News & Notes from NY Senator Joe Addabbo - 15th Senate District

SENATOR ADDABBO STATEMENT ON ACTING CHANCELLOR DENNIS WALCOTTAPPEARING BEFORE SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

NYS Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. (D-Howard Beach), a member of the Senate’s Education Committee, released the following statement:

The visit by Acting Chancellor Dennis Walcott to the NYS Senate Education Committee was both promising and encouraging for the Department of Education and the children in the school system. I stated at the meeting that I look forward to working with Mr. Walcott through the fiscal, policy and administrative challenges that face our public schools. I have known Mr. Walcott for over 15 years and have always found him to be professional and dedicated to public service.

SENATOR JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, JR. STATEMENT ON PIA’S ELIMINATION FROM AMERICAN IDOL

NYS Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. (D-Howard Beach) released the following statement on last week’s elimination of contestant and Howard Beach resident Pia Toscano from the popular TV show:

“Pia’s elimination from American Idol was shocking and premature. If I had the chance to give Pia a message, it would be to express my appreciation for her God-given talent, for exciting a community and for touching the hearts of millions of people around the country. I am so proud to have Pia within my district.”

ADDABBO: WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO IN SECURING AREAS TEN YEARS AFTER 9/11

Senate Revisits Public Protection Concerns

NYS Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. (D-Queens), who serves as ranking Minority member on the Senate’s Veterans, Homeland Security, & Military Affairs Committee, participated in this past Friday’s public hearing on Homeland Security 10 years later after September 11, 2001, to listen and respond to testimony on public protection since the terrorist attacks. Among the attending witnesses were Peter King, United States Congressman and Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security; Michael O’Meara, Executive Vice President of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Police Benevolent Association; Richard Daddario, NYPD Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Counter-terrorism; and Douglas Zeigler, Director of Security for the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

While the hearing became increasingly contentious when the topic of religious sects were being discussed, the first half of the hearing included testimony from the NYPD, MTA, the Port Authority and other public safety personnel. “The critical issues were the lack of funding allocations for improved security measures and the need for upgrading the communication systems between our safety-related agencies,” stated Senator Addabbo. It was mentioned at the hearing that some of the radios and means of communicating among the agencies were over 20 years old. Addabbo said that he intends to discuss with the Port Authority the issue of security at JFK Airport and on the Airtrain.

Congressman King spoke at great length as to how terrorist threat levels are as high as 9/11, and reiterated that these are very real threats as we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Michael O’Meara gave insight as to the issue of communication between the Metropolitan Transit Authority Police and the ongoing discussions with the MTA to correct and improve radio frequency communications between MTA Police and the MTA. The radio system, according to Mr. O’Meara, has not worked since its implementation some 20 years ago.

The use and placement of security cameras on New York State tunnels, bridges and pedestrian areas was explained by Douglas Ziegler. Currently, almost 4,000 cameras have been placed within the MTA system, with the intention of more to come.

A future similar Senate hearing concerning the status of security measures since the 9/11 tragedy is being scheduled in Albany.

Together with above release, here are two complementary statements from the Senator:

Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., released the following statement on NYS Senate Homeland Security Hearing held on Friday, 8, 2011:

It was my intent to participate in a focused hearing which was to examine the security of the New York City residents, and surrounding areas, ten years after the tragedy of 9/11. Based on the testimony of witnesses and my questioning of those witnesses, my main concern continues to be the governmental funding and interaction of the entities involved in maintaining the safety of individuals, namely the NYPD, FDNY, MTA and Port Authority. I intend, as the ranking member of the Senate Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Committee, to continue my efforts in finding the means available to improve the safety and security of people locally and throughout the city and state.

Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., released the following statement on the witness list for the NYS Senate Homeland Security Hearing held on Friday, 8, 2011:

As I have previously stated, I intended to participate in a NYS Senate hearing focused on the public safety of individuals in New York City, ten years after the 9/11 tragedy. In my opinion, there should have been separate hearings with one having witnesses from governmental entities who would testify as to their plans to secure people and another, separate hearing with witnesses of all backgrounds giving testimony on their cultural and ideological theories toward their views on Americans. The global issue of terrorism as it pertains to our safety is so complex and intricate, that I believe separate Senate hearings were warranted.

ADDABBO: STATEMENT ON SAFETY OF AIRTRAIN & JFK AIRPORT

Generally, I have a daily concern for security in and around the JFK Airport property, including the Airtrain. The gateway to millions of visitors to New York is right in our backyard and therefore, my interest in the airport’s safety measures, which are a high priority for me. I intend to continue my working relationship with the all aspects of the Port Authority to ensure the safety of my constituents. In a recent conversation with the Port Authority regarding the inoperable radio usage near the Jet Blue Terminal, they advised me that the situation is being addressed and should be resolved shortly. I plan on having advanced discussions and meetings with the Port Authority about their vision for improved security at JFK.

SENATORS INTRODUCE CLEAN WATER LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE AND VOW TO KEEP NEW YORK’S WATER SAFE & CLEAN

As new information continues to surface on the dangers of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, particularly in relation to the wastewater produced during the hydro-fracking process, Senators Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan), Ranking Member of the Environmental Protection Committee Tony Avella (D-Queens) and Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens) have introduced a package of bills that aim to keep New York’s water clean against the effects of hydro-fracking. First and foremost, the package calls for a ban on hydro-fracking. While working towards this goal, the package installs a series of necessary, common sense measures that would implement stronger regulations and heightened scrutiny that will keep New Yorkers, and their water, safe.

A series of articles produced by the New York Times has revealed that studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency show that the wastewater produced in hydro-fracking is far more dangerous than previously reported. Even before it enters the ground, the frac fluid used in drilling poses serious threats to the environment and human health, as it is made of a combination of undisclosed chemicals that often contain carcinogenic materials. However, as reported by the New York Times, wastewater produced in hydro-fracking grows even more dangerous once it’s blasted through rock thousands of feet below ground. There, the frac fluid picks up salts and radioactive elements, like radium, that are naturally embedded in the Earth.

To address these issues, the first three bills in the Clean Water Package will implement tighter regulation and ensure transparency so the public can be assured that proper precautions are in place to monitor both frac fluid and the resulting wastewater. The bills providing for increased regulation are absolutely necessary to provide immediate and necessary oversight to keep the public and environment safe while ample political support is gathered to establish an all out ban, which has been proposed by Senator Avella. Senator Krueger’s bill (S.425) is currently on the agenda to be voted on in the Environmental Conservation Committee on Tuesday, the 12th.

The bills in the Clean Water Package are:

• S.425 (Krueger) - Would provide greater regulation of the use of hydraulic fracturing fluids used for oil and gas drilling, including prohibiting the use of frac fluids containing chemicals that pose a risk to human health.
• S.2697 (Avella) – Would provide for comprehensive regulation of oil and natural gas operations.
• S. 4251 (Addabbo) – Would require treatment works to test waste from hydraulic fracturing operations for radioactivity.
• S.4220 (Avella) – Would prohibit the use of hydraulic fracturing in the process of drilling for natural gas and/or oil.

Senator Liz Krueger said, “I don’t see it as that great of a request to require these gas companies to inform the public on what chemicals they’re blasting into the Earth. They want us to just fall into line and not ask any questions, to just ‘trust them.’ Well, we saw what they did with Pennsylvania’s trust, and I say no. Not here, not in New York. I tend to believe that if you guard a secret with your life it’s not because you’re hiding something good or harmless, it’s because you know that whatever you’re hiding will bring negative consequences for you if it comes to light.”

Senator Avella added, “Perhaps our greatest resource as New York City residents is the clean, unfiltered and refreshing water we receive every time we turn on our faucets. It is clear to me, that until we can be assured that the practice of hydro-fracking presents absolutely no threat to New York’s residents and their drinking water, we must completely ban fracking.”

Senator Addabbo said, “Today, I join my Senate colleagues, Tony Avella and Liz Krueger, to support their respective bills, which together with mine, would amend the environmental conservation law, requiring new regulations from the DEC. My new bill authorizes the DEC Commissioner, after hosting a public hearing, to force regulations requiring treatment facilities handling wastewater to test for radioactivity levels. The DEC will identify tests to be performed on the water, including ingredients found within the hydro-fracking fluids, and would prohibit the acceptance, treatment or discharge of hydro-fracking-produced waste. This was in response to EPA and drilling industry studies that concluded radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.”

There are many ways this wastewater puts human health and the environment in danger. In other states, wastewater is often stored in open pits until transported for ultimate disposal, but chemicals evaporate from these open pits, contributing to air pollution. Even prior to fracking, the trucks are carrying the fluids in high concentrations, and are subject to leaks and spills, causing contamination of surface waters. The fracturing fluid left underground can migrate or seep through fractures in underground formations, cracks in well-bore casings or through abandoned wells, polluting groundwater.

As has been made clear by a number of incidents related to natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, high-volume hydro-fracking continues to present unacceptable risks.

ADDABBO: GOVERNOR SIGNS BILL INTO LAW EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS THROUGH 2011

Extended Benefits Will Provide Relief for 166,000 New Yorkers

NYS Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. (D-Queens), a member of the Senate’s Labor Committee who supported the measure, is pleased to report to his constituents that Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a measure that extends federally funded unemployment insurance benefits throughout 2011. This bill, S.3928, amends the Labor Law to allow New York to take advantage of provisions contained in the recently enacted Federal Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 by modifying provisions concerning unemployment insurance extended benefits.

The extension would have expired early this spring, giving people who lose their jobs up to 80 weeks of unemployment checks instead of up to 93, for people now on the unemployment rolls, said the Senator. Without this new law, the state would not be able to continue to pay a total of 93 weeks of benefits and would have forfeited $620 million in federal payments to the unemployed, negatively impacting approximately 166,000 New Yorkers.

Since 2009, New York State has participated in a two-year, federally funded unemployment insurance program. In December 2010, the U.S. Congress extended the federal program by an additional year. The governor’s legislation amends New York State law to allow the state to qualify for the additional third year of the program.

Under the program, benefits for all private sector and nonprofit employees are fully federally funded. This act is effective immediately and “shall be deemed to have been in full force and effect on and after February 1, 2011.”

Added Addabbo, “The unemployment rate in Queens is about 8.5 percent; it’s between 8.9-9.2 percent for New York City, and 8.7 percent for our state overall. While some reports have noted that the worst of the long recession has ended, many of my people have been seeking jobs for the past year, and for some, almost two years. The governor requested quick legislative action, which has allowed us to access federal funds to assist those on unemployment. This law will give them a safety net as they continue to pursue time-consuming and daunting efforts to re-enter the workforce.” The senator is hopeful that future extensions of unemployment benefits would be unnecessary due to an improving economy and new jobs in the city. “The main goal is to find people stable employment,” Addabbo concluded.

Walter Hang's Comments Regarding Executive Order No. 41 - Sign the Petition

Please take a moment to sign the Coalition Letter to Governor Cuomo Regarding Executive Order No. 41: Requiring Further Environmental Review of High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Combined With Horizontal Drilling...


Remember this about saving our clean drinking water supply...


To sign the letter click here...

Local Pols Upset Over Paterson Hydrofracking Veto By Matthew Hampton - Forest Hills, NY Patch

Read original...

Executive Order to Prevent Drilling Not Good Enough, Addabbo Says

State Sen. Joe Addabbo, D-South Ozone Park, blasted Gov. David Paterson on Wednesday morning for his dismissal of a hydrofracking moratorium that had passed both the state Assembly and Senate.

Paterson vetoed the bill, which passed the state Senate earlier this month, and instead signed an executive order banning the process through June 2011.

Addabbo's concern, he said, is that an executive order can be easily reversed by the incoming Cuomo administration as early as January.

"Over the weekend, instead of signing this hydrofracking moratorium bill approved by both the Assembly and the Senate, the Governor chose to veto the bill," Addabbo said. "He issued an Executive Order instead, which does not fully protect the millions of New Yorkers whose access to a safe and healthy water supply could be jeopardized."

The city's water comes from upstate aquifers, which are affected by multitudes of environmental factors. For years, New York City has enjoyed a reputation for having quality drinking water despite its status as a mega-city.

Now, Addabbo said, the upstate reservoirs that provide the city's water could be adversely affected.

"Just imagine that your son or daughter pours themselves a cup of water, and it's brown. Or it's cloudy with particles and chemicals. That is exactly what is happening to families in other states--Texas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania--who have rushed into drilling for natural gas with a procedure known as hydrofracking," Addabbo said.

Hydrofracking became an issue during the gubernatorial debates in October. While the candidates were split on the issue, Cuomo said it could be a potential job-creator for the state, and refused to say whether he would support it or not, only saying the procedure had to be proven safe for him to get behind it.

Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi, D-Forest Hills, was also in favor of the state's moratorium on the subject, saying earlier this month that a moratorium on the procedure would "remove any 'time pressure' and allow DEC to do its job correctly."

Mark Ruffalo Calls on Governor to Close Hydrofracking Loophole by Olivia Scheck - DNAinfo.com

Read original...

Ruffalo called on the governor to expand his recent hydrofracking ban.

Actor Mark Ruffalo was in Midtown Monday imploring the governor to expand his executive order limiting hydrofracking in New York State.

"The Kids Are All Right" star has been an ardent activist against the drilling practice, which injects chemicals into the earth to extract natural gases from irregularly shaped wells.

His efforts paid off last week, when Gov. David Paterson issued an executive order banning horizontal hydrofracking until July 1, 2011 at the earliest, so that further research could be done into the potential dangers of the drilling method.

"You don't take your daughter to the red light district just because times are tough," Ruffalo said, applauding the governor's decision to protect the long-term viability of the water supply. "You make sure what you're doing is safe and then you make money on it."

But Ruffalo and other activists also argued that Paterson's order didn't go far enough, saying it left the door open for vertical hydrofracking, which the governor's office says is a traditional drilling method that has been used safely in the state for 40 years.

Ruffalo and officials including State Sen. Liz Krueger warned Monday that either method could contaminate the water of 12 million out of 19 million New Yorkers.

"This wouldn't be a little problem, this would be a catastrophe," Krueger said.

On the same day that Paterson gave the executive order temporarily banning horizontal hydrofracking, the governor vetoed a more expansive drilling bill, which he said would have prevented any new drilling permits from being issued through May 15th, 2011.

Still, Ruffalo indicated that he was holding out hope that the governor would issue a second executive order during his last days in office to close what he called the "Paterson Loophole."

He and others said they were scheduled to meet with one of the governor's aides following the press event.

"He's got a good heart," the actor said of the outgoing governor.

Interview: Former NY Environmental Commissioner Pete Grannis on Gas Drilling by Marie C. Baca - ProPublica

Read original...

Former state assemblyman Alexander B. "Pete" Grannis, 68, served as the state's top environmental official for two and a half years beginning April 1, 2007. A graduate of Rutgers University, he received a law degree from the University of Virginia Law School and helped organize New York City's first Earth Day in 1970. During his tenure as commissioner, the Department of Environmental Conservation was criticized for underestimating the risks of hydraulic fracturing -- a controversial gas drilling technique that is temporarily banned in the state -- but also praised for creating the nation's first fracturing chemical disclosure rules. He was fired on Oct. 21 by Gov. David Paterson after a memo Grannis wrote criticizing the governor's proposed budget cuts for the DEC was leaked to the press. In the memo he said the agency wouldn't be able to perform its duties if the cuts went into effect. Grannis' sudden departure sparked outrage from environmental groups and questions about the future of natural gas drilling regulation in New York. ProPublica reporter Marie C. Baca interviewed Grannis in ProPublica's Manhattan offices on Nov. 5 and by phone on Nov. 10. The following is a transcript of those interviews, edited for clarity and length.

Pete Grannis, commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, speaks during a interview in Albany, N.Y., on April 15, 2010. He spoke to ProPublica about hydraulic fracturing, his time as a regulator and the future of natural gas drilling in the U.S. (Mike Groll/AP Photo)

What's next for you?

I don't know. I've been out of work for two weeks -- as you know, unexpectedly out of work. I'm not ready to retire. I'm congenitally impatient. Even sitting around for just the past couple of weeks has made me nervous.

Would you go back to the DEC if you were asked to return?

I'd be very tempted. This budget stuff that got me into this mess ... I'd like to know that [the governor] is concerned about the environment. But I think Gov. Paterson and the memo and all this other stuff really highlighted that they thought that the environmental and outdoor issues -- the upstate economy as it relates to $3 billion in hunting, fishing, trapping, birding and camping and things -- I don't think they really thought that was important.

After you were fired you received a lot of support from environmental advocates. But there were times during your tenure when environmental groups treated you with ambivalence or outright hostility.

I've worked on environmental issues for more than 40 years, and while there have been times that I have had to agree to disagree with people I know and respect, the bottom line is that there are huge differences between what it is to be an activist and what it is to be a regulator. At the end of the day, I am convinced that they will find out that what we did was the best for the environment. But I think that if I had been on the outside, I might have taken a different position on some of these issues.

Which issues in particular?

I could see myself on the opposing side [of the hydraulic fracturing debate] if I didn't have the responsibility for making any of the decisions. But we took steps that no one thought we would be able to do because they were so difficult, so I'm not that concerned about some of the negative stuff. In the end, even the critics will tell you that we did a great job.

What was it like to balance two mandates from the state: to protect New York's environment, and to develop those resources for profit?

Well, there are obviously pressures on both sides. My job as a regulator was to make sure that legal activity took place in a way that didn't harm the environment. We really committed huge resources to making sure that if this process is to proceed it will be done safely. ... We were very clear that we weren't going to rush ahead and then wonder if we did it right later on.

But in the summer of 2008, the DEC seemed prepared to issue permits for hydraulic fracturing without exploring the possibility of water contamination or having a clear idea of how drillers would treat the wastewater.

That is not true. Right from the beginning we understood that this issue required additional review. We were under no obligation to push for something beyond the generic environmental impact statement, but we felt like it was the right thing to do. Some of the accusations you're talking about have been extraordinary, but the truth is that the department has a phenomenal track record of regulating drilling, and we've set the most stringent standards in the country for hydraulic fracturing.

Was there ever a time when you felt the dual mandates from the state created a conflict for you?

For most of my environmental stakeholders, the people I know and work with, there was near-universal condemnation of the possibility of drilling. I felt tremendous pressure from friends and colleagues to make sure this was done right. On the other hand, the landowners in some of these poor communities across the southern tier saw [drilling] as a salvation. They were sold a bill of goods that their payments were contingent upon drilling activities beginning sooner. They were putting pressure on us, the administration and their local legislators, to move more quickly. But I never thought of it as a real conflict. I knew very clearly what our responsibilities were. I knew there was this divide between the fact that this was a legal activity and the fact that it has considerable disruptive potential. This drilling is an unattractive, disruptive, commercial activity with requirements that need to be met. I was never in any doubt that if we found a path forward it would be in a way that didn't affect the environment.

How do you characterize the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing?

Short-term there are very substantial concerns. It's a big industrial activity that involves heavy-duty activity on the drilling pad at the well site, truck traffic and laying of feeder pipes. The experience we've had in New York and other places is that when the activity is completed and the property is restored, things go back to pretty much normal.

Do you have concerns about drilling in the Catskill reservoirs that supply drinking water to 9 million people?

The concern is mostly about the risk to the ... certification from the EPA that allows New York City and Syracuse to use the water with minimal treatment. It's right on the margin anyway, so a little disruption during the drilling process might put that at risk. Most of the land in the watershed is privately owned, and in order to make a determination that you can't drill there, you have to be supported by law, fact and science.

What about disposing of the huge amounts of water that hydraulic fracturing requires?

It's made clear in our draft impact statement that it is an issue. But even today when people do conventional drilling they have to handle the liquid safely, and it has to be hauled by a licensed hauler to a facility that can handle the waste. You can't haul the waste without a permit from New York, and you can't dispose of it unless the facility can handle it. That has to be disclosed as part of the permit process.

Do New York waste facilities have the capacity to handle that much wastewater?

That's a problem for the drillers. Either they build the capacity themselves, find the capacity, upgrade the capacity, or else they have no way of disposing of the waste.

How about an appropriate number of inspectors to keep an eye on drilling activities?

There is going to be a direct link between the volume of drilling activity and the number of inspectors we have to monitor that activity. We would only allow the amount of drilling that could be appropriately monitored by the number of inspectors we have in the agency.

Would you welcome additional federal guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency for gas drilling operations in New York and elsewhere?

I think our record has been extraordinary on gas drilling. Everybody wants the state to wait on the EPA study, but that's a drinking water study. Our state health department does what the Safe Drinking Water Act exclusion prevented the EPA from doing in Washington: monitoring drinking water quality and the impact [of drilling] on drinking water. I think they're not going to see things that are different than what we saw.

So, you don't see a problem with gas drilling's exclusion from the Safe Drinking Water Act?

There's a national issue with that, but for New York there has not been a problem. Our state health-department drinking water standards are greater than the standards that would have applied had the exclusion not been there. We've always held our water to a higher standard.

Who do you think should be responsible for funding emergency preparedness for gas-related emergencies?

Eventually it ought to be strict liability for the drillers, and if the state or the local government has to step in to react quickly, that ought to be fully covered by the drillers. It's not like the Gulf oil spill. Some of the biggest risks we're looking at have to do with the surface, where a tanker truck rolls over, a drill catches on fire, or a there's some kind of spill on the surface.

But there have been explosions in some of the wells. What about the funding for preemptive emergency services for something like that?

One of the things under discussion is a fund that would be pre-paid. At the end of the day, the state finds the resources for dealing with emergencies -- it's just a question of how quickly they get paid back. With the wells that exploded, some of those go back to casing problems or natural methane problems. Those are issues that are severely dangerous at the site but, as I recall, they didn't pose much of a risk beyond wherever it took place.

Is New York prepared for such emergencies?

I think we have pretty good emergency preparedness. We go through drills regularly for catastrophes, mostly natural ones. We've had big spills before and fires, and we certainly have the resources to respond quickly. There's also an emergency preparedness construct triggered by [9/11].

What do you think needs to take place before New York is ready for drilling in the Marcellus Shale?

We need to finish the review to make sure that we have all the facts, have anticipated every risk, have set out a way to mitigate every risk that we identify, and that we have sufficient legal and human resources to make sure that we have the authority to do what we need to do. The human resources have to be scaled based on that drilling activity. The plan was to have on-site monitors, to do test borings and testing wells around potential well sites so that we could have baselines for before and after comparisons. Obviously truck traffic is going to have an impact on the communities. That's one of the areas where our -- I'm speaking as if I'm still there but I'm not -- where there's going to be a big community impact. It wasn't really a concern with conventional drilling because it didn't take place at this scale.

Let's talk about Pennsylvania for a minute. What do you think about what that state is going through right now with regard to drilling?

As you can imagine, we are aware of every single time there's a blip on the drilling front in any jurisdiction anywhere in the country. We've been carefully monitoring that, and we knew about all these issues when we started the environmental impact statement, and it's been constantly factored in during the writing process. I think they rushed ahead and did things without the kind of attention that we're giving this very important issue, and they're paying a price for it. We're very mindful of things there and want to make sure that the things happening there don't happen in New York.

Under your tenure, the DEC came up with the first guidelines in the nation for disclosing the contents of fracking fluids, a requirement that the industry has argued would destroy their business model. Do you think there is ever a situation where that information is bestdisclosed to regulators but not the public?

Our position was if they thought it was so proprietary, then they shouldn't get the permit. Our existing regulations and the requirements in the draft [of the environmental review] ask for full disclosure of what is going to be used but not the mix. Health officials need to know because we need to be able to monitor. I guess the question is whether or not there's a level of proprietary information that would protect those details. I think the mix is less important than what's there, so you know where to look if something happened. We need to know what's there so we can do pre-drilling monitoring and get baseline information.

Are chemical manufacturers afraid that someone is going to reverse engineer their products? From what I understand, the various formulas for fracking fluids are very similar.

They are [similar]. I think part of it is a business plan where [chemical manufacturers] convince drillers that they have a unique product that will allow the drillers to extract more gas more quickly through this combination of stuff that they put into the fracking fluid. I mean, how different could they be? You put something in there to move the water more quickly, you put in sand, something to keep mold from growing down there, and a few other things -- it's not that complicated of a mix. My guess is that they probably are, both in quantity and in mixture, very similar. But companies are squirrely about these issues, and they think that they will somehow get the upper hand by having a magic formula that works better [than their competitors'].

The chemical manufacturers I've spoken with claim there are thousands of different detergents they could use, and the choice of detergent makes a big difference in terms of cost and efficiency. But that seems to be in direct conflict with what I've heard from regulators.

I think it's probably much ado about nothing. Drilling companies would have a lot less opposition from the public if they could prove that their fracking chemicals didn't contain benzene or whatever. If they spent less time worrying about disclosing what is in the fluids and more time coming up with safer alternatives to whatever it is they use, everyone would be happier. That being said, these chemicals they shoot at such high pressures are two miles below ground, and if the drilling process is done correctly those materials shouldn't get into drinking water.

There's been concern that the fracking process might interact with natural fissures in the bedrock and contaminate groundwater.

We need to be sure that's not going to happen -- that's part of this review process. You can't just blow something like that off.

A number of states that have only dealt with conventional forms of drilling, limited drilling or no drilling at all are now facing a deluge of companies that want to perform hydrofracking. What advice would you give regulators in those states?

First and foremost, I would hope they understand that it's better to be safe than sorry and to get it right in the beginning, because the consequences later on can be dangerous, damaging and harmful to the economy. Then, make sure you have the people on hand to make sure that the process is functioning properly. It's no good to give a permit -- the way they did to Cabot in Pennyslvania-- and then have them botch up a well bore or have them not case it properly. You need people on site who are not answerable to the driller, and not answerable to the people they are having dinner with that night, but accountable to the regulator. Last, there needs to be a very clear message that if anything does go wrong it will be 100 percent the responsibility of the drilling operations, whether that requires posting a bond or a standard of strict liability. If we're going to have a clean energy economy that's not dependent on sources outside of our borders, there are things that need to be done, and they need to be done properly. It's the same thing with windmills, solar panels, atomic energy or gas drilling. Nothing's easy because no one wants to turn off their lights and just save energy that way.

How about advice for dealing with the stress of the job?

You have to be a workaholic. I read environmental reports to relax. Well, that and go for runs.

What do you see on the horizon for natural gas drilling?

Natural gas is going to be the bridge fuel between burning heavy fuels and a clean energy economy. There are going to have to be new standards. We are a very energy-hungry country, and it's a question of making sure that our own resources are available to protect our national security interests and to clean our environment. I've looked at a lot of conventional wells in New York, and you can't even tell that they're there when you have standards in place for the restoration of the site. It's a critical component of the activity.

Are you worried about the trajectory of gas drilling in this nation, given that few states have developed standards as stringent as New York's?

Yeah, I am. I'm very concerned. I still watch the coal mining in West Virginia and the gas drilling throughout the country. We're perfectly willing to say, "Don't drill here, but let's get the gas from areas that have nowhere near our level of concern for the environment." My worry is that the constant pressure on [New York] to do the right thing means that we are going to be relying on someone else's less-than-active engagement in some of these areas. It's embedded in their economy, and they see things differently. This needs to be part of our fuel mix and our economic mix, but it just needs to be done right.