Monthly Archives: December 2016

CT Congressional, State Delegates Stand United Against FRA Plan to Route High Speed Trains Through Old Lyme, Southeastern CT

Posted on by
Reply

Old Lyme First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder speaks at yesterday’s press conference. Photo by CTNewsJunkie.com.

At a press conference held yesterday at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, U.S. Sen. Blumenthal, Rep. Courtney, state Department of Transportation Commissioner James P. Redeker, state legislators from the southeastern Connecticut shoreline and Old Lyme First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder stood united in their opposition to the Federal Railroad Authority’s Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released yesterday.

The EIS includes the controversial Old Saybrook to Kenyon, R.I., bypass, which travels through Old Lyme, although in Blumenthal’s words, “the needle did move … the FRA backed off in terms of an aerial route,” and a modification has been made in that a tunnel is now proposed from Old Saybrook to Old Lyme — details of the precise route of the tunnel are unclear.  But Blumenthal continued, “A tunnel raises another whole set of questions … the [Connecticut River] estuary is one of the world’s treasures.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal addresses reporters at yesterday’s press conference. Photo by CTNewsJunkie.com.

At one point in the press conference, Senator Blumenthal held up a photo from the EIS report of the massive boring equipment that would be used to dig the tunnel commenting it would be used to destroy whole neighborhoods.

Blumenthal stressed time and again that the proposed plan is “DOA — dead on arrival,” because “the FRA statement made it crystal clear that the process migrates to Hartford now,” and “this plan is not ever going to pass muster,”  He clarified, “This is a plan with no funding,” indicating that if the state of Connecticut does not underwrite the cost of the proposed railroad in the state, it cannot proceed.

Reemsnyder spoke passionately of the effect that the proposed route would have on Old Lyme, saying, “It has the potential of devastating our community, despite all the communication [confirming expressing that opinion.]  She added regarding the new tunnel option, “We still have grave concerns [about that option], the [Connecticut River] estuary is one of the few in the world without industry … our residents have invested in the environment, giving their time, effort and money.” Reemsnyder acknowledged the support of all the state and town leaders standing with her noting, “I’m glad to see my colleagues behind me,” and stating firmly, “We will continue the fight.” She reminded the audience in conclusion, “This plan will only go forward when Connecticut wants it to go forward.”

Pointing out, “This report ignores the concerns of residents,” Senator Paul Formica (R-20th) said he planned on, “introducing legislation to prevent using Connecticut funds to fund this plan” until a “common sense and reasonable solution” is found. All speakers were in support of investing in Connecticut’s railroad but felt the current infrastructure should be upgraded rather than build new tracks, which would only create only marginal time savings for rail travelers.

State Rep. Devin Carney (R-23rd) noted, “This plan is like a black cloud hanging over the Town of Old Lyme,” and commented on the “disturbing aspect” of the plan in that the FRA, “decided to ram it through.”  In giving his support to Formica’s proposed legislation, Carney said firmly, “I stand with Senator Formica … shame on the FRA.”

Gregory Stroud, Executive Director of SECoast.org — the non-profit “organizing and educating the public to protect Southeastern Connecticut and the Lower Connecticut River Valley” — was encouraged by Formica’s proposed legislation, commenting by email, “If there is a bright side to the news today, it is that State Rep. Devin Carney and State Sen. Paul Formica have taken exactly the right tack, proposing legislation to block funding for the Kenyon to Saybrook bypass if it fails to garner local support. It’s a concrete step that hits directly at the weakness of the plan, and helps turn vague
assurances into concrete legal hurdles. It’s important legislation. It deserves bipartisan support, and we hope that
Governor Malloy will stand up for southeastern Connecticut and lend his support.”

CT Department of Transportation Commissioner James Redeker addresses media representatives at the press conference in the State Legislative Building. Photo by CTNewsJunkie.com.

Click here to view a video of the press conference

We thank our friends at CTNewsJunkie.com for sending us their photos from the press conference. Click here to read a report of the press conference by Christine Stuart of CTNewsJunkie.com and published Dec. 16.

Click here to read a commentary by SECoast.org on yesterday’s announcement, which includes some very important information about the fact that the FRA finalized this proposed route over a year ago. To quote from SECoast’s blog post, “… The plan released yesterday is the same plan we uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act in late June. It includes the same finalized maps and documents we uncovered in early September. This is the same plan that CT DOT Commissioner James Redeker discussed with staff, Federal Railroad Administration and David Carol of Parsons Brinckerhoff days after the close of public comment on February 16. Remember, in an interview with the Connecticut Mirror, CT DOT Public Transportation chief Richard Andreski admitted that this same plan, unchanged, was chosen all the way back in November 2015 prior to public comment …”  Read the full post at this link.

View the FRA’s map of the proposed route at this link; Old Lyme is on Map Sheet 18, which is at page 30/71.

A report by Kimberly Drelich published by The Day Dec. 17 is at this link.

A report by Don Stacom published by the Hartford Courant Dec. 16 is at this link.

Reemsnyder Responds to FRA Proposal to Route Train Through Old Lyme, Says It Will Not Happen

Posted on by
1

Old Lyme First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder

Old Lyme First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder has issued the following statement in response to today’s announcement by the Federal Rail Authority (FRA) that the FRA intends to pursue the Old Saybrook to Kenyon, R.I., option as their preferred route for the new high speed rail track between Boston and New York City with a tunnel taking the train under the Connecticut River and emerging to the east somewhere in Old Lyme:

“After months of waiting, petitioning the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on behalf of Old Lyme, and working with our Congressional representatives, local legislators and state leaders, the FRA has finally released its Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)–months later than promised and only one month before a new administration is sworn in.

We have made strenuous efforts to convince the FRA that selecting Alternative 1 in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which incorporates a “bypass” from Old Saybrook, Connecticut to Kenyon, Rhode Island, would be a colossal mistake.  Not only is there substantial thinking that this southern route would not best serve the economic interests of our nation, state and the Northeast Corridor, there is enormous doubt that this bypass can be constructed in a cost-effective manner that avoids catastrophic damage to our environment and cultural heritage.

In summary, the current proposal is deficient in several ways vis-a-vis the environment

  • The report fails to demonstrate that the environmental impact of the preferred alternative is sound when compared to other possible alternatives.
  • The FRA failed to examine the possibility of creating new alternatives based on the concerns  for the environment as raised in comments on its Tier 1 alternatives.
  • The FRA proposal fails to persuade that the benefits of the route in question are economically practical and that the future cost of construction of this alternative outweigh the environmental risks, especially in light of the fact that its chief client, AMTRAK, prefers another route.
  • The proposal fails to address the effect on the circulation flow and sediment transport vital to the health of the Connecticut River estuary.
  • The proposal fails to identify the impact of such a massive infrastructure project  (both during the construction phase and upon completion) on the biodiversity of the estuary and its wetlands and the species that breed, spawn, fledge, inhabit and migrate to these wetlands.
  • The proposal fails to identify the impact this project will have on the estuary and its wetlands as climate continues to warm and tides rise and whether the construction of such a tunnel or aerial bridge will hasten the adverse effects of carbon emissions, tidal and temperature increases.
  • The report is silent on how the FRA proposes to acquire the property necessary for this expansion and the effect on the farmlands, fields, forests, open spaces and private property involved as well as whether this project will contribute to the existing problems of habitat loss and forest fragmentation.
  • The report is silent on how the construction phase of this proposed project will impact other transportation in the affected communities, particularly, traffic on Interstate 95  and CT Rte.9, as well as local roads.

In addition, while  these comments primarily address the effects on the Connecticut River Estuary, there are a number of other environmental issues and questions that remained unanswered including:

  • The effects of this project on air quality and water resources (including tributaries  in the watershed);
  • The effect on ground water resources and water quality, especially since the historic village of Old Lyme relies on wells;
  • There is little analysis of noise;
  • The  visual effect of a tunnel/bridge forever changing the landscape of the area and adversely affecting its economy which is reliant on tourism; and
  • The effect of a tunnel/bridge on the area’s geology and areas of archeological significance.

Although we acknowledge that this route may never be implemented, the uncertainty that attaches to this recommendation has caused, and will continue to cause, substantial economic and social distress along its route.  In the absence of solid scientific evidence that such a route is even feasible, it is unconscionable and purposeless to impose this harm on our state.  We therefore have exhorted the FRA to leave the determination of the new alignments unspecified in the EIS, pending future review by all interested parties.  Despite all our efforts, including a recent letter to the FRA Administrator, Sarah Feinberg, pointing out the economic damage that has already been felt in our community, the costly bypass from Old Saybrook to Kenyon is included in the recommendation.

It is deeply disturbing that the FRA appears to have completely disregarded the harm this plan is causing, and rejected the viable suggestion to leave all “lines on the map” blank, allowing the State of Connecticut and local leaders to determine how new alignments should be mapped through our state. Hundreds of individuals, experts, and stakeholders have tried to communicate their concerns with this bypass, but they apparently fell on deaf ears, as did the unwavering efforts of Congressman Courtney, Senator Blumenthal, and other state and local leaders.

But let me be clear – this new route will NOT go through Old Lyme. I am pleased to have the support of Governor Malloy, Commissioner Redeker, and others in saying that the STATE OF CONNECTICUT and local governments, not the FRA or the Federal Government, will ultimately determine the route high speed rail takes through Connecticut. We will stand united against this proposal and be prepared to fight the Goliath.”

FRA Endorses High Speed Rail Route Through Old Lyme, But With a Tunnel; Courtney, Malloy, Blumenthal, Murphy Express Strong Opposition to Plan

Posted on by
2

The Federal Rail Authority (FRA) today released the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Final EIS) for NEC FUTURE and it is now available for download at www.necfuture.com.

The preferred route includes the controversial Old Saybrook to Kenyon, R.I., by-pass which runs through Old Lyme, and a tunnel in the same area.

Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02), Governor Dannel P. Malloy, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) released the following statement after the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released their Tier 1 final environmental impact statement for the Northeast Corridors FUTURE plan:

“The FRA’s report released today continues to ignore strong and consistent concerns expressed by the State of Connecticut and local citizens about the eastern shoreline realignment plans. We specifically asked FRA to limit the NEC Future Tier 1 EIS to identify a service and investment strategy to achieve state-of- good repair and maximize the capacity, frequency and speed of existing rail lines.

By continuing to include plans to bypass the current route, the FRA has enflamed impacted communities stretching from Fairfield County to Stonington where the proposed alignment will eviscerate neighborhoods, historic landmarks, and real estate values.

As the FRA itself has confirmed, this new proposed alignment cannot ultimately receive the permits, rights of way and other critical elements without the support and approval of the State of Connecticut.

To this end, we will continue to do all we can to remove this bypass from the final FRA plan in order to provide our communities with the certainty they deserve. Should the FRA continue in its pursuit of its proposed alignment, we will work to ensure that Connecticut exercises every tool at its disposal at the state and federal levels to stop any effort to move forward with this misguided plan.”

A press conference will be held at 2 p.m. this afternoon at which Rep. Joe Courtney, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Department of Transportation Commissioner James Redeker, and Old Lyme First Seletwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder will discuss the announcement by the FRA.

Greg Stroud, Executive Director of SECoast.org, has released the following statement:

“We have been working full-time on this issue since January, and we have yet to find a single resident, local, state or federal representative, or group, actively supporting the idea of a tunnel under the Connecticut river and Old Lyme.

Why? Even if a tunnel could better preserve the immediate historic downtown of Old Lyme,  it would no doubt be much worse for the environment, and would simply shift the historic and economic impacts onto the communities to the east, whether East Lyme, New London, Mystic, Stonington or Westerly. We find that unacceptable.

A tunnel does nothing to remedy the impacts to the broader region. And as was obvious at the August 31 meeting in Old Lyme, the entire region really is adamantly opposed to the Kenyon to Old Saybrook bypass. Every single town official from Old Saybrook to Westerly, Rhode Island is on record opposing the plan. That doesn’t happen very often.

At some point, you would hope that the federal government would realize this isn’t NIMBY, this is roughly 1/4 of a state, for good reason, refusing to bear the burdens of plan, without the benefits (if there are any to speak of). In the case of Old Lyme, this is a question of survival, and I believe that Mayor Passero in New London, feels almost as strongly.

On an environmental level, a tunnel would very likely require extensive “dewatering” given the routing, the extensive marshes, the lack of bedrock, and a local geology characterized by glacial drift.  In a community of wells, surrounded by marshes, at the mouth of the Connecticut river — one of the only major rivers in the hemisphere lacking an industrialized mouth and port — we believe a tunnel is a nonstarter.

And frankly, given past history, and private discussions with transportation officials, I’d go further and question the seriousness of the offer. When pressed in public and by the press, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has repeatedly refused to rule out a return to a much-less-expensive bridge option through Old Lyme.

If you recall, the FRA was forced to issue three or so clarifications and retractions when questioned by the press on this issue just after the meeting on August 31 —
ctmirror.org/2016/08/31/federal-rail-official-no-elevated-track-in-old-lyme-spokesman-backpedals/

The FRA still hasn’t responded to straightforward Freedom of Information requests filed on April 4, 2016. The FRA claims that these requests are filled on a “first come first served” basis, and refuses to explain the delay. That’s no way to win support in the region for a tunnel, or any other plan.”

Don Stacom of The Hartford Courant published a piece titled, “Railroad Officials Full Speed Ahead on Controversial New Amtrak Northeast Corridor Bypass“a short time ago, in which he states, “Old Lyme is the center of opposition: Critics fear hulking, industrial-looking elevated tracks ruining the New England charm of their village. Museums, schools, environmentalists and historic preservationists all denounced the idea this summer.”

High Speed Rail Plan to be Announced at 10am Today, Likely to Include Route Through Old Lyme; Stroud Explains 30-Day Timeline to Respond

Posted on by
Reply

SECoast.org sent out an e-blast  yesterday afternoon stating the following:

“Congressional and other sources confirm that the the Federal Railroad Administration will be announcing the final blueprint for NEC Future on Friday 12/16. The Congressional delegation will be briefed at 10:00 a.m. and we expected to be briefed at around 11:30 a.m.

The announcement will then start the formal 30-day clock ticking in an attempt to beat the end of the presidential term. We strongly believe that the Kenyon to Saybrook bypass through Old Lyme will be part of the final plan.”

We asked Greg Stroud, Executive Director of SECoast.org, to explain the significance of the 30-days for our readers and this was his response:

“The next 30 days are mandated to allow the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to function without undue interference from the courts. If we intend to oppose this plan in the courts, the law requires that we first “exhaust all administrative remedies.” That means that in order to raise an issue in the courts, we must first raise the issue during this 30-day period, and give the FRA an opportunity to find a remedy without the intervention of the courts. If we fail to do that, the courts will basically reject any future court case, whatever the merits.

In fact during each bureaucratic step that follows, for the next however many years, the law requires that we exhaust the legal remedies for that step if we intend to oppose it in court. There are a lot of steps, but the next 30 days are by far the most important, because it is during these 30 days, that we point out the flaws in the entire Tier 1 process dating back to 2012.

Luckily, we have had access to excellent counsel over the last months.  We believe very strongly that NEC FUTURE is a flawed process, handled contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the law. Hopefully we can stay out of the courts. It’s hard to fight the endless resources of the federal government, but we believe there is an excellent case to be made, and we believe that the FRA knows it.

What more obvious sign of failure is there, than the fact that the federal government will be releasing its once-in-a-generation plan, by surprise, without fanfare, just nine days before the Christmas holidays?”

We’ll publish the news of the proposed route(s) as soon as it breaks today and then, dear readers, if suspicions are confirmed, be ready for 30 days of intense work — and fundraising — to fight this plan.

And let’s take a few minutes to thank Greg Stroud and his team for all their extraordinary efforts on this topic. We are very fortunate to have them in our corner now … and through the impending months.

Editor’s Note: SECoast.org is a locally-directed special project of the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation. Since publicly breaking news of the proposed bypass in January of this year, SECoast.org has been working tirelessly as an effective advocate for Old Lyme and the local area by catalyzing growing regional opposition to the bypass.

Recycling in Old Lyme: Electronic Waste

Posted on by
2

LymeLine.com is publishing a series of articles in association with Old Lyme’s Solid Waste and Recycling Committee — these articles lay out best recycling practices. Previous articles have covered Old Lyme’s current curbside trash and recycling program; the safe disposal of medications; the recycling of paint, and the recycling of mattresses.

In this article we cover the more complex topic of managing electronics at the end of their useful life; i.e., what should we do with our e-waste? The topic is especially pertinent right now because — I’m certain — that more electronics move in and out of our homes during the holidays than at any other time of the year.

Scope of the Problem

Proper disposal of e-waste is a very significant issue. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 2.5 million tons of e-waste are produced each year in the United States. The majority is not recycled, so most of our discarded electronics are ending up in landfills; the EPA estimates that less than one in 10 mobile phones is recycled, and only about 25 percent of all e-waste is collected for recycling.

If you’re checking the math, some of the rest gets donated; but according to EPA pundits, almost three quarters of computers sold in the United States end up stockpiled in garages, basements, and closets waiting to eventually enter the disposal stream.

Our e-waste contains materials that are toxic if improperly handled at disposal. These toxic chemicals, which can leach into the soil over time or be released into the atmosphere, include cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants. Incineration releases these heavy metals into the air.

Mercury released into the atmosphere can bio-accumulate in the food chain, particularly in fish, a major route of exposure for the general public. If the products contain PVC plastic, highly toxic dioxins and furans are also released.

Moreover, electronics are made with valuable resources like precious metals, engineered plastics, glass, and other materials — all of which require energy to manufacture. When  equipment is discarded, these resources cannot be recovered and additional cost is incurred to manufacture new products from virgin materials.

Further, lanthanides, also known as rare-earth elements, are used to make magnets found in computers, cell phones, and many other consumer “gadgets.” Until recently, China was the main producer of these raw materials, giving that country an advantage in setting market prices. As a result, the U.S. Department of Energy developed an initiative to recover lanthanides from electronic waste.

An International Issue

It was/is common practice for developed countries to export their e-waste to developing countries, which may not have the resources to safely recycle and dispose of used electronics.  In the United States it is estimated that about a quarter of the waste collected for recycling is still being exported in this manner.

In 2001, the Basel Action Network (BAN), a non-governmental environmental organization based in Seattle, led an investigation of e-waste processing in China, India, and Pakistan. The investigation, which included sophisticated electronic tracking of recycled televisions, uncovered an entire area northeast of Hong Kong where migrant workers were employed breaking apart obsolete computers imported primarily from North America. The workers, who included children, were not using contemporary safety and anti-contamination precautions.

FRONTLINE’s coverage of the investigation can be viewed at: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/

BAN is named after the 1989 Basel Convention, a United Nations treaty designed to control and prevent the dumping of hazardous waste from developed to less developed countries. BAN serves as a watchdog and promoter of the Basel Convention and its decisions.

Such dumping is actually “legal” in the United States because this country has not ratified the Basel Convention; although as of July 2016, 183 nations  and the European Union were already parties to the Convention. Haiti and the United States have signed the Convention but not ratified it.

There is still no federal law that requires the recycling of electronic waste or prohibits it from being exported to developing countries. There have been some efforts in Congress to pass a bill that would make overseas dumping of toxic e-waste illegal, but the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA) has been stuck in the House for more than two years.

Consequently, individual states began to take action. California passed an electronics recycling law in 2003, the first state to do so. Connecticut passed its law in 2007, and 27 other states and the District of Columbia have since followed suit.

Connecticut’s electronics recycling law requires electronics manufacturers to pay for the cost of recycling. This is another example of the producer responsibility or product stewardship  principle, which requires that those involved in production take responsibility for the safe disposal of a product.

However, unlike mattresses and paint, which were covered in past articles, where the consumer pays a fee at the time of purchase to support the recycling program, Connecticut’s law requires manufacturers to finance the transportation and recycling of these electronics. It also requires recyclers of electronics to be approved and monitored by the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).

Drop-Off Sites

The local drop-off location for recycled residential electronics is the Old Lyme Transfer Station on Four Mile River Rd. There is no charge for drop off. Large electronics retailers like Best Buy and Staples also have recycling programs in place.

Covered Electronic Devices (CEDs)

Recyclable CEDs currently include the following:

  • televisions;
  • desktop and portable computers; monitors; printers;
  • fax machines; scanners;
  • cell phones,
  • tablets, and e-readers with a video display greater than 4 inches.

In contrast, e-waste from non-residential sources (i.e., commercial, governmental, retail, etc.) is regulated under current federal and state hazardous waste and solid waste laws and should not be dropped off as recycled residential electronics.

DEEP-approved recyclers then pick up these CEDs from the various Connecticut collection points. The recyclers then sort the computers and monitors by manufacturer and submit a bill to the responsible manufacturer for the cost of transporting and recycling those CEDs with the manufacturer’s brand name on them. Television manufacturers will pay a percentage of the total cost of recycling televisions equivalent to their market share.  Recyclers then submit bills to manufacturers for covered costs.

Data security

Under Connecticut’s recycling program, approved recyclers are required to establish data security practices. They must secure hard drives until such point that they are physically destroyed for recycling. If they intend to reuse or resell the computer, they must erase (“wipe”) the hard drive to a Department of Defense standard.

If you are concerned about data security, you can erase the hard drive prior to dropping off the device for recycling. There are several ways to erase a hard drive.  It is possible to perform this yourself at home, but it may be a bit complicated for those not facile with desktop computing. Paraphrasing recent political history, it’s not just “Like with a cloth or something?” Retailers like Best Buy and Staples may also perform this task, but for a charge. About a month ago Staples in Old Saybrook quoted a price of $29.99.

DEEP has information on inexpensive software that can be used to permanently erase the data on your hard drive at: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2714&q=397852&deepNav_GID=1645#Security

Our next article will cover the recycling of tires, and bulky items like appliances and furniture.

If you have questions or comments, contact: Leslie O’Connor at alete1@sbcglobal.net or Tom Gotowka at TDGotowka @aol.com.