do not specify a measurable result [ES&T, June e997, 264A).
Effluent trading limited in energy sector Energy companies will be reluctant to trade pollution rights under EPA's proposed effluent trading program unless the Clean Water Act is amended to specifically authorize the trades, according to a Department of Energy (DOE) report. "The Feasibility of Effluent Trading in the Energy Industries," released in May, says that the petroleum refining, oil exploration and production, petroleum distribution, electric power, and coal industries are not willing to risk future litigation and liability under a voluntary trading program that is not statutorily authorized. The proposed voluntary effluent trading program would allow regulated facilities to meet their technology-based water quality permit limits by paying another source discharging into the same watershed to cut back its pollution. In January 1996, EPA released a policy statement endorsing effluent trading in watersheds. The agency is currently developing the "Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading," a formal guidance document for local and state planners detailing five different types of trading, including point-to-point source trading, intra-plant trading, pretreatment trading, point-nonpoint so lirc e trading, and nonpoint-nonpoint source trading. Company officials need not worry about federal liability for effluent trading, because the trades would be written into water quality permits, said Mahesh Podar, director of the policy budget staff in the Office of Water. Podar said state permitting authorities are receptive to effluent trading, and many are already conducting demonstration projects. DOE officials were interested in the program because it might lead to significant cost savings for the energy industry, said John Veil of Argonne National Laboratory and author of the DOE report. Some waterrelated trades, such as wetlands and fisheries mitigation, show good potential for trading that could benefit some enerffv industries, the report said. Overall, however, the report found there is limited opportunity for effluent trading in the enerffv sector
Other industries, such as agriculture and wastewater treatment, could more readily trade on nutrient effluents, said Veil.
Hazardous waste facilities should avoid sensitive areas States and local governments should avoid locating hazardous waste facilities near environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and schools, say EPA officials, three years after deciding not to follow through on a proposed siting rule. The agency recommendations, released in May, consist of technical information generated while EPA was working on the proposed rulemaking in 1994, according to Virginia Phillips, siting team leader for the Office of Solid Waste. That rulemaking was dropped in part because localities and states were already trying to address these issues, said Phillips. The agency recommends that local planners consider weather conditions, geological features, groundwater, wetlands, population levels, and current land use when siting new facilities or new land units occupied by existing facilities. These considerations are designed to protect sensitive areas, those that may be disturbed or permanently damaged by hazardous waste contamination, according to the agency. For example, under the land-use category, the agency recommends that hazardous waste management facilities not be located near schools, nursing homes, day care centers, or hospitals because of possible adverse health effects on the elderly, children, and hospital patients. Under "unfavorable weather conditions," the agency recommends that hazardous waste facilities not be located in valleys or mountain regions, where stagnant air can concentrate pollutants. EPA is also interested in getting local residents involved early in the process because siting is always done before permits are issued, said Phillips. A recent EPA study of hazardous waste facilities showed that 29 new facilities will be built over the next 10 years. Nearly 100 new hazardous waste units will be added to existing sites. EPA staff are developing a separate set of recommendations that will address the possible social impacts on communities from hazardous waste facilities, Phillips said.
Closure of N.Y.-N.J. dump provides only partial solution The closure next month of the sediment dump site for the New YorkNew Jersey harbor, welcomed by state government officials, environmentalists, and harbor users when announced in May, leaves unanswered the larger question of how to dispose of the 2.5 million tons of contaminated sediment that flows into the harbor each year. The closure of the Mud Dump site is part of an agreement announced in July 1996 among the Clinton administration, state and port officials, and environmentalists. The New York-New Jersey harbor bottom is covered by some of the most contaminated sediment in the world, containing dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, and a host of hydrocarbons and metals from Superfund sites and industries that have dumped waste into upstream rivers. EPA proposed a closure plan for the 2.2-square nautical mile Mud Dump site, located 3.5 nautical miles east of Highlands, N.J. {Federal Register 1997, 62(92), 26267-79). The site will be reopened and enlarged to 15.7 square nautical miles encompassing the surrounding degraded area. The plan includes a remediation strategy for the new area. Only the "cleanest" sediments, known as category 1, will be allowed into the site and spread on top of the sediment already accumulated there. But the proposal does not address the question of where to dump the more toxic sediments, known as categories 2 and 3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for approving dredging permits in the harbor, has developed 53 disposal options and is waiting for feedback from the state governors. The options include the creation of a capped island located in the open ocean, such as the islands in use near the Baltimore, and Norfolk Va. ports. Cindy Ziph of Clean Ocean Action said environmentalists are opposed to a dump solution. Two more steps must be taken, said Ziph: The technology must be developed to decontaminate the sediment, and a pollution prevention program must be implemented in the industries located upstream of the harbor. "Why would industries seek alternative technologies if they can dump the sediment?" Ziph asked.
VOL. 31, NO. 8, 1997/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 3 5 1 A
