unitex@rubbs.fidonet.org (unitex) (10/23/89)
Forwarded-From : Rainbow Man
Via GreenLink:
=================================================================
October 21, 1989
EPA IMPOSES RECORD FINE ON TEXAS COMPANY
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said
Friday it has imposed the largest federal fine ever for an
environmental violation -- a $15 million penalty against a
natural gas pipeline company for improper toxic waste operations.
The EPA said the Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. agreed to pay
the record fine as part of a settlement of civil charges brought
against the company for discharging highly toxic PCBs -
polychlorinated biphenyls -- at 89 sites along a 10,000-mile
natural gas pipeline running from Texas to New Jersey.
Under a consent decree filed in U.S. District Court for Southern
Texas, the company also agreed to pay $18 million for an
independent consultant to help the EPA oversee the company's
cleanup of the PCB-contaminated sites.
Overall, the company is expected to spend $400 million for
cleanup activities required under the consent decree, which EPA
officials characterized as the most extensive settlement ever
obtained against a single company for environmental violations.
The PCBs, used in compressors installed along the natural gas
pipeline, were dumped in earthen pits interspersed along the
pipeline's route.
####
Via GreenLink:
=================================================================
October 21, 1989
FRENCH, U.S. DISPUTE ANTARCTIC ACCORD
By JOHN PHILLIPS
PARIS (UPI) -- Nations attending an Antarctic treaty meeting
searched Friday for a compromise between a French and Australian
demand that the frozen continent be turned into a natural reserve
and U.S. and British concerns over mining rights.
The representatives of 39 countries met until late Friday after
failing to conclude the months-long session Thursday as planned.
Conference sources said the delegates were wrangling over the
wording of a final declaration of the conference, which opened
Aug. 8.
However, the sources said the delegates appeared prepared to
schedule an extraordinary conference for June 1990 in Chile to
negotiate a global agreement on protecting the unique, almost
pristine Antarctic environment.
France and Australia want that conference to draft a new treaty
that would turn Antarctica into a natural reserve.
"The conference would have broad terms of reference to protect
the environment including the French-Australian proposal for a
full environmental protection treaty," said James Barnes, a U.S.
lawyer representing the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition,
an alliance of 200 environmental protection groups.
"I think it is a victory for the environment," he said.
Sources said British and American delegates initially opposed
the French-Australian proposal but agreed to the extraordinary
conference on the condition that the countries not rule out
holding a separate conference on the sensitive issue of mining.
In another last-minute dispute, the representatives wrangled
over whether the question of liability in case of disasters would
be discussed at the extraordinary conference, said the sources.
In 1988, after six years of negotiations, 33 of the 39 parties
to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 signed the Antarctic Minerals
Convention Treaty, also known as the Wellington Convention
because it was reached at Wellington, New Zealand.
But the treaty was nullified two months ago when Australia and
France refused to join the other countries and sign the document.
India, East Germany, Italy and Belgium also abstained from
signing the Wellington Convention, which was supported by Britain
and the United States.
####
Via GreenLink:
=================================================================
October 21, 1989
CONGRESSIONAL REPORT SAYS EPA UNDERESTIMATES TOXIC WASTE COST
McGRAW-HILL NEWS (Washington)--The nation's toxic waste crisis
is vastly larger than the Environmental Protection Agency
estimates and may encompass 10,000 sites and require $500 bil to
clean up, congressional analysts said.
In a report critical of the EPA's handling of the Superfund
program, the Office of Technology Assessment said Thursday the
agency has wrongly kept hundreds of badly contaminated sites off
its priority cleanup list--now 1,200 sites--simply because they
are not as badly polluted as others.
The report by OTA, a nonpartisan arm of Congress that analyzes
technological issues for lawmakers, said 240 to 2,000 sites were
incorrectly kept off the priority list, and added, "With improved
procedures for examining and selecting sites, (the priority
cleanup list) could ultimately reach 10,000 sites or more,
conceivably by the year 2000."
The report also charged the agency is allowing cheaper, less
effective cleanups at some sites to get companies responsible for
creating dumps to foot the bill voluntarily. The report estimated
polluters may have saved as much $1 bil in 1988 by using less
effective cleanup methods.
Another key charge in the report is that from 50% to 75% of the
money spent in the Superfund program to date--some $5 bil to $10
bil--has been wasted on excessive paperwork or unnecessary or
poorly planned cleanups.
But EPA officials and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee, challenged the OTA findings
on Superfund waste and on polluters' savings. Lewis Crampton,
associate EPA administrator for communications, said the OTA
report did not substantiate its claims of massive waste and that
the EPA was being unfairly blamed for the unavoidably high costs
of cleanup operations.
As for the allegation polluters were taking cleanup shortcuts to
save money, Crampton said EPA studies found "a small discrepancy"
in the cost of industry-financed cleanups and those conducted by
the government. But he said the total was far below the $1 bil
cited by the OTA.
Crampton also denied the EPA was trying to limit its priority
cleanup list and suggested OTA's estimate of 10,000 sites and a
$500 bil cleanup bill was overblown. He said the EPA stood by its
estimate of a 2,100-site Superfund program by the year 2000.--UPI
####
Via GreenLink:
=================================================================
October 21, 1989
JAPAN ACCEPTS BAN ON IVORY TRADE
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (UPI) -- Japan, the world's largest
consumer of ivory, agreed Friday to abide by an international ban
on ivory imports, a move seen as vital to the effort to save the
African elephant from extinction.
Japan announced its acceptance on the last day of a two-week
conference of CITES, the French acronym for the International
Convention on Trade in Endangered Species.
"Japanese observation of the ban was vital because it could
never be effective without Japan, which accounts for around 40
percent of world imports of ivory," a CITES spokesman said.
The announcement followed a decision earlier Friday by the
Japanese Cabinet in Tokyo. Officials said Environment Agency
Director General Setsu Shiga urged Japan reverse its position as
a major importer to avoid isolation in the international
community.
Japan had abstained from voting for the ban Monday when the
CITES resolution passed 76-11. The resolution transferred African
elephants from Appendix Two classification permitting some trade,
to Appendix One -- which imposes a blanket ban on such commerce.
In Lausanne, the Japanese delegation to CITES said Japan was
"respecting the overwhelming sentiment of the international
community" as expressed by the 103-member convention.
Conference officials also noted Japan would otherwise have
probably failed in its bid to host the next CITES conference in
Tokyo in early 1992 -- an invitation accepted by participants in
Lausanne at the end of the 1989 gathering.
Japan said it would apply the ban as of the end of October,
although CITES rules provide three months for countries to send
in written agreement to conference decisions or notify CITES of
their reservations.
Several African countries with thriving herds and dependent on
ivory for considerable export income, have expressed reservations
to the CITES resolution and Zimbabwe formally announced it will
not observe the ban.
Recent Japanese news reports said Zimbabwe urged Japan to oppose
the resolution, claiming its elephant population has been
increasing and the higher tusk prices caused by a ban actually
would encourage poaching.
The reports said Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe made the
request to Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu last week during his
visit to Japan.
South Africa, which has to cull elephants to keep numbers down
and prevent them from causing too much destruction, said it was
"disappointed" at the ban but did not clearly indicate if it
would make formal reservations.
Zimbabwe expressed its reservations in writing at once, while
several other African countries indicated they may well do so
within the 90-day limit. They included Botswana, Burundi, Malawi,
Mozambique, Congo, Gabon and Cameroon.
Some conservationists estimate that numbers of African elephants
have plunged in the past decade from around 1.3 million to
625,000.
Japan imported 106 tons of raw ivory and 28 tons of processed
ivory in 1988, down from 474 tons and 33 tons in 1984. In June,
Japan joined the United States and European countries in imposing
a ban on imports of processed ivory.
The government's about-face on ivory importation caused concern
among importers and ivory artisans, and the national daily
Yomiuri Shimbun urged the government to find alternate materials
for artisans who craft traditional Japanese musical instruments.
"There is a great danger that even if a small window is left
open in the ivory trade, poached ivory can be mixed with
legitimate exports," the newspaper said.
"The world is carefully watching Japan's moves. It should
refrain from making last-minute ivory purchases before the ban
takes effect."
####
* Origin: New York On-Line 718-852-2662 (1:107/607)
---
Patt Haring | United Nations | Screen Gems in
patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | Information | misc.headlines.unitex
patth@ccnysci.BITNET | Transfer Exchange |
-=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-