Last Night, City Talked Gowanus Alternative Clean-Up Plan, But Didn't Seem To Convince Many

I

No, no, dear Reader, I was not at last night's meeting hosted by the City to once again tout their half-baked 'Alternative Plan' to clean the Gowanus Canal. I am still on a beach vacation in South Carolina, but you know that my Brooklyn neighborhood is never far from my mind.

This morning, I received a very thorough account of the meeting from area residents who attended the first of two meetings, one for home-owners, the other for business-owners along the canal. Last night's was for home-owners.

This is the report:

The city meeting was fairly interesting. Cas Holloway, Chief Of Staff to NYC Deputy Mayor Skyler. was the designated hitter for the city once again with Dan Walsh, Chief of the New York City Superfund and Brownfield Program, on deck for an occasional and ineffective pinch hit.

Walter Mugdan of the EPA was there and although he clearly tried to maintain his distance from the microphone, he was the voice of reason, calm and common sense.

There was a flyer distributed by the city which a local resident held up and contemptuously labeled, "spin"--others in the audience quickly and loudly agreed with this. There was a letter written by an unknown fifth generation Gowanus banks-grown person begging not to Superfund and a postcard from the cleangowanusnow.org folks printed up and ready to go for those who do not want Superfund.

There was an appearance and some questions from Josh Skaller, 39th City Council District candidate, and a surprise for me--a fellow named Doug Biviano, who is running for Councilman in the 33rd. He is a civil engineer, articulate and put the city right on the spot (one of Dan Walsh' moments were required here)

The city has no plan. They are trying to say that this can be done through the W.R.D.A. program, even though Walter Mugdan expressed doubts. Dan Wiley, of Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez's office, gave facts and the congresswoman's comments quoted in the June 11th article in the Downtown Star refuted the idea completely. They, the city, claim that they will kick in for some of the initial studies. The only thing they really seem to care about is saving certain parties money and getting the feds (basically, us) to foot a big part of the deep discount for the prps.

Walter Mugdan made it very clear that the timeline for the City's or EPA's plan will be the same. The City has no ability to move any faster than the EPA -- in fact starting with the City could actually cost more time because their plan is more complex. It is a matter of where the money comes from and how successfully all of the Potentially Reponsible Parties can agree to play nicely--all of it a very unlikely scenario.

When the city was asked why they are "expending a great amount of resources" (their words) in order to save a handful of PRP's money at the expense of a great deal of the community's wishes, they really did not have an answer.

They had a slide as part of their presentation that was widely criticized and will probably be excluded from future presentations. It was supposed to show how much better and faster the city plan is in comparison to EPA but it was a bust.

When the City was asked why two meetings, they said it was to accommodate everyone. When it was pointed out that notification was spotty and attendance not that great because of it, they apologized. They actually apologized a lot--and promised that there would be answers to some of tonight's questions tomorrow--like which developers they met with privately.
We asked them to bring the army corps of engineers with them tomorrow but no promises were made there--just an agreement to ask them to come.

Ellen was there from State Senator Daniel Squadron's office, but she said nothing. Tom Gray, of Councilman Bill De Blasio's office sent out a notice that no one from Bill's office would be there due to "scheduling conflicts", but he promised someone would be there tomorrow night and all meetings going forward. Did not see anyone from Joan Millman's office and Deanna Betteti of Yvette Clarke's office is in DC.
John Heyer Sr and Jr were there but I did not see Brad Lander, Bob Zuckerman or Buddy Scotto.

Part two of the city's Spinfest is tonight at PS32

Read more

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

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

Read more