Public Sector Employees, Texas, and Confined Space - Part 2

Governor Rick Perry wants me dead!

Well at least that might be the conclusion from reading this guy's blog on the subject of OSHA and public sector employees:

Okay, so maybe Rick Perry does, but George Bush, the guy that was governor before Perry and the second Bush to become President, cared about my health and safety.

Source

I am going to check this week to see if that's still in effect.  Apparently, way back in 1995, Governor George Bush decided that public sector state employees in Texas warrant health and safety protection consideration.  That's his signature and it has the official seal.  Texas does not want me dead!

So what do I know about OSHA-like protection for public sector employees?  I am looking at this from how we do it in Texas, a state without a formal OSHA approved plan.  Here is what Texas Governor George Bush said in his Executive Order:

WHEREAS, state government should lead by example by complying with all applicable federal, and state laws, standards, rules, regulations and guidelines;

What that tells me, or at least how I read it, is that we don't need no stinkin' special rules for protecting state workers in Texas.  We are supposed to live by the rules currently in place.

So, in Texas, me, as a state employee, is protected.  My employer, the Texas A&M University System, is supposed to have a "comprehensive written risk management/safety programs" according to the Executive Order.

Do we have one for entry into a confined space?

The way I write this blog is to ask a question and then in real time look for the answer.  I do this (the vast majority of the time) without knowledge of what the answer will be, and have decided that, good, bad, or indifferent, I will report what I find.  I don't know if we have one, I suspect we do, but I need to check.

And...

Source

Pew!  That would be embarrassing if we did not.  So for me, a state worker, working for the Texas A&M University System, my employer has developed a safety plan for me if I work in a confined space.  That manual tells me this:

It is the policy of Texas A&M University (TAMU) that any individual entering into a confined space on TAMU property will do so in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Confined Space Program and 29CFR1910.146.

So, without OSHA oversight, without specific state regulations for confined space entry in place, Texas has told my employer you need to protect your workers.  And my employer has said, well heck, let's just comply with OSHA, because, you know, they already have confined space requirements, let's not reinvent the wheel!

I started with this question:

Question:  Do public sector employees need to comply with any safety regulations regarding entry into a confined space?

I can answer it now.

Answer:  If by public sector employee you mean a Texas State employee, then yes, we have safety regulations regarding entry into a confined space.

But what about public sector employees who are not state employees but work for a local municipality?

Hmmm...good question.


Public Sector Employees, Texas, and Confined Space - Part 3

.

Public Sector Employees, Texas, and Confined Space - Part 1

Question:  Do public sector employees need to comply with any safety regulations regarding entry into a confined space?

Answer: I don't know.

Really?  That's my answer to that question?  "I don't know."

Yeah, that's right.  At this point in time I don't know.  So I am going to find out.

Here is what I understand at this point in my quest:

The protections of the Act are extended to all private sector workers. However, the specific requirements of the Act have created a patchwork of coverage for workers in the public sector. Some of these workers are covered by the Act while others are not.

That's from a document by OSHA called " Evaluating the Status of Occupational Safety and Health
Coverage of State and Local Government Workers in Federal OSHA States."  Texas, the state I work in, is a Federal OSHA state.  That means that we do not have our own OSHA regulations which are known as a "state approved plan." According to OSHA:

There are currently 22 States and jurisdictions operating complete State plans (covering both the private sector and State and local government employees) and 5 - Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands - which cover public employees only. (Eight other States were approved at one time but subsequently withdrew their programs).

So if only 27 states have rules covering public sector employees, where does that leave guys like me, a Texas State employee?  Why am a I not covered under the same employee safety rules when I do similar jobs, like entering a confined space, trenching and shoring, wearing a respirator, and other hazardous operations, just like my counterparts in the private sector?

Here is what OSHA says about that:

Section 2(b) of the Act states that it is the purpose and policy of Congress “. . . to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.”

Well me and my fellow state employees are "working man and woman" so what part of the word "every" do we not meet?  Here is what OSHA says about that:

...because the definition of an employer in Section 3 of the Act specifically excludes: “. . . the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State . . .,” their workers are not provided the Act’s protections.

Really?  Thanks 1970's congress!  OSHA says

As a result, while all private sector workers are protected under provisions of the Act, all public sector workers are not. Only Section 18(b) State Plan states must provide OSHA protections for public sector workers.

Because Texas is not one of the 27 states with a State Plan I guess we are SOL on having to meet any type of confined space safety requirements.  Pop the top and enter!

No...that can't be right...can it?  Here is what I found out from that OSHA document:

Two states, Alabama and Delaware, had no recognizable occupational safety and health programs for public sector workers at either the state or local government level. These states had no OSH legislation enacted nor Governors’ Executive orders establishing a program comparable to the standards, or providing the protections equivalent to the provisions of Section 18(b) of the OSH Act.

But then I see this:

I'm confused, perplexed, and, well...

You mean to tell me that me and my 936,999 fellow public sector employees are provided no safety and health protection?  That can't be right...can it?


Next post: Part 2

.

The source of elevated constituents is speculative, but... - Part 8

Okay, so the yellow dots they used in the graphic really got me thinking that this paper, "An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation" they talked about on the UT Arlington webpage might be a bit slanted against natural gas extraction.

I read their paper with a somewhat open mind to see the "powerful evidence" they had that further study was required because, as the website points out:

Researchers believe the increased presence of metals could be due to a variety of factors including: industrial accidents such as faulty gas well casings; mechanical vibrations from natural gas drilling activity disturbing particles in neglected water well equipment; or the lowering of water tables through drought or the removal of water used for the hydraulic fracturing process.  Any of these scenarios could release dangerous compounds into shallow groundwater.

You will notice that with the exception of drought (which we in Texas have been experiencing) all of the factors they list as the possible culprit for this increase in metals (arsenic) involve natural gas extraction.

They make their case two ways.  First, they sampled groundwater in the Barnett Shale area and ran it for chemicals one would expect to see coming for this type of activity.  Second, they compared the results to what we knew the levels of those contaminants to be prior to gas extraction activities commencing in the area.

The idea here is to show that the groundwater post 1999 is more contaminated then pre-natural gas extraction groundwater samples.

They were able to do this for only arsenic and TDS (although they make a case for the other metals being elevated as well).  Based on this comparison of the ground water now, with the groundwater pre-2000, they present "plausible scenarios" to explain why the metals are elevated, concluding:

At a minimum, these data suggest that private wells located near natural gas wells may be at higher risk for elevated levels of constituents than those located further from natural gas wells.

This before and after is based on:

This comparison shows a significant increase in the mean concentration, maximum detected concentration, and MCL exceedances for As, Se, and Sr in our study area when compared to historical data and previous characterizations of these aquifers.

Like I pointed out in my last post, it is this comparison that forms their conclusion.  So skeptical me asked what the comparison would be if you looked at the pre-2000 historical data and compared it with the post-1999 historical data. So I did.

Running a query on the same dataset they used in the report, I looked at the post-1999 results for arsenic in the groundwater wells in the four counties the Railroad Commission calls "Core Counties."  Wise, Johnson, Denton, and Tarrant are in the heart of all the natural gas wells in the Barnett Shale area.  If there is going to be arsenic contamination due to any of the factors listed in the UTA website, it will show up here.

My query of the dataset showed 170 water samples were analyzed for arsenic after 1999.  Of 170 analytical samples for arsenic, as recently as 2011, only two show any arsenic above >2 ppb.  5.93 ppb and 2.93 ppb.

These 170 analytical reports for arsenic from 48 unique wells within these four core counties.  None of them show the concentration of arsenic reported in the paper.  All of them are in the same geographic area where active natural gas wells are located.

What about the counties of Palo Pinto and Jack where there is only red and yellow dots shown on the graphic?  Not a lot of data for these two counties.  Pre and post is all under 10 ppb.

Not enough data to show a comparison.

So where does this leave me?  My take away is that there is no connection between gas extraction and metals in the groundwater.  Here is why:

1. The absence of BTEX in all the wells UTA sampled rules out "industrial accidents" and "faulty gas well casings" as the cause for an increase in arsenic.
2. The absence of arsenic in the historical wells post 1999 rules out "the lowering of water tables through drought or the removal of water used for the hydraulic fracturing process."

Still, I am faced with the fact that they did find arsenic above the 10 ppb MCL in about a third of the wells they tested.  Why?  This leaves only one possible factor in play:

Mechanical vibrations from natural gas drilling activity disturbing particles in neglected water well equipment

There are a number of issues in play here before I can accept that "plausible factor":

1. Does a neglected well release arsenic due to mechanical vibrations in the area?
2. Why is there arsenic in some wells in the same aquifer and not in others from the same aquifer in the same geographic area?
3. Did the sampling, preservation, and analytical method UTA used bias the results to show a positive result for arsenic?

Here is what I would want to see done first:

1. Re-sample the wells that were positive for arsenic above the MCL utilizing the same protocol used to collect the water samples for the historical data.
2. Analyze those water samples using EPA method 200.8
3. Have the analysis performed by a NELAC accredited laboratory

Doing this would rule out any errors produced by UTA and would allow us to apples with apples compare the arsenic data from the private wells with the arsenic data from the historic wells.  This, in my opinion, would help show a true value of arsenic that we can relate to an MCL and support looking at mechanical vibrations as the culprit if there are a number of wells that actually exceed the MCL

If you got this far, thanks for reading.

.

The source of elevated constituents is speculative, but... - Part 7

The UT Arlington webpage describing the study titled "An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation" states this:

Researchers gathered samples from private water wells of varying depth within a 13 county area in or near the Barnett Shale in North Texas over four months in the summer and fall of 2011. Ninety-one samples were drawn from what they termed “active extraction areas,” or areas that had one or more gas wells within a five kilometer radius.

They compared the samples to historical data on water wells in these counties from the Texas Water Development Board groundwater database for 1989-1999, prior to the proliferation of natural gas drilling.

The website states this as one of the results of the study:

Arsenic occurs naturally in the region’s water and was detected in 99 of the 100 samples. But, the concentrations of arsenic were significantly higher in the active extraction areas compared to non-extraction areas and historical data.

The paper states this:

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) sampled arsenic as well as pesticides, nitrates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in drinking water wells, including wells from aquifers overlying the Barnett Shale formation. Using these data and other data from the Texas Water Development Board, Reedy et al. characterized groundwater in the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers as generally good quality with very few exceedances for constituents such as arsenic, selenium, strontium, and barium.

So we have good groundwater to start with.  The paper states that they collected samples and performed analytical tests for certain chemicals of concern.  Then they write:

These data were compared to a historical dataset from the same aquifers prior to the expansion of natural gas extraction activities

And now we have a before and after to make some type of inference.

While our data indicate elevated levels of potentially harmful compounds in private water wells located near natural gas wells, it is important to recognize that there were also a number of private water wells in close proximity to natural gas wells that showed no elevated constituents.

Okay...

This indicates that natural gas extraction activities do not result in systematic contamination of groundwater.

If it did, we would expect to see contaminants in all the wells.  Fair enough.  I concur (for whatever that's worth). So, what's going on?

We suggest that episodic contamination of private water wells could be due to a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors such as the mobilization of naturally occurring constituents into private wells through mechanical disturbances caused by intense drilling activity, reduction of the water table from drought or groundwater withdrawals, and faulty drilling equipment and well casings.

There's that "sandwich effect" I talked about in Part 2.  But wait, there's more...

The geographic locations of elevated constituent levels in our study are consistent with the notion that mechanical disturbance of private water wells and industrial accidents (e.g. equipment failure, faulty well casings, fluid spills,) are more frequent in areas where natural gas extraction is active.

Here is my takeaway when I read this report.

1. The water was low in arsenic and other CoCs before the year 2000
2. Arsenic, in particular, is higher in wells closer to active gas wells.
3. That level of arsenic, in almost a third of the wells sampled, is over the MCL
4. The above MCL level of arsenic now found in the wells happened after the year 1999
5. Mechanical disturbance of private water wells and industrial accidents (e.g. equipment failure, faulty well casings, fluid spills,) are the most probable cause as they were not present before the year 2000.

I think that's a reasonable conclusion that the majority of readers of the report would come away with.  Now let me add this to the mix.  If the level of arsenic detected in the pre-2000 year historical samples did not change after the year 1999, would that impact the "powerful argument" that natural gas drilling and extraction is the culprit?

Let's look at line 389:

...we chose to evaluate the geographic occurrence and absolute concentration changes for these constituents over time by comparing this study’s data against previous characterizations of groundwater in this region from the scientific literature and a large historical dataset from the same region.

The "plausible scenarios to explain our data" is based on a comparison of the historical dataset up to 1999 with what they found in wells from the same area.  Line 393:

This comparison shows a significant increase in the mean concentration, maximum detected concentration, and MCL exceedances for As, Se, and Sr in our study area when compared to historical data and previous characterizations of these aquifers.

So the historical samples showed "x" amount, and their samples showed "x" plus "y" amount, does this lend credibility to the notion that natural gas drilling and extraction plays a part in this?  If that notion is plausible, because there is more "x" now then in 1999, that notion would be void, if the amount of "x" after the year 1999 has not changed.  At least that's where my thinking goes.

The paper tells me that their historical data was derived from the Texas Water Development Board Groundwater Database Website. So I went there.  And like the good little cynical nerd I am, I downloaded the "Entire Groundwater Database" which is an Access Database.

And being the nerdy-type, I know how to use Access.  So I did this:

Nerdy Query I Put Together from the Texas Water Development Board Groundwater Database

Here is what I got from the query.  Please note that I am sorting by "const_val" (I removed descending from the state_well_number).  What you see in the graphic of the results below is the highest value of arsenic reported in the same wells the historical data they used in the report were collected from.  All the other values, including the ones you do not see, are lower than that.

Report from running the nerdy-query.

I limited the query to just the four counties the Railroad Commission calls "Core Counties."  This is where the bulk of the drilling takes place and where the proximity of a gas well to the groundwater well would be closest.

Notice that this query only shows two wells with levels of arsenic above 2 ppb?  All we need to know is how many samples we have post 1999 and how that would compare to the same query pre 2000.

Time to get nerdy.

Next post: Part 8.


.

The source of elevated constituents is speculative, but... - Part 6

The paper titled "An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation" states on line 285:

Samples that exceeded the MCL for TDS, arsenic, and selenium were located an average of 1.1 km from the nearest natural gas well. Similarly, the highest values for both strontium and barium were over twice as high in areas less than 2 km from the nearest natural gas well compared to more distant gas wells.

Let's look at the graph with the green, yellow, and red dots.

 Notice that gray shading?  That's all the oil & gas wells in the area.  The Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) has a web site devoted to the Barnett Shale.  Here is their map.

RRC

Now let's look at the number of wells in the area:

RRC

There are a little shy of 17,000 wells in the area.  That's why there is so much gray in their graphic.  There are four counties where most of these wells exist; Denton, Johnson, Tarrant, and Wise.

The UTA research found that "arsenic, selenium, strontium, barium, and TDS reached their highest concentrations in areas of active extraction in close proximity to natural gas wells."  The source of this arsenic is unknown, but the paper points the reader in the direction of the gas wells as the culprit.

Line 291: The geographic patterns in our data suggest that lowering of the water table during a drought period cannot fully explain these elevated constituent levels.

...and...

Line 293: Concentrations that exceed the MCL occur only in close proximity to natural gas wells suggesting that mechanical disturbances or localized groundwater withdrawals near natural gas wells could play a role in elevated constituent concentrations.

...and...

Line 312: It is also possible that improper handling of waste materials and faulty gas well casings could result in the introduction of these compounds into shallow groundwater

 I think we can rule that last one out due to no BTEX being found in any of the 90 wells they sampled.

So what about the arsenic?  Line 322:

Arsenic showed a significant positive correlation with TDS suggesting that it may be concurrently mobilized into groundwater with TDS during the natural gas extraction process.  Again, mechanical disturbances (high pressure fluid injection, mechanical vibration, etc.) associated with natural gas extraction activities could be the cause of elevated levels of TDS and arsenic.

Now to tie it all together.

• Line 339: Concentrations of arsenic, strontium, and selenium were significantly higher in samples from active extraction areas compared to historical data.
• Line 341: Non-active/reference area samples also showed a significant increase in arsenic compared to historical data.
• Line 342: Both active extraction and non-active/reference areas showed a significant decrease in barium concentrations from historical levels.
• Line 344: Historical TDS concentrations were not significantly different from non-active/reference area concentrations but were significantly higher than active extraction area samples.

And conclude:

Line 348: While we cannot draw definitive conclusions due to the fact that the historical data was collected under different sampling conditions, these data do provide a baseline for comparison to pre-industrial conditions which is generally lacking in studies of this nature.

From my point of view, if "these data were compared to a historical dataset from the same
aquifers prior to the expansion of natural gas extraction activities," then any impact from natural gas drilling would also show up in those wells post-1999.

The paper's general hypothesis is that "the geographic locations of elevated constituent levels in our study are consistent with the notion that mechanical disturbance of private water wells and industrial accidents (e.g. equipment failure, faulty well casings, fluid spills, etc.) are more frequent in areas where natural gas extraction is active."

If that is true, then the same wells used for the historical data should also see an increase in these constituents, in particular, arsenic. The paper is keen to explain finding no contaminants in other wells close to drilling:

While our data indicate elevated levels of potentially harmful compounds in private water wells located near natural gas wells, it is important to recognize that there were also a number of private water wells in close proximity to natural gas wells that showed no elevated constituents.

I am left with this:

Concentrations were significantly higher in active extraction areas compared to reference samples and historical samples.

That historical data they compare it with - the before and after - came about like this:

Historical data for the concentrations of target compounds (except alcohols) in private water well samples from this region were obtained to evaluate their occurrence before the expansion of natural gas extraction activities. This historical dataset is comprised of 330 private drinking water wells from the Trinity, Woodbine, and Nacatoch aquifers sampled over a ten year period (1989 – 1999) before natural gas activities began. Wells were located in the same counties that we sampled in this study.

This got me thinking.  If the arsenic is elevate due to proximity to a gas well, and "mechanical disturbances (high pressure fluid injection, mechanical vibration, etc.) associated with natural gas extraction activities could be the cause of elevated levels of TDS and arsenic," we would expect to see elevated arsenic in the wells from which the historical data was collected.

You know, kind of a goose and gander type thinking.  I chose Tarrant County to look at since there are a lot of gas wells there and it had a nice cluster of red dots indicating arsenic above the MCL.

The paper cites the Texas Water Development Board Groundwater Database Website as where they got this historical data.  So I went there, scrolled down to "Tarrant County" and went looking for a groundwater well that was in this area.  I then clicked on the "Infrequent Constituent Report." which is where they obtained the pre-1999 data.  I then looked for a water well in the vicinity of the red dots.

Using the "Wells in TWBD Groundwater Database-Texas website, I found a few wells that had post-1999 data.  325103, 325104, and 325102.

Source

I then went to the Railroad Commission's website and searched to see if there were any gas wells in the area.

Source

So looking at groundwater well 3205103 you can see that it is less than 1 km from gas wells.

I then went back to the "Infrequent Constituent Report" and looked at the most recent analysis on arsenic:

Okay, that's just one well.  Look at the green dots in the graphic!  Remember the authors tell us:

...it is important to recognize that there were also a number of private water wells in close proximity to natural gas wells that showed no elevated constituents.

True that, but when I look at the historical data post-1999, I find nothing to support the hypothesis "suggesting that mechanical disturbances or localized groundwater withdrawals near natural gas wells could play a role in elevated constituent concentrations."

So what gives?  Why did they find arsenic above the MCL in 29 of 90 wells they sampled?


Next post: Part 7

.