Laundered Shop Towels: 3 - Is it mean to ask for a median?

There are five rules that I would like to put forth regarding any scientific work used to describe something as being bad or good.

• Rule Number 1: Always read the report the findings/recommendations were based on.
• Rule Number 2: Always look at the data used.
• Rule Number 3: Always check the assumptions used to derive the model that drives the conclusion.
• Rule Number 4: Compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
• Rule Number 5: Always make sure the model and equations reflect reality.

This includes spending time to scrutinize what I am using to defend my position as well.  Go to the links, read the references I am using and quoting.  Do this not just to keep me honest, but to point out any mistakes I may have made.

I'm only human, and so are the three authors of the 2003 and 2011 Gradient Laundered Shop Towel Study.

Because we are human we make mistakes.  We blunder, we miscalculate, we make poorly reasoned assumptions, we put forth facts that are not properly vetted, we think we know what we're talking about when we really don't, and sometimes we purposely mislead for reasons unrelated to the pursuit of knowledge.

In any case, what we generate and hold out as "Scientific" or "Peer Reviewed" may be used to further a particular way of thinking or an agenda.  It may even be used to help sell disposable shop towels.

Kimberly-Clark's dire warning to workers is based on an "exceedance ratios" which was calculated by Gradient:

"Concentrations of metals in laundered shop wipes can result in exposures (as evaluated using the methodology presented in this report) which exceed toxicity criteria for certain metals."

 "Why take the risk" Kimberly-Clark warns workers who are are currently using laundered shop towels.

Is there a risk?  It all comes down to how exposure risk via a laundered shop towel was calculated - the methodology used to derive the black and red bars shown in Kimberly-Clark's graph:

Source

This graphically illustrates to a reader that the "exceedance ratio" for certain metals is huge, therefore the risk to the worker for adverse health effects, specifically cancer, is equally huge as well.  And in case the graph does not convey that message...:

Source

All of this concern (Google "Laundered Shop Towels") is based on a study performed by a "renowned" company with "expertise" in such studies.  But despite what the Supreme Court may have said, Gradient is not a person who is human.  Gradient did not write this paper and make these assumptions, three humans did.

The contention that a worker should be concerned, that a worker should be presented with a question of why take the risk?, is resting solely on the work performed by three educated and experienced researchers.

If their study's conclusions are valid, it will stand up to scrutiny.  Its assumptions will be judged sound, and its conclusion deemed reasonable.  That's how it works when you put a paper out for publication, even if it will only appear in a trade journal.  And it particularly must stand up to scrutiny when you present it to an association of Environmental Health & Safety Professionals who are in the business of protecting employee health. (1)  You had better be right on this if I am going to change from laundered shop towels to disposable ones.

The reason I spend my free time writing this blog on subjects such as this, is to help me understand what is going on regarding a particular topic.  I am also an EHS educator, a career I am passionate about.  I understand stuff because someone took the time to explain it to me along the way.  So this is payback.

If you Google "Laundered Shop Towels" you will find the first page of search results trumpeting the same message Gradient's study concluded.  Laundered shop towels are deemed bad because these three researchers wrote a paper where they show via a model and calculation where a worker could consume more than 3,600 times the Proposition 65 safe intake level for lead.  One after another, these web sites parrot the same message about "toxicity" and "risk."

And they do so because they have not read the study.  They don't look at the data used, they don't question the assumptions, they can't understand what values can be compared with one another, and they don't stop to ask the fundamental question: does the model and calculation reflect reality?  They assume it is true because Gradient put it out there and these three highly educated and experienced researchers wrote it.  End of story.

In my last post, I showed how Gradient's "Towel to Hand" transfer rate was derived, and how there is no data showing if heavy metals remaining on a laundered shop towel can - or do - transfer to the hand.  That assumption that they do transfer is the foundation behind all the "exceedance values" they calculated.  That assumption is based on other studies that looked at dislodgeable dust and pesticides.  Will a laundered shop towel transfer heavy metals to the hand like pesticide/dust will be transferred to the hand from carpet?

That is an important bit of missing information.  So we are asked to assume the rags behave similar to carpet and the rate of transfer is 13%.  Gradient has nothing to back that up, it's just an assumption - one of many - based on other studies they looked at.

So for the sake of moving forward, and in the absence of any other data, lets assume the Tt/h is 13%.

Gradient claims that the worker's hands will contact 75% of the towel's surface area and the "Load (mg/cm2)" on that 75% of the surface will be transferred onto the hand at an "efficiency" rate of 13% (Tt/h ratio).  If you look at the calculation Gradient uses:

Gradient 2011 Paper

...the amount of heavy metals on 75% of the towel's surface that contacts the hand is reduced by 13%.  Since we are going to assume that the lead on the towel can dislodge onto the hand, we will also assume that up to 13% of the lead on the towel's surface the worker's hand comes in contact with, will now be transferred onto the hand.

The black and red bar graph at the beginning of this post shows the "exceedance ratios" Gradient determined using the calculation shown above.  That calculation spits out an intake based on variables that are derived from assumptions and hard data they use.

The "Intake" Gradient calculated for a worker is based on a contaminant "Load" per towel.  In other words, how much of these heavy metals are on the towel before the employee uses it?  Their model is based on the assumption that the towel is contaminated with heavy metals and that these metals will be transferred to the employee's hand - and then into the mouth (intake).

So the first critical step in this model's calculation is to find out how much heavy metals are available for transfer.  Let's look at the data and the decisions that were made regarding that data.

In the black and red bar graph, it graphically shows the "maximum" risk and "mean" risk that was calculated when compared to "various health-based criteria."

The black bar is based on the "mean" and the red bar is based on the "maximum" concentration of heavy metals detected in/on the rag.  This is important because those bar graphs show how far above an acceptable intake the worker could be exposed to.  That number drives the warning: "why take the risk."

That intake value is dependent on the mean and maximum concentrations Gradient found to be in/on the laundered towel.  Based on these lab reports, the mean and maximum heavy metals in/on a laundered towel are assumed to be available to be transferred (Load) to the employee's hand (Tt/h) and then transferred into the employees mouth (intake).  You need to have intake to have a risk, you need to have transfer to get it into the mouth, and you need to have exposure to a certain amount of a contaminant to determine the degree of risk.  So the mean and maximum heavy metal values Gradient calculated are critical.

Let's look at the mean contaminant concentrations Gradient reported. (Rule Number 2: Always look at the data used).  This table is copied directly from their study.

Gradient 2011 Paper

You see those red arrows I put there?  Those are there to show you which contaminant results had Standard Deviations higher than their mean.  This shows that there is high variability in the data, which impacts the true average - mean - concentration that actually is present.

The concentrations Gradient used to derive the Load are skewed, which means they are not symmetric, Therefore the "mean" concentration was not appropriate to calculate the Load because the data does not behave in a Gaussian (bell curve - normal distribution) fashion.  The mean they calculated has been influenced by a few very high concentrations and is much higher than what would be normally found if you were to sample thousands of towels.

Source

Here is what the EPA has to say about skewed data:

EPA

At this point I am skeptical that the mean values Gradient calculated and reported accurately represent the average concentration of heavy metals that would be found.  I am pretty sure they are too high since the lower end was bottomed out at 1/2 the detection limit.  Look at the range they report for lead.  The 2nd to last column is the US detected range and the last column is Canada.

2011 Study

There are statistical accepted methods to work around this problem of having "hot spot" data influence the average concentration.   This is where a Statistician comes in handy.  To obtain a proper and statistically sound average concentration the median should have been used or the data transformed (e.g., lognormal).  So right there, the first real number plugged in to Gradient's equation - "Load" - is biased higher than what would be found under normal conditions.  How much higher?  That would require the individual data points for each of the 26 different towel's sampled.  I've requested this from Gradient and have not received it as of the date of this post.

The decision to use values that are biased taints the actual results one is looking to find.. If the Tt/h ratio is higher than it most likely is, and the Load is higher than it most likely is, well you can see the problem.  We keep compounding the errors which drives the intake upwards.

But those black bars pale in comparison to how the red bar maximum "exceedance ratios" were calculated.


Next Post: Laundered Shop Towels: The red bar and the "three sigma" rule

Laundered Shop Towels: 2 - A flaw in the model

Here is what Gradient concludes in their 2011 Study:

Metals on shop towels can get onto hands and then potentially be ingested, as evaluated in the 2003 report and as developed in this evaluation.

For typical use of 12 towels a day per person, exceedances of Proposition 65 limits, and US EPA and ATSDR toxicity criteria may occur for antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, and molybdenum.  Calculated intakes for these metals were up to 3,600-fold higher (based on maximum intake concentration for lead) than their respective toxicity criterion.

Notice the word "can."  Let's look at how that word is defined by Websters:

"be physically able to."

That word "can" is important because it is the basis behind their model, which is as follows:

• Laundered shop towels contain heavy metals - even after they have been washed.
• The heavy metals in/on the shop towels can get onto the hands.
• The heavy metals on the hand can get into the mouth.
• The amount of heavy metals entering the mouth may exceed California Proposition 65 limits, and EPA & ATSDR toxicity criteria.

Here is the graphic from the 2003 Gradient Study on laundered shop towels - their model:

2003 Gradient Study

There are two important assumptions made here by gradient.

1. The metals on/in the towel can be dislodged onto the hand
2. The metals on the hand will be transferred to the mouth each and every time a towel is handled.

These two assumptions are very important in evaluating the validity of the intake values used to determine the exceedance with Proposition 65, EPA, and ATSDR toxicity criteria.

For these posts I am only going to focus on lead since that is the one heavy metal with the greatest exceedance.

Let's look at the first assumption: The metals on/in the towel can be dislodged onto the hand.  Gradient is basing this on the findings from their 2003 Study on the same topic.  Here is what they base this transfer from the towel to the hand on:

For ingestion exposure via hand contact with the laundered shop towels, we estimated transfer of metals from laundered shop towels to hands based on empirical data regarding transfer of pesticide residues from surfaces to hands, data regarding the number of laundered shop towels used daily per person, as well as an estimate of the percentage of the towel surface area that would contact the hand.

The amount of metal transferred to the hand that could ultimately be ingested was based on a hand-to-mouth transfer efficiency, using methodology developed by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) for evaluating exposure to dislodgeable residues on treated wood surfaces

Gradient is basing their intake values on a model that assumes the lead concentration they determined to be present in shop towels can be dislodged from the towel onto the hand.

It is reasonable here to challenge this assumption based on the following:

Is it reasonable to assume that a shop towel that has been washed in hot water, with a detergent, then dried under heat, can dislodge lead onto the hand?

Gradient is basing their model on a CPSC study that looked a dislodgeable reside and used the same value of dislodgement in their calculation for the "Towel to Hand" transfer rate.  You can read how Gradient justifies their value of "13%" by reading the paragraph on towel to hand transfer on page 9 of the 2011 Study.  Here are the studies they looked at:

2011 Gradient Study

The question is (and I think it appropriate) should a comparison be made using transfer rates involving pesticide residue and dislodgeable residues with what could come off of a towel that has been washed with soap, rinsed, and heat dried?

The basis of their model is that heavy metals on the rag can get onto the hand and into the mouth.  If the heavy metals are not transferred to the hand, exposure took place but transport into the worker did not.

Without the ability to show that a towel - washed in soap and dried under heat - can transfer the lead onto the hand, the model is not appropriate and the intake values calculated are erroneous.

This could have, with relative simplicity, been evaluated by Gradient.  If we are looking at the lead coming off the towel, soaking the towel in water or a saline solution would give some idea of the amount of lead that could be dislodged onto a wet hand.  Additionally, the towels could have been handled aggressively by a test subject and the hands swabbed to see what, if any, residue came off the towel.  Both of these methods would have derived a value of lead that would be available to be transferred to the mouth.

Just because you have exposure does not mean you will have a health risk. There must be intake.  In order for the Gradient model to be valid, the lead must be transported from the towel to the hand.  They have not shown this to take place, only showing that dust and pesticide reside can be transported from a soft surface to the hand.

I cannot agree with their findings based on this one condition alone.  But that would make for a pretty short series of posts if I stopped now.  And besides, where's the fun in that?

So let's assume that the necessary assumption that the metals can be transported from the towel to the hand does, indeed, take place.  The next question becomes" Is the transfer rate of 13% of the lead from the towel to the hand valid?

Once again we are back to square one.  If we assume that the towel can transfer the lead to the hand, then we also have to assume that the transfer rate is similar to that found with dust and residue based on the studies Gradient looked at (see Attachment A graphic above).  The value of "13%" was based on:

Several studies looked at multiple compounds and found different transfer efficiencies depending on the compound being evaluated.  Within each study, we averaged the various relevant transfer percentages; they were averaged separately for studies conducted with dry vs. wet hands.  In reviewing the current literature, transfer to moist hands (average 20%) is four times higher than transfer to dry hands average 5%).  Workers are likely to come into contact with RSTs with both dry and moist hands.  Therefore, we averaged the transfers to moist hands and dry hands separately before averaging the two averages, to equally weight the results from both categories.  This value (13%) is more than double the transfer efficiency used in the 2003 evaluation (5%). (1)

In order to move on, one must agree with Gradient's assumption that 13% of what ever is on the washed towel's surface can be transported onto the hand - based on the surface area of the towel the hand comes in contact with.  If you can live with this assumption, then their model holds and a "Towel to Hand" transfer rate (Tt/h) holds true as well.  If you find this particular assumption a bit hard to accept, well you can ignore the rest of these posts and throw their study into the trashcan.  In order for the assertion that lead exceeds an amount by 3600 times, the lead MUST leave the towel and attach to the hand.

That 13% transfer rate is critical in determining the intake they use to compare against Proposition 65, EPA, and ATSDR toxicity criteria.

I contend that the laundered shop towels will not transfer any heavy metals to the skin under normal shop towel use.  Additionally, I contend that any dislodgeable heavy metals, such as lead, that remains on the towel after washing in soap and drying would transfer onto the skin at a rate well below 1%.

Of course I have nothing to prove that contention with.  So it's Bowman "0", Gradient "1"

But not for long.  I have this little thing called "statistics" to help me out in my contention that there is no additional risk to a worker who uses a laundered shop towel.  Unless they were to maybe eat twelve towels a day....but that's for another blog post.

Next post: Laundered Shop Towels:  Is it mean to ask for a median?

.

Laundered Shop Towels: 1 - A mountain or mole hill of risk

I recently got back from attending the AHMP's 2011 National Conference in Austin Texas the end of August.  AHMP is an association for CHMMs, CETs, and EHS professionals.  I attended a bunch of well presented presentations, and also presented one myself on Wednesday.

I found myself on Tuesday attending a presentation by Crystal Leach, Ph.D, who is Director of Global Research & Engineering with Kimberly-Clark Professional, titled:

"Evaluation of Potential Exposure to Metals in Laundered Shop Towels"

Which is the basis behind this question posed to workers by Kimberly-Clark:

Source

Because of what was found, according to Kimberly-Clark:

Source

Those red and black bars paint a very dire picture for those workers using laundered shop towels.  So bad is the risk that Kimberly-Clark has a webpage called "the dirt on shop towels" to show workers how bad it is.  Heck there's Mike Rowe on the page holding laundered shop towels!  I'll have to check out what he has to say about all of this later on.  Right now I am interested in the brochure they developed with this ominous warning on the first page:

Source

The question that one should be asking is this: Should workers be concerned about their health if they are using laundered shop towels?  Should we believe Kimberly-Clark, who sells disposable shop wipes, when they inform the worker that "what they don't know" about laundered shop towels "could hurt them?"

Kimberly-Clark will tell you to believe them because:

"Two studies conducted during the last 8 years show that laundered shop towels contain toxic heavy metals even after laundering." (1)

It's not Kimberly-Clark saying this, it's based on two studies.  Independent studies performed by:

"an environmental and risk science consulting firm renowned for their expertise in Toxicology, epidemiology, Risk Assessment, Product Safety, Contaminant Fate and Transport, and Environmental/Forensic Chemistry." (1)

According to the abstract for the presentation by Crystal Leach, that firm, Gradient:

"undertook analysis of laundered shop towels, and concluded that, even after commercial laundering, the towels studied retain elevated levels of metals. Estimated metal intakes were compared to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) Proposition 65 regulatory limits for cancer or reproductive effects as well as to various health-based criteria, including those from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Gradient study finds that, for the worker using the typical amount of towels per day, average exposure to seven metals (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, and molybdenum) may exceed health-based exposure guidelines set by these agencies. For example, based on the calculations discussed in the 2011 Gradient study, a worker may ingest up to 3,600 times more lead on a daily basis than recommended by CalEPA. Excessive metal exposure over time may present a health concern.

So armed with two studies, performed by a renowned company with expertise in such matters, Kimberly-Clark is able to claim that a worker using laundered shop towels may ingest  up to:

"3,600 times more lead on a daily basis than recommended by CalEPA,"  

Kimberly-Clark even provided us CHMMs with this graphic to show what and how it happens:

Source

That's pretty scary stuff.  I mean 3,600 times higher for lead...from a laundered (i.e. cleaned) shop towel?  Wow!

Now the question becomes: Should we believe the findings in the Gradient study that has been submitted for  publication in the International Nonwoven Journal for the Association of the Nonwovens Fabrics Industry (INBA).

Should we believe this study because it was produced by a renowned company with expertise in risk assessment?  Should we believe their findings because they do not "endorse Kimberly-Clark products or marketing materials?"

Gradient would most likely defend this work by pointing out the credentials of the three researchers who authored it.

Grace Greenberg MPH: I can't find any information on Ms. Greenberg, but she appears to hold a Masters in Public Health.

Barbara D. Beck PhD is an expert in toxicology and in health risk assessment for environmental chemicals, especially metals and air pollutants, and is the author of over 100 book chapters and journal articles on these topics. She has performed site-specific and chemical-specific risk assessments, developed exposure and risk assessment methodologies, and has presented the results to different audiences including regulatory agencies, the US Congress, and the public. Before joining Gradient, she was Chief of Air Toxics Staff for US EPA Region I. Prior to that she was a Fellow in the Interdisciplinary Programs in Health at the Harvard School of Public Health. She is at present a Visiting Scientist in the Molecular and Integrative Physiological Sciences Program in the Department of Environmental Health at the Harvard School of Public Health. (2)

Leslie A. Beyer MS is a senior project manager and toxicologist with over 20 years of experience. Her areas of expertise include environmental health, occupational health and safety, litigation support, project management, and risk assessment. Her projects have covered a variety of topics, including substantiation of structure-function claims for dietary supplements; historical toxicology of vinyl chloride, benzene, and lead; and review and interpretation of toxicological and epidemiological literature and data. She evaluates the significance of occupational and residential exposures, conducts health risk assessments for cancer and non-cancer endpoints, and assesses health effects from exposure to environmental chemicals. Ms. Beyer develops strategy and prepares expert reports in support of litigation cases involving product liability and chemical exposures (e.g., MTBE, dioxin, perchloroethylene, ozone, chromium). (3)

Wow...impressive.

So armed with all of this information I find myself at a crossroads.  Should we accept or reject the conclusion that Gradient has put forth?

Heavy metals have been found in laundered shop towels in amounts that exceed health-based exposure guidelines related to cancer and non-cancer related health issues, like reproductive and developmental effects.

Should we accept it based on the reputation of Gradient and the credentials of the three authors?  Or should we look deeper into the study to see how they came up with data that affords Kimberly-Clark the ability to ask workers:

Why risk it?  Who's counting on you?

Well I have looked into it.  I can support my conclusion that there is no additional risk to a worker using a laundered shop towel.  Period.  Should you believe me?  No, not until you read what I am putting forth as my reasons why this study is flawed and their conclusion false.

Are you sure you want to continue on with this endeavor Bowman?  I mean, we got a Harvard Ph.D and former Chief of Air Toxics for EPA Region 1 as one of the authors!  Are you sure about this?

Yeah...I'm sure.


Next Post: Laundered Shop Towels: A flaw in the model.

Seven Deadly Sins: I'm not seeing it.

It starts like this...

Source

Which leads to this...

Source

Which leads folks to conclude that there must be something wrong since a warning has been issued.

"How in god’s name can the oil industry dump sh*t in our drinking water and not tell us what it is?" shouted Alan Hofer, who lives near the center of the sites being investigated by the EPA. (1)

Which causes this to happen...

Source

1000 cases of contamination have been documented in Colorado alone?  In the week that I started writing on this topic, I have found two cases, one in the Barnett Shale (see post) and one in Pavillion, Wyoming, for which sampling data is available, and that was with a bit of effort to locate.

So it starts with a complaint, an investigation, and then a recommendation.  In the process it leads to this:

"It starts to finger-point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development, including, but not necessarily conclusively, hydraulic fracturing itself," said Nathan Wiser, an EPA scientist and hydraulic fracturing expert who oversees enforcement for the underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Rocky Mountain region. The investigation "could certainly have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination." (2)

On the surface, it would appear that contamination found in the well water used for drinking by the good folks in Pavillion, Wyoming, is proof that the oil and gas drilling and fracturing has caused harm.  But I have been in this business for a long time to know that contaminated groundwater comes from a number of sources, all of which are present in the town of Pavillion.

• Underground fuel tanks
• Septic tanks
• Spills
• Open pits
• Natural

When investigating contamination a "Conceptual Site Model" is produced to look at all the possible sources.

Source

"Pointing fingers" is what we try to avoid.  It is easy to blame oil & gas wells since there are so many of them in the area (211 active gas wells, 30 plugged and abandoned wells, and 20 wells identified as “shut-in.” [2])

Again, though, on the surface it looks pretty evident as to who the culprit is, which is why anti-gas drilling folks like to use reports such as this and this, as evidence to prove how bad hydraulic fracturing is to public health and the environment.

I have read all of the reports issued by the EPA on their findings regarding groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. I've tried to be as objective as I could in all of this but I am just not seeing the problem with hydraulic fracturing that is being put forward by groups like Earthworks and ProPublica.

Here is why.

First:  Without knowing the condition of the water before fracing has occurred it is impossible to say what contaminants were introduced by the procedure.

Second: With over 211 active wells in the Pavillion area, if hydraulic fracturing was introducing chemicals into the groundwater you would see a whole bunch of chemicals in the groundwater.  Look at this map of the wells in Pavillion.

Those blue dots are oil and gas wells.  The yellow/orange dots are where the wells where samples were collected.  If hydraulic fracturing was by its nature dangerous to groundwater you would see contamination of fracturing fluids in the groundwater.

This is not to say that drilling could - or does not - contribute to contamination.  Any activity involving chemicals has that potential.  Just like any airplane has the potential to crash, airplanes by their nature fly and continue to fly day in and day out.  Would we condemn all air travel as unsafe because a plane crashes?  Same can be said with hydraulic fracturing.  The hydraulic fracturing procedure, when performed correctly ("best practices"), does not pose a threat to public health through contamination of groundwater.

That's kind of a bold statement to make.  But like the title of this post says, I'm not seeing it.

But what about the contamination found in the wells of Pavillion?  There are a number of reasons possible, with the most likely being oil and gas operations in the area.  Huh?  Let me be clear on this.  Hydraulic fracturing by itself does not appear to cause or contribute to groundwater contamination.  Drilling operations using industry best practices appear to be keeping contaminants out of ground and surface water.  Operators who use industry best practices are not the concern.  It's the companies who left the "37 pits (which formerly held drilling fluids) [that] have been identified in the area" who are most likely responsible for contaminating the shallow surface water that mixes with the drinking water source.  Those, along with septic tanks and storm water runoff, have contaminated the drinking water aquifer - not hydraulic fracturing fluids.

The current operator, Encana, is now responsible for these pits.  Older properties, especially those with environmental concerns are referred to as "legacy properties" and are cleaned up and closed to meet state, federal, and industry standards.

So yes, there is contamination in the drinking water wells, but not to any significant health concern other than taste and odor.  And no, in spite of what ProPublica contends, will not "have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination (3)."  Go up and read the ATSDR recommendations.

In spite of the anecdotal evidence presented by Earthworks and ProPublica, I'm not seeing it.  I'm being as objective here as I can.  Here, in a nutshell, is why:

If hydraulic fracturing was causing contamination to drinking water at any significant frequency, then the more wells drilled would mean the more drinking water wells contaminated and/or the higher the concentration of chemicals.  The fact that:

TIC analyses indicate two compound types that occur in several wells and might not be attributable to well components: adamantanes and 2-butoxyethanol phosphate. Adamantanes are hydrocarbons that occur naturally in crude and gas condensate; they could be used in hydrocarbon fingerprinting analyses to determine if oil and gas production is impacting wells.  2-butoxyethanol is found on the EPA Study List of Drilling Fluid Compounds (EPA 2008) and could react with naturally occurring phosphates to create 2-butoxyethanol phosphate.  (4)  

Would also mean that it, and other fracturing fluids would show up in water wells where drilling takes place. In simple terms, the level of contaminants and/or number of contaminated drinking water wells would be proportional to the number of hydraulic fracturing that has taken place in an area if drilling was inherently harmful to underground sources of drinking water.

I'm not seeing it.

Here is what ProPublica states: (5)

Thanks in large part to hydraulic fracturing, natural gas drilling has vastly expanded across the United States. In 2007, there were 449,000 gas wells in 32 states, thirty percent more than in 2000.

Almost half a million gas wells and yet ProPublica reports:

The [Pavillion] study, which is being conducted under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, is the first time the EPA has undertaken its own water analysis in response to complaints of contamination in drilling areas, and it could be pivotal in the national debate over the role of natural gas in America’s energy policy.

Almost half a million gas wells and only one study. Now go back up to the top of this post and read the ATSDR recommendations.  Now go read the ATSDR report.  Why are they recommending not drinking the water?  Because of the contaminants of concern found in the 41 Pavillion drinking water wells sampled.  And what were those CoCs?

Source

 
That's right, the COCs are sodium, fluoride, sulfate, magnesium, selenium, nitrate, and one well with TPH.

I'm not seeing it because there is nothing to see.

But ProPublica says:

Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes, a natural hydrocarbon found in gas that can be used to fingerprint its origin, and 2-BE, listed as a common fracturing fluid in the EPA’s 2004 research report on hydraulic fracturing. (6)

I'll cover that in a future post, right now I'm going to switch gears and talk about a recent paper that was presented at the 2011 AHMP Conference in Austin.



Next post: Laundered Shop Towels: Making a mountain out of a pile of clean rags.




http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/PavillionAllTables.pdf


.

Dogs and Phosphoric Acid...one more time.

In the words of Peter Griffin "You know what really grinds my gears?"  How we describe the hazards of a chemical when it is found to be present in the environment.

All chemicals pose a hazard at a particular dose.  If it is under that dose, then the hazard seen at a higher dose does not apply.

Yes, it is that simple.

In two previous posts I tried to explain this concept using dogs and phosphoric acid found in a can of Coke.  To summarize:

If you are describing a dog that you will come in contact with that looks like this:




Don't make it sound like it looks like this:

Which brings me to the EPA's "Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order to Protect Drinking Water in Southern Parker County." (1)  In the Order, the EPA states:

The EPA says that contaminants are present in the aquifer.  The term "contaminant" means:

[A]ny physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water. (2)

What the EPA is claiming is that they found "substances" in the water.  That definition does not require that the concentration - dose - be at any particular level, only that "any" amount was found to be present. "Any" means any.

The EPA goes on to say in the order:

These substances, according to the EPA, are in an "any" amount that may present an "imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons."

Notice what it says about the ingestion of benzene - one of the contaminants found:

[B]enzene if ingested or inhaled could cause cancer, anemia, neurological impairment and other adverse health impacts."

In other words, the EPA is telling us is that if you walk into this kennel (drink water from this aquifer) you will run into this dog:

What type of dog did the EPA actually find:

And:

Benzene - a "contaminant" - was found to be present in the water at the following concentrations:

3.1 ppb or 0.0031 ppm
6.12 ppb or 0.00612 ppm
4.55 ppb or 0.00455 ppm

The average benzene concentration is:

4.59 ppb or 0.00459 ppm

I wonder if the EPA has anything to say about how much of a "contaminant" can be found in drinking water before it is considered unsafe?  You know, like is there a maximum amount of certain chemicals that determine if the water is safe to drink?  Like maybe something called a "maximum contaminant level" or "MCL?"

Well by golly, there is!  Here is what the EPA has established under the SDWA:

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals. (3)

So an MCL is the "highest level" of a contaminant allowed in drinking water below which "there is no known or expected risk to health."

In other words, if the concentration of the contaminant found in the drinking water is below the MCL or MCLG, there would be "no known or expected risk to health" according to the EPA.

I wonder if the EPA has established an MCL for benzene?  By golly, they have!

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

The MCL for benzene is 0.005 ppm.  What was the benzene concentration in the three samples:

3.1 ppb or 0.0031 ppm
6.12 ppb or 0.00612 ppm
4.55 ppb or 0.00455 ppm

The average benzene concentration is:

4.59 ppb or 0.00459 ppm

Only one of the three samples had a concentration above the MCL of 0.005 ppm with the average benzene concentration below it.  Based on this, the EPA should have said that there is no known or expected risk to health associated with the benzene.  Instead the EPA states:

There is no MCL for hexane, propane, or ethane.  The MCL for toluene is 1 ppm.  All three samples were well below this.

This is the same thing as telling a Coke drinker about the phosphoric acid in their drink:

Phosphoric acid is corrosive.  Ingestion may produce burns to the lips, oral cavity, upper airway, esophagus and  possibly the digestive tract. Circulatory collapse. Unconsciousness, possibly death. (post)

Did the water pose an "Imminent and Substantial Endangerment" to public health?  Possibly.  Maybe because of the flammability of the methane, propane, and ethane found.  Flammability - based on flash point, flammable range, or percent LEL - was not determined by the EPA.

Is it possible that enough gas could form in the well?  I'm not sure about that.  The flammable range of methane is 5-15% in the air. (3).  Sampling of the air for LEL within the well would be required to make a flammability determination at the concentrations found.  The fact that the pumps locked up and effervescence was noticed makes further review necessary.

Flammability is the only potential "Imminent and Substantial Endangerment" situation that may be present.  The presence of "any" contaminants found fall below EPA's MCLs and should not have been mentioned as their level in the water presents "no known or expected risk to health."

Rule number 1:  If the contaminants fall below the MCL do not identify them as a possible health concern, or as a health concern greater than what the dose would manifest. (Dogs)

Rule number 2: Do not describe health hazards associated with a chemical at a dose that is higher than what is actually found. (phosphoric acid)


Now, where was I?  Oh yeah, the Seven Deadly Sins...

Next Post: Seven Deadly Sins: I'm not seeing it.


..

Seven Deadly Sins: 22 years ago there was a problem.

Under the seven deadly sin of "The Safe Drinking Water Act" Earthwork's Renee Lewis Kosnik writes:

Unfortunately, the EPA’s findings are not consistent with the numerous personal accounts of those living in oil and gas patches around the country.  Peggy Hocutt and her husband retired to their house on the river in Jefferson County, Alabama. After years of mysterious ailments affecting everyone in the area and tap water that smelled of petroleum, Mrs. Hocutt had black, jellied grease coming out of her faucets. She and many of her neighbors also had cancer. The energy company hydraulically fracturing in that area and the state of Alabama refused to admit that their aquifer had been contaminated by fracking activities. Instead, the company refused to renew their land lease and evicted them from the property. They lost their physical and mental well being, as well as a forty-year investment in their retirement home.

What is interesting to me is that the paragraph before this states:

The EPA released its final version of the Phase I study in 2004 entitled, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. The main finding of this study stated, “the injection of hydraulic fracturing into CBM wells poses little or no threat to Underground Sources of Drinking Water.

In other words, we hear what you are saying EPA, but we don't believe you.  I mean look what happened to Mrs. Hocutt!  Explain that EPA!

You can read about Mrs. Hocutt's situation here.  Excluding a direct link to her cancer, assuming that everything she reports is true, lets look at why this is a poor example to justify why:

Hydraulic fracturing must be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act in order to adequately protect the United State’s drinking water supply from the harmful chemicals used during this process.

Twenty-three years ago  The Alabama State Oil & Gas Board, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, issued Permit #5946-C., to USX-Amoco Oil Production, in September, 1988.  According to Mrs. Hocutt:

When the gas well was operable, the run-off was piped directly from the site to a point and then left to run uncontrolled down a hillside gully, through a culvert, and down a ravine where it then emptied into the slough behind our boathouse.  The run-off was the color of Coca Cola, foamy, with oily streaks in it, and smelled like oil and rotten eggs.  It killed all plant life and water creatures in its path.  I never again saw another salamander, bull frog, or lily pad around our boathouse. I didn't know anything about methane gas wells at that time, but I realized if the run-off killed plant life and water creatures, it certainly posed a potential danger to the health of humans.

OK, stop right there.  Again, assuming this is true, this is a violation of the Clean Water Act.  Period.  No industry, including Oil & Gas, may discharge into waters of the United States without a permit:

As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. [I]ndustrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Since its introduction in 1972, the NPDES permit program is responsible for significant improvements to our Nation's water quality. (1)

[A]n NPDES permit issued for the drilling activity would need to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C, which states that ‘there shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants into navigable waters from any source associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment (i.e., produced water, drilling muds, drill cuttings, and produced sand). (2)

That requirement has been on the books since 1972.  No additional regulation under the SDWA would have changed the situation for Mrs. Hocutt.

Assuming that what Mrs. Hocutt said is true, the issue was in violation of the CWA and is not a SDWA issue.  The situation described is alleged contamination of surface water that led to the alleged contamination of drinking water from her well.

The SDWA does not regulate private groundwater wells.  It regulates public water systems as well as underground injection wells.  This is where the issue with oil & gas comes to a head with folks like Earthworks:

‘Underground injection’ is defined as the “subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection.” In 2005, legislative amendments made clear that the SDWA does not regulate hydraulic fracturing operations. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the SDWA to exclude from the definition of underground injection “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations relating to oil, gas, or geothermal activities.” Many sources critical of the exception refer to it as the “Halliburton Loophole.” Thus, with the exception of fracing using diesel fluids, the SDWA does not impose direct regulation. (3)

The situation that happened to Mrs. Halcutt 22 years ago is not an appropriate example to use for explaining why hydraulic fracturing should fall under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.  Surface water discharge contamination of underground drinking water supplies are covered under the Clean Water Act.

A more appropriate example would be this:

EPA Letter

In this case, the EPA contends that the extraction process has released methane into the drinking water wells:

As a result of investgatory work performed, the [EPA] has determined that an imminent and substantial endangerment to a public drinking wateraquifer has occured (or may occur) through methane contamination which is directly related to oil and gas production facilities under your operation.

This is a proper example to use when making a claim that compliance under the SDWA's UIC program may be necessary.  Not a surface water release that happened 22 years ago.

With this example, the question now can be posed as such:

Would the UIC program have required anything more substantive in terms of drilling, cementing, and casing than is already required of oil & gas by the Texas RRC? (see post).  Secondly, does this one case of methane entering into the drinking water indicate a problem inherent in all hydraulic fracturing wells?

But first, I need to get something off my chest...

Next Post: Dogs and Phosphoric Acid...one more time.

Seven Deadly Sins: Oil & Gas gets away with nothing.

Out of town...again.  Starbucks and the local newspaper...

A spokeswoman for the Environmental Working Group, a coalition of community and environmental organizations, said the panel’s draft recommendations were “disappointing.”

“They do state some obvious grievances with fracking — such as the general need for more regulation, air pollution controls and more disclosure from companies,” said Leeann Brown in an e-mail. “However, they refuse to reference the seven deadly sins of the fracking industry — the exemptions from seven major environmental and health protection laws.” (Can't find the link, but this was basically what was printed)

Seven deadly sins of the fracing industry?  Well that got my curiosity up, so with a little bit of research I found them, here.  The basic contention is that the Oil & Gas industry "enjoys sweeping exemptions from provisions in the major federal environmental statutes intended to protect human health and the environment.

1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
3. Safe Drinking Water Act
4. Clean Water Act
5. Clean Air Act
6. National Environmental Policy Act
7. Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

There they are, the seven deadly sins.  You can read the paper to find out why the author,  Renee Lewis Kosnik, MSEL, JD, Research Director, Oil and Gas Accountability Project (a project of Earthworks, 2007), believes these exemptions are should be done away with.  

What I want to do is to try and show how an exemption or exclusion does not mean the varmint is gettin' away with somthin'.  I call this blog the "Wacky World of Waste" for a reason, and that reason is because of how absurd regulations can be, especially how the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) identifies what is a hazardous waste.  If you ever attend my Hazardous Waste Management course, you will hear me say two things (spoiler alert!)

1. Check you logic at the door.
2. It's about the definition, not the hazard.

The reason I am writing about these "seven deadly sins" is because I was made aware of them on August 11, 2010 just like many other folks who read the same syndicated article that appeared in many other newspapers.  Quoting Earthworks' Leeann Brown's contention that the oil and gas industry "refuses to reference" these exemptions implies that there is something sinister going on.

If you take Earthworks word for it, there is.  But is there?

First of all, lets get one thing straight.  There are a lot of reasons for providing an industry or activity an exemption.  Sometimes they are purely political, but most of the time there are sound reasons for doing so. The bottom line question that must always be asked is does the exemption contribute to the problem or is it benign?

In the case of Oil & Gas, Earthworks contention is that these seven exemptions are allowing this industry "to streamline their piracy and contamination of the American public."  In other words, if we were to do away with these exemptions and exclusions, oil and gas would no longer be legally allowed to "contaminate" our land, air, and water.  This statement by Earthworks implies that the Oil & Gas industry is at this very moment unfettered by any laws and regulations regarding environmental contamination and pollution.

That is untrue.

Let's look at Texas.  Texas, as you might expect is very - and I mean VERY - Oil & Gas Friendly.  So Friendly in fact that they allow Oil & Gas to be regulated not by the State's EPA, the TCEQ, but by an industry loving Rail Road Commission (RRC). Surely under this cozy relationship Oil & Gas would be allowed to do what ever it pleases in pursuit of good ol' Texas T.

So let's look at how Texas Regulates Oil & Gas under the RRC: (Source)

In Texas, fracing is not formally regulated. The only regulations that apply to fracing operations also apply to all other oil and gas operations. The RRC promulgates and enforces regulations related to oil and gas matters and has jurisdiction over all “oil and gas wells in Texas; persons owning or operating pipelines in Texas; and persons owning or engaging in drilling or operating oil or gas wells in Texas.

Like all oil and gas development in Texas, fracing operations require the RRC to issue a permit authorizing drilling and/or deepening of a well.

Besides the standard permitting, two key areas where the RRC’s regulations have an impact on fracing operations (other than standard permitting):

• 16 TAC § 3.8 “Water Protection”

• 16 TAC §3.13 “Casing, Cementing, Drilling, and Completion Requirements.” 

In addition to permitting regulation, §3.8 also regulates the storage, transfer and disposal of oil and gas wastes. Presumptively, this includes any fracing fluids that are brought back to the surface as part of oil and gas production.

Earthworks contends that the "seven deadly sins" allow Oil & Gas to "contaminate the American public" by allowing "toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes [to permeate] the soil, water sources and the air threatening human health to an alarming extent." (1)

Well here is what 16 TAC § 3.8 “Water Protection” has to say about that:

(b) No pollution. No person conducting activities subject to regulation by the commission may cause or allow pollution of surface or subsurface water in the state.

That, by the way, is the first regulation you come to after "(a) definitions."  Now let's look at how Texas defines "pollution:"

(a)(28) Pollution of surface or subsurface water--The alteration of the physical, thermal, chemical, or biological quality of, or the contamination of, any surface or subsurface water in the state that renders the water harmful, detrimental, or injurious to humans, animal life, vegetation, or property, or to public health, safety, or welfare, or impairs the usefulness or the public enjoyment of the water for any lawful or reasonable purpose.

In Texas, Oil & Gas is regulated quite significantly by the RRC (2).  If Texan's don't allow the Oil & Gas industry to pollute under their industry friendly regulations, isn't it quite possible that federal regulations prohibit the same thing?

Basically it comes down to this: If the Oil & Gas industry is prohibited from causing or allowing "pollution of surface or subsurface water in the state" would removing those seven exemptions and exclusions change anything?  

The need for additional permitting or regulation will not stop something that is not there in the first place.  If, as Earthworks contends, Oil & Gas is allowing "toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes [to permeate] the soil, water sources and the air threatening human health to an alarming extent," why is this being allowed to happen under current law?

It is not happening.

And if any company sets out to operate in a way that does threaten public health or the environment, no amount of permitting, rules, regulations, or laws will stop them.  So for these bad apples, inspection and enforcement is the only option - unless you propose throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  

In her report, Earthwork's Renee Lewis Kosnik writes: "it is time regulators focus on the adequacy of existing regulations to protect human health and the environment from the real and potential dangers of the oil and gas industry’s waste."  Well they have:

"The [RRC] commission's strict rules in effect now on how wells are constructed have protected and continue to protect groundwater.  The decades-long safety record on fracking in Texas backs this up." (3)

But what about Jefferson County, Alabama's Peg Hocutt "mysterious ailments affecting everyone in the area and tap water that smelled of petroleum?"

Yeah...about that...

Next post: Seven Deadly Sins: 22 years ago there was a problem.

.