Notes and Questions from July 13, 2004 Hearing on POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the U.S. and Draft Legislation to Implement These International Conventions

The document argues that for the United States to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Congress must provide the EPA with clear statutory authority to eliminate listed chemicals without being constrained by de novo cost-benefit balancing or 'sound science' provisions that could be used to delay regulation. It emphasizes that the Convention's primary standard for Annex A chemicals is elimination, and that existing authority under TSCA § 6(a) is insufficient to ban industrial chemicals following the Corrosion Proof Fittings case. The author contends that the Executive Branch's decision to 'opt in' to new listings is a foreign affairs power, but this power is practically dependent on Congress providing the necessary implementing authority to the EPA.

• The author argues that the decision to 'opt in' to a treaty amendment is an Executive Branch power based on foreign affairs and treaty-making, and should not be mandated by congressional legislation.
• To ensure the U.S. can comply with the Stockholm Convention, the author proposes that Congress require the EPA to regulate, or decide not to regulate, a chemical within a specific timeframe after it is listed by the Conference of the Parties (COP).
• The fundamental standard for control measures under the Stockholm Convention for chemicals listed in Annex A is elimination, not a balance of costs and benefits.
• The author contends that a regulatory standard requiring cost-benefit balancing would be insufficient to ensure U.S. compliance with Stockholm Annex A amendments and is not required by the Convention.
• Existing authority under TSCA § 6(a) is deemed insufficient for the EPA to ban industrial chemicals added to Annex A, citing the legal precedent of the Corrosion Proof Fittings case.
• The author opposes the inclusion of 'sound science' language in the draft legislation, arguing it is superfluous because Executive Order 12866 already requires decisions to be based on the best scientific information, and that such language would primarily serve as a litigation tool for private entities to delay regulation.

APA

Wiser, G. (2004). Notes and Questions from July 13, 2004 Hearing on POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the U.S. and Draft Legislation to Implement These International Conventions. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wiser_Gillmor_31Aug04.pdf

Chicago

Wiser, Glenn. Notes and Questions from July 13, 2004 Hearing on POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the U.S. and Draft Legislation to Implement These International Conventions. Center for International Environmental Law, 2004. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wiser_Gillmor_31Aug04.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Wiser |first1=Glenn |title=Notes and Questions from July 13, 2004 Hearing on POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the U.S. and Draft Legislation to Implement These International Conventions |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=13 September 2004 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wiser_Gillmor_31Aug04.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{wiser2004notes, author = {Wiser, Glenn}, title = {{Notes and Questions from July 13, 2004 Hearing on POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the U.S. and Draft Legislation to Implement These International Conventions}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2004}, month = sep, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wiser_Gillmor_31Aug04.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }