The social context of the Easton Iron Works project can be discussed through multiple lenses. These lenses identify the social aspects of the project through environmental, political, and economic perspectives. These three perspectives will each do their own part in shaping the social context of this remediation project. By analyzing and attempting to understand the social impact of bioremediation tactics at Easton Iron Works, a better plan can be developed to minimize any social friction that may come from public disappointment with the direction the project is going. For instance, if the public is upset with any environmental effect of bioremediation or mitigation techniques on nearby neighborhoods, the project could become extraordinarily political and experience unwanted friction. Taking the necessary steps to understand the social context of the project in the short run could cut down on political conflict in the long run.
In its current state, the Easton Iron Mill plant poses a threat to the environment because of old heavy metals that have rusted into the soil and contaminated nearby groundwater. The Easton Iron Mill is located uphill of the Bushkill Creek. The Bushkill Creek is a prominent water body that runs throughout Easton and spills into the nearby Delaware River. The Bushkill Creek is home to an array of wildlife that spans from animals that live in the creek to plants and animals that use
the water as a source of nutrients. Throughout the Bushkill Creek, there are large pipes that empty runoff water into the creek (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2). The contaminated runoff from the Easton Iron Mills is threatening to any organism that uses the Bushkill Creek as a means of survival. Exposure to contaminated groundwater is an extreme health hazard (Vetrimurugan, 2017).
Figure 2.1: Active runoff flowing through the pipe and being emptied into the Bushkill Creek. As created by authors.
Figure 2.2: Runoff pipe near the Bushkill Creek that was not active when the photo was taken. As created by authors.
The Bushkill Creek is a body of water that needs to be preserved, not harmed, because it will play a vital role in the Easton Iron Works site’s bioremediation. The concept of “bringing-forth” the Bushkill Creek rather than damaging it puts the project’s environmental aspect into perspective (Heidegger, 1977). In less philosophical sense, the goal would be to use the Bushkill Creek to our advantage by emphasizing its role as a natural resource that can aid in the mitigation of heavy metals in the groundwater. Cleaning up the Easton Iron Works site would allow the Bushkill Creek to be used for good, in terms of mitigating contaminated groundwater, whereas neglecting the site would continue to damage the Bushkill Creek.
The social context of the Easton Iron Work’s mitigation process is shaped largely by economic implications. When discussing the financial implications of this project, there are more questions than answers. As of right now, the City of Easton has purchased the Easton Iron Works
site. The city will section off an area to experiment with mitigation and bioremediation techniques, per Jim Toia. The Department of Public Services in Easton, headed by Dave Hopkins, has received a grant to use on the site. Because this project is classified as a “Remediation of hazardous substances,” the Department of Public Services is eligible for a maximum grant of one million dollars from the Pennsylvania Industrial Sites Reuse Program (ISRP). The Department of Public Services has acquired a maximum grant from the ISRP, per Dave Hopkins. However, this grant does not come without terms. There is a fifteen-year term for remediation projects, and a 25% match is required from the receiving party for the funding they attained (Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development). David Hopkins was able to confirm these details about the site remediation grant.
The information that is known about the economic aspect of the Easton Iron Works project also raises certain questions like, “Who is paying for this remediation grant?” Is the money coming from taxpayer dollars, and if so, could that create friction amongst the community. From an environmental standpoint, this project seems ultimately optimistic, but people can be upset when finances are thrown into the equation. Also, is one million dollars enough money to contribute large amounts of progress to the Easton Iron Mills? Are different mitigation tactics expensive?
Most importantly, are they sustainable. The large grant for the project, which is tremendous progress at this point, would become obsolete if the solutions provided to Easton Iron Works only last for a few years. This project needs to be done correctly the first time, so there is no need for more funding and potential social friction that could accompany the request for more funding.
Politics can create friction between any two groups at any given time. Assessing the social context of the Easton Iron Works project through a political lens can be a very slippery slope. The entire purpose of this section has been analyzing how different elements, in a social sense, could create unnecessary friction towards the Easton Iron Works project, and analyzing the political aspect has proven to be complicated. Potential political conflict can be present at every step of attempting to clean the Easton Iron Works site. For instance, Dave Hopkins will most likely be making decisions regarding how the money from the grant will be used for the project. This is one answer that leads to a plethora of new questions. The contaminated groundwater has not been identified as a priority, as only a particular area on the Easton Iron Works site is being set aside for mitigation. The grant was given to the Department of Public Services for remediation purposes, so some cleanup must be involved in the spending. However, will the clean up be thorough and complete, attending to both the surface metal and contaminated groundwater, or will the clean up simply entail a surface cleaning of metal scraps, thus almost completely neglecting the contaminated groundwater? Will there be political friction caused by the public? One would think that everyone would be grateful to have a part of their community cleaned and restored, yet this is an assumption no one can make. Also, if there is political opposition to the cleanup, how seriously should the objections of the public be taken? In the case of the El Cajón Dam in Honduras, the World Bank did not consider the objections of local engineers and walked straight into a project that did not provide a sustainable solution to Honduras’ energy problem. While some of these circumstances may seem far fetched, completely ruling them out in the preliminary stages of the project would not be a smart move. Considering all possibilities will help forge the best plan for the environmental clean up of the Easton Iron Works.
The technical proponent of the bioremediation and mitigation experiments that will take place at the Easton Iron Works site is an element of this project that currently raises more questions than answers. When discussing the technical analysis, the idea of what bioremediation and mitigation methods should be used is at the forefront of the analysis. Jim Toia mentioned using bio mitigation or mycorrhizal mitigation techniques to help clean the Easton Iron Works site. However, are these the only natural environmental techniques available to be used in this project?
The Easton Iron Works site is not the first old factory site to experience an adverse environmental effect due to old heavy metals that eroded into the soil. Because contaminated groundwater due to heavy metals is relatively common, studies have been performed on the matter to determine what remediation techniques work the best and are most sustainable for environmental cleanup projects like that of the Easton Iron Mill. In a study done by M.A. Hashim in 2011, 35 different remediation treatments were tested on groundwater that was contaminated by iron that was absorbed into the soil. The authors of the study divided their remediation techniques into three large groups: chemical, bio, and physico-chemical treatments. The research showed that one of the most challenging steps in a remediation project is picking the correct remediation technique to use in a specific circumstance. For instance, the Easton Iron Works site may find one remediation technique to be most effective. If one traveled up the Bushkill Creek a few miles into Bethlehem, there may be another contaminated groundwater site that would benefit from very different remediation tactics. The same concept applies to the tools required for each remediation technique. The criteria for the technology and tools needed for a specific remediation project depends on the natural chemistry, bioremediation, and biosorption surrounding the particular project. (Hashim, 2011) The specific technical analysis and review of different bioremediation and mitigation approaches and how they relate to the Easton Iron Works site is discussed later in the paper.
Next: Political Context (EIM)