Newtown Creek

[Edward]

NEW YORK TIMES

February 10, 2002

NEWTOWN CREEK

Sounding a Death Knell for a Long-Forsaken Waterway

By E. E. LIPPINCOTT

In January the smell is almost undetectable, just the slightest hint of sulfuric sourness. In the summer it's enough to make you wince. But the oily water has its chalky green look all year round, and there are hardly ever any boats. It's Newtown Creek, 2002.

The city's Department of Transportation has made what seems like a small request concerning this forsaken three-mile-long waterway separating Queens from Brooklyn. It wants to turn the Grand Street swing bridge, one of the dozen that cross the creek, into a fixed structure.

Something that moves costs much more to maintain than something that doesn't, said Iris Weinshall, the transportation commissioner. And it has been years since a ship required the blue-green bridge, a rickety 1903 structure at the far end of the creek, to swing open.

"If there had been any recent openings, we'd say forget it, but there haven't been any," said Gary Kassof, bridge administrator for the First Coast Guard Division, which has jurisdiction over the creek. He was speaking of both the Grand Street bridge and all the deteriorating rail and road bridges across it.

But the Coast Guard's looming assent to this minor cost-cutting request is full of symbolism.

To make the Grand Street swing bridge a fixed structure will seal the fate of the waterway, rendering it impossible for ships to pass through. For a waterway that was the busiest industrial port in the Northeast 60 years ago, its waters continuously churned by a long line of boats, it would be an official death knell.

Newtown Creek is woven deeply into the city's history. Until the Dutch arrived, the Maspetches Indians lived along its banks in what is now Maspeth, Queens. Some believe that Captain Kidd used a friend's waterfront property there to stash his plunder. The creek was part of a boundary dispute from the mid- 1600's to the mid-1700's between Bushwick and Newtown, the precursors to Brooklyn and Queens.

But it was through commerce that the waterway came into its prime.

By the 1850's, the creek was an industrial center that both fueled and paralleled the explosive growth of New York. Glue factories, smelting and fat-rendering plants, one of the earliest kerosene refinery and other smelly enterprises clustered along the shores of the creek and its little tributaries. The toxic sludge from these businesses got company in 1856, when the city decided to dump raw sewage directly into the water, a practice that continued for decades.

In the 1920's and 30's, the creek was widened to accommodate the growing traffic. In its heyday, the bridges that crossed it opened tens of thousands of times a year.

"Newtown Creek was a highway," said Bernard Ente, a local historian. "It was just boats instead of trucks." He estimated that 500 enterprises lined the creek at its peak. Large boats brought in raw materials and fuel and took out oil, fat, varnish, chemicals and metals.

Then came World War II. The government commandeered the factories to make military equipment.

Francis Principe, 92, a Maspeth resident who supervised a factory that made aluminum for fighter planes, said that during that time, "There was always tanker traffic."

But then the creek began a rapid decline. The national highway system, built after World War II, made trucks a more efficient way to transport goods. Shippers no longer had to be tied to water routes or railways.

Now, buildings along the water stand empty. Instead of ships, plastic bags pass beneath the bridges like half-submerged ghosts. The remaining factories don't use the water.

But kayakers have been spotted at the creek recently, and Community Board 1 in Brooklyn is considering creating a series of pocket parks along the shore. The blue-claw crabs have come back, too.

Mr. Principe sees the writing on the wall. "If the D.O.T. closes down one bridge," he said, "then others will follow, and the creek's as good as gone." *

[Edward]

The following images are from the Frank J. Dmuchowski website (http://www.dmuchowski.com/upthecreek/)


The structure of the Grand Street Bridge (http://www.wirednewyork.com/grand_street_bridge.htm) swings open to let boats pass.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/import/GrandBrOpening.jpg


The Grand Street Bridge (http://www.wirednewyork.com/grand_street_bridge.htm) spans the gap of the Kill

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/import/GrandBrB4Open.jpg

[Edward]

Here is the map from the Department of Transportation website (http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dot/html/bridges/index.html)

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/import/dot_queensfin.gif

[Edward]

Another bridge over Newtown Creek...


Decision Due on Span

State weighing 4 plans for Kosciuszko Bridge

By DONALD BERTRAND
Daily News Staff Writer

The state Transportation Department is inching closer to deciding what to do with the Kosciuszko Bridge.

Options range "from an aggressive maintenance plan to a complete replacement of the structure," said DOT spokeswoman Jennifer Nelson.

The plan was first made public in 1995, causing a stir in the communities adjacent to the bridge in Brooklyn and Queens.

Since then, the Transportation Department has continuously repaired the bridge, which has more than 170,000 vehicles using it daily.

The Kosciuszko Bridge carries the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway over Newtown Creek from Maspeth to Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and connects to the Long Island Expressway on the Queens side.

"It is highly congested during rush hours, affecting conditions not only on the BQE, but local streets as well," Nelson said.

"We are at the point where we need to decide is what is the best course of action," the transportation spokeswoman said.

To help with that decision making, two open houses have been scheduled to inform the public about the various scenarios concerning the bridge's future, said Robert Adams, project manager.

The first will be in the auditorium of Public School 199 at 39-20 48th Ave. on Thursday from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. A second will be held in Brooklyn on Feb. 27 at St. Cecilia's Church, 84 Herbert St., also from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Adams said four scenarios are under consideration:
Keeping the bridge as is with aggressive maintenance.

Rehabilitating the structure in kind.

Rehabilitating the structure with extra lanes.

Replacing the whole bridge.
"We have not begun a cost analysis yet," Adams said. That, he said, would be a part of the study.

"It would not be surprising to anyone here if the cost to just rehabilitate it was not much different from a complete replacement," said the project manager.

The Transportation Department has not ruled out anything, said Dolores Rizzotto, district manager of Community Board 2, which represents the West Maspeth area where the bridge is located.

Rizzotto said the scope of the project was extended to the 48th St. exit of the Long Island Expressway at the request of the community because of all the merges to the bridge at that point.

Dorothy Neary, an officer of the United Forties Civic Association, said her group plans to be at the meetings.

"Ever since Robert Moses built the Long Island Expressway and took half of our community away, we have been suffering. We want to make sure there is not another land grab and that something is done about the truck traffic on our residential streets," Neary said.

Original Publication Date: 2/19/02

[Kris]

February 15, 2004

NEW YORK WATERWAYS

Hike on Newtown Creek? It Isn't Quite That Awful

By JIM O'GRADY

Early in the 17th century, Dutch settlers bought a large piece of land from the Maspet Indian tribe along what is now known as Newtown Creek. The tribe, whose name survives in the Queens neighborhood Maspeth, might have been eager to make the deal, given that they called the area "at the bad water place."

It is not known why they disparaged the creek back then. But the reasons to do so now are plain. Despite being long past its prime as a shipping hub, Newtown Creek, which forms the northern border between Brooklyn and Queens, is a 4.3-mile waterborne theme park for the remnants of industrial abuse.

In fact, Alex Matthiessen, the executive director of Riverkeeper, an environmental group, said the creek was so polluted that "there is a defeatist attitude" about it in government agencies. Maureen Wren, a spokeswoman for the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, disagreed, saying that it inspects facilities to make sure the water regulations are followed, investigates possible polluters and works to clean up contaminated sites.

But Riverkeeper has taken matters into its own hands. Two months ago, it sent letters to five companies that operate on the creek - a cement plant, a scrap yard, a beverage distributor, a construction supply company and a recycling plant - announcing that it planned to sue them for violating the federal Clean Water Act if each company did not at least come up with a cleanup plan by the end of December.

Although most of the companies denied any polluting, Mr. Matthiessen says the letter has gotten results.

One of the companies was Allocco Recycling, which decontaminates soil and pulverizes used concrete in a plant that abuts the creek at the end of Kingsland Avenue. Kenneth Reiss, a spokesman, said the company cooperated with Riverkeeper even though its operations were not harming the water. "We spent $150,000 to increase the size of our bulkhead and raise it up to prevent any further erosion," he said. "We even put netting underneath our outdoor conveyor belt."

Mr. Matthiessen is cheered by such actions, but said much more needs to be done. The creek is bordered by 160 properties, he said, and his group is sending out more letters.

Ms. Wren said the conservation department was cleaning up the Phelps Dodge site, which has been designated by the federal government as a highly toxic site, and pressed for a continuing $2 billion improvement to the large Newtown Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. As for Allocco Recycling, "D.E.C. did investigate that thoroughly,'' she said, and determined that "there were no discharge or outfalls.''

If these pollution fighters succeed, Bill Schuck, an art teacher and kayaker who lives on Commercial Street in Greenpoint, may be among the first to know. "There are slicks of garbage around where I put the kayak in," he said. "There might be condoms and wooden pallets floating in the water. Further down the creek, it gets really polluted and still."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[GowanusGuy]

Why can't they build bridges that are high enough for watercraft to pass beneath them? They should leave enough room for tugboats at least. That way the creek can stay open to barge traffic to surve industry.

Who knows? Maybe down the road we will see cabin cruisers and catamarans?

[Kris]

Anyone interested in an exploration of Newtown Creek? Qualified historical and environmental guides will host a cruise in late May or early June. Boat sails from East 23rd Street and East River. Ticket price about $40 for a four hour tour. 11:00 am to 3:00 pm.

Date will be May 30, or June 6, or June 13. To be determined after I hear from you.

For more information or to reserve a ticket reply to

cmandala@nyc.rr.com

http://www.newtowncreek.org/

http://www.pbs.org/pov/borders/2004/water/water_creek.html

[billyblancoNYC]

Clean it up. Move all non-essential to water industries to other indutrial parks in Williamsburg, Greenpoint, LIC, Maspeth, wherever. Create parks, shops, apartments, houses, etc.

3 1/2 miles is long and would be amazing if done right.

Anyone know of any plans in any way similar to this?

[billyblancoNYC]

So...can you answer me?

[billyblancoNYC]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[MonCapitan2002]

I might be interested in joining this tour.

[Gulcrapek]

I'm hoping to go but I remember there's a lot of things going on that weekend for me... I'll have to check.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Thanks, sounds interesting but unfortunately I'll be out of town.

[Gulcrapek]

CM: We're going. 2 people. The older one has two questions: what kind of boat is being used, and what kind of weather is within its tolerance?

[Gulcrapek]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does that mean?

[Kris]

THE WATERFRONT

OLD SPILL

by Ben McGrath

Issue of 2004-04-05
Posted 2004-03-29

In the quaint game of rhapsodizing about the city’s foul waterways, Newtown Creek is generally a bastard stepsister to the more celebrated Gowanus Canal. The Newtown offers only one point of public access, and it has just one residential building along its banks. But it is much bigger than the Gowanus (three and a half miles long versus one and a half, and wider, too), far more polluted (twenty direct sewage portals all its own), more variably odorous, and, because it serves as the boundary between Brooklyn and Queens, far more peculiar for the fact of its relative obscurity and abandonment. In fact, few may know that the creek is currently home to the largest urban oil spill—seventeen million gallons, which is half again as big as the Exxon Valdezdump—in the history of North America.

Like dual Charons at the river Styx, two enterprising young city councilmen, Eric Gioia, of Long Island City, and David Yassky, of Greenpoint, arranged a boat tour of the creek last Thursday, to mark their commitment to cleaning it up; they’d recently joined a lawsuit, filed by Riverkeeper, the Hudson-watershed advocacy group, to hold ExxonMobil and others accountable. They are merely the latest in a line of government officials who over the years have tried, with varying levels of effort and uniformly little success, to undo the effects of a disastrous chain of events that originated in Greenpoint more than fifty years ago. Fuel from a nearby Standard Oil (now, roughly, ExxonMobil) plant seeped into the city sewers, then ignited. The explosion was so powerful that it sent twenty-five manhole covers flying and released untold amounts of oil into the Brooklyn-Queens aquifer, where the discharge began oozing glacially eastward toward Newtown Creek.

A rickety assemblage of wooden boards at the end of Manhattan Avenue, in Greenpoint, passes for the creek’s lone dock. Captain John Lipscomb had tied up his converted lobster boat there, and was in the cabin studying a birder’s field guide, as Basil Seggos, an investigator for Riverkeeper, greeted wary passengers. “There’s a guy named Vinny who lives just up the street,” Seggos said. “He’s a big crabber. He feeds his family with it.” Seggos held up a bucket-shaped contraption made of chicken wire: one of Vinny’s crab traps. Although the state has designated the waterway “precluded” to aquatic life, blue crabs, bluefish, and striped bass apparently inhabit the lower end of the creek.

Councilman Gioia arrived, wearing a navy-blue suit and a red tie. “You guys brought your rods, right?” he said.

A boat ride along Newtown Creek is an opportunity not to be missed. “This really should be the Brooklyn-Queens Gold Coast,” Gioia said, and he described a vision rather strikingly at odds with the creek’s industrialized banks, invoking green spaces, ferries, and a winding bike path. The boat pulled into the channel and proceeded east, into the heart of darkness: past the Nemo, an abandoned tug from Panama, and a thriving demolition yard, with a sixty-ton flywheel for instant auto-shredding.

As the vessel headed up the creek, Seggos explained that the spill covers fifty-five acres of shorefront, in the shape of a pear, between the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge and the Kosciusko Bridge. A faint smell of sewage and brine gave way, in alternating turns, to sulfur and burning rubber and, occasionally, just plain gas station, depending on the changing ingredients: diesel, No. 2 home heating oil, naphtha.

Was it true, someone asked, that the creek was flammable? “I wouldn’t smoke near it,” Seggos said.

About a mile from the dock, Seggos saw a particularly viscous patch with an unfamiliar rusty tint, and he alerted Captain Lipscomb. As the boat idled, Seggos retrieved a jar and donned a pair of long rubber gloves. “Would somebody please hold my feet?” he asked, and then leaned out over the water. The sample he came up with looked to be three parts mud, one part tomato soup.

“It’s not like this is just an oil spill that happened fifty years ago,” Gioia said. “You’re watching it happen in front of you. It makes you want to call 911: ‘Police officer, I’m watching a crime being committed. Please stop it right now.’ It’s the smoking gun.”

Of the original seventeen million gallons, fewer than four million have been successfully removed. Seggos held up the Ziploc bag in which he’d deposited his sample—one pint’s worth. “Math lesson,” he said. “There are a hundred million of these little jars in the spill not yet recovered.”

“Environmental litigation is not for the fainthearted,” councilman Yassky said. The boat reversed course and headed downstream, back toward the oddly comforting spectacle of ordinary waterfront blight.

www.newyorker.com

[billyblancoNYC]

Amazing it's still not cleaned.

I would love this to be parks, etc. It would be wonderful to have the newly developed Greenpoint waterfront and the Olympic Village spot connected with a ped/bike bridge. That would really make this entire waterfront, from Williamsburg to the end of Queens West, one big esplanade.

[billyblancoNYC]

It would be wonderful to have the newly developed Greenpoint waterfront and the Olympic Village spot connected with a ped/bike bridge.

There are plans for a pedestrian bridge. It will be hinged and pivot out of the way for shipping.

SWEET. Thanks.

[Bernie]

BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT.

Sunday, August 1 at 10 a.m., "Newtown Creek Cruise" travels the waterway between Queens and Brooklyn, once a bustling route between industries on both banks. Meet in Brooklyn at the Fulton Ferry Landing at the foot of Old Fulton Street, opposite the River Cafe; fee, $45; members, $35. Reservations required: (718) 788-8500, Ext. 208.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Indicting To Clean Up Newtown Creek

by Sam Williams
04 Mar 2005


In the summer of 2003, a little more than a full century after the publication of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," Basil Seggos and fellow members of the local watchdog group Riverkeeper (http://www.riverkeeper.org/) made their own trip up one of the world's scariest waterways.

Where Conrad chose Africa's Congo River as his exotic setting, the Riverkeeper team chose a destination closer to home: Newtown Creek, the industrial waterway separating Greenpoint and Long Island City. Long known as a dumping site for industrial polluters, the creek had evaded (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/environment/20031027/7/%20583) cleanup thanks largely to its remote, secluded nature.

"We had to take a row boat to get into the east branch," says Seggos, noting the presence of a bridge that effectively blocked passage for the 36-foot boat the organization usually uses when inspecting local waterways.

What the Riverkeeper inspectors found when they got to the other side of that bridge confirmed their worst suspicions. Seggos says there was a "huge white plume" of sediment pouring into the waterway from an underwater drainpipe. It wasn't too hard guessing the source of the plume. Immediately adjacent to the spot where the sediment hit the water was a cement plant, Quality Concrete, and subsequent testing proved the sediment to be high in calcium, an indicator of the limestone aggregate used to make concrete.

"These guys obviously had no cheap ability on site to hook into the city sewer lines," Seggos speculates, noting that 80 percent of the businesses along Newtown Creek operate with no city-provided sewer service. "Rather than hook up a treatment system which is what these kinds of companies should do, they were dumping into an old storm line and sending it to the creek for disposal."

Citing state law which forbids the dumping of untreated industrial waste into New York waterways, Riverkeeper filed notice of its intent to sue. The organization held off on filing the actual lawsuit for the winter, however, when Quality Concrete representatives indicated a willingness to clean up the site. When spring 2004 came and went with no observed cleanup activity, however, the group chose an alternate strategy: It invited Kings County District Attorney Charles Hynes, Greenpoint Councilmember David Yassky and other notables to climb aboard the patrol boat and see the waterway himself. Again, the boat couldn't make it all the way up the creek, but what Hynes saw was enough.

"He was appalled by the conditions," recalls Seggos. "We passed the case on to him, and he ran with it."

That was last summer. This January, the Kings County District Attorney announced the indictment of Quality Concrete, now doing business as Maspeth Concrete Loading, and its chief executive officer, Constantine Quadrozzi, on 22 felony counts and 20 misdemeanor counts of unlawful sewage discharge. "This indictment sends a message that we will not tolerate these actions," said Hynes in a Jan. 2005 statement to the press.

Although the defendant company is based in Maspeth, Queens, just over the borough line, Richard Farrell, an assistant district attorney who is helping prosecute the case, says the office feels it has the authority to go after the company. First of all, the waterway impacted borders Kings County. As a second reason, he cites "the 500 yard rule" in that any courts usually give both county governments the ability to prosecute anything that occurs within 500 yards of the county line.

Brian Gardner, Quadrozzi's attorney, was unavailable for comment for this article, but in a January statement to the Daily News predicted an out-of-court settlement. "Once we sit down with the DA's office, we expect [the charges] to be fully resolved in our favor and dismissed," Gardner told the newspaper.

Even if both sides find a mutually suitable resolution, Farrell sees Quality Concrete as only the first step in what is sure to be a decades-long effort to clean up a creek that has been an industrial haven since the mid-19th century. Larger problems, most notably a 52 acre ExxonMobil site that contains the remnants of a 17 million gallon oil discharge, promise an even bigger legal fight. Still, the bridge has been crossed, both literally and figuratively, and those on the enforcement side appear willing to take on fresh opponents.

"There are other pollution situations being looked at," says Farrell. "I would not call the Quadrozzi situation the most egregious situation out on the creek."

http://www.gothamgazette.com/

[billyblancoNYC]

View looking west from Kosciuszko Bridge

Not that I want to displace all industry, but wouldn't this be amazing to develop for residential and recreational? This really could be as nice as Riverwalk in San Antonio...an amazing connnection for the "new LIC" and "new Greenpoint". Really would make the entire section of the East River one amazing neighborhood.

[billyblancoNYC]

NYS regulations won't allow recreational use along waterways that don't meet
minimum clean water standards.

Yes, but that's all the more reason to friggin' clean up all the oil, etc. It's more than overdue.

[ryan]

You can't see it in that pic, but the industry in the area is actually very active. They just expanded the apocalyptic-looking sewage treatment facility in greenpoint, plus newtown creek has the world's largest spill of petroleum distillates (not a little thing to clean up). In fact, I just saw a crew taking core samples from my block last week - hopefully to confirm that I am still not on the plume of contaminated ground water. hopefully....

From Riverkeeper: (http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/pollution/we_are_doing/805)

http://riverkeeper.org/document.php/295/ExxonMobil_Oil_.jpg

Newtown Creek: The Greenpoint, Brooklyn Oil Spill
In January 2004, Riverkeeper initiated a citizen suit against two of the world’s largest oil companies for the largest urban oil spill—right in the heart of New York City. In May 2004, Riverkeeper filed the lawsuit itself against ExxonMobil for violation of the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and since then NYC Councilmembers David Yassky and Eric Gioia, as well as Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, have filed notice letters as well, with the intent to join the lawsuit.

http://riverkeeper.org/dyn-content/stories/748409ab5411f3b7.jpg
Oil swirls on the surface of Newtown Creek. Photo credit: (c) Stephen Wilkes 2004 All Rights Reserved.
For more than half a century, 17 millions of gallons of oil have been oozing beneath Greenpoint, Brooklyn, courtesy of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and other oil companies. The spill courses beneath 55 acres of industrial, commercial, and residential property, affecting 100 homes and dozens of businesses. Petroleum from the spill continuously leaks into Newtown Creek; globs of oil and a rainbow sheen constantly coat the surface of this small waterway separating Brooklyn and Queens. The spill – 50% larger than the Exxon Valdez disaster – is a major source of contamination throughout the New York Harbor. Carcinogens, lead, and a bevy of other toxins are carried for miles with the tides and currents. Though discovered 25 years ago and brought under state enforcement in 1990, remedial efforts have been a failure. The companies continue to violate federal law. Riverkeeper took decisive action on January 26, placing the companies on formal notice of the organization’s intent to file citizen suits under the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (“RCRA”).

The Greenpoint spill is an environmental affront to both the Brooklyn community and citizens across the city. Riverkeeper's aim is to accelerate spill remediation, ensure that the aquifer and its soils are restored, prevent oil from entering Newtown Creek, and to protect the health and welfare of New Yorkers. Brooklyn has suffered long enough from these blights and it is time to bring these companies to justice. Click on the links below to learn more about the history and effects of this massive spill.


More About Newtown Creek: The Greenpoint, Brooklyn Oil Spill:
http://riverkeeper.org/images/arrow_story.gifIntroduction
http://riverkeeper.org/images/arrow_story.gifA History of the Spill (http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/pollution/we_are_doing/923)
http://riverkeeper.org/images/arrow_story.gifMap Depicting Newtown Creek Oil Spill (http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/pollution/we_are_doing/952)
http://riverkeeper.org/images/arrow_story.gifGreenpoint Oil Spill Archive (http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/pollution/we_are_doing/915)

[ablarc]

NYS regulations won't allow recreational use along waterways that don't meet
minimum clean water standards.
I guess Venice wouldn't meet their standards either. Or Amsterdam: have you seen the water in Amsterdam?

[ablarc]

^ They've got nice cities, though.

[mkeit]

Plus, there is always the Phelps-Dodge site in Queens. There must be leakage of the copper and other heavy metals into the creek.

[lliu1]

I am currently starting a project that will focus on cleaning newtown Creek. this forum has been of great help. i just want to say thank you and please continue to share the information you have on Newtown Creek.

[infoshare]

Not that I want to displace all industry, but wouldn't this be amazing to develop for residential and recreational? .

I think it would be best to remove all "industrial" users from the waterfront, but bring in "commercial" development to attract recreational boaters- and create a "lively & populated" waterfront year round.

From what I am seeing on the NYC hudson river, the efforts of the various non-profits, and envirnmental groups are do more to keep the general public "away" from the waterfront.

The parks, piers, boathouses are windswept desolate places event during the summer months (weekdays) and the general population of NYC are not comming out in big numbers as I think the would if we had more places like Leonardo on pier 57, Chelsea piers, the Maratime float pier on 23rd, all commercial and very attractive, fun place to visit - year round, seven days a week.

The enviromental groups (in my opinion) how are so vehimently anti-commercial development are only shooting themselves in the foot.

cheers.

[ZippyTheChimp]

IFrom what I am seeing on the NYC hudson river, the efforts of the various non-profits, and envirnmental groups are do more to keep the general public "away" from the waterfront.
What groups and how so?

[infoshare]

To Zippythechimp
The info contained therein best expresses my frustrations and desires for the nyc waterfront - Particularly the NYC hudson river - where I go kayaking.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_2_the_wasted.html

The opportunity squandered is enormous. New York’s 578 miles of shoreline—by far the largest urban waterfront in the United States—could make the city more prosperous and more livable. This vast shoreline could accommodate a broad range of uses, from popular parks and prime residential addresses to thriving centers of commerce, industry, and transportation. It could be a richly varied scene of restaurants on piers, of townhouses overlooking marinas, of tree-lined public esplanades with majestic river views. One can imagine hotels with their own docks for guests arriving by boat; small cargo vessels bringing goods directly to stores; water taxis carrying commuters and tourists to numerous points throughout the city.

Who or How? That is all to well known in the area, particularly by a neighborhood member like yourself. Basically all the non-profits are anti- commercial development.

[infoshare]

Such sentiment might be called “open-space absolutism”—an uncompromising insistence that the waterfront be transformed into parks and public space unsullied by private profit or development.

Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, once a rundown area of wharves, produce markets, and railroad yards, now features office towers, hotels, housing, parkland, and marinas, along with the National Aquarium, the Baltimore Convention Center, and Harborplace, a bustling complex of restaurants and small merchants. The result has been a revitalization not only of the waterfront but of nearby downtown Baltimore as well—even a transformation of Baltimore’s overall image, making the city into a popular center of tourism and conventions.

The vital spark came from the private sector. The revitalization took shape back in the late 1950s, when the local business community raised funds for the drawing up of a longterm development plan for Baltimore’s Charles Center area, adjacent to the waterfront. The plan expanded to include the Inner Harbor, and the city government, private developers, and the Baltimore Development Corporation (a public authority) banded together to make it a reality. The development program also benefited from having begun in the 1960s, prior to federal and other environmental rules that would have complicated the demolition of old Inner Harbor piers.


By MR.SILBER

[ZippyTheChimp]

Pardon me for just skimming through the article, but it was written in 1996, and you have to agree that much has changed in 10 years.

I don't understand what groups like the River Project are doing to impede access to the river.

The only mention in the article about environmental groups was in reference to Westway, which it calls "visionary."

A few points concerning Westway:

1. Westway was not parkland with buildings in it. It was a real-estate development with some parks. It was BPC all the way to midtown. I live in BPC, and while there is excellent access to the riverfront, the presence of a residential population will invariably lead to conflicts over park uses. I can't speak to the quality of kayak facilities in HRP, but I can tell you what would happen if someone wanted to open a facility along the BPC bulkhead. If HRP is ever completed, it will provide better access and more varied recreational uses than Westway.

2. The Chelsea Piers would have been demolished for Westway.

3. Westway would have pushed development further away from existing mass transit without any new transit infrastructure.

4. The underground roadway would have needed on off ramps at key intersections. Since they could not be reasonably close together, a surface roadway would still be needed to access the street grid.
What would have happened at rush hour when the tunnel jammed up is the same thing that happens now on clogged highways - take the service road.

As I see it, no environmental groups are holding up park construction, rather it is the unwillingness of the state and city to allocate funds. Assuming construction starts next year in Tribeca, in a few years there will be completed segments in Clinton, the Intrepid, Chelsea, the Village, and Tribeca.

I am only disappointed that there has been little movement at Gansevoort and pier 40.

Such sentiment might be called “open-space absolutism”—an uncompromising insistence that the waterfront be transformed into parks and public space unsullied by private profit or development.It is written into the HRP charter, and generally agreed to, that there will be commercial development in the park.

I don't think I would want a Home Depot on Pier 40.

The development program also benefited from having begun in the 1960s, prior to federal and other environmental rules that would have complicated the demolition of old Inner Harbor piersAnd I'm positive I wouldn't have wanted to launch a kayak in the Hudson River in the 1960s.

[infoshare]

Pardon me for just skimming through the article, but it was written in 1996, and you have to agree that much has changed in 10 years.

I don't understand what groups like the River Project are doing to impede access to the river.



I have found that most of the non-profits on the waterfront are opposed to commercial development.

The waterfront is a desolate, disused place - except for a few sunny summer weekends - not hardly what I could be. Why - political oppositon.

The pullic sector, and that means non-profits on the waterfront, are not bringing people (on mass) to our waterfrontl. It could be acheieved. This is not about Westway- Im over that - but thanks for addressing it because the current shabby developments are just another manifestation of the same Ideology that blocked the wesway projedt. But lets, look to the future of the waterfront - from what I see, (and I on it year round) it looks like it going to be a wholly underutilized place.

For example..........................

Consider what the Hudson River waterfront from Tribeca to Clinton might look like under a different political and regulatory climate. The Hudson River Park, expanded by landfill and platforms and financed by development sites, would be a recreational and cultural center as important to the city as Central Park. Pier 40, developed as a complex of townhouses, shops, and esplanades, would be one of Manhattan’s most prestigious addresses, the waterfront equivalent of Central Park South. Such development, far from making the shoreline exclusive to a few, would provide revenues for the maintenance of large stretches of parkland and public space. The waterfront would be a tourist attraction, too. On its newly expanded piers, one might find an open-air theater, a new restaurant row, perhaps a stable for horseback riding along a landfill-enhanced shoreline path or a marina with sailboats for rent.

A glimpse of the West Side’s potential may be found at the Chelsea Piers Sports & Entertainment Complex, perched on four piers between 17th and 23rd Streets. The $100 million complex, most of which opened in late 1995, contains television studios and diverse recreational facilities, from a marina to a golf driving range on one pier to two large ice skating rinks on another. A 1.2 mile esplanade that runs along the perimeter of the piers provides free public access to the site’s entire riverfront. The complex is expected to be profitable, producing $25 million in revenue this year and $40 million in 1997, according to projections by its developer, the private Chelsea Piers Management Company. Moreover, Chelsea Piers, located on property owned by the New York State Department of Transportation, will generate over $2 million in annual rent under a 20-year lease, providing revenues for the maintenance of the Hudson River Park.

Yet Chelsea Piers stands on the Hudson as an isolated success story.

I have said my piece on this subject - thank you for you post, I will offer no further retort.

cheers

[ZippyTheChimp]

As I stated, the model for your vision is BPC. The cost of landfill and decking would require massive real estate development. The result would be nothing at all like Central Park, but more like Central Park West.

Nothing wrong with CPW, but I have more access to the park than I do to those buildings.

Those pain in the ass environmental regulations have cleaned up the river considerably over the last 40 years, when its condition was closer to that of Newtown Creek.

[infoshare]

Those pain in the ass environmental regulations have cleaned up the river considerably over the last 40 years, when its condition was closer to that of Newtown Creek.

This "issue" I am getting at is not about environmental regulations, or a vision of BPC extended, or Westway regrets. The "issue" is the continued political opposition to expanded commercial development in HRPark.

It is political oppostion that stopped the pier on hudson street from beiing leased out - and it is political opposition that is blocking the "proposed" resturant (see schematic) on pier 25/26. Where is the political opposition comming from.

One example of such "Vehement Opposition" to commercial development is currently being played-out in the design for piers 25/26. There was a resturant slated to be built on pier 25/26. I know for a fact that this project is meeting heavy opposition at the community boards and from various local non-profit environmental groups. Question-What is wrong with putting a resturant there. I have ask all the regulars there (I know them, and they all know who I am) and I can never get a comprehensible answer as to why there is such vehement opposition to that resturant.

I would like to see more people using the piers year round. The park is substantially completed now - and it is a windswept desolate place most of the year. With more commercial development will come a "lively and well populated" waterfront - yearround.

I would like to use the resturant on pier25 as a "case in point" and will continue to follow any news I can get on it. If anyone knows, please jump in - the water is fine.

Cheers

[ZippyTheChimp]

and it is political opposition that is blocking the "proposed" resturant (see schematic) on pier 25/26. Where is the political opposition comming from.

How can you state that there is political opposition and not know where it is coming from? Got a name, organization, news article?

As stated in this thread (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2893&page=7), the HRP website mentions a restaurant for piers 25/26. I have heard of no opposition to the restaurant. The complaints I have heard concern changing the character of the piers. In my opinion, this type of opposition is merely a an excuse from people who do not want the area closed during construction. The same sort of opposition was voiced when the renovation of Washington Square was announced.

A restaurant was planned at pier 84, and that's exactly what is being built now. If you want an answer about piers 25/26, attend the next CB1 (http://www.cb1.org/) Waterfront Committee meeting, on Nov 28th. Only CB1 has community input on piers 25/26.

The park is not substantially complete. Only 2 of the dozen piers have been rebuilt, and the 2 focal points, pier 40 and Gansevoort, are still undeveloped. It is way too early to measure park usage, but even at this early stage, I would characterize the completed Village section as popular.

The development choices for the large piers (pier 57 for example) are commercial options.

Besides the main HRP thread, there are separate threads for piers 40, 54, 57, and 84.

[infoshare]

How can you state that there is political opposition and not know where it is coming from? Got a name, organization, news article?

ABesides the main HRP thread, there are separate threads for piers 40, 54, 57, and 84.

I wiil say the same, on the developments on the other threads: it seem to all come down to NIMBYsim - a general opposition to building "Anything" : and particularly when it is Private Sector.

I will bring out this old chesnut of an argument onec again, on the other (on topiic) threads.

cheers.

[ZippyTheChimp]

In other words...

You don't know anything about opposition to the restaurant.
Statements presented as facts on this forum are usually accompanied by documantation.

Sorry this thread got diverted off Newtown Creek for nothing.

[slovakchlop]

I did a job in Newtown Creek as a tugboat crewman 2 years ago.... I took time off from college to make a few bucks doing this, and saw all of the nooks and crannies of NYC's waterways....

This place was horrific... lots of pollution, the water was so filthy that the captain told us any deckhand who fell overboard was going to the hospital. On our way out with a barge we had kayakers in there!!

Nooooo kayakers... stay awayyyyyy from Newtown Creek

[Kris]

October 17, 2006
Congress Members Seek Action on Newtown Creek
By THOMAS J. LUECK

Three members of Congress stood yesterday next to Newtown Creek in Brooklyn, the site of a massive oil spill 56 years ago, to call for more aggressive steps to clean up a resulting environmental hazard that may still lurk beneath hundreds of homes and businesses.

Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representatives Anthony D. Weiner and Nydia M. Velázquez said too little has been done since the 1950 spill to reverse the damage and monitor its impact on health and property values.

“There has been a generation of cover-up,” Mr. Weiner said. Over the years, government studies have concluded that the spill had leaked 17 million gallons of oil under more than 50 acres of Greenpoint.

Mr. Weiner said the Department of Environmental Protection had been ordered by Congress this summer to conduct a fresh analysis of the problem and submit its findings by next July.

The joint appearance by Mr. Schumer, Mr. Weiner and Ms. Velázquez came amid heightened concern over the long-term impact of the underground pollution. Although residents of Greenpoint have been aware for decades of oily smells emanating from their yards and basements, the problem resurfaced in the courts in 2004 after members of Riverkeeper, an environmental watchdog group, discovered a large oil slick floating on Newtown Creek and filed suit against Exxon Mobil.

Last month, state environmental officials and Exxon Mobil reported that they had found elevated levels of a carcinogen, benzene, and an explosive chemical, methane, in vapors near the site of the spill. Mr. Schumer said yesterday that there was no proof that the chemicals were produced by underground oil pollution, but that “the discovery underscores the difficulty” of assessing the full scope of the threat.

State environmental officials tried to force Exxon Mobil to speed up its timetable, but have so far failed. In June, Denise M. Sheehan, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, said the department had asked the attorney general to “initiate legal action against Exxon Mobil Corporation to ensure that company fulfills its obligation” to clean up the spill.

Exxon Mobil was the largest of several oil companies that used the Greenpoint site, once a major oil refinery and an oil storage depot until the 1980’s. Under a consent decree it signed with the state in 1990, Exxon Mobil has been pumping out the underground oil in a process that would take decades. So far, 9.3 million gallons have been removed, the company said yesterday.

Brian Dunphy, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said the company had concluded that the methane discovered at the site had recently come from natural gas pipelines, not the underground oil. He said benzene had been found in an industrial area, not in or near anyone’s home, and that Exxon Mobil was conducting more tests to find other pollutants.

“Complex remediation projects like this where the product to be recovered is underground and not easily accessed simply take time to complete,” Exxon Mobil said in a statement yesterday.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[CMANDALA]

The best source for Newtown Creek infomation. Meetings are held in Long Island City or Greenpoint. Sign up to the mailing list for advance notification of 2007 meetings and tours.


www.newtowncreekalliance.org

[CMANDALA]

Newtown Creek Alliance

Next meeting Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Details on the web page:

www.newtowncreekalliance.org

[antinimby]

New York Moves Toward Suit Over a 50-Year-Old Oil Spill


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/09/nyregion/09brook600.1.jpg
Newtown Creek, looking toward Manhattan. Exxon Mobil and four other companies face possible lawsuits for
a 50-year-old spill that contributes to its pollution.


By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: February 9, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/nyregion/09brooklyn.html)

ALBANY, Feb. 8 — New York State moved to sue Exxon Mobil and four other companies on Thursday to force them to clean up a half-century-old spill of millions of gallons of oil lying under the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn and to repair environmental damage inflicted on nearby Newtown Creek.

The spill, originally several times the size of the Exxon Valdez oil leak, resulted from an accident in the 1950s and lay undiscovered until 1978. In notices of intent to sue that were sent to the five companies, Andrew M. Cuomo, the state attorney general, said that so much oil had leaked into the creek that some samples of its sediment, when dried and weighed, were nearly one-tenth oil.

The notices also disclosed that an internal study by one of the companies found nearly 100 different pollutants in the creek water or sediment, including benzene, arsenic and lead.

The other companies receiving the notices were BP, Chevron, KeySpan and Phelps Dodge.

The state’s action is a sharp turning point in its handling of the spill, which in recent years has occasioned lawsuits by Greenpoint residents, local elected officials and environmental groups. A 1990 agreement between Exxon Mobil and state environmental officials had required the company to recover the spilled oil, but it specified no deadline and required no remediation of either the creek or the polluted soil under Greenpoint.

About eight million gallons of oil and petroleum byproducts are believed to remain underground, and past soil tests have revealed that the spill releases toxic vapors into the neighborhood above. Mr. Cuomo’s action will seek a far faster pace for recovering the oil, extensive scientific testing to determine damage to the soil and groundwater, and millions of dollars in fines. Cleanup costs could increase the companies’ expense by tens of millions of dollars, Mr. Cuomo’s aides said.

“This is one of the worst environmental disasters in the nation, larger than the Exxon Valdez and slower in the cleanup,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement.

“Exxon Mobil must and will be held accountable. The toxic footprint of Exxon Mobil is found all over this area. It is Exxon Mobil’s oil that remains under the homes and businesses. And it is Exxon Mobil that has dragged its feet and done as little as possible to address the dangers that it created.”

According to the notices, Exxon Mobil’s current mechanisms for recovering the spilled oil have, as a side effect, discharged yet more pollutants into the creek, a process that the company has been aware of for years, the notices say. A spokesman for Mr. Cuomo said on Thursday that Exxon Mobil had also been reselling some of the recovered oil, even as it allowed the creek to become more polluted.

Barry Wood, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said the company had not received the notices. In a statement, he said the company had already helped recover more than 9.3 million gallons of the petroleum products.

“While the cost of remediation at the site is confidential, Exxon Mobil is committed to remediation of the site, and we have been aggressive in our efforts and have made significant progress,” Mr. Wood said.

He added that the company remained committed to its 1990 agreement with the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

“We take our environmental responsibilities very seriously and have committed substantial resources toward cleaning up the site,” he said.

“Complex remediation projects such as this, where the product to be recovered is under ground and not easily accessible, takes time to complete.”

Phelps Dodge operated a copper smelting plant on the creek’s north bank, in Queens, where studies have found heavy metals and other pollutants.

Companies later acquired by KeySpan owned gas processing facilities along the waterway that contaminated the creek’s sediments with some of the same pollutants and other toxic chemicals, according to the notices.

Companies later acquired by Chevron and BP operated storage or refinery facilities along the creek that leaked oil into the ground, according to the notices.

Together, the notices significantly widen the scope of state legal action concerning the creek, a dirty, 3.5-mile-long estuary that marks Brooklyn’s northern border and flows into the East River. Local politicians said yesterday that they believed Mr. Cuomo’s actions would pave the way for a long-overdue cleanup of the creek and its transformation into a recreational waterway.

“The Brooklyn-Queens waterfront has the potential to be New York’s Gold Coast, with sparkling towers, schools, parks and libraries,” said Eric Gioia, a City Council member whose Queens district abuts the creek. “Cleaning Newtown Creek is critical to that vision.”


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/09/nyregion/brooklynlarge.jpg


Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who took over investigation of the spill from the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation last year when he was attorney general, praised Mr. Cuomo’s decision.

“This is an important day for the people of Greenpoint, Brooklyn,” Mr. Spitzer said. “It is imperative that Exxon Mobil and the other companies responsible for this pollution be held fully accountable.”

When first discovered, the spill was estimated at 17 million gallons of oil and oil products spread over 100 acres. Currently, the spill covers about 55 acres.

For years, Greenpoint residents have watched as environmentalists battled state officials and the companies responsible for the oil. In 2004, Riverkeeper, an environmental group, decided to file its own lawsuit against Exxon Mobil.

The following summer, soil tests performed by the group showed toxic fumes coming from the ground over the spill. That caused a second lawsuit by about two dozen Greenpoint residents.

Both suits are active, but local officials and environmental groups said Mr. Cuomo’s move would put significant new pressure on Exxon Mobil.

“They have managed to manipulate and work with previous administrations and enlist their help in avoiding a serious remediation,” said Alex Matthiessen, the president of Riverkeeper. “Attorney General Cuomo’s notice letter brings that to a screeching halt.”

Federal laws require Mr. Cuomo to give the companies advance notice of his intent to sue them, and to allow the companies to avoid the suits by acting quickly.

BP, Chevron, KeySpan and Phelps Dodge have been cooperating with state officials to clean up their own properties, according to Robert E. Hernan, an assistant attorney general who heads Mr. Cuomo’s environmental enforcement unit.

But Exxon Mobil may prove more resistant. According to the notices, the attorney general’s office recently approached the company and asked it to take responsibility for stopping continuing leaks at one of two sites it owns.

The company declined, the documents state, and Mr. Hernan predicted that it would fight the new action in court.

“Our expectations are not high,” he said.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[ablarc]

So, let's see ... how does it go? If the state wins, Exxon cleans up, huh?

Or maybe ExxonMobil appeals or drags its heel for a couple more decades, and then everyone lets it subside back into simmering inactivity.

So maybe it stays this way forever.

There are two entirely separate issues here, and they need to be un-linked: 1. cleaning up and 2. deciding who pays for it. The former can be done now, the latter is likely to take decades (or forever).

If the state feels this has to be done at all costs, they should do it now and sue ExxonMobil to recover the cleanup's cost. That way the decades of trying to recover the cost will be blessed with a cleaned-up creek teeming with development --even if the state loses.

The other way, the creek stays polluted and undeveloped till the distant time when the final appeal on payment responsibility is exhausted. And there's no guarantee the state will win.

And if the state loses: the state either pays for it anyway, taking decades to accomplish it and find the funds-- or the state discovers it isn't so important to clean up after all (sour grapes).

Just do it now, Spitzer, and sock Exxon for the cost.




If --a half century from now-- the government fails to recover the clean-ups cost, there'll be a half-century of Gold Coast tax revenue and a grateful citizenry for a consolation prize.

Why, the consolation prize alone is worth it.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Taking it up a notch is exactly the right thing to do.

That's what happened with GE. A binding agreement was reached, with set dates. The federal EPA has the authority, if the company doesn't comply, to do the work and send them a bill. Work begins this spring, and will take 6 years.

It's easy to say that the state should do the work (in which case it's almost guaranteed they will not collect one penny), and not have to decide what gets eliminated from the budget.

[ablarc]

It's easy to say that the state should do the work (in which case it's almost guaranteed they will not collect one penny), and not have to decide what gets eliminated from the budget.
You eliminate the things that are less important. If you eliminate nothing, it means everything's more important.

That's what the government is saying in effect as long as work's not underway. Maybe this isn't really very important...

Not disputing what you're saying, Zippy; just clarifying what I'm saying. If the EPA is the speediest way to go, I'm all for it (they're part of what I call the state, i.e. the government). I don't care which branch does it, but if it's important, then delaying a start while arguing about who pays is just not an option.

Either that or it's really not that important...

[ZippyTheChimp]

But it has to go to court to force the issue. It should have been done years ago.

I've watched the Hudson River PCB charade for decades. Study piled on study. Yeah, we'll clean it up. Wait, it's degrading naturally. OK, maybe it's not, but disturbing it would be worse. We'll study it more, and get back to you.

What didn't help during that period was that CEO Jack Welsh was regarded as a corporate deity, and there was a reluctance to take him on.

The climate has changed, especially in regard to Exxon and its bloated profits. Hopefully, when that twit is out of the White House, the EPA can be rehabilitated.

[CMANDALA]

Newtown Creek Cruise
Sunday, July 8, 2007

An intense four hour exploration of Newtown Creek, NYC.

Departs from East 23rd Street, Manhattan
11:00 A.M.

Hosted by Newtown Creek Alliance.
Sponsored by Working Harbor Committee.

For tickets and more information:

https://www.nycharities.org/event/event.asp?CE_ID=1237

or

www.newtowncreekalliance.org

[CMANDALA]

Newtown Creek Alliance Meeting

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Meatspace Gallery
46-01 5th Street, One block west of Vernon Blvd
Long Island City
6:30 P.M.

http://meatspacegallery.com/

Vernon/Jackson station on #7 train

Complete directions to the gallery are on their website.

They are hosting an exhibit, "Submerged", inspired by the water, so is is a perfect fit.

http://www.newtowncreekalliance.org/

[CMANDALA]

Ten million gallons of toxic gunk trapped in the Brooklyn aquifer is starting to creep toward the surface. How scary is that?

http://nymag.com/news/features/32865/


www.newtowncreekalliance.org

[ZippyTheChimp]

July 18, 2007

Suit Seeks Belated Cleanup of a 57-Year-Old Oil Spill

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/18/nyregion/spill600.jpg
Stephen Hilger/Bloomberg News
Chemical traces from a 1950 oil spill are still found in
Newtown Creek between Brooklyn, left, and Queens.

By ALAN FEUER

The New York State attorney general’s office filed a lawsuit yesterday against Exxon Mobil and four other companies to force them to clean up a 57-year-old oil spill that has polluted the soil beneath Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and left traces of toxic chemicals in nearby Newtown Creek.

The spill — said to be originally almost twice as large as the Exxon Valdez disaster, which dumped 11 million gallons of oil off the Alaskan coast in 1989 — resulted from an industrial explosion in 1950. It went undiscovered until 1978, when the Coast Guard found a subterranean pool that contained an estimated 17 million gallons of oil products.

In the lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, the attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, said he is seeking to compel Exxon Mobil and the other companies to speed up the cleanup and to force them to pay millions of dollars in fines. Also named in the suit are BP, Chevron, KeySpan and Phelps Dodge.

For years, Greenpoint residents have wondered whether state environmental officials or the companies would finally clean up the spill, which occurred at an oil refinery and storage facility on the Brooklyn-Queens border. In 2004, Riverkeeper, an environmental group, filed its own lawsuit against Exxon Mobil. The following summer, soil tests performed by the group found toxic fumes coming from the ground above the spill. That prompted a second lawsuit by about two dozen Greenpoint residents. Both suits are pending.

The state’s lawsuit is a sharp turnaround in its handling of the spill. A 1990 agreement between state environmental officials and Mobil Oil — which merged with Exxon in 1999 — required the company to recover the spilled oil, but it specified no deadline and required no cleanup of either the creek or the polluted soil under Greenpoint. In February, the attorney general’s office indicated a change of policy was at hand by sending Exxon Mobil and the four other companies a notice of its intention to sue.

About eight million gallons of oil and petroleum byproducts — including benzene, arsenic and lead — are believed to remain underground, and soil tests have revealed that the spill has released toxic vapors in the neighborhood.

Mr. Cuomo said the spill was nearly twice the size of the one created by the Exxon Valdez accident. He added that the oil seeps from the bulkheads of the former oil facility into the three-and-a-half-mile-long Newtown Creek and then into the East River.

“It’s amazing this situation has gone on as long as it has,” Mr. Cuomo said in an interview. “It’s been allowed to exist for decades.”

In the almost 30 years since the spill was discovered, the companies have made no progress in treating the contaminated soil, Mr. Cuomo said, and they have not addressed the contamination in Newtown Creek. Beyond fines and a faster cleanup, the suit seeks scientific testing and investigations to determine the scope of the environmental contamination, cleanup of contaminated groundwater and soil and the restoration of Newtown Creek.

Barry Wood, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that company officials had not seen the suit and could not comment on its specific charges. In the past, Exxon Mobil has said that it has helped to recover more than 9.3 million gallons of oil and oil byproducts from the spill and that it takes its responsibilities seriously under the 1990 agreement with the state.

Basil B. Seggos, chief investigator for Riverkeeper, said the state’s lawsuit is “a fairly dramatic step forward.”

“It demonstrates the state is prepared to hold Exxon accountable for its misdeeds and reverse 30 years of inaction,” he said. “We look forward to working with the attorney general.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[MikeW]

I'm amazed there's no statute of limitiations. From what I've heard, some of this goes back to the old Standard Oil days.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Should this situation have a statute of limitations, and what should it be?

[MikeW]

I'm not saying it should, I'm just a bit surprised that it doesn't.

Should this situation have a statute of limitations, and what should it be?

[CMANDALA]

September 29, 2007 Nature Walk Opens

http://www.newtowncreekalliance.org/92907a.htm

[MikeW]

Coming somewhat out of left field...

Someone talked about the GE Hudson PCB thing. Unlike the Newtown Creek situation, which was accidental/negligent/illegal, when GE was dumping PCBs in the Hudson it was with full knowledge and permission of the the various government agencies involved at the time.

[lofter1]

Which ^^^ does not make the GE / Hudson dumping permissable, legal or wise.

The government types have a constitutional responsibility to safeguard the citizens.

[MikeW]

????

The government gave them an explicit permit to do something and it's not legal? Where the hell do you get that. Then forty years later, the gov't is, like, oops, that was a bad idea. They shouldn't be changing the rules after the game's been played.


Which ^^^ does not make the GE / Hudson dumping permissable, legal or wise.

The government types have a constitutional responsibility to safeguard the citizens.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The government gave them an explicit permit to do something and it's not legal?It was not illegal, but not because any "permit" was issued. It was just done until officially banned.

Monsanto began manufacture of PCBs in 1929.

By the mid 30s, studies had already identified health risks.

In 1952, GE began using PCBs in capacitors made at its Hudson Falls plant.

In 1968, PCB poisoning was documented in Japan.

GE responded to NYS requests that the company moderate its PCB discharge by threatening to move all operations out of the state.

In 1976, the Toxic Substance Control Act banned the manufacture of PCBS.

In 1977, PCB discharge into rivers was banned by the Clean Water Act.

[brianac]

U.S. Officials Will Review Pollution in Waterway

By SEWELL CHAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/sewell_chan/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: August 26, 2008

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has agreed to “develop a sampling plan” that could lead to Newtown Creek’s being named a federal Superfund site, a designation that could accelerate long-stalled cleanup efforts in the polluted, oil-slicked 3.5-mile estuary between Queens and Brooklyn.

The agency’s decision was made public on Monday by the offices of Representatives Nydia M. Velázquez (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/v/nydia_m_velazquez/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Manhattan and Brooklyn and Anthony D. Weiner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/anthony_d_weiner/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Queens and Brooklyn.

Last month, the two lawmakers urged the agency to test the area for inclusion in the Superfund program. If the tests turn up a significant level of chemicals and other hazardous waste, the site could be eligible for millions of dollars in federal assistance. A Superfund designation would also allow the agency to go after the companies responsible for the contamination.

In 1990, ExxonMobil entered into two consent decrees to clean up the spill, roughly 17 million gallons of oil and other chemicals that leaked into the ground after a tank explosion in 1950. The company says roughly half the spill — discovered in 1978 — has been cleaned up, but the pace of the work has been criticized.

Lawmakers have asked the E.P.A. to test four sites — two former hazardous-waste facilities, a former copper-smelting plant, and a former coal-gasification complex — that are believed to be particularly contaminated.

In a letter dated Aug. 15, Alan J. Steinberg, a regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, noted to Ms. Velázquez, Mr. Weiner and Representatives Gene Green of Texas and Hilda L. Solis of California that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was already working to remedy decades of industrial pollution at the site, including oil releases.

But Mr. Steinberg added that the agency would “review existing information from ongoing and past environmental investigations.”

“From the information gathered in this review,” he wrote, “E.P.A. will identify any data gaps that may exist and will subsequently develop a sampling plan to address them. We anticipate that this effort will take approximately six months to complete. Once the data are collected, E.P.A. will evaluate what additional actions, if any, may be warranted in accordance with Cercla.”

Cercla is the acronym for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, which created the Superfund program.

Dumping of industrial materials into Newtown Creek dates as far back as the 19th century, but the oil spill that is the subject of litigation and legislation is believed to have begun in the 1950s.

In 2004, after soil tests by the environmental advocacy group Riverkeeper (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/riverkeeper/index.html?inline=nyt-org) detected toxic fumes coming from the ground above the spill, dozens of residents filed a property damage lawsuit against ExxonMobil and the other two companies, BP and Chevron, that have owned or currently own industrial sites from which the spill has spread.

In 2006, Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the state attorney general at the time, agreed to look into the matter, and in 2007, Mr. Spitzer’s successor, Andrew M. Cuomo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/andrew_m_cuomo/index.html?inline=nyt-per), sued ExxonMobil. But meanwhile, local officials have called for more aggressive federal action.

In a statement on Monday, advocates cheered the decision by the federal agency to review Newtown Creek.

Basil Seggos, chief investigator at Riverkeeper, said in a statement. “The resources of the E.P.A. will prove indispensable in protecting the creek and its surrounding communities from a legacy of toxic dumping.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/nyregion/26creek.html?ref=nyregion

Copyright 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[CMANDALA]

The Newtown Creek Tour is almost sold out. If you would like to join us please do not hesitate to buy a ticket.

The handout includes copies of the 1932 Port Authority waterfront maps. Our narration covers historical aspects of the waterway. Environmental speakers discuss present-day pollution and solutions. Possible sightings could include tugs and tankers. Two drawbridges will open for us.

http://workingharbor.com/special%20tours.htm#newtown_creek

http://www.newtowncreekalliance.org/