EPA: Superfund cleanup ‘likely’ fouled Pennsylvania town’s water – E&E News by POLITICO

Environmental Remediation and Unforeseen Consequences: A Case Study of the Palmerton Superfund Site and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary

This report examines the environmental history of the Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund site in Palmerton, Pennsylvania. It details the initial remediation efforts following the closure of a zinc smelting factory and the subsequent discovery of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. The case highlights a significant conflict between environmental restoration actions and the long-term achievement of key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 15 (Life on Land). An initial effort to restore a contaminated ecosystem inadvertently compromised local water safety and public health, underscoring the need for a more holistic approach to environmental management that accounts for emerging contaminants.

2.0 Site History and Initial Remediation Efforts

The legacy of industrial activity in Palmerton resulted in severe environmental degradation, prompting a large-scale cleanup under the EPA’s Superfund program. The primary goal was to stabilize the contaminated landscape and prevent further pollution, an objective aligned with protecting terrestrial ecosystems and community health.

2.1 Environmental Degradation and Superfund Designation

Decades of zinc smelting operations left a 3,000-acre mountainous area contaminated with heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and zinc. This pollution resulted in the complete loss of vegetation, creating a barren landscape. The environmental impact directly undermined SDG 15: Life on Land, by destroying the local ecosystem.

Key issues included:

• Widespread soil contamination with heavy metals.
• Loss of all vegetation on Blue Mountain.
• Significant risk of contaminated soil eroding into local waterways, threatening SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation.

In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the area a Superfund site to manage the cleanup and contain the pollution affecting the 5,600 residents.

2.2 Remediation Strategy: Application of Biosolids

A novel remediation strategy was implemented to revegetate the barren land and stabilize the contaminated soil. This involved the application of municipal sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, as a fertilizer. This approach was seen as a sustainable solution, aligning with principles of SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production by reusing waste material.

1. First Application (1991-1996): 105 wet tons of sewage sludge per acre were applied across 763 acres.
2. Second Application (2000-2002): 270 wet tons of sludge per acre were applied over an additional 120 acres.

A total of 112,515 wet tons of biosolids were used. The effort was successful in restoring grasses and trees, effectively containing the heavy metal pollutants and making progress toward restoring SDG 15: Life on Land.

3.0 Emergence of PFAS Contamination: A Setback for Sustainable Development

While the initial remediation appeared successful, subsequent testing revealed a new and persistent environmental threat, directly compromising fundamental SDGs related to health and water quality.

3.1 Discovery and Source of Contamination

Recent testing has confirmed the presence of “forever chemicals,” or PFAS, in Palmerton’s drinking water, as well as in the surface water and soil of the remediated Superfund site. The Palmerton water department and the EPA have identified the biosolids used for revegetation as the likely source of the contamination. The sludge originated from at least 16 wastewater treatment plants, including one in Warminster, PA, a known PFAS hotspot due to its history as a naval training center.

This discovery demonstrates a critical failure in achieving SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, as the lifecycle of the chemicals and the waste stream (biosolids) was not fully understood, leading to the transfer of pollution from one area to another.

3.2 Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

The PFAS contamination represents a severe setback for the community’s progress toward sustainability and well-being.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The primary impact is the contamination of the municipal drinking water supply. Detected levels of PFOA (34.5 ppt) and PFOS (49.3 ppt) significantly exceed the EPA’s new national maximums of 4 ppt. This directly contravenes the goal of ensuring access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: PFAS are linked to serious health issues, including cancer, fertility problems, and high blood pressure. The contamination of drinking water and soil poses a long-term health risk to the residents of Palmerton, undermining the goal of ensuring healthy lives.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: Although vegetation was restored, the soil is now contaminated with persistent chemicals. This compromises the long-term health of the ecosystem and raises questions about the true sustainability of the restoration effort.

4.0 Current Response and Broader Implications

The EPA and state agencies are now taking action to address the PFAS contamination, while the case raises national questions about environmental regulations and remediation practices.

4.1 Regulatory and Remedial Actions

In response to the findings, the EPA has committed to a series of actions to protect public health and address the contamination, in line with its mandate to support SDG 3 and SDG 6.

1. Water Treatment: The EPA plans to install a groundwater treatment system for Palmerton’s drinking water wells by mid-2026.
2. Further Investigation: The agency will continue investigating the extent of PFAS contamination, including testing private wells, through 2026.
3. Source Acknowledgment: The EPA has concluded that the Superfund site itself or the remediation activities are the likely sources of the PFAS.

4.2 National Policy Implications

The situation in Palmerton highlights a significant regulatory gap concerning PFAS in biosolids. This case study serves as a critical data point for policymakers and environmental managers, emphasizing the need to:

• Strengthen regulations and establish federal limits for PFAS in sewage sludge to better support SDG 12.
• Re-evaluate past remediation projects at other Superfund sites where biosolids were used to identify potential PFAS hotspots.
• Adopt a precautionary principle in environmental cleanup, ensuring that solutions for one pollutant do not introduce another, more persistent one.

5.0 Conclusion

The Palmerton case is a cautionary example of how environmental remediation efforts, while well-intentioned, can lead to unintended and severe negative consequences. The attempt to restore SDG 15 (Life on Land) through the reuse of waste material—a practice related to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)—resulted in the profound compromise of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). This outcome underscores the urgent need for comprehensive, forward-looking environmental policies that address the full lifecycle of chemical pollutants and prioritize the long-term health of both ecosystems and human communities.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly addresses health concerns arising from environmental pollution. Initially, the land was contaminated with cancer-causing pollutants like cadmium, lead, and arsenic from a zinc smelting factory. The subsequent contamination of drinking water with PFAS chemicals is linked to severe health issues, including “fertility problems, high blood pressure and cancer.” The well-being of the 5,600 residents of Palmerton is directly impacted by the safety of their environment and drinking water.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This goal is central to the article. The primary issue discussed is the contamination of Palmerton’s drinking water supply, surface water, and groundwater with PFAS chemicals. The article states that contaminated soil was at risk of “spreading into rivers, creeks and the drinking water supply.” It also details the EPA’s plan to “install a PFAS treatment system for Palmerton” to ensure “long-term access to safe drinking water,” which directly relates to providing clean water.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article focuses on the environmental legacy of industrial activity in the town of Palmerton. It discusses the management of a Superfund site located near a residential area and the management of municipal waste (sewage sludge). The unintended consequences of the cleanup efforts highlight the challenges communities face in managing hazardous waste and ensuring a safe and resilient living environment for their inhabitants.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The core problem originated from the unsustainable production practices of the zinc smelting factory, which led to massive pollution. The article also explores the concept of waste reuse, where municipal sewage sludge (a waste product) was repurposed as fertilizer. However, this “solution” created a new problem due to the lack of environmentally sound management of chemicals like PFAS within the waste stream, demonstrating a failure in managing the full life cycle of chemicals and waste.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The article begins by describing a severe case of land degradation: “3,000 acres of mountainous land so contaminated with heavy metals that nothing could grow.” The subsequent remediation efforts, which “brought back grasses and trees,” represent a direct action to restore a degraded terrestrial ecosystem. The establishment of the Lehigh Gap Nature Center on a portion of the Superfund site, where “hundreds of animal, plant and fungus species have been documented,” is a clear example of halting biodiversity loss and restoring a natural habitat.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The entire narrative revolves around the health risks posed first by heavy metals (lead, arsenic) and then by PFAS in the water and soil of Palmerton.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. The contamination of Palmerton’s wells with high levels of PFAS directly compromises the safety of the drinking water for its residents.
   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution… and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The article describes both the initial pollution from heavy metals and the subsequent contamination from PFAS-laden sludge, both of which degrade water quality in local rivers, creeks, and groundwater.
   • Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. The initial cleanup was designed to contain pollution and prevent it from spreading into “rivers, creeks and the drinking water supply,” which is an act of protecting water-related ecosystems.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to… municipal and other waste management. The article highlights the improper management of municipal waste (sewage sludge), which, despite being used for a beneficial purpose, led to severe environmental contamination due to a lack of regulation for PFAS.

4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil. The PFAS contamination is a direct result of the failure to manage these chemicals and the sewage sludge waste stream in an environmentally sound manner.
   • Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse. The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer is an example of waste reuse. However, the article serves as a cautionary tale that reuse must be safe and not lead to further pollution.

5. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil… and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world. The project to revegetate the 3,000 acres of barren, contaminated land is a direct effort to restore degraded land and soil.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity. The initial pollution completely destroyed the natural habitat on the mountain. The restoration efforts, especially the creation of the Lehigh Gap Nature Center, have helped restore the habitat and bring back biodiversity.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 3 & 6 (Health and Water Quality):

   • Mentioned Indicator: Concentration of pollutants in water and soil. The article provides specific measurements: “49.3 parts per trillion of PFOS and 34.5 ppt of PFOA” in drinking water, which is “far higher than the maximum levels EPA established… which are 4 ppt.” It also states, “The maximum level of PFOS detected in the surface water there is 110 ppt, while the maximum level in the soil was 13,000 ppt.” These are direct quantitative indicators of pollution.

2. For SDG 11 & 12 (Waste Management):

   • Mentioned Indicator: Amount of municipal waste reused. The article specifies that “a total of 112,515 wet tons of the stuff [sewage sludge] applied as fertilizer.” This figure serves as an indicator of the scale of the waste reuse program.

3. For SDG 15 (Life on Land):

   • Mentioned Indicator: Area of degraded land and area of restored land. The article identifies the problem’s scale as “3,000 acres of mountainous land so contaminated… that nothing could grow.” The remediation efforts covered large portions of this area, such as the “first [round]… spanned 763 acres.”
   • Mentioned Indicator: Measures of biodiversity. The success of the restoration is indicated by the fact that “hundreds of animal, plant and fungus species have been documented on the land” of the Lehigh Gap Nature Center.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: eenews.net