No state cleanup law explicitly mandates that energy efficiency, water usage, air emissions, or the creation of waste be taken into consideration when selecting a remedy. Considering that the goal of these cleanup laws was to create a liability scheme and to clean up hazardous waste sites, it’s not surprising that other environmental considerations were not taken into account when they were written.

Recently, those in the private and public sectors have started to rethink this compartmentalized approach to cleanups. Many entities have put out white papers and possible metrics on greener cleanups. The latest effort is lead by ASTM in partnership with EPA, with a goal to develop a greener cleanup guide that would take a wider range of environmental factors into account when selecting the cleanup remedy while still protecting human health.

Of the suggested changes to the traditional cleanups offered by advocates of green remediation, most will not impede the goal of reaching cleanup standards, but only change the process taken to meet the standard. A good example is finding alternative energy sources to power energy intensive groundwater pump and treat systems. States should consider going after some of these “low hanging fruit” as a good first step in advancing the goal of greener overall cleanups.

Other strategies, such as employing institutional controls to avoid moving dirt—thereby minimizing greenhouse gas emissions associated with truck traffic—are more controversial. While the use of institutional controls can minimize greenhouse gas emissions when compared to dig and haul strategies, contaminated soil is left on-site.

Strategies such as employing institutional controls to avoid moving dirt can minimize greenhouse gas emissions associated with truck traffic. However, while gas emissions are minimized, contaminated soil might be left onsite.

Additionally, regulators reasonably fear having to return to sites that have already been “cleaned up” because an institutional control failed. Further, there is sometimes an additional administrative burden put on the state when a site cleanup plan includes institutional controls.

Control the Controls
The Washington State Dept. of Ecology, like other environmental agencies, must ensure the stipulations of any institutional control for a cleanup site are being met (i.e. fences are still in place, use restrictions are being followed, signs are still posted, and maintenance requirements for engineering controls are being followed).

Considering that the state is already burdened with a backlog of sites on which cleanup has yet to start, it is not surprising that site managers and regulators are hesitant to rely too heavily on institutional controls. By statute, the department must “give preference to permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable.” In and of itself, dig and hauls are predictable from both a time and cost standpoint, something developers and regulators agree is important.

That being said, if institutional controls are used as a part of a green remediation strategy that makes sense, regulators should be open to using them in the right situations—looking for greener solutions. However, institutional controls should not be used simply to avoid the costs of doing a true cleanup if there is little or no net environmental benefit gained.

For now, if the regulated community wants to do greener cleanups, regulators will likely be on board if a permanent remedy is selected. Just as we examine sites uniquely for remedy selection, we can examine opportunities to “green” up the cleanup process for each site.

Something that will work on one site will not necessarily work on another one. Many states recognize the need to take a systems approach to cleanups and are already in the process of developing guidance documents, training site managers on the issues, and conducting demonstration projects. Hopefully, this trend will continue.

Jessica Brandt is a brownfields program planner at the Washington State Dept. of Ecology in the Toxics Cleanup Program. All opinions expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect views of the Washington State Dept. of Ecology