I am writing to you to ask you to expand the scope of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement

Commisioner Martens,

I am writing to you to ask you to expand the scope of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement currently under consideration by the department. In the past few years as New Yorkers have looked into hydraulic gas fracturing more closely a number of issues have came up which are outside of the scope of the current SGEIS. I would like to touch briefly on some of these and request that the Department carefully review each issue and put regulations into effect that will safeguard our state's people and environment.

Clearly one of the most critical impacts that has been left out of the current SGEIS is that of the waste water. As you know Pennsylvania has had big problems with waste water disposal, especially the release into the Monongahela river which affected the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of residents. If the formulations of the fracking fluid mixtures are proprietary, then how can the treatment plants treat them without knowing their chemical compositions? Some chemicals are toxic at very low levels, so mere dilution of the fluids would not be an adequate treatment. Further it is my understanding that the plants are mandated to actually treat waste water not to just dilute it. Any treatment plant in New York which is going to accept fracking waste water must know the chemical composition of the water and have the capability to treat it. Many of these plants, such as the one in Ithaca, are in close proximity to the water system intakes for the local communities.

As the recent series of articles by Ian Urbina in the New York Times point out some of the fracking fluid leaches radioactivity out of the underground rock and returns it to the surface where it is then sent through treatment plants which are unequipped to deal with it. So it passes through into our rivers and streams where it enters the food chain and ultimately ends up on the dinner table. I can't honestly believe that the Department and Governor Cuomo want to approve a process with those potential side effects without first taking every regulatory precaution possible. Unlike many states New York has abundant water resources and we should think long and hard before we jeopardize them. We need to heed the example that Pennsylvania's headlong rush into hydraulic fracturing has given us.

Every example I have encountered of a leak into ground water in either Pennsylvania or New York has not been remediated. Rather the homeowners have been provided with some kind of supplementary system such as a water tank. I believe this is because it is virtually impossible to fix an underground leak into the ground water. While many of the homeowners who have been impacted have signed non-disclosure agreements, the DEC's own records prove that this can and does happen. Do we really want to rush through approval of a process with the potential to contaminate our environment forever?

Another issue which has received less coverage is the impact of the fracking process on wildlife. Removing millions of gallons of water from small streams to use for fracking will alter the flow and potentially damage wetlands which are vital habitat to many species. Storing the fluids in open ponds will attract birds and expose them to highly toxic chemicals. Drilling on state lands, much of it forested, will fragment these lands due to the new roads required and the building of the actual platforms. Ornithologists have discovered that many species require sizable tracts of interior, unbroken forest in order to thrive. Carving up these forests exposes the birds to predator species which thrive in the open canopy, such as hawks and crows. The noise pollution created by these platforms located in formerly natural areas is another negative impact.

The whole issue of industrialization of our rural and state lands is also of concern. Why should I have to pay increased taxes to cover the additional maintenance required for our rural roads after they are traversed by hundreds of trucks carrying water to and from drilling platforms? The banks are clearly concerned about this and have indicated it will affect their ability to provide mortgages for many properties. Believe me the quality of life, the amount of noise and odor and dust, of homes near a drilling site will be severely diminished. Not to mention the possibility that the gas company could use eminent domain to seize some of your property for its facilities or a pipeline. I live in a rural area and have a large percentage of my assets tied up in our home. If we need to sell the home, it is critical that our buyers be able to get a mortgage.

My understanding is that maintenance for the pipelines is often contracted out to third parties. Their economic incentive is to do as little maintenance as they can and there have been many instance of leakage. If you have been watching the news over the last year, I am sure you too have been surprised by the number of pipeline explosions which have occurred. So I urge you to include pipeline safety in the SGEIS.

I understand that the state and many of its citizens are in tough economic circumstances. However there are a number of reasons not to expect a windfall for New York from natural gas. A recent study found that after three years of fracking in Pennsylvania, 75% of the jobs created were held by people from out of state. This is because people from Oklahoma, Texas and the other oil and gas states already have the required skills. So why should the companies hire New Yorkers if they have to train them? Further, if the government and its citizens are on the hook for the road repair, clean up costs, health effects, and negative impacts on our existing industries such as tourism and agriculture, how much economic benefit will fracking really bring? Yes, if you disregard some of the externalities, a few people will benefit, but the government's role is to protect the interest of the majority of its citizens not the fortunate few.

I'd like to raise one final point about the impact of natural gas on global warming. Natural gas is considered to be a cleaner alternative to coal. As I understand it, gas does burn more cleanly than coal. However this is only taking into account the consumption side of the ledger while ignoring the production side. I recently attended a prepublication presentation of a scientific paper at Cornell University at which the authors examined the end to end emissions of greenhouse gases from non-conventional gas sources versus coal. In their view methane contributes much more warming than the 20x CO2 factor usually used. The fracking process entails significant methane releases especially as the fluids are returned to the surface before the well is capped. In their view if you account for these emissions and the normal leakages during operation of the well, non-conventional gas has a larger impact on warming than coal. As the leader of the environmental agency for the state of New York, do you really want to enable an industry to increase our warming footprint when every credible climate scientist in the world is telling us we need to start reversing this process immediately?

In closing I appeal to you to revise the SGEIS to take into account the issues I and others have touched on in our correspondence to you. This is a risky road we are traveling down. The monied interests are eager to rush through the process before adequate safeguards with the potential to cut into their profits can be put into place. However the interests of the vast majority of New Yorkers are to have in place a set of strong regulations that protest their health and environment before any drilling is done. I am not talking about the voluntary practices suggested by the current SGEIS, but mandatory regulations. Let us learn from the example of Pennsylvania where the process was rushed through. Commisioner Martens, please protect New York by taking the time to do a thorough and complete revision of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for natural gas exploration.

With Respect,

Robert W