Greenwich Conservation Advocates Support Fracking Waste Ban

From Greenwich Conservation Advocates: The RTM Subcommittee assigned to review a proposed Fracking Waste Ban held a public hearing in the Cone Room at Town Hall on May 1, 2018 at 7pm. Members of the public and RTM members provided feedback and recommendations to the Subcommittee on the proposed ban on fracking waste. Attendance was strong and, at times, standing room only. Many residents who could not attend also provided written testimony on the ban to the subcommittee.

The majority of the attendees at the hearing supported the ban which seeks to prevent, for example, the use of cheap but potentially toxic and radioactive construction fill or de-icers used on roads. Radium 226 is one of the Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) that contaminates solid and liquid wastes that come out of gas and oil wells in nearby states. There is a temporary state moratorium that prohibits de-icers. However, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is required to write future regulations, and will have discretion to allow salts from fracking on roadways in the future. A ban in Greenwich will prevent this use on town and private roads.

There is no current state law that prevents drill cuttings in fill in CT. There is no way of knowing if facilities are testing properly for radioactivity or treating wastes adequately to remove chemicals. Once processed, it’s no longer considered waste and can be moved around freely but still risks being radioactive. Many supporters of the ban are concerned history may be repeated in Greenwich, like the contaminated fill on GHS playing fields. Those in favor of the ban outnumbered those against by about 3:1.

A local shellfisher, Jardar Nygaard of Stella Mar Oysters, supported the ban because introducing fracking waste into Greenwich and/or other watershed towns would jeopardize his oyster business, among many other businesses in Greenwich that depend on clean water.

Janet McMahon, a member of GCA and RTM member from District 8, pointed out that although we can never prevent all accidents such as the recent contamination of wells in Northwest Greenwich or last week’s overturned chemical tanker in Stamford, this ban is an opportunity to prevent one large potential source of contamination and reduce traffic near Greenwich.

Elizabeth Dempsey, co-founder of the Greenwich-based Conservation Coalition, and member of GCA, debunked opponents’ claims that the ban would prevent Greenwich from using asphalt or hurt asphalt businesses in CT. She explained that GCA member Jay Louden had called Stamford-based asphalt producer O & G and the Department of Transportation who confirmed only virgin, non-contaminated products could be used and such products and suppliers are already state certified. Dempsey also said that a survey of towns with bans had “no issues” or “unintended consequences” and were highly encouraging of Greenwich passing its ban.

Heidi Matonis, a resident who lives across the street from Greenwich High School, pointed to the costs the city faces for past mistakes using contaminated construction fill at GHS. She asked the crowd, don’t we have enough contamination already?

Dr. Demosthenes Konstantatos, a resident with an extensive educational and work background in chemical toxicity, addressed the need to protect the future for future generations including his own grandchildren.
Doug Wood, Senior Policy Adviser of Grassroots Environmental Education, came up from Nassau County, which unanimously passed a county-wide ban in 2014. Wood participated in the passage of the fracking waste ban in multiple counties in New York. He stated that he doesn’t advocate for recycling radioactive material, and there have been no unintended consequences in Nassau County, which uses almost exact language as the proposed Greenwich ban. He’s spoken to Nassau County officials recently and not a single problem has arisen because of the county's ban on toxic waste from fracking operations or new products made from fracking waste. There have been no lawsuits, no lack of supplies or suppliers, no interruption of deliveries or problems finding vendors.

Jen Siskind, Local Coordinator for Food & Water Watch, pointed out opponents’ claims that the ordinance language is broad and many products will be banned are based on false logic and cherry picking of the word “any” instead of taking the specific definitions into context. No oil or gas products are banned, and tar and other wastes that come from refining oil to make asphalt emulsions are not banned.

Chris Yerinides, a member of the Norwalk Common Council testified that Norwalk is also considering this ban and that it was supported across party lines in the Ordinance Committee. He explained that one of the elected representatives in Greenwich had reached out to their committee urging them to vote no, but arguments lacked credibility. It is widely expected that the ban will pass in Norwalk in the near future.

Over 400 municipalities in New York are protected, including all five boroughs of New York City , from both local laws and 15 NY County laws. NYC bans oil and gas wastes, and 5 NY Counties have passed laws with the same prohibitions and definitions as the Greenwich proposed ordinance.

While there is currently no hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) occurring in Connecticut, the fracked wells in Pennsylvania and oil and gas wells in neighboring New York state are annually generating over a billion gallons of liquid waste and millions of tons of solid waste. This poisonous waste is disposed of in eight states already. CT has had a temporary moratorium on some, but not all, forms of fracking waste since 2014.
Opponents argued that Greenwich had too many regulations already, that the ban is too broad, and that the state should handle the issues.

Proponents countered that the regulations we have now make Greenwich a great place to live; that the ban language is precise and was used in five counties of New York and 43 of 44 towns in CT, and that many committees and lawyers with expertise on the industry have worked over multiple years to refine the language; and that the state legislature has failed to protect residents several times already.
GCA and other proponents of the ban support a current statewide bill, Substitute Senate Bill 103, and urge all residents to contact their elected representatives to vote for it. However, few days remain in the 2018 session and time is running out. A failure to pass SB 103 would make it the fourth time that a statewide permanent ban has failed in 6 years.

Greenwich Conservation Advocates, the initiator and lead proponent of the ban is a grassroots group of Greenwich residents focused on advocacy and education around clean water. For more information about Greenwich Conservation Advocates or about the fracking waste ban, please visit www.greenwichconservationadvocates.org.

Image Via Shuttershock