Document n92OpE6VjjRK2ZkKD4ozOkwg1

OUTLINES OF OPINIONS Amoco Sugar Creek Refinery Case Justin Detel By Stephen E. Petty, P.E., C.I.H. June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 2 June 15, 2006 Plaintiff: Justin Detel Defendants: BP Corporation North America Inc. and BP Products North America Inc. Former American Oil Company (AMOCO) Site. Scope of Work: This scope of work was to determine Justin Detel's likely inhalation benzene exposure, while he lived near the refinery, from when he was born on February 4, 1986, until he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma on approximately May 30, 1997 (Exhibit 02). Introduction: The Sugar Creek, MO neighborhoods, where the plaintiff lived, were located primarily to the south of the former American Oil Company (AMOCO) refinery. This refinery covered approximately 430 acres and operated from 1904 until about 1982. The Amoco Refinery, addressed in this report, was located at 1000 North Sterling Road, in the City of Sugar Creek, Missouri, and was opened in 1904. The refinery closed in 1982. Dismantling began in 1986 and was completed in 1991. Storage tanks in the Tank Farm are still used for product storage today. During its seventy-eight (78) years of operation, the crude refining capacity expanded from about 12,000 barrels per day to a final capacity of some 100,000 barrels per day. Sugar Creek, MO had a population of 3,982 in 1990; is located in Jackson County on the Missouri River, is east/northeast of Kansas City, MO, and is located at 3908'N 9424'W. As early as 1908, a water plant official from the city of Independence, Missouri, reported that the refinery was discharging materials to Sugar Creek, which were negatively impacting their Missouri River water supply. Ultimately, as a result of a shifting sand bar and wintertime conditions, the situation worsened, resulting in a lawsuit on/about 1920 against the refinery (known as Standard Oil at that time). By as early as March 6, 1950, internal American Oil Company (later Amoco and now BP-Amoco) correspondence noted that oil (later identified more properly as gasoline) was reported in a spring on Burton Street, in the Sugar Creek neighborhood, south of the refinery. By 1953, tank leaks were documented as being responsible for oil leaks seen in this spring and creek (Sugar Creek) that flowed through the neighborhood. Available documentation of residents complaining of gasoline odors and of visible oil seen in the neighborhood can be found as early as April 6, 1964. By 1982, it was estimated that as much as 8,232,000 gallons of oil had leaked into the ground and that approximately 1,900,000 gallons of free product had been recovered by various means from 1988 to 1995. Expert reports by Dr. Agostino (Exhibit 11) and Dr. Bedient (Exhibit 12) concluded that a considerable amount of hydrocarbon remains in the ground and that: "The inhalation of hydrocarbon vapors (in particular, benzene) was and is hazardous to the individuals living in off-site areas, such as the Norledge and Norledge/Carlisle areas" Exhibit 11, page 13. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 3 June 15, 2006 "Given the steep topography on-site, the locations of leaking tanks upgradient, and the confirmed contamination on-site and off-site, it is evident that the Amoco Refinery has contributed to massive subsurface contamination to the residential neighborhoods located to the south and south-west of the site" Exhibit 12, page 7). This led Dr. Bedient (Exhibit 12, pg. 7) to conclude that: "The site is one of the worst I have seen in terms of lack of care in handling contamination and remediation." Data strongly suggests that the term "oil", as it applies to oil contamination in/near Sugar Creek was premium leaded gasoline, known to contain up to 5% benzene. Other products have been shown to contain upwards of 15% benzene. Even after the initiation of remedial activities in 1997, groundwater benzene concentrations in the center of the petroleum plume were reported to be at levels up to 21.7 mg/L. Peak concentrations in groundwater under homes were up to 0.5 mg/L. Justin Detel was born on February 4, 1986. On approximately May 30, 1997, at the age of eleven (11) years old, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Exhibit 02). He graduated from high school in May of 2004 and was working at a local K-Mart (highways 24 and 291) as of February 2005. Justin Detel lived at two locations in Sugar Creek, MO. From the time his mom (Kim Detel) was pregnant with him, until he was eight (8) months old, he lived at 108 S. High Street. The balance of the time, he lived with his mom at 11414 Kentucky in Sugar Creek, MO (see Kim Detel's affidavit). In forming my opinions on Justin Detel's inhalation benzene exposure, I have depended on several sources of information, including that from the offices of Mr. Lon Walters, Justin's mother's (Kim Detel) deposition, Amoco documents and information from published literature. The information that I have primarily considered and/or relied on is summarized in Appendices A, B, and C. I have also relied on my knowledge and experience and training as a Chemical Engineer and Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), textbooks and reports on practices by industry for the design of oil/gas unit operations and systems and the control of petroleum contaminants and wastes, and my risk assessment and work experience on petroleum contaminated sites. I leave open the possibility of adding to or modifying my opinions, based on additional information I may receive or review. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 4 June 15, 2006 Opinions: My opinions regarding exposure are: 1. Justin Detel's inhalation benzene exposure, while living at homes on High and Kentucky from 1986 to 1997, was 21.4 PPM-YRS. This exposure result does not include dermal or in-utero exposures. 2. Using a Monte Carlo simulation based on variations of exposure times and the benzene content of gasoline, the 95% range of exposures was from 20.6 PPMYRS to 22.3 PPM-YRS. Summary of Literature on Air Monitoring Results: Information was reviewed that was contained in Amoco documents: Sampling and Modeling (1995 RCRA Facility Investigation Report, 1999 Norledge Area Investigation Report and Exhibits 13 to 21) regarding possible data on monitoring of the air for benzene in Justin's neighborhood from 1986 to 1997. A summary of these documents and findings is provided in Table 1: Table 1: Air Monitoring Documents - Review DOCUMENT TIME FRAME LOCATION OF AIR MONITORING COMMENTS 1995 Amoco RCRA Facility Investigation Report (pg. 8-6). 1999 Amoco Norledge Area Investigation Report Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Pre December 1995 Pre December 1999 May Aug. 1994 June 1998 August 1991 December 1993 January 1994 October 1999 Norledge Avenue Residence Location and date of sampling not stated. Results were at detection limit of 0.05 ppm. Later reported that house may have been open. No relevant data identified. On refinery grounds Seven basements in homes Fillmore residence; 215 N. Hardy Fillmore residence; 215 N. Hardy ATSDR sampling at the Chappell residence; no address provided in document. Problems with moisture and equipment; background levels higher than monitored data near removal of benzene-containing equipment. Not in neighborhood. Grab samples and summa canister samples. After dates of interest. Residents still report odors occur. Suggests OSHA standard of 10 ppm benzene should be adequate in home's unoccupied basement. Report of odors. OVM badges reported 6 ppb; instructions suggest best day to use is when it's raining? Also, Mr. Fillmore asked about digging his well deeper! See above comments. Benzene levels from non-detect to 2 ppb. Reportedly samples taken on day when "no odors were evident." After period of interest. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 5 June 15, 2006 DOCUMENT Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 TIME FRAME October 1999 August 1991 August 1993 1998 - 1999 March 1991 Feb. April 2001 LOCATION OF AIR MONITORING COMMENTS Analytical results of air sampling at the Chappell residence. Kentucky/Vermont; Kentucky/Gerber Hill; and Norledge/Northern Eight (8) unoccupied homes in Norledge area. October 1999. Samples of air near monitoring wells. Air monitoring near corner of Northern and Burton. See previous comments. Same as Exhibit 15. Used new instrument called a Scentometer to monitor odors, including samples where a resident complained of odors. Table reports no odors detected; table says results <2 thresholds. Looks like an experimental apparatus; no basis for interpretation of results provided. The following conclusion language is somewhat odd: "The results of the Scentometer monitoring shows that even when noxious odors from the bioremediation project are present, the odor levels are within the acceptable odor range and therefore are not nuisance odors." One sample contained 16.3 g/m3 benzene. Data taken after timeframe of interest. Sample results varied from 0 to 15 ppm; most on lower end of range. Benzene detected in 11 or 20 samples; highest value was 1.3 ppb. Data taken after period of interest. As can be seen from the summary in Table 1, very little airborne data was taken during the period of interest (1986 to 1997). Interestingly, field measurements taken near monitoring wells in 1991 contained benzene values ranging from 0 to 15 ppm. Exposure Estimates: An inhalation exposure estimate, resulting in PPM-YRS of benzene exposure, was completed. The analysis was based on an assessment of Justin Detel's exposure times while at/near his homes on 108 S. High Street and11414 Kentucky in Sugar Creek, MO. His mom (Kim) was pregnant with Justin and lived at 108 S. High Street until he was eight months old. The balance of the time, he lived with his mom at 11414 Kentucky in Sugar Creek, MO (see Kim Detel's affidavit). A map of these two locations follows in Figures 1 and 2: Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 6 June 15, 2006 Figure 1: 108 S. High Street and 11414 Kentucky Close-up Lawn Mowing Area FORMER AMOCO REFINERY Creek Wading Area Figure 2: 108 S. High Street and 11414 Kentucky Expanded View Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 7 June 15, 2006 The benzene levels in air are based on recollections of gasoline odors in air by Kim Detel, odor recognition levels of gasoline in air, and the benzene content of gasoline. Details on the basis of these estimates, along with results, follow. Work History: No work history was used in these analyses since Justin Detel was just over eleven (11) years old at the time he contracted non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Estimates of Exposure Times: Based on Kim Detel's affidavit, data on the time Justin Detel spent at each location, are summarized in Table 2: Table 2: Time History at Residences Background Information: Residential History: Living Location: 108 S. High Street 11414 Kentucky TOTAL Years: 0.6 10.6 11.2 Units years years years Timeframe: 2/86 to 10/86 10/86 to 5/97 As shown in Table 2, Justin Detel lived at the 108 S. High Street location for approximately 0.6 years and at the 11414 Kentucky location for 10.6 years, for a total time of 11.2 years. To calculate equivalent PPM-YRS exposure, a PPM-YR defined as ETY was estimated to be 120,000 minutes. This was based on the following assumptions: Minutes per hour Hours per day Days per week Weeks per year 60.0 8.0 5.0 50.0 The total minutes in a year was estimated to be 525,600. Estimated PPM-YRS exposure times at each residence, with time, are summarized in Table 3: Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 8 June 15, 2006 Table 3: Exposure Time Estimates 108 S. High Street Location: Time frame Years Total Minutes School Hrs/Week mid 2/86 to 10/86 0.6 328,500 TOTAL 11414 Kentucky Location: 0 Time frame Years Total Minutes School Hrs/Week 10/86 to 1/87 1/87 to 1/88 1/88 to 1/89 1/89 to 1/90 1/90 to 1/91 1/91 to 8/91 8/91 to 1/92 1/92 to 1/93 1/93 to 1/94 1/94 to 1/95 1/95 to 1/96 1/96 to 1/97 1/97 to 5/97 0.3 131,400 1.0 525,600 1.0 525,600 1.0 525,600 1.0 525,600 0.6 306,600 0.4 219,000 1.0 525,600 1.0 525,600 1.0 525,600 1.0 525,600 1.0 525,600 0.3 175,200 TOTAL 10.6 TOTAL YEARS (PPM-YEAR BASIS) 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.5 28.75 40 40 40 40 40 School Min./Year 0 School Min./Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,750 74,750 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 41,600 Vacation Min./Year 0 Vacation Min./Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shopping Min./Yr. 6,240 Shopping Min./Yr. 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 Net Time at Home Minutes 322,260 Net Time at Home Minutes 125,160 519,360 519,360 519,360 519,360 300,360 190,010 444,610 415,360 415,360 415,360 415,360 127,360 % Time Smelled Gasoline 75% Minutes @ Home Smelling Gasoline 241,695 % Time Smelled Gasoline 75% 63% 63% 63% 63% 63% 63% 63% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Minutes @ Home Smelling Gasoline 93,870 324,600 324,600 324,600 324,600 187,725 118,756 277,881 207,680 207,680 207,680 207,680 63,680 ETEY Years (PPM) @ home 2.0 2.0 Years (PPM) @ home 0.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.6 1.0 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.5 23.9 25.9 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 9 June 15, 2006 As shown in Table 3, Justin Detel had 2.0 PPM-YRS of exposure time while living at the 108 S. High Street and 23.9 PPM-YRS of exposure time while living at the 11414 Kentucky residence, for a total inhalation exposure time of 25.9 years. Estimates of the Benzene Content of Gasoline: In documents provided to date, Amoco self-reported the benzene content of gasoline in 1963 at 0.7% (Exhibit 4) and in 1981 ranged from 3.2% to 5.4%. MSDS sheets (see Appendix E) typically report the benzene content of gasoline ranging from 1% to 5%; Amoco, in their 1993 MSDS, reported the benzene content of their gasoline at 4%. Nationally, the benzene content of gasoline has decreased over the years. Further, the concentration also varies seasonally, being somewhat higher in the winter months. For the period of 1986 through 1999, the U. S. national average benzene concentration was 1.37% ranging from 1.6% in 1990 to 1.14% in 2003 [Federal Register, 2006]. For this case, a conservative and reasonable value for the benzene content of gasoline used was 1.37%, reflecting the U.S. national average for the period from 1990 to 2003. Estimates of Benzene Exposure from Gasoline Exposure in PPM-YRS: In general, the PPM-YRS for inhalation exposure were calculated by multiplying the concentration of benzene in the air, Ca(benzene) in ppm by the effective exposure time (in standard PPM-YRS of time) as follows: Eq. (1) PPM-YRS = Ca(benzene) ETEY The term ETEY defines the years at home for a given period. This is based on the minutes at home divided by the minutes per year for a PPM-YR of exposure (120,000 minutes/year) as follows: Eq. (2) ETEY = ETa / 120,000 minutes/PPM-YR time ETa is the time for a certain exposure while at home in minutes. The terms used to calculate ETEY values from Eq. (2) are given in Table 3 and the text that follows. Specific ETEY values with time can be found in the last column of Table 3. The remaining term to be determined for calculating PPM-YRS in Eq. (1) is the concentration of benzene in the air inhaled by Justin Detel while living in/near his Sugar Creek homes. This benzene in air concentration, Ca (benzene), was determined by the use of gasoline odor threshold data of Drinker et al. [1943] (see Appendix D for a detailed summary of this work). A summary of information from the Drinker reference is provided in Appendix D. A brief summary of odor responses, by gasoline concentration, from Drinker's data is shown below: Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 10 June 15, 2006 Concentration (ppm) Odor Response(s) 140 - 160 270 500 900 2,600 10,700 - 11,200 Detectable odor; loss of odor beginning in as little as 1 hour; at 140 described as disinfectant by some subjects. Detectable odor entire 8 hours; one subject had loss of odor after 6 hours. Detectable odor by all nine subjects; described as weak by 5 of 8 and strong by 3 of 8. Detectable odor by all six subjects; 4 of 6 describe as strong. Described as "very strong" by six subjects. Detectable odor, immediately. Based on the Drinker data, the following approach was used to determine gasoline vapor concentrations by odor response in modeling Justin Detel's benzene exposure: ConcentrationGasoline (ppm) Odor Responses(s) Physiological Responses(s) 150 Weak, detectable odor None 300 Moderate to strong odor Slight moderate eye irritation 600 Strong to very strong odor Moderate eye and throat irritation No physiological responses were noted in Kim Detel's deposition, but she noted that the odor of gasoline in/near her homes in the 1986 to 1991 timeframe was "very strong." However, because no gasoline vapor-related physiological response was noted in her deposition, a conservative gasoline vapor concentration of 150 ppm was used whenever Kim Detel reported smelling the odor of gasoline. The benzene vapor in air release rate was based on the following formula [Runion, 1975]: Eq. (3) Ca (benzene) = 0.4 Ca (gasoline) (%benzene/100) The Drinker odor-response data provided a method for calculating the gasoline vapor concentration, Ca (gasoline). The benzene vapor concentration (0.82 ppm) was calculated from the gasoline vapor concentration (150 ppm) using 1.37% benzene content in gasoline and Eq. (15). Results of the calculations are shown in Table 4. This result (0.82 ppm) was remarkably consistent with Tironi, G., and D. G. Hodgkins (1991) data, which would have predicted a benzene concentration of 0.9 ppm. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 11 June 15, 2006 Note in Table 4 that the average total predicted benzene inhalation exposure was 21.3 PPM-YRS. This inhalation exposure estimate used conservative values for the gasoline benzene concentrations with time. In fact, Amoco data (MSDS and analytical) for the time period suggest that the benzene content of Sugar Creek gasoline was between 3.2% and 4% with one reported result that it may have been at/above 5.0%. If a 3.2% benzene content of gasoline had been used, the total exposure would have been ~50 PPM-YRS. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 12 Table 4: Input and Output for Justin Detel's Inhalation Benzene Exposure Living Location: Time frame 108 S. High Street Mid 2/86 to 10/86 11414 Kentucky 10/86 to 1/87 11414 Kentucky 1/87 to 1/88 11414 Kentucky 1/88 to 1/89 11414 Kentucky 1/89 to 1/90 11414 Kentucky 1/90 to 1/91 11414 Kentucky 1/91 to 8/91 11414 Kentucky 8/91 to 1/92 11414 Kentucky 1/92 to 1/93 11414 Kentucky 1/93 to 1/94 11414 Kentucky 1/94 to 1/95 11414 Kentucky 1/95 to 1/96 11414 Kentucky 1/96 to 1/97 11414 Kentucky 1/97 to 5/97 TOTAL BENZENE EXPOSURE (PPM-YRS) Exposure Years: 2.0 0.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.6 1.0 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.5 26.0 Units years years years years years years years years years years years years years years Gasoline Concentration (PPM) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Benzene Gas. Conc. (%) 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% 1.37% Benzene Air Concentration (PPM) 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PPM-YRS 1.7 0.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.3 0.8 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.4 21.3 June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 13 June 15, 2006 The green-color cells seen in Tables 3 and 4 contain a range of values and were utilized in a Monte Carlo simulation discussed in the next section. Estimates of Inhalation Benzene Exposure PPM-YRS Monte Carlo Analysis: It is constructive to look at the effect of varying key parameters to determine their impact on results, in this case, benzene exposure. To accomplish this, a Monte Carlo simulation program by Decisionering was utilized. It is an add-on program to Microsoft ExcelTM and is accessed as a custom tool bar. Variables allowed varying, and the degree to which they were varied, are summarized below: Variable: Percent Time Smell Gasoline: Benzene Content of Gasoline Range of Values Considered: For time frames from 1987 to 1991, a range of 50% to 75% time gasoline odor was smelled was utilized. Used range of 1.14% to 1.6%. Benzene percentages in gasoline were taken from the U.S. national average benzene concentrations of 1.6% in 1990 and 1.14% in 2003 [Federal Register, 2006]. This range of values was considered conservative. Amoco memorandum from Gorp reported benzene levels in Amoco gasoline as high as 5.4% benzene by volume in 1981; the 1993 Amoco gasoline MSDS reported the benzene content of gasoline at 4%. Each range of values was considered to be distributed normally. The simulation was run 100,000 times. Output from this simulation is summarized in Figure 3 and Table 5: Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 14 June 15, 2006 100,000 Tri als .022 Forecast: BenzeneExposure FrequencyChart 99,240 Di spl ayed 2214 .017 .011 .006 5 53 . 5 .000 2 0. 3 2 0. 9 2 1. 5 P P M-Y RS 2 2. 1 2 2. 6 0 Figure 3: Simulated Benzene Exposure (PPM-YRS) The 95% range of exposures was from 20.6 PPM-YRS to 22.3 PPM-YRS. Statistics and percentiles from the simulation are summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Exposure Simulation Statistics and Percentiles Statistics Trials Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis Coeff. of Variability Minimum Maximum Range Width Mean Std. Error Percentiles 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 50.0% 95.0% 97.5% 100.0% Forecast values 100,000 21.5 21.5 --0.4 0.2 0.03 2.98 0.02 19.6 23.3 3.7 0.00 Forecast values 19.6 20.6 20.8 21.5 22.2 22.3 23.3 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 15 June 15, 2006 Discussion: The following factors contributed to conservative results in the overall calculated exposure: No quantification of dermal exposure while wading in the creek near Norledge and Carlisle (see discussion below). No exposure was assumed while away from the home on shopping trips. No quantification of in-utero exposure. The gasoline concentrations used from Drinker in the model were well below those that could have been used for a strong odor, as reported by Kim Detel. The percentage of benzene in gasoline used (1.37%) in the calculations was less than that (4%) reported in Amoco MSDS sheets. The results do not reflect other fuels that were also reportedly released, some of which had benzene concentrations as high as 15%. Also, note that none of the exposure time calculations account for dermal exposure time. In her affidavit, Kim Detel noted that: When Justin was approximately 4 years old, he began accompanying me on walks from our house down toward and along Norledge. We did this every year from approximately 1990 to May, 1997 when he was diagnosed I recall we would walk every day for approximately 1 hour and when the weather permitted from the month of April through and including September. I recall the intensity of gasoline smells would increase dramatically along Norledge and Carlisle. Approximately 3-4 nights a week during this time period, Justin would wade ankle deep in Sugar Creek in the Norledge/Carlisle area. He was usually in the creek for 5-10 minutes wearing rubber sandals. He would also play and dig in the dirt along the Creek as well as by the refinery fence line on Norledge. Given that benzene was known to be present in the creek, soils, and groundwater, and the fact that Justin Detel played in/near Sugar Creek, dermal exposures were likely and have not been included in this analysis. Closing: EES appreciates the opportunity to provide these professional services for the Walters Law Firm, LLC. If you have any questions regarding this case, or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank you, Stephen Petty, P.E., C.I.H. President Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 16 APPENDIX A References June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 17 June 15, 2006 American Industrial Hygiene Association. (AIHA). 1997. Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Health Standards, Fairfax, VA. Amoco, 1999. Norledge Investigation Report - Amoco Former Refinery Sugar Creek, Missouri, prepared by ThermoRetec Consulting Corporation (Project # AMO31-03999310), December 22. Amoco, 1995. Revised RCRA Facility Investigation Report Amoco Sugar Creek Former Refinery, Vol. 1, Sections 1-16, prepared by ThermoRetec Consulting Corporation, December 18. Amoco memorandum from Mr. Kaplan to distribution dated August 22, 1963 (Amoco # 48218 and File # SC078698) Amoco memorandum from G.S. Van Gorp to T. E. Kupferer dated August 12, 1981 (Amoco # 48218 and File # SC078698) ATSDR US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (Website: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/IP-btex/ip05-a.pdf , 1997. Deposition of Dr. Peter Infante, Vol. 1, January 10, 2005, Robert E. Scherer and Melanie Scherer v. S&S Automotive, et. al.,No. 02L435 consolidated with 02L679. DiNardi, R., The Occupational Environment: Its Evaluation, Control, and Management, 2nd Edition, AIHA Press, 2003. Dravnieks, A. 1974. A Building-Block Model for the Characterization of Odorant Molecutles and Their Odors. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 237:144-163. Drinker, P., Yaglou, C.P., and Madeleine Field Warren, "The Threshold Toxicity of Gasoline Vapor", The Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Volume 25, pp.225232, January 1943 December 1943. Egeghy, P.P., Tornero-Velex, R. and Rappaport, S.M., "Environmental and Biological Monitoring of Benzene during Self-Service Automobile Refueling", Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 108, No. 12, pp. 1195 1202, Dec., 2000. Federal Register, Part II, Environmental Protection Agency, Vol 71, Part 60, Proposed Rules, page 15865, March 29, 2006 May, J. 1966. Odor Thresholds of Solvents for Assessment of Solvent Odors in the Air. Staub 26: 385-389 (English translation of German article) Mulhausen, J.R. and Damiano, J., A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures, 2nd Edition, AIHA Press, 1998. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 18 June 15, 2006 Nicas, Mark. 2003. Using Mathematical Models to Estimate Exposure to Workplace Air Contaminants, Chemical Health & Safety, pgs. 14-21, January/February. Proctor, N.H., Hughes, J.P., and Fischman, M.L., 1988. Chemical Hazards of the Workplace, II Ed., 92, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1988. Reid, R. C., J. M. Prausnitz and T. K. Sherwood. "The Properties of Gases and Liquids", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1977. Runion, H.E., "Benzene in Gasoline", AIHA Journal, pp. 338 350, May, 1975. USEPA, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. EPA/600/891/011B. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C., 1992. Tironi, G., and D. G. Hodgkins. 1991. Compliance with OSHA Benzene Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) at the Gasoline Vapor PEL, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg., 6(10), October, pgs. 881-884. USEPA, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002A, June, 1995. USEPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), EPA/540/R/99/005, OSWER 9285.7-02EP,PB99-963312, July, 2004. W.L. Nelson. 1958. Petroleum Refinery Engineering, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 19 June 15, 2006 APPENDIX B Material Received From the Offices of Lon Walters and the Web Page of Blackwell Sanders Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 20 June 15, 2006 EXTRACTIONS FROM EXHIBITS The Walters Law Firm Justin Detel vs. BP Corporation Civil Action No. 04CV207637 LAW-2005-023 Exhibit Description 01 February 8, 2005. Deposition of George John Detel, Justin Detel, Plaintiff, vs. BP Corporation North America, Inc., and BP Products North America, Inc., Defendants. 02 February 8, 2005. Deposition of Kimberly Renee Detel, Justin Detel, Plaintiff, vs. BP Corporation North America, Inc., and BP Products North America, Inc., Defendants. 03 August 12, 1981. Memo To: T. E. Kupferer, From: G.S. Van Gorop, Re: Volume % Benzene in Gasoline Sugar Creek. 04 August 22, 1963. American Oil Company, Letter to Mr. W. Kaglan (sp?) Re Benzene Content Vol. % From P.D. Halley (sp?) 05 March 2, 2001. Agostino Deposition Exhibits, Attachment A: 2001 On-Site Investigation Scoping Document, BP Former Refinery, Sugar Creek, MO. 06 May 25, 2002. Agostino Deposition Exhibits, Attachment B: Corrective Measures Study Norledge Area Addendum-Phase 2 Area Redesign. 07 No Date. Agostino Deposition Exhibits, Figure 1: Plume. 08 No Date. Agostino Deposition Exhibits, Figure 2: Arial. 09 No Date. Agostino Deposition Exhibits, Figure 3: Topography. 10 No Date. Agostino Deposition Exhibits, Figure 4: 3D-View. 11 March 21, 2005. Off-site Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination Resulting from Losses at the Amoco Former Refinery, Sugar Creek, Missouri, by Patrick N. Agostino, Ph.D., P.G. 12 March 18, 2005. Assessment of Contamination in the Norledge Area at the Amoco Refinery in Sugar Creek, Independence, Missouri, Summary of Expert Opinions of Philip B. Bedient, Ph.D., P.E. 13 October 1994. Air Monitoring Results for Former Amoco Refinery, Sugar Creek, MO, 1994, Prepared By David Adelman, Environmental Science Services. SC076475 SC076512 AMO 46088 AMO 46125 14 November 12, 1998. Basement Air Sampling Report, Amoco Oil Company, Sugar Creek, Missouri, Prepared by: ThermoRetec Consulting Corp. SC 157154 SC 157274 15 August 21, 1991. Letter From David Adelman, Environmental Chemist, ESS, to: Mr. Lew Sutton, Field Manager, Amoco Oil Company SC133538 16 Attachment 3. January 27, 1994 September 9, 1991. Memorandums SC073733 SC073743 AMO41093 AMO 41104 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 21 June 15, 2006 EXTRACTIONS FROM EXHIBITS The Walters Law Firm Justin Detel vs. BP Corporation Civil Action No. 04CV207637 LAW-2005-023 Exhibit Description 17 January 27, 1994. Memorandum, Air Monitoring Basement of Mr. and Mrs. Fillmore, 215 N. Hardy, From Jim Blaise, Site Superintendent SC015499 SC125404 18 October 22, 1999. Letter from United States Environmental Protection Agency, Robert E. Aston, Corrective Actions Officer, to: Mr. and Mrs. Chappell, 10440 Norledge. SC 164473 19 October 25, 1999. Letter from Pace Analytical, Tena Tiruneh, Project Manager, to Mr. Bill Solberg, Thermoretec, Re: Pace Project Number: 6034686, Client project ID: Chaple Basement. SC 164495 SC 164505 20 August 28, 1991. Letter from ESS, David Adelman, Environmental Chemist, to, Mr. Lew Sutton, Field Manager, Amoco. SC133538 21 August 5, 1993. Memorandum to: Raier Majewski, Amoco, from: Jay Burns, Ecova, Re: Sugar Creek Refinery Bioremediation Service Contract. SC081771 SC081778 AMO 51221 AMO 51228 22 January 20, 2000. Letter from Amoco, Joseph E. Casebolt, Site Manager, to, Denise Jordan-Izaauirre, ATSDR, Region VII. Re: Indoor Air Sampling Results, Amoco Oil Company, Sugar Creek, Missouri SC 167162 SC 167167 23 March 1991. Air Monitoring Data Sheets, Direct-Reading. SC047211 SC047238 24 February April, 2001. Sugar Creek Air Monitoring Report, by Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, Environmental Services Program. SC 171458 SC 171578 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 22 APPENDIX C Affidavit Ms. Kim Detel June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 23 June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 24 June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 25 June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 26 APPENDIX D Summary of Drinker (1943) Study June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 27 June 15, 2006 Summary of Previous Work: According to a study involving three subjects conducted by the Bureau of Mines in 1921, it was determined that gasoline is a very innocuous substance that will cause different effects on an individual, based on the concentration inhaled. The study results indicate that: 700 to 2800 ppm concentrations of gasoline vapor caused dizziness within 14 minutes. 11300 to 22200 ppm concentrations of gasoline vapor caused great dizziness in 3 minutes. 22200 to 26000 ppm concentrations of gasoline vapor made a man dizzy after 10 to 12 breaths. In 1927, these experiments were repeated with results indicating: 1000 ppm concentrations of gasoline vapor caused mild symptoms of dullness, unsteadiness, and giddiness within 50 minutes. 3000 ppm concentrations of gasoline vapor caused slight irritation of the eyes and moderate symptoms of dizziness within 30 minutes. 7000 ppm concentrations of gasoline vapor caused coughing, marked irritation of the eyes and nose, numbness in the legs and unsteadiness within ten minutes. In 1922, O. M. Spencer reported on a group of workers exposed to vapors of whole gasoline while wiping off moving belts with gasoline. According to Spencer's report, complaints in order of frequency involved: eye irritation, headaches, drowsiness, heaviness in the head, and fatigue. It was concluded by investigators from all three studies that no relation exists between the possible effects of exposure and the quality of gasoline. Current Work: In 1942, an experiment was conducted using two gasolines brought out in analysis from commercial colorless lead-free gasoline. The two gasolines were: Commercial Gasoline (100F to 400F cut) and a Light Fraction of Commercial Gasoline (100F to 110F Cut). The study consisted of nine experiments. Seven experiments were carried out in a specially designed room in which the temperature, humidity, and ventilation rates could be accurately controlled. Subjects within the room were exposed to different concentrations of the two gasolines to determine the health effect of exposure at different levels. The final two experiments consisted of the two gasolines being delivered steadily in specific concentrations into an air-line, where it was vaporized through a face mask held by the subject over his/her nose and face. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 28 June 15, 2006 The following two tables present a summary of each experiment that identifies the test substance used, concentration levels, experiment duration, subject information, noted observations of odor thresholds, noted health effects of exposure and complaints made by the test subjects. TABLE 1: COMMERCIAL GASOLINE CONC. LEVELS EXPOSURE DURATIONS NOTED OBSERVATIONS HEALTH EFFECTS 160 ppm 8 hours (Subjects were exposed to commercial gasoline uniformly distributed through the test areas ventilation system). 270 ppm 8 hours (Subjects were exposed to commercial gasoline uniformly distributed through the test areas ventilation system). 11,200 ppm (Commercial gasoline was delivered steadily into an air-line, where it was vaporized through a face mask held by the subject over his/her nose and face). 5 to 5.5 minutes (test was terminated voluntarily) Detectable odor upon entering area (majority of subjects experienced a loss of odor after 1, 3 and 7 hours). Subjects included 8 women, age 17 to 32. Detectable odor entire duration upon first entering area (one subject experienced a loss of odor after 6 hours). Subjects included 13 men, age 23 to 45. Detectable odor immediately. Subjects included 3 men and 1 woman, age 29 to 45. Examination Hyperemia of the conjunctiva vessels. No redness of throat was noted. Complaints Loss of appetite. Sickness at stomach. Headache. Cough/Throat irritation. Irritation/Itching of eyes. Examination Slight hyperemia of the conjunctiva vessels. Distinct hyperemia of the throat. Complaints Loss of appetite. Dizziness. Sickness at stomach. Cough/Throat irritation. Irritation/Itching of eyes. Examination Dizziness. Incoordination and drunkenness. Cough and sneezing. Complaints Severe nose and throat irritation after 20 seconds to 1 minute. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 29 June 15, 2006 TABLE 2: LIGHT FRACTION OF COMMERCIAL GASOLINE CONC. LEVELS EXPOSURE DURATIONS NOTED ODOR OBSERVATIONS MADE BY SUBJECTS HEALTH EFFECTS 140 ppm 8 hours (Subjects were exposed to a light fraction of commercial gasoline uniformly distributed through the test areas ventilation system). 150 ppm 8 hours (Subjects were exposed to a light fraction of commercial gasoline uniformly distributed through the test areas ventilation system). 500 ppm 1 hour (Subjects were exposed to a light fraction of commercial gasoline uniformly distributed through the test areas ventilation system). 900 ppm 1 hour (Subjects were exposed to a light fraction of commercial gasoline uniformly distributed through the test areas ventilation Detectable odor upon entering area. Described as gasoline by 8 of 10 subjects. Described as some sort of disinfectant by 2 of 10 subjects. Subjects included 10 college girls, age 17 to 22. Detectable odor entire duration upon first entering area. Described as weak by 5 of 8 subjects. Described as strong by 3 of 8 subjects. (Four subjects experienced a loss of odor. Three after 2 hours and one late in the afternoon). Subjects included 8 women, age 17 to 32. Detectable odor entire duration upon first entering area. Described as weak by 3 of 9 subjects. Described as strong by 2 of 9 subjects. 4 of 9 subjects made no comments. Subjects included 9 men, age 23 to 45. Detectable odor within area (one subject indicated that the odor was stronger than previous day but other five subjects could not detect same). Described as strong by 4 of 6 subjects. 2 of 6 subjects made no comments. Examination N/A Complaints Slight sickness at stomach. Slight headache. Slight cough/throat irritation. Slight drowsiness. Slight irritation/itching of eyes. Examination N/A Complaints Loss of appetite. Sickness at stomach. Headache. Cough/Throat irritation. Very slight irritation/itching of eyes. Examination N/A Complaints Headache. Cough/Throat irritation. Irritation/itching of eyes. Examination Dizziness and unsteadiness Complaints Dizziness was not experienced, however, two subjects the following morning experienced unsteadiness of gait and uncertainty in driving. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 30 June 15, 2006 TABLE 2: LIGHT FRACTION OF COMMERCIAL GASOLINE CONC. LEVELS system). EXPOSURE DURATIONS NOTED ODOR OBSERVATIONS MADE BY SUBJECTS Subjects included 6 men, age 23 to 45. 2600 ppm 1 hour (Subjects were exposed to a light fraction of commercial gasoline uniformly distributed through the test areas ventilation system). "Very Strong" Detectable gasoline odor upon first entering area but strength could not be estimated (one subject experienced a loss of odor after 6 hours). 10,700 ppm (A light fraction of commercial gasoline was delivered steadily into an air-line, where it was vaporized through a face mask held by the subject over his/her nose and face). 2 to 7.1 minutes Subjects included 5 men and 1 woman, age 23 to 45. Detectable odor immediately. HEALTH EFFECTS Slight nose/throat irritation. Slight irritation/itching of eyes. Examination Mild intoxication. Small amount of muscle incoordination. Difficulty accurately reading gauges. Light-headedness with no headaches or disagreeable sensations. No unpleasant aftereffects. Complaints Dizziness without mark incoordination. Sickness at stomach (one subject left room due to nausea after 13 minutes). Cough/Throat irritation. Irritation/Itching of eyes (was experienced at beginning of experiment but rapidly disappeared). Two subject reported tasting and smelling gasoline the following morning. Examination Dizziness and visible unsteadiness was observed within 4 minutes. In-coordination and drunkenness. Two subjects were distinctly hilarious and very active. Acute effects appeared to wear off in a short time with no objectionable after-experiences. Complaints Severe nose and throat irritation after 2 minutes. Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 31 June 15, 2006 TABLE 2: LIGHT FRACTION OF COMMERCIAL GASOLINE CONC. LEVELS EXPOSURE DURATIONS NOTED ODOR OBSERVATIONS MADE BY SUBJECTS Subjects included 4 men, age 37 to 45 HEALTH EFFECTS Incoordination and drunkenness occurred in three subjects within 4 to 5 minutes and one subject within 7 minutes 10 seconds. (Drinker, P., C.P. Yaglou and Madeleine Field Warren, 1943. "The Threshold Toxicity of Gasoline Vapor", The Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Volume 25, pp.225232, January 1943 December 1943.) Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 32 APPENDIX E Benzene Content of Gasoline Literature Values June 15, 2006 Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 33 June 15, 2006 BENZENE CONCENTRATIONS IN GASOLINE BY YEAR YEAR 1974 1975 1976 1977 1977 1977 1978 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 % BENZENE <1 <2 .54 2.39 >1 1.1 - 4 0.86 0.2 4.8 4 2.7 1.30 3.0 1.21 2.8 1.10 1.58 REFERENCE (Runion, Howard E.; "Benzene in Gasoline", American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 36, p.338, 1975.) (Runion, Howard E.; "Benzene in Gasoline", American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 36, p.338, 1975.) (Runion, Howard E.; "Benzene in Gasoline", American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 36, p.338, 1975.) (Testimony of R.J. Comeaux, July 11, 1977, Vice President of Gulf Oil Company) (Testimony of R.S. Proctor Chevron - before the OSHA committee reviewing the proposed revised permanent standard for occupational exposure to benzene on July 11, 1977 OSHA Docket H-059) Mobile Premium Gasoline - (Memo from W. F. Hergrueter to P.R. Carl dated October 4, 1977. Source Monitoring of Marine Emissions of Benzene, Technical Service Laboratories, Mobil Technical Center, Princeton, N.J.) (McDermott, H.J. and S.E. Killiany, Jr.; "Quest for a Gasoline TLV", American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 110-117, Feb. 1978.) AMOCO Oil Co.- AMOCO Regular Leaded Gasoline Material Safety Data Sheet, 9130-00-264-6218, http://hazard.com/msds/f2/bgw/bgwpv.html Regular Leaded Gasoline, (Letter from R.E. Green to C.F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, February 29, 1988, Table III, p. 6) Regular Leaded Gasoline, (Letter from R. K. Jones to D. E. Eitel, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, March 28, 1988, p. 1-2) RU-2000, (Letter from R.E. Green to C.F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, February 29, 1988, Table III, p. 6) RU-2000, (Letter from R. K. Jones to D. E. Eitel, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, March 28, 1988, p. 2) SU-2000, (Letter from R.E. Green to C.F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, February 29, 1988, Table III, p. 6) SU-2000, (Letter from R. K. Jones to D. E. Eitel, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, March 28, 1988, p. 1-2) 1988 2.55 SU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 34 June 15, 2006 YEAR 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 % BENZENE 5.29 4.91 4.25 5.42 4.84 2.96 4.65 2.96 4.64 4.86 4.63 4.90 4.64 2.1 3.2 0.95 REFERENCE RU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) Shell Regular, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) SU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) RU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) Shell Regular, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) SU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) Shell Regular, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) SU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) Shell Regular, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) SU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) Shell Regular, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) SU2000, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) Shell Regular, (Letter from T. A. Colangelo to C. F. Grimmer, Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum, April 4, 1988, p. 14) (Page, Norbert P. and Myron Mehlman; "Health Effects of Gasoline Refueling Vapors and Measured Exposures at Service Stations", Toxicology and Industrial Health, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 869-890, 1989.) (Air Force, Chemical and Physical Information, Table 3-3 Major Components of Gasoline, 1989) http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/fed-refm/rfg-char.shtml 1991 1.35 1.70 Premium Gasoline - (Tironi, Gene and D. G. Hodgkins. 1991. Compliance with the OSHA Benzene Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) at the Gasoline Vapor PEL, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg., Vol. 6, No. 10., pp. 881-884, October) Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. 35 June 15, 2006 YEAR 1991 1991 1991 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1997 1998 1998 2005 ? % BENZENE 1.38 1.73 0-5 <5 1-5 4 1.6 3.5 1.4 2 1.6 1.5 1.6 1 0.1 - 4 1.2 to 4.9 REFERENCE Regular Gasoline - (Tironi, Gene and D. G. Hodgkins. 1991. Compliance with the OSHA Benzene Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) at the Gasoline Vapor PEL, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg., Vol. 6, No. 10., pp. 881-884, October) (Shell Products Containing Benzene or Benzene Compounds, November 13, 1991, pgs. 3-8). Recovered Gasoline, Shell Products Containing Benzene or Benzene Compounds, November 13, 1991, pg. 4 (Employee Benzene Exposure Assessment Summary Report Barge Operations, Bruce B. Crowell, Ashland Petroleum Company, April 1, 1993) AMOCO Oil Regular Lead- Free Gasoline Gasoline, Automotive Material Safety Data Sheet, http://home.att.net/~weltanco/msds/gasoline.htm http://www.ec.gc.ca/energ/fuels/reports/benz_99/benz_1999_e.pdf http://www.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/rapporter/fr 309.pdf http://www.ec.gc.ca/energ/fuels/reports/benz_99/benz_1999_e.pdf http://www.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/rapporter/fr 309.pdf http://www.ec.gc.ca/energ/fuels/reports/benz_99/benz_1999_e.pdf http://www.ec.gc.ca/energ/fuels/reports/benz_99/benz_1999_e.pdf http://www.ec.gc.ca/energ/fuels/reports/benz_99/benz_1999_e.pdf http://www.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/rapporter/fr 309.pdf http://www.kemi.se/kemamne_eng/benzen_eng.htm http://www.prod.exxon.com/exxon_gas/conv-exxon.html