Attendees
Joan Salome-Rodriguez, (Facilitator), Lisa Bowstead, Erica Eliason, Katia Kelly, Linda LaViolette, Mark Yarish, Susan Yung, Aaron Kaufman (Gowanus Remediation Team), Irene Baker (National Grid)
You can watch a recording of the meeting here. Enter passcode yc0e7%mF.
Riverkeeper and SWIM Coalition – sign on to letter re: wet weather designations.
Victoria Sacks (EPA Regional Project Manager) replied to our letter – any follow ups? The original letter with Victoria’s answers is below, followed by the questions we came up with at the meeting, which have been sent to Victoria and Heidi Dudek (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation).
Dear EPA and DEC representatives:
At a recent meeting, the members of the Gowanus CAG Water Quality Committee discussed a February 4, 2025 groundwater survey by HRP relating to a DEC Brownfield remediation at 473 President Street. (The site includes 469 President and 514 Union St).
The survey’s purpose was to identify the impacts from the President Street site’s chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) on off-site soil vapor and on groundwater.
The investigative work on the sites was performed from October 2022 to June 2024. The report mentions that the three parcels are 12’ above sea level, and that the groundwater elevations range from .66 to 2.85’. The groundwater flow is in a west-north westerly direction, towards the intersection of Union & Nevins and the Gowanus Canal, with minor fluctuations in levels based on tides.
The elevations were mapped between January 2023 and June 2024. (see page 2, paragraph 3).
The soil samplings referenced in the report were apparently not alarming. However, the groundwater samplings were (see pages 5-6).
In an effort to better understand how the many changes in the Gowanus area have affected groundwater flow in the area, the members of our committee would like to ask the following questions:
-where is this (potentially contaminated) groundwater going now that 70’ metal bulkheads have been installed in the canal as part of the Superfund Remediation?
Victoria Sacks: Not all of the bulkheads that have been installed around the canal are sealed (i.e. watertight) and not all of the bulkheads are as deep as 70 feet. The bulkhead designs are individual engineering decisions based on contamination in the upland and land stability for the canal remedy implementation. In addition, the cap is designed such that groundwater can move upwards through the cap, trapping any NAPL and chemical contamination below.
Follow-up question: Where is the NAPL and chemical contamination going?
-is the groundwater mounding rising?
Victoria Sacks: Mounding was modeled in the RTA1 100% design and in the draft RTA2 100% design documents. As modelled, the mounding is not substantial in height. Any mounding is also highly localized because gravity makes groundwater seek to level itself. For the Fulton MGP and Citizens MGP barrier walls, which are tightly sealed and extend for a number of parcels, groundwater relief points with treatment systems were built into the barrier wall to minimize mounding.
Follow-up question: If the groundwater picks up toxins as it travels, won’t it come into the Canal via groundwater relief points? Where are these relief points? What are the treatment systems? What are they treating for? How are they monitored? By who? Do you have any results of how and whether the treatment systems are working? Is there any data yet? Please share the data. We would also like to see how these systems work. Are these different from the CSO capture systems in the new buildings?
-is it traveling UNDER the Canal to the West side or is it traveling INTO the Canal through permitted outfalls?
Victoria Sacks: Groundwater can travel under the canal or into the canal as mentioned in the answer above. In general, the non-CSO outfalls at the canal are discharging only stormwater, not groundwater.
Follow-up question: How can this actually be when the groundwater is coming up through the sewers and into the streets and our basements. Once it’s up it becomes stormwater.
Victoria Sacks: At any such new stormwater outfalls, EPA has required treatment systems. If groundwater does travel into the canal, the cap is designed such that it will sequester the contamination before the water is able to enter the waterbody.
Follow-up question: But what about groundwater entering people’s homes outside of the waterbody? It seems to us that the water will not have enough gravity or momentum to sink down under the canal at all times. It will siphon or spread horizontally or upward in a big storm when the ground is saturated. What is being done to address this issue?
-what measures have been taken to prevent contaminated ground water from freely moving about in our community?
Victoria Sacks: EPA has been working to clean up the contaminated Gowanus canal sediments so that we inhibit the pathway between contamination and the plant, animal, and human community. After the sediments are dredged, ISS implemented, and the cap laid down, contaminated groundwater will not be able to enter the canal. There is no potential exposure pathway for subsurface groundwater or other contamination, including coal tar, except through construction-related activities or possible Soil Vapor Intrusion on the land properties. NYSDEC is generally responsible for addressing construction-related contamination through the state’s Brownfields Cleanup Program. NYSDEC is also responsible for investigating and addressing Soil Vapor Intrusion issues. In addition to NYSDEC’s work, it is also common practice for new construction to include Soil Vapor barrier systems in areas like Gowanus.
Follow-up question: Can you please clarify as to what measures EPA has taken to prevent contaminated ground water from freely moving about in our community as opposed to the Canal itself? What about OLD construction – extant buildings?
-how will the salt water interacting with fresh water impact the longevity of the bulwark (bulk head) which has been observed as contributing to increased rusting?
Victoria Sacks: The bulkheads being installed along the canal are generally marine-grade steel designed to resist structural corrosion. Surficial corrosion may still occur. The design lifespan for the bulkheads and other remedy components such as the cap treatment layer is 100 years.
Follow-up question: Then what?
Follow-up question for Heidi Dudek: followed up with DEC about whether the un-remediated section of the Whole Foods parking lot. Was it tested? Are there nearby monitoring wells? Finally, we request that the recent study be shared and presented at a CAG General Meeting, including whether it extends beyond the Whole Foods area. We would like EPA to explain how the cap effectively filters oil near the Degraw Street artesian spring and to provide technical evidence showing that water carrying particulates can be filtered through the cap design.
We should ask again for:
-a hydrology study for the entire neighborhood
-a toxic plume study
Was going to ask Eymond to draft this inquiry to NYS DEC but I sent it already.
Bulkheads – where are we getting it back?
1st Street Turning Basin plans. Barrier vs. no Barrier. Joan explained the legal concept of “attractive nuisance” and why properties abutting the canal would be opposed to a soft entry to the turning basins. You don’t want to make it easy for kids to step into the brackish waters. Apparently, this issue came up at one of the meetings while Joan was out with surgery and may have involved Power House – indemnification, eminent domain – and a contiguous walkway but since Joan was not there, she really cannot say. However, attractive nuisance will be a risk issue for the building insurance carriers all along the canal.
Joan emailed Victoria for a copy of the 1st Street Turning Basin presentation given at the in-person CAG meeting and asked when design plans will be available to share. We should offer comments on it once we have it.
What is being done about land subsidence? Joan posed the question to Victoria.
IRIS Act – Celeste
Celeste was concerned about the fate of IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) data and requested EPA share information with the CAG about how IRIS data is being used within the Gowanus Superfund site. ProPublica reporting about a pair of bills called the “No IRIS Act” that would restrict use by EPA of chemical safety data. Dr. Smith had indicated EPA uses such data.
Although the bills don’t have momentum, there are additional actions at EPA in the form of a restructuring that that would have an impact on IRIS and will likely break up this program that has, for decades, been targeted by the chemical industry and various right wing interests. See https://www.wired.com/story/epa-iris-health-risks-chemicals-nancy-beck/. Basically, restructuring at the agency would eliminate the team that studies risks associated with various chemicals.
IRIS data may be key to setting community exposure standards for naphthalene, TCE, and other relevant issues here.
Joan asked Victoria if EPA was using IRIS data in the Canal and if they would still have access to the data if the act passes.
The hope is that by asking where and how the data is being used on this project, we can use the information as an advocacy tool to protect the availability and quality of this data.
QUORUM AT GENERAL CAG Meeting: Five-year review letter – did not get voted on at last General CAG nor did our request for SB designation or the revised Charter because there was NOT a quorum. It is critical that we ALL show up at the next General CAG meeting. Quorum is 15 members.
The Water Quality Committee needs a mission statement: Erica and I have started drafts. Check your email.