Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial Page 2 of 15 exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the Page 3 of 15 advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to theirPage 4 of 15 ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Page 5 of 15 Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to thePage 6 of 15 president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Page 7 of 15 Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help. Page 8 of 15 The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity forPage the 9loss of 15 of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down. Page 10 of 15 Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. WhenPage 11 the of 15 seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the CoastPage Guard12 of 15 and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil. Page 13 of 15 The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587
Page 14 of 15 Environmental Disasters
Activity
Activity Instruction
In this activity, you will learn about the environmental movement and the disasters that inspired it. Then, write a postcard, from the perspective of an activist, to a public official that summarizes an environmental disaster and advocates for federal policy changes.
Vocabulary industrialization: the transformation, due to technological advancements, from an agricultural or artisan-based economy to an economy built on large industries. Superfund: a federal fund to clean up toxic waste. radioactive waste: a by-product of the use of nuclear materials that is dangerous to human and animal health.
Background Information
The modern environmental movement began in earnest during the 1960s. The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is often cited as the event that began the movement. Her book raised the issue of the effects of the long-term use of such pesticides as DDT. Then in 1964 the Wilderness Act, an early example of an attempt to protect certain lands from industrial pollution, was passed. In 1970, the U.S. government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has remained the most important federally-run environmental organization. Read the first article titled "Focus on the Environment," in Sources. Select one of the disasters discussed in the article: the Love Canal disaster, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Three Mile Island accident, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Learn more about the disaster you chose by reading the corresponding article in Sources. Select or draw an image that captures the event for the front of your postcard. Write your letter on the back of the picture you selected or drew. a. Provide some context as to who you are; for example, a concerned citizen, a person involved in the accident, a parent or child. b. Provide a brief explanation of how the event occurred. c. Include a message asking this public official to respond and or react to the incident. d. Include suggestions for how the public official could respond or remedy the situation. Source
Reference
Focus on the Environment
The destruction of the environment to meet the demands of American industry is a story that goes back long before the modern period. During the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century, even cities fairly remote from the nation's industrial core, such as Butte, Montana, experienced rapid growth both in terms of population and environmental calamities, such as horrible smog. The economic and manufacturing boom of the post-World War II era only intensified the output of pollution, as the exhaust from the omnipresent automobile added to that produced by the nation's booming industries to pollute not only the air, but also the water and the land itself.
Clean Air and Water
Though such conservationist groups as the Sierra Club have been in existence since the late 19th century, it was not until the 1960s that a grassroots environmental movement began to take shape and exert the type of influence necessary to create legislation to regulate industrial pollution and protect the American natural environment. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which brought the long-term impact of the use of pesticides such as DDT to the American consciousness. In addition, the consumption of wilderness resources was reshaping the landscape.
By 1964, congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected certain lands from industrial exploitation. However, it quickly became clear that simply conserving natural areas was insufficient to stem the tide of the negative impact of contemporary life on the places where people actually lived. In 1969, the consequences of America's thirst for crude oil to fuel modern life were unavoidable, as events such as the oil spill off the picturesque coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the sight of Ohio's polluted Cuyahoga River catching on fire left an indelible impression.
As a result of the rise in public awareness, congress began to take their regulatory role seriously, with the passage of a series of bills including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). These laws brought environmental regulation to many areas of American life, from the preservation of animals and plants to the mitigation of pollution in automobiles through the advent of catalytic converters, unleaded fuel, and limits on the amount of pollution contained in exhaust.
On April 22, 1970, Earth Day, the brainchild of U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), gave Americans a reason to think about the environment at least once a year, and the growing movement revitalized the Sierra Club and such other conservationist groups as the Nature Conservancy, while spawning more radical environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, who advocated more direct action to stop environmental destruction.
Media and the Environment
By the 1970s, environmental causes attracted both celebrities and typical Americans alike. On television, iconic environmental images, such as actor Iron Eyes Cody (who made a career of playing Native Americans, though he was not one) playing an Indian shedding a tear over a polluted America, and Woodsy Owl (whose "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan was aimed at educating children about the environment) were everywhere. However, the environmental catastrophes that were the legacy of the postwar industrial boom kept on happening.
In 1978, the residents of Love Canal, New York, found toxic waste deposited during the 1940s–1950s bubbling up in their yards. This led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program to clean up toxic sites. The following year, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania happened just two weeks after the release of the motion picture The China Syndrome, vividly portraying to Americans just how real those fears might be. Musicians reacted by staging the No Nukes concert, which was later released as a documentary film and featured nearly every consequential musician of the period. By 1989, another oil spill in a pristine wilderness area— this time caused by the running aground of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound—reminded Americans of the cost of their addiction to the automobile.
Oil and the Environment
Crude oil extraction has caused many of the most notable environmental catastrophes. However, the dependence on the automobile has resulted in the United States consuming 23% of the world's oil production, yet it produces only 10% of the global supply. Both the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later, as well as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, pointed out the hazards associated with the extraction and transportation of oil. All resulted in the deaths of thousands of birds and other marine animals, and resulted in long-term damage to their ecosystems. The long-term effects of such oil spills may be even more catastrophic, as they damage marine habitats and kill the plankton that many fish rely upon for food.
Debate still rages in the United States over the proper response to these disasters. Many conservatives favor increased oil drilling in the United States in order to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, yet liberals often point to these disasters as evidence of the shortsightedness of such an approach, favoring the development of alternative, cleaner energy sources to replace petroleum.
A Health Food Culture Emerges
Many children of the counterculture of the 1960s brought their environmental beliefs home with them in the form of the movement to eat more natural foods. By the 1970s, health food stores began appearing across the nation to cater to the growing desire to eat more naturally. Granola, which many had produced as a natural alternative to mass-produced breakfast cereals, was embraced by manufacturers, who began producing it themselves.
Large food corporations and fast food restaurants, however, continued to push for high crop yields at lower prices. As a result, pesticide use increased and, during the 1990s, crops enhanced with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were introduced into the food supply. This has caused the movement for organic foods, which are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pesticide and GMO-free, to gain momentum as well. Steven L. Danver Source
Reference
Love Canal Disaster
Love Canal was a hazardous waste site in Niagara Falls, New York. Discovered in the mid-to-late 1970s, the site was highly publicized and focused national attention on what had become of the by-products of industrialization.
Origins
Between the years 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of its hazardous waste in an abandoned canal project at Niagara Falls. Government documents estimate that approximately 21,000 tons of waste were placed in the area. In 1953, Hooker covered the canal with dirt and deeded the property to a New York school district for $1. The deed attempted to limit Hooker's future liability for its past activities at the property.
Disaster and Public Reaction
A housing development and schools were built in the area after the transfer occurred. The residents knew about the dump. They didn't know about the dangers it could pose. A record amount of rainfall washed away some of the dirt, exposing corroded leaking barrels. Puddles of chemicals developed in backyards, basements, and on the school playground. Children playing outside received chemical burns on their hands and faces. Women had miscarriages and gave birth to babies with birth defects. Many developed unusual illnesses and diseases. One woman, Lois Gibbs, set the wheels in motion. She had moved to the community in 1974 with her husband and one-year-old son. Her son developed asthma, a blood disease, and a urinary tract disorder. Later, Gibbs had a daughter, who also developed the blood disease.
A local news reporter wrote a story in 1978 that discussed buried chemicals and the types of illnesses they could cause. Gibbs read the article and began to investigate the connection. She tried to get the school closed but failed. Local environmental organizations were at a loss when she contacted them for guidance. She carried a petition through the community and discovered that health problems were not limited to children. Gibbs organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association, and members began a struggle to get the government to pay attention to the Love Canal situation. They appealed first to the governor, then to the president.
The governor declared a state of emergency on August 2, 1978, and the first group of Love Canal residents, representing 240 homes, was evacuated that year. Work to clean up the waste began. President Jimmy Carter declared a federal environmental emergency for Love Canal on August 7, 1978. Just a few months later, scientist evaluating soil samples determined that 70% of the homes were contaminated. Residents, including Lois Gibbs, continued to protest. Gibbs even flew to Washington, D.C., to testify in front of a House of Representatives panel. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund. Love Canal was one of the first Superfund sites. Also in 1980, President Carter declared a second state of emergency which enabled funding for a final evacuation of another 550 homes. In the end, 50 square-blocks were evacuated around the dump.
Fallout
All but two homes at Love Canal were destroyed. The initial buy-out was financed by the state and federal governments, but the government looked to Hooker and its successor, Occidental Chemical, to foot the bill—in 1983, the U.S. sued Occidental for $45 million. By 1990, more than $14 billion in claims had been filed against the company, all of which were settled by 1997.
The EPA supervised the rehabilitation of 200 abandoned homes north of Love Canal, which were sold in 1996. Today the neighborhood is known as Black Creek Village. The epicenter of the dump remains a fenced-off containment area for the hazardous waste. The EPA, fearful that transporting the waste would pose additional danger, instead covered the site with clay, sheet plastic, and topsoil, and then fenced it off. The site is continually monitored for leakage. However, in 2014, amid contentions that the containment area was still leaking, 994 contractors who worked on the Love Canal cleanup between 1978 and 2011 filed 15 new lawsuits against Occidental. Even into 2018, residents living around the containment site complained of chemical odors and unusual illnesses. Many of them filed another lawsuit against Occidental and the city.
The events at Love Canal brought the public eye-to-eye with disposal problems throughout the country. Public outrage about chemical disposal and its effects resulted in increased government intervention, not only in cleaning up problems after they occur, but also in managing hazardous wastes as they are created. Vicki R. Patton-Hulce Source
Reference
Santa Barbara Oil Spill
The Santa Barbara oil spill was an environmental disaster that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969.
On January 29, 1969, a Union Oil Company drilling platform six miles off the California coast provoked the first step of an unprecedented environmental nightmare. From a well 3,500 feet below the ocean floor, efforts to replace a drill bit went wrong, and pressure from natural gas blew out the pipe. Subsequent efforts to cap the hole created greater pressure, which caused five breaks in the east-west ocean floor fault that released oil and gas.
Cause
The accident was caused by inadequate protective casing inside the drilling hole. The U.S. Geological Survey had given Union Oil permission to cut corners and not follow federal standards. California's standards were more stringent, but the rig was more than three miles offshore and thus outside state jurisdiction.
Aftermath
Before oil workers could begin to staunch the flow 11 days later, 200,000 gallons of crude oil rose to the ocean surface, creating an 800-square-mile slick that covered 35 miles of coastline with thick tar. As the slick moved south, it tarred beaches on the Channel Islands as well. The spill not only united Santa Barbarans of all classes in the clean up effort, but the publicity surrounding it gave major impetus to the environmental movement.
The tides brought in corpses of dead seals and dolphins and changed the migration patterns of gray whales and other sea creatures. It took a particularly high toll on sea birds, especially the diving birds that get their nourishment underwater. Emergency treatment centers had a survival rate of less than 30%, and more than 3,000 birds died on the beaches without receiving help.
The incident forever tarnished the reputation of oil companies in the region. Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil, contributed to the public's contempt by saying, "I don't like to call it a disaster," because there was no loss of human life. "I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds," he said. Source
Reference
Three Mile Island Accident
Three Mile Island is a nuclear generating plant located near the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg. The plant generated electricity for the Metropolitan Edison Company. On March 28, 1979, it suffered a partial meltdown accident. Although not life-threatening, it created a public relations nightmare and set back growth in the nuclear power industry in the United States.
The Accident
Three Mile Island consisted of two units (power-generating reactors). Unit 1 was undergoing its annual shutdown for inspection and refueling at the time of the accident. Unit 2 was a new reactor built in 1978 and designed by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. It used pressurized water to cool and convey heat from the atomic core to the steam turbines. The accident began in Unit 2 during a routine maintenance operation, when air introduced into the cooling system caused a shutdown of the cooling-water intakes.
The emergency shutoffs and pressure relief valves operated properly, and dampening rods fell into the core to end most of the nuclear reaction. Because of an earlier maintenance error, however, the valves to the emergency pumps to cool the turbine had been left closed, so barely enough water was available to keep the core covered and cool. Problems began to cascade as operators failed to interpret warning indicators correctly, leading to a situation in which the 20-story containment building eventually stood as the last line of defense against a catastrophic radiation release. Engineers misjudged that the leaking water was turbine coolant when in fact it was reactor coolant—and radioactive. The leak uncovered nuclear fuel, contaminating the coolant water and ultimately the containment building. The reactor heat rose, destroying the cooling rods and resulting in a melted mass of dangerous radioactive fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen present in the reactor created a bubble that could have led to an explosion. By April 4, scientists and engineers realized that the amounts of these materials had been miscalculated, and by that evening the plant was back under control. The containment building held, and the core did not melt down.
Implications
Officials failed to keep the public well-informed about the nature of the accident. When the seriousness of the accident was recognized, mildly radioactive waste coolant water was emptied into the Susquehanna River. Scientists publicly disagreed with each other about the accident and its implications. Based on confusing information from "experts," 14,000 local residents self-evacuated. The governor advised all pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of the plant to evacuate and others to seek local shelter. A rumor spread of the likelihood of an explosion based on the presence of a hydrogen bubble inside the reactor. President Jimmy Carter, a former naval officer with nuclear experience, visited the plant, and scientists realized that the danger had been overestimated.
The events that occurred at Three Mile Island brought about extensive reform in the safety policies of the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC, a federal organization that regulates nuclear power plant operations in the United States, strengthened its policies to increase safety within the nuclear power industry. Some of the policy changes include improved emergency response training, increased supervision of critical systems, and improvements in equipment engineering.
Three Mile Island has been shut down permanently, and the reactor coolant system drained. This near-disaster caused a hiatus in nuclear reactor construction in the United States that has lasted into the 21st century. Frances L. Edwards Source
Reference
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil pumped from Alaska's North Shore, ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Almost 11 million gallons of oil spilled, causing an environmental disaster. The pristine wilderness of the sound was marred by black, gooey oil, while hundreds of thousands of birds and marine wildlife died. The disaster was a media nightmare for the oil industry but eventually lead to positive changes in the laws that regulate the oil industry.
The Spill
At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, just hours after leaving port in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez struck the reef. Crude oil began spilling into Prince William Sound. Hazelwood notified the Coast Guard and left the tanker. His blood-alcohol level was tested 10 hours later and proved to be slightly above the permissible limit to operate a ship. However, Hazelwood was later found not guilty of operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for negligent discharge of oil.
The currents in Prince William Sound quickly moved the oil throughout the sound and up onto the shore. To make matters worse, the response to the spill from local authorities was uncoordinated and slow and many of the cleanup techniques proved to be ineffective.
By the next morning, one-fifth of the cargo, 11 million gallons, formed a slick that spread and moved to the southwest. Containment quickly became impossible, and efforts turned towards cleanup. By the fourth day, the oil had traveled 40 miles. A week later, the slick had gone another 100 miles.
Cleanup and Effect on the Ecosystem
Some of the oil drifted out to sea, where it eventually sank. The rest washed onto the beaches of Prince William Sound. Exxon hired local citizens to help clean up the beaches. Television viewers saw people with what appeared to be paper towels rubbing down rocks and beaches. Other beaches were treated with hot pressurized water. But even this effort proved to have negative effects, as the hot water destroyed certain marine life. Although many beaches were cleaned, much of the oil was forced into the soil.
The spill had a disastrous effect on wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. Thousands of birds and otters were killed and the salmon and shellfish populations were severely damaged. Even by 2018 the area had not yet returned to pre-spill conditions.
Impact on the Oil Industry
The Exxon Valdez oil spill also had a great impact on the oil industry. Better safeguards were instituted to minimize the effects of an oil spill. Greater safety measures have been taken in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most of the oil is produced. Emergency teams were reinstated along the Alaskan pipeline. While Exxon was quick to voluntarily pay for cleanup and offer millions of dollars in settlements to residents, the company was still fined $4.5 billion in punitive damages, $500 million of which they paid after the Supreme Court cut the damages.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which stated that all oil-carrying vessels over 5,000 tons operating in American waters were required to have double hulls by 2015. The law also raised corporate liability for spills and established a federal cleanup fund from a new tax on oil. The state of Alaska passed legislation requiring ships' captains to be tested for alcohol before being allowed to sail. Furthermore, tankers may not change channels and are accompanied by two tugs until they are clear of Prince William Sound. Tim J. Watts
MLA Citation
"Conservative Agenda to the Clinton Era, 1975-2000 Activity: Environmental Disasters." American History, ABC-CLIO, 2021, americanhistory.abc- clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.
COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC
This content may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes only. https://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Support/InvestigateActivity/2250587
Page 15 of 15