Statement of
before the
Committee on Environment and Public Works United
States Senate
May 9, 2002
Chairman
Jeffords and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to discuss
before your committee the proposed bill to implement the Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) and the Convention on long-range
Transboundary Air Pollution. I am very pleased to be herewith you today.
Since
the role of the National Academy of Sciences and its affiliated institutions is
to serve as a source of independent expert scientific, engineering, and medical
advice, I will limit my testimony to scientific issues and the possible
involvement of our operating arm, the National Research Council, in reviewing
candidate chemicals for possible future inclusion in the conventions, starting
with general issues and moving to specific drafting issues, I will defer to
others to address the political and policy issues associated with alternative
convention ratification strategies.
Section
107 "Research Program to Support POPs Convention" contains a
provision in which EPA may enter into a contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to:
"(1)
develop and apply screening criteria for adding new substances or mixtures to
the POPs Convention . . .
(2)
propose alternative designs for a global monitoring program aimed at
identifying persistent and bioaccumulative chemical substances . . . and
(3)
recommend priority candidates ...for possible nomination to the Persistent
Organic Pollutants Review Committee . . . of the POPs Convention."
It
also requests that we consider a list of specific chemicals.
The
National Academies are prepared to assist the U.S. government by providing
independent advice on scientifically sound methods for screening and analyzing
potential POPS. We are also prepared to provide advice on the scientific and
technical aspects of alternative designs for global monitoring programs. In
addition, the National Academies would be able to prepare reports compiling and
assessing relevant scientific data on specific; chemicals and mixtures. Indeed,
the National Academies have a long history of providing such advice, in the
context of other laws and programs.
In
providing this type of assistance to the government, the National Academies
convene groups of experts from the academic community and other organizations
who serve without compensation to produce peer-reviewed reports. These experts
are carefully chosen to provide an appropriate range of expertise and a balance
of perspectives while avoiding conflicts of interests. Our committees solicit
and consider public input. The members of our committees serve in their
individual capacities and not as representatives of any stakeholder
organizations; their deliberations result in a scientific consensus, not a
mufti-stakeholder consensus. We do not have the same notice and public comment
typical of the development of federal regulatory policies. We do not consider
it our role to recommend specific policies for federal regulation; instead, our
role is to provide independent expert advice on the scientific basis relevant
to such policies.
The
National Academies would be able to produce; an expert report recommending
alternative designs for a global monitoring; program aimed at identifying
persistent and bioaccumulative chemical substances. Such alternative
designs would be driven primarily by scientific and practical considerations.
I
turn now to the remaining two requests for assistance from the National
Academies that are specified in Section 107 of the proposed bill. Executive
Body Decision 1998/2 of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
Pollution and Annex D of the Stockholm Convention contain technical criteria
for screening prospective chemicals for persistence, bioaccumulation, potential
for long-range environmental transport, and adverse effects. It would be
entirely appropriate for the National Academies to compile and evaluate data on
chemical to determine whether or not they meet these criteria, or any similar
set of specified technical criteria.
Annex
E of the Stockholm Convention and Decision 1998/2 require that "risk
profiles" be developed for candidate chemicals. The following types of
information are to be included as far as possible.
sources
(production, uses, and environmental releases),
hazard
assessment.
environmental
fate,
monitoring
data.
exposures.
bioavailability,
previous
assessments and
previous
risk management actions
availability
of alternatives.
These
risk profiles are used to make decisions on adding specific chemicals to these
conventions. These final decisions involve appropriately, not only scientific
criteria, but also policy and political considerations, such as costs,
benefits, and other socioeconomic factors.
Since
non-scientific factors are properly involved in such considerations, the
National Academies are reluctant to be asked to recommend that specific
chemicals be added to they POPS Convention. Rather, we propose that, if asked
to be involved, the National Academies be requested: (1) to recommend
scientific principles and methods for preparing risk profiles, and (2) to apply
such principles and methods to prepare risk profiles, with information
available in the United States, for the chemicals listed in Section 107 of the
proposed bill, as well as for chemicals with similar attributes.
According
to the above proposal, the EPA and the U.S. Government would use the risk profiles
we develop to make the decisions on what chemicals to propose for inclusion in
the POPS Convention. These decisions would incorporate non-scientific policy
considerations as well as the scientific considerations that we provide.
Note
that many chemicals can be expected to meet the screening criteria of Annex D
of the Stockholm Convention but are neither used in commerce in the United
States nor found in the environment in substantial quantities. Less than
100,000 chemicals are currently in. commerce, out of more than 38 million
chemicals reported in the scientific literature. Only a small percentage of the
100,000 chemicals in commerce are in large-scale production, and many of those
are not in processes or uses that are likely to result in significant releases
to the environment. It would clearly be inappropriate to recommend chemicals
for inclusion in the convention if they are not of environmental significance,
and it would be inappropriate for the National Academies to ask experts to
volunteer their time to review such chemicals.
If
called upon to develop the suggested risk profiles, the National Academies
would need the full cooperation of the EPA. For example, preparing such
profiles would require the assistance of the agency in obtaining unpublished
data and information from agency databases and files as well as other internal
agency information.
Section
10 7 (b) of the bill reads, "The Administrator may offer to enter into a
contract with the Academy . . . However, the language thereafter mandates the
specifics of such a contract. We would urge that these mandates be softened to
recommendations. Such softening might remove disincentives for EPA and the
Academy to enter into such a contract.
Included
in the specifics is a January 1, 2004 date for the National Academies to
complete a report. We recommend the report be described as a
"progress" report to avoid any misinterpretation of the nature of the
report. The many activities called for in this bill cannot all be completed in
1$ months or less. Furthermore, the bill fails to specify a starting date for
the contract, so the time available for the National Academies to perform our
work might be considerably less than 18 months after the contract is received.
We suggest that; the requested outcome should be more than a single report.
Instead, Section 107 could provide a basis for the National Academies to
furnish longer-term support to the US Government in carrying out its
responsibilities under the Stockholm Convention and the Convention on Long-range
Transboundary Air Pollution.
The
term "research" is used in several places in the section. However, we
want to be clear thaw, if the National Academies undertake these activities, we
will not be generating new scientific data. Rather we will be compiling,
analyzing, synthesizing, and reporting data and information that has already
been developed by others.
In
sum, the National Academy of Sciences, through its operating arm, the National
Research Council is prepared to assist the U.S. Government in carrying out its
responsibilities under the Stockholm Convention and the Convention on
Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution. To do so would entail the development
of several reports providing independent scientific advice, leaving the
weighing of the important policy and political considerations to the
government.
Again,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important bill with you today.