[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