K1173462 050112 

# SC UNITED NATIONS



## UNEP /POPS/POPRC.7/19



## Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Distr.: General 17 October 2011

Original: English

Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Seventh meeting Geneva, 10–14 October 2011


## Report of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee on the work of its seventh meeting
I. Opening of the meeting

1. The seventh meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee was held at the Varembé International Conference Centre from 10 to 14 October 2011. Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany), Chair of the Committee, declared the meeting open at 10 a.m. on Monday, 10 October 2011.

2. Mr. Jim Willis, Executive Secretary, welcom ed the Committee members and observers. Commending the Committee on its work since its inception, he noted the importance of achieving synergies at all levels – international, region al and national – and und erscored the Committee’s importance in providing a strong scientific basis for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and for global chemical safety. Lastly, he drew the Committee’s attention to the work before it, in particular on hexabromocyclododecane and the three chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention: chlorinated naphthalenes, hexachlorobutadiene and pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters. He wished all participants a successful meeting. 

## II Organizational matters A. Adoption of the agenda

3. The Committee adopted the agenda set out below on the basis of the provisional agenda that had been circulated as document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/1: 1. Opening of the meeting. 2. Organizational matters: (a) Adoption of the agenda; (b) Organization of work. 3. Review of outcomes of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention relevant to the Committee’s work. 4. Operational issues: (a) Rotation of the membership; (b) Workplan for the intersessional period between the Committee’s seventh and eighth meetings. 5. Consideration of the draft risk management evaluation on hexabromocyclododecane. 6. Consideration of chemicals newly proposed for inclusion in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention:UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

2 (a) Chlorinated naphthalenes; (b) Hexachlorobutadiene; (c) Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters.

7. Technical work in relation to chemicals listed in the annexes to the Convention with exemptions: (a) Assessment of alternatives to endosulfan; (b) Assessment of alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications; (c) Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonate and its derivatives; (d) Evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention; (e) Preparatory work for the assessme nt of alternatives to DDT.

8. Other technical work: (a) Intersessional work on short-chained chlorinated paraffins; (b) Intersessional work on toxic interactions; (c) Debromination of brominated flame retardants; (d) Work in collaboration and coordination with other scientific bodies: (i) Work with the Basel Convention; (ii) Work with the Rotterdam Convention; (iii) Implications of the study on climate change and persistent organic pollutants; (e) Effective participation of part ies in the Committee’s work.

9. Other matters. 10. Dates and venue of the Committee’s eighth meeting. 11. Adoption of the report. 12. Closure of the meeting. 

### B. Organization of work

4. The Chair drew attention to the objectives and possible outcomes of the meeting, as described in the scenario note (UNEP/POPS/POP RC.7/INF/1) and tentative schedule (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/2) for the meeting. The Committee agreed to conduct the meeting in accordance with the latter, subject to revision as necessary.

5. The Committee agreed to conduct its work in pl enary session and to establish contact, drafting and “friends of the Chair” groups as necessary. In accordance with the amendment to the Committee’s terms of reference set out in annex I to decision SC-5/11, the Committee met in closed session on Monday, 10 October 2011, at 9 a.m. and subsequently at 1 p.m. to review issues pertaining to conflicts of interest of the members. None of the Committee members indicated that they had any conflicts of interest relating to the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee process as set out in Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention.


### C. Attendance

6. The meeting was attended by the following 29 Committee members: Ms. Norma Sbarbati Nudelman (Argentina), Ms. Tsvetanka Dimcheva (Bulgaria), Mr. Choviran Ken (Cambodia), Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada), Mr. Abderaman Mahamat Abderaman (Chad), Mr. Ricardo Orlando Barra Ríos (Chile), Mr. Jianxin Hu (China), Mr. José Álvaro Rodriguez (Colombia), Ms. Floria Roa Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic), Ms. Fatma Mohamed Ibrahim Abou-Shok (Egypt), Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland), Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France), Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany), Mr. John Pwamang (Ghana), Mr. Pablo Ricardo Rodríguez Rubio (Honduras), Ms. Chhanda Chowdhury (India), Mr. Masaru Kitano (Japan), Mr. Mohammed Khashashneh (Jordan), Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand), Ms. Stella Moje kwu (Nigeria), Ms. Maria Manuela Araújo Pereira (Portugal), Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea), Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Swit zerland), Mr. JarupongUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

3 Boon-Long (Thailand), Mr. Komla Sanda (Togo), Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine), Ms. Fransisca Katagira (United Republic of Tanzania), Mr. Samuel Banda (Zambia).

7. The members from Mauritius and the Syrian Arab Republic were unable to attend.

8. In addition, the meeting was attended by representatives of the following countries as observers: Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Denmark, France, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland , United States of America, Zamb ia. The European Union was also represented as an observer.

9. Representatives of the following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies also attended the meeting as observers: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, World Health Organization.

10. The representative of the Global Environment Facility attended the meeting as an observer.

11. Non-governmental organizations were represented as observers. The names of those organizations are included in the list of participants (UNEP/PO PS/POPRC.7/INF/25).



## III. Review of outcomes of the fi fth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Conve ntion relevant to the Committee’s work

12. Introducing the item, the representative of the Secretariat summarized the information provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/9 on the outcomes of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention relevant to the Committee’s work.

13. The Committee took note of the information.

14. The representative of the Secretariat then summa rized the information provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/18 on the work programme on brominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and pe rfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride adopted by the Conference of the Parties in its decision SC-5/5.

15. The Committee agreed that the work programme w ould be further considered under item 7 (d), “Evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention”. 

## IV. Operational issues A. Rotation of the membership

16. Introducing the sub-item, the representative of the Secretariat summar ized the information provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/10/Rev.1 on the experts nominated as members of the Committee. She noted that, by its decision SC-5/11 and consistent with paragraph 2 of decision SC-1/7, the Conference of the Parties had adopted a list of parties to be invited to nominate Committee members for terms of office commencing on 5 May 2012. Those parties had provided their nominations, which were subject to confirmation by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting, to be held from 6 to 10 May 2013. She also noted that, during the period between the Committee’s sixth and seventh meetings, Ms. Tsvetanka Dimcheva (Bulgaria) had been designated by her Government to replace Mr. Ivan Dombalov.

17. The Committee took note of the information. 

### B. Workplan for the intersessional period between the Committee’s seventh and eighth meetings

18. Introducing the sub-item, the representative of the Secretariat drew a ttention to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/8 on the draft workplan for th e intersessional period between the Committee’s seventh and eighth meetings.

19. The Committee adopted the workplan, which is set out in annex V to the present report.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

4 

## V. Consideration of the draft risk management evaluation on hexabromocyclododecane

20. In considering the item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on the draft risk management evaluation on hexabromocyclodod ecane (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/5) and comments and responses relating to the last draft of the evaluation circulated during the intersessional period (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/7).

21. Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand), chair of th e intersessional working group established to develop the draft risk management evaluation, gave a presentation on it.

22. In the ensuing discussion, several members raised concerns regarding the management of waste containing hexabromocyclododecane, both currently and in the future. Levels of global use and waste were difficult to measure, particularly as the substance was found in both expanded polystyrene and extruded polystyrene foams, which had long service lives and many uses, including in insulation and building, road and railroad construction. The bulky nature of such foams made their disposal problematic, as they could not easily be transpor ted far from their sites of origin. Other items containing hexabromocyclododecane, such as high-i mpact polystyrene and textiles, were much easier to dispose of but accounted for only a minor proportion of hexabromocyclododecane use in many regions. One member raised the possibility of using non-combustion waste management technology, which some countries had already used successfully.

23. Some members drew attention to the social and economic difficulties faced by developing countries in the elimination of hexabromocyclododecane; thus, for example, imports of motor vehicles were growing along with economies, exacerbating hexabromocyclododecane management issues, and compliance with national fire safety regulations required the use of hexabromocyclododecane as a flame retardant. With regard to the latter, one member said that alternatives were not always satisfactory and might be classified as persistent or ganic pollutants in the future. In addition, although alternatives were beginning to appear on the market, it was unlikely that developing countries would be able to introduce them for many years after developed countries had done so, owing to patent and pricing restrictions.

24. A number of members recommended that hexabromocyclododecane should be listed in Annex A to the Convention with specific exemptions.

25. The Committee agreed to establish a contact grou p, chaired by Mr. Dawson, with a mandate to improve and update the risk management evaluation on hexabromocyclododecane.

26. Following the contact group’s deliberations, Mr . Dawson presented a draft decision and a revised draft risk management evaluation for consideration by the Committee. He said that the group had concluded that hexabromocyclododecane should be listed in the annexes to the Convention but had not agreed on where it should be listed or whether it should be listed with exemptions. The difficulty lay in uncertainty regarding the availability, properties and costs of alternative flame retardants, especially for use in expanded and extruded polystyrene. He proposed that more information should be collected to enable the Comm ittee at its eighth meeting to decide what annex the substance should be listed in and to determ ine the need for and scope of any exemptions.

27. The Chair said that the period between the Committee’s seventh and eighth meetings would provide a valuable time in which to gather additional data on chemical alternatives to hexabromocyclododecane and on their production and use, which could be included in an addendum to the risk management evaluation. By proposing its listing in the Convention without specifying an annex at the current meeting the Committee could advance considerably in its consideration of the chemical and would still have sufficient time at its eighth meeting to propose a more specific listing to the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting.

28. The Committee went on to consider the draft decision on hexabromocyclododecane. In response to concerns voiced by several members the Committee requested Mr. Dawson to work with other Committee members to clarif y whether the risk management evaluation and related decision should refer to hexabromocyclododecane or 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10-hexabromocyclododecane or some other chemical identity. In addition, the Committee request ed Mr. Dawson further to refine aspects of the draft decision related to the focus of the inte rsessional work on chemical alternatives to hexabromocyclododecane.

29. Subsequently, revised versions of the draft risk management evaluation and the draft decision were introduced.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

5 30. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-7/1, by which, among other things, it adopted the risk management evaluation for he xabromocyclododecane and decided, in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Convention, to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that it consider listing hexabromocyclododecane in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention. It also agreed to review the additional information that would be made available to it pursuant to paragraph 3 of the decision and to consider at its eighth meeting whether to specify the annex to the Convention and possible exemptions to be considered by the Conference of the Parties in listing hexabromocyclododecane.

31. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. The risk management evaluation can be found in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19/Add.1.



## VI. Consideration of chemicals newly proposed for inclusion in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention A. Chlorinated naphthalenes

32. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had be fore it a note by the Secretariat setting out a proposal submitted by the European Union and its member States parties to the Convention to list chlorinated naphthalenes in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/2), additional information on chlorinated napht halenes (UNEP/POPS/POP RC.7/INF/3) and the Secretariat’s verification of whethe r the proposal contained the information specified in Annex D to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/8).

33. Mr. Peter Korytár (European Union) introduced the proposal.

34. The Committee agreed to establish a contact group, chaired by Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine), to consider the information provided and to determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of Annex D.

35. Subsequently, Ms. Sukhorebra reported that the group had concluded that dichlorinated naphthalenes, trichlorinated naphthalenes, tetrachlorinated naphthalenes, pentachlorinated naphthalenes, hexachlorinated naphthalenes, heptachlorinated naphthalenes and octachlorinated naphthalenes met the screening criteria listed in Annex D to the Convention.

36. The Committee adopted, as orally amended, decision POPRC-7/2, on chlorinated naphthalenes. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report.


### B. Hexachlorobutadiene

37. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had be fore it a note by the Secretariat setting out a proposal submitted by the European Union and its member States parties to the Convention to list hexachlorobutadiene in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/3), additional information on hexachlorobutadiene (U NEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/4) and the Secretariat’s verification of whether the proposal contained the information specified in Annex D to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/8).

38. Mr. Korytár introduced the proposal.

39. In the ensuing discussion, one member said that his country had gathered considerable data from studies on carp that demonstrated that hexachlorobutadiene was highly bioaccumulative.

40. Following the discussion the Committee agreed to establish a contact group, chaired by Ms. Floria Roa Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), to consider the information provided and to determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of Annex D.

41. Subsequently, Ms. Roa Gutiérrez reported that the group had concluded that hexachlorobutadiene met the screening criteria listed in Annex D to the Convention.

42. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-7/3, on hexachlorobutadiene. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. 

### C. Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters

43. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat setting out a proposal submitted by the European Union and its member States parties to the Convention to list pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/4), additional information on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/5 and UNEP/POPS/POP RC.7/INF/5/Add.1), a decision guidance document on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/6) and theUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

6 Secretariat’s verification of whethe r the proposal contained the information specified in Annex D to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/8).

44. Mr. Korytár introduced the proposal.

45. In the ensuing discussion, one member evoked the discussions of endosulfan sulfate at the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Pa rties, at which it had been decided that the sulfate should not be listed in the annexes to the Convention. A similar approach could be taken with regard to pentachloroanisole, a metabolite that was not comm ercially produced. In addition, the difference between the issue of endosulfan and that of pentachlorophenol was that some microcontaminants of the latter substance, including dioxins and furans, were not intentionally produced, and were therefore already provided for in part III (f) of Annex C to the Convention.

46. Another member said that pentachlorophenol had not been used in his country since the late 1980s but had since then become one of the most frequently studied contaminants. Some of the information in the reports produced in his country related to the persistence of pentachlorophenol and could therefore be useful to the Committee.

47. One member said that it would be appropriat e to consider pentachloroanisole and other transformation products as provided for in Annex D to the Convention. It would be useful to determine whether chemicals other than pentachlorophenol were transformed to pentachloroanisole and, if so, to establish their relative contribution to pentachloroanisole in the environment compared to that of pentachlorophenol. Mr. Korytár said that some studies indeed indicated that other contaminants transformed to pentachloroanisole and that that issue would have to be examined further.

48. An observer suggested that it would be useful to have information on the adverse effects of esters of pentachlorophenol, such as pentachloroph enyl laurate. The Chair welcomed that proposal. Mr. Korytár noted that there was some evidence that the pH level of wastewater could affect the hydrolysis of esters of pentachlorophenol. It was also possible that such esters underwent photodegradation.

49. Following the discussion, the Committee agreed to establish a contact group, chaired by Mr. Ricardo Orlando Barra Ríos (Chile), to consider the information provided and to determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of Annex D.

50. Subsequently, Mr. Barra introduced a conferen ce room paper setting out a draft decision on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters.

51. In the ensuing discussion, the Committee agreed that pentachlorophenol alone did not meet the criteria set out in Annex D to the Convention but that its metabolite pentachloroanisole did. There was disagreement, however, as to whether the two chemicals should be jointly considered and moved to the Annex E evaluation stage, since pentachlorophenol could not be verified as the sole source of pentachloroanisole in the environment and there was uncertainty regarding the extent of transformation from pentachlorophenol and other possible precursors to pentachloroanisole and from the latter to pentachlorophenol. A number of members proposed that, in the absence of that information, and until the extent of transformati on of pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole was clarified, information should be collected over the coming year to enable the Committee to take a decision on the matter at its eighth meeting. Othe r members, however, were of the view that such information was already available and that additiona l information could be collected during the Annex E stage, which was the more approp riate stage for such an evaluation and for in-depth examination of the issue.

52. The Committee agreed that a small group would consider the matter further in the light of the discussions.

53. Subsequently, Mr. Barra introduced a conference room paper setting out additional information on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters. He then introduced another conference room paper containing a draft decision on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters. He said that, as the group had been unable to reach consensus, consideration of the chemical should be deferred to the Committee’s eighth meeting to allow time for additional studies to be performed and additional data to be gathered.

54. One member urged interested parties to initiate experiments under conditions relevant to the environment and to collect monitoring data on pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanisole, in particular from pentachlorophenol-contaminated sites, as such data could provide information on what happened in the environment under actual conditions. Another said that the Committee should not overlook existing data that would also facilitate its consideration of the matter.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

7 55. The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters until its eighth meeting and to include the draft deci sion on the substance in annex II to the present report, enclosed in square brackets to indicate a lack of consensus on certain items. It also agreed to establish an intersessional working group, to be chaired by Mr. Barra, and, subsequently, by Ms. Estefânia Gastaldello Moreira (Brazil), with the mandate, among other things, to review studies on the fate and transport of pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanisole and to prepare material for consideration at the Commi ttee’s eighth meeting. It further agreed that it would include in annex III to the present report information on the transformation of pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole and a proposal by Japan to fill information gaps.



## VII. Technical work in relation to chemicals listed in the annexes to the Convention with exemptions

A. Assessment of alternatives to endosulfan

56. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on the assessment of alternatives to endosulfan (UNE P/POPS/POPRC.7/9), a compilation of information related to alternatives to endosulfan (UNE P/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/11/R ev.2), a summary of information on chemical and non-ch emical alternatives to endosulfan from the risk management evaluation on endosulfan and its supporting documents (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/12) and information on alternatives to endosulfan provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (UNE P/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/24).

57. The Chair introduced a conference room paper that he had prepared on possible activities by the Committee to implement a work programme to support the development and deployment of alternatives to endosulfan. In the ensuing discussion, several members said that it was necessary to ensure that alternatives were not themselves pers istent organic pollutants and that they met various social and economic criteria, includi ng that they should not be harmful to insects such as honeybees and other pollinators. Observing that the unwanted endpoints of plant protection products would vary by country they also said that, while the Commi ttee could assess them, countries themselves should choose which chemical al ternatives to endosulfan to use based on their own social and economic needs.

58. In response to several members’ call for coordi nation with FAO, the representative of that agency said that its data on integrated pest ma nagement could be shared with the Committee for the purposes of the assessment. Furthermore, it could conduct a global or regional study on country experiences in integrated pest management as an a lternative to endosulfan if adequate funding were provided.

59. In response to a member’s question, the Chair said that gaps in country data for the assessment could be filled through modelling; if that were done, however, it would be explicitly noted in the assessment report. More generally, data for the asse ssment could be gathered directly from countries or through monitoring programmes.

60. A number of members said that it would not be possible to review all 84 chemical alternatives to endosulfan in the time available to conduct the assessment. Several me mbers therefore proposed focusing on the crop/pest combinations listed with exemptions in decision SC-5/3, on the listing of technical endosulfan and its related isomers, and the crops that accounted for the greatest use of endosulfan.

61. The Committee agreed to establish a group of friends of the Chair, chaired by Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland), to identify possible actions in relation to the assessment of alternatives to endosulfan, including the prio ritization of alternatives.

62. Subsequently, the representative of the Secretar iat introduced a conference room paper setting out a draft decision on assessment of alternatives to endosulfan.

63. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-7/4, on assessment of alternatives to endosulfan. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. 

### B. Assessment of alternatives to p erfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications

64. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on the assessment of alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications, which contained in its annex the draft terms of reference for a technical paper on the issue (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/10), aUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

8 draft format for the collection of information on alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications and a possible outline of a t echnical paper on the identification and assessment of such alternatives (UNEP/ POPS/POPRC.7/INF/22).

65. Introducing the sub-item, the representative of th e Secretariat recalled that by decision SC-5/5 the Conference of the Parties had requested the Committee to develop terms of reference for the technical paper at its seventh meeting and requested the Secretariat to commission a technical paper, resources permitting, based on the terms of reference developed by the Committee, for consideration by the Committee at its eighth meeting. It had also requested the Committee to develop recommendations on the basis of the technical paper for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting.

66. In the ensuing discussion a few members sought clarification on specific items of the terms of reference, the workplan and the format for informati on collection. In response, the Chair said that open applications should be considered to be those that led to direct human or environmental exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid rather than those involving use of the substance in closed systems. An observer also clarified that open applications included firefighting, agricultural applications or use of the substance in textiles, but not its use as an agent in production. The Chair suggested that information collected for the assessment should also be used for updating or revising the guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonate and its derivatives set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13/Add.3.

67. The Committee agreed to establish a group of friends of the Chair, chaired by Mr. Samuel Banda (Zambia), to examine the draft terms of refe rence, format for collection of information on alternatives and outline of the technical paper and prepare revised draf ts for the Committee to consider.

68. Subsequently, Mr. Banda introduced a conference room paper setting out a revised format for the collection of information on alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications and a revised outline of the technical paper on the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfon ic acid in open applications. The Committee approved the format and the revised outlin e for use by the Secretariat.

69. Mr. Banda then introduced a conference room paper setting out a draft decision that included terms of reference for the above-mentioned technical paper and a workplan for the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications.

70. The Committee adopted, as orally amended, decision POPRC-7/5, on assessment of alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. The revised format for the collec tion of information on alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications and a possible outline of a technical paper on the identification and assessment of such alternatives can be found in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/22/Rev.1. 

### C. Guidance on alternatives to perflu orooctane sulfonate and its derivatives

71. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had be fore it a note by the Secretariat on guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonate and its derivatives (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/11) and comments on that guidance (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/IN F/13). The Chair proposed to incorporate the comments on the guidance into the document itself, saying that the Secretariat could do so but would require the Committee’s guidance on such substantiv e issues as how to reflect the comments and whether to reflect all of them.

72. In the ensuing discussion, one member pointed out that the Committ ee needed to retain ownership of the guidance document and could therefore review any proposed changes at the current meeting.

73. The Committee agreed that, in consultation with Mr. Banda and any other interested members, the Secretariat would revise the guidance on alte rnatives to perfluoroo ctane sulfonate and its derivatives for the Committee’s consideration at the current meeting.

74. Subsequently, Mr. Banda introduced the revised guidance. He noted, among other things, that Ecuador had reported that it was using hydramethylnon as an alternative to sulfluoramide to control leaf-cutting ants. Brazil, however, had suggested that that alternative was not effective. He had invited the representatives to engage in bilateral discussi ons and report the outcome to the Secretariat.

75. The Committee agreed that it would consider the possibility of revising the guidance at its eighth meeting, pending the submission of comments on the guidance and parties’ and observers’UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

9 experiences in replacing perfluorooctane sulfonat e and its derivatives with additional alternative products and/or processes, including information about their health and environmental effects.

76. Mr. Banda then introduced a conference room paper setting out a draft decision on the guidance.

77. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-7/6, on guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonate and its derivatives. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. The revised guidance and the updated compilation of comments on that guidance can be found in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19/Add.2 and UNEP/POPS/ POPRC.7/INF/13/Rev.1, respectively. 

### D. Evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention

78. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat on the evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/12). Introducing the sub-item, the representative of the Secretariat recalled that by decision SC-5/8 the Conf erence of the Parties had requested the Secretariat, with advice from relevant experts, to develop a pro cess to enable the Conference at its sixth and every second ordinary meeting thereafter to evaluate parties’ progress towards elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers and the continued need for the specific exemptions related to those chemicals. Accordingly, the Secretariat had prepared a draft process and a draft format for submission of information for consideration by the Committee.

79. In the ensuing discussion, one member requested clarification as to wh at was intended by the phrase “relevant experts” in th e decision and whether the Base l Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal should come into play in respect of waste brominated diphenyl ethe rs. The Chair suggested that brom inated diphenyl ethers in the recycling process would fall within th e purview of the Basel Convention.

80. The Chair, noting that document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/18 set out a draft format to be used by parties to provide information on their experiences in implementing the recommendations relating to brominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride, pointed out that the compiling of information on the two activities was connected but that such work would engender considerable difficulties, given that the two activities had different timelines.

81. In response to a request for clarification, the representative of the Secretariat noted that all parties were invited to submit information using the format set out in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/12 but only those that had registered exemptions were obliged to respond.

82. One member expressed concern that, while the Co nference of the Parties had taken a decision to assess progress in the implementation of the Convention, some countries might be unable to assess the extent to which articles contained brominated diphenyl ethers. In a similar vein, one member observed that some countries had not yet updated their national implementation plans and were therefore unaware of what substances were presen t in their territories and in what quantities. An observer suggested that the reporting process might provide a way of expediting the process of updating national implementation plans. Another observer said that the format for submission of information might include a question designed to determine whether countries had information about the existence of brominated diphenyl ethers in articles or the processes for obtaining such information, the lack of which might signal a need for capac ity-building. The Chair endorsed those comments.

83. In relation to the question of exemptions for the recycling of brominated diphenyl ethers, the Chair said that, although the Committee could collect the information submitted by parties, it might wish to consider whether it was within its mandate to assess the effectiveness of recycling of brominated diphenyl ethers.

84. One member said that expertise of the Comm ittee members was not in an area that would enable the Committee to evaluate recycling methods or approaches that parties might choose. She suggested that the expertise of parties to the Basel Convention could be involved when examining exemptions and recycling. Another member said th at, while recycling was no t within the Committee’s expertise, parties required assistance in implem enting the Convention and that any issue that contributed to that goal could be taken on board by the Committee.

85. One member suggested that it would be useful for the Committee to provide guidance to countries on how to complete the format in doc ument UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/12 , as that would also assist them in preparing their national implementati on plans to deal with the issue more effectively.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

10 Another member agreed that the management of wastes containing persistent organic pollutants fell to the Basel Convention. Supported by another member, he said that de veloping countries should receive financial resources to assist them in the difficult task of identifying those substances in articles. The Chair suggested that partnerships with developed countries could be a means of assisting in that identification process.

86. The Executive Secretary said th at the theme of the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, to be held from 17 to 21 October 2011, was prevention, minimization and recovery of waste. The Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention had, in the past, requested the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention to undertake work on wastes containing persistent organic pollutants, and the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties afforded a good opportunity to encour age cross-engagement on the issue.

87. An observer suggested that the consultants who had originally drafted the technical paper on brominated diphenyl ethers (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/2/Rev.1) could assess the information that would be submitted by the parties. When the questionnaires were distributed, it would be useful to include the short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions that had been in the recommendations set out in the annex to decision POPRC-6/2 to remind parties of the reasons for addressing the problem. The Chair endorsed that idea.

88. The representative of the Global Environmen t Facility (GEF) recalled the guidelines for updating national implementation plans for the identification of new persistent organic pollutants and wastes containing persistent organic pollutants be ing developed by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, saying that GEF had made provision to make grants available to all eligible countries for the updating of their national implementation plans.

89. An observer suggested that the information collected could contribute to case studies on the sound management of articles and wastes containing brominated diphenyl ethers and that such case studies would be useful to parties in implementing the Convention. The Chair endorsed that suggestion.

90. The Committee agreed to establish a group of fr iends of the Chair, chaired by Mr. Mohammed Khashashneh (Jordan), to review the draft format for submission of information and to examine the process of how the information would be collected and analysed. It was also requested to consider whether it was necessary to coordinate with the coll ection of information on parties’ experiences in implementing the recommendations related to brominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride referred to in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/18 and, if it was deemed necessary, to consider ways of doing so.

91. Subsequently, Mr. Khashashneh introduced a conference room paper setting out a draft decision on evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and a work programme on brominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride.

92. The Committee adopted, as orally amended, decisi on POPRC-7/7, on evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and work programme on brominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. 

### E. Preparatory work for the a ssessment of alternatives to DDT

93. In considering the sub-item, the Committee ha d before it a note by the Secretariat on preparatory work for an assessment of alte rnatives to DDT (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/13) and background information on that assessment (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/19). Introducing the sub-item, the representative of the Secretariat recalled that, by decisi on SC-5/6, the Conference of the Parties had concluded that countries that were relying on DDT for disease vector control might need to continue such use until locally appropriate and cost-effective alternatives were available for a sustainable transition away from DDT. By the same decision the Conference had decided to evaluate, at its sixth meeting, the continued need for DDT for disease vector control on the basis of scientific, technical, environmental and economic information, including that provided by the DDT expert group and the Committee; it had also requested the Committee, starting at its eighth meeting, to assess the alternatives to DDT in accordance with the general gu idance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals endorsed by the Committee at its fifth meeting.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

11 94. In response to a request for clarification, the representative of the Secr etariat said that the World Health Organization (WHO) had recommended DDT and 11 other insecticides for disease vector control. The DDT expert group examined only the continued need for DDT while WHO looked at health and environmental risks. The representative of WHO said that human health studies had been conducted by the WHO Pesticide Evaluation Progr amme and that all relevant information was available on the WHO website. The chemicals had not been evaluated for crite ria classifying them as persistent organic pollutants pursuant to the Convention, and many of the substances were pyrethroids and other chemicals that were less persistent.

95. One member informed the Committee of problems in his country with the use of bed nets impregnated with K-othrine (deltamethrin). He said that there had been many reports that the nets were causing dermal irritation in local populations, in particular during rainy seasons and under conditions of high humidity, and called for full laborat ory testing of products before they were placed on the market.

96. The representative of WHO responded that, when nets were dipped in dilute pyrethroids and dried in the open air, mild skin irritation ha d been observed. Currently, however, nets were impregnated at the factory, ensuring that the chemical was retained permanently in the netting. There had been no reports of dermal irritation from nets so treated. Another member said that his country had begun using mosquito nets impregnated with nanoparticles of a pyrethroid, and offered to provide further information. One member noted that alternatives to DDT should not have the characteristics of persistent organic pollutants and, referring to the background information provided, that deltamethrin exhibited all such characteristics.

97. The Chair said that the properti es of the 11 chemical alternatives to DDT would have to be examined in relation to Annex D to the Convention, suggesting that a methodology should be developed for doing so. The representative of WH O offered to provide new data to replace some provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/19.

98. In response to comments by two observers, th e Chair said that problems associated with mosquito resistance to DDT and, possibly, proposed alternatives, were within the mandate of the DDT expert group but not that of the Committee.

99. The Committee agreed that its task was to eval uate the alternatives to DDT to ascertain whether they possessed the characteristics of persiste nt organic pollutants set forth in the Convention. It therefore agreed that the group of friends of the Chair established under item agenda item 7 (a) would develop a process for evaluating the alternativ es to DDT in terms of their possible persistent organic pollutant characteristics.

100. Subsequently, the representative of the Secretar iat introduced a conference room paper setting out a draft decision on assessment of alternatives to DDT.

101. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-7/8, on assessment of alternatives to DDT. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report.



## VIII. Other technical work A. Intersessional work on short-chained chlorinated paraffins

102. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had be fore it a note by the Secretariat summarizing intersessional work on short-chained chlorinated paraffins (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/14) and a compilation of comments on how to interpret the information specified in Annex E to the Convention (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/14).

103. Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada), the drafter of the intersessional working group, introduced the sub-item. He said that discussions on the draft risk profile had been under way since the Committee’s third meeting and that the working group had revised the draft several times to take into account comments from parties and observers, including information relevant to the interpretation of Annex E to the Convention. Information that had emerged as a result of the Committee’s intersessional work on toxic interactions and the impact of climate change on interactions of persistent organic pollutants would be reviewed during the next intersessional period. Consensus had been reached on the data considered but some sections of the draft risk profile remained in square brackets to reflect a lack of agreement.

104. The Chair said that the Comm ittee should discuss how to proceed with the compilation of comments on Annex E and whether to move short-chained chlorinated paraffins forward. It should also consider whether concentrations in biota and emissions were expected to rise, including as aUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

12 possible result of climate change. He said that the questions of how to define “significant adverse effects” and whether global action was warranted we re the most complicated to address and recalled the Committee’s agreement at its sixth meeting that it would consider the revised draft risk profile at its eighth meeting.

105. The Committee agreed that Mr. Chénier would develop a proposal on next steps for short-chained chlorinated paraffins.

106. Subsequently, Mr. Chénier introduced a conference room paper setting out a proposal on next steps for short-chained chlorinated paraffins, saying that the risk profile should include scenarios relating to interactions between short-chained and medium-chained chlorinated paraffins through exposure in remote areas. Additional information would also be sought to clarify the bioconcentration, bioaccumulation and biomagnification factors to confirm the extent to which carbon 13 compounds might meet Annex E criteria in order to allay the concerns expressed by one member about whether short-chained chlorinated paraffins should include carbon 13. That information would be submitted to the Committee for consideration at its eighth meeting.

107. In addition, according to the proposal the Committee would agree to establish an ad hoc working group to revise the relevant parts of the draft risk profile to incorporate information on toxicological interactions of chlorinated paraffins, for consideration at its eighth meeting, and to compile issues and principles to be applied in the interpretation of the Annex E criteria, also for consideration at its eighth meeting.

108. The Committee approved the proposal, which is set out in annex IV to the present report.


### B. Intersessional work on toxic interactions

109. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had be fore it a note by the Secretariat providing a summary of intersessional work on toxic interactions (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/15); the results of two case studies, on toxicological interactions of chlorinated paraffins (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/15) and ecotoxicological issues related to high-volume persistent organic pollutants in environmental matrices on a long-range scale (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/16); and a discussion paper on toxic interactions (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/17).

110. Introducing the sub-item, Mr. Iv an Holoubek (Czech Republic), co -chair of the intersessional working group on toxic interactions, gave a presentation on the two case studies. Mr. Marco Vighi, who had co-led the study on ecotoxicological issues related to high-volume persistent organic pollutants in environmental matrices on a long-range scale, highlighted several strengths and weaknesses of the study, including the vast quantities of reliable data available on the composition of mixtures and the use of the concentration addition model to predict the ecotoxicological effect of a complex mixture, on the one hand, and the lack of data on toxic effects, on the other.

111. In the ensuing discussion, the Committee agreed th at the two studies clearly showed that it was necessary to take into account interactive effects of persistent organic pollutants when applying the precautionary approach described in the Convention. One member suggested that in addition to considering toxic interactions within a complex mi xture it was important, in the case of short-chained chlorinated paraffins, to consider interactions with other persistent organic pollutants.

112. Several members expressed support for concentration addition as the best means of predicting the ecotoxicological effect of a co mplex mixture. One suggested that the results of the studies should inform the risk profile on short-chained chlorinated paraffins being developed under agenda item 8 (a).

113. The Committee agreed to establish a group of friends of the Chair, chaired by Mr. Holoubek, to prepare guidance on the evaluation of exposure to multiple chemicals and toxicological interactions of candidate persistent organic pollutants. The Committee also agreed that elements of the study on toxicological interactions of chlorinated paraffins shou ld be selected for inclusion in the risk profile on short-chained chlorinated paraffins.

114. Subsequently, Mr. Holoubek introduced a conf erence room paper setting out a draft decision and a workplan for the development of a draft approach to consideration of toxicological interactions when evaluating proposed chemicals.

115. The Committee agreed that the time frame proposed in the workplan for the distribution of the final draft approach was ambitious and, while aiming for that target, a final deadline of 15 April 2012 would be acceptable.

116. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-7/9, on toxic interactions. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

13 

### C. Debromination of brominated flame retardants

117. In considering the sub-item, the Committee ha d before it a note by the Secretariat on debromination of brominated flame retardants (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/16) and a discussion paper on the subject (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/18), which had been prepared in response to a request by the Chair following the review of an initial information document at the Committee’s fourth meeting (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.4/INF/12). Mr. Ian Rae, an invited expert, introduced document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/18, providing an update on reductive debromination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

118. In the ensuing discussion, some members said that newly available data on the debromination of decabromodiphenyl ethers and the use of alternatives to brominated flame retardants raised concerns about transformation products. They took note of the formation of polybromodibenzodioxins and polybromodibenzofurans during the incineration of wastes containing polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

119. The Committee agreed that, while it was premature for it to take further action regarding the most highly brominated congeners present in commercial octabromodiphenyl ether, parties could use the discussion paper in analysing whether to nominate new persistent organic pollutants for listing in the annexes to the Convention. It further agreed that the discussion paper should be made available to parties and observers with an indication of its poten tial usefulness in taking further regulatory action on higher brominated compounds and polybromodibenzodioxins and polybromodibenzofurans. A proposal to that effect would be drafted by Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) together with the Secretariat.

120. Subsequently, Mr. Bintein introduced a conference room paper on debromination of brominated flame retardants.

121. The Committee adopted decision POPRC-7/10, on debromination of brominated flame retardants. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report.


### D. Work in collaboration and coordina tion with other scientific bodies

1. Work with the Basel Convention

122. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretariat setting out information on work in collaboration and coordination with other scientific bodies (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/17). Introducing the sub-item, the representative of the Secretariat recalled that the conferences of the parties to the Rott erdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pes ticides in International Trade and the Stockholm Convention had adopted substantially identical decisions on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions (decisions SC-5/27 and RC-5/12, respectively). The Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention was expected to adopt a substantially identical decision at its tenth meeting. In addition, by paragraph 2 of decision SC-5/9 on measures to reduce or eliminate releases from wast es, the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention had invited the appropriate bodies of the Basel Convention to perform a number of tasks with regard to the chemicals listed in the annexes to the Stockholm Convention by decisions SC-4/10-SC-4/18 and SC-5/3. By paragraph 3 of the same decision, the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention had been invited to consider the involvement of experts working under the Stockholm Convention, including members and observers of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, in the work referred to in paragraph 2 of that decision.

123. The representative of the Secretariat of the Ba sel Convention gave a presentation on the work of the Open-ended Working Group of that Convention and how the Committee could participate in it, noting that decisions would be taken on forthcoming work at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. He said that a small intersessional working group on technical guidelines on persistent organic pollutant wastes had already been formed and that it would welcome the participation of experts from the Committee, and he outlined the various forms that such participation take.

124. In the ensuing discussion one member, pointing out the value of working through electronic means, requested clarification of how the sm all intersessional working group operated. The representative of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention said that countries volunteered to serve as chair and undertake most of the work and that the process was facilitated by the Secretariat.

125. Mr. Arndt and Ms. Roa Gutiérrez indicated their willingness to participate in the work of the small intersessional working group on a provisional basis to collect experience as participants. Ms. Fatma Abou-Shok (Egypt) also expressed interest but said that she would participate by working through the Basel Convention focal point for her country.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

14 2. Work with the Rotterdam Convention

126. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had be fore it a note by the Secretariat on work in collaboration and coordination with other scientif ic bodies (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/17) and the outline of a paper on possible cooperation between the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee and the Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention prepar ed by the chairs of the two committees (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/21).

127. The Chair underscored the need for greater synergies between the two committees, particularly in view of the commonalities of the committees’ activities and expertise. He invited the Committee to submit written feedback on the draft outline of a paper on possible cooperation between the two committees presented in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/21, on the basis of which a revised draft would be transmitted to the secretariats of both committees. 3. Implications of the study on climate change and persistent organic pollutants

128. In considering the sub-item, the Committee ha d before it a note by the Secretariat on the implications of the study on climate change and persistent organic pollutants mandated by decision SC-4/31 (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/7) and a discussion paper commissioned by the Secretariat to facilitate the Committee’s consideration of th e matter (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/20/Rev.1).

129. In the ensuing discussion, several members welcomed the study but cautioned that any measures taken by the Committee in respect of climate change should fall strictly within its mandate. Several members said that available studies on the impact of climate change on persistent organic pollutants should be taken into account in screening candidate chemicals pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention and applying the criteria of Annex D, and that such studies might also bear on the review of the criteria set out in Annexes E and F.

130. The Chair said that it would be helpful to examine the question of remobilization in greater depth with regard to those chemicals already su bject to the Convention. Any increase in such remobilization should be tracked under the monitoring programmes established for those chemicals and reported to the Conference of the Parties so that it could consider that information during its evaluation of the continued need for specific exemptions and acceptable purposes. One member questioned whether the Committee should take up the issue of remobilization, suggesting that it should be taken into account in the global monitoring plan for the effectiveness evaluation.

131. One member expressed concern that consideration of the impact of climate change with regard to the application of the four criteria set out in Annex D to the Convention was too large a task for the Committee, as it exceeded cu rrent knowledge on the su bject. It might, however, be useful to collect information on existing persistent organic pollutants, since extensive monitoring data collected over many years were available, with a view to assessing the impact of climate change on those pollutants, thus building up scientific data ra ther than relying on assumptions.

132. The Chair, responding to a question as to whether any recommendations made by the Committee would apply specifically to persistent or ganic pollutants in those countries particularly affected by, or vulnerable to, cl imate change, said that such recommendations might relate, for example, to the adverse effects of persistent organic pollutants for which exemptions had been registered, provided that the Committee had established that future releases of those pollutants would indeed lead to such effects. He further commented that the Committee could prepare general guidance on how to consider interactions between climate change and persistent organic pollutants under the Convention but had no role in the climate change discussion per se; evaluation of the extent and impact of climate change on specific countries fell w ithin the mandate of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

133. Several members, citing examples, said that it was important to bear in mind the potentially broad range of possible effects of climate change on persistent organic pollutants and the considerable regional variation in factors influencing such effects. Another said that such regional variation necessitated consideration of climate change in the development of national implementation plans.

134. The Committee agreed to establish a contact grou p, co-chaired by Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland) and Mr. Hu Jianxin (China), to consider the study on climate change and persistent organic pollutants – including the uncertainties highlighted therein – and the issues and questions set out in section 3 of document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/20/Rev.1 in or der to determine whether there was sufficient agreement concerning the implicati ons of climate change with regard to the criteria set out in the annexes to the Convention to warrant the development of guidance outlining the issues raised. It was further agreed that the impact of climate change would also be addressed in the course of the Committee’s intersessional work.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

15 135. Subsequently, Mr. Seppälä introduced a conference room paper in which it was proposed, among other things, to establish an ad hoc working group to develop guidance on how to consider the possible impact of climate change and persistent organic pollutants on the Committee’s work.

136. The Committee agreed to establish a group of frie nds of the Chair, co-c haired by Mr. Seppälä and Mr. Hu, to draft an outline of guidance that might also serve as terms of reference.

137. Subsequently, Mr. Seppälä introduced a conference room paper setting out a draft decision on climate change and persistent organic pollutants.

138. The Committee adopted, as orally amended, decision POPRC-7/11, on climate change and persistent organic pollutants. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report. 

### E. Effective participation of parties in the Committee’s work

139. In considering the sub-item, the Committee had be fore it a note by the Secretariat summarizing activities undertaken to facilitate effectiv e participation in the Committee’s work (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/6).

140. Introducing the sub-item, the representative of th e Secretariat said that, in the light of the success of the web-based seminars referred to in th e note, the Secretariat was planning further such seminars and would welcome advice or suggestions on their content and other activities that might help members or countries to participate in the review of chemicals considered for listing in the annexes to the Convention. It was also seeking ways to enable a larger number of participants to take part in web-based seminars, but internet connectiv ity in some countries continued to pose problems.

141. One member, welcoming the Secretariat’s work, sa id that web-based seminars on the issues currently under consideration would help countries to share their experiences and ideas. Their regular organization before each Committee meeting as forums for the discussion of the issues to be considered by the Committee, and the presentation of experiences and problems specific to individual regions, would also make participation in the Committee’s work more effective.

142. Another member pointed out that, while such seminars were useful, it was important to bear in mind the cost of participation and other possible li mitations for some countries, particularly where limited internet connectivity left the telephone as the only means of participating remotely. A third member noted that time zone differen ces also hampered participation.

143. One member underscored the importance of rais ing awareness of the Committee’s work and available opportunities for participation, in additio n to awareness of the emergence of new chemicals and risks and other developments. Moreover, great er participation would enable Committee members to evaluate chemicals better. It was important that the information produced by the Committee should be made widely known and that developing countries should know how to make the best possible use of it.

144. The Committee requested Ms. Norma Ethel Sbarba ti-Nudelman (Argentina) to work with the Secretariat to develop a draft deci sion on effective participation, taking into account the Committee’s deliberations.

145. Subsequently, the representative of the Secr etariat introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on effective par ticipation in the Committee’s work. Following the Committee’s discussion of the draf t decision, the Committee agreed to convene a group of friends of the Chair, chaired by Ms. Sbarbati-Nudelman, to incorporate into that document comments made regarding the need to facilitate greater participa tion by developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the Committee’s work, an d to enhance those countries’ ability to monitor and manage persistent organic pollutants through the building of capacity for data generation, collection, sharing and analysis.

146. Subsequently, the representative of GEF responded to a question by the Chair as to whether GEF would support parties in gathering information on chemicals that had been proposed for listing in the annexes to the Convention. He said that, while it had no mandate to support assessment or analysis of candidate chemicals, GEF had made provision to support countries in updating their national implementation plans. The grants made available to countries for that purpose under the fifth replenishment rules were limited to the nine persistent organic pollutants listed in the annexes to the Convention by the Conference of the Parties at its fourth meeting and did not include endosulfan (which had been listed at the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties) . Countries receiving the grants could, however, also assess endosulfan in a cost-effective way, given that it would be included when the national implementation plans were reviewed . In that respect, countries were free to include an assessment or analysis of candidate chemicals w ithin the funds provided. He noted that there wereUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

16 several projects in all regions under the global monitoring plan, which was also intended to include the analysis and monitoring of persistent organic pollutants.

147. Ms. Sbarbati-Nudelman reported back to the Committee on the revised version of the draft decision, which reflected the concer ns raised by members previously.

148. The Committee adopted, as orally amended, deci sion POPRC-7/12, on effective participation of parties in the Committee’s work. The decision is set out in annex I to the present report.



## IX. Other matters

149. No other matters were discussed. 

## X. Dates and venue of the Committee’s eighth meeting

150. The Committee agreed to hold its eighth meeting in Geneva from 15 to 19 October 2012. A meeting of the intersessional working groups would be held on Sunday, 14 October 2012, in English only. 

## XI. Adoption of the report

151. The Committee adopted the present report on the basis of the draft report contained in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/L.1 and Add.1, as orally amended during adoption, and on the understanding that the Vice-Chair, serving as rapporteur and working in consultation with the Secretariat, would be entrusted with its finalization. 

## XII. Closure of the meeting

152. Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the meeting was declared closed at 1.10 p.m. on Friday, 14 October 2011.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

17 

## Annex I

Decisions adopted by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee at its seventh meeting

POPRC-7/1: Hexabromocyclododecane

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having concluded in decision POPRC-5/6 that hexabromocyclododecane fulfils the criteria in Annex D to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Having evaluated the risk profile for hexabromocyclododecane adopted by the Committee at its sixth meeting, 1
Having concluded that hexabromocyclododecane is lik ely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant ad verse human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted, Having completed the risk management evaluatio n for hexabromocyclododecane in accordance with paragraph 7 (a) of Artic le 8 of the Stoc kholm Convention,

1. Adopts the risk management evaluation for hexabromocyclododecane ; 2

2. Decides , in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Convention, to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that it consider listing hexabromocyclododecane in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention;

3. Invites the ad hoc working group on hexabromocyclododecane that prepared the risk management evaluation to collect further information on: (a) Chemical alternatives to hexabromocyclodod ecane, especially in expanded polystyrene or extruded polystyrene foam app lications, in terms of their availa bility, cost, efficacy , efficiency and health and environmental impact, especially with regard to their persistent organic pollutant properties; (b) Production and use of hexabromocyclododecane, especially for expanded polystyrene or extruded polystyren e foam applications;

4. Agrees to review the additional information made available to it and to consider at its eighth meeting whether to specify the annex to the Convention and possible exemptions to be considered by the Conference of the Par ties in listing hexabromocyclododecane.

POPRC-7/2: Chlorinated naphthalenes

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having examined the proposal by the European Union an d its member States parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to list chlorinated naphthalenes in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention and having applied th e screening criteria specified in Annex D to the Convention,
Noting that the term “chlorinated naphthalenes” encompasses as many as 75 chlorinated naphthalenes containing from one to eight chlorine atoms that are commercially produced as mixtures of several congeners, 3

1. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, that it is satisfied that the screening criteria have been fulf illed for dichlorinated naphthalenes, trichlorinated naphthalenes, tetrachlorinated naphthalenes, pentachlorinated naphthalenes, hexachlorinated naphthalenes, heptachlorinated na phthalenes and octachlorinated na phthalenes, as set out in the evaluation contained in the annex to the present decision;

1 UNEP/POPS/POP RC.6/13/Add.2. 2 UNEP/POPS/POP RC.7/19/Add.1. 3 Such as Halowax, Nibren Waxes, Seekay Waxes and Cerifal Materials.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

18 2. Also decides, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Convention and paragraph 29 of decision SC-1/7, to establish an ad hoc working group to review the proposal further and to prepare a draf t risk profile in accordance with Annex E to the Convention;

3. Invites, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat the information specified in Annex E before 9 January 2012.


### Annex to decision POPRC-7/2

Evaluation of chlorinated naphthale nes against the criteria of Annex D

A. Background
1. The primary source of information for th e preparation of the present evaluation was the proposal submitted by the European Union and its member States parties to the Convention, contained in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/2. Supporting information was provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/3. 2. Additional sources of scientific information included critical reviews prepared by recognized authorities, in particular an ecological screening assessment report on chlorinated naphthalenes (Ref. 3).


### B. Evaluation
3. The proposal was evaluated in the light of the requirements of Annex D regarding the identification of the chemical (p aragraph 1 (a)) and the screening criteria (paragraphs 1 (b)–(e)): (a) Chemical identity : (i) Adequate information was provided in the proposal and supporting documents. The proposal relates to chlorinated naphthalenes containing from one to eight chlorine atoms; (ii) The chemical structures for th e compounds were pr ovided. Commercial chlorinated naphthalenes are a mixture of several congeners (mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes); The chemical identity of the commercial mixture and the individual congeners of chlorinated naphthalenes is adequately established; (b) Persistence : (i) The half-life values of monochlorinated and dichlorinated naphthalenes are below the Annex D criteria; (ii) Consideration has been given to the weight of evidence, including the high predicted Arctic contamination potential of di-, tri-, tetra- and pentachlorinatednaphthalenes, the predicted persistence of di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, heptaand octachlorinated naphthalenes in water, the empirical evidence for persistence of tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, and heptachlorinated naphthalenes in sediments and soils, the detection of tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes in air and biota in the Arctic, Antarctic and in other regions that lack significant local sources of chlorinated naphthalenes (Ref. 3); There is sufficient evidence that di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes meet the criterion on persistence; (c) Bioaccumulation : (i) The log Kow value for chlorinated naphthalenes ranged from 3.9 to 8.3. The log Kow values for mono- and dichlorinated naphthalenes are below 5. Experimental bioconcentration factors for di- tri-, tetra- and pentachlorinated naphthalenes are above 5,000 and below 5,000 for monochlorinated naphthalenes; (ii) and (iii) There is empirical evidence of the biomagnification of chlorinated naphthalenes throughout the Arctic marine food chain, i.e., increasing total chlorinated naphthalene concentration as trophic level increases, the high dietary uptake efficiencies of hexa-, he pta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes inUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

19 northern pike, the very slow elimination of hexachlorinated naphthalenes from the bodies of rats and humans (Ref. 3). In addition, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and octachlorinated naphthalenes have been detected in biota in the Arctic, Antarctic and other regions that lack significant local sources of chlorinated naphthalenes (Ref. 1; Ref. 3); There is sufficient evidence that di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes meet the crite rion on bioaccumulation; (d) Potential for long-range environmental transport : (i) and (ii) Tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes have been detected in air and biota in the Ar ctic, Antarctic and in other regions that lack significant local sources of chlorinated naphthalenes (Ref. 1; Ref. 3; Ref. 4; Ref. 5; Ref. 6, Ref. 7, Ref. 11); (iii) The vapour pressure of chlorinated naphthalenes at 25° C ranges from 1.3 x 10 -4 Pa (octachlorinated naphthalenes) to 2.1 Pa (monochlorinated naphthalenes). The estimated half-life in air for monochlorinated naphthalenes is 1 day and for di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes, it ranged from 3.62 to 437 days (Ref. 3). There is sufficient evidence that di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes meet the criterion on potential for long-range environmental transport; (e) Adverse effects : (i) While the exposure of humans to chlorinated naphthalenes is associated with chloracne and lethality, it cannot be rule d out that these are caused by other contaminants such as dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls; (ii) Tests with mono- and dichlorinated naphthalenes resulted in L(E)C 50 values of 0.69-2.4 mg/L for fish and 0.37-2.82 mg/L for crustacea ns. The available empirical and modeled aquatic toxicity data for chlorinated naphthalenes indicate that di-, tri-, tetra- and pentachlorinated naphthalenes may be toxic to aquatic organisms at relatively low concentrations: less than 1 mg/L for acute exposures, and less than 0.1 mg/L for chronic exposures (Ref. 3). Hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes were found to cause harmful effects to mammals (particularly cattle) at relatively low doses of 2.4 mg/kg body weight per day and less (Ref. 3). Chlorinated naphthalenes have dioxin-like activity (Ref. 2; Ref. 13; Ref. 14). The toxic equivalents (TEQs) estimated for polychlorinated naphthal enes in sediments are greater than those estimated for polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated dibenzo- p -dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (Ref. 9 and Ref. 10). The toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) are congener specific and range from 2 x 10 -8 (dichlorinated naphthalenes) to 4 x 10 -3 (hexachlorinated naphthalenes) and 3 x 10 -3 (heptachlorinated naphthalenes). There is sufficient evidence that mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes meet the criterion on adverse effects.


### C. Conclusion
4. The Committee concluded that polychlorinated naphthalenes (di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- and octachlorinated naphthalenes) met the screening criteria specified in Annex D.

References

1. Bidleman TF et al. Polychlorinated naphthalenes in polar environments — A review. Science of the Total Environment. 2010; 408:2919-2935.

2. Blankenship A, et al. Relative potencies of individual polychlorinated naphthalenes and Halowax mixtures to induce Ah receptor-mediated responses. Environmental Science and Technology 2000; 34: 3153-3158.

3. Environment Canada 2011. Ecological screening assessment report on chlorinated naphthalene prepared by Environment Canada. June 2011 http://www.ec.gc.ca/ ese-ees/835522FE-AE6C-405A-A729-7BC4B7C794BF/CNs_SAR_En.pdf

4. Harner T and Bidleman TF. Octanol-air partition coefficient for describing particle/gaspartitioning of aromatic compou nds in urban air. Environmental Science and Technology 1998; 32: 1494 -1502.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

20 5. Helm PA. The Influence of Sources, Source Regions and Fate and Transport Processes on the Occurrence of Polychlorinated Naphthalenes and Coplanar Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Urban and Arctic Environments. Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry. Ph.D. Univer sity of Toronto, Toronto, 2002.

6. Helm PA and Bidleman TF. Current combustion-related sources contribute to polychlorinated naphthalene and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyl levels and profiles in air in Toronto, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003; 37: 1075-1082.

7. Helm PA et al. Seasonal and spatial variations of polychlorinated naphthalenes and planar polychlorinated biphenyls in arctic air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004; 38: 5514-5521.

8. Herbert BMJ et al. Polychlorinated naphthalenes in air and snow in the Norwegian Arctic: a local source or an Eastern Ar ctic phenomenon? Science of The Total Environment 2005; 342: 145-160.

9. Kannan K et al. Isomer-specific analysis and toxic evaluation of polychlorinated naphthalenes in soil, sediment and biota coll ected near the site of a former chloralkali plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998; 32: 2507-2514.

10. Kannan K et al. Polychlorinated naphthalenes, biphenyls, dibenzo-p-dioxins, and dibenzofurans as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and alkylphenols in sediment from the Detroit and Rouge Rivers, Michigan, USA. Environ.Toxicol. Chem. 2001; 20: 1878-1889.

11. Lee SC et al. Polychlorinated naphthalenes in the global atmospheric passive sampling (GAPS) study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007; 41: 2680-2687.

12. National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE), Chemical Risk Information Platform (CHRIP). Bio-accumulation study of α -chloronaphtalene, supported by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). http://www.safe.nite.g o.jp/english/index.html (NITE CHRIP, accessed on 10th Oct, 2011).

13. Olivero-Verbel J et al. Disc riminant analysis for activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor by polychlorinated naphthalenes. J. Mol. Struct.-Th eochem. 2004; 678: 157-161.

14. Villeneuve DL et al. Relative potencies of individual polychlorinated naphthalenes to induce dioxin-like responses in fish and mamalian in vitro bioassays. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2000; 39: 273-281.

POPRC-7/3: Hexachlorobutadiene

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having examined the proposal by the European Union and its member States parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to list hexachlorobutadiene (CAS No: 87-68-3) in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention and having applied the screening criteria specified in Annex D to the Convention,

1. Decides, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, that it is satisfied that the screening criteria have been fulfilled for hexachlorobutadiene, as set out in the evaluation contained in the annex to the present decision;

2. Also decides, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Convention and paragraph 29 of the annex to decision SC-1/7, to establish an ad hoc working group to review the proposal further and to prepare a draft risk prof ile in accordance with Annex E to the Convention;

3. Invites, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat the information specified in Annex E before 9 January 2012.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

21 Annex to decision POPRC-7/3 Evaluation of hexachlorobutadiene against the criteria of Annex D



### A. Background 1. The primary source of information for the preparation of the present evaluation was the proposal submitted by the European Union and its member States parties to the Convention contained in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/3. Supporting information was provided in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/4.

2 Additional sources of scientific information included a national database on bioaccumulation data and peer-reviewed scientific papers.


### B. Evaluation 3. The proposal was evaluated in the light of the requirements of Annex D regarding the identification of the chemical (p aragraph 1 (a)) and the screening criteria (paragraphs 1 (b)–(e)): (a) Chemical identity: (i) Adequate information was provided in the proposal and supporting documents; (ii) The chemical structure was provided; The chemical identity of hexachlorobutadiene is clearly established;
(b) Persistence: (i) Estimated half-lives in natural waters range from 4 to 52 weeks (greater than two months) and estimated half lives in soil range from 4 to 26 weeks (up to six months); (ii) Model calculations yield the conclusion that hexachlorobutadiene does not biodegrade quickly. It has been reported in polar bears in Svalbard (Norway) and in invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals in Greenland.

There is sufficient evidence that hexa chlorobutadiene meet s the criterion on persistence;
(c) Bioaccumulation: (i) Evidence from Oncorhynchus mykiss indicates a bioconcentration factor greater than 5,000 and the log Kow is close to 5 (in the range of 4.78 to 4.9). Evidence from Cyprinus carpio indicates that bioconcentration factor is in the range of 6,608 to 7,555 (Ref.1); (ii) and (iii) Hexachlorobutadiene has been detected in various Arctic biota in Greenland and in plasma and fat of polar bears in the Arctic Svalbard Islands (see (b) (ii) above).

There is sufficient evidence that hexa chlorobutadiene meet s the criterion on bioaccumulation; (d) Potential for long-range environmental transport: (i) and (ii) Hexachlorobutadiene has been detected in different Arctic biota in Greenland and in plasma and fat of polar bears in the Arctic Svalbard Islands (see (b) (ii) above); (iii) The estimated half-life in air of hexachlorobutadiene is far greater than two days (i.e., from 60 days to 3 years). Model estimates are provided for a transport distance of almost 8,800 km;

There is sufficient evidence that hexachlo robutadiene meets the criterion relating to potential for long-range environmental transport;UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

22 (e) Adverse effects: (i) Not available; (ii) For mammals, the no observed adve rse effect level (NOAEL) in a two-year oral study with rats and a 90-day oral study with mice is 0.2 mg/kg-bw/d (renal toxicity). For aquatic species, acute LC 50 values vary from 0.0032 mg/L to 4.5 mg/L. A no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 6.5 μg/L was established in an early life stage (ELS) study. Genotoxicity was examined in a Salmonella typhimurium mutagenicity assay (Ames test) and in an in vitro chromosome aberration test. In this study, induced chromosome aberrations were demonstrated (Ref. 2) . Swain et al. documented kidney injury specific to the proximal tubule of the kidney. Injury to the nephron was characterized at 24 h following a single dose of hexachlorobutadiene, using a range of quantitative urinary measurements, renal histopathology and gene expression (Ref. 3).

There is sufficient evidence that hexachlo robutadiene meets the criterion relating to adverse effects.

C. Conclusion 4. The Committee concluded that hexachlorobutadiene met the screening criteria specified in Annex D.

References 1. National Institute of Technology and Eval uation (NITE) (2009). Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Database of Existing Chemical Substances. http://safe.nite.go. jp/english/kizon/kizon_start_hazk izon.html (accessed on 21 August 2009).

2. Beat J. Brüschweilera et al., (2010). Mutation Research 699, 47-54. In vitro genotoxicity of polychlorinated butadienes (Cl4–Cl6).

3. Aubrey Swain et al., (2011). Journal of Applied Toxicology 2011(wileyonlinelibrary.com, DOI 10.1002/jat.1624). Urinary biomarkers in hexachloro1:3-butadiene-induced acute kidney injury in the female Hanover Wistar rat; correlation of α -glutathione S-transferase, albumin and kidney injury molecule-1 with histopathology and gene expression.

POPRC-7/4: Assessment of alternatives to endosulfan

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Recalling decision SC-5/3, by which the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants amende d Annex A to the Convention to list technical endosulfan and its related isomers therein, Recalling also decision SC-5/4, by which the Conference of the Parties decided to undertake the work programme to support the development and deployment of alternatives to endosulfan set out in the annex to that decision,
Noting that the following work ha s been undertaken in accordan ce with the work programme: (a) Parties and observers have submitted information on chemical and non-chemical alternatives to endosulfan for the uses identified as specific exemptions in Annex A to the Convention; (b) The Secretariat has gathered and compiled the submitted information, made it available on the website of the Convention and summarized it, 4
Having reviewed the information referred to in the preceding paragraph, Having identified potential gaps in that information,

4 UNEP/POPS/POPRC. 7/INF/11/Rev.2.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

23 1. Decides to establish an ad hoc working group to undertake the activities requested in paragraph 3 of the work programme set out in the annex to decision SC-5/4 and agrees to work in accordance with the workplan set out in annex I to th e present decision and the terms of reference set out in annexes II and III to the present decision;

2. Requests the Secretariat to collect from parties and observers the information to facilitate intersessional work outlined in annexes II and III to the present decision;

3. Requests the Secretariat to provide guidance to strengthen the capacity of countries to implement alternatives;

4. Invites the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to provide and/or undertake studies, as appropriate, on integrated pe st management solutions to replace existing uses of endosulfan, including success stories;

5. Requests the Secretariat to facilitate access to information on alternatives to endosulfan;

6. Invites Governments, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations to provide technical and financial resources to support the Committee in employing a consultant to carry out the activities requested in paragraph 3 of the work programme set out in the annex to decision SC-5/4.



### Annex I to decision POPRC-7/4

Workplan for the assessment of alternatives to endosulfan

Activity Person or persons responsible Timing

Identify the chemical and non-chemical alternatives relevant to cr op-pest complexes in partVI of Annex A to the Convention (decision SC5/3) from the information provided in part A of annex I to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/ 11/Rev.2 and other information provided by parties and observers. Secretariat 30 October 2011

Identify gaps in the information available on alternatives to endosulfan. Working group members 30 November 2011

Collect additional information on alternatives to endosulfan from parties and observers and make it available to the working group. Secretariat 31 January 2012

Develop a methodology for the assessment of persistent organi c pollutant characteristics and other hazard indicators; develop a methodology for the evaluation of non-ch emical alte rnatives. Working group members 30 October 2011– 31 January 2012

Prepare a draft report that includes: 1) Review of the information on alternatives to endosulfan provided to the Committee; 2) Prioritization of chemical alternatives for the most important crop-pest complexes against the persistent organic pollutant screening criteria; 3) Assessment of the persistent organic pollutant characteristics and other hazard indicators of the chemical alternatives prioritized; 4) Evaluation of the suitability of information provided on non-chemical alternatives to endosulfan. Chair/drafter 1 February 2012– 28 May 2012UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

24 Activity Person or persons responsible Timing

Send the draft report to the intersessional working group members and make it available for public
comments. Secretariat 1 June 2012

Provide comments on the draft report. Working group members 22 June 2012

Provide the revised draft report to Secretariat. Chair/drafter 6 July 2012

Distribute the revised draft repor t. Secretariat 3 September 2012

Review and finalize the report for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting Committee Eighth meeting of the Committee: 15–19 October 2012



### Annex II to decision POPRC-7/4

Terms of reference for the intersessional wo rk related to chemical alternatives to endosulfan

1. Identify chemical alternatives relevant to the crop-pest complexes in part VI of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention (decision SC-5/3) from the information provided in part A of annex I to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/11/Rev.2 and other information provided by parties and observers.

2. Identify information gaps relating to alterna tives to the crop-pest complexes identified pursuant to the preceding paragraph.

3. Request the Secretariat to collect information related to the gaps identified pursuant to the preceding paragraph from parties and observers.

4. Develop a methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics and other hazard indicators.

5. Prioritize chemical alternativ es according to the most important crop-pest complexes, including those using the highest volumes of endosulfan.

6. Prioritize the chemical alternativ es relevant to the most important crop-pest complexes against the persistent organic pollutant screening criteria.

7. Assess the persistent organic pollutant char acteristics and other hazard indicators of the chemical alterna tives prioritized.

8. Provide a report for the co nsideration of the Committ ee at its eighth meeting.



### Annex III to decision POPRC-7/4

Terms of reference for the intersession al work related to non-chemical alternatives to endosulfan

1. Identify the non-chemical alternatives relevant to crop-pest complexes in part VI of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention (decision SC-5/3) from the information provided in part B of Annex I to document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/11/Rev.2 and other information provided by parties and observers.

2. Identify information gaps relating to alterna tives to the crop-pest complexes identified pursuant to paragraph 1 above.

3. Request the Secretariat to collect information re lated to the gaps identified purusant to the preceding paragraph from parties and observers.

4. Prioritize non-chemical alternatives according to the most important crop-pest complexes, including those using the highest volumes of endosulfan.

5. Evaluate the suitability of information provided on non-chemical alternatives for endosulfan.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

25 6. Provide a report for the co nsideration of the Committ ee at its eighth meeting.

POPRC-7/5: Assessment of alternatives to perflu orooctane sulfonic acid in open applications

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Taking note of decision SC-5/5, by which the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants establis hed a work programme for the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications,

1. Requests the Secretariat, subject to the avai lability of resources, to commission a technical paper on the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications based on the terms of reference set out in annex I to the present decision and the outline 5 revised during its seventh meeting;

2. Decides to establish an ad hoc working group to undertake the activities requested in paragraphs 5 and 7 of decision SC-5/5 and agrees to work in accordance with the workplan set out in annex II to the present decision;

3. Requests the Secretariat to collect from parties and observers the information outlined in decision SC-5/5 using a revised version of the questionnaire, 6 and to make it available for the working group;

4. Invites parties and observers in a position to do so to provide financial support for the implementation of the activities requested in decision SC-5/5.



### Annex I to decision POPRC-7/5

Terms of reference for a technical paper on the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of perfluorooctan e sulfonic acid in open applications



## Introduction

1. At its fourth meeting, the Conference of th e Parties amended Annex B to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to list therein perfluorooctane su lfonic acid (PFOS), its salts, and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF), 7 and decided to undertake a work programme to provide guidance to parties on how best to restrict and eliminate the newly listed persistent organic pollutants. 8

2. At its fifth meeting, the Conference of the Parties considered and endorsed the recommendations of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee developed pursuant to the work programme for newly listed persistent organic pollutants, including on risk reduction for PFOS, its salts and PFOSF. 9

3. To eliminate the production and use of PFOS, its salts and PFOSF as swiftly as possible so as to avoid negative effects on human health and the environment, the Conference of the Parties requested the development of a technical paper on th e identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of PFOS in open applications, also requesting the Pe rsistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee to prepare recommendations on the basis of that paper. 10


## I. Content of the technical paper

4. The technical paper is intended to identify and a ssess alternatives to the use of PFOS in open applications and to support the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee in developing recommendations on the matter to be considered by the Committee at its eighth meeting, to be held from 15 to 19 October 2012.

5 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/ INF/22, annex II. 6 Ibid., annex I. 7 Decision SC-4/17. 8 Decision SC-4/19. 9 UNEP/POPS/COP.5/15. 10 Decision SC-5/5.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

26 5. The technical paper should include consideration of the following aspects of the substitution of PFOS, taking into account the general guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals: 11
(a) Chemical identity and physicochemical property; (b) Technical feasibility; (c) Health and environmental effects; (d) Cost-effectiveness; (e) Efficacy; (f) Availability; (g) Accessibility; (h) Social and economic considerations.

6. The technical paper should be based on information provided by parties and observers in response to a request by the Secretariat and any other relevant information. 

## II. Requirements for the consultant

7. Under the Secretariat’s guidance, the consulta nt should develop a technical paper on the identification and assessment of alte rnatives to the use of PFOS in open applications, in accordance with the workplan set out in annex II to decision POPRC-7/5.

8. In producing the technical paper on the basis of the outline suggested by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, the consultant should gather, compile and summarize all available information on alternatives to the use of PFOS in open applications, including the information submitted by parties and observers in res ponse to a request by the Secretariat.

9. The consultant should take due account of the ge neral guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/10/Add.1) and the comments provided by the Committee when developing and revising the technical paper.

10. The consultant should have the following qualifications: (a) Extensive experience and expertise in the assessment and management of chemicals at the national and international levels; (b) Knowledge, including the source of any information, of the use of PFOS in open applications and alternatives to PFOS; (c) Good writing and communication skills in English.

11. The technical paper should be developed in acco rdance with the workplan set out in annex II to decision POPRC-7/5.

11 UNEP/POPS/POP RC.5/10/Add.1.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

27 

### Annex II to decision POPRC-7/5

Workplan for the identification and asse ssment of alternatives to the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications

Scheduled date Interval from previous activity (weeks) Activity

14 October 2011 - The Committee establishes an ad hoc working group.

21 October 2011 < 1 The Secretariat sends an invitation to parties and observers to submit information on alternatives to the use of PFOS in open applications.
The Secretariat commissions a te chnical paper based on the terms of reference adopted by the Committee at its seventh meeting by 25 November 2011.

9 January 2012 11 Parties and observers submit the information to the Secretariat. The Secretariat compiles the information, makes it available on the Convention website and forwar ds it to the consultant.

2 March 2012 7 The consultant completes the first draft of the technical paper. The Secretariat invites the working group to provide comments on the first draft of the technical paper by 16 March 2012.

16 March 2012 2 The working group members provide comments on the first draft of the technical paper.

5 April 2012 3 The consultant reviews the comments on the technical paper and completes the second draft and a compilation of responses to the
comments. The Secretariat invites the worki ng group, parties and observers to provide comments on the second draft of the technical paper by 22 June 2012.

8 June 2012 9 On the basis of the second draft of the technical paper, the chair and drafter of the working group prepare a draft recommendation on the identification and assessment of alternatives to the use of PFOS in open applications. The Secretariat invites the working group to provide comments on the draft recommendation by 22 June 2012.

22 June 2012 2 The working group members provide comments on the draft recommendation and final comments on the second draft of the technical paper.

6 July 2012 2 The working group chair and the drafter review the comments and complete the draft recommendation and a compilation of responses to the comments.
The consultant reviews the fina l comments on the technical paper and completes the final draft and a compilation of responses to the
comments.

9 July 2012 <1 The Secretariat sends the draft recommendation and the draft technical paper to the Division of Conference Services for editing and translation, where applicable.
27 August 2012 7 The Division of Conference Services returns the documents to the Secretariat in final form.
3 September 2012 <1 The Secretariat distributes the documents.

15–19 October 2012 6 Eighth meeting of the Committee. The Committee finalizes its recommendations on the basis of the technical paper for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

28 POPRC-7/6: Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonate and its derivatives

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having considered the comments on the guidan ce on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonate and its derivatives received from parties and obs ervers in accordance w ith decision POPRC-6/5 12 and having revised the guidance based on those comments,

1. Requests the Secretariat to disseminate the revised guidance document widely, including by posting it on the website of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;

2. Invites parties and observers to submit the follo wing information to the Secretariat by 31 July 2012 for consideration at the Committee’s eighth meeting: (a) Comments on the revised guidance document, including additional information on the health and environmental effects of possi ble alternatives mentioned therein; (b) Experience in replacing perfluorooctane sulfonate and its derivatives with additional alternative products and/or processes, including information about their health and environmental effects;

3. Decides to consider both the information provided pursuant to paragraph 2 of the present decision and the possibility of revising the guidance document at the Committee’s eighth meeting.

POPRC-7/7: Evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers 13 pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and work programme on brominated dipheny l ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Recalling decision SC-5/5, by which the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants invited parties to submit information on their experiences in implementing the recommendations set out in the annex to decision POPRC-6/2 and requested the Secretariat to compile the information received for cons ideration by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting and to transmit it to the appropriate bodies of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazar dous Wastes and Their Disposal, Recalling also decision SC-5/8, by which the Conf erence of the Parties requested the Secretariat to develop a process to enable the Conference of the Parties at its sixth and every second ordinary meeting thereafter to evaluate parties’ progress in achieving the ultimate objective of eliminating brominated diphenyl ethers and to review the continued need for the specific exemption for those chemicals in accordance with paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention, Recalling further that in accordance with Article 15 of th e Convention each party is to report to the Conference of the Parties every four years, commencing in 2006, on the measures that it has taken to implement the provisions of the Convention and on the effectiveness of such measures in meeting the objectives of the Convention,
Recognizing that there is a need to alleviate the pa rties’ burden in collecting and providing information on chemicals and to improve the efficiency of the reporting process, Recognizing also that parties from developing countries and countries with economies in transition have expressed a need for technical an d financial assistance in addressing brominated diphenyl ethers and may consequently require time to collect information,
Noting that parties are in the process of reviewing and updating their national implementation plans with information regarding brominated diphenyl ethers and that such information could be useful for the evaluation and review specified in paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention,

12 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/13. 13 The term “Brominated diphenyl ethers” refers to hexabromodiphenyl ether, heptabromodiphenyl ether, tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentab romodiphenyl ether listed in Anne x A to the Stockholm Convention.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

29 Noting also that the information requested in paragraph 3 of decision SC-5/5 with regard to the brominated diphenyl ethers listed in Annex A to the Convention could be used for the purpose of paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of that annex, Having considered the draft process prepared by the S ecretariat in respon se to decision SC-5/8 14 and the draft format prepared in response to decision SC-5/5, 15
Mindful that the Persistent Organic Pollutants Re view Committee and a ppropriate bodies of the Basel Convention might have a role in any future process adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting;

1. Requests the Secretariat to use the format and e xplanatory note set out in the annex to the present decision to collect from parties information on brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention and on their experience in implementing the Committee’s recommendations; 16

2. Also requests the Secretariat to compile the information obtained pursuant to the preceding paragraph for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting;

3. Further requests the Secretariat to extract informa tion on brominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfl uorooctane sulfonyl fluoride in articles from the risk management evaluations 17 and the technical paper on brominated diphenyl ether developed in accordance with d ecision SC-4/19, 18 to attach the information to the questionnaire and to assist the parties further in completing the questionnaire, including through the provision of other relevant information where available,

4. Decides to revise the draft process set out in the annex to the note by the Secretariat on evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 19 at its eighth meeting, including possibly by incorporating the format for collecting information for the purpose of paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention in the format for reporting under Article 15 of the Convention.



### Annex to decision POPRC-7/7

Format for the evaluation of bromin ated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Anne x A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and work programme on brominated diphenyl ethers and on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride

Explanatory note The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information on the progress made by parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Po llutants towards the elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers listed in Annex A to the Convention and in risk reduction in respect of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), its salts and perfluorooctoane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF). The issues addressed in the questionnaire also relate to the environmentally sound management of wastes and its completion will therefore require the coopera tion and input of relevant bodies, including national authorities dealing with the Basel Convention. In accordance with paragr aph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Convention, the Conference of the Parties, at its sixth ordinary meeting and at every second ordinary meeting thereafter, is to evaluate the progress that parties have made towards achieving their ultimate objective of elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers contained in article s and review the continue d need for the specific exemptions related to these chemicals. The same paragraphs also provide that these specific exemptions are in any case to e xpire at the latest in 2030.

14 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/12. 15 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/18. 16 Decision POPRC-6/2, annex. 17 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.4/15/Add.1, UNEP/POPS/POP RC.3/20/Add.5, UNEP/PO PS/POPRC.4/15/Add.6, UNEP/POPS/POPRC. 3/20/Add.1. 18 UNEP/POPS/POP RC.6/2/Rev.1. 19 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/12.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

30 By its decision SC-5/8, the Co nference of the Parties requested the Secretariat, taking into account decisions SC-4/19 and SC-5/5 , and with advice from relevant ex perts, to develop a process to enable the Conference of the Parties at its sixth and every second ordinary meeting thereafter to conduct the evaluation referred to above. By decision SC-5/5, the Conference of the Parties, among other things, encouraged parties and other stakeholders to implement the recommendations developed by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee on the elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers from the waste stream and on risk reduction for PFOS, its salts and PFOSF. 20 Those recommendations are reproduced in an attachment to the present note.

Parties were further invited to submit inform ation on their experiences in implementing the recommendations, where applicable, or other actions that had the same objec tives. The Secretariat was requested to prepare a compilation of the inform ation submitted for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting and to transmit it to the appropriate bodies of the Basel Convention. The amendment of the annexes to the Convention by the addition of new chemicals triggered a need for parties to review and update their nationa l implementation plans to address obligations related to the new chemicals. In completing the attached qu estionnaire, parties may encounter issues that they find important to address in updating their national implementation plans. Parties that have already updated their plans may already have gathered the information required to complete the questionnaire. Funding for undertaking the review and updating of national implementation plans is available for eligible parties from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). 21 A number of guidance documents are being developed to assist parties in the review and updating of their plans. These include guidance documents to address brominated diphenyl ethers, PFOS and its salts and PFOSF specifically. As part of the process to enable the Conference of the Parties to review the progress that parties have made towards achieving their ultimate objective of elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers contained in articles and the continued need for specific exemptions for brominated diphenyl ethers, parties are invited to provide the relevant information using the following questionnaire. Parties are also invited to provide information on their experience in implementing the recommendations relating to brominated diphenyl ethers, PFOS and its salts and PFOSF.


### Questionnaire

Country information

Country Name of principal reporting official Agency name and address

Tel/Fax

E-mail Signature of official

........................................... Date:

1. Please indicate whether your country is regist ered for a specific exemption related to hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether and/or tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether in accord ance with part IV and/or part V of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention. (a) Specific exemption for hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No (b) Specific exemption for tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No

20 Decision POPRC-6/2, annex. 21 Guidance for gaining access to GEF funding is available on the GEF website: www.thegef.org/gef/sites/th egef.org/files/documents /C.39.Inf_.5%20Guidelines %20for%20NIP.Final_.pdf.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

31 If you answered yes to 1 (a) and/or 1 (b), please provide information on your country’s review of the continued need for a specific exemption for hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether and/or tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether.

If you answered no to 1 (a) and/or 1 (b), please briefly describe the reasons.

Not needed

Not assessed Assessed but lack of technical capacity Assessed but lack of financial capacity Others __________________________________________________________________

PART I

Evaluation of brominated diphenyl ethers pursuant to paragraph 2 of parts IV and V of Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, including experience in implementing the recommendations in the annex to decision POPRC-6/2

2. Please indicate whether your country has taken an y actions or control measures to eliminate hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether and/or tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether contained in articles. (a) Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No In progress (b) Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No In progress Please elaborate on your answers in the box provided below. (a) Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether

(b) Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether

3. Please indicate if your country has taken measures to implement the recommendations on the elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers from th e waste stream in the anne x to decision POPRC-6/2, or any other actions.

Yes No In progress If you answered yes or in progress, please describe your progress in implementing the recommendations or other actions. If no, please briefly describe the reasons.

4. Please indicate whether your country has established or begun to establish national control schemes and/or national implementation plan s in relation to bromodiphenyl ethers. (a) Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No In progress (b) Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No In progressUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

32 Please elaborate on your answer in the box provided below. (a) Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether

(b) Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether

5. Please indicate if your country has put in place screening and separation techniques for wastes containing brominated diphenyl ethers.

Yes No In progress If you answered yes or in progress, please provide information about the techniques.

If no, please briefly describe the reasons.

6. Please indicate if your country has implemented m easures to ensure that recycling and final disposal of articles containing brominated diphenyl ethers are carried out in an environmentally sound

manner. (a) Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No In progress (b) Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether

Yes No In progress Please elaborate on your answer in the box provided below.

7. Please provide information on any practical issues and/or experi ences in implementing any of the recommendations in the annex to decision POPRC-6/2 or any other actions. If possible, please indicate according to the timeframes (short-term, medium-term, or long-term) discussed in the recommendations.

8. Please indicate whether your country has taken any measures to prevent the export of articles from recycling pursuant to Part IV and/or Part V, 1b of Annex A.

Yes No In progress Please elaborate on your answer in the box provided below.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

33 PART II

Work programme on perfluorooctane sulfonic ac id, its salts and perf luorooctane sulfonyl fluoride

9. Please specify if your country has implemented risk reduction measures for PFOS, its salts and PFOSF taking into account the recommendations in the annex to decision POPRC-6/2.

Yes No In progress

10. If yes or in progress, please describe your progress in implementing the recommendations in the annex to decision POPRC-6/2 or any other actions in the following areas: (a) Production and industrial uses

(b) Uses including uses in open applications 22

(c) Existing stocks

(d) PFOS, its salts and PFOSF in consumer pr oducts deposited in municipal landfills

(e) Contaminated sites

(f) Please provide information on any practical issues and/or experi ences in implementing any of the recommendations. If possible, please indi cate according to the timeframes (short-term, medium-term, or long-term) discussed in the recommendations in the annex to decision POPRC-6/2.



### Attachments

1. Decision POPRC-6/2, on work programmes on new persistent organic pollutants, and its annex containing recommendations on the elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers from the waste stream and on risk reduction for perfluorooctane sulfon ic acid (PFOS) and its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF ) [ To be inserted by the Secretariat. ]

2. Information on brominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF) from the risk management evaluation and a technical paper on brominated diphenyl ethers [ To be inserted by the Secretariat. ]

22 Aviation hydraulic fluids, insecticides for control of red imported fire ants and termites, chemically driven oil production, carpets, textiles and upholstery, leather and apparel, electric and electronic parts for some colour printers and colour copy machines, paper and packagi ng, fire fighting foams, in sect baits for control of leaf-cutting ants from Atta spp. and Acromyrmex spp, coating and coating additives , rubber and plastics, metal plating (hard metal plating), metal pla ting (decorative plating) and others.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

34 POPRC-7/8: Assessment of alternatives to DDT

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Recalling decision SC-5/6, by which the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants requested the Committee, beginning at its eighth meeting, to assess the alternatives to DDT in accordance with the general guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals 23 on the basis of factual information provided by parties and observers, Having reviewed the background information on the assessment of alternatives to DDT, 24
Having identified additional information necessary to assess the alternatives to DDT,
Recognizing that the DDT expert group established under the Stockholm Convention assesses the information on the production and use of DDT and its alternatives to facilitate evaluation of the continued need for DDT for disease vector control by the Conference of the Parties in consultation with the World Health Organization,

1. Decides to establish an ad hoc working group to undertake the activities requested in paragraph 9 of the annex to decision SC-5/6 to assess the chemical alternatives recommended by the World Health Organization for dis ease vector control and agrees to work in accord ance with the workplan set out in annex I to the present decision;

2. Requests the Secretariat to facilitate access to information on alternatives to DDT;

3. Invites Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to provide technical and financial resources to support the Committee in employing a consultant to carry out the activities requested in paragrap h 9 of the annex to decision SC-5/6.



### Annex I to decision POPRC-7/8

Workplan for the assessment of alternatives to DDT

Activity Person or persons responsible Timing

Develop a methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics. Working group members 30 October 2011–31 January 2012 Assess the persistent organic pollutant characteristics of the chemical alternatives identified in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/19 and prepare a draft report. Chair/drafter 1 February 2012–28 May 2012

Send the draft report to the intersessional working group members Secretariat 1 June 2012

Provide comments on the draft report. Working group members 22 June 2012

Provide the revised draft report to Secretariat. Chair/drafter 6 July 2012 Distribute the revised draft repor t Secretariat 3 September 2012 Review and finalize the report for consideration by the Conference of the Partie s at its sixth meeting Committee Eighth meeting of the Committee: 15–19 October 2012



### Annex II to decision POPRC-7/8

Terms of reference for the intersessional work
1. Develop a methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics of chemical alternatives to DDT. 2. Assess the persistent organic pollutant characteristics of the chemical alternatives identified in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/19.

23 UNEP/POPS/POP RC.5/10/Add.1. 24 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/19.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

35 3. Provide a report for the consideration of the Committ ee at its eighth meeting.

POPRC-7/9: Toxic interactions

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having reviewed the information provided on intersessional work on toxic interactions 25 and work in collaboration and coordinatio n with other scientific bodies, 26

1. Decides to establish an ad hoc working group to develop a draft approach to consideration of toxicological in teractions when evaluating chemicals proposed for listing in the annexes to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and agrees to work in accordance with the workplan set out in the annex to the present decision;

2. Also decides to continue to provide technical input through the Secretariat to the framework to assess the risks of combined exposures to multiple chemicals prepared by the International Programme on Chemical Safety of the World Health Organization.

Annex to decision POPRC-7/9 Workplan for the development of a draft approach to consideration of toxicological interactions when evaluating proposed chemicals

Activity Person or persons responsible Timing

Develop a draft approach to consideration of toxicological interactions when evaluating proposed chemicals. Chair/drafter (Mr. Ivan Holoubek) 15 November 2011

Provide comments on the draft approach. Working group members 15 January 2012

Revise the draft approach. Chair/drafter (Mr. Ivan Holoubek) 30 January 2012

Distribute the revised draft approach. Secretariat 15 February 2012

Review and finalize the approach for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting Committee Eighth meeting of the Committee: 15–19 October 2012

POPRC-7/10: Debromination of brominated flame retardants

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having reviewed the information provided on reductive debromination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, 27
Taking note of the increasing number of studies related to the potential of highly brominated congeners, including octabromodiphenyl ether, nonabromodiphenyl ether and decabromodiphenyl ether, to be reductively debrominated in the environment and thus contribute to the formation of those brominated diphenyl ethers listed in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants by decisions SC-4/14 and SC-4/18, Taking note also of the formation of polybromodibenzodioxins and polybromodibenzofurans during the incineration of wastes containing polybrominated diphenyl ethers,
Noting that the information currently available is insufficient for the Committee to consider the implications of debromination for control measures governing the brominated diphenyl ethers listed in Annex A to the Convention by decisions SC-4/14 and SC-4/18,

25 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/15. 26 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/17. 27 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/18.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

36 Mindful that the above-mentioned information may be useful for parties in considering national, regional or international regulatory action on highly brominated diphenyl ethers or on polybromodibenzodioxins and polybromodibenzofurans,

1. Decides that it should reconsider, if necessary, the implications of debromination of brominated flame retardants when additional relevant information becomes available;

2. Requests the Secretariat to make the above-mentioned information available to the Conference of the Parties at its sixth meeting to ensure that it reaches as broad an audience as possible.

POPRC-7/11: Climate change and persistent organic pollutants

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee

1. Takes note of the paper on the implications of the study on climate change and persistent organic pollutants, 28

2. Concludes that a better understanding of the in terlinkages between persistent organic pollutants and climate change is relevant for its work;

3. Decides to establish an ad hoc working group to develop, subject to the availability of funds, guidance on how to consider the possible im pact of climate change on its work and agrees to work in accordance with the wo rkplan set out in the annex to the present decision;

4. Agrees that the ad hoc working group should focus its work on the study entitled “Climate Change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts” 29 and other relevant literature; 5. Invites Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to provide technical and financial resources to support the Committee in the employment of a consultant to prepare the draft guidance referred to in paragraph 3 of the present decision.



### Annex to decision POPRC-7/11

Workplan for developing guidance on the possible impact of climate change on the work of the Persistent Organ ic Pollutants Review Committee

Scheduled date Interval from previous activity (weeks) Activity

14 October 2011 - The Committee establishes an ad hoc working group.

1 December 2011 6 The drafter develops an annotated outline of the report and sends it to the ad hoc working group for comments.

15 December 2011 2 The working group members provide comments on the outline to the drafter.

2 March 2012 7 The working group chair and the drafter complete the first draft.

• Drafter prepares the first draft and sends it to the chair: 27 Feb.

• Chair sends the first draft to the working group: 2 March.

2 April 2012 4 The working group members provide comments on the first draft to the chair and the drafter.

15 May 2012 4 The working group chair and the drafter complete the second draft.

• Drafter prepares the second draft and sends it to the chair: 10 May. Chair sends the second draft to the working group: 15 May.

15 June 2012 4 Parties and observers submit their comments on the second draft to the chair/drafter.

28 UNEP/POPS/POPRC. 7/INF/20/Rev.1. 29 http://chm.pops.int/tabid/1580/language/en-US/Default.aspx.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

37 Scheduled date Interval from previous activity (weeks) Activity

28 August 2012 4 The working group chair and the drafter review the final comments and complete the final draft

• Drafter prepares the final draft and sends it to the chair: 21 August.

• Chair sends the final draft to the Secretaria t: 28 August.

3 September 2012 <1 The Secretaria t distributes the final draft.

15–19 October 2012 <6 Eighth meeting of the Committee.

POPRC-7/12: Effective particip ation in the Committee’s work

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Taking note of the activities undertaken to date to assist developing-country parties and parties with economies in transition to par ticipate effectively in the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee,
Recognizing the need for all parties to gather information, including monitoring data, on candidate persistent organic pollutants, paying du e attention to parties’ differing capabilities and conditions, Recognizing also the need to promote awareness of stakeholders, young people and the general public in relation to the work carried out under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to protect human health and the environment, including work on assessing the risks posed by persistent organic pollutants and their alternatives,

1. Invites the Conference of the Parties: (a) To take note of the lack of scientific and technical data on candidate persistent organic pollutants under the conditions experienced by deve loping-country parties and parties with economies in transition; (b) To take appropriate action to enhance the capacity of those countries to identify and gain access to data on candidate persistent orga nic pollutants by strengthening laboratory capacity, potentially through regional collaboration, for example with regional centres, and through other networks, such as the Chemical Information Exchange Network;

2. Invites the Secretariat to continue its efforts to facilitate effective participation in the Committee’s work, subject to the availability of re sources, including through the organization of web-based seminars with the technical input of th e Committee members at the regional level in the official United Nations language of each region and the organization of regional meetings to bring together stakeholders, including Governments, non-governmental organizations, Committee members and other experts, with the following objectives: (a) To enhance stakeholders’ understanding of the Committee’s work and to provide guidance on how to contribute to it; (b) To provide guidance on information sources available in the regions and to discuss challenges faced by countries in collecting information; (c) To raise awareness of issues posed by a lternatives to newly listed persistent organic pollutants, including endosulfan, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and brominated diphenyl ethers, in terms of such aspects as cost-effectiveness, efficacy and health and environmental effects; (d) To raise awareness of issues posed by perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its salts, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride and the brominated diphenyl ethers listed in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention, including methods for identifying articles and products containing those substances and disposal options for and alternatives to them; (e) To enhance the coordinated implementation of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Haza rdous Wastes and Their Disposal , the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Ch emicals and Pesticides in InternationalUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

38 Trade and the Stockholm Convention at the national level by exploring the opportunities and benefits of possible synergies;

3. Also invites the Secretariat to stress the critical importance of information on exposure under specific country circumstances in the letter sent to the parties requesting information pertaining to Annexes E and F;

4. Invites the regional centres and the parties, with the technical contribution of the Committee members, to develop strategies for collecting and providing information on candidate persistent organic pollutants, in addition to the newl y listed persistent organic pollutants, as part of national implementation plans, and taking into account the methodologies laid out in the handbook for effective participation in the work of the Committee; 30

5. Invites parties and observers in a position to do so to contribute to the Committee’s work and to provide financial support for the implementation of activities in support of effective participation by parties in that work.

30 UNEP/POPS/COP.4/INF/9.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

39 

## Annex II

Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters
1. The following text was prepared by the drafting group on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters during the Committee’s seventh meeting under agenda item 6 (c). 2. As the Committee did not take any decision on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters at its seventh meeting, it agreed to an nex the draft decision set out below to the present report for possible consideration at its eighth meeting.


## Draft decision POPRC-[ / ]: [Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters

Submission by the drafting group on pent achlorophenol and its salts and esters

The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, Having examined the proposal by the European Union and its member States parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to list pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters in Annexes A, B and/or C to the Convention and having applied the screening criteria specified in Annex D to the Convention,

1. Decides , in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, that it is satisfied that the screening criteria have been fulfille d for pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters, as set out in the evaluation contained in the annex to the present decision;

2. Also decides, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Convention and paragraph 29 of decision SC-1/7 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, to establish an ad hoc working group to review the proposal further and to prepare a draft risk profile in accordance with Annex E to the Convention;

3. Invites, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, parties and observers to submit to the Secretariat the information specified in Annex E before 9 January 2012.



### Annex to decision POPRC-[ / ]

Evaluation of pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters against the criteria of Annex D A. Background 1. The primary source of information for the preparation of the present evaluation was the proposal and supporting documents submitted by the European Union and its member States parties to the Convention contained in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/4, UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/5, UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/ 5/Add.1 and UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/6. 2. The information provided also included data on pentachloroanisole (C 7 H 3 Cl 5 O, CAS No. 1825-21-4), which is a transformation product and a precursor of pentachlorophenol. 3. Additional sources of scientific information included peer-reviewed scientific papers.

B. Evaluation 4. The proposal was evaluated in the light of the requirements of Annex D regarding the identification of the chemical (p aragraph 1 (a)) and the screening criteria (paragraphs 1 (b)–(e)): (a) Chemical identity: (i) Adequate information was provided in the proposal and supporting documents covering pentachlorophenol, one of its salts and one of its esters; (ii) The chemical stru ctures were provided; The chemical identity of pentachlorophenol, pentachlorophenol sodium salt and pentachlorophenyl laurate are clearly established. The proposal includes pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters;UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

40 (b) Persistence: (i) Under normal environmental conditions microflora will adapt and biodegrade pentachlorophenol in water with half-life less than four weeks, in sediment less than 20 weeks and in soil less than 10 weeks. Few data exist on degradation or persistence of pentachloroanisole. Studies indicate that the disappearance of pentachloroanisole from media such as soil and water is mainly driven by dissipation resulting from advective transpor t, governed by volatilization to air. The esters and the salts of pentachlorophe nol are easily degraded or dissociated in the environment into pentachlolorophenol; (ii) Models predict pentachloroanisole to be persistent. Pentachloroanisole has been detected in remote areas far from point sources, both in biotic and abiotic matrices (e.g., in snow in the Canadian Arctic, in animals in Greenland, at six Arctic atmospheric monitoring stations, in remote lakes and, as shown by air monitoring campaigns, in various locations in the northern and southern hemispheres); While there is evidence that pe ntachlorophenol does not meet the criteria on persistence, there is also evidence that its transformation product (pentachloroanisole) does meet that criterion;
(c) Bioaccumulation: (i) Reported bio-concentration factors in aquatic species for pentachlorophenol vary between 1 and 1,100 on a whole-body-weight basis, which is below the criterion for the bio-concentration factor of 5,000. The highest values have been observed for fish. A bioconcentration factor of 4,900 was obtained in an early life-stage test experiment aiming at mi micking the environmental exposure of fish. The reported log Kow values vary between 1.3 and 5.86. The large variation in log Kow stems from the dissociation of pentachlorophenol depending on pH. Reported bioconcentration factors in fish for pentachloroanisole vary between 11,000 and 24,000, which is above the criterion of 5,000; log Kow was measured at 5.45, which is above the criterion of 5; (ii) A biomagnification study on polar bears and ringed seals reports a biomagnification factor above 1, indicating bioaccumulation of pentachlorophenol (Ref. 1). The source of pentachlorophenol could not be clearly established; it could be metabolites from hexachlorobenzene and/or pentachlorophenol emissions that accumulated through the food chain. To date, however, there has not been any evidence that marine mammals are capable of metabolizing hexachlorobenzene. Elevated concentrations of pentachlorophenol are detected in humans throughout the Arctic, but data remain limited geographically and exposure routes and tim e trends are not elucidated. (Ref. 2). In humans, pentachlorophenol is elimin ated via urine both as unmetabolized pentachlorophenol and as glucuronide conjugate (Ref. 3); (iii) Pentachloroanisole was detected in adip ose tissue and blood of polar bears and ringed seals in the Arctic. Pentachloroanisole was detected in adipose tissues of animals in Greenland; There is sufficient evidence that pentachloroanisole, the transformation product of pentachlorophenol, meets the cr iterion on bioaccumulation; (d) Potential for long-range environmental transport: (i) Pentachlorophenol was detected in polar bears and ringed seals. Pentachloroanisole was detected in biotic matrices in Greenland; (ii) Pentachloroanisole was detected in abiotic matrices far from point sources of pentachlorophenol, including at six Arctic atmosphere monitoring stations, in snow in the Canadian Arctic and, as shown by air monitoring campaigns, in various locations in the northern and southern hemispheres; (iii) An atmospheric half-life of 19 d was calculated for pentachlorophenol and of 9.8 d for pentachloroanisole. Modelling work has shown that pentachlorophenol can be transported over 1,500–3,000 km and pentachloroanisole over 2,110 km;UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

41 There is evidence that pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanisole meet the criterion on potential for long-range environmental transport;
(e) Adverse effects: (i) There is a wealth of reported in formation on adverse effects of pentachlorophenol in mammals. The da ta show developmental, immunotoxic and neurotoxic effects and that human survivors of toxic exposures may suffer permanent visual and central ner vous system damage. The data on pentachloroanisole indicate some toxicity to reproduction and possible mutagenic and carcinogenic effects, but current knowledge is insufficient to make a conclusive statement on thos e two endpoints. When considering the toxicity of pentachloroanisole, there is a need to take into account the fact that the main metabolite of pentachloroanisole in biota is pentachlorophenol, which is shown to be highly toxic; (ii) There is a wealth of information on the ecotoxicity of pentachlorophenol. Pentachlorophenol is highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Reported acute LC50 values for fish vary between 20 μg/L and 600 μg/L. The lowest chronic no observed effect concentrations (NOECs) ob served in the freshwater fish test varied between 2 μg/L and below 15 μg/L. Pentachloroanisole is highly toxic to aquatic organisms. A reported LC50 value for fish is 27 μg/L. When considering eco-toxicity of pentachloroanisole, there is a need to take into account the fact that the main metabolite of pentach loroanisole in biota is pentachlorophenol, which is shown to be highly toxic; There is sufficient evidence that pentachl orophenol and pentachloroanisole meet the criterion on adverse effects.

C. Conclusion 5. [While the pentachlorophenol molecule does not meet all the screening criteria specified in Annex D, the Committee concluded, taking into account its transformation product pentachloroanisole, that pentachlorophenol and its sa lts and esters meet the screening criteria specified in Annex D.] 6. [There remains uncertainty on the transition from pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole in the environment.]

References

1. Robert J. Letcher et al., (2 009). Environment International 2009, 1118-1124. Bioaccumulation and biotransformation of brominated and chlo rinated contaminants and their metabolites in ringed seals ( Pusa hispida ) and polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) from East Greenland.

2. AMAP Assessment 2009: Human health in the Arctic, AMAP, Oslo 2009.

3. WHO (1987) Pentachlorophenol. Geneva, World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (Environmental Health Criteria 71). 

## ]UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

42 

## Annex III

Information on transformation of pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole and proposal by Japan to fill information gaps
1. The following information was submitted by the group of friends of the Chair on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters during the Committee’s seventh meeting. The information was extracted from the original publications used to develop section 3 of document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/ INF/5/Add.1.

I. Summary of available information on transformation of pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole in different environmental and experimental conditions

Conversion of PCP to PCA (%) Temp. ( ° C) pH Organic carbon content

(%) Species Incubation period Source Remark

Aerobic condition
1 51.5% 7.5 2.3 24 d Murthy et al., 1979 2 14% 22 to 10 4 38 Phanerochaete chrysosporium 46 d Lamar et al., 1990a 3 9% 22 to 10 4 38 Phanerochaete sordida 46 d Lamar et al., 1990a 4 80% (estimated from figure 8 of the article) Mycobacterium 48 h Haggblom et al., 1988 Sludge with the presence of degradation inhibitor that favoured the methylation of PCP 5 50% (estimated from figure 8 of the article) Rhodococcus 48 h Haggblom et al., 1988 Sludge with the presence of degradation inhibitor that favoured the methylation of PCP 6 Only trace
amounts (< 0.1 %) 5.8 1.8 Trametes versicolor 42 d Tuomela et al., 1999

7 Levels of PCP and PCA are approximate ly the same (see below) During

summer in Chile 5 months Mardones et al., 2009 Field study

8 PCA was the major biotransform ation product Lentinula edodes 10 weeks Okeke et al., 1997 Sterilizedand nonsterilized soils

9 64% 30 6.4 3.55 Phanerochaete chrysosporium 21 d Lamar et al., 1990b 10 71% 30 6.4 3.55 Phanerochaete sordida 21 d Lamar et al., 1990b 11 68% 30 7.7 (decreased to 3.1) Phanerochaete chrysosporium 28 d Walter et al., 2004 Liquid culture experiment 12 Traces of 30 7.7 Trametes 28 d Walter et LiquidUNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

43 Conversion of PCP to PCA (%) Temp. ( ° C) pH Organic carbon content

(%) Species Incubation period Source Remark

PCA (decreased to 3.1) versicolor al., 2004 culture experiment 13 Up to 82% 37 4.3 Phanerochaete chrysosporium 12 d Badkoubi et al., 1996 Liquid culture experiment Anaerobic condition 14 5.3% 7.5 2.3 24 Murthy et al., 1979

2. Most of the above studies have been conducted under experimental conditions using specific pentachlorophenol preferential bact eria or fungi under conditions th at do not necessarily represent environmental conditions. 3. Two studies reflect the conversion process of pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole in the field: (a) Murthy et al. 1979 (1,14): (i) Aerobic and anaerobic conversion of pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole was examined using silty clay loam; (ii) Under aerobic conditions, 50 per cent of pentachlorophenol was converted to pentachloroanisole; (iii) Under anaerobic conditions, 5 per cent of pentachlorophenol was converted to pentachloroanisole; (iv) Conversion of pentachloroanisole was greater in aerobic than in anaerobic soils; (v) It should be noted that some interconversion of pentachloroanisole and pentachlorophenol occurred in both aerobic and anaerobic soil. (b) Mardones et al. 2009 (7): (i) Conversion of pentachlorophenol to pentachloroanisole was examined using pentachlorophenol contaminated sawdust and soil in the field; (ii) Pentachlorophenol was added to soil samples at the mg/kg level. After five months, concentrations of pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanisole were 10 and 5 μ g/kg, respectively. (iii) It is important to note, however, that no monitoring of the volatilization of pentachloroanisole, known to be a volatile metabolite to pentachlorophenol, was performed. II. Information gaps identified by Japan and prop osal for experiments and monitoring to fill them 4. Interested parties are invited: (a) To initiate experiments under conditions relevant to the environment; (b) To collect monitoring data on pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanisole, in particular from pentachlorophenol-contaminated sites, as such data could provide information on what happens in the environment under actual conditions. 5. Such experiments and compilation of monitoring data should be initiated without delay so that they can be taken into account by th e Committee at its eighth meeting.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

44 

## Annex IV

Proposal on next steps for short-chained chlorinated paraffins

1. The concluding statement of th e draft risk profile for short- chained chlorinated paraffins 31 features two options for the final conclusion: (a) Based on the available evidence, it is concluded that short-chained chlorinated paraffins are likely, as a result of their long-ra nge environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse environmental and human health effect s such that global action is warranted; or (b) Based on available information, there is inadequate evidence to support the conclusion that short-chained chlorinated paraffins are likely, as a result of their long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse environmen tal and human health effects such that global action is warranted.

2. At its sixth meeting, the Committee discussed the draft risk profile and the proposed conclusions, but was unable to take a decision because of uncertainties in applying the criteria specified in Annex E to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. It therefore established an intersessional working group, as described in annex III to the report of the meeting. 32

3. Having discussed the application of the criteria specified in Annex E to the Convention to short-chained chlorinated paraffins and considered the outcome of the case study on toxicological interactions of chlorinated paraffins, 33 the Committee agreed to establish an ad hoc working group to undertake the following activities in accordance with a workplan to be agreed upon by the working group members: (a) To revise the relevant parts of the draf t risk profile to incorporate information on toxicological interactions of chlorinated paraffins for consideration by the Committee at its eighth meeting; (b) To compile issues and principles to be applied in the interpretation of the Annex E criteria for consideration by the Committee at its eighth meeting.

31 UNEP/POPS/POP RC.6/11/Rev.1. 32 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13. 33 UNEP/POPS/POPRC/7/INF/15.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

45 

## Annex V
Workplan for the preparation of a draft risk profile during the period between the seventh and ei ghth meetings of the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee

Scheduled date Interval from previous activity (weeks) Activity (for each chemical under review)

14 October 2011 - The Committee establishes an ad hoc working group.

21 October 2011 1 The Secretariat requests partie s and observers to provide information specified in Annex E.

9 January 2012 11 Parties and observers submit Annex E information to the Secretariat.

• Secretariat sends a reminder to parties and observers regarding the request for information: 12 December.

2 March 2012 7 The working group chair and the drafter complete the first draft.

• Drafter prepares the first draft and sends it to the chair: 27 Feb.

• Chair sends the first draft to the working group: 2 March.

16 March 2012 2 The working group members provide comments on the first draft to the chair and the drafter.

2 April 2012 2 The working group chair and the drafter finish their review of initial comments from the working group and complete the second draft and a compilation of responses to the comments.

5 April 2012 <1 The Secretariat distributes the second draft to parties and observers for comments.

25 May 2012 7 Parties and observers submit their comments to the Secretariat.

8 June 2012 2 The working group chair and the drafter review the party and observer comments and complete th e revised (third) draft and a compilation of responses to the comments.

• Drafter prepares the third draft and sends it to the chair: 5 June.

• Chair sends the third draft to the working group: 8 June.

22 June 2012 2 The working group members provide final comments on the third draft to the chair and the drafter.

6 July 2012 2 The working group chair and the drafter review the final comments and complete the final draft and a compilation of responses to the
comments.

• Drafter prepares the final draft and sends it to the chair: 3 July.

• Chair sends the final draft to the Secretariat: 6 July.

9 July 2012 <1 The Secretariat sends the final draft to the Division of Conference Services for editing and translation.

27 August 2012 7 The Division of Conference Se rvices completes editing and translation.

3 September 2012 <1 The Secretariat distributes the final draft risk profiles in the six official languages of the United Nations.
15–19 October 2012 6 Eighth meeting of the Committee.UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

46 

## Annex VI

Composition of intersessional working gro ups (2011–2012)
Working group on hexabromocyclododecane

Committee members

Ms. Tsvetanka Dimcheva (Bulgaria) Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada) Mr. Jianxin Hu (China) Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic) Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland)* (drafter) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Mohammed Oqlah Hussein Khashashneh (Jordan) Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand)* (chair) Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland) Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine)

Observers

Mr. Greg Plummer (Australia) Ms. Stacy Kauk (Canada) Ms. Rikke Donchil Holmberg (Denmark) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Mr. Darren Byrne (Ireland) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Mr. Cees Luttikhuizen (Netherlands) Ms. Liselott Säll (Norway) Ms. Christina Charlotte Tolfsen (Norway) Ms. Ana Isabel Sánchez Blanco (Spain) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Sara Gudiela Avila Rodríguez (United Nations Development Programme) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Mr. Philippe Marechal (CEFIC - Plasticseurope) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs . Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Ms. Smadar Admon (HBCD Industry Working Group) Ms. Christine Lukas (HBCD Industry Working Group)

Working group on chlori nated naphthalenes

Committee members

Ms. Norma Ethel Sbarbati-Nudelman (Argentina) Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada) Mr. Ricardo Orlando Barra Ríos (Chile) Mr. Jianxin Hu (China) Ms. Floria Roa- Gutiérrez (Costa Rica) Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic) Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France)* (drafter) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Masaru Kitano (Japan) Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea) Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland) Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine)* (chair)

Observers

Ms. Rikke Donchil Holmberg (Denmark) Mr. Peter Korytár (European Union) Ms. Lucie Ribeiro (European Union) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council)UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

47 Working group on he xachlorobutadiene

Committee members

Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada) Ms. Floria Roa-Gutierrez (Costa Rica)* (chair) Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic) Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France)* (drafter) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Masaru Kitano (Japan) Mr. Mohammed Oqlah Hussein Khashashneh (Jordan) Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea) Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland) Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra (Ukraine)

Observers

Ms. Rikke Donchil Holmberg (Denmark) Mr. Peter Korytár (European Union) Ms. Lucie Ribeiro (European Union) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Mr. Allan Jones (World Chlorine Council) Mr. Dolf van Wijk (World Chlorine Council)

Working group on pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters

Committee members

Ms. Norma Ethel Sbarbati-Nudelman (Argentina) Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada) Mr. Ricardo Orlando Barra Ríos (Chile)* (chair until May 2012) Mr. Jianxin Hu (China) Mr. José Álvaro Rodríguez (Colombia) Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic) Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France)* (drafter) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Masaru Kitano (Japan) Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand) Ms. Manuela Pereira (Portugal) Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland) Mr. Samuel F. Banda (Zambia)

Observers

Mr. Gary Fan (Australia) Ms. Estefania Moreira (Brazil)* (chair from May 2012) Ms. Rikke Donchil Holmberg (Denmark) Mr. Peter Korytár (European Union) Ms. Lucie Ribeiro (European Union) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Ms. Haritiana Rakotoarisetra (Madagascar) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands) Ms. Ana Isabel Sánchez Blanco (Spain) Mr. Azhari Omer Abdelbagi (Sudan) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Ms. Sandra Keller (Croplife International) Mr. Mark Trewhitt (Croplife International) Ms. Smadar Admon (HBCD industry working group) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Mr. Mark Boelens (Wood Preservation Canada)UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

48 Working group on alternatives to endosulfan and DDT

Committee members

Ms. Norma Ethel Sbarbati-Nudelman (Argentina) Mr. Choviran Ken (Cambodia) Mr. Abderaman Mahamat Abderaman (Chad) Mr. José Álvaro Rodríguez (Colombia) Ms. Floria Roa-Gutierrez (Costa Rica) Ms. Fatma Mohamed Ibrahim Abou-Shok (Egypt) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Pablo Ricardo Rodriguez Rubio (Honduras) Ms. Chhanda Chowdhury (India) Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand) Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland)* (chair until May 2012) Mr. Jarupong Boon-Long (Thailand) Mr. Komla Sanda (Togo) Ms. Francisca Katagira (United Republic of Tanzania)

Observers
Mr. Gary Fan (Australia) Ms. Estefania Moreira (Brazil) Mr. Joswa Aoudou (Cameroon) Mr. Mario Abó Balanza (Cuba) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Mr. Rupinder Singh Dhaliwal (India) Mr. R. M. Shukla (India) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Ms. Gladys Njeri Maina (Kenya) Ms. Haritiana Rakotoarisetra (Madagascar) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands)* (chair from May 2012) Ms. Ana Isabel Sánchez Blanco (Spain) Mr. Azhari Omer Abdelbagi (Sudan) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Kelly Rain Dodge (United States of America) Mr. Maxwell Nkoya (Zambia) Ms. Sara Gudiela Avila Rodríguez (United Nations Development Programme) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Ms. Sandra Keller (Croplife International) Mr. Mark Trewhitt (Croplife International) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Ms. Meriel Watts (Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific) Ms. Carolyn Vickers (World Health Organization)

Working group on alternatives to perluorooctane sulfonic acid in open applications

Committee members

Ms. Norma Ethel Sbarbati-Nudelman (Argentina) Mr. Choviran Ken (Cambodia) Mr. Jianxin Hu (China) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Peter Dawson (New Zealand) Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea) Mr. Samuel F. Banda (Zambia)* (chair)

Observers
Mr. Greg Plummer (Australia) Mr. Júlio Sérgio de Britto (Brazil) Ms. Stacy Kauk (Canada) Mr. Yawei Wang (China) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Ms. Lulwa Ali (Kuwait) Ms. Liselott Säll (Norway) Ms. Ana Isabel Sánchez Blanco (Spain) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Mr. Maxwell Nkoya (Zambia) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Ms. Sandra Keller (Croplife International) Mr. Mark Trewhitt (Croplife International) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Mr. Edson Dias da Silva (Leaf-Cutting Ant Baits Industries Association) Mr. Ian Rae (invited expert)UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

49 Working group on short-chained chlorinated paraffins

Committee members

Ms. Tsvetanka Dimcheva (Bulgaria) Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada)* (chair/drafter) Mr. Jianxin Hu (China) Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic) Ms. Fatma Mohamed Ibrahim Abou-Shok (Egypt) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Masaru Kitano (Japan)

Observers

Mr. Yawei Wang (China) Ms. Lucie Ribeiro (European Union) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Mr. Martien Janssen (Netherlands) Ms. Christina Charlotte Tolfsen (Norway) Ms. Ana Isabel Sánchez Blanco (Spain) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Mr. Dolf van Wijk (World Chlorine Council)

Working group on toxic interactions

Committee members

Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada) Mr. José Álvaro Rodríguez (Colombia) Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic)* (chair/drafter) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Mohammed Oqlah Hussein Khashashneh (Jordan) Ms. Stella Uchenna Mojekwu (Nigeria) Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland) Ms. Francisca Katagira (United Republic of Tanzania)

Observers

Mr. Gary Fan (Australia) Ms. Rikke Donchil Holmberg (Denmark) Ms. Lucie Ribeiro (European Union) Ms. Sandrine Andres (France) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Ms. Christina Charlotte Tolfsen (Norway) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Mr. Philippe Marechal (CEFIC – Plasticseurope) Ms. Sandra Keller (Croplife International) Mr. Mark Trewhitt (Croplife International) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Mr. Marco Vighi (Milano University) Mr. Dolf van Wijk (World Chlorine Council) Mr. Ian Rae (invited expert) Ms. Smadar Admon (HBCD Industry Working Group) Ms. Christine Lukas (HBCD Industry Working Group)UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19

50 Working group on climate change and persistent organic pollutants

Committee members

Ms. Norma Ethel Sbarbati-Nudelman (Argentina) Mr. Robert Chénier (Canada) Mr. Hu Jianxin (China)* (co-chair) Mr. Ricardo Orlando Barra Ríos (Chile) Mr. José Álvaro Rodríguez (Colombia) Ms. Floria Roa-Gutierrez (Costa Rica) Mr. Ivan Holoubek (Czech Republic) Mr. Timo Seppälä (Finland)* (co-chair) Mr. Sylvain Bintein (France) Mr. Reiner Arndt (Germany) Mr. Mohammed Oqlah Hussein Khashashneh (Jordan) Ms. Stella Uchenna Mojekwu (Nigeria) Ms. Kyunghee Choi (Republic of Korea) Ms. Bettina Hitzfeld (Switzerland) Mr. Jarupong Boon-Long (Thailand) Mr. Samuel F. Banda (Zambia)

Observers

Ms. Stacy Kauk (Canada) Mr. Agus Haryono (Indonesia) Ms. Asako Fukushima (Japan) Ms. Chie Hamaguchi (Japan) Mr. Tomohiro Imahashi (Japan) Mr. Naoki Hashizume (Japan) Mr. Noriyasu Nagai (Japan) Ms. Keiko Segawa (Japan) Ms. Lulwa Ali (Kuwait) Ms. Liselott Säll (Norway)* (drafter) Ms. Maria Delvin (Sweden) Mr. Chris Blunck (United States of America) Ms. Kelly Rain Dodge (United States of America) Mr. Maxwell Nkoya (Zambia) Ms. Pamela Miller (Alaska Community Action on Toxics) Ms. Sandra Keller (Croplife International) Mr. Mark Trewhitt (Croplife International) Mr. Joseph DiGangi (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Mariann Lloyd-Smith (International POPs Elimination Network) Ms. Eva Kruemmel (Inuit Circumpolar Council) Mr. Allan Jones (World Chlorine Council) Mr. Dolf van Wijk (World Chlorine Council) Mr. Ian Rae (invited expert) Ms. Smadar Admon (HBCD Industry Working Group) Ms. Christine Lukas (HBCD Industry Working Group)

_________________