DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF )
FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural )
Cooperative Marketing Association, ) CASE NOS. 92-3038
ROTH FARMS, INC., and ) 92-3039
WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 92-3040
)
and )
)
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
)
and )________________________
)
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) DEPOSITION
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, )
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) OF
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
)DR. RICHARD T. Di GIULIO
Petitioners, )________________________
)
vs. )
)
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an Agency of the State )
of Florida, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
)
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF )
FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF )
AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, The )
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, The )
FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and The )
SIERRA CLUB, )
Intervenors. )
___________________________________)
AT DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1, 1994
REPORTED BY:
CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 2
APPEARANCES:
SUGARCANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE
OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC.
AND WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.:
MR. GARY P. SAMS
HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN & SAMS
123 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32314
TELEPHONE: (904) 222-7500
FOR RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR:
MS. LISA B. HOGAN
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
99 NORTHEAST 4TH STREET
THIRD FLOOR
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
TELEPHONE: (305) 536-5266
ALSO PRESENT:
DR. RONALD JONES
DR. ELIZABETH HENRY
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 3
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
E X A M I N A T I O N I N D E X
DEPONENT - DR. RICHARD T. Di GIULIO - 4/1/94
EXAMINATION: PAGES
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN 4-207
-------------------------------------------------------
E X H I B I T S I N D E X
NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED
(EXHIBITS NUMBER 1 - 19 WERE MARKED
DURING THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION OF
DR. RICHARD Di GIULIO, APRIL 1, 1994.)
-------------------------------------------------------
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DEPONENT 208
CERTIFICATION OF COURT REPORTER 209
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 4
STIPULATIONS
ON MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, THE
DEPOSITION OF DR. RICHARD T. Di GIULIO MAY BE TAKEN
BEGINNING AT OR AROUND 9:00 A.M. ON APRIL 1, 1994, AT
THE HILTON HOTEL, 3800 HILLSBOROUGH ROAD, THE WALKER
SUITE, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, AND WAS REPORTED BY
CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES.
THE SIGNATURE OF THE WITNESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT
OF HIS TESTIMONY IS HEREBY REQUIRED.
- - - - - - - - - - -
WHEREUPON,
RICHARD T. Di GIULIO, Ph.D.,
HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED
AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN:
Q. GOOD MORNING.
A. GOOD MORNING.
Q. MY NAME IS LISA HOGAN, AND I REPRESENT THE
UNITED STATES IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. I'M GOING TO ASK
YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHAT
YOUR OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY WILL BE AT TRIAL.
A. OKAY.
Q. I'LL ASK YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. IF YOU
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 5
DON'T UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, LET ME KNOW. IF YOU
ANSWER, THEN I'LL ASSUME THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'VE
ASKED OF YOU.
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY? CAN YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE
RECORD?
A. RICHARD THOMAS Di GIULIO.
Q. OKAY. AND CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR PRESENT PLACE
OF EMPLOYMENT AND YOUR BUSINESS ADDRESS?
A. I'M CURRENTLY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE
SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT AT DUKE UNIVERSITY IN DURHAM.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER?
Q. THE ADDRESS.
A. THE ADDRESS. SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, DUKE
UNIVERSITY, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, 27708-0328.
Q. OKAY. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED AS AN
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR?
A. ABOUT ELEVEN AND A HALF YEARS.
Q. OKAY. AND WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES?
A. TO TEACH IN THE AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL
TOXICOLOGY; TO DIRECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY
CHEMISTRY AND RISK ASSESSMENT PROGRAM IN THE SCHOOL OF
THE ENVIRONMENT; AND TO PERFORM RESEARCH RELATED TO
FATE AND EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS IN ECOSYSTEMS.
Q. OKAY. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR AREA OF
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 6
EXPERTISE AT PRESENT?
A. MY AREA OF EXPERTISE IS BROADLY IN THE AREA OF
POLLUTANT FATE AND EFFECTS, PARTICULARLY IN AQUATIC
SYSTEMS. I HAVE BROAD INTERESTS IN TRACE METALS AS
WELL AS ORGANIC POLLUTANTS, ISSUES OF BIOACCUMULATION,
METABOLISM MECHANISMS OF TOXICITY, AGAIN, IN AQUATIC
ORGANISMS.
Q. OKAY. YOU SAID YOU HAVE BROAD INTEREST IN THE
FATE OF TRACE METALS?
A. YES.
Q. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A. FACTORS AFFECTING FATE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT
COMPONENTS OF AN ECOSYSTEM POLLUTANTS END UP IN, WHICH
WILL THEN INFLUENCE COMPONENTS OF AN ECOSYSTEM, SAY, AT
RISK.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED AT TRIAL
BEFORE?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. YOU WERE SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF TAKING
DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR
DEPOSITION TODAY.
A. OKAY.
Q. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU THIS DOCUMENT AND ASK---
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 7
A. OKAY.
Q. ---IF THAT WAS YOUR NOTICE, IF YOU RECEIVED
IT.
A. YEAH, I BELIEVE SO.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
MS. HOGAN: WE'RE GOING TO MARK THAT AS
THE FIRST EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 - DR. Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DID YOU REVIEW THIS NOTICE OF
TAKING DEPOSITION WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. THEN YOU'LL RECALL THAT ATTACHED TO IT
ON PAGE 6 IS A LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DEPOSITION TODAY.
A. RIGHT.
Q. I'D LIKE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE LIST. AND
PLEASE READ EACH ONE OF THE---
A. OKAY. A COPY---
Q. ---THE SECTIONS TO YOURSELF.
A. OH, I'M SORRY.
Q. AND TELL ME WHETHER YOU PRODUCED IT OR NOT.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 8
HAVE YOU PRODUCED THE ITEMS LISTED IN NUMBER 1?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 2?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 3?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 4?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 5?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 6?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE
LISTED IN NUMBER 7?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 8?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 9?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 9
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS LISTED IN
NUMBER 10?
A. YES.
Q. NUMBER 11?
A. YES.
Q. THOSE LISTED IN NUMBER 12?
A. YES.
Q. 13?
A. YES.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. YES.
Q. THOSE LISTED IN ITEM 14?
A. YES.
Q. DID YOU REVIEW ALL THE ITEMS BEFORE THEY WERE
PRODUCED? DID YOU GO THROUGH YOUR FILES AND PULL THE DOCUMENT?
MR. SAMS: LET ME, IF I MAY, INSERT.
ACTUALLY, WHAT WE DID WAS, THE WITNESS GAVE US A
LIST OF DOCUMENTS HE HAD IN HIS FILES, AND WE
PULLED THE COPIES FROM OUR FILES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T
HAVE THE TIME AT THE POINT THAT WAS BEING DONE TO
ACTUALLY HAVE THE COPIES MADE. SO, HE ACTUALLY
TOLD US WHAT HE HAD.
WITNESS: I PROVIDED THEM.
MR. SAMS: AND WE PRESENTED THAT -- THOSE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 10
DOCUMENTS FROM OUR FILES.
MS. HOGAN: SO YOU HAD A COPY OF ALL THE
DOCUMENTS THAT HE POSSESSED THAT WOULD BE
RESPONSIVE TO THIS REQUEST?
MR. SAMS: VIRTUALLY ALL. WE, SUBSEQUENTLY,
THIS WEEK DISCUSSED WITH HIM A COUPLE OR THREE
OTHER ITEMS, INCLUDING SOME DOCUMENTS ON WHICH HE
HAD MADE NOTES OF FUNDING -- UNFUNDED PROPOSAL FOR
WORK AND AN ARTICLE THAT WAS EIGHT OR NINE YEARS
OLD. AND WE ACQUIRED COPIES OF THOSE FROM HIM,
INCLUDING THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS WITH HIS
HANDWRITTEN NOTES AND FURNISHED THOSE TO YOU A
COUPLE DAYS AGO.
MS. HOGAN: ALL RIGHT.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHAT NUMBER ARE WE ON?
A. 15, I THINK.
Q. ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS
RESPONSIVE TO ITEM 15?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO
ITEM 16?
A. YES.
Q. THOSE RESPONSIVE TO 17?
A. YES.
Q. TO 18?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 11
A. YES.
Q. TO 19?
A. YES.
Q. TO 20?
A. YES.
Q. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT OF THE LIST THAT
YOU GAVE COUNSEL, ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU GAVE TO
COUNSEL WERE PRODUCED?
A. YES.
Q. AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
A. WELL, THEY -- THEY ASKED ME FOR A LIST OF ALL
THE MATERIALS I HAD READ IN FORMULATING MY OPINIONS AND
IN COMMENTING ON THE PTR REPORT AND SO FORTH, AND
DELIVERED THAT TO THEIR OFFICE. AND I GUESS -- I
ASSUME THAT THEY DID DELIVER THOSE TO YOU.
Q. OKAY. DID YOU REVIEW THAT LIST YOURSELF?
A. I COMPOSED THAT LIST.
Q. THE LIST THAT YOU'RE READING, I MEAN,
EXHIBIT ONE.
A. DID I HAVE---
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. YES.
Q. DID YOU SEE THAT?
A. YES.
Q. YOU REVIEWED THAT?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 12
A. RIGHT.
Q. OKAY.
A. I GOT THIS DIRECTLY.
Q. OKAY. ARE WE ON ITEM 20?
A. 21, I THINK.
Q. ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS
LISTED IN ITEM 21?
A. YES.
Q. AND THOSE LISTED IN 22?
A. YES.
Q. THE ITEMS LISTED IN 23?
A. YES.
Q. THE ITEMS LISTED IN 24?
A. YES.
Q. THOSE IN 25?
A. YES.
Q. THOSE IN 26?
A. YES.
Q. THE ITEMS LISTED IN 27?
A. YES.
Q. 28?
A. YES.
Q. THOSE LISTED IN 29?
A. YES.
Q. THE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED IN NUMBER 30?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 13
A. YES.
Q. THOSE LISTED IN 31?
A. YES.
Q. AS WELL AS THOSE IN 32?
A. YES.
Q. ALL DOCUMENTS LISTED IN 33?
A. YES.
Q. IN 34?
A. YES.
Q. 35?
A. YES.
Q. 36?
A. YES.
Q. 37?
A. YES.
Q. 38?
A. YES.
Q. AND 39?
A. YES.
Q. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE BEEN DESIGNATED AS
AN EXPERT WITNESS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT AREAS
AND ISSUES YOU'LL BE RENDERING OPINIONS ON?
A. YES.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 14
Q. OKAY. WHAT ARE THOSE AREAS?
A. THOSE AREAS ARE ISSUES CONCERNING MERCURY
BIOACCUMULATION, SPECIFICALLY, POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS
BETWEEN NUTRIENTS AND MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION;
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NUTRIENTS AND MERCURY
METHYLATION.
Q. ANY OTHER AREAS?
A. I GUESS, SPECIFICALLY, POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN PROPOSED STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS AND MERCURY
DYNAMICS.
Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MERCURY DYNAMICS?
A. TRANSPORT AND FATE OF MERCURY IN THE AQUATIC
WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS.
Q. ANY OTHER AREAS?
A. THAT'S -- I THINK THAT COVERS IT.
Q. OKAY. COUNSEL FOR THE CO-OP HAS PROVIDED US
WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNATION OF EXPERT-IN-FACT
WITNESSES, AND YOU ARE LISTED AS A SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT
WITNESS. AND ACCORDING TO THE DESIGNATION THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF YOUR EXPECTED TESTIMONY WILL BE AQUATIC
TOXOLOGY, FATE AND TRANSPORT OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE
ENVIRONMENT; IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
A. YES.
Q. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FACTS AND OPINIONS WILL
BE THE INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS OF MERCURY AND RELATED
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 15
SAMPLING WITHIN THE EAA AND EPA AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS
OF THE PROPOSED SWIM PLAN ON MERCURY CONTAMINATION IN
THE PROPOSED STA'S IN THE EPA. IS THAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING, AS WELL?
A. YES.
Q. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL AREAS WHICH YOU'LL BE
TESTIFYING TO---
A. NO.
Q. ---THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. HAND YOU A COPY OF THAT AND ASK IF
YOU'VE RECEIVED THAT, AS WELL.
A. YES.
Q. OKAY.
MS. HOGAN: WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT
EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 - DR. Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) CAN YOU SUMMARIZE FOR US THE
SUBSTANCE OF YOUR OPINIONS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STA'S AND THEIR EFFECT ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION?
A. INSOMUCH AS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STA'S
ARE LIKELY TO ENHANCE ACCUMULATION OF ORGANIC MATERIAL
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 16
AND NUTRIENTS AND ENHANCE REDUCING CONDITIONS AND
ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS THAT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT
METHYLATION COULD BE INCREASED IN THOSE STA'S.
Q. OKAY. AND WHY IS THAT?
A. BECAUSE PREVIOUS STUDIES TEND TO INDICATE IT'S
-- PREVIOUS STUDIES INDICATE THAT CONDITIONS FAVORING
EUTROPHICATION, FAVORING INCREASED INPUTS OF
BIOAVAILABLE NUTRIENTS, ORGANIC CARBON AND -- WHICH
TEND ALSO TO ENHANCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANAEROBIC
CONDITIONS -- SEEM TO STIMULATE ACTIVITY OF MICROBIAL
POPULATIONS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE METHYLATION OF
MERCURY.
Q. WHAT NUTRIENTS DO YOU ANTICIPATE BEING ADDED
TO THE STA'S?
A. PHOSPHORUS, SULFATE, VARIOUS IONS, MAGNESIUM,
CALCIUM, CARBONATE, NITROGEN.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR
OPINIONS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF STA'S AND THEIR
EFFECT ON METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION?
A. MY SENSE IS THAT THOSE SAME CONDITIONS AT --
ASSOCIATED WITH EUTROPHICATION WILL TEND TO REDUCE
BIOACCUMULATION IN FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
Q. THAT THEY'LL REDUCE BIOACCUMULATION?
A. YES.
Q. AND WHY IS THAT?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 17
A. BECAUSE -- WELL, AGAIN, A LOT OF IT'S JUST
BASED ON WORLDWIDE STUDIES THAT SHOW A STRONG INVERSE
CONNECTION BETWEEN TROPHIC STATUS AND MERCURY
ACCUMULATIONS IN BIOTA. THAT IS THAT -- EVERYTHING'S
BEING EQUAL IN TERMS OF MERCURY INPUTS AND SO FORTH --
THAT OLIGOTROPHIC SYSTEMS INVARIABLY SHOW HIGHER
CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS RELATIVE
TO EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR
OPINIONS AS TO PHOSPHORUS' -- THE EFFECT OF PHOSPHORUS
ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION?
A. WELL, I DON'T -- I DON'T -- THE EFFECT OF
PHOSPHORUS ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. I TEND TO THINK THAT -- THAT PHOSPHORUS WOULD
TEND TO STIMULATE METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION AGAIN IN --
BY -- AS A LIMITING NUTRIENT AFFECTING MICROBIAL
ACTIVITY.
Q. OKAY. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NUTRIENT
INPUT TO THE STA'S AND THE CONSERVATION AREAS AS
RELATED TO MERCURY?
A. WOULD -- WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT?
Q. UH-HUH (YES). WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
NUTRIENT INPUT TO THE STA'S AND THE CONSERVATION AREAS
AS IT RELATES TO MERCURY?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 18
A. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENT---
MR. SAMS: I'LL OBJECT TO THE FORM OF
THE QUESTION. DO YOU MEAN NUTRIENT INPUT TO
THE STA'S VERSUS NUTRIENT INPUT TO THE WATER
CONSERVATION AREAS?
MS. HOGAN: UH-HUH (YES). INPUT TO THE
WATER CONSERVATION AREAS AND THE EFFECT THAT
IT WOULD HAVE ON MERCURY.
A. WHAT DO I THINK WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN NUTRIENT INPUTS INTO THE STA'S VERSUS THE WATER
CONSERVATION AREAS---
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. ---AFTER THAT WATER'S GONE THROUGH THE STA'S?
IS THAT THE POINT? ARE YOU ASKING WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE? AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE WATER -- WATER
WOULD GO THROUGH THE STA'S AFTER THEIR CONSTRUCTION AND
THEN ENTER THE WCA'S. IS THAT CORRECT?
Q. OKAY. UH-HUH (YES).
A. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?
Q. YEAH, I'LL ASK THAT, AS WELL, OKAY?
A. WELL, WITH -- WITH MY MODEL WITH MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STA'S WOULD BASICALLY BE BUILT,
SAY, UPSTREAM, IF YOU WILL---
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. ---OF THE WCA'S, NUTRIENTS ENTERING THE WCA'S
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 19
AFTER GOING THROUGH THE STA'S WOULD BE LOWER THAN THAT
ENTERING THE STA'S.
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO THE EFFECT
OF NUTRIENT INPUT INTO THE WATER CONSERVATION AREAS?
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM
OF THE QUESTION.
WITNESS: I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU REPEAT
THAT AGAIN?
MS. HOGAN: YES.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO THE
EFFECT OF NUTRIENT INPUT INTO THE WATER CONSERVATION
AREAS ON MERCURY?
A. ON MERCURY?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
MR. SAMS: OBJECT AGAIN TO FORM.
A. SEE, LET ME GET THIS RIGHT. WHAT -- WHAT IS
MY OPINION OF THE EFFECT OF NUTRIENTS ON MERCURY IN
THE---
Q. WATER CONSERVATION AREAS.
A. ---IN THE W---
Q. YOU GAVE ME A---
A. I MEAN IT -- IT'S, YOU KNOW -- AGAIN, I -- I
THINK TO -- TO MAKE ANY SENSE OF THAT YOU HAVE TO
COMPARE RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF NUTRIENT INPUTS. MY
FEELING IS THAT, IF THOSE NUTRIENT INPUTS ARE VERY LOW,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 20
LOW ENOUGH TO PUSH A SYSTEM TO BECOME MORE
OLIGOTROPHIC, THAT ISOLATED EFFECT WILL ENHANCE MERCURY
BIOACCUMULATION IN FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC ANIMALS.
Q. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU EXPECT ACCUMULATION OF
NUTRIENTS IN THE STA'S TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE EFFECTS
IN THE WATER CONSERVATION AREAS?
A. DO I -- SAY THAT AGAIN; SAY THAT AGAIN.
Q. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU EXPECT THE ACCUMULATION OF
NUTRIENTS IN THE STA'S---
A. ACCUMULATION OF NUTRIENTS.
Q. UH-HUH (YES). WITHIN THE STA'S, ALL RIGHT, DO
YOU EXPECT THAT ACCUMULATION TO BE DIFFERENT THAN THE
EFFECTS OF THOSE NUTRIENTS IN THE WATER CONSERVATION
AREAS?
A. I DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S MIXING. I
WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THIS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. SAY IT
-- SAY IT AGAIN.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU EXPECT THE ACCUMULATION OF
NUTRIENTS---
A. ACCUMULATION OF NUTRIENTS, OKAY.
Q. ---WITHIN THE STA'S---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---TO HAVE DIFFERENT EFFECTS THAN THEY WOULD
HAVE IN THE WATER CONSERVATION AREAS?
A. I -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO -- I -- I
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 21
GUESS -- I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE QUITE A
DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCUMULATION OF THE NUTRIENTS, AND
THAT WILL CERTAINLY HAVE AN EFFECT. NOW, A GIVEN INPUT
OF NUTRIENTS INTO ONE OR THE OTHER WILL HAVE A SIMILAR
EFFECT. BUT THAT'S WHAT I -- I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, I
-- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENT
PATTERN OF ACCUMULATION. AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANT
THING AFFECTING MERCURY, NOT THAT A NUTRIENT -- JUST,
YOU KNOW, THAT -- THAT -- THERE'S SOME INHERENT
DIFFERENCE IN THAT, IF YOU PUT NUTRIENTS HERE VERSUS
NUTRIENTS HERE, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE, NO.
Q. WHY IS THERE A DIFFERENT PATTERN?
A. WELL, AGAIN, I'M ASSUMING THAT THE STA'S ARE
GOING TO SERVE THEIR -- WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THEIR
DESIGN FUNCTION IN TRAPPING NUTRIENTS, MAINTAINING
NUTRIENTS LARGELY WITHIN THE STA'S AND, THEREFORE,
REDUCING OUTPUTS OF NUTRIENTS INTO THE DOWNSTREAM
WCA'S.
Q. WHAT IF YOU ASSUME THAT THERE ARE NO STA'S?
A. IF THERE WERE NO STA'S, WELL, THEN THERE --
THEN -- THEN THERE'D BE MORE NUTRIENTS ENTERING THE
WCA'S THAN WOULD OCCUR WITH THE STA'S.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
A. AND THAT WOULD, IN -- IN ESSENCE, RENDER THOSE
WCA'S RELATIVELY MORE EUTROPHIC AND, THEREFORE,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 22
RELATIVELY -- AND, THEREFORE, DRIVE RELATIVELY LESS
BIOACCUMULATION IN FISH AND AQUATIC ANIMALS OF MERCURY.
Q. OKAY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM
"RESERVOIR EFFECT"?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR -- CAN YOU -- EXCUSE ME.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR OPINION AS TO
THE RESERVOIR EFFECT IN NORTHERN AREAS?
A. IN NORTHERN AREAS?
Q. UH-HUH (YES). WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE
RESERVOIR EFFECT, IN YOUR OPINION?
A. I DON'T THINK IT'S ENTIRELY KNOWN, BUT MY
SENSE IS THAT, WHEN YOU TAKE A TERRESTRIAL AREA THAT
JUST HAS -- WITH NO -- NO POINT SOURCES OR, YOU KNOW,
MAJOR IMPACTING SOURCES OF MERCURY -- IN OTHER WORDS,
JUST REFLECTING ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION, NATURAL SOIL
ACCUMULATIONS AND SO FORTH -- AND THEN FLOOD THAT
SYSTEM, THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD HIGHLY
STIMULATE CONDITIONS FOR MERCURY METHYLATION AND SO
FORTH, AGAIN, BY A BIG IMPACT -- A BIG INPUT OF
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC MATTER, DECAYING VEGETATION AND
SO FORTH. THAT WOULD THEN STIMULATE MICROBIAL
ACTIVITY.
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO HOW THE
RESERVOIR EFFECT WOULD RELATE TO THE STA'S?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 23
A. I DON'T HAVE A REAL CLEAR PICTURE IN MY MIND
OF WHAT THE STA'S LOOK LIKE AT PRESENT. BUT ASSUMING
THAT ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS THAT HAVE
BEEN UNFLOODED AND ARE NOW FLOODED, THAT A RESERVOIR
EFFECT COULD WELL OCCUR.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD.
A. THIS IS MY CURRICULUM VITAE, DATED JANUARY
1994.
MS. HOGAN: WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT
EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 - DR. Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE YOU HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT
IN THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF MERCURY AND MERCURY
COMPOUNDS?
A. YES. I HAD A STUDY IN AROUND '83, '84, IN
THERE, TO INVESTIGATE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN PEAT
AND PEATLANDS OF EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA AND
ACCUMULATIONS IN CANAL SEDIMENTS, DRAINING THOSE
PEATLANDS, AND IN THE ESTUARINE BIVALVE RANGIA CUNEATA
AS SORT OF A BIOMONITOR OF MERCURY IN THOSE SYSTEMS.
Q. AND WHAT DID THAT STUDY ENTAIL?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 24
A. WELL, THE STUDY WAS MOTIVATED BY CONCERNS THAT
CONVERSION -- WELL, A PROPOSED PEAT TO METHANOL
FACILITY WAS GOING TO ENHANCE OR DRIVE THE SUCCESSIVE
REMOVAL OF LAYERS OF PEAT FROM A BROAD AREA IN EASTERN
NORTH CAROLINA REFERRED TO AS WHITETAIL FARMS. AND
THEN THAT WOULD EXPOSE EXCESSIVE LAYERS OF PEAT TO
OXIDIZING CONDITIONS THAT WOULD THEN POTENTIALLY
ENHANCE MOVEMENT OF MERCURY OUT OF THOSE PEAT AND INTO
RECEIVING AQUATIC SYSTEMS. AND SO, ANYWAY, THAT --
THAT'S -- THAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR FUNDING THAT
STUDY.
Q. AND WHAT DID YOUR STUDY FIND?
A. WELL, IN ESSENCE, THE STUDY FOUND THAT THE
CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN THOSE NORTH CAROLINA
PEATLANDS WAS VERY LOW, ABOUT AS LOW AS WE COULD FIND
AMONG PEATLAND SYSTEMS. AND THAT IN CURRENT CANALS
DRAINING THOSE SYSTEMS CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN
CANAL SEDIMENTS -- CANAL SEDIMENTS AND IN THE BIVALVES
WERE VERY LOW. AND ALSO RELATED TO THAT STUDY A
CHEMIST AT -- THEN, AT THE DUKE MARINE LAB, A CO-PI ON
THAT PROJECT, WAS STUDYING WATER CONCENTRATIONS AND
SIMILARLY FOUND VERY LOW CONCENTRATIONS THAT WERE
CONSISTENT WITH REPORTS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME OF
ESSENTIALLY PRISTINE SYSTEMS.
IN ESSENCE, THERE WAS -- THERE WAS NO PARTICULAR
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 25
SUPPORT FOR THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THOSE PEATLANDS WERE
GENERATING ELEVATED MERCURY IN THE DOWN -- IN THE
RECEIVING AQUATIC SYSTEMS.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
A. BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- YOU KNOW, IT WAS --
IT WAS JUST A VERY -- THERE WAS VERY LITTLE MERCURY IN
THAT ENTIRE SYSTEM.
Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE MERCURY
CONCENTRATION LEVELS WERE LOW, WHAT DO YOU MEAN
QUANTITATIVELY?
A. WELL, AS I RECALL, THE MERCURY IN THAT PEAT
WAS -- WAS -- I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT PAPER. THAT'S
-- THAT WAS PROPOSED IN '84. BUT IT WAS ABOUT .1 PARTS
PER BILLION. THE -- IN THE -- IN THE CANALS IT WAS
ABOUT .0 -- I WANT TO THINK ABOUT .02, AS, LIKE, ABOUT
A TENTH OR LESS OF THAT. THE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
BIVALVES, I BELIEVE, WERE, AT THE VERY TOP, ABOUT
TWENTY-FIVE OR THIRTY PARTS PER BILLION. WE COULDN'T
DETECT METHYLMERCURY, BUT OUR TECHNIQUES WERE REAL
LIMITED. OUR DETECTION LEVEL WAS ABOUT TWENTY-FIVE
PPB'S IN THE -- IN THE BIVALVES. SO THAT -- IT WASN'T
SURPRISING IF TOTAL MERCURY WAS ON THAT SAME ORDER,
THAT WE COULDN'T DETECT IT, YOU KNOW.
Q. OKAY. WHO FUNDED YOUR STUDY?
A. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WATER
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 26
RESOURCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
Q. OKAY. AND HOW LONG DID YOUR STUDY TAKE TO
COMPLETE?
A. IT WAS -- IT WAS FUNDED FOR ONE YEAR. I THINK
THE ENTIRE STUDY WAS, LIKE -- IT TOOK US ABOUT EIGHTEEN
MONTHS.
Q. AND WHAT METHODOLOGY DID YOU USE WITH YOUR
STUDY?
A. WE USED CLASSIC COLD VAPOR TECHNIQUES TO
MEASURE TOTAL MERCURY IN THE PEAT SEDIMENT AND CLAM.
AS I RECALL, WE USED A ORGANIC SOLVENT EXTRACTION FOR
ESTIMATING METHYLMERCURY. AND THEN THAT WAS STILL RUN
ON -- THAT WAS ALL DONE BY ATOMIC ABSORPTION
SPECTROSCOPY.
Q. OKAY. WHAT WAS THE TOTAL COST OF THE STUDY?
A. TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00).
Q. OKAY. DID YOU COLLECT THE SAMPLES YOURSELF?
A. I HELPED -- IT COMPOSED THE -- COMPRISED THE
MASTER'S THESIS OF A STUDENT WHO DID THE BULK OF THE
SAMPLING. BUT THE TWO PI'S, MYSELF AND DAVID EVANS
ALONG WITH THE STUDENT ALSO DID APPRECIABLE FIELDWORK
IN COLLECTING SAMPLES.
Q. OKAY. AND WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE RESULTS OF
YOUR STUDY?
A. THEY WERE PUBLISHED. THERE WAS A REPORT GIVEN
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 27
TO THE UNC WRRI IN THE PARK THAT MY STUDENT AND I DID
-- PUBLISHED THAT COMPONENT IN WATER AND AIR AND SOIL
POLLUTION. AND DAVID EVANS, WHO DID THE WATER
ANALYSES, I DON'T BELIEVE, EVER GOT AROUND TO
PUBLISHING HIS PART IN THE OPEN LITERATURE.
Q. YOU SAID THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE STUDY WAS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOVEMENT OF THE SEDIMENT WOULD
INCREASE THE MERCURY WITHIN THE SYSTEM?
A. WELL, THE REPORT WAS STIMULATED BY SOME
REPORTS OF HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN CANAL
WATERS. AND, SO, THAT GENERATED A LOT OF CONCERN FOR
THE FISHERIES IN THE PAMLICO-ALBEMARLE AREA OF NORTH CAROLINA.
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. THE HYPOTHESIS ESSENTIALLY WAS THAT THE
HARVESTING OF THOSE PEAT WOULD EXPOSE THE UNDERLYING
LAYER. LET'S SAY, WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO DO THIS PEAT
TO METHANOL THING, THE IDEA WAS THEY'D GO IN AND, A FEW
INCHES AT A TIME, SCRAPE OFF THE SURFACE LAYER OF PEAT;
TAKE THAT TO A PLANT FOR CONVERSION TO METHANOL. AND,
AS YOU DID THAT, OF COURSE, YOU'D HAVE TO, ONE, DRAIN
THE PEATLAND TO SCRAPE IT; AND THEN, WHEN YOU SCRAPED
OFF THE LAYER, BOTH OF THOSE IMPACTS WOULD ESSENTIALLY
ENHANCE OXIDATION CONDITIONS.
YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THE -- THE HYPOTHESIS WAS THAT
YOU WOULD PROBABLY DRIVE A SYSTEM FROM RELATIVELY
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 28
ANAEROBIC REDUCING CONDITIONS THAT WOULD TEND TO REDUCE
TRANSPORT OF MERCURY TO A MORE OXIDIZING AEROBIC
SITUATION THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF SUBSEQUENT
RAINFALL AND SO FORTH TO WASH PEAT -- MERCURY INTO
RECEIVING SYSTEMS.
Q. OKAY. AS A RESULT OF YOUR STUDY AND YOUR
STUDIES FINDINGS DID THEY DECIDE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE
HARVESTING?
A. NO. THE -- THE WHOLE PROJECT, THE WHOLE
PROPOSED PEAT TO METHANOL PLANT NEVER WENT THROUGH
BECAUSE, AS I UNDERSTAND, CHANGING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
-- IN OTHER WORDS, ALL THIS GOT GOING FOLLOWING THE
ARAB OIL EMBARGO. AND THERE WAS A STRONG INTEREST IN
ALTERNATIVES TO GASOLINE AND SO FORTH. AFTER CONCERN
ABOUT THE ARAB OIL EMBARGO SUBSIDED, SOME ECONOMIC
INCENTIVE DECLINED. AND, MOREOVER, ON TOP OF THAT,
THERE WERE OTHER BROAD ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE
WHOLE EFFECT ON THAT SYSTEM THAT WERE COMPLETELY
INDEPENDENT OF MERCURY.
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. AND THOSE TWO THINGS, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING,
ULTIMATELY WERE THE DEATH KNOLL OF THAT WHOLE PROJECT.
Q. OKAY. WHAT OTHER EXPERIENCE HAVE YOU HAD WITH
THE ANALYSIS OF MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS?
A. IN TERMS OF DIRECT ANALYSIS, THAT'S BEEN IT.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 29
Q. OKAY. ON YOUR RESUME ON PAGE 7 UNDER "M.S.
THESES," IT SAYS, "ELIZABETH RYAN---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---1985, DISTRIBUTION OF MERCURY IN PEAT,
SEDIMENT AND BIOTA." IS THAT---
A. THAT'S THE THESIS THAT---
Q. ---THE THESIS THAT YOU -- OKAY.
A. ---EMANATED FROM THAT WRRI STUDY, YES.
Q. THIS C.B. PACE AND R.T. Di GIULIO---
A. YES.
Q. ---LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---SEDIMENT AND CLAM SAMPLES---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---IS THAT ALSO FROM THE SAME STUDY?
A. YEAH, WE MORE OR LESS---
Q. THAT'S ON PAGE 12---
A. ---WE WEREN'T FUNDED TO DO THAT. BUT I HAD A
MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STUDENT AT THE TIME,
CHARLES PACE, WHO WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THE OVERALL
PROJECT. AND SINCE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE EFFORT IN
THAT STUDY WAS GETTING THESE SAMPLES, WE HAD TONS OF
SAMPLES. HE HAD BASICALLY FOLLOWED UPON ELIZABETH AND
MEASURED LEAD -- MORE OR LESS DID A VERY SIMILAR STUDY
LOOKING AT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN THOSE SAME SAMPLES
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 30
AND ALSO LOOKING AT LEAD FRACTIONATION. THAT IS, THE
RELATIVE ASSOCIATION OF LEAD WITH HUMIC FOLIC ACIDS
VERSUS ION EXCHANGE. IN OTHER WORDS, INDICES OF
RELATIVE MOBILITY OF LEAD.
Q. OKAY.
A. BUT THAT WOULD -- WE JUST PIGGYBACKED THAT, IN
ESSENCE. WE WEREN'T REQUIRED BY THE FUNDING AGENCY TO
DO THAT.
Q. IT MENTIONS HERE UNDER REPORTS, Di GIULIO AND
RICHARDSON, 1989, THE EFFECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
ON RED SPRUCE.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. WHAT -- WHAT IS YOUR BACKGROUND WITH THE
INVESTIGATION OF ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION?
A. WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON, SO I'LL BE---
Q. 13.
A. 13?
Q. UH-HUH (YES), THE VERY LAST ENTRY UNDER
"REPORTS."
A. OH, I SEE. CURT AND I, WE GOT A GRANT -- AND
I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN IT STARTED, PROBABLY
AROUND '86, '87, SOMEWHERE IN THERE -- TO STUDY THE
IMPACTS OF OZONE ON RED SPRUCE. I -- ONE OF MY
INTERESTS HAS BEEN OXIDATIVE STRESS AND SO FORTH. SO,
I'D BEEN STUDYING FOR SOME TIME FREE RADICAL PROCESSES
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 31
IN AQUATIC ANIMALS. AND THEN THROUGH THE NAPAP PROGRAM
AND SO FORTH THERE WAS GREAT INTEREST IN IMPACTS OF
ACID RAIN ASSOCIATED OXIDANTS, LIKE N.O.X., S.O.X. IN
OZONE ON FOREST VEGETATION.
AND, SO, THE BIOCHEMICAL APPROACHES THAT I HAD
DEVELOPED FOR LOOKING AT OXIDATIVE STRESS IN AQUATIC
ORGANISMS WERE READILY APPROPRIATE -- YOU KNOW,
PROVIDED A REAL INTERESTING WAY TO TRY TO LOOK AT THESE
ATMOSPHERIC OXIDANTS ON TREES. THE BIOCHEMISTRY IS
QUITE RELATED. SO, WE WROTE A PROPOSAL TO THE U.S.
FOREST SERVICE AND DID, BASICALLY, A STUDY AT THE
BOYCE-THOMPSON INSTITUTE AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY, WHERE
WE -- IN COLLABORATION WITH THEIR PEOPLE -- EXPOSED RED
SPRUCE TO OZONE. AND CURT BASICALLY DID THE
PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GAS
EXCHANGE AND SO FORTH. AND MY GROUP DID THE
BIOCHEMICAL MEASURES ON OXIDATIVE STRESS AND
ANTI-OXIDANT RESPONSES.
Q. IS THAT THE ONLY STUDY OR INVESTIGATION THAT
YOU'VE DONE RELATING TO ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION?
A. YES. I THINK SO, YEAH.
Q. OKAY.
A. WELL, LET ME THINK. AND WE DID -- WE DID A --
WE DID A LITTLE BIT, BASICALLY, OF WORK FOR CURT. HE
GOT -- HE GOT MONEY TO DO -- NOT THE BIOCHEMICAL PART,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 32
BUT HE GOT MONEY TO DO SOME OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL
EFFECTS IN A SIMILAR -- BASICALLY UNDER THE SAME
GENERAL NAPAP ACID PRECIPITATION PROGRAM TO STUDY
EFFECTS OF OZONE ON THE LOBLOLLY PINE, AND WHICH HE DID
AT THE DUKE FOREST SITE. AND, SO, MY LAB CONTRIBUTED
TO SOME BIOCHEMICAL ANALYSES. AGAIN, THEY WERE JUST
PIGGYBACKED. THEY -- WE JUST DID IT FOR THE FUN OF IT
BECAUSE WE WERE INTERESTED IN DOING IT.
Q. HAVE YOU BEEN ASKED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION IN
THIS CASE REGARDING ACID -- I MEAN ATMOSPHERIC
DEPOSITION---
A. NO.
Q. ---AS IT RELATES TO THE EVERGLADES?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. ON PAGE 14 UNDER -- WELL, JUST ABOVE
OTHER PUBLICATIONS THERE'S AN ENTRY---
A. RIGHT.
Q. ---FOR D.W. EVANS---
A. RIGHT.
Q. ---Di GIULIO AND RYAN REGARDING MERCURY AND
PEAT---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---IN ITS DRAINAGE WATERS IN EASTERN NORTH
CAROLINA.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 33
Q. IS THAT THE REPORT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING
TO---
A. RIGHT.
Q. ---PREVIOUSLY? OKAY. HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW THE
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS THAT YOU FOUND IN NORTH CAROLINA
PEATLAND WILL COMPARE WITH THE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
FOUND IN THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES?
A. YOU KNOW, I'VE NEVER REALLY CAREFULLY GONE
DOWN AND COMPARED THE TWO. I -- AND I SHOULD, BUT MY
RECOLLECTION -- AND I GUESS I HAVEN'T SEEN A WHOLE LOT
OF PEAT DATA FOR FLORIDA.
MY SENSE IS THAT -- IN FACT, I THINK, WHEN I WROTE
THE PAPER, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF FLORIDA DATA. MY
GENERAL SENSE WAS THAT THE PEAT -- THE MERCURY
CONCENTRATIONS IN PEAT IN NORTH CAROLINA WERE GENERALLY
LOWER THAN THOSE OBSERVED IN FLORIDA. BUT THAT'S A
VAGUE MEMORY AND I WOULD -- I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND
MORE CAREFULLY CHECK THAT.
THE OTHER THING WE FOUND, TOO, IN THE STUDY WAS
THAT THERE'S THIS ENORMOUS -- VERY STRONG ASSOCIATION
IN THE CANAL SEDIMENTS AND THE PEAT BETWEEN ORGANIC
MATTER CONCENTRATION. AND, SO, IT'S VERY -- WITHOUT
THAT INFORMATION YOU HAVE TO BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL IN
COMPARING SITES OR, YOU KNOW -- WELL, AT LEAST THAT INFORMATION.
Q. ON PAGE 20 UNDER "GRANTS," IT SAYS THE EFFECTS
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 34
OF PEATLAND DRAINAGE ON MERCURY DYNAMICS ON EASTERN --
IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA. IS THAT THE GRANT THAT YOU
WERE SPEAKING OF BEFORE?
A. YES, UH-HUH (YES).
Q. FOR THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND
FORTY ($35,840.00)?
A. RIGHT. I WAS WRONG. I SAID TWENTY-FIVE
($25,000.00) EARLIER BECAUSE IT USED TO BE -- I THOUGHT
THE CAP AT WRRI, BUT I THINK BECAUSE -- THAT'S RIGHT.
WE WERE -- WE GOT INCREASED MONIES BECAUSE DAVE EVANS
WAS MORE OR LESS ADDED AS A CO-PI ON ORIGINAL
SUBMISSION.
Q. HAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE ANALYSIS OF
MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS INCLUDED WATER ANALYSIS
OR HAS IT MAINLY BEEN SEDIMENT ANALYSIS?
A. WELL, IN THAT REPORT -- IN THAT STUDY, THAT
STUDY INCLUDED WATER COLUMN ANALYSES. THE ACTUAL
ANALYSES, THOUGH, WERE ALL PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY
OF DR. EVANS AT THE DUKE MARINE LABORATORY.
Q. WHAT HAS BEEN THE EXTENT OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT
OR ANALYSIS OF MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS IN THE
SOIL AND SEDIMENTS OF NATURAL LAKES?
A. WELL, THAT'S -- THAT STUDY INCLUDED WATER
BODIES THAT I -- I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD CHARACTERIZE
THEM AS LAKES, BUT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, BROAD, SLOW
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 35
RIVERS. I DON'T KNOW. IT -- IT'S -- IT'S A HARD CALL.
BUT I -- I GUESS I CAN'T SAY THAT THOSE STUDIES
INCLUDED LAKE -- QUOTE, UNQUOTE -- LAKES.
Q. HAVE YOU HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT OR ANALYSIS OF
MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS IN THE SOIL AND SEDIMENTS
OF WETLANDS?
A. YES. THIS STUDY IN THE NORTH CAROLINA
PEATLANDS WERE -- THE PEATLANDS IN THAT AREA INCLUDE
WHAT WE WOULD -- ARE, YOU KNOW, POCOSIN WETLANDS.
Q. OKAY. ARE THEY EUTROPHIC OR ALL OLUTROPHIC
[sic] WETLANDS? OLIGOTROPHIC, I'M SORRY.
A. I'M -- I'M RELUCTANT TO SAY. WE DIDN'T DO ANY
OTHER WATER CHEMISTRIES IN TERMS OF CHLOROPHYLL OR
PHOSPHORUS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD DIRECTLY ADDRESS
TROPHIC STATUS. MY SENSE WAS THAT THERE -- THEY --
THEY WERE PRODUCT -- TYPICALLY PRODUCTIVE WETLAND
SYSTEMS. BUT I WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO CLASSIFY THEM AS
OLIGOTROPHIC OR EUTROPHIC, BECAUSE WE MADE NO MEASURES
THAT DIRECTLY ASSESSED THAT.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY WORKS REGARDING
THE EFFECTS OF PHOSPHORUS ON THE METHYLATION PROCESS?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY WORK CONCERNING THE
CAUSES OF METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION IN EUTROPHIC
WETLANDS OR OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 36
A. WELL, IN THAT STUDY WE DID ASSAY FOR
METHYLMERCURY. AND IN THE DISCUSSION WE ALLUDED TO
POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC SOURCES OF
METHYLATION ACTIVITY, BUT WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS IT EXPERIMENTALLY.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME A GENERAL
DEFINITION OF WHAT BIOACCUMULATION MEANS?
A. BIOACCUMULATION REFERS TO THE ACCUMULATION OF
A MATERIAL BY A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM.
Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISMS, CHEMICAL,
BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL, THAT ARE INVOLVED IN MERCURY
BIOACCUMULATION AND BIOTA?
A. I DON'T THINK ANYONE COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDS
THAT. I UNDERSTAND A REASONABLE DEGREE OF THAT AS IT'S
UNDERSTOOD IN THE GENERAL LITERATURE AND FROM MY
EXPERIENCE AS AN AQUATIC TOXICOLOGIST.
Q. WHAT'S YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE
MECHANISMS THAT ARE INVOLVED?
A. IN THE ACCUMULATION OF MERCURY?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. WELL, IT'S VERY COMPLEX. THERE'S NO SIMPLE
MECHANISM. YOU KNOW, IT VARIES TREMENDOUSLY AMONG
SPECIES. MY SENSE WOULD BE THAT BENTHIC ORGANISMS ARE
PROBABLY ACCUMULATING MERCURY MOST DIRECTLY FROM
ASSOCIATION WITH AN INGESTION OF SEDIMENTS THAT THE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 37
MAJOR FORM OF MERCURY IN THOSE SEDIMENTS IS MERCURIC
ION, HG2+. AND IN SUPPORT OF THAT, THE BULK OF THE --
OR CONSISTENT WITH THAT, THE BULK OF MERCURY IN THOSE
ORGANISMS TENDS TO BE MERCURIC ION, NOT METHYLMERCURY.
IF WE LOOK AT LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL NEKTON OR EVEN LOWER
-- INCLUDING LOWER TROPHIC FISH, SAY, AS -- OR LET'S
LOOK AT LOWER TROPHIC FISH, THEN ACCUMULATION PATTERNS
OR SOURCES OF ACCUMULATION WOULD BE SORT OF A MIXED BAG
FOR IONIC METALS, INCLUDING MERCURY, MERCURIC ION, AS
WELL AS OTHER, CADMIUM LEAD.
IT'S GENERALLY THOUGHT THAT DIRECT GILL UPTAKE IS
THE MAJOR ROUTE OF ACCUMULATION. SO, THOSE FISH WOULD
PROBABLY BE ACCUMULATING MERCURY BOTH THROUGH DIRECT
GILL UPTAKE, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE LARGELY MERCURIC
ION. BUT THEN THEY WOULD ALSO BE ACCUMULATING MERCURY
THROUGH THE FOOD CHAIN, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE
BOTH MERCURIC ION AND METHYLMERCURY THAT'S BEEN
ACCUMULATED BY LOWER TROPHIC LEVELS, PLANKTON,
PHYTOPLANKTON, ZOOPLANKTON. AND THAT SEEMED TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LITERATURE IN THAT THESE LOWER
TROPHIC -- VERY EARLY TROPHIC LEVELS HAVE A MIXTURE OF
MERCURIC ION AND METHYLMERCURY.
METHYLMERCURY, THOUGH, IS MUCH MORE READILY
RETAINED WITHIN AN ORGANISM. IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
FOR AN ANIMAL TO DEPURATE MERCURIC ION -- I MEAN
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 38
METHYLMERCURY VERSUS MERCURIC ION. AND THAT, IN PART,
ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELATIVELY GREATER CONTRIBUTION OF
METHYLMERCURY AS YOU MOVE UP A FOOD CHAIN. SUCH THAT
BY THE TIME YOU GET TO HIGHER TROPHIC LEVELS, THINGS
LIKE LARGEMOUTH BASS AND SO FORTH, THE MAJOR ROUTE OF
BIOACCUMULATION IS THROUGH THE FOOD CHAIN AND IT IS
PREDOMINATELY METHYLMERCURY.
Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE BIOMAGNIFICATION AS IT
RELATES TO MERCURY?
A. WELL, BIOMAGNIFICATION, IN GENERAL, JUST
REFERS TO THE OBSERVATION FOR CERTAIN CHEMICALS THAT AS
YOU MOVE UP A FOOD CHAIN THERE ARE GREATER WHOLE BODY
CONCENTRATIONS OF A PARTICULAR POLLUTANT.
METHYLMERCURY IS WIDELY ACCEPTED TO BE ONE OF THE
UNUSUAL CHEMICALS THAT DISPLAYS BIOMAGNIFICATION. MOST
CONTAMINANTS DON'T. BUT METHYLMERCURY DOES SHOW
CLASSIC BIOMAGNIFICATION AND IT SEEMS TO BE THROUGH
CLASSIC TROPHIC TRANSFERS.
Q. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EUTROPHIC WETLANDS
WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED RATES OF METHYLMERCURY
PRODUCTION?
A. I GUESS I'M NOT AWARE OF A SPECIFIC -- I'M
UNAWARE OF PEOPLE WHO'VE GONE AND TRIED TO DIRECTLY
ASSESS THAT AS YOU TOOK A SYSTEM AND MADE IT MORE
EUTROPHIC, THAT SPECIFIC SYSTEM WOULD ENHANCE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 39
METHYLATION. THE EVIDENCE THAT EUTROPHICATION ENHANCES
METHYLATION IS BASED LARGELY ON JUST COMPARING
DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, AND FROM LABORATORY STUDIES
EMPLOYING NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT AND SO FORTH.
Q. ALL RIGHT. SO, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EUTROPHIC
WETLANDS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED RATES OF
METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION?
A. WELL, THE PROBLEM, YOU SEE -- INCREASED OVER
WHAT? I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF EUTROPHIC WETLANDS
DEMONSTRATING METHYLATION. BUT TO SAY "INCREASED
METHYLATION" IMPLIES THAT WE HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE THAT
THEY -- WHEN THEY WERE LESS EUTROPHIC, THEY WERE
PRODUCING LESS METHYLMERCURY. AND I'M UNAWARE OF
STUDIES WHO FOLLOWED A SPECIFIC TIME -- WHO'S FOLLOWED
A SPECIFIC SYSTEM AS IT WENT FROM RELATIVE OLIGOTROPHY
TO MORE EUTROPHY AND, REALLY, DIRECTLY TEST OF THAT.
SO, NO, I'M NOT AWARE IN THAT STRICT A CONTEXT.
Q. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EUTROPHIC WETLANDS
WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED BIOACCUMULATION OF
METHYLMERCURY IN BIOTA?
A. WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT?
Q. UH-HUH (YES). ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EUTROPHIC
WETLANDS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED
BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN BIOTA?
A. NO.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 40
Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS
WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED MERCURY METHYLATION?
A. WELL, AGAIN, AND RELATED TO THE OTHER ONE, BY
-- AS YOU STATED THE QUESTION, YOU'RE IMPLYING THAT
THERE WAS PRIOR UNDERSTANDING OF BIOACCUMULATION, AND
THEN SOMETHING CHANGED THE SYSTEM AND THEN THEY WERE
ABLE TO GO -- AND I'M NOT -- THAT'S JUST NOT DONE. OR
I MEAN IT'S JUST -- IT'S -- I'M UNAWARE OF PEOPLE DOING
THAT.
CLEARLY, THOUGH, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE COMPARED
AQUATIC SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT TROPHIC STATUS AND
COMPARED MERCURY ACCUMULATION ACROSS THOSE SYSTEMS,
INCLUDING FLORIDA AND INCLUDING NORTHERN U.S. AND
CANADA AND SWEDEN AND SO FORTH, AND I'VE CONSISTENTLY
SHOWN A PATTERN IN WHICH OLIGOTROPHIC SYSTEMS SHOW
GREATER BIOACCUMULATION, PARTICULARLY IN HIGHER TROPHIC
LEVELS OF MERCURY VERSUS THE SAME SPECIES IN MORE
EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS.
Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS
WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED BIOACCUMULATION OF
METHYLMERCURY IN BIOTA?
A. WELL, EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AREA APPEARS TO
BE SUCH A SYSTEM THAT IS RELATIVELY OLIGOTROPHIC, AND
SHOWS GREATER ACCUMULATIONS OF METHYLMERCURY IN FISH
VERSUS MORE EUTROPHIC AQUATIC SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 41
Q. IS IT HIGHER THAN IT WAS HISTORICALLY?
A. I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. I
DON'T -- I'M UNAWARE OF ANY DATA AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS A
HISTORICAL TREND THERE.
Q. THEN HOW DO YOU COME TO YOUR CONCLUSION THAT
IT'S EXPERIENCING INCREASED---
A. I MEAN -- WELL---
Q. ---RATES OF BIOACCUMULATION?
A. I TRIED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, AGAIN, SINCE NO
ONE CAN GO IN AND STUDY -- NO ONE -- IT'S VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT TO -- UNLESS YOU EXPERIMENTALLY MANIPULATED
AN AQUATIC SYSTEM OR MAYBE DID IT WITH THESE STA'S,
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THAT KIND OF CHANGE OVER
TIME WITH CHANGE IN TROPHIC STATUS. SO, TECHNICALLY,
YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU CAN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS A
HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THAT CONCLUSION. BUT THAT, AGAIN,
OUR BEST DATA SOURCE IS FROM COMPARATIVE SORTS OF
STUDIES THAT INDICATE OLIGOTROPHIC SYSTEMS, INCLUDING
THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AREA, TEND TO EXHIBIT
GREATER CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN BIOTA.
Q. WHAT STUDIES ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
A. THE -- I GUESS THE MAIN ONE THAT I'VE EXAMINED
WAS THE E MAP DATA SET.
Q. AND IT SHOWED WHAT?
A. IT SHOWED THAT -- WELL, I GUESS THERE'S A
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 42
COUPLE. THAT ONE INDICATED RELATIVELY GREATER
CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN FISH IN EVERGLADES
NATIONAL PARK AREA VERSUS WATER SYSTEMS CLOSER TO THE
EAA, IN THAT GENERAL AREA, WITH A REVERSE TREND
OBSERVED IN A NUMBER OF INDICES OR MEASURES THAT ARE
GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH TROPHIC STATUS, INCLUDING
PHOSPHORUS, CARBON, SULFATE CONDUCTIVITY.
Q. WHAT'S THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN
OLIGOTROPHIC AND A EUTROPHIC WATER SYSTEM?
A. ON A RELATIVE SCALE, OLIGOTROPHIC SYSTEMS
EXHIBIT LOWER CONCENTRATIONS OF NUTRIENTS, LOWER
PHOTOSYNTHETIC ACTIVITIES, LOWER PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
PRODUCTION. ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, THEY TYPICALLY HAVE
LOWER CONCENTRATIONS OF PARTICULATE MATTER, GREATER
CLARITY, LESS BIOMASS PER SURFACE AREA OR VOLUME OF
WATER.
Q. OKAY. WHAT'S THE GENERAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE
LAKES OR RIVERS THAT YOU'VE STUDIED?
A. WELL, IN AS MERCURIES?
MR. SAMS: OBJECTION TO THE FORM.
Q. IN THE -- UH-HUH (YES). IN NORTH CAROLINA.
A. IN -- WELL---
Q. WELL, IN---
A. ---IN THE MERCURY WORK?
Q. YEAH.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 43
A. NOT, NOT OTHER WORKS. WE ESSENTIALLY LOOKED
AT TWO MAJOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF WATER SYSTEMS. ONE
WERE MAN-MADE CANAL SYSTEMS THAT WERE SERVING, REALLY,
TO HELP CONTROL WATER LEVELS IN THOSE PEATLANDS, SO, AS
A DRAINAGE SYSTEM THROUGH THE PEATLANDS. THEN, WE WERE
ALSO STUDYING THE PUNGO RIVER, WHICH IS A MAJOR NATURAL
RIVER SYSTEM IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA, THROUGH THAT
AREA, IN WHICH THIS CANAL WATER EMPTIES. IN THAT RIVER
WE WERE LOOKING IN THE UPPER REACHES OF IT IN THE
PEATLANDS AREA. IT WAS STILL THROUGHOUT PRETTY MUCH A
-- SORT OF A BLACK WATER RIVER, HIGH IN HUMICS AND
FULVICS. BUT IN ITS UPPER REACHES IT WAS FAIRLY SMALL,
AS I RECALL, MAYBE A HUNDRED METERS ACROSS OR EVEN
LESS. AND WE FOLLOWED IT DOWN TO NEAR THE MOUTH OF THE
-- I BELIEVE IT'S THE ALBEMARLE SOUND, WHERE IT BECOMES
VERY MUCH AN ESTUARINE BROAD RIVER.
Q. OKAY. WHAT ARE SOME OTHER MORPHOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PUNGO RIVER?
A. IN TERMS -- YOU MEAN BESIDES ITS -- WELL,
LIKE, IN SPECIFICALLY WHAT?
Q. LIKE, HOW DEEP IS IT?
A. IT -- IN THE UPPER REACHES, AS I RECALL, IT
WAS -- IT WOULD RUN -- I MEAN, OF COURSE, IT'S ON A
CROSS-SECTION. IT MIGHT IN THE SUMMERTIME, WHEN WE
WERE LOOKING AT IT, FAIRLY LOW FLOW, IT MIGHT HAVE A
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 44
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FIVE OR SIX FEET. FURTHER DOWN, AS I
RECALL, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TWENTY-FIVE FEET OR SO.
IT'S GENERALLY RATHER -- RELATIVELY SHALLOW.
Q. OKAY. WHAT KINDS OF FISH ARE IN THERE?
A. WE DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T DO ANY WORK WITH FISH.
IT'S -- IN THE UPPER REACHES, PEOPLE DO BASS FISHING,
SO FORTH. IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY TYPICAL OF A LOT OF
FRESHWATER NORTH CAROLINA RIVERS, AS I UNDERSTAND, THAT
HAS REGIONAL POPULATIONS OF BASS, CATFISH, VARIOUS
SPECIES OF SUNFISHES, CRAPPIE, YOU KNOW. SO, IT'S A
PRETTY POPULAR SPORT FISHING AREA. AND THEN AS IT
MOVES TOWARDS THE COAST IT BECOMES -- TO THE SOUND, AS
I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU CAN CATCH GRAY TROUT AND MORE
TYPICAL ESTUARINE SPECIES. AND THAT'S WHY WE
SPECIFICALLY TARGETED RANGIA CUNEATA, WHICH IS A COMMON
CLAM THROUGHOUT THE GULF AND LOWER ATLANTIC COAST THAT
EXHIBITS A HUGE RANGE OF SALINITY TOLERANCE FROM FRESH
TO ALMOST PURE SALT. AND THAT WAS WHEN -- IN OTHER
WORDS, WE COULD READILY CATCH THAT CLAM THROUGHOUT
THOSE REACHES OF THE PUNGO.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF SOIL OR SEDIMENT DOES IT HAVE?
A. WELL, ALL WE REALLY MEASURED WAS ORGANIC
MATTER CONTENT, WHICH VARIED TREMENDOUSLY IN THE UPPER
REACHES. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE -- SEEMS TO ME
ORGANIC CARBON, OR, AT LEAST, LOSS ON IGNITION AS A
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 45
MEASURE OF THAT, WAS MAYBE UP TO TWELVE OR FIFTEEN
PERCENT. IT WAS A VERY, YOU KNOW, CLASSIC MUCK
SEDIMENT AND, YOU KNOW, REFLECTED THE INPUTS OF THOSE
PEATLAND AREAS THAT WERE DRAINING INTO IT. AND, OF
COURSE, THE PEATLAND WAS FAR -- AS I RECALL, THE
PEATLAND -- THE PEAT ITSELF WAS FORTY, FIFTY PERCENT OR
SO ORGANIC MATTER.
AND THEN IN THE PUNGO THERE'S MORE OR LESS A
GRADIENT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE LOOKED AT, SPECIFICALLY,
AT FRACTIONATION OF MERCURY IN THOSE SEDIMENTS GOING
FROM THE HIGH ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT MUCK SEDIMENTS
DOWN TO THE MOUTH, WHICH BECAME FAR SANDIER AND, AS I
RECALL, HAD ORGANIC MATTER CONCENTRATIONS IN THE, YOU
KNOW, ONE, TWO PERCENT RANGE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q. OKAY. YOU SAID YOU WOULD CONSIDER IT TO BE
SIMILAR TO A WETLAND SYSTEM?
A. WELL, THE PEATLAND -- THE POCOSINS THAT WERE
INCLUDED IN THE STUDY ARE CONSIDERED A CLASS -- A TYPE
OF WETLAND SYSTEM. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING --
OBVIOUSLY, WE COULDN'T DO RANGIA STUDIES THERE, BUT WE
COLLECTED MUCK PEAT SOILS IN THE POCOSIN AREA THAT WERE
COVERED BY NATURAL VEGETATION, IN FACT, IN LOOKING AT
MERCURY FRACTIONATION AND CONCENTRATIONS IN THOSE. SO,
YEAH, THOSE POCOSINS ARE A WETLAND TYPE.
Q. HOW DO YOU SPELL THAT?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 46
A. P-O-C-O-S-I-N.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF SOIL IS GENERALLY FOUND IN
OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS?
A. I'M NOT REAL SURE.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPES OF SOIL -- WHAT TYPE OF
SOIL IS FOUND IN EUTROPHIC WETLANDS?
A. WELL, I WOULD JUST -- I WOULD TEND TO ASSUME
THAT EUTROPHIC WETLAND SOILS WOULD PROBABLY HAVE
RELATIVELY HIGHER ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT AND SO FORTH.
BUT I GUESS I'VE NEVER SEEN WETLAND SOILS CLASSIFIED
THAT WAY IN TERMS OF OLIGOTROPHIC OR EUTROPHIC SOILS.
THAT'S SORT OF A DIFFERENT---
Q. PRIOR TO YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS LITIGATION
HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES AQUATIC
SYSTEM?
A. NO.
Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF MORPHOLOGY OF THE EVERGLADES AQUATIC SYSTEM?
A. NOT IN DETAIL. I'VE EXAMINED A NUMBER OF THE
MAPS THAT SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EVERGLADES
AGRICULTURAL AREA, THE AREAS WHERE THE PROPOSED STA'S
WOULD GO IN, THE WATER CONSERVATION AREAS, THE
EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK REGION, THE CANAL SYSTEMS THAT
CONNECT THE TWO. I -- I'VE BEEN DOWN IN THAT AREA JUST
AS A TOURIST AND I'VE A GENERAL SENSE OF HOW SOME OF
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 47
THAT AREA LOOKS. BUT I DON'T HAVE DETAILED INFORMATION
OF THE TYPE YOU ASK.
Q. OKAY. WHAT TYPES OF ANIMALS ARE PRESENT?
A. IN -- THROUGHOUT THAT REGION?
Q. UH-HUH (YES). THROUGHOUT THE EVERGLADES
SYSTEM.
A. SYSTEM?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. LOTS. BIRDS, MAMMALS. I MEAN -- I GUESS SOME
OF THEM MORE -- THE ONES THAT I -- THROUGH MY READING
OF PARTICULAR INTERESTS RELATIVE TO MERCURY WOULD BE
SOME OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES, LIKE THE BLACK PANTHER,
THE SNAIL KITE, THE WOOD IBIS. IN TERMS OF AQUATIC --
OF FISH, IT SEEMS TO EXHIBIT PRETTY TYPICAL ASSEMBLAGES
OF FRESHWATER FISHES SEEN IN SOUTHERN SYSTEMS; A LOT OF
CENTRARCHIDS SUCH AS LARGEMOUTH BASS AND OTHER
SUNFISHES, BOWFIN, VARIOUS GARS. I'M TRYING TO THINK.
OF COURSE IT'S -- THERE'S ALLIGATORS IN THE REGION; HAS
A KIND OF A -- FROM MY GENERAL INTEREST IN ORNITHOLOGY,
IT HAS A REAL DIVERSE AVA FAUNA OF TEMPERATE BIRDS, AS
WELL AS SOME MORE TROPICAL SPECIES LIKE FLAMINGOES,
IBIS AND SO FORTH, KITES.
Q. OKAY. WHAT TYPES OF PLANTS AND VEGETATION ARE
PRESENT?
A. WELL, JUST THROUGH MY READINGS I -- I
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 48
UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE WETLAND SYSTEMS THE DOMINANT
PLAN IS SAWGRASS; THERE'S SOME CATTAIL; AND, OBVIOUSLY,
THERE'S SOME CONCERN OF INCREASING -- INCREASES IN
CATTAIL VERSUS SAWGRASS IN CERTAIN AREAS. I KNOW
THERE'S ALSO BALD CYPRESS SYSTEMS IN THE GENERAL AREA,
CLASSICS, CYPRESS, TUPELO SWAMPS. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, THE MARSH -- CERTAINLY THE DOMINANT MARSH PLANT
TENDS TO BE SAWGRASS WITH LESSER AMOUNTS OF CATTAIL.
Q. OKAY. IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT THERE'S A
MERCURY PROBLEM IN THE FLORIDA EVERGLADE SYSTEM?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. IN GENERAL TERMS WHAT DO YOU REGARD AS
THE EXISTING MERCURY PROBLEM IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. WELL, THERE APPEARS TO BE A NUMBER OF AREAS
WITHIN THE EVERGLADE SYSTEM THAT HAVE RELATIVELY HIGH
CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN HIGHER TROPHIC ORGANISMS,
PROBABLY MOST -- BEST EXHIBITED BY LARGEMOUTH BASS
THAT, IN A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS, THOSE CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEED THE FDA LIMITS, WHICH, I BELIEVE, NOW ARE ONE
PART PER MILLION. THERE'S ALSO -- WHICH HAS AN
IMPORTANT -- PROBABLY A MORE IMPORTANT HUMAN HEALTH
POTENTIAL IMPACT, ALTHOUGH IT MAY -- IT MAY AS WELL --
MAY POTENTIALLY BE A HARBINGER OF IMPACTS ON THOSE
POPULATIONS. AND PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH,
SERVES AS A GENERAL CONCERN THAT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 49
ARE IN THE REALM TO EVOKE BOTH HUMAN HEALTH AND
ECOSYSTEM CONCERNS, THE LATTER BEING MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT TO GET AT. BUT WITH -- CERTAINLY WITH
REPORTS OF HIGH CONCENTRATIONS IN ENDANGERED SPECIES,
LIKE THE PANTHER, SUGGESTS A POTENTIAL FOR ECOLOGICAL
IMPACTS, AS WELL AS THE CLEAR HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS.
Q. IS THE MERCURY PROBLEM IN THE EVERGLADES
MANMADE OR A NATURAL CAUSE?
A. WE DON'T KNOW. MY SENSE, IT'S A -- IT COULD
BE A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. WITHOUT THE HISTORICAL
INFORMATION, WE JUST DON'T KNOW IF -- IF, PERHAPS,
MERCURY IN BASS IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK WERE ALSO
-- YOU KNOW, OVER FDA ACTION LIMITS BEFORE THERE WERE
PEOPLE THERE TO EAT THEM. THAT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.
MY GENERAL SENSE IS THAT THE MAIN VARIABLES
DRIVING THESE ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS ARE ATMOSPHERIC
INPUTS OF MERCURY COMBINED WITH PARTICULAR LOCAL
IMPACTS THAT ENHANCE BIOACCUMULATION. AND I THINK IT
IS CLEAR THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES HAVE ENHANCED
ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS AND ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
OF MERCURY ON A GLOBAL LEVEL. YOU KNOW, THAT'S CLEARLY
SEEN IN MARINE WATERS IN CORES IN VERY, VERY REMOTE
AREAS. YOU KNOW, IT MAKES MERCURY A VERY COMPLICATED,
DIFFICULT ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY LARGELY NOT A
POINT SOURCE ISSUE. IT'S A -- THE VOLATILITY OF
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 50
MERCURY AND ITS BIZARRE CHEMISTRY MAKES IT MUCH MORE
RECALCITRANT.
SO -- AND THEN, ON THE OTHER SIDE I DON'T THINK WE
KNOW YET, VERY MUCH, HOW OUR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES ARE
CHANGING. YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT -- FOR THE MOMENT THAT,
SAY, THE SOURCE VARIABLE IS UNCONTROLLABLE OR WHATEVER,
WE DON'T HAVE A VERY GOOD UNDERSTANDING ON HOW OUR
ACTIVITIES ENHANCE BIOACCUMULATION BY CHANGES IN
WHATEVER, REDOX STATUS AND SO FORTH.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HYDROLOGY OF THE
FLORIDA EVERGLADES SYSTEM?
A. TO AN EXTENT. AGAIN, I'VE READ A NUMBER OF
THE REPORTS PERTAINING TO THIS. AND, AGAIN, HAVE SEEN
MAPS SHOWING DRAINAGE CANALS AND HOW -- THE HUMAN
INFLUENCE OF DRAINAGE PATTERNS. AND READ SOMETIME
BACK, OUT OF JUST MY OWN INTEREST, IMPACTS OF CORPS OF
ENGINEER PROJECTS, VARIOUS HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON NATURAL
WATER FLOWS AND HOW -- YOU KNOW, THE ENORMOUS IMPACT,
APPARENTLY, OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON ALTERING THE
HYDROLOGY OF WATERS THAT NORMALLY FLOWED BY SHEET FLOW
THROUGH THE EVERGLADES THAT ARE NOW LARGELY DIVERTED BY
CANALS AND GOING BACK AND FORTH TO LAKE OKEECHOBEE,
BACK AND FORTH TO COASTLINES, TO MIAMI AND SO FORTH.
Q. WHAT'S YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE
HYDROLOGY WITHIN THE SYSTEM?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 51
A. WELL, I GUESS MY GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE
HYDROLOGY IS THAT THERE'S, BY AND LARGE, A GENERAL
MOVEMENT OF WATER FROM NORTH TO SOUTH FROM LAKE
OKEECHOBEE SOUTH THROUGH -- TO THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL
PARK; THAT, HISTORICALLY, THAT FLOW HAD BEEN LARGELY BY
SHEET FLOW. THAT, IN ESSENCE, WAS THE UNDERPINNING OF
THE EVERGLADES AREA. THAT NOW MUCH OF THAT WATER IS
DIVERTED INTO CANALS FOR ISSUES OF AGRICULTURE, FLOOD
PROTECTION, DRINKING WATER FOR MAJOR URBAN AREAS SUCH
AS MIAMI, AND SO FORTH. AND THAT THE NET EFFECT IS
THAT THE EVERGLADES, IN GENERAL, AND CERTAINLY THE
PARK, MORE SPECIFICALLY, SEES MUCH GREATER -- PROBABLY
MORE -- GREATER OSCILLATIONS IN WATER INPUTS AND,
PROBABLY, IN GENERAL, LESS WATER THAN PREVIOUSLY.
Q. OKAY. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE WATER MOVING
THROUGH THE EVERGLADES MOVES THROUGH THE CANALS VERSUS
SHEET FLOW?
A. I DON'T KNOW. MY SENSE IS A MAJORITY.
Q. A MAJORITY?
A. GOING THROUGH THE CANALS VERSUS SHEET FLOW.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE GENERALLY FOR ME THE
PROCESS OF METHYLATION OF MERCURY?
A. I GUESS AT THIS POINT IN TIME IT'S GENERALLY
THOUGHT THAT IT'S PROBABLY LARGELY MICROBIAL ACTIVITY.
ALTHOUGH, PEOPLE STILL DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BIOTIC AND
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 52
ABIOTIC METHYLATION. PROBABLY, THE ABIOTIC SIDE
APPEARS TO BE FAR LESS ADDRESSED. BUT THERE IS A LOT
OF INTEREST IN THE POTENTIAL FOR ORGANIC MATTER, SUCH
AS HUMIC MATERIALS, TO ABIOTICALLY METHYLATE MERCURY,
PARTICULARLY, FOR INSTANCE, WITH INTERACTION BETWEEN
SUNLIGHT ENERGY AND HUMID MATERIALS. AND THAT COULD
DRIVE METHYLATION. BUT STILL, THOUGH, THE BULK OF WORK
IN THAT AREA IS FOCUSED ON MICROBIAL ACTIVITIES.
AND RECENT STUDIES APPEAR TO INDICATE THAT
SULFATE-PRODUCING BACTERIA PROBABLY PLAY A CENTRAL ROLE
IN MERCURY METHYLATION AND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE
MICROBES TENDS TO BE GREATEST IN SLIGHTLY ANOXIC
CONDITIONS OR NEAR TO THE AEROBIC-ANAEROBIC INTERFACE.
THAT'D BE A GENERAL SENSE OF IT.
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS, BASICALLY, DEMETHYLATION?
A. DEMETHYLATION IS ESSENTIALLY THE REVERSE OF
METHYLATION IN WHICH THE -- AND, AGAIN, THIS IS, I
BELIEVE, TO HAVE BEEN LARGELY THOUGHT TO BE MICROBIALLY
DRIVEN AND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, PROBABLY ABOUT THE SAME
-- MANY OF THE SAME ORGANISMS THAT PERFORM
METHYLATION. IN THE DEMETHYLATION PROCESS, USUALLY,
UPON FOLLOWING DEMETHYLATION THE MERCURY IS FURTHER
REDUCED TO ELEMENTAL MERCURY THAT CAN THEN -- WILL
TYPICALLY VOLATIZE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. AND RELATIVE
-- AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- RELATIVE TO METHYLATION,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 53
DEMETHYLATION SEEMS TO BE SOMEWHAT FAVORED UNDER MORE
AEROBIC CONDITIONS.
Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN, "MORE FAVORED UNDER AEROBIC
CONDITIONS"?
A. WELL, THAT, IF YOU -- IF YOU LOOKED AT
RELATIVE RATES OF METHYLATION AND DEMETHYLATION -- AND
I THINK -- YOU KNOW, THIS, AGAIN, IS NOT WELL
UNDERSTOOD AT ALL UNDERNEATH. THERE'S SOME PRELIMINARY
INFORMATION OUT THERE. BUT FROM THAT LITTLE AVAILABLE
INFORMATION, WHILE -- AS UNDER MORE ANOXIC CONDITIONS
NET METHYLATION IS GOING TO DOMINATE, UNDER MORE
AEROBIC CONDITIONS NET DEMETHYLATION IS GOING TO,
PROBABLY, MORE DOMINATE. THERE'S JUST SORT OF -- YOU
KNOW, AS YOU GO FROM ANAEROBIC TO AEROBIC YOU'RE GOING
TO ENHANCE DEMETHYLATION. WHEREAS, AS YOU GO FROM
AEROBIC TO ANAEROBIC YOU'RE GOING TO TEND TO ENHANCE
METHYLATION. SO, IT'S SORT OF A TRADEOFF.
Q. OKAY. ARE THOSE FOREGOING PROCESSES THE SAME
IN EVERY AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT?
A. I DOUBT IT. I MEAN I'M SURE THERE'S A -- YOU
KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF -- I MEAN I DON'T THINK WE
REALLY KNOW. I MEAN WE A LOT OF THIS IS -- I THINK'S
JUST REALLY BEEN SCRATCHED. BUT WE DON'T -- I THINK WE
HAVE A REAL -- VERY POOR UNDER -- WE DON'T EVEN
UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PROCESS ENTIRELY, MUCH LESS
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 54
UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH IT MIGHT VARY ACROSS DIFFERENT
SYSTEMS. BUT, LIKE MOST THINGS IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND
IN ECOLOGY, THERE'S PROBABLY NOT ONE SIMPLE PROCESS
OCCURRING ACROSS SYSTEMS.
Q. OKAY. DO WE -- UNDER THE -- EXCUSE ME. DO WE
UNDERSTAND THE BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN
BIOTA -- DO WE UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS AS IT IS
OCCURRING IN THE EVERGLADES SYSTEM?
A. NO, I DON'T THINK WE DO.
Q. WHAT MORE WOULD WE NEED TO KNOW?
A. WE -- I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW A LOT OF THINGS.
WE NEED TO KNOW THE NATURE OF FOOD WEBS THAT DRIVE
MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION, YOU KNOW. WE NEED TO KNOW --
WE NEED A LOT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHY PARTICULAR
AREAS MIGHT EXHIBIT GREATER ACCUMULATIONS IN OTHER
SYSTEMS AS IT -- NATURES OF FOOD WEBS. IS IT THINGS
LIKE ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY, YOU KNOW, THE RELATIVE
IMPORTANCE OF, IN ESSENCE, COMPETITORS, YOU KNOW,
PARTICULATE MATTER THAT WILL BIND MERCURY AND SO FORTH,
AS SORT OF OPPOSED TO PROCESSES LEADING TO METHYLATION
AND WHAT CONTROLS THAT METHYLMERCURY ONCE IT IS
METHYLATED. IT'S -- I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY COMPLEX.
AND FOR ANYONE TO THINK THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT, I
GUESS I WOULDN'T BELIEVE THEM.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE POSSIBLE SOURCES
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 55
OF MERCURY ARE IN THE EVERGLADES SYSTEM?
A. WELL, THE CLEAREST TWO WOULD BE ATMOSPHERIC
DEPOSITION AND -- WELL, MAYBE THREE, I GUESS, WOULD BE
-- I WOULD TEND TO THINK ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION IS THE
MAJOR ONE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, COULD BE SURFACE WATER
INPUTS AND, IN ADDITION TO THAT WOULD JUST BE MERCURY
THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOILS AND SEDIMENTS OF THAT
SYSTEM, BOTH AS A NATURAL PART OF THAT SYSTEM, AS WELL
AS WHAT'S ACCUMULATED OVER TIME VIA THOSE OTHER
SOURCES.
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS THE USUAL EFFECT OF FLOODED
SOILS ON MERCURY METHYLATION?
A. AGAIN, I -- AS I RECALL, THAT'S -- MY SENSE OF
THAT'D BE, YOU KNOW, REMINISCENT BASICALLY OF THE
FLOODING EFFECT, THAT IF YOU FLOODED THAT AREA, YOU
WOULD PROBABLY ENHANCE METHYLATION.
Q. AND WHY IS THAT?
A. I THINK FOR A LOT OF THE SAME REASONS WHEN WE
TALKED ABOUT THE RESERVOIR EFFECT THAT YOU'RE DRIVING
THE DECAY OF A LOT OF PLANT MATERIAL AND SO FORTH. SO,
YOU'RE JUST INPUTTING A BIG SLUG OF NUTRIENTS AND
ENERGY INTO THE SYSTEM. AND THERE ARE ALSO -- SO --
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, FOSTERING BACTERIAL ACTIVITY, WHICH
IS THEN GOING TO -- AND HAS -- AND IS GOING TO UPTAKE A
LOT OF THE OXYGEN FOR THAT BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY. SO,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 56
YOU'RE GOING TO ENHANCE -- YOU'RE GOING TO PUSH THE
SYSTEM TO BECOME SOMEWHAT MORE ANAEROBIC AND THE NET
EFFECT OF ALL THAT WOULD BE TO ENHANCE METHYLATION.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM "HYDROPERIOD"?
A. YES, VAGUELY.
Q. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT MEANS?
A. HYDROPERIOD WOULD -- REFERS TO THE TEMPORAL
PATTERN OF FLOODING AND SO FORTH OR CHANGES IN THE
WATER LEVEL WITHIN A CERTAIN SYSTEM.
Q. WHAT EFFECTS DO YOU BELIEVE HYDROPERIOD HAS ON
MERCURY METHYLATION AND MERCURY CYCLING IN THE
EVERGLADES SYSTEM?
A. WOW, I THINK THAT'S REALLY -- I DON'T THINK --
I DON'T THINK WE KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW, THE SIMPLE
PREDICTION WOULD PROBABLY BE THAT, IF WE INCREASED -- I
THINK IT'S -- THAT'S REALLY COMPLICATED. I MEAN, IF
YOU -- IF YOU FLOOD AN AREA -- WE'VE ALREADY TALKED
ABOUT THAT -- THAT WOULD BE AN IMPACT OF A HYDROPERIOD.
IF WE DESICCATED AN AREA -- I MEAN ALL -- A LOT OF
PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT IF YOU TAKE A NORMALLY
FLOODED AREA AND DRY IT OFF, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO,
AGAIN, PROBABLY ENHANCE CONDITIONS FOR OXIDATIONS THAT
MIGHT ENHANCE SUBSEQUENT MOBILIZATION OF MERCURY BY,
SAY, THE NEXT RAINFALL EVENT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE
KIND OF HYPOTHESIS OFFERED IN THE NORTH CAROLINA WORK
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 57
THAT WAS MOTIVATED BY STUDIES IN SWEDEN THAT HAD
INDICATED THAT TO BE THE CASE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE MAINTAIN FLOODED
CONDITIONS FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, PERHAPS WE'LL
ENHANCE METHYLATION. THERE'S EXTREMELY COMPLICATED
INTERPLAY BETWEEN THINGS DRIVING METHYLATION VERSUS
THOSE DRIVING BIOACCUMULATION, SO---
Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES?
A. YEAH, AS A VISITOR. CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN,
PROBABLY SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, JUST AS I RECALL,
JUST DROVE AROUND THIS -- WAS IT TAMIAMI ROAD, WENT TO
BIG CYPRESS, THAT -- BUT NOT PROFESSIONALLY.
Q. WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU WERE IN BIG CYPRESS?
A. WENT BIRD WATCHING. I MEAN, AS I RECALL,
THERE WAS A BOARDWALK. AND I WALKED AROUND ON THAT AND
HAD SOME BINOCULARS AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN KIND OF A VERY
AMATEURISH BIRD WATCHER.
Q. HOW LONG WERE YOU OUT THERE?
A. SEVERAL HOURS, LIKE, AN AFTERNOON OR AN
EVENING, AS I RECALL.
Q. WHAT BIRDS DID YOU SEE?
A. YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY, NOT A WHOLE LOT.
MR. SAMS: YOU NEED TO PRODUCE
YOUR FIELD NOTES.
A. I THINK I RECALL SEEING SOME PROTHONOTARY
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 58
WARBLERS, AND SOME -- I BELIEVE I SAW SOME SNOW EGRETS
AND SOME AMERICAN EGRETS. AND I THINK I SAW LOUISIANA
HERON. I CAN'T -- A LOT OF KIND OF -- THAT'S KIND OF
MOSTLY WHEN I WAS INTERESTED IN SOME OF THE WADING
BIRDS. AND I THINK AT THE TIME OF THE YEAR THERE WERE
-- I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY WATER FOWL. BUT I CAN'T
REMEMBER VERY CLEARLY AT ALL WHAT I SAW. THAT WAS NINE
-- EIGHT YEARS AGO, PROBABLY.
Q. DID YOU GO OUT INTO THE MARSH?
A. WELL, THE BIG -- THE BOARDWALK, AS I RECALL,
WENT THROUGH SOME MARSH, AND THEN IT ALSO WENT INTO THE
CYPRESS SWAMP, SO, YEAH. I WAS -- I WASN'T IMMERSED IN
THE MUCK MYSELF, BUT I WAS ON THIS LITTLE BOARDWALK
THAT WENT, KIND OF, OVER IT.
Q. DID YOU GO WITH A GROUP?
A. NO.
Q. JUST WENT BY YOURSELF?
A. YES.
Q. HOW'D YOU GET OUT THERE?
A. WELL, AS I RECALL, I -- I DROVE TO SOME PLACE
WHERE YOU PARKED. AND THEN YOU WALKED BACK A WAYS AND
CAME TO THIS BOARDWALK THAT WENT THROUGH THE MARSH AND
SWAMP.
Q. IS THAT THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU'VE VISITED THE
EVERGLADES?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 59
A. YES.
Q. HOW MANY DAYS WERE YOU OUT THERE?
A. I WAS IN FLORIDA FOR TWO DAYS. AND I
BASICALLY SPENT ONE OF THOSE TWO DAYS DRIVING AROUND --
JUST MOSTLY DRIVING IN THE AREA AND THEN TAKING THAT
WALK THROUGH THE BOARDWALK.
Q. WHAT TIME OF THE YEAR WERE YOU OUT THERE?
A. THAT WAS -- I THINK IT WAS, LIKE, MARCH --
MARCH OR APRIL. IT WAS, LIKE, EARLY SPRING.
Q. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU A DOCUMENT, AND ASK IF
YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD.
A. THIS IS A GRANT PROPOSAL ENTITLED, "MECHANISMS
REGULATING MERCURY MOBILIZATION AND TRANSPORT INTO
SURFACE WATERS: NATURAL VS. AGRICULTURAL PLANT
COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH FLORIDA."
MR. SAMS: COUNSEL, BEFORE WE MARK THAT, I
NOTICE THAT THE PRIOR -- ONE OF THE PRIOR EXHIBITS
AND ALSO THIS EXHIBIT CONTAIN HIGHLIGHTING. I
DON'T MIND IF YOU WISH TO USE HIGHLIGHTED COPIES
TO SHOW THE WITNESS. BUT, IF WE COULD MAKE THE
RECORD REFLECT THAT THE HIGHLIGHTING IS NOT HIS, I
WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY.
MR. SAMS: I TAKE IT THAT THE HIGHLIGHTING IS
NOT HIS; IS THAT CORRECT?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 60
MS. HOGAN: THAT IS CORRECT. BUT I CAN GIVE
HIM A CLEAN COPY INSTEAD.
MR. SAMS: ALL RIGHT.
MS. HOGAN: I'LL GIVE YOU A CLEAN COPY.
OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR
DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NUMBER 4 - DR. Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THIS
GRANT APPLICATION?
A. YES. THIS IS A GRANT APPLICATION CURT WAS --
CURT RICHARDSON WAS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ON; I'M A
CO-PI ON. AS I RECALL, WE WROTE THIS PROBABLY IN LATE
'91; SUBMITTED IT TO USDA, I BELIEVE. RIGHT? IT WAS
NOT FUNDED. AND I THINK THE TITLE PRETTY WELL TELLS
YOU WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.
Q. THE MECHANISMS REGULATING MERCURY MOBILIZATION
AND TRANSPORT INTO SURFACE WATERS: NATURAL VERSUS
AGRICULTURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA -- SOUTH
FLORIDA?
A. RIGHT.
Q. OKAY. YOU'VE SIGNED IT AT THE BOTTOM.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 61
Q. RICHARD T. Di GIULIO, PI; "PI" MEANING?
A. WELL, I THINK IT HAD THE USDA NOMENCLATURE. I
HAVE -- INSTEAD OF PI, CO-PI, THEY HAVE PD FOR PROJECT
DIRECTOR VERSUS PI FOR PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. I THINK
IT'S JUST THEIR NOMENCLATURE FOR WHAT IS MORE TYPICALLY
CALLED PI, CO-PI.
Q. SO, YOU WOULD BOTH DO THE SAME THING?
A. WELL, NO. I MEAN, NO, THAT -- ALL I'M GETTING
AT IS THAT DR. RICHARDSON WAS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR; I
WAS CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, JUST LIKE ON THE -- MOST
GRANTING AGENCIES REQUIRE THAT ONE PERSON BE ULTIMATELY
RESPONSIBLE, AND THEY'RE THE PI. BUT THEN WE'D HAVE
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS. AND IN THIS CONTEXT I WAS GOING
TO LARGELY DO A LOT OF THE WORK ON LOOKING AT
BIOACCUMULATION AND SO FORTH.
Q. OKAY. IT WAS -- IT'S DATED JANUARY 13, 1992?
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE
GRANT---
A. WELL, CURT WAS IN---
Q. ---APPLICATION?
A. ---CURT WAS ALREADY, AT THAT TIME, INVOLVED IN
THE EUTROPHIC RESEARCH THAT HE'S CONTINUING WITH. AND
WE WERE BOTH AWARE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN
ABOUT MERCURY AND SOMETHING WE BOTH HAD AN INTEREST IN.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 62
I HAD DONE THE PREVIOUS WORK IN NORTH CAROLINA THAT
SEEMED TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF BE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THIS
STUDY. SO, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING STUDY
TO DO AND TO TRY TO COMPARE PATTERNS OF MERCURY
MOBILIZATION AND ACCUMULATION IN NATURAL WETLAND
COMMUNITIES VERSUS AGRICULTURAL AREAS. AND HE WAS
ALREADY, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WITH HIS PHOSPHORUS
STUDIES -- IT WOULD MAKE THE LOGISTICS OF IT MUCH
EASIER BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAD SAMPLING STATIONS AND SO
FORTH. SO, WE WERE TRYING TO TAKE KIND OF ADVANTAGE OF
HIS ACTIVITIES, HIS ONGOING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES WITH
OUR COMBINED INTEREST AND EXPERTISE IN MERCURY.
Q. HOW LONG OF A -- WAS THIS STUDY TO HAVE TAKEN
TO COMPLETE?
A. TWO -- IT SAYS TWO YEARS, YEAH.
Q. OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR INPUT INTO THE SUBMISSION
OF THIS GRANT APPLICATION?
A. WELL, I HELPED WRITE IT AND HELPED FORMULATE
THE HYPOTHESES. I MEAN IT WAS PRETTY MUCH A JOINT
EFFORT AMONG CURT AND I, SOME GRADUATE STUDENTS AT THE
TIME. I THINK WE ALL CONTRIBUTED. IT'D BE HARD FOR ME
TO GO LINE-BY-LINE AND SAY WHO DID THIS OR THAT. BUT
IT WAS, I'D SAY, PRETTY MUCH A REASONABLE COLLECTIVE
EFFORT. CURT KNOWS FAR MORE ABOUT -- HE KNEW FAR MORE
ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE AREA, ABOUT THE PLANT
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 63
COMMUNITIES, THE PLANT DYNAMIC IMPACTS. I KNEW MORE
ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF MERCURY, BIOACCUMULATION,
FRACTIONATION AND SOILS ANALYSIS.
Q. DID YOU REVIEW THE GRANT APPLICATION PRIOR TO
ITS SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE?
A. DID I REVIEW IT?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. WELL, YEAH. WE READ OVER IT, SURE.
Q. OKAY.
A. WE WROTE IT.
Q. SO, IT EXPRESSES YOUR OPINIONS?
A. WELL, I DON'T SEE A GRANT PROPOSAL AS AN
OPINION; IT'S A PROPOSED STUDY. YEAH, BUT I MEAN I
WOULDN'T -- I'LL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, SURE.
Q. OKAY.
MS. HOGAN: HAVE WE ALREADY MARKED IT AS
AN EXHIBIT? YES. OKAY. IT'S EXHIBIT FOUR?
WITNESS: OH, YEAH, UH-HUH (YES).
MS. HOGAN: OKAY.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) CAN YOU TURN TO PAGE 3?
A. 30?
Q. 3.
A. 3.
Q. 3.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 64
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY. IT SAYS "PROJECT SUMMARY."
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. IN PARAGRAPH TWO IT SAYS -- YOU SEE WHERE I
AM?
A. RIGHT.
Q. OKAY. IT SAYS, "WE POSTULATE THAT
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ARE AFFECTING THE REDOX STATUS
OF THE SOILS, WHICH IN TURN AFFECTS THE UPTAKE AND
RELEASE OF Hg [mercury] BY PLANTS."
A. YEAH.
Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT?
A. YEAH.
Q. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THAT
OPINION -- OR THAT STATEMENT?
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF
THE QUESTION.
A. I'M SORRY?
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THAT
STATEMENT? WHY DID YOU POSTULATE THAT AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES WERE AFFECTING THE REDOX STATUS OF THE SOILS,
WHICH IN TURN WOULD AFFECT THE UPTAKE AND RELEASE OF
MERCURY BY PLANTS?
A. WELL, THE -- A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS -- A
REASONABLE TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE THAT AS -- IF
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 65
YOU TOOK WETLAND SOILS AND DRAINED THEM AND CONVERTED
THEM INTO AGRICULTURAL SOILS, THAT THAT WOULD ALTER
REDOX CONDITIONS OF THE SOIL THAT MIGHT AFFECT MERCURY
MOBILIZATION.
Q. WHY?
A. WELL, AS YOU -- IF YOU -- AGAIN, ALONG THE
SAME LINES OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STUDY A REASONABLE
HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE THAT, IF YOU TAKE SOILS THAT HAVE
BEEN CONTINUALLY FLOODED AND DRY THEM OUT, THAT THAT
MIGHT OXIDIZE THOSE SURFACES AND ENHANCE RELEASE OF
MERCURY UPON FOLLOW -- YOU KNOW, SUBSEQUENT RAIN EVENTS
AND SO FORTH.
Q. OKAY. YOU MENTION SPECIFICALLY AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES; WHAT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES WERE YOU
REFERRING TO?
A. WELL, I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, MAIN ONES WOULD
BE -- I'M NOT A FARMER, BUT, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE TAKING
A FLOODED SOIL AND MAKING IT TILLABLE BY DRAINAGE. AND
THEN THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD UNCOVER -- YOU
KNOW, RID THIS -- THE AREA OF NATURAL VEGETATION, WOULD
EXPOSE SOILS TO DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND SO FORTH, RAINFALL,
DRYING CONDITIONS.
Q. WERE YOU REFERRING TO THE ADDITION OF
CHEMICALS TO THE SOIL?
A. NO, ACTUALLY, WE WEREN'T. WE WEREN'T AT ALL.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 66
IN THIS STUDY WE WEREN'T ADDRESSING -- I'M TRY -- I
DON'T RECALL THAT WE ADDRESSED, LIKE, FERTILIZER AT
ALL. AND WE CERTAINLY WEREN'T ADDRESSING PESTICIDES.
Q. OKAY.
A. WE WERE REALLY INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY WHAT --
WHAT'S THE CHANGES IN SOIL CHEMICAL PROCESSES.
Q. OKAY. DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, THE LAST
PARAGRAPH---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---IT SAYS, "KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED FROM THESE
STUDIES WILL CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF Hg [mercury] IN
ORGANIC SOILS AND WATER AS WELL AS PROVIDE THE
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY KEY INFORMATION ON EFFECTIVE
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES CONCERNING WATER RESOURCES AND
SOILS IN THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA."
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT STILL?
A. YEAH.
Q. OKAY. ON THE NEXT PAGE, PAGE 4, IN THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH, THE FIRST SENTENCE SAYS, "THE FLORIDA
EVERGLADES ARE FACING A CRISIS." DO YOU AGREE WITH
THAT STATEMENT?
A. YEAH. I THINK IN THE CONTEXT OF MERCURY,
THAT'S, YOU KNOW -- YEAH.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 67
Q. AND WHY IS THAT?
A. WELL, AS IT SAYS HERE, I THINK, IF YOU HAVE A
MILLION ACRES OF LAND UNDER HEALTH ADVISORIES DUE TO
MERCURY CONTAMINATION, I MEAN I THINK, YOU KNOW, CRISIS
-- YOU CAN ARGUE HOW -- YOU KNOW, WHERE DOES A CRISIS
BEGIN OR END, YOU KNOW. BUT I THINK A MILLION ACRES OF
LAND -- OF AREA UNDER A HEALTH ADVISORY FOR HIGH LEVELS
OF MERCURY COULD QUALIFY AS A CRISIS.
Q. DO YOU THINK THAT THE CRISIS IS OVERBLOWN?
A. NO.
Q. WHY NOT?
A. WELL, BECAUSE I THINK A HUGE AREA OF LAND THAT
HAS HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF SOMETHING AS TOXIC AS
METHYLMERCURY IS NOTHING TO TAKE LIGHTLY.
Q. CAN YOU TURN TO PAGE 6? IN PARAGRAPH THREE,
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARAGRAPH---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---IT SAYS, "AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ARE
PROBABLY AFFECTING THE REDOX STATUS OF THE SOILS AS
WELL AS THE UPTAKE AND RELEASE OF Hg [mercury] BY
PLANTS."
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A. YES.
Q. AND ARE THE REASONS THE SAME, THAT YOU JUST
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 68
MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY?
A. YES, UH-HUH (YES).
Q. OKAY. ON PAGE 7 AT THE BOTTOM ARE LISTED
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES.
A. HYPOTHESES.
Q. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, SPECIFIC HYPOTHESES. AND
THE FIRST ONE IS THAT YOU HYPOTHESIZE THAT "THE
DIFFERENCES IN SOIL REDOX STATUS FROM ANAEROBIC TO
AEROBIC CONDITIONS (FLOODED VERSUS DRAINED) WILL AFFECT
ALTERATIONS IN MERCURY FRACTIONS (WATER SOLUBLE, ION
EXCHANGEABLE, HUMIC/FULVIC BOUND, SULFIDE BOUND, ETC.)
AND [that the] CHEMICAL SPECIATION (METHYLMERCURY VS
INORGANIC Hg [mercury]). THESE CHANGES IN Hg [mercury]
WILL RESULT IN INCREASES IN THE SOLUBILITY AND
AVAILABILITY OF Hg [mercury] TO THE WATER COLUMN." IS
THAT STILL YOUR HYPOTHESIS?
A. THAT -- I -- AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS -- YEAH,
THAT IS CERTAINLY A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS.
Q. OKAY. THE SECOND ONE SAYS, AN ALTERNATIVE --
EXCUSE ME, "AN ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS IS THAT Hg
[mercury] SPECIATION AND AVAILABILITY IS INCREASED
PRIMARILY BY MICROBIOLOGICAL MEDIATED PROCESSES OF
METHYLATION IN SOILS AND WATER. WE WILL ALSO TEST FOR
ABIOTIC METHYLATION. THESE PROCESSES WOULD AFFECT
TRANSFERS 1 AND 2 (FIGURE 2)." AND THEN "A
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 69
SUBHYPOTHESIS IS THAT METHYLATION INCREASES UNDER
AEROBIC CONDITIONS." DO YOU STILL---
A. WELL, I -- YOU KNOW---
Q. ---HOLD THAT HYPOTHESIS?
A. ---I -- I WOULDN'T PUT THAT SUBHYPOTHESIS.
Q. NO?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY.
A. I MEAN, I THINK AT THAT TIME THAT OUR
UNDERSTANDING FROM SOME OF THE OLDER LITERATURE WAS
THAT -- IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COMPLETELY RECOLLECT THIS
-- BUT I THINK WE HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT AEROBIC
CONDITIONS MIGHT ENHANCE METHYLATION. TODAY, THOUGH, I
DON'T HAVE THAT OPINION. SO, IF I WERE WRITING THIS
TODAY, I WOULDN'T ADD THAT SUBHYPOTHESIS.
Q. OKAY. YOUR THIRD HYPOTHESIS STATES, "WE
HYPOTHESIZE THAT PLANT UPTAKE OF Hg [mercury] INCREASES
UNDER AEROBIC SOIL CONDITIONS VERSUS ANAEROBIC SOILS.
THIS POSTULATED INCREASE IN Hg [mercury] IN PLANTS
COULD RESULT IN MORE AVAILABLE Hg [mercury] TO
DOWNSTREAM WATERS DUE TO DECOMPOSITION OF DEAD PLANT
AND SOIL MATERIAL WITH HIGHER Hg [mercury] CONTENT."
DO YOU STILL AGREE WITH THAT HYPOTHESIS?
A. WELL, I THINK IT---
MR. SAMS: I OBJECT TO THE---
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 70
A. YEAH.
MR. SAMS: ---FORM OF THE QUESTION.
A. I AGREE THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE TESTABLE
HYPOTHESIS. AND, REMEMBER, THERE'S NOT -- A TESTABLE
HYPOTHESIS ISN'T SAYING I -- YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, I'D SAY
IT'S TOUGH TO SAY EXACTLY WHICH DIRECTION THINGS WOULD
GO IN. BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE REASONABLE TO THINK
THAT ANAEROBIC VERSUS AEROBIC SOILS ARE GOING TO AFFECT
A PLANT UPTAKE IN MERCURY.
AND AS AN HYPOTHESIS IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW -- IN
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WE'RE PUTTING UP HYPOTHESES TO BE
TESTED. SO WE COULD PHRASE IT IN EITHER DIRECTION.
AND, YOU KNOW, REAL FRANKLY, I'M NOT -- I THINK THAT'D
BE A TOUGH ONE TO PREDICT. I WOULD PROBABLY PREDICT
THAT AEROBIC CONDITIONS WOULD ENHANCE PLANT UPTAKE.
BUT I CAN THINK OF REASONS WHY IT COULD BE WRONG. IT
WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING, THOUGH, REASONABLY
STRAIGHTFORWARD TO TEST.
Q. OKAY.
A. OKAY.
Q. WHAT REASONS WHY -- WHAT REASONS WOULD IT BE
WRONG?
A. WELL, AGAIN, I WAS OPERATING UNDER THE
MISCONCEPTION AT THIS TIME THAT METHYLATION, AS I
RECALL -- I THINK I WAS, I -- OR ELSE -- I CAN'T
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 71
REMEMBER WHY WE HAD THAT SET HYPOTHESIS, BUT I THINK I
HAD THE THOUGHT THAT AEROBIC CONDITIONS WOULD ENHANCE
METHYLATION. AND I THINK THAT WAS BASED ON SOME OLDER
LITERATURE, WHATEVER. BUT NOW I GUESS, IF YOU TAKE THE
TACK THAT ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS MIGHT ENHANCE
METHYLATION, AND SINCE METHYLATION IS HIGHLY
BIOAVAILABLE, WELL, PERHAPS THAT COULD ENHANCE PLANT
UPTAKE.
SEE, I THINK IT GETS REAL COMPLICATED. I THINK IT
COULD GO IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. I WOULD STILL SUSPECT
THAT AEROBIC CONDITIONS WOULD TEND TO ENHANCE UPTAKE OF
IONIC -- YOU KNOW, MERCURIC ION---
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. ---BECAUSE IT'D BE -- TEND TO BE MORE
BIOAVAILABLE. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS PROBABLY THAT
MOST MERCURY IN LEAFY PLANTS IS MERCURIC ION. SO, I
STILL TEND TO THINK ON A MASS BALANCE THE PREDICTABLE
OUTCOME MIGHT BE THAT AEROBIC CONDITIONS WOULD ENHANCE
TOTAL MASS. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR -- CERTAINLY
FOR METHYLMERCURY IT MIGHT NOT BE THAT AT ALL.
Q. OKAY. THEN THERE'S ALSO STATED A FOURTH
HYPOTHESIS. AND IT SAYS, "AN ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS IS
THAT METHYLMERCURY IS MORE READILY AVAILABLE TO PLANTS
THAN INORGANIC Hg [mercury] UNDER EITHER FLOODED OR
UNFLOODED CONDITIONS." DO YOU STILL---
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 72
A. WELL, NO, YEAH. I THINK THAT'S A -- I MEAN
THAT HYPOTHESIS ISN'T GOING VERY FAR OUT ON A LIMB.
IT'S -- IT'S JUST MORE OR LESS SAYING THAT. IF I WERE
A REVIEWER, I'D PROBABLY CRITICIZE THAT HYPOTHESIS.
BUT I THINK IT IS A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS. AS I WAS
SAYING, THAT METHYLMERCURY WOULD BE MORE READILY
AVAILABLE. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT.
YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GOT THIS REAL COMPLEX
THING AND THE DIFFERENCES OF PLANT UPTAKE OF INORGANIC
VERSUS ORGANIC MERCURY. AND THEN WE SAY UNDER EITHER
FLOODED OR UNFLOODED. BASICALLY, WE'RE JUST -- THE
THOUGHT, AS I RECALL, WAS THAT WHATEVER CONDITION
ENHANCED METHYLATION MIGHT ENHANCE -- BE EXPECTED TO
ENHANCE UPTAKE BY PLANTS. AND IF UPTAKE OF PLANTS IS
REALLY BEING DRIVEN BY METHYLMERCURY, THEN THAT WOULD
OVERRIDE -- THAT MIGHT OVERRIDE WHETHER IT WERE FLOODED
OR UNFLOODED, i.e., AEROBIC OR ANAEROBIC.
WITNESS: NO WONDER IT DIDN'T
GET FUNDED.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) CAN YOU TURN TO PAGE 19?
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY. THERE'S A PARAGRAPH ON "EXPECTED
BENEFITS AND RESULTS."
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. SAYS "THE INFORMATION GAINED FROM THIS
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 73
RESEARCH WILL CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS CONTROLLING MERCURY
CYCLING, UPTAKE AND TRANSFERS IN THE AGRICULTURAL AREAS
OF THE EVERGLADES. THE IMPORTANCE OF REDOX CONDITIONS
WILL HELP IN DEVELOPING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO
PREVENT Hg [mercury] LOSSES FROM SOIL. THESE
STRATEGIES CAN ONLY BE DEVELOPED WITH AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE MECHANISMS CONTROLLING Hg [mercury]
BIOGEOCHEMISTRY. IT WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST STUDIES
IN PEAT SOILS AND THUS SHOULD PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT NEW
INFORMATION ON THE ROLE OF ORGANIC FRACTIONS (HUMIC AND
FULVICS) IN Hg [mercury] MOVEMENT AS WELL AS ADDRESS
THE CURRENT CONDITIONS [sic] CONCERNING THE ROLE OF
MICROORGANISMS VERSUS ABIOTIC CONVERSION OF INORGANIC
Hg [mercury] TO METHYLMERCURY. AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING ADSORPTION AND
DESORPTION, METHYLATION/DEMETHYLATION AND THE ROLE OF
REDOX STATUS ON Hg [mercury] AVAILABILITY ARE ESSENTIAL
TO OUR BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION Hg [mercury]
LEVELS IN THE EVERGLADES ARE DIRECTLY THE RESULT OF
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY OR ARE PART OF THE NATURAL
EVERGLADES BIOGEOCHEMISTRY. THE STATE AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES, ALONG WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC, NEED TO KNOW
IF THE POSTULATED MERCURY CRISIS IN THE PEATLANDS OF
SOUTH FLORIDA IS REAL. [AND] THIS STUDY IS ONE OF THE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 74
FIRST TO ADDRESS THE MECHANISMS CONTROLLING Hg
[mercury] MOVEMENT IN WETLANDS AND ITS POTENTIAL TO
MOVE FROM PLANTS INTO SURFACE WATERS." DO YOU AGREE
THAT THOSE WOULD BE THE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BENEFITS
OF YOUR STUDY?
A. YEAH. I THINK IN A GENERAL SENSE -- I'M
TRYING TO -- SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS ONE THAT I---
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. ---I WOULD PROBABLY REWRITE SOME OF THIS. FOR
INSTANCE, THE PART ABOUT WHETHER OR -- ESSENTIAL TO OUR
BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT MERCURY LEVELS IN
THE EVERGLADES ARE DIRECTLY THE RESULT OF AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITY OR ARE PART OF THE EVERGLADES BIOCHEMISTRY
[sic] -- I THINK THAT WHOLE STATEMENT OR MORE OR LESS.
AND WE DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT AT ALL. BUT
THE STUDY COMPLETELY IGNORES THE ATMOSPHERIC SIDE OF
THINGS, WHICH IS PROBABLY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. SO, I
THINK THAT'S A BIT OVERSTATED.
Q. OKAY. ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE PARAGRAPH THAT
YOU WOULD SUGGEST?
A. NOT -- NO.
Q. OKAY. AND THEN ATTACHED TO THE GRANT
APPLICATION ARE CURRICULUM VITAE FROM CURTIS
RICHARDSON.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 75
Q. AND THEN YOUR CURRICULUM VITAE.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. AND THEN IN THE BACK THERE'S A BUDGET FOR
YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2, AND THEN A TOTAL.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. WHAT WAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE COMPUTATION
OF YOUR BUDGET FOR THIS PROJECT?
A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN EXACT -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
WHAT WAS -- WHAT ROLE DID I HAVE IN DEVELOPING THIS
BUDGET?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. THAT'S HARD TO REMEMBER. I KNOW CURT -- I
RECALL CURT AND I CONFERRING ON IT AND AGREEING TO IT.
IT WAS A PRETTY SIMPLE BUDGET. YEAH, I THINK IT WAS A
MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BUDGET.
Q. OKAY. WHY DID YOU AGREE ON THIS BUDGET?
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
A. WHY DID WE AGREE ON THIS BUDGET? BECAUSE IT
SEEMED TO BE A REASONABLE AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF
THE FUNDS AVAILABLE, LIMITED AS THEY WERE, THROUGH THE
FUNDING AGENCY.
Q. FOR YEAR 1 THE TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED WAS
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-TWO
DOLLARS ($75,872.00).
A. UH-HUH (YES).
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 76
Q. OKAY. AND FOR YEAR 2 THE BUDGET WAS
SEVENTY-NINE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN
DOLLARS ($79,227.00).
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. AND, SO, THE TOTAL BUDGET WAS ONE HUNDRED AND
FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND, NINETY-NINE DOLLARS ($155,099.00).
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GRANT APPLICATION?
A. IT DID NOT GET FUNDED.
Q. DID THEY GIVE YOU A REASON?
A. I'M SURE THEY. I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, I -- WHEN
I REMEMBERED ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, I WENT BACK, AND I
DID NOT HAVE THE REVIEWS. THEY MUST -- I MEAN, PERHAPS
CURT HAS THEM. AS I RECALL -- AND THIS IS A FAIRLY DIM
RECOLLECTION. BUT, AS I RECALL, WE GOT GENERALLY
FAVORABLE REVIEWS; THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS. BUT, AS I
RECALL, I THINK IN THIS SUBMISSION ABOUT TEN PERCENT OF
GRANTS WERE FUNDED. THAT MEANS A VERY LIMITED POOL OF
MONEY. AND WE WERE CLOSE, BUT NO CIGARS.
Q. OKAY. DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU
SUBMITTED A FUNDING PROPOSAL TO THE FLORIDA SUGAR CANE
LEAGUE ON THE MECHANISMS REGULATING MERCURY
MOBILIZATION AND TRANSPORT INTO SURFACE WATERS, NATURAL
VERSUS AGRICULTURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA
PEATLANDS?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 77
A. I RECALL CURT DID. AND I CAN'T REALLY RECALL
IF I -- BECAUSE I -- I DON'T -- I DIDN'T HAVE THAT. I
-- REALLY, TO BE HONEST, I COULDN'T REMEMBER IF I WAS A
CO-PI ON THAT OR NOT. I MAY HAVE BEEN. I DON'T EVEN
HAVE IT IN MY FILES.
Q. OKAY.
A. I KNOW THERE WAS A -- I RECALL VAGUELY A
SUBMISSION OF A RELATED PROJECT TO THAT SOURCE. BUT I
-- AS I RECALL, BASICALLY THIS WAS TAKEN AND MODIFIED
FOR THAT, AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE A COPY.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER
DOCUMENT---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT. IT DOES
CONTAIN HIGHLIGHTED PORTIONS, BUT---
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) IT DOES CONTAIN HIGHLIGHTED
SECTIONS, BUT THOSE ARE NOT YOUR HIGHLIGHTS.
A. THIS DOCUMENT SAYS, "TO: ANDY RACKLEY, FLORIDA
SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, FROM: CURTIS J. RICHARDSON,
DIRECTOR, DUKE WETLAND CENTER, SEPTEMBER 18, 1981
[sic], MERCURY AND HYDROLOGY STUDIES."
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 78
Q. WHAT ELSE IS CONTAINED IN THAT PACKET?
A. WELL, THERE'S A LETTER TO DR. RACKLEY. AND
THEN THERE'S A PROPOSAL THAT LOOKS LIKE I AM A CO-PI ON
CALLED "MECHANISMS REGULATING MERCURY MOBILIZATION AND
TRANSPORT INTO SURFACE WATERS: NATURAL VERSUS
AGRICULTURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA PEATLANDS,"
TO FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE BY THE DUKE WETLAND
CENTER, DRS. C.J. RICHARDSON AND R.T. Di GIULIO.
Q. DO YOU REMEMBER SUBMITTING THAT PROPOSAL NOW?
A. WELL, I---
Q. DID THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, LOOKING
AT---
A. ---I REMEMBER -- LIKE I SAID, I DID RECALL
THAT A VERSION OF THIS WAS SUBMITTED. I REALLY COULD
NOT RECOLLECT IF I HAD BEEN A CO-PI OR JUST A
CONSULTANT OR WHATEVER ON IT. I THINK I -- YOU KNOW, I
MORE OR LESS TOLD CURT HE COULD GO EITHER WAY. BUT,
YEAH, I -- YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT SUBMITTING
THIS BECAUSE, AGAIN, THOUGH, I WAS GOING THROUGH MY
FILES AND DON'T HAVE THIS. AND THAT'S WHY I FIGURED I
MUST NOT HAVE BEEN A CO-PI.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. LET ME GIVE YOU A CLEAN
COPY. WE FOUND ONE WITHOUT THE HIGHLIGHTS ON IT.
DR. JONES: THAT'S MINE.
MS. HOGAN: OH, THAT'S NOT CLEAN?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 79
DR. JONES: NO. YOURS IS CLEANER. THAT'S
WHY I GAVE YOU MINE.
WITNESS: WELL, THE HIGHLIGHTS DON'T BOTHER
ME.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY.
DR. JONES: THEY WON'T XEROX.
MS. HOGAN: ALL RIGHT. LET ME---
OH, LET'S MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR
DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NUMBER 5 - DR. Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) OKAY. LET ME DIRECT YOUR
ATTENTION TO THE THIRD PAGE OF EXHIBIT FIVE, AND THERE
APPEARS TO BE A LETTER FROM DR. RICHARDSON TO ANDY
RACKLEY.
A. WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON?
Q. THREE.
A. THREE. OH, I SEE IT. OKAY.
Q. OKAY. THERE APPEARS TO BE A LETTER FROM
DR. RICHARDSON, FROM THE DUKE WETLAND CENTER, TO ANDY
RACKLEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER FOR THE
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, DATED APRIL 4, 1992. THE
THIRD SENTENCE OF THAT LETTER SAYS, "OUR EARLIER WORK
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 80
IN NORTH CAROLINA PEATLANDS WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE
MERCURY PROBLEM IN THE GLADES IS OVERBLOWN OR AT THE
VERY LEAST THAT MERCURY CONTENT IN THE GLADES IS THE
RESULT OF SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF ACCUMULATION IN
THE PEAT. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT?
MR. SAMS: I OBJECT TO THE
FORM OF THE QUESTION. IT'S NOT BEEN
ESTABLISHED YET THAT THE WITNESS HAS
EVER SEEN THIS LETTER.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE YOU SEEN THE LETTER
BEFORE?
A. I DON'T RE -- I DON'T THINK I HAVE.
Q. OKAY. WELL, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT?
MR. SAMS: YOU'RE ASKING FOR HIS OPINION
OF DR. RICHARDSON'S OPINION?
MS. HOGAN: OF THAT STATEMENT.
A. NO, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T AGREE WITH THAT.
Q. OKAY. AND YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU'VE SEEN
THIS LETTER?
A. NO. I REALLY DON'T.
Q. OKAY. THE NEXT -- DO YOU KNOW SOME REASON WHY
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN THE LETTER; WHY DR. RICHARDSON
WOULDN'T HAVE SHOWN YOU THE LETTER?
A. WELL, AGAIN, I MEAN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MY
VAGUE RECOLLECTION IS THAT CURT SAID -- MENTIONED
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 81
POTENTIALLY GETTING FUNDING FOR THIS SIMILAR STUDY
FUNDED THROUGH THE SUGAR CANE LEAGUE. AND I SAID,
THAT'S FINE WITH ME. TAKE THAT PROPOSAL AND DO
WHATEVER YOU WANT, AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER ROLE YOU
WANT ME TO PLAY IN IT. AND I FELT FINE WITH -- ABOUT
THIS PROPOSAL, DOING THAT WORK. AND, YOU KNOW, AS --
AS PROJECT DIRECTOR, IT WOULD HAVE -- HE COULD HAVE
SENT IT TO BASICALLY EPA OR WHEREVER HE WANTED TO. I
-- IT WAS FINE WITH ME.
Q. OKAY. ON THE NEXT PAGE, THERE'S -- CONTAINS A
LETTER FROM CURTIS RICHARDSON TO PETER ROSENDAHL, DATED
APRIL 4, 1992.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT LETTER BEFORE?
A. HUH-UH (NO).
Q. ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE; AND
THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE PROPOSAL?
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU TURN TO PAGE 2 OF THE---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---ACTUAL PROPOSAL?
A. ALL RIGHT.
Q. OKAY. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH SAYS, "WE
POSTULATE THAT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES DO NOT AFFECT
MERCURY RELEASE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, SINCE BOTH THE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 82
NATURAL EVERGLADES AND [THE] EAA EXPERIENCE NATURAL
DRYING AND WETTING CONDITIONS." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT
STATEMENT?
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM
OF THE QUESTION.
A. I PROBABLY WOULDN'T AGREE WITH THAT.
Q. OKAY.
A. BUT, AGAIN, THAT'S A POST -- I DON'T -- YOU
KNOW, IF IT'S IN THE SENSE OF A HYPOTHESIS, AGAIN, YOU
COULD LOOK AT IT SIMPLY AS A NULL HYPOTHESIS TO WHAT
WAS AN ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS IN THE -- YOU KNOW, IT'S
-- IT -- AS A TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS, IT'S STILL A
REASONABLE POSTULATION. AND, YOU KNOW, THE SAME DATA
WOULD -- WOULD TEST THE HYPOTHESIS IN EITHER FORM
BECAUSE OF THE -- WHAT -- THEY'RE THE FLIP SIDES OF THE
SAME HYPOTHESIS.
Q. CAN YOU TURN TO PAGE 5 OF THE PROPOSAL? AND
THEN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT
PARAGRAPH---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---IT SAYS, "WE POSTULATE THAT AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES ARE PROBABLY NOT AFFECTING THE RELEASE OF Hg
IN THE EVERGLADES." WAS THAT YOUR HYPOTHESIS?
MR. SAMS: COUNSEL, CAN WE -- IT'S YOUR
LINE OF QUESTIONING, AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 83
DISRUPTIVE. BUT, AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WE'VE
ESTABLISHED THAT THIS WITNESS HAS EVER SEEN
THIS DOCUMENT. MAYBE HE HAS. MAYBE HE
HASN'T. BUT, IN ANY EVENT, IT WOULD SEEM
APPROPRIATE TO ASK HIM. AND, IF HE HASN'T,
AT LEAST, TO PERMIT HIM TO EXAMINE THE
CONTEXT IN WHICH STATEMENTS APPEAR. SO, I'M
OBJECTING TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, BUT
IT'S REALLY IN THE FORM OF A SUGGESTION. YOU
CAN CERTAINLY PROCEED, IF YOU WISH TO,
WITHOUT ESTABLISHING WHETHER HE'S EVER SEEN
THIS DOCUMENT.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DO YOU AGREE WITH
THE HYPOTHESIS THAT'S STATED IN THAT THIRD PARAGRAPH?
A. WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT CLEAR. AS A HYPOTHESIS,
IT'S A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS. MY -- MY -- PROBABLY MY
OWN PERSONAL OPINION WOULD BE THAT AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES MIGHT AFFECT RELEASE, YOU KNOW. SO, AS A
HYPOTHESIS, I AGREE WITH IT. AS AN OPINION, I PROBABLY
WOULDN'T AGREE WITH IT.
Q. OKAY. ATTACHED TO THIS PROPOSAL IS ALSO A
COPY OF DR. RICHARDSON'S CV AND YOUR CV. AND THEN IN
THE BACK IS ATTACHED A BUDGET.
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY. OVER IN THE FIFTH COLUMN OF THE BUDGET,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 84
WHICH IS PAGE 37---
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY. IT SAYS "SUGAR CANE LEAGUE REQUEST
OPERATIONAL COSTS/FIRST YEAR."
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. DO YOU SEE WHERE I AM?
A. YEAH.
Q. OKAY. AND THE TOTAL DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE REQUEST WAS EIGHTY-SEVEN THOUSAND, FOUR
HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN DOLLARS ($87,414.00).
A. YOU'RE IN THE FOURTH COLUMN NOW, RIGHT? YOU
STARTING---
Q. FIFTH COLUMN.
A. WELL, THE FIFTH COLUMN SAYS NINETY THOUSAND,
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN ($90,127.00). OH, SHE
COUNTED THIS COLUMN, OKAY. GOTCHA, ALL RIGHT.
Q. OKAY.
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY. IS THIS THE SAME PROPOSAL THAT WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE USDA IN JANUARY OF 1992?
A. WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT EXACT -- YOU KNOW,
ENTIRELY THE SAME. IT CERTAINLY HAS A LOT OF --
CLEARLY, I HAD -- REALLY HAVE TO -- YOU KNOW, I THINK
I'VE SEEN THIS PROPOSAL. I CAN'T SWEAR I'VE READ
THROUGH IT CAREFULLY. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S CERTAINLY
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 85
RELATED AND OVERLAPPING. AND, AS I RECALL, THE U.S. --
YOU KNOW, THE USDA HAS VERY LIMITED FUNDS. AND THE
HOPE WAS TO GET ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FROM THE SUGAR CANE
LEAGUE TO MAKE THE PROPOSED STUDY TRULY DOABLE. IN
OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW, I THINK I -- I WOULD BE THE
FIRST TO ADMIT I -- I WRITE PROPOSALS ALL THE TIME FOR
AGENCIES THAT DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE MONEY TO SUPPORT THE
STUDY. BUT I'LL GO FOR THAT LIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY,
ANYWAY, BECAUSE AT LEAST IT WILL GET ME STARTED. AND,
IF -- IF WORSE COMES TO WORST, THE UNIVERSITY WILL
SUPPORT ME. THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PICK UP A GRADUATE
STUDENT OR THIS AND THAT. AND SO I -- I MEAN, THAT'S
DONE -- WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.
Q. OKAY. ARE THESE TWO PROPOSALS THE SAME
PROPOSALS?
A. WELL, THEY'RE, OBVIOUSLY, NOT THE SAME
PROPOSAL. I MEAN, YOU -- YOU FOUND WORDS IN ONE THAT
AREN'T IN THE OTHER. SO, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE NOT THE
SAME PROPOSAL. I THINK THEY'RE FOR THE SAME GENERAL
SCOPE OF WORK. I MEAN, I'D REALLY HAVE TO GO AND READ
THEM THROUGH TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT -- TO SEE IF THERE ARE
DIFFERENCES THERE. BUT THEY'RE -- THEY ARE -- MY
RECOLLECTION IS THEY ARE -- THEY ARE HIGHLY
OVERLAPPING, AT LEAST. THEY'RE -- THEY'RE GENERALLY
THE SAME -- THE SAME QUESTIONS BEING ASKED. I CAN'T
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 86
REMEMBER. THIS ONE MIGHT INCREASE SAMPLE SIZES OR
SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW.
Q. OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A MOMENT, THEN, TO
REVIEW EXHIBIT FOUR AND EXHIBIT FIVE TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCES IN THE SCOPE OF THE
WORK---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN BOTH PROPOSALS?
A. OKAY.
MR. SAMS: MAY WE TAKE A BREAK?
MS. HOGAN: SURE.
MR. SAMS: IT'LL PROBABLY TAKE THE WITNESS
SOME MINUTES TO---
MS. HOGAN: UH-HUH (YES).
(THEREUPON, A BREAK WAS TAKEN
FROM 11:19 A.M. - 11:27 A.M.)
MS. HOGAN: BACK ON THE RECORD.
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN CONTINUES:
Q. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW BOTH OF THE
PROPOSALS?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. AND IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN SCOPE?
A. NO. I THINK IN -- THEY'RE -- THEY'RE
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME IN TERMS OF SCOPE OF WORK AND
BASIC HYPOTHESES.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 87
Q. OKAY. DID YOU ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF
THE BUDGET FOR EXHIBIT FIVE ON THE BACK---
A. I DON'T THINK---
Q. ---OF PAGE 37?
A. ---I DON'T THINK I DID. I DON'T RECOLLECT
THAT I DID.
Q. WERE YOU EVER SHOWN THIS BUDGET?
A. WELL, I'M SURE I WAS -- YEAH. I'M SURE I SAW
THE WHOLE PROPOSAL AT SOME POINT.
Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU SAW IT BEFORE
SUBMISSION TO THE LEAGUE?
A. YES, UH-HUH (YES).
Q. DID YOU OBJECT TO ITS SUBMISSION TO THE LEAGUE
IN ITS PRESENT FORM?
A. PARDON?
Q. DID YOU OBJECT TO ITS---
A. NO.
Q. ---SUBMISSION TO THE LEAGUE---
A. NO.
Q. ---IN ITS PRESENT FORM?
A. NO.
Q. NO. LET ME HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT. WELL,
BEFORE I DO THAT, WAS THIS PROPOSAL FUNDED?
A. NO.
Q. WAS A REASON GIVEN FOR IT NOT BEING FUNDED?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 88
A. I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW. MY SENSE -- I NEVER
RECALL SEEING ANY KIND OF A WRITTEN COMMENT AT ALL. I
BELIEVE IT WAS JUST CONSIDERED LOWER PRIORITY FOR THE
LEAGUE. THEY MADE A DECISION NOT TO DEAL WITH MERCURY
AT THAT TIME.
Q. DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU SUBMITTED THIS
PROPOSAL TO THE SUGAR CANE GROWER'S COOPERATIVE?
A. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
Q. IF THE -- IF THIS PROPOSAL HAD BEEN SUBMITTED
TO THE COOPERATIVE, YOU'RE SAYING YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF
IT?
A. CORRECT. I DON'T -- I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUGAR CANE LEAGUE AND THE
COOPERATIVE IS.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD. AND IT
TOO CONTAINS HIGHLIGHTED PAGES, WHICH ARE MY
HIGHLIGHTS.
A. OKAY. MECHANISMS -- "MECHANISMS REGULATING
MERCURY MOBILIZATION AND TRANSPORT INTO SURFACE WATERS:
NATURAL VS. AGRICULTURAL, PLANT COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA
PEATLANDS," TO SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE BY THE
DUKE WETLAND CENTER, DRS. C.J. RICHARDSON AND R.T.
Di GIULIO, JULY 30, 1992.
Q. OKAY.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 89
MS. HOGAN: WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT
EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NUMBER 6 - DR. Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) CAN YOU TAKE A MOMENT AND
REVIEW EXHIBIT SEVEN, AND COMPARE IT WITH EXHIBIT SIX
AND FIVE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THEY ARE DIFFERENT IN
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES?
COURT REPORTER: THAT EXHIBIT WAS MARKED
AS EXHIBIT SIX.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
MS. HOGAN: THEN THOSE EXHIBIT NUMBERS
NEED TO BE READJUSTED, THEN, EXHIBITS SIX,
FIVE AND FOUR.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
WITNESS: OKAY. THEY LOOK SIMILAR.
MR. SAMS: I THINK SHE WANTED YOU
TO LOOK AT THE OTHER EXHIBIT, TOO. BUT I
SUPPOSE---
WITNESS: WELL, I MEAN I'VE ALREADY -- I
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 90
JUST LOOKED -- I COMPARED IT TO THIS ONE, SO
I THINK I CAN REMEMBER ENOUGH.
MR. SAMS: OKAY.
A. I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, THE
LATTER TWO, 5 AND 6.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE -- TURN
TO THE SECOND PAGE ON EXHIBIT SIX---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---WHICH CONTAINS A BUDGET FOR THE SUGAR CANE
GROWERS COOPERATIVE -- OR TO THE SUGAR CANE GROWERS
COOPERATIVE. DID YOU ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS
BUDGET?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS BUDGET BEFORE TODAY?
A. WELL, I PROBABLY DID. WELL, NO, I --
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT -- NO. WELL, LET ME THINK ABOUT
THIS. I RECALL SEEING THIS -- THIS ONE, BUT I DON'T
RECALL---
Q. YOU'RE REFERRING TO EXHIBIT FIVE?
A. ---NUMBER 5. I REALLY DON'T RECALL SEEING
NUMBER 6.
Q. OKAY.
A. BUT I -- BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH
DR. RICHARDSON SEEKING SUPPORT FROM VARIOUS POTENTIAL
GROUPS. IT DOESN'T -- IT DIDN'T WORRY ME.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 91
Q. OKAY. THE TOTAL AMOUNT REQUEST FROM THE SUGAR
CANE GROWERS TO FUND THIS PROJECT APPEARS TO BE ONE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND
FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($137,347.00) FOR THE FIRST YEAR.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. AND FOR THE SECOND YEAR, THE REQUEST IS ONE
HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND
SEVENTY-TWO DOLLARS ($142,572.00).
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. AND SO THAT THE TOTAL REQUEST TO THE SUGAR
CANE GROWERS WOULD BE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHT
THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THREE DOLLARS
($278,583.00).
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. OKAY. IS THERE A REASON THAT, FOR THE SAME
SCOPE OF WORK WITH THE SAME OBJECTIVES AND THE SAME
PERSONNEL, THAT THE AMOUNT NEEDED TO FUND THE PROJECT
WOULD CHANGE FROM ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND,
NINETY-NINE DOLLARS ($155,099.00) IN JANUARY OF '92, TO
ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED
AND FORTY-ONE DOLLARS ($177,541.00) IN MARCH OF '92,
TO TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY-THREE ($278,583.00) IN JULY OF 1992?
A. WELL, I'LL SAY THIS. IN -- IN ANY PROPOSAL,
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY ONE ASKS FOR IS A COMBINATION OF
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 92
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IT TAKES TO DO THE WORK AND THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THE AGENCY HAS AVAILABLE. VERY OFTEN,
EVERYONE I KNOW, INCLUDING MYSELF, SUBMITS
UNDER-BUDGETED PROPOSALS TO CERTAIN GROUPS BECAUSE IT'S
-- THEY'VE MADE IT CLEAR THEY DON'T HAVE THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY TO DO THE WORK. I MEAN, IF I -- IF I -- I --
THAT -- THAT MERCURY STUDY THAT YOU -- WE TALKED ABOUT
EARLIER, THAT WAS FUNDED AT THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($35,000.00). THAT STUDY WAS HEAVILY FUNDED BY
DUKE UNIVERSITY. THERE IS NO WAY WE DID ALL THOSE
ANALYSES, SUPPORTED THE GRADUATE STUDENTS, MY TIME,
DR. EVANS' TIME, AND SO FORTH, FOR THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($35,000.00). THAT'S TYPICAL. THAT'S ACADEMIC
RESEARCH. SO, IF THERE'S A PROJECT THAT SOMEONE REALLY
WANTS TO DO, THEY WILL VERY OFTEN GO IN UNDER-BUDGETED.
SO, I -- I THINK THERE'S -- IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO -- IT
DOESN'T SURPRISE ME AT ALL THAT LESS MONEY WOULD BE
REQUESTED FROM USDA THAT IS NOTORIOUSLY UNDER-FUNDED
VERSUS THE SUGAR CANE LEAGUE THAT PERHAPS HAS MORE
FUNDING AVAILABLE, WHO DOESN'T NORMALLY FUND RESEARCH,
SO WHO HAS MORE MONIES AVAILABLE. SO, THIS -- THESE
HIGHER COSTS ARE PROBABLY MORE REFLECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL
COSTS TO DO THE STUDY. ANOTHER -- ANOTHER FACTOR, TOO,
IF YOU'LL NOTICE, THE OVERHEAD CHARGES ARE VERY
DIFFERENT. USDA ONLY CHARGES FOURTEEN -- ONLY PROVIDES
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 93
FOURTEEN PERCENT OVERHEAD. DUKE UNIVERSITY REQUIRES
THAT WE DEMAND FULL OVERHEAD WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WHICH
IS SOMETHING LIKE FIFTY-TWO PERCENT. BUT THEY -- THEY
DON'T SAY WE CAN'T GO TO USDA BECAUSE THEY ONLY GIVE
FOURTEEN PERCENT. USDA SAYS TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, AND
-- AND DUKE WILL TAKE IT. BUT WE -- BUT -- BUT WE
CANNOT GO TO ANOTHER AGENCY THAT PROVIDES A HIGHER
OVERHEAD RATE AND SAY, WELL, WE ONLY ASKED FOR FOURTEEN
PERCENT FROM THIS GROUP SO WHY DON'T WE ASK FOURTEEN
PERCENT FROM YOU. DUKE WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT.
Q. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES -- WHY THERE
WAS A DIFFERENT AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM THE LEAGUE AS
OPPOSED TO THE CO-OP?
A. NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT. WHERE IS THAT? WHAT
-- WHAT PAGE IS THE LEAGUE BUDGET ON? MAYBE I CAN---
Q. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS EXHIBIT FIVE.
A. IT'S PAGE 35.
Q. PAGE 37.
A. WELL, LET ME THINK ABOUT THIS. I MEAN, I --
IT APPEARS TO ME -- AND, AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO
RECONSTRUCT THIS NOW, BUT THAT THE REQUEST FROM THE
LEAGUE WAS TO SUPPLEMENT MONIES FROM THE -- FROM THE
USDA TO MAKE -- YOU KNOW, TO -- TO -- TO FULLY REFLECT
THE COST. IN THIS EXHIBIT SIX, THERE IS NO MATCHING
MONEY. ALL THE MONIES ARE SOUGHT FROM THIS ONE SOURCE.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 94
SO, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP ACCOUNT FOR WHY THE SUGAR
CANE LEAGUE REQUEST IS SO MUCH LOWER THAN THE
COOPERATIVE REQUEST, BECAUSE THE LEAGUE REQUEST IS
OPERATING UNDER THE HOPE OR ASSUMPTION THAT THE USDA
WILL PROVIDE SOME SUPPORT. AND I THINK, TOO, IF YOU'LL
NOTICE THIS -- AGAIN, I'M JUST -- I THINK THIS IS, YOU
KNOW, FAIRLY LIKELY TO BE THE CASE -- THIS -- THIS USDA
PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY. THIS ONE WAS NOT
SUBMITTED UNTIL JULY. THAT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT AT THE
TIME OF THIS COOPERATIVE SUBMISSION IN JULY, WE HAD
ALREADY BEEN DENIED BY USDA. SO, WE KNEW -- WE KNEW WE
NO LONGER HAD ANY KIND OF MATCHING SUPPORT, AND ALL
SUPPORT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOUGHT FROM THIS ONE. AND
PERHAPS THE SUGAR CANE LEAGUE HAD ALSO DENIED THE
PROPOSAL, WHICH MEANT THAT THE -- THAT THIS BECAME THE
ONLY SOURCE. THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, A REASONABLE
EXPLANATION. BUT I -- I CAN'T SWEAR TO IT. BUT THAT
WOULD BE MY BEST.
Q. SO, WHAT IS THE MORE ACCURATE COST---
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
Q. ---THAT YOU'RE STATING THIS PROPOSAL WOULD
HAVE TAKEN TO COMPLETE? IF IT---
A. MY -- YOU KNOW, MY---
Q. ---THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND,
THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE DOLLAR ($384,341.00) TOTAL
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 95
THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE LEAGUE BUDGET?
A. PROBABLY. NO, I -- TO BE HONEST, I -- LOOKING
AT THIS, I STRONGLY FEEL THIS -- THIS IS UNDER-FUNDED.
I MEAN, IT'S TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING
ACTIVITIES GOING DOWN THERE. BUT, CONCERNING THE COSTS
OF DOING MERCURY ANALYSES AND SO FORTH, I WOULD -- I
WOULD TEND TO THINK THIS HIGHER ONE IS GOING TO BE THE
MOST ACCURATE. BUT I WOULD REALLY HAVE TO TAKE A LOT
OF TIME AND TRY TO COST IT ALL OUT.
Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE THE
PROGRAM -- THE PROPOSAL, THE SCOPE, AND ACCOMPLISH THE
OBJECTIVES THAT YOU'VE STATED IN YOUR PROPOSAL FOR TWO
HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND
EIGHTY-THREE DOLLARS ($278,583.00)?
A. PROBABLY NOT. AGAIN, I'D HAVE TO COST IT OUT.
BUT YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE WE IN ACADEMICS ARE ROUTINELY
UNDERTAKING PROJECTS FOR WHICH THE GRANTOR IS NOT
SUPPLYING ADEQUATE FUNDS. MOST PROJECTS I DO ARE NOT
FUNDED -- DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COSTS OF MY TIME,
MY SECRETARY'S TIME, MY TECHNICIAN'S TIME, THE OVERHEAD
COST TO DUKE OF FIFTY PERCENT, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. BUT
THE UNIVERSITY WILL, BY AND LARGE, BACKSTOP US ON THAT,
IF -- IF WE -- IF WE CAN'T -- IF INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF
MONIES ARE AVAILABLE, BUT THE PROJECT PROVIDES BENEFITS
IN TERMS OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, THE UNIVERSITY WILL
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 96
DEFRAY -- WILL FOREGO OVERHEAD COSTS LIKE IT DOES IN
THE CASE OF USDA. THEY WILL BACKSTOP GRADUATE
STUDENTS' SUPPORT. THEY'LL PROVIDE TECHNICIAN SUPPORT
AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THEY DON'T WANT TO, BUT -- BUT
THEY WILL.
Q. ARE YOU SAYING THAT FOR YOU PERSONALLY IT'S A
ROUTINE MATTER TO REQUEST FUNDS FROM ENTITIES WHICH ARE
NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE TOTAL COST THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO
DO THE PROPOSALS FOR WHICH YOU'RE SUBMITTING THE
MONEY---
A. YES.
Q. ---THE FUNDS FOR?
A. YES. MOST STATE AGENCIES, FOR INSTANCE, OF
NORTH CAROLINA, PAY ZERO OVERHEAD AT THE OUTSET, WHERE
-- WHERE THAT BUDGET, IF YOU GET ADEQUATE DIRECT COSTS
THAT BUDGET IS BY THIRTY-THREE PERCENT UNDER-FUNDED,
YOU KNOW. AND THAT'S -- THAT'S JUST TOO BAD. THAT'S
-- THAT'S IT.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHY -- WELL, WHAT REASON WOULD YOU
HAVE STATED IN THE PROPOSAL TO THE USDA UNDER YOUR
PROJECT SUMMARY THAT WOULD POSTULATE THAT AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES ARE AFFECTING THE REDOX STATUS OF THE SOILS,
WHICH, IN TURN, AFFECTS THE UPTAKE AND RELEASE OF
MERCURY BY PLANTS? OH, EXCUSE ME. I LOOKED AT THAT
WRONG -- YEAH, WHICH, IN TURN, AFFECTS THE UPTAKE AND
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 97
RELEASE OF MERCURY BY THE PLANTS. AND THEN STATES IN
THE PROPOSALS TO THE LEAGUE THAT WE POSTULATE THAT
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES DO NOT AFFECT MERCURY RELEASE TO
THE ENVIRONMENT, SINCE BOTH THE NATURAL EVERGLADES AND
EAA EXPERIENCE NATURAL DRYING AND WETTING CONDITIONS?
A. WELL, AGAIN, I MEAN, THOSE -- THOSE ARE BOTH
THE FLIP SIDES OF THE SAME HYPOTHESIS. IN BOTH CASES,
THAT'S A TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS. AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO
SAY IN ANY -- IN ANY -- ANY GRANT WRITING ACTIVITY HAS
SOME ELEMENT OF SALESMANSHIP. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT --
EPA MIGHT HAVE -- HAVE JUST AS STRONG A BIAS IN SEEING
-- HOPING THAT ONE SIDE OF A HYPOTHESIS WILL BE
DEMONSTRATED, AND ANOTHER GROUP OR INDUSTRY HAVE
ANOTHER SIDE. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY -- THE -- THE
CREDIBLE SCIENTIST, THOUGH, LETS THE DATA FALL WHERE
THEY WILL. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT -- IT WOULD BE FOOLISH
FOR ANY UNIVERSITY SCIENTIST -- I MEAN, A LOT OF --
INDUSTRY SUPPORTS A LOT OF RESEARCH IN INDUSTRY. AND,
IF -- AND, IF YOU TRIED TO SELL YOUR RESEARCH
CAPABILITIES AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE A
BAD ACTOR, THAT WOULD -- YOU WOULD NOT GET FUNDED. IN
THE SAME -- IT -- IT'S JUST AS -- AS BIASED FROM
GOVERNMENT, IF YOU SAID I'M GOING TO DO FUNDING TO
PROVE THAT THIS INDUSTRY IS A GREAT ACTOR. SO, THERE
-- YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY -- I DON'T THINK
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 98
IT'S -- IT'S -- IT'S DISHONEST. YOU'RE -- YOU'RE
PUTTING UP HYPOTHESES THAT YOU TEST. SO -- AND ALL
THESE THINGS ARE JUST PUTTING -- THEY'RE -- THEY'RE
STATING THE SAME HYPOTHESIS, ONE STATING IT IN ONE
DIRECTION AND ONE STATING IT IN THE OTHER. BUT IN THE
MIDDLE OF THAT THIRD---
Q. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE REASON FOR THAT IS
SALESMANSHIP?
A. YEAH.
Q. AND WHEN YOU SAY "SALESMANSHIP," WHAT DO YOU
MEAN?
A. WELL, I MEAN THAT -- THAT THERE -- YOU KNOW,
IT'S -- GETTING GRANT FUNDING HAS AN ELEMENT OF
SALESMANSHIP. I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S
ANYTHING NOVEL ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T -- YOU
KNOW, THE THING THAT -- THAT WILL -- THAT GETS A GRANT
FUNDED IS THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROJECT, AND THE DATA
IS GOING TO ANSWER SOME QUESTION. AND THE DATA ANSWERS
THE PROPER ACCUMULATION, AND ANALYSIS TO THAT DATA
GIVES THE SAME ANSWER. SO THAT THE -- THE -- THE
IMPORTANT THING IS THAT A HYPOTHESIS IS STATED THAT'S
TESTABLE. AND THEN THE STUDY IS DESIGNED TO TEST THAT
HYPOTHESIS. BUT IN THE -- TIPPING SECURE FUNDS TO TEST
THE HYPOTHESIS -- I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I CAN FRANKLY TELL
YOU AS A SCIENTIST, I HAD NO PARTICULAR BIAS -- THAT'S
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 99
THE GREAT PART ABOUT ACADEMICS -- OF WHICH SIDE OF THE
HYPOTHESIS WOULD FALL. I WANTED TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS
BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT HYPOTHESIS. IT'S A -- IT
MEANS A LOT IN WHAT AND HOW THESE SYSTEMS ARE MANAGED
AND SO FORTH. BUT EITHER PROVING OR DISPROVING THE
HYPOTHESIS WILL LEAD TO THAT ON EITHER DIRECTION.
Q. WHAT IS USDA'S BIAS AGAINST AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES?
A. OH, WELL, IT'S GOOD THAT THEY PROBABLY AREN'T
-- I -- I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I -- YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO
WIDE SENSE OF WHAT USDA'S BIAS WOULD BE. I GUESS, TO
BE HONEST, I HAD SORT OF ASSUME THAT THEIR BIASES MIGHT
BE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE SUGAR CANE GROWERS, IN WHICH
CASE, MAYBE THAT'S WHEN WE GET FUNDED. I MEAN, MAYBE
WE STRESSED THE WRONG SIDE OF THE HYPOTHESIS.
IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME---
Q. THEN WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT
HYPOTHESIS?
A. IT'S NOT THE DIFFERENT HYPOTHESIS. IT'S THE
SAME HYPOTHESIS. I MEAN -- WELL, OKAY, BACK TO -- I
MEAN, THE HYPOTHESIS IN EITHER DIREC -- YOU CAN HAVE
THE NULL HYPOTHESIS, AND I'LL HAVE TO -- I'LL HAVE --
HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS. SO, NEITHER -- YOU
KNOW, IN ONE CASE, THE NULL HYPOTHESIS, YOU KNOW, IS
THAT THERE IS NO EFFECT. AND THE OTHER WAY IN A NULL
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 100
HYPOTHESIS IS THAT THERE IS EFFECT. BUT YOU -- EITHER
WAY, YOUR DATA TESTS THAT HYPOTHESIS. NOW, IN
RETROSPECT, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE COUCHED
IT FOR USDA. WE SHOULD HAVE STATED IT THE REVERSE,
THAT THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. THAT WAS JUST
A DECISION THAT COULD HAVE GONE IN EITHER DIRECTION. I
DON'T KNOW. AND MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE STATED IT THAT
WAY. NONE OF THEM GOT FUNDED, SO IT DIDN'T HELP US
ANY.
Q. DID YOU STATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS IN EITHER CASE
AS A HYPOTHESIS -- AS A NULL HYPOTHESIS? I'M SORRY.
DID YOU STATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS IN EITHER CASE AS A NULL
HYPOTHESIS?
A. WELL, WE -- I GUESS IN NEITHER OF THESE, AS I
RECALL -- AND I'D HAVE TO -- WE -- WE DIDN'T ALWAYS
STATE NULL HYPOTHESES IN TERMS OF HYPOTHESES. MY
UNDERSTANDING IN THE GENERAL SENSE IS, WHEN YOU STATE A
HYPOTHESIS WITHOUT STATING WHETHER IT'S NULL OR
ALTERNATIVE, IT SORT OF DEFAULTS TO NULL.
Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT DR. RICHARDSON'S DEPOSITION
HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THIS MATTER?
A. I KNEW HE HAD HIS -- HAS HAD HIS DEPOSITION
TAKEN IN TERMS OF PHOSPHORUS AND NUTRIENTS.
Q. DID YOU KNOW THAT HIS DEPOSITION HAD BEEN
TAKEN BACK IN JANUARY OF 1993?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 101
A. I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL. I MEAN, I KNOW
HE'S -- HE'S BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE THIS PERIOD IN TIME.
BUT I DON'T KEEP THAT CLOSE A TRACK OF IT.
Q. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
DR. RICHARDSON'S DEPOSITION?
A. NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT HE WAS ASKED THE SAME
QUESTIONS ON HIS---
A. NO.
Q. ---AS YOU'VE BEEN ASKED?
A. NO.
Q. WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT
DR. RICHARDSON SUGGESTED OR STATED THAT YOU SUGGESTED
THAT THE BUDGETS BE INCREASED OR CHANGED FOR SUBMISSION
TO THE LEAGUE AND THEN AGAIN TO THE CO-OP?
A. NO.
Q. YOU WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED?
A. NO.
MS. HOGAN: I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD
TIME TO TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH.
(THEREUPON, A BREAK WAS TAKEN
FROM 11:54 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M.)
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN CONTINUES:
Q. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER
DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 102
A. IT SAYS "MECHANISMS REGULATING MERCURY
MOBILIZATION AND TRANSPORT INTO SURFACE WATERS: NATURAL
VS. AGRICULTURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA PEATLANDS
TO SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA BY THE
DUKE WETLAND CENTER, DRS. C.J. RICHARDSON AND R.T.
DiGIULIO, JULY 30, 1992."
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU REVIEW THAT DOCUMENT?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS THE SECOND PAGE TO THAT
DOCUMENT?
A. LOOKS LIKE A TABLE OF CONTENTS THAT -- TO A
PROPOSAL.
Q. WHAT'S THE NEXT PAGE?
A. BLANK.
Q. OKAY. THE NEXT PAGE?
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Q. AND THE NEXT PAGE?
A. A LETTER TO MR. GEORGE WEDGWORTH.
Q. AND WHAT'S THE DATE OF THAT LETTER?
A. SEPTEMBER 28, 1992.
Q. OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST PAGE?
A. IT'S A BUDGET.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS
THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 103
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 7 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
DR. JONES: THAT BLANK PAGE IS NOT IN
THE ORIGINAL.
MS. HOGAN: I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS PACKET
BEFORE?
A. NO.
Q. WHAT ABOUT THE LETTER TO GEORGE WEDGWORTH
DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 1992?
A. WELL, IT'S -- YOU KNOW, IT'S IN THIS OTHER ONE
HERE.
Q. SAME DATE?
A. YEAH. I KNOW IT'S SOMEWHERE HERE. YEAH,
THIS -- THIS EXHIBIT SIX SEEMS TO INCLUDE
EXHIBIT SEVEN, OR AT LEAST MINE DOES. HERE'S A LETTER
TO GEORGE WEDGWORTH.
Q. SAME DATE?
A. YEAH, AND BUDGET, SAME BUDGET.
Q. OKAY.
A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, SO---
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS THE TOTAL REQUEST FOR THE
PROPOSAL IN EXHIBIT---
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 104
A. IN EXHIBIT SEVEN?
Q. ---SEVEN?
A. SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS --
SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIVE
DOLLARS ($625,805.00).
Q. OKAY. AND IS THAT AN ACCURATE ESTIMATION, IN
YOUR OPINION, OF THE TOTAL COST FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
STUDY THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE PRIOR PROPOSAL?
A. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, IT SEEMS FAIRLY
REASONABLE, BUT I HAVEN'T -- AGAIN, I HAVEN'T HAD --
SEEN THESE OR REALLY HAD TIME TO THINK THROUGH THEM.
Q. OKAY. WE'LL PUT ASIDE THOSE EXHIBITS FOR THE
MOMENT.
A. OKAY.
Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DISSOLVED ORGANIC COMPOUND AND METHYLATION IS?
A. DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON AND---
Q. I'M SORRY -- CARBON.
A. I'VE DONE CONSIDERABLE READING IN AREAS THAT
INCLUDE THAT, AND I DON'T SENSE THAT THERE IS A SIMPLE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO. SYSTEMS -- IN SOME
SYSTEMS, HIGH D.O.C. MAY TRACK EUTROPHICATION -- IN
OTHER WORDS, OTHER HIGH INPUTS OF NUTRIENTS AND SO
FORTH -- IN WHICH CASE YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO SEE SOME
SORT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH D.O.C. AND ENHANCED
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 105
METHYLATION, BUT I THINK THERE'S OFTEN -- THERE'S
EXCEPTIONS TO THAT. THERE'S -- THERE IS, ALSO -- I
KNOW -- I THINK THERE'S INTEREST IN HOW HIGH D.O.C. IN
SHALLOW-WATERED SYSTEMS AND SYSTEMS WITH, SAY,
REASONABLE SECCHI-DEPTH TRANSPARENCY, COULD ENHANCE
ABIOTIC METHYLATION, BECAUSE LOTS OF THAT D.O.C. COULD
BE COMPRISED BY HUMIC AND FULVIC MATERIALS. BUT I HAVE
NO SENSE OF A SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHAT THE
EFFECTS -- WHAT EFFECTS THE DEPTH AND VOLUME OF THE
CANALS HAVE ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION AND
BIOACCUMULATION?
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT
QUESTION?
MS. HOGAN: UH-HUH (YES).
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHAT EFFECTS DO DEPTH AND
VOLUME OF THE CANALS HAVE ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION
AND BIOACCUMULATION?
A. I THINK IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO TAKE
SOMETHING LIKE THAT OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE OVERALL
SYSTEM. I WOULD TEND NOT TO THINK IN MOST SITUATIONS
THEY WOULD BE MAJOR DRIVING FACTORS RELATIVE TO THE
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THOSE WATERS AND THE UNDERLYING
SEDIMENTS THAT WOULD -- I WOULD THINK WOULD BE, ON THE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 106
WHOLE, MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN DEPTH AND WATER VOLUME.
Q. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IF I ASKED YOU PREVIOUSLY
WHAT YOUR THEORY IS OR YOUR OPINION IS AS TO THE EFFECT
OF PHOSPHOROUS ON METHYLATION OF MERCURY IN THE
EVERGLADES.
A. I THINK WE---
Q. DID I ASK THAT?
A. ---WE -- I THINK WE MENTIONED THAT, BUT I'LL
BE HAPPY TO -- IN A NUTSHELL, MY OPINION WOULD BE THAT
THAT PHOSPHOROUS WOULD NOT DIRECTLY DRIVE METHYLATION,
PER SE. HOWEVER, PHOSPHOROUS IS ONE COMPONENT OF THE
OVERALL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF A SYSTEM THAT IS GOING
TO BE A PART OF AND REFLECT PRODUCTIVITY, OVERALL
NUTRIENT ASSEMBLAGE, AND SO FORTH. IN OTHER WORDS,
THOSE VARIABLES THAT WE USE TO DESCRIBE THINGS LIKE
TROPHIC STATUS AND, AS SUCH, BY AND LARGE, WE'D EXPECT
TO SEE A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHOSPHOROUS AND
METHYLATION.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY DATA ON
PHOSPHOROUS LOADING IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. YEAH, THERE WAS A -- THAT E MAP DATA INCLUDED
A DIAGRAM OF PHOSPHOROUS. I DEFINITELY REMEMBER THAT.
I CAN'T RECALL -- I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF JUST RAW DATA
SHEETS. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY -- THAT'S THE ONLY DATA
SET THAT I CAN RECALL, YOU KNOW, CLOSELY EXAMINING THAT
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 107
INCLUDED PHOSPHOROUS.
Q. AND WHAT DID IT SHOW?
A. AS I RECALL, IT SHOWED MORE OR LESS A GRADIENT
OF HIGHER PHOSPHOROUS CONCENTRATIONS AT STATIONS IN THE
NORTH OF THE AREA STUDIED, IN OTHER WORDS, AROUND THE
EAA AND NORTHERN WCA'S THAT MORE OR LESS TAPERED OFF
AND WAS LOWER IN THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK REGION.
Q. IS THE EFFECT OF PHOSPHOROUS ON
BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY A DIRECT OR INDIRECT
EFFECT?
A. INDIRECT.
Q. AND WHY IS THAT?
A. WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK PHOSPHOROUS IS
HAVING A MAJOR DIRECT CHEMICAL INTERACTION WITH MERCURY
OR THE BIOTA-ACCUMULATING MERCURY. BUT, AGAIN, I
THINK, JUST AS I MENTIONED WITH THE METHYLATION
PROCESS, THAT IT TENDS TO BE A COMPONENT OF A NUMBER OF
WATER CHEMICAL VARIABLES, SUCH AS NUTRIENTS DISSOLVED
IN PARTICULATE ORGANIC CARBON, CHLOROPHYLL-A,
PRODUCTIVITY AND SO FORTH, THAT COLLECTIVELY HAVE A
MAJOR BEARING ON BIO AVAILABILITY AND BIOACCUMULATION.
Q. IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE LOWER CONCENTRATIONS OF
MERCURY IN FISH AND STILL HAVE A LARGER ABSOLUTE MASS
OF METHYLMERCURY IN THE SYSTEM?
A. YES.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 108
Q. AND DOES ELEVATED PHOSPHOROUS EQUATE TO
ELEVATED BIOMASS?
WITNESS: WOULD YOU RESTATE THAT?
MS. HOGAN: UH-HUH (YES).
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DOES ELEVATED PHOSPHOROUS
EQUATE TO ELEVATED BIOMASS?
A. NO, I WOULDN'T SAY IT EQUATES TO IT. IN
PHOSPHOROUS-LIMITED SYSTEMS, THOUGH, BY AND LARGE,
INCREASING PHOSPHOROUS, BY DEFINITION, WILL INCREASE
PRODUCTIVITY, SO I THINK IT'S A LITTLE TOO BLACK AND
WHITE TO SAY IT EQUATES. HOWEVER, MANY SYSTEMS ARE
PHOSPHOROUS-LIMITED, AND INCREASING PHOSPHOROUS WILL
TEND TO INCREASE, FOR INSTANCE, PHYTOPLANKTON
PRODUCTIVITY AND CHLOROPHYLL-A AND SO FORTH.
Q. ARE YOU GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE STORMWATER
TREATMENT AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN THE
EVERGLADES SWIM PLAN?
A. YES, IN A GENERAL WAY.
Q. OKAY. WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO HOW
THEY'LL FUNCTION?
A. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AGRICULTURAL AREAS IN
THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE EAA WILL ESSENTIALLY BE
IMPOUNDED AND RUNOFF FROM THOSE -- FROM THE
AGRICULTURAL AREA WILL THEN COLLECT IN THE STA'S. AND
LARGELY, I ASSUME, BY SIMPLE SEDIMENTATION AND SO
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 109
FORTH, THEY WILL EFFECTIVELY ACT AS A NUTRIENT-REMOVAL
SYSTEM AND THEN THE OUTFLOW WILL ENTER, THEN, THE
WCA'S.
Q. OKAY. WHAT PRIOR EXPOSURE HAVE YOU HAD TO
WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS?
A. OTHER THAN SOME GENERAL READINGS IN THE AREA
OF THE GENERAL IDEA OF USING WETLANDS AS
NUTRIENT-TREATMENT SYSTEMS, THAT'S MORE OR LESS THE
LIMITATION OF MY EXPERIENCE.
Q. OKAY. IT'S BEEN ARGUED THAT THE STA'S
THEMSELVES, DISREGARDING PHOSPHOROUS INPUT, MAY BE
SOURCES OF INCREASED METHYLATION PRODUCTION. ARE YOU
FAMILIAR WITH THAT ARGUMENT?
A. YES.
Q. WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
A. MY OPINION WOULD BE THAT ANY PREDICTION IN
THAT AREA IS PERHAPS PREMATURE, BUT BASED ON ALL
EXISTING INFORMATION IN TERMS OF THE EFFECT OF NUTRIENT
ENRICHMENT AND SO FORTH, THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST
REASONABLE GUESS THAT, IN FACT, YEAH, THOSE STA'S WOULD
ENHANCE METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION IN THOSE AREAS VERSUS
WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THOSE AREAS PRIOR TO IMPOUNDMENT.
Q. WHY IS THAT?
A. BECAUSE OF THE -- AGAIN, THAT YOU WOULD --
THEY WOULD SERVE TO RETAIN NUTRIENTS SO THEY WOULD
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 110
BECOME RELATIVELY NUTRIENT-ENRICHED AS OPPOSED TO
NUTRIENTS JUST MOVING OVER LAND OR WHATEVER OVER
THOSE -- OUT OF THOSE AREAS, AND THAT BY BEING FLOODED,
THAT WOULD PROMOTE ANAEROBIC ZONES AND
ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC INTERFACES THAT SEEM TO BE IMPORTANT
IN STIMULATING MICROBIAL METHYLATION.
Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER STA'S OR WETLAND
TREATMENT AREAS AROUND THE WORLD THAT HAVE HAD AN
INCREASE IN METHYLATION OR METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION?
A. NO.
Q. WHAT IS THE USEFULNESS OF INFORMATION ON
METHYLATION AND DEMETHYLATION IN THE CONTEXT OF MERCURY
CONTAMINATION IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. OH, I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF
THE MERCURY ISSUE IN FLORIDA OR ANYWHERE FOR A NUMBER
OF REASONS. ONE IS THAT METHYLMERCURY TENDS TO BE
RELATIVELY MORE BIO AVAILABLE THAN MERCURIC ION.
METHYLMERCURY IS FAR MORE -- IS FAR MORE RETAINED
WITHIN ORGANISMS, DEPURATION IS FAR SLOWER WITH
METHYLMERCURY OUT OF VERTEBRATES AND PROBABLY
INVERTEBRATES AS WELL, AS OPPOSED TO MERCURIC ION.
METHYLMERCURY IS FAR MORE TOXIC AS A TERATOGEN, AS A
NEUROTOXICANT, THAN MERCURIC ION.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE STUDY CONDUCTED BY
DR. TAMAR BARKAY ON METHYLMERCURY IN THE EVERGLADES IN
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 111
WCA-2?
A. I DON'T THINK SO. I REMEMBER -- I RECALL
ONLY -- I RECALL SEEING JUST A COUPLE OF PAGES THAT
INCLUDED A -- AND MAYBE THIS IS THAT STUDY -- THAT
INCLUDED A LITTLE TABLE SHOWING METHYLATION AND
DEMETHYLATION. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS -- IT WAS LOOKING
AT DIFFERENT -- DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NUTRIENT INPUT, I
BELIEVE, PERHAPS PHOSPHOROUS. I JUST REMEMBER SEEING
THIS TABLE AND IT SHOWING METHYLATION RATE,
DEMETHYLATION RATE. I THINK I HAD THE IMPRESSION IT
WAS MORE OF AN EXPERIMENT THAN A FIELD STUDY AT WC-2A
[sic], BUT I CAN'T RECALL IT THAT CLEARLY.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE FINDINGS SHOWED?
A. I CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, I REALLY CAN'T -- I KNEW
ABOUT A WEEK AGO AND I'VE FORGOTTEN---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---I REMEMBER BEING -- YOU KNOW, SORT OF ODD
THAT -- THAT SEEMED, AS I RECALL, UNDER ANY CONDITION
-- I KIND OF TOOK THE WHOLE THING WITH A GRAIN OF SALT,
BECAUSE UNDER -- AS I RECALL, UNDER ALL CONDITIONS,
DEMETHYLATION EXCEEDED METHYLATION, AND I JUST FOUND
THAT ODD.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU A DOCUMENT AND
ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
A. IT'S A LETTER ON U.S. EPA STATIONERY DIRECTED
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 112
TO DR. MIKE SOUKUP OF THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK FROM
TAMAR BARKAY AND ROTHI KAVANAUGH, DATED FEBRUARY 18,
1983.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T -- I DON'T
RECALL IT.
Q. THAT'S NOT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU WERE
REFERRING TO BEFORE?
A. THE TABLE LOOKS SOMEHOW JUST -- I DON'T RECALL
THE TABLE BEING AS NEARLY AS -- I HAD A SENSE THAT
WHAT -- THE TABLE I SAW WAS MUCH SIMPLER AND BRIEFER,
LIKE IT WAS ANOTHER RENDITION OF THIS, PERHAPS.
THERE'S -- IT CERTAINLY HAD A LOT OF THE SIMILAR DATA,
THE RATE OF METHYLATION, RATE OF DEMETHYLATION. BUT I
DON'T -- THIS REALLY DOESN'T LOOK FAMILIAR.
Q. OKAY. YOU SAID YOU TOOK WHAT YOU DID SEE WITH
A GRAIN OF SALT BECAUSE WHAT?
A. WELL, AS I RECALL, I WAS STRUCK ON THE DATE
THE TABLE I SAW -- AND, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN A WHILE -- BUT
AS I RECALL, UNDER THE VARIOUS -- ON VIRTUALLY ALL THE
DIFFERENT THINGS SHE WAS LOOKING AT, AND IT SEEMED TO
ME -- AGAIN, I REALLY HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT WHAT I
SAW WAS LIKE AN EXPERIMENT, PROBABLY A LABORATORY
EXPERIMENT, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, USING NATURAL SEDIMENTS,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 113
BUT I DIDN'T -- I DON'T RECALL IT BEING A NATURAL FIELD
SETTING, BUT I COULD BE WRONG.
BUT, IN ANY EVENT, AS I RECALL, IN VIRTUALLY ALL
CASES -- THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN EXCEPTION -- THAT
DEMETHYLATION EXCEEDED METHYLATION. I DO REMEMBER
THERE WAS A GENERAL TREND, AND I -- THAT'S WHY I CAN'T
REMEMBER WHAT THE DRIVING FUNCTION OF THAT TREND WAS
FOR THE -- FOR A DIFFERENCE THERE. IN OTHER WORDS,
THAT THE -- THE METHYLATION/DEMETHYLATION RATIO WENT IN
ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT
IT WAS. BUT DESPITE THAT, IN VIRTUALLY ALL CONDITIONS,
I THINK DEMETHYLATION EXCEEDED METHYLATION---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---WHICH MADE ME WONDER WHY WE SEE SO MUCH
METHYLMERCURY IN THE WORLD.
Q. WITH REGARD TO THE STA'S, THERE IS AN OPINION
THAT WITHIN THE STA'S, THERE WOULD BE AN AREA OF NET
METHYLATION OF MERCURY AND ANOTHER AREA THAT WOULD BE
AN AREA OF DEMETHYLATION, AND THAT THE PROCESS OF
DEMETHYLATION WOULD BE A STRONGER PROCESS OR MORE
SIGNIFICANT PROCESS THAN METHYLATION AS A NET IN THE
STA'S. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT THEORY?
A. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE. YOU KNOW, AT
THIS POINT, I GUESS PEOPLE CAN PROPOSE WHATEVER THEY
WANT. I'D CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW THE RATIONALE FOR
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 114
THAT. I ASSUME THAT THERE MUST -- THEY MUST BE
PROPOSING SOME GRADIENT WITHIN THE STA ON -- RELATED TO
NUTRIENTS AND AEROBIC ZONES AND SO FORTH. BUT IT
DOESN'T -- MY STATE OF UNDERSTANDING, I SEE NO MORE
COMPELLING REASON FOR THAT HYPOTHESIS THAN OTHERS THAT
COULD BE PROPOSED. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED, I
THINK IS THE BOTTOM LINE.
Q. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE WORK THAT
DR. BARKAY HAS DONE WITH DR. RICHARDSON IN WCA-2A
PERTAINING TO MERCURY?
A. ONLY THAT HE MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD DONE
SOMETHING, AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE, BUT HE SAID -- HE
JUST MENTIONED TO ME ONE TIME THAT SHE HAD DONE SOME
MERCURY ANALYSES WITH SOME OF HIS SAMPLES OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT. I NEVER SAW THE DATA OR WHATEVER ELSE CAME
OUT OF THAT. I JUST KNEW THEY HAD DONE SOME -- SOME
WINGED -- IT SOUNDED LIKE THEY HAD WINGED SOME LITTLE
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY TOGETHER.
Q. THEY HAD WHAT? WINGED?
A. WELL, YEAH. I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WAS
MY IMPRESSION. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WASN'T LIKE SOME
MAJOR STUDY. THAT THEY JUST HAD A COMMON INTEREST AND
HE HAD SOME -- I TOOK IT THAT LIKE HE HAD SOME SAMPLES
AND SHE HAD THE MERCURY ANALYSIS CAPABILITY, AND SO IT
WAS A SIMPLE COLLABORATION.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 115
Q. OKAY. WOULD YOU EXPECT MORE DEMETHYLATION OF
MERCURY TO OCCUR IN THE STA'S THAN IN THE EAA
PRESENTLY?
A. NO.
Q. AND WHY NOT?
A. BECAUSE I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE STA'S ARE
GOING TO BE LARGELY FLOODED MOST OF THE TIME, WHEREAS
THE EAA'S, I TAKE IT, ARE UNDERGOING SORT OF A WETTING
AND DRYING CYCLE. IN FACT, THEY'RE DE-WATERED MUCH OF
THE TIME, AND THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE -- IN THE
DE-WATERED SITUATION THAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT
DEMETHYLATION TO HAVE DOMINANCE, WHEREAS IN A
CONTINUALLY FLOODED SITUATION, I WOULD TEND TO THINK
THAT METHYLATION WOULD HAVE DOMINANCE.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY DATA PREPARED BY
KBN?
A. YES.
Q. WHAT DATA HAVE YOU REVIEWED?
A. YOU KNOW, I -- WHAT WAS -- WHAT WERE THOSE
DATA? I KNOW THEY DID QUITE A BIT. AND I'M JUST
TRYING TO REMEMBER. THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT LITTLE
DATES. LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. OH, I
BELIEVE THAT THE DATA SET I SAW -- I BELIEVE THE DATA
SET I SAW INCLUDED SOME MEASURES OF TOTAL MERCURY AND
METHYLMERCURY IN SOME WATER-COLUMN SAMPLES FROM
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 116
DIFFERENT STATIONS, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALSO A KBN
DATA SET THAT HAD SOME MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH.
Q. WHEN DID YOU REVIEW THAT DATA?
A. I REVIEWED THOSE DATA A FEW WEEKS AGO.
Q. AND HOW DID YOU RECEIVE THEM?
A. THROUGH MR. SAMS' OFFICE.
Q. AND WHAT DID THAT DATA SHOW?
A. AGAIN, I -- I HAD A REAL GOOD GRASP ON THOSE A
FEW WEEKS AGO. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT I
REMEMBER ABOUT THEM. I BELIEVE THAT THEY -- AS I
RECALL, THERE WAS NO GREAT DIFFERENCE IN MERCURY
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE HOLEYLAND -- AS I RECALL, THERE
WERE THREE SITES, THE ENP, THE HOLEYLAND AND ANOTHER
ONE. AS I RECALL, THERE WERE NO GREAT DIFFERENCES IN
MERCURY -- TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS. THERE WERE
SOME, BUT IT WASN'T ANYTHING LIKE AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
OR SOMETHING. THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE. I
REMEMBER BEING STRUCK THAT AT ALL THREE SITES THE
PERCENT METHYLMERCURY WAS, SEEMED TO BE ON THE ORDER OF
TEN OR FIFTEEN PERCENT, WHICH WAS HIGHER THAN I WOULD
HAVE GUESSED.
AND I THINK -- AS I RECALL, THE FISH DATA SEEMED TO BE
PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THE E MAP DATA, ROUGHLY; YOU
KNOW, SHOWING MORE OR LESS GENERALLY HIGHER
CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH FURTHER DOWN CLOSER TO THE PARK
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 117
AND LOWER TOWARDS THE PROPOSED STA'S.
Q. OKAY. NOW, I'LL HAND YOU THIS DOCUMENT AND
ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD?
A. BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING AND TISSUE ANALYSIS OF
FISH COLLECTED IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, KBN,
MARCH 1994.
Q. IS THAT THE KBN DATA THAT YOU WERE REFERRING
TO THAT YOU REVIEWED?
A. THIS COVER SHEET SURE LOOKS FAMILIAR. I THINK
IT IS.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THIS -- THIS I RECALL BETTER NOW. I THINK
THIS WAS THE DATA SET I GOT VERY RECENTLY AND DIDN'T
REALLY CLOSELY EXAMINE. I ASSUMED THAT IT WAS SORT OF
THE ORIGINAL DATA SHEETS GOING WITH THE PREVIOUS STUFF,
THE PREVIOUS MATERIALS I HAD EXAMINED MORE CLOSELY, AND
I DIDN'T; AND, ALSO, IT CAME FOLLOWING OUR MEETING IN
ATLANTA, WHICH I WAS EXTREMELY BUSY, AND JUST DIDN'T
TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO LOOK AT.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MARK
THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 8 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 118
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU HAVE
NOT REVIEWED THIS DOCUMENT?
A. I KNOW I GOT -- I RECEIVED IT, BUT I DID
NOT -- TO BE HONEST, I DID NOT REVIEW IT. I HAVE IT,
I'M PRETTY SURE. BUT I REMEMBER JUST SEEING IT LOOKED
LIKE A WHOLE LOT OF RAW DATA, AND I DID NOT HAVE THE
TIME TO GO AND TRY TO MATCH ALL THESE DATA WITH THE
SITES. I HAD SEEN PREVIOUS DATA SUMMARIES THAT DID
THAT. I GUESS I THOUGHT PERHAPS -- I THOUGHT PERHAPS
THESE WERE SOME OF THE ORIGINAL DATA THAT HAD GONE INTO
THESE DATA SUMMARIES, SO I DIDN'T TAKE A LOT OF TIME
WITH IT, AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME, EITHER.
Q. YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT YOU SAW A TABLE?
A. WELL, IN THE -- IN A PREVIOUS KBN REPORT THAT
HAD SOME FISH DATA, OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PTI
REPORT THAT SUMMARIZED SOME OF THE KBN DATA.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
A. THIS IS A REPORT ON WATER SAMPLING IN
THE HOLEYLAND, WATER CONSERVATION AREA-2A AND
EVERGLADES NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT, KBN, MARCH 1994.
MS. HOGAN: WE'RE GOING TO MARK THAT AS
THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 119
EXHIBIT NO. 9 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE YOU SEEN THAT DOCUMENT
BEFORE?
A. LET ME TAKE A MINUTE AND TAKE A CLOSER LOOK.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I BELIEVE -- YES, I'VE SEEN THESE -- I'VE
REVIEWED THESE DATA PREVIOUSLY. I DON'T -- ALTHOUGH
THE REPORT I HAVE -- THIS HAS SO MANY PAGES THAT I DID
NOT HAVE. BUT THIS DATA, I DEFINITELY REVIEWED THIS
DATA SET IN THE TABLES, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, IN
THAT AREA.
Q. AND WHAT DID THAT DATA SHOW?
A. CAN I REFER TO THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS
WHERE I SUMMARIZED THIS?
Q. WELL, CAN YOU IDENTIFY THAT NEXT DOCUMENT,
THEN, THAT -- THAT YOU'RE HOLDING RIGHT NOW?
A. THIS NEXT -- LET ME MAKE SURE THIS IS IT. THE
NEXT DOCUMENT I HAVE IS JUST SOME SUMMARY STATISTICS I
MADE FROM THE KBN REPORT. HOWEVER---
Q. OKAY. WHY DON'T---
A. ---IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO CORRESPOND WITH THE
TABLE IN THIS REPORT---
Q. OKAY. WHY DON'T WE---
A. ---BUT THIS -- THIS REPORT IS CLEARLY -- IT
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 120
LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A LOT OF THE SAME DATA I LOOKED AT,
BUT THERE -- LIKE, I NEVER SAW THESE PICTURES BEFORE; I
DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY OF THESE DRAFTS BEFORE; I
RECALL SEEING DATA VERY SIMILAR TO THIS UPON WHICH I
MADE THESE SUMMARIES---
Q. DATA SIMILAR TO EXHIBIT?
A. TO EXHIBIT -- TO THE EXHIBIT NINE, TABLE 5,
BUT MY---
MS. HOGAN: ALL RIGHT---
A. ---MY NOTES REFER TO TABLE 3.
MS. HOGAN: ---WHY DON'T WE MARK
THESE -- OKAY. WHY DON'T WE MARK YOUR NOTES
AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 10 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
A. OKAY.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) OKAY. YOU'RE SAYING YOU
DERIVED---
A. I BELIEVE THESE -- THESE LOOK REAL SIMILAR.
IT WOULD TAKE A WHILE TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE, BUT I'M
PRETTY CONFIDENT THESE ARE THE -- THIS IS THE SAME DATA
UPON WHICH I MADE MY SUMMARY IN EXHIBIT TEN.
Q. OKAY. AND WHAT DOES THE DATA SHOW?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 121
A. THE DATA SHOW TOTAL AND -- TOTAL UNFILTERED,
TOTAL FILTERED AND METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS FROM
FOUR SAMPLES IN HOLEYLAND, SIX SAMPLES IN WC-2A [sic],
AND FIVE SAMPLES IN THE ENR -- IN EVERGLADES NUTRIENT
REMOVAL AREA, I BELIEVE. THE DATA -- LET'S SEE.
BASICALLY, THE DATA INDICATE SOMEWHAT HIGHER TOTAL
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS, IT APPEARS, IN WC-2A [sic],
ALTHOUGH METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS SEEM TO BE MORE
SIMILAR. IT SHOWS METHYLMERCURY COMPRISING FROM NINE
TO ABOUT EIGHTEEN PERCENT OF TOTAL MERCURY. IT
INDICATES PROBABLY SEVENTY-FIVE TO EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT
OF THE TOTAL MERCURY AS BEING DISSOLVED OR AT LEAST
FILTERABLE. SO, THAT'S THE GIST OF IT.
Q. OKAY. AND YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU DERIVED YOUR
TABLE FROM KBN DATA THAT WAS SUPPLIED TO YOU---
A. YES, I'M CONFIDENT THIS WAS -- WELL, I KNOW --
I'VE IDENTIFIED IT AT THE TOP AS KBN TABLE 3. I THINK
MY REPORT WAS AN EARLIER DRAFT, PERHAPS, OF THIS
REPORT, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT -- IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE AS
COMPLETED, FOR INSTANCE, WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS, AND
THESE -- SOME OF THESE FIGURES IN THE BACK.
Q. SO, YOU BELIEVE THERE'S AN EARLIER SET OF KBN
DATA THAT YOU REVIEWED?
A. RIGHT. BUT I THINK IT'S THE SAME DATA AS IS
INDICATED IN TABLE 5 OF THIS DRAFT.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 122
Q. OKAY. IS THE KBN DATA SUFFICIENT IN NUMBER
AND SAMPLE SITES TO ENABLE YOU TO COME TO ANY
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING MERCURY METHYLATION OR
BIOACCUMULATION IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU RELIED UPON THAT IN THE FORMULATION
OF ANY OF THE OPINIONS THAT YOU'LL PRESENT AT TRIAL OR
THE HEARING?
A. I BELIEVE I HAVE. I CANNOT REMEMBER ALL THE
DIFFERENT DATA SOURCES. IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE
FLORIDA DATA, THE MAJOR DATA THAT I'VE RELIED ON HAVE
BEEN DATA IN THE LANGE STUDY AND DATA SYNTHESIZED BY
THE PTI GROUP, THAT I KNOW INCLUDES A LOT OF KBN DATA;
AND, OF COURSE, I'VE USED HEAVILY REPORTS AND DATA SETS
FROM PLACES OUTSIDE OF FLORIDA.
Q. ON MERCURY?
A. YES, IN TERMS OF -- IN TERMS OF OTHER PLACES
SHOWING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG EUTROPHICATION, METHYLATION
AND BIOACCUMULATION.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY EPA DATA ON
METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATION LEVELS IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. YEAH. AS I RECALL, THE E MAP -- THE R-E MAP
DATA WAS ALL EPA DATA, I BELIEVE -- I ASSUMED.
Q. OKAY. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY EPA DATA
THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 123
A. I CAN'T -- I CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN. THAT'S
THE MAIN EPA DATA THAT I CAN CERTAINLY RECALL. I'D SAY
-- I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IN SAYING THAT'S THE MAIN EPA
DATA I'VE SEEN, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ALL. IN FACT,
LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, I KNOW I'VE SEEN A BIT OF BARKAY'S
DATA AND SO FORTH. BUT CERTAINLY THAT R-E MAP
WAS PROBABLY THE LARGEST AND KIND OF THE MOST
COMPELLING DATA SET OF THE DATA SETS THAT I'VE SEEN
PERTINENT TO THIS AND, SPECIFICALLY, IN FLORIDA.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
A. A MICROCOSM SIMULATING MERCURY CYCLING IN A
CONTAMINATED POND BY IRWIN SAUTER AND TAMAR BARKAY,
U.S. EPA.
Q. IS THAT THE REPORT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO
PREVIOUSLY?
A. NO, I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS. I'VE NEVER SEEN
THIS---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---I DON'T THINK. I MEAN, UNLESS THERE'S A
LITTLE TABLE IN THE BACK. I NEVER SAW ANY SIZEABLE
REPORT. IN FACT, I DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING THE NAME
IRWIN SAUTER BEFORE. AND ANY BARKAY REPORT I SAW WAS
VERY -- IT WAS LIKE THREE PAGES, I THINK.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 124
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD?
A. A LETTER TO LEE KILLINGER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, FROM BILL GREEN, DATED
OCTOBER 8, 1993.
Q. AND WHAT ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS UNDERNEATH IT?
A. A LETTER TO BILL GREEN FROM CURTIS POLLMAN OF
KBN DATED OCTOBER 4, 1993; AND IT LOOKS LIKE SOME
SUMMARY DATA FROM DIFFERENT STUDIES; A SAMPLING PLAN
FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF MERCURY IN IMPOUNDED EAA
AND EVERGLADES SURFACE WATERS.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT OR---
A. NO.
Q. ---THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN THAT COMPOSITE
BEFORE?
A. NO.
Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF KBN'S PROPOSAL CONTAINED
THEREIN?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. LET'S SEE. I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS PROPOSAL,
PER SE. IT LOOKS TO ME, THOUGH, LIKE IT'S SIMILAR --
IT LED TO, PERHAPS, THE DATA I REVIEWED IN -- THAT LED
TO EXHIBIT TEN; BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN IT -- I HAD NOT SEEN
IT AS A PROPOSAL BEFORE.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. LET'S MARK THAT AS THE
NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 125
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 11 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU
ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
A. REVIEW OF KBN ENGINEERING PROPOSAL TO ASSESS
THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF STA CONSTRUCTION ON MERCURY
CYCLING IN THE EVERGLADES; RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
EXPERT ASSISTANCE, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT. REVIEW PREPARED BY CYNTHIA GILMOUR, DATED
NOVEMBER 10, 1993.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE?
A. NO.
Q. I'LL HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU
CAN IDENTIFY IF FOR THE RECORD?
A. A LETTER TO DR. LAURA TILLEY, SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, FROM CARL WATRAS, RE: ENR
MERCURY PROPOSAL REVIEW. LET'S SEE. I DON'T SEE A
DATE. I DON'T SEE A DATE ON THIS.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE?
A. NO.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PEER REVIEW
CONTAINED THEREIN?
A. NO.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 126
Q. LET ME HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK IF
YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD?
A. SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF MERCURY
IN EVERGLADES AND OKEFENOKEE WETLAND SEDIMENTS, FINAL
PROJECT REPORT, APRIL 1, 1991 TO JUNE 30, 1993. JOSEPH
DELFINO, THOMAS CRISMAN, JOHAN GOTTGENS, BRIAN ROOD,
CELIA EARLE; DATED JUNE 30, 1993.
Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT DOCUMENT?
A. YES. A LONG TIME AGO. BUT, YEAH.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS
THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 12 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE YOU USED ANY OF THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT TO FORMULATE YOUR
OPINIONS IN THIS CASE?
A. I REALLY -- I CANNOT -- I'D HAVE TO GO BACK
AND RECALL EXACTLY WHICH DATA CAME OUT OF THIS STUDY --
I JUST CANNOT REMEMBER THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD,
WHAT -- WHAT DATA WERE IN THIS REPORT.
Q. OKAY. I GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD, AS WELL?
A. SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF MERCURY
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 127
IN EVERGLADES AND OKEFENOKEE WETLAND SEDIMENTS,
VOLUME 2. OH, OKAY. SAME STUDY, SAME REPORT.
Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT, VOLUME 2?
A. I DON'T THINK SO. NO, I ONLY RECALL ONE
VOLUME, AND THE VOLUME I HAD -- I'M PRETTY SURE THIS IS
THE VOLUME I HAD, BECAUSE IT HAD TABLES MORE LIKE THIS
AND IT HAD A LOT OF VERBIAGE AND EASY TO GRASP; BUT IT
WASN'T -- I MAY HAVE -- MAYBE I HAVE THIS WITH IT, BUT
I DID NOT -- IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THIS IS JUST ALL THE
RAW DATA THAT WENT INTO VOLUME ONE. I BELIEVE I MAY
HAVE THIS, BUT I DIDN'T REVIEW THE APPENDED RAW DATA.
I JUST READ THE REPORT.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS
THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 13 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER
DOCUMENT AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
A. MERCURY IN SOILS AND PLANTS IN THE FLORIDA
EVERGLADES SUGARCANE AREA BY W.H. PATRICK,
R.P. GAMBRELL, PREEDA PARKPIAN AND TAN FANG, WETLAND
BIOGEOCHEMISTRY INSTITUTE, LSU; LOOKS LIKE IT SAYS
1992.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 128
Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT DOCUMENT?
A. YES, UH-HUH.
MS. HOGAN: WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT
EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 14 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE YOU RELIED ON THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN TO FORMULATE YOUR OPINION
REGARDING MERCURY IN THIS LITIGATION?
A. AS I RECALL, THIS STUDY WAS VERY TANGENTIAL TO
THE ISSUES AT HAND BECAUSE IT WAS BASICALLY TALKING --
LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL OF BURNING SUGAR CANE AND SO
FORTH AS A SOURCE OF MERCURY INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. SO,
REALLY, IT HAD NO BEARING ON THE FORMULATION OF MY
THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF MERCURY METHYLATION AND
BIOACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC SYSTEMS.
Q. OKAY. WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENT?
A. I BELIEVE THIS ONE WAS FAIRLY RECENT, ABOUT
MAYBE A WEEK AGO, I GUESS.
Q. AND FROM WHOM DID YOU RECEIVE IT?
A. FROM MR. SAMS' OFFICE.
Q. OKAY. I'LL HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK
YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 129
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. IT'S A -- IT LOOKS LIKE A WHOLE LOT OF RAW
DATA TO JOHN DAVIS FROM BILL PATRICK. IT SAYS NUMBER
320-93-02.
Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED -- HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT
DOCUMENT?
A. WELL, THIS -- I'VE NOT -- I'VE NOT SEEN -- I
DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS HUGE -- NO -- THIS TABLE, I
BELIEVE, IS IN THIS DOCUMENT FOURTEEN, I'M PRETTY
SURE, BECAUSE I KNOW I DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN THIS TABLE
BEFORE, AND IT'S PATRICK'S---
Q. WHAT, THE FIRST PAGE?
A. YEAH, THE FIRST PAGE. BUT ALL THE REST LOOKS
TO BE FILLET DOWN ON THROUGH, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
HECK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE TABLE, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK
PARTICULARLY FAMILIAR. BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOT
PERSONALLY, OUTSIDE OF THAT KBN STUDY, GONE AND
SYNTHESIZED THESE HUGE RAW DATA SETS. BUT THIS FRONT
PAGE APPEARS, I'M PRETTY SURE -- WE COULD SHOW IS --
OH, WELL, MAYBE IT'S NOT. WELL, ANYWAY, YEAH, I HAVE
DEFINITELY SEEN THIS TOP TABLE, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT
THESE APPENDED FISH TABLES.
Q. THOSE WERE -- THAT DOCUMENT WAS AMONG THE
DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US IN CONNECTION WITH
YOUR DEPOSITION BEING TAKEN TODAY; SO, IS IT YOUR---
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 130
A. OKAY. IT'S CERTAINLY FEASIBLE THAT -- THAT I
HAVE IT IN TERMS OF MY WORK. I'VE MOSTLY RELIED ON
WRITTEN REPORTS, PUBLISHED LITERATURE AND SO FORTH, AND
I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY BEEN SYNTHESIZING RAW DATA
OUTSIDE OF THAT LITTLE BIT I DID ON THE KBN REPORT.
Q. OKAY. YOU SAID YOU DID NOT PULL TOGETHER THE
DOCUMENTS IN YOUR POSSESSION, THAT YOU GAVE A LIST OF
THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU---
A. WELL, I THINK THAT---
Q. ---THOUGHT WERE RESPONSIVE TO MR. SAMS AND
THAT HE, IN TURN, PULLED DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION
THAT WERE PRESUMABLY DUPLICATES OF WHAT YOU HAD
INDICATED YOU HAD AND SENT THOSE DOCUMENTS TO US---
A. WELL---
Q. ---IS THAT WHAT HAD SAID BEFORE?
A. ---I GUESS WHAT -- TO TRY TO HELP MAYBE
CLARIFY THIS, MR. SAMS' OFFICE HAS PROVIDED VAST
QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS LIKE THIS, AND THEN ALSO
WITH -- AND IN THAT SOME REPORTS SUCH AS THIS DELFINO
REPORT, WHAT I GAVE -- THE LIST OF MATERIALS I GAVE TO
MR. SAMS WERE MATERIALS THAT I HAD FOCUSED REVIEWING ON
THAT I KNEW INCLUDED THINGS THAT HE DID NOT NECESSARILY
SUPPLY. I ASSUMED THAT HE WOULD BE SUPPLYING TO YOU
ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY HAD SENT ME, WHICH INCLUDED A
LOT OF THESE RAW DATA SETS. BUT WITHIN THE MATERIALS I
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 131
PROVIDED MR. SAMS FOR THE---
Q. THE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION?
A. RIGHT -- WERE A LOT OF MATERIALS THAT I HAD
JUST COME IN -- COME ACROSS ON MY OWN, OR THAT BETSY
HAD PROVIDED ME AND SO FORTH. SO, THAT WAS JUST TO BE
SURE THAT -- THAT YOU ALL HAD OTHER THINGS, BECAUSE I
HAD ASSUMED THAT ANY OF THESE THINGS HE HAD ALREADY
SUPPLIED YOU WITH, SO I DIDN'T WRITE -- I DIDN'T WRITE
THEM DOWN IN THAT LIST. BUT, ALSO, I RARELY SPENT TIME
COLLATING THESE RAW DATA SETS.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE
NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 15 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. SAMS: JUST FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THE
LAST DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION MAY
HAVE BEEN IN THE PACKAGE THAT I SENT
SIMULTANEOUSLY TO COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES
AND OUR WITNESSES QUITE RECENTLY. AND PERHAPS IT
WOULD CLEAR THE CONFUSION HERE JUST TO SAY THAT WE
DID THAT SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE
DISCOVERY, BUT DID SO SIMULTANEOUSLY. IN FACT, I
THINK OUR TRANSMITTAL TO OUR WITNESSES ACTUALLY
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 132
COPIED COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES, OR VICE
VERSA, ON IT. AND IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CAME IN CAME IN SUCH A
SHORT TIME AGO IN THAT RECENT PACKAGE THAT THAT
EXPLAINS ANY LACK OF EARLIER FAMILIARITY OF THE
WITNESS WITH THEM.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DR. Di GIULIO, WHEN WERE YOU
FIRST CONTACTED ABOUT YOUR POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT IN THIS
LITIGATION?
A. WITHIN, I'D SAY, THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. I
CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE, BUT I WOULD SAY ABOUT
TWO MONTHS OR SO AGO.
Q. AND BY WHOM WERE YOU CONTACTED?
A. BILL GREEN.
Q. AND WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE
CONTRIBUTION OR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS MATTER?
A. MY ROLE WAS TO ASSIST IN UNDERSTANDING
AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL
INTERACTIONS AMONG NUTRIENTS, INCLUDING PHOSPHOROUS,
AND MERCURY DYNAMICS, PARTICULARLY METHYLATION AND
BIOACCUMULATION, AND TO PARTICULARLY, ALSO, TO PROVIDE
FEEDBACK TO PTI SCIENTISTS DRAFTING A REPORT DEALING
WITH THESE ISSUES.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER YOU WERE CONTACTED BEFORE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 133
OR AFTER PTI WAS CONTACTED?
A. I BELIEVE I WAS CONTACTED AFTER.
Q. OKAY. WHAT WAS TO HAVE BEEN YOUR INVOLVEMENT
WITH THE PTI CONSULTATION?
A. MAINLY TO -- POTENTIALLY, TO BOUNCE IDEAS OFF
OF, AND MOSTLY TO MAKE COMMENTS ON DRAFTS OF THEIR
REPORTS AND TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES IN REPORT IN ATLANTA.
Q. PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN ATLANTA, WHAT
INVOLVEMENT DID YOU HAVE WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE
PTI REPORT?
A. I HAD COMMENTED -- I READ A LOT OF BASIC
LITERATURE IN THAT AREA, AND I HAD READ A FIRST DRAFT
OF THE PTI REPORT BEFORE THE MEETING IN ATLANTA.
Q. HAD YOU SPOKEN TO ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF PTI
COMPANY---
A. I HAD TALKED TO---
Q. ---PRIOR TO THE ATLANTA MEETING?
A. ---I HAD A COUPLE OF BRIEF CONVERSATIONS WITH
BETSY.
Q. AND WHAT WERE YOUR CONVERSATIONS REGARDING?
A. I CAN'T REMEMBER ANYTHING PARTICULARLY
SPECIFIC. I THINK I ASKED HER, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE
THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE REPORT; I WASN'T REAL CLEAR AT
THAT TIME. AND THEN, YEAH, I GUESS THAT WAS STILL
BEFORE ATLANTA, I CALLED HER TO LET HER KNOW I HAD
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 134
RECEIVED THE REPORT AND GENERALLY THOUGHT IT WAS SOLID,
HAD A FEW COMMENTS TO DEAL WITH WHEN WE GOT TO ATLANTA.
Q. ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH
DR. HENRY?
A. I THINK TWICE BEFORE ATLANTA.
Q. BEFORE ATLANTA? DID YOU SPEAK TO ANYONE ELSE
AT PTI?
A. I DON'T THINK SO. WELL, I THINK -- WELL, I
MEAN, I MAY HAVE HAD -- IT SEEMS THERE WAS AT ONE POINT
WHEN I -- WHEN I ORIGINALLY AGREED TO WORK WITH THEM,
THERE WAS A CONFERENCE CALL THAT INCLUDED GARY AND
BETSY AND BILL, I THINK, IN WHICH -- AT TIME WHICH
WE -- YEAH, I SAID I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THEM. AND
WE GAVE EACH -- WE EXCHANGED PHONE NUMBERS AND FAX
NUMBERS. AND THAT WAS ABOUT IT.
Q. OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
WORK PTI WAS TO PERFORM OR WHAT PTI WAS GOING TO DO IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR SERVICES?
A. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO
TAKE THE MAJOR ROLE IN DECIPHERING ALL THE VARIOUS RAW
DATA THAT -- SOME OF WHICH WE'VE JUST SEEN, FROM
VARIOUS STUDIES FROM GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY ON MERCURY
CONCENTRATIONS AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS, AND WRITE A
REPORT BASED ON THOSE DATA AND THE EXISTING SCIENTIFIC
LITERATURE TO HELP DESCRIBE POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 135
AMONG NUTRIENTS AND MERCURY DYNAMICS.
Q. AND YOUR ROLE IN THAT REPORT WAS TO HAVE BEEN
WHAT, TO HAVE DONE WHAT?
A. ESSENTIALLY A REVIEWER, AND A SOUNDING BOARD.
Q. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD SOME PHONE
CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. HENRY. WERE YOU ASKED WHAT THE
SCOPE OF THE REPORT WOULD BE?
A. NO, I ASKED THEM WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT
WOULD BE.
Q. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
A. YEAH.
Q. AND WHAT WERE YOU TOLD?
A. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WOULD FOCUS LARGELY ON WHAT
WAS GOING ON WITHIN THE -- ON GROUND -- IN THE
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC SYSTEMS, THAT IT WOULD FOCUS
UPON INTERACTIONS AMONG NUTRIENTS AND MERCURY FROM THE
STANDPOINTS OF METHYLATION, BIOACCUMULATION, MOVEMENT
IN FOOD WEBS AND SO FORTH, BUT THAT WOULD -- YOU KNOW,
AS OPPOSED TO FOCUSING ON ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT AND
OTHER ASPECTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT.
Q. OKAY. SO, YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR ONLY
ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE REPORT PRIOR TO THE ATLANTA
MEETING WERE THE PHONE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD HAD
WITH DR. HENRY, THEN THE PRIOR PHONE CONFERENCE THAT
YOU HAD HAD WITH DR. HENRY, MR. SAMS AND MR. GREEN, AND
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 136
THEN YOUR REVIEW OF A DRAFT OF THE REPORT?
A. THAT WAS THE ONLY -- NOW, I MEAN, I READ -- I
WAS READING A LOT OF OTHER REPORTS AND SO FORTH. IN
TERMS OF DIRECT INTERACTIONS WITH THE PTI GROUP, YES.
Q. OKAY. AND OTHER THAN READING LITERATURE,
OTHER REPORTS---
A. WELL, READING -- YEAH, READING THE PRIMARY
PUBLISHED LITERATURE AS WELL AS A NUMBER -- WHAT
APPEARED TO ME TO BE THE MOST INFORMATIVE GREY REPORTS,
SUCH AS THE E MAP STUDY, THE DELFINO REPORT. THERE WAS
ANOTHER REAL INFORMATIVE REPORT, THE TITLE WHICH
ESCAPES ME. BUT, ANYWAY, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF GREY
LITERATURE, YOU KNOW, DATA-RICH REPORTS, IN ADDITION TO
THE PUBLISHED LITERATURE, THAT I SPENT A GOOD BIT OF
TIME WITH.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU WERE CONTACTED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THAT REVIEW OR IN THE PREPARATION OF THE
REPORT?
A. I GUESS IT WAS NEVER ENTIRELY STATED, BUT I
KNEW -- OH, THEY -- I WAS TOLD THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS
HAD CONFLICTED OUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE,
THAT THEY HAD, I GUESS, AT ONE TIME PLANNED TO USE AS
MERCURY EXPERTS AND THAT THEY WERE AWARE THAT I HAD
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH MERCURY IN A SIMILAR SYSTEM IN
NORTH CAROLINA, AND THAT WAS, I THINK, ESSENTIALLY---
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 137
Q. OKAY. HOW WAS THE SYSTEM IN NORTH CAROLINA
SIMILAR TO THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES SYSTEM -- THE
NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM?
A. WELL, IN THAT THEY'RE BOTH -- THEY'RE BOTH --
PEAT IS A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE LANDSCAPE. I MEAN,
THAT'S A MAJOR SIMILARITY THAT'S NOT A TYPICAL
COMPONENT OF WETLANDS; AND THERE WERE SIMILAR CONCERNS
ABOUT MOBILIZATION FROM PEAT INTO SURROUNDING AQUATIC
SYSTEMS AND CONCERNS -- AGAIN, THE MAJOR MOTIVATION
BEING CONCERNS FOR BIOACCUMULATION BY FISH AND THE
IMPACTS OF THAT ON THE FISHING INDUSTRY AND HUMAN
HEALTH.
Q. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE RIVER IN
NORTH CAROLINA THAT YOU STUDIED?
A. THE PUNGO, P-U-N-G-O.
Q. PUNGO RIVER?
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. OKAY. I HAND YOU A DOCUMENT THAT HAS
HIGHLIGHTED MATERIAL, WHICH IS MY HIGHLIGHTED MATERIAL
-- PLEASE DISREGARD IT.
A. ALL RIGHT.
Q. AND I JUST NEED TO KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THAT?
WELL, CAN YOU IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT FOR ME?
A. OKAY. IT'S -- THIS APPEARS TO BE A LETTER TO
BILL GREEN, DATED FEBRUARY 23, 1994, ON PTI LETTERHEAD
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 138
FROM GARY BIGHAM.
Q. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT LETTER BEFORE?
A. I'D SEEN -- YEAH, I'D SEEN THE LETTER. I HAD
NOT SEEN THE BUDGET PART, BUT I'D SEEN THE LETTER.
MS. HOGAN: WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT
EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. I'LL JUST MAKE A NOTE
FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PENCILED HANDWRITTEN NOTES
DOWN AT THE BOTTOM ARE MINE.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 16 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HOW DID YOU COME TO SEE THAT
LETTER?
A. THIS WAS FORWARDED TO ME FROM MR. SAMS'
OFFICE.
Q. WHEN?
A. AS I RECALL, IT'S SOMETIME BETWEEN MY
AGREEMENT TO WORK ON THE PROJECT AND THE MEETING IN
ATLANTA.
Q. OKAY. AND WERE YOU TO HAVE BEEN COMPENSATED
FOR THE CONSULTATION THAT YOU WERE TO HAVE PROVIDED
REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU BEEN PAID FOR YOUR CONSULTATION
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 139
SERVICES?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU SUBMITTED AN INVOICE OR A BILL?
A. YES.
Q. WHAT IS YOUR COMPENSATION FOR YOUR
INVOLVEMENT?
A. A HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($135.00) AN
HOUR.
Q. AND HOW MANY HOURS DO YOU ANTICIPATE YOUR
INVOLVEMENT?
A. TO DATE?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. I WOULD SAY SOMEWHERE IN THE POINT OF THE LOW
FORTIES.
Q. AND HOW MUCH DO YOU ANTICIPATE -- HOW MANY
HOURS ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT YOU WILL BE PROVIDING,
UP TO AND INCLUDING TRIAL?
A. THAT'S A TOUGH GUESS. I ASSUME IF IT GOES TO
TRIAL, PERHAPS AN EQUAL -- YOU KNOW, ANOTHER FORTY OR
FIFTY, IN THERE.
Q. DID YOU SUBMIT A PROPOSAL AS---
A. NO.
Q. YOU JUST AGREED THAT YOUR RATE WOULD BE ONE
THIRTY-FIVE ($135.00)?
A. WELL, ACTUALLY, WE DIDN'T EVEN DISCUSS THE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 140
RATE. I JUST BILLED THEM -- I JUST INVOICED THEM AT
THAT RATE, WHICH IS MY CUSTOMARY RATE, AND I SUBMITTED
THE BILL FOLLOWING THE ATLANTA MEETING---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---WE HAD NO CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THAT.
MR. SAMS: LET ME JUST SAY FOR THE RECORD I
ONLY LEARNED TODAY THAT HE HAD INVOICED OUR
OFFICE, SO WE DID NOT MAKE PRODUCTION. TYPICALLY,
THOSE THINGS GO STRAIGHT TO THE ACCOUNTING
DEPARTMENT FOR FORWARDING TO THE CLIENTS, AND WE
MAY NOT EVEN SEE THEM. IF YOU WISH, WE CAN
CERTAINLY PROVIDE THE INVOICE ONCE I CAN FIND
IT---
MS. HOGAN: OKAY.
MR. SAMS: ---BUT IT'S -- I THINK HE'S
ALREADY TESTIFIED TO ITS ESSENCE.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY.
WITNESS: YEAH, I THINK THERE WERE ABOUT
TWENTY-EIGHT HOURS IN THAT BILL; THAT'S MY ROUGH
RECOLLECTION.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. IF YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT
TO US WHEN YOU GET BACK.
MR. SAMS: OKAY.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHEN YOU SPOKE TO DR. HENRY
REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE DRAFT REPORT, DID YOU HAVE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 141
ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE FORM OR THE CONTENTS OF THE
REPORT?
A. NO. I THINK I WAS JUST MAINLY WANTING TO KNOW
WHAT IT WAS, HOW BROAD IT WAS, AND I HAD NO PROBLEM
WITH THE SCOPE THEY HAD OUTLINED. IT SEEMED REASONABLE
TO ME.
Q. OKAY. WHO HAD DEVELOPED THE OUTLINE OR THE
SCOPE?
A. I HAD ASSUMED THAT -- I DON'T KNOW, BUT I
ASSUMED THAT GARY AND BILL AND PTI HAD, SOME
COMBINATION OF THAT.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU A DOCUMENT AND
ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE?
A. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THIS COVERS A FAX, DATED MARCH 17, 1994, TO
RICHARD Di GIULIO FROM GARY BIGHAM, AND ATTACHED IS A
DRAFT DOCUMENT ENTITLED "THE INFLUENCE OF PHOSPHORUS ON
MERCURY CYCLING AND BIOACCUMULATION IN THE EVERGLADES,"
DATED MARCH 1994 ON PTI LETTERHEAD.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE
NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 17 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 142
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) IS THAT THE REPORT THAT YOU
WERE REFERRING TO HAVING REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE ATLANTA
MEETING?
A. I'LL HAVE TO LOOK BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN
SEVERAL -- THERE'S BEEN TWO OR THREE DRAFTS, AND I'LL
HAVE TO LOOK TO REMEMBER FOR SURE AND THE DATE---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---I'M STARTING TO LOSE TRACK OF THE DATE.
THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT? YEAH, I CAN TELL RIGHT OFF, I
THINK. NO, IT'S NOT. NO, IT'S NOT. THIS IS THE LAST
DRAFT. YEAH, THIS IS THE MOST RECENT DRAFT.
DR. HENRY: LOOK AT THE FAX DATE.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. OKAY. THAT'S THE 17TH -- AND TODAY IS THE
1ST. OKAY, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. LET ME -- NO, THIS IS
RIGHT. THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT. THIS IS THE FIRST
DRAFT THAT I EXAMINED BEFORE THE MEETING IN ATLANTA.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU RECEIVED
THIS FIRST DRAFT, EXHIBIT---
A. SEVENTEEN?
Q. ---SEVENTEEN, WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS
TO WHAT YOU WERE TO HAVE DONE WITH IT?
A. TO CAREFULLY READ IT AND COMMENT ON IT AND --
YEAH, TO REVIEW AND COMMENT, MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 143
IMPROVEMENT.
Q. OKAY. SO, DID YOU DO THAT? DID YOU REVIEW
IT?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. AND THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE TO IT,
DID YOU CONVEY THOSE AT THAT MEETING IN ATLANTA?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. THE NOTES AND THE HANDWRITTEN PHRASES
TO THE SIDE, WERE THOSE MADE PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN
ATLANTA?
A. YES, YES.
Q. LET'S GO THROUGH---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT COMMENTS YOU HAD,
THOSE THAT ARE WRITTEN AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT, THAT YOU
REMEMBER---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---TO -- TO THIS DRAFT REPORT?
A. OKAY.
Q. BEGINNING---
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF
THE QUESTION. MORE IN THE EFFORT TO AID
COMMUNICATION, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU
CORRECTLY, YOU WANTED HIM TO COMMENT ON ALL
COMMENTS HE HAD, WHETHER THERE ARE NOTES OR
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 144
NOT? WAS THAT THE QUESTION?
MS. HOGAN: UH-HUH (YES).
MR. SAMS: OKAY.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) PAGE 1.
A. I DON'T THINK I HAD A PROBLEM WITH PAGE 1. I
REALLY -- I PRETTY WELL -- WHEREVER I HAD ANY CONCERN,
I MADE A NOTE. ANY SPECIFIC CONCERN, I DIDN'T CATALOG
IN MY HEAD, SO I REALLY CAN'T THINK OF, YOU KNOW, ANY
SORT OF SPECIFIC CRITICISMS I WOULD HAVE HAD THAT I
WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A MARGINAL NOTE ABOUT.
Q. OKAY. THE FIRST NOTATION IS ON PAGE 2.
A. UH-HUH (YES); RIGHT. DO YOU WANT ME TO
EXPLAIN THAT?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. WELL, THAT'S Hg2+ IN THE MARGIN. IT SAYS
"METHYLMERCURY CAN ALSO BE DEMETHYLATED BY ABIOTIC
AND/OR BIOTIC MECHANISMS RESULTING IN THE FORMATION OF
ELEMENTAL MERCURY," AND I FELT IT MIGHT BE MORE
CORRECT -- WAS MORE CORRECT TO SAY THAT IT WAS
DEMETHYLATED TO MERCURIC ION WHICH COULD THEN BE
FURTHER REDUCED TO ELEMENTAL MERCURY, AS OPPOSED TO
IMPLYING THAT THERE'S A ONE-STEP PROCESS THAT WENT FROM
METHYLMERCURY TO ELEMENTAL MERCURY.
Q. OKAY.
A. OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS ON PAGE 4, TOP OF --
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 145
VERY TOP OF PAGE 4. MY MARGINAL NOTE SAYS, "Hg2+
AVAILABILITY?" FOLLOWING THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS, "THE
PRINCIPAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE RATE OF METHYLMERCURY
FORMATION ARE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION,
TEMPERATURE, SULFATE AND SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS, AND
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATION." AND I FELT THAT AN
IMPORTANT DETERMINANT WAS AVAILABILITY, I.E. TO THE
MICROBES, MERCURIC ION, THAT THAT WOULD PERHAPS BE AS
OR MORE IMPORTANT THAN TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS.
Q. OKAY. AND WHY WAS THAT?
A. WELL, BECAUSE, FROM MY READING AND
UNDERSTANDING, THERE CAN BE GREAT VARIATIONS IN
AVAILABILITY OF THE MICROBES TO PERFORM METHYLATION,
FOR INSTANCE, UNDER VERY HIGHLY-REDUCING CONDITIONS,
WITH HIGH SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND SO FORTH, THE
GENERAL THOUGHT IS THAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE APT TO
DIMINISH AVAILABILITY OF THE ION SUBSTRATE FOR
METHYLATION TO THOSE MICROBES AND -- OKAY.
Q. DID I CUT YOU OFF?
A. NO, HUH-UH. OKAY. THEN THE NEXT PAGE, PAGE
5, UP BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, I HAVE "REFS?" I JUST --
OF COURSE, THIS WAS AN EARLY DRAFT, AND I ASSUMED THAT
A LOT OF THIS HAD BEEN WRITTEN TO GET THE MAIN IDEAS
DOWN AND THAT EACH STATEMENT WAS NOT YET SUPPORTED BY A
LITERATURE REFERENCE, BUT I WAS JUST MAKING NOTE OF
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 146
THAT, THAT IT DID NEED -- YOU KNOW, WHEN DIRECT
STATEMENTS OF FACT ARE MADE, WHEN POSSIBLE, THEY SHOULD
BE REFERENCED BY A LITERATURE CITATION. THAT'S ALL
THAT REFERS TO.
Q. AND WHY IS THAT?
A. WELL, IN SCIENCE WRITING, LIKE IN THE PEER
REVIEWED LITERATURE, UNLESS YOU MAKE SOME COMMENT,
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, VERY OBVIOUS, IF YOU MAKE SOME
SCIENTIFIC COMMENT LIKE, YOU KNOW, "SULFATE STIMULATES
METHYLATION OF MERCURY," YOU SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW,
SOME SUPPORT OF THAT, WHICH USUALLY MEANS EITHER DATA
OR A PUBLISHED REPORT THAT PROVIDES SUCH DATA. YOU
JUST DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS OF FACT LIKE THAT WITHOUT
SUPPORTING THEM SOMEHOW.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
A. OKAY. THIS NEXT COMMENT -- WHAT IS THIS? IT
SAYS "RELATIVE ?" WHICH REFERS -- SAYS "METHYLMERCURY
IS UNUSUAL AMONG BIOACCUMULATED CHEMICALS BECAUSE IT
ACCUMULATES IN PROTEIN RATHER THAN IN FATTY TISSUE."
AND I'VE WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVING WORKED A LOT WITH
CADMIUM AND LEAD AND MERC -- METALS LIKE THAT, THAT
ALMOST INVARIABLY ASSOCIATED WITH PROTEIN, THAT ALSO
BIOACCUMULATES. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BIT -- JUST A
MINOR THING, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO BLACK AND
WHITE, THAT THE POINT BETSY WAS MAKING HERE WAS THAT
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 147
RELATIVE TO THESE HIGHLY-BIOACCUMULATED CONTAMINANTS,
LIKE PCB -- PCB'S, DDT, AND SO FORTH, WHICH WE, BY AND
LARGE, ASSOCIATE WITH FATTY TISSUE, THAT METHYLMERCURY
WAS DIFFERENT IN THAT IT ASSOCIATED WITH PROTEIN AS
OPPOSED TO FAT. THAT'S ALL. SO -- SO, I INSERTED THE
WORD "HIGHLY" IN THERE. YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S
A RELATIVE THING.
AND THEN, RATHER THAN IN FATTY TISSUE AGAIN, I
THOUGHT THAT WAS A BIT BLACK AND WHITE, THAT
METHYLATION OF MERCURY DOES IMPART A COMPONENT OF
LIPOSOLUBILITY ABOUT IT THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, WITH ITS PROPENSITY TO BIOMAGNIFY AND
ALSO TO BE A NEUROTOXICANT. SO I PUT -- YOU KNOW,
AGAIN, I THOUGHT THAT WE MAYBE -- MAINLY ASSOCIATES
WITH PROTEIN, BUT IT PROBABLY DOES ASSOCIATE WITH FAT
SOMEWHAT, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S ABLE TO CROSS THE BLOOD
BRAIN BARRIER, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S A POTENT NERVE
TOXICANT. THAT'S WHY I HAVE "E.G. BRAIN" IN THE
PARENTHESES THERE.
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. OKAY.
Q. OKAY.
A. THE NEXT ONE FURTHER DOWN AGAIN SAYS "&
BIOAVAIL," SHORT FOR BIOAVAILABILITY, NEXT TO THE
SENTENCE THAT SAYS, "FACTORS AFFECTING METHYLMERCURY
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 148
BIOACCUMULATION INCLUDE TROPIC LEVEL (I.E., ORGANISMS
AT HIGHER TROPHIC LEVELS TEND TO HAVE HIGHER
METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS) AND FOOD WEB STRUCTURE."
AND I FELT THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE ADDED THERE ABOUT
THE BIOAVAILABILITY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE
BIOAVAILABILITY OF METHYLMERCURY, FOR INSTANCE, IN A
WATER COLUMN OR WHATEVER, CAN VARY GREATLY SOMEWHAT
WHICH IS, IN PART, INDEPENDENT OF TROPHIC LEVEL OR FOOD
WEB STRUCTURE. IF THERE'S HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF
PARTICULATE MATTER AND SO FORTH THAT COMPETE FOR
BINDING WITH METHYLMERCURY AND SO FORTH, THAT WOULD
LIKELY, FOR INSTANCE, REDUCE BIOACCUMULATION, AND SO
FORTH. SO, ANYWAY, AGAIN, IT WAS THE NOTION THAT
BIOAVAILABILITY SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS A MAJOR FACTOR.
THIS NEXT ONE, I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION MARK
SCRATCHED OUT. "CONSIDERABLE VARIABILITY IN FISH
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS EXISTS BETWEEN SITES, SUGGESTING
THAT IN-LAKE PROCESSES RATHER THAN SUPPLY ARE CRITICAL
FACTORS." I GUESS WHEN I FIRST READ THAT, I KIND OF
WAS STRUCK WITH MAYBE -- I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE SUPPLY
SHOULD BE IN -- BUT THEN, AS I RECALL, SHE GOES ON
FURTHER AND HELPS JUSTIFY THAT STATEMENT, AND IT'S NOT
THAT SHE'S SAYING THAT SUPPLY ISN'T IMPORTANT BUT THAT,
WITHIN THIS CONTEXT, THESE IN-LAKE PROCESSES WERE MORE
IMPORTANT, SO I SCRATCHED IT OFF.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 149
IN THIS NEXT PAGE 7, THE TOP PARAGRAPH, I HAD THE
WORD "WEAK," AND UNDERLINED IN -- IN THE SENTENCE IT
SAYS, "IN A STUDY OF 53 FLORIDA LAKES, LANGE ET AL.
(1993) ALSO FOUND FISH MERCURY CONCENTRATION TO BE
NEGATIVELY CORRELATED WITH CONDUCTIVITY, CHLOROPHYLL-A,
MAGNESIUM, TOTAL HARDNESS, TOTAL NITROGEN, AND TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS." AND IN REVIEWING THAT PAPER, THE ACTUAL
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT NEGATIVE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHOSPHOROUS AND BATHS, MERCURY
CONCENTRATION WAS ABOUT POINT TWO THREE (0.23), WHICH
IS A FAIRLY WEAK CORRELATION COEFFICIENT. BUT THE
POINT IS, AGAIN, THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY EXPECT TO
SEE A POWER CORRELATION COEFFICIENT, PER SE, BUT THAT
PHOSPHOROUS IS ONE OF A NUMBER OF VARIABLES DRIVING
BIOAVAILABILITY, HIGHLY ASSOCIATED WITH CHLOROPHYLL-A
AND SO FORTH. THE OTHER THING, TOO, IS THAT THAT
CORRELATION -- THOSE CORRELATIONS WERE DONE USING THE
PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION ANALYSIS, WHICH IS
PROBABLY INAPPROPRIATE, I DON'T SEE USED, PERSONALLY
WOULD NEVER USE MYSELF. IN FIELD-COLLECTED DATA OF
THIS NATURE, MOST PEOPLE PREFER THE SPEARMAN
DISTRIBUTION FOR E-CORRELATION ANALYSIS. BUT, ANYWAY,
IT'S JUST THAT I THOUGHT THAT, WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO
SAY THAT THERE'S A -- OF COURSE, SHE'S BASICALLY JUST
STATING WHAT LANGE STATED. BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 150
VERY WARY OF CORRELATION ANALYSES, AND SO I JUST MADE
THAT COMMENT.
Q. SO, WHEN YOU SAY "WEAK," YOU'RE REFERRING --
"WEAK" MEANING?
A. WEAK -- THE STATISTICAL CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT FOR THAT RELATIONSHIP WAS FAIRLY WEAK. IT
WAS ONLY POINT TWO THREE (0.23), SUGGESTING THAT THE
DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TWO VARIABLES WAS FAIRLY
WEAK. BUT THAT'S THE -- THE IMPORTANT THING, THOUGH,
IS THAT COLLECTIVELY, THESE VARIABLES WERE -- THE
RELATIONSHIP, INVERSE RELATIONSHIP WAS QUITE POWERFUL,
PARTICULARLY AMONG, WITH SOMETHING LIKE CHLOROPHYLL-A,
WHICH IS A MORE GENERALLY-USED INDICATOR OF TROPHIC
STATUS THAN, SAY, PHOSPHOROUS.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
A. THIS NEXT AREA WHERE I HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTION MARKS, I JUST REMEMBER JUST GENERALLY KIND OF
NOT BEING REAL HAPPY WITH THAT PARAGRAPH IN THAT IT WAS
SORT OF VAGUE, AND I WASN'T SURE EXACTLY WHERE -- WHAT
THE POINT OF IT WAS, OR WHERE IT WAS GOING. I BELIEVE
ALL THIS WAS LARGELY DELETED. BUT IT JUST DIDN'T -- IT
JUST SEEMED RATHER TANGENTIAL AND DISTRACTING TO ME.
Q. OKAY.
A. THIS NEXT THING, "STUDIES"---
Q. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 151
A. YEAH.
Q. IN THAT LAST PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS "CONSIDERATION
OF THE EFFECT OF LAKE CHARACTERISTICS ON
BIOACCUMULATION SHOULD INCLUDE DETERMINATION OF
DRAINAGE VS. SEEPAGE AS WELL AS TROPHIC STATE." AND
THEN YOU HAVE A QUESTION MARK. WHY IS THE QUESTION
MARK THERE?
A. LET ME TRY AND REMEMBER WHY. HAVING -- TAKEN
OUT OF CONTEXT LIKE THAT, THAT SOUNDS FINE TO ME. IT
MAY HAVE BEEN THAT I WAS WONDERING HOW IT FIT IN WITH
THE OTHER.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I THINK I WAS -- I WAS UNCERTAIN THAT -- SOME
OF THESE QUESTION MARKS CAN SOMETIMES BE ACTUALLY TO
ME. AND I WAS UNCLEAR HOW THAT PERTAINED TO FLORIDA,
YOU KNOW, IN THE TERMS OF WHICH OF THE LAKES WOULD BE
CONSIDERED DRAINAGE VERSUS SEEPAGE AND THINGS LIKE
THAT. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION
IN LOOKING AT MERCURY DYNAMICS, BUT I GUESS I WAS
UNCLEAR EXACTLY HOW THAT RELATED TO THE SITUATION IN
FLORIDA. AND I GOT TO, LATER ON, THINKING ABOUT IT AND
RECOGNIZING THAT THESE STA'S -- AND I GUESS YOU CAN, IN
ESSENCE, COULD SAY MIGHT BE DRAINAGE LAKES AND IT BEGAN
TO MAKE A LITTLE MORE SENSE, SO---
Q. IN WHAT WAY WOULD THEY BE CONSIDERED DRAINAGE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 152
LAKES?
A. WELL, I ASSUME IF THEY'RE COLLECTING DRAINAGE
FROM THE UPSTREAM EAA, THEN THEY MIGHT BE -- YOU KNOW,
THEY WOULD BE MORE LIKE DRAINAGE LAKES THAN A SEEPAGE
LAKE, I THINK, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
"STUDIES SINCE THE 1970'S HAVE INDICATED THAT
OLIGOTROPHIC (I.E., LOW PRODUCTIVITY) WATERS ARE
GENERALLY MORE SENSITIVE TO MERCURY CONTAMINATION
THAN" -- THAT WAS -- I THINK ALL I WAS -- I DIDN'T LIKE
THE WORD "SENSITIVE" THERE. THAT'S WHY I HAVE
"SPECIFY," AND I CROSSED THAT -- I DECIDED -- I CROSSED
OUT THE "SPECIFY" BECAUSE I DECIDED I WAS JUST BEING
TOO NITPICKY, BUT -- BUT, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW, AS
A TOXICOLOGIST, I'M ALWAYS HARPING WITH MY STUDENTS
THAT YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BIOACCUMULATION AND
EFFECT. THE TWO DON'T NECESSARILY GO HAND-IN-HAND.
AND, SO, WHEN YOU THINK OF SENSITIVITY, YOU'RE USUALLY
THINKING ABOUT EFFECT, IN A SENSE, AND -- SO, THERE'S
HUGE VARIABILITY AMONG ORGANISMS WHERE QUITE -- YOU
KNOW, WE COULD ACCUMULATE PROBABLY MUCH LESS MERCURY IN
OUR BRAINS THAN THOSE BASS AND HAVE AN EFFECT, SO WE'RE
MORE SENSITIVE; SO IT'S NOT -- IT'S AN ISSUE BEYOND
ACCUMULATION.
Q. WHAT WORD WOULD YOU HAVE USED OTHER THAN
"SENSITIVE"?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 153
A. ARE MORE PRONE TO DEMONSTRATE BIOACCUMULATION,
SPECIFICALLY.
OKAY. AND LOOKS LIKE PAGE 9 -- THIS IS THE TOP --
IT SAYS "ANALYSIS OF THESE MODELS." THAT'S REFERRING
TO THIS TABLE 4 THAT SHOWS A COUPLE OF MODELS
DEVELOPED, AS I RECALL, BY HAKANSON THAT TRIES TO
RELATE DIFFERENT VARIABLES SUCH AS BIOPRODUCTION,
PHOSPHOROUS CONDUCTIVITY, MERCURY IN SEDIMENTS, AND SO
ON AND SO FORTH, TO BIOACCUMULATION; AND I JUST FELT IT
MIGHT BE NICE IF SOMEONE COULD COMMENT ON THE
RELATIVE -- THERE WERE -- THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE
MODEL. I THINK THERE WERE TWO, MAYBE THREE MODELS
MENTIONED. AND I GUESS, IDEALLY, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE
INTERESTING TO MAKE SOME ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, WHICH
IS THE BETTER MODEL IN WHAT SITUATION AND SO FORTH.
Q. YOU SAID "WHICH IS THE BETTER MODEL IN WHAT
SITUATION"?
A. WELL, I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS -- IT WAS
A GENERAL COMMENT, JUST IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW,
IF -- AND, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY, WHEN WE -- A SCIENTIFIC
REVIEW PAPER, IF THEY BRING UP, YOU KNOW, WELL, SO AND
SO DEVELOPED THIS MODEL AND SO AND SO DEVELOPED THAT
MODEL, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY, YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE
REVIEWER SAY "THIS MODEL IS BETTER THAN THAT MODEL FOR
THIS REASON," YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 154
ALL I WAS -- YOU KNOW, I KNEW THAT WAS SORT OF PUSHING
IT BUT, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN
INTERESTING THING TO HAPPEN.
Q. OKAY.
A. THEN THE NEXT ONE, THE SENTENCE SAYS,
"DIFFERENCES IN FISH MERCURY CONCENTRATION BETWEEN
OLIGOTROPHIC AND EUTROPHIC LAKES CAN BE EXPLAINED BY
EFFECTS ON THE RATE OF METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION."
AND I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS SORT OF---
DR. HENRY: GO AHEAD.
A. ---SEMI-NONSENSICAL OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF
STATING -- STATING ONE THING BY SAYING IT'S THE SAME
THING. IN OTHER WORDS, DIFFERENCES IN FISH MERCURY
CONCENTRATION ARE DUE TO THE EFFECTS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN FISH MERCURY CONCENTRATION ALMOST, IN OTHER WORDS.
YEAH, OF COURSE. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I JUST -- I DIDN'T
THINK THAT SENTENCE WAS A VERY GOOD INTRODUCTORY
SENTENCE.
Q. OKAY.
WITNESS: YOU'LL STILL TALK TO ME?
A. YEAH, THIS NEXT THING SAYS "GREATER
ADSORPTION" NEXT TO THE SENTENCE SAYING "EUTROPHIC
WATERS GENERALLY CONTAIN HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS OF
SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND GIVEN THE PARTICLE-REACTIVE NATURE
OF BOTH INORGANIC AND METHYLMERCURY, ENHANCED RATES OF
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 155
MERCURY SEDIMENTATION ARE EXPECTED." AND I THINK
THAT'S ENTIRE TRUE, BUT I JUST -- AGAIN, IT WAS
SOMEWHAT OF A MINOR ELABORATION THAT WHEN YOU HAVE HIGH
AMOUNTS OF PARTICULATE ORGANIC MATTER LIKE YOU MIGHT
EXPECT IN THE EUTROPHIC SYSTEM, THAT THE SIMPLE
ADSORPTION OF MERCURY ONTO THOSE PARTICLES IS GOING TO
REDUCE BIOAVAILABILITY, IN ESSENCE, INDEPENDENT OF
SEDIMENTATION. SURE. WE TYPICALLY SEE THAT --
ASSOCIATE WITH SEDIMENTATION, SO IT'S FINE; AND,
CERTAINLY, SEDIMENTATION IS IMPORTANT. BUT, TO ME, THE
PRIMARY ACTION THERE IS THE ADSORPTION, AND THAT
PRECEDES AND IS MORE CENTRAL THAN THE SEDIMENTATION,
BUT THE TWO GO HAND IN HAND.
Q. OKAY.
A. OH, AND THEN THIS NEXT ONE SENTENCE SAYS,
"FINALLY, EXPOSURE TO METHYLMERCURY THROUGH FOOD IS
GREATER IN SYSTEMS SUCH AS OLIGOTROPHIC LAKES WHERE THE
FOOD WEB IS DETRITAL-BASED." AND I SAID "NOT TO IMPLY
DIRECT ASSOCIATION?" IN OTHER WORDS, THAT SENTENCE
READS, TO ME, THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT YOU WOULD
EXPECT METHYLMERCURY GREATER IN OLIGOTROPHIC LAKES THAT
ARE DETRITAL-BASED, AND I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS REALLY
EXACTLY CORRECT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NATURE OF THE
FOOD WEB IS NOT THE CRITICAL POINT THERE; RATHER,
DETRITAL-BASED OR PLANKTON-BASED FOOD WEB, THE MAJOR
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 156
CONTROLLING FACTOR WOULD BE THE TROPHIC STATUS. IN
OTHER WORDS, THIS MIGHT MAKE SOMEONE THINK THAT IF YOU
HAD A PLANKTON-BASED OLIGOTROPHIC LAKE, THIS WOULD --
THIS WOULD NOT BE TRUE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE
CASE NOR WHAT BETSY INTENDED.
THIS NEXT ONE, "MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION IN THE" --
OTHER SECTION -- "MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION IN THE
EVERGLADES," I HAVE AT THE TOP "HISTORICAL TRENDS?"---
Q. THIS IS ON PAGE 10?
A. RIGHT, ON TEN, IT'S AT THE TOP OF PAGE 10; AND
THAT WAS AGAIN A GENERAL -- YOU ASKED ME THAT MYSELF --
YOURSELF. I JUST WAS WONDERING WHAT DO WE HAVE? IS
THERE ANY INFORMATION ON HISTORICAL TRENDS? IF THERE
IS, THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO ADD.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ISN'T, I GUESS OTHER THAN A
LITTLE BIT OF SOME OF THE PEAT CORE WORK IN SOME OF
THESE REPORTS; BUT THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE A
REALLY GOOD THING TO HAVE, IF WE HAD IT, PARTICULARLY
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN FISH CONCENTRATIONS, WHICH I
UNDERSTAND ARE NOT POSSIBLE.
THEN DOWN THERE, I REPLACED THE WORD "NECESSARILY"
BY "ENTIRELY," A VERY MINOR EDITORIAL THING. I JUST
THOUGHT THAT THE SOURCE -- THE SOURCE FACTOR -- I THINK
IT'S MORE CORRECT TO SAY IT WON'T ENTIRELY EXPLAIN IT.
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST A BETTER WORD CHOICE THAN
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 157
"NECESSARILY."
AND THEN THIS NEXT ONE SAYS "BUT SOURCES,
TRANSPORT ARE KEY PIECES" FOLLOWING -- THAT'S KIND OF
IN RESPONSE TO THIS LAST STATEMENT, "THIS DISCUSSION
FOCUSES ON FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RATE OF
METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION RATHER THAN ON
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL METHYLMERCURY SOURCES."
AND THAT, AGAIN, WAS JUST TO SAY THAT BUT, STILL, YOU
KNOW, IN THE BIG PICTURE OF THINGS, SOURCES IN
TRANSPORT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH BETSY THAT THIS -- IN
THIS REPORT, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO FOCUS
ON SORT OF THE IN SITU OR, YOU KNOW, THE -- WHAT'S
GOING ON WITHIN THE STA'S AND IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA.
BUT, CERTAINLY, I WOULD STRONGLY FEEL THAT ANY MAJOR
ANALYSIS OF MERCURY IN THE GLADES HAS TO INCLUDE
SOURCES IN TRANSPORT.
OKAY, THIS ONE, PROVIDE -- "ADDITION OF PHOSPHORUS
APPEAR TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS SUITABLE FOR MERCURY
METHYLATION." I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS EXACTLY CORRECT,
BUT THAT SHOULD BE "TO ENHANCE CONDITIONS SUITABLE."
IN OTHER WORDS, CLEARLY, EVEN AT VERY LOW PHOSPHOROUS,
YOU CAN HAVE METHYLATION. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF
DEGREE. SO, IF YOU ADD PHOSPHOROUS, YOU MIGHT EXPECT
THAT TO ENHANCE IT, NOT TO PROVIDE FOR IT.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 158
Q. WE'RE NOW ON PAGE 11?
A. YEAH, I'M SORRY. YEAH, IT'S PAGE 11.
OKAY. THEN I HAVE HIGH -- "HIGH LEVELS OF
PHOSPHORUS FAVORS DEMETHYLATION OVER METHYLATION,"
CITING THE BARKAY WORK, AND I JUST HAVE IN THE
PARENTHESES, "HOW HIGH?". IN OTHER WORDS, I THOUGHT
THAT SHOULD BE, IF POSSIBLE, MORE QUANTIFIED, YOU KNOW,
AT WHAT POINT DOES THAT HAPPEN, BECAUSE "HIGH" IS SUCH
A COMPLETELY RELATIVE TERM.
Q. WHAT DID YOU -- HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT THE
INCLUSION OF THE BARKAY WORK?
A. WELL, NOW, WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS, I WAS
JUST KIND OF TAKING IT AT FACE VALUE. YOU KNOW, WHEN
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A MINUTE AGO, I COULDN'T REMEMBER
THE EXACT TREND. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT BEING
INCLUDED HERE. I MEAN, I THINK THAT GENERAL TREND WAS
PROBABLY THE MORE VALUABLE PART OF THE STUDY. I STILL
KIND OF HAVE A -- QUESTION IT FROM AN ABSOLUTE
QUANTITATIVE SENSE. I'D LIKE TO SIT DOWN, I'D LIKE TO
THINK MORE ABOUT IT OR TALK TO OTHERS ABOUT IT, BUT IT
JUST STRUCK ME AS ODD, AGAIN, THAT DEMETHYLATION TENDED
TO DOMINATE METHYLATION RATES, REGARDLESS.
MAYBE THAT IS REAL, BUT THAT PART OF IT IN TERMS
OF TRYING TO JUMP FROM THAT LITTLE STUDY, THEY NEED --
SOME SORT OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS WOULD BE, I THINK,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 159
HIGHLY PREMATURE. BUT I -- IT SEEMED THAT, AT LEAST
FROM A PRELIMINARY BASIS, THE GENERAL TREND OF THE
INFLUENCE OF PHOSPHOROUS WAS A REASONABLE FIRST START.
BUT, AGAIN, I THINK -- IT IS A PRELIMINARY STUDY THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE OR ELABORATED UPON.
THIS SENTENCE, "VOLATILIZATION OF ELEMENTAL
MERCURY, THE LAST STEP IN DEMETHYLATION," I PUT A
QUESTION MARK BECAUSE I GUESS I -- AND I'M STILL NOT
REAL CLEAR ON THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING PRIOR TO THIS,
AT LEAST, WAS THAT DEMETHYLATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY
LEAD TO ELEMENTAL MERCURY FORMATION. I'M NOT SURE
ABOUT THAT, BUT I KNOW IN PREV -- IN MY CLASS, I'VE
TAUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE METHYLMERCURY GO
INTO MERCURIC ION AND THEN MERCURIC ION DOING DIFFERENT
THINGS WITHOUT NECESSARILY GOING TO ELEMENTAL MERCURY,
BUT I MAY BE WRONG THERE. BUT THAT'S -- THE LITERATURE
I HAVE BASED MY LECTURES ON AND SO FORTH INDICATED
THAT. SO, THAT'S WHY I PUT THE QUESTION MARK, BECAUSE
I JUST WASN'T SURE.
Q. GOING BACK TO WHERE YOU HAVE IN THE MARGIN ON
THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THAT SAYS "HOW HIGH"?
A. "HOW HIGH."
Q. AND WHY WAS THAT THERE? WHY DID YOU---
A. WELL, AGAIN, I JUST THOUGHT -- TO ME,
"ADDITION OF HIGH LEVELS OF PHOSPHORUS," I WONDERED,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 160
WELL, HOW HIGH? HOW MUCH PHOSPHOROUS DO YOU HAVE TO
ADD? YOU KNOW, IF YOU KNOW THAT, SAY IT, BECAUSE HIGH
AND LOW ARE SUCH ABSOLUTE -- YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY
RELATIVE TERMS. ONE PERSON'S LOW MAY BE ANOTHER'S HIGH
AND SO FORTH. SO DO YOU -- AND, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT TO KNOW, ARE THOSE LEVELS THAT WERE ADDED TO
FAVOR DEMETHYLATION ENVIRONMENTALLY REALISTIC AND SO ON
AND SO FORTH. SO, I JUST THOUGHT, IF POSSIBLE, TO PUT
SOME RANGE, YOU KNOW, GREATER THAN A HUNDRED OR
WHATEVER. BUT JUST TO SAY "HIGH" WAS NOT IDEAL.
Q. OKAY.
A. THEN, IN THIS PAGE 12, SECOND PARAGRAPH, THE
LAST SENTENCE SAYS, "THUS, PHOSPHORUS INPUTS MITIGATE
METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION." I SUGGESTED INSERTING
THE WORD "MAY MITIGATE." SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK
IT'S ENTIRELY PROVEN.
OH, THEN THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH, THE COMMENT SAYS
"THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS BIOACCUMULATION," AND THAT'S JUST
BECAUSE -- I MEAN, I THOUGHT THE MATERIAL THERE WAS
WELL PRESENTED AND REASONABLE, BUT IT -- AGAIN, FROM A
WRITING STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, IT START -- IT'S SUPPOSED
TO BE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE THAT PHOSPHOROUS
MITIGATES MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION, BUT THE CONTENT OF
THE PARAGRAPH IS ALL ON MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
WATER, WHICH IS NOT BIOACCUMULATION. SO, I FELT THAT,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 161
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS -- SOMETHING WAS OUT OF PLACE THERE.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THIS SUPPORTS
BIOACCUMULATION, THEN TALK ABOUT BIOACCUMULATION, DON'T
TALK ABOUT WATER CONCENTRATIONS; DEAL WITH THAT AT
ANOTHER TIME OR SOMETHING.
THEN DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, I WROTE "RELATIVE TO
STORY ABOUT BINDING?" AND SCRATCHED IT OUT, AND I THINK
THAT WAS WHEN I WROTE -- WHEN I WROTE THAT, I WROTE IT
BEFORE I HAD GONE ON AND READ THE NEXT PARAGRAPH THAT
DID GET AT THAT; AND I THINK THAT'S WHY I WENT BACK AND
SCRATCHED IT OUT. SOMETIMES I'LL JUST IMMEDIATELY SAY
WELL, WHAT ABOUT THIS, AND THEN SEE THAT IT'S ADDRESSED
THE NEXT TIME. SO, THAT'S WHY IT WAS SCRATCHED.
Q. OKAY. ON PAGE 12---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---NEXT TO THE FIRST AND SECOND SENTENCE IN
THE LAST PARAGRAPH---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---YOU HAVE A LINE NEXT TO THAT. DOES THAT
MEAN ANYTHING?
A. "IT IS LIKELY THAT DIFFERENT PROCESSES GOVERN
THE CONCENTRATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN WCA-2A AND THE
CANALS." I MEAN, I GUESS I PUT THAT THERE BECAUSE IT
SEEMS TO BE AN IMPORTANT SENTENCE AND STRUCK ME --
WELL, I DIDN'T -- I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION MARK. IF I'M
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 162
REALLY DOUBTFUL ABOUT SOMETHING OR WONDER, I USUALLY
PUT A QUESTION MARK. I THINK I JUST PUT THAT THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT STATEMENT, AND I'M GOING TO SEE HOW THAT'S
DEALT WITH DOWN THE ROAD.
OKAY, PAGE 14, I HAVE A QUESTION MARK NEXT TO THE
SENTENCE THAT SAYS, "MOSQUITOFISH IS A GOOD CHOICE FOR
EXAMINING BIOACCUMULATION BECAUSE IT IS LOW IN FOOD
CHAIN AND HAS A SHORT LIFE SPAN." AND WHEN I FIRST
READ THAT, IT SEEMED A LITTLE COUNTERINTUITIVE TO ME.
IN OTHER WORDS, I WOULD SAY, WELL, WE SEE THE HIGHEST
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE HIGHER TROPIC, LONGER-LIVED
SPECIES LIKE LARGE-MOUTH BASS, SO WHY NOT -- YOU KNOW,
IT SEEMED ALMOST THAT THEY WERE SAYING MOSQUITOFISH IS
A -- I MEAN, IT MADE MORE SENSE TO ME TO SAY
"MOSQUITOFISH IS A BAD CHOICE BECAUSE IT IS LOW IN FOOD
CHAIN AND HAS A SHORT LIFE SPAN."
BUT, THEN, THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE TALKED
ABOUT IN ATLANTA, AND THEY -- BETSY MADE, I THINK, A
COMPELLING ARGUMENT, YEAH, BUT STILL, AS SORT OF
LOOKING AT, SAY, THE EARLY MOVEMENT OF METHYLMERCURY
INTO A FOOD CHAIN AND WITH A SPECIES THAT HAS A SMALL
HOME RANGE AND SO FORTH, THE MOSQUITOFISH HAS REAL
MERITS. I THINK IN THE FINAL DRAFT, IT WAS BASICALLY
EXPANDED AND BOTH SPECIES WERE INCLUDED, OTHERS AS
WELL, INSTEAD OF JUST RELYING ON ONE OR THE OTHER.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 163
THEN THAT COMMENT THERE BELOW AT THE END OF THE
RECOMMENDATION SAYS, "ALSO DETERMINING HYDROLOGICAL
VERSUS ATMOSPHERIC SOURCES." AND, AGAIN, I THINK
THAT'S GOING TO BE REAL IMPORTANT AT SOME POINT, IS,
YOU KNOW, MORE OR LESS TESTING A HYPOTHESIS. THAT
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION IS THE MAJOR INPUT AND NOT --
BEFORE IT CAN BE RULED OUT THAT SURFACE-WATER TRANSPORT
IS NOT IMPORTANT.
Q. OKAY.
A. I THINK THAT'S -- WELL---
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
Q. ON TABLE 1---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---YOU HAVE A NOTE WRITTEN BUT THEN SCRATCHED
OUT.
A. THAT SAYS "QUANTIFY," AND AT FIRST, I THOUGHT,
WELL, AGAIN, SORT OF THE SAME -- PUTTING HIGH/LOW ON
OLIGOTROPHIC VERSUS EUTROPHIC. AND I SCRATCHED THAT
OUT BECAUSE AFTER ACTUALLY READING, LIKE, HAKANSON'S
PAPERS AND SO FORTH, I BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT WOULD BE
VERY COMPLICATED TO TRY TO PUT IN A TABLE LIKE THIS
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SAY WITH THAT ONE VARIABLE SEPARATED
OUT FROM THE OTHER VARIABLES THAT THIS MAKES IT
OLIGOTROPHIC AND THIS MAKES IT EUTROPHIC; THAT IT IS
REALLY KIND OF A COLLECTIVE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE THING,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 164
ALMOST. IT'S NOT THAT STRICTLY BOUNDED, SO I SCRATCHED
IT OUT.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
A. OH, OKAY. I HAVE -- FOR FIGURE 5, I HAVE
"REFERENCE" BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU PUT NUMBERS --
I MEAN, THAT'S CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, AN ACTUAL DATA SET.
IT'S NOT JUST A MODEL -- THAT A SOURCE OF THOSE DATA
SHOULD BE INCLUDED INTO FIGURE LEGEND.
Q. OKAY.
A. I THINK THAT'S ALL MY WRITTEN COMMENTS.
Q. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE
PAPER?
A. WELL, I THOUGHT IT WAS A REAL SOLID DRAFT. I
MEAN, I THOUGHT IT NEEDED SOME TOOLING AND
CLARIFICATIONS; BUT ON THE WHOLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS A
VERY GOOD DRAFT. I CAN'T -- I MEAN, I GUESS I -- YOU
KNOW, IT'S SORT OF IN HERE, BUT I THOUGHT THE ISSUE OF
ADSORPTION AND BIOAVAILABILITY NEEDED TO BE HAMMERED
MORE. THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF MY BIGGER CONCERNS. I
THOUGHT THE FOOD WEB THING WAS OVERDONE BECAUSE IT'S
NOT -- IT WASN'T CLEAR HOW THAT FIT IN. I WASN'T SURE
WHERE THAT WAS COMING FROM. SO, THOSE ARE -- I GUESS
THOSE ARE MY BIGGER ISSUES, BUT THEY COME UP IN THE
MARGINAL COMMENTS, AS WELL.
Q. YOU SAID "HAMMERED MORE"? THE TWO ISSUES
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 165
NEEDED TO BE HAMMERED MORE, ABSORPTION AND---
A. ADSORPTION.
Q. ADSORPTION; AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE?
A. WHAT DID I SAY?
MS. HOGAN: SHE CAN READ IT BACK.
WITNESS: WHAT DID I SAY?
COURT REPORTER: I THINK IT WAS FOOD WEB, BUT
I'LL READ IT BACK.
(THEREUPON, THE ANSWER APPEARING
ON PAGE 179, LINES 13 - 15, WAS
REPEATED BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
A. ADSORPTION AND BIOAVAILABILITY.
Q. IN WHAT WAY HAMMERED MORE? IN WHAT WAY?
A. WELL, SIMPLY THAT A POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT
VARIABLE INFLUENCING BIOACCUMULATION IS JUST SIMPLE
ADSORPTIVE PROCESSES, PHYSICAL PROCESSES, WHICH I WOULD
THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN A LOT OF EUTROPHIC WATERS,
PARTICULARLY WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF DECAYING MATTER, A
LOT OF PARTICULAR ORGANIC MATTER THAT DOESN'T REALLY
PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN THE FOOD CHAIN BUT, ESSENTIALLY,
SERVES AS COMPETITION FOR BINDING MERCURY, INCLUDING
METHYLMERCURY, THEREBY REDUCING ITS BIOAVAILABILITY.
SO, I -- MY FEELING IS THAT JUST SIMPLE ADSORPTION ONTO
PARTICULATE ORGANIC MATTER, SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS AND SO
ON AND SO FORTH, ARE PROBABLY VERY IMPORTANT AND SHOULD
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 166
BE MORE FULLY ADDRESSED IN THE REPORT.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WELL, THAT WAS A GOOD
EXERCISE. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK FOR A
WHILE---
WITNESS: OKAY.
MS. HOGAN: ---FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
(THEREUPON, A BREAK WAS TAKEN
FROM 2:49 P.M. TO 2:58 P.M.)
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN CONTINUES:
Q. THEN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU REVIEWED THE
DRAFT THAT WAS SENT TO YOU?
A. I REMEMBER GETTING A FEW MORE MATERIALS. I
DID A LITTLE MORE JUST GENERAL BACKGROUND READING, AND
I THINK IT WAS AROUND IN THAT TIME THAT I GOT, LIKE,
THE BILL PATRICK SUGAR CANE STUDY AND SOME OTHER DATA
PACKAGES THAT I DIDN'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO. AND THEN
I RECEIVED A SECOND DRAFT OF THE PTI DOCUMENT THAT I
BEGAN TO ,REVIEW BUT THEN I WAS TOLD THAT ANOTHER DRAFT
WAS FORTHCOMING, SO I SORT OF DROPPED IT AND THEN
WAITED UNTIL I GOT WHAT, I GUESS, IS NOW THE MOST
RECENT DRAFT, WHICH I JUST RECENTLY READ.
Q. OKAY. AT SOME POINT, THERE WAS A MEETING IN
ATLANTA?
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. OKAY. WAS THAT AFTER YOU RECEIVED THIS DRAFT
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 167
THAT IS MARKED AS---
A. CORRECT, EXHIBIT SEVENTEEN.
Q. UH-HUH (YES). OKAY. WHERE IN ATLANTA WAS THE
MEETING?
A. AT THE AIRPORT SHERATON, I THINK. AN AIRPORT
RIGHT NEXT TO THE -- A HOTEL RIGHT NEXT TO THE AIRPORT,
WHICH I BELIEVE WAS A SHERATON.
Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT DAY THE MEETING OCCURRED
ON?
A. IT OCCURRED ON -- I THINK TWO WEEKS AGO TODAY.
IT WAS ON A FRIDAY. I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS TWO WEEKS
AGO TODAY.
Q. OKAY. WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING?
A. BETSY AND GARY BIGHAM OF PTI, GARY SAMS AND
BILL GREEN. I CAN'T REMEMBER -- DR. PRESLEY FROM TEXAS
A&M AND MYSELF.
Q. HOW LONG WAS THE MEETING?
A. IT LAST -- IT BEGAN ABOUT NINE AND BROKE UP, I
THINK, AROUND THREE-THIRTY OR FOUR, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING?
A. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS JUST TO
GENERALLY DISCUSS THESE ISSUES RELATED TO MERCURY
DYNAMICS IN FLORIDA. BETSY AND I TALKED ABOUT THOSE
COMMENTS THAT I JUST WENT OVER. I MEAN, I THINK THE
THRUST OF THE MEETING WAS TO JUST TALK ABOUT THOSE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 168
GENERAL ISSUES AND THEN, PARTICULARLY, SEE IF THERE
WERE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DRAFT OF THE REPORT.
Q. WHAT CONCERNS DID DR. PRESLEY RAISE ABOUT THE
REPORT?
A. I DON'T RECALL -- I DON'T RECALL HIM REALLY
RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT THE REPORT, FRANKLY; I DON'T
THINK HE DID.
Q. WHO RAISED---
A. WELL, MOST OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE REPORT
WERE WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AND WERE LARGELY
ONE-ON-ONE BETWEEN BETSY AND I, WHEN I WENT THROUGH
JUST AS, BASICALLY, YOU AND I DID AND DISCUSSED THOSE
THINGS. THAT WAS -- IT WASN'T -- I DON'T RECALL THAT,
COLLECTIVELY, WE WENT AROUND THE REPORT LIKE THAT. THE
GROUP DISCUSSIONS WERE JUST -- WERE BROADER.
Q. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE TOPICS THAT THE GROUP
DISCUSSED?
A. WELL, TALKING ABOUT, IN GENERAL, POTENTIAL
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PHOSPHOROUS AND METHYLATION, AND
PHOSPHOROUS AND BIOACCUMULATION. WE GOT INTO JUST REAL
BROAD DISCUSSIONS OF THAT SYSTEM -- YOU KNOW, ALL THE
WAY FROM THE EAA DOWN TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK --
SOME TIME WAS USED TO HELP EDUCATE PEOPLE LIKE ME ON --
THAT'S WHEN I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT SOME OF THE
HYDROLOGICAL ISSUES AND HOW -- THE NATURE OF THE CANAL
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 169
SYSTEMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
Q. WHO CONVEYED THAT INFORMATION TO YOU?
A. LARGELY---
MR. SAMS: I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT YOU NOT TO
DESCRIBE THE COMMENTS OF COUNSEL. YOU CAN REFER
TO OTHERS, AND TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER
QUESTIONS WITHOUT DESCRIBING THE COMMENTS OF
COUNSEL, YOU CAN DO SO.
WITNESS: HUH. WELL, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT
WHAT SHE JUST ASKED ME?
MR. SAMS: WELL, YOU CAN'T SAY "BILL GREEN OR
GARY SAMS SAID THIS." BUT, IN GENERAL, IF YOU
WANT TO DISCUSS---
WITNESS: I CAN'T -- CAN I SAY THAT "BILL
GREEN HELPED PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON
THOSE CANALS"?
MR. SAMS: YEAH, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT YOU
CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT HE SAID.
WITNESS: OKAY.
A. YEAH, ACTU -- YEAH, BILL -- BILL GREEN DID
HELP PROVIDE SOME OF THAT BACKGROUND INFORMATION, AND
OTHERS AS WELL.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHO ELSE?
A. DR. PRESLEY HAD SOME INFORMATION IN THAT VEIN
AND -- LARGELY, THOSE TWO.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 170
Q. WHAT DID DR. PRESLEY TELL YOU?
A. GOD, I CAN'T REMEMBER A WHOLE LOT
SPECIFICALLY. HE -- AS I RECALL, HE EXPRESSED THAT HE
THOUGHT THAT LONG-RANGE SURFACE TRANSPORT OF MERCURY
FROM THE EAA AREA TO THE PARK WAS UNLIKELY.
Q. WHO EXPLAINED THE WATER FLOW, THE DIRECTIONAL
FLOW, THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE EVERGLADES TO YOU?
A. WELL, I MEAN, A LOT OF THAT MATERIAL WAS
JUST -- WAS IN VARIOUS REPORTS THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN.
Q. SO, WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU NEEDED FURTHER
INFORMATION ABOUT?
A. I GUESS JUST SOME MORE SPECIFICS ABOUT WHERE
THE STA'S WOULD BE, HOW THEY WOULD INTERFACE WITH THE
WCA'S. I HAVE SOME OF THAT IN SOME OF THE BACKGROUND
MATERIALS BUT, YOU KNOW, I WAS ASKING FOR FURTHER
CLARIFICATION ON SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
Q. WHAT WERE SOME COMMENTS THAT MR. BIGHAM HAD TO
THE DRAFT REPORT?
A. WELL, I DON'T RECALL HIM ADDRESSING THE DRAFT
REPORT, DIRECTLY, VERY MUCH. AGAIN, I GUESS I HAD
ASSUMED THAT HE HAD LARGELY PROVIDED COMMENTS DIRECTLY
BACK TO BETSY BEFORE THE DRAFT I EVEN SAW, OR WHATEVER.
AND, AGAIN, WHEN IT BECAME ANYTHING RATHER SPECIFIC
ABOUT THE DRAFT, THAT WAS LARGELY NEAR THE END OF THE
DAY, AND BETSY AND I PRETTY MUCH WENT THROUGH THOSE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 171
SPECIFIC COMMENTS.
Q. SO HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE CONVERSATIONS AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY, THE EARLIER PART OF THE DAY?
WHAT WAS THAT?
A. I THINK THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY WERE BROADER,
BROADER BRAINSTORMING AND JUST GETTING DIFFERENT
PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ABOUT INTERACTIONS AMONG NUTRIENTS,
WATER CONDITIONS, METHYLATION, BIOACCUMULATION.
Q. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON
THOSE ISSUES?
A. WELL, I CAN -- I JUST -- I REMEMBER DR. BIGHAM
WAS -- HAD A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN THE FOOD WEB SIDE
OF THINGS. WE TALKED ABOUT A BIT OF THAT, HOW
DIFFERENT FOOD WEBS MIGHT AFFECT ACCUMULATION.
DR. PRESLEY AGAIN, AS I CAN RECALL, HE, YOU KNOW,
SEEMED PRETTY STRONGLY OF THE MIND THAT THERE WOULD NOT
BE TRANSPORT OF MERCURY FROM THE STA/EAA VICINITY TO
THE PARK AND SO FORTH.
YOU KNOW, I KIND OF, AGAIN, STRESSED A LOT OF
THE -- SOME OF THE ISSUES OF ADSORPTION AND SORT OF THE
DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OR IMPACTS OF EUTROPHICATION ON
METHYLATION VERSUS BIOAVAILABILITY.
Q. WHY DID DR. PRESLEY FEEL THAT THERE WOULDN'T
BE TRANSPORT TO THE PARK?
A. I BELIEVE BECAUSE HE FELT THAT IT WAS SO FAR
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 172
AND THAT THINGS WOULD JUST -- THAT MATERIALS WOULD
SETTLE OUT SHORTLY, YOU KNOW, CLOSE IN TO INPUTS. YOU
KNOW, WHEREVER SOMETHING ENTERED A CANAL OR WHATEVER,
THAT MERCURY WOULD TEND TO SETTLE OUT AND NOT MOVE
LONG-RANGE, LIKE THAT.
Q. WHAT DID OTHER PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THAT?
A. I THINK THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
I GUESS I SAID THAT I -- IT SEEMED A REASONABLE
HYPOTHESIS BUT IT NEEDED TO BE EXAMINED.
Q. ON THE ISSUES THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH
DR. HENRY TOWARDS THE END OF THE DAY---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---WHAT WERE HER RESPONSES TO YOUR COMMENTS?
A. AS I RECALL, IN LARGE PART, SHE AGREED. I --
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THOUGHT SHE DID A REMARKABLE JOB
OVERALL, IN TIME -- IN CONSTRAINTS AND SO FORTH. AND
SHE INDICATED, YOU KNOW, HOW SHE WOULD TRY TO ADDRESS
THOSE COMMENTS, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH SHE AGREED WITH.
I'M TRYING TO -- IF THERE WAS ANY MAJOR -- OH, SHE WAS
PRETTY CONVINCING ABOUT THE NOTION THAT METHYLMERCURY
IS MORE ASSOCIATED WITH PROTEIN THAN FAT THAT I, AT
FIRST, HAD QUESTIONED. THAT'S ABOUT -- THAT'S ALL I
CAN RECALL OFFHAND.
Q. DID DR. HENRY EXPRESS ANY AREAS THAT SHE'D
LIKE TO EXPLORE FURTHER, THAT SHE WAS GOING TO INCLUDE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 173
IN THE DRAFT OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH HAD BEEN SUGGESTED
BY YOU?
A. NOT THAT I RECALL BECAUSE, AGAIN, MOST OF THE
CONVERSATION DIRECTLY BEARING ON THE DRAFT WERE BETWEEN
BETSY AND I. AND, SO, YOU KNOW, SHE INDICATED SHE
PROBABLY WOULD ADD MORE MATERIAL RELATED TO ADSORPTION
IN THERE AND -- OH, AND WE TALKED MORE ABOUT
RECOMMENDATIONS, WHAT SORTS OF THINGS SHOULD BE DONE.
I REMEMBER TALKING NEAR THE END ABOUT THAT.
Q. AND WHAT DID YOU DISCUSS?
A. WELL, WHAT WOULD BE WAYS TO APPROACH TRYING TO
SCIENTIFICALLY ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF STA'S; HOW WE
COULD MAKE USE OF THE WC-2A [sic] SYSTEM AS IT EXISTED
AS SORT OF A POTENTIAL PROTOTYPE; WHAT -- HOW WE MIGHT
BE ABLE TO DO SOME EXPERIMENTS UTILIZING THE
PHOSPHOROUS DOSING MICROCOSM SYSTEMS IN WC-2A [sic]
THAT DR. RICHARDSON USES TO ALSO STUDY MERCURY
DYNAMICS, THINGS LIKE THAT. I GUESS THAT WAS A PART OF
THE FIRST DRAFT THAT WE THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE EXPANDED
ON, WAS SORT OF WHAT -- YOU KNOW, WHAT REASONABLY COULD
BE DONE IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO, AT LEAST,
BEGIN TO GET A HANDLE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STA'S
AND MERCURY DYNAMICS.
Q. DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ABOUT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDED OR DISCUSSED
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 174
IN DEPTH MORE THAN HAD BEEN COVERED IN THE PRELIMINARY
DRAFT, ANY OTHER AREAS?
A. I DON'T THINK SO. AND, AGAIN, ALMOST ALL THAT
WAS BETWEEN BETSY AND I. I MEAN -- SO, I DON'T RECALL
THAT THERE WAS. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS.
Q. OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT
OCCURRED?
A. AFTER THE ATLANTA MEETING?
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. I RECEIVED A FEW ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FROM
MR. SAMS' OFFICE, SUCH AS THE BILL PATRICK STUDY, SOME
MOSTLY RAW DATA, AS I RECALL. AND THEN SHORTLY AFTER
THAT, I RECEIVED ANOTHER DRAFT OF THE PTI REPORT THAT I
BEGAN TO REVIEW AND THEN DIDN'T WHEN I WAS TOLD THAT A
SUBSEQUENT DRAFT WAS FORTHCOMING, WHICH CAME WITHIN
ANOTHER DAY OR TWO. I READ A COUPLE OF OTHER JUST
PRIMARY LITERATURE REPORTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE
GROUP THAT I GAVE TO MR. SAMS; AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH
IT UNTIL TODAY.
Q. DID YOU MAKE COMMENTS TO THE FINAL VERSION
THAT YOU RECEIVED?
A. YES, I DID, A FEW, I BELIEVE. I STARTED TO
MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON THE INTERMEDIATE DRAFT, STOPPED,
AND THEN MADE A FEW COMMENTS ON THE FINAL DRAFT. BUT
ON THE WHOLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY GOOD AND MADE NO
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 175
SUBSTANTIVE -- HAD NO MAJOR CRITICISMS. I HAD A FEW
QUESTIONS THAT I THINK ARE INDICATED IN MY MARGINAL
NOTES.
Q. YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE PRODUCED A LATER
DRAFT WITH YOUR NOTES CONTAINED---
A. YEAH.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) LET ME HAND YOU ANOTHER
DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD.
A. IT'S A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "THE INFLUENCE OF
PHOSPHORUS ON MERCURY CYCLING AND BIOACCUMULATION IN
THE EVERGLADES" ON PTI LETTERHEAD SUBMITTED TO HOPPING,
BOYD, GREEN & SAMS DATED MARCH 1994 WITH A FAX
TRANSMITTAL DATE OF MARCH 25TH.
Q. IS THAT THE FINAL VERSION THAT YOU'VE
REVIEWED?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. YES; YES, THIS IS.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MARK THAT
AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 176
EXHIBIT NO. 18 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) AND YOU SAID THERE WAS AN
INTERMEDIATE REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED, AS WELL?
A. YES---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---JUST PRIOR TO THIS ONE.
Q. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK
IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD.
A. THIS -- ALSO ENTITLED "THE INFLUENCE OF
PHOSPHORUS ON MERCURY CYCLING AND BIOACCUMULATION IN
THE EVERGLADES" WITH A NOTATION "SECOND DRAFT," ALSO
DATED MARCH 1994.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE
NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBIT NO. 19 - RICHARD Di GIULIO
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. SAMS: DID YOU FIND THE OTHER COPY? THIS
IS THE FINAL COPY? YEAH, THIS ONE.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) THE COPY WITH THE FAXED DATE
ON THE TOP OF IT OF MARCH 25, 1994---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---THAT'S EXHIBIT---
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 177
A. EIGHTEEN.
Q. ---EIGHTEEN; OKAY. I'M SORRY, WHY DON'T WE
LOOK AT EXHIBIT NINETEEN---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---SINCE THAT ONE CAME FIRST. OKAY. WHAT
COMMENTS DID YOU MAKE TO THAT DRAFT?
A. I THINK I JUST MADE A FEW BASICALLY EDITORIAL
COMMENTS ON THE FIRST PAGE. THE FIRST SENTENCE, IT
SAYS "MERCURY POSES PARTICULAR PROBLEMS IN AQUATIC
ECOSYSTEMS BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FORMATION OF
METHYLMERCURY, A SPECIES THAT IS BIOACCUMULATED IN
AQUATIC ORGANISMS," AND I JUST CHANGED "BECAUSE OF" TO
"IN LARGE PART, DUE TO." IN OTHER WORDS, MERCURIC ION
ISN'T, IN ALL, INNOCUOUS. IT'S A VERY -- YOU KNOW,
RELATIVE TO THINGS LIKE CADMIUM AND SO FORTH, IT'S VERY
POTENT, SO YOU CAN'T DISMISS IT.
"A SPECIES THAT IS BIOACCUMULATED," I PUT
"READILY" BECAUSE, AGAIN, VIRTUALLY ALL METALS AND EVEN
ORGANIC POLLUTANTS ARE BIOACCUMULATED SO -- AND I THINK
THE POINT WAS THAT METHYLMERCURY IS MORE READILY
BIOACCUMULATED THAN MOST THINGS, SO---
Q. OKAY.
A. AND THEN I HAVE "MERCURY HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED
AS A EXTENSIVE." I ADDED "AN EXTENSIVE PROBLEM."
THAT'S ALL THE COMMENTS I DID ON THIS DRAFT.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 178
Q. AND DID YOU STOP MAKING THE COMMENTS BECAUSE
YOU WERE TOLD THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER DRAFT COMING?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. AND THAT'S?
A. THAT'S EXHIBIT EIGHTEEN.
Q. OKAY. LET'S GO THROUGH EXHIBIT EIGHTEEN---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---AND REVIEW THE COMMENTS THAT ARE
CONTAINED---
A. ALL RIGHT.
Q. ---THEREIN.
A. ON PAGE 6 AT THE TOP RIGHT, I HAVE "GOOD"
UNDERLINED. I DON'T KNOW, I JUST LIKED THAT PART. I
THOUGHT IT WAS WELL-WRITTEN.
Q. OKAY.
A. AND THEN, AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 8, NEXT TO THE
SENTENCE THAT SAYS "THE PRINCIPAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE
RATE OF NET METHYLMERCURY FORMATION ARE DISSOLVED
OXYGEN CONCENTRATION, TEMPERATURE, SULFATE AND SULFIDE
CONCENTRATIONS, AND ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATION," I
JUST PUT "DIRECTION OF EFFECTS?". I BELIEVE, THOUGH,
FOLLOWING A LOT OF THE DIRECTIONS ARE -- YEAH, I JUST
SORT OF PUT THAT THERE, AGAIN, WONDERING -- MAKING SURE
THAT'D BE GOTTEN TO LATER, AND I BELIEVE IT IS, IN THE
FOLLOWING PAGE.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 179
Q. OKAY.
A. PAGE 10, "METHYLMERCURY IS READILY
BIOACCUMULATED THROUGH THE FOOD CHAIN FROM
PHYTOPLANKTON THROUGH ZOOPLANKTON OR BENTHIC
MACROINVERTEBRATES TO PREY FISH AND THEN TO PREDATOR
FISH," AND I PUT "HG++?". AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY --
ANYWAY, THAT -- THE POINT BEING THAT HG2+ AT LEAST,
CERTAINLY, IS READILY BIOACCUMULATED AT THOSE LOWER
LEVELS. IT'S NOT AS READILY TRANSFERRED UP TO FISH, SO
I FELT THAT THAT SENTENCE WAS CORRECT IN THE LATTER
PARTS WHEN YOU GET UP TO PREDATOR FISH. BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF THE LOWER LEVELS --
PHYTOPLANKTON, ZOOPLANKTON -- MAY EXHIBIT AS MUCH OR
MORE MERCURIC ION THAN METHYLMERCURY. AND IT IS --
IT'S READILY BIOACCUMULATED, JUST NOT AS READILY -- OR
NOT BIOMAGNIFIED.
AND THEN, AGAIN, ON PAGE 10 TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, I HAVE A -- IT SAYS
"METHYLMERCURY IS DIFFERENT THAN MOST HIGHLY
BIOACCUMULATED CHEMICALS IN THAT IT ACCUMULATES TO A
GREATER EXTENT IN PROTEIN THAN IN FATTY TISSUE," AND I
HAVE "REF?". AGAIN, I FELT THAT A STATEMENT OF FACT
LIKE THAT THAT'S NOT INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS SHOULD BE
REFERENCED.
Q. IS THAT NOT INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS?
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 180
A. NO, IT'S NOT TO ME. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S
CORRECT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS
BECAUSE -- I MEAN, AGAIN, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS
OF METHYLMERCURY IS THAT IT IS METHYLATED, WHICH
IMPARTS A MUCH GREATER DEGREE OF LIPOPHILICITY TO IT
THAN IS APPARENT IN CLASSIC METALS, INCLUDING MERCURIC
ION. I MEAN, WE EXPECT THINGS LIKE CADMIUM AND LEAD
AND MERCURIC MERCURY TO BE MAINLY ASSOCIATED WITH
PROTEIN SULFHYDRYL GROUPS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, BUT
BECAUSE OF THE METHYL GROUP, IT APPEARS PROBABLY A BIT
MORE COMPLEX. BUT, AGAIN, IT IS STILL HIGHLY CHARGED,
SO IT IS -- IT DOES MAKE SENSE. I THINK IT'S SORT OF
A -- YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S A BIT OF GRAY AS OPPOSED TO
BLACK OR WHITE, THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO ACT LIKE DDT AND
PARTITION VERY STRONGLY TO FAT, NOR IS IT GOING TO BE
LIKE LEAD AND PARTITION JUST STRICTLY TO PROTEIN. BUT,
ANY EVENT, TO ME, THE MAIN POINT WAS FOR SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS SHOULD BE REFERENCED.
Q. OKAY.
A. PAGE 13, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, "THIS
VARIABILITY IN FISH MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS BETWEEN
SITES SUGGESTS THAT IN-LAKE PROCESSES, RATHER THAN THE
EXTERNAL SUPPLY OF MERCURY, ARE THE CRITICAL FACTORS."
"? TOO BLACK/WHITE." AGAIN, I FELT THAT WE CAN'T RULE
OUT SUPPLY YET. I MEAN, IT PROBABLY IS -- EVERYTHING
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 181
POINTS TO THAT, BUT JUST TO SAY POINT BLANK THAT THEY
ARE THE CRITICAL FACTORS AS OPPOSED TO EXTERNAL SUPPLY
WAS A BIT BLACK AND -- A BIT STRONG.
BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, AGAIN REFERRING TO THE
CORRELATION BETWEEN MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH AND
PHOSPHOROUS REPORTED BY LANGE ET AL., I HAVE "WEAK
THOUGH?". AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT, THE
SAME ISSUE OF -- THAT, STATISTICALLY, THAT CORRELATION
WAS RATHER WEAK.
PAGE 17 ON BOTTOM OF TABLE 2, I HAVE "NO PAGE 37."
I JUST REALIZED WHEN I WENT TO LOOK AT THE RYDING AND
RAST (1989) REFERENCE. IT HAS A QUESTION MARK BY IT
BECAUSE I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THAT REFERENCE, AND MY
DRAFT HAS, I THINK, HAS NO PAGE 37 IN THE REFERENCES.
OKAY, FIGURE 9, PAGE 23, I HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTION MARKS THERE. AT THE TOP I HAVE "? DOTS VS.
BARS." I WAS JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, WHY THERE WERE
ERROR BARS AT SOME POINTS BUT ONLY ONE SINGLE POINT AT
THE OTHER. WAS IT JUST SIMPLY THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE
OBSERVATION AT THOSE POINTS OR WERE THERE DIFFERENT
DATA SETS GOING INTO THIS OR SO FORTH?
AND MY OTHER QUESTION MARK IS -- REFERS TO THE
VERY BEGINNING OF THAT SOLID LINE FROM THE ORIGIN UP TO
THE FIRST DATA POINTS, AND I GUESS IT GOES AGAINST MY
NATURE TO EXTRAPOLATE A LINE, PARTICULARLY A CURVED
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 182
LINE, WHERE THERE'S NO DATA POINTS IN TO FORCE IT
THROUGH ZERO, AND I FELT THAT THAT LINE SHOULD NOT BE
FORCED THROUGH ZERO LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, JUST THE BEST
FIT OR THE LINEAR RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE DATA POINTS
EXPRESSED SHOULD BE USED FOR A REGRESSION.
Q. WERE YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED?
A. WELL, NOW, THIS IS THE LAST DRAFT. I
UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE SUBSEQUENT DRAFTS BETWEEN NOW
AND THE HEARING BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST MADE THESE
COMMENTS IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. SO, THERE'S NO DRAFT
THAT REFLECTS THESE COMMENTS.
Q. UH-HUH (YES). OKAY.
A. PAGE 25, TOP, "A SECOND EFFECT OF MERCURY
BINDING TO SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS IS
THAT ENHANCED RATES OF MERCURY SEDIMENTATION ARE
EXPECTED," AND I JUST PUT AT THE TOP, AGAIN, IN THIS
SAME POINT, "ALSO - BINDING TO SOLIDS GOES TO INCREASED
BIOAVAILABILITY WITH OR WITHOUT SEDIMENTATION." WE'VE
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT. IN OTHER WORDS, AGAIN, I TEND
TO THINK THAT THE CRITICAL THING IS THE BINDING, NOT
THE SEDIMENTATION, IN TERMS OF REDUCING
BIOAVAILABILITY.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
A. THEN THAT BOTTOM, I HAVE A LITTLE BRACKET OVER
THE FINAL SENTENCE AND A CHECK MARK, AND I JUST -- I
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 183
THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD -- THAT WAS LIKE AN APPROVAL.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD ENDING SENTENCE TO THAT
PARAGRAPH. IT SAYS, "NEVERTHELESS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE
EXTENSIVE DATA ON MERCURY CYCLING IN FRESHWATER
ECOSYSTEMS RANGING FROM SCANDINAVIA TO FLORIDA THAT
OLIGOTROPHIC SYSTEMS ARE PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO
MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION WHILE EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS TEND TO
BE BUFFERED."
PAGE 26, BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, "CONCERN
HAS BEEN RAISED THAT STAs WILL INADVERTENTLY INCREASE
METHYLMERCURY LOADING AND EXACERBATE THE MERCURY
PROBLEM IN THE EVERGLADES (WATRAS 1993b)," AND I PUT A
QUESTION MARK BECAUSE I HAD NOT SEEN BEFORE -- I WAS
WANTING TO SEE THAT WATRAS REFERENCE. IT JUST SEEMED
LIKE AN INTERESTING AND RATHER BOLD STATEMENT, AND I
JUST -- I PUT A QUESTION MARK BECAUSE THAT WAS A STUDY
NOT IN AN EARLIER DRAFT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
Q. WHY WAS IT A BOLD STATEMENT?
A. WELL, IT JUST -- IT WOULD NOT -- IT'S NOT
INTUITIVELY APPARENT TO ME THAT STA'S WOULD INCREASE
LOADING. I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF -- THAT'S NOT THE
PICTURE I WOULD GET FROM WHAT'S GOING ON.
Q. WHAT PICTURE WOULD YOU GET?
A. MY PICTURE WOULD BE THAT THE STA'S MIGHT
LIKELY ENHANCE METHYLMERCURY FORMATION WITHIN THE
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 184
STA'S, BUT THAT THEY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY EXPORT THAT
OUT, THAT -- AGAIN, IF WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THESE STA'S
AS RATHER NUTRIENT-ENRICHED EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS, THEY
MIGHT, AGAIN, HAVE THE PROPER CONDITIONS TO ENHANCE
METHYLATION AND SO FORTH. BUT, AGAIN, THOSE SAME
FEATURES WOULD TEND TO ENHANCE RETAINMENT WITHIN THE
SYSTEM VIA ADSORPTION AND SETTLING OUT AND SO ON AND SO
FORTH.
THE CONCERN WOULD REALLY BE WHAT HAPPENS TO
DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY. AND IF THE STA'S PROMOTE
MORE OLIGOTROPHIC CONDITIONS DOWNSTREAM, THEN THAT
MIGHT ENHANCE MERCURY ACCUMULATION. BUT IT WOULDN'T,
TO ME, BE NECESSARILY OR EVEN LIKELY VIA LOADING.
Q. OKAY.
A. OKAY. FIGURE 12 SHOWS RELATIONSHIPS AMONG
DISSOLVED TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS ON THE X-AXIS, DISSOLVED
METHYLMERCURY AND FISH MERCURY ON THE Y-AXIS. AND I
JUST MAKE A NOTE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT WITH THE AGE
ZERO, FISH ARE HIGHER THAN THE AGE ONE. I JUST WANTED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WASN'T A TYPO. I MEAN, I KNOW, YOU
KNOW, FIELD DATA DOESN'T ALWAYS CORRESPOND TO OUR
TEXTBOOK IMAGES OF THINGS BUT, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY YOU
WOULD EXPECT THE REVERSE TO BE GOING ON THERE, THAT THE
AGE ONES WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE AGE ZEROS. SO, I
JUST MADE -- I JUST THOUGHT, "WELL, THAT'S INTERESTING.
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 185
LET'S MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT AN ERROR THERE."
AND THEN ON THE -- WELL, AS YOU FACE THE PAGE IN
THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER, I HAVE "N'S?" IN OTHER WORDS,
ARE THOSE INDIVIDUAL DATA POINTS, WHICH I BELIEVE THEY
ARE, OR ARE THEY MEANS OF DATA POINTS? AND I'M NOT
SURE WHICH, BUT THAT WAS MY QUESTION MARK SO -- AND I
GUESS I STILL THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, IF EACH
POINT ON THIS GRAPH IS ONE DATA POINT OR IS IT SOME
MEAN.
OH, I GUESS, THEN, ON PAGE 38, AGAIN, JUST NEXT TO
THE WATRAS 1993b REFERENCE THAT WAS CITED FOR THAT
STATEMENT ABOUT THE STA'S BEING METHYLMERCURY SOURCES,
I HAVE "? I'D LIKE TO SEE." I KNOW I DIDN'T COMMENT
ON -- NOT MUCH COMMENT ON THE -- THAT'S IT.
Q. HAVE YOU HAD ANY RESPONSES TO YOUR QUESTIONS
OR TO YOUR COMMENTS?
A. ON THIS LAST DRAFT?
Q. UH-HUH, YES.
A. YES. WE TALKED ABOUT THESE, I THINK, MORNING
BEFORE LAST AND, AGAIN, MY GENERAL RECOLLECTION WAS
THAT -- WELL, I THINK I MENTIONED WHERE, IN SOME CASES,
MY CONCERNS WERE BELAYED; IN OTHER CASES, BETSY
CONCURRED AND SAID, YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING WE
SHOULD DO IN THE NEXT GO, OR WHATEVER.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 186
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE I ASKED YOU ABOUT
SULFATE-REDUCING BACTERIA?
A. YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THIS MORNING.
Q. DID I ASK YOU IF IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT
SULFATE-REDUCING BACTERIA ACTIVITY IS BEING STIMULATED
BY THE PRESENCE OF SULFATE AND THAT IT'S SULFATE THAT'S
CAUSING THE METHYLATION?
A. I DON'T RECALL IT THAT SPECIFICALLY. COULD
YOU REPEAT IT?
Q. SURE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SULFATE-REDUCING
BACTERIA ACTIVITY IS BEING STIMULATED BY THE PRESENCE
OF SULFATE AND THAT IT'S SULFATE THAT'S CAUSING THE
METHYLATION?
A. WELL, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE FIRST PART OF
THAT, THAT, CERTAINLY, THE ADDITION OF SULFATE COULD
STIMULATE SULFATE-REDUCING BACTERIA THAT COULD THEN
ENHANCE MERCURY METHYLATION. BUT TO SAY THAT -- TO GO
FROM THAT, THAT SULFATE'S CAUSING METHYLATION, AGAIN, I
DON'T THINK -- YOU CAN'T -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE THAN
JUST SULFATE; YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CARBON
ENERGY AND SO FORTH.
SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK, THOUGH, TYPICALLY,
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 187
AS YOU INCREASE SULFATE, YOU'RE ALSO INCREASING
OTHER -- NUTRIENTS ARE ALSO INCREASING. I MEAN, THINGS
JUST RARELY OCCUR COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY OF ONE OR
THE OTHER IN NATURAL SYSTEMS. BUT, YEAH, IN ESSENCE,
THOUGH, AS SULFATE INCREASED, I WOULD EXPECT THAT,
OTHER CONDITIONS BEING CORRECT, THAT COULD STIMULATE
METHYLATION.
(THEREUPON, MS. HOGAN AND DR. JONES CONFER.)
Q. OKAY. IS SULFATE LIMITING TO SULFATE
REDUCTION IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. IS SULFATE LIMITING TO SULFATE REDUCTION IN
THE EVERGLADES? I'M NOT SURE. MY SENSE IS THAT IT
MIGHT BE, BUT I'M NOT SURE. MY -- YOU KNOW, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SULFATE IS ENTIRELY NON-LIMITING
IN ESTUARINE SYSTEMS BUT THAT IN MANY OF THESE
FRESHWATER SYSTEMS, IT IS. BUT I'M NOT CLEAR EXACTLY
WHERE THE EVERGLADES FALLS IN THAT.
MS. HOGAN: I BELIEVE THAT'S IT, BUT CAN YOU
GIVE ME ABOUT FIVE MINUTES?
WITNESS: SURE.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DR. Di GIULIO, I NOTICE THAT
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 188
AMONG THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PRODUCED WAS A COPY OF
JERRY STOBER'S DEPOSITION?
A. YES.
Q. DID YOU REVIEW THAT DEPOSITION IN PREPARATION
FOR YOUR DEPOSITION TODAY?
A. YES.
Q. HOW DID YOU USE THAT DEPOSITION?
A. I DON'T RECALL GETTING SPECIFIC INSIGHTS FROM
THAT DEPOSITION ON THE GIST OF THIS REPORT AND ISSUES
WE WERE DEALING WITH. TO ME, IT WAS JUST REAL
INTERESTING AND AS A WAY TO LEARN MORE ABOUT E MAP, AND
ALSO TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE DEPOSITIONS SINCE I'D
NEVER BEEN DEPOSED. I JUST READ IT IN MORE SORT OF
JUST GENERAL INFORMATION, BUT I CAN'T RECALL GETTING
SPECIFIC TECHNICAL INFORMATION OUT OF THAT. ALTHOUGH,
I DO RECALL I THINK I DID GET SOME INSIGHT -- I CAN'T
TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT, BUT I DO THINK IT HELPED GIVE ME
SOME MORE UNDERSTANDING OF STA STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
MS. HOGAN: OH, DID YOU HAVE ANY PRIVILEGED
DOCUMENTS, A LIST OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS---
MR. SAMS: THERE'S BEEN VIRTUALLY NO
CORRESPONDENCE INVOLVING US. IF THERE WAS
ANYTHING, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE
LIST THAT I GAVE YOU FOR HENRY AND BIGHAM, BUT I
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 189
DON'T RECALL WHETHER WE EXTENDED THAT LIST TO
INCLUDE HIM.
MS. HOGAN: WE HAVE THAT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
ASKING.
WITNESS: I DON'T RE -- IT SEEMS LIKE I
RECALL RECENTLY GETTING ONE, BUT I DIDN'T REALLY
LOOK AT IT THAT CLOSELY. BUT I THOUGHT I
RECENTLY, IN THE LAST WEEK OR SO, GOT A DATA SET,
AND I WASN'T SURE, YOU KNOW, WHERE -- BUT AT THE
TOP IT SAID "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL."
MR. SAMS: THAT WAS PROBABLY SOMETHING---
WITNESS: IT COULD HAVE BEEN---
MR. SAMS: ---SO MARKED IN SOME CONTEXT, BUT
SINCE IT'S BEEN RELEASED, IN ANY EVENT, NOTHING
LIKE THAT WAS WITHHELD.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DID YOU PRODUCE IT?
A. WELL, AGAIN, I RELIED UPON MR. SAMS' OFFICE
THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE HE WAS SAYING, THAT -- I MEAN,
THEY WERE GIVING ME THESE BIG DATA SETS AND SO FORTH,
AND I WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD BE COMPETENTLY SUPPLIED
TO YOU AND, SO THEY -- I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, THE
THINGS THAT HE DIRECTLY GAVE ME, I DIDN'T GIVE BACK TO
HIM TO GIVE TO YOU.
MR. SAMS: I THINK IT WAS -- I REMEMBER
NOTICING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE PACKAGE THAT I
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 190
SENT TO COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES AT THE SAME
TIME I SENT IT TO OUR WITNESSES. YOU MAY WISH
EXAMINE THAT PACKAGE, BUT I DO THINK THERE WAS A
DOCUMENT SO MARKED.
MS. HOGAN: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL REVIEW THEM
AGAIN TO MAKE SURE. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
FOR YOU AT THIS TIME.
-------------------------------------------------
(THEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION
WAS CONCLUDED AT 3:51 P.M.)
-------------------------------------------------
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 191
NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM COUNTY
I, RICHARD THOMAS Di GIULIO, HAVE
READ THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT OF MY
DEPOSITION AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE PRECEDING 207 PAGES
CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE
TRANSCRIPTION OF MY TESTIMONY.
______________________________
RICHARD THOMAS Di GIULIO
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC,
THIS THE ____ DAY OF ________________,
1994.
_______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
_______________________________
DR. Di GIULIO VOLUME I PAGE 192
NORTH CAROLINA
WAKE COUNTY
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, CAROL S. YOUNG, A NOTARY PUBLIC, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT RICHARD THOMAS Di GIULIO WAS DULY SWORN
PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF THE FOREGOING DEPOSITION, AND
THAT SAID DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT THE FOREGOING 207 PAGES
CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE
TESTIMONY OF SAID WITNESS.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS WERE PRESENT
AS STATED IN THE CAPTION.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT OF COUNSEL FOR,
OR IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES TO THIS
ACTION, NOR AM I INTERESTED IN THE RESULTS OF THIS
ACTION.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SUBSCRIBED MY
NAME, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 1994.
_____________________________
CAROL S. YOUNG
CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES
2551 ALBEMARLE AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
DECEMBER 26, 1995