Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association P.O. Box 247 Geneva, N Y 14456 Website: www.senecalake.org Email: SLPWA@senecalake.

org January 9, 2012 Attn: dSGEIS Comments New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-6510 Re: Comments on the 2011 Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (dSGEIS) The Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association (SLPWA), whose mission is to enhance and preserve the quality of Seneca Lake the largest of the Finger Lakes, appreciates the opportunity to provide this input on the September 2011 draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS). On November 21, 2009 we provided input on the October 2009 dSGEIS. While there have been improvements, the same major issues which were highlighted in our comments over two years ago continue to be concerns for our association with the present draft. There have been two additional years of experience with the entire high volume hydraulic fracturing process (HVHF) for the extraction of natural gas from tight shale in the neighboring states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, as well as continued use of this technology in the western United States. Reviewing these experiences has heightened our concerns about doing it in a fiscally and environmentally responsible way should this process be allowed to be used in New York State. Our concerns with HVHF and its use in New York State fall into five major categories: 1. Public health impact on our residents and communities from cumulative effects of air, water and soil pollution by HVHF. 2. Protection of drinking water sources for all residents of the state. 3. Environmentally benign disposal of solid and liquid wastes from the HVHF process 4. Social and economic impacts of HVHF on our towns, municipalities and taxpayers. 5. Lapses in the quality and currentness of the factual and scientific data bases as well as other resources used in the dSGEIS. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act of 1975 (SEQRA), the combination of the 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statements and the yet-to-be-approved dSGEIS are to form the body of information about the potential environmental impact that HVHF could have on our state, its communities and residents. The two documents (GEIS and SGEIS, potentially over 2500 pages in length) must be the repositories of the 1

best information and projections available, based on the physical and social sciences, (1) of the process, (2) of environmental risks that the process presents to the water, air, soil, (3) of cumulative health effects for those who work and live in our state, and (4) of the socio-economic impacts on our state, towns, municipalities and individual residents/taxpayers. In addition, they must contain mitigation options for neutralizing the risks in the entire HVHF process for exploiting natural gas from tight shale. From the standpoint of using the GEIS/SGEIS package, we request that the 1992 GEIS be put into usable form since the combination of these two documents is to be the permitting reference for future use. While the dSGEIS has been made user friendly through the use of text that is searchable and a bookmarking system that makes access to specific topics/chapters/sections relatively easy (with the aid of a computer), the 1992 GEIS does not have these features. The 1992 GEIS is not available as a single searchable pdf file. It is available only chapter by chapter and many of those have scanned images not searchable text. In short, the 1992 GEIS should be put into the same format as the dSGEIS, so that it can be easily used. This would meet the spirit of the SAPA legislation which is intended to make such documents readily available and usable to all the citizens of the state. When and if the final dSGEIS is adopted, the 1992 document should be amended to reflect these revisions and changes and be modernized for ease of use. Under SEQRA, the combined GEIS/SGEIS should determine not only the permitting process to allow such projects to go forward in New York State, but these documents must help define appropriate regulations which will control and monitor HVHF to insure the well-being (health, environment and finances) of our state and its residents during the development and production of natural gas utilizing HVHF. This is the goal of the SEQRA legislation for major projects such as this. SLPWA is concerned that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has chosen to develop the dSGEIS and the regulations in parallel instead of sequentially, presumably to speed things up. Effective regulations cannot be defined, until the GEIS/SGEIS is finally approved. The process should have been done sequentially rather than simultaneously. Carrying out these steps simultaneously has added much public confusion and has subverted the application of the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) whose primary purpose is to provide clarity in state processes such as fulfilling the requirements of SEQRA. On January 4, 2012, our association submitted our concerns with the proposed regulations and the SAPA support documents for HVHF to the DEC. Our association has concluded that the revised September 2011 dSGEIS and the associated revision to the regulations do not provide satisfactory safeguards for the environment and public health of New York residents. We oppose going ahead with the high volume hydraulic fracturing process (HVHF) for extracting natural gas from shale deposits in New York State until an improved third draft (dSGEIS) is issued for public comment that includes thorough analyses of all the identified risks associated with the HVHF process and has defined mitigation steps to deal effectively with these risks. NYSDEC has done an inadequate job in its analyses of the impacts that the HVHF will have on the health, environment and finances of our state and local residents and governments. The present vagueness in these guidelines and regulations along with 2

the omission of some vitally important information will only lead to environmental, public health, and fiscal disasters as a result of allowing HVHF to be used in the state. Trying to improve regulations in the midst of managing the chaos of issuing permits for drilling, is what a number of states, including Pennsylvania are trying to do. As observed through the news media, this has been a very disruptive process for both the residents and the governments in these states. New York State should not follow those examples. We recommend that after the completion of this public comment period there should be another revision of the SGEIS and newly revised regulations that will be issued for further public comment. We have detailed our associations specific concerns with the 2011 dSGEIS under the five major topics that follow: 1. Protection of Human Health In Section 617.1 Authority, intent and purpose of the SEQRA legislation which is the legal process that governs the HVHF project in New York, the word environment is defined as: (l) Environment means the physical conditions that will be affected by a proposed action, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, resources of agricultural, archeological, historic or aesthetic significance, existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth, existing community or neighborhood character, and human health. 1 Human health, as part of the environmental discussion in the 2011 dSGEIS does not get much attention. There is a SEQRA obligation to address the impact that this process will have on the health of New York residents just as the document addresses impacts of the HVHF process on other aspects of the environment such as air and water. There is very little discussion in the dSGEIS about protection of the public health. According to the dSGEIS potential impacts affecting the public health from an upset condition are fully mitigated, temporary in nature, or do not need to be addressed because they were covered in the 1992 GEIS: The total amount of fracturing additives and water used in hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells is considerably larger than for traditional vertical wells. This suggests the potential environmental consequences of an upset condition could be proportionally larger for horizontal well drilling and fracturing operations. As mentioned earlier, the 1992 GEIS addressed hydraulic fracturing in Chapter 9, and NYSDOHs review did not identify any potential exposure scenarios associated with horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing that are qualitatively different from those addressed in the 1992 GEIS. 2 Apparently, NYSDECs position is that although the new risks will be considerably larger there is no qualitative difference, despite growing evidence from other states and from Federal agencies, that there are qualitative as well as quantitative differences.
1

http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4490.html Revised 2011 dSGEIS, Page 5-79

SLPWA believes that there are a number of impacts to the public health and issues raised by experts that have not been adequately addressed or mitigated. The following are some examples: Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMS) On July 21, 2009, Dr. Edward G. Horn, Ph.D., Director, Division of Environmental Health Assessment wrote to DEC with the comments from the NYSDOH on the public health impacts of the 2009 dSGEIS.3 It does not appear that these comments were addressed in the dSGEIS, nor was there an explanation of why the DEC did not accept these comments. Among a number of concerns raised by NYSDOH was this comment made by the Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection: Until more data are available, gas drilling in the Marcellus should include sampling of drill tailings, frac flowback water and production brine. Analysis of gross alpha activity, gross beta activity and some gamma spectroscopy analysis should be adequate to assess whether further characterization of radioactive material is needed. The counting efficiency for a total gross alpha sample that has high dissolved solids is very low, resulting in considerable uncertainty (error) for estimating possible radiation exposure. However, total gross alpha activity is an inexpensive (but effective) screening tool, and if the value is greater than 15 pCiIL then additional analysis is performed. These data also suggest that baseline sampling of residential or public wells prior to drilling should include analysis of radioactivity (gross alpha and gross beta). NYSDOHs comments relate to measurements of gross alpha and beta radiation in solution. Alpha radiation is intense, but is easily absorbed by other matter, such as the turbidity in flowback water. The suspended particles in such samples would be capable of absorbing the radiation so that external sensors such as a scintillation counter (which is often used as a radiation detector) would likely give low results. Beta and gamma radiation have higher penetrating power, but also can be attenuated by matter before they reach the detector. In their comments, NYSDOH takes a practical view of this and indicate that, as a screening tool, measurements of gross alpha and beta radiation would be a necessary, but not sufficient first step. If the radiation levels in such measurements, exceed a threshold then a more sophisticated laboratory methodology is required beyond field testing devices like Geiger counters. It is not clear what measurements and data were used to support statements about the radiation levels, like the following: Oil and gas NORM occurs in both liquid (production brine), solid (pipe scale, cuttings, tank and pit sludges), and gaseous states (produced gas). Although the highest concentrations of NORM are in production brine, it does not present a risk to workers because the external radiation levels are very low. 4 The discussion of monitoring the pipes and valves using field monitors like Geiger counters is troubling. If the scale in the pipes is at a high enough radiation level to be
3

Marcellus Shale Potential Public Health Concerns, Edward G. Horn, Director, Division of Environmental Health Assessment to Bradley Field, Director, Division of Mineral Resources NYSDOH, July 21, 2009 4 Revised 2011 dSGEIS, Page 6-205

measurable with a hand-held radiation detector, then the levels in the waste water that caused this deposition are likely to be well above allowable levels ... and the water must be labeled and handled as "hazardous". The radiation detectors that are usually used to field monitor equipment, piping etc., are relatively insensitive and probably would not detect levels of radiation that are of concern. The pipe is thick steel and will absorb all of the alpha-, much of the beta and some of the gamma- radiation that is detectable with a handheld Geiger counter. Radium, one of the commonly occurring radioactive elements in NORM, is a potential hazard to both workers at the well site as well as to workers and residents who may be exposed to drillings and waste waters from the wells. EPA describes the potential hazards of radium as follows: Radium emits several different kinds of radiation, in particular, alpha particles and gamma rays. Alpha particles are generally only harmful if emitted inside the body. However, both internal and external exposure to gamma radiation is harmful. Gamma rays can penetrate the body, so gamma emitters like radium can result in exposures even when the source is a distance away. Long-term exposure to radium increases the risk of developing several diseases. Inhaled or ingested radium increases the risk of developing such diseases as lymphoma, bone cancer, and diseases that affect the formation of blood, such as leukemia and aplastic anemia. These effects usually take years to develop. External exposure to radium's gamma radiation increases the risk of cancer to varying degrees in all tissues and organs. However, the greatest health risk from radium is from exposure to its radioactive decay product radon. It is common in many soils and can collect in homes and other buildings. 5 The discussion of radiation in the 2011 dSGEIS is nave and belies a lack of understanding of radiation measurements. The NYSDOH comments and recommendations on the 2009 dSGEIS deal with the sophistication and sensitivity of radiation measurements appropriately and these should be incorporated into the 2011 dSGEIS. Contamination of Drinking Water with NORMs In November 2011, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a unit of the Centers for Disease Control and Surveillance (CDC), issued its report on an upset condition in the natural gas well known as the Chesapeake ATGAS 2H Well Site in Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania. According to the report: the well experienced a well head flange failure and uncontrolled flowback fluid release on April 19, 2011. This acute event occurred while the well was undergoing hydraulic fracturing by the Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake). Chesapeake and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
5

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/radium.html

concurrently completed an initial groundwater sampling event for the seven private wells closest to the well site on April 27 and 28, 2011. A comparison of the EPA and PADEP split samples showed consistency in the analytical results with the exception of the radionuclide results for one well. EPA requested that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluate the environmental data collected from the seven private wells in order to determine whether harmful health effects would be expected from consuming and/or using the well water. Based on the available data, it is not known if future chemical concentrations in the residential wells will change. Therefore, ATSDR evaluated the currently available data against a range of possible exposure durations (acute, intermediate and chronic). 6 Based on that analysis ATSDR made a number of recommendations that should be included in the dSGEIS and potentially in revised NYSDEC regulations: ATSDR recommends that future environmental assessment at natural gas hydraulic fracturing sites in the Marcellus Shale formation address the following: a. Environmental exposure pathways in addition to groundwater should be included (e.g., fish in potentially impacted surface water bodies, livestock consuming potentially impacted surface water, air). b. In addition to the parameters commonly monitored and sampled in groundwater, ATSDR recommends that methane, ethane, lithium, strontium, and radiological parameter sampling should be included in pre drilling and post drilling private groundwater sampling events. c. Head space gas monitoring for methane and ethane and other volatile organic compounds should be conducted. d. Drinking water should also be tested for radon (and indoor air should be tested for radon). Many areas of Pennsylvania have elevated levels of naturally occurring radioactivity, including radon. Radon testing information would permit a more comprehensive consideration of total radioactive dose from gross alpha radiation for these locations. A more detailed future analysis of the water would be helpful to confirm if radiation levels are elevated, and if so if this is the result of naturally occurring radioactive material or technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material. In addition, ATSDR recommends that all private groundwater well users routinely sample their wells for biological, chemical and physical parameters at least annually, especially those in close proximity to natural gas drilling activities. NYSDEC did a site visit where this incident occurred and addressed the findings in its fact sheet of lessons learned, and indicated that the proposed dSGEIS recommended engineering controls that would prevent such incidents: The 2011 dSGEIS requires:7
6

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/ChesapeakeATGASWellSite/ChesapeakeATGASWellSiteH C110411Final.pdf

DEC staff site visit prior to well pad construction to review well site layout to ensure it is properly designed and to determine site-specific permit conditions Pressure testing of fracturing equipment after installation and prior to hydraulic fracturing operations New storm water permit required to include strict design measures to prevent failure of storm water controls and potential fluid flow to offsite water sources.

The dSGEIS does not derive any information about the issue of NORMs from this Chesapeake incident which is one of the four incidents cited in the dSGEIS from the experience in Pennsylvania. The ASTDR recommendations are more extensive and more focused on protection of the public health as well as water supplies and should be adopted. Air Pollution It is not apparent that the dSGEIS has taken into account the proposed amendments to air regulations for the oil and natural gas industry which EPA proposed8 on July 28, 2011 that would reduce harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry while allowing continued, responsible growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production. These rules must be in place by early 2012.8, 9 According to the fact sheet9: The VOCs and air toxics reductions in the proposed rule are expected to improve outdoor air quality, reduce cancer risk from air toxics emissions and reduce health effects associated with exposure to ground-level ozone (smog) and fine particles (particle pollution). Exposure to both pollutants is linked to increased asthma attacks, hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and premature death. These rules also are anticipated to yield significant climate co-benefits by significantly reducing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. EPA was unable to model health benefit estimates for the rule, due to uncertainties about future locations of oil and gas emissions. Air quality changes associated with air toxics and VOC reductions can be highly localized. Some of the largest air emissions in the oil and gas industry occur as natural gas wells that have been fractured are being prepared for production. During a stage of well completion known as flowback, fracturing fluids, water, and reservoir gas come to the surface at a high velocity and volume. This mixture includes a high
7

What We Learned From Pennsylvania, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Fact Sheet, 2011. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/pafactsheet072011.pdf
8

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed New Source Performance Standards and Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, Environmental Protection Agency, July, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/oilnaturalgasfinalria.pdf
9

Proposed Amendments To Air Regulations For The Oil And Natural Gas Industry, EPA Fact Sheet, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20110728factsheet.pdf

volume of VOCs and methane, along with air toxics such as benzene, ethylbenzene and n-hexane. The typical flowback process lasts from three to 10 days. The dSGEIS should address these new EPA standards for air monitoring in the dSGEIS. Chemical Contamination of Drinking Water Wells Discovering and understanding the pathways by which water supplies may get contaminated and unknowingly become a threat to public health requires public health planning. For example, the testing of water sources prior to the commencement of HVHF activities and continued monitoring during the course of well development and production should be part of the plan. Without advanced public health planning, the testing can only be reactive to incidents of suspected contamination such as the following example from Pennsylvania. A Marcellus Shale formation natural gas well known as the Chesapeake ATGAS 2H Well Site in Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania experienced a well head flange failure and uncontrolled flowback fluid release on April 19, 2011. This acute event occurred while the well was undergoing hydraulic fracturing by the Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake). Chesapeake and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concurrently completed an initial groundwater sampling event for the seven private wells closest to the well site on April 27 and 28, 2011. A comparison of the EPA and PADEP split samples showed consistency in the analytical results with the exception of the radionuclide results for one well. EPA requested that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluate the environmental data collected from the seven private wells in order to determine whether harmful health effects would be expected from consuming and/or using the well water. Treated water or bottled water is currently being provided to three of the seven residences (RW02, RW03, and RW04). Based on the available data, it is not known if future chemical concentrations in the residential wells will change. Therefore, ATSDR evaluated the currently available data against a range of possible exposure durations (acute, intermediate and chronic).10 ATSDR evaluated groundwater data from the wells after a well head, the structure at the surface of an oil or gas well, failed and released fluids and combustible gases. The gases, including methane, escaped into the atmosphere. Initially, the vapors posed a risk for an explosion, but after Chesapeake Energy Corporation stabilized the well (about five days after the release), the explosive vapor levels were no longer detected. However, the conclusions that could be obtained after the fact were limited. The ability to reach definitive conclusions is limited by the data available to ATSDR at this time. In order to reach more definitive conclusions, long term assessments should be undertaken, which should include:
10

Chesapeake ATGAS 2H Well SiteLeroy Hill Road, Leroy Township, Bradford County, PA, ATSDR Health Consultation, November 4, 2011

Studying potential health effects from exposure to chemicals released or mobilized by natural gas activities into the air, water, soil, plants and animals, and potential differences in different parts of the country;

Testing of residential drinking water wells before, during and after natural gas activities.

Summary of Public Health Concerns in dSGEIS The dSGEIS should have a proactive position on public health as it is related to the threats posed by HVHF through potential air, water, soil, and sound pollution. In partnership with the NYSDOH, whose mission is to promote the health of New Yorkers through prevention, science and the assurance of quality health care , NYSDEC should include a public health impact assessment in the dSGEIS. The NYSDOH should be fully engaged in these aspects of the dSGEIS. This impact analysis should look at the cumulative effects of air, water and soil pollutants on the public health of New Yorkers. This assessment should determine the testing protocols for air, water and soil that become part of the testing regulations for HVHF. 2. Protection of Drinking Water Sources SLPWA is concerned about the risks to our drinking water quality posed by the entire HVHF process which the revised dSGEIS and the proposed regulations do not resolve. In Section 6.1.3.4, the dSGEIS acknowledges that an uncontained and unmitigated surface spill could result in rapid contamination of a portion of a primary or principal aquifer. Aside from the NYC Watershed and water supply system, about one half of New Yorkers rely on groundwater as a source of potable water11. The DECs own website points out that New York State is richly endowed with over 7000 lakes, ponds and reservoirs which make up the watersheds in which all residents reside and obtain their drinking water.12 It further acknowledges that the most significant resources in the state include the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes and that no river, stream, or even watershed is distinct or separate all are interrelated. Our own greater Seneca Lake watershed comprised of both Seneca and Keuka Lakes, with Keuka draining into Seneca, provides drinking water for an estimated 150,000 residents. The Greater Seneca Lake Watershed is then part of the Oswego River/Finger Lakes Watershed, one of the largest in New York State. The distinction made in the dSGEIS between primary and principal aquifer is the same one provided in the clarification by the Division of Water Technical & Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 2.1.3.13 It reveals that the two categories, primary and principal are differentiated only by the size of the population served, a distinction made in 1980 by the Department of Health.14 From this, it is clear that the level of protection used in the SGEIS is based on population density rather than actual science or risk to individual residents. Given that any so-called principal aquifer can eventually become a primary aquifer, especially in a rapidly growing area such as the Finger Lakes, this
11 12

Revised 2011 dSGEIS, Page 6-36 http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26561.html 13 http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/togs213.pdf 14 http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36119.html

distinction is somewhat arbitrary and from the individual resident users perspective, it is a meaningless distinction. Equal Protection Continuing to try to differentiate water systems, dSGEIS makes a point of differentiating the New York City and Syracuse water supplies from others in New York State indicating that they are unfiltered water supplies15. There are two points to be understood about this particular differentiation: (1) It is true that these water supplies have no protection against suspended matter flowing through the system to the consumer if the water sources become contaminated with turbidity due to dust, dirt, runoff, etc. It is understandable that such conditions impact the effectiveness of disinfecting the water for drinking purposes. Turbid water source conditions can result in the suspended matter becoming a carrier for pollutants as well as a barrier to effective disinfection using chlorine or ultraviolet radiation. However, discussions with a local water treatment manager16 indicate that suspended solids from algae blooms and storm water run-off periodically overload even the filtered water treatment facilities (such as that for the Village of Waterloo that draws its water from Seneca Lake) and requires the facility to shut down for hours or days until the condition clears. A long-term solution to this problem requires a large capital expenditure to keep the filtration system running under such conditions. This information places both kinds of systems at par since both would suffer from an increase in industrial activity such as heavy truck traffic, drilling, etc. carried out in the vicinity of the source. (2) The dissolved chemicals which result from the air pollution, water discharges, inadequate treatment of water by POTWs and accidental discharges into these sources pose a source of toxic contamination that will affect unfiltered as well as filtered water supplies equally because the filters do not remove the soluble toxic materials. Chemicals, toxins or toxin-precursors that are soluble will not be affected by either a filtered or non-filtered water treatment facility. Both systems will not remove such materials without specialized, tailored removal modules which would have to be first be developed and then added to either treatment facility. In this case, essentially all water systems in New York state from the large municipal (filtered and unfiltered) down to the individual water wells and system which draw water directly from lakes for drinking purposes --- are all equivalent. In this framework, all water systems should all be treated equally. This is undoubtedly what led the NYSDOHs Bureau of Water Supply Protection to comment as follows in their response to the 2009 dSGEIS.17 For surface waters that provide drinking water, we have concerns related to the potential release of waste-water as a result of leakage, catastrophic pit wall
15 16

Revised 2011 dSGEIS, Section 6.1.5 Discussion with Jim Bromka, Department Manager, Village of Waterloo Water Supply Plant 17 Marcellus Shale Potential Public Health Concerns, Edward G. Horn, Director, Division of Environmental Health Assessment to Bradley Field, Director, Division of Mineral Resources NYSDOH, July 21, 2009

10

failure, and improper waste-water disposal. Sediment and storm water generation from construction activities, the daily use of access roads and the drilling pad itself are also of potential concern. . Perhaps the same concepts as discussed above for the New York City water supply should 'be applied to other surface waters providing drinking water. NYSDOH comments suggest that because of the risk of contamination of surface drinking water supplies from drilling activities, that the protections provided to New York City and Syracuse also be extended to all surface drinking water supplies throughout the state. There is no explanation why this suggestion was not accepted. Had it been, the entire Finger Lakes Watershed serving some 1.5 million people would be protected. SLPWAs position is that there is no scientific basis on which water systems across New York State should be differentiated. They will all be exposed to the same high risk of contamination from HVHF activities in their surrounds and should be protected by the same mechanisms being applied to the New York City and Syracuse watersheds. The watershed differentiation that DEC is trying to impose in dSGEIS is based on the number of residents whose water is likely to become contaminated through this high risk process. SLPWA rejects this principle as a violation of equal protection under the law. Both the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution and Articles 1 and 11 of the New York State Constitution provides that all persons are deserving of equal protection from harm. If HVHF is not safe for the residents of New York City and Syracuse, then it is not safe for any drinking water watershed in the rest of the state. All residents across the state should be equally protected, regardless of the watershed in which they live, or the numbers of residents served by the watershed. Protecting Water Resources SLPWA rejects the differentiation in Section 7.1.3.5 between Principal and Primary Aquifers for the purpose of determining conditions under which to issue HVHF permits. The protection provided the water resources whether they are Primary or Principal Aquifers, lakes, streams or individual wells should be the same throughout the state. We have made the point in the section on Equal Protection, that such protections should be identical for individual residents across the state. While such classification of water resources may be useful for administrative purposes, they are useless when it comes to the protection of the health environment of individuals under the public health system. The proposed differentiated SEQRA review processes are based on considerations of population density rather than scientific studies to ensure that the guidelines and subsequent regulations will protect the aquifers, and the people and businesses drawing water from these sources. SLPWA categorically rejects this as being an unsound scientific basis for protecting the health of New York state residents. This inequity is confirmed in section 3.2.5 which proposes a temporary ban for primary aquifers with the only distinguishing characteristic between principal and primary being population served. This principle of population is again reflected in the fact that lakes which serve municipalities receive a 2000 foot buffer, rural wells are given a 500 foot buffer, and streams 150 feet.

11

Preliminary results from a study carried out by The Center for Rural Pennsylvania 18 Pennsylvania State Study, October 2011, reported: Increased bromide concentrations in water wells, along with sporadic sediment and metals increases were observed within 3,000 feet of Marcellus gas well sites. The results suggested a 3000 foot setback for the conditions represented in the study. The study concluded that bromide and other noxious contaminants had migrated 3000 feet within two years. In order to provide maximum safety for precious drinking water based on science rather than population, at least a 4000 foot setback should be mandated for all drinking water sources: wells, aquifers (principal or primary), lakes, and streams. Presently these conclusions are under review based on reported inaccuracies in the test data and an updated report is promised within months. dSGEIS should review the modest setbacks proposed in light of studies such as this one in Pennsylvania. SLPWA rejects the suggestion in Section 3.2.4 that the owner of water well should have the right to waive location of a drilling well closer than the setbacks specified for wells. Aquifer contamination is more likely the closer the drilling operation is to existing water well. The water in a well is part of an aquifer that is a de facto public source of water, since neighboring properties may be taking water from that same aquifer. As part of a public drinking water system protection must be provided for the entire system. No single owner of a well that takes water from an aquifer should have the right to increase the risk of contaminating that aquifer by allowing drilling closer than the setback for all wells. SLPWA would like to review revised setback requirements for HVHF which will be based on the best objective scientific evidence from (1) the collective experience from other regions that have been using HVHF, and (2) recommendations that will come from the EPA research that is underway on the impact of HVHF on drinking water 19, 20 . Additionally such setback requirements should be common to all watersheds across New York State in order to provide each resident with equivalent protection. Finally, the reconsideration of setback requirements as suggested in Section 7.1.12.1 should be done on all drinking water sources across the state. This reconsideration should be a NYSDEC action that requires another SGEIS since it will affect the public health of all New Yorkers and therefore should undergo public scrutiny. Such reconsiderations must be based on (1) accumulated experience within the state with HVHF and on (2) advances in scientific understanding based on peer-reviewed research including the studies that EPA has underway20. A review of setbacks in 2 years seems too short an interval within which to advance our understanding of this complex and high risk process. Floodplains The dSGEIS in section 6.2 acknowledges the contamination of surface waters from the release into the environment of chemical pollutants in a flood event as a potential
18

Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies, Penn State University, October 2011, Boyer, Swistock, et al 19 http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/
20

Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, EPA/600/R-11/122/November 2011/www.epa.gov/research

12

negative environmental impact and this is described as one of the few ways that bulk supplies from HVHF could enter the environment in large quantities. The proposed mitigation is that there will be setbacks according to the 100-year flood zones. The maps that document floodplains, the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are seriously outdated. The Broome County/Binghamton area has had two 100-year floods in the last five years.21 Section 7.2 states: The Department proposes to require, through permit condition and/or regulation, that high volume hydraulic fracturing not be permitted within 100-year floodplains in order to mitigate significant adverse impacts from such operations if located within 100-year floodplains. and Section 9.2.3.1 The Department would not approve well pads for high-volume hydraulic fracturing: within 100-year floodplains; No HVHF permits should be issued until revised flood maps are completed and the subsequent regulations must be very clear to rule out any HVHF activity within those boundaries. Section 9.2.3.1 concludes with the statement: These limits function as a partial phased permitting approach because they prohibit activities in areas deemed to be especially sensitive. This could be interpreted as implying that the areas prohibited under 9.2.3.1 could be phased in at some future time. It should be very clear that these prohibitions are perpetual not temporary. Private Water Well Testing The dSGEIS proposes, in Section 7.1.4.1 that it be required, via permit condition, that the operator sample and test all residential water wells within 1000 feet of the well pad, subject to the property owners permission, or within 2000 feet of the well pad should the property owner deny permission. SLPWA recommends the following changes to this guideline: (1) If the property owner denies permission for testing, there should be no permit issued for drilling on that property. Well testing must be mandatory prior to drilling; in order to establish an indisputable base-line should some contamination occur subsequent to drilling. (2) The well sampling and testing be carried out by a qualified technician from a certified testing laboratory so that there are no doubts about the quality of the resulting analysis. The quality of any analytical test is no better than the weakest step in the process and sampling, as well as the analysis itself determines the quality of the result. (3) Preliminary results from the 2011 Penn State Study documented increased levels of bromide up to 3000 feet from the drill pad. Therefore, any private water well
21

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/nyregion/ny-region-in-triage-mode-as-floodingpersists.html

13

within a radius of 3000 feet of a proposed well pad should be tested prior to drilling. Since the study concluded that bromide and other noxious contaminants had migrated 3000 feet in two years or less, to provide maximum safety for drinking water we recommend that a 4000 setback be mandated as a minimum for all interrelated water sources. (4) The drilling company should be required to disclose every chemical used in the drilling process in order to determine what chemicals need to be tested for. (5) All wells must be tested by an independent, certified laboratory, prior to the beginning of the drilling process. The owner must have the test results at least 30 days before drilling is to begin. The well should be re-tested every 3 months during the drilling process and once a year for a minimum of three years after all drilling activities have ceased. All testing of land owners wells must be at the expense of the drilling company and made part of the permanent public record. Summary of Concerns with Protection of Drinking Water Sources in dSGEIS SLPWAs concerns with dSGEIS in the area of protecting drinking water sources in New York States as well as its own Seneca Lake watershed are focused primarily on the individual resident and their legal and ethical rights to high quality drinking water from whatever source happens to serve them, in whatever part of the state that they live. The focus of our critiques of the dSGEIS in protecting this right are in the area of equal protection of all water supplies throughout the state based on sound scientific principles, supported by objective, peer-reviewed data. It seems only reasonable and expected that as a society today, and particularly in New York State we have the scientific prowess to study and understand the risks involved in this complex HVHF process. We should therefore base documents like dSGEIS and the regulations that result from this environmental impact assessment on objective data, interpreted in an open process. The present dSGEIS falls sadly short of this description. After the first dSGEIS was issued in October, 2009, SLPWA sent a document entitled Proposed Minimum Requirements for the Protection of the Seneca Lake Watershed to the Governor, the DEC and our elected representatives22. We continue to believe that these requirements are necessary to preserve the quality and quantity of excellent water that we have to support the health and welfare of our residents and the business communities that depend on it for their livelihood. In our judgment the 2011 dSGEIS and the proposed regulations which have been prematurely derived from it, do not provide sufficient protections to insure that continued high quality drinking and recreational waters will be maintained throughout the state if HVHF is allowed in New York. 3. Environmentally benign disposal of solid and liquid wastes from the HVHF process The containment and disposal of solid drilling cuttings and wastes, the drilling muds as well as the flowback and production waters pose the biggest challenges in the HVHF process. The dSGEIS does not present a satisfactory analysis of the risks involved with each of these waste components.
22

http://www.senecalake.org/uploads/SLPWA_Minimum_Reqmts_020410-FINAL.pdf

14

Solid Drilling Cuttings and Wastes Sections 5.2.4 discusses the characteristics of the cuttings and in Section 5.2.4.2 dSGEIS deals with the NORM in Marcellus Cuttings and refers to results in Table 5.2a. Apparently on the basis of two samples reported in Table 5.2a, a scattering of samples from Pennsylvania and some landfill samples of unknown depth from Lowman, Angelica and Painted Post, the dSGEIS states in Section 5.2.4.2 that: which indicate levels of radioactivity that are essentially equal to background values, do not indicate an exposure concern for workers or the general public associated with Marcellus cuttings. The well depth from which the Blair 2A sample was taken is indicated in Table 5.2 as 2550-2610. This data, however, is inconsistent with the depth of the Marcellus Shale as indicated in the map on page 4-18 in dSGEIS which indicates that the top of the Marcellus Shale is between 3000-4000 in depth in the Bath, NY area. It would appear that these samples were taken above the shale layer. To arrive at the conclusion quoted above requires a more scientifically rigorous sampling and analysis protocol than is presented in dSGEIS. The conclusion drawn in Section 5.2.4.2 should be withdrawn until proper data and/or analysis can be generated regarding NORMs in the Marcellus Shale that is to be drilled. The burden of proof for this conclusion is on the NYSDEC to establish. In the meantime, any drillings and wastewater from such shale should be treated as if the radioactive content was above hazardous levels. There is some data in the public domain that recommends more caution with NORMs than is described in these sections of dSGEIS23. Section 6.1.9.1 repeats the conclusions reported in Section 5.2.4.2 which we have pointed out are sketchy and inconclusive. These conclusions should be removed from the dSGEIS until more reliable, scientific data are presented to support the conclusion that is made in Section 5.2.4.2 and repeated in Section 6.1.9.1. Section 7.1.9 Solids Disposal reads24: Cuttings may be managed within a closed-loop tank system or within the lined reserve pit. If cuttings are contained within the reserve pit and a common reserve pit is used for multiple wells on the pad In the proposed regulations Section 560.7 Waste Management & Reclamation paragraph (c) states: Cuttings contaminated with oil-based mud or polymer-based mud must be contained and managed in a closed-loop tank system. The proposed regulations in Section 560.7 indicate that a well pad will not have an open reserve pit. The dSGEIS should only describe a closed loop system to be consistent with what is in the proposed regulations.

23

Radioactivity in Marcellus Shale, Report prepared for Residents for the Preservation of Lowman and Chemung (RFPLC) by Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D., Ekaterina Alexandrova, Jackie Travers Radioactive Waste Management Associates May 19, 2010.
24

Revised Draft SGEIS 2011, Page 7-67

15

Flowback and Production Water Disposal The description of options for disposal of contaminated flowback or production wastewater from gas wells in Section 1.7.9, Section 5.13.3.3, the flowchart on page 1503, for example are all irresponsible. The discussions in these sections indicate by suggestion that Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), or trucking out-of-state to POTWs or injection wells are acceptable ways to dispose of this hazardous wastewater. Potentially, the only way in which these wastewaters might be disposed of in a POTW would be if they were diluted with fresh water to a point at which the level of contaminants would be below the rejection level for these facilities. This approach is categorized as pollution by dilution and should be explicitly banned by the NYSDEC in the dSGEIS and in the regulations. SLPWA understands that there is a ban on the use of HVHF wastewaters under the Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) process for the use on roads for ice or dust control. This should be banned if it is not presently. None of the above mentioned disposal methods are acceptable from a scientific basis. It is clear that there are no POTWs in New York State that have the capability to treat this waste water to remove the noxious materials so that the effluent can be treated in the normal POTW stream. 1. Pretreatment methodologies have not been specified, or for that matter established as workable. 2. Injection wells do not exist in New York State that can accept these fluids. 3. The nearest out-of-state injection wells in Ohio have just suffered a series of earthquakes which have been tied to the injection of fluids from HVHF into them. They are temporarily closed and it is to be determined how and when they will reopen. With wastewater, as with the solid drillings and cuttings, there is the issue of NORMs. NYSDECs own data presented in dSGEIS on the radioactivity levels in production wastewater from vertical wells in the Marcellus Shale show that of 13 samples from 12 wells, 11 contained levels of radium-226 above the legally allowed amount safe for discharge. One sample tested as high as 267 times that amount.25 Based on the discussion of NORMs in the dSGEIS, the document concludes in Section 7.7.2 that, The Department finds that existing regulations, in conjunction with the proposed requirements for radiation surveys, would fully mitigate any potential significant impacts from NORM. This statement implies that the problem is solved. But it is far from solved because there is no way identified in dSGEIS to render the wastewater free of the radioactive materials. Mitigation in this context only means that it has been tested and if high, it falls under certain regulations. But it does not solve or lessen the problem of how best to dispose of these noxious materials.
25

Revised 2011 dSGEIS, Appendix 13 Radiological Data - Production Brine from NYS Marcellus Wells.

16

There is no acceptable way to deal with the volumes of the hazardous wastewater generated by the HVHF process. This must be dealt with in a more direct, open way in the dSGEIS. Chapter 7 which deals with mitigation measures does not have much to say about the disposal of wastewater. Until there is an environmentally responsible solution to this part of the HVHF process, it must not be permitted in New York State. SLPWA is concerned that in the absence of a good, environmentally benign solution to this part of the process, New York will suffer some of the problems we have seen in Pennsylvania, in which this wastewater is showing up (as evidenced by elevated bromide levels) in streams and rivers perhaps the result of illegal dumping. Summary of Concerns with Disposal of Solid and Liquid Wastes from the HVHF Process in dSGEIS In the absence of environmentally acceptable solutions to the disposal of waste generated in this process, SLPWA is not satisfied that the HVHF process is complete. Rumors abound about how the energy industry is reusing water, recycling water, using green chemicals, etc. However none of this information is in the dSGEIS in a form that it gives the public confidence that these are workable solutions. This is a process area that needs much technological innovation and public demonstration before New York State should be approving this process to operate within its state lines. If this process is to be operated within New York State, then all the pieces of this process should pass environmental criteria. Trucking wastewater from well drilling in our state across state lines to dispose of it is irresponsible. It should be no more environmentally acceptable in Ohio than it is in New York. 4. Social and economic impacts of HVHF on our towns, municipalities and taxpayers. SLPWA has concluded that the social and economic impact analysis in dSGEIS is seriously faulted on several counts: 1. The estimates used for the amount of available natural gas in the Marcellus Shale are not current 2011 estimates by the United States Geological Survey26 (USGS) are lower by a factor of 5 over what is used in the dSGEIS for estimating the income side of the cost/benefit analysis. 2. Section 6.2 which contains the Socioeconomic Impact analysis failed to take into account the impacts on existing major businesses in the state. The logic of selecting representative regions of the state was not based on the existing businesses that might be impacted, but rather on the rate of well drilling that would occur. The HVHF process is a highly industrialized process with an attendant environment that is antithetical towards tourism, agriculture, viticulture and recreation. Therefore dSGEIS does not give the public a good assessment of how these industries would be impacted. It is unlikely that they can co-exist in a growth mode. 3. Respected economists throughout the state have been critical of the economic impact analysis that is included in the dSGEIS as being inadequate. This was
26

Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Devonian Marcellus Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province, 2011, National Assessment of Oil and Gas, United State Geological Survey, 2011.

17

recognized recently by Commissioner Martens who requested a review of the impact analysis. 4. Leading economists in the state believe that no single consulting firm has the expertise to carry out a thorough analysis of the socioeconomic impact that HVHF will have on the state. They recommend that this be a team effort of economic experts who specialize in different fields. 5. Lapses in the quality and currentness of the factual and scientific data bases as well as other resources used in the dSGEIS There are a number of examples in the dSGEIS in which the best and most recent information has not been used on which to draw conclusions. Undoubtedly, this is a fast moving field with new information and developments occurring as these documents are being written. This should not, however, result in decisions being made based on erroneous information. Because this is a new field and there is much work underway to understand various aspects of the HVHF process and its impact, there should be a great deal of caution about moving too rapidly to allow this process to operate within the state. A more deliberative approach will avoid some possible regrettable decisions. Socioeconomic Analysis We have already cited the example of the estimates of the natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale from the USGS: the dSGEIS does not use the 5X lower estimates which were published in August, 2011. This undoubtedly will change the economic impact numbers. There is a good deal of socioeconomic information developing in Pennsylvania that has not been apparently used in the impact analysis in dSGEIS. For example, the job creation is often a count of how many jobs are created without the recognition that a significant percentage of the jobs are filled by experts from outside of the state who are in the state temporarily until the wells are developed. The impact that these transient workers have on housing, emergency services etc. has not been taken into account in dSGEIS. Scientific Information A glaring omission in the dSGEIS is the absence of the scientific work of Drs. R. W Horwath and A. Ingraffea, Cornell University scientists who have reported on the greenhouse effect of methane and made comparative calculations of the overall greenhouse effect of the extraction of natural gas vs. coal in Chapter 627. Laboratory Analyses and Data in the dSGEIS The laboratory data that the DEC and its consultants used as the bases of their decisions is very questionable. It is remarkable that the DEC would publish and base its decision-making on data that lacks validity and reliability. As an example, we cite:
27

Howarth, R. W., R. Santoro, and A. Ingraffea. 2011. Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change Letters, doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5 Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/fulltext.pdf

18

Table 5.9 which were provided by URS Corporation (based on data submitted to the Department) with the following note: Information presented is based on limited data from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Characteristics of flowback from the Marcellus Shale in New York are expected to be similar to flowback from Pennsylvania and West Virginia, but not identical. In addition, the raw data for these tables came from several sources, with likely varying degrees of reliability. Also, the analytical methods used were not all the same for given parameters. Sometimes laboratories need to use different analytical methods depending on the consistency and quality of the sample; sometimes the laboratories are only required to provide a certain level of accuracy. Therefore, the method detection limits may be different. The quality and composition of flowback from a single well can also change within a few days soon after the well is fractured. This data does not control for any of these variables. Additionally, it should be noted that several of these compounds could be traced back to potential laboratory contamination. Further comparisons of analytical results with those results from associated laboratory method blanks may be required to further assess the extent of actual concentrations found in field samples versus elevated concentrations found in field samples due to blank contamination. Different data sources reported alkalinity in different and valid forms. Total alkalinity reported here is smaller than carbonate alkalinity because the data came from different sources. 28 Because the data it had available and its consultant reports were at best incomplete, apparently NYSDEC includes more data, this time from the oil and gas industry: Recognizing the dearth of comparable flowback information that existed at that time within the Marcellus Shale, the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) facilitated a more rigorous study in 2009. The study: Gathered and analyzed flowback samples from 19 gas well sites (names A through S) in Pennsylvania or West Virginia; Took samples at different points in time, typically of the influent water stream, and flowback water streams 1, 5, 14, and 90 days after stimulating the well. In addition, the water supply and the fracturing fluid (referred to as Day 0) were also sampled at a few locations; Included both vertical and horizontal wells; All samples were collected by a single contractor; All analyses were performed by a single laboratory; Sought input from regulatory agencies in Pennsylvania and West Virginia; and Most samples were analyzed for conventional parameters, Metals, VOCs, SemiVolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), Organochlorine Pesticides,
28

Page 5-106 Revised 2011 Draft dSGEIS.

19

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), an Organophosphorus Pesticide, Alcohols, Glycols, and Acids. These qualifiers do not reflect a solid scientific study when the sampling and testing the data is so selective, either in its sampling or in the reporting and the single laboratory is not identified. There is extensive data available from other states that would be more complete and able to withstand peer review. In fact, extensive data is readily available to the general public from Pennsylvania DEP29 Marcellus Shale GasFrac Flow-Back Water Study The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is undertaking a program to study the chemical makeup of frac flow-back water produced in association with development of the Marcellus Shale. While there is no specific or single incident that triggered this investigation, conversations with PADEP personnel suggest that a recent increase in public awareness and concern over hydrofracturing of the Marcellus Shale contributed to the Department's decision. Additionally, PADEP claims there is no specific concern over the frac water and that this study is simply that, an investigation to characterize frac flowback water. Analytes include inorganics such as metals, up to 69 volatile and 122 semivolatile organic compounds, glycols, and radioisotopes. While the study is still underway and analysis of the results has not been published, The Palmerton Group obtained analytical results from 42 samples of frac and flowback water collected by PADEP personnel in 2008 and 2009. This information was obtained via a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law request, fulfilled via email on February 1, 2010. PADEP is in the process of reviewing the data and will present formal findings in the future. PADEP Frac Flow-Back Water Study: Presence of SVOAs (PDF) 30 PADEP Frac Flow-Back Water Study: Presence of VOAs (PDF) 31 PADEP Frac Flow-Back Water Study: Presence of Glycols (PDF)32 PADEP Frac Flow-Back Water Study: Presence of Inorganics (PDF) 33 PADEP Frac Flow-Back Water Study: Presence of Radioisotopes (PDF)34 It would seem that this data and the PADEP analysis would be available to the DEC.
29 30

http://www.palmertongroup.com/services/marcellus-shale-gas.asp

http://www.palmertongroup.com/pdf/PADEP%20Frac%20Flow_Back%20Water%20Study_%20Presence%20of %20SVOAs.pdf
31

http://www.palmertongroup.com/pdf/PADEP%20Frac%20Flow_Back%20Water%20Study_%20Presence%20of %20VOAs.pdf
32

http://www.palmertongroup.com/pdf/PADEP%20Frac%20Flow_Back%20Water%20Study_%20Presence%20of %20Glycols.pdf
33

http://www.palmertongroup.com/pdf/PADEP%20Frac%20Flow_Back%20Water%20Study_%20Presence%20of %20Inorganics.pdf
34

http://www.palmertongroup.com/pdf/PADEP%20Frac%20Flow_Back%20Water%20Study_%20Presence%20of %20Radioisotopes.pdf

20

Overall, our association continues to be concerned about the adequacy of the oversight process that the DEC will be able to provide this very complex and high risk exploitation of natural gas in New York's shale deposits. The combination of vague rules and regulations and an understaffed agency to deal with a highly organized and funded industry seems like a disastrous combination for the residents and environment of New York State. Our association is over 25-years old and represents approximately 500 households and businesses in the Seneca Lake watershed, the largest watershed in the Finger Lakes Region. The mission of our association is to: "Enhance and preserve the quality of Seneca Lake." Today, this region enjoys a burgeoning wine, tourist and small manufacturing economy which are in balance with the bucolic nature of the countryside, villages and towns. A number of these municipalities have passed Home Rule legislation to prevent this region from heavy industrialization including HVHF. Our association views the present proposed dGEIS and regulations for HVHF as inadequate to preserve the environment and health of the residents of our watershed.

Mary Anne Kowalski, President Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association

Edwin Przybylowicz, Chairman Marcellus Shale Committee Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association

cc: Governor Andrew Cuomo, State Capitol Lieutenant Governor Robert Duffy, State Capitol Attorney General Eric Schneiderman Commissioner Joe Martens, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Nirav R. Shah, M.D., New York Department of Health Commissioner Rose Harvey, New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation New York State Senate Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos State Senator Mark Grisanti, Chairman, Environmental Conservation Committee State Senator Thomas F. O'Mara, 53rd Senate District State Senator Michael F. Nozzolio, 54th Senate District State Senator Patrick M. Galivan, 59th Senate District New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver State Assemblymember Robert K. Sweeney, Chairman, Committee on Environmental Conservation State Assemblymember Brian M. Kolb, 129th Assembly District State Assembly State Assemblymember Sean T. Hanna, 130th Assembly District State Assembly State Assemblymember Philip A. Palmesano, 136th Assembly District State Assemblymember Christopher S. Friend, 137th Assembly District Senator Charles E. Schumer, New York Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York Representative Thomas W. Reed, 29th Congressional District of New York Congressman Richard L. Hanna, 24th Congressional District of New York EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson EPA Administrator Judith Enck

21

cc (continued) Village of Barrington Town of Benton Village of Burdett Town of Catherine Town of Catlin Town of Dix Village of Dresden Village of Dundee Town of Fayette City of Geneva Town of Geneva Town of Gorham Town of Hector Town of Horseheads Village of Horseheads Town of Jerusalem Town of Lodi Town of Milo Village of Millport Town of Montour Village of Montour Falls Village of Odessa Town of Orange Town of Ovid Village of Penn Yan Town of Phelps Town of Potter Town of Reading Town of Romulus Town of Seneca Town of Starkey Town of Tyrone Town of Varick Town of Veteran Town of Waterloo Village of Watkins Glen Ontario County Board of Supervisors Chemung County Legislature Schuyler County Legislature Seneca County Board of Supervisors Yates County Legislature

22