Increasing environmental awareness emphasises numerous situations in engineering where there are possible harmful environmental effects (Geotechnical Engineering n.d.). The techniques and information relating to environmental geotechnics enable engineers and construction planners to choose the appropriate courses of action that offer the best practices from both the engineering and environmental perspectives (Sarsby 2000, p. 12). Currently, there are various ground and geotechnics fundamental principles relating to engineering practices, which go a long way into interacting with the environment. Thus, Environmental Geotechnics combines the current frame of environmental aspects knowledge of ground engineering (Van Impe 1998, p. 163). This includes landfills and polluted land. These are significant areas for engineers dealing within the geotechnics field, the environment, and geology as well as waste and water management (Benson 1999, p.6).
Geotechnical engineering mainly adopts the rock and soil mechanics principles in investigating subsurface materials and conditions (Briaud 2013, p.9). The concept seeks to determine the appropriate chemical and physical/mechanical properties of such materials. The Love Canal in the United States of America is linked with environmental geotechnics (Kahn 2007, p. 17). The Love Canal tragedy is famous as a significant cause of groundwater pollution. This tragedy occurred in Niagara Falls, in the city of New York between 1940 and 1950 (Fowlkes & Miller 1987, p.58). The pollution disaster experienced at Love Canal is significant because it assisted in creating the Superfund, which is a federal program introduced in the 1980s to detect and improve handling of hazardous chemical waste sites in America (Hertz 1996, n.p.). Environmental geotechnics evaluates the artificial soil deposits of such a site to prove if it is safe for construction. There are various risks involved in any constructed sites and here the principles of geotechnics engineering come in handy in assessing the risks posed by the Love Canal. Furthermore, through the environmental geotechnics concepts, it became possible to monitor the conditions of the site as well as its earthwork foundation (Brook, 2006).
Altaner asserts that the Love Canal disaster suggests that the civil engineering products must be in harmony with nature (Altaner 2012). Environmental geotechnics lays emphasis on the engineers’ work, their work environment, the utilization and reliability of their ground characterization and ground-testing methods, the design and planning process, and lastly the devices that fit with nature in meeting the project’s goals (Altaner 2012).
In the analysis of the geological point of view of the Love Canal disaster, it is clear that the site forms an environmental project comprising an open trench, which was later on filled with harmful chlorinated biological wastes (Kahn 2007, p. 17). This resulted from a chemical plant in the Niagara Falls. An elementary school and a residential area were built immediately neighbouring the landfill causing an environmental disaster. Environmental geotechnics application on the site started shortly upon the discovery of chemical wastes in the gardens of homes beside the canal (Briaud 2013, p.9).
The Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) was employed as the environmental firm charged with the responsibility of investigating the canal’s chemical presence as well as establishing a plan to look into the disaster (Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation 2012). CRA initiated a investigation of the chemical presence, established a remedial plan, and offered construction supervision for its enactment. The ditch at the site was ignored before it had generated hydroelectric power and remained unused for commercial purposes for several years (Ploughman 1997, p.118). In 1920s, the Niagara Falls started dumping urban waste into the Love Canal. Later on in the 1940s, there was dumping of a nuclear bomb wastes emanating from World War II by the US army. Hooker Chemical obtained the site in 1942 lining it with clay. Later on the company added into the Love Canal close to 21,000 tons of harmful chemical wastes (Jefferson et al. 2007, p. 59). These included dioxin, PCBs and carcinogens covering them with additional clay. The firm later on sold the plot to the school board of Niagara Falls and included a section in the trading contract. This contained a description of the land use which also absolved the company from any future injury claims from the waste under the land (Fletcher 2003, p.6). The school quickly constructed a public school on this site and went ahead to sell the neighbouring land for a housing project along the canal banks. During the process of building, canal walls were breached and a few of the metal butts were destroyed.
Eventually, the toxic chemical waste infiltrated into people’s basements. Gardens and trees began to die (Logue1996, p.12). There were also bizarre smells as well as some substances that were reported by the dwellers. Phosphorus elements seeped to the top surface (Benson, Tamara & John 2009, p.16). Moreover, children in the school’s yard experienced toxic waste burns. The Love Canal was one of the worst environmental disasters to happen in the United States.
The authorities were informed, but they did not take any action. The whole disaster narrows down to the government in its legalization of disposing off toxic wastes. Permitting chemical firms to dump off toxins may be cheap and convenient for the government, but the Love Canal incident costed the Americans lands and lives (Gibs 2008). The government ignored the effects of the chemicals of the discarded wastes. It did not forbid firms to dump their waste products. The government’s permission shows the little attention it paid to the imminent danger the wastes posed. If the government had closely examined this site in line with its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, this catastrophe could not have occurred (Love Canal-A Brief History n.d.).
Furthermore, if the local officials took action immediately they had been alerted, the disaster could have been averted. The disaster can also be primarily attributed to the engineers and city planners. Proper application of environmental geotechnics by these engineers would increase environmental awareness to avert the possible harmful environmental effects resulting from the construction (America’s 10 worst man-made environmental disasters 2013).
The Love Canal is the first biggest artificial disaster to affect America as described by some health and environmental related studies. Due to the interests in the grassroots and media attention, the Love Canal disaster offers an impetus for intense interest in modifications to environmental fears globally (Ploughman 1997, p.120).
Conclusively, the love canal tragedy represents an error by different institutions and individuals that are the most powerful in American history. Civil engineering structures have to be in harmony with nature. This essay provides that there are several environmental geotechnics fundamental principles that are rarely associated with engineering practices. These associations interact with the environment. Thus, the Love Canal tragedy signifies the relevance of identification of harmful waste as well as the correct disposal of harmful waste for public health protection.
Bibliography
Altaner, S 2012, Case Study: The Love Canal Disaster, Web.
America’s 10 worst man-made environmental disasters, 2013, Web.
Benson, C 1999, ‘Environmental geotechnics in the new millennium.’ Keynote lecture. Proceedings of the twelfth regional conference for Africa on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 1, pp. 9-22.
Benson, M, Tamara, D & John, E 2009, White-collar crime from an opportunity perspective. Springer New York.
Brook, M 2006, The Tragedy of the Love Canal, Web.
Briaud, J 2013. Geotechnical Engineering: Unsaturated and Saturated Soils. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation, 2012, Web.
Fletcher, T 2003, From Love Canal to environmental justice: The politics of hazardous waste on the Canada-US Border. University of Toronto Press, Canada.
Fowlkes, M, & Miller, P 1987, ‘Chemicals and community at Love Canal.’, In B. Johnson and V. Covello ( Eds. ), The social and cultural construction of risk, D. Reidel, New York, pp. 55-78.
Geotechnical Engineering, n.d., Web.
Gibs, L 2008, History: Love Canal: the Start of a Movement, Web.
Hertz, J 1996, The Love Canal Disaster: An Error in Engineering or Public Policy?, Web.
Jefferson, I, Hunt, D, Birchall, C, & Rogers, C 2007, ‘Sustainability indicators for environmental geotechnics.’ Proceedings of the ICE-Engineering Sustainability, vol.160, no. 2, pp. 57-78.
Kahn, M 2007, ‘Environmental disasters as risk regulation catalysts? The role of Bhopal, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Love Canal, and Three Mile Island in shaping US environmental law.’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 17-43.
Logue, N 1996 ‘Disasters, the environment, and public health: improving our response.’ American journal of public health, vol. 86, no. 9, pp. 1207-1210.
Love Canal-A Brief History, n.d., Web.
Ploughman, P 1997, ‘Disasters, the media and social structures: a typology of credibility hierarchy persistence based on newspaper coverage of the Love Canal and six other disasters.’ Disasters, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.118-137.
Sarsby, W 2000, Environmental geotechnics, Thomas Telford, London.
The University of Western Australia, 2012, Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Web.
Van Impe, W 1998, ‘Environmental geotechnics: ITC 5 activities-State of the art.’ Environmental Geotechnics, vol. 1-4. pp. 163-1187.