Stories

What cost Gowanus Canal cleanup?

The EPA has asked the city to build a $78 million solution to sewage pollution, but the public price tag for the Superfund site could be far higher

The smell of sewage isn’t the only thing hanging over the Gowanus Canal as the Environmental Protection Agency begins public review of its proposed cleanup plan for the Superfund site.

One critical question lingering in the air is what exactly the City of New York will have to pay for its role in the cleanup. Also unknown: what measures the city’s Department of Environmental Protection will take to curb the raw sewage that continues to pour into the murky waters.

Photo: brainware3000/Flickr

It’s been nearly three years since the Environmental Protection Agency won out against the Bloomberg Administration in their competing efforts to take charge of the notoriously polluted Brooklyn canal. It became a national Superfund site in March 2010, much to the chagrin of NYC officials.

But the city will nevertheless play a central role in the future of the urban water body, because as the source of the sewage it is likely to be identified in the Superfund review as one of the polluters responsible for paying to clean the canal back to health.

Last week, the EPA held public meetings in Carroll Gardens and Red Hook, two of the communities flanking the canal, to roll out its proposed plan for cleaning up the toxic waters. For decades, all manner of industry — gas and chemical plants, oil refineries, paint factories, cement makers and tanneries — surrounded the two-mile-long, manmade canal, releasing chemicals and metals that now sit in unsightly sediment that the EPA describes as “black mayonnaise.” Covering the native sediment, it lays in accumulations that average 10 feet thick. Constant sewage overflows continue to contaminate the waters.

The EPA’s testing of the sludge not only revealed troubling levels of metals like lead, arsenic and mercury, but also polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — a group of chemicals banned several decades ago because of their health effects — and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chemicals that vaporize easily and have been linked to cancers and mutations. The PAHs have traveled all the way down into the canal’s natural sediment — the earth that was there before it was made into a canal — along with oil and solvents.

The EPA’s task under the Superfund program is to clean up the sediment to the point that it is no longer poses a risk to humans and animals, and to prevent future contamination. Its plan is to dredge all the toxic sediment in the canal and then create layers of sand and gravel to prevent contaminants from migrating up from the polluted bottom layer of native sediment into the waters above.

Based on the level of contamination, which varies throughout the canal, the agency would treat the sediment to the point that could be reused elsewhere, or just dispose it on site. Depending on which option the public and the EPA ultimately settle on, the agency estimates treatment and disposal of the sediment will cost between $179 million and $216 million.

All told, the EPA estimates that the price tag for the Gowanus cleanup will total between $467 million to $504 million — and under the law, those costs must be borne by the polluters.

Part of the EPA’s work when it takes on a Superfund project is to identify the parties responsible for the pollution so that those entities, rather than taxpayers, will pay for the cost of clean up. In this case, however, the city of New York is likely to be one of the responsible parties.

EPA spokespeople note that it is not unusual for a local government to be liable for costs or to be involved in Superfund clean up efforts in some way. If the city ends of paying, the expenses would likely show up as a capital budget item, paid for in taxpayer funds, according to Doug Turetsky, chief of staff for New York City’s Independent Budget Office.

EPA spokesperson Elias Rodriguez said it’s too early to say how much the city could end up paying. The agency is still in the process of collecting information from potentially responsible parties. The details of who will have to pay, and how much, won’t come until after the EPA finalizes its plan, Rodriguez said. As of January, the agency had identified 31 potentially liable entities, and has requested documents from them and more than 73 other companies to help determine those costs. Theoretically, those that polluted the most will pay the most.

The agency is scheduled to select its remedy this summer, after collecting public comments through March, and complete a design in 2016. It projects that the remediation will wrap up in 2022.

But the city can’t just write a check and wash its hands of the Gowanus pollution. The EPA has already called on the city to take actions that would prevent further contamination in the canal. The water body is routinely inundated with raw sewage from the city’s combined sewer and storm water systems, outdated infrastructure that becomes overwhelmed in times of heavy rain and overflows before the waste is carried to a treatment center. Following superstorm Sandy, levels of sewage-borne enterococcus bacteria reached more than 230 times the EPA’s acceptable levels.

The city is already working to reduce overflows by one-third at points in the middle and lower reaches of the canal, in a project overseen by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. But the EPA has also called on the city to construct two storage tanks — one that would hold four million gallons, one eight million gallons — that would capture any overflow sewage before it got to the water. It estimates that the cost would be $78 million.

At the public meeting in Carroll Gardens last week, residents aired doubts that the city would commit to the tank project, especially following remarks by Angela Licata, deputy commissioner for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Licata said the agency was still collecting data and considering its options, and noted that retention tanks for sewage are expensive to build and maintain.

The possibility that the city could subvert the EPA’s demands for action on the storage tanks has introduced uncomfortable uncertainty to the cleanup project. But Hans Hesselein, director of special projects for the nonprofit Gowanus Canal Conservancy, says he is nevertheless heartened by the EPA’s work in the area.

“Things continue to move forward at a rapid pace,” he said. “We are impressed.”

Also impressed, it would appear, were the succession of area residents at last week’s meeting who cheered on EPA employees when they were introduced and stood in line to offer their thanks and ask questions.

Judith Enck, the Region 2 administrator for the EPA, said at the meeting that though the canal’s flooding during Sandy didn’t spread contaminated sediment the way some had feared, it was a wake-up call regardless.

“It illustrated the need to get this urban waterway cleaned up as comprehensively and as quickly as we can,” she said.

Add a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

7 Comments

  1. Christ what is there to say about this abslolutely disgusting body of water…You can probably walk across the canal in places..I saw the story last week about the dolphin who died in it..They reported that the dolphin actually died from several medical problems even before it swam into the canal and died……RU JOKING ME…Ok maybey the dolphin was sick,but the canal finished the job,quickly I might add……………….CLEAN UP THE CANAL,but you know I do have to add that yes the canal is horrible,but WE ALL are responsible..,I’am just feeling kinda lucky that it aint my job to do it

  2. There is no doubt that the Gowanus is one polluted mess and that its designation as a Superfund site is a done deal. You are right to focus on what the details of the clean up will be, most of that related to man-made chemical pollutants from the area’s industrial past. Also, it is right and rational take actions to prevent future pollution, most of it coming from rain-flooding that mixes untreated sewage with street debris.

    However, the legal obligations and costs of Superfund clean up stand separate and apart from the untreated sewage and CSO problems that are regulated by the federal Clean Water Act. The need for the City to take action and financial responsibility under the CWA would apply with or without a Gowanus Superfund clean up order.

  3. For once I’d love to see the bottom expense line equated with another budget item like the wars we are currently fighting. Let’s start thinking about quality of life and health issues at home. There is no excuse for building state of the art sewer treatment plants in war zones when we ignore the potential sickness and death of our neighbors.

  4. We went to a meeting last night held by the EPA for local residents pertaining to the Gowanus Canal clean-up and how it will potentially affect Red Hook.
    There was not a huge turn out from the local residents so if you haven’t made it to one of the meetings, this is the low-down:

    Basically they want to move a large portion of toxic sludge from the Gowanus and store it over by the old grain terminal on Columbia St, create a plant to treat it until it is no longer toxic, then fill in one of the basins of water with the stuff to create more land. The land would be owned by the guy who owns the grain terminal property (and it was not said what he intends to do with it).

    The biggest issue that was raised was that the transition from toxic to non-toxic takes YEARS…and they are STORING AND WORKING WITH TOXIC MATERIALS IN A FLOOD ZONE.
    Add increased truck traffic and dust to this…and the fact that it right across from the Ball Fields where hundreds of children play….

    If you are a property owner you should know that NO insurance covers toxic clean-up…if there is a flood and it washes up, you’re on your own, and if not cleaned properly could result in your home being condemned. After Sandy we all know the probability that Red Hook will flood again.

    They say that it will create jobs for Red Hook’ers (they don’t seem to be able to be specific about what kind), but it’s hard to believe since the work is being bid by several contractors regardless of location and staff (and the job of course goes to the lowest bid). Even if it creates some jobs it’s hardly worth the risk to the community.

    There is no record of something like this being previously done, so it’s a dangerous experiment in a densely populated area. There are other options open to them (such as moving the materials to be treated OFF SITE!), but they are pushing for this proposition because it is more cost effective for them.

    They save money, the Gowanus Canal will get cleaned, but Red Hook will get stuck with the sludge.There are risks to their proposal, little or no benefit to Red Hook, and they will fill in more of our waterfront to boot.

    They say that THEY WILL ONY DO IT WITH COMMUNITY APPROVAL. IF YOU ARE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL YOU HAVE UNTIL MARCH 28TH TO VOICE YOUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS to the EPA by either email or snail mail. (addresses below)
    Although they have been scarcely advertised there are more meetings coming up in February (11th and 13th), the locations of which should be listed on the EPA site as it gets closer to the date.

    This is only a very rudimentary explanation of their plan so PLEASE read more at the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/gowanus

    Email: GowanusCanalComments.Region2@epa.gov

    Snail: Christos Tsiamis
    Project Manager
    Central NY Remediation Section
    US Environmental Protection Agency
    290 Broadway 20th Fl
    New York, NY 10007-1866

    I would like to strongly urge you to make your voice heard.
    Red Hook so far has had very little presence at these meetings considering the size of our population. Please don’t let them count on us being in the dark!
    Can you imagine any other community allowing something like this??
    And please pass this along if you know others in the area with an interest in the matter.
    Thank you!
    (getting off my soap box)
    A

  5. All I know is that they have got to get on top of that. Like they said, despite the sewer repair, it is a health hazard. Are people from the community volunteering to clean up?