DOCSLIB.ORG

Love Canal Superfund Site City of Niagara Falls Niagara County, New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Love Canal Superfund Site City of Niagara Falls Niagara County, New York Five-Year Review Report Love Canal Superfund Site City of Niagara Falls Niagara County, New York Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency September 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the second five-year review for the Love Canal Superfund site (Site), located in the City ofNiagara Falls, Niagara County, New York. The primary selected remedies for the Site include the following: I) containment of wastes within the Love Canal landfill (LeL) via capping, leachate collection and treatment and long-tenn operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) and 2) excavation, treatment and off-site disposal ofcontamination found in surrounding properties, sewers, creeks and other wastes. Nannal residential use is allowed for properties located within Areas 4 through 7 ofthe Emergency Declaration Area (EDA), surrounding the fenced LeL. Properties in the EDA Areas 1 through 3 are suitable for commercial or light industrial use. Based upon the results of this review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concludes that the remedies implemented at this Site adequately control exposures of Site contaminants to human and environmental receptors to the extent necessary for the protection ofhuman health and the environment. The continued OM&M at the Site ensures that there are no exposures of Site-related hazardous materials to human or environmental receptors. II Five-Year Review Summary Form Site name (from WasteLAN): love Canal EPA 10 (from WasteLAN): NYD000606947 NPL status: 0 Final • Deleted 0 Other (specify) Remediation status (choose all that apply): 0 Under Construction. Constructed • Operating Multiple OUs?o • YES 0 NO Construction completion date: 09129/1999 Are portions of the site andlor investigated adjacent properties in use or suitable for reuse? • YES 0 NO 0 NfA (site involves groundwater plume and not real property) Lead agency: _ EPA 0 Stale 0 Tribe 0 Other Federal Agency Author name: Damian Duda Author title: Remedial Project Author affiliation: EPA Manager Review period:·' 09/3012003 to 09/3012008 Date of site inspection: April 16, 2008 Type of review: 0 Post-SARA • Pre-SARA 0 NPL-Removal only o Non-NPl Remedial Action Site 0 NPl StatelTribe-lead 0 Regional Discretion Review number: 0 1 (first) • 2 (second) 0 3 (third) 0 Other (specify) Triggering action: 0 Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #__ 0 Actual RA Start at OU#__ 0 Construction Completion. Previous Five-Year Review Report 0 Other (specify) Triggering action date (from WasteLANj: 09/30/2003 Is the site protective of public health? • yes 0 no 0 not yet determined Does the report include recommendation(s) and follow-up action(s)? 0 yes • no 0 not yet determined Is human exposure under control? • yes 0 no 0 not yet determined Is contaminated groundwater under control? • yes 0 no 0 not yet determined Is the remedy protective of the environment? • yes 0 no 0 not yet determined • rOU· refers to operable unit.) .. [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.) III Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued) Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions The remedies have been implemented and are functioning as intended by the Site decision documents. There are no additional actions required. The ongoing operations, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) program is part of the selected remedy. As expected by the decision documents, the OM&M activities are sUbject to routine modifications and/or adjustments. This report does include a suggestion for decommissioning some of the Site's monitoring wells (see Table 4). There are no recommendations or follOW-Up actions necessary to protect public health or the environment. Protectiveness Statement The implemented remedies for the Love Canal Superfund site protect human health and the environment. There are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none expected as long as Site property uses remain consistent with the Site's engineered, access and institutional controls that are properly operated, monitored and maintained. IV LIST OF IMPORTANT ACRONYMS CDC Centers for Disease Control CNF City ofNiagara Falls CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act DHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OM EPA 1982 Decision Memorandum DOr U.S. Department ofthe Interior EDA Emergency Declaration Area EMS 1982 Environmental Monitoring at Love Canal Study ESO Explanation ofSignificant Differences EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FCOR FinaI Close Out Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GSHI Gleoo Springs Holding, Inc. HD NYSDOH Decision on Habitability of the EDA LTMP Long-Term Monitoring Program LC Love Canal LCARA Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency LCHS 1988 Love Canal EDA Habitability Study LCL.. Love Canal Landfill LCTF Love Canal Leachate Collection and Treatment Facility MATA Maintenance and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid NFBE Niagara Falls Board of Education NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPL National Priorities List NYS New York State NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOH New York State Department of Health O&M Operation and Maintenance OM&M Operations. Maintenance and Monitoring OCC Occidental Chemical Corporation ORD Office ofResearch and Development PACA. Property Acquisition Cooperative Agreement PCD 1989 Partial Consent Decree PCOR Preliminary Close-Out Report PRP Potentially Responsible Party RAR Remedial Action Report RPM Remedial Project Manager ROD Record of Decision SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act TRC Love Canal Technical Review Committee v TABLE OF CONTENTS T. Introduction 1 II. Site Chronology 2 III. Background 4 Site Location and Physical Descriptions .4 History of Contamination 4 Initial Response 5 Basis for Taking Action 6 EDA Habitability, Property Acquisition and Maintenance and Technical Assistance 7 Records of Decision Findings 8 IV. Remedial Actions 10 Improvements to the Containment System 10 Removal ofContaminated Creek and Sewer Sediments 10 Short-Term Remedial Projects 11 Interim Storage and Treatment/Disposal ofCreek and Sewer Sediments and Other Love Canal Waste Materials II Excavation and Off-site Disposal ofContaminated Soils at the 93 rd Street School Site.. 12 V. Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring 12 VI. Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 14 VII. Five-Year Review 15 Review Process 15 COmnlunity Involvement 15 Document Review 15 Monitoring and Data Review 15 Site Inspection 16 Institutional Controls 17 VII. Technical Assessment 18 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 18 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions. toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time ofthe remedy still valid? 18 Soils 18 Groundwater 19 Vapor Intrusion 19 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness ofthe remedy? 20 VllI. Technical Assessment Summary 20 IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 20 X. Protectiveness Statement 20 Xl. Next Five-Year Review 21 APPENDIX A- TABLES iii APPENDIX B- FIGURES .iv APPENDIX C- REFERENCES v VI u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Emergency and Remedial Response Division Five-Year Review Love Canal Superfund Site City ofNiagara Falls, Niagara County, New York I. Introduction This is the second five-year review for the Love Canal Superfund site (Site), located in the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York. The primary selected remedies for the Site include the following: 1) containment of wastes within the Love Canal landfill (LCL) via capping, leachate collection and treatment and long-term operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) and 2) excavation, treatment and off-site disposal of contamination found in surrounding properties, sewers, creeks and other Love Canal wastes. Nonna! residential use is allowed for properties located within Areas 4 through 7 of the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) surrounding the fenced LCL. Properties in the EDA Areas I through 3 r~ remediati"R-l~eRtiaHlse. 'Ire '>~, Ic.6k-loa MJ,-~.W{.5tif ,;rcUfA<.fl<-/Jl'. This review was conducted by Damian Duda, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II, Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Site. A five-year review is required at this Site because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that do not allow for unlimited use and umestricted exposure. It is the policy ofEPA to conduct five-year reviews of pre-SARA remedies which result in hazardous substances remaining on-site. The containment ofthe LCL was a pre-SARA decision. The purpose of a five-year review is to ensure that the implemented remedies protect human health and the environment and that they function as intended by the Site decision documents. This report will become part ofthe Site file. This review covers the period from September 30, 2003 to September 30, 2008. The trigger for this five-year review is the signature date ofthe last five-year review. The lead agency for this review is EPA Region II. II. Site Chronology Chronology ofSite Events Event Date President Carter issued the first Emergency Declaration at the Love Canal August 1978 landfill (LCL). Construction ofthe LC leachate collection system and treatment facility October 1978 . (LCTF) December 1979 President Carter issued the second Emergency Declaration at the LCL. May 1980 The Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) surrounding the LCL was established.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bucknell University Bucknell University Bucknell Digital Commons Faculty Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Fall 2016 Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal Jennifer Thomson Bucknell University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/fac_journ Part of the Other History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Thomson, Jennifer. "Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal." Journal of Social History (2016) : 204-223. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Bucknell Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Bucknell Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Social History Advance Access published December 19, 2015 JENNIFER THOMSON Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal Abstract Downloaded from This article investigates the relationship between American political culture and grassroots environmentalism in the 1970s. To do so, it examines how the white working class residents of Love Canal, New York, claimed health and a healthy en- vironment as rights of citizenship. To date, the Canal has remained a sore spot for environmental scholarship; this article demonstrates how the analytic difficulties http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ posed by the Canal stem from the crosscurrents of American political culture in the late 1970s. Canal residents put their local experience into several larger frames of reference: the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, the plight of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees, and a culture of skepticism toward government and medical authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches for Assessing Health Risks from Complex Mixtures in Indoor Air: a Panel Overview by Carol J
    Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 95, pp. 135-143, 1991 Approaches for Assessing Health Risks from Complex Mixtures in Indoor Air: A Panel Overview by Carol J. Henry,* Lawrence Fishbein,* William J. Meggs,t Nicholas A. Ashford,' Paul A. Schulte,§ Henry Anderson,/' J. Scott Osborne,' and Daniel W. Sepkovictt Critical to a more definitive human health assessment ofthe potential health risks from exposure to complex mixtures in indoor air is the need for a more definitive clinical measure and etiology ofthe helath effects ofcomplex mixtures. This panel overview highlights six ofthe eight presentations ofthe conference panel discussion and features a number ofthe major topical areas of indoor air concern. W. G. Meggs assessed clinical research priorities with primary focus on the role ofvolatile organic chemicals in human health, recognizing the areas where definitive data are lacking. By recogniz- ing many types ofchemical sensitivity, it may be possible to design studies that can illuminate the mechanisms by which chemical exposure may cause disease. The critically important topic of multiple chemical sensitivity was discussed by N. A. Ashford, who identified four high risk groups and defined the demographics ofthese groups. P. A. Schulte address- ed the issue ofbiological markers ofsusceptibility with specific considerations ofboth methodologia and societal aspects that may be operative in the ability to detect innate or inborne differences between individuals and populations. Three case studies were reviewed. H. Anderson discussed the past and present priorities from a public health perspective, focusing on those issues dealing with exposures to environmental tobacco smoke and formaldehyde off-gassing from materials used in mobile homeconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Love Canal Follow-Up Health Study
    Love Canal Follow-up Health Study Prepared by the Division of Environmental Health Assessment Center for Environmental Health New York State Department of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry In memory of Charlene M. Spampinato and her longstanding dedication to the Love Canal project. October 2008 State of New York Funding Provided by Department of Health United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………....................iii LIST OF FIGURES.……………………………………………………………...............iv LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………….............v LIST OF APPENDICES....…...…...…..…………………………………………...........vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………….........1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..5 Love Canal History……………………………………………………….6 Environmental Sampling………………………………………………….8 Study Area………………………………………………….....................10 Review of Earlier Love Canal Health Studies…………………………...11 Community Involvement………………………………………………...15 Study Objectives…………………………………………………………17 METHODS………………………………………………………………………………19 Study Population……………………………………………………........19 Comparison Populations………………………………………………....20 Tracing Former Love Canal Residents…………………………………..20 Exposure Assessment………………………………………………........22 Outcome Assessment……………………………………………….…....25 Mortality…………………………………………………….…...25 Cancer Incidence………………………………………………....26 Reproductive Outcomes……………………………………….…28 Potential Confounders…………………………………………………....31
    [Show full text]
  • Indoor Air Quality Factors in Designing a Healthy Building,” Annual
    Spengler, J.D. and Chen, Q. 2000. “Indoor air quality factors in designing a healthy building,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, 567-600. Indoor Air Quality Factors in Designing a Healthy Building John D. Spengler School of Public Health, Harvard University, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115; e-mail: [email protected] Qingyan (Yan) Chen Building Technology Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; e-mail: [email protected] KEY WORDS: regulations, contaminant sources, building materials and systems, ventilation models, design tools Shortened title: IAQ in Designing a Healthy Building Abstract Current guidelines for green buildings are cursory and inadequate for specifying materials and designing ventilation systems to ensure a healthful indoor environment, i.e. a “healthy building,” by design. Public perception, cultural preferences, litigation trends, current codes and regulations, rapid introduction of new building materials and commercial products, as well as the prevailing design-build practices, pose challenges to systems integration in the design, construction and operation phases of modern buildings. We are on the verge of a paradigm shift in ventilation design thinking. In the past, thermal properties of air within a zone determined heating, ventilating, and air- conditioning (HVAC) specifications. In the future, occupant-specific and highly responsive systems will become the norm. Natural ventilation, displacement ventilation, microzoning with subfloor plenums, along with the use of point of source heat control and point of use sensors, will evolve to create a "smart" responsive ventilation-building dynamic system. Advanced ventilation design tools such as the modeling of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) will be used routinely.
    [Show full text]
  • Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in the Great Lakes
    Hdb Env Chem Vol. 5, Part N (2006): 71–150 DOI 10.1007/698_5_040 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005 Published online: 2 December 2005 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans in the Great Lakes Ross J. Norstrom Centre for Analytical and Environmental Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada [email protected] 1Introduction................................... 73 2 Occurrence and Geographical Distribution .................. 75 2.1 Air........................................ 75 2.1.1ConcentrationsinAir.............................. 75 2.1.2AirDepositionModels............................. 78 2.2 Water....................................... 83 2.2.1SaginawRiver.................................. 83 2.2.2DetroitRiver................................... 84 2.2.3NiagaraRiver.................................. 85 2.3 LakeSediments................................. 86 2.4 RiverandBaySediments............................ 91 2.4.1 Fox River/GreenBaySediments........................ 91 2.4.2LakeSuperiorBaySediments.......................... 91 2.4.3 Saginaw River/SaginawBaySediments.................... 92 2.4.4DetroitRiverSediments............................. 94 2.4.5NiagaraRiverSediments............................ 95 2.5 Fish........................................ 97 2.5.1 Surveys of 2378-TeCDD and 2378-TeCDF . ................ 98 2.5.2ComprehensiveSurveys............................. 103 2.6 SeabirdsandSnappingTurtleEggs...................... 107 2.6.1HerringGullEggs...............................
    [Show full text]
  • A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal
    Pace Law Review Volume 30 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Real Property, Mortgages, and the Economy: A Article 22 Call for Ethics and Reforms September 2009 A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg William Mitchell College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg, A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal, 30 Pace L. Rev. 310 (2009) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol30/iss1/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg* ´7KHUHLVVLPSO\QRJRRGUHDVRQIRUXVWRUHVSRQGWRRQHW\SHRI release of a poison, but not another. The test should not be whether poison was released into river water rather than into well water; or by toxic waste buried in the ground rather than toxic waste discharged to the ground. The test should be whether the poison was released. I assure you that the victim GRHV QRW FDUH WR PDNH WKRVH GLVWLQFWLRQV QRU VKRXOG ZHµ Senator Robert T. Stafford1 Introduction Consider this scenario: A profitable but hazardous LQGXVWU\·V ZRUVW-case risks come to pass. Neighborhoods are boarded-up and residents dislocated. Poor and minority communities are hit particularly hard because they offered the OHDVW UHVLVWDQFH WR WKH LQGXVWU\·V TXHVWLRQDEOH SUDFWLFHV³ practices virtually unregulated by the government and undeterred by the tort system.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline: Love Canal Hazardous Waste Disaster
    Timeline: Love Canal Hazardous Waste Disaster 1892 William T. Love proposed construction of a manmade canal that would ultimately link the Niagara River to Lake Ontario, providing water and hydroelectric power for the model industrial city. 1942 Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation began dumping chemical wastes at the Love Canal, and by 1952 had dumped nearly 22,000 tons of chemical waste into the canal. 1953 Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation sold the Love Canal property (approximately 15 acres) for $1.00 to the Board of Education of Niagara Falls with a deed disclaimer of responsibility for any future damages due to the presence of buried chemicals. 1955 Board of Education of Niagara Falls completed construction on and opened the 99th Street Elementary School and sold unused sections of the Love Canal property to home developers to build residences. 1976–1977 The Niagara Gazette (and reporter Michael H. Brown) in a series of articles reported that chemical residues from the Love Canal landfill between 97th and 99th Streets have been seeping into the basements of homes in the area. These reports cited illnesses and injuries to residents and pets and destruction of plant life. The newspaper urged prompt government action. 1978 New York State Health Commissioner (Dr. Robert Whalen) began health studies of the Love Canal community (house-to-house collecting of blood samples, levels of toxic vapors, and medical exams and studies of residents) that subsequently confirmed that a serious public health hazard existed. New York Health Department officials met with Love Canal residents and explained the hazards of exposure to toxic chemicals in and around homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Love Canal 1
    L O V E C A N A L Center for Health, Environment and Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040 Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org Fact Pack P001 Cover photo: Lois Gibbs and daughter Melissa 1979 For more information or to order copies of this publication contact: Center for Health, Environment and Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040 Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org TABLE OF CONTENTS A History of Love Canal 1 Love Canal Homeowners Association 2 A Summary of Events 4 Remedial Construction Outside the Fence Community Health Studies 6 Miscarriages and Crib Deaths Birth Defects Nervous Breakdowns Urinary Tract Disorders Combined Health Disorders Key Dates of Events at Love Canal 13 Biography of Lois Gibbs 17 Formation of Center For Health, Environment and Justice 19 News Clips and Articles on Love Canal 20 Love Canal A HISTORY OF LOVE CANAL The history of Love Canal began in 1892 Homebuilding around the old canal also when William T. Love proposed connecting began in the 1950’s. However, homeowners the upper and lower Niagara River by were never given any warning or informa- digging a canal six to seven miles long. By tion that would indicate that the property was doing this, Love hoped to harness the water located near a chemical waste dump. Most of the upper Niagara River into a navigable families who moved into the area were channel, which would create a man-made unaware of the old landfill and its poisons.
    [Show full text]
  • OBG PRESENTS: Love Canal – History & Observations David J
    OBG PRESENTS: Love Canal – History & Observations David J. Wilson CIH (1979-2012) October 2016 AGENDA History to 1978 Events 1978 to 1985 Remedial Actions Habitability Studies Health Studies Repopulation Personal Observations Reflections 2 Love Canal History to 1978 3 Niagara Falls, NY William T. Love 1890s Power Canal Canal 3,000 feet long, 100 feet wide, & 22 feet deep Canal dug 1,500 feet from Niagara River Project abandoned ~1900 Used for recreation until the 1940s Hooker Chemical, US Military & City of NF used canal for waste disposal from 1943 to 1953 21,800 Tons chemical waste 4 Sold by Hooker for $1, 1953 NF & NF Board with written restrictions of Education requested Soil cover placed on canal • Warning about buried chemicals title to property • DO NOT build on or next to the canal Love Canal Tier 1 total of 99 homes Three blocks (Tier 1) 99th Street School build on first and third blocks History… constructed directly 1954 on middle block around canal •230 Adults •134 Children 1953 to 1972 1972 - Tier 1-4 Residential structures completed •800 Single family homes •240 Low income apartments 5 Tier 1-4 EDA Location Map 6 First & Second Blocks of Love Canal 7 First Block of Love Canal 8 Mid 1970s Odors detected from canal Canal cover soils sinking Sheens on house basement sump water surfaces Drums surfacing in canal area 1976 Calspan Corp. conducts survey and recommendations: LOVE CANAL HISTORY . Place a clay cap on canal fill area . Seal house basement sumps . Install tile drainage along canal 9 Love Canal Events 1978 – 1985 10 April 1978 NF Newspaper article series on hazardous wastes LC Residents express concern to NYSDOH NYSDOH confirms public health hazard at LC May 1978 NYSDOH meets with LC residents NYSDOH issues first of three orders LOVE CANALLOVE EVENTS .
    [Show full text]
  • Thirty Years from Love Canal
    University at Buffalo Regional Institute POLICY BRIEF | August 2008 Who bears our environmental burden? What’s my responsibilty? Could it happen again? Thirty Years from Love Canal Love Canal may be in the rear-view mirror for many in Western New York, but pollution persists as an important issue due to the region’s industrial legacy. It’s a legacy that affects a wide assortment of communities—city, suburb and countryside— and new research shows that one’s likelihood of living near environmental hazards is independent of income and race. Responsibilities for preventing and managing pollution today Overgrown streets and sidewalks at the corner of are far-reaching, and policies that engage all sectors and Wheatfield and 101st on the eastern side of Love Canal encourage innovation are the most likely to succeed. Historical Snapshot: Love Canal Could it happen again? A generation after the tragedy at Love Canal, an event of similar proportions seems unlikely to repeat. Pollution is more tightly controlled today, heavy industry has largely receded from the region’s economic landscape and more is known about the consequences of exposing humans and ecosystems to contaminants of all kinds. This is not to say it cannot recur. Despite improvements to air and water quality in recent decades, the need for vigilance remains. Inherited pollution persists in soils and streambeds throughout Western New Photo credit: UB Archives Boarded-up homes at Love Canal in 1982 York and hazardous wastes are produced daily by household, business and government activities. The saga of Hickory Since the summer of 1978, when a public health night- Woods—the South Buffalo neighborhood built on polluted mare propelled it into the national spotlight, the Love land in the late 1980s and early 1990s—demonstrates the high Canal section of Niagara Falls has been synonymous price of complacency.
    [Show full text]
  • Female Or Male Homeowners from the Love Canal Neighborhood
    Witness Profile Female or male homeowners from the Love Canal neighborhood Background Picture this: back in the 1970s you and your family had been living happily in a quiet neighborhood near Niagara Falls, N.Y., for roughly 20 years. The neighborhood of Love Canal had around 800 homes, many with families just like yours. Life was great, aside from the strange odors that sometimes came from the ground near the playground or the neighborhood yards. After many complaints, the city finally hired an investigator to assess if there was any problem. What they found was chilling to you – there were high levels of toxic chemicals found in the canal, the soil near the canal and the sump-pump in your basement. What you know Suddenly you began to question the health of your child (who has been sickly since they were born), the seemingly higher level of cancer in your neighborhood and the many miscarriages your family has had since you moved to the neighborhood. Concerned that the chemicals found might be related to the health problems, you immediately contact the school board and request that your child be transferred to another school, but your request is denied. Soon other neighbors start to ask similar questions and a course of events is set in motion that will change your life forever. The city offers to buy the homes of the Love Canal residents who are closest to the cancel site, but yours is not one of them. You form a community action group to demand justice. Eventually the city agrees to purchase all the homes in the neighborhood and everyone moves away.
    [Show full text]
  • Love Canal Tragedy
    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications Civil and Environmental Engineering 7-2007 Love Canal Tragedy Alicia Saunte Phillips Cleveland State University Yung-Tse Hung Cleveland State University, [email protected] Paul A. Bosela Cleveland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/encee_facpub Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Publisher's Statement © ASCE Original Citation Phllips, A. S., Yung-Tse Hung, and Bosela, P. A. (2007). "Love Canal Tragedy." J.Perform.Constr.Facil., 21(4), 313-319. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Love Canal Tragedy 1 2 Alicia Saunté Phillips ; Yung-Tse Hung, Ph.D., P.E., DEE, F.ASCE ; and 3 Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE Abstract: The purpose of this environmental failure case study paper is to provide educational materials for environmental engineering courses dealing with design and operation of landfills for hazardous waste. In 1978, it was discovered that hazardous waste had contaminated homes and schools in the Love Canal area, a former chemical landfill which became a 15 acre neighborhood of the City of Niagara Falls, New York. On August 7, 1978, the United States President Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency at the Love Canal.
    [Show full text]