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

This document consists of responses from Glenn Wiser of the Center for International Environmental Law to questions posed by Chairman Paul E. Gillmor of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. The responses focus on the legal and regulatory framework required for the United States to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), specifically addressing the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches, the nature of treaty control measures, and the potential pitfalls of including cost-benefit balancing or 'sound science' language in implementing legislation.

• The decision to 'opt in' to a Stockholm Convention amendment is a function of the Executive Branch's foreign affairs and treaty-making powers and should not be mandated by congressional legislation, as the Constitution does not grant Congress a role in that specific decision.
• To ensure the U.S. can comply with the Stockholm Convention, Congress must provide the EPA with adequate implementing authority to regulate new POPs. The most reliable method is requiring the EPA to regulate, or decide not to regulate, within a specific timeframe following a Conference listing decision.
• The fundamental standard for control measures under the Stockholm Convention is the elimination of production, use, import, and export for chemicals listed in Annex A. The author argues that a regulatory standard based on cost-benefit balancing would be insufficient to ensure U.S. compliance with these treaty obligations.
• DDT is the only intentionally produced POP listed in Annex B, making it the sole exception to the elimination rule due to its specific role in malaria vector control, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.
• Existing statutory authority under TSCA § 6(a) is considered insufficient for the EPA to effectively ban industrial chemicals added to Stockholm Annex A, citing the 'least burdensome means' balancing test and the lack of finalized regulations under this section since 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. Such language is viewed as a tool for private entities to delay regulations through litigation.

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} }