|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Advocates for Environmental Human Rights • Alaska Community Action on Toxics • American Rivers • Beyond Pesticides • The Breast Cancer Fund • Center for Environmental Health • Center For Health, Environment and Justice • Center for International Environmental Law • Circumpolar Conservation Union • Citizens' Environmental Coalition • Clean Production Action • Clean Water Action o Commonweal • Delta Institute • Ecology Center • Environmental Defense • Environmental Health Fund • Environmental Health Strategy Center • Environmental Working Group • Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education • Friends of the Earth-US • Global Community Monitor • Greenpeace • Healthy Building Network • Indigenous Environmental Network • Institute for a Sustainable Future • International POPs Elimination Network • Izaak Walton League of America • League of Conservation Voters • National Audubon Society • National Environmental Trust • The Ocean Conservancy • Oceana • Oregon Toxics Alliance • Pesticide Action Network • Physicians for Social Responsibility • Science and Environmental Health Network • Sierra Club • U.S. Public Interest Research Group • United Steelworkers of America • Washington Toxics Coalition • World Wildlife Fund
September 24, 2004
| The Honorable Joe Barton Chairman House Committee on Energy and Commerce 2109 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515 |
The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Member House Committee on Energy and Commerce 2328 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515 |
| The Honorable Paul E. Gillmor Chairman House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 1203 Longworth Building Washington, DC 20515 |
The Honorable Hilda L. Solis Ranking Member House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 1641 Longworth Building Washington, DC 20515 |
Re: Proposed TSCA Amendments to implement the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members:
On behalf of the millions of members of our organizations, we urge you
to reject draft amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
that were circulated to members of the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials on June 17, and which are being considered by the
Subcommittee as the basis for legislation to implement the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Our organizations
are concerned that the June 17 Discussion Draft contains fundamental
flaws that will inhibit full U.S. implementation of this important public
health and environmental treaty by tying the hands of future administrations
and preventing the adequate regulation of POPs chemicals that may be
added to the treaty. We therefore strongly oppose the use of this Draft
as a basis for Subcommittee action and would oppose such a bill if it
were introduced.
We request instead that you consider the POPs implementation draft that
Representative Solis circulated this week, which effectively addresses
the shortcomings in the June 17 Draft.
The Stockholm Convention is a global treaty aimed at the elimination
of POPs, some of the world's most dangerous substances. These toxic
chemicals persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in food chains,
and are common contaminants in fish, dairy products, and other foods.
The Convention bans or severely restricts twelve POPs, including highly
toxic dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides such as DDT. It includes a rigorous
scientific process to add other POPs to the list of globally banned
chemicals. It has been ratified by more than 75 countries, and became
legally binding on May 17.
Many Americans may now carry enough POPs in their bodies to cause serious
health effects, including reproductive and developmental problems, cancer,
and disruption of the immune system. Indigenous communities in the Arctic
region are exposed to especially high levels of these pollutants. POPs
migrate on wind and water currents to the Arctic, where they bioaccumulate
in the marine food chain, contaminating the traditional foods of indigenous
peoples. The propensity of POPs to travel such long distances means
that no country can fully protect its citizens by acting alone. The
effort to control POPs must truly be a global one.
U.S. environmental and health organizations enthusiastically support
the Stockholm POPs Convention. We believe that constructive U.S. participation
and leadership in the Convention will be essential to eliminate POPs
and other persistent toxic substances from the world's environment.
Our organizations are convinced, however, that any domestic implementing
legislation must enable the United States to fully carry out its obligations
under the treaty, and must reflect the Convention's precautionary spirit
and public health emphasis. The June 17 Discussion Draft fails on both
these counts. In addition, we are committed to preserving the integrity
of U.S. environmental and health law, and we do not wish to see U.S.
ratification of this groundbreaking treaty serve as a means to introduce
new, untried regulatory standards that would undermine that law. Regrettably,
we have concluded that the June 17 Draft would do just that.
Among the Draft legislation's many faults:
-
The Draft does not require EPA to do anything when the Stockholm Convention parties decide to add a POP to the treaty, even when the United States fully supports the international decision. An acceptable approach would be for Congress to require EPA to decide, within a fixed time after an international listing decision is made, whether it will regulate the POP or not.
-
The Draft would allow EPA to regulate a newly listed chemical only if it can find a "reasonable balance" between human health and the environment and the economic costs of the regulation. This directly contradicts the Convention requirement that governments (including the United States) must decide upon additional POPs "in a precautionary manner." An acceptable approach would be to use the regulatory standard that is already in the Convention, so that EPA would be required to implement the control measures specified in the Convention in a manner that protects against "significant adverse human health or environmental effects."
-
In weighing scientific information, EPA would have to apply new, so-called "sound science" requirements that would provide grist for litigation, rather than improve the quality of EPA's decision making. An acceptable approach would rely on EPA's rigorous, well-established practices for evaluating the quality of scientific information, and would neither burden EPA with costly, duplicative procedures nor constrain EPA from considering all relevant scientific information.
-
While the Discussion Draft would make it very difficult or impossible for EPA to implement a Stockholm Convention new listing decision, it would simultaneously establish a regulatory ceiling by prohibiting EPA from regulating more strictly than minimum Convention standards, thus eliminating the possibility of providing additional safety in the United States when conditions here warrant it. An acceptable approach would ensure that EPA had sufficient authority to deal fully with the adverse effects of a POP, regardless whether a "use-specific" or "acceptable purpose" exemption was available to the United States under the international listing decision.
-
The Draft contains sweeping preemption language that could be used to void state and local efforts to deal with a POP, even when EPA has no intention of regulating the chemical. An acceptable approach would respect and preserve the rights of states to protect their citizens from persistent toxic substances.
As with most treaties, the Stockholm Convention does not
tell us how we must implement its obligations. It is up to the Congress
to decide how U.S. law should do that. Yet the approach of the June
17 Discussion Draft would ensure that it will be very difficult or impossible
for future administrations to implement Stockholm Convention amendments
that add other POPs chemicals to the treaty, and it would simultaneously
establish precedents that could prove harmful for other areas of U.S.
environmental and health law. Because POPs legislation should enhance,
not hinder, the EPA's authority to protect human health, the environment,
and marine, freshwater, and terrestrial wildlife, we respectfully urge
you to discard the approach of the June 17 Discussion Draft in favor
of legislation that faithfully reflects the spirit and letter of the
Stockholm Convention.
Based on our preliminary review, Representative Solis'
draft bill would achieve an appropriate balance between international
cooperation and the sovereign interests of the United States. We believe
this approach would provide EPA with sufficient regulatory authority
to allow the United States to participate effectively and in good faith
in Stockholm Convention decision-making on additional POPs.
Sincerely,
| Anna Aurillio Legislative Director U.S. Public Interest Research Group |
John Balbus, MD, MPH Director, Health Program Environmental Defense |
| Björn Beeler International Coordinator International POPs Elimination Network |
Michael Belliveau Executive Director Environmental Health Strategy Center |
| S. Elizabeth Birnbaum Vice President for Government Affairs American Rivers |
Timothy H. Brown Co-Director Delta Institute |
| Deb Callahan President League of Conservation Voters |
Gary Cohen Executive Director Environmental Health Fund |
| Clifton Curtis Director, Global Toxics Program World Wildlife Fund |
Kathleen Curtis Executive Director Citizens' Environmental Coalition |
| Tracey Easthope, MPH Director, Environmental Health Project Ecology Center |
Jay Feldman Executive Director Beyond Pesticides |
| Lois Marie Gibbs Executive Director Center For Health, Environment and Justice |
Tom Goldtooth Director Indigenous Environmental Network |
| Joseph H. Guth, JD, PhD Senior Policy Analyst Center for Environmental Health |
Monique Harden Co-Director & Attorney Advocates for Environmental Human Rights |
| Jamie Harvie Executive Director Institute for a Sustainable Future |
Julia Hathaway Legislative Director Ocean Conservancy |
| Rick Hind Legislative Director, Toxics Greenpeace |
Dr. Mike Hirshfield Vice President, North American Oceans Oceana |
| Evelyn M. Hurwich, Esq. President Circumpolar Conservation Union |
Andy Igrejas Environmental Health Campaign Director National Environmental Trust |
| Timothy J. Kropp, PhD Senior Scientist Environmental Working Group |
Denny Larson Director Global Community Monitor |
| Alexandra McPherson Director, North America Clean Production Action |
Pamela K. Miller Executive Director Alaska Community Action on Toxics |
| David Monk Executive Director Oregon Toxics Alliance |
Janet Nudelman Director of Program Breast Cancer Fund |
| Sharyle Patton Co-Director Sustainable Futures Project Commonweal |
Bob Perciasepe Chief Operating Officer National Audubon Society |
| Karen L. Perry, MPA Deputy Director, Environment and Health Physicians for Social Responsibility |
G.J. Thomas Sadler, Jr. Conservation Director Izaak Walton League of America |
| Kristin S. Schafer Program Coordinator Pesticide Action Network |
Ted Schettler, MD, MPH Science Director Science and Environmental Health Network |
| Debbie Sease Legislative Director Sierra Club |
Gregg Small Executive Director Washington Toxics Coalition |
| Carl Smith Vice President/Senior Editor Foundation for Adv. in Science & Education |
Lynn Thorp National Campaigns Coordinator Clean Water Action |
| Bill Walsh National Coordinator Healthy Building Network |
David Waskow Director, International Programs Friends of the Earth-US |
| Glenn Wiser Senior Attorney Center for International Environmental Law |
Michael J. Wright Director, Health, Safety & Environment United Steelworkers of America |
cc: U.S. EPA Administrator Michael O. Leavitt