Attendees, CAG Members: Joan Salome-Rodriguez (Moderator), Linda LaViolette, Mark Yarish, Katia Kelly, Erica Eliason, Susan Yung, Emily Mitchell, Margaret Maugenest, Jason Schwartzman
Guests: Irene Baker – National Grid. Sean Downey – GRT. Nick Bello – Park Slope Living.
You can view a video recording of the meeting here. Enter passcode Hm%H$n9k for access.
Early discussion was not on the agenda but covered information about the CSO tanks – are they big enough, can there possibly be a third tank (maybe at Public Place if it were to be part of the state Superfund Program and not otherwise developed).
- This discussion led to a brief discussion of that which had been item two on the agenda – Sewershed in Gowanus. Would like to have a discussion at our meeting. I think there are issues related to the Atlantic Yards Project and the BMT project. Our infrastructure cannot possibly take all that. DEFERRED until next meeting.
- Finally went over Natalie’s Q&A’s that affect Water Quality. We discussed all of them and the action items are as follows:
A. What is the objective for the level of clean water once the canal is cleaned?
Implementation of the remedy will improve the surface water quality of the Canal by controlling and substantially eliminating sheens and preventing contact of the surface water with the contaminated sediment.
What about CSO’s? Corinne was following to draft an inquiry on this issue.
NOTE: We may have wanted to direct this to EPA initially and probably still should but we should send to DEC and definitely DEP as well since Lisa Garcia, the former head of EPA’s Region 2, is now the Commissioner at DEP. We know the current objective per DEC is SC but the question remains – what about the CSOs? We know that even with the tanks, there will still be CSOs in the water. What will happen to those? Will the City have to re-dredge?
B. What are the EPA’s water quality ARARs (actual measures that must be met for the water quality) for the Gowanus Canal? EPA and New York State have promulgated surface water standards which are enforceable standards for various surface water contaminants – EPA’s water quality standards (40 CFR 131) and New York State surface water quality standards (6 NYCRR Part 703). DEC has the primary responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act.
I combined the above question with the next one.
EPA made it clear at the outset of the Superfund program that a goal was to have no recontamination after the cleanup. Based on the failure of the City to build the CSO tanks, contamination will be going into the canal AFTER the cleanup. How will EPA conduct oversight to ensure that the City will RE-CLEAN the canal or will EPA be doing that? The ROD states “in the event that the permanent measures are not implemented in a timely manner, interim controls, such as temporary solids capture and removal, [would] be implemented to mitigate sediment from the CSO discharges until the permanent measures have been implemented.” These controls were not feasible. The City will be required to perform maintenance dredging if CSO solids build up and exceed the PRGs. This is enforceable under the CSO remedial action Unilateral Administrative Order.
Won’t City re-dredging potentially damage the cap? General CAG Q. MARK’s Q. DEC, DOH, DOHMH, DEP.
Can there be kits for residents/businesses to check basement flood waters for contamination? Can there be monitors along the Canal such as were utilized in France along the Seine for the Olympics? Mark Yarish will draft an inquiry on these two related questions.
Post-Remedy Issues
C. * What is EPA’s demand for responsible parties to maintain an operation and maintenance plan (OMP) for the Gowanus Canal clean-up strategy? Who will ensure that the OMP is done going forward? The PRPs will be responsible for performing the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the implemented remedy under EPA oversight, pursuant to an EPA administrative order. Forever?
Will EPA continue to check that the water quality remains good and that the cap is intact? Does EPA have an OMP Plan? Where is it? An OMP will be developed. The PRPs will be responsible for performing the O&M of the implemented remedy consistent with that plan.
Katia is following up on these two questions.
Hydrology
D. To the best of the Committee’s knowledge, neither the DEC nor NYSDOH has ever performed a comprehensive hydrology and hydrographic study for this neighborhood as the Gowanus is in a FEMA flood zone A. At the DEC meeting on April 20, 2023, one of our members was informed by NYSDOH that such a study is always performed for any Brownfield/Superfund site. Thus, the Committee seeks information about the impact of underground water and its future impacts on the complex planned for the Citizens Gas/Public Place Site, as well as the impacts of construction of this complex as well as other planned complexes to the surrounding areas. As part of remedial investigations that are performed at sites, although groundwater flow direction is typically determined, hydrology studies are not usually performed. Individual site remedial investigation reports may be found on DECInfo Locator https://gisservices.dec.ny.gov/gis/dil/ In addition to the individual site investigations, DEC is currently completing a Gowanus Canal areawide groundwater study to evaluate the current hydraulic conditions, including groundwater elevations and flow direction. This study is scheduled for completion in late 2024.
WHERE IS THIS AND Please share with us. Joan & Steve both followed with Aaron Fischer and received no response. If none was prepared, the inquiry by Emily asks that one be completed.
E. EPA does not agree that pursuing such a moratorium is the right path to take for the Gowanus watershed, as discussed in more detail below. With regard to your questions relating to instances where NYSDEC has primary enforcement authorization, we have discussed this inquiry with them. NYSDEC requirements regarding wastewater resource and recovery facilities (WRRF) flow management and potential moratoriums are provided in 6 NYCRR Part 750-2.9(c). At this time, the Owls Head and Red Hook WRRFs have not triggered provisions for a sewer moratorium. EPA has been advised that NYSDEC will continue to assess NYCDEP flow management efforts and reporting for compliance with these provisions, other applicable provisions, and their State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits.
Has there been a re-evaluation taking into consideration the LIRR development area and the proposed Red Hook development? By which entity? Can we get that report if there is one? I think this goes with the work we are about to do on the sewer shed.
Turning Basins
F. How much water are we losing?
Encroachment into the Canal along the newly installed bulkhead support system along the Whole Foods properties varies from one foot to 10 feet. This encroachment was unavoidable due to the condition of the existing sheet pile bulkhead that was installed at a significant incline. EPA is still considering potential approaches with respect to this encroachment.
Follow up question:
In terms of how much water we are losing in the turning basin, that question remains outstanding. We cannot know if we are getting this volume back at other places on the canal if we don’t know what the volume lost is. Can this question please be answered with actual numbers?
When the remedy was decided on, it was a goal to limit encroachment. That being said, it is not possible to restore 100% of the habitat in the canal without encroachment. Dredging of the contaminated sediment is required for the cleanup, and bulkhead replacement is a necessary step to take before dredging. Even at the time of the remedy decision, we knew there was going to be a certain amount of encroachment as that is required when replacing bulkheads. The goal of daylighting turning basin 1 and part of the area under the 3rd Avenue bridge was to help offset some of that encroachment.
As calculated using some estimation – as not all of the bulkhead designs have been completed – the bulkhead encroachment totals roughly 0.81 acres in RTA2 [that’s almost a whole city block!] and 0.12 acres in RTA1. The area that will be recovered in turning basin 1 and under the 3rd Ave bridge is about 0.51 acres.
Due to the dredging of soft sediment in the canal, we will be increasing the water depth along the length of the canal, thus INCREASING the holding capacity of the canal. The volume increase in RTA1 and RTA2 excluding the area under the 3rd Ave bridge is estimated to be about 118,000 CY or the capacity of 36 Olympic size swimming pools.
G. How will what we lose here be returned to us at Turning Basins 1 & 11 (near Lowe’s in RTA 3)?
In coordination with EPA, the Trust is currently designing a wetland in the former First Street turning basin to provide ecological value and recreational benefits to the community and to offset water area lost by bulkhead encroachment throughout the project area. Additional encroachment mitigation will occur beneath the Third Avenue bridge and slightly into the Fifth Street Turning Basin, pursuant to plans which are still being developed. At Turning Basin 11, encroachment from the bulkhead construction is anticipated due to structural limitations from the former Pathmark building.
Follow up question:
What does EPA anticipate will be lost at turning Basin 11? What will we get in return? We are losing about a full acre of land in the entire canal and at least 832 square feet of land at this turning basin alone (which was also a “taking” of Federal waters). Is the failure of the old bulkheads at the Whole Foods site a unique situation? If not, can we expect further narrowing of the Canal and loss of waters? Will this be EPA’s policy going forward?
*It should be noted that the First and Fourth Street Basin were illegally landfilled with EPA / NYSDEC failing in their protective duties… so technically up to 3.5 acres of habitat restoration would need, legally, to be compensated for.
EPA is still reviewing this and we will bring it to the CAG when we have a further response. We have no further response at this point. – ERICA – craft a question to follow up. ERICA wrote – “As water was not fully restored in Turning Basin 1 with the sloped design, we would like to confirm that future designs for the other turning basins and other areas of the Canal will prioritize no further loss of width of the Canal and turning basins?”
Housekeeping:
3. Victoria is looking for any map/image that shows where the legal outfalls are. Joan followed. No response yet. Joan followed on 12/8/2025 and 1/1/2026. Hoping for an answer.
4. Brian Carr reported no change on his discussions with PowerHouse regarding the walkway at TB1. PowerHouse was not part of the rezone and so did not have to meet the 56 commitments. Suggest we request info from Topographical about the status of the streets abutting Power House. De-mapped and made private?
We have an answer from Andrea – access to TB1 from 3rd Ave is available through PowerHouse driveway which, per Andrea, PowerHouse is interested in making more “welcoming.” Any movement on this?
5. We will follow on the mounding studies once EPA presents on them again. Issue is forward looking – climate change.
Finally: All of the Natalie Q&A’s below relate to our deep dive into the current and future sewer shed. I put them together below so that we can start to look at them in the next agenda.
6. EPA made it clear at the outset of the Superfund program that a goal was to have no recontamination after the cleanup. Based on the failure of the City to build the CSO tanks, contamination will be going into the canal AFTER the cleanup. How will EPA conduct oversight to ensure that the City will RE-CLEAN the canal or will EPA be doing that? The ROD states “In the event that the permanent measures are not implemented in a timely manner, interim controls, such as temporary solids capture and removal, [would] be implemented to mitigate sediment from the CSO discharges until the permanent measures have been implemented.” These controls were not feasible. The City will be required to perform maintenance dredging if CSO solids build up and exceed the PRGs. This is enforceable under the CSO remedial action Unilateral Administrative Order.
Addressing Sewer Backups
With regard to the referenced August 31, 2016 EPA Administrative Order issued to the City, it requires the City to take necessary steps to achieve reductions in Sewer Backups (SBUs) citywide. The City has focused on the portions of its sewer system with the highest SBU rates, which are in areas sewered outside the Gowanus Canal watershed. The City has performed proactive inspections of sewer segments within these portions of the City to establish appropriate future inspection and cleaning frequencies to minimize SBUs. Follow-up work has been performed, as needed. The City has developed protocols for ongoing work. Confirmed SBUs have decreased annually between Fiscal Years 2018 and 2022 in the targeted portions of the City. Not counting confirmed SBUs resulting from extreme weather, the City has reported that confirmed SBUs have decreased from 950 in Fiscal Year 2018 to 579 in Fiscal Year 2022.
Annually, the City prepares a “State of the Sewers” report. The report for the City’S Fiscal Year 2022
can be found at: https:llwww.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/water/wastewaterlstate-of-the-sewers-2022.pdf. This report documents that SBUs decreased citywide each year between Fiscal Years 2017 and 2021. However, citywide SBUs increased in Fiscal Year 2022. In the report, the City attributes the increase to extreme weather brought by Hurricanes Henri and Ida.
Gowanus Canal Long-Term-Control Plan
As you know, the Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) for the Gowanus watershed was issued in 2015, two years after EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the Gowanus Canal Superfund site. As such, the LTCP acknowledges and includes the elements of the ROD that were included by EPA to protect the long-term performance of selected remedy. These elements primarily include two retention tanks to be constructed at the outfalls to the two largest combined sewer overflows (CSOs). These CSO retention tanks, when constructed will both reduce the introduction of CSO solids on top of the by-then remediated canal and, along with other improvements required by the LTCP, improve water quality in the Gowanus Canal consistent with the Clean Water Act.
Future development and Sewer Interference
EPA’s ROD also states that future activities that fall under New York City’s purview, including
development by other parties that requires approval by the City, cannot compromise the protectiveness of the Gowanus Canal remedy. Among other things, the ROD specifically states:
Current and future high density residential redevelopment along the banks of the canal and within the sewershed shall adhere to New York City rules for sewer connections (Chapter 31 of Title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York) and shall be consistent with current New York city Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) criteria and guidelines to ensure that hazardous substances and solids from additional sewage loads do not compromise the effectiveness of the permanent [combined sewage overflow (CSO)] control measures by exceeding their design capacity. For example, redevelopment projects will need to take mitigation measures to prevent or offset additional sewer loadings. Separated stormwater outfalls will also require engineering controls to ensure that hazardous substances and solids are not discharged to the canal.
WHAT ENTITY IS POLICING THIS? HOW? NOW?
Combined Sewage Overflow Retention Tanks
The City is currently complying with EPA’s requirements to construct the two combined sewer overflow (CSO) retention tanks pursuant the schedule mandated by EPA. The construction of these tanks is paramount to the cleanup of the Canal and addressing CSOs. Furthermore, EPA is requiring monitoring of CSOs, by sampling of CSO outfalls during storm events, to measure any long-term changes in CSO discharges and assess whether changes in the watershed are consistent with EPA’s requirements, as stated above. The City is also complying with this monitoring requirement.
With regard to the statement that an “[EPA] official confirmed at a 2022 town hall meeting that the
12 million gallon tanks were … not designed to address additive CSO effluents from tens of thousands of new residents added to the sewershed by the 2021 Upzoning,” this is a misapprehension of EPA’s comments. EPA previously addressed this misapprehension at the July 26, 2022 Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group (CAG) meeting. As was stated during the July meeting, EPA’s comments at the town hall addressed the basis of EPA’s CSO remedy that was selected in the ROD, and were not a comment about the size and scope of the City’s rezoning. REALLY NOT TRUE. And what about the sewer sheds for the pollution control plants at Red Hook and Owl’s Head.
Under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, EPA will continue to require the City to analyze and assess the amount of CSO the tanks will be receiving. EPA previously stated this both in its August 2021 “Comments on Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Statement” and during the July 2022 CAG meeting. Had EPA determined that the current CSO retention tank designs were incapable of handling the additional CSO load from the rezoning, EPA would have required the City to redesign the tanks. To the contrary, the best way to address any increased CSO load is to construct the tanks consistent with EPA’s timeline, which the City publicly committed to meeting.
HAS THE CITY STARTED MEASURING EFFLUENT?
7. The CSO tanks will not be ready for 10-15 years – how will EPA address the issue of CSO’s if there are no tanks?
8. Currently, construction of both CSO tanks is scheduled for 2029 or about 6 years from now. Is there any way EPA can force the City to not issue COs for new buildings that do not have storm sewer connections?
*Please refer to the attached August 22, 2023 letter from Regional Administrator Lisa Garcia to Linda LaViolette and Jack Riccobono, Co-Chairs, Outreach Committee, Voice of Gowanus