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