Last Night's CB6 Gowanus Superfund Meeting: The Pros Vs. The Amateurs

oo

Walter Mugdan, US EPA Director of the Emergency and Remedial Response Division

Angela Carpenter, EPA

EPA Presentation

EPA Presentation

EPA Presentation

For New York City, Caswell Holloway,Chief of Staff for Deputy Mayor Schyler


Dan Walsh, Head of NYC Office Of Environmental Remediation

The City's Caswell Holloway, foreground, with Dan Walsh

City's Alternative Plan presentation

City's Alternative Plan presentation

After last night's Community Board 6's informational meeting, at which the Environmental Protection Agency and representatives of New York City proposed their different plans for a Gowanus Canal clean-up, CB'6 Chairman Bashner concluded by saying that "it was a pleasure to be sitting here watching the City and the EPA fight over who gets to clean the canal."

Yes, indeed, it was a pleasure, though the meeting confirmed once more that the EPA has a clear, well-thought out plan and the experience to clean the canal, and the city, frankly, is winging it. Whereas Walter Mugden of the U.S. EPA gave a thorough and clear presentation of why a clean-up is necessary and how his agency would proceed under Superfund, the City's presentation, given by Caswell Holloway, Chief of Staff for Deputy Mayor Schyler and Dan Walsh, Head of NYC's Office Of Environmental Remediation, seemed confusing, overly complicated and seemed to be a work in progress with many variables, held together with hopes and a prayer.

Water Mugden did such an excellent job that he outlined the difference of the two approaches rather thoroughly before Mr. Holloway even took the microphone. From the beginning, it was clear that Mr. Mugden had serious doubts about the viability of the city's plan. One thing is for sure: The Gowanus Canal is highly polluted and needs a thorough clean-up which involves not only dredging the bottom of the waterway, but also cleaning the surrounding land to make sure that contamination of the canal is stopped.

The EPA Plan

The EPA outlines that the following contaminants were found in very high concentration all along the length of the canal are:
*Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): up to 4.5% in the canal sediment *Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): up to 43 parts per million in canal sediment *Heavy Metals ( Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic and Zinc)
*Volatile Organic Compounds

These contaminants are the result of the canal's industrial history and stemmed from the former Manufactured Gas Plants, Coal yards, cement makers, paint and ink factories, oil factories as well as the city's sewer overflow.

The EPA proposed the inclusion of the Gowanus on its National Priority list which currently includes 1,264 sites, because the canal's downstream areas are used for fishing, recreation such as kayaking and canoeing, and because the area has been designated an 'Estuary Of National Significance' and because the area floods on a regular basis. Evaluating the risk of direct human contact with sediments and surface water, the EPA gave the Gowanus Canal a score of 50 out of a possible score of 100. The minimum score for eligibility to be included onto the list of Superfund Sites is 28.5.

The EPA is planning on working fully with The City of New York, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservancy and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection. The EPA would address the FULL length of the canal and would evaluate and address onshore facilities that continue to leak hazardous contaminants into the canal. The agency estimates that 330,000 cubic yards of mud will have to be dredged from the canal. The cost will be in the hundreds of millions.

Funding will come from Potentially Responsible Parties Or PRP's, such as, in this case, National Grid, which is the biggest polluter along the Gowanus. But there are many others which will be identified by the EPA, which has extensive information gathering and enforcement authorities. For cleanup of sites for which no responsible parties can be identified, so-called 'orphaned' sites, the EPA uses its own funds from its annual budget.
It is highly unlikely that individual residential home owners will be held responsible, Walter Mugden stated. This happens" in almost no case."

CLEAN-UP of the canal WILL HAPPEN FIRST, litigation against the PRP's will come later.

The Superfund nomination will NOT DELAY the actions of New York City's $ 178 million project to rehabilitate the flushing tunnel and the pumping station as well as divert 1/3 of annual Combined Sewer Overflow away from the Gowanus Canal, an action that is required under a Consent Order with the NYS Department Of Environmental Conservancy.

The listing WILL NOT DELAY the rezoning of the Gowanus Area from manufacturing to residential. The EPA will continue to monitor and maintain the canal after the clean-up, and issue 5 year reports.


The City's Alternative Plan

Why the city is hell-bent on keeping the EPA out of the clean-up process, though the agency is the expert and the city has never undertaken a project of this magnitude is a puzzle. However, it became clearer rather quickly when Caswell Holloway mentioned Public Place, The Toll Brothers and development and the city's concern that these projects will be indefinitely delayed, within the first few minutes of his presentation. Holloway stated that the goal is that "those developments should go ahead as planned." He also mentioned that the Superfund designation "is making lenders nervous."

The city touts its plan as every bit as thorough at EPA's, but faster and more efficient. The process will be managed by the EPA, the same as under the Superfund. But the city's alternative would ask identified polluters, such as National Grid, to voluntarily step to the table and pay up, an approach that has rarely been used on sites like the Gowanus, where many Potentially Responsible Parties will be identified. According to the city, "the voluntary process is faster than the Superfund's adversarial process."

However, so far, no PRP's have stepped forward voluntarily to work with the city.

The city plans to work in close association with the Army Corps Of Engineers, who have studied the Gowanus canal for years. However, no representative of the Army Corp Of Engineers was present to confirm or talk about their involvement. As far as funding for the city's alternative, it relies on the inducement of a cleanup discount to the PRP's. This is possible (but not guaranteed) through a government program which allows some funds to be accessed by the Army Corp of Engineers to perform a cleanup and dredge of Federal navigable waterways. This proposal, in my view, adds significantly to the complexity of the project and is more likely to delay, rather than speed the process.

There was no mention of long-term monitoring after a clean-up.

Mr. Holloway also stated that the City has stopped the ULURP process for the rezoning of the Gowanus area from industrial to residential.

It was also stated that the 1/3 reduction of the Combined Sewer Owerflow by the City will be achieved by diverting the raw sewage into other bodies of water, NOT by finding a more permanent solution for managing the waste.

If the city fails with its alternative, Mr. Holloway seriously suggested that the city can then go back to the EPA to ask for the canal to be placed on the Superfund List. Which begs the question, why don't we go with the experts in the first place?

At one point during the meeting, a local residents sitting behind me murmured: " Does the City think we are stupid?" Indeed, after last nights presentation, it is amazing to thing that the city is gutsy enough to go against the science, know-how and experience of the EPA.

I say, Superfund Gowanus Now!

For Home Page, click Pardon Me For Asking