I read with interest the article on Love Canal resettlement {June 12}. While it provided an interesting perspective on some of the many divergent views surrounding this symbolic site, I am concerned that several inaccuracies in the story paint a misleading picture.

First, it is important to make clear that no one is moving back to the canal. Love Canal, along with the original homes surrounding the site (since demolished), is buried under a 40-acre cap with a liner and extensive barrier drain collection system. An extensive, fenced buffer area separates the site from the neighborhood. Furthermore, routine monitoring of the surrounding wells shows that this containment system is working effectively. The area referred to in the story is beyond the Love Canal site.

The article also mentions that some homeowners living east of the site were recently told to evacuate because of high concentrations of chemicals. This is not true. To the contrary, EPA's recent $20 million habitability study found "very low levels" of contamination in the areas east of the canal. While these particular areas are not part of the neighborhoods to be resettled based on the habitability decision, New York is reviewing remediation and future land-use options.

The story further describes a 1987 EPA decision to incinerate contaminated soil around the site as "abandoned." In fact, at a cost of $30 million, EPA and New York already cleaned the sewers and creeks; this waste has been transported to an Occidental Chemical facility, where it awaits incineration after the appropriate permits are issued.

And finally, the brief reference to EPA's recent habitability study provides a biased and simplistic view of what was in actuality an extensive and rigorously designed study that was conducted in full conformance with the law. Moreover, it was subjected to full public scrutiny and comment by nationally recognized independent experts (more than 50 public meetings were held during six years).

Love Canal was a tragedy 10 years ago. No one will ever forget the danger and hardships faced by those citizens. But to ignore the past 10 years of extensive remedial efforts by EPA and New York, at a cost of well over $100 million to date, distorts the truth.

DON R. CLAY Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency Washington