The coalition of large agricul­tural exporters argued that for food commodities, prior approval would generate needless red tape because commodities do not en­ter the environment. Developing nations and EU delegates coun­tered that it was impossible to guarantee that seeds from com­modity crops would not be planted. The EU compromise would have temporarily excluded commodities but left the issue open for future consideration.

"We insisted that the talks are as much about trade as the envi­ronment," said Rafe Pomerance, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for the environment and development.

Leading the world in the pro­duction of genetically engineered crops, U.S. agricultural exports are estimated to account for more than $50 billion dollars. Although the United States could not vote at the talks because it has not rat­ified the 1992 Convention on Bio­logical Diversity, it influenced the talks by joining with other agri­cultural exporters who had rati­fied the protocol.

Delegates from developing countries complained that the talks were more about "biotrade" than conservation of biodiversity, a view echoed by Veit Koester, chair of the treaty drafting com­mittee. Koester, a Danish environ­mental official, said that the bio-safety protocol is difficult to negotiate because it is the first attempt to create a global, legally binding instrument that directly deals with trade and the environ­ment at the same time. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol on climate change or the current negotiations on persistent organic pollutants, where the aim is a reduction or elimination of chemicals or pol­lutants, the biosafety talks were designed to create a mechanism for monitoring, regulating, and assessing the risks from a rapidly growing variety of genetically en­gineered organisms in order to protect biodiversity.

Other matters stalled the talks as well, including conflict with World Trade Organization treaties and liability issues, which are pri­orities for developing countries. Since genetic engineering is a

new technology, GMO risks are not covered by the insurance in­dustry. Developing country dele­gates said they were concerned about which country or company would be held responsible if GMOs did cross-pollinate with native plants. The liability issues remain unresolved; the EU pro­posal has put off consideration for four years.

Delegates agreed to suspend the talks and resume them no later than May 2000.

The lack of a treaty does not mean that there will be unre­stricted trade in GMOs. The EU already has restrictions on the planting of seeds and impor­tation of food that has been genetically altered. The treaty was primarily aimed at helping developing countries, which are richly biodiverse, but cur­rently lack the expertise and the regulations to control biotechnology. —REBECCA RENNER

Environmentalists, water agencies seek stricter controls on ballast water discharges Frustrated by the U.S. Coast Guard's meager efforts to regulate ballast water discharges from ships, a coalition of environmen­tal organizations and water agen­cies petitioned EPA in January to regulate such discharges under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Ballast water, used to stabilize ships en route, is picked up in one or more ports and discharged in others depending on cargo lev­els. By unintentionally carrying waterborne plants and animals, these discharges are responsible for a major portion of the more than 200 invasive species now established in San Francisco Bay, said Andrew Cohen, an environ­mental scientist with the San Francisco Estuary Institute at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in January.

At press time, EPA was still wrestling with how best to re­spond to the petition. "Historical­ly, this wasn't recognized as the kind of pollutant our programs are designed to deal with," said Dorn Carlson, an environmental scientist in the agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Water­sheds. "Even with all the attention this has gotten in recent years, there still is not a lot of science that can be used to determine what it takes to reduce the risk of species invasions to an accept­ably low level," he added.

One ballast water stowaway, the infamous zebra mussel, led to

Zebra mussels, accidentally introduced to North America via ballast water, colonize on surfaces such as docks, boat hulls, com­mercial fishing nets, water intake pipes and valves, as well as native mollusks and crustaceans. (Courtesy Don Schloesser, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

the creation of the Nonindige-nous Aquatic Nuisance Preven­tion and Control Act of 1990. Un­der this Act, the Coast Guard began monitoring ballast dis­charges in the Great Lakes, where the zebra mussel infestation first occurred. Ships entering these waters from outside the United States and Canada are required to conduct what is known as a bal­last water exchange in mid-ocean. During this process, bal­last tanks are either pumped out and refilled with water, or the tanks are overfilled by pumping in additional water to dilute the water inside.

Political will in areas outside the Great Lakes, however, was not strong enough to usher in a na­tional ballast program until 1996 when the National Invasive Spe­cies Act was passed, said Allegra Cangelosi, a senior policy analyst

APRIL 1, 1999/ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY/ NEWS" 1 5 1 A

with the Northeast-Midwest In­stitute in Washington, D.C. Under this Act, all ships entering U.S. ports will be asked to voluntarily perform ballast water exchanges effective later this year.

But this action lacks teeth, the petitioners charge. Although ship operators will have to file reports with the Coast Guard detailing whether they actually conducted exchanges and where and when they took place, compliance will be voluntary—at least in the beginning.

"If for some reason weather or safety reasons don't allow [an ex­change] , there are currently no civil or criminal penalties" planned, said Scott Newsham, an environmental standards chief for the Coast Guard. "Two to three years after the regulation be­comes effective, we'll make a de­termination on whether this vol­untary program is effective. If not, it'll become mandatory," New-sham added.

Yet, "there are no clear guide­lines on how the Coast Guard is going to determine whether or not to go mandatory after this voluntary period," said Linda Sheehan, a pollution program manager with the Center for

Marine Conservation. Neither does the Act address treatment. "Ballast water exchange is good over the short term; it's a first step that we have to take, but over the longer term, there are problems with it," Sheehan said.

"There still is not a lot of science that can be

used to determine what it takes to reduce

the risk of species invasions to an

acceptably low level." —Dorn Carlson, EPA

The shipping industry readily admits the weaknesses of ballast water exchange. "Because of the stability and stress factor of a ship, if you've got bad weather conditions or a certain cargo configuration, you can't do it all the time," said Kathy Metcalf, director of maritime affairs for Chamber of Shipping of America. Moreover, the residual ballast water remaining in sediments at

tank bottoms often harbors vi­ruses and bacteria.

But treatment technologies to handle this problem already exist, Cangelosi said. "They just need to jump from sewage treatment and the industrial waste world to the ballast water world," she said. Some of the technologies cur­rently being bandied about in­clude filtration, ultraviolet radia­tion, ozonation, heat, and biocides.

To get these technologies into place more quickly, the petition­ers turned to EPA "because through the permitting process, the Clean Water Act has proven to be very effective in controlling pollution from industrial dis­charges and municipal treatment plants. Using this tool to apply to pollution from ballast discharges could be equally as powerful, and it's an available tool that's not be­ing used," Sheehan said.

But because the NPDES program is largely state-driven, such a change could cause prob­lems down the road if states choose to regulate ballast water in different ways, Carlson said, adding that nothing is preventing them from doing that now. —KRIS CHRISTEN

House bills could weaken standards, environmentalists charge The House of Representatives in February quickly approved two controversial bills designed to trim costs shouldered by compa­nies when complying with regula­tions. The bills angered many Democrats, moderate Republi­cans, and the environmental community, who said both bills could weaken existing environ­mental standards.

On Feb. 10, the House ap­proved "The Mandates Informa­tion Act," similar to a law enacted in 1995 that applies only to state and local governments. This year's proposal would allow law­makers to stop any bill estimated to impose $100 million on busi­nesses. Environmental groups and certain House members charged that the Republican lead­ership pushed through a bill that could prevent passage of impor­tant laws, without a floor debate

on its benefits, and without hav­ing to vote directly against the bill, said Grant Cope of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). The bill's supporters countered that Congress has plenty of time to discuss benefits, as the legislation moves through the committee process.

The next day, the House ap­proved "The Small Business Pa­perwork Reduction Act," which would allow state regulatory agencies to waive violations of reporting requirements for first-time, small-company offenders.

This bill cuts to the heart of most environmental laws, said PIRG's Cope. Most states require daily monitoring reports from industrial facilities, listing the amount of contaminants released into the environment. The reports help states determine the source of pollution in an unhealthful

waterway. But if a business skips reporting, and that goes undetec­ted by an agency, it would be dif­ficult to pinpoint the company responsible for contributing to the water's pollution, Cope said. Some state agencies have trouble following up environmental viola­tions now, and this bill provides an incentive for small companies to avoid reporting, Cope said.

However, GOP House staffers said the bill provides states with the flexibility to require a fine if the violation might cause harm. "This legislation gives law-abiding small business owners the oppor­tunity to correct minor mistakes without being fined thousands of dollars," added Rep. David Mcin­tosh (R-Ind.), the main sponsor of the paperwork bill. Sources said the Senate is not likely to approve either bill this year. —CATHERINE M. COONEY

1 5 2 A • APRIL 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS