DOCSLIB.ORG

Dioxins and Furans in Fish Below Love Canal, New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dioxins and Furans in Fish Below Love Canal, New York Dioxins and furans in fisb berow Love canar, New york: concentration reduction forrowiug renedíatio¡. Lawrence C. Skin¡er New York state Departnent of nnvírãnnental conservation S0 Wolf Road Albany, Ne¡r york L2233 Subnitted i"¡ compretio¡ gf project titled ,Dioxi¡s ôibenzofurans in ca¡ruga _t-be a¡d evaluation crãet fishrî ,L-i.u is o¡e part of an of tue etrectiveness of remedial activlties associated with the Love canal area, r¡i"g.ti-r"iîJ, Nes york. Augrust 1993 ABSTRACT The cayuga creek drainage.basin ¡¡aters has served.as the receiving for leachates_originating-.arnong-tn" frorn-ihe inactive hazardous waste site known as Love canal. numerous compounds originating frorn che¡nicar 2,3,7,8-tetrachrorodibenzo-p--aioxin'.the site, €nã- mo;t-t;;i; i= the efficacy of remedial wolk õ-;a ,7 ,8, -TCDD) . To examine ¡nonitori!9 or "==o"iàiåà'ritú r,ovã'canar, _young f ish f or dioxin=-ana dibenzofurans hras conducted. of the chemicals examinã¿,-"ùn" ;lã-;;pouna for Love canar *¡as 2,3,2,g-TcDD. lilønostic2'317r8-TCDD concentrations Decrines in averaged zo percent between 1992 and L987, and further decLines ¡etween 46 and 86 percent occurred between L9g7 and 1992-defendeni-or-i"""tiãilanglnf basin. The reductions h'ere consiètent i¡ tt" encapsuration -.rrawiirr õñi;ãïon of of the Love canar site, rater'õiãã"i"g of storm ¡¡ater drainage systems and rernovar oi ttre most hi;ñit contaminated sediments from reduction tribuiaiies--or cayuga creek. Totar of 2,3,7'8-TCDD concentrations h¡ere 84 percent or more. L :TÀBLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRå,CT i TÀBLE OF CONTENTS ií LIST OF TABLES l].l_ LTST OF FTGT'RES v TNTRODUCTION 1 IIÍETHODS 2 Sanple collection 2 Chemical analysis 3 Data analysis 3 RESULTS 4 Fish collections 4 Dioxins 5 Dibenzofurans 6 2,3,7, 8-TCDD toxiciÈy equivalents 7 DTSCUSSTON 7 2 g_TCDD ,3 ,7 , I Dibenzofurans 9 Other inrpacts 10 coNcLUSroNs L2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 14 LTTERATTIRE CITED 15 TABLES 20 FIGT'RES 47 APPENDTCES ii 49 LTST OF TÀBLES Table Title Paqe 1 Mean concentrations of dioxins containing the 2 ,3, 20 7,8-chloro congener group in Voung_ol_irrã_y"", fish from rhe cavuga-creãk dråin;ée-b";i;,'ñiãg.r" Fal1s, New york. 2 Mean concentrations of arr._dioxin congeners in young- 24 of-the-year fish from the cayuga creeÉ arainãge'ùã=írr, Niagara Fa1ls, New york. 3 The relative contribution of the 2,3,7,g 27 -tetrachroro congener to totar aioiins-ilãh and totar dibenzofurans- in-young-of-the-y"át from the Cayuga Creek basin, t'tiagara faits, wãw--york. 4 Comparison of mean 2,3,Zr8-TCDD concentrations 28 in yogng-of-the-year. cypiiniform-ilsñ--ior arr l_ocations by yeai ot coitecrion, óãvgã=õr;;k basin, Niagara Falls, Neq¡ york 5 Comparison of 2,3,Zr8-TCDD concentrations in 29 y-oung-of-the-year cypriniform fish over tine for the Cayuga Creek dráinage basin aãwnsiream of Love Canal, Niagara FaIIs, Nerrr york. 6 Comparison of mean concentrations tetrachloro of 2,3,7,g_ 30 -- containing heptachrorodiúãñzðaioxins-Uy _i1 ygung-of-the-yg_ar cyfrinir"r.-ii=t y"", in Little River and the Cãyuga Creek basin] Niagara Fa}ls, New yorkl 7 Conparison of mean octachlorodibenzodioxin 31 concentrations in young-of-the-year clprinifor¡n fish {Tor cayuga creek and Berghortz creek ä"ri"g-igelr-'" Niagara Fal1s, New york. I conparison of mean concentrations of octaehrorodi- 32 benzodioxin in young-of-the-year cypriniforn fish in the cayuga creekbasin over tirner- uiãgara Falls New York.. r 9 Mean concentrations of dibenzofurans containing the 33 2 ;3,7, 8-chloro congener group +n young-of_ttre_feãi- fish from the Cayuga creãk alainale básÍn, Niagara Fa1ls, New york. 1tr- labl.e TitIe Paqe 10 Mean concentrations of alr dibenzofuran congeners in 36 young-of-the-year fish from the cayuga creeÉ drainage bãsin, Niagarà falls, New york. 11 con¡rarison of concentrations of dibenzofurans 39 containing the 2,3,7 r g-tetrachloro group. in young-of-the-year. cyprinitãin'iisñ"orrgãrr", ¡V locatíon, cayusa creek-arainå|ã-bã;ñ; ñi"g"rå Fal]s, New york. T2 2,3,7r8-TCDD toxicity equivalents and percent 42 contribution to 2,3,1,e-TcDD toxiciiy ãquivatents by Z13,7rB-TCDD and 2,3,4,2rg-pCDF i; young-of-the-year fish from cayuga creek drainage basin, Niagara Falls, New york. 13 Comparison of 2,3,Zr8-TCDD concentrations in 44 cypriniform fish from the cayuga creek arainage basin by year, Niagara Falls, ñew york 14 Percentage change in Z,3,7r8-TCDD concentrations 45 nrith ti¡ne in cyprinifoim'f ish from the cayuga creek drainage basin, Niagara Falls, New iõiX. 15 Cornparison of 2,1,ZrB-TCDD toxicity eguivalents 46 in cyprinifor¡r fishàs from the cayûga'ðieex drainage basin by year; Niagara Fa1ls, Nehr yõrk. tv LTST OF FrGT'RES No. Titl-e Paqe 1 General and specific area of study 47 for assessing dioxins and furans rn young-of-the-year fish from the Cayuga Creek drainage basin. 2 Sanpling siÈes for assessing d.ioxins 48 and furans in young-of-the-year fish from the Cayuga Crèek draináge basin. v TNTRODUCTION Love Cana1 is an inactive hazardous waste siÈe 1ocated in Niagara Falls, New York. The site achieved national notoriety in L978, and thereaft'er, due to perceived human health iurpaãtÀ-i,o=-- residents located adjacent to Lt¡e site. The human health irnpacts are believed to be càused by the disposal of chenicãi wastes by the former Hooker chemical óorporatiðn (the ,ror owned by occidentat chenical corp.). The esti¡oãteã-äi,äéo-tons"orp-tty-i= of chenicat wastes disposed iir íove canãi-i;;i;ã";-ñ;;s orhers, chlorinated solventé, oirs, chlorouenãenes, hexachlorocycro_ l-ï11::, polychlorinared biphenyls (pcBt , and rrichlãrophenot (NYsDoH, 1981). Dioxins aré coñta¡nin"nts of trichlorophenol (Firestone, LgTz; Rappe et ar., 197gà)--and dibenzofurans are contaninants of pcB (Èowes et al., tgisa and 1975b) ãnd chlorophenols (Rappe et aI., Lg7gi. Itater and leachate from Love canar entered d_raiTage the cayuga creek basin via storrn drain aiscnãiões to Brack creek" The chemicals trere subsequenlly distribuaãá srrc"e==i.rãry-to dovnstream waters and sediinents Ín.aerjnortz creek, cayuga creek, the Little River and the Niagara nivei] rn preriminary work, crayfish from Berghottz creeÉ irnnediatety doilnstreã¡r of Black creek showed pg/g of 2,3,7, B-tetrachtorodibenzo-p-aioiin (2 8-rcDD)1zg0 (NysDoH, - '3 ,7 ' 1esí) . subseq"""i-il;1t;ï!-or rish demonstrated 213,zr8-TCDD concentratións as greát as pglç, (Kuzia, orKeefe et êr., 113 anatvzed._1995; 19g3). ôiuenzorurans were not rn w!or9 carp from tne íittle Rivei,-ð[ãrii"g ¿iõezl reported 644 pglg totar dioxins of which en pâlg was contributed by.the 2,?,2,8-TCDD congener. Further, ttre cäíþ-coñiained 1019 pglg totar dibenzofurans which hrere principaiii-"ãrpiisea or L r2 r3 I 4,7r8-heïachloro-, !,2,3, 4, 6,7-ra-heplachioror' octachloro - dibenzofurans. ãnd Extensive remedial work has been conducted in the environs surrounding Love canar. The site has been encapsulated, arl known drainage terminated, a leachate collectioi anà treatment system installed, and homes most rikety to be irnpãôiea rrere destroyed. Remediation also included ðleaning-t,ñe-=ùrm water drai_nage syst'em and removing soils and sedir"it=--irãr'trr" cayuga creek basin (Black and Berqhortz creek) where 2,3;7,e-tcpo concentrations exceeded r.õ part per uittion. To evaruate the effectiveness of these rattei actions, a monitoiinj'progr", ,"" instituted which incorporat,ed fish as one cornponent. This latter study and its findings are reported here. I METHODS Sanple Collection Young-of-the-year fish v¡ere collected by the NyS Departnent of Environmental conservation's-negion é fisñeries biorogists. cotrections were made ar seven locárions il-Ëñ;-õ;ñ;; creek lla]nage basin in october of the years igez, 1990 and Lsgz. The 1987 cotl.ections r¡ere made prior t,o areaginó õr- Àrãär Bergholtz creeks" The 1990 and "na successiyely 1992 colÍecf.ions srere one year and three years pãst-dreaging. Fish $¡ere collected at the forrowing six slaiiã"-=-i" arr Étriãe sanpling years (see Figure 1 and 2l: Station No. Location 1 Little River upstream of the nouth of Cayuga Creek opposite the southern tip of Cayuga Island 2 Little River downstream of the mouth of Cayuga Creek 3 Cayuga Creek at the Lindberg Avenue Bridge 4 Cayuga Creek at the Cayuga prive bridge 5 egrgþ9llz creek approximátety 100 netérs west of !{illiarns Road 6 Cayuga Creek at the porter Road bridge rn 1987, the seventh station, _cayuga creek upstream--Ë", of Lockport Road (a contror location), did nôt-"ontåin risr¡. 1990, the station ltas moved to the-Ñiagara nivãi-upstream of Little River as a control- rn Lgg2, the étation was leturned to cayuga creek upstrearn of Lockport Road where brook sticiiãËãðx-1cJr"u inconstans) were collected. \-' Due to differing habitat and fish-habitat preferences, the fish species avairable differed between station's in ãny given )r.ear. -.Ii"t.population structure fluctuates from và.i to year thus differing collections.of fish nere expected between years. Further, the dredging activily"p"ði"= modified thä avairable habitat aL severar statioñs útricn resürled in further a].teratÍon of fish species ared popuration_compositigr, rn 1992, young-of- the-year fish hrere not avairable iñ sufficieni for chemical analysis at four rocations. Therefore,"ür¡ãi= order aged fj.sh (norrnarly ageã.r+¡ lrere coLrecred to fitl saurprin!-;;;=. order f i=lr_ may- introduce grearer dara variabiiiat .á"Ë-to potentiarJ.y."ggd longer duration of chemicaJ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bucknell University Bucknell University Bucknell Digital Commons Faculty Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Fall 2016 Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal Jennifer Thomson Bucknell University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/fac_journ Part of the Other History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Thomson, Jennifer. "Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal." Journal of Social History (2016) : 204-223. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Bucknell Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Bucknell Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Social History Advance Access published December 19, 2015 JENNIFER THOMSON Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal Abstract Downloaded from This article investigates the relationship between American political culture and grassroots environmentalism in the 1970s. To do so, it examines how the white working class residents of Love Canal, New York, claimed health and a healthy en- vironment as rights of citizenship. To date, the Canal has remained a sore spot for environmental scholarship; this article demonstrates how the analytic difficulties http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ posed by the Canal stem from the crosscurrents of American political culture in the late 1970s. Canal residents put their local experience into several larger frames of reference: the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, the plight of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees, and a culture of skepticism toward government and medical authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches for Assessing Health Risks from Complex Mixtures in Indoor Air: a Panel Overview by Carol J
    Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 95, pp. 135-143, 1991 Approaches for Assessing Health Risks from Complex Mixtures in Indoor Air: A Panel Overview by Carol J. Henry,* Lawrence Fishbein,* William J. Meggs,t Nicholas A. Ashford,' Paul A. Schulte,§ Henry Anderson,/' J. Scott Osborne,' and Daniel W. Sepkovictt Critical to a more definitive human health assessment ofthe potential health risks from exposure to complex mixtures in indoor air is the need for a more definitive clinical measure and etiology ofthe helath effects ofcomplex mixtures. This panel overview highlights six ofthe eight presentations ofthe conference panel discussion and features a number ofthe major topical areas of indoor air concern. W. G. Meggs assessed clinical research priorities with primary focus on the role ofvolatile organic chemicals in human health, recognizing the areas where definitive data are lacking. By recogniz- ing many types ofchemical sensitivity, it may be possible to design studies that can illuminate the mechanisms by which chemical exposure may cause disease. The critically important topic of multiple chemical sensitivity was discussed by N. A. Ashford, who identified four high risk groups and defined the demographics ofthese groups. P. A. Schulte address- ed the issue ofbiological markers ofsusceptibility with specific considerations ofboth methodologia and societal aspects that may be operative in the ability to detect innate or inborne differences between individuals and populations. Three case studies were reviewed. H. Anderson discussed the past and present priorities from a public health perspective, focusing on those issues dealing with exposures to environmental tobacco smoke and formaldehyde off-gassing from materials used in mobile homeconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Love Canal Follow-Up Health Study
    Love Canal Follow-up Health Study Prepared by the Division of Environmental Health Assessment Center for Environmental Health New York State Department of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry In memory of Charlene M. Spampinato and her longstanding dedication to the Love Canal project. October 2008 State of New York Funding Provided by Department of Health United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………....................iii LIST OF FIGURES.……………………………………………………………...............iv LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………….............v LIST OF APPENDICES....…...…...…..…………………………………………...........vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………….........1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..5 Love Canal History……………………………………………………….6 Environmental Sampling………………………………………………….8 Study Area………………………………………………….....................10 Review of Earlier Love Canal Health Studies…………………………...11 Community Involvement………………………………………………...15 Study Objectives…………………………………………………………17 METHODS………………………………………………………………………………19 Study Population……………………………………………………........19 Comparison Populations………………………………………………....20 Tracing Former Love Canal Residents…………………………………..20 Exposure Assessment………………………………………………........22 Outcome Assessment……………………………………………….…....25 Mortality…………………………………………………….…...25 Cancer Incidence………………………………………………....26 Reproductive Outcomes……………………………………….…28 Potential Confounders…………………………………………………....31
    [Show full text]
  • Indoor Air Quality Factors in Designing a Healthy Building,” Annual
    Spengler, J.D. and Chen, Q. 2000. “Indoor air quality factors in designing a healthy building,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, 567-600. Indoor Air Quality Factors in Designing a Healthy Building John D. Spengler School of Public Health, Harvard University, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115; e-mail: [email protected] Qingyan (Yan) Chen Building Technology Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; e-mail: [email protected] KEY WORDS: regulations, contaminant sources, building materials and systems, ventilation models, design tools Shortened title: IAQ in Designing a Healthy Building Abstract Current guidelines for green buildings are cursory and inadequate for specifying materials and designing ventilation systems to ensure a healthful indoor environment, i.e. a “healthy building,” by design. Public perception, cultural preferences, litigation trends, current codes and regulations, rapid introduction of new building materials and commercial products, as well as the prevailing design-build practices, pose challenges to systems integration in the design, construction and operation phases of modern buildings. We are on the verge of a paradigm shift in ventilation design thinking. In the past, thermal properties of air within a zone determined heating, ventilating, and air- conditioning (HVAC) specifications. In the future, occupant-specific and highly responsive systems will become the norm. Natural ventilation, displacement ventilation, microzoning with subfloor plenums, along with the use of point of source heat control and point of use sensors, will evolve to create a "smart" responsive ventilation-building dynamic system. Advanced ventilation design tools such as the modeling of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) will be used routinely.
    [Show full text]
  • Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in the Great Lakes
    Hdb Env Chem Vol. 5, Part N (2006): 71–150 DOI 10.1007/698_5_040 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005 Published online: 2 December 2005 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans in the Great Lakes Ross J. Norstrom Centre for Analytical and Environmental Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada [email protected] 1Introduction................................... 73 2 Occurrence and Geographical Distribution .................. 75 2.1 Air........................................ 75 2.1.1ConcentrationsinAir.............................. 75 2.1.2AirDepositionModels............................. 78 2.2 Water....................................... 83 2.2.1SaginawRiver.................................. 83 2.2.2DetroitRiver................................... 84 2.2.3NiagaraRiver.................................. 85 2.3 LakeSediments................................. 86 2.4 RiverandBaySediments............................ 91 2.4.1 Fox River/GreenBaySediments........................ 91 2.4.2LakeSuperiorBaySediments.......................... 91 2.4.3 Saginaw River/SaginawBaySediments.................... 92 2.4.4DetroitRiverSediments............................. 94 2.4.5NiagaraRiverSediments............................ 95 2.5 Fish........................................ 97 2.5.1 Surveys of 2378-TeCDD and 2378-TeCDF . ................ 98 2.5.2ComprehensiveSurveys............................. 103 2.6 SeabirdsandSnappingTurtleEggs...................... 107 2.6.1HerringGullEggs...............................
    [Show full text]
  • A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal
    Pace Law Review Volume 30 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Real Property, Mortgages, and the Economy: A Article 22 Call for Ethics and Reforms September 2009 A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg William Mitchell College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg, A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal, 30 Pace L. Rev. 310 (2009) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol30/iss1/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Superfund Solution for an Economic Love Canal Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg* ´7KHUHLVVLPSO\QRJRRGUHDVRQIRUXVWRUHVSRQGWRRQHW\SHRI release of a poison, but not another. The test should not be whether poison was released into river water rather than into well water; or by toxic waste buried in the ground rather than toxic waste discharged to the ground. The test should be whether the poison was released. I assure you that the victim GRHV QRW FDUH WR PDNH WKRVH GLVWLQFWLRQV QRU VKRXOG ZHµ Senator Robert T. Stafford1 Introduction Consider this scenario: A profitable but hazardous LQGXVWU\·V ZRUVW-case risks come to pass. Neighborhoods are boarded-up and residents dislocated. Poor and minority communities are hit particularly hard because they offered the OHDVW UHVLVWDQFH WR WKH LQGXVWU\·V TXHVWLRQDEOH SUDFWLFHV³ practices virtually unregulated by the government and undeterred by the tort system.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline: Love Canal Hazardous Waste Disaster
    Timeline: Love Canal Hazardous Waste Disaster 1892 William T. Love proposed construction of a manmade canal that would ultimately link the Niagara River to Lake Ontario, providing water and hydroelectric power for the model industrial city. 1942 Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation began dumping chemical wastes at the Love Canal, and by 1952 had dumped nearly 22,000 tons of chemical waste into the canal. 1953 Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation sold the Love Canal property (approximately 15 acres) for $1.00 to the Board of Education of Niagara Falls with a deed disclaimer of responsibility for any future damages due to the presence of buried chemicals. 1955 Board of Education of Niagara Falls completed construction on and opened the 99th Street Elementary School and sold unused sections of the Love Canal property to home developers to build residences. 1976–1977 The Niagara Gazette (and reporter Michael H. Brown) in a series of articles reported that chemical residues from the Love Canal landfill between 97th and 99th Streets have been seeping into the basements of homes in the area. These reports cited illnesses and injuries to residents and pets and destruction of plant life. The newspaper urged prompt government action. 1978 New York State Health Commissioner (Dr. Robert Whalen) began health studies of the Love Canal community (house-to-house collecting of blood samples, levels of toxic vapors, and medical exams and studies of residents) that subsequently confirmed that a serious public health hazard existed. New York Health Department officials met with Love Canal residents and explained the hazards of exposure to toxic chemicals in and around homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Love Canal 1
    L O V E C A N A L Center for Health, Environment and Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040 Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org Fact Pack P001 Cover photo: Lois Gibbs and daughter Melissa 1979 For more information or to order copies of this publication contact: Center for Health, Environment and Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040 Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org TABLE OF CONTENTS A History of Love Canal 1 Love Canal Homeowners Association 2 A Summary of Events 4 Remedial Construction Outside the Fence Community Health Studies 6 Miscarriages and Crib Deaths Birth Defects Nervous Breakdowns Urinary Tract Disorders Combined Health Disorders Key Dates of Events at Love Canal 13 Biography of Lois Gibbs 17 Formation of Center For Health, Environment and Justice 19 News Clips and Articles on Love Canal 20 Love Canal A HISTORY OF LOVE CANAL The history of Love Canal began in 1892 Homebuilding around the old canal also when William T. Love proposed connecting began in the 1950’s. However, homeowners the upper and lower Niagara River by were never given any warning or informa- digging a canal six to seven miles long. By tion that would indicate that the property was doing this, Love hoped to harness the water located near a chemical waste dump. Most of the upper Niagara River into a navigable families who moved into the area were channel, which would create a man-made unaware of the old landfill and its poisons.
    [Show full text]
  • Love Canal Superfund Site City of Niagara Falls Niagara County, New York
    Five-Year Review Report Love Canal Superfund Site City of Niagara Falls Niagara County, New York Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency September 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the second five-year review for the Love Canal Superfund site (Site), located in the City ofNiagara Falls, Niagara County, New York. The primary selected remedies for the Site include the following: I) containment of wastes within the Love Canal landfill (LeL) via capping, leachate collection and treatment and long-tenn operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) and 2) excavation, treatment and off-site disposal ofcontamination found in surrounding properties, sewers, creeks and other wastes. Nannal residential use is allowed for properties located within Areas 4 through 7 ofthe Emergency Declaration Area (EDA), surrounding the fenced LeL. Properties in the EDA Areas 1 through 3 are suitable for commercial or light industrial use. Based upon the results of this review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concludes that the remedies implemented at this Site adequately control exposures of Site contaminants to human and environmental receptors to the extent necessary for the protection ofhuman health and the environment. The continued OM&M at the Site ensures that there are no exposures of Site-related hazardous materials to human or environmental receptors. II Five-Year Review Summary Form Site name (from WasteLAN): love Canal EPA 10 (from WasteLAN): NYD000606947 NPL status: 0 Final • Deleted 0 Other (specify) Remediation status (choose all that
    [Show full text]
  • OBG PRESENTS: Love Canal – History & Observations David J
    OBG PRESENTS: Love Canal – History & Observations David J. Wilson CIH (1979-2012) October 2016 AGENDA History to 1978 Events 1978 to 1985 Remedial Actions Habitability Studies Health Studies Repopulation Personal Observations Reflections 2 Love Canal History to 1978 3 Niagara Falls, NY William T. Love 1890s Power Canal Canal 3,000 feet long, 100 feet wide, & 22 feet deep Canal dug 1,500 feet from Niagara River Project abandoned ~1900 Used for recreation until the 1940s Hooker Chemical, US Military & City of NF used canal for waste disposal from 1943 to 1953 21,800 Tons chemical waste 4 Sold by Hooker for $1, 1953 NF & NF Board with written restrictions of Education requested Soil cover placed on canal • Warning about buried chemicals title to property • DO NOT build on or next to the canal Love Canal Tier 1 total of 99 homes Three blocks (Tier 1) 99th Street School build on first and third blocks History… constructed directly 1954 on middle block around canal •230 Adults •134 Children 1953 to 1972 1972 - Tier 1-4 Residential structures completed •800 Single family homes •240 Low income apartments 5 Tier 1-4 EDA Location Map 6 First & Second Blocks of Love Canal 7 First Block of Love Canal 8 Mid 1970s Odors detected from canal Canal cover soils sinking Sheens on house basement sump water surfaces Drums surfacing in canal area 1976 Calspan Corp. conducts survey and recommendations: LOVE CANAL HISTORY . Place a clay cap on canal fill area . Seal house basement sumps . Install tile drainage along canal 9 Love Canal Events 1978 – 1985 10 April 1978 NF Newspaper article series on hazardous wastes LC Residents express concern to NYSDOH NYSDOH confirms public health hazard at LC May 1978 NYSDOH meets with LC residents NYSDOH issues first of three orders LOVE CANALLOVE EVENTS .
    [Show full text]
  • Thirty Years from Love Canal
    University at Buffalo Regional Institute POLICY BRIEF | August 2008 Who bears our environmental burden? What’s my responsibilty? Could it happen again? Thirty Years from Love Canal Love Canal may be in the rear-view mirror for many in Western New York, but pollution persists as an important issue due to the region’s industrial legacy. It’s a legacy that affects a wide assortment of communities—city, suburb and countryside— and new research shows that one’s likelihood of living near environmental hazards is independent of income and race. Responsibilities for preventing and managing pollution today Overgrown streets and sidewalks at the corner of are far-reaching, and policies that engage all sectors and Wheatfield and 101st on the eastern side of Love Canal encourage innovation are the most likely to succeed. Historical Snapshot: Love Canal Could it happen again? A generation after the tragedy at Love Canal, an event of similar proportions seems unlikely to repeat. Pollution is more tightly controlled today, heavy industry has largely receded from the region’s economic landscape and more is known about the consequences of exposing humans and ecosystems to contaminants of all kinds. This is not to say it cannot recur. Despite improvements to air and water quality in recent decades, the need for vigilance remains. Inherited pollution persists in soils and streambeds throughout Western New Photo credit: UB Archives Boarded-up homes at Love Canal in 1982 York and hazardous wastes are produced daily by household, business and government activities. The saga of Hickory Since the summer of 1978, when a public health night- Woods—the South Buffalo neighborhood built on polluted mare propelled it into the national spotlight, the Love land in the late 1980s and early 1990s—demonstrates the high Canal section of Niagara Falls has been synonymous price of complacency.
    [Show full text]
  • Female Or Male Homeowners from the Love Canal Neighborhood
    Witness Profile Female or male homeowners from the Love Canal neighborhood Background Picture this: back in the 1970s you and your family had been living happily in a quiet neighborhood near Niagara Falls, N.Y., for roughly 20 years. The neighborhood of Love Canal had around 800 homes, many with families just like yours. Life was great, aside from the strange odors that sometimes came from the ground near the playground or the neighborhood yards. After many complaints, the city finally hired an investigator to assess if there was any problem. What they found was chilling to you – there were high levels of toxic chemicals found in the canal, the soil near the canal and the sump-pump in your basement. What you know Suddenly you began to question the health of your child (who has been sickly since they were born), the seemingly higher level of cancer in your neighborhood and the many miscarriages your family has had since you moved to the neighborhood. Concerned that the chemicals found might be related to the health problems, you immediately contact the school board and request that your child be transferred to another school, but your request is denied. Soon other neighbors start to ask similar questions and a course of events is set in motion that will change your life forever. The city offers to buy the homes of the Love Canal residents who are closest to the cancel site, but yours is not one of them. You form a community action group to demand justice. Eventually the city agrees to purchase all the homes in the neighborhood and everyone moves away.
    [Show full text]