Superfund sites are abandoned hazardous waste areas, designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as posing a high risk to human and ecological health. The Portland Harbor Superfund site is a group of 60 former industrial sites located along the lower Willamette River in Portland, Oregon. In the early 1900s, before environmental health was a public concern, sewage and industrial waste were dumped directly into the Willamette River. By the time waste control systems were introduced in the 1950s, legacy pollutants had already left a mark on the riverbank and sediment of the lower Willamette (LWG, 2011). In 1997 the EPA and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) enlisted environmental consulting firm Weston Solutions …show more content…
to quantify the scope of contamination in the Portland Harbor and establish an identifiable cleanup area. Weston’s “Portland Harbor Sediment Investigation Report,” released in 1998, found highly concentrated levels of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, and dioxins in sediments adjacent to the Portland Harbor from river mile 1.9 to river mile 11.8 (Weston, 1998). This 9.9-mile stretch of the Willamette River was listed as a Superfund Site in 2000. With Superfund designation the Portland Harbor was given high priority for environmental remediation (EPA, n.d.). In 2001, the EPA enlisted the Lower Willamette Group (LWG) – a consortium of city agencies and riverbank land and business owners – to begin remedial investigation of the Portland Harbor Site. LWG’s study was slated for completion by 2006, but took much longer than anticipated due to the complexity of physical and ecological factors surrounding the site (Jacklet, 2009). LWG finally released the “Portland Harbor RI/FS Remedial Investigation Report” in 2011, identifying 29 industrial contaminants with levels that are significantly dangerous to human health and 89 at levels that pose a risk to ecological health. PCBs were found to be the most harmful and prevalent chemical in the study area (LWG, 2011). Following its remedial study, LWG released the “Draft Feasibility Report” in 2012, detailing possible clean up options for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. All options specified in the report are particular to the Portland Harbor Superfund site and encompass a small portion of the methods traditionally used for Superfund remediation. Potential remediation options outlined in the report include traditional remedies as well as emerging technologies. The most cost effective remediation technique outlined in the report is natural attenuation. Natural attenuation is a remediation option for contaminated sediment that uses “ongoing naturally occurring processes to contain, destroy, or reduce the bioavailability or toxicity of contaminants in sediment” (LGW, 2012). In effect natural attenuation allows nature to take its course, as polluted sediments naturally assimilate contamination over time. The natural breakdown process is then monitored to ensure full remediation occurs. Natural attenuation has two scenarios: monitored natural recovery (MNR), in which source control measures are taken in order to isolate contaminated sediment and allow it to gradually return to its pre-contaminated state; and enhanced monitored natural recovery (EMNR), in which a thin layer of clean sediment is added over the contaminated sediment in order to accelerate the recovery process. MNR is most often used in conjunction with other remedial techniques, while EMNR is primarily used when the remediation process must be expedited in order to reach acceptable levels of contamination during a preconceived timeframe (LGW, 2012). Regardless of which scenario is used, natural attenuation is a long-term process with gradual results. MNR is effective for reducing low levels of contamination, and could be an effective remedy for such portions of the Portland Harbor Superfund. EMNR may be effective for more heavily contaminated sections of the site (LWG, 2012). However, based on the protracted nature of both methods and the amount of time it has taken to reach this point of the remediation process, it seems that more expeditious techniques would be better suited for the Portland Harbor Superfund site. Capping is the traditional method to remediate Superfund sites, and is included in the “Draft Feasibility Report.” Capping physically isolates contaminated sediments underneath a protective cap constructed from locally available materials such as fine-grain sediment, sand, concrete, and/or gravel. Isolating contaminated sediment reduces the risk of human or wildlife exposure to contaminants; stabilizes contaminated sediment to inhibit runoff through erosion; and prevents pollutants from being naturally spread to other sites or dispersed to the surface by burrowing organisms (bioturbation). Reactive or absorptive materials can also be placed underneath the cap to enhance the absorption process or reduce the movement of contaminants. These types of caps, dubbed active caps, contain innovative materials that reduce cap permeability, help enhance binding and absorption of contaminants through the sediment cap, reduce chlorination, and provide nutrients that enhance the breakdown of contaminants. Caps can theoretically encapsulate contaminants forever, while the material in active caps usually breaks down after a lifespan of around 100 years. Capping is an effective strategy for sites containing unwieldy structures (caps can be installed around the structures), a fact which could make it highly implementable and successful on the Portland Harbor Superfund site (LWG, 2012). Another remediation technology is in situ chemical reduction. In situ treatment is an innovative remedy involving in-place treatment of contaminated sediment through the introduction of sorbent materials such as active carbon (AC) and organoclays. Once introduced, the sorbent modifies and enhances the sorption capacity of sediment, gradually reducing contaminant concentration levels. In situ treatment has numerous economic and ecological benefits. As LWG explain, “In situ treatment techniques are less energy-intensive, less expensive, and less disruptive to the environment than conventional remedial technologies, and they can reduce ecosystem exposure by binding contaminants to organic or inorganic sediment matrices” (2012). Case studies conducted at the Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, California and Grasse River, New York have shown that AC can reduce bioaccumulation (buildup of a given substance within an organism) of PCBs by 90-99 percent. Based on these results, in situ treatment is currently being prepared for the Lower Duwamish River Superfund site in Seattle, Washington (LWG, 2012). Given the high concentration of PCBs in the Portland Harbor site, in situ treatment would likely be a highly effective remediation method. In addition to capping or treating contamination, sediment can also be physically removed and transported to an off-site storage or treatment facility. Once removed the sediment is either permanently stored elsewhere or treated ex situ (off-site) until contamination is reduced to reasonable levels and then returned to the riverbed. Ex situ treatment methods include thermal desorption (heating and evaporating organic contaminants) and bioremediation (discussed later). Contaminated sediment is most often removed via dredging, but sometimes water is drained from the contaminated area and the sediment is excavated. When dredging is used, contaminated sediment is confined using silt curtains or rigid containment walls before being removed. While dredging has been utilized for the remediation of multiple Superfund sites, it is a messy and imprecise process with the potential to leave behind residual levels of contamination. Even with multiple clean up passes, in some cases dredging has still been ineffective for reducing contamination to appropriate levels (LWG, 2012). Dredging of the Portland Harbor Superfund site is potentially problematic. The amount of large abandoned industrial facilities could make accessing contaminated sediment very difficult. Additionally, the rapid flow of the Willamette River also increases risk of spreading contaminated sediment and residual contamination. The use of rigid containment structures to harness sediment can also lead to adverse environmental impacts. Use of such structures at the Hudson River Superfund site led to a heightened concentration of PCBs in the water column behind the containment wall. Removal of rigid containment walls can also result in the reintroduction of deeply buried contaminants, which occurred at the Colman Dock (Seattle, WA) Superfund site (LWG, 2012). Moreover, local steelhead trout and Chinook salmon populations were added to the threatened species list under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 and 1999, respectfully, and any remediation efforts that involve dredging may conflict with efforts to restore the fish populations (Charles, 2001). Clearly dredging is a problematic remediation technique, and its use could potentially exacerbate contamination at the Portland Harbor site. Although natural attenuation techniques, capping, in situ treatment, and removal are the only approaches mentioned in the report, there is an unmentioned method that should also be considered.
Not mentioned in the report is a technique called bioremediation, which uses microbes to clean up the hazardous waste. Some small natural organisms, such as bacteria, can eat, digest and gain energy from contaminants, converting them into small amounts of water or innocuous gases. Specific conditions must be present for bioremediation to be successful. Natural amendments can be added if ideal conditions are not present, or contaminated soil can be treated ex situ. Traditionally, it takes anywhere between a few months and several years for bioremediation to fully clean a Superfund site, depending on the size of the site and extent of contamination. Bioremediation is currently being used to clean up contaminated groundwater at the Iceland Coin Laundry Superfund Site in New Jersey (EPA, n.d.). Additionally, experiments are currently underway to determine if fungi can help remediate some of the contamination at the Newtown Creek Superfund Site in New York City (Parry, 2012). As an all-natural alternative, bioremediation is a particularly appealing clean up method. If ideal conditions for microbial growth are not present at the Portland Harbor Superfund site, bioremediation could be a good ex situ treatment
technique. Deciding how to effectively remediate a large, constantly flowing and often eroding body of water is clearly no easy task. The EPA is now in the process of reviewing LWG’s “Portland Harbor RI/FS Remediation Report” and “Draft Feasibility Report” in order to come up with a final cleanup plan, also known as a Record of Decision. Records of Decision typically combine a number of remediation techniques, which, given the complexity of the site, will also likely be the case with the Portland Harbor. EPA was anticipated to release its Record of Decision by 2014, but the process has been delayed until at least 2015 due to funding shortages (Giegerich, 2014). Chronic lack of funding is a pervasive theme of Superfund remediation efforts as of late. Established in 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Superfund program was originally funded through a tax on petroleum and chemical industries. However, this tax was phased out after 1995 and the fund was exhausted by 2003. Since then remediation of Superfund sites has been funded by potentially responsible parties (PRPs), businesses or landowners potentially culpable of polluting a site (Jacklet, 2009). The EPA and DEQ have identified over 150 PRPs, 14 of whom consolidated to form the Lower Willamette Group and have agreed to help finance cleanup of the Portland Harbor. LWG has paid approximately $130 million thus far in the remediation process, and cleanup has not yet begun. None of the remaining PRPs have provided funding, likely due to fear that they will be forced to bear the brunt of the cleanup cost (such has been the case during previous Superfund remediation efforts) and that compliance will be perceived as an admission of liability (Jacklet, 2009). Historically, the EPA has issued orders for PRPs to do cleanup work, or worked with the Department of Justice to pursue legal action in the federal courts to force compliance (EPA, n.d.). Moving forward, the EPA will likely pursue legal action in an attempt to force the remaining PRPs to help fund the remediation process. Additional funding could be provided if the EPA were to repeal Superfund designation of the Portland Harbor site and allow the state of Oregon to fund remediation efforts. Unlike Superfund, which no longer has any source of direct funding, Oregon DEQ has access to an Orphan Site Account that can help finance remediation in the absence of liable PRPs (Charles, 2001). Despite seemingly admirable intentions, the Superfund program may actually be causing more harm than good.
The Lowry Landfill Superfund Site is located in Arapahoe County, Colorado, approximately 2 miles east of Aurora. It consists of approximately 507 acres of waste disposal area and is operated by Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. The land surrounding the site consists of native prairie grass and a wetland located along a local creek. Sections around the site are zoned for agricultural use including cattle grazing and non-irrigated wheat farms. 1 The area is home to numerous endangered species including the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Due to the large amounts of wastes disposed on the site between 1965 and 1980, it became extremely contaminated with a variety of inorganic and organic contaminants. From 1984 to 1993, the EPA oversaw remedial investigation and feasibility studies that were performed by all responsible parties. Since its listing as a superfund site in 1984, multiple remedial actions have been performed in order to rehabilitate the site. These include clay barrier walls around the site, a groundwater collection system, a soil cover for the main landfill, as well as a landfill gas collection system. Groundwater that is collected on the site is treated at an onsite water treatment facility. In 2007, construction began on an onsite gas to energy plant that utilizes the methane produced by the landfill site. The electricity produced by the plant is enough to power 3000 households. 1 Today, use of land and groundwater on and near the site is still restricted by the state of Colorado.1
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering took ground water samples that showed volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in the supply well. This well was formerly used for drinking water for the community. The results indicated that the ground water beneath the property was contaminated with radioactive material and VOCs. A sphagnum bog on the grounds had evidence of radioactive contamination. The soil, sediment, surface water, and ground water on the site had high levels of depleted uranium. On some of the soil and sediments, Poly Chlorinated Bi-phenyls were recorded. The buildings and structures on the grounds were as well contaminated with depleted uranium and other hazardous substances.
The Superfund program, which was better known as just Superfund, is also known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability act (CERLA) of 1980 was developed by the federal government as a way to preserve and protect the ecosystem and to clean up toxic, uncontrolled, abandoned hazardous waste sites. (Boorse & Wright, 2011, p.577). The Superfund program cleans up any hazardous waste, be it abandoned, accidentally spilled, or illegally dumped; any of which may pose a threat to future or current health or the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency works with the community, the responsible parties or the potential responsible party in identifying these hazardous waste sites in formulating plans to clean up these sites. Superfund provides laws and standards for the disposal and storage of such wastes. In addition, the Superfund program provides emergency financial support to existing environmental agencies to monitor removal of toxins, and to provide emergency cleanup services, provide monetary reparation to people who faced health or financial difficulties and concerns from toxic waste, and, if needed, to help enact emergency evacuation procedures. Superfund also provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and can establish a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries to make available for cleanup when no responsible party could be recognized. The National Priorities List, or NPL, is a list of the worst hazardous waste sites that have been identified by Superfund. (Boorse & Wright, 2011, p. 578). Any site on the NPL is eligible for cleanup using Superfund Trust money.
This is an important topic. It affects the overall health of the population surrounding the Chesapeake Bay, as we eat from it quite often and it can be used as a water source. The chemicals being released into the water are from coal-burning factories and runoff, which can be helped, but it’s almost impractical in this day and age to spend the amount of money required to do so without the technology that can guarantee a fix.
So in overview Geobacter Sulfurreduncen is a bacteria with the ability to clean out petroleum contaminates and uranium from ground water, soil, and nuclear waste. Given enough time it can also clean out mass amounts of radioactivity from low to high level waste. The time itself depends on the level of waste. With a bacteria like this in the world, humanity has a better chance of surviving. Contaminated ground water can now be a thing of the past.
The word “remediate” means to solve a problem, so the word “bioremediation” refers to the use of biological organisms to solve an environmental problem. Bacteria, fungi, protists and other microorganisms in a non-polluted environment are constantly breaking down organic matter, and when the soil is polluted, some of the organisms may die, but others will still be able to break down the pollutants. Bioremediation provides organisms that can consume the pollutants with fertilizer, oxygen, and other conditions to encourage the rapid growth of these organisms. They then would be able to break down the organic pollutants at a correspondingly faster rate. There are two general ways in which bioremediation functions. One way is where specific survival conditions of a microorganism living in the soil are enhanced to increase the rate of a pollutant’s degradation. The second way is when specialized microbes are added to degrade the contaminant. This way is less common. For many types of polluted soil, bioremediation provides an excellent method of clean-up, but in some cases the pollutant is toxic even for the microbes. These pollutants include metals such as cadmium or lead, and salts such as sodium chloride. Although it may not work in all cases, bioremediation is considerably easier than other methods because it enhances the functions that the microbes already carry out in the soil. Along with being easier, it can be much less expensive because the soil does not have to be pumped out of the ground for treatment (Environmental Inquiry-Bioremediation). Serratia Marcescens is a bacterium that is commonly used for bioremediation.
According to the OSWER, Superfund over the course of its time cleaned 900 of the most contaminated sites in the nation and inspired other waste protection programs such as the Brownfields program involving less contaminated sites (OSWER, 2010). There has been talk about reinstating the program, but some are for it. While others believe that although it should be reinstated, tax payers shouldn’t be footing the bill.
Then the documentary tackles Puget Sound. The Duwamish River is the largest hot spot in the nation. In 2001, the Duwamish River was classified as a “Super Fund” site. This is given to a site that will receive federal assistance for clean up. But yet, it may be too late. Puget Sound in contaminated with PCP, lead and mercury. The threat comes from the giant industrial polluters of old and from chemicals in consumers’ face creams, deodorants, prescription medicines and household cleaners that find their way into sewers, storm drains, eventually into America’s waterways and drinking water.
On February 2, 2014, a coal ash spill occurred in Eden, North Carolina which affected the Dan River; wildlife, drinking water, and other surroundings were destroyed or contaminated. The spill was caused by a leaky 48-inch storm water pipe located in a defunct steam station. The spill not only devastated its surroundings, but “sent millions of gallons of sledge” into the river which is used by North Carolina and Virginia citizens for drinking water (Shoichet, 2014). The leak was eventually patched, but left traces of copper, aluminum, iron, and arsenic that state environmental officials stated were “above state standards for surface water” (Shoichet, 2014). At the time, the article was published by CNN, environmental officials were working on a plan for cleaning up the river and remaining pollutants. Although the spill was not a major spill, the future effects that coal ash may have on the river, wildlife and citizens of North Carolina and Virginia are unknown.
There are several types of treatment methods present but biological treatment methods have gained much traction in the recent years due to their low operation costs, comparatively benign effects on the environment and their ease of handling and maintenance. Biological wastewater treatment methods can be subcategorized into dispersed growth systems and attached growth systems. Biofilms fall under the latter category (Sehar & Naz, 2016)
Environmental pollution produces bacteria which results as diseases and disorders in humans, animals, agricultural plantations. The process of pollution occurs when toxins are released into the ground water from landfill sites, this pollution stays in the environment for hundreds of years, while they break dow...
There are many human activities and industries that causes marine pollution within our oceans. There is not only one source that causes marine pollution, there several other factors involved as well. One source of marine pollution is NOx and SOx, these are chemicals that are found in ship emissions that gets released into the environment through smoke; NOx and SOx are known to be very harmful to marine life (Raunek). Because of the fact that there are many types of ships out there in the ocean, the amount of NOx and SOx that goes into the ocean is plentiful no matter what because wherever the ship goes, these harmful chemicals are left behind, killing and harming almost every marine organism in its way. The next source of marine pollution is runoff and discharge that come from land (ocean.tamu.edu/). The largest discharge that enters the ocean comes from land is sewage, both industrial waste and sewage sludge(ocean.tamu.edu/). For many years, sewage has been dumped into the depths of the oceans. The sewage that has been collecting in the depths of the ocean can cause severe effects on the organisms around it; the sewage sludge can either poison or kill surrounding organisms. In addition to sewage, the oil industry is another source of pollution. The oil industry are responsible for the occasional, yet catastrophic oil spills; the oil industry are also responsible for small oil leaks that occur regularly as well (Bernard). Oil spills such as the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 which affected many people and organisms alike. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had killed over 7,000 sea turtles, birds, and dolphins, and that doesn’t even include fish (Park). Because of an oil spill, thousands marine animals may have ingested or breathed...
Traditional methods for cleaning up contaminated sites such as dig and haul, pump and treat, soil venting, air sparging and others are generally harmful to habitats. Some methods strip the soil of vital nutrients and microorganisms, so nothing can grow on the site, even if it has been decontaminated. Typically these mechanical methods are also very expensive. Most of the remediation technologies that are currently in use are very expensive, relatively inefficient and generate a lot of waste, to be disposed of.
The environment and health are very closely linked. The environment in which we inhabit and go about our daily lives, directly impacts on our physical, mental and social well-being. There are biological, chemical and physical factors that can affect human health in a physical and mental way. The World Health Organisation states that "health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (WHO 1948), meaning that although many factors relating to health are associated with environmental pollution, they can also be caused by the environment in which we work and live in. The relationship between the environment and health, can however be quite complex. Human health is not only as a result of air, water and ground pollution, but also things such as food, genetics, life style and quality, which directly affect human susceptibility to illness, disease and possibly death. Disruptions to the environment, such as substance dispersal, climate change, acidification, ground pollution, photochemical air pollution and over fertilisation can also impact on human health. Therefore, there are direct and indirect links to the environment and health issues.
Landfills are a bigger issue in this world than humans realize. Everyday people are harming the environment more and more just by using landfills. By harming the environment all living things on earth are being harmed as well. such as humans. Landfills impact the world significantly. There are many causes to the use of landfills as well as many environmental effects from them. Even though there is a significant amount of damage done to the world from landfills it is never too late to fix this issue with any of the many solutions.