Question 1: How would you describe where Newtown Creek currently is in the Superfund cleanup process, and what steps have been necessary to get to this point? What aspects of that process tend to slow things down?
Once a site is listed and identified as a Superfund site, we begin by asking a series of questions. The first is: What contamination is there? To answer that, we conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination. We call that the remedial investigation.
Along with the remedial investigation, we perform a feasibility study, where we look at possible options for addressing the contamination at the site. So we first identify the nature and extent of contamination, and then we look at the methods that might be applicable for addressing it.
After evaluating the possible technologies and approaches, EPA identifies what we believe to be the best way to address the contamination. That becomes the proposed remedial plan. The proposed plan is then presented to the impacted community in a formal public meeting, where EPA presents all of the investigative work we’ve done. We provide an overview of the extent and nature of the contamination, explain the methodologies that could be applied, and then present what we think is the best option.
The community has an opportunity to comment, not only during the formal presentation—where a stenographer records everything EPA and the public say—but also through written comments. EPA uses nine criteria to evaluate any remedy, and one of those is community acceptance. During the public meeting and the roughly 30-day comment period (which can be extended), the community can ask questions, express concerns, and say whether they support or oppose the proposed remedy.
EPA takes all of the comments received and responds to them in writing in something called a responsiveness summary. In the case of Newtown Creek, we held our public meeting in early September and extended the comment period to 60 days. The responsiveness summary is then included in the Record of Decision, which is EPA’s formal decision about which remedial method will be used at the site.
At Newtown Creek, the investigation portion has taken many, many years. Because the investigation has taken so long, EPA decided to focus on one portion of the creek, the East Branch, instead of issuing a proposed plan for the entire water body. The community had become frustrated with how much time it was taking for the agency to produce a proposed remedy, so issuing a proposed plan for this portion has been relatively well received.
The modeling we’ve had to do, determining where contamination is, how it is moving through the environment, has been a limiting factor. Not limiting in terms of our understanding, but in terms of the amount of time required to evaluate the contamination at the site.
I think that has probably been the most frustrating part of the work at this particular site, for both us and the community.
Question 2: How are community representatives or organizations brought into the process? And how can the wider public offer input or respond to EPA proposals? Were there any challenges?
There isn’t a single set process for communication. People can reach EPA directly, and there’s also a Community Advisory Group that meets monthly. This provides consistent space for dialogue with anyone who wants to stay involved.
The public meeting, which is an official step in the Superfund process, is open to everyone, and EPA works to ensure broad participation. For Newtown Creek, the team provided simultaneous interpretation in Polish, Mandarin, and Spanish, and translated all fact sheets into those languages to reach the area’s diverse communities, not just those already active in the Advisory Group.
EPA doesn’t see language differences as a barrier so much as something to plan for. The agency has systems for working with limited-English-proficiency communities, including multilingual staff, translation resources, interpreters, and an instant translation hotline for outreach. While language needs can be technically challenging, EPA has become adept at identifying these communities and adjusting outreach to bring them fully into the process.
Question 3: You also coordinate community involvement for the Gowanus Canal. How does your approach there differ from Newtown Creek? Are there similarities or differences between coordinating the two sites?
Each site is different, just as each community is different. The wants, needs, and concerns differ, as do the nature and extent of contamination.
Both Gowanus Canal and Newtown Creek were listed around 2010, but Gowanus had prior Army Corps work completed. Because of that, we didn’t need to spend as much time on investigative work at Gowanus. As of 2025, Gowanus is actively being remediated.
In Newtown, we selected the remedy only last September, and there is no active remediation yet.
In terms of process, though, the basic approach is the same:
- determine contamination
- evaluate remedies
- present the proposed remedy
- gather community feedback
- respond in a responsiveness summary
- issue the Record of Decision
- begin remedial design
The key difference is community relationship with the water body. Gowanus is much smaller and more intimate; people walk across it daily, and residential buildings line the canal. Newtown Creek is much larger and less accessible. Most residents don’t have regular contact with it.
Question 4: What do you wish more New Yorkers understood about the Superfund cleanup process? What role can local residents, schools, or organizations play?
I think the challenging part is that the Superfund process can seem long and daunting, but we really are asking simple questions: What is the nature and extent of contamination at the site? What are potential ways we can address the contamination? What’s the best of those options when we propose a plan? That’s what EPA evaluates as the best way to clean it up. So it’s a relatively straightforward process, but it can take a lot of time just to understand the nature and extent of contamination at a site.
In the case of the Gowanus, it’s a considerably smaller water body with different influences. In the case of Newtown Creek, it’s a considerably larger water body. There are tidal influences, seeps, and land influences. The nature and extent of contamination and the upland sources are considerably different. So comparing the two isn’t really appropriate. They’re very different sites. The modeling is different, the conditions are different.
Everything EPA does in evaluating a remedy is risk-based. Nothing is ever going to be 100%, but all our decisions are based on moving from an unacceptable risk to an acceptable risk. That’s how decisions are made. There’s also a lot of information, and it’s very technical. Sometimes it’s difficult to simplify extremely technical issues. You try your best, but technical things can only be simplified so much, so there’s a learning curve with Superfund sites.
If you try to explain calculus to someone, you can only go so far. If you break it down too far into addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, you lose people. The same is true with these technical sites. Some sites are easier to understand. I have sites with radioactive waste where people know: this facility dumped it here, we’ll remove it, and move on. But with a water body that has multiple contamination sources, tidal flows, and waste moving from one location to another, it’s harder to simplify that down. Technical sites are going to be a challenge for communities.
But EPA has been and will continue to be present, going to as many community advisory group meetings as possible to explain as best we can. Our job is to make sure people understand, and we’re used to having to explain particular processes and approaches repeatedly. You have to continually bring folks up to speed.
There are people who have been involved with a site since the beginning, and their understanding is at a different level than someone who’s just learning about it now. So we often find ourselves talking to people with very different levels of understanding at the same time. It’s like having someone with a master’s-level understanding and someone with a freshman-level understanding both in the same lecture hall, and the professor has to educate both at once.
And to your point about the creek not looking contaminated: people often expect a polluted water body to look dirty, with things floating in it and smelling bad. That’s not what this is. The serious contamination is in the sediments. That’s where the problem is.