David Brown's commentary ("Assessing the risks of fracking," March 10) is poignant. The federal Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General report at the end of February underscored the need for a better understanding of emissions and potential risks.
The report states that the EPA has limited air data for toxics and other pollutants, does not have a comprehensive strategy for improving air emissions data for this industrial sector and did not anticipate its tremendous growth, and previously only allocated limited resources to the issue.
It is also surprising the state's last-minute health assessment on fracking was not done earlier; almost all Superfund sites have a routine human risk assessment of pertinent exposure routes. The chance for fracking, even if it may be small, to create an aquifer-sized, self-inflicted contaminated drinking water supply should have been scrutinized more closely from the beginning.
One might ask why this health review wasn't originally performed as a routine part of the regulatory process, given the immense technical and political issues.
As a private-sector expert in environmental matters for 30 years, I find myself sitting on the fence over this issue. The economic benefits are obvious, but the state's handling of these issues has been disappointing. The industry side of this equation has not always been straightforward and honest, and liability and responsibility for whatever mishaps may occur appear nebulous.
Sander Bonvell
Voorheesville