HESI300321
Anthony G. Hay Ph.D.

October 15, 2009

Contact Information

B75C Wing Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853

Telephone 607 255-847:1

AghS@cornell.edu

Qualifications

Hay is an associate professor of Microbiology and Soil Ecotoxicology in the Department of Microbiology

and in the graduate program of Comparative and Environmental Toxicology at Cornell University. He

received his Ph.D. in Soil Science with an emphasis on Soil Microbiology from the University of

California, Riverside in :1997. He performed post-doctoral research as a Hollaender Distinguished Post

Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Environmental Biotechnology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville

for two years before joining the faculty at Cornell as an Assistant Professor in :1999. He currently serves

as the director for the Institute for Comparative and Environmental Toxicology and was interim director

of Cornell’s Center for the Environment from 2007-2008. He teaches a graduate class called

introduction to environmental toxicology and chemistry. His research interests include the microbial

metabolism of organic pollutants such as industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, personal care products,

and pesticides as well as their fate in the environment. He has directly supervised :1:1 Ph.D. students

while co-advising 5 masters and :1:1 Ph.D. students. Together, their work has resulted in approximately

40 scientific publications. Dr Hay is currently a member of the Faculty Advisory Committees of both the

Cornell Center for a Sustainable Future and the New York State Water Resources Institute.

Testimony

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of my concerns with you about the draft Supplemental

Generic Environmental Impact statement governing natural gas drilling. As Director of Cornell’s Institute

for Comparative and Environmental Toxicology I am particularly concerned about the risk flowback

fluids and production brines pose to human and environmental health. These risks stem from the

presence of harzards such as the known carcinogens/mutagens benzene and 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide

and the potential endocrine disruptors nonylphenol and octylphenol in flowback fluids, as well as the

presence of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) in brines. Risk can be mitigated by

reducing exposure to hazards so my first suggestion is that the legislature considers requiring the use of

enclosed collapsible reservoirs with secondary containment instead of open pits. Minimizing exposure is

appropriate because we are not fully aware of all the risks posed by flow back fluids and this is likely to

reduce the risk of accidental exposure. My second suggestion is that the legislature band specific

constituents because they are particularly hazardous and more benign alternatives exist. Minimizing

exposure and requiring the use of less hazardous alternative compounds (aka substitution) are well

accepted forms of risk mitigation that should not pose an undue burden on the drilling companies and

will reduce the risk to humans and wild life.

According to the S-GElS Benzene, which is a known human carcinogen, was found in nearly half of all

flowback waters from Pennsylvania and West Virginia (:14/29 samples) at concentrations ranging from

:15.7 to :1950 I~g/L, with an average of 479.5 I~g/L. This average number is nearly :100 times the

maximum contaminant level (5 I~g/L) established by the EPA. The maximum concentration was nearly

400 times higher. Even if one considers a dilution or attenuation factor, as is done at superfund sites, of

as much as :100, it is possible that mishandling of flowback water could contaminate nearby aquifers or

groundwater at levels that could exceed and MCL established by the EPA. Many drilling companies’

HESI300322
phased out the use of benzene in the 1990s so it should be possible for those working in the Marcellus

Shales to do the same. In order to reduce the risk of contamination associated with spills or storage

pond failure, I strongly urge the legislature to disallow the use of benzene and other petroleum

distillates in drilling fluids since functional alternatives exist.

Of even greater concern was the S-GEIS’s report of the extremely high concentrations (ranging from

1422 to 48336 mg/L, with an average of 13906 mg/L) of 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide (Table 5-9). These

concentrations of this one compound exceed the 0.5% total mentioned for all chemical additives listed

on page 5-42. Although it has no established MCL, this compound is routinely used in animal studies to

induce cancer formation. Its material safety and data sheet lists it as a human mutagen and that says

that it may cause reproductive effects. The presence of this compound at such high concentrations in all

of the flowback samples tested is disturbing, especially given that it was not listed as a constituent in

fracking fluids. It is highly unlikely to be of natural origin and almost certainly must have been added, in

all likelihood as a biocide. Since alternative biocides exist the legislature must prevent the use of this

compound in drilling fluids and demand to know its origin and ascertain why it was not reported as a

drilling fluid constituent earlier.

Other compounds of concern in fracking fluids are nonylphenol and octylphenol ethoxylate surfactants

which can be degraded by microbes to become endocrine disruptors that mimic estrogen and may

adversely affect the health of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The ethoxylate portion of these

compounds are easily removed by microbes and result in the formation of nonylphenol and octylphenol

which are both weakly estrogenic. Normal monitoring of the parent compounds used in fracking fluids

would not pick up the presence of these degradation products so we have no idea if they are present or

not, however, based on the similarity to other environmental exposure scenarios, it is reasonable to

expect them to be present any time the parent surfactants are used in the environment. Exposure to

these compounds, even at extremely low concentrations (lag/L) can cause feminization of fish.

Alternative surfactants exist so banning these compounds should not pose an undue burden on drilling

companies.

The final compounds of concern are NORMs in brines (Ch 5.16.7). Given the DEC’s acknowledgment

that more work needs to be done to understand the risk that NORMs pose, it seems premature to

permit the spreading of brines (as proposed in Ch5.16.6) on roadways as alternative deicing compounds.

A moratorium should be placed on this practice until we can get a clearer picture of the risks involved.

It is my opinion that by requiring management practices that reduce exposure to fracking fluids and

brines and by requiring the substitution of known hazards with more benign alternatives the legislature

will ensure greater protection to our citizens and the environment while not unduly impeding gas

drilling.

Sincerely,

Anthony G. Hay Ph.D.

HESI300323