The source of elevated constituents is speculative, but... - Part 4

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" includes a link to the journal where the paper can be found.  I can't link to it, but it is free to download once you register.

In my last post I was looking at what the paper states and where in the paper the statement is located.  The paper concludes with this:

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

I ended my last post asking the question; does the data support that suggestion if you look at all the data available?

On the UT Arlington webpage, Brian Fontenot, the lead author, states:

“This study alone can’t conclusively identify the exact causes of elevated levels of contaminants in areas near natural gas drilling, but it does provide a powerful argument for continued research,”

With that in mind, I am looking at what powerful argument can be made to 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?

To start, let's look at this summary table the paper uses after line 706:

Note: Ethanol and Methanol are in mg/L

Now if you recall what they tested for in my last post, you will also notice what they did not find. Here is what line 175 states they tested for:

Arsenic, selenium, strontium, barium, methanol, ethanol, TDS, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively referred to as BTEX) were the primary targets of chemical analyses.

The absence of VOCs is telling. Here is what the congressional report they cite says about BTEX:

The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009.  The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five year period.

Here is what the paper reports on line 192:

We found no evidence of BTEX compounds using both LC-UV-MS and GCMS.

That statement tells me this:  If I sampled 92 individual groundwater wells in the Barnett Shale area.  And these wells were smack-dab in the middle of natural gas drilling boom happening between 1998 and the present, and I found no evidence of BTEX, I would conclude that my down hole activity and removal is not contributing to groundwater contamination.

Additionally, according to this table from the congressional report...

Source

...methanol appears to be the number one chemical component found in hydraulic fracturing fluids used between 2005 and 2009.  According to the table on line 706, methanol is 1.3 - 329 mg/L in the 92 samples compared to 1.2 - 62.9 mg/L in the samples collected where no active wells are located (reference area).

When looking at the results for the samples collected in Figure 2, line 632, it would appear that two samples are showing results considerably higher than the rest.  I have requested (and now received) a copy of the raw data to run median results as these two high values seem to be skewing the averages, which are reported as a mean.  I suspect that the medians for methanol in the active and reference areas are statistically the same.

Nevertheless, if you look at the methanol results, you will see that they do not show a significant difference between groundwater samples collected in unaffected areas.  This, to me, suggests that  "industrial accidents (e.g. equipment failure, faulty well casings, fluid spills, etc.) are not the cause for contaminants in the 92 groundwater samples collected.

But what about the elevated levels of arsenic, selenium, barium and strontium?  Yeah, about those...Okay, that needs to be explained.  But, once again, the absence of the other materials suggests that the contamination of these materials is not from industrial accidents.  That is, if these industrial accidents were commonplace, as the data showing the number of wells contaminated would indicate, we would also see high levels of methanol and BTEX.  In other words, an accident would not selectively release arsenic, selenium, barium and strontium without also releasing the more prevalent chemical components used in the hydraulic fracturing products.

Okay, so that's BTEX and methanol.  Let's look at the levels of arsenic, selenium, barium and strontium they report.

Next post: Part 5


.

The source of elevated constituents is speculative, but... - Part 3

Brian Fontenot, the lead author on the recently "just accepted" manuscript titled "An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation" is quoted on the UT Arlington webpage describing the study, stating:

“This study alone can’t conclusively identify the exact causes of elevated levels of contaminants in areas near natural gas drilling, but it does provide a powerful argument for continued research,”

As a recent graduate from a Master's program in Public Health, I had to read a bunch, and I do mean a bunch, of peer-reviewed articles.  I took a class where we reviewed and critiqued a number of these papers where we were taught to look at the data and not just read the abstract.

I was, in my opinion, taught well in the Master's Program in Public Health at the Texas A&M Health Science Center's School of Rural Public Health.  Ignoring the A&M v. UT rivalry and any competitive issues I have with UTA, my reading of this paper is founded on this one premise;  I am skeptical about EVERYTHING claimed to be peer-reviewed.

The data, methods, findings, and conclusion presented have to meet with what I know to be true.  If, for example, you present statistical data where the number "1" is in your Confidence Interval (CI), I am going to question the rest of your work.

Same goes for posting a graphic where you use the colors red and yellow and tell me that green indicates "no concern."  I instantly morph into skeptic mode.

Source

Okay, so I look at that graphic and think that it is kind of biased and manipulative.  That's my opinion.  I am speculating because it is plausible.  I want to move away from my opinion and try to look at what Dr. Fontenot claims is "powerful argument for continued research."  He put his name on the paper, I put my name to this blog.

Fight!

Round One: Line 117

Analytical tests were conducted to detect volatile and semi-volatile compounds identified as contaminants of concern in a congressional report on hydraulic fracturing fluid components, and to detect arsenic, barium, selenium, and strontium.  These constituents are often included on lists of natural gas extraction waste components

Here is what the congressional report tells us:

Source

Line 117 of the report is important because it tells us what they looked for:

• VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds)
• Semi-VOCs (Semi-volatile organic compounds)
• Arsenic (heavy metal)
• Barium (heavy metal)
• Selenium (heavy metal)
• Strontium (mineral)

They also tested for, according to line 175:

• Methanol
• Ethanol
• Total dissolved solids (TDS).  

Of these components, only methanol appears on Table 1 of the congressional report they cite.  Basically, and this is important, what they UTA looked for was what went into the hole (fracturing fluids) and what came out of the hole (natural gas extraction waste components).

Why is this important?  Because of what the authors conclude:

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.

The authors then go on to rule "localized groundwater withdrawals" out, stating:

If regional drought or widespread public water withdrawals were the cause of elevated constituent levels, then the geographic localities of MCL exceedances would be more evenly distributed throughout the study area, rather than in close proximity to natural gas wells. Additionally, regional lowering of the water table should have resulted in similar constituent concentrations in these aquifers during historical periods when groundwater withdrawal rates were even higher than present levels.

That leaves only "mechanical disturbances" as the culprit.  Here is what the authors say about that on line 325:

...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

And on line 404:

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.

Followed on line 406 with this:

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.

Now when I read all of this, I understand the culprit to be either:

• Mechanical disturbances (high pressure fluid injection, mechanical vibration, etc.)
• Industrial accidents (e.g. equipment failure, faulty well casings, fluid spills, etc.)

So in looking at the graphic they use...:

Source

...and counting the number of red and yellow dots, I would expect to see contamination in groundwater wells near active natural gas extraction sites.

And that is what the authors tell me in this graphic:

On line 416 the authors state:

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

My question is this; does the data support that suggestion if you look at all the data available?


Next post: Part 4

.

The source of elevated constituents is speculative, but... - Part 2

I read about this paper; "An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation," in my newspaper, The Eagle, on Saturday, July 27, 2013.

The University of Texas at Arlington posted about the paper on July 26, 2013.  On July 26, 2013 the public also starts chiming in.  Notice that there is a span of "0" - zero - days before it gets picked up and spun.

Let's look at how a blog called the "Arlington TX Barnett Shale Blogger" writes about these finding from UTA.  First, the title of the post:

UTArlington News Release on Tex Well study results NOT GOOD !

The author of this blog, Kim Triolo, first copies and pastes the abstract.  She then, as she puts it, "(I boldfaced for emphasis)" this part from the abstract:

"arsenic, selenium, strontium and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL) in some samples from private water wells located within 3 km (1.86 mile) of active natural gas wells."

I have spent about seven hours of my weekend reading, re-reading, checking the citations, and looking into the different aspects of this paper.  I am kind of a sciency guy, you know, this is my field.  I sort of, kind of, understand this stuff.  It takes a while to digest.  Yet there is Kim Triolo and the news organizations in a span of zero days, writing about the findings.

I have no beef with Ms. Triolo.  She is not the issue here, she is, in my opinion, the victim of data given to her by a major university under the banner of peer-reviewed.  The lead author on this paper, Brian E. Fontenot, as well as the other ten names on the paper, have presented a paper where they speculate that natural gas is the cause of these elevated levels of contaminants.  That's where the title of this series of posts comes from:

Given this limitation, our discussion of the source of elevated constituents is speculative, but we have provided plausible scenarios to explain our data in an effort to increase scientific understanding of this topic and spur future research. 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.

Let's look at the last sentence in the abstract, you know, the only part of an academic paper that 99.999% of people read.

...our data suggest that elevated constituent levels could be due to a variety of factors including mobilization of natural constituents, hydrogeochemical changes from lowering of the water table, or industrial accidents such as faulty gas well casings.

That's an example of the "sandwich effect" whereby you place the plausible factor that works against you between two plausible factors that work in you favor.  In this case, the non-natural gas cause of "hydrogeochemical changes from lowering of the water table" is sandwiched between "mobilization of natural constituents" from "disturbances from natural gas extraction activities" and "industrial accidents such as faulty gas well casings."

Remember, UTA is not being untruthful here.  They are speculating that the drilling and pumping in the Barnett Shale is a "plausible scenario to explain their data."

Let's look at that word "plausible."

Source

Back to Kim Triolo and her blog called the Arlington TX Barnett Shale Blogger.  Here is what Ms. Triolo came to understand about the plausibility presented by UTA:

As a concerned citizen, I want to act upon this study….

I'll let you read her concerns yourself.  Like I said earlier, this is not about her.  With this UTA paper in hand, Ms. Triolo is going to "attempt to contact the up to 300 water well owners within a five mile area of my home."  She informs her readers that "I’ve contacted the mayor of Pantego since THEY R on well water…ouch!!!"

With this peer-reviewed article from a reputable university, the effort, funding, and resources will now shift away form Public Health issues that really do impact health and safety and into funding more research on connecting oil and gas drilling and pumping to contamination of groundwater.

/sigh

/off soapbox


Next post: Part 3

.

The source of elevated constituents is speculative, but... - Part 1

I was reading our local newspaper, The Eagle, this Saturday and came across this article:

Researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington say there are elevated levels of arsenic and other heavy metals close to natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale area of North Texas, according to a news release from the school Friday.

Hmmm, me thinks to meself, I wonder what they found?  So, I go to UTA's web page where I am told this:

The results of the North Texas well study were published online by the journal Environmental Science & Technology Thursday. The peer-reviewed paper focuses on the presence of metals such as arsenic, barium, selenium and strontium in water samples. Many of these heavy metals occur naturally at low levels in groundwater, but disturbances from natural gas extraction activities could cause them to occur at elevated levels.

The UTA web page then states:

“This study alone can’t conclusively identify the exact causes of elevated levels of contaminants in areas near natural gas drilling, but it does provide a powerful argument for continued research,” said Brian Fontenot, a UT Arlington graduate with a doctorate in quantitative biology and lead author on the new paper.

Cool, a powerful argument for continued research.  That would, at least to me, indicate that they found something to support their hypothesis that "disturbances from natural gas extraction activities could cause them to occur at elevated levels."

That's all I knew at tha point.  We have a peer-reviewed, elevated levels of  arsenic, barium, selenium and strontium, and the statement that "disturbances from natural gas extraction activities could cause them to occur at elevated levels."

Okay, so you can probably tell by the title of this post that I beg to differ with them on their "powerful argument."  Right now, I am leading you, the reader, to have doubt.  I can do that because it is my blog and I can say anything I want.  The authors of this paper get to do the same thing.  But, they get the seal of approval when the trumpet blasts "peer-reviewed!"

Anyone can rip anything apart using common lawyer tricks.  That's not what I want to do in these posts.  I want to explain why I take issue but more importantly I want to show evidence as to why my taking issue is warranted.

These next posts - and I have no idea as to how many it will take - are going to look at the "powerful evidence" that they report.  The reason I keep the quotation marks on is to drive the point that there must be powerful evidence to support the claim that "disturbances from natural gas extraction activities could cause them to occur at elevated levels."

The authors want to go down this path for a whole slew of reasons.  The main one, i suspect, is that "continued research" requires more funding.  Now I am all for that.  I think we need to look into all nooks and crannies simply for curiosity sake, to look at correlation and causation, and to further our understanding of the natural world.

So let's get down to it shall we.  First off, let's look at the hubbub this paper causes.  Right at the top, UTA makes the statement that this paper adds support to the claim that Natural Gas drilling and extraction (hydraulic fracturing) causes water quality issues:

A new study of 100 private water wells in and near the Barnett Shale showed elevated levels of potential contaminants such as arsenic and selenium closest to natural gas extraction sites,

They then tell the reader:

Many of these heavy metals occur naturally at low levels in groundwater, but disturbances from natural gas extraction activities could cause them to occur at elevated levels.

The paper (which you will need to register to view) is titled "An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation" and contains right at the top this graphic:

So let's look at that graphic for a bit.  Now ask yourself what does the color "red" indicate?  Not what the legend states, but what does it convey?  Now look at the other color they used.  What does yellow convey in a color series of red, yellow, and green?

Yellow, we are informed, is "Below Contamination Limit" and green is "No Concern."

Wait?  What?  If we are below the contamination limit aren't we also in a situation of no concern?

According to the paper's abstract:

Analyses revealed that arsenic, selenium, strontium and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL) in some samples from private water wells located within 3 km of active natural gas wells.

Surely the authors must be aware that the MCL for arsenic is 10 μg/L (10 ppb).  They must also be aware of what the "MCL" they are comparing their results to means:

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The threshold concentration of a contaminant above which water is not suitable for drinking. In the Safe Drinking Water act, an MCL is defined as "the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to any user of a public water system."

Apparently, the authors and those that "peer-reviewed" this paper see no difference between "Below Contamination Limit" and  "No Concern."  But I do.

If the authors claim that "0 - 5 μg/L" is "No Concern" then they are saying that water with 5 μg/L or less arsenic is safe.  Which means that water above that threshold is...???

Where did the authors get that threshold of 5 μg/L as "No Concern" when the MCL that we have established is 10 μg/L?  Is this a case of lower is better?

It's not lying, or being untruthful, or a misstatement, to claim that "0 - 5 μg/L" is "No Concern" and "6 - 10 μg/L" is ""Below Contamination Limit."  Both those statements are true. But what do they convey to the reader?  What does "No Concern" mean and what does the color yellow indicate when looking at their graphic - which is the first thing you see after the abstract?

If you have read any of my previous posts you will understand why I take issue with this type of manipulation. It leads readers to conclude that the data shows more than what it does and forces scarce resources to look further into it.


Next Post: Part 2

NPR does Arsenic, Apples, and Rice

On my way home from Texarkana I heard a short story on NPR regarding the FDA developing a threshold for arsenic in Apple Juice.

Here's some news for parents of the sippy-cup crowd: The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a 10 parts-per-billion threshold for levels of inorganic arsenic in apple juice. This is the same level set by the EPA for arsenic in drinking water. Right now, there is no FDA standard for apple juice.

Not this again, I thought.  I wrote about this...a lot, in a number of posts starting with this one for Apple Juice;  Apples, Arsenic, and Risk - Part 1: One in 500 and this one for rice; Arsenic in Rice: Part 1 - We Meet Again.

I am no fan of Dr. Oz and Consumer Reports for taking on this topic.  The science does not support their conclusion of risk.  All you gotta do is read my 30 or so posts to see that.  Or you can trust me, I write a blog.

My argument as to why it is bad science is based on this concept of toxicology:

If the dose is low enough even a highly toxic substance will cease to cause a harmful effect. The toxic potency of a chemical is thus ultimately defined by the dose (the amount) of the chemical that will produce a specific response in a specific biological system.

That's what they tell us on the Yale web page that defines the term "dose." That's the same thing Dr. Honeycutt with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) states:

The phrase, “the dose makes the poison,” is attributed to the ‘father’ of toxicology, Paracelsus (1493-1541). What he described was the dose-response concept and it is one of the fundamental ideas in assessing risk, in that, typically at higher doses the severity of an adverse effect increases.

I describe dose as a threshold and have shown it in my past posts as a line in the sand.

So the FDA is going to make "10 ppb" the new safe threshold.  Yay!!  Now apple juice that is less than that will be "safe."  Glad we got that settled.  So what's my issue?  Well for one thing - for the only thing in my opinion - that 10 ppb a'int based on science!

"We are pleased to see the Food and Drug Administration taking this action," says Urvashi Rangan, director of consumer safety and sustainability at Consumer Reports. "Proposing a 10 ppb guidance for apple juice — the same level set for water — is a reasonable first step in protecting consumers from unnecessary exposure to arsenic."

No, no it is not "reasonable."  Reasonable is based on the science of toxicology and risk. That 10 ppb in water, the MCL, is based on the safe dose of arsenic in drinking water.  That safe dose is derived from looking at the risk of 10 ppb in one liter of water.  It is based on a lifetime consumption of 2 liters of water over a 70 year lifetime.

Lifetime HA is for a 70 kg adult. The daily drinking water consumption for the 10 kg child and 70 kg adult are assumed to be 1 L/day and 2 L/day, respectively. The Lifetime HA for the drinking water contaminant is calculated from its associated Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL), obtained from its RfD, and incorporates a drinking water Relative Source Contribution (RSC) factor of contaminant-specific data or a default of 20% of total exposure from all sources. (EPA)

Setting the dose - or safe threshold - for arsenic in apple juice to 10 ppb means that Consumer Reports thinks it reasonable that 2 liters of apple juice will be consumed for 70 years.  That's what I take issue with.  The safe level is not based on science and Consumer Reports should be basing their being "pleased" on science. Period

So what happened here?  FDA caved in to public pressure.  You can fight for science, but you are going to lose when science based organizations like Consumer Reports are incapable of grasping the concept.

Basically FDA found that almost all Apple Juice contains less than 10 ppb of arsenic anyway, so let's give the baby their bottle and make the safe threshold 10 ppb.  Done!.  But...but...that's not based on science.  Put a cork in it Bowman, this battle is over.  Science lost and the public is made stupider for thinking 10 ppb is "safe," but in the end, everyone wins.  Well, except science...

On the positive side, NPR just moved up a couple of notches in my book.  Well at least Allison Aubry did.

Here is how she summed it all up.

I would say, overall, Audie, for apple juice, I think the message is stand down. I mean, I can tell you as a mom of three children, from teen to toddler, I used to worry about all of these things. But if you look at the science here, if arsenic is limited down to 10 parts per billion, I think that this is something that we can mark off our worry list.

Thank you Allison Aubry...thank you!  That's exactly what I spent tens of thousands of words trying to show.  That sounds so good to hear her say that:

But if you look at the science here, if arsenic is limited down to 10 parts per billion, I think that this is something that we can mark off our worry list.

.

When a Spill Becomes Illegal Disposal. Part 4

"Disposal" in the case of TSCA, means PCBs that have been released into the environment.  The regulation, 40 CFR 761.3, defines it this way:

Disposal means intentionally or accidentally to discard, throw away, or otherwise complete or terminate the useful life of PCBs and PCB Items. Disposal includes spills, leaks, and other uncontrolled discharges of PCBs as well as actions related to containing, transporting, destroying, degrading, decontaminating, or confining PCBs and PCB Items.

That definition was designed to be as inclusive as necessary so that it would protect public health and the environment from PCBs.  Disposal was what the EPA wanted to manage and regulate, so it needed to define what constituted disposal.  Without capturing "spills, leaks, and other uncontrolled discharges of PCBs as well as actions related to containing, transporting, destroying, degrading, decontaminating, or confining PCBs and PCB Items," those persons with PCBs could avoid the cost by doing those things without regard to protecting public health and the environment.

EPA wanted to control everything related to PCBs:

§ 761.1 Applicability: (a) This part establishes prohibitions of, and requirements for, the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, disposal, storage, and marking of PCBs and PCB Items. (b)(1) This part applies to all persons who manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs or PCB Items.

The two key points in that regulation are "all persons" and "disposal."  "Persons" is defined in  § 761.3 as is the term "disposal."  Once defined you either meet it or you don't.

Since "disposal" is defined for PCBs under TSCA to include "accidentally" and "spills" the release by CWM at Kettleman Hills of PCBs into the environment (through the concrete and into the soil) constituted disposal and the violation of "improper disposal" attaches.

I am not a lawyer, so right now I am speculating on this part.  Although no where in the definition does it indicate "into the environment," the case could probably be made that when it entered into the soil it "terminated the useful life of the PCBs.

So there CWM was.  For whatever reason, most likely sloppy employee management of the PCB items, a spill, or spills, took place and the soil below the concrete pad became contaminated with enough PCBs to meet the legal definition of disposal under TSCA.  CWM therefore improperly disposed of liquid PCBs when it released PCBs into the environment.

There it is in black and white from the EPA:

Improper disposal of PCBs, in violation of 40 CFR §§ 761.50(b)(I) and 60(a).

That letter now becomes ammunition for environmental groups that oppose anything involving hazardous chemicals (often referred to as CAVE people).

That letter is also used to parrot the same "facts" that get printed in legit mainstream news publications and on the web.  All the things that CWM does right are reduced down to what they have done wrong.  Here is what CBS News writes:

Last November, the state issued 72 violations alleging the company failed to report small spills that occurred between 2008 and 2012 — though they posed no health threats to the public. In May 2011, the state levied $46,000 in fines against the company for failing to report two spills.

That same year, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state toxics department levied $1 million in fines against the firm for having improperly calibrated lab equipment that thwarted efforts to accurately analyze chemical concentrations in waste. The EPA found the same problem with equipment five years earlier and said officials failed to fix it.

Federal officials also fined the operator nearly $10,000 for improper waste disposal.

Officials said the violations caused no off-site health impacts and "have not reached a level that would trigger a permit denial," said Brian Johnson, director of hazardous waste management.

This is what gets discussed as "fined numerous times by state and federal regulators for improper waste disposal and other problems," and then enhanced by the environmental group as "chronic violations by the company."

These TSCA definitions resulted in a violation and those violations gave weight to the contention that Kettleman Hills could be the cause of the birth defects.  One environmental activist was able to direct time and money and effort away from other research to prove what Richard Jackson, chairman of the environmental health sciences department at the University of California-Los Angeles told Mother Jones back in 2010:

"There's no way the public will be satisfied without a serious investigation," an epidemiological study is required—but that doesn't mean it will have any meaningful impact. "Communities are often led to believe that a scientific investigation will lead to some answers," Jackson says. "But my own experience is that oftentimes an enormous amount of resources is put into an investigation, and at the end of it we really don't know much more than we did at the beginning, except that we now know the residents have terrible medical care, terrible dental care, the kids are way behind in school, they're way behind in immunizations and nutrition." In some ways, he argues, spending money "to give them an epidemiological study rather than care is really not the right thing to do."

I agree.  And even when that investigation was concluded, Bradley Angel of the group Greenaction was still not satisfied telling CBS News in July 2, 2013:

The expansion permit was based on "bogus studies" and "hiding the number of birth defects and infant deaths," Angel said, adding that officials did not give Spanish speakers, who make up a large number of Kettleman City residents, enough time to testify at hearings.

3.5 miles away in the middle of nothing is a landfill that has accepted hazardous waste and {CBs since at least 1984 when I sent waste there.  In the town there are children with birth defects.  Those birth defects are not the result of improper waste disposal from PCBs that were found in the soil under the concrete where the PCB waste is handled.

A spill of PCBs into the soil may meet the definition of disposal, but that's all it meets in this case.

What has caused these birth defects?

Kettleman City's accumulation of birth defects could be the result of nothing more than chance—though that possibility dwindles with each new case. Heredity, diet, and lifestyle could also play a part.

I'll conclude with this photo from Mother Jones.  Great picture...wonder what was in those 55 gallon drums the Romero's family keeps in their yard and the photographer decided to let the children pose next to?

Source

We have met the enemy and it is us!

.

When a Spill Becomes Illegal Disposal. Part 3

The trouble with getting a violation is that it can now be used against you by your opponents.

Greenaction is demanding that the EPA "deny permits to expand the Chemical Waste Management hazardous waste landfill in Kettleman City due to the chronic violations by the company, the ongoing health crisis including birth defects, miscarriages and childhood cancer."

Mother Jones links to a PDF from the EPA titled "Notice of Toxic Substances Control Act Violations."

What's going on here?

First off, the Kettleman Hills hazardous waste landfill is highly regulated both under RCRA (for accepting hazardous waste for disposal) and under TSCA (for accepting PCBs for disposal).

PCBs are not hazardous waste and are regulated under a different law called the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) which requires a separate permit to treat and dispose PCBs. What this means for the Kettleman Hills facility is that they are inspected by two different entities within the EPA as well as from the state of California.

Kettleman Hills takes in a lot of hazardous waste for dispsoal.  There are very few commercial hazardous waste landfills available in the United States (Texas has only two) so hazardous waste that must be landfilled goes there based on cost, distance, and acceptance.  When you take in a lot of waste in bulk and in drums you are bound to make mistakes.

You can read all about those mistakes the EPA found during their inspection here.

I want to look a bit deeper into the EPA violations that Mother Jones linked to.  In particular, I want to focus on violation number 2:

1. Failure to decontaminate structures prior to continued use, in violation of 40 CFR §761.30(u)(I);
2. Improper disposal of PCBs, in violation of 40 CFR §§ 761.50(b)(I) and 60(a);
3. Failure to properly manifest PCBs and PCB Items, as required by 40 CFR § 761.207(a);
4. Failure to resubmit Notification of PCB Activity Form No. 7710-53 to EPA, as required by 40 CFR § 761.205(f); and
5. Failure to indicate removal from service dates, as required by 40 CFR § 761.65(c)(8).

Items number 3, 4, and 5 are administrative violations.  These are what I call the "dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s.  If you think that these rise to the level of chronic violations, well, that's your call.  Regardless, they do not impact public health and therefor do not contribute to health issues.

The EPA makes available the inspection report that generated the notice of violation letter Mother Jones linked to.  If this report was easily available at the time I don't know.  But it would have been nice to explain just what the violations were for.  I mean, if you want to be fair and not let trutiness get in the way.

Let's look at violation number 1: Failure to decontaminate structures prior to continued use.

TSCA requirement 40 CFR. § 761.30(u)(I), states that any person may use equipment, structures, other non-liquid or liquid materials that were contaminated with PCBs during manufacture, use, servicing, or because of spills from, or proximity to, PCBs >50 ppm.

Here is what the EPA found:

EPA documented the release of PCBs below the drain valve cap of CWM's 10,082gallon PCB tank. Analytical results for the PCB wipe sample collected directly below the drain valve cap show PCBs on-site in excess of the 10µg/100 cm2 threshold (equivalent to 50 ppm).

What concentration did the EPA find in the wipe sample?

EPA documented PCBs at 11 µg/100 cm2 below the first drain valve cap for the facility's 10,082-gallon PCB tank.

Yeppers, they exceeded it by one (1).  Okay, you might be saying, but they also found another sample twice that high:

EPA also detected PCBs above the TSCA regulated threshold outside on CWM's concrete pad. Analytical results for one surface wipe sample detected PCBs at 24 µg/100 cm2. This PCB concentration is above the TSCA regulated threshold (10 µg/100 cm2) and operations in this area violates TSCA's continued use requirements for structures contaminated with PCBs.

So there you have violation number one.  EPA found low concentrations of PCBs in the area that CWM uses to drain and flush PCB electrical equipment.  Of the 12 wipe samples they took, two exceeded the threshold.  Still, it is a violation.  One mile over the speed limit or 30 miles, still a violation.  Not the same risk, but...

So let's look at violation number 2: Improper disposal of PCBs

40 CFR § 761.50(a)(4) states that spills of PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or above constitute disposal of PCBs.

Let that sink in for a bit.  If you have a spill of >50 ppm PCBs you have now disposed of your PCBs.  Since the location of the spill is not approved for disposal, it is now considered "improper" disposal.

CWM improperly disposed of liquid PCBs when it released PCBs into the environment.

Here is what happened:

CWM ...detected PCBs on the concrete slab on the northeast side ofthe building. This is the same area where PCBs,at 15 and 22 ppm were detected in the soil during EPA's February 2010 inspection. In response to the PCBs detected in soil, the facility cut a portion of the contaminated concrete slab back one foot, removed any contaminated soil present and back filled the area with clean soil. CWM disposed of the TSCA regulated waste in the facility's Landfill B-18.

That was their response to finding PCBs in the soil ("the environment") at concentrations "at 64, 74 and 440 ppm."  The violation is because it happened, not for their cleanup.

The reason for this series of posts is because of that violation:

CWM improperly disposed of liquid PCBs when it released PCBs into the environment.

"Improperly disposed."

Fast forward now to July 2, 2013.  CBS News writes:

Calif. regulators recommend controversial toxic waste dump expansion.

And what does CBS News report?

The landfill has been fined numerous times by state and federal regulators for improper waste disposal and other problems.

See?  "Improper waste disposal."  And who does CBS News quote in their July 2, 2013 article? Bradley Angel of the group Greenaction, this time stating:

"A draft permit will send a message to industrial polluters that you can violate your permit constantly for years, commit serious and chronic violations, and still get your permit."

CWM is by no means perfect.  These violations, regardless of their worthiness, are violations.  But you need context here.  A release "into the environment" may meet the legal definition under TSCA for disposal, but it is not the same thing that most people would consider to be improper disposal.

And therein lies the problem with law and perception.  Laws and regulations draw a line in the sand.  On this side it is legal and on this side it is a violation.  It also defines what a particular term means.


Next Post:  When a Spill Becomes Illegal Disposal.  Part 4

.