EPA – Love Canal

Original site: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/index.html
Most of these are retrievable either through the Internet Archive “Wayback Machine”   or through the EPA Alumni Association.

Press Releases and Articles 

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/01.html

The Love Canal Tragedy

by Eckardt C. Beck
[EPA Journal – January 1979]

If you get there before I do, Tell ’em I’m a comin’ too

To see the things so wondrous true, At Love’s new Model City 

(From a turn-of-the-century advertising jingle promoting the development of Love Canal)

Give me Liberty. I’ve Already Got Death. 

(From a sign displayed by a Love Canal resident, 1978)

Quite simply, Love Canal is one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history.

But that’s not the most disturbing fact.

What is worse is that it cannot be regarded as an isolated event. It could happen again–anywhere in this country–unless we move expeditiously to prevent it.

It is a cruel irony that Love Canal was originally meant to be a dream community. That vision belonged to the man for whom the three-block tract of land on the eastern edge of Niagara Falls, New York, was named–William T. Love.

Love felt that by digging a short canal between the upper and lower Niagara Rivers, power could be generated cheaply to fuel the industry and homes of his would-be model city.

But despite considerable backing, Love’s project was unable to endure the one-two punch of fluctuations in the economy and Nikola Tesla’s discovery of how to economically transmit electricity over great distances by means of an alternating current.

By 1910, the dream was shattered. All that was left to commemorate Love’s hope was a partial ditch where construction of the canal had begun.

In the 1920s the seeds of a genuine nightmare were planted. The canal was turned into a municipal and industrial chemical dumpsite.

Landfills can of course be an environmentally acceptable method of hazardous waste disposal, assuming they are properly sited, managed, and regulated. Love Canal will always remain a perfect historical example of how not to run such an operation.

In 1953, the Hooker Chemical Company, then the owners and operators of the property, covered the canal with earth and sold it to the city for one dollar.

It was a bad buy.

In the late ’50s, about 100 homes and a school were built at the site. Perhaps it wasn’t William T. Love’s model city, but it was a solid, working-class community. For a while.

On the first day of August, 1978, the lead paragraph of a front-page story in the New York Times read:

NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y.–Twenty five years after the Hooker Chemical Company stopped using the Love Canal here as an industrial dump, 82 different compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens, have been percolating upward through the soil, their drum containers rotting and leaching their contents into the backyards and basements of 100 homes and a public school built on the banks of the canal.

In an article prepared for the February, 1978 EPA Journal, I wrote, regarding chemical dumpsites in general, that “even though some of these landfills have been closed down, they may stand like ticking time bombs.” Just months later, Love Canal exploded.

The explosion was triggered by a record amount of rainfall. Shortly thereafter, the leaching began.

I visited the canal area at that time. Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces.

And then there were the birth defects. The New York State Health Department is continuing an investigation into a disturbingly high rate of miscarriages, along with five birth-defect cases detected thus far in the area.

I recall talking with the father of one the children with birth defects. “I heard someone from the press saying that there were only five cases of birth defects here,” he told me. “When you go back to your people at EPA, please don’t use the phrase ‘only five cases.’ People must realize that this is a tiny community. Five birth defect cases here is terrifying.”

A large percentage of people in Love Canal are also being closely observed because of detected high white-blood-cell counts, a possible precursor of leukemia.

When the citizens of Love Canal were finally evacuated from their homes and their neighborhood, pregnant women and infants were deliberately among the first to be taken out.

“We knew they put chemicals into the canal and filled it over,” said one woman, a long-time resident of the Canal area., “but we had no idea the chemicals would invade our homes. We’re worried sick about the grandchildren and their children.”

Two of this woman’s four grandchildren have birth defects. The children were born and raised in the Love Canal community. A granddaughter was born deaf with a cleft palate, an extra row of teeth, and slight retardation. A grandson was born with an eye defect.

Of the chemicals which comprise the brew seeping through the ground and into homes at Love Canal, one of the most prevalent is benzene — a known human carcinogen, and one detected in high concentrations. But the residents characterize things more simply.

“I’ve got this slop everywhere,” said another man who lives at Love Canal. His daughter also suffers from a congenital defect.

On August 7, New York Governor Hugh Carey announced to the residents of the Canal that the State Government wold purchase the homes affected by chemicals.

On that same day, President Carter approved emergency financial aid for the Love Canal area (the first emergency funds ever to be approved for something other than a “natural” disaster), and the U.S. Senate approved a “sense of Congress” amendment saying that Federal aid should be forthcoming to relieve the serious environmental disaster which had occurred.

By the month’s end, 98 families had already been evacuated. Another 46 had found temporary housing. Soon after, all families would be gone from the most contaminated areas — a total of 221 families have moved or agreed to be moved.

State figures show more than 200 purchase offers for homes have been made, totaling nearly $7 million.

A plan is being set in motion now to implement technical procedures designed to meet the seemingly impossible job of detoxifying the Canal area. The plan calls for a trench system to drain chemicals from the Canal. It is a difficult procedure, and we are keeping our fingers crossed that it will yield some degree of success.

I have been very pleased with the high degree of cooperation in this case among local, State, and Federal governments, and with the swiftness by which the Congress and the President have acted to make funds available.

But this is not really where the story ends.

Quite the contrary.

We suspect that there are hundreds of such chemical dumpsites across this Nation.

Unlike Love Canal, few are situated so close to human settlements. But without a doubt, many of these old dumpsites are time bombs with burning fuses — their contents slowly leaching out. And the next victim cold be a water supply, or a sensitive wetland.

The presence of various types of toxic substances in our environment has become increasingly widespread — a fact that President Carter has called “one of the grimmest discoveries of the modern era.”

Chemical sales in the United States now exceed a mind-boggling $112 billion per year, with as many as 70,000 chemical substances in commerce.

Love Canal can now be added to a growing list of environmental disasters involving toxics, ranging from industrial workers stricken by nervous disorders and cancers to the discovery of toxic materials in the milk of nursing mothers.

Through the national environmental program it administers, the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to draw a chain of Congressional acts around the toxics problem.

The Clean Air and Water Acts, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Pesticide Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act — each is an essential link.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA is making grants available to States to help them establish programs to assure the safe handling and disposal of hazardous wastes. As guidance for such programs, we are working to make sure that State inventories of industrial waste disposal sites include full assessments of any potential dangers created by these sites.

Also, EPA recently proposed a system to ensure that the more than 35 million tons of hazardous wastes produced in the U.S. each year, including most chemical wastes, are disposed of safely. Hazardous wastes will be controlled from point of generation to their ultimate disposal, and dangerous pratices now resulting in serious threats to health and environment will not be allowed.

Although we are taking these aggressive strides to make sure that hazardous waste is safely managed, there remains the question of liability regarding accidents occurring from wastes disposed of previously. This is a missing link. But no doubt this question will be addressed effectively in the future.

Regarding the missing link of liability, if health-related dangers are detected, what are we as s people willing to spend to correct the situation? How much risk are we willing to accept? Who’s going to pick up the tab?

One of the chief problems we are up against is that ownership of these sites frequently shifts over the years, making liability difficult to determine in cases of an accident. And no secure mechanisms are in effect for determining such liability.

It is within our power to exercise intelligent and effective controls designed to significantly cut such environmental risks. A tragedy, unfortunately, has now called upon us to decide on the overall level of commitment we desire for defusing future Love Canals. And it is not forgotten that no one has paid more dearly already than the residents of Love Canal.

Beck was Administrator of EPA Region 2, 1977-1979.

www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/02.html

U.S. Sues Hooker Chemical at Niagara Falls, New York

[EPA press release – December 20, 1979]

In one of largest environmental complaints ever lodged by the Federal government against a major corporation, the Environmental Protection Agency announced today that the Department of Justice — acting on behalf of EPA — has filed four suits against Hooker Chemical Co., and its parent corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, requesting the company clean up four chemical waste dumpsites in Niagara Falls, New York, which are posing substantial danger to residents of the area.

The suits seek a total of $117,580,000 in clean-up costs from Hooker as well as reimbursement for more than $7 million spent by Federal agencies in emergency measures at Hooker’s Love Canal waste disposal site, and unspecified civil penalties.

The sites involved, each the subject of separate actions, are Love Canal, Hyde Park, 102nd Street and the “S” Area landfill. All four were used by the Hooker Chemical Company to dispose of its chemical wastes.

One of the suits also charged Olin Corporation, another chemical producer, with similar violations at a disposal site adjacent to Hooker’s 102nd Street disposal facility.

In announcing the suit, EPA’s Deputy Administrator Barbara Blum said, “Today’s suit should serve notice to those who generate or handle hazardous wastes that these kinds of dangers no longer will be tolerated by the American public. The day of discarding hazardous materials indiscriminately and haphazardly is over. The relief being requested by the government from these chemical companies represents one of the most significant and costly environmental remedies ever sought in a judicial action. It is well warranted in our estimation. None of the dumps is still used but they have left a frightening legacy.

“EPA scientists found 82 toxic chemicals in air, water, and soil samples near the dumps,” Blum said. “The numerous toxic chemicals — a dozen of which are carcinogenic — discarded at Love Canal over the past 30 years have triggered several health problems, including miscarriages, among the area’s residents, and have transformed whole sections of this once pleasant community into a ghost town.”

The suits brought today are a result of a 10-month investigation by EPA scientists and EPA and Justice Department lawyers. This investigation is just one of many going on at dumpsites across the country as EPA and the Justice Department prepare to challenge the dangerous disposal practices which have directly affected millions of Americans by polluting their air, soil and water supplies,” said Blum. “Many sites used in the past for waste disposal have been found to contain toxic chemicals and other hazardous substances. The full scope of the threat to human health and the environment is still being uncovered.”

Love Canal gained national attention in 1978 when the New York State Department of Health announced a medical emergency there. President Carter later declared a national emergency for the area. Hundreds of families living near the dumpsite have been forced to leave their homes.

The suits filed today charged that the four Niagara Falls disposal sites are an “imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment” and violate the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Refuse Act, and the common law of nuisance.

Although none of the landfills is now being used as a disposal site, the suits allege that hazardous chemicals stored there are migrating from the sites, contaminating the environment, and endangering persons exposed to the chemicals.

The suits indicate that Hooker disposed of 199,900 tons to chemical waste at the four sites between 1942 and 1975 and Olin disposed of 66,000 tons of chemical waste at the 102nd Street landfill.

Chemicals from the “S” Area landfill, a disposal site near the Niagara Falls water treatment plant, pose a risk to the city’s drinking water, the suit said. However, EPA pointed out that in tests conducted as recently as November 1979, the chemicals were not detected in the drinking water at levels high enough to require closure of the drinking water plant. Therefore, the suit does not ask that the use of the Niagara Falls drinking water supply be stopped. The Environmental Protection Agency also indicated that the City of Niagara Falls is temporarily using an alternative intake structure in an attempt to avoid further chemical contamination. The Federal government is continuing to monitor the drinking water to insure its quality.

Dioxin, a deadly chemical, has been found in high concentrations in Bloody run, a creek that flows from the Hyde Park disposal site, the suit said, and workers and residents in that area have complained of noxious fumes coming from the dump.

Chemicals buried in the 102nd Street site are seeping into the adjacent Niagara River, the suit said, and children who played on the landfill were burned by exploding “fire rocks” on the surface of the site.

The suits asked the court to order the immediate clean-up of the four sites, construction of special walls to contain the chemicals on the sites, and installation of water and air monitoring systems.

The suits asked the court to require Hooker to pay for complete medical studies of all families in the Love Canal and Hyde Park areas to determine if their health has been injured and to pay for a program to monitor the health of past and present residents and their immediate offspring for the rest of their lives.

In addition, Hooker would be required to take remedial action to insure the safety of all homes in the Love Canal area affected by Canal wastes and pay for the temporary relocation of affected residents until all environmental indicators show that chemical contamination has been reduced to the normal levels found in nearby unaffected areas. Or, as an alternative to paying for the temporary relocation, Hooker would be required to purchase all homes within the area affected by migration of the Canal wastes, and pay the relocation costs of the persons residing in those homes.

To insure the clean-up, the suits asked the court to order Hooker to pay into a trust account or post bonds in the following amounts: $45 million, Love Canal; $50 million, “S” Area; $16.5 million, 102nd Street; and $6,080,000, Hyde Park.

Olin would be required to share in the clean-up costs at the 102nd Street site.

In addition, Hooker would be required to reimburse the Federal government more than $7 million for EPA and Federal Disaster Assistance Administration funds used to clean up Love Canal.

The suits also seek civil penalties of $10,000 for each day Hooker violated the Clean Water Act at the Hyde Park site and a similar penalty from Hooker and Olin at the 102nd Street site.

A similar Federal Action was filed Tuesday, December 18, against Occidental Chemical Company and its parent corporations, the Hooker Chemical Company and Occidental Petroleum, concerning Occidental/Hooker’s Lathrop, California, pesticide and fertilizer production plant. Other Federal suits were filed on Monday, December 17, resulting from alleged hazardous wastes disposal problems in Southington, Connecticut; — and on Wednesday, December 19, concerning alleged violations of Federal law in Hamilton, Ohio. Other cases are scheduled to be filed in the next several days.

Recently, Deputy Administrator Blum, calling hazardous waste site clean-up the Agency’s “highest priority,” strengthened EPA’s enforcement of hazardous waste disposal laws by creating a special EPA Hazardous Waste Enforcement Task Force.

This action was paralleled in the Department of Justice by creation of a new Hazardous Waste Section within the Land and Natural Resources Division. This section, with thirteen attorneys, will litigate on behalf of EPA, which identifies and investigates potentially dangerous chemical waste dumping grounds.

There are currently 3,913 potential hazardous waste sites on EPA investigation logs that have been identified as targets for possible on-site investigations. To date, the states and EPA Regional Offices have conducted 644 on-site inspections, and twelve Federal hazardous waste site judicial actions have been filed.

EPA Deputy Administrator Barbara Blum and James W. Moorman, Assistant Attorney General, have said the EPA Task Force and the new Department of Justice Section “will form a strike force against hazardous waste pollution, seeking speedy environmental enforcement action.” The two groups are currently investigating a substantial number of other sites across the country.

www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/03.html

EPA, New York State Announce Temporary Relocation of Love Canal Residents

[EPA press release – May 21, 1980]

President Carter today declared an emergency to permit the Federal government and the State of New York to undertake the temporary relocation of approximately 700 families in the Love Canal area of Niagara Falls, New York, who have been exposed to toxic wastes deposited there by Hooker Chemical company.

Barbara Blum, Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in announcing the President’s action — taken at the request of Governor Carey of New York — said that the Federal government and the State will jointly fund the relocation effort.

“This action is being taken,” said Blum, “in recognition of the cumulative evidence of exposure by the Love Canal residents to toxic wastes from Hooker Chemical company and mounting evidence of resulting health effects.

“Health effects studies performed by others so far are preliminary. Taken together, they suggest significant health risks. Ordinarily, we would not subject the public and affected families to the disruption of temporary relocation unless conclusions on adverse health have been fully documented and confirmed after independent review,” she said.

“But this is not an ordinary situation. This case presents special circumstances warranting this extraordinary action. The studies completed to date are sufficiently suggestive of a threat to public health that prudence dictates the residents be relocated while further definitive studies are being completed,” Blum declared.

The families eligible for temporary relocation assistance live in the area from 103rd Street on the east to both sides of 93rd Street on the west, Black Creek on the north to Frontier Avenue on the south.

The temporary relocation will last until long-range studies of the environmental exposures and resulting health effects suffered by the affected families are completed. These studies, which will be conducted by EPA, will be completed within the next few months.

Governor Carey’s request to declare an emergency will make funds available on a matching basis with the State of New York to fund the temporary relocation under the Federal Disaster Relief Act.

The temporary relocation will be assisted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the New York Department of Transportation. Personnel from these two agencies are currently at the Love Canal site to begin assisting families.

Under existing Federal law, this temporary housing may be provided rent free for a period of up to one year. Pending the location of such temporary housing, residents may seek shelter with family members or in hotels, motels or other transient accommodations and will be reimbursed by the Federal government.

“The Hooker Chemical Company’s dumping of toxic wastes at Love Canal,” said Blum, “and the resulting health and environmental damages are a stark symbol of the problems created by the improper disposal of hazardous wastes by our society. The implementation of the regulatory program by EPA and the States under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act should prevent new Love Canals. But Americans will not be free of the effects of our toxic waste heritage without the passage of Superfund legislation to give EPA the authority and funds to clean up hazardous waste sites before they damage public health.”

The complaint in the Governor’s suit against Hooker Chemical Company will be amended to seek reimbursement for costs expended in this effort. The Justice Department has requested that Hooker pay the costs of temporary relocation, but the company has refused.

EPA believes this action is required at Love Canal even though it may not be necessary at other hazardous waste sites. A review by EPA’s Hazardous Waste Enforcement Task Force indicates that a larger number of people in Love Canal are directly exposed to a broader range of toxic chemicals at high levels than now known at other abandoned hazardous waste sites around the country. In addition, President Carter has previously declared an emergency at Love Canal, the only hazardous waste site to be identified as such. Finally, the Government’s lawsuit against Hooker Chemical Company requests relocation of the affected families, the only case involving a hazardous waste site where such relief has been requested.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/04.html  

Love Canal Record of Decision Signed

[EPA press release – October 26, 1987]

The final Superfund cleanup decision for the Love Canal creeks and sewers in Niagara Falls, N.Y., was signed today by Dr. J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

The remedy will utilize on-site thermal destruction to clean up the dioxin-contaminated creek and sewer sediments. The residuals from the thermal treatment will be disposed of on site. The cost is estimated to be between $26 and $31 million.

“This remedy provides a realistic plan to deal with the dioxin contamination and is protective of human health and the environment,” says Dr. Porter, manager of the Superfund program. “This is a very important step towards the cleanup of the Love Canal area.”

Dr. Porter further noted that the Love Canal cleanup is indicative of the increasing pace of the national Superfund program. He indicated that work is underway at over 500 Superfund sites, with site work to be completed at approximately 25 sites this fiscal year.

A transportable thermal-destruction unit will be sited at Love Canal to treat all creek and sewer sediments as well as other contaminated materials that have resulted from the remediation process. The process will be capable of successfully destroying dioxin-contaminated materials. The remaining non-hazardous residues will be disposed of on site.

A dewatering/containment facility will be constructed to store and dewater dioxin-contaminated material before thermal destruction. Upon completion of thermal treatment, this facility will be substantially reduced in size to accommodate construction/demolition debris only.

Love Canal, a neighborhood in the southeast corner of the city and approximately one-quarter mile north of the Niagara River, first came into national prominence in the late 1970s when it was discovered that contaminated leachate had migrated to the surface of the canal and to nearby residential basements. Contaminants also migrated through area sewers to nearby creeks.

In October 1978, containment measures were undertaken at the site that included the construction of a tile drain and leachate collection system; placement of a clay cap over 16 acres of the canal; the erection of an on-site leachate treatment facility; and the installation of a fence around the area.

Approximately 1000 families have been relocated from the area and the homes adjoining the canal have been demolished.

In the fall of 1982, sewers leaving the canal were severed. In 1984, the installation of an expanded 40-acre cap was completed. A long-term monitoring/perimeter study was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the leachate collection system and to assess the contaminant migration in the soil and groundwater at the site. Preliminary results indicate that pollutants have been confined to the site, and the amount of contaminated groundwater treated at the leachate treatment facility has decreased since the cap was extended.

This past summer, $2.5 million was made available for the buyout of additional properties at Love Canal. Funds for maintaining the remaining homes were also made available.

 

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/05.html

Occidental Chemical Signs Consent Order for Storage and Destruction of Love Canal Wastes

[EPA press release – June 1, 1989]

Attached is a press release issued by the state of New York announcing that Occidental Chemical Corp. has signed a consent order with the state and federal governments to take over storage and destruction of wastes originating at the nationally known Love Canal site. The consent order will save taxpayers more than $20 million in cleanup costs.

The order represents Occidental’s first acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for cleanup work at Love Canal in the 10 years since the toxic waste dump was discovered in Niagara Falls.

News Release

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Thomas C. Jorling, Commissioner
For Release: 10:30 a.m., Thursday, June 1, 1989

Calling the occasion a “landmark event,” New York and federal officials today announced that Occidental Chemical Corporation has signed a consent order with the state and federal governments obligating the company to take over storage and destruction of wastes which originated at Love Canal. The agreement represents Occidental’s first acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for cleanup work associated with Love Canal in the ten years since the toxic waste dump was discovered.

Making the announcement today were New York State Environmental Conservation Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Acting Regional Administrator William J. Muszynski, New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, and U.S. Justice Department Acting Assistant Attorney General Donald A. Carr.

“We have succeeded in getting Occidental to accept some responsibility and take an active role in the remediation of Love Canal, even though the company continues to fight its liability for this national disaster,” Commissioner Jorling said. “The importance of this agreement cannot be overstated. The order legally binds Occidental to finish the job that we have started and will save taxpayers more than $20 million in cleanup construction, operating and engineering costs. This agreement is the culmination of planning, negotiations and hard work by DEC, the EPA, the state Attorney General, the state Health Department and the Justice Department. The coordinated action among our agencies has made possible this landmark event.”

“It is EPA’s goal, on a national level, to insure that responsible parties perform necessary remediation at hazardous waste sites. We are pleased that Occidental Chemical will be performing the work,” Mr. Muszynski said. “In addition, this agreement will not delay the ongoing remedial work because Occidental must follow the governments’ existing work schedule. Indeed, I hope that this precedent-setting agreement with Occidental will help pave the way for the remediation of the other Niagara Falls hazardous waste sites as well.

“Love Canal has additional significance as it provided the impetus for the national Superfund program and is an international symbol of the risks associated with the improper disposal of hazardous wastes,” he noted.

State Attorney General Abrams said: “Today’s agreement is a welcome development. It marks the first time that Occidental has worked closely with government agencies to resolve an issue in the Love Canal case. We hope this indicates a willingness to cooperate in the future.

“To date, however, Occidental persists in fighting numerous liability issues and is steadfastly refusing to accept responsibility for the costly relocation of Love Canal residents and for the other heavy costs the state incurred responding to the Love Canal disaster. Remedial efforts have cost the state and federal governments more than $140 million to date. Since my office sued Occidental in 1980 we have had nearly 300 days of depositions and 25 motions, and have exchanged hundreds of thousands of pages of documents.

“Even today, as we approach trial after nine years of litigation, Occidental lawyers are deposing the former Health Commissioner, and will be deposing the current Health Commissioner tomorrow. While our intensive negotiations on the creek cleanup were indeed successful, we must not lose sight of the larger legal battle that will continue until Occidental’s full liability for Love Canal is finally established, either in court or by the company’s own acceptance of responsibility.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Carr of the Justice Department said: “This is a tough, no-nonsense agreement that requires Occidental to keep pace with the governments’ creek cleaning project. It marks the first time that Occidental has agreed to undertake cleanup at Love Canal after ten years of litigation.”

Under terms of the order, Occidental will assume responsibility for Love Canal remedial wastes generated at the Love Canal leachate treatment facility. Upon approval of permits, Occidental will transport the wastes to the company’s plant in Niagara Falls, store them in a new storage building, and finally destroy them in a new incinerator to be built at the Occidental plant. Previously, all cleanup work at Love Canal had been performed by government agencies at taxpayers’ expense.

The consent order provides that Occidental will assume responsibility for processing, storage and thermal destruction of the remedial wastes from the Love Canal creek cleanup, contaminated sediments drawn from area sewers, material stored in barrels at Love Canal, and all sludge resulting from the treatment of Love Canal leachate by the on-site treatment plant. These remedial wastes include the contaminated sediments from the excavation of Black and Bergholtz Creeks. The wastes from the creek excavation will be taken to a processing facility that Occidental will build adjacent to the present construction compound at the 93rd Street School site. After the wastes have been processed and placed in polypropylene bags, they will be transported to a new waste storage facility that Occidental will build and operate at the “T-area” of its Niagara Falls plant on Buffalo Avenue. The consent order requires that the processing facility be ready to accept the creek sediments by August 1, 1989. Should the required permits for the T-area storage facility not be issued when work is to begin in the creeks, the processed wastes will be stored temporarily in the dewatering containment facility being built by DEC at Love Canal.

The processed wastes will be stored until Occidental receives approval for and builds a new incinerator at its Buffalo Avenue plant. If permitted, the new incinerator will thermally treat the solid wastes from Love Canal and other company sites, including Hyde Park, Durez and 102nd Street. Only Occidental wastes from the company’s western New York sites will be accepted at the new facilities; none of the wastes will be from out-of-state nor from other companies. Sludge from the Love Canal leachate treatment plant would be destroyed in the existing liquid incinerator at the Niagara Falls plant. Occidental is currently seeking permits from DEC and U.S. EPA for both incinerators to allow burning of its remedial wastes.

Occidental agreed to take on its new role as DEC and other state officials continued to press for accelerated remedial action by Occidental at all of its western New York sites and in the wake of a February 1988 ruling in the governments’ cost recovery case which held Occidental liable for the release of chemicals at Love Canal. The partial consent order lodged in federal court today does not resolve nor affect the on-going litigation against Occidental for reimbursement of past costs.

“DEC is continuing to design and build the facilities that were part of the original plan to store and destroy the Love Canal wastes to ensure that the cleanup will continue should Occidental fail to carry through with its commitment,” Jorling explained. “Under this order, the DEC facilities wold be utilized to store wastes temporarily if for some reason the Occidental storage building is not permitted in time to receive wastes this summer. We are determined that this remediation project will go forward in the event that any part of the order is stalled or fails.

“By continuing to build our facilities, we also keep the pressure on Occidental to take over the cleanup job. While the company has called on us to stop the effort, today’s action proves the effectiveness of our strategy.”

The order also imposes deadlines by which Occidental must complete the required work. Penalties for violating the terms of the order can reach $25,000 per day for each violation.

In a related action, Commissioner Jorling said that Occidental’s state and federal applications for the new waste storage facility are available for public review and comment until July 3, 1989. The applications for modification of Occidental’s existing permits for the new storage facility have been reviewed by DEC and U.S. EPA, and draft permit modifications and a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) have been prepared. The permit modifications are required before Occidental can place any material from Love Canal in the storage facility. The applications, DEIS, and draft permit modifications can be reviewed at DEC’s Region 9 office in Buffalo, the U.S. EPA Public Information Office in the Carborundum Center in Niagara Falls, and DEC’s central office in Albany. The draft permit modifications and DEIS can also be reviewed at the Earl W. Brydges Public Library in Niagara Falls. A modification to an existing stipulation for the remedial investigation of Occidental’s Buffalo Avenue plant has been approved, allowing construction of the T-storage facility to begin since it will also be used to store wastes from the Niagara Falls plant.

The Occidental consent order is available for public inspection in the U.S. District Court prior to its final review by District Judge John T. Curtin.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/06.html  

Ruckelshaus Denies Request to Buy Love Canal Homes

[EPA press release – August 2, 1984]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus today denied a request, for the time being, to purchase rental and non-residential property in the Love Canal area in Niagara Falls, N.Y.

In a letter sent today to Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-N.Y.), Ruckelshaus emphasized that the federal Superfund law will continue to be used primarily to protect human health and the environment rather than for purchasing property which has suffered diminished value due to its proximity to abandoned hazardous waste sites.

The EPA Administrator denied a request by LaFalce that EPA purchase a number of rental homes, commercial properties, community facilities and vacant lots located within the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) surrounding the Love Canal Superfund site in Niagara Falls, New York. He promised to reconsider the decision at a later date if on-going habitation studies at Love Canal indicate that it would be unsafe to repopulate the area in the future. Those studies will be completed over the next several years.

Today’s decision affects only non-owner occupied rental property and commercial and community facilities. Specifically, properties involved include 25 rental homes, four commercial properties, two churches, a fire house, and 60 vacant lots. People currently living within the area are doing so voluntarily.

A buyout of all owner-occupied homes within the EDA was authorized as part of a 1980 agreement with the state to address the contamination problem at Love Canal. All other residents of the EDA were offered relocation assistance, and to date have declined that offer. Meanwhile, a series of long-term cleanup actions are continuing to address the sources of contamination in the area.

Fact Sheet – Love Canal Decision

History

  • The Love Canal site is located in the southeast corner of the city of Niagara Falls, New York, and is approximately one-quarter mile north of the Niagara River.
  • Between 1942 and 1952, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of over 21,000 tons of various chemicals into Love Canal. The solid and liquid wastes deposited into the canal include acids, chlorides, mercaptans, phenols, toluenes, pesticides, chlorobenzenes and sulfides.
  • A Federal-State Agreement signed on October 1, 1980, provided for a $7.5 million loan and a $7.5 million grant, for the purpose of providing permanent relocation for the residents of Love Canal located within the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA). The agreement was funded by a special appropriation known as the Javits-Moynihan amendment. One requirement of the amendment, with respect to acquisition of residences using federal funds, prevents the purchase of non-owner occupied homes or businesses.

Today’s Decision

Today’s decision affects 25 non-owner occupied houses still occupied voluntarily by renters, 4 commercial properties, 2 churches, 1 fire house and 60 vacant lots. The original buyout has resulted in the purchase of homes from all owners living in the EDA who chose to participate in the program. All other residents of the EDA have been offered relocation assistance under an offer that still stands.

EPA reiterated its existing policy that Superfund resources should be used primarily to protect human health and the environment from threats posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Purchasing property which has suffered diminished value due to the proximity of a site will divert funds which could be used to address public health and environmental problems at other sites. The agency promised to reconsider in the event that habitability studies currently underway indicate it would be unsafe to repopulate the area in the future.

Beyond the overriding policy consideration concerning a decision to buy property solely because of diminished value due to proximity to a hazardous waste site, there are several other facets of the Love Canal situation that make further buyouts at this time undesirable:

  • Those renters who voluntarily continue to live in the EDA may be displaced if landlords sell out to the government.
  • Because newly eligible sellers would receive relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, which was not available to the sellers under the original buyout agreement, they stand to receive a much better deal than those who were governed by the first agreement.
  • Property just outside the EDA may suffer even further declines in value in the event of a federal buyout of non-owner occupied property within the EDA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
August 2, 1984
The Administrator

Honorable John J. LaFalce
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear John:

We last met on May 10 to discuss the difficulties facing property owners within the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area (EDA). I agreed that we should carefully examine the possibility of using EPA’s authority under the original Federal/State agreement and to maintain property already purchased.

Since our meeting, my staff and I have examined these issues exhaustively. We have attempted to develop a complete inventory of the residential and commercial property and community facilities remaining in the EDA, as well as to define how many people currently live in the EDA and under what type of arrangement. We have evaluated our possible alternatives under CERCLA in light of our other activities continuing at Love Canal, including efforts to clean up contamination in the outer ring of the EDA and the consideration of which areas of the EDA can be rehabitated. And, we have put the problems at Love Canal into the context of problems we face in implementing CERCLA at sites across the country.

You know the long and unfortunate history of the Love Canal area as well as anyone, and I will not attempt to recount it. The problems you brought to our attention are principally the result of the original Federal/State buyout agreement, which only made owner-occupied homes in the EDA eligible for purchase. Everyone hoped, in hindsight perhaps unrealistically, that fast decisions on the appropriate extent of cleanup would lead to final decisions on which areas of the EDA could be rehabitated. The involved Federal and State agencies are still grappling with the question of rehabitation, although resolution of the question finally appears to be within sight.

Throughout this process we have attempted to address the concerns for the health of area residents. The original buyout has resulted in the purchase of homes from all owners living in the EDA who have chosen to participate in the program. All other residents of the EDA have been offered relocation assistance under an offer that still stands. A series of remedial actions have addressed and are continuing to address the sources of contamination in the area.

The persons currently facing financial hardship are those whose property is not eligible for purchase, who may have watched the value of their rental property, businesses and facilities drop in the face of the uncertain future of the Canal area. Theirs is a different sort of dilemma, particularly since the governmental efforts designed to protect the health of the area residents have contributed to the current inequities. Indeed, those affected are not limited to the political boundaries of the EDA. We have heard from many living near the EDA whose lives have been and continue to be disrupted by these events.

It is largely because of these types of considerations that in the past we have confined decisions to buy property under CERCLA to instances in which human health is in danger, and where permanent relocation, as opposed to temporary relocation or other measures, is the most cost-effective way to protect people. The unfortunate economic effects suffered by those living in or near the EDA is a difficulty familiar to thousands living near hazardous waste sites. At nearly every Superfund site we hear credible stories of depressed property values, owners’ inability to sell property, and the uncertainty and anxiety of property owners and residents.

Although these problems are real and pressing, I believe that we must use our limited resources first to address the health and safety of our citizens and our environment. We recently examined this issue in analyzing a Senate proposal to amend CERCLA, which would require permanent relocation of residents when a release of hazardous wastes depresses property values to the point that selling property is impracticable. We fast realized that this approach could seriously compromise our ability to protect health and the environment at other sites across the country. We believe we should use our relatively limited funds to clean up the known sites and to relocate permanently only when it is necessary to protect human health. Such does not appear to be the case with respect to the remaining individuals who reside within the EDA.

Beyond these overriding policy considerations, there are some other facets of the Love Canal situation that militate against further buyouts at this time. Our examination of the effects of an extended buyout has brought to light certain unavoidable effects were we to purchase the remaining property in the EDA — shifting, but perpetuating, inequitable effects. First, those renters who voluntarily continue to live in the EDA may be disserved; their status would be uncertain once landlords sell out to the government. Next, any CERCLA buyout, which would proceed under the terms of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (URAA), would include significant amounts of relocation assistance not made available to sellers under the original Federal/State agreement, which was not subject to the URAA. The newly eligible sellers, in short, wold get a much better deal than those who have already sold their homes and who continue to be eligible to sell them. Finally, those who live just outside the EDA might see their property values decline even further; but the alternative of opening the boundaries of the EDA to all those whose economic interests have suffered from proximity to Love Canal could create a never-ending ripple away from the EDA.

These considerations, of course, apply to any decision to maintain homes in the EDA purchased under the Federal/State agreement. These are obvious difficulties with using CERCLA monies when the homes were not purchased under that authority. In addition, title to these homes rests with the State, which apparently intends to resell them to help finance repayment of the Federal loan that contributed to the buyout. In contrast, it is difficult to justify using the limited resources of CERCLA to maintain homes pending the outcome of the habitability determination.

The ultimate answer for the property owners at Love Canal will hopefully not be deferred for long. We are in the last stages of evaluating the appropriate remedy to address the contamination in the sewers and creeks of Love Canal, to guard against future exposure to hazardous substances. We are continuing with our plans to cap the innermost area of the EDA over the abandoned canal itself. Finally and most importantly, we are nearing completion of the long process to determine those areas of the EDA that are now or after remedial action will be safe for long-term habitation. Beginning in the first half of next year, the Federal and State Governments will make habitability determinations beginning with the outermost areas of the EDA and working inward. If those determinations lead to the repopulation of portions of the EDA, property owners in those areas can at last expect a reversal in the decline of their property values. If, however, part or all of the EDA is determined to be unsafe for long-term habitation, I will reconsider whether it is then appropriate to use CERCLA to purchase all property within those areas. We will move deliberately and without further delay to complete our efforts at Love Canal, so that once and for all we can address in an even-handed manner the concerns of all those affected.

Sincerely,

William D. Ruckelshaus

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/07.html

Reilly responds to Lois Gibbs on Love Canal habitability and related issues

[EPA press release – May 15, 1990]

Attached is the letter on the Love Canal Habitability Study that EPA Administrator William K. Reilly sent yesterday to Lois Gibbs of Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc.

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
May 14, 1990
The Administrator

Ms. Lois Gibbs
Executive Director
Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc.
P.O. Box 926
Arlington, Virginia 22216

Dear Ms. Gibbs:

I appreciated very much the chance to meet you in January and hear in detail your concerns about Love Canal. This letter responds to the issues you raised during our conversation and to your recent written comments on the Love Canal Habitability Study. I know I promised to get back to you promptly. The delay in responding to you reflects the fact that a great deal of examination, thought, and consultation has gone into my review. Love Canal, as you know, has a complex history.

I have considered your comments and looked into the Habitability Study itself. I have consulted with the Agency’s General Counsel Don Elliott, Regional Administrator Connie Eristoff, Assistant Administrator Don Clay, with members of the Peer Review Panel that evaluated the Study, and with others. The overriding question I have focused on is “have we complied with the law?” I am now satisfied that the answer to that question is “yes.” Specifically, I have concluded that the Love Canal Habitability Study was conducted in full conformance with the law, that it was rigorously designed and carried out to ensure that it was scientifically sound and unbiased, and that it was subjected to full scrutiny and comment by nationally-recognized independent experts and the public. All this the law demands of EPA. We are not called upon to make decisions about the future land uses of the area.

Based upon the information in the Study, decisions about the future use of the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) are being made by state and local authorities, which are the appropriate levels of government to make such calls. State and local agencies, in making their decisions about the future use of the land adjacent to Love Canal and about the associated environmental impacts, will clearly need to take into account the full range of issues, uncertainties, and public sentiments that are present.

Before addressing the specific issues you have raised, I want to make very clear that the area of concern here is not the Love Canal site itself. The Habitability Study was not undertaken to assess the habitability of the Love Canal disposal site or the two rings of homes that originally surrounded it. These homes were torn down and the land on which they stood, along with Love Canal, are buried under a 40-acre cap with a liner and extensive barrier drain collection system, which is operated and maintained by New York State. An extensive, fenced buffer area separates the site from the Emergency Declaration Area. The site is surrounded by monitoring wells and routine monitoring to date shows that this containment system is working effectively. Thus, the area assessed by the Habitability Study — the Emergency Declaration Area — is outside of the Love Canal Site.

In this letter, I want to address the issues raised during our meeting and in your subsequent written comments. It may be helpful first to recount briefly the background of the Love Canal Habitability Study. As you know, in 1982 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a decision on the habitability of the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area. This decision was based on the results of an extensive environmental sampling program in which several thousand samples were collected and analyzed for a broad spectrum of chemicals. Except for contamination in Love Canal area sewers and creeks, which has now been cleaned up, the study found no indication that any Love Canal chemicals had migrated into the Emergency Declaration Area.

It is important to note that another federal agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, determined that the Emergency Declaration area was suitable for residential use provided that the EDA sewers and their contaminated drainage tracts were remediated and that continuous safeguards were in place to monitor the site and prevent further leakage from it. These tasks were accomplished as part of the Love Canal remediation program; the New York State Department of Health concurred in this finding.

After this decision, however, some issues were raised about how this program to sample and analyze chemicals in the EDA was designed and carried out. To provide further assurances that the habitability decision was technically sound, EPA decided that a second study on habitability should be conducted. This second study, which began in 1983, was subsequently mandated by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

To respond to the concerns you raised in your meeting with me, I have reviewed the following issues: (1) whether the EPA Habitability Study was conducted in conformance with the law; (2) whether it is scientifically sound; and (3) whether it was conducted with full public consultation.

Section 312(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) directed EPA to “conduct or cause to be conducted a habitability and land use study” which would assess the risks associated with inhabiting the Emergency Declaration Area; compare the level of hazardous waste contamination in the Emergency Declaration Area to that present in other comparable communities; and assess the potential uses of the land within the Emergency Declaration Area, including but not limited to residential, industrial, commercial and recreational uses, and the risks associated with such potential uses. I have concluded that the Habitability Study fulfills those statutory requirements for the following reasons.

The Habitability Study assesses the risks associated with inhabiting the Emergency Declaration Area in a number of ways. First, it compares the levels of certain indicator chemicals in the Emergency Declaration Area soil to the levels found in four comparable communities. These indicator chemicals were deemed by the scientists conducting the study to be representative of those chemicals which would likely have been present if the area had been affected by chemicals from the Love Canal disposal site. The comparison approach used in the Study assesses the relative risks of inhabiting the Emergency Declaration Area by comparing contamination levels in the EDA to levels found in comparable residential communities which are presently inhabited but are not affected by a chemical landfill.

Moreover, the Technical Review Committee, which was created in August of 1983 in order to develop a scientifically sound approach for determining the habitability of the Emergency Declaration Area and to provide high-level oversight of all Love Canal matters, thoroughly evaluated the various approaches that could be used to conduct the study. The Technical Review Committee was comprised of experts from EPA, the Centers for Disease Control, the New York State Department of Health, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. After extensive deliberation, and public discussion, the Technical Review Committee concluded that the comparative approach used in the study was the most scientifically sound way to assess the habitability of the Emergency Declaration Area, particularly in light of the lack of relevant standards for the chemicals that might be found in the EDA and the lack of toxicological data for these chemicals.

The use of the comparative approach was supported by EPA’s independent panel of scientific experts, including representatives from the New York University Medical Center, Yale University School of Medicine, the University of California School of Public Health, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University, the University of Texas, and other institutions. This expert peer review panel, which held a meeting on May 10-11, 1989 to discuss New York State’s Habitability Decision, concluded that “the lack of appropriate toxicological data for the many chemicals present in the Canal and the lack of standards of acceptability for these chemicals makes the exposure and risk assessment approach unworkable at this time.”

In conducting the Study, the Technical Review Committee recommended an approach that went beyond the comparison of comparable communities, as discussed in your letter. The Habitability Study went to great lengths to assess the risks of inhabiting the Emergency Declaration Area by analyzing approximately 2300 surface soil samples taken from this area to determine whether they contained levels of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in excess of the 1 part per billion (ppb) level of concern established through a quantitative risk assessment as a standard by the Centers for Disease Control. The Technical Review Committee focused on TCDD because this 1 ppb level of concern was the only relevant standard available for chemicals in the Emergency Declaration Area.

Only one Emergency Declaration Area soil sample (from a vacant lot) was found to contain TCDD at a level in excess of the 1 ppb levels of concern, and that soil has since been remediated. Ninety-seven percent of the samples did not contain any traces of TCDD that could be detected by even the most sensitive analytical instruments. After reviewing the results of these analyses, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concluded that “2,3,7,8-TCDD is not present in the surface soil of the Emergency Declaration Area at a concentration of human health concern.”

Finally, the Technical Review Committee analyzed air samples from the 562 residences in the Emergency Declaration Area to determine whether persistent chemicals from Love Canal found their way into surrounding homes. Chlorobenzene was not detected at all, and chlorotoluene was detected in one home. After carefully evaluating all of the data, the Technical Review Committee determined that the presence of the chlorotoluene could not be attributed to Love Canal. By determining whether toxic chemicals were present in the air of the Emergency Declaration Area residences, the Technical Review Committee assessed a second path of risks of inhabiting the EDA. The methods employed to conduct these independent scientific reviews were deemed to be the most practical and appropriate under the circumstances.

With regard to assessing the potential alternative uses and risks of those uses as required by the statute, I believe that by assessing the risks of residing in the Emergency Declaration Area, which the Technical Review Committee determined was the highest use of the land, EPA has fulfilled the requirement to assess the potential uses of land within the Emergency Declaration Area. In developing the Habitability Criteria, Dr. Frederick Pohland of the Georgia Institute of Technology stated that “[t]he most sensitive habitability criteria would, I think, be applied to individual residences and so, in a way we would cover just about any other option should the decision be for something other than residences.”

EPA has been cooperating with the state agencies which have evaluated the potential uses of the land in the Emergency Declaration Area. By funding both the Love Canal Land Use Advisory Committee, as well as the Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency, and by assessing the risks of residing in the Emergency Declaration Area and thus, in effect, the risks of other potential uses, I believe that EPA has complied with the statutory requirements of CERCLA section 312(e)(3).

With respect to the second matter, scientific validity, after a thorough review, I have concluded that the Habitability Study was conducted in a scientifically sound manner. To assure the study’s scientific validity, the Technical Review Committee convened a panel of distinguished scientists from across the nation nominated by TRC members and the public to assist in developing the criteria for determining whether the Emergency Declaration Area was habitable. The habitability criteria, the pilot studies, and the design and results of the Habitability Study were scrutinized by EPA’s peer review panel comprised of independent scientific experts.

The peer review panel, which reviewed the results of the Habitability Study, unanimously concluded that “each of the component parts of the habitability study was well planned, well executed, and had a high level of data quality assurance, and that the resulting data are of high quality and are appropriate for making a determination on habitability.” EPA’s independent review of the study has also concluded it was scientifically sound and unbiased. To further assure myself, I spoke personally and at some length with several scientists on the peer review panel who all assured me that in their opinion the study was valid and appropriate.

With respect to the third issue you raised concerning public involvement in conducting and reviewing the study, the Technical Review Committee held decision-making meetings at four to six week intervals throughout the entire 6-year course of the study. All of these meetings — a total of fifty — were held in a public forum open and accessible to all. These meetings were advertised in local newspapers and through extensive mailings; they were held in convenient locations in Niagara Falls.

Before closing, I want to take particular note of your final concern about the broader public policy implications. Love Canal has become a national symbol for the environmental threats we face from hazardous waste and a powerful impetus to take strong steps to prevent such events from ever occurring again.

The role of the Federal government has been to ensure that the Habitability Study was conducted in a credible and scientific manner. Having done so, EPA properly, and in accordance with the law, provided the Habitability Study to the State of New York in order that the appropriate settlement and land use decisions could be made. EPA’s involvement in solving chemical contamination problems at Love Canal will continue. The Agency has maintained and will continue to maintain a strong role in the ongoing investigative and cleanup work at Love Canal. Well over $100 million in Federal funds has been expended in support of these activities. The Agency will continue to provide funding to New York State for other activities.

In closing, let me stress again how much I appreciate you visit last January. I value the role of citizens and grassroots environmental organizations and applaud, in particular, your unceasing efforts and your personal struggle to focus public attention on the plight of your former community. Your current work with the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes also serves a valuable purpose. These are not easy issues, and my belief is that we can both learn a great deal from each other.

Again, thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns regarding this matter with me. My staff and I look forward to working with you on this and other important issues.

Sincerely yours,

William K. Reilly

P.S. And congratulations on winning the Goldman Prize!