44
November 7, 2014 The Matter of An Arbitration Under the Rules of the United Nations on International Trade law Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador PCA Case 200923 Supplemental Opinion of Harlee Strauss, Ph.D. Regarding Human Health Risks and Health Impacts Caused by Crude Oil Contamination in the Former PetroecuadorTexaco Concession, Oriente Region, Ecuador In response to the following: Expert Opinion of Thomas E. McHugh, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., Regarding Lack of Evidence of Health Risks Associated with Petroleum Operations in the FormerPetroecuadorTexaco Concession Area, Oriente Region, Ecuador May 2014 Expert Opinion of Suresh H. Moolgavkar, M.D., Ph.D. May 9, 2014 Expert Opinion Of John A. Connor, P.E., P.G., Bcee, Regarding Remediation Activities And Environmental Conditions In The Former Petroecuador Texaco Concession, Oriente Region, Ecuador May 7, 2014 Claimants’ Supplemental Memorial on Track 2, May 9, 2014 Prepared at the request of: Winston & Strawn LLP 1700 K Street N.W. Washington DC 200063817 and The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 412 Mount Kemble Avenue Morristown, NJ 079621946 Prepared by: H. Strauss Associates, Inc. 30 Union Avenue Boston, MA 02130 ______________________________________ Harlee S. Strauss, PhD. November 7, 2014

Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014

TheMatterofAnArbitrationUndertheRulesoftheUnitedNationsonInternationalTradelaw

ChevronCorporationandTexacoPetroleumCompanyv.TheRepublicofEcuadorPCACase2009‐23

SupplementalOpinionofHarleeStrauss,Ph.D.RegardingHumanHealthRisksandHealthImpactsCausedbyCrudeOilContaminationintheFormerPetroecuador‐TexacoConcession,OrienteRegion,Ecuador

Inresponsetothefollowing:

ExpertOpinionofThomasE.McHugh,Ph.D.,D.A.B.T.,RegardingLackofEvidenceofHealthRisksAssociatedwithPetroleumOperationsintheFormer‐Petroecuador‐

TexacoConcessionArea,OrienteRegion,EcuadorMay2014

ExpertOpinionofSureshH.Moolgavkar,M.D.,Ph.D.May9,2014

ExpertOpinionOfJohnA.Connor,P.E.,P.G.,Bcee,RegardingRemediationActivitiesAndEnvironmentalConditionsInTheFormerPetroecuador‐TexacoConcession,Oriente

Region,EcuadorMay7,2014

Claimants’SupplementalMemorialonTrack2,May9,2014

Preparedattherequestof:Winston&StrawnLLP1700KStreetN.W.

WashingtonDC20006‐3817and

TheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.412MountKembleAvenueMorristown,NJ07962‐1946

Preparedby:

H.StraussAssociates,Inc.30UnionAvenueBoston,MA02130

______________________________________HarleeS.Strauss,PhD.November7,2014

Page 2: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page i

TABLEOFCONTENTS

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................11.1SummaryOfScopeOfRetention.................................................................................................1

1.2SummaryOfPreviousOpinions...................................................................................................1

2.0ResponseToClaimants’CritiquesOfRiskAssessment..........................................32.1Texpet’sContaminationHasResultedInBothCancerRiskAndNon‐CancerHealthHazardsRegardlessOfWhetherTheContaminationIsConsidered“Widespread”...............................................................................................................................................5

2.2ThereAreCurrentExposuresToResiduesOfCrudeOilReleasedByTexpet,AlthoughThisIsNotARequirementForAFindingOfUnacceptableRisk.......................6

2.3ExposureParametersAreAppropriateForTheConcessionArea................................8

2.3.1DrinkingWaterIngestion......................................................................................................................92.3.2SoilAndSedimentIngestionRates.................................................................................................102.3.3FrequencyAndDurationOfBathing..............................................................................................13

2.4TPHCanBeUsedToEvaluateToxicity,EspeciallyOilRelatedToxicity,andThusToShowHealthRisks............................................................................................................................14

2.4.1DevelopmentOfANon‐CancerDoseResponseFactor(ReferenceDose)ForCrudeOilFromTheConcessionArea....................................................................................................................152.4.2MethodsForAnalyzingTPH.............................................................................................................162.4.3RiskCharacterizationBasedOnCrudeOilAsAWhole.........................................................18

2.5ThereAreSubstantialNon‐CancerHealthRisksFromExposureToCrudeOil....19

2.6.ThereAreCancerRisksFromCrudeOilExposure...........................................................21

2.6.1ToxicologyStudiesShowCrudeOilComponentsAreMutagenicAndCarcinogenic.222.6.2RiskOfCancerInTheConcessionAreaUsingHHRAMethodology.................................23

2.7ResponseToAdditionalCritiquesFromClaimants’Experts.......................................24

2.7.1BariumToxicityIsEvaluatedAppropriately.............................................................................242.7.2SurfaceWaterSamplesShouldNotBeFiltered........................................................................252.7.3ExposureIsEvaluatedAtAppropriateLocations.....................................................................252.7.4ExposureToSedimentsAndToSurfaceWaterIsEvaluatedAppropriately................262.7.5Dr.McHugh’sCitationOfHisPersonalExperienceIsCulturallyInappropriateAndAnUnreliableBasisToDevelopExposureParametersInTheConcessionArea...................26

3.0SupplementalOpinion:PetroleumContaminationHasReducedLocalFoodResources,IncludingFarmAnimals,Crops,AndFish.TheReducedAvailabilityOfHome‐ProducedFoodHasHadAnAdverseImpactOnTheHealthOfTheLocalPopulationThatReliesOnTheseResources.....................................................................273.1LossOfLivestock..............................................................................................................................27

3.2ContaminationOfFishPondAtSSF‐13..................................................................................31

3.3ImplicationsOfLivestock,Fish,WildGameAndCropLoss..........................................31

4.0SupplementalOpinion:Dr.MoolgavkarUsedHighlyFlawedDataAsTheBasisOfHisCancerStudy,MakingHisResultsAndConclusionsUnreliableAndUninformative..............................................................................................................................32

Page 3: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page ii

4.1CancerMortalityDataFromTheOrienteAreUnreliable..............................................32

4.2Dr.MoolgavkarUsesAnInappropriateMeasureOfOilExposure............................34

TechnicalAppendix1:DetailsOfTheRiskCalculations...............................................36

TechnicalAppendix2:DevelopmentOfAReferenceDoseForCrudeOil...............37

References.....................................................................................................................................39

Page 4: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page1

1.0  Introduction 

ThisreportrespondstocommentsonmyrejoinderexpertreportdatedDecember16,2013,offeredbyChevron’sexpertsMcHugh,Moolgavkar,andConnorandbyClaimantsintheirSupplementalMemorialofMay2014.IcontinuetoholdtheopinionsexpressedinmyFebruaryandDecember2013reportsandprovideadditionalevidencetosupportthoseopinionsinthisreport,includingquantitativeriskassessmentsofadditionalwellsitesinvestigatedbyLBGin2014.Ialsoprovideopinionsregardingtheadverseimpactofpetroleumcontaminationonlocalfoodproductionandhumanhealth,andtheunreliabilityofdeathcertificatedatawithregardtocancerdeathsintheConcessionArea.

1.1  Summary Of Scope Of Retention 

SinceprovidingmyexpertreportinDecember2013,Ihavebeenfurtherretainedto:1)reviewadditionalreportspreparedbyChevron’sexperts;2)traveltotheConcessionAreatopersonallyviewlocationsofadditionalfieldstudiesandtointerviewresidentsnearwellsitesstudiedbyLBGandhealthcareprovidersintheConcessionArea;3)prepareadditionalbaselinehumanriskassessmentsusingnewlycollecteddata;and4)preparethisreporttorespondtoissuesraisedbyChevron’sexpertsregardingmyDecember2013report.

Myopinionsinthisexpertreportaregiventoareasonabledegreeofscientificprobability.Theyarebasedonmyeducation,training,experience,informationanddataavailableinthescientificliterature,andinformationanddataaboutthislawsuitmadeavailabletomeatthetimetheseopinionswereformulated.TheyarealsobasedonpersonalobservationsduringmyvisitstotheConcessionAreaincludingmymostrecentvisitofapproximately10daysinJune2014.Ifadditionalinformationbecomesavailable,Ireservetherighttosupplementmyopiniontoreflectsuchinformation.

1.2  Summary Of Previous Opinions 

1)TheextractionandtransportofcrudeoilfromtheNapoConcessionAreainEcuador’sOriente(“ConcessionArea”)byTexacoPetroleum(“Texpet”)resultedinthereleaseofcontaminationintotheenvironmentthat,withsufficientexposure,istoxictohumans.

Thisremainsmyexpertopinion.Chevron’sexpertsMcHugh,Moolgavkar,andConnorcommentedonvariousaspectsofmyexpertreportintheirMay2014rebuttalreports.NoneofChevron’sexpertscontestedtheexistenceofcontaminationsourcesrelatedtocrudeoiloritscomponents.TheLBGreportshaveexaminedsourcesandtypesofcontaminantsreleasedduringoilwellinstallationandoperation,includingcontaminationattributablesolelytoTexpetoperations.Theseadditionalanalysesidentifypetroleum‐relatedcontaminantsandelevatedconcentrationsofbarium,ametalassociatedwithdrillingmuds.

Page 5: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page2

2)DuringTexpet’soperations,adultsandchildrenresidingintheConcessionAreawereexposedtocrudeoilanditsresidues,producedwater,drillingmud,hydrogensulfide,dieselemissions,andflaresviaexposurepathwaysthatresultininhalation,ingestion,and/ordermalexposures.SomeexposureisongoingatlocationswhereTexpetreleasedcontaminationremainsinenvironmentalmedia.SeveralofthepathwaysbywhichConcessionArearesidentswereexposedtocontaminantsarenotgenerallyincludedinexposureassessmentsinindustrializedcountries,butarecriticaltoconsiderbasedonthelifestyleandculturalpracticesintheOriente.Thisincludes,butisnotlimitedto,domesticuseofwatervisiblycontaminatedwithoil,walkingonlocalroadsthatwerecoatedwithcrudeoilanditsresidues,andconsumptionoffishfloating(dead)inoilcontaminatedwater.

Thisremainsmyexpertopinion.Chevron’sexpertsMcHughandMoolgavkardidnotdisputethespecificexposurepathwayslistedinmyFebruary2013report,althoughtheydiddisputewhetherthereison‐goingexposurefromthesepathwaysthatisattributabletoTexpetandishighenoughtoconstituteahealthhazard.

MyexpertopinioncontinuestobethatexposuresoriginatingfromTexpetsourcesposearisktothehealthofresidentsintheConcessionArea.Thebasisofthisopinionisthequalitativeassessmentprovidedinmyoriginalreport,strengthenedbythequantitativeriskassessmentinmyDecember2013report,andfurtherstrengthenedbytheadditionaldatacollectedinfieldstudiesconductedin2014.Myanalysisofthenon‐cancerhazardsofthemostrecentdataisdiscussedinSection2.5.MyanalysisofcancerrisksfromcrudeoilissetforthinSection2.6.

3)Adverseeffectsreportedinstudiesofoccupationalandcommunityexposurestocrudeoilincludeskinirritationandotherskinproblems,eyeirritation,throatirritation,headaches,dizziness,psychologicalproblems,perceptionofpoorhealth,leukemiaandothertypesofcancer.TheadverseeffectsreportedbyadultsandchildrenintheConcessionAreafollowingexposuretocrudeoilanditsresiduesarecompletelyconsistentwitheffectsreportedfromdermalandairexposuresinothersettings.Othersymptoms,suchasstomachproblemsanddiarrhea,areconsistentwithsymptomsofpoisoningfollowingingestionofpetroleumproducts.

Thisremainsmyexpertopinion.NoChevronexperthasdisputedthetoxicityofcrudeoilanditscomponents.AlthoughChevronexpertDr.Moolgavkarstatesthatthereareno‘goldstandard’epidemiologicalstudiesprovingadverseeffectsfromexposuretocrudeoil,Dr.McHugh—who(unlikeDr.Moolgavkar)hasatoxicologydegree—doesnotdisputetheclinicalandtoxicologicalevidenceforhealthimpactsfromexposuretocrudeoil.Dr.MoolgavkaralsoclaimsthathisepidemiologicalstudyshowstherearenoexcesscancerrisksintheConcessionArea.AsdiscussedinSection4,however,hisstudyisbasedonunreliabledataandthusisnon‐informative.

Inheropinion,Dr.BlancaLaffondescribesherstudiesoftheimmediateanddelayedimpactsofexposuretofueloilfromthePrestigeoilspilloffthecoastofSpainonworkersandcommunitymembers.Dr.PhilippeGrandjeanaddressestheepidemiologicalissues

Page 6: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page3

raisedbyDr.Moolgavkarinhisopinion.

4)Thepatterns,durations,andintensitiesofexposureintheConcessionAreaaredifferentfromtheseaspectsofexposureinoccupationalsettingsandingeneralpopulationsoftheindustrializedcountriesinwhichmostepidemiologicalstudiesareconducted.Asaresultofthesedifferences,comparableemissionsorcontaminantconcentrationswillresultinhigherexposuresanddosesofthecontaminantstochildrenandadultsintheConcessionArea,which,inturn,resultsinanincreasedlikelihoodandseverityofadverseeffectsintheexposedpopulation.

Thisremainsmyexpertopinion.MyvisitstotheOrienteregionin2014furtherconfirmedmyopinion.

5)ToxiccontaminantsreleasedintotheenvironmentduringTexpet’sexplorationandproductionofcrudeoilresultedinimmediateanddelayedadversehealtheffectsinchildrenandadultslivingintheConcessionArea.Someoftheseexposuresareon‐goingandcontinuetocreateimmediatehealtheffects.Thedelayedhealtheffectsarecontinuingtoharmresidentsfrompreviousexposuresaswellason‐goingexposures.

Thisremainsmyexpertopinion.Thisopinionwasbased,inpart,onmyquantitativeriskassessmentforfoursites,asdescribedinmyDecember2013report,andisfurtherconfirmedbytheadditionalquantitativeassessmentprovidedinthisreportandtheopinionsofDrs.LaffonandGrandjean.

6)EcuadorianandWorldHealthOrganizationdrinkingwaterstandardsareexceededintheConcessionArea

Thisremainsmyexpertopinion.ThebasisforthisopinionwasprovidedinmyDecember2013report.

2.0   Response To Claimants’ Critiques Of Risk Assessment  

Claimantsandtheirconsultantsconfusetheconceptsofhumanhealthriskassessment(“HHRA”)forregulatorypurposessuchascleanupdecisionswithwhetherasubstancecausesanadverseeffectinaspecificindividual(causation).WhileexposureassessmentmethodologycanbeusedtoestimateexposuresforregulatoryHHRAsandtoestimateadosetoaspecifiedindividualtoevaluatecausation,theevaluationshavedifferentobjectivesandthedetailsofthecalculationsdiffer.HHRAs,suchastheonesIhavepreparedforthisandpreviousreports,incorporateconservative(healthprotective)exposureparameterstoevaluateexposuretoahypothetical“reasonablymaximallyexposed”(“RME”)individual,definedas“thehighestexposurethatisreasonablyexpectedtooccuratasite”(USEPA1989,p.6‐4).RegulatoryHHRAsincludeevaluationsofexposuresduetocurrentandreasonablyforeseeablefutureusestoevaluatewhetherremediationisnecessary.ThiswastheobjectiveofmyDecember2013HHRA:todeterminewhetherremediationisnecessary,examiningeachwellsiteindividually.

Page 7: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page4

MyHHRAsarebasedonaconceptualsitemodeloftheConcessionAreaasshowninthediagrambelow.

Thecurrentconditionsscenario,so‐calledbecauseitiscurrentlyavailabletothehypotheticalRMEbeingevaluated,isbasedonresidentialexposuretogroundwater(wheresiteshavedugwells),soil,andsurfacewater,whichincludesdrinking,cooking,bathing,andlaundry.Residentialuseofsurfacewaterincludesexposuretobothwaterandsediment,withintakeofcontaminantsbyingestionanddermalcontact.Thereisfurtherexposurefromresiduesonthelaunderedclothing.Thefutureusescenarioisbasedonthesameexposures,plustheuseofadugwellasadomesticwatersupplyatsiteswherethereisnotcurrentlyadugwell.Similartothecurrentconditionsscenario,thiscouldresultiningestionanddermalexposuretogroundwater.1ConsistentwithUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(“USEPA”)riskassessmentmethodology,theevaluationisconductedassumingthesameusagepatternaswouldoccurabsentanycontamination.Forthisreason,thereductioninsurfaceorgroundwateruseduetorainwaterusage(collectionbarrelsshownnearthehouse)isnotincludedintheevaluation.Thediagramalsoshowsmanyanimalspresentinthevicinityofthehouse—e.g.,chickens,ducks,cattle,anddogs.Theseanimals(andchildren)getintothecontaminatedsedimentandsurfacesoil,whichisverymuddyespeciallyduringtherainyseason,andthentrackthesoilandsedimentsontoothersurfacesoils.Allbutthecattlealsoentertheresidence,againtrackinginsoilandsedimentwhereitbecomesindoordust.ClaimantscriticizemyDecember2013HHRAshowingthatcrudeoilresiduesatfourwellsitesposesignificantrisksofadversehealtheffectstoresidentsundercurrentandfuture

1Insomegroundwatersamples,therearevolatilecompoundsathighenoughconcentrationsthatinhalationexposurecouldalsoposearisk,butthishasnotbeenquantified.

Page 8: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page5

conditions.Claimantscontendthat:1)contaminationisnot“widespread”andthusposesnorisktothepopulation;2)thereareno“actual”exposures;3)Iusedexposureparametersthataretoohigh,andthusgrosslyoverestimateexposureandrisk;and4)therearenohealthrisksfromTPH.Thesecritiquesareallbaseless,andeachisaddressedinturninsections2.1through2.4.Insection2.5,Iaddressthenon‐cancerhealthrisksofexposuretooil.Insection2.6,Iaddressthecancerriskfromexposuretooil.Andinsection2.7,IaddressmiscellaneousothercriticismsfromClaimants’experts.

2.1  Texpet’s Contamination Has Resulted In Both Cancer Risk And Non‐Cancer Health Hazards Regardless Of Whether The Contamination Is Considered “Widespread” 

InaregulatoryHHRA,humanhealthrisksareevaluatedonanindividual,notapopulation,basis.Thus,whetherornotcontaminationiswidespreadisirrelevanttomyassessmentofwhethercancerrisksandnon‐cancerhazardsexistatthelocationsexamined.AnHHRA,identifieswhetherpeoplecanpotentiallycomeintocontactwiththecontaminationunderpresentorfutureconditions,andthenevaluateshealthrisksbasedonthatcontact.Ofcourse,themore“widespread”thecontamination,thehigherthenumberofchildrenandadultswhomaybeatrisk.Therearesignificantriskstohumanhealthforcurrentand/orfutureexposures,asevaluatedbyacceptedHHRAmethodology,atallfourlocationsevaluatedinmyDecember2013rejoinderreport.Theadditionalsitesevaluatedinthisreportalsoposesignificantrisksofadversehealtheffectsundercurrentand/orfutureconditions.Forexample,additionalsamplingatLA02,apreviouslyevaluatedsite,showsoilcontaminationinthesurfacesoilthatservesasthefrontpatiowherethefamilyspendsmuchofitstime,onthefloorsofthelivingareaandkitchen,andonaplastictoyusedbyyoungchildren.Weatheredresiduesofcrudeoilarealsovisibleadjacenttothebackofthehouse,andadditionalresiduescontinuetosurfaceduetoerosionandlanduse.Thesenewdataprovideadefinitivelinkbetweenenvironmentalcontaminationinsedimentsand/orpitsoils,andeverydaylocationsofhumanexposure.Section2.2includesadditionalinformationregardingtheseexposures.WhilenotevaluatedinmyHHRA,thereisampleevidenceofpastexposurestoTexpet‐releasedpetroleumrelatedcontaminantsattheseandothersites.Theevidenceincludes:1)Chevroninterviews,auditreportsandaerialphotographyshowingtheexistenceofopenpits2andpeoplelivingincloseproximitytothemunderlivingconditionssimilartothoseevaluatedinthecurrentHHRA;2)thedecisionbyresidentstopurchasewaterforalldomesticusesduetopastcontamination(e.g.,AG06,SSF25,SSF43);and3)interviewinformationandsignedaffidavitsregardinglostfarmanimalsatmanyofthesitesevaluated(e.g.,AG02,SSF13,SSF34,SSF43).

2Clickabledatabase;LBGNovember2014ExpertReport,section2;LBG2013ExpertReport,p.23.

Page 9: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page6

2.2  There Are Current Exposures To Residues Of Crude Oil Released By Texpet, Although This Is Not A Requirement For A Finding Of Unacceptable Risk 

TheClaimants’critiquethattherearenoactualexposuresintheConcessionAreaandthusnoriskiswrongfortworeasons:1)thereareresidentswhohavecurrentexposuretopetroleumresidues,includingfrompetroleumresiduesthatcouldhaveoriginatedonlyfromTexpetactivities,and2)thedeterminantforwhetherremediationisnecessaryisbasedonthehighestexposurereasonablyexpectedtooccurgiventhecurrentandfutureexposurepathwaystoanindividual,referredtoinanHHRAasanRMEindividual.3Infact,underASTMguidance4citedbyClaimants’experts,currentexposurewouldbeidentifiedasanimmediatethreatandtriggerresponseactionstoabatetheexposure.Basedondatafromthe2013and2014siteinvestigationsconductedbyLBG,mypersonalobservationsandthoseofLBGfieldpersonnel,andwitnessinterviews,therearecurrent,on‐goingdailyexposuresofchildrenand/oradultstopetroleumcontaminantsatmultiplewellsitesincluding:

AG02–Childrenandadultsfromapproximately6residencesusethecontaminatedstreamfordrinking,cooking,bathing,andwashing5(seephotosection2.3.3).

AG06–Thefarmer/landownerreportsthathisfamilyusesrainwaterandpurchasesmunicipalwaterforalldomesticuses,butheusesthecontaminatedstreamfordrinkingwaterwhileworkinginthefield.Heestimatesthathedrinks4‐5litersofstreamwateronhotdayswhenheisworkinginhisfieldsnearthestream.Hiscowsalsodrinkfromthisstream,comeintocontactwithsediments,andbecomeill.

LA02–Theadultsandchildrenlivinginthehouseadjacenttotheplatformcomeintocontactwithpetroleumcontaminationthroughouttheday,everyday.SamplingconductedinJune2014detectedcrude‐oilrelatedcontaminationonthefloorsinthekitchenareaandlivingarea(separatebuildings),andonachild’splasticsit‐onpony.Thesurfacesoilofthefrontpatiohascrudeoilresiduesasdoesthesoilinthebackofthehousewhereasphaltchunksareembedded.Samplinginthesummerof2013identifiedcontaminatedsedimentandsurfacewaterinthewetlandsareaimmediatelydownhillfromthehouse.Thesurfacewaterisanabandonedwatersupplythatcontinuestobeusedbyfarmanimalssuchasmaturechickensandducksandthathasnobarriertoaccessbyyoungchildren.

3USEPA,1989.RiskAssessmentGuidanceforSuperfund;USEPA1991.RoleofBaselineHHRAinRemediationDecisions.USEPA1989p.6‐4:“ActionsatSuperfundsitesshouldbebasedonanestimateofthereasonablemaximumexposure(RME)expectedtooccurunderbothcurrentandfutureland‐useconditions.Thereasonablemaximumexposureisdefinedhereasthehighestexposurethatisreasonablyexpectedtooccuratasite.RMEsareestimatedforindividualpathways.Ifapopulationisexposedviamorethanonepathway,thecombinationofexposuresacrosspathwaysalsomustrepresentanRME.”

4ASTME1739‐95StandardGuideforRisk‐BasedCorrectiveActionAppliedatPetroleumReleaseSites.,p.7(Table1).ASTMInternationaldevelopsvoluntarystandardsusedglobally.

5SeealsoJoseGuamánwitnessstatement.

Page 10: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page7

LA16–Anextendedfamilylivingintwohousesusespetroleum‐contaminatedwaterfromashallowdugwellfordrinking,cooking,bathing,andlaundry.Thefamilypourswaterovertheiryoungchildrenseveraltimesaday,andmorefrequentlywhenitishot(seephotosection2.3.3).Ahousecompletedinthesummerof2014hasanewshallowdugwellthatappearstobetheirwatersupply.Thiswellisalsocontaminatedwithpetroleum.

SSF13–Theresidentsofthisfarmobtaintheirdrinkingwaterfromastreamcatchmentarea.Asamplecollectedinthesamestreamimmediatelydownstreamfromthedrinkingwaterarearevealedpetroleumcontamination.Thiswaterisusedfordrinking,cooking,bathing,laundry,andwaterforfarmanimalssuchaschickensandducks.Thechickensandducksarecagedtopreventthemfromcomingintocontactwithcontaminatedsedimentsandhighlycontaminatedsurfacesoilinaformerpit,althoughboththesedimentsandsoilarefreelyaccessibletochildren(andadults)andcattleraisedontheproperty.AtilapiapondonthefarmwhichnolongersupportsfishhascrudeoilrelatedcontaminantsinthewatersampletestedbyLBG.

SSF25–Therearetwosetsofresidentslivingnearthiswellsite.Oneresidence,apparentlyarentalfacility,isahouseonstiltsadjacenttoacontaminatedstream.Thereisevidencethattheoccupantsofthisresidenceusedthecontaminatedstreaminthepast.6WhilethereisnowameteredwatersupplypipedinfromthedugwellinLaVictoria,itisnotalwaysavailable.AsofJune2014,thestreamcontinuestoremainreadilyavailableforusebytheoccupants,twochildrenandtwoadults,whenthemunicipalwaterisunavailable.Theownerofthelandlivesinahouseadjacenttotheroadwithhiswifeandthreechildren(withanotheronthewayasofJune2014).ThishouseholdalsoreliesonwaterpipedinfromLaVictoria.Itisnotclearwhattheyusewhenthiswaterisunavailable.ThelandownerreportsthatintheSpringof2014chickens,ducks,andatleastonecowdiedafterwanderingintoacontaminatedswampyareabehindhishouse.

SSF34–Agriculturalworkerswereobservedinandnearanareaofcontaminatedsoil.Cropsarenotgrowingwellinthecontaminatedarea;theownersaidtheywerecuttingdownthepoorlygrowingpapayastotrycacao.

Inadditiontothesecurrentexposures,thereisampleevidence,basedoninterviewsandobservations,thatresidentsintheConcessionAreatrytoavoidexposuretocontaminatedsoil,water,andsedimentandhavehadtoabandonpreviouslyusedresourcestodoso.Examplesinclude:

AG06–Afamilyatthissitereplacedpreviouslyusedsurfacewaterresourceswithrainwaterandadugwell,supplementedwithpurchasedmunicipalwaterdeliveredbytankertruckeveryonetofourweeks.Thefamilynolongerusesthestreamfordrinking,cooking,bathing,swimming,orlaundry.Thefamilyalsoprovideswaterfortheirchickensandpets,whichtheyreportedwereharmedbydrinkingandstandinginthestreamwater.

6ThisusewasdescribedanddocumentedinmyDecember2013report.

Page 11: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page8

LA02–Thisfamilyusesrainwaterandawellsomedistanceawayfromtheirhometoavoidusingthecontaminatedstreamadjacenttotheirhousethathadbeenadrinkingwatersource(andthatthemotherhadusedwhilegrowingupatthislocation).Themotherwashesthelaundryinthestreamdowntheroadnearherparents’houseinsteadofthemoreconvenient,buthighlycontaminated,areaofthestreamadjacenttoherhouse.Thefatherreportsthatheteacheshischildrennottoplayinthecontaminatedsediment,andhehasbuiltacagetopreventveryyoungchickensandducksfromgettingintothecontaminatedsedimentswheremanyhavedied.Thefathercoveredapetroleumcontaminatedpitonhispropertysothathisadultchickens,ducksandgeesewouldstopfallingintoitanddying.

SSF13–Thefamilyonthisfarmcagesitsducksandchickenstopreventthemfromdyingasaresultofcontactwithcontaminatedsedimentandwater.

SSF25–Theresidentsofbothhousesatthissitepurchasemunicipalwatertoreplacepreviouslyusedsurfacewater.However,becausethemunicipalwaterisnotalwaysavailable,theymaycontinuetousesurfacewateraswell.

SSF43–Theresidentsnolongerusetheirdrinkingwaterwell,whichiscontaminatedwithpetroleum,becausetheysaidtheodorofpetroleumwasnoticeable.7Thelossofthisresourcehasforcedthisfamilytopayfortankertruckstodelivercommunitywater.Thisfamilyalsoprohibitstheirchildrenfromhavingpetsbecauseitistoosadwhentheanimalsdieafterenteringthecontaminatedwetlandsarea.Thefamilynolongermaintainslivestockbecauseoftheirinabilitytokeepthemoutofthecontaminatedarea.

2.3 Exposure Parameters Are Appropriate For The Concession Area 

InaregulatoryHHRA,exposureiscalculatedforahypotheticalperson,andisintendedtorepresentanRME.Thecalculationincorporatesseveralparameterssuchas:howfrequentlypeopleareexposed,howlongtheyareexposed,howmuchwaterpeopledrink,andhowmuchsoil/sedimenttheyingest,amongothers.TheexposureparametersIusedinmyDecember2013HHRAareappropriatefortheruralareasoftheConcessionArea,withtheintentionofcalculatinganRMEundercurrentorfutureconditions.Inseveralcases,theexposureparametersarehigherthanareusedbytheUSEPAbecauseofthedifferencesinclimateandinthedailyactivitiesofthesubsistencelifestylemaintainedbytheruralresidentslivingnearConcessionAreawellsites.Theexposureparametersarethereforenotoverlyconservativeandtheydonotoverestimaterisk,asClaimants’consultantsallege.Infact,asIpointedoutinmyDecember2013opinion,manyexposurepathwayswerenotevaluatedduetolackofdata.Asaresult,myHHRAmorelikelyreflectsanunderestimate,ratherthananoverestimate,oftheriskofharmtotheresidents.Theuseofsite‐specificdataoverstandardizedassumptions(defaultvalues)hasbeenpartofUSEPAandotheragencyriskassessmentpoliciesfordecades.Forexample,awidelyusedUSEPAdocumentstates:7ThiswellwastestedbyLBGinJune2014.TheresultscanbefoundintheLBGNovember2014ExpertReport,AppendixASiteInvestigationandDataSummaryReport.

Page 12: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page9

“EPA has made a policy decision to use, wherever appropriate,standardized assumptions, equations, and values in the human healthevaluation to achieve the goal of streamlined assessment.This approachhastheaddedbenefitofmakinghumanhealthevaluationeasiertoreview,easier to understand, andmore consistent from site to site. Developingunique exposure assumptions or non‐standard methods of riskassessmentshouldnotbenecessaryformostsites.Wherejustifiedbysite‐specific data or by changes in knowledge over time, however, non‐standardmethodsandassumptionsmaybeused.”8

Thehotandhumidclimateandsubsistencelifestyleofresidentsexposedtocontaminationatthewellsitesbeingevaluatedprovideclearjustificationfortheuseofnon‐standardexposureparameters.Thesectionsbelowexplainwhatsite‐specificexposureparameterswereusedandwhytheyareappropriatetoevaluateriskintheConcessionArea.

2.3.1 Drinking Water Ingestion 

ThedrinkingwateringestionrateusedinmyHHRAsisappropriatefortheclimateintheOrienteandthedailyactivitiesoftheruralresidentsinthisarea.Thebasisfortheuseof7.5liters/dayintheConcessionAreawasprovidedinAppendixAofmyDecember2013RejoinderReport.ThisdrinkingwaterintakerateisfarmoreappropriatefortheConcessionArearesidentsevaluatedthanthe2liters/dayconsumedbyanofficeworkerintheUS,asadvocatedbytheClaimantsandtheirconsultants.9AdditionalsupportforthiswaterintakelevelisprovidedbyUSguidanceforagriculturalworkersworkinginhotweather,conditionsconsistentwiththoseoftheruralresidentsoftheConcessionArea.TheUSOccupationalSafetyandHealthAdministration(“OSHA”)recommends1liter/hourfluidconsumptionduringworkinghourswhentheheatindexisgreaterthan91oF.10TheheatindexfrequentlyreachesthislevelintheOriente.TheStateofCaliforniaalsorequiresthatemployersprovideatleast1L/hourpotablewaterforeachoutdoorworkertopreventheatstress.11Thesedrinkingwaterratesforoutdoorandagriculturalworkersareconsistentwith,orevensuggestanunderestimationof,the7.5liters/dayintakeusedinmyHHRAs,whichwasbasedon,amongotherthings,USArmyguidanceforwaterintakeforrefugeesinahot8USEPA1989,pp.3‐1to3‐2.

9USEPAincreasedthedefaultdrinkingwaterrateforadultsfrom2to2.5L/dayinFebruary2014.USEPAFeb2014a,bOSWERDirective9200.1‐120.

10OSHA(OccupationalSafetyandAdministration)HeatIndexandProtectiveMeasures(accessedonOSHAwebsiteOct2014).Theheatindexisacombinationoftemperatureandhumidityandreflectsthe“felttemperature.”

11CaliforniaDepartmentofIndustrialRelationsHeatIllnessPreventionStandardTitle8CCR3395:http://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/3395.html.

Page 13: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page10

climate.Higheractivitylevels,suchasthoseinvolvedinfarming,requirehigherwaterconsumption(separatefrom,andinadditionto,hotclimateconsiderations).InterviewsconductedwithConcessionArearesidentsinJune2014supportwaterintakelevelsofatleast7.5literseachday.Forexample,theownerofthefarmnearAG06saidhedrinks4‐5litersofwater(fromthestream)whileinthefieldonsunnydays,lessondaysthatarenotsunny.Thisintakedoesnotincludewaterconsumptionwhileathomeorwaterusedinfoodpreparation.Iamawareofnodataoroccupationrecommendationsfordrinkingwaterintakeforchildreninahotandhumidclimate.MyHHRAusedavalidmethodologybasedonphysiologytoestimateachild’swaterconsumptionratecomparedtoanadult’sconsumptionrate.Todiscreditthisevaluation,Dr.McHughreferencedanirrelevantcasereportbyBruceandKleigman(1997)thatdescribestwoinfantsinatemperate/chillyclimate(Wisconsin,US)whoseverypoor,youngmothersfedthembottleddrinkingwatertosupplementtheirinfantformula.Theresultwasanelectrolyteimbalance.Asnotedinmyearlierreports,livinginahotclimaterequiresahigherfluidintaketooffsetthelossofwaterthroughsweattoremaincool.Dr.McHugh'scitationprovidesnoinformationregardingappropriatedrinkingwaterintakeforinfantsandyoungchildrenintheConcessionArea.Inaddition,Dr.McHughprovidesnoevidencetosupporthiscontentionthatbreastfeedingisthesourceoffluidsforinfantsandyoungchildren.UNICEFdatafrom2004showthatabout40%ofEcuadorianwomenbreastfeedexclusivelyfor6months,anincreasefrom1999.12TheMinistryofPublicHealth(Ecuador)summarizesdatafrom2008showingthat,inruralzones,theaveragedurationofexclusivebreastfeedingis3.6monthsforthe53.9%ofwomenwhobreastfeedexclusively.13Moreover,evenforbreastfedinfants,hydrophobiccomponentsofoilsuchasPAHsandotherpolycyclicaromaticcompoundsareexcretedinbreastmilkandthuspassedontobreastfeedinginfantsleadingtohigherexposurethanestimatedintheHHRAs.14 

2.3.2 Soil And Sediment Ingestion Rates 

TherehavebeenmanystudiesofhowmuchsoilisingestedduringdailyactivitiesintheUS,Europe,andelsewhere.15Soilistypicallyingestedwhenitgetsonhandsorotherobjectsandtheobjectsgetputintothemouth.Inmostcases,soilingestionishigherinyoungchildrenthanadultsbecausechildrenhavemorehand‐to‐mouthandobject‐to‐mouthactivities.Bothchildrenandadultsingestsoilthatgetsintothehouseandbecomespartofindoordust,settlingonfoodorindoorobjectssuchastoysorglasses.Soilcanalsobeingestedonfruitsorvegetablesthatarenotthoroughlywashed.

12UNICEFdatahttp://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ecuador/exclusive‐breastfeeding.

13MinisteriodeSaludPúblicadelEcuadorFunbbasic/Ibfan.May2009.WorldBreastfeedingTrendsInitiative.NationalReport.

14DelBubbaetal2005.PAHsandfatcontentinbreastmilk.AnnaldiChimica95:629‐642.OEHHA2014.Table5.5p.5‐22.

15USEPA2011.ExposureFactorsHandbook.EPA/600/R‐09/052F.

Page 14: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page11

Theamountofsoilingestedeachday(i.e.,theingestionrate)dependson,amongotherthings,thefrequencyofhandtomouthactivity,andtheamountofdirtonhandswhentheseactivitiesoccur.Theamountofindoordustalsoplaysarole.Sedimentingestionoccursforthesamereasonsassoilingestion,althoughithasbeenlesswellstudied.16TheConcessionArearesidentsareexposedtosedimentinasimilarwayassoil,includingtrackinginandbecomingpartofindoordust.ThecommonpracticeinUSEPA‐typeHHRAsistosetthesedimentingestionratetothesamevalueastheresidentialsoilingestionrate.

ExamplesatLA02ofwhysoilandsedimentingestionoccurs

SoilandsedimentingestionratesarenodoubthigherintheruralpartsoftheConcessionAreathanistypicalintheUSforseveralreasonsincluding:1)wetandoil‐contaminatedsoil17adherestohandsandotherobjectsmorethandrysoil,2)peoplespendmostoftheirdayoutdoors(resultinginahigheringestionrate),18and3)soilandsedimentareregularlytrackedintohomesonadailybasisduetotheoutdoorlifestyleandthepresenceoffarmanimalsindoors.

16Fromthepointofviewofanexposureassessment,thedifferencebetweensoilandsedimentisthelocation(i.e.,sedimentislocatedinwaterwaysorwetlands)andthatsedimentiswet,whichmeansitadherestoskininathickerlayerthandrysoil.

17USEPA2011,ExposureFactorsHandbookEPA/600/R‐09/052Fatpp.7‐20.

18VanWijnenetal.1990.CitedinUSEPA2011ibidatpp.5‐10.

playwithdog,dogtrackssoilandsedimentintohouse

PatioLA02

chickentracksinsoilandsediment

LivingSpaceLA02

dustfromsoilandsedimentonfood(potatosinchair)

KitchenLA02

Page 15: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page12

My2013HHRAevaluatedsedimentingestionbutnotsoilingestionbecausesurfacesoilsamplingwasnotincludedinLBG’s2013samplingprogram.Forthereasonsjustdescribed,Iusedsoilingestionratestoanalyzethesedimentingestion.Foryoungchildren,Iusedarateof200mg/day,whichistheUSEPAhighendingestiondefaultrate.19Foradults,Iusedaningestionrateof100mg/day,basedontheUSEPAhighenddefaultrateforadultresidentialexposuretosoil.20Dr.McHughclaimedthatmy2013HHRAoverstatedtheingestionrateforsediments.ButthemethodologyappliedinmyHHRAisidenticaltothatwhichwouldbeappliedatahazardouswastesiteintheUSwheresoilingestionratesareoftensubstitutedforsedimentingestionrates.Moreover,intheConcessionArea,theindoordustcomponentoftheingestionrateislikelytobederived,inpart,fromsedimenttrackedintothehousebypeopleandanimals.Thus,becausetheconditionsintheConcessionArearesultinahigheringestionofsoilandsedimentthanisanticipatedand/orprovidedforintheUS‐basedstudiesonwhichthisingestionrateisbased,200mg/dayforchildrenand100mg/dayforadultsshouldbeconsideredtobeamoderateestimateofsoilandsedimentingestionintheConcession,notanoverestimate.LBG’s2014samplingprogramincludedbothsedimentandsurface(orshallow)soil.InmycurrentHHRA,Ievaluatedsedimentdatainthesamemannerasmy2013report(200mg/dayforchildrenand100mg/dayforadults)usingthesameHHRAmethodologydescribedinmy2013report.Forsoil,Iusedthesame200mg/dayforchildrenand100mg/dayforadultsforresidentialexposure.Forcertainsites,Iuseda200mg/dayexposurerateforadultsbecausetheirexposureisagriculturalinnature.Theamountofsoilingestedbyadultsinagriculturalandotherhighsoilcontactsettingsishigherthaninresidentialareas,whichiswellknownandacknowledgedbyUSindustry.Forexample,GeneralElectricsuggestedasoilingestionrateof136mg/dayforutilityworkersandagriculturalworkersincommentsona2004HHRApreparedbytheUSEPA.21Morerecently,theCaliforniaEnvironmentalProtectionAgencypublishedahighendsoilingestionestimateforadultsof210mg/day.22Liketheirchildren,adultsintheConcessionAreawillingestmoresoilthananadultofficeorfactoryworkerintheUS,andahighendsoilingestionratebasedondatacollectedintheUSandEuropewillbeclosertoacentraltendencyingestionrateintheConcessionArearesidencesandfarmsnearwellsites.

19IntheUS,studiesofsoilingestionrates–whichareusuallyconductedinurbanandsuburbansettingswheremuchtimeisspentindoors–showthatratesvaryamongtheparticipatingindividuals.EPAsummarizeshighendandcentraltendencyestimatesoftheseexposuresc.f.EPA2011op.cit.Table5‐1.p.5‐5,andgenerallyrecommendstheuseofthehighendratesinHHRAcalculationsfortheRME.

20USEPA2014b.

21ExcerptfromaresponsebyGeneralElectrictoaUSEPAriskassessmentfortheHousatonicRiverinMassachusetts.

22CAEPA(OEHHA)DraftHotSpotsProgramGuidanceManual)September2014.

Page 16: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page13

Finally,Dr.McHugh'sunsupportedassertionthatstreamsedimentsareconstantlycoveredwithwatershowshisunfamiliaritywiththeseasonalityofthewaterlevelsintheConcessionArea,andtheextentofsedimentcontamination.Thecontentionthatthecontaminatedsedimentsarealwaysburiedundercleansedimentsisalsofalse.Allofthesedimentsamplescollectedinthe2014samplingprogramandmostofthesedimentscollectedin2013(includingallthesamplesincludedintheriskcalculation)aresurfaceandshallowsediments.Thesesedimentsareoreasilycouldbeencounteredbyresidents,e.g.,astheystandinthestreamstowashclothing,orbyanimalsdrinkingstreamwater,andthentrackedintohouses—andtheyarecontaminatedwithpetroleum.23

2.3.3 Frequency And Duration Of Bathing 

IusedUSEPAdefaultvaluesforbathingfrequencyanddurationinmy2013HHRA.AdditionalinformationwascollectedinJune2014fromobservationandinterviewdataintheConcessionArea.Bathingisusedforbothcleaningandheatrelief.MothersinruralareasrelevanttotheHHRAreportedbathingtheirchildrenatleastonceeachday;severalreportedbathingtheirchildrenmultipletimesperday,includingthemotherofyoungchildrenatLA16.Asshownbelow,bathingatLA16meansusingabuckettopourwateroverthechild.Thisprocessisrepeatedmanytimesperbathingeventaddingtothetotalamountoftimethewaterremainsontheskin.Inotherlocations,childrenareimmersedinwater.Forexample,atAG02(shownbelow),childrenandadultsbatheandwashlaundrywhileimmersedinastream. 

 bathingandwashingatLA16bathingandwashingatAG02Thedurationofbathingisvariableandlesswellknown.MyHHRAreliedonUSEPAguidanceineffectwhentheriskassessmentwasprepared,onehourforyoungchildrenand35minutesforadultsandchildrenover6.InFebruary2014,theUSEPAchangeditsrecommendationfordefaultvaluesbasedonmorerecentdata.24Theyoungchildbathing

23LBGDecember2013RejoinderReport,AppendixBSiteInvestigationandDataSummaryReportandLBGNovember2014ExpertReport,AppendixASiteInvestigationandDataSummaryReport.

24USEPA2014a,bOSWERDirective9200.1‐120datedFebruary6,2014.

Page 17: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page14

durationwasreducedto32minutesandtheolderchildandadultbathingdurationwasincreasedto43minutes.UseofUSdatamayunderestimatethetypicallengthofdermalcontactwithwaterbecauseConcessionArearesidentsusethesamesurfacewaterforbathing,swimming,andlaundry,andtheclimateishotterandmorehumidthantypicalintheUS.InresponsetoChevron’scriticisms,Icalculatedcancerriskandnon‐cancerhazardsbasedonboth30minuteand60minutedurationbathingforyoungchildren.Thedurationofthebathingmadelittletonodifferenceintheriskcalculations,andnodifferenceinconclusionsbasedonexceedanceofabenchmarkbecausedermalexposuretowaterisjustoneofseveralcontributorstotheoverallriskatmostofthewellsites.Fortheriskcalculationsreportedbelow,IusedtherevisedUSEPArecommendations. 

2.4 TPH Can Be Used To Evaluate Toxicity, Especially Oil Related Toxicity, and Thus To Show Health Risks 

ItisundisputedthatDr.McHughdidnotevaluatehealthrisksfromTPHinhisriskassessments.Inpart,hearguedthatitwasimpossibletoevaluaterisksfromTPH.Inthissection,Iprovideamethodology,explainedbelow,toevaluatehealthrisksassociatedwithexposuretocrudeoilanditsresiduesusingTPHasameasureofconcentrationandpetroleumindustrygeneratedtoxicitydataforcrudeoil.IfurthershowthatTPHmeasuredbytotalextractablematerial(TEM)methodprovidesthemostappropriatemeasureofTPHconcentrationtouseinthisevaluation.ThefourstepmethodologyforconductinganHHRA,appliedhere,wasdescribedinbothofmypreviousexpertreports:1)hazardidentification;2)dose‐responseassessment;3)exposureassessment;and4)riskcharacterization.25Thegoalistocharacterizetheriskofhealtheffectstodetermineifcleanupiswarranted.Thefirststeptoachievingthisgoalistoidentifythehazard.IntheConcessionArea,thehazardiscrudeoilanditsresidues,hazardsthathavebeendescribedbasedonclinicalstudies,toxicologystudies,andepidemiologicalstudies.Thedoseresponseassessmentisusuallybasedontoxicity(animal)testing.TheAmericanPetroleumInstitute(“API”)(2011)hassummarizedtoxicitytestsofcrudeoilforanumberofadverseeffects.APIhasalsodevelopedmodelstopredicttheadverseresponsesatparticulardoses(benchmarkdoses)ofdifferentcrudeoils;thesearenecessaryforaquantitativedose‐responseassessment.TheexposureassessmentistheestimationofthedosethatreachesahypotheticalRMEperson.Theexposureassessmentincludestheanalyticaldatacollectedatthelocationbeingevaluated(inthiscasemeasuresofTPHatthevariouswellsites)andvariousexposureparameterssuchasthosediscussedinearliersectionsofthisreport.Informationfromthedose‐responseassessmentandexposureassessmentarecombinedtocharacterizerisk.

25Strauss,Feb2013Section2.3.2pp.12‐17andStraussDec2013AppendixA.

Page 18: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page15

Thenon‐cancerandcancerassessmentsareconductedseparately.Theresultsarecalledthehazardindex(HI)andexcesslifetimecancerrisk(ELCR),respectively.Theseresultsarecomparedwithregulatorybenchmarks,whichareoftenanHIof1andanELCRintherangeof10‐4to10‐6(oneintenthousandtooneinamillion).IftheHIishigherthanone,andtheELCRwithinorhigherthanthecancerriskrange,furtherevaluationandoftenremediationarerequired.

2.4.1 Development Of A Non‐Cancer Dose Response Factor (Reference Dose) For Crude Oil From The Concession Area 

TheAPI,aspartofitssubmissiontotheUSEPAHighProductionVolumeprogramforcrudeoil,providedtheresultsofitstoxicitytestingprogramforvariouscrudeoils.26Thetestingincludedskinpaintingstudiesinwhichtwocrudeoils,oneheavyandonelight,wereappliedtothebacksofratsfor90days,andtheadverseeffectsevaluated.Bothcrudeoilscausedskinchanges(hyperplasiaandhyperkeratosis)associatedwithskincellproliferation(pre‐cancer),irritation,andinflammation.Adverseeffectsoninternalorganswerealsoobserved,whichshowsthattoxiccomponentsoftheoilswereabsorbedthroughtheskinandreachedinternalorgans.Theimmunesystem(thymus),theendocrinesystem(thyroid),theliver,andbonemarrow(manifestingasaberranthematologyincludingreducedredbloodcellsandplateletcounts)werealladverselyaffected.Reducedbodyweightgain,areflectionofslowergrowthoftheyounganimalsusedintheexperimentandageneralindicatoroftoxicity,wasalsoobserved.Skinirritationandthyroideffects(hypertrophyandhyperplasia,potentiallyaprecancerouscondition)wereobservedevenatthelowestdosetested.27

Similarskinpaintingstudieswereconductedusingpregnantratstodeterminetheimpactofcrudeoilonthedevelopingfetusandyoungoffspring.Crudeoilwaspaintedonthebacksofpregnantratsfromzeroto19daysofpregnancy.Eventhisshortdosingperiod(20daysvs.90days,above)resultedintheadverseeffectsjustdescribed–skinirritation,immunesystemeffects,liverchanges–onthepregnantrats.Observedpre‐natalandpost‐nataleffectsincludedincreasedinuterodeath,delayedossification(skeletonformation),decreasedpupbodyweight,anddecreasedpupsurvival.28

Asdiscussedinbothofmypreviousreports,differentcrudeoilshavedifferenttoxicpotencies,andAPIhassummarizeddatashowingthatcrudeoil’s(andthatofotherpetroleumproducts)potencyforcancer,birthdefects,thyroideffects,bloodeffectsandimmuneeffectscanbepredictedbythequantityofthefractionofcrudeoilknownas3‐7

26API2011.Citedandprovidedinmypreviousopinions.

27API2011.p.45.ThesestudieswerealsodiscussedinmyFebruary2013expertopinion(p.41‐42).TheexpertreportofDr.BlancaLaffon,submittedconcurrentlywiththisone,discusseshealtheffectsexperiencedbyoilcleanupworkers.Manyaresimilartothoseobservedinthetoxicitytests.

28API2011pp.51‐54.ThesestudieswerealsodiscussedinmyFebruary2013expertopinion(p.42)andmyDecember2013rejoinderopinion(pp.51‐52).

Page 19: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page16

ringPACs,29althoughthesearenottheonlytoxiccomponentsofcrudeoil.Skinirritationisprimarilyduetoanentirelydifferentcomponentofcrudeoil;andsomearomaticcompoundsincrudeoil,suchasbenzene,isopropylbenzene(cumene),naphthalene,and2‐methylnaphthalenearecarcinogeniceventhoughtheyhave1or2aromaticrings.Basedonthetoxicitydatafromskinpaintingtests,APIcalculateddosesatwhich10%oftheanimalsarepredictedtosufferadverseeffects.30TheseareknownasbenchmarkdosesorBMD10.APIalsodevelopedamethodforextrapolatingthetoxicityofknowncrudeoilstountestedcrudeoilsbasedontheamountof3‐7ringPACsincrudeoilsofuntestedtoxicity.Toquantifythetoxicityoftheuntestedoils,APIcalculatedpredictedbenchmarkdoses,denotedPDR10,usingthe3‐7ringPACconcentrationofeachcrudeoilasthebasisoftheprediction.ThePDR10sofmorethan40untestedcrudeoils,alongwiththeirAPIgravitywereintheirsubmissiontotheUSEPA.BenchmarkdosessuchasthePDR10calculatedbyAPIcanbeconvertedtoreferencedoses(RfDs),whicharethetoxicityfactorusedinthedoseresponseassessment.Theconversionistheapplicationofnumericalfactorstoadjustfortheuncertainty,variability,andinadequaciesofthebenchmarkdose.Thesefactorsinclude:

variabilityinresponses(e.g.,onehumantoanother), uncertaintyofpredictingtoxicityinhumansbasedonanimaldata, conditionsofthetestvs.applicableconditions(e.g.,90dayvs.lifetimeexposure,

oralvs.dermalexposure), whetherthebenchmarkdoseisanoobservedeffectlevel,and qualityandcompletenessofavailabletoxicitydata.

FollowingUSEPAguidancefordevelopmentofreferencedoses31,Iusedafactorof3000toconvertthePDR10toadermalreferencedose.Thedermalreferencedosewasthebasisofanoralreferencedose.Icalculatedadermalreferencedoseof0.03mg/kg‐dayandanoralreferencedoseof0.004mg/kg‐dayforcrudeoilofsimilarAPIgravitytothatintheConcessionArea.TechnicalAppendix2providesdetailsofmyderivationofthesedoses.

2.4.2  Methods For Analyzing TPH 

Measuringtheconcentrationofoilintheenvironmentisadifficulttaskascrudeoilisacomplexmixturewithmanydifferentcompoundswithdifferentchemicalandtoxicologicalproperties.Sensoryapproachessuchasobservationoffloatingoilorsheen,odor,andtasteareindicativeofthepresenceofoil,andtheAPIandASTMrecommendcleanupwhenobservedtoprotectanimalandhumanhealth.32

29PACsarepolycyclicaromaticcompounds.Thisfractionincludespolycyclicaromatichydrocarbons(PAHs)aswellastoxiccompoundsthatalsocontainnitrogen,sulfurandoxygenintheirringsorattachedtotherings.

30API2011p.46.

31USEPA2002.Areviewofthereferencedoseandreferenceconcentrationprocesses.EPA/630/P‐02/002F.

32API2004(Livestock);ASTME1739‐95(humanhealth,sensitiveecologicalreceptors).

Page 20: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page17

Therearemanymethodstoquantifyhowmuchoil,orwhichcomponentsofoil,arepresent.Eachgivesadifferentresultfromthesameinitialsample,dependingonfactorsthatincludetheportionoftheoilmixturetargetedforanalysis,samplepreparation,detectionmethodology,potentialinterferences,andmanyothers.LBGutilizedseveralmethodstoquantifyoilresidues,commonlyreferredtoasTPH(totalpetroleumhydrocarbons),intheJune2014fieldprogram:33

Method8015M:ThismethodyieldsfractionslabeledasGasolineRangeOrganics(GRO),DieselRangeOrganics(DRO),extendedDRO,andheavyDRO.Eachfractionhasacharacteristiccarbonrange,andaromaticandaliphatichydrocarbonsaremeasuredtogether.TheDROandextendedDROfractionsincludethetoxic3‐7ringPACfraction,althoughsomewouldbelostduetothesolventusedinsamplepreparation.TheGROfractionhasthe1‐2ringcompoundsandisappropriatelyevaluatedbycomparisontogasoline.

MassachusettsMethodVPH/EPH:Thismethodyieldsfractionswithspecifiedcarbonranges;aromaticandaliphatichydrocarbonsarereportedseparately.ThearomaticfractionsC11‐C22includethetoxic3‐7ringPACfraction,althoughsomewouldbelostduetothesolventusedforsamplepreparation.TheVPHaromaticfractioncontainsthecarcinogenic1‐2ringcompounds.

TexasMethodTX1005:Thismethodyieldsvariousfractionsofcharacteristiccarbonrangewiththearomaticandaliphaticcombined.Someofthetoxic3‐7ringPACfractionwouldbelostduetothesolventusedforsamplepreparation.

TotalExtractableMaterial(TEM)Method:Thismethodmeasurestheentiremassofmaterialsusingasolvent(dichloromethane)thatdissolvesthetoxic3‐7ringPACfraction,allowingittobemeasured.Theresultscombineallcarbonrangesandaromaticandaliphatichydrocarbons.

Thefollowingchartshowsgraphicallytherangesofcrudeoilcapturedbyeachanalyticalmethod.Ascanbeseen,theTEMmethodisthemostcomplete,capturingthemostfractionsofoil.

33LBGNovember2014ExpertReport.ShortNovember72014,SupplementaryMemorialExpertReport.

Page 21: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page18

ThefractionsdetectedbythefirstthreemethodscanbesummedtogiveasingleTPHnumberforeachsampleanalyzed,althoughasnotedabove,thesesummationsstillmisspartoftheoilcomponentsintheoriginalmixtureincludingsomeofthetoxic3‐7ringPACsandheaviercomponents.MostofthecrudeoilcomponentsmissedinthesummationarecapturedintheTEMMethod.Asaresult,TPHmeasuredbytheTEMmethodalwaysgivesamorecomplete,andthushigher,resultthantheotherthree.DetailedcomparisonsofTPHconcentrationsfromTEMandMethod8015showthatTEMconcentrationsareapproximatelyfivetimeshigher.34

2.4.3  Risk Characterization Based On Crude Oil As A Whole 

Thehealthriskfromcrudeoilcanbeevaluatedseveralways.USEPAguidancefortheevaluationofmixtures35presentsahierarchyofapproaches,withthepreferredapproachesbeingevaluatedbasedonthemixtureitselforasufficientlysimilarmixture.Theoilandgasindustryalsorecommendsthisapproach.36Becausetoxicitydataforwholemixturesareusuallylacking,alesspreferredbutmorecommonlyusedapproachistoevaluatefractionsofthemixtureseparatelyusingatoxicityvalueforeachfractionbasedononeindividualcomponentofthatfraction.ThismethodwasusedinmypreviousHHRAbasedonMethod8015MdataandMassachusettsVPH/EPHdata.

34ShortExpertReportNovember2014section4.1;LBGExpertReportNovember2014AppendixC2.

35USEPA1986.GuidelinesfortheHealthRiskAssessmentofChemicalMixtures.EPA/630/R‐98/002.;USEPA2000.SupplementaryGuidanceforConductingHealthRiskAssessmentofChemicalMixtures.EPA/630/R‐00/002.

36c.f.,IPIECA2010GloballyHarmonizedSystemforPetroleumSubstances.Version1.

Page 22: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page19

Forcrudeoil,thenon‐cancerhazardcanbeevaluatedusingthemorepreferredwholemixturesapproachbasedonthequantitativedoseresponsefactordescribedinSection2.1.4andananalysisofTPH.Inmyopinion,theTEMmethodisthebestbasisforthiswholeoilTPHanalysisbecauseitincludesalmostallofthecomponentsincrudeoil,andmostcloselyapproximatesthemeasurementusedinthetoxicitytests(massofcrudeoil).Inotherwords,TEMisthebestmeasureforan“applestoapples”comparisonofthedose.

2.5 There Are Substantial Non‐Cancer Health Risks From Exposure To Crude Oil 

ForthisHHRA,Icalculatednon‐cancerhazardindices(HIs)usingboththefractionapproachusedinmyDecember2013HHRAandthewholemixtureapproachdescribedabove(section2.4).IcalculatedexposureusingthesameequationsasinmypreviousHHRA,althoughthedurationofbathingwaschanged,asdescribedinsection2.3.3above.Inaddition,mynewHHRAincludesexposurestosurfacesoil,asthesedataareavailablefromLBG’s2014testingbutwerenotavailablefromLBG’s2013testing.Soilingestionratesweredescribedinsection2.3.2.AdditionaldetailsoftheexposurecalculationsareprovidedinTechnicalAppendix1.ThecalculationofareferencedosefromtheAPIderivedbenchmarkdosesisprovidedinTechnicalAppendix2.Thechartbelowsummarizesthenon‐cancerhazards(HIs)atsixofthewellsitesinvestigatedbyLBGin2014:AG06,LA02,LA16,SSF13,SSF34,andSSF43.Ievaluatedseveralexposurepathwaysatfiveofthesitesandonlyaformerusepathwayatthesixth(SSF43).Thesecondcolumnliststhetypeofexposurepathwayandwhethertheexposureisapast,current,orfutureuse.ThecolumnslabeledVPH/EPHfractionand8015MfractiongivetheHIsbasedonanevaluationofthetoxicityofeachfraction,themethodusedinmyDecember2013HHRA.ThenextthreecolumnsprovidetheHIsusingthewholemixtureapproach,namelytheconcentrationsinallthefractionsobtainedusingVPH/EPH,8015M,orTX1005aresummedtoobtaintheconcentrationofpetroleumhydrocarbonsforthatspecificmethod.ThistotalisthenusedinconjunctionwiththeRfDforOrientecrudeoildescribedinSection2.4.1andTechnicalAppendix2.ThefinalcolumnofthechartbelowprovidestheHIcalculatedbywhatis,inmyopinion,themostappropriatemethodforevaluatingtherisk,namelyusingoilconcentrationsmeasuredbyTEMandtheRfDforOrientecrude.

Page 23: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page20

ThecharthighlightstheHIsabove1,thepointatwhichharmmayoccur.HIsabove1butlessthan10arehighlightedinpink,thosebetween10and99arehighlightedinorange,andthoseabove100inred.TheTEM‐basedwholemixtureanalysisresultsinthehighestHIs,asexpected.AllmethodsresultinanHIabove1foratleastthreewellsites.Non‐cancerhazardwasidentifiedatallsixsiteexamined.ExposurepathwaysatAG06,LA02,andSSF34hadHIsgreaterthan100,

Page 24: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page21

whichmeansthatthedosesareapproachingtherangeinwhichadverseeffectswereobservedinthetoxicologystudies.

2.6. There Are Cancer Risks From Crude Oil Exposure 

Dr.Moolgavkarcontinuestostatethatthereisnoevidencethatexposuretooilhascausedanyharm,includingspecifically,cancer.However,Dr.BlancaLaffonhasfiledconcurrentlywiththisreportareportdetailingherfindingsregardingoil’sgenotoxiceffects,whichshowthecancerriskofoil.Inaddition,Dr.Moolgavkar’sopinioncontradictspetroleumindustryfindingsandreportsthatindicatethatdermalcontactwithcrudeoilisassociatedwith,amongotherthings,skincancer,andimmunedysfunction. TheworldwidepetroleumindustryhascompiledtoxicitydataoncrudeoiltoprovidetoUSandEuropeanregulatoryprograms,suchastheHighProductionVolumeprogramintheUSandtheREACHprogramintheEU.Thefocusofindustrystudiesisondermalexposure.Thediagrambelow,takenfromareportpublishedbyCONCAWE37,anindustryorganization,showsthatrepeatedexposures,suchasthoseexperiencedbypeopleintheConcessionArea,canresultindermatitis,andskintumors(cancer),andotherhealtheffectsthatrequirequantitativeriskassessment,suchasthatpresentedinsection2.5.

 

37CONCAWE(ConservationofCleanAirandWaterinEurope,)istheoilandgascompanies’Europeanassociationforenvironment,healthandsafety2010.Reviewofdermaleffectsanduptakeofpetroleumhydrocarbons.Reportno.5/10.

Figure 6 Health risk assessment of dermal exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons

Page 25: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page22

Source:CONCAWE2010,p.60 CONCAWE382010(p.59)alsopointsoutonereasonwhytheharmincreaseswithrepeatedexposuresandmayproduceskincancer:

“In addition to the irritationeffectsofpetroleumhydrocarbons, the skinbarrier functionmay be affected following repeated contact,making theskinmore susceptible to other irritants, sensitizing agents, and bacteriaand also enhance the dermal penetration of other substances.Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that severe, dermal irritationinducedby long‐termor repeated exposure to certainhydrocarbons cancontribute to the progression‐promotion effect and the development ofskintumours.”

2.6.1 Toxicology Studies Show Crude Oil Components Are Mutagenic And Carcinogenic 

ThePACfractionofoil(whichincludesPAHs)ismutagenicinstandardtoxicitytestsincludingthewell‐knownAmesassay;crudeoilsarecarcinogenicafterdermalapplicationtoskin(mousebioassays).

AssummarizedbytheAPI39:

“A number of crude oil samples, representing a range of compositions,havebeen investigated for theirpotential to cause skin cancer inmouseskin‐painting studies of 104‐110 week duration. All four crude oilsincluding some distillation fractions of API Crude C and D (See below),producedskintumors in33‐100%ofmicewith latencyperiodsof40‐76weeks, and were considered dermal carcinogens. Tumor incidence andlatency depended on crude oil source and dose (Table 18). Numerousstudies have shown that the mutagenic and carcinogenic potential ofcomplex petroleum‐related substances, all of which are derived fromcrudeoil, correlateswith thepresenceof 3‐7 ringPAC.Furtherstudieshaveshown thesePACcanbeabsorbed through the skinandenterthegeneralcirculation.”(referencesdeleted,emphasisadded)

ThisassessmentofthepotentialcarcinogenicityofcrudeoilissupportedbytheInternationalPetroleumIndustryEnvironmentalConservationAssociation(IPIECA):40

“For petroleum substances containing PAHs, the skin carcinogenicpotential is related to the level of specific 3‐7 fused‐ring PAHs. While

38ibid.p.59.

39API2011.p.58.

40IPIECA,June17,2010.Version1.GuidanceontheapplicationofGloaballyHarmonizedSystem(GHS)criteratopetroleumsubstances,atp.10.

Page 26: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page23

concentrationsofspecificPAHscanbedetermined,andcertainPAHsareclassifiedascarcinogenic(e.g.,byIARC),theskincarcinogenicpotentialofpetroleum substances should normally be assessed based on the wholesubstance, taking into account the total PAH content. This is becauseindividual PAHs may occur at toxicologically insignificantconcentrations, but the total PAH‐content may be toxicologicallyimportant.”[emphasisadded]

Formostpeopleexposedtocrudeoilindevelopedcountries,dermalcontactandinhalationofvolatilecomponentsareconsideredtheprimaryroutesofexposure.However,intheConcessionArea,ingestionexposure–viadrinkingwater,soils,andsediments–isalsoanimportantconsideration.OralexposurewasrelegatedtoAppendix5intheAPIsubmissiontotheUSEPAbecauseitwasdeemedan“unrealistic”routeofexposure.However,theAPIsummaryandtheunderlyingdata41showthatdermalandoralexposureresultinthesamehealtheffects,stronglysuggestingthatingestionofcrudeoilalsoresultsincancer,includinginparticular,cancersinthegastrointestinalsystem.Moreover,becausethecarcinogenic3‐7ringPACsareabsorbedintothebody,theymaycausecancerwherevertheybecomelocatedinthebody.

2.6.2  Risk Of Cancer In The Concession Area Using HHRA Methodology 

Liketheriskassessmentfornon‐cancerhazardsdescribedinsections2.4and2.5,cancerriskfromcrudeoilismostappropriatelyevaluatedusingawholemixtureapproachwithcarcinogenicitydatabasedontestsusingcrudeoilandexposuremeasuredbytheTEMmethod.APIandotherindustrygroupshavereportedtheresultsofcancerbioassaysofcrudeoil,but,unlikeforthenon‐cancerbenchmarkdose,havenotquantifiedacancerpotencyfactor.InmyDecember2013HHRA,thecancerriskcalculationincorporatedthepublishedcancerslopefactorsforsixPAHswhichcompriseaverysmallportionof3‐7ringPACs,plus1‐methylnaphthalene,a2ringcompound.However,manymore3‐7ringPACsareknowntobecarcinogenicbasedontoxicitytesting,asdiscussedinsection2.6.1.SomeofthealkylatedPAHs,suchas5‐methylchrysene,are100timesmorecarcinogenicthantheirparentcompound,inthiscasechrysene,42yetonlychryseneiscurrentlyincludedinUSEPA’sriskassessmentmethodology.BothareincludedinmethodologyrecentlyproposedbytheStateofCalifornia.43Carcinogensthatarenotpartofthe3‐7ringPACfractionhavealsobeenleftoutofthecancerriskestimate.Forexample,carcinogenswithfewerthan3rings,suchas

41API2011andAPI2003HighProductionVolumeChemicalChallengeProgram.Testplancrudeoilcategory.SubmittedtoUSEPAbyAPIpetroleumHPVtestinggroup.November21,2003.

42CAEPA(OHHEA)2009.AppendixB(updated2011)pB‐91.

43CAEPA(OHHEA)2014opcit.

Page 27: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page24

naphthaleneandcumene(isopropylbenzene)havebeendetectedinmanyConcessionAreasamples,butarenotincludedinthecancerriskcalculationbecauseUSEPAhasnotpublishedacancertoxicityfactor.Cumenewasfirstlistedasacarcinogenthisyear(2014)andmorecarcinogensmaybeidentifiedastoxicitytestingcontinues.44Obviously,theUSEPAmethodologybasedononlyafewparentPAH(asubsetofPAC)compoundssubstantiallyunderestimatescarcinogenicriskofcrudeoil.Thecarcinogenic3‐7ringPACfractionisobtainedusingananalyticalmethodologythatwasnotusedinanyofthefieldsamplesintheConcessionArea.However,theLBGdatasetprovidesthemassofalkylsubstitutedandparentPAHsforspecified3‐5ringPAHsandafewsulfurcontainingPACs(dibenzothiophenes).Theseareaportionofthe3‐7ringPACfraction.Thus,whilestillanunderestimate,thesumofthetotalamountofidentified3‐5ringPAHsplussulfurcontainingdibenzothiophenes,whichrangesfrom0.2‐5%,providesaminimummeasureofhowsmallafractionofpotentialcarcinogenicityisevaluatedbycurrentlyavailablecancerslopefactors.Despitethesubstantialunderestimateofcancerrisk,myDecember2013HHRAresultedinsignificantcancerrisksforseveralwellsite/exposurepathwaycombinations.AtLA02,useofthenearbystreamasadomesticwatersupply(aknownformeruse)resultedinanexcesslifetimecancerriskof1x10‐3(oneinathousand).Thisestimateevaluates0.5%and4%ofthe3‐7ringPACfractionforsedimentandsurfacewater,respectively.Whilethisisaformeruse,samplescollectedin2014frominsidethehouseshowsongoingcontamination.45

2.7  Response To Additional Critiques From Claimants’ Experts 

2.7.1  Barium Toxicity Is Evaluated Appropriately 

Dr.McHughsuggeststhatIusedaninappropriatemeasureforthetoxicityofbarium.46Accordingtohim,IshouldhaveusedtoxicitybasedonbariumsulfatebecausetheelevatedbariumconcentrationsarefromTexpet’suseofbarite‐containingdrillingmuds.Hisargumentassumesthat:1)bariumsulfateislesstoxicthanotherbariumsaltsbecauseitisinsolubleandthereforenotwellabsorbed,and2)bariumsulfateisnotconvertedtomoresolublebariumsaltswhileintheenvironment.Neitherassumptionistrue.AccordingtotheUSEPAtoxicologicalprofileforbarium,47somestudiesshowthatbariumoriginatingfrombothsolubleandrelativelyinsolublebariumsaltsisabsorbedfromthe44USNationalToxicologyProgramOctober2014.ReportonCarcinogens,13thedition,MonographonCumene,(monographdatedSeptember25,2013).

45Theinteriorsampleswerewipesamples.Theywerecollectedusingindividuallypackagedalcoholwipesrubbedagainstthesurface.Onewipewasusedforthechildren’stoy.Forthefloorsamples,eachsamplewascomposedof5individualwipes.Eachwipewasrubbedinsidea200cm2template.

46ExpertopinionofThomasE.McHugh,May2014.pp.3and4.

47USEPA2005.Toxicologicalreviewofbariumandcompounds.EPA/635/R‐05/001.

Page 28: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page25

gastrointestinaltracttoasimilarextent,likelyduetotheacidicenvironmentofthestomach.Inaddition,Chevronhasnotprovidedanydatashowingthatbariumsulfateistheformfoundintheenvironmentalsamples.Infact,LBGhasconductedananalysisofbariumconcentrationsinwaterandhasconcludedthat,incertainsamples,thebariumisnolongerpartofbariumsulfate;ithasbeenconvertedintoasolublesalt.48Inmyopinion,theUSEPAreferencedoseisthemostappropriatemeasureoftoxicityofbariuminthewaters,soils,andsedimentsintheConcessionArea.Ialsonote,however,thatbarium,evenusingtheUSEPAreferencedose,doesnotmeaningfullycontributetothenon‐cancerhazardsintheConcessionArea.Thevastmajorityoftheestimatedhazardisfromthecrudeoil,measuredasTPH.

2.7.2 Surface Water Samples Should Not Be Filtered 

Drinkingwaterexposureshouldbebasedonunfilteredwatersamples(i.e.,includingsedimenttotheextentitissuspendedinthewater)becausethatiswhatresidentsconsumeandbathein.49Dr.McHugh’sstatementthat"theuserswouldminimizetheamountofsedimentintheirdrinkingwatertotheextentpossible"isyetanotherculturallyinappropriateandunfoundedassertion.HHRAsassessexposureasasitewouldbeusedifitwerenotcontaminated.IntheformerConcessionArea,watergenerallyisconsumedascollected,sometimesinplasticbottlesfromstreamsnearafarmer’sfield(c.f.,thefarmeratAG06),sometimesfrombucketsatwellsorfrombridges(c.f.,LA16,SSF25),sometimesincollectionboxes(SSF13).In2013,theLBGsamplingteamcollectedwatersamplesinamannersimilartothatusedbytheresidents.Inthe2014samplingprogram,LBGcollectedsurfacewatersamplesbyperistalticpumpwhichhadtheconsequenceofminimizingtheinclusionofsediments.Datafromsamplescollectedinthismannermayleadtoanunderestimateofriskfromwaterconsumption.

2.7.3 Exposure Is Evaluated At Appropriate Locations 

MyDecember2013HHRA(aswellastheHHRAincludedinthisreport)evaluatedlocationswheretherewasbothvisibleandanalyticallymeasuredcontamination.Real,livepeopleliveintheseareas,althoughthesiteswereevaluatedusingriskassessmentmethodologyandexposureparametersappropriateforanRMEreceptor.Dr.McHugh,liketherestofClaimants’consultants,istryingtoaveragethepetroleumcontaminationoverbothcleananddirtyareas,thusdilutingtheexposureandsubsequentriskthatisexperiencedbyindividualslivingnearcontaminatedwellsites.

48LBGExpertreportNovember2014Section3.4.3.1.

49USEPA1989,p.6‐34.

Page 29: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page26

Thepopulationintheseruralareasisincreasing,50whichmeansthatevenmorepeoplewilllivenearcontaminatedwellsitesandabandonedpitsinthefuture.Riskassessmentmethodologyrequiresevaluatingriskatfuturepotentialdrinkingwatersourcesandotherexposuremedia.Bothcurrentandfutureexposurelocationsweresampledandevaluated,andtheyareappropriate.

2.7.4 Exposure To Sediments And To Surface Water Is Evaluated Appropriately 

ClaimantscontendthatIevaluatedthedermaluptakeofcontaminantsinsedimentinappropriately.AccordingtoDr.McHugh:“TPHmeasuredinthesurfacewatersampleswasnotdissolved,butratherwasassociatedwithsedimentpresentinthewatersamples,assuminguptakefrombothsedimentandsurfacewaterdouble‐countstheexposureresultinginanoverestimationofriskfromdermaluptake.”51

Dr.McHugh’spremisethattheTPHmeasuredinwaterisassociatedwithsedimentisnotsubstantiated.LBGhasshownthatoil(measuredasTPH)inwatersamplescanbeintheformofanemulsion,i.e.,amixtureofwaterandoil,likeshakenupsaladdressing.Inothercases,itisasheen,aseparatephaseinthewater,orasoildropletsasshowninphotographsintheLBGopinion.52Thus,theTPHmeasuredinwaterisnotnecessarilysedimentassociated.AndeveniftheTPHweresediment‐associated,exposuretosedimentoccursviatwodifferentandindependentexposurepathways(dermalexposuretowateranddermalexposuretosediment).USEPAmethodologycallsforevaluatingtheseexposurepathwaysseparatelyandcombiningtheresultstocalculatethecumulativerisksofexposurefromallpathways.53

2.7.5  Dr. McHugh’s Citation Of His Personal Experience Is Culturally Inappropriate And An Unreliable Basis To Develop Exposure Parameters In The Concession Area 

Claimantsandtheirconsultantsclaimthatmyuseofdatacollectedusingvalidsocialsciencemethodologyis“anecdotal”andthusunreliable.YetDr.McHughoffersopinionsbasedonhispersonalexperienceinadifferentclimate,lifestyle,andculture.Forexample,Dr.McHugh’sstatement–“Inmyexperience,parentstrytominimizethetimerequiredtobathetheirinfants”–doesnotprovideabasisforassessingbathinghabitsintheConcessionArea.AsIdeterminedfrommyinterviewswithpeoplelivingnearthecontaminatedwellsites,bathingisforbothcleaningandrelieffromtheheat.

50Observationsofnewhousingconstruction,conversionofforestedlandtofarmuse,andrapidgrowthofsmallertowns(suchasShushufindi)reportedbyLBG,andINECdataforConcessionAreacantonsshowthatbothurbanandruralpopulationsaregrowing.

51ExpertopinionofThomasE.McHugh,May2014.p.5.

52LBGExpertReportNovember2014.Section3.4.1.

53USEPA1989,pp.8‐15ff.

Page 30: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page27

Dr.McHughsuggeststhatIhadnotaddressedhispreviouscriticismregardingmyuseof“anecdotaldata”54principallytheBeristainetal.studywiththeEnglishtitle“WordsfromtheRainforest.”55Onthecontrary,IdidaddresshiscriticisminmyDecember2013opinion.Inanyevent,theinformationintheBeristainreportisconsistentwiththeinterviewreportspreparedbyClaimants’consultantsoftheresidentssurroundingwellsduringtheirPre‐inspectionInvestigations,interviewswithsomeofthesameresidentswhomIspokewith,observationsofhealtheffectsofoilspillsoutsideoftheConcessionArea(andoutsideofEcuador)56,andinformationonindigenousculturedocumentedbyanthropologyandotherstudies.57

3.0  Supplemental Opinion: Petroleum Contamination Has Reduced Local Food Resources, Including Farm Animals, Crops, And Fish.   The Reduced Availability Of Home‐Produced Food Has Had An Adverse Impact On The Health Of The Local Population That Relies On These Resources. 

Farmanimalsintendedforfooduse,includingcows,chickens,ducks,andpigscomeintocontactwithsoil,sediment,andsurfacewater.Terrestrialwildlifethatarehuntedforgameaswellasdomesticanimalssuchashorsesandpetsalsocomeintocontactwithsoil,sediment,andsurfacewater.Bothwildfishandthoseraisedinfarmpondscomeintocontactwithsedimentandsurfacewater.Crudeoil‐relatedcontaminationhasbeendetectedaboveconcentrationsknowntoaffectfarmanimalsandfishatmanyofthewellsites.

3.1 Loss Of Livestock 

TheAPIdevelopedguidanceforcleaningupcrudeoiltoprotectlivestockoncontaminatedlands,specificallyincludinglandcontaminatedbyclosedoilpitsthatweredugaspartofthewellinstallation.58TheAPIguidanceassumesthattherearenoopenpitsorotherfreeoilaccumulationsontheground,consistentwithindustryandregulatoryguidancedatingbacktoatleastthe1990s.

54ExpertopinionofThomasE.McHugh,May2014.p.6.(insection3).

55Beristain,CM,DPRovira,andIFernadez.2009.WordsfromtheRainforest.ApsychosocialstudyoftheimpactofTexaco’spetroleumoperationsonthecommunitiesofEcuador’sAmazon.EnglishtranslationofLasPalabrasdelaSelva.

56LaffonExpertReport2014;StraussRejoinderReportDecember2013;StraussexpertopinionFebruary2013.

57c.f.Martínezetal.2007ImpactsofPetroleumActivitiesfortheAchuarPeople.ofthePeruvianAmazon:SummaryofExistingEvidenceandResearchGaps.Env.Res.Lett.2:1‐10.Sirén,A.;J.Machoa2008.Fish,wildlifeandhumannutritionintropicalforests:Afatgap?Interciencia33(3)pp.186‐193.

58API2004.RiskBasedScreeningLevelsfortheProtectionofLivestockExposedtoPetroleumHydrocarbons.Publicationno.4733.

Page 31: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page28

Guidancewasneededbecause:

“Consumptionofpetroleumhydrocarbonsbylivestockhasbeenfoundtolead toa rangeofhealthproblems, includingneurotoxicity, fetal toxicity,damagetothegastrointestinaltract,respiratorysystem,kidney,andliver.Petroleum ingestionhas alsobeen linked to anorexia, lethargy, and fatalpoisoningincattle.”59(referencesdeleted).

APIdevelopedriskbasedsoilandwaterscreeningvaluesforlivestocksuchascowsandhorsesthatarepastured,butnotchickensandducks,whichitassumedareraisedinenclosedareas.However,intheConcessionArea,chickenandducksgenerallyroamfreely,andthusarealsosubjecttoinjurybyoil.

Becauseitassumedtherearenoopenpits,API’slivestockguidanceisbasedontheconceptualmodeldepictedbelowinwhichaclosedpitreleasespetroleumcontaminationtosoilandtosurfacewater(eitherbyoverlandfloworthroughgroundwater).Inthismodel,livestockareexposedwhenconsumingsoilalongwithplantmaterialsduringgrazing,andbyingestionofcontaminateddrinkingwater.

Source(API,2006)60 

59Ibid.p.2‐1.60AmericanPetroleumInstitute(API)2006.LivestockExposureBrochure.APICreativeServices|2006‐059|06.06|300.

Page 32: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page29

ChevronemployeesSaraMcMillenandRenaeMagawweremembersoftheworkgroupandreviewcommitteethatdevelopedtheAPIlivestockguidance.GSIhasusedlivestockriskbasedscreeninglevelsinthepast,61andpreparedanissuepaperonlivestockexposureintheOriente,includingdevelopmentofrisk‐basedscreeninglevelsforpigs,ducks,andchickens.62Unfortunately,documentationofhowtheselevelswerederivedwasnotprovidedinthepaper.Thechartbelowhighlightsthesixwellsitesthatviolatetheindustrystandardofnosurfaceaccumulationsofoilinagriculturalareas.Italsocomparesriskbasedscreeninglevelsprotectiveoffarmanimalssuchascows,horses,goats,andsheepwithTPHconcentrationsfoundincertainsurfacesoilsnearthewellsitesinvestigatedbyLBGin2014.63SurfaceandshallowsedimentdatawerecomparedwithAPI’sriskbasedscreeninglevelsatallwellsitesfromwhichdatawerecollected.ThesiteswhereatleastonesoilorsedimentsampleexceededtheAPIscreeninglevelsaremarkedwitharedoval(soil)ortriangle(sediment).Thechartalsosummarizesreportsofharmtocropsoranimalsbasedoninterviewsintheclickabledatabaseorbyinterviewsconductedwithlandowners/tenantsduringmysitevisitinJune2014.

61GSI0520535.

62GSI0769161.

63Nosurfacesoilsampleswerecollectedinthe2013siteinvestigation.

Page 33: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page30

Page 34: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page31

Elevenofthe13wellsitesexaminedhadobservablesurfaceaccumulationsofpetroleum,oratleastoneexceedanceofariskbasedlivestockscreeninglevelorcropscreeninglevel.LBGconductedonlylimitedsiteinvestigationsatthevariouswellsites.NosurfacesoilsampleswerecollectedinthecropareaatLA16norinthewetlandsareaatSSF43whereanimalsreportedlycontactedcontaminationanddied.Thus,absenceofanexceedanceshouldnotbeinterpretedasabsenceofcontamination.Asseeninthefinalcolumn,thepetroleumcontaminationcausesobservableharmstofarmanimals,oftenresultinginthelossoftheanimalandthefoodorcashincomeitwouldprovide.

3.2 Contamination Of Fish Pond At SSF‐13 

ThefarmatSSF13hasafishpondsimilartomanyintheregion,wherefishsuchastilapiaareraisedforpersonalconsumptionandpossiblyalsoforsale.However,nofishwereobservedinthispondduringtheLBGfieldworkinJune2014.AsedimentsamplecollectedfromthepondhadaTPHTEMconcentrationof320mg/kg.ThesurfacewaterhadTPH8015of153ug/L;naphthenicacids,whichcouldonlyhavecomefromcrudeoil,werepresentat3.7ug/L.64Inotherwords,residuesofcrudeoilhavereachedandcontaminatedthesurfacewaterandsedimentofthisfishpond.

3.3 Implications Of Livestock, Fish, Wild Game And Crop Loss 

Thelossoflivestockandcrops,chickens,ducks,eggs,andtilapiaponds,representsthelossofbothfoodforresidentsandcashincome.Thelossoffishinstreamsandwildgame65alsorepresentsalossoffoodforthesubsistencefarmersandindigenouspeople.66Thelossoffoodhasimportanteffectsonnutrition,includinglossofbothcaloriesandabalanceddietincludingfatandprotein.67TheselossesareparticularlyimportantintheConcessionAreabecausethechildrenarealreadynutritionallydeficientasevidencedbyanapproximately50%rateofanemiainchildrenunder5.68Most,butnotall,oftheanemiarespondstotreatmentwithsupplementalvitaminsandiron,whichmeansthattheanemiaisduetoundernourishment.Thislocalestimateofnutrition‐relatedanemiaisconsistentwiththeWorldHealthOrganization’sstatisticsonchronicmalnutritioninruralareasofEcuador.69

64LBGExpertReport2014.Section3.4.3.2.

65Beristainetal.2009opcit;JoséGuamánwitnessstatement(alsointerviewJuly2013).

66Martínezetal.2007op.cit.

67SirénandMachoa2008opcit.

68EstimatebasedoninterviewwithDr.AngelJaraPinto,SubCentrodeSaludLaVictoriaon6/13/14.69TheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)2013reportsthatchronicmalnutritioninruralareasofEcuadordecreasedfrom42.8%in1999to35.5%in2006,althoughtherateistwicethatamongindigenouspopulations.

Page 35: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page32

Thehealthimpactsofundernourishmentandmalnutritionarewellknown.TheWorldBank70,initssummaryofEcuador,providesageneral,laysummaryofthehealthimpactofundernourishment:

Undernourishedchildrenhaveanincreasedriskoffallingsickandgreaterseverityofdisease.

Undernourishedchildrenwhofallsickaremuchmorelikelytodiefromillnessthanwell‐nourishedchildren.

Inthelanguageofriskassessment,thelossoffoodanimalsandcropsmakestheresidentsoftheConcessionAreaasusceptiblepopulationandthusmoresensitivetothetoxiceffectsoftheoilpollution.

4.0  Supplemental Opinion:  Dr. Moolgavkar Used Highly Flawed Data As The Basis Of His Cancer Study, Making His Results And Conclusions Unreliable And Uninformative 

Dr.MoolgavkarcitedanopinionpiecebyJ.P.A.Ioannidistitled“WhyMostPublishedResearchFindingsareFalse”71inhisMay2014expertopinion.Ironically,hisrecentlypublishedpapertitled“CancermortalityandquantitativeoilproductionintheAmazonregionofEcuador,1990‐2010”72mostcertainlyfallsintothecategoryoffalseresearchfindings.

4.1  Cancer Mortality Data From The Oriente Are Unreliable 

Dr.Moolgavkar’sanalysishasafundamentalflaw:themortalitydataonwhichhebaseshisanalysis,deathcertificatedatafromtheAmazonregion,areunreliablewithrespecttocancerdeaths.Obviously,theuseofunreliabledatayieldsresultsthatarenon‐informativeatbest,anditcanleadtofalseandmisleadingconclusions.Dr.MoolgavkarandcolleaguesobtainedalloftheirunderlyingcancermortalitydatafromtheInstitutoNacionaldeEstadisticayCensos(INEC),whichinturnderivesitsdatafromdeathcertificatedatasubmittedbyhealthcareworkersthroughoutEcuador.InterviewswithseveralhealthcareprovidersintheConcessionArea,includingphysicianswhowritedeathcertificates,revealedseveralreasonswhydeathcertificatedatafromtheConcessionAreaareunreliableandmaysubstantiallyunderreporttheexistenceofcancer.

70WorldBank(undated).EcuadorNutritionataGlance.(downloadedfromtheWorldBankwebsiteinOctober2014).TheWorldBankgoesontoprovideitssummaryoftheeconomicimpactofundernourishment,butthatisbeyondthescopeofmyopinion.

71Ioannidis,JohnP.A.2005.WhyMostPublishedResearchFindingsareFalse.PLoSMedicine,2(8)e124.

72Moolgavkar,SH,Change,ET,Watson,H,Lau,EC.2014.CancerCausesControl25:59‐72.

Page 36: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page33

ThedirectorofHospitalProvincialMarcoVinicioIzaLagoAgriotoldmethatdeathcertificatesarenotoriouslyinaccurateintermsofactualcauseofdeath.Henotedthattheyoftencitetheimmediatecauseofdeath(e.g.,cardiacarrestormulti‐organfailure)ratherthantheunderlyingcauseofdeath(e.g.,cancer,heartdisease,diabetes).Similarly,adoctoratShushufindiHospitaltoldmethateveryonegetsadeathcertificateandconfirmedthatcancerwouldrarelyifeverbelistedasacauseofdeathonadeathcertificate.Further,anunknownbutpotentiallylargepercentageofcancersintheConcessionAreaarenotdiagnosedformally,73whichcanbedoneonlyatcertainhospitalsrunbytheSociedaddeLuchaContraelCáncer(SOLCAhospitals)thatspecializeincancer.74ResidentsintheConcessionAreaareusuallyreferredtotheSOLCAhospitalinQuito.ManyhealthcareprovidersintheConcessionAreapointedoutthatpoorpeoplerarelyseekformaldiagnosisortreatmentbecauseofthemanybarrierstheyfaceingettingtoQuito.Theresidentslivingnearesttothewellsites,thosemostexposedtooil,areamongthepoorestoftheConcessionArea(basedonhousingtype,accesstocleanwater,electricity,sanitarywastedisposal,andothermeasures).Theyaremostatriskofcancerfromoilexposuresandyetleastlikelytobecountedincancerincidenceandcancermortalitystudies.Onedoctorestimatedthat90%ofthechildrenreferredtoQuitofortreatmentdon’tgo.Significantly,hisestimateisbasedononlythoseresidentswhovisitShushufindiHospital;theremaybealargenumberofsickpeoplewhodonotevenmaketheinitialvisittothelocalhospital.Thehealthcareworkersinterviewedataprimarycareclinic,18thdeNoviembreCentrodeSalud,whichreferspatientstoShushufindiHospital,reportedbarrierstoaccess,suchaslackoftransportation,toeventhislocalhospital.AnotherdoctorattheProvincialHospitalinLagoAgrioalsoreportedthatnotallpatientsgotoQuitofordiagnosisandtreatment,andhispatientsincludethosewhohavethemeanstogettothemainprovincialhospital.TheinadequacyofdeathcertificatedatafromtheOrienteiswell‐knownandtakenintoaccountineconomicdevelopmentplansforprovinces.Forexample,the2011DevelopmentPlanforOrellana,referringtothetwonationalregistriesfortheprincipalcausesofdeath,pointsoutthat“[i]tisimportanttotakeintoaccountthattheinformationfrombothsourcesisnotalwayscompletegiventhat,inmanycases,deathstakeplaceinremoteplacesintheregionwithoutobtainingmedicalassistanceorevaluation.”75 Itisunknowablehowmanyofthesedeathsmayhavebeenduetocancer.

73Theyarestronglysuspectedtohavecancerbasedonclinicalindications,whichiswhytheyarereferredtoQuito.

74TheexceptiontothismaybecervicalcancerthatcanbediagnosedatthehospitalinLagoAgrio.However,thiscapabilityonlybecameavailable4yearsago(2010);attheveryendofthetimeperiodstudiedbyMoolgavkaretal.

75GobiernoAutónomoProvincialdeOrellana2011.PlandeDesarrollodelaProvinciadeOrellana.CaracterizaciónProvincial.P.177.TheoriginalSpanishis:“esimportantetenerencuentaquelainformacióndeambasfuentesnosiempreescompletayaque,enmuchoscasos,lasmuertessucedenenlugaresapartadosdelaregiónsinqueselogrecontarconasistenciaoevaluaciónmédica.”

Page 37: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page34

BecausethemortalitydataunderlyingMoolgavkar’scancerstudyareinaccurate,theonlypossibleconclusionisthatthestudyisnon‐informativeregardingcancerdeathsinoilproducingareas;anyconclusionsdrawnfromthestudyareunsubstantiated.

4.2  Dr. Moolgavkar Uses An Inappropriate Measure Of Oil Exposure  

Dr.Moolgavkarclaimsthathisnewstudyimprovesupontheexposurecomponent(andothercomponents)ofthestudypublishedin2009byKelshandco‐workers.76Bydoingso,healsoimplicitlyclaimsthatitisbetterthantheexposuremetricusedbyHurtigandSanSebastianintheirpublication.77IdisagreethatMoolgavkar’smeasureofexposureisbetterthanpriorstudies,andIcontinuetoholdtheopinionthattheexposuremetricusedbyHurtigandSanSebastianismoreappropriatefortwoimportantreasons:

HurtigandSanSebastianfocusedtheirstudyontheConcessionAreawhereTexpetoperated.Incontrast,MoolgavkarandKelshincludedalloil‐producingareas(Cascales,Cuyabeno)whereotheroilcompaniesweretheoperators.OnlyTexpet’spracticesarerelevanttothequestionofhealtheffectscausedbyTexpet.

HurtigandSanSebastianrequiredthatexposuretakeplaceoveralongperiodoftime(20years),consistentwiththecommonunderstandingthatcancerdevelops(inadults)followingprolongedexposure.Incontrast,Moolgavkarquantifiedoilexposureby“well‐year”,thecumulativenumberofoilwellsandtotalyearsoftheirexistence,modifiedbyoilproductionvolumeasifitwereequallydistributedforeachwell.Moolgavkerdoesnotrequireanextendedperiodofexposure.IntheMoolgavkar(andKelsh)exposuresystem,anewlyinstalledhighproducingwellcancountasmuchasanolder,lowerproducingwell,althoughtheolderwellcouldeasilyposemorerisk.Moreover,exposurefromabandonedwells,severalofwhichwereevaluatedinmyHHRAintheprevioussection,arenotincludedintheMoolgavkar/Kelshexposuresystem.GiventhatexposureintheOrienteislargelythroughunremediatedpitsandspills,neitherofwhichgoawaywhenawellisabandoned,itisunreasonabletoexcludethem.

AnadditionalproblemwithDr.Moolgavkar’smethodologyisthathesortedoil‐exposedandunexposedcantonsbasedonoilactivityasof1990.However,someofhisunexposedcantonshavehadsubstantialoildevelopmentpost‐1990,asindicatedinhisTable1.Thisposesaproblembecauseheevaluatedthisexposed/non‐exposedgroupingusingmortalitydatafrom1990‐2010.Thus,someofthepopulationshedesignatesasunexposedhaveactuallybeenexposedduringtheperiodheisevaluating.Healsoignorescompletelythetimeperiodbetween1970‐1990.

76IopinedonKelsh’sworkinmyfirstExpertOpiniondated2‐18‐13atpp.39‐40.

77HurtigAK,SanSebastianM.2002.GeographicaldifferencesincancerincidenceintheAmazonbasinofEcuadorinrelationtoresidencenearoilfields.IntJEpidemiol,31:1021‐7.

Page 38: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page35

ThemanyinadequaciesrelatedtoepidemiologicalaspectsofDr.Moolgavkar’smethodologieswereaddressedinDr.Grandjean’sexpertopinionofDecember2013.   

Page 39: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page36

Technical Appendix 1: Details Of The Risk Calculations  

IevaluatedthedatacollectedinLBG’sJune/July2014fieldsamplingprogramtoevaluatetheriskofpotentialadversehealtheffectstocurrentandfutureresidentsoftheConcessionAreawhomightbeexposedtotheoilcontamination.IusedthesameexposureassessmentmethodologyandparametersdescribedinmyDecember2013Rejoinderreportforexposuretosurfacewater,groundwater,andsediment,withtheexceptionofthemodifiedbathingtimesdescribedinSection2.3.3.Additionalexplanationfortheexposureparametersappearsinsection2ofthisreport.Iaddedexposurescenariostosurfacesoil(childresidentialandadultfarmerexposures)becausesurfaceandshallowsoildatawerecollectedinthesampling2014program.Inaddition,asdescribedinsection2.4.1ofmyreport,Ievaluatednon‐cancerhazardusingthepreferredwholemixtureapproachinadditiontothecommonlyusedfractionapproach.Thesurfacesoilexposurescenarioisverysimilartothesedimentexposurescenario:itincludessoilingestionanddermalcontact,andrequiresexposureparametersfortheevaluation.Forachild,surfacesoilnon‐cancerhazardisbasedondailyexposureforchildrenwhoingest200mgofsoil,andwhogetdirtontheirheads,hands,feet,forearms,andlowerlegs.Theaverageadherencefactor(AF)forthedirtontheirbodiesis0.2mg/cm2.Thesechildexposureparametersarethe‘default’valuesusedinaresidentialsoilscenarioinaUSEPAriskassessment.78Foradultfarmers,theexposurescenarioisbasedondailycontactwithsoilinanagriculturalsetting,butwithoutmachinesandthedustgeneratedbythem.Thescenarioincorporatesasoilingestionrateof200mg/daybasedontheupperboundestimatesofsoilingestionfromtheStateofCaliforniaasdescribedinsection2.3.2.Itassumesthesameareacoveredwithdirtasthesedimentscenario,namelyface,hands,forearms,lowerlegs,andfeetwithatotalexposedsurfacearea(SA)of6275cm2.Theadherencefactor(AF)is0.13mg/cm2‐event.ItisaweightedaverageofthemeasuredAFsforthesebodypartsinthearcheologistactivityprovidedintheUSEPA’sexposurefactorshandbook,asthesearethemostsimilartotheConcessionAreafarmer.79Theseexposurescenariosrepresentahighend,butnotextreme,exposureunderconditionsintheUS.ForresidentslivingnearwellsitesintheConcessionArea,itismorelikelytobeclosertoacentraltendencyoraverageexposure.

 

78USEPAFebruary2014a,bop.cit.

79USEPA2011(ExposureFactorsHandbook)op.cit.

Page 40: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page37

Technical Appendix 2: Development Of A Reference Dose For Crude Oil   

AnRfDisanestimate(withuncertaintyspanningperhapsanorderofmagnitude)ofadailyoralexposuretothehumanpopulation(includingsensitivegroups,suchasasthmatics,orlifestages,suchaschildrenortheelderly)thatislikelytobewithoutanappreciableriskofdeleteriouseffectsduringalifetime.AnRfDisgenerallyexpressedinunitsofmilligramsperkilogramofbodyweightperday:mg/kg/day.AnRfDisdeterminedbyuseofthefollowingequation:RfD=(experimentalorbenchmarkdose)/uncertaintyfactorsThedosecanbeanexperimentallydeterminednoobservedadverseeffectlevel(NOAEL)orlowestobservedadverseeffectlevel(LOAEL),orabenchmarkdosethatiscalculatedfromtheexperimentaldataandprovidesanestimateofthepopulationthatwouldbeaffected(e.g.,10%)ataspecifieddose.Uncertaintyfactors(UFs)takeintoaccountthevariabilityanduncertaintythatarereflectedinpossibledifferencesbetweentestanimalsandhumans(generally10‐foldor10x)andvariabilitywithinthehumanpopulation(generallyanother10x);theUFsaremultipliedtogether:10x10=100x.IfaLOAELisused,anotheruncertaintyfactor,generally10x,isalsoused.Intheabsenceofkeytoxicitydata(durationorkeyeffects),anextrauncertaintyfactor(s)mayalsobeemployed.SometimesapartialUFisappliedinsteadofthedefaultvalueof10x,andthisvaluecanbelessthanorgreaterthanthedefault.Oftenthepartialvalueis½logunit(thesquarerootof10)or3.16(roundedto3‐foldinriskassessment).Note,thatwhentwoUFsderivedfrom½logunitsaremultipliedtogether(3x3)theresultisa10(equaltothefullUFfromwhichthetwopartialfactorswerederived).Iusedapredictedbenchmarkdose,specificallyaPDR10fromarepeateddoseexperiment,asthebasisforthereferencedosecalculation.80Becausedifferentcrudeoilshavedifferenttoxicities,IusedthelowerendofthedosesofthefourcrudeoilswithAPIgravitieswithin1oofConcessionAreacrude(thenearestPDR10sare:93,202,130,305),specificallyaPDR10of100mg/kg‐d.Iappliedatotaluncertaintyfactorof3000,whichwasacombinationofthefollowingfactors:10xvariabilityinthehumanpopulation10xdifferencesbetweentestanimalsandhumans10xuseofaLOAELratherthanaNOAEL.Afactorof10wasusedfortworeasons:1)thebenchmarkdoseisforaneffectof10%ofthepopulationand2)thebenchmarkdose(orthepredictedbenchmarkdose,orPDR10)isthebestestimate,notthelowerbound

80ThePDR10issimilartoaBMD10exceptitisapredicteddosebasedonAPI’speerreviewedmodel.

Page 41: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page38

estimate(BMDL10)thatUSEPAwouldtypicallyuse.3xuseofarepeateddose(90day)ratherthanlifetimetest.RfD(dermal)=100/3000=0.03mg/kg‐dayIconvertedtheRfD(dermal)toanRfD(oral)usingadermalabsorptionfactorof0.13,USEPA’sdefaultdermalabsorptionfactorforallPAHs.Inotherwords,only13%ofthePACsapplieddermallyreachtargetorgansinsidethebodycomparedtothosetakeninorally.AccountingforthisreductionintoxicitybythedermalrouteleadstoanRfD(oral)of0.004mg/kg‐d.

Page 42: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page39

References 

AlreadyInTheRecordUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).1989.RiskAssessmentGuidanceforSuperfundPartA.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).1991.RoleoftheBaselineRiskAssessmentinSuperfundRemedySelectionDecisions.OSWERDirective9355.0‐30.USEPA.1986.GuidelinesfortheHealthRiskAssessmentofChemicalMixtures.EPA/630/R‐98/002.USEPA.2000.SupplementaryGuidanceforConductingHealthRiskAssessmentofChemicalMixtures.EPA/630/R‐00/002.ASTM1739‐95StandardGuideforRisk‐BasedCorrectiveActionAppliedatPetroleumReleaseSites.JoseGuamánWitnessStatement.AmericanPetroleumInstitute(API),“HighProductionVolume(HPV)ChemicalChallengeProgramCrudeOilCategoryAssessmentDocument,”submittedtotheUSEPAbyAmericanPetroleumInstitutePetroleumHPVTestingGroup,January14,2011.Beristain,CM,DPRovira,andIFernadez.2009.WordsfromtheRainforest.ApsychosocialstudyoftheimpactofTexaco’spetroleumoperationsonthecommunitiesofEcuador’sAmazon.EnglishtranslationofLasPalabrasdelaSelva.Ioannidis,JohnP.A.2005.WhyMostPublishedResearchFindingsareFalse.PLoSMedicine,2(8)e124.Moolgavkar,SH,Change,ET,Watson,H,Lau,EC.2014.CancerCausesControl25:59‐72.HurtigAK,SanSebastianM.GeographicaldifferencesincancerincidenceintheAmazonbasinofEcuadorinrelationtoresidencenearoilfields.IntJEpidemiol2002;31:1021‐7.

ExpertreportsofLBG,Short,GrandjeanandLaffon,2014.

NewReferencesEPA.Feb2014a,bOSWERDirective9200.1‐120.EPA.2011.ExposureFactorsHandbook.EPA/600/R‐09/052F.

Page 43: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page40

OSHA(OccupationalSafetyandHealthAdministration)HeatIndexandProtectiveMeasures(accessedonOSHAwebsiteOct2014).CaliforniaDepartmentofIndustrialRelationsHeatIllnessPreventionStandardTitle8CCR3395:http://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/3395.html.UNICEFdatahttp://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ecuador/exclusive‐breastfeedingMinisteriodeSaludPúblicadelEcuadorFunbbasic/Ibfan.May2009.Iniciativamundialsobretendenciasenlactanciamaternainformenacional.DelBubbaetal2005.PAHsandfatcontentinbreastmilk.AnnaldiChimica95:629‐642.GeneralElectric.2004.ResponsetoaUSEPAriskassessmentfortheHousatonicRiverinMassachusetts.AttachmentE.SelectionofSoilIngestionRates.CAEPA(OEHHA).DraftHotSpotsProgramGuidanceManual.September2014.CAEPA(OHHEA).2009.AppendixB(updated2011).EPA2002.Areviewofthereferencedoseandreferenceconcentrationprocesses.EPA/630/P‐02/002F.API.2004.RiskBasedScreeningLevelsfortheProtectionofLivestockExposedtoPetroleumHydrocarbons.Publicationno.4733.EPA.2005.Toxicologicalreviewofbariumandcompounds.EPA/635/R‐05/001.IPIECA.2010.GloballyHarmonizedSystemforPetroleumSubstances.Version1.CONCAWE(ConservationofCleanAirandWaterinEurope)istheoilandgascompanies’Europeanassociationforenvironment,healthandsafety.2010.Reviewofdermaleffectsanduptakeofpetroleumhydrocarbons.Reportno.5/10.API.2003.HighProductionVolumeChemicalChallengeProgram.Testplancrudeoilcategory.SubmittedtoUSEPAbyAPIpetroleumHPVtestinggroup.November21,2003.USNationalToxicologyProgram.October2014.ReportonCarcinogens,13thedition,MonographonCumene(monographdatedSeptember25,2013).Sirén,A.;J.Machoa.2008.Fish,wildlifeandhumannutritionintropicalforests:Afatgap?Interciencia33(3)pp.186‐193.Martinezetal.2007.ImpactsofPetroleumActivitiesfortheAchuarPeopleofthePeruvianAmazon:SummaryofExistingEvidenceandResearchGaps.Env.Res.Lett.2:1‐10.

Page 44: Chevron Case: Re 26 - Public - Strauss Expert Report (nov. 7, 2014)

November7,2014 page41

WorldHealthOrganization(WHO).2013.CountryCooperationStrategyataGlance.http://www.who.int/countryfocus.

WorldBank(undated).EcuadorNutritionataGlance.(downloadedfromtheWorldBankwebsiteinOctober2014).GobiernoAutónomoProvincialdeOrellana2011.PlandeDesarrollodelaProvinciadeOrellana.CaracterizaciónProvincial.AmericanPetroleumInstitute(API).2006.LivestockExposureBrochure.APICreativeServices|2006‐059|06.06|300.