EPA Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group To Meet This Tuesday (Sans EPA Due To Shutdown)

The Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group will host its regularly scheduled meeting regarding the Canal's Superfund clean-up this Tuesday, January 22, 6:30 pm at Mary Star of the Sea Senior Apartments, 41 1st Street, Brooklyn .

The Environmental Protection Agency, whoever, will sadly be absent from the meeting, due to the federal government shutdown.

The meeting will be self-facilitated by members of the CAG, if the federal government shutdown is not resolved by tomorrow, which is very likely.

On the agenda will be a presentation by NYC Department of Environmental Protection on the agency's surprising alternate proposal for a 16-17 million gallon Combined Sewer Overflow storage tunnel under the Canal, instead of the two CSO tanks that DEP has been advancing.

You may remember that DEP dropped the bombshell announcement at the CAG's last general meeting in November 2018. 

This is bound to be an interesting meeting for anyone living in or near Gowanus, so I urge everyone to attend. This is our opportunity to ask DEP how much more time a tunnel will take, and how much more it will cost.  More importantly, let us find out if this is yet another way for DEP to delay the City's part of the Superfund clean-up.

Read more

Dear EPA Region 2 Administrator Enck: Public Comments Regarding Settlement Agreement Between EPA And The City On Siting Of CSO Tank In Gowanus

As mentioned in previous PMFA posts, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently accepting comments from the public in regards to a proposed Gowanus Canal Administrative Settlement Agreement with New York City. The agreement would allow the City to site one of the two retention tanks mandated in the Record of Decision at the head of the Canal rather than at the EPA suggested site which is under the pool in Thomas Greene Park.

The City's plan relies on the taking of two privately owned sites, 234 Butler Street and 242 Nevins Street, by eminent domain. A third site, 270 Nevins Street will most likely also be seized by the City, which plans to use it for staging purposes during the construction project.

This would displace several businesses, including Eastern Effects, a successful film and television studio, where many commercials, movies and television shows like FX's "The Americans" are filmed.

The public comment period will end on May 31. 

I send my own comment to EPA this past Tuesday and thought I would post it here, together with the statement of Carroll Gardens Coalition for Respectful Development  and of reader Becky, who was kind enough to sent hers to us.

Read on.

Gowanus Canal Administrative Settlement Agreement And Order For Remedial Design, Removal Action and Cost Recovery

Dear Administrator Enck,

I would like to express my absolute dismay over the proposed agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the City of New York to situate one of the two retention tanks mandated in the Record of Decision at the head of the Canal rather than at the EPA suggested site which is under the pool in the Thomas Greene Park.

As a member of the Carroll Gardens/ Gowanus Community and a founding member of the Gowanus Canal Superfund Community Advisory Group, I am at a loss to explain why you and your Agency would enter into an agreement with the City, a Potentially Responsible Party, that:

- will cost tax and rate payers hundreds of millions of dollars more than if the tank were to be placed under Thomas Greene Park. (In her 2016-2019 budget, NYC DEP Commissioner Lloyd set aside $510 million to cover "the cost to secure land, design two CSO tanks and construct ONE of the two planned CSO tanks adjacent to the Gowanus Canal". EPA estimated the entire clean-up of the Gowanus Superfund Site at $500 million.)

- relies on the taking of two privately owned sites, 234 Butler Street and 242 Nevins Street, by eminent domain. A third site, 270 Nevins Street, may also be seized by the City. This would displace Eastern Effects, a successful film and television studio, which employs anywhere from 350 to 450 employees, and contributes, by their estimate, approximately, four million dollars ($4,000,000) per year to the local economy.
Somehow, one cannot shake the suspicion that this is all a huge land grab by the city and more tied to the imminent rezoning of the Gowanus corridor than to an honest willingness to assume responsibility for polluting the canal.

- would grant the City more than four years to negotiate the unnecessary legal wrangling associated with condemnation and ULURP certification.

- would allow the City to re-contaminate the canal with CSO after it has been dredged and capped. (Walter Mugdan, at a public meeting, mentioned that 2-8 years could pass between dredging and the completion of the tank.)

I fail to see any benefits for the community in this agreement. I do not believe, as EPA implies, that a 'covenant not to sue' by the City is worth paying twice as much for the remedy, years of additional CSO contamination, and additional cleaning AFTER remediation.
Surely, the threat of a law suit by a PRP is business as usual for the EPA. One would expect nothing less from a polluter. Why then, in this case, does it seem as if the Federal Government is bending backwards to placate the City, which has done precious little to address its environmental responsibility in Gowanus.

It would also appear that the EPA administration was blinded by the City's assertion that using Douglass Greene Park for the siting of the retention tank constituted 'park alienation'. I believe that the City used the shortage of green space and the temporary loss of an amenity like the Double D Pool as a diversion. The real environmental justice issue has always been the fact that the City chose to build a park and pool on a heavily polluted former MGP site, thereby exposing generations of children to possible harm.
It seems ironic that the City continues to use our 1.8 mile long canal as an open sewer, thereby preventing the community from enjoying the roughly 12 acres of recreational public space the Gowanus could provide if cleaned.

I strongly believe that the EPA should NOT sign the agreement and not allow a PRP to renegotiate the timeline set forth in the Record of Decision. The EPA should compel the City to work with National Grid to site the tank under the Double D pool in Thomas Greene Park. If the DEP insists on building a head house and wants to increase park land, it should purchase either 233-239 Nevins Street or 537 Sackett Street, both currently for sale and located directly adjacent to the lots the City plans on seizing.
This would be a win-win-win situation for the community, the DEP and the EPA since it would address all concerns and needs at once.

The residents living near the Gowanus Canal put their trust in EPA when they overwhelmingy supported the listing of their polluted waterway as a Superfund site. Please don't forsake the interests of the community to accommodate a PRP.

Respectfully,
Katia Kelly


Here is Carroll Gardens Coalition for Respectful Development's comment to EPA

Dear Administrator Enck and Director Mugdan,

It is with deeply conflicting emotions and heavy hearts that we write to you regarding the pending agreement between the EPA and the City of New York.

Our organization, CORD, is a completely volunteer group. We are local residents,home owners, business owners, parents, children and grandparents. We do not have nor have we ever sought not for profit status. We receive funds from no one and we do not seek or accept donations. We devote our time to our community simply because we care.

Once the Gowanus Canal was nominated to the NPL, we spent a great deal of time advocating for it. We celebrated its listing. We championed your presence in our neighborhood and we listened very carefully to you.

We immediately applied for and became members of the Community Advisory Group and carried back all of the information we received there to our members.

We established a relationship with our EPA "team". We rejoiced in the accessibility and transparency they provided. We grew fond of them and still believe that they represent the finest example of how any government agency and its employees should conduct themselves.

When the ROD was issued, because we were listening carefully, we understood that the only "negotiable" part of the ROD was the inclusion of a containment facility in Red Hook. The Red Hook community said 'NO' and it was dropped.

But, in spite of the fact that EPA often spoke of how they do not get involved in land use--and that only the containment facility was negotiable, the retention tank sitings were suddenly up in the air.

We were certain that common sense, a sense of purpose and fiscal responsibility would prevail, but unfortunately, a grandiose Gowanus land use plan somewhat disguised as a crusade to save a swimming pool situated beneath contaminated earth, is going to delay the cleanup by a number of years, cost private property owners their land, businesses their livelihood, many employees their jobs and taxpayers a big hit to their pockets.

Add to the above the most painful cost of all--a recontamination of the expensive Canal cleanup before anyone gets to enjoy the fully realized benefits of this costly and complicated remediation.

We understand that EPA gets an assurance that NYC will not pursue litigation regarding the necessity of the retention tanks. Ok. That is a good thing, we suppose, but it comes at an extremely high price to the community and seems pitifully inequitable.

So, although we understand that the EPA has tried to make a deal with NYC that appeases some, eliminates the possibility of (even more) lengthy litigation, and eventually gets the job, "sort of" done, we so hoped and believed that "sort of" would never be good enough for our heroes at the EPA.

Finally, we cannot help but wonder what kind of precedent this will set with the other major PRP, National Grid as well as for other future Superfund sites.

We were the first ever Superfund site in NYC.

The plan and subsequent ROD was as big, bold, encompassing and complicated as the Gowanus is contaminated.

The cost analysis was calculated, thoughtful and responsible.

The rewards were to be enormous- a healthier environment, an urban waterway with drastically reduced toxins AND pathogens surrounded by many acres of open green space along its banks.

We loved it. We believed in it. We counted on it.

How tragic that this historic project will not be remembered in this way. Instead, it's legacy will be the Superfund site where the EPA did, indeed, get involved in land use.

It will be the site where a great deal of taxpayers' monies were spent on a job that was only "sort of" successful.

It's quasi clean condition necessitating further remediation post cleaning and capping will certainly appear wasteful--a black eye to the Superfund program since after all, you were supposed to be the final word.

And worst of all, the Superfund site where the Record of Decision became the Record of Indecision and Genuflection to Political Pressure brought to us by the Grand Puppeteers--the Development Gods of NYC.

It is all so terribly disheartening and sad.

Sincerely,

Lucy DeCarlo, Rita Miller, Triada Samaras
Co-Founders, CG CORD/Carroll Gardens-Gowanus Coalition for Respectful Development

And here is the statement by Becky X.

Gowanus Canal: Comment on on Proposed Settlement Agreement for Siting, Design and Site Prep for RH-034 CSO Retention Tank
Dear Mr. Mugdan,

Something stinks in Gowanus – and I'm not talking about the canal.

The proposed use of eminent domain for the siting of the necessary retention tanks could not possibly be a worse decision, designed to set up the project for complete failure.

Why, when there are multiple other viable options, all less expensive and more time-efficient than the eminent domain "solution," has this agreement been allowed to go forward? Is this a deliberate sabotage? Does someone have photographs of EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck with a goat? I begin to think so.

I have lived in the area for over 14 years, supported the Superfund designation and have been following the proceedings closely, looking forward to a day when we can safely enjoy the clean canal waterway the neighborhood deserves, and has worked so hard to attain.

When the Superfund designation finally went through, over the strenuous objections and all the dirty tricks NYC could throw at the process in an effort to weasel out of any responsibility, we were so relieved. We were prepared to live through the inconvenience of the cleanup work that we knew would need to be done, and realistically would take years to complete. The result would be worth it.

But before we've even started, the process has left the community stripped of agency and trust. We feel angered and betrayed as the people and government agents supposed to be advocating for us, have caved to pressure and given us this completely unworkable plan.

The obvious site for the retention tanks is the Thomas Greene Park. The "Save the Park" petition going around has thrown up a smokescreen around the real issues of this space.

The Park sits on polluted soil and requires remediation in order to be safe – a project which could be folded into the Superfund cleanup, saving time and money. The NYC Parks Department has called the Park "underutilized" as it is, and at present the pool is only open two months out of the year. Impact on the community would therefore be minimized. I believe this option WOULD in fact be saving the Park. It's currently oozing liquid coal tar, for goodness sake! We should be jumping at this opportunity to get it remediated and clean for public use!

This win-win scenario has been rejected.

As an alternative, local developer Alloy has taken the unprecedented step of offering to donate a nearby parcel to City expressly for siting of the retention tanks, in return for certain considerations given to their proposed new office building project in the area.
I understand this solution would also result in additional parkland at the end of the project.

This, too, has been rejected with no explanation.

Eastern Effects at 242 Nevins Street, one of the properties under eminent domain threat by the City, has just put out a very moving letter outlining the devastation this thuggish move would have on their thriving local business and their investment in the area, impacting the local economy significantly. This is a thriving local business that our elected officials are supposed to be trying to protect!

As a well-known and successful film/TV production company, ejecting Easter Effects would be mud in the City's eye and terrible PR if nothing else. NYC likes to describe itself as supportive to the film and TV industry; hard to believe at this point.

Eastern Effects included an overhead diagram showing three alternate sites nearby that would be better choices for the siting of the retention tanks. I have yet to hear any reasoning for why these sites have not been considered viable options.

Please, do not bow to the crooked demands of one of the main responsible parties for the polluted state of the canal in the first place, to the great detriment of the community you are supposedly trying to improve. Don't waste our time, our money, and our goodwill on a process that purports to be transparent, yet so blatantly rejects community input for obvious selfish gain. Be the force for good that we believed you to be, the reason why we expended so much energy and overcame so many seemingly impossible obstacles to bring our polluted canal to national attention.

Do the right thing and reject this agreement.

Thank you,

Becky X

I hope that others will be inspired to write to EPA as well. As I mentioned, the comment period ends on May 31st, so time is of the essence.

Please address your comments to:
Walter Mugdan, U.S. EPA Superfund Director
290 Broadway, 19th Flr.,
New York, NY 10007
email: mugdan.walter@epa.gov

Read more

From 86 To 14 Possible Locations: Deadline Nearing For DEP To Site CSO Retention Basins Mandated By EPA

NYC DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd

Angela Licata of NYC DEP

EPA Region 2 Gowanus Canal site manager Christos Tsiamis, who attended the meeting, with DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd

By September 30th, 2014, New York City Department Of Environmental Protection (DEP) needs to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a list of no more than two locations for each of the two retention tanks, which are components of the remedy selected in the Record of Decision for the Gowanus Canal Superfund site.
Along with the list, DEP also needs to including a summary report containing the basis for which locations were screened out and retained.

Construction of retention tanks is an important part of the remedial design. As per the EPA, the tanks are "combined sewer overflow (CSO) control measures for the upper reach of the Canal to significantly reduce overall contaminated solid discharges to the Canal."
The retention tanks will retain discharges from two of the largest outfalls in the canal, RH-034 and OH-007. 

According to the Federal Agency,"it is estimated that an 8-million gallon tank and a 4-million gallon tank shall be required to address CSOs from outfalls RH-034 and OH-007, respectively." 

The EPA had suggested two locations for those tanks in the ROD, but was willing to discuss alternative locations with the City during the remedial design period.

New York City responded by hired a consultant, who came up with a list of 86 possible sites along the Gowanus Canal, some, if not most of which could easily be dismissed outright. Obviously, this was a delaying tactic by the City.
This prompted the EPA to issue a Unilateral Order to compel New York City to get moving on siting and designing the tanks.

Which brings us to last Wednesday's public meeting with DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd at the Wyckoff Gardens Community Center in Gowanus.
Commissioner Lloyd began by giving a brief overview of DEP "commitments" in Gowanus, which include pump station and flushing tunnel upgrades at the head of the canal, the construction of high level storm sewers, and green infrastructure initiatives.

Loyd then gave a presentation on the possible sites for the EPA mandated CSO retention basins. "The DEP has narrowed down the original 86 sites to 14 sites," she told the community. She displayed maps of the sites still in the running, which include the Green Building on Union Street, and the site where the coal pockets were just removed, next to the new parol office currently being built  along the canal.

Among the proposed 14 locations were the two sites originally proposed by the EPA. 

It is important to note that some of the locations identified by DEP were actually just variations of each other, so that the current list of sites is much more like 6.  Take away the sites that are non-city owned and would need to be acquired, and one end up right back to the two sites proposed by EPA:

The Double D pool at Douglass Green Park and the Salt Lot as 2nd Avenue between 5th Street and the Canal.

After the presentation, Commissioner Lloyd took questions from the community.

My question to her: "How much money has the City spent on consulting fees to come up with the current list of 14 sites for the tank?" 

She could not answer.

However, a DEP representative I spoke to at the meeting told me that $50 million had been spent by his agency on consultants so far "to help us navigate the conversation with EPA."

The sum, if correct, is pretty astronomical.  But that does not seem to be the end of the expenses yet.

An engaged Gowanus community member just came across a Request for Services (RFP) in the tune of  $30,385,000 for a "Superfund Support Contract for the Gowanus Canal and Newtown Creek" which will run from 2015 to 2020. (see below)

Read more

DEP Commissioner Lloyd At Last Night's Gowanus Canal Superfund CAG Meeting: "We Intend To Comply" With EPA. But New DEP Letter To EPA Indicates More Stalling

Gowanus Canal Superfund Community Advisory Group's facilitator Doug Sarno

NYC DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd

Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez

Councilman Brad Lander and  Steven Levin

When it comes to cleaning the Gowanus Canal, the City of New York has a dismal record.  Over decades, the City has never shown the will to clean the toxins at the bottom of the canal which cause  real environmental hazards, nor has it ever addressed the Combined Sewer Overflow issue in any meaningful way.
When the US Environmental Protection Agency stepped in and proposed the Gowanus Canal as a Superfund site, a designation reserved for the most severely polluted sites in the country, the City of New York lobbied hard to keep the Federal Government at bay.
No wonder. The EPA identified the City as the second largest Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for discharging "hazardous substance-contaminated untreated sewage" into the canal.

As we all know, the EPA did declare the Gowanus a Superfund site, and in September 2013, the agency signed its Record of Decision (ROD) for the cleanup of the canal. The ROD, which represents the blue print for the remediation, compels the City to construct two retention basins to capture the flow of contaminated sewage solids from two major outflows. It also holds the City responsible for the excavation and restoration of the 1st Street Basin.

The EPA suggested two locations for the two retention tanks in the ROD, but was willing to discuss alternative locations with the City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) during the remedial design period.

Unfortunately, the City responded as usual, by delaying. The Administration hired a consultant, who came up with a list of 86 possible sites, which included the newly opened Whole Foods market, the Lightstone parcels where 700 residential units are under construction, the former Power Station, which was recently purchased and is being remediated for a future non-profit arts center, Con Edison's 3rd Avenue service yard, and the American Can Factory, a 5-story multi-use arts and manufacturing complex employing hundreds of people.

By suggesting private property as opposed to using City-owned property for the siting of the tanks, the City has inflated the cost to about $500 million. In a letter to DEP, the EPA points out that this is only $6 million dollars less than the cost of the entire Superfund clean-up.

It would appear that the City is continuing to waste time and to shirk its responsibility towards the Gowanus Community

On Wednesday, May 28th, the US Environmental Protection Agency prompted New York City to conduct the design work for the remedial actions outlined in the ROD by Issuing a Unilateral Consent Order. The EPA issues Unilateral Orders if a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) does not agree to perform the cleanup work through a judicial consent decree or an administrative order on consent.

The DEP just responded to the Unilateral Administrative Order with a ten page letter, agreeing to do the work, but postured that the "UAO contains requirements and deadlines that are not feasible or reasonably capable of performance", that the ownership of the First Street basin by the City is still in question, and most importantly, that "the Record of Decision is based on inadequate information and lacks scientific support."

The City's response goes as far as to call the Order "arbitrary, capricious and otherwise not in accordance to the law."

Last night, Gowanus Canal Superfund Community Advisory Group hosted NYC DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd at its monthly meeting to discuss her agency's role in the clean-up.
The conversation quickly turned to EPA's Order and to the City's response.
Commissioner Lloyd was quick to dismiss the adversarial tone of her agency's letter.
"It's a lawyers' response to a lawyers' letter," she said smiling.

" I don't think we ever said we won't do this.  My predecessors have had a lot reservations and a lot of concerns about this, but  I think where we are trying to go is to recognize the jurisdiction and say that we are going to do everything we can do to comply," Lloyd explained to the members of the CAG.

"I think there is an advantage to the Superfund bringing all parties to the table and its probably a more ambitious clean-up than the City could undertake on its own. It's hard to imagine that more isn't better for Gowanus."  

"What we see as the real challenge of the summer is to work with the community to arrive at sites [for the retention basins] that will meet many of the goals that we all have, with a minimum of disruptions to the community as possible. I expect that it's not going to be a simple undertaking, but certainly one that I am looking forward to."

Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, who attended the meeting last night addressed the Commissioner sternly: "All I have to say is that I expect better collaboration from the City administration at this time.  If we have collaboration, we can move forward to do the work. But you should also know that the Federal Government,  through EPA, has the authority to get the City to move in the right direction."

DEP and our administration better heed that advice.  If they continue to play games and refuse to obey EPA orders, the Federal agency can charge the City punitive damages of triple the cost. 

To show its concern in regards to that possibility, the Gowanus Canal Superfund Community Advisory Group voted to adopt the following resolution:

The Gowanus CAG, established by the EPA, which represents a cross section of residents, businesses and civic organizations in and around the Gowanus Canal corridor, demand that New York City as one of the Responsible Parties, as defined by the EPA, actively and cooperatively work with the EPA on all aspects which they are accountable for as required by the Gowanus Record of Decision (ROD), but especially for the timely determining the number(s), size and location(s), and design engineering of the required sewage retention tanks. 

To date, the City's positions/policies concerning the Gowanus Canal and the ROD and their participation in the initial design phase and cooperation with the EPA has not produced the positive results that are required for the clean-up the Gowanus Canal to proceed within the proposed schedule. The Gowanus CAG was alarmed by the recent consent order issued by the EPA against the City of New York that would be unreasonabley expensive for New York City tax payers. If New York City fails or refuses to participate in the planning phase, the EPA under current law can and will charge the City three times (3X) the cost to plan and build the retention tanks.

This new/improved active working relationship in determining the number, size, and location(s) of the retention tanks must take into consideration the current and future sewage needs of the Gowanus corridor (including the possible rezoning of the Gowanus area that would allow for high density residential development).

Read more

EPA Issues Order To New York City To Perform Gowanus Work

The Gowanus Canal at Third Street, looking South.

The Gowanus after a Combined Sewer Overflow event.

Garbage and raw sewage floating on the canal after a heavy rain

At the EPA Gowanus Superfund Community Advisory meeting on May 27th, 2014

Christos Tsiamis, Gowanus Canal Project Manager. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2.

Unilateral Order Sent By EPA To The City Of New York on Wednesday


New York City Still Unwilling Partner In Gowanus Clean-up

On Wednesday, May 28th, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued a Unilateral Order* to New York City  for conducting the design work for the remedial actions described in EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the Gowanus Canal, which was signed last year.

Specifically, the Order compels New York City to perform the design for siting and building the CSO retention tanks and for the excavation and restoration of the 1st Street Basin, as described in the ROD. The order also asks NYC to cooperate and coordinate with the other responsible parties for the dredging and capping portion of the ROD remedy.

The EPA issues Unilateral Orders if a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) does not agree to perform the cleanup work through a judicial consent decree or an administrative order on consent.

In the case of the Gowanus, the City of New York has been identified as the second largest Gowanus PRP for discharging "hazardous substance-contaminated untreated sewage" into the Canal since it was constructed.

Just the day before, at a Gowanus Canal Superfund Community Advisory Group meeting (CAG), EPA Project Manager Christos Tsiamis indicated that his agency had already issued orders to all the potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to conduct the required cleanup actions at the Canal. That one exception has been New York City. Tsiamis indicated at the meeting that the negotiations with New York City were coming to a conclusion and that a resolution of the matter of the City's participation to the cleanup work was imminent.

According to a recent EPA response letter to NYC regarding their negotiations that we obtained from EPA upon request, the EPA decided to hold separate meetings with the City, because it became clear that the City was not willing to "negotiate or work with other parties regarding participation in the dredging, capping and disposal elements of the Canal remedy."

The Record Of Decision required the City to implement measures to control the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO).  EPA expects the City to construct two retention tanks in the upper portions of the canal to retain discharges during heavy rainfalls, until the overflow can be pumped to the local sewage treatment  plant.
The EPA suggested two locations for those tanks in the ROD, but was willing to discuss alternative locations with the City during the remedial design period.

The City responded by delaying. The Administration hired a consultant, who came up with a list of 86 possible sites, some of which can easily be dismissed outright.
In a letter that describes the negotiation process between EPA and NYC that led to the issuance of the aforementioned order, EPA writes:

As noted above, on April 30, 2014, the City submitted a Preliminary List of Potential CSO tank Sites. Parcels over 20,000 square feet were included, and only churches, schools, and parcels with a Floor Area Ratio above 50% were screened out.  Since Gowanus-area buildings typically have few stories, most of the 20,000 sf parcels are below the 50% FAR screening level.  As a result, the list includes 86 parcels, including the newly opened Whole Foods market, the Lightstone parcels where 700 residential units are under construction, the former Power Station, which was recently purchased and is being remediated for a future non-profit arts center, Con Edison's 3rd Avenue service yard, and the American Can Factory, a 5-story multi-use arts and manufacturing complex employing hundreds of people.
These parcels would be extraordinarily expensive for the City to acquire for the retention tanks and thus warrant no consideration as potential locations for CSO storage tanks.  For this and other reasons, EPA believes that the vast majority of the 86 parcels can be screened out immediately, thereby advancing the process.
EPA is concerned that the City's initial tank siting efforts, including consideration of parcels such as Whole Foods, will result in cost inflation and delay.  This concern is also reflected in the City's April 4th, 2014 comments on EPA's draft RD consent order and in our April 30, 2014 meeting, wherein the City sought what it terms an "Off Ramp" provision, a series of terms, providing that it can stop design work if cost estimates exceed those set forth in the ROD by more than +50% planning range.  As we advised the City, although we cannot be bound by the City's estimates, EPA is already required by law to review any substantial changes in the cost of the selected remedy.

The City claims that the two retention basins will cost $500 million.  In the letter, the EPA points out that this is only $6 million dollars less than the cost of the entire Superfund clean-up.

How sad that after decades of using the canal as an open sewer, New York City is still not stepping up to its responsibility towards the Gowanus community.
It is ironic that the City is trying to delay building retention tanks, but is planning to rezone Gowanus to allow more residential housing in Gowanus, which will just mean more human waste in the canal.
It is all rather foolish, no; shameful.



You can access:
 EPA's Remedial Design Administrative Order to NYC here.
Appendix A – Dredging RD Statement of Work can be accessed here

For Appendix B – Tank and Turning Basin RD Statement of Work, click here.

All EPA documents pertaining to the Gowanus Canal Superfund site can be accessed here.

Read more

Hurricane Sandy's Aftermath: Gowanus Business Owners Concerned About Toxic Sludge Left Behind After Canal Flood Waters Receded

(credit: google maps)

Due to their location on the banks of the Gownus Canal several businesses, most of them film production companies, have endured severe flooding during Hurricane Sandy.   Though the three and a half feet of water have now receded from the Douglas Street block were they are housed, the owners of Canal Creatures, CW Films, Eastern Effects, Camera Farm, Scrap Paper Productions, Alex Sullivan Audio, Papa, and PMC Digital are very concerned about the toxic compounds and raw sewage that were mixed in the water and are now coating everything.  Since the Gowanus Canal was declared a Superfund site by the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency, these concerns are understandable.
Here is a link to a video showing the damage and sludge left behind after the storm.

Kevin Howard, Production Manager and Co-owner of Canal Creatures Production writes:

"It is a horror show, with smells that we have never encountered before, even after years of living and working along the banks of the canal. NO ONE understands what the long-term effects will be of a SuperFund site having been stirred up and spread all over the Gowanus neighborhood. The many contaminants of this site have been resuspended in the flood water and are now in everything that has been soaked by the flood!

 Mark Bracamonte, Production Creature at Canal Creatures described the situation facing these businesses:

Our building has been sealed shut, and multiple film production business have been displaced and are now out of business. The EPA came down, only after many harassing calls from us. They came and took samples saying they would have results in 8 hours. That was 3 days ago. We still have no word.
There is ZERO neighborhood awareness about the potential health risks the area is facing. People are digging through contaminated trash, and debris with NO GLOVES and proper gear. IT IS SHOCKING THAT THE C TOWN GROCERY SUPERMARKET ON BOND AND DOUGLASS IS OPEN AND SELLING FOOD when we know they had the same toxic flood water as we did."

Some of the businesses have fund temporary quarters at Film Biz Recycling, the Gowanus recycling/prop rental center, where they "will figure out [their] strategy for dealing with this immediate situation."
They have also shared their neighborhood story online on a Tumblr blog here: canalcreatures.tumblr.com

In an interview on the blog, Chris Hayes, principal partner at Eastern Effects states:

"We had a devastating flood like everyone else in the community. We have gotten no help from any government agency as of yet. No information that has been coherent as to what steps we should take, no one is telling us if the area is safe to inhabit, what we are being exposed to. No one has any answers. You kind of get the run around when we call anybody, I kind of feel like we have been left for dead out here, I mean, I have millions of dollars in inventory that’s sitting rotting now because we cant figure out what to do about it, if I’m even supposed to be in the building or not. There’s little snippets of information that are conflicting, so I feel like it’s every man for himself around here in this area. ….We built our business in this area, built up the community, and every one has abandoned us. It’s heart breaking, there’s no words that can express my sorrow that has happened to me and my partners here. It’s just a bad situation."

In the meantime, Councilman Brad Lander released this statement:

"Many of you have contacted me with concerns about the Gowanus Canal, a highly polluted waterway, which flooded neighboring streets. I have communicated with EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck and NYC Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Carter Strickland. Thanks to both of them for making the time, and communicating quickly (with each other, and with me) about our concerns at the canal.If you live near the canal, do not touch standing water in the area, or any sediment or debris left by Gowanus flood-waters."

At a press conference after Hurricane Sandy, Mayor Bloomberg and Deputy Mayor for Operations Cas Holloway seemed flippant about the dangers associated with the health risks from Gowanus flood waters. When asked about the health risks related to the toxic water, Cas Holloway, who is more familiar to the Gowanus community as the former head of NYC's Department Of Environmental Protection (DEP) and, along with Mayor Bloomberg, a vocal opponent of the Superfund designation for the canal stated: "We’ll make sure that–we don’t think there’s any immediate danger to anybody and we don’t think there’s any issue.”

However, I just received an email from David Green, a science teacher, who raises the alarm on the dangers associated with the toxins. He writes:

"I am a science teacher with a background in Chemistry and Physics living in Brooklyn Heights.I saw your post on the flooding from the Gowanus canal.
The situation you describe is quite serious concerning the toxicological hazard from that particular flood. All the flooding in NY produced some hazard because of the sewage mixed with the flood water (particularly bad in red hook), but the Gowanus waters are leaden with Lead and Mercury, and dangerous volatiles too.
Sewage can be cleaned and sterilized with detergent and chlorine bleach, but if toxic water and sludge gets into a basement (or first floor) there is no way to clean it out completely. Wooden floors and even concrete absorb it and leave residues that cannot be removed.

Note: In areas that have been contaminated with lead and mercury compounds Chlorine bleach (such as Chlorox) could have the unintended consequence of turning non soluble compounds into more soluble ones making exposure risks greater, so bleach should not be used in Gowanus flooded areas.

The long term dangers of these toxins are so great that I would recommend to all people who lived in a dwelling that got flooded by the Gowanus (basements and first floor apartments that got filled with this water), to notmove back in to their apartments.
This is even more the case for people who have children. The younger the child the more damage is done by heavy metal poisoning, and the damage is essentially permanent. This damage can take years to accumulate in the nervous system but once done cannot be remedied. It does not take much to cause damage- the amount a child ingests by putting their hands in their mouth is more than enough. Some of these chemicals produce continuous vapors which makes it impossible to avoid exposure.

I would strongly advise people with children especially babies and toddlers to not move back in, until the apartment is cleaned and then tested for these chemicals. If levels are above those set for safe exposure they should find someplace else to live.
I know that this could cause utter disruption of peoples lives, but disruption of living plans is better than permanent neurological damage."

This is probably the best advice. The Gowanus Canal is a toxic brew on a good day. Hurricane Sandy's flood waters certainly deposited hazardous substances and sewage in businesses and homes on the banks of the Gowanus. I am frankly surprised that we don't have people in Hazmat suits controlling the situation.

   

Read more

On Wednesday Eve, Come To Meeting With DEP Regarding Gowanus CSOs And Tell The Agency To Stop That S**t From Flowing Into The Canal

Community Board 6 is holding an informational meeting with Representatives of the NYC Department of Environmental Protection on "the findings from the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Site investigation and Feasibility Study relating to the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO's) at the Gowanus Canal."
Members of the community are invited.

It is important to note that New York City has been named a Potencially Responsible Party(PRP) by the EPA for its role in contributing to the toxins in the canal and for allowing CSOs to continue to discharge into the Gowanus.

However, rather than to work with the EPA to find a real solution that would address the CSOs in conjunction with the Superfund clean-up, the City has been trying to stall and kick the problem down the road. The DEP has even refuted some of EPA's finding, obviously eager to re-invent science.

As community members, we should all attend to tell the City and DEP that we want them to work with the Federal Government to give us the clean-up we all deserve.



Read more

Is Buschenschank Proving To Be A Rather Noisy Neighbor?

The first time I walked past Buschenschank at 320 Court Street, the newish pseudo-"Tyrolian" pub on Court Street on a recent balmy spring evening, I was amazed at the noise emanating out of the eatery's huge window openings. The conversation fragments, laughter and music could even be heard from at least a block away. No wonder. Since Buschenschank actually removes the entire window panels and leaves its doors wide open weather permitting, it becomes, in essence, a bit like an open-air beer garden.
That may be great fun for its patrons, but a real quality of life issue for those residents unlucky enough to have to listen to the noise.

According to NYC Department Of Environmental Protection's rules a restaurant or bar's doors and windows are to be kept closed at all times to prevent noise from escaping onto the sidewalk. Perhaps the owners of Buschenschank are not aware of this? (See video below)
And the problem could become worse. Buschenschank is currently in the process of requesting a Sidewalk Café license to add 18 sidewalk tables and 48 chairs around the periphery of the restaurant.
Imagine the noise level with all those additional tables and chairs.
One of Buschenschank neighbors just reached out to me and writes:

"I'm curious if there has been any news about Buschenschank located at the corner of Court and Sackett. In November when they opened I didn't predict that they would create an open air restaurant/bar by removing ALL of their windows. The noise has really increased since the warm weather and I'm not opening my front windows yet. They do put the windows in at 11pm but loud smokers are in and out until 2am.
On Friday of last week I received a certified letter from Huitres Inc at 320 Court street, which is Buschenschank, stating that as result of their application for a sidewalk cafe license the Department of Consumer Affairs required they alert neighbors who live within 50 feet of that address.
I'm curious if you've received any feedback from neighbors about how they feel about Buschenschank, their open windows and now this new sidewalk cafe news.
I know I live in a very urban area and in the end I'm not sure what I can do about the addition to new bars in the neighborhood. I've started wearing earplugs every night and I'm really worried for when the temperatures get warmer and I'll have to open the windows at night - My husband and I are preparing to keep the AC on in the bedroom each evening during the summer."

A meeting regarding Buschenschank's Sidewalk Café licence in front of Community Board 6 has been scheduled for April 23rd at 6:30pm at Prospect Park YMCA located at 357 9th Street (Between 5th & 6th Avenues) on the 7th Floor. If neighbors cannot come to the meeting they can email info@brooklyncb6.org.

It may also be of interest that the building housing Buschenschank has quite a number of open NYC Building's Department violations. Perhaps it would be reasonable to ask Buschenschank to first clear those violations and keep its windows and doors closed as per DEP rules, before granting them a sidewalk café license.

And lastly, it may interest Buschenschank that even its patrons don't seem to enjoy its music to the volume very much either.
One reviewer on Yelp complained of their "terrible loud generic indie crap music" and another commented that "they have some serious issues with the music. I was there the other evening and our group had to leave because the music was so loud. As in shouting across the table to hear loud. To top it off, it was just really bad aggressive newish rock music that I would assume 19 year old boys in fraternities must listen to."


Video taken at a 2010 CB6 informational meeting about rules governing bars and restaurants.

Pin It Read more

Tackling The Problem Of Combined Sewer Overflow: Why Can't New York Be More Like London?

 (photos courtesy of www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk)

Thames Tunnel Film (2011) from Thames Tunnel on Vimeo.

While New York City has once again wiggled out of its obligation under law to stop combined sewer overflows (CSOs) from its sewer system to flow into surrounding waters with the blessing of the NYState Department of Environmental Conservation, London is facing its CSO problem head on.

Both Cities have aging sewer systems. Both systems discharge untreated sewage and industrial wastewater that occur when wet weather flows exceed the treatment capacity of these combined sewer systems. Both have a growing population. Yet New York is trying to push the problem further down the road and London is planning the Thames Tunnel "that will tackle the problem of overflows from the capital's Victorian servers and will protect the River Thames from increasing pollution for at least the next 100 years." Construction of the Tunnel Project is slated to begin in 2016.

In comparison, New York is implementing a Green Infrastructure Plan "which relies upon modeling to project CSO reductions based on information available to date, that would result from managing stormwater equivalent to one inch of rainfall on 10% of available impervious surfaces in the City's combined sewer areas by 2030."

Though Green Infrastructure is great, the New York City's plan is certainly a drop in the bucket and will not address the CSO problem in any meaningful way. It simply is not enough, unless the City commits to upgrading its gray infrastructure with forward thinking projects like the Thames Tunnel.

Just this Monday night, I was sitting at a Gowanus Canal Superfund Community Advisory meeting with
representatives of NYC DEP pleading for more help from the agency to reduce the CSO's in the Gowanus Canal. Yes, New York City is currently in the process of implementing upgrades to the Gowanus Canal facilities, which it claims will reduce CSO discharges by about 34% and another 10% from newly installed High-Level Storm Sewers and green infrastructure, but the community is asking for more. Much more.
It is important for the community to remember that the green infrastructure plan is at the design bid phase and it will be some time until any goals are achieved. It has also vital for Gowanus residents to remember, as it has been pointed out, that the Flushing Tunnel work does not focus on actual CSO reductions but is simply doing what is needed to keep a 101-year old system running. While the pump station and force main improvements lead to actual CSO reductions, it should be noted that this 136 million gallon annual CSO reduction into the Canal is partly offset by a 41 million gallon annual CSO increase into the Atlantic Basin, Buttermilk Channel and East River from sewage being diverted outside the Canal. (2008 Gowanus Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan, Table 7-9.)

So what is the difference between New York and London? Why is our City so resistant to solving a real problem that poses both a human health and environmental risk? Is it just political will? Is it disregard for its citizens?
If it is a question of money, New York City should talk to London. The Thames Tunnel is "expected to directly create over 4,000 jobs at the peak of its planned seven-year construction phase, and a further 5,000 indirectly. Generating the equivalent of 19,000 employment years, this would be a major stimulus for the wider economy of communities along the tunnel’s 15-mile route and beyond."
London sees it as vital for its economy.


Mayor Bloomberg, perhaps you can give Boris Johnson a call?

Pin It

Read more

Members Of Gowanus Canal CAG Sit Down With DEP Representatives And Ask Agency To Do More

Jim Mueller, Assistant Commissioner DEP,  Angela Licata, Deputy Commissioner,  Kevin Clarke,  environmental engineer.

Testimony of Carter Strickland,Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), March 27, 2012
"At the moment DEP is concerned that EPA is considering a complete cessation of CSOs into the Gowanus Canal as part of the Superfund cleanup, even though the site was put on the National Priorities List because of contaminated sediment from historic industrial processes unconnected to the sewer system. Under the Clean Water Act and the CSO program administered by the State, DEP has considered whether CSOs could be reduced to near zero and concluded that it would be infeasible and that tanks or tunnels could cost billions without a substantial increase in water quality. Needless to say, a billion-dollar construction project in this area of Brooklyn would also create daunting traffic and construction-related impacts for well over a decade. Accordingly, DEP selected our current $136 million Gowanus Facilities Plan, which will reduce CSOs by 34% plus another 10% from High-Level Storm Sewers and green infrastructure. We are in active discussions with the EPA right now, and strongly disagree with the position that an enormous City-funded construction project is a necessary prerequisite to an EPA-led Superfund cleanup."

Last night, members of the EPA Gowanus Canal Superfund Community Advisory Group's Water Quality and Technical Committee met with representatives of the City's Department Of Environmental Protection to engage in a more meaningful dialog with the agency and to advocate for the elimination of Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges that result in the presence of pathogens in the waterway, including coliform and enterococci.

These pathogens present unacceptable health risks from contact with the water and sediments of the Canal.  As long as New York City, which has been named a Potencially Responsible Party (PRP) for its role in contributing to the toxins, allows CSOs to continue to discharge into the Gowanus, there will be ongoing environmental and potential human health risks, as well as a high chance of recontamination even after the Superfund clean-up.

Representing the DEP last night were Angela Licata, Deputy Commissioner, Jim Mueller, Assistant Commissioner, Planning and Capital Projects, Kevin Clarke and Julie Stein.   Members of the CAG did not lose any time to let DEP know that the Community expected the agency to work together with EPA to get the most comprehensive, effective clean-up within the timeframe of the Superfund. "This is great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by investing the necessary money to have the water that goes into the canal be as clean as it can be," stated one CAG member. "Get it done right. Get it done once. Get it done now," another member told the DEP representatives. Yet another added: "We would like to see the same level of engagement from DEP as we see from EPA."
Yes, New York City is currently in the process of implementing upgrades to the Gowanus Canal facilities, which it claims will reduce CSO discharges by about 34% and another 10% from newly installed High-Level Storm Sewers and green infrastructure. That, however, simply is not good enough for many members in the community. "We have a pretty good understanding of what the City is proposing, but frankly, more needs to be done. We want more," member Steven Miller stated.

"We see this as a very opportune time for us to begin anew and to think of the long-term planning for the canal," Angela Licata told the CAG. She was quick to point out that the City's combined sewer system is a legacy system. "When it rains, you are not going to engineer your way out of that. If you never want to have sewer in the canal again, we will have to separate the system." Indeed, the gray infrastructure in the Gowanus area is underserving the community on all fronts even with the current upgrades. In addition, no real planning seems to have gone into providing new infrastructure for all the additional housing that is likely to be built along the canal in the near future.

Licata also spoke of the consent order just negotiated between NYC and Albany. "Our commitments and requirements persuent to that, require that we build out green infrastructure to a certain extend. We have to get 1" of rain over 10% of the impervious areas in the CSO watersheds of the City. And we need to develop these so-called long-term control plans. Those should envision a path forward that will carry us for the next 10 to 20 years."
(This sounds more impressive than it is. Basically, it means that New York State's Department Of Environmental Conservation has once again allowed the City to not meet the Federal clean water standards set decades ago.)

"We have to develop a plan for that waterbody," Licata continued. "We think it is quite appropriate that we start to envision this with you. What we will be looking at is a combination of solutions where we want to evaluate all the possible alternatives We need to do that in a way that achieves certain goals. We have to be able to move some of the dials on water quality and we also have to look at what is going to be cost effective."

CAG member Rita Miller mentioned that the EPA has suggested that a retention basin would solve the problem of toxins being emitted into the Gowanus.  Miller added "At the same time, it would do wonders for the pathogens flowing into the canal and perhaps satisfy some of the Clean Water Act requirements as well. Why does there seem to be resistance to that suggestion?" she asked Licata. "It seems perfectly reasonable to us. It seems like a perfectly do-able plan. You have done it in other places."

Licata's answered: "We have done retention tanks. Its a no-brainer. We have done it at Paerdegat Basin, Alley Creek and Flushing. So why not do it here? One of the things is that at those locations, you had a tremendous amount of volume that was all located at one point, so that the economy of scale was tremendous." She added: "I just want to be clear. Its not that we are discounting it here. I think it's a fair question. We should take another look at it. But I think the cost benefit on that is going to be really, really tough."

Rita Miller responded: "I would like to remind you that this is a very densely populated area. City Planning has a framework that makes it even denser. I don't see any reason why the kind of attention that has been given to other neighborhoods would not be given here, given the fact that this canal is so tiny, so narrow, that the concentration of toxins is just tremendous."

I can only speak for myself, but as a CAG member and a long time resident, I have the feeling that the City is trying to shirk its responsibility towards the Gowanus Canal Community for as long as it can. Rather than to work with the EPA to find a real solution that would address the CSOs in conjunction with the Superfund clean-up, it is trying to stall and kick the problem down the road.

Shame on Mayor Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor Caswell Halloway and DEP Commissioner Carter Strickland for continuing to ignore the community and for proposing a sorely inadequate plan to deal with a real health problem.
Stop lobbying and do what's right, already!

Read more