630
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
2
3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC., and )
4 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )
Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038
5 v. )
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
7 Respondents. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
Petitioners, )
10 v. ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
12 Respondents. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
13 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )
ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
14 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
15 Petitioners, )
v. ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040
16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
17 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
100 S.E. 2nd Street
19 Miami, Florida
Thursday, February 10, 1994
20 8:10 a.m. - 5:45 p.m.
21 DEPOSITION OF RONALD D. JONES
22 Taken before BRIAN GARY BERKOWITZ, Shorthand
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
23 Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
Deposition filed in the above cause.
24 - - - - - - -
631
1 APPEARANCES
2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS SUGAR CANE GROWERS
COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC. AND
3 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.
4 HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS
123 South Calhoun Street
5 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
BY: GARY P. SAMS, ESQ.
6 WILLIAM H. GREEN, ESQ.
7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE,
INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., AND NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.
8
EARL BLANK KAVANAUGH & STOTTS, P.A.
9 One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636
Two South Biscayne Boulevard
10 Miami, Florida 33131
BY: WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQ.
11 ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.
12 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
13
STANLEY J. NIEGO, ESQ.
14 South Florida Water Management District
3301 Gun Club Road
15 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
16 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
17
SUZAN HILL PONZOLI, ESQ.
18 Assistant United States Attorney
99 N. E. 4th Street
19 Miami, Florida 33132
20 ALSO PRESENT:
B. J. PRESLEY
21 TRUMAN E. DUNCAN
22 - - -
632
1 INDEX
2 Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross
3 RONALD D. JONES
4 By Mr. Sams 633
5
6 JONES EXHIBITS
7 Exhibit 75 Plan 633
8 Exhibit 76 IAG 645
9 Exhibit 77 Results of analysis 676
10 Exhibit 78 Map 681
11 Exhibit 79 Mercury study plan 751
12 Exhibit 80 Fax with attachments 753
13 Exhibit 81 Map 758
14 Exhibit 82 Bar graphs 769
15 Exhibit 83 "Cooperative Agreement" 801
16 Exhibit 84 Document 802
17 Exhibit 85 Document with Bates No. 8530 803
18 Exhibit 86 Document with Bates No. 8488 808
19 Exhibit 87 "Calculations of Miccosukee 818
20 Indian Loading to ENP"
21 Exhibit 88 Document from Mark Maffei 824
22 - - -
633
1 Thereupon --
2 RONALD D. JONES
3 was called as a witness and, having been previously
4 duly affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
5 MR. SAMS: Good morning, again.
6 I would like to continue to identify, or have
7 you identify, a few more documents, if I may.
8 The first of those I will have marked as
9 Exhibit 75.
10 (The document referred to was thereupon
11 marked Jones Exhibit 75 for Identification.)
12 CROSS EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. SAMS:
14 Q. I would ask you, Dr. Jones, if you recognize
15 the exhibit that has been marked No. 75?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. The acknowledgment states, "Discussions with
18 Dr. Ron Jones of Florida International University were
19 very helpful in the development of this plan."
20 Is that a correct representation of your
21 relationship to this plan? And I would note, of
22 course, that the sentence continues and relates to, as
23 well, analytical procedures and specification for
24 mercury detection and specification.
25 A. Speciation.
634
1 Q. I'm sorry.
2 MS. PONZOLI: You're asking if he was
3 helpful?
4 MR. SAMS: I would ask if that correctly
5 represents his participation.
6 A. You know, that was acknowledged for that,
7 that I was involved in discussions.
8 Q. What was your specific role in the
9 development of the plan?
10 A. This is not my plan. This is the United
11 States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV'S
12 plan, and as such, the plan was developed by the
13 authors here, which would be Greer Tidwell, Jerry
14 Stober and Delbert Hicks, and, I guess, I would not
15 consider this to be my plan. I did have discussion,
16 but the plan was generated by them.
17 Q. Can you give me an approximate date that the
18 plan was generated?
19 A. It would have to be following the meeting I
20 had in Athens, which we had discussed from that letter,
21 one of the previous exhibits.
22 Q. Can you recall your discussions with the
23 authors concerning this plan, at least in general?
24 A. In general.
25 Q. Could you identify for me, then, what the
635
1 general subject matters of those discussions were?
2 A. There were two major areas. One I would call
3 conceptual areas, and the other I would call analytical
4 areas.
5 Q. Let's take conceptual areas.
6 Could you tell me with a bit more substance,
7 what the conceptual areas consisted of?
8 A. Predominantly, the various hypotheses that
9 needed to be considered when examining mercury
10 contamination in the Everglades.
11 Q. What were those hypotheses that you discussed
12 with them?
13 A. Again, this is to the best of my
14 recollection. It's not a -- maybe it's an incomplete
15 list, because of the time involved here.
16 Q. All I can ask is that you state to me what
17 you remember.
18 A. The idea of mercury contamination, the
19 sources, predominantly subjects such as burning of
20 sugar cane, came up, power plant and incinerator
21 emissions, and then the -- as another source that we
22 considered, was fungicides, mercurial containing
23 compounds that were used or are being currently used in
24 agricultural and other land use practices.
25 The other area in that -- another area under
636
1 that, would have been the general microbial cycling
2 hypothesis for mercury and its relationship to nutrient
3 enrichment, particularly phosphorus.
4 Q. What is that hypothesis?
5 A. I believe I've stated it several times
6 already, but --
7 Q. In the context of these discussions, what was
8 it?
9 A. It was the same as previously stated, is what
10 I'm getting at. Basically, that increased microbial
11 activity due to increased nutrient levels in the
12 ecosystem, will alter the rates at which mercury is
13 mobilized, transformed in the system.
14 Q. Did the conceptual discussion of that
15 hypothesis in the context of the discussions concerning
16 this paper, include the examination of pathways by
17 which mercury would find its way to higher organisms?
18 A. We discussed that. My input and interest in
19 that was at the level of the mosquitofish that I spoke
20 of yesterday, not necessarily in -- we had a discussion
21 concerning food web or biomagnification of mercury in
22 the ecosystem.
23 Q. Just so I understand your last response, are
24 you saying that your interest was at the level of
25 mosquitofish, but there was a broader discussion
637
1 concerning the entire food web in the ecosystem?
2 I'm just trying to get clarification, because
3 I wasn't sure I understood your response.
4 A. That, I believe, would be a fair restatement
5 of my statement.
6 Q. Did you then limit your involvement in the
7 conceptual discussions to the level of mosquitofish, or
8 were you also a participant in the broader discussion
9 concerning the food web as a whole?
10 A. It was -- I was a participant in the complete
11 discussions on all levels.
12 Q. I know we talked yesterday about what I
13 called the ubiquity of the mosquitofish. I don't know
14 what the right word is, maybe its ubiquitousness or
15 something, but whatever it is, conceptually, can you
16 help me understand why that would be a break point for
17 your interest?
18 A. I wouldn't -- maybe I mischaracterized it, if
19 you are interpreting it as a break point of my
20 interest, meaning, gee, I'm not interested in anything
21 lower or anything higher. I just happen to have an
22 interest in that particular organism, because of its
23 ubiquitous nature, and it's used, perhaps, as an
24 indicator in the system.
25 Q. If you know, Dr. Jones, where do mosquitofish
638
1 fit into the ecosystem? What do they eat and what
2 organisms eat them?
3 A. I have a general knowledge of -- actually, I
4 think I have little better than a general knowledge of
5 the ecology of the Everglades, and the mosquitofish is
6 a component of that.
7 The information as to what they feed on, and
8 how they fit exactly into the food web, and the food
9 chain, would be a question better posed to someone
10 else.
11 However, to the best of my ability, I think I
12 can be fairly accurate with that organism. It's just
13 that I, you know -- an ichthyologist may tell me that
14 that's not really correct. I don't believe that's the
15 case.
16 Q. With that qualification, if you would -- the
17 record will reflect the qualification. If you can,
18 with that qualification, give me your best answer, I
19 would appreciate it.
20 A. The mosquitofish, Gambusia, is a very
21 omnivorous organism, meaning that it eats a large
22 variety of different organisms in the environment.
23 It's a short-lived species. It's a very
24 drought tolerant organism. It has a very rapid
25 generation time.
639
1 The organisms that would feed on it, would be
2 basically anything that's bigger than it is, at any
3 stage in its life.
4 So, depending on whether you are referring to
5 the juveniles, the organism, Gambusia, is a live
6 bearer, meaning it gives birth to living young, so it
7 does not lay eggs, if you will.
8 I believe the term is "ova vivibre."
9 Q. I won't try to pick that one up in any
10 further questions.
11 A. I'm giving you the opportunity.
12 So, where it fits into the food web would
13 have to depend upon its size, basically, is what I was
14 getting at.
15 So, to say what organisms use it, I think is
16 a question that cannot be answered other than to say a
17 large variety of other higher trophic levels feed on
18 this particular organisms.
19 Q. In addition to its presence throughout the
20 Everglades, are there any of those factors that you
21 have just described, that it eats a large variety of
22 other organisms, that it's short-lived, that it has a
23 rapid generation time, et cetera, that make that a
24 matter of particular interest or focus for you?
25 A. My reason for being interested in that
640
1 particular -- in some of those characteristics were,
2 for instance, because it is omniverous, it would not be
3 selectively feeding on any one organism.
4 There are other fish, other organisms out
5 there that are very particular about their diet. They
6 will literally starve to death in the absence of the
7 appropriate food organism. Gambusia is not such an
8 organism.
9 The other aspect of its, I guess, physical
10 nature, is that they're a very small fish. They don't
11 achieve -- we don't have any fishermen going out there
12 trolling for Gambusia. They are a couple of
13 centimeters in length, would be their maximum length.
14 Therefore, analytically, I'm able to analyze
15 the entire fish for mercury, which is, in fact, what a
16 higher organism -- they don't eat fillets.
17 Q. As you said. How is it important that the
18 Gambusia doesn't selectively feed?
19 A. It gives a broader base, indicating mercury
20 presence in the organic form, in the environment.
21 Q. If I may ask you, Dr. Jones, to turn to the
22 bottom of page 10, and where it appears that the --
23 there's a statement of the hypothesis followed by three
24 corollaries.
25 I would ask you if that hypothesis, and its
641
1 three corollaries, are a statement consistent with your
2 own input to the discussions?
3 MS. PONZOLI: Would you show me where the
4 hypothesis begins, in your opinion?
5 MR. SAMS: Certainly. It's the third short
6 paragraph up on the page, about one fourth of the
7 way up on page ten.
8 A. Starting, "The above brief explanation"?
9 Q. Correct.
10 A. I've read the material, but I've forgotten
11 the question. Can I have it read back to me?
12 Q. Or I can attempt to rephrase it.
13 I was asking if that statement of the
14 hypothesis of this portion of the paper, and its three
15 corollaries, is consistent with your own contribution
16 to the discussions that you were involved in with the
17 authors?
18 A. Again, I remind you that I did not write this
19 particular thing, but I do believe that it is
20 consistent with the discussions that we had. I may not
21 have written it in this exact same manner.
22 Q. This may be to pick a nit, and I don't mean
23 to be quarrelsome. If I could ask you for a moment to
24 focus on your input to the discussions.
25 Just by way of explanation, your response to
642
1 me was it's consistent with your discussions, and what
2 I'm trying to make sure of is, that it's consistent
3 with your, Dr. Jones', input to the discussions.
4 MS. PONZOLI: I think you've asked this
5 question and he'S answered it multiple times, Mr.
6 Sams, and you've asked him for his hypothesis and
7 he'S given it to you.
8 I was going to object to your question,
9 because it was a multi-question, including both
10 the hypothesis and the three corollaries.
11 Maybe a remedy would be for you to break the
12 question back down.
13 MR. SAMS: Really, all I'm trying to do here
14 is to make sure that this is consistent with what
15 Dr. Jones said in these discussions, and that's
16 what I believe I asked him, and what he said was
17 it's consistent with the discussions.
18 I'm simply trying to make sure that his
19 answer is regarding his own input.
20 MS. PONZOLI: I think he answered that, and I
21 don't think you are going to be able to marry him
22 to someone else'S words, and he'S made that quite
23 clear, that you cannot marry him to those words.
24 MR. SAMS: Unless you are instructing him not
25 to answer, I would like to see if he can answer my
643
1 question.
2 MS. PONZOLI: I would object, that he has
3 answered your question multiple times. As you are
4 aware, I rarely instruct him not to answer.
5 Would you read the question back again, since
6 Mr. Sams and I have discussed this at length?
7 (The question referred to was thereupon
8 read by the reporter as above recorded.)
9 A. There may be some additions that, to this
10 material, that we did not discuss. I could not
11 identify those, because of the broad, general nature of
12 the discussions which generated this material.
13 Q. Were you involved with other aspects of the
14 effects that might lead to the increased availability
15 of mercury in the context of these discussions, such as
16 hydroperiod management or fluctuations?
17 A. We discussed that.
18 Q. Did you express any view on that, in the
19 course of the discussions?
20 A. I'm certain I did.
21 Q. Can you recall what it was?
22 A. No. I'm sorry, I cannot. It's been too long
23 ago.
24 Q. If you would look again at page 10, I would
25 ask you to focus on the first two complete paragraphs
644
1 that appear on that page, and see if those in any way
2 refresh your recollection.
3 A. It tells me that we discussed hydroperiod,
4 which I believe I already indicated. I still don't
5 remember the specific nature of the discussions dealing
6 with hydroperiod.
7 This would appear -- these two paragraphs
8 would appear to be modifications of one of the
9 documents that was introduced yesterday, my proposal
10 from Everglades National Park.
11 So, I don't know whether this came from
12 discussions at the time, or modifications of that
13 language being placed into this particular document.
14 Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with these
15 modifications of your paper?
16 MS. PONZOLI: You mean that appear anywhere
17 in these two paragraphs, Mr. Sams?
18 MR. SAMS: Yes.
19 A. I'm going to have to take my time and read it
20 more carefully to answer that question.
21 Q. That's fine.
22 MS. PONZOLI: Under his present working
23 hypothesis? We're in an area of ongoing research.
24 MR. SAMS: Yes.
25 MS. PONZOLI: We're not in an area of
645
1 defined --
2 MR. SAMS: Yes, that's fine. I'm interested
3 in his present state --
4 A. Again, you are referring to this as a paper,
5 and I believe it's a plan of study, and I would
6 consider it more of a proposal.
7 Q. That explanation is satisfactory with me.
8 (Pause.)
9 A. I'm in general agreement with the information
10 contained in these two paragraphs.
11 It is not all descriptive. Some of it is
12 discussing plans for results, how the results are to be
13 used by the Environmental Protection Agency, I assume.
14 But the descriptive portion I'm in general agreement
15 with, that it's a good working hypothesis.
16 MR. SAMS: The next document from your files,
17 I would like to have identified as Exhibit No. 76.
18 (The document referred to was thereupon
19 marked Jones Exhibit 76 for Identification.)
20 BY MR. SAMS:
21 Q. Can you identify that document for me, Dr.
22 Jones?
23 A. Yes, I can. It's an IAG, sent to me by --
24 looking at the last page -- Mr. Delbert Hicks of the
25 Environmental Protection Agency in Athens.
646
1 Q. Do you know the purpose of this document?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What is that?
4 A. It's the document necessary to transfer funds
5 from one government agency to another. And in this
6 case, between Environmental Protection Agency and the
7 Department of Interior, National Park Service.
8 Q. Is this related to work which you have
9 performed?
10 A. Yes, it is. Or am still performing.
11 Q. On the textual portion, with a title that
12 says, "An investigation of mercury contamination in the
13 Everglades ecosystem," I would like to refer you to the
14 second page -- actually, it appears to be fax page
15 006 -- and refer you to the second complete paragraph
16 down, starting with the third sentence. "These
17 parameters to be measured include."
18 It says, "These parameters to be measured
19 include, but are not limited to," and then it specifies
20 certain ones. Are the ones specified there, the ones
21 that you are measuring?
22 A. Not necessarily.
23 Q. Which ones are you not measuring?
24 A. A number of -- this work, as I said, is
25 underway. We have not occupied the transects yet, or
647
1 done much of the sampling that EPA proposed in this
2 particular document, and therefore, the list of
3 parameters that we are measuring, or are planning to
4 measure, are changing.
5 If I get a request for discussion about what
6 parameters are, that we should measure on the upcoming
7 field sampling, I will give my input into that, but we
8 are not doing this at the moment.
9 Q. You are not doing this work at the moment?
10 A. This refers to the transect sampling, and we
11 have not occupied one of the transects for mercury,
12 yet. As I indicated to you yesterday, if I wasn't
13 here, we probably would be.
14 Q. Is it your intention to measure for all these
15 specified items?
16 A. We have eliminated some items, and I believe
17 added several others.
18 Q. Could you tell me what has been eliminated
19 and what has been added?
20 A. I will attempt to, to the best of my
21 recollection.
22 We may or may not measure methanogenesis.
23 In all likelihood, we will not measure
24 particulate organic carbon.
25 By doing this, I'm not excluding -- if we
648
1 decide next week to add one of these items or add
2 something else, I am not promising you that that will
3 not occur. I'm just indicating at this time what we
4 have intentions to or do not have intentions to make
5 measurements of.
6 We also are planning on measuring sulfate
7 concentrations, and that is not on this list.
8 I don't see, maybe I'm missing it, total
9 phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphate in the water
10 and soils. That may be included up in the document
11 somewhere else.
12 Q. Will you be looking at Gambusia?
13 A. I'm sorry. This paragraph just refers to the
14 soils and sediment analysis, but yes, we will, if
15 there's water.
16 Q. Will you be looking at other organisms?
17 A. It is possible, but I can't tell you with any
18 certainty on that.
19 Q. Can you tell me why it's uncertain whether
20 you will be looking at methanogenesis?
21 A. The amount of work in the time frame, limits
22 the number of types of analyses that we can do. That
23 is a particular interest of mine. That is a particular
24 interest of mine, and it may just have to go away
25 because of time constraints.
649
1 Q. Recognizing that you have not said that it's
2 a certainty, why are you at least considering dropping
3 particulate organic carbon?
4 A. Again, we're interested in the particulate
5 organic carbon. Experience in the particular areas
6 where the proposed transects exist, would indicate that
7 it is a relatively minor portion of the thing, and what
8 we have done is -- I'm sorry. I must correct that.
9 What we will be measuring will be total organic carbon
10 in these waters, with the -- with the size exclusion on
11 the size of particles included in that. So, dissolved
12 and particulate should be TOC, or total organic carbon.
13 Q. Where are the transects located on which this
14 work will be conducted?
15 A. I'm not entirely certain of that, based on
16 that I don't know what they're referring to as
17 transects. I do know that they will be occupying the
18 same transects that I have occupied -- that they will
19 be the same -- they'll be along the same transects that
20 I occupied previously, the S-12C transect, in
21 Everglades National Park, and the east-west transect in
22 Loxahatchee, and perhaps the, I believe the S-10C
23 transect in Water Conservation Area 2A. That's to the
24 best of my knowledge.
25 Q. Are those transects identified in the EMAP
650
1 study document, to the best of your knowledge?
2 A. I believe they are.
3 Q. Is conductivity a parameter which you will be
4 measuring?
5 A. Yes. It's on the list.
6 Q. Will water samples be filtered in the field
7 to allow dissolved measurements?
8 A. We are in the midst of a series of
9 discussions, and tests, experiments in the laboratory
10 now, and discussions amongst those of us involved in
11 this project as to the role of dissolved, and I would
12 like to put "dissolved" in quotes, or parentheses, or
13 whatever, because that is an extremely subjective and
14 almost impossible to define term in the context of
15 Everglades water. But we are -- that is an area of
16 discussion at the moment, so I cannot answer that
17 question adequately.
18 Q. Can you tell me why it's an almost impossible
19 area in connection with Everglades water?
20 A. It's really a very difficult area in most
21 things. "Dissolved" really refers more to -- it's
22 easiest to describe in terms of true soluble chemical
23 salts, in that then there's an interaction with the
24 water that causes them to go from their solid form to
25 being dissolved. I don't know how else to say it
651
1 simply.
2 In the aspect of, you know, what is dissolved
3 and what is particulate, or not dissolved, those have
4 mostly been functional definitions that have been used.
5 The ability of a sample to pass through a certain size
6 filter.
7 In the case of the Everglades samples, we
8 have a lot of humic material, large, organic molecules,
9 that are actually filterable, but yet, they would never
10 settle out to the bottom of a glass.
11 So, you know, certain people'S definition may
12 be that those are dissolved. Others may be that that's
13 indeed not truly a dissolved compound. And also
14 depending upon the type of filter you use, what the
15 actual compound, whether the filter is made of glass or
16 Teflon, polycarbonate, it will remove different
17 portions of this material.
18 Q. Is dissolved material more bioavailable than
19 particulate material?
20 A. Not necessarily.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. Bioavailability in dissolved material -- I
23 can dissolve arsenic. It doesn't have anything to do
24 with its, you know, bioavailability or its utilization.
25 There are a number of compounds that can be
652
1 dissolved, that don't necessarily -- it doesn't have a
2 relationship.
3 Q. Let's focus on the bioavailability of mercury
4 in Everglades systems.
5 Does the mercury have the potential to become
6 bound up with particulate matter?
7 A. Certainly.
8 Q. Is there any difference reflected in whether
9 it's bound up with particulate matter in the water
10 column versus in the sediments, as far as its
11 availability to higher trophic organisms may be
12 concerned?
13 A. I don't believe you intended that question to
14 be impossible to answer, but it is, as such, due to
15 the -- there are different organisms in water versus
16 the sediment.
17 So, you have -- that's a question I can't
18 answer.
19 Q. What is the nature of the debate that's -- or
20 discussion, I guess, on this subject? What are the
21 viewpoints that describe the range of the discussion?
22 MS. PONZOLI: Excuse me. I don't understand
23 the question, Mr. Sams.
24 MR. SAMS: I believe he said that he'S in
25 discussion with others. He particularly alluded
653
1 to his lab, concerning whether to measure
2 particulate or dissolved organic carbon, and I'm
3 really asking, what are the respective viewpoints
4 that are under consideration?
5 A. You just said organic carbon. Do you mean
6 mercury?
7 Q. No. I meant to say dissolved organic carbon.
8 A. We are not having a discussion as whether we
9 should measure dissolved or particulate organic carbon.
10 I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question.
11 Q. Is the discussion concerning the use of
12 filters to filter out organic matter?
13 A. No, it's not.
14 Q. Do you know whether dissolved mercury is more
15 available to algae than mercury in a particulate form?
16 A. That would be, again, a situation that would
17 depend upon where the algae were growing, and what -- a
18 number of other parameters. I would assume that there
19 would be some differences, but they could be either
20 making it more available or making it less available or
21 have no effect at all. So, the whole gamut could be
22 covered.
23 Q. Are the discussions you have been having
24 involving filtration of samples in the field?
25 A. Yes.
654
1 Q. Who are those with?
2 MS. PONZOLI: Asked and answered.
3 A. Predominantly, with the people at EPA. Jerry
4 Stober would be the person I'm discussing it with the
5 most.
6 Q. With whom else are you discussing it?
7 A. It's a general topic of discussion. I am
8 discussing it with Jerry. Jerry is discussing it with
9 others of -- I know he says he'S spoken to the people
10 at Battelle. That he'S spoken to their, you know,
11 chemists on staff there, with -- that's the only two
12 groups that I am certain that he'S discussed it with.
13 I know there are others, but I couldn't be more --
14 Q. Have you expressed a viewpoint in the course
15 of the discussions?
16 A. I wouldn't call it a viewpoint. I think that
17 what we are trying to do is ascertain the importance of
18 measuring mercury on particles, and mercury in filtered
19 samples, and again, given the constraint of time,
20 effort, costs, we are trying to define what are the
21 necessary components to be measured. What do we want
22 to measure?
23 A number of people discussing this aspect are
24 from other areas. They're not familiar with the
25 Everglades. So, they're saying, "Gee, you should
655
1 measure dissolved or you should measure particulate,"
2 based on some lake in Minnesota.
3 It doesn't pertain to the Everglades. We
4 need to define it for our situation, and we are in the
5 process of doing that.
6 Q. Other than time, effort and cost, in other
7 words, setting those aside, what are the competing
8 scientific considerations?
9 A. I don't believe there are. I would not
10 consider them competing scientific considerations. I
11 think the only constraint here is time, effort and
12 cost.
13 The opportunity for all -- we all would like
14 to go on, as scientists, and measure every possible
15 parameter, no matter how remotely related to our
16 hypothesis or our working parameter. We can't do that,
17 so we have to pare the list down somewhere.
18 I don't believe there are any sort of
19 competing scientific -- at least not in our
20 discussions, that has not been the reason. We would
21 like to measure all components. We will measure those
22 that we can do within the time constraints of
23 helicopter sampling and things like that.
24 Q. I notice that back on the list of parameters,
25 on the document that has fax page 006 at the top, there
656
1 is total nitrogen.
2 Is that still intended to be included?
3 A. We will, in all likelihood, measure total
4 nitrogen on soil and water samples.
5 Q. What is the purpose of that measurement?
6 A. In this case, it happens to be a measurement
7 that we can make very easily. The numbers come along
8 with other analyses that we're doing for carbon, or
9 that we're doing in our routine water analysis. So, it
10 just happens to be something that's included there.
11 Like I said, I was surprised that total
12 phosphorus wasn't on the list. It should have been
13 total phosphorus/total nitrogen, but I did not prepare
14 this document.
15 MR. SAMS: Your counsel has requested a short
16 break in order to confer with others. We will do
17 that at this time.
18 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
19 after which the following proceedings
20 were had:)
21 BY MR. SAMS:
22 Q. Dr. Jones, if suspended mercury and dissolved
23 mercury could have different bioavailabilities in the
24 Everglades, how would the research that we've been
25 discussing enable you to sort that out?
657
1 A. The research that's contained within this
2 document, or the --
3 Q. Within this document.
4 A. I believe I just answered and told you that
5 we are examining suspended versus dissolved mercury and
6 those aspects, because we want to know whether we're
7 going to have to analyze those to -- and that would be
8 in addition to the study.
9 If, indeed, it turned out that we had to know
10 all of the components, we would change that, because at
11 the moment, it is not included in this study design,
12 this particular study design.
13 Q. Is it included in another study design?
14 A. I told you what we -- since this is ongoing
15 work, and we are in fact doing that now, it's part of
16 that, the design of that study.
17 Q. What is the time frame of the study that we
18 are -- have been discussing this morning?
19 A. I've heard everywhere from six to ten years,
20 of which we're two years into the project now.
21 Approximately.
22 Q. Have any written reports of results been
23 generated from the first two years' effort?
24 A. I told you what reports have been done for
25 the abstracts. We are in the process of producing a
658
1 report, or I should say, the Environmental Protection
2 Agency is in the process of producing a report, of
3 which I will have some input to. And you have portions
4 of the data to be included in that report, and some of
5 the figures.
6 Q. Do your files include any draft of text for
7 any portion of the report?
8 A. No. Not as such.
9 Q. Do they include any graphical portrayals of
10 the data?
11 A. Yes, they do.
12 Q. Were those made available to us?
13 A. Yes, they were.
14 Q. Back when I discussed with you the areas in
15 which you had participated in discussions with the
16 authors of the report that was Exhibit No. 75, the
17 Stober and Hicks report, in which you are acknowledged
18 as a participant in the discussions, I believe you also
19 indicated that part of the discussion was the potential
20 sources of mercury in the Everglades.
21 Were you party to that discussion as well?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I think you enumerated some sources, which I
24 don't need to ask you to repeat.
25 Are you of the view that all of those sources
659
1 which you previously enumerated, are worthy of focus in
2 the ongoing studies?
3 A. Our ongoing studies, my laboratory, I can't
4 speak for all of EPA'S activities, are focusing on none
5 of those.
6 Q. Including -- when you say, "None of those,"
7 are you including agricultural land use practices?
8 A. My interest in mercury is in the process and
9 analytical end of the thing.
10 Some of the data generated in my laboratory,
11 because of where the samples are collected from, can be
12 used in a modeling effort, or could be used in a
13 modeling effort that has to do with sources in the
14 sinks of mercury.
15 Therefore, I may be at some time involved in
16 discussion of that particular issue. It is, however,
17 not the focus of myself or my group. In the context of
18 this study, I should add.
19 Q. What ideas did you contribute, if any, to the
20 discussion of potential sources, during the
21 discussions?
22 MS. PONZOLI: I think it's been asked and
23 answered.
24 A. The major contribution that I had towards the
25 source argument -- I shouldn't use the word "argument"
660
1 there. That, to me, means something different than it
2 does to you. To the source of the discussions, was
3 that it is my opinion that the naturally occurring
4 mercury in the sediment, in the soils of the Everglades
5 system, is the major source of mercury for cycling in
6 the system.
7 MR. SAMS: Would you read that answer back,
8 please?
9 (The answer referred to was thereupon
10 read by the reporter as above recorded.)
11 BY MR. SAMS:
12 Q. How do you define naturally occurring mercury
13 in the sediments or soils in the Everglades, versus
14 anthropogenic contributions?
15 MS. PONZOLI: Anthropogenic sources of
16 mercury?
17 MR. SAMS: Yes.
18 BY MR. SAMS:
19 Q. Can you follow any of that?
20 A. Yes, but you answered -- the distinction.
21 The distinction I'm making is between naturally
22 occurring allochtonous, if you want to start playing,
23 and anthropogenic mercury, and I was saying that the
24 mercury that's naturally occurring, is the major
25 source. There's more of that material that was
661
1 geologically deposited or is just there because of the
2 global deposition of mercury, than that that is coming
3 from anthropogenic or man caused sources here.
4 There is a global mercury problem everywhere
5 on the planet. Mercury is elevated in the atmosphere.
6 It's been going up, especially in the Northern
7 Hemisphere. So there has been an increased deposition
8 of mercury. But that's occurring in a fairly
9 ubiquitous, to go back to one of our favorite words,
10 manner.
11 So, when we talk about the Everglades
12 sources, when I spoke of power plants or cane burning
13 or those types of things, those are specific
14 anthropogenic sources for the Everglades.
15 Q. Does your answer mean that you consider the
16 major source of mercury in the Everglades, to be that
17 which was present before any influence by man?
18 A. Not necessarily.
19 Q. What is the exception that you would take
20 with that restatement?
21 A. Mercury is still being deposited. It's an
22 ongoing process. Mercury goes up into the atmosphere
23 and then comes down from the atmosphere and is
24 deposited.
25 So, as soil processes -- soil builds up in
662
1 the Everglades, these processes are still continuing.
2 So, therefore, it's not just the stuff that was there,
3 you know, since prior to, you know, January 1, 1994.
4 It's the stuff that also fell down there today and will
5 fall tomorrow.
6 Q. You would agree, I assume, in fact, I think
7 you said, that some of what falls today and will fall
8 tomorrow, comes from man-made sources. Is that
9 correct?
10 A. From man'S activities. You know, "man-made
11 source," makes it sounds like we're manufacturing
12 mercury. But, yes, there are definitely global
13 impacts.
14 Q. Is any of that falling within your definition
15 of "natural"?
16 A. It would not fall within my definition of
17 "natural mercury," but it would fall within any
18 definition of something that we can't do a whole lot
19 about. You know, we can't stop the mining of gold and
20 the use of mercury in that, in Brazil.
21 Q. Could you give me an idea of the scope of
22 man'S activities that you would place within the
23 category of things we can't do anything about?
24 MS. PONZOLI: I'm going to object to the
25 broad nature of this question. It's ranging far
663
1 beyond anything I brought this witness here to
2 answer.
3 MR. SAMS: It's within the context of this
4 discussion.
5 MS. PONZOLI: We've gone down the rabbit
6 trail and more some. I'm not instructing him not
7 to answer.
8 BY MR. SAMS:
9 Q. I need your definition.
10 MS. PONZOLI: The scope of man'S activities
11 that we can do nothing about?
12 MR. SAMS: That was his choice of a
13 construct, and I'm respecting that choice and now
14 I'm asking him to help me understand how he drew
15 that line.
16 A. I'm referring to, at that point, you know,
17 activities that we can't do anything about or much
18 about, are those things which are outside of the
19 control of -- particularly, I guess it would be the
20 United States. We can't go and dictate to another
21 country how they -- what they do to their environment,
22 although I believe we've tried it on a number of
23 occasions.
24 Those are the types of things. There's also
25 some types of, particularly with mercury and with
664
1 mining, tailings and waste that have occurred so long
2 ago, in other words, mining operations that occurred in
3 the 1800'S or whatever, and there are huge piles of
4 slag and waste products from these means, that exist.
5 Another thing we can't do, we can't control
6 volcanos, and natural events, that put mercury into the
7 atmosphere. Those types of general things are what I'm
8 referring to.
9 There are some things that are less
10 controllable than passing a law that says do not use
11 mercury batteries, or they have to be disposed of
12 properly, or dispose of green, if you will, fluorescent
13 lighting, those types of things.
14 I'm having trouble trying to figure out what --
15 MS. PONZOLI: You're not compelled to give
16 your philosophy of life. That's kind of my
17 objection.
18 I would like this line of inquiry to end.
19 BY MR. SAMS:
20 Q. I take it you would include within the
21 category of things we can do something about, some of
22 the other sources that you have mentioned, sugar cane
23 burning --
24 A. I said we had discussions as to -- those
25 things were included. I don't know that the source --
665
1 the strength of cane burning. I've seen some figures
2 that would seem to indicate that it's not a major
3 source of mercury into the atmosphere. I've seen some
4 other figures that seem to indicate that it's a
5 tremendous source of mercury into the atmosphere. But
6 these are items, as I indicated right at the onset of
7 this, are not aspects that I'm currently discussing, or
8 currently examining in the laboratory.
9 They were, however, subjects that we
10 discussed as things that needed to be included in any
11 complete study, which may mean that we include some
12 things that are insignificant to the problem.
13 Q. Have you given any thought to how you would
14 quantitatively define a background nutrient level that
15 would take into account this division between things we
16 can do something about and things we can't do something
17 about?
18 A. Referring specifically to phosphorus, here?
19 Q. No. I'm referring to mercury.
20 A. You said nutrient.
21 Q. I'm sorry.
22 A. You're going to have to -- under that
23 context, I've lost the question.
24 Q. For purposes of defining a mercury
25 background, have you given thought to how to
666
1 distinguish between things we can do something about,
2 which as I take it, would not be part of the natural
3 background in your view, and things we cannot do
4 something about, which I take it would be part of the
5 natural -- let me back up.
6 The things which we can't do something about,
7 which would be part of the natural background, and
8 things we can do something about, which would not be
9 part of the natural background?
10 MS. PONZOLI: I'm going to object to the form
11 of the question.
12 I'm not even sure what a mercury background
13 means. So, if Dr. Jones can answer it, he'S
14 certainly welcome to.
15 A. I will just state again, that this is not an
16 area of active research. There are others in the State
17 of Florida.
18 I'm aware of a report by KBN, I believe it's
19 the KBN report, outlining the various sources of
20 mercury in the State of Florida, placing some numbers
21 and some constraints on them, making a fairly detailed
22 discussion of each one of those, and its potential role
23 in the cycle, or in the mercury background, including
24 things that we can easily control, things that we can't
25 easily control, things that we cannot control, and I
667
1 would refer you to that document to answer your
2 question.
3 Q. As part of your work, do you intend to
4 attempt to identify a natural background concentration
5 of mercury in the Everglades?
6 A. It may -- as I indicated before, the work
7 that we are performing in our laboratory, the numbers
8 that we are generating from the analysis of the
9 samples, may aid in that type of a determination. It
10 is not the principal goal of my laboratory at the
11 moment. We are concerning ourselves predominantly with
12 the analytical and processes involved in the cycles of
13 mercury in Florida.
14 Q. From a scientific standpoint, was mercury
15 being cycled in the Everglades before human influence?
16 A. Certainly.
17 Q. In general, can you describe for me the
18 mechanisms by which that was occurring?
19 A. The mechanisms would be the same mechanisms
20 that are occurring now.
21 What we have hypothesized, is that the rate
22 at which these various processes or mechanisms has
23 changed.
24 Q. Would man-induced drying and flooding of the
25 Everglades effect mercury cycling, that is the rate of
668
1 mercury cycling?
2 A. It's possible.
3 Q. Do you have a view of whether it's likely or
4 not?
5 A. I am fairly certain that it would be likely.
6 It would be the magnitude of that effect. Again,
7 everything is -- the cycles are taking place. It's
8 just the rate at which they are occurring.
9 Q. Are you aware of any studies ongoing to
10 determine the magnitude of that effect?
11 A. It is one of the goals of the particular
12 research that we are conducting. When we get to that,
13 if we get to that, depends upon the availability of
14 funding, and again, the priorities placed on the
15 project.
16 Q. At this time, it has not been authorized or
17 funded. Is that correct?
18 A. At this time, we have a lot of freedom as to
19 what has been authorized or funded. So, I would
20 hesitate to say that it has not been funded or
21 authorized, because if I were to say that that was my
22 top priority, it could be work that would be conducted
23 immediately.
24 It is not my top priority, and therefore, it
25 is not taking place at the moment. We do have
669
1 intentions to do it at some time in the future.
2 Q. Why is it not your top priority?
3 A. My priority at the moment, as I've indicated
4 on numerous occasions, is to look at the effects of
5 eutrophication on the cycle of mercury, the phosphorus
6 impacts, and so that is my top priority, and also, we
7 are working on analytical methodologies, trying to
8 continually improve those. So, those are the two
9 current priorities in my laboratory.
10 Q. Why is the effect of eutrophication of a
11 higher priority than looking at hydrology and its
12 impact?
13 MS. PONZOLI: Mr. Sams, you are
14 cross-examining him on ongoing research in an area
15 of the case that you are presenting, not we, and I
16 think this is a wholly improper line of
17 questioning. I see no point in it.
18 I also think that at some point, it's
19 harassment. You know, I don't know how long I'll
20 let this go on, but at some point I'm going to
21 move for a protective order to stop this, until
22 you say why you have to cross-examine a researcher
23 in an area that we are not presenting in this
24 case, on why he chooses to prioritize one piece of
25 research over another piece of research. I think
670
1 it's harassment.
2 MR. SAMS: You will have to make that
3 decision at the time you make it.
4 MS. PONZOLI: I certainly will, but I think
5 you are going to continue to hear that you are in
6 a wholly inappropriate line of questioning, and
7 that you are abusing the process, quite honestly.
8 MR. SAMS: I have little doubt that I will
9 hear that continuously.
10 BY MR. SAMS:
11 Q. Until your counsel stops you, I would
12 appreciate your answer.
13 A. The --
14 MS. PONZOLI: To the extent that you feel
15 comfortable explaining your research, Dr. Jones --
16 MR. SAMS: I'm sorry. This is instructing
17 the witness.
18 MS. PONZOLI: I will instruct the witness, I
19 will, and I will move for protective order, Mr.
20 Sams, if you do not show some consideration for
21 the inappropriate line of inquiry that is
22 continuing to go on day after day.
23 We are into the second day of Dr. Jones'
24 research, without any showing by your client or
25 your side, as to why we are spending two days on
671
1 his ongoing research.
2 Dr. Jones, you are not compelled to answer
3 all questions regarding your research.
4 You are here to give your opinions that the
5 United States will offer at trial. I will allow
6 you to give factual answers as to what you are
7 doing, but you are not compelled to give opinions
8 on ongoing research. That is not part of what the
9 United States is offering you for at this time.
10 You may read back the question that is
11 pending from Mr. Sams.
12 (The question referred to was thereupon
13 read by the reporter as above recorded.)
14 A. Given that the cycles -- the organisms that
15 transform mercury, bacteria, the parameter that would
16 have the greatest effect would be that parameter which
17 is limiting their activity. It is my opinion that that
18 parameter in the Everglades system, is the availability
19 of phosphorus, and not the availability of water.
20 Therefore, we have chosen to, or I have chosen, to
21 examine the phosphorus hypothesis first.
22 Q. Dr. Jones, what is the basis for your
23 scientific opinion that it is phosphorus, not water,
24 that effects mercury cycling in the Everglades?
25 MS. PONZOLI: Did you say that was your
672
1 scientific opinion, Dr. Jones?
2 I apologize that I didn't follow your answer
3 closely enough.
4 A. The question -- I was going to have to change
5 your question.
6 MS. PONZOLI: You cannot change his question.
7 You only answer his question.
8 THE WITNESS: Restate it.
9 MS. PONZOLI: You're not restating his
10 question. I wanted to know if you said it was
11 your scientific opinion, because I didn't recall
12 you had said that. Did you say that?
13 THE WITNESS: Not in the context of the
14 question that's pending.
15 MS. PONZOLI: Then, it can't be answered.
16 Your question is improper. It assumes something
17 he never said.
18 MR. SAMS: Could you read back the witness'
19 last response, please?
20 MS. PONZOLI: Why don't you read the question
21 with it?
22 (The portion of the record referred to
23 was thereupon read by the reporter as
24 above recorded.)
25 BY MR. SAMS:
673
1 Q. What is the basis for the opinion that you
2 expressed in that response, Dr. Jones?
3 A. Microorganisms, hydrology, or water
4 availability to a bacteria, is considerably different
5 than that necessary for fish. A bacteria coated with a
6 micron or two of water, has got all the water it needs.
7 It may or may not have all of the nutrients it needs.
8 And under this circumstance, water would not be
9 limiting. What is limiting would be phosphorus, and
10 therefore, phosphorus would be the parameter of most
11 interest.
12 Q. Is there any other basis for the opinion that
13 you expressed in the response that the court reporter
14 read back?
15 A. That is my reason.
16 Q. Looked at on an Everglades system basis,
17 could the effect of man induced drying and flooding, be
18 as great as the effect of nutrients in causing the
19 cycling of mercury?
20 MS. PONZOLI: I have my continuing objection.
21 A. Drying, man induced drying and flooding, also
22 effects the release and availability of phosphorus and,
23 my opinion is that because of that, and then separating
24 out the effects of nutrients or phosphorus, by drying
25 and flooding, that, therefore, the drying would not
674
1 have as significant an effect as the nutrients or
2 phosphorus.
3 THE WITNESS: Could we take a break?
4 MR. SAMS: Sure.
5 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
6 after which the following proceedings
7 were had:)
8 BY MR. SAMS:
9 Q. Dr. Jones, would you agree that flooding,
10 even in the absence of phosphorus in the Everglades
11 soils, could lead toward anaerobic conditions?
12 A. I've indicated in previous testimony, during
13 these proceedings, that flooding, alone, in the native
14 Everglades soils, does not lead to anaerobic conditions
15 of that soil, in and of itself.
16 Q. So, it is your view that flooding in the
17 absence of phosphorus, cannot lead to anaerobic
18 conditions. Is that the gist of your response? In the
19 Everglades soils.
20 MS. PONZOLI: You've restated his answer in a
21 different way.
22 A. Yes. Anaerobic conditions -- the data that
23 was questioned on yesterday, I believe, dealing with
24 oxygen and redox, we've probably well gone into the
25 answers of how phosphorus affects that, and what the
675
1 native or pristine Everglades conditions are like.
2 Just flooding, in and of itself, is not a
3 factor in redox or oxygen in the soils.
4 Q. Would your last response be the same
5 regardless of the depth or duration of flooding?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Does redox vary naturally with the season, in
8 the Everglades?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Is that one of the things that your ongoing
11 research effort would show, or determine?
12 A. One of the parameters being measured is EH,
13 if you will, which is a measurement or an estimation of
14 redox.
15 Given that the samplings occur in a seasonal
16 manner, at various times during the year, then that
17 will be a parameter that will be elucidated.
18 Q. Does soil redox potential in the Everglades,
19 vary diurnally?
20 A. It could.
21 Q. Is that one of the things that your study
22 will examine?
23 A. This particular study will not.
24 Q. Will another study examine that, if you are
25 aware of one?
676
1 A. It is our intent to make those measurements
2 in the context of another study.
3 Q. What is the other study?
4 A. The phosphorus impact, or what we are
5 referring to as the Class III dosing study.
6 MR. SAMS: I would like to show you another
7 document, which we will mark as Exhibit No. 77.
8 (The document referred to was thereupon
9 marked Jones Exhibit 77 for Identification.)
10 BY MR. SAMS:
11 Q. Could you identify for me, Dr. Jones, what
12 document or documents comprise Exhibit No. 77?
13 A. I believe these are the results of the
14 analysis for mercury of the water and soil samples
15 collected on the United States entry into the EAA for
16 sampling.
17 Q. When were they collected, Dr. Jones?
18 A. I believe that the date is indicated on the
19 first two -- three pages of the document, which are the
20 compilation of the field notes, or the station
21 location.
22 Q. Could you identify for me, by column, the
23 information that is in the columns that are contained
24 on those first two pages?
25 A. Yes. The first column consisting of an
677
1 integer that's circled, would be the site number, if
2 you will.
3 The second set of three numbers -- as an
4 example, I believe the first one reads 44-34-11, and
5 you will have to forgive me, but I believe that that's
6 range -- it's township, range, section. Something like
7 that, you know. Without the map, I can't figure that
8 out, but that's what that is.
9 The next series of numbers with a -- with two
10 degree designations on them -- for example, the first
11 one reads, the line with the one, reads, 26 degrees,
12 40.8716, and then there's a slash 80 degrees, 54.6017.
13 Those would be the GPS coordinates, latitude and
14 longitude.
15 The next column contains the designation,
16 "UT," which refers to universal time.
17 Then the last column, again, with three
18 numbers separated by colon, example, 15:04:13, is
19 indeed the universal time.
20 Q. And the final column is the date of the
21 sampling?
22 A. Yes. I'm sorry, yes. 23 March 1993, which
23 is at the head of that, would be the date that the
24 samples one through six were collected -- one through
25 seven were collected, and 24 March, 1993, would be
678
1 eight through the next.
2 Q. Have you mapped these locations?
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. Was that map provided to us?
5 A. I saw a big color copy of it sitting over in
6 the corner before. I don't know that it's still --
7 that it still exists.
8 Q. Is the map which I'm showing you in a
9 laminated form, that map?
10 A. Yes. Could I get a copy, laminated? It's
11 much nicer than my version.
12 MS. PONZOLI: You should have something for
13 four days of this.
14 MR. SAMS: Perhaps we can inquire whether the
15 court reporter has a laminating process.
16 BY MR. SAMS:
17 Q. Dr. Jones, I note that this map appears to be
18 in two portions, an upper and a lower.
19 Can you tell me how one would read these data
20 against either the upper or the lower map?
21 A. I'm going to stand up.
22 Q. Is there somewhere we can put this that's
23 more -- that's fine.
24 A. I definitely want this framed.
25 Yes. On the lower map, each one -- there are
679
1 sections that are colored, and then there's, again, an
2 integer in a circle, and that would correspond with the
3 integer in a circle.
4 For instance, in this section here, there's a
5 one. That would mean that this is indeed the same one
6 that is here.
7 Q. Would the record correctly reflect that that
8 example happens to be the uppermost colored square and
9 circled integer?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. So, the circled integers that you are
12 speaking of, are those appearing in green?
13 A. It would appear that they're in green
14 throughout the map.
15 Now, again, this was created at one time. I
16 was taken out to these locations by the Co-op --
17 MS. PONZOLI: Owner representatives.
18 A. Owner representatives, and they represented
19 to me that we were, indeed, at the particular section
20 under indication.
21 I recorded the GPS figures on there, given
22 that we were to place this on a GIS system, and it
23 would tell me that indeed I was not at that section.
24 Then, the coordinates here would hold, rather than the
25 representation I was given by the parties taking me.
680
1 MR. SAMS: I'm going to have the court
2 reporter mark this as Exhibit No. 78, just so it
3 can be identified to the record.
4 THE REPORTER: Are you keeping custody of
5 that?
6 MR. SAMS: I need to confer with one of my
7 colleagues, who fortunately is in the next room
8 today, in order to determine. We may have the
9 basic map from which this was reproduced, and I
10 was going to discuss with other counsel, I might
11 as well do it now, if that's true, whether we --
12 whether it would be the consensus that we take
13 this map or just simply provide additional
14 reproductions, which can always be checked against
15 the original to make sure that they're what's
16 here. We simply were unable given the short time,
17 to laminate more than one copy. I have no problem
18 with furnishing multiple laminated copies,
19 especially for Dr. Jones' wall, but I just would
20 like to find some way that's mutually agreeable,
21 to do this.
22 MS. PONZOLI: I don't want to make it overly
23 difficult for you, but it is my preference that
24 exhibits be attached to the deposition, and not
25 floating separately. Just because of the volume
681
1 of the documents in this case means that when we
2 go back with the deposition, we have to begin to
3 locate what was the appropriate map.
4 There are color reproductions of this in all
5 of our possession, and I guess I would suggest
6 that if you have one, or can provide one, that
7 that be attached, and that the court reporter
8 duplicate that for all of us, when he returns the
9 depositions.
10 MR. SAMS: I don't have that with me, but I
11 believe you furnished it to us. I have no
12 objection to furnishing it back to you, or to
13 sending you the copies, which you can verify are
14 true copies, and then you sending them on to the
15 court reporter. I can't offer him the paper
16 version today, is what I am saying.
17 MS. PONZOLI: I would prefer you offer it to
18 the court reporter, and that paperwork be handled
19 between you and the court reporter, since you are
20 taking the deposition. I don't want to take that
21 responsibility.
22 MR. SAMS: Fine. I would like the laminated
23 version marked Exhibit 78, if I could.
24 (The document referred to was thereupon
25 marked Jones Exhibit 78 for Identification.)
682
1 MS. PONZOLI: Off the record.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 BY MR. SAMS:
4 Q. I still need to ask you a few more questions
5 to orient myself to Exhibit No. 78.
6 What does the upper map portray? I believe
7 our discussion about the numbers in green circles
8 applies to the lower map. There appear to be some
9 difference of the squares and an absence of circled
10 numbers on the upper map.
11 Can you tell me what the difference is?
12 A. Yes, I can.
13 Q. What is that?
14 A. These are two separate maps. They're
15 together, because I use them in that manner. The top
16 map has a code here, indicating the ownership of the
17 properties, and the bottom map was the map that I used
18 in the field to determine which sites we would go to on
19 what date, and those are circled in pink, and then
20 there's a large number 15, 16, 23, 30, 31, for
21 instance, that indicates -- that indicates, I believe,
22 the date that I wanted to go sampling.
23 I believe the -- there were a number of
24 different things that either delayed or whatever, so I
25 can't -- for instance, I think our first date in was
683
1 the twenty-third, and so, even though our -- our first
2 date was the twenty-third, it would appear from the
3 number one being in here, that we actually visited
4 that, instead of on the sixteenth, that we visited it
5 on the twenty-third of March.
6 I don't know whether they're referring to the
7 sixteenth of March or the sixteenth of February, but,
8 you know, that was my intention, I believe, at the time
9 I wrote this out, to just indicate what number of days
10 we would need for access and where we would go.
11 Q. So, by reference to the first two pages of
12 data that you have given us, utilizing the numbers in
13 the first column, the site numbers, we can identify
14 those sites on the map and then rely on the --
15 necessarily, rely on the dates shown on the map, but
16 rather rely definitively on the dates shown in the last
17 column?
18 A. That is correct. These were an approximation
19 of how we were going to try and accomplish the work.
20 Q. Does the upper map indicate any discrete
21 data, other than ownership of the parcels at which the
22 samples were taken?
23 A. I do not believe so, and to the extent that
24 this upper map is -- the lower map is indeed where we
25 collected samples. The upper map was used to -- also
684
1 in some of the negotiations of allowing entry and
2 access. So, there's a significant amount of time
3 between the production of this and this particular --
4 the top map and the bottom map. So, I can't guarantee
5 that all of the little squares are the exact same
6 sections. It would appear to be that, but --
7 Q. But it might differ?
8 A. It might differ. The bottom map is the map
9 that's associated with the sampling.
10 Q. Very good. Was the selection of sampling
11 sites, one which you made?
12 A. I participated in the selection of sampling
13 locations.
14 Q. With whom did you participate?
15 A. Attorneys from, I think, probably almost all
16 parties.
17 MS. PONZOLI: Mr. Sams, you were not part of
18 that process. There were a protracted number of
19 hearings, where there was enormous resistance from
20 all sections of the industry to any entry, and
21 these are -- these merely reflect semi-willing
22 owners of property to allow us on their property
23 within certain bands.
24 They have little more significance than that.
25 It was a very difficult entry, and there were very
685
1 few people who were willing to let us come on
2 their property.
3 I think, if you review the DOAH hearing
4 records, which I know you were not part of, but
5 certainly your client was, this was most
6 difficult, and we had a great deal of difficulty
7 in obtaining any sites to obtain entry.
8 MR. SAMS: I'm sure those records will speak
9 for themselves.
10 MS. PONZOLI: They certainly do.
11 MR. HYDE: There was a more difficult entry
12 made to try to get access to publicly owned land.
13 MS. PONZOLI: But you were allowed to go
14 where you wished to go. We were not. We were
15 only allowed to go where certain owners would
16 allow us to.
17 MR. SAMS: This is hardly a trial of that
18 issue. As to all those matters, the record speaks
19 for itself. I wasn't intending to ask Dr.
20 Jones --
21 MS. PONZOLI: Open old wounds.
22 MR. SAMS: I can't do much about wounds, but
23 I wasn't intending to ask Dr. Jones about the
24 legal proceedings, in any event.
25 BY MR. SAMS:
686
1 Q. Dr. Jones, what I am interested in is whether
2 any principles of scientific interest are reflected, in
3 your viewpoint, or from your viewpoint, in the array of
4 sites chosen and their relative locations? And by
5 that, since the word "chosen" seems to open volumes, I
6 would just point out, what I mean is those ultimately
7 resulting.
8 A. Yes, there is some scientific reasoning
9 behind the particular locations reflected here.
10 Q. Could you describe that reasoning, please,
11 sir?
12 A. There are varying depths of soil throughout
13 the Everglades Agricultural Area, varying land use
14 histories, if you will.
15 The attempt was made to encompass as many of
16 those as possible with the caveat on there that often a
17 sample site was not available for sampling due to
18 the -- due to the lack of, I believe, willingness by
19 the owner or some other legal issue, which you
20 indicated I don't have to speak to.
21 Q. Any other factors besides depths of soil and
22 land use histories that influenced the array of
23 locations?
24 A. Trying to encompass as large of a geographic
25 area as possible.
687
1 Q. Any others?
2 A. Soil types.
3 Q. Any others?
4 A. It was of interest to -- particularly for
5 phosphorus -- to sample the mill locations.
6 Q. Are some of those represented on the map?
7 A. Yes, they are.
8 Q. Are they distinguished from field locations
9 by any indicator?
10 A. The map contains a -- I will use as an
11 example, it says Atlantic Sugar Association,
12 Incorporated, and then there's a little icon that looks
13 like a glob here. It looks like a sugar mill on the
14 original.
15 Q. Would a pyramid-like shape perhaps be a fair
16 layman'S --
17 A. Yes, a pyramid with a smoke stack on it.
18 Q. Very good.
19 While I'm on that same general subject, are
20 there any other symbols reflecting discrete types of
21 situations?
22 A. I don't believe there are. I think there are
23 just numbers in the rest of the squares.
24 Q. Just to satisfy what may be curiosity, alone,
25 I see two, which appear to be sections, bisected at an
688
1 angle, that have little triangles instead of little
2 squares. I'm assuming that the triangles represent
3 nothing more than parcels, shape, in some fashion. Is
4 that correct?
5 A. I drew in that portion of the section to make
6 it more clear.
7 Q. The list of factors you gave me of had
8 several topics. Are there any others that -- any other
9 criteria for selection of this array of sites that you
10 employed, or that were employed?
11 A. The original set of criteria were somewhat
12 tempered by the availability of dates that we could
13 make access, and those types of things.
14 So, I would have to say what you have there
15 is a complete list of criteria that were finally used.
16 Q. For what reason did dates for access become a
17 factor?
18 A. If you were to review the documents produced
19 by the United States for entry and access, there were a
20 number of things that were lands under, say, different
21 activities. Due to the limited time frame involved,
22 allowed for our access, we were not able to have
23 certain of those activities.
24 There are certain agricultural practices that
25 take place during the summer, that are seasonal, and if
689
1 we had intended to examine those, under the relatively
2 short time frame there, not all of those activities
3 were taking place. So, that was dropped as a criteria.
4 Q. What types of activities are you referring
5 to?
6 A. Active growth of, you know, cane, or pumping
7 of water on and off the fields. Harvesting of cane.
8 Vegetable production. At different stages, the
9 agricultural practices associated with the area.
10 Q. Were any hydrologic considerations taken into
11 account in defining this array of sites?
12 A. They were taken into consideration and,
13 again, it was an item that became very difficult to
14 control because of the industry'S hesitance to allow us
15 to enter onto certain portions, certain pieces of
16 property.
17 Q. To the extent that they were taken into
18 account, treating that hesitance as a given, how are
19 they reflected within this array of sites?
20 A. For the most part, the array of sites does
21 not indicate that there. There are, though, some
22 exceptions to that, in that several of the sites were
23 chosen because of their location adjacent to canals in
24 the EAA.
25 Q. Is there a way by which one can identify that
690
1 in examining the map?
2 A. Yes. You might want to get a cleaner version
3 of that, because you can't see this whole thing, but I
4 believe -- I believe --
5 Q. I see canal names.
6 A. Yes. There's a canal here, and I believe
7 it's the -- I would want to say North New River, but --
8 Miami Canal, at this point, perhaps.
9 Anyway, there are several locations that were
10 adjacent to that canal, and if you were to go through
11 the area and see, that would be how you would identify
12 the parcels located adjacent to canals.
13 Q. Why were those sites chosen for locations
14 adjacent to canals?
15 A. It was hoped that the entry would occur at a
16 time when the agricultural activities would have
17 involved either pumping water on or off of fields.
18 Q. You say that it was hoped that that would be
19 the case. Was it the case?
20 A. It was not.
21 Q. Is that uniformly true?
22 A. Although I observed some parcels -- some
23 water being moved in the EAA during the time of our
24 access, it was not on any -- there was no water being
25 pumped on or off of any of the parcels that we
691
1 examined, to the best of my knowledge.
2 There, I'm relying upon the honesty of the
3 people who took us to these various locations, because
4 that was the question they were asked upon entry of the
5 property.
6 Q. And their response was that water is not
7 being pumped on or off?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Do you have any reason, based on what you
10 observed, to believe that was a misrepresentation?
11 A. No. In fact, I'm -- we did want to collect
12 water samples. So, it was important that we -- we had
13 locations where there was water in both the field
14 ditches, the laterals, and I also wanted to collect
15 tissue samples. So, it was important from that aspect,
16 also. And the one area of good cooperation was in the
17 employees taking me to the appropriate location. So, I
18 feel that they were not deceiving me in any way.
19 Q. Why did you desire to obtain data when water
20 was being pumped on or off the fields?
21 A. Although this represents a relatively broad
22 area that's covered, it would have been very nice if we
23 could have got an indication of how much material was
24 coming off of fields, and how much material was going
25 onto fields.
692
1 Under the ideal situation, every location
2 would have had water going on it someplace, and coming
3 off it at another place, or we would have been able to
4 sample multiple occasions.
5 Q. Were there any other hydrologic aspects,
6 besides, I guess, the two you have mentioned? They may
7 be one and the same, adjacency to canals, and the
8 desire to obtain data while water was being pumped on
9 or off the fields. Any other hydrological factors in
10 the choice of locations?
11 A. Not in the choice of locations.
12 Q. If I could refer you back to the data now
13 that's been marked Exhibit No. 77, I'd like to walk
14 through that, just so I have the best understanding I
15 can get of what is shown there.
16 On the first page, I see a reference to --
17 two references, I guess, to fish.
18 Can you tell me what those references are?
19 A. The first one, it says "Fish from main.
20 Other samples, field," I believe, or -- I --
21 Q. That may be a fair interpretation.
22 A. Not all of these notes were written by
23 myself. I had two different people accompanying me, so
24 I -- I'm reading.
25 That would indicate that the fish sample was
693
1 taken from the main canal, and the other sample was
2 taken from the field lateral or ditch, and I -- if I
3 had the original notes, I might be able to make that
4 out, but I can't -- I can't tell from this copy.
5 Q. Unfortunately, this is the best copy we have.
6 Are you looking at the word in parentheses?
7 A. Yes, I am.
8 Q. You are unable to identify what that means?
9 A. Yes, I am.
10 Q. The same general sense of the next reference
11 to fish, about half a dozen lines down?
12 A. Yes. Generally speaking, some of these field
13 ditches, even though they had water in them, were so
14 anoxic, that it was impossible to collect anything --
15 living fish in them. It was an experience.
16 Q. There's only one reference that I spot on the
17 second page referencing fish. It's after item, or
18 site, 32.
19 Would that have been a point at which a fish
20 was collected, as well?
21 A. When we refer to "fish" here, I should point
22 out to you that we also had -- we had -- this is
23 basically referring to animals. We collected fish,
24 crayfish, the little fresh water shrimp, Palmonetes.
25 Whatever was available, we took whatever
694
1 number of individuals was allowed under the order
2 granting entry and access. So, the designation,
3 "Fish," does not necessarily mean fish only, and it
4 also means there were a number of species.
5 Q. Aquatic critters?
6 A. Aquatic critters, yes.
7 Q. Were those aquatic critters ultimately
8 analyzed for data?
9 A. Some of them were. Not all of them.
10 Q. Are the data which reflects their analysis,
11 found in other pages of this document?
12 A. I believe so.
13 Q. Could you try to direct me to those pages?
14 A. Okay. The summary of the results of the
15 soils and sediments are -- there's a fax page number,
16 it says P.06. I believe it's the fourth page of the
17 document. It starts there and continues on to --
18 continues through page 8 of the fax number on top.
19 Q. Those are soils and sediment samples?
20 A. It says nanograms per gram, so I'm assuming
21 those would be soils and sediments, yes. And then
22 there's a designation indicating which page the actual
23 sample analyses are on.
24 Q. Are those, then, designations referring to
25 subsequent pages of this document?
695
1 A. Yes. And unfortunately -- well, maybe -- I
2 believe that that would refer to the handwritten number
3 in the upper right hand corner of the page.
4 Q. You're talking about pages that would be best
5 read if turned sideways?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. Do those start with -- it appears they may be
8 out of order.
9 A. That was my ascertation, also.
10 Q. Although they appear in my copy to be the
11 order in which we received them.
12 I thought I saw two page ones. No, I think
13 I'm seeing a seven and confusing it with a one.
14 A. To make it easier, there are -- the first
15 seven pages, hand-numbered, are the analysis of the
16 water samples for total mercury.
17 Q. Those would correspond with fax pages 9
18 through 15?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. So, those are water samples?
21 A. Then the fax pages starting with 16, and --
22 MS. PONZOLI: 9 through 15 are water?
23 THE WITNESS: 9 through 15 are water. And
24 16 -- it would appear that the remainder would be
25 the sediment and soils.
696
1 BY MR. SAMS:
2 Q. Dr. Jones, I think maybe just for purposes of
3 clarifying the record, we can note that the fax was
4 submitted in two installments, and you're talking about
5 the remainder of the first installment and all of the
6 second installment, which would be pages 16 of the --
7 fax pages 16 through 28 of the first installment, and
8 then fax pages 2 through 8 of the second installment.
9 Does that appear to you, to be a correct summation?
10 A. That appears to be correct.
11 MS. PONZOLI: Those are all soils and
12 sediments?
13 THE WITNESS: Soils and sediments.
14 BY MR. SAMS:
15 Q. Is there any particular reason that you would
16 have kept the pages in this order, in your file?
17 A. I'm -- in the order that they're occurring?
18 You mean --
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. You mean one through seven and one through
21 twenty?
22 Q. I'm referring to the one through seven, and
23 then one, nine, three, four, five.
24 A. No, that's a two. They're in the appropriate
25 order.
697
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. They are in the one -- they're one through
3 twenty, and they were in the appropriate order, with
4 the exception of a fax cover sheet stuck in the midst.
5 Q. Fine. Why don't we, having identified the
6 document by parts, go back, if you would, to page 6,
7 fax page 6? For the record, since this has been an
8 extended discussion, I note that we are still in
9 Exhibit No. 77.
10 You have there a series of four columns. The
11 sample ID number is what?
12 A. There are in that column, designations that
13 would be E, S and G, and then followed by, say, for
14 instance, the first thing says E-1.
15 That would indicate sediment, meaning that it
16 came from the field ditch, and one would indicate the
17 sample location.
18 Q. So, "E" is sediment?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And "1" is location?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Would that match the numbers in green that
23 appeared on the bottom portion of the map which is
24 Exhibit 78?
25 A. To the best of my knowledge. What I know
698
1 they certainly match is the circled integer on page 1
2 of Jones 77.
3 Q. And the intention of that, at least, was to
4 match the numbers appearing on the lower half of the
5 map?
6 A. As so indicated.
7 Q. Then S stands for?
8 A. Soil.
9 Q. And again, it's followed by the location.
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Then G?
12 A. G represented the -- the S samples were
13 collected using core devices, and the G samples were
14 collected as grab samples, as previously described in
15 my deposition.
16 Q. So, G, again, is a soil grab sample. Is that
17 correct?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. Rather than sediment.
20 A. Correct. The sediments were collected --
21 every place you see an E, that means it was collected
22 from an aquatic location, either a field ditch or a
23 lateral or whatever was associated with that particular
24 location, and the S and G, represent samples, composite
25 samples collected in the fields themselves.
699
1 Q. Then the next column --
2 A. Is the average concentration of total mercury
3 in nanograms per gram.
4 Q. Was that as measured in your laboratory?
5 A. These are the results from our laboratory.
6 Q. What is that number reflecting an average of?
7 A. You would have to go to the pages of data,
8 and you would find that there are the replicate
9 analyses, I believe.
10 Q. Could you direct me to that page, so I can --
11 A. Well, it says on E-1, so it would indicate
12 that's on pages 1 and 2. So, if you were to go and
13 find the samples that are labeled E, at the bottom of
14 page -- of the handwritten page 1, in the top
15 right-hand corner, it would be page 16 of the fax, the
16 bottom there is an E-1 -- E-1-1, and followed by
17 another E-1-1, and if you proceed to the top of the
18 next page, it would say E-1-2, E-1-2, E-1-3, E-1-3. It
19 would be an average of all of those numbers, which
20 represent the triplicate sample collected, the three
21 replicates.
22 Q. Were split samples provided to anyone?
23 A. John Davis took water samples. I do not
24 believe anyone collected any soil samples, but I --
25 Q. That's to the best of your knowledge?
700
1 A. That's to the best of my knowledge.
2 Nobody -- we had gone in with the intention of
3 providing splits, and to the best of my knowledge, they
4 were never requested.
5 Q. Did you subsequently split the samples that
6 you took for any purpose?
7 A. Other than analysis in the laboratory --
8 Q. Your laboratory?
9 A. Yes. Not with a third party or second party.
10 Q. And the standard deviation is calculated
11 within your laboratory?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is there a similar summary table for the
14 water samples?
15 A. No, there is not.
16 Q. Is that something you intend to prepare?
17 A. The water samples, I believe, are already
18 summarized in that fashion on the data sheets. So, it
19 has not been pulled out by individual.
20 I have no intention at the moment of
21 producing another table, but for my own ability to
22 interpret these numbers, I may do that at some time.
23 Q. If we could focus for a moment on the water
24 samples, and I will just look, for convenience, at page
25 09 of the fax.
701
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. The first two columns are the actual date the
3 sample was collected, followed by the actual date on
4 which it was analyzed in your lab?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What is the sample ID column? Is that --
7 does that correspond with the location shown on the map
8 in Exhibit 78?
9 A. Yes, it does, or in, more accurately, the
10 numbers on the first page of Jones 77. I'm sorry.
11 Q. That's fine. Is the next column, again,
12 total mercury, in parts per thousand?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Followed --
15 A. I'm sorry. You said parts per thousand.
16 Q. Parts per trillion. I'm sure I misspoke.
17 A. I'm used to seeing PPT, meaning parts per
18 thousand, too. But in this case, it means parts per
19 trillion.
20 Q. And the next two columns are the -- are
21 averages and standard deviations.
22 Help me for a moment. I see, for example,
23 site one, for example, several -- well, multiple means
24 and standard deviations.
25 Can you explain how that was arrived at?
702
1 A. Yes. The number reported in the column
2 labeled "Hg PPT," that is a number that is generated
3 from between 3 and 5 individual analyses on the -- the
4 machine, okay?
5 The sample volume -- I'm sorry if I go a
6 little too much into it, but I don't see any other way
7 to do it.
8 Q. Educate me.
9 A. We place a sample, a 125 milliliter sample,
10 in the machine. The needle goes in a programmable
11 number of times and makes anywhere between one and 20.
12 We can program the machine to make that many analyses
13 on that individual sample.
14 I cannot tell you whether we were using three
15 or whether we were using five individual analyses of
16 this 125 milliliter sample. I believe it, to the best
17 of my recollection, to be five.
18 Therefore, that number is, in itself, an
19 average, a mean of those five replicates. That's
20 how -- the machine just automatically averages them and
21 gives you that number.
22 The second number in the column then, is the
23 result of the second split of that sample, analyzed
24 again, three to five times. The standard deviation is
25 then calculated. In this case it really should be --
703
1 it gives the impression that it's a standard deviation
2 calculated off of two numbers, which I'm not certain
3 that's even possible. What it really is, is the
4 standard deviation of, in this case, ten -- the ten
5 individual analyses, and this would just be the number
6 given to us by the software program on the mercury
7 analyzer.
8 Q. Now we get into a real need for help here.
9 Take the first two rows. I'm not sure I'm
10 correctly reading them, but it appears that one is
11 0.651, the first row. The second one is 0.3009.
12 Each of those, to the best of your
13 recollection, is the result of five stabs of the
14 needle?
15 A. Three to five, and five to my best
16 recollection, yes. I believe we were using five at
17 this time.
18 Q. So --
19 A. I'm sorry. I just wanted to check to make
20 sure we're correct so far.
21 Q. Fine. So, the mean, if it were five stabs of
22 the needle, each, the mean would be -- would represent
23 ten stabs of the needle, the first row and the second
24 each representing five of those?
25 A. Into two different -- into a --
704
1 Q. A split?
2 A. A sample comes to the laboratory in a bottle.
3 It is split for analysis. Each one of those splits is
4 analyzed five times. That result is reported in the
5 column where the .0 -- 0.651 and the 0.3009, you're
6 correct, and so, yes, the next column represents ten.
7 Q. So, the mean is a mean calculated from the
8 ten? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm
9 just trying to gain an understanding here.
10 A. And my answer to you would be, not trying to
11 confuse you, but the answer to that is no.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Because the mean is the mean of -- it's the
14 average of 0.651 plus 0.3009, divided by two. Okay?
15 Q. Okay. Fine.
16 MS. PONZOLI: Of two numbers, not ten.
17 MR. SAMS: I understand.
18 BY MR. SAMS:
19 Q. So, it's the mean of the two numbers, just
20 before it, and then the standard deviation.
21 A. This is where it gets fun, because the
22 standard deviation is of the ten pokes of the needle.
23 Actually, the standard deviation under this
24 case, is the standard deviation of the first five pokes
25 of the needle, the standard deviation of the second
705
1 five pokes of the needle, added together and divided by
2 two.
3 Q. Averaged?
4 A. Averaged. Okay?
5 Q. My math is old math, but I think I get there
6 whether I -- either way, mathematically.
7 A. There are ways that you would not. In other
8 words, you are dealing with a concept that -- your old
9 math is incorrect. I'm sorry.
10 Q. My old math was arithmetic, so, what the
11 hell.
12 A. I just think you are viewing it incorrectly,
13 and I'm sorry, but that is not correct.
14 Q. Well, you may not have increased my
15 understanding, but you at least have helped me with
16 these numbers.
17 N represents what?
18 A. That indicates that there were two splits.
19 In other words, we took the sample bottle from the
20 field, that was collected in the field, and divided it
21 into two portions and analyzed those.
22 Q. Then we have a general head that seems to
23 extend over the remaining columns, but perhaps I'm
24 wrong.
25 To what does the statement, "If there was a
706
1 replicate of the same sample run on the day of
2 analysis, a replicate with a smaller S per station" --
3 what does that mean?
4 A. I have to -- there's a double asterisk,
5 equals, by that.
6 Q. Correct. I see a double asterisk down about
7 six or -- well, a dozen rows, and again, once, twice,
8 over on the -- on each of the succeeding next several
9 pages.
10 A. Yes. I'm just -- I'm pretty sure I know what
11 this is, but I want to make sure that my explanation is
12 exact, so that we don't have to come and revisit this
13 sometime in the future.
14 One of the things that we do, very often, is
15 analyze samples in a random order. In other words, we
16 will put them in the refrigerator and as we pull them
17 out we analyze them, rather than saying okay, here's
18 all of these samples that came from this exact sample
19 location, and we're going to analyze that.
20 One of the things we want to know in our
21 laboratory, not necessarily for the purpose of this
22 test or anything else, is, how well does the sample
23 analyzed on one day, compare to a sample analyzed a
24 week later, or another day or certain types of times.
25 It's something that gives us some information about how
707
1 reliable and reproducible our results are.
2 If you will look down this, you will notice
3 that we tried to, for the most part, tabulate the
4 analysis date. The analysis date doesn't necessarily
5 match the sample collection date, but yet, we're trying
6 to average those particular types of things.
7 So, with most cases, there are one, two,
8 three sets of -- the three bottles were analyzed and
9 split, each one, but you will see in some cases, there
10 are four, four sets -- eight twos, for instance,
11 meaning that there were four analyses conducted on that
12 particular sample.
13 Therefore, that asterisk says, if the
14 replicate of the same sample run on the day of
15 analysis, the replicate with the smaller S, and I
16 believe that would probably be standard deviation, is
17 used in the per station calculation, meaning the set of
18 five samples that gave us the best reliability, were
19 used in making that calculation.
20 The reason we have to run multiple samples
21 with this machine, and why there are -- in all
22 analytical instrumentation, there's some sort of -- you
23 can't just, you know, go and grab something off the
24 street to operate that. There are machine errors that
25 are made.
708
1 Sometimes the needle, for instance, in this
2 particular machine, will decide that it doesn't want to
3 go into the bottle anymore, and it wants to bend itself
4 into very interesting shapes.
5 So, you will find that there are some
6 analyses that we, you know -- are tossed out because of
7 that. I cannot attest to saying that's the reason one
8 of these things was chosen or another, but it's a
9 pretty standard procedure, that if you have made
10 multiple analyses of a sample, and one of them gives
11 you better standard deviation than the others, you
12 choose that set.
13 To the best of my knowledge, that's the
14 reason for the double asterisk.
15 Q. Backing up from the standard deviation
16 column, one column, we have a mean to which the
17 standard deviation relates.
18 What is that the mean of?
19 A. It would be the mean of all three bottles
20 analyzed in duplicate.
21 Q. Is it the average of other calculated means,
22 or is it a mean of a summed set of numbers?
23 A. At the risk of making this painful, to the
24 best of my knowledge, it is the average of the three
25 values in the column labeled, "Per sample mean," okay?
709
1 If you would like me to, I can make a calculation and
2 determine that.
3 Q. If it's very quick, go ahead.
4 A. I would feel better if I would be allowed to
5 do that, just so that we're --
6 (Pause.)
7 A. Yes, that is correct. I remember when I used
8 to do math without a calculator.
9 Q. What is the symbol up near the column heads
10 that says, "N equals 60 R," asterisk?
11 A. You got me. I don't -- I don't know. I'm
12 sorry. I don't --
13 Q. I'm at a loss to find a single asterisk, so
14 it may be a designation that plays no role here.
15 Can you spot anywhere that that symbol is
16 employed?
17 A. I cannot. And it may have something to do
18 with the instrument setting. It just happens to have
19 showed up here in the thing. I really am sorry. I
20 cannot tell you what that is. I'm sure it can be
21 researched.
22 By looking at it right now, I would say that
23 it has no significance to these data sheets or the
24 interpretation of the data there.
25 Q. Then I think, again, the next two columns
710
1 simply repeat the collection and analysis dates that
2 appeared in the first two columns. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes. When -- we have sometimes very wide
4 tables and it helps us to visualize that.
5 Q. The same thing for the final ID column, I
6 believe, correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Taking the first four rows, did those come
9 from the same bottle, those data points?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Can you break it down by bottle to help me
12 understand?
13 A. I'm sorry. You said four rows. I'm having
14 trouble with the four.
15 Q. I see a collection date, 3/23, it appears
16 four times, at sample location one.
17 A. There actually are -- there are actually six
18 3/23s. I think the Xerox makes that look like an 8,
19 but it's not. It's 3/23.
20 Q. Then, would I actually be correct in saying
21 there are eight 3/23s? Well, let's see. No. Six
22 inside one?
23 A. Yes, there are six 3/23s at one.
24 Q. Were those six taken from the same sample
25 bottle?
711
1 A. They were not.
2 Q. How many sample bottles do they represent?
3 A. To the best of my recollection, this
4 represents three sample bottles.
5 Q. Each of which was, in turn, split for
6 analysis?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If we could, then, let's go over to fax page
9 16. These, I believe you stated earlier, are the soil
10 and sediment samples with the designations you provided
11 me of S, G and E. Correct?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. In the first column, after the letter, is the
14 number of the sample site, the next number, where it
15 says, S-19-1. Is the 19 the sample site?
16 A. That would be my assumption. I have no
17 reason to believe that that's not the case. It looks
18 logical.
19 Q. What is the number following the 19?
20 A. In the case of the soil samples with the S,
21 there were three cups of soils, three sample
22 containers, three individual subsamples, if you will.
23 Q. Were these split for analysis? Is that why
24 you have two ones, two twos, two threes?
25 A. Yes. They would have been analyzed twice.
712
1 Two ampules would have been analyzed.
2 Q. Could you briefly walk me through what the
3 next several columns indicate?
4 A. The next -- the thing that says one ML, SLUR,
5 plus 2 ML HN03, just indicates what we did. We took 1
6 milliliter of the soil, slurry, and added it to 2
7 milliliters of nitric acid, and digested it.
8 Q. I take it up above, where it says, "Slurry
9 prepared using 45 ML of 5 percent HCL," is an
10 indication of how you uniformly prepared the slurry
11 from the samples you obtained from the field?
12 A. That's correct. The next column?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. "Drift, correct, HD PPT, nanograms per
15 liter," and then it gives the value. That's the drift
16 corrected concentration of the sample.
17 Q. What is "drift"?
18 A. During some of the higher temperature -- I'm
19 sorry, some of the higher concentration samples,
20 cycling of the air-conditioner and everything like that
21 causes a predictable up and down drift in the machine,
22 and this is just values that we did at the time to
23 correct them for that drift.
24 We have, subsequent to these analyses,
25 modified the instrument, so that it is no longer
713
1 subject to temperature induced drift.
2 Q. Was there any other factor inducing drift
3 which you recognized?
4 A. We have not found -- since we have corrected
5 the -- actually, I went and rewired the instrument, and
6 since I have done that, there is no other drift that we
7 have detected.
8 Q. How did you arrive at the magnitude of drift?
9 A. What you have here represented are the
10 results of the analyses for the soil. You do not have
11 the results of all of the base line standards and other
12 types of things that are conducted along with this
13 particular analysis.
14 So, there are many of those reflected, or
15 many of those that are conducted, but they're not
16 reflected here in the data. In other words, we have
17 samples that we specifically put in to make those
18 determinations.
19 Q. I may have misheard you, but you said, "put
20 into"?
21 A. Put into the sequence on the sample tray.
22 Q. What does the -- if you would continue across
23 to the next --
24 A. The next column is, "Hg PPT nanogram per
25 liter."
714
1 If I'm not mistaken, that is a -- that is the
2 value of the mercury taking into account the dilution
3 that we made on it, actual volume dilutions, for
4 instance, into one melds, two melds, and a certain
5 portion of that is a solid, so it corrects for the
6 volume considerations.
7 If you notice, we have here a concentration,
8 nanograms per liter, and yet we're analyzing soils,
9 which the ultimate value is going to be expressed in
10 nanograms per gram, which is a unit weight, not a unit
11 of volume.
12 What this represents is really just a series
13 of numbers to end up with that -- this calculation.
14 If you so desire, you could give this to one
15 of your experts and I'm sure that they could take these
16 numbers and figure out what we did.
17 I hesitate to do that without looking at the
18 formulas that are imbedded in this particular spread
19 sheet. I can give you to the best of my knowledge what
20 these columns represent.
21 The next column is, "Drift corrected Hg PPT
22 minus background."
23 It just means that the acid that we add, and
24 the water, with the hydrochloric acid, it has a certain
25 amount of mercury in it, and this represents a
715
1 subtraction of that background, that reagent blank, if
2 you will.
3 The second -- the next column, I'm sorry,
4 says, "Hg PPT," asterisk, "40." The standard dilution
5 that we made was one to 40 dilution, to put them into
6 the machine.
7 Simply, that should represent the drift
8 corrected Hg PPT, minus the background, multiplied by
9 40.
10 The next column is dry weight, 5 ML/50 ML.
11 That is how much solid we're getting a weight. We're
12 trying to get at the weight of the soil analyzed.
13 Then we have the next column, which is dry
14 weight per milliliter. I think that's fairly
15 explanatory.
16 "Drift corrected, total Hg, nanograms per
17 gram," is then the -- using the weight and the other
18 calculations to com