SENATE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs) IMPLEMENTATION ACT

S. HRG.
107997
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 OR-
GANIC 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
(
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83693 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
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
(II)
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, Depart-
ment of State ........................................................................................................ 4
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords ............................. 30
Johnson, Stephen L., Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pes-
ticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .......... 6
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
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 61
Senator Smith ............................................................................................ 61
Walls, Michael, senior counsel, American Chemistry Council ............................. 19
Yeager, Brooks, Vice President for Global Threats, World Wildlife Fund .......... 16
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
(III)
IV
Page
Continued
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oceana, World Wildlife Fund, U.S.
PIRG, Sierra Club, American Oceans Campaign, Center for Inter-
national Environmental Law, Pesticide Action Network North America,
Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Audu-
bon 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 Childrens Environment, Cancer Action NY,
Commonweal, Greenwatch Inc., Pennsylvania Environmental Network,
Air, Montana Environmental Information Center, Anacostia Watershed
Society, Northwest Environmental Advocates, Bluewater Network, Citi-
zens 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 ............................................................................................... 4548
Publications:
CropLife International, Creating Opportunities for Sustainable Agri-
culture ............................................................................................................ 6684
Interagency Collaborative Paper, Contaminants in Alaska: Is Americas
Aractic At Risk? ............................................................................................. 8798
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................................................................................................................. 99194
PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC
POLLUTANTS (POPs) IMPLEMENTATION ACT
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT ANDPUBLIC 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 wit-
nesses, several of whom flew from great distances twice to partici-
pate in todays 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 Or-
ganic Pollutants, otherwise known as the POPs Convention. The
Senate now has two jobsto pass this treaty, as well as the
LRTAP POPs Protocol, and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior In-
formed Consent, and to pass corresponding implementing legisla-
tion. 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 Administrations implementing legislation, it
seems the disagreement centers on whether we implement the
POPs Convention in its entirety. The POPs Convention is a land-
mark agreement that has brought the international community to-
gether to protect human health and the environment. The initial
goal of the convention is to phaseout the dirty dozen. These 12 pes-
ticides and industrial chemicals and other POPs resist degradation.
They are toxic to humans and also wildlife, and travel across inter-
national 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,
(1)
2
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 Administrations POPs imple-
menting proposal.
In addition to eliminating the dirty dozen, the Convention pro-
vides 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 ratifi-
cation of POPs. I expect to hear support for an adding mechanism
from all of our witnesses at todays hearing.
My legislation, the POPs Implementation Act of 202, mirrors the
POPs Convention. Like the Administrations proposal introduced by
Senator Smith, my bill seeks to amend TSCA and FIFRA, for ex-
ample. 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 con-
sistent 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
Administrations example, we will be perceived by the international
community as withdrawing from our commitments.
I look forward to working with the Administration and my col-
leagues 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 De-
partment. 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 Agri-
culture, Nutrition and Forestry. From 1979 to 1981, he was the Re-
search Director of the House Republican Task Force on Govern-
ment Regulation, and Legislative Assistant also to Congressman
Mickey Edwards. Welcome back, Mr. Burnam.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
3
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 todays 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. There-
fore, 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 Adminis-
trations 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 inter-
national community together to protect human health and the environment. The ini-
tial 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 Con-
vention provides this solution. And it is a solution that the United States has em-
braced. 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 Administrations 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 un-
derstand. The POPs Convention was not intended to be a static agreement. The
United States made an international commitment to eliminate all, current and fu-
ture, POPs.
The adding mechanismthat is, a mechanism to add POPs beyond the dirty
dozenhas 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 ad-
ditions to the POPs Convention. Industry, environmentalists, public interest organi-
zations, 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 todays hearing.
My legislation, the POPs Implementation Act of 2002 (S. 2118), mirrors the POPs
Convention. Like the Administrations proposal introduced by Senator Smith, my
bill seeks to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insec-
ticide, 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 Administrations 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 re-
sponsibility 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.
4
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 leg-
islation that completely implements the POPs Convention, as well as LRTAP and
PIC.
STATEMENT OF JEFFRY M. BURNAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SEC-

RETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND
INTERNATIONAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AF-
FAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. BURNAM. Thank you, Senator.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today
to speak about three treatieseach of which the Administration
supports. These treaties are the Stockholm Convention on Per-
sistent 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 re-
sistant 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 for-
ward to working with the Senate to help ensure its early ratifica-
tion.
POPs are capable of impacting human health and the environ-
ment far away from where they are released, including across na-
tional 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 in-
clude cancer, damage to the nervous system, reproductive dis-
orders, and disruption of the immune system.
As you pointed out, Senator, these 12 chemicals are banned, se-
verely 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 com-
pleting its negotiation.
I have been to a number of international meetings, and when the
EU, the G77 and the United States and what is known as the
5
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 rep-
resentatives 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 pollutantsinten-
tionally produced POPs such as DDT or PCBs, and unintentionally
produced POPs such as dioxins and furans. For intentionally pro-
duced POPs, the Stockholm POPs Convention prohibits their pro-
duction 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 environ-
mentally-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 environ-
mentally sound manner. Recognizing the needs of developing coun-
tries 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 obliga-
tion.
Finally, the Convention includes a science-based procedure to
govern the inclusion of additional chemicals to the Convention, in-
cluding 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 manage-
ment 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 re-
gional agreement negotiated under the auspices of the United Na-
tions 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 Con-
sent. The Rotterdam Convention stipulates that the export of cer-
tain 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 in-
dustry 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.
6
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 Nations pesticide, toxic sub-
stances and pollution prevention laws. Both of the domestic stat-
utes 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 ADMINIS-
TRATOR, 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 testi-
mony 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 Administrations legislative proposal on
three international environmental agreements. Let me first say
that the Bush administration is firmly committed to working close-
ly with all members of this committee and the U.S. Senate to en-
sure quick enactment of the implementing legislation and subse-
quent ratification and/or approval of these international agree-
ments 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 Or-
ganic 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 Pol-
lutants negotiated under the U.N. Economic Commission for Eu-
ropes 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 agree-
ments. But as we all know, stand alone action by one country is
not enough. As Mr. Burnam explained earlier, these chemicals con-
tinue 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 impor-
tance 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
7
true for Alaska Natives, who rely heavily on traditional diets com-
prised 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 thor-
ough 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 miti-
gating and subsequently reducing exposure to POPs chemicals. For
example, EPA developed national action plans for persistent bio-
accumulative 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 part-
nership activities.
The Administrations legislative proposal provides targeted
changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insec-
ticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act in order to track the provi-
sions 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 imple-
ment our obligations under them.
For the POPs chemicals, the legislation would prohibit any pro-
duction, 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 Administrations legislative language directly tracks obliga-
tions in the PIC Convention, effectively controlling the inter-
national trade of toxic chemicals and pesticides through export no-
tification, export controls and labeling. With these provisions, the
United States will be able to effectively and expeditiously imple-
ment this important Convention.
As you know, the legislation does not include provisions to ad-
dress 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 addi-
tional chemicals to the POPs agreements, using the science-based
listing process outlined in the global POPs treaty and ratifying
amendments that list appropriate chemicals.
8
In fact, that is why the Administrations legislative draft con-

tains information collection provisions. These provisions will ensure
that the United States is as informed as possible of the risks, bene-
fits, 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 addi-
tional 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 meas-
ures for the chemical.
Recognizing that a provision to address the listing of additional
chemicals is not required to bring the United States into compli-
ance 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 impor-
tant issue.
The Administration would also like to recognize you, Mr. Chair-
man, 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 agree-
ments. We believe the Stockholm Convention may come into force
soon, and it is important that the United States be a full partici-
pant 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 commit-
ment to the goals of this important treaty, and by our example en-
courage 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 sup-
port and assure you that President Bush, Administrator Whitman
9
and I are looking forward to working with you and the committee
to approve these important agreements and finalize the imple-
menting 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 se-
verely 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 pro-
posal 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. Doesnt it make sense from a level playing
field point of view to support global bans on chemicals we have al-
ready agreed to ban on a regional basis in the LRTAPs POPs Pro-
tocol?
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 Pro-
tocol, 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 colleagues 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 pathwaysso just as a point of reference.
Mr. Burnam, again, you have stated that you wish to have more
experience with additional procedure and practices of the POPs Re-
view 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
10
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 re-
view 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 pro-
vision, the United States or any other country that exercised the
opt-in provision would have to positively affirm that it had accept-
ed 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 wheth-
er 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 list-
ing process for POPs that is built into both the Convention and cer-
tainly is supported by our draft legislation. That is, as a chemical
comes into the listing process, the proposal is sent for scientific re-
view. 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 ef-
fects. 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 rec-
ommendation is made to the conference of the parties, as my col-
league has already stated, a final decision is made. There is a win-
dow 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.
My final question is, doesnt 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
11
have to agree to anything that is done under the treaty that is sig-
nificant, to put it in colloquial terms. In this particular case, since
there is a three-fourths vote if there is controversy, it was impor-
tant to the United States to ensure that it was not bound by a deci-
sion with which it disagreed. So it put the opt-in provision in there
to ensure that it would have toand 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 pro-
vision, 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 secre-
tariat 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 di-
rector for the Commission of Life Sciences, and the executive direc-
tor of the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources at the Na-
tional Research Council. From 1971 to 1977, he was a senior staff
member for the Environmental Health of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality. He was a key formulator of the Administrations
proposal for TSCA. After TSCA was enacted, he served at EPA
from 1977 to 1981 in various capacities associated with implemen-
tation. Welcome, Mr. Muir.
The second witness is John Buccini, a native of Winnipeg, Can-
ada. He is the chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Com-
mittee 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 inter-
national programs addressing toxic chemical issues, including the
North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, the
OECD Chemicals Program, and the Intergovernmental Forum on
12
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 Environ-
ment 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 com-
mittees and staff on a broad range of international and domestic
issues. He has represented the industry in several international ne-
gotiations 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 di-
rects the SRs 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 Elimi-
nation Networka network consisting of more than 400 NGOs 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, COM-
MISSION ON LIFE SCIENCES, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, NA-
TIONAL 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 unfortu-
nately out of the country today. With your permission, I ask that
his statement be entered into the record.
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 testi-
mony to scientific issues and the possible involvement of our oper-
ating arm, the National Research Council, in reviewing candidate
chemicals for possible future inclusions in these Conventions, start-
ing with the general issues and moving to more specific drafting
issues.
Section 107, research program to support POPs Convention, con-
tains a provision in which EPA may enter into a contract with the
National Academy of Sciences to, No. 1, develop and apply screen-
ing criteria for adding new substances or mixtures to the POPs
Convention; two, to propose alternative designs for a global moni-
toring program aimed at identifying persistent bioaccumulative
13
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 alter-
native designs for a global monitoring program aimed at identi-
fying persistent and bioaccumulative chemical substances. Such al-
ternative designs would be driven primarily by practical and sci-
entific considerations.
Turning to the remaining two requests of the National Acad-
emies 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 fac-
tors.
Because non-scientific factors are properly involved in such con-
siderations, the National Academies are reluctant to be asked to
recommend that specific chemicals be added to the POPs Conven-
tion. Rather, we propose that if asked to be involved, that the Na-
tional Academies be requested to recommend scientific principles
and methods for preparing risk profiles and to apply such prin-
ciples and methods to prepare risk profiles with information avail-
able 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 incor-
porate 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 ar-
rangements.
Included in the specifics is a January 1, 2004 date for the Na-
tional Academies to complete a report. We recommend that the re-
port be described as a progress report to avoid any misinterpreta-
tion 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 re-
port. 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.
14
In sum, the National Academies, through its operating arm, the

National Research Council, is prepared to assist the U.S. Govern-
ment in carrying out its responsibilities under these two Conven-
tions. To do so would entail the development of several reports pro-
viding independent scientific advice, leaving the weighing of impor-
tant 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 envi-
ronment of POPs is not a sustainable practice, as once released
into the environment, POPs undergo widespread environmental
distribution through natural processes. They contaminate environ-
mental 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 inter-
national 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 or-
ganizations, nongovernmental organizations, including both indus-
try and public interest groups, and aboriginal groups.
The activities involved in developing the Convention have re-
sulted in a broad acceptance of the urgent need for action in coun-
tries 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 par-
ties through ratification, acceptance or accession procedures.
15
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, in-
dustry 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 in-
cludes 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 assist-
ance for developing countries and countries with economies in tran-
sition.
The control provisions of the Convention address three areas: in-
tentionally produced POPs, unintentionally produced POPs, and
POPs in stockpiles and waste. For intentionally produced POPs, in-
cluding industries chemicals and pesticides, the goal of the Conven-
tion is to eliminate their production and use, and measures are
specified for 10 chemicals. To prevent the introduction into com-
merce 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 addi-
tion, 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 elimi-
nation of the total releases of such POPs derived from anthropo-
genic sources. An approach has been developed that enables each
country to define its priorities, develop a national action plan with-
in 2 years of entry into force of the Convention, and then imple-
ment 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 spec-
ified 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 Con-
16
ference 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 fi-
nancial 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 collec-
tive 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.
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.
Mr. YEAGER. I want to say thank you very much for the oppor-
tunity to testify, and thanks for holding this hearing so expedi-
tiously 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 WWFs 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
worlds most dangerous chemicalsPOPs pesticides such as
17
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 Floridas 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 inter-
est.
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 objec-
tives and strategies, but more so for ensuring that our national in-
terests and positions and requirements were reflected in the final
text. Our position as a Nation was developed through an exhaus-
tive 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 Bushs decision to sign
the Stockholm Convention in April. I would also says, Mr. Chair-
man, we had a very expert negotiating team, some of whom are in
the room today. But more than that, both industry and environ-
mental 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
Administrations bill. I have not included a lot of comments about
the Administrations 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.
18
Mr. YEAGER. The treatys 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
treatys formation. The U.S. interest, as we articulated it during
the negotiations, was to achieve an ambitious treaty that would ad-
dress the global environmental damage caused by POPs, but to do
so in a way that would be practical, implementable, financially effi-
cient and consistent with the fundamental structure of our own na-
tional approach to regulation.
Other countries had different interestssome similar, some not.
The developing countries had neither the will nor the inclination
to agree to make POPs cleanup a priority against their other envi-
ronmental priorities unless the developed world was willing to as-
sist 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 road-
blocks.
The procedure for adding new chemicals that evolved in the ne-
gotiations is a genuine compromise, but one which in my view suc-
cessfully 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 nego-
tiated 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 COPthe Con-
ference of the Partieswould 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 re-
view 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 COPs deci-
sion 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 impor-
tant. 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 proc-
ess.
19
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 Sen-
ator Smiths 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 Ap-
propriations 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 Environ-
ment Facility are going on today, as we speak, downtown. We are
very hopeful that the United States will come forward with a con-
structive 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 op-
portunity 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 industrys strong support for the Stockholm Convention
on POPs. It is our hope that that treaty and its reasonable imple-
mentation will be the subject of quick action by the Senate.
While the Stockholm Convention has the potential to bring addi-
tional regulation to an already highly regulated industry, our sup-
port for the Convention lies in three very simple points. No. 1, the
Convention is consistent with our industrys commitment to prod-
uct stewardship. Our industrys goal is to prevent health and envi-
ronmental damage in the manufacture and use of chemical prod-
ucts. 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 initia-
tives 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 incor-
porating a risk-based science-justified approach to considering pos-
sible additions to the list of chemicals. It is an approach that is en-
tirely consistent with longstanding U.S. law and practice. It is one
that will lead to appropriate controls on POPs chemicals that pose
global threats.
20
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 orga-
nizations 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 imple-
mentation 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 ad-
dress that process. We think there are a number of options avail-
able that will address the Senates constitutional role regarding
treaty amendments, as well as this committees interests in prac-
tical 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 treatyyour own bill and the Administrations
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 Stock-
holm 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 Con-
vention does not address those issues. We think that U.S. imple-
mentation should be guided by two very simple principles. First,
full implementation of the Convention obligations into law, particu-
larly TSCA and FIFRA; and second, narrowly drawn amendments
that implement only those obligations.
It is also important that Congress address the necessary amend-
ments to implement the Rotterdam Convention on PIC. That Con-
vention 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 be-
lieve that appropriate amendments to TSCA and FIFRA that re-
flect the treatys 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
21
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, ENVIRON-
MENT AND HEALTH PROGRAMS, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Ms. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my writ-
ten 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 Re-
sponsibility todaya national membership organization rep-
resenting more than 22,000 physicians, health care professionals,
and citizens concerned about public health. We welcome the oppor-
tunity to present our views on the Stockholm Convention today, in-
cluding our belief that it is highly important that the United States
be a leader in implementing a living, breathing POPs treaty.
PSRs 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.
EPAs dioxin reassessment indicated that hospital waste inciner-
ators 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 NGOs from 75 countries committed to POPs elimination.
Today, the ratification and full implementation of the Stockholm
Convention remains one of PSRs 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 va-
riety 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 instru-
ment 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 Con-
ference of the Parties must approve the addition of a POP by
22
amendment, and as you have heard, the United States has re-
served 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 NGOs 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, includ-
ing those needed for EPA to address additional POPs. Regrettably,
the Administrations proposal leaves out this critical piece of imple-
menting 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, unde-
sirable and politically unrealistic.
Your bill acknowledges this defect and legislates a domestic eval-
uation 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
POPRCs work and its own, EPA could conclude that an added POP
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environ-
ment, and the Agency would be authorized to undertake a rule-
making at that time.
Administration officials, as you have heard, have argued that
such authority is not needed to fulfill our obligations, but PSR dis-
agrees. As written, TSCA and FIFRA would not allow EPA to pro-
hibit the manufacture for export of a future POP. Experience with
the dirty dozen confirms this. Chlordane and heptachlor, for exam-
ple, 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 facili-
tate U.S. leadership. In addition to the provisions we have men-
tioned already, it would require EPA to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a major POPs study, begin identi-
fying priority POPs for possible nomination, develop monitoring
and control strategies for persistent and bioaccumulative sub-
stances, and finalize its long-awaited state-of-the-science dioxin re-
assessment. 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
23
achieve consensus in the environmental policy arena. Its rapid rati-

fication 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 Con-
trol Act, one has to make a finding of unreasonable risk under Sec-
tion 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 ap-
plication.
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
24
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 pre-
caution, whichever word does not strike fear into peoples 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 chemi-
cals which prove to have POPs properties. So as they are discov-
ered 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 ratifi-
cation, it can make a statement that under Article 25, paragraph
4, that it declares that any amendment to Annex A, B, or Cthat
is, any addition of the name of a chemical to the Conventionthat
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 Con-
ference of Parties begins to meet. It is a process that is built on
science and agreed upon criteria. I believe that among your partici-
pants 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.
25
This is a rather lengthy, open, transparent consultative process

which I would expect will give a full and fair hearing to each chem-
ical. I would argue that the process of evaluating candidates is
itself a very good safeguard against sort of one country or a spu-
rious 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 add-
ing a chemical, and if it goes to a vote and three-quarters vote car-
ries 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 safe-
guard that is not as formal. In fact, the U.S. technical team, par-
ticularly 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 bebecause they will be needed. So the first and most im-
portant 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 legisla-
tion 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 proc-
ess 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 De-
partment 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,
26
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 pro-
hibitions 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 pro-
posal to amend TSCA and FIFRA to implement the treaty obliga-
tions 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
Councils current position on the omission of an adding mecha-
nism?
Mr. WALLS. Mr. Chairman, in February we made that observa-
tion in Fred Webbers letter to Administrator Whitman on the basis
of media reports in the environmental trade press regarding the
Administrations draft of legislation. As we stated in our testimony,
we believe that an additions process must be part of the imple-
menting process. It makes sense to address it now, and we are con-
fident that an appropriate approach can be crafted as the legisla-
tion goes forward.
Senator JEFFORDS. In your letter of February 26, 2002, ACC
noted, the treaty contemplates the listing of other POPs in the fu-
ture 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 be-
yond those listed in the treaty which has completed the treatys,
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 pre-
pared to work with the committee.
Ms. Perry, you mention in your testimony that children and de-
veloping 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
27
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 reassess-
ment?
Ms. PERRY. We think those provisions are actually very closely
tied to the United Statess obligations under the Stockholm Con-
vention. 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 consid-
ering 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 POPRCwe 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 Treatys provisions and
in the short term, all parties would be asked to submit national ac-
tion plans on dioxin. We think that the EPAs 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 countrys inven-
tory of dioxin sources and releases. It has been thoroughly peer-re-
viewed. 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.
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 chemi-
cals 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 Negoti-
ating 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 reso-
lution makes it quite clear that countries are encouraged on a na-
tional basis to be preparing for the first meeting of the Conference
of Parties. So it isnt that there is no activity going on, but the ac-
tivities 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.
28
So I just wanted to be clear on that. I think there were some re-

marks 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 sub-
mitted.
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, distribu-
tion and use of a single chemical. So it is a difficult process. The
Agency tried to act, for example, with respect to regulating asbes-
tosnot 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 op-
tions 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 re-
convene 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 com-
mittee. Last spring, with Governor Whitman and Secretary Powell at his side, Presi-
dent Bush announced his support for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Or-
ganic PollutantsThe 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 manu-
factured. Because they are so mobile and accumulate in the food chain, absent inter-
national action, they will continue to be a risk to us all.
I am pleased that the international community came together and found a com-
mon 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 environ-
ment. I want to commend President Bush and Governor Whitman for their leader-
ship in pressing for this convention and delivering their implementing legislation to
Congress. I am honored to be the lead Senate sponsor of the Presidents imple-
menting legislation, S. 2507.
I know that Senator Jeffords has also introduced his own version of implementing
legislation. The purpose of todays 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 agreementthe Jeffords bill does not; the Jef-
fords 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 Gov-
ernor Whitman stated at our press conference announcing implementing legislation
29
that it is EPAs 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 par-
tisan would be to delay the implementation of something that EVERYONE wants.
As I have said over and over again, environmental politics delays environmental
protection. Lets 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 Stock-
holm 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 trans-
ported 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 dis-
orders, and disruption of the immune system. These 12 chemicals are banned, se-
verely 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 produc-
tion and use, subject to certain exemptions such as DDT use for disease vector con-
trol. 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 bio-
accumulate, 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 re-
sult 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 agreementclosely related to the Stockholm Conventionis the POPs Protocol
30
to the LRTAP Convention. LRTAP POPS is a regional agreement negotiated under
the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which in-
cludes the United States, Canada, Europe, and the former Soviet Republics. The ob-
ligations 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 exam-
ple, LRTAP POPS includes four chemicals not included in the Stockholm Conven-
tion.
The other agreement is the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent,
which aims to promote shared responsibility between exporting and importing coun-
tries 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 effectsthese requirements are similar to those
currently in place in the United States. The Rotterdam Convention significantly en-
hances the safe management of chemicals by enabling countries, especially devel-
oping 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 prob-
lems faced by the international community. They enjoy broad support from the pub-
lic, from environmental and industry organizations and from many Members of Con-
gress 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 Arti-
cle 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 par-
ticular, 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 be-
come bound by an amendment to add a new chemical to the Convention would be
made in consultation with the Senate, given the Senates 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 Senates advice and consent would be required for all future amend-
ments to the Conventions control annexes. In the event that additional legislative
authority were required in order to permit the United States to implement a par-
ticular 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 Senates role in the treaty-making process. We look forward to a detailed discus-
sion of that consultation process with the Senate, in particular the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, to consider whether the Senates advice and consent would be
required for all future amendments to the Conventions 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 pro-
posed implementing legislation for the LRTAP POPs Protocol is enacted, the Admin-
istration 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 con-
sulting 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
31
U.S. stakeholders) in considering whether to become bound by any future amend-
ments 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 PRE-

VENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I. INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to ap-
pear before you today. It is my privilege to represent the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and to discuss the Administrations legislative proposal to effectively
implement three very important international environmental agreements: The
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Rotterdam Con-
vention 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 Europes Conven-
tion on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs Protocol). This
afternoon, I respectfully ask for your help to expeditiously approve the Administra-
tions legislative proposal so that the United States may be able to quickly and effec-
tively 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 leg-
islation 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 EPAs domestic
and international activities to effectively manage these pesticides and chemicals, our
intentions with respect to the listing of additional chemicals on the POPs agree-
ments and to explain specific provisions of the Administrations draft legislative pro-
posal.
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 chemi-
cals 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 dis-
tances 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 envi-
ronment 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 be-
lieve, is still the only Nation that is looking at the cumulative risks posed by pes-
ticides. 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.
32
EPA continues to take measures that promote the objectives of the POPs Conven-
tion. As you know, the Convention contains obligations related to providing tech-
nical 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 coun-
tries in ratifying the Convention and meeting their obligations.
III. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO IMPLEMENT POPS,
PIC AND LRTAP
The Administrations legislative proposal is a culmination of an interagency proc-

ess 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 con-
sistent 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 chemi-
cals, 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 prohi-
bitions such as those needed for research purposes, consistent with the agreements.
The Administrations 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 expedi-
tiously 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, thats why the
Administrations 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 negoti-
ating amendments to add future chemicals.
The Administration believes the processes set forth in Article 8 of the POPs Con-
vention and the LRTAP Executive Body Decision 1998/2 for identifying candidates
for listing chemicals are sufficiently rigorous and science based and are fully sup-
ported by this Administration. We are confident that they will identify strong can-
didates 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 in-
formation for listing additional substances under POPs. The Administration is firm-
ly 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, socio-
economic 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 list-
ing 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 proc-
ess, 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 agree-
ments, 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 chemi-
cals will be of great value in conducting the necessary analyses for EPA action. Such
valuable information, combined with our experience in implementing established do-
mestic regulatory standards under FIFRA and TSCA will help ensure that EPAs
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 Chairmans imple-
menting legislation, but have not completed our analysis of all of the changes pro-
posed 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
33
Senator Jeffords, Senator Smith, Members of the Committee and all Members of
Congress to ensure expeditious enactment of the best legislation possible to imple-
ment 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 par-
ties, including the U.S. submit proposals to add new chemicals to the global POPs
and LRTAP POPs Protocols 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 de-
posit 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 im-
portant 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 agree-
ments illustrate how much can be accomplished in support of common environ-
mental 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 agree-
ments 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 for-
ward to working with the committee to ratify these important agreements and final-
ize 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 Con-
vention 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 ad-
vice, 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 mix-
tures to the POPs Convention
(2) propose alternative designs for a global monitoring program aimed at iden-
tifying persistent and bioaccumulative chemical substances . . . and
(3) recommend priority candidates . . . for possible nomination to the Per-
sistent 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 po-
tential POPS. We are also prepared to provide advice on the scientific and technical
aspects of alternative designs for global monitoring programs. In addition, the Na-
tional Academies would be able to prepare reports compiling and assessing relevant
scientific data on specific; chemicals and mixtures. Indeed, the National Academies
34
have a long history of providing such advice, in the context of other laws and pro-
grams.
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 con-
sider public input. The members of our committees serve in their individual capac-
ities 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 regu-
latory policies. We do not consider it our role to recommend specific policies for Fed-
eral regulation; instead, our role is to provide independent expert advice on the sci-
entific basis relevant to such policies.
The National Academies would be able to produce; an expert report recom-
mending 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 Acad-
emies 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 pro-
files 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 cri-
teria, 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 Na-
tional 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 in-
clusion 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 re-
ported 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 infor-
35
mation from agency data bases and files as well as other internal agency informa-
tion.
Section 107 (b) of the bill reads, The Administrator may offer to enter into a con-
tract with the Academy. . .. However, the language thereafter mandates the spe-
cifics of such a contract. We would urge that these mandates be softened to rec-
ommendations. Such softening might remove disincentives for EPA and the Acad-
emy 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 Na-
tional 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, synthe-
sizing, and reporting data and information that has already been developed by oth-
ers.
In sum, the National Academy of Sciences, through its operating arm, the Na-
tional 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 sev-
eral reports providing independent scientific advice, leaving the weighing of the im-
portant 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. Dont methods already exist for preparing risk
profiles?
Response. Although the Convention describes certain screening criteria for chemi-
cals and scientific information requirements for the risk profiles, some of the re-
quirements are stated in very general terms and are subject to wide interpretation.
The National Academies would propose to further define and expand upon these re-
quirements 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 un-
dergo widespread environmental distribution through natural processes, contami-
nate 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 im-
mediate 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
36
including governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organi-
zations (including both industry and public interest groups) and aboriginal groups.
The activities involved in developing the convention have resulted in a broad ac-
ceptance of the urgent need for action in countries around the world. This is dem-
onstrated by the fact that less than 1 year after the convention was opened for sig-
nature 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, indus-
try 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 provi-
sions in the treatythe 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 pro-
duced 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 can-
didates for addition to the Convention (specified in Annex D) to identify, at the ear-
liest opportunity, candidates for further consideration.
For unintentionally produced POPs (byproducts of industrial and combustion proc-
esses, such as dioxins and furans) the convention goal is the continuing minimiza-
tion 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 man-
agement of stockpiles that consist of or contain intentionally produced POPs, and
of wastes, including products and articles upon becoming wastes that consist of, con-
tain 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, han-
dling, 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 assist-
ance and that regional and subregional centres will be established for capacity
building and the transfer of technology to assist countries in need. Developed coun-
tries have agreed to provide technical assistance and new and additional financial
resources to meet agreed full incremental implementation costs. The Global Envi-
ronment Facility is named as the principal entity of the interim financial mecha-
nism to handle funding of capacity building and other related activities. Financial
support has already begun to flow and an estimated 50 countries have already initi-
ated action to prepare their national plans to implement the convention. This is in-
deed encouraging.
In my view, the Stockholm Convention represents a significant advance in pro-
tecting 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 activ-
ity among all stakeholder groups in the POPs area and I expect that this will con-
tinue into the future. In this regard, I am pleased to note that you have invited both
37
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 ad-
dress these problems and their solutions. Some stakeholders have urged govern-
ments around the world to ratify the POPs treaty prior to the Johannesburg Sum-
mit in August of this year.
In closing, I wish to state my hope that the United States will be among the Par-
ties 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 pro-
ceeding 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 Funds
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 conserva-
tion 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 ne-
gotiation of U.S. Government policy in a range of bilateral and global environmental
discussions and undertakings. These included the Convention on Biological Diver-
sity (CBD), the CBD Biosafety Protocol, the Global Environment Facility, the Inter-
national Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), the International Tropical Timber Organiza-
tion, and United Nations forest discussions.
I also served as the United States lead negotiator for the Stockholm POPs Con-
vention. 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 be-
half of the U.S. Government in the Conventions 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. Its an agreement that is at once ambitious, comprehensive, and realistic.
The treaty targets some of the worlds most dangerous chemicalsPOPs 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 accu-
mulate 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 tis-
sue, 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 con-
trol POPs pollution, POPs used and released in other countriesoften thousands of
miles from our borderscontinue to contaminate our lands and waterways, the food
we eat, and the air we breathe.
38
Our government made a concerted effort, starting not long after the publication
of Rachel Carsons pathbreaking Silent Spring, to eliminate the production and use
of known POPs chemicals in the United Statesyet 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 Sa-
haran dust into the continental United States. African dust is the dominant aerosol
constituent in southern Floridas 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 pass-
ports 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 re-
flected 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 com-
munities, native American representatives, and various interested state govern-
ments, including the State of Alaska.
This careful process of developing the U.S. negotiating position is one of the rea-
sons, I believe, that President Bushs decision to sign the Stockholm Convention last
April received such broad support. WWF and many othersincluding the chemical
industry, environmental and public health organizations and Members of Congress
on both sides of the aisleapplauded the Presidents 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 con-
tributions 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. Fred-
erick Webber, ACCs President and CEO, noted that,
ACC strongly recommends that the Administration seek the U.S. Senates ad-
vice 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 ad-
dress 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 Con-
vention.
WWF looks forward to working with our environment and public health NGO col-
leagues, indigenous peoples, the ACC and other business groups, and other stake-
holders 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 treatys 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 adjust-
ments 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 re-
quired 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 ad-
mittedly a much-accelerated timeframe, but with energy and determination we be-
39
lieve 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 develop-
ment 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 lim-
its use in the interim to disease vector control in accordance with World Health Or-
ganization 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 participa-
tion, 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, ar-
ticles 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 Conven-
tion requirements.
Controlling POPs trade. Trade in POPs is allowed only for the purpose of environ-
mentally 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 treatys waste provisions.
Allowing limited and transparent exemptions. Most exemptions to the treaty re-
quirements 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 con-
stituents of manufactured articles and for certain closed-system site-limited inter-
mediates.
Funding commitments enabling all countries to participate. The ability of all coun-
tries to fulfill their obligations will be integral to the treatys success. The treaty
contains a sensible and realistic financial mechanism, utilizing the Global Environ-
ment Facility (GEF), through which donor countries have committed to assisting de-
veloping 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 treatys finan-
cial 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, finan-
cially efficient, and consistent with the fundamental structure of our national ap-
proach to chemical regulation.
40
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 G77 negotiators
insisted throughout the negotiation on a new financial mechanism, specific to the
Convention, with mandatory assessments. The establishment of the GEF as the
Conventions 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 negotia-
tions on a framework for regulating byproducts such as dioxins based on quan-
titative 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 recog-
nized, and stated, that the Convention was intended to be dynamic rather than stat-
ic. 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 sci-
entific grounds, and that this approach would impede the effectiveness of the Con-
vention 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. in-
terest 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 sci-
entific 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 condi-
tions 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 COPs decision.
The process which emerged is described in more detail in our substantive discus-
sion 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 institu-
tional threshold for COP decisions to add chemicals, and the right to reject the addi-
tion 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 areasfinancial support and implementing legislation.
POPs Financial Support
Negotiators agreed to request that the Global Environment Facility serve as the
treatys principal financial mechanism, on an interim basis. It is WWFs strong view
41
that the GEF must be fully funded in order to provide sufficient resources for devel-
oping countries to begin to eliminate POPs. In order to take on the added responsi-
bility of assisting the global effort to eliminate POPs without robbing its other crit-
ical priorities, the GEF needs to be replenished at a higher level. It will take Amer-
ican leadership to do this. The Administrations $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 Administrations $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 Chairmans bill, S.
2118. We would be happy to submit comments on the Administrations bill at a later
date.
S. 2118 amends FIFRA and TSCA (the first amendments to TSCA since its enact-
ment 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 subse-
quently 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 chemi-
cals 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 (includ-
ing risk profiles and risk assessments), and decisionmaking that involves both the
subsidiary POPs Review Committee and the Conference of Parties before a sub-
stance can be added to the treatys 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 Councils 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 Administrations draft implementing legislation, we are confident that
matters concerning the substance selection process can be addressed as nec-
essary in the course of the legislative process.
It is our understanding that both the Jeffords bill and the Administration pro-
posal 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 Administrations proposal apparently envisions a case-by-case revision of do-
mestic legislation for each POP candidate beyond the initial 12. Such an approach
risks politicizing decisions that would otherwise be based on sound science. More-
over, 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 domes-
tic 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 Con-
ference of the Parties (COP) will establish a Persistent Organic Pollutants Review
Committee (POPRC). Parties will submit chemical nominations to the POPRC,
42
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 ex-
ists 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 chem-
ical amendments only if it affirmatively opts in via a separate, subsequent ratifica-
tion 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 trea-
ty, and were fully satisfied with the particular provisions for the addition of new
chemicals. In my view, the Administrations reluctance to include authority to regu-
late new POPsthe so-called 13th POP, and beyondcannot 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 stat-
utes to allow for automatic regulation of new POPs once the United States opts
in to the corresponding treaty amendments. This option is preferred by environ-
mental and public health NGOs, given the other existing safeguards described
above. The second option, according to Administration officials, would provide that
a rebuttable presumption be given to the COPs decision on a new POP, while pre-
serving 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 safe-
guards built into the treaty mechanism itself, it would make sense to make regula-
tion of newly listed POPs automatic, triggered by the governments 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
FIFRAs 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 EPAs evidentiary burden would be restricted to proving that the
basic POPs listing criteria applythereby precluding a full FIFRA cost-benefit anal-
ysis. Administrative review would be limited to the data and scientific judgments
supporting EPAs conclusion that the POPs criteria apply to a given pesticide.
In addition, it is important that the legislation ensure the elimination of any
POPs pesticidewhether registered for a formulated end-use product or a technical
materialto enable U.S. compliance with obligations under the POPs treaty. In
other words, each of a pesticides registrationsthe one covering technical mate-
rial, i.e., the pure active ingredient, and the second for end-use products formu-
lated 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 ex-
emptions. Revocation of a tolerance is the only tool the EPA has to alter how high-
risk pesticides are used outside U.S. bordersand 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 be-
43
cause 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 rec-
ommend 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 re-
search 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 mod-
els, and environmental monitoring techniques. Carrying out this program of rig-
orous 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 ques-
tion any proposed listings that are based on misguided information or inaccurate
data.
The Chairmans bill also very appropriately calls upon the Administrator of EPA
to submit no later than 90 days after enactment of S. 2118 the agencys final expo-
sure 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, Envi-
ronmental Health Risks: Information on EPAs 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 pre-
viously thought and that most exposure to dioxins occurs from eating such die-
tary 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 ani-
mals 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 expedi-
tiously 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 ben-
efit citizens in the United States and other countries.
LRTAP POPS PROTOCOL
WWF also supports the inclusion of implementing legislation for the Economic
Commission for Europes 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 bind-
ing 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 Protocolthe first legally binding multi-lateral instrument on
POPswas added in 1998. It targets 16 substances including the 12 POPs chemi-
cals plus chlordecone, hexabromobiphenyl, and hexachlorocyclohexane (including lin-
dane). It also includes obligations to reduce emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs) whichas with other byproduct chemicalsdo 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 Eu-
ropean 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
44
include developing countries as well. The United States and other donor countries
must assist the developing world in coming to grips with the POPs problemand
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 cor-
nerstone 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 Partys decisions are dis-
seminated widely, allowing those countries with less advanced regulatory systems
to benefit from the assessments of those with more sophisticated facilities. Insti-
tuting 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 ac-
tion.
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 administrations decision
to bundle PIC for the purpose of Senate advice and consent and implementing leg-
islation.
Many of the POPs-, LRTAP-, and PIC-related legislative provisions are inter-re-
lated. WWF would be happy to work with E&PW staff to help ensure that the im-
plementing 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 implemen-
tation 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.
45
46
47
48
49
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
treatys 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 Con-
vention 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 techno-
logical 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 industrys support for the Stockholm Convention lies in several sim-
ple points.
The industrys support of the Stockholm Convention is based on our commit-
ment to product stewardship, including our goal of preventing health and environ-
mental damage in the manufacture and use of chemical products. Our industrys
product stewardship commitment is an integral part of our Responsible Care pro-
gram, 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 pol-
lutants. 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 industrys work on the POPs issue began shortly after the Rio
Summit on Environment and Development, in 1992. We worked with the Intergov-
ernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) in its effort to map the best ap-
proaches 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 Commis-
sion 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 con-
sider and recommend criteria for identifying future POPs. The global chemical in-
dustry was an early and consistent supporter of improved international controls on
persistent organic pollutants.
ACCs efforts were not limited to the international level. In 1995, ACCs Board
of Directors approved a new policy on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic sub-
stances (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 chemi-
cals 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 ACCs 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 leadand appropriately influ-
encethe development of procedures necessary to implement the treaty at the inter-
national level. The U.S. governments ability to influence the further development
and implementation of the treaty at the international level requires, simply, full
U.S. participation in the agreement.
50
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 chemi-
cals, and in considering chemicals nominated as potential POPs. The treatys reli-
ance 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, govern-
ments are required to eliminate the production and restrict the use of pesticide and
industrial chemical POPs. Governments are expected to restrict imports and ex-
ports, including exports to non-States Parties. ACCs summary of the Stockholm ob-
ligations 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 nec-
essary 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, unin-
tentional trace contaminants for the product POPs, constituents of articles manufac-
tured or in use as of the implementation date, and closed-system site-limited inter-
mediates 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-manufac-
ture notice (PMN) policy adopted by EPA several years ago in evaluating new
chemicals under TSCA.
In the industrys view, the Convention also adopts appropriate approaches to risk
management measures. For example, substitution is not a legal obligation, but con-
stitutes 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 pro-
posal. The core implementing provisions of both approaches are substantially simi-
lar, 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 re-
strictions on listed chemicals, the draft implementing proposals suggest significantly
different approaches to the process under each of the agreements.
Both S. 2118 and the Administrations draft attempt to limit the use of informa-
tion not submitted in the notice and comment processes that accompany the consid-
eration of new chemicals under the UNECE Protocol and the Stockholm Convention.
That limitation is not justified. At the early stages of the international listing dis-
cussions 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, im-
port, export and/or use of a nominated chemical. ACC believes there will be suffi-
cient incentive for interested commercial entities to produce information on nomi-
nated chemicals without the need to limit the use of the information in any subse-
quent regulatory action.
Both approaches establish a continual reporting obligation on manufacturers un-
less EPA decides otherwise or the international decisionmaking process is con-
cluded. It is not clear what benefit is expected from the continuing obligation to re-
port or how it relates to the Agencys 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 informa-
tion about the chemical without a continuing reporting obligation under Section 8
of TSCA.
As noted earlier, ACC has long recognized that the Stockholm Convention con-
templates 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 avail-
able that could address both the Senates constitutional prerogative regarding treaty
amendments and Congress interest in practical changes to statutory requirements.
51
We have attached a copy of correspondence ACC sent earlier this year to EPA Ad-
ministrator Christine Todd Whitman, which outlines our view that the issue of addi-
tions 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 accept-
ed criteria for identifying POPs, and the possible duplication of existing EPA pro-
grams 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 Stock-
holm Convention should be guided by certain principles. In brief, these principles
are:
Full implementation of the Conventions obligations in U.S. law, through appro-
priate amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal In-
secticide, 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 com-
plexity with respect to U.S. implementation. There is ample precedent for the imple-
mentation 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 Conventionnegotiated on the basis of
a very successful government-to-government information exchange systemalso re-
quires amendments to TSCA and FIFRA if the United States is to fully implement
the treaty. Because the Rotterdam Convention requires these amendments, ACC be-
lieves it makes sense to include appropriate implementing language in the same leg-
islation 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 treatys 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. 3.1Measures to reduce/elimi- (a) Prohibit and/or eliminate production, use, import and export of Annex A chemi-
nate exposures from intentional cals, subject to Annex A provisions. (b) Restrict production and use of Annex B
production and use. 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.
52
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic PollutantsContinued
Article Requirement
Art. 3.6 .............................................. Parties shall take appropriate regulatory measures to assure that human and envi-
ronmental exposures from exempted production and use are minimized.
Art. 4Register of specific exemp- Assumes national measures to extend, withdraw or further restrict exempted produc-
tions. tion and use when the five-year exemption period expires.
Art. 5Measures to reduce or Parties to take the following minimum measures to reduce emissions of by-product
eliminate releases from uninten- POPs from anthropogenic sources with the goal of minimizing those emissions
tional production. 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 im-
plemented as soon as possible but within 4 years. Parties shall promote best en-
vironmental 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. 6Measures to reduce or Parties to ensure that stockpiles consisting of or containing Annex A or B chemicals
eliminate releases from stockpiles and wastes, and products contaminated with Annex A, B, or C chemicals upon
or wastes. 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 ap-
propriate 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 recy-
cled, 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. 7Implementation 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 sus-
tainable development strategies.
Art. 9Information Exchange .......... Parties shall facilitate or undertake the exchange of information relevant to reduc-
tion and/or elimination of POPs production, use and release; and on alternatives,
including their risks and socio-economic costs.
Art. 10Public information, aware- Each Party shall within its capabilities promote and facilitate awareness and infor-
ness and education. mation on POPs (particularly health effects), public access to information on
POPs, and training.
Art. 11Research, development and Each Party shall within its capabilities encourage and/or undertake appropriate re-
monitoring. search, development and monitoring programs, including support for national pro-
grams, intergovernmental research.
Art. 12Technical assistance ......... Parties shall cooperate to provide timely technical assistance to developing coun-
tries.
Art. 13Financial resources and Each Party undertakes to provide, consistent with its capabilities, financial support
mechanisms. and incentives with respect to implementation of the treaty. Developed country
Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to developing coun-
tries and countries with economies in transition to meet the full incremental
costs of implementation measures.
Art. 15Reporting ........................... Each Party shall report to the Conference of the Parties on its implementation meas-
ures, statistical data on the amount of Annex A and B chemicals produced, im-
ported and exported, and (to the extent practicable) a list of States importing or
exporting such chemicals.
53
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic PollutantsContinued
Article Requirement
Art. 25.4Ratification, acceptance, Permits Parties to clarify in its instrument of ratification that with respect to
approval or accession. 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. industrys view of the Stockholm Con-
vention 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 Administrations decision to sign the POPs
treaty, and we are on record as supporting the treatys reasonable implementation
into U.S. law.
ACC strongly recommends that the Administration seek the U.S. Senates 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 ef-
fort to be among the first 50 countries ratifying the Convention.
Based on media reports we understand the Administration has drafted a legisla-
tive proposal to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to implement the treaty obliga-
tions. 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 pro-
vides a criteria and risk-based process to consider nominations made by govern-
ments. 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 Administrations pro-
posal to Congress. Although we have not yet seen the Administrations draft imple-
menting legislation, we are confident that matters concerning the substance selec-
tion 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. imple-
mentation 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 Responsi-
bility (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 PSRs views on issues surrounding the implemen-
tation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
PSRs concern about POPs dates back to the mid-1990s, when an early draft of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (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
54
began advocating for a phaseout of incineration in favor of less-hazardous forms of
medical waste treatment. A few years later, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Com-
mittee began the task of crafting a global convention on dioxin and other POPs.
From 1998 to 2001throughout the entire period of negotiationsPSR served as
the Secretariat for a global network of more than 400 non-governmental organiza-
tions 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 PSRs top priorities.
POPS ARE HAZARDOUS TO AMERICAS 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 trou-
bling 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, in-
gest 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 be-
cause 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 popu-
lations include Alaska Natives and other Arctic indigenous peoples, and subsistence
and recreational fishers in the Great Lakes and other regions.
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 pro-
vide disturbing evidence that prenatal exposure to low levels of some POPs can re-
sult in decreases in IQ and short-term memory; delayed psychomotor development;
abnormal reflexes; and speech problems.2,3,4,5,6 Serious structural abnormalities, re-
tarded growth, and functional changes have also been observed in lab animals ex-
posed to low levels of POPs during gestation.7
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 im-
mune system suppression, resulting in some forms of cancer and decreased resist-
1 Schecter A et al. 2001. Intake of dioxins and related compounds from food in the U.S. popu-
lation. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (Part A) 63:101118.
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): 639649.
3 Jacobson JL and SW Jacobson. 1996. Intellectual impairment in children exposed to poly-
chlorinated biphenyls in utero. New England Journal of Medicine 335:783789.
4 Rogan WJ et al. 1988. Congenital poisoning by PCBs and their contaminants in Taiwan.
Science 241:334338.
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):3341.
6 Markowski VP et al. 2001. Altered operant responding for motor reinforcement and the de-
termination of benchmark doses following perinatal exposure to low-level 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(6):621627.
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 Ap-
plied Pharmacology 150:383392.
55
ance to infections. It has been suggested that this is one of the most sensitive toxi-
cological outcomes for dioxin exposure, for example. A study of Dutch preschool chil-
dren has linked prenatal and lactational exposure to PCBs and dioxins to increased
susceptibility to infectious diseases lasting into childhood.8
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 be-
yond 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 Com-
mittee (POPROC). Parties will submit chemical nominations to the POPROC, which
will evaluate them based on agreed scientific criteria including persistence, bio-
accumulation, 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 Par-
ties and observers. The POPROC will then make recommendations that must be ap-
proved 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 Stock-
holm Convention over the long term is not vast. Application of the science-based cri-
teria set out in the treaty is likely to result in the addition of a few dozen additional
POPsnot 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 regu-
late new chemicals identified as POPs pursuant to the agreed science-based process.
A briefing for NGOs in July 2001 indicated that an interagency agreement had
been reached on the legislative requirements for U.S. implementation, including pro-
visions 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 con-
cerns. 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 EPAs hands and put up an unneces-
sary 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 di-
rected 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 fu-
ture decision about policy actions that might be needed to ban or regulate it. In the
8 Weisglas-Kuperus N. et al. 2000. Immunological effects of background exposure to poly-

chlorinated biphenyls and dioxins in Dutch preschool children. Environmental Health Perspec-
tives 108(12):12031207.
56
end, if the COP decides to list that new POP by amendment, S. 2118 would give
a rebuttable presumption to the COPs 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 thischlordane 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 environ-
ment 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 Acad-
emy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake a major POPs study. This comprehensive re-
search program outline in the bill is designed to screen chemicals using the Stock-
holm Conventions 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 publics 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 pres-
sure.
Finally, S. 2118 would require EPA to submit to Congress, within 90 days of its
enactment, the agencys final dioxin reassessment. This document has been in devel-
opment for more than 10 years, and represents the state-of-the-science on dioxin
and related POPs. Many organizations and agenciesincluding 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 Stock-
holm 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 rep-
resented here todayincluding environmental, public health, consumer, and indige-
nous organizations across the countryshare our hope that the treaty can be rap-
idly 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 Administra-
57
tions implementing legislation fails to ask Congress for the legislative provisions nec-
essary to fully implement the treaty.
This unprecedented international agreement targets chemicals that are detri-
mental 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 gov-
erning 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 ad-
ministration, it achieves a goal shared by this administration and shows the pos-
sibilities 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 proc-
ess 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 Con-
gress to amend TSCA and FIFRA to address only the initial 12 POPs, without mak-
ing 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 Con-
ference 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 ex-
ists 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 chem-
ical amendments only if it affirmatively opts in via a separate, subsequent ratifica-
tion 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
NGOs, given the other existing safeguards described above. The second option, ac-
cording to EPA officials, would provide that a rebuttable presumption be given to
the COPs decision on a new POP, while preserving the right (based on food secu-
rity, 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.
58
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 like-
lihood 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
ratificationinvolves 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 environ-
mental policy arena. Since its completion in December 2000, support for U.S. ratifi-
cation has been expressed by the public interest community, the chemical industry,
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and the Bush administration, in-
cluding explicit endorsement of the treaty by President Bush. The Presidents deci-
sion to sign and ratify it was acclaimed as an environmental victory for his Adminis-
tration. It will now be up to Congress to ensure that the treaty can be fully imple-
mented.
To maintain the U.S. commitment to the Stockholm POPs Convention, Congress
must:
Make the statutory changes to TSCA and FIFRA necessary to authorize regula-
tion of chemicals subsequently included in the Convention; and
Ratify the treaty in full as soon as possible.
PHYSICIANS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, OCEANA, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND,

FOR
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 Stock-
holm 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 un-
precedented 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 im-
portant treaty last spring received unprecedented support from both our organiza-
tions and the chemical industry. In formal remarks at the signing ceremony in Swe-
den, 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 eco-
systems in the United States and around the world. They have been associated with
a variety of adverse health effects, including cancers, birth defects, reproductive dis-
orders, and learning and behavioral impairments. Despite more than two decades
of progress toward controlling POPs pollution here at home, these chemicals con-
tinue to contaminate the U.S., in many cases traveling thousands of miles from
other countries to Americas 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 countryfrom 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.
59
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 legis-
lative 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 treatys 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 ratifica-
tion 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 Administrations
efforts. If we can be of assistance, please feel free to call Karen Perry at Physicians
for Social Responsibility (2026674260, x249) or Carolyn Hartmann at Oceana
(2028333900).
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 CHILDRENS
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 ex-
press our concern that the current Administration might fail to seek authority for
EPA to fully implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
60
(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 coun-
tries 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 Com-
mittee 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 amend-
ment 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 manufac-
ture 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 require-
ments 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 abil-
ity, over time, to bring new POPs under the treatys provisions is integral to its suc-
cess. 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 im-
portant treaty last spring received unprecedented support both from our organiza-
tions and the chemical industry. The Stockholm Convention offers a rare example
of consensus in the environmental policy arena, with support from the public inter-
est 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 Administrations
efforts. If we can be of assistance, please feel free to call Karen Perry at Physicians
for Social Responsibility (2026674260, 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, Pro-
gram 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 Audu-
bon Society; Tim Eichenberg, Program Counsel, The Ocean Conser-
vancy (formerly the Americas Waters Center for Marine Conserva-
tion); Evelyn M. Hurwich, Executive Director, Circumpolar Conserva-
tion Union; Pamela K. Miller, Program Director, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics; Samuel H. Sage, President, Atlantic States Legal
Foundation, Inc.; E.M.T. ONan, Director, Protect All Childrens Envi-
ronment; Sharyle Patton, Co-Director, Sustainable Futures Project,
Commonweal; Brian Laverty, President, Pennsylvania Environ-
mental Network; Anne Hedges, Program Director, Montana Environ-
mental Information Center; Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director,
Northwest Environmental Advocates; Carolyn Snyder, President,
Citizens for a Future New Hampshire; Mary Minette, Legislative Di-
rector, League of Conservation Voters; S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Direc-
tor of Government Affairs, American Rivers; Gershon Cohen, Ph.D.,
Project Director, Campaign to Safeguard, Americas Waters, Earth Is-
land Institute; Tom Goldtooth, Director, Indigenous Environmental
61
Network; Michael Stanley-Jones, Director, Sustainable Water Pro-
gram, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition; Erik Jansson, Executive Direc-
tor, 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 criteriafor bioaccumulation
factor and half-life in water and soil, for examplewere carefully chosen by nego-
tiators 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 sub-
stances. Four chemicalschlordecone, hexabromobiphenyl, the pesticide lindane,
and polyaromatic hydrocarbonsare 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. Partici-
pation 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 un-
acceptable risk is high. PSR believes that 5.2118 sets out a reasonable mechanism
for aligning these determination processesincluding multiple opportunities for in-
dustry and other interested stakeholders to commentwith 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 care-
fully 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 Con-
vention. As a Party to the Convention, the United States will be expected to partici-
pate fully in the Conference of the Parties, which will evaluate the recommendations
of the Conventions 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 obliga-
tions 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 im-
plementing legislation.
RESPONSE BY KAREN L. PERRY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. How much collaboration has occurred between the public interest com-
munity regarding POPs, and to what extent are your views concerning the adding
mechanism shared by this constituency?
62
Response. The public interest community both in the United States and inter-
nationally 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 Con-
vention. These include national and DC-based organizations like Physicians for So-
cial 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 do-
mestic 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 ap-
preciate; the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon on the Persistent Or-
ganic Pollutants Implementation Act of 2002 (S. 2118) and the Bush administra-
tions 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 agree-
ments. The crop protection industry acknowledges its role and responsibility in pro-
tecting 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 agri-
culture and pest: management in the United States. Our member companies de-
velop, 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 protec-
tion and production technologies for safe, high quality, affordable, abundant food,
fiber and other crops.
It may seem obvious, but our industrys 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-threat-
ening pests and insects. Pesticides control and eliminate vector borne illness caused
by rats, mosquitoes (West Nile virus and other encephalitis) and ticks (lyme dis-
ease), among others. They combat cockroaches and mold/mildew in housing, rest-
rooms, 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 industrys products at every op-
portunity and recently held a 2-day conference to foster better understanding of the
enormous benefits of pesticides.
63
We believe the United States has the strongest and most emulated pesticide regu-
latory 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 FIFRAs 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 chemists laboratory to the
farmers 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 nations 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 imple-
menting 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 FIFRAs 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 environ-
ment. This would trigger U.S. cancellation of a product without full risk assess-
ment, 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 imple-
menting legislation not enable other countries to use these agreements to adversely
impact the, availability of U.S. registered pesticide: that meet FIFRA standards
used for agriculture, public health protection and other purposes. The agreements
should not become vehicles to impose artificial barriers to trade, impose a competi-
tive 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 Pollu-
tion 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/ben-
efit 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 require-
ments 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 alternativesif they existsynthetic pesticide or otherwise,
should be subject to the same risk-benefit analysis and process to ensure that appro-
priate 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 re-
flected in the specific exemptions in annexes of both agreements.
64
Companies represented by CropLife International, our industrys global associa-
tion, have been working with the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion 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, Mada-
gascar, 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 inter-
est. Furthermore, PIC affirms the right of each government to make regulatory deci-
sions 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 import-
ing and Exporting countries. The obligations in PIC are consistent with our indus-
trys 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 1980s 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 regu-
latory action. We believe any implementation of PIC by the United States should
include such a provision, governed under the auspices of FIFRA and the Adminis-
trative 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 legisla-
tion.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POPS AND PIC IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
Our industry looks forward to the opportunity to fully support implementing legis-
lation to accompany the POPs and P1C agreements. We are committed to work with
this committee to ensure that these agreements are fully implemented, without un-
intended consequences, and offer the following recommendations:
General
We fully support enactment of POPs implementing legislation (S. 2118) con-
sistent: with POPs and PIC international agreements. In our analysis, the proposed
POPS legislation could result in U.S.-registered pesticides being removed from do-
mestic 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.
65
decisions on POPS and PIC; pesticides should be based on EPA expertise and regu-
latory responsibility, with input from other Federal agencies as appropriate.
SUMMARY
Our industry is committed to the improvement and building of regulatory capac-

ity, especially in the developing world. We have been active participants in the
DECD and NAFTA international forums to harmonize pesticide registration proc-
esses for the past 10 years. Most recently our efforts have been focused on harmoni-
zation of U.S. and Canadian pesticide regulation.
This hearing is the first to consider a very complex matter. We have been evalu-
ating both legislative proposals and welcome the opportunity to participate in con-
tinuing 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. industrys 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 environ-
mental goals set forth in the three international agreements.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
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,
Hon. BARBARA BOXER, Chairman,
Subcommittee Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR JEFFORDS, SENATOR SMITH, AND SENATOR BOXER: The State of
Alaska supports the U.S. Senates advice and consent to ratification of the Stock-
holm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and the appropriate im-
plementing legislation.
This treaty is of the utmost importance to the health and well-being of Alaskans.
Although Alaskas environment is among the most pristine in the world, we are now
discovering low levels of persistent organic pollutants such as pesticide Poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins, in Alaskas 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 addi-
tions 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 provi-
sions 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 con-
vention, 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 Pol-
lutants in the Arctic.
This document reflects the importance of this matter regarding the health of our
great nations oceans and watersheds in the Arctic. Further this illustrates the
threat that Persistant Organic Pollutants have to Alaskans, in particularly and
86
most immediately to the indigenous people of the Arctic region. Clearly, all Ameri-
cans 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 Or-
ganic 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 Pol-
lutants, as well as, those yet to be identified and listed. Thank you for this oppor-
tunity and any future opportunities to meet with your committee on this very ur-
gent matter.
Sincerely,
JIM AYERS,
Director.
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195

SENATE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs) IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SENATE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs) IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SENATE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs) IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. HRG.

PROTOCOL ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC

S. 2118, A BILL TO AMEND THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT AND

MAY 14, 2002

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

MAY 14, 2002

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002

and it is a solution that the United States has embraced. President

STATEMENT OF JEFFRY M. BURNAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SEC-

JUSSCANNZ nations (Japan, United States, Switzerland, Canada,

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions that

In fact, that is why the Administrations legislative draft con-

the opt-in provision, the United States would have to positively

Chemical Safety. Thank you for traveling your long distance to be

chemical substances; and No. 3, to recommend priority chemicals

In sum, the National Academies, through its operating arm, the

STATEMENT OF JOHN BUCCINI, CHAIR,

Another indicator is the number and nature of the actions that

ference of the Parties to evaluate information submitted by parties.

chlordane, industrial chemicals such as PCBs, and byproducts such

Mr. YEAGER. The treatys provisions have been well-described by

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WALLS, SENIOR COUNSEL,

We believe the Convention is an excellent example of what can

an important opportunity. We hope you will seize that opportunity

achieve consensus in the environmental policy arena. Its rapid rati-

This is a rather lengthy, open, transparent consultative process

people, people who recreationally and subsistence fish in the Great

So I just wanted to be clear on that. I think there were some re-

STATEMENT OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY JEFFRY M. BURNAM,

RESPONSES OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY JEFFRY M. BURNAM TO ADDITIONAL

STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, OFFICE OF PRE-

The Administrations legislative proposal is a culmination of an interagency proc-

The Administration is seeking swift ratification of these Agreements and, with

STATEMENT OF BRUCE ALBERTS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

RESPONSE OF WARREN MUIR TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

STATEMENT OF JOHN BUCCINI, CHAIRMAN, UNEP INTERGOVERNMENTAL

STATEMENT OF BROOKS B. YEAGER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL THREATS, WORLD

Several provisions of the Stockholm Convention merit comment.

The American Chemistry Council believes that the Stockholm Convention is an

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL,

STATEMENT OF KAREN L. PERRY, M.P.A., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT &

Signed by EPA Administrator Whitman and representatives of nearly 100 other

Throughout the treaty negotiations, the U.S. delegation acknowledged that

8 Weisglas-Kuperus N. et al. 2000. Immunological effects of background exposure to poly-

U.S. RATIFICATION OF POPS TREATY IN DANGER

WHITE HOUSE SEEKING ONLY

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF STOCKHOLM CONVENTION

The international community envisioned a dynamic instrument that could take

PHYSICIANS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, OCEANA, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND,

PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, OCEANA, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND,

RESPONSES BY KAREN L. PERRY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

RESPONSE BY KAREN L. PERRY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

STATEMENT OF JAY J. VROOM, PRESIDENT, CROPLIFE AMERICA

CropLife America actively supported the inter-governmental negotiations that led

CropLife America supports the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent.

Our industry is committed to the improvement and building of regulatory capac-

You might also like