EPA signs Consent Agreement to carry out requirements under FIFRA and FQPA

Chemical companies get things done over lunch, people have to sue.  Does this seem fair?

[ Read Consent Agreement ]

Click Here to Add Comment

 

Subject:    EPA REACHES AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE WITH
NRDC----------
 Date:        Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:04:11 -0500
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
          Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation 

cc:    Carol Browner browner.carol@epa.gov

Dear Mr. Helliker,  I thought you might like to read an article entitled: EPA REACHES AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE WITH NRDC.

EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have entered into two agreements to settle pending lawsuits. NRDC and others had filed lawsuits regarding implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) and the 1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) concerning the reregistration of pesticides.  The first agreement resolves claims related to EPA's compliance with deadlines for tolerance reassessment and reregistration.  NRDC and EPA filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on January 19, 2001, asking the court to enter the agreement as a Consent Decree.  If entered by the District Court, the terms of the consent decree will create court enforceable deadlines for EPA actions.

The second agreement is a settlement agreement that resolves claims related to EPA's compliance with deadlines for implementing an endocrine disruptor screening program, but, unlike the first agreement, it would not subject EPA to potential judicial enforcement.

In the proposed consent decree, EPA is agreeing to deadlines for conducting a cumulative risk assessment for organophosphate pesticides and risk assessments or risk management decisions for eleven pesticides.  This agreement is consistent with EPA strategy regarding FQPA implementation, and does not change the pesticide reregistration or tolerance reassessment procedures or priorities. Moreover, the focused scope of the agreement and the flexibility provided EPA in meeting the deadlines assure minimal disruption to its pesticide regulatory responsibilities.

In the settlement agreement, EPA agrees to flexible target dates for (1) completing development of a data base that the Agency will use to prioritize chemicals for screening in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, (2) completing validation of the screens and tests that are part of the Program, and (3) starting to require screening and testing of chemicals under the Program.

EPA was sued collectively by NRDC, The Breast Cancer Fund (TBCF), CalPIRG Charitable Trust (CalPIRG-CT), Pesticide Watch Education Fund (PWEF). Pesticide Action Network North American Regional Center (PANNA), San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility, and United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO.  In two separate actions, NRDC and others challenged EPA's compliance with deadlines for tolerance reassessment and reregistration and implementing an endocrine disruptor screening program.  The American Crop Protection Association (ACPA) and the Farm Bureau intervened in both cases.  The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) intervened only in the District Court case pertaining to endocrine disruptor screening.

(Text versions of Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement are attached. For a copy of the signed version, please contact the Communication Services Branch in the Office of Pesticide Programs at 703-305-5017)

********************************************************

2)TEXT FILE ON CONSENT DECREE

(See attached file: consentdecree.txt)

********************************************************

3)TEXT FILE ON SETTLEMENT  AGREEMENT

(See attached file: settlementagreement.txt) 

**********************************************************

Well Mr. Helliker, It should begin to appear rather obvious that people are tired of being POISONED.  When will it be "legal" (in your opinion) to use safe and far more effective (unregistered) alternatives to actually control pest problems?

Respectfully,  Stephen L. Tvedten

-----

---

If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.