Opinion ID: 3009922
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Parties' Expert Reports6

Text: The plaintiffs rely primarily on a report by Richard S. Greeley, Ph.D. (Dr. Greeley) of R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. entitled Public Health Risk Assessment of a Soccer Field Near the New Cumberland Army Depot, Fairview Township, dated January 24, 1992 (Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment). The Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment is limited to a study of the health risks for children and adults making use of the former landfill as a soccer field. It does not address any health risks to the Township Workers from their excavation work or to the Neighbors from their recreational use of the Creek and their ingestion of fish and animals from the Creek and Park or water from residential wells. The Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment contains the following summary: Surface soil samples and soil samples from excavation of test pits on the soccer field have shown that volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and inorganic chemical compounds are present in the soil. Some of these compounds are carcinogenic and others can cause adverse non-carcinogenic health effects. The assessment considered health risks arising from four primary pathways of exposure of the soccer players, referees and 6 . Because the parties on appeal do not dispute the admissability of any of the expert reports, we do not address the experts' qualifications or the reliability of their techniques or data, as otherwise required under our decisions In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 742-49 (3d Cir. 1994) (Paoli II), cert. denied, General Electric Co. v. Ingram, 1995 WL 75508 (Feb. 27, 1995), and In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 916 F.2d 829, 855-859 (3d Cir. 1990) (Paoli I). coaches to contaminant chemicals in the soil:
ingestion of contaminated water on or near the field; (3) inhalation of contaminated dust; and (4) dermal contact with the contaminated soil or water. The risk assessment was conducted based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment guidance documents. The results of the calculations indicate that participation in games or practices at the soccer field for periods of time greater than 33 hours results in significant health risks for both children and adults. The primary chemicals contributing to these risks are the inorganic chemicals arsenic and lead, and the base neutral polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon benzo(a)pyrene. Other inorganic chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds contribute lesser percentages to the risks. App. at 2909a. The Report also states that increased risk may arise from absorption of chemicals through a cut, abrasion or perspiration, increased amounts of volatiles and dusts in the air during play and ingestion of contaminated soil or water during rough play when a player's face comes in contact with the ground. In arriving at his conclusion that adults and children using the field for soccer play or practice for more than thirty-three hours were exposed to a significant health risk, Dr. Greeley relied on EPA's risk assessment procedure which consists of four steps: (1) data collection, evaluation and identification of chemicals of concern; (2) exposure assessment; (3) toxicity assessment and (4) risk characterization. Risk characterization involves, among other things, the calculation of carcinogenic risks, which are stated in terms of risk per million, and is arrived at by multiplying the calculated increased risk of cancer by 1,000,000.7 For each pathway of exposure, Dr. Greeley added together the cancer risks for each of the carcinogenic chemicals found at the site to derive an increased risk of cancer for each pathway. He then totalled the risks for each pathway to arrive at a total increased risk of cancer, which he defined as an increased risk of cancer due to exposure at the site against everyone's everyday risk of getting cancer. Using the EPA guideline that treats an increased cancer risk which is greater than one in a million as significant and a similar guideline for non-carcinogenic health risks, Dr. Greeley concluded that children or adults playing or practicing soccer at the Park for thirty-three hours or more had an increased risk of cancer of one in a million and an increased 7 . No one points to any demographic, epidemiologic or any other type of scientific data, nor to any risk-utility analysis that supports EPA's million-fold regulatory factor as demonstrating the presence of a hazard, nor does this threshold appear in the regulatory or statutory history. Nevertheless, the million-fold factor seems ubiquitous in regulatory risk-utility determinations despite its indeterminate pedigree. We will assume that it has some rational basis and thus represents a regulatory determination to which we must defer in deciding plaintiffs' statutory claims. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 897 (1984); Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Dep't of Navy, 966 F.2d 747 (1992). For purposes of simplicity, we will also use it to assess the tort claims. We note, however, that a common law court may still be free to apply standard tort risk-utility analysis to the problem of defining the threshold at which a toxic substance becomes a hazard. risk of non-carcinogenic health problems of three in a million (children) and one in a million (adults). Children who played or practiced soccer at the Park for the maximum calculated exposure time of 1,350 hours had an increased risk of cancer of sixty-five in a million and of non-carcinogenic health risks of thirty-eight in a million. Adults with the maximum calculated exposure time had an increased risk of cancer of forty-six in a million and a non-carcinogenic increased health risk of eleven in a million. In preparing his report, Dr. Greeley relied on the soil and groundwater sampling performed by Woodward-Clyde in March of 1988. Dr. Greeley also considered the soil and groundwater sampling results from the Corps' study performed in May of 1988 and the EPA study performed in June of 1988, but he decided to rely solely on the Woodward-Clyde results because of the nonhomogeneity of the landfill/soccer field soil, as well as the difficulty in attempting to correlate samples taken at different depths at different times by different sampling personnel. App. at 2921a. He reasoned that the Woodward-Clyde study was the most representative of the three, and its sampling was performed while the soccer field was still in use. He acknowledged, however, that Woodward-Clyde only dug three test pits within the immediate area of the former landfill, now the soccer field, and that the samples were not from the surface but were 'near-surface' samples and composite samples over the four-foot depth of the test pits. Therefore, he concluded [t]he actual concentrations of the chemicals of concern in the soil to which the soccer players and adults were exposed may vary more or less from the values selected for this risk assessment. App. at 2960a. He also considered and rejected additional exposure routes via ingestion or contact with the sediments in the marsh area adjacent to the soccer field and the surface water of the Creek because the concentrations of chemicals there were either below the detection limits of the testing method used or no larger than the concentrations in the test pit soils.
The plaintiffs also rely on a report by Susan M. Daum, M.D. (Dr. Daum) entitled Medical Surveillance for Individuals Exposed to Hazardous Waste on Land Known as 'Marsh Run Park' in Fairview, Pennsylvania near the 'New Cumberland Army Depot' (Medical Monitoring Report) dated May 2, 1993. App. at 3006a. There, Dr. Daum states she relies on Dr. Greeley's Risk Assessment and agrees with Dr. Greeley that risk levels above one times the background rate of one case per million is medically significant. She refers to the exposures which occurred from the . . . Depot and waste disposal site, whether through well water, or recreational activities on/in contaminated soil, as having a risk estimate above one in a million but does not state where she obtained the risk estimate for well water exposure, in light of the fact that Dr. Greeley did not address well-water exposure in his Risk Assessment. App. at 3010a. Ultimately, Dr. Daum concludes that the examinations [she recommends] . . . are not out of the ordinary, but consist of the usual adult medical examinations recommended for all adults with the adult risk of cancer in our society from those carcinogen exposures which are already prevalent. It is because of the increased risk of the exposures at the Marsh Run area, however, that such examinations become more urgent, and access to such examinations should not be left to vicissitudes of employment, health insurance contract, or other individual economic difficulties so prevalent in current health care delivery. App. at 3008a. Therefore, Dr. Daum did not recommend any specialized tests for any of the plaintiffs but did recommend routine physical examinations and preventative programs. 3. Plaintiffs' Contributing Contaminants Report Finally, the plaintiffs rely on a report by Richard C. Cronce, Ph.D. (Dr. Cronce) of R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. entitled Evaluation Contributions of Contaminants to the Fairview Township Soccer Field (Contributing Contaminants Report) dated May 19, 1993. App. at 3044. The purpose of the report is to determine the possible pathways of migration of regulated compounds to the surface of the soccer field, thus exposing persons on the field to potential adverse health effects from these chemicals. Id. at 3044a. In preparing his report, Dr. Cronce reviewed the various Army reports on the site and also performed a site walkover to observe present on-site conditions. Id. at 3044. The report concludes that periodic additions of contaminants to the surface of the soccer field are likely as a result of flooding, overland flow of discharge waters from a drainage pipe adjacent to the field, erosion of top soil which is revealing an underlying layer of coal ash and movement of the contaminants inside the landfill up to the surface soil either by VOCs moving up through pore space in the soil or semivolatile organic compounds moving upwards as a result of pedoturbation, or physical soil mixing, which occurs as animals or insects dig or burrow in the ground. Finally, Dr. Cronce concluded that because some of the topsoil used on the field originated from a point along the Creek, it was probably contaminated. Dr. Cronce did not perform any soil testing to confirm his hypotheses. He believed, however, that [t]he presence of these contaminants on the existing surface has been documented and, therefore, the contribution of these contaminants from these various processes is highly likely. Id. at 3049a. 4. Elliott Plaintiffs' Expert Report Finally, the record contains the affidavit of Peter W. Wright, M.D. (Dr. Wright), dated April 23, 1992 regarding plaintiff Tracy Elliott's acute lymphocytic leukemia and plaintiff Todd Elliott's enlarged lymph nodes. While preparing his report, Dr. Wright reviewed Tracy and Todd Elliotts' medical records as well as extensive scientific and medical literature regarding the causes of cancer and acute leukemias in particular. He concluded, based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty, [that] the chemicals . . . found at Marsh Run Park are known to cause cancer, and some have been specifically implicated with acute leukemias, such as that which has affected Tracy Elliott. App. at 2233a-34a. Dr. Wright further opined that the acute lymphocytic leukemia of Tracey Elliott is related to her exposure to the [certain] chemicals[] [and that] Todd Elliott, . . . due to his exposure to the [these] chemicals, is himself at increased risk of cancer. Id. 5. Defendants' Expert Reports The defendants present a number of expert reports refuting plaintiffs' experts' conclusions and assumptions. Jessica Herzstein, M.D., M.P.H. (Dr. Herzstein), a physician specializing in occupational and environmental health, reviewed the Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment and the three soil sample analyses performed in 1987 and 1988. She concluded that no medical monitoring was necessary because the plaintiffs' excess risk for cancer was extremely low and the risks of such tests outweighed the benefits. Dr. Herzstein also produced an affidavit addressing Dr. Daum's Medical Monitoring Report and refuting its conclusion that medical monitoring was necessary for the same reasons given in her initial report. Defendants also produced an expert report by Martyn T. Smith, Ph.D. (Dr. Smith), a toxicology specialist, who also critiqued Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment and concluded that the actual excess cancer risk posed to the Soccer Plaintiffs was zero. Dr. Smith also concluded that Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment was flawed in the following respects: (1) it utilized unrealistic weather conditions; (2) it assumed an exceptionally high intake of surface water and soil; (3) it used test results from soil samples taken three to five feet below the surface; (4) it failed to take into account normal background levels of contaminants and (5) it used rodent studies for carcinogenic potency values, which are upper bound estimates of human potencies. Dr. Smith also produced an affidavit negating Dr. Greeley's response to his critique of the Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment. James H. Jandl, M.D. (Dr. Jandl), a specialist in blood and blood disorders, reviewed Tracey Elliott's medical records as well as the existing literature and research in the fields of hematology and oncology and concluded that there is no medically recognized evidence linking acute lymphatic (lymphoblastic) leukemia to any chemical substances. He stated that the only known cause of this type of leukemia is exposure to ionizing radiation. He also reviewed Todd Elliott's medical records and concluded Todd has no medical problem with respect to his enlarged lymph nodes. Roger Minear (Minear), Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Illinois and Professor of Civil Engineering, conducted a detailed review of the available documents concerning the Army's use of the land as a landfill as well as the various soil studies and remedial investigations reports undertaken by EPA and the Army and pertinent literature. He concluded that the landfill has not caused surface contamination at the soccer field and that plaintiffs' use of the subsurface soil test results to represent the surface conditions on the soccer field was not realistic or scientifically defensible. He also prepared a report critiquing Dr. Cronce's Contributing Contaminants Report, concluding that Dr. Cronce's hypothesized transportations of contaminants to the field has not been confirmed by any of the soil samples. Finally, defendants rely on a report by Marilyn A. Hewitt, P.G. (Hewitt), a certified professional geologist and former Pennsylvania DER hydrogeologist. Hewitt reviewed Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment, as well as the soil test reports and other environmental investigation reports at the Park, maps, photographs, depositions and correspondence. She concluded that the exposure assumptions made in the Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment were not consistent with standard EPA protocols for evaluating human exposure to contaminants when the use of the contaminated property is recreational, such as a soccer field. She found the Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment was erroneous primarily because it utilized test results from soils as deep as three feet below the surface, whereas the standard EPA protocol called for use of surface soil samples no more than one foot deep. She also found the Risk Assessment failed to average the concentrations of contaminants in the soil samples and calculated the health risks using the maximum concentrations of contaminants, also contrary to standard EPA protocol. Therefore, she concluded that the Plaintiffs' Risk Assessment contained an inflated estimate of the health risks associated with the soccer field. She also examined Dr. Cronce's Contributing Contaminants Report and, using the available soil testing results, refuted Dr. Cronce's assumptions regarding contaminants being contributed from other contaminated areas of the Creek or Depot. She refuted Dr. Cronce's conclusion that the surface soils were contaminated by upward transport by volitization of contaminants within the landfill based on the insignificant concentrations of such chemicals in the soils at the Park. App. at 3223a. Finally, Hewitt refuted Dr. Cronce's assumption that pedoturbation had caused mixing of the surface soils with the contaminated subsurface soils based on the fact that the surface soils were tested after the field had been closed for use as a soccer field. Both Dr. Greeley and Dr. Cronce submitted affidavits responding to defendants' experts' critiques of their reports.