This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dear Department of Environmental Conservation Attn: dSGEIS Comments, As a member of the New York Water Rangers, I'm writing to share my concerns abou t industrial gas drilling called 'fracking.' In its current form, the revised dr aft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS), the document th at would guide fracking if it's permitted, is simply not rigorous enough to prot ect our waters or our communities from fracking's dangers. The SGEIS must: 1. Analyze fracking's true costs. The SGEIS fails to analyze the true costs of f racking for communities or the state. The socioeconomic impact analysis omits cr itical information about fracking's fiscal impact on communities in terms of inf rastructure, schools, and other costs. 2. Analyze health impacts. Despite direction from the U.S. EPA, calls from docto rs and health professionals, and the insistence of New Yorkers, New York has fai led to include an analysis of public health impacts or to meaningfully incorpora te the state's Department of Health into the fracking review. This is despite th e fact that fracking-related air pollution and potential water contamination hav e serious effects on people - especially the elderly and children, and communiti es downwind and downstream of drilling operations. 3. Ban toxic fracking chemicals. The SGEIS does not ban any of the toxic chemica ls used in fracking fluid, even those known to be serious human and animal carci nogens. 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 disc harged as solid waste and wastewater, if fracking is permitted. While the propos ed public disclosure component has been strengthened, telling New Yorkers what t oxic chemicals will be used is not the same as protecting them from negative hea lth impacts. 4. Include a cumulative impact analysis. The state has spent enormous resources to develop the economy of Upstate New York by attracting new high tech industrie s, developing tourism, protecting agricultural lands, endangered species, and hi storic sites, and encouraging land use compatible with these goals. The impact o f gas drilling on these investments must be analyzed. 5. Provide long-term protections for drinking water sources. The SGEIS proposes to put some areas off limits to drilling, but upon closer examination, many of t he restrictions have sunset dates and some protective buffers only call for site -specific individual environmental review, rather than clear restrictions. 6. Plan for the safe disposal of hazardous fracking wastes. There are no wastewa ter treatment plants in New York State designed to treat wastewaters from high-v olume fracking operations. The SGEIS is unacceptably vague with regard to what w ill become of the billions of gallons of toxic waste that will be produced in Ne w York State once these operations commence. 7. Protect critical drinking water infrastructure. The SGEIS proposes a buffer a round New York City drinking water infrastructure in which only an additional re view would be required and upon which projects could be permitted-not a formal b an. 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 w ith drinking water. There are no proposed buffer requirements for Syracuse.
Without these changes, New York State is not prepared to responsibly permit indu strial gas drilling in my community. Thank you for your attention on this important matter. Sincerely, David Radovanovic