Analysis of POPs treaty implementing provisions in Senate and House TSCA reform bills

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the 'Safe Chemicals Act of 2010' (Lautenberg bill) and the 'Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010' (Rush-Waxman discussion draft). It evaluates how these proposed reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would provide the implementing authority necessary for the United States to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the LRTAP POPs Protocol, and the Rotterdam Convention.

• The Lautenberg bill is considered superior to the Rush-Waxman draft for enabling U.S. ratification of the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP POPs Protocol because it prohibits all original POPs chemicals and provides broad authority to regulate newly listed POPs if the U.S. decides to 'opt in'.
• The Rush-Waxman draft contains flaws that could delay U.S. ratification of POPs treaties by at least five years, as it only names specific chemicals (hexachlorobenzene and hexabromobiphenyl) and delays their ban until five years after enactment.
• Both the Lautenberg bill and the Rush-Waxman draft address a critical gap in current law by closing the TSCA section 12(a) export loophole, which previously exempted chemicals intended for export from most TSCA provisions.
• The report argues that neither bill provides the EPA with sufficient authority to re-establish U.S. international leadership on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, as they lack specific criteria for identifying and taking prompt action against such chemicals before they are listed in international treaties.
• The two bills propose different standards for state preemption; the Lautenberg bill protects state laws that are 'more stringent', while the Rush-Waxman draft protects state laws unless compliance with both federal and state regulation is 'impossible'.
• The report recommends that both bills include a 'savings clause' to ensure the EPA can regulate POPs more strictly than the minimum requirements of international treaties, which are often negotiated to the 'lowest common denominator'.

APA

Wiser, G., & Ditz, D. (2010). Analysis of POPs treaty implementing provisions in Senate and House TSCA reform bills. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TSCAPOPs_May10.pdf

Chicago

Wiser, Glenn, and Daryl Ditz. Analysis of POPs treaty implementing provisions in Senate and House TSCA reform bills. Center for International Environmental Law, 2010. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TSCAPOPs_May10.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Wiser |first1=Glenn |last2=Ditz |first2=Daryl |title=Analysis of POPs treaty implementing provisions in Senate and House TSCA reform bills |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=18 May 2010 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TSCAPOPs_May10.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{wiser2010analysis, author = {Wiser, Glenn and Ditz, Daryl}, title = {{Analysis of POPs treaty implementing provisions in Senate and House TSCA reform bills}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2010}, month = may, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TSCAPOPs_May10.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }