ion Technologies, h c . (RETEC. :oncord. MAL TETRA removes organicconknants from sediments by high-temperature treatment. “The contaminants can be recovered for reuse or offsite destruction,” says Geoffrey Swett, program manager for RETEC. He adds that at an oil refinery in Port Arthur, TX, the use of TETRA not only treated hazardous waste without generating air pollutants, but it also reduced the refinery’s costs by 45%. TETRA was recently demonstrated in an EPA project to clean contaminated sediments from Turning Basin in the
-
-
The Utility Photovoltaic Gr [UPVG)was formed Oct. 1 in Washington,DC,to accelerate the use of photovoltaic (pvl cell arrays to generate electricity from solar energy. The group has a five-year mission to exploit current cost-effectiveuses of PV “while building ‘market-driven’ approaches to expand the use of PV for larger applications.” One of the more important applications, water pumping, could be carried out on a small scale in remote areas where it is prohibitively expensive to install conventional power lines. The real challenge, however, will be “to reduce current costs of $8410 per peak watt to below $4 or SO,” says Edgar DeMeo of the Electric Power Research Institute, one of UPVGs four sponsors. Five utility-led work groups aided by a full-time staff and subcontractors will implement UPVGs programs. The Chicago Board of Trade [CBOT] will conduct auctions and sales of SO, emission allowanms beginning in March 1993. EPA will not compensate CBOT for running the annual auction, and CBOT will administer direct sales of allowances without charge to participants. CBOT is going forward with the program anyway, “because the exchange expects to make a business out of [SO, allowance] futures trading, said a CBOT official. CBOT also expects to set up a “forum” for cash market trading of allowances through an electronic trading system, known as Project A and owned by Ceres Trading Limited Partnership. The partnership’s principals are CBOT and CBOT members. 2314 Enviran. Sci. Technal.. Val. 26, No.12,19
International Agreements Show Poor Reporting
I
BY STANTON S. MILLER During the past 20 years, nations have increasingly entered into international agreements. Since 1972 the number of international mvironmental agreements in which the United States participates or has significant interest yew from fewer than 50 to nearly
I
‘61
;
f
*
I
170 ( I ) .
A recent General Accounting Office (GAO)report listed eight major agreements that are not well monitored ( 1 , see box). It also found that some countries, especially developing ones, currentlv nlav a limited art in the planning and governance of agreements, and they often lack the technical and financial means to implement agreements. In addition to the GAO findings, other sources identified reporting problems with international environmental agreements. A survey of 100 environmental agreements by the secretarygeneral of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) found that reporting problems may stem directly from the agreements (2). The GAO report found that in contrast to international agreements in other areas, such as human rights, implementing an environmental agreement depends as much on the capability of a party as on its willingness. For example, according to a State Department official, some developing countries have “one-person’’ wildlife departments to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), as well as to perform other tasks. Some countries even lack sufficient resources to print the certificates needed to document and control trade in endangered species. A number of agreements provide funding for developing countries to participate in and implement the plans. The GAO report notes that the 1979 Migratory Species Convention has a h s t fund dedicated to developing countries participating in convention meetings. The 1971 Ramsar Convention for wetlands conservation sets aside funds for the participation of developing countries. Finally, the 1987 Montreal Protocol has established a multi,
I
I
lateral fund to support developing countries’ efforts to phase out ozone-depleting substances. The findings in the GAO report were based on an earlier GAO study and a symposium cosponsored with the Congressional Research Service (3). References (1) International Ennrimment: Shngth-
ening the Implementation of Envimnmental Agreements; United States General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, 1992; GAO/RCED-92-188. (2) ”Survey of Existing Agreements end Instruments and Its Follow-Up”; IS port of the secretary-general of UNCED; 1992; A/CONF.l5l/PC/lO3. I31 International Environment: International Agreements Are Not Well Monitored: United States General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, 1992; GAO/RCEP92-43.
Environmentalagreements not well monitored Montreal Protocol (stratospheric ozone depletion) Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ Protocol acid rain and air pollution) asel Convention ’ ( eneration, transport, and disposa of hazardous wastes) London Dumping Convention marine pollution) nternational ” Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) International Whaling Convention International Tropical Timber Agreement
L’
9
,I
Stanton S. Miller is the managing editor ofES&T.
I
