Testimony of Karen Perry, May 14, 2002

Testimony of Karen L. Perry, M.P.A.

Deputy Director, Environment & Health Program,

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Before the

United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

May 9, 2002

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Karen Perry, and I am speaking to you today on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). PSR is a national membership organization representing more than 22,000 physicians, health care professionals, and concerned citizens committed to protecting public health from environmental hazards. We welcome the opportunity to appear here today and present PSR’s views on issues surrounding the implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

PSR’s concern about POPs dates back to the mid-1990s, when an early draft of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dioxin reassessment indicated that hospital waste incinerators were a major source of dioxin, a potent POP. Based on the medical tenet of “first, do no harm,” PSR and other public health groups began advocating for a phaseout of incineration in favor of less-hazardous forms of medical waste treatment. A few years later, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee began the task of crafting a global convention on dioxin and other POPs. From 1998 to 2001 – throughout the entire period of negotiations – PSR served as the Secretariat for a global network of more than 400 non-governmental organizations from 75 countries, all committed to the phaseout and elimination of POPs. Today, the ratification and full implementation of the Stockholm Convention by the United States is among PSR’s top priorities.

POPs are Hazardous to America’s Health

Signed by EPA Administrator Whitman and representatives of nearly 100 other countries last May, the Stockholm Convention targets a group of chemicals known to be detrimental to human health and to the environment.

POPs share several important characteristics that make them particularly troubling to the public health community. First, POPs are fat soluble, and are thus able to move from air, water, and soil into food chains. Animals, including livestock, ingest POPs that are deposited in the environment. These POPs accumulate in the animals’ fatty tissues, contaminating meat, fish, eggs, and dairy products. We know from a number of studies that the majority of Americans’ exposure to POPs occurs through consumption of these foods. Recent food sampling has measured levels of several POPs in the food supply of various regions in the U.S. Freshwater fish were found to be the most significant source of dioxins, furans, and dioxin-like PCBs. Even organically produced meats and dairy products routinely contain POPs because these pollutants are everywhere in the environment. Human breast milk has also been sampled and found to have significant levels of some POPs.[1] Based on analyses of these samples, it is estimated that nursing infants have a much higher exposure to POPs, relative to body weight, than adults. Other highly exposed populations include Alaska Natives and other Arctic indigenous peoples, and subsistence and recreational fishers in the Great Lakes and other regions.

POPs have been linked to a variety of serious human health effects, including cancer, reproductive and developmental effects, and neurological deficits. Exposure even to extremely low levels of some POPs can alter the function of the endocrine system by mimicking or blocking the action of natural hormones. POPs have been implicated in adverse effects on cognition, precocious puberty, female reproductive problems including endometriosis and difficulty conceiving, and in males, declining sperm counts and malformations of the penis and testicles.

Children and developing fetuses are most at risk. Human and animal studies provide disturbing evidence that prenatal exposure to low levels of some POPs can result in decreases in IQ and short-term memory; delayed psychomotor development; abnormal reflexes; and speech problems.[2]^{,[3],[4],[5],[6]} Serious structural abnormalities, retarded growth, and functional changes have also been observed in lab animals exposed to low levels of POPs during gestation.[7]

Toxicological and epidemiological studies have found that several POPs, including dioxins, PCBs, and DDT, have the potential to cause cancer in humans.

At the same time, it has been observed that incidence rates of breast cancer, testicular cancer, and prostate cancer are on the rise in the U.S. Researchers are investigating the role that endocrine-disrupting POPs might play in the development of cancers at these hormonally-sensitive sites.

There is limited human epidemiological evidence for immune effects from POPs exposure. However, laboratory animals exposed to dioxin showed evidence of immune system suppression, resulting in some forms of cancer and decreased resistance to infections. It has been suggested that this is one of the most sensitive toxicological outcomes for dioxin exposure, for example. A study of Dutch preschool children has linked prenatal and lactational exposure to PCBs and dioxins to increased susceptibility to infectious diseases lasting into childhood.[8]

The Addition of Future POPs is at the Heart of the Stockholm Convention

While the Stockholm Convention begins with an initial list of twelve POPs, including those I have mentioned, it is by no means limited to that list. From the very start of the negotiations, the international community envisioned a dynamic instrument that could take into account emerging scientific knowledge about chemicals beyond the initial 12. In a series of intersessional meetings during the treaty negotiations, an experts group hammered out a set of science-based screening criteria for POPs that was incorporated into the final agreement. In short, the addition of POPs beyond the initial 12 was not an afterthought.

Indeed, the final convention spells out the science-based process for evaluating and adding POPs quite clearly in Article 8. Upon entry into force, the Conference of the Parties (COP) will establish a Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPROC). Parties will submit chemical nominations to the POPROC, which will evaluate them based on agreed scientific criteria including persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity. The POPROC must prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E, to be made available for input from all Parties and observers. The POPROC will then make recommendations that must be approved by the COP before a nominated chemical can be added to the treaty as a binding amendment. The U.S. has reserved the right to “opt-in” to each amendment via a separate, subsequent ratification process.

It is worth noting that the universe of POPs that might be added to the Stockholm Convention over the long term is not vast. Application of the science-based criteria set out in the treaty is likely to result in the addition of a few dozen additional POPs – not hundreds or thousands.

S.2118 Contains a Workable Mechanism for Adding POPs

Throughout the treaty negotiations, the U.S. delegation acknowledged that changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) would be necessary to enable EPA to ban the manufacture, use, and export of the chemicals named in the treaty, and to regulate new chemicals identified as POPs pursuant to the agreed science-based process. A briefing for NGOs in July 2001 indicated that an interagency agreement had been reached on the legislative requirements for U.S. implementation, including provisions to grant EPA the ability to phase out additional POPs beyond the dirty dozen. Regrettably, the proposal revealed by the administration last month has left out this critical piece of implementing authority.

Beginning late last year, press reports indicated that the administration was heading down this path. Attached to my testimony you will find letters sent by PSR and other public interest organizations to CEQ, OMB, and EPA, expressing our concerns. You will also find a fact sheet prepared by PSR along with the World Wildlife Fund, Oceana, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups. This document spells out in detail the issues raised by the omission of provisions related to new POPs. As it makes clear, such an omission would tie EPA’s hands and put up an unnecessary hurdle to domestic regulation of any POP added to the treaty. The failure to amend TSCA and FIFRA now to allow EPA to regulate new POPs in the future would amount to a failure to implement Article 8 of the convention. It would result in an absurd situation in which each amendment to add a POP, which has been agreed by the U.S. as a member of the COP, and subjected to Senate review under the “opt-in” procedure, would still require both houses of Congress to amend TSCA and FIFRA again. Given that these environmental laws have rarely if ever been amended in nearly 30 years, such a process requiring repeated amendment seems both unmanageable, undesirable, and politically unrealistic.

S.2118 acknowledges this defect. This bill would legislate a domestic process that would parallel the international decision process from beginning to end. While the POPROC is evaluating a nominated chemical, the EPA Administrator would be directed by statute to initiate a notice and comment process to gather information about the uses and sources of the nominated chemical domestically, to inform a future decision about policy actions that might be needed to ban or regulate it. In the end, if the COP decides to list that new POP by amendment, S. 2118 would give a “rebuttable presumption” to the COP’s decision. In essence, the legislation would automatically deem any POP added by the COP to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, and would thus authorize EPA to undertake a rulemaking to control the production, use, and trade in that new POP.

Administration officials have argued that additional authority is not required for EPA to take domestic action against any future POP. However, a careful reading of TSCA and FIFRA calls this claim into question. As written, these statutes would not allow EPA to prohibit the manufacture for export of any future POP. Experience even with the dirty dozen has shown this – chlordane and heptachlor, for example, were manufactured and exported for years after all uses were cancelled domestically. In light of our experience with these laws, PSR does not believe that they can be used to effectively and efficiently eliminate future POPs without amendment now.

The U.S. Should be a Proactive Participant in the Stockholm Convention

The U.S. has long been at the forefront of global efforts to protect the environment and public health. This country led the world, for example, in phasing out the use of DDT and leaded gasoline. In implementing the Stockholm Convention, the U.S. must continue to play a leadership role. S.2118 will facilitate U.S. leadership in meeting the obligations of the Stockholm Convention in several important ways. For example, the legislation would require EPA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake a major POPs study. This comprehensive research program outline in the bill is designed to screen chemicals using the Stockholm Convention’s POPs criteria, identify priority POPs for possible nomination to the POPROC, and develop a monitoring strategy for persistent and bioaccumulative substances. This NAS study, along with the related requirement that EPA develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to reduce the public’s exposure to persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances, will enable the U.S. to be a proactive participant to the Stockholm Convention. Indeed, it will position the United States to lead the world in utilizing a science-based process to identify and take action against future POPs, rather than merely reacting to international pressure.

Finally, S.2118 would require EPA to submit to Congress, within 90 days of its enactment, the agency’s final dioxin reassessment. This document has been in development for more than 10 years, and represents the state-of-the-science on dioxin and related POPs. Many organizations and agencies – including the EPA itself – have been waiting for its release to guide policy actions to phase out this most toxic of POPs. The long-awaited release of this document will serve as a jumping off point for the U.S. to meet its long-term obligation of dioxin elimination under the Stockholm Convention.

Conclusion

The announcement by President Bush of his intention to sign and ratify the Stockholm Convention more than a year ago received unprecedented support from the public interest community, the chemical industry, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This important treaty continues to offer a rare opportunity to achieve consensus in the environmental policy arena.

The ratification and full implementation of the Stockholm Convention is of utmost importance to PSR. In addition, numerous groups and constituencies not represented here today – including environmental, public health, consumer, and indigenous organizations across the country – share our hope that the treaty can be rapidly ratified and fully implemented, and can be claimed as a victory by all. It is now up to this Committee and the Congress as a whole to strive for such an outcome. We look forward to working with you to reach it.

Thank you for your attention, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

ATTACHMENTS

PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY · OCEANA ·

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND · U.S. PIRG

December 20, 2001

Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

Director

Office of Management and Budget

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

17^th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20503

Mr. James L. Connaughton

Chair

Council on Environmental Quality

722 Jackson Place, NW

Washington, D.C. 20506

Dear Mr. Daniels and Mr. Connaughton:

Our environmental and public health organizations write to request that the White House seek ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), along with the legislative authority to fully implement it, as soon as possible. As you know, the United States and nearly 100 other countries signed the Stockholm Convention last May. This unprecedented international agreement targets the so-called “dirty dozen,” twelve POPs which are known to be detrimental to human health and to the environment.

The announcement by President Bush of his intention to sign and ratify this important treaty last spring received unprecedented support from both our organizations and the chemical industry. In formal remarks at the signing ceremony in Sweden, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman stated that the President had personally endorsed the treaty, adding that the Administration intended “to move expeditiously to submit this treaty to the United States Senate, and to send the implementing measures to the Congress.” Nearly seven months later, however, the treaty and its draft implementing legislation have yet to see the light of day on Capitol Hill.

POPs are global contaminants that threaten human health, wildlife, and ecosystems in the United States and around the world. They have been associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including cancers, birth defects, reproductive disorders, and learning and behavioral impairments. Despite more than two decades of progress toward controlling POPs pollution here at home, these chemicals continue to contaminate the U.S., in many cases traveling thousands of miles from other countries to America’s shores. Today, POPs are found in our waterways, soils, and food. They accumulate in the bodies of people and wildlife in every region of the country – from Alaska to New York and everywhere in between. Those most at risk are children, fetal life, women of childbearing age, and communities who rely on local fish and wildlife as a major part of their diet.

The ability of POPs to travel across the nation, to concentrate in the food chain, and to pose risks to people and wildlife even in remote areas demonstrates that the only way to protect the planet is to phase out 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 rule making. Shortly after the treaty signing, an Interagency agreement was reached on the legislative requirements for U.S. implementation, including provisions to support the ability to phase out additional POPs beyond the dirty dozen. The ability, over time, to bring new POPs under the treaty’s provisions is integral to its success. It is our strong view that the enabling legislation must provide authority to deal promptly and effectively with this important provision of the agreement.

Last spring, the Stockholm Convention offered a rare example of consensus in the environmental policy arena, with support from the public interest community, the chemical industry, the President, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. We hope that the White House will follow through with its promise to protect the health and well being of the American people from POPs by pursuing ratification of this agreement as quickly as possible, and in a manner that gives EPA the necessary authority to expeditiously carry out all aspects of the agreement.

We look forward to your response and to a status report on the Administration’s efforts. If we can be of assistance, please feel free to call Karen Perry at Physicians for Social Responsibility (202-667-4260, x249) or Carolyn Hartmann at Oceana (202-833-3900).

Sincerely,

Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H. Kathryn S. Fuller

Executive Director and CEO President

Physicians for Social Responsibility World Wildlife Fund

Stephen E. Roady Jeremiah Baumann

President Environmental Health Department

Oceana U.S. Public Interest Research Group

cc: The Honorable Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State

The Honorable Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture

The Honorable Donald Evans, Secretary of Commerce

Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative

PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY · OCEANA ·

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND · U.S. PIRG · SIERRA CLUB · AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN · CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW · PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA · FRIENDS OF THE EARTH · LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS · NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY · AMERICAN RIVERS · THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY · EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE · CIRCUMPOLAR CONSERVATION UNION · INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK · ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS · SILICON VALLEY TOXICS COALITION · ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION INC · DEPARTMENT OF THE PLANET EARTH · PROTECT ALL CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENT · CANCER ACTION NY · COMMONWEAL · GREENWATCH INC · PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK · AIR · MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER · ANACOSTIA WATERSHED SOCIETY · NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES · BLUEWATER NETWORK · CITIZENS FOR A FUTURE NEW HAMPSHIRE · MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL · FRIENDS OF CASCO BAY

February 14, 2002

Judith E. Ayres

Assistant Administrator for International Affairs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Ayres:

Our environmental and public health organizations write to express our concern that the current Administration might fail to seek authority for EPA to fully implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). In our view, full implementation requires the ability to take domestic action not only against POPs named initially in the treaty, but also against POPs that may be added in the future.

Signed by Administrator Whitman and representatives of nearly 100 other countries last May, the Stockholm Convention targets a group of chemicals known to be detrimental to human health and to the environment. While the convention begins with an initial list of twelve POPs, including PCBs, DDT, and dioxin, it is by no means limited to that list. Negotiators from all countries agreed that the treaty should be a dynamic instrument, and set up a Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee to recommend additional POPs for international action using a science-based screening and risk profile process. Additional chemicals identified as POPs and agreed by all Parties to the Convention will be added to the treaty by an amendment process, with the U.S. reserving the right to “opt-in” to each amendment via a separate, subsequent ratification process.

During the treaty negotiations, the U.S. delegation acknowledged that changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) would be necessary to enable EPA to ban the manufacture and export of the chemicals named in the treaty, and to regulate new chemicals identified as POPs pursuant to the agreed science-based process once the U.S. opts in. An interagency agreement was reached last summer on the legislative requirements for U.S. implementation, including provisions to grant EPA the ability to phase out additional POPs beyond the dirty dozen. Since then, we have read with concern several press reports that indicate a reversal by the Office of Management and Budget of this important interagency decision.

We are deeply concerned about the suggestion that the Administration is failing to follow through on its commitment to fully implement the POPs treaty. The ability, over time, to bring new POPs under the treaty’s provisions is integral to its success. It is our strong view that the enabling legislation must provide authority to deal promptly and effectively with this important provision of the agreement.

The announcement by President Bush of his intention to sign and ratify this important treaty last spring received unprecedented support both from our organizations and the chemical industry. The Stockholm Convention offers a rare example of consensus in the environmental policy arena, with support from the public interest community, the chemical industry, the President, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. We hope that the Administration will keep its promise to protect the health and well being of the American people from POPs by pursuing ratification of this agreement as soon as possible, and in a manner that gives EPA the necessary authority to expeditiously carry out all aspects of the agreement.

Sincerely,

Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H. Brooks Yeager

Executive Director and CEO Vice President for Global Threats

Physicians for Social Responsibility World Wildlife Fund

Stephen E. Roady Gene Karpinski

President Executive Director

Oceana U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Carl Pope Ted Morton

Executive Director Policy Director

Sierra Club American Oceans Campaign

Glenn Wiser Kristin S. Schafer

Staff Attorney Program Coordinator

Center for International Environmental Law Pesticide Action Network North America

Larry Bohlen Mary Minette

Director, Health and Environment Programs Legislative Director

Friends of the Earth League of Conservation Voters

Lois J. Schiffer S. Elizabeth Birnbaum

Sr. Vice-President for Policy Director of Government Affairs

National Audubon Society American Rivers

Tim Eichenberg Gershon Cohen, Ph.D.

Program Counsel Project Director, Campaign to Safeguard

The Ocean Conservancy (formerly the America's Waters

Center for Marine Conservation) Earth Island Institute

Evelyn M. Hurwich Tom Goldtooth

Executive Director Director

Circumpolar Conservation Union Indigenous Environmental Network

Pamela K. Miller Michael Stanley-Jones

Program Director Director, Sustainable Water Program

Alaska Community Action on Toxics Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Samuel H. Sage Erik Jansson

President Executive Director

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. Department of the Planet Earth

E.M.T. O'Nan Donald L. Hassig

Director Director

Protect All Children's Environment Cancer Action NY

Sharyle Patton Bill Smedley

Co-Director, Sustainable Futures Project Executive Director

Commonweal GreenWatch Inc.

Brian Laverty Vicki Smedley

President CEO

Pennsylvania Environmental Network AIR (Arrest the Incinerator Remediation)

Anne Hedges Robert E. Boone

Program Director President

Montana Environmental Information Center Anacostia Watershed Society

Nina Bell, J.D. Russell Long, Ph.D.

Executive Director Executive Director
Northwest Environmental Advocates Bluewater Network

Carolyn Snyder James Clift

President Policy Director

Citizens for a Future New Hampshire Michigan Environmental Council

Joseph E. Payne

Executive Director/BayKeeper

Friends of Casco Bay

U.S. Ratification of POPs Treaty in Danger

White House Seeking Only

Partial Implementation of Stockholm Convention

On April 11, 2002, the White House asked the Senate to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Regrettably, the Administration’s implementing legislation fails to ask Congress for the legislative provisions necessary to fully implement the treaty.

This unprecedented international agreement targets chemicals that are detrimental to human health and the environment globally, starting with a list of 12 POPs that includes formerly used pesticides, dioxin, and PCBs. In addition to governing the phaseout of the initial list of POPs, the Stockholm Convention mandates a process for nomination, science-based assessment, and addition of other POPs to the treaty. In a Rose Garden ceremony last spring, President Bush announced his support for the agreement, noting that while it was negotiated by the previous administration, it “achieves a goal shared by this administration” and “shows the possibilities for cooperation among all parties to our environmental debates.”

Some changes to domestic environmental laws, including TSCA and FIFRA, are needed to give EPA the power to eliminate the initial 12 POPs. In addition, a process for regulating new POPs must be reflected in implementing legislation, unless the treaty provisions related to adding POPs were considered to be self-executing. Last summer, EPA crafted a proposal to deal with both categories of legislative changes at the time of ratification. Now, the Administration is instead asking Congress to amend TSCA and FIFRA to address only the initial 12 POPs, without making the statutory changes needed to regulate chemicals subsequently added to the Convention.

Failure To Amend U.S. Laws Now To Provide For The Addition Of New POPs Would Violate The Spirit Of The Stockholm Convention And Hobble Future U.S. Implementation.

The international community envisioned a dynamic instrument that could take into account emerging scientific knowledge about chemicals beyond the initial 12. The Convention as negotiated provides the U.S. with a great deal of flexibility in deciding whether and how to take domestic action against future POPs. Requiring a case-by-case revision of domestic legislation in the future is unnecessary and risks politicizing decisions that would otherwise be based on sound science.

v The international selection process involves input from all countries that are Parties to the Convention: Article 8 of the Convention provides for the evaluation and addition of chemicals beyond the initial 12. Upon entry into force, the Conference of the Parties (COP) will establish a Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPROC). Parties will submit chemical nominations to the POPROC, which will evaluate them based on agreed scientific criteria including persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity. The POPROC must prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E, to be made available for input from all Parties and observers. The POPROC will then make recommendations that must be approved by the entire COP before a nominated chemical can be added to the treaty as a binding amendment.

v 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 one year. However, there exists another safeguard under Article 25(4), which was proposed by the U.S., allowing a Party to declare when ratifying the Convention that it will be bound by new chemical amendments only if it affirmatively “opts in” via a separate, subsequent ratification process. The State Department has indicated that the U.S. will take advantage of the “opt in” provision, enabling the Senate to give its advice and consent to the addition of each new POP in the future.

v 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, according to EPA officials, would provide that a “rebuttable presumption” be given to the COP’s decision on a new POP, while preserving the right (based on food security, public health, or environmental considerations) to make a persuasive case that modified controls are necessary. As presented to NGO and industry groups in July 2001, the POPs interagency group agreed to include this second option in their draft legislation. OMB later overrode the other agencies, choosing instead to eliminate all legislative reference to future POPs.

Failure by the White House to seek legislative authority to address the addition of new POPs makes little sense, and jeopardizes U.S. participation in the Convention for a number of reasons, including:

Ratification based on incomplete legislative authority would be viewed by the international community as a bad faith commitment to implementation of a treaty that is popular with governments worldwide.
Transmittal of an incomplete legislative package significantly increases the likelihood that it will be opened for amendment in the House and Senate, risking “non-surgical” and potentially controversial changes.
Congress is unlikely to repeatedly re-open domestic laws such as TSCA and FIFRA that have rarely if ever been amended.
Implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) – a chemicals treaty that the Administration plans to “bundle” with POPs for ratification – involves related TSCA/FIFRA amendments, reinforcing the value of transmitting a complete legislative package for both agreements.

The Stockholm Convention offers a rare example of consensus in the environmental policy arena. Since its completion in December 2000, support for U.S. ratification has been expressed by the public interest community, the chemical industry, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and the Bush Administration, including explicit endorsement of the treaty by President Bush. The President’s decision to sign and ratify it was acclaimed as an environmental victory for his Administration. It will now be up to Congress to ensure that the treaty can be fully implemented.

TO MAINTAIN THE U.S. COMMITMENT TO THE STOCKHOLM POPs CONVENTION, CONGRESS MUST:

v Make the statutory changes to TSCA and FIFRA necessary to authorize regulation of chemicals subsequently included in the Convention; and

v Ratify the treaty in full as soon as possible.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Karen Perry, Physicians for Social Responsibility, (202) 667-4260 x249, kperry@psr.org

Pep Fuller or Carolyn Hartmann, Oceana, 202-833-3900, pfuller@oceana.org, chartmann@oceana.org

Clifton Curtis, World Wildlife Fund, (202) 861-8379, Clifton.Curtis@WWFUS.org

Jeremiah Baumann, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, (202) 546-9707, jbaumann@pirg.org