Angela Donohue
Tamara Heinemann
Env-226-201
7 May 2013 Tragedy at the Love Canal A quite family neighborhood would awake one day to find themselves the center of one of the most devastating environmental disasters of all time. Originally designed as a dream community and named for William Love the owner of the tract of land in Niagara Falls, New York it would later become a life and law changing event. When the original plans for the canal were considered it was thought to be an economical way to bring a cheap source of power to the would be development, but William Love struggled to find the path he needed to turn his dreams into a reality. By 1920 the land was turned into a municipal and chemical dumpsite, used not only by the city, but by the military where even some nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project was dumped. Years later it was used solely by Hooker Electrochemical Company, and then later sold to the city, after a supposed cleanup, for a whopping whole dollar. That should have been the first sign of trouble. In the late 1950’s a working class community was resurrected on the old dump site. Homes, schools and churches were built for this middle class neighborhood and families went about their business for several decades without knowledge of the dangers. That is until the summer of 1978 when record rain falls led to the visible leaching of the some 248 chemicals and 82 chemical compounds, 11 of which were known carcinogens. Waste disposal drums were breaking through back yards, plant life was visibly turning black in color and puddles of oily substances were found in the playgrounds of schools. After signs of actual chemical burns and birth defects in children action was finally taken and the residents of the Love Canal were evacuated. Other health problems and diseases, such as cancers, epilepsy and multiple miscarriages in women, would emerge as time went on and investigations were fully underway. In the beginning of 1979 the citizens of the Love Canal began filing a series of lawsuits against Hooker, the city of Niagara Falls and the Board of Education (since it was the proposal of the site on which the 99th St. School was built that sparked the later development of the canal). Since Hooker had strongly conveyed their concerns to the board about the development of the site, even so much as to state it in the bill of sale, they felt that the blame should rest with them. Although, what is now known as, Occidental Chemical Corporation, did not physically build and sell the homes in the development they would ultimately pay the EPA $129 million dollars in cleanup cost. This researcher could find no information on the culpability of the city and or the Board of Education. Although the events of the Love Canal cannot be thought of as unique, it will be known as event that had lasting impact on environmental law. From the purchase of unlivable homes, to the initial part played by the government in the evacuation process it would be known as the first time the federal government took steps of this magnitude that did not originate from a natural disaster. Several new government agencies and acts were also put into place following the tragedy at Love Canal. The Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or better known as the Superfund Act was passed in 1980 as a direct result of Love Canal and the Valley of the Drums in Kentucky and is designed to clean up sites that have been contaminated with hazardous substances. It created the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and provides it with a broad federal authority to clean up releases or possible releases of hazardous substances that could be of danger to public or environmental health. The law also authorized the EPA to identify the parties that are responsible for the contamination of sites and urge (and I don’t use that word lightly) the parties to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties can’t be found then the EPA is authorized to clean up the sites themselves using a trust set up and financed by the federal government. These are the two types of response actions CERCLA is authorized to carry out.
1. Removal actions. These are typically short-term response actions, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. Removal actions are classified as: (1) emergency; (2) time-critical; and (3) non-time critical. Removal responses are generally used to address localized risks such as abandoned drums containing hazardous substances, and contaminated surface soils posing acute risks to human health or the environment.
2. Remedial actions. These are usually long-term response actions. Remedial actions seek to permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances which are serious, but lack the time-criticality of removal actions, and include such measures as preventing the migration of pollutants and neutralizing toxic substances. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL) in the United States and the territories.
Since the birth of The Superfund Act there has been a fair amount of controversy in its effectiveness of hazardous waste site cleanup, but upon my research it appears to have had a great deal of success in the execution of its laws. Although each new administration brings a change of funding, or lack thereof, the EPA fights on to protect the health of the public and environment alike.
Resources:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund http://www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/01.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal http://www.damninteresting.com/the-tragedy-of-the-love-canal/ http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Love+Canal+Disaster http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/ http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Love_Canal.aspx