POPs, parties with
    regulatory and assessment schemes for industrial chemicals and
    pesticides will, in conducting assessments of new substances,
    take measures to regulate, with the aim of preventing the
    production and use of new POPs. In addition, in assessing the
    risks posed by any new substances, parties will consider the
    screening criteria for candidates for addition to the
    Convention to identify at the earliest opportunity candidates
    for further consideration.
        For unintentionally produced POPs, the Convention goal is
    the continuing minimization and, where feasible, the ultimate
    elimination of the total releases of such POPs derived from
    anthropogenic sources. An approach has been developed that
    enables each country to define its priorities, develop a
    national action plan within 2 years of entry into force of the
    Convention, and then implement that plan.
        For stockpiles and waste, the goal is the environmentally
    sound management of stockpiles that consist of or contain
    intentionally produced POPs, and of wastes including products
    and articles upon becoming waste that consist of, contain or
    are contaminated with intentionally or unintentionally produced
    POPs. Measures are specified to prevent the reuse or recycling
    of POPs, and to manage these materials to prevent releases to
    the environment of POPs during storage, handling, transport or
    disposal activities.
        The second major provisions, then, is a science-based
    approach to systematically identify and review future candidate
    chemicals for additional to the Convention. The process and
    scientific criteria for this provision are specified in the
    Convention, and a POPs Review Committee will be established at
    the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to evaluate
    information submitted by parties. Considerable attention was
    paid for the need for openness and transparency in this process
    to ensure that all candidates will be fully and fairly
    evaluated.
        The third Convention specifies that developing countries
    and countries with economies in transition will need technical
    and financial assistance. The Global Environment Facility has
    been named as the principal entity of the interim financial
    mechanism to handle funding of capacity building and other
    related activities. Financial support has already begun to flow
    and an estimated 50 countries have so far initiated action to
    prepare national plans. Again, this is very encouraging.
        In my view, the Convention represents a significant advance
    in protecting health and environment from what many regard as
    the most toxic chemicals that have ever been produced. There is
    a high level of interest and activity among all stakeholder
    groups in the POPs area, and I expect that this will continue
    in the future. In this regard, I am pleased to note that you
    have both industry and environmental nongovernment
    organizations appearing before you in this session.
        The Convention will enter into force 90 days after 50
    parties have ratified it. Many contend that the urgent nature
    of POPs problems warrants expedited entry into force and
    concerted collective actions to address these problems and
    their solutions. Some stakeholders have urged governments
    around the world to ratify the POPs treaty prior to the
    Johannesburg Summit in August of this year.
        In closing, I would just like to state that I certainly
    hope that the United States will be among the parties at the
    first meeting of the Conference of Parties, and I would be very
    pleased to answer any questions to assist in that process.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
        Mr. Yeager.

    STATEMENT OF BROOKS YEAGER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL THREATS,
                          WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

        Mr. Yeager. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        With your permission, I will submit my full written
    statement for the record.
        Senator Jeffords. Without objection, it is accepted.
        Mr. Yeager. I want to say thank you very much for the
    opportunity to testify, and thanks for holding this hearing so
    expeditiously so that the Senate might get on the road to
    implementing and ratifying this treaty.
        As requested in your letter, Mr. Chairman, I have come
    prepared to speak both about WWF's views and about my own
    experiences and observations in negotiating the treaty. I will
    try to keep the two hats a little separate so that my views
    will be clear.
        I think it is true that the Stockholm POPs Convention
    represents the most important effort by the global community to
    date to rein in and ultimately halt the proliferation of toxic
    chemicals that threaten the global environment. The treaty
    targets some of the world's most dangerous chemicals--POPs
    pesticides such as chlordane, industrial chemicals such as
    PCBs, and byproducts such as dioxins. The effects and hazards
    of those chemicals have been well-described by Stephen Johnson
    and other witnesses, so I will not go into that except to say
    that for the United States this is really quite a serious
    matter. We acted as a Nation to eliminate production and use of
    most of these chemicals between 30 and 20 years ago. Despite
    that fact, we are still being affected by them. From Alaska to
    the Great Lakes to Florida, we face dangers from POPs pollution
    to our environment and to our way of life.
        This is pretty central to understanding the United States'
    strong national interest in the success of the global effort to
    reduce and eliminate POPs. The mobility of these chemicals in
    air and water currents, for example, makes possible their
    presence, along with metals and other particulates, in
    incursions of Saharan dust into the continental United States.
    African dust is the dominant aerosol constituent in Southern
    Florida's dense summer hazes. A global mechanism to reduce
    these ``chemical travelers without passports'' is necessary. It
    is urgent and it is very much in our national interest.
        The POPs Convention, Mr. Chairman, was negotiated by more
    than 120 governments over a 4-year period. As the head of the
    U.S. delegation, I was responsible for developing our
    negotiating objectives and strategies, but more so for ensuring
    that our national interests and positions and requirements were
    reflected in the final text. Our position as a Nation was
    developed through an exhaustive domestic process. It involved
    regular consultations with seven or eight domestic agencies,
    industry, environmental and public health communities, Native
    American representatives, and various interested State
    governments.
        It was a careful process, and I believe that process is
    part of the reason for the broad support for President Bush's
    decision to sign the Stockholm Convention in April. I would
    also says, Mr. Chairman, we had a very expert negotiating team,
    some of whom are in the room today. But more than that, both
    industry and environmental representatives made important
    contributions to the final product. I would like to note in
    particular the constructive roles played by Michael Walls, who
    is sitting next to me, and Mr. Paul Hagen, both of the American
    Chemistry Council.
        WWF is working with governments around the world in the
    hope of generating 50 ratifications to this treaty by the time
    of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
    in late August. We know that achieving Senate advice and
    consent within the next 15 weeks is a much-accelerated
    timeframe, but with energy and determination, we believe it is
    achievable. We also believe it would be only just for the
    United States to be a leader in the early running of this
    Convention as it goes into operation.
        So I would like to thank you for bringing this bill
    forward. I would also like to thank Senator Smith for bringing
    forward the Administration's bill. I have not included a lot of
    comments about the Administration's bill in our testimony. We
    have not had a full chance to review it, but we will be glad to
    do that for the record of the committee.
        Senator Jeffords. Please do.
        Mr. Yeager. The treaty's provisions have been well-
    described by other witnesses, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    talk a little bit about the balance of interests and
    compromises that went into the treaty's formation. The U.S.
    interest, as we articulated it during the negotiations, was to
    achieve an ambitious treaty that would address the global
    environmental damage caused by POPs, but to do so in a way that
    would be practical, implementable, financially efficient and
    consistent with the fundamental structure of our own national
    approach to regulation.
        Other countries had different interests--some similar, some
    not. The developing countries had neither the will nor the
    inclination to agree to make POPs cleanup a priority against
    their other environmental priorities unless the developed world
    was willing to assist them financially and technically. So the
    establishment of the Global Environment Facility as the interim
    financial instrument of the Convention was actually very
    critical to the result.
        Similarly, all parties clearly recognized that the
    Convention could not be successful if it were limited solely to
    the 12 chemicals already on the POPs list. But the question of
    what scientific and institutional process to use in adding
    chemicals to the list was fraught with difficulty. For the
    United States, it was critical that the process be
    scientifically driven and not subject to political whim, and
    that it contain important safeguards for U.S. interests. For
    some in the EU and elsewhere, it was critical that the process
    for adding chemicals not be subject to endless procedural
    roadblocks.
        The procedure for adding new chemicals that evolved in the
    negotiations is a genuine compromise, but one which in my view
    successfully protects U.S. interests in every respect. First,
    we insisted on and successfully negotiated the scientific
    criteria according to which a nominated chemical would be
    evaluated. Then we negotiated the process through which these
    criteria would be applied by the scientific screening
    committee, which we called the POPRC.
        Finally, we negotiated the terms under which the COP--the
    Conference of the Parties--would review the recommendations of
    the scientific group, the conditions under which the Conference
    of the Parties could make a decision to add or reject a
    chemical, and the procedures for party governments to accept or
    reject the decision of the conference of the parties. The
    addition process as agreed offers the United States the
    safeguards of rigorous science, a careful review procedure, a
    high institutional threshold for COP decisions to add
    chemicals, and finally, the right to reject the addition of a
    new chemical if appropriate.
        Just to sum up, Mr. Chairman, I think the safeguards built
    into the treaty are actually very powerful. They afford the
    United States the full and careful right to review, to
    participate in the science for adding new chemicals, to
    participate in the COP's decision to agree to the science or
    not, and finally to reject the addition of a chemical for cause
    if the United States feels that that is important. So I think
    in that respect, the failure of the Administration to include
    provisions for the addition of new chemicals cannot be
    justified by the need to add any additional safeguards to the
    process.
        I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we hope the Senate will
    move on two fronts expeditiously in implementing the treaty.
    First, that you will in fact work together to move forward with
    your and Senator Smith's implementing legislation, but of
    course including the provisions necessary to allow the United
    States to fully participate in the addition of new chemicals.
    Second, that you will help the Appropriations Committee realize
    the importance of the United States' GEF contribution to the
    proper working of this treaty. It is very important that the
    Global Environment Facility be funded at a level that allows
    them to take on this new priority without cannibalizing their
    existing priorities. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the
    replenishment negotiations for the Global Environment Facility
    are going on today, as we speak, downtown. We are very hopeful
    that the United States will come forward with a constructive
    proposal in that negotiation.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing
    me the time, and I will be glad to answer any questions.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you for your excellent testimony.
        Mr. Walls, please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WALLS, SENIOR COUNSEL, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY
                                COUNCIL

        Mr. Walls. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be here.
        We have submitted a written statement to the committee and
    would appreciate it being included in the record.
        Senator Jeffords. Without objection, it is included.
        Mr. Walls. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to reinforce the
    chemical industry's strong support for the Stockholm Convention
    on POPs. It is our hope that that treaty and its reasonable
    implementation will be the subject of quick action by the
    Senate.
        While the Stockholm Convention has the potential to bring
    additional regulation to an already highly regulated industry,
    our support for the Convention lies in three very simple
    points. No. 1, the Convention is consistent with our industry's
    commitment to product stewardship. Our industry's goal is to
    prevent health and environmental damage in the manufacture and
    use of chemical products. That commitment to product
    stewardship is an integral part of our Responsible Care
    program, which is being implemented by the chemical industry in
    46 countries.
        No. 2, the Convention is the culmination of many different
    initiatives by industry, nongovernmental organizations and
    governments to address the concerns about persistent organic
    pollutants. It is the next best step to assure that governments
    around the world take appropriate measures just as we have here
    in the United States to control the manufacture, use and
    disposal of POPs and to reduce unwanted POPs emissions.
        No. 3, our support for the Convention is premised on its
    incorporating a risk-based science-justified approach to
    considering possible additions to the list of chemicals. It is
    an approach that is entirely consistent with longstanding U.S.
    law and practice. It is one that will lead to appropriate
    controls on POPs chemicals that pose global threats.
        We believe the Convention is an excellent example of what
    can happen when governments and stakeholders have a
    constructive dialog. Throughout the negotiations, many
    nongovernmental organizations made many important positive
    contributions, particularly the World Wildlife Fund. When he
    was chief U.S. negotiator, Brooks Yeager helped set a tone for
    openness and transparency in the process. I think that tone and
    the stakeholder involvement measurably improved this treaty.
        It is critical that the United States continue its
    longstanding leadership role in the global effort to control
    POPs. To have that role, the United States must be one of the
    first 50 parties ratifying the Convention.
        I would like to spend just a few minutes on some of the
    implementation issues I know are of particular concern to you,
    Mr. Chairman. The Stockholm Convention contemplates additions.
    The treaty establishes a reasonable process for decisions to
    list new chemicals, and we believe that implementing
    legislation must address that process. We think there are a
    number of options available that will address the Senate's
    constitutional role regarding treaty amendments, as well as
    this committee's interests in practical statutory changes.
        This hearing really represents the first opportunity
    anybody has had to discuss the two options that are currently
    on the table for implementing the treaty--your own bill and the
    Administration's proposal. The core implementing legislation in
    both proposals are similar, but both raise some important
    concerns. Both approaches raise some questions about the status
    of chemicals on the UNECE LRTAP POPs Protocol list that are not
    addressed under the Stockholm Convention. Both approaches
    impose significant restrictions on the use of information in
    any subsequent regulatory proceeding. In our view, that
    limitation may not be justified.
        We are also concerned about the additional provisions in S.
    2118 that are not strictly related to the obligations and
    responsibilities established under the Stockholm Convention.
    Those provisions raise some concerns about U.S. acceptance of
    the internationally accepted criteria for identifying POPs and
    the possible duplication of existing EPA programs. But the
    essential point is that the Convention does not address those
    issues. We think that U.S. implementation should be guided by
    two very simple principles. First, full implementation of the
    Convention obligations into law, particularly TSCA and FIFRA;
    and second, narrowly drawn amendments that implement only those
    obligations.
        It is also important that Congress address the necessary
    amendments to implement the Rotterdam Convention on PIC. That
    Convention warrants strong U.S. support, and because it also
    requires TSCA and FIFRA amendments, it makes sense to address
    that treaty at the same time as the Stockholm Convention.
        So to sum up, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Convention
    is a significant step in securing international action on POPs.
    We believe that appropriate amendments to TSCA and FIFRA that
    reflect the treaty's obligations can be crafted, particularly
    to address the additions issue. We look forward to working with
    you and the Administration as those amendments are crafted. The
    Senate has an important opportunity. We hope you will seize
    that opportunity and act on the treaty soon.
        I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you for your excellent testimony.
        Ms. Perry.

      STATEMENT OF KAREN PERRY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT AND
         HEALTH PROGRAMS, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

        Ms. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my
    written statement also be included in the record today.
        Senator Jeffords. It will be, without objection.
        Ms. Perry. I am speaking on behalf of Physicians for Social
    Responsibility today--a national membership organization
    representing more than 22,000 physicians, health care
    professionals, and citizens concerned about public health. We
    welcome the opportunity to present our views on the Stockholm
    Convention today, including our belief that it is highly
    important that the United States be a leader in implementing a
    living, breathing POPs treaty.
        PSR's concern about POPs stems from the medical tenet of
    ``first, do no harm.'' That is because in 1994, an early draft
    of the U.S. EPA's dioxin reassessment indicated that hospital
    waste incinerators were a leading source of this potent POP
    dioxin. It was just a few years later that nations began
    crafting this global treaty on dioxin, PCBs, DDT and other
    POPs. Throughout these negotiations, PSR served as the
    secretariat for a global network of more than 400 NGO's from 75
    countries committed to POPs elimination. Today, the
    ratification and full implementation of the Stockholm
    Convention remains one of PSR's top priorities.
        POPs are particularly troubling to the public health
    community. They contaminate the fatty tissues of humans and
    animals, making meat, fish, eggs, and even breast milk toxic.
    Exposure to extremely low levels of some POPs can disrupt the
    function of the endocrine system. POPs have also been
    implicated in cognitive deficits, a variety of cancers,
    precocious puberty, endometriosis, declining sperm counts, and
    malformations of the penis and testicles, among other effects.
    Children and developing fetuses are most at risk. Studies have
    shown that prenatal exposure to low levels of some POPs can
    result in decreases in IQ and short-term memory, delayed
    psycho-motor development, abnormal reflexes and speech
    problems. It is clear that as a class of chemicals, POPs pose a
    hazard.
        While the Stockholm Convention focuses initially on 12
    POPs, the international community always envisioned a dynamic
    instrument that could take into account emerging scientific
    knowledge about similar chemicals. During the negotiations, an
    experts group hammered out a set of science-based screening
    criteria that you have heard today already from previous
    witnesses. In short, the evaluation and addition of POPs was
    not an afterthought, and the Convention clearly spells out a
    process for doing this. Parties will submit chemical
    nominations to the POPs Review Committee, or POPRC, which will
    screen them, prepare a risk profile, obtain input from all
    parties, and make recommendations. Then the Conference of the
    Parties must approve the addition of a POP by amendment, and as
    you have heard, the United States has reserved the right to opt
    in to each amendment individually.
        It is worth noting that the universe of POPs that we are
    talking about that might be added to the Stockholm Convention
    over the long term is not vast. Application of the science-
    based criteria in the treaty is likely to result in at most the
    addition of one or two dozen POPs, not hundreds or thousands.
        A briefing for NGO's last July indicated that an
    interagency group had agreed on changes to the Toxic Substances
    Control Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
    Rodenticide Act, including those needed for EPA to address
    additional POPs. Regrettably, the Administration's proposal
    leaves out this critical piece of implementing authority. This
    omission would put up an unnecessary hurdle to domestic
    regulation of future POPs, and would amount to a failure to
    fully implement the convention. It would result in an absurd
    situation in which each new POP, which has already been agreed
    by the United States as a member of the Conference of the
    Parties, and subjected possibly to Senate review under the opt-
    in process, would still require both Houses of Congress to
    amend TSCA and FIFRA again. Given that these laws have rarely,
    if ever, been amended, such a process seems unmanageable,
    undesirable and politically unrealistic.
        Your bill acknowledges this defect and legislates a
    domestic evaluation process to parallel the international one
    from start to finish. S. 2118 would give a rebuttable
    presumption to the decision of the Conference of the Parties to
    add a new POP. Based on the POPRC's work and its own, EPA could
    conclude that an added POP presents an unreasonable risk of
    injury to health or the environment, and the Agency would be
    authorized to undertake a rulemaking at that time.
        Administration officials, as you have heard, have argued
    that such authority is not needed to fulfill our obligations,
    but PSR disagrees. As written, TSCA and FIFRA would not allow
    EPA to prohibit the manufacture for export of a future POP.
    Experience with the dirty dozen confirms this. Chlordane and
    heptachlor, for example, were manufactured and exported for
    years after all uses were canceled domestically.
        As other witnesses have noted, the United States has long
    been at the forefront of global efforts to protect the
    environment and public health. For example, this country led
    the world in phasing out the use of DDT and leaded gasoline. S.
    2118 would again facilitate U.S. leadership. In addition to the
    provisions we have mentioned already, it would require EPA to
    contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
    major POPs study, begin identifying priority POPs for possible
    nomination, develop monitoring and control strategies for
    persistent and bioaccumulative substances, and finalize its
    long-awaited state-of-the-science dioxin reassessment. These
    provisions will position the United States to be a proactive
    participant to the Stockholm Convention.
        The announcement by President Bush of his intention to sign
    and ratify the Stockholm Convention more than a year ago
    received unprecedented support from the public interest
    community, the chemical industry, and Members of Congress on
    both sides of the aisle. This important treaty continues to
    offer a rare opportunity to achieve consensus in the
    environmental policy arena. Its rapid ratification and full
    implementation can be claimed as a victory by all. It is up to
    this committee and this Congress to strive for such an outcome,
    and we look forward to working with you to achieve it.
        Thank you.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Thank you all.
        I am going over and register my presence, which was not
    easy. My planes last night were canceled three times, and I
    finally ended up taking a train so I would have the opportunity
    to be with you. So I do not know who is doing all these things
    to us in this hearing----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Jeffords. I have my suspicions. But anyway----
        Mr. Yeager. It is climate change, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Jeffords. I will be right back.
        [Recess.]
        Senator Jeffords. The meeting will come to order.
        I will now have a few questions for you all.
        The first question, Mr. Muir, you were working at the
    Council on Environmental Quality at the time of TSCA, which was
    enacted in 1976, and are recognized as the expert on that piece
    of legislation. Based upon your experience, could you properly
    implement the POPs Convention without amending TSCA to add a
    procedure for addressing future POPs?
        Mr. Muir. Well, I am familiar with the Toxic Substances
    Control Act. I also was the first head of the office
    implementing the law, so I know the law fairly well. Obviously,
    I am not speaking in my role from the National Academy of
    Sciences.
        Senator Jeffords. I understand.
        Mr. Muir. In order to regulate under the Toxic Substances
    Control Act, one has to make a finding of unreasonable risk
    under Section 6 of the law. That involves a balancing of risks
    and economic considerations. So to use the law as it is
    currently drafted for new chemicals would require the
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, through
    rulemaking, to make such a finding. Such a finding may be
    applicable. On the other hand, it would apply to the
    production, distribution and use of the chemical within the
    United States. It would not apply to export and so forth. So it
    clearly was not designed for this type of an international
    treaty application.
        Senator Jeffords. Again, based on your experience with
    TSCA, is it politically realistic that TSCA can be amended each
    time a new chemical is added to the POPs Convention?
        Mr. Muir. I defer to the chair on that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Jeffords. Well, I will ask myself and let you know
    what my answer is.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Jeffords. Mr. Buccini, how critical is the issue of
    being able to add additional chemicals beyond the initial 12 to
    the POPs Convention?
        Mr. Buccini. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier with my
    three-legged stool analogy, it really is key not only because
    of what it achieves, it is because it is part of the overall
    architecture of the Convention. I think Mr. Yeager had
    indicated that there were all kinds of compromises and sort of
    cross-connecting issues that were resolved. Ultimately, the
    Convention represents a package deal. You know, we can say it
    is the addition of new chemicals, but in fact it is the
    embodiment in some cases of the need to show that the
    Convention will have life after the 12 have been dealt with;
    the need to address future POPs as they come along.
        It incorporated a number of the elements of caution of
    precaution, whichever word does not strike fear into people's
    hearts, because I realize that that is an issue. But it is
    really very much a part of the overall architecture. I think
    especially going back to my first remarks that it is not a
    sustainable practice in the long term to continue to generate
    and release to the environment chemicals which prove to have
    POPs properties. So as they are discovered in the future, I
    think it would be essential for them to be brought on board and
    to be treated in an appropriate manner after a full and fair
    evaluation of them by the POP Review Committee, by the
    Conference of Parties.
        So I guess what I have worked my way toward is I think it
    is a key ingredient of the Stockholm Convention.
        Senator Jeffords. Can you outline for the committee all of
    the mechanisms contained in the POPs Convention that could
    serve as a safety net if the United States did not agree with a
    decision to add a particular chemical to one of the annexes?
        Mr. Buccini. Let me do them in sort of reverse order. The
    easiest one is that when the United States deposits its
    instrument of ratification, it can make a statement that under
    Article 25, paragraph 4, that it declares that any amendment to
    Annex A, B, or C--that is, any addition of the name of a
    chemical to the Convention--that such an amendment would only
    enter into force upon the deposit by the United States of an
    instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.
        So that is the simplest one, and I think it was already
    mentioned a few times this morning. It is in fact the simplest
    one. Of the nine countries that have so far become parties to
    this Convention, one party has already chosen that option, and
    that is Canada. On May 22 of last year, they made it quite
    clear that Canada was taking that option. To me, that is
    probably the most streamlined way of dealing with the issue
    because what you are saying is that we are now going to go back
    to the other two mechanisms.
        The first one is the nature of the review process itself.
    It is a process which will take years for each chemical once
    the Conference of Parties begins to meet. It is a process that
    is built on science and agreed upon criteria. I believe that
    among your participants in the panel, both the first panel and
    this one, there was no issue at all with the scientific
    criteria as to what constitutes a POP, and taking a look at how
    the Review Committee will interact in an open and transparent
    manner involving observers as well as parties.
        There is a very robust, full, open, transparent process by
    which a chemical will be evaluated as to whether it possesses
    scientific properties, then a risk profile will be generated,
    again through an open, transparent process; and finally a risk
    management profile that will be considered by the Conference of
    Parties.
        This is a rather lengthy, open, transparent consultative
    process which I would expect will give a full and fair hearing
    to each chemical. I would argue that the process of evaluating
    candidates is itself a very good safeguard against sort of one
    country or a spurious issue from making it all the way through
    to the end.
        There is also, and my memory is failing me now, it is
    somewhere in Article 23 or 24, the so-called opt-in provision,
    where a country can decide that if there is not consensus on an
    amendment by adding a chemical, and if it goes to a vote and
    three-quarters vote carries the motion, if a country was not in
    support of that vote, it can deal with the so-called opt-out
    provision.
        I would argue that the process of evaluating the candidate
    itself has various safeguards and checks and balances in it.
    There is the one under, I think it is Article 23, and then the
    Article 25.4, and I would argue certainly that the last one, at
    least for Canada, has sort of provided the amount of comfort
    that Canada needs to be able to become a party to the
    Convention.
        Mr. Yeager. Mr. Chairman, may I add something to that?
        Senator Jeffords. Yes, please.
        Mr. Yeager. From the U.S. perspective, there is another
    safeguard that is not as formal. In fact, the U.S. technical
    team, particularly from EPA, were very instrumental in molding
    this treaty and informing the negotiations. I would say from my
    personal recollection there were only two or three other
    countries that had the technical teams that could match our
    folks. We had on our staff the people who designed the control
    annexes for the Convention; the people who brought forward the
    information about specific chemicals that allowed a lot of the
    treaty work to go forward. Among the other countries, perhaps
    Germany had a technical team of equal caliber. Canada certainly
    had a very good technical team. But very few countries could
    match our technical expertise.
        If we ratify and become a party, we are going to be on the
    POPs Review Committee. We will have people who will be U.S.
    experts, who will be--because they will be needed. So the first
    and most important safeguard is our participation in the
    science process of the POPs Review Committee itself. After
    that, we have all the legal safeguards that Chairman Buccini
    has mentioned. So it is a fairly powerful array.
        Senator Jeffords. Mr. Yeager, at the conclusion of
    negotiations on the POPs Convention, what was the view among
    agencies on the need to have a mechanism in our domestic
    implementing legislation to address addition of future
    chemicals? In other words, was there interagency support for
    including an adding mechanism?
        Mr. Yeager. I think there was a broad assumption inside the
    delegation that was shared by all, that we would in fact
    institute domestic procedures to parallel the nomination and
    decision process for new chemicals. It was not a matter of
    support or opposition. We just assumed that that would be of
    course what we would do. We were fairly careful in our
    conversation with the congressional staff observers who were
    with us because until we had the full treaty text before us and
    had analyzed it and had the State Department lawyers work it
    over, we are not in the habit of making commitments as to what
    legislation will be required. In informal conversations with
    members of the congressional observing group, including Allison
    Taylor, who is now on your staff, who was then with the House
    Energy and Commerce Committee, we did say that we assumed that
    the major amendments would have to be TSCA and FIFRA and they
    would be for the purposes of allowing the prohibitions on the
    export of chemicals and for the addition of new chemicals.
        Senator Jeffords. Mr. Walls, in your letter of February 26,
    2002 to the Environmental Protection Agency, you indicated that
    you understood that the Administration had drafted a
    legislative proposal to amend TSCA and FIFRA to implement the
    treaty obligations as to the 12 named chemicals, but that the
    Administration would not propose amendments to address
    additional chemicals listed under the POPs Convention process.
    Your understanding has now been shown to be correct. What is
    the American Chemistry Council's current position on the
    omission of an adding mechanism?
        Mr. Walls. Mr. Chairman, in February we made that
    observation in Fred Webber's letter to Administrator Whitman on
    the basis of media reports in the environmental trade press
    regarding the Administration's draft of legislation. As we
    stated in our testimony, we believe that an additions process
    must be part of the implementing process. It makes sense to
    address it now, and we are confident that an appropriate
    approach can be crafted as the legislation goes forward.
        Senator Jeffords. In your letter of February 26, 2002, ACC
    noted, ``the treaty contemplates the listing of other POPs in
    the future and provides a criteria and risk-based process to
    consider nominations made by the governments.'' That is a
    plural. And you believed it possible to, ``craft appropriate
    amendments to TSCA and FIFRA to reflect the treaty addition
    process.'' Is that still your view?
        Mr. Walls. Yes, sir.
        Senator Jeffords. Does this indicate that you are prepared
    to work with this committee on specific language to amend TSCA
    and FIFRA to authorize the Administrator of EPA to ban a
    chemical beyond those listed in the treaty which has completed
    the treaty's, ``rigorous process of review,'' and is
    recommended as an additional POPs chemical?
        Mr. Walls. We think there are a number of options available
    to consider for those amendments, Mr. Chairman, and we are
    prepared to work with the committee.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
        Ms. Perry, you mention in your testimony that children and
    developing fetuses are particularly vulnerable to POPs. Are
    there other populations that suffer from increased exposures of
    POPs?
        Ms. Perry. There are, and among them are Arctic indigenous
    peoples. Studies in far-northern Quebec in Canada have shown
    that Inuit mothers, for example, have among the highest levels
    of POPs like DDT and dioxin in their breast milk of any women
    in the world, even though they are far from the sources. These
    kinds of studies have not yet been done in Alaska to the same
    extent. They are under way, and we expect that they will
    similarly show that Alaska Native peoples, particularly those
    whose diets include fish and marine mammals, will also be
    abnormally exposed. Fisher people, people who recreationally
    and subsistence fish in the Great Lakes for example, are also
    highly exposed, and studies have shown that.
        Senator Jeffords. What are your views on the provisions of
    S. 2118 for the National Academy of Sciences to undertake
    studies on POPs, as well as a requirement for a release of the
    dioxin reassessment?
        Ms. Perry. We think those provisions are actually very
    closely tied to the United States's obligations under the
    Stockholm Convention. For example, the National Academy of
    Sciences study, I think several witnesses have pointed out that
    it will be a couple of years before the POPRC gets itself
    together and begins considering nominated chemicals. We would
    like to see the United States use that time wisely and the NAS
    study and the other provisions about EPA taking a look around
    and seeing what chemicals in this country we might be prepared
    to nominated, or that the United States might be prepared to
    support if another country nominated them to the POPRC--we
    think that is a good use of that time.
        With regard to the dioxin reassessment, as has been noted,
    the ultimate elimination of dioxin is one of the Treaty's
    provisions and in the short term, all parties would be asked to
    submit national action plans on dioxin. We think that the EPA's
    dioxin reassessment, which has now been in the works for 10
    years, would be the basis for creating a national action plan.
    It contains this country's inventory of dioxin sources and
    releases. It has been thoroughly peer-reviewed. It passed the
    EPA Science Advisory Board last year. So we would like to see
    it released as soon as possible to help inform our national
    action plan on dioxin.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
        Does anyone have an additional comment they wish to make?
    Yes, Mr. Buccini?
        Mr. Buccini. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the earlier testimony
    this morning, the issue of what takes place with regard to new
    chemicals between now and the entry into force of the
    Convention, I just wanted to clarify what the current
    understanding is. First, in the Stockholm Convention in May of
    last year, there was a resolution that guides the interim
    activities of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee,
    which will continue to meet on an annual basis until it is
    replaced by the Conference of Parties. The next meeting is in
    about 4 weeks time in Geneva.
        There were two important things with regard to the
    evaluation of new chemicals. There was considerable discussion
    and actually a bit of a debate as to whether progress in the
    interim period should begin in terms of the INC actually
    evaluating candidates. The final outcome of that debate was
    really two-fold. First is an agreement that in fact no country
    will submit a nomination prior to the first meeting of the
    Conference of Parties. Second, the resolution makes it quite
    clear that countries are encouraged on a national basis to be
    preparing for the first meeting of the Conference of Parties.
    So it isn't that there is no activity going on, but the
    activities are really at the national level. Countries such as
    the United States, Canada and others are examining what
    candidates they may wish to put forward in the future.
        So I just wanted to be clear on that. I think there were
    some remarks that were made earlier which might not have
    conveyed that exact message, so I just wanted for the record to
    be clear on that. Countries are encouraged to undergo national
    preparations, but they are discouraged from attempting to
    submit them to the INC process. COP one will be where the first
    nominations are submitted.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Jeffords. Anyone have a comment? Yes, Mr. Muir?
        Mr. Muir. As further follow-on to your question to me
    earlier, one additional factor with respect to TSCA Section 6
    is that those unreasonable risk findings in general are made on
    a use-by-use basis. It is very difficult to act on the entire
    production, distribution and use of a single chemical. So it is
    a difficult process. The Agency tried to act, for example, with
    respect to regulating asbestos--not a POP, but it was not able
    to do so because it is a very difficult finding which is done
    on a use-specific basis.
        Senator Jeffords. Anyone else? Any further comment?
        Mr. Yeager. To say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking this
    issue up and moving it along.
        Senator Jeffords. I will accept that comment. Thank you.
        Thank you all. This has been extremely helpful. I
    appreciate the work that went into your presentations and your
    answers, and I look forward to continuing to work with you. We
    will leave our options open to give you phone calls and other
    things to help us and assist us to make sure that we do the
    right thing.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the chair.]
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

          Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of
                                 New Hampshire

        I want to thank the witnesses for sharing your expert testimony
    with the committee. Last spring, with Governor Whitman and Secretary
    Powell at his side, President Bush announced his support for the
    Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants--The POPs
    Convention. This agreement will restrict and eliminate the production,
    use and/or release of 12 chemicals, including DDT, PCBs and dioxins,
    that are some of the most persistent and dangerous chemicals ever
    manufactured. Because they are so mobile and accumulate in the food
    chain, absent international action, they will continue to be a risk to
    us all.
        I am pleased that the international community came together and
    found a common solution. The agreements that are the subject of this
    hearing were developed in cooperation internationally and enjoy strong
    bipartisan support here in the United States. When we all work
    together, we can do great things for our environment. I want to commend
    President Bush and Governor Whitman for their leadership in pressing
    for this convention and delivering their implementing legislation to
    Congress. I am honored to be the lead Senate sponsor of the President's
    implementing legislation, S. 2507.
        I know that Senator Jeffords has also introduced his own version of
    implementing legislation. The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss
    those two proposals. The two bills mirror each other with a few
    differences: The Administration proposal includes a provision to
    implement the PICs agreement--the Jeffords bill does not; the Jeffords
    bill sets out an explicit mechanism for adding future chemicals when
    and if adopted by the international community -the Administration bill
    does not; and, the Jeffords bill provides a role for the National
    Academy of Science and also mandates a dioxin risk assessment.
        I realize that there is some controversy surrounding what mechanism
    the United States should use for the addition of any new chemicals. I
    was pleased when Governor Whitman stated at our press conference
    announcing implementing legislation that it is EPA's intention to work
    closely with the Congress to address the adding mechanism. I take that
    as a good faith and constructive gesture to deal with this issue in a
    bipartisan manner. It is my hope that we can avoid partisan rhetoric
    and find a good consensus answer to what appears to be the only issue
    of substance left to be resolved. It is also my hope that people will
    not use this single point that needs to be worked out as an excuse to
    politicize this process and turn what is a strong bipartisan effort
    into a political battle. The result of making this issue partisan would
    be to delay the implementation of something that EVERYONE wants. As I
    have said over and over again, environmental politics delays
    environmental protection. Let's keep the tone down, work together and
    see if we can solve this lone issue and claim victory on an
    environmental treaty that everyone believes is the right thing.

                                   __________
           Statement of Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeffry M. Burnam,
                              Department of State

        I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to
    speak about three treaties which the Administration supports. The three
    treaties are: the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    Pollutants, or the POPs Convention; the POPs Protocol to the Convention
    on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, or LRTAP POPs Protocol; and
    the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent. The POPs Convention
    aims to protect human health and the environment from 12 chemicals that
    are of particular concern in the environment because they have four
    intrinsic characteristics: they are toxic, they have the potential to
    bioaccumulate, they are stable and thus resistant to natural breakdown,
    and they can be transported over long distances. The 12 chemicals
    include: Aldrin, Hexachlorobenzene, Chlordane, Mirex, DDT, Toxaphene,
    Dieldrin, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Endrin, Polychlorinated
    dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins), heptachlor, and Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
    furans (furans). The POPs Convention was submitted to the Senate for
    advice and consent this week, and we look forward to working with the
    Senate to help ensure early ratification.
        POPs are capable of impacting human health and the environment far
    away from where they are released, including across national borders.
    POPs can have impacts in areas all over the United States, but have
    been of particular concern in Alaska and the Great Lakes Region. These
    chemicals have been linked to adverse human health effects: these
    include cancer, damage to the nervous system, reproductive disorders,
    and disruption of the immune system. These 12 chemicals are banned,
    severely restricted, or controlled in the United States, but are still
    in use abroad in many places. Because they are capable of long-range
    transport, a global treaty to address their human health and
    environmental effects is needed and was sought by the United States.
        The POPs Convention addresses two types of pollutants:
    intentionally produced POPs, such as DDT or PCBs; and unintentionally
    produced POPs, such as dioxins and furans. For intentionally produced
    POPs, the Convention prohibits their production and use, subject to
    certain exemptions such as DDT use for disease vector control. The
    Convention also restricts trade in such substances. For unintentionally
    produced POPs, the Convention requires countries to develop national
    action plans to address these releases, and to apply ``Best Available
    Techniques'' on specified key source sectors to control them.
        Under the POPS Convention, parties must take appropriate measures
    to ensure that POPs wastes are managed in an environmentally sound
    manner. Recognizing the needs of developing countries in managing POPs,
    the Convention includes a flexible system of financial and technical
    assistance by which developed countries will help developing countries
    to meet their obligations under POPS. Finally, the POPs Convention
    creates a science-based procedure that will govern the inclusion of
    additional chemicals to the Convention, including defining the criteria
    that must be met by chemicals proposed to be listed: namely that they
    are toxic, that they bioaccumulate, that they are resistant to natural
    breakdown and that they can be transported over long distances. In the
    language of the Convention, this science-based procedure involves an
    evaluation of ``whether the chemical is likely, as a result of its
    long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse
    human health or environmental effects, such that global action is
    warranted.'' We do not yet know the manner in which the risk management
    factors will be weighed when applied to additional chemicals.
        The implementing legislation submitted by the Administration also
    permits the United States to implement and become a party to two
    additional agreements. The first agreement--closely related to the
    Stockholm Convention--is the POPs Protocol to the LRTAP Convention.
    LRTAP POPS is a regional agreement negotiated under the auspices of the
    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which includes the
    United States, Canada, Europe, and the former Soviet Republics. The
    obligations in the LRTAP POPs Protocol are generally similar in nature
    and scope to those in the Stockholm POPs Convention, but are different
    in some ways. For example, LRTAP POPS includes four chemicals not
    included in the Stockholm Convention.
        The other agreement is the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed
    Consent, which aims to promote shared responsibility between exporting
    and importing countries in protecting human health and the environment.
    The Rotterdam Convention stipulates that export of certain especially
    hazardous chemicals can only take place with the prior informed consent
    of the importing country. When exported, these chemicals must be
    labeled and accompanied by safety data sheets that explain their
    potential health and environment effects--these requirements are
    similar to those currently in place in the United States. The Rotterdam
    Convention significantly enhances the safe management of chemicals by
    enabling countries, especially developing countries, to identify risks
    and make informed decisions about the importation and use of highly
    dangerous chemicals.
        Together, these three Treaties address a number of chemical
    management problems faced by the international community. They enjoy
    broad support from the public, from environmental and industry
    organizations and from many Members of Congress with whom we have been
    in contact. All of these agreements benefit the health and
    environmental well-being of U.S. citizens and of people all over the
    world.

                                     ______

    Responses of Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeffry M. Burnam to Additional
                        Questions from Senator Jeffords

        Question 1. Does the Department of State favor the ``opt-in''
    approach under Article 25 of the Convention in which the U.S. would
    need to affirmatively ratify any new chemical added to the POPs treaty
    before the U.S. would be bound to control that chemical as a POP?
        Response. Yes.

        Question 2. Does the Department of State contemplate a role for
    Congress, in particular, the Senate, in the decision of whether the
    U.S. should agree to regulate a new chemical added to the Stockholm
    Convention?
        Response. Yes. We envision that a decision whether the United
    States should become bound by an amendment to add a new chemical to the
    Convention would be made in consultation with the Senate, given the
    Senate's role in the treatymaking process. We look forward to a
    detailed discussion of that consultation process with the Senate, in
    particular the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to consider whether
    the Senate's advice and consent would be required for all future
    amendments to the Convention's control annexes. In the event that
    additional legislative authority were required in order to permit the
    United States to implement a particular amendment, then the House of
    Representatives would of course play a role in that legislative
    process.

        Question 3. What role will the Senate have in the addition of new
    POPs to the Stockholm Convention?
        Response. As noted in the answer to question 2 above, we envision
    that a decision whether the United States would become bound by an
    amendment to add a new chemical to the Convention would be made in
    consultation with the Senate, given the Senate's role in the treaty-
    making process. We look forward to a detailed discussion of that
    consultation process with the Senate, in particular the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee, to consider whether the Senate's advice and
    consent would be required for all future amendments to the Convention's
    control annexes.

        Question 4. What role will the Senate have in the addition of new
    POPs under the LRTAP POPs Protocol?
        Response. The LRTAP Convention, and other LRTAP Protocols to which
    the United States is presently a party, were not subjected to the
    advice and consent of the Senate, but were concluded as executive
    agreements that were implemented in accordance with existing statutory
    and regulatory authorities. Assuming the proposed implementing
    legislation for the LRTAP POPs Protocol is enacted, the Administration
    assumes that there would be a good basis for concluding that Protocol
    (and any amendments thereto) in the same manner. We are, however,
    interested in consulting with the Senate on this matter. In any event,
    the Department anticipates that the executive branch would consult
    closely with the Senate (as well as affected U.S. stakeholders) in
    considering whether to become bound by any future amendments to the
    Protocol.

        Question 5. Does the Senate [sic] favor a new role for the National
    Academy of Sciences in the identification of new POPs, as set forth in
    S. 2118?
        Response. The State Department does not believe that a role for the
    National Academy of Sciences is necessary in this legislation.

        Question 6. Did the State Department have adequate technical and
    policy support from EPA in the course of the negotiations for the
    Stockholm Convention?
        Response. Yes. The State Department worked very closely with EPA
    during these negotiations, and we received very effective technical and
    policy support.

                                   __________
      Statement of Assistant Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, Office of
       Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
                               Protection Agency

                                I. INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
    invitation to appear before you today. It is my privilege to represent
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to discuss the
    Administration's legislative proposal to effectively implement three
    very important international environmental agreements: The Stockholm
    Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Rotterdam
    Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
    Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC) and the
    Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants negotiated under the U.N.
    Economic Commission for Europe's Convention on Long Range Transboundary
    Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs Protocol). This afternoon, I respectfully ask
    for your help to expeditiously approve the Administration's legislative
    proposal so that the United States may be able to quickly and
    effectively ratify and implement these important environmental
    agreements.
        The Bush administration is committed to working closely with all
    members of this committee and the U.S. Senate to ensure quick enactment
    of the implementing legislation and subsequent ratification of the
    agreements. We want to work with you to craft legislation that tracks
    the provisions of these agreements and ensures that the United States
    retains its current position as the international leader in chemical
    environmental safety.
        I am pleased to have the opportunity to update the committee on
    EPA's domestic and international activities to effectively manage these
    pesticides and chemicals, our intentions with respect to the listing of
    additional chemicals on the POPs agreements and to explain specific
    provisions of the Administration's draft legislative proposal.
        The Bush administration is firmly committed to ratification of both
    the global POPs Convention, the PIC Convention and the regional LRTAP
    POPs Protocol.
        Here in the United States, we have already taken extensive steps to
    address risks posed by the substances covered by the global POPs
    Convention and the LRTAP POPs Protocol. Stand-alone action by any one
    country is not enough. These chemicals continue to pose real health
    risks to U.S. citizens and to people around the world because they are
    used and released in other countries and travel long distances from
    their source. In the United States, these agreements are of particular
    importance for the people and environment of Alaska, which are impacted
    by POPs transported by air and water from outside the State. This is
    particularly true for Alaskan Natives, who rely heavily on traditional
    diets comprised of fish and wildlife. By joining with the rest of the
    world to phaseout or reduce these toxic pollutants, we protect the
    health and the environment, not only of our fellow Americans, but of
    all those who share our planet.

                    II. U.S. ROLE AS AN INTERNATIONAL LEADER

        At EPA, we take the threats posed by these pesticides and chemicals
    to our environment and public health very seriously. The U.S. was the
    first country to begin a thorough scientific reassessment/re-
    registration program for pesticides and, I believe, is still the only
    Nation that is looking at the cumulative risks posed by pesticides.
    Other countries look to the United States to provide strong leadership
    in the area of chemical safety. EPA is internationally recognized for
    its sound scientific risk assessments and regulatory decisionmaking.
    Our actions are respected and often replicated in other countries
    across the globe.
        EPA continues to take measures that promote the objectives of the
    POPs Convention. As you know, the Convention contains obligations
    related to providing technical and financial assistance to developing
    countries and countries with economies in transition to help them
    comply with POPs Convention obligations. The U.S. is committed to
    providing financial and technical assistance to assist developing
    countries in ratifying the Convention and meeting their obligations.

    III. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO IMPLEMENT POPS,
                                 PIC AND LRTAP

        The Administration's legislative proposal is a culmination of an
    interagency process that provides targeted changes to the Toxic
    Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in order to track the provisions of these
    three agreements. Because these agreements are largely consistent with
    existing U.S. law, only narrowly targeted adjustments to FIFRA and TSCA
    are necessary for the U.S. to fully implement our obligations under
    them.
        For the currently listed intentionally produced global and LRTAP
    POPs chemicals, the legislation contains language to prohibit any
    production, use, processing, distribution in commerce and disposal
    operations that may be inconsistent with treaty obligations. It also
    contains provisions for specific exemptions from the prohibitions such
    as those needed for research purposes, consistent with the agreements.
        The Administration's legislative language directly tracks
    obligations in the PIC Convention relating to notice of control action,
    export notification, export controls and labeling. With these
    provisions, the U.S. will be able to effectively and expeditiously
    implement this important Convention.
        The Bush administration is fully committed to the listing of
    additional chemicals to the global POPS and regional LRTAP POPs
    agreements. In fact, that's why the Administration's legislative draft
    contains information collection provisions that will ensure that the
    U.S. is as informed as possible of the risks, benefits, production,
    uses and other pertinent factors concerning candidate chemicals when it
    is negotiating amendments to add future chemicals.
        The Administration believes the processes set forth in Article 8 of
    the POPs Convention and the LRTAP Executive Body Decision 1998/2 for
    identifying candidates for listing chemicals are sufficiently rigorous
    and science based and are fully supported by this Administration. We
    are confident that they will identify strong candidates for listing
    based on a scientific risk assessment. However, the parties must still
    work through the details of a decision process for evaluating cost and
    other information for listing additional substances under POPs. The
    Administration is firmly committed to maintaining the high degree of
    analytical and scientific rigor that has led to the international
    recognition for its sound scientific risk assessments and regulatory
    decision making. At this time, we do not have enough experience with
    how, after a decision that a chemical meets certain scientific criteria
    for listing, the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the global POPs
    Convention or the Executive Body of the LRTAP POPs Protocol will weigh
    and balance risk assessment, socioeconomic and other factors (listed in
    Annex F of the global POPs Convention and in Executive Decision 1998/2
    for the LRTAP POPs Protocol) when making final listing decisions and
    deciding on appropriate control measures for the chemical. Both
    Agreements explicitly contemplate bans and restrictions, and possible
    exemptions, as types of risk management outcomes, with chemical
    specific socioeconomic factors being relevant considerations. Since no
    chemical has been through the listing process, however, it is unclear
    how the COP/Executive Body will weigh these factors and arrive at
    appropriate control measures.
        Recognizing that a provision to address the listing of additional
    chemicals is not required to bring the U.S. into compliance upon entry
    into force of these agreements, the Administration determined that it
    would be best to consider these risk management issues in the context
    of the detailed POPs listing process. We believe the experience gained
    at the negotiating table when considering additional chemicals will be
    of great value in conducting the necessary analyses for EPA action.
    Such valuable information, combined with our experience in implementing
    established domestic regulatory standards under FIFRA and TSCA will
    help ensure that EPA's decisions regarding newly listed POPs result in
    the most appropriate and balanced risk management decisions.
        The Administration would also like to recognize Chairman Jeffords
    and Senator Smith for their significant efforts to support the global
    POPs Convention and LRTAP POPs Protocol. We are in the process of
    reviewing the Chairman's implementing legislation, but have not
    completed our analysis of all of the changes proposed by the bill.
    Thus, at this time, we have not developed a formal position on S. 2118.
    However, Administrator Whitman and I are committed to working with
    Senator Jeffords, Senator Smith, Members of the Committee and all
    Members of Congress to ensure expeditious enactment of the best
    legislation possible to implement the POPs, PIC and LRTAP agreements.

                       IV. A CALL FOR SWIFT RATIFICATION

        The Administration is seeking swift ratification of these
    Agreements and, with your support, we will retain our current position
    as a very active player in their implementation. We believe that it is
    especially important to be at the table as a party when crucial early
    implementation decisions are being made and when parties, including the
    U.S. submit proposals to add new chemicals to the global POPs and LRTAP
    POPs Protocol's control annexes. As you may know, the United Nations
    Environment Program (UNEP) intends to hold a forum at the World Summit
    on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August to encourage
    countries to deposit their instruments of ratification for the POPs
    Convention with UNEP at the Summit. As a result, the Stockholm
    Convention may come into force soon and it is important that the U.S.
    be a party at that time so that the U.S. can play a strong role from
    the outset of the Convention. Furthermore, the United States would like
    to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to the goals of this important
    treaty and by our example encourage other countries to ratify the
    Convention.

                       V. RATIFICATION IS A U.S. INTEREST

        The Administration is very proud of the U.S.'s leadership role on
    these very important environmental treaties. I am especially proud of
    the POPs treaty because it provides a perfect example of how industry,
    business and environmental interests have worked together to resolve
    serious environmental issues. These three agreements illustrate how
    much can be accomplished in support of common environmental goals. Upon
    ratification, EPA will continue to work with various industry and
    environmental organizations on implementation of the Convention.
    Together with our domestic stakeholders and international
    organizations, we will support the growth of the capacity of developing
    countries to meet the imperative of the sound management of chemicals.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these international
    environmental agreements this afternoon. Again, I want to thank you for
    your support and leadership and assure you that President Bush,
    Administrator Whitman and I are looking forward to working with the
    committee to ratify these important agreements and finalize the
    implementing legislation. I will be pleased to answer any questions.

                                   __________
      Statement of Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences

        Chairman Jeffords and members of the committee, thank you for the
    invitation to discuss before your committee the proposed bill to
    implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
    (POPS) and the Convention on long-range Transboundary Air Pollution. I
    am very pleased to be herewith you today.
        Since the role of the National Academy of Sciences and its
    affiliated institutions is to serve as a source of independent expert
    scientific, engineering, and medical advice, I will limit my testimony
    to scientific issues and the possible involvement of our operating arm,
    the National Research Council, in reviewing candidate chemicals for
    possible future inclusion in the conventions, starting with general
    issues and moving to specific drafting issues, I will defer to others
    to address the political and policy issues associated with alternative
    convention ratification strategies.
        Section 107 ``Research Program to Support POPs Convention''
    contains a provision in which EPA may enter into a contract with the
    National Academy of Sciences to:

              ``(1) develop and apply screening criteria for adding new
            substances or mixtures to the POPs Convention
              (2) propose alternative designs for a global monitoring
            program aimed at identifying persistent and bioaccumulative
            chemical substances . . . and
              (3) recommend priority candidates . . . for possible
            nomination to the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review
            Committee . . . of the POPs Convention.''

        It also requests that we consider a list of specific chemicals.
        The National Academies are prepared to assist the U.S. Government
    by providing independent advice on scientifically sound methods for
    screening and analyzing potential POPS. We are also prepared to provide
    advice on the scientific and technical aspects of alternative designs
    for global monitoring programs. In addition, the National Academies
    would be able to prepare reports compiling and assessing relevant
    scientific data on specific; chemicals and mixtures. Indeed, the
    National Academies have a long history of providing such advice, in the
    context of other laws and programs.
        In providing this type of assistance to the government, the
    National Academies convene groups of experts from the academic
    community and other organizations who serve without compensation to
    produce peer-reviewed reports. These experts are carefully chosen to
    provide an appropriate range of expertise and a balance of perspectives
    while avoiding conflicts of interests. Our committees solicit and
    consider public input. The members of our committees serve in their
    individual capacities and not as representatives of any stakeholder
    organizations; their deliberations result in a scientific consensus,
    not a multi-stakeholder consensus. We do not have the same notice and
    public comment typical of the development of Federal regulatory
    policies. We do not consider it our role to recommend specific policies
    for Federal regulation; instead, our role is to provide independent
    expert advice on the scientific basis relevant to such policies.
        The National Academies would be able to produce; an expert report
    recommending alternative designs for a global monitoring; program aimed
    at identifying persistent and bioaccumulative chemical substances. Such
    alternative designs would be driven primarily by scientific and
    practical considerations.
        I turn now to the remaining two requests for assistance from the
    National Academies that are specified in Section 107 of the proposed
    bill. Executive Body Decision 1998/2 of the Convention on Long-Range
    Transboundary Air Pollution and Annex D of the Stockholm Convention
    contain technical criteria for screening prospective chemicals for
    persistence, bioaccumulation, potential for long-range environmental
    transport, and adverse effects. It would be entirely appropriate for
    the National Academies to compile and evaluate data on chemical to
    determine whether or not they meet these criteria, or any similar set
    of specified technical criteria.
        Annex E of the Stockholm Convention and Decision 1998/2 require
    that ``risk profiles'' be developed for candidate chemicals. The
    following types of information are to be included as far as possible.
         sources (production, uses, and environmental releases),
         hazard assessment.
         environmental fate,
         monitoring data.
         exposures.
         bioavailability,
         previous assessments and
         previous risk management actions
         availability of alternatives.
        These risk profiles are used to make decisions on adding specific
    chemicals to these conventions. These final decisions involve
    appropriately, not only scientific criteria, but also policy and
    political considerations, such as costs, benefits, and other
    socioeconomic factors.
        Since non-scientific factors are properly involved in such
    considerations, the National Academies are reluctant to be asked to
    recommend that specific chemicals be added to they POPS Convention.
    Rather, we propose that, if asked to be involved, the National
    Academies be requested: (1) to recommend scientific principles and
    methods for preparing risk profiles, and (2) to apply such principles
    and methods to prepare risk profiles, with information available in the
    United States, for the chemicals listed in Section 107 of the proposed
    bill, as well as for chemicals with similar attributes.
        According to the above proposal, the EPA and the U.S. Government
    would use the risk profiles we develop to make the decisions on what
    chemicals to propose for inclusion in the POPS Convention. These
    decisions would incorporate non-scientific policy considerations as
    well as the scientific considerations that we provide.
        Note that many chemicals can be expected to meet the screening
    criteria of Annex D of the Stockholm Convention but are neither used in
    commerce in the United States nor found in the environment in
    substantial quantities. Less than 100,000 chemicals are currently in.
    commerce, out of more than 38 million chemicals reported in the
    scientific literature. Only a small percentage of the 100,000 chemicals
    in commerce are in large-scale production, and many of those are not in
    processes or uses that are likely to result in significant releases to
    the environment. It would clearly be inappropriate to recommend
    chemicals for inclusion in the convention if they are not of
    environmental significance, and it would be inappropriate for the
    National Academies to ask experts to volunteer their time to review
    such chemicals.
        If called upon to develop the suggested risk profiles, the National
    Academies would need the full cooperation of the EPA. For example,
    preparing such profiles would require the assistance of the agency in
    obtaining unpublished data and information from agency data bases and
    files as well as other internal agency information.
        Section 107 (b) of the bill reads, ``The Administrator may offer to
    enter into a contract with the Academy. . .''. However, the language
    thereafter mandates the specifics of such a contract. We would urge
    that these mandates be softened to recommendations. Such softening
    might remove disincentives for EPA and the Academy to enter into such a
    contract.
        Included in the specifics is a January 1, 2004 date for the
    National Academies to complete a report. We recommend the report be
    described as a ``progress'' report to avoid any misinterpretation of
    the nature of the report. The many activities called for in this bill
    cannot all be completed in 18 months or less. Furthermore, the bill
    fails to specify a starting date for the contract, so the time
    available for the National Academies to perform our work might be
    considerably less than 18 months after the contract is received. We
    suggest that; the requested outcome should be more than a single
    report. Instead, Section 107 could provide a basis for the National
    Academies to furnish longer-term support to the U.S. Government in
    carrying out its responsibilities under the Stockholm Convention and
    the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution.
        The term ``research'' is used in several places in the section.
    However, we want to be clear thaw, if the National Academies undertake
    these activities, we will not be generating new scientific data. Rather
    we will be compiling, analyzing, synthesizing, and reporting data and
    information that has already been developed by others.
        In sum, the National Academy of Sciences, through its operating
    arm, the National Research Council is prepared to assist the U.S.
    Government in carrying out its responsibilities under the Stockholm
    Convention and the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air
    Pollution. To do so would entail the development of several reports
    providing independent scientific advice, leaving the weighing of the
    important policy and political considerations to the government.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important bill
    with you today.

                                     ______

      Response of Warren Muir to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords

        Question. In your testimony you offer to ``recommend scientific
    principles and methods for preparing risk profiles.'' Don't methods
    already exist for preparing risk profiles?
        Response. Although the Convention describes certain screening
    criteria for chemicals and scientific information requirements for the
    risk profiles, some of the requirements are stated in very general
    terms and are subject to wide interpretation. The National Academies
    would propose to further define and expand upon these requirements to
    create useful scientific methods and principles for application to the
    evaluation of potential persistent organic pollutants.

                                   __________

    Statement of John Buccini, Chairman, UNEP Intergovernmental Negotiating
                                   Committee

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is John Buccini
    and I am here today, in response to your invitation, in my capacity as
    Chairman of the UNEP Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that
    developed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
    (POPs). Recognizing that I am here primarily to respond to any
    questions that the committee may pose, I will confine my opening
    remarks to a few observations about the treaty and its development.
        The Stockholm Convention has as its objective, the protection of
    human health and the environment from POPs. It was developed in
    response to an acceptance by the international community of the need to
    take collective global action to reduce and/or eliminate the generation
    and release of POPs. This acceptance was based on the recognition that
    the continued generation and release to the environment of POPs is not
    a sustainable practice as once released into the environment, POPs
    undergo widespread environmental distribution through natural
    processes, contaminate environmental media and living organisms
    including the food chain, persist for very long periods of time, and
    pose a threat to present and future generations of both humans and
    wildlife.
        The process of developing the convention was initiated in May 1995
    by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In March 1996, an
    agreement was reached that there was sufficient scientific evidence
    available to justify taking immediate international action on POPs.
    This agreement has underpinned and given a sense of urgency to the
    efforts made by stakeholders from all sectors of society including
    governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental
    organizations (including both industry and public interest groups) and
    aboriginal groups.
        The activities involved in developing the convention have resulted
    in a broad acceptance of the urgent need for action in countries around
    the world. This is demonstrated by the fact that less than 1 year after
    the convention was opened for signature in Stockholm on May 23, 2001,
    128 countries and the European Community have signed the treaty and 7
    have become Parties through ratification or accession. Another
    indicator is the number and nature of the actions that stakeholders are
    taking to address the risks posed by POPs. Based on an annual UNEP
    survey of representatives of all stakeholder groups, about 110
    countries are already active in taking action to address POPs and
    actions are also being taken by the public, industry and aboriginal and
    public interest groups around the world. As an example, the
    International POPs Elimination Network was established during the
    negotiation of the treaty and today includes over 400 public interest
    groups from countries around the globe with programs to address POPs
    issues at the local, national, regional and international levels. This
    is indeed encouraging to note.
        Let me now turn to the convention itself. In my view, there are
    three key provisions in the treaty--the controls on 12 POPs, the
    evaluation of future candidates for addition to the treaty, and
    financial and technical assistance for developing countries and
    countries with economies in transition.
        The control provisions of the convention address three areas:
    intentionally produced POPs, unintentionally produced POPs, and POPs in
    stockpiles and wastes.
        For intentionally produced POPs (industrial chemicals and
    pesticides), the goal of the convention is to eliminate their
    production and use and measures are specified for 10 chemicals. To
    prevent the introduction into commerce of new POPs, Parties with
    regulatory and assessment schemes for industrial chemicals and
    pesticides will, in conducting assessments of new substances, take
    ``measures to regulate with the aim of preventing the production and
    use of'' new POPs. In assessing the risks posed by in-use substances,
    Parties will consider the screening criteria for candidates for
    addition to the Convention (specified in Annex D) to identify, at the
    earliest opportunity, candidates for further consideration.
        For unintentionally produced POPs (byproducts of industrial and
    combustion processes, such as dioxins and furans) the convention goal
    is the continuing minimization and, where feasible, the ultimate
    elimination of the total releases of such POPs derived from
    anthropogenic sources. An approach has been developed that enables each
    country to define its priorities, develop a national action plan within
    2 years of entry into force of the convention, and then implement the
    plan.
        For stockpiles and wastes, the goal is to ensure the
    environmentally sound management of stockpiles that consist of or
    contain intentionally produced POPs, and of wastes, including products
    and articles upon becoming wastes that consist of, contain or are
    contaminated with intentionally or unintentionally produced POPs.
    Measures are specified to prevent the reuse or recycling of POPs and to
    manage these materials to prevent releases to the environment of POPs
    during storage, handling, transport or disposal activities.
        The second major provision is a science-based approach to
    systematically identify and review future candidate chemicals for
    addition to the convention. The process and scientific criteria for
    this provision are specified in the convention and a POPs Review
    Committee will be established at the first meeting of the Conference of
    the Parties to evaluate nominations submitted by Parties. Considerable
    attention was paid to the need for openness and transparency in this
    process to ensure that all candidates will be fully and fairly
    evaluated.
        In the third major provision, the convention specifies that
    developing countries and countries with economies in transition will
    need technical and financial assistance and that regional and
    subregional centres will be established for capacity building and the
    transfer of technology to assist countries in need. Developed countries
    have agreed to provide technical assistance and new and additional
    financial resources to meet agreed full incremental implementation
    costs. The Global Environment Facility is named as the principal entity
    of the interim financial mechanism to handle funding of capacity
    building and other related activities. Financial support has already
    begun to flow and an estimated 50 countries have already initiated
    action to prepare their national plans to implement the convention.
    This is indeed encouraging.
        In my view, the Stockholm Convention represents a significant
    advance in protecting health and the environment from what many regard
    as the most toxic chemicals that have ever been produced. There is a
    high level of interest and activity among all stakeholder groups in the
    POPs area and I expect that this will continue into the future. In this
    regard, I am pleased to note that you have invited both industry and
    environmental non-government organizations to appear before you during
    this session.
        The current rapid pace of signature and ratification of the
    convention augurs well for continued international action on POPs. The
    convention will enter into force 90 days after 50 Parties have ratified
    it. Many contend that the urgent nature of POPs problems warrants
    expedited entry into force and concerted, collective actions to address
    these problems and their solutions. Some stakeholders have urged
    governments around the world to ratify the POPs treaty prior to the
    Johannesburg Summit in August of this year.
        In closing, I wish to state my hope that the United States will be
    among the Parties attending the first Conference of Parties, given the
    important decisions that must be taken at that meeting to implement the
    convention and the role that the United States can play in these
    matters. I look forward to the United States being a full and effective
    contributor in implementing the new international controls on POPs
    under the Stockholm Convention. I note that the U.S. Government is
    proceeding in an expeditious manner to ratify and implement the
    convention and I am pleased to be here today to provide any information
    that may be of assistance in that process.

                                   __________

    Statement of Brooks B. Yeager, Vice President for Global Threats, World
                                 Wildlife Fund

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: On behalf of World
    Wildlife Fund's 1.2 million members, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify on the implementing legislation for the Stockholm Convention on
    Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Known worldwide by its panda
    logo, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is dedicated to protecting the rich
    biological diversity on which the prosperity and survival of human
    societies depends. As the leading privately supported international
    conservation organization in the world, WWF has sponsored conservation
    work in more than 100 countries since 1961.
        For the record, I am Brooks Yeager, Vice President for Global
    Threats at WWF, where I supervise campaigns to conserve global forests
    and ocean resources, to avert damage to the global environment from
    climate change and toxic pollution, and to ensure the environmental
    sustainability of global commerce. Before joining WWF, I served as the
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Development at the U.S.
    State Department. At State I was responsible for the development and
    negotiation of U.S. Government policy in a range of bilateral and
    global environmental discussions and undertakings. These included the
    Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the CBD Biosafety Protocol,
    the Global Environment Facility, the International Coral Reef
    Initiative (ICRI), the International Tropical Timber Organization, and
    United Nations forest discussions.
        I also served as the United States' lead negotiator for the
    Stockholm POPs Convention. We are here today to discuss the
    implementing legislation for this ground-breaking treaty. With your
    permission, I will try to distinguish the views I express on behalf of
    WWF from those observations I can make from my involvement on behalf of
    the U.S. Government in the Convention's development.
        The Stockholm POPs Convention represents the most important effort
    by the global community, to date, to rein in and ultimately halt the
    proliferation of toxic chemicals. It's an agreement that is at once
    ambitious, comprehensive, and realistic. The treaty targets some of the
    world's most dangerous chemicals--POPs include pesticides such as
    chlordane, industrial chemicals such as PCBs, and by-products such as
    dioxins.
        POPs pose a particular hazard because of four characteristics: they
    are toxic; they are persistent, resisting normal processes that break
    down contaminants; they accumulate in the body fat of people, marine
    mammals, and other animals and are passed from mother to fetus; and
    they can travel great distances on wind and water currents. Even small
    quantities of POPs can wreak havoc in human and animal tissue, causing
    nervous system damage, diseases of the immune system, reproductive and
    developmental disorders, and cancers.
        Persistent organic pollutants are a threat to human health,
    wildlife, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems in the United States
    and around the world. From Alaska to the Great Lakes to Florida,
    Americans face an insidious but largely invisible threat from POPs
    chemicals. Despite more than two decades of U.S. efforts to control
    POPs pollution, POPs used and released in other countries--often
    thousands of miles from our borders--continue to contaminate our lands
    and waterways, the food we eat, and the air we breathe.
        Our government made a concerted effort, starting not long after the
    publication of Rachel Carson's pathbreaking Silent Spring, to eliminate
    the production and use of known POPs chemicals in the United States--
    yet we are still vulnerable to POPs pollution. Our environment,
    wildlife, and human health continue to be affected by POPs from
    unremediated contaminated sites at home and the production and use of
    POPs elsewhere in the world. This last fact is central to understanding
    the United States' strong national interest in the success of this
    global effort to reduce and eliminate POPs. POPs' mobility in air and
    water currents, for example, makes possible their presence along with
    metals and other particulates in incursions of Saharan dust into the
    continental United States. African dust is the dominant aerosol
    constituent in southern Florida's dense summer hazes. Similarly, one
    potential source of DDT in some salmon returns to Alaska rivers is its
    extensive use in Asian agriculture. A global mechanism to reduce these
    ``chemical travelers without passports'' is necessary, urgent, and very
    much in our national interest.
        [Note: ``A Toxic Hot Spots'' map submitted with this testimony will
    be referred to in relation to statements made in the prior paragraph.]
        The Stockholm POPs Convention was negotiated by more than one
    hundred and twenty governments over a 4-year period. As the head of the
    U.S. delegation, I was responsible for developing the United States'
    negotiating objectives and strategies, and for assuring that our
    national interest, positions, and requirements were reflected in the
    final text. Development of the U.S. position was accomplished through a
    thorough, not to say exhaustive, domestic process involving regular
    consultations with seven domestic agencies, industry, the environmental
    and public health communities, native American representatives, and
    various interested state governments, including the State of Alaska.
        This careful process of developing the U.S. negotiating position is
    one of the reasons, I believe, that President Bush's decision to sign
    the Stockholm Convention last April received such broad support. WWF
    and many others--including the chemical industry, environmental and
    public health organizations and Members of Congress on both sides of
    the aisle--applauded the President's Rose Garden announcement. We are
    pleased that the President has decided to send the treaty package to
    the Senate for ratification.
        In fact, both industry and environmental representatives made
    important contributions to the final product. I would like to note in
    particular the constructive roles played by Mr. Michael Walls and Mr.
    Paul Hagen of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). A letter to
    Governor Whitman on February 26, 2002, from Mr. Frederick Webber, ACC's
    President and CEO, noted that,

              ACC strongly recommends that the Administration seek the U.S.
            Senate's advice and consent to ratification as soon as
            possible. We believe it is important for the United States to
            continue its leadership role in the global effort to address
            the risks posed by POPs emissions, and believe that the United
            States should make every effort to be among the first 50
            countries ratifying the Convention.

        WWF looks forward to working with our environment and public health
    NGO colleagues, indigenous peoples, the ACC and other business groups,
    and other stakeholders in moving forward the POPs implementing
    legislation and treaty ratification packages as expeditiously as
    possible.
        The POPs treaty represents a significant and innovative
    breakthrough in global chemicals management, calling for concrete steps
    to restrict or phaseout dangerous chemicals rather than relying on
    expensive, end-of-pipe measures such as pollution scrubbers and
    filters. The treaty's ambitious control obligations were developed with
    enough flexibility that they can be accomplished largely within the
    established U.S. statutory and regulatory structure. As we will discuss
    today, only limited adjustments are needed to the Federal Insecticide,
    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control
    Act (TSCA).
        In Stockholm in May 2001, the POPs treaty was signed by 91
    governments and ratified by two. Already those numbers have climbed to
    128 signatories and the equivalent of 7 Parties (six ratifications and
    one accession) as of May 1, 2002. WWF is working with governments
    around the world in the hope of generating the required 50
    ratifications by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in late
    August in Johannesburg, South Africa, so that the treaty can enter into
    force before the end of 2002. This is an ambitious target, but one
    fully justified by the urgency of the problem. WWF believes that the
    Johannesburg Summit presents a significant opportunity for American
    leadership in the global effort to eliminate POPs, as well as in
    broader issues affecting the global environment and human development.
    Achieving Senate advice and consent for ratification within the next 15
    weeks is admittedly a much-accelerated timeframe, but with energy and
    determination we believe this is achievable. Enacting implementing
    legislation in such a period may be even more challenging, but we urge
    you to try and do so.
        WWF extends heartfelt thanks and congratulations to Senator
    Jeffords and his staff on the Senate Environment and Public Works
    Committee for introducing sound, forward-thinking legislation to
    implement the POPs treaty.

                   OVERVIEW OF THE STOCKHOLM POPS CONVENTION

        Before delving into the specifics of the implementing legislation,
    a brief overview of the structure and mechanisms of the Stockholm POPs
    Convention may be in order. The POPs treaty is designed to eliminate or
    severely restrict production and use of POPs pesticides and industrial
    chemicals; ensure environmentally sound management and chemical
    transformation of POPs waste; and avert the development of new
    chemicals with POPs-like characteristics.
        Eliminating intentionally produced POPs. The agreement targets
    chemicals that are detrimental to human health and the environment
    globally, starting with a list of 12 POPs that includes formerly used
    pesticides, dioxins, and PCBs. Most of the pesticides are slated for
    immediate bans once the treaty takes effect. A longer phase-out (until
    2025) is planned for certain PCB uses. With regard to DDT, the
    agreement sets the goal of ultimate elimination, with a timeline
    determined by the availability of cost-effective alternatives for
    malaria prevention. The agreement limits use in the interim to disease
    vector control in accordance with World Health Organization guidelines,
    and calls for research, development, and implementation of safe,
    effective, and affordable alternatives to DDT.
        Ultimately eliminating byproduct POPs. For dioxins, furans, and
    hexachlorobenzene, parties are called on to reduce total releases with
    the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate
    elimination. The treaty urges the use of substitute or modified
    materials, products, and processes to prevent the formation and release
    of by-product POPs.
        Incorporating precaution. Precaution, including transparency and
    public participation, is a guiding approach throughout the treaty, with
    explicit references in the preamble, objective, provisions for adding
    POPs, and determination of best available technologies.
        Disposing of POPs wastes. The treaty includes provisions for the
    environmentally sound management and disposal of POPs wastes (including
    stockpiles, products, articles in use, and materials contaminated with
    POPs). The POP content in waste is to be destroyed, irreversibly
    transformed, or, in very limited situations, otherwise disposed of in
    an environmentally sound manner in coordination with Basel Convention
    requirements.
        Controlling POPs trade. Trade in POPs is allowed only for the
    purpose of environmentally sound disposal or in other very limited
    circumstances where the importing State provides certification of its
    environmental and human health commitments and its compliance with the
    POPs treaty's waste provisions.
        Allowing limited and transparent exemptions. Most exemptions to the
    treaty requirements are chemical- and country-specific. There are also
    broader exceptions for use in laboratory-scale research; for small
    quantities in the possession of an end-user; and for quantities
    occurring as unintentional trace contaminants in products. Notification
    procedures and other conditions apply to exemptions for POPs as
    constituents of manufactured articles and for certain closed-system
    site-limited intermediates.
        Funding commitments enabling all countries to participate. The
    ability of all countries to fulfill their obligations will be integral
    to the treaty's success. The treaty contains a sensible and realistic
    financial mechanism, utilizing the Global Environment Facility (GEF),
    through which donor countries have committed to assisting developing
    countries and transitional economies in meeting their obligations under
    the treaty. Adequacy, predictability, and timely flow of funds are
    essential. The treaty calls for regular review by the Conference of
    Parties of both the level of funding and the effectiveness of
    performance of the institutions entrusted with the treaty's financial
    operations.

               THE POPS TREATY AS A CAREFUL BALANCE OF INTERESTS

        In my view, Mr. Chairman, this is a solid and carefully crafted
    treaty. But it is also a treaty that reflects a careful balance of
    interests achieved through negotiation and compromise. The U.S.
    interest, as we articulated it during the negotiations, was to achieve
    an ambitious treaty that would address the global environmental damage
    caused by POPs, but do so in a way that would be practical,
    implementable, financially efficient, and consistent with the
    fundamental structure of our national approach to chemical regulation.
        Other countries had different interests, some similar, some at
    variance with ours. The developing countries were neither willing nor
    able to invest in what to them was a new environmental priority such as
    POPs control and remediation without financial and technical assistance
    from the developed world. The G-77 negotiators insisted throughout the
    negotiation on a new financial mechanism, specific to the Convention,
    with mandatory assessments. The establishment of the GEF as the
    Convention's interim financial mechanism represents a genuine
    compromise in which the donor countries committed to provide additional
    financial resources, but through a channel with a proven track record
    and one over which donor countries exert significant control.
        Similarly, the EU and a number of other countries insisted early in
    the negotiations on a framework for regulating byproducts such as
    dioxins based on quantitative baselines and mandatory percentage
    reductions. The United States and some developing countries considered
    this unrealistically rigid, in view of the highly varying levels of
    knowledge regarding dioxin sources in various national contexts and the
    even higher variation among countries in the capacity to address such
    sources. The framework for dioxin regulation which emerged sets an
    ambitious goal of `ultimate elimination . . . where feasible,' but
    seeks to reach this goal through a nationally driven process of
    inventory, planning, and appropriate regulation, under guidance from
    the Convention. This too was a genuine compromise that should produce
    real progress in dioxin source reduction in the coming years.
        The process of balancing interests and finding a unified way
    forward was critical to developing a consensus as to how to add new
    POPs chemicals to the treaty over time. All parties clearly recognized
    that the Convention could not be successful if it were limited solely
    to the 12 chemicals already on the POPs list. All parties recognized,
    and stated, that the Convention was intended to be dynamic rather than
    static. But the question of what scientific and institutional process
    to use in adding chemicals to the list was fraught with difficulties
    and misunderstandings.
        For the United States, it was critical that this process be
    scientifically driven and not subject to political whim. Some in the
    U.S. feared that other countries might be almost cavalier in adding
    chemicals to the list, and that such an approach would distort the
    treaty and distract parties from the strong efforts needed to deal with
    the chemicals already on the list.
        For some in the EU and elsewhere, it was critical that the process
    for adding chemicals not be subject to endless procedural roadblocks.
    This concern reflected an anxiety that the affected industries or
    governments might use procedural challenges to block the addition of
    chemicals that would legitimately qualify for the list on scientific
    grounds, and that this approach would impede the effectiveness of the
    Convention over time.
        The procedure for adding new chemicals which was finally adopted
    is, once again, a genuine compromise, but one which, in my view,
    successfully protects the U.S. interest in every respect. It may be
    useful to give a short account of the negotiations on this important
    issue.
        First, the U.S. negotiating team insisted on, and successfully
    negotiated, the scientific criteria according to which a nominated
    chemical would be evaluated. These criteria are contained in Annex D of
    the Convention. Then we negotiated the process through which these
    criteria should be applied, by a scientific screening committee (the
    so-called POPs Review Committee or 'POPRC'), working under the
    supervision of the Conference of the Parties (the COP). Finally, we
    negotiated the terms under which the COP would review the
    recommendation of this scientific group, the conditions under which the
    COP could make a decision to add or reject a chemical, and the
    procedures for party governments to accept or reject the COP's
    decision.
        The process which emerged is described in more detail in our
    substantive discussion of the new chemicals provisions. Let me just say
    here that it offers the United States the safeguards of rigorous
    science, a careful review procedure, a high institutional threshold for
    COP decisions to add chemicals, and the right to reject the addition of
    a new chemical, if appropriate. In addition, this compromise also
    successfully resolved, at least in this context, the long-running
    controversy between the United States and the European Union on the
    subject of precaution, and did so in a way which may have useful
    applications in the future.

       CONGRESSIONAL ACTION NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION

        The Congressional action necessary to implement the POPs treaty
    must come in two areas--financial support and implementing legislation.
    POPs Financial Support
        Negotiators agreed to request that the Global Environment Facility
    serve as the treaty's principal financial mechanism, on an interim
    basis. It is WWF's strong view that the GEF must be fully funded in
    order to provide sufficient resources for developing countries to begin
    to eliminate POPs. In order to take on the added responsibility of
    assisting the global effort to eliminate POPs without robbing its other
    critical priorities, the GEF needs to be replenished at a higher level.
    It will take American leadership to do this. The Administration's
    $177.5 million FY03 request for the GEF, including paying a portion of
    U.S. arrears, is an important first step towards this goal. We urge the
    committee to work with the Appropriations Committee to fully fund the
    Administration's $177.5 million request, and to allow the President
    sufficient flexibility within the request to position the United States
    to lead efforts to replenish the GEF at the level necessary.

                         POPS IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

        As WWF has not had an opportunity to review the official
    transmission from the Administration, our comments will be directed
    primarily to the Chairman's bill, S. 2118. We would be happy to submit
    comments on the Administration's bill at a later date.
        S. 2118 amends FIFRA and TSCA (the first amendments to TSCA since
    its enactment in 1976) to implement both the Stockholm POPs Convention
    and the Protocol on POPs to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary
    Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs Protocol). My comments will address primarily
    the implementing legislation for the Stockholm Convention.
        S. 2118 would provide EPA with the authority to prohibit
    manufacture of the 12 POPs identified in the Stockholm Convention
    annexes as well as other POPs subsequently added to the Convention. The
    legislation also includes related provisions calling on the National
    Academy of Sciences to develop new methodologies for screening future
    POPs candidates.
        First and foremost, I would like to address the provisions for
    adding new chemicals to the treaty. Speaking both as the lead U.S.
    negotiator and in my capacity for WWF, I want to emphasize the
    importance of including the targeted statutory amendments needed to add
    other chemicals to the treaty.
        The international community envisioned a dynamic instrument that
    could take into account emerging scientific knowledge about chemicals
    beyond the initial 12. Integral to the treaty is a process for
    nomination, science-based assessment (including risk profiles and risk
    assessments), and decisionmaking that involves both the subsidiary POPs
    Review Committee and the Conference of Parties before a substance can
    be added to the treaty's annexes. Unless this element of the treaty is
    considered to be self-executing, the legal mechanism to eliminate the
    production, use, and export of new POPs must be reflected in the
    implementing legislation. We applaud Senator Jeffords for including in
    his bill the critical amendments to TSCA and FIFRA to regulate
    subsequent additions.
        WWF and other environmental and public health organizations stand
    alongside the chemical industry in voicing our support for full
    implementation. Again to quote from the American Chemistry Council's
    letter to Governor Whitman,

              ACC believes it is possible to craft appropriate amendments
            to TSCA and FIFRA to reflect the treaty additions process . . .
            . Although we have not yet seen the Administration's draft
            implementing legislation, we are confident that matters
            concerning the substance selection process can be addressed as
            necessary in the course of the legislative process.

        It is our understanding that both the Jeffords bill and the
    Administration proposal are based on a legislative proposal crafted by
    EPA and other U.S. Government agencies last summer, but the
    Administration removed these essential provisions for adding new POPs
    from its final implementing package.
        The Administration's proposal apparently envisions a case-by-case
    revision of domestic legislation for each POP candidate beyond the
    initial 12. Such an approach risks politicizing decisions that would
    otherwise be based on sound science. Moreover, we find it hard to
    believe that Congress will be willing or able to repeatedly reopen
    domestic laws such as TSCA and FIFRA which have rarely if ever been
    amended.
        In our view, as I have already mentioned, the Convention as
    negotiated provides the U.S. with a great deal of flexibility in
    deciding whether and how to take domestic action against future POPs:
         The international selection process involves input from
    all countries that are Parties to the Convention: Article 8 of the
    Convention provides for the evaluation and addition of chemicals beyond
    the initial 12. Upon entry into force, the Conference of the Parties
    (COP) will establish a Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee
    (POPRC). Parties will submit chemical nominations to the POPRC, which
    will evaluate them based on agreed scientific criteria including
    persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity. The
    POPRC must prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E, to
    be made available for input from all Parties and observers. The POPRC
    will then make recommendations that must be approved by the entire
    Conference of the Parties before a nominated chemical can be added to
    the treaty as a binding amendment.
         The Convention does not automatically obligate the U.S. to
    eliminate each new POP that is added internationally: Under Article
    22(3) of the Convention, COP-agreed amendments to add new chemicals
    become binding upon all Parties, subject to the opportunity to ``opt
    out'' of such obligations within 1 year. However, there exists another
    safeguard under Article 25(4), which was proposed by the U.S., allowing
    a Party to declare when ratifying the Convention that it will be bound
    by new chemical amendments only if it affirmatively ``opts in'' via a
    separate, subsequent ratification process. The State Department has
    indicated that the U.S. will take advantage of the ``opt in''
    provision, enabling the Senate to give its advice and consent to the
    addition of each new POP in the future.
        Including these and other safeguards in the POPs treaty was a major
    objective of U.S. negotiators, and one which I believe was fully
    achieved. At the end of the long, hard concluding week of negotiations
    in Johannesburg in December 2000, I can say that the U.S. negotiators
    felt extremely pleased with the balance of the treaty, and were fully
    satisfied with the particular provisions for the addition of new
    chemicals. In my view, the Administration's reluctance to include
    authority to regulate new POPs--the so-called 13th POP, and beyond--
    cannot be justified by any need to add to an already elaborate system
    of protections. It is also my view that the absence of such provisions
    jeopardizes U.S. participation in the Convention, and will injure the
    credibility of the United States in this context.
        We recognize that broad options exist for regulating additional
    POPs under U.S. law. Two major options can be considered for amending
    TSCA and FIFRA to deal with future POPs under the Convention. The first
    option would amend these statutes to allow for automatic regulation of
    new POPs once the United States ``opts in'' to the corresponding treaty
    amendments. This option is preferred by environmental and public health
    NGO's, given the other existing safeguards described above. The second
    option, according to Administration officials, would provide that a
    ``rebuttable presumption'' be given to the COP's decision on a new POP,
    while preserving the right to make a persuasive case that modified
    controls are necessary.
        From the point of view of an environmental organization, in view of
    the safeguards built into the treaty mechanism itself, it would make
    sense to make regulation of newly listed POPs automatic, triggered by
    the government's decision to ``opt in'' to the listing under Article
    25(4). While the rebuttable-presumption language contained in S. 2118
    offers the additional reassurance of a domestic process of notice and
    comment, which may be attractive for some interests, we would note that
    FIFRA's special review and cancellation process, if challenged,
    generally takes at least 5 years and often more than 10. This is
    clearly far too long a period to revisit, via the procedures set forth
    in domestic regulations that govern the cancellation process, a
    scientific conclusion and policy decision already taken by the
    government in its role as a party to the Convention.
        One solution to this dilemma might be to amend the cancellation
    process so that when a pesticide is listed as a POP, or in the judgment
    of EPA deserves to be listed as a POP, the EPA's evidentiary burden
    would be restricted to proving that the basic POPs listing criteria
    apply--thereby precluding a full FIFRA cost-benefit analysis.
    Administrative review would be limited to the data and scientific
    judgments supporting EPA's conclusion that the POPs criteria apply to a
    given pesticide.
        In addition, it is important that the legislation ensure the
    elimination of any POPs pesticide--whether registered for a formulated
    end-use product or a technical material--to enable U.S. compliance with
    obligations under the POPs treaty. In other words, each of a
    pesticide's registrations--the one covering ``technical material,''
    i.e., the pure active ingredient, and the second for ``end-use
    products'' formulated with the addition of inert ingredients
    (surfactants, emulsifiers, carriers, etc.)--should count as ``existing
    registrations'' even if the pesticide is not being actively marketed or
    used in the United States.
        In step with the cancellation action (but lagged by about 2 years
    to allow channels of trade to clear), whenever a pesticide is listed as
    a POP, EPA should be directed to phaseout all tolerances covering food
    uses of the pesticide. Likewise, listing as a POP should be enough to
    trigger EPA revocation of any ``import tolerances'' or exemptions.
    Revocation of a tolerance is the only tool the EPA has to alter how
    high-risk pesticides are used outside U.S. borders--and to protect
    human health inside the United States. Tolerances set in the United
    States can serve as de facto global standards because so many countries
    depend on access to the U.S. market and because changes in U.S.
    tolerance levels often trigger changes in the international Maximum
    Residue Limits set by Codex.
        WWF is undertaking a thorough assessment of these issues as
    presented in S. 2118, with the intent of assisting the committee in
    assuring that any changes to FIFRA and TSCA effectively and efficiently
    carry out the aims of the POPs treaty. We would be happy to share that
    analysis upon completion.
    Research Program to Support POPs Convention
        WWF is pleased to see that S. 2118 calls for a program of
    scientific research to assist the U.S. Government in meeting its
    obligations under the POPs treaty. The bill directs the National
    Academy of Sciences to review scientific models and testing methods for
    screening candidate POPs; to propose alternative designs for a global
    monitoring program on persistent and bioaccumulative substances; and to
    recommend priority POPs chemical substances or mixtures for possible
    nomination to the POPRC.
        WWF strongly supports these provisions, which are described in
    Section 107 of the bill. While not essential to the legislation
    amending TSCA and FIFRA, the research provisions are a valuable
    complement to POPs treaty implementation. They will help ensure that
    proposals for subsequent additions to the treaty target the worst
    offenders and are supported by sound testing methods, risk assessment
    models, and environmental monitoring techniques. Carrying out this
    program of rigorous scientific research on POPs places the United
    States in a strong position not only to nominate the most appropriate
    candidates for future POPs but also to question any proposed listings
    that are based on misguided information or inaccurate data.
        The Chairman's bill also very appropriately calls upon the
    Administrator of EPA to submit no later than 90 days after enactment of
    S. 2118 the agency's final exposure and human health reassessment of
    2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, which
    are among the most dangerous POPs. In this regard, less than 2 weeks
    ago the U.S. General Accounting Office released a report,
    ``Environmental Health Risks: Information on EPA's Draft Assessment of
    Dioxins.'' In its transmittal letter, the GAO notes that, according to
    EPA officials, the assessment will conclude that (p. 1)

              dioxins may adversely affect human health at lower exposure
            levels than previously thought and that most exposure to
            dioxins occurs from eating such dietary staples as meats, fish,
            and dairy products, which contain minute traces of dioxin.
            These foods contain dioxins because animals eat plants and
            commercial feed, and drink water contaminated with dioxins,
            which then accumulate in animals' fatty tissue.

        The GAO report is significant in that it endorses the work
    undertaken thus far by EPA and provides a solid basis for the long-
    awaited reassessment to be expeditiously completed and released.
    Release of the dioxin reassessment will contribute important
    information relevant to actions that may be required to address dioxins
    and other unwanted byproducts under the POPs treaty, measures that
    would benefit citizens in the United States and other countries.

                              LRTAP POPS PROTOCOL

        WWF also supports the inclusion of implementing legislation for the
    Economic Commission for Europe's Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
    (LRTAP) POPs Protocol. An outgrowth of scientific findings linking
    sulfur emissions in continental Europe to acid deposition in
    Scandinavian lakes, LRTAP was the first legally binding agreement to
    address air pollution problems on a broad regional basis. Parties to
    LRTAP include the United States, Canada, and Western and Eastern
    European countries including Russia.
        The LRTAP POPs Protocol--the first legally binding multi-lateral
    instrument on POPs--was added in 1998. It targets 16 substances
    including the 12 POPs chemicals plus chlordecone, hexabromobiphenyl,
    and hexachlorocyclohexane (including lindane). It also includes
    obligations to reduce emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
    (PAHs) which--as with other byproduct chemicals--do not require changes
    to TSCA or FIFRA. Although the LRTAP POPs Protocol includes more
    chemicals than the POPs treaty, it is not a replacement. LRTAP deals
    with transmission of POPs through only a single medium (air); confines
    its reach to northern, largely European countries; and does not address
    many of the issues involving developing countries.
        To date, eight countries have ratified the LRTAP POPs Protocol out
    of 15 needed for entry-into-force. WWF would welcome U.S. participation
    in these regional efforts. Given POPs' global reach, however, a
    realistic and comprehensive solution needs to include developing
    countries as well. The United States and other donor countries must
    assist the developing world in coming to grips with the POPs problem--
    and the global POPs treaty is the ideal vehicle through which to do
    this.

                 ROTTERDAM CONVENTION ON PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT

        We are pleased to see that the Administration has bundled the
    Rotterdam PIC Convention in its implementing legislation alongside the
    POPs treaty and the LRTAP POPs Protocol. The PIC treaty alerts
    governments as to what chemicals are banned or severely restricted, by
    which governments, and for what reasons. The cornerstone of the treaty
    is prior informed consent, a procedure that enables Parties to review
    basic health and environmental data on specified chemicals and to
    permit or refuse any incoming shipments of those chemicals. Each
    Party's decisions are disseminated widely, allowing those countries
    with less advanced regulatory systems to benefit from the assessments
    of those with more sophisticated facilities. Instituting PIC is a
    critical first step in the process of improving chemical management
    capacity.
        The PIC treaty includes provisions for:
         alerting countries when there is an impending import of a
    chemical which has been banned or severely restricted in the exporting
    country;
         labeling hazards to human health or the environment; and
         exchanging information about toxicological findings and
    domestic regulatory action.
        Ultimately the Rotterdam Convention will replace the voluntary PIC
    procedure, which has been operated by UNEP and FAO since 1989.
    Governments have elected to follow the new PIC procedures during this
    interim period before the Convention enters into force.
        The PIC treaty makes an important contribution to global chemicals
    management by drawing attention to those substances causing the
    greatest harm, disseminating that information, and facilitating
    national decisionmaking on chemical imports. To date, the Convention
    has 20 Parties out of 50 required for entry into force. As with the
    POPs treaty, WWF would like to see the United States ratify PIC prior
    to the Johannesburg Summit, and we therefore support the Bush
    administration's decision to bundle PIC for the purpose of Senate
    ``advice and consent'' and implementing legislation.
        Many of the POPs-, LRTAP-, and PIC-related legislative provisions
    are inter-related. WWF would be happy to work with E&PW staff to help
    ensure that the implementing legislation facilitates rather than
    hinders the efficient working of these laws.
        In closing, we wish to applaud Chairman Jeffords and committee
    staff for the hard work and initiative that went into introducing this
    legislation. Full implementation of these agreements is essential to
    protecting the American people from the threat of POPs and other toxic
    substances.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to
    answer any questions.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.004

     Statement of Michael Walls on behalf of the American Chemistry Council

                                I. INTRODUCTION

        The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is pleased to provide its
    strong support for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    Pollutants (POPs), and the treaty's reasonable implementation into U.S.
    law. The Council and its members urge the Senate to provide advice and
    consent to U.S. ratification of the Stockholm Convention as soon as
    possible, and to approve the necessary statutory changes in short
    order.
        The Council is the national trade association whose member
    companies represent more than 90 percent of the productive capacity for
    basic industrial chemicals in the United States. ACC members represent
    an industry on the cutting-edge of technological innovation and
    progress, whose products provide significant benefits to every sector
    of the global economy. The industry has been engaged in the
    international discussions about persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
    for many years, and it has a significant interest in seeing a globally
    harmonized approach to controls on POPs releases.
        The chemical industry's support for the Stockholm Convention lies
    in several simple points.
         The industry's support of the Stockholm Convention is
    based on our commitment to product stewardship, including our goal of
    preventing health and environmental damage in the manufacture and use
    of chemical products. Our industry's product stewardship commitment is
    an integral part of our Responsible Care program, which is now being
    implemented by the chemical industry in more than 42 countries.
         The Stockholm Convention is the culmination of many
    different initiatives by both industry and governments to address the
    concerns about persistent organic pollutants. It is the next best step
    to assure that governments around the world take appropriate measures
    to control the manufacture, use and disposal of POPs and to reduce
    unwanted POPs emissions.
         The Convention adopts a risk-based, science-justified
    approach to considering possible additions to the list of chemicals. It
    is an approach entirely consistent with long-standing U.S. law and
    practice, and one that will lead to appropriate controls on those POPs
    chemicals that pose global threats.

                              II. GENERAL COMMENTS

        The U.S. chemical industry's work on the POPs issue began shortly
    after the Rio Summit on Environment and Development, in 1992. We worked
    with the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) in its
    effort to map the best approaches to dealing with POPs, particularly in
    discussions on criteria for identifying potential POPs. The industry
    also participated in the negotiations sponsored by the U.N. Economic
    Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the North American Commission on
    Environmental Cooperation (NACEC) as those regional POPs programs were
    developed and implemented.
        We were visible and positive participants throughout the
    negotiations that led to the Stockholm Convention, including the Expert
    Working Groups that met to consider and recommend criteria for
    identifying future POPs. The global chemical industry was an early and
    consistent supporter of improved international controls on persistent
    organic pollutants.
        ACC's efforts were not limited to the international level. In 1995,
    ACC's Board of Directors approved a new policy on persistent,
    bioaccumulative and toxic substances (the class of chemicals of which
    POPs are a subset). The policy recognized that due to their physical
    and chemical properties, POPs substances should receive priority
    attention in industry risk characterization, risk management, and
    pollution prevention programs. POPs substances represent a very small
    percentage of chemicals in commerce in the United States, and indeed
    none of the UNEP product POPs are manufactured in the United States.
        The American Chemistry Council believes that it is critical for the
    United States to continue its longstanding leadership role in the
    global effort to address the risks posed by POPs emissions. In order to
    continue in that role, however, the United States must be a full Party
    to the treaty. In ACC's view, the United States should be one of the
    first 50 countries ratifying the Stockholm Convention. As an original
    ratifying Party, the United States will be able to lead--and
    appropriately influence--the development of procedures necessary to
    implement the treaty at the international level. The U.S. government's
    ability to influence the further development and implementation of the
    treaty at the international level requires, simply, full U.S.
    participation in the agreement.

         III. THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

        Several provisions of the Stockholm Convention merit comment.
        The Council is particularly pleased that the treaty incorporates
    the use of a risk/benefit approach in implementing appropriate
    regulatory controls on listed chemicals, and in considering chemicals
    nominated as potential POPs. The treaty's reliance on technical and
    economic considerations should ensure that priority pollutants are
    targeted and meaningful control actions taken.
        A substantial portion of the negotiations was devoted to the
    details of government obligations to reduce and eliminate releases of
    POPs. Under the Convention, governments are required to eliminate the
    production and restrict the use of pesticide and industrial chemical
    POPs. Governments are expected to restrict imports and exports,
    including exports to non-States Parties. ACC's summary of the Stockholm
    obligations that should be reflected in any U.S. statutory amendment is
    attached to this testimony.
        Industry also supported the Stockholm criteria for identifying
    POPs, contained in Annex D, and the requirements for risk profiles and
    socio-economic information necessary to evaluate nominated chemicals,
    contained in Annexes E and F. In our view, the Convention establishes a
    risk-based approach to decision making on new POPs.
        The treaty contains a number of key exemptions that are critical in
    making the Convention a workable and practical agreement. Research and
    development, unintentional trace contaminants for the product POPs,
    constituents of articles manufactured or in use as of the
    implementation date, and closed-system site-limited intermediates are
    subject to exemptions under the treaty.
        The Stockholm Convention also reflects existing elements of U.S.
    law and policy. For example, the treaty contains a provision that
    government programs to evaluate new chemical substances should screen
    the chemicals against the POPs criteria and regulate them if
    appropriate. This approach is already reflected in a pre-manufacture
    notice (PMN) policy adopted by EPA several years ago in evaluating new
    chemicals under TSCA.
        In the industry's view, the Convention also adopts appropriate
    approaches to risk management measures. For example, substitution is
    not a legal obligation, but constitutes an option when the risks of
    POPs releases cannot otherwise be managed.

             IV. LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION

        Two proposals have been tabled to implement the obligations of the
    Stockholm Convention in U.S. law, Senator Jeffords' bill (S. 2118), and
    an Administration proposal. The core implementing provisions of both
    approaches are substantially similar, but each raises important
    concerns.
        Both approaches raise important questions about the status of
    chemicals on the UNECE POPs Protocol list that are not addressed under
    the Stockholm Convention. Despite the fact that the Protocol and
    Convention contemplate several similar restrictions on listed
    chemicals, the draft implementing proposals suggest significantly
    different approaches to the process under each of the agreements.
        Both S. 2118 and the Administration's draft attempt to limit the
    use of information not submitted in the notice and comment processes
    that accompany the consideration of new chemicals under the UNECE
    Protocol and the Stockholm Convention. That limitation is not
    justified. At the early stages of the international listing discussions
    it cannot be determined what regulatory consequences the listing will
    have, or indeed whether a nominated chemical will in fact be added to
    the POPs list. The U.S. negotiating team should have access to
    information about the production, import, export and/or use of a
    nominated chemical. ACC believes there will be sufficient incentive for
    interested commercial entities to produce information on nominated
    chemicals without the need to limit the use of the information in any
    subsequent regulatory action.
        Both approaches establish a continual reporting obligation on
    manufacturers unless EPA decides otherwise or the international
    decisionmaking process is concluded. It is not clear what benefit is
    expected from the continuing obligation to report or how it relates to
    the Agency's work with respect to POPs substances. Again, we believe
    commercial entities with an interest in a nominated chemical will have
    sufficient incentive to provide EPA and other U.S. negotiators
    appropriate information about the chemical without a continuing
    reporting obligation under Section 8 of TSCA.
        As noted earlier, ACC has long recognized that the Stockholm
    Convention contemplates the addition of other POPs. We believe that
    U.S. implementing legislation should reflect that process. We also
    believe that there are a number of options available that could address
    both the Senate's constitutional prerogative regarding treaty
    amendments and Congress' interest in practical changes to statutory
    requirements. We have attached a copy of correspondence ACC sent
    earlier this year to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, which
    outlines our view that the issue of additions can be addressed in
    implementing legislation.
        ACC is also concerned that S. 2118 addresses matters that are not
    strictly related to the obligations and responsibilities established by
    the Stockholm Convention. These provisions raise concerns about U.S.
    acceptance of the internationally accepted criteria for identifying
    POPs, and the possible duplication of existing EPA programs on
    persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (PBTs), among others.
    In order to assure that the Senate can approve the Convention and the
    implementing package as soon as possible, we believe it critical that
    the legislation address only those issues required by the treaty.
        The American Chemistry Council believes that U.S. implementation of
    the Stockholm Convention should be guided by certain principles. In
    brief, these principles are:
         Full implementation of the Convention's obligations in
    U.S. law, through appropriate amendments to the Toxic Substances
    Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
    Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
         TSCA and FIFRA amendments that are narrowly drawn to
    implement only the obligations imposed by the Stockholm Convention.
         TSCA and FIFRA amendments that focus on the specific
    measures required by the Stockholm Convention, and which avoid the
    possibility of confusion or complexity with respect to U.S.
    implementation. There is ample precedent for the implementation of U.S.
    treaty obligations in this manner.

    V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION ON PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT

        ACC also supports Senate advice and consent to ratification of the
    Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent. This Convention--
    negotiated on the basis of a very successful government-to-government
    information exchange system--also requires amendments to TSCA and FIFRA
    if the United States is to fully implement the treaty. Because the
    Rotterdam Convention requires these amendments, ACC believes it makes
    sense to include appropriate implementing language in the same
    legislation designed to implement the Stockholm Convention.

                                 VI. CONCLUSION

        The American Chemistry Council believes that the Stockholm
    Convention is an important step in securing international action on
    POPs. The treaty establishes a harmonized global approach to the
    necessary controls on POPs releases, and should produce meaningful
    improvements in public health and environmental protection. Appropriate
    amendments to TSCA and FIFRA that reflect the treaty's obligations can
    be crafted, particularly to address the issue of new chemicals added to
    the list of POPs. ACC looks forward to working with this committee and
    the Administration as those amendments are drafted.

              Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
            Obligations of the Parties to be Implemented in U.S. Law
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Article                            Requirement
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Art. 3.1--Measures to reduce/          (a) Prohibit and/or eliminate
     eliminate exposures from intentional   production, use, import and
     production and use.                    export of Annex A chemicals,
                                            subject to Annex A provisions.
                                            (b) Restrict production and use
                                            of Annex B chemicals.
    Art. 3.2.............................  (a) Permit import only for the
                                            purposes of (1) environmentally
                                            sound disposal or (2) for a
                                            permitted use under Annex A or
                                            B. (b) Permit export only for
                                            the purposes of (1)
                                            environmentally sound disposal,
                                            (2) to a State Party for
                                            permitted use, or (3) to a non-
                                            State Party upon identification
                                            of the use and certification
                                            that the non-State Party is
                                            committed to minimizing
                                            releases, has developed
                                            strategies to deal with related
                                            wastes, and notify WHO about DDT
                                            uses. (c) Prohibit the export of
                                            Annex A chemicals for
                                            whichproduction or use
                                            exemptions are no longer in
                                            effect, except for
                                            environmentally sound disposal.
    Art. 3.3.............................  Parties with new chemical and
                                            pesticide assessment regimes
                                            shall take regulatory measures
                                            with the aim of prevent the
                                            production and use of new
                                            chemical or pesticide POPs.
    Art. 3.4.............................  Parties with chemical and
                                            pesticide assessment programs
                                            shall take into account the
                                            Annex D paragraph 1 criteria
                                            when conducting assessments of
                                            existing uses.
    Art. 3.5.............................  Excludes laboratory scale
                                            research and reference standards
                                            from the regulatory measures
                                            imposed under Article 3.
    Art. 3.6.............................  Parties shall take appropriate
                                            regulatory measures to assure
                                            that human and environmental
                                            exposures from exempted
                                            production and use are
                                            minimized.
    Art. 4--Register of specific           Assumes national measures to
     exemptions.                            extend, withdraw or further
                                            restrict exempted production and
                                            use when the five-year exemption
                                            period expires.
    Art. 5--Measures to reduce or          Parties to take the following
     eliminate releases from                minimum measures to reduce
     unintentional production.              emissions of by-product POPs
                                            from anthropogenic sources with
                                            the goal of minimizing those
                                            emissions and where feasible, to
                                            eliminate them. (a) develop a
                                            national (or regional) action
                                            plan (NAP) within 2 years to
                                            identify, characterize and
                                            address the release of by
                                            product POPs; (b) promote
                                            available, feasible and
                                            practical measures to achieve
                                            release reduction or source
                                            elimination; (c) promote and
                                            where appropriate require the
                                            development and use of
                                            substitute materials, products
                                            and processes that prevent the
                                            formation and release of by-
                                            product POPs; (d) promote and in
                                            accord with the NAP require
                                            implementation of best available
                                            technology for new sources
                                            within source categories
                                            meriting such an approach. BAT
                                            requirements to be implemented
                                            as soon as possible but within 4
                                            years. Parties shall promote
                                            best environmental practices for
                                            identified source categories;
                                            (e) promote for existing source
                                            categories, in accordance with
                                            NAP, BAT and BEP, and for new
                                            sources not addressed in
                                            subparagraph (d);
    Art. 6--Measures to reduce or          Parties to ensure that stockpiles
     eliminate releases from stockpiles     consisting of or containing
     or wastes.                             Annex A or B chemicals and
                                            wastes, and products
                                            contaminated with Annex A, B, or
                                            C chemicals upon becoming wastes
                                            are managed in a manner
                                            protective of human health or
                                            the environment, by (a) develop
                                            strategies for identifying
                                            covered stockpiles and wastes;
                                            (b) identify relevant stockpiles
                                            by employing the strategies; (c)
                                            manage stockpiles in a safe,
                                            efficient and environmentally
                                            sound manner; (d) (1) take
                                            appropriate measures to assure
                                            that stockpiles and wastes are
                                            handled, transported and stored
                                            in an environmentally sound
                                            manner, (2) disposed of in a way
                                            that the POP content is
                                            destroyed or irreversibly
                                            transformed or otherwise
                                            disposed of in an
                                            environmentally sound mannerand
                                            (3) POPs are not permitted to be
                                            recycled, reclaimed or reused,
                                            not transported across
                                            international boundaries except
                                            in accord with existing
                                            international standards and
                                            rules. (e) endeavor to develop
                                            appropriate strategies for
                                            identifying site contaminated
                                            with Annex A, B or C chemicals
                                            and if remediated, to do so in
                                            an environmentally sound manner.
    Art. 7--Implementation Plans.........  (1) Each Party shall develop plan
                                            to implement its obligations
                                            under the treaty, transmit it to
                                            other parties within 2 years,
                                            and review and update the plan
                                            on a periodic basis. (2) In
                                            developing plans, Parties shall
                                            cooperate and consult with other
                                            stakeholders. (3) Parties shall
                                            endeavor to integrate POPs plans
                                            with sustainable development
                                            strategies.
    Art. 9--Information Exchange.........  Parties shall facilitate or
                                            undertake the exchange of
                                            information relevant to
                                            reduction and/or elimination of
                                            POPs production, use and
                                            release; and on alternatives,
                                            including their risks and socio-
                                            economic costs.
    Art. 10--Public information,           Each Party shall within its
     awareness and education.               capabilities promote and
                                            facilitate awareness and
                                            information on POPs
                                            (particularly health effects),
                                            public access to information on
                                            POPs, and training.
    Art. 11--Research, development and     Each Party shall within its
     monitoring.                            capabilities encourage and/or
                                            undertake appropriate research,
                                            development and monitoring
                                            programs, including support for
                                            national programs,
                                            intergovernmental research.
    Art. 12--Technical assistance........  Parties shall cooperate to
                                            provide timely technical
                                            assistance to developing
                                            countries.
    Art. 13--Financial resources and       Each Party undertakes to provide,
     mechanisms.                            consistent with its
                                            capabilities, financial support
                                            and incentives with respect to
                                            implementation of the treaty.
                                            Developed country Parties shall
                                            provide new and additional
                                            financial resources to
                                            developing countries and
                                            countries with economies in
                                            transition to meet the full
                                            incremental costs of
                                            implementation measures.
    Art. 15--Reporting...................  Each Party shall report to the
                                            Conference of the Parties on its
                                            implementation measures,
                                            statistical data on the amount
                                            of Annex A and B chemicals
                                            produced, imported and exported,
                                            and (to the extent practicable)
                                            a list of States importing or
                                            exporting such chemicals.
    Art. 25.4--Ratification, acceptance,   Permits Parties to clarify in its
     approval or accession.                 instrument of ratification that
                                            with respect to amendments to
                                            annexes, no amendment will be
                                            effective as to that Party
                                            except upon deposit of an
                                            instrument of ratification,
                                            acceptance, approval or
                                            accession. Assuming a Party
                                            wishes to utilize this
                                            clarification, some national
                                            process for making such ``opt-
                                            in'' decisions should be
                                            addressed.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   __________
                                    American Chemistry Council,
                                      Arlington, VA, February 26, 2002.

    Hon. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Governor Whitman: I wanted to follow up on our brief
    discussion at the World Economic Forum concerning the U.S. industry's
    view of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
    (POPS).
        The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and its member companies have
    long supported the effort to develop and implement a global treaty
    governing POPs. As you know, we strongly supported the Administration's
    decision to sign the POPs treaty, and we are on record as supporting
    the treaty's reasonable implementation into U.S. law.
        ACC strongly recommends that the Administration seek the U.S.
    Senate's advice and consent to ratification as soon as possible. We
    believe it is important for the United States to continue its
    leadership role in the global effort to address the risks posed by POPs
    emissions, and believe that the United States should make every effort
    to be among the first 50 countries ratifying the Convention.
        Based on media reports we understand the Administration has drafted
    a legislative proposal to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
    and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to
    implement the treaty obligations. The media reports also indicated that
    the Administration would not propose amendments to address additional
    chemicals listed under the Stockholm Convention process. The treaty
    contemplates the listing of other POPs in the future, and provides a
    criteria and risk-based process to consider nominations made by
    governments. ACC believes it is possible to craft appropriate
    amendments to TSCA and FIFRA to reflect the treaty additions process.
    If the Administration has already made a decision to proceed without
    provisions regarding additions, that decision should not further delay
    the submission of the treaty and the Administration's proposal to
    Congress. Although we have not yet seen the Administration's draft
    implementing legislation, we are confident that matters concerning the
    substance selection process can be addressed as necessary in the course
    of the legislative process.
        ACC looks forward to working with you as preparations are made for
    U.S. implementation of the Stockholm Convention. If we can provide
    additional information, please contact me or Michael Walls, Senior
    Counsel, at 703-741-5167.
                Sincerely,
                                           Frederick L. Webber,
                                                     President and CEO.
                                   __________
      Statement of Karen L. Perry, M.P.A., Deputy Director, Environment &
              Health Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is
    Karen Perry, and I am speaking to you today on behalf of Physicians for
    Social Responsibility (PSR). PSR is a national membership organization
    representing more than 22,000 physicians, health care professionals,
    and concerned citizens committed to protecting public health from
    environmental hazards. We welcome the opportunity to appear here today
    and present PSR's views on issues surrounding the implementation of the
    Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
        PSR's concern about POPs dates back to the mid-1990's, when an
    early draft of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) dioxin
    reassessment indicated that hospital waste incinerators were a major
    source of dioxin, a potent POP. Based on the medical tenet of ``first,
    do no harm,'' PSR and other public health groups began advocating for a
    phaseout of incineration in favor of less-hazardous forms of medical
    waste treatment. A few years later, an Intergovernmental Negotiating
    Committee began the task of crafting a global convention on dioxin and
    other POPs. From 1998 to 2001--throughout the entire period of
    negotiations--PSR served as the Secretariat for a global network of
    more than 400 non-governmental organizations from 75 countries, all
    committed to the phaseout and elimination of POPs. Today, the
    ratification and full implementation of the Stockholm Convention by the
    United States is among PSR's top priorities.

                     POPS ARE HAZARDOUS TO AMERICA'S HEALTH

        Signed by EPA Administrator Whitman and representatives of nearly
    100 other countries last May, the Stockholm Convention targets a group
    of chemicals known to be detrimental to human health and to the
    environment.
        POPs share several important characteristics that make them
    particularly troubling to the public health community. First, POPs are
    fat soluble, and are thus able to move from air, water, and soil into
    food chains. Animals, including livestock, ingest POPs that are
    deposited in the environment. These POPs accumulate in the animals'
    fatty tissues, contaminating meat, fish, eggs, and dairy products. We
    know from a number of studies that the majority of Americans' exposure
    to POPs occurs through consumption of these foods. Recent food sampling
    has measured levels of several POPs in the food supply of various
    regions in the U.S. Freshwater fish were found to be the most
    significant source of dioxins, furans, and dioxin-like PCBs. Even
    organically produced meats and dairy products routinely contain POPs
    because these pollutants are everywhere in the environment. Human
    breast milk has also been sampled and found to have significant levels
    of some POPs.\1\ Based on analyses of these samples, it is estimated
    that nursing infants have a much higher exposure to POPs, relative to
    body weight, than adults. Other highly exposed populations include
    Alaska Natives and other Arctic indigenous peoples, and subsistence and
    recreational fishers in the Great Lakes and other regions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Schecter A et al. 2001. Intake of dioxins and related compounds
    from food in the U.S. population. Journal of Toxicology and
    Environmental Health (Part A) 63:101-118.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        POPs have been linked to a variety of serious human health effects,
    including cancer, reproductive and developmental effects, and
    neurological deficits. Exposure even to extremely low levels of some
    POPs can alter the function of the endocrine system by mimicking or
    blocking the action of natural hormones. POPs have been implicated in
    adverse effects on cognition, precocious puberty, female reproductive
    problems including endometriosis and difficulty conceiving, and in
    males, declining sperm counts and malformations of the penis and
    testicles.
        Children and developing fetuses are most at risk. Human and animal
    studies provide disturbing evidence that prenatal exposure to low
    levels of some POPs can result in decreases in IQ and short-term
    memory; delayed psychomotor development; abnormal reflexes; and speech
    problems.\2\,\3\,\4\,\5\,\6\
     Serious structural abnormalities, retarded growth, and functional
    changes have also been observed in lab animals exposed to low levels of
    POPs during gestation.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Brouwer A et al. 1999. Characterization of potential endocrine-
    related health effects at low-dose levels of exposure to PCBs.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 107 (Suppl. 4): 639-649.
        \3\ Jacobson JL and SW Jacobson. 1996. Intellectual impairment in
    children exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls in utero. New England
    Journal of Medicine 335:783-789.
        \4\ Rogan WJ et al. 1988. Congenital poisoning by PCBs and their
    contaminants in Taiwan. Science 241:334-338.
        \5\ Patandin S et al. 1999. Effects of environmental exposure to
    polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins on cognitive abilities in Dutch
    children at 42 months of age. Journal of Pediatrics 134(1):33-41.
        \6\ Markowski VP et al. 2001. Altered operant responding for motor
    reinforcement and the determination of benchmark doses following
    perinatal exposure to low-level 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 109(6):621-627.
        \7\ Faqi AS et al. 1998. Reproductive toxicity and tissue
    concentrations of low doses of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in male offspring rats
    exposed throughout pregnancy and lactation. Toxicology and Applied
    Pharmacology 150:383-392.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Toxicological and epidemiological studies have found that several
    POPs, including dioxins, PCBs, and DDT, have the potential to cause
    cancer in humans. At the same time, it has been observed that incidence
    rates of breast cancer, testicular cancer, and prostate cancer are on
    the rise in the U.S. Researchers are investigating the role that
    endocrine-disrupting POPs might play in the development of cancers at
    these hormonally sensitive sites.
        There is limited human epidemiological evidence for immune effects
    from POPs exposure. However, laboratory animals exposed to dioxin
    showed evidence of immune system suppression, resulting in some forms
    of cancer and decreased resistance to infections. It has been suggested
    that this is one of the most sensitive toxicological outcomes for
    dioxin exposure, for example. A study of Dutch preschool children has
    linked prenatal and lactational exposure to PCBs and dioxins to
    increased susceptibility to infectious diseases lasting into
    childhood.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Weisglas-Kuperus N. et al. 2000. Immunological effects of
    background exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins in Dutch
    preschool children. Environmental Health Perspectives 108(12):1203-
    1207.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the addition of future pops is at the heart of the stockholm convention
        While the Stockholm Convention begins with an initial list of 12
    POPs, including those I have mentioned, it is by no means limited to
    that list. From the very start of the negotiations, the international
    community envisioned a dynamic instrument that could take into account
    emerging scientific knowledge about chemicals beyond the initial 12. In
    a series of intersessional meetings during the treaty negotiations, an
    experts group hammered out a set of science-based screening criteria
    for POPs that was incorporated into the final agreement. In short, the
    addition of POPs beyond the initial 12 was not an afterthought.
        Indeed, the final convention spells out the science-based process
    for evaluating and adding POPs quite clearly in Article 8. Upon entry
    into force, the Conference of the Parties (COP) will establish a
    Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPROC). Parties will
    submit chemical nominations to the POPROC, which will evaluate them
    based on agreed scientific criteria including persistence,
    bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity. The POPROC must
    prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E, to be made
    available for input from all Parties and observers. The POPROC will
    then make recommendations that must be approved by the COP before a
    nominated chemical can be added to the treaty as a binding amendment.
    The U.S. has reserved the right to ``opt-in'' to each amendment via a
    separate, subsequent ratification process.
        It is worth noting that the universe of POPs that might be added to
    the Stockholm Convention over the long term is not vast. Application of
    the science-based criteria set out in the treaty is likely to result in
    the addition of a few dozen additional POPs--not hundreds or thousands.

             S. 2118 CONTAINS A WORKABLE MECHANISM FOR ADDING POPS

        Throughout the treaty negotiations, the U.S. delegation
    acknowledged that changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
    and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
    would be necessary to enable EPA to ban the manufacture, use, and
    export of the chemicals named in the treaty, and to regulate new
    chemicals identified as POPs pursuant to the agreed science-based
    process. A briefing for NGO's in July 2001 indicated that an
    interagency agreement had been reached on the legislative requirements
    for U.S. implementation, including provisions to grant EPA the ability
    to phaseout additional POPs beyond the dirty dozen. Regrettably, the
    proposal revealed by the administration last month has left out this
    critical piece of implementing authority.
        Beginning late last year, press reports indicated that the
    administration was heading down this path. Attached to my testimony you
    will find letters sent by PSR and other public interest organizations
    to CEQ, OMB, and EPA, expressing our concerns. You will also find a
    fact sheet prepared by PSR along with the World Wildlife Fund, Oceana,
    and the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups. This document spells out
    in detail the issues raised by the omission of provisions related to
    new POPs. As it makes clear, such an omission would tie EPA's hands and
    put up an unnecessary hurdle to domestic regulation of any POP added to
    the treaty. The failure to amend TSCA and FIFRA now to allow EPA to
    regulate new POPs in the future would amount to a failure to implement
    Article 8 of the convention. It would result in an absurd situation in
    which each amendment to add a POP, which has been agreed by the U.S. as
    a member of the COP, and subjected to Senate review under the ``opt-
    in'' procedure, would still require both houses of Congress to amend
    TSCA and FIFRA again. Given that these environmental laws have rarely
    if ever been amended in nearly 30 years, such a process requiring
    repeated amendment seems both unmanageable, undesirable, and
    politically unrealistic.
        S. 2118 acknowledges this defect. This bill would legislate a
    domestic process that would parallel the international decision process
    from beginning to end. While the POPROC is evaluating a nominated
    chemical, the EPA Administrator would be directed by statute to
    initiate a notice and comment process to gather information about the
    uses and sources of the nominated chemical domestically, to inform a
    future decision about policy actions that might be needed to ban or
    regulate it. In the end, if the COP decides to list that new POP by
    amendment, S. 2118 would give a ``rebuttable presumption'' to the COP's
    decision. In essence, the legislation would automatically deem any POP
    added by the COP to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
    the environment, and would thus authorize EPA to undertake a rulemaking
    to control the production, use, and trade in that new POP.
        Administration officials have argued that additional authority is
    not required for EPA to take domestic action against any future POP.
    However, a careful reading of TSCA and FIFRA calls this claim into
    question. As written, these statutes would not allow EPA to prohibit
    the manufacture for export of any future POP. Experience even with the
    dirty dozen has shown this--chlordane and heptachlor, for example, were
    manufactured and exported for years after all uses were canceled
    domestically. In light of our experience with these laws, PSR does not
    believe that they can be used to effectively and efficiently eliminate
    future POPs without amendment now.
     the u.s. should be a proactive participant in the stockholm convention
        The U.S. has long been at the forefront of global efforts to
    protect the environment and public health. This country led the world,
    for example, in phasing out the use of DDT and leaded gasoline. In
    implementing the Stockholm Convention, the U.S. must continue to play a
    leadership role. S. 2118 will facilitate U.S. leadership in meeting the
    obligations of the Stockholm Convention in several important ways. For
    example, the legislation would require EPA to contract with the
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake a major POPs study.
    This comprehensive research program outline in the bill is designed to
    screen chemicals using the Stockholm Convention's POPs criteria,
    identify priority POPs for possible nomination to the POPROC, and
    develop a monitoring strategy for persistent and bioaccumulative
    substances. This NAS study, along with the related requirement that EPA
    develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to reduce the
    public's exposure to persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances, will
    enable the U.S. to be a proactive participant to the Stockholm
    Convention. Indeed, it will position the United States to lead the
    world in utilizing a science-based process to identify and take action
    against future POPs, rather than merely reacting to international
    pressure.
        Finally, S. 2118 would require EPA to submit to Congress, within 90
    days of its enactment, the agency's final dioxin reassessment. This
    document has been in development for more than 10 years, and represents
    the state-of-the-science on dioxin and related POPs. Many organizations
    and agencies--including the EPA itself--have been waiting for its
    release to guide policy actions to phaseout this most toxic of POPs.
    The long-awaited release of this document will serve as a jumping off
    point for the U.S. to meet its long-term obligation of dioxin
    elimination under the Stockholm Convention.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The announcement by President Bush of his intention to sign and
    ratify the Stockholm Convention more than a year ago received
    unprecedented support from the public interest community, the chemical
    industry, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This
    important treaty continues to offer a rare opportunity to achieve
    consensus in the environmental policy arena.
        The ratification and full implementation of the Stockholm
    Convention is of utmost importance to PSR. In addition, numerous groups
    and constituencies not represented here today--including environmental,
    public health, consumer, and indigenous organizations across the
    country--share our hope that the treaty can be rapidly ratified and
    fully implemented, and can be claimed as a victory by all. It is now up
    to this committee and the Congress as a whole to strive for such an
    outcome. We look forward to working with you to reach it.
        Thank you for your attention, and I will be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.
                                     ______

                   U.S. Ratification of POPs Treaty in Danger
                            White House Seeking Only
                 Partial Implementation of Stockholm Convention

        On April 11, 2002, the White House asked the Senate to ratify the
    Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
    Regrettably, the Administration's implementing legislation fails to ask
    Congress for the legislative provisions necessary to fully implement
    the treaty.
        This unprecedented international agreement targets chemicals that
    are detrimental to human health and the environment globally, starting
    with a list of 12 POPs that includes formerly used pesticides, dioxin,
    and PCBs. In addition to governing the phaseout of the initial list of
    POPs, the Stockholm Convention mandates a process for nomination,
    science-based assessment, and addition of other POPs to the treaty. In
    a Rose Garden ceremony last spring, President Bush announced his
    support for the agreement, noting that while it was negotiated by the
    previous administration, it ``achieves a goal shared by this
    administration'' and ``shows the possibilities for cooperation among
    all parties to our environmental debates.''
        Some changes to domestic environmental laws, including TSCA and
    FIFRA, are needed to give EPA the power to eliminate the initial 12
    POPs. In addition, a process for regulating new POPs must be reflected
    in implementing legislation, unless the treaty provisions related to
    adding POPs were considered to be self-executing. Last summer, EPA
    crafted a proposal to deal with both categories of legislative changes
    at the time of ratification. Now, the Administration is instead asking
    Congress to amend TSCA and FIFRA to address only the initial 12 POPs,
    without making the statutory changes needed to regulate chemicals
    subsequently added to the Convention.
    failure to amend u.s. laws now to provide for the addition of new pops
    would violate the spirit of the stockholm convention and hobble future

                              U.S. IMPLEMENTATION

        The international community envisioned a dynamic instrument that
    could take into account emerging scientific knowledge about chemicals
    beyond the initial 12. The Convention as negotiated provides the U.S.
    with a great deal of flexibility in deciding whether and how to take
    domestic action against future POPs. Requiring a case-by-case revision
    of domestic legislation in the future is unnecessary and risks
    politicizing decisions that would otherwise be based on sound science.
         The international selection process involves input from
    all countries that are Parties to the Convention: Article 8 of the
    Convention provides for the evaluation and addition of chemicals beyond
    the initial 12. Upon entry into force, the Conference of the Parties
    (COP) will establish a Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee
    (POPROC). Parties will submit chemical nominations to the POPROC, which
    will evaluate them based on agreed scientific criteria including
    persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity. The
    POPROC must prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E, to
    be made available for input from all Parties and observers. The POPROC
    will then make recommendations that must be approved by the entire COP
    before a nominated chemical can be added to the treaty as a binding
    amendment.
         The Convention does not automatically obligate the U.S. to
    eliminate each new POP that is added internationally: Under Article
    22(3) of the Convention, COP-agreed amendments to add new chemicals
    become binding upon all Parties, subject to the opportunity to ``opt
    out'' of such obligations within 1 year. However, there exists another
    safeguard under Article 25(4), which was proposed by the U.S., allowing
    a Party to declare when ratifying the Convention that it will be bound
    by new chemical amendments only if it affirmatively ``opts in'' via a
    separate, subsequent ratification process. The State Department has
    indicated that the U.S. will take advantage of the ``opt in''
    provision, enabling the Senate to give its advice and consent to the
    addition of each new POP in the future.
         Broad options exist for regulating additional POPs under
    U.S. law: Two major options can be considered for amending the Toxic
    Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
    Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to deal with future POPs under the Convention.
    The first option would amend these statutes to allow for automatic
    regulation of new POPs once the U.S. ``opts in'' to the corresponding
    treaty amendments. This option is preferred by environmental and public
    health NGO's, given the other existing safeguards described above. The
    second option, according to EPA officials, would provide that a
    ``rebuttable presumption'' be given to the COP's decision on a new POP,
    while preserving the right (based on food security, public health, or
    environmental considerations) to make a persuasive case that modified
    controls are necessary. As presented to NGO and industry groups in July
    2001, the POPs interagency group agreed to include this second option
    in their draft legislation. OMB later overrode the other agencies,
    choosing instead to eliminate all legislative reference to future POPs.
        Failure by the White House to seek legislative authority to address
    the addition of new POPs makes little sense, and jeopardizes U.S.
    participation in the Convention for a number of reasons, including:
         Ratification based on incomplete legislative authority
    would be viewed by the international community as a bad faith
    commitment to implementation of a treaty that is popular with
    governments worldwide.
         Transmittal of an incomplete legislative package
    significantly increases the likelihood that it will be opened for
    amendment in the House and Senate, risking ``non-surgical'' and
    potentially controversial changes.
         Congress is unlikely to repeatedly re-open domestic laws
    such as TSCA and FIFRA that have rarely if ever been amended.
         Implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior
    Informed Consent (PIC)--a chemicals treaty that the Administration
    plans to ``bundle'' with POPs for ratification--involves related TSCA/
    FIFRA amendments, reinforcing the value of transmitting a complete
    legislative package for both agreements.
        The Stockholm Convention offers a rare example of consensus in the
    environmental policy arena. Since its completion in December 2000,
    support for U.S. ratification has been expressed by the public interest
    community, the chemical industry, Members of Congress on both sides of
    the aisle, and the Bush administration, including explicit endorsement
    of the treaty by President Bush. The President's decision to sign and
    ratify it was acclaimed as an environmental victory for his
    Administration. It will now be up to Congress to ensure that the treaty
    can be fully implemented.
        To maintain the U.S. commitment to the Stockholm POPs Convention,
    Congress must:
         Make the statutory changes to TSCA and FIFRA necessary to
    authorize regulation of chemicals subsequently included in the
    Convention; and
         Ratify the treaty in full as soon as possible.
                                     ______

           Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oceana, World
                                      Wildlife Fund, U.S. PIRG,
                                                     December 20, 2001.
    Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director,
    Office of Management and Budget,
    Washington, DC.

    Mr. James L. Connaughton, Chair,
    Council on Environmental Quality,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Daniels and Mr. Connaughton: Our environmental and public
    health organizations write to request that the White House seek
    ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    Pollutants (POPs), along with the legislative authority to fully
    implement it, as soon as possible. As you know, the United States and
    nearly 100 other countries signed the Stockholm Convention last May.
    This unprecedented international agreement targets the so-called
    ``dirty dozen,'' 12 POPs which are known to be detrimental to human
    health and to the environment.
        The announcement by President Bush of his intention to sign and
    ratify this important treaty last spring received unprecedented support
    from both our organizations and the chemical industry. In formal
    remarks at the signing ceremony in Sweden, EPA Administrator Christie
    Whitman stated that the President had personally endorsed the treaty,
    adding that the Administration intended ``to move expeditiously to
    submit this treaty to the United States Senate, and to send the
    implementing measures to the Congress.'' Nearly 7 months later,
    however, the treaty and its draft implementing legislation have yet to
    see the light of day on Capitol Hill.
        POPs are global contaminants that threaten human health, wildlife,
    and ecosystems in the United States and around the world. They have
    been associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including
    cancers, birth defects, reproductive disorders, and learning and
    behavioral impairments. Despite more than two decades of progress
    toward controlling POPs pollution here at home, these chemicals
    continue to contaminate the U.S., in many cases traveling thousands of
    miles from other countries to America's shores. Today, POPs are found
    in our waterways, soils, and food. They accumulate in the bodies of
    people and wildlife in every region of the country--from Alaska to New
    York and everywhere in between. Those most at risk are children, fetal
    life, women of childbearing age, and communities who rely on local fish
    and wildlife as a major part of their diet.
        The ability of POPs to travel across the nation, to concentrate in
    the food chain, and to pose risks to people and wildlife even in remote
    areas demonstrates that the only way to protect the planet is to
    phaseout POPs everywhere. Once ratified, the Stockholm Convention will
    go a long way toward alleviating POPs pollution here and around the
    world. Moreover, it will do so with a minimum of hardship for the U.S.
    and its domestic industry. A preliminary assessment by the EPA
    indicated that few changes to existing Federal laws and regulations
    will be required.
        During the treaty negotiations, the U.S. delegation acknowledged
    that changes to FIFRA and TSCA would be necessary to enable EPA to ban
    the manufacture and export of the chemicals named in the treaty and to
    add new chemicals identified as POPs pursuant to the agreed science-
    based process of analysis and rulemaking. Shortly after the treaty
    signing, an Interagency agreement was reached on the legislative
    requirements for U.S. implementation, including provisions to support
    the ability to phaseout additional POPs beyond the dirty dozen. The
    ability, over time, to bring new POPs under the treaty's provisions is
    integral to its success. It is our strong view that the enabling
    legislation must provide authority to deal promptly and effectively
    with this important provision of the agreement.
        Last spring, the Stockholm Convention offered a rare example of
    consensus in the environmental policy arena, with support from the
    public interest community, the chemical industry, the President, and
    Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. We hope that the White
    House will follow through with its promise to protect the health and
    well being of the American people from POPs by pursuing ratification of
    this agreement as quickly as possible, and in a manner that gives EPA
    the necessary authority to expeditiously carry out all aspects of the
    agreement.
        We look forward to your response and to a status report on the
    Administration's efforts. If we can be of assistance, please feel free
    to call Karen Perry at Physicians for Social Responsibility (202-667-
    4260, x249) or Carolyn Hartmann at Oceana (202-833-3900).
                Sincerely,
                                Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H.,
                                            Executive Director and CEO,
                                  Physicians for Social Responsibility.

                                              Stephen E. Roady,
                                                             President,
                                                                Oceana.

                                             Kathryn S. Fuller,
                                                             President,
                                                   World Wildlife Fund.

                                              Jeremiah Baumann,
                                       Environmental Health Department,
                                   U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
                                     ______

           Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oceana, World
        Wildlife Fund, U.S. PIRG, Sierra Club, American Oceans
         Campaign, Center for International Environmental Law,
        Pesticide Action Network North America, Friends of the
        Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon
        Society, American Rivers, The Ocean Conservancy, Earth
             Island Institute, Circumpolar Conservation Union,
     Indigenous Environmental Network, Alaska Community Action
    on Toxics, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Atlantic States
        Legal Foundation Inc., Department of the Planet Earth,
         Protect All Children's Environment, Cancer Action NY,
       Commonweal, Greenwatch Inc., Pennsylvania Environmental
       Network, Air, Montana Environmental Information Center,
          Anacostia Watershed Society, Northwest Environmental
       Advocates, Bluewater Network, Citizens for a Future New
    Hampshire, Michigan Environmental Council, Friends of Casco
                                                           Bay,
                                                     February 14, 2002.
    Judith E. Ayres, Assistant Administrator for International Affairs,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Ms. Ayres: Our environmental and public health organizations
    write to express our concern that the current Administration might fail
    to seek authority for EPA to fully implement the Stockholm Convention
    on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). In our view, full
    implementation requires the ability to take domestic action not only
    against POPs named initially in the treaty, but also against POPs that
    may be added in the future.
        Signed by Administrator Whitman and representatives of nearly 100
    other countries last May, the Stockholm Convention targets a group of
    chemicals known to be detrimental to human health and to the
    environment. While the convention begins with an initial list of 12
    POPs, including PCBs, DDT, and dioxin, it is by no means limited to
    that list. Negotiators from all countries agreed that the treaty should
    be a dynamic instrument, and set up a Persistent Organic Pollutants
    Review Committee to recommend additional POPs for international action
    using a science-based screening and risk profile process. Additional
    chemicals identified as POPs and agreed by all Parties to the
    Convention will be added to the treaty by an amendment process, with
    the U.S. reserving the right to ``opt-in'' to each amendment via a
    separate, subsequent ratification process.
        During the treaty negotiations, the U.S. delegation acknowledged
    that changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal
    Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) would be necessary
    to enable EPA to ban the manufacture and export of the chemicals named
    in the treaty, and to regulate new chemicals identified as POPs
    pursuant to the agreed science-based process once the U.S. opts in. An
    interagency agreement was reached last summer on the legislative
    requirements for U.S. implementation, including provisions to grant EPA
    the ability to phaseout additional POPs beyond the dirty dozen. Since
    then, we have read with concern several press reports that indicate a
    reversal by the Office of Management and Budget of this important
    interagency decision.
        We are deeply concerned about the suggestion that the
    Administration is failing to follow through on its commitment to fully
    implement the POPs treaty. The ability, over time, to bring new POPs
    under the treaty's provisions is integral to its success. It is our
    strong view that the enabling legislation must provide authority to
    deal promptly and effectively with this important provision of the
    agreement.
        The announcement by President Bush of his intention to sign and
    ratify this important treaty last spring received unprecedented support
    both from our organizations and the chemical industry. The Stockholm
    Convention offers a rare example of consensus in the environmental
    policy arena, with support from the public interest community, the
    chemical industry, the President, and Members of Congress on both sides
    of the aisle. We hope that the Administration will keep its promise to
    protect the health and well being of the American people from POPs by
    pursuing ratification of this agreement as soon as possible, and in a
    manner that gives EPA the necessary authority to expeditiously carry
    out all aspects of the agreement.
        We look forward to your response and to a status report on the
    Administration's efforts. If we can be of assistance, please feel free
    to call Karen Perry at Physicians for Social Responsibility (202-667-
    4260, x249).
                Sincerely,
                        Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H., Executive Director
                                and CEO, Physicians for Social
                                Responsibility; Stephen E. Roady,
                                President, Oceana; Carl Pope, Executive
                                Director, Sierra Club; Glenn Wiser, Staff
                                Attorney, Center for International
                                Environmental Law; Brooks Yeager, Vice
                                President for Global Threats, World
                                Wildlife Fund; Gene Karpinski, Executive
                                Director, U.S. Public Interest Research
                                Group; Ted Morton, Policy Director,
                                American Oceans Campaign; Kristin S.
                                Schafer, Program Coordinator, Pesticide
                                Action Network North America; Larry Bohlen,
                                Director, Health and Environment Programs,
                                Friends of the Earth; Lois J. Schiffer, Sr.
                                Vice-President for Policy, National Audubon
                                Society; Tim Eichenberg, Program Counsel,
                                The Ocean Conservancy (formerly the
                                America's Waters Center for Marine
                                Conservation); Evelyn M. Hurwich, Executive
                                Director, Circumpolar Conservation Union;
                                Pamela K. Miller, Program Director, Alaska
                                Community Action on Toxics; Samuel H. Sage,
                                President, Atlantic States Legal
                                Foundation, Inc.; E.M.T. O'Nan, Director,
                                Protect All Children's Environment; Sharyle
                                Patton, Co-Director, Sustainable Futures
                                Project, Commonweal; Brian Laverty,
                                President, Pennsylvania Environmental
                                Network; Anne Hedges, Program Director,
                                Montana Environmental Information Center;
                                Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director,
                                Northwest Environmental Advocates; Carolyn
                                Snyder, President, Citizens for a Future
                                New Hampshire; Mary Minette, Legislative
                                Director, League of Conservation Voters; S.
                                Elizabeth Birnbaum, Director of Government
                                Affairs, American Rivers; Gershon Cohen,
                                Ph.D., Project Director, Campaign to
                                Safeguard, America's Waters, Earth Island
                                Institute; Tom Goldtooth, Director,
                                Indigenous Environmental Network; Michael
                                Stanley-Jones, Director, Sustainable Water
                                Program, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition;
                                Erik Jansson, Executive Director,
                                Department of the Planet Earth; Donald L.
                                Hassig, Director, Cancer Action NY; Bill
                                Smedley, Executive Director, GreenWatch
                                Inc.; Vicki Smedley, CEO, AIR (Arrest the
                                Incinerator Remediation); Robert E. Boone,
                                President, Anacostia Watershed Society;
                                Russell Long, Ph.D., Executive Director,
                                Bluewater Network; James Clift, Policy
                                Director, Michigan Environmental Council;
                                Joseph E. Payne, Executive Director/
                                BayKeeper, Friends of Casco Bay.
                                   __________
     Responses by Karen L. Perry to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
        Question 1. Are a large number of chemicals expected to be added to
    the POPs Convention?
        Response. No. While it is difficult for anyone to say exactly how
    many substances might eventually be added to the Convention, most
    experts agree that the list of probable additions is finite and
    relatively small. The Convention was created to deal with a limited set
    of chemicals that are highly persistent, very bioaccumulative, toxic,
    and truly global in nature. The specific numeric criteria--for
    bioaccumulation factor and half-life in water and soil, for example--
    were carefully chosen by negotiators to ``capture'' only those
    substances that are very similar to the 12 initial POPs.
        We can predict some of the most likely candidates in this limited
    universe of substances. Four chemicals--chlordecone, hexabromobiphenyl,
    the pesticide lindane, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons--are listed in the
    LRTAP POPs Protocol but not in the Stockholm Convention, and these are
    likely candidates for addition. Five more chemicals are now being
    considered for addition to the LRTAP Protocol as well. In addition,
    various international bodies (such as the OECD Chemicals Programme and
    the UNEP/GEF Regionally Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances
    Project) are evaluating perhaps a dozen or so other chemicals that may
    meet some or all of the criteria set out in the Stockholm Convention.

        Question 2. Regarding future POPs, is there a process that aligns
    the current standards under TSCA and FIFRA, including the due process
    given under these U.S. laws, with these international agreements?
        Response. TSCA and FIFRA set out similar processes for EPA
    evaluation of chemicals that pose a threat of harm to human health and
    the environment. Participation of regulated industry is built into both
    of these statutes, and in each (but particularly in TSCA), the
    threshold for determining that a substance poses and unacceptable risk
    is high. PSR believes that 5.2118 sets out a reasonable mechanism for
    aligning these determination processes--including multiple
    opportunities for industry and other interested stakeholders to
    comment--with the international POPs determination process set out in
    the Stockholm Convention. Other fomulations for aligning these
    processes may be possible, but these would need to be examined
    carefully to ensure that they would allow the United States to
    efficiently and effectively participate in the international selection
    and phaseout of additional POPs.

        Question 3. Does ratification of the POPs Convention require this
    implementing legislation to address the addition of new chemicals?
        Response. The addition of new chemicals is a cornerstone of the
    Stockholm Convention. As a Party to the Convention, the United States
    will be expected to participate fully in the Conference of the Parties,
    which will evaluate the recommendations of the Convention's POPs Review
    Committee and decide whether to list additional POPs. The United States
    will also be expected to determine expeditiously whether it will opt in
    or opt out of individual amendments adding POPs. Finally, the United
    States will be expected to move quickly to implement those amendments
    and obligations that apply to it. For these reasons, the United States
    must have legislation in place at the time that it becomes a Party to
    the Convention, to enable it to fulfill these expectations. As
    currently written, TSCA and FIFRA do not provide sufficient authority.
    Thus, it is up to Congress to provide the necessary authority in this
    implementing legislation.

                                     ______

    Response by Karen L. Perry to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords

        Question 1. How much collaboration has occurred between the public
    interest community regarding POPs, and to what extent are your views
    concerning the adding mechanism shared by this constituency?
        Response. The public interest community both in the United States
    and internationally has taken an active interest in POPs since the very
    start of negotiations on the Stockholm Convention, and has been
    remarkably coordinated in its positions and activities. While of course
    in an official capacity I can speak only for my own organization, I
    will say that there is a whole network of organizations across the
    country that share an interest in domestic implementation of the
    Stockholm Convention. These include national and DC-based organizations
    like Physicians for Social Responsibility, the World Wildlife Fund, the
    U.S. Public Interest Research Groups, Oceana, the Sierra Club,
    Pesticide Action NetworkNorth America, and the Center for International
    Environmental Law. They also include a whole host of local and state-
    based grassroots groups, such as
         Alaska Community Action on Toxics
         Indigenous Environmental Network
         Cancer Action New York
         Citizens for a Future New Hampshire
         Montana Environmental Information Center
         Pennsylvania Environmental Network
         Great Lakes United
        These groups and many more joined PSR on a letter to EPA in
    February (which was attached to my original written testimony),
    expressing the shared view that domestic POPs legislation must include
    provisions to address future POPs. In short, it is my sense that the
    public interest community is united on this issue.

                                   __________
             Statement of Jay J. Vroom, President, CropLife America

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Jay Vroom,
    president of CropLife America. We commend Chairman Jeffords and the
    entire Committee on Environment and Public Works for providing
    leadership on this complex issue. I appreciate; the opportunity to
    testify before you this afternoon on the Persistent Organic Pollutants
    Implementation Act of 2002 (S. 2118) and the Bush administration's
    legislative proposal for implementing the Stockholm Convention on POPs
    and the Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Protocol on
    POPs, as well as the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
    Consent: Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
    International Trade (PIC).
        CropLife America supports the POPs and PIC international
    environmental agreements. The crop protection industry acknowledges its
    role and responsibility in protecting human health and the environment
    in the manufacture, distribution and use of pesticides. Our member
    companies are committed to the spirit and letter of these agreements,
    and we welcome the opportunity to make recommendations about their
    integration into U.S. law. We also recognize the importance of
    including a process in the legislation to address U.S. decisionmaking
    on pesticides proposed for future inclusion in the international POPs
    listing.
        CropLife America is the national trade association representing the
    developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of plant
    science solutions for agriculture and pest: management in the United
    States. Our member companies develop, produce, sell and distribute
    virtually all the crop protection and biotechnology products used by
    American farmers. Our mission is to foster the interests of the general
    public and CropLife member companies by promoting innovation and the
    environmentally sound discovery, manufacture, distribution and use of
    crop protection and production technologies for safe, high quality,
    affordable, abundant food, fiber and other crops.
        It may seem obvious, but our industry's products provide many
    benefits to people and the environment. Our products have an enormous
    impact on the availability of abundant and affordable food and fiber
    while also protecting people, animals, and our homes and businesses
    from disease-carrying pests. Pesticides control outbreaks of crop-
    damaging fungus, insect infestation and weeds to enhance U.S. food and
    fiber production. Pesticides are also used to combat damaging and
    health-threatening pests and insects. Pesticides control and eliminate
    vector borne illness caused by rats, mosquitoes (West Nile virus and
    other encephalitis) and ticks (lyme disease), among others. They combat
    cockroaches and mold/mildew in housing, restrooms, cafeterias and
    elsewhere, reducing known allergens causing asthma and other disease.
    Other insects and plant pests, such as bees (which can cause
    anaphylactic reactions), poison ivy, fire ants and spiders, are
    controlled effectively by pesticides. We are reinforcing the benefits
    of our industry's products at every opportunity and recently held a 2-
    day conference to foster better understanding of the enormous benefits
    of pesticides.
        We believe the United States has the strongest and most emulated
    pesticide regulatory system ire the world. Congress saw the need for a
    separate statute regulating pesticides in order to provide for
    extensive health and safety testing when it passed the Federal
    Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1947. Through
    subsequent major revisions to FIFRA in 1972, 1975, 1978 and 1988,
    Congress has provided for an increasingly comprehensive pesticide
    regulatory system as the basis for EPA pesticide decisions.
        For example, under FIFRA's strict provisions the process of
    bringing pesticides to market by securing an EPA registration is
    complex and demanding, based on strong scientific principles and
    undertaken according to stringent government review and regulation. EPA
    requires up to 120 separate scientific safety tests to ensure that a
    product, when used properly, does not present health or environmental
    concerns. On average, only one in 20,000 chemicals makes it from the
    chemist's laboratory to the farmer's field. Pesticide development,
    testing and EPA approval takes 8 to 10 years and costs manufacturers
    $75 million to $100 million for each product.
        Given Congress' specific and recurrent decisions on pesticide law
    over the years, we believe FIFRA provides the necessary statutory
    framework to implement the conventions without adding pesticide
    provisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
        CropLife America supports the sovereign right of individual
    countries to decide which pesticides they will permit to be used
    domestically and allow to be brought into their country. Importantly,
    the POPs and PIC Conventions recognize this and include provisions
    providing for each nation's right to implement the agreements within
    their domestic regulatory framework. FIFRA, with its protective health
    and safety provisions, should be the basis for U.S., pesticide
    decisions under implementing legislation for POPs and PIC.
    Specifically, our industry urges that workable implementation
    legislation recognize the existing risk-benefit standards of FIFRA. The
    United States may become party to other international agreements, and
    POPs and PIC implementing legislation may serve as a precedent for the
    future. Health and environmental protections afforded by FIFRA's
    stringent scientific standards and U.S. law should be upheld when
    implementing such agreements.
        Our industry is concerned that under S. 2118 an international POPs
    listing would constitute a domestic, FIFRA finding of ``unreasonable
    adverse effect on the environment.'' This would trigger U.S.
    cancellation of a product without full risk assessment, benefits
    consideration or due process currently provided under FIFRA.
        EPA must play an active role in upholding the integrity of the
    listing criteria and procedures in the POPs and PIC international
    agreements. We urge that implementing legislation not enable other
    countries to use these agreements to adversely impact the, availability
    of U.S. registered pesticide: that meet FIFRA standard's used for
    agriculture, public health protection and other purposes. The
    agreements should not become vehicles to impose artificial barriers to
    trade, impose a competitive disadvantage on U.S. growers or adversely
    impact public health. 1Ne strongly support FIFRA as the basis for
    pesticide decisions by the U.S. Government since it provides rigorous
    protection for human health and the environment.

               LRTAP POPS PROTOCOL AND STOCKHOLM POPS CONVENTION

        CropLife America actively supported the inter-governmental
    negotiations that led to the U.S. signing of both the Convention on
    Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants
    and Stockholm POPs Convention. Our support of both agreements is based
    on established policies and procedures in the POPs agreements for:
        1. Identifying new POPs chemicals within a transparent, science-
    based, risk/benefit assessment process. Final determination of the POPs
    status for a pesticide is based on a consideration of socio-economic
    benefits and risks.
        2. Recognizing the sovereignty of each Nation to undertake
    mitigation requirements for POPs or to ``opt-in'' or ``opt-out'' of the
    international POPs listing based on their domestic risk management
    conclusions.
        3. Contemplating the process for developing national regulatory
    programs for countries that do not have a regulatory framework in
    place, while recognizing the sovereignty of existing regulatory
    programs.
        Our industry believes that if a pesticide use is contemplated for
    international POPS listing, then any alternatives--if they exist--
    synthetic pesticide or otherwise, should be subject to the same risk-
    benefit analysis and process to ensure that appropriate alternatives
    exist.
        We agree with the findings of the Conventions regarding POPs
    pesticides, and recognize that beneficial uses still exist, for example
    in developing countries, as reflected in the specific exemptions in
    annexes of both agreements.
        Companies represented by CropLife International, our industry's
    global association, have been working with the United Nations. Food and
    Agriculture Organization on the safe collection and disposal of
    obsolete crop protection product stocks in Africa, Asia and Latin
    America. Through partnering and cost-share arrangements with donor
    agencies, governments and other stakeholders, this effort hats resulted
    in the disposal of over 3,000 tons of obsolete pesticide stocks,
    including 800 tons of POPs pesticides. In 2000 alone, 1200 tons of
    obsolete pesticides were incinerated in Brazil and approximately 180
    tons were successfully retrieved from Gambia, Madagascar, Pakistan and
    Uganda. Our commitment and work on such disposal projects will
    continue.

                 ROTTERDAM CONVENTION ON PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT

        CropLife America supports the Rotterdam Convention on Prior
    Informed Consent. The PIC Convention is first and foremost an
    information exchange mechanism to assist decisionmaking in developing
    countries. It makes an important contribution to developing countries'
    ability to make informed judgments in their national interest.
    Furthermore, PIC affirms the right of each government to make
    regulatory decisions that take into account the benefits of product use
    to agriculture and the public good. We are pleased with the balanced
    distribution of obligations between importing and Exporting countries.
    The obligations in PIC are consistent with our industry's product
    stewardship efforts to ensure the safe use of our products.
        Our industry has actively supported the voluntary PIC procedure
    first established in the late 1980's as part of the FAO Code of
    Conduct, and we participated as a non-governmental organization in the
    intergovernmental negotiations that led to the current Convention. We
    look forward to continuing this tradition of cooperation. We do have
    several recommendations regarding proposed implementing legislation:
        1. In order to provide broad input into EPA decisionmaking, we urge
    the inclusion of legislative language that directs the Administration
    to consult with stakeholders and solicit broad stakeholder input. We
    recommend notice and comment rulemaking as well as an ongoing
    consultative process.
        2. There is no formal mechanism to challenge EPA judgments in
    applying PIC definitions and criteria to products for which the agency
    has issued a final regulatory action. We believe any implementation of
    PIC by the United States should include such a provision, governed
    under the auspices of FIFRA and the Administrative Procedures Act.
        3. Voluntary removal for purely commercial reasons should not by
    itself constitute a safety risk or reason for PIC listing. For Example,
    the U.S. market for a particular pesticide may be too small or even
    non-existent to justify registering the pesticide with EPA. We urge
    that this provision be explicitly noted in implementation legislation.

       OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POPS AND PIC IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

        Our industry looks forward to the opportunity to fully support
    implementing legislation to accompany the POPs and P1C agreements. We
    are committed to work with this committee to ensure that these
    agreements are fully implemented, without unintended consequences, and
    offer the following recommendations:
    General
         We fully support enactment of POPs implementing
    legislation (S. 2118) consistent: with POPs and PIC international
    agreements. In our analysis, the proposed POPS legislation could result
    in U.S.-registered pesticides being removed from domestic use, which is
    not consistent with our understanding of what is called for in the
    Conventions. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the
    committee on clarification.

    Safety Standards
         We believe that if a pesticide does not meet FIFRA
    standards and is not eligible for EPA registration, then the U.S.
    should be authorized to support its inclusion on the international POPs
    and PIC lists. Health and environmental protections under FIFRA warrant
    that pesticides meeting FIFRA safety standards for registration in the
    U.S. should be ineligible for U.S. support for inclusion on the
    international POPs or PIC list.

    EPA
         We support EPA as the pre-eminent pesticide regulatory
    agency that recognizes the risks of pesticides and the beneficial role
    pesticides play in protecting human health and the environment and
    providing for a safe and abundant food supply. U.S. decisions on POPS
    and PIC; pesticides should be based on EPA expertise and regulatory
    responsibility, with input from other Federal agencies as appropriate.

                                    SUMMARY

        Our industry is committed to the improvement and building of
    regulatory capacity, especially in the developing world. We have been
    active participants in the DECD and NAFTA international forums to
    harmonize pesticide registration processes for the past 10 years. Most
    recently our efforts have been focused on harmonization of U.S. and
    Canadian pesticide regulation.
        This hearing is the first to consider a very complex matter. We
    have been evaluating both legislative proposals and welcome the
    opportunity to participate in continuing deliberations. We support
    strong and workable implementing legislation for the Conventions. We
    understand that PIC legislation will be added and look forward to
    working with the committee in this effort.
        The crop protection industry is committed to a transparent,
    science-based process for implementing the Conventions and we believe
    that current statutory framework under FIFRA is ample, with appropriate
    adjustments, to successfully implement U.S. industry's obligations.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share our views with the
    committee. We look forward to working with the Chairman and other
    Senators to ensure that POPs and PIIC are properly implemented to meet
    the global human health and environmental goals set forth in the three
    international agreements.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.023

                       State of Alaska, Office of the Governor,
                                           Juneau, Alaska, May 7, 2002.
    Hon. James M. Jeffords, Chairman,
    Environment and Public Works Committee,

    Hon. Robert C. Smith, Ranking Member,
    Environment and Public Works Committee,

    Hon. Barbara Boxer, Chairman,
    Subcommittee Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment,
    Environment and Public Works Committee,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Jeffords, Senator Smith, and Senator Boxer: The State
    of Alaska supports the U.S. Senate's advice and consent to ratification
    of the Stockholm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and
    the appropriate implementing legislation.
        This treaty is of the utmost importance to the health and well-
    being of Alaskans. Although Alaska's environment is among the most
    pristine in the world, we are now discovering low levels of persistent
    organic pollutants such as pesticide Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
    and dioxins, in Alaska's Arctic. These chemicals are not produced in
    Alaska but are transported here by water and air currents from the
    developing world where they are still manufactured and used.
        The treaty has special significance to Alaska Natives who have
    voiced increasing concern about whether POPs pose a threat to their
    subsistence foods. As you know, these contaminants have a tendency to
    accumulate in the fatty tissues and organs that are an enormous part of
    the subsistence diet and cultural traditions of many Native peoples of
    the Arctic.
        I am very supportive of the approach to bundle the Stockholm
    Convention with the very important Convention on Long-Range
    Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) and the Rotterdam Convention on the
    Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC). In addition, the State of
    Alaska supports provisions for including new additions to the POPs
    list. Without such a provision, the inclusion of a new chemical will
    entail a lengthy administrative and legislative process. The last
    process took over 4 years; I believe that the process to list new
    chemicals should be considerably quicker. I encourage this committee to
    recommend legislation that implements the Stockholm Convention and also
    includes a critical mechanism to address future harmful pesticides and
    chemicals not currently listed.
        As you know, the Bush administration chose not to include such
    provisions in its proposed legislation. It is my understanding that the
    administration felt these provisions were too complex and as
    Administrator Whitman stated, they might ``hold up'' the implementing
    legislation. I understand that the administration wants to pass this
    legislation in an expeditious manner. However, I believe the U.S.
    Senate can do better by reinserting language that will allow for
    chemicals not listed in the convention, and any that might be produced
    in the future, to be added administratively to the treaty. In this way,
    we can ensure the highest level of protection for not only the Arctic
    and the Native peoples dependent on its resources, but all the people
    of our planet.
        Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter. I
    ask that my comments be entered into the record of the May 9, 2002
    hearing on S. 2118.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Tony Knowles,
                                                              Governor.
                                   __________
                                                        OCEANA,
                                          Juneau, Alaska, May 10, 2002.
    Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Committee Members: Tiffany Prather, staff to the Senate
    Committee on Environment and Public Works contacted me regarding your
    hearing on Persistant Organic Pollutants and related legislation. I am
    submitting the attached document, ``Contaminants in Alaska'',
    pertaining to contaminants and Persistant Organic Pollutants in the
    Arctic.
        This document reflects the importance of this matter regarding the
    health of our great nation's oceans and watersheds in the Arctic.
    Further this illustrates the threat that Persistant Organic Pollutants
    have to Alaskans, in particularly and most immediately to the
    indigenous people of the Arctic region. Clearly, all Americans are at
    risk to known and future Persistant Organic Pollutants.
        The recent May 7th report of an orca, found dead on the Olympic
    Peninsula, is the same whale species found in Alaska waters. The high
    level of the Persistant Organic Pollutants found in the orca, by
    scientists of the National Marine Fisheries Service, is a red alert to
    the urgency of this matter.
        Please, allow me to enter this document into the record. I urge you
    to take action to protect us, our Arctic, and oceans from currently
    known Persistant Organic Pollutants, as well as, those yet to be
    identified and listed. Thank you for this opportunity and any future
    opportunities to meet with your committee on this very urgent matter.
                Sincerely,
                                                     Jim Ayers,
                                                              Director.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.120

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.121

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.122

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.123

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.124

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.125

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.126

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.127

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.128

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.129

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.130

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.131

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.090

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.105

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.109

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.110

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.111

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.112

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.113

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.114

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.115

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.116

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.117

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.118

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3693.119