Below I have included two sets of major flaws in the SGEIS
17 by Sourcewatch
14 by Catskill Mountain Keepers
You can use these points to help you write comments to the DEC
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=2011_SGEIS_Flaws(NY)
1: Equal Protection
- By giving the NYC and Syracuse Watersheds special protections, the NY DEC is implicitly admitting this process is inherently unsafe, and denies many New Yorkers Equal Protection of the Law. Q: Why the special protections? A: because this activity is inherently unsafe. Both the United States Constitution (14th Amendment) and the NY Constitution (Art. I, § 11) demand that all persons are deserving Equal Protection of the Law. These regulations fail this. (Walter Hang)
- The distinction that the NYC watershed is an unfiltered water source is a straw man. First, there are many people in upstate who are using unfiltered water from wells. Next, municipal water filtration systems are not sufficient to remove the range of toxins found in typical hyrdofracking water contamination (methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs), etc.) Municipal filters are not effective against these toxins, so the very basis of the NYC unfiltered water vs. filtered water systems distinction is dubious at best. http://www.scribd.com/doc/65224175/SGEIS-NYC-Reservoirs
http://63.134.196.109/documents/10sep21_McIntyre-DrinkingWaterinWatersheds.pdf
2: No Public Health Impact Analysis
- No analysis of public health impacts despite the fact that fracking-related air pollution and the potential for water contamination have serious effects on people-especially the elderly and children, and communities downwind and downstream of proposed fracking operations. There is growing evidence of negative health impacts related to gas extraction in other states. (Environmental Advocates, and Larysa Dyrszka, MD)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63146614/Health-Impacts-Of-Fracking
- The DOH has not participated in the review process. Indeed, the problems associated with shale gas development near housing have only recently been catalogued as drilling has moved into suburban locations and farming communities.
http://abcalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/hydraulic_fracturing_and_children_2011_health_prof.pdf
- There is a growing body of evidence on the health impacts associated with shale gas industrialization, yet the DEC has avoided a health impact assessment of them.http://www.propublica.org/article/science-lags-as-health-problems-emerge-near-gas-fields This is irresponsible and bad public policy.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64476300/Fracking-Health-Impact-Assessments
3: Drinking water supplies inadequately protected
- Shallow groundwater wells are uniquely vulnerable to being polluted by drilling operations. Drilling introduces methane into groundwater. Drilling near surface water sources virtually guarantees that they will be susceptible to being polluted by methane. Methane infused water is not potable. In high enough concentrations it is flammable. The proposed gas well setback of 500 feet from a water well is not adequate. See Sections 4.7 and 6.1.4http://www.scribd.com/doc/65079406/SGEIS-Water-Setbacks
- The preliminary draft increases buffers and setbacks from aquifers and wells. However the protections are inconsistent and can be waived in some instances. All setbacks and buffers must be set to provide maximum protections that cannot be altered. (Environmental Advocates)
- While proposing to put the New York City and Syracuse watersheds off-limits to drilling, critical water supply infrastructure would not be protected.
- The state proposes a buffer around New York City drinking water infrastructure in which only an additional review would be required and upon which projects could be permitted-not a formal ban. The proposed buffer is only one-quarter as long as a typical horizontal wellbore, too close to the sensitive, aging infrastructure that provides the city with drinking water. There are no proposed buffer requirements for Syracuse. (Environmental Advocates)
4: No Way to Dispose of Toxic Fracking Waste fluids
- There is no way to dispose of frack waste fluids, and no way to clean the toxins from the "water" (calling flowback or "produced" fluids water is quite a misnomer), without re-introducing the toxins back into the environment. The best solution so far is to truck the waste to deep injection wells, the nearest ones being in Ohio, but these are not without problems (see the section on earthquakes). The DEC has no solutions, only 'suggestions' as to how to get rid of hundreds of billions of gallons of toxic radioactive wastewater. http://www.scribd.com/doc/65435029/SGEIS-Fracking-Flowback
- The plan by the DEC to track the solid and liquid wastes that are generated in connection with fracking sounds positive until you read that they are leaving the tracking of these wastes up to gas industry operators. We’ve all seen what happens when the industry is asked to police itself. Even more upsetting is that the DEC is still not classifying some of the waste that normally qualifies as hazardous, as hazardous, meaning that fracking waste could be sent to treatment facilities that are unable to properly treat it. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
- Fracking wastewater is destructive to the beneficial bacteria used in municipal sewage treatment facilities and thus when dumped there interferes with the plant's ability to treat wastes.
- The preliminary draft allows drilling waste to escape treatment as hazardous waste, even if it is in fact hazardous under the law. This means fracking waste could be sent to municipal sewage treatment facilities unable to properly treat it, putting the health and safety of our waters and communities at grave risk. (Environmental Advocates)
- The state proposes allowing sewage plants to treat drilling wastes, even though such plants are not permitted to handle the toxic elements in such wastes, and even though the DEC itself has called into question New York’s capacity and ability to treat fracking wastes. (Environmental Advocates) This practice is no longer allowed in other states, including Pennsylvania, where treated sludge was not properly disposed of, contaminating surface water.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html
5: Protection of Primary Aquifers for Limited Time Only
- The DEC is proposing to prohibit fracking in primary aquifers that serve as public drinking water supplies but this “prohibition” is only limited to a couple of years after which the state could “reconsider” the bans. In addition, the DEC does not lay out the conditions under which “reconsideration” would be reviewed. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
- Some fracking restrictions would have sunset dates. The preliminary draft proposes to place some areas of the state off limits to gas drilling, but upon closer examination, many of the restrictions have sunset dates and some of the protective buffers only call for site-specific individual environmental review, rather than clear restrictions. (Environmental Advocates)
6: Bans on Drilling in State-Owned Land Inadequate
- The ban on drilling in state-owned lands looks good until you read that while the state will prohibit well pads above ground they will allow drilling under these same lands. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
7: Permits to be Issued before Rulemaking Process is Complete
- See 3.3 Regulations - Regulations were never written for the 1992 GEIS, of which this most recent draft SGEIS is a monstrous "supplement". Therefore, there are no "regulations" per se, and the DEC proposes to issue horizontal well permits without regulations in place.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63728652/SGEIS-Not-Regs
- The document lays out a rulemaking process that would formalize its proposed safeguards in a single set of uniform, legally enforceable regulations, which is critical, but in a totally backward move they have said that they would begin processing permit applications before the rulemaking is finished. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
- The DEC proposes issuing permits before formal rulemaking is complete, a backward move that leaves New York’s waters and communities at risk. (Environmental Advocates)
- The DEC has proposed a set of regulations for shale gas industrialization. Responses are concurrent with dSGEIS responses - see this site for more details:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking_Regulations
8: Cumulative Impact Requirements Incomplete
- References to how an area would be affected by the cumulative impact of many, many wells is only addressed for some aspects of that cumulative impact but the DEC has failed to lay out a comprehensive, focused plan to review and analyze the consequences of a full build out. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
- As proposed the DEC staff will review the well applications one at a time, in isolation. Wells are drilled as part of multiple well drilling programs - not one at a time. The DEC should be prepared to look at and understand multiple well applications - which is how the industry operates.
9: Special Risk Areas Not Protected
- Regional Areas of Special Geological Risk Not Protected The DEC has not addressed fracking in areas of special geological risk, such as those with fault lines that are potential pathways for the upward gradient of contaminants into aquifers because they claim that contaminants can’t rise into aquifers. However, independent scientific studies have proven that upward migration of contaminants is not only possible, but also likely. The DEC based their assertion on industry studies that looked at just 5 days in the fracking process. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
10: Open Waste Pits Not Banned
- The DEC has sidestepped banning deplorable open waste pits because they say that the gas industry has asserted that they are unlikely to use open pits for the storage of wastewater. Instead of prohibiting open pits out right, which should be done, they have proposed a system where a lone DEC employee could grant approval without doing an individual environmental impact study. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
- See for instance 7.1.3.2 (Drilling Fluids) -- In the past drilling fluid or "mud" has contained asbestos powder. Recovered drilling mud contain drill cuttings from the shale which, by definition, have elevated levels of radioactivity. No open pits for drilling mud or fracking fluids or flowback should be permitted.
- In fact, while prohibition is one option available to the lead agency preparing the GEIS in dealing with risks of potential harms identified, there is actually very little of anything which is prohibited. Only, "proposed mitigations". (Ingraffea, 7-25-11)
11: DEC understaffed
- New York DEC has been subject to steep budget and staff cuts and does not have adequate staff or resources to properly oversee fracking, even if every possible protection were in place This reality raises the possibility that the DEC will be forced to cut corners with its reviews or fast-track permits despite the risks. Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Advocates of New York are members of an advisory panel expected to weigh in on agency resources (Environmental Advocates)
- The DEC proposes to limit well permitting to its staff's capacities, see 9.2.4, at a time when staff are being cut, not added. There are 17 staff for Division of Mineral Resources to oversee 14,000 + active wells and new permits. Absent adequate funding - in the form of higher permit fees and a severance tax - the DEC will remain unable to do its job effectively. This chronic lack of resources caused former Commissioner Grannis to leave.
12: Environmental Impact Reviews Split Among Several Agencies
- The thousands of miles of pipelines or compressor stations required for drilling to get the resulting gas to market will be reviewed by a different agency under a different process. Without an accounting of such impacts, New York’s environmental assessment is incomplete and the full impacts of fracking are unknown. The Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over gas infrastructure. As such, Governor Cuomo should direct state agencies to coordinate their efforts in order to protect our air, water and communities. (Environmental Advocates)
13: DEC Conflict of Interest
- How can the same agency, which is charged to
...do that while they are the same agency which will be issuing permits which will likely (even certainly) harm the environment? (Chip Northrup)"conserve, improve and protect New York's natural resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being"
Most oil and gas producing states separate the gas well permitting function from the environmental regulatory agency. Meaning, the environmental agency is not compromised by the task of issuing well-permits. Combining the two functions - well permitting and environmental oversight - insures that the DEC's environmental stewardship will be compromised. The DEC cannot serve two masters - the gas industry and the environment.
14: No ban on any chemicals, even those known to be toxic and carcinogenic
- While the proposed public disclosure component has been strengthened, telling New Yorkers what toxic chemicals will be used is not the same as protecting the public from negative health impacts. (Environmental Advocates)
- 8.2.1.2 Required Hydraulic Fracturing Additive Information The DEC does not require disclosure of materials listed as "trade secrets" - which could include carcinogens and toxins. Such chemicals should be disclosed and banned from use in New York.
15: DEC failed to use SEQR review for spreading PA flowback fluids on NY roads
- The DEC has already failed to protect NY drinking water by allowing wastewater from PA to be spread on roads in NY without the necessary SEQR review'.
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110720/NEWS01/107200413/Wastewater-from-gas-drilling-being-used-area-road-maintenance and
http://www.toxicstargeting.com/MarcellusShale/documents/2011/07/21/wastewater-spreading . (Walter Hang)
16: No PA data
- After 4 years of intense drilling in PA, there is no data from PA about groundwater contamination or other actual impacts there in the SGEIS (Tony Ingraffea) 22 July 2011. See:
Capitol Pressroom: http://blogs.wcny.org/the-captiol-pressroom-for-july-22-2011/
17: Insufficient Public Comment Period
- According to the DEC , "In an attempt to keep the public informed on the progress of this matter, this Preliminary Revised Draft SGEIS is being posted. A more complete revised draft will be provided for public comment", after several delays, early September 2011. This document is over 1,000 pages, yet the public will not be given access to the actual document until after the public comment period has begin? We the public need more time to adequately study this document.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.html
- The public has the legal right to comment on the Draft, but it may not have the time to do so. The Cuomo Administration and the DEC are giving the public just sixty days to read and comment on this huge, highly technical document. This is an impossible task for the ordinary citizen, as well as for scientists and technicians who could contribute valuable ideas if given the time to carefully analyze the DEC's plan for fracking. (Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy)
http://catskillmountainkeeper.org/node/3063
14 Major Flaws in the DEC’s Regulations for Gas Drilling
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued their Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS) in early September 2011. These are the permit conditions under which they propose to allow horizontal gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing “fracking” in New York State. This puts New York on a course to start this type of drilling by early Spring 2012.
There are major flaws in the published permit conditions and they do not address many of the issues that are critical to keeping New Yorkers safe. The State government knows the dangers of gas drilling which is why New York State comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli is moving to create an industry-supported fund to pay for potential environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing and other forms of gas drilling. One of the only explanations for Governor Cuomo’s rush to make this happen is that he has decided to take a calculated risk with our health and the environment.
Catskill Mountainkeeper does not think that this is a risk that should be taken. Through extensive study and the review of scientific information, we have determined that there is no safe way to do fracking, which is why we have called for a ban. However, we continue to work within the existing regulatory process in New York to raise critical issues, widen the discussion of the impacts of drilling, and expand the options available to protect the public.
Below is a summary of some of the major flaws in the document. The deadline to submit comments on this plan to the DEC is December 12, 2011. Please click here to submit comments on any or all of the items below. http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76838.html
1. No analysis of fracking’s true costs
The socioeconomic impact analysis provided to the DEC omits critical information about fracking’s impact on communities including the increased burden on local infrastructure to maintain the roads and bridges that will be damaged by heavy truck traffic; the increased costs for emergency services to deal with industrial accidents; the increased cost to law enforcement to deal with increased crime that traditionally follows the influx of out-of-state workers; the spikes in rental prices that will hurt local residents; the lowering of property values which will not only hurt homeowners but will lower tax assessments and decrease the income coming into municipalities; the problems homeowners will have trying to sell their homes; the negative effect on existing industries such as tourism, outdoor recreation and agriculture, and more. Assembly Member Michelle Schimel, who questioned Martens closely about lack of any recommendations or plans for funding & training first responders, emergency rooms, and hospitals. She also talked about the push-down of public costs to the local level. (Economic costs to NY State)
1. No analysis of fracking’s true costs
The socioeconomic impact analysis provided to the DEC omits critical information about fracking’s impact on communities including the increased burden on local infrastructure to maintain the roads and bridges that will be damaged by heavy truck traffic; the increased costs for emergency services to deal with industrial accidents; the increased cost to law enforcement to deal with increased crime that traditionally follows the influx of out-of-state workers; the spikes in rental prices that will hurt local residents; the lowering of property values which will not only hurt homeowners but will lower tax assessments and decrease the income coming into municipalities; the problems homeowners will have trying to sell their homes; the negative effect on existing industries such as tourism, outdoor recreation and agriculture, and more. Assembly Member Michelle Schimel, who questioned Martens closely about lack of any recommendations or plans for funding & training first responders, emergency rooms, and hospitals. She also talked about the push-down of public costs to the local level. (Economic costs to NY State)
2. No adequate assessment of the serious health impacts of fracking
The DEC has failed to include an analysis of public health impacts or to meaningfully incorporate the Department of Health into the fracking review. This is despite the evidence of serious negative health impacts related to gas extraction (particularly to children and the elderly) that have been documented in other states. On October 6, 2011, over 250 health professionals including the American Academy of Pediatrics petitioned Governor Cuomo to request an independent school of public health to conduct Health Impact Analysis for fracking.
The DEC has failed to include an analysis of public health impacts or to meaningfully incorporate the Department of Health into the fracking review. This is despite the evidence of serious negative health impacts related to gas extraction (particularly to children and the elderly) that have been documented in other states. On October 6, 2011, over 250 health professionals including the American Academy of Pediatrics petitioned Governor Cuomo to request an independent school of public health to conduct Health Impact Analysis for fracking.
3. Failure to ban any chemicals
The DEC did not ban any of the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid, even those known to be serious human and animal carcinogens. Nor has there been any study of the cumulative effect of exposure to the hundreds of dangerous chemicals used in the fracking process that could be discharged simultaneously in wastewater streams, if fracking is permitted. While the proposed public disclosure component has been strengthened, telling New Yorkers what toxic chemicals will be used is not the same as protecting them from negative health impacts.
4. Failure to look at fracking comprehensively
Governor Cuomo has failed to approach gas development in a comprehensive manner. The industry would be overseen by several state agencies, including the Public Service Commission, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Department of Health and others. There is no single agency with a clear mandate to protect the public. Governor Cuomo is the only person who has the power to coordinate multiple agencies' efforts and protect New Yorkers from the full array of impacts from gas production and infrastructure development and he seems unmoved by the risks to New Yorker’s health and the environment.
5. Failure to analyze the cumulative impact of a full build out of gas wells
References to how an area would be affected by the cumulative impact of many, many wells is only addressed for some aspects of that cumulative impact but the DEC has failed to lay out a comprehensive, focused plan to review and analyze the consequences of a full build out. As proposed the DEC staff will review the well applications one at a time, in isolation. Wells are drilled as part of multiple well drilling programs – not one at a time. The DEC should be prepared to look at and understand multiple well applications – which is how the industry operates.
6. Fracking restrictions have expiration dates
Some areas are being put off limits to drilling, but many of the restrictions have sunset dates. Some protective buffers only call for site-specific individual environmental review, rather than clear restrictions. Drilling in potable water supplies is still allowed.
The DEC did not ban any of the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid, even those known to be serious human and animal carcinogens. Nor has there been any study of the cumulative effect of exposure to the hundreds of dangerous chemicals used in the fracking process that could be discharged simultaneously in wastewater streams, if fracking is permitted. While the proposed public disclosure component has been strengthened, telling New Yorkers what toxic chemicals will be used is not the same as protecting them from negative health impacts.
4. Failure to look at fracking comprehensively
Governor Cuomo has failed to approach gas development in a comprehensive manner. The industry would be overseen by several state agencies, including the Public Service Commission, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Department of Health and others. There is no single agency with a clear mandate to protect the public. Governor Cuomo is the only person who has the power to coordinate multiple agencies' efforts and protect New Yorkers from the full array of impacts from gas production and infrastructure development and he seems unmoved by the risks to New Yorker’s health and the environment.
5. Failure to analyze the cumulative impact of a full build out of gas wells
References to how an area would be affected by the cumulative impact of many, many wells is only addressed for some aspects of that cumulative impact but the DEC has failed to lay out a comprehensive, focused plan to review and analyze the consequences of a full build out. As proposed the DEC staff will review the well applications one at a time, in isolation. Wells are drilled as part of multiple well drilling programs – not one at a time. The DEC should be prepared to look at and understand multiple well applications – which is how the industry operates.
6. Fracking restrictions have expiration dates
Some areas are being put off limits to drilling, but many of the restrictions have sunset dates. Some protective buffers only call for site-specific individual environmental review, rather than clear restrictions. Drilling in potable water supplies is still allowed.
7. Fracking waste still not classified as hazardous
Despite the fact that many of the chemicals used in fracking are classified as hazardous before they are pumped into the ground, the waste from fracking that contains these same chemicals is NOT classified as hazardous.
8. No plan for disposal of hazardous fracking wastes
There are no wastewater treatment plants in New York State designed to treat wastewater from high-volume fracking operations. The draft review and proposed regulations are unacceptably vague with regard to what will become of the billions of gallons of toxic waste that will be produced in New York State once these drilling operations are commenced. Open pits for storing fracking waste have not been outlawed, and the tracking of fracking waste is left up to gas industry operators.
9. Failure to protect critical drinking water infrastructure
The state proposes a buffer around New York City drinking water infrastructure that is only one-quarter as long as a typical horizontal well bore, too close to the sensitive, aging infrastructure that provides the city with drinking water. However, the buffer is not a ban, projects could be permitted by only an additional review. There are no proposed buffer requirements for Syracuse. In addition, while the draft increases buffers and setbacks from aquifers and wells, the protections are inconsistent and can be waived in some instances. All setbacks and buffers must be set to provide maximum protections that cannot be altered.
10. Failure to respect communities’ local land use and zoning laws
Home rule powers to control land use and industrial development through zoning and police powers have long been established in New York State. Governor Cuomo and the DEC must respect local laws and ordinances.
Despite the fact that many of the chemicals used in fracking are classified as hazardous before they are pumped into the ground, the waste from fracking that contains these same chemicals is NOT classified as hazardous.
8. No plan for disposal of hazardous fracking wastes
There are no wastewater treatment plants in New York State designed to treat wastewater from high-volume fracking operations. The draft review and proposed regulations are unacceptably vague with regard to what will become of the billions of gallons of toxic waste that will be produced in New York State once these drilling operations are commenced. Open pits for storing fracking waste have not been outlawed, and the tracking of fracking waste is left up to gas industry operators.
9. Failure to protect critical drinking water infrastructure
The state proposes a buffer around New York City drinking water infrastructure that is only one-quarter as long as a typical horizontal well bore, too close to the sensitive, aging infrastructure that provides the city with drinking water. However, the buffer is not a ban, projects could be permitted by only an additional review. There are no proposed buffer requirements for Syracuse. In addition, while the draft increases buffers and setbacks from aquifers and wells, the protections are inconsistent and can be waived in some instances. All setbacks and buffers must be set to provide maximum protections that cannot be altered.
10. Failure to respect communities’ local land use and zoning laws
Home rule powers to control land use and industrial development through zoning and police powers have long been established in New York State. Governor Cuomo and the DEC must respect local laws and ordinances.
11. Inadequate and unclear rules about fracking floodplains
The DEC proposes to ban well pad development in 100-year floodplains, however, they acknowledge that the flood maps are out of date, that these maps have been unreliable in the past, and further that they will not be updated until late 2012 after permitting is proposed to begin.
The DEC proposes to ban well pad development in 100-year floodplains, however, they acknowledge that the flood maps are out of date, that these maps have been unreliable in the past, and further that they will not be updated until late 2012 after permitting is proposed to begin.
12. Drilling is allowed under state-owned land
The plan does ban drilling is most state-owned land, but does not preclude gas companies from
drilling under state-owned land.
13. Has ignored documented science about natural migration of methane and contaminants in drinking water
There is documented science that shows that fracturing by injecting fluids into the shale will cause conditions that make transport of contaminants from the shale to surface aquifers possible, which refutes claims by the DEC that “contaminants in the shale are isolated and cannot reach the near-surface aquifers.”
The plan does ban drilling is most state-owned land, but does not preclude gas companies from
drilling under state-owned land.
13. Has ignored documented science about natural migration of methane and contaminants in drinking water
There is documented science that shows that fracturing by injecting fluids into the shale will cause conditions that make transport of contaminants from the shale to surface aquifers possible, which refutes claims by the DEC that “contaminants in the shale are isolated and cannot reach the near-surface aquifers.”
14. The Governor and the DEC are fast-tracking industrial drilling
Insufficient time has been allowed for public comment to the DEC’s plan and insufficient hearings have been scheduled. The DEC has also released the proposed rules for regulating industrial gas drilling even before completing the legally required environmental review process despite the fact that the environmental impact statement (EIS) is supposed to be finalized before the drafting of regulations is commenced.
Also check out:http://newyork.sierraclub.org/SA/Vol38_Fall/Action.htm
~
Insufficient time has been allowed for public comment to the DEC’s plan and insufficient hearings have been scheduled. The DEC has also released the proposed rules for regulating industrial gas drilling even before completing the legally required environmental review process despite the fact that the environmental impact statement (EIS) is supposed to be finalized before the drafting of regulations is commenced.
Also check out:http://newyork.sierraclub.org/SA/Vol38_Fall/Action.htm
~
New York State’s Top 10 Fracking Flaws & What the DEC Must Fix
1. New York State must analyze fracking's true costs. Governor Cuomo and the DEC have failed to provide an analysis of the true costs of fracking for communities or the state. The DEC’s socioeconomic impact analysis omits critical information about fracking's fiscal impact on communities in terms of infrastructure, schools, and other costs.
2. New York State must analyze health impacts. Despite direction from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, calls from doctors and health professionals, and the insistence of New Yorkers, New York has failed to include an analysis of public health impacts or to meaningfully incorporate the state’s Department of Health into the fracking review. This is despite the fact that fracking-related air pollution and potential water contamination have serious effects on people—especially the elderly and children, and communities downwind and downstream of drilling operations.
3. New York State must ban toxic fracking chemicals. State leaders do not propose to ban any of the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid, even those known to be serious human and animal carcinogens. Nor has there been any study of the cumulative effect of exposure to the hundreds of dangerous chemicals used in the fracking process that could be discharged as solid waste and wastewater, if fracking is permitted. While the proposed public disclosure component has been strengthened, telling New Yorkers what toxic chemicals will be used is not the same as protecting them from negative health impacts.
4. New York State must look at fracking comprehensively. The gas industry would be overseen by several state agencies, including the Public Service Commission, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Department of Health, and others, yet there is no single agency with a clear mandate to protect the public. This means Governor Cuomo is the only person who has the power to coordinate multiple agencies' efforts and protect New Yorkers.
5. New York State must undertake a cumulative impact analysis. The state has spent enormous resources to develop the economy of Upstate New York by attracting new high tech industries, developing tourism, protecting agricultural lands, endangered species, and historic sites, and encouraging land use compatible with these goals. The impact of gas drilling on these investments must be analyzed.
6. New York State must provide long-term protections for drinking water sources. The state proposes to put some areas off limits to drilling, but upon closer examination, many of the restrictions have sunset dates and some protective buffers only call for site-specific individual environmental review, rather than clear restrictions.
7. New York State must plan for disposal of hazardous fracking wastes. There are no wastewater treatment plants in New York State designed to treat wastewaters from high-volume fracking operations. The draft review and proposed regulations are unacceptably vague with regard to what will become of the billions of gallons of toxic waste that will be produced in New York State once these operations commence.
8. New York State must protect critical drinking water infrastructure. The state proposes a buffer around New York City drinking water infrastructure in which only an additional review would be required and upon which projects could be permitted-not a formal ban. The proposed buffer is only one-quarter as long as a typical horizontal well bore, too close to the sensitive, aging infrastructure that provides the city with drinking water. There are no proposed buffer requirements for Syracuse.
9. New York State must respect communities' local land use and zoning laws. Home rule powers to control land use and industrial development through zoning and police powers have long been established in New York State. Governor Cuomo and the DEC must respect local laws and ordinances.
10. New York State must listen to New Yorkers' concerns and stop fast-tracking regulations.Despite repeated requests from residents, environmental and citizens groups, and local officials to slow down the state's environmental review and rule-making related to fracking, Governor Cuomo and the DEC last week issued proposed rules for regulating industrial gas drilling even before completing the legally required environmental review process. Insufficient time has been allowed for comments and insufficient hearings have been set. If regulations are issued before the review of environmental impacts is complete, such regulations are more likely to be insufficient to protect people and the environment.
