Republic of the Philippines
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Department of Industrial Engineering

Republic of the Philippines
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Department of Industrial Engineering

ENGINEERING VALUES AND ETHICS

CASE STUDY:
Love Canal

Prepared by:

MARASIGAN EDZEL C.
Submitted to:
Dr. Jerilyn Landicho-Pilar

SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

BSIE V-2
A. Y. 2015 - 2016

ENGINEERING VALUES AND ETHICS

CASE STUDY:
Love Canal

Prepared by:

MARASIGAN EDZEL C.
Submitted to:
Dr. Jerilyn Landicho-Pilar

SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

BSIE V-2
A. Y. 2015 - 2016

CE VISION The College of Engineering envisions itself to be center of excellence in engineering education.

CE MISSION The College of Engineering is committed to produce competitive engineers who will serve as catalyst for sustainable growth and development in national and international levels.

CE GOALS 1. Provide Quality education through instruction, advance research and extension services: 2 Produce world-class professionals as potential industry leaders and job providers 3. Develop and improve facilities through the use of adapted technology and indigenous materials and: 4. Maintain, upgrade and improve facilities through the adaptation of engineering techniques. OBJECTIVES 1. Strengthen the BSIE program consistent with global trends; 2. Develop faculty as competent mentors and quality researchers, through advanced studies, and other facets of continuing professional education; 3. Develop the critical thinking and communication skills of students, giving emphasis to research and extension services; 4. Equip graduates with appropriate knowledge and technical skills imbued with desirable work attitudes and moral values, through enhanced teaching/learning process by using multimedia facilities on top of traditional methods; 5. Create a conducive teaching and learning atmosphere with emphasis to faculty and students’ growth and academic freedom; 6. Establish network with educational institutions, Industries, GO’s and NGO’s, local and international, which could serve as:
a. Funding sources and/or partners of researches,

b. Sources of new technology, c. Centers for faculty and students’ exchange programs and on-the-job trainings, and d. Grantees of scholarships/ additional facilities and; 7. Continuously conduct action researches on the needs of laboratory and other facilities that could be locally produced or innovated using local materials and adapted technology.

CE VISION The College of Engineering envisions itself to be center of excellence in engineering education.

CE MISSION The College of Engineering is committed to produce competitive engineers who will serve as catalyst for sustainable growth and development in national and international levels.

CE GOALS 1. Provide Quality education through instruction, advance research and extension services: 2 Produce world-class professionals as potential industry leaders and job providers 3. Develop and improve facilities through the use of adapted technology and indigenous materials and: 4. Maintain, upgrade and improve facilities through the adaptation of engineering techniques. OBJECTIVES 1. Strengthen the BSIE program consistent with global trends; 2. Develop faculty as competent mentors and quality researchers, through advanced studies, and other facets of continuing professional education; 3. Develop the critical thinking and communication skills of students, giving emphasis to research and extension services; 4. Equip graduates with appropriate knowledge and technical skills imbued with desirable work attitudes and moral values, through enhanced teaching/learning process by using multimedia facilities on top of traditional methods; 5. Create a conducive teaching and learning atmosphere with emphasis to faculty and students’ growth and academic freedom; 6. Establish network with educational institutions, Industries, GO’s and NGO’s, local and international, which could serve as:
a. Funding sources and/or partners of researches,

b. Sources of new technology, c. Centers for faculty and students’ exchange programs and on-the-job trainings, and d. Grantees of scholarships/ additional facilities and; 7. Continuously conduct action researches on the needs of laboratory and other facilities that could be locally produced or innovated using local materials and adapted technology.

I. Background of the Case
In 1894 a venture capitalist William Love began to build a canal in the Niagara Falls area of New York State to unify waterways into efficient shipping systems. Within a few years the partially completed project was abandoned due to an economic depression that undermined Love's financial plans. In 1942, the Hooker Electrochemical Corporation (presently Hooker Chemical and Plastics, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation) leased the canal as a waste dump to dispose of toxic waste from the manufacture of chlorinated hydrocarbons and caustics. At the end of this period, the contents of the canal consisted of around 21,000 tons of toxic chemical. Hooker capped the hazardous waste landfill with impermeable cap. In the early 1950s the local School Board began making inquiries on the Love Canal property and three years later Hooker sold the land to the Niagara Falls School. Hooker has claimed that it resisted and warned the Board of Education that there are chemicals underground the site that makes it inappropriate for school construction. An elementary school was built in the middle of the property and the surrounding land was sold by the School Board to developers who built homes, this resulted in the breaching of parts of the canal's cap and its cement walls.
The first known case of exposure to the buried toxins occurred in 1958, when three children suffered chemical burns from wastes that had resurfaced at the former canal site. Both Hooker Chemical and city officials were officially informed, but neither the Niagara Falls Health Department nor any other public agency took any action in response to that event or to numerous other complaints during the next twenty years. By 1978 occupants of the homes in the area had begun to organize what was to become the Love Canal Homeowners Association (LCHA), under the leadership of Lois Gibbs. On August 2, 1978, a public health emergency was declared by the New York State Commissioner of Health. A few days later, Governor Hugh Carey announced that New York State would purchase the 239 homes nearest to the canal and assist the displaced families in relocating this action costs $42 million in excess to government.

The NYSDH did conduct a survey study of the residents in the remaining homes, which led to an announcement in early fall that the rest of the neighbourhood was safe, posing no increased health risk. Members of the LCHA rejected the Department's assurances, citing the fact that chemical seepage was evident beyond the evacuated area. Beverly Paigen, a research scientist who worked for the NYSDH agreed to volunteer her services in an unofficial capacity. With the intervention of high-ranking officials in the Executive Branch, and undoubtedly with the support of then-president Carter, funds were made available for the relocation of several hundred additional Love Canal families. Lawsuits sued the Occidental Petroleum Corporation, which bought Hooker Chemical in 1968 to cover cost of the clean-up and the relocation programs and also by more than 2,000 people who claimed to have been personally injured by the buried chemicals. In 1994, the federal case was settled for $129 million. Early that year the clean-up for the condemned homes in Love Canal had been completed and it was safe to move back to the area.

According to Dr. Paigen the Love Canal controversy was predominantly political in nature, and it raised a series of questions that had more to do with values than science. One of the charges rose against the NYSDH and the Health Commissioner was that the public health establishment would not divulge the details of the studies that led to its decisions, and another accusation was that state employees sympathetic to the Love Canal residents were harassed and punished. Another values issue is the extent of evidence needed to justify action to protect public health. In recent years, the issues of environmental justice and equity have been raised within the environmental movement. One proposal that has been put forth in response to demands for environmental justice is to provide some form of reward to those who live in the neighborhood where exposure to environmental toxins is significantly higher than average. II. Viewpoint
Love Canal Homeowners Association
Association of homeowners who resided in Love Canal. It was headed by Lois Gibbs.

III. Timeframe
The prospect has chosen 1994 as the time frame since the events such as the settlement of case and the cleanup of the Love Canal was finished at that time.

IV. Statement of the Problem
Prevention of toxic waste exposure to residents of Love Canal in the future.

V. Areas of Consideration
The areas to be considered are analyzed by utilizing SWOT Analysis.

Strength | Opportunities | * Inexpensive refurbished home for sale * Place is cleaned up of toxic wastes | * Attracts frugal buyers or poor families * Favored by the government |

Weakness | Threats | * Past issues with safety * Possible remnants of toxic waste | * Stigma of past hazard * Media influence |

VI. Assumptions
The prospect has no need for assumptions regarding this case study.

VII. Alternative Courses of Action

ACA 1: The residents of the love canal will evacuate and will return after the clean-up.
Advantages:
* The residents will no longer need to search for a new residence. * Less cost.
Disadvantages:
* Even the area said was already cleaned, many are still not convinced and the toxic-free is not fully assured. * The stigma/trauma of the residents.

ACA 2: The residents of love canal will relocate even though there will be a clean-up operation.
Advantages:
* Safer place to the residence to live in. * The residents will no longer worry with toxic exposure.
Disadvantages:
* New environment adjustments * No career assurance for the residents to be relocated * The students will more likely to transfer to other school. * More cost

ACA 3: A developer will be hired to conduct a study and formulate the best solution.
Advantages:
* A chance for no relocation needed results to less expense * Developer might formulate a solution that will give the residents and company a bigger opportunity.
Disadvantages:
* A chance for a bigger expense for proposed solution of the consultant.

VIII. Conclusion and Recommendation
It is recommended to follow the ACA 2 and ACA 3 that the residents of love canal will relocate and a developer will be hired to conduct a study to formulate the best solution. Even though there will be a clean-up operation for the residents to have a safer place to live in, there is no assurance that the toxic wastes still lingers in the said area. In addition to that, the residents will no longer worry for the risk of being exposed with the toxic waste. After the relocation of residents and cleanup operation, a study will be conducted by a developer to formulate the best solution that might give bigger opportunity to the area.

IX. Action Plan

Activities | Person/Group Responsible | Remarks | Look for prospective site for relocation | LCHA | | Hold a meeting | Lois Gibbs | | Prepare for the financial matters | LCHA | | Prepare the needed documents for relocation | LCHA | | Prepare for moving in to new residence | LCHA | | Relocate the residents | LCHA | | Hire a developer | NYSDH | | Conduct a study | Developer | | Formulate the best solution | Developer | | Implement the solution | NYSDH | |