Attendees: Joan Salome-Rodriguez – Moderator. CAG members: Katia Kelly, Jason Schwartzman. National Grid: Irene Baker. Gowanus Remediation Trust: Aaron Kaufman.
You can watch a video recording of the meeting here. Please enter passcode a8m.?ERw for access.
1. Bond-Lorraine Sewer abandonment and how the proposed initial design of the high-level sewer lines to take the street runoff will ultimately result in a LOT of disruption in the neighborhood. Katia reported that the last time DEP did work on Columbia Street in 1975 or so, many buildings collapsed and people died.
2. Gas line at Huntington and other NAPL leaks. Per Katia, there were all these special sealants that were not so impenetrable on the bulkheads.
a. NAPL leak at head of the Canal – no action at the moment as EPA is still figuring out what is going on there – EPA said the bulkhead is bulging. Katia noted that wouldn’t National Grid be responsible for paying for the leak since the coal tar has migrated from the MGP site (Fulton at Thomas Greene Park) under the Canal and over to the east side where the NAPL leak is (next to the flushing tunnel at Butler Street). Per Aaron, the GRT is the party responsible for that location. The closure sheet capping the bulkhead there did not go down all the way and that is what Aaron believes is the source of the sheening. They were going to do supplemental grouting but that approach is not effective, so they are now figuring out a different solution per Victoria. If there is historic contamination from the Fulton site or other activities in the area, that exposure pathway is going to be sealed. Joan showed Irene on Google Maps the area that we are discussing, and she will look into whether Fulton is involved.
b. Gas line going across Public Place from west to east at Huntington needs to be sealed. We asked Irene if that would be sealed by National Grid because it still supplies Red Hook. Brian at the General CAG meeting acknowledged the Gas Tunnel – design discussions between EPA, GRT and National Grid to address sealing around that infrastructure before cleanup can happen in that area. The bulkheads have to go in before any of that can happen and EPA is in charge of sequencing that.
Also, NAPL leaking into the Canal at Huntington. Is National Grid going to seal that up? Question sent to Victoria, what party is dealing with the bulkhead at the street end at Huntington, the City or a developer.
c. Katia – Have they ever dredged around 3rd St Bridge pylons? Aaron responded – RTA 1 substantially complete – odds and ends remaining like 1st Street turning basin and the leak at the head of the canal. As for 3rd Street dredging around the pylons he thinks that may be addressed in the RTA 2 design. Joan sent that question to Victoria.
d. Joan asked how many third party bulkheads are not done? Eight to nine properties including the 7th Street turning basin.
3. Turning Basin 1 – Request presentation of completed design – Aaron said that by end of year we will have a 90% design presentation (per Facilitation Committee that is happening at the October General CAG – sent email to Victoria and Natalie to confirm since it is on the October agenda). Resolution regarding naming – Marylander Basin, Denton’s Mill. Discussed re-naming and Aaron suggested that should be addressed to the Parks Department or Community Board 6.
4. Ingress/Egress: Aaron says in terms of the bulkheads designed by GRT, its responsibility is narrowly focused on the remedy – only purpose from a legal standpoint is to support the uplands banks. GRT has no liberty to add bells and whistles like ladders, docks, chains. Bulkheads are not owned by the GRT; they are owned by the property owners. There is no requirement by the City to add those things so need legislation from City Council. Joan asked Brian via email where the point of egress on Bond Street is that he referred to.
5. Mounding: GRT did the last mounding study. We’d like to see the new one. Aaron said study is done with the corresponding design. Joan followed up by email reminding Aaron to look into whether there is a new mounding study.
6. Housekeeping
a) PowerHouse walkway at Turning Basin 1. No update.
b) Dissolved Oxygen Levels: Need to follow up with Erica (not at this meeting) re: DEC response to CAG resolution re: DO levels
c) Operation and Maintenance Plan: 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? 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? Nothing yet.
d) Hydrology – Aaron responded (see below) that DEC hopes to have the survey complete by 1st Quarter 2027. Jason shared his map tool with Aaron to see if they can be combined.
7. Review emails and responses so far and decide whether to send follow up questions on some
a) Real-time canal monitoring/public reporting – waiting on Court of Appeals. No action. Summary of decision below. Mike Dulong presented at General CAG 9/22/2026.
b) CSOs – Joan reported out answer from DEP regarding its Long-Term Control Plan. See below for full answer but importantly there is no LTCP for the CSO tank results and re-dredging would only happen if EPA orders it. At that point, DEP and other PRPs would be required to dredge. March 30, 2026, EPA notified the City of the completion of capping in RTA1. Under the terms of the 2021 UAO, the City will have one year from the date of that letter to begin in-canal sediment sampling. We are awaiting a schedule from the City.
c) NAPL leaks and remediation at the head of the Canal – Joan followed up to obtain Victoria’s answers to our questions (below) that Tom Mongelli read out at the CAG meeting 7/27 (see below). It seems a lot of what is going on is based on suspicion of what is going on but is also exploratory if EPA has it wrong. Work is in progress. Victoria’s full response is below but at the 9/22 CAG meeting she indicated there is bulging at the bulkhead so they are re-evaluating the plan. Irene to follow up regarding the Gas Pipe and re: NAPL at Canal Head.
d) Other issues
– Has DEP started to measure how much of first flush the new buildings are capturing? We did not cover this yet.
– Did the scientific projections in the LTCP account for the results of climate change? We eventually will ask questions about this.
– Bond-Lorraine Sewer – Katia feels that it is very important DEP Alicia West – Appears DEP will run the sewage from Smith to the canal northwards to the Pumping Station, while they run the storm water from that area south where it will be dumped into the canal at Public Place. Design planned to go to DDC by year’s end. 9/16 Joan sent questions to DEP. Andrea said, at the General CAG meeting that the north flowing CSO pipe will be (obviously) underground and will flow down, not uphill, and will not empty into the flushing tunnel. Another long discussion about Bond-Lorraine map. Will the streets be torn up everywhere there is an arrow on that map? We definitely ultimately want a community presentation. Wrote to Alicia and discussed with Alicia after this meeting. Supposedly CB6 has asked, GOTF has asked, we have now asked, too. She will get back to me. I will follow up with her.
Addendum: E-Mails sent & responses
A: Canal Monitoring and reporting
From: Joan Rodriguez
To: Alicia H. West
Cc: WQ
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 at 08:04:01 PM EDT
Subject: Real time monitoring of Gowanus Canal Waters
In light of the recent court decision requiring DEP to report out CSO events (Matter of Riverkeeper v. New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2026 NY Slip Op 03444, 2d Dept), the Gowanus Water Quality Committee would like an assurance that these reports will be made available to the public in the very near future. Please share information as to where we can access this data specifically for the Gowanus Canal. (See requirements set forth below.)
We would like DEP to deploy monitors along the canal/outfalls (storm-event focused) and publish results (e.g., open data/dashboard) with public health context, including, but not limited to, at the Bond Street and 22nd Street Outflows.
In addition, the waters of the Gowanus should be monitored daily for enterococcus bacteria levels and O2 levels as the current SC designation for the waters of the canal demand at least a level 3 rating.
REQUIREMENTS PER THE COURT’S DECISION
The same notification shall also be provided within the same timeframe to the general public . . . through appropriate electronic media, including, but not limited to, electronic mail or voice communication as determined by” the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter DEC) (ECL 17-0826-a[2]). The required information to be distributed, “to the extent knowable with existing systems and models,” includes “the volume and treated state of the discharge,” “the date and time of the discharge,” “the expected duration of the discharge,” “a brief description of the steps being taken to contain the discharge except for wet weather combined sewer overflow discharges,” “the location of the discharge, with the maximum level of specificity possible,” and “the reason for the discharge” (id. § 17-0826-a[1][a]-[f]). SPRTKA further provides that DEC “shall promulgate rules and regulations that are necessary for the implementation of this section” (id. § 17-0826-a[4]).
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(b)(2)(ii)(b), “[a]s soon as possible, but no later than four hours from discovery of the discharge, owners and operators of [publicly owned treatment works] and [publicly owned sewer systems] must notify the general public of untreated or partially treated sewage discharges, including combined sewer overflows, to waters of the State except underground waters, through appropriate electronic media as determined by [DEC].” The reports shall, “at a minimum, include to the extent knowable with existing systems and models,” among other things, “the date and time of discovery of the discharge and a brief description of the reason for the discharge,” “the location of the discharge including the receiving water effected by the discharge,” “the estimated volume and treated state (untreated or partially treated) of the discharge at the time of the report,” and “the expected duration of the discharge and the total expected volume of the discharge” (id. § 750-2.7[b][2][i][a]-[c], [e]).
City does not comment on pending litigation and City has asked for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals.
B: Bond-Lorraine
From: Joan Rodriguez
To: Alicia H. West
cc: WQ
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 at 07:56:09 PM EDT
Subject: Bond-Lorraine Sewer Plan
At two recent Gowanus community meetings the issue of the Bond-Lorraine Sewer came up. I was told at the Gowanus Oversight Task Force Meeting that there is currently NO funding for replacement of the Bond-Lorraine Sewer in the City’s budget. The CAG Water Quality Committee seeks information regarding the City’s plan to replace the Bond-Lorraine Sewer including, but not limited to:
From where will the funding for sealing & replacement of the Bond-Lorraine sewer be found?
The Gowanus Community Advisory Group was informed at a CAG General Meeting that EPA believed developers were funding the work on Bond-Lorraine.
If that is so, are developers sealing the old sewer AND building the new one? To what extent is this envisioned to be DEP contracted work as opposed to developer work?
Has DEP has provided specs to the Department of Design and Construction to put this work out to bid?
What is the anticipated time line for completion of:
sealing of the current Bond-Lorraine sewer and
construction of a new sewer assuming the old Bond-Lorraine sewer will be replaced (in the same place or elsewhere)?
If it will be replaced elsewhere, where exactly?
Alicia’s response July 31:
They state that they intend to eliminate the old brick Bond-Loraine sewer, including the section under Public Place:
“As presented at the 6/9 town hall, DEP is planning to address sewer back-ups that happen when rainstorms overwhelm the sewers west of the canal. We are looking at installing new dedicated storm sewers that will drain rainwater off the street and free up capacity in the combined sewer during rainstorms. The combined sewer (“Bond-Lorraine”) beneath the Gowanus Green development site will ultimately be sealed and abandoned in place.
DEP funds capital sewer work with utility funds, ie. water bills. DEP will fund the project and DDC will complete the design and construction. We plan to turn the project over to DDC for full design by the end of the year. The developers are not responsible for this work. I’m including below a drawing that illustrates where the new dedicated storm sewers are planned as well as the realignment of the combined sewers.”
Emailed Alicia West:
From: [email protected]
To: Alicia H. West, Aaron Fischer
Cc: Eymund Diegel, Erica Eliason, Mark Yarish, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Sep 13, 2026, 2:37 PM
Hi, Alicia:
We reviewed your response to our questions about the Bond-Lorraine Sewer and the plans to abandon it in place. A number of questions resulted as we are greatly puzzled by this plan.
Question 1: Is DEP now planning not to repair or rebuild the neighborhood’s most important sewer – the Bond Lorraine sewer main? It appears that DEP is instead proposing that sewage flow contents of the formerly gravity fed 72″ diameter sewer main will now be pumped uphill to the pump station with a 33 ” diameter main on the floor of the 144″ diameter Gowanus Flushing tunnel? (see explanatory diagrams below as per interpretation of current 2026 proposal).
Question 2: OR – Will there be a new Pump Station at the end of Bond Street within the known flood zone?
Question 3: Given that the 72″ sewer pipe collapse is located directly under a private individual’s industrial building, and was illegally replaced with a substandard 56″ concrete reinforced pipe in 1977, why doesn’t the DEP ensure that the pipe be repaired and upgraded?
Question 4: If we ALREADY are dealing with undersized sewer pipes, please explain the engineering logic of further reducing sewage main capacity from 72″ to 33 ” diameter? (see DEP CSO Flow estimate increase data map below of sewage overflows caused by current substandard pipe diameters)
Question 5: Given that the City’s pump stations have a known history of mechanical failure (Flushing tunnel pump station from 1960-1999) and Butler Street Pump Station (2012 Sandy Flooding) – what guarantees can the City give that mechanical pump stations are a better long term solution than gravity fed sewage with minimal dependence on pump stations?
Question 6: The PRP’s are mandated to address the coal tar plume at Public Place via excavation, ISS, and collection wells. Can’t DEP and/or the PRPs at Public Place excavate a 20 foot wide long trench for a new reinforced 72″ (or larger) sewer main along the existing Bond Lorraine sewer main? The new trench and collector wells would help reduce coal tar seepage into the canal as required by the Superfund Record of Decision.
The Water Quality Committee is concerned that DEP is avoiding construction of a proper gravity fed main at or near Public Place when the community around Public Place has long been dealing with flooding. Not only does Public Place need flood protection, the existing community does, too. How will moving CSO’s from the entire Carroll Gardens area uphill to the pump station work to provide that necessary protection?
I have attached the July 2026 map that you provided and also have attached maps we have available to aid in this discussion. Hope they help.
The DEP’s own data shows that existing Sewer Main infrastructure is woefully below pipe diameter capacity, 35 million gallons per year of sewage overflows at the end of Bond Street (RH 35) and 79 million gallons per year at the end of Smith Street (RH 31) Blue lines represent general direction of estimated stormwater flows and historic streams.
Thanks,
Joan Salome-Rodriguez
CAG Water Quality Committee
GOWANUS 2024 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW ESTIMATES BY WATERSHED
data for CSO volumes source: https://a860-gpp.nyc.gov/concern/parent/kk91fr00m/file_sets/wp988q56w
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE EXPLANATIONS
2013 – Inspection of 33 inch diameter Gowanus forced main in the Gowanus Flushing Tunnel, during mapping of “ghost” streams and springs diverted into city sewer mains
2013 Neoprene joints on the 33″ diameter Gowanus forced main observed to be leaking. How will this affect leakage of pressurized sewage now flowing back into Gowanus canal via the Flushing Tunnel?
2012 December 15 – Public Lab / GCC / Dredgers Canoe Club balloon photography of sewer plumes at 3rd St Bridge caused by Butler Street pump station mechanical failure during Hurricane Sandy flooding
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: West, Alicia H.
To: Joan Rodriguez
Cc: WQ committee
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 at 06:02:42 PM EDT
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] CAG Water Quality Committee follow up questions about Bond-Lorraine and DEP’s new plan
Joan,
Yes, there seems to be confusion. To clarify, we are proposing to increase sewer capacity in this neighborhood. Combined sewers can become overwhelmed during rainstorms and that can result in sewer back-ups, street flooding and overflows. Our plan will provide new dedicated storm relief sewers that drain rainwater off the street and keep it out of the combined sewer system entirely. We will also reroute the path of sanitary sewage so that it does not cross the Gowanus Green development site. The majority of the neighborhood’s sanitary sewage will be routed south through large sewers on Smith Street. All drainage will be by gravity; no pump stations are proposed.
Best,
Alicia
C: CSO’s and RE-DREDGING
From: Joan Rodriguez
To: Alicia H. West
CC: WQ
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 at 07:47:17 PM EDT
Subject: What is the plan once the CSO tanks go live?
We know CSO’s will impact the delicate ecosystem the community is trying to rebuild in and around the Gowanus Canal. Even when the CSO tanks go live, CSO’s will continue to be released into the Gowanus Canal.
What will the City do if the tanks are insufficient to maintain the current SC status of the Canal?
How much sedimentation will the City allow?
At what locations?
What is the trigger for the City to re-dredge?
Does the City have a re-dredging plan?
If re-dredging is required, how will the City prevent damage to the current remedy/cap?
What methods, monitoring/verification, approvals, enforcement and repair/notification steps would apply if cap disturbance occurs?
Is there a long-term control plan for the CSO tanks? Has it been updated to address the current SC classification of the waters of the Gowanus Canal? Does the LTCP address any of the questions above?
Alicia’s response [bold and italics added]: The Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) for the Gowanus Canal was accepted and approved by NYSDEC in 2017. The LTCP recognized that—based on the upgrades to infrastructure in the area completed in 2014, such as the upgrade to the Gowanus pumping station and its force main that conveys sewage to the treatment plant, and the planned future work—no further action was required. This completed work reduced CSOs by approximately 200 million gallons a year.
The combined sewer overflow tanks were mandated by the EPA as a part of the superfund remedy as a requirement of CERCLA; they are not a part of the LTCP. With the combined capacity of 12 million gallons, the tanks will further reduce the amount of combined sewage overflow into the canal. In fact, the projected CSO volume reduction exceeds what is required by the EPA’s Record of Decision.
Our modeling projects a 62% reduction in combined sewer overflows with the new combined sewer overflow tanks, full rezoning buildout, and new stormwater rule in place. That’s a reduction of 163 million gallons from a baseline of 263 million gallons a year to 100 million gallons a year.
If directed by the EPA, the Superfund potential responsible parties are required to perform dredging of sedimentation in accordance with an EPA-approved work plan. Sedimentation enters the canal with the tides, through outfalls and also through the flushing tunnel.
Please let me know if you have other questions.
Best,
Alicia
If the LTCP does address the questions above, at some future date could you give a presentation on these issues at a General CAG meeting?
Victoria’s response: She referred to Tom Mongelli. Joan followed up 8/9/2026
Tom Mongelli’s responses:
Below are a series of questions regarding the CSO tanks and effluents that were sent by the CAG and forwarded to you by Victoria. I’ve copied them here for your convenience. Can you please send answers? I realize some of these questions seem directed to the City of NY but I assume EPA is the entity that will have to enforce whether or not the City does the work described, such as re-dredging, so please respond from EPA’s perspective.
We know CSO’s will impact the delicate ecosystem the community is trying to rebuild in and around the Gowanus Canal. Even when the CSO tanks go live, CSO’s will continue to be released into the Gowanus Canal.
What will the City do if the tanks are insufficient to maintain the current SC status of the Canal?
Construction of the CSO retention tanks is a component of the remedy selected in EPA’s ROD. The CSO tanks will capture the majority of CSO events from the two largest outfalls. The purpose of the tanks is not to capture all of the CSO, but rather contaminated CSO solids, primarily associated with the “first flush” of water during a CSO event. NYCDEP’s 2015 LTCP, as approved by NYSDEC, considers the benefits to water quality that the tanks may provide but does not require construction or operation of the CSO tanks. Questions about whether the LTCP will be updated to address the change in water quality status should be directed to NYSDEC.
How much sedimentation will the City allow?
With respect to the cleanup plan selected in the ROD, there is no set amount of allowable sedimentation that would trigger additional remediation. Any additional remediation would be triggered by whether environmental sediment quality factors identified in the ROD are exceeded.
At what locations?
See above.
What is the trigger for the City to re-dredge?
Under EPA’s ROD, there are several recontamination limits based on environmental sediment quality that would be the trigger for maintenance dredging. The most notable trigger is sediment exceeding 20 ppm of PAHs. EPA is requiring the City to perform sampling to monitor sediment quality. In a letter dated March 30, 2026, EPA notified the City of the completion of capping in RTA1. Under the terms of the 2021 UAO, the City will have one year from the date of that letter to begin in-canal sediment sampling.
Does the City have a re-dredging plan?
If sediment data shows that maintenance dredging is needed, EPA would direct the appropriate responsible parties to prepare a maintenance dredging plan under the requirements of EPA’s existing enforcement orders.
If re-dredging is required, how will the City prevent damage to the current remedy/cap?
It is anticipated that maintenance dredging would be done hydraulicly. This has already been performed at the head of the canal in connection with work to address sheening there, and can be done without damage to the cap.
What methods, monitoring/verification, approvals, enforcement and repair/notification steps would apply if cap disturbance occurs?
These questions would be addressed in a future maintenance dredging plan as discussed above.
Is there a long-term control plan for the CSO tanks? Has it been updated to address the current SC classification of the waters of the Gowanus Canal? Does the LTCP address any of the questions above?
As mentioned in an earlier response, questions about the status of the LTCP should be directed to NYCDEP and/or NYSDEC.
If the LTCP does address the questions above, at some future date could you give a presentation on these issues at a General CAG meeting?
LTCP issues are outside the scope of EPA’s Superfund CAG meetings, but NYCDEP and/or NYSDEC may be contacted to address these issues.
From: Joan Rodriguez
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 2:50 PM
To: Sacks, Victoria
Cc: Eymund Diegel
Subject: CAG Water Quality Committee Inquiry re: CSO’s/Long Term Control Plan
In a letter dated March 30, 2026, EPA notified the City of the completion of capping in RTA1. It appears the City is required to monitoring sediment quality in the canal.
When does that requirement start?
As you’ll see in the attached letter. NYCDEP is required to begin sampling within one year of the notification of the completion of capping in RTA 1 (i.e., on or before March 30, 2027). NYCDEP has notified EPA that they tentatively plan to conduct the initial round of sediment sampling during the week of October 5th.
How often does the City have to sample?
NYCDEP is required to sample annually.
What are all the triggers for the City to have to clean up sediment?
Results from the sediment sampling will be provided to EPA for review and will be compared to the remediation goals (RGs) identified in the Record of Decision. Exceedances of the RGs could prompt further investigation and/or action, potentially including maintenance dredging.
Please share a copy of the March 30, 2026 letter to the City.
See attached.
[HERE’s the TEXT of the LETTER]: Via E-mail Mr. Ron Weissbard, P.E. Director of Superfund New York City Department of Environmental Protection [email protected] Re: Gowanus Canal – Sediment Sampling Dear Mr. Weissbard: This letter serves to notify the City of New York (City) of the completion of capping in Remediation Target Area (RTA) 1 of the Gowanus Canal on August 7, 2024. Pursuant to Paragraph 73(e) of the Administrative Order for Remedial Action, Removal Action, and Remedial Design issued to the City in March 2021, “In-Canal monitoring consistent with the [EPA-approved Monitoring] Plan shall begin one year after EPA notifies Respondent that capping is completed in RTA 1.” Therefore, the City’s in-canal monitoring should begin within one year following the date of this letter, consistent with the EPA-approved Monitoring Workplan for CSO Solids and Surface Sediments in RTA 1 dated January 2023. At your earliest convenience, please provide an anticipated schedule for the performance of the initial baseline sampling and the periodic sampling to be conducted annually thereafter including timelines for the submittal of validated data and any associated data summary reports. EPA is available to discuss the above matter upon request. Sincerely, Thomas Mongelli Remedial Project Manager cc. B. Carr, USEPA W. Sainsbury, USEPA M. Sivak, USEPA K. Clarke, NYCDEP C. King, NYC Law H. Meltzer, NYC Law
Followed up 9/17 to ask whether the City responded with a schedule.
D: NAPL leaks at head of Canal
— Forwarded Message —–
From: Joan Rodriguez
To: Victoria Sacks
Cc: full CAG
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 at 10:18:39 AM EDT
Subject: NAPL leaks and remediation at the head of the Canal
Good morning, Victoria and Tom:
At last night’s General CAG meeting Tom reported out answers to the questions below. I’m not sure if the last question was answered. I asked if we could have those answers in writing since he was reading them anyway. Would you please provide the answers in a reply to this email? We would greatly appreciate that.
Thanks,
Joan Salome-Rodriguez
Gowanus CAG Water Quality Committee
EPA’s Response from Victoria Sacks 8/3/2026
– Why did NAPL appear after the supplemental dredging, and do EPA and the Trust know where it is coming from?
– The plan seems focused on sealing pathways near the Douglass Street end, but it would be helpful to understand whether the source has been fully identified.
Even a drop of NAPL can produce large sheens. The basis for this work is that there is a pathway below the closure sheet connecting the old bulkhead to the new bulkhead as the closure sheet does not go as deep as the bulkhead wall. This work will in essence, extend the closure sheet to the depth of the bullkhead wall effectively closing this pathway. The Trust is also planning to repair the façade of the street end as there may be preferential pathways where small amounts of sheens can be produced. If we find that there continue to be large sheens, we will need to evaluate the work and do more.
– Is this work expected to permanently stop contamination from moving into the Canal, or is it more of a containment measure? The plan includes jet grouting, AquaBlok, structural concrete, and sealing cracks, but the community should understand how success will be measured and how long the remedy is expected to last.
The work is expected to minimize sheening at the head end of the canal in the vicinity of Douglass Street end.
– How will the work be monitored while it is happening? Since the work involves contaminated material, divers, barges, grout, and sediment disturbance, it would be helpful to know what water-quality monitoring, visual inspection records, odor controls, and public updates will be provided.
Monitoring will follow the monitoring plans and health and safety plans that were approved for the remedial action work in RTA1. This is a continuation of that RTA1 work.
– What happens if more contamination is found than expected? The plan suggests that inspection findings could lead to changes in the scope, so it would be useful to know who makes those decisions, whether EPA approval is required, and whether the public will be informed.
If this mitigative action does not work, we will reevaluate and develop a new plan to deal with these sheens. EPA approval is required. The community will be informed as this develops at monthly CAG meetings
– Will the community receive before-and-after documentation, including photos, videos, maps, inspection results, and a plain-language explanation of whether the action worked?
The main concern is that this not be treated only as a technical repair. The community needs transparency about the source of the contamination, the risks during the work, how success will be measured, and what will happen if NAPL returns.
There will be a report documenting the work. EPA can share this with the community
– If they find lots of NAPL does a collection well make sense at the source? Who would monitor?
This is something that will be evaluated if and when it comes up.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Mongelli, Thomas
To: Joan Rodriguez
Cc: Eymund Diegel
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 at 01:59:52 PM EDT
Subject: RE: CAG Water Quality Committee Inquiry re: CSO’s/Long Term Control Plan
Good Afternoon Joan,
The EPA’s March 30, 2026 letter to NYCDEP is attached. Responses to the rest of your questions are below. Please let me know if you need anything else.
-Tom
Thomas Mongelli
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Ave, Edison, NJ 08837
(212) 637-4256