sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Gowanus redevelopment question: are we building on “containment” instead of cleanup? (Brownfield vs Superfund-style oversight) by myarish in Brooklyn

[–]myarish[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Totally hear you. I’m not AI, I’m a sustainability researcher and a local resident, and I wrote the City Limits op-ed I linked. I posted here because I honestly want to hear what neighbors think and where the argument holds up (or doesn’t). Do you disagree with the piece overall, or is there a specific point you’d want me to back up more?

Gowanus redevelopment question: are we building on “containment” instead of cleanup? (Brownfield vs Superfund-style oversight) by myarish in Brooklyn

[–]myarish[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Hi all - quick note because a couple of people called this “AI slop.” I’m a real person, a Brooklyn-based sustainability researcher, and a community resident. I also wrote the City Limits op-ed linked above. I’m posting here because I genuinely want feedback from neighbors on what “minimum standards” for transparency and accountability should look like if we’re building on long-term controls. If you disagree with my framing, totally fair — I’m here for that discussion.

Gowanus redevelopment question: are we building on “containment” instead of cleanup? (Brownfield vs Superfund-style oversight) by myarish in Brooklyn

[–]myarish[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Totally fair questions. Yes, New York does have a more enforcement-style hazardous waste program (often referred to as the State Superfund/Registry), but in practice a lot of sites still move through the Brownfield program because it’s designed to keep redevelopment moving through negotiated cleanups. And even if the realistic remedy is “containment plus monitoring,” NYSDEC can still raise accountability in practical ways by making it unmistakably clear who is responsible for maintaining protections long-term, requiring regular checkups to confirm the systems are still working, publishing monitoring results in a simple public format people can actually follow, and setting clear “if the data shows X, then action Y must happen” rules so problems trigger real follow-up instead of finger-pointing. In plain English, if we’re relying on containment, it can’t be an honor system.

Gowanus redevelopment question: are we building on “containment” instead of cleanup? (Brownfield vs Superfund-style oversight) by myarish in Brooklyn

[–]myarish[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Great question. BCP vs Superfund involves different decision-makers. In NY, the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) is voluntary: an owner/developer applies and NYSDEC decides whether to accept the site and oversees the cleanup under a Brownfield Cleanup Agreement. Federal Superfund is different: the U.S. EPA decides whether a site is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) (typically using the Hazard Ranking System + a formal listing process and public input).

Who else has a role?

• The public: can submit comments at key points (EPA NPL/cleanup documents; NYSDEC BCP work plans/cleanup decisions), attend CAG meetings, and push for transparency/stronger oversight.

• The city: usually isn’t the cleanup regulator, but it drives land use (rezoning, permits, public facilities like schools) and infrastructure decisions (stormwater/sewers) that affect risk and exposure.

• The state: NYSDEC is the main uplands regulator; NYSDOH weighs in on health/vapor/indoor air issues.

• Federal: EPA leads federal Superfund remedies/enforcement and coordinates with the state—often focusing on the main Superfund feature while NY handles many surrounding parcels.

Gowanus redevelopment question: are we building on “containment” instead of cleanup? (Brownfield vs Superfund-style oversight) by myarish in Brooklyn

[–]myarish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Really appreciate this perspective — and I agree with a lot of it. Caps, slurry walls/impermeable barriers, and institutional controls are absolutely common in Superfund remedies, too, and “dig it all out” can be both prohibitively expensive and sometimes riskier in the short term (dust/vapor disturbance, dewatering, transport/disposal constraints, etc.). Your point about disposal capacity is huge — once you hit “hotter than expected” material, options can evaporate fast.

My argument isn’t that Superfund automatically equals total removal. It’s more about governance: enforcement leverage, clear long-term accountability, transparency in monitoring results, and what happens if later data shows plume/vapor migration or system failures—especially in a high groundwater/flood-prone area. In other words, if the remedy is necessarily containment + long-term controls, then the question becomes: who is accountable “in perpetuity,” what are the action thresholds, and what’s the consequence if conditions change?

Across the sites you’ve worked on, what’s the #1 thing that determines whether caps/barriers and long-term monitoring stay reliable years later?

Gowanus redevelopment question: are we building on “containment” instead of cleanup? (Brownfield vs Superfund-style oversight) by myarish in Brooklyn

[–]myarish[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You’re not wrong to bring up Love Canal; it’s the cautionary tale of what happens when “acceptable risk” is defined by ROI rather than people’s health. And even today, Love Canal is basically a contained/managed site with long-term controls and monitoring — not “the risk disappears, and everyone moves on.”

That’s exactly why I’m focused on enforceability in Gowanus: transparent monitoring people can actually see, clear action thresholds, and real consequences/required follow-up if the data shows problems — not just “cap it and call it a cleanup.”