The Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group (CAG) is meeting tonight (Feb. 11) with USEPA to discuss the Superfund Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for the Gowanus Canal, at 6:30 pm at PS 58, 330 Smith Street, Brooklyn. Members of the public are welcome. In addition to Q & A, EPA intends to clarify issues raised at EPA’s recent public meetings. A list of questions that have been generated by the CAG and members of the public is below (please note that this list is significantly expanded from the list sent in the last meeting announcement). The goal tonight is to answer as many of these as possible, as well as additional questions. Schedule of other Gowanus clean-up meetings is at bottom of this message.
Feb. 11 Agenda
6:30 – 6:40 Review of agenda and meeting guidelines
6:40 – 7:00 EPA presentation to clarify issues raised at the 1/23 and 1/24 public meetings
7:00 – 7:10 Q & A: Superfund Timeline & Future Opportunities for Public Involvement
7:10 – 7:40 Q & A: Combined Sewer Overflows
7:40 – 8:10 Q & A: Red Hook GBX Facility
8:10 – 8:35 Q & A: Other Topics
8:35 – 8:50 Questions from the public
8:50 – 8:55 Brief discussion on any next steps for CAG engagement with EPA
8:55 – 9:00 CAG business – Outreach Committee proposal
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FROM CAG 1/22 MEETING, AND SUBMITTALS BY PUBLIC AND CAG MEMBERS:
SUPERFUND DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Once the Record of Decision comes out, how much influence and participation in decision making will community have during remedial design?
What is the expected timeline for the rest of the clean-up process? Does EPA have any guaranteed timing that anything will be done to complete the clean-up?
What is EPA’s process for assessing the 9 criteria, especially community acceptance?
CSOs
If retention basins are installed for the 2 main CSO outfalls, could that cause other CSOs to overflow as a result?
For CSO control, is EPA considering upland tanks (such as smaller tanks in Park Slope) as possibly more effective than downstream retention tanks?
What will the impact of CERCLA mandated reductions in CSOs be on water quality?
Technical clarification for Thomas Greene park: the state’s plan calls for capping the park, but the PRAP conceptually suggests the option of a CSO tank under the park. How are these reconciled?
The PRAP states that ‘it is presumed’ that in-line tanks will be constructed to capture CSO discharges, what does ‘it is presumed’ actually mean? Is CSO control part of the Superfund remedy?
Will the improvements to the CSOs be a part of the remedy specified in the Record of Decision? What size tanks will be required by the ROD?
The Clean Water Act requires a minimum of 85% elimination of CSO discharges. Why is NYC being allowed to get by with only 20% capture as described in the PRAP?
The PRAP is confusing when it states that 34% of the current discharges will be captured by current improvements and another 20% by the tanks. What does that mean overall in terms of how many gallons of sewage will continue to be discharged on an annual basis to the canal?
If the tanks capture 20% of the discharge and that fraction contains between 30% and 60% of the PAH contaminants, doesn’t that mean 80% of the sewage containing 40% to 70% of the PAH contaminants will still be discharged to the canal? How is that addressing the problem?
How do the tanks address pathogens, bacteria and viruses in the canal water? If Hurricane Sandy was to hit after the tanks were constructed will we still end up with pathogen laden water in our basements?
The PRAP specifies that interim controls will be needed until the tanks are constructed. What are the interim controls and will they be specified in the Record of Decision?
The PRAP says the City Long Term Control Plan is to be out in 2015 and that it will be developed with public participation. When is the public participation scheduled? What is the projected schedule for completion of the tanks once the plan is completed?
When discussing percentage flow reduction, please tell us what the current flow volume is and what the expected final volume will be. Please explain how these two numbers were calculated.
When discussing contaminant reduction percentage, please tell us what the current contaminant load is and how it was calculated, as well as the final contaminant load.
The City has been under various Clean Water Act Consent Orders to address the CSOs since 1990. It has taken them 25 years just to retrofit the Flushing tunnel. Why should we believe that they are going to move any more quickly to address these additional, more expensive issues in the Canal
RED HOOK FACILITY – GBX
Red Hook Facility description and overview issues:
What kind of facility is it: treatment, disposal, energy generation? These are all very different and have different impacts. Who has the details – GBX or EPA? What is EPA’s role?
Is the GBX facility something that EPA is proposing, or does it go beyond what EPA is proposing/needs for the Gowanus clean-up?
What would be the dimensions of the proposed decontamination facility?
How much land currently under water is proposed to be filled in?
How, if at all, are post-Sandy concerns being addressed for the GBX facility? What would be the result of a new “Sandy”-type surge on the facility and surrounding area? Winds in the area are constantly increasing in intensity. How does this reality impact on the proposed facility?
Red Hook Facility – Materials to be processed, transportation and storage:
Exactly how much toxic material is being suggested for decontamination at the proposed Red Hook plant?
What is the composition of the material?
How would “hot spots’ with even heavier concentrations of toxic materials such as mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. be detected and removed?
How would the toxic material be shipped to Red Hook?
Would it be enclosed in containers?
How would it be unloaded?
How would it be stored?
Red Hook Facility – Operations/treatment
How would the material be dewatered?
Where would the toxic liquid go?
What would be the process of decontamination?
What would then happen to the material?
Is the material to be combined with fly ash and concrete and then used to fill in part of Gowanus Bay?
Will it use an independent contractor?
Will owner or operator take classes in handling toxic materials?
Red Hook Facility – Impacts:
What are the impacts of the proposed GBX facility: environmental, social, economic, flooding?
Would there be any release of polluted air, smoke or water as a result of the process?
If so, exactly what pollution, and how much would it be?
Is fly ash considered a hazardous substance?
Does the owner have any past environmental violations?
GBX (the owner of the property adjacent to the ballfields) has previously had conflicts with at least two government agencies. It is important that they are not overstated or exaggerated — but we should be provided with the facts — especially when this involves and impacts upon the environment.
GBX also proposes building a cement and asphalt plant on their now enlarged site. What type and amount of additional pollution – including dust and foul-smelling odors – would be generated?
What amount of heavy truck-traffic would be generated next to the park areas on an annual basis?
Red Hook Facility – Other questions
Where has this been done previously?
Will the GBX facility be a one shot deal, i.e., is it just for the Gowanus? Or will it handle materials from other remediation sites in the area? Will they also be barging in debris from other areas? Does that create more jobs?
How/who will regulate it?
What legally binding guarantees can be given that the proposed decontamination facility will be fully dismantled after its Canal-related efforts are completed?
What time frame are we talking about, from start to finish, with regard to the proposed facility, including design and construction operating periods?
OTHER TOPICS
Why was the 1st street basin included for reclaiming as part of the canal?
Why wasn’t the 5th street basin included for reclaiming as part of the canal?
How many acres of wetlands will have to be built for wetlands mitigation? How will the First Street basin and its restoration to open waters factor into that? Could it be used as a wetlands bank? Or the 5th Street Basin, if it were to be restored?
Can treated and stabilized dredge material be used for construction of flood control barriers?
Jobs: How many jobs created from the clean-up and from the GBX facility? Can EPA be specific about what types of jobs?
Could archaeological impacts during dredging delay the process?
Clarification of temporary versus future controls?
Long-term monitoring: what will be the metrics for measuring recontamination?
How, if at all are Post-Sandy concerns being factored into the PRAP?
Drinking water concerns: I am a Gowanus resident, who has tested my own tap water with the hardware store water testing kits and my tap water has tested high for pesticides and bacteria. Is there a potential exposure pathway from local groundwater reaching our drinking water supply? Given that the levels of bacterial and industrial contamination are so high in the canal, have there been or will there be any testing by the EPA into nearby residents and businesses tap water for cross-contamination?
Intra-Agency and PRP Communications: How closely is the EPA working with NYSDEC on oversight of the Former Fulton MGP site? What is the level of dialogue and cooperation between EPA and the PRP’s, namely National Grid?
National Grid and the former Fulton MGP: When will National Grid’s feasibility study for the Former Fulton MGP site be released? National Grid has been investigating the former Fulton MGP for several years before the EPA ever placed the area on the NPL, so why is there a temporary work plan for National grid to “expedite” an interim remedial measure at this site, as opposed to just moving forward with a cohesive clean up plan now? How can the public be assured that the DEC and National Grid final remedial work will take place at all, let alone in a timely manner in conjunction with the EPA plans?
The Thomas Greene Playground & Double D Pool: The National Grid RI indicates that Parcel #2 of the Former Fulton MGP site, known to the community as the Thomas Greene Playground & Double D Pool is a highly contaminated portion of the site, with tar saturated soils and petroleum impacts from a former 500,000-gallon oil tank, which literally sat beneath the pool where the proposed retention tank may now go. The RI observed petroleum and tar impacts within all Parcel II test pits. Does the EPA agree with National Grid’s Remedial Investigation Report for the former Fulton MGP site that the “impacted soils and sediments pose no risk of harm to human health?” The Thomas Greene playground has just undergone renovation and is scheduled to open this March. Were the shallow soils with tar-related impacts, showing VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, BTEX, PAHs, and metal concentrations beneath the playground excavated and removed before the renovation? Why or why not?
Upcoming Gowanus Canal-related meetings:
Feb. 12: CAG WQ/Technical Committee, 6:30 pm, location TBD.
Feb. 13: EPA PRAP public meeting, 6:30 pm, PS 15, 71 Sullivan Street in Red Hook.
Feb. 26: CAG Monthly General Meeting, 6:30 pm, location TBD.
Feb. 28: NYCDEP Long Term Control Plan Citywide Modeling Workshop, 6 pm – 8 pm, US Customs House Auditorium, 1 Bowling Green. RSVP: ltcp@dep.nyc.gov
Jeff Edelstein, P.E.
Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group Facilitator
http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/gowanus/