Prohibits treatment, discharge, disposal, application to roadway, or storage of wastewater, wastewater solids, sludge, drill cuttings or other byproducts from natural gas exploration or production using hydraulic fracturing.
The bill aims to safeguard New Jersey's health and environment by prohibiting activities that could lead to contamination of local water sources and ecosystems. The state's high population density and reliance on surface waters accentuate the necessity of this regulation, as improper handling of hydraulic fracturing byproducts could result in significant public health hazards. By establishing clear prohibitions, the legislation seeks to end the practice of accepting potentially dangerous wastes from hydraulic fracturing, addressing both safety and contamination concerns.
Assembly Bill A1087 prohibits the treatment, discharge, disposal, application to roadways, or storage of wastewater, wastewater solids, sludge, drill cuttings, or other byproducts resulting from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas exploration or production within the state of New Jersey. The bill outlines the Legislature's concerns about the hazardous chemicals and materials used in the hydraulic fracturing process, which can pose health, safety, and environmental risks. Legislators highlighted the potential contamination of public drinking water supplies and the inadequacy of current wastewater treatment facilities in managing such pollutants.
Notably, the legislation emerges from growing scrutiny over the practices related to hydraulic fracturing, especially regarding the lack of transparency from companies involved in the gas extraction process. The presence of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the wastewater poses a substantial risk, raising alarms that existing federal and state regulations are insufficient to protect public health. A1087 responds to these concerns by eliminating the potential for local facilities to handle these hazardous materials, a move that may stir debates among industry advocates about economic impacts versus environmental protections. Opponents may argue that such restrictions could hinder resource extraction efforts and economic development but proponents believe the health risks far outweigh potential economic benefits.