Our Meeting with New York State DEC/Department of Environmental Conservation
Is the NYS DEP taking a major dump in Carroll Gardens?
Are they pooh poohing the toxic poo poo in the Gowanus Canal, turning a blind eye to the many health risks?
WHY would they do that to us?
On
Tuesday Dec 4th, the PS 32 auditorium was filled with community
residents who came to participate along with the Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group's (CAG's) Water Quality/Technical Committee. In a
discussion and Q&A session with the NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation (the DEC) regarding their role in the clean
up of the Canal.
Although originally scheduled
as a CAG meeting (which are always open to the Public anyway) this
meeting became a more formal opportunity to allow questioning
from the public through pre written index card questions. Unfortunately,
the DEC only had a very brief amount of time to share with us, so
questions handed in from the audience were really NOT addressed. (Our
understanding is that they will be eventually answered by the DEC. If the
Q&A's are made available to us, and they should be, we will post
them at the CORD blog as soon as we receive them.)
However, the CAG members were able to get several concerns across to the DEC personnel .
The
State sent Jim Tierney, Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources from the DEC
along with Gary Kline, Jeff Myers, Robert Schick, also from DEC. DEC
has a great deal to do with the approval of the EPA's Proposed Plan
since "state acceptance" is one of the criteria EPA must meet.
Region
2 EPA has been nothing short of superb in their handling of this entire
project. They have met (and at
times) exceeded their own deadlines, have provided assistance to the
needs of the Community Advisory Group and have managed to keep the
entire community informed and engaged throughout the process-- up to
and-including post Sandy...
It has been a
different story with the City of New York's Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). They have challenged, plain old fought and stalled the
Superfund designation at each and every opportunity. Partially, their
stance can be understood. They are, after all, one of the biggest
polluters of the Canal and therefore, by Federal Law, required to
finance the improvements and remedies that the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) proposes and implements.
We suppose that some could argue that their response is no different than
any other defendant---except that by not amicably complying with the
EPA's proposals, they are seriously short changing our
community---constituents and taxpayers of this very same entity. In
effect, the DEC is legally and politically harming we who live and work near near the Gowanus Canal by challenging the EPA.
Their
reasoning? The DEC claims they already have plans in place that would make significant
changes to the Gowanus Canal. These plans are very costly and what we community members are
hoping the EPA might be proposing, would be a waste of additional money
since the City already has the problem 'covered.'
It
is true that Mayor Bloomberg's administration has some CITY-WIDE plans
that are both admirable and helpful in solving some of the sewage and
sewer problems that we share with our fellow city dwellers. But they are
simply NOT ENOUGH to make significant impacts on the Gowanus. And more
importantly, by implementing only these methods, instead of the more
comprehensive plan, which we have very clearly and repeatedly requested,
we are not only deprived of the type of environmental and public
health
benefits that we deserve, we risk the re-contamination of the Canal
AFTER the EPA's very expensive cleanup is complete.
Now
New York State's position, handled by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (the DEC--the folks that came to visit on Tuesday) is a bit
different from both the City (DEP) and the Feds (EPA). They
are supposed to be the guys who enforce something called the Clean Water
Act---a decades old law that requires each city and municipality to
clean up their waterbodies and stop raw sewage from going into them.
The
DEC has had decades to get the many polluted waterways throughout the
state cleaned up. It is a huge, expensive job that apparently must be
done in phases---so in order to keep all their i's dotted and all their t's
crossed, the State goes into legal/technical
discussions/negotiations with different cities (including ours) which results in a series of short and
long term plans designed to consistently improve water quality. When
State and City agree, something called a Consent Order is issued, and
the city or municipality is allotted time to get the new plan in
action in order to achieve the improved water quality. These usually are
granted for very extended periods of time.
How
many of you remember Cas Holloway, then DEP Commissioner, now a Deputy
Mayor, coming before us, talking up and trying to sell us the Green
Infrastructure (GI) plan? He clearly asked our community to "get on
board and tell the State" what a good idea we all thought it was...
.How
many of us would have understood that were it not for a well placed question
from one of our neighbors---that what Commissioner Holloway was asking
us to do was to sabotage ourselves......and to help the City get the Consent
Order (albeit a perfectly legal agreement) to delay cleaning up the water
properly.? It sure seems now, in hindsight, as
though the City of New York was well aware at that point that they would use that
very same Consent Order granted partially on the merits of this GI plan
as an excuse to avoid doing more for the Gowanus Canal's clean up under their
responsibilities as a Superfund PRP (a polluter).
New
York City has entered into one of these consent agreements with the
DEC. The agreement includes the improvements the City is counting on
like the (GI) plan and the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) --which by its very name should give you a hint as to the timeframe on that one.
So ALL the city pieces are now in place....
The City has plans
which will help NEW YORK CITY OVERALL a bit with some sewer problems
and make a tiny dent in the deplorable conditions at the
Canal--conditions they, the City are responsible for and are now
required to correct under Superfund. Problem 'covered'.
EPA
Region 2 has explained to us that they are responsible for cleaning up
the highly toxic sediment on the bottom of the canal and to make sure
that additional toxic compounds do not enter the Canal through the lands
surrounding the Canal or through the pipes that run into the
canal----which includes the CSO discharges
The
thing is this....the Remedial Investigation and the Feasibility Study
conducted by the EPA as well as two different studies done by National
Grid, confirm that there are toxic compounds coming into the Canal
through those CSO's. The scientists at the EPA have
explained that there is a chemical bonding---almost a magnetic
relationship--between those toxic compounds and the solid wastes that
run through those CSO's.
When this happens,
the toxic compounds attach themselves to the solids, which find their
way to and stick to the bottom of the canal---building up---Once the
bottom of the canal has been cleaned and capped by the EPA---these
mounds of solids will just be newly deposited clumps of the very
hazardous materials the EPA spent somewhere in the neighborhood of
500,000,000 dollars cleaning up.
So logical thinking would be--let's try to capture as much of those chemically polluted solids as we can at their source and
hold them and release them in such a manner as they cannot build up and
recontaminate the Gowanus Canal. We clean and cap the bottom, we prevent
re-contamination through some sort of holding/retention system and we get
a truly significant reduction in the nasty pathogen levels running
through the heart of our neighborhood through that open sewer we call
the Gowanus Canal to boot. WIN WIN WIN situation all around. Right?
The City cries foul----no good---not necessary -- too much money----our plan is good enough.........
Now
here's where the State of NY comes in......with their ability to
forestall/ slow down and generally put a crimp on the cleanup....and
Tuesday night despite saying that they are in full support of the EPA's
efforts to clean up the bottom of the Canal and get this done quickly:
that they understand the problems with the CSO's, that they recognize
the well documented incredibly high pathogen concentrations---they are
concerned about the cost to the taxpayers of the additional work that
would be required to truly clean up and protect the remedy in the
Canal.
For a moment, it seemed as though Cas Holloway and the City of New York was standing in front of the PS 32 auditorium.....
Why
are they so concerned about our tax dollars spent that way but not
concerned about our tax dollars literally being flushed down the toilet
when the EPA clean up is compromised?--which is what will happen if the
cso's are not addressed because of New York State's resistance.
Their
actions and position can result in a "sort of" cleanup for us -- a
so-so-- cleanup.
In other words, a "it's good enough for you" job that will build in a never ending
incoming supply of toxic compounds growing on the bottom, unacceptably
high pathogen concentration levels and lots of additional expensive
maintenance for years to come.
Now in
fairness, Deputy Commissioner Tierney rightfully states that this is new
territory. We have never had a Superfund site in New York City before.
So doesn't that mean that the same old same old does not have to apply? Our
neighborhood has never before had this great a shot at getting that Gowanus Canal and
all of the health hazards it presents to every one of us finally
addressed--why isn't the State jumping on this opportunity?
Our impression of the DEC's position on Tuesday night
was that a somewhat more cleaned up Canal is achievable without the
additional costs that the EPA has indicated in its Feasibility Study
are necessary. It certainly won't be as good
as what we want, won't be as effective in maintaining the integrity of
the EPA cleanup---but they may just have to decide that way
anyway--because that seemed to be the game plan all along......Neatly
parse and clearly cut-up the responsibility--EPA
gets the bottom, State gets the uplands, and the City gets a Consent
Order.....
The Superfund status
of the Canal separates it from other water bodies in the City--hell its
contents and condition separate it from any waterbody in the whole
country---so it makes sense that some additional monies should be spent
there---Why should a choice have to be made? So we must begin to really think about the following and ask ourselves some questions.....
Obviously
a clean Canal benefits the Gowanus, Carroll Gardens, Cobble HIll, Red
Hook, Boerum Hill and Park Slope communities----that's a whole lot of
people.
So who would complain or object to this goal and why?
----Why was the plan as described by the DEC several times so neatly parsed out?
----Why the insistence to stick to
this original plan even though it is hideously apparent that things changed along the way?
---After
all of the EPA studies and data are in--clearly a more aggressive
approach than previously thought is necessary
---Who does it serve to
insist on the old one?
Should New York State decide to go with a good for today but ridiculously unfit for tomorrow kind of decision......Who benefits and/or prospers? And who would get sold down the open sewer? Think about it. The
City is spending money throughout the entire city to pay for the GI
and LTCP---the Canal is not getting a lion's share---just its
proportionate share of those
monies. Why
are both things---a comprehensive, well maintained remediation of the
Canal and a CITY WIDE Green Infrastructure and Long Term Control Plan
impossible to achieve at the same time?
As
a final comment---the Federal Government has granted the EPA a tool,
the ability to supersede the authority of New York State's Clean Water
Act with something called, CERCLA/
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm
THE
CAG has already asked Mr Matty
Stanislaus, EPA Deputy Commissioner, National Headquaters in Washington
DC if he recognized the authority of CERCLA over the Clean Water Act.
He indicated to us in a teleconference that he did indeed. The
CAG took t a step further and asked Deputy Commissioner Stanislaus
along with EPA Region 2 top management to implement that CERCLA
authority and take over the water quality situation here in our Gowanus
Canal.
Flexing CERCLA's muscle
here would shut down the State's authority----We have not heard back
from Mr Stanislaus yet. We are hoping that he is seriously considering
it.
The EPA told us at our last general
CAG meeting that the PROPOSED PLAN should be out for public comment by
the end of this year.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. SUPPORT YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. MAKE SURE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD.
LET THE EPA KNOW THAT YOU WANT THIS THING DONE RIGHT. IF IT
TAKES THE FEDS TO ENFORCE USING THEIR CERCLA AUTHORITY, SO BE IT.
WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED BUT YOU MUST PARTICIPATE.
We
are all taxpayers of the City and State of New York. This is our City.
This is our State and these deplorable conditions are not only unworthy
of the greatest city in the world--they are ILLEGAL.
EPA
Region 2 has studied and attacked this problem and has embraced our
community simultaneously. They are a refreshing reminder of how a large
government, bureaucratic agency can and should work for its citizens.
Let's start asking ourselves why the EPA, a large federal agency cares about us more than our local agencies.
Our local elected officials all signed on to a letter that basically said they did not think that the
city's proposed plans were enough to reach a clean safe Gowanus. Letter Link
Our
electeds know the City's plan is not enough, We know it's not enough.
Both the Feds and the State DEC know it's not enough-----
SO WHO AND WHAT is in more need of PROTECTION than US?
