Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The New York State Department of Health (DOH) is charged with protecting the public
health of New Yorkers. In assessing whether public health would be adequately
protected from a complex activity such as high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), a
guarantee of absolute safety is not required. However, at a minimum, there must be
sufficient information to understand what the likely public health risks will be. Currently,

that information is insufficient.

In 2012, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
requested that DOH review and assess DEC’s analysis of potential health impacts
contained in DEC’s draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement
(SGEIS) for HVHF. In response to the original request from DEC, DOH initiated an
HVHF Public Health Review process. In conducting this public health review DOH: (i)
reviewed and evaluated scientific literature to determine whether the current scientific
research is sufficient to inform questions regarding public health impacts of HVHF; (ii)
sought input from three outside public health expert consultants; (iii) engaged in field
visits and discussions with health and environmental authorities in states with HVHF
activity; and (iv) communicated with multiple local, state, federal, international,
academic, environmental, and public health stakeholders. The evaluation considered
the available information on potential pathways that connect HVHF activities and
environmental impacts to human exposure and the risk for adverse public health
impacts.
Based on this review, it is apparent that the science surrounding HVHF activity is
limited, only just beginning to emerge, and largely suggests only hypotheses about
potential public health impacts that need further evaluation. That is, many of the

published reports investigating both environmental impacts that could result in human
exposures and health implications of HVHF activities are preliminary or exploratory in
nature. However, the existing studies also raise substantial questions about whether the
risks of HVHF activities are sufficiently understood so that they can be adequately
managed. Furthermore, the public health impacts from HVHF activities could be
significantly broader than just those geographic locations where the activity actually
occurs, thus expanding the potential risk to a large population of New Yorkers.
As with most complex human activities in modern societies, absolute scientific certainty
regarding the relative contributions of positive and negative impacts of HVHF on public
health is unlikely to ever be attained. In this instance, however, the overall weight of the
evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health
Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse
health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of
adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in
reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public
health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to
public health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately
managed, DOH recommends that HVHF should not proceed in New York State.