CHCI White Paper DEVELOPING the NEXT GENERATION of LATINO LEADERS®

CHCI White Paper DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION OF LATINO LEADERS®

April 2014 Towards a clean and sustainable future: Green technologies, restoration and management of contaminated sites

Elizabeth Padilla-Crespo, CHCI-API STEM Graduate Fellow

Abstract Background and Poor handling and disposal of hazardous Introduction: Superfund and toxic waste impacted sites substances have left a legacy of contami- Environmental degradation is a threat in can be treated with various remedial tech- nation in sites all across the United States industrial and developing countries due nologies that can include physical methods that affect human and ecosystem welfare. to population growth, increased use of (e.g., removal of the hazardous substances The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency resources, and a legacy of poor handling by excavation or incineration), application (EPA) addresses these contaminated sites and disposal of hazardous substances. of biological processes (e.g., biodegrada- under the Comprehensive Environmen- The Comprehensive Emergency Re- tion of a particular waste by microorgan- tal Response Compensation and Liability sponse Compensation and Liability isms, plants or fungi), and chemical treat- Act (CERCLA) commonly known as the Act (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–9675) is ments (e.g., the addition of certain com- “Superfund Program.” The management the federal statute that addresses uncon- pounds to induce chemical reactions that and cleanup of these impacted areas is a trolled and abandoned contaminated would transform hazardous compounds matter of national security and environ- sites and requests these areas be investi- to inert or less toxic compounds). Sustain- mental justice as it is estimated that one in gated, evaluated and ultimately restored able remediation (also referred as green four Americans live near a Superfund site (S. US EPA) . This law gives authority to the remediation) can be defined as remedial and that minorities, particularly Hispanics EPA to compel responsible parties to per- methods used to treat and restore areas are more likely to live near affected areas. form cleanups at impacted sites and also considering all environmental effects of Green technologies such as bioremedia- establishes a trust fund to finance restora- technology implementation; maximizing tion and sustainable practices represent tion of orphan sites, where no responsible the environmental and human welfares a solution to treat and restore these sites; party exists. After an evaluation by our and minimizing cost and the use of limited but several factors including scientific federal government, locations that repre- resources. Cleanup strategies that involve and regulatory considerations hinder the sent a high threat to human and ecosys- the application of biological processes to implementation of these technologies. tem welfare are declared as “Superfund achieve detoxification, cleanup and resto- Changes in environmental regulations, sites” and the worst cases are listed in the ration of contaminated sites are of particu- better management of the Superfund National Priority List (NPL). CERCLA was lar interest since these are often considered sites and the creation of initiatives that enacted in 1980 under the Reagan Admin- environmentally friendly, and are widely promote collaboration between academia istration after the discovery of toxic waste accepted by the scientific community. and federal agencies should be made to impacting sites such as Love Canal in New Special attention has been given to in situ safeguard the livelihood of U.S. citizens York and Times Beach in Missouri. Today bioremediation approaches (the use of mi- and enhance the restoration of contami- the Superfund (or NPL) has become one croorganisms which can degrade the con- nated sites. of the nation’s largest government pro- taminants of interest at the site) since it has grams, and as of January 24, 2014, there the potential to be a non-intrusive, non- were 1,372 proposed or declared NPL sites waste generating and cost efficient natural (S. US EPA 2014b) (Table 1 and Figure 1) method. However, there are four factors

The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not represent or reflect those of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI). The EPA estimates that one in four Americans live within three miles of a toxic waste contaminated site and around 10 million children under the age of 12 live within four miles of a Superfund site (S. US EPA).

Figure 1. Map of Superfund sites in the United States as of March 31, 2010. Red dots indicate final sites in the National Priority List, yellow are proposed sites, and green are deleted sites (S. US EPA).

that hinder implementation of this green taminated sites and describe how bio- Why should we care?: Racial technology in Federal Superfund sites. remediation as well as other sustainable and ethnic minorities at risk These include: (1) scientific and regulatory approaches represent feasible and at- The EPA estimates that one in four Ameri- aspects that limit the implementation of tractive cleanup methods to treat these cans live within three miles of a toxic waste these technologies; (2) the current state locations. Emphasis will be given on ad- contaminated site and around 10 million of the CERCLA statue and management of dressing why the conditions of these areas children under the age of 12 live within the Superfund sites which have no clear are important to minority and Hispanic four miles of a Superfund site (S. US EPA). language for implementation of sustain- communities and the regulatory aspects A study focused on evaluating 50 Super- able practices; (3) the absence of incentives of the program that could be amended fund sites across the United States revealed to promote the use (implementation) of regarding site management, contaminant between 205,349 and 803,100 people live green technologies over other strategies; removal actions, research and innovation within one mile of these areas. Further- and (4) lack of collaboration between agen- and implementation of green sustainable more, this study revealed these sites are in cies, practitioners and academia. remedial practices. Lastly, a set of recom- neighborhoods whose household incomes mendations is delineated to enhance the are below the national average. Moreover, This paper will review the history of the restoration of these sites. 60% of the U.S. Census tracts in these re- Superfund Program and the CERCLA gions comprised 40% or more racial or statue, the current management of con- ethnic minorities (Steinzor et al. 2006).

2 On August 2, 1978, the New York State Health Department declared the site in a state of emergency and more than 800 families were relocated. Five days later, President Jimmy Carter declared a federal state of emergency in the Love Canal’s surrounding areas and later allocated federal funds to remediate the area.

Figure 2: Impacted areas in Puerto Rico. Hydrogeology and contaminated sites are indicated; the north coast limestone aquifer is depicted in orange and light pink color. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities are also included, these are sites where releases of hazardous waste into soil, ground water, surface water, sediments, and air have occurred; requiring the investigation and cleanup, or remediation. Forty-five percent of all Superfund sites are located in the northern karst region of the island which includes one of the largest and most productive sources of groundwater. Evidence suggests that the higher preterm birth rates in Puerto Rico cannot be explained by changes in obstetric practices and that exposure to hazardous chemicals contributes to preterm birth (Padilla, Irizarry, and Steele 2011; “Puerto Rico Testsite for Exploring Contamination Threats (PROTECT): Dynamic Transport and Exposure Pathways of Contaminants in Karst Groundwater System” 2014).

Other studies have also shown that Blacks, perfund despite their overrepresentation taminants in Karst Groundwater System” Hispanics and low-income individuals are in proximity to environmental hazards.” 2014; Padilla, I.Y. 2011) (Figure 2). Remark- more likely (i.e., positively associated) to (O’Neil 2007). Another study by Anderton ably, as of January 24, 2014, Puerto Rico has live near Superfund and NPL locations et al. (1997) also concluded that areas with 16 NPL sites; the same as states like Ten- (Stretesky and Hogan 1998; Burwell-Naney a higher percentage of minorities are less nessee, Georgia and Utah; and more than et al. 2013; Wilson et al. 2012). Executive likely to receive NPL status, thus delaying states like Oregon, Delaware and Okla- Order 12898 entitled “Environmental Jus- the cleanup process (Anderton, Oakes, and homa which have 14, 13 and 7 NPL sites, tice for Low Income & Minority Popula- Egan 1997). respectively (S. US EPA). Concerns exist that tion” is intended to protect individuals and exposure to contaminants may contribute communities against unfair treatment due The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a U.S. to the birth incidence in Puerto Ricans, to color, race or nationality with respect territory with a 99% Hispanic population, which is among the highest in the United to environmental policies, laws and regu- serves as an example of a minority com- States (Ghasemizadeh et al. 2012; Padilla, lations. However, a study conducted by munity impacted with hazardous waste by Irizarry, and Steele 2011). Overall, these O’Neil (2007) indicated that, since the en- having more than 150 contaminated sites studies and occurrences reflect that racial actment of EO 12898 in 1994, “marginalized (“Puerto Rico Testsite for Exploring Con- and ethnic minorities (especially Hispanics) and poor populations are less likely to ben- tamination Threats (PROTECT): Dynamic are among the most vulnerable and at-risk efit from a cleanup program such as Su- Transport and Exposure Pathways of Con- communities when it comes to Superfund

3 The Superfund Program has been considered the “world’s most advanced hazardous waste program in the world” (Macey 2007), and its significance is portrayed in the Love Canal’s story.

sites, suggesting a case of inequality and emergency in the Love Canal’s surround- prolonged monitoring and ultimate res- environmental justice. Therefore, the man- ing areas and later allocated federal funds toration). If the environment and sites are agement and state of restoration of these to remediate the area. This incident rep- considered a threat, further investigation areas is a matter of national security to en- resented the first time that federal monies is required and a site inspection is made sure livelihood of all U.S. citizens. were used to assist in a man-made disaster. to determine the nature and extent of the The Love Canal incident was a “wake up contamination and the potentially respon- call” creating awareness on the dangers sible parties. The information collected in History of CERCLA of public exposure to toxic waste and the these first two phases will be evaluated In the 1970s, the Love Canal in upstate New need to compel the parties liable for the and sites will be given a score from 0 to York, made headlines in what is considered incidents. Consequently, extensive House 100 using the “Hazard Ranking System” (as to be “one of the most appalling environ- and Senate committee hearings were held stated in section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as mental tragedies in American history” during 1979, which led to Congress enact- amended). Sites with a score of 28.50 or (Beck 1979). Located near the Niagara ing CERCLA in 1980. On September 1, 1983, higher are eligible for listing as NPL. The Falls, this body of water and its adjacent the Love Canal was added to the NPL list NPL serves as an informational and man- community suffered the consequences of and the chemical company that gener- agement tool indicating which sites are 21,000 tons of toxic waste that were dis- ated the hazardous waste was found liable priorities for cleanup, as they pose a high posed by a nearby chemical industry since of the disaster and negligent in the way threat to the community. Only sites in the the 1940s. The hazardous waste (which it handled the waste and sale of the area. NPL list can use federal funds for cleanup. included pesticides such as DDT, carci- Although the company had followed all After a site is listed as an NPL, a remedial nogenic solvents and heavy metals) was U.S. applicable laws at the time of dispos- investigation and feasibility study are lined with clay and buried under the canal. ing the waste, the EPA sued the company concurrently conducted for more detailed The chemical company that owned the for $129 million under a retroactive liability investigations on site contamination and area sold it to the city for one dollar and provision underlined in CERCLA (section exposure. At this phase, treatability stud- included a warning about the chemical 107) and the families were compensated ies of alternatives methods for treatment wastes buried and a disclaimer absolving for their properties. In, 2004 after great are considered and evaluated. Once the the industry of any future liability. But on efforts, over $400 million dollars, and after assessments and investigations are com- 1976, the waste was exposed after record- 21 years of its inception as an NPL, the Love plete, a document identifying the treat- breaking rainfall; nearby vegetation started Canal was clean enough to be taken off the ment procedure to be used at the site is to die, corroding barrels were exposed to Superfund list. made public, this is known as a “record of the surface, chemicals leached forming tox- decision”. ic puddles and a fouling smell covered the residential area. In the years that followed, Management of Superfund Consequently, remedial designs and astonishing levels of miscarriages and still- Sites remedial actions are followed, which births were recorded, and 56% of the chil- EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency involve the design and implementation dren born between 1974–1978 had at least Response (OSWER) in Washington, D.C. of the site cleanup strategies. The EPA one birth defect. For two years, the local oversees the Superfund Program. A repre- designates sites as “construction com- community battled to prove the industrial sentation and summary of the phases and plete” when any type of construction or waste buried in the area was responsible milestones for a site cleanup under CER- containment activity at the site has been for the citizens’ illnesses, and finally their CLA are illustrated in Figure 3. In aggre- completed or when the site qualifies for united efforts and mobilization brought gate, the Act requires a preliminary site NPL deletion. Complex sites with ongoing attention at the state and federal level. On assessment to identify if the environment cleanup activities that require long term August 2, 1978, the New York State Health poses or not a threat to human health, treatment and monitoring are overseen Department declared the site in a state of and identifies sites where possible re- by “post construction completion activ- emergency and more than 800 families sponse actions are needed. These include ities”. During this time, five-year reviews were relocated. Five days later, President removal actions (e.g., immediate control are requested to evaluate implementa- Jimmy Carter declared a federal state of of the spread of hazardous substances tion and performance at sites where haz- during a spill) and remedial activities (e.g., ardous substance levels are higher than

4 A GAO report for FY 2010 investigated four Superfund sites deleted from the NPL. The investigation revealed gaps and errors in EPA’s long-term monitoring reports and residual contamination at these sites that was previously unknown.

Figure 3. DoD CERCLA environmental restoration phases and milestones. SOURCE: Figure from the National Academies Report (National Research Council 2013)

permitted. These reviews receive recom- vironmental restoration. Contaminated specific regulations and handling require- mendations from the EPA, and aim to help water, soil or sediments can be treated ments because certain materials can determine whether the remedies in use on site (in situ) or they can be removed only be incinerated offsite, while others protect human health and the environ- and transferred to a different location for produce ashes that require further stabi- ment. Finally, sites can be deleted from disposal or treatment (ex situ). Methods lization impacting applicability and cost. the NPL when the EPA, in conjunction for restoration include biological, physi- Another remedy referred to as “pump with the State, considers that no further cal methods, chemical treatments, among and treat” is also considered an expen- response action is needed to protect hu- others. Ex situ approaches that involve the sive, slow and energy-intensive technol- man and ecosystem health. excavation and removal of large quanti- ogy. This process requires groundwater to ties of water or soil are not ideal, trans- be extracted out of the subsurface with porting the hazardous materials imposes vacuums pumps and then transferred to Remediation Technologies additional risk, cost and environmental vessels where either chemical reagents used for site restoration impacts by adding to fossil fuel consump- are added for treatment or materials like

Remediation technologies are techniques tion and green house (CO2) emissions. activated carbon are used to absorb the applied to impacted sites to achieve en- Incineration is subjected to technology- contaminants. The addition of chemical

5 Hence, it is clear that when evaluating treatment options, site-specific circumstances may not lead to bioremediation as the appropriate choice, but it is important that the techniques implemented are still cost-effective and also sustainable.

additives for treatment in situ (to neu- Table 1. Number of Federal and general sites for each status and milestone as of tralize or precipitate the contaminants in January 24, 2014: place) can also be costly and considered a major capital investment, as the synthe- Status Non-Federal (General) Federal Total sis or purchase of these additives can be Proposed Sites 49 49 53 expensive and can create hazardous products that need subsequent disposal. Final Sites 1162 157 1319

Conversely, the application of biologi- Deleted Sites 358 17 375 cal treatment using nature-encountered microorganisms (bioremediation) can Milestone Non-Federal (General) Federal Total be used to degrade toxic waste at im- Partial Deletions 42 18 60 pacted sites. Bacteria have thrived over three billion years on this planet having Construction Completions 1085 72 1157 evolved effective mechanisms to gain energy by utilizing a wide variety of sub- strates, including hazardous chemicals. Microbes can use materials like gasoline, diesel and other hydrocarbons as “food” Analysis of substances of concern. By the end of (carbon source) while others can “respire” FY 2013, the Superfund Program had con- compounds like carcinogenic chlorinated Highlights and limitations of trolled or reduced human exposure to con- solvents, pesticides and radioactive waste the Superfund Program tamination in 1,389 NPL sites, controlled (uranium) similarly as we humans respire The Superfund Program has been consid- groundwater contamination in 1,091 NPL oxygen (Löffler and Edwards 2006). An ered the “world’s most advanced hazard- sites and completed a cumulative total of excellent example of microbiological ous waste program in the world” (Macey 92,282 remedial assessments since the pro- processes aiding during environmental 2007), and its significance is portrayed in gram’s creation in 1980 (S. US EPA). disasters was during the BP Deepwater the Love Canal’s story. A study led by re- Horizon, where indigenous marine bacte- searchers at the Massachusetts Institute Superfund cleanups also have positive ria degraded the oil plume to nearly unde- of Technology deduced that Superfund economic benefits. Mastromonaco (2001) tectable levels within a few weeks of the cleanups had reduced the incidence of showed the impact on property values in spill (Hazen et al. 2010). Furthermore, bio- congenital anomalies by 20–25 percent residences near a Superfund site; by look- remediation has proven effective in other (Currie, Greenstone, and Moretti 2011). ing at houses within 3 km of a site. Results massive spills like the Exxon Valdez in the Furthermore, since its inception, it has low- indicated that houses increased in value coast of Alaska and the Gulf War oil spill ered the risks for cancer and poisoning of by 7.3 percent after cleanups were com- (Atlas and Hazen 2011; Bragg et al. 1994; many citizens by reducing their exposure pleted (Mastromonaco 2011). Restored Thomas, Ellwood, and Longyear 1979; to hazardous substances. CERCLA has also areas can also serve as sources of revenue, Höpner and Al-Shaikh 2008). increased knowledge on how to deal (plan- recreation and job creation; an example of ning and response) of accidents and estab- this is the Anaconda Co. NPL site in Mon- lished the Agency for Toxic Substances and tana. At this site cleanup and restoration Disease Registry (ATSDR) which nowadays has included the removal of heavy metals conducts health surveys, assessment, sur- in contaminated water and soil and the re- veillance and toxicological studies associ- vegetation of more than 250 acres. EPA’s ated with exposure of hazardous chemi- coordinated efforts led to the creation of cals. ATSDR also focuses on disseminating a park, trails and a golf course, which have information via education and outreach then increased the commercial and resi- initiatives, managing accessible databases dential growth in the area. (S. US EPA) of toxics incidents, and chemical profiles

6 It is the impression of many that there is a lack of collaboration between academia, the private sector (consultants, practitioners) and regulators (government) when it comes to Superfund sites.

The Superfund program has also been the Ranking System score given to a site and its to promote growth and activity of indig- center of many environmental debates, inception or deletion as an NPL. Controlling enous microbes; additions can include long scrutiny and criticism. One of the “the unknown” is a challenge, plus it may nutrients, oxygen (to promote the specific aspects is that sites take too long time to lead to the selection and implementation growth of aerobic microorganisms) and remediate (8-11 years in average but many of inadequate remedial responses. vegetable oil and molasses that serve as linger in the NPL for decades, like the Love hydrogen supply to promote growth of Canal) and residual contamination remains A GAO report for FY 2010 investigated four anaerobic microbial populations. At times at least 126,000 sites (National Research Superfund sites deleted from the NPL. The the site does not harbor the microorgan- Council 2013). Additional limitations in- investigation revealed gaps and errors in isms capable of degrading or transform- clude: insufficient information on sites that EPA’s long-term monitoring reports and ing the contaminants; in these cases bio- have been delisted but still have residual residual contamination at these sites that augmentation can be implemented by contamination, and the absence of re- was previously unknown. The same GAO introducing microbial populations that sources (e.g., databases) to compare reme- investigation also highlighted the follow- are not native to the site but that can carry dial technology performances across sites ing weakness in EPA’s Superfund manage- out the desired reactions. (Philp and (National Research Council 2013). Recently, ment: (1) not completing the performance Atlas 2005) the situation with deleted sites has been evaluations of Superfund contractors, (2) referred as THE PARADOX OF “CLOSED” not managing efficiently the recommen- Bioremediation has the advantage of SITES. The EPA defines site closure as dations of Five-Year Reviews (84 percent being a more cost effective technology when “no further Superfund response is of the review recommendations were (Saaty and Booth 1994; Wijensinghe et al. necessary to protect human health and overdue), (3) fines and penalty billings 1992; Philp and Atlas 2005). As reviewed the environment” while EPA’s site closure were not consistently recorded, and (4) by Megharaj et al (2011) bioremediation guidelines include the intent to provide errors in internal receipts and/or expen- technologies are 80–90% cheaper than an approach for conducting five-year re- ditures totaling about $2.5 million were other approaches that rely merely on views at these sites (S. US EPA). However, discovered. Since site assessment, inves- chemical or physical methods, and have the EPA states that a five-year review is only tigation and clean up can cost up to be been successfully applied in more than required when hazardous contaminants hundreds of millions of dollars (S. US EPA), 400 areas in the United States (Megharaj are left in place in levels higher than the it is imperative that EPA’s oversight and et al. 2011). For example, the cost of clean- current safety standards (S. US EPA). This management is strong and consistent. ing 120 km of shoreline after the Exxon contradiction in the current definition and Valdez spill using biological methods language may confuse stakeholders as “op- resulted in less than a day’s cost of per- eration and maintenance of a remedy may Bioremediation as a possibility forming physical washing (Philp and Atlas continue for many decades after closure” for Superfund remedial actions: 2005). Furthermore, it has been estimated (National Research Council 2013). Other principles and case studies that applying non-biological approaches concern is that the construction complete Bioremediation approaches include natu- to remediate the current listed waste milestone may be misleading to many, as ral attenuation, a process that involves sites across the United States would cost it does not necessarily mean that restora- no intervention, letting natural occurring around $750 billion (in a time frame of 30 tion is completed or the levels of hazard- microbial communities degrade the con- years); while with bioremediation the cost ous substances are safe. The presence of taminants, and enhanced bioremedia- would be an order of magnitude less, only emerging contaminants (those substances tion practices that require the application $75 billion (Pimentel et al. 1997) . Finally, that have not historically been considered of procedures to promote the removal or Hunter-Cevera (1998) projected that as hazardous), can impose an additional containment of the hazardous substances. worldwide bioremediation approaches problem when evaluating the level of The methods of bioestimulation and would cost $14 billion compared to $135 contamination at a site. These chemicals, bioaugmentation are among the most billion per year if other technologies were which are not yet regulated and their tox- used in situ enhanced bioremediation pro- used (Hunter-Cevera 1998). icity not yet completely understood, are cedures. During bioestimulation, injec- a problem that could affect the Hazard tion of amendments are applied at the site

7 As previously stated, microbial-mediated B) Another case study is a DuPont site con- tainable approach. In this case, excavation bioremediation represents an alternative taminated with approximately 10 million was the most cost efficient method among to degrade waste to benign products or to tons of toxic waste. At this site excava- the remedial options considered, and re- immobilize inorganic contaminants such tion, stabilization and bioremediation sulted in a third less CO2 emissions and a as heavy metals and radionuclides. In the were considered, and after evaluation, shorter restoration time frame. Another case of toxic chlorinated solvents, a recent bioremediation was selected. Compared case is the California Gulch Superfund NPL review of 32 sites indicated that contami- to excavation, bioremediation would im- Site in Leadville, Colorado, an area impact- nant levels were reduced by 60–90% when pose a lesser disturbance to the nearby ed by past mining activities. At this Super- in situ bioremediation approaches were community and represented a reduction fund site, an intelligent and strategic plan implemented (Stroo et al. 2012). Another of 2.5 million tons of CO2. of remediation was implemented to mini- example is that of Anaeromyxobacter de- mize environmental disturbances. Excava- halogenans, a bacteria that can respire Shortcomings of tion and offsite disposal was avoided and uranium. Although uranium cannot be Bioremediation and soil was treated in situ, therefore reducing biologically degraded or removed bacteria possibilities on other air emissions associated with equipment like Anaeromyxobacter can transform it, by Sustainable approaches work and transportation. Natural amend- reducing it from insoluble and mobile U(VI) Although bioremediation is a promising ments present at the site (compost consist- to insoluble U(IV) oxide. This microbial re- technique it may not be applicable to all ing of agricultural and forestry byproducts) duction holds significant promise, as the in- sites. Some of drawbacks of bioremedia- were used for soil treatment instead of us- soluble uranium can then be contained in tion are listed below: ing synthetic materials (Kathleen S. Smith groundwater, preventing it from reaching 1. Not all contaminants are biodegrad- Katherine Walton-Day and Pietersen 2012; aquifers and posing a human health risk. able, example of these are 1,4-diozane S. US EPA). Efforts were coordinated with Bioestimulation can be achieved in these and chloroform, which are recalcitrant Colorado’s Division of Natural Resources, cases by the addition of acetate (diluted chemicals. Colorado Department of Public Health and vinegar) to the subsurface, which will pro- 2. The process is sensitive to the geo- Environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, mote growth of uranium-reducing bacte- chemical conditions at the site, and and the U.S. Bureau of Land ria. Pilot studies have shown that this tech- changes could lead to incomplete de- Management. nique has a reduced cost when compared toxification. Inhibitory conditions like to pump and treat (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory certain chemicals, pH, temperature Hence, it is clear that when evaluating Commission 2008). can inhibit biodegradation, these may treatment options, site-specific circum- be adjusted but can result in higher stances may not lead to bioremediation as Finally, two particular case studies of cost. the appropriate choice, but it is important sustainable in situ bioremediation are 3. The response of biological systems can- that the techniques implemented are still listed below showing the benefits and not always be predicted which can lead cost-effective and also sustainable. This potential of the technology. to a longer restoration time. optimal decision-making process follows 4. Constant monitoring is needed to quan- President Obama’s Executive Order (EO) A) In a chlorinated solvent contaminated tify the rate of biodegradation, and en- 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmen- site in Cape Canaveral (Kennedy Space sure that the right densities and levels tal, Energy, and Economic Performance” Center), bioremediation and bioes- of the organisms of interest are present. issued on October 5, 2009. EO 13514 calls timulation were implemented with 5. Preliminary pilot studies and laboratory for energy reduction, awareness of green approaches to minimize the environ- experiments are encouraged before technologies and practices “to establish mental footprint caused by the chosen the complete site is treated. These tri- an integrated strategy towards sustain- clean-up remedy. Treatment was opti- als help in evaluating the feasibility of ability in the Federal Government”. Fol- mized in various ways including the use treatment but require time and funding lowing the EO, the EPA and Interstate of solar powered units for water recir- to conduct the investigations. Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) culation and strategic and careful selec- have published guideline documents for tion of additives (for microbial growth) Therefore, the nature of contamination and green remediation practices that provide to avoid the need of multiple interven- conditions at the site may require a differ- an overview of the subject, current efforts tions. This strategic and greener ap- ent technology than bioremediation to and best practices (ITRC 2014; S. US EPA).

proach resulted in less CO2 equivalents restore the area, or a combined approach These documents aim to “educate and released than technologies like pump including biological, physical and/or chem- inform state regulators and other stake- and treat, air sparge and multiphase ex- ical remediation methods. For example, holders in the concepts and challenges” traction (Daprato, R.C., J. Langenbach, after evaluating several methods to restore but currently there is no regulation R. Santos-Ebaugh, R. Kline) a landfill with vast soil contamination, exca- that specifically governs the green vation resulted in the most viable and sus- sustainable process. Actually the ITRC

8 report clearly states how “There is no funded by the Department of Defense Research on remediation technologies industry-wide consensus on the defini- (DoD) and the Department of Energy can also turn a negative environmental tions of the term “green and sustainable”; (DOE) with $315 and $138 million, respec- incident into an opportunity for devel- therefore, discussions on this area may tively (National Research Council 2013). opment. For example, if an investigator not be addressing consistent concepts.” wants to find a bacterium capable of The EPA has defined green remediation The DoD supports field demonstrations, breaking down chloroform, having access as “the practice of considering all environ- application and validation of technolo- to samples from a chloroform-contami- mental effects of remedy implementation gies under their Environmental Security nated site increases his chances of finding and incorporating options to minimize and Technology Certification Program it, since natural processes (evolution and the environmental footprints of cleanup (ESTCP) (DOD 2014a). DoD also funds basic natural selection) would have already se- actions” (S. US EPA) ; but this narrow defi- research and development under the Stra- lected for microorganisms with those ca- nition leaves behind social and economic tegic Environmental Research and Devel- pabilities. In other words, scientists thrive aspects. Bardons et al. (2011) as well as opment Program (SERDP) (DOD 2014b). on the opportunity to work with “unusual” a recent NRC report have indicated the These programs are unique, providing samples that will give rise to discoveries, importance of considering those aspects funding to academia, the private and while the industry and community bene- as elements of sustainable development federal sector on a peer review, competi- fits from the applications of these findings but yet “ethical and equity considerations, tive basis. ESTCP is operated solely under for site restoration. Finally, without the indirect economic costs and benefits, and DoD while SERDP operates in partner- right funding researchers cannot address employment and capital gain (among ship with DOE and EPA, but EPA’s support the needs of practitioners at the sites, and others) are not explicitly provided for in in recent years has been minimal. Pro- correspondingly, practitioners and regu- any cleanup statute or existing programs” grams like SERDP and ESTCP have opened lators will not keep pace with the latest (Bardos, Harries, and Smith 2011). many doors, for example vinyl chloride (a cutting-edge technologies gestated at the proven carcinogen and pervasive ground- laboratories of universities and research water contaminant) was thought to be centers. For example, a responsible party Research, education and recalcitrant to biotic degradation. After or contractor may consider and choose innovation needs much dedicated research, SERDP-funded more conservative methods instead of the It is the impression of many that there is a investigators proved that bacteria can use latest “state to the art” sustainable and lack of collaboration between academia, this compound for growth and nowadays green technology due to misinformation the private sector (consultants, practitio- specific tools are addressed to monitor and pressure, as EPA and CERCLA penal- ners) and regulators (government) when these microbes in vinyl chloride-contam- ties are strict and can result up to $37,500 it comes to Superfund sites. A recent Na- inated sites during remediation efforts for each day of non-compliance. The iso- tional Academies report alluded to the im- (He et al. 2003; Löffler and Edwards 2006). lation and miscommunication of “different pression that federal research funding for Therefore, more research is needed to professional and scientific cultures” is det- groundwater remediation has “generally decipher the toxicity, environmental fate, rimental leading to stagnant practices and declined over the past decade” (National and removal of toxic chemicals, including much longer cleanups of NPL sites. Research Council 2013). This is not surpris- those considered recalcitrant, unregu- ing since overall research investments by lated or not yet completely understood. federal agencies has declined in the last This is imperative as sites become more Final Policy years due to budget cuts and financial complex by the presence of emerging Recommendations: constraints (NSF 2014). During 1996-2011 and multiple contaminants. Furthermore, the National Institute of Environmental research efforts need to encompass the To promote bioremediation practices Health Sciences (NIEHS) awarded fund- molecular basis of chemicals under con- and sustainable technologies: ing of approximate $500-800 millions on trolled laboratory studies, but also their ■■Government and private sector need research related to groundwater remedia- behavior at bigger scales (e.g., pilot and to reach a consensus on the definition tion (National Research Council 2013). But field studies); it is in these scenarios where of sustainability and clarify the role of NIEHS gives funding to projects investi- interdisciplinary efforts are most needed green remediation. Once a consensus is gating the exposure and impacts of con- for righteous remedy implementation. reached, specific regulations for green taminants on human health; it does not Investigations leading to discovery and sustainable remediation can be drafted. fund research on contaminant removal or innovation of novel remediation proce- ■■Amend CERCLA to include sustainability the implementation of remedial technolo- dures are crucial, but there’s also constant criteria on remedy selection. The gies. During the same time period, the need for optimization of classical environ- language should specify that after EPA only awarded approximately $14 mil- mental engineering technologies as more evaluation of all parameters, the remedy lion; while most of the applied research on efficient and sensitive instruments are selected is not only efficient and cost groundwater remediation in this area was developed. effective but also sustainable.

9 ■■Create legislation that provides needs to serve not only the natural References incentives to companies that voluntarily environment but also the surrounding Anderton, D L, J M Oakes, and K L Egan. select and implement more sustainable community. 1997. “Environmental Equity in Superfund. Demographics of the Discovery and remedial approaches, including ■■Enforce oversight and adequate Prioritization of Abandoned Toxic bioremediation. performance documentation to the Sites.” Evaluation Review 21 (1): 3–26. contractors and liable parties. doi:10.1177/0193841X9702100101. To foster education, research and ■■The creation of databases that can development across all sectors be used to compare the effectives of Atlas, Ronald M, and Terry C Hazen. 2011. especially with academia: different technologies at different sites. “Oil Biodegradation and Bioremediation: a Tale of the Two Worst Spills in U.s. History.” ■■Establish a Research Program (led by the Environmental Science & Technology 45 EPA) that gives grants on a competitive To improve strategies for sustainable (16): 6709–6715. basis to remediate projects at Superfund remediation implementation: sites. For a proposal to get awarded it ■■Establish incentives to promote the Bardos, Paul, Nicola D Harries, and Jonathan needs to show a united effort between selection and implementation of W N Smith. 2011. “Applying Sustainable the private sector, regulators, and bioremediation and other sustainable Development Principles to Contaminated Land Management Using the SuRF-UK academia; united in the restoration of a approaches (e.g., reduce fines for Framework.” SuRF-UK Applying Sustainable site. those liable parties that choose green Development Principles March 2011 - Bardos ■■The SERDP-ESTCP Program should be remediation over other technologies). et Al. Applying Sustainable Development a model to follow by other institutions ■■Standardize and reach a consensus on Principles - Spring 2011.pdf (August 2007): to foster collaborations and dialogue to the metrics used to measure green and 77–100. doi:10.1002/rem. better link science with practice (e.g., sustainable remediation actions (e.g., Beck, Edkardt C. 1979. “Love Canal promoting institutional innovations to CO2 emissions, use of renewable energy, Tragedy.” EPA Journal, January 1. develop and improve techniques for environmental impact footprint, and doi:10.1177/004057368303900411. environmental monitoring assessment). community job creation). ■■Create more education and training ■■ Reduce the use of natural resources Bragg, J R, R C Prince, E J Harner, and R M Atlas. 1994. “Effectiveness of Bioremediation for programs for regulators and (e.g., water), maximize use of renewable the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” Nature 368 (6470): practitioners. It is the impression of sources while considering social and 413–418. many academics (who are in more economic impact. Identify innovative close contact to the state-of-the-art, and optional uses for onsite materials and Burwell-Naney, Kristen, Hongmei Zhang, Ashok cutting edge techniques) that regulators byproducts otherwise considered waste. Samantapudi, Chengsheng Jiang, Laura Dalemarre, LaShanta Rice, Edith Williams, (government) and practitioners ■■ Educate and train the local workforce and Sacoby Wilson. 2013. “Spatial Disparity in simply don’t know enough about the (especially low income communities and the Distribution of Superfund Sites in South technologies, hindering the selection minorities) on remedial technologies. Carolina: An Ecological Study.” Environmental and implementation of bioremediations This opens doors for quicker cleanups, job Health : a Global Access Science Source 12 (1) practices. creation and better social relationships (January): 96. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-96. leading to community empowerment. Cannon, J.Z.2005. Adaptive management in To improve management of Superfund: thinking like a contaminated site. contaminated sites: NYU Envtl. LJ, 13, 561. ■■Track sites after they are deleted from the NPL, especially when those have Currie, Janet, Michael Greenstone, and Enrico Moretti. 2011. “Superfund Cleanups and indicatives of residual contamination. Infant Health.” American Economic Review. ■■Require liable parties and contractors doi:10.1257/aer.101.3.435. to file reports exclusively on their green remediation practices, environmental Daprato, R.C., J. Langenbach, R. Santos-Ebaugh, impact, remedial action procurement, as R. Kline, and T.A. Peel. “Green Remediation via an Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation well as the cost and energy use. Solar Powered System.” In Proceedings of the ■■During the decision-making and remedy Seventh International Conference Remediation selection process, the anticipated land of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. use should be considered. Monterey, California. ■■Follow an “adaptive management” DOD. 2014a. “About ESTCP.” Accessed February that will allow decisional flexibility in 25. http://www.serdp.org/About-SERDP-and- the clean up process, as discussed by ESTCP/About-ESTCP. Cannon (2005). ■■Firmly state that the remedy selected

10 ———. 2014b. “About SERDP.” Accessed Macey, Gregg. 2007. “Introduction: The Promises Saaty, RP, and SR Booth. 1994. “In Situ February 25. http://www.serdp.org/About- and Pitfalls of Adaptive Site Stewardship,” In Bioremediation: Cost Effectiveness of a SERDP-and-ESTCP/About-SERDP. Reclaiming the Land: Rethinking Superfund Remediation Technology Field Tested at the Institutions, Methods, and Practices, edited by Savannah River Integrated Demonstration Site.” “FY_2013_SF_EOY_accomp_sum_FINAL.pdf.” Jonathan Macey, Gregg, Cannon. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, …. 2014. Accessed February 25. http://www.epa. gov/superfund/accomp/pdfs/FY_2013_SF_ Mastromonaco, Ralph. 2011. “Hazardous Waste Steinzor, Rena I., Margaret Clune, Center for EOY_accomp_sum_FINAL.pdf. Hits Hollywood: Superfund and Housing American Progress, and Center for Progressive Prices in Los Angeles.” SSRN Electronic Journal Reform. 2006. The Toll of Superfund Neglect: Ghasemizadeh, Reza, Ferdinand Hellweger, (January 1). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1926467. Toxic Waste Dumps & Communities at Risk. Christoph Butscher, Ingrid Padilla, Center for Progresive Reform. Dorothy Vesper, Malcolm Field, and Akram Megharaj, Mallavarapu, Balasubramanian Alshawabkeh. 2012. “Review: Groundwater Ramakrishnan, Kadiyala Venkateswarlu, Stretesky, Paul, and Michael J. Hogan. 1998. Flow and Transport Modeling of Karst Aquifers, Nambrattil Sethunathan, and Ravi Naidu. “Environmental Justice: An Analysis of with Particular Reference to the North Coast 2011. “Bioremediation Approaches for Organic Superfund Sites in Florida.” Social Problems. Limestone Aquifer System of Puerto Rico.” Pollutants: a Critical Perspective.” Environment doi:10.1525/sp.1998.45.2.03x0169m. Hydrogeology Journal 20 (8): 1441–1461. International 37 (8): 1362–1375. doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.1007/s10040-012-0897-4. envint.2011.06.003. Stroo, Hans F, Andrea Leeson, Jeffrey a Marqusee, Paul C Johnson, C Herb Ward, Hazen, Terry C, Eric A Dubinsky, Todd Z DeSantis, National Research Council. 2013. “Alternatives Michael C Kavanaugh, Tom C Sale, et al. 2012. Gary L Andersen, Yvette M Piceno, Navjeet for Managing the Nation’s Complex “Chlorinated Ethene Source Remediation: Singh, Janet K Jansson, et al. 2010. “Deep-Sea Contaminated Groundwater Sites.” He National Lessons Learned.” Environmental Science & Oil Plume Enriches Indigenous Oil-Degrading Academies Press, 2013. Washington, DC. Technology 46 (12): 6438–47. doi:10.1021/ Bacteria.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 330 (6001): es204714w. 204–208. doi:10.1126/science.1195979. NSF, US National Science Foundation. 2014. “NSF Study Shows Declines in Federal Funding Thomas, Terence D, Derek C Ellwood, and V He, Jianzhong, Kirsti M Ritalahti, Michel R for Research and Development.” Accessed Michael C Longyear. 1979. “Change from Aiello, and Frank E Löffler. 2003. “Complete February 25. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_ Homo- to Heterolactic Fermentation by Detoxification of Vinyl Chloride (VC) summ.jsp?cntn_id=130156. Streptococcus Lactis Resulting from Glucose by an Anaerobic Enrichment Culture Limitation in Anaerobic Chemostat Cultures.” and Identification of the Reductively O’Neil, Sandra George. 2007. “Superfund: Journal of Bacteriology 138 (1): 109–117. Dechlorinating Population as a Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order Dehalococcoides Species.” Appl. Environ. 12898.” Environmental Health Perspectives 115 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008. Microbiol. 69: 996–1003. (7): 1087–1093. “Technical Basis for Assessing Uranium Bioremediation Performance.” Office of Nuclear Höpner, T, and KA Al-Shaikh. 2008. “Shoreline Padilla, IY, C Irizarry, and K Steele. 2011. Regulatory Research. http://purl.access.gpo. Bioremediation after the 1991 Gulf War Oil “Historical Contamination of Groundwater gov/GPO/LPS106258. Spill.” Protecting the Gulf’s Marine Ecosystems Resources in the North Coast Karst Aquifer of from …: 265–272. Puerto Rico.” Dimension 25 (3). US EPA, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Hunter-Cevera, J C. 1998. “The Value of Microbial Padilla, I.Y., C. Irizarry and K. Steele. 2011. “Report and Product Descriptions | Superfund Diversity.” Current Opinion in Microbiology 1 (3): “Historical Contamination of Groundwater Information Systems | US EPA.” 278–285. doi:10.1016/S1369-5274(98)80030-1. Resources in the North Coast Karst Aquifer of Puerto Rico.” Dimensions 25, (3): 7–12. US EPA, Superfund. “CERCLA Overview | ITRC. 2014. “Green and Sustainable Remediation Superfund | US EPA.” Documents.” Accessed February 25. http:// Philp, JC, and RM Atlas. 2005. “Bioremediation www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/ListDocuments?T of Contaminated Soils and Aquifers.” ———. 2014b. “US EPA National Priorities List opicID=9&SubTopicID=15. Bioremediation, ASM Press, Washington, DC. (NPL).” Accessed February 24. http://www.epa. gov/superfund/sites/npl/. Kathleen S. Smith Katherine Walton-Day, Karin Pimentel, David, Christa Wilson, Christine Olson Hoal Rhonda L Driscoll, and Kevin McCullum, Rachel Huang, Paulette ———. “Superfund for Students and Teachers | Pietersen. 2012. “Pre- and Post-Remediation Dwen, Jessica Flack, Quynh Tran, Superfund | US EPA.” Characterization of Acid-Generating Fluvial Tamara Saltman, and Barbara Cliff. 1997. Tailings Material.” 9th International Conference “Economic and Environmental Benefits of ———. “Superfund’s 25th Anniversary: on Acid Rock Drainage (Usepa 2005). Biodiversity.” BioScience 47 (11): 747–757. Capturing the Past, Charting the Future | doi:10.2307/1313097. Superfund | US EPA.” Löffler, F E, and E A Edwards. 2006. “Harnessing Microbial Activities for Environmental “Puerto Rico Testsite for Exploring ———. “Proposed National Priorities List (NPL) Cleanup.” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 17: Contamination Threats (PROTECT): Dynamic Sites - by State | National Priorities List (NPL) |.” 274–284. Transport and Exposure Pathways of Contaminants in Karst Groundwater System.” ———. “Region 8 Montana Superfund 2014. Accessed February 25. http://civil.uprm. Redevelopment Program Sites.” edu/lab_ambiental/research/protect.html.

11 ———. “Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance | Superfund | US EPA.”

———. “Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites | Superfund | US EPA.”

———. “Superfund Provides Communities with Significant Human Health, Environmental and Economic Benefits.”

———. “Sites in Reuse in Colorado.”

———. “Superfund & Green Remediation.”

———. “NPL Map (NPL).”

Wijensinghe, A.M., R.B. Knapp, R.T. Taylor, and L.M. Carman. 1992. “Preliminary Feasibility and Cost Analysis of the in-Situ Microbial Filter Concept” (March 20).

Wilson, Sacoby M., Herb Fraser-Rahim, Edith Williams, Hongmei Zhang, LaShanta Rice, Erik Svendsen, and Winston Abara. 2012. “Assessment of the Distribution of Toxic Release Inventory Facilities in Metropolitan Charleston: An Environmental Justice Case Study.” American Journal of Public Health. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300700.