1 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 2 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF 3 FLORIDA, INC., ROTH FARMS, INC., AND WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., 4 and 5 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., 6 and UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, 7 and 8 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 9 ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and 10 HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., 11 Petitioners, 12 vs. CASE NOS. 92-3038 92-3039 13 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT 92-3040 DISTRICT, 14 Respondent, 15 and 16 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF 17 FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 18 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 19 FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and SIERRA CLUB, 20 Intervenors. 21 _____________________________/ 22 DEPOSITION_OF_DR._TAMAR_BARKAY __________ __ ___ _____ ______ 23 24 25 LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 2 1 Deposition of DR. TAMAR BARKAY taken by the 2 attorney for Petitioners at 224 East Government Street, 3 Pensacola, Florida, on April 4, 1994, commencing at 1:00 4 p.m., before Lacy Leitch, Registered Professional Reporter 5 and Notary Public. 6 APPEARANCES ___________ 7 FOR THE PETITIONERS: GARY P. SAMS, ESQUIRE 8 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 9 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 10 FOR THE RESPONDENTS: JOHN LIPSHULZ, ESQUIRE U.S. Department of Justice 11 Post Office Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 3 1 INDEX_OF_WITNESSES _____ __ _________ 2 3 DR. TAMAR BARKAY PAGE ____ 4 Direct Examination by Mr. Sams 6 5 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 122 6 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS 124 7 8 INDEX_OF_EXHIBITS _____ __ ________ 9 10 PLAINTIFF'S PAGE ___________ ____ 11 12 1 Curriculum Vitae 7 13 2 Note to Mr. Lipshulz 10 14 3 Re-Notice of Taking of Deposition 11 15 4 Memorandum, Subject: Region IV 18 16 5 Handwritten notes dated May 21, 1991 26 17 6 Document on United States Department 18 of the Interior letterhead 30 19 7 Document dated June 11, 1991 20 from Robert E. Menzer to Scott McMoran 31 21 8 General Description of Project 32 22 9 Document entitled "An Investigation 23 on the Contribution of Naturally 24 Occurring Mercury to the Mercury 25 Contamination in the Florida Everglades" 35 LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 4 1 PLAINTIFF'S PAGE ___________ ____ 2 3 10 Handwritten Notes 43 4 11 Handwritten notes dated 1/24/92 44 5 12 Letter dated 2/18/93 to Dr. Mike Soukup 47 6 13 Document entitled Methylation and 7 Demethylation Processes in Soil 8 Sediments from the Florida Everglades 51 9 14 Document entitled Methylation and 10 Demethylation in Soil Sediments 11 from the Florida Everglades 58 12 15 Letter dated January 30, 1993 13 to Dr. Jerry Stober 61 14 16 Letter dated July 27, 1993 15 to Bob Johnson 65 16 17 Handwritten notes dated 8/17/93 67 17 18 Raw Data from August 31, 1993 Sampling 73 18 19 Handwritten notes dated 10/6/93 82 19 20 Document dated 10/21/93 83 20 21 Letter dated November 2, 1993 to 21 Dr. Curt Richardson from Tamar Barkay 84 22 22 Graphs 88 23 23 Notes dated November 20-21 89 24 24 Handwritten notes dated 12/1/93 93 25 LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 5 1 PLAINTIFF'S PAGE ___________ ____ 2 25 Document dated 12/8/93, 3 Titled Calibration 93 4 26 Document entitled Calibration, dated 5 12/9/93 94 6 27 Document dated 1/25/94 entitled 7 Results:Calculations 95 8 28 Document entitled Levels 9 Encountered During Processing 98 10 29 Letter dated November 23, 1993 11 to Curtis Pollman from Tamar Barkay 99 12 30 Document, Page Nos. 263 - 265 101 13 31 Mercury Analysis of Soil in August 101 14 32 Document entitled Methylation 15 of Hg(II) 102 16 33 Document entitled Cases Deleted 17 Due to Missing Data 102 18 34 Document entitled Adjusted 19 Squared Multiple R 103 20 35, 36 No Exhibits marked 21 37 Document entitled Regression 103 22 38 Document, Regression Analysis 104 23 39 Document entitled Microcosm 24 Simulating Mercury Cycling 104 25 In a Contaminated Pond LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 6 1 WHEREUPON, 2 DR._TAMAR_BARKAY ___ _____ ______ 3 was called as a witness and after having been first duly 4 sworn, was deposed and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. SAMS: 7 Q State your name for the record, please. 8 A Tamar Barkay. 9 Q Are you employed by the Environmental 10 Protection Agency? 11 A Yes. 12 Q What is your business address, please? 13 A 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, 32561. 14 Q Dr. Barkay, my name is Gary Sams. I 15 represent the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida 16 and two individual farm corporations. I am taking your 17 deposition in this case for the purpose of making as 18 complete a record of our discussion as I can. I will try, 19 therefore, to ask clear questions, but if they are not 20 clear, especially to you as a scientist, please indicate 21 so that I have the opportunity to correct my questions or 22 make them clearer; that way the record will reflect a true 23 conversation. 24 A Okay. 25 Q Dr. Barkay, I would like to show you, first, LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 7 1 a document that I'll ask the reporter to mark Exhibit No. 2 1, and ask if that's a current copy of your CV? 3 A Yes, I think it is. It is pretty much, yes. 4 (Curriculum Vitae was marked by the 5 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, 6 hereto attached.) 7 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you give me a brief 8 description of the nature of your responsibilities for EPA? 9 A I am with the microbic ecology and 10 biotechnology branch. It is the environmental research 11 laboratory here in Gulf Breeze. It is part of the office of 12 research and development in the EPA. 13 I am a staff scientist there. My title is 14 research microbiologist, and I am in charge of performing my 15 own research, which comes to answer the needs of the agency. 16 Q How long have you been employed at Gulf Breeze? 17 A Since December of 1984. 18 Q Have you been employed in the same capacity 19 since 1984? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Same job responsibilities? 22 A Yes. 23 Q I notice that you received your Ph.D. in 24 microbiology at the end of 1980; is that correct? 25 A Yes. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 8 1 Q What positions did you hold between that time 2 and the end of 1984 when you went to work for EPA? 3 A I spent a little over a year and a half at the 4 Weizmann Institute in Israel, the biochemistry department, 5 as a postdoctoral fellow. And then I spent a little over 6 two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of 7 California, at Irvine. 8 Q Besides the work that you have done in 9 connection with the Everglades during the last three or four 10 years, have you done other work with the examination of 11 mercury cycling in the environment? 12 A I have done some work in a contaminated site in 13 Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 14 Q What was the nature of your work in regard to 15 the Oak Ridge site? 16 A The work in Oak Ridge is a project that evolved 17 over a long period of time. It started with looking at very 18 basic responses of the microbic community in the site, to 19 mercury, and then it evolved into a more applied project 20 where we looked at actually the possibility of using 21 microbial activities for remediation of the site. 22 Q How long did your work last in connection with 23 the Oak Ridge site? 24 A I can't remember exactly when we started. 25 Q Approximately the number of years? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 9 1 A 1987, possibly, and it's still going on. And I 2 have a long-time collaboration there. 3 Q Have you conducted other examinations of 4 cycling of mercury in the environment? 5 A No. That's pretty much it. 6 Q How would you describe your field of expertise? 7 A I think I am a microbiologist who really is 8 working in the interface between the organismal level and 9 the environmental level. That is -- I can't say I'm an 10 expert -- but aware, and use what we know about the 11 molecular biology, the genetics, the biochemistry of 12 microbial transformations of mercury. And I am asking 13 questions which are pertinent to the fate of mercury in the 14 environment, and how these microbic processes are involved 15 in the actual cycling of -- geochemical cycling of mercury. 16 Q Have you published any papers regarding the 17 interface between organisms and the environmental levels, as 18 it pertains to mercury in the Everglades? 19 A No. 20 Q Have you published on that subject, in relation 21 to your Oak Ridge work? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And are all those publications listed on your 24 CV? 25 A Yes, I believe so. I haven't looked at it in a LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 10 1 while. 2 (Note to Mr. Lipshulz was marked by 3 the reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 No. 2, hereto attached.) 5 Q (By Mr. Sams) I would like to show you a 6 document that I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 7 No. 2, and ask you if you recognize that document? 8 A Yes, I believe that's a note I wrote to Mr. 9 Lipshulz. 10 Q In writing that note, what did you regard as 11 the project in South Florida? 12 A Basically, everything that I have done, and 13 records that I collected that I, myself, wrote, or my staff 14 did, with regard to the work in South Florida. 15 Q Regarding mercury in the Everglades? 16 A Yes, exclusively. I'm not involved with 17 anything else. 18 Q Have you ever been involved with any other work 19 regarding mercury in South Florida? 20 A No. 21 Q Have you ever been involved with any other work 22 regarding the Everglades? 23 A No. 24 Q I would like next to show you a copy of 25 actually the renotice of the taking of your deposition LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 11 1 today. I'll ask the reporter to mark that as Exhibit No. 3. 2 (Re-Notice of Taking Deposition was 3 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's 4 Exhibit No. 3, hereto attached.) 5 Q (By Mr. Sams) Did you receive a copy of this 6 notice? 7 A I don't remember. I don't recall seeing it. 8 Q I would like, if I may, to ask you to examine 9 it starting on the fifth page. Actually, the list with 10 which I'm concerned begins on Page 4. 11 A Okay; 4. 12 Q Do you remember seeing this list? 13 A Documents to be produced? 14 Q Yes. 15 A No. 16 Q I think then I will go through and ask you just 17 a little bit about these various items. The first item, of 18 course, you have produced, and we have already marked that 19 as an exhibit. 20 If you could turn to the second item, please, 21 and examine that description. Have you produced all the 22 documents in your files which are described in that item? 23 A It says, "relating to parameters affecting the 24 release of mercury from soils of the Florida Everglades." I 25 don't recall having any of those. I mean it would be LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 12 1 easiest for me to say yes to you but -- 2 Q I understand, but I appreciate the more 3 complete answer. Thanks. 4 Item 3, do you have any documents of that 5 description? 6 A Yes. And I believe the answer is yes; I gave 7 you all I had. 8 MR. SAMS: Let me ask your counsel for the 9 U.S., have you provided a privilege list, or are any 10 withheld on grounds of privilege? 11 MR. LIPSHULZ: No. Actually, I don't know if 12 all this needs to be on the record. 13 (Off the record discussion.) 14 MR. LIPSHULZ: We had just been discussing some 15 of the procedural aspects of the document production. 16 We have not withheld any documents, as privileged, 17 and it is misunderstanding that while Dr. Barkay has 18 not seen this document, perhaps, I think that she 19 went over the categories of documents with someone 20 from my office. 21 Q (By Mr. Sams) With that understanding, and 22 using this primarily to jog your memory, do you have 23 documents fitting the description of No. 4? 24 A Let me look at the language I need to -- 25 Q Unfortunately, this is the language of lawyers LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 13 1 writing these. 2 A The answer is yes. I don't see the difference 3 between three and four that much. 4 Q Item 5, it may again be essentially the same 5 question. 6 A Yes. 7 Q Is it, in your mind? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And you have produced the documents that you 10 have? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Item 6? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Item 7? 15 A May I ask you a question? I assume that this 16 analysis, reports and data, that relates to my work. I have 17 reports that other people have written, that I didn't submit 18 to you. They are open to the public. 19 Q This is particularly with regard to Item 7? 20 A Yes. You see, like other people -- Dr. 21 Delfino, in Gainesville, have done work. I have his 22 reports. I didn't send them to you. I didn't think that 23 that is what you needed. 24 Q If you could identify for me, by memory at 25 least, the other items that you remember as fitting within LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 14 1 this category, but that were not provided. 2 A You know, basically I have had a lot of 3 documents that's part of my work to read, that helps me to 4 design my own work, which it gives me the information that I 5 need, which is written by other people -- that was written 6 by other people. Dr. Delfino's report is one of them. I 7 have a report from the Duke Wetland Center about the work 8 there. I have several enormous reports from the Water 9 Management District. It provides me with the background 10 information needed to do my work. 11 Q Have you maintained notes on those copies? 12 A Well, I usually am writing in the book, as I 13 read it, those things that are pertinent to me. 14 MR. SAMS: Why don't we go off the record a 15 second. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 MR. SAMS: Counsel for the United States has 18 indicated that in the category we have just been 19 discussing, that is, general works of the witness 20 that she has relied on, including those where she has 21 made specific annotations, that the U.S. is willing 22 to provide copies. The petitioners, at this point, 23 would simply state that there may be a need to have a 24 further deposition upon examination of those, but 25 that is by no means a foregone conclusion. It would LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 15 1 be necessary to see the notes to judge whether any 2 further questions are necessary. 3 MR. LIPSHULZ: So the record is clear, what 4 documents, specifically, are we talking about? 5 MR. SAMS: Apparently, there are a number of 6 documents specifically referencing the Everglades, 7 that the witness has maintained copies of, and I 8 guess it is those documents that we would like to get 9 copies. Obviously, if they are not copies on which 10 she has made notes and which are known to counsel for 11 the U.S. as being ones that we otherwise have, I 12 would be willing to accept that representation from 13 you, in lieu of obtaining a copy of the document. We 14 are not interested in copying everything that might 15 be in the witness's library. 16 MR. LIPSHULZ: We'll look into it. 17 Q (By Mr. Sams) Item No. 8, were there any 18 documents in your possession? 19 A I don't think so. 20 Q Item No. 9; maps, graphics and other 21 references. 22 A I don't think that I provided anything. As far 23 as I remember, I did not provide any maps. 24 Q Are there maps in your possession which reflect 25 where data were sampled? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 16 1 A Yes. 2 Q I think that is probably very critical to our 3 needs. 4 A It would be easier than the documents. 5 Q Can you indicate about how many maps, or what 6 volume you think we are talking about, Dr. Barkay? 7 A A map, I think one page, the map of the 8 sampling sites. 9 Q Would that be only one page related to only one 10 sampling incident? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Or are there any multiple sampling incidents? 13 A There were multiple sampling incidents, but I 14 think that the greater body of the information comes from 15 one place. 16 Q One map? 17 A Yes. 18 Q I guess what we would request there is if there 19 are additional maps reflecting additional information, we 20 would like those. I won't ask you for all of Item No. 10, 21 although was the one article that you provided us intended 22 to be responsive to that? 23 A Yes. It's truly the only one that I have. 24 It's the -- the analysis of the environmental samples is not 25 a major part of my work; hasn't been until recently. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 17 1 MR. SAMS: Let's go off the record a second. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 MR. SAMS: Let the record reflect that Counsel 4 have discussed the provision of documents, and that 5 counsel for the U.S. has agreed to provide them by 6 expedited delivery as soon as possible, with a target 7 of, say, the middle of next week, and not to stand on 8 the close of discovery as any impediment to providing 9 those documents. 10 MR. LIPSHULZ: I believe that's accurate. 11 Q (By Mr. Sams) Dr. Barkay, during a period 12 beginning in 1991 did you perform work regarding the 13 methylation and demethylation of mercury in Everglades 14 soils? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Could you describe, in general, the nature of 17 that work? 18 A What we do is that we measure the potential of 19 the microorganisms in the soil to methylate inorganic 20 mercury and to degrade methylmercury. 21 Q I am going to show you a series of documents 22 that I will ask you to identify, and indicate for me, if you 23 will, how they relate, if they do, to that work. 24 A Okay. 25 MR. SAMS: The first one I'll ask the reporter LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 18 1 to mark as Exhibit No. 4. 2 (Memorandum, Subject: Region IV, was 3 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's 4 Exhibit No. 4, hereto attached.) 5 Q (By Mr. Sams) Does this document relate to 6 that work? It is actually a series of document. 7 A Yes. 8 MR. LIPSHULZ: You might want to flip through 9 to see what else is in there. 10 A Yes. The question was if I recognize it? 11 Q (By Mr. Sams) Yes, and do these documents 12 relate to that work? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Was this a proposal for authorization to 15 perform the work, that you have described? 16 A This was a proposal to do the work, yes. 17 Q Was that work funded in accordance with the 18 request? 19 A Let me check. It was funded at a lower rate 20 than the request. 21 Q What was the amount for which it was funded? 22 A As far as I remember, it was 50K. 23 Q I see in the last line of the cover sheet, 24 $50,000. Was that the funding? 25 A Yes; as far as I know. I am not usually part LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 19 1 of the financing of these things. 2 Q Turning to the third page in, is that an 3 accurate description of both the problem and the approach to 4 the problem that was undertaken? 5 MR. LIPSHULZ: Are you talking about the 6 Objectives and Description of Problem sections? 7 MR. SAMS: Right; followed by Approach, 8 Experimental Design and so on. 9 A I would say that it's a broader description 10 than what was actually done. 11 Q (By Mr. Sams) Which portion of work was not 12 actually done? 13 A I need to look at it. The part that was done 14 is the methylation and the demethylation work. It was done 15 only in soil samples, so far. We have not gotten to work 16 with water samples, and we have not done any volatilization 17 studies in South Florida. 18 Q I take it from the nature of your answer that 19 that is still true; that work only was done with soil 20 samples? 21 A That's right. 22 Q Not water or volatilization? 23 A That's right. 24 Q Has the work on methylation and demethylation 25 that was described in the document we just looked at, LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 20 1 Exhibit No. 4, has that work been completed? 2 A I need to read to see exactly what was 3 proposed. 4 MR. LIPSHULZ: Take all the time you want to to 5 read the document. It's perfectly okay. 6 A Okay. Could you follow with me in the 7 document? 8 Q (By Mr. Sams) Certainly. 9 A For Experimental Design, the mercury analysis, 10 we have analyzed mercury and speciated it in soil -- in some 11 soil samples. We have done total mercury analysis in water. 12 And the methods that were used are listed here pretty much. 13 We have done specific rates of mercury 14 methylation and methylmercury demethylation in several soil 15 samples; not in water samples. 16 As I mentioned, we have not done any mercury 17 volatilization rates. We have not gotten to it. Yes. 18 That's all. 19 Q You say you have measured total mercury in 20 water? 21 A Yes, we have. 22 Q What was the purpose of that part of the work? 23 A Just to get some background information about 24 the systems that we are working with. That's it. 25 Q Are the data from that work included in LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 21 1 documents you have furnished us? 2 A As far as I remember, I made a copy of it. 3 It's in a very -- it has not been included in any formal 4 presentation. It's a handwritten note, but I believe I made 5 a copy of it. 6 Q Have you formed any preliminary conclusions 7 about the systems that you're working with, based on the 8 total mercury in water that you have measured? 9 A I don't have the numbers in front of me, but as 10 far as I remember, they weren't any higher than what we 11 usually find in fresh water, which is a part per trillion 12 range. 13 Q When you say "what you usually find in fresh 14 waters," what is the range of data with which you are 15 familiar and on which you base that observation? 16 A I am familiar with what other people find in 17 other sites where such studies are performed; in the seepage 18 lake up in the north in Sweden; in some water reservoirs; 19 pretty much the background concentration of mercury in 20 natural waters. It's at about, I would say, anywhere below 21 picogram per liter to a few picogram per liter, which is a 22 part per trillion range. 23 Q From where did you obtain the mercury samples 24 in water, that you analyzed? 25 A We collected those samples at the Water LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 22 1 Conservation Area 2A where we do our soil work. We 2 collected the water at some of the same sites where we took 3 soils. 4 Q Did those sites include canal locations? 5 A No. 6 Q Marsh locations? 7 A Marsh. 8 Q Were they all marsh sites? 9 A Yes. That's within Water Conservation Area 2A. 10 Q Is that the only location -- that is, Water 11 Conservation Area 2A marsh sites -- from which you obtained 12 water samples and analyzed them for mercury? 13 A Yes. 14 Q I show you next a set of handwritten notes, and 15 ask you if you can identify those, Dr. Barkay? 16 A It's probably notes that I have taken -- I 17 recognize my handwriting -- during some meeting. 18 Q Is the date on these notes May 21, 1991? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Would that have been on or about the time that 21 you proposed to commence the methylation and demethylation 22 work in the Everglades? 23 A There is no way in the world that I could give 24 you a correct answer on that, because the way things work, I 25 have had the idea for a long time, and I have tried to LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 23 1 obtain funding in different places, and I don't recall when, 2 exactly, things started falling into place. 3 Q Do you recall when you initially obtained the 4 samples that you analyzed for methylation and demethylation? 5 A I know that the first set of samples I got was 6 done in July of 1991. 7 Q Do you recall who was present at the meeting or 8 conversation of which you took these notes? 9 A I know John Huckabee must have been there. I 10 have been to so many meetings regarding this, there is no 11 way for me to remember who was there. 12 Q Who was -- is it John or Joan Huckabee? 13 A John Huckabee from EPRI. I just see that I 14 took some notes that he -- he attended a lot of these 15 meetings. 16 Q Were these first set of comments attributable 17 to him? 18 A It must have been. 19 Q What was your purpose in meeting with EPRI on 20 this -- 21 A I don't remember what meeting it was. I 22 really -- I can't say what it was. It's possible, you 23 know -- at first, when I looked at it, I saw it's notes that 24 I took during the meeting, but it's very possible that these 25 are notes that I took at my desk when I talked with John on LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 24 1 the phone. 2 Q Do you know who made the observation "too much 3 stress on atmospheric deposition"? 4 A Without considering other possible sources, I 5 don't know who made it. It could be either John made it, or 6 it could be my thoughts to what John said. 7 Q In other words, your paraphrasing of what he 8 said? 9 A Many times when I discuss things with people it 10 evokes a response in me, and I don't -- I can't say whether 11 that's what he said, or he said something that made me think 12 of this conclusion either one. 13 Q Did you discuss with Mr. Huckabee your proposed 14 methylation and demethylation studies? 15 A Probably. I don't recall specifically 16 discussing it with him, but I am sure I discussed this 17 project with him or other people at EPRI. 18 Q What was the purpose, if you know, of EPRI's 19 involvement? 20 A I don't even recall that there was any 21 involvement. 22 Q How did it happen that -- how did it come about 23 that you were discussing that work with them? 24 A I work with EPRI. EPRI does a lot of mercury 25 work. EPRI funded my Oak Ridge studies. I have very LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 25 1 routine interaction with EPRI people. Actually -- this 2 is -- it's really not John that I interact with that much. 3 Q What is the reference to either hydrology input 4 or, perhaps, absence of hydrology input? I can't tell 5 whether hydrology input falls under absence of or stands 6 alone as a topic. 7 A I don't remember what it relates to. 8 Q Do you remember what the phrase, conflict of 9 interest, related to? 10 A No, no. I think that these were taken during a 11 meeting that we had here with him in the lab in Gulf Breeze, 12 where John Huckabee and Don Procella came to visit us. 13 Q Dr. Porcella is also of EPRI? 14 A Yes. I remember -- I think that it could be. 15 Q Do you remember a discussion concerning 16 conflict of interest? 17 A No, I don't remember any details of what was 18 discussed or what my comments, here, related to. I'm sorry. 19 Q What kind of interest did EPRI express in the 20 methylation/demethylation project? 21 A They really didn't have any specific interest. 22 At that time the work in Florida was just getting organized 23 and they explored the possibility of -- they were looking 24 into how to carry out their work in South Florida. So 25 that's why they came here, to see if they could do it LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 26 1 through our lab. That, I think, was the purpose of the 2 visit. 3 Q Were you concerned about your lab having a 4 conflict of interest? 5 A I don't -- I don't remember what it was. If it 6 will come to me, I'll tell you, but I don't remember what it 7 was. Possibly -- I mean anything I say would be just a pure 8 guess. 9 Q Perhaps I could ask you, if you can, to recall 10 what led to the next note after conflict of interest? 11 A I think what the issue was, that they were 12 looking for a person to lead the effort in South Florida. 13 Based on experience in their big project in Wisconsin, they 14 had the experience that it is a good thing to have one 15 person who is the head of the project, and they were looking 16 for a person, and our lab couldn't come up with that person. 17 If you ask me now why it is that our lab never got to be 18 involved in the study in a big way, that's probably the 19 reason. 20 Q I don't think we have marked this as an 21 exhibit, have we? 22 (Handwritten notes dated May 21, 1991 23 were marked by the reporter as 24 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5, hereto 25 attached.) LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 27 1 A I think, to be truthful, the conflict of 2 interest may have something to do with the fact that EPRI is 3 private industry and we are EPA. That could have been it. 4 I don't remember that as specifically to this comment, but 5 it's a general problem which we have to deal with in all our 6 work. 7 Q I notice below the line that appears on that 8 page, identification of ENP project. What is that a 9 reference to? 10 A That's Everglades National Park. 11 Q Was EPRI offering, potentially, to fund work 12 concerning the Everglades National Park work? 13 A No, they weren't offering. All they said was 14 they thought they would have money to support the work in 15 South Florida. 16 Q On the second page of the notes, I notice the 17 last phrase says, "wetlands mercury, Everglades, a site to 18 look at it." Do you recall what that -- 19 A I don't recall anything, but I think it may be 20 it's a note that I wrote to myself based on the discussions 21 that was going on, that the Everglades could be a good site 22 to study this problem. That's all. 23 Q Are these notes all from the same time period, 24 or are they from a series of times? 25 A I believe that these notes are all from the LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 28 1 meeting in -- maybe what's on the last page, at the bottom, 2 is something that I wrote for myself, following that 3 meeting. 4 Q Has EPRI funded any of your lab's work in 5 connection with mercury in the Everglades area? 6 A No. 7 Q Has any other private organization funded any 8 portion of your lab's work in connection with such work? 9 A No. I want also to say I don't know -- on the 10 last page, here, there is something that is my handwriting, 11 but does not -- it's not -- it's probably a copying error. 12 It's those numbers on the left. 13 Q They don't relate to the text. 14 A Yes. I believe probably the documents got 15 copied together. 16 Q Thank you for pointing that out. In the last 17 section of the final page of the notes, I see -- I will 18 point to my copy, if I may -- some notes that are difficult 19 to read. Can you read the notes that appear on the third 20 and fourth lines below the solid line separating the page? 21 A "What was shown in the Everglades regarding 22 phosphorus;" is that what you mean? 23 Q Yes. 24 A Water is provided from the management areas, 25 include rainfall and agricultural runoff, and there is a P LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 29 1 there to indicate that agricultural runoff may contain 2 phosphorus. 3 Q What is the last -- the reference in the last 4 two lines of the page? 5 A Ron's sampling sites. 6 Q Yes. 7 A "Is the high total phosphate site anaerobic. 8 We want to study anaerobic soils." 9 Q What is the content and meaning of that note? 10 A It's my mind working. It's a question that I 11 posed to myself regarding the samples that we got from Ron, 12 or at that time that we were planning to get from Ron. 13 Q Ron Jones? 14 A From Ron Jones. 15 Q Florida International? 16 A Yes, FIU. I just made a note to myself that I 17 should ask Ron about it. 18 Q Did you ultimately ask that question and 19 determine the answer? 20 A Yes. I determined the answer. I don't 21 remember if I asked him. As soon as I saw the sample I knew 22 the answer. 23 Q And what was that? 24 A It was anaerobic. 25 Q Let me ask you to examine another document, LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 30 1 which I'll ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 6. 2 (Document on United States Department 3 of the Interior letterhead was marked 4 by the reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 No. 6, hereto attached.) 6 Q (By Mr. Sams) Do you recognize those 7 documents? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Is the work described in the scope of work 10 attached to the form, essentially the same work that was 11 already discussed when we talked about the prior exhibits? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did this relate to getting Department of the 14 Interior Park Service approval for that work? 15 A No. I believe that was something else. 16 Q What was the purpose of this document? 17 A It was transferring the money to the 18 department, to the park. 19 Q What money was being transferred to the park? 20 A The $50,000 that we got from Region IV. 21 Q And it was being transferred to the park? 22 A Yes. 23 Q For what purpose? 24 A To pay for the work. 25 MR. SAMS: Mark as the next exhibit. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 31 1 (Document dated June 11, 1991 from 2 Robert E. Menzer to Scott McMoran, was 3 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's 4 Exhibit No. 7, hereto attached.) 5 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will show you another document 6 which is marked as Exhibit No. 7, and ask you if that 7 relates to the same work? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What was the purpose of this set of documents? 10 A This is the setting up the agreement with the 11 Park Service. It was done through a mechanism called the 12 Interagency Agreement. The Interagency Agreement -- 13 basically, I think that the previous exhibit was the actual 14 transfer of the money, where this was the administrative 15 arrangement. 16 Q Within that document there is a memo dated May 17 17, 1991. 18 A Yes. 19 Q From C. R. Cripe. 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is that someone who works at EPA Gulf Breeze? 22 A Yes. 23 Q I note in the second paragraph there is a brief 24 mention of the nature of the project, and then the second 25 sentence says, "a particular emphasis is placed on the LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 32 1 possible relationships between environmental alterations and 2 a net production of methylmercury." 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you know what environmental alterations 5 meant in the context of the proposed work? 6 A I think what it probably meant was to -- see, 7 the underlying principle of our work is that the nutrient 8 enrichment, the eutrophication process has affected 9 production of methylmercury, and I believe that is what he 10 probably meant. 11 Q Do you know whether any other environmental 12 alteration was examined by the proposed work? 13 A No. I know that that was the only thing that 14 was examined. 15 Q Was any consideration given to involving other 16 environmental alterations such as, hydro period? 17 A Not in our project, no. 18 Q I would like to show you a document which I'll 19 ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 8, and ask if you 20 can recognize that document, please. I realize that it's a 21 bad copy, but actually, we received it that way. 22 (General Description of Project was 23 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's 24 Exhibit No. 8, hereto attached.) 25 A Yes. That's, again, just a general description LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 33 1 of the project. 2 Q I notice in the third paragraph, the middle 3 sentence says, "preliminary assays showed a greater 4 potential --" 5 A Just a second. 6 Q Third paragraph. 7 A Okay. 8 Q Middle sentence says, "Preliminary assays 9 showed a greater potential for methylation and eutrophic 10 anaerobic, as compared to aerobic sediments from the 11 Everglades." 12 A Yes. 13 Q What are the preliminary assays being referred 14 to there? 15 A They refer to three samples that were sent to 16 me in July of 1991 by Ron Jones, and the samples -- there 17 were three samples. One was from a highly eutrophied soil. 18 One was from an intermediate -- that is, it was a sample 19 from an area that was going through the eutrophication 20 process. And the third was a controlled soil from 21 unimpacted area. 22 Q Who identified those three soils so as to 23 characterize them that way? 24 A Ron did. 25 Q Did he provide you with data showing the basis LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 34 1 on which he characterized those soils? 2 A No. 3 Q Do you know if he had tested those soils? 4 A I don't know. 5 Q Do you know the locations from which those 6 soils were obtained? 7 A No. I could guess, based on the way he labeled 8 them. 9 Q How were they labeled? 10 A I don't remember how they were labeled, but 11 from the ways that they labeled them, by looking at the map 12 of the hydrological system down there, I figure that they 13 came from area that is just on the northern boundary of the 14 park. The marking corresponded to some designation of 15 structures. There was, I believe, a sample that was marked 16 S12, but I have no confirmation that that is, indeed, from 17 where they came from. 18 Q How did you identify from preliminary assays, 19 the greater potential for methylation? 20 A I remember that -- I think the numbers must be 21 there somewhere, but when we provided the samples with 22 inorganic mercury, the samples that were eutrophied produced 23 much more methylmercury than others. 24 Q Were those samples taken from marsh locations, 25 if you know? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 35 1 A I don't have any idea. 2 Q Do you know whether they were taken from within 3 canals or -- 4 A They were highly organic. 5 Q What does that suggest to you? 6 A It could have been bottom of the canal. It 7 could be wetland. I'm not familiar with that area. I 8 don't -- 9 Q Do you know what depth he took them from? 10 A I have no idea. 11 Q I will show you the next document, which I'll 12 ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 9. 13 (Document entitled "An Investigation 14 on the Contribution of Naturally 15 Occurring Mercury to the Mercury 16 Contamination in the Florida 17 Everglades" was marked by the reporter 18 as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9, hereto 19 attached.) 20 Q (By Mr. Sams) And I will ask you whether those 21 numbers that are on the third page relate to these samples? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Is this report the only written report that you 24 issued on those three soil samples? 25 A No. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 36 1 Q Are those three soil samples the basis for the 2 numbers on the third page? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Are any other samples involved in arriving at 5 those numbers? 6 A No. 7 Q I notice on the third page in the paragraph 8 below the table, which starts "most strikingly," that it 9 says a methylation/demethylation ratio could not be 10 determined for the pristine sample. Was it your conclusion 11 that there was not methylation occurring in the pristine 12 sample? 13 A I'm not sure what is written here, but I take 14 it to mean that it was below the level that we could detect. 15 Q What was the level of detection for the 16 sampling techniques you were using? 17 A I don't remember. I mean it's something that 18 can be figured out but -- 19 Q What preliminary conclusions did you reach 20 based on this work? 21 A That there could be something in our hypothesis 22 regarding stimulation of the formation of methylmercury in 23 eutrophied soils. 24 Q I take it that was a preliminary conclusion 25 supporting the continued work with the hypothesis? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 37 1 A That's right. Three samples is just -- 2 Q Are three samples incapable of forming a final 3 conclusion? 4 A No. I mean I'm even embarrassed to say it was 5 enough to form preliminary suggestions. 6 Q Did you arrive at any other preliminary 7 conclusions based -- 8 A Based on these three samples? 9 Q Yes. 10 A I don't think so. 11 Q Did you form any impression of whether 12 methylation or demethylation was dominant in nutrient 13 enriched soils, based on this work? 14 A Well, obviously if you look at the number, you 15 can see that the eutrophication has also enriched the 16 breakdown, increased the breakdown of methylmercury. I 17 think that both are just a result of a more active microbial 18 community. I think one of the things that we -- I don't 19 know if we wrote it down, here, but one of the ideas that 20 came out from looking at these three samples, that possibly 21 the increasing methylmercury formation was a transitory 22 event; that is, as a sample is eutrophied there is an 23 increase in methylation, but later on, as the process of 24 eutrophication continues, the degrading organisms take over 25 and break down more methylmercury. That's a scientific LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 38 1 point. I don't know if it's of interest to you. 2 Q How would you define transience for me, in the 3 sense that you just articulated? 4 A As an ecosystem going through the process of 5 eutrophication, there would be a period of time when we have 6 an increase in methylation, and there will also be an 7 increase in demethylation, but the increase in methylation 8 is more pronounced. And as time goes on, the demethylators 9 will keep on increasing, and the methylators don't increase 10 that much anymore. So the net result is that there is less 11 methylmercury in the environment. 12 If you think about methylmercury, the amount of 13 methylmercury that we find in a sample is always the result 14 of its formation and of its degradation, and that's what 15 comes into play here. 16 Q Might it, with sufficient research, be possible 17 to define a time dimension or a phosphorus concentration 18 dimension of that transience, so that one could gauge the 19 extent over a broad environment? 20 A Yes. If we look at the reservoir studies, 21 which is basically where eutrophication was connected to 22 methylmercury formation, in those reservoirs, after 23 approximately 30 years, people start seeing declining 24 methylmercury. The idea is that as the amount of oxidizable 25 organic matter is being depleted, the effect on microbial LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 39 1 activities is being alleviated or reduced. 2 Q What microbes are primary in this function? 3 A We don't really know that -- we really don't 4 know. I would say that in environments with high salt 5 concentrations, it is definitely done by organisms which 6 reduce sulfate. There is some evidence that this is also 7 the case in fresh water environment. There is absolutely no 8 idea what organisms are involved, specifically in South 9 Florida. 10 Q When you referred to the work concerning 11 northern reservoirs that you are familiar with, were you 12 suggesting that we know that 30 years would be the period 13 in, say, the Everglades, over which demethylation might 14 outweigh methylation? 15 A No, not at all. There is no way of knowing 16 that. 17 Q Is the manner and the extent to which 18 methylation might outweigh demethylation, or vice versa, 19 something that's capable of being studied in the short term 20 within the Everglades? 21 MR. LIPSHULZ: Object to form. I don't know 22 what you mean by short term. 23 Q (By Mr. Sams) Of a few years or even a shorter 24 period than that. 25 A Do you mean in terms for how long this -- LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 40 1 Q I'm really asking in regard to the nutrient 2 enrichment problem that has been identified. Is it possible 3 to study that problem with whatever are the known parameters 4 of it, and attempt to assess whether methylation is 5 outweighing demethylation, or vice versa, as a result of 6 that enrichment? 7 MR. LIPSHULZ: Are you talking about in South 8 Florida, as a whole? 9 Q (By Mr. Sams) In the Everglades. 10 A You're not specifically asking me if we can do 11 short-term experiments to find out for how long this is 12 going to affect the system. 13 Q No. I'm really asking do we know at present 14 whether -- 15 A Those studies can be done within a much shorter 16 period of time, a few years time, I think; two or three 17 years. I'm afraid to say -- like with research, you never 18 get things done as fast as you say you would, but I would 19 say that clear answers can be obtained in a framework of a 20 few years, easily. 21 Q Are you familiar with the concept of storm 22 water treatment areas? 23 A Very superficially. 24 Q Do you understand the concept of having 25 artificial marsh-like areas created in formerly farmed LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 41 1 lands? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And through that, storm water would be passed 4 prior to exiting the Everglades agricultural area. Are you 5 familiar with that concept, in general? 6 A Yes, very little; but I know what you are 7 talking about. 8 Q It may be sufficient for purposes of my next 9 question. 10 A I read the things that the Water Management 11 District puts out a few weeks ago about it. 12 Q Would the same length of time, say, two or 13 three years, be necessary to study whether the methylation 14 or the demethylation of mercury would be more likely to 15 occur in those areas? 16 MR. LIPSHULZ: I object to the form. 17 Q (By Mr. Sams) You can go ahead and answer. 18 The areas I'm referring to are the storm water treatment 19 areas. 20 A That depends on how long the eutrophication 21 process takes, and I don't know how long that takes. 22 Q Would the degree of flooding be a factor to 23 consider there, also? 24 A You mean the amount of water going through the 25 system. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 42 1 Q Yes; and more particularly, however, the 2 maintained water level within those systems. 3 A I would say the water level, I am not sure in 4 terms of depth. That, I'm not sure. What's going to be 5 important, though, is how fast, for how long the water is 6 retained in the system. 7 Q Why will that be important? 8 A It's simply a matter of dilution. 9 Q Dilution of what? 10 A We think -- we have quite a bit of evidence 11 that most of the methylation activity is in the water 12 sediment interface. So if the water stays longer over a 13 given surface of sediment, there is more -- there is a 14 higher concentration of mercury that has the time to invade 15 the sediment into the water. 16 I would like to say here, it's very important, 17 that these things have been studied elsewhere, and we don't 18 know -- in the South Florida systems there may be some 19 special conditions which may modify these rules. But what 20 we know from aquatic systems, in general, is that 21 methylation occur in the water sediment interface, or very, 22 very proximal to it. So you see -- do you understand what I 23 am saying? 24 Q Yes. I'm with you so far. I am just thinking 25 of my next question. To help me understand that, how would LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 43 1 you contrast that with similar soils where the water level 2 is allowed to rise and to fall periodically, and in general, 3 not to exist above the soil surface -- that is, the water 4 level not above the soil surface for long periods of time? 5 A You mean there are periods of dryness? 6 Q Yes. 7 A I think that here, we may have an added effect 8 of washing. 9 Q Is there the same effect of methylation at the 10 water/soil interface, regardless of whether the water level 11 is higher or the soil surface is above the water level? 12 A I believe that with the temperature that we 13 have in South Florida, exposure to soil is probably not very 14 active in anything. You see, if you have the water going 15 down below the surface it means that it's -- that the 16 surface of the soil is left to dry. With the temperature in 17 South Florida there's probably very little microbial 18 activity there at all, but it needs to be looked at because 19 we have organisms called thermophiles, and they may be 20 active. 21 Q What is -- 22 A They are microorganisms that are specifically 23 adjusted to living in high temperatures. It needs to be 24 looked at. 25 (Handwritten notes were marked by the LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 44 1 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 10, hereto attached.) 3 Q (By Mr. Sams) Let me show you the next 4 Exhibit, No. 10, and ask you if you recognize those notes? 5 A Yes. 6 Q I notice near the bottom, reference to 7 quantitation and speciation of mercury, parentheses, I 8 suppose, R. Jones. Do you recall what that reference is to? 9 A I believe that we were talking about the 10 different analyses that were needed to do our work, and the 11 mercury analysis is important. And what it means is that we 12 were relying on Ron Jones to do these assays. 13 Q Did he have the capability, the laboratory 14 capability to analyze mercury in January of 1992? 15 A I don't know, but I know that he was working on 16 it. 17 Q Working on mercury or working on developing the 18 laboratory? 19 A That he was developing the laboratory. 20 Q At that point in time, early 1992, was it your 21 understanding that he would have that responsibility? 22 A Yes. 23 MR. SAMS: Mark at Exhibit No. 11. 24 (Handwritten notes dated 1/24/92 was 25 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 45 1 Exhibit No. 11, hereto attached.) 2 Q (By Mr. Sams) I show you next Exhibit No. 11, 3 and ask if you could refer to this portion of the page. I 4 assume this was a meeting at Everglades National Park, was 5 it? 6 A Yes; that's right. 7 Q What did that meeting involve? 8 A It involved the people that are listed at the 9 top, and we were doing it to get the work coordinated and 10 started. 11 Q In the reference to Ron facilities, what does 12 it mean, PS analytical? 13 A It means that it's a certain instrumentation to 14 analyze mercury, and I believe that as we were discussing 15 it, he was telling us that is what he was setting up in his 16 lab. 17 Q What is the reference to "question" following 18 that notation, if you can recall? 19 A I don't specifically recall what that was at 20 that time. I know I remember being concerned that the 21 specific instrument wasn't going to be -- to have the 22 sensitivity needed for the analysis that was needed. 23 Q Do you know whether that's the instrument that 24 he ultimately obtained? 25 A I don't know. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 46 1 Q What instrument was it that was the topic of 2 the discussion? 3 A It's a spectral photometric device. We have 4 since purchased it ourselves, so we use it now. You asked 5 me how it works? 6 Q Has it been satisfactory to do the type of 7 work? 8 A It is satisfactory for soil. It does not have 9 the sensitivity to do water; not in our hands. It may be 10 that he was able to get better performance. 11 Q What was the reference to "clean lab" just 12 below that reference? 13 A I think that he was preparing a clean lab, and 14 you must know what that means. 15 Q Do you know anyone else in the United States 16 who has been able to get the necessary level of performance 17 from the machine in question, or the equipment in question? 18 A I don't know, but analytical chemistry is my 19 very weak part. So I know Ron is a whiz with instruments, 20 and it's likely that he could improve on what the company 21 provides. 22 Q Was the meeting at the Everglades National Park 23 prior to actual sampling in the field? 24 A This was at the time when I got the people to 25 work on this project here, and that was after the LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 47 1 preliminary work which we discussed, was done, and it was in 2 preparation for sampling. 3 Q I show you the next document which the reporter 4 will mark Exhibit No. 12, and ask if you can identify that 5 document, please? 6 (Letter dated 2/18/93 to Dr. Mike 7 Soukup was marked by the reporter as 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 12, hereto 9 attached.) 10 A Yes, I wrote it. 11 Q (By Mr. Sams) You wrote this document? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Was this following the field work? 14 A Yes; some field work. I would say that was 15 following the work that was done with Ron Jones. 16 Q You mean the three samples? 17 A The three samples, and there were a few more 18 samples that came later on. You will see on the table, 19 there were two sets of samples which we received in the 20 summer of -- one set of samples which we received in the 21 summer of '92. 22 Q Did you split those samples for purposes of 23 this analysis? 24 A What do you mean by split? 25 Q I see on the table the notations Summer 1992, LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 48 1 beside S12D and S12C. 2 A Yes. 3 Q And then again -- 4 A If you look at incubation temperature, you will 5 see that the same samples from the summer of '92 were 6 incubated at two different temperatures. 7 Q Did you do the same work on these samples that 8 you had done on the ones from the summer of 1991? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Was that the same basic dosing experiment? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And -- 13 A By the way, you asked me about limit of 14 detection. Those numbers which are marked here are less 15 than those of the limit of detection. 16 Q Thank you. Were these results consistent with 17 your first set of results from the summer of 1991? 18 A Somewhat. 19 Q To what extent did they differ? 20 A I think you can see that the limit of detection 21 was much higher. We didn't get the same sensitivity. But 22 nevertheless, the sample S12D, I'm not sure if it's -- S12D 23 is a highly enriched one. We got some methylation activity, 24 whereas, the other samples did not. I mean we couldn't 25 detect any methylmercury formation. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 49 1 Q What do the columns mean that say percent 2 methylated and percent demethylated? 3 A That's a percent of the substrate that we added 4 to the sample. 5 Q Are the critical factors the rate of 6 methylation and the rate of demethylation? 7 A Not in the way that these experiments are done. 8 Q What are the critical factors here? 9 A The critical factor is in the comparison 10 between different samples. 11 Q And? 12 A That is, if you had M to D higher in the 13 samples, it had more phosphorus than in the sample that had 14 less phosphorus. That's what tells you something. 15 Q What does that tell you? 16 A That tells you that there is a potential for -- 17 that the potential for accumulation of methylmercury is 18 higher in the sample that contains more phosphorus. 19 Q Is that possible to make that comparison with 20 any of the 1992 sampling? 21 A You mean 1992 and 1991? 22 Q Well, I meant 1992 versus 1991. It appears to 23 me that you have methylation to demethylation ratio for each 24 in 1991, but it appears that that is not the case for 1992. 25 A Because two of the samples, the methylation LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 50 1 activity was below the level of detection. The only thing 2 you can say for the date of 1992 was that the most 3 eutrophied sample methylated enough to seed the others were 4 below limit of detection. It is not a very strong argument 5 if you consider that the difference between that sample that 6 have active, which is S12D, was only about seven times 7 higher than the limit of detection. So it is weak. 8 Q You say "not a strong argument." Would it need 9 to be, say, an order of magnitude greater to call it strong? 10 A Yes. Look at the data for '91. See, we are 11 talking about a difference here of a factor of thousand, 12 between 0.008 to 9. 13 Q Show me where I should look. 14 A If you look here, see; if you compare these 15 two. 16 Q So you are comparing the third line, the 17 control, or what Dr. Jones said was the unaffected 18 environment, or the unenriched environment. 19 A I compare my limit of detection. Where I 20 don't -- where we don't see activity, we don't call this 21 zero. We say that it is less than our limit of detection, 22 so that's what I compare it to. 23 Q Did anything occur during the experiment with 24 the 1992 soil samples to cause you to alter your preliminary 25 conclusions that you had reached from the 1991 samples? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 51 1 A No. 2 MR. SAMS: I will show you next a document 3 which I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 4 No. 13. 5 (Document entitled Methylation and 6 Demethylation Processes in Soil 7 Sediments from the Florida Everglades, 8 was marked by the reporter as 9 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 13, hereto 10 attached.) 11 Q (By Mr. Sams) It appears to be a paper 12 entitled Methylation and Demethylation Processes In Soil 13 Sediments from the Florida Everglades by Kavanaugh and 14 Barkay. Do you recognize this document? 15 A Yes. 16 Q When was this document written? Was it written 17 following the 1991 or the 1992 samples, or at some other 18 point? 19 A It was written following the 1992 samples. 20 Actually, I believe that this is -- this is just a more 21 extended version of Exhibit No. 12, so this is dated 22 February of '93. This must have come out about the same 23 time. 24 Q On Page 7 in the table, I see a reference to an 25 estuarine sediment sample. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 52 1 A Yes. 2 Q What is that reference? 3 A This was a control sample that we included 4 because activities of the samples from the Everglades was so 5 low, so we wanted to include a sample that we knew had high 6 activity so we could just be confident that our assays were 7 working. 8 Q So this was an attempt to test your method; not 9 to -- 10 A That's right. 11 Q Not to take a soil that was analogous to the 12 Everglades? 13 A That's right. It's what you call a positive 14 control. 15 Q Did you determine through the use of the 16 positive control that the assays were working? 17 A Yes. 18 Q If I can refer you to Table 5 -- first, Table 4 19 and then Table 5. What is being illustrated by those 20 tables? 21 MR. LIPSHULZ: Are you talking about Table 4 in 22 this case, or both 4 and 5? 23 Q (By Mr. Sams) I was referring to both 4 and 5. 24 They appear to differ in temperature, the 20 degrees and 30 25 degrees centigrade that I think you made a distinction about LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 53 1 earlier. 2 A Yes. So your question is what they mean? 3 Q Yes. 4 A I'm not sure. See, with biological activities, 5 you normally expect an increase in activity with 6 temperature, which is -- with pure enzyme systems you double 7 the rate with every 10 degrees of increase in temperature. 8 I think that this was an attempt to see the effect of 9 temperature on the methylation activity. You can see that 10 we, indeed, got an increase in activity with an increase of 11 10 degrees in temperature. It wasn't exactly a factor of 12 two, but there was an increase. 13 You can't expect a mixed system like this to 14 behave like a pure enzyme. That is not the way it's going 15 to happen. 16 Q But in general, the increase in temperature did 17 produce roughly the kind of effect that you would have 18 predicted? 19 A Yes. With the S12D, which is the most 20 contaminated sample, we got a little over doubling the rate, 21 if you can call it rate. And the same for all samples. 22 S12C, it was a little more than doubled, and the control 23 sample increased by a factor of three. 24 Q I would like to refer you to Page 11, the 25 second paragraph, or the paragraph at the bottom of the LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 54 1 page. The fourth sentence reads, "The demethylation rate 2 was almost twice as high in sediment samples containing a 3 high concentration of phosphorus (impacted site 12D) 4 compared to either sediments with an intermediate 5 concentration (S12C) or control samples." 6 Does that -- what does that mean, to use my 7 layman's form of question? 8 A Well, it means that -- I mentioned that before, 9 that what happens when you have eutrophication, you have an 10 enrichment in organisms that degrade organic matter. That's 11 the meaning of eutrophication. And apparently, when you 12 enrich with those organisms, you also enrich for the ability 13 to demethylate mercury. The same is true for methylation, 14 or so it seems to be, or maybe. 15 Q At the top of the next page is a statement, 16 "From the results obtained so far, using the above 17 experimental method, demethylation rates in sediment are 18 higher than methylation rates. This should result in no net 19 methylmercury accumulation." 20 What is the basis for that statement? 21 A It's wrong. 22 Q It is wrong? 23 A I believe that Mrs. Kavanaugh -- Dr. Kavanaugh, 24 who was working on this project, put this sentence in. It 25 does not -- I'm responsible for this document, because my LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 55 1 name is on it. However, those assays that we do, do not 2 tell you anything about what happens in the soil in terms of 3 the rates. The rates that we observed here are irrelevant 4 to the rates of these processes as they occur in the soil; 5 therefore, this conclusion is wrong. 6 Q That's because this was a dosing experiment 7 rather than an in situ? 8 A Rather than tracer amount. 9 Q Tracer amount? 10 A See, we flooded the system with our substrates. 11 That's why I keep referring to the potential rates. These 12 are not real rates. 13 Q Could you look at the conclusions which begin 14 on that page, and tell me whether you are in agreement with 15 each one of them. I believe there are five enumerated. If 16 you would just take them conclusion by conclusion. 17 A Okay. The first one actually says what I just 18 tried to explain. You see it says, amount of added mercury, 19 and that is true. Let me see the number before I say it is 20 true. Okay. If we look at Table 3, amount methylated for 21 sampling No. 1, I assume it's S12D. I don't know that. 22 Yes. That's D. So in 10 milliliter we had 7.1 nanogram of 23 methylmercury form and 20 degrees -- I'm sorry -- we had 24 24 in 20 milliliter, so that's slightly higher demethylated. 25 Q In which instance? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 56 1 A We look on Table 3, Samples 1, 2, 3, S12D 2 samples, the most eutrophied samples, three replicates of 3 these samples, the mean was 7.1, but this was for 10 4 milliliter of sample. And I compare it with Table No. 4, 5 which is demethylation at 20 degrees. For S12D, we have 6 24.33 in 20 milliliters. So if I multiply 7 by 2, I get 14, 7 yes. So that statement is true for S12D. I don't see 8 numbers here -- okay. 9 For S12C in the control, we had no methylation 10 at all. This is on only the 1992 samples, so that that is 11 true then. 12 Q What about the second conclusion? 13 (Recess) 14 THE WITNESS: I just want to say that this 15 document is a draft document which was later on 16 modified. I do not agree with a lot of what's in 17 there, in this document. 18 Q (By Mr. Sams) Do you disagree with the data 19 that's in the document? 20 A No, but some of the conclusions and the 21 statements, I don't agree. I think that as we discussed I 22 made it -- I made it clear. Where you asked me about 23 specific points, I made it clear where I agreed and where I 24 did not agree. I don't have any problem with those 25 statements. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 57 1 Q Returning to the conclusions, I think we had 2 covered the first conclusion. 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you agree with the second one? 5 A Let me read it carefully. I agree with the 6 first sentence. I disagree with the second. 7 Q Why do you disagree with the second sentence? 8 A Because we cannot conclude, based on this data, 9 that the phosphorus concentration in the sediment did not 10 affect methylation. First of all, we didn't have 11 measurement of the phosphorus concentration in the sediment. 12 And second of all, the fact that with these three samples, 13 the data -- there is no data to support it. 14 Q All right. 15 A First, because we didn't have numbers for 16 phosphorus concentration; second of all, we had one sample 17 that we think had more phosphorus based on information 18 provided by Ron Jones. And in this sample we saw 19 methylation, where in the other two, we didn't. So the data 20 certainly does not support the statement that phosphorus 21 does not affect methylation. 22 Q It seems to say phosphorus concentration in the 23 sediment does seem to affect -- 24 A Okay. 25 Q Were you misreading it? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 58 1 A I was misreading it. But even reading it 2 correctly, still, I don't -- 3 Q You don't think it's sufficient to form a 4 conclusion? 5 A That's right. I'm sorry. 6 Q Conclusion No. 3. 7 A Yes, I agree with that, and I agree with 4. 8 Q Conclusion 5? 9 A Yes. 10 Q I will show you another version of this 11 document, on which there are handwritten comments, and I'll 12 ask the reporter to mark that as Exhibit Number 14. 13 (Document entitled Methylation and 14 Demethylation in Soil Sediments from 15 the Florida Everglades was marked by 16 the reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 No. 14, hereto attached.) 18 Q (By Mr. Sams) Are those your handwritten 19 notes? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Are these corrections which you made to the 22 previous document, which was Exhibit 13? 23 A I believe so, yes. 24 Q Are these changes which you found necessary for 25 the document to be accurate? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 59 1 A These changes are those that I found necessary. 2 I'm not sure that after the changes the document is 3 accurate. I would have to read it to really answer that. 4 Q Was the document ever retyped taking into 5 account these changes? 6 A I have a very vague recollection of what 7 happened, but I seem to remember that we did; that it was 8 retyped. And as far as I remember, what happened was that 9 the document was prepared by Dr. Kavanaugh, the document 10 which is exhibit No. 13. I then went through it and 11 corrected it. I also have some recollection that we added 12 the data from '91, which is not included in either one of 13 these, and sent that out. 14 I believe that Dr. Kavanaugh, on her own, sent 15 the first version to Jerry Stober. But as far as I know, 16 the corrected version is what went out to other people. 17 Q Would you have a copy of the corrected version 18 among your papers? 19 A Apparently, if you didn't get it, I didn't have 20 it in my files. I may have it on a disk. 21 MR. SAMS: Could we ask you to try to produce 22 that corrected version or the disk? We'll accept it 23 in either form. I think the instructions on the 24 Notice to Produce probably so indicated. But in any 25 event, if there does exist a corrected version, I LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 60 1 would like to get it on the same timetable as the 2 other documents we discussed earlier. 3 MR. LIPSHULZ: Okay. 4 Q (By Mr. Sams) Dr. Barkay, on Page 11, near the 5 top, there is what appears to be an incomplete reference 6 following the sentence which reads, "Therefore, the toxic 7 effect of added mercury is difficult to determine." There 8 appears the marginal notation, "However, others, Gilmore and 9 Henry, 1991, have," and then it doesn't include the thought. 10 Do you recall what the thought was in case we have 11 difficulty locating the final version? 12 A Let me read this. What happened here, I 13 started correcting the document by hand and then I continued 14 on the computer. I'm guessing. It relates to the fact that 15 possibly, by adding as much mercury as we added, we 16 inhibited activity. And probably in that paper by Gilmore 17 and Henry, they used a much higher concentration of mercury 18 and they didn't see any inhibition. That might -- that's 19 the way my logic works. 20 Q You just don't have a specific recollection? 21 A That's right. 22 Q Did you make a proposal for further mercury 23 research in the Everglades during 1992? 24 A I am not sure. I think we tried to obtain 25 continuous support from Region IV. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 61 1 Q Were you successful in obtaining that support? 2 A No. 3 Q What reason was given you for the failure of 4 Region IV to support? 5 A They just decided to support something else. 6 Q Let me show you a document that I would ask you 7 if you recognize, dated January 30, 1993 to Dr. Stober? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Were you one of the authors of that document? 10 A Yes. 11 MR. SAMS: I will ask the reporter to mark that 12 as Exhibit No. 15. 13 (Letter dated January 30, 1993 to Dr. 14 Jerry Stober, was marked by the 15 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 16 15, hereto attached.) 17 Q (By Mr. Sams) Was this a set of comments 18 following a meeting in Tallahassee on the draft interagency 19 plan of study, of which Dr. Stober was one of the authors? 20 A This was, I believe, a response to a document 21 that we were asked to review; the document that was written 22 by Dr. Stober. 23 Q If I could refer you to the third paragraph. 24 A Yes. 25 Q What was the suggestion being made there? It LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 62 1 may be more than one suggestion. 2 A I think that this was just a comment that we 3 made to what we thought he should add to his proposal, I 4 believe. 5 Q Was it a suggestion that hydrological regimes 6 needed to be studied in addressing changes in the 7 Everglades? 8 A Yes. 9 Q That may affect the dynamics of mercury 10 species? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Why were you suggesting to include hydrological 13 regimes? 14 A Probably because we thought that it could 15 possibly have some effect on mercury accumulation. I don't 16 think that it had been brought up by other people many times 17 before. 18 Q Do you know whether ultimately the study that 19 grew out of Dr. Stober's effort proposes to include the 20 effects of hydrological regimes? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q On the second page of the letter, under the 23 paragraph referring to Section 7.4.2 and 7.5.2, I see 24 references to methylation by humic substances and by 25 photochemical transformations as ones you were suggesting. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 63 1 A Yes. 2 Q What was the basis for those suggestions? 3 A The basis is there is documentation in the 4 literature that these processes form methylmercury from 5 inorganic mercury. 6 Q Did you have reason to suspect that those might 7 be effective processes in the Everglades? 8 A Do we have a reason? 9 Q Yes. 10 A I think that because of the high concentration 11 of organic matter and probably humic material, it's 12 something that ought to be looked at. 13 Q What about photochemical transformations? 14 A Are you asking me what I feel about it? 15 Q Yes. Would they be significant in the 16 Everglades? 17 A I don't know. It's something that has 18 really -- well -- 19 Q Go ahead. 20 A It has been shown in a test tube type 21 situation. I don't know how much it really -- the 22 environmental effect, I don't know. 23 Q Have you done additional work in connection 24 with the Duke Wetland Center's study transects in WCA 2A? 25 A Yes. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 64 1 Q How did that opportunity arise? Did you 2 request that opportunity? 3 A No. I initiated it. 4 Q By contacting the Duke Wetland Center? 5 A Yes; by contacting Curt Richardson. 6 Q What was your purpose in doing so? 7 A To do my work. 8 Q When did you make that contact? 9 A Last -- late spring or early summer. 10 Q Had anyone asked you to make that contact? 11 A No. 12 Q I will show you a copy of a letter 13 that appears to be from you to Bob Johnson dated July 27, 14 1993. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Is that in reference to the work we are talking 17 about now? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Just so that I can orient myself, during the 20 latter half of 1993 was there any continuation of the work 21 that you had done during 1991 and 1992 concerning cores? 22 A No. 23 Q So this was a separate effort? 24 A Well, it depends on what you call a 25 continuation. Basically, this was a continuation. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 65 1 Q You saw this as a continuation of that same 2 inquiry? 3 A That's right. 4 Q Did you obtain any more cores following the 5 summer 1992 cores from Dr. Jones? 6 A No. 7 Q Did you obtain them from any other source 8 except the study in WCA 2A? 9 A No. In November of 1993, I, myself, went to 10 the western part of the Everglades and collected some 11 samples. 12 Q Was that the Fakahatchee Strand? 13 A Yes. 14 (Letter dated July 27, 1993 to Bob 15 Johnson was marked by the reporter as 16 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 16, hereto 17 attached.) 18 Q (By Mr. Sams) Does this description accurately 19 portray the work that you ultimately did? 20 A Let me see. We did nutrient analysis, not as 21 it is detailed here, but we got total nitrogen, and we got 22 total phosphorus, and we got total carbon; in retrospect, 23 that's what we really needed at the stage of study, rather 24 than what's listed here. We didn't get any physical 25 chemical parameters. As you will notice when you read LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 66 1 through it, it just -- these are all suggestions. And I 2 wrote these for the purpose of getting a response from Bob, 3 who is operating the sampling equipment. 4 Q When you say you got total nitrogen, total 5 phosphorus and total carbon, are those data you received 6 from Duke? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Those were the only data you received from Duke 9 on nutrients? 10 A That's right; and total hydrogen. Okay. Now, 11 we did total mercury and methylmercury in this specific 12 sampling. In the August sampling we did it only in 13 sediments. Something went wrong with the water sampling, so 14 we got this. 15 Q Who did the sediment analyses for you? 16 A It was done by Erwan Saouter, in my lab. We 17 did, again, microbial activity, as listed here, by the 18 mineralization of glucose, and we did mercury specific 19 microbial activities. 20 Q Did you do any other work in addition to what 21 is listed here? 22 A No. 23 Q I would like to show you a set of notes and ask 24 if those are your notes? 25 A Yes. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 67 1 (Handwritten notes dated 8/17/93, were 2 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's 3 Exhibit No. 17, hereto attached.) 4 Q (By Mr. Sams) Were they taken in connection 5 with the WCA 2A sampling? 6 A Yes. 7 Q I see on the first page of notes, dated August 8 17, '93, the statement that two sites were reached, C6 9 unenriched, and 4C, intermediate degree of eutrophication. 10 A It's C4, actually. 11 Q I said it backwards. 12 A No, I wrote it backwards. 13 Q According to whose numbering system? 14 A Duke's. 15 Q And who identified that for you, that C6 was 16 unenriched? 17 A The background information that I have of 18 nutrient measurements in the soil indicates so, and the Duke 19 people that were there, also. 20 Q Is the same answer true for C4 regarding the 21 identification of the intermediate degree of eutrophication? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you recall the phosphorus levels -- or let 24 me ask it this way to shorten this exercise. Were those 25 listed among the documents that you provided us? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 68 1 A Yes. 2 Q How many sample sites were there from which you 3 collected samples? 4 A In August? 5 Q During this study. 6 A I think we did four sites, but one site, 4C, or 7 C4, we took a sample from both the sawgrass bed and from the 8 slough. So if you look through the data later on, you will 9 see that C4 slough. 10 Q Were all the samples collected during August of 11 1993? 12 A What do you mean by all? 13 Q All of the ones in connection with the work on 14 WCA 2A transects? 15 A No. There was another sampling in December. 16 Q In December. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Was that done at the same four sites? 19 A It was done along the same transect. In 20 addition, we also took samples from transect A. You have to 21 know that sampling depends on your ability to get to the 22 sites, so possibly there were sites we couldn't get to in 23 August that we could in December, and vice versa. So I 24 can't say for sure that it was exactly the same sites. We 25 do the best we can. LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 69 1 Q On the bottom of the second page of these 2 notes, which happens the bear the date August 23, 1993, I 3 will show you my copy where I have marked it. I see this 4 statement, "water samples were collected at Gate C, which is 5 the inlet to the area, and at the outlet gate; thus, samples 6 represent a before and after retention of water in 2A." 7 A Yes. 8 Q Then I believe the next sentence says, "If 9 there is net methylmercury formation, the inlet samples 10 should contain more -- 11 A Methylmercury. 12 Q -- than the outlet. Is that a reversal? 13 A Well, that's a very naive view of the 14 situation. I think that at the time when I did that, my 15 assumption was that water was coming in through the gates in 16 the north and going out through the gate in the south. 17 However, that's totally -- it now seem it's totally 18 arbitrary. Sometimes the water flows in reverse. It's all 19 managed by the Water Management District, and they do 20 different things at different times. 21 Q Just to understand the thought pattern, taking 22 the change in your understanding as a given, it says, "If 23 there is net formation the inlet should contain more 24 methylmercury than the outlet." Should not that be 25 reversed? LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 70 1 A Yes, you are right. 2 Q I just wanted to be sure it was just a matter 3 of inverting the thoughts. 4 A Yes. You have to realize that these are not 5 strictly written for myself. 6 Q I understand. I wanted to try to understand 7 them better. 8 A That's what the thought was. If methylmercury 9 is formed as the water flows through the system -- we talked 10 about it -- then you will have more methylmercury coming 11 out. 12 Q On the next page, I notice near the bottom a 13 reference, and the next page happens to have No. 39 at the 14 top. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Again, I will point, if I may, to the 17 statement. "The medium to be added is artificial marsh 18 water." 19 A Yes. 20 Q What was the source of the artificial marsh 21 water? 22 A It's Ron Jones' recipe. We got it from him 23 when we worked with him, and there's also literature 24 references where you can find it. 25 Q As I understand it, all the samples you got, at LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 71 1 least, during August were sediments -- only not water 2 columns -- at least the only ones that you could analyze 3 were. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Did you obtain water column samples in 6 December? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And were they satisfactory for analysis? 9 A We got numbers which seemed to be clean. 10 Q By clean, you mean what? 11 A By clean, I mean that the blanks are okay, 12 which gives me confidence in the numbers that we got. In 13 the world of mercury, that doesn't mean much. 14 Q Is that because of the difficulty of analyzing 15 for mercury? 16 A Yes; at this level. 17 Q At the bottom of the page which has 42 at the 18 upper right-hand corner, I see a question -- probably a 19 question to yourself -- "Do 10 milliliter slurries in 250 20 milliliter container remain anaerobic?" 21 A Yes. 22 Q What was the question there? 23 A You see, like when we do the work, we make the 24 assumptions that these are anaerobic processes, and it's 25 known in anaerobic microbiological work that, that the LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 72 1 larger the head space relative to the volume of the sample, 2 the harder it is to maintain it anaerobic. It's harder. 3 And I was concerned with it, because this was a modification 4 of the procedure that we used before, and we checked for it. 5 Q Did it turn out to be a problem? 6 A No. 7 Q What conclusions, if any, did you form as a 8 result of your August sampling and analysis? 9 A I think we got some very interesting 10 observations which, again, were preliminary and prompted the 11 additional sampling in December. 12 One of them was that there was a negative 13 correlation between the amount of mercury and the amount of 14 total phosphorus in the soil. And although there were only 15 four samples included in the analysis, there was a strong 16 correlation, an inverse correlation, I should say. That was 17 one conclusion. The other was that it s